Advertisement

Introduction

  • Mary Ann Moran
  • Karin E. Limburg
Part of the Springer Series on Environmental Management book series (SSEM)

Abstract

A major objective of this book is the documentation and retrospective examination of the most recent, major, human-induced impacts on the Hudson River, with special attention given to the procedure known as environmental impact assessment (EIA). Specifically, we shall focus on the role that science and scientists have played in the EIA process.

Keywords

Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment Utility Company National Environmental Policy Environmental Impact Assessment Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, F.R. 1973. NEPA in the courts. Resources for the Future, Inc. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 324 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Franz, D.R . 1982. An historical perspective on molluscs in Lower New York Harbor, with emphasis on oysters, pp. 181–197 In Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management (G.F. Mayer, ed.). Estuarine Research Federation, Columbia, SC.Google Scholar
  3. Hanson, C.H. 1976. Commentary—ethics in the business of science. Ecology 57: 627–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kennedy, W.V. and B.B. Hanshaw. 1974. The effectiveness of impact statements: The U.S. Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Ekistics 218: 19–22.Google Scholar
  5. Kibby, H. and N. Glass. 1980. Evaluating the evaluations: A review perspective on environmental impact assessment, pp. 40–48 In Biological Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: The Proceedings of a Symposium. Council on Environmental Quality and U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/ OBS-80/26.Google Scholar
  6. Lewis, J.R. 1980. Options and problems in environmental management and evaluation. Helgol. Meeresunters. 33: 452–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Rees, W.E. and H.C. Davis. 1978. Coastal ecosystem planning and impact evaluation. University of British Columbia School of Community and Regional Plan¬ning. (Draft mss.)Google Scholar
  8. Rosenberg, D.M., V.H. Resh, S.S. Balling, M.A. Barnaby, J.N. Collins, D.V. Durbin, T.S. Flynn, D.D. Hart, G.A. Lamberti, E.P. McElravy, J.R. Wood, T.E. Blank, D.M. Schultz, D.L. Marrin, and D.G. Price. 1981. Recent trends in environmental impact assessment. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38: 591–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schindler, D.W. 1976. The impact statement boondoggle. Science 192: 509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Ann Moran
  • Karin E. Limburg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations