OCR Text |
Show ing for water and air quality programs, and the concern over the use of pesticides and herbicides, have not been expressed in statutory public land policy and generally have not been translated into specific administrative guides. The multiple use acts, which provide the broadest expressions of policy for the lands managed by both the Forest Service 7 and the Bureau of Land Management,8 require that these lands be managed and uses be permitted "without impairment of the productivity of the land." The act applying to BLM also requires that "consideration be given to all pertinent factors, including, but not limited to, ecology, . . ." We believe these are necessary and important expressions of concern for some aspects of environmental quality. But we also believe that public land laws should require the consideration of all such aspects and that environmental quality on public lands be enhanced or maintained to the maximum feasible extent. We believe that such physical and biological effects as air and water pollution, esthetic and scenic effects, and all impacts on the ecosystem, whether immediate or secondary, short-term or long-term, including those resulting from the use of pesticides, herbicides, dispersants, and other chemicals, must all be considered as significant environmental effects. We are concerned that the current aroused interest in environmental matters not be dissipated by "fads" for one or another aspect of the environment. All of them are important, and all should be considered in public land decisions. Nor should any lessening of public popularity for the issue be permitted to relegate such consideration to minor significance. To assure that environmental quality be given the attention it deserves on the public lands, we propose that the enhancement and maintenance of the environment, with rehabilitation where necessary, be defined as objectives for all classes of public lands. This proposal goes beyond the existing statutes by giving environmental quality a status equivalent to those uses of the public lands which now have explicit recognition, and by indicating that through design and management, environmental quality can be improved as well as preserved. Environmental Standards Recommendation 17: Federal standards for environmental quality should be established for public lands to the extent possible, except that, where state standards have been adopted under Federal law, state standards should be utilized. A pattern of Federal-state cooperation has emerged in some of the recent legislation dealing with environmental quality. Under the air and water pollution control laws, matching funds are provided for programs that can be initiated once a state plan is approved by the Federal Government. In this way, the local interest in air and water pollution effects is recognized, while the Federal interest in these programs is also recognized by requiring that standards suggested by the states be subject to Federal approval. With respect to other environmental quality standards, we believe the states should have a reasonable time in which to develop statewide measures. We also believe that programs on public lands should be subject to federally approved state standards as long as these standards reflect reasonable objectives for regional and local areas. It would be highly inappropriate for the Federal Government to adopt, for example, standards not consistent with state standards approved by the Federal Government for waters flowing across public lands. The lack of Federal programs encouraging the establishment of state standards for environmental quality, and the failure of the state to act on its own, should not stand in the way of the establishment of Federal standards for the public lands wherever possible. We recommend the enactment of Federal legislation for that purpose. In the interim, where states have adopted standards, we recommend that Federal administrators require adherence to those standards.9 It will be quite difficult to establish standards for some aspects of environmental quality, such as scenic beauty, which is valued in subjective terms and is not susceptible to measurement. But it is important to make an effort to establish at least relative goals and standards, to the extent possible, for all aspects of environmental quality on public lands. The Federal Government should not allow itself to be placed in a position where it can be said that it is asking others to do what it is not willing to do itself. Federal land and resources should be retained and managed or disposed of so as to support Federal, state, and local programs for the maintenance and enhancement of environmental quality. Actions on retained lands should generally be coordinated with other levels of government so that public land programs do not conflict with those of other governmental levels. Similarly, when public lands and resources are sold or otherwise transferred into non-Federal ownership, the Federal Government has an opportunity to aid its efforts and those of state and local governments to improve environmental quality. Such transfer can be conditioned on the recipient complying with established standards for pollution 16 U.S.C. §§ 528-531 (1964). 43 U.S.C. §§ 1411-1418 (1964). 9 An example is the enactment of state laws governing strip mine reclamation. 70 |