Environmental Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Famine

withdrawal (coitus interruptus), in which the penis is removed

from the vagina just before ejaculation. Withdrawal must

be exquisitely timed, is probably frustrating to both partners,

is not thought to be reliable, and provides no protection

against HIV and other STD infections. Another barrier-

and-drug-free procedure is natural family planning (also

known as the rhythm method). Abstinence of sexual inter-

course is scheduled for a period of time before and after

ovulation. Ovulation is calculated by temperature change,

careful record keeping of menstruation (the calendar

method), or by vaginal mucous inspection. Natural family

planning has appeal for individuals who wish to limit their

exposure to drugs, but it provides no protection against HIV

and other STDs.

The population of the world increases by about 140

million every year, while the world is unable to sustain its

new residents adequately. That increase signals the need for

family planning education and the continued development of

ever more efficient birth control methods. See also Population

Council; Population growth; Population Institute

[Robert G. McKinnell]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Sitruk-Ware, R., and C. W. Bardin. Contraception. New York: Marcel

Dekker, 1992.

Speroff, L., and P. D. Darney. A Clinical Guide for Contraception. Baltimore:

Williams & Wilkins, 1992.

Famine

Famine is widespread hunger and starvation. A region struck

with famine experiences acute shortages of food, massive

loss of lives, social disruption, and economic chaos. Images

of starving mothers and children with emaciated eyes and

swollen bellies during recent crises in Ethiopia and Somalia

have brought international attention to the problem of fam-

ine. Other well-known famines include the great Irish potato

famines of the 1850s that drove millions of immigrants to

America, and a Russian famine during Stalin’s

agricultural

revolution

that killed 20 million people in the 1930s. The

worst recorded famine in recent history occurred in China

between 1958 and 1961, when 23–30 million people died

as a result of the failed agricultural program, “the great leap

forward.”

Even though we may think of these tragedies as single,

isolated events, famine, and chronic hunger continue to be

serious problems. Between 18 and 20 million people, three-

quarters of them children, die each year of starvation or

diseases caused by malnourishment. How can this be? Envi-

ronmental problems like overpopulation, scarce resources,

547

and natural disasters affect people’s ability to produce food.

Political and economic problems like unequal distribution

of wealth, delayed or insufficient action by local govern-

ments, and imbalanced trade relationships between countries

affect people’s ability to buy food when they cannot pro-

duce it.

Perhaps the most common explanation for famine is

overpopulation. The world’s population, now more than 6.2

billion people, grows by 250,000 people every day. It seems

impossible that the natural world could support such rapid

growth. Indeed, the pressures of rapid growth have had a

devastating impact on the

environment

in many places.

Land that once fed one family must now feed 10 families

and resulting over-use harms the quality of the land. The

world’s deserts are rapidly expanding as people destroy fragile

topsoil

by poor farming techniques, clearing vegetation, and

overgrazing

Although the demands of

population growth

and

industrialization are straining our environment, we have yet

to exceed the limits of growth. Since the 1800s some have

predicted that humans, like rabbits living without predators,

would foolishly reproduce far beyond the

carrying capacity

of their environment and then die in masses from lack of

food. This argument assumes that the supply of food will

remain the same as populations grow, but as populations

have grown, people have learned to grow more food. World

food production increased two-and-a-half times between

1950 and 1980. Alter World War II, agriculture specialists

caused a “green revolution,” developing new crops and farm-

ing techniques that radically increased food production per

acre. Farmers began to use special hybrid crop strains, chemi-

cal fertilizers, pesticides, and advanced

irrigation

systems.

Today, there is more than enough food available to feed

everyone. In fact, the United States government spends bil-

lions of dollars every year to store excess grain and to keep

farmers from farming portions of their land.

Many famines occur in the aftermath of natural disas-

ters like floods and droughts. In times of

drought

, crops

cannot grow because they do not have enough water. In

times of flood, excess water washes out fields, destroying

crops and disrupting farm activity. These disasters have sev-

eral effects. First, damaged crops cause food shortages, mak-

ing nutrients difficult to find and making any food available

too expensive for many people. Second, reduced food pro-

duction means less work for those who rely on temporary

farm work for their income. Famines usually affect only the

poorest five to ten percent of a country’s population. They

are most vulnerable because during a crisis wages for the

poorest workers go down as food prices go up.

Famine is a problem of distribution as well as produc-

tion. Environmental, economic, and political factors to-

gether determine the supply and distribution of food in a

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Famine

country. Starvation occurs when people lose their ability to

obtain food by growing it or by buying it. Often, poor

decisions and organizations aggravate environmental factors

to cause human suffering. In Bangladesh, floods during the

summer of 1974 interfered with rice transplantation, the

planting of small rice seedlings in their rice patties. Although

the crop was only partly damaged, speculators hoarded rice,

and fears of a shortage drove prices beyond the reach of the

poorest in Bangladesh. At the same time, disruption of the

planting meant lost work for the same people. Even though

there was plenty of rice from the previous year’s harvest,

deaths from starvation rose as the price of rice went up. In

December of 1974, when the damaged rice crop was har-

vested, the country found that its crop had been only partly

ruined. Starvation resulted not from a shortage of rice, but

from price speculation. The famine could have been avoided

completely if the government had responded more quickly,

acting to stabilize the rice market and to provide relief for

famine victims.

In other cases, governments have acted to avoid fam-

ine. The Indian state of Maharahtra offset affects of a severe

drought in 1972 by hiring the poorest people to work on

public projects like roads and

wells

. This provided a service

for the country and at the same time diverted a catastrophe

by providing an income for the most vulnerable citizens to

compete with the rest of the population for a limited food

supply. At the same time, the countries of Mali, Niger,

Chad, and Senegal experienced severe famine, even though

the average amount of food per person in these countries

was the same as in Maharahtra. The difference, it would

seem, lies in the actions and intentions of the governments.

The Indian government provides a powerful example. Al-

though India lags behind many countries in economic devel-

opment, education, and health care, the Indians have man-

aged to avert serious famine since 1943, four years before

they gained independence from the British.

Responsibility for hunger and famine rests also with

the international community. Countries and peoples of the

world are increasingly interconnected, continuously ex-

changing goods and services. We are more and more depen-

dent on one another for success and for survival. The world

economic and political order dramatically favors the wealthi-

est industrialized countries, in Europe and North America.

Following patterns established during colonial expansion,

Third World

nations often produce raw materials, unfinished

goods, and basic commodities like bananas and coffee that

they sell to the

First World

at low prices. The First World

nations then manufacture and refine these products and

sell back information and technology, like machinery and

computers for a very high price. As a result, the wealthiest

nations amass capital and resources, and enjoy very high

standards of living, while the poorest nations retain huge

548

national debts and struggle to remain stable economically

and politically. The word’s poorest countries, then, are left

vulnerable to all of the conditions which cause famine, eco-

nomic hardship, political instability, overpopulation, and

over-taxed resources.

Furthermore, large colonial powers often left behind

unjust political and social hierarchies that are very good at

extracting resources and sending them north, but not as

good at promoting social justice and human welfare. Many

Third World countries are dominated by a small ruling class

who own most of the land, control industry, and run the

government. Since the poorest people, who suffer most in

famines, have little power to influence government policies

and manage the countries economy, their needs are often

unheard and unmet. A government that rules without demo-

cratic support of its people has less incentive to protect those

who would suffer in times of famine. In addition, the poorest

often do not benefit from the industry and agriculture that

does exist in a developing country. Large corporate farms

often force small subsistence farmers off of their land. These

farmers must then work for day wages, producing food for

export, while local people go without adequate nutrition.

Economic and social arrangements, as well as environ-

mental conditions, are central to the problems of hunger

and starvation. Famine is much less likely to occur in coun-

tries that are concerned with issues of social justice. In the

same way, famine is much less likely to occur in a world

that is concerned with issues of social justice. Environmental

pressures of population growth and human use of

natural

resources

will continue to be issues of great concern. Natural

disasters like droughts and floods will continue to occur.

The best response to the problem of famine lies in working

to better manage

environmental resources

and crisis situa-

tions and to change political and economic structures that

cause people to go without food.

[John Cunningham]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Lappe, F. M. World Hunger: Twelve Myths New York: Grove Press, 1986.

ERIODICALS

Sen, A. “Economics of Life and Death.” Scientific American 268 (May

1993): 40–47.

Farming

see

Agricultural revolution; Conservation

tillage; Dryland farming; Feedlots; Organic

gardening and farming; Shifting cultivation;

Slash and burn agriculture; Strip-farming;

Sustainable agriculture

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Fauna

All animal life that lives in a particular geographic area

during a particular time in history. The type of fauna to be

found in any particular region is determined by factors such

as plant life, physical

environment

, topographic barriers,

and evolutionary history. Zoologists sometimes divide the

earth into six regions inhabited by distinct faunas: Ethiopian

(Africa south of the Sahara,

Madagascar

, Arabia), Neo-

tropical (South and Central America, part of Mexico, the

West Indies), Australian (

Australia

, New Zealand, New

Guinea), Oriental (Asia south of the Himalaya Mountains,

India, Sri Lanka, Malay Peninsula, southern China, Borneo,

Sumatra, Java, the Philippines), Palearctic (Europe, Asia

north of the Himalaya Mountains, Afghanistan, Iran, North

Africa), and Nearctic (North America as far south as south-

ern Mexico).

Fecundity

Fecundity comes from the Latin word fecundus, meaning

fruitful, rich, or abundant. It is the rate at which individual

organisms in the population produce offspring. Although

the term can apply to plants, it is typically restricted to

animals.

There are two aspects of reproduction: 1) fertility,

referring to the physiological ability to breed, and 2) fecun-

dity, referring to the ecological ability to produce offspring.

Thus, higher fecundity is dependent on advantageous condi-

tions in the

environment

that favor reproduction (e.g.,

abundant food, space, water and mates; limited predation,

parasitism, and

competition

). The intrinsic rate of increase

(denoted as “r") equals the birth rate minus the death rate.

It is a population characteristic that takes into account that

not all individuals have equal birth rates and death rates. It

therefore refers to the reproductive capacity in the population

made up of individual organisms. Fecundity, on the other

hand, is an individual characteristic. It can be further subdi-

vided into potential and realized fecundity. For example,

deer can potentially produce four or more fawns per year,

but they typically give birth to only one or two per year. In

good years with ample food, they often have only two fawns.

Animals in

nature

are limited by environmental con-

ditions that control their life history characteristics such as

birth,

survivorship

, and death. A graph of the number of

offspring per female per age class (e.g., year) is a fecundity

curve. This can then be used to interpret the individuals of

a certain age class who contribute more to the

population

growth

than others. In other words, certain age classes have

a greater reproductive output than others.

Wildlife

managers

often use this type of information in deciding which individ-

549

uals in a population can be hunted verses those that should

be protected so they can reproduce.

As the number of animals increase, competition for

food may become more intense and, therefore, growth and

reproduction may decrease. The result is an example of den-

sity-dependent fecundity. Fecundity in predators typically

increases with an increase in the prey population. Conversely,

fecundity in prey

species

typically increases when predation

pressure is low.

Some scientists have found that fecundity is inversely

related to the amount of parental care given to the young.

In other words, small organisms such as insects and fish

which typically invest less time and energy into caring for

the young usually have higher fecundity. Larger organisms

such as birds and mammals which expend a lot of energy

on caring for the young through building of nests, feeding,

protecting, and caring have lower fecundity rates.

[John Korstad]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Colinvaux, P. A. Ecology. New York: Wiley, 1986.

Smith, R. E. Ecology and Field Biology. 4th ed. New York: Harper and

Row, 1990.

Ricklefs, R. E. Ecology. 3rd ed. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1990.

Krebs, C. J. Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abun-

dance. 3rd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1985.

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is

an independent, five-member commission within the

U.S.

Department of Energy

. The Commission was created in

October 1977 as a part of the Federal government’s mam-

moth effort to restructure and reorganize its energy program.

The Commission was assigned many of the functions earlier

assigned to the

Federal Power Commission

(FPC).

The Federal Power Commission had existed since

1920 when it was created to license and regulate hydroelectric

power plants

situated on interstate streams and rivers. Over

the next half century, the Power Commission was assigned

more and more responsibility for the management of United

States energy reserves. In the Public Utilities Holding Com-

pany Act of 1935, for example, Congress gave to the Com-

mission responsibility for setting rates for the wholesale pric-

ing of electricity shipped across state lines. FPC’s mission

was expanded even further in the 1935 Natural Gas Act.

That act gave the Commission the task of regulating the

nation’s natural gas pipelines and setting rates for the sale

natural gas

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (1972)

Regulating energy prices in the pre-1970s era was a

very different problem than it is in the 1990s. That era was

one of abundant, inexpensive energy. Producers, consumers

and regulators consistently dealt with a surplus of energy.

There was more energy of almost any kind than could be

consumed. That situation began to change in the early 1970s,

especially after the

oil embargo

instituted by the

Organiza-

tion of Petroleum Exporting Countries

in 1973. The re-

sulting energy crisis caused the United States government to

re-think carefully its policies and practices regarding energy

production and use.

One of the studies that came out of that re-analysis

was the 1974 Federal Energy Regulation Study Team report.

The team found a number of problems in the way energy

was managed in the United States. They reported that large

gaps existed in some areas of regulation, with no agency

responsible, while other areas were characterized by overlaps,

with two, three, or more agencies all having some responsi-

bility for a single area. The team also found that regulatory

agencies were more oriented to the past than to current

problems or future prospects, worked with incomplete or

inaccurate date, and employed procedures that were too

lengthy and drawn out.

As one part of the Department of Energy Organization

Act of 1977, then, the FPC was abolished and replaced by

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Commis-

sion is now responsible for setting rates and charges for the

transportation

and sale of natural gas and for the transmis-

sion and sale of electricity. It continues the FPC’s old respon-

sibility for the licensing of hydroelectric plants.

In addition, the Commission has also been assigned

responsibility for establishing the rates for the transportation

of oil by pipelines as well as determining the value of the

pipe lines themselves. Overall, the Commission now controls

the pricing of 60% of all the natural gas and 30% of all the

electricity in the United States.

Ordinary citizens sometimes do not realize the power

and influence of independent commissions like the FERC.

But they can have significant impact on federal policy and

practice. As one writer has said, “While Energy Secretaries

come and go, and Congress can do little more than hold

hearings, the five-member FERC is making national

energy

policy

by itself.”

[David E. Newton]

ESOURCES

RGANIZATIONS

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,

D.C. USA 20009 , <http://www.ferc.gov>

550

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act (1972)

The

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) is the pri-

mary regulatory agency of pesticides. The EPA’s authority

on pesticides is given in the Congressionally-enacted Federal

Insecticide,

Fungicide

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—a

comprehensive regulatory program for pesticides and herbi-

cides enacted in 1972 and amended nearly 50 times over

the years. The goal of FIFRA is to regulate the use of

pesticides through registration.

Section 3 of FIFRA mandates that the EPA must

first determine that the product “will perform its intended

function without unreasonable adverse effects on the envi-

ronment” before it is registered. The Act defines adverse

effects as “any unreasonable effects on man or the

environ-

ment

, taking into account the economic, social and environ-

mental costs and benefits of using any pesticide.” To further

this objective, Congress placed a number of regulatory tools

at the disposal of the EPA. Congress also made clear that

the public was not to bear the risk of uncertainty concerning

the safety of a

pesticide

. To grant registration, the EPA

must conclude that the food production benefits of a pesti-

cide outweigh any risks.

To make the cost-benefit determination required to

EPA detailed tests on the chemical’s health and environmen-

tal effects. The burden rests on the manufacturer to provide

the data needed to support registration for use on a particular

crop. The pesticide manufacturer is required to submit cer-

tain health and safety data to establish that the use of the

pesticide will not generally cause unreasonable adverse ef-

fects. Data required include disclosure of the substance’s

chemical and toxicological properties, likely distribution in

the environment, and possible effects on

wildlife

, plants,

and other elements in the environment.

FIFRA is a licensing law. Pesticides may enter com-

merce only after they are approved or “registered following

an evaluation against statutory risk/benefit standards.” The

Administrator may take action to terminate any approval

whenever it appears, on the basis of new information or a

re-evaluation of information, that the pesticide no longer

meets the statutory standard. These decisions are made on

a use-by-use basis since the risks and benefits of a pesticide

vary from one use to another.

FIFRA is also a control law. Special precautions and

instructions may be imposed. For example, pesticide applica-

tors may be required to wear protective clothing, or the use

of certain pesticides may be restricted to trained and certified

applicators. Instructions, warnings, and prohibitions are in-

corporated into product labels, and these labels may not be

altered or removed.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (1972)

FIFRA embodies the philosophy that those who

would benefit by government approval of a pesticide product

should bear the

burden of proof

that their product will not

pose unreasonable risks. This burden of proof applies both

when initial marketing approval is sought and in any pro-

ceeding initiated by the Administrator to interrupt or termi-

nate registration through suspension or cancellation. Of

course, while putting the burden on industry, the assumption

is that industry will be honest in its research and reports.

Licensing decisions are usually based on tests furnished

by an applicant for registration. The tests are performed by

the petitioning company in accordance with testing guide-

lines prescribed by the EPA. Requirements for the testing

of pesticides for major use can be met only through the

expenditure of several millions of dollars and up to four years

of laboratory and field testing.

However, major changes in test standards, advances

in testing methodology, and the heightened awareness of

the potential chronic health effects of long-term, low-level

exposure to

chemicals

which have come into the market-

place within the past several decades have brought the need

to update EPA mandates. Thus, Congress directed that the

EPA reevaluate its licensing decisions through a process of

re-registration. That means if the government once approved

a certain product for domestic use, it does not mean the

EPA can be confident today that its use can continue.

The EPA has the power to suspend or cancel products.

Cancellation means the product in question is no longer

considered safe. It must be taken off the commercial market

and is no longer available for use. Suspension means the

product in question is not to be sold or used under certain

conditions or in certain places. This may be a temporary

decision, usually dependent on further studies.

There may be certain products that, in the opinion of

the administrator, may be harmful. But no action is taken

if and when the action is incompatible with administration

priorities. That is because the EPA administrator is responsi-

ble to the directives and priorities of the President and the

executive branch. Thus, some regulatory decisions are po-

litical.

There is a statutory way to avoid the re-registration

process. It is called Section 18. Section 18 under FIFRA

allows for the use of unregistered pesticides in certain emer-

gency situations. It provides that “the Administrator may,

at his discretion, exempt any Federal or State agency from

any provisions of this subchapter if he determines that emer-

gency conditions exist which requires such exemption. The

Administrator, in determining whether or not such emer-

gency conditions exist, shall consult with the Secretary of

Agriculture and the Governor of any state concerned if they

request such determination.”

551

From 1978 to 1983, the General Accounting Office

(GAO) and the House Subcommittee on Department Oper-

ations, Research and Foreign Agriculture of the Committee

on Agriculture (DORFA Subcommittee) thoroughly exam-

ined the EPA’s implementation of Section 18. Under the

auspices of Chair George E. Brown, Jr., (D-CA) the

DORFA Subcommittee held a series of hearings which re-

vealed numerous abuses in EPA’s administration of Section

18. A report was issued in 1982 and reprinted as part of the

Committee’s 1983 Hearings.

The Subcommittee found that “the rapid increase in

the number and volume of pesticides applied under Section

18 was clearly the most pronounced trend in the EPA’s

pesticide regulatory program.” According to the Subcommit-

tee report, “a primary cause of the increase in the number

of Section 18 exemptions derived from the difficulty the

Agency had in registering chemicals under Section 3 of

FIFRA in a timely manner.” The DORFA committee

stated: “Regulatory actions involving suspect human carcino-

gens which meet or exceed the statute’s “unreasonable ad-

verse effects” criterion for chronic toxicity often become

stalled in the Section 3 review process for several years. The

risk assessment

procedures required by States requesting

Section 18 actions, and by EPA in approving them, are

generally less strict. For example, a relatively new insecticide,

first widely used in 1977, was granted some 140 Section 18

emergency exemptions and over 300 (Section 24c) Special

Local Needs registrations in the next four years while the

Agency debated the significance to man of positive evidence

of oncogenicity in laboratory animals.”

The EPA’s practices changed little over the next eight

years. In the spring of 1990, the Subcommittee on Environ-

ment of the House Science, Space and Technology Commit-

tee (Chair: James H. Scheuer, D-NY) investigated the EPA’s

procedures under Section 18 of FIFRA and found if any-

thing, the problem had gotten worse. The report states:

“Since 1973, more than 4,000 emergency exemptions have

been granted for the use of pesticides on crops for which

there is no registration.” A large number of these emergency

exemptions have been repeatedly granted for the same uses

for anywhere from fourteen, to ten, to eight, to five years.

The House Subcommittee also found that the EPA required

less stringent testing procedures for pesticides under the

exemption, which put companies that follow the normal

procedure at a disadvantage. The Subcommittee concluded

that the large numbers of emergency exemptions arose from

“the EPA’s failure to implement its own regulations.”

The Subcommittee identified “emergencies” as “rou-

tine predicted outbreaks and foreign competition” and “a

company’s need to gain market access for use of a pesticide

on a new crop, although the company often never intends

to submit adequate data to register the chemical for use.”

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976)

As for the re-registration requirement, the Subcom-

mittee observed: “The EPA’s reliance on Section 18 may

be related to the Agency’s difficulty in re-registering older

chemical substances. Often, Section 18 requests are made

for the use of older chemicals on crops for which they are

not registered. These older chemicals receive repetitive ex-

emptions for use despite the fact that many of these sub-

stances may have difficulty obtaining re-registration since

they have been identified as potentially carcinogenic. Thus,

by liberally and repetitively granting exemptions to poten-

tially carcinogenic substances, little incentive is provided to

encourage companies to invest in the development of newer,

safer pesticides or alternative agricultural practices.”

The report concluded, “...Allowing these exemptions

year after year in predictable situations provides ’back-door’

pre-registration market access to potentially dangerous

chemicals.” See also Environmental law; Integrated pest man-

agement; National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesti-

cides; Pesticide Action Network; Risk analysis

[Liane Clorfene Casten]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Rodgers Jr., W. H. Environmental Law: Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 3

vols. St. Paul, MN: West, 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act: Compliance-Enforcement Guidance Manual. Rockville, MD:

Government Institutes, 1984.

ERIODICALS

“EPA Data Is Flawed, Says GAO.” Chemical Marketing Reporter 243 (Janu-

ary 11, 1993): 7+.

“Controlling the Risk in Biotech.” Technology Review 92 (July 1989): 62–9.

Federal Land Policy and Management

Act (1976)

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA),

passed in 1976, is the statutory grounding for the

Bureau

of Land Management

(BLM), giving the agency authority

and direction for the management of its lands. The initiative

leading to the passage of FLPMA can be traced to the BLM

itself. The agency was concerned about its insecure status—

it was formed by executive reorganization rather than by a

congressional act, it lacked a clear mandate for land manage-

ment, and it was uncertain of the federal government’s plans

to retain the lands it managed. This final point can be traced

to the

Taylor Grazing Act

, which included a clause that

these public lands would be managed for grazing “pending

final disposal.” The BLM wanted a law that would address

each of these issues, so that the agency could undertake

552

long-range, multiple use planning like their colleagues in

the

Forest Service

Agency officials drafted the first “organic act” in 1961,

but two laws passed in 1964 served to really get the legislative

process moving. The

Public Land

Law Review Commission

(PLLRC) Act established a commission to examine the body

of public land laws and make recommendations as to how

to proceed in this policy area. The Classification and Multi-

ple Use Act instructed the BLM to inventory its lands and

classify them for disposal or retention. This would be the

first inventory of these lands and resources, and suggested

that at least some of these lands would be retained in federal

ownership.

The PLLRC issued its report in 1970. In the following

years, Congress began to consider three general types of bills

in response to the PLLRC report. The administration and

the BLM supported a BLM organic act without additional

major reforms of other public land laws. The second ap-

proach provided the BLM with an organic act, but also

made significant revisions in the Mining Law of 1872 and

included environmental safeguards for BLM activities. This

variety of bill was supported by environmentalists. The final

type of bill provided a general framework for more detailed

legislation in the future. This general framework tended to

support commodity production, and was favored by live-

stock, mining, and timber interests.

In 1973, a bill of the second variety, introduced by

Henry Jackson of Washington, passed the Senate. A similar

bill died in the House, though, when it was denied a rule,

and hence a trip to the floor, by the Rules Committee.

Jackson re-introduced a bill that was nearly identical to the

bill previously passed, and the Senate passed this bill in

February 1976. In the House, things did not move as quickly.

The main House bill, drafted by four western members

of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, included

significant provisions dealing with grazing—most impor-

tantly, a provision to adopt a statutory grazing fee formula

based upon beef prices and private forage cost. This bill had

the support of commodity interests, but was opposed by the

administration and environmental groups. The bill passed

the full House by fourteen votes in July 1976.

The major differences that needed to be addressed in

the conference committee included law enforcement, the

grazing provisions, mining law provisions, wild horses and

burros, unintentional trespass, and the California

Desert

Conservation

Area. By late September, four main differ-

ences remained, three involving grazing, and one dealing

with mining. For a period it appeared that the bill might

die in committee, but final compromises on the grazing

and mining issues were made and a bill emerged out of

conference. The bill was signed into law in October 1976

by President Gerald Ford.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976)

As passed, FLPMA dealt with four general issue areas:

1) the organic act sections, giving the BLM authority and

direction for managing the lands under its control; 2) grazing

policy; 3) preservation policy; and 4) mining policy. The act

begins by stating that these lands will remain in public

ownership: “The Congress declares that it is the policy of

the United States that...the public lands be retained in public

ownership.” This represented the true, final closing of the

public domain; the federal government would retain the vast

majority of these lands. To underscore this point, FLPMA

repealed hundreds of laws dealing with the public lands that

were no longer relevant. The BLM, under the authority of

the Secretary of the Interior, was authorized to manage these

lands for multiple use and sustained yield and was required

to develop

land use

plans and resource inventories for the

lands based on long-range planning. A director of the BLM

was to be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation

by the Senate.

FLPMA limited the withdrawal authority of the Sec-

retary, often used to close lands to mineral development or

to protect them for other environmental reasons, by repealing

many of the sources of this authority and limiting its uses

in other cases. The act allowed for the sale of public lands

under a set of guidelines. In a section of the law that received

much attention, the BLM was authorized to enforce the

law on the lands it managed. The agency was directed to

cooperate with local law enforcement agencies as much as

possible in this task. It was these agencies, and citizens who

lived near BLM lands, who were skeptical of this new BLM

enforcement power. Other important provisions of the law

allowed for the capture, removal, and relocation of wild

horses and burros from BLM lands and authorized the Sec-

retary of the Interior to grant rights-of-way across these

lands for most pipelines and electrical

transmission lines

The controversial grazing fee formula in the House

bill, favored by the livestock industry, was dropped in the

conference committee. In its place, FLPMA froze grazing

fees at the 1976 level for one year and directed the Secretaries

of Agriculture and the Interior to undertake a comprehensive

study of the grazing fee issue so that an equitable fee could

be determined. This report was completed in 1977, and

Congress established a statutory fee formula in 1978. That

formula was only binding until 1985, though, and since that

time Congress has debated the grazing fee issue numerous

times, but the issue remains unsettled.

FLPMA also provided that grazing permits be for ten

year periods, and that at least two year notice be given before

permits were cancelled (except in an emergency). At the end

of the ten year lease, if the lands are to remain in grazing,

the current permittee has the first priority on renewing the

lease to those lands. This virtually guarantees a rancher the

use of certain public lands as long as they are to be used for

553

grazing. The permittee is also to receive compensation for

private improvements on public lands if the permit is can-

celled. These provisions, advocated by livestock interests,

further demonstrated their belief, and the belief of their

supporters in Congress, that these grazing permits were a

type of property right. Grazing advisory boards, originally

started after the Taylor Grazing Act but terminated in the

early 1970s, were resurrected. These boards consist of local

grazing permittees in the area, and advise the BLM on the

use of range improvement funds and on allotment manage-

ment plans.

Important provisions regarding the preservation of

BLM lands were also included in FLPMA. BLM lands

were not covered in the

Wilderness Act

of 1964, and

FLPMA dealt with this omission by directing that these

lands be reviewed for potential

wilderness

designation, and

that recommendations be made by the agency of which

lands should be designated as wilderness. These designations

would then be acted upon by Congress. This process is

well underway. As has been the case with additions to the

National Wilderness Preservation System on

national for-

est

lands since RARE II, BLM wilderness designation is

being considered on a state-by-state basis. Thus far, a com-

prehensive wilderness designation law has only been passed

for Arizona and California. Recent controversy has centered

over the designation of wilderness in Utah.

FLPMA established a special California Desert Con-

servation Area, and directed the BLM to study this area

and develop a long-range plan for its management. In 1994,

after eight years of consideration, Congress passed the Cali-

fornia Desert Protection Act. Senator Dianne Feinstein of

California played the major role in guiding the legislation

to passage, including overcoming an opposition-led filibuster

against the act in October. The act, which included a number

of compromises with desert users, established two new na-

tional parks and a new national preserve as well as designat-

ing approximately 7.5 million acres (3 million ha) of Califor-

nia desert as wilderness (in the two parks, the preserve, and

nearly 70 new wilderness areas). The new national parks

were created by enlarging and upgrading the existing Death

Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments. The Mojave

National Preserve was originally to be a third

national park

in the desert, but its status was reduced to a national preserve

to allow continued

hunting

, a compromise that helped gain

further support for the bill. This law protected more wilder-

ness than any law since the 1980 Alaska Lands Act. The

following year, however, there was a move to alter these

provisions. As part of the 1996 fiscal year Interior Appropria-

tions bill, Congress directed that the BLM—not the Na-

tional Park Service—manage the new Mojave National Pre-

serve. According to Republican supporters, the BLM would

allow for more use of the land. President Clinton vetoed

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Federal Power Commission

this appropriations bill in December 1995, in part due to

this change in California Desert management. When the

final Interior Appropriations Act was passed in April 1996,

it included a provision requiring the Park Service to manage

the Mojave under the less restrictive BLM standards, but it

also allowed the President to waive this provision. Clinton

signed the bill, and then immediately waived the provision,

so the Mojave is being managed by the

National Park

Service

under its own standards.

FLPMA required that all mining claims, based on the

1872 Mining Law, be recorded with the BLM within three

years. Claims not recorded were presumed abandoned. In

the past, such claims only had to be recorded at the county

courthouse in the county in which the claim was located.

This allowed for increased knowledge about the number and

location of such claims. The law also included amendments

to the

Mineral Leasing Act

of 1920, increasing the share

of the revenues from such leases that went to the states,

allowing the states to spend these funds on any public facili-

ties needed (rather than just roads and schools), and reducing

the amount of revenues going to the fund to reclaim these

mineral funds.

The implementation of FLPMA has been problem-

atic. One consequence of the act, and the planning and

management that it has required, was the stimulation of

western hostility to the BLM and the existence of so much

federal lands. According to a number of analysts, FLPMA

was largely responsible for starting the

Sagebrush Rebel-

lion

, the movement to have federal lands transferred to the

states. The foremost implementation problems have been

due to the poor bureaucratic capacity of the BLM: the lack

of adequate funding, the lack of an adequate number of

employees, poor standing within the

U.S. Department of

the Interior

and presidential administrations, and its history

of subservience to grazing and mining interests.

[Christopher McGrory Klyza]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Dana, S. T., and S. K. Fairfax. Forest and Range Policy. 2nd ed. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1980.

ERIODICALS

“Fragile California Desert Bill Blooms Late in Session.” Congressional Quar-

terly Almanac 50 (1994): 227–231.

“Public Land Management.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac 32 (1976):

182–188.

Senzel, I. “Genesis of a Law, Part 1.” American Forests (January 1978):

30–32+.

———. “Genesis of a Law, Part 2.” American Forests (February 1978):

32–39.

554

Federal Power Administration

see

U.S. Department of Energy

Federal Power Commission

The Federal Power Commission was established June 23,

1930, under the authority of the Federal Water Power Act,

which was passed on March 3, 1921. The commission was

terminated on August 4, 1977, and its functions were trans-

ferred to the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

un-

der the umbrella of the

U.S. Department of Energy

The most important function of the commission dur-

ing its 57-year existence was the licensing of water-power

projects. It also reviewed plans for water-development pro-

grams submitted by major federal construction agencies for

conformance with the interests of public good. In addition,

the commission retained responsibility for interstate regula-

tion of

electric utilities

and the siting of hydroelectric

power plants

as well as their operation. It also set rates

and charges for the

transportation

and sale of

natural gas

and electricity. The five members of the commission were

appointed by the president with approval of the Senate;

three of the members were the Secretaries of the Interior,

Agriculture, and War (later designated as U.S. Department

of the Army). The commission retained its status as an

independent regulatory agency for decision making, which

is considered necessary for national security purposes.

Feedlot runoff

Feedlots

are containment areas used to raise large numbers

of animals to an optimum weight within the shortest time

span possible. Most feedlots are open air, and are thereby

subject to variable weather conditions. A substantial portion

of the feed is not converted into meat, and is excreted, thus

degrading the air, ground, and surface

water quality

. The

issues of odor and

water pollution

from such facilities center

on the traditional attitudes of producers that farming has

always produced odors, and manure is a

fertilizer

, not a

waste from a commercial undertaking.

Animal excrement is indeed rich in nutrients, particu-

larly

nitrogen

phosphorus

, and potassium. A single 1,300-

lb (590 kg) steer will excrete about 150 lb (68 kg) of nitrogen;

50 lb (23 kg) of phosphorus; and 100 lb (45 kg) of potassium

in the course of a year. That is almost as much

nutrient

would be required to grow one acre of corn, which needs

185 lb (84 kg) of nitrogen; 80 lb (36 kg) of phosphorus;

and 215 lb (98 lb) of potassium. Unfortunately, manure is

costly to transport, difficult to apply, and its nutrient quality

is inconsistent. Artificial fertilizers, on the other hand, offer

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Feedlots

ease of application and storage and proven quality and plant

growth.

Legislative and regulatory action have increased with

encroachment of urban population and centers of high sensi-

tivity, such as shopping malls and

recreation

facilities. Since

odor is difficult to measure, control of these facilities is

being achieved on the grounds that they must not pose a

“nuisance,” a principle that is being sustained by the courts.

Odor is influenced by feed, number and

species

animal, lot surface and manure removal frequency, wind,

humidity, and moisture. These factors, individually and col-

lectively, influence the type of

decomposition

that will oc-

cur. Typically, it is an

anaerobic

process which produces a

sharp pungent odor of ammonia, the nauseating odor of

rotten eggs from

hydrogen

sulfide, and the smell of de-

caying cabbage or onions from methyl mercaptan.

Odorous compounds seldom reach concentrations that

are dangerous to the public. However, levels can become

dangerously elevated with reduced ventilation in winter

months or during pit cleaning. It is this latter activity, in

conjunction with disposal onto the surface of the land, that

is most frequently the cause of complaints. Members of the

public respond to feedlot odors depending on their individual

sensitivity, previous experience, and disposition. It can curtail

outdoor activities and require windows to be closed, which

means the additional use of air purifiers or air-conditioning

systems.

Surface water contamination is the problem most fre-

quently attributed to open feedlot and manure spreading

activities. It is due to the dissolving, eroding action of rain

striking the manured-covered surface. Duration and inten-

sity of rainfall dictates the concentration of contaminants

that will flow into surface waters. Their dilution or retention

in ponds, rivers, and streams depends on area

hydrology

(dry or wet conditions) and

topography

(rolling or steeply

graded landscape). Such factors also influence conditions in

those parts of the continent where precipitation is mainly

in the form of snow. Large snow drifts form around wind

breaks, and in the early spring, substantial volumes of snow-

melt are generated.

Odor and water

pollution control

techniques include

simple operational changes, such as increasing the frequency

of removing manure, scarifying the surface to promote

aero-

bic

conditions, and applying disinfectants and feed-digestion

supplements. Other control measures require construction

of additional structures or the installation of equipment at

feedlots. These measures include installing water sparge-

lines, adding impervious surfaces, drains, pits and roofs,

and installing extraction fans. See also Animal waste; Odor

control

[George M. Fell]

555

ESOURCES

OOKS

Larson, R. E. Feedlot and Ranch Equipment for Beef Cattle. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.

Peters, J. A. Source Assessment: Beef Cattle Feedlots. Research Triangle Park,

NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.

Feedlots

A feedlot is an open space where animals are fattened before

slaughter. Beef cattle usually arrive at the feedlot directly

from the ranch or farm where they were raised, while poultry

and pigs often remain in an automated feedlot from birth

until death. Feed (often grains, alfalfa, and molasses) is

provided to the animals so they do not have to forage for

their food. This feeding regimen promotes the production

of higher quality meat more rapidly. There are no standard

parameters for the number of animals per acre in a feedlot,

but the density of animals is usually very high. Some feedlots

can contain 100,000 cows and steers.

Animal rights

groups

actively campaign against confining animals in feedlots, a

practice they consider inhumane, wasteful, and highly pol-

luting.

Feedlots were first introduced in California in the

1940s, but many are now found in the Midwest, closer to

grain supplies. Feedlot operations are highly mechanized

and large numbers of animals can be handled with relatively

low labor input. About half of the beef produced in the

United States is feedlot-raised.

Feedlots are a significant

nonpoint source

of the

pol-

lution

flowing into surface waters and

groundwater

in the

United States. At least half a billion tons of

animal waste

are produced in feedlots each year. Since this waste is concen-

trated in the feedlot rather than scattered over grazing lands,

it overwhelms the soil’s ability to absorb and

buffer

it and

creates nitrate-rich, bacteria-laden

runoff

to pollute streams,

rivers, and lakes. Dissolved pollutants can also migrate down

through the

soil

into aquifers, leading to

groundwater

pollution

over wide areas. To protect surface waters, most

states require that

feedlot runoff

be collected. However,

protection of groundwater has proved to be a more difficult

problem, and successful regulatory and technological con-

trols have not yet been developed.

[Christine B. Jeryan]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Kerr, R. S. Livestock Feedlot Runoff Control By Vegetative Filters. Ada, OK:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979.

Larson, R. E. Feedlot and Ranch Equipment for Beef Cattle. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

Fertilizer

Peters, J. A. Source Assessment: Beef Cattle Feedlots. Research Triangle Park,

NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.

Felis concolor coryi

see

Florida panther

Fens

see

Wetlands

Ferret

see

Black-footed ferret

Fertility

see

Biological fertility

Fertilizer

Any substance that is applied to land to encourage plant

growth and produce higher crop yield. Fertilizers may be

made from organic material—such as recycled waste, animal

manure, compost, etc.—or chemically manufactured. Most

fertilizers contain varying amounts of

nitrogen

phospho-

rus

, and potassium, inorganic nutrients that plants need

to grow.

Since the 1950s crop production worldwide has in-

creased dramatically because of the use of fertilizers. In com-

bination with the use of pesticides and insecticides, fertilizers

have vastly improved the quality and yield of such crops as

corn, rice, wheat, and cotton. However overuse and improper

use of fertilizers have also damaged the

environment

and

affected the health of humans, animals, and plants.

In the United States, it is estimated that as much as

25% of fertilizer is carried away as

runoff

. Fertilizer runoff

has contaminated

groundwater

and polluted bodies of

water near and around farmlands. High and unsafe nitrate

concentrations in drinking water have been reported in coun-

tries that practice intense farming, including the United

States. Accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorus in water-

ways from chemical fertilizers has also contributed to the

eutrophication of lakes and ponds. Ammonia, released from

the decay of fertilizers, causes minor irritation to the respira-

tory system.

While very few advocate the complete eradication of

chemical fertilizers, many environmentalists and scientists

urge more efficient ways of using them. For example, some

farmers use up to 40% more fertilizer than they need. Frugal

applications—in small doses and on an as-needed-basis on

specific crops—helps reduce fertilizer waste and runoff. The

556

use of organic fertilizers, including

animal waste

, crop

residues, or grass clippings, is also encouraged as an alterna-

tive to chemical fertilizers. See also Cultural eutrophication;

Recycling; Sustainable agriculture; Trace element/micronu-

trient

Fibrosis

A medical term that refers to the excessive growth of fibrous

tissue in some part of the body. Many types of fibroses are

known, including a number that affect the respiratory system.

A number of these respiratory fibroses, including such condi-

tions as

black lung disease

, silicosis,

asbestosis

, beryllio-

sis, and byssinosis, are caused by environmental factors. A

fibrosis develops when a person inhales very tiny solid parti-

cles or liquid droplets over many years or decades. Part of

the body’s reaction to these foreign particles is to enmesh

them in fibrous tissue. The disease name usually suggests

the agent that causes the disease. Silicosis, for example, is

caused by the inhalation of silica, tiny sand-like particles.

Occupational sources of silicosis include rock mining, quar-

rying, stone cutting, and sandblasting. Berylliosis is caused

by the inhalation of beryllium particles over a period of time,

and byssinosis (from byssos, the Greek word for flax)is found

among textile workers who inhale flax, cotton or hemp fibers.

Field capacity

Field capacity refers to the amount of water that can be held

in the

soil

after all the gravitational water has drained away.

Sandy soils will have less water held at field capacity than

clay soils. The more water a soil can hold at field capacity

the more water is available for plants.

Filters

Primarily devices for removing particles from aerosols. Filters

utilize a variety of microscopic forms and a variety of mecha-

nisms to accomplish this. Most common are fibrous filters,

in which the fibers are of cellulose (paper filters), but almost

any fibrous material, including glass fiber, wool,

asbestos

and finely spun polymers, has been used. Microscopically,

these fibers collect fine particles because fine particles vibrate

around their average position due to collision with air mole-

cules (Brownian motion). These vibrations are likely to cause

them to collide with the fibers as they pass through the

filter. Larger particles are removed because, as the air stream

carrying them passes through the filter, some of the particles

are intercepted as they pass close to the fibers and touch

them. Other particles are in air streams that would cause