DOCSLIB.ORG

The Federal Role in Local Fire Protection, Commission Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Federal Role in Local Fire Protection, Commission Report ... he Advisory Commission on Intergovern- 111 Tmental Relations was established by P.L. 380, which was passed by the first session of the 86th Congress and approved by the Presi- dent on September 24, 1959. Section 2 of the act sets forth the following declaration of pur- pose and specific responsibilities for the Com- mission: Sec. 2. Because the complexity of modern life intensifies the need in a federal form of government for the full- est cooperation and coordination of activities between the levels of govern- ment, and because population growth and scientific developments portend an increasingly complex society in future years, it is essential that an appropriate agency be established to give continu- ing attention to intergovernmental problems. It is intended that the Commission, in the performance of its duties, will: 1) bring together representatives of the federal, state, and local govern- ments for the consideration of common problems. 5) encourage discussion and study at an early stage of emerging public problems that are likely to require in- tergovernmental cooperation. 6) recommend, within the frame- work of the Constitution, the most desirable allocation of governmental nature of the American federal system functions, responsibilities, and revenues in the short-term and long-term future among the several levels of govern- and possible adjustments to such sys- ment. tem, if any, which may be desirable, in light of future developments. Pursuant to its statutory responsibilities, The study, The Federal Role in the Fed- from time to time the Commission has been eral System: The Dynamics of Growth, of requested by the Congress or the President to which the present volume is one component, is examine particular problems impeding the ef- part of the Commission's response to this fectiveness of the federal system. The 1976 mandate. Staff were directed to: (a) examine renewal legislation for General Revenue Shar- the present role of the federal government ing, P.L. 94-488, mandated in Section 145 in the American federal system; (b) review that the Commission: theoretical perspectives on American fed- . study and evaluate the American eralism, the assignment of functions, and federal fiscal system in terms of the al- governmental growth; and (c) identify his- location and coordination of public re- torical and political patterns in the devel- sources among federal, state, and local opment and expansion of national govern- governments including, but not limited mental domestic activities. This case study on to, a study and evaluation of: (1) the the federal role in local fire protection is one iv allocation and coordination of taxing of seven prepared by Commission staff pur- and spending authorities between levels suant to this assignment. of government, including a comparison of other federal government sys- Abraham D. Beame tems. (5) forces likely to affect the Chairman Acknowledgements v his volume was prepared by the Govern- tor of technology utilization, US. Fire Ad- Tment Structure and Functions Section ministration; Dean Coston of Coston As- of the Commission staff. Mavis Mann Reeves, sociates; Harold Gallagher, state forester of senior resident and associate professor of gov- Kansas; James W. Giltmier, Senate Com- ernment and politics at the University of mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Fores- Maryland, had responsibility for the research try Staff; David. B. Gratz, vice president, In- and preparation of this case study. Other ternational Association of Fire Chiefs' members of the Government Structure and Foundation; Ken Gray, former legislative Functions Section, including Cynthia Colella, assistant to the late U.S. Sen. Hubert H. Robert Stein, Carol Monical, and, particular- Humphrey; William Hanbury, coordinator, ly, David R.'Beam, project manager, reviewed Intergovernmental Activities, U.S. Fire Ad- the manuscript and made helpful suggestions. ministration; Thomas Hughes, Public Infor- Lynn Schwalje worked out the intricacies of mation Office, U.S. Fire Administration; Table 1 and Figure 1 and typed the copy. Barbara Lundquist, National Data Center, Patricia Koch gave valuable library guidance. U.S. Fire Administration; W. Howard Mc- During the research for the study, many Clennan, president, International Associa- individuals associated with fire protection tion of Fire Fighters; U.S. Sen. Charles M. activities provided information, perceptive Mathias, Jr.; Alexander F. Robertson, Fire comments, advice, and criticism. The Com- Center, National Bureau of Standards; John mission appreciates their generous responses Rockett, Fire Center, National Bureau of to requests for interviews. The following Standards; Anne Rush, Warren County, KY, shared their time and expertise: J. 0. Baker, REA Coop., James Ryan, Fire Center, Na- Jr., staff specialist, Cooperative Fire Protec- tional Bureau of Standards; Erwin Schaffer, tion, U.S. Forest Service; Richard E. Bland, U.S. Forest Products Laboratories, Madison, associate professor of fire engineering, Penn- WI; William Taggart, Senate Committee on sylvania State University; Percy Bugbee, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Staff; president emeritus, National Fire Protection James Thornton, Farmers' Home Adminis- Association; John L. Bryan, professor and tration; Willard R. Tikkala, director, Co- chairman, Fire Protection Engineering, Uni- operative Fire Protection, Forest Service; versity of Maryland, College Park; Frederick Gordon Vickery, Administrator, U.S. Fire B. Clarke, director, Fire Center, National Administration; and Ralph Winkworth, Bureau of Standards; Joseph E. Clark, direc- North Carolina state forester. In addition Michael J. Smith, acting direc- ander F. Robertson were kind enough to re- tor of research, International Association of view and comment on a preliminary draft of Fire Fighters, was kind enough to search as- the study. Charles S. Morgan, president of sociation records for resolutions relating to the National Fire Protection Association, and federal involvement, and the staff of the his staff also provided helpful criticism. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, report would not have been possible without and Forestry helped to locate committee re- the cooperation and assistance of the people cords. Pat Bowley secured useful research and agencies identified above. Full responsi- materials. We are indebted, as well, to the bility for content and accuracy rests, of staffs of the U.S. Fire Administration Library course. with the Commission and its staff. and the International Association of Fire Chiefs' Library for help in locating necessary Wayne F. Anderson materials. Executive Director Along with providing information, J. 0. Baker, Jr., Richard E. Bland, Percy Bugbee, David B. Walker Joseph E. Clark, David B. Gratz, and Alex- Assistant Director Contents Introduction .................................................. 1 Historical Development ........................................ 3 TheStateRole ............................................. 4 Expenditures For Fire ....................................... 4 Development Of The Federal Role ............................ 4 Current Federal Activity ....................................... 7 U.S. Fire Administration Responsibilities .....................18 Rural Community Fire Protection Program ....................20 Questions on Federal Involvement ..............................23 National Policy Streams .......................................25 Major Events Influencing Policy Streams .....................26 Establishment Of The U.S . Fire Administration ..................27 Early Roots In The Scientific Stream .........................27 The 1940s: Fires Of War ....................................33 The 1950s: Interest Builds .................................. 33 Relocation Of NBS .....................................33 Committee On Fire Research .............................34 Federal Council On Science And Technology ............... 34 Forestry Activities ......................................35 The Early 1960s: The Quickening ............................ 35 Woods Hole Conference .................................35 Council On Science And Technology Action ................ 35 Fire Research Conference Actions ........................36 NBS Actions ........................................... 36 Basis Of Opposition ..................................... 38 The Defense Stream ....................................38 Other Events Of The Early And Middle 1960s .................. 39 Activities Of The Fire Chiefs ............................. 40 The Wingspread Conference .............................41 Wingspread Impact .....................................42 Subsequent Developments ...............................43 1967-68: Legislative Success .................................43 Apollo Spacecraft Fire ...................................43 Riots .................................................. 43 Consumer Policy Developments ..........................43 Senate Action .......................................... 45 House Action ..........................................47 Interest Group Alignment ...............................48 The Fire Research And Safety Act Of 1968 ....................48 Implementation ........................................ 49 The National Commission ...............................49 The Commission Report .................................50 Interest Group Activity During 1968-70 .......................52 The Williamsburg Conference ............................52 Other
Load more

Recommended publications
  • America Burning Revisited
    America Burning Revisited National Workshop – Tyson’s Corner, Virginia November 30 - December 2, 1987 This document was scanned from hard copy to portable document format (PDF) and edited to 99.5% accuracy. Some formatting errors not detected during the optical character recognition process may appear. Table of Contents Section I Foreword ........................................................................................................ 1 Section II . Introduction ................................................................................................ 3 Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 3 Workshop structure ................................................................................................... 4 Conduct ...................................................................................................................... 5 Section III . Current and Projected Future Fire Protection Environment ...... 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7 General trends ........................................................................................................... 7 Fire experience .......................................................................................................... 8 Fire service environment ........................................................................................ 12 Declining demand for fire suppression
    [Show full text]
  • PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 10-1265 and 10-2332 MINARD RUN OIL COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA
    PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 10-1265 and 10-2332 MINARD RUN OIL COMPANY; PENNSYLVANIA INDEPENDENT OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION; ALLEGHENY FOREST ALLIANCE; COUNTY OF WARREN, PENNSYLVANIA, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; TOM TIDWELL, in his official capacity as Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; KENT P. CONNAUGHTON, in his official capacity as regional Forester for the U.S. Forest Service, Eastern Region; LEANNE M. MARTEN, in her official capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Allegheny National Forest; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS; ALLEGHENY DEFENSE PROJECT; SIERRA CLUB Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Allegheny Defense Project, Sierra Club, Appellants. (Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43 (c)(2)) (Amended Pursuant to the Clerk's Order of June 18, 2010) On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1-09-cv-00125) District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin Argued on January 27, 2011 Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 20, 2011) Brian J. Sonfield, Esquire Assistant General Counsel United States Department of Agriculture Washington, DC 20250 Ignacia S. Moreno, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Aaron P. Avila, Esquire Ruth Ann Storey, Esquire United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 663 Washington, DC 20044 2 Lane N. McFadden, Esquire Robert P. Stockman, Esquire (Argued) United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 23795, L‟Enfant Plaza Station Washington, DC 20026 Counsel for Federal Appellants Timothy M.
    [Show full text]
  • America Burning Recommissioned II • AMERICA BURNING Recommissioned James Lee Witt, Director Federal Emergency FOREWORD Management Agency Foreword
    Findings andRecommendations on the Role ofthe Fire eroice in the Prevention and Control of Risks in America America atat RiskRisk Findings and Recommendations on the Role of the Fire Service in the Prevention and Control of Risks in America TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Foreword 1 James L. Witt, Director, FEMA Overview of the Structure of America at Risk 3 Summary of the Commission’s Process & Procedures 5 Principal Findings & Recommendations 11 Appendices A. Fire Control and Prevention in the U.S.: A Federal Perspective 32 B. Status of Recommendations of the 1973 America Burining Report: Non-USFA or FEMA 34 C. Members of America Burning, Recommissioned 46 D. Commission Meeting Agendas 54 E. Partial List of Reference Materials 59 America Burning Recommissioned II • AMERICA BURNING Recommissioned James Lee Witt, Director Federal Emergency FOREWORD Management Agency Foreword One hundred years ago, American cities faced a devastating challenge from the threat of urban fires. Whole cities had become the victims of these events. Entire neighborhoods lived with the very real threat that an ignited fire would take everything, including their lives. Today, the threat of fires is still with us. But we have done a lot to address the risk, minimize the incidence and severity of losses, and prevent fires from spreading. Our states and localities have an improving system of codes and standards; most of us are aware of the risks; our communities have everyday heroes who provide the first response to emergency calls; some of our homes and buildings have alarms or sprinkler systems; and our water distribution system for fire suppression stretches further than many imagined in 1900.
    [Show full text]
  • 102 Stat. 1774 Public Law 100-446—Sept
    102 STAT. 1774 PUBLIC LAW 100-446—SEPT. 27, 1988 Public Law 100-446 100th Congress An Act Sept. 27, 1988 Making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for [H.R. 4867] *^® fiscal year ending September 30,1989, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1989, and for other purposes, nsimely: TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT OF LANDS AND RESOURCES For expenses necessary for protection, use, improvement, develop­ ment, disposal, cadastral surveying, classification, and performance of other functions, including maintenance of facilities, as authorized by law, in the management of Ismds and their resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, including the general administration of the Bureau of Land Management, $508,462,000, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 to be derived from the specisJ receipt account established by section 4 of the Land and Water C!onservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4601-6a(i)), $70,000,000 for firefighting and repayment to other appropriations from which funds were transferred under the author­ ity of section 102 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1988, and $23,000,000 for the Auto­ mated Land and Mineral Record Sjrstem Project shcdl remain avail­ able until expended: Provided, That appropriations herein made shall not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or 43 use 1474.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness in Context
    Denver Law Review Volume 76 Issue 2 Symposium - Wilderness Act of 1964: Article 6 Reflections, Applications, and Predictions January 2021 Wilderness in Context Robert L. Glicksman George Cameron Coggins Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Robert L. Glicksman & George Cameron Coggins, Wilderness in Context, 76 Denv. U. L. Rev. 383 (1998). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. WILDERNESS IN CONTEXT ROBERT L. GLICKSMAN* GEORGE CAMERON COGGINS** INTRODUCTION Wilderness is both a geophysical reality and a legally defined land category. As a matter of geography, wilderness is any place that has so far escaped human development.' Legally, wilderness consists of those places designated by Congress for preservation from such development, areas that we call "official wilderness areas." Other writers in this sym- posium discuss many aspects of wilderness designation and manage- ment. Our aims in this article are to cover some of this same territory by placing official wilderness in several contexts-historical, legal, and managerial. By doing so, we intend to demonstrate that a wider range of geographic wilderness is compatible with official wilderness and that the implementation of other federal land management statutes may provide a basis for resolving several key outstanding wilderness management questions. In retrospect, the creation of official wilderness was nearly inevita- ble.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae Mountain Valley Pipeline, Llc Supporting Petitioners ------ ------Thomas C
    Nos. 18-1584 and 18-1587 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. COWPASTURE RIVER PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC, Petitioner, v. COWPASTURE RIVER PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petitions For Writs Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC SUPPORTING PETITIONERS --------------------------------- --------------------------------- THOMAS C. JENSEN MURRAY D. FELDMAN HOLLAND & HART LLP Counsel of Record 975 F St. NW, Ste. 900 ALISON C. HUNTER Washington, DC 20004 HOLLAND & HART LLP (202) 393-6500 800 W. Main St., Ste. 1750 Boise, ID 83702 GEORGE P. S IBLEY, III (208) 342-5000 HUNTON ANDREWS [email protected] KURTH LLP 951 E. Byrd St. Richmond, VA 23219 Counsel for Amicus (804) 788-8200 Curiae Mountain July 26, 2019 Valley Pipeline, LLC ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED This case involves the
    [Show full text]
  • Private Property to Public Property: the Beginnings of the National Forests in the South
    PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PUBLIC PROPERTY: THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN THE SOUTH Gerald W. Williams, Ph.D. National Historian USDA Forest Service Washington, D.C. March 29, 2003 The federal government has been actively involved with forests in the South since 1799 with the establishment of several live oak reservations for naval purposes. However, large land allocations for national forests would have to wait for 120 years. The national forest system began on March 3, 1891, with passage of a bill–referred to as the Creative Act by the Forest Service–that was designed to eliminate problems with previous homestead laws (26 Stat. 1095). Attached to the bill was a one sentence amendment that allowed the president to proclaim forest reserves (later called national forests) from the timber covered public domain. The only problem was that the public domain (unclaimed public land) was almost all in the West. Within days of the passage of the act, President Harrison had proclaimed forest reserves on some 15 million acres of land. By the end of President Cleveland’s second term, a total of 40 million acres of forest reserves had been proclaimed, some very controversial. President McKinley was faced with a huge problem of trying to overcome opposition to the new reserves and still fund the daily operations of the government, since abolishment of the reserves was tied to the annual sundry appropriations bill. Finally, the Congress passed and the president signed a bill know known as the Organic Act of 1897. However, as the forest reserves in the West grew in leaps and bounds, there was no federal protection for timber areas in the East.
    [Show full text]
  • Tulane Environmental Law Journal
    TULANE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 10 WINTER 1996 ISSUE 1 HABITAT PROTECTION AND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT SCOTT FINET* I. INTRODUCTION: THE ACCELERATION OF EXTINCTION ................... 2 II. THE ORIGINS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT ............................................................................ 5 A. Forces that Contributed to the Creation of the MBTA ................................................................................... 5 B. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act’s Legislative History ................................................................................. 7 C. The MBTA Treaties ............................................................. 9 D. Pre-ESA MBTA Cases ......................................................11 E. Factors Influencing the MBTA Habitat Preservation Cases ...........................................................13 1. MBTA’s Text .......................................................14 2. Hunting Regulation Precedent .............................16 3. Strict Liability .......................................................17 4. The Endangered Species Act ...............................19 III. THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT HABITAT PRESERVATION FRAMEWORK .........................................................21 IV. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................30 * Law Librarian and Associate Professor of Law, Temple University. I am grateful to my colleagues Alice Abreu, Jane Baron, Jeff Dunoff and Muriel
    [Show full text]
  • 7 CFR Subtitle a (1–1–12 Edition)
    § 2.60 7 CFR Subtitle A (1–1–12 Edition) Under Secretary only with respect to 70 Stat. 632) is limited to acquisitions the area or responsibility assigned to of less than $250,000 in value. him or her. (3) As necessary for administrative purposes, divide into and designate as § 2.60 Chief, Forest Service. national forests any lands of 3,000 acres (a) Delegations. Pursuant to or less which are acquired under or § 2.20(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(6), (a)(7)(ii) and subject to the Weeks Act of March 1, (a)(8), the following delegations of au- 1911, as amended, and which are contig- thority are made by the Under Sec- uous to existing national forest bound- retary for Natural Resources and Envi- aries established under the authority ronment to the Chief of the Forest of the Weeks Act. Service: (4) Plan and administer wildlife and fish conservation rehabilitation and (1) Provide national leadership in for- habitat management programs on Na- estry. (As used here and elsewhere in tional Forest System lands, pursuant this section, the term ‘‘forestry’’ en- to 16 U.S.C. 670g, 670h, and 670o. compasses renewable and nonrenewable (5) For the purposes of the National resources of forests, including lands Forests System Drug Control Act of governed by the Alaska National Inter- 1986 (16 U.S.C. 559–f), specifically des- est Lands Conservation Act, forest-re- ignate certain specially trained officers lated rangeland, grassland, brushland, and employees of the Forest Service, woodland, and alpine areas including not exceeding 500, to have authority in but not limited to recreation, range, the performance of their duties within timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife the boundaries of the National Forest and fish; natural scenic, scientific, cul- System: tural, and historic values of forests and (i) To carry firearms; related lands; and derivative values (ii) To enforce and conduct investiga- such as economic strength and social tions of violations of section 401 of the well being).
    [Show full text]
  • National Forest System Management: Overview, Appropriations, and Issues for Congress
    National Forest System Management: Overview, Appropriations, and Issues for Congress Updated September 5, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43872 SUMMARY R43872 National Forest System Management: September 5, 2019 Overview, Appropriations, and Issues Katie Hoover Specialist in Natural for Congress Resources Policy The 193 million acres of the National Forest System (NFS) comprise 154 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and several other federal land designations. Management Anne A. Riddle of the NFS is one of the three principal responsibilities of the Forest Service (FS), an Analyst in Natural agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Most NFS lands are Resources Policy concentrated in the western United States, although FS administers more federal land in the East than all other federal agencies combined. The Secretary of Agriculture has various authorities to acquire or dispose of NFS lands, although these are often constrained by geography or other factors. The original forest reserves were established to improve and protect federal forests and watersheds and to provide a source of timber. Today, the NFS’s statutory mission is to provide a variety of uses and values—timber production, watershed management, livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, outdoor recreation, fish and wildlife habitat management, and wilderness—without impairing the productivity of the land. Comprehensive land and resource management plans for each NFS unit (also known as forest plans) inform decisions on how those uses will be balanced and desired resource conditions. Although there is not a statutory mandate to generate revenue, FS is authorized to charge fees for many of the uses and services available on NFS lands and to use that revenue in various ways.
    [Show full text]
  • ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC, Petitioner, V
    No. 18-1587 In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________ ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC, Petitioner, v. COWPASTURE RIVER PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION; HIGHLANDERS FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT; SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION; SHENANDOAH VALLEY NETWORK; SIERRA CLUB; VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE; WILD VIRGINIA, Respondents. ________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ________________ BRIEF FOR PETITIONER ________________ PAUL D. CLEMENT Counsel of Record ERIN E. MURPHY WILLIAM K. LANE III KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 389-5000 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner December 2, 2019 QUESTION PRESENTED Exercising its authority under the Mineral Leasing Act (“MLA”), the U.S. Forest Service granted Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (“Atlantic”) a right-of- way to cross a 0.1-mile stretch of the George Washington National Forest that is approximately 700 feet beneath, and without surface impacts to, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Despite the existence of more than 50 pipelines that presently cross under that footpath pursuant to similar rights- of-way, the Fourth Circuit concluded in the decision below that neither the Forest Service—nor any other federal agency—may grant rights-of-way to cross beneath the Appalachian Trail pursuant to the MLA, thus converting the footpath into a 2,200-mile barrier separating resource-rich areas to its west from consumers to its east. The Fourth Circuit reached that result by holding that the National Trails System Act (“Trails Act”) had implicitly transferred more than 1,000 miles of lands traversed by the Trail under the control of various federal, state, and private entities to the National Park System, which, unlike other federal lands, are not subject to rights-of-way under the MLA.
    [Show full text]
  • 7 CFR Subtitle a (1–1–14 Edition) § 2.61
    § 2.61 7 CFR Subtitle A (1–1–14 Edition) U.S.C. 1011(c), and Executive Order (a)(8), subject to reservations in 11609, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 Comp., p. 586). § 2.20(b)(1), the following delegations of (4) Making recommendations to the authority are made by the Under Sec- President for establishing new units or retary for Natural Resources and Envi- adding to existing units of the National ronment to the Chief of the Natural Wild and Scenic Rivers System (16 Resources Conservation Service: U.S.C. 1271–1278); National Scenic (1) Provide national leadership in the Trails System (16 U.S.C. 1241–1249) and conservation, development and produc- the National Wilderness Preservation tive use of the Nation’s soil, water, and System (16 U.S.C. 1131–1136). related resources. Such leadership en- (5) Signing of declarations of taking compasses soil, water, plant, and wild- and requests for condemnation of prop- life conservation; small watershed pro- erty as authorized by law to carry out tection and flood prevention; and re- the mission of the Forest Service (40 source conservation and development. U.S.C. 257). Integrated in these programs are ero- (6) Approval of acquisition of land sion control, sediment reduction, pollu- under the Weeks Act of March 1, 1911, tion abatement, land use planning, as amended (16 U.S.C. 521), and special multiple use, improvement of water forest receipts acts (Pub. L. No. 337, quality, and several surveying and 74th Cong., 49 Stat. 866, as amended by monitoring activities related to envi- Pub.
    [Show full text]