DOCSLIB.ORG

A General History of the Mark Twain National Forest Fall, 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A General History of the Mark Twain National Forest Fall, 2012 A General History of the Mark Twain National Forest Fall, 2012 James A. Halpern Abstract A review of documentary materials relating to establishment of the Mark Twain National Forest and its land management boundaries sheds light on formational processes involved in development of the National Forest System in southwest Missouri, initiated more than ninety years ago. Analysis of historical narratives, administrative documents, transcripts of radio interviews, correspondence, informational brochures, maps, photographs, and newspaper articles serves to modestly enrich the standardized history of federal land management in the area, as well as its effects on local communities. Introduction: Development of the National Forest System On February 7, 1922, a newspaper article appeared in the St. Louis Star under the headline “MOVE STARTED TO GET TWO FEDERAL PARKS IN STATE.” It described the return of Charles F. Hatfield, General Manager of the St. Louis, Missouri Convention, Publicity and Tourist Bureau, from a trip to Washington D.C., during which he had petitioned and received support from members of the Missouri congressional delegation in establishing “a movement through which it is hoped eventually to obtain two national recreation parks in the Ozark mountain region of Missouri, totaling more than 1,000,000 acres, to be paid for by the Federal Government.” Hatfield continued by stating that appropriation of such lands by the United States “would be of more value to St. Louis and Missouri than twenty conventions brought to the city. It would bring persons from all over the United States, tourists and others, for recreational privileges, such as hunting, fishing, and camping would be allowed1.” The Federal movement to preserve national forestlands began during the late 1800s, when United States land policy shifted from a focus on disposition of the public domain to an emphasis on conservation in reaction to the relentless exploitation of America’s natural resources, particularly in the West (US Forest Service 1997:i). Revenue from public land sales was a major component of the Federal budget prior to ratification of a national income tax in 1913, and from its inception, United States public land policy had been designed to pacify the country’s wilderness by increasing settlement within it, establishing sovereignty over it, and making full use of it to develop economic resources for industrial and individual initiatives (Steen 1991:2; Thomason and Douglas 2000:3). During the 19th century, fully one-half of the nation was transferred from federal ownership to state, corporate, and individual possession pursuant to statutes Congress had passed in order to dispose of the public domain; land sales accounted for the disposition of millions of acres, many of them consummated under fraudulent circumstances (Conrad 1997:18). Grants to railroads and settlers would eventually account for a quarter of the Nation’s land area, 1 Unnumbered Photostat of an article appearing in the St. Louis Star, February 7, 1922. Clipping on file at the Mark Twain National Forest Supervisor’s Office in Rolla, Missouri. A scan of the Photostat is presented as Figure 1. 1 conveyed in large part via the Transcontinental Railroad and Homestead Acts of 1862, respectively (Steen 1991:3; 1992:4). For the United States, substantial benefits were to be derived from unrestrained exploitation of its natural resources. The era of logging had provided workers with hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the nation with inexpensive construction materials in the form of milled lumber for burgeoning cities and towns; the rigors of long-distance travel were eased, and the country’s centers of trade were linked through networks of steel rail laid upon countless wooden crossties, each individually hewn from native timber (Conrad 1997:17). By the mid-1800s, resources of all sorts, particularly the forests, were being ruthlessly exploited with no thought for long-term sustainability (Hough 1878:7; Thomason and Douglas 2000:3). Before the end of the 19th century, it had become painfully obvious that forest, mineral, and soil resources, once perceived as being without limit, were finite and, in some areas, nearing depletion. Perhaps as much as two-thirds of the nation’s timberlands had been cut-over. Of equal concern was erosion of the soil resulting from unrestricted logging and the fires which frequently followed cutting, leaving exposed soils vulnerable to agents of erosion (Figure 2). Numerous tributary streams and rivers were suffering the choking effects of excessive siltation and erosional deposition of upland soils, adversely affecting navigability, while excessive runoff from denuded soils resulted in an increased potential for severe flooding. Wildlife species, ranging in scale from the buffalo to the carrier pigeon, had disappeared from areas where they had once proliferated (Conrad 1997:17; US Forest Service 1935:1). Forestry work by the Federal Government formally began a full century after the Declaration of Independence, when in 1876 Congress authorized the appointment of the first federal forestry agent, Dr. Franklin B. Hough, a physician, statistician, and naturalist (US Forest Service 1976:13). Working under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture, he conducted a study (compiled in multiple volumes between 1877 and 1882) on the supply and demand for timber and other forest products, on various means used successfully abroad to manage forests and the means that might be used in the United States to preserve and renew forests, and on the influence of forests on climate (Thomason and Douglas 2000:4; US Forest Service 1976:13). Completed in 1877 and published the following year, Hough’s Report upon Forestry called for a new kind of forest management and a re-examination of property rights; he described the forest situation in highly critical terms, condemning the public’s wasteful pioneer mentality toward forestlands and the profligate greed of timber companies. Hough referred to the enduring practice of unauthorized timber cutting on public lands and sale of the resultant product to unscrupulous dealers as “the doings of timber thieves,” and forcefully recommended strict enforcement of existing laws; he advocated for a reformation of lumbering practices, and, more significantly, for the Federal Government to set aside public domain lands as forest reserves (Frome 1984:13-14; Hough 1878:8 -9;16). In 1881, the Division of Forestry was created within the Department of Agriculture, and Hough was appointed to head the Division (Conrad 1997:18). The Division of Forestry, however, had no actual forest or forest lands under its control, reserved lands then being nominally administered by the Department of the Interior—it served only as a fact-finder for questions 2 pertaining to forests and forest policy (US Forest Service 1976:15). Creation of forested public lands explicitly protected from disposition would not occur for another ten years, with inclusion and subsequent passage of a sixty-eight word provision to a bill revising existing land laws. Hough's successor at the Division of Forestry, Bernard Fernow, has long been credited by professional historians with playing an influential role in attachment of the critical rider to the General Revision Act—or Land Revision Act—of 1891 (Ise 1920:109,115). A story unto itself, it has been demonstrated that it was Congressman William Steele Holman of Indiana, ranking minority member of the House Public Lands Committee in the Republican-dominated 51st Congress, who was responsible for inserting a briefly-debated bit of language, known as “Section 24,” into the Land Revision legislation immediately prior to its passage (Arnold 1992:12-13). Section 24 states: That the President of the United States may, from time to time, set apart and reserve, in any State or Territory having public land bearing forests, in [sic] any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations; and the President shall, by public proclamation, declare the establishment of such reservations and the limits thereof. (act of March 3, 1891, ch.561, § 24; 26 Stat. 1103) The significance of the Section 24 provision was to grant authority to the President of the United States to “set apart and reserve" from the public domain lands to form public reservations. Section 24 has been judged sufficiently consequential in the history of Federal land management and conservation that the General Revision Act is most often referred to as “t he Forest Reserve Act of 1891” (Hedin 2012:2). President Benjamin Harrison was quick to make use of the new law, setting aside the Yellowstone Forest Reserve by presidential proclamation in 1891. Before his term was up two years later, Harrison, guided by the Division of Forestry, had created fifteen Forest Reserves containing over thirteen million acres. As things stood, however, the Reserves existed only on paper and in reality were no better protected than unreserved lands in the public domain (Conrad 1997:19). Between 1891 and 1897, the Harrison and Cleveland Administrations would withdraw more than forty million acres from public entry; these lands were not actively managed, but existed in a twilight state of limbo (Ise 1920:137; Steen 1991:28). Operational plans for reserved forests would not be approved by Congress until passage of the Organic Administration Act was secured on June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. §§ 473-482 and 551), authorizing the hiring of employees within the Department of the Interior to survey, evaluate, and administer the forests, as well as opening of the Reserves for management and controlled use (US Forest Service 1976:16). In 1898, Gifford Pinchot, an energetic, well-connected forester and renowned conservationist, was named head of the Division of Forestry within the Department of Agriculture (Steen 1991:32; US Forest Service 1961a:1), overseeing a staff of twelve persons: six for clerical and six for scientific work (US Forest Service 1976:17).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • The Frontier Forest As a Specific Type of Social-Ecological System: a Comparative Study of Brazil and the US
    ©2019 Martin Delaroche and Daniel H. Cole Early draft. Do not quote or cite. The Frontier Forest as a Specific Type of Social-Ecological System: A Comparative Study of Brazil and the US Martin Delaroche and Daniel H. Cole, Indiana University 1. Introduction The problem of deforestation is often presented as if it were a modern problem confronting only current developing countries. But every developed country was once a developing country, and deforestation problems are nearly as old as the earliest human settlements, especially in so-called “frontier” areas representing the boundaries between settlements and (supposedly) unsettled lands. Tomb paintings show trees being cut to clear land for planting in Ancient Egypt, where deforestation became “a major problem” (Hughes 2014, p. 40). The area around ancient Athens (except for Mount Athos, which was protected from logging by religious dictate) was pretty much devoid of trees by the fifth century BCE (Ibid., p. 76). According to Hughes (1994, p. 73), “No environmental problem of the Greeks and Romans was as widespread and prominent as the removal of forests and ensuing erosion.” Deforestation appears to be ubiquitous in the history of human settlement and development (CITE). If so, then we might expect deforestation to have common causes across human societies, i.e., to represent an identifiable type of social-ecological system that poses common problems for collective action. As such, the concept of the “frontier” becomes useful for distinguishing between states or stages of development. Some scholars have gone so far as to suggest a general theory of “forest transition,” according to which deforestation is a common feature of early development, which eventually slows and reverses, so long as appropriate institutions are created (see, e.g., Barbier, Burgess, and Grainger 2010).
    [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]
  • The Monumental Legacy of the Antiquities Act of 1906
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2003 The Monumental Legacy of the Antiquities Act of 1906 Mark Squillace University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Environmental Law Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Citation Information Mark Squillace, The Monumental Legacy of the Antiquities Act of 1906, 37 GA. L. REV. 473 (2003), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/508. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 37 Ga. L. Rev. 473 2002-2003 Provided by: William A. Wise Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Thu May 18 14:03:50 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information THE MONUMENTAL LEGACY OF THE ANTIQUITIES ACT OF 1906 Mark Squillace* I.
    [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]