Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
ronmental Protection held last Thursday, Jacobsen insisted that neither federal nor state law prohibited the swap.
For the victory to be complete, those who fought against the land exchange can’t withdraw yet. Although plans to trade Rappahannock parkland have been dropped, the chance that something like this could happen again still exists.
Work now should center around efforts to have both federal and state law clarified. Rappahannock's representative in the General Assembly, Delegate George Beard, has asked Attorney General Marshall Coleman for a ruling on the legality of parkland swaps without title to Park property reverting back to the Commonwealth. Once Coleman gives his decision, the controversy over state law should be resolved. Getting an answer on the federal law may not be as simple. It appears that National Park Service plans for expansion hinge, in many cases, on land trades. If trades involving property already administered as part of the national park system are prohibited, it may throw a monkey wrench in the works. The Park Service may not want Public Law 95-42 clarified as a result. But even though it will take time, those concerned with the right of the Park to trade away land wrested from Rappahannock natives 45 years ago should keep steady pressure on Congressional representatives for an answer. Otherwise, this whole fight may have to be repeated again and again.
85.1%