JA - Journaling for Awareness

JABOWA - (computer model of forest growth)

JAIL - Judicial Accountability Initiative Law

JAKES - Juniors Acquiring Knowledge, Ethics and Sportsmanship (National Wild Turkey Federation)

Jakota Triangle - Easternmost region of East Asia. Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Transformed community and society.

JPAC - The Joint Public Advisory Committee of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North America http://www.cec.org 

JAPP - Joint Aquatic Permitting Process

JARPA - Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application

Jasper - Red, brown, green, impure, slightly translucent cryptocrystalline quartz with a dull fracture. - BLM (DOI) Grand Escalante Staircase National Monument DEIS Glossary

JAVA - A Programming language

JBO - Jurisdictional Barriers and Opportunities

JBS - John Birch Society (publication: The New American magazine)

JC - Just Compensation

JC - Justifiable Condemnation

JCB - Journal of Conservation Biology

JCCA - Jefferson County Cedar Association

JCF - Jewish Community Foundation

JCPA - Jewish Council for Public Affairs

JCS - Joint Chiefs of Staff

JCSA - Jackson City Stockman's Association

JCSC - Joint Center for Sustainable Communities

JCW - Johnson County Wars (Wyoming)

JD - Jane Doe

JD - John Doe

JDPP - Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Program

JDSF - Jackson Demonstration State Forest

JEE - Jewish Environmental Education

Jefferson's Manual (section on treaties) - [House Rules Manual -- House Document No. 104-272] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database] [Pages 298-301] [DOCID:hrmanual-58] sec. lii.--treaties. Treaties are <<NOTE: Sec. 593. General nature of treaties.>> legislative acts. A treaty is the law of the land. It differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign nation, being but a contract with respect to that nation. In all countries, I believe, except England, treaties are made by the legislative power; and there, also, if they touch the laws of the land they must be approved by Parliament. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dallas's Rep., 223. It is acknowledged, for instance, that the King of Great Britain cannot by a treaty make a citizen of an alien. Vattel, b. 1, c. 19, sec. 214. An act of Parliament was necessary to validate the American treaty of 1783. And abundant examples of such acts can be cited. In the case of the treaty of Utrecht, in 1712, the commercial articles required the concurrence of Parliament; but a bill brought in for that purpose was rejected. France, the other contracting party, suffered these articles, in practice, to be not insisted on, and adhered to the rest of the treaty. 4 Russell's History of Modern Europe, 457; 2 Smollet, 242, 246. By the <<NOTE: Sec. 594. Jefferson's discussion of treaties under the Constitution.>> Constitution of the United States this department of legislation is confined to two branches only of the ordinary legislature--the President originating and the Senate having a negative. To what subjects this power extends has not been defined in detail by the Constitution; nor are we entirely agreed among ourselves. 1. It is admitted that it must concern the foreign nation party to the contract, or it would be a mere nullity, res inter alias acta. 2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those subjects that are usually regulated by treaty, and can not be otherwise regulated. 3. It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the States; for surely the President and Senate can not do by treaty what the whole Government is interdicted from doing in any way. 4. And also to except those subjects of legislation in which it gave a participation to the House of Representatives. This last exception is denied by some on the ground that it would leave very little matter for the treaty power to work on. The less the better, say others. The Constitution thought it wise to restrain the Executive and Senate from entangling and embroiling our affairs with those of Europe. Besides, as the negotiations are carried on by the Executive alone, the subjecting to the ratification of the representatives such articles as are within their participation is no more inconvenient than to the Senate. But the ground of this exception is denied as unfounded. For examine, e.g., the treaty of commerce with France, and it will be found that, out of thirty-one articles, there are not more than small portions of two or three of them which would not still remain as subjects of treaties, untouched by these exceptions. The <<NOTE: Sec. 595. General action of the House as to treaties.>> participation of the House of Representatives in the treaty- making power has been often examined since Jefferson's Manual was written. The House has in several instances taken action in carrying into effect, terminating, enforcing, and suggesting treaties (II, 1502- 1505, 1520-1522), although sometimes the propriety of requesting the Executive to negotiate a treaty has been questioned (II, 1514-1517). The exact <<NOTE: Sec. 596. Authority of the House as to treaties in general.>> authority of the House in the making of general treaties has been the subject of differences of opinion. In 1796 the House affirmed that, when a treaty related to subjects within the power of Congress, it was the constitutional duty of the House to deliberate on the expediency of carrying such treaty into effect (II, 1509); and in 1816, after a discussion with the Senate, the House maintained its position that a treaty must depend on a law of Congress for its execution as to such stipulations as relate to subjects constitutionally entrusted to Congress (II, 1506). In 1868 the House's assertion of right to a voice in carrying out the stipulations of certain treaties was conceded in a modified form (II, 1508). Again, in 1871, the House asserted its prerogative (II, 1523). In 1820 and 1868 there were discussions of the House's functions as to treaties ceding or acquiring foreign territory (II, 1507, 1508), and at various other times there have been discussions of the general subject (II, 1509, 1546, 1547; VI, 324-326). After long and <<NOTE: Sec. 597. Authority of the House as to revenue treaties.>> careful consideration the Judiciary Committee of the House decided, in 1887, that the executive branch of the Government might not conclude a treaty affecting the revenue without the assent of the House (II, 1528-1530), and a Senate committee after examination concluded that duties were more properly regulated with the publicity of congressional action than by treaties negotiated by the President and ratified by the Senate in secrecy (II, 1532). In practice the House has acted on revenue treaties (II, 1531, 1533); and in 1880 it declared the negotiation of a revenue treaty an invasion of its prerogatives (II, 1524). At other times the subject has been discussed (II, 1525-1528, 1531, 1533). After long <<NOTE: Sec. 598. House approves Indian treaties.>> discussion the House, in 1871, successfully asserted its right to a voice in approving Indian treaties (II, 1535, 1536), although in earlier times this prerogative had been jealously guarded by the Executive (II, 1534). There have been various conflicts with the Executive over requests of the House for papers relating to treaties (II, 1509-1513, 1518, 1519, 1561). Treaties being <<NOTE: Sec. 599. Treaties abrogated by law.>> declared, equally with the laws of the United States, to be the supreme law of the land, it is understood that an act of the legislature alone can declare them infringed and rescinded. This was accordingly the process adopted in the case of France in 1798. Notice to a foreign government of the abrogation of a treaty is authorized by a joint resolution (V, 6270). It has <<NOTE: Sec. 600. Procedure of the Senate as to treaties.>> been the usage for the Executive, when it communicates a treaty to the Senate for their ratification, to communicate also the correspondence of the negotiators. This having been omitted in the case of the Prussian treaty, was asked by a vote of the House of February 12, 1800, and was obtained. And in December, 1800, the convention of that year between the United States and France, with the report of the negotiations by the envoys, but not their instructions, being laid before the Senate, the instructions were asked for and communicated by the President. The mode of voting on questions of ratification is by nominal call. The Senate now has rules governing its procedure on treaties.

JEI - Jewish Environmental Initiative

JEL - Jewish Environmental League

JELL - Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation

JELTI - Mark and Sharon Bloome Jewish Environmental Leadership Training Institute 2000

Jeopardy Opinion - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service opinion that an action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat; the finding includes reasonable and prudent alternatives, if any. - EvergladesPlan glossary

JFJ - Jewish Fund for Justice

JFPO - Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.

JI - Journeys International

JIG - Jane's Information Group

Jig - An appliance in which a vertically pulsed column of water is manipulated to stratify crushed ore with lighter particles above and heavier particles below. - BLM Surface Mgmt. Regs.

JII - Journeys International, Incorporated

JIT - Jobs In Tourism

JITW - Jobs In The Woods (DOI/BLM)

JLC - Justification for Limited Competition

JMH - Jack Morrow Hills (BLM-DOI)

JMHCAP - Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan

JMS - John Muir Society

JNCP - Justification for Noncompetitive Procurement

Job Income - Income to households from labor including wages and salaries. Job income excludes returns to property and proprietorship income.

JOC - Jewish Outdoor Club

JOFOC - Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition

Joint Estate - An estate that has a plurality of tenants having the same interest in the estate, occurring under the same conveyance, commencing at the same time, and held under the same undivided possession. - Cadastral Data glossary

Joint nomination - Paragraphs 16 and 20 of the Operational Guidelines make reference to the submission of joint nominations of a property or series of properties when that property or series of properties extends across the national territorial borders of one State Party into the territory of another States Party (UNESCO February 1996: 5 and 6). Examples of joint nominations include: Argentina and Brazil, Jesuit Missions of the Guaranis; Belarus and Poland, Bialowieza Forest; Canada and the United States of America, Tatshenshini-Alsek/Kluane National Park/Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Reserve and Glacier Bay National Park; Canada and the United States of America; Waterton Glacier International Peace Park; Guinea and Cote d'Ivoire; Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve; Hungary and Slovak Republic, Caves of the Aggtelek and Slovak Karst. A complete list of joint nominations is included in the World Heritage List, published annually (See UNESCO-ICOMOS Documentation Centre January 1996).

Joint Permit - The permit required for the obstruction and encroachment of waters or wetlands. The joint permit eliminates the need for separate permit applications at the state and federal levels. For example, one joint permit is submitted for water obstruction and encroachment permit and a Federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Section 9, Section 10, or Section 404 permit. The permit is also considered by the state as a request for water quality certification under Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act.

Joint Tenancy - An estate arising by purchase or grant to a plurality of persons who have the same interest, under the same conveyance, commencing at the same date, and under the same undivided possession. - Cadastral Data glossary

Joint Tenants - Two or more persons who own equal shares in an estate created by a single transfer. Upon death of a joint tenant, the surviving joint tenant(s) takes the entire property and nothing passes to the heirs of the deceased. - Cadastral Data glossary

Jones Act - The common reference for Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, which restricts to U.S. vessels the water transportation of goods between points in the United States. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry, but agricultural interests generally oppose it because it raises the cost of shipping their goods, making them less competitive with foreign sources.

JOSS - Joint Office of Science Support (UCAR)

JPA - Joint Powers Authority

JPAC - The Joint Public Advisory Committee of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North America http://www.cec.org 

JPB - Jurassic Plate Boundary

JP8JF - JP8 Jet Fuel

JP8JF - JP8 Jet Fueler

JPL - Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)

JPM - Justifiable Protection Measures

JPMIB - J.P. Morgan Investment Bank

JP1 - Joint Patriot 01 (military operation in the United States including use of foreign troops, the Air Force HAARP and associated efforts to modify weather)

JQP - John Q. Public

JRC - Journalists Resource Center for the Environment (IUCN)

JS - Junk Science

JSB - Jarbidge Shovel Brigade

JSKNOW - Just Say KNOW

JSNFI - Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation Inc.

JT - Job Training

JT - Joint Tenancy

JT - Jurisdictional Transfer

JTF - Job Training Funds

The Judiciary Act of 1789 - An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.

JVFA - Joint Venture Focus Area(s)

JVP - Joint Venture Plan

JW - Judicial Watch

JWMP - Juniata Watershed Monitoring Project. The Juniata Wetland Monitoring Project is 2-year pilot study to assess the ecological condition of wetlands in the Juniata River watershed of central Pennsylvania. The Juniata River is a major tributary of the Susquehanna River and lies within the headwaters region of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The objective of the Juniata Wetland Monitoring Project is to define the ecological health of wetland resources, thereby providing a scientific context for resource managers to plan future protection and restoration activities. The study is a cooperative effort between the Southern Alleghenies Conservancy and the Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center (CWC). A similar project is also underway for the Nanticoke River watershed in Maryland and Delaware co-directed by The Nature Conservancy and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Both pilot projects are being carried out under the direction of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) and are part of a larger program to document the status and trends of the country's ecological resources. In 1999, the Buffalo Creek/Tuscarora sub-watershed in the Juniata River basin was studied to field verify and calibrate the research protocol. Field testing was carried out at 14 sites by interns from Penn State University, the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, and the Pennsylvania College of Technology. For the 2000 field season, approximately 100 'randomly selected' wetland sites within the Little Juniata sub-watershed will be studied. The Rapid Assessment Protocol (RAP) developed by the CWC will be used to assess wetland condition within the Juniata Watershed. The RAP collects information on micro-topography, soils, vegetation, wildlife habitat suitability, and wetland stressors. Following data collection, wetland condition will be determined using HGM (Hydrogeomorphic Approach) functional assessment models and will be expressed in terms of HGM type. http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/CASDEPT/FOREST/wetlands/People/Denice/Juniata2.htm 

Jurisdictional Determination (JD) - A site survey performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to officially determine whether or not a given parcel of land is subject to wetlands regulations, and if so, the extent of the area.

Jurisdictional Participant - A Jurisdictional Participant is a stakeholder within one of the various levels of government. The level could be Federal, State, City, Town, County, District, Region, or any other type or combination of governmental entity. - GWOB

Jus Gentium - See The Law of Nations

Justification - Section G of the Operational Guidelines entitled "Format and content of nominations" provides guidance as to how States Parties should justify the inclusion of properties in the World Heritage List. Information should be provided under three separate headings as follows: (i) the reasons for which the property is considered to meet one or more of the criteria set out under paragraphs 24 and 44 above; (ii) an evaluation of the property's present state of preservation as compared with similar properties elsewhere; (iii) indications as to the authenticity of the property (UNESCO February 1996: 20, Paragraph 64 (e)). The nomination form includes specific requirements for justifying cultural and/or natural property nominations. Nominations of properties for inclusion in the World Heritage List, should be well justified and presented "in the form of a well-argued case" making reference to the natural and/or cultural heritage criteria they meet (UNESCO February 1996: 4, Paragraph 10). - Glossary of World Heritage Terms

Just Title - Regarding acquisition of property by prescription, a title received from any person honestly believed to be the real owner, providing the title was such as to transfer the ownership of the property. - Cadastral Data glossary

JWC - Joint Working Committee

JWI - Johanette Wallerstein Institute