National Monument Creation and Protection Act

[Clay Diggins]

This is good stuff in my opinion. Best bill I've seen proposed in years and there is a good chance of it passing.

National Monument Creation and Protection Act

Please read it before commenting.

Please no politics and no dog poo. This is serious stuff.

Heavy Pans

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

This is the "Presidential authority To reduce size of declared monuments" as pointed out earlier. The 'Serious stuff' is what happens to the other "Lands" not part of the new declared monuments. "Surveys" will have to take place before the final "Lands"" are "Plated" on maps. Everyone could learn something from this as well.
A "Resurveys" will likely be done for the new "Size of declared monuments". The "Bona fide rights" will be helped in the process. Both "Dependent resurvey and Independent resurvey" can be used to finish this. If any of the details comes out please post information or links. Thank you.
By the way it has to be done with a "Metes-and-bounds survey" by law.
You may want to read a little about "Bona fide rights" and "Resurveys" that come from "Acts of Congress" after all "Congress" is paying for at least 1/2 of the cost. This in general could open some peoples eye's a little.
It is in the details.
Posted this to see if anyone is reading some of the same material out there. Did not know at the time one can click on the edit post box to make another post on top of the first post.
There is a interesting line as follows:
After the date of the enactment of this subsection, land may not be declared as a national monument under this section in a configuration that would place non-federally owned property within the exterior boundaries of the national monument

Any thoughts on this?
Does this mean the "Title of the Lands" is sold or disposed of and is "Exterior boundaries of the national monument"?

 

[hardballer]

Good lord...

 

[N-Lionberger]

what the heck

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Assembler, please stop asking questions then quoting yourself, you can edit a post you just made if you need to add to the post.

 

[Assembler]

Assembler, please stop asking questions then quoting yourself, you can edit a post you just made if you need to add to the post.

Thanks for pointing this out. Will click on the edit box to make another post. The reply with quote box is best to use when quoting other peoples posts. Got it now.
As a test making the first edit post to see how it works.
Thank you.

After the date of the enactment of this subsection, land may not be declared as a national monument under this section in a configuration that would place non-federally owned property within the exterior boundaries of the national monument

Does the above mean the "Title of the Lands" is sold or disposed of and is "Exterior boundaries of the national monument"?
The "Exterior boundaries of the national monument" is nothing new just go on line and look at the "Monument known as District of Columbia". There are 40 monument markers just take a look at how the markers are facing and the wording upon the face of the monument markers that you can read.

Some update information and links also posted on my thread:
AFP Issues Letter of Support for National Monument Creation and Protection Act
Oct 19, 2017
https://americansforprosperity.org/...rt-national-monument-creation-protection-act/
Arlington, Va. – Americans for Prosperity expressed its support today for H.R. 3990, the National Monument Creation and Protection Act, which would reform the Antiquities Act to protect both public lands and the public interest. In a letter of support to Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), AFP detailed how the proposed legislation would allow for the protection both of land and the rights of Americans in communities surrounding historic sites.
In Congress, an effort to curtail national monuments
Any monument larger than a square mile would require additional review.
http://www.hcn.org/articles/monumen...eatens-national-monuments-face-another-attack

On Oct. 11, the House Natural Resources Committee approved a proposal from its chairman, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, to overhaul the Antiquities Act. Bishop’s “National Monument Creation and Protection Act” would severely constrain the power of the president to designate national monuments. It would limit the size of monuments a president could designate as well as the kinds of places protected.
The 1906 Antiquities Act allows a president to act swiftly to protect federal lands facing imminent threats without legislation getting bogged down in Congress. Many popular areas, including Zion, Bryce and Arches national parks in Bishop’s home state, were first protected this way.
Under Bishop’s legislation, any proposal for a monument larger than 640 acres — one square mile — would be subject to a review process: Areas up to 10,000 acres would be subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act, while those between 10,000 and 85,000 acres would require approval from state and local government. The bill would allow emergency declarations, but they would expire after a year without congressional approval. It would also codify the president’s power to modify monuments — a power that has been contested in light of the Interior Department’s recent recommendations that President Donald Trump reduce the size of several monuments, including Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah.
Originally established to protect archaeological sites from vandalism and looting, the Antiquities Act has since been used to protect a broad range of areas for a broad range of purposes. For example, President Bill Clinton designated Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in Oregon to preserve biodiversity. By contrast, Hanford Reach, the first national monument managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not only preserves a sweeping desert landscape, but also holds remnants of atomic history, including plutonium reactors in the process of being dismantled.
Bishop’s bill, however, would prohibit new landscape-scale monuments by replacing the phrase “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest” with the more restrictive “object or objects of antiquity.” That term, the bill further specifies, does not include “natural geographic features.” Bishop maintains that these changes would restore the act to its original intent. “Any honest reading reveals that it was created to protect ‘landmarks,’ ‘structures,’ and ‘objects,’” he wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, “not vast swaths of land.”
President Theodore Roosevelt, who signed the act into law and designated the Grand Canyon a national monument in 1908, did not feel that way. Though the Grand Canyon was of course later turned into a treasured park, its designation spurred the first of many battles in Congress over the size of monuments designated under the act, which stipulates that they should be the “smallest area compatible” with protection.
Two of those tussles limited the power of the president under the Antiquities Act. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared Jackson Hole a monument in 1943; a 1950 law made the monument part of Grand Teton National Park — and added an amendment to the Antiquities Act stating that all future monument designations in Wyoming must go through Congress. President Jimmy Carter’s creation of 56 million acres of monuments in Alaska led to an act that requires congressional approval for monuments larger than 5,000 acres in that state.
In recent years, controversy over the Antiquities Act has been centered in Utah. The state’s legislators balked at Clinton’s 1996 designation of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument — a vast swath of land. In the years that followed, Utah Republican Senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett and Utah Rep. Jim Hansen introduced bills that would limit the Antiquities Act. None of them made it through Congress.
Bishop has introduced legislation to overhaul the Antiquities Act multiple times before, including the “Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act” in 2013. But he is just one part of a larger Republican push to lessen federal control of public lands. As High Country News reported earlier this year, many of the Utah legislators now going after monuments had long been focused on transferring federal lands to state control. Attacking the Antiquities Act is another way of undermining federal land management.
Groups such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council, an advocacy group for ranchers who rely on public lands, applauded Bishop’s bill. It “would ensure local ranchers and communities are not subject to the whims of an unchecked federal government,” Craig Uden, president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, said in a press release. Meanwhile, many environmental and recreation groups, including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club and the Outdoor Industry Association, have voiced opposition. Sharon Buccino, director of the Land and Wildlife program for the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the bill “the most aggressive attack ever waged on America’s national parks and monuments.”
Many Democrats and conservationists hope the legislation will stall in the House, where a vote has not yet been scheduled. But as long as Republicans opposed to federal control of public lands hold sway, the Antiquities Act and the millions of acres it protects will remain in the crosshairs.
Rebecca Worby is an editorial fellow at High Country News.

 

[Bejay]

I might take issue with this:

“(2) OTHER REQUIREMENT.—A monument described in this subsection shall be subject to the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement as part of a review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The choice of environmental review document shall be within the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as appropriate."

"Environmental Assessment" is an in house agency review overseen by an appointed Secretary. An EIS allows for a lot more outside scrutiny. An EA is not as costly as an EIS and an EIS takes longer to achieve. Such expenditures and time allotment places the ability to create monuments more difficult; yet brings forth more input.

Bejay

 

[russau]

Our gubermint keeps acquiring more land with every new President than the Dept. of Interior can maintain and eventually WE will run out of land (at this rate and amounts) than we have. I've read and heard that the gubermint and the wacoenviromentalterriorist's want us all to live in the city's! And even then ,if the gubermint keeps taking land for our President's ego , then even the city's are at risk of being packed up with the American people and only the rich people and the rich politicians would be living on our land!

 

[Reed Lukens]

Oh Russ... That's so Y2K, FEMA Camps anyone?

 

[Clay Diggins]

I might take issue with this:

“(2) OTHER REQUIREMENT.—A monument described in this subsection shall be subject to the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement as part of a review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The choice of environmental review document shall be within the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as appropriate."

"Environmental Assessment" is an in house agency review overseen by an appointed Secretary. An EIS allows for a lot more outside scrutiny. An EA is not as costly as an EIS and an EIS takes longer to achieve. Such expenditures and time allotment places the ability to create monuments more difficult; yet brings forth more input.

Bejay

I agree Bejay. Should be subject to an EIS like any other use.

I also take issue with including fossils. Fossils are exempt under the current Antiquities Act.

All in all I still think this is an improvement. I'd rather see the executive power to declare monuments taken away. I don't see how one man should be able to lock up the land for all men. That's something kings and dictators do. Seems contrary to the purpose of gaining our freedom in the first place.

Heavy Pans

 

[Assembler]

Bishop introduces bill to scale back Antiquities Act
Bishop introduces bill to scale back Antiquities Act - Moab Sun News: News
Posted: Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:54 am | Updated: 9:01 am, Thu Oct 26, 2017.
Eric Trenbeath Moab Sun News