[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2259-E2272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E2259]]



RELEASE OF HOUSE RESOURCE COMMITTEE MAJORITY STAFF REPORT ON SUBPOENAED 
                      NATIONAL MONUMENT DOCUMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JAMES V. HANSEN

                                of utah

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, November 7, 1997

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, the majority staff of the House Committee on 
Resources will release a staff report today on the subpoenaed national 
monument documents received from the Clinton administration. The 
documents show that the designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
National Monument was politically motivated and probably illegal.
  It is very important that these documents are opened up for public 
scrutiny. They show the American people that the designation of the 
monument was politically motivated; that the administration engaged in 
a concerted effort to keep everything secret in order to avoid public 
scrutiny; and that the administration admitted that the lands in 
question weren't in danger and weren't among the lands in this country 
most in need of monument designation.
  The White House abused its discretion in nearly every stage of the 
process of designating the monument. It was a staff drive effort, first 
to short-circuit a congressional wilderness proposal, and then to help 
the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign. The lands to be set aside, by 
the staff's own descriptions, were not threatened. ``I'm increasingly 
of the view that we should just drop these Utah ideas * * * these lands 
are not really endangered.''--Kathleen McGinty, chair, Counsel on 
Environmental Quality [CEQ].
  The documents also show that claims by the administration that the 
monument was created to save Utah from foreign coal mining was nothing 
but a front to make the idea look legitimate. The administration was 
already several months into the process of creating the monument before 
anyone even mentioned throwing in the Kaiparowits Plateau. The 
administration added the Kaiparowits, with its attendant Andalex coal 
leases, at the last minute so they could claim they were protecting 
some endangered lands.
  The documents are loaded with evidence of a concerted effort by the 
Department of the Interior [DOI] and CEQ staff to circumvent the 
National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]. Staff was aware that the law 
requires NEPA compliance, with its attendant public input process, when 
national monument proposals come out of an agency. The documents show 
how DOI and CEQ spent months trying to create a paper trail to make it 
look like the idea came directly from the President. ``We need to build 
a credible record that will withstand legal challenge * * * so [this] 
letter needs to be signed asap so that the secretary has what looks 
like a credible amount of time to do his investigation of the 
matter.''--Kathleen McGinty, chair, Counsel on Environmental Quality 
[CEQ].
  Probably the most telling, yet unsurprising, document is where CEQ 
Chair Kathleen McGinty fills-in President Clinton on the Political 
Purpose of the national monument designation: ``It is our considered 
assessment that an action of this type and scale would help to overcome 
the negative views toward the Administration created by the timber 
rider. Designation of the new monument would create a compelling reason 
for persons who are now disaffected to come around and enthusiastically 
support the Administration * * *''
  Ms. McGinty continued by noting that: ``[T]he new monument will have 
particular appeal in those areas that contribute the most visitation to 
the parks and public lands of southern Utah, namely, coastal 
California, Oregon and Washington, southern Nevada, the Front Range 
communities of Colorado, the Taos-Albuquerque corridor, and the 
Phoenix-Tucson area.''
  Ms. McGinty noted that there would be a few who would oppose the 
designation, but they were generally those ``who in candor, are 
unlikely to support the Administration under any circumstances''. 
Translation: Designating the monument would help get Clinton western 
electoral votes in the 1996 election. He would lose Utah, but he didn't 
have a chance at winning that State anyway.
  These documents should make it clear to the American people that the 
real reason that the administration used the Antiquities Act on these 
lands was to circumvent congressional involvement in public land 
decisions, to evade the public involvement provisions of NEPA, and to 
use our public lands as election year props. The Clinton 
administration's actions show not only a disregard for the State of 
Utah, but a blatant disregard for America's public land laws, and a 
contempt for the democratic process.

        [105th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives]

Legislative Study and Investigative Staff Report on Abuse of Discretion 
  in the Creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument 
              Under the Antiquities Act, November 7, 1997

       Majority staff of the Committee on Resources, Subcommittee 
     on National Parks and Public Lands submits the following 
     staff report to the Members of the Committee, ``Behind Closed 
     Doors: The Abuse of Trust And Discretion In The Establishment 
     Of The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.''


    introduction: committee review of the designation of the grand 
                 staircase-escalante national monument

       On September 18, 1996, President Clinton established, by 
     Presidential Proclamation No. 6920, the 1.7-million-acre 
     Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (``Utah 
     Monument'') in Utah pursaunt to Section 2 of the Act of June 
     8, 1906 (``Antiquities Act''). The Committee on Resources has 
     jurisdiction over the Antiquities Act and the creation of the 
     Monument, jurisdiction that is delegated under Rule 6(a) of 
     the Rules For the Committee on Resources (``Committee 
     Rules'') to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public 
     Lands.
       The Subcommittee has a continuing responsibility under Rule 
     6(d) of the Committee Rules to monitor and evaluate 
     administration of laws within its jurisdiction. In relevant 
     part, that rule states: ``. . . Each Subcommittee shall 
     review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, 
     administration, execution, and effectiveness of those 
     statutes or parts of statutes, the subject matter of which is 
     within that Subcommittee's jurisdiction; and the 
     organization, operation, and regulations of any Federal 
     agency or entity having responsibilities in or for the 
     administration of such statutes, to determine whether these 
     statutes are being implemented and carried out in accordance 
     with the intent of Congress. . . .''
       The Subcommittee, in concert with the Full Committee, 
     undertook its Rule 6(d) responsibility when, on March 18, 
     1997, Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman Hansen 
     initiated a review of the creation of the Monument. Some 
     records were produced by the Council on Environmental Quality 
     (CEQ) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) pursuant to a 
     March 18, 1997, request to the Chair of CEQ and the Secretary 
     of DOI related to the review. The documents that were 
     produced were utilized by unanimous consent at a Subcommittee 
     oversight hearing on April 29, 1997.
       However, CEQ Chair Kathleen McGinty refused to produce 
     copies of embarrassing documents that revealed why--beyond 
     the reasons stated in the proclamation and publicly--the 
     monument was created. Staff was given access to some of the 
     documents and Members to others in an attempt to accommodate 
     stated Administration desires to keep the documents secret 
     because the Administration claimed they might be 
     ``privileged.'' However, constitutional executive privilege 
     was never officially asserted by the President over the 
     documents.
       Chairman Young was delegated the authority to subpoena 
     Monument records by the Committee on September 25, 1997. 
     After a protracted legal exchange between the White House and 
     Committee staff on the applicability of privileges to the 
     documents withheld, Chairman Young, on October 9, 1997, 
     issued the subpoena for the records withheld by CEQ Chair 
     Kathleen McGinty.
       The subpoena was unreturned on the due date and the 
     committee staff began preparing a contempt resolution. 
     However, on Wednesday, October 22, 1997, the Counsel to the 
     President, Charles F.C. Ruff, produced the subpoenaed 
     documents to the Committee.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Based upon representations of CEQ staff, all documents in 
     the possession of CEQ regarding the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
     National Monument have now been produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The delay--from March through October 1997--in producing 
     the ultimately subpoenaed documents thwarted efforts of the 
     Subcommittee and Committee to properly undertake its duties 
     under Article I and Article IV of the Constitution and Rule 
     6(d) of the Committee Rules. The Subcommittee hearing on the 
     matter had already been held and the remaining days in the 
     first session of the 105th Congress were limited. The 
     Committee is actively considering legislation that modifies 
     the Antiquities Act.
       As a result of the delay, the Chairman and Subcommittee 
     Chairman requested this legislative study and investigative 
     majority

[[Page E2260]]

     staff report. The request was to analyze and append relevant 
     documents produced under the subpoena that show if there were 
     abuses of discretion by the President and his advisors in the 
     execution of the Antiquities Act to create the Utah Monument 
     and whether that Act was being implemented and carried out in 
     accordance with the intent of Congress. This legislative 
     study and report responds to that request. This report was 
     developed for and provided to Members of the Committee on 
     Resources for their information so that Members can undertake 
     their legislative and oversight responsibilities under the 
     Constitution, the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 
     the Rules for the Committee on Resources.


             the law: antiquities act monument designations

       The Antiquities Act can be summarized simply. By 
     proclamation, the President may reserve federal land as a 
     National Monument. The land must be a historic landmark, a 
     historic or prehistoric structure, or an object of historic 
     or scientific interest. In addition, the reserved area must 
     ``in all cases'' be ``confined to the smallest area 
     compatible with the proper care and management of the objects 
     to be protected.'' The Act contemplates that objects to be 
     protected must be threatened or endangered in some way. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\ See Report to accompany S. 4698, Rpt. No. 3797, 59th 
     Cong., 1st Sess. (May 24, 1906).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 executive summary of findings monumental decisions behind closed doors

       ``I'm increasingly of the view that we should just drop 
     these Utah ideas . . . these lands are not really 
     endangered.''--CEQ Chair Kathleen McGinty.
       The state of Utah was settled by hearty Mormon pioneers 
     seeking to avoid persecution for their beliefs. They moved 
     west in an effort to find wide, open spaces and freedom from 
     intrusion into their affairs by their neighbors and the 
     government. Now, more than a century later, the citizens of 
     Utah have been forced to endure the ultimate government 
     intrusion: a federal land grab of 1.7 million acres, taken in 
     the dead of night--with no public notice, no opportunity to 
     comment, and no involvement of the Utah Congressional 
     Delegation. Indeed, the Utah delegation was deceived about 
     the imminent decision to designate the Grand Staircase-
     Escalante National Monument up until hours before the 
     President's high-profile, public, campaign-style 
     announcement.
       Once again, at the hands of the Clinton Administration, the 
     people of Utah were being persecuted for their beliefs. Had 
     Utah been a pro-Clinton state, a state with prominent 
     Democratic Members of Congress, or one that factored 
     importantly into Clinton's re-election effort, then the land-
     grab would almost certainly not have occurred.
       In sum, the documents received by the Committee show 
     several points quite clearly: (1) the designation of the 
     Monument was almost entirely politically motivated; (2) the 
     plan to designate the monument was purposefully kept secret 
     from Americans and Utah Members of Congress; (3) the Monument 
     designation was put forward even though the Administration 
     officials did not believe that the lands proposed for 
     protection were in danger; (4) use of the Antiquities Act was 
     intended to overcome Congressional involvement in land 
     designation decisions; (5) use of the Antiquities Act for 
     monument designation was planned to evade the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Indeed, its use was 
     specifically intended to evade the provisions of NEPA and 
     other federal administrative requirements, and to assist the 
     Clinton-Gore reelection effort.


               it's politics, stupid--not the environment

       The records and documents provided by the CEQ and DOI 
     clearly demonstrate that the Administration's goal was 
     political, not environmental, a fact that contradicts the 
     Congressional intent of the Antiquities Act.
       The Clinton White House took pains to ensure that all 
     prominent Democrats from neighboring states were not only 
     warned in advance, but had an opportunity to give their views 
     on the designation. In an August 14, 1996, memorandum for the 
     President, CEQ Chair Kathleen McGinty opines that the 
     monument designation would be politically popular in several 
     key Western states. In Ms. McGinty's words: ``This assessment 
     squares with the positive reactions by Sentor [sic] Harry 
     Reid (D-NV), Governor Roy Romer (D-CO), and Representative 
     Bill Richardson (D-NM) when asked their views on the 
     proposal. . . . Governor Bob Miller's (D-NV) concern that 
     Nevada's sagebrush rebels would not approve of the new 
     monument is almost certainly correct, and echoes the concerns 
     of other friends, but can be offset by the positive response 
     in other constituencies.''
       In fact, even non-incumbent Democratic candidates for 
     office from states other than Utah were warned about the 
     impending land grab. CEQ Chair Kathleen McGinty explained 
     this in a moment of partisan candor in her September 6, 1996, 
     White House weekly report: ``I have called several members of 
     congress to give them notice of this story and am working 
     with political affairs to determine if there are Democratic 
     candidates we should alert. We are neither confirming nor 
     denying the story; just making sure that Democrats are not 
     surprised.''
       It was only Republicans, the lone Utah Democratic Member, 
     and Utahans who were to be kept in the dark. Even media 
     outlets like the Washington Post were advised by insiders to 
     the Utah Monument decision as evidenced by electronic mail 
     (e-mail) traffic: ``Brian: So when pressed by Mark Udall and 
     Maggie Fox on the Utah monument at yesterday's private 
     ceremony for Mo [Udall] Clinton said: `You don't know when to 
     take yes for an answer.' Sounds to me like it's going 
     forward. I also hear Romer is pushing the president to 
     announce it when he's in Colorado on Wednesday. . . . --Tom 
     Kenworthy'' (September 10, 1996 From Brian Johnson (CEQ 
     press) to others at CEQ transmitting e-mail from Washington 
     Post reporter Tom Kenworthy).
       Another CEQ staffer commenting on the above e-mail: ``Wow. 
     He's got good sources and a lot of nerve.'' (September 10, 
     1996, response from Tom Jensen to Brian Johnson's e-mail 
     previously forwarded).
       The exchange continues: ``south rim of the grand canyon, 
     sept 18th--be there or be square.'' (September 11, 1996, e-
     mail from Tom Kenworthy to Brian Johnson).
       The exchange continues again: ``Nice touch doing the 
     Escalante Canyons announcement on the birthday of Utah's 
     junior senator! Give me a call if you get a chance.'' 
     (September 16, 1996, e-mail from Tom Kenworthy to Brian 
     Johnson).
       This e-mail traffic demonstrates that by September 10 and 
     11, 1996, the Washington Post clearly had been notified not 
     only that the decision had been made, but when and where the 
     announcement would be. By contrast, the Utah Congressional 
     delegation was being told by Ms. McGinty and top CEQ staff on 
     September 9 that no decision had been made and the delegation 
     would be consulted prior to any announcement.
       Moreover, CEQ, White House Staff, and DOI officials met 
     with Utah's delegation staff again on September 16, 1996--two 
     days before the Utah Monument designation--and continued to 
     deny that a decision had been made to go forward with the 
     designation. Meeting notes taken by Tom Jensen of CEQ at the 
     September 16, 1996, meeting indicate the following exchange 
     between Senator Hatch and Kathleen McGinty: ``Senator Hatch: 
     `Can you give us an idea of what the POTUS [President] will 
     do before he does it? Don't want to rely on press.' '' 
     ``Kathleen McGinty: `Yes. We need to caucus and will 
     reengage.' ''
       This deception, a full week after the Washington Post knew 
     all of the details of the Utah Monument designation and 
     ``Utah event,'' allowed the White House to move forward 
     without Congressional intervention.
       In an August 14, 1996, memo to the President, CEQ Chair 
     Kathleen McGinty candidly discusses the goal of the project--
     to positively impact the President's re-election campaign: 
     ``The political purpose of the Utah event is to show 
     distinctly your willingness to use the office of the 
     President to protect the environment. . . . It is our 
     considered assessment that an action of this type and scale 
     would help to overcome the negative views toward the 
     Administration created by the timber rider. Designation of 
     the new monument would create a compelling reason for persons 
     who are now disaffected to come around and enthusiastically 
     support the Administration . . . Opposition to the 
     designation will come from some of the same parties who 
     have generally opposed the Administration's natural 
     resource and environmental policies and who, in candor, 
     are unlikely to support the Administration under any 
     circumstances.
       Many of the documents attempt to gauge the political impact 
     of the action, yet the environmental impact of the decision 
     is rarely explored. Regardless of the environmental impact, 
     the Clinton-Gore campaign needed the Utah Monument to shore 
     up its political base in the environmental movement. When 
     environmental impact is explored in some documents, they note 
     that the lands to be set aside under the designation are not 
     environmentally threatened--a sentiment echoed by CEQ Chair 
     Kathleen McGinty herself in a March 25, 1996, e-mail: ``i'm 
     increasingly of the view that we should just drop these utah 
     ideas. we do not really know how the enviros will react and i 
     do think there is a danger of `abuse' of the withdraw/
     antiquities authorities especially because these lands are 
     not really endangered.''
       In a March 22, 1996, e-mail, CEQ Associate Director for 
     Public Lands Linda Lance agreed, warning against the Utah 
     Monument designation because of the political impact of using 
     the Act to set aside unthreatened lands: ``. . . [T]he real 
     remaining question is not so much what this letter says, but 
     the political consequences of designating these lands as 
     monuments when they're not threatened with losing wilderness 
     status, and they're probably not the areas of the country 
     most in need of this designation. presidents have not used 
     their monument designation authority in this way in the 
     past--only for large dramatic parcels that are threatened. do 
     we risk a backlash from the bad guys if we do these--do they 
     have the chance to suggest that this administration could use 
     this authority all the time all over the country, and start 
     to argue that the discretion is too broad?''
       However, sentiment changed a few days later. The March 27, 
     1996, e-mail from Linda Lance at CEQ to Kathleen McGinty who 
     forwarded it to others at CEQ shows that DOI was keeping the 
     Monument idea alive: ``since i and i think others were 
     persuaded at yesterday's meeting w/Interior that we shouldn't 
     write off the canyonlands and arches monument just yet here's 
     another try at a draft letter to Babbitt to get this process 
     started.''

[[Page E2261]]

       Despite the fact that CEQ Chair advocated dropping the 
     idea, and despite the fact that there is no indication that 
     the President had given either CEQ or Interior any formal 
     notice that he even knew about the idea, DOI was apparently 
     hard (behind the scenes) for this monument. Still there was 
     no letter in March, April, May, June, or July 1996 from the 
     President to the Secretary directing work on designating a 
     possible Utah Monument. At a minimum, this is a violation of 
     the spirit of NEPA, a statute that CEQ is responsible for 
     implementing. Both DOI and CEQ knew it was a violation. 
     Hence, the urgency in seeking the letter from the President 
     to the Secretary directing him to undertake work to designate 
     the Utah Monument.


The Ends Justify The Means: NEPA, A Law of Convenience For The Clinton-
                             Gore Campaign

       No Presidential written direction to the Secretary of DOI 
     emerged until August 7, 1996, and by then, the first planned 
     announcement was only ten days away. Still, no one from state 
     or local government, or the Utah Congressional delegation had 
     been consulted. These actions, in the absence of written 
     direction from the President, make a mockery of what CEQ 
     Chair Kathleen McGinty testified was the overriding purpose 
     behind NEPA: ``It provides the federal government an 
     opportunity for collaborative decision-making with state and 
     local governments and the public.'' (September 26, 1996, 
     Testimony of Kathleen McGinty before the Senate Energy 
     Committee.)
       The National Environmental Policy Act created CEQ, and the 
     Council is charged with reviewing and appraising federal 
     activities and determining whether they comply with the 
     requirements and policies of the Act. (See, National 
     Environmental Policy Act, Section 204.) Those requirements 
     include development of environmental impact statements (EIA) 
     or NEPA documents by federal agencies for major federal 
     actions. Nearly all major federal actions--like designating 
     land--require some level of NEPA documentation and process. 
     NEPA environmental impact statements receive public notice, 
     public comment, and public hearings. There was a conscious 
     effort to use the Antiquities Act to avoid these NEPA 
     requirements altogether in the designation of the Utah 
     Monument.
       Under the Antiquities Act, at the direction of the 
     President, a monument may be established unilaterally by the 
     President under limited circumstances. Using the Antiquities 
     Act had several benefits to the Clinton-Gore Administration: 
     (1) it is not necessary to work with Congress; (2) it is not 
     necessary to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act's 
     requirements to provide public notice or opportunity to be 
     heard; and (3) it is not necessary to comply with NEPA 
     requirements to involve the public or establish an 
     administrative record on environmental impacts.
       In short, the Antiquities Act was used to override the 
     chance that the views of the people of Utah--and most 
     importantly, elected Members of the Utah delegation--would 
     influence the Utah Monument decision. In fact, the documents 
     demonstrate that evading NEPA was a major internal rationale 
     for using the Antiquities Act. This is a striking example 
     of how the Clinton-Gore Administration manipulated the law 
     to the advantage of the Clinton-Gore campaign for purposes 
     of a ``Utah event''--an event that might make the 
     insatiable desires of the environmentalist constituency 
     happy for a moment. Alarmingly, the chief architects of 
     the endeavor to evade NEPA were in the leadership of CEQ--
     the entity charged with overseeing NEPA. A draft memo 
     dated July 25, 1996, from CEQ Chair Kathleen McGinty to 
     the President revealed that use of the Act was a means to 
     avoid NEPA: ``Ordinarily, if the (Interior) Secretary were 
     on his own initiative to send you a recommendation for 
     establishment of a monument, he would most likely be 
     required to comply with NEPA and certain federal land 
     management laws in advance of submitting his 
     recommendation. But, because he is responding to your 
     request for information, he is not required to analyze the 
     information or recommendations under NEPA or other laws. 
     And, because Presidential actions are not subject to NEPA, 
     you are empowered to establish monuments under the 
     Antiquities Act without NEPA review.''
       Although this revealing paragraph was edited out of the 
     final memo, it is alarmingly hypocritical that CEQ, the 
     agency created by NEPA and charged with seeing that it is 
     complied with, was clearly advising the President how to 
     evade NEPA. The same July 25, 1996, draft, written by CEQ 
     staffer Thomas Jensen, makes it clear, however, that this was 
     the secret goal. Contrast this with the lofty public 
     pronouncements from high-ranking CEQ officials about the 
     importance that other government entities comply with NEPA: 
     ``The lack of attention to NEPA's policies speaks to the 
     tendency of our society to devalue those provisions of law 
     that are not enforceable through the judicial system. One 
     answer to the common complaint that we live in an overly 
     litigious society is for individuals and agencies to take 
     seriously such provisions as the national environmental 
     policy set forth in section 101 of NEPA. Absent such a trend, 
     interested individuals will naturally be skeptical of 
     approaches that are not amendable to a legal remedy.'' Dinah 
     Bear, General Counsel, CEQ, ``The National Environmental 
     Policy Act: its Origins and Evolutions,'' Natural Resources 
     and Environment, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Fall, 1995).
       Contrast this with the testimony of CEQ Chair Kathleen 
     McGinty to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
     within days of the designation (September 26, 1996): ``In 
     many ways, NEPA anticipated today's call for enhanced local 
     involvement and responsibility, sustainable development and 
     government accountability. By bringing the public into the 
     agency decision-making process, NEPA is like no other statute 
     and is an extraordinary tribute to the ability of the 
     American people to build upon shared values * * *''
       ``[NEPA] gives greater voice to communities. It provides 
     the federal government an opportunity for collaborative 
     decision-making with state and local government and the 
     public * * * It should and in many cases does improve federal 
     decision-making * * *
       ``As directed by NEPA, CEQ is responsible for overseeing 
     implementation of the environmental impact assessment process 
     * * *''
       Either NEPA is an important statute worthy of 
     implementation, as CEQ Chair McGinty states, or it is not. 
     Either public, state, and local involvement is important, as 
     CEQ Chair McGinty states, or it is not. Apparently, in the 
     case of the Utah Monument designation, it was not important 
     enough to implement NEPA because the end apparently justified 
     the means.
       What was important was selective application of NEPA for 
     the convenience of the Clinton-Gore re-relection effort. One 
     of two conclusions exist as to why NEPA was not applied to 
     the Utah Monument designation as it would ``ordinarily'' be 
     applied (the words used by Ms. McGinty). The first possible 
     conclusion is that the Utah Monument designation would not 
     pass muster under NEPA. The second possible conclusion is 
     that NEPA would not allow a decision before the 1996 
     Presidential election, and the designation was needed for the 
     campaign. Otherwise, why not allow NEPA to ``bless'' Utah 
     Monument?
       Further, it is obvious from the documents that the 
     Administration, in its zeal to use the Antiquities Act in an 
     attempt to shield the Utah land grab from APA and NEPA, did 
     not fully comply with the statutory requirements to justify 
     using the Antiquities Act--namely that the President initiate 
     the designation process. Ms. McGinty clarifies this point in 
     a July 29, 1996, e-mail to Todd Stern of CEQ: ``the president 
     will do the utah event on aug 17. however, we still need to 
     get the letter (from the President to Interior Secretary 
     Bruce Babbitt) signed asap. the reason: under the antiquities 
     act, we need to build a credible record that will withstand 
     legal challenge that: (1) the president asked the secretary 
     to look into these lands to see if they are of important 
     scientific, cultural, or historic value; (2) the secy 
     undertook that review and presented the results to the 
     president; (3) the president found the review compelling and 
     therefore exercised his authority under the antiquities act. 
     presidential actions under this act have always been 
     challenged. they have never been struck down, however. so, 
     letter needs to be signed asap so that secy has what looks 
     like a credible amount of time to do his investigation of the 
     matter. we have opened the letter with a sentence that gives 
     us some more room by making it clear that the president and 
     babbitt had discussed this some time ago.''
       This e-mail clarifies the following points: (1) by July 29, 
     1996, not only had the decision to make the designation been 
     made by the White House, the staff had already agreed to an 
     announcement event (the date was eventually postponed) and 
     (2) although this decision had already been made, a fake 
     paper trail had to be carefully crafted to make it appear as 
     if President had asked the Secretary to look into the matter 
     and initiate the staff work. By that time, however, the 
     staff work was already apparently underway. This is an 
     alarming breach of responsibility at the top levels of DOI 
     and CEQ.
       In fact, CEQ's Tom Jensen, in a frantic July 23, 1996, e-
     mail, asks fellow CEQ staffer Peter Umhofer to help create 
     the fake paper trail: ``Peter, I need your help. The 
     following text needs to be transformed into a signed POTUS 
     (President of the United States) letter ASAP. The letter does 
     not need to be sent, it could be held in an appropriate 
     office (Katie's [McGinty's] Todd Sterns?) but it must be 
     prepared and signed ASAP. You should discuss the processing 
     of the letter with Katie, given its sensitivity.''
       The e-mail spells out the CEQ plan to create the letter to 
     the Secretary and store it in its own White House files--
     never even really sending it to the Secretary--creating the 
     false appearance that the President's letter had predated and 
     prompted the staff work on Escalante. All the while, work on 
     the monument designation was already underway within DOI to 
     draw the necessary Antiquities Act papers to make the 
     secretly planned designation. Without such a letter, the 
     White House would have had to comply with NEPA just like the 
     rest of America.


    Campaign Style ``Event'' For a Campaign-Motivated Decision That 
               Violates The Intent of the Antiquities Act

       The documents show that the White House abused it 
     discretion in nearly every stage of the process of 
     designating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. 
     It was a staff-driven effort, first to short-circuit a 
     Congressional wilderness proposal, and then to help the 
     Clinton-Core re-election campaign. The lands to be set aside, 
     by the staff's own descriptions, were not threatened--and 
     hence did not qualify for protection as a National Monument.

[[Page E2262]]

       The decision was withheld from any public scrutiny or 
     Congressional oversight--and Members of the Utah 
     Congressional delegation were deceived as to its impending 
     status until well after the decision had been made, and the 
     campaign-style announcement event was only days away. The 
     administrative and environmental hurdles that would normally 
     accompany such an action were evaded by contorting a turn-of-
     the-century statute designed to protect Indian artifacts onto 
     a 1.7-million-acre land grab. And finally, to justify use of 
     this Act, and evasion of the requirements of NEPA--the CEQ's 
     own enabling statute--the administrative record was toyed 
     with to create the false impression that the President had 
     requested the staff work before it had been conducted.
       Indeed, a careful review of the Act and historic 
     Presidential use of the Antiquities Act clarifies that the 
     President's use of the Act was an abuse of discretion. The 
     Antiquities Act of 1906 is an obscure Act that pre-dated the 
     regulatory reforms that require public notice, analysis of 
     environmental and economic impacts, and an opportunity for 
     interested parties to be heard. Until Clinton used it in the 
     1996 Utah land grab, the Act had languished unused for nearly 
     two decades.
       The Act is designed to help protect architecturally and 
     anthropologically unique artifacts from acquisition or 
     destruction. It has primarily been used to protect antique 
     artifacts, historic buildings, and relatively small parcels 
     of rare geologic formations. It was emphatically not designed 
     to be used to set aside massive chunks of western states. 
     When the Act was created by Congress, the West was still 
     being settled. Congress wanted to prevent valuable historic 
     and geologic artifacts from being destroyed or carried off. 
     The Act was necessary, according to the 1906 bill report, 
     ``in view of the fact that the historic and prehistoric ruins 
     and monuments on the public lands of the United States are 
     rapidly being destroyed by parties who are gathering them as 
     relics and for the use of museums and colleges, etc.'' 
     Nowhere was a 1.7-million-acre land grab mentioned or 
     contemplated. Nowhere in the subpoenaed documents obtained 
     were there serious allegations of the 1.7 million acres being 
     ``threatened'' in any way.
       Indeed, the House debate over the bill records that, even 
     nearly a century ago, western Members were concerned that the 
     powers of this Act not be used to grab up huge quantities of 
     land. One such Member, Mr. Stephens of Texas, only agreed not 
     to object to consideration of the bill after being assured by 
     the bill's proponent, Mr. Lacey, that such an outcome was not 
     possible under the act, whose major focus was Indian 
     artifacts:
       Mr. LACEY. There has been an effort made to have national 
     parks in some of these regions, but this will merely make 
     small reservations where the objects are of sufficient 
     interest to preserve them.
       Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. Will that take this land off of 
     market, or can they still be settled on as part of the public 
     domain?
       Mr. LACEY. It will take that portion of the reservation out 
     of the market. It is meant to cover the cave dwellers and 
     cliff dwellers.
       Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. How much land will be taken off the 
     market in the Western States by the passage of this bill?
       Mr. LACEY. Not very much. The bill provides that it shall 
     be the smallest area necesstry [sic] for the care and 
     maintenance of the objects to be preserved.
       Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. Would it be anything like the 
     forest-reserve bill, by which seventy or eighty million acres 
     of land in the United States have been tied up?
       Mr. LACEY. Certainly not. The object is entirely different. 
     It is to preserve these old objects of special interest in 
     the Southwest, whilst the other reserves the forests and the 
     water courses.
       Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. I will say that that bill was 
     abused. I know of one place where in 5 miles square you could 
     not get a cord of wood, and they call it a forest, and by 
     such means they have locked up a very large area in this 
     country.
       Mr. LACEY. The next bill I desire to call up is a bill . . 
     . which permits the opening up of specified tracts of 
     agricultural lands where they can be used, by which the very 
     evil that my friend is protesting against can be remedied. 
      . . .
       Mr. STEPHENS of Texas. I hope the gentleman will succeed in 
     passing that bill, and this bill will not result in locking 
     up other lands. I have no objection to its consideration.--
     (40 Cong. Rec. H7888, June 5, 1906.)
       So why take an old, obscure law designed to protect cliff 
     dwellings or historic relics and manipulate it into a 1.7-
     million-acre land grab? The answer is clear from the attached 
     documents: the ends (the political gain amongst environmental 
     groups) justified the means (violating the purpose and intent 
     of the Antiquities Act and NEPA to lock up the land).
       The Clinton-Gore Administration's abuse of the Antiquities 
     Act meant (1) it was not necessary to work with Congress and 
     elected leaders from Utah; (2) it was not necessary to comply 
     with the Administrative Procedures Act's requirements to 
     provide public notice or opportunity to be heard; and (3) it 
     was not necessary to comply NEPA's requirements of 
     establishing an administrative record on environmental 
     impacts.
       The early e-mail traffic indicated a concern with 
     establishing a paper trail from the President to the 
     Secretary. As early as March 21, 1996, e-mail traffic between 
     Linda Lance (Office of the Vice President) and Kathleen 
     McGinty and others comment on several drafts of a letter that 
     was to come from the President to Secretary Babbitt 
     requesting information on lands in Utah eligible for monument 
     designation. Solicitor Leshy was informed of the importance 
     of past practice on this important legal point. ``As I 
     recall, the advice we have given over the last couple of 
     decades is that, in order to minimize NEPA problems on 
     Antiquities Act work, it is preferable to have a letter from 
     the President to the Secretary asking him for his 
     recommendations. Here are my questions:  . . 
       5. If the President signs a proclamation, and a lawsuit is 
     then brought challenging lack of Secretarial NEPA compliance, 
     could a court set aside the proclamation; i.e.' what is the 
     appropriate relief?
       Please give me your  . .  reactions by return e-mail, and 
     keep this close.''--(April 24, 1996, e-mail from Sam Kalen to 
     John Leshy and others.)
       Even earlier, on March 20, 1996, Kathleen McGinty evinced 
     concern that the paper trail needed to be created as quickly 
     as possible to justify Interior's actions under the 
     Antiquities Act: ``attached is a letter to Babbitt as we 
     discussed yesterday that makes clear that the Utah monument 
     action is one generated by the executive office of the 
     president, not the agency. . . .  ideally it should go 
     tomorrow.''--(March 20, 1996, e-mail from Kathleen McGinty to 
     Tom Jensen)
       The lack of a Presidential letter making the request is 
     critical. The NEPA requirements for notice, comment, and 
     public process safeguards would ordinarily apply to a major 
     federal action designating lands that were initiated outside 
     of the Antiquities Act process. CEQ staff apparently knew 
     this approximately six months before the actual decision that 
     a record needed to be established with a request from the 
     President to Secretary Babbitt. Time was of the essence, at 
     least in the early part of 1996, before legislative activity 
     on the Utah wilderness bill ended.
       The record is clear that from start to finish, this was an 
     abuse of Presidential discretion, designed to gain political 
     advantage at the expense of the people of Utah--all the while 
     keeping the decision behind closed doors for as long as 
     possible.


 Highlights of Select Utah Monument Records: A glimpse Of The Abuse Of 
                          Trust And Discretion

       As early as August 3, 1995, the Department of the Interior 
     discussed the use of the Antiquities Act to withdraw land for 
     the Utah Monument. In a memo to ``Raynor'' and ``Baum,'' from 
     ``Dave` (all within the DOI Solicitor's Office) discussed the 
     legal risks involved with DOI studying lands for national 
     monument status. He noted that: ``To the extent the Secretary 
     [of the Interior] proposes a national monument, NEPA applies. 
     However, monuments proposed by the president do not require 
     NEPA compliance because NEPA does not cover presidential 
     actions. To the extent that the president directs that a 
     proclamation be drafted and an area withdrawn as a monument, 
     he may direct the Secretary of the Interior to be part of the 
     president's staff and to undertake and complete all the 
     administrative support. This Interior work falls under the 
     presidential umbrella.''
       This realization--that the administrative record must make 
     it look like the idea came from the President, and not from 
     an agency, in order to avoid NEPA compliance--is a dominant 
     theme manifested throughout the documents. The idea was to 
     create the false impression that this was an idea that came 
     from the President, instead of from the Department of the 
     Interior.
       In a March 19, 1996, e-mail from Linda Lance (CEQ director 
     for Land Management) to Tom Jensen (CEQ) and other CEQ staff, 
     Ms. Lance states: ``attached is a letter to Babbitt as we 
     discussed yesterday that makes clear that the Utah monument 
     action is one generated by the executive office of the 
     president, not the agency.''
       This letter was never signed until August 7, 1996, and 
     indeed may never been have been sent.\3\ This is significant 
     because it demonstrates an effort--beginning with DOI in 
     1995--to construct an Antiquities Act rationale to circumvent 
     NEPA. All the while, meetings and work on the monument 
     designation are proceeding within and between DOI, CEQ, and 
     Department of Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \3\ Whether DOI ever actually received the Clinton letter is 
     at issue because: (1) DOI was asked to provide all Utah 
     Monument documents to the Committee, but never supplied the 
     August 7, 1996, copy signed by President Clinton--that 
     version was supplied to the Committee by the White House 
     after the Chairman was authorized on September 25, 1997 to 
     subpoena Utah Monument documents; and (2) this strategy--to 
     create the letter as a paper trail but never send it--was 
     discussed in White House e-mail traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A draft letter from Kathleen McGinty on behalf of the 
     President to Babbitt also makes it very clear that one early 
     motivation behind the monument idea was to circumvent 
     Congress's authority over wilderness designations, and 
     specifically to control the Utah wilderness debate. The draft 
     says: ``As you know, the Congress currently is considering 
     legislation that would remove significant portions of public 
     lands in Utah from their current protection as wilderness 
     study areas. . . . Therefore, on behalf of the President I/we 
     are requesting your opinion on what, if any, actions the 
     Administration can and should take to protect Utah lands that 
     are currently managed to protect wilderness eligibility, but 
     that could be made

[[Page E2263]]

     unsuitable for future wilderness designation if opened for 
     development by Congress. . . . The President particularly 
     seeks your advice on the suitability of such lands for 
     designation as national monuments under the Antiquities Act 
     of 1906.'' (March 19, 1996 e-mail from Linda Lance (CEQ 
     director for Land Management) to Tom Jensen (CEQ) and other 
     CEQ staff.)
       This blatant disregard for Congressional authority over 
     public lands is further evidence that staff was attempting to 
     construct a path around NEPA and Congress.
       On March 21, 1996, Linda Lance wrote another e-mail message 
     to Kathleen McGinty responding to comments Ms. McGinty had 
     made about the draft letter. She commented: ``I completely 
     agree that this can't be pitched as our answer to their Utah 
     bill. But I'm having trouble deciding where we go from here. 
     If we de-link from Utah but limit our request for info to 
     Utah, why? If we instead request info on all sites that might 
     be covered by the antiquities act, we probably get much more 
     than we're probably ready to act on, including some that 
     might be more compelling than the Utah parks? Am I missing 
     something or lacking in creativity? Is there another Utah 
     hook? Whatdya think?''
       This communication makes two things clear. First, in 
     addition to helping the Clinton-Gore campaign, the purpose of 
     the monument was to circumvent Congressional control over 
     Utah lands. This was a direct response to proposed Utah 
     wilderness legislation. Second, CEQ staff concluded that they 
     had to come up with a facade, ``another Utah hook'', so their 
     real motivations weren't exposed.
       This e-mail message evinces CEQ knowledge that other lands 
     were much better suited to monument designation. In fact, the 
     next day--March 22, 1996--Linda Lance sent another e-mail to 
     TJ Glauthier at OMB and Kathleen McGinty at CEQ that 
     expounded on this problem. She stated that the real problem 
     with drafting a request letter that singled out Utah lands 
     was: ``the political consequences of designating these lands 
     as monuments when they're not threatened with losing 
     wilderness status, and they're probably not the areas of the 
     country most in need of this designation.''
       She concluded the e-mail message by prophetically 
     questioning whether: ``the bad guys [will] . . . have the 
     chance to suggest that this administration could use this 
     authority all the time all over the country, and start to 
     argue that the discretion is too broad?''
       It is interesting to note that the Administration staff 
     foresaw the kind of uproar the Utah Monument would cause. Ms. 
     Lance recognized first, that people would see this as a 
     blatant abuse of Presidential authority, and second that 
     there may be cause to narrow the President's discretion under 
     the Act. This process is currently underway with the 
     successful passage in the House of the National Monument 
     Fairness Act of 1997. Other amendments to the Antiquities Act 
     and NEPA are currently under consideration by Members of the 
     House Committee on Resources.
       On March 25, 1996, Kathleen McGinty stated that she agreed 
     with these doubts about the Utah Monument. In fact she was so 
     convinced that the lands in question weren't in any real 
     danger that she was ready to drop the whole project. She 
     noted in an e-mail message to TJ Glauthier at OMB and Linda 
     Lance at CEQ that: ``i'm increasingly of the view that we 
     should just drop these utah ideas. we do not really know how 
     the enviros will react and I do think there is a danger of 
     ``abuse'' of the withdraw/antiquities authorities especially 
     because these lands are not really endangered.''
       A March 27, 1996, e-mail from Linda Lace at CEQ to Robert 
     Vandermark at CEQ shows that DOI was trying to push the 
     monument designation despite the lack of endangered lands. 
     Lance stated: ``since i and i think others were persuaded at 
     yesterday's meeting w/ interior that we shouldn't write 
     off the canyonlands and arches monuments just yet, here's 
     another try at a draft letter to Babbit to get this 
     process started.''
       It is clear the DOI was still advocating the monument 
     despite the fact that CEQ was ready to drop the project. Even 
     the DOI Solicitor's Office concluded that case law requires 
     full compliance with NEPA's requirements when national 
     monument proposals come out of DOI.
       At this point the monument idea had been tailored to 
     respond to the Utah wilderness bills in Congress. The areas 
     in question were centered around Arches National Park and 
     Canyonlands National Park--areas that were in no danger of 
     losing protection. At this point no mention had been made 
     about the Kaiparowits Plateau or saving the West from Andalex 
     Coal mining.
       The Kaiparowits Plateau was first mentioned by Tom Jensen 
     at CEQ in an e-mail to Linda Lance, T. Glauthier (OMB) and 
     Kathleen McGinty on March 27, 1996. He states that in the 
     latest version of the proposed Clinton letter to Babbitt, he 
     had added a reference to Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 
     ``because KM [probably Kathleen McGinty] and others may want 
     to rope in the Kaiparowits and Escalante Canyons regions if 
     this package ultimately doesn't seem adequate to the 
     President's overall purpose.''
       By ``rop[ing] in the Kaiparowits,'' the Administration 
     would effectively quash the Andalex Coal Mine--in spite of 
     the fact that the NEPA process (already under way) was 
     incomplete for the mine. Until that process was completed, it 
     would be impossible to know whether the mine would have any 
     negative impact on the environment. Unconcerned with the 
     ultimate conclusion of these environmental impact studied, 
     the Administration wanted Kaiparowits included so they could 
     claim that there were some ``endangered'' lands to be 
     ``protected'' by the monument.
       It is worth noting that the Chairman and Subcommittee 
     Chairman has requested the draft Andalex Coal mine EIS five 
     times since March 1997 for purposes of committee oversight 
     and legislative needs, but the Secretary has failed to 
     provide the record as requested.
       By April 1996, DOI was starting to get frantic about the 
     idea that they were in violation of NEPA by continuing to go 
     forward on the national monument idea without prior 
     Presidential direction. In an April 25, 1996 e-mail, Sam 
     Kalen of the DOI Solicitor's office noted this concern to 
     Solicitor John Leshy and colleagues Dave Watts and Robert 
     Baum: ``As I recall, the advice we have given over the last 
     couple of decades is that, in order to minimize NEPA problems 
     on Antiquities Act work, it is preferable to have a letter 
     from the President to the Secretary asking him for his 
     recommendations.''
       As late as July 23, 1996, CEQ was still trying to get Bill 
     Clinton to sign a letter to send to Babbitt. In an e-mail 
     from Tom Jensen (CEQ) to Peter Umhofer at the White House, 
     Mr. Jensen begged: ``I need your help. The following needs to 
     be transformed into a signed POTUS letter ASAP. The letter 
     does not need to be sent, it could be held in an appropriate 
     office . . . but it must be prepared and signed ASAP.''
       On July 25, 1996, Kathleen McGinty sent a memo to the 
     President with an attached, suggested letter to Babbitt. This 
     is also the first time, as far as we can tell from the 
     documents, that CEQ mentions the Andalex coal mine as an 
     excuse for the national monument.
       By this time it is obvious that Interior had been working 
     on the Utah Monument for quite some time. In fact,, three 
     days later, on July 26, 1996, John Leshy sent a letter to 
     University of Colorado law professor Charles Wilkinson asking 
     him to draw up the actual proclamation. Included with the 
     letter was a package of materials that Interior had put 
     together on their monument proposal. Note that at this same 
     time CEQ was still frantically trying to get the President to 
     agree to send Babbitt a request to start looking at the lands 
     in question. However, the DOI work was already underway. In 
     this case, things were being done in exactly the reverse 
     order.
       On July 29, 1996, Kathleen McGinty sent an e-mail to Todd 
     Stern at the White House pleading for the President to sign 
     something. She noted that the ``letter needs to be signed 
     asap so that [the] secy has what looks like a credible amount 
     of time to do his investigation of the matter.''
       The President finally signed the letter authorizing DOI to 
     begin its work on August 7, 1996, but it seems that the final 
     decision to create a Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
     Monument had already been made--by someone--on or before July 
     29, 1996, as evidenced by the July 29 e-mail from Kathleen 
     McGinty to Todd Stern: ``The President will do the Utah event 
     on Aug 17.''
       The documents show, however, that for some reason, the 
     White House decided not to go ahead with the August 17 
     announcement date. On August 5, 1996, Kathleen McGinty sent a 
     memo to Marcia Hale at the White House telling her that Leon 
     Panetta wanted them to call several western Democrats to get 
     their reactions to a possible monument proclamation. She 
     noted that ``[t]he reactions to these calls, and other 
     factors, will help determine whether the proposed action 
     occur.'' She also emphasized that the whole thing should be 
     kept secret, noting that ``any public release of the 
     information would probably foreclose the President's option 
     to proceed.'' It seems that at this point, the focus had 
     shifted from pre-empting Congressional authority over Utah 
     wilderness to creating a Presidential campaign event. The 
     announcement had to be postponed until Democratic politicians 
     could be consulted.
        On August 14, 1996, Kathleen McGinty sent the President a 
     memo outlining the possible places to have the photo-op 
     announcement event. The three options discussed were (1) an 
     oval office setting; (2) on the Utah lands themselves; or (3 
     ) at Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Ms. McGinty noted that Secretary 
     Babbitt thought that the Utah option would be the most 
     ``confrontational'' or ``in-your-face'' event. Ms. McGinty 
     commented that she thought that all three options sounded 
     good to her. Since the event was designed to be an election 
     year photo-op, the Arizona setting became the choice.
       In this memo Ms. McGinty reveals the real purpose of the 
     monument: ``The political purpose of the Utah event is to 
     show distinctly your willingness to use the office of the 
     President to protect the environment. In contrast to the 
     Yellowstone ceremony, this would not be a ``feel-good'' 
     event. You would not merely be rebuffing someone else's bad 
     idea, you would be placing your own stamp, sending your own 
     message. It is our considered assessment that an action of 
     this type and scale would help to overcome the negative views 
     toward the Administration created by the timber rider. 
     Designation of the new monument would create a compelling 
     reason for persons who are now disaffected to come around and 
     enthusiastically support the Administration.''

[[Page E2264]]

       She also underscored the potential political benefits in 
     key western states, as confirmed by the non-Utah Democratic 
     politicians who had been consulted: ``In addition, the new 
     monument will have particular appeal in those areas that 
     contribute the most visitation to the parks and public lands 
     of southern Utah, namely, coastal California, Oregon and 
     Washington, southern Nevada, the Front Range communities of 
     Colorado, the Taos-Albuquerque corridor, and the Phoenix-
     Tucson area. This assessment squares with the positive 
     reactions by Sen. Reid, Gov. Romer, and Rep. Richardson when 
     asked their view on the proposal.''
       Finally, she added that the Administration really didn't 
     have anything to lose, as far as votes are concerned: 
     ``Opposition to the designation will come from some of the 
     same parties who have generally opposed the Administration's 
     natural resource and environmental policies and who, in 
     candor, are unlikely to support the Administration under any 
     circumstances.''
       The situation was painted as a no-lose political situation. 
     Translation: The monument designation will help solidify 
     Clinton's electoral base--whole those who will object to the 
     monument, as in Utah, will oppose Clinton's re-election 
     anyway. They did not matter.
       The event was postponed further. On August 23, 1996, 
     Kathleen McGinty wrote another memo to the President begging 
     him to act on the monument soon. She stated, ``in any event, 
     we need to decide this soon, or I fear, press leaks will 
     decide it for us.''
       The leak finally occurred. In a September 6, 1996, memo 
     from Kathleen McGinty to the President, she informed him that 
     ``the Washington Post is going to run a story this weekend 
     reporting that the Administration is considering a national 
     monument designation.'' She also told him that ``we are 
     working with Don Baer and others to scope out sites and dates 
     that might work for an announcement on this issue.''
       After the September 7, 1996, Washington Post article, 
     Senator Bennett wrote to Secretary Babbitt requesting the 
     Administration not to take such a drastic step without time 
     for significant public input. Secretary Babbitt responded on 
     September 13--just five days before the event announcing the 
     Utah Monument--telling him that nothing was imminent and that 
     no decisions had yet been made.
       It is important to note that two days earlier, on September 
     11, 1996, Tom Kenworthy, a Washington Post reporter, had 
     confirmed the whole story--including the date, time, and 
     exact location of the announcement event at the Grand Canyon. 
     In a September 11 e-mail to Brian Johnson, CEQ's press 
     spokesman, Kenworthy confirmed he had all the information he 
     needed: ``south rim of the grand canyon, sept 18--be there or 
     be square.'' While the Utah Monument designation was being 
     concealed from the entire Utah Congressional delegation, it 
     had already been revealed to the Washington press. This 
     strategy worked to the Administration's advantage by 
     encouraging press interest in the event, while effectively 
     eliminating the possibility of Congress stepping in to stop 
     the proposed action.
       On September 18, 1996, President Clinton, standing on the 
     South Rim of the Grand Canyon, with nature's splendor as his 
     backdrop, finally got his photo-op. He told the nation that 
     he was following in Teddy Roosevelt's footsteps, and that he 
     was saving the environment from Dutch coal companies. It 
     worked just like the Administration predicted. Bill Clinton 
     locked up the environmental votes in the West and carried key 
     western states like California, Arizona, and Nevada. Of 
     course they lost Utah, but as Kathleen McGinty had predicted, 
     Utahns are voters ``who, in candor, are unlikely to support 
     the Administration under any circumstances.''
       In the final analysis, the Utah Monument designation was 
     all about politics. To achieve their political ends, the 
     Clinton-Gore Administration contorted a century-old statute 
     and evaded the environmental requirements they foist on 
     others. The Administration took pains to see that no one knew 
     about this decision until the last minute, even to the point 
     of deceiving the entire Utah Congressional delegation--all so 
     they could get a political photo-op out of the monument 
     proclamation, and preclude any Congressional action that 
     might stop the event. It comes as no surprise the 
     announcement event was finally held not in Utah, but across 
     the Grand Canyon in more hospitable Arizona. This was an 
     abuse of discretion under the Antiquities Act and a violation 
     of NEPA by the Clinton-Gore Administration.


                                                   August 3, 1995.
     To: Raynor Baum.
     Re: Antiquities Act.
       Attached are some sample Pres proclamations. Some just 
     designate the monument, other designate and withdraw the 
     monument. It would follow that anwr could be designated--a 
     prestige issue--without a further withdrawal of land.
       We should meet. I think we have enough materials for a 
     meeting with John. He was not looking for a paper, but rather 
     a brief talk about the choices and legal risks.
                                                             Dave.


     
                                                                    ____
                       Presidential Proclamations

       1. The Antiquities Act of 1906 provides: ``The President . 
     . . is authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public 
     proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric 
     structures, and other objects of historic or scientific 
     interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled 
     by the Government . . . to be national monuments, and may 
     reserve as part thereof parcels of lands, the limits of which 
     in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area 
     compatible with the proper care and management of the objects 
     to be protected. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 431.''
       2. History: ``Many areas of the National Park System were 
     originally established as national monuments under this act 
     and placed under the care of the Department of the Interior 
     to be administered by the National Park Service under the 
     Service's Organic Act of 1916. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1. The most 
     recent proclamations were signed by President Carter and 
     established various Alaska monuments, the predecessors to the 
     national parks and preserves eventually established by the 
     Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.''
       3. Analysis: When the president undertakes the preparation 
     of a proclamation, the restrictions of the law must be 
     carefully observed and documented. The lands must be 
     federally owned or controlled. Private and state lands are 
     excluded.
       The area must be the smallest area compatible with 
     management of the objects. Although broad discretion is 
     vested in the president, the administrative record must 
     reflect the rationale basis for the acreage.
       Most areas of the National Park System were established 
     because of objects of historic or scientific interest. Again, 
     an administrative record must be established regarding the 
     objects to be protected and their significance properly 
     demonstrated.
       4. Other Laws: The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 
     43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701, does not preclude or restrain 
     presidential proclamations, even though it has restrictions 
     on other forms of public land withdrawals of areas over 5,000 
     acres. See 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1714(c)(1).
       To the extent the Secretary proposes a national monument, 
     NEPA applies. However, monuments proposed by the president do 
     not require NEPA compliance because NEPA does not cover 
     presidential actions. To the extent that the president 
     directs that a proclamation be drafted and an area withdrawn 
     as a monument, he may direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
     be part of the president's staff and to undertake and 
     complete all the administrative support. This Interior work 
     falls under the presidential umbrella.
       5. Litigation: ``I have attached the most recent case 
     involving the Alaska monuments. The case is instructive and 
     should be read, understood and followed. Careful observance 
     of the administrative and institutional structures as well as 
     a focused administrative record will enhance success in the 
     court house.''


     Record Type: Federal (all-in-1 mail).
     Creator: Kathleen A. McGinty (McGinty, K.) (CEQ).
     Creation Date/Time: 20-MAR-1996 08:01:40.12.
     Subject: Utah letter to Babbitt.
     To: Thomas C. Jensen.
       Text: ``I don't have this document. But, I want to see it 
     personally and clear off on it.'' thx.


     
                                                                    ____
                              attachment 1

     Att Creation Time/Date: 19-MAR-1996 19:02:00.00.
     Att Bodypart Type: E.
     Att Creator: CN=Linda L. Lance/O=OVP.
     Att Subject: Letter to Babbit re monuments.
     Att To: McGinty, K; Glauthier, T; Jensen, T; Bear, D; Fidler, 
       S; Crutchfiel, J; Shuffield, A.
       Text: ``Message Creation Date was at 19-MAR-1996 19:02:00''
       Attached is a letter to Babbit as we discussed yesterday 
     that makes clear that the Utah monument action is one 
     generated by the Executive Office of the President, not the 
     agency. Craig drafted and I edited.
       It seems to me it could go from Katie and/or TJ rather than 
     having to go through the clearance process for the pres. 
     signature since time is a concern, but Dinah should sign off 
     on that, and it could be done either way.
       Also, do we know whether the canyonlands and arches areas 
     we're considering would be affected by the Utah wilderness 
     bill--see my question in bold on the attachment.
       Katie and TJ, you should agree on how to sign this, and 
     then one of your offices can just finalize and sent it out. 
     Ideally it should go tomorrow. If you want to discuss, just 
     yell.


     
                                                                    ____
                              attachment 2

     Att Creation Time/Date: 19-MAR-1996 19:01:00.00.
     Att Bodypart Type: D.
       Text: ``The following attachments were included with this 
     message''.


     
                                                                    ____
                              attachment 3

     Att Creation Time/Date: 19-MAR-1996 19:01:00.00.
     Att Bodypart Type: P.
     Att Subject: Parksltr.
       Text: ``Dear Secretary Babbitt,
       The President has asked that we contact you to request 
     information within the expertise of your agency. As you know, 
     the Congress currently is considering legislation that would 
     remove significant portions of public lands in Utah from 
     their current protection as wilderness study areas. 
     Protection

[[Page E2265]]

     of these lands is one of the highest environmental priorities 
     of the Clinton Administration.
       Therefore, on behalf of the President I/we are requesting 
     your opinion on what, if any, actions the administration can 
     and should take to protect Utah lands that are currently 
     managed to protect wilderness eligibility, but that could be 
     made unsuitable for future wilderness designation if opened 
     for development by Congress. [Do the canyonlands and arches 
     areas fit this description? Are they threatened by the Utah 
     wilderness bill? Is there a better way to describe the 
     relevant lands?] The President particularly seeks your advice 
     on the suitability of such lands for designation as national 
     monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906.
       The President wishes to act to protect these lands as 
     expeditiously as possible, particularly given the threat from 
     pending congressional action. Please respond as soon as 
     possible. If there are land areas that you have already 
     reviewed and that may be appropriate for immediate action, 
     please provide that information separately and as soon as 
     possible.
       Thank you for your assistance.
                                                  Katie and/or TJ.


     
                                                                    ____
     Record Type: Federal (ALL 1-1 MAIL).
     Creator: Thomas C. Jensen (JENSEN, T) (CEQ).
     Creation Date/Time: 20-MAR-1996 08:26:53.99
     Subject: Linda's park letter to babbitt.
     To: Thomas C. Jensen.
     Read: 20-MAR-1996 08:27:08.41.
     To: Kathleen A. McGinty.
       Text: Dear Secretary Babbitt,
       The President has asked that we contact you to request 
     information within the expertise of your agency. As you know, 
     the Congress currently is considering legislation that would 
     remove significant portions of public lands in Utah from 
     their current protection as wilderness study areas. 
     Protection of these lands is one of the highest environmental 
     priorities of the Clinton Administration.
       Therefore, on behalf of the President I/we are requesting 
     your opinion on what, if any, actions the Administration can 
     and should take to protect Utah lands that are currently 
     managed to protect wilderness eligibility, but that could be 
     made unsuitable for future wilderness designation if opened 
     for development by Congress. [do the canyonlands and arches 
     areas fit this description? are they threatened by the utah 
     wilderness bill? is there a better way to describe the 
     relevant lands?] The President particularly seeks your advice 
     on the suitability of such lands for designation as national 
     monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906.
       The President wishes to act to protect these lands as 
     expeditiously as possible, particularly given the threat from 
     pending congressional action. Please respond as soon as 
     possible. If there are land areas that you have already 
     reviewed and that may be appropriate for immediate action, 
     please provide that information separately and as soon as 
     possible.
       Thank you for your assistance.
                                                  Katie and/or TJ.


     
                                                                    ____
     Record Type: Federal (EXTE. .L MAIL).
     Creator: CN=Linda L. Lance.
     Creation Date/Time: 21-MAR-1996 18:36:00.00.
     Subject: Re: KM's comments on yesterday's monument letter.
     To: McGinty, K; :jensen, t, :bear, d; :crutchfiel, j; 
       :glauthier, t.
       TEXT: Message Creation Date was at 21-MAR-1996 18:40:00.
       I completely agree that this can't be pitched as our answer 
     to their utah bill. but i'm having trouble deciding where we 
     go from here. if we delink from utah but limit our request 
     for info to utah, why? if we instead request info on all 
     sites that might be covered by the antiquities act, we 
     probably get much more than we're probably ready to act on, 
     including some that might be more compelling than the utah 
     parks? am i missing something or lacking in creativity? is 
     there another utah hook? whatdya think?
       I'm getting concerned that if we're going to do this we 
     need to get this letter going tomorrow. almost everything 
     else is pretty much ready to go to the president for 
     decision, although some drafting of the formal documents like 
     pres. memos still needs to be done.
       Thanks for you help.


       
                                                                    ____
     Record Type: Federal (External Mail).
     Creator: CN=Linda L. Lance.
     Creation Date/Time: 22-Mar-1996 18:56:00.00.
     Subject: redraft of president's babbitt letter and question.
     To: Glauthier, T; McGinty, K; Jensen, T; Bear, D; Crutchfiel, 
       J; Beard, B.
       Text: Message Creation Date was at 22-Mar-1996 19:00:00.
       Attached is a minimalist approach to the letter to Babbitt. 
     Contrary to what justice may have suggested, I think it's 
     important that he limit the inquiry to lands covered by the 
     antiquities act, since that's the area in which he can act 
     unilaterally. To make a broader request risks scaring people, 
     and/or promising followup we can't deliver.
       I realized the real remaining question is not so much what 
     this letter says, but the political consequences of 
     designating these lands as monuments when they're not 
     threatened with losing wilderness status, and they're 
     probably not the areas of the country most in need of this 
     designation. Presidents have not used their monument 
     designation authority in this way in the past--only for large 
     dramatic parcels that are threatened. Do we risk a backlash 
     from the bad guys if we do these--do they have the chance to 
     suggest that this administration could use this authority all 
     the time all over the country, and start to argue that the 
     discretion is too broad?
       I'd like to get your view, and political affairs, on this. 
     Maybe I'm overreacting, but I think we need to consider that 
     issue.


     
                                                                    ____
                              attachment 1

     Att Creation Time/Date: 22-Mar-1996 18:59:00.00.
     Att Bodypart Type: D.
     Text: The following attachments were included with this 
       message.


       
                                                                    ____
                              attachment 2

     Att Creation Time/Date: 22-Mar-1996 18:59:00.00.
     Att Bodypart Type: p.
     Att Subject: Parkpres.
       Text: Dear Secretary Babbitt,
       It has come to my attention that there may be public lands 
     in Utah that contain significant historic or scientific areas 
     that may be appropriate for National Monument status under 
     the Antiquities Act of 1906. Therefore, I am requesting any 
     information available to your Department on Utah lands owned 
     or controlled by the United States that contain historic 
     landmarks, historic or prehistoric structures, or other 
     objects of historic or scientific interest.
       Please respond as soon as possible. If there are land areas 
     that you have already reviewed and that may be appropriate 
     for immediate consideration, please provide that information 
     separately and as soon as possible.
       Thank you for your assistance.
                                                              WJC.


     
                                                                    ____
     Record Type: Federal (External Mail)
     Creator: McGinty
     Creation Date/Time: 25-MAR-1996 13:21:00.00.
     Subject: Re: redraft of president's Babbitt letter and 
       question
     To: T. J. Glauthier; Linda L. Lance; Jensen T.; Beard, D.; 
       Crutchfield, J.; Beard, B.
       Text: I'm increasingly of the view that we should just drop 
     these Utah ideas. We do not really know how the enviros will 
     react and I do think there is a danger of ``abuse'' of the 
     withdraw/antiquities authorities especially because these 
     lands are not really endangered.


     
                                                                    ____
     Record Type: Federal (All-in-1 Mail).
     Creator: Thomas C. Jensen (JensenXT) (CEQ)
     Creation Date/Time: 25-MAR-1996 13:29:44.93.
     Subject: Potus letter re-do
     To: Linda L. Lance; T. J. Glauthier; James Craig Crutchfield; 
       Bruce D. Beard; Dinah Bear; Kathleen A. McGinty.
       Text: Attached is my re-do of the draft potus letter to 
     Babbitt. I've added the reference to Glen Canyon NRA for two 
     reasons: first, because some the lands we're reviewing next 
     to Canyonlands are more proximate to GCNRA. Second, because 
     KM and others may want to rope in the Kaiparowits and 
     Escalante Canyons regions (which are adjacent to GCNRA) if 
     this package ultimately doesn't seem adequate to the 
     President's overall purpose. Call if you've got any 
     questions.
       You're doing a great job.
                                                              Tom.


     
                                                                    ____
                              ATTACHMENT 1

     Att Creation Time/Date: 25-MAR-1996 13:25:00.00.
     Att Bodypart Type: p.
     Att Creator: Thomas C. Jensen.
     Text: Dear Secretary Babbitt,
       It has come to my attention that there may be public lands 
     adjacent to Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Canyonlands 
     National Park and Arches National Park in Utah that contain 
     significant historic or scientific areas that may be 
     appropriate for protection through National Monument status 
     under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Therefore, I am requesting 
     any information available to your Department on lands owned 
     or controlled by the United States adjacent to Glen Canyon 
     National Recreation Area, Canyonlands National Park or Arches 
     National Park that contain historic landmarks, historic or 
     prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic or 
     scientific interest.
       Please respond as soon as possible. If there are land areas 
     that you have already reviewed and that may be appropriate 
     for immediate consideration, please provide that information 
     separately and as soon as possible.
       Thank you for your assistance.
                                                              WJC.


     
                                                                    ____
     Record Type: Federal (All-in-1 mail).
     Creator: Kathleen A. McGinty (McGinty K) (CEQ).
     Creation date/time: 27 Mar 1996 15:49:36.19.
     Subject: pls discuss this with tom.
     To: Robert C. Vandermark
       Text: Rob, I want to see this letter and comment. pls 
     coordinate with tom so we send one set of comments back to 
     Linda.


[[Page E2266]]

     
                                                                    ____


                              Attachment 1

     ATT bodypart Type: E
     ATT: Creator: CN+Linda L. Lance/O+OVP
     ATT Subject: another babbitt letter draft
     To: McGinty, K; Jensen, T+Bear, D; Crutchfield, J; Beard B; 
       Glauther T
       Text: Message Creation Date was at 27 Mar 1996 12:40:00.
       since i and i think others were persuaded at yesterday's 
     meeting w/ interior that we shouldn't write off the 
     canyonlands and arches monuments just yet, here's another try 
     at a draft letter to babbitt to get this process started. if 
     this looks ok, i'd like to run it by justice before it goes 
     out.
       tj was going to try to get offices together to discuss the 
     monuments issue, and we need to do that. but since we're now 
     looking at 4/9 as a possible announcement date, i'd propose 
     getting this letter agreed on and getting a decision memo to 
     the president just on sending the letter to interior. even if 
     we don't ultimately do the monument, it won't hurt to have 
     this letter go out and have interior formally return info to 
     us. we'll never have this ready by 4/9 if a letter doesn't go 
     soon. according to justice, the info justice has seen so far 
     isn't an adequate admin record, so interior will have some 
     work to do.
       i'll try to draft a short decision memo to the president on 
     sending this letter (for tj and katie's signature??) so that 
     you all can look at it today. let me know if you have 
     problems w/ this approach, or comments on the letter.


     
                                                                    ____
                              attachment 2

     ATT Creation time/date: 27 Mar 1996 12:41:00.00
     ATT Bodypart Type D
       Text: The following attachments were included with this 
     message:


     
                                                                    ____
                              attachment 3

     ATT Creation time/date 27 Mar 1996 12:41:00.00
     ATT Bodypart Type: p
     ATT Subject: Parkpres
       Text: Dear Secretary Babbitt,
       It has come to my attention that there may be public lands 
     adjacent to Canyonlands and Arches National Parks in Utah 
     that contain significant historic or scientific areas that 
     may be appropriate for protection through National Monument 
     status under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Therefore, I am 
     requesting any information available to your Department on 
     lands owned or controlled by the United States adjacent to 
     Cayonlands or Arches National Parks that contain historic 
     landmarks, historic or prehistoric structures, or other 
     objects of historic or scientific interest.
       Please respond as soon as possible. If there are land areas 
     that you have already reviewed and that may be appropriate 
     for immediate consideration, please provide that information 
     separately and as soon as possible.
       Thank you for your assistance.
                                                              WJC.


     
                                                                    ____
     Record Type: Federal (External mail).
     Creator: CN=Linda L. Lance.
     Creation date/time: 29-MAR-1996 19:00:00.00.
     Subject: Monday meeting w/Interior and question.
     To: Jensen T; McGinty K; Galauthier T
       Text: Message Creation Date was at 29-MAR-1996 19:01:00.
       Tom and I agreed that the fastest way to come to closure on 
     remaining monument/Utah issues is for he and I to go to 
     Interior on Monday to meet with Anne Shield, NPS folks, and 
     solicitors office. Anne has agreed to schedule something for 
     2 p.m. Monday in the secretary's conference room. Tom I 
     really hope that works for you, or that you can rearrange to 
     attend. If not, let me know what will work for you on Monday 
     p.m.
       If Katie or TJ want to attend and it helps to move it here, 
     we can do that, but I think we need to get with them soon. 
     We'll push them on new wilderness inventory and Kaparowitz/
     Escalante.
       The question I have for you guys is why does Anne react so 
     negatively to the idea of having George Frampton there? I 
     told her I'd left a message for him in Colorado, and thought 
     he should be at the meeting, and she gave me a lecture about 
     how he wouldn't have the necessary info, hadn't been 
     involved, she had no idea when he'd be back in D.C., we need 
     to have Destry there, etc.
       Is there a reason for me to insist on scheduling this when 
     Frampton can be there? Does he have a perspective on this 
     that they don't? Is there some friction between him and the 
     NPS folks that have been involved? Let me know. Thanks.


     
                                                                    ____
                             COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,

                                    WASHINGTON DC, MARCH 29, 1996.
     MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
     FROM: KATHLEEN A. MCGINTY
     RE: ATTACHED LETTER TO SECRETARY BABBITT FOR YOUR SIGNATURE


                        I. ACTION-FORCING EVENT

       As you know, we are putting together a package of national 
     park protection actions for your consideration that, if you 
     approve, may be announced at an event on April 9. As part of 
     that initiative, and in response to the threat to Utah 
     wilderness lands that was posed by the recently-defeated 
     Republican parks bill, we have been reviewing Utah public 
     lands to ensure that we are doing everything possible to 
     provide appropriate protection to those lands. We have 
     focused particularly on public lands that contain historic or 
     scientific resources or are threatened by development.
       It has come to my attention that there may be federally-
     owned lands adjacent to Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, 
     Canyonlands National Park and Arches National Park in Utah 
     that may warrant protection as national monuments. Statutory 
     authority to issue a proclamation declaring public lands to 
     be national monuments is available only to the President, who 
     cannot delegate such authority.
       Case law interpreting this authority has further held that 
     the President can request information from his advisors on 
     the suitability of certain lands for such designation, but 
     that the action must be initiated by the President, not an 
     advisor. For that reason, it is necessary that you formally 
     request Secretary Babbitt to provide you with such 
     information before we can obtain the necessary background to 
     consider such designation on the merits. We need to do that 
     as soon as possible so that this designation can be completed 
     in time for a possible April 9 announcement. The attached 
     letter makes that request.


                        II. BACKGROUND ANALYSIS

       The Antiquities Act of 1906 provides the President with 
     discretionary authority to declare by public proclamation 
     objects of historic or scientific interest that are on lands 
     owned or controlled by the Government to be national 
     monuments. Only an Act of Congress can disestablish a 
     monument.
       Reservation as a national monument generally offers 
     protection to the area comparable to that of a National Park, 
     including closure to future mineral leasing claims. The 
     agency managing the monument can grandfather existing uses of 
     the land, such as grazing permits.
       No final decision about the designation of Utah lands as 
     national monuments can be made without additional material 
     from the Department of Interior. However, currently available 
     information indicates that significant Bureau of Land 
     Management acreage adjacent to each of the areas addressed in 
     the letter contains historic and scientific objects of 
     importance, including numerous archaeological sites, Indian 
     rock art, geological formations and wildlife habitat.


                          III. RECOMMENDATION

       I recommend that you sign the attached letter requesting 
     information on Utah lands from Secretary Babbitt


                              IV. DECISION

       --Approve --Approve as amended --Reject --No action.


       
                                                                    ____
                                              The White House,

                                       Washington, March 29, 1996.
     Hon. Bruce Babbitt,
     Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
       Dear Bruce: It has come to my attention that there may be 
     public lands adjacent to Glen Canyon National Recreation 
     Area, Canyonlands National Park and Arches National Park in 
     Utah that contain significant historic or scientific areas 
     that may be appropriate for protection through National 
     Monument status under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Therefore, 
     I am requesting any information available to your Department 
     on lands owned or controlled by the United States adjacent to 
     Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Canyonlands National 
     Park or Arches National Park that contain historic landmarks, 
     historic or prehistoric structures, or other objects of 
     historic or scientific interest.
       Please respond as soon as possible. If there are land areas 
     that you have already reviewed and that may be appropriate 
     for immediate consideration, please provide that information 
     separately and as soon as possible.
       Thank you for your assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.


     
                                                                    ____
     Record type: Federal (All-in-1 IL).
     Creator: Kathleen A. McGinty (MCGINTY--K) (CEQ).
     Creation date/time: 3-APR-1996 18:04:45.13.
     Subject: parks meeting tomorrow
     To: Linda L. Lance
     To: Thomas C. Jensen
     To: Lisa Guide
       Text: For the meeting tomorrow at 3, I believe we need a 
     short summary (1-2 pp) of all of the parts of the package. 
     Thx. I see this as a major decision-making meeting. On the 
     Utah pieces; on the overall package; on potus involvement. By 
     the way Leshy said to me today that he thought there was no 
     way they could get info on Kaipairowitz (sp?) and that 
     Escalante was a maybe.


     
                                                                    ____
     Record Type: Federal (All in-1 Mail).
     Creator: James Craig Crutchfield (Crutchfield J) (OMB).
     Creation date/time: 3-Apr-1996 10:09:39.50.
     Subject: Parks Initiative update.
     To: T.J. Glauthier; Ron Cogswell; Bruce D. Beard; Marvis G. 
       Olfus; Linda L. Lance; Thomas C. Jensen.
       Text: According to Linda Lance, the Parks Initiative is not 
     currently on the President's schedule and no event is likely 
     before the President's mid-April international trip. May/June 
     is a more realistic timeframe. Interior may not be happy 
     about this, but they

[[Page E2267]]

     created a false urgency by citing a pending Gingrich parks 
     proposal. (It now appears that the only imminent Republican 
     proposal is the Senate Omnibus lands bill, which is on hold 
     because of Utah wilderness.)
       Other key points:
       Sufficiently Presidential? Linda and Tom Jensen met on 
     Monday with Interior to address skepticism from the West Wing 
     about whether the Initiative is worthy of a Presidential 
     event. (Ann Shields grumbled that it would be Presidential if 
     it retained the tax proposals.) They discussed three new 
     candidates for National Monument designation in Utah 
     (Kiparowitz, Grand Gulch, and Escalante), each with pros and 
     cons, and Interior agreed to review these options further. 
     Interior/NPS complained that their park proposal was morphing 
     into a Utah proposal, but Tom and Linda dismiss this 
     complaint.
       POTUS letter to Babbitt was sent up for signature on Friday 
     (3/31), but no word from W.H. Clerk on whether it was signed. 
     By requesting Babbitt to provide information on lands in Utah 
     for possible designation as National Monuments, this letter 
     would establish the needed Administrative record to defend 
     use of the Antiquities Act. The final letter was revised to 
     reference other public lands around Glen Canyon NRA, leaving 
     open the possibility for adding the sites noted above.


     
                                                                    ____
     From: Sam Kalen 4/25/96 11:42AM
     To: John Leshy, Dave Watts, Robert Baum.
     cc: Edward Cohen.
     Subject: Re: Antiquities Act.
       As I recall, the advice we have given over the last couple 
     of decades is that, in order to minimize NEPA problems on 
     Antiquities Act work, it is preferable to have a letter from 
     the President to the Secretary asking him for his 
     recommendations. Here are my questions:
       1. Is that right? Does it have to be in writing?
       2. What is the optimum timing for such a letter--before we 
     start any work?
       3. Does the letter have to be public (is it foiable at any 
     time)? Could the President claim executive privilege or is 
     there some other basis for withholding the letter, at least 
     until the Secretary forwards recommendations?
       4. Does the letter have to be specific geographically; 
     e.g., ``give me recommendations on use of the Act in Oregon'' 
     or ``on BLM lands in western Oregon'' or is ``nationwide--
     anywhere on lands managed by agencies under your 
     jurisdiction'' OK?
       5. If the President signs a proclamation, and a lawsuit is 
     then brought challenging lack of Secretarial NEPA compliance, 
     could a court set aside the proclamation; i.e., what is the 
     appropriate relief?
       Please give me your off-the-top-of-the-head reactions by 
     return e-mail, and keep this close. Thanks.
       I don't know what the Dept. has recommended or written in 
     the past, but my recollection (and I will check) is that the 
     issue was raised in connection with Alaska v. Carter and I 
     think the court indicated that EIS not needed when President 
     asks for recommendation. And that case was decided well 
     before more recent NEPA law--e.g., NAFTA case, which further 
     suggests that Secretary's response to President would not be 
     an ``action'' under NEPA; of course, one could also argue a 
     Douglas County type analogy (status quo exception for 
     designation of monument if NEPA even applied to Executive and 
     thus surely status quo exception for the recommendation on 
     such designation). Additionally, to make it even less like 
     any action under NEPA, the President's request could be for a 
     list of areas in a certain region that DOI already has 
     indicated are WSAs, ACECs, etc. As for FOIA, couldn't we 
     argue deliberative process exception until designation--with 
     harm being that disclosure would prompt nuisance type 
     activities in the area. sam.


     
                                                                    ____
     Record type: Federal (All-in-1 Mail).
     Creator: Thomas C. Jensen (Jensen, T) (CEQ).
     Creation date/time: 23-Jul-1996 15:30:42.34.
     Subject: Potus letter re: Utah.
     To: Peter G. Umhofer
     CC: Kathleen A. McGinty.
       Text: Peter, I need your help.
       The following text needs to be transformed into a singed 
     POTUS letter ASAP. The letter does not need to be sent, it 
     could be held in an appropriate office (Katie's? Todd 
     Stern's?) but it must be prepared and signed ASAP.
       You should discuss the processing of the letter with Katie, 
     given its sensitivity.
       Dear Secretary Babbitt, it has come to my attention that 
     there may be public lands in the general area of Glen Canyon 
     National Recreation Area in Utah that contain significant 
     historic or scientific values that may be appropriate for 
     protection through National Monument status under the 
     Antiquities Act of 1906.
       As I stated when I raised this with you in conversation 
     some weeks ago, I would ask that you provide to me any 
     information available to your Department on lands owned or 
     controlled by the United States in the general area of Glen 
     Canyon National Recreation Area in Utah that contain historic 
     landmarks, historic or prehistoric structures, or other 
     objects of historic or scientific interest. Please respond as 
     soon as possible. If there are land areas that you have 
     already reviewed and that may be appropriate for immediate 
     consideration, please provide that information separately and 
     as soon as possible.
       Thank you for your assistance.
                                                               BC.


     
                                                                    ____
     Record, type: Federal (all -1 Mail).
     Creator: Thomas C. Jensen (Jensen--T) (CEQ).
     Creation date/time: 25-JUL-1996 11:40:06.21.
     To: Peter G
       Text: Peter, Here's a redraft of the POTUS cover memo 
     regarding the POTUS letter to Babbitt on Utah. I've rewritten 
     it to meet suggestions from Todd Stern. These changes may 
     also address questions that Wes raised.
                                                               Tom


     
                                                                    ____
                              Attachment 1

     Att Creation time/date:25-JUL-1996 11:38:00.00
     ATT Bodypart Type:p
     ATT Creator; Thomas C. Jensen
       Text:
     Memorandum to the president.
     From: Kattie McGinty.
     Subject: Attached letter to Secretary Babbitt.
       We have prepared for your signature the attached letter to 
     Interior Secretary Babbitt. The letter will serve as a 
     critical piece of the administration record if, as we have 
     discussed, you decide to designate certain lands in southern 
     Utah as national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906.
       The Antiquities Act provides you with executive authority 
     to set aside federal lands as national monuments in order to 
     protect objects of scientific or historic interest. The 
     authority has been used numerous times in the last ninety 
     years, and served as the basis for creation of many of the 
     Nation's most important protected areas. Many national parks 
     in the West, including most in Utah, were originally set 
     aside under the Antiquities Act. For example, Grand Canyon, 
     Grand Teton, Arches, Capital Reef, Cedar Breaks, Dinosaur, 
     National Bridges, and Zion were originally protected by 
     presidential orders issued under the Antiquities Act.
       The purpose of the attached letter is to request from 
     Secretary Babbitt information on federal lands in southern 
     Utah that are suitable for monument designation. The letter 
     serves to engage the Secretary in his role as executive staff 
     to you.
       Ordinarily, if the Secretary were on his own initiative to 
     send you a recommendation for establishment of a monument, he 
     would most likely be required to comply with NEPA and certain 
     federal land management laws in advance of submitting his 
     recommendation. But, because he is responding to your request 
     for information, he is not required to analyze the 
     information or recommendations under NEPA or the other laws. 
     And, because Presidential actions are not subject to NEPA, 
     you are empowered to establish monuments under the 
     Antiquities Act without NEPA review.
       The text of the letter is modeled after the letter sent by 
     President Carter to the Interior Department seeking 
     information on lands in Alaska suitable for monument 
     designation. Based on the department's response and 
     recommendations, President Carter set aside approproximately 
     26 million acres as national monuments. The legality of the 
     President's action was challenged by monument opponents, but 
     was upheld by the federal courts. The letter to Interior was 
     specifically cited by the courts as a principal basis for 
     their finding of legality. We recommend that you sign the 
     letter.


     
                                                                    ____
                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 1996.
     Memorandum to the President.
     From: Kathleen A. McGinty.
     Re: Attached letter to Secretary Babbitt.
       We have prepared for your signature the attached letter to 
     Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. The letter will 
     serve as a critical piece of the administrative record if, as 
     we have discussed, you decide to designate certain lands in 
     southern Utah as national monuments under the Antiquities Act 
     of 1906.
       The Antiquities Act provides you with executive authority 
     to set aside federal lands as national monuments in order to 
     protect objects of scientific or historic interest. The 
     authority has been used numerous times in the last ninety 
     years, and served as the basis for creation of many of the 
     Nation's most important protected areas. Many national parks 
     in the West, including most in Utah, were originally set 
     aside under the Antiquities Act. For example, Grand Canyon, 
     Grand Teton, Arches, Capitol Reef, Cedar Breaks, Dinosaur, 
     Natural Bridges, and Zion were originally protected by 
     presidential orders issued under the Antiquities Act.
       The purpose of the attached letter is to request from 
     Secretary Babbitt information on federal lands in southern 
     Utah that are suitable for monument designation. The lands in 
     question represent a unique combination of archaeological, 
     paleontological, geologic, and biologic resources in a 
     relatively unspoiled natural ecosystem. Three general areas 
     lying to the west of the Colorado River and to the east of 
     Bryce Canyon National Park will be studied: the Grand 
     Staircase, Kaiparowits Blateau, and Escalante Canyon region.
       The Grand Staircase spans six major life zones, from lower 
     Sonoran desert to Arctic-Alpine forest, and its outstanding 
     rock formations present some four billion years of geology. 
     The area includes numerous relict plant areas--rare examples 
     of pristine plant

[[Page E2268]]

     ecosystems that represent the natural vegetative cover that 
     existed in the region before domestic livestock grazing.
       The Kaiparowits Plateau includes world class 
     paleontological sites, including the best and most continuous 
     record of Latie Cretaceous terrestrial life in the world. The 
     area includes thousands of significant archaeological sites, 
     including the remnants of at least three prehistoric Indian 
     cultures. The Kaiparowits includes the most remote site in 
     the lower 48 states.
       The Escalante Canyon region, includes some of the most 
     scenic country in the West, significant archaeological 
     resources, unique riparian ecosystems, and numerous historic 
     sites and trails.
       These lands were at the heart of the recent legislative 
     battle over Utah wilderness. They are, in sum, much of what 
     the parties were fighting over. Environmentalists value the 
     area for its astonishing beauty, remoteness, and ecological 
     integrity. Development interests want to tap the coal 
     resources of the Kaiparowits Plateau and, through road 
     construction open now wild areas to commercial use.
       The Kaiparowits Plateau lies in the center of the area. Two 
     companies hold leases to mine federal coal there. One company 
     is working with Interior to surrender its Kaiparowits leases 
     in exchange for rights to coal elsewhere in Utah. The other 
     lease holder, a Dutch-owned coal company with plans to ship 
     coal to Asia, has rebuffed Interior's offers to pursue a 
     trade. Coal development on the Kaiparowits would damage the 
     natural, cultural, and historic values of the entire area. 
     Monument designations would not block the proposed coal mine, 
     per se, but would help in a variety of ways to pressure the 
     Dutch company to surrender its leases in exchange for coal 
     elsewhere.
       Should you decide, based on the Secretary's 
     recommendations, to designate one or more national monuments 
     in the area, your action will be widely and vigorously 
     supported by national environmental groups and advocates. 
     They will be stunned and delighted by the boldness and scope 
     of the action. There will be significant public support in 
     those areas in which most visitors to southern Utah reside, 
     including California, Colorado, Arizona and the Salt Lake 
     City area. National print media strongly supported the 
     Administration's pro-Utah wilderness stance and can be 
     expected to support monument designations.
       Utah's congressional delegation and governor will be 
     angered by the action. CEQ is in consultation with the 
     Counsel's office to identify measures to reduce adverse 
     effects on matter within the control of the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee, chaired by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Republicans 
     are likely to characterize the action as an aspect of the so-
     called ``War on the West.''
       The text of the attached letter is modeled after the letter 
     sent by President Carter to the Department of the Interior 
     seeking information on lands in Alaska suitable for monument 
     designation. Based on the department's response and 
     recommendations, President Carter set aside approximately 26 
     million acres as national monuments. The legality of the 
     President's action was challenged by monument opponents, but 
     was upheld by the federal courts. The letter to Interior was 
     specifically cited by the courts as a principal basis for 
     their findings of legality.
       We recommend that you sign the letter seeking information 
     and advice from Secretary Babbitt.


     
                                                                    ____
                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, July 24, 1996.
     Hon. Bruce Babbitt,
     Secretary of the Interior, Washington, DC.
       Dear Bruce: As I said in conversation with you some weeks 
     ago, it has come to my attention that there may be public 
     lands in the general area of Glen Canyon National Recreation 
     Area in Utah that contain significant historic or scientific 
     values that may be appropriate for protection through 
     National Monument status under the Antiquities Act of 1906.
       I would like for you to provide me any information 
     available to your Department on lands owned or controlled by 
     the United States in the general area of Glen Canyon National 
     Recreation Area in Utah that contain historic landmarks, 
     historic or prehistoric structures, or other objects of 
     historic or scientific interest.
       Please respond to this request as soon as possible. If 
     there are land areas that you have already reviewed and that 
     may be appropriate for immediate consideration, please 
     provide that information separately and as soon as possible.
       Thank you for your assistance.
           Sincerely,


           
                                                                    ____
     Record Type: Federal (All-in-1 Mail).
     Creator: Kathleen A. McGinty (MCGINTY--K) (CEQ).
     Creation date/time: 29-JUL-1996 09:31:39.65.
     Subject: Utah letter.
     To: Todd Stern.
       Text: wanted to just reiterate what I said about the 
     timeliness of the letter because I was worried that, on first 
     iteration, I may have confused you.
       The president will do the Utah event on Aug 17. However, we 
     still need to get the letter signed ASAP. The reason: under 
     the antiquities act, we need to build a credible record that 
     will withstand legal challenge that: (1) the president asked 
     the secy to look into these lands to see if they are of 
     important scientific, cultural or historic value; (2) the 
     secy undertook that review and presented the results to the 
     president; (3) the president found the review compelling and 
     therefore exercised his authority under the antiquities act. 
     presidential actions under this act have always been 
     challenged. they have never been struck down, however.
       So, letter needs to be signed ASAP so that secy has what 
     looks like a credible amount of time to do his investigation 
     of the matter. we have opened the letter with a sentence that 
     gives us some more room by making clear that the president 
     and babbitt had discussed this some time ago.
       Many thanks.


       
                                                                    ____
                             [Document 36]

                                                   August 5, 1996.
     Memorandum to Marcia Hale.
     From: Kathleen A. McGinty.
     Re: Utah Event Calls.
       Leon Panetta asked that I prepare talking point for you to 
     use in making calls to certain western elected officials 
     regarding the proposed Utah event.
       My notes indicate that Leon wanted you to call Governor Roy 
     Romer, Governor Bob Miller, former Governor Mike Sullivan, 
     former Governor Ted Schwinden, Senator Harry Reid, Senator 
     Richard Bryan, and Representative Bill Richardson to test the 
     waters and gather their reactions.
       The reactions to these calls, and other factors, will help 
     determine whether the proposed action occur. If a final 
     decision has been made on the event, and any public release 
     of the information would probably foreclose the President's 
     option to proceed.
       I would be happy to speak with you about this or provide 
     any additional information you may require. If I am 
     unavailable, Wesley Warren and Tom Jensen of my staff are 
     prepared to assist you.
       Attachment.


       
                                                                    ____
                                                  August 14, 1996.
     Memorandum to the President.
     From: Katie McGinty.
     Subject: Proposed Utah Monument Designation and Event.


                      Introduction and Background

       This memo responds to your request yesterday for additional 
     information on the proposed event at which you would announce 
     designation of certain BLM lands in Utah as a national 
     monument.
       In brief, the current proposal is that you should use your 
     authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to establish the 
     ``Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument,'' a new 
     national monument covering approximately 1.7 million acres of 
     federal land in Utah managed by the Interior Department's 
     Bureau of Land Management.
       At your direction, the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     cooperation with the Department of Justice, has prepared the 
     analyses and documents that are required to support creation 
     of the proposed new national monument. A draft version of 
     those materials is attached for your information. Final 
     versions should be transmitted to the White House today and 
     should be ready for execution within 24 hours.


                        Options for Announcement

       Three alternate events have been discussed to frame 
     announcement of your action. Some advisors believe that the 
     announcement should take place in a formal Oval Office-type 
     setting, so as to emphasize the presidential character of the 
     action. This course would allow the most scheduling 
     flexibility.
       Other advisors recommend that you make the announcement on 
     or near the lands to be covered by the monument designation. 
     The area is very scenic and would offer great, unique 
     visuals, but the country is rough and remote with difficult 
     logistics. The first attached sheet of photos shows views of 
     or from potential event sites on lands covered by the new 
     monument designation. The landscape is sere, but strikingly 
     beautiful. Because of good air quality, views extend beyond 
     100 miles. Morning and afternoon light bring out the land's 
     colors best. August weather is hot, probably windy, with a 
     chance of afternoon and evening thunderstorms.
       The closest town with an airport capable of handling jet 
     aircraft is Page, Arizona, a small town located on the 
     Arizona-Utah border next to Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam. 
     Travel time from the Page airport to the most likely event 
     locations would be roughly 15 minutes by helicopter or 1 hour 
     by four-wheel drive vehicle. The National Park Service 
     maintains significant enforcement and other staff nearby at 
     Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon 
     National Park and can be called upon with short notice to 
     assist with event logistics. Based on our experience with the 
     proposed ``condor release'' event (which would have occurred 
     in the same general area), I estimate that an appropriate 
     event could be organized with roughly 48-72 hours lead time. 
     Secretary Babbitt notes that this option would have the most 
     confrontational or ``in-your-face'' character of the three.
       The third option would be to hold the event in Jackson 
     Hole. The logistics and scheduling would be much simpler than 
     the Utah site option and, like the Oval Office option, would 
     not present the same

[[Page E2269]]

     confrontational aspect associated with an event in Utah.
       For my part, I believe that any of the three options will 
     adequately serve the purposes underlying establishment of a 
     new monument.


                       Purpose of the Utah Event

       The purpose of the new monument designation would, in 
     general, be to provide additional protection for scenic 
     public lands with high scientific and historical value. More 
     specifically, monument designation would grant the Interior 
     Department additional leverage to forestall a proposed coal 
     mine in the area.
       The political purpose of the Utah event is to show 
     distinctly your willingness to use the office of the 
     President to protect the environment. In contrast to the 
     Yellowstone ceremony, this would not be a ``feel-good'' 
     event. You would not merely be rebuffing someone else's bad 
     idea, you would be placing your own stamp, sending your own 
     message. It is our considered assessment that an action of 
     this type and scale would help to overcome the negative views 
     toward the Administration created by the timber rider. 
     Designation of the new monument would create a compelling 
     reason for persons who are now disaffected to come around and 
     enthusiastically support the Administration.
       Establishment of the new monument will be popular 
     nationally in the same way and for the same reasons that 
     other actions to protect parks and public lands are popular. 
     The nationwide editorial attacks on the Utah delegation's 
     efforts to strip wilderness protection from these and other 
     lands is a revealing recent test of public interest in Utah's 
     wild lands. In addition, the new monument will have 
     particular appeal in those areas that contribute most 
     visitation to the parks and public lands of southern Utah, 
     namely, coastal California, Oregon, and Washington, 
     southern Nevada, the Front Range communities of Colorado, 
     the Taos-Albuquerque corridor, and the Pheonix-Tucson 
     area. This assessment squares with the positive reactions 
     by Sen. Reid, Gov. Romer, and Rep. Richardson when asked 
     their views on the proposal.
       Opposition to the designation will come from some of the 
     same parties who have generally opposed the Administration's 
     natural resource and environmental policies and who, in 
     candor, are unlikely to support the Administration under any 
     circumstances. It would draw fire from interests who would 
     characterize it as anti-mining, and heavy-handed Federal 
     interference in the West. Gov. Miller's concern that Nevada's 
     sagebrush rebels would not approve of the new monument is 
     almost certainly correct, and echoes the concerns of other 
     friends, but can be offset by the positive response in other 
     constituencies.


            The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

       The Antiquities Act provides you with executive authority 
     to set aside federal lands as national monuments in order to 
     protect objects of scientific or historic interest. The 
     authority has been used more than 100 times in the last 
     ninety years, and served as the basis for creation of many of 
     the Nation's most important protected areas. Many national 
     parks in the West, including most in Utah, were originally 
     set aside under the Antiquities Act. For example, Grand 
     Canyon, Grand Teton, Arches, Capitol Reef, Cedar Breaks, 
     Dinosaur, Natural Bridges, and Zion were originally protected 
     by presidential orders issued under the Antiquities Act. 
     Since World War II, every President except Presidents Nixon, 
     Reagan, and Bush have established national monuments.
       The attached memorandum from Secretary Babbitt recommends 
     that approximately 1.7 million acres of federal land managed 
     by the Bureau of Land Management in southern Utah be 
     designated as the ``Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
     Monument.''
       The lands in question represent a unique combination of 
     archaeological, paleontological, geologic, and biologic 
     resources in a relatively unspoiled natural ecosystem. Three 
     general areas lying to the west of the Colorado River and to 
     the east of Bryce Canyon National Park would be covered by 
     the new monument: the Grand Staircase, Kaiparowits Plateau, 
     and the Escalante Canyon region.
       The Grand Staircase spans six major life zones, from lower 
     Sonoran desert to Arctic-Alpine forest, and its outstanding 
     rock formations present some four billion years of geology. 
     The area includes numerous relict plant areas--rare examples 
     of pristine plant ecosystems that represent the natural 
     vegetative cover that existed in the region before domestic 
     livestock grazing.
       The Kaiparowits Plateau includes world class 
     paleontological sites, including the best and most continuous 
     record of Late Cretaceous terrestrial life in the world. The 
     area includes thousands of significant archaeological sites, 
     including the remnants of at least three prehistoric Indian 
     cultures. The Kaiparowits includes the most remote site in 
     the lower 46 states.
       The Escalante Canyon region includes some of the most 
     scenic country in the West, significant archaeological 
     resources, unique riparian ecosystems, and numerous historic 
     sites and trails.


                    Effects of Monument Designation

       There is very little current human use of the area proposed 
     for monument designation and, `with the exception of the 
     proposed coal mine discussed below, current and anticipated 
     uses are generally compatible with protection of the area as 
     a monument and would not be affected.
       The proposed proclamation would apply to only federal 
     lands. Private and state-owned parcels would be excluded from 
     the monument.
       The new monument would be subject to valid existing rights, 
     but would preclude new mining claims in the area.
       The proclamation would depart from prior practice and would 
     not reserve federal water rights. This approach on water 
     rights reflects the judgment that an assertion of water 
     rights would invite unnecessary controversy. Some of the 
     objects to be protected by the monument designation do not 
     require water. There is very little water in the area, and 
     what water there is probably has already been claimed under 
     state law. As a part of the study described below, the 
     Secretary will determine whether to seek water rights.
       Finally, the proclamation would direct the Secretary of the 
     Interior to prepare a management plan for the area within 
     three years. Although the precise outcome of the three-year 
     planning process cannot be forecast, the Secretary believes 
     that current uses of the area, including grazing, hunting, 
     fishing, off-road vehicle use and similar activities would 
     generally not be affected at current levels or in current 
     areas of use.
       The principal substantive effect of the monument 
     designation will be on a proposed coal mine on the 
     Kaiparowits Plateau.
       The Kaiparowits Plateau lies in the center of the area that 
     would be covered by the monument designation. Two companies 
     hold leases to mine federal coal there. One company is 
     working with Interior to surrender its Kaiparowits leases in 
     exchange for rights to coal elsewhere in Utah (a situation 
     quite similar to the case of the New World Mine). The other 
     lease holder, Andalex Resources, a Dutch-owned coal company 
     with plans to ship coal to Asia, has rebuffed Interior's 
     offers to pursue a trade.
       Coal development on the Kaiparowits would damage the 
     natural values of the entire area. Monument designations 
     would not block the proposed coal mine, per se, but would 
     help in a variety of ways (described at length in the 
     Secretary's attached memo, to persuade Andalex to surrender 
     its leases in exchange for coal elsewhere.
       This step--reducing or eliminating the risk of coal mining 
     on the Kaiparowits--would represent an immense victory in the 
     eyes of envrionmental groups and, based on the editorial 
     written on the subject during the Utah wilderness bill 
     debate, would be widely hailed in the media.


     
                                                                    ____
                                  Washington, DC, August 14, 1996.
     Memorandum for the President.
     From: Kathleen A. McGinty.
     Re: Proposed Utah Monument Designation and Event.


                      Introduction and Background

       This memo responds to your request yesterday for additional 
     information on the proposed event at which you would announce 
     designation of certain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands 
     in Utah as a national monument.
       In brief, the current proposal is that you should use your 
     authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to establish the 
     ``Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument,'' a new 
     national monument covering approximately 1.7 million acres of 
     federal land in Utah managed by the BLM of the Department of 
     the Interior (DOI).
       At your direction, the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     cooperation with the Department of Justice, has prepared the 
     analyses and documents that are required to support creation 
     of the proposed new national monument. A draft version of 
     those materials is attached for your information. Final 
     versions should be transmitted to the White House today and 
     should be ready for execution within 24 hours.


                        Options for Announcement

       Three alternate events have been discussed to frame 
     announcement of your action. Some advisors believe that the 
     announcement should take place in a formal Oval Office-type 
     setting, so as to emphasize the presidential character of the 
     action. This course would allow the most scheduling 
     flexibility.
       Other advisors recommend that you make the announcement on 
     or near the lands to be covered by the monument designation. 
     The area is very scenic and would offer great, unique 
     visuals, but the country is rough and remote with difficult 
     logistics. The first attached sheet of photos shows views of 
     or from potential event sites on lands covered by the new 
     monument designation. The landscape is sere, but strikingly 
     beautiful. Because of good air quality, views extend beyond 
     100 miles. Morning and afternoon light bring out the land's 
     colors best. August weather is hot, probably windy, with a 
     chance of afternoon and evening thunderstorms.
       The closest town with an airport capable of handling jet 
     aircraft is Page, Arizona, a small town located on the 
     Arizona-Utah border next to Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam. 
     Travel time from the Page airport to the most likely event 
     locations would be roughly 15-minutes by helicopter or 1 hour 
     by four-wheel drive vehicle. The National Park Service 
     maintains significant enforcement and other staff nearby at 
     Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon 
     National Park and can be called upon with short notice to 
     assist with even logistics. Based on our experience with the 
     proposed

[[Page E2270]]

     ``condor release'' event (which would have occurred in the 
     same general area), I estimate that an appropriate event 
     could be organized with roughly 48-72 hours lead time. The 
     Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, notes that this 
     option would have the most confrontational of ``in-your-
     face'' character of the three.
       The third option would be to hold the event in Jackson 
     Hole. The logistics and scheduling would be much simpler than 
     the Utah site option and, like the Oval Office option, would 
     not present the same confrontational aspect associated with 
     an event in Utah.
       For my part, I believe that any of the three options will 
     adequately serve the purposes underlying establishment of a 
     new monument.


                       purpose of the utah event

       The purpose of the new monument designation would, in 
     general, be to provide additional protection for scenic 
     public lands with high scientific and historical value. More 
     specifically, monument designation would grant DOI additional 
     leverage to forestall a proposed coal mine in the area.
       The political purpose of the Utah event is to show 
     distinctly your willingness to use the office of the 
     President to protect the environment. In contrast to the 
     Yellowstone ceremony, this would not be a ``feel-good'' 
     event. You would not merely be rebuffing someone else's bad 
     idea, you would be placing your own stamp, sending your own 
     message. It is our considered assessment that an action of 
     this type and scale would help to overcome the negative views 
     toward the Administration created by the timber rider. 
     Designation of the new monument would create a compelling 
     reason for persons who are now disaffected to come around and 
     enthusiastically support the Administration.
       Establishment of the new monument will be popular 
     nationally in the same way and for the same reasons that 
     other actions to protect parks and public lands are popular. 
     The nationwide editorial attacks on the Utah delegation's 
     efforts to strip wilderness protection from these and other 
     lands is a revealing recent test of public interest in Utah's 
     wild lands. In addition, the new monument will have 
     particular appeal in those areas that contribute most 
     visitation to the parks and public lands of southern Utah, 
     namely, coastal California, Oregon, and Washington, southern 
     Nevada, the Front Range communities of Colorado, the Taos-
     Albuquerque corridor, and the Phoenix-Tucson area. This 
     assessment square with the positive reactions by Senator 
     Harry Reid (D-NV), Governor Roy Romer (D-CO), and 
     Representative Bill Ricahrdson (D-NM) when asked their views 
     on the proposal.
       Opposition to the designation will come from some of the 
     same parties who have generally opposed the Administration's 
     natural resource and environmental policies and who, in 
     candor, are unlikely to support the Administration under any 
     circumstances. It would draw fire from interests who would 
     characterize it as anti-mining, and heavy-handed Federal 
     interference in the West. Governor Bob Miller's (D-NV) 
     concern that Nevada's sagebrush rebels would not approve of 
     the new monument is almost certainly correct and echoes the 
     concerns of other friends, but can be offset by the positive 
     response in other constituencies.


            The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

       The Antiquities Act provides you with executive authority 
     to set aside federal lands as national monuments in order to 
     protect objects of scientific or historic interest. The 
     authority has been used more than 100 times in the last 
     ninety years, and served as the basis for creation of many of 
     the Nation's most important protected areas. Many national 
     parks in the West, including most in Utah, were originally 
     set aside under the Antiquities Act. For example, Grand 
     Canyon, Grand Teton, Arches, Capitol Reef, Cedar Breaks, 
     Dinosaur, Natural Bridges, and Zion were originally protected 
     by presidential orders issued under the Antiquities Act. 
     Since World War II, every President except Presidents Nixon, 
     Reagan, and Bush have established national monuments.
       The attached memorandum from Secretary Babbitt recommends 
     that approximately 1.7 million acres of federal land managed 
     by the BLM in southern Utah be designated as the ``Grand 
     Staircase-Escalante National Monument.''
       The lands in question represent a unique combination of 
     archaeological, paleontological, geologic, and biologic 
     resources in a relatively unspoiled natural ecosystem. Three 
     general areas lying to the west of the Colorado River and to 
     the east of Bryce Canyon National Park would be covered by 
     the new monument: the Grand Staircase, Kaiparowits Plateau, 
     and the Escalante Canyon region.
       The Grand Staircase spans six major life zones, from lower 
     Sonoran desert to Arctic-Alpine forest, and its outstanding 
     rock formations present some four billion years of geology. 
     The area includes numerous relict plant areas--rare examples 
     of pristine plant ecosystems that represent the natural 
     vegetative cover that existed in the region before domestic 
     livestock grazing.
       The Kaiparowits Plateau includes world class 
     paleontological sites, including the best and most continuous 
     record of Late Cretaceous terrestrial life in the world. The 
     area includes thousands of significant archaeological sites, 
     including the remnants of at least three prehistoric Indian 
     cultures. The Kaiparowits includes the most remote site in 
     the lower 48 states.
       The Escalante Canyon region includes some of the most 
     scenic country in the West, significant archaeological 
     resources, unique riparian ecosystems, and numerous historic 
     sites and trails.


                    Effects of Monument Designation

       There is very little current human use of the area proposed 
     for monument designation and, with the exception of the 
     proposed coal mine discussed below, current and anticipated 
     uses are generally compatible with protection of the area as 
     a monument and would not be affected.
       The proposed proclamation would apply to only federal 
     lands. Private and state-owned parcels would be excluded from 
     the monument.
       The new monument would be subject to valid existing rights, 
     but would preclude new mining claims in the area.
       The proclamation would depart from prior practice and would 
     not reserve federal water rights. This approach on water 
     rights reflects the judgment that an assertion of water 
     rights would invite unnecessary controversy. Some of the 
     objects to be protected by the monument designation do not 
     require water. There is very little water in the area, and 
     what water there is probably has already been claimed under 
     state law. As a part of the study described below, the 
     Secretary will determine whether to seek water rights.
       Finally, the proclamation would direct the Secretary of the 
     Interior to prepare a management plan for the area within 
     three years. Although the precise outcome of the three-year 
     planning process cannot be forecast, the Secretary believes 
     that current uses of the area, including grazing, hunting, 
     fishing, off-road vehicle use and similar activities would 
     generally not be affected at current levels or in current 
     areas of use.
       The principal substantive effect of the monument 
     designation will be on a proposed coal mine on the 
     Kaiparowits Plateau.
       The Kaiparowits Plateau lies in the center of the area that 
     would be covered by the monument designation. Two companies 
     hold leases to mine federal coal there. One company is 
     working with DOI to surrender its Kaiparowits leases in 
     exchange for rights to coal elsewhere in Utah (a situation 
     quite similar to the case of the New World Mine). The other 
     lease holder, Andalex Resources, a Dutch-owned coal company 
     with plans to ship coal to Asia, has rebuffed DOO's offers to 
     pursue a trade.
       Coal development on the Kaiparowits would damage the 
     natural values of the entire area. Monument designations 
     would not block the proposed coal mine, per se, but would 
     help in a variety of ways (described at length in the 
     Secretary's attached memo) to persuade Andelex to surrender 
     its leases in exchange for coal elsewhere.
       This step--reducing or eliminating the risk of coal mining 
     on the Kaiparowits--would represent an immense victory in the 
     eyes of environmental groups and, based on the editorials 
     written on the subject during the Utah wilderness bill deb, 
     would be widely hailed in the media.


     
                                                                    ____
     Record Type: Federal (All-in--Mail).
     Creator: Kathleen A. McGinty (McGinty--KA1) (CEQ).
     Creation date/time: 23-Aug-1996 16:29:34.89.
     Subject: Utah--weekly report.
     To: Peter G. Umhofer.
     CC: Thomas C. Jensen
       Text: As you know, a draft national monument declaration 
     has been prepared for your review by the Department of 
     Interior. Per your request, the Department studied the area 
     and found it incredibly rich archaeologically (anasasi ruins) 
     and ecologically (unique and pristine natural resources); 
     already in Federal ownership, and therefore, suitable for 
     monument designation under the Antiquities act. In addition, 
     Interior also reports that currently, a foreign coal company 
     called Andalax Resources is pushing to open a coal mine in 
     the heart of the area. While a monument designation is not 
     capable of stopping the mine (all existing property rights 
     and uses would be held harmless), it would make it more 
     difficult for the mining company to secure approval of their 
     request for a 22 mile road that they would propose to run 
     across federal land, again in the heart of this area. In this 
     regard, the situation is very similar to where we were last 
     year on Yellowstone--mine proposed; mine requesting use of 
     federal land. Under these circumstances last year, your 
     exercised authority to withdraw surrounding land from mining 
     activity. Like the monument designation here, that action did 
     not stop the Yellowstone mine, but it did erect significant 
     barriers to it.
       It was originally proposed that you would announce the 
     monument during your vacation. Work was pushed to meet that 
     deadline. I am very concerned now that, since we did not move 
     forward at that time, but significant work was done, news of 
     this will leak out. I strongly recommend that we move forward 
     with this initiative. Others are concerned that it will 
     ignite a ``War on the West'' backlash, and indeed, the Utah 
     delegation--including Bill Orton--will be displeased to say 
     the least. However, the attached editorial from the Salt Lake 
     Tribune decries Dole's ``Whine on the West'', and in many 
     other places in the west (CO, CA, WA, OR, NM) this would be 
     extremely well received.
       In any event, we need to decide this soon, or I fear, press 
     leaks will decide it for us.


[[Page E2271]]

     
                                                                    ____


                            Executive Office of the President,

                                  Washington, DC, August 23, 1996.
     Memorandum for the President.
     From: Kathleen A. McGinty.
     CC: Leon Panetta.
     Re: CEQ Weekly Report.


                                  utah

       As you know, a draft national monument declaration has been 
     prepared for your review by the Department of the Interior 
     (DOI). Per your request, DOI studied the area and found it 
     incredibly rich archaeologically (anasasi ruins) and 
     ecologically (unique and pristine natural resources). Because 
     the area is already in Federal ownership, it is therefore 
     suitable for monument designation under the Antiquities Act.
       DOI also reports that a foreign coal company called Andalex 
     Resources currently is pushing to open a coal mine in the 
     heart of the area. While a monument designation is not 
     capable of stopping the mine (all existing property rights 
     and uses would be held harmless), it would make it more 
     difficult for the mining company to secure approval of their 
     request for a 20 mile road that they would propose to run 
     across federal land, again in the heart of this area. In this 
     regard, the situation is very similar to where we were last 
     year on Yellowstone--a proposed mine requesting use of 
     federal land. Under these circumstances last year, you 
     exercised authority to withdraw surrounding land from mining 
     activity. That action did not stop the Yellowstone mine, but 
     it did erect significant barriers to it as would the monument 
     designation here.
       It was originally proposed that you would announce the 
     monument during your vacation. Work was pushed to meet that 
     deadline. I am very concerned now that, since we did not move 
     forward at that time, but significant work was done, news of 
     this will leak out. I strongly recommend that we move forward 
     with this initiative. Others are concerned that it will 
     ignite a ``War on the West'' backlash, and indeed, the Utah 
     delegation--including Congressman Bill Orton (D-UT)--will be 
     displeased to say the least. However, the attached editorial 
     from the Salt Lake Tribune decries Dole's ``Whine on the 
     West'', and I believe that in many other places in the west 
     (CO, CA, WA, OR, NM) this initiative would be extremely well 
     received.
       In any event, we need to decide this soon, or I fear, press 
     leaks will decide it for us.


     
                                                                    ____
                            Executive Office of the President,

                                                September 6, 1996.
     To: Elisabeth Blaug, Thomas C. Jensen, Brian J. Johnson,
     From: Kathleen A. McGinty, Council on Environmental Quality.
     Subject: Wkly report graphs.


                                  utah

       We learned late today that the Washington Post is going to 
     run a story this weekend reporting that the administration is 
     considering a national monument designation. I understand 
     that there are no quotes in the story, so it is based only on 
     ``the word about town.'' I have called several members of 
     Congress to give them notice of this story and am working 
     with political affairs to determine if there are Democratic 
     candidates we should alert. We are neither confirming nor 
     denying the story; just making sure that Democrats are not 
     surprised.
       Meanwhile, we are working with Don Baer and others to scope 
     out sites and dates that might work for an announcement on 
     this issue.


     
                                                                    ____
                             Council on Environmental Quality,

                                Washington, DC, September 6, 1996.
     Memorandum for the President.
     From: Kathleen A. McGinty.
     CC: Leon Panetta.
     Re: CEQ Weekly Report.


                                  UTAH

       We learned late today that the Washington Post is going to 
     run a story this weekend reporting that the Administration is 
     considering a national monument designation. I have called 
     several members of Congress to give them notice of this story 
     and am working with Office of Political Affairs to determine 
     if there are Democratic candidates we should alert. We are 
     neither confirming nor denying the story; just making sure 
     that Democrats are not surprised. This could lead the Utah 
     delegation to try efforts such as a rider on the Interior 
     Appropriations bill next week to prevent you from taking any 
     such action.
       Meanwhile, we are working with Don Baer and others to scope 
     out sites and dates that might work for an announcement on 
     this issue.


     
                                                                    ____
     Creator: Brian J. Johnson (Johnson, BJ) (CEQ).
     Creation: Date/Time: 10-Sep-1996 17:07:20.19.
     Subject: Get a load of this from Kenworthy
     To: Thomas C. Jensen, Kathleen A. McGinty, Wesley P. Warren, 
       Shelley N. Fidler.
       Text:


       
                                                                    ____
                              ATTACHMENT 1

     Att Creation Time/Date: 10-Sep-1996 14:36:00.00
     Att Bodypart Type: E.
     Att Creator: Kenworthy, Tom.
     Att Subject: utah, again.
     Att To: smtp: johnson.
       Brian: So when pressed by Mark Udall and Maggie Fox on the 
     Utah monument at yesterday's private ceremony for Mo, Clinton 
     said: ``You don't know when to take yes for an answer.'' 
     Sounds to me like it's going forward. I also hear Romer is 
     pushing the president to announce it when he's in Colorado on 
     Wednesday. Give me a heads up if its imminent--I can't write 
     another story saying it's likely to happen, but it would be 
     nice to know when it's going to happen for planning 
     purposes--Tom Kenworthy.
       ps--thanks for the packet.


       
                                                                    ____
                              ATTACHMENT 2

     Att Creation Time/Date: 10-Sep-1996 17:01:00.00
     Att Bodypart type: D
       Text:
       RFC-822-headers:


       
                                                                    ____
     Record Type: Federal (All-in-1 Mail).
     Creator: Shelley N. Fidler (Fidler--S) (CEQ).
     Creation Date/Time: 10-Sep-1996 17:09:13.8.
     Subject: Re: Get a load of this from Kenworthy.
     To: Brian J. Johnson, Thomas C. Jensen, Kathleen A. McGinty, 
       Wesley P. Warren.
       Text: why didn't he write about MO that would have been 
     useful and nice and well deserved. what a creep.


     
                                                                    ____
     Creator: Thomas C. Jensen (JENSEN--T) (CEQ).
     Creation date/time: 10-SEP-1996 17:09:24.95.
     Subject: re: Get a load of this from Kenworthy.
     To: Brian J. Johnson; Kathleen A. McGinty; Wesley P. Warren; 
       Shelley N. Fidler.
       Text: Wow. He's got good sources and a lot of nerve.


       
                                                                    ____
     Record type: Federal (External mail).
     Creator: kenworthyt.
     Creation date/time: 11-SEP-1996 22:22:00.00.
     Subject: utah.
     To: johnson.
       Text: south rim of the grand canyon, sept 18--be there or 
     be square


     
                                                                    ____
                              ATTACHMENT 1

     ATT Creation time/date: 11-SEP-1996 22:22:00.00
     ATT Bodypart type: D


     
                                                                    ____
                             Council on Environmental Quality,

                               Washington, DC, September 16, 1996.
     Memorandum to the President.
     From: Kathleen A. McGinty.
     Subject: Utah Monument Proclamation.
       The Secretary of the Interior prepared the attached 
     materials in response to your request to him for information 
     on federal lands in southern Utah that should be granted 
     national monument protection under the Antiquities Act.
       In brief, the Secretary proposes that you use your 
     authority under the Antiquities Act to establish by 
     proclamation the ``Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
     Monument.'' The monument would cover approximately 1.7 
     million acres of federal land in south central Utah managed 
     by the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
       National and Utah environmental groups have pressed 
     Congress to designate approximately 5.7 million acres of BLM 
     land in Utah as ``wilderness areas,'' a potentially more 
     restrictive land use category than ``national monument'' 
     status. The proposed Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
     Monument would be welcomed by the environmental groups as a 
     tremendous step toward protecting the areas they care most 
     about, including the areas facing the greatest development 
     threat from proposed coal mining. They will, however, 
     continue to press their case for the much more stringent and 
     larger wilderness designations.
       The proposed national monument includes approximately 
     400,000 acres of BLM lands that environmental advocates want 
     to see protected, but that have not been proposed for formal 
     wilderness protection because the acres contain features that 
     render them legally ineligible for wilderness status. The 
     lands are essentially the interstices between large blocks of 
     wilderness-eligible lands. They contain resources that 
     qualify monument status, as described in the Secretary's memo 
     to you.
       Since news of the proposed monument leaked to the Los 
     Angeles Times and Washington Post last week, we have received 
     strong endorsements for this proposal from many quarters, 
     including national and western newspapers, Democratic Senate 
     and House candidates in Montana, Idaho, and Colorado, western 
     Democratic Senators and House Members, key authorizing and 
     appropriating committee members, western governors, and 
     numerous environmental and conservation groups. The Utah 
     delegation, including Democratic Congressman Bill Orton, 
     Governor Leavitt, and the NRA have spoken out in strong 
     opposition.
       In this regard, much of the opposition from Utah has been 
     premised on concern over the monument's possible impact on 
     school revenues. We have compiled a considerable body of 
     information on this issue. Based on CEQ, OMB, and Interior 
     Department analysis of reports prepared by various State of 
     Utah agencies, it appears that the proposed Andalex/Smoky 
     Hollow Mine would generate less than $75,000 per year for 
     Utah school expenses. Utah's annual education budget is

[[Page E2272]]

     approximately $1.6 billion. The criticism based on ``lost'' 
     school income appears to be wildly overstated.
       Secretary Babbitt anticipated the level and type of 
     opposition we have now heard directly. The Secretary has 
     proposed that, in establishing the monument, you take several 
     steps to reduce short- and long-term opposition from Utah's 
     pro-development interests and rural residents. First, he 
     proposes that BLM, rather than the National Park Service, 
     manage the monument. Second, he proposes that you expressly 
     disclaim any reservation of federal water rights for the 
     monument. Third, the Secretary has proposed monument 
     boundaries that exclude all developed areas and state park 
     lands. Fourth, the Secretary has proposed that the new 
     management regime for the monument area be defined through a 
     multi-year public hearing and involvement process.
       White House and Interior Department representatives have 
     met or conversed extensively over the past week with members 
     of the Utah delegation and the Governor's office. Based on 
     those communications, we recommend that the monument 
     proclamation disclaim any effect on management of grazing, 
     hunting, or fishing activities. In other words, those 
     activities would be governed by current law, notwithstanding 
     the monument designation.
       In addition, we recommend that you direct the Secretary to 
     pursue negotiations with the State of Utah to trade state-
     owned parcels within the boundaries of the monument for 
     federal lands of equal value elsewhere in Utah, thus ensuring 
     that the state interests are protected. This direction would 
     come in the form of a separate memo to the Secretary, not in 
     the proclamation.
       The draft proclamation submitted by the Secretary has been 
     amended to reflect the hunting/fishing/grazing point 
     described in the preceding paragraph.


     
                                                                    ____
     Record type: Federal (External Mail).
     Creater: kenworthy.
     Creation: Date/time:16-Sep-1996 12:30:00.00.
     Subject: utah.
     To: johnson.
       Text: Nice touch doing the Escalante Canyons announcement 
     on the birthday of Utah's junior senator! Give me a call if 
     you get a chance.


     
                                                                    ____
                              Attachment 1

     Att Creation time/date: 16-Sep-1996 12:32:00.00
     Att Bodypart type: D


     
                                                                    ____
                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                   Washington, September 13, 1996.
     Hon. Robert F. Bennett,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bennett: I am responding to your letter I 
     received yesterday regarding the proposal to create a new 
     national monument in southern Utah. While no final decision 
     on establishing a monument has been made, your letter 
     nonetheless raises valid concerns, and I do believe they 
     merit full discussion.
       You ask, first, whether the proposed monument would carry 
     with it a reserved water right, and if so, what effect it 
     might have on water users, the Colorado River Compact, and 
     various proposed water development projects. These are 
     questions of very legitimate concern, and I look forward to 
     discussing them further with you, Congressman Orton, Governor 
     Leavitt, and other interested parties.
       Your second group of questions involves the effect of 
     establishment of a national monument on state lands within 
     its boundaries. We certainly share your concern that the 
     state public school system not be impaired by establishment 
     of a national monument. As you know, the issue of how to deal 
     with state inholdings scattered across federal lands managed 
     to protect nationally significant values is a common problem 
     throughout the west. Many national parks, national forests, 
     national monuments, and other projected federal areas contain 
     state inholdings. The most common way to address these is for 
     the state and the federal government to agree upon an 
     exchange, whereby the state agrees to trade its inholding in 
     return for public lands of equal value outside the protected 
     area. I look forward to discussing this further with you.
       Your final set of questions involves the status of existing 
     mineral leases and rights in the area under consideration as 
     a national monument. The only mineral interests of any 
     significance I am aware of in the area are existing federal 
     coal leases issued many years ago. Most of these leases have 
     expired of their own terms, or been relinquished, or are in 
     the process of being cancelled pursuant to law. Two leases or 
     lease groups remain. One is held by Pacificorp, and we are 
     currently in very serious discussions with that company to 
     relinquish its lease on the Kaiparowits Plateau in exchange 
     for bidding credits on federal coal of equal value elsewhere.
       The remaining lease interest is held by Andalex Resources, 
     Inc. This company has applied for a number of permits or 
     other authorizations required by federal and state law in 
     order to open a mine on the Kaiparowits Plateau. A draft 
     environmental impact statement is currently being prepared on 
     the proposal. Should a national monument be established, and 
     should the company continue to seek permission to move 
     forward with its proposal, a determination would have to be 
     made whether the Andalex proposal is inconsistent with the 
     purposes of the monument, and if so, whether and to what 
     extent the company has valid existing rights that would have 
     to be addressed.
       I appreciate the opportunity I've had to discuss these 
     issues with you, with Congressman Orton, and with Governor 
     Leavitt. I look forward to further discussions in the very 
     near future.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Babbitt.

     

                          ____________________