105th CONGRESS } 

1st Session COMMI'ITEE PRINT { SERIAL No. 

105-D 

LEGISLATIVE STUDY AND INVESTIGATIVE STAFF REPORT ON ABUSE OF 

DISCRETION IN THE CREATION OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE 

NATIONAL MONUMENT UNDER THE ANTIQUITIES ACT 

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: THE ABUSE OF TRUST 

AND DISCRETION IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF 

THE GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL 

MONUMENT 

Majority staff of the Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on National 

Parks and Public Lands submits the following 

STAFF REPORT 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 7, 1997 

This report has not been officially adopted by the Committee on Resources 

and may not therefore necessarily reflect the views of its members. 

47-118 cc 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1998 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-056341-0 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

ROBERT F . SMITH, Oregon 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

RICK HILL, Montana 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

E:DWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F . VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

E:NI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana 

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff 

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

(l!) 
CONTENTS 

Introduction: Committee Review Of The Designation of the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument .......................................................................... . The Law: Antiquities Act Monument Designations ............................................ .. Executive Summary of Findings: Monumental Decisions Behind Closed Doors 

It's Politics, Stupid-Not The Environment ........................................................ .. The Ends Justify The Means: NEPA, A Law of Convenience For The ClintonGore Campaign .................................................................................................... . Campaign Style "Event" For A Campaign-Motivated Decision That Violates 

The Intent of the Antiquities Act ...................................................................... . 

Hi5~14~: ~dS~li~~~eH~:: ... ~~~~~~~~ .. ~~~~.~.~~ .. ~ ... ~~·i·~:.~.~ ... ?.~ .. ~.~~ ... ~~~.~~ 

(Ill) 

Page 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

10 

12 

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 

pursuant 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 (DOl) pursuant to a March 18, 1997, request 

to the Chair of CEQ and the Secretary of DOl 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 with-

(1) 
2 

held, 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 

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 

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 Vtah 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 

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. 2 See Report to accompany S. 4698, Rpt. No. 3797, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. (May 24, 1906). 
3 

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. 
4 

It's Politics, Stupid-Not The Environment 

The records and documents provided by the CEQ and DOl clear 

ly demonstrate that the Administration's goal was political, not en 

vironmental, a fact that contradicts the Congressional intent of th( 

Antiquities Act. The Clinton White House took pains to ensure that all prominen1 

Democrats from neighboring states were not only warned in ad· 

vance, but had an opportunity to give their views on the designa· tion. In an August 14, 1996, memorandum for the President, CE~ 

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 (DCO), 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."(Emphasis supplied) 

It was only Republicans, the lone Utah Democratic Member, and 

Utahns 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 eleetronic 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" (Emphasis supplied) (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." (Emphasis su.pplied) (September 11, 1996, 

e-mail from Tom Kenworthy to Brian Johnson) 

The exchange continues again: 
5 

"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 DOl 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." (Emphasis supplied) 

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: 
6 

"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." (Emphasis supplied) 

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 pastonly for large dramatic parcels that are threatened. 

do we risk a backlash from the bad guys if we do thesedo 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?" (Emphasis supplied) 

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 DOl was keeping the 

Monument idea alive: 

"since i and i think others were persuaded at yesterday's meeting wllnterior 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." (Emphasis supplied) 

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, DOl was aprarently pushing hard (behind 

the scenes) for this monument. Stil 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 DOl 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 DOl 

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: 
7 

"It provides the federal government an opportunity 

for collaborative decision-makinJ with state and 

local governments and the pubhc." (September 26, 

1996, testimony of Kathleen McGinty before the Senate 

Energy Committee) (Emphasis supplied) 

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 (EIS) 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." (Emphasis supplied) 

Although this revealing paragraph was edited out of the final 

memo, it is alarmingly hypocritical that CEQ, the agency created 
8 

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. Compare 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).(Emphasis supplied) 

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, sustain- able 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 ... " 

"[NEPAl gives greater voice to communities. It provides the Federal Government an opportunity for collaborative decision-making with state and local governments 

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 .... " (Emphasis supplied) 

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-election 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 f"trSt 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 
9 

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 Actnamely 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." (Emphasis supplied) 

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 the 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 DOl 

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." 

(Emphasis supplied) 

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 DOl to draw the necessary Antiquities Act papers to make the secretly planned designation. With-
10 

out 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 its 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-Gore re-election campaign. The lands to be set 

aside, by the staffs own descriptions, were not threatened-and 

hence did not qualify for protection as a National Monument. 

The decision was withheld from any public scrutiny or Congr·essional 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 into 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 a.nd 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 a.; 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. 
11 

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 the 

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 
1') 

.. 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 notiee, 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 Tntst 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 DOl Solicitor's Office; the author 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 
13 

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." (Emphasis supplied) 

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 mani- fested 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 have been sent. 3 This is significant because it demonstrates an effort-beginning with DOl in 1995-to constmct an 

Antiquities Act rationale to circumvent NEPA. All the while, meetings and work on the monument designation are proceeding within 

and between DOl, CEQ, and Department of Justice. 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 Ilwe 

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 . . . . The President particularly seeks your advice on the suitability of such lands for designation as national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906." (Em- phasis supplied) (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. 

3 Whether DOl ever actually received the Clinton Jetter is at issue because: (1) DOl 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 Chainnan 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. 

47-118 98 . 2 
14 

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?" (Emphasis supplied.) 

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 T. J. 

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." (Emphasis supplied) 

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?" (Emphasis supplied) 

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 his 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 email message to T. J. 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 
15 

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." (Emphasis supplied) 

A March 27, 1996, e-mail from Linda Lance at CEQ to Robert 

Vandermark at CEQ shows that DOl 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 Babbitt to get this process 

started." (Emphasis supplied) 

It is clear that DOl was still advocating the monument despite 

the fact that CEQ was ready to drop the project. Even the DOl Solicitor's Office concluded that case law requires full compliance 

with NEPA's requirements when national monument proposals 

come out of DOl. 

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. J. Glauthier COMB) and Kathleen McGinty on March 27,1996. He stated 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 studies, 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 have 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, DOl 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 DOl Solicitor's 

office noted this concern to Solicitor John Leshy and colleagues 

Dave Watts and Robert Baum: 
113 

"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." (Emphasis supplied) 

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." 

(Emphasis supplied) 

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 DOl 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." (Emphasis supplied) 

The President finally signed the letter authorizing DOl 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 Presi-
17 

dential 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." (Emphasis supplied) 

She also underscored the potential political benefits in key western states, as confirmed by the non-Utah Democratic politicians 

who had b.een 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 TaosAlbuquerque corridor, and the Phoenix-Tucson area. This 

assessment squares with the positive reactions by Sen. 

Reid, Gov. Romer, and Rep. Richardson when asked their 

views 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." (Emphasis supplied) 

The situation was painted as a no-lose political situation. Translation: The monument designation will help solidify Clinton's electoral base-while 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 
18 

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." 

Mter 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 email 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, Presi.dent 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 kn(lW 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. 
Auqus~ J, 1995 

NO'I'E: 

TO: RA'lNOR 

BAu'"M 

R!:: ANTIQUITIES ACT 

19 

..J-..11. I 1;1. 

DOl :#""31 

ATTACHED AR!: SOME: SAMPLE PRLS PROCLAMATIONS. SOME: .1UST C!S!GNATE 

THE: MONOHDfT, OTHER C!SIGNAT!'! AHD WITHDRAW THE KOHTJM!HT. IT loiOt.U 

FOLLOW THAT ANWR COULD BE O!SIGNAT!O - A PRESTIGE ISSUE - WI!HOt~ 

A FURTHER WITHDRAWAL OF u.ND. 

WE SHOtTLO M!!T. I THINK W!: HAVE ENOUGH MATERIALS FOR A M!ITING 

WITH J'OHN. HE WAS NOT LCOK!NG FOR A PAPER, BUT RATHER A BRIEF TAI.X 

ABOUT THE CHOICES AHD LEGAL RISKS. 

DAVE: 
20 

T~e P:-esider:~ ~ . . is ~!.:t!'lori z2d, in his discr'lf!i-=n, to 

decl~re cy pu:l:c prce!amation historic landmar~s. 

historic and preh:s-:cric structures, and other ob;e,...s o<' histo~;~ or se;•~·;"'c ;~to~ost that are situated upon 

the la~ds qwneA c• c;~~~; 11 1d bv the Gove:nment ... to be 

national mon~:!le~-::s, and may reserte as part thereof 

parcels of la~ds, -:~e l i :!!its of which in all eases shall 

be con! .!.ned to ':..":.e "-;:: 1 1 •st at• a cpmpat; bl e with the 

proper care ~d ~a~agement of the objects to be 

prctec-:ed . 15 u.s.c. §431. (~phasis added.) 

2 . Histcrf 

Many areas o! the Na-:icna.l P'ark . Systel!l were . oriqinally 

established as national ac~~e~ts under this act and placed under 

the care of the Oepa~ent o! ':..~e Interior to be administered by 

the Rational Park Service ~~der ':..~e Service's Or:anie Acto! 1916. 

16 11. S.c. § 1. The most recent procluatiorui were siqned by 

President Carter and esta!::list:ed various Alaska monWIIents, the 

predecessors to the naticnal parks and preserves eventually 

established by the Alaska !la-:icnal Interest Lands Conservation Act. 

J. Analysis 

When the president ~c!e~alces the preparation o! a proclamation, the rest=ie"!icns o! ':.."l.e law lllUSt be carefully 

observed and doCUlllented. ee lands lllUSt be federally owned or controlled. Private and st3te lands are excluded • . 

The area must b8 the s:ellest area compatible with manaqel!lent 

ot the objecu. Althouqh bread discretion is vested in the 

president, the adlilinist:-at!.•te record must reflect the rationale 

basis tor the aereaqe. 

Host areas ot the !fa'!icnal Park System were established 

because of objects at hist:ric or scientitlc interest. Aqain, an ~tdminist:-ative record lllUSt be established reqardinq the objects to b~ protected and thai= siqni!ic~nca properly de~onstrated. 

4. Other Laws 

The F~eral Land Poli~t a~d Menaqe~ent Act, 43 u.s.c. f 1701, 

does not preclude or rest=ain presidential proclamations, even ~~ouqh it has restricticns on other tor:s ot public land 
21 

...,~':!':-:!!'~ ~·!:!!.s ~! :!:-eas ~·!e:- ~.ooo !c:-es. See 4J cr.s.c. § l7l4(el (ll. 

C;o - · 

~~ ':!':e ~~~e~t ':!':e Sec:-eta:-of pr~pcses a national ~onument, ~PA 

a;:;:!.~ es . !!c~·le•!e:- , ::o~=•~ts p:-oposed · by t.'l.e pres !dent do net :-e-:-.:~:''! ~r::?.". cc~pli !~ce !:~at:Se lfn'A ~oes not cover presidential !ct!~~s. Tc t!':e eY.te~t ~~at the president directs that a p::~~!.!:::ao::!c~ ~e 1rll!ted and ~n ~re.a withdrawn as a :~onument, he may 

di:-ect '::!':e Sec:-et!r/ of t~e Inter1or to be part of the president's st~!! !~~ '::: •.:nde:-tal<e and c:::~plete all the administ:-athe support. 

This !r.tericr ...,ork falls ~~de:- the presidential u=brella. 

5. !.itiqation 

I ha•1e attached the !!lOSt recent case invol•.rir.q the Al aska :~onu:~ents. The case is inst--uctive and should be read, understood 

and followed. Careful o!::se:vance of the administrative and 

institutional structures as well as a focused administrative record 

will enhance success in ~'l.e court house. 
2<1 

~ . 

RECOR.D .TYPE • ' FEDER;;( .: ~~l~.i.~~~;; ~J\ :. 

. ~ 

~ \. ' . 

CREATORrKathleen A. l•ieGint~ C .HCGINTY_K CCEQJ 

' CREATION DATE/TlHE , zO-HAR-1996 08 , 01,40 . 1Z 

SUBJECT : utah le t ter to babbitt 

·- TO•Thamas C. Jensen READrZO HA~-19 96 08 : 0.3 : 18 . 37 

(\JENSEN_T l CCEQJ 

!~2~•t"'thave this document • . but, i want la _see- i~ ~er:sonally and 

clear off on it. thx. •••••••• =~•••c•c•c = ATTACHMENT 1 cc ca ccc ~c c&ccccc cc: 

ATT .CREATION TIHE/DATE r l9-HAR-1996 . 19 : 02 : 00 . 00 

ATT BODYPART TYPE rE . 

... ._ ·' 

ATT. CR:"TORrCNcl~ L, La~ce~~ ~~t. : 

~TT S!!BJECT rletter t~ babbi t. re· ·.,onu=ents . 

ArT TO-;i{f;GIIirv:_K . H~I!ITY-K~A ;CD .' ) , 

~~ I-~~~~~A:i~~E~{ < ': ~cX~~r~.(.~a~lato ·l 

;~_S §;~: ~!~~~~, . :~ ~f!UmElD_~ . · .. ·' _. ': <~ }, · . · < ~tiu~~i,~i.D~A;Ai;c;o > ,, . 

:'too. ·: .· · .:.:. .. . . Hessag·e ·creation Date was: ·a,t , ~9·HAR l99i :19 •. oz·,aa. 

·~ 

~ttached is a letter' .. to . bebbit_ ~s~: .;j~ discussed yest~rday that ~nakes clear tha t 

the 'utah aonumer\t 8ction is._ one_·:sitkierateci ~)·· the executive -of'fice o'f the . 

pr.sident, not the ·l!~~c~ ;, ' .. :r~;;~:t~f~ed ard,f edi.te.d.· ·, .. ·. . . 

it seems ,to me it could .go frona- klttie -arid/or :t; rather thatf having :to go 

*hrouGh. the clear~nce, pl-o ~ess· f:or. ;th8 Pres.' signat~re c~nce ti~ae_ ~s a concern. 

but 'dinah should cig!" O'ff ~" "that., ~n~ it. cculd. be .done._ either:- ~·Y ". ' 

also, do we -know whether the Ca~Y~r,lands anc: ·arChes a'r'eas we•r-.a .conside.rino 

Would b e affected_ by. t _he ·utah- wi1dts"rnessi bil.l ·-- . &ee GY que~iton · in_ bold on the 

attacfiement. ,· · 

katie ." ~;..d . tj, yoU 10hould. agree on how to si"'1 thiti,_ ·and tt,~~ OI'\~ -- ~f- your . 

office~ can just 'finaUz:e· ·anci send .i :t ·out; .. idea'll:v •. i :t ch~uld ,. o ~_cnaorrciw. ff · y'O_u want· "to discuss, jUst. yeii.·-. :- ·, · · '_ . 
23 

ATT CIIEATION TIHE/DATEol9 HAR l996 }9•01 •00.00 

ATT IODYPART TvPE •D 

TEXT• 

Th• following ttach~ents wer& included wi~h this message: 

TYPE FILE 

NAME PARKSLTR.HON 

2 ·=·=·==·=====····· 

•••••~~••••••• •• •••• ATTACHMENT 3 ccccc~cccc~ccc a••c•• 

ATT CREATION TIHE/DAT£ ,19-HAR-1996 19•01•00 . 00 

ATT. IODYPART TYP"t op 

Arr SUB~ECT PARKSLTR 

l'EXr; ·. PRINTER FONT 12_POINT_ROHAN 

Doa~ Secretary Babbitt, · 

The President has e's~ed thait we Contact yoU tO· request 

~oraaU.an· Within the exPertise' of:y.ou·r· •gency. As .you know. 

the eoi,g..e:sa:'currently ia' consiciering legislation that would.· 

.... o.va signifois:ant .·pq'rtio'na of' • public· lands in· Utah t'ro01 .. thlilr. 

~t.-:Protaction ios wil:dar:ne~ stuc!Y .. .ire'as. Protection of

. i.in<ls is ~· on• ~ the.h.ighes-t 'environmental priorities·· of the 

j:llntoi'i Ac.f!dnis~r•Ut~n ~ . . . . · .· : . ··. · . · · . . . .· . · .• . ·." Therefore, . ori behalf· of th& ·President I/we oro requesting 

OJiWon:' on ·,·what, "if anir, .'action\. the:· Adainistrotio.n 'can· ·and . 

sho~d tal(e'' to -protect Utah ·lands tho~ are currently aanagoid to' . 

pi'ciqct.-wildomess i.ligibilitlo'> ·but ~iit ·.could be liad.l .uns'uiteblli 

of-.·~~ wUdemess.. designation if ·.,pened ·· for ci'evalop .. nt .by ; 

~••· .'(do'.the ·canyonlands. ·and ~ches. areas fit, this: .... · 

"cleacription1 ar• they th~ .. tened ' by the utah wilderness. bill? is 

·there a better way ta descr ibe ·the .reievant lands? 1 Tho . 

Pr.esident particulllr:ly seeks your:-. ·adviCe -on thti sui till.bili t:y of· 

Mac;~· lands ·for dasi~nat!an · tis ~ational ttonume~ts _under the . ·· h.tiquities Act, of'. 190.6. ·:· .·.- . · · · · 

· .. - ~ ." The· rr~aident ·wishes to- ·act ... to protect these lands as 

eXroaditiousllf oa .possiblo,.' liarticuiarllf given tho thr~at froio 

pandina conctressional action . Please reSpond as soon · •• 

possibia. · I~ ihara are· 1and: ~railS .- -that. you hav~ alreadY reviewed 

. and that may· be appropriate f~r immediAte actio~, please· provide". 

t:h..,t·.inforaaation. Sap8rataly ·and · •• -. Soon as possible. 

· Thank You for yOur assistanca. 

. . . Katie and/or T J??c 

••-: •··----~······· END -ATTACHMENT 
24 

RECORD TYPE • FEDERAL <All l-1 HAIL> 

C~EATOR,Thomas C. Jensen < JENSEN_T l <CEQ l 

CREATION DATE/ TIHE •ZO·HAR-1996 QS,z6 , 53 . 99 

SUBJECT : Linda' s park l etter t o babb itt 

TO t Thomas C . J e n s en 

READ , ZO·HAR -1 996 os , z7 ,Q8 . 41 

l <CECl 

T01Kathleen A. McGi nty 

READ'.ZO · KAR- 1996 08 , 54,44 . 03 

:G NTY_K l <C EQ ! 

TEXT• 

PRINTER FONT 1Z_POINT_ROHAN 

Dear Secretary Babbitt, 

Thi President has asked that we con t act you to request 

information within the eXPertise of your agency . As you know, 

t:h.e Con·gress· currently- is considering legislation that would 

re~ova · significant portions Of public lands ~n .Utah froa their 

cUrrant protection as wildef-ness study area!i. Protection of 

these ·l•nds .is one of the highest .environmental. JJrioriti.es of the 

CUnto.n . f.dldnistration. ' . . . . · . 

-: · •- thereiOra~ on ·beh.&lf · o;f ·the · President I/we ar.e r~CaueStini:i 

~our "opinion .. On wh&t.; i~ ··any~ aCtiO~s ·the . ."Admini 'str•itiOn can : ilnd 

o;boocid· .'take ~~ . 11r~tac~ ·· ~tah . !ilnd~ .' that ·are currenU~[ .,ia~ailed . t ·o 

pt"ot.e-;-t. wilderness lia1bi~i 1:)', but .. that could ba ·.•ade unsui'table 

"fo~ . #u"tur• .wilderness d~~ignatior · .if _opened "for . deVelopaent.·. b~ · -

eoftqr:--u; ... dO ~ . .- C~nYo~l Bn~~ aJ:ld .· ar~h~s ~~ s fi~.- thiS : ·: -~: : . . ·. desct-iption1 ·· are:' ~•Y 'i;ftreationed .by· the <ituh·.wUderness'billl . is:· 

'there . .;· b'e'tt'er :,.~ to desef'i~.;· ·ttie· 'relevant" landst·.' J·Ttie . . · P;.esid~t: < P~rticUiarly ~~k:S. y~ur·, advice ·on the Strit:a'biltb:···of 

.ueh. l.and:s ··.for : desigriatiOn·· as ·na.t.iOn.al monUnents · i.ini:fe.r ·· the :: -; . ·Mti<iu:i.Ues ·Act :oi'. 1906·; • ·. · · · · ·. · ·· · ·. · · · · · · . 

- · :The:· Presicie"nt wiShes io ·aC·t to · ~rot,~~t the-se la~ds a:S 

;aXJ:Jeditiot.~SlY .~ "PoSsibl"Oi P~rticvlarly " given the threat· from 

pendinci consire~s;Onal' ection .• ·-=Pte"ese. respOnd .as soon ·as· ·· 

poSsibl.e. · If ~he"rO are i.and 8reas .that· you"" have a~ready ·reviewed 

and that "may be apprapriat• ~or immediate tian,- please pravi de 

that information s e parately aOd as soon ~ as ,,ossible . · 

· Thank you for your . assistance.. · 

Katie and/or TJ?? 
25 

RECORD TYPE: FEDERAL C EXTE. .L HAILl 

CREATOR oCN•Linda L. Lance/O•OVP~OVP~LNGATE;EQPHRX 

CREATION DATE/TIHE : 21·HAR·1996 18oS6:00 . 00 

SUBJECT1Re: KH's comments en yesterday's monunent letter 

TOoHCGINTY_K 

READoZ1~tiAR·1996 18 : 51:01 . 46 

.... 

<CEQ > 

CC' Sen sen_ t READaHtiT READ 

~~jensen_t~a1~cd ) CCEQJ 

CCtbe•r_d 

READaZl·HAR-1996 18 :40:36 . 85 

CCacrutchfiel_j 

READ I ZZ-HAR-.1996 09 '26 '11. 41 

·ce,glauthie.:: _t 

R~a26~HAR-1996 23o00ol1.73 

·, '\ -

C bear_d~a1;cd l CCEQJ 

TEXT a 

Message ·er.,;ation Date was a:t 2l·HAR"l996 .18a4,0:00 

COHBJ 

i. -l·~·].y agrao_ tha:t'_ th,ia .:can•.t · be pitched ·as our answer to ·their utah . 

biU". .. bu_t 'i · ·•.having · tr'auble deciding where -we go f ·raa -·here. :if-we delink 

f~<_utah)>u:t.Jiait .our: ·reque&t of'or··infa to ·uta!>, ·..my? ' ·n wio inl!tead request 

ift1;o on. a_ll._sitell. tha.t 11iilht. _be covered by . the antiquities act, we Probably get 

aucfi: .• c.r.·.·'thion. we're_.,-probablli' ready-to· act en,.:- iricludlna· .. ~ • .;,·.that. mght .be · 

_ ... CIJiop:ellJ.nll. th~n' '.the <cbh. parks?' ..... ;f. 4J.ssing 50-thing or .lacking -in 

cN~UvitY? _.iS ._ti.o;;io_.anather'.!itah·. hook? ·· Whatclira tb.iri~t . · 

.~ ,aetti~~ ~~C~~~~d · .th•t .if: ~-· re ~ Goi~g· i:;, dO: thi~ w•-·n~~~: t~ . get this letter Goii1'Q' tO.iorrow~ ·•l•oat .everrlh~ria els~ is pr'atty lnUC:h re.dy tO gci _<to the 

reSide'n~'' *or- de~islon; · alth~ugh. sora6 di--afting. of -'the fo~mal doeumen:ts like 

pres: •eii~S- st~ll. needs .to be done. tt:tank~ :for your ~eip.
26 

RECORD TYPEo FEDERAL <EXTERNAL KAILJ 

CREATOR, CN•Linda L. Lance/O•OVPiiOVPiiLNGATI!iiEOPHf;..: 

CREATION DATE/TIHEoZZ-HAR-1996 18,56 oOO . Ool 

SUBJECT 1 redraft of ~)resident's babbi t !et 1:er and question 

TOoGLAUTNIER_T 

READoZ3-KAR-1996 11 , 35 , 23 . 85 

COH BJ 

TO; HcGIHTY _:K 

READ!Z"S-KAR-1996 13 l3ol~ ~7 

~ HCGINTY_KiiAliiCO l CCEQJ 

TOiJENSEH_T 

READaNOT READ.-

TOaiEAil.D 

READo22-KAR-lll96 l9o.00o4S,&O 

Tli I CRiiTCHFIEL_J. 

REAiltzz•KAR-199& ·i9:ai.s7.ss ... . .. . . ... 

< JENSEH_TiiAliiCO l <CEQ) 

BEAR~OiiAliiCD l <CEQ> 

CRUTCHFIEL_Ji1A·1i1CD' l COHBJ 

TDtiEAAo~a . ; c .aEAR.O_BiiAlllCD <OHB> 

~~~~~~1996 Olo44o~~ .• l8 , . 

·~ 

~:~--~;~~ ~-~~ '~·· ·~ 22-HAR~l9~~ !.ioo ~o ·''. · . , . . .. · . .. afl:aChecf· 1• a .ainiulist appr.aach -ta · the l .. tt.er. to bablli't't.· contr.ary to'·what. 

J~.i ~11a.,. i.vsni•!"t•if, 1. thi~ it ~s 'i,OIP.ortiont· the::he',ii'iii_t ttie in'!ui~. to·· · ~~-.-~'!v.-..-c~_: l!)f. ;the ·al:'tiquities act, cinclt ·:t.t:>at.•,c ·. the ·:e.,eio cin _whi.ch hir·c'!n -io~t . 

ur\!.J,aterall.y.; , ~o · .. k• a broAd.er rec:Uiest r i.skc scaring- people, a6'd.lor··pfo,OaU.sing · 

t~~:.;t:~.:~:::::~~ng Q~~~t~on is :· ot co ~~~h· ;.~t ~ic·l~~~ar. cay~, . b"t ~·· · polLU~·1 · ~OnSequenCes." o# designat,ina· these landS as aonwien~·· \men: 

theY'r:• not tt,r~at8nad . with .loSinG ,iilderne~ss . .stAtUs~ ·. arid · theY're p:robably· not 

.the ·iiN•s ·of ~e coUn·try. iso·st .in "~ed of this . . designl.ti:Ori •. ··presidf.ntS ·have ·"ot· ·used 'their •on~ent designatiOn .a\l'thcir.i t:y i n thiS Way · in· the past· ~- Only 'for ·. 

larGe dra•8tic parcel• that •r• threatened . do we risk a b.cklash from the bad 

guya if we 'do thee~ -- do thall' have.the chunc• to sugge,;t that . this ·ad•iniat·r.aticin ·could usa thiS authcirib al.7o the ti•e all oVer the ·country, and 

•ttlllrt to argue tha't the disc~ation is too hraad? .· ·. 

:i-'d li.ka gat. yOur .view, and political a'f'fai rs, on this. · m'ayba i 1.tn 

· o~erre4acti!"a; . Y~ 1 ttl~~k we need to eons! tier th'll~ i _ssue . 

. . . . : . 

••••••CE•a••••••••••-! ATTACHMENT . 1 •••••• "' •'!"'•••c ~cc•~·· 

ATT CREATION TIHE/DATEoZ2-HA1!"1996 18o59iD•l •. OO 

ATT iOI!VPART TYPE·c D 

.TEXT• ' 

The following -attachments were included ~ith this •essage1· 

TYPE · FILE 

· HAHE I PARKPRES 
27 

••••~~~-~·~.;~~~~~:·:;;~~,;;~C!i~EJit ;, l '\.f~·7•~:~:~t~i;~;.j;:~·,,.;, c.·-7" •••••;.•~••••••••••~• .ATTACHMENT. ·. 2 ••••••••••' ~:c•••••• ATT ~REATION'TIME/DATE•22-HAR-1996 '18•59,00.00 

ATT IODYPART TYPE,p 

ATT SUBJECT1PARKPRES 

TEXT.o 

PRINTE~ FONT 12_POINT_ROMAN 

S/22/" draft 

Pear Sac,..~· Babbitt, . It haa coaa.to BY attention that.thara .. ~be public lands 

in.litah that contain'aignificant 1hiatoric or sciantific.araaa. 

that lllllf ba aiipropriate for Nation.l Monuaent statU.·undar the AnUca~ties · · · arw' : · 

info .... ti.oft. •-:•• .. •1••• .. •. ~tro11•.4 by . . . . historic. or. prehistorac .. ,, Jtl"uc:t••r•••> 

oc:>.'sdanUftc iftte...i~~ ' 
28 

RECORD TYPEr FEDERAL <EXTERNAL HAILl 

CREATDR:HCGINTY_K~AlilCD 

CREATI9H DATE/TIHE :ZS-HAR-1996 13oZl:OO . OO 

SUBJECT1RE : redraft of president•s babbit tter and Question 

'!'OtT J-.Ghuthier 

READ 'oZ6-HAR-1996 Z3o33 •Z5.6Z 

ec·,CN·_:linda l . Lance/O• OVP 

ltEADoNOT READ 

CCtJENSEII_T 

REAli! NOT READ ~ 

CCriEAR_D 

READ ,zs~HAR-1996 13, zs, 11.49 

cCrCRUTCIIFIEL_J 

~~~-HAR-1996 13tSSo<iS.47 

cc • .,EAiiD_a REA!Iais-HAR~1996 ·no4Zr49.3.1 :.~ ... 

( •. Ct.:• Linda L. Lance/O=OVPilDVPilLNGATEilEOPHRX 

(CEQl 

< BEAR_DilAlilCD l <CEQl 

< .CRUTCHFIEL_JilAlacD l (DHil 

:n;xrr ... . , ·. ·. : :· ,,. ? . · . . . . . . . .. • •. · ':I. '• ·:l.ncirelis:l.ngb of ··the . v:l.aw that .,. • . sl\ou,lcl' just· drctp -these utah 

:•, ··< .... ·.:f.d .. aS; · ..... c{o h~t :r!lellY JCno.:. haN the anv:l.~oi if~ll, raac~ and· :l. ·.do 

.:. . think. ther• . :1.• .• :.danger o.f .. "abuse" of th• w:l.th~i-aw/anUciuit:l.es . 

... , :·.: '' iouttiortties 'ajopec:l.tilly e~use thasa .landi; ·~ .no:t reallY' · • il!:· ~a.:aci-.red~_ · · · · '-· .:_... - · ·· . -... · · 
29 

( I, ·-... --~ RECORD TYPE• FEDERAL CALL·IH-1 HAIL> 

CREATOR:Tho~as C. Jensen < JENSEN_T ) (CEQ) 

CREATION DATE/TIHE o27- HAR-1996 !3o21 o.4 . 93 

SUQjfCT:POT~S lette~ re- do 

lOalin"da L. lance 

READ•NOT READ 

TO•T J Glauthier 

READ•Zf-HAR-19.96· 14,16•12.50 

TOsJames Craig Crutchfield 

READ•27-HAR·l996 13 o44 o04 . 49 

TO ,·Bruce D. Beard 

REAI)t27-HAR-1996 16.•56,11. 99 

To.binah bar 

READtZ7-HAR-1996 1~•34,53.38 

C:C:,_Kethleen.· A. ·H.:Ginty 

READ•Z1-HAR~l996 . 17•13•07 .59 

:rm;: .... ·. .. ·; .. 

(\ LANCE_L ) Autoforward to_: ~~"!~te Addressee 

(~ GLAUTHIER_T l COHBl 

( CRUTCHFIEL_J l .COHBl 

C BEARD_B l COHB) 

BEAR_D > CCEQ> 

HCGIHTV_K > <CEQ> 

-Liricle, · ·,. · •. ,. . · 

Attached •'is ;,.); ,.;;,~dO". of. · the "draft pot us letter to ·aabbi t't : I've 

.added. ,ti>e .:~fe,.ence .. :ta. Glen c.i.,Yon·· NRA for. two reasons• ~irst, . 

b8·cause SOa8 the <18rldS ·we're -·revit!Wir\g :_neXt- to · Cianyon,lands are 

aor. p,;.i.Xiiaate :· t~ · GCHRA •. ·. ·se~ondi beca'Use. Ktr 8nd · oi:her:s ~aY want. 

-~~ ·rope !~ ~~-;~~~'iPar~~i:ts. ~~d · _Escal_ani;e CanYon's regi9ns' <wtii_ch . 

'ere,. ec!jacent·.·toi. GCNI!I\kif this "package' ultimately d~esn't seem 

.:c:teciuate .to 'the ·.Pi-es!dent•s :OVerall' .Pur:"pose. · 

·e.u if:y!;u.'v•.'ilot .en:V. questiqns. 

Vciu-•f..e doii\g ·a sireat ;job. "Tom · · · . 

••~cc:Ccc:.i.:c~8aa.Eaac -ATTACHMENT 1 •••ccaccc·cacc==ccc.::c 

.. ATT CREATION TIHE/DATE,27·MAR·l996 l3•25o00.00 

ATT BODVPART TYPE1P 

ATT CREATORtThamaa C. Jen.sen 

·TEXT• 

PRiNTER FOHT, i2_POIHT_ROHAN · S/27/96 draft- · . . · 

Dear SecretarY Babbitt, 

It_ has·_,coll38 to ftw att~ntiOn that there may be public lands· 

,'ad~ac~nt_·,i;o .,6len Cenyo~ Hation~l Recreation· Area, Canyonlands 

National :~_Park- arid Arches Hation&l Park in Utah that contain 

~ic:lnifi.C~r:-:~-)~~5t~ric r:,"_~Ci8~ti:fi.h· -, areaS _ that: .Say be· 8p~ropr.i&~e ·· for pro_tectiO_n _·.through _ Hatiori81 Honu'aant ·Status ·under •the AntiQ~~tl·~·lii'"(.;,.ct· Gf :."-;9 06 .: -. · Therefore~ • I a·tn. reQuestin,t· ar1y 

informaticn···.-vai'i8bl8 ' to yoUr 'Departm"ent a·n landS o"'ned or 

control_led by the United States adjacent to Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Ar.ea, Canyonlands National Park or Arches Hational 

Park that contain hiStoric landmarks, historic or prehictor.ic 

structures,., .Or other objects of hi.stor""ic or •cientific intere•t. 

• .;::..~.:~L·~~• . :. :~: : • . 
30 

Please respond •• soon •• possible. If there are land areas 

that you have already reviaved and that ••Y be appropriate for 

immediate consideration. please provide that infor•ation 

separately and as soon as possible. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

WJC 

•••••••••••••••~== END ATTACHMENT 
31 

RECORD TYPE• FEDERAL <ALL·IN·1 HAIL> 

CREATQR Ka~hleen A. HcGin~y ( HCGINTY_K ) <CEQ> 

CREATION DATE/TIHE , 27-HAR·l996 15 , 49 , 36 . 19 

SUBJECT:pls discuss this with to~ 

-. TOtRotiart C. Vandermark 

READ :Z7·HAR·l996 15 : 55 , 29.38 

(l VANDERHARK_R l (CEQ> 

TEXTa ~ . 

·rob, i want to see -this letter and ccmmen\ . pls coordinate witn 

taN so we send one set of comments back to linda . 

•··~·e•••••••••••~•• ATTACHMENT 1 •••••••••••••••••••• .ATT CREATION liHE/DATE:27·HAR·1996 12 :40 : 00 . 00 

ATT·JODVPART TVPE •E 

ATT ·CREATOR<CH•Linda L. Lance/OaOVP 

ATT SUBJECT<anather b•bbitt letter dra~t 

~Tr ro;HCGIHTY_K 

~TT "J:OrJEHSEH..-T. .. 

ATT ;:ro .•• B~-' ,_II .· - .'> 

"A.TT TO .c:RUTCiiFIE[_J ... . : . : . ~ . . . 

'ATT ,,.O ; BEARD::_. 

~~ ;;; :~~AuTHIER.,r• 

( JEHSEH_~OIAl~CD .> 

: 't BEAI(.;.DOlAlOICD > 

' : ( CRUTCHFIEL_:JOIAlOICD ) 

'·BEARD_BGlA10lCD > 

._ GtAUTH~E~:);At<lCD 

T~•

Hessage Creation Date ' was. at 27-KAR-1996 ·iz', 40 •00 . · ... • . ~ 

since ~ .and<i think Oth-ers were per~~~ded at. YeSterday • s ~neeting w/ interior 

that· we shouldn't write of+ the Canyo"nlands ·and 81""ches monuments just yet, 

he're 'S. another tr.y at a draft . letter to babbitt to get this ·process started . 

.:i:F this looks ok, i•d. like tO ru~ it by jus~ice before it goes out. 

il was going to try to get our offices together to discuss the monuments issye, 

and we need to do that . but since W•• re noM looking ·.t. 4/9 as a possible 

ennouncecnent da"te,. i~d propose ae"tting this letter agreed on and. getting a 

decisio~ me~o to the p~esident just .on "sending . the letter to .interior. even if 

we don't ultirnateiy do ttl~ n\onument., :it wOn't hurt to hlive this letter go out 

8nd have interior formally return in~o to us. we'll never have this ready by 

4/9 if. • letter doesn't ·go· soon. ·· according:. to justice, the info justice has 

seen so far isn't an adeQuat~ adnsin recor-~ .. co iOte.rior Mill have some work to 

da. 

E!; !~Y -~~ ~::~:~ ·· =~:~!t~;:;;;an e::a t~::t~: .. P:~~i~:~\~~k ":~d!~g!~!:/~~i:~ know if you have problems w/ this appro.ach ., (;,.. c·omments .On the letter. 

•••••••••••••••••• EHD ATTACHMENT 
32 

•••••••••••••••••••• ATTACHh~~T Z •••••••••••••••••••• ATT CREATION TIHE/DATEoZ7·KAR·l996 1Z o4l oOO.OO 

ATT IODYPART TYPEoD 

TEXTo 

The following attachments ~•re includ•d with this message : 

TYPE o FILE 

NAHE PARKPRES 

•••••••••••••••••• END ATTACHMENT Z accaa •~••••= •aEa &~ 

\ 

•••••••••••••••••••• ATTACHMENT 3 ••••=•••H••••••••••• ATT CREATION TINE/DATEoZ7·KAR·l996 lZ ~l QO.OO 

,ATT IDDYPAR'f- TYPEop 

ATT SUIJECTtPARKPRES 

TExro 

PRINTER ~ONT l~PDINT_RONAN 

S/27/96 draft · . · · 

Dea,. · sec~tat"Y. Babbitt, . . . . . . It haa ~oae to ~attention · that there ~•Y be public lands 

adjacant· ta Canyonlands and A~has National Parka in Utah'that . · 

contain-8ignificant 'hiatoi-ic: or ·acientific 'araaio that 'aay be 

~riata for ·protectiOn. through National Nonwaent a~iotua ·under· 

:the .'Antiquf.tiea .. Act o:f .. l906. Therefore,: .1 aoi ·requesting any .. 

~-"""'~on avanabJe 'to:vour. Departaen.t on ;_ hndoi. owned O:r . . · .' 

:Controlled blr.: tM Unitad tatea.: adja~ent .to 'Canyonlands ·or Arches·. _Na~~J,_ _Parka ·that . contain hia1<o.r.ic "land.,.rk!' ,· -hlst·oric: or- . prehiatoric •tructurea, \or other· objacta ·qf. hlstoriC .or ··cieatifh ·f.ntar.st. : ·, ·. · .. . · 

-..· · :_ ' . Plea8e' raSCJond aa .'8~on as .Possible. •If there 'are land areas 

tha~· YOU ·. have alraa.Sl( reviewed arid .that 118Y be appropriate for 

iUe·dl8te .CoC,aideretlOn, et18e.;• pr.'ovide tha'\· infor•ati~n 

separatelY.· and · •• soon ··a• possible. 

· · 'r~ank you for: yo':'~ ,atiaiStanc:e . · 

WJC 

.•••-••••••••.••••• END ATtACHMEN:T 3 . . ................ . 
33 

·. 

1ment 108 "--::___!__) RECORD TYPEo FEDERAL !EXTERNAL KAIL) 

CREATORoCN•Linda L. Lance/O•OVPiOVPaLHGATEaEOPMRX 

CREATION DATE/TIME,29-HAP.-1996 19 , QQ,QD . DO 

SUBJECT : monday meeting w/ i nterior and QUestion 

lOoJEHSEN_T 

READoNOT READ 

TO oHCGINTY_K 

READo Z-KAV-1996 09oOloS1.47 

TOoGLAUTHIER_T 

READ, NOT READ: 

TEXT• 

JEHSEN_TaAl~CD ) <CEQ> 

( MCGINTV_kaAlwCD ) <CEQ> 

( GLAUTHIER_TiAlatD ) (QHB) 

Message Creation Date waa ·et 29-KAR-1996 l9 , Qlo00 

t .. and i egNied that the fastest way to come· to c:losure on r·aeain1ng 

aanu-nttubh i .SSUeS is for he and i ·to QO to interior on IIOnday to aeet w/ 

ann• 8h1eld, nps folks, and solicitors. office . anne has. egreed 'to schedule 

•a~g· for ~ P·•· •o~d- i~ "tha ••ere~•,.~' • confaran~• roo• ~ to• . i REALLY 

hope that work• for you, or ~hat you can ·rearrenge to attend. if not, let me ~w ..h.t.' wui w.ork 'for you on aondey p.a. · · 

.ll.katia·· or. (:1 . w~t to·· attend and it helps to 10ove it here ; 'w• een .do that, 

but~ ~ink· We ~~ to get with thaa .aoon • . we'll push thea on new wilderness 

lnventii.., and k~arowit~ncalant ... 

· _) . . . · . . · ... · . . . .. the. quaaUon have fo.r. you II.UY• is. why · does anne react so negatively . to the. 

ldas of .having gao·rga fraapton thera? · i · told her i'd· left a ~saage for hia in 

colorado;·. ancf.thought 'ha should ba' .. llit the •••ting, and she .gave ... lecture · 

eb~ut hoW h~ wouldn't _hava the n~cesaar.y info, hadn't b~an invOlved, She had na 

iil•a. whe~ ha 1 d be 'beck in d.c. , . we n .. d to heve destry there, etc. 

·i· ·thera ·a reason for .. to inaist. on scheduling this ~en fre~ton can be 

th.are? does h,; have • perspective ·on· this that they don't? b there .•ofri'ction between tii11 end the nps folks that have bean involved? let 11e know . 

~henk8. · 
• <..O~ ,.c:L ou :::.v;RONMeNIAL ""v'"'~'', ~-

w·~~~~· .. cno ... . o c. 10'501 / . .....--~ } Q 

March 29. 1996 

'--- · 1 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDEY/ 

FRO~! !(.ATHLEE:--.' .-\ . \!CGl:-IE '·::'--'-/'.'..__/ 

RE: ATI."'-CHED LcTl'ii:-: i'<J s:.l:::.:·.-.. :·. ,· ::.-. :;:; ~· :· !'· 

!. ACTION-FORCING EVENT 

As you know, we are p•Jc:ing coge~:her a package of n~cional p3rk pro~:ec~:ion 

. actions for your consideration that, if you approve, may !:le announced at m event on 

-April 9 . ~part of that initiative, and ill response to the threat co Utah wilderness lands 

that was posed by tbe recently-<lefeaced Republican parks bill, we have been reviewing 

Utah public lands to easu.re chat we are doing everything possible to provide appropriate 

protection·. to · tbosc l.a!lds. 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 tbere may be federally-owned lands adjacent to 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, qnyonlands National Park and Arches Nationai 

Parks in Uiah !hat may warrant protection as· national moll!llllents. Statutory authority -

to issue a p~tamati.on declaring public lands to !>e national monuments is available only 

to ~e President, who wmot deteaate sUch authority. 

. ~ law interpreting tbis autbority lw furlher held that tbe President can.request 

ill!omiation from his advisors on the suitability of cettain lands 'for such desiptioo.. but 

that the action mUst be initiated by tbe President. not an advisor. ·For that reason. it is 

IICCC$$I.I)' . that you formally request Secrewy Babbitt -to provide you with such 

ill!ormation before we can obtain the DeCe~Sary backgrouD<1 to consider Such desigilation , 

on the merits. We need to do that as soon as possible so tbat tbis designation can be 

completed in. time for a possible April 9 announcement. The attached letter makes that 

request. 

U. BACKGROUND-AN.-.L YSIS 

·The Antiquities Act of 1906 provides the President witb discretiooary authority 

to declare by public proclamation objects of historic or scientific interest tbat are on lands 

owned or controlled by. tbe Government to be natio~ monuments. · Only an Act of 

Congress can disestablish a monument. 

··Reservation u a national monument generally offers . protection to tbe 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, sucb. as 
35 

grazing pennits. 

No final decision about the designauon of Utah lands as national monuments can 

be made without additional material from the Department of Inlerior. However. 

curr~mly availat>le ir.fonnation indicates !hal signific:am Bureau of La:td Managemem 

'-~'~"g~ adj~c~m to ~ach of the are~s addressed in the letter conuins historic and 

:·.: :.::Iii(:.; vbj;.:.:ts .):· imp::-::tnc::. indu.:~::; nun::::ous ~r.:heological sites. Indian rock ar.. 

~~~!ogical fommions and wildlife. habitat. 

Ill RECOMMEND A T!ON 

[ recommend thai you sign the atla.ched letter requesting infonnation on Utah 

lands from Secretary Babbitt 

IV. DECISION 

_Approve _·Approve as ameaded __ Reject __ No &c:tion 

Recycled ~aoer 
36 

·rHt:·w ; ,rn:. HOUSE 

wAaHtNGTON 

March 29, 1996 

The Honorabl e Bruce bb c~ 

secretary of the Interior 

1849 c Str·eet, N. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Dear Bruce: 

It has come to my attention that there may be public lands 

adjacea.t to Glen Canyon N&tional Recreation Area·, Canyonlands 

Nationat Park and Arches National Park in Utah that contain 

significant historic· or scientif.ic areas that may be appropriate 

for protection .' through National ·MOnument status under the 

Antiquities . Act . ot uo~. Therefore, I lLID . . raque'stiniJ any 

infonw.tion .available · to . your. Depart\IIClnCl O!l .lao4s owned or controlled by the onited ~tate& adjacent to· Glen CAnycin,. National 

Recreation Area,. canyonlands National l'ark or Arches. National Park ,that ' .CX)ntaill . historic . landmarks, historic : or .. prehistoric 

structures, or ·other objects ·of ·historic or scientific interest . 

. . . . J»ie~~. r~~~. u soo~ : ~ pos~~l~ > rf ~e ar~ land a~eas th&t · you h&v. ~ already revie-~ an4 . t.li&t .III&Y . appropriate for 

ia.cliate-coUideration, please provide· that 'tnfonaation separately 

ao4 U: ~ . liO!I•ible. · · · · · · · · · • · · · 

. < ·. .. . . Sincemly, 
37 

.ECORD TVPEo FEDERAL <ALL-lN-1 lLl 

:REATORoKothloon A. HcGinty ( HCGINTY_K <CEQl 

:REATIDN DATE/TIHE: 3-APR-1996 18o04:45.13 

TOoLindo L. Lonce ~EADoNOT READ 

ro.ThoSas c. Jensen 

READ• ~-APR-1996 07:44o49.45 · 

TOoLioo Guido 

READ• 3-APR-1996 18o12:01.88 

TEXTo· 

L JEHSEH_T l CCEQ l 

\ 

< GUIDE_L l <CEQl 

c 'f=tl-') 

far ttw -atiftv tomorrow at J. i baliava we need a short suanaary 

Cl•Z pp) ~f ell of tho po~to of tho poekogo.. ~· 

i ooo·thio eo o .. jo~ docioion•ooking oooting. on tho utoh· NOCOOI Oft tho OYO~Oll. poekog01 oft potuo 'involve•ont. . 

,•:tho - lo8hlf' odd to.-· t·ociov thot ho ttio,ught the~• was no .Walf 

tftlw c.oul~ .,.t lt~fo on koiP•i~owitz (opU end thot escolonte woo o 

ldlllle. . -
38 

aCG1111 TYI'I• 'EDUAL (ALL .N·l MIL) 

(-tf:./2) 

CltiATCIIh.J-• Cr•lg c,.utchfle1d ( CIIUTCIII'lELo. I ) (IJtll) 

CREATION DATE/TIMEr J·A,R-1996 1Dr09 , 39 .50 

SUIJECT rPe,.ks Initietive upd~te 

TOoT ~ Cll•uthle,. \< CILAUTHIER_T ) (OHJl 

READ• J·A,R•1996 10o46 r45 .89 

cc.a-:... c..-u ., .. -. --:::::: ' · ( CDCISWEL L_lt ) ( OHI) 

~IADt ~lt-1996 1Do5SoZZ. 81 ·..::: 

cc,.,._ •· ·aMrd IEAIID_I (CIIIJ) 

IliAD• I·.VIt~UH Uo1Zo10.7Z 

cc.~ •· 014ug IIAio 1-APII-1"' iloZioZI.tl 

OLFUS.JI ) UICI) 

GCoU.. L. L-. ' .... .n .... · .. 

c:e .~4: .. ......_ ~· 1-APII:O~H ~··~•11_.~ . . 

1IXI'o .... . . .. Nan~ 

~ 

Mlf ~~ . . . 

• ~ ..-..-..... P81'1!.8 wu.uw u ·.n ~u. 

--- ~· .. .', 8ftdne .-t .._ ~ . .......... .._ . .,........ ..• ... ·· . . . · ·. ·· ... · 
39 

-Ap~Jl international~ ... ~~~ ia • ao~• 

~•eUoUc U-f~-. Intori~ - not be .._ ebout th&.. . out they created o folso urooncy bv citing o pending Gingrich Parks ~ro~oaal. Cit now ·~~eors thot tho only i-.k~ent Re~ublicen 

~ro~osal ia the Senate Oonibus lands bill, which is on hold bo 

because a~ Utah wilderness.) 

Othe~ key ~oints 1 

Sufficiently p,..es1denti4l ? l i nda end .Tor.t Jensen •et on Honday 

with' Interior to a4dress skepticisM fram the We5t Wing about 

whether the Initiative is worthy of e Presidential event. (Ann 

Sht.lds oru~led that it would be Preaidontiol if it retained the tax proposals.) They discussed three new candidates for Hati~rial 

Monu .. nt dooignotion in Utah (Kiparowifz, . Grand Gulch, and 

Eacalante), each With pros and, cona, and interior agreed to rovlaw tho so o~t iona further. lritarior/NPS coaplainod that their 

pio~k pro~osol wu aor~hing into o Utah proposal, !>11t Too and 

Lindo di..!'oo this coiQilaint. · · 

Pt;ITUS letter to Bobbitt waa Hnt .uP for •ignat .. ro on Friday 

CSIJU, b11t ftO ·word frciao IIH Clark ·On whathof- it woa sionad • . ly 

i-oq~~aaUno lobbitt .to provide info,...tion .on· 1~ in Utah for 

poaaible dooion•ti\1" •• ·Notionel Hon-ta.· thio letter .w.o11ld · 

eatabliah tho noodod. Adllinia~Uvo. rooord to dof....S "" of tho 

Ant1qvi tiea Act:: 'the' ft11al io'ttor: wolo ~oviilod to. l'Oforonco otho;. 

pubiic)onda aroomcl Gl.n Ca~on NitA, ioovf.ng '· opan· thOI ilooail!iU~ 

f~r .. o~.,t!n~ . . ~ ·~~~-n.!t!od ~~v . • · ... _ . _ . ·- .. ·. I · 
40 

(9a8} From: SAM KALEN 25/96 ll :42AM (3005 bytes : ~9 lnl 

To : JOHN LESH'i , DAVE WATTS , ROBERT BAUM < 

cc : EDWARD COHEN 

Subject: Re : Antiquities Act 

c 

----------------- ----- - -- ---- - - Message Contents -------------- ---------

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 foiabl e 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 recommendati<ms 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 NBPA 

compliance, could a court set aside the proclamation; i.e., 

what is the appropriate reli ef? 

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 BIS not needed when President 

asks for recommendation . And that case was decided well 

before more recent NIPA law--e.g., NAFTA case, which further 

suggests that Secretary's response to President would' not be an •action• under NIPA; of r.ourse, one could also argue a Douglas County type analogy (status quo exception for 

designation of monument i f NBPA even applied to Bxecutive 

and thus surely status quo exception for the recommendation on such designation>. Additionally, to make it even less 

like any action under NBPA, the President's request could be 

for a list of areas in a certain region that DOl already has 

indicated are WSAs, ACKCs, etc. AS for POIA, couldn't we argUe deliberative process exception until designation--with harm being that disclosure would prompt nuisance type activities in the area. sam. 
41 

.ICOU TYPEo. FEDERAL '<ALL·.IN·l NAILJ 

CIEAToR.o·Th- C•. ~ < JEIISEILT ) <CECil 

CREATION DATEITlMeoZI•.IUL·1996 1$oS.t4Z.S4: · ... 

IUtJfcr•P.IiTUS I~ttor., No Utoh 

ici;~~t~r ; 81 -of~r . . . . . .._.-zs,.-.ftiL-1996 15~7 .u.e1· 

. . 

. : .{.,. Ulli!DI'EILP · .. :_.'- ' . 

. Doc~Dent 79 

.(CECil .· · 

~i(:~~~:. ~::~~~~~ .. ; ~·~f"'JUL•lti6 lttii7.11S •. Zl 

, ~ itCGiNTY..Jc l , <~Cil 

Ttxto 

Peter, 

I .-Med your hoio. •The foUowina toiCt noodo _to bo tron8f.o1'110d into o •i11nod. pOTUS 

iot.~er AS~.· . Th• lio'ttor do'• not nood ·Jo b!l ..,t, it could b• 

hold · in on .oppropriat!l offic:!l . CKotlo.'•l· Todd Stern • o?) ·but·. it IIUot 

bo o,..oor..:l ond. •unod ASAP· • • Voil.' ohollld dioc:uu tho loroc:oooina _of ·ti,. l~ttor with Ka'th, given . J.to.·..;noitl'vib. · 

-11~..-; Sil~;retal'lf aabliHt, . .. , • . . . . ·.. . . . . . . -It· hoa <~ oJM to .~,.- ottonUon thot tl)liro .oioy bo public: londo .. in ··tho 

·~•1 lire• "t' -ilon c;o~o.. · Noti'"'l :_ite~re.tion Are• .'in · utei. th,;t 

c:ontoJn · io.ilini fi<~iint 'hiotoric ar tic:te·ntifi.c ;,oilun · thot · .io8lf ·b.e. ·. · epp~'pr.oto'· for: ;.rotoc;Ho" :throu11h Hiitionel ·IIOn .... nt . .it.:tuo ··under · ··tho :Mti11ui.tieif·.:Aet ··of·· 1JD6•. ;' ' .. :·:· .._-. ·. · .. :::' ·. · . · .· · ... · . :•·:· ·· . 

.... J ~t•d •n· i- roi.;.d thiio with ·:ifou :h. cill\v.rutiOri ·- wookoi ,.../ t ··:..ovld ;.,.j. :ttiot you · tfro!ft• to ·• · ..W. tnfo.:...t:tan' av•U•blo ·. 

:~t~\~:;t:::~=~ !~·~:~o~~r:!~:~~~ ::~:!::~ ,.~~- 'i" lito!! ~t.- contoin ·· hlotol'ic lon<liul'lclli,·,hilitor:t.c. or p;..hiotoric ·.: · o:truo~uioil!·~ or: otliar ob;l•c.to ilf j,~-t~r~c: . :or: :Ociontific lntaroot; . Pl~ i-oollon.d .,a ·ooon-. •• pciaoiblo ;.: .. lf. ·tlio;.il ·oro .lond ...... ·thot 

pu ~-itO ii.lrtiocli roviowed ond tMt· .. ~ be ~ .. ciPr-iato 'f.o;. .. . . ' .l ...... J,ato · ow~ii., .. ia\ton, · it'ia•• iiroi-1• ·.:ti;at :t.n'for .. tt:on •. · Allorotti4-· !ll!!f' •• • nen -. . .11o.ilible . · · · · · . ThMk you: fOf' ¥W aniotMOe. . ' . ac;. . . . . . . . . .. 
42 

RECORD TYPE • FEDERAL CALL •,,. ·1 HAIL l 

CREATOR • Thomas C. Jensen C JENSEN_T l CCEQl <. • 

CRE~TION ~TE TIHE,z5 JUL·1996 11 •'0·06 . , .• 

TO : Pet;.,·,.. G. -"" :P:~­

REA~ ZS -JUL •l ?;6 12 :0 4 ::- . 2S 

TEXT , 

Pete,.., 

Here•s • redraft of the POTUS cover memo r•garding the POTUS 

letter to 3abbitt on Utah . I've rewr"" i tten it to meet suggestions 

fro~ Todd Stern . These changes may a l so address Questions that 

Waa rai•ed . 

To• 

·~·••••••••••••••••• ATTACHMENT 1 •a••.•••••••••••••••• ATT CREATION TIME/DATEaZS·JUL-1996 11 , 38aOO.OO 

ATT IODYPART TYPE ap 

ATT CIIEATORaThom•• C. Jensen 

TEXT; 

PRINTER ' FONT '.lZ_POINT_ROMAN 

"EKOitANDUM TO TKE PRESIDENT 

FROM · · · KATIE McGINTY 

SUIJI!CT: ATTACHED LETTER TO SECRETARY· BABBITT 

lie· he'lte ·prepioroid for .your 'signature · the·· attached· letter to ·. 

Int .... lo,. Secret•ry Bobbitt. · The letter 'wil'l. ser've •s • critical 

piece" of .the adeih:iatl"atiYe record i:,, aS we ~ave discussed, You 

decide to d.i•ionate :certain · lands in ·. aouthel"'n Ut•h aa nati'anal 

••nua'enb under the Antiquitie• Act of 1906 ; 

The · Antiqaitie~ Act · provides you w.ith itxecutive •uthority to set 

aaida fede~al lands as national Monuments in. ordel"' .to protect 

objacta'of scientific: or hist'lric interest.. The authority ·has 

been Used nute.~rous times in the la.st . ni~ety ye~rs, and . served as 

the basis for creation of many of the Nation's most importent 

protected areas. Hany national parks in ·tha West, including most 

in Utah, 'were originally ·set aside under the Antiquities Act . 

For 4txample, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Arches, caP'itol Rea<f .• 

C.dar lra'aka, Dinosaur, Hatur~l Bridges, and Zion were originally 

pro.tected bY presidential orderS issued under the Antiquities 

Act. 

The purpose of the attached letter is to request from Secretary 

lebbitt information on federal lands i n .southern Utah that ar• 

suitable <for monument designation . Th• letta~ serves .to engage 

the Secretary in hiS role . es executive staff to YO':J . 

Ordinarily , if the Secretary w•re on his own i niti ativ e to send 

you a recommend.tion for establishment of a monument, he would 

Mo•t lilc'ely be requir'ed to comply, Nith NEPA and certain federal · 

lanCf manage"'e"t laws in 'advance of Sub J'ftitting h'is rec.ommendatiort. 

lut, because he is responding to your r equest for information, he 

is not required to ana lyze the in<formation or recommendations 

under HEPA or the other laws. A~d, because Presidential actions 

are not sub;eet to HfPA , you are empowered to establish monuments 

under the Antiquities Act without HEPA review . 

The text of the letter is modellid after" the letter sent b)' , 
43 

Praeldeftt Carter to the In ior Da•ar~nt •••king infora Jn 

oft l•ftd• lft Al•_.• eYltabl• for •onu.ent do•lan•tlon. a .... on the depart .. nt'• re.oon•• and raco ... ndation•• President Carter 

.. t aside a~praxiaatel~ 26 •illion acre• •• n~~i~nal •on~ .. nts. 

The legality of the President's action Nas challenged by monu•ent 

o~Qonents, but was u~held b~ the federal courts. The letter to 

Interior was specifically cited by the courts as a princi~al 

basis for their fin~inQ of legality . 

We recomm~nd that you sign the letter. 

•••••••••••••••••• END ATTACHMENT 1 ·····~············ 
44 

July 25 1996 

FRO.'.!: 

' . . ·--·· "' ,v •,I \,_. ~ 

(--trll 

~ ' 

RE: .>.TTACHED LETTER TO SECRETARY G.\EuiTT 

We have prepared for your signacure the aaachd lerter to Secretary of the interior Bruce 

Babbitt. The letter will serve as a critical piece of the administrative record if, as we have 

discussedT you decide to designate certain lands ill souU!em Utah as national mouumeuts 

under me· Antiquities Act of 1906. 

•The Antiquities Act provides you with executive authoriiy 10 set aside federal lands as 

national monuments ill order 10 proteCt objects of scientific or historic interest. The authority 

has been used numerous times ill the last lliner:y years, and served as the basis Jor creation of 

liWlY of the Nation's most important protected areas. Many national paries in the West; 

including most in Utah, were originaUy set aside under the· Alltiquities. Act. For example, 

Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Arches, Capitol Reef, Cedar Brealcs, Dinosaur, Natural 

Bridges, and Zion were origiDaUy protected by presidential orders issued under the 

Antiquities Act, 

The. purpose of the aaaciled letter is t0 request fl:om Secretary Babbict information on federal 

.lands in southern Utah·wt are sUitable for monument designation. The land$ in question 

represent a unique combination of archaeological, paleontolopcal, geologic, and biologic 

resources ill a relauvely unspoiled natural ecosystem. Three general areas lying to the west 

of the Colorado River and to the C!ast of Bryce Canyon. National Park will bC studied: U!e 

Grand Staircase, Kaiparowits Plateau, and Escalante Canyon region. 

· The Grand Staircase spans six major life zones, from lower Sonoran desen to Arctic-Alpine 

forest, and its outstanding rock formations preseut some four billion years of geolog-;. The 

are.a includes numerous relict plant areas - rare eltamples of pristine plant ecosystems that 

represellt the natural vegetative cover that eltiste<l in U!e region before domestic livestock 

grazing. · 

Tbe Kaiparowits Plateau includes world class paleontological sites, including the best and 

most continuous record of Late Cretaceous terrestrial life in U!e world. The area includes 

··thousands of significant archaeological sites, including U!e remnants of 3t least three 

prehistoric Indian cultures. The Kaiparowits includes the most remote site in U!e lower 43 u~. . . 

Rec·tcted Pacer 
45 

The Escalante Canyon reg . includes some of the most scenic r .try in the West, 

significant archaeological resources, unique riparian ecosystems, and numerous historic sites 

and trails. <. 

Th~s>! (J.nds .,,,~ re Jt di\! h<!lrt of the rect:nt leg:s:J.ctve bJccle ove r Ucah wi!d::m~ss . TZ::::·; .

1,;: 

.:~ .:·.:::;, m'.!;;h ·)( '-'-'h.:!.t ~1::: p:trti<!:i were fighc1ng ..:· vl!r. Envirorun<!::uliscs \·.::L!::: tit:.: u::.~ ~-,_·:· :~ . 

.1swnistl.L.1g bcJ.ut;;, r..:::l~t :;: ::.: ss . .i:lJ cL:viv{..:.l: ~:: :;; ::;:-:::. De·::: :._,~ ~..::u ~-::-:.:s::.c; ·.:::!:--:: : .' ·~· : 

the col! resol!. :-..:: ::s ur" th:! KJ.i~J.r .J wits PllteJu .!~.: . t.h.:vugh road constructt0p. _cyc::a n0·.-.- .~ ....:. 

;lfl!JS \O corr.r:.!:cial l!So!' . 

The Kaiparowits Plateau lies in the center of tte area . Two com?anies hold leases to mine 

federal coal there . One company is working with Interior to surrender its Kaiparowits leases 

in exchz.nge 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 SU.'Tender its leases in 

exc;~e for coal elsewhere. · 

Should you decide, based on the .Secrewy's recommendations, to desi$nate one or more 

national monuments· in the area, your action will be wic;lely and vigorously supported by 

natioaal environmental groups and advocates. They will be stUnned and delighted by the 

bol~ ·and scope of the action. There will be significant public support in those areas in 

which most visitors to southem Utah reside, including California, Colorado, Arizona and the 

Salt l..ake Ciq, area. National print media. strongly supported the Administration's pro-Utah 

wilderness Stance and can be expected to support monument designations: . . . . 

Utah's coniressional delegation and. goVernor will be~ by~ :U:tion:_ CEQ is.in 

consultation with the Counsel's office !0 identify llle&Sure$ to reduce ad'(erse effects on 

matters within the corurol of the Senate Judiciary· Committee, chaired by Senator Orrin Hatch 

(R-UI). 'Republicans are likely to characterize the action as ui 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 dep~ent's response and recommendations. President Carter set 

aside approximately 26 million acres as national monuments. 'The legality of the President' S· 

action was challeoged 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 f111ding of 

legality. 

We recommend ·tiut you .sign the letter seeking information and advice from Secretary Babbitt: · · · · · · 

Rec'lctec::z Pacer 
4fi 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

The Honorable Bruce Babbit~ 

Secretary of the !nterior 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Dear .. Bruce:. 

-!:

VIA$HfNCTON 

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 Natic;mal Recre.ation Area in Utah that ·contain significant historic or scientific val~es that may be .appropriate · for protection through Nation·al Monument status under 

the Antiquities Ac;t of 1906. 

'I would like ·(or you to provide me any information· available 

to your Depar~ent ·on lands owned .or controlled by .the United 

States in,the general area of Gl.en Canyon Natiorial ' Recreation 

Area in Otan that . . contai.n· M,storic .landmarks, ·histori.c or· prehist.oric struc~ilrell, .or ot):ler ·objects of 'hi:storic or ' 

scientific i.nterest. . ; . . ·. . 

.. Pleas·e . r~spond to · this · reques; as !loon as possible. If · there are land areas that .you have al.ready 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; 
47 

RECORD TYPE, FEDERAL CALL-· 1 HAILl 

CREATOR,Kathloon A. McGinty C HCGINTY_K l CCEQl 

SUBJECT:utan letter 

TQ,Todd SteNl 

READ,29-JUL-1996 10,41,35.58 

TEXT, 

C._S7E.R~J_T l C'.../HQl 

wanted to just reiterate what i said about the timliness of the 

letter because i was worried that,. on firs·t 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 asa~. the reason: under the 

antiquities act, we need to build a credible record that will 

withstand legal challenge that,(l) the president asked the secy to 

look· into these lands to see if· they ar'e of important -scientific,. 

cultural or historic valueJ (2-) 'the .secy undertook~ that review and. 

Presented the results t.a the pr8sident; '(3) the president -fc;aund 

'the review compellin.- 8nci therefore exercised his authority Under 

the antiquities. act. pr-esidentiAL actions un~er this act have 

abt8)t's be8n challenged. they have neve':" been struck down·, 

how•ver. 

ao.,lettar needs· to be siGn•d asap so that secy has·what lookS 

lik~. credible amount of time to do.his investigation of the aattar~ :we have t~pene.d the· letter with a ·sentence thai: gives us 

•o .. -•ore.rooa bY·making Clear that tha president and babbitt had 

discusSed this sallie ti.me aGo .. aanlt,.... th8.nks ." 
48 

Document 36 

August 5, 1996 

MEMORANDUM TO MARCIA HALE 

FROM: KATHLEEN A. McG~TI 

RE: UTAH EVENT CALLS 

Leon Panetta asked that I prepare talking point for you to use in making calls to cenain 

western elected officials regarding the proposed Utah event. 

My notes indicate that Leon wanted you to C3ll 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 fac:ors, will help determine whether the proposed action 

occur. If a final decision has been tnade 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 tnay 

require. If I am unavailable, Wesley Warren and Tom Jensen of my staff are prepared to 

assist you. 

Attachment 
49 

?"?.OM ·. ·-= 

This memo responds to your request yesterday fo' additional info~tion ~n the proposed event ac 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 Antiquit:ies Act o! l906·to establish the 

•Grand Staircase-Escal.ante National. Monument," a new national 

1110numezit covering approximately l.. 7 million acres of ~ederal land 

in Utah managed by the Interior Department's Bureau of Lar.d 

Manage111E!nt. 

At you± direction, the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation 

with the oepart111ent ·of Justice, has prepared the analyses and 

documents that· are required to support creation of the proposed nell national 1110nument. ·A draft: version· of those materials is 

attached for your information. Pinal versions should be 

transmitted to the White Rouse today and should oe ready fo::: 

execution within.24 hours. 

Options fgr Annrntncement 

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-t:ype setting, so as to 

emphasize the presidential charact!r of the action . This course would allow the most scheduling f~exioility. 

Other advisors recommend that: you make the announcement an or near the lands to be covered by the monument designation . The area is very scenic ~~d would offer great. unique visuals . buc 

the country is rough ~~d remote with difficult logis~~cs.• 

The firs~ attached sheet of photos shows views of o~ 

from po~ential evenc sites en l~~ds covered by the new mcnumenc designation. The landscape is sere, but strikingly beac;:.i.fu!... 

Because of good air qualit.y, views extend beyond lOO roles. 

Morning and afternoon light bring out t:he land's colors besc. 

August weather is hot, probably windy,· with a chance oE afternoon 

and evening thunders~o~s. 
50 

( ' -· The closest: town with an ai=Pcr~ capable of handling jet aircraft 

is :a~e . Arizona. a small teN~ located on the A::izona-Otah borde:: :-.e:.:-: ~~ :.a...'<e Pc·,..rell a::.d G:..e:-• ..:a::y~r. Dam. T=avel ci:ne from c!i.e 

~~:~ : ~ ~~=~: t~2 ~~~=;~~~ ;;:,~:~=~~-e~~ ~·~~~=~~ ~!:~~~~~ee b~e~~~~~~ :-- 7~; ~;a::~~al ?a=k SerJice· ~e~~=a~~s significanc enfo:ce~enc a~C 

~=::::: s:a:: :lea:-l::y at G.le:: :a::::-=:: !;a:i.c:--~.;,1 := ec=ea~i~:t .:...:.-~a a::C 

Gra...-.. C. ·: a.:-.::·c~ :;a:.:.cr:.a: ?c.=k a.::.::. ~a.:: be c3.:led. u;:c~ ~o~:..:h s~or: · ':":ot::..ce t:o assist with event ·.l c!:ist:ics . Based on our ~xperience 

wit::: c::;.e -oroposed "cancer ::;lease" eve::t (which wou::d ·have 

occurred ln the same general areal , I estimate that an appropriate event could be organized with r~ughly.4S-72 ho~rs 

lead time. Secretary Babbitt notes that th~s opt~on would have 

the rnest confrontational or "in-your-face• character of the 

three. ' · 

The third option would be to hold the event in Jackson Hole. The 

logistics an4 ·scheduling would be much simpler ~ the Utah site 

option ~d, like the Qval Office option, would not. present the same confrontatiocal aspect associated with an event in utah. 

Por my pare, I b~lieve that any of the three options will 

adequately serve the purposes unde~lying establishment of a new monument. 

Pu:c;pose qt the Utah ~vent 

The purpose of the new monument designation would, in genera!, be 

to provide additional protection for scenic public .lands with 

high scientific and historical value. More specifically, 

monument designation would grant the .Interior Deparement additional leverage to forestall a proposed· coal mine in the area. · 

The political purpose of the Utah event is to show distinctly 

you:. 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 no~ . merely be 

rebuffing SOU\E!one 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 

negat.ive views toward the Administration created by the timber 

rider. Designation of the new monument would create a compelling reason for persons •o~ho a:r:e now ctisaffected co come around an~ eJJ.thusiast_ically support the Aclministratio~ . 

Bst:ablishment of the new mo~ument will be popular nationally in 

the same way and for the same reasons that -other actions eo protect parks and. public lan~s are popular. The nationwide 

eclit:orial attacks on the Utah delegation's efforts to strip wilderness protection· ~rom these -and other lands .is a revealing 

recent test of public interest in Utah's wild lancls. -In 

addition. the new monument will have particular appeal in those a=eas t:~ac contribute most visitation to the parks. and public 
51 

lands of southern Utah , namely, c~~3tal. Caiifo~ia, Oregon, a~ d 

Washi cgc cn , southe~ ~evada, :~e ~rent Range co~~~i ies c= 

l.::-:=. o. t.t:e '!a os-.:U !:,.; 9J.e:-~...: e c·===idc= . a..."1d c.:::e !:(;e !"'~i.x--:"·..!:: :: :-. 

~~ a.: ~ t ~~ s ~~~ e~~~=~= :~ :~~~~~~ ~s~~ s ~~;~e a~ ~~~::;~~~~~: · ~ :~ e ?roposal . 

c;::;::s.:..: .:.. ::::. to e:-.e G.as:.. ~a::.~:: ·,.;i::. c:.::r.e f::-om.s c :::-a :::e sa:::: part:i es who have gene:-al.l.y c;Jposed t:he Adnu.n"-'it= :: :.. ~.:' s r:.c.::.:. ::: =. ~ 

resou=::e and envi=oorr.e:lta: pclicies and who, i:-o .. ca::.~of, ·ar; 

unlikely co support: t he Administration under ar :.. rcumsc~~c . 

It wou'id draw fire from interests who would charac:erize it as anci-mining, and heavy-handed Federal interfe·re!lce i n the ;o~ st . 

Gov. l'liller• s concern that Nevada • s sagebrush rebels would net 

approve df the new monument is almost cercainly correct, and 

echoes the concerns of other friends, but can be offset by the 

positive response in other constituencies. 

Tbe G~apd Stairc:ase-Bc;c::alente National Monument 

·: :1 

The Antiquities Act provides you with executive authority to sec 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 tor creation of many of the Nation's most 

importan; protected areas. Man~ national park~ in the West, 

including most in Utah, were or1~inally set .as1de under the 

Antiquities Act. For example, Granc1 .Canyon, Grand Teton, Arches, 

Capitol Reef,. Cedar Breaks, Dinosaur, Natural Bridges, and Zion were originally protected by presidential orders issued Ullder the· Antiquities Act. . Since world war II, every President except Presidents Nixon, Reac:an, .and Bush have· established national 

monUlllents. - · · · 

The attached memorandum ~rom Secretary Babbitt recommends that 

approximately 1.~ million acres of federal land managed by the 

Eureau of Land Management in southern Utah be designated as the 

"Grand Staircase-Escalanee National Monument:." 

The larids in question represent a unique combination of 

archaeological , paleoneological, 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 Br/Ce 

Canyon National Park woUld be covered by the new monument: tr.e 

Grand Staircase, Kaiparowits Plateau, and the Escalante Canyon region. · · 

The Grand Staircase spans six major life zones, from lower 

Sonoran desert co Arctic-Alpine forest, and its ~tstanding ~c~ 

formations present some four billion years of geology . The a.~ea 

includes numerous r .elict plant areas - - rare examples of pris cine plant ecosystems thac represent the natural vegetati ve cover that 

e:(isted in the regioa before domestic livestock srazing. 
52 

The Kaiparowits Plateau ~cl;;.ce; ·,.,orld class paleonr.ological sit!!s. includinq :he bes a::-:. c.- ~s ·: c~r:::i:-.1.:.cus ::ecord of Late C=e:a:e~us :~~:es=~ial 1 fe ~~ :~ ~ ~c=l~ . T~e a=ea includes :.::c ~.:.$anCs ~f sis-=..:..!ica::r. a.::-::::.a-:::: :: ~:...:2.! s!.~..:s , i:icl·..:..::iing ~:::: 

::-:r:-::-. .:..:-. ':E :: ;.: :-::.s~ c::=::=.:= ?.:-::-.:. J·:::-._.: I~:::.;:-. -":-...:.!. : ·..:. :-ss . :-:-:-: 

!'he Esca :a..""::.: Cc..::~ ~~ ::eg:..:::--. :.:- :: .:.~ ~s c~c ..... ... :::e :i .. ~s: sc'::::.:: co\.!....~t:=--: in t!:e West , sigr:.:.f::ca::c :-chaeolcgi=a. l r~sour~es, ~""ll.Ci...:. e 

ripa=ian. eccsysc:err-s, and ::.~-:- ;:-:: ..:.~ ::..::s:cric s i:es ant: Cra~ls. .. 

Sffect'S of Monument oesisaat; Cj' 

There- is very little current h•.:.::-.a::. use of the area proposed for 

monument designation and, 'with chE> exception of the· proposed coal ·mine discussed below, cur=ent 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 trom the 

monument. 

The new mon~ent would be subject to valid existing rights, ~t 

would preclude new ~j,.ng claims in the area·. 

6 . . The p:oclamat~on would depart from prior practice and would .not reserve federal water rights. This ~pproaeh on water -rights ~eflects the -judgment that an assertion of water rights. would ~vit~ unnecessary controversy. Some of the objects to be protec~ed by -the monument designation do not require water. 

There. is very li~tle water in the area, and what water there is 

probably has al.rea.dy been claimed under state law. As a part of 

the study descril:led below , the Sec:retary will determine whether 

to seek water rights . . 

Finally, the proclamation "'culcl. direct· the Secret-ary of the 

Interior to prepare a management. plan fo: 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 gener~ly not be 

affected at current levels c= i~ curr~nt areas of use . 

The principal subst~tive effect of the monument. designation will 

be on a proposed coal mine on t~e .Kaiparowits Plateau. 

The Kaiparowit-s Plateau lies i~ the center ct the area that would 

be covered b~.- the monument desiSla.tion. · T-110 companies hold . leases to mine federal coal t~e:e. One company is working w~th 

Interior to surrender its Kaiparowits leases in exchange for 

:ignes tc coa~ e~sewhere in Utah (a situation quite similar to 

the case of the New World Mine) . The other lease holder, Andalex 

Resources , a Dutch--owned c::a~ c:::r:t?any with plans to ship ccal to 
53 

Asia, has rebu!fed Incerior•s of~~rs co pursue a trade. 

c~a~ cevelo~~e~c c~ c~e Kaipa~~~its ~~~ld c~mase the nat ~a: 

·.·~ 1.:.es c! t!":.; :n~.:.=e a::-ea. Mc::~ment: ~esi~c.c.!.cns would ;;.ct t -:c i< 

:~e ;: ~c~e~ a: ~~~s , ~e= se . tut ~c~:d ~elp in ~ va=~~cy = 

·..rays { =.escribed. ar. iec.gt:h ~:: :.=.e Se-::-::.a.~· ·; a.c ~ac!'.ed :ne~c : 

~ersUade Ar.ta::!x *- ..... st:.=~enCer !. o:s lea..;~s i:: exc!:ange fo= coal 

c:.sc .-~::e =~. 

' . 

:-hi !I · seep -- r;c!ucing or e:im.i::-,ating the risk of caa:l-hln ing cr.· the Kaiparowics -- would repres•nt ~ immense victory in che eyes o~ environmental grcups and, based on the editorials written on the -subject d~ring the Utah wilderness bill debace, wou:d be 

widely hailed in the media. 

- attaehlllent~ '------ . ·-
54 

August 14, 1996 

< •. 

~~E~! OR.\ :--:Dl"'.! ;:,w THE PRESrDE:'\T 

FRO:O.! :.."'. ~:! Ll:E :'\ .-\ . ~:; GI :'\ ., :.: .0"''. 

RE: PROPOSED UTAH MONlfMEJST DES!Gi'Al'IO:.; .\:'\D E\T :'\T 

Inrroducrjon and Backeround 

This mem9 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) laods. ip. Utah as a national monument. 

~brief, the current proposal is that you should use your alllhority under the Antiquities Act 

of 1906 to establish !lie "Grand Stam:ase-Escalante National Monument, • a new national 

molllUilent toveriog approximately · i. 7 million acres of federal land in Utah managed by the 

BLM of the Department of the Interior (I)OI). 

AJ. your direction, the Sec~tary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Department of 

Justice, has ptepated the analyses a:nd docuinents that are [equired to support creation of the 

propOsed new IJatiooal monument. .A draft -y:ersion of those materials is aaached for yoilr 

infomiation. final versions should be ttansillitted to the White House tOday and should be 

;!C&dy for exeeution within 24 hours. . . 

OJuinns · for Annoyn¢cmc;nt 

Thlee altet:nate ·events have bCen discussed to frame announcement of your action. Some 

advison believe that the announcement should take place in a formal Oval Office-type 

'settiDa;, so as to emphasize the presidential character of the action. This course would aUow 

the most scheduling fle:u'bility. 

Other adviso~ recommend that you make the anaouncement on or near the lands to be 

covered by the moi!II1Dent designation. The area .ls very scenic and would otfer great, uniqu~ 

visuab, but the country is roush and remote with difficult logistics. 

1 

The fa.rst 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 

beautitul. Because of good air quality, views extend beyoad .lOO mUes. Morning and 

afternoon light bring out the land's colors best. August weatber is bot, probably windy. with 

a chauce of afternoon and evening. thunderstorms. 

Recycled Paper 
55 

The closest town with an air""'rt capable of handling jet aircraft is ."e, 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 like!, e·, ent locations would be roughly ISminutes by helicopter or 1 hour by four-wheel drive vehicle . The National Park Service 

maim~ ins significant enforcement and othe r staff nearby at Glen Canyon National Recreation 

:\reo 'nd Gro r>J Canyon National Park ar>J ~ be cal:~d upon \\'ith shon notice to assist wi:h 

event logi.)ti..:s. Dls.:d on our cxpcricr . .:c .-:·-: :::: :;·.:.: p:-..:-;-.;s.:..! ·· .:<)t:Jor l.!k:t."l~ .. ::vc n~ (wt::.:h 

1\•ould hav~ o:currcd in the same general ~real. I estimate ·mat an appropriate cvem could b~ 

organized ;,.ith roughly 48-72 hours lead time . The Secretary of the Interior ... flrucc ~b bit :. 

notes that this option would have the most coni'rom.atioaal or .. in-your-facc .. d1 r:l~tcr c•i th ~ 

three . 

The third option would be to hold the event in Jackson Hoi~ . The logistics and scheduling 

would be much simpler tha,n 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 esti.blisbment of a new monument. · 

Pux:posi: of the Iitah Eyent 

The purpose of the new monument designation would, in general, be to provide additional 

ptotection for scenic public lands with high scientific and historical value. More specitically ~ 

monumeitt designation would grant DOl additiona,l leverage to forestall a proposed cioal mine 

in the ar-ea. . . 

The politiCal purpose of the Utah event. is to show distiDctly your willing'ness to use the office 

of the President to protect the envirotiment. In contrast to the Yellowstone ·ceremony, this 

would riot be a. "feel-good". event.. You would not merely be rebufftng someone else's bad 

·idea, you would be placing your own stamp, sending your own message. It is our co~idered 

assessment that an action of this type and scale would help to overcome the negative views 

toward the A~tioO: created by the tiinber rider. Designation of the new monument 

would create a compeltillg reason for persons who are now disaffected to come around and 

enthusiasticaily ·support. the. Administration. · 

Establishment of the new mo~ument wili be popular nationally in the same way ~d 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 ublic lands of southern Utah, namely, coastal California , Oregan, 

and Washington, southern Nevada, the Front Range communities of Colorado, .the TaosAlbuquerque corridor, andthe Phoenix-Tucson area. This assessment squares with the 

positive reactions by Sentor Harry Reid (D-NV), Governor Roy Romer (0-CO), and 

Represemative Bill Richardson (D-NM) when asked their views on the proposal. 

Recycled Paper 
56 

Opposition to the designation ~•II come from some o( the same pa. who have generally 

opposed the Administration's narural resource and environmental policies and who, in candor 

are unlikely to support the Administration under an, 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 (0-N\') con:ern that Nevada's sagebrush rebels would not 

appro\'C o:· t..h..: ne\\" mor.umem is almost .::::-t.:!:-Jy c.: ~-r..:ct. ~nJ l!.:iioc:s the con~crns of ~l: :!r 

fric:nJs, li:.:: ..: ii.~-:.: vt"t,:;:.:-: by t: ·.:..· t' 1:i ::i·.- .. · :-._.;~ ·:: . ..: ~ :: . . '~:: :: .: ~~t 5ri:·.::.:n~i~s 

I Th: Granrl ~':lin: ·"·~·fc; .... aJante !\!iJrjom~l \fn!"'<·•ment 

The Antiquities Act provides you with execu:ive auL'loricy to set aside federal lands as 

national monuments in order to protect objects of scientific or historic inte rest. The authority 

has been used more than 100 times in th~ last ninety years, and served as the basis for 

creation of.JD3,ny of the Nation's most impo!Unt protected areas. Many national paries in the 

West, including most in Utah, were origwlly 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 or:ders issued under the 

Antiquities Act_ ~incc World War n, every President except Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and 

:Bush have established national monuments·. 

The attaCbcd memorand~ from Secretary Babbitt recommends that approximately 1. 7 

million acr:cS of federal land managed· by the BL.M in southern Utah be designated as the 

·o~ Stai:ease-Escalanre National MonUment. • 

The lands in ~tion represent a unique coai~ination of 'atl:haeological, paleontological, 

ge()logjc, and biologic resources in a relatively unspoiled natura.! ecosystem. Three general 

~ lying tb the west.'of the Colorado River and, to !Jle· east of Bryce Canyon National Park · 

wOUld be covered by the new monument: the <;irand Staircase, Kaiparowits Plateau, and the 

·Escalante Canyon regioli. · 

ne GrandS~ spans s.ix major l.if'e zones, from lower Sonoran desert to.Arctic-Aipine 

forest," and its outstanding rOck formations present :iome ·fo.ur billion years of geology·. The 

area includes numerous relict plant areas - ·rare examples of pristir~ plant ecosystems that 

represent ~e natural vc!getative cover that existed in the region before domestic livestock 

grazing. . . 

The Kaiparowits Plateau includes world class paleontological sites, including me best and 

most coDtinuous record of Late CretaceoUs terrestrial life in the world. The area includes 

·thousands of signific&nt archaeological sites, including the remnants of at least three 

prehistoric Indian culrures. The Kaiparowits includes the most remote site in me lower 48 

states. · 

Tbe Escalante Canyon region includes some of the rnost scenic country in me West. 

significant archaeological resources, unique riparian ecosystems, and numerous historic sites 

and trails. 

Rec;;ycled Paper 
57 

Effects of Monument Desj~n ,_ ~ 

There is very linle current human use of the area p~oposed for monument designation and, 

with rho exception of the pro posed cNI mir.~ disc ussed below, current and anticipated uses 

arc gcn.::rJI!y cnmpatib lc \vi t.h procc ~: iJ n c-: ~~:~ 3- rc:t JS a monument J nd would r.ot be 

~ifcct~: . 

The prvpos::d'p:- -Jd:>.m:uion w0u!J ~r-?iY t....'· 0niy fedcr:tll ands. Pri vJtc and st~t;! VwncJ 

lr~e s would b:.! cxc ud~d from the :1 10 0'..::": :::- ~L 

The n~w monument would to ~ subject to vo!id existing rights, but would preclude new mining 

claims in the area . 

The proclamation would depart from prior practice aqd 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 iherc 

is probabiy has already been claiiJied under ·state law. N; a part of the study described 

below, the Secretary will determine whether to seek warer 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 lie forecast, ·the Secretary believes that current uses of the area, including · 

grazing, ·hunting, fiSI!ing; off-road vehicle use and similar activities would generally-not be 

affeetcd at Cllrmlllevc!s or in current areas of usc. 

The principal substantive cff~t of the monument des_ignation :;vill 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 

mon~nt designation. Two companies hold leases to mine federal c:Oal there. · One 

company is workfug with DOl to surrender its Kaiparowits leases in exclWJge 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 DOl's offers to pursue a trade . 

Coal development on the Kaiparowits would damage the naruial values Of the entire area. 

Moiuunent designatio~ 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 eliininating the risk of coal mining on the Kaiparowits - would 

repr_esent an immense victory in the eyes of environmental groups and, based on the 

RecYcled Paper 
58 

editorials written on the subject duriflg the Utah wilderness bill deb. . would be widely 

hailed in the media. 

Attachments 

Recycled Paper 
59 

RECORD TYPE • FEDERAL <ALL · Ih • HAILl 

CREATOR IC<~thleen A. McGi nty C MCGINTV_kAl l CCE\,.0~ 

CREATION DATE / TIHE : 23-AUG·l996 16 : 29 : 34.89 

SUBJECT : utah -- weekly report 

TO : Pe te.r G . Ur.~hofer 

READ:23-AUG-1996 16 : 29 : 57.46 

CC : ThoMas C . Jensen 

READ : 26 - AUG-1996 08 : 35 : 33 . 40 

TEXT, 

( '\ UMHOFER_P > <CEQ> 

< JENSEN_T l <CEQ ! 

As you know, a draft nationill monument declaration has baan 

prepared for Your review by the Department of Interior . Per your 

request, the Department studied the area and found it incredibly 

rich archaoloaically (anasasi ruins) and ecologically <unique and 

Priatina natural resources); already in Federal ownership., and 

ttMre'fot"e., suitable for atonc.u~ent designation under the. Anticauitiea 

act • . In addition, Interior also reports th~t eurrently, a· foreign 

coal !COmPany eall-d Andalax Resources i s pushing to open a coaf 

•ina J.n the heart of the area . . While a •onument designation .is 

not capable of: stopping the· tnina <all existing proper'ty rights· and 

Uaea would be held harmles.s), i ·t ·would ~nake it more · diffiCuit for 

tha' llining coepeny to secure approval of their· request ·for a Zz aile road · that they woUld ·propose to run across fedor.al lland·, 

au8.in in ' th~ heal"'!t of this area . In this regard , , tlie situation is 

va",..y Si•ilaf. to where We were .l.at year on Yellowstone·-•ine 

praPosai:tJ •ine requesting. use of ·:federal land . Under the••· 

circu.utancaa last year, you exar""ciaed authority tcr. withdraw 

aurr""ounding , l.nd fro ea. mining'· activitY. like the · .. onumant 

daaigriation hera, that aetion cfid not stop the Yellowstone mine, 

but it did erect sionifieant barriar.a to ·it. · 

It \lfas ori ginally proposed that you · would an.nounca ihe •onu11ent 

during your vacation . Work was p·ushed to meet that deadline. I 

a• va.ry c onCerned now that, sine:• Me did ~ot ~aove forward at that 

ti~ne, but significant work was dona, news of this will leak out. 

I stronGly reco!ll.fllend th•t w8 mava far""ward with this in.i tiatiVa . 

O:thars are concerned that it will ignite a "War on the West" 

backlash, and indeed, the Ut•h dal•gatian --· including Sill Orton 

-- will be displeased ta aay th~ least . Hawever, the attach~d 

4tditoriel from the Salt Lake Tribuna. decries Dole'• "Whine .on the 

West". and in many other place• in the wast (CO, CA, WA , OR. NH> 

this would be extre•ely \o4ell received. 

In any event, we need to decide this ~oon, or I fear. press l,aks 

will decide it. for us . 
60 

EXEClJTiVE OFFICt: OF I HE: &;;~C$i0~ 1-. l If_ ,3: ·.·•i., 

COU.NCil. ON ENVIRONMeNT )UALIT ~ 11:."- . ~ .... , -q (.. 

WASHINGTON, D.C . 2:050.. ~ :J.D . OJ 1 

-4-V • .t .( 

~ugust 23, 199~ 6 AUG Z'J p-l-.:~ · 

ME~lORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT 1 .r >'-.. 1<"'-

~l ..... 

f-ROM: KATHLEEN .-\ . McGINTY 

CC: LEON PANETTA, 

·. -~ 

R.E: CEQ WEEKLY REPORT 

/u you know, a dra4 national monument dedan.tion has been prepared 'for your review by 

the J:!epartment of the Interior (DO I). Per your request, DOI studied the area and foUnd it 

incredibly rich uchaeologically (anasasl ruilu) and ecologically (unique and pris~· natural 

resources). Because the area is already in Federal OWIICrship, it is therefore suitable for • · · 

monument designation Wider the Andqyjties Act. 

DOI also reports that a foreign coal company called.Andalex ll..esources currently is p~hmg to open a coal mine in the b.eart of 'the area. While a monument designation is' D.Ot capable c 

stopping the m.ine'(all existing property rights and uses would be held.birmle$s). 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. 

l

in this regard, the situation is very similar to where we were last year on Yellowstone - a 

proposed mine requesting usc of federal land. Under these circ:umstaDcCs last year, you 

exercised authority to withdraw surroWiding land from mining activity •. That action did not 

Stop the Yellowstone mine, but it did erect significant barrie.rs"to it as would the monument 

designation here. · · · 

It was originally proposed that you wol!!d annoimce the monument during your vacation. 

Work was pushed to meet that deadline. I am very concerned now that. Jinee we did not 

move forward at that time. but significant work was done, news of .this will leak out. I 

sttongly recommend that ·we move forwaccl wjth this initiative. Others are concerned that i 

will ignite a "Wu on the West' backlash, and indeed, the Utah deiegation- including 

Congressm.ac. BUl Orton (D-UTl - wUl be ·displeased to say the least. However. thC attacl 

\ !.editorial from the Salt l.akc Tribune decrie• Dole's "Whine on the West", alld I believe th 

\~ in many other places in the west (CO, CA, W A. OR~ NM) this initiative would be extrem· 

well received, 

In any event, w~ need to decide this soon •. or I fear, press leaks will decid~ it for us· 
61 

E X E C U T I ' E OFFICE 0 F 

+----L:._-<><-1 T ~-~--S_I 0 EN T 

j _, ... ~ ... 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: wkly report graphs 

utah 

we lear~ed lat~ today that the ~ashington post is goinq to run a 
62 

story this week d report1hg that the admi stratlon 1s conslder 

a national manu . .:nt desigriation. i under~ nd that there are no lnq 

quotes in the story, so it is bas~d only on "the ~ord about town .. 

i have called several members pf congress to give them not i ce of 

this story and am work ing wi: h' po l it ical affairs to determine i~ 

the~e ~= e democratic c3ndi~~:es t' should alert. we a~e neit~~~ 

.;.:. :::.:..::::-. :..:-.; no!: deny in~ ·::--.o2: 3: .::..·/; · :.:st ::-.aki:1g su=e :h::: i-~:..'.~·::~· :: 

: . :·;:: :: :. -~ fi . 

m.ea:~· •• -'.-!.~. ·,;~ a:-e ·-~·or~:.:.. :":...; ·,.-_:.:· . .::::-~ . ':)a.e:r :!nC thers :.;)- s-:-Jp>:> 

si:~:; ~: . ..: :.a::s that r..:.;:·.: .-:.: ::·: E-.\ : =n announcer.-.:nt -::-:; ::-.:11. ~ i. .3.:< .•.. . 
63 

EXt~U liVE OFFICE C..w , , . w ••• 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL OUAuTv ·WASHINGTON. O.C. 10503 

Septe!"ber 6, !996 

MEMOR..>.NDUlv! FOR THE PRESIDE~T 

FROM: ~./.Y'. KATHLEEN A McG(_NTY W • v 

CC: LEON P."..!'IETTA 

RE: CEQ WEEKLY REPORT 

UTAH 

We learned late today that the Wasbjngtpn Post is going to run a story this weekend reponing 

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 arc Democratic candidates we should alert. We are 

neither collfirm.ing nor denying the story; just making sure tliat 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. 

Meanwliile, we are working with Don Baer and others to scope out sites and dates that might 

work foL'-an announcement on tli.is issue. ' · 
64 

Document 102 CRBATOR:Brian J. Johnson ( JOHNSON_BJ ) (CEQ) 

CREATION DATE/TIME:10-SEP-1996 17:07:20.1~ 

~TECT:f**k-all, get a load of this from Kenworthy 

TO:Thomas c. Jensen ( . JENSEN_T ) (CEQ) 

JtBA[l: 10-SEP-1996 17:.08:30.43 

'l'O:¥atbleen A. McGinty READ:10~$EP-1996 17:"20:09 •. 42 

'fO:Wesley P. warren · . . R£AD:13-tEP-1996 13:48:29.75 

TO:Shelley N. Fidler 

READ:10-SEP-1996 17:08:40.30 

TEXT: 

MCGINTY_JtAl . ) (CEQ) 

(CEQ) 

FIDLER_S (CEQ) 

======== .ATTACHMENT 1 =========--~===---= 

ATT CREATION TIME/DATE:lO-SEP-1996 14:36:00.00 

AT'!! BODYPART TYPE:E · 

ATT . CREATOR:Kenworthy, Tom 

ATT stJBJECT:utab., again 

·.:.=:_ 

~ '1'0: 'lnntp: j ohnson_:.bj @al. eop. gov' _johnson_bj@Al@CD 

'l :: 

Brian= · . So when pr_essed .bY Mark. Udall .a n d Maggie Fox on the Ut~·lllonument ~·t · 

yesterday's· private · ceremony for Mo ; Clinton said: "You don't know wben . to 

take yes for an . am;wer," Sounds to me like it•s· going forward. I . also hear 

:aomer is pushing· the president to announce it when he'l!l in Colorado on • Wednesday~ Give· me a hea<ls.up ·.if its imminent-"-! can•t· write ·another·s1:ory 

saying it's likely to_. happen, but it· would be nice to know when it•s· goi !lg_ 

to happen for planning purposes .• ~-Tom Kenworthy - · · · , 

kenworthyt@Washpost. crim 

ps--thanks for the packet . 

--===========•==== END ATTACHMENT ~ ============== 

-~ ..... ======·~ ATTACHMENT 2 ======= = 

ATT c'REATION TIME/DATE:10-SEP-1996 1"1:01:00.'00 

A'l'T. !lciDYPART TYPE: D ' 

c!rEXTt . . . . . . .. . . . 

-

C:: •. ~~i .. _

2

d <<Oli9BKIIJXAGGOOOFSJ@PMDF•EOP ·v· !d.~. e~~~ ~on~e.·~si. on.· •. p~d. f.· e··.o··GOV> ·,.· . ~ . o· .·.

" .. ;fOr ·· •. b.· y.·.:.

t

, .. .PMD . johnSon ·.·•· .·.· ·.F···· .. EOP.bj@al.eop.gov; ;~v : (PMnF .. vs·· •. 6~4Tilt!. ~~~; ·, : . .. ?>: ~.· r 

) Sel?· 1996 11:6oios -o.4oo (EQ'l'l ·:'·::~·'·::< ·:-i:¥. ·.,;_.:- ..,. · · .. . · .. · · · c~t.yed: from storm.·eop,gov (st:Orm. eop;, gov).•·~·'· , • · , . •; ~F. EOP .GoV (PMDF VS. 0-4 ,·#6879)' ·'.$-d <Oli9BKl{GTl60000JP9@PMDF. EOP.GO'V> for 
65 

P'2CORP i'~t't;: l'"t;UJ:U(AL (JU .• .Lt-.&.N-1 MA.l.LoJ 

Document 104 

CREATOR: Shelley N. Fidler ( FIDLER_S ) (CEQ) 

CREATION DATE/TIME:10~SEP-1996 17:09:13.8. 

r~JBCT:RE: f**k-all, qet a load of this from Kenworthy 

TO:Brian J •. JohnSon · ltEAD:10-SBP-:-1996 17229.: 06.20 

celi'boiul:a c. JenSen. 

READ: 10-BBP-1996 17:-10:32.32 

Cc:Kathl,~en ,.·. ·McGinty .. 

READ:10-SBP-1996 17:40:49.26 

CC:Wealey P. ·warren RBAD:13-SEP-1996 13:49:06.57 

TEX'l': 

JOHNSON_BJ ) (CEQ) 

JENSEN_T ) (CEQ} -. ~ 

_, -~ 

( KCGINTY_KA1 ) . (CEQ~-'< 

WARREN_W ) (CEQ) 

why didn't. he write about MO .that would have been useful and nic< 

and well deserved. what a creep. 
66 

, ~h~on bj@al.eop.gov; 'l'ua, 10 sap 1996 17 : 0o : ul -U4UU (1::1¥!'1 

Rftc~ivedT from uu5.psi.com by STORM.EOP. GOV (PHDP VS.0-7 #6879) 

id <0119BKEXXHCC00007Y@STORM.EOP.GOV> for johnson bj@a1.aop.qov; Tua , 10 Sap 1996 16:57:59 -0700 (MST) - . Received: from uu1190.UUCP by uu5.psi.com •:S.65b/4.0 . 071791-PSI/PSINet) 

via UUCP; id AA22377 tor johnson_bj@al.eop.gov; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:59:4!1 -0400 

R 1iVad1 from smtpqate.wasbpost.com by uucpqate.washpost.com id aa21647; 'l'ue, 

A- Sap 1996 13:31 -0400 (BDT) 

Received: by smtpqata:waahpost.com 

<3235DJB3@smtpqata.waahpoat.com>; 

------;.;.,.~ .• END. ATTACHMENT 

with Microsoft ·Mail i .d 

Tue, 10 Sep 1996 13:46:43 -0700 (PDT) 

2 
67 

Document 10 3 

CREATOR:Thomas C. Jensen ( JENSEN_T (CEQ) 

CREATION DATE/TIME : lO-SEP-1996 17:09:24.95 

~UBJECT:RE : f**k-all, get a load of this from Kenworthy 

TO:Bri'an J. Johnso·n .-

READ' 10-SEP.-1996 l7: 29: l4. 44 

CC:Kathieen A; McGinty READ:~o-.sEP-1996 t7:41:os.o8 

CC:We~ley P .. Warren READ:13-SEP-1996 13:49:17.88 

CC:Shelley N. Fidler READ:10-SEP-1996 .17:13:23.80 

TEXT: 

<. 

' 

·\ 

JOHNSON_BJ. ) (CEQ) 

WARREN_W (CEQ) 

.. ~ 

FIDLER_S (CEQ) 

Wow. He's qat good sources and a lot of nerve. 
68 

RE90RD TYPE: FEDERAL (EXTERNAL MAIL) 

CREATOR:kenworthyt@washpost.com@INET@EOPMRX 

CREATION DATE/TIHE : ll-SEP-1996 22:22 :0o. on 

s~JECT:utah 

Document 106 

TO:'johnson bj@a1.eop . gov• 

RBA0111-S.EP=1996 22122:49.99 

( johnson_bj@A1@CD ) (CEQ) 

'l'EX'l': 

iloutb rim. of the qran~TT~~ sepi _l8th--be ·there or be square 

ATT CREA'l'ION TIME/DATE:U-SEP-1996 22:22 : 00.00 ·..;:: 

ATT BODYPART TYPE:D 

TEXT: 

RFC-822-headers: 

Received : from conversion.pmdf.eop.gov by PHDF.EOP . GOV (PMDF VS . 0-4 #687 9 ) 

id .<01I9DA17JF9C0003BX@PMDF.EOP.GOV> for johnson_bj@a1.eop.gov; Wed , 

11 Sep 1996 22:22:14 -0400 .(EDT) 

Received: from storm.eop.qov (storm.eop . qov) 

by l'KDF.EOP~GOV (PMDF VS.0.-4 #6879) id <01I9DA160R000003C4@PMDF.EOP . GOV> for 

johnson_bj@al.eop.gov; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:22:08 -0400 (EDT) 

Received: . from uus.psi.com by STORM.EOP.GOV .(PHDF vs.o-7 #6879) . id <OU:9D9lqCT9I00007Y~S~RM.EOP.GOV> for johnson_bj@al.eop.qov; Wed, 

.;1.1 . Sap· .1996. 22:20t!O -0700 (MST) . Received: from ·uu1190 .. UUCP by· uus.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) · via .UtJCP·; id AAl,1618 fQr ' johnSon_bj@al.eop.gov; Wed, 11 Sep 1996· 22:21:40 -0400 

P-ived: .f'rom lnlltpqate .• wa~;hpost.com by ·uucpqate.washpost. com· id aa06282 ; We d, 

' . Bep 1!!9,ji 18: 57 -0400 . ( Eirl') 

l<o!Ceived: by_. smtpqate.washpost.com 

<323 77243@smtpqate. washpas~ •. com>; 

END . ·ATTACHMENT 

wit.h Mic~osoft Mail id Wed·, 11 Sep 1996 19 : 15:31 .:.0700 (PDT) 1 . 
69 

September t 6_,_I996 

0 

!E:-.!()K_..: .. ~~D! .' \1 ;·t; -;·: i~ ;>; ·::s:: ::::--:-:- /! 

'.• -. . . i. 

st.:aJECT 

The S'e:-retJ.ry of~ :: [:uerior ;n~~ar~d th~ 1r:ac::'!:;j materials in rc!:ipunst! rv your rc:qi.!::sc ;: 0 

him for niorrr. J.~t-.:. : .;n fe:c!t!:ll :.:.~C.i ::1 5.::.:.:. .... !:-:-. Cc1:--. ~~Jc 5houl'.! ":'<! g:-Jr ,~0 n:u ion<!! 

monument protection under the ."'-nti<;uities :. 

In brief. "the Secretary proposes that you use your authority under the Antiquities Ac e co 

establish .. by proclamation the "Grand Staircase-Escalante NatiOilal Monument." The 

monument would cover approximately 1. 7 million acres of federal land in south central Utah 

managed by the Interior Deparunenrs Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

National and Utah environmental groups have pressed Congress to designate approximately 

s.1 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 Bi:.M lands that 

' environmental advocates want to see protected, but that have not been proposed for formal 

wilderness protection because the areas contain fearures that render them legally ineligible for 

wilderness status. The lands are essentially the interstices between large blocks of 

wilderness-eligible lands. They contain resources ¢at qualify for monumeat status, as 

described in the Secretary's memo to you. ·. Since news of the proposed monument leaked to the l.os Anze!es Tjmes and Washjn~rron Post 

last week, we have received strong endorsements for -this proposal from many quaners, 

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 

envirorunental and conservation groups. The Utah delegation, including Democratic 

Congressman Bill Orton, Governor Leavitt, and the NRA have spoken out in strong 

opposition. 

ln this regard, much of the opposition from Utah ha. 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 . O~!B. and lncerior Deparunenc analysis of reportS 
70 

prepared by ~rious Stat. f Utah agenc ies. it appears !hat the •posed Andale~/S olcy 

Hollow Mine would generate less !han S75 ,000 per year for Utan school expenses. Utah's 

annual educ~ti on budget is approximately S l.6 ,biUion. The critic ism based on "lost" schco! 

in·.::)r:~.: Jfl~~Jrs to be \.\."i ldl y overstated . · 

:-\;.:.::-.:::!:-·: ~: .. ::" ::: .;::::.: :;:-.H(..!.::! ~~ k·;.:t .::-::. ::·T'.! :-r" ·.:-rr-\_'sit:vn w:: il.1'." ;;,! n:.''·' ::;::.!:-.:. ..:::-·.:.:::-. 

; ·;:;; .). .;..: ;- ::.: :·: .. • , . .• .:~: :::.:c t:: :: ~:.!:;;:.:::: ::; ~:!:.: ::: .:} m~:ne . ~- "'i.! ::\ k:.: ~:. .. :.::-.: :· ··· 

~;: :.! .::! :;h0r~· lr..i lcng<!rm •Jpposirion frOm l.Jt~.n ·s pro...Jevelopmc::nt inr~::.: s:s ..:. :· . .:. :-..::::.. 

n:siC::ms. F!:s:. h:! ;r.:"poses ·that BL~L r;1ther ~Jn th~ National Park Se: ·: ~~ :-::..:.::1~:: :::.:: 

monument. Second. he! proposes \hat you expr!:isly disclJ.im lO)' ~5~ ~1~: .. ' :1 o:· ..:~:::.: ···- · 

ri2 hts for the c:onumer.t. Third , the Secretary has proposed monument boundar:es L~! t 

e;clude all developed areas and stare park lands. Fourlh. !he Secre tary na; pr·~ ;; ~::! ~a : ~" 

new management regime for the monument area be defined throu gh a multi-ye"' public 

hearing-and involvement process. -

White House and Interior Department representatives have met or conversed extensiv<ly ov~r 

!he past weelt 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 managemeiu of grazing. hunting, or fishing activities_ In .other words, those activities 

would be governed by current law, notwithstanding the mollllillCnt designation. 

In addition, we recommend that you direct the Secretary to pursue negotiations with !he State 

of Utall to trade stateooQ.wned parcels within the boundaries of the monument for federal lands 

of equal value elsewhere in Utah, thus ens'uring 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. 

enclosures 
71 

Document 85 

RECORD TYPE , FEDERAL (EXTERNAL ICAI L) <_ 

CREATOR, kenworthytawe ..... oet. co•iiNETaEOPHRX 

CREATION DATEITIME:16-SEP-19.9' 1Z::SO:OO.OO 

~UJ.IECf :uteh -

-T_o, _; johnioon_b:li.;,1.eop .-gov' 

REAih 16-_SEP~ 1996 1Z, :S2, 59.09 

:lohneon~jiA1atD <CEQ) 

iEn; -~- -' -. __ _ :~ 

tice touch doing the Eece1.,t. cionyone ennounc...nt on the -birthdey of 

Ut.h'• junior -tori 8ive - - io cell. .if you get • c:t..nce. 

•••••••••••••••••••• ATTACHMENT 1 ·················~·· ATT CREATION TIMEIDATE : 16-SEP-1996 12:52:00.00 

ATT IODYPART TVPE-.D 

TEXT• 

RFC-822-heederso 

Received: fro• conversion.pedf.eop.gov by PMDF.EOP.GOV <PMDF VS.0-4 16879) 

id. <Oli9JOTFJ2LSODOX62iPMDF .EOP . GDV> for johnson_bjia1_ .eop .gov l .Hon, 

16 "Sep 199.6 12o:SOo:SS -0400 <EDT) 

·Received i fro• ator•.eop .Gov. (ator_it.eop .gav) 

bY PMDF.EOP.GOV CPHDF VS.0-4 16879) -id <01I9JOT4XOR40012LZiPHDF.EOP.GOV> for 

:lohneon~:l~l.eop.govJ Hon, 16 Sep it96 12o:S0:1!1 -0400 CEDTf 

Received• fro• uuS.psi.co• by STORH.EOP,GOV ·cPMDF VS.o-7· 16879) 

' ' id -<01I9JOQHJVXIOOOOTVaSTORH.EOP.GOV> for johnson_bjie1.eop.govJ Hon, 16 5ep .1996· 12:28:12 -0700 CHST) . . 

·Received• fro• uu1190.uUCP bi.i uuS.pioi.co• C5 .. 6Sbi4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet). via UUCPJ id AAZ:S275 for .johnscin_bjiel.eop.govJ Hon, 16 s.P 1996 12:29:57 -0400 

Recaiveda- fr011 ·s.tpgata .dshpost.C:o• by uucpgate.waS..,oat.cO• id 'eb21053; Man; 

..i6 Sep U9~ 11:28 ~0400 <EDT) 

Recelveda -·b·y Atpga~e.washPost.cO• with Microsoft Mail id 

<:S2:SDA12Dis•tpgete.weshpost.co•>-l Hon, 16 Sep 1996 llo49:17. -0700 <PDn 

·~·••••••~c••••••~ END ATTACHMENT 1 ••••C•••ccccc••••• 
72 

.=.::::=~-.:..=""' :: 

~c~==able Rebert F. Cenr.e~: 

~ciced States Senate 

Washi~g::on D.C. 20510-4403 

Cear Senator Sennett: 

'_ ....... ..,. 

: am =esponcii~g to your _ec~e~ : =ece~ved yescerday =ega:d~~g --~ 

?=cpcsal to c=eate a new nat~c~al ~onument ~n scut~ern Utah. ~h~:~ 

~a :inal decision on establishi~g a monument has been made, ycu::- lec~er ncnet.heless ::-aises 'Eal:d concer:1s, and ! do l::elieve ::::ey ~eri: full discussion. 

You ask, first:, whether the proposed monument would carry . .,ith i:: a r~served water right, and :f so, what effect it might have on wat~~ users, the Colorado River Compact, and various proposed water development proj ect:s. These are questions of very legicimate 

concern, and I look forward to discussing them further wich you, 

Congressman Ort:on, Governor Leavitt, ·al'.d ether int:eresced par::i~s 

Your second group of quest:icns involves the effect: of establishment 

of a national monument: on state Lands within its boundar:es. We 

certainly share your concern tha1: the state public school system ~ot: be impaired by establishment: of a national monument. As you 

;.:,_cw, the issue of how to deal with state inholdings scat:tered across federal lands managed to protect: nationally sign1ficant 

•.ralues is a common problem thrc,~ghout t:he west:. Many national 

parks, national forests, national monuments, and other protected 

:ederal areas contain st.ate inholdings. The most common '"'ay co 

address these is for the state an<:i t:he federal government to agree 

upon an exchange, whereby the st&te agrees to trade its i~holdi~g 

in return for public lands of equal value outside the protected area. I look forward to discussing this further wit:h you. 

Your final sec of questions involves the status of existing mineral 

leases ana right:s in the area ~der consideracion as a national monument:. The only mineral interest:s of any significance I am aware of in the·area are existing federal coal leases issued ~any 

years ago. Most: of these leases have expired of cheir own terms, or been relinquished, or are in the process of being cancelled 

pursuant to law. Two leases or :ease groups remain. one is held 

by !?acificorp, and we are curreJlt:ly in very serious discussions 

with that company 'to relinquish it:s lease on the Ka1parcw•ts 

Plateau in exchange for bidding credits on federal coal of equal 

value elsewhere. 
73 

-2 :--:~a;.:::.::g ~.ase :.:.ce:-as:: :s ::a:~ "='! ,.;..-.Ca!ex ::\.esc~.:.=:es . -··· . 

:-::is ccmpany has appli-ed =~= ~ :: ~:7.Cer cf ;e~ics cr -=~::'.!~ 

3.".;~:-.cr:.::acicns required by :e~e:al a::C scat:e law in order :c cee::. 

~ ~~~e ~n c~e Kaiparcwics ?la:eau. A draf: environmencal :.~cac: 

scac~~e~c :.s currencly Cei=g ;repared en c~e proposal. ShoUld ~ 

~ac:.c~al ~cccmenc be escabl:.s~ed. and should che company ccnci~~e 

:::: seek ;:e:mission to :nc·te for-... a:d ·,.,i~h. i.ts prq::osal, ~ 

~e~erni::a::c~ ~ould have cc Ce ~ade ~hec~er t~e ~dalex pr=posal : 3 

:.~.ccnsis::e::.: ·,.,ich the purposes o: c!:e :ncnument, and if so, ..,hec~~r 

and ~o what extent the company ~as valid existing rights t~at wou:: 

have to be addressed. 

! aocreciate the opportanity· I' •te had to discuss these issues . .,it~. 

you·,· with Congressman Orton, and with. Governor Leavitt. ! lee;. 

:o:r-.,.ard to furt:her discussions i.n the •tery ~ear future. 

Sincerely, 

0 


ISBN 0-16-056341-0 

90000 

9 80160 563416