Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
225358307
label
Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument [Folder 2]: [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
225358307
contentType
document
title
Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument [Folder 2]: [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Counsel to the President (Clinton Administration)
Bridget McGovern's Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
225358307
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7422584-20170879F-003-004-2019
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a4755bc8188abf30
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2017-0879-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Counsel Office
Series/Staff Member:
Bridget McGovern; Brad Winter
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
18584
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument [Folder 2]: [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
105
6
6
3
Bibliography
Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument
I. Geology Resources
Mineral Deposits
Adamek, P., Behr, H.J., and von Pechmann, E., 1992. "Gold-bearing collapse-breccia pipe,
Copper Mountain, northwestern Arizona," in, Short Papers of the U.S. Geological Survey
Uranium Workshop, 1990, Dickinson, K.A. (ed.), U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1069, pp 51-
53.
Arizona Bureau of Mines, 1969. Mineral and Water Resources of Arizona, Arizona Bureau of
Mines [now Arizona Geological Survey] Bulletin 160, p. 638.
Arizona Bureau of Mines, 1986, Geology and Mineralogy of the apex Germanium-gallium
Mine, Washington, County, Utah, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1577, p. 9.
Billingsley, G.H., Antweiler, J.C., and Ellis, C.E., 1983. Mineral Resource Potential of the
Kanab Creek Roadless Area, Coconino and Mohave Counties, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1627-A, scale 1:48,000.
Billingsley, G.H., Antweiler, J.C., Lucchitta, Ivo, Beard, L.S., and Lane, M.E., 1986. Mineral
Resource Potential of the Pigeon Canyon, Nevershine, and Snap Point Wilderness Study Areas,
Mohave County, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map MF-1860-
A, scale 1;50,000.
Billingsley, G.H., and Ellis, C.E., 1983. Mineral Resource Potential of the Kanab Creek RARE
II Further Planning Area, Coconino and Mohave Counties, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1300, pp. 76-78.
Blakey, R.C., 1979. Oil impregnated Carbonate Rocks of the Timpoweap Member of the
Moenkopi Formation, Hurricane Cliffs, Utah and Arizona, Utah Geology, Vol. 6, pp. 45-54.
Bliss, J.D., 1993. Mineral Resource Assessment of Undiscovered Mineral Deposits for Selected
Mineral Deposit Types in the Kaibab National Forest, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 93-329, p. 61.
Bliss, J.D., 1997. Mineral Resource Assessment of Selected Nonmetallic and Metallic Resources
of the Coconino National Forest, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-486,
p. 275.
Bohannon, R.G., Antweiler, J.C., Lucchitta, I., Anderson, R.E., Beard, L.S., Hovorka, D.S., and
Briggs, J.P., 1983. Geology and Mineral Resource Potential of the Narrows (AZ-010-135), Lime
Hills (AZ-010-134), and Sand Cover (AZ-010-128) Wilderness Study Areas, Mohave County,
Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-887, map scale 1:50,000, p. 10.
Brandt, C., 1989. "Petroleum and Carbon Dioxide," in The Geology of Kane County, Utah;
Geology, Mineral Resources, Geologic Hazards, Doelling, H.H., and Davis, F.D., Utah
Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 124, pp. 115-126.
Brennan, D.J., 1991. Rare Wildcat Drilling in Remote Arizona Strip, Oil and Gas Journal,
Oct. 7, pp. 108-110.
Chenoweth, W.L., 1988. The Production History and Geology of the Hacks, Ridenour,
Riverview and Chapel Breccia Pipes, Northwestern Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 88-0648, p. 60.
Dutrizac, J.E., Jambor, J.L., and Chen, T.T., 1986. Host Minerals for the Gallium-Germanium
Ores of the Apex Mine, Utah, Economic Geology, Vol. 81, pp. 946-950.
Fellows, L.D., 1999. Oil and Gas in Arizona: Good News and Bad News, Arizona Geological
Survey, Arizona Geology, Vol. 29, pp. 1-2.
Finch, W.I., 1992. "Descriptive model of solution-collapse breccia pipe uranium deposits," in
Developments in Mineral Deposit Modeling, Bliss, J.D., and Mosier, D.L. (eds.), U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 2004, pp. 36-38.
Finch, W.I., Sutphin, H.B., Pierson, C.T., McCammon, R.B., and Wenrich, K.J., 1990. The 1987
Estimate of Undiscovered Uranium Endowment in Solution-Collapse Breccia Pipes in the Grand
Canyon Region of Northern Arizona and Adjacent Utah, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1051.
Gibbons, R., 1952. Reconnaissance of Some Red Bed Copper Deposits in the Southwestern
United States, Atomic Energy Commission Report RMO-890, pp. 4-19; 77-78, Plate 1.
Grossman, J.N., 1998. National Geochemical Atlas: The Geochemical Landscape of the
Conterminous United States Derived from Stream Sediment and Other Solid Sample Media
Analyzed by the National uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Program, version 3.0-1, U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-622, 1 CD-ROM..
Heylmun, E.B. 1987. Shallow Oil Potential Seen in Northwest Arizona, Oil and Gas Journal,
Sept. 14, 1987, pp. 77-80.
Hill, J.M., 1915. The Grand Gulch Mining Region, Mohave County, Arizona, U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 580-D, pp. 39-58.
2
Huntoon, P.W., 1996. Large-Basin Ground Water Circulation and Paleo-Reconstruction of
Circulation Leading to Uranium Mineralization in the Grand Canyon Breccia Pipes, The
Mountain Geologist, Vol.33, pp. 71-84.
Keith, S.B., Gest, D.E., DeWitt, E., Toll, N.W., and Everson, B.A., 1983. Metallic Mineral
Districts and Production in Arizona, Arizona Geological Survey Bulletin 194, p. 58.
Lane, M.E., 1984. Mineral Investigation of the Pigeon Canyon, Snap Point, Nevershine Mesa
and Last Chance Wilderness Study Areas (BLM), Mohave County, Arizona, U.S. Bureau of
Mines MLA 8-84.
Lucchitta, I., Beard, L.S., Billingsley, G.H., Antweiler, J.C., Rieck, H.J., and Lane, M.E., 1983.
Geology and Mineral Resource Potential of the Pigeon Canyon, Nevershine Mesa and Snap Point
Wilderness Study Areas, Mohave County, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
83-888.
Ludwig, K.R., and Simmons, K.R., 1992. U-Pb Dating Uranium Deposits in Collapse Breccia
Pipes of the Grand Canyon Region, Economic Geology, Vol. 87, pp. 1747-1765.
McDonnell, J.R., 1984. Mineral Investigation of the Mt. Trumbull Wilderness Stud Area,
Mohave County, Arizona, U.S. Bureau of Mines MLA 31-84.
McDonnell, J.R., 1977. Environmental Assessment on Management Options for Exxon Uranium
Leases, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Arizona and Nevada, p. 132.
O'Brien, R.D., 1983. An Evaluation of Mineral Resources, Lake Mead National Recreation
Area, Arizona and Nevada, p. 20.
Pitkin, J.A., Conway, C.M., and Haxel, G.B., 1994. Thorium, uranium, and potassium
aeroradioactivity maps of Arizona: geologic interpretation and metallogenic significance [abs.],
in U.S. Geological Survey Research on Mineral Resources-1994; Part A-Program and Abstracts,
Ninth Annual V.E. McKelvey Forum on Mineral and Energy Resources, Carter, L.M.H., Toth,
M.I., and Day, W.C. (eds.), U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1103-A, pp. 75-76.
Reynolds, M.W., Palacas, J.G., and Elston, D.P., 1988. Potential Petroleum Source Rocks in the
Late Proterozoic Chuar Group, Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1025,
pp. 49-50.
Sutphin, H.B., and Wenrich, K.J., 1989. Map of Locations of Collapse Breccia Pipes in the
Grand Canyon Region of Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-550.
Tainter, S.L., 1947. Apex Copper Property, Coconino County, Arizona, U.S. Bureau of Mines
Report of Investigations RI-4013, p. 23.
3
Van Gosen, B.S., and Wenrich, K.J., 1989. Ground Magnetometer Surveys Over Known and
Suspected Breccia Pipes on the Coconino Plateau, Northwestern Arizona, U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 1683-C, p. 31.
Verbeek, E.R., Grout, M.A., Van Gosen, B.S., and Sutphin, H.B., 1987. Structure of the Apex
Mine, Southwestern Utah [abs.], Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol.
19, p. 340.
Villalobos, H. A. and L. W. Hamm. 1981. Map Showing Mineral Resource Potential of the
Paiute Instant (Primitive) Study Area, Mohave county, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1 160-D, scale 1:24,000.
Wenrich, K.J., 1985. Mineralization of Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona, Economic Geology,
Vol. 80, pp. 1722-1735.
Wenrich, K.J., 1986. Geochemical Exploration for Mineralized Breccia Pipes in Northern
Arizona, U.S.A., Applied Geochemistry, Vol.1, pp. 469-485.
Wenrich, K.J., Billingsley, G.H., and Huntoon, P.W., 1996. Breccia-Pipe and Geologic Map of
the Northwestern Part of the Hualapai Indian Reservation and Vicinity, Arizona, U.S. Geological
Survey, Geologic Investigations Map I-2522, 2 plates, scale 1:48,000, p. 16.
Wenrich, K.J., Billingsley, G.H., and Huntoon, P.W., 1997. Breccia-Pipe and Geologic Map of
the Northeastern Part of the Hualapai Indian Reservation and Vicinity, Arizona, U.S. Geological
Survey, Geologic Investigations Map I-2440, 2 plates, scale 1:48,000, p. 19.
Wenrich, K.J., and Silberman, M.L., 1984. Potential Precious and Strategic Metals as By-
products of Uranium Mineralized Breccia Pipes in Northen Arizona [abs.], American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Vol. 68, p. 954.
Wenrich, K.J., and Sutphin, H.B., 1988. Recognition of Breccia Pipes in Northern Arizona,
Arizona Geological Survey Fieldnotes, Vol.18, pp. 1-5, 11.
Wenrich, K.J., Verbeek, E.R., Sutphin, H.B., Van Gosen, B.S., and Modreski, P.J., 1987. The
Apex mine, Utah-A Colorado Plateau-type solution-collapse breccia pipe [abs.] in U.S.
Geological Survey Research on Mineral Resources-1987 Program and Abstracts, Sachs,
J.S.(ed.), U.S. Geological Survey Circular 995, pp. 73-74, 76-77.
Geology
Best, M.G., and Brimhall, W.H., 1974. Late Cenozoic Alkali Basaltic Magmas in the Western
Colorado Plateau and the Basin and Range Transition Zone, Geological Society of America
Bulletin, Vol. 85, pp. 1677-1690.
4
Billingsley, G.H., 1997. Geologic Map of the Mount Logan Quadrangle, Northern Mohave
County, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-426, scale 1:24,000, p. 21.
Billingsley, G.H., 1997. Geologic Map of the Mount Trumbull NW Quadrangle, Northern
Mohave County, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-488, scale 1:24,000,
p. 19.
Billingsley, G.H., 1997. Geologic Map of the Poverty Spring Quadrangle, Northern Mohave
County, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-493, scale 1:24,000, p. 12.
Billingsley, G.H., and Beus, S.S., eds, 1999. Geology of the Surprise Canyon Formation of the
Grand Canyon, Arizona, Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 61, p. 254, 9 plates.
Billingsley, G.H., and Huntoon, P.W., 1983. Geologic Map of the Vulcan's Throne and Vicinity,
Western Grand Canyon, Arizona, Grand Canyon Natural History Association, scale 1:48,000.
Billingsley, G.H., Blakey, R.C., and Knepp, Rex, 1989. "Pennsylvanian and Permian Geology of
Arizona" in Geologic Evolution of Arizona, Jenny, J.P., and Reynolds, S.J. (eds.), Arizona
Geological Society Digest 17, pp. 313-347.
Billingsley, G.H., Wenrich, K.J., and Huntoon, P.W., in press. Breccia-pipe and Geologic Map
of the Southeastern Part of the Hualapai Indian Reservation and Vicinity, Arizona, U.S.
Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Map I-2643, 2 plates, scale 1:48,000, p. 40.
Billingsley, G.H., Wenrich, K.J., Huntoon, P.W., and Young, R.A., 1998. Breccia-pipe and
Geologic Map of the Southwestern Part of the Hualapai Indian Reservation and Vicinity,
Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Map I-2554, 2 plates, scale 1:48,000,
p. 50.
Cook, E.F., 1960. Geologic Atlas of Utah: Washington County, Utah Geological and
Mineralogical Survey Bulletin 70, p. 119.
Doelling, H.H., and Davis, F.D., 1989. The Geology of Kane County, Utah; Geology, Mineral
Resources, Vgeologic Hazards, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 124, p. 192.
Dutton, C.E., 1882. The Physical Geology of the Grand Canyon District, Second Annual Report,
U.S. Geological Survey, 1880-1881. Washington, D.C.
Dutton, C.E., 1882. Tertiary History of the Grand Cañon District, U.S. Geological Survey
Monographs Vol. 2, p. 264.
5
Fenton, C.R., 1998. Cosmogenic 3-Helium Dating of Lava Dam Outburst Floods in the Western
Grand Canyon, Arizona, University of Utah, M.S. Thesis, p. 76.
Hamblin, W.K., 1994. Late Cenozoic Lava Dams in the Western Grand Canyon, Geological
Society of America Memoir 183, p. 139.
Kamilli, R.J., and Richard, S.M., eds, 1998. Geologic Highway Map of Arizona, Arizona
Geological Society and Arizona Geological Survey, scale 1:1,000,000.
Koons, E.D., 1945. Geology of the Uinkaret Plateau, Northern Arizona, Geological Society of
America Bulletin, Vol. 56, pp. 151-180.
Lucchitta, I., 1975. "The Shivwits Plateau" in Application of ERTS Images and Image
Processing to Regional Geologic Problems and Geologic Mapping in Northern Arizona, Goetz,
A.F.H., Billingsley, F.C., Gillespie, A.R., Abrams, M.J., Squiares, R.L., Shoemaker, E.M.,
Lucchitta, I., and Elston, D.P., Jet Propulsion Laboratory Technical Report 32-1597, p. 41-73.
Museum of Northern Arizona, 1986. The Arizona Strip; Splendid Isolation, Museum of
Northern Arizona, Plateau, Vol. 57, p. 32.
Nealy, L.D., and Sheridan, M.F., 1989. Post-Laramide volcanic rocks of Arizona and northern
Sonora, Mexico and their inclusions in Geologic Evolution of Arizona, Jenny, J.P., and
Reynolds, S.J. (eds.), Arizona Geological Society Digest 17, pp. 609-647.
Sorauf, J.E., and Billingsley, G.H., 1991. Members of the Toroweap and Kaibab Formations,
Lower Permian, Northern Arizona and Southwestern Utah, The Mountain Geologist, Vol. 28,
pp. 9-24.
Stewart, J.H., Poole, F.G., Wilson, R.F., and Cadigan, R.A., 1972. Stratigraphy and Origin of the
Triassic Moenkopi Formation and Related Strata in the Colorado Plateau Region, U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 691, p. 195.
Wenrich, K.J., Chenoweth, W.L., Finch, W.I., and Scarborough, R.B., 1989. "Uranium in
Arizona" in Geologic Evolution of Arizona, Jenney, J.P., and Reynolds, S.J. (eds.), Arizona
Geological Society Digest 17, pp. 759-794.
II. Historical Resources
Belshaw, M. 1978. High, Dry and Lonesome: The Arizona Strip and Its People, The Journal of
Arizona History 19: pp. 359-378.
6
Belshaw, M. 1979. Mines and Mining Districts in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area,
suppl. to Lake Mead National Recreation Area Historical Resources Study: Boulder City,
Colorado.
Billingsley, G.H., Spamer, E.E., and Menkes, D., 1997. Quest for the Pillar of Gold; The mines
and Miners of the Grand Canyon, Grand Canyon Association Monograph 10, p. 112.
Cox, N.I. and H.B. Russell. 1973. Footprints on the Arizona Strip (with Accent on
"Bundyville"), Horizon Publishers, Bountiful.
House, D. A. 1986. "Under Vermillion Cliffs: Man on the Arizona Strip" in The Arizona Strip:
Splendid Isolation, Plateau Magazine, Special Edition, Museum of Northern Arizona: Flagstaff,
Arizona.
Morgan, D.L. 1953. Jedediah Smith and the Opening of the West, Bobbs-Merrill Co.:
Indianapolis, Indiana.
Powell, J.W. and G.W. Ingalls, 1874. The Condition and Wants of the Ute Indians of Utah, the
Paiutes of Utah, Northern Arizona, Southern Nevada, and Southeastern California; the Go-si
Utes of Utah and Nevada; the Northwestern Shoshones of Idaho and Utah, and the Western
Shoshones of Nevada, 43rd Congress, First Session, House of Representatives Executive
Document No. 157: pp. 2-35.
Warner, T.J., 1995. The Dominguez-Escalante Journal: Their Expedition Through Colorado,
Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico in 1776, University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, Utah.
III. Archeological Resources
Aikens, C.M. 1966. Virgin-Kayenta Cultural Relationships, University of Utah Anthropological
Papers No. 79: Salt Lake City, Utah.
Allen, M. 1988. New Frontiers in Rock Art: The Grand Canyon, Paper presented at the 1988
American Rock Art Research Association Symposium: Ridgecrest, California.
Allen, M. 1991. Grand Canyon polychrome pictographs. pp. 1-16. in Utah Rock Art 8 (Section
1), Utah Rock Art Research Association: Salt Lake City, Utah.
Allen, M. 1991. Rock Art Investigations in the Western Grand Canyon, Report prepared for the
Arizona Archaeological Society, the Bureau of Land Management Arizona Strip District, the
Kaibab National Forest, North Kaibab District, and Grand Canyon National Park.
7
Allen, M. 1992. "New Frontiers in Rock Art: the Grand Canyon" in American Indian Rock Art
15, pp. 49-70, American Rock Art Research Association: San Miguel.
Altschul, J.H. and H.C. Fairley. 1989. Man, Models and Management: An Overview of the
Archeology of the Arizona Strip and the Management of its Cultural Resources, U.S. Department
of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Report, U.S. Government Printing Office 1989-0-673-212/3028.
Baldwin, G.C. 1942. Archeological Survey of Whitmore Wash and Shivwits Plateau,
Northwestern Arizona, Unpublished report on file, Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
Reprinted in Western Anasazi Reports 1, pp. 13-22 (1978): Cedar City, Utah.
Baldwin, G.C. 1950. "Archeological Survey of the Lake Mead Area" in For the Dean: Essays in
Anthropology in Honor of Byron Cummings, Reed, E.K. and King, D.S. (eds.), pp. 41-49.
Southwestern Monuments Association: Tuscon, Arizona.
Baldwin, G.C. 1978. Archeological Survey of Whitmore Wash and Shivwits Plateau,
Northwestern Arizona, Western Anasazi Reports 1: pp. 13-22: Cedar City, Utah
Davenport, M. A., J. A. Hanson, and L. M. Lesko. 1995. "The rocks remember: The Art of Snake
Gulch" in American Indian Rock Art, Volume 18, pp. 65-70. American Rock Art Research
Association: San Miguel.
Euler, R.C. 1958. Walapai Culture History, University of New Mexico Ph.D. Dissertation:
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Euler, R.C. 1974. Future Archaeological Research in the Grand Canyon, Plateau 46: pp. 139-
148.
Fairley, H.C., P.W. Bungart, C.M. Coder, J. Huffman, T.L. Samples and JR. Balsom. 1993. The
Grand Canyon River Corridor Survey Project: Archaeological Survey along the Colorado River
between Glen Canyon Dam and Separation Canyon, Report prepared in cooperation with Glen
Canyon Environmental Studies: Flagstaff, Arizona.
Fowler, D.D. and J.F. Matley. 1978. Material Culture of the Numa: the Powell Collection from
Southern Utah and Northern Arizona, 1868-1880, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
No. 26: Washington, D.C.
Goss, J.A., 1965. Ute Linguistics and Anasazi Abandonment of the Four Comers Area,
Contributions of the Wetherill Mesa Archaeological Project, Memoirs of the Society for
American Archaeology 19:73-8 1.
8
Holmer, R.N. 1977. Archaeological Survey of Exxon Mineral Leases, Lake Mead National
Recreational Area, Reprinted in Western Anasazi Reports 2: pp. 3-38: Cedar City, Utah.
Johnson, K.L., and D.M. Pendergast. 1960. Archaeological Exploration of Antelope Cave,
Arizona, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California: Los Angeles,
California.
Judd, N. M., 1919. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Northwestern Arizona, Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections 70 (1): Washington, D.C.
Judd, N.M., 192 1. Archaeological Investigations in Utah and Arizona, Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections 72(1): Washington, D.C.
Kelly, I.T., 1934. Southern Paiute Bands, American Anthropologist 36: pp. 548-560.
Lamb, S.M., 1958. Linguistic Prehistory in the Great Basin, International Journal of American
Linguistics 24: pp. 95-100.
Lipe, W.D. and R.A. Thompson, 1979. A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Grand Wash
Planning Unit of the Arizona Strip District of the Bureau of Land Management, Western Anasazi
Report 2: Cedar City, Utah.
Manners, R.A. 1974. Paiute Indians Volume 1, Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi: An
Ethnohistorical Report, Garland Publishing, Inc.: New York.
Moffitt, K. and C. Chang, 1978. The Mount Trumbull Archeological Survey, Western Anasazi
Reports 1: pp. 185-250: Cedar City, Utah.
Sapir, E, 1930. The Southern Paiute Language, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences 65(1-3): Boston, Massachusetts.
Steward, J.H., 1936. "The economic and social basis of primitive bands" in Essays in
Anthropology Presented to Alfred L. Kroeber, Lowie, R.H.(ed.), pp. 3-79, University of
California Press: Berkeley, California.
Stewart, O.C., 1942. Indians of the Great Basin: A Critical Bibliography, Indiana University
Press: Bloomington, Indiana.
Teague, G. and C. McClellan, 1978. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Lands Adjacent to
Grand Canyon, Western Archeological Center: Tuscon, Arizona.
9
Thompson, R.A., 1979. A Projection of Archeological Site Densities in the Slide Mountain,
Tuckup Point, and Jensen Tank Areas of the Grand Canyon National Park, Western Anasazi
Reports 2: pp. 234-255: Cedar City, Utah.
Thompson, R.A. and G.B. Thompson, 1974. A Preliminary Report of Excavations in the Grand
Canyon National Park, National Park Service and Southern Utah State College: Cedar City, Utah.
Thompson, R.A. and G.B. Thompson, 1978. The Little Jug Site: 1976-1977, National Park
Service and Southern Utah State State College: Cedar City, Utah.
IV. Biological Resources
Allen, AW., J.G. Cook, and M.J. Armbruster, 1984. Habitat suitability Index Models:
Pronghorn. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/10.65: Ft.
Collins.
Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1978. Arizona Antelope Management Information
Performance Reports, F.A. Project W-53-R-28: Phoenix, Arizona.
Autenreith, R.E., 1978. Guidelines for the Management of Pronghorn Antelopes, Pronghorn
Antelope Workshop Proceedings 8: pp. 472-526.
Blake, J.G., 1981. Avifauna of the Mt. Dellenbaugh Region, Shivwits Plateau, Arizona, Great
Basin Naturalist 41: pp. 259-268.
Behle, W.H., 1943. Birds of the Pine Valley Mountain Region, Southwestern Utah, University
of Utah Bulletin 34, Biol. Ser. 7: pp. 1-85.
Behle, W.H. J.B. Bushman, and C.M. Greenhalgh, 1958. Birds of the Kanab Area and Adjacent
High Plateaus of Southern Utah, Utah Biological Series 11: pp. 1-92.
Bostick, V., 1988. Ecological Analysis of the Home-Ranch Grazing Allotment Lake Mead
National Recreation Area, Lake Mead National Recreation Area Technical Report 00 10.
Bostick, V., 1988. Ecological Analysis of the Parashaunt Grazing Allotment, Lake Mead
National Recreation Area, Lake Mead National Recreation Area Technical Report 00 11.
Brown, D.E., editor, 1994. Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern
Mexico, University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, Utah.
Callison, J., Jr. and J.D. Brotherson, 1985. Habitat Relationships of the Blackbrush Community
10
(Coleogyne Ramosissima) of Southwestern Utah, Great Basin Naturalist 45, pp. 321-326.
Dickinson, V., T. Duck, C. Schwalbe, and J.L. Jarchow, 1995. Health Studies of Free-ranging
Desert Tortoises in Utah and Arizona, AGFD Research Branch Technical Report 21: Phoenix,
Arizona.
Harper, K.T., and J.L. Reveal, editors, 1976. Intermountain Biogeography: A Symposium, Great
Basin Naturalist Memoirs 2, pp. 1-268.
Herron, G.B., C.A. Mortimore, and M.S. Rawlings, 1985. Nevada Raptors: Their Biology and
Management, Nevada Department of Wildlife Biological Bulletin No. 8: Reno, Nevada.
Hoffmeister, D.F., 1986. The Mammals of Arizona, University of Arizona Press: Tucson,
Arizona.
Hoffmeister, D.F. and F.E. Durham, 1971. Mammals of the Arizona Strip including Grand
Canyon National Monument, Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Inc.: Flagstaff,
Arizona.
Holland, J.S., W.E. Niles, and P.J. Leary, 1979. Vascular plants of the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area, Nevada/Arizona, Lake Mead National Recreation Area Technical Report No. 3:
Boulder City, Colorado.
Huey, LM., 1939. Birds of the Mt. Trumbull Region, Arizona, Auk 56, pp. 320-325.
Knipe, T., 1944. The Status of the Antelope Herds of Northern Arizona, AGFD Federal Aid
Division, Pittman-Robinson Project Arizona 9-R: Phoenix, Arizona.
Mason, L.R., et al., 1967. Vegetation and Soils of No Man's Mesa Relict Area, Journal of Range
Management 20, pp. 45-59.
McCulloch, C.Y. and R.H. Smith, 1991. Relationship of Weather and Other Environmental
Variables to the Condition of the Kaibab Deer Herd, AGFD Research Branch Technical Report
No. 11: Phoenix, Arizona.
Merriam, C.H., 1893. Notes on the Distribution of Trees and Shrubs in the Deserts and Desert
Ranges of Southern California, Southern Nevada, Northwestern Arizona and Southwestern Utah,
North American Fauna 7, pp. 285-394.
Meyer, S.E., 1978. Some Factors Governing Plant Distributions in the Mohave-Intermountain
Transition Zone, Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs 2, pp. 197-207.
Minckley, W.L., 1973. Fishes of Arizona, Arizona Game and Fish Department: Phoenix,
11
Arizona.
Minckley, W.C., 1991. "Native fishes of the Grand Canyon region: an obituary?" in Colorado
River Ecology and Dam Management, Marzolf, G.R. (ed.), pp. 124-177, National Academy
Press: Washington, D.C.
Rasmussen, D.L., 1941. Biotic communities of Kaibab Plateau, Arizona, Ecological
Monographs 11, pp. 213-275.
V. General Information
Bureau of Land Management, 1992. Arizona Strip District Resource Management Plan/Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, Arizona.
National Park Service, 1981. Final Adjacent Lands Study, Grand Canyon National Park,
Arizona, p. 51.
Calef, W., 1960. Private Grazing and Public Lands: Studies of the Local Management of the
Taylor Grazing Act, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, Illinois.
Government Accounting Office, 1991. Rangeland Management: BLM's Hot Desert Grazing
Program Merits Reconsideration, GAO/RCED-92-12.
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1995. Mt. Trumbull Resource
Conservation Area Plan and Environmental Assessment, Arizona Strip District, St. George,
Utah.
12
PRESIDENT CLINTON:
PROTECTING AMERICA'S NATURAL AND HISTORIC TREASURES
December 14, 1999
President Clinton will make two announcements today on new and proposed actions to protect critical
lands around the country. The Administration will forward to Congress a list of 18 natural and
historic sites proposed for protection with $35 million secured through the Administration's Lands
Legacy initiative. The President also will announce that he is studying recommendations from Interior
Secretary Bruce Babbitt for the creation or enlargement of four national monuments on federal lands
in Arizona and California.
Preserving America's Lands Legacy. As part of the recent budget agreement, the President secured $652
million in FY 2000 for his Lands Legacy initiative, a 42 percent increase. About a third of the funding
will support efforts by states and communities to protect farms, forests, urban parks, and other local green
spaces. Much of the rest is committed to federal acquisition of New Mexico's Baca Ranch and other
specified lands, from the Everglades to the California desert. The remaining $35 million is available for
federal acquisition of other sites. Today, the Administration will propose to the Appropriations
committees, for their concurrence, protection of 18 sites, including:
Expansion of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida -- America's first refuge, established
by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 - to protect habitat of the endangered wood stork,
endangered manatee, and juvenile sea turtles ($4.6 million).
Steps toward acquisition of the Atlanta birth home and burial place of the Rev. Martin Luther King,
Jr., and neighboring properties within the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site ($3.5
million). Expansion of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge on Hawaii's Big Island, including habitat for
nine endangered bird and plant species ($1.6 million).
Additions to two Civil War battlefields - Stones River in Tennessee, and Fredericksburg-
Spotsylvania in Virginia ($3.8 million).
Land surrounding Lake Logan and adjoining the Shining Rock Wilderness in Pisgah National Forest,
at the foot of North Carolina's Cold Mountain ($1.25 million).
Additional acreage within the Mountains-to-Sound Greenway linking the Cascade Range to Puget
Sound in Washington state ($3.7 million).
Proposed National Monuments. President Clinton will announce that he has received recommendations
from Secretary Babbitt for the creation or expansion of four national monuments on federal lands in
Arizona and California. The President, who had requested that the Secretary report to him on unique and
fragile places in need of additional protection, plans to study the recommendations and reach a decision
on each proposal early next year. The Secretary is recommending:
Designation of a new 1 million-acre Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument on federal land on
the north rim of the Grand Canyon.
Designation of a new 71, 100-acre Agua Fria National Monument on federal lands north of Phoenix
that contain hundreds of prehistoric sites with petroglyphs (stone inscriptions) and ancient ruins.
Designation of a new California Coastal National Monument encompassing thousands of federally
owned islands, rocks, and reefs off the California Coast.
An 8,000-acre expansion of Pinnacles National Monument 65 miles south of San Jose to preserve the
monument's unique geologic resources.
###
LANDS PROPOSED FOR PROTECTION
WITH FY 2000 LANDS LEGACY FUNDING
December 14, 1999
In the recent budget agreement, President Clinton secured $652 million in FY 2000 for his Lands
Legacy initiative, a 42 percent increase. About a third of the funding will support efforts by
states and communities to protect farms, forests, urban parks, and other local green spaces.
Much of the rest is committed to federal acquisition of New Mexico's Baca Ranch and other
designated lands, from the Everglades to the California desert. The remaining $35 million is
available for federal acquisition and protection of other sites. Today, the Administration is
proposing to the Appropriations committees, that the $35 million be used to protect the following
sites:
COLORADO
Gunnison Basin - This $2.5 million proposal would allow the Bureau of Land Management to
help preserve critical elk and Bighorn sheep habitat, communities of threatened and endangered
species and scenic views.
Silver Mountain - In a partnership with the local community, $5 million would be used by the
Forest Service to acquire lands located near Telluride. This acquisition would provide protection
of wildlife habitat and alpine ecosystems and would preserve valuable public recreational
resources and open spaces. The historic Alta Townsite would also be preserved and managed
under the agreement.
FLORIDA
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge - The FY 2000 Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act includes $2 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service to acquire land for
Pelican Island. And additional $4.6 million would allow the Service to acquire two key tracts to
protect the Island's historic and scenic values from residential development.
GEORGIA
Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site - $3.5 million of funding would provide a
significant down payment toward acquisition of properties surrounding the birth home and burial
place of Martin Luther King Jr., including the King Center. The King family intends to donate
the birth home and burial to the Park Service upon completion of these acquisitions.
HAWAII
Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge - The $1.6 million proposal would allow the Fish
and Wildlife Service to acquire a portion of the McCandless Ranch, which supports the last
remaining wild population of the alala, or Hawaiian crow. This acquisition would enhance the
Service's ability to control alien species and manage the native plants and animal populations.
-more-
2
IDAHO
Sawtooth National Recreation Area - This year's budget includes $1 million for the Forest
Service to make easement acquisitions for critical habitat of threatened and endangered fish
species, like bull trout and Chinook salmon. The additional $1 million proposed today would
help move the Service towards acquiring the remaining $7.5 million of high priority land just
east of Boise.
MINNESOTA
Chippewa National Forest - Located in northern Minnesota, the Chippewa National Forest has
a boundary that overlaps with the Leech Lake Reservation. The new $550,000 proposal would
allow the Forest Service to complete acquisition of a 146-acre tract on the shoreline of Leech
Lake, by ensuring that a large span of the lakeshore remains untouched by encroaching
development and by protecting wetlands and white cedar swamps.
Superior National Forest - Funding of $500,000 would allow the Forest Service to acquire a
key lake front property for recreation and resource protection. This parcel features Native
America burial sites, proposed Wild and Scenic River lands, and wilderness entry points.
NORTH CAROLINA
Lake Logan - This year's budget includes $1 million for the Forest Service to acquire portions
of a tract within the Pisgah National Forest. An additional $1.25 million would enable purchase
of more of this tract, which adjoins the Shining Rock Wilderness near the base of Cold
Mountain. Preserving these undeveloped lands would protect wilderness and fish and wildlife
habitat.
TENNESSEE
Gulf Tract - This year's budget includes $3.5 million for the acquisition of this tract, which is
four miles from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and borders six miles of the
Appalachian Trail. The additional $1 million proposed today would allow the Forest Service to
complete the acquisition.
Stones River National Battlefield - This year's budget includes $1.5 million for the National
Park Service to purchase land within the national battlefield. The $2.8 million Title VI request
would be used to complete all necessary land acquisition within the current boundary of the
national battlefield.
UTAH
Bonneville Shoreline Trail - This year's budget includes $750,000 for the Forest Service to
complete the Bonneville Shoreline Trail to serve as an artery for access to other trails and
provide urban recreation to more than a million people in the Salt Lake area. An
-more-
3
additional $1million proposed today would allow the complete acquisition of the Harvey
property and continued land purchases along the urban interface.
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - The $2 million proposed today would
allow the Bureau of Land Management to protect key land from development, preserving the
numerous resources the property contains.
VIRGINIA
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefield Memorial National Military Park -
This year's budget includes $2 million for the National Park Service to acquire several of the
nine tracts of private land within the national park. An additional $1 million would allow the
Service to acquire more of these lands.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Virgin Islands National Park -$1.5 million in funding would be used by the National Park
Service to buy a property known as Estate Maho Bay within the park boundary.
WASHINGTON
Mountains to Sound Greenway - This year's budget includes $2.5 million to allow the Forest
Service to begin acquiring lands as part of a greenway along the I-90 corridor near Seattle. An
additional $3.7 million proposed today would allow the Forest Service to improve public access
to existing public land and enhance management of the fragile ecosystem, which supports several
threatened and endangered species.
WYOMING
Royal Teton Ranch -$500,000 would be used to retire grazing permits from willing sellers on
the recently acquired Royal Teton Ranch, just outside Yellowstone National Park, ensuring
additional winter range for Yellowstone bison.
MULTI-STATE
Chattooga Wild & Scenic Ecosystem - The Chattooga Wild and Scenic River, flowing through
North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, is one of the Forest Service's most popular
recreation destinations in the South. $1 million would allow acquisition of critical land to protect
unique plant communities and provide habitat for threatened and endangered species.
###
Proposed Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument
Location:
The proposed monument is located on the Colorado Plateau in northwestern
Arizona, within the drainage of the Colorado River. It borders Grand Canyon National
Park to the south, the state of Nevada to the west, and encompasses a portion of Lake
Mead National Recreation Area.
Description:
The proposed monument's remote open, undeveloped area and engaging scenery
is located on the edge of one the most beautiful places on earth-the Grand Canyon. This
1,017,000 acres of federal land¹ is a scientific treasure holding many of the same values
that have long been protected in Grand Canyon National Park. Deep canyons, mountains,
and lonely buttes testify to the power of geological forces and provide colorful vistas. Its
Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rock layers are relatively undeformed and
unobscured by vegetation, providing a unique view into the geologic history of the
Colorado Plateau. The proposed monument encompasses the lower portion of the
Shivwits Plateau. Much of the proposed boundary follows the divide between the Grand
Canyon and the Virgin River drainage to the north. The Shivwits Plateau (which is
bounded by the Grand Wash Cliffs to the west and by the Hurricane Cliffs to the east) is a
part of the larger Colorado Plateau of the region. To the south are the Parashant,
Whitmore, and Andrus canyons. The Shivwits Plateau forms an important watershed for
the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon. Beyond the phenomenal geological
resources, the proposed monument contains countless biological, archeological, and
historical resources. This area will be increasingly threatened by potential mineral
development and by intensive recreational use from fast growing urban areas in the
region.
Management:
The federal lands within the proposed monument are managed by the Department
of the Interior through the National Park Service (NPS, within the boundaries of the Lake
Mead National Recreation Area) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This
arrangement would continue, but would be subject to the overriding purposes of
protecting the scientific and historic objects for which the monument was created.
Currently permitted livestock grazing, hunting, fishing, and similar activities would
generally not be affected, nor would the designation affect state or private property or
other valid existing rights such as water rights.
Process:
President Teddy Roosevelt first set aside a portion of what is now the Grand
Canyon National Park under the Antiquities Act in 1908. In 1919, Congress converted
1
804,000 acres are owned by the Bureau of Land Management and 213,000 acres are in the Lake
Mead National Recreation Area. 18,000 acres of private land and 22,000 acres of state land are also located
with in the boundary.
the Grand Canyon National Monument to a national park. Additional lands were made
national monuments by Presidential Proclamation in 1932 and 1969. Congress enlarged
the Park in 1975 to include these lands, but that Act left open whether several drainages
north of the Grand Canyon should be protected and directed that the Secretary of the
Interior study and issue a report on these lands. Most of the studied lands are included
within the proposed monument.
In November 1998, Secretary Babbitt went to Northern Arizona and began a
dialogue that has included two more visits, two large public meetings, and more than 59
other meetings with concerned local governments, tribes and other groups regarding the
future of these lands. Congressman Bob Stump introduced a bill (H.R. 2795) that would
actually have lowered protections in existing law, thus allowing the degradation of these
lands in perpetuity. Senator Kyl also introduced legislation on this subject (S. 1560), but
no hearings have been held on it.
###
Proposed California Coastal National Monument
Location:
The proposed monument would include all the islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and
pinnacles above the high water mark owned by the U.S. Government along the 840 mile
California coast, extending out for 12 miles. (Because of the scattered small bits of land
involved, acreage cannot be readily calculated and is not meaningful.) Islands, rocks, exposed
reefs, and pinnacles already appropriated or reserved for other purposes would not be affected.
Description:
The proposed monument is a biological treasure. A crucial part of the fragile
coastal ecosystem, the islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles off the California coast are
part of the nearshore ocean zone that begins just off shore and ends at the boundary between the
continental shelf and the continental slope. The proposed monument contains many geologic
formations that provide unique habitat for biota, such as sensitive feeding and nesting habitat for
an estimated 200,000 breeding seabirds, including gulls, the endangered California least tern, and
the brown pelican. Development of the mainland has forced seabirds that once fed and nested in
the shoreline ecosystem to retreat to the proposed monument. There is also forage and breeding
habitat for several mammal species such as the threatened southern sea otter. Future economic
or commercial development as well as some recreational use threaten the objects of the proposed
monument.
Management:
The federal lands in the area are currently under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior. After a monument designation,
management would continue under the BLM's existing authorities for the predominant purpose
of protecting the objects for which the monument was created. Currently California State
Department of Fish and Game manages the area under a Memorandum of Understanding with
the BLM. This arrangement could continue (with any necessary revisions to the MOU)
following the establishment of the proposed monument. The proposed monument would not
enlarge or diminish state or federal regulatory authority over fishing, oil and gas development, or
other uses of adjacent waters.
Process:
Proposals to protect the California coastline have generally been met with wide
acceptance. In June 1999, Congressman Sam Farr of Monterey, California, introduced, for the
second time, a bill (H.R. 2277) to designate these islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles
off the coast of California as wilderness. No hearings have been held on this bill. In September
1999, Secretary Babbitt, accompanied by Congressman Farr as well as state and community
leaders, visited the coastline to discuss protection for the rocks and islands including possible
designation as a national monument.
###
Proposed Agua Fria National Monument
Location:
The proposed monument is located in central Arizona approximately forty miles
north of central Phoenix. The 71,100 acres of federal land comprise two mesas-Perry Mesa and
the adjacent, smaller Black Mesa - the public land to the north of these mesas, and the canyon of
the Agua Fria River. Elevations range from 600 feet above sea level along the Agua Fria
Canyon to about 4,300 feet in the northern hills.
Description:
The proposed monument contains one of the most significant systems of late
prehistoric sites in the American Southwest. Its ancient ruins offer insights into the lives of those
who long ago inhabited this part of the desert southwest. At least 450 prehistoric sites are known
to exist within the proposed monument, and there are likely many more. Many intact petroglyph
sites within the proposed monument contain rock art symbols pecked into the surfaces of
boulders and cliff faces. The area also holds an extraordinary record of prehistoric agricultural
features, including extensive terraces bounded by lines of rocks and other types of landscape
modifications. In addition to its rich record of human history, the proposed monument contains
other objects of scientific interest: a diversity of vegetative communities, a wide array of
sensitive wildlife species, and native fish. The area, vital open space on the northern edge of the
rapidly expanding Phoenix urban area, has already suffered from extensive vandalism.
Management:
The proposed monument would continue to be managed by the Bureau of Land
Management for the predominant purpose of protecting the objects for which the monument was
created. Currently permitted livestock grazing, hunting, fishing, and similar activities would
generally not be affected, nor would private property within the boundary (1,440 acres) or other
valid existing rights such as water rights.
Process:
Secretary Babbitt initiated a process in July 1999 to solicit public input and
advice about the future management and protection of the Agua Fria region, meeting with
leading archeologists, Arizona State officials, and staff from the Arizona delegation. Three
public open houses were held in nearby communities in September 1999 specifically to discuss
the area's possible designation as a national monument.
In October 1999, the Bureau of Land Management forwarded to the Secretary a
report of the meeting discussions and an assessment of future management.
###
Pinnacles National Monument Proposed Expansion
Location:
Only 65 miles from San Jose, California, Pinnacles National Monument is about
halfway between Hollister and King City, California.
Description:
Pinnacles National Monument was created by President Theodore Roosevelt in
1908 to protect Pinnacle Rocks and the series of caves underlying them, both of scientific
interest. Two primary drainage channels cut water gaps through these rocks which were roofed
over as large rocks spilled off the adjacent cliffs, slid down the slopes, and became wedged in the
tops of gaps to form the talus caves of the monument.
The proposed boundary enlargement is vital to the continued preservation of
Pinnacles National Monument's resources. In addition to containing pieces of the same faults
that have created the tremendous geological formations throughout the monument, the expansion
lands hold some of the headwaters of the monument basin. Over millions of years, flash floods
and currents of streams have helped to sculpt the geological features of the monument. The
expansion lands also hold important habitat for raptors (such as prairie falcons, golden eagles,
and red-tailed hawks), amphibians, and reptiles. The area is threatened by exurban development
and by watershed degradation.
Management:
The 7,960 acres of adjacent public lands would be transferred from the Bureau of
Land Management to the National Park Service and managed under the same laws and
regulations that apply to the rest of the monument. Wilderness Study Areas in the expansion
lands would continue to be managed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act. Although 2,850 acres of private land are inside the expansion boundary, the
private land owners will be unaffected by the designation unless they choose to sell, in which
case the lands would become part of the monument.
Process:
Pinnacles was originally designated by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908,
consisting of 2,060 acres, and was expanded five times by subsequent Presidents and once by
Congress. This proposed expansion-discussed at length in local communities in recent years-
would bring important pieces of adjacent public land into Pinnacles National Monument. An
expansion, along with wilderness designation, has on two occasions been proposed by
Congressman Sam Farr of Monterey, California. No committee hearings have been held on his
bill (H.R. 2279). Secretary Babbitt visited Pinnacles National Monument and the adjacent public
lands in October 1999 to discuss the expansion proposal with private ranchers and other
landowners, and community and environmental leaders.
###
Draft 12/12/99 2:40pm
Lowell Weiss
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
DEPARTURE REMARKS ON LAND PRESERVATION
THE WHITE HOUSE
December 13, 1999
Good morning. At the dawn of this century, President Theodore Roosevelt defined
America's "great, central task" as "leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is
for us." This is the vision of environmental stewardship that we had in mind when we created our
Lands Legacy Initiative - the historic plan I unveiled earlier this year to protect America's
threatened green and open spaces.
Two weeks ago, I had the great honor of signing into law the funding for this Lands Legacy
Initiative. Although much of the news of that day concentrated on budget victories for education
and public safety, it was also a remarkable day for the environment. With one stroke of the pen, we
made it possible to add hundreds of thousands of acres to our children's endowment of natural
wonders - places like New Mexico's Baca Ranch, home to one of North America's largest herds of
wild elk.
Today, I will be sending to Congress a list of 19 additional natural and historic sites we
propose to protect with this new Lands Legacy funding. Our list includes sections of Hawaii's
Hakalau Forest, which supports hundreds of species of rare plants and birds. It includes critical
habitat on Florida's Pelican Island, where Theodore Roosevelt established the nation's very first
wildlife preserve. And it includes the birth home and burial place of Martin Luther King, Jr. We
have the funding. We have willing sellers. Now we just need Congress to approve the list. I hope
they will do so as soon as they return.
I am also pleased to report on the status of yet another effort to protect the lands we hold
sacred. A year ago, I asked Sec. Babbitt to report to me on unique and fragile places that deserved
to be protected as National Monuments. This morning, Sec. Babbitt presented me with his
recommendation that I use my executive authority to create three new National Monuments and to
significantly expand a fourth. Each of the sites already belongs to the American people, so no land
purchases would be required. But National Monument status would ensure that these lands will be
passed along to future generations healthy and whole.
The first of the proposed new monuments is located on the northern rim of the Grand
Canyon, and it consists of stunning canyons and lonely buttes shaped by the hand of God over
millions of years. The second, a desert region in the shadow of rapidly expanding Phoenix, is an
archeological treasure trove containing some of the most extraordinary prehistoric ruins and
petroglyphs in the American Southwest. The third, off the coast of California, would encompass
thousands of small islands and reefs that serve as essential habitat for sea otters and seabirds forced
from the shore by extensive development. And finally, Sec. Babbitt has proposed expanding
California's Pinnacles National Monument, the site of spires and crags that represent the last
remnants of an ancient volcano.
Sec. Babbitt's recommendations come as a result careful analysis and extensive discussions
with local citizens, state and local officials, and Members of Congress over the past year - and I
will take them very seriously. I expect to make a decision on these sites early in the new year.
1
Draft 12/12/99 2:40pm
Lowell Weiss
PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
DEPARTURE REMARKS ON LAND PRESERVATION
THE WHITE HOUSE
December 13, 1999
Good morning. At the dawn of this century, President Theodore Roosevelt defined
America's "great, central task" as "leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is
for us." This is the vision of environmental stewardship that we had in mind when we created our
Lands Legacy Initiative - the historic plan I. unveiled earlier this year to protect America's
threatened green and open spaces.
Two weeks ago, I had the great honor of signing into law the funding for this Lands Legacy
Initiative. Although much of the news of that day concentrated on budget victories for education
and public safety, it was also a remarkable day for the environment. With one stroke of the pen, we
made it possible to add hundreds of thousands of acres to our children's endowment of natural
wonders - places like New Mexico's Baca Ranch, home to one of North America's largest herds of
wild elk.
18,
Today, I will be sending to Congress a list of 19 additional natural and historic sites we
propose to protect with this new Lands Legacy funding. Our list includes sections of Hawaii's
Hakalau Forest, which supports hundreds of species of rare plants and birds. It includes critical
habitat on Florida's Pelican Island, where Theodore Roosevelt established the nation's very first
wildlife preserve. And it includes the birth home and burial place of Martin Luther King, Jr. We
have the funding. We have willing sellers. Now we just need Congress to approve the revent list. I hope
they
will
do
SO
as
soon
as
they
return.
we
Lorl
Korrume
I am also pleased to they report on the status of yet another effort to protect the lands we hold
appropriated
committees
of
Corpers.
sacred. A year ago, I asked Sec. Babbitt to report to me on unique and fragile places that deserved
to be protected as National Monuments. This morning, Sec. Babbitt presented me with his
recommendation that I use my executive authority to create three new National Monuments and to
significantly expand a fourth. Each of the sites already belongs to the American people, so no land
purchases would be required. But National Monument status would ensure that these lands will be
passed along to future generations healthy and whole.
The first of the proposed new monuments is located on the northern rim of the Grand
Canyon, and it consists of stunning canyons and lonely buttes shaped by the hand of God over
millions of years. The second, a desert region in the shadow of rapidly expanding Phoenix, is an
archeological treasure trove containing some of the most extraordinary prehistoric ruins and
petroglyphs in the American Southwest. The third, off the coast of California, would encompass
thousands of small islands and reefs that serve as essential habitat for sea otters and seabirds forced
from the shore by extensive development. And finally, Sec. Babbitt has proposed expanding
California's Pinnacles National Monument, the site of spires and crags that represent the last
remnants of an ancient volcano.
Sec. Babbitt's recommendations come as a result careful analysis and extensive discussions
with local citizens, state and local officials, and Members of Congress over the past year - and I
will take them very seriously. I expect to make a decision on these sites early in the new year.
1
Pinnacles National Monument Proposed Expansion
Description:
Pinnacles National Monument was created by President Theodore Roosevelt in
1908 to protect Pinnacle Rocks and the series of caves underlying them, both of
scientific interest. Two primary drainage channels cut water gaps through these
rocks which were roofed over as large rocks spilled off the adjacent cliffs, slid
down the slopes, and became wedged in the tops of gaps to form the talus caves
of the monument.
The proposed boundary enlargement is vital to the continued preservation of
Pinnacles National Monument's resources. In addition to containing pieces of
the same faults that have created the tremendous geological formations
throughout the monument, the expansion lands hold some of the headwaters of
the monument basin. Over millions of years, flash floods and currents of
streams have helped to sculpt the geological features of the monument. The
expansion lands also hold important habitat for raptors (such as prairie falcons,
golden eagles. and red-tailed hawks), amphibians, and reptiles. The area is
threatened by exurban development and by watershed degradation.
Location:
Only 65 miles from San Jose, California, Pinnacles National Monument is about
halfway between Hollister and King City, California.
Management: The 7,960 acres of adjacent public lands would be transferred from the Bureau
of Land Management to the National Park Service and managed under the same
laws and regulations that apply to the rest of the monument. Wilderness Study
Areas in the expansion lands would continue to be managed in accordance with
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Although 2,850 acres of private
land are inside the expansion boundary, the private land owners will be
unaffected by the designation unless they choose to sell, in which case the lands
would become part of the monument.
Process:
Pinnacles was originally designated by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908,
consisting of 2,060 acres, and was expanded five times by subsequent Presidents
and once by Congress. This proposed expansion-discussed at length in local
communities in recent years-would bring important pieces of adjacent public
land into Pinnacles National Monument. An expansion, along with wilderness
designation, has on two occasions been proposed by Congressman Sam Farr of
Monterey, California. No committee hearings have been held on his bill (H.R.
2279). Secretary Babbitt visited Pinnacles National Monument and the adjacent
public lands in October 1999 to discuss the expansion proposal with private
ranchers and other landowners, and community and environmental leaders.
Proposed Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument
Description:
The proposed monument's remote open, undeveloped area and engaging scenery is located on
the edge of one the most beautiful places on earth-the Grand Canyon. This 1,017,000 acres of
federal land' is a scientific treasure holding many of the same values that have long been
protected in Grand Canyon National Park. Deep canyons, mountains. and lonely buttes testify
to the power of geological forces and provide colorful vistas. Its Paleozoic and Mesozoic
sedimentary rock layers are relatively undeformed and unobscured by vegetation, offering a
clear view to understanding the process of the geologic history of the Colorado Plateau. The
proposed monument encompasses the lower portion of the Shivwits Plateau, bounded by the
Grand Wash Cliffs to the west and by the Hurricane Cliffs to the east. Much of the proposed
boundary follows the divide between the Grand Canyon and the Virgin River drainage to the
north. The Shivwits Plateau is a part of the larger Colorado Plateau of the region. To the south
are the Parashant, Whitmore, and Andrus canyons. The Shivwits Plateau forms an important
watershed for the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon. Beyond the phenomenal geological
resources, the proposed monument contains countless biological, archeological, and historical
resources. This area will be increasingly threatened by potential mineral development and by
intensive recreational use from fast growing urban areas in the region.
Location:
The proposed monument is located on the Colorado Plateau in northwestern Arizona, within the
drainage of the Colorado River. It borders Grand Canyon National Park to the south, the state
of Nevada to the west, and encompasses a portion of Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
Management:
The federal lands within the proposed monument are managed by the Department of the Interior
through the National Park Service (NPS, within the boundaries of the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This arrangement would
continue, but would be subject to the overriding purposes of protecting the scientific and
historic objects described in the proposed monument's proclamation. Currently permitted
livestock grazing, hunting, fishing, and similar activities would generally not be affected, nor
would the designation affect state or private property or other valid existing rights such as water
rights.
Process:
President Teddy Roosevelt first set aside a portion of what is now the Grand Canyon National
Park under the Antiquities Act in 1908. In 1919, Congress converted the Grand Canyon
National Monument to a national park. Additional lands were made national monuments by
Presidential Proclamation in 1932 and 1969. Congress enlarged the Park in 1975 to include
these lands, but that Act left open whether several drainages north of the Grand Canyon should
be protected and directed that the Secretary of the Interior study and issue a report on these
lands. Most of the studied lands are included within the proposed monument.
In November 1998, Secretary Babbitt came to Northern Arizona and began a dialogue that has
included two more Secretarial visits, two large public meetings, and more than 59 other
meetings with concerned local governments, tribes and other groups regarding the future of
these lands. Congressman Bob Stump introduced a bill (H.R. 2795) that would have established
a National Conservation Area in this area in August 1999, but this bill actually would lower
protections in existing law, thus allowing the degradation of these lands in perpetuity. Senator
Kyl also introduced legislation on this subject (S. 1560), but no hearings have been held on it.
I
804,000 acres are owned by the Bureau of Land Management and 213,000 acres are in the Lake Mead
National Recreation Area. Within the boundary is also found 18,000 acres of private land and 22,000 acres of state
land.
Public Process for the Proposed Grand Canyon-Parashant
National Monument
As of 11/29/99
Secretary Babbitt tour of the area with Federal officials and press
2 public meetings attended by Secretary Babbitt (Flagstaff and Colorado City)-- over 600
members of the public attended
Secretary Babbitt met separately on two occasions with local officials, tribes, and
ranchers
BLM Director, Counselor to the Secretary, and Assistant Secretary tour of the area with
the Congressional delegation staff
Numerous meetings/briefings held by BLM and/or NPS, including:
-4 meetings with grazing community
-5 meetings with Indian Tribes
-26 meetings with county or state government
-7 meetings with local or interest groups
-4 meetings with other Federal agencies
-7 meetings with Congressional delegation and/or staff
2 press releases/media advisories
Briefing materials:
-Sent to Indian Tribes on 2 occasions
-Sent to Congress on 7 occasions
BLM attended 2 congressionally held meetings/hearings
Proposed California Coastal National Monument
Description:
The proposed monument is a biological treasure. A crucial part of the fragile
coastal ecosystem, the islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles off the
California coast are part of the nearshore ocean zone that begins just off shore
and ends at the boundary between the continental shelf and the continental
slope. The proposed monument contains many geologic formations that provide
unique habitat for biota, such as sensitive feeding and nesting habitat for an
estimated 200,000 breeding seabirds, including gulls, the endangered California
least tern, and the brown pelican. Development of the mainland has forced
seabirds that once fed and nested in the shoreline ecosystem to retreat to the
proposed monument. There is also forage and breeding habitat for several
mammal species such as the threatened southern sea otter. Future economic or
commercial development as well as some recreational use threaten the objects of
the proposed monument.
Location:
The proposed monument would include all the islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and
pinnacles above the high water mark owned by the U.S. Government along the
840 mile California coast, extending out for 12 miles. (Because of the scattered
small bits of land involved, acreage cannot be readily calculated and is not
meaningful.) Islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles already appropriated
or reserved for other purposes would not be affected.
Management: The federal lands in the area are currently under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior. After a monument
designation, management would continue under the BLM's existing authorities,
but subject to the overriding purpose of protecting the objects described in the
proclamation. Currently California State Department of Fish and Game
manages the area under a Memorandum of Understanding with the BLM. This
arrangement could continue (with any necessary revisions to the MOU)
following the establishment of the proposed monument. The proposed
monument would not enlarge or diminish state or federal regulatory authority
over fishing, oil and gas development, or other uses of adjacent waters.
Process:
Proposals to protect the California coastline have generally been met with wide
acceptance. In June 1999, Congressman Sam Farr of Monterey, California,
introduced, for the second time, a bill (H.R. 2277) to designate these islands,
rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles off the coast of California as wilderness. No
hearings have been held on this bill. In September 1999, Secretary Babbitt,
accompanied by Congressman Farr as well as state and community leaders,
visited the coastline to discuss protection for the rocks and islands including
possible designation as a national monument.
Proposed Agua Fria National Monument
Description:
The proposed monument contains one of the most significant systems of late
prehistoric sites in the American Southwest. Its ancient ruins offer insights into
the lives of those who long ago inhabited this part of the desert southwest. At
least 450 prehistoric sites are known to exist within the proposed monument,
and there are likely many more. Many intact petroglyph sites within the
proposed monument contain rock art symbols pecked into the surfaces of
boulders and cliff faces. The area also holds an extraordinary record of
prehistoric agricultural features, including extensive terraces bounded by lines
of rocks and other types of landscape modifications. In addition to its rich
record of human history, the proposed monument contains other objects of
scientific interest: a diversity of vegetative communities, a wide array of
sensitive wildlife species, and native fish. The area, vital open space on the
northern edge of the rapidly expanding Phoenix urban area, has already suffered
from extensive vandalism.
Location:
The proposed monument is located in central Arizona approximately forty miles
north of central Phoenix. The 71,100 acres of federal land comprise two
mesas-Perry Mesa and the adjacent, smaller Black Mesa - the public land to the
north of these mesas, and the canyon of the Agua Fria River. Elevations range
from 600 feet above sea level along the Agua Fria Canyon to about 4,300 feet in
the northern hills.
Management: The proposed monument would continue to be managed by the Bureau of Land
Management, but subject to the overriding purposes of protecting the objects
described in the proclamation. Currently permitted livestock grazing, hunting,
fishing, and similar activities would generally not be affected, nor would private
property within the boundary (1,440 acres) or other valid existing rights such as
water rights.
Process:
Secretary Babbitt initiated a process in July 1999 to solicit public input and
advice about the future management and protection of the Agua Fria region,
meeting with leading archeologists, Arizona State officials, and staff from the
Arizona delegation. Three public open houses were held in nearby communities
in September 1999 specifically to discuss the area's possible designation as a
national monument. In October 1999, the Bureau of Land Management
forwarded to the Secretary a report of the meeting discussions and an
assessment of future management.
Fact Sheet on Presidents and the Antiquities Act
The Antiquities Act, enacted by Congress in 1906, authorizes the President to create national
monuments on federal land in order to protect "objects of historic and scientific interest."
Every President since Theodore Roosevelt (except Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush) has
exercised this authority. More than 100 monuments have been created. They range in size from
less than ten acres to twelve million acres. They are found in 24 states and the Virgin Islands. In
total, monument designations have protected about 70 million acres of federal lands, about 10%
of the federal land base.
Beginning with Devil's Tower in Wyoming, some of the Nation's best-loved places were first
protected by Presidents exercising Antiquities Act authority: the Grand Canyon; Glacier Bay,
Alaska; the Olympic Peninsula mountains and rainforests in Washington; Acadia in Maine;
Carlsbad Caverns; Death Valley; Zion, Bryce and Chaco Canyons; Dinosaur; Petrified Forest;
Muir Woods; the C&O Canal in Washington D.C.; Arches; and Bandelier in New Mexico.
Protecting these wonders through the Antiquities Act has been a bipartisan
undertaking-Democrats and Republicans have used it about an equal number of times.
President Carter set aside the most land under the Act, more than 56 million acres in
seventeen national monuments in Alaska in 1978.
Calvin Coolidge, more than a dozen including about 2.6 million acres;
Herbert Hoover, more than a dozen including a little more than two million acres;
Franklin Roosevelt set aside or enlarged more than two dozen, including a total of nearly
two million acres;
President Clinton's 1996 designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah comprised
nearly two million acres;
Teddy Roosevelt more than a dozen, including more than 1.5 million acres;
Woodrow Wilson more than a dozen, including more than one million acres.
[ATTACH OR MAKE AVAILABLE LISTS OF EVERY MONUMENT DESIGNATION
AND ADDITION - CHRONOLOGICAL AND GROUPED BY PRESIDENT]
DRAFT DRAFT Presidential Statement:
Some of the most gratifying accomplishments of my Administration have come from our efforts
to preserve America's great natural legacy for future generations. To make sure we are doing all
we can toward that end, in November 1998 I asked Secretary Babbitt to give me
recommendations for exercising my authority under the Antiquities Act. That Act, enacted with
overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress in 1906, empowers Presidents to create national
monuments to protect objects of historic or scientific interest on federal lands.
The Secretary has just forwarded me recommendations to create three new national
monuments-one in California and two in Arizona-and to make an addition to the existing
Pinnacles National Monument in California (65 miles south of San Jose). The three new ones
proposed are the Grand Canyon-Parashant (on the northwestern rim of the Grand Canyon); the
Agua Fria (just north of the Phoenix metropolitan area); and the California Coastal (thousands of
islands, pinnacles, exposed reefs, and rocks off the California coast, mostly off northern
California). Maps, brief histories, and descriptions of the Secretary's recommendations are being
provided.
During the many months since I asked the Secretary for recommendations, he has spent
considerable time exploring, in public meetings and discussions with members of Congress and
affected interests, what further protections are appropriate for these areas, so that their historic
and scientific values may be preserved for future generations.
I should also note that these areas have been proposed for various kinds of protection in the past.
Much of the proposed Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, for example, was in a
House-passed bill to enlarge Grand Canyon National Park in 1975. Congressman Farr of
California has likewise sponsored legislation to provide further protections to the two California
areas, but it has languished.
I intend to give the Secretary's proposals very serious consideration, and to decide by mid-
January whether to move forward with them.
DRAFT DRAFT
Memorandum for the President
In response to your request of November 10, 1998, I recommend that you establish three new
national monuments, and enlarge a fourth existing monument, exercising your authority under
the Antiquities Act of 1906.
The three new monuments I am proposing are the Grand Canyon-Parashant (on the northwestern
rim of the Grand Canyon); the Agua Fria (just north of the Phoenix metropolitan area); and the
California Coastal (thousands of islands, pinnacles, exposed reefs, and rocks off the California
coast, mostly off northern California). I am also recommending expansion of the existing
Pinnacles National Monument in California (65 miles south of San Jose).
I believe taking these steps is in the public interest, and well within your authority under the Act.
I stand ready to provide further information as needed.
Secretary of the Interior
To Flagstaff
Landstatus
BLM
Camp Verde
State
Dewey
USFS
State & County Parks
Humbolet
State Wildlife Area
BOR
County Lands
F&WS Refuge
Indian Lands
Military
Mayer
Private
inctio
N
Scale 1:500,000
Cleator
Proposed
Agua Fria
NM
Bumble Bee
Blac
City
Rock Springs
Camp Creek
Creek
Beardsley
El Mirage
Sun City
Peo
Phoenix
Glendale
Paradise Valley
Scottsdale
Phoenix
Hwy 25
To San Jose
Rivers
(approximately 65 miles)
Expanded Pinnacles NM Boundary
Existing Pinnacles NM Lands-NPS
Federal Lands to be added
N
Scale 1:75,000
25
Pinnacles
National-
Monument
Saint George
Big Water
Utah
+
Kanab
+
$
Colorado City
Arizona
Cane Beds
Fredonia
Littlefield
Kalbab
Page
+
$
+
Mesquite
oceasin
$
Marble Canyon
Φ
Bunkerville
Jacob Lake
Mount Trumbull
Proposed.
Grand Canyon-Parashant
Nevada
itional Monument
North Rim
Ф
Grand Canyon
$
nino
Tusayan
7
0
7
14 Miles
+ St-george.shp
Peach Springs
Land Status
Ф
Nelson
BLM
N
Truxton
Indian Lands
+
Grand Canyon NP
Lake Mead NRA
State
USFS
Private
Sacramento
*
San Francisco
San Jose
*
Pinnacles
National
Proposed
Monument
California
Coastal
National
Monument
(offshore Islands,
Rocks and Pinnacles
Los Angeles
*
above the high water line
within the blue line off
the coastline)
San Diego
DRAFT Q'S AND A'S [for Secretary] [in progress]
Q. Have you forwarded draft proclamations to the WH? If not, when are they coming?
A. That's a privileged, confidential communication [alternative answer: No, and when I
do is up to the President.]
Q. Do you fear retribution by Congress if the President acts?
Q. Are these areas being threatened? If so, by what? If not, then what is the need for this action
now? Can't you wait until Congress has another chance to protect these areas in the next
session? You still have another thirteen months in this Administration.
Q. Will the Administration continue to oppose legislative amendments to the Antiquities Act
that would provide more public process?
Q. Are you or is the President inviting public comment on these proposals?
A. As the President pointed out, I have already spent a lot of time out on the ground and
on Capitol Hill talking about protection for these areas and how it is best provided; and
on what terms. There has, in other words, already been a fairly elaborate public process,
especially with the largest of these areas. I have nothing to add to what the President
said. The timing and the substance of this decision is his.
Q. Have you consulted with the environmental community in putting these proposals together?
Q. Is the President playing a numbers game with the acreage - to try to beat FDR or TR?
A. This is about historic and scientific objects and values, not about acres.
Q. How do you answer the charge that this is a unilateral land grab by the President for political
purposes?
A. The people of the U.S. already own these lands; there is no land grab here. The
Congress has given the President clear authority to do this. Many Presidents have
exercised this power, with wondrous results. This is a gift to future generations. It is
political only in the sense that everything the President does is political.
Q. The Antiquities Act speaks of reserving the "smallest area compatible with the proper care
and management of the objects to be protected." Why is the Grand Canyon proposal so big? It
goes way beyond the north rim. Your original proposal was much smaller; what happened?
How did it get enlarged to include the Grand Wash Cliffs? Why didn't you let the public
respond to this proposal?
Q. How much are these monuments going to cost the taxpayers?
K
Q. How will these monuments affect existing uses? What about ranchers, hunters, ORV users,
etc. If monument status won't change these things, why are you recommending the monuments
be created?
Q. Does the California Coastal proposal affect oil and gas development? Does it affect fishing,
hang-gliding, boating, etc.? How many islands and rocks are there?
Q. The fact sheet says Cal. State F&G manages the islands and rocks under an MOU with BLM,
and that may not change. What kind of management is done?
Q. The map indicates the Pinnacles National Monument expansion boundary includes a fairly
big chunk of private land on the east side. Why?
A. The monument expansion itself only covers federal land, but I understand the owner
of much of that property is interested in selling, and would want it to become part of the
monument. That is why we drew the boundary that way.
Q. How does monument status affect private land within the boundaries? (That's a question at
Pinnacles, Grand Canyon, and Agua Fria.) State land? (That's a question only at Grand
Canyon.)
Q. You're recommending BLM manage the three new monuments (except for the Lake Mead
NRA piece of the Grand Canyon one, which will remain with NPS). Why BLM? Many
national monuments have become national parks, managed by NPS. Do you see this happening
here? Why not?
Q. What's the difference between BLM running a monument and NPS doing it? Is BLM just
DRAFT Q'S AND A'S [for Secretary]
more rushing in Pipeline to beat
Q. Have you forwarded draft proclamations to the WH? If not, when are they coming?
A. That's for the White House to disclose.
Q. Do you fear retribution by Congress if the President acts?
A. No. The Antiquities Act has had a long successful history, where in practically every
case Congress has come to endorse what the Presidents have done. We expect that to happen
here, if the President decides to move forward. I look forward to working with Congress to
protect more areas through legislation, where that is possible
Q. Are these areas being threatened? If so. by what? If not, then what is the need for this action
now? Can't you wait until Congress has another chance to protect these areas in the next
session? You still have another thirteen months in this Administration.
A. The character of the threats vary from area to area - some are immediate, such as
vandalism and urban encroachment. Others are more long term. The Antiquities Act
does not require a threat before the President acts. In fact. it is usually better to act
before an area is under immediate threat.
For example, given the fantastic growth of the Phoenix area in the last few decades, there
is absolutely no doubt that the Agua Fria area will have huge value as protected open
space for central Arizona. We have talking about protecting this area for many months,
and Congress has never shown any interest in legislating.
Congressman Farr has introduced legislation regarding the two California area for two
years, and can't even get a hearing on the bill.
We've been talking with Congress for over a year on the Grand Canyon-Parashant, and
the House bill that would address the area is a step backwards in terms of protection, not
forwards.
live me to reason to want
Congress has been given a chance to act. If the President waits until the end of his term
and then acts, he will be accused of abusing his power as a lame duck.
Num the nob
Q. Will the Administration continue to oppose legislative amendments to the Antiquities Act
that would provide more public process?
A. Yes. The Antiquities Act has been enormously successful and not a comma needs to
be changed. It is a classic example of some members of Congress taking the attitude, "if
it ain't broke, let's break it."
Q. Are you or is the President inviting public comment on these proposals?
A. As the President pointed out, I have already spent a lot of time out on the ground and
on Capitol Hill talking about protection for these areas and how it is best provided; and
on what terms. There has. in other words, already been a fairly elaborate public process,
especially with the largest of these areas. I have nothing to add to what the President
said. The timing and the substance of this decision is his.
Q. Have you consulted with the environmental community in putting these proposals together?
A. I and members of my staff have been consulting with all kinds of affected interests on
these proposals, including with environmentalists.
Q. Is the President playing a numbers game with the acreage - to try to beat FDR or TR?
A. This is about historic and scientific objects and values. not about acres.
Q. How do you answer the charge that this is a unilateral land grab by the President for political
purposes?
A. The people of the U.S. already own these lands: there is no land grab here. The
Congress has given the President clear authority to do this. Many Presidents have
exercised this power, with wondrous results. This is a gift to future generations. It is
political only in the sense that everything the President does is political.
Q. The Antiquities Act speaks of reserving the "smallest area compatible with the proper care
and management of the objects to be protected." Why is the Grand Canyon proposal so big? It
goes way beyond the north rim. Your original proposal was much smaller; what happened?
How did it get enlarged to include the Grand Wash Cliffs? Why didn't you let the public
respond to this proposal?
A. First of all, Presidents have properly recognized that, when you are talking about
properly caring for historic and scientific values, very large areas may be required. Many
national monuments have involved millions of acres of land each, and the courts have
long upheld this practice, dating back to a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1920
which upheld Teddy Roosevelt's setting aside part of the Grand Canyon under the
Antiquities Act.
As part of our consultation process. we heard from some who thought the original area
we talked about should be enlarged. We decided there were important values in the
Grand Wash Cliffs, there were conflicts over uses, and that, being part of the watershed
of the Grand Canyon, reserving that area is important for proper protection of the values.
There were many different proposals offered during the consultation process, some much
larger than this. Interested people had opportunities to comment on them all.
Q. How much are these monuments going to cost the taxpayers?
A. In the near term, very little over current management costs. We hope that additional
funding will be available for these special areas; at Agua Fria, for example, we need to do
a better job of protecting these ruins against vandalism.
Q. How will these monuments affect existing uses? What about ranchers, hunters, ORV users,
etc. If monument status won't change these things, why are you recommending the monuments
be created?
A. In general, I believe these monuments can be established without serious disruption
of existing uses. At the Grand Canyon. for example. I think it is very important to keep
the area open for hunting. Grazing should remain subject to the same laws and
regulations that it is already subject to. Some things may need to be regulated strictly if
they directly threaten the values we're trying to protect. We don't want ORVs to trample
archeology sites, do we?
Again, immediate threats are not 3 precondition of using the Antiquities Act. And it is, as
1 said, important to keep a long term perspective in mind, and not to wait until huge
threats emerge before acting.
Q. Does the California Coastal proposal affect oil and gas development? Does it affect fishing,
hang-gliding, boating, etc.? How many islands and rocks are there?
A. There should be no effect on oil and gas development or fishing, because all the
proposal deals with is fast land, above the high water mark, not things in or under the
water. Activities on the rocks (such as, perhaps, recreation) might be affected. There
are thousands of islands and rocks, which may be as small as a few square feet in area.
Nobody's bothered to count them; it's not a meaningful statistic.
Q. The fact sheet says Cal. State F&G manages the islands and rocks under an MOU with BLM,
and that may not change. What kind of management is done?
A. My understanding is that the management is largely custodial. That's appropriate. If
threats emerge, they can be dealt with more readily if 3 monument is created.
Q. The map indicates the Pinnacles National Monument expansion boundary includes a fairly
big chunk of private land on the east side. Why?
A. The monument expansion itself only covers federal land. but I understand the owner
of much of that property is interested in selling, and would want it to become part of the
monument. That is why we drew the boundary that way.
Q. How does monument status affect private land within the boundaries? (That's a question at
Pinnacles, Grand Canyon, and Agua Fria.) State land? (That's a question only at Grand
Canyon.)
A. There should be no effect. The creation of any monument would be subject to valid
existing rights of all kinds. At the Grand Canyon, we would be delighted to trade out the
state lands, as we have done so successfully at the Grand Staircase.
Q. Are you proposing to have BLM manage the three new monuments (except for the Lake
Mead NRA piece of the Grand Canyon one, which will remain with NPS). Why BLM? What's
the difference between BLM running a monument and NPS doing it? Is BLM just NPS-lite?
A. I have repeatedly said BLM deserves more management responsibilities to protect
areas primarily for conservation. It is the right agency to manage such lands when uses
like grazing and hunting are still appropriate. Etc.
Q. Many national monuments have become national parks, managed by NPS. Do you see this
happening here? Why not?
A. No. Many, perhaps nearly all, of the national monuments converted to park status
were originally managed by the National Park Service. I don't believe such a conversion
is appropriate or inevitable here.
Q. Why are you including Lake Mead NRA? Isn't it already protected?
A. It was the part of the area considered in 1975 for Grand Canyon expansion; it's part of
the same ecosystem/drainage as the BLM lands, and it has not been completely off limits
to mineral development.
Q. In at least some of these areas, your local process showed nobody or very few wanted a
monument. Why are you recommending it anyway? Does that suggest your local process was a
sham?
A. We learned a lot in our consultations. I disagree that there was anything like
unanimous opposition from local interests. Naturally some local people were concerned
about what might happen with such a change. I am confident that. if the President moves
forward, the local communities will see that this is a positive step.
Q. What about water? Is that an issue with any of them?
A. Yes, at Pinnacles and Agua Fria, I believe water is an important component of the
objects to bc protected. Water played 3 huge role in the formation of the Pinnacles, for
example. Whatever we might end up doing regarding water. it would be subject to valid
existing rights, including water rights.
Q. Did you talk to Senators Kyl or McCain or the AZ delegation about the Grand Canyon or
Agua Fria proposals?
A. Yes.
Q. Is your effort at a public process here an implicit admission that the surprise announcement of
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was a mistake?
A. No. Each situation is different. It is interesting, however. that in these areas and in
the Grand Staircase, management of these public lands has been much debated in the
general public, which included proposals for more protective management.
Q. How many other national monuments do you intend to recommend to the President? Are you
in effect indicating today that Oregon is next? Or Colorado?
A. It's no secret that I have been traveling around the country talking about the need to
better protect some fantastic areas of public lands. I have also made no secret of my
desire to work with Congress on this agenda. And I have made no secret of my interest in
recommending that the President use his clear authority under the Antiquities Act if
necessary.
No
Lug
NPS-lite?
A. Hunting can be allowed, grazing - competition is healthy, etc.
Q. Why are you including Lake Mead NRA? Isn't it already protected?
Q. In at least some of these areas, your local process showed nobody or very few wanted a
monument. Why are you recommending it anyway? Does that suggest your local process was a
sham?
Q. What about water? Is that an issue with any of them? Would you recommend that any of
these monuments reserve water?
A. Yes, at Pinnacles and Agua Fria. Explain.
Q. Did you talk to Senators Kyl or McCain about the Grand Canyon or Agua Fria proposals?
Q. Is your effort at a public process here an implicit admission that the surprise announcement of
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was a mistake?
Q. How many other national monuments do you intend to recommend to the President? Are you
in effect indicating today that Oregon is next? Or Colorado? Or Montana?
to tie?
management
Ch does. produced to Hill
A
E
fithis public natice
bill
As this rusb to complete before
brind to
11:14PM FROM IUM POSSHIRT 202 237 1684
FRAMPTON
DIRINGER
wants
United States Department of the Interior
LANCE
=
BEAR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Washington. DC 20240
SALURA
TRANSMISSION NOTICE
SPIELEOGE
DATE:
TO:
Elliot Diringer & Linda Lance
AGENCY:
CEQ
FAX No.:
456-2710
PHONE: 456 6542
FROM:
Molly S. MeUsic. Counselor to the Secretary
PHONE:
202/208-6359
FAX: 202/208-2547
FANED BY:
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES: 11
REMARKS:
Confidential
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
INITIALS: JGP DATE: 8/21/17
2017-0879-F
12-11-1999 11:19PM FROM IUM RUSSHIRT 202 DON
DRAFT Q'S AND A'S [for Secretary]
Q. Have you forwarded draft proclamations to the WH? If not, when are they coming?
A. That's for the White House to disclose.
Q. Do you fear retribution by Congress if the President acts?
A. No. The Antiquities Act has had a long successful history, where in practically every
case Congress has come to endorse what the Presidents have done. We expect that to happen
here, if the President decides to move forward. I look forward to working with Congress to
protect more areas through legislation, where that is possible
Q. Are these areas being threatened? If so, by what? If not, then what is the need for this action
now? Can't you wait until Congress has another chance to protect these areas in the next
session? You still have another thirteen months in this Administration.
A. The character of the threats vary from area to area some are immediate, such as
vandalism and urban encroachment. Others are more long term. The Antiquities Act
does not require a threat before the President acts. In fact, it is usually better to act
before an area is under immediate threat.
For example, given the fantastic growth of the Phoenix area in the last few decades, there
is absolutely no doubt that the Agua Fria area will have huge value as protected open
space for central Arizona. We have talking about protecting this area for many months,
and Congress has never shown any interest in legislating.
Congressman Farr has introduced legislation regarding the two California area for two
years, and can't even get a hearing on the bill.
We've been talking with Congress for over a year on the Grand Canyon-Parashant, and
the House bill that would address the area is a step backwards in terms of protection, not
forwards.
Congress has been given a chance to act. If the President waits until the end of his term
and then acts, he will be accused of abusing his power as a lame duck.
Q. Will the Administration continue to oppose legislative amendments to the Antiquities Act
that would provide more public process?
A. Yes. The Antiquities Act has been enormously successful and not a comma needs to
FROM
231
1004
P.2
be changed. It is a classic example of some members of Congress taking the attitude, "if
it ain't broke, let's break it."
Q. Are you or is the President inviting public comment on these proposals?
A. As the President pointed out, I have already spent a lot of time out on the ground and
on Capitol Hill talking about protection for these areas and how it is best provided; and
on what terms. There has, in other words, already been a fairly elaborate public process,
especially with the largest of these areas. I have nothing to add to what the President
said. The timing and the substance of this decision is his.
Q. Have you consulted with the environmental community in putting these proposals together?
A. I and members of my staff have been consulting with all kinds of affected interests on
these proposals, including with environmentalists.
Q. Is the President playing a numbers game with the acreage to try to beat FDR or TR?
A. This is about historic and scientific objects and values, not about acres.
Q. How do you answer the charge that this is a unilateral land grab by the President for political
purposes?
A. The people of the U.S. already own these lands; there is no land grab here. The
Congress has given the President clear authority to do this. Many Presidents have
exercised this power, with wondrous results. This is a gift to future generations. It is
political only in the sense that everything the President does is political.
Q. The Antiquities Act speaks of reserving the "smallest area compatible with the proper care
and management of the objects to be protected." Why is the Grand Canyon proposal so big? It
goes way beyond the north rim. Your original proposal was much smaller; what happened?
How did it get enlarged to include the Grand Wash Cliffs? Why didn't you let the public
respond to this proposal?
A. First of all, Presidents have properly recognized that, when you are talking about
properly caring for historic and scientific values, very large areas may be required. Many
national monuments have involved millions of acres of land each, and the courts have
long upheld this practice, dating back to a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1920
which upheld Teddy Roosevelt's setting aside part of the Grand Canyon under the
202
257
1654
P.3
Antiquities Act.
As part of our consultation process, we heard from some who thought the original area
we talked about should be enlarged. We decided there were important values in the
Grand Wash Cliffs, there were conflicts over uses, and that, being part of the watershed
of the Grand Canyon, reserving that area is important for proper protection of the values.
There were many different proposals offered during the consultation process, some much
larger than this. Interested people had opportunities to comment on them all.
Q. How much are these monuments going to cost the taxpayers?
A. In the near term, very little over current management costs. We hope that additional
funding will be available for these special areas; at Agua Fria, for example, we need to do
a better job of protecting these ruins against vandalism.
Q. How will these monuments affect existing uses? What about ranchers, hunters, ORV users,
etc. If monument status won't change these things, why are you recommending the monuments
be created?
A. In general, I believe these monuments can be established without serious disruption
of existing uses. At the Grand Canyon, for example. I think it is very important to keep
the area open for hunting. Grazing should remain subject to the same laws and
regulations that it is already subject to. Some things may need to be regulated strictly if
they directly threaten the values we're trying to protect. We don't want ORVs to trample
archeology sites, do we?
Again, immediate threats are not a precondition of using the Antiquities Act. And it is, as
1 said, important to keep a long term perspective in mind, and not to wait until huge
threats emerge before acting.
Q. Does the California Coastal proposal affect oil and gas development? Does it affect fishing,
hang-gliding, boating, etc.? How many islands and rocks are there?
A. There should be no effect on oil and gas development or fishing, because all the
proposal deals with is fast land, above the high water mark, not things in or under the
water. Activities on the rocks (such as, perhaps, recreation) might be affected. There
are thousands of islands and rocks, which may be as small as a few square feet in area.
Nobody's bothered to count them; it's not a meaningful statistic.
Q. The fact sheet says Cal. State F&G manages the islands and rocks under an MOU with BLM,
and that may not change. What kind of management is done?
11:16PM FROM FUM RUSSHIRI 202 237 1684
P.4
A. My understanding is that the management is largely custodial. That's appropriate. If
threats emerge, they can be dealt with more readily if a monument is created.
Q. The map indicates the Pinnacles National Monument expansion boundary includes a fairly
big chunk of private land on the east side. Why?
A. The monument expansion itself only covers federal land. but I understand the owner
of much of that property is interested in selling, and would want it to become part of the
monument. That is why we drew the boundary that way.
Q. How does monument status affect private land within the boundaries? (That's a question at
Pinnacles, Grand Canyon, and Agua Fria.) State land? (That's a question only at Grand
Canyon.)
A. There should be no effect. The creation of any monument would be subject to valid
existing rights of all kinds. At the Grand Canyon, we would be delighted to trade out the
state lands, as we have done so successfully at the Grand Staircase.
Q. Are you proposing to have BLM manage the three new monuments (except for the Lake
Mead NRA piece of the Grand Canyon one, which will remain with NPS). Why BLM? What's
the difference between BLM running a monument and NPS doing it? Is BLM just NPS-lite?
A. I have repeatedly said BLM deserves more management responsibilities to protect
areas primarily for conservation. It is the right agency to manage such lands when uses
like grazing and hunting are still appropriate. Etc.
Q. Many national monuments have become national parks, managed by NPS. Do you see this
happening here? Why not?
A. No. Many, perhaps nearly all, of the national monuments converted to park status
were originally managed by the National Park Service, I don't believe such a conversion
is appropriate or inevitable here.
Q. Why are you including Lake Mead NRA? Isn't it already protected?
A. It was the part of the area considered in 1975 for Grand Canyon expansion; it's part of
the same ecosystem/drainage as the BLM lands, and it has not been completely off limits
to mineral development.
Q. In at least some of these areas, your local process showed nobody or very few wanted a
12-11-1999 11:16PM FROM ROSSHIRT 202 237 1684
monument. Why are you recommending it anyway? Does that suggest your local process was a
sham?
A. We learned a lot in our consultations. I disagree that there was anything like
unanimous opposition from local interests. Naturally some local people were concerned
about what might happen with such a change I am confident that, if the President moves
forward, the local communities will see that this is a positive step.
Q. What about water? Is that an issue with any of them?
A. Yes, at Pinnacles and Agua Fria, I believe water is an important component of the
objects to bc protected. Water played a huge role in the formation of the Pinnacles, for
example. Whatever we might end up doing regarding water. it would be subject to valid
existing rights, including water rights.
Q. Did you talk to Senators Kyl or McCain or the AZ delegation about the Grand Canyon or
Agua Fria proposals?
A. Yes.
Q. Is your effort at a public process here an implicit admission that the surprise announcement of
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was a mistake?
A. No. Each situation is different. It is interesting, however, that in these areas and in
the Grand Staircase, management of these public lands has been much debated in the
general public, which included proposals for more protective management.
Q. How many other national monuments do you intend to recommend to the President? Are you
in effect indicating today that Oregon is next? Or Colorado?
A. It's no secret that I have been traveling around the country talking about the need to
better protect some fantastic areas of public lands. I have also made no secret of my
desire to work with Congress on this agenda. And I have made no secret of my interest in
recommending that the President use his clear authority under the Antiquities Act if
necessary.
12-11-1999 FROM TOM RUSSH.RI 202
Proposed Agua Fria National Monument
Location:
The proposed monument is located in central Arizona approximately forty miles
north of central Phoenix. The 71,100 acres of federal land comprise two
mesas-Perry Mesa and the adjacent. smaller Black Mesa - the public land to the
north of these mesas, and the canyon of the Agua Fria River. Elevations range
from 600 feet above sea level along the Agua Fria Canyon to about 4,300 feet in
the northern hills.
Description:
The proposed monument contains one of the most significant systems of late
prehistoric sites in the American Southwest. Its ancient ruins offer insights into
the lives of those who long ago inhabited this part of the desert southwest. At
least 450 prehistoric sites are known to exist within the proposed monument,
and there are likely many more. Many intact petroglyph sites within the
proposed monument contain rock art symbols pecked into the surfaces of
boulders and cliff faces. The area also holds an extraordinary record of
prehistoric agricultural features. including extensive terraces bounded by lines
of rocks and other types of landscape modifications. In addition to its rich
record of human history. the proposed monument contains other objects of
scientific interest: a diversity of vegetative communities, a wide array of
sensitive wildlife species, and native fish. The area, vital open space on the
northern edge of the rapidly expanding Phoenix urban area, has already suffered
from extensive vandalism.
Management: The proposed monument would continue to be managed by the Bureau of Land
Management for the predominant purpose of protecting the objects for which
the monument was created. Currently permitted livestock grazing, hunting,
fishing, and similar activities would generally not be affected, nor would private
property within the boundary (1,440 acres) or other valid existing rights such as
water rights.
Process:
Secretary Babbitt initiated a process in July 1999 to solicit public input and
advice about the future management and protection of the Agua Fria region,
meeting with leading archeologists, Arizona State officials, and staff from the
Arizona delegation. Three public open houses were held in nearby communities
in September 1999 specifically to discuss the area's possible designation as a
national monument. In October 1999. the Bureau of Land Management
forwarded to the Secretary a report of the meeting discussions and an
assessment of future management.
12-11-1999
FROM
Proposed California Coastal National Monument
Location:
The proposed monument would include all the islands, rocks, exposed reefs,
and pinnacles above the high water mark owned by the U.S. Government along
the 840 mile California coast, extending out for 12 miles. (Because of the
scattered small bits of land involved, acreage cannot be readily calculated and is
not meaningful.) Islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles already
appropriated or reserved for other purposes would not be affected.
Description:
The proposed monument is a biological treasure A crucial part of the fragile
coastal ecosystem. the islands, rocks. exposed reefs, and pinnacles off the
California coast are part of the nearshore ocean zone that begins just off shore
and ends at the boundary between the continental shelf and the continental
slope. The proposed monument contains many geologic formations that provide
unique habitat for biota, such as sensitive feeding and nesting habitat for an
estimated 200,000 breeding seabirds. including gulls. the endangered California
least tern, and the brown pelican. Development of the mainland has forced
seabirds that once fed and nested in the shoreline ecosystem to retreat to the
proposed monument. There is also forage and breeding habitat for several
mammal species such as the threatened southern sea otter. Future economic or
commercial development as well as some recreational use threaten the objects
of the proposed monument.
Management: The federal lands in the area are currently under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior. After a monument
designation, management would continue under the BLM's existing authorities
for the predominant purpose of protecting the objects for which the monument
was created. Currently California State Department of Fish and Game manages
the area under a Memorandum of Understanding with the BLM. This
arrangement could continue (with any necessary revisions to the MOU)
following the establishment of the proposed monument. The proposed
monument would not enlarge or diminish state or federal regulatory authority
over fishing, oil and gas development, or other uses of adjacent waters.
Process:
Proposals to protect the California coastline have generally been met with wide
acceptance. In June 1999, Congressman Sam Farr of Monterey, California,
introduced, for the second time, a bill (H.R. 2277) to designate these islands,
rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles off the coast of California as wilderness. No
hearings have been held on this bill. In September 1999, Secretary Babbitt,
accompanied by Congressman Farr as well as state and community leaders,
visited the coastline to discuss protection for the rocks and islands including
possible designation as a national monument.
Proposed Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument
Location:
The proposed monument is located on the Colorado Plateau in northwestern Arizona, within the
drainage of the Colorado River. It borders Grand Canvon National Park to the south, the state of
Nevada to the west, and encompasses J portion of Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
Description:
The proposed monument's remote open. undeveloped area and engaging scenery is located on the
edge of one the most beautiful places on earth-the Grand Canyon. This 1,017,000 acres of federal
land' is a scientific treasure holding many of the same values that have long been protected in
Grand Canyon National Park. Deep canyons. mountains, and lonely buttes testify to the power of
geological forces and provide colorful vistas. Its Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rock layers
are relatively undeformed and unobscured by vegetation. offering a clear view to understanding
the process of the geologic history of the Colorado Platean The proposed monument encompasses
the lower portion of the Shivwits Plateau, bounded by the Grand Wash Cliffs to the west and by
the Hurricane Cliffs to the cast. Much of the proposed boundary follows the divide between the
Grand Canyon and the Virgin River drainage to the north. The Shivwits Plateau is a part of the
larger Colorado Plateau of the region. To the south are the Parashant, Whitmore, and Andrus
canyons. The Shivwits Plateau forms an important watershed for the Colorado River and the
Grand Canyon. Beyond the phenomenai geological resources. the proposed monument contains
countless biological. archeological, and historical resources. This area will be increasingly
threatened by potential mineral development and by intensive recreational use from fast growing
urban areas in the region.
Management: The federal lands within the proposed monument are managed by the Department of the Interior
through the National Park Service (NPS. within the boundaries of the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This arrangement would continue,
but would be subject to the overriding purposes of protecting the scientific and historic objects for
which the monument was created. Currently permitted livestock grazing, hunting. fishing, and
similar activities would generally not be affected. nor would the designation affect state or private
property or other valid existing rights such as water rights.
Process:
President Teddy Roosevelt first set aside a portion of what is now the Grand Canyon National Park
under the Antiquities Act in 1908. In 1919. Congress converted the Grand Canyon National
Monument to a national park. Additional lands were made national monuments by Presidential
Proclamation in 1932 and 1969. Congress enlarged the Park in 1975 to include these lands, but
that Act left open whether several drainages north of the Grand Canyon should be protected and
directed that the Secretary of the Interior study and issue a report on these lands. Most of the
studied lands are included within the proposed monument.
In November 1998. Secretary Bubbitt came to Northern Arizona and began a dialogue that has
included two more Secretarial visits, two large public meetings, and more than 59 other meetings
with concerned local governments, tribes and other groups regarding the future of these lands.
Congressman Bob Stump introduced a bill (H.R. 2795) that would have established a National
Conservation Area in this area in August 1999. but this bill actually would lower protections in
existing law, thus allowing the degradation of these lands in perpetuity. Senator Kyl also
introduced legislation on this subject (S. 1560). but no hearings have been held on it.
1
804,000 acres are owned by the Bureau of Land Management and 213,000 acres are in the Lake Mead
National Recreation Area. Within the boundary is also found 18,000 acros of private land and 22,000 acres of state
land.
12-11-1999
FROM
202
231
1084
Pinnacles National Monument Proposed Expansion
Location:
Only 65 miles from San Jose, California. Pinnacles National Monument is about
halfway between Hollister and King City, California.
Description:
Pinnacles National Monument was created by President Theodore Roosevelt in
1908 to protect Pinnacle Rocks and the series of caves underlying them, both of
scientific interest. Two primary drainage channels cut water gaps through these
rocks which were roofed over as large rocks spilled off the adjacent cliffs, slid
down the slopes, and became wedged in the rops of gaps to form the talus caves
of the monument.
The proposed boundary enlargement is vital to the continued preservation of
Pinnacles National Monument's resources. in addition to containing pieces of
the same faults that have created the tremendous geological formations
throughout the monument, the expansion lands hold some of the headwaters of
the monument basin. Over millions of years. flash floods and currents of
streams have helped to sculpt the geological features of the monument. The
expansion lands also hold important habitat for raptors (such as prairie falcons,
golden eagles, and red-tailed hawks). amphibians, and reptiles. The area is
threatened by exurban development and by watershed degradation.
Management: The 7,960 acres of adjacent public lands would be transferred from the Bureau
of Land Management to the National Park Service and managed under the same
laws and regulations that apply to the rest of the monument. Wilderness Study
Areas in the expansion lands would continue to be managed in accordance with
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Although 2,850 acres of private
land are inside the expansion boundary. the private land owners will be
unaffected by the designation unless they choose to sell, in which case the lands
would become part of the monument.
Process:
Pinnacles was originally designated by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908,
consisting of 2,060 acres, and was expanded five times by subsequent Presidents
and once by Congress. This proposed expansion-discussed at length in local
communities in recent years-would bring important pieces of adjacent public
land into Pinnacles National Monument. An expansion, along with wilderness
designation, has on two occasions been proposed by Congressman Sam Farr of
Monterey, California. No committee hearings have been held on his bill (H.R.
2279). Secretary Babbitt visited Pinnacles National Monument and the adjacent
public lands in October 1999 to discuss the expansion proposal with private
ranchers and other landowners, and community and environmental leaders.
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
www.wilderness.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Sabrina Williams 202/429-8441
December 14, 1999
Fran Hunt 202/429-2657
Statement by William H. Meadows
President, The Wilderness Society
Regarding the Designation of Four National Monuments
RELEASE
Today, The Wilderness Society applauds U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's
proposal to create four national monuments in Arizona and California. Secretary
Babbitt's announcement is an important step towards federal land and resource
protection. We commend Secretary Babbitt for his leadership and hope that
President Clinton promptly designates these areas as national monuments.
The threats to wilderness and open spaces all over the country have increased
significantly in the past several years. Pollution, development, sprawl, off-road
vehicles, loss of natural sound, logging, overgrazing, and mining have
contributed to the degradation of too many of our nation's special wild places.
As we approach the 21st century we must celebrate our conservation
achievements and address the pending challenges. We must protect and
preserve our nation's wild places before they vanish forever, so that generations
to come will enjoy and benefit from them.
The four proposed monuments are:
The Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument in Arizona; If
designated as a national monument 1 million acres northwest of the Grand
Canyon currently threatened by mining and subdivisions will be protected.
The Agua Fria National Monument in Arizona; If designated as a national
monument, 40,000 acres north of Phoenix, Arizona, where hundreds of
archeological sites are threatened by urban sprawl and pothunters will be
protected.
An additional 10,000 acres would be added to Pinnacles National
Monument south of San Jose, California to protect it from urban sprawl.
The California Coastal National Monument. This area is made up of
thousands of small, uninhabited islands and rock outcroppings, which are
threatened by mining.
This day is significant in preserving America's precious wild lands and open
spaces. America is blessed with a great diversity of natural wonders: Our
forests; deserts; mountains; rivers; fish and wildlife; and archeological, historical,
and ecological treasures are the envy of the world. In creating our newest
national monuments, President Clinton follows in the footsteps of President
Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight
Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and many others. Each of these leaders gave all
Americans a gift of great worth.
--more--
Recycled Paper
Page 2, National Monuments
The recommendation to designate these four areas as national monuments is
an exemplary step. In addition to the four proposed areas, there are numerous
wild places throughout the country that are also deserving of national monument
status. We hope that the Clinton Administration will move forward on these
areas as well.
Founded in 1935, The Wilderness Society works to preserve America's
wilderness and to develop a network of wildlands through public education,
scientific analysis and advocacy. Our goal is to ensure that future generations
will enjoy the clean air and water, wildlife, natural beauty, opportunities for
recreation and spiritual renewal that protected forests, rivers, deserts and
mountains provide. For additional information on The Wilderness Society
please visit our web site at: www.wilderness.org.
###
To receive Wilderness Society news releases and tip sheets online, send an
email message to: [email protected], please type 'Get News Online' in the
subject line and include your name and news affiliation. You can also subscribe
online at: http://www.wilderness.org/newsroom/getnews.htm.
Proposed Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument
Location:
The proposed monument is located on the Colorado Plateau in northwestern Arizona, within the
drainage of the Colorado River. It borders Grand Canyon National Park to the south, the state of Nevada to
the west, and encompasses a portion of Lake Mead National Recreation Area.
Description: The proposed monument's remote open, undeveloped area and engaging scenery is located on the
edge of one the most beautiful places on earth-the Grand Canyon. This 1,017,000 acres of federal land' is
a scientific treasure holding many of the same values that have long been protected in Grand Canyon
National Park. Deep canyons, mountains, and lonely buttes testify to the power of geological forces and
provide colorful vistas. Its Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rock layers are relatively undeformed and
unobscured by vegetation, offering a clear view to understanding the process of the geologic history of the
Colorado Plateau. The proposed monument encompasses the lower portion of the Shivwits Plateau. Much
of the proposed boundary follows the divide between the Grand Canyon and the Virgin River drainage to
the north. The Shivwits Plateau (which is bounded by the Grand Wash Cliffs to the west and by the
Hurricane Cliffs to the east) is a part of the larger Colorado Plateau of the region. To the south are the
Parashant, Whitmore, and Andrus canyons. The Shivwits Plateau forms an important watershed for the
Colorado River and the Grand Canyon. Beyond the phenomenal geological resources, the proposed
monument contains countless biological, archeological, and historical resources. This area will be
increasingly threatened by potential mineral development and by intensive recreational use from fast
growing urban areas in the region.
Management: The federal lands within the proposed monument are managed by the Department of the Interior
through the National Park Service (NPS, within the boundaries of the Lake Mead National Recreation
Area) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This arrangement would continue, but would be
subject to the overriding purposes of protecting the scientific and historic objects for which the monument
was created. Currently permitted livestock grazing, hunting, fishing, and similar activities would generally
not be affected, nor would the designation affect state or private property or other valid existing rights such
as water rights.
Process:
President Teddy Roosevelt first set aside a portion of what is now the Grand Canyon National Park
under the Antiquities Act in 1908. In 1919, Congress converted the Grand Canyon National Monument to
a national park. Additional lands were made national monuments by Presidential Proclamation in 1932 and
1969. Congress enlarged the Park in 1975 to include these lands, but that Act left open whether several
drainages north of the Grand Canyon should be protected and directed that the Secretary of the Interior
study and issue a report on these lands. Most of the studied lands are included within the proposed
monument.
In November 1998, Secretary Babbitt came to Northern Arizona and began a dialogue that has
included two more Secretarial visits, two large public meetings, and more than 59 other meetings
with concerned local governments, tribes and other groups regarding the future of these lands.
Congressman Bob Stump introduced a bill (H.R. 2795) that would have established a National
Conservation Area in this area in August 1999, but this bill actually would lower protections in
existing law, thus allowing the degradation of these lands in perpetuity. Senator Kyl also
introduced legislation on this subject (S. 1560), but no hearings have been held on it.
I
804,000 acres are owned by the Bureau of Land Management and 213,000 acres are in the Lake Mead
National Recreation Area. Within the boundary is also found 18,000 acres of private land and 22,000 acres of state land.
DRAFT Q'S AND A'S
[for
Secretary]
Q. Have you forwarded draft proclamations to the WH? If not, when are they coming?
A. That's for the White House to disclose.
Q. Do you fear retribution by Congress if the President acts?
A. No. The Antiquities Act has had a long successful history, where in practically every
case Congress has come to endorse what the Presidents have done. We expect that to happen
here, if the President decides to move forward. I look forward to working with Congress to
protect more areas through legislation, where that is possible.
Q. Are these areas being threatened? If so, by what? If not, then what is the need for this action
now? Can't you wait until Congress has another chance to protect these areas in the next
session? You still have another thirteen months in this Administration.
A. The character of the threats vary from area to area - some are immediate, such as
vandalism and urban encroachment. Others are more long term. The Antiquities Act
does not require a threat before the President acts. In fact, it is usually better to act
before an area is under immediate threat.
For example, given the fantastic growth of the Phoenix area in the last few decades, there
is absolutely no doubt that the Agua Fria area will have huge value as protected open
space for central Arizona. We have talking about protecting this area for many months,
and Congress has never shown any interest in legislating.
Congressman Farr has introduced legislation regarding the two California area for two
years, and can't even get a hearing on the bill.
We've been talking with Congress for over a year on the Grand Canyon-Parashant, and
the House bill that would address the area is a step backwards in terms of protection, not
forwards.
Congress has been given a chance to act. If the President waits until the end of his term
and then acts, he will be accused of abusing his power as a lame duck.
Q. Will the Administration continue to oppose legislative amendments to the Antiquities Act
that would provide more public process?
A. Yes. The Antiquities Act has been enormously successful and not a comma needs to
be changed. It is a classic example of some members of Congress taking the attitude, "if
it ain't broke, let's break it."
Q. Are you or is the President inviting public comment on these proposals?
A. As the President pointed out, I have already spent a lot of time out on the ground and
on Capitol Hill talking about protection for these areas and how it is best provided; and
on what terms. There has, in other words, already been a fairly elaborate public process,
especially with the largest of these areas. I have nothing to add to what the President
said. The timing and the substance of this decision is his.
Q. Have you consulted with the environmental community in putting these proposals together?
A. I and members of my staff have been consulting with all kinds of affected interests
on these proposals, including with environmentalists.
Q. Is the President playing a numbers game with the acreage - to try to beat FDR or TR?
A. This is about historic and scientific objects and values, not about acres.
Q. How do you answer the charge that this is a unilateral land grab by the President for political
purposes?
A. The people of the U.S. already own these lands; there is no land grab here. The
Congress has given the President clear authority to do this. Many Presidents have
exercised this power, with wondrous results. This is a gift to future generations. It is
political only in the sense that everything the President does is political.
Q. The Antiquities Act speaks of reserving the "smallest area compatible with the proper care
and management of the objects to be protected." Why is the Grand Canyon proposal so big? It
goes way beyond the north rim. Your original proposal was much smaller; what happened?
How did it get enlarged to include the Grand Wash Cliffs? Why didn't you let the public
respond to this proposal?
A. First of all, Presidents have properly recognized that, when you are talking about
properly caring for historic and scientific values, very large areas may be required. Many
national monuments have involved millions of acres of land each, and the courts have
long upheld this practice, dating back to a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1920
which upheld Teddy Roosevelt's setting aside part of the Grand Canyon under the
Antiquities Act.
As part of our consultation process, we heard from some who thought the original area
we talked about should be enlarged. We decided there were important values in the
Grand Wash Cliffs, there were conflicts over uses, and that, being part of the watershed
of the Grand Canyon, reserving that area is important for proper protection of the values.
There were many different proposals offered during the consultation process, some much
larger than this. Interested people had opportunities to comment on them all.
Q. How much are these monuments going to cost the taxpayers?
A. In the near term, very little over current management costs. We hope that additional
funding will be available for these special areas; at Agua Fria, for example, we need to do
a better job of protecting these ruins against vandalism.
Q. How will these monuments affect existing uses? What about ranchers, hunters, ORV users,
etc. If monument status won't change these things, why are you recommending the monuments
be created?
A. In general, I believe these monuments can be established without serious disruption
of existing uses. At the Grand Canyon, for example, I think it is very important to keep
the area open for hunting. Grazing should remain subject to the same laws and
regulations that it is already subject to. Some things may need to be regulated strictly if
they directly threaten the values we're trying to protect. We don't want ORVs to trample
archeology sites, do we?
Again, immediate threats are not a precondition of using the Antiquities Act. And it is, as
I said, important to keep a long term perspective in mind, and not to wait until huge
threats emerge before acting.
Q. Does the California Coastal proposal affect oil and gas development? Does it affect fishing,
hang-gliding, boating, etc.? How many islands and rocks are there?
A. There should be no effect on oil and gas development or fishing, because all the
proposal deals with is fast land, above the high water mark, not things in or under the
water. Activities on the rocks (such as, perhaps, recreation) might be affected. There
are thousands of islands and rocks, which may be as small as a few square feet in area.
Nobody's bothered to count them; it's not a meaningful statistic.
Q. The fact sheet says Cal. State F&G manages the islands and rocks under an MOU with BLM,
and that may not change. What kind of management is done?
A. My understanding is that the management is largely custodial. That's appropriate. If
threats emerge, they can be dealt with more readily if a monument is created.
Q. The map indicates the Pinnacles National Monument expansion boundary includes a fairly
big chunk of private land on the east side. Why?
A. The monument expansion itself only covers federal land, but I understand the owner
of much of that property is interested in selling, and would want it to become part of the
monument. That is why we drew the boundary that way.
Q. How does monument status affect private land within the boundaries? (That's a question at
Pinnacles, Grand Canyon, and Agua Fria.) State land? (That's a question only at Grand
Canyon.)
A. There should be no effect. The creation of any monument would be subject to valid
existing rights of all kinds. At the Grand Canyon, we would be delighted to trade out the
state lands, as we have done so successfully at the Grand Staircase.
Q. Are you proposing to have BLM manage the three new monuments (except for the Lake
Mead NRA piece of the Grand Canyon one, which will remain with NPS). Why BLM? What's
the difference between BLM running a monument and NPS doing it? Is BLM just NPS-lite?
A. I have repeatedly said BLM deserves more management responsibilities to protect
areas primarily for conservation. It is the right agency to manage such lands when uses
like grazing and hunting are still appropriate. Etc.
Q. Many national monuments have become national parks, managed by NPS. Do you see this
happening here? Why not?
A. No. Many, perhaps nearly all, of the national monuments converted to park status
were originally managed by the National Park Service. I don't believe such a conversion
is appropriate or inevitable here.
Q. Why are you including Lake Mead NRA? Isn't it already protected?
A. It was the part of the area considered in 1975 for Grand Canyon expansion; it's part of
the same ecosystem/drainage as the BLM lands, and it has not been completely off limits
to mineral development.
Q. In at least some of these areas, your local process showed nobody or very few wanted a
monument. Why are you recommending it anyway? Does that suggest your local process was a
sham?
A. We learned a lot in our consultations. I disagree that there was anything like
unanimous opposition from local interests. Naturally some local people were concerned
about what might happen with such a change. I am confident that, if the President moves
forward, the local communities will see that this is a positive step.
Q. What about water? Is that an issue with any of them?
A. Yes, at Pinnacles and Agua Fria, I believe water is an important component of the
objects to be protected. Water played a huge role in the formation of the Pinnacles, for
example. Whatever we might end up doing regarding water, it would be subject to valid
existing rights, including water rights.
Q. Did you talk to Senators Kyl or McCain or the AZ delegation about the Grand Canyon or
Agua Fria proposals?
A. Yes.
Q. Is your effort at a public process here an implicit admission that the surprise announcement
of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was a mistake?
A. No. Each situation is different. It is interesting, however, that in these areas and in
the Grand Staircase, management of these public lands has been much debated in the
general public, which included proposals for more protective management.
Q. How many other national monuments do you intend to recommend to the President? Are
you in effect indicating today that Oregon is next? Or Colorado?
A. It's no secret that I have been traveling around the country talking about the need to
better protect some fantastic areas of public lands. I have also made no secret of my
desire to work with Congress on this agenda. And I have made no secret of my interest in
recommending that the President use his clear authority under the Antiquities Act if
necessary.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
STATES EXECUTIVE OFFICE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20503
January 15, 1999
The Honorable James V. Hansen
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks
and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
United States House of Representatives
814 O'Neill Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Hansen:
Thank you for your letter of December 22. 1998 to the President. In that letter you and Chairman
Young of the Committee on Resources request information and documents concerning plans or proposals
for new national monument designations. I am responding to your letter on behalf of the President.
At present the President has no specific plans for the creation of new national monuments, and, as
you know, Secretary Babbitt has no authority to announce or create a national monument. However, the
President has asked Secretary Babbitt to submit to the President any recommendations for the protection
of objects of historic or scientific interest on federal lands pursuant to the Antiquities Act. That request
was made to Secretary Babbitt in a letter of November 10, 1998, a copy of which is enclosed, in which
the President also promised to consider seriously any forthcoming proposals. However, no such
recommendations have been presented to the President yet.
Your letter specifically raises questions about a northern Arizona monument. No
recommendation has been made to the President on such lands. We understand, however, that Secretary
Babbitt and his staff have already contacted Senator McCain and other members of the Arizona
delegation to explore appropriate legislative land designations to protect the special values of certain
northern Arizona lands. This is consistent with public statements that the Secretary had made previously
about his desire to consult with Members of Congress and other interested parties.
I look forward to working with you cooperatively on all future lands and resources issues. If you
should have any further questions on this, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 456-5147o Ellen
Athas, CEQ's Deputy General Counsel, at (202) 456-6541.
Sincerely,
George Frampton,
Acting Chair
GTF/rsk
Enclosure
Recycled Paper
LVJ
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE T'ILESIDENT STATES WORTH
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
January 15. 1999
The Honorable Don Young
Chairman, Committee on Resources
United States House of Representatives
1324 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Young:
Thank you for your letter of December 22, 1998 to the President. In that letter you and Chairman
Hansen of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands request information and documents
concerning plans or proposals for new national monument designations. I am responding to your letter
on behalf of the President.
At present the President has no specific plans for the creation of new national monuments, and. as
you know, Secretary Babbirt has no authority to announce or create a national monument. However, the
President has asked Secretary Babbitt to submit to the President any recommendations for the protection
of objects of historic or scientific interest on federal lands pursuant to the Antiquities Act. That request
was made to Secretary Babbitt in a letter of November 10, 1998, a copy of which is enclosed, in which
the President also promised to consider seriously any forthcoming proposals. However, no such
recommendations have been presented to the President yet.
Your letter specifically raises questions about a northern Arizona monument. No
recommendation has been made to the President on such lands. We understand, however, that Secretary
Babbitt and his staff have already contacted Senator McCain and other members of the Arizona
delegation to explore appropriate legislative land designations to protect the special values of certain
northern Arizona lands. This is consistent with public statements that the Secretary had made previously
about his desire to consult with Members of Congress and other interested parties.
I look forward to working with you cooperatively on all future lands and resources issues. If you
should have any further questions on this, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 456-5147 or Ellen
Athas, CEQ's Deputy General Counsel, at (202) 456-6541.
Sincerely,
George Gengetfray,Lu T. Frampton, Jr.
Acting Chair
GTF/rsk
Enclosure
Recycled Paper
01/07/99 THU 16:37 FAX 2024566474
CEQ
01/07/99 THU 15:39 FAX 202 456 2129
WHO RECORDS MGMT
002
e
ME-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 10, 1998
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt
Secretary of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Bruce:
Some of the most gratifying accomplishments of my
Administration have come from the work we have done
together to preserve America's great natural legacy
for future generations. I am especially proud of
our efforts to preserve Yellowstone National Park
by acquiring the New World Mine, to protect the old
growth redwoods of California's Headwaters Forest,
and to recognize the priceless resources of Utah's
Grand Staircase-Escalante region through their
designation as a national monument.
As we approach the next century, I would appreciate
any recommendations you may have for further appro-
priate exercise of my authority under the Antiquities
Act to protect objects of historic or scientific
interest on federal lands. I will seriously consider
and weigh any such proposals in the context of our
overall efforts to save the most valuable, unique,
and threatened places in America as a legacy for our
children and grandchildren.
I look forward to receiving your guidance.
Sincerely,
Brin Printen
11/12 original dispated to Franction
01/15/99
17:34
2087619
INTERIOR OCI/CLC
CEQ
001
U.S.
OF THE WYERIOR THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
MARCH 3, 1849
Office of Congressional & Legislative Affairs
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20240
Ph: (202) 208-7693
Fax: (202) 208-5533 or (202) 208-7619
PLEASE DELIVER TO:
NAME:
Ellen Athas
PHONE:
FAX NO. 456-6546
PAGES TO FOLLOW:
16
DATE:
1/15
FROM:
Dave Alberswerth
Nancy Appler
Laura Daniel-Davis
Amy Holley
Sharon Hyde
Sue Peake
MESSAGE/NOTE
For your information
Per your request
Per our conversation
This is the entire package we are delivering to Young and
Hansen this afternoon.
01/15/99
17:34
12087619
INTERIOR 001/CLC
CEQ
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
1648
January 15, 1999
The Honorable James V. Hansen
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Hansen:
This is in response to your and Congressman Don Young's December 22, 1998, letter asking
several questions as a result of my recent mention of possible use of the Antiquities Act to
protect an area on the Arizona Strip in northern Arizona. Your letter asks for any other national
monument "plans or proposals" that the Department or anyone else in the Administration is
"contemplating, reviewing, considering, or planning to establish" within the next two years
(question #1 in your December 22 letter) or beyond the next two years (question #3). I can
answer your questions only for the Department of the Interior. An identical response is being
sent to Congressman Don Young.
As you know, the Antiquities Act has been an important feature of natural resource policy
making for nearly a century. About 100 national monuments have been established (through
proclamations of nearly every President) since the Act was adopted in 1906. Indeed, many of our
best-known and loved places - Grand Canyon, Glacier Bay, Acadia, Death Valley, Olympic and
Zion - were first protected by Presidents acting under this Act. In many cases Congress has
subsequently acted to lend further protection and confirmation to the President's use of the
Antiquities Act.
Because the Act has been so successful, it is not uncommon for there to be informal discussions
within the Department or its constituent bureaus and agencies of its possible use. I suspect that
has always been true, given the relative frequency (an average of a little more than one per year)
with which this power has been exercised. We do not, however, have under active consideration
any concrete plans or proposals regarding Antiquities Act recommendations to the President at
the current time. other than the one in northern Arizona. On that one, I have talked publicly
about the possibility of recommending that the President exercise his authority, but I have also
indicated 1 will not do so as long as acceptable progress is being made on legislation that would
provide equivalent protection for the area in question. As you know, I have discussed the idea of
such legislation with Senator McCain, who has indicated a desire to explore this possibility. I am
enclosing copies of a map and other information relevant to our consideration of this proposal
that we have provided interested members of Congress.
01/15/99
17:35
2087619
INTERIOR OCI/CLC +++ CEQ
U.I.I OUJ
You also ask about any process the Department or anyone else in the Administration will use for
public and congressional notification in connection with proposing any future national
monuments. Although the Antiquities Act has long been an important tool of national
conservation policy, no particular or regular process has been established for determining where
that authority might be exercised. Rather, process questions have been, and will continue to be.
determined on an ad hoc, case by case basis. The same goes for the process for determining the
location of future national monuments, which is your last question.
Consultation with affected members of Congress and others on these exercises can be valuable.
We are following this course with respect to the area north of the Grand Canyon. I should also
note that while consultations with the Utah delegation and the Governor in advance of the
President's decision to create the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument were brief, they
were meaningful. They helped shape a proclamation sensitive to the concerns expressed about
which agency should manage the monument, treatment of state inholdings, hunting, fishing,
grazing and water.
Finally, I want to emphasize that the absence of detailed, fixed policy on these matters has not
prevented the exercise of Presidential authority under the Antiquities Act from being one of the
genuine governmental success stories of the twentieth century. In my judgment, that track record
justifies approaching any proposals for change with considerable skepticism.
I appreciate your interest in writing.
Sincerely,
B.MM
Enclosure
01/15/99
17:35
2037619
INTERIOR OCI/CLC
CEQ
E
OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
Marth
3.
January 15. 1999
The Honorable Don Young
Chairman. Committee on Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Young
This is in response to your and Congressman Jim Hansen December 22, 1998, letter asking
several questions as a result of my recent mention of possible use of the Antiquities Act to
protect an area on the Arizona Strip in northern Arizona. Your letter asks for any other national
monument "plans or proposals" that the Department or anyone else in the Administration is
"contemplating, reviewing, considering, or planning to establish" within the next two years
(question #1 in your December 22 letter) or beyond the next two years (question #3). I can
answer your questions only for the Department of the Interior. An identical response is being
sent to Congressman Don Young.
As you know, the Antiquities Act has been an important feature of natural resource policy
making for nearly a century. About 100 national monuments have been established (through
proclamations of nearly every President) since the Act was adopted in 1906. Indeed, many of our
best-known and loved places - Grand Canyon, Glacier Bay, Acadia, Death Valley, Olympic and
Zion - were first protected by Presidents acting under this Act. In many cases Congress has
subsequently acted to lend further protection and confirmation to the President's use of the
Antiquities Act.
Because the Act has been so successful, it is not uncommon for there to be informal discussions
within the Department or its constituent bureaus and agencies of its possible use. I suspect that
has always been true. given the relative frequency (an average of a little more than one per year)
with which this power has been exercised. We do not, however, have under active consideration
any concrete plans or proposals regarding Antiquities Act recommendations to the President at
the current time, other than the one in northern Arizona. On that one, I have talked publicly
about the possibility of recommending that the President exercise his authority, but I have also
indicated I will not do so as long as acceptable progress is being made on legislation that would
provide equivalent protection for the area in question. As you know. I have discussed the idea of
such legislation with Senator McCain, who has indicated a desire to explore this possibility. I am
enclosing copies of a map and other information relevant to our consideration of this proposal
that we have provided interested members of Congress.
01/15/99
17:36
2087619
INTERIOR 0C1/CLC CEQ
E
You also ask about any process the Department or anyone else in the Administration will use for
public and congressional notification in connection with proposing any future national
monuments. Although the Antiquities Act has long been an important tool of national
conservation policy, no particular or regular process has been established for determining where
that authority might be exercised. Rather, process questions have been, and will continue to be,
determined on an ad hoc, case by case basis. The same goes for the process for determining the
location of future national monuments, which is your last question.
Consultation with affected members of Congress and others on these exercises can be valuable.
We are following this course with respect to the area north of the Grand Canyon. I should also
note that while consultations with the Utah delegation and the Governor in advance of the
President's decision to create the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument were brief, they
were meaningful. They helped shape a proclamation sensitive to the concerns expressed about
which agency should manage the monument, treatment of state inholdings, hunting, fishing,
grazing and water.
Finally, I want to emphasize that the absence of detailed, fixed policy on these matters has not
prevented the exercise of Presidential authority under the Antiquities Act from being one of the
genuine governmental success stories of the rwentieth century. In my judgment, that track record
justifies approaching any proposals for change with considerable skepticism.
I appreciate your interest in writing.
Sincerely,
B.B.M
Enclosure