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
120359272
label
[C-October 1993] [Loose]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120359272
contentType
document
title
[C-October 1993] [Loose]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council on Environmental Quality (Clinton Administration)
Kathleen McGinty's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120359272
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg1-037-003-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
fa7ecd408e62a36e
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0769-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 Library Collection
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
Correspondence
OA/ID Number:
2254
FolderID:
Folder Title:
[C - October 1993] [Loose]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
5
2
2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1993
Mr. David M. Chaffee
Cavu Farms
Route 3, Box 336
Pittsboro, N.C. 27312
Dear Mr. Chaffee:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your thoughts
about the Executive Order on Recycled Goods.
As you know, the President recently signed the Executive
Order on Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention.
This Executive Order is the outcome of much hard work and
consultation with industry and labor representatives, the
environmental community, and consumer groups, as well as
congressional and agency staff members.
The Order will reduce solid waste, build markets for
recycled products, encourage new technologies and protect the
environment. This Executive Order requires all Federal purchases
of printing and writing paper to contain 20 percent post-consumer
material by the end of 1994, and 30 percent by the end of 1998.
In addition, in order to further reduce the burden on landfills,
paper made with 50 percent recovered by-products from the
production of goods other than paper or textiles may be
purchased, provided that this waste would otherwise end up in a
landfill, as determined by the State.
And, the order directs the General Services Administration
to revise paper specifications to allow agencies to purchase
paper made with processes that minimize emissions of harmful by-
products, including chlorinated compounds. According to some
studies, these by-products can cause environmental damage
including an increased risk of cancer.
In addition, this Executive Order requires agencies to make
up any price increase by cutting waste and using less paper. We
believe that this initiative will achieve the desired results of
spurring recycling efforts and promoting a healthy environment.
Again, thank you for letting me hear from you.
Sincerely,
tablen a.
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
CAVU FARMS
Rt. 3 Box 336
Pittsboro, NC
27312
Sept 17. 1993
Dear Ms. McGinty.
It has been brought to my attention by SunShares. a
nonprofit recycling company. that yet another political promise
is falling victim to the pressures of lobbyist. The promise I
am referring to is the order to strengthen the federal recycled
product program and set specific content standards for printing
and writing paper. I have been told many times that I don't
have the "big picture". but it seems to me that building up the
recycling market would stimulate the economy more than the
status quo.
I realize that one voice does not make much of an
impression in Washington but hopefully others will add theirs
effectively neutralizing the efforts of the paper industry
lobbyist. It would be nice to know that for once a campaign
promise was kept in black and white without the shades of grey
that permeates political offices once the votes are tallied.
Thank you in advance for acting in the best Long term
interest of the United States.
Sincerely.
David M. Chaffee
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1993
Mr. Bruce Clark
Box 17 Overbrook Road
Hague, New York 12836
Dear Mr. Clark:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your thoughts
about the Executive Order on Recycled Goods.
As you know, the President recently signed the Executive
Order on Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention.
This Executive Order is the outcome of much hard work and
consultation with industry and labor representatives, the
environmental community, and consumer groups, as well as
congressional and agency staff members.
The Order will reduce solid waste, build markets for
recycled products, encourage new technologies and protect the
environment. This Executive Order requires all Federal purchases
of printing and writing paper to contain 20 percent post-consumer
material by the end of 1994, and 30 percent by the end of 1998.
In addition, in order to further reduce the burden on landfills,
paper made with 50 percent recovered by-products from the
production of goods other than paper or textiles may be
purchased, provided that this waste would otherwise end up in a
landfill, as determined by the State.
And, the order directs the General Services Administration
to revise paper specifications to allow agencies to purchase
paper made with processes that minimize emissions of harmful by-
products, including chlorinated compounds. According to some
studies, these by-products can cause environmental damage
including an increased risk of cancer.
In addition, this Executive Order requires agencies to make
up any price increase by cutting waste and using less paper. We
believe that this initiative will achieve the desired results of
spurring recycling efforts and promoting a healthy environment.
Again, thank you for letting me hear from you.
Sincerely,
Kathen Kathleen a A. MoGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
SWB
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
September 16, 1993
Ms' Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President
Director of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building
17th Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Ms' McGinty,
I cannot believe that in these depressed economic times
that this administration would consider the executive order
calling for the purchase of Totally Chlorine Free Paper and
unreasonably high percentages of recycled contents in
printing and writing paper.
This order, if implemented, would have a severe adverse
impact on the industry, on government and government assisted
industries and on the resulting secondary industries. There
are commitments made industry wide on the optimum means to
accomplishing the goals of diverting waste paper from
landfills.
I urge you to use all your influences to keep this order
from being signed and purpose a full cost benefit analysis
before any further consideration.
Respectfully, Rm clark
Bruce Clark
Box 17 Overbrook Rd.
Hague, New York 12836
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1993
Ms. Suzanne Corley
1024 Sixth Street
Suite D
New Orleans, LA 70115
Dear Ms. Corley:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your thoughts
about the Executive Order on Recycled Goods.
As you know, the President recently signed the Executive
Order on Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention.
This Executive Order is the outcome of much hard work and
consultation with industry and labor representatives, the
environmental community, and consumer groups, as well as
congressional and agency staff members.
The Order will reduce solid waste, build markets for
recycled products, encourage new technologies and protect the
environment. This Executive Order requires all Federal purchases
of printing and writing paper to contain 20 percent post-consumer
material by the end of 1994, and 30 percent by the end of 1998.
In addition, in order to further reduce the burden on landfills,
paper made with 50 percent recovered by-products from the
production of goods other than paper or textiles may be
purchased, provided that this waste would otherwise end up in a
landfill, as determined by the State.
And, the order directs the General Services Administration
to revise paper specifications to allow agencies to purchase
paper made with processes that minimize emissions of harmful by-
products, including chlorinated compounds. According to some
studies, these by-products can cause environmental damage
including an increased risk of cancer.
In addition, this Executive Order requires agencies to make
up any price increase by cutting waste and using less paper. We
believe that this initiative will achieve the desired results of
spurring recycling efforts and promoting a healthy environment.
Again, thank you for letting me hear from you.
Sincerely,
Kathen Kathleen A. a. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
08/15/93
13:56
504 895 9109
JASON JUNES FUIU
EST 001
photography
The President
Jason Jones &
suzanne
The white House
Cortal
Washington D.C.
Dear Mr. Clinton (Dear staffers):
I am in favor of the move toward chlorine-free paper
in the white House. Please hold out against pressure
from the chlorine manufacturers and the paper companies
so that chlorine-free paper can be used in the White
House and all other federal agencies so that your
administration will continue to be known as the environ-
mentally friendly one.
Sincerely,
Surgane Colley
1024 Sixth Street
Suite D
New Orleans. Louisiana 70115
(504) 895-0772 Fax 895-9109
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1993
Ms. Eileen D. Cooke
Director, Washington Office
American Library Association
110 Maryland Avenue, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Dear Ms. Cooke:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your thoughts
about the Executive Order on Recycled Goods.
As you know, the President recently signed the Executive
Order on Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention.
This Executive Order is the outcome of much hard work and
consultation with industry and labor representatives, the
environmental community, and consumer groups, as well as
congressional and agency staff members.
The Order will reduce solid waste, build markets for
recycled products, encourage new technologies and protect the
environment. This Executive Order requires all Federal purchases
of printing and writing paper to contain 20 percent post-consumer
material by the end of 1994, and 30 percent by the end of 1998.
In addition, in order to further reduce the burden on landfills,
paper made with 50 percent recovered by-products from the
production of goods other than paper or textiles may be
purchased, provided that this waste would otherwise end up in a
landfill, as determined by the State.
And, the order directs the General Services Administration
to revise paper specifications to allow agencies to purchase
paper made with processes that minimize emissions of harmful by-
products, including chlorinated compounds. According to some
studies, these by-products can cause environmental damage
including an increased risk of cancer.
In addition, this Executive Order requires agencies to make
up any price increase by cutting waste and using less paper. We
believe that this initiative will achieve the desired results of
spurring recycling efforts and promoting a healthy environment.
Again, thank you for letting me hear from you.
Sincerely,
Zablen Kathleen a.M.Bag
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
LIBRARY
EUR JOUR INFORMATION
110 MARYLAND AVENUE
WASHINGTON DC 20002
USA
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON OFFICE
MERICAN
202-547-4440
FAX 202-547-7363
1870
BY FAX: 202-456-2710
August 6, 1993
Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President
and Director
White House Office on Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building, Room 360
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty:
This letter concerns the imminent Executive Order that President Clinton is expected
to issue concerning federal recycling, acquisition and use of environmentally preferable
products and services. The library, archival, and scholarly organizations listed on an
enclosure recommend that environmental goals be pursued while accommodating the existing
policy in law (P.L. 101-423) to promote the use of permanent alkaline paper so that costs for
preserving the federal record are minimized.
Specifically, we recommend that the Executive Order specify that all printing and
writing papers be alkaline, and that the appropriate nationally-recognized standards for
permanence be followed for publications and records of enduring value. This addition would
promote permanence within the goals of the proposed Executive Order to increase use of
recycled and environmentally preferable products.
Further, we support the recommendations submitted by the National Archives and
Records Administration concerning the Executive Order: specify that printing and writing
papers be alkaline; define alkaline paper products as those produced in an alkaline process
without the use of alum (aluminum sulfate) rosin sizing; add the Joint Committee on Printing
and Government Printing Office as members of the product testing program for papers
because of their current responsibilities; and clarify that storage containers for permanent
records or documents should not be harmful to the materials to be stored.
Enclosed is a fact sheet with background on the existing permanent paper policy,
together with rationale for our recommendations. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Edeer It. Cooke
Eileen D. Cooke, Director
ALA Washington Office
Enclosures
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1993
Dr. Bryan R. Cullen
Associate Investigator
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Duke University Medical Center
P.O. Box 3025
Durham, N.C. 27710
Dear Dr. Cullen:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your thoughts
about the Executive Order on Recycled Goods.
As you know, the President recently signed the Executive
Order on Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention.
This Executive Order is the outcome of much hard work and
consultation with industry and labor representatives, the
environmental community, and consumer groups, as well as
congressional and agency staff members.
The Order will reduce solid waste, build markets for
recycled products, encourage new technologies and protect the
environment. This Executive Order requires all Federal purchases
of printing and writing paper to contain 20 percent post-consumer
material by the end of 1994, and 30 percent by the end of 1998.
In addition, in order to further reduce the burden on landfills,
paper made with 50 percent recovered by-products from the
production of goods other than paper or textiles may be
purchased, provided that this waste would otherwise end up in a
landfill, as determined by the State.
And, the order directs the General Services Administration
to revise paper specifications to allow agencies to purchase
paper made with processes that minimize emissions of harmful by-
products, including chlorinated compounds. According to some
studies, these by-products can cause environmental damage
including an increased risk of cancer.
In addition, this Executive Order requires agencies to make
up any price increase by cutting waste and using less paper. We
believe that this initiative will achieve the desired results of
spurring recycling efforts and promoting a healthy environment.
Again, thank you for letting me hear from you.
Sincerely,
Kathen Kathleen A. McGinty May
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Vita Per
Research Laboratories
HHMI
Scientiam
Duke University Medical Center
Post Office Box 3025
Durham, North Carolina 27710
Bryan R. Cullen, Ph.D.
Associate Investigator
(919) 684-3369
Fax (919) 681-8979
September 20, 1993
Katie McGinty
White House Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty:
On April 22nd, 1993 President Clinton committed to sign an Executive Order
to strengthen the federal recycled product procurement program and to set
specific content standards for printing and writing. Unfortunately, it has now
come to my attention that this Executive Order may set standards for recycled
postconsumer paper content that are too low to have any beneficial impact on
recycling of paper waste. It is, in my view, critical that the standard for
postconsumer paper content be set at at least 15% and that this be truly
recycled paper derived from community recycling programs. Such a standard
would meaningfully enhance the economic incentive for paper recycling and have
a significant beneficial environmental impact.
Sincerely,
Bryer lull
Bryan R. Cullen, Ph.D.
Associate Investigator,
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Associate Professor,
Section of Genetics and
Department of Microbiology
BRC/sg
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1993
Ms. Cathy Carruthers
3401 Cherry Blossom Drive, N.E.
Olympia, WA 98506
Dear Ms. Carruthers:
This is to notify you that I am in receipt of your letter of
August 19 addressed to Mr. John Emerson regarding the Spokane
County Air Pollution Control Authority (SCAPCA) and the
Intermountain Grass Growers Association. It was good to hear
from you, and I sincerely apologize for the delay in my response.
As you know, I share President Clinton's commitment to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. I certainly appreciate your
bringing the efforts of Mr. Entman, Mr. Haslebacher, Mr. Skelton,
and Mr. Palmer to my attention. They should be hearing from the
Vice President in the near future.
Again, thank you for letting me hear from you.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Cathy Carruthers
3401 Cherry Blossom Dr. NE
Olympia, WA 98506
(206) 456-5893
August 19, 1993
John Emerson
Deputy Assistant to the President
Deputy Director of Presidential Personnel
OEOB Room 151
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear John,
market 3 approachis
I am hoping you can arrange to have a letter of thanks sent by President Clinton
or Vice President Gore to the Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority
to
(SCAPCA) and the Intermountain Grass Growers Association for their work on an
claimy,
innovative marketable permit program. This is the kind of creative environmental
program which allows the economy to grow and change while providing increased
environmental protection. Support and encouragement for the participants who
have taken personal and professional risks will, I believe, engender further efforts
along these lines.
SCAPCA just completed an innovative new regulation that will allow trading of
"base acreage" for the burning of grass fields. Possession of base acreage allows
the holder to apply for a permit to burn the turf for enhanced grass seed
production. The trading program allows the growers to sell base acreage to other
growers through an auction held by SCAPCA. Ten percent of each transfer is
retired so as to permanently reduce the acres burned. The program:
improves the environment by reducing the number of acres burned over
time
resolves problems with land transfers and leasing arrangements that could
give rise to illegal burning
allows new growers to enter the business
provides a monetary incentive for growers to permanently reduce their
burning
The regulation was worked out with the cooperation of:
the local Intermountain Grass Growers Association
Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority
the Washington State Department of Ecology
the Environmental Protection Agency
I am enclosing a copy of the SCAPCA pamphlet and the regulation. I'm also
sending draft letters in case it should prove helpful.
If possible letters of thanks should go to the following people:
Bob Entman, President and
Al Haslebacher, Executive Secretary
Intermountain Grass Growers Association
1423 South Laura
Spokane, Washington 99203
Eric Skelton
Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority
West 1101 College, Suite 403
Spokane, Washington 99201
John Palmer
EPA Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle Washington 98101
If you need any further information I will be happy to provide it. My phone
number is (206) 456-5893. Eric Skelton's phone number is (509) 456-4727.
It was wonderful seeing you in last week.
Sincerely,
Ca Day
Cathy Carruthers
Enclosures:
Pamphlet on the environmental trading program
Copy of the Grass Field Burning Regulation with the banking and auction
included.
Rough language for the letters
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1993
Mr. Bob Entman
President
Mr. Al Haslebacher
Executive Secretary
Intermountain Grass Growers
Association
1423 South Laura
Spokane, WA 99203
Dear Mr. Entman and Mr. Haslebacher:
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for
bringing to my attention your efforts on the base acreage trading
program.
As you know, I share President Clinton's commitment to the
preservation of our environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. I certainly appreciate learning
about your work with the Spokane County Air Pollution Control
Authority, Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to create this program. This Administration supports initiatives
such as this one, which employ new and innovative approaches to
address today's difficult environmental challenges.
Again, thank you for your efforts in this regard. I wish
you much success in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Al Gore
AG/avl
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1993
Mr. John Palmer
EPA Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Palmer:
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for
bringing to my attention your efforts on developing Spokane's
base acreage trading program.
President Clinton and I are committed to the preservation of
our environment in a way that leads to strong and sustainable
economic growth. I certainly appreciate learning about your work
with the Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority, Ecology
and the local Intermountain Grass Growers Association to create
this program. This Administration supports initiatives such as
this one, which employ new and innovative approaches to address
today's difficult environmental challenges.
Again, thank you for your efforts in this regard. I wish
you much success in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Al Gore
AG/avl
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1993
Mr. Erik Skelton
Spokane County Air Pollution
Control Authority
West 1101 College, Suite 403
Spokane, WA 99201
Dear Mr. Skelton:
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for
bringing to my attention your efforts on the base acreage trading
program.
As you know, I share President Clinton's commitment to the
preservation of our environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. I certainly appreciate learning
about your work with the local Intermountain Grass Growers
Association, Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to create this program. This Administration supports initiatives
such as this one, which employ new and innovative approaches to
address today's difficult environmental challenges.
Again, thank you for your efforts in this regard. I wish
you much success in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Al Gore
AG/avl
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1993
Mr. Phil Cole
07771 Big Creek Road
Florence, OR 97439
Dear Mr. Cole:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding President
Clinton's Forest Management Plan. It was good to hear from you.
The President, the Vice President and I are committed to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. We believe that the Forest
Conference was a significant step toward the resolution of the
problems facing the Pacific Northwest.
As you know, President Clinton recently announced his Forest
Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment,
based on the analytical work of three working groups established
at the Forest Conference. This Administration believes that the
Forest Plan is scientifically-sound and legally responsible and
will provide a sustainable harvest. This plan also includes a
new economic assistance program that helps local workers,
businesses and communities in strengthening the region's economy
by creating family-wage jobs, offering new economic
opportunities, and ensuring the region's long-term economic
health.
I certainly appreciate learning your views about this very
important matter. We continue to seek a Forest Plan that is
scientifically-sound and legally responsible and will provide a
sustainable harvest, and we are currently soliciting advice and
comments on possible improvements to the proposed plan.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Katheula Monj
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
9/30/93
Dear Ms. McGiuty-
Iam writing today concerning the
snaft supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement. of the optionsavaliable I would
preferthat option no. 1 be chosen.
Option no, 9 has some serious flaws,
These include; 1). The proposed "reserve system"
has no guaranteed protection, Something like
40% of this "reserve system" would be subject to
timber harvest by thinning. Unclear and unenforceable
guidelines make this unacreptable. Roadless areas
are not protected. These areas need to be protected.
2). I am disturbed about the handling
of the Adaptive Management areas. It is not. good
enough to experiment with these important parcels
of Dur Federal lands.
3). Futhermore, Option9's viability
standards are not high enough to insure survival
of the endangered old growth forest species.
Remember these are bell weather species and
indicate threatened. that many more species are close to being
A). Finally, option9 doesn't include
a tan on log exports. If we are really concerned
about the loss of jobs in the pacific Northwest
timber industry lets stop theflow of 25%of our
dwindling harvest to foreign mills!
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1993
Mr. Peter Craig
1072 Anzio Street
Crescent City, CA 95531
Dear Mr. Craig:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding President
Clinton's Forest Management Plan. It was good to hear from you.
The President, the Vice President and I are committed to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. We believe that the Forest
Conference was a significant step toward the resolution of the
problems facing the Pacific Northwest.
As you know, President Clinton recently announced his Forest
Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment,
based on the analytical work of three working groups established
at the Forest Conference. This Administration believes that the
Forest Plan is scientifically-sound and legally responsible and
will provide a sustainable harvest. This plan also includes a
new economic assistance program that helps local workers,
businesses and communities in strengthening the region's economy
by creating family-wage jobs, offering new economic
opportunities, and ensuring the region's long-term economic
health.
I certainly appreciate learning your views about this very
important matter. We continue to seek a Forest Plan that is
scientifically-sound and legally responsible and will provide a
sustainable harvest, and we are currently soliciting advice and
comments on possible improvements to the proposed plan.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Hableen Kathleen A. McGint
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Peter A. Craig
1072 Anzio Street
Crescent City, CA 95531
September 19, 1993
President Bill Clinton
c/o Katie McGinty
Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building., Room 358
Washington, DC 20501
Dear Mr. President,
1 am writing to ask you to drop option 9 and protect the long-
term interests of the plants, animals (including human) and
ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest.
I was a strong supporter of your campaign, and now of your
administration based largely on your vision of what America and the
world must do to protect the global environment. I recognize your
efforts to bring all pertinent information to light at this summers
Forest Summit. 1 was truly impressed with the way in which you
initiated your administration's environmental action. You knew it
was time to settle this issue, and for America to act and move beyond
the deplorable environmental policies of the Reagan-Bush years.
You are well aware of the value and importance of our country's
environmental laws. You heard the science and the economic concerns.
You know the facts of what it will take to protect our country's
and planets long-term interests in a healthy forest ecosystem. i am
a resident of the beautiful Pacific Northwest and have seen the
impacts of over-cutting and recognize the factors which led to
decades of forest abuse.
Option 9 must be strengthened. The intent of the draft is
commendable, but the rhetoric makes the provision flawed. The
various federal agencies have not followed sound environmental laws
(NEPA, Endangered Species, etc.) in the past. The implementation of
Option 9 will be no different. Federal agencies will use the same
"discretion" that led to over-cutting via high congressional timber
targets.
You must direct another evaluation of the draft environmental
statement. It's time to word a solid, no-loophole statement that
reflects our country's vision of protecting this planets oid-growth
species.
Sincerely,
Orti a.
Peter A. Craig
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1993
Mr. James Conroy
214 Ninth Street
Hicksville, N.Y. 11801
Dear Mr. Conroy:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding President
Clinton's Forest Management Plan. It was good to hear from you.
The President, the Vice President and I are committed to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. We believe that the Forest
Conference was a significant step toward the resolution of the
problems facing the Pacific Northwest.
As you know, President Clinton recently announced his Forest
Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment,
based on the analytical work of three working groups established
at the Forest Conference. This Administration believes that the
Forest Plan is scientifically-sound and legally responsible and
will provide a sustainable harvest. This plan also includes a
new economic assistance program that helps local workers,
businesses and communities in strengthening the region's economy
by creating family-wage jobs, offering new economic
opportunities, and ensuring the region's long-term economic
health.
I certainly appreciate learning your views about this very
important matter. We continue to seek a Forest Plan that is
scientifically-sound and legally responsible and will provide a
sustainable harvest, and we are currently soliciting advice and
comments on possible improvements to the proposed plan.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Lither Kathleen a.M.S.S
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
September 26, 1993
214 Ninth Street
Hicksville, N.Y. 11801-5446
Ms. Kathleen McGinty, Director
Office of Environmental Policy
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Director McGinty:
I am writing to express my views on President Clinton's
proposed Ancient Forests Protection Plan (A.F.P.P.) While the
Clinton A.F.P.P. has some good points, it also contains some
serious flaws.
In the last 350 years America has lost 90% of its ancient
forests. Most of the remaining ancient forests are on federal
land in the Pacific Northwest. These forests belong to all of the
American people equally, not just to those people living near
them. The remaining ancient Forests cannot be treated as make-
work projects for communities in the Pacific Northwest.
I support the proposal to allocate 1.2 billion dollars for
economic restructuring in timber dependent Northwestern
communities. It will help diversify their economies and provide
jobs for unemployed loggers. It will help undue the damage to
watersheds and wildlife habitat form decades of logging. I also
approve of the proposal to change the U.S. tax code to discourage
the export of raw saw logs. This will save milling jobs in the
U.S. A total ban would be better, but this is a step in the right
direction.
The problems with the A.F.P.P. what it does not do. AT 7.1
million acres the Ancient Forest Reserves are barely
adequate. Ten million acres would be much better. The A.F.P.P.
does not protect the Forest Reserves form all logging. It allows
so-called "salvage logging" and "thinning" to continue in the
reserves. Removing dead and dying trees degrades wildlife habitat
by destroying scarce nesting sites for cavity nesting birds. Many
other species utilize these "snag" trees for food, cover or
denning sites. In the past "salvage logging" and "thinning" have
often been used as an excuse to clear cut old growth forests. The
solution to this problem is simple, prohibit all logging in the
Forest Reserves.
At 1.2 billion board feet per year the A.F.P.P. allows too
high a "allowable sales quantity" in forest critical to the
survival of the Northern Spotted Owl. The maximum sustainable cut
level is no more than 730 million board feet per year.
Another problem with the Clinton A.F.P.P. is that it allows
excessive timber cutting on land adjacent to the Forest Reserves.
This threatens water quality and wildlife habitat. Salmon, trout,
and steelhead populations of the Pacific Northwest must be
2
protected. Logging has damaged hundreds of miles of vital stream
habitat. If the Pacific Salmon, and the thousands of fishing jobs
that depend on them are to be saved, water quality and spawning
streams will have to be protected. The Northwestern fishing
industry is dependent on the clear, cool, water that forested
streams in Ancient Forests provide.
The proposal to create 10 "adaptive management" areas, within
the Forest Reserves, that would be controlled by local
communities is a very bad idea. These areas are at rick of
falling totally under the control of local timber interests. The
ancient forests in these "management" areas will be sacrificed
for short term jobs the first time a recession hits the local
economy. The ancient forests don't need "management", they need
protection! The "adaptive management" areas must be kept out of
the Ancient Forests.
The A.F.P.P. fails to protect the ancient forests on the
eastern side of the Cascade Range. A "scientific" study the area
of will not save it's ancient forests. These ancient forest
ecosystems have suffered from decades of logging abuse. Forest
regeneration in this arid area is very poor. Now the remaining
ancient forests are threatened by increased "salvage logging.'
The A.F.P.P. must restrict "salvage logging" on the eastern side
of the Cascades.
The Forest Protection Plan must provide for the creation of
permanent Forest Reserves if it is to work. If the existence
of the Forest Reserves rests only on an "executive order" issued
by one president, they could be wiped-out just as easily by a new
president. The Forest Reserves will require a firmer foundation
if they are to full-fill their purpose. Congressional action will
be needed for this.
The A.F.P.P. can be the salvation of America's remaining
ancient forest, providing that its shortcomings are corrected.
This is America's last chance to save a small remnant of it's
once vast forest inheritance. I hope that you will seize this
chance to end a century of abuse of our forests.
Sincerely Yours,
James Conroy Comoy
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1993
Mr. and Ms. Ronald and Carolyn L. Constable
4 Longhorn Road
Chalfont, PA 18914
Dear Mr. and Ms. Constable:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding President
Clinton's Forest Management Plan. It was good to hear from you.
The President, the Vice President and I are committed. to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. We believe that the Forest
Conference was a significant step toward the resolution of the
problems facing the Pacific Northwest.
As you know, President Clinton recently announced his Forest
Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment,
based on the analytical work of three working groups established
at the Forest Conference. This Administration believes that the
Forest Plan is scientifically-sound and legally responsible and
will provide a sustainable harvest. This plan also includes a
new economic assistance program that helps local workers,
businesses and communities in strengthening the region's economy
by creating family-wage jobs, offering new economic
opportunities, and ensuring the region's long-term economic
health.
I certainly appreciate learning your views about this very
important matter. We continue to seek a Forest Plan that is
scientifically-sound and legally responsible and will provide a
sustainable harvest, and we are currently soliciting advice and
comments on possible improvements to the proposed plan.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Litten a.
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
4 Langhorne Rd
Chalfont, Pa 18914
Sept 17, 1993
Kathlun A. Me Ginty
Director of While House
Office on Environmental Policy
Dear Kathlun
& enjoyed the Phila Catholic
Standard and Times article about
you and your Catholic education
My son Ronalol(age24) also had
a Cattolic school education (St Judis
grade school, Lansdale URSINUS Catholic COLLEGE High 1987)
for the past five summers he har
been volunteering his time to help
save old growth forests in the
Pacific Northwest This summer
he joined EARTH FIRST members
in The Cove Mallard area near
Diffe, Idaho. These young people
earnestly behave that our last
complete ecosystem in the lower
48 states neids to be saved They
(2)
spent all summer, risking their
lives to prevent road building and
logging to take place. When you
advise Pres. Clinton about clear
cutting and destruction of wolf,
bear, wolverine etc habitat please
try to undustand what these young
folks/and old folks are trying to
save america will soon have
no forests if we continue to allow
the U.S. Foust service to cut timber
on our public lands.
If you "loved and was very
concerned about the outdoors" as
your mother Alma said in the
the invironmentality point of view
news article, you will try to Ace
of not the big & paper, logging companies
Please support The Northern Ricbies
Ecosystem Protection Act H.R. 2638.
God would want his creation
spared!
Thanks, Carolyn L. Constable
Ronald 2 Constalle
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1993
Ms. Amahi Coleman
500 Margie Place
San Marcos, CA 92069
Dear Ms. Coleman:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding President
Clinton's Forest Management Plan. It was good to hear from you.
The President, the Vice President and I are committed to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. We believe that the Forest
Conference was a significant step toward the resolution of the
problems facing the Pacific Northwest.
As you know, President Clinton recently announced his Forest
Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment,
based on the analytical work of three working groups established
at the Forest Conference. This Administration believes that the
Forest Plan is scientifically-sound and legally responsible and
will provide a sustainable harvest. This plan also includes a
new economic assistance program that helps local workers,
businesses and communities in strengthening the region's economy
by creating family-wage jobs, offering new economic
opportunities, and ensuring the region's long-term economic
health.
I certainly appreciate learning your views about this very
important matter. We continue to seek a Forest Plan that is
scientifically-sound and legally responsible and will provide a
sustainable harvest, and we are currently soliciting advice and
comments on possible improvements to the proposed plan.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Kathen
Kathleen A. McGinty MBmS
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Ms. Katie Mc Gunty
500 Margie Pl
Deputy Cussistant to
San Marcos, CA
the President
92069.
Director
clober 2 ud193
Office of Environmental
Policy. Rm 360.
Old Executive Office Bldg.
Washington DC. 20501
Please for Maintaining
our natural hein tage
as you well know only 10% of
our torests are remaining
To preserve our terests we should
unit logging to areas that have
been previous 14 logged
"Salvaning" and "Thinming" thest
is quite 0 tten used by some
loggers to circument the intentions
of the rest of us to preserve our
environment These permental
techniques should be used with
cave. at all times the preser vation
of the habitats of the forest species
should be our main concern as
their survival is liked to
survival of man
We should also protect all
" Loadless" forest. There are
only a few of these left
and we should leave these
intouched by man.
Thank you yes your kind
co-operation
Sincerely
Amahi Coleman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1993
Dr. Faith Thompson Campbell
Dr. Bruce D. Rodan
Natural Resources Defense Council
1350 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Dr. Campbell and Dr. Rodan:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the proposal to list
the bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) in Apendix II of the
of the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It was good to hear from you.
As you know, I share President Clinton's commitment to the
preservation of the global environment. I certainly appreciate
learning your thoughts about the listing of the bigleaf mahogany
in Apendix II of CITES. My office has been in touch with Dr.
Bruce McBride, the scientist at the Department of the Interior
responsible for such listings under CITES, in this regard. While
this listing will likely be a responsible proposal, due to the
June 1994 deadline, we are only in the preliminary stages of
looking into this matter. Rest assured that we will continue in
our efforts to address today's pressing global environmental
challenges. Please keep my office apprised of any developments
as the deadline draws closer.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
NR
10-8
DC
David
Natural Resources
me
Defense Council
1350 New York Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
7 October, 1993
30
202 783 -7800
783-5917
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building, Room 360
Washington, D.C. 20501
know to how They
Dear Ms. McGinty:
As you may remember, in March 1992 you assisted then-Senator Gore in efforts to forestall
a decision by the Bush Administration to withdraw a proposal to list a tropical hardwood,
bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), in Appendix II of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) remains grateful for the help you and Vice-President Gore offered
at that time.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is once again accepting suggestions for species which
should be protected by CITES. NRDC has again submitted documents supporting the listing
of bigleaf mahogany in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). We attach a copy of the submission, which is
backed by a petition, submitted by the Rainforest Action Network, signed by 20,000 people.
Bigleaf mahogany clearly qualifies for listing in Appendix II as overexploitation threatens to
drive it to ecological and commercial extinction throughout its range within a few decades.
Furthermore, national parks and reserves for indigenous peoples have been invaded by
loggers seeking this beautiful and high-priced wood. The United States, as the world's
largest importer of mahogany wood, has a moral obligation to ensure that it is managed
sustainably.
No respected authority denies that the magnificent mature mahogany trees scattered through
tropical forests from Mexico to the Amazon are being cut at rates far faster than they can
grow back through natural regeneration. In natural forests, mahoganies require a century or
more to reach current commercial size, and the tree does not regenerate well in shaded areas
(either natural forests or forests which have been selectively logged).
It is also well-documented that loggers searching for mahogany open roads into the forest,
thus exacerbating other causes of deforestation. In natural forests, S. macrophylla grows in
widely-scattered, even-aged clumps, providing little opportunity for a second cut within a
few decades. Coupled with the tree's poor regeneration in selectively cut forests, this growth
pattern reduces the economic return possible from natural forests and encourages clearing of
the forest for agriculture or other uses.
Recycled Paper
40 Wist 20th Street
71 Streenson Street
017 South Olive Street
212 Merchant St., State 203
New York. New York 10011
San Francisco, CA 94105
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Honolulu Hawaii 96813
21.1 727-2700
415 777-0220
213 892-1500
808 533-1075
Far 212 727-1773
Fin 415 495-5996
Fin 213 629-5389
Fir 808 521-6841
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building, Room 360
Washington, D.C. 20501
7 October, 1993
Given the well-documented difficulties in growing mahogany, NRDC has regretfully
concluded that human planting efforts (plantations) are unlikely to reverse the decline in
numbers of mature or even nearly mature mahoganies in the next 50 to 100 years. While
many planting programs have been started or are in initial stages, total areas planted to date
remain small relative to the natural range of the species. Furthermore, these plantings must
be regarded as experimental. Their success in producing mature trees -- either to supply the
demand for wood or to restore degraded natural forests -- is by no means assured.
NRDC believes developments since March 1992 have strengthened the already-strong case
for protecting mahogany under CITES.
First, overexploitation of remaining stands, violations of laws attempting to regulate the
harvest and export of mahogany from South and Mesoamerica, and the difficulties impeding
establishment of plantations all continue. At the same time, controversy over the proposed
listing has stimulated an unprecedented amount of attention to mahogany. Research into the
species' status and trends has been initiated by the U.S. Forest Service, Brazilian industry,
Latin American non-governmental organizations, and various academic institutions. Industry
has launched efforts to promote re-planting (although we are skeptical that the program will
succeed).
This spurt in activity was predicted in the original proposal to be one of the probable positive
results of placing the species in Appendix II. CITES protection would help curb the illegal
trade in mahogany and would continue to stimulate these and other much-needed efforts to
improve management of this species.
Therefore, we hope that the Office of Environmental Policy will support a decision that the
United States propose listing of Swietenia macrophylla in Appendix II of CITES. If we can
be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call Faith Campbell at 624-9338.
Yours truly,
Faith Thompson Campbell
mushd
Faith Thompson Campbell, Ph.D.
Bruce D. Rodan, MBBS, MEnv.Sc.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1993
Ms. Carol Calman
3456 Stadium Place
San Diego, CA 92122
Dear Ms. Calman:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding President
Clinton's Forest Management Plan. It was good to hear from you.
The President, the Vice President and I are committed to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. We believe that the Forest
Conference was a significant step toward the resolution of the
problems facing the Pacific Northwest.
As you know, President Clinton recently announced his Forest
Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment,
based on the analytical work of three working groups established
at the Forest Conference. This Administration believes that the
Forest Plan is scientifically-sound and legally responsible and
will provide a sustainable harvest. This plan also includes a
new economic assistance program that helps local workers,
businesses and communities in strengthening the region's economy
by creating family-wage jobs, offering new economic
opportunities, and ensuring the region's long-term economic
health.
I certainly appreciate learning your views about this very
important matter. We continue to seek a Forest Plan that is
scientifically-sound and legally responsible and will provide a
sustainable harvest, and we are currently soliciting advice and
comments on possible improvements to the proposed plan.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Rathen Kathleen A. a. McGinty Misms
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Dear ms. McCuntz
Please prevent the cutting of our
ancient forestreserves. allow no
cutting ch preserves. Protectall
roadless forests from cutting.
Protect forest theams, as cutting
increases near flooding risks and throatens
them degrades water quality
salmon runs.
Thanks,
Carol Calman
3456 Stadium Pl
San Diego, CA 92122
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1993
Mr. Rhomas W. Carman
1935 Berry Street
Lemon Grove, CA 91945
Dear Mr. Carman:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding President
Clinton's Forest Management Plan. It was good to hear from you.
The President, the Vice President and I are committed to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. We believe that the Forest
Conference was a significant step toward the resolution of the
problems facing the Pacific Northwest.
As you know, President Clinton recently announced his Forest
Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment,
based on the analytical work of three working groups established
at the Forest Conference. This Administration believes that the
Forest Plan is scientifically-sound and legally responsible and
will provide a sustainable harvest. This plan also includes a
new economic assistance program that helps local workers,
businesses and communities in strengthening the region's economy
by creating family-wage jobs, offering new economic
opportunities, and ensuring the region's long-term economic
health.
I certainly appreciate learning your views about this very
important matter. We continue to seek a Forest Plan that is
scientifically-sound and legally responsible and will provide a
sustainable harvest, and we are currently soliciting advice and
comments on possible improvements to the proposed plan.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
MS. Katie Mc Ginty
Thomas W, Carman
Deputy Assistant
1935 Berry St,
to the President,
Lemon Grove CA
Director, Office of
91945-3510
Environ mental Policy
Room 360
old Executive Office Bldg.
Oct, 2, 1993
Washington, D.C, 20501
Dear Friend!
When I lived in the state of Washington
Q
few years ago, I hated to drive down highways
where a narrow stand of trees bordered the
road, and glimpses could be seen of denuded
lands beyond, with tree stumps as Far as the
eye could see,
We need to protect the ancient forests, 50
that our grandchildren will be able to enjoy
a hint of what the pioneers once took for granted
we must protect the forests from those whose
only thought concerns their paychecks, and will
cut down every tree until there are no original
growth to be destroyed,
The streams must be protected from the polu-
ting effects of nearby logging, 50 the native fish
can influences, live and multiply un-hindered by destructive
Why do we send such a high percentage of our
Brest products to Japan, destroying our own assets,
.)hile they protect their own forests in northern
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 27, 1993
Mr. Paul C. Cinelli
Managing Director
Lakes Marketing, Inc.
20320 N. Enfield Court
Forest Lake, MN 55025
Dear Mr. Cinelli:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your efforts at
Lakes Marketing, Inc. on developing the Sure-A-Lure.
I certainly appreciate learning your concerns about the
publicity surrounding legislation proposed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the use of lead products in
fishing equipment. With regard to the specific issues that you
raise concerning the timing and publicity of the EPA legislation,
I am forwarding a copy of your letter and the information that you
enclosed to the EPA for their review and response.
Again, thank you for calling this situation to my attention.
I wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Rather Kathleen a. A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Lakes Marketing, Inc.
Jrey - to EPA
we
September 20, 1993
Kathleen McGinty
Old Executive Office Bldg.
much that CZ
Office 360
Washington DC 20501
did
Dear Ms. McGinty:
9/27
On September 2, 1993, I wrote to Catherine Zoi of the Office
on Environmental Policy; however, after contacting her
office on September 17th, I found out from her staff member
that I should have written you.
My company, Lakes Marketing, Inc., since March 1990, has run
into a very serious problem and we are on the verge of
bankruptcy. Let me briefly explain:
I am sending you a sample of the product we sell so you can
better understand the situation. Our business has been
unfairly injured by the premature release of publicity of
impending EPA legislation to ban lead products in fishing
gear. We have no quarrel with the forthcoming legislation;
we just feel it should not have been released for public
knowledge prematurely or until it was definite and people
knew what was, in fact, to be banned.
Because of the vagueness and uncertainty of the impending
legislation, all market and financial support for our
product has evaporated. We have been impacted in so far as
that financing for an effective advertising campaign has
dried up and no merchant, bait store owner, or fishing gear
department in large corporations wants to invest in an
untested product in the face of confusing rumors that all
lead products are to be banned. What and when, no one
knows. However, in the name of prudency, which we can
understand, everyone has backed off and taking a "wait and
see" position. This has had an adverse effect on our cash
flow which has turned negative.
20320 N. Enfield Court
Forest Lake, MN 55025
U.S.A.
(612) 464-0230
Fax (612) 464-6780
The final result is that if we don't receive some kind of
financial help in the form of grants or guarantees, we don't
have any options left. This month, we have defaulted on our
loans as there has been too much delay in responses from
the politicos, Senator Paul Wellstone and local
representatives. Letters were written starting in June.
All on our own, without side help, we have borrowed to the
hilt, devoted ourselves to promoting, packaging and
marketing our product and when the impact of the forthcoming
legislation hit us, we maxed our personal credit cards and
personal cash accounts - all in vain, it appears. We have
no where else to go. All our collateral we possess is tied
up as guarantees.
We just think that the whole predictment we find ourselves
in, again not of our making, is unfair and we are at our
wits end.
We have just touched upon the financial upheavals. The
human toll has been worse - constant worry, stress, anxiety
and a feeling of impending doom that cannot be dispelled. A
very heavy unenviable burden with which to live. Please try
to help us lighten our load. We take President Clinton's
sensitivity that "he can feel our pain" literally.
Sincerely,
Paul C. Cinelli
Managing Director
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 14, 1993
The Honorable William S. Cohen
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Cohen:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding your thoughts
about the proposed Executive Order on Recycled Goods. I
appreciate hearing from you.
President Clinton and I believe that recycling has to be an
important part of our strategy in our efforts to preserve our
environment. Through the hard work and initiative of many
community and industry leaders, recycling has become almost
routine to many people. However, to really make recycling a
success, further outreach is needed to encourage both the supply
and demand for recycled products.
As a means to this end, the President asked that the Office
on Environmental Policy work on an initiative to encourage the
use of recycled and recovered goods. The draft Executive Order
is the outcome of much hard work and consultation with industry
and labor representatives, the environmental community, and
consumer groups, as well as congressional and agency staff
members. This initiative will require the federal agencies to
use paper containing recycled materials. This Administration
believes that through this executive order, the demand for and
therefore the production of goods containing recycled materials
will increase, thereby increasing the incentive for the public
involvement in the overall recycling movement.
I certainly appreciate learning your thoughts and concerns
about the implementation of this draft Executive Order,
specifically with regard to post-consumer content standards and
the paper bleaching process. We believe that this initiative
will achieve the desired results of spurring our nation's
recycling efforts, while also promoting a healthy environment.
Rest assured that we are carefully considering all policy options
in this very important matter.
Again, thank you for letting me hear from you.
Sincerely,
Gatten A. Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
QCT 13 '93 12:36 FROM SENHIOR BILL COHEN,DC
PHOL 000
WILLIAM $. COHEN
MAINE
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
October 8, 1993
Ms. Kathleen A. McGinty
Director
Office of Environmental Policy
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty:
I am writing to express my concerns about a provision in the
proposed Executive Order on Federal Recycling, Acquisition, and
Use of Environmentally Preferable Products and Services.
hepe
As I indicated in a previous letter to the President
regarding the totally chlorine-free paper provision, I support
the Administration's goal of making the federal government a more
environmentally conscious consumer. However, while I applaud the
commitment to "green government", I am nonetheless concerned
about some of the specifics of the proposed Executive Order.
I have particular concerns about the effect that the
proposed definition of sawdust would have on two Maine paper
mills. These mills, which do a significant amount of business
with the federal government, are the only mills in the nation to
utilize sawdust in the manufacture of recycled paper. For these
mills to continue operating, sawdust would have to be defined as
a post-consumer recovered material.
It is my assumption that a primary goal of the Executive
Order is to divert as much material from the solid waste stream
as possible. I support this goal and feel that the current
definition of sawdust is contradictory to that goal, in that it
would discourage the reuse of sawdust. As originally proposed,
the Executive Order would eliminate any market for recycled paper
the
manufactured with sawdust and cause an additional 350,000 tons of
sawdust to be disposed of in Maine's landfills each year.
While the intent of the Executive Order may be to discourage
others from utilizing sawdust instead of post-consumer paper
materials in their recycling process, the cost of converting to
the sawdust process is enough of a barrier to those not currently
utilizing that process. Since sawdust was approved by the EPA as
a recyclable material, I am not aware of any paper manufacturers
that have converted to that process.
I am also concerned about the proposal's immediate effect on
the nation's paper industry. At this time, these Maine
facilities are not capable of producing recycled paper products
without utilizing sawdust, and adapting the plants to other
OCT 13 '93 12:36 FROM SENATOR BILL COHEN, DC
PAGE. 003
Ms. Kathleen A. McGinty
October 8, 1993
Page 2
processes would be very costly and time-consuming. I fear that
the result of the Executive Order would be to eliminate jobs in
Maine and force federal agencies to look to foreign sources for
their paper products.
While I agree with the Administration's intent to encourage
recycling, I believe the proposed definition of sawdust would be
both economically and environmentally counterproductive.
I appreciate your attention to this critical issue.
with best wishes, I am
Joen
WSC/daw
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 20, 1993
Mr. Michael Crow
Vice Provost for Research
Columbia University in the City of New York
402 Low Memorial Library
New York, NY 10027
Dear Mr. Crow:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the new name of the
Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. It was good to hear from you,
and I apologize for the delay in my response.
As you know, I share President Clinton's commitment to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. I certainly appreciate learning of
this change; I am always pleased to hear of the Observatory's
continued success in the field of the Earth Sciences.
Again, thank you for letting me hear from you.
Sincerely,
Kathen a. Mising
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jac
Columbia University in the City of New York
New York, N.Y. 10027
VICE PROVOST
402 Low Memorial Library
(212) 854-2330
June 11, 1993
Ms. Katy McGinty
Director
Office on Environment Policy
Office of the President
Old Executive Office Building
Room 358
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty,
You may be interested to know that Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory has changed its name to
"Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory" (LDEO). We feel this name better reflects the comprehensive
and integrated nature of Lamont-Doherty's research agenda, which has evolved significantly over
recent years to explore the full range of issues relevant to understanding the earth as a system.
In the words of senior Lamont scientist Arnold Gordon, who first proposed the systematic conver-
gence of ocean currents, "No other department, laboratory, or institute covers the broad spectrum of
the earth sciences as well as we do and brings them all together to look at the whole Earth system."
Lamont scientists have both led and participated in the discovery of many new basic findings in earth
science. They helped to lay the groundwork for plate tectonics and global ocean systems of currents
and have contributed to important advances in research instrumentation, including the introduction of
computer modeling into climate prediction and the creation of a global seismic network for monitor-
ing and verifying of earthquakes and nuclear arms testing. In the future, Lamont will also concen-
trate on laying the scientific foundation for earth and environmental systems management.
The Observatory's scientists have begun to bridge the gap to understanding the earth as a system
through its many individual investigator and multidisciplinary science efforts. Its multidisciplinary
work is being done among LDEO scientists as well as through LDEO's participation in consortia with
other universities, government organizations, and institutes. In addition, LDEO is reaching outside of
the scientific community to other organizations for whom a greater basic knowledge in the earth
sciences will be critical in the future. These include industries, companies, think tanks, foreign
governments, other U.S. and foreign institutes, and other organizations who understand the many
economic contingencies of greater basic knowledge about the earth and environment.
The enclosed brochures document many of the research frontiers currently being explored by Lamont.
As the world's foremost academic institution in the Earth Sciences, Lamont Doherty Earth Obser-
vatory is and will remain a critical part of the national and international science infrastructure.
Sincerely,
Whichael Crow
Michael Crow
Vice Provost for Research
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 20, 1993
Ms. Shirley M. Coleman
Route 2, Box 1010
Sikeston, MO 63801
Dear Ms. Coleman:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your community open
meeting on the Quality Plating Site. It was good to hear from
you, and I apologize for the delay in my response.
As you know, I share President Clinton's commitment to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. I certainly appreciate hearing of
your community's commitment to safe disposal of hazardous wastes.
I regretfully was not able to respond until after the meeting,
however I am forwarding your information to Region VII of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for their review.
Again, thank you for letting me hear from you.
Sincerely,
Kather a. MaDay
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jac
give
trens
TAX
Sundarly,
Shirley M. Coleman
Shinley M.
Shirley M. Colinar
Route 2 Bok1010
Sibestor, mo.63801
(314) 472-1057
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 20, 1993
Ms. Aliza Chelminsky
Executive Vice President
Mexican Investment Board
Reforma 915, Lomas de Chapultepec
11000 Mexico. D.F.
Dear Ms. Chelminsky:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Mexican Investment
Board. It was good to hear from you, and I apologize for the
delay in my response.
As you know, I share President Clinton's commitment to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. I certainly appreciate hearing of
Mexico's strictly enforced environmental laws in regards to
business investment. I share the Clinton Administration's
commitment to strong environmental prerequisites in trade
agreements.
Again, thank you for letting me hear from you.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jac
MIB
Mexican Investment Board
August 10, 1993
Ms. Kathleen McGinty
Deputy Assistant to the President &
Director, Office of Environmental Policy
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Ms. McGinty:
The Mexican Investment Board (MIB), a non-profit organization
jointly sponsored by the private financial community and the
Government of Mexico, lends assistance to foreign investors as they
explore and pursue business opportunities in Mexico.
As Mexico's economy grows and as we enter into an even closer
trade partnership with the United States, environmental protection
is among the highest priorities for business, government and indeed
our entire society. Since the mid-1980's, the government of Mexico
has been implementing and strictly enforcing stringent
environmental laws and regulations that demonstrate the full
commitment the country is making to environmental concerns.
Enclosed is a copy of our environmental brochure that
describes the proactive measures many companies and organizations -
both foreign and domestic - are taking in their everyday procedures
and applications to decrease threats to the environment. As you
will see in the case histories presented in the brochure, companies
that want to thrive and succeed in Mexico must also comply with
Mexico's strictly enforced environmental laws.
The enclosed document is just one of many that we have
produced to provide up to date, objective information on doing
business in Mexico. The complete list of our publications is
attached. If there are any other relevant subjects which would be
of interest to you, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
aliza Aliza Chelminsky Chelminsky
Executive Vice President
Reforma 915, Lomas de Chapultepec
11000, México, D.F.
MIB México
MIB New York
Tel: (5) 25-328-9929
Tel: 1-800-MIB-2434
Fax: (5) 25-328-9930
Fax: 212-704-0128
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 20, 1993
Mr. Quentin R. Chapman
President, The Chapman Group Ltd.
47 Ferndell Circle
Unionville, Ontario
Canada L3R 3Y7
Dear Mr Chapman:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Section 1038 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Your
information was forwarded to me by Mr. Neel in the Vice
President's office. It was good to hear from you, and I -
apologize for the delay in my response.
As you know, I share President Clinton's commitment to the
preservation of the environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. I certainly appreciate hearing your
ideas on the mandate to use local recycled tire rubber in
Mexico's current infrastructure improvement program. I can
assure you that this Administration is not committed to "business
as usual" but rather to new and innovative ways to deal with
environmental problems.
Again, thank you for letting me hear from you.
Sincerely,
Jahben a. Msping
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/jac
THE CHAPMAN GROUP LTD.
CONSULTANTS
47 FERNDELL CIRCLE
UNIONVILLE, ONTARIO
CANADA L3R 3Y7
PHONE (416) 475-9825
Mr Roy M Neal
August 16, 1993
Chief of Staff
The Honorable Albert Gore
Office of the Vice-President
Old Executive Office Building
Washington D.C. 20501
Dear Mr Neal
We are a Canadian environmental consulting firm specializing in used tire
management programs. Our company is presently cooperating with U.S. suppliers
on proposals for local programs in several states based on the use of recycled
rubber in rubberized asphalt road projects. This market has been stimulated by the
mandate described in Section 1038 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991.
The momentum of the mandate has also carried us, and our U.S. affiliates, into
Mexico where we are seeking to coordinate an environmental initiative to use local
recycled tire rubber in their current infrastructure improvement program. In
Canada, there has been activity in rubberized asphalt in the aftermath of the major
tire fire in Hagersville, Ontario in 1990 which has cost the Province an estimated
20 million dollars in clean up costs
In light of the above, the attached letter from Transportation Secretary Pena to
Vice-President Gore is seen here as an important communication which, with
respect, we believe may benefit from additional information. Perhaps you will
permit a few modest observations from a non-American source, which may be of
assistance in providing a solution to this continent-wide problem.
There are two crucial points to make concerning the letter.
Secretary Pena suggests that the timing of the mandate may be inappropriate
because the technology has not yet been thoroughly tested. Although this view is
sincerely expressed, the operational information he has received concerning the
performance of the technology has been provided by highway agencies largely
hostile to the mandate because they see it as territorial encroachment from
environmentalists. Much of the technical resistance from these same sources is
also rooted in perceptions of higher cost.
2
The highway agencies have also received strong lobbying support against the
mandate from their associates in the National Paving Association (NAPA) who
perceive it as placing their industry at an economic disadvantage.
The cost issue is clearly central to the discussion of rubberized asphalt.
Secretary Pena cites in his letter increased costs of 200 million to one billion
dollars annually (compared with conventional asphalt) for the program by 1997.
In reality, there are existing, credible rubberized asphalt technologies operating in
the U.S. market with costs at the lower end of this range, as can be readily
demonstrated from public tender documents. The mandate will also promote
competition to establish the most cost-effective technologies, particularly in the
current business climate.
Understandably, as a transportation official, Secretary Pena does not refer to the
estimated 400-500 million dollar annual environmental liability that is
accumulating from the 160 million scrap tires that are stockpiled in the United
States each year. However, as a representative of the Administration overseeing
the responsibilities of both the transportation and environmental sectors, I am sure
that you will appreciate these economic considerations in context.
If the environmental liability is taken into account, it roughly off-sets the net direct
cost of the mandate for the more competitive technologies. Thus, it does not make
either economic or environmental sense to continue to stockpile used tires when
the remediation costs are approximately equal to the cost of recycling the tire into
rubber for road use.
I hope you will take these remarks in the cooperative spirit in which they are
intended. When the Section 1038 legislation was passed by the previous
Administration it sent a message that government was finally coming to grips with
the magnitude of this problem. It was received as a watershed program which
would demonstrate that better roads can be associated with sound environmental
management. The mandate is presently in danger of being weakened by interests
that seek to return to "business as usual" and we wish to ensure that an enlightened
policy is not abandoned through misunderstanding.
Quentin Sincerely, Chapman
Quentin. R. Chapman
(President)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 21, 1993
The Honorable John Conyers
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Conyers:
The President has asked that I respond to your letter of
August 5 regarding your concerns about federal wetlands policy
and H.R. 350, the Wetlands Reform Act. I apologize for the delay
in my response.
President Clinton and Vice President Gore are committed to
the preservation of our natural resources in a way that leads to
strong and sustainable economic growth. This Administration
shares your concerns about the uncertainties surrounding wetlands
policies of the past.
As you know, an Interagency Working Group on Federal
Wetlands Policy was convened on June 4 to review and seek to
clarify the issues surrounding federal wetlands policy in
anticipation of the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. It
included representatives of all federal agencies involved in, or
impacted by, the protection of wetlands. In addition, the
working group solicited a broad range of views, including those
of the Congress; state and local government; environmentalists;
developers and homebuilders; agricultural interests; and others.
The Administration policy that was announced in August is very
consistent with the policies proposed in your letter.
I look forward to working with you to ensure the effective
implementation of an ecologically sound wetlands policy during
the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Katie
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
032356
Congress of the United States
house of Representatives
Mashington, 93 AHC 205155 00
August 5, 1993
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We understand that you are currently in the process of
formulating an official position on federal wetlands policy. We
would like to urge you to adopt a position that is closely in
line with H.R. 350, the Wetlands Reform Act, currently
cosponsored by 80 members of Congress.
We know you are aware of the importance of preserving our
wetlands, and commend you for your support of a "no net loss" of
wetlands policy. Because Congress is moving closer to acting
legislatively on this issue, we feel that your involvement now
could have a critical impact on the outcome of this debate and
help end the polarization that has developed over this issue.
At a minimum, wetlands policy should accomplish the following:
it should stem the loss of 300,000 acres of wetlands annually; it
should streamline the permit process; it should improve wetlands
regulations so that they are uniformly applied; and it should
establish a more incentive-based approach to preserving
privately-held wetlands. We believe that H.R. 350 offers
reasonable and workable solutions that would achieve these
reforms within the framework that currently exists.
To strengthen protections for wetlands, H.R. 350 would amend the
Clean Water Act to include explicitly a provision covering the
protection of wetlands and expand the number of activities
covered under the Act to all that are harmful to wetlands. The
careful tracking of the impact of the permit program and
mitigation efforts on wetlands would also be required. Finally,
it would direct more personnel and resources to agencies that
oversee wetlands policy.
To streamline the permit process and make it more workable to
private landowners, H.R. 350 would establish a fast track to
process minor permits within a period of 60 days. Other helpful
provisions would direct the Corps to assist small landowners with
wetlands delineations, accelerate the completion of the National
Wetlands inventory maps by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
clarify exemptions for normal and ongoing farming practices.
Many of the complaints that the system is unworkable arise from
the uneven application of wetlands regulations. We believe this
can be remedied through better training of wetlands delineators,
and through better coordination of delineation methods.
We also would like to stress the importance of scrutinizing
proposals that would seriously erode our wetlands base. We are
particularly opposed to calls for a national wetlands
classification system. Such a task would be an inefficient use
of scarce resources, and according to the Fish and Wildlife
Service, it would cost $18 billion to implement. In addition,
ratings would have to be based on very subjective criteria.
We also urge you to resist pressure to broaden the application of
the Fifth Amendment takings clause to the limitation of property
rights that results from wetlands regulations. Restrictions on
the use of wetlands property often serve to protect the health
and safety of other nearby properties. To be able to evaluate
carefully the unique facts of each case, questions on takings
must be left to the courts to be considered on a case by case
basis.
The best chance for expanding our wetlands base lies in wetlands
restoration efforts. However, it is shortsighted to look to
mitigation banking as a solution that would allow wetlands to be
destroyed for development projects by creating or contributing to
a mitigation bank elsewhere. Studies have shown that efforts to
restore or create wetlands have had mixed results, and
replacement wetlands are often unsatisfactory because they rarely
perform as many or even the same functions as the natural
wetlands they replace.
Because 74 percent of the nation's remaining wetlands are
privately owned, we must look more toward incentive-based
approaches to protecting wetlands. We urge support for the
Wetlands Reserve Program, as well as tax incentives that
encourage the donation of land to qualified conservation
organizations or that promote limiting activities on wetlands to
compatible uses.
The need to preserve our wetlands has been made especially clear
by the tragic floods now occuring in the Mississippi Valley.
Contributing to the severity of the flooding is the fact that 75%
- 90% of the wetlands in the region have been lost. In order to
resolve the debate over wetlands quickly and fairly, we urge you
to adopt the approach outlined in H.R. 350, so that both the
economic and environmental benefits of wetlands can be preserved.
Sincerely,
Don Edwards
Don Edwards, M.C.
Norman Y. Mineta, M.C.
Edward Edward J. Markey, J. Markey RoaddV.Dell Ronald V. Dellums, M.C.
M.
Howards Howard L. Berman, Barnan M.C.
Gase Millar
George Miller, M.C.
Lane Evans
James L. Cherstar
Lane Evans, M.C.
James L. Oberstar, M.C.
Major F. Owens, M.C. Georgol George E Brown, Jr., Broup. M.C.
Barce Brace F Vento, M.C. Anthony C. Beilenson, Beilenser M.C.
Gary & adam
Gary L. Ackerman, M.C.
John Conyers, Jr.
Publiphe Shap
Marty Martin Meehan, Mah M.C.
Christopher Shays, M.C.
John John W. Olver, W M.C. Olver Maurice D. Hinchey, M.C.
Thomas 10m H. Andrews, ndreas M.C. Jack Jack Reed, Reed M.C.
Canh Carolyn B. B. Maloney, Malay M.
Sana Eshoo
Anna G. Eshoo, M.C.
Pete Stark
Namey Pelosi
Pete Stark, M.C.
Nancy Pelosi, M.C.
Arthur Ravenel, M.C. Jay
George J. Hochbrueckner, M.C.
Ben Cardin
Bl Sad
Benjamin L. Cardin, M.C.
Bernard Sanders, M.C.
Jik Harry Johnston, M.C. Thomas M. Barrett Barrett, M.C.
Wayne T. Gilchrest
Wayne T. Gilchrest, M.C.
Lynn Schenk
Lynn Schenk, M.C.
lend Jerrold Nadler, nadler M.C. Ronald D. Coleman, M.C.
Beo Filmer
Eouns Bob dolphus Filner, Towns, M.C. M.C. Andrew Dan Hamburg Jacobs, M.C Jt., M.C.
Lym Zynn C. Woolsey Woolsey,
Julian C. Dixon, M.C.
Karen Shepher D
Karen Shepherd, M.C.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 21, 1993
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Cardin:
The President has asked that I respond to your letter of
August 5 regarding your concerns about federal wetlands policy
and H.R. 350, the Wetlands Reform Act. I apologize for the delay
in my response.
President Clinton and Vice President Gore are committed to
the preservation of our natural resources in a way that leads to
strong and sustainable economic growth. This Administration
shares your concerns about the uncertainties surrounding wetlands
policies of the past.
As you know, an Interagency Working Group on Federal
Wetlands Policy was convened on June 4 to review and seek to
clarify the issues surrounding federal wetlands policy in
anticipation of the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. It
included representatives of all federal agencies involved in, or
impacted by, the protection of wetlands. In addition, the
working group solicited a broad range of views, including those
of the Congress; state and local government; environmentalists;
developers and homebuilders; agricultural interests; and others.
The Administration policy that was announced in August is very
consistent with the policies proposed in your letter.
I look forward to working with you to ensure the effective
implementation of an ecologically sound wetlands policy during
the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Kate Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
032356
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Mashington, 93 AHC 205155 00
August 5, 1993
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We understand that you are currently in the process of
formulating an official position on federal wetlands policy. We
would like to urge you to adopt a position that is closely in
line with H.R. 350, the Wetlands Reform Act, currently
cosponsored by 80 members of Congress.
We know you are aware of the importance of preserving our
wetlands, and commend you for your support of a "no net loss" of
wetlands policy. Because Congress is moving closer to acting
legislatively on this issue, we feel that your involvement now
could have a critical impact on the outcome of this debate and
help end the polarization that has developed over this issue.
At a minimum, wetlands policy should accomplish the following:
it should stem the loss of 300,000 acres of wetlands annually; it
should streamline the permit process; it should improve wetlands
regulations so that they are uniformly applied; and it should
establish a more incentive-based approach to preserving
privately-held wetlands. We believe that H.R. 350 offers
reasonable and workable solutions that would achieve these
reforms within the framework that currently exists.
To strengthen protections for wetlands, H.R. 350 would amend the
Clean Water Act to include explicitly a provision covering the
protection of wetlands and expand the number of activities
covered under the Act to all that are harmful to wetlands. The
careful tracking of the impact of the permit program and
mitigation efforts on wetlands would also be required. Finally,
it would direct more personnel and resources to agencies that
oversee wetlands policy.
To streamline the permit process and make it more workable to
private landowners, H.R. 350 would establish a fast track to
process minor permits within a period of 60 days. Other helpful
provisions would direct the Corps to assist small landowners with
wetlands delineations, accelerate the completion of the National
Wetlands inventory maps by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
clarify exemptions for normal and ongoing farming practices.
Many of the complaints that the system is unworkable arise from
the uneven application of wetlands regulations. We believe this
can be remedied through better training of wetlands delineators,
and through better coordination of delineation methods.
We also would like to stress the importance of scrutinizing
proposals that would seriously erode our wetlands base. We are
particularly opposed to calls for a national wetlands
classification system. Such a task would be an inefficient use
of scarce resources, and according to the Fish and Wildlife
Service, it would cost $18 billion to implement. In addition,
ratings would have to be based on very subjective criteria.
We also urge you to resist pressure to broaden the application of
the Fifth Amendment takings clause to the limitation of property
rights that results from wetlands regulations. Restrictions on
the use of wetlands property often serve to protect the health
and safety of other nearby properties. To be able to evaluate
carefully the unique facts of each case, questions on takings
must be left to the courts to be considered on a case by case
basis.
The best chance for expanding our wetlands base lies in wetlands
restoration efforts. However, it is shortsighted to look to
mitigation banking as a solution that would allow wetlands to be
destroyed for development projects by creating or contributing to
a mitigation bank elsewhere. Studies have shown that efforts to
restore or create wetlands have had mixed results, and
replacement wetlands are often unsatisfactory because they rarely
perform as many or even the same functions as the natural
wetlands they replace.
Because 74 percent of the nation's remaining wetlands are
privately owned, we must look more toward incentive-based
approaches to protecting wetlands. We urge support for the
Wetlands Reserve Program, as well as tax incentives that
encourage the donation of land to qualified conservation
organizations or that promote limiting activities on wetlands to
compatible uses.
The need to preserve our wetlands has been made especially clear
by the tragic floods now occuring in the Mississippi Valley.
Contributing to the severity of the flooding is the fact that 75%
- 90% of the wetlands in the region have been lost. In order to
resolve the debate over wetlands quickly and fairly, we urge you
to adopt the approach outlined in H.R. 350, so that both the
economic and environmental benefits of wetlands can be preserved.
Sincerely,
Don Edward
Don Edwards, M.C.
Norman Y. Mineta M.C.
Edward M.
Edward J. Markey, J. Markey RoaddV.Dell Ronald V. Dellums, M.C.
Gase Millar
Howard L. Berman, M.C.
George Miller, M.C.
Lane Evans
James L. Cherstar
Lane Evans, M.C.
James L. Oberstar, M.C.
Major R. Owens, M.C. Georget George B Brown, Jr., Broup. M.C.
Baure Brace F Vento, M.C. Anthony C. Beilenson, Beilenser M.C.
Gary & Adam
Gary L. Ackerman, M.C.
John Conyers, Jr.
Rabbe Shap
Marty Martin Meehan, Mah M.C.
Christopher Shays, M.C.
John John W. Olver, W M.C. Olver Maurice D. Hinchey, M.C.
Thomas 10m H. Andrews, ndreas M.C. Jack Jack Reed, Reed M.C.
Canh Carolyn B. B. Maloney, Malay M.
Sana Eshoo
Anna G. Eshoo, M.C.
Pete Stark Namey Pelosi
Pete Stark, M.C.
Nancy Pelosi, M.C.
Arthur Ravenel, M.C. Jesep
George J. Hochbrueckner, M.C.
Ben Cardin
Bl Sad
Benjamin L. Cardin, M.C.
Bernard Sanders, M.C.
Harry Johnston, M.C. Thomas M. Barrett Barrett, M.C.
Wayne T. Gilchrest
Wayne T. Gilchrest, M.C.
Lynn Schenk
Lynn Schenk, M.C.
Jerrold Nadler, M.C. Ronald D. Coleman, M.C.
Beo Filmer
Eouns Bob dolphus Filner, Towns, M.C. M.C. Andrew Dan Hamburg, Jacobs, M.C. Jt., M.C.
Lym Lynn C. Woolsey Woolsey, M.C.
JPCWx Julian C. Dixon, M.C.
Karen Shepher
Karen Shepherd, M.C.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 22, 1993
The Honorable Gary Condit
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Condit:
The President has asked that I respond to your letter of
August 4 regarding the implementation of laws affecting the
allocation of water in California. It was good to hear from you,
and I sincerely apologize for the delay in my response.
As you know, I share President Clinton's commitment to the
preservation of our environment in a way that leads to strong and
sustainable economic growth. Last spring, I contacted Governor
Pete Wilson regarding the protection of Bay-Delta water quality.
I wish to reaffirm this Administration's commitment to
coordinated management of water resources in California in a
manner which serves the interests of all the state's residents.
Coordination of the activities of the Federal agencies is,
as you rightly point out, of great importance to the overall
success of the effort, and we are making significant and
unprecedented progress on that front. Very close integration of
the Federal efforts with state responsibilities is also vital,
and we are continuing to work with the regional agency
representatives to ensure that they are working closely with the
relevant state agencies and all affected parties.
Once again, thank you for your letter on this important
matter, and I would welcome any additional assistance you could
provide as we proceed.
Sincerely,
Katie
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Congress of the United States
house of Representatives
Mashington, 48519 P4: 59
August 4, 1993
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to urge you to take immediate steps to ensure that
federal agencies responsible for implementing laws affecting the
allocation of water in California act in a coordinated manner to
protect both the state's economy and its environment.
No fewer than four federal agencies now exercise control over the
water supplies for 19 million Californians and nearly 5 million
acres of farmland. Each of these agencies, acting separately
under the authority of a variety of federal laws, is preparing a
long-term plan for the protection of fish, wildlife and water
quality in California's Bay-Delta Estuary and the Central Valley.
Individually and collectively, these federal actions have the
potential to have significant adverse impacts on California's
struggling economy. We recognize that effective protection and
restoration of the environment sometimes produce adverse economic
consequences that simply cannot be avoided. However, we are
greatly concerned that the economic impacts of federal actions in
the Bay-Delta are being exacerbated by a lack of high-level
coordination among the agencies involved.
Interim actions by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to protect
endangered species in the Bay-Delta have already resulted in
severe reductions in water supplies in the San Joaquin and
Sacramento valleys. Further reductions of agricultural and urban
supplies may also occur with full implementation of the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act by the USFWS and the Bureau of
Reclamation. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency
will in the near future establish water quality standards for the
Bay-Delta that will almost certainly disrupt water supplies for
agricultural and urban users throughout the state.
Although there is some cooperation among the responsible federal
agencies at the regional level, some of them continue to act
separately and seemingly without regard for the cumulative
effects of their individual decisions on the environment or the
economy.
The President
August 4, 1993
Page 2
Consequently, small agricultural communities and large cities
such as Los Angeles are facing a series of separate, overlapping
federal mandates whose timing, scope and impacts are unclear.
The resulting uncertainty has undermined agricultural and urban
planing, financing and development.
We were pleased that your Administration has recognized this
problem and its possible solution. On May 27, 1993, Kathleen
McGinty, Director of the White House Office on Environmental
Policy, wrote to Governor Pete Wilson to assure him of your
Administration's commitment to coordinated management of
California's water resources under a policy that seeks to
"protect the health of the Bay-Delta environment and achieve
reliable supplies for water users."
However, that commitment to a coordinated effort to balance
competing demands is not always reflected in actions of agency
personnel at the regional level, who at this point appear to be
largely responsible for the development and implementation of
federal water policy in California.
Decisions affecting millions of Californians should not be left
entirely in the hands of a few federal technicians pursuing the
sometimes narrow goals of their separate agencies. Rather,
federal agencies involved in the Bay-Delta must act in a
coordinated, unified manner under the guidance of a comprehensive
policy aimed at fully complying with environmental protection
laws while minimizing adverse economic impacts.
We urge you to appoint a cabinet-level task force to direct and
coordinate all federal activities in the Bay-Delta and to ensure
that those activities reflect the Administration's commitment to
solve environmental problems while assuring a reliable supply of
water for California's agricultural and urban users.
It is our strong belief that such an inter-agency effort should
be led by the Secretary of the Interior. Secretary Babbitt
demonstrated an ability to resolve highly complex water resource
conflicts while he was Governor of Arizona, and he is respected
by California environmentalists and water users alike. He would
provide exactly the type of strong and innovative leadership that
is required to resolve the daunting water allocation issues we
face in California.
The State of California also must accept responsibility for
addressing its water problems. The burden cannot be the federal
government's alone. But it is your Administration that now has
the opportunity to provide the leadership and direction necessary
The President
August 4, 1993
Page 3
to resolve water conflicts that have divided Californians for a
generation. It is an opportunity that none of us can afford to
miss.
Sincerely,
Hon. Cal Daday Cal Dooley
RichardLel
Hon. Rick Lehman
Cigaret Vie 1gm
Hon. Gary Condit
Hon. Vic Fazio
CC: Hon. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, Department of the Interior
Hon. Ronald Brown, Secretary, Department of Commerce
Ms. Carol Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency
Ms. Kathleen McGinty, Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 21, 1993
The Honorable Ronald D. Coleman
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Coleman:
The President has asked that I respond to your letter of
August 5 regarding your concerns about federal wetlands policy
and H.R. 350, the Wetlands Reform Act. I apologize for the delay
in my response.
President Clinton and Vice President Gore are committed to
the preservation of our natural resources in a way that leads to
strong and sustainable economic growth. This Administration
shares your concerns about the uncertainties surrounding wetlands
policies of the past.
As you know, an Interagency Working Group on Federal
Wetlands Policy was convened on June 4 to review and seek to
clarify the issues surrounding federal wetlands policy in
anticipation of the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. It
included representatives of all federal agencies involved in, or
impacted by, the protection of wetlands. In addition, the
working group solicited a broad range of views, including those
of the Congress; state and local government; environmentalists;
developers and homebuilders; agricultural interests; and others.
The Administration policy that was announced in August is very
consistent with the policies proposed in your letter.
I look forward to working with you to ensure the effective
implementation of an ecologically sound wetlands policy during
the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Katie Kathleen McSup
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
032356
Congress of the United States
house of Representatives
Mashington, 93 THE 205155 : 00
August 5, 1993
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We understand that you are currently in the process of
formulating an official position on federal wetlands policy. We
would like to urge you to adopt a position that is closely in
line with H.R. 350, the Wetlands Reform Act, currently
cosponsored by 80 members of Congress.
We know you are aware of the importance of preserving our
wetlands, and commend you for your support of a "no net loss" of
wetlands policy. Because Congress is moving closer to acting
legislatively on this issue, we feel that your involvement now
could have a critical impact on the outcome of this debate and
help end the polarization that has developed over this issue.
At a minimum, wetlands policy should accomplish the following:
it should stem the loss of 300,000 acres of wetlands annually; it
should streamline the permit process; it should improve wetlands
regulations so that they are uniformly applied; and it should
establish a more incentive-based approach to preserving
privately-held wetlands. We believe that H.R. 350 offers
reasonable and workable solutions that would achieve these
reforms within the framework that currently exists.
To strengthen protections for wetlands, H.R. 350 would amend the
Clean Water Act to include explicitly a provision covering the
protection of wetlands and expand the number of activities
covered under the Act to all that are harmful to wetlands. The
careful tracking of the impact of the permit program and
mitigation efforts on wetlands would also be required. Finally,
it would direct more personnel and resources to agencies that
oversee wetlands policy.
To streamline the permit process and make it more workable to
private landowners, H.R. 350 would establish a fast track to
process minor permits within a period of 60 days. Other helpful
provisions would direct the Corps to assist small landowners with
wetlands delineations, accelerate the completion of the National
Wetlands inventory maps by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
clarify exemptions for normal and ongoing farming practices.
Many of the complaints that the system is unworkable arise from
the uneven application of wetlands regulations. We believe this
can be remedied through better training of wetlands delineators,
and through better coordination of delineation methods.
We also would like to stress the importance of scrutinizing
proposals that would seriously erode our wetlands base. We are
particularly opposed to calls for a national wetlands
classification system. Such a task would be an inefficient use
of scarce resources, and according to the Fish and Wildlife
Service, it would cost $18 billion to implement. In addition,
ratings would have to be based on very subjective criteria.
We also urge you to resist pressure to broaden the application of
the Fifth Amendment takings clause to the limitation of property
rights that results from wetlands regulations. Restrictions on
the use of wetlands property often serve to protect the health
and safety of other nearby properties. To be able to evaluate
carefully the unique facts of each case, questions on takings
must be left to the courts to be considered on a case by case
basis.
The best chance for expanding our wetlands base lies in wetlands
restoration efforts. However, it is shortsighted to look to
mitigation banking as a solution that would allow wetlands to be
destroyed for development projects by creating or contributing to
a mitigation bank elsewhere. Studies have shown that efforts to
restore or create wetlands have had mixed results, and
replacement wetlands are often unsatisfactory because they rarely
perform as many or even the same functions as the natural
wetlands they replace.
Because 74 percent of the nation's remaining wetlands are
privately owned, we must look more toward incentive-based
approaches to protecting wetlands. We urge support for the
Wetlands Reserve Program, as well as tax incentives that
encourage the donation of land to qualified conservation
organizations or that promote limiting activities on wetlands to
compatible uses.
The need to preserve our wetlands has been made especially clear
by the tragic floods now occuring in the Mississippi Valley.
Contributing to the severity of the flooding is the fact that 75%
- 90% of the wetlands in the region have been lost. In order to
resolve the debate over wetlands quickly and fairly, we urge you
to adopt the approach outlined in H.R. 350, so that both the
economic and environmental benefits of wetlands can be preserved.
Sincerely,
Don Edwards
Don Edwards, M.C.
Norman Y. Mineta, M.C.
Edward M.
Edward J. Markey, J. Markey RoaddV.Dell Ronald V. Dellums, M.C.
Gase Millar
Howard L. Berman, M.C.
George Miller, M.C.
Lane Evans
James L. Cherstar
Lane Evans, M.C.
James L. Oberstar, M.C.
Major F. Owens, M.C. Georget George E Brown, Jr., Broup. M.C.
Barce Brace F. Vento, Drato M.C. Anthony C. Beilenson, Beilenser M.C.
Gary &
Gary L. Ackerman, M.C.
John Conyers, Jr.
Christopher Publipher Shays, Shap M.C. Marty Martin Meehan, Mah M.C.
John
John W. Olver, W M.C. Olver Manine Rinchey Maurice D. Hinchey, M.C.
Thomas lom H. Andrews, ndreas M.C. Jack Jack Reed, Reed M.C.
Canh Carolyn B. B. Maloney, Malay M.
Sana Eshoo
Anna G. Eshoo, M.C.
Pete Stark
Namey Pelosi
Pete Stark, M.C.
Nancy Pelosi, M.C.
Cullear Arthur Ravenel, M.C. Jay
George
J.
Hochbrueckner,
M.C.
Ben Cardin
Bl Sad
Benjamin L. Cardin, M.C.
Bernard Sanders, M.C.
Harry Johnston, Jack Ton M.C. Thomas M. Barrett Barrett, M.C.
Wayne T. Gilchrest
Wayne T. Gilchrest, M.C.
Lynn Schenk
Lynn Schenk, M.C.
Jerrold Nadler, M.C. Ronald D. Coleman, M.C.
Beo Filmer
Eouns Bob dolphus Filner, Towns, M.C. M.C. Andrew Dan Hamburg Jacobs, M.C. Jt., M.C.
Lym Lynn C. Woolsey Woolsey, M.C.
JPCWx Julian C. Dixon, M.C.
Karen Shepher D
Karen Shepherd, M.C.