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
120359296
label
[E-August 1993] [Loose]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120359296
contentType
document
title
[E-August 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
120359296
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg1-037-015-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f17b6e1285472c7f
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:
[E - August 1993] [Loose]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
5
2
2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 11, 1993
Ms. Nancy Edwards
11546 Poema Place, #204
Chatsworth, CA 91311
Dear Ms. Edwards:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts about
the Animal Damage Control Act.
We are in the process of reviewing our policy with the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior on
this very important matter. I agree that further study of the
options involved is necessary for an informed and balanced
decision to be made. Be assured that we will give every
consideration to your concerns as we look at this issue.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Sincerely,
Katten a. Mang
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
Date
7/29/93
Kathleen McGinty
Old Executive Office Building, Room 358
Washington, DC 20501
Dear Ms. McGinty:
We urge you to do everything in your power to bring to an end the
outdated, tax-supported federal war on wildlife being waged by the
Animal Damage Control (ADC) Program.
The ADC exists as a blatant subsidy to the livestock industry.
Taxpayers should not be expected to provide a zero-risk environment
for anyone. We want a more efficient government in which public
interests, not private interests, are served first.
The ADC Predator Control Program is neither cost effective nor bio-
logically sound. In 1992, the ADC spent over 45 million taxpayer
dollars to kill wildlife on public lands and to develop poisons and
control techniques for wild animals. Most of these techniques are
indiscriminate and place threatened and endangered species in jeo-
pardy.
Animals, quite obviously, have different attributes and capabili-
ties than humans; but every sentient creature has inherent value
and the primary right not to suffer needlessly. Just as intelli-
gence is not a criterion for determining the rights of humans,
neither should it be for non-human animals.
The ADC's killing methods of poison baits, traps, snares, denning,
and aerial gunning are not only indiscriminate, but cause uncon-
scionable pain and suffering to many precious creatures. This in-
humane insanity must stop.
Please speak out on behalf of these helpless, voiceless beings.
Protect our natural heritage.
Most sincerely,
Nancy Edwards
115461 Poema Pl. #20Y
Chatsworth CA 91311
Member of WHAT WE CAN DO
Letters on Behalf of Animals
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animlas are treated." - Gandhi
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 2, 1993
Mr. Larry Edwards
Greenpeace
Alaska Forests Campaign
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the proposed change in
the U.S. Forest Service administrative appeals regulation. It
was good to hear from you, and I apologize for the delay in my
response.
As you know, I share President Clinton's and Vice President
Gore's commitment to the preservation of our environment. In
response to overwhelming interest on this issue, the Forest
Service extended the public comment period on the administrative
appeals process to last 45 days. I appreciate learning your
thoughts about this matter.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
3
GREENPEACE
D
Alaska Forests Campaign
Box 6001
Sitka, Alaska 99835
907-747-8996
1
Larry Edwards
N
May 27, 1993
FAX
R-360
(I)
w
FOR: Katie McGinty
Office of Environmental Policy
The Whitehouse
I
8 PAGES FOLLOW
VI
:
Dear Katie,
The Alaska Region of the Forest Service
and the Stikine Area Office have taken
actions to unduly restrict the time allowed
a
to submit appeals on the North and East Kuiu
Plan, and at the same time has denied the
public meaningful access to the planning
record.
IT
Since time is running short for
Q
correcting these injustices before logging
E
and road building begin under the plan, I am
a
sending you copies of emergency requests I
have made of the Chief of the Forest
Q
In
Service. I am sending them to you in hopes
that higher levels of the administration can
come to our aid. By "our" I mean
approximately 13 environmental, community and
tribal organizations which have participated
in the planning process and are preparing to
appeal.
Thanks for whatever you can do to help
us.
Sincerely,
T.
.
J y Edward
0
Recycled peper.
MAY-27-93 THU 9:19 Larry Edwards
P.02
Adelaide
Amsterdam
Anchorage
Auckland
Brussels
Buenos Aircs
Chicago
Copenhagen
Dublin
Gothenberg
Humburg
Lowes-UK
Luxembourg
Madrid
Montrcal
New York City
Oslo
Palms de Mallores
Parls
Rome
Sun Francisco
San Joso- Costa Ricz
Seattle
Stockholm
Sydney
Toronto
Vancouver
Vienna
Washington
Zurich
GREENPEACE
Alaska Forests Campaign Box 6001 Sitka, Ak 99835 907-747-8996
May 24, 1993
Chief Dale Robertson
BY FAX
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
Dear Mr. Robertson:
I am writing concerning the denial to the public of its right
to due process in its review and appeal of the North and East Kuiu
Final Environmental Impact Statement ("Kuiu Plan"). The purpose of
this letter is to request that you extend the deadline for the
submission of appeals, in order that the rights of the public are
respected in full.
We request that you order the appeal period to remain open
through at least June 18 and that any actions allowed by the Record
of Decision (ROD) be stayed until the appeals have been considered.
We make this request for the following reasons:
1.
THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO THE PLANNING RECORD,
AND THE TIME THE RECORD WAS UNAVAILABLE FOR REVIEW SHOULD
BE ADDED TO THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR APPEAL SUBMISSION.
During a critical period of time, extending from publication
of the Kuiu Plan ROD on April 23 until tomorrow (May 25), the public
has been denied its entitled access to the administrative record and
project files for the Kuiu Plan. Public access to the administrative
record and project files was, to our knowledge, not attempted until
May 14. From that date to the present, access has been denied;
however the Forest Supervisor has promised improved access beginning
tomorrow. It remains to be seen how much access will be allowed.
Therefore we request that the deadline for submission of appeals be
extended from June 7 to June 18 at the earliest, and longer if full
access to the records is not allowed beginning tomorrow or if there
is delay in considering this request.
MAY-27-93 THU 9:20 Larry Edwards
GREENPEACE -- May 24, 1993
Page 2
The FEIS states:
"The public may also review the planning records at the
Forest Supervisor's Office located at 15-12th Street,
Petersburg, Alaska 99833."
The record has not been available for review as indicated however.
To date access to the record has been highly restricted. The
public has not been allowed to peruse the record, documents have only
been provided for review if selected "by title," an index to
documents (providing titles) was not available until late last week,
and an appointment is required to review documents.
Consequently only two documents have been obtained to date.
This is despite a conserted effort which I made to obtain access to
the record, beginning May 14 and spanning four working days. I made
a trip to Petersburg in order to review the record as the FEIS
indicated I could, but was denied the opportunity. While it appears
that better access to the record may be allowed beginning tomorrow,
valuable time and this opportunity to review the record have passed
by. Also, much effort which should have been spent on reviewing the
record and preparing our intended appeal had to be diverted to
battling Planning Staff Officer Michael Condon (the Forest Supervisor
was out of town) over access to the record. This is not right,
especally in view of the limited time allowed for submitting
appeals. We ask you to remedy this by extending the appeal
deadline.
The reason given by Mr. Condon for the near total suppression
of access is that the record contains FOIA-exempt documents and that
an appointment must therefore be made 80 that the researcher can be
"assisted" by a Forest Service employee. He said this is necessary
SO documents containing protected information on cultural sites or
attorney-client communications can be withheld, and that each
requested document would therefore have to be reviewed by the agency
employee before being passed to the requestor. He also said such
supervision was necessary SO that a record could be kept for Forest
Service attorneys of who saw which documents. He said that he had no
personnel available to oversee our review, and that an appointment
would be necessary. Thus, three types of delay are presented to the
public -- the need to await an appointment, the need to await
screening of individual documents by Forest Service personnel, and
the need to await production of the DATALIB index before documents
can be selected.
Our contention on the other hand is: that no requirement for
an appointment was stated in the FEIS, that requiring an appointment
is therefore and otherwise unreasonable, and that the Forest
Supervisor or planning team have had ample time to prepare the
planning record for completely unfettered public access and review.
The Record of Decision was signed January 20, 1993 -- four months
ago. In that length of time, documents containing legitimately FOIA-
exempt information could have easily been set aside or have had
GREENPEACE -- May 24, 1993
Page 3
specific sections redacted. In fact, this could have been done on an
on-going basis as documents were added to the record. Therefore
there should have been little or no need for supervision of citizen
reviewers by agency personnel. Finally, the desire of agency
attorneys to discover what documents the public might find of
interest is an unreasonable rationalization for the oppressive
restrictions to access.
From one of the few documents we were unable to obtain (1992-
'93 Kuiu APC Long-Term Sale Implementation Analysis Study Plan,
4/17/90, page 13) we note the following:
"Because this is a particularly high-visibility project, it
is essential that the planning process, including all
analysis and conclusions, be well documented. The records
will be current and organized in a fashion that facilitates
easy document retrieval."
"The planning record will be maintained by the team leader on
an on-going basis. An automated index of the record will be
maintained using the DATALIB software
During repeated visits to the S.O. on May 17, 18 and 19, I
was told by Mr. Condon (the former team leader and now the Planning
Staff Officer) that the DATALIB index was not available and would
take ten days to two weeks to obtain. He also said that it was only
out of the kindness of his heart that he would provide it at all,
since it was not an existing document and therefore not subject to
FOIA. Access to this index was essential to my review efforts since
I was shut out of the record unless I could request documents "by
title." This index should have been "maintained," up-to-date, and
immediately available to the public.
As it happened, on the afternoon of May 19 while battling Mr.
Condon for the timely production of a named document, he mentioned as
an after-thought that he had found a copy of the DATALIB index a
little while before. After a heated argument about producing it, he
agreed to expedite copying the index to provide a copy at the close
of business that day. The index was provided as promised; however,
my days in Petersburg were up, and I had to fly out early the next
morning. The index was therefore of very limited usefulness to me,
but I passed it on to interested environmentalists in Petersburg.
Attachment-B was received with the index in response to Attachment-A.
Becky Knight of Narrows Conservation Society (Petersburg) will avail
herself of an appointment subsequently obtained for tomorrow -- I
will be unable to return to Petersburg at that time.
In my 3-1/2 working days in Petersburg I had been able to
inspect only two documents from the record, plus the DATALIB index
(whose production was not timely). The purpose of my trip to
Petersburg -- a thorough review of the public record -- had been
COMPLETELY frustrated. Other environmental organizations that are
GREENPEACE -- May 24, 1993
Page 4
considering appealing the ROD were also interested in what my review
might reveal, and withholding the planning record is deterimental to
their appeal efforts as well as mine.
I therefore request that the time allowed for public appeal
be extended as described above and that any action under the ROD be
stayed until all appeals can be considered.
2.
THE TIME ALLOWED FOR PUBLIC APPEAL HAS BEEN CUT SHORT,
AND SHOULD BE RESTORED.
As you probably know, Greenpeace and other organizations that
are preparing appeals recently submitted a collective request for
emergency stay of the ROD to Regional Forester Mike Barton. This was
granted only in part. Action under the ROD was planned to commence
today, May 24, two weeks before the end of the 45 day appeal period
specified in the ROD (see ROD, page 36). Mr. Barton agreed to stay
that action until June 2, a critical five days before the end of the
appeal period on June 7. This effectively shortens the appeal period
to less than the number of days promised in the ROD.
This shortening of the appeal period is unfair and improper,
especially when combined with the denial of the planning record to
the public, as described above. I assure you that Greenpeace and
others who will appeal the North and East Kuiu ROD will raise very
substantial issues on appeal. I ask only that we be given a fair
shot at bringing our appeals -- meaning full access to the record for
the number of days originally allotted in the ROD, and no action
until our appeals have been considered.
Respectfully,
Larry Edwards
Alaska Forests Campaigner
Voice: 907-747-8996
FAX: 907-747-4801
CC: Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture
Jim Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture
The Honorable George Miller, Chairman, House Nat. Res. Committee
Katie McGinty, Office of Environmental Policy
Two PAGES ATTACHED.
United States
Forest
Alaska Region
Tongass National Forest
Department of
Service
Stikine Area
Agriculture
P.O. Box 309
Petersburg, AK 99833
ATTACHMENT
Reply To: 6270-1
B
Date: May 19, 1993
Larry Edwards, GREENPEACE
Becky Knight, Narrows Conservation Society
This is in response to your information request, made under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), dated May 19, 1993. In your letter you requested "an
index of all documents in the Planning and Administrative Record and freedom to
peruse and copy all documents". After submitting this initial request, Larry
Edwards made a subsequent visit to this office to request a copy of the Public
Involvement Plan for the North and East Kuiu Project.
Enclosed is a copy of the planning record index (85 pages). This index includes
a brief description of each document in the record. Also enclosed 1s the Public
Involvement Plan you requested (10 pages).
To "peruse and copy" documents in the planning record, you can set up an
appointment with Michael Condon of my staff. An appointment is necessary to
make sure that we have someone available to assist you in finding and copying
documents and also to make sure that FOIA excempt documents are removed from any
records you review. At your option, you may select individual documents from
the planning record index, and copies will be provided to you.
It is my understanding that your use of these documents is in the public
interest and not for commercial gain and so I waive any fees associated with
gathering and copying this information.
In your request you stated that you felt you "have been treated improperly"
because you were denied immediate access to the planning record. Please
understand that I have a limited number of people and a significant workload.
If, in the future, you call shead to schedule a meeting and give us some advance
warning so that we can be prepared, we will be in a much better postion to meet
your scheduling needs.
Sincerely,
michal Condoz
Acting for
ABIGAIL R. KIMBELL
Forest Supervisor
FS.6200.28(7.22)
Adelaide
Amsterdam
Anchorage
Auckland
Brussels
Bucnos Aires
Chicago
Copenhagen
Dublin
Gothenberg
Hamburg
Lewes-UK
Luxembourg
Madrid
Montreal
New York City
Oslo
Pulma de Mallorca
Paris
Rome
San Francisco
San Jose. Costa Rica
Scattle
Stockholm
Sydney
Toronto
Vancouver
Vienna
Washington
Zurich
GREENPEACE
Alaska Forests Campaign Box 6001 Sitka, Ak 99835 907-747-8996
May 26, 1993
Chief Dale Robertson
BY FAX
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
Subj: Emergency Request for Determination on
Our KUIU APPEAL EXTENTION REQUEST of Yesterday.
Dear Mr. Robertson:
At the beginning of business your time yesterday, I sent you a
request for an extension of the time allowed for the public to appeal
the ROD for the North and East Kuiu FEIS. I am writing now to
provide additional information and to ask that the extension go
beyond the June 18 mentioned.
Yesterday Becky Knight of Narrows Conservation Coalition visited
the Stikine S.O. to review the Kuiu planning record. She was allowed
to select and review documents for about 2-1/2 hours, and in that
time was able to look at only about 20 of approximately 50 documents
she had selected for inspection. Her work was slowed by because
Planning Staff Officer Michael Condon interposed himself in the
process, retrieving documents from the file and reviewing them
himself first before delivering them for inspection.
While Ms. Knight is not doing this work for Greenpeace, she has
agreed to provide us (and other interested organizations) with the
information gleaned. Her work is of vital importance to us in
preparing our appeal. Full access to the project files is essential;
we have not had that yet, and it is now apparent that we will not
have it within the timeframe in which our appeal must be lodged.
Mr. Condon told Ms. Knight yesterday that he would be unable to
provide further access to the files until next week. Regional
Forester Mike Barton has however made a decision that timber from the
Kuiu Plan will be offered on June 2, next Wednesday. We are racing
to prepare our appeal by that deadline; however, we are placed at a
serious disadvantage by the unavailablity of documents. We need them
now. We have made a concerted effort to obtain them. They have been
denied to us. In view of the June 2 cutoff date, obtaining documents
next week, or even tomorrow, does us absolutely no good.
Therefore, at a critical time in the appeal process we have been
denied access to the vast majority of the planning record -- the
interested public has been able to obtain access to a grand total of
only about 23 documents since attempts to access the record began on
May 14. The clock should be left running on the length of the
extension (i.e. beyond the June 18 date mentioned earlier) because
access to the record is still highly restricted.
We urge you to make an immediate decision on our request for an
extension of time and a stay of action, 50 that we may know well the
before close of business (Alaska time) on Thursday whether our
request will be granted. The sooner we may know your decision the
better. We ask for Thursday SO that if your decision on our request
is affirmative, we will not waste considerable effort in preparing a
hurried appeal which we will have to redo later. Also, this is a
holiday weekend coming up.
In conclusion, the Stikine S.O. has unfairly denied the public
the freedom of information to which it is entitled. The need for
access to the information is time-critical because of the necessity
of preparing an appeal within a set period of time. The Regional
Forester and the Stikine S.O. together are taking advantage of this
fact by on the one hand making access to the record exceedingly
difficult, and on the other hand by lopping about one week off of
time allowed for appeal of decisions of this type. We urge you to
repudiate these unfair and un-American tactics by granting our
request.
Thank you for your consideration. You may reply by FAX to 907-
747-4801.
Sincerely,
Larry Edwards Edwards
Alaska Forests Campaigner
CC: Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture
Jim Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture
The Honorable George Miller, Chairman, House Nat. Res. Committee
Katie McGinty, Office of Environmental Policy
GREENPEACE
A
Alaska Forests Campaign
Box 6001
Sitka, Alaska 99835
907-747-8996
Larry Edwards
2
7
R-360
9
FOR KATIE M- GINTY
I
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY - WHITE HOUSE
6
N
00
a
MISSING PROE Focus
For EARLIER
R
TRANSMISSION.
E
a
0
T
C
Recycled paper.
MAY-27-93 THU 9:29 Larry Edwards
P.02
5/19/93
ATTACHMENT
TO: MICHAEL CONDON
A
PLANNING STAFF officer
From: Lorry EDWARDS, GREENPEACE
BECKY KNIGHT, NARROWS CONSENUATION SOCIETY
DEAR MR. CONDON,
WE ARE IN THE office TODAY TO too REVIEW THE
PLANNING RECORD (SEE FEIS/KUIU PAGE 1-2). WE
NEED THE IMMODIATE ACCESS TO THESE FICES AS PROVIDES
For IN THE EIS, sovo FICOS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESDAY
For PUBLIC REVIEW. WE OBJECT THES ACCEBS Hps BEEN
DENIED, AND FEEL WE HAVE BEEN TREATED IMPROPORLY.
GIVEN THE SITUATION WE HAVE THEROBY BEEN
PUT IN, WE ASK INSTEAD FOR PN INDEX ac pu
Do COMMONTS IN THE PLANNING AND DOMINISTRATHS RECORD
AND FREEDOM TO PERUSE AND Copy All Documents
WHICO PRE NOT "CLASSIFIED" (EXCEPT PORTIONS
WHICH ARE "CLASSIFIED" TO PROTECT SITE -SPECIFIC
CUCTURSE RESURCES OR PTTONNEY/CUENT PRIVLEDGE.
I & Edward LARRY EDWARDS BECKY KNIGHT
Body knight
P.S. PLEASE PUT P Copy of THIS CETTER IN THE
PLANNING RECORD.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 17, 1993
Mr. Edward F. Engle
1447 Old Town Road
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27106
Dear Mr. Engle:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns on the
Executive Order on Recycled Goods. It was good to hear from you.
I share President Clinton's and Vice President Gore's
commitment to preserving our environment in a way that leads to
strong and sustainable economic growth. Recycling is one of our
top priorities.
As you know, through the hard work and initiative of many
community and industry leaders, recycling has become almost
routine to many people. To really make recycling a success,
further outreach is needed to encourage both the supply and
demand for recycled products. To that end, the President
announced in his Earth Day speech his intention to sign an
Executive Order on recycled goods. This Executive Order will
strengthen the previous Federal Agency Recycling Order of October
1991 by requiring a revision of procurement guidelines for
recycled products, establishing new content standards for
recycled printing and writing paper, and encouraging federal
agencies to set procurement goals for recycled products. This is
an important first step.
The Excutive Order will also require that Federal Agencies
begin to procure printing and writing paper containing post-
consumer material. The purpose of this policy, among other
things, is to provide an incentive for pulp and paper mills to
use recovered materials, not just virgin materials, to make
paper. This will provide markets for paper recovered from the
municipal solid waste stream and ultimately result in
substantially lower prices for recycled papers contacting
recovered materials.
Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
KAM/avl
July 25, 1993
Ms. Katie McGinty
Director, Office of Environmental Policy
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500
**this paper contains 50%
post-consumer waste**
Dear Ms. McGinty,
I understand that a presidential order requiring federal
agencies to buy recycled paper with post-consumer material is
to be issued during August and that Mack McLarty met with paper
companies such as Georgia Pacific who want to weaken the already
somewhat weak standards being proposed. I respectfully urge
you to NOT to listen to those paper companies like Georgia
Pacific who have dragged their feet the last three years in
investing in deinking and other technologies while the country
has faced a solid waste crisis and the general public has cried
out for more markets for recycled paper.
A modest recycled content goal for 1996 and beyond would
do little to boost long term investment by paper companies in
recycling technologies. In addition it would give the Japanese
and European paper companies the edge in dominating the growing
future markets for recycled paper products.
There is NO evidence to indicate that even more ambitious
post-consumer recycled content standards cannot be met and it
is important to note that paper sales to federal agencies is
a voluntary program--one one is forcing Georgia Pacific to sell
to the federal government. The executive order would NOT force
anyone to invest in recyclable technologies, but simply provides
another incentive for paper companies to do so and therefore
be more socially responsible.
The proposed recycling standards being circulated provide
paper companies six years to invest in and build new deinking
capacity, yet, it only took 18 months for the Fox River Fiber
and Eco Fiber plants in Wisconsin to add 300 tons a day of post-
consumer deinking capacity so Georgia Pacific and others are
wrong when they say it cannot be done. Such investments will
save virgin timber, make the industry more efficient and
competitive, and create jobs.
Establishing a long-term recycled procurement standard
of less than 50% would penalize pro-jobs, pro-environment paper
companies such as Mohawk Paper in New York, Cross Pointe Paper
in Minnesota and others who have already made these socially
responsible investments. Please don't reward the inertia and
short-sightedness of paper companies such as Georgia Pacific.
I respectfully urge that the standard for post-consumer
for 1999 and beyond be increased to 50% and that short term
standards be maintained and not weakened from currently discussed
levels:
15% post-consumer in '94
20% "
"
in '96
25% "
II
in '97
Many thanks for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Edward F. Engle
1447 Old Town Rd.
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27106
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 3, 1993
oth
.E.
56345
contacting my office regarding the siting of
Lastrup, Minnesota. I apologize for the delay
I share President Clinton's and Vice President
to the preservation of our environment in a way
ng and sustainable economic growth.
learning your thoughts about the siting of the
rup, Minnesota. Again, thank you for sharing
me.
Sincerely,
Kathen a. Misis
Kathleen A. McGinty
Director, White House Office on
Environmental Policy
100/3rd St. S.E,
Little Falls, mn
56345
May 9, 1993
Dear Mr. Me Ginty,
I am writing to tell you the I am
opposed to the building of
GWEN tower at Lastrup, MIV.
I do not want this or any
other GWEN Tower to be built.
it is a waste of scarce resources
and not neassary.
Please do all in your power
to stop this and all EWEN
towers from being built.
Sincerely yours,
Mary Eltgroth