HEADVV ATERS FORFST ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R 2866 

TO PROVIDE FOR THE SOUND MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF 

REDWOOD FOREST AREAS IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BY 

ADDING CERTAIN LANDS AND WATERS TO THE SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST AND BY INCLUDING A PORTION OF SUCH LANDS IN 

THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM 

78-C78 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

OCTOBER 12, 1993 

Serial No. 103-52 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 1994 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

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

ISBN 0-16-044174-9 
COMMI'ITEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

AUSTIN J . MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californi11 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

Ranking &publican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KlsH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PuBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

PETER A DEFAZIO, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii , 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

MAURICE HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J . MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, 

Ranking Republican Member 

ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

RICHARD HEALY, Staff Director 

JAMES BRADLEY, Professional Staff Member 

CHARLENE SEAMENS, Clerk 

KURT CHRISTENSEN, &publican Consultant on Public Lands 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: October 12, 1993 ............................................................................. . Text of the bill: H.R. 2866 ...................................................................................... . Member statements: 

Hon. Bruce F. Vento ........................................................................................ . Hon. Craig Thomas ......................................................................................... . Hon. James V. Hansen .................................................................................... . Hon. John T. Doolittle ..................................................................................... . Witness statements: 

Panel consisting of: Hon. Dan Hamburg, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ........................................................................................... . Hon. Fortney Pete Stark, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ................................................................................. . George M. Leonard, Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, accompanied by Dr. C. John Ralph, research wildlife 

biologist, Pacific Southwest Station; Phillip Detrich, forest species specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; 

and Paul Tittman, chief appraiser, Forest Service .................. ................. . Panel consisting of: Bonnie Raitt, singer and activist, Elk, CA ............................................. . Cecelia Lanham, Environmental Protection Information Center, Eureka, CA ................................................................................................. . Kathy Bailey, chair for state forestry, Sierra Club, Philo, CA ............. . Dr. William Stewart, economist, Oakland, CA ...................................... . Panel consisting of: John A. Campbell, president and chief executive officer, The Pacific 

Lumber Company ................................................................................. . Gary C. Rynearson, president, Natural Resources Management Corporation ................................................................................................. .. Stan Dixon, county supervisor, Humboldt County, CA ............. ............ . Robert MacMullin, consulting forester, MacMullin Forestry and Logging ········································································································· Material submitted for the record from: 

Hon. Dan Hamburg: 1. Peter B. Moyle, University of California, Davis: Prepared statement ................................................................................................... . 2. S. Kim Nelson, research wildlife biologist, Oregon Cooperative 

Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis: Prepared statement ............................................................................... .. 

APPENDIX 

OcToBER 12, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record: Hon. Bruce Vento, Chair, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands: 1. Letter from Hon. Dan Hamburg to Chairman Vento dated October 

Page 

1 

2 

14 

14 

15 

15 

16 

18 

53 

72 

76 

85 

95 

119 

133 

142 

151 

29 

32 

25, 1993 ................................................................ ............ ................... 165 

2. Response from Chairman Vento dated November 5, 1993 ................ 166 

Hon. James V. Hansen: 1. Representative Hansen's letter to Gary Rynearson, Natural Re- sources Management, Inc., dated August 9, 1993 ........................... 167 

(III) 
IV 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record-Continued 

Hon. James V. Hansen-Continued 

2. Gary Rynearson's letter to Representative Hansen dated August 

25, 1993, with attachments, in response to Representative Hansen's August 9 letter regarding average values for old-growth 

and young-growth redwood timber types for Humboldt County .... National Audubon Society: Letter to Representatives Stark and Hamburg 

dated October 12, 1993, from Brock Evans, vice president for national 

issues ............................................................................................................. . National Wildlife Federation: Letter to Representative Hamburg dated 

October 12, 1993, from Jay D. Hair, president ........................................ .. American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association; Sport Fishing Institute; and Trout Unlimited: Letter to Representative Hamburg dated 

October 26, 1993 .......................................................................................... . Western Ancient Forest Campaign: Letter to Chairman Vento dated October 20, 1993, from Jim Owens, executive director, and prepared statement .............................................................................................................. . The Wilderness Society: Prepared statement of Louis Blumberg, assistant 

regional director, California/Nevada Office ............................................... . Sierra Club: Letter to Representative Hamburg dated June 25, 1993, 

~~&s~~t l:it!~~u~~=~:_~i~~ H~~b~ d~~d o~t;;b~~-~4; 1w3: from Alvin D. Mills, environmental director ............................................. . World Wildlife Fund: Letter to Representative Hamburg dated October 

25, 1993, from Michael Sutton, acting vice president, U.S. Land and 

Wildlife Program .......................................................................................... . The Pacific Rivers Council: Letter to Representative Hamburg dated October 20, 1993, from Bob Doppelt, executive director, and attached 

petition to list coho as an endangered species ........................................... . Natural Resources Defense Council: Letter to Representative Hamburg 

dated October 22, 1993, from Sami Yassa, senior project scientist ......... . Environmental Defense Fund: Letter to Representative Hamburg dated 

October 26, 1993, from Michael J. Bean, chairman, Wildlife Program .... Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission: Letter to Representative 

Hamburg dated October 21, 1993, from Guy N. Thornburgh, executive 

director .......................................................................................................... . The Pacific Lumber Company: Letter to Representative Doolittle dated 

October 26, 1993, enclosing prepared statements of: Thomas M. Herman, resource manager; Steven J. Kerns, certified wildlife biologist; 

Dr. Victor W. Kaczynski, fisheries scientist; and Steven M. Speich, 

research ecologist, Carnes & Moore, Inc.; John Henry Grobey, Humboldt State University with enclosed paper presented by Dr. Grobey 

to 53rd annual Redwood Region Logging Conference, March 1991 ......... . "Sawmill Jobs To Be Cut," Times-Standard news article ............................ . 

Page 

168 

171 

172 

173 

174 

187 

191 

192 

193 

194 

199 

200 

201 

202 

236 
H.R. 2866, TO PROVIDE FOR THE SOUND MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF REDWOOD 

FOREST AREAS IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA, 

BY ADDING CERTAIN LANDS AND WATERS 

TO THE SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST AND 

BY INCLUDING A PORTION OF SUCH LANDS 

IN THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PuBLIC LANDS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m. in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento (chair 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. VENTO. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands will be in order. This morning we are meeting toreceive testimony on H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act, introduced by Congressmen Hamburg and Stark of California, and cosponsored by a number of other Members, including myself. [The bill, H.R. 2866, follows:] 

(1) 
103n CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

2 

H.R.2866 

To provide for the sound management and protection of Redwood forest 

areas in Humboldt County, California, by adding certain lands and 

waters to the Six Rivers National Forest and by including a portion 

of such lands in the national wilderness preservation system 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 4, 1993 

Mr. !LumURG (for himself, Mr. STARK, Mr. STUDDS, Mr. GEPHARDT, Mr. 

MILLER of California, Mr. WAXJ.L\1\, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mrs. 

ScHROEDER, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. MII\""ETA, Mr. BRYAXT, Mr. VEI'TO, Mr. 

RA"""EI\""EL, Mr. ABERCROliiBIE, Mr. RICHARDSOK, Mr. S!IUTH of Iowa, 

Ms. FURSE, Mr. EDWARDS of California, Mr. SABO, Mr. BROW!' of Ohio, 

Mr. PosHARD, Miss CoLLIKS of Michigan, Mr. ACKER~L\1\, Mr. DELLIDIS, Mr. M'DREWS of Maine, Mr. OL"""ER, Ms. MOLII'ARI, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, Mr. BEILEI'SON, Mr. BEmlAN, Mr. 

BISHOP, Mrs. MI?-."K, Mr. BLACKWELL, Mr. SERRAXO, Mr. Boi\"10R, Mr. 

WASHIKGTON, Mr. BROW!' of California, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. COLE~, 

Mr. MFU11IE, Ms. WATERS, Mr. WATT, Mr. TORRES, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. 

RAHALL, Mr. CLYBURI', Mr. DIXOI', Mrs. COLLIKS of lllinois, Mr. 

KOPETSKI, Mr. LANCASTER, Mr. El'GEL, Ms. SHEPHERD, Mr. 

UI\'DERWOOD, Ms. EsHOO, Mr. l!I:SLEE, Mr. Po~IEROY, Ms. RoYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. JOHNSO!I: of South Dakota, Mr. EVAXS, Mr. LIPII'SKI, Mr. 

FALEO:MAVAEGA, Mr. MORA!~:, Mr. 0wEI'S, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. FARR of 

California, Mr. FILr-.""ER, Mr. HI!I:CHEY, Mr. ScHullER, Mr. FRA!I."K of 

Massachusetts, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. MARTII\""EZ, Mr. MCHALE, Mrs. MEEK, 

Ms. PELOSI, Mrs. Ul'SOELD, Ms. VELAzQUEZ, Mr. Ro!.IERO-BARCEW, 

Mr. SAI\'DERS, and Mr. SHARP) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred jointly to the Committees on Natural Resources and Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for the sound management and protection of 

Redwood forest areas in Humboldt County, California, 
3 

2 

by adding certain lands and waters to the Six Rivers 

National Forest and by including a portion of such lands 

in the national wilderness preservation system 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Headwaters Forest 

5 Act". 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that: 

8 (1) Redwoods are a significant national symbol 

9 and a defining symbol of the State of California. 

10 (2) Old growth redwood trees are a unique and 

ll irreplaceable natural resource. 

12 (3) Most of the Nation's old growth forests 

l3 have been cut. Less than 5 percent of the original 

14 2,000,000 acre Coast redwoods remain standing. 

15 The groves that are left are crucial to maintain habi16 tat needed for survival of old-growth dependent spe17 cies. The Headwaters Forest, for example, is home 

18 to one of California's three largest population of 

19 marbled murrelets, rare sea birds that nest only in 

20 coastal old growth trees; the Northern Spotted Owl; 

21 and native salmon stocks that spawn in the Forest's 

22 creeks. 

•HR 2866 m 
4 

3 

1 ( 4) The remaining unprotected stands of old 

2 growth forests and old growth redwoods are under 

3 immediate threat of being harvested without regard 

4 to their ecological importance and without following 

5 Federal timber harvest guidelines. 

6 ( 5) Significant amounts of old growth redwoods 

7 in the proposed National Forest additions are being 

8 cut at a pace that is based on paying high interest 

9 rates on poor quality bonds and not at a pace that 

10 is based on sound forest management practices. 

11 (b) PuRPOSE.-The purpose of this Act is to provide 

12 for the sound management and protection of old growth 

13 Redwood forest areas in Humboldt County, California, 

14 and to preserve and enhance habitat for the marbled 

15 murrelet, Northern Spotted owl, native salmon stocks, and 

16 other old growth forest dependent species, by adding cer17 tain lands and waters to the Six Rivers National Forest 

18 and by including a portion of such lands in the national 

19 wilderness preservation system. 

20 SEC. 3. ADDmON TO SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST. 

21 (a) EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES.-The exterior 

22 boundaries of the Six Rivers National Forest in the State 

23 of California are hereby extended to include the area com24 prising approximately 44,000 acres, as generally depicted 

25 on the map entitled "Six Rivers National Forest Addition 

•HRI888m 
5 

4 

1 proposed", dated June 1993. Such area shall hereinafter 

2 in this Act be referred to as the Six Rivers National Forest 

3 Addition. The map shall be on file and available for public 

4 inspection in the offices of the Forest Supervisor, Six Riv5 ers National Forest, and in the offices of the Chief of the 

6 Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 

7 (b) ACQUISITION OF LAND.-(1) The Secretary shall 

8 acquire lands or interests in land within the exterior 

9 boundaries of the Six Rivers National Forest Addition by 

10 donation, by purchase with donated or appropriated funds, 

11 or by exchange for other lands owned by any department, 

12 agency, or instrumentality of the United States. When any 

13 tract of land is only partly within such boundaries, the 

14 Secretary may acquire all or any portion of the land out15 side of such boundaries in order to minimize the payment 

16 of severance costs. Land so acquired outside of the bound17 aries may be exchanged by the Secretary for non-Federal 

18 lands within the boundaries, and any hmd so acquired and 

19 not utilized for exchange shall be reported to the General 

20 Services Administration for disposal under the Federal 

21 Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 

22 Stat. 377). Lands, and interests in lands, within the 

23 boundaries of the Headwaters Forest which are owned by 

24 the State of California or any political subdivision thereof, 

25 may be acquired only by donation or exchange. 

•HR 2888 m 
6 

5 

1 (2)! The Secretary is authorized to accept from the 

2 State of California funds to cover the cost of acquiring 

3 lands within the Headwaters Forest, and notwithstanding 

4 any other provision of law, the Secretary may retain and 

5 expend such funds for purposes of such acquisition. Such 

6 funds shall be available for such purposes without further 

7 appropriation and without fiscal year limitation. 

8 (c) LAND ACQUISITION PLAN.-The Secretary shall 

9 develop and implement, within 6 months after the enacttO ment of this Act, a land acquisition plan which contains 

11 specific provisions addressing how and when lands will be 

12 acquired under subsection (b). The plan shall give priority 

13 first to the acquisition of lands within the boundaries of 

14 the Headwaters Forest Wilderness identified on the map 

15 referred to in section 3(a). The Secretary shall submit cop16 ies of such plan to the Committee on Natural Resources, 

17 the Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on Ap18 propriations of the United States House of Representa19 tives and to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the 

20 Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and 

21 the Committee on Appropriations of the United States 

22 Senate. 

23 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There 

24 are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as 

25 may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. 

•HR 2866 m • 
7 

6 

1 SEC. 4. WILDERNESS AREAS. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.-In furtherance of the purposes of 

3 the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), lands in the 

4 State of California acquired under section 3 of this Act 

5 which are within the areas generally depicted on the map 

6 referred to in section 3 as the "Headwaters Forest Wilder7 ness (Proposed)" shall be designated as wilderness and 

8 therefore as a component of the National Wilderness Pres9 ervation System, effective upon acquisition under section 

10 3. Such lands shall be known as the Headwaters Forest 

11 Wilderness. 

12 (b) MAP AND DESCRIPTION.-As soon as practicable 

13 after the inclusion of any lands in the Headwaters Forest 

14 Wilderness, the Secretary shall file a map and a boundary 

15 description of the area so included with the Committee on 

16 Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and 

17 with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 

18 the United States Senate. The Secretary may correct cleri19 cal and typographical errors in such boundary description 

20 and such map. Each such map and boundary description 

21 shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 

22 Office of the Chief of the Forest Service, United States 

23 Department of Agriculture. 

24 (c) BUFFER ZONES NOT INTENDED.-The Congress 

25 does not intend that designation of any area as wilderness 

26 under this section lead to the creation of protective perim-

•HR 2868 IH 
8 

7 

1 eters or buffer zones around the wilderness area. The fact 

2 that nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard 

3 from areas within a wilderness shall not, of itself, preclude 

4 such activities or uses up to the boundary of the wilder5 ness area. 

6 (d) STATE AUTHORITY OVER FISH AND WILDLIFE.-

7 As provided in section 4(d)(8) of the Wilderness Act, noth8 ing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdic9 tion or responsibilities of the State of California with re1 0 spect to wildlife and fish in any areas designated by this 

11 Act as wilderness. 

12 SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION. 

13 (a) MANAGEMENT PLAN.-The Secretary shall de14 velop, within 1 year after the enactment of this Act, a 

15 comprehensive management plan detailing measures for 

16 the preservation of the existing old growth redwood 

17 ecosystems in the Six Rivers National Forest Addition, in18 eluding but not limited to each of the following: 

19 ( 1) Prohibition of sale of timber from lands 

20 within the old growth redwood groves as depicted 

21 generally on the map referred to in section 3(a). 

22 Timber sales in other areas shall be allowed consist23 ent with the purposes of this Act and other applica24 ble Federal Jaws and regulations. 

•HR 2868 Df 
9 

8 

1 (2) Measures to restore lands affected by pre2 vious timber harvests to mitigate watershed degrada3 tion and impairment of habitat for the marbled 

4 murrelet, spotted owl, native salmon stocks, and 

5 other old-growth forest dependent species ("Restora6 tion Measures"). 

7 The Manag~ment Plan shall be reviewed and revised every 

8 time the Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource 

9 Management plan is revised or more frequently as nec10 essary to meet the purposes of this Act. 

11 (b) APPLICABLE LAWS AND POLICIES.-(1) The Sec12 retary, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, 

13 shall administer the lands acquired under section 3 (b) in 

14 accordance with the Management Plan, this Act, and with 

15 the other laws, rules, and regulations applicable to such 

16 national forest. In addition, subject to valid existing 

17 rights, any lands acquired and designated as wilderness 

18 under section 4(a) shall also be administered in accord19 ance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act governing 

20 areas designated by that Act as wilderness, except that 

21 any reference in such provisions to the effective date of 

22 the Wilderness Act (or any similar reference) shall be 

23 deemed to be a reference to the date of acquisition of such 

24 lands under section 3 of this Act. 

•HR 2886 m 
10 

9 

1 (2) To the maximum extent practicable, all work to 

2 implement the management plan's Restoration Measures 

3 shall be performed by unemployed forest and timber work4 ers, unemployed commercial fishermen, or other unem5 ployed persons whose livelihood depends on fishery and 

6 timber resources. 

7 (3) In order to facilitate management, the Secretary, 

8 acting through the Chief of the Forest Service may enter 

9 into agreements with the State of California for the man1 0 agement of lands owned by the State or purchased with 

11 State assistance. 

12 SEC. 6. PAYMENTS TO WCAL GOVERNMENT. 

13 (a) PILT.-Solely for purposes of payments made 

14 pursuant to chapter 69 of title 31 of the United States 

15 Code, all lands added to the Six Rivers National Forest 

16 by this Act shall be deemed to have been acquired for the 

17 purposes specified in section 6904(a) of such title 31. 

18 (b) 10-YEAR PAYMENT.-(1) Subject to annual ap19 propriations and the provisions of subsection (c), for ape20 riod of 10 years after acquisition by the United States of 

21 lands added to the Six Rivers National Forest by this Act, 

22 the Secretary, with respect to such acquired lands, shall 

23 make annual payments to Humboldt County in the State 

24 of California in an amount equal to the State of California 

25 Timber Yield Tax revenues payable under the California 

•HR 2888 m 
11 

10 

1 Revenue and Taxation Code (sec. 38101 et seq.) in effect 

2 as of the date of enaetment of this Act that would have 

3 been paid with respect to such lands if the lands had not 

4 been acquired by the United States, as determined by the 

5 Secretary pursuant to this subsection. 

6 (2) The Secretary shall determine the amounts to be 

7 paid pursuant to paragraph ( 1) of this subsection based 

8 on an assessment of a variety of factors including, but not 

9 limited to10 (A) timber actually sold in the subject year 

11 from comparable commercial forest lands of similar 

12 soil type, slope and such determination of appro13 priate timber harvest levels, 

14 (B) comparable timber size class, age, and qual15 ity, 

16 (C) market conditions, 

17 (D) all applicable Federal, State, and local laws 

18 and regulations, and 

19 (E) the goal of sustainable, even-flow harvest or 

20 renewable timber resources. 

21 (c) CALIFORNIA TIMBER YIELD TAX.-The amount 

22 of State of California Timber Yield Tax payments paid 

23 to Humboldt County in any year pursuant to the laws of 

24 California for timber sold from lands acquired under this 

•HR 2888 Dl 
12 

11 

1 Act shall be deducted from the sums to be paid to Hum2 boldt County in that year under subsection (b). 

3 (d) 25-PERCENT FUND.-Amounts paid under sub4 section (b) with respect to any land in any year shall be 

5 reduced by any amounts paid under the Act of May 23, 

6 1908 (16 U.S.C. 500) which are attributable to sales from 

7 the same lands in that year. 

8 SEC. 7. FOREST STUDY. 

9 The Secretary shall study the lands within the area 

10 comprising approximately 13,620 acres and generally dell picted as "Study Area" on the map referred to in section 

12 3(a). The study shall analyze the area's potential to be 

13 added to the Headwaters Forest and shall identify the nat14 ural resources of the area including the location of old 

15 growth forests, old growth redwood stands, threatened and 

16 endangered species habitat and populations including the 

17 northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, commercial 

18 timber volume, recreational opportunities, wildlife and 

19 fish, watershed management, and the cost of acquiring the 

20 land. Within one year of the date of enactment of this 

21 Act, the Secretary shall submit a report with the findings 

22 of the study to the Committees on Natural Resources, and 

23 Agriculture of the United States House of Representatives 

24 and the Committees on Energy and Natural Resources, 

•HR 1888 m 
13 

12 

1 and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the United 

2 States Senate. 

0 

•BBJ868m 
14 

STATEMENT OF BON. BRUCE F. VENTO 

Mr. VENTO. H.R. 2866 would add approximately 44,000 acres to 

the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. The land is 

currently owned by the Pacific Lumber Company within the national forest addition. 

It would designate within the 44,000 acres, 3,000 acres special 

part of the forest addition as the Headwaters Wilderness. The 

lands involved contain the largest remaining stands of unprotected 

old-growth redwoods left in the Nation. Some of these giants are 

up to 300 feet tall, in excess of 15 feet in diameter, and 2,000 years 

in age. 

Furthermore, these lands provide one of the only three remaining 

nesting habitats in California for the Marbled Murrelet, which the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed as a threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Certainly, people are clearly concerned about our Nation's land 

policy and how these special lands are managed. Despite the 

unique characteristics of the old-growth redwoods as well as the 

old-growth Douglas fir and associated ecosystems of these forests, 

they are being logged at an unacceptable rate. Maxxam Corporation, which today owns this forested area, acquired such control in 

the mid-1980s by a hostile takeover of the Pacific Lumber Company. Maxxam fmanced much of its takeover activities with junk bonds, more kindly known as high-yield bonds, which have resulted 

in great pressure to turn this natural heritage of old-growth redwoods from a vertical to a horizontal position. Certainly, a question 

before the Nation and the committee is whether or not it is in our 

Nation's interest to liquidate a significant portion of America's remaining unprotected redwood giants to fund financial machinations 

of junk bond and corporate raiders. 

I believe that it is important to keep in mind that our Nation 

once had nearly 2 million acres of old-growth redwoods, the world's 

tallest living and largest living organism; and now only about 

95,000-less than 100,000-acres remain, less than 5 percent of 

the original forest. Ancient redwoods are without question a unique 

global heritage found nowhere else in the world. This is a uniquely 

American legacy. · We have within our ability and will to decide as stewards of 

these resources. The bill before us is patterned after a measure introduced by Mr. Stark in the last Congress, which evolved into the 

current version, refined and improved on by Mr. Hamburg. Mr. 

Stark is now an original co-sponsor, I note, of H.R. 2866. 

I appreciate the witnesses traveling to Washington to share their 

views and expertise. Without objection, all statements of Members 

and witnesses will be made part of the record in their entirety. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

All are encouraged to summarize so that we can expeditiously accommodate the long list of folks who are scheduled to participate. 

Mr. Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF BON. CRAIG THOMAS 

Mr. THoMAS. Thank you, sir. I don't have a formal statement. I 

am interested in this issue, of course, and as a matter of fact, don't 

have my prejudices arranged as I often do. 
15 

I am interested from a policy standpoint as it affects multiple 

use. I am also interested in the cost standpoint, as I understand 

it costs a billion-and-a-half dollars. Certainly I am interested in the 

economic impact as well. 

I must tell you I am pleased that this bill, for a change, does not 

affect my State of Wyoming, which has been under assault the last 

few months on quite a number of things that affect our economic 

interests. So that is a relief, and I am delighted that you all are 

dealing with it within your own state. That is great. 

I look forward to the testimony. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Ms. Shepherd. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. I would like to welcome you here. 

Thank you for sponsoring the bill and I am anxious to hear the 

testimony. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hansen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know too much 

about this bill. I have heard a little bit about it. 

I welcome our colleagues here. I look forward to the hearing, 

with a price tag of at least $1.5 billion-which is unbelievable to 

me; which is 50 percent more than the Forest Service has spent on 

land acquisition for the entire Nation in the last 27 years. 

Redwoods are already the most protected commercial species of 

trees in the world. According to the Save the Redwood League, 

there are over 265,000 acres of redwoods protected in Federal and 

State parks and preserves, and 90,000 acres of these are oldgrowth trees. 

I am intrigued at how we can justify spending over a billion dollars for redwood tracts that are 80 percent second-growth forest. 

The Forest Service already has a backlog of high-priority lands for 

acquisition of $660 million, and the lands in H.R. 2866 are not included as high priority lands by the agency. I will be very interested in hearing what the Forest Service has to say about that. 

How this committee can consider buying lands at $111,000 per 

acre--I have got a lot of lands out home I would sure like to sell 

for one-tenth of that. To increase this backlog at a time of record 

deficits is beyond my comprehension. However, I do look forward 

to the hearing today, and witnesses, and learning how we will pay 

for these lands, how many jobs will be lost in the timber industry 

and why the lands are more unique than 265,000 acres of redwoods 

already under protection. 

And the local feeling of folks in California, I am interested in 

hearing that. But this is one of those amazing bills that comes 

along occasionally. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Doolittle. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here and to hear the presentation. I think others have observed on 

the exorbitant cost. I can't imagine what we are thinking of, bor-
16 

rowing more money when we have got; $4.3 trillion in national 

debt to acquire yet more public land. Have people lost their minds? 

It is going to be interesting to hear the justification for this, especially since there are already 13 old-growth redwood groves permanently protected, which are larger than the headwaters forest proposal. 

I just think, Mr. Chairman, this is a matter that deserves very 

serious consideration, and I look forward to hearing the testimony. 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to welcome Congressman Dan Hamburg, from the First District of California, and Congressman Pete 

Stark from the 13th. And your statements have been made part of 

the record. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hamburg, please proceed, you can proceed with 

your statement. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF BON. DAN HAMBURG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND 

BON. FORTNEY PETE STARK. A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

STATEMENT OF BON. DAN HAMBURG 

Mr. HAMBURG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this 

hearing on the Headwaters Forest Act. I want to especially thank 

my colleague and coauthor, Mr. Pete Stark, who has worked on 

this bill and on this entire issue for the past several years. 

I am pleased to address you today about this bill, which is cosponsored by 89 of my colleagues in the House and endorsed by the 

Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Audubon Society, 

Greenpeace, and the Western Ancient Forest Campaign, among others. 

Few issues have galvanized the people of California's north coast 

more than the protection of the Headwaters Forest. Indeed, this 

forest has become a focal point statewide and nationally among 

those who believe that the last remnants of the ancient redwood 

forests should be preserved and protected. Of the original two million acres of these trees on the Pacific coast, only about 80,000 

acres remain standing today. 

The Headwaters Forest Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate a negotiation which, over time, will result in the 

transfer of approximately 44,000 acres of redwood forest in Humboldt County from private to public ownership. Eighty-eight percent of the land will be managed for multiple use, including timbering operations. 

The groves of old growth, just over 5,000 acres, will be placed off 

limits for any logging operations. This is the largest remaining unprotected virgin redwood forest in the world. Standing 300 feet 

high in these groves are some of the most magnificent life forms 

in creation. Giant redwoods, many of which are over 1,000 years 

old, anchor a now rare and fragile ecosystem. 

Use of bulldozers to harvest old-growth trees makl's the oldgrowth top soils particularly vulnerable to erosion. Erosion threatens the streams that begin and run through these forests. Located 

in highly erosive geologic formations, any additional sedimentation 
17 

threatens the spawning grounds of the anadromous fish that return to those waters. 

I wish to offer today for the record, Mr. Chairman, the testimony 

of Dr. Peter Moyle, Professor of Fisheries at the University of California at Davis, and the leading expert on coho salmon in the State 

of California. Dr. Moyle estimates that 5 to 10 percent of the remaining wild coho salmon left in California spawn in watersheds 

which will be protected by the Headwaters Forest Act and characterizes one population as exceptional by today's standards. The importance of his findings in light of the imminent listing of the coho 

salmon cannot be overemphasized. 

I would also like to draw attention to the declaration by Dr. 

Moyle in his testimony that his knowledge of coho in the Yager 

Creek drainage is limited, because Pacific Lumber Company denied 

him access for data collection. 

The Headwaters Forest Act calls for three of the most important 

steps necessary to arrest the collapse of coho and rebuild their 

stocks: low-impact logging, preservation of old-growth groves, and 

protection of headwaters areas to preserve downstream habitat. 

These old-growth groves are critically important for a number of 

terrestrial species as well. In addition to providing habitat for the 

celebrated spotted owl and the endangered bald eagle and peregrine falcon, these forests are one of three primary nesting sites 

in California for the marbled murrelet. 

Listed as threatened in 1992, the murrelet population in California is now estimated at 2,000, an estimated decline of 90 to 95 percent of their historic populations, a decline which is directly related 

to the loss of old-growth forest habitat. 

I would like to offer also for the record, Mr. Chairman, the written testimony of research wildlife biologist Kim Nelson of Oregon 

State University, who is chair of the Marbled Murrelet Technical 

Committee of the Pacific Seabird Group. Ms. Nelson concludes, and 

I quote, ''The acquisition and preservation of the Headwaters Fo~:­

est is key to the survival and the recovery of the Marbled Murrelet 

in the State of California." 

The Headwaters Forest ecosystem is far more than the sum of 

its parts, far more than important habitat for a number of threatened and endangered species. 

A great deal has been made of Maxxam, Inc.'s aggressive harvesting of these forests since acquiring Pacific Lumber Company 

with junk bond revenues in a takeover nearly eight years ago. The 

high quality and price of lumber manufactured from old-growth 

redwood make it a logical target for the company. But the oldgrowth ecosystem is simply not a renewable resource. Can we as 

a society afford to forfeit it to satisfy the corporate debt obligation 

of an investor who practiced the art of 1980s junk bond finance? 

In this case, the public interest is diametrically opposed to the corporate interest in profit. 

The public investment necessary to own and control this property 

is a matter of great debate and profound concern. An appraisal 

based on the stumpage value of every tree in the proposed 3,000-

acre Headwaters Wilderness area and a surrounding 1,500-acre 

buffer valued that portion of the property at hundreds of millions 
18 

of dollars. But no one can contend that the public should pay for 

value that could never be realized by the current owner. 

State and Federal regulations undeniably limit the harvest potential. Negotiations must establish a realistic value which is based 

on the actual ability to harvest. 

In the final analysis, after weighing all the evidence about the 

impact on jobs, about the need to avoid environmental train wrecks 

with respect to the murrelet and the salmon fishery, about the 

unique ecological significance of ancient forests, we will finally 

have to look within ourselves and make a decision about the public 

interest. 

We will have to make that decision without full knowledge because, in truth, we know very little about these magnificent forests. 

We do know, however, that there is a great deal more to learn 

about the hydrologic effects, the climactic effects, the whole life 

support system that is the ancient redwood forest of the Pacific 

Northwest. 

Even if we are far from a thorough understanding, we can no 

longer plead blind ignorance. We know that these forests are finite. 

We know that when they are cut there will inevitably be job loss 

unless the industry invests in remanufacturing. The question is not 

whether jobs harvesting and milling old-growth redwood will be 

lost, but when and whether the few irreplaceable ancient forests 

will be standing or gone forever. 

We know also that, in the largest sense, we are not separate 

from these forests. We, too, are part of the ecosystem. Undoubtedly, 

we gain when these giant trees cohabit the planet with us. We can 

pretend the problem just doesn't exist; or we can deal responsibly 

and creatively with the problem of the decline of our ancient forests, as this bill seeks to do, and be much richer for it in the long 

run. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. · Let's hear from your cosponsor, your major sponsor, Congressman Stark. Then we will ask questions of you both. 

Mr. Stark, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK 

Mr. STARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

today. 

Congressman Hamburg has described the legislation. I would 

like to just remind the subcommittee that Pacific Lumber Company 

was, and I emphasize was, a responsible timber company for over 

a hundred years. The history was altered forever by the junk bond 

finance buyout of Pacific Lumber by Maxxam controlled by Charles 

Hurwitz. Since Maxxam's takeover, the interests of the North 

Coast communities-sustainable timber harvests and the environment-have given way to the relentless need to make interest payments on bonds and send profits to Maxxam's Houston headquarters to keep that operation afloat. 

You will likely hear testimony about the wonderful history of Pacific Lumber. What they won't provide you with is the sordid history of Charles Hurwitz and Maxxam. Hurwitz's business associates in his acquisition of Pacific Lumber are the convicted felons, 
19 

Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky and Drexel Burnham Inc. Lawsuits from former Pacific Lumber shareholders are still pending on 

accusations of stock fraud by Hurwitz and Maxxam. 

Maxxam and Hurwitz are under investigation by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for a bankrupt thrift known as United 

Savings Association of Texas, and estimates are that Hurwitz and 

Maxxam could owe the Federal Government in excess of $500 million for, according to the Wall Street Journal, quote, "breach of fiduciary duty and wrongfully failing to maintain the net worth of 

a failed thrift linked to Michael Milken," not a bad place to start 

to get the $500 million. 

In order to show their concern for retirees from Pacific Lumber, 

Maxxam looted Pacific Lumber's pension fund of $60 million for 

other corporate buyouts and debt reduction. Maxxam purchased 

annuities at the now bankrupt Executive Life Insurance Company. 

This action put the retirees' pensions at risk. U.S. Labor Department sued Maxxam over this action, alleging Maxxam breached 

their fiduciary duty to members of Pacific Lumber's pension plan. 

That suit is pending. 

Once Maxxam owned Pacific Lumber, it immediately and significantly increased the cutting of redwoods, including virgin oldgrowth redwoods. Its rate of cut is double to triple the rate of harvest under the old Pacific Lumber Company. According to Newsweek, ''The Redwood Raider," as he was referred to, "began mowing 

down California's coastal redwoods." 

This level of cut was based on what is good for Maxxam's junk 

bond debt service, not what is good for the economic stability of 

California's north coast. The level of cut certainly was not based on 

any estimate of sustainable yield basis. There was no consideration 

of the pressures this cut would have on endangered species. 

Indeed, Maxxam's eagerness to chain saw thousand-year-old 

trees for quick profit has run them afoul of Federal and Californian 

endangered species laws. Maxxam is currently under investigation 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game for two apparently illegal cuttings of significant amounts of old-growth redwood in an area known as Owl 

Creek, a nesting area for the endangered Marbled Murrelet. According to the Wall Street Journal, Fish and Wildlife is considering 

seeking criminal charges. According to James Steele, the top State 

biologist for Owl Creek, they basically conducted a sneak attack 

out there. As he said, while pretending to look for Marbled 

Murrelets, Maxxam has renewed requests to cut down prime habitat areas like Owl Creek. 

I would like to address the issue of the cost of the legislation. It 

is obvious that every estimate that Maxxam will provide will obviously be inflated to scare off those of us who are concerned about 

the deficit. The value of the land will be determined by the court 

in any taking procedure; and the value of the land will be judged 

on what timber they are legally entitled to take, not that timber 

which they may illegally cut under Federal or State law. 

The land also should not be judged on what the timber would 

bring at the sawmill, as many of these trees won't be cut. This 

would reduce the value of the property substantially. 
20 

Legislation introduced, such as H.R. 1422, would impose a severance tax on old-growth redwoods, further reducing their value. And 

on the other side of the ledger, there will be income from the land 

to the Federal Government as the Forest Service-which would become the manager for the taxpayers of the United States-the Forest Service will then determine what is appropriate to harvest in 

a sustainable fashion so that we will have yield from this land into 

pe:rpetuity. 

That revenue will reduce the cost of any acquisition. The U.S. 

Government will have an asset. And I submit to you that unlike 

$6 or $8 million a year to provide water to corporate farmers in 

California, or $14 billion to build a useless aircraft carrier, we 

might really think of this asset as one of the few earning assets 

that our Federal Government might purchase. 

Mr. Chairman, Maxxam simply should not have stewardship 

over such an important, nonrenewable natural resource as the last 

unprotected virgin old-growth redwoods anywhere in the world. 

The Forest Service can manage these lands and respond to the values other than a quick profit. And they can manage the lands to 

the best interests of the taxpayers and the best interests of the citizens of this country. This legislation has broad national support. 

More than 80 of our colleagues and the Sierra Club, the Wilderness 

Society, National Audubon Society, support this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, I think when people hear that thousand-year-old 

virgin redwoods are being chain-sawed to pay off interest on junk 

bonds, the support for this legislation will grow; and I appreciate 

the subcommittee's consideration. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, thank you, thank you Mr. Stark. 

(Prepared statement of Mr. Stark follows:] 
FORTNEY ?ETE STARK 

THRTe£NYH QtSTRtCT. CAUF0ANcA 

·21 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 

CONGRESSMAN PETE STARK 

TESTIMONY BEFORE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

& PUBLIC LANDS 

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

OCTOBER 12, 1993 

WAYS 

~ 

AN> MEANS 

DISTRICT OF C01..UMB1A 

MR. CHAIRMAN and Members of the Committee, thank you very much for 

holding this important hearing today. I am pleased to join with my 

colleague, Mr. Hamburg in strong support for our legislation H.R. 2866, the 

Headwaters Forest Act. This legislation will provide protection for 

magnificent, virgin, old growth redwoods. These towering, living antiques 

deserve our protection. This legislation does that. 

Congressman Hamburg has described the legislation and the areas that are 

authorized to be acquired by the federal government. This Committee also 

addressed similar legislation I introduced last Congress and many Members 

are familiar with the issue. 

Pacific Lumber was a responsible timber company for over·lOO years. That 

history was altered forever by the junk-bond financed buyout of Pacific 

Lumber by Maxxam controlled by Charles Hurwitz. Since Maxxam's takeover 

the interests of the North Coast communities - sustainable timber harvests, 

and the environment -- have given away to the relentless need to make 

interest payments on bonds and send profits to Maxxam's Houston 

headquarters. 

Maxxam will likely provide you with testimony about the wonderful history 

~f Pacific Lumber. What they will not provide you with is the sordid history 

of Charles Hurwitz and Maxxam. Charles Hurwitz's business associates in his 

acquisition of Pacific Lumber are the convicted felons Michael Milken and 

Ivan Boesky and Drexel Burnham Inc.. Lawsuits from former Pacific Lumber 

shareholders are still pending on accusations of stock fraud by Hurwitz and 

Maxxam. · 
22 

Maxxam and Hurwitz are under investigation by the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation for a bankrupt thrift known as United Savings 

Association of Texas. Estimates are that Hurwitz and Maxxam could owe the 

federal government in excess of $500 million for, according to the Wall Street 

~"breach of fiduciary duty and wrongfully failing to maintain the net 

worth of a failed thrift linked to Michael Milken." 

In order to show their concern for retirees from Pacific Lumber, Maxxam 

looted Pacific Lumber's pension fund of $60 million dollars for other 

corporate buy-outs and debt reduction. Maxxam purchased annuities at the 

now bankrupt Executive Life Insurance Company. This action put the 

retirees' pensions at risk. The U.S. Labor Department sued Maxxam over this 

action alleging Maxxam breached their fiduciary duty to members of Pacific 

Lumber's pension plan. The suit is pending. 

Once Maxxam owned Pacific Lumber, it immediately and significantly 

increased the cutting of redwoods, including virgin, old growth redwoods. 

Maxxam's rate of cut is double to triple the rate of harvest under the old 

Pacific Lumber. According to Newsweek. July 27, 1993, the "Redwood 

Raider. .. began mowing down California's coastal redwoods." This level of 

cut was based on what is good for Maxxam's junk bond debt and interest 

payments, not what is good for the economic stability of California's North 

Coast. The level of cut certainly was not based on any kind of sustainable 

yield basis. There was no consideration of the pressures this level of cut 

would have on endangered species, such as the marble murrelet. 

Maxxarn's eagerness to chain-saw thousand-year-old trees for quick profit has 

run them afoul of federal and California endangered species laws. Maxxam is 

being investigated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California 

Department of Fish and Game for two apparently illegal cuttings of significant 

amounts of old growth redwood in an area known as Owl Creek, a nesting 

area for the endangered marbled murrelet. According to the Wall Street 

.lm!.mru "Fish and Wildlife is considering seeking criminal charges. Says 

James Steele, the top state biologist for Owl Creek: 'They basically conducted 

sneak attacks out there."' While pretending to look for marble murrelets, 

Maxxam has renewed requests to cut down prime habitat areas like Owl 

Creek. 

Lest one think the spots have changed on Hurwitz or Maxxarn, one does not 

have to look any farther than the recent corporate refinancing conducted this 

year by Maxxam. Once again in the refinancing Houston corporate interests 

are dominant. Once again a sustainable job base and environmental concerns 

are sacrificed to Maxxam greed. Hurwitz and Maxxam have issued almost 

$600 million in new bond debt to pay off the existing $510 million in debt. 
23 

Where does the extra money go? Allan Sloan in the Los Angeles Times 

January 17, 1993: 

Hurwitz is doing what they teach in junkmeister school: 

borrowing. Why borrow $579 million to repay $510 

million of bonds?. So he can put fees, prepayment 

penalties and some current interest on the tab--like 

paying off your Visa by mortgaging your house. Not to 

mention my favorite: $25 million of the borrowing 

would go for Pacific Lumber to pay a dividend to Maxxam. 

How can a borrowed $25 million payment going from Scotia to Houston 

possibly be in the interests of the timber workers or North Coast 

communities? Does mortgaging redwood forests for decades tp send $25 

million to the "Houdini of High Finance" provide stable jobs for timber 

workers? 

I would like to address the issue of the cost of the legislation. Every estimate 

Maxxam will provide will obviously be inflated. The value of the land 

should not be judged on what the timber would bring at the sawmill because 

it is quite possible some of these trees could never be legally cut. This would 

reduce the value of the property substaPtially. Legislation I have introduced, 

H.R. 1422 would impose a severance tax on old growth redwoods, further 

reducing their value. There will be income from the land to the federal 

government as the Forest Service determines what is appropriate to harvest 

in a sustained fashion. There will be a cost, but I believe Americans are 

willing to make this investment in this resource. 

Mr. Chairman, Maxxam simply should not have stewardship over such an 

important non-renewable national resource as the last unprotected, virgin 

old growth redwoods anywhere. The Forest Service can manage the lands 

with more values than just profit in mind. · 

This legislation has broad national support. More than 80 of our colleagues, 

along with the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the National 

Audubon Society support this legislation. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, when 

people hear that 1000 year old, virgin, old growth redwoods are being chainsawed to pay interest on junk bonds support for the legislation grows. 

Thank you. 
24 

Mr. VENTO. Dan, w~ look at you as a real contribution and a real 

contributor in terms of this debate. 

I think all of us have been motivated by your intense interest in 

this matter. This is your area, your district principally; is that correct? 

Mr. HAMBURG. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. One of the songs you hear on this committee all the 

time is that, this isn't in somebody else's district. So I think that 

obviously you are coming here because you see a resource in your 

area that is important to the American people. They-at no small 

risk to yourself. I think we have got to begin serving notice that 

it isn't going to be business as usual. 

This is a problem that existed during the entire 1980s and people 

sat on their hands around here and didn't do anything about it. 

And, you know, I shouldn't say we are not doing anything about 

it, because as Congressman Stark knows, the laws governing timber harvest are not neutral laws with regard to tax; is that right? 

Mr. STARK. Correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Can you explain that to the committee Members? We 

are not on the esteemed Ways and Means Committee. 

Mr. STARK. Can I explain why they should be getting a capital 

gain for ostensibly harvesting a renewable resource? 

Mr. VENTO. In other words, we are actually expending tax dollars 

to permit the stuff to be cut down; is that right, Mr. Stark? 

Mr. STARK. That has been the case for 30 years. 

Mr. VENTO. And so all you are saying is, let's neutralize it, let's 

quit giving away the national government's money to cut down redwoods and other trees. 

Mr. STARK. Makes sense to me. 

Mr. VENTO. In this particular instance, you are taking a rifle 

shot because you are saying there is something different about 

these trees that are 2,000 years old, 300 feet high and 18 feet in 

diameter. I mean, that is big enough for almost anyone to notice 

as being different. But there may be some people that don't notice 

that. Maybe they think they are like everything else in the forest; 

I don't know. 

Mr. STARK. The gentleman being from the State of Paul Bunyan, 

one of the few humane foresters in the history of our country, 

knows that his State would be far better today if its northern 

woods had this-had this kind of legislation been passed a hundred 

years ago. 

Mr. VENTO. We would be a lot better if we didn't have the reputation of Paul Bunyan. We don't have any more old-growth white 

pine, red pine, Norway pine forests. They are gone. And the secondary growth that came back isn't Douglas firs or redwoods. It is 

aspen and poplar, which is a good crop if you want to have paper 

pulp or something. There are problems with that, but it is a different environment. And so I just think it is important to note the 

differences here. 

The fact is that under the law we have said that as we deplete 

one resource, basically the oil and gas resources, and take in revenue to the point of almost a billion dollars a year, that we are 

going to invest that back in a land/water conservation fund. Of 

course, Congress says one thing and does something else, but I 
25 

think problems like this continue to move forward and we need to 

resolve them. 

There may be some innovative ways. I think all of us are concerned about the deficit and what the impact would be on this; but 

as you pointed out, these lands need not be managed to yield no 

revenue to the government or to the private sector that now owns 

them. The problem is that the existing high-yield bonds, the junk 

bonds, require payments, and you are having to cut these on a 

changed policy basis that is, of course, causing great damage to 

that ecosystem and to what persists. 

It is a dilemma in terms, I think. Almost everyone, including 

most of the owners, understands the importance of the small headwaters, the old-growth areas, and I think we will hear about that 

today. But our dilemma is how can we work together to protect that? · This bill started out, as I recall, as the entire area, 129,000 acres. 

Mr. HAMBURG. One hundred and ninety-seven now. 

Mr. VENTO. One hundred seventy thousand? 

Mr. HAMBURG. One hundred ninety-seven thousand, I believe. 

Mr. VENTO. We had it down to 129. Now we are down to 44 in 

terms of what is in it. So there is, I think, a recognition of trying 

to get better maps and understand whether you have the essence 

of what is to be protected here in terms of the associated ecosystem 

and the landscapes that are involved in the area. 

I certainly intend to work with you on this. I am a sponsor of 

this. I think it really is not going to be business as usual and just 

stand back while the damage goes on. I think we need to move forward. But we are going to have some tough questions to answer. 

Running away from them, denying them, simply also answers the 

questions in a negative way. 

So I hope to work with you in facing this issue, rather than ignoring it. 

I thank you, and we will go to the other folks here that need to 

ask questions now. 

Mr. Thomas, did you have any questions? 

Mr. THoMAS. Yes, sir, thank you very much. 

I guess I am seeking infonnation. Does this area that you talk 

about include the sequoias, the giant sequoia? 

Mr. HAMBURG. No, sir, this is a different species of redwood. 

There is a bill which deals with the Sequoia National Park, I believe it is George Brown's bill. It is quite a-several hundred miles 

south of this area. Mr. THoMAS. You indicated toward the end of your statement 

that, if we just walked in, it would sound as if there has been nothing done to protect the redwoods. I understand there is, that, 

250,000 to 260,000 acres are now protected. Do you dismiss that 

this has been done? 

Mr. HAMBURG. I didn't mean to indicate that we have done nothing. Certainly, the work of the Save the Redwoods League and 

other organizations is very laudable. With respect to the coastal 

redwoods of northern California, the figures that I have used and 

I believe I referred to in my testimony are that there were originally two million acres of those trees on the north coast of California. There are currently 80,000 acres remaining. Of that 80,000 
26 

acres, approximately four-fifths are protected. So four-fifths of 

about 3.5 or 4 percent of the original forest remains standing. 

This Headwaters Forest is the largest unprotected, significant 

stand of ancient redwoods, I think not only in the State of California, but throughout the Pacific Northwest. . Mr. THOMAS. I see. You mentioned the Save the Redwoods group. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Yes. 

Mr. THOMAS. Do they support your bill? 

Mr. HAMBURG. Well, John DeWitt characterized this bill as fatally flawed at one point. And that was a fairly strong criticism. 

AndiMr. THoMAS. I would say it is fairly strong. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Yes, I did, too. I took that as an opportunity to 

call Mr. DeWitt and discuss with him the concerns that he had 

with the bill. And we had quite a long conversation about it. 

It turned out there were two main criticisms that he had. The 

first one had to do with the management of the land, particularly 

of the 88 percent of this 44,000 acres which would remain in a multiple-use category under the management of the Forest Service. Mr. 

DeWitt has had some bad experiences with the Forest Service over 

the years and felt that it would be much more conducive to the 

ends of this bill if the Fish and Wildlife Service or some other agency had the management of this land. 

Secondly, Mr. DeWitt feels that the price tag is absolutely, you 

know, off the map. It is just way, way more than could ever be afforded. He himself was quoted recently in an article in the Wall 

Street Journal to the effect that lands of this type should be more 

in the category of $100 million, rather than the $600 million that 

Maxxam has indicated they want for just the core 4,500-acre area. 

So we talked about that at length, and I assured Mr. DeWitt that 

it is not my intention that we pay Maxxam $600 million for the 

4,500 acres or a billion dollars for a larger area. I believe that the 

Save the Redwoods League will, over time, come to view this bill 

much more favorably. And we are working with them to do that. 

Mr. THoMAS. I see. I believe he indicated that the money would 

be better used to improve the stands that now exist. What about 

the local government? What is their position-supervisors? 

Mr. HAMBURG. Well, Humboldt County-and Supervisor Stan 

Dixon is here today-is opposed to the bill. Some of the cities of my 

district oppose the bill. There are a few that support the bill. I 

think that if you went from one end of my district to the other, you 

would generally find a mix of opinion. 

And as Chairman Vento mentioned, this is a difficult proposal. 

This is a difficult proposal for me, representing a forest district. 

And it is not a bill that I proposed in anything like a cavalier state 

of mind. I realize that the questions we are dealing with go to the 

very heart of the economy of the North Coast. I am not naive; I have been a county supervisor in a timber county. I know how important it is to have a revenue stream from the 

timber industry. So all I can tell you, Mr. Thomas, is, I know the 

difficulties, I know what a mine field this is; but I also feel very 

strongly that this is the best thing for my district in the long run, 

and that is why I am standing for it, not because I have been 
27 

pushed by environmentalists or anything else. Because I believe 

that this is in the long-tenn best interests of my district. 

And if some boards of supervisors like the Humboldt board and 

some city councils stand against me, so be it. They have other concerns, and I appreciate and respect those concerns. 

Mr. THoMAS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. Hansen, did you have any questions of our colleagues? 

Mr. HANsEN. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. I freely admit that this 

really kind of catches me by surprise. I mean, that is an awful lot 

of money; and of course, I can see that the two colleagues feel very 

strongly about it. And I am sure there are two sides to every issue. 

I would be pretty stupid not to say that, and I feel very strongly 

that you have a perfect right to bring this up. 

I guess at a time of tremendous austerity and the problems we 

have got, it is kind of a shock to many of us to see something like 

this. 

Congressman Stark brings up the idea of unwanted and unused 

aircraft carriers and that is kind of like beauty is in the eye of the 

beholder, where do you feel you need it? And sitting on the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee, I have a little different feeling on some of those things. I say that very respectfully. 

I think there are an awful lot of unanswered questions here that 

we will have to unravel and work on, and I am sure, as Chainnan 

Vento pointed out, that is the job of the committee. We will have 

to start working on those. 

I do have questions probably that in this brief time I can't get 

answers to, but it is something I intend to-as the Ranking Member of this committee, to spend a lot of time looking into and trying 

to be objective and trying to be honest. And on this thing, I have 

to feel that maybe Dixie Lee Ray on her thing, environmental overkill, maybe we are getting a little bit into that, but I don't know. 

I think my friend from Wyoming asks some questions about the 

people there. I respect your candor, that you feel in your own heart 

of hearts it is the right thing to do. And even though it is probably 

a mine field for you to walk through, we have other people coming; 

and I would like to ask them about how many jobs are going to be 

lost, how many-do we really need, do we have enough in protection, all of those things that should come to us. 

I know those of us in the Rocky Mountain West get very concerned when we see all these people coming from Oregon and 

Washington, who have lost their jobs, coming into Montana, Utah, 

Wyoming, Idaho, to cut timber where they can do it. And it is kind 

of hard on the Tarheels people. They feel they have just been 

pulled right up from their roots when they are four- and five-generation folks. They lost everything just because someone had a 

burning in their bosom, they like a tree. 

Well, we all love trees, and I have no problem with that. But 

somewhere-and I think you said it right, we prioritize where we 

spend our money. I guess the job of 535 of us is to prioritize. And 

that is what we are doing here. So I really have no direct questions. 
28 

All these things I have talked about-1 intend to be open-minded 

and fair-minded with both sides of this, as we look at it, and I appreciate your time on that, Mr. Chairman. And appreciate the two 

gentlemen giving the comments. 

Mr. STARK. If the distinguished gentleman, Ranking Member, 

from Utah would yield. 

Mr. HANSEN. I will be happy to yield. 

Mr. STARK. The job issue is one that he rightly should be concerned about. There are two sides to it; and where the pendulum 

will be, if you hasten to harvest the timber in such a way that 

there will be no sustained yield, you can run the jobs up on the 

curve for a while, but then in a very short period of time, you are 

out of work because lou are out of timber. 

On the other han , if in the best interests of the community, as 

some people will perceive it and, as Congressman Hamburg has indicated, that may have some differing opinions, but it would seem 

to me long-term, steady employment would be better economically 

for a community rather than a quick hit like coming in and building a huge dam or a huge nuclear reactor and then moving out of 

town and leaving a ghost town when we have to close it up. 

So that I do think that the consideration here is that long-term 

economic growth of the community would probably be best served. 

That is probably little solace to the person who was hired on for 

the extra step-up in cutting now and, you are right, may lose their 

job. It is a tough, tough call. 

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Thank you. 

M.r. VENTO. Without objection, Dr. Nelson's statement that our 

colleague, Mr. Hamburg, referred to, will be-he is the head of the 

Technical Committee on the Marbled Murrelet. Have you that 

statement with you? And you wanted it added into the record; is 

that correct? 

Mr. HAMBURG. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection, it will be added into the record. 

[Prepared statements of Prof. Moyle and Dr. Nelson follow:] 
29 

1 

TESTIMONY OF PBTBR B ~ M)YLI!: 

tJNIVERSJ:'l'Y OF CALIJI'OlUIU, DAvrS 

rn support of the HeadWaters For..t Act (B.R. 2866) 

The Headwaters Forest Act will protect UloUt 44, 000 acres of torast 

in Hwnboldt county, California, which i.Dclude tha headWaters or tha 

Elk River, Salmon Creak, and Yaqar er.u. rn this teatilDony, r will 

address tha blportanca of these araeJul tor the ~awninq ot 

anadromous (aaa-run) tiahas, e.pacially ~o salaon. 

oualitications. :I - Protasaor of Piahariea Bioloqy at tha 

University of California, Davis, Vbare I bave bean on the faculty since 1972. Por five years, r vas Chair of tha Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries Bioloqy. ·I aa author ot over 110 

publications, aoatly daali.nq with the bioloqy and ecoloqy ot 

cali.tornia'a traahwater, anadromous; and estuarine tillhas. Amonq my 

publications are tour books and tbraa book-lenqth monoqraphs, 

including ~ ~ _g! california (a -jor retarence work) and 

two widely used taxt:Dooks in fillh biol.ogy. My fiuerias team 

recently c0'11J.pleta4 (tor the Calitornia Department ot Fian and 

came) a tour year study of the fiahas ot the Bel River drainage 

(which includes Yaqer Creak) and, under contract vith tha National 

Karina service, a str8am-by-straaa analyais of the status of coho 

aalmon in cal.itornia. A pear-reviewed paper basac1 on the coho 

study bas bean accepted tor publ.ication in the 11m::tQ Alllerican 

.Journal _g! Fisheries Kanaqmpant, publ.iahed bY tha American 

Fisheries society. 

~ ~ anadromous .u.Jl. My research bas &own that All species 

of anadromous fish in california ara in serious decline incl.uding 

tall, spring and winter run chinook salJIIon, coho salmon, sUIIIIIar and 

winter stealbaad, coaatal cutthroat trout, aulachon (candlefiah), 

lonqtin -•lt, CJreeD sturqeon, and PaoUic l.allprey. While ~~any 

factors have _been workinq t:oqethar to create tb ... declines, in 

coastal drainaqea the sinqla bi9gellt causa bas bean the 

deterioration of vaterllhads, rasulti.nq in the reduction o-r ~awninq 

and rearinq habitat tor anaclrOJIJ.Ous fishes. An important contributer 

to watershed deterioration has been loqqinq and road-building on steep slopes ·in headwater areas because aed.tm.nt produced in these areas affects the entire drainaqe below the head-tars. The 

Headwaters Forest Act is aimed at protectinq a key reqion contain.inq soma o~ the moat critical parts o:t three drai~taqas 

important to anaclrOJIJ.ous fillbee. rt is not a aoinci.dance that the 

drainaqes in this area with intact h-dWatar :torasta atill contain 

aiqn.ificant populationa of at least five speciu ot anadromous 

fishes: coho sallllon, chinook salmOn, cutthroat trout, steelhead, 

and Pacific lAlllprey. J:n this tastiJDony, I vi.ll. aonfina my remarks 

to coho salmon because this is tha speo.i- in 110st serious decline 

and aeam.inqly the moat dependent o't the "five species on mature 

(late successional) forests. 

78-078 - 94 - 2 
30 

2 

~ ~. Coho .almon thrive in stable, well-shaded drainaqes 

because their YOI.IJI9 apend their first year of lite in streama. 

These younq sal.JIIon live primarily in deep, cold pools close to the 

taster tlowinq areas tbat produce many o~ the inaects they teed 

upon. These pools are typically created by the action ot watar 

around larqe loqs, boulcters, or stable ~s. :In ctrainaqas 

characterized by heavy loqginq and road lNildinq, younq coho have 

poor survival beCAuse larqe loqs are less available to create pools 

and what pools there are till up with sec:U.JIIent taster than they can .be scoured out by winter tlows. staDle ctrainaqes also provide 

better habitat tor the adult fiSh, which use the deep paola tor 

ret'Uqes tr0111 predators aJld clean, coarse qravels tor spawninq. 

The loss of stream babitats favorable to coho -l.mon in the 

past 50 years baa led to their decline in washinqton, oreqon, and 

Cal.itornia. This OD-iJOinq decline bas resultinq the Pacific Rivers 

council davelopinq a petition to list coho salmon as a threatened 

species, "hich llbould ba tiled soon to the Jlational Marine 

Fisheries service. 'l'he decline of coho is particularly severe in 

California, the southernmost part of their ranqe. The study of 

coho status !ly JIYS&lf, Dr. Larry R. Brown, and Dr. Ronald M. 

Yoshiyama indicated tbat 50 years aqo perhaps zoo, ooo wild coho 

entered calit'ornia's streama to spawn, aupportinq !loth aport and 

co111111ercial tiaberiaa. 'J:oday- estimate tbat leas than 5,000 wil.d 

coho still enter thaae saae streams, a 97' decline. Because the 

decline has been evident· tor IIAny years, batcheriaa ware built on a number o~ .treaaa in AD effort to !lolster coho populations; there are &!lout 30, ooo hatchery-related coho returning each year as consequence. However, even the hatchery coho are in decline and 

the 111ixinq ot hatchery aJld wild stoclcs in s0111e streams has probably 

contributed to the cleoline of wild atocks. 

A better measure of the status o~ coho in california is the 

number of etreaas that ·still have ~awninq populations. We 

determined tr0111 old recorda that at least 540 coastal streaas once contained coho populations. We asti.JIIate today that only &!lout halt 

of these streaas atill support runs o~ coho salmon and that ~~~&ny of 

the relll&ininq runs are IJO IIIDilll that their extinction in tha near :future ia hiqbly likuy. These tiquras daaonstrate the exceptional importance or tbe stream. in the ar ... protectad !:ly' the Headwaters 

Forest Act. 

~ iD IJeamttn st;raus. The .Uaaas in the Headwaters. area include the headwaters of the north and scnlth torks of Elk River 

and o~ sal.JIIon creak (both tlovinq directly in to Hwlboldt Bay) and 

the headwaters ot Yaqer creek (-inly Lawrence Q:'eak and Shaw 

creak), a -jor tri.but:ary of the Van .Dw;en River, which in turn 

tlow• into the lower Bel Jliver. :tn recant years, 1110st ot the 

creeka have been surveyed tor uae by anactraaous fishes by the 

california D~t or Fi.sh ADd Gallle aJld/or the california 

conservation Corps (CCC) • Their ~ield not:as have been lllade 

available to 11a. 

By present-day standards, tha Elk River is an exceptional 

stream tor coho salmon. This is llecauaa the channel in many areas 
31 

3 

.t. in r ... onably 'JOod ccmdit:icm, ~ by· bav.f.DIJ old 91"0Vt:h 

redwood forest in the beadwat.rs. &1~ -= ~Nabers of 

apawnintJ coho are DOt knC:nm far t:11a .aJJt Ill,_. oounu of Z'lld4s, 

carc:a••-· and livin'J fish illdiaata t:llat t:11a am prol:lal)ly avaraciU 

at 1-st 400 :tiJib p.r year. · _.,..~, a CCC IIUX'Vay an 33 

January 1991 (peak run ~. in - oc t:11a -.t babitat) o:t 3 

ail- of the DOrtb fork of the BlJc lllvar CXIIUit:ed' 51 coho. A zun o:t 

400+ c::oho .. y not •-like .uch, ~~at· it· aaald ~t about 5t 

o:t all vUe! COho apavninq in c:al.UOZDJ.a! · · sal:llcm craeJc: ill • lw produot:i.,. .u.- ot GObo thaD t1aa alJc 

River, pra.-bly u a ra.ul.t of tbe -zati'N ~feet. of t.t:abar 

harv-tincJ ill the draillaga. A t:ap .at at· tile J;aw.r aDd ot!. the 

drainaqa in recant YM1'11 indicate. aa. -..r rua ot 15-as tiab. 

'l'he persistanc:a of this -11 rua ill ..,.t: Ubl.Y. d-ependent ot the 

protection of tba haadvatera, to ~ tladiwantat:ion and provide other habitat Hll~it.. · . . ·. : :· · our JcDOWledqe ot! the Yaqar end: . 18 Uaitad in part 

because t:he Paoitic ·Luaber CollpaDy ct.dad -r c=av •~ to the 

clrainac;re vben ve vera doiDq aur .m:,.y ot tile fi8bes ot! the hl 

.River .yate.. Between 1988, 1991, uea, .ad. ue3, ccc c::raw8 clid 

..n&CJe acme cursory ~· ot tbe ~. piZ'tii:IU.lu'ly Lavrance 

c:reeJc: arn1 Sbav craeJc:. Sbav ~ 18 a ~ to loa~ c:n.Jt, 

vitb headwaters in old growth forest. !!1111 :am aise Jlera .t. -u 

probably leiiS than 20 ~ par ~, 1llaicm 18 nl.atacl both to 

conditions within tba· drainage ():aeda .. aDd ··1099ift9> ·and to 

conditions outaide the drainage (~t:ii:ID oc· tba Van Duzan and 

lower ael rivers). aa-var, the ~ tllat. tile .tin~ dralnaq- of 

Lawrence and Sbaw creeU, and t:bat ot; -.:Ill. ot! ~ craek, are within the proposed Beadvater. ran-t u.& - that at:r._ reatarati~ etfarta are likely to be apeo'f•lly p:'Gductive hera - and atrelllll restoration is the priJIIIrr _,. by vb.J.ab coho 

populations are qoinq to be recoW~Eoacl• · 

conclusigns. str- in the Beadwat.rs ~are& are blportant 

habitat tor anadrCIIICNII t.um-, eapact•ny aobG .-lllon. l: eatillate 

that s-1ot ot tba ~ vil4 coho ~ ill ea.rUarnia spawn in 

these clrainaq-. ODe ot tbe -jar - tar tlaia ill .._. to be 

that the beadwatars ot! the sa:-.- £a at:m -uy in r.asonahly 

qood concliticrn, eapeciallY C.,.. 1D. ald pvwt:h . ~ forut. 

Protection ot this ar .. WOilld bave a aipificluiC JL!08itlva e:tf'ect on coho sal.JIIan populations, wbioh are dectl tntnq -.bride. B.ll. 2866 

provid- an anuaual opportunity ~ eDd. restore eallaon and 

atoalh-d populaticma, and to balp ~ ~ atmc! of everdeclininCJ ~i.ea. · 

~oyl• Prof'-•or of Fillheriea 

University of' california, Davia 

1 ooto.bar 1993 
32 

MARBLED MURRELETS A.'® THE HEADWlU'ERS FOREST, HOMBOLDT 

COID<"TY, CALIFORNIA 

TBSTIMO!iY SUBMITTED ON .!roUSE BILL RR 2866 

TO 

TBE HOUSE AGRICULTURAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIAL 

CROPS AND NlL"'''RAL RESOURCES 

AND 

'!'HE HOUSE NATORAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL 

PARKS, FORESTS, A.'ID POBLIC LANDS 

BY 

S. KIM ~ON, RESEA.ll.CE WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST 

OREC-DN COOPERATIVE WILDLIFE RESEARCH UNIT 

OREGON STAi'E i:iNIVERSITY, NASH 104 

CORVALLIS, OR 9733~-3803 

J.2 OCTOBER. H93 

Executive SU!!!marv 

The Marllled Mn=elet (Bracb.yrali!Plltzs maz:mo.rat:Us) was listed 

by the U.S. Fish and Wilcllife Service as a threatened species in 

September ~992. Habitat loss, pr:imarily from lo~g, was 

identified as the prima..ry reason for the listiDg (Federal 

Register so CFR, Vol. 57:45, 328-345, 1 October 1992). In 

Ca.liforn:i.a, little old-growth and mature habitat remains within 

25 miles of the coastline. Older-aged forests in close proximity 

to the coast are extremely important to murrelets; these forests 

may be their prefe..-rred nesting habitat. The Headwaters Forest in 

northern californi.a is occttpied by mu.....-relets. The location and 

habitat chaxacteristics of this Forest, coupled with the fact 

that little suitable habitat re~ in the historic range of 

this species in California, make the acquisition and preservation 

of the Headwaters Forest key- to the survi va1 and recovery of the 

murrelet in california. 
33 

s. Kim Nel.son Testimony on H.R. 2866 2 

MARBLED MORRELBTS M.I"D 'l'EE HEADWATERS FOREST, HIJMBOLDT 

COUNTY, CALIFORNT_A (E.R. 2866) 

Introduction 

My ilame is S. tim Nelson. I am a Faculty Research Wildlife Bio~ogist employed with the oregon cooperative Wi~dlife Research 

trni.t at Oregon State University. A copy of my CV is attached 

(Ex:b.i.bit A). . I lead the Marbled Murrelet research program in the 

State of Oregon. In addition, I am Chair of the Marbled Murrelet 

Technical Committee of the Pacific Seabird Group, a scientific 

society of Pacific seabiTd researchers. I am familiar with all 

the on-going research on Marbled Murrelets and with the 

researchers studying mDLTXelets in california, Washington, British 

Columbia, and Alaska. 

Snecies Status 

The Marllled Murrelet (Brachyramphus ma.=oratus) was listed 

by the U.S. FiSh and Wildlife Service as a threatened species in 

September ~992. Habitat loss, primarily from logging, was 

identified as the pri_ma_ry reason for the listing (Federal 

Register SO CF.R, Vol. 57:45, 328-345, 1 October 1992). 

current population estimates include 50 , 000-250,00 birds in 

Alaska (Mendenhall 1992), 20,000-45,000 birds in British Columbia 

(Rodway 1990), s,ooo ~Washington (Speich et al. 1992), 2,000 in 

Oregon (Nelson et i!!.l. 1992), and 2,000 in California (Carter and 

Erickson 1992). The actual numbers of breeding birds wi~~ be 

lower because of the presence of non-breeders, which can comprise 

as much as 53\' of some A1cid populations in a single year (Gaston 

1992). 

Historically murrelets were more abundant throughout their 

range. Popu1aticms in California are estimated to have declined as much as 90-95~ in california in association with declines of 

older-aged forests (Paton and Ralph 1988, 1990; Carter and 

Erickson 1992). In Alaska and British Columbia, declines over 

the last 10-15 years have been estimated from 10-15% and 20-40%, 

respectively (K. Kuletz, pers. comm., Kelson et al. in press)- Declines in Oregon and Washington may be s:i.milar to those in 

California based on a 90\' reduction in suitable habitat (Morrison ~988), although no estimates have been proposed. 

Breedina Biology 

Many of the behaviors ~ life history patterns of Marbled 

Murrelets are similar to their close relatives {see Drent ~965, 

Sealy 1975, Barris and Bi~khead 1985, Gaston ~992). Differences 
'34 

S . Kim Ne~son Testimony on E.R. 2866 

between murrelets and other alcids include their choice of 

nesting sites and adaptationS to avoid predation. 

3 

Murrelets lay a single egg on the flat surface of large moss 

or duff covered conife_~us tree limbs. ·· Nesting occurs between 

April and September. Eggs are incubated for 30 days, and chicks 

fledge after an additional 28-36 days (Hirsch et al. 1981, 

Nelson, 1991, 1992; Nelson and Bardin 1993a) . Both adults 

pa_~icipate in incubation on a ~4-hour schedule. ~changes occur 

bef ore sunrise, in the cover of darkness· or dawn . Adults enter 

the nest silently and rapidly in order to avoid detection by 

predators. When the chick hatches, adults brood it for one day; 

after that . the chick is left alone on the nest. The chicks 

camouflage plumage is their only protection from predators, other 

than cover above and near the nest site. Adul.ts make ~ to 3 

trips a day (at dawn, dusk and mid-day) between ocean feeding 

areas and ~and nest i!!.g sites to f eed the chick (Nelson ~99~. 

1992; Nel son and Hardin i993a) . These birds fly approximately 50 

mph on their trips to and from the ocean. Chicks pluck their 

feathers to reveal a distinctive black and white juvenile plumage 

24- 48 hours before l e aving the nest . Chicks fly directly to the 

ocean from the nest site (Hamer and CUmmins 1990). 

Marbled Murralets do not nest in dense colonies, however 

they nest primarily in loose aggregations in forest stands. 

Marbled M=e~ets have high site fidelity; birds retu= to the same forest st:.ind year .a£ter year (Nelson, UDpublished data; S. 

s; nger, T. Ramer, pers. comm.) . Occupancy of forests stands may 

be histor.ical in nature with young returning to the same stand 

where they hatched. High site fidelity and historical occupancy 

are common among seabi rds ii!. the Auk . Family (puff .ins, murrelets, 

mruLTres, auklets, etc.) (Nett.leship and Birkhead ~985). 

Longevity, survival and mortality rates are Ullknown. Age of 

first breeding is thought to be three years (Sealy 1975b). 

Recruitment rates· are very low because they lay only one egg, and 

predation at nest sites is b.igh. In add:!.tio:c., murrelets may not 

nest or be successful in nesting during years of poor food 

availability (e.g. &=ing El' Nif!o cu...-rrents) . The · adul.t/jirvenile 

ratios from counts along the central coast (Nelson and Rardin 

1993b) indicate a recruitment rate o£ less than 5% each year 

between 1989 and 1992; low nmnbers of juveniles (1-5%) have also 

been documented in Cal.ifo=ia and Al.aska: (C.J. Ralph; K. Kuletz, 

pers. comm.) . Of 45 tree nests found before 1993, at least 73% 

fa.iled to fledge a chick (see Threats section). 

Habi tat Selection 

Al.~ data co~~ected to date on this speci es s~stantiate 

their use and se.l.ection of older- aged forests (Paton and Ra.l.ph ~988, 1990; Nelson 1989 , 1990; Hamer and Cummins 1990, 1991). In 

Oregon, Marbled Mu...-rre~e s have been fOU!ld to select old-growth 

and ma~ forests with an old- growth component (Nelson 1989, 
35 

S. Kim Nelson Testimony on H.R. 2866 

1.990). Irahita.t variables that are··thought to be most important 

for this species, include old-growth trees, number of nesting platforms, cover above the nest limb, cover for protection 

against predation, and moss and mistletoe abundance (Nelson et 

al. in prep.). 

Murrelets are more abundant closer to the coast. that farther 

i.nJ.and (Nelson 1.990) •. Th_e energetic demands on the birda to fly 

to habitat far from the coast are unknown, but a feasible 

hypothesis, based on the energetic requirements of other birds, 

is that .murrelets that nest farther from the coast could be less 

successful than those in areas close to the coast . The 

distribution of bi:r:ds along the coast bas also be~ correlated 

with the distribution of habitat inland (Sowls et al. 1980, 

Carter and Erickson 1.992, Nelson et al. 1.992). 

These birds have not been found in managed forests because 

these stands lack the structure and characteristics of forests 

that were created naturally. Stands that have been heavily 

managed (clear-cuts, shel.terwcods, yOun.g and mature plantations) 

show no murrelet use. Forty-five tree nests have been located and described (pre1.992). These tree nests were located in Alaska (N - 18) (Quinlan 

and Hughes 1990, Naslund et al., in press), British Columbia (N • 5) (Manley and Ke2son, in press; Jordan and Hughes, in press), 

Washington (N- 5) (Ramer and Cummins 1.990, 1991), Oregon (N • 10) (Nelson 1.991, 1.992; Nelson et al., in prep.), and California 

(N • 7) (Singer and Ve_~do 1975, Singer et al. 1991, 1992, S. 

KeiDS, pers. comm.) • All the nests south of Alaska were found in 

old-graw-...h t:_...-ees >35 in (>88 em) in diameter at breast height and 

~so ft (1.5 m) in height. Nests were on moss or duff covered 

limbs near the middle to the top 1/3 of the live crown. Canopy cover above the nest cup was high, perhaps for protection against predators and weather. 

Although O!!.ly 4.5 tree nests have been located, .more than 400 

occupied areas have been identified and mapped. Since o.ests are difficult to discover, occupied sites have been defined by 

murrelet biologists as nesting areas based on observations of 

=elets flying- throug-h the canopy and landing in trees. All of 

·these sites are in older-aged forests (old~growth forests or mature forests with an old-grow-...h component). 

Threat;; tg the Sceci es Syryinl 

There are four primary threats to this species, including habitat loss, predation, oil spills and gil1-net fishing 

(Marshall 1988). Ee--re I address o:cl.y the threats at inland 

sites. . Habitat loss throughout the murrelet's range has been identi~ied as the most significao.t threat to the species longterm viability. Logsing of -older-aged forests not ·onl.y creates 

loss of habitat for nesting, but also initiates cumulative 
36 

S. Kim Nelson Testimony on R.R. 2866 5 

impacts such as isolation of subpopulations, habitat 

fragmentation, and edge effects. A comparison of historical. 

information available on murrelet populations with current data 

suggests a decline in IIIllllPers, especially in portions of its 

range where logging has been extensive. (Carter and Erickson 1992, 

Ne.lson et al.. 1992). .The number of older-aged forests available to murrelets is declining in number and is ext:retnely limited in 

c~ain areas of the species =.ge (Carter and Erickson 1992, 

Nelson et al. 1992). · · 

Predation of =elet nests bas been occurring at wba.t seem 

to be alarming rates (Nelso!l, ;mpubl. datal . seventy-three 

oercent of mnrrelet nests have failed and 54% failed because of 

predation. Predators of murrelet nests· include the Steller's Jay 

(Cyanocitea stelleri), common Raven (Corvi:IS corax:J, and GreatE:o=ed OWl (Bubo virg:in.ianus) .(Nelson l9~n. 1992, Naslund et al. 

in press). Predation by these species (and. Great-Horned owls) is 

known to increase wit:h the fragmentation of older-aged forests 

(Yahner and Scott 1988), and bird nesting success is l-ower in 

small forest fragments than larger intact forests because of 

predation and decreased feCU!I.di.ty (Ambuel and Temple 1983·, Andren 

et al. 1985, Wilcove 1985, Temple and Cary 1988). Stellar's 

Jays, Common Ravens, and Great-Ho;m.ed OWls are edge species that 

become increasingly co!lcent:rated as edge is increased with the 

fragmentation of habitat (Yahner and Scott 1988) . In addition, 

Co:rvids (jays, ravens and =owsJ are axt:rem.ely intelligent 

predators that . have refined search images for locating prey 

(Kilham 1989, Good~~ 1976, Zach 1979). 

Habitat Manaaement 

Retenti.cin of older-aged forests throughout the historic 

range of the murrelet will be impe-..-a.tive for the short·-term 

viability of ·the species (Repo.rt of the scientifc Analysis Team 

1993). No matter how small and isolated, habitat on all lands 

will be important for recovery of the species within its historic 

range. Regrowing suitab1e habitat i.n ar~ where it no loilger 

exists and growing buffers around existing small stands will a1so 

be key to the long-term viabi1ity of the species (Report of the 

Scientific Analysis Team lS93). Exact sizes of buffers and 

stands required by murrelets is unlalown at this time. However, 

predation rates on b:!.rd nests were higher in edge habitat· (within. 

~s-100 m of the forest edge) compared to interior forest (Gates 

and Gysel: 1978, Small and Eunter 1988), and were extreme in 

managed stands i:J. basins that were more than 25% fragmented 

(Yahner and Scott 1988) . Large, intact habitat blocks in 

un£ragmented' basins will provide optimal. habitat for Marhl.ed 

Murrelets. . 

There is evidence that alcids are poor colonizers. A 

breeding- colony of the Atl=tic l?uffins (Fraeercula. arceica) was 

extil::pated from Easte-..-u Egg-Rock, Maine, in 1887. Puffins. from 

neighboring islands (w:l.thin 20 mil :failed to re,-establish the 
37 

S . Kim Nel.son Testimony on H.R. 2866 

colony despite the habitat being suitable. Re-colonization of 

tile island only oc=red with human intervention; puffins were reintroduced in 1981. by Kress and Nettleship (1.988). The 

presence of birds at a breeding site may be important for 

colonization, if it is at all possible. Although young, nonbreeding puffins often visited other colonies, once they reached 

breeding age the birds returned to their natal colony to reproduce, and visits to non-natal areas became almost 

nonexistent (Kress and Nettlesh4p 1988). Similar behavior has 

been documented in Pigeon Guillemots (r7ria aalge) (Halley and 

Harris 1992). ~ng occupied murrelet habitat and expecting 

murrelets to move to adjacent areas is, therefore, highly 

unlikely given alcid site fidel.ity. 

The effects of thinning or modifying occupied sites, or stands near occupied sites are unknown. However, the ability of 

murrelets to remain hidden will be the key to the successful 

fledg:ing of young. Any opening of the canopy or increase in the 

amount of edge could have negative impacts of murrelet breeding success by increasing predator abundance (see discussion on 

Th...-reatsl. 

6 

The complexity of older-aged forest ecosystems and the 

breeding biology of the murrelet will make it difficult to 

determine the effects of habitat modification on the species. 

Given their high site fidelity, they may return to a site that 

bas been modified, but not breed successfully. In addition, 

birds may currently be occupying habitat that has become marginal 

through the cumulative impacts of fire, blowdown, and adjacent 

habitat modification. Their mere presence or occupancy at a site 

is not necessarily an indication that the site is preferred or 

optimal. Determination of optimal habitat can only be determined 

through intensive study of their reproductive success in relation 

to habitat characteristics (see Nelson and Hardin 1993) . 

The cum:ulative impacts of the threats to this species on the 

ocean and in the forest need to be considered in implementing 

management practices. A la_~e number of birds in an area is not necessarily indicative of a healthy population. These birds are 

long lived (10-15 years) and the cumulative effects of threats on =ent population sizes may not be reali<:ed for 10 to 15 years. 

In addition, caution should be taken when interpreting and using 

results from studies conducted in other areas. For example, 

specific and det~~ed habitat characteristics in Oregon, such as 

canopy closure or stand size, may not be applicable to the 

redwood fores~ ecosystem of northern California. 

The Imoortance of the Headwaters Forest to the california 

Ponulation 

The HeadWa-ters Forest is of extreme importance to the 

Marbled Murrelet:. Because .eouitable murrelet habitat has been 

reduced more than 90% in california (carter and Erickson 1992), 
38 

S . Kim Nelson Testimony on H.R. 2866 7 

all remauung suitable habitat in the state will be important for 

the survival and .recovery of the species. The Headwaters Forest 

is occupied by llltL..-:relets and is located in close proximity to the 

coast. The lack of ot!ler suitahle habitat in the area south and 

east of Eureka in=ease its importance. In additiOII, this 

forest, including the proposed wilderness and smaller old-growth 

blocks, represents one of the three remaining population centers 

in California. The other two include habitat in northern 

Humboldt County (Redwood National Park, Jedediah-Smith State 

Park, Humboldt-Redwoods State Park}, and Santa Cruz County (Big 

Basin State Park} • Other areas contain very few (Mendocino 

County) to no murrelets. 

Given that populations are declining with the =ent amount 

of suitable habitat, further elimination of habitat could 

extirpate the species from California. No other Federal or State 

lands are available to this species, other than listed above. 

Private lands, therefore, will play a key role in the species 

surv:i.val and recovery in California {see the Report of the Forest 

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (1993) regarding the 

importance of private lands to murrelets). 

The preservation of t!lis forest will also be important to 

other old-growth associated species, and will help to maintain a remnant of the older forest ecosystem that used to stretch across northern California. 

Species should be-maintained throughout their historic and 

natu...-ral. ranges. Larger populations of murrelets in British . Columbia and Alaska should not preclude preserving mnrrelet 

populations in California or elsewhere. Despite the larger 

numbers of murrelets in British Columbia and Alaska, evidence of 

population declines is evident in these areas as well (see 

discussion under Species Status) . CIL...-:rently there are no known 

stable populations of mu_~elets that could sustain the species in 

perpetuity. 

conclus.i.o.n 

The Marbled Mu.....-:relet is a threatened SPeci.es. In 

cali.foroia, Little suitable habitat remains-within the historic 

range of the species. The Eeadwaters Forest and other older-aged 

forests in northern California are imoortant to the murreLet. 

The preservation of these rare forests will be key to the 

survival and recovery of this unique species. 
39 

s. Kim Nelson Testimony on H.R. 2866 

Literature Cited 

Ambuel, B. and S.A. Temple. J.983. Area-dependent changes in 

bird communities and vegetation of southe_~ Wisconsin 

forests. Ecology 64:1057-1068. 

Andren, H., P. Angelstam, E. LindStrom, and P. Widen. J.98S. 

Differences in predation pressure in relation to habitat 

fragmentation: an experiment. Oikos 45:273-277. 

carter, H.R. and R.A. Erickson. J.992. Status and conservation 

of the Marbled Murrelet in California, 1892-1987. Pages -

.m H.R. Carter and M. Mo=ison, eds. The status, 

distzibution and management of the Marbled Murrelet. 

Proceed. Weste....-rn Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. 

Drent, R.H. 1965. Breeding biology of the pigeon guillemot, 

Cepphus aol.mnba.. Ardea. 53:99-160. 

Gaston, A.J. J.992. The Ancient Murrelet: a natural history in 

the Queen Charlotte Islands. T. and A.D. Poyser, London, 

England. 24.9pp. 

Gates, J.E. and L.W. Gysel. J.978. Avian nest dispersion and 

fledging success in field-forest ecotones. Ecology 59:87J.-

883. 

Goodwin, D. 1976. Crows of the world. Cornell University 

Press, Ithaca, New York. 354pp. 

Halley, D.J. and M.P. Harris. l.992. Intercolony movement and 

behavior of immature guillemots Uria ~ge. Ibis J.35:264-

270. 

8 

Hamer, T.E. and E.B. Ctmmri.ns. 1990. Forest habitat 

relationships of Marbled Murrelets in northwestern 

Washingt:on. Unpublished report, Nongame Program, Washington 

Dept. Wildlife, Olympia. 

Hamer, T .E. and E.B. Cumlltins. J.99l.. Relationships between 

forest charact~stics and use of inland si~es by Marbled 

Murrelets in no~~western Washington. Unpublished report, 

Nongame Program, Wash;ngton Dept. Wildlife, Olympia. 

Harris, M.P. and T.R. Birkhead. 1985. Breeding ecology of the 

Atlantic Alcidae. ppl.SS-204 IN Nettleship, D.N. and T.R. 

Birkhead, eds. The Atlantic Alcidae. Academic Press, New 

Yo:rk. 
40 

S. Ki.m Nelson Testimony on H.R. 2866 

Hirsch, K.V.", D.A. Woodby, and L.B. JUr...heimer. 1.981. Growth of 

a nestling Marbled Murrelet. Condor 83:264-265. 

'Jordan, K.M. and S.K. Hughes. in press. Discovezy of three 

Marbl.ed Murrelet tree nests, British Columbia, 1.992 . Northwestern Naturalist. 

Kelson, J.D., LA. Manley, aDd E.R. Carter. in press. At-sea 

population size and distribution of Marbled Murrelets in 

Clayoquot sound, British columbia: 1.992 versus 1982. 

Northwestern Nat:tt...ra.J.ist. 

9 

Kilham, F. 1.989. The American czow and the Common Raven. Texas 

A ~ M University ~ress, College Station, Texas. 

Kress, s.w. and D.N. Nettleship. 1988. Re-establishment of 

Atlantic Puffins (Fratercu1a arctica) at a former breeding 

site in the Gulf of Maine. J. Field Ornithology 99:1.61.:..170. 

Manley, I.A. and J.D. Kelson. in press. The discovery of two 

Marbled Mu-~elet tree nests in the Walbr~ Valley, British 

Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist. 

Marshall, D.B. 1.988. Status of the Marbled Murrelet in North 

America, with speciil emphasis on populations i.n California, 

Oregon and Washington. iJ.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Biological Report: 88(30). l.9pp. 

Mendenhall, V.M. 1992. Distribution, breeding records, and 

conservation orohlems of the Marbled Murrelet in Alaska. 

Pages - Jli R~R. carter and M. Morrison, eds. The status, 

distribution and management of the Marbled Murrelet. 

Proceed. Weste..rn Foundation of Vertebrate ZOology. 

Mo=ison, P .:a:. 1.988. Old-growth in the Pacific Northwest: a status report. The Wilderness Society, washi.Dgton, D~C. 

46pp. 

Naslund, N.L .• K.J. Kuletz, M.B. Cody, and D.K. 'Marks. in press. 

Tree and habitat cha-~cteristics and status of fourteen 

Marbled Mu=e!.et tree nests in Alaska. Northwestern 

Naturalist. 

Nelson, S. K. 198 9. Deve.lopment of inventory techniques for the 

Marbled Murrelet. Unpublished report, Nongame Program, 

Oregon Depar""..ment o~ l!'i.sh and Wi..ld.life, P.o. Box 59, 

Portland, Oregon, Publ. No. 86-G-01. 
41 

S. K;Lm Nelson Testimony on H.R. 2866 1.0 

Nelson, S.K. 1990. Distribution of the Marbled Murrelet in 

western Oregon. Unpublished report, Nongame Program, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 59, Portland, 

Oregon, Publ. No. 89 - 9-02. 

Nelson, S.K. 1991. Nesc-sice .cha-TUcceristics and behavior of 

!of..a._-rbl.ed Mu=el&ts in western Oregon. Unpublished report, 

Nongame Program, Oregon Depa_~c of Fish and Wildlife, 

P.O. Box 59, Portland, Oregon, Publ. No. 90-6-01. 

Nelson, S.K. 1992. Intensive searches for nests of the Marbled 

Mu=elet through the use of V:Lsual observations. and 

soplllsti.cated audio equipment. unpublished report, Nongame 

Program, Oregon Depa..-rtment of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 

59, Portland, Oregon; PUbl. No. 91-9-07. · 

Nelson, S.K. and T.E. Ramer. 1992. Nest-site characteristics of 

Marbled Murrelets in the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Seabird 

Group Bulletin 19(1) :52. 

Nelson, S.K., M.L.C. McAllister, M.A. Stern, D.H. Varoujean, and 

J.M Scott. 1992. The Marbled Murrelet in Oregon, 1899-

1987. lli H.R. carter and M. Mo=ison, eds. The· status, 

distribution and management of the Marbled Murrelet. Weste_~ Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. 5(1) :61-91. 

Nelson, S.K. and J.G. Hardin. 1993a. Landscape patterns and 

Marbled Mu=e1et: occupancy: a pilot study. Unpublished 

report, Nongame Program, Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, 

Portland, Publ. No. 92-9-04. 

Nelson, S.K. and J.G. Hardin. 1993b. Shore-based surveys of 

Marbl.ed Murrelets along che Oregon Coast, 1988-199_2. 

Pacific Seabird Group Bulletiri 20(1) :59. 

Nelson, S.K., T.B. Ramer, and K.K. Holtrop. in prep. Nest-site cha-~cteristics of !o'"4rbl.ed Murrelets in the Pacific 

Northwest. 

Nettleship, D.N. and T.R. ~irkhead (eds.). 1985. The Atlantic ~ci.dae: the evo~ution, ~s~ri.bution and biology o~ the auks 

inhabiting the Atlantic Oc@an and adjacent waters. Academic 

Press, London, England. 

Paton, P.W. C. and C.J. ~ph. 1988. Geograplllc distribution of 

the Marbl.ed !of..urrelet in Cali-fornia at inl.and sites during 

the ~988 breeding season. Unpub~ished report, California 

Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento.· 
42 

S. Kim Nelson Testimony on R.R. 2866 

Paton, P.W.C., and C.J. Ralph. 1990. Distribution of the 

Marbled Mu..-r-relet at inland sites in caJ.ifornia. 

Northwestern Naturalist 71:72-84. 

Quinlan, S.E. and J.R. Hughes. 1990. Location and descriptio~:~ 

of a Marbled MU..-r-relet tree nest site in Al.aska. Condor 

92:1.068-1.073. 

n. 

Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. 

Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and 

social assessme::1t. Inte..-ra~cy SEIS Team, P.O. Box 3623, 

Portland, Oregon, 97208-3623 . . 

Report of the Scientific Analysis Team. 1993. Viability 

Assessment and management considerations for species 

associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of 

the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Fo_rest Se_~ce, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon, 97208-3623. 

Redway, M.S. 1990. Status_report on the Marbled Mu=elet 

Brachyramphus m.u:l!IOiatu$. Committee on the Status of 

Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 

Sealy, S.G. 1.975. Aspects of the breeding biol.ogy of the 

Marbled Mu..-rrelet in British Col.umbia. Bird-Banding 46:1.41-

154. 

Singer, S.W. and D.R. Verardo. 1.975. The murrelet's nest 

discovered. Pacific Discovery 28:1.8-21.. 

Sir!.ger, S.W., N.L. Nashmd, S.A. Singer, and C.J. Ralph. 1991. 

Discovery and observatio!lB of two tree nests o_f the Marbled 

Murrelet. Condor 93:330-339. 

s:Lnger, s.w., D.L. SUddj:ian, and S.A. Singer. 1.992. Discovery, observations, and fledging of a Marbled MUrrelet ~rom a 

redwood tree nest. Unpublished report, Santa. Cruz City 

Museum of Natural History, Santa Cruz, CA. 

Small, M. F. and M.L. Runter. 1.988. Forest fragmentation and 

a~an nest predation in forested landscapes. Oecologia 

76:62-64. 

Sowls, A.L., A· . .R. DeGrange, ·J.W. Nel.son, and G.S. Lester. 1.980. 

catalog of Ca!ifor.trla seabird colonies . Coastal Ecosystems 

Project. Office of Biological Services, u.s. Fish and _Wildlife Se-~ce, Washington, D.C. 20240. · 
43 

S. Kim Nelson Testimony on H.R. 2666 1.2 

Speich, S.M. T.R. Wahl, and D.A. Ma,nuwal.. B92. The numbers of 

Marbled Murrel.ets in Washington marine waters.. _m H.R. 

Carter and M. Mo=ison, eds~ The status, distribution and 

management of the Marbled Murrelet. Western Foundation of 

Ve...-rtebrate Zoology 5 (l) :46-60. 

Temple, S.A. and J.R. cary. 1968. Modeling dynamics of habitatinta.-ri.or bi.rd populatio!!.S in :fragmented landscapes . 

Conservation Biology 2:340-347. 

Wilcove, D. S. 1965. Nest predation in forest tracts and the 

decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66:1211-1.214. 

Vermeer, K.., S.G. Sealy, and G.A. Sanger. 1987. Feeding ecology 

of Alcidae in the easte.....-z:t North' Pacific ocean. pp169-227 .m 

Cro:xal.l, J.P., ed. Seabi.rds: feeding ecology and the role · 

of marine ecosyste~. cambridge university Press, 

cambridge. 

Yahner, R.N. and D.P. Scott. 1988. Effects of forest 

fragmentation on depredation of artificial nests. J. 

Wildlife Management 52:1.58-161. 

zach, R. 1979. Shell droppings: decision-making and optimal 

foraging in No:r'"...hweste._,..,_ Crows • Beba.vi= 68 : 106:-1.1.7. 
EXHIBIT A 

44 

s. 1CM JmLSCllf 

Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit 

Oregon State university Depa_~ment of Fisheries and Wildlife 

Nash Hall 104 

Corvallis, OR 973331-3803 . (503) 737-:J.962 

Research Wildli£e Biol og:i.st. Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research 

Unit, oregon State University, Corval.lis, OR. 4/89-Present. 

Conducting research on the dist~tion and nest site preferences 

of Marbled Murrelets in the Oregon ·eoa8t Ranges . 

Wildli£e Biologist . Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Nongame Program, Portland, OR. 5/88- 4/89. Developed and tested 

inventory techniques f or Marbled Murrelets in the Oregon Coast 

Ranges. 

·Graduate Research Assistant . Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research 

Unit, .oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 1/85-3/89. Thesis 

entitled uHabitat use and densities of cavity-nesting birds in 

the Oregon Coast Ranges n • 

Faculty Research Assistant. Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research 

Unit, Oregon State Universi ty, Corvallis, ott. 7 /83-l./85. Assisted 

on a study of juvenile dispersal of the Northern Spotted OWl. 

Biological. Technician. Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 

Oregon State university, CorvaLlis, OR. 6/83-7/83 and l./84-2/8~. 

Variable circular-plot censuses of forest birds and arboreal 

mammals were conducted in the Oregon Cascade MountaiDs. 

Biologist/Education Special.ist. Oregon Muse~ of Science and 

Industry, Portland, OR. 9/80-!.2/81 . Involved developing and 

implementing field and laboratory research projects wi.th birds 

and mari_ne invertebrates; teaching natural ~story and physical 

science to adults and children; Public relations; development of 

science education materials. 

M.S. Wildlife sci ence, Oregon State University, Corvallis. June 

1989. 

Classes ill Wildli£e Science, Oregon State University, Co:r;va.llis. 

September 1982-June 1 983. 

B.A. Art History and Business Administration, Lewis ana Clark 

College, Portland, Oregon. Al.lgust l.980. 
45 

S. Kim Nelson 

Ralph, C.J., S.K. Nelson, M.M. Shaughnessy, and S.L. Miller. 

~993 . . Methods for surveying Marbled Murrelets in forests. 

Pacific Seabird Group, T~chnical Paper ~~. oregon 

Cooperative Wildlife Research unit, Oregon ·State lJD.iversity, 

Nash Hall ~04, Corvallis, oregon. 

Nelson, S.K., M.L.C. McAl.li.ster, M.A. Stern, D.IL Varoujean, and 

J.M . Scott. ~.9.92. The l'f..a._Ti>led Murrelet in oregon, ~899-

~987. Pages 6~-9~ lJ:i carter, ILR. and M. Morrison, eds. 

The status, dist..-ribution and management of the Marbled 

Murrelet. !?:!:oceedi.ngs of the western Foundation of 

Vertebrate Zoology 5 (~) • 

Carey, A.B_., V.E. castellano, C. Chappell, R. Kuntz, R.W. 

Lundquist, B.G. Marcot, S.K. Nelson, and :e>. Sullivan. 1.9.90. 

Training guide for bird identification in Pacific Northwest 

Douglas-fir forests. u.s. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-260. 

Paton, P.W.C., C.J. Ralph, E.R. Carter, and S.K. Nelson. ~990. 

Surveying Marbled Mu..""Telets at i.n.land forested sites : a 

guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, GeneraJ. Technical Report 

PSW-~20. 

Anthony, R.G., E.D. Forsman, G.A. Green, G. Witmer, and S.K. 

Nelson. ~987. Small-mammal populations in ripariall zones of 

different-aged coniferous forests. Murrelet 68:94-~02. 

Miller, G.S., S.K. Nelson, and W. C. Wright. 

female Spotted Owl breeds successfully. 

16:93-94. 

~985. Two-year old 

Western Birds 

Nelson, S.K. S.W. Singer, T.L. DeSillito, and B. O'Donnell. In 

press. A prelimi.zlazy analysis of the vocal repertoire of the Ma:rb~ed Mu=::el.et. Northweste:r:n Natllr1!U.i.st. 

Nelson, S.K. and J.G. Ra.."'"ltin. In press. Shore-based surveys of 

Marbled Murrelets along the Oregon Coast, 1.988-1991. 

Northwe!iJtern Naturalist. 

Nelson~ S.K., T .E. liamer, and K.K. lioltrop. In prep. Nest-site 

cbaract:erl.stics of Marbled Murrel.ets in t.b.e Pa.cif:ic 

Northwest. 

Nelson, S.K., and R.G. Anthony. In prep. Hab:itat use of cavitynesti.D.g birds in the Oregon Coast Ranges. 

2 
46 

s. Kim Nelson 3 

Marbled Murrelet habitat associations and vocai repertoire. June 

1.993. Seminar; CO:r:nell !.aboratory of Ornithology, Sierra 

Nevada Research station, Sattley, cal.i.:fornia. 

The 13!ldarigered Species Act: a case study on the Marbled Muxrelet. 

May 1993. Semi.=, Oregon State ·Un;Lversity, Department of 

Forest Science, COrval.l.is, Oregon. 

Inland habitat use and status of the Marbled· Murrelet. March 

1993. The Wil.dlife society, Oregon Chapter. Annual. Meet:U:lg, 

Newport, Oregon. · 

Marbled M=elets. and habitat diversity. March 1993. Seminar, 

Biodiversity Panel. Environmental Law Conference, 

University of Oregon, EugEme, Oregon . 

. Shore-based SU.."Veys of the Marbled Murrelet · along the Oregon 

COast, 1.988-1992. Februa..--y 1993. Pacific seabird Group 

Annual Meetillg, Seattle, Washillgton. 

Biology and management of the Marbled Murrelet. November 1.992. 

Seminar, cornell tJDiversity, Laboratory of Ornithology, 

Ithaca, New York, and Lewis a.ud Clark College, Portland, 

Oregon. 

The Ma:rbled Murrelet: an enigma of the Pac.i!ic N~..hwest. October 1992. Society of Amei:ican Foresters National 

Cmrvention, Richmond; v'irgima. 

Testimony to ·the u.s. Senate Environment Committee on the biology 

and management of the Marbled Mu.rrelet. August 1992. u.s. 

Senate, Washi.ngton, D . C. · 

Marbled Murrelets and oceanography. Ma.i-cb I.992. seminar, 

Department of Oceanography, Oregon State O'Iliversity., . Corva.llis, oregon. 

The Marbled MU:rrelet and the endali~..-ed species act . FebruarY 

1992.. Seminar, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon 

State 1Jl11versity, Corva.l.1.is, Oregon. 

Nest-site ~eristics of the Mazbl.ed MU-~et in the Pacific 

Northwest. January 1992. Pacific Seabini Group 1\nnuaJ. 

Meeting; Chaxl.eston, oregon. 

A preliminary a:aal.ysis of the vocal repertoire of Mlu!bled 

Murrelets. ·Ja:r::IJJ.aZY 1.992. Pacific Seabird Group Annual 

Meeting, Charleston, Oregen. · · · 

Nesting biol.ogy of Mamled Murrel.ets. November 1991. Society of 

American Foresta....-:>, Annual Meet ng, Tillamook, oregon. 
47 

S ~ Kim Nelsoz:l 

Mazb~ed Mu=el.et biology and evolution. April l.99l.. Semblar, 

Evclutioua%¥ Biology Seminar Series, 1J'nivers1ty of: Oregon, 

Buge.ne, Oregon. 

Discovery of . two tree nests of the Marbled Murrel.et in western Oregon. Pebruazy l.99l. aJ:ICl January 1991. The Wildlife 

Society, oregon Chapter, ADnual Meeting, Newport, Oregon, 

and. Pacific Seabird Group Annual Meeting, Monterey, 

cali..forni.a. 

Preferred snag chara.c:te....-i,stics of. c:a.vity-nesting- birds in. western Oregon. March l.990. Tha Wildli£e Society, oregon Chapter, 

Annual. Meeting, W~ches, Oregcn. 

Distr:ihution and behavior of the Ma-?bled Mu..-r-relet. March 1.990 

and Febrwu:y l.99o. The Wildlif.e Society, Oregon Chapter, 

Annual. Meeting, W~ches, Oregon, and Pacific Seabird Group 

Amlual. Meeting, Victoria, B.C. 

Nesting biology of Marbled Mw::rel.ets. March 1.990. Selllillar, 

central Oregon Comnntn1 ty College, Bend, Oregon. 

l'BOWBSSI:ODL 60ClJtt1B8 

t>acific Seabird Group; Chair, Marbled Murrelet Technica1 

COlllmi.t.tee, 1.990-Present. 

The Wildlife .Society- National., Western Reg:i.on and Oregon member; 

Bxecutive Board Member, Oregon Chapter, 1.990- 1.993; Executi ve 

Board, Student Chapter, 1.984-1986. 

Society of HorthwesteJ:D. Ve.t;tebra.te Biology 

Cooper On:litholo¢cal society · 

Wilson O:mi.thologi.oal. Society 

Allsoci.ation of Field O:mi.thologi.sts 

.American O:mi.thologi.sts Union 

Soc.iety of ~can Foresters 

PBRSCIIDX. Born 31 December 1.957 in Richmond, virginia 

Dr. E. Cha.r~es Maslow, Leader, Oregon Cooperative Wildlife 

Research tn:l.it, Oregon State cniversity, Nash Hall 1.04, Co~is, 

OR 97331. (503)737- 4531. 

Ric::bard liolthansen, Regional. Wildlif~ Ecologist, USDA Forest s~c::e, Oregan State oniversi.ty, ·Department of Fisheries and ~ldlife, Hash Bal1 l.04, COrvallis, OR.9733l (503)737-4531.. 

R.Ql:)in P. Brmm, Nongame Wildlife Biologist, Oregon De~t of 

Pish and. Wlldlife, Marine ~an, Marine science Drive, Building 

#3, Hewport, OR 97365 (503)·867-4741. 
48 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Hamburg, I understand that maybe we will 

hear from-I guess we will-Mr. Dixon in a while, but his statement indicates that Humboldt County has an unemployment rate 

of nearly 10 percent. How many jobs would be lost if this bill is enacted? 

Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Doolittle, there is really no way to calculate 

that because of the way the bill is structured. This bill calls for a 

phased buyout over a number of years. There is no way to calculate 

what length of time negotiations, successful negotiations, would entail to buy portions of this forest. And I am sure you have read the 

bill and you know that our first consideration is that large, intact 

Headwaters Forest-the 3,000 acres plus the 1,500-acre buffer 

around it. 

Next, we would look at the other large intact groves. 

Now, when you talk about job loss, I think we have to get into 

the regulatory framework in which logging now exists. As you 

know, the Endangered Species Act has already taken a tremendous 

whack out of logging in the Pacific Northwest because of the Northern Spotted Owl. We have now the Marbled Murrelet as a threatened species, listed as a threatened species in September 1992. We 

have the coho salmon now as a candidate species for listing, likely 

to be listed in northern California. 

The logging of the last of these groves will hasten the downfall 

of these species, which will lead to further restriction on logging, 

not only in terms of restricting logging on this land, but on associated land as well, other land in the region. So when you talk about 

job loss, it is not something that we can calculate in exact terms. 

One thing we do know, and we know this most recently from a 

competitor of Pacific Lumber, Simpson Inc., which recently laid off 

55 workers, or announced the layoff of 55 workers, because they 

have cut all of their old-growth. And the president of that company, 

Dave Caney-and I will submit that article, the article from the 

local paper for the record-stated that. And actually I can quotehe said, it is a natural step in the progression in the transition to 

100 percent young-growth timber operations. 

So when the old-growth is gone, as my colleague Mr. Stark said, 

many of the jobs are gone. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Do you agree with Mr. Stark that the cost is inflated for the acquisition of the lands called for in this bill? 

Mr. HAMBURG. I don't believe that the calculations on the costs 

of the land take adequately account of the regulatory framework in 

which logging must go forward. And that is particularly with respect to the listing of endangered species. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I just note that in 1978, the Interior Secretary 

then, Cecil Andrus, indicated to Congress that the Redwood Park 

expansion would cost $359 million, and ended up costing more than 

four times that. So we should not be too optimistic in making these 

projections. 

Mr. HAMBURG. As I understand it, the bill that created Redwood 

National Park was structured much differently than this bill. I believe that that was a condemnation, and in those condemnation 

proceedings, the corporations which were selling their land to the 

Federal Government were able to steadily adjust the price of those 
49 

lands upward, even as many of the lands were cut over prior to the 

transfer of ownership. We have not structured our bill in that way. Perhaps Maxxam 

would prefer if we did, because perhaps then they could argue for 

a higher cost. Instead, what we are hoping to enter into as a result 

of this bill is a fair negotiation between the Agriculture Secretary 

and the company for acquisition over a number of years. Mr. DOOLITTLE. We had a vote on the floor last week regarding 

private property rights in the National Biological Survey bill. The 

vote was about 300 to 100, somewhere in that range, in favor of 

preserving private property rights or the rights of the private property owners. Could this be construed as legislating to strong-arm a private 

owner into becoming a, quote, willing seller, unquote? 

Mr. STARK. If the gentleman would allow me to---

Mr. HAMBURG. I will yield to my colleague. 

Mr. STARK [continuing]. Respond to that a minute, I think it was 

Lawrence Rockefeller who indicated that he stood firmly, as I do, 

for private property rights, but the one right that we have never 

allowed people in this country is the unfettered use of the property. We have always had the fact that government can zone for 

health, safety, public interests, how it is used. The reimbursement 

of private property, the taking of private property, has to be done 

for a fair price. So while nobody questions any right to own this, the question of how the property can be used is one of governmental primacy. And that is the issue that we deal with there. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I understand the concept the gentleman is 

speaking of. But on the other hand, we have heard the use of tak- ing here in the testimony, and the idea that this may get down to 

the point where there will be an evaluation and a formal taking 

procedure, which would put us, I think, where the Redwood National Park ended up being, wouldn't it? 

Mr. STARK. Again, as Congressman Hamburg has indicated, it 

would depend I suppose on how rigorously we intend to enforce the 

existing environmental laws and the existing restrictions on harvesting. If we allow owners like Hurwitz and Maxxam to disregard 

the law, as to make the law meaningless, and continue to cut timber in opposition to the law, conceivably people would say the law 

is of no use and erase it. On the other hand, if the law is rigorously and formally enforced, 

it very well might limit the value that reasonable people would put 

on the property. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VENTO. Congresswoman Shepherd, did you have a question 

or two of the witnesses, of our colleagues? 

Ms. SHEPHERD. I do. 

Thank you for coming; and my question has to do-or a series 

of questions, have to do with this timber as a renewable resource 

or not, and also with the commercial fishing industry. 

Can you describe, Representative Hamburg, why this is a 

nonrenewable resource and you are treating it as a nonrenewable 

resource? 

Mr. HAMBURG. Congresswoman, there is little question that trees 

are a renewable resource in general terms. We have been growing 
50 

and harvesting treefl on the north coast of California for many generations, and I certainly hope that we will continue to do so. 

Trees are an extremely important part of our land base, our 

economy, our values, the way we live on the north coast. However, 

ancient redwoods are not a renewable resource. The conditions 

under which they came about, the thousands of years of history 

during which they evolved as life forms and created the systems 

that sustain them and those which they sustain-the soils, the 

streams, the climatic conditions, the topographical conditionsthose things cannot be replicated. 

So I think we can fairly say that these ancient forests-and I 

think we have to distinguish ancient forests from old-growth forests; old-growth might be considered anything over perhaps-on 

the north coast maybe anything over a hundred years or so old, because of the very good growing conditions for redwood, but when 

we are talking about these ancient forests, we are talking about 

trees, some of which have been growing since--you know, we are 

talking a thousand years, 1,500 years in some c;ases even more 

than that. And they are unique and they are irreplaceable. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. And you are also indicating that the conditions 

that they are interdependent with are irreplaceable; in other 

words, if they are cut down, then you have a set amount of soil 

that is lost that is nonrenewable. You have a certain number of 

species that are lost that are nonrenewable, none of which can be 

re-created. 

We have a habit in this country of charging royalty for 

nonrenewable resource extraction. Do we do this on redwoods? 

Mr. STARK. I don't believe so. It does that, but it is not yet law. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. This is called the Headwaters bill, and I presume that is because there are a lot of headwaters. I am a cosponsor of 

this bill as well and this was my primary interest in it. 

The headwaters of salmon spawning streams are crucial to the 

commercial fishing industry and the commercial fishing industry 

has of late taken some huge losses, I dare say larger losses perhaps 

than the timber industry because their resource is declining, they 

have fewer and fewer salmon to harvest from the sea. 

I have often wondered whether or not what we allow timber companies to do in the interests of protecting their private property 

rights is somehow infringing on what we allow the commerical fishing industry to do, and they have just as much right to be in business and to have their resources replenished as the timber industry. 

I would like you to explore this for me. For example, what is the 

relationship to this bill, if we were to cut along the headwaters of 

the streams that are there, what is likely to happen to the commercial fishing industry in California? 

Mr. HAMBURG. I believe that there are many reasons for the decline of the salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest. In one of 

my committees, the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, we 

explore those reasons in great depth. Part of it has to do with damming of rivers; part of it has to do with natural occurrences. In the 

Pacific Northwest, the flood of 1964 washed a lot of silt into rivers, 

in some areas scoured streambeds and made spawning impossible. 

We have had El Nino conditions, problems with marine mammals. 
51 

There are many things that have led to this decline. Clearly, one 

of the contributing factors has been sedimentation particularly due 

to upslope logging. The timber companies on the north coast, to 

their credit, are doing a better job. I think they are beginning to 

understand-not beginning; I think for at least a decade or so they have more cognizant of the interrelationship between their logging 

practices and the health of the fishing industry. 

However, I believe that areas like the area designated in this 

bill-and we have submitted testimony by Peter Hoyle of U.C. 

Davis to giva scientific backing to this---eontributes tremendously 

to particular stocks of salmon. I believe that something over 100 

stocks of salmon in the Pacific Northwest are already extinct and 

something over 200 runs are threatened with extinction, and 

maybe like the coho on a candidate list soon to be listed as threatened and endangered. I believe those listings are a tremendous 

threat to the economy of the region. Someone said if you thought 

the spotted owl was bad, wait until they start listing stocks of 

salmon. 

In this area, Dr. Hoyle believes, and I think there is good reason 

to concur, that this region is particularly important for trying to 

preserve the last of the runs of coho salmon. Ms. SHEPHERD. Do you have estimates on what losses have been 

sustained by the commercial fishing industry in the last 10 years 

of extreme logging? 

Mr. HAMBURG. Well, again in fairness to the timber industry, I 

want to say that there are a multitude of reasons why this industry 

is imperiled, and logging is certainly one of those. I would definitely put the losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars. One thing that is happening on the North Coast that I think is 

very encouraging is that those groups representing the interests of 

the fishing industry and those representing logging are starting to 

work together to improve practices, expand the careful treatment 

of riparian areas along streams so that streams are properly 

shaded and water temperatures don't get too high for proper 

spawning. There are some good things going on. 

As I have said, particularly with respect to the coho, I think this 

particular area is critical and bringing back the salmon industry in 

the Pacific Northwest is critical to the future economic base of the 

region, and that will take many years and many, many different 

measures to achieve. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. Do you have a sense that this timber company 

in question here is working to preserve these salmon runs with the 

fishing industry? 

Mr. HAMBURG. I am sure that they will testify on that issue. I 

believe that-! am sure they have a fishery biologist on their staff. 

I am sure they are taking some steps. I believe that if we do not protect these headwaters forest areas, 

we will destroy one of the last remaining essential spawning 

grounds for particular stocks of salmon. So I don't believe that even 

their careful work to the extent that they are doing it, I don't believe that work is consistent with logging these groves, and I do believe that it is the intention of the company to continue to log these 

last groves of redwoods. That was amply demonstrated Thanksgiving weekend of 1992 when in the midst of what I believe was 
52 

kind of a Keystone Cops rendition by State and Federal agencies, 

conflicting in the messages they were giving Pacific Lumber, the 

company was able to harvest about a hundred acres in the Owl 

Creek Grove. 

So I believe that given the current regulatory confusion, that 

they would continue to make those kinds of incursions and further 

put anadromous fish stocks in danger. 

Mr. VENTO. I think the point made about the dollars spent, the 

proposal actually provides for a variety of different ways by donation that extends an invitation to the State of California, which has 

no small interest in terms of the preservation of this particular 

area from past testimony, but the bill talks about addition by donation, by purchase with donated or appropriated funds or by exchange for other lands owned by any department, agency or instrumentality of the United States, so that would be the DOD, GSA, 

the land management agencies, RTC and a lot of other people that 

we could invite into that particular process. Because of the size of 

this, that would be desirable if the Congress didn't appropriate 

what they are supposed to appropriate next year for the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund, which they don't do. 

In any case, the authority and the dollars are there; they are just 

going to the Treasury for other things like aircraft carriers. It is 

a matter of priorities, I guess. If you live in Utah, apparently aircraft carriers are important. 

Mr. HANSEN. You never know when the great Salt Lake is coming up, do you? 

Mr. VENTO. In the Great Salt Lake, that is about what they will 

be useful for. You will need them because you are running out of 

lands. · 

Thank you very much. I invite Congressmen Hamburg and Stark 

to join the committee, without objection, to participate in the questioning. We will have to break to go to the Floor and handle a bill 

on New Jersey, it looks like now. We will take Mr. Leonard, and 

hopefully get through the first panel before we have to do that 

about 12:30. 

Mr. Leonard, you have a number of members with you: Dr. John 

Ralph, who we have heard from before, who works on, I think he 

is one of the leading scientists on the Marbled Murrelet; Mr. Phillip Detrich, the Forest Species Specialist, and others. So we very 

much appreciate your presence and the work that you have done. 

This is an issue that we did hammer away on during the last 

session, didn't come to a conclusion. The committee actually passed 

it and it went to the Committee on Agriculture and time ran out 

on this issue. 

Your testimony has been made part of the record, so please proceed to summarize it. 
53 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE M. LEONARD, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, 

FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. C. JOHN RALPH, RESEARCH WILDLIFE 

BIOLOGIST AT THE FOREST SERVICE'S REDWOOD SCIENCES 

LABORATORY; PHILLIP DETRICH, FOREST SPECIES SPECIALIST, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; AND PAUL TITTMAN, CHIEF APPRAISER, FOREST SERVICE 

Mr. LEONARD. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. We appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the Department of Agriculture on 

the Headwaters Forest Act. As you mentioned, Dr. C. John Ralph 

of the Pacific Southwest Station is here with me. 

The Department of Agriculture supports the goals and objectives 

of H.R. 2866, and is interested in working with the Congress to 

find ways to acquire this land. However, there are serious cost issues associated with the bill as currently drafted. The administration is willing to negotiate with the involved parties to see if the 

objectives of the bill can be achieved. 

H.R. 2866 would adjust the boundaries of the Six Rivers National 

Forest to include approximately 44,000 acres of private lands belonging to Pacific Lumber Company. The timber lands are redwood 

forests on productive growing sites. Approximately 3,100 acres of 

old-growth redwoods, called the Headwaters Forest, are included in 

these private lands. 

The area to be acquired under H.R. 2866 has excellent natural 

resource attributes. Habitats for a variety of sensitive, threatened 

and endangered wildlife species are provided by these lands. The 

Headwaters Forest is pristine, old-growth redwoods and contains 

the majority of the birds in one of three remaining populations of 

Marbled Murrelets in California. 

Our main concern with H.R. 2866 is the cost of land acquisition. 

An estimate of the cost of acquisition for the approximately 4,488-

acre Headwaters Forest, including the value of the standing timber, is approximately $500 million. No appraisal has been conducted on the total 44,000-acre area identified for addition to the 

Six Rivers National Forest as proposed in this bill. The bill provides for the development of a comprehensive management plan within one year of enactment. Mr. Chainnan, this 

time is too short. Development of such a plan would require us to 

conduct resource inventories, public involvement and consultation 

on threatened and endangered species with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Accomplishing these tasks would take a minimum of three 

years. 

Mr. Chainnan, the forest lands in question would be a worthy 

addition to the national forest system. The Department of Agriculture supports the goals and objectives of H.R. 2866, and is interested in working with the Congress to find ways to meet these 

goals. 

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to respond to questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:] 
54 

STATEMENT OF 

GEORGE M. LEONARD, ASSOCIATE CHIEF 

FOREST SERVICE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Concerning H.R. 2866. Headwaters Forest Act 

October 12, 1993 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the 

Department of Agriculture regarding H.R. 2866 , the "Headwaters 

Forest Act ." Accompanying me today is Dr. c. John Ralph of the 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

The Department of Agriculture supports the goals and objectives 

of H.R. 2866 and is interested in working with the Congress to 

see this proposal effected. However, there are serious cost 

issues associated with the bill as currently drafted. The 

Administration is willing to negotiate with the involved 

parties to see if the objectives of the bill can be achieved . 

H.R. 2866 would adjust the boundaries of the Six Rivers 

National Forest to include approximately 44,000 acres of 

private timber lands belonging to Pacific Lumber Company . The 

timber lands are redwood forests on productive growing sites. 

The bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire 
55 

these lands by dona~ion, purchase with dona~ed or appropriated 

funds, or exchange, and to manage them as part of the Six 

Rivers National Forest. Approximately 3,100 acres of 

old-growth redwoods, c alled the "Headwaters Forest" are 

i ncluded in these private lands and, upon acquisition by the 

Federal Government, would be designated as wilderness. The 

bill would require ~he Secretary to prepare: 1) a land 

acquisit.ion plan within 6 months of enactment, 2) a 

comprehensive management plan for the lands to be acquired 

within 1 year of enactment, and 3) a report for a "Study Area" 

which analyzes the potential for additional acquisition of 

approximately 13,620 acres within 1 year of enactment. 

The bill would also require the Secretary, subject to 

appropriations, to make ten annual payments to Humboldt County, 

California in an amount equal to the State of California Timber 

Yield Tax revenues which would be paid if the lands were not 

acquired by the United States. 

The area to be acquired under H.R. 2866 has excellent natural 

resource attributes. Habitats for a variety of sensitive, 

threatened and endangered wildlife species are provided by 

these Pacific Lumber Company lands. These include year around 

habitat for the northern spotted owl (listed as threatened) , 

foraging habitat for the peregrine falcon and bald eagle 

(listed as endangered), and nesting habitat for the marbled 

murrelet (listed as threatened). The area also includes 
freshwater and anadromous salmon and steelhead fisheries and 

potential for a wide array of outdoor recreation 

opportunities. Appropriate management direction for these 

resources and provision of long term protection of soil and 

water could also be provided through the Forest Planning 

process with full public involvement. 

The old-growth on Pacific Company lands including that in the 

"Headwaters Forest" are pristine, old-growth, redwood forests, 

and contain the majority of the birds in one of t he three 

remaining populations of Marbled Murrelets in California. The 

management of Headwaters Forest, other old-growth, and the 

additional surrounding lands would i nclude practices to ensure 

the persistence of the Marbled Murrelet in California, a nd 

reduce concerns for the species' management on National Forest 

System lands outside of the proposed acquisition. 

Our main concern with H.R. 2866 is the cost of land 

acquisition. An estimate of the cost of acquisition for the 

approximately 4,488 acre Headwaters Forest , including the value 

of the standing timber, is approximately $500 million. The 

appraisal on this property was completed last spring and 

approved for Agency use on September 13, 1993. No appraisal 

has yet been conducted on the 44 , 000 acre area identified for 

potential purchase and addition to the Six Rivers National 

Forest as proposed in H.R. 2866 . The bill authorizes 

appropriations for planned acquisition and other costs. 

3 
57 

However, the cost of acquiring the 4,488-acre Headwaters Forest 

represents more than half the total Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (L&WCF) dollars appropriated nationally for National 

Forest acquisitions during the entire history of the L&WCF . 

The Administration is interested in exploring a number o f 

possible alternatives to purchasing land including conservation 

easements, land donations, and land exchanges to accomplish the 

objectives of this legislation. 

It should be noted that coastal redwood is a species in high 

demand, with a limited supply, as nearly all of the coastal 

redwood harvested and sold in the world originates in Northern 

California. As a result, the price of redwood is increasing 

more rapidly than other species. 

Under current management, Pacific Lumber Company annually 

harvests about 200 million board feet of timber from their 

approximately 191,000 acres of timber lands. However, this 

volume will decline as available old- growth is cutout over the 

next decade . Until the land management plans f1r the area are 

developed, we cannot estimate the volumes and revenues that 

might be realized if the lands were placed into public 

ownership as proposed. 

The bill provides for the development of a comprehensive 

management plan within one year of enactment. Development of 

such a plan would require: 1) public involvement as required by 

4 
58 

the National Forest Management Act; 2) resource i nventories, 

i ncluding threatened and endange·red species i nventories; a nd 

3 ) consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

concerning threatened and endangered species. Accomplishing 

t hese tasks would take a minimum of three years. Because of 

t he high administrative costs associated with this planning 

process, we would recommend that the development of management 

plans not proceed until the lands are acquired. 

Mr . Chairman, the f orest l ands in question possess excell ent 

natural resource attributes and the Headwaters Forest has 

important wilderness attributes, t he Department of Agriculture 

supports the goals and ob j ectives of H. R. 2866 and i s 

interested in worki ng with the Congress to meet the objecti ves 

of t he bill . 

Thi s concl udes my prepared statement. We would be pleased to 

answer the Subcommittee ' s questions. 

5 
59 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Leonard . . I note you did an appraisal on the core area, I believe, the 44,000 

acres. Can you explain in more detail to me the nature of that appraisal, or do you have someone with you that can? 

Mr. LEONARD. Let me call on our chief appraiser to go over that. 

Mr. VENTO. If he could come forward, maybe you could find an 

extra chair on the corner there. 

Would you state your name for the record? 

Mr. TITTMAN. My name is Paul Tittman. I am Chief Appraiser 

of the Forest Service. 

Mr. VENTO. Good morning, Mr. Tittman, and thank you for being 

present. 

Mr. TITIMAN. The appraisal was prepared by Jim Fleming, who 

is a registered professional forester out of Sacramento, California. 

It was based on a timber cruise that was prepared under separate 

contract by Hammond, Jensen and Wollen and Associates of Oakland, California. 

Without getting into the details, this was a comprehensive cruise 

of 4,488 acres taking into account California Department of Forestry standards for environmental zones and threatened and endangered species, and was predicated on the current California 

standards for timber harvest in that area. Mr. VENTO. Why did you appraise the 44,000 acres-why didn't 

you appraise the area we were talking about? 

Mr. TITIMAN. We were not given access to the remainding properties. Pacific Lumber indicated that the remainder was not for 

sale and was not subject to consideration at that point in time, so 

we did not contract for appraisal in that area. 

Mr. VENTO. So that was the extent of it. In other words, ignorance I guess is bliss here in terms of not giving the information 

out. I suppose then they have their own appraisals of what the 

value of it is. It would be nice to be able to have the information. 

In the sense that there is an attitude or lack of cooperation that 

stands in stark contrast to some of the statements made concerning 

this particular issue. 

Mr. Leonard, does the Pacific Lumber inholdings identified in the 

bill have the necessary characteristics to be national forest and 

could they be managed efficiently? 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes, sir. If we have the 44,000 acre tract envisioned by this bill, it would make it a very manageable unit. 

Mr. VENTO. It has been referred to that this isn't a priority, that 

you have other priorities. Aren't you under marching orders not to 

in fact begin to expand outside forest boundaries except in rare instances? 

Mr. LEONARD. That is correct. We have never considered this. 

Our set of priorities is based on directions that we have received 

from the Congress in various legislations which has identified particular tracts. 

Mr. VENTO. The White Mountain National Forest of New Hampshire; was that a priority of the Forest Service? 

Mr. LEONARD. No. 

Mr. VENTO. It came about because of recommendations from the 

Congress. I don't know that this would be or could be a priority. 

If we were to acquire this land, could it produce revenue? 
60 

Given the strictures of this bill? 

Mr. LEONARD. Certainly under the terms of this bill, there would 

be no harvesting of the old-growth redwoods. The bill would permit 

harvesting on the second-growth stands. We don't have an estimate of-we have not cruised the area-we don't have an estimate 

of what levels of yield could be obtained but certainly these are 

highly productive lands and even with set-asides for stream side 

protection, you would have a substantial yield off of the secondgrowth stands over the long tenn. 

Mr. VENTO. Most of these lands other than the fact that there 

are some wilderness and some other areas that are prevented 

under this bill from being harvested, supposedly you would operate 

under stricter guidelines than the State of California and others 

are imposing on the Pacific Timber Company; is that correct? 

Mr. LEONARD. That is correct. Mr. VENTO. Nevertheless, there could be revenue-in other words 

I guess the way that they are moving means they can make some 

money very quickly. You would get into supposedly a sustainable 

yield type of policy; is that right? 

Mr. LEONARD. Absolutely. 

Mr. VENTO. As the premier agency in terms of managing forests 

on a global basis, do you think that you can handle this and do it 

correctly or not? 

Mr. LEONARD. We think we can do an exemplary job. 

Mr. VENTO. I guess if you come from the school that the government can't do anything right and that only the Pacific Lumber 

Company knows how to run these things correctly, it blows away 

the fact that the Forest Services manages 100 million acres and the 

fact that you follow the law, which it seems to be that most often 

that is a good idea or you end up in court, that probably you could 

handle this. And that probably it could still continue to produce 

some jobs; maybe not where you say this is wilderness and you 

can't do anything there, and the Congress gives you the instruction-we wouldn't want to equal the record of the Pacific Lumber 

Company to date in terms of what they are doing because that 

would be a repeat of destroying ecosystems and these attributes 

which we want to protect. Insofar as acquiring the land, the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund is supposed to have $900 million available. With land management agencies we seldom get that high. In fact we get to about 

three. We get to $300 million a year usually. Understanding that 

we have to have that money for aircraft carriers, that we can't use 

it to buy forests because they are more important. The world may 

change, but we are still on a Cold War path, that since we can't 

have that, or now the deficit becomes important if we talk about 

buying forests, where it was apparently less important before when 

we were buying aircraft carriers. Setting that debate aside, I would 

like to actually change it. 

Are there other ways to acquire this without using dollars? In 

other words, the bill provides for a donation. Is it reasonable to expect the State of California may do something? 

Mr. LEONARD. The State of California has shown very active interest in the Headwaters Forest specifically. We think there are opportunities for traditional land exchanges. There may be also some 
61 

opportunity for the use of military bases that are being closed, 

some of which have very, very high real estate values. Perhaps 

some of the lands or properties that have been acquired through 

the Resolution Trust Corporation could also be used. The administration is interested in looking at the whole combination of opportunities. 

Mr. VENTO. We would be trading one asset for another. Instead 

of ending up with land in downtown Burbank or Phoenix or Minneapolis or something, the national government would end up with 

this as an asset. We might know how to manage that since we are 

managing a couple hundred million acres of it through the Forest 

Service. It is obvious that we don't do too well managing some of 

these other properties, from my standpoint of having to be the 

majordomo in terms of watching the RTC in the House. So the 

issue becomes clear here and in terms of what is possible. 

I understand the State of California is going through a lot of 

trauma so I don't know that we can rely on that to any great extent, except that they have shown and demonstrated a lot of interest in this area. That is all I am commenting about. But there is 

the opportunity to do some trading here to accomplish the goal 

through trading one asset for another that we have or we could actually use the real money we are supposed to use for this, but that 

takes a change in priorities beyond apparently where we have gone 

at this time. 

These lands with other major considerations on them from the 

State of California, the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water, all 

these apply to these lands today even though they are private, 

don't they? 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes, they do. 

Mr. VENTO. In the sense that there has been damage, is it possible that dollars could be set aside in terms of mitigation that 

could be used for the purchase of other lands? 

For instance, we had that with the Exxon oil spill in Alaska. 

That was a court decision that came out. We are now involved in 

a series of different court decisions dealing with old-growth forests, 

and they are not resolved; is that correct? 

Mr. LEONARD. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. So dollars spent in terms of mitigation could be used 

for instance as a resolution here if we sought a judgment along 

those lines; is that correct? 

Mr. LEONARD. I think it is clear that if we are going to resolve 

this question and acquire these lands, we will have to use a combination. 

Mr. VENTO. I am just trying to look at the wide range of possibilities. That is a common way to resolve issues where damage has 

been done. In Region 6 or other areas, we could have a tradeoffthis is Region 5? 

Mr. LEONARD. That is correct. The issue in Region 6 is actually 

dealing with stream courses that have been damaged there andrestoring them to a productive state. 

Mr. VENTO. If there is damage in Region 5, in another area 

where there has been damage done, I don't know if there are lawsuits there, but there are ways to move forward and deal with this. 

I know it is breaking new ground to suggest that the West, which 

78-078 - 94 - 3 
62 

has public domain States would buy or develop new forests. This 

is breaking new ground. This means that what was left may not 

embrace what was worthy and necessary as stewards to protect. So 

it is not too big a leap or big step forward. 

I think it is a reasonable path in which to move. I understand 

the dollar problems and national government and where our priorities are and why they are immutable and must stay there. The 

fact that the world changes shouldn't bother us that much. We 

should just go about working as we normally do in terms of plowing money into other special interest projects. 

Mr. LEONARD. The administration is interested in looking at alternative ways of getting the resources to make this happen. 

Mr. VENTO. I think it can happen if we want to do it. It is a question of whether we want to do it. 

Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Leonard, good to see you again. I know all the times you 

have been here and been scarred. It is good to see you one more 

time. 

On page 4 of your testimony, however, the cost of acquiring the 

4,448-acre Headwaters Forest represents more than half the total 

Land and Water Conservation Fund. Dollars appropriated nationally for national forest acquisitions during the entire history-the 

administration is interested in exploring other ways I guess this is 

still rather nebulous and we are still trying to put this together. 

If I could ask you, when we have over 265,000 acres of redwoods 

protected in Federal and State parks and preserves and 90,000 

acres of old growth forest, how much more do you want as the Forest Service? Where do we go? It is like the idea of how many acres 

do we need that the Chairman keeps alluding to. 

Now we have 15, and of course the governmentMr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield to me. 

Mr. HANSEN. Just a moment. The world has changed, but some 

of us who have to deal with it daily find that it has maybe changed 

to make it even worse and we still give missions to the Navy to 

do. Admiral Kelso says, Stop giving us these missions, and we 

won't need these things. The same analogy is, how many more do 

you need? I'll be happy to yield. 

Mr. VENTO. I just wanted to point out that in some instances, the 

military doesn't want the aircraft carriers. In any case, I am interested in hearing Mr. Leonard's opinion. As far as I am concerned, 

I think we ought to give him the direction. I appreciate his valuable opinion and that of the professionals, but we represent the 

people. Mr. HANSEN. I agree. Just like we have to sit there and determine how many missions the military has to do to keep us free and 

safe so you can grow your family and your grandchildren in Minnesota; it still comes down to the idea that our whole job is 

prioritizing. 

Mr. VENTO. Protect the redwoods so Horowitz can cut them 

down. 

Mr. HANSEN. The Chairman has couched it in terms of an opinion. I wonder if there is an official opinion on that. How much do 

you need? 
63 

Look at the beauty of the parks in Utah. Up to the last reapportionment I had more parks in my district than any district in 

America. I would do anything in my power to keep them beautiful 

and clean. But we can't take every piece of sage brush and tum 

it into a national park either. 

Mr. LEONARD. Certainly one of the major interests in protecting 

this area is its important role in protecting the vitality of the Marbled Murrelet in California. So these stands that we are talking 

about play a unique role, not the same role as a redwood park with 

a different population. The question is the role there. 

Let me ask Dr. Ralph to comment on the role of this particular 

area with regard to the Marbled Murrelet. 

Dr. RALPH. In relationship to the total population of the species, 

about 350,000 in North America, California has between 6,000 and 

8,000 individuals of this species. Our recent research done over the 

last year or so shows that the area in question of southern Humboldt County has one of the three populations in California and 

contains about 20 percent of the State population. About 80 percent 

of these birds we estimate are on Pacific Lumber Company land. 

According to our estimates-and I am sure Pacific Lumber has 

more accurate-there are about 15,000 acres of old growth and oldgrowth residual on Pacific Lumber Company lands, depending on 

how you define old growth. So roughly one of the three populations 

is on Pacific Lumber Company land. This represents about 20 percent of the population in the State of California. 

South of Puget Sound, there are no other large populations until 

you get into the redwood region. This is where the majority of the 

population is south of Puget Sound. 

Mr. HANSEN. You just mentioned, you said depending on how you 

define old growth. What is the definition of the term by the Forest 

Service? 

Mr. LEONARD. We have developed separate definitions of oldgrowth by species and forest type. It is a structural definition not 

in the age class definition, and in this particular part of the world 

you can get old-growth structure at a relatively young age because 

it is a highly productive site. You can get very big trees in this area 

at a relatively young age. You don't get the ancient forests, the forests Mr. Hamburg was referring to in that short of a time, but you 

can get large trees and you can develop substantial structure in the 

trees within 200 years. 

Mr. HANSEN. Would you submit for the committee any definitions 

that the Forest Service has come up with regarding old growth, especially redwoods? 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes. Be glad to do that. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection. 

[EDITOR's NOTE.-The information can be found in the archival 

file.] 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Hamburg. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Leonard, thank you very much for being here. And, Dr. 

Ralph and Phil, it is good to see you as well. 

Mr. Leonard, if I could ask you, we have just been through a 

major planning process at the Federal level with respect to treat-
64 

ment of our Forest Service lands, our Federal lands, and I would 

like to ask you to comment on the consistency of this proposal, the 

conceptual framework, if you will, behind this bill and that put forward by the FEMAT. 

Mr. LEONARD. I think there is no inconsistency in the thing. 

When we would prepare the management plan for the area, as directed by the bill, we could be completely consistent with FEMAT 

to get there. 

Mr. HAMBURG. So from your standpoint as a forestry professional, you understand the sense in not merely creating fragmented 

islands of old growth, the concept of ecosystem management which 

is put forth in the FEMAT report is the concept that you see in this 

bill? 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes. Now, FEMAT of course was confined to or 

much of the FEMAT report was confined to the Federal lands so 

they did not go out and identify old-growth reserves or such patterns. So we would have to extend those concepts out to the private 

lands. Certainly, what is written in the bill and my understanding of 

FEMAT, there is no inconsistency. 

Mr. HAMBURG. OK. I am looking at this appraisal review which 

was dated September 13, 1993, and trying to get more at this issue 

of the appraised value and how we calculate that. Could you describe the assumptions about the level of harvest of the remaining 

old growth that were made in this appraisal in trying to estimate 

the value of the property? 

The appraisal was only of 4,488 acres and it indicated that there 

is a total of roughly 610,000 million, so what is that, billion board 

feet? The extract notes that 18,849 million board feet of merchantable timber would not be available for harvest because it would be 

necessary to maintain wildlife. 

I would like to ask how you determine the amount of discount 

that was necessary to sustain the wildlife, because what that represents is something like 3 percent of the existing timber on that 

4,500 acres, and that really surprised me to see a figure that low. 

Mr. Leonard or Dr. Ralph? 

Mr. TITIMAN. My understanding was that the cruisers used the 

standards set down by the California Department of Forestry to establish the set-asides for threatened and endangered as well as the 

stream environments. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Was there any consultation with Fish and Wildlife? 

Mr. TITIMAN. Yes. I guess the discussions were with both Fish 

and Wildlife and the California Department of Forestry, who are 

the principal monitors as to what happens on private land in California. 

Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield? Is that actually an 

agreement now that is standing between the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to regulate logging in this area as it affects the Marbled 

Murrelet? 

I think we have-the gentleman from California, it is his time. 

Mr. HAMBURG. I would like to hear from Dr. Ralph and Mr. 

Detrich on the question. 
65 

Dr. Ralph, in your opinion would protection of 3 percent, which 

is what is referred to in this appraisal of the merchantable timber 

in the old-growth areas, would that be adequate for protection of 

Marbled Murrelets in California? Is that an adequate amount? 

Dr. RALPH. That is less than the Headwaters Forest area which 

makes up depending on your definition substantially more. That 

would leave very little, as I understand it, stream-side corridors, 

things like this. This would not leave enough for a viable population, for this particular population. 

Mr. HAMBURG. So I guess you weren't consulted with in this appraisal review? 

Dr. RALPH. No, I wasn't, but it would be Fish and Game and Fish 

and Wildlife. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Detrich, in your opinion would 3 percent of 

the merchantable timber being left in these old-growth areas be 

adequate for protection of the Marbled Murrelet lands? 

Mr. DETRICH. I am Phil Detrich with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Sacramento. I supervise a group of biologists that is responsible for administration of the Endangered Species Act related to 

forestry activities in northern California. I believe you are referring 

to the appraisal package and the 3 percent within the package? 

Mr. HAMBURG. Yes, a document of September 13, 1993. 

Mr. DETRICH. To my knowledge the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

not been involved in that apyraisal package. It could perhaps have 

proceeded at some other leve . Mr. HAMBURG. I thought I understood that you had been consulted as part of this process. 

Mr. TITTMAN. It was through the California Department of Forestry and their licensing authority for harvesting timber on private 

land; the standards were gotten from them. 

Mr. HAMBURG. So the board of the California Department of Forestry's estimate was that 3 percent would be adequate, and you 

don't concur with that? 

Mr. TITTMAN. It was the timber cruisers and appraiser's estimate 

based on the standards put out by the State of California. 

Mr. HAMBURG. I think these estimates are close to useless based 

on the current science with respect to the Marbled Murrelet. So 

that may be enough about that. 

Mr. Leonard, do you anticipate an imminent petition to list the 

coho salmon and if the coho is listed, will that mean a further restriction on the estimated harvest levels in this area? 

Mr. LEONARD. I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and perhaps Mr. Detrich better comment, but my understanding is 

that a number of strains of the coho salmon are being considered 

for listing. I don't know whether they include the strains going up 

into the Headwaters Forest or not. Certainly the levels of protection that we have been providing on the Federal lands exceed those 

that are required by the State of California for operations on private lands. 

If these lands were acquired by the Federal Government, we 

would be managing them differently than they have been managed 

in private ownerships. But I can't tell you what requirements the 

State of California would impose as a result of a listing decision on 

those coho. 
66 

Mr. HAMBURG. But you would anticipate there would be some 

further restriction on harvest level if the coho were a listed species? 

Mr. LEONARD. Certainly based on what happened in Oregon and 

Washington, yes. 

Mr. HAMBURG. You certainly saw that with the FEMAT. Once 

the overlay was put on the allowable harvest due to the decline of 

salmon populations, it had a tremendous effect, did it not, on the 

overall harvestability, if you will, of these Federal lands? 

Mr. LEONARD. On Federal lands, yes. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Is there reason to think it would be different on 

State lands? Do the fish pay that much attention to the boundaries? 

Mr. LEONARD. The fish don't. From a biological standpoint, there 

may not be much logic, but the regulatory process is substantially 

different on private and Federal lands. 

Mr. HAMBURG. We will hear more about that later from one of 

the witnesses. 

Mr. VENTO. Let's recognize the other side at this time. 

Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DooLI'ITLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Leonard, Mr. Hamburg and Mr. Stark believe that your appraisal is inflated because it doesn't adequately take into account 

the various regulatory overlays on that land. Would you comment 

on that, the appraisal of the approximately 4,500 acres--48 something, I don't know the exact number. Is it inflated or is it accurate? 

Mr. LEONARD. We think we have a good appraisal. The issue is 

the level of protection. We are faced with a/roblem. We don't have 

recovery plans in place for the endangere species involved. And 

until you have a recovery plan in place, it is very difficult to estimate what is going to be required in terms of protection, whether 

it is stream protection for the salmon or the specific provisions for 

murrelets. 

We have a proposal, we had a draft proposal for a recovery plan 

for the spotted owl but that has not been formally adopted. We 

have the option 9 coming out of the FEMAT report but that hasn't 

been adopted. Until you have a final plan which says the relative 

role of Federal lands versus private lands and what the restrictions 

are going to be, at best, you have to make estimates. 

The appraiser in this case talked to the State of California. The 

State of California has obviously been working with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service on this issue. The State of California said these are 

the requirements that we would impose in this area and the appraiser said, based on those requirements, I will take this much 

land out of the appraisal. 

So it reflects our current estimate of what the State would require as these things change. As we get recovery plans for the various species, as strategies are developed, those figures may very 

well change. 

Mr. DooLI'ITLE. It appears to be highly flexible. Would it be fair 

to say that this represents your best estimate as of the time the 

appraisal was made as to what the value of those lands would be 

taking everything into consideration? 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes, sir. 
67 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Doolittle, can I clarify something on your time? 

It is your best judgment. You weren't asked to impose any standards here; you let the State of California do it and it is a private 

appraiser. You are saying you understand the information they 

have given you, but the Forest Service judgment or other agencies 

have not been involved in laying down any type of criteria. 

Mr. LEONARD. This doesn't reflect our judgment of what the 

standards should be nor the Fish and Wildlife Service judgment. It 

reflects what the State of California is currently imposing on these 

lands. 

Mr. VENTO. If you were asked to do that, you would have a group 

that would get together and come up with a reasonable set of limitations-! am not asking you what they would be, but they would 

probably be different? 

Mr. LEONARD. Absolutely, they would be different. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would be interested in knowing what that 

would be. Is that possible to get? 

Mr. LEONARD. Our closest judgment right now is the option 9 

under the FEMAT report of the President's plan for the Northwest, 

because that covers the Federal lands in this part of California, 

and assuming that that becomes final in December, then-and 

these lands were acquired by the Federal Government, that would 

govern, our plans would then be consistent with that. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So if option 9 were to go into effect, what then 

would your appraisal be of that core of lands, the 48-something 

acres, 4,800 something, 4,400? 

Mr. LEONARD. Option 9 applies to Federal lands and it wouldn't 

automatically change that appraisal. It would depend on how the 

State of California responds to the development of a final recovery 

plan for the owl or the murrelet and other species. 

Mr. DETRICH. Perhaps I can add some clarification. Currently 

Fish and Wildlife Service does regulate to a degree timber harvest 

on that property under the prohibitions of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and the options under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. If the property were to come into Federal ownership, we would then regulate that under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Whether or not the standards of FEMAT would 

be applied, I think that is something that is in the future, hasn't 

been determined. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Could this value of 499 drop by 5 percent, 10 

percent-is there a range, some sense of the range of fluctuation 

that could occur depending upon what the recovery plans are, et 

cetera? Do we have any idea? It could be 50 percent less, perhaps? 

Mr. LEONARD. It could be less by some percentage, but the problem you have is that the stumpage values of redwood are increasing at 10 or 15 percent per year, so if it takes several years to accomplish that, you still may be in the ball park. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You mentioned stumpage values. How much 

have the stumpage values increased since the time this appraisal 

was made, which I guess is January first? 

Mr. LEONARD. Maybe as much as 15 percent. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Tittman, would that mean, would it be fair 

to conclude that the appraisal value should be adjusted upwards by 

a corresponding amount to give appraisals, say at today's prices? 
68 

Mr. TriTMAN. I would say yes, the majority of the value is vested 

in the commercial stumpage and it would be proportional. 

Mr. DooLITILE. So 10 percent would be $50 million, so $75 million extra on top of the figure that you gave? 

Mr. TITIMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DOOLITILE. Let me ask you gentlemen this question. Mr. 

Leonard, it has been quoted to me that Jack Ward Thomas said the 

Northern Spotted Owl should never have been listed in northern 

California, and that last week the California Forestry Association 

filed a petition for de-listing of the Northern Spotted Owl in California. 

Mr. Leonard, what would be the impact of such a de-listing on 

the value of this land, do you think? 

Mr. LEONARD. I am not sur~it seems to me that probably the 

limiting factors affecting this land are going to be more controlled 

by requirements for the Marbled Murrelet and for salmon streams 

than they are by the spotted owl in this situation. 

Dr. Ralph? 

Dr. RALPH. That is very true. I concur. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. So the effect of de-listing of the Northern Spotted Owl would be negligible at least as to this land then? 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Mr. Leonard, I understand that although you do 

not have an appraisal of that 40,000 acres beyond the initial 4,400 

acres, that you have some projected idea of the approximate worth 

of that; is that true? 

Mr. LEONARD. No. 

Mr. DooLI'ITLE. You have no idea whatsoever as to what the 

40,000 acres may be valued at? 

Mr. LEONARD. We would have to make some real wild guesses on 

that. 

Mr. DooLITILE. Such a wild guess was indeed made and tendered to staff of this committee as recently as last week, I understand. 

Mr. LEONARD. Okay, if you understand that is what it is. 

Mr. DooLITILE. What was that figure, wild as we stipulate that 

it may be? 

Mr. TITIMAN. I prepared that as an extrapolation off the approved appraisal and some photo maps and the estimate for the 

44,000 acres could approach $1.5 billion, and it was intended to be 

what it could approach because we have no knowledge. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Based on the figures that we saw with regard to 

what happened with acquiring the expansion of the Redwood National Forest which were four times what it was estimated to be, 

it would not b~Redwood National Park; is that right? 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TITIMAN. May I respond a little bit? 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Yes. 

Mr. TITIMAN. The Redwood National Park was a result of a court 

awarded condemnation. There are considerations in there that 

would not normally be found in a normal transaction. 

Mr. DOOLITILE. Since 80 percent of the lands in this bill are second-growth forests, what values can they add to the National For-
69 

est System that are not already contained within the million-acre 

Six Rivers Forest? 

Mr. LEONARD. I think the issue there with the surrounding lands 

first is their role in protecting the old-growth stands, the main 

Headwaters Forest, plus the other patches of old growth in there 

where we could manage those so that they would ultimately provide linkages and we wouldn't have the separated, fragmented oldgrowth stands without the connectivity that would make that good 

wildlife habitat. 

So that, again, it is not a question of what could adapt in terms 

of what is not on the Six Rivers, it is a question in this situation 

where you have some remaining old-growth stands that provide 

valuable habitat for the murrelet; you can enhance that value by 

taking the second-growth stand and managing it to provide the oldgrowth characteristics so that you can have the connectivity and 

reduce the fragmentation that has occurred over the years. 

Mr. DOOLI'ITLE. Are we adding new values that don't already 

exist? 

Mr. LEONARD. Yes, I think we are adding values that don't exist 

in that we are improving the opportunity to recover the murrelet 

population. 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. Which is already being assisted in other areas. 

I yield back. 

Mr. VENTO. If there are additional questions, I ask unanimous 

consent that all Members be able to submit questions in writing to 

the witnesses and the Forest Service, and would ask witnesses to 

respond in a timely fashion so we have the information. I would appreciate that. 

Ms. Shepherd, did you have any questions of this panel? 

Ms. SHEPHERD. I guess my question would have to do with a follow-up on something that you just said. My colleague from Utah 

in some ways equated-he is not here to defend himself, but we 

have an ongoing discussion about this-in some ways equated pur- chasing individual aircraft carriers to purchasing plots of a redwood forest, and my understanding from the tragedy of the Northwest forest experience is that those fragments of forest don't really 

work for us as ecosystems that sustain wildlife or do the job they 

were intended to do for the environment. 

I would just like you to comment on this purchase from that 

point of view. Is there some way that this purchase, give us more 

detail about the way in which this purchase ties together some of 

those fragments and what the outcomes might be? 

Mr. LEONARD. AB Dr. Ralph mentioned, our information indicates 

that there are probably 16,000 acres of either old growth or remnant old-growth stands within the Pacific Lumber Company holdings-that Headwaters Forest is the biggest at about 3,100 acres. 

The others are much smaller patches to just very small fragments. 

And unless we can reestablish some connectivity there, they are 

not going to be a very good wildlife habitat. 

The fortunate thing in this part of the world is that it is a very 

fast-growing area and we can establish some structure in those 

stands at a relatively young age so that we are not talking about 

a thousand years to begin to improve the connectivity of that ecosystem. 
70 

Since Dr. Ralph is the expert in murrelets, he might want to amplify on that. 

Dr. RALPH. The smaller stands in the 44,000 acres have 

murrelets in them and have remnants nearby along stream sites 

that could increase the population, actually increase the population 

and the role of this property in actually rehabilitating the species 

within the State of California, perhaps enabling us to take it off 

the endangered species list within the State of California is something that has been raised by scientists working on the murrelet. 

Some feel rather strongly this would be a key to perhaps de-listing 

the species to get this population viable and part of the entire population. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Just a comment, if you would yield, Congresswoman 

Shepherd, on your time. Our colleague wants to yield as well. 

Dr. Ralph, I very much appreciate the work you have done. We 

are looking at this map. I assume you are familiar with the map 

from Congressman Hamburg's bill. Does that pretty much embrace 

areas that would be key? We are not overreaching in this particular legislation in terms of protecting key riparia and/or the 

murrelet areas; is that correct? 

Dr. RALPH. It does include most of the areas on Pacific Lumber 

ownership that have murrelet populations in them, yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you think it is important, Dr. Ralph, to manage 

this as an ecosystem rather than on a fragmented base? 

I notice that Associate Chief Leonard referred to connectivity and 

so forth. Would you want to comment on that? 

Dr. RALPH. Right now the population in the States is in low decline with low population rates. If we were to turn that around in 

a meaningful (ashion, it has to be management on a landscaped 

basis such as proposed here. 

Mr. VENTO. This is the Forest Service translation, landscaped 

ecosystem is being used interchangeably. You are the experts, the 

ornithology, we have someone here on fish, on threatened and endangered species, but do these watersheds we have here, are they 

key salmon areas, Mr. Detrich? 

Mr. DETRICH. I have to refer to Mr. Hoyle's testimony which I believe has been provided to the committee. The National Marine 

Fishery Service anticipates receiving listings for coho and this 

property would certainly be relevant in that way. 

Mr. VENTO. There are more than sufficient coho in the streams, aren't there? · Mr. DETRICH. Yes. My understanding is that there are also at 

least in the lower reaches Chinook salmon and that Steelhead also 

occur. 

Mr. VENTO. I just got through debating one of my colleagues on 

national television dealing with the Elwha Dam. It is going to cost 

a couple of hundred million dollars to take down, which affects six 

species of salmon, and six vertebrate species of freshwater fish and 

various trout. 

Thank you for yielding, Ms. Shepherd. 

Mr. Hamburg wanted you to yield for a moment. 

Mr. HAMBURG. I want to take advantage of Mr. Detrich's exper- tise in having dealt with Pacific Lumber over a period of years. 
71 

Given the imperative of bringing back the viability of the Marbled 

Murrelet and these stocks of salmon, is there anything about the 

management of these lands by Pacific Lumber that gives you concerns about the likelihood that these species will increase their viability under Pacific Lumber management? 

Mr. DETRICH. Congressman, we worked with Pacific Lumber over 

the last several years on a number of species. And in a number of 

cases, that has been a very cooperative relationship. 

With respect to the Marbled Murrelet, they have submitted plans 

that would basically experiment with some of the smaller groves, 

and carry out what they call murrelet cuts, which would attempt 

to provide protection around murrelet habitat while continuing to 

take some volume from the stands. And that is essentially an experimentation. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Is that how you would characterize the Owl Creek 

cutting in Thanksgiving of 1992? Was this an experimental cut? 

Mr. DETRICH. Well, in Owl Creek, the Service believed that the 

harvest would reduce habitat actuality. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Did you inform Pacific Lumber of that prior to 

their going into that grove? 

Mr. DETRICH. Yes, we did. This case is one facet of our relationship in which they proceeded against the advice of the Service. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Do you believe that the taking of further oldgrowth habitat on Pacific Lumber ownership is directly threatening 

to the survival of Marbled Murrelets in California? 

Mr. DETRICH. Yes, we feel that the goals for murrelet conservation are to stabilize and increase the population. And that the continued experimentation, while it might have some benefit in the 

long term, in the short term is not in the interests of the conservation of the species. 

Mr. HAMBURG. I understand that Fish and Wildlife, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, went ahead with an investigation of the Owl 

Creek, whatever you want to call it, harvest, incursion, in 1992, 

but that the Service has basically decided not to prosecute for take. 

My understanding is that the reason for that is that there were 

no, quote, "dead bodies," unquote. Is that the case? 

Mr. DETRICH. Well, because that investigation has not yet been 

formally concluded, I am reluctant to comment on that. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Do you believe that there was a-well, let me just 

say, when I read the letter that was sent to Pacific Lumber Company by the Fish and Wildlife Service, it was very clear to me from 

that letter that you were telling the company that there would be 

a take of habitat, and that under the Endangered Species Act the 

take of habitat on a threatened species is prohibited. The company 

chose to go ahead and cut in spite of that. You have commenced 

an investigation, but to this point you have chosen not to proceed 

with that in any kind of a civil or criminal matter; is that correct? 

Mr. DETRICH. That is correct. The initial advice to the company 

was from our biological staff. The decisions as to whether to prosecute are made by the Law Enforcement Division, the Interior Solicitor's Office and the Department of Justice. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. And I want to thank this panel, and comment again that there may be questions coming to you from me 
72 

and from others. We would appreciate your response in an expeditious manner. We are pleased to welcome panel one, Ms. Cecelia 

Lanman, from the Environmental Protection Information Center, 

Eureka, California; Ms. Kathy Bailey, the State Forestry Chair, Sierra Club, Philo, California; Ms. Bonnie Raitt, an activist and vocalist from Elk, California; Doctor William Stewart, the economist 

from Oakland, California. Let me welcome you all. I understand 

that Ms. Raitt has a concern that she has to leave at 12:30. Anyone 

else have a scheduling problem? Okay. We will then hear from Ms. 

Raitt first and then excuse her after we have asked a question or 

two and then hear from the other panelists. 

The reason I wanted to do that, is because we may be interrupted by a call to the Floor to deal with the Maurice-Morris 

River in New Jersey. It just looks like Maurice-it is really the 

Morris River. So your testimony, all of your testimony has been 

submitted, I believe, and so without objection, it will be added to 

the record. So I can proceed to invite testimony of Bonnie Raitt. 

Pleased to have you here and to see an interest and activism in 

depth on an issue of importance nationwide. Welcome. And we 

enjoy, incidentally, your talents on other fronts, too. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF BONNIE RAITT, SINGER AND ACTIVIST, 

ELK, CA, CECELIA LANMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

INFORMATION CENTER, EUREKA, CA; KATHY BAILEY, CHAIR 

FOR STATE FORESTRY, SIERRA CLUB, PHILO, CA; AND DR. 

WILLIAM STEWART, ECONOMIST, OAKLAND, CA 

STATEMENT OF BONNIE RAI'IT 

Ms. RAITT. Thank you very much, and it is nice to be here as 

well. Good morning to you and the members of the committee, 

wherever they are. I have come here today to respectfully urge 

your support for the Headwaters Forest Act, proposed by Congressmen Dan Hamburg and Pete Stark, from my family's district in 

northern California. 

Time is running out for us to preserve what little remains of the 

ancient-growth redwoods which have been such an important part 

of our area's meaning and environmental survival. I have been returning to these majestic groves for spiritual and creative inspiration for as long as I can remember, and I know I speak for the millions of travelers and residents who would be as horrified as I am 

to find out just how many acres of their beloved forest have been 

sacrificed in the name of Maxxam Corporation's need for junk bond 

interest payments. 

I have been brought to tears of fury and grief after flying over 

miles of mutilated clear-cut mountains where in a cruel charade 

only a hundred yards of trees have been left standing along the 

highway, so as not to alarm the tourists driving by. In the years 

since Maxxam's takeover of Pacific Lumber's territory in 1986, I 

have personally seen our community's economy and morale decline 

to a heartbreaking degree. 

With little regard for fragile ecosystems or long-term repercussions, Maxxam's years of aggressive timber management-should I 

continue? 

Mr. VENTO. Go ahead. Don't worry about that. 
73 

Mr. HAMBURG. Don't worry about it. It is just part of the charade 

around here. 

Ms. RAITI. Yes, really. Maxxam's years of aggressive timber 

management threaten what little is left of pristine habitat. Soon 

the old-growth logging mills will be closed down, costing forest and 

surrounding businesses, including tourism, thousands of jobs. All 

because of the lack of a sustainable long-term policy that could 

have saved the counties from their current downhill plunge. More 

and more the environmentalists and loggers are seeing the issue 

from the same side, not just some symbolic preservation of a few 

endangered creatures and park lands, but the very survival of the 

region as a whole. 

As today's testimony shows, so-called private stewardship of this 

irreplaceable national resource has been disastrous. To save 3.5 

percent of the ancient forest that once was, is not, as Charles 

Horwitz says, enough. Once these ancient trees and the miraculous 

microcosm and history they represent are gone, they are gone forever. What right have we to let this magnificent and absolutely 

unique link to our past and future be eradicated by the short-sighted greed and mismanagement of a few? This bill is what responsible forest policy is all about. Please enact it now. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Ms. Raitt. Is Elk, California, is that in 

the Humboldt County area? 

Ms. RAITT. It is in the Mendocino County area. 

Mr. VENTO. You are just adjacent from this area. How far are 

you from this area, your residence in Elk? 

Ms. RAITT. Well, my family lives in Ukiah, and I have been a 

regular resident of the Mendocino County area and visitor to Humboldt County. I don't know, I believe it is an hour from Eureka. 

That is as close as I can do. 

Mr. VENTO. So in your endeavors-obviously you travel around 

the country and you come back with a feeling of what people have 

about areas like this, even though they may never have visited 

them. You obviously have flown over the area and looked at it and 

find this unacceptable. 

Ms. RAITT. I think that there could be a much more responsible 

approach to jobs as well as saving the environment. I think they 

could coexist happily if we just put our heads together and get 

some better management of the area. I think this bill represents 

that kind of thinking. 

Mr. VENTO. And do you find that to be the attitude with the people that you come in contact with through your work as a performing artist? 

Ms. RAITI. Well, as we all know, nature has been an incredible 

inspiration for those of us that do any artistic endeavor, and there 

has been a tremendous influx of artists in that community, as 

there are in all kinds of beautiful areas around the country. And 

when I travel around and people are aware of my work with the 

forest issue in northern California, when I tell them about what is 

going on or it gets in the press about how much has been cut down, 

clear-cutting is something that is part of the national awareness at 

the moment and they always say, I am hoping you are doing whatever you can out there and I applaud your concert benefit raising 

actions to try to stop any further unnecessary cuts. I mean it is 
74 

just-it is a horrific thought that these redwoods might be gone forever. And frankly, I don't think that the North Coast would be able 

to survive as a place where people would want to start up industry 

or come and live if we lost it. 

Mr. VENTO. So you have been involved as a volunteer, actually 

helping in raising dollars by performing and doing other activities 

for the Save the Redwoods Group or some other environmental or 

conservation group? 

Ms. RA:I'IT. Yes, I have been active in that for the last 15, 20 

years, as long as I have been coming up to that part of California. 

Mr. VENTO. So they have done some good. I guess one of the 

questions people are going to say, well, how much is enough? You 

obviously point out here that the owner of the land or the company 

that owns it, that controls it, I should say, says that 3.5 percent 

of this, these redwoods, is enough. You obviously don't think it is 

enough. This would only be a small addition, wouldn't it, to the 

overall, if we are talking about the redwoods? We are adding 

44,000 acres, but only about five or six thousand acres of that 

would be this mature old-growth, these ancient redwoods. 

Ms. RA:I'IT. Well, just on a public relations tactic, the fact that 

the public ownership of these lands could be made accessible to 

people that live in the Eureka area, would open up this whole territory to be able to enjoy it as a park land and as a habitat as well. 

And I agree with the people that have testified that said that it 

would be easier to protect the ecosystem if we could keep a continuum of not just fragmented sections of the old-growth, but to keep 

the second-growth lands continuous with it so we can manage the 

forest as a whole and the whole area. But I think that-I don't personally believe that we have a right to take these ancient growth redwoods down any farther than we have done. There is no economic reason to keep them. Eventually they will 

be cut down. It is just a question of whether we are going to look 

for jobs this year or 20 years from now. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that the forest scientists would agree 

with you, Ms. Raitt, concerning the watersheds and the concern 

about fragmentation and connectivity in these areas. So they are 

very important in that sense, so it is a question of whether you 

want this and the associated life forms that are associated with 

these ancient forests. 

Without objection, Mr. Hamburg, did you have any questions of 

Ms. Raitt? 

Mr. HAMBURG. I don't have any questions. I just wanted to thank 

you for coming today. Ms. Raitt really is someone whose roots are 

very deep on the north coast of California, and they are particularly in Mendocino County, but Mendocino and Humboldt share 

many identical concerns in terms of having a healthy and viable 

forest products industry. 

I also want to just mention that Ms. Raitt was in Eureka just, 

when was that, that was in April 1992, and had an opportunity to 

speak with people there and to get a sense of how people feel about 

this issue. And I think she knows that while this is a contentious 

issue, there is a tremendous amount of support for saving the last 

remnants of these ancient forests. And I think some of the people 

who showed up at the concert in Eureka were drawn there because 
75 

it was an Earth Day event, to celebrate the earth and celebrate 

sustainable use of our planet's resources. And Ms. Raitt has been 

a leader in that effort nationwide and I think it is just altogether 

appropriate and fitting that you should be here, and I really thank 

you for making a special trip to Washington, DC, to attend this 

hearing. 

Ms. RAITT. You are very welcome. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. I would just comment that one of the big problems 

is to get the information out to people. Of course, now we are trying to pass some legislation called a National Biological Survey. 

And there is a real effort to frustrate that, to prevent gathering of 

the data and the information that is necessary. 

One can only wonder at the basis for that. I mean I have my suspicions as to why. And here is a case again where we even were 

trying to get an estimate of the forest value, that the Forest Service was refused access and others refused access to gain the information. So often I think we find in communities, and I would say 

living in that area, going to that area, obviously also represents 

you are a very courageous person. Because I am sure that some of 

the folks there aren't as friendly. Even though they might like 

country western music, they may not necessarily appreciate and 

they may misunderstand the idea that somebody that could have 

a different view than they have with regards to issues. 

I get a little of that, too, and I am certain that Congressman 

Hamburg can tell us about a lot of it based on the type of load he 

is carrying. But the fact is that even people that live there do not 

understand the phenomena of what is going on. I think it is really 

sad because so often I find those that are engaged in this activity 

don't understand the ramifications that it really means, fewer jobs 

in 10 years, and really left with a devastated ecosystem that will 

not do some of the casual things like the esthetic life-styles and the 

type of environment and so forth that means so much to them that 

you obviously said motivates you in terms of a performing artist in 

terms of creativity. So getting the message out is enormously important. 

You obviously have taken your status and the exposure and interest and used it for this purpose. And so for someone that works 

in this, lives, breathes, sleeps and eats this, we can't do it without 

the help of people being involved in the process, and I think if we 

get people involved, that is the best solution or safeguard to make 

certain that the right decisions are made. So in the absence of that 

the interested groups are the special interests. The interested 

groups are the special interests. And they don't have the same policy path as a design as the American public. Even those that are 

in places like Eureka. So I much appreciate that. 

We can't do it without your help and so I appreciate the assistance and focus. And I am perfectly willing to live on the business 

basis of what the information is that comes out, if we can get the 

information. If they will let us gather the information, and, you 

know, we keep hearing about scientists that are part of a different 

culh1re or something, that somehow they disagree with them, 

which is curious. But in any case, I have no further questions of 

you. I know you have to leave. I have to go over to the Floor short-
76 

ly. We will be recessing. So thank you very much, Ms. Raitt, for 

your testimony and effort. 

Ms. RAITI. Thank you very much. 

Mr. VENTO. We have three other witnesses on the panel. Let me 

start with Cecelia Lanman, who is with the Environmental Protection Information Group. Ms. Lanman. 

STATEMENT OF CECELIA LANMAN 

Ms. LANMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

testify today in support of the Headwaters Forest Act, H.R. 2866. 

I am currently the project director for the Environmental Protection Information Center and I have been a member of the board of 

directors since 1982. I have lived in Humboldt County since 1977. 

I have been involved in the restoration rehabilitation of forest 

lands, and my children go to school with the children of logging 

families whose parents used to work in the small mills that dotted 

every watershed in those days. 

As you heard this morning, the ancient forests of northern California are unique among our Nation's forest bioregions. One thing 

that we really need to emphasize today, though, is unlike the 

Klamath and Sierra forest bioregions which are mostly within Federal jurisdiction, the coastal elevation forests of our region are predominantly on private lands and are under intensive corporate 

management. 

Ninety-six percent of the original 2-million-acre ancient redwood 

ecosystem is gone. Only 76,000 acres remain in fragmented groves 

within the park system. Save the Redwoods League knows well 

that the majority of the lands in our park system are secondgrowth lands. There is an ecological crisis in the redwoods. 

The majority of these forests have been converted to second 

growth and will take many years to recover the ecological processes 

necessary to sustain healthy and productive forests. These processes, as you well know, include water and nutrient cycling, 

microclimate control, the processes that occur in animal and plant 

communities. What is missing from the managed forest landscape 

throughout the majority of this bioregion are large standing and 

downed logs on the land and in the streams, multiple-canopied forests, lichens and fungi which appear only after hundreds of years 

as they evolve with their ancient forest associates, the redwoods, 

Douglas fir, and many other species. 

Increasingly, agency biologists are becoming alarmed about the 

loss and impoverishment of biodiversity and the lack of these functional elements in the managed forest landscape. In this ecosystem, 

it is very clear that parks are not enough. The Headwaters Forest 

lies directly between Redwood National Park and the Humboldt 

Redwood State Park and will provide an essential link, a genetic 

link, important to the recovery of many threatened and endangered 

species. 

In particular, as you heard, the fate of the Marbled Murrelet is 

closely tied to the fate of these remaining ancient forests because 

they are the remaining old-growth forests in the coastal zone of 

northern California. Murrelets do not occur on the national forests 

in California in any significant population. There are numerous 

compelling reasons why H.R. 2866 must encompass 44,000 acres to 
77 

adequately protect endangered habitat and provide restoration opportunities. 

The recovery of the species entails creating biological corridors, 

migratory routes, and improving the existing connections between 

ancient forest islands. Similarly, we need the 44,000 acres to be rehabilitated so that many jobs can be created while we make the 

transition from the old growth to a second growth economy. During 

my term as President of EPIC, Maxxam took over Pacific Lumber 

Company and announced that they could systematically liquidate 

all of their old-growth holdings within 20 years. They have actually 

done it within a lot shorter order. 

Since the takeover, they have logged ofT more than half of theremaining virgin forest that was part of their original holdings. Much 

of this was murrelet nesting habitat. Some areas were documented 

to be occupied in 1988 have been cut today. EPIC was forced to sue 

Maxxam and State and Federal agencies more than eight times 

since the takeover, citing their failure to consider the cumulative 

effects of logging on the ancient forest-dependent species and fisheries. 

Under the California Forest Practices Act, the industry can go to 

the Board of Forestry and appeal a decision that they don't like, 

but the public citizen has only one recourse and that is to go to 

court and try to find an attorney who will work for nothing and 

raise a few thousand dollars to pay their expenses. This has been 

not an easy feat for an organization whose entire budget is less 

than one of Maxxam's accountants. 

Citizens are forced to file suit on a piecemeal basis, looking at 

the effects of one logging plan at a time. This reveals clearly that 

the review process is inadequate to assess the negative effects that 

logging has had on fish and wildlife in our State. In many of these 

court cases, the State agencies and even the Attorney General have 

agreed with us and made some efforts to address the failure to adequately protect wildlife and fisheries. 

Unfortunately, Pacific Lumber for many years refused to conduct 

the wildlife surveys that were requested by the State and now Federal biologists to determine critical habitat needs of these species. 

The Department of Fish and Game biologists requested this information as early as 1988 in order to design mitigation measures required by law and their own code of regulation, and were refused 

that information. 

Fish and Game went ahead and designed the mitigations, because they knew 'this habitat had to contain these species of wildlife. And these mitigations were unique because they addressed 

these issues that are now before you on the national forests. The 

fact that we have to look at the cumulative effects of logging and 

consider that the mitigations have to be designed to include ecological processes that have to be maintained over time, we asked the 

courts and agencies in 1988 to consider requiring a full environmental impact review of this planned logging over 20 years, could 

certainly be considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. And unfortunately that was not done because 

I think at this point we would see the remaining groves would be 

the mitigation that would have to be left in order to protect the 

species. 
78 

I believe the science will bear us out. EPIC's court injunctions 

and stays have successfully delayed the destruction of its last few 

remaining unprotected groves. Yet these legal avenues only yield 

temporary success and as we have been in court and we await final 

judgment, critical biological questions have been left unanswered 

and thousands of acres of residual and ancient forests have been 

logged. To what end, we will never know what species have been 

impacted or how much has been lost. So under Maxxam's control, 

we believe Pacific Lumber has acted unscrupulously. They have aggressively worked to fragment and isolate groves in an attempt to 

reduce their value as a habitat for wildlife so that no further logging would be prohibited by agencies. 

The worst example of bad faith occurred in the two illegal logging operations in 1992 at Owl Creek which you have heard quite 

a bit about this morning. Lack of action from both the Fish and 

Game Department, CDF and the Fish and Wildlife Service necessitated, again, quick legal action by EPIC and led us into two new 

lawsuits, one which is now in Federal Court, the Marbled Murrelet 

versus Bruce Babbitt. 

In a recent ruling the judge granted the Marbled Murrelet and 

EPIC standing to sue Pacific Lumber in Federal Court for their 

blatant violation of the Endangered Species Act. Although EPIC's 

litigations have temporarily halted the destruction of Owl Creek, it 

is only an interim strategy while permanent protection is pursued 

through these legislative channels and I believe, as the Chairman 

does, that we could easily see more incursions by the Pacific Lumber Company, more illegal cutting, because of the fact that there 

was no action taken by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Fish and 

Game to stop them at the time. It required us to stop them. In addition, if fines were levied, they 

would equal maybe one or two old-growth trees that Pacific Lumber was allowed to remove from the Owl Creek Grove after the injunctions were in place. The court allowed them to remove the logs. 

They have been able to pay for all the court fees and their attorney 

fees and they could probably pay off the fines, if the Fish and Wildlife Service would fine criminal and civil action against Pacific 

Lumber for this illegal logging. 

As we have heard and we will hear more today, the increased 

logging by Pacific Lumber increased jobs, but it would only be temporarily. And we believe that this bill is the first step toward a sustainable transition in our region. And it will be a model for how 

we can begin to sustain logging and wildlife on other industrial 

lands in the entire north coastal region. 

H.R. 2866 would require sustainable management and the rehabilitation of these log lands which is essential because they form 

the linkages between the ancient forest habitat across the landscape. Under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, the management plan would be developed with full public review and input, 

which is not what we are getting under the California regulatory 

process. There are no public hearings when these logging plans are 

approved, and it is very difficult to get any changes made that 

would be beneficial to wildlife and fisheries. 

So, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, please vote 

yes on H.R. 2866. This vote of confidence will give Congressman 
79 

Hamburg a chance to open negotiations with a meaningful vision 

and work toward solutions which will reflect the concern for the 

long-term health of the forest and the timber-dependent economies 

and communities. This will be a step toward recovery of the region, 

which has been hit broadside by the junk bond financed takeover 

of Charles Horwitz. Please vote yes on H.R. 2866. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Lanman follows:] 
80 

STATEMENT OF CECEUA LANMAN, . . 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INRJRMA TION CENTER (EPIC) 

COMMIITEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

Sub-Committee on National Parks, Fo,resis and Public Lands 

October 12. 1993 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the 

opportunity to testify today in support of the Headwaters Forest Act, H.R. 

2866. 

My name is Cecelia Lanman. 1 have been a small forestland owner in 

Humboldt County since 1977. I have done restoration work to improve 

timber stands and planted thousands of trees to prevent erosion and siltation 

of nearby streams. My children go to school with children of Jogging families 

whose parents used to work in the small mi11s. that dotted every watershed. 

I am currently the Project Director for the Environmental Protection 

Information Center (EPIC), a grassroots organization dedicat~ to protecting 

the health and biodiversity of our region's fore&ts. J have served as a 

member of the EPIC Board of Directors since 1982 I have been active in the 

Ancient Forest Alliance since its inception in Portland in 1988. I am also the 

president and a founding member of Forests ~~ver. I. am committed to 

protecting the ecological integrity of the redwood region. 

The ancient forest of California's North Coast is uriique among our Nation's 

major forest bioregions. The diverse forests of the region include redwood, 

hardwoods and Douglas fir and provide habitat for many endangered species 

including the Northem spotted owl, fisher, red tree vole, marbled murrelet, 

olympic salamander, tailed frog and Coho salmon. Unlike the Klamath and 

the Sierra forest bioregions, which are mostly within (ederal jurisdiction, the 

coastal low elevation forests are predominantly on private limds and are 

under intensive corporate management. 

96% of the original two million acre ancient Redwood ecosytem is gone. 

76,000 acres remain in fragmented groves within the park system, and the 

remaining unprotected ancient forests are slated for Jogging. The 

fragmentation of the ecosystem has resulted in. severe degradation of water 

quality, soil productivity, fisheries, wildlife habitat, and other ecological 

processes which are critical to sustain the h~th o£ tl'ie forests and rural 

economies in the North Coast region. In less than a century, corporate 

exploitation has brought species to the brink o£ extinc:tJon and threatens the 

livelihood of our communities. 

The ecological crisis in the redwoods, the takeover of Padfic Lumber by 

Houston- based MAXXAM corporation and the subsequent liquidation 
81 

logging are national issues. The plunder of irreplaceable ancient redwood 

forests continue:> while state and federal agencies fail to enforce the 

Endangered Spe·cies Act (ESA). Pacific Lumber's Jogging of Owl Creek, 

known as an oc•::upied M:~rbled Murrelet nesting area, highlights the inability 

of the state and federal agencies to enforce laws designed to protect 

threatened and endangered species habitat. Hpbitat and species protection 

entails ecosystem protection on a large scale level. 

There are numerous compelling reasons why the H.R. 2866 must encompass 

44,000 acres to adequately protecl endangered habitat and provide restoration 

opportunities. l~ecovery of threatened species entails creating biological 

corridors and migratory routes between existing ancient forest islands. 

Similiarly, the needs for forest restoration and rehabilitation jobs for 

displaced timber workers are better served if a large acreage bill becomes law. 

The Headwaters• Wilderness and the associated groves contain the largest 

unprotected ancient redwood forests remainins in the world. It is a rare and 

irreplaceable national treasure. These forests deserve permanent protection 

through federal acquisition, wilderness designation and the .r.ehabilitation of 

the biological integrity of the area. The Headwaters Forest which lies 

between Redwood National Park and Humboldt Redwoods state parks will 

provide an essential genetic link important to lhe recovery of threatened and 

endangered spedes. 

The fate of the Marbled Murrelet, a small seabird which nests in coastal 

ancient forests, is tied closely to the fate of the!fe remaining ancient forests. 

The murrelet is listed by the federal government as "threatened" and by the 

state as "endangered". The area under consideration in H.R. 2866 contains 

one of three significant populations of the murrelet in California. The 

survival of the rnurre)et population in the Headwaters Forest area is 

essential for the genetic mixing that is vital for the long-term viability of any 

species. The murrelet does not build a nest, but rather lays its eggs on a 

lichen covered branch high above the ground. SmaJier and y.ounger trees do 

not have brancht!S broad enough to hold the eggs safely, and their foliage 

does not adequately shelter the young from predators. Biologist C.j. Ralph 

slates, "I have seen no bird as closely tied to a forest type. They are entirely 

dependent on old-growth." During the past century California's marbled 

murrelet population dropped from 60,000 to 2,000 birds due to liquidation 

logging. 

During my term as President of EPIC, MAXXAM took over the Pacific 

Lumber Company (PL) and announced a systematic plan to liquidate all of 

their ancient redwood forests within twenty years. MAXXAM tripled the rate 

of cutting to pay off their enormous junk bond . debt incurred in the takeover 

of PL. 
82 

Since the ·corporate takeover, MAXXAM has logged off more than half of the 

virgin forest that was part of PL's forest holdings. To protect the remaining 

ancient groves and the species dependent on them, EPIC was forced to sue 

Maxxam/PL, and state and federal agencies eight times, since 1987. EPIC 

cited the defendants' failure to consider the cumulative effects of Jogging on 

the ancient forest dependent wildlife species. 

Under the .California Forest Practices Act (FPA) the industry has the right to 

appeal an agency decision, but the public citizen has only one recourse, to 

bring suit on behalf of the public interest. Citizens are forced to file suit on a 

piecemeal basis, one logging plan at a time. This constraint reveals that 

California's logging plan review process is inadequate to assess the negatives 

effects of industrial logging on fish and wildlife. 

For many years Pacific Lumber refused to conduct requested wildlife surveys 

to determine critical habitat needs. Department of Fish & Game (DFG) 

biologists requested this information in order ·to design mitigation measures 

required by law and by DFG's own code of regulation. The DFG mitigations 

were unique because they were based on the cumulative effects of logging 

ancient forests and the ecological processes of the ecosystem. 

EPIC asked the agencies and the court to require a full environmental 

analysis of MAXXAM's planned logging of ancient forest areas. An analysis 

equivalent to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would have 

necessitated the development of mitigation measures to protect wildlife 

before destructive Jogging practices impacted habitat. 

EPIC's court injunctions and stays have successfully delayed the destruction 

of 1500 acres of the last few remaining unprotected groves of ancient forests. 

These legal avenues yield temporary success, yet as we have awaited final 

judgment in these cases with critical biological questions left unanswered, 

MAXXAM has clearcut virgin forest and thousands of acres of residual 

groves without adequate analysis and review of the impact of logging on 

wildlife, fisheries, water quality, soils and the long-term health of the forest. 

MAXXAM has continually showed bad faith by failing to abide by state and 

federal regulations designed to protect species and habitat. MAXXAM has 

lobbied heavily against any meaningful reforms in the state legislature, 

Board of Forestry and in the courts. 

Under MAXXAM's control Pacific Lumber has acted unscrupulously. 

MAXXAM has aggressively worked to fragment and isolate the ancient 

groves in an attempt to reduce their value as habitat for wildlife, so that 

further logging would not be prohibited by the ,agencies. When it became 

obvious that the EPIC lawsuits and agency scrutiny created a de facto 

injunction on the most significant groves, MAXXAM switched to a new 
83 

strategy to log th~~ residual old growth all the way around the groves, and to 

attempt to build .roads into the groves to destroy their primitive value. 

The worst example of bad faith occurred duri11g two illegal logging 

operations in 1992 at Owl Creek, the second largest grove of unprotected 

redwoods which serves as nesting habitat for V.e Marbled Murrelet. Pacific 

Lumber cut 20 acres of the grove before completing murrelet surveys and 

before consulting with the DFG as required by the California Endangered 

Species Act. 

Lack of action from these enforcement agencies necessitated quick legal 

action and led us into two new lawsuits, one in state court and one in federal 

court. EPIC's fedE!ral suit, Marbled Murfelet v . .Bruce Babbitt. is the first 

federal suit regarding violations of the ESA on private forestlands. This suit 

has the potential to have a major impact on future implementation and 

enforcement of tbe Federal ESA in regard to protecting species on private 

lands. Although .EPIC's litigation has temporarily halted destruction of Owl 

Creek, it is only an interim strategy while- permanent protection of the 

ancient forests is pursued through legislative channels. 

Now the final liquidation of ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest are well 

underway. Nativ,e forests are being converted into highly mechanized and 

automated forest plantations, or "fiber farms", which require fewer workers 

and will not support a long-term sustainable economy. The increased logging 

of the ancient forest by PL since the takeover, has created a temporary 

increase in jobs which can not be maintained once the ancient forests are 

gone. Current est:imatcs, based on past cutting rates, indicate that it would 

only take three years for PL to complete this final liquidation. We must end 

the cycle of boom and bust and begin a transition to a sustainable restoration 

based economy. 

H.R. 2866 would require sustainable management of these lands. The 

rehabilitation of the logged lands is essential because they form linkages of 

the core ancient forests across the landscape. Agency biologists are 

increasingly concerned about the loss and impoverishment of biodiversity 

and the lack of "functional elements" in the.m11naged landscape. 

Under the jurisdiction of the USFS the manag¢ment plan would be 

developed with full public review and input. Our locitl communities 

depend on healthy farmlands, fisheries and forests. Removing MAXXAM's 

control over this priceless national treasure is vital to a productive long-term 

economy in our region, as well as to the survival of the redwood ecosystem. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, please vote yes on H.R. 2866. 

With your vote of confidence, Congressman Hamburg can open negotiations 

with a meaningful vision and work toward solutions which will reflect 
84 

concern for the long-term health of the forest and timber dependent 

economies. It will result in the first steps to recovery of the region, which 

has been hit broadside by the junk-bond financed takeover of an outside 

corporate raider. 

We stand at a critical threshold. The Headwaters Forest Act offers us a last 

chance to protect the life-supporting vitality and richness of the Headwaters 

Forest Wilderness, the rare species which inh~bil it, tl_\e sustainabilily of the 

timber industry so that this long-term wonderful natural'h.eritage may be 

enjoyed by our_ children, grandchildren, and many generations to come. 
85 

Mr. VENTO. We have two other witnesses we want to hear from 

on this panel before we come back to questions, Ms. Lanman. The 

next is Kathy Bailey, who is the State Forestry Chair, Sierra Club, 

California. Welcome, Kathy. 

STATEMENT OF KATHY BAILEY 

Ms. BAILEY. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify 

on behalf of the Headwaters Forest Act. My name is Kathy Bailey. 

I am the Chair for the Sierra Club's California State Forestry Committee. Sierra Club joins with the Wilderness Society and the National Audubon Society in supporting the Headwaters Forest Act 

because it provides the only foreseeable chance to maintain the significant portion of the environmental heritage of the redwood re- gion. 

We specifically support at a minimum the 44,000-acre acquisition 

area and the bill's focus on reestablishing the links between the 

virgin uncut blocks of forest which remain in order to enhance the 

habitat value of the area. Aside from its park land, the redwood 

ecosystem falls almost entirely under the jurisdiction of the California State regulatory system. 

In theory, California's forest regulation system should provide 

reasonable protection for the redwoods. We have what many consider to be some of the strongest environmental laws in the country. However, year after year, the redwoods have relentlessly been 

diminished, while top policymakers turn a blind eye to the need for 

direction. This has left State agencies arguing between themselves 

about what to protect and where to protect it. Where I live, a few hours south of Headwaters in Mendocino 

County, in what used to be the heart of the redwood empire, we 

have only a few small blocks of virgin forest left, the largest being 

only a few hundred acres. And while State bureaucracies send 

memos back and forth, we have lost most of our second-growth forest as well, the 60 to 100-year-old trees. 

Along with the forests have gone a once significant fishing industry, with streams silted up and heated by shade removal beyond 

the tolerance of salmon and steelhead. And now that we are almost 

out of trees, we are almost out of timber employment in Mendocino 

County. I believe we are down to just four mills now. One of these 

is quite small and one of the larger has already announced plans 

to shut down for part of the winter. We need the Headwaters Forest Act because our State government has failed to come to grips with how to maintain a sustainable forest economy, one which balances employment with protecting important public trust resources like water, wildlife and the 

interconnected fabric of life. The reason we believe that 44,000 

acres are necessary to meet the goals of ecosystem management 

again is the unfortunate failure of the State's regulatory program. 

If we simply create a 3,000-acre island, you can count on the surrounding area being reduced to very young forest in the next 10 to 

15 years. There is nothing in State rules to prevent this from happening, and Maxxam's debt load mandates that it will happen. If 

you only created a 3,000-acre reserve, you will have created a very 

nice tree museum at Headwaters, and with luck one where 

murrelets will be able to survive. However, by going ahead and 
86 

buying the surrounding area, you have a reasonable chance at 

maintaining a viable ecosystem, where wildlife can migrate over 

larger areas and maintain viable genetic bases and where the 

water cycle and forest nutrient cycles can be maintained. 

I believe that this area, which lies between existing park land, 

would have been considered for purchase long before now if we had 

realized the threat of a Maxxam takeover in the past. 

I want to close with some remarks about endangered species. Although we talk about Marbled Murrelets or spotted owls, Olympic 

Salamanders, tailed frogs or the Red Tree Vole, all of these creatures are very important and I personally don't believe they should 

be allowed to die out at Headwaters or anywhere else. But beyond 

that, the Headwaters Forest Act is about maintaining a vital and 

vibrant part of our Nation's national heritage. We are only human. We do not have the world and every little 

part of it figured out. Ten years ago, no one outside of forestry 

school had ever heard of the Pacific yew tree. Today, women are 

recovering from cancer because the benefit of Taxol was recognized. 

Maybe these forests hold nothing more for the human race than 

their majesty, their trees towering taller than the capitol dome, as 

wide across as these tables we sit at, having lived these last 70 

generations. But maybe they hold even more meaning for us, and 

it is just waiting to be revealed. We simply don't know. But I do 

believe that future generations of American people will thank you 

for your help in maintaining this wondrous part of our world. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Ms. Bailey. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Bailey follows:] 
87 

Testimony for the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests & Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

The U.S. House of Representative 

October 12, 1993 

By Kathy Bailey 

Chair for Stale Forestry 

Sierra Club California 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Headwaters Forest Act, 

HR 2866. 

My name is Kathy Bailey. I am the Chair for Sierra Club's California Stale 

Forestry Committee. Our committee's focus is the 7 million acres of California 

forestland owned by the timber industry and other private land holders. I have worked 

virtually fulll.imc as a volunteer on forestry issues since 1988 and have been active off 

and on since 1976. I have lived near Boonville, in west-central Mendocino County, 

California, for 22 years. 

We arc here to consider the future of the last remnant of what's known in 

California as ·:he Redwood Empire. The historic range of the redwood forest was 

from south of San Francisco Bay , north to the Oregon border in a band no wider than 

40 miles along the coast. Two hundred years ago this area was blanketed with 

majestic redwoods, trees eight to fourteen feet or more across, taller than the Capitol 

Dome , and up to 2000 years old . Today less than five percent remain uncut, including 

all existing park land and the proposed acquisition known as Headwaters Forest. 

Sierra Club joins with the Wilderness Society and the National Audubon Society 

in supporting the Headwaters Forest Act because it provides the only foreseeable 

chance to maintain this significant portion of the environmental heritage of the 

redwood region. We specifically support, at a minimum, the 44,000 acre acquisition 

area and the bill 's focus on reestablishing the links between the virgin, uncut blocks of 

forest which remain in order to enhance the habitat value of the area. 

Although there are some beautiful stands of virgin redwoods in existing stale 

and federal parks, there is no redwood forestland in the U.S. Forest system. Through 

a quirk of histnry the entire redwood ecosystem is held by industrial timber companies 

and other private holders. The land is designated "timber production zone" fo r tax 

purposes, and the primary use is, in fact, wood products production. 

Althou,gh the state's Forest Practice Act mandates sustained yield and protection 

of water, wildlife and aesthetic values, the regulations governing logging have never set 
88 

clear, enforceable standards for any of these mandates, and the decision of how much 

and how fast to log the state's redwood forests are dictated purely by market 

conditions. How have these market forces shaped the timber economy and the redwood 

forest ecosystem? What can we expect in Humboldt County without the Headwaters 

Forest Act? 

To look into the future of Humboldt County's timberland , one need only 

examine Mendocino County , its next door neighbor to the south , where I live . Until 

very recently Mendocino County was the second largest timber producing county in the 

state , by value . But now, on the largest industrial timber holding in the county 

(Louisiana-Pacific), company data supplied to the Board of Supervisors in 1992 shows 

that 84 percent of the company's 300,000 acres is stocked with trees 35 years old or 

younger, and only 4.8 percent consists of trees over 65 years old. If you wanted to cut 

these trees when they produce the largest possible amount of lumber you would ~ut 

them at around 100 years of age. The condition of the resource is very similar on lands 

owned by the county's other major industrial owner, Georgia Pacific. There is no old 

growth at all remaining on industrial lands, and only the tiniest of islands on other 

private holdings and in state parks. The largest block of old growth redwoods in the 

county is around 160 acres. 

Louisiana-Pacific has laid off over half of their workers since 1989, has closed 

half their mills in the Western Division. Although industry has tried to blame reduced 

timber supplies from federal sources fo r mill closures, a senior L·P company forester 

testified in Mendocino County Superior Court that L-P got a maximum of about 20% 

of their local timber supplies from the national fo rest before that source was severoly 

cut back. The unfortunate truth is we're almost out of merchantable trees in 

Mendocino County, once the heart of the redwood region . 

What docs the sorry Mendocino County timbe r story have to do with 

Headwaters? The main differences between my home county and the Headwaters area 

are time and ownership pallerns. Mendocino's redwood forestlands were owned by 

national, now internationally , operating timber C(.Jmpanics. The Headwate rs area was 

owned until 1986 by a local company whose philosophy was sustained yield. 

Mendocino was also closer to the timber-using urban markets. With the ownership 

change at Pacific Lumbe r the last significant and unprotected areas of the original 

redwood ecosystem are now fully at the mercy of market conditions. The price of old 

growth redwood lumber is ve ry , very high. 

I am sure you will be told by industry that California has the stric!est logging 

laws in the country for non-federal timberlands. This is probably correct. The 

question is do they provide an adequate level of environmental protection? In a rare 

moment of candor California's State Board of Forestry admitted in a 1991 document 

supporting proposed new regulations that, "Past failure to regulate industrial 

timberlands has resulted in long-term over harvesting, drastically reducing both the 
89 

productive capability of the land and maintenance of adequate wildlife habitat." 

Nevertheless, the proposed strengthening regulations were never adopted. 

According to figures provided in 1989 to the Forest Advisory Committee of the 

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors by the state's forestry research program, 

industry wa,; cutting almost three times as much wood as their lands were growing in 

Mendocino County. 

What about local fisheries which once supported a thriving industry'> According 

to an inve ntory prepared for the Department of Fish and Game. in 1965 surveyed 

Mendocino County rivers supported 19,000 Coho salmon and 48,000 steclhcad trout, 

and they were concerned then because the numbers had dropped severely from previous 

tallies. In 1991 those same streams supported only 800 Coho salmon and 2800 

steelhead. Where did the fish go1 In our county there are no major agricultural 

diversions oc huge hydroelectric dams to complicate the analysis. Logging is the 

significant factor. Fish streams have been silted up with logging runoff and 

overheated from lack of tree cover. 

I am currently involved with attempts to modify a timber harvest plan in Del 

Norte County which the California Department of Forestry has approved over the 

obj ections of the Department of Fish and Game. The Forestry department, in its 

official response to public and agency comments, reasons that there is no need to 

protect the last mature trees in this watershed because it's already hccn so cut over 

there is no wildlife left to protect. 

In papers filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the MAXXAM 

Corporation. owner of the Headwaters Forest area, the company provided a substantial 

amount of data regarding their standing inventory and outlined its plan lo liquidate the 

mature trees on its own timberland in order lo pay off the limber collateralized bonds it 

issued as a result of Pacific Lumber's 1993 re-organization. I am not only speaking of 

old growth trees hut also of the 60 to 100 year old trees that make up the bulk of 

MAXXAM 's holdings. Although each timber company has its own management style 

it is clear that the necessity to pay off $385 million worth of limbe r collateralized notes 

will make it imperative for MAXXAM lo log substantially all of its existing 

merchantable limber during the life of the bonds, the next 22 years. There is nothing 

in current stale logging rules to prevent that liquidation although environmental groups 

arc engaged :n continuous rear-guard litigation to enforce state and federal laws which 

should provide some protection if they were only properly implemented. 

According to public records available at the California Department of Forestry 

and Fire Protection, within the 44 ,000 acre proposed Headwaters acquisition area, 

MAXXAM cas already logged a total of 23,348 acres since it acquired Pacific Lumber 

in 1986. Of those totals, 3615 acres of virgin redwood, never before entered for 

logging, were cut between 1986 and 1991. Litigation has since put virgin loggi ng 

plans in that area on hold. In addition, within the acquisition area MAXXAM logged 
90 

18,825 acres of what's called residual old growth. These are the trees the previous 

management had lefl behind. These stands contained from four to ten old growth trees 

per acre with trees up to 12 feet in diameter. Because these residual stands are 

running out, the company has turned more and more to logging the second growth 

trees, ranging in age from 60 to 100 years old. 

Humboldt County is the only area left in the ecosystem which still retains some 

of the original character of the redwood region. Headwaters lies between two areas of 

existing redwood park land . It provides a crucial link between them. Some will 

suggest that only the largest uncut, virgin island of 3000 acres should be protected. 

would suggest to you that we need more than a tree museum here . We need a 

functioning redwood forest, one that maintains the existing old growth and also 

maintains the younger, but still significant 60-100 year old trees as well . It is only a 

maner of time until that second growth forest is also gone throughout the region , as it 

is already in Mendocino County. 

Without the Headwaters Forest Act it is only a mancr of time until the world 

famous redwood ecosystem will be reduced to just another landscape of short, bushy 

green conifers with lots of deer, raccoons and skunks, but not much else in the way of 

wildlife. My children, born and raised in Mendocino County's redwood country , did 

not believe that coast redwoods arc the world's tallest trees until we drove them three 

hours north to Humboldt Redwoods State Park. 

We can't go back, but we can make some guesses about the future . The 

Headwaters Forest Act may well be our last chance to maintain this part of our 

country 's original natural heritage. I believe future generations will thank you for your 

help in maintaining this wondrous part of our world. 
91 

MAXXAM THP's in Headwaters Acquisition Area 

(Timber Harvest Plans) 

1986-1993 

Year 2nd Gr. Residual Old Growth Virgin Total 

1986 317 3166 532 4015 

1987 283 1266 1549 

1988 4260 659 4919 

1989 2218 649 2867 

1990 3230 378 3608 

1991 3564 131 3695 

1992 1623 1623 

1993 591 481 1072 

TOTAL 908 18,825 3615 23,348 acres 

Compiled from Timber Harvest Plans on file with the California Department of 

Forestry and Fir·e Protection 

by Greg King , Charles Powell , and Kathy Bailey 

THP numbers. a-: reage , stand type, and loggi ng system available on request. 

707-X95-3716 
92 

Explanation for Follovinq Two Paqes: Addendu. for Silvicultural 

Information 

By Kathy Bailey 

The Addendum for Silvicultural Information is part of a MAXXAM Timber Harvest Plan, the document which must be filed with 

the State of California in order to qet a permit to loq. 

Within the text of my testimony I refer to the likelihood 

that the MAXXAM ownership will have substantially all of its 

second qrowth timber loqqed over the next twenty years, reducing 

the area to an ecosystem of young reqeneration qrowth trees of a maximum of 40 years, a vastly different type of forest than 

either an old qrowth or 100 year-old second qrowth forest. 

In the Addendum (2 paqes followinq) item 1 describes the 

existinq stand: second qrowth redwood and Douqlas fir. 

Item 3, 4, and 5 show that 100 acres will be selectively 

cut, leavinq some of the older trees, and 151 acres will be 

clearcut, leavinq an area which will be planted with eight-inch 

seedlinqs. 

Item 7 shows this stand currently is 100 years old with 20 

year underqrowth. 

Item 6 states that future entry of the selectively loqged 

sites will be within 10-20 years. It is at that entry that all 

the remaininq 100 year-old trees will be logged, leavinq a stand 

of 30-40 year old trees, with those trees in the previously 

clearcut area beinq 10-20 years old. 
93 

ADDENDUM FOR SILVICULTURAL INFORMATION 

April29, 1992 

Timber Stand Data 

All numbers are gross volumes estimates 

1. This is a~ growth~ with primarily redwood and Douglas-fir. 

Current growth bd. tt.;ac./yr: 

474 bd. ft./ac./yr . 

... 2. Preharvest volume bd. ft./acre: 

Selection 

Redwood Douglas-fir 

42,440 4,960 

Clearcut 

Redwood Douglas-fir 

42,440 4.960 

Post harvest volume bd. ft./acre: 

Selection 

Redwood ~yglas-fir 

20.000 2,000 

Clearcut 

Rectwood Douglas-fir 

0 0 

78-078 - 94 -· 4 
94 

ADDENDUM FOR SILVICULTlJRAL INFORMATION - {Cont.) 

April 29, 1992 

limber Stand Data 

All numbers are gross volumes estimates 

3. & 4. Preharvest basal area; acre: 

Selection 

· ., Redwood Douglas-fir 

251 4 

Clear~ut 

Redwood Douglas-fir 

251 4 

Post harvest basal area;acre: 

Selection 

Reclwood Douglas-fir 

100 0 

Claarcut 

Regwood Douglas-fir 

0 0 

5. The selection will release the stand, which will maintain growth in volume. The selection 

area will also provide habitat beneficial to wildlife post harvest. 

7. 

The clearcut area will be immediately regenerated to achieve maximum site production 

of quality timber products dictated by the rules. 

Future entry in the selection area is estimated to be .:,ithin 10 to ,20 years. 

The ctearcut area will be entered in 60 years. 

The area is Site Class II redwood and Douglas-fir second growth which is 1 00 years old 

with 20 year old under growth. -
95 

Mr. VENTO. And finally, we have Dr. William Stewart, an economist from Oakland, California. 

Welcome, Dr. Stewart. Please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM STEWART 

Dr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to discuss the 

Headwaters Forest Act. My name is William Stewart, and I am 

presently a Senior Research Associate with the Pacific Institute in 

Oakland, California. I was requested by Representative Dan Hamburg to summarize some of the economic trends regarding forests 

and the loca1 employment in the Headwaters Forest area. 

I recently completed a detailed analysis of the relationship between timber harvests, timber jobs, and local economy, using county level data covering the past 20 years. The econometric models 

I developed for this analysis highlight two fundamental trends not 

captured in the standard forestry economic models built on the 

economies of the 1970s. Since the supporting evidence is contained 

in my written statement, I will summarize the main points. 

The first key trend is the impact new investment had on jobs in 

the forest industry. Even though harvest in the late 1980s equaled 

those of the late 1970s, new investment has essentially replaced 

labor in the sawmill sector, while it has created jobs in the remanufacturing sector. The remanufacturing sector involves adding 

value to basic lumber to produce products such as specialty timbers, doors, windows, cabinets, and finger joints and molding. 

The net loss of timber jobs on the north coast has been large, in 

part because the region has lagged behind other parts of the State 

in investing in new remanufacturing plants and product lines. 

The second key trend not captured by standard models is that 

the forest industry no longer dominates these local economies as it 

once did. In the early 1970s, one out of every three dollars of economic stimulus in the north coast came from the timber industry. 

By 1990, the timber industry provided only one dollar out of nine. 

The major source of economic stimulus now comes from non-wage 

income of immigrants and retirees who settled there. Most evidence 

suggests that these new residents have moved to these regions because they value the high quality environment. 

Based on the historic record, I estimate that the combination of 

investment in the timber industry and a correct accounting of all 

local income will mean that the net employment impact over 10 

years of the wilderness designation of the old growth in the Headwaters Forest will be roughly half of the commonly mentioned estimates. This does not take into account the possibility that the oldgrowth mills would shut down before 10 years because the inventory has been completely logged. The contraction of Humboldt's timber industry in the late 1970s 

coincided wiith a national recession, as well as the expansion of 

Redwood National Park, mentioned earlier. At that time, a number 

of estimates were made of catastrophic job losses and the destruction of the economy of Humboldt County. I compared the results of 

those estimates with the actual patterns for the county, for Humboldt County. 
96 

In fact, the county experienced no net loss of jobs and no increase 

in the unemployment rates relative to other counties in California 

that did not have the park expansion. Throughout the 1980s, employment growth totally unrelated to the timber industry has 

added jobs. 

In conclusion, I think the record of Humboldt County shows that 

guaranteeing old-growth redwood logs for sawmills is a very weak 

economic strategy. Job growth within the forest industry depends 

on new investment in remanufacturing that can use both young 

and old growth. Job growth in the economy as a whole depends on 

the expenditure and investment patterns of the immigrants and retirees who came to this region because they value the environment 

there. I will be glad to answer any questions. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Dr. Stewart follows:] 
97 

TESTIMONY ON H.R. 2866- HEADWATERS FOREST ACf 

FOR THE SUBCOMMJTI'EE. ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBUC LANDS 

COMMITIEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 12, 1993 

My name is William Stewart and I am presently a senior research associate with the 

Pacific Institute~ for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security of Oakland, 

California. I was requested by Representative Dan Hamburg 10 summarize some of the key 

trends regarding the relationship of forests to the local economy in the Headwaters region as 

well as suggesting how the specific impact of the Headwaters Forest Act could be calculated. 

As part of my dociX>ral dissertation at the Department of Forestry of the University of California 

at Berkeley,l n:cently completed a detailed analysis of the relationship between timber 

harvests, timber jobs and the local economy using county level data covering the past twenty 

years. The advantage of analyzing such a long period is that the confounding impact of 

business cycles is reduced. The econometric models t developed for this analysis proved to be 

considerably more accurate than appr-Oaches used by US Forest Sezvice or industry analysts in 

two respects. First, they were better at tracking t!'e historical patterns at the local level and 

second they captured the key trends that can explain the major changes we are witnessing in the 

timber industry and the economy of forested regions. 

The Benefits and Costs o( the Headwaters Forest Act 

'The proposed Headwaters Forest Act would create many benefits for this and future 

generations by prorecting a number of unique old growth redwood forest ecosystems whose 

future is not presently ensured by private furest managment. The Act also involves two very 

He.:Wwaters Forest Act Testimony, William Stewart, OciOber 12,1993 
\ 98 

different types of costs. The first are those born by society through federal expenditures to 

expand and then effectivdy manage public lands. Although tbe exact inventory levels are not 

yet known, the procedures for establishing and paying these costa are laid out in the Act. The 

second are those born by the local people and the local cwnomy. This includes jobs lost in the 

Limber industry as well as changes in the local economy tbat are specifically due to the Act. 

Realistic projections of these costs are necessary to ;wcss the true cost of the legislation and 

what measures would be effective in ensuring local economic vitality. 

The problem with most standard analf3C3 of economic impacts is tbat they are based on 

the industry and local economics of the 1970s and not the 1990s. Two major changes must be 

addressed if =listie projections for the 1990s and beyond are 10 be developed. The first is the 

distribution of jobs within the timber workforce itself. The second is that the timber industry 

is no longer tbe major engine oflocal =>nomic growth in the region. My analysis of the 

economic impact of timber harvesting in California suggests that, in some respects, a focus on 

commodity production may have a negative oc only neutral impact on ovcnll economic vitality. 

Headwaters Forest Act Testimony, William Stewart, October 12,1993 2 
99 

M1uu!f Ilendwatcrs Forest Region. North Coast and Central Sjerras 

California 

~!;j""·-+---1---l_ Headwaters Forest 

region 

Headwaters Forest Act Testimony, William Stewart, October 12,1993 3 
100 

Changes jn the Timber Industry Emo!oyment 

The changes with California's timber industry are summarized in the figw'e below. In 

the 1970s, jobs in the sawmills constituted the largest ftaction of all timba' jobs in Northern 

California. In the mid 1980s jobs in the wood temanufacturing sector surpassed sawmills as 

the major employer. Wood remanufacturing includes divcne products such as specially cut 

and sanded lumber, doors, windows, finger-jointed molding, crates and boxes. I think the 

fundamental difference between !he two types of Clllploymcnt is !hal capital investment in 

sawmills decreased the need for labor but actually increued the need for labor in the diverse 

temanufacturing sector by aeatiog even more added value in the wood products. 

Figure One 

Timber Jobs in Northern California 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

~ 15,000 ---Logging .... 

10,000 ----- Sawmillin& 

Remanufacturing 

5,000 

0 

77 79 81 83 85 87 89 

Source: California Economic Develop111ent Depar1meot. 1977·1990. The workl:n are categorized by SIC numbers (241 ,242, and 243-249). The counties oovercd are all those north 

of Los Angeles county. 

Headwaters Forest Act Testimony, William Stewart, October 12,1993 4 
101 

Chances jn Jcrcnl economies 

The other major chant:e is that the stimulus provided by the timber induslly now lakes 

second place to I~XpCDditure3 from an ever inaeasing number of in-migants and retirees and 

who brina new c~tal. skills and interests. Figure two il!U51Iaii:S the eoonnous changes that 

have occurred in this region ovec the past twenty years. The growth in non-wage income is 

considerably more important than the relatively small inaease in tourism and m:nation dollan 

that also occwrcd over the same period. A vecy plausible reason for ibe ability of the region to 

attract new sourca of eamomic stimulus is the environmeo!al amenities provided by the 

region. 

Headwaters Fore!t Act Testimony, William Stewart, October 12,1993 

78 078 1.,~ 

s 
102 

Figure Two 

Sources of Local Economic Stimulus in 

the North Coast of California 

---Interest & 

Dividends 

--o-- Social 

Security & 

other 

Entitlements 

---Timber 

Income 

Source: Local Area Fersonal Income· CaJjfomja . U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. 1978,1984, 1990, 1991. Ec;ooomic stimulus is defined as income coming 

from sale of exported product5 (mainly manufacturing and agriculture), eqKlrted services 

(determined by location quotient) and income transfers. It excludes most local retail, service 

and government employment income. 

Headwaters Forest Act Testimony, William Stewart, October 12,1993 6 
103 

S1)ti:jfic: Irends for Humboldt County 

11 is clear upon reviewing the harvest and employment statistics for Northern California 

that more people are required to process one million board feet of old growth than one: million 

board feet of young growth logs. Based on data covcrin& the period from 1978 to 1990,1 

estimated that processing pure old growth requires roughly 30% more: labor than the current 

regional mix of old and young growth. Total employment involved in logging and ~g 

one million board feel of old growth logs would include roughly one logging job, one half a 

tree plant job ano! six and a half sawmillingjobs. Beyond the fint year, however, it is also 

necessary to aca1unt for increases in labor productivity r:aulling from the purchase of new mill 

mac:hinery and tl~e retiring of old machinery. 

Even though the inaease in labor productivity bas been closely associated with the shift 

from a harvest dominated by old &rowth logs to one dominated by yo1111g growth logs, old 

growth processir1g also improves with new macllinery. For example, labor requirements for 

an identical mix ,Gf old and young growth logs in the Central Sierras are roughly one half of 

that in the North Coast. In the Central Sierras, the percenlllge of the harvest from old growth 

logs had no im~ on employment. This would not occur if the processing of old growth was 

impervious to introduction of new machinery. The diffusion of existing technology among 

different mills in the industry is going on now and will continue. Taking a c:onservative view 

that the diffusion of more productive technology from the industry leaden to the whole North 

Coast timber ind::IStry would take ten years, the number of jobs required to process one million 

board feet would drop from 8 to 4 workers over a decade. Based on this process of 

technological diffusion, 61 penon years would be required to process an annual flow of one 

million board fe<t of lumber for a decade. This compares 10 an estimated 95 person-years that 

one gets by simp:ty dividing current employment by lumber output. This back of the envelope 

calculati"" is SO ~ greater than the projection I would make based on an econometric: analysis 

of the relationship of the recent historical record in California. 

Headwaters Forest Act Testimony, William Stewart, October 12,1993 7 
104 

Figure Four 

9.5 

8 

1 

Person-Years to Process One Million Board 

Feet per year for a Decade 

2 

Without Technological Change 

95 

With Technological Change 

61 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

4 

Sources: Initial and eventual labor requirements for teclmological change model- econometric 

analysis of county level harvest and employment data. Stewart (1993). Labor requirements of no technological change model- 1990 JMPLAN analysis for Northern Spotted Owl and 

industry estima!Cs for old growth processing in California. The model far far estimating the 

rate of technological innovation by comparing average oroductivity to the moductlvtity of the best one quarter of the indu::A was first introduced by Willlam MKmyk fn 1965 in An 

Introduction tn Input-Outpu~ysis. 

Indirect jobs 

Nearly all employment analysis estimate that more indirect jobs will be lost thant direct 

timber jobs if timber harvests drop in the western United States. The eoql8JISion of Redwood 

National Park in the late 1970s provides an excellent opportunity tn compare the projection 

with the actual pattern in the same general region that we arc discussing today. When we go 

Headwaters Forest Act T=timony, William Stewart, October 12,1993 8 
105 

back and compue the accepted projections of catastrophic lo53CS to what actually occuned, it is 

surprising that although direct timber job loss did occur, the total number of jobs in the county 

did not drop, w:lC.lllployment mtes did not rise relative to the state as a whole, and ovCillll the 

local economy 1XJ11tinued to grow. These results are true even after the number of jobs is 

reduced to accoWit for overall population growth. Figure three: below compares the projected 

jobs losses for Humboldt county based on the employment mulliplien; greater than 2.5 

calculated for th.e economy of the 1970s with the actual trend after correcting it for population 

growth. As the figure illustrates, the loss of timber jobs that began in 19'n (due to both a 

slowdown in construction and the park ~ansion) did not have the expected effect of dragging 

the rest of the eo:onomy down. Equally significant, when harvests doubled from 1982 to 1987, 

the number of timber jobs increased by less than 20%. Ocariy, timber employment is no 

longer the prillllll)' driver of the local economy. 

Headwaters Forest Act Testimony, William Stewan, October 12,1993 9 
Figure Three 

40,000 

i 35,000 ... j 30,000 

125,000 

~ 20,000 

ll5,000 

~ 10,000 

~ 5,000 

106 

Humboldt County 

O++++~H-H-+-+++-+-1--t-lf-+-H 

72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 

Noa-1\mba" 

Employment ~ts corrected to 1m population 

-·- Actual 

Non-Timbe¥ Jobs 

Input-Output 

(73) Forecast 

Econometric 

(84) Forecast 

IMPU.N 

(90) Forecast 

Actual Employment 

----Thnba Industry 

Sources: .&nployment: Annual Plannine Report: Humboldt Cougtv 1992. Harvest: (the dashed 

and 

line) 

Projections 

California 

of 

Board 

the Humboldt 

ofEqua!izatioo. County Employmeat 

F.cono~ 

Multiplitn: 

Grpw!h 

Dean 

'\llli'SUS 

eL al. 1973. 

Eoyironmegta) ~ 

and 

~-

Employment 

University 

Multipliers 

of California 

for the 

Giannini 

forest 

FOWl 

Pmduct3Jgdustry ·on Report ofNqrthcm 

318.: McKillop. 

Ca!ifpmja. 

1984. ~ 

Univc:rsity of California, Berkeley DepartmentofFuatry and Resource Management and 

Forest Products Ulboraloty: Olson 1990. &gngmjc Impec;b of !be ISC Northern Spotted Owl 

Con:;;rvatipn Sl!:afl:u fur Wasbingtoo Orep and Northern CalifOrnia. Mason, Bruce and 

Girard - Portland Oregon. 

Employment multipliers of2.5 or greater continue to be used eYI!II though they prove to 

be extremely inaccw:ale when applied to events that have occurred. A czucia1 flaw in many of 

the regional ecxmomic models is that they do not account fur growin& DOD-wage incomes that 

are especia1l y characteristic of the forested regioos of Ca1ifclmia. The followiog table 

summarizes the results of an economU: base analysis o{ !be majcr limber producing counties of 

California. 

Headwalerll Forest Act Testimony, WilliamS~ October 12,1993 10 
107 

Income Multi ~liers for M ~or Timber Producing Counties in California 1 9 72-19 89 

Income Standard 

St(:tc~ Mult!l!_lier E'lror T j) 

Lumber 1.445 0.132 10.909 .000 

Transfers 1.422 0.056 25.221 .000 

Government 1.605 0.318 5.048 .000 

Other Manufacturing 1.481 0.328 4.519 .000 

Degrees of Freedom= 125: F= 86· Adjusted R2 = 0.875 

Source: ~:ting Emnioyment Impacts ofCban&"ing Forest Manaaement jn California 1993. 

William Stewart. PhD, University of Califomia at ~d· The results were developed from an economic base model using local income from the Area Personal Income publications 

of the Department of Commerce. 

The moral is that a dollar is a dollar in terms of the multiplier effect in these f01'1:3ted 

counties. When the relatively higher wage of timber jobs is taklm into account, the loss or gain 

of one timber job is associated with the loss or gain of 1.85local jobs. The combination of 

underestimating the impact of technological change and overestimating tbe employment 

multiplier leads to a total job loss estimate that may be more than that twice that which an 

examination of the economic n:cord leads me to anticipate. This ovcn:stimation does not take 

into account the distinct possibility that the old growth jobs could suddenly come to a halt if the 

inventories ran out within the next decade or two. 

Employment in the new forest economies 

The e.:onomies of Humboldt and other Co:re$t counties in California have undergone 

enormous chl111ges. large chanj:es in timber investment reduce the leverage of increased 

commodity production for producing jobs. lob growth in California's timber industry is 

occWTing in the remanufacturing sector rather than the sawmilling sector. lnla'estingly, it is 

the Central Siena region which illustrates the potential for job creation based on develaping 

Headwaters f'orest Act Testimony, William Stewart, October 12.1993 11 
108 

new products and marketini them far and wide. Over the 1990s, more than 2,500 jobs in 

wood remanufacturing wen: mated in this regioo as many smalJa' companies incn:ased their 

product lines and output. Unfurtunately, similar levels of new invcstment, market linka&es and 

new jobs did not not occur in the North Coast fe&ion. 

The possibility of job growth with declining old growth harvests is il!ustr.lted by the 

near total transfamalion of one firm in the North Coast region. IJI the !ale 1970s, the finn 

employed 110 workers producing wide, tongue and groove planb fiom old growth redwood. 

Even though their supply of old if'Qwth redwood dried up in the 1980s, the owner did not have 

to lay off one penon. By investing in new equipmcmt and developing new products, she 

completed the transitioo 10 products made from young growth lop with no Joss of jobs. 

The fact that the growth of income brought by in-migrants aDd ils impact on the 

economy more than ovenbado'll'ed the reduction of timber jobs h .. ~ cdlcc important 

implications. It is probable that many of these new xaideDU-brought to the rqpon by its 

environmental amenities and possess economic talmts that am be tapped to create ncw 

employment growth in the region. Focussing oo new employmcllt opportunities not dependent 

on inm:ased commodity p:oduction may have COIISiderab1y JDOR: promi-. 

Key conc!uslops 

Althouib old growth logs require ~~KXe labor to proc:eu, new inYCStments in sawmills 

are inaeasin& labor productivity and reducina the emp!Dymellt 1-'cc! to process a slleady 

supply of raw mmriaL Investment in !he~ I!Qleofthe ~ indusb:y Ia 

responsible for eucnlially all the timbec job glVWib in the 11118. 1be rdalive lllownas of the 

timber industry in the area lllmJUnding the pl'OpC*d Hea.dwaunForelt ._to invest In these 

new product lines exp!aiJis more of the job loa than hamill leYc11 CM:l' the 1978 10 1990 

period. Local ccooomies are increasinaly driveG by Income not n:Jaled to the timber industry 

and job growth appears 10 be positively associated with the aMronmenlal amenities of the 

l{CJ!dwaters Forest Act Testimony, William Stewart, October 12,1993 12 
109 

region. In this res:pect the apparent tradeoff between wilderness and employment may not 

always be true. 

Headwaters Forest Act Testimony, William Stewart, October 12,1993 13 
110 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, thank you, Dr. Stewart. You are obviously just 

talking about the output in tenns of timber harvest and the utilization, or practical utilization, on a sustained-yield basis of timber, 

is that correct, and other forest-related products? 

Dr. STEWART. Yes, sir. Mr. VENTO. You didn't deal with any of the fishery impact that 

this would have, is that correct, in your analysis? 

Dr. STEWART. No, I was just looking at the impacts within the 

forest sector. 

Clearly, the rates of logging, if you look at the rate, what has 

happened to the fishery sectors of the north coast, they have been 

drastically reduced over this period of the final residual logging of 

many of the old-growth forests. 

Mr. VENTO. There are, of course, a lot of intangibles in tenns of 

quality of life and other things that Bonnie Raitt was talking about 

in tenns of the utilization or how these areas are used. But there 

is also, of course, a tourism aspect and how that-whether a lot of 

people visit this area. 

I don't know what the situation is in Humboldt County and other 

areas, I guess, but with some of the parks and so forth, they 

haven't found-they haven't exactly had their doors beat down up 

there. But there is that factor, is there not? 

Dr. STEWART. Yes, sir. I think tourism has often been considered 

the replacement industry for the timber industry; and I think, looking at the historical record, that the real economic growth that 

comes from creating parks or putting land into preserves is that it 

attracts new innovators and entrepreneurs to the region that enjoy 

those environmental amenities. Most of them who do not work in 

the tourism resource and the tourism industries. Mr. VENTO. Yes, I know. I think the utilization of old growth in 

tenns of getting people to walk out in the forest, and so forth, it 

has been a problem. But sports fishing, as an example, could be 

very, very significant in tenns of, again, the related vertebrate fish 

species that are impacted in the area. 

There are quite a few questions here that need to be raised. Do 

you-you are just trying to compare. 

Now, the Forest Service, of course, can get into some difficulty, 

but they would-excluding some of these lands would mean that 

they, Dr. Stewart, could in fact raise income or have income flow 

from some of these secondary growth areas and other areas in the 

forest; is· that correct? 

Dr. STEWART. I think one of the major problems from both the 

State and Federal regulatory point of view is until the status of 

these endangered habitats is cleared up, there has been a slowdown even in harvesting young growth. And I think clarifying the 

habitat requirements would allow for a more rapid development of 

some of these younger growth areas that are now under question. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, in other words, your point is, likely some of the 

timber adding to the cost of these lands could never really be actually logged? As in the case of the Owl Creek situation, there may 

be in fact a policy violation in those instances? 

Dr. STEWART. That may be true, but for the region as a whole, 

approximately half of the acreage is in the hands of northern industrial owners, and many of those lands are coming to age when 
111 

they will be harvestable, to replace some of the inventory that 

would be put into the wilderness designation. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you think from a standpoint of management that 

it is helpful to have-obviously, this being in public ownership 

would be mor4~ likely to be able to set up other goals than those 

simply to pay off high-yield bonds? 

Dr. STEWART. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. That is, I think, a point worth noting, that if they 

are dependent only on that and some of the other esthetic questions, some of the other questions with regard-that we get into arguments about in terms of harvest, are set aside, which may be 

just as well. 

What do you think about the dollar amounts that you have heard 

and the discm,sion today concerning that debate, the fact that the 

State of California got an estimate on 44,000 acres and it was only 

within certain criteria the State of California was relying upon; do 

you think that that-do you have any comments on that? 

Dr. STEWART. No, the exact inventory numbers and the appraisal 

values are something I am not a specialist in, and I think that is 

a very different field. 

Mr. VENTO. )[ see. Ms. Lanman, can you explain the sad status of the various lawsuits that you have begun? This Owl Creek is the most recent one. 

Last year, of course, we in the past session had a lot of suggestions 

made to us that there was nothing being done, that California's 

land use and fi)restry protection laws are the most strict in the Nation, and that there wouldn't be any intrusion into--in fact, they 

are taking every step to avoid modification of the habitat of any 

species that were threatened and so forth. 

And yet here we are then in Thanksgiving with this cut. You are 

telling me that whatever the penalty or fines are, there is still 

money to be made in violating whatever these rules are; is that 

right? 

Ms. LANMAN. To date, that is correct. Since there were no fines 

levied, they haven't had to pay anything. 

Mr. VENTO. But your concern is that that is exactly what will 

happen? 

Ms. LANMAN. Well, in addition to the confusion, as expressed by 

Congressman Hamburg, that the agencies displayed when they 

were presented with the problem of an actual take occurring in 

known Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat, that left us with the only 

recourse to go to court again and try to get an injunction. We were 

fortunate to do that. 

But in terms of the overall California forest practice program, it 

is badly in need of reform; and we have been working on that for 

several years. The case law that has been developed since we began 

this work in 1988, in particular with regard to this logging of ancient forest habitat on Pacific Lumber Company land, shows clearly 

that wildlife a~'encies are in favor of survey information being provided. 

The agencies have taken a few steps administratively to try to 

begin to grapple with this, but they are faced consistently with an 

uncooperative partner in the industry; and in particular, when they 
112 

are asked to provide information that would result in a restriction 

on cut, they are very reluctant to do that. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, it is a related problem, I think, in most of our 

minds, on privately owned land. It is tough enough when you have 

publicly owned land and you are putting together a sale, and when 

supposedly we should be able to control that. You know, last week someone said they were stealing the trees 

off of public land. 

Ms. LANMAN. Well, clearly California law recognizes that the forests hold public values, fundamental public values that need to be 

protected, and that includes the fisheries, the wildlife, and the future productivity of the forests to produce high-quality timber products for future generations. 

If we look at what has happened in Mendocino, we can see clearly the regulations are not providing for the maximum productivity 

in perpetuity; and if we see what has happened in Humboldt County, we can see clearly that even endangered species cr;n fall 

through the cracks and not be protected. 

Mr. VENTO. I would just submit-! am not an attorney-but most 

States sort of define what the private property rights are. There 

are some provisions in our national constitution, but most States 

are rather unique in tenns of how they define what private property rights are. 

So you are really on a legal expedition here in terms of trying 

to define and limit this. I would suggest in most courts-! think 

most States, maybe even national courts, are not-are pretty leery 

of what the consequences are. I think there have been a number 

of zoning cases that came up the last few years that have not been 

encouraging with regards to the State being able or its delegated political subdivisions being able to deal with issues of zoning and 

other limitations. 

That is just a fact, isn't it? 

Ms. LANMAN. But it is clear, too, that as long as the company 

hasn't been restricted from conducting business, that a take cannot-a taking of their property cannot be found; and certainly we 

have not advocated that they stop logging entirely, but that they 

practice sustainable logging practices and that they protect wildlife 

values as required by law. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, this is based on rules and regulations in the 

State of California. Is it State law, do you know? Is it State law 

or is it rules and regulations of the State Department of Forestry, 

California State Department of Forestry? What are we dealing with 

here? 

Ms. LANMAN. Well, we are dealing with some complex layers of 

law. 

One is the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires 

that you consider the cumulative effects of an action over time. And 

the other is the California Forest Practices Act, which implements 

these regulations, which-the Board of Forestry develops regulations to protect the public resource values. 

Mr. VENTO. Are there cases similar to this that have been decided in California? 

Ms. LANMAN. Well, we won several of these cases already. We 

have a major case pending in the Supreme Court which should go 
113 

directly to the heart of your question. And we feel that it won't be 

black and white, that they will find that the species need to be protected. 

Mr. VENTO. What is the length of these court cases? How long 

have you been fighting these court cases? I know you have got one 

in the Supreme Court. What is your estimate of this? 

Obviously, if Pacific Lumber comes to a settlement tomorrow, 

you are all set, but it doesn't sound like that might happen. 

Ms. LANMAN. Well, we have been trying to address these issues 

in court since 1987; and we just settled a case from 1987 recently, 

and we have about seven cases now pending since 1988. 

Mr. VENTO. Ms. Bailey, you have done a lot of work in this. I 

read your statement and appreciate the efforts of your organization, the Sierra Club, and the other associations, the Wilderness 

Society and National Audubon. I think it underlines the importance that conservation organizations place on these particular key 

areas. 

What is you:r view of the State of California and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, their indirect role in this? It is indirect. You note 

that the Forest Service and the others that were testifying here did 

not specify, they were not involved in, for instance, many of the decisions that we,re made here about these land use patterns; but is 

that a reliable benchmark on which we should rely in terms of protection to the headwaters? I mean, that is the bottom line. 

We have got a court case going forward here. Is this likely to 

come back with resolution and therefore make our actions here 

moot or not necessary? 

Ms. BAILEY. I think we are so much going out into new territory 

where the Federal endangered species regulations interact with the 

State regulations, that it is unlikely that we are going to see a 

clear definitive resolution in the near future. 

My views ar1e that the State of California has relatively strong 

laws but relatively ineffective regulations. And it is that shifting between what the law says and how the regulations implement 

those laws that has brought to us where we are right now. 

Mr. VENTO. It sounds like the laws exist on paper, but not in reality. I can't believe it. 

Ms. BAILEY. Right, sir. We have regulations that generate enormous amounts of paperwork, but sometimes what it seems like is 

a situation of d1:!scribe and cut. So you spend a lot of time analyzing 

the situation, but then the guidelines are absent as to what is protection in one area, for what resource. 

And it is a situation that in Mendocino County, where I am-I 

believe we are only a small period of time, say 15 years ahead, of 

what we would be looking like in Humboldt County. And we have 

testimony in front of the board of supervisors from our major timber holder to the effect that 85 percent of their resource is in trees 

in the 35-year-old age class; and as I think you probably heard 

somewhere else:, that trees in our ecosystem yield the most wood 

volume for timber in the 80- to 120-year range. And so obviously 

if we have got a resource in the 35-year-old range, we are not sustainable at the moment. 

And, in fact, the Board of Forestry did find-research arm of the 

Board of Forestry found that in our county, harvests were three 
114 

times the rate of growth. And we are just looking at the same thing 

happening in Humboldt County. 

Mr. VENTO. I am sort of amused, when you hear of the reforestation or second growth and you go and look in the stream bottoms, 

and there you see the cedar stumps, the redwood stumps from 120 

years ago, and there is nothing growing around them. 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, redwoods have wonderful regenerative properties. 

Mr. VENTO. No, I know they do. Not other species, but, yes, they 

come from the root, they will come back. 

Please proceed. Did I interrupt you? 

Ms. BAILEY. No. 

Mr. VENTO. The point is that you obviously feel strongly that the 

measure that has been introduced has 44,000 acres plus an additional 12,000 acres to study; and what we are being told here that 

has been considered before is why not just take the 44,000 acres, 

why not just take the areas that have the old-growth redwoods on 

them, the ancient redwoods? 

Ms. BAILEY. Well, again, I think we have heard from the experts 

that tell us that we can enhance our investment by going into the 

ecosystem management approach. I think this is the direction that 

the Federal Government is leading us. We like to think in California that we are in the lead on things, but I think it is clear in this 

situation that the Federal Government has taken the lead on ecosystem management. 

Mr. VENTO. Or "landscapes," as the Forest Service refers to it? 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. The other question, and I am sorry, but the point is 

that how much of the-in the area of Pacific Lumber, since the 

purchase by this 1980 takeover process, I note that you have put 

before us a list of Maxxam in the headwater acquisition area. What is THP? 

Ms. BAILEY. Timber harvest plan. And it is the document that 

the companies must file with a State in order to get approval. 

Mr. VENTO. So they reported with the State or filed with the 

State that they were going to cut 3,615-that they have cut 3,615 

acres of virgin old growth? 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, sir. It was pointed out to me that these were 

the timber harvest plans that Maxxam got approved themselves 

under their ownership; that when they took over the company, they 

also inherited, if you will, approved timber harvest plans for virgin 

areas that were also cut-perhaps as much as an additional 3,000 

acres. 

I haven't documented that yet, but I can. 

Mr. VENTO. So you think there may have been actual-so the 

total amount here might actually be 6,000 acres? 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Is that what you are saying? 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. This is in addition to what was being cut; and of 

course, you are concerned about the fact that much of this is nowis having superimposed over it, of course, additional information. 

Almost every year we are rewriting the old-growth bill in Region 

6, because we keep getting new information every year. And none 
115 

of this is being considered here in terms of this particular plan, 

none of this new information. 

Ms. BAILEY. Right, that is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. The ecosystems are not a factor in terms of this plan; 

is that right? 

Ms. BAILEY. No, no, I am afraid it is not. Right now the cumulative impact system is a checklist, where is it going to mean impact, yes, no. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think it is tough to be in this business; it is 

a difficult timE! because there is changing information, we are on 

a learning curve here. And so I think that that is a factor. And plus 

I think trying to meld that together with the other goals that exist 

in terms of those that want to preserve some of these areas and 

the associated species-even salamanders. 

Someone the other day was saying we are even trying to preserve-! think they meant insects, but they said bugs. I don't think 

they were just talking about insects. Actually I think they were 

talking about other things, maybe even arachnids. I don't know. 

Mr. Hamburg. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We hear a lot from the 

timber industry in northern California about the stringency of 

State regulation. I know you have already addressed this, but I 

have to just talk about it for another couple of minutes. There have 

been several attempts in recent years to try to strengthen the regulations under the Forest Practices Act, which many people would 

say is the most forward-thinking State regulation in the country, 

but as you havE! said, it is regulation that is often not enforced. 

Could you just describe, Ms. Bailey, what some of those efforts 

have been over the last several years and what has occurred? Have 

we gotten any positive results out of those attempts on the State 

level? 

Ms. BAILEY. Well, there was Proposition 130 in 1990. This was 

a voter initiative that was twofold. It attempted to reform forest 

practices on one hand, and it also contained a very large bond 

measure which would have-the prime target was the Headwaters 

area. 

It also would have protected ancient forest areas throughout the 

State. 

We came to the election, at the time, at the very edge, where people were suddenly discovering that the economy was perhaps failing; and we lost on a very narrow margin, 48 percent yes. Our election people wem congratulated by the timber industry because they 

thought we hacll won, it was only when the numbers came in that 

we discovered that we had lost. 

Two years later, after a period of negotiation, there was also an 

attempt at for,estry reform in the legislature. However, it got 

bogged down in special interest maneuvering, at least partly by the 

Pacific Lumber Company, and to preserve a larger cut on their residual redwood forest. And unfortunately after much prolonged debate, the Sierra Club felt that they could no longer support this 

bill. And the bil:tMr. HAMBURG. Was that the Sierra Accord? 

Ms. BAILEY. It started out as the Sierra Accord. It went through 

a couple of pennutations. 
116 

Mr. HAMBURG. Why did the Sierra Accord fail? It did get through 

the legislation; is that correct? 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, it did pass as A.B. 860 and was vetoed by Governor Wilson. It was our opinion at the time that it perhaps might 

have prevented a certain a:mo_u_nt of clear-cutting of residual oldgrowth timber. 

Mr. HAMBURG. But did the Sierra Club-Sierra Club pulled out 

on the subsequent bill, which was called the Grand Accord; but did 

the Sierra Club support the Sierra Accord? 

Ms. BAILEY. The Sierra Club was neutral by the time it came to 

the vote on the Sierra Accord. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Even though you had worked to help negotiate 

the agreement? . Ms. BAILEY. Yes. There were some 90 amendments, and in the 

final two weeks there were some extremely hostile amendments 

that we felt were basically poison pills, but we still felt that there 

was enough in the legislation that we would only go neutral on it. 

However, the next iteration was---

Mr. HAMBURG. Governor Wilson vetoed the Sierra Accord? 

Ms. BAILEY. That is correct. 

Mr. HAMBURG. And you mentioned Pacific Lumber was involved 

in that. 

Ms. BAILEY. Well, that was our feeling. I have no direct personal 

knowledge of that. But it was clear that one of the main differences 

between A.B. 860, which the Governor vetoed and the next iteration, the Grand Accord, there was a significant difference in the 

amount of old growth that Pacific Lumber could have clear cut 

under those two measures. 

Mr. HAMBURG. And, you know--Cecelia, go ahead. 

Ms. LANMAN. I was going to address the issue of regulations. In 

regard to the Board of Forestry regulations, one of our lawsuits 

emanated from a refusal on the part of Pacific Lumber to-well, 

they testified against any further old-growth regulations being implemented by the State of California in 1988, which has subsequently led to our having to sue them and the State agencies six 

or eight times. 

In addition, the industry just recently in the last two years, since 

the Grand Accord failed, has blocked any meaningful reform as 

well. And this is despite the fact that the Board of Forestry's own 

findings and the information digest provided to the agencies, by the 

agencies and by other experts, show clearly there is a need for 

these kinds of regulations, which would identify old-growth values 

and attributes and do something to try to protect these processes 

and the wildlife. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Now, in the neighboring county to Humboldt, 

Mendocino County, there has been an attempt to corr.e up with 

some rules that will better serve the interests of long-term sustainability; and I don't know if you have been involved in that process, 

but could you just very briefly describe that for us, Kathy? 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, the Mendocino County Forest Advisory Committee was a board appointed by the Board of Supervisors in 

Mendocino County. They met over a period of, I believe, 18 months. 

It involved every aspect of the spectrum-environmentalists, water 
117 

course experts, timber industry people, small mill owners. And they 

did come with a package to the Board of Supervisors. 

This package! was defeated on a three-to-two vote after much discussion; and what the effect of that would have been, would have 

been to present a package of rules from Mendocino County to the 

Board of Forestry in Sacramento. They then would have had to approve them as well. 

We don't know whether this is-if there will be more action from 

Mendocino County. 

Mr. HAMBURG. I understand that the Mendocino County board 

plans to take up the fact recommendations again this year. However, I just bring this up because I think the entire forest advisory 

committee proc:ess in Mendocino County is really indicative of the 

failure of the State Board of Forestry to promulgate rules that are 

in the best interest of long-term sustained yield timber planning. 

And it is my understanding that there is nothing in the current 

rules under which the State operates that require sustained yield 

harvesting of timber. Is that true? 

Ms. BAILEY. Well, the law again specifies that the resource 

should be managed for maximum production of high-quality timber 

product. However, the regulations have never defined what sustained production is. The board has--under threat of lawsuit from an organization 

that is not represented here, has tried to grapple with this issue 

of just what is sustained yield. Mind you, this is 20-some-odd years 

after the Forest Practices Act passed. They are now trying to grapple with what it means to say "sustained yield." And they sent a 

regulation to the Office of Administrative Law, who bounced it 

back on procedural problems; and they have resubmitted it, and we 

will see. But as of now, there is no definition of "sustained yield." 

Mr. HAMBURG. Thank you. Just a couple of other questions. Ms. Lanman, probably the most controversial thing about this 

bill is that it doesn't just isolate the old-growth groves and say, 

Let's just purchase those and forget about the connectivity in the 

second grove. 

I was in Fortuna over the weekend talking at a town hall meeting with many employees of Pacific Lumber Company and they 

definitely had a their point of view on how that second growth is 

being managed. What is your impression of that management? 

Ms. LANMAN.. It is being cut as rapidly as possible so that it 

doesn't become part of a national forest. And Pacific Lumber's policies became very aggressive after the takeover. Many of their plans 

have had flaws in terms of how they would protect over the landscape the significant values that remain on their holdings, especially the Headwaters Forest area and the species that exist there, 

As we heard from the biologist this morning, it seems very clear 

that for the re<:overy of these species we need a larger acreage in 

order to protect those values. If they are left as isolated fragments, 

we will just have more park system, not a functional recovery area 

like the Marbled Murrelet. 

I believe if it remains in their hands, they will continue to isolate 

and fragment these groves, which is precisely what they have done 

since attention has been brought to their lands. I don't believe they 
118 

would manage it in a way that would enhance the recovery of these 

species. That is very clear from their actions. 

Mr. HAMBURG. A section of the bill talks about a restoration plan 

for second-growth forests which you maintain are being aggressively harvested. Can you describe the kind of jobs in restoration 

work that might be available on these lands, what kind of work 

would need to be done to restore the second-growth forest and establish an ecosystem management approach to that second-growth 

forest? 

Ms. LANMAN. I have some ideas theoretically. There has been 

some assessment done by experts, Pacific Watershed Associates, 

many of whom were involved in national park restoration, but until 

actual assessment was done we wouldn't know for sure how many 

jobs. 

Clearly, restoration-based economy in this region will be labor intensive and will be a better trend than what is in the industry now, which is to move toward fiber farm production and increasingly 

jobs, automation in the mills. And in order to deal with the gap 

that we are facing now because of the overharvesting, we feel that 

the restoration work would provide jobs in this transition that we 

are facing. Those jobs would include planning and monitoring areas 

that were put under restoration; it would include heavy equipment 

operations where roads would have to be put to bed. It would in- clude all seasonal work. 

Logging does not only have to be one season. It involves 

inventorying, going out on the ground and seeing what impacts 

occur over time. It involves surveying for wildlife. It involves tree 

planting as well as removal and thinning of certain areas. 

If this management plan were to be develop.:)d by the Forest 

Service to truly enhance the old growth values, there would need 

to be thinning of some areas to bring those features back sooner. 

It is a variable that would have to be worked out after the bill was 

passed, and during the time the Forest Service would be looking 

at management and we would have to find a way to fund the restoration efforts in order to keep the jobs going out there. 

In addition, there would be a lot of work in restoring fisheries. 

I have been involved in doing some of that kind of work in the watershed where I live. It is not necessarily only seasonal; it can be 

year-round because it involves surveying and monitoring, work 

that can only be done in the dry season, such as creating barriers 

to prevent erosion in places where there is gullying and a lot of erosion coming into the streams. It involves in our region a lot of 

hands-on work to protect the species of fish using the stream. 

People in our region are catching the fish as they come upstream 

and hatching the eggs out by hand. They are put in incubators and 

they are fed. They have to have clean water and gravel. This has 

to be done. There is no spawning habitat in some areas, so people 

have to be out and monitor and be there hands-on teaching our 

children how to do this too. 

Mr. VENTO. We have to go to the last panel. If you have other 

questions, you may submit them in writing. 

Mr. HAMBURG. Thank you. I do have other questions. 

Mr. VENTO. I thank the members of the panel. It has been very 

helpful. 
119 

I appreciate the last concern. There has been a lot of siltation in 

streams in the Western slope up and down the Cascades and in the 

Rockies, and that does c&use special problems. 

Thank you VE!ry much. 

The last panel is Mr. John Campbell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Pacific Lumber Company, Scotia, California; Mr. 

Gary Rynearson, the Natural Resources Management Corporation, 

Eureka, California; Mr. Stan Dixon, County Supervisor, Humboldt 

County, California; and Mr. Robert MacMullin, MacMullin Logging 

and Forestry, lVIcKinleyville, California. 

Gentlemen, you have been very patient today and I appreciate it. 

I have all of your statements. I had your statement early, Mr. 

Campbell. So they will be made part of the record. 

Mr. Campbell, once you are properly seated, proceed to summarize or read the relevant portions of your statement. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF JOHN A. CAMPBELL, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE PACIFIC LUMBER CO., 

SCOTIA, CA; GARY C. RYNEARSON, PRESIDENT, NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT CORP., EUREKA, CA; STAN DIXON, 

COUNTY SUPERVISOR, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CA; AND ROBERT MacMULLIN, CONSULTING FORESTER, MacMULLIN FORESTRY AND LOGGING, McKINLEYVILLE, CA 

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. CAMPBELL 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am John Campbell, the President and Chief Executive Officer 

of the Pacific Lumber Company, and I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify before you today. I would like to summarize my remarks. 

The Pacific Lumber Company has been in operation in Humboldt 

County now for 124 years of continuous operation. In February 

next year it will be our 125th year of operation on this same property. 

It was interesting to hear testimony earlier that folks were talking about the beauty of the area and how people are moving there 

because of the beauty. I would suggest to you that that is because 

a lot of the timber companies in our area have been doing a good 

job. That is why the area is so beautiful. 

Our company has 1,250 employees. We are the largest private 

employer in Humboldt County. All our lands are owned by the 

State for timber production and the Timber Production Act of 1982 

requires that the landowner has maximum sustained production of 

timber products from that land. That is its only use. 

The proposal which claims to be an old-growth protection bill is 

fatally flawed, as was stated by the Save the Redwoods League, because over 80 percent of the land that is involved in the 44,000 

acres is second··growth timber or even third-growth timber. It has 

been harvested at least once, and in some areas twice. 

I mentioned the Save the Redwoods League. Two weeks ago they 

enjoyed their 7Sth anniversary. Our company has had a 70-year relationship with that organization and many of the forest groves of 

redwoods in Humboldt County have been set aside working in cooperation between the Pacific Lumber Company and the Save the 

Redwoods League. 
120 

The reason John DeWitt said the current proposal is fatally 

flawed is they would like to see money of this magnitude spent on 

acquiring property adjacent to the current parks so that those 

parks will be enhanced and grow over time rather than taking isolated portions of land in other areas which would not benefit what 

their long-term goals are. 

Three and a half years ago our company voluntarily refrained 

from harvesting in the headwaters area. We put on a two-year 

moratorium worked out with three of our local legislators, Congressman Bosco, Senator Barry Keene and Assemblyman Dan 

Houser from our area, and we agreed to refrain from harvesting to 

allow the environmental communities and the State to figure out 

how to come up with an appropriation to protect this particular 

drainage. 

Proposition 130 failed and many other efforts have failed as well. 

But here we are three and a half years later, we have refrained 

from harvesting in the area, we have remained flexible in terms of 

what we would like to see happen with that property. All the company wants to see is that our shareholders who have a public interest in our company are protected; in other words, that we maintain 

our financial responsibility to those people. 

We would like to see this issue worked out. You have mentioned 

many vehicles earlier today in testimony that could be used. We do 

not want to see the additional 40,000 acres taken from our productive timber lands. That is what our sustainability over time is 

going to be based upon, that is how we are going to be able to 

maintain employment in our area. Although we are willing to work 

on the headwaters issue itself, we do not want to see the balance 

of our property impacted. 

I would like to correct a couple of things said in testimony earlier. One is the issue of junk bonds. Our company, like many other 

homeowners in the United States, have refinanced our company 

and taken advantage of a lower interest rate climate and the majority of our debt today has an investment grade rating so we are 

not today financed by junk bonds. 

There was an issue brought up about our pension fund. Not one 

of our retired community has lost one nickel at any time during 

this entire episode. Everyone has been protected and will continue 

to be protected. 

I would like to talk for a moment about Owl Creek. Owl Creek 

is an approved timber harvest plan, approved twice by the Board 

of Forestry in California. The last time by a seven to zero unanimous vote. 

Last Wednesday, in the First District Court of Appeals in San 

Francisco, in the suit brought by EPIC, we prevailed and we have 

a court rule that we have a valid timber harvest plan in the Owl 

Creek area. 

It was interesting to note that the Forest Service plan for 1993 

says that no redwoods will be harvested from public lands. So I believe it is subterfuge to tell the public that the acquisition will be 

financed by harvesting trees in this property. 

That is my testimony, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:] 
121 

Testimony 

by 

John A. Campbell 

President and Chief Executive Officer; 

The Pacific Lumber Company 

before the 

SubcommitteE! on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

October 12, 1993 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am 

John A. Campbell, President and Chief Executi ve Officer of 

The Pacific Lumber Company, which is located in Scotia, 

California. I appreciate the opportunity t o testify 

before you today on H.R. 2866. 

This proposal, like the proposed legislation this 

Subcommittee and the Committee on Agriculture has 

considered in prior years, is publicly-discussed as simply 

authorizing the United States Government to acquire from 

Pacific Lumber what has been characterized as the largest 

old growth redwood forest still in private ownership. 

This old growth forest, which consists of approximately 

3, 000 acres, is located in Humboldt County, California, 

and is commonly referred to as the "Headwaters Forest" 

(rather than as Salmon Creek, its proper name). 

In fact, however, H.R. 2866 is poorly conceived and 

not nearly so benign. As written, it would require the 

Secretary of Agriculture to acquire approximately 44,000 
122 

- 2 -

acres (and additional acreage exceeding 13,000 acres as a 

"study area") and add it to the Six Rivers National 

Forest. Substantially all of this acreage is owned by 

Pacific Lumber. If passed in its present form, H.R. 2866 

would thus take away or otherwise adversely impact almost 

30 percent of Pacific Lumber's nearly 195,000 acres of 

timberland (including some of its most valuable 

acreage). This would have a devastating effect on our 

company, its employees and on Humboldt County as a whole. 

Humboldt County, where I have lived and worked for 

more than 24 years, still suffers from an unemployment 

rate that is in the double digits and still is in a period 

of deepening recession following numerous recent mill 

closings in our area. Indeed, t he area's economic plight 

has been aptly described in the current (October 1993) 

issue of Smithsonian magazine in an article entitled "A 

new park saved the tall trees, but at a high cost to the 

community". 

Nevertheless, my company, which is the largest 

private employer in Humboldt County, has steadily 

increased its work force and its tax payments f o r local 

schools, roads and social welfare programs. This was true 

before we were acquired by Maxxam Inc. in 1986 and it 

remains true today. Over half of our approximately 1,250 

employees have been with us for more than 10 years and a 

fourth of those have been 1-1ith us for two decades or 
123 

- 3 -

more. Our re,tirees enjoy one of the best pension programs 

in the timber industry, our employees have an exceptional 

health plan, and all of our workers' children are entitled 

to up to $8,000 in scholarships for college upon 

graduation from high school. Since 1986, approximately $1 

million of scholarships have been awarded under this 

rather unique program. 

Our company is the largest producer of high grade 

redwood lumber in the world, and our approximately 195,000 

acres of timberland (including the 3,000-acre Headwaters 

Forest) are zoned by the State of Califor n ia exclusively 

for timber pr·oduction. Throughout our 124 year h i story, 

from 1869 to today, we have been and continue to be a 

responsible company. We manage our forests to ensure 

continuous renewal and healthy growth. Notwithstanding 

the inaccurate statements of some, which are often 

repeated by the media, the truth is that at current 

harvest levels and with our current land base , we can 

continue to harvest our trees at a sustainable level 

forever and at a more conservative rate than that of the 

timber industry as a whole. 

For these and the other reasons I shall describe in 

the balance of my statement, we are strongly opposed to 

H.R. 2866. Let me first state, however, that we -- both 

Pacific Lumbe :c and our corporate parent Maxxam Inc. 

recognize that our company, the United States Government, 
124 

- 4 -

and the State of California collectively face a dilemma 

with respect to the 3,000 acres comprising the Headwaters 

Forest. In the simplest terms, our dilemma is whether to 

preserve this wilderness area through public acquisition 

of the 3,000-acre Headwaters Forest area and a 1,500 acre 

buffer zone, or allow the land to be managed for its 

intended and authorized use and the trees selectively 

harvested in an environmentally responsible manner. The 

Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and 

other environmental organizations have in the past 

advocated public acquisition of the Headwaters Forest area 

but, to date, have expressed widely divergent views on how 

that should come about. 

As we have previously testified, The Pacific Lumber 

Company would prefer to continue directly to manage and 

selectively harvest all of its properties, including the 

3,000-acre Headwaters Forest, so as to provide continuing 

employment security for our workers and their families. 

We are, however, prepared to transfer these approximately 

4,500 acres, but no more, if the government (federal, 

state or a combination of the two) is willing and ready to 

acquire the property at its fair market value . That 4,500 

acres is an ecologically sound unit and the government's 

legitimate preservation objectives do not warrant a larger 

land acquisition such as that contemplated by H.R. 2866. 

A larger taking, such as that contemplated by H.R. 2866, 
125 

- 5 -

cannot be justified. While the 44,000 acre proposal 

encompasse:s most old growth redwood trees owned by Pacific 

Lumber (and the other impacted landowners), it also sweeps 

in substantial tracts of timberland that have been 

successfully managed on a prudent basis and selectively 

harvested for years. 

If, however, the government decides not to acquire 

the 3,000 acre Headwaters Forest, then Pacific Lumber and 

Maxxam have a legal responsibility to their stockholders 

and other investors to proceed to obtain all requisite 

permits required for the trees to be selectively harvested 

and the property to be managed for its intended use. 

Let me hasten to say in the strongest possible terms 

that we -- both Pacific Lumber and Maxxam -- are serious 

about our willingness to acquiesce in an acquisition of 

the Headwaters Forest .and to work constructively toward 

that end. This has been our position for some time. As 

part of an accord reached in 1990, at the urging of key 

local legislators, Pacific Lumber agreed not to harvest in 

the 3,000-acre Headwaters Forest for two years. The 

purpose of that voluntary moratorium, which has now 

expired, was to allow environmental organizations time to 

raise money from government and/ or private sources to 

acquire and preserve the property in its present form. 

This has not occurred, despite the efforts of many. For 

example, voters of the State of California rejected three 

78-078 - 94 - 5 
126 

- 6 -

complex ballot 

provided funds 

initiatives which, in part, would have 

for partial or whole a.cquisition of the 

Headwat.ers Forest in 1990. Many observers believe this 

rejection was unrelated to the Headwaters Forest issue and 

another ballot measure with partial funding for the 

Headwaters acquisition is being planned for 1994 or 1995 

by California state officials. Moreover, the concept of a 

public acquisition of the Headwaters Forest has bipartisan 

support in the California legislature and, unlike the socalled California Desert bill, has been publicly supported 

both by (Republican) Governor Pete Wilson and by 

(Democrat) Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. 

Let me also emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that, although 

the voluntary moratorium has expired, we remain sincere in 

our professed willingness to permit an acquisition of 

these 4,500 acres. we are also realistic. we acknowledge 

the existence of a budget deficit that is so large as to 

make an acquisition completely for cash quite unlikely. 

We likewise recognize, as does the Department of 

Agriculture, that these 4,500 acres have such a high value 

that an acquisition solely through traditional land 

exchanges will not likely be possible. Indeed, these 

values alone make the 44,000 acre acquisition contemplated 

by H.R. 2866 wholly unrealistic. 

Notwithstanding 

acquisition, we are 

these practical 

prepared to 

constraints to an 

continue to work 
127 

- 7 -

constructively toward a solution to the Headwaters dilemma 

that would be satisfactory to all parties. For our part, 

we stand ready to be creative and flexible in terms of the 

types of consideration we would receive in addition to a 

reasonable amount of cash. For example, this could 

include other timberland (to protect jobs), surplus 

Department of Defense facilities, other property, bidding 

certificates for future use when the government disposes 

of surplus property, government bonds or some combination 

of the foregoing. We likewise are prepared to agree to 

some objective mechanism to 

hope that this Subcommittee 

would be equally flexible 

determine values. I would 

and other relevant parties 

and creative, and equally 

concerned about the Constitutional requirement of justly 

compensati~g Pacific Lumber for this taking. 

We are not, however, prepared to stand idly by and 

have our company virtually destroyed, our employees 

irreparably harmed and Humboldt County dealt yet another 

economic body blow through the enactment of H.R. 2866 in 

its present form. The very fabric of rural, northwestern 

California -- of which our company is an integral part --

is at stake. 

Let me describe the extent to which government 

already owns forest land in northern California. If you 

were to look at a map, over 60 percent of the northern 

part of our state is forest land. Of these forest lands, 
128 

- 8 -

the state and federal governments already own 5·4 

percent. Small private owners own 34 percent. Only an 

astonishingly low 12 percent of the forest land is owned 

by industrial timber companies like Pacific Lumber. 

Indeed, as I explain later in my testimony, over 80 

percent of California's old growth coastal redwoods is 

already preserved in parklands. 

Thus, H.R. 2866, in its 

unnecessary and, given the value 

present 

of the 

form, 

44,000 

is both 

acres, 

unrealistic. Moreover, it could destroy The Pacific 

Lumber Company and do irreparable harm to the communities, 

businesses, families and economy of Humboldt County and 

northern California. 

Another irony of H.R. 2866 is that it would actually 

harm our ability to harvest trees on a 

basis. Let me explain. While timber 

sustained-yield 

companies like 

Pacific Lumber are thought of as being in the business of 

cutting down trees, most of our emphasis has to be on 

growing trees so as to ensure our continued viability. 

For example, to complement the robust natural regeneration 

of the forests, Pacific Lumber typically plants about 

500,000 seedlings on its land each year. We engage in 

timber management activities (i.e., selective harvesting, 

habitat enhancement, replanting, etc.) only on about 5 

percent of our acreage in any given year. Moreover, 95 

percent of our harvesting is by selective cut, a method 
129 

- 9 -

that leaves many trees standing, not clear-cut as many of 

our detractors erroneously claim. The Pacific Lumber 

Company dc•es not -- let me repeat, does not -- clear-cut 

virgin old growth redwoods. 

In connection with old growth forests, it should be 

noted that most old trees have stopped growing and are in 

fact in decline. The young trees provide the rate of 

growth ne•:ded to sustain our harvest year after year. 

Thus, artificially curtailing the conversion of old growth 

to young on a large scale, or removal of large segments of 

our land :oase, actually prevents us from doing what, in 

the public: interest, we should do; namely, engage in the 

production of wood products on a continual or sustained 

basis as required by the California Timber Productivity 

and Forest Practice Acts. 

H.R. 2866 also fails to give due effect to the 

responsible record of Pacific Lumber. Since its 1986 

acquisition by Maxxam, Pacific Lumber has added over 350 

new employees with an annual payroll increase of $10 

million and increased local tax payments. We have 

modernize~ our lumber mills at Scotia and Fortuna, 

purchased a mill (which would otherwise have been idle) at 

nearby Carlotta and installed new dry kilns and planing 

facilitie"' · We have added over 1,000 acres of ' timberland, 

some of which will not be harvested for at least 40 years 

and we have built an award-winning environmental 
130 

- 10 -

cogeneration plant at a cost of $50 million. Altogether, 

more than $100 million has been reinvested in Pacific 

Lumber since its acquisition by Maxxam. 

Pacific Lumber and its professional foresters 

maintain healthy productive forests with the aid of 

computer models based on data developed in a comprehensive 

i nventory of our entire property. The models embrace 

every aspect of the resource -- timber types, classes of 

trees, ages, soil and nutrient conditions, topography, 

wildlife, rivers and streams. By carefully moni t oring and 

updating this data base, the company ' s licensed 

IJrofessional foresters are able to develop har vest plans 

that not only produce timber but also give consideration 

and protection t o environmental and ecolog i cal 

sensitivities while maintaining the long-term productivity 

o f the land. 

Wildlife and fishery protection and enhancement is a 

key part of Pacific Lumber's culture and operational 

practice. Since the inception of one such program in the 

early 1970's, over half a million salmon and steelhead 

raised at Pacific Lumber-owned fish rearing ponds have 

been released into North Coast rivers and streams. We 

r ecently built a fish hatchery and hired a full-time 

fishery biologist. Pacific Lumbe r also employs a wildlife 

biologist to study and provide advice on steps to protect 

and continue to enhance the habitat upon which a variety 
131 

- 11 -

of forest creatures depend. At present, wildlife 

specialists are actively studying a number of species on 

Pacific Lumber land, including the Northern Spotted Owl 

and the Marbled Murrelet. In fact, Pacific Lumber has a 

property-wide management plan for the Northern Spotted 

Owl, which was developed in cooperation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Part of the work with the Northern 

Spotted 01m entails the introduction of artificial nesting 

structures which, to date, have been used successfully to 

raise owl fledglings. Also, extensive Pacific Lumber 

studies indicate that contrary to popular belief in 

California -- the Northern Spotted Owl shows no preference 

for old-growth forests over second and third growth for 

its roosting, nesting and foraging, as the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service recently acknowledged. You may have seen 

the recent NBC special report which also confirmed what I 

have just said. 

Our commitment to responsible corporate practices is 

continuin9, but it is not new . In past years , Pac ific 

Lumber donated or sold at below value nearly 20,000 acres 

of California's most magnificent redwoods for preservation 

and inclusion in state and county park systems. Today, 

over 80 

redwoods 

parkland. 

percent of California's old-growth coastal 

are preserved in some 255,000 acres of 

These parks contain almost 100,000 acres of old 

growth redwood. No other commercial species in the world 
132 

- 12 -

has had so great a proportion of its trees set aside 

forever in government parks and other preserves. It is 

also i mportant to note that the parks and preserves 

prov i de wonderful habitat for species of concern. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the 

measure before you, in its present form, represents 

unsound economics, unsound forestry and unsound 

environmentalism. Jobs are rapidly disappearing in this 

country. 

mills are 

In our industry and our 

laying off workers or 

t empo r arily and some permanently . 

area, small and large 

have closed some 

In contrast, the 

work i ng forests of Pacific Lumber continue to provi de 

lumber for families and the construction industry, 

continue to protect and enhance the environmen t , and 

continue to provide jobs and a local, state and federal 

revenue stream. Our lands are some of the most productive 

forest-growing lands in the world. In our 124-year multiowner history, we have proven that we can grow redwood in 

perpetuity. It makes no sense whatsoever to seek to 

destroy all this and jeopardize the future of The Pacific 

Lumber Company, its employees and the communities in which 

they live and work. 

We again urge you to reject the 44,000 acre approach 

taken in H.R. 2866. That approach can lead only to 

continued gridlock. It would be much more constructive to 

join in a mutual and creative effort t o achieve the more 

realistic goal of a 4 ,500 acre acquisi tion. 

Thank you again for the opportuni t y t o test ify . 
133 

Mr. VENTO. I appreciate it. You had a long testimony and there 

has been a lot that transpired and you may want to respond. We 

will hopefully get back with a question or two. We are running into 

problems in terms of schedules, unfortunately. 

Mr. Rynearson. 

STATEMENT OF GARY C. RYNEARSON 

Mr. RYNEARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You have before you, I believe, a copy of my prepared testimony 

and I will not reiterate that but would like to briefly summarize 

some points. 

My name is Gary Rynearson. I am president of Natural Resources Management Corporation. I was born and primarily raised 

in Arcadia. 1 am a second-generation forester. I am also a registered forester for the State of California. 

I consider our firm to be a forest resources consulting firm. Besides forest inventories and appraisals, our firm provides services 

to landowners utilizing staff experience in professional forestry 

wildlife and 1isheries biology, botany, geology and geographic information systems. We have experienced surveys for threatened endangered species 

such as the Northern Spotted Owl and the Marbled Murrelet. Our 

appraisal experience is extremely varied and includes clients such 

as the State Park System, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of 

Land Management, the Internal Revenue Service, Indian tribes, 

and corporations and industrial and non-industrial landowners. 

We have appraised a portion of the area proposed in this bill. 

Perhaps the most relevant appraisal experience to this case is our 

experience with the Redwood National Park expansion in 1978. Originally, this particular government estimated at the date and 

time taken would be about $360 million for the 48,000 acres. The 

actual costs have exceeded approximately $1 billion. 

Our firm appraised the lands and timber taken from Simpson and Arcadia redwoods for the 1978 expansion. In the Arcadia case, 

the Federal court found the value of the Arcadia property to be approximately 8 percent below our opinion of value and 83 percent 

above the government appraiser's opinion of value. 

I appear before you because Congressman Hansen asked me to 

provide value information on old-growth and second-growth forests 

typical of those that may be found in Humboldt County. That information that was provided to the Congressman, and is attached, is 

that the average acre of old-growth redwoods in the summer of 

1993 was valued at approximately $190,000 per acre. The average 

acre of second-growth redwood was approximately $53,000 per 

acre. 

These averages cannot be applied to any particular acre, but represent a broad average. Any particular stand of timber must be appraised for its relative value, location and must be adjusted for 

quality considerations. For properties such as those considered by 

this bill, the use of an average acre must be used with caution. The 

only accurate determination of value is to visit the property and 

analyze it on an acre-by-acre basis. 

In the last few years, the price of old-growth redwood and Douglas fir has escalated very rapidly. Perhaps one of the causes for this 
134 

has been the severe reduction in Forest Service timber sales over 

the past few years. 

Mr. VENTO. I am confused-for the record, I guess whatever 

didn't get reproduced in your letter to Congressman Hansen, in 

care of attention to Kurt Christensen, didn't get attached. We will 

put that in the record as if it were---

Mr. RYNEARSON. I have a full copy for the record. 

Mr. VENTO~ I think this is Congressman Hansen's letter. Give 

your copy to the clerk there. 

Thank you, Mr. Rynearson. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Rynearson follows:) 
135 

Pnen~a~ Lon of Gary c. Jly.,.areon tor the BoiiH lfetural 

._rcae lul>C-I.tt" .;n lfa&I.OA&l Parka, J'o~:ene ADd PW>Uc: 

L&Dcle on OOto...,. 12, ltU 

ChaiJ<G&a Vento, and dietintuiebed c-ittee ..aD&Jte, thank 

you for the opponunity to a-ar before thia c-itt... Ky n._ 

ia Ouy Jtpeu110n, and l .. Pt'eaident of •atural Reaouc-c•a 

~nc co~racion, a toreat re.oureea conault~nt fir. located 

in. &u~eu, C&lJ..fornia. Our fin haa ••~•naive experien.ce in the 

no~h caaat of california Ln the manaq ... n~, inventory, and 

valuuion of fC>raaUand propeniee. u an everyday part of our 

blleineaa, 011r ti ~ta prepare• t.~r .l.nventoriee and apprai .. le end 

market& ~~•r for our client& whoae landa we mana9e. our ataff 

include& l'eg~1a :.ered Profeaaional roreatera and exp.rienced ti.mber 

cruiae~a, •~ch aa .yaelf, and appraiaera accredited by the Office 

of bal J:etat.e llpprahera, State of C&lifo~tni.a. 

our fire alao hae eateneive uperience analy~int the 

biolo;ic:al and phyeical c~nente of the foreet, inc:llldint the 

tielde of tore:otry, wl.lc:llite biology, botany, Honeriee b1ol09f, 

9&olo9y, and teotraph1c: 1nforftl&t.ion apec:l.altL.. . our et.aff 

inoluc:lee trainad wildlife biolo;l.ate and biological tecnnic:iane 

and aeveral to~eatera cartified by the California Dapart .. nt of 

Fiah and o ... vith regard to the marbl•d mu~~elet and experienced 

with reqard to otbar li•t•d, c•ndidate or aanaitive apaci••· 

Ou.r 11.et of paat cl.lent• .Lnolvdea th• Cali.forni.a Sta~• 

Parka, save-The-Aedwoode-Lea;ue, usrs, B~reau of Land Hana9 ... nt, 

ln~•rnal Revenue Service, Indian ~r~• and ~orporationa, and 

-oi--M......-~-
136 

- 2 -

n .... ro\18 1n4118tl'1al foraatl&nd ..-u, 1ncl11dl.n9 Tha Pac1tic 

L1.111ber Ca.p&ny &ftd al.oat •very othat: major 11:01Dp&ny J.n thia areaa 

wa alao lll&ll&9A approx1mately Z$,000 acrea of timba&"landa .,.....d by 

•-11, non-lnduatd.al landovne .... 

Perhape our mo•t notable appraiaal experience ra9arding tha 

determination of ttmber valuaa are thoae related to tba creation, 

and the aubaequant 1978 Bxpanalon, of Redwood National Park. Our 

-fil'ID lnvantoriad and &pp&'&laed land and timba&" taken from 

indllatrl.al foreat landown ... a ln botb condamnationa. wa &lao 

preaentad thaaa valuaa in federal court. To a largo• de9ree, our 

value a vera accepted at both trial•. 

I appear before you today at th• requaat of Coftgraaaman 

Hanaan to prov14e aome 9ene~al informAtion re~ardin9 the value of 

redwood timbarlandl in coaatal northweatarn C&liforl\i&. on A.U9\IIt 

9, I received a letter from ConQreaaEDan Hansen requo•tingo 

approx~te value& tor old-qrowth and aacond-growth tLmbar atanda 

typical ot tho•• that may be found in HWIIbolclt county, CaHfo&"nia. 

A copy of th1a letter and my reaponae il at~acbad to my at.atemen't. 

To lumm&~i&e my reaponae to Con9rea.man Hanaen'a requ•at, we have 

eatimatad that an averaqe acre of previou•ly unentered old-9rowth 

redwood and DOII91aa-t1r 1n Hu=boldt County had a value in tha 

•~r of 1993 of approx~tely $190,000 per acre. D~rin9 thia 

a..- t~ period, th• averav• aera of 10 year old aacond-qrowth 

redwood and Douqlaa-tir had a value of approximately S$3,000 per 

acre. 

Thea• nWDbera are avera9••, and. cannot be applied to any 

apacltl.c property. Timber valuaa are dependent upon tha relative 
137 

- 3 -

location, •~ar~ •9•• tLaber and eite quality, and the coat 

aaaoc.i.a~e4 vU:A the harv<Oatl.n9 of the t.i.llb&r. Alth011911 I have not 

epacially nv(lied the e11Ura ••, 000 acr•• propc>ead in thie 

levhlation, J: u vanerally fuiliar with the type• of atanda on 

Pac.i.f.i.c: Llllllbe~:'a lancle. Th• q~~ality of tho•• atancla, ancl 

part1avlarly t;lla old~rOVth redwood and Dovvlu-f.i.r fo11nd there, 

ia vener&lly t .. t't.er t)\&ft that Of tl\e &YeC&qe Bt&nd. 

Kiatori,:ally, redwood uci DO\l9l&a-fir tillber pric:•• have 

excead.acl the J:at• of inflation. In the laat few y•ar• bott\ 

redwood and Dcauglaa•.tir timber price• have qraatly incraaaacl in 

value, apparently in r••ponaa to both real and propoaad reduction• 

1n tilaber 8YPJ•ly. I have a aariaa of charta vhioh a how what ...,. 

are aware of J.n California. 

Firat, J: attach a chart which ahow• the ~ in the 

volwae of l09t1 aold. frOII'I ~h• £.1x RLv•r• National Por•at, formac-ly 

a pri.IM au.pplJ.ar of l09a tor our local milla. W. have loat over 

125 million bc•ard feet ot ann\1&1 8\lpply in five yeara. Moreover, 

the recent drhft plan fro. the Six River• ehowa no aL9niflcant 

relief in ai9ht. Suppli•• will remain tiQ:ht, and price• are very 

likely to ~em.,.in hi9h. 

Second, 1 attach two charta which relate to the val~•• ot 

tbe two ~in •peci•• of old-9rowth t~er found on Pacifie 

LutfttHir • a land.11. The cla~a repreaent. val~•• derived by the Stat• of 

California foz· tax purpo•••· For v&E'ioua, complex: reaaona, theea 

atata t&JC&tion value• c&MOt ba uaad directly to ahow true market 

valuaa. However, the ~ ot tha Stat&'& data can be uaed to 

ahow relative price movement. 
138 

- 4 -

Plea•• nota tha conai•tantly upward price traftde for at 

leut the laet fiTe yeue. While the publiahed yield tex data 

only ;o baek to lt78, lon;er te~ trend lin•• would al•o •how an 

upward trend. e•pecially for redwood. Hiatorically, redwood and 

Douqlaa-fir timber ha• appreciated aiqnificantly over time. Thia 

price a~eciation waa ~•cooniaad by the court• in both park 

ca•••· Neither court •upported any di•count in value for •ice or 

bolcUnq pedod. 

Aqain, thank you for the privil•g• to provide thie 

inf<>JC:lll•ti<>n to the C:Onqre .. of the United lltat... I wguld be 

happy to an•wer any qua•tion• th• committe& member• may have. 

N .... ol-ll.,.,__,c..-_ 
139 

- 5 -

SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST 

TIMBER VOLUME SOLD BY YEAR 

FISCAL YEAR BASIS 

VOLUME • MMBF 

200.---------- ------ ----------- -----

150 

100 

50 

0 

1 

'---- -------

- ·-·-J 

I 87 88 89 I 90 91 92 93 I 

- YEARLY TOTALS 

SOURCE • FOREST SI!RVICE RI!CORDS 
I I MBF 

140 

- 6 -

OLD-GROWTH DOUGLAS-FIR 

IMMEDIATE HARVEST VALUES 

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 

1000 ,--------------

760 

600 

260 

1 

17al791aola11B2ia31a41aslasla71aala919ols11921931 

~ SBE YIELD TAX VALUES 

VALUES ARE FOR TIMBER OF AVERABE QUALITY 
S I MBF 

141 

- 7 -

OLD-GROWTH REDWOOD 

IMMEDIATE HARVEST VALUES 

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 

1000,--------------------------

7150 

1500 

260 

0 '----------- ----·--. 

1 

l7817918ol81 182183la41aslasla71aa!aglgol91192!931 

·-- SBE YIELD TAX VALUES 

W.LUES ARE FOA TIMBER OF NERAGE QUALITY 
142 

Mr. VENTO. Finally, let's move to Stan Dixon, County Supervisor 

from Humboldt. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF STAN DIXON 

Mr. DIXON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hamburg. 

You have a copy of my prepared statement. 

Mr. VENTO. We do. We included a separate letter. We have the 

other testimony. Mr. DIXON. I would reiterate several of the points that I made 

in that testimony. 

I was privileged last April to attend the President's Forest Conference in Portland, and when we left, when I left, as did many 

others, there was a profound feeling that the President and members of his administration and congressional representatives had a 

feeling that there was in fact a need for balance as it relates to the 

environment and the economy. 

While I understand that conference did not relate to this pro- posal, I think that people who attended the conference that live in 

resource-related communities in the Pacific Northwest were encouraged that the Federal Government was going to include in its 

deliberations some semblance of consideration for the human and 

social cost of these programs as it relates to particularly this issue 

that is before you today. 

This particular proposal comes at a time when government at all 

levels, certainly at the Federal level as well as at least in our State 

and at the local level, where we are facing enormous budget deficits. It comes at a time when levels of government, at least in California, are downsizing and are reducing services and have reduced 

ability to provide those services, so that the loss of revenue to us 

in programs such as this proposal of taking 44,000 acres has a 

meaningful impact on our ability to provide services and our longrange economic plans. 

The proposal that was first conceived, the 4,500 acres, would 

take something in the neighborhood of $18 million from our timber 

tax-related resources and revenues over a several decade period, 

but the 44,000-acre taking jumps up considerably to the neighborhood of $41 million. While that doesn't sound perhaps like much 

when you are talking about half a billion dollars for a 4,500-acre 

taking or a billion dollars and a half for a 44,000 acre taking, that 

amount of money to local government is significant, and school districts and county government and cities depend heavily on those 

revenues to be able to provide the services that we are expected to 

provide and need to provide. 

I just want to make one comment about Congressman Hamburg's 

earlier suggestion that there is some support among elected officials in Humboldt County for his proposal. I don't find that to be 

true. I find almost unanimity in opposition to his proposal. There 

may be individuals and there may be one city that supports this 

proposal, but the overwhelming feeling, among locally elected officials at least, is in opposition to the 44,000-acre proposal. 

I was interested also earlier in the fact that Dr. Ralph indicated 

on Pacific Lumber's land that is being considered in this proposal 

that he suspected that there might be as many as a thousand Marbled Murrelets, and I also noted, if my recollection serves me, that 
143 

Mr. Leonard indicated that their preliminary appraisals for that 

44,000 acres, albeit somewhat speculative, were in the neighborhood of a billion dollars to a billion and a half dollars. My calculations would indicate that would work out to a million dollars or 

million and a half dollars per bird. 

I think it would be important in Mr. Hamburg's district as well 

as elected officials across this country and citizens concerned about 

crime and how we deal with it, drug and alcohol abuse and prevention, programs that are provided for children, that our lack of ability to provide programs for the aged of this country, but yet we find 

that, this government can find the resources to provide habitat for 

a bird, at about a million and a half dollars per bird, but we can't 

find the resources to take care of our other human resources. So that summarizes, Mr. Chairman, most of what I have to say. I would be happy to answer any questions. [Prepared statement of Mr. Dixon follows:] 
144 

Testimony 

by 

Stan Dixon 

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors 

Representing the First District 

before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

October 12, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Committee members, my 

name is Stan Dixon. I am a member of the Humboldt County 

Board of Supervisors representing the First District. 

I am here today to urge you to not support H.R. 2866 

regarding the acquisition of forest lands in Humboldt 

County. My reasons are many, but I will try to be brief. 

This proposal, as currently written to include 

nearly 44,000 acres of timberland, would have a profound 

effect on the communities and the people of Humboldt 

County, as well as severely limiting the ability of County 

Government to provide necessary services. 

As I relate these remarks, you must understand that 

begin from several basic assumptions. I was privileged 

to attend the President's Forest Conference in Portland, 

Oregon last April and as did many others, I left with the 

assumption that this President, this Administration and 

this Congress clearly understood the need for balance as 
145 

- 2 -

it relates to the environment and the economy and that the 

human element individuals and communities really counted 

for something in this intricate equation. 

Because my principal reason for addressing you here 

today is to inform you of the economic impact to . our 

County, please believe that my concern, and that of an 

overwhelming majority of my constituents, is for the wise 

use of our forests and other natural resources and that we 

have an abiding concern for preserving these for our 

children and for generations far beyond them. 

But we know, as you must as you consider this 

legislation, that the forests of California's North Coast 

represent if not the most productive, certainly one of the 

most productive, timber growing regions in this nation. 

Furthermore, they are regulated by the most environmentally sensitive harvest laws in the world. 

You must also know, as you consider H.R. 2866, that 

12,000,000 acres or 12% of California's total land base 

are preserved in parks, wilderness areas, and other land 

reserves; and that of this set aside, 255,000 acres are 

Coastal Redwood timberlands, 80,000 of those acres are in 

old growth redwood trees. 

have attached to 

projected revenue losses 

scenarios of a 4,500 acre 

this statement a summary of 

to Humboldt county under the 

loss and that of a 44,000 acre 

loss. The projected loss of timber tax revenues to all 
146 

- 3 -

agencies in Humboldt County for a 4,500 acre taking would 

be nearly $18 million over the next fifteen years. 

However, that figure pales in comparison to the more than 

$40 million in lost tax revenue for a 44,000 acre taking. 

This proposal comes at a time when governments at 

all levels face enormous budget deficits. In Humboldt 

County because of the loss of tax revenue, we have asked 

our employees to defer merit increases and take deductions 

in salary, yet continue to do the same job. Worse than 

that, and because of a very sluggish economy, reduced tax 

revenues and federal and state mandates, we will more than 

likely be making significant reductions in our County work 

force within weeks. 

This proposal in its present form will create more 

unemployment in our County that currently has nearly 10\ 

unemployment. Clearly, in counties that rely as heavily 

on natural resources as does Humboldt County, every aspect 

of our existence relates directly to the success of the 

management of those resources. 

impacted first and hardest 

decisions. 

Consequently, we have been 

by resource allocation 

In Humboldt County, the timber industry pays 30% of 

all property taxes in the County. Funding for roads and 

schools is heavily dependent on this tax base . 

Massive tax revenue losses 

continue to have, a devastating 

have had, 

effect on 

and will 

Humboldt 
147 

- 4 -

County. But the direct loss of jobs associated with the 

reduction of timber production also places extreme burdens 

on county-provided services. The loss of employment not 

only reduces County Income from sales taxes and other 

sources, but high unemployment rates also over-burden 

county hospitals, social welfare programs, and other 

county, state and federally funded services. 

In addition, high unemployment levels also have a 

direct correlation to increases in crime, spousal abuse, 

child abuse, alcoholism, abandonment, and other societal 

problems .which, to a large extent, also depend upon county 

services for relief. 

Please do not be mislead by provisions in this 

legislation that would call for retraining of displaced 

timber workers as a tradeoff for taking 44,000 acres of 

productive and revenue producing timberland. 

While retraining is an important part of any 

recovery program, the type of jobs created are not equal 

to those lost. Government created public service jobs are 

not a replacement for well paying industry jobs that allow 

the worker to support his family and educate his 

children. In today's complex economic world, short term 

public service and minimum wage jobs do not support 

communi ties. think the statement of an old friend and 

retired colleague best states this premise, "We can't 

create an economy by selling hamburgers to each other." 
148 

- 5 -

Mr. Chairman, each of you represents a Congressional 

District whose economic backbone is more than likely some 

form of industry. On the North Coast of California, the 

timber industry is our economic backbone. If you must 

take timberlands from our economic base, please focus on 

the 4, 500 acre Headwaters Forest proposal for which you 

have a seller that is willing to negotiate. Please do not 

consider the 44,000 acre proposal outlined in H.R. 2866 

which would devastate a company, an industry and a county. 

Thank you for allowing me these remarks. 
149 

HEADWATERi FdREST 

ASS~IOIII (Ae ot 10/7/tl)l 

ACUI .6,100 . 'l'IOU vor.ma: 750 KILt.IOJI ICWtD FU'1' 

IPICIES JSIIlWa)CMf lOt 'RIDitOODI 20t 11HITI1fOODS 

IITIJQTID AMKVM. VOLUKI '1'0 II IDGUDI Iii KILLION BOAllD J'!!'l'. 

' 

I . • 

OLD CROW'l'B JUI~ 40 Ktu.EOII. lSD ft I 

OI.D GROW'1'II WKI D 10 JCXWON ID J'l I 

• 

'l'OTAL l'l'UMPAOI VALUJ: 

YU:LD TAX I I, tt 

IZII ADMDftl'l'M'l'IVJr COI'l' (lot) 

lfft YIICLD TAX: 

TO'rAL ANJmM. YIIUI TAX Ulll: 

(ALt. AOUCIU) 

11.1!1.409 

• 750 KtLt.IOif ID 1'f 

• 50 IIILt.IOH ID P'1' • 22 YBUI 

etoo • t31,000,000 

SIOO • I l.pgp.opg 

tu,ooo,ooo 

1,27&,000 

( • 127 .IQQ) 

I 1.1!1.4QQ 

U YDM X f1,1!11,4dO • 117.nt.QQO 'IQf» Ulz.p ry JQII. 

PROPIJ.'l'Y 'l'AX (UU•U) 

4,500 ACRIS I f1!1&/AC 

'tAX JtA'l'l : 1t 

unu no.:;g 'IU r.oaa 

CaLL U J I 

I 

.. 

• 

$701,000 
150 

ASStJMl"l'IOM8 (Aa of 10/7/93): 

ACJliS • TIMBO VOunG I 

SPECIES IJ\IAla)OWlf I 

u,ooo 

l,UO MILLION JCWU) I'll! 

1n OLD GltOWTR UDWOOD 

15, OLD GOW1'Il DCIUGLU PIJt 

11• YOVJIG OJtOWTII UDWOOD 

U YOC!fG CIJ.011'1'11 DOOGt.Aa FIJ. 

OLD QJtOWTH UDWDOD 50 xtLLIOM BD rr I ttOO • SU,OOO,OOO 

OLD CIRO'W'l'H WKI'l'IWOOD 20 xtLUON BD r'1' I $700 • tU, 000,000 YoUNG oaoWTH uawooo u JU:t.t.IOM ao rr 1 noo • uo, soo, ooo 

YOUNG GROWTH WKI'l'DDOD 2 Mil.LlOif ID F'1' I 8!171 • I 1,1!!Q I QQQ 

TO'l'At. S'l'UMPAG! VAUJI 

YIELD TAX ' I 2.1t 

LISS ADKnriiiTRAT:tVI COST (lOt) 

NET YI!LD TAX: 

I 

I'70,UO,OOO 

2,041,1!0 

' (, 2Qt.BDS) 

\ ' 1,143,115 

I LIU.OOQ 

I TO'l'At. AJflWe\t. U!LD TAX LOSS I 1-l.IU_. Ogo' (ALL AOEJfCIU) 

'l'O'l'AL VOWXB ;• f 1,!110 MILLION BD rr 

ANNUAl. CU'1' 1 • 1'7 IIILLIOH BD P'1' f L:tFZ OF STAND - 22 YEAN I 

22 YZARI X 81,844 1 000 • ltA.III,pap zqt .. ~ f11 LQII. 

mmwg 

• 

PROPERTY TAX (1113-14) 

44 1 000 ACRES t $151/AC 

TAX !lATE: U 

Ullua%o IIIOIWilft 'fU LOll 

!ALL UIJICZBI) 

tl,lct,ooo 

• 
151 

Mr. VENTO. Maybe we can trade for an aircraft carrier. 

Mr. DIXON. I would trade the aircraft carrier, but I also would 

ask you to consider if you must take our economic base to consider 

the 4,500 acres. 

Mr. VENTO. I think there are a lot of questions and discussion 

that have not been resolved by your statement. 

We will hear from the last witness. We are pleased to welcome 

Mr. MacMullin. 

Please proceed with your testimony, Mr. MacMullin. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT MacMULLIN 

Mr. MAcMULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hamburg, distinguished committee Members. 

My name is Robert MacMullin. I am a licensed professional forester. I am a licensed timber operator, and I own MacMullin Forestry and Logging. 

My written testimony I hope you will accept. I will try and summarize in five minutes. 

There was through the discussions earlier some items that sure 

would be nice to be able to address. I think there are corrections 

of statements and ideas talking about old growth, ancient forests, 

questions about the validity of the U.S. Government being in the 

business, Simpson Timber Company cutting all their old growth, 

decline of the salmon populations, CDF rules and their applicability, loss of the redwood forests. I think we have a broader spectrum 

I would like to discuss. 

I am opposed to the H.R. 2866 legislation. I believe this is horrible legislation that totally disregards the needs of the people living in northwestern California. 

Of all the private forestlands that I have ever seen, Pacific Lumber Company has the finest forest land holdings of any large company. They have over many years of operation been good stewards 

of land, and even though they have given and sold at low cost to 

the State some 20,000 acres already of the finest old growth, they 

still maintain a cohesive block ownership. 

The company has developed and approved a habitat conservation 

plan for the spotted owl. The Forest Service is still mired in lawsuits. The company is developing a protection plan for Marbled 

Murrelets. The Forest Service hasn't even considered this yet. The 

location of the ownership, the general topography, the deep productive soils, the temperate climate, the good road systems, years of 

excellent stewardship collectively make this forest ownership twice 

as productive as the average forested acre in California. 

Mr. Hamburg, you tell us that the Six Rivers National Forest 

will manage Pacific Lumber Company's confiscated redwood acreage for multiple use. The national forest just came out with their 

management plan stating that 2,600 acres of redwood trees found 

on the forest will be fully protected, no trees will be harvested. 

Does anyone understand the statement? No trees will be harvested. How could anyone sign on to this bill not knowing this fact? 

The answer is, Mr. Hamburg, your staff is not explaining what is 

in the detail of making these wise decisions for this bill. 

We are here to really get some facts. I would like to present 

some, who owns what-this is a little further away than I hoped, 
152 

but right now in California we have some 27 million acres of 

forestlands and the government now controls a tremendous amount 

of that. We see red, we have Park Service; yellow, we have the national forest makes up about 42 percent, U.S. Forest Service. In 

some of the pink areas we have BLM or BIA, other governmentcontrolled forests. We have quite a sum. We are way over 50 percent. In private control, we have these green areas, which are industrial forests making up about 12 percent of the whole forest. 

The tan areas are private holdings called non-industrial. 

Typically, an owner might never cut trees that belong to a conservation organization with other goals and objectives. But typically the small land ownership in California, which there is 

100,000, there is five-acre ownerships through the Sierras on average, and the coastal is somewhere around 15 acres average. Keep 

that in mind as to who is actually owning our northwestern California, Park Service, private, large ownership. We think that is 

nice. 

Let's think about how these forests are used. We have presently 

an area in red is all preservation, a tremendous amount of acreage 

in preservation, 21 percent or six million acres I show in red as of 

1992, this data. 

Another area, which is basically Forest Service in tan, is nontimbered multiple-use area, non-multiple use, which is about 30 

percent. This is not being managed for timber whatsoever. The yellow area, incidental, 6 percent. 

The blue area, Forest Service, usually called government non-industrial, they are not managing that land all the time. There might 

be a spot that needs some logging, but it is not sustaining a local 

economy. They need wood every year for those mills to continue to 

operate, county tax dollars. 

The gray areas, 15 percent is basically in private non-industrial 

use, meaning that owner plans to harvest it sometime in the future 

but not this year because prices are low. That is not something 

that can sustain a local economy. 

The green areas, industrial forest lands, 13 percent of all the 

State lands are in industrial, private industrial, meaning that 

somewhere on that property they will be harvesting that year. As 

we look at this bill in the North Coast area, we find a tremendous 

amount of preservation right now. The red areas along the coast 

are already preserved parks. 

Put it in the magnitude of where we are right now, taking this 

green area, a quarter of the green area, Pacific Lumber Company's 

land is like a car going down the road with four good tires. Take 

one away and that car isn't going to make it. 

A whole economic unit is in trouble. Very important. I can go on 

about the Six Rivers and Trinity and the Mendocino National Forest, in years prior to being sued by the environmental groups, generated high-quality wood chips for low-grade logs. These worthless 

logs provided a tremendous amount of wood chips needed to operate the two pulp mills on Humboldt Bay. These mills are closed. 

Over $15 million which annually went into the economy from this 

hub of economic infrastructure is now gone. 

Environmental lawsuits have continued to block the Forest Service from doing their job managing these forests for multiple use. 
153 

Take away 57,000 acres from this company and give it to the U.S. 

Forest Service, I believe this is absolute madness. These lands are 

not going to be managed for preservation. Not to mention the terrific costs involved. I estimate that we are looking at $2 billion in 

order to put this vehicle together in order to take this land away. 

Mr. VENTO. Were you able to go on the land here to make your 

appraisal or not? 

Mr. MAcMULLIN. As a forester I have planted trees on Pacific 

lumber lands. I have cruised timber. 

Mr. VENTO. I was interested in how you came up with your appraisal. I understand you are a forester. I don't challenge that. 

Mr. MACMULLIN. My experience has been in the magnitude of 

old growth in estimates of timber value, the estimated volumes 

that exist. 

Mr. VENTO. You didn't do a formal appraisal? 

Mr. MAcMuLLIN. No. 

Mr. VENTO. I think it ought to be recognized that you are submitting a subjective statement on that. It isn't factual. 

Basically your time has expired. The reason I want to do this 

is-I think it is the reason-{)ther members of the panel took five 

minutes. This hearing is going to be over so unless--

Mr. MACMULLIN. I could close in 15 seconds. 

As you consider this bill, I think you need to consider the people 

that live in the community, the horrible problems that are occurring due to removing the backbone of the economy. Seventy percent 

of our local economy directly comes from the forest, and by taking 

this last center pin out, our economy is going down the tubes, folks. 

I feel strongly about this. I came a long way to be here today to 

talk with you. I would love to have the whole committee come to 

the coast and see for yourself. We have nothing to hide. It would 

be wonderful if you could come and see what is going on there. 

Mr. VENTO. We would like to do it, too, but unfortunately we 

can't be everywhere on location. Usually after everyone is informed, 

someone that you don't agree with probably thinks you haven't 

done enough. We get out as often as possible in terms of making 

decisions and getting a better lay of the land. It is one of the better 

aspects of being on the committee, rather than sitting in hearing 

rooms. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. MacMullin follows:] 
154 

Testimony 

by 

Robert MacMullin 

Consulting Forester 

MacMullin Forestry and Logging 

before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

October 12, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Committee members, my 

name is Robert MacMullin. I am a Registered Professional 

Foreste r , a Licensed Timber Operator and owner of 

.MacMullin Forestry and Logging. I ear ned a degree in 

Forest Management from Colorado State University, and have 

over 20 years of woods experience, 16 of them spent 

working in the Redwood forests of northwestern California. 

I am here to urge you to oppose H.R. 2866. This is 

ho rrible legislation. It totally disregards the needs of 

the people who live in northwestern California. I am also 

here to answer quest i ons about the forests in which I 

proudly work, nourish and protect, and the horrible 

inefficient effects current Forest Service policy is 

having on the working people of Northwest California and 

the forest itself. 

You all should know Humboldt County has 

approx i mately l million acres of private forest s i tuated 
155 

- 2 -

west of Six Rivers National Forest. These private forests 

are some of the most productive forests in the world. In 

this region the average forested acre, will grow, over a 

forty year period of time, approximately 40 thousand board 

feet. This means Humboldt County can produce, every year, 

forever (with the application of good forest management), 

over 1 Billion board feet. Currently these private lands 

are producing about 450 million board feet. Significant 

volumes of harvestable trees are being retained for 

wildlife values. 

Since the development of the current California 

Forest Practice Rules in 1973, the change in best 

management practices on California private forest lands 

has been dramatic. Harvesting regulations in California 

are the most stringent anywhere in these United States. 

As a consulting forester, my company harvests trees 

during summer months and plants over 200,000 new seedlings 

each winter. We also develop harvest plans, perform 

wildlife research and establish wildlife protection 

measures. 

Of all the private forest lands that I have ever 

seen, Pacific Lumber Company has the finest forest land 

holding of any large company. They have, over the many 

years of operation, been good stewards of the land. And 

even though they have given and sold, (at low cost to the 

State), over 20 thousand acres of the finest original "Old 

Growth", they still maintain a cohesive block ownership. 
156 

- 3 -

The company has developed an approved Habitat 

Conservation Plan for the Spotted Owl. The U.S. Forest 

Service is still mired in lawsuits. The company has just 

developed a protect ion plan for the Marbled Mur relets. 

The Forest Service hasn't even considered this step yet. 

In the 1920's Pacific Lumber developed a 

reforestation nursery. 

Later, some 30 years ago the company developed fish 

rearing ponds and dedicated large sums to fish and 

wildlife development and protection. The company plants 

many thousands of salmon and steelhead each season. This 

year the north coast rivers had a banner year with a ten 

fold increase of returning salmon and steelhead. 

Each year they reforest every acre that is 

harvested. 

The location of the ownership, gentle topography, 

the deep productive soils, temperate climate, good road 

system and years of excellent stewardship, collectively 

makes this forest ownership twice as productive as the 

average forested acre in California. 

Pacific Lumber Company is respected for their 

environmental record and commitment to community, donating 

over $100,000 per year to charities. The company is 

dedicated to 

growing trees 

producing wildlife, protecting 

for our children and providing 

habitat, 

jobs and 

products we demand at the lumberyard and book store. 
157 

- 4 -

The last time Congressman Pete Stark tried to push 

this bill down our throat the U.s. Forest Service 

testified they did not have the capacity to manage any 

more forestland nor did they have an experienced 

knowledgeable staff to take on the job. They are now 

saying, yes they can do the job. What happened, did the 

Six Rivers National Forest just develop an incredible new 

work force, free from environmentalists lawsuits? 

Congressman Dan Hamburg, you continually tell us 

that the Six Rivers National Forest will manage Pacific 

Lumber's confiscated 36,000 acres redwood forest, for 

multiple use. 

Does anyone here know what that means? Multiple 

Use? On the Six Rivers National Forest only 10 percent of 

our 1 million acre forest is open for multiple use, 

meaning management for all values which include harvesting 

of trees. The remaining 900,000 acres is locked up in 

single use designation. Harvesting is forbidden. 

Six Rivers National Forest just came out with its 

management plan for our public forest. It is stated that 

the 2,600 acres of redwood trees found on the forest is to 

be fully protected. NO TREES are to be harvested! 

Does anyone know what the statement, "No Trees Will 

Be Harvested" means? Over 70 co-sponsors to this bill 

surely don't. How could any one possibly sign on to this 

bill without knowing this fact? 

78-078 - 94 - 6 
158 

- 5 -

The answer is, you do not have all the needed 

information to make wise decisions. 

I am told that is why you are all here. 

learn the facts and make the best decision 

For you to 

that will 

positively effect the families, the children, the economy 

and the health of the forest. 

If this bill passes, the families, the children, the 

economy and the health of the forest will be drastically 

damaged. 

Lets talk facts. 

Each year the Six Rivers National Forest has had a 

net gain of over 250 million board feet more timber than 

the year before. This net gain includes the annual 

harvesting figures. Yet the sales program has declined to 

an average annual cut of about 10 million feet. 

Due the many drought years there is an annual loss 

of approximately 60 million of board feet of timber land 

that is insect infested and dying. Very little of it will 

be harvested. Is this good stewardship? No, it certainly 

is not. 

The Six Rivers, Trinity and Mendocino National 

Forests, in the years prior to being sued by the radical 

environmental groups, generated high-quality wood chips 

from low-grade logs. These worthless logs provided over 

50 percent of the wood chips needed to operate the two 

pulp mills on Humboldt Bay. Today both of these mills are 
159 

- 6 -

closed. Over SO million dollars which annually went into 

the local economy from this hub of economic infrastructure 

is now gone. Environmental lawsuits have and continue to 

block the Forest Service from doing their job. 

In 1987 our northern forests had a series of 

lightning fires ignited by over 1,000 lightning strikes in 

one big storm. 578,806 official Forest Service acres 

burned. More than 1. 9 bi 11 ion board feet of timber was 

torched. 1.5 billion feet was located outside of 

wilderness and protected areas. 1.2 billion feet of dead 

burned trees were put up for sale. Environmentalists 

effectively cost the U.S. Forest so much time and 

expensive legal fees trying to stop the salvage operations 

that only 896 million board feet was .removed. 

Approximately 600 million board feet was left standing to 

rot. An even greater disaster, was that reforestation 

only occurred on harvested accessible burn areas. Due to 

the delays caused by the environmentalists, so much brush 

grew in, seedlings could not be planted and the forests 

continue to be mismanaged and desiccated. 

When Redwood National Park expanded in 1977, George 

Meany, AFL-CIO, got Congress to recognize, that many 

working people who lost their jobs due to that taking of 

private land, should be helped. Part of that deal was 

that the Six Rivers National Forest would increase their 

harvest levels to compensate the taking of the private 
160 

- 7 -

forest land. The harvest on the 1 million acre Six River 

National Forest was promised to go up to 200 million board 

feet. Never did our harvest average rise any where close 

to that level. In 1991 less than 1 million board feet was 

harvested on the Six Rivers National Forest. 

Plain and simple the authors of that bill never 

intended to help the people. 

Congressmen Hamburg and Stark write, that the USFS 

will manage for multiple use. Who is kidding who? 

This land grab bill is dressed in the guise of 

protecting wildlife and never ·documents THE NEED for 

exactly what needs to be protected. 

Pacific Lumber is not a willing seller. 

In a moment, I will show you colored detailed maps 

of forests already within the control of the Government. 

To take ultimately 57,000 acres from this company 

and give it to the U.S. Forest Service is MADNESS. Not to 

mention the terrific cost involved. I estimate the total 

cost is somewhere near 2 billion dollars. 

Where will all of the money come from? I ask you 

who is going to pay for Headwaters Forest? Does 

Congressman Hamburg have a Swiss Bank account? 

have a rich uncle? 

Does he 

I know my rich uncle, the one I have always counted 

on to provide me with just the basics like police 

protection, public schools, safe roads and social 
161 

- 8 -

security, and he has gone broke. He doesn't have the 

money to buy any more land. His days of grabbing land are 

over. 

When you don't have money to pay the bills you 

already have, you quit shopping! You pay your bills and 

you try to save money for the future. You look at what 

Y.ou already have and try to decide if you really need 

something before you buy it. 

Do we really need the Headwaters Forest. We already 

have 255,000 acres of Redwoods set aside. Do we really 

need to put the Pacific Lumber Company out of business? 

The largest employer in Humboldt County! Are we going to 

lay off thousands more people? 

And if we do, how are we going to .pay for it? Are 

we going to drive another nail into the coffin of the 

children of this country? This bill drastically effects 

not just the children of the forest families but all the 

children in Humboldt County every time private land is 

taken off the tax rolls. 

The futures of our great, great grandchildren have 

already been mortgaged. How can anyone of the sponsors of 

this bill justify it? My God, our children are killing 

each other. 

no rising 

crying out 

Why? Because they see no future. They see 

sun on the horizon. They are bleeding and 

for help, and this is what the people in 

Washington are spending their future on. Why aren' t we 
162 

- 9 -

trying to get a couple of billion dollars for education, 

for police protection or for AIDS research? 

You people are not listening. You are letting all 

of the country down, not just the people of Humboldt 

County. 

I beg of you, do not drive another nail into the 

coffin of our children's future. If you have $2 billion 

to spend. Spend it on saving children. Fight drugs, 

crime, street wars. Do anything but hurt innocent hard 

working people. 

Please look at the maps which I have brought. Let 

me show you the vastness of the government lands. 
163 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Dixon and Mr. MacMullin, you both tend to 

make the assumption that if this land were picked up by the Forest 

Service, that there would be no further utilization, any land prepared for sales. Where do you get that assumption from? Is there 

something in this legislation that you can point to? 

Obviously, there is an area that is wilderness and other areas 

that are indicated on the map that I have that is referenced in the 

legislation, 3(a) which indicates small groves that are out there, 

but I would say probably 80 percent of the land in that area, 85 

percent would be subject to a management plan, which anticipates 

in the law, it says timber sales and other areas shall be allowed 

consistent with the purposes of this Act and other applicable Federal laws and regulations. 

So how in contrast to page 7 in the clear language of the bill, 

which you said that some of the Members that are co-sponsors 

didn't read, like me-and so I would suggest to you, Mr. 

MacMullin, have you read this bill? Mr. Dixon, have you read this 

bill? 

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, there is a statement in the draft environmental impact statement for the Six Rivers National Forest 

that says-well, I will read it. There are approximately 2,600 acres 

where redwood is a component of the stand. However, all groves of 

redwood are protected from harvest on the forest. You are proposing this to be within the boundaries. 

Mr. VENTO. I am looking at page 7-I am talking about legislation, this bill. This sets up a management plan. This is law. This 

is the regulation. This isn't some policy statement; this is what the 

intention of this bill is. I am not referring to some document that 

was prepared independently of this for other purposes. 

Mr. DIXON. I understand that this was prepared by the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service. 

Mr. VENTO. This bill was prepared by Mr. Hamburg and Mr. 

Stark and others who sponsored it. It may come as a novel notion 

to you that laws do override the actions of the Department of Agriculture and the National Forest Service. 

Mr. HAMBURG. If you will yield, what Supervisor Dixon is referring to is the draft EIS for the Six Rivers National Forest which, 

as we know, does not currently include many of this 44,000 acres. 

So I think to some extent we are extrapolating based on management for 2,600 acres of existing redwood on the the current Six 

Rivers National Forest and saying, therefore, we can expect that on 

the 88 percent of this 44,000 acres, there will not be any allowed 

timber management. 

Mr. Chairman, I certainly concur with what you are saying. It 

was not my intent as a drafter of this legislation, or I don't believe 

of any of the 89 co-sponsors, that timber harvest be precluded on 

the 30,000 acres which are not old growth. 

Mr. VENTO. Certainly I think hearings can be useful. We are listening to what you are saying. I hope you are listening to what I 

am saying in terms of other ways to get around this, in terms of 

enhancing this. 

Obviously, when you begin to talk about human impact, one of 

the problems we have had, Mr. Campbell, is all the information 

that is coming out with regard to old-growth forests in Region 6, 
164 

and to some extent in Region 5, and of course the private lands are 

equally affected by that. 

Do you in fact bid on any type of sales on public lands right now, 

Mr. Campbell? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. All the saw logs that we consume come off of our 

property or from other private lands in our area. We do not use any 

public timber. 

Mr. VENTO. There is nothing that precludes you. 

I feared we would have to leave, because I have to go to the 

Floor. I apologize to you for that, but we will have to submit the 

other questions in writing. I can't do anything about it. 

Mr. VENTO. With that said, I regret that that is the case, but we 

must go. So the meeting will stand adjourned. 

I thank you for your trip and your input into the process. Thank 

you. 

The meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
APPENDIX 

OCTOBER 12, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

DAN HAMBURG In~ ~ 

W~OH'ICI: 

114C.U.O..I......, .. 

W~c. DC1ot1t 

(2:021221-llll C:on!lftBJ of tbt 1Jntttb 6tatts 

J;ollft of lttprrsrntatibu 

lla4ington, M 20515 

october 25, 1993 

The Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

Chairman 

MEJtCHAHT MANNE AHO ASHEMU 

,___,.,., ... ~IIDIIUM:ll· 

--

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Landa 

H1-812 

O'Neill House Office Bui lding 

Dear Chairman Vento: 

I want to thank you once again for convening and conducting 

the hearing on H. R. 2866, The Headwaters Forest Act. Your 

knowledge of the details of the proposal were critical in 

developing a complete record, and I can not over state •Y 

appreciation for your personal attention to this legislation. 

After further reflection, I believe that clarification by the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildli~e Service could 

contribute significantly to resolving the question of the cost of 

acquiring the property. 

The Forest Service referred to an appraisal of 4,488 acres included in tha area proposed for acquisition by H.R. 2866 . The 

appraiser valued the property primarily based on timber volume. 

Although the merchantable volume was determined by subtracting 

volume ostensibly necessary for protection of streamside zones and wildlife protection, Forest Service representatives indicated 

they had not consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service or its own •urrelet biologist to determine the amount of old growth 

necessary for the murrelet. 

I would like to ask that the Forest service biologist and 

the Fish and Wildlife biologists sub•it for the record their beet 

estimate of the per centage of old growth which •ust be retained 

for habitat in the area to be acquired by H.R. 2866, in light of 

the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. 

IIOA.W-lJrolll 

ua-,CAH412 

170714•2- 1711 

Thank you for your continued assistance. 

lH llftMT 

C.....Cfh'.CA .. Ill 

1)07)411-0112 

~eq7t' 

Meaber 

DanHa~L of Con~:a~ } 

7f0Eiftlf1' 

1-...CAHIIOI 

(101)441-4 ... 

(165) 

,,, ........ s-f 

f--... c. .... u P07)42-...01 

1040 .... ,_ 

"""A.CAI4111 

P07) zt..._.IOI 
~~Cioi.JPOMU.. CMoUNIItM 

......... 

..ulftl.l.-

.....,

~,-

~ 

,..,.........,..,._ 

::.~=~~ 

--LUCIO.~ 

__ ...... __, 

,.,. 

~~ ........ _.. .. , .... MUOMW...., ..._.... lofiiiiiM 

NI......_SGUnllo.tlltOTA 

~...=....-.:..... CAI..-II.OOOU'I'.~ 

CMLG~-......:ao.. ~M:O 

---- .. ~ _au&.._ ...... ur .... 

~ .. ...,.. . ... 'tOM 

..... ='~=""-- 1\1--~ 

=~---= 

166 

11.6. _,out of ~r~ntatibt~ 

Committu on 

Jlatural ~rttlj 

IIUIJingtan. laC 2051~201 

November 5, 1993 

The Honorable Dan Hamburg u.s. House of Representatives 

114 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Dan: 

--

n ... __ 

----- ..._ ...... -..ucM .,., o.cTOII 

Thank you for your letter requesting my help to get the Forest 

Service and the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service to submit some additional information for the hearing record on H.R. 2866, the 

Headwater Forest Act. 

I agree with you that it would be useful to know how much old 

growth timber in the area needs to be retained for the marbled 

murrelet and to analyze how this information might affect the 

appraised price of the property. 

I have instructed the Subcommittee staff to work with your staff to obtain this information . 

BFV:tm 
167 

Natural· ~esources Management Corporation 1•3• nttltO STftCIT • Ll' 0 - Dllt.t.WCIIt U·U • IUII!I-4. CAL.,OIItNIA 155C.I • 1/Gll ••a·I'UI 

Honorable J ... a V. Hanaen 

"-ber of Coft9r••• 

HouH ot bpreHntat1vea 

Roc- 2466, Rayburn Hou.H Office Building 

waahinqton, D.c. 20515-4401 

U s Requ.eat for Hwabolclt County Timber Value• 

Thank you for your requeat regardinq average valuea lor old-growth and 

young-growth redwood timber tY'PI• for Huaboldt county, california. <Nr firm 

haa ex.tenaive experience valuing timberland propertiea, eapecially thoae found 

in tbe redwood region of northweatern California. We are honored to provide 

timber value information to the Houae Natural ReiiO\lrcea C~ittH. 

In reaponae to your requeat, pleaae find attac:lwenta •A• and "8" which 

develop value eati.aatea for an •average acre• reapectively of old-9rowth and 

youn9-9rovth ti..IDMr atanda . Theae valuea repreaent our eati.mate of average 

timber atuapaqe valuea for the •~r of 1993. Stuapaqe valuea are defined aa 

the value of timber aa it atanda in the foreat, conaiderinq all coata 

aaaociated with planning, harveat, and adminiatration. 

The valuea found on attachment• •A• and •a• are avera9e valuea, and do 

not reflect tilaber valuea for any partic~lar property. The actual tiJaber 

value• for a apecific property may differ aub•tantially frora the attached 

eatima.tea due to varying timber and aite quality, location, atand aqe, and 

aaaociate<l coata. 

Pleaae let M know if I can provide any adclitional infonl&tion. Thank 

you for the opportunity to provide information reqardinq timber valuaa for 

Humboldt County to the conqreaa of the United Stataa. 

GR/jp 

Att. 
A11umpt ionw : 

168 

ATTACHMENT "A" 

Average Humboldt County Acre of 

Old-Growth Redwood Foreat Type 

1, 000 board feet • 1 MBF 

Average timber volume per 200 HSF 

Average growing lite quality: Site Cla•• II 

Estimated conifer specie a mix: 

Redwood 70\ 

Douglaa-fir 25\ 

Other whitewood• 5\ 

Valuation data: Summer 1993 

Eltimatad Average Values: 

Weighted average value of timber in $/MBF: S947. 50/HBF 

Total timber value: 5947.50/MBF (200 MSF/Acre) • S189.590/ecre 

Bare land value: $600/acre 

Total timber and land value per acre • $189,500 + $600 • Sl90.100/acre 
169 

ATTACHMENT "B" 

Ateumptionw : 

Average Hu.mbold.t Coun~y Acre of 

Young-Growth Redwood P'orett Type 

1, 000 board feet • 1 MBP 

Ages 70 year• 

Growinq eite quality: Site Cl&ll II 

Average ti..tllber volume ~r acre: 75 HBP 

Eltimatec:l conifer 1pecie1 mix: 

Reclwood 65\ 

Dougla!-fir 30' 

other whitavoodl s' 

Valuation datez S\UIIIUr 1993 

Ettimattd Average Valutl: 

Weighted averaqe timber value in $/KBP : 5697.50/MBr 

Total timber value: S697 50/MBf (75 HBP/Acre) • 552.312/acrs 

Bare land value : $600/acre 

Total timber and land value per acre • $52,312 + $600 • 552.912/esrt 
170 

JAMES V. HANSEN 

4:ongrus of tht \lnittd £'tatu -~~ ~ • . .. CWIIII _.t of 'n •"'t'•uou• ...... -. 

.. uu.., 

U.,..,_ltOUSIOfRCl...._.... 

WA-TC*.IM:!O.l-.01 

i2021225-04U 

- •uhlnpll, Ba': 20115-tfOI 

Mr. Gary Ryneanon 

NatulBI Resources Management, Inc. 

Post Office Drawer 1247 

Eureka, CA 95501 

Dear Mr. Ryoeanon: 

August 9, 1993 

I 

1--

1 -

1:: 

I 

r:ssr 

OGDOI "'"tO• 

(IOiolll- Utz 

ltDliUI-ttlr 

~,, ., uu 

USlA$TT-.....Cll 

Sl.lflt:IOI 

IT~ vr tu ro 

k you may lmow, legislation was introduced in the House (H.R. 2866) last week that 

would authorize federal acquisition of 44,000 acres of industrial timberlands in northern 

California. 

I uodentand that your finn is familiar with tbe values of these lands - both tbe old 

growth and second growth stands. In fact, I am told that appraisals done by your finn 

were reYiewed by the courts during the legislative takings 8SIOciated with the Redwood 

National Park bills in 1968 and 1978. 

1be Subcommittee on Natiooal Parks, Forests and Public Lands, where I am the Ranking 

Republican Member, wiD likely bave a hearing oo H.R. 2866 this fall. k a result, I 

would like to determine, witbout reference to any particular property, approximate values 

for tbe types of old growth and second growth stands found in Humboldt County. I 

would appreciate any auistaoce you wuld provide regarding these details. 

Thank you fix your auiltaoce oo this matter. If you bave any questio111, please Kurt 

Cbristeolen of tbe Committee Staff at (202) 226-2311. I look forward to hearing from 

you. 
171 

National~ '1 __ Audubon Society __ , ~ 

v 

October 12, 1993 

Dear Representatives Stark and Hamburg: 

666 Pennsylvania Avt::nue. SE 

Washington, DC 20003 

(202) 547-9009 

(202) 547-9022 /ax 

The National Audubon Society enthusiastically supports the passage of HR 

2866, the "Headwaters Forest Act," as proposed by Congressmen Dan 

Hamburg and Pete Stark. This legislation will authorize the acquisition of 

our nation's largest privately owned stand of centuries-old redwoods and will 

prevent the harvest of one of the most significant fragments of our 

remaining ancient forests. 

The ancient forests of the Pacific northwest and Northern California have 

been logged to the point of near ecological collapse. The 44,000 acre 

Headwaters forest is unique in its ecological value as a home to the 

threatened Northern Spotted Owl, marbled murrelet and other ancient forest 

dependent species. Harvesting this ecological treasure would hasten the 

unraveling of the northwest's ancient forest ecosystem and eliminate 

economic gains provided by recreational use and commercial and sport 

fishing, 

On behalf of the National Audubon Society's 550,000 members, we commend 

Congressmen Hamburg and Stark for their efforts to protect our country's 

threatened redwood forests and pledge our unequivocal support for the 

Headwaters Forest Act. 

~~~~ Brock Evans 

Vice President for 

National lssues 
172 

Working for • the Nature of Tomor'TOIN. 

NATIONAL WILDUFE FEDERATION, 1400 Sixteenth Street, N.W., WashingtOn, D.C. 20036-2266 (202) 797-6800 

Offic~ of the President 

October 12, 1993 

The Honorable Dan Hamburg 

United Stales Houle of Representatives 

114 Cannon Houae Oftlce Building 

Washington, D.C. 20S1S 

Dear Representative Hamburg: 

I would like to take tbis opportunity to communicate the Natiooal WJ.Idlife Federation's 

support for your bill, H.R. 2866, the Headwaters Forest Wddemesa Al:t. 

As you know, NWF has made proleCiion of the ancient foiats of caiifomia IIIII the Pacific 

Northwest oae of our top public 1aDd priorities. The old growth IIIII otber redwood fora~~ 

which will be proCected by this bill are a priceless put of our Natioll'a DaiUial baiface; 

indeed, they are UDique in all tbe world. Yet tbese magoificmt IIIII 011ce eqJIIIIIM forestJ 

have been devaslaled by e:u:essive IIIII sbortsighted logging. 

The Headwafl:n ric:hly deaenes the procection which your bill alfonla. We tbank you for 

your e1fort.s on bdlalf of this forest IIIII its fish IIIII wildlifif resoun:es. 

Sincerd.y, 

~D-"~ JAYD. HAIR 

IDH:&h 
173 

AMERICAN FISHING TACKLE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

SPORT FISHING INS'ITIUTE 

The Honorable Dan Hamburg 

U.S. Hollie ofRepreaenwivas 

114 Cannon Building 

Washinattm. DC 20S1S 

TROUT UNI..lMITED 

Oclober 26. 1993 

Re: Support for H.R 2866, The Headwa!CIS Forest Act of 1993 

Dear Rq!reseDWive Hllmbarg: 

On behalf of the sport tiahin& industry and thousands of trout and salmon angl£n, we are wriling 10 support tbe bill you n:cently in1roduced, H.R. 2866, The Headwalerl Forest Act 

of 1993. The blll would alllhorize lbe Forest Service 10 .:quire and conserve 44,000 acres of prime beadwalel' forest hablw in northern California. and 10 SIUdy an addilional 13,620 acres for poaaiblc future .:quisilion and ~l Wo commend you for your 

lead«<hhp in dewlopins and iDiroducina tbia lepa!alion. 

Our orpmzarions aro COIDIIIiued 10 protecdna and rosurlnawea coasc Pacific salmon ~-. Tbeac runs woro ooco tho fineSI salmon roaourc:es in tho world. Now, 

.a:ordln_jlbe C1IDion AdmiDisttalioa'a Forest Ecosyslem Mt~t Aaeument Team 

(FEMA 1J R.eport. over 100 stocb baYe beat alizpUid and 3i4il'Ott risk of exdnction. 

Doapirc drmWic declillel in Pacific lllmoD ttocb. me.e Bah still~ a one billion 

dollar anauallpOrt IUid COIIIDiel'Cial fllblq lndiiiUy. 'lbate valuablo iDdusuiea 111'0 

tluwencd dilecdy by COIICilluin& lou of salmon habllat. Convenoly, if tho_ repoo takes ~~ro~~~acdona now, the onlire Dllioll saDds 10 pin tremondoua liCW ec:oloaieal and 

eccmamic beadita Crom reiiOied aalmoa 1'11111. 

rn 11111 Hghl, your biB Ia u important ck:ment in lbe fouudalion of Paci& salmon recovery. If eDIC:Ced and lmplemellled, it will proleCl some ol tbo bell reGIIiDina salmon blbilat in 

Califomia. aad in lbe caR of coho salmon, 101110 of lbe 11101t cridcal6.bi!M on lbe eatire 

wea cout. Dr. ~Moyle, reaowned salmon ldentlat Crom UDIWI'Iity of California 11 

Davia, baa talified belole twO Hollie Ctnmittea that H.R. 2666 would proaiCt S 10 1~ 

of lbe ll!lllainiD8 coho tpawnlng babiw iD Calltomla. Such a 1111111aemont aclion is 

-a.l in view of tbo 97W. dodiDo iD wild coho in Califcraia. 

ApiD, we cOIDIIICild you lor your work on tbia bill, aad -1oo1c forward 10 Ita early IIIIKIIIIml 
October 20, 1993 

The Honorable Bruce Vento, Chairman 

Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands 

U.S House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Vento, 

174 

The Western Ancient Forest Campaign would like to submit 

the enclosed testimony for the record in support of the Headwaters 

Forest Act H.R. 2866 sponsored by Rep. Dan Hamburg. WAFC 

presented this statement before the Subcommittee on Forests, Family 

Farms and Energy on September lOth last year in favor of the 

National Forest Redwoods Act. The testimony has been updated to 

reflect the changed bill number, sponsor and minor differences 

between the two bills. 

We appreciate your committee's effort to resolve the ancient 

forest issue and look forward to working with you to protect the 

Headwaters forest. 

7:-u~ Jim Owens 

Executive Director 

WESTERN 

Ancient Forest 

CAMPAIGN 

Capitol Office 

Jim Owens. Executive Director 

Han. Jim Jantz, 

Senior Advisor 

Phone 202 / 939·3324 

t400 16th Street NW 

Suite 294 

Washington. DC 20036 

fax 202 / 939·3326 

Board of Directors 

Linda Blum 

Quincy, California 

Tim Coleman 

Republic, Washington 

Paul Ketcham 

Portland. Oregon 

Tim Lillebo 

Bend. Oregon 

Drew Martin 

Benicia, California 

Tim McKay 

Arcata, California 

Bonnie Phillips-Howard 

Stanwood, Washington 
175 

STAlEMENf OF JIM OWENS 

CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, WESTERN ANCIENf FOREST CAMPAIGN 

ON H.R. 2866, TilE HEADWATERS FOREST ACT 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS, FAMILY FARMS, AND ENERGY 

COMMITIEE ON AGRICULTIJRE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENfATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 

Chairman Volkmer and Members of the Committee: 

My name is Jim Owens, I am the Campaign Director for the 

Western Ancient Forest Campaign, a grassroots organization 

representing thousands of forest activists in the states of Washington, 

Oregon and California. 

I recently moved to Washington, D.C., from northern California, 

where I was actively involved as a volunteer in forest management 

reform for most of the past decade. Two years ago, as the 

Conservation Coordinator for the Smith River Alliance, I assisted 

Congressman Doug Bosco is his successful legislative effort to create 

the Smith River National Recreation Area in northern California. Mr. 

Bosco's Smith River National Recreation Area Act both protected 

several thousand acres of redwoods in Del Norte county, and created a 

series of wnes in the National Recreation Area in which forest 

management is based upon the highest use of the wne, such as 

fisheries protection, recreation or timber production. 

As a resident of Arcata, California, I participated as a volunteer 

in many attempts during the past four years to protect the Headwaters 

WESTERN 

Ancient Forest 

CAMPAIGN 

Capitol Ofllce 

Jim Owens. Executive Director 

Han. Jim Jantz, Senior Advisor 

Phone 202 / 939·3324 

1400 16th Street NW 

Suite 294 

Washington, OC 20036 

fax 202 / 939-3326 

Board of Directors 

Linda Blum 

Quincy, California 

Tim Coleman 

Republic. Washington 

Paul Ketcham 

Portland, Oregon 

Tim Lillebo 

Bend. Oregon 

Drew Martin 

Benicia. California 

Tim McKay 

Arcata. California 

Bonnie Phillips-Howard 

Stanwood. Washington 
176 

Statement of Jim Owens 

Forests, Family Farms, and Energy Subcommittee 

September 10, 1992 

Page 2 

Forest in Humboldt County. I've had the opportunity to work with 

Congressman Bosco, Congressman Frank Riggs, Congressman Pete 

Stark and a number of local and state legislators and officials towards a 

resolution of the conflict surrounding the Headwaters Forest. 

Mr. Chairman, this is an issue which must be resolved soon as I 

have testified in the past. In Humboldt County, the tensions within 

the small communities which have developed in the region during the 

past hundred-plus years have never been more divisive than they are 

today. Neighbors are pitted against neighbors, brothers argue with 

sisters, and school children draw lines in the sand over timber issues. 

As an environmental leader in Humboldt County I was constantly 

threatened by timber workers, and other environmental activists 

suffered serious injuries in an as yet unsolved car-bombing during a 

tense summer when timber issues were being hotly debated on 

California's northcoast. 

During the past several years this Committee has been at the 

forefront in Congressional efforts to understand and resolve the 

ancient forest crisis. I have been a frequent spectator while all of you 

have posed serious questions to land managers, scientists and 

representatives of interest-groups, and I've been impressed with the 
177 

Statement of Jim Owens 

Forests, Family Farms, and Energy Subcommittee 

September 10, 1992 

Page 3 

sense of responsibility and resolve with which you have pursued this 

issue. 

Your efforts to develop a scientificallybased legislative approach 

to the ancient forest issue resulted in the recommendations by the 

Scientific Panel on Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems, a landmark 

study which has completely altered the course of the ancient forest 

debate, and which will ultimately be the basis for any legislation 

dealing with the ancient forest issue. Many people recognize the 

significance of the study, and of your efforts to go beyond the usual 

political approach to public land management problems. 

The Headwaters Forest issue requires a similar effort by this 

Committee to deal with the merits of the issue, rather than the politics 

of the moment. Once again you are being asked to don Solomon's 

robes; I have no doubt you will answer this challenge with vigor and 

resolve. And I know that you will treat the parties in this case with 

fairness and respect. 

Let me move to the facts of this matter. The Headwaters Forest 

is the largest unprotected block of virgin redwoods in the northern 

hemisphere. This forest, and the connected tracts of virgin and second 

growth redwoods comprising the core of the area recommended in 
178 

Statement of Jim Owens 

Forests, Family Farms, and Energy Subcommittee 

September 10, 1992 

Page4 

H.R. 2866 for acquisition by the Six Rivers National Forest, are found 

in what scientists call the I<lamath ProVince, a distinct bioregion which 

encompasses northwestern California and southwestern Oregon. 

The forests of the I<lamath Province are ecologically diverse and 

unique and contain more than 20 species of conifers, including coast 

redwoods. Scientists believe that these forests were central to the 

evolution of forests in the Western United States following the last ice 

age, when the region was a refugia for many of the tree species 

eliminated by ice sheets elsewhere. 

In addition to the northern spotted owl and the marbled 

murrelet, these coniferous forests comprise critical habitat for hundreds 

of vertebrate species, rare plants and thousands of little-studied 

invertebrates. The ancient forests of this region contain more biomass 

than any other on Earth and as such store more carbon than any other 

terrestrial ecosystem. 

A primary attribute of these forests is high quality water. 

Undisturbed forests of this type function like a sponge, intercepting 

precipitation, absorbing it and regulating its release while preventing 

the overland flow of water and erosion. The waters of this region's 

ancient forests historically supported abundant runs of anadromous 
179 

Statement of Jim Owens 

Forests, Family Farms, and Energy Subcommittee 

September 10, 1992 

Page 5 

fish, such as salmon and steelhead. After a century of intensive 

logging, all of these unique forest attributes are in jeopardy. 

The area known as the Headwaters Forest, named for its 

location at the highest reaches of two tributaries to Humboldt Bay, 

covers approximately 44,000 acres of land, providing vital plant and 

wildlife habitat as well as virtually the only unpolluted fresh water to 

Humboldt Bay. The stand contains approximately 70 percent Coast 

Redwood (Sequoia semperviren), 20 percent Douglas fir, grand fir and 

other softwoods, and 10 percent hardwoods. The watersheds affected 

by this bill rise from sea level to almost 3500 feet, and cover 112 square 

miles. 

This is a region in which logging has ruled the landscape for 

over 130 years. These forests were first cut for fuel and to supply 

building materials for early mining ventures in northern California 

before statehood was enacted, and later helped rebuild San Francisco 

after the 1906 Earthquake. 

This continuous harvest, greatly accelerated in the past few 

decades, has not been without cost to the landscape. Humboldt Bay, 

which once covered over 27,000 acres , has lost 10,000 acres to 

sedimentation caused by logging, roadbuilding and to reclamation for 
180 

Statement of Jim Owens 

Forests, Family Farms, and Energy Subcommittee 

September 10, 1992 

Page 6 

ranch land since the tum of the century. The sediment from upstream 

logging and roadbuilding which has filled in the Bay has eliminated 

salmon and steelhead runs in many of the creeks emptying into the 

estuary. Indeed, the world-famous anadromous fisheries which once 

were taken for granted in northern California are almost extinct, as is 

the fishing industry which until the last decade thrived in this area. 

Salmon Creek and Little South Fork Elk River, whose waters 

originate in the Headwaters Forest, have not been untouched by the 

destructive effects of logging and roadbuilding. Both of these creeks 

have suffered considerable sedimentation from logging operations; the 

main channel of Little South Fork Elk River was dogged with over 30 

em. of silt foUowing the completion by Pacific Lumber in 1989 of a 1.5 

mile road cutting into the eastern bank of the Little South Fork. 

Subsequent logging operations by the Company removed nearly every 

large tree 100 feet above and below the road bed, some of which were 

taken from the streambed itself. 

Trees in the Headwaters Forest are often over 300 feet tall, 

though 250 feet is a more average height. The largest tree found thus 

far in Headwaters Forest is over 2,000 years old and measures 18 feet 

in diameter, while trees 10 feet in diameter are not uncommon along 
181 

Statement of Jim Owens 

Forests, Family Farms, and Energy Subcommittee 

September 10, 1992 

Page 7 

the streams which sometimes run as far as 15 feet below the forest 

floor, covered and hidden by giant redwoods which have fallen during 

the past several hundred years. 

The virgin redwood forests which H.R. 2866 would protect are 

separated from other ancient forest groves by over 25 miles in any 

direction. These forests and their riparian zones offer critical habitat 

and biological corridors for the rich and abundant wildlife and plantlife 

which thrives in these remaining core areas. They also offer the 

anchor for a unique watershed which stretches from the crest of the 

lower ridges of the Coast Range to the mouth of Salmon Creek, which 

is protected in its lower reaches by the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

Others today will tell you about the history of the redwood 

forests which were once owned by Pacific Lumber Company, and 

which were bought by the Maxxam Corporation. You will hear of 

junk-bonds, leveraged buyouts, doubled and tripled logging rates, 

sacrificed pensions, and communities whose economies and futures 

have been placed at risk by a company which has brought more strife 

then peace to a region where the timber-wars are a daily reality. 

I'd like to quickly address the redwood resource which once 
182 

Statement of Jim Owens 

Forests, Family Farms, and Energy Subcommittee 

September 10, 1992 

Page 8 

covered over two million acres of the coastal landscapes between 

Southern Oregon and San Francisco Bay. These forests have been cutover since white settlers first set foot in northern California. Of the 

original two million acres, less than five percent, or approximately 

95,000 acres, remain uncut and unentered. 

Redwood National Park and California State Parks contain 

approximately 76,000 acres of oldgrowth redwood forests, and the U.S. 

Forest Service controls approximately 6,000 acres of oldgrowth 

redwoods. Thus, 82,000 acres of ancient redwoods remain protected in 

public lands, a scant four percent of the original forest cover of this 

region. 

I've had the privilege of frequently flying over northern 

California's forests, particularly over the redwood forests of the 

Northcoast. From 5,000 feet above the breakers of the Pacific Ocean, 

one can look into California's interior and see the region's heritage of 

logging - vast vistas of logged slopes, with a thin band of protected 

redwoods hugging the Coastal Highway between the Oregon Border 

and the Eel River. Little else remains of the vast virgin forests which 

once defmed this region. 

The Headwaters Forest, over which I have also flown, is one of 
183 

Statement of Jim Owens 

Forests, Family Farms, and Energy Subcommittee 

September 10, 1992 

Page 9 

the sole remaining viable ancient forest elements in the redwood belt 

which is both unentered, and unprotected. A timber cruise conducted 

by a registered professional forester and Humboldt State University 

students determined in 1990 that the monetary value of Headwaters 

Forest was under $200 million. Biologists claim that as a watershed 

and habitat corridor, it is priceless. 

The Headwaters Forest is the among California's four remaining 

habitats for the marbled murrelet, a rare sea bird which nests only in 

oldgrowth trees, and which has been proposed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service for listing as a threatened species. The murrelet 

requires large, undisturbed coastal watersheds to evade predators, as 

well as dense canopied forests for nesting. Murrelets in the 

Headwaters Forest depend upon Humboldt Bay and the adjacent ocean 

coast for food, and are frequently found just offshore in large colonies. 

According to U.S. Forest Service biologist C.J. Ralph, up to half 

of California's murrelet population might perish if Headwaters Forest 

is logged. Repeatedly the California State Board of Forestry has cited 

the need to retain murrelet habitat as its principal reason for denying 

Pacific Lumber timber harvest plans which proposed logging in the 

Headwaters Forest. 
184 

Statement of Jim Owens 

Forests, Family Farms, and Energy Subcommittee 

September 10, 1992 

Page 10 

I endorse Rep. Dan Hamburg's bill, and commend it to this 

Committee for favorable consideration. As it stands before this 

Committee, the bill would add all of Pacific Lumber Company's 

holdings to the nearby Six Rivers National Forest. Logging would 

continue on most of these lands, but would be controlled by a public 

agency governed by national environmental laws which do not affect 

private timber operators. 

I am aware that the costs of acquiring Pacific Lumber's holdings 

are excessive in the present national economy, and have reviewed the 

compromise Headwaters legislation recently developed by Rep. 

Hamburg. The revised proposal, which sharply curtails the original 

legislation to a 44,000 acre ancient redwood ecological reserve along 

watershed boundaries, has value as a compromise, but needs further 

refinement in order to pass the high standards of biological credibility 

which this Committee has set for itself, and for Congress. 

If this bill is to adequately take an ecosystem approach to forest 

management, this Committee would be wise to consider an extension 

of the Headwaters Forest downstream along Salmon Creek to the 

Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge. This addition of 11,260 acres, 

currently held by four major landowners, would create a biological 
185 

Statement of Jim Owens 

Forests, Family Farms, and Energy Subcommittee 

September 10, 1992 

Page 11 

corridor running from the mountains to the sea. It would provide 

habitat for Roosevelt elk, black brant, replacement habitat for the 

marbled murrelet, and the opportunity to develop a wild salmon 

reserve. 

Restoration activities in the Salmon Creek watershed would 

provide job opportunities for the hard-working communities adjacent 

to Humboldt Bay, and a renewed fishery in lower Humboldt Bay could 

bolster a fishing fleet and recreational fishery which is now scattered 

north and south, since commercial salmon fishing is banned along the 

Northcoast due to the scarcity of this once abundant resource. 

Logging in the proposed Headwaters Forest will not stop with 

this bill. In fact, the people of Humboldt Bay will be well served by 

timber-managers who do not ship over 10 percent of their logs 

overseas, exporting jobs and livelihoods along with the raw materials 

of the region. Local communities will benefit from the receipts sent to 

the U.S. Treasury, and returned to the communities in payments for 

schools and county roads. 

Finally, this is an opportunity for Congress to enact legislation 

which provides a win-win situation for the forests, and for the people 

living with the forests. Protecting these last few groves of privately 
186 

Statement of Jim Owens 

Forests, Family Farms, and Energy Subcommittee 

September 10, 1992 

Page 12 

held redwood forests has been a goal of the State of California and of 

local legislators since 1990. Governor Pete Wilson has repeatedly 

aclcnowledged the need to purchase these groves, and Senator Bany 

Keene and Assemblyman Dan Hauser have worked assiduously to 

develop a workable plan to pay market price for these lands before 

Maxxam destroys them for the corporation's next interest payment. 

There are problems to overcome before this legislation is 

perfected, and prime among those problems is the compensation of the 

landowners, and the recognition of inholder rights. I have worked 

with the Six Rivers National Forest before, on many of these same 

issues, and know that this is an issue which Congress, and the 

agencies, will address before this bill is considered by the full House. 
187 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY CAUFORNIA!NEVADA REGIONAL OFACE 

STATEMENT OF LOUIS BLUMBERG, ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECI'OR, 

CALIFORNIA/NEVADA OFFICE, THE WILDERNESS SOCIE1Y, ON HR 2866, THE 

HEADWATERS FOREST ACf SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

OCI'OBER 22, 1993 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, The Wilderness Society (lWS) 

submits these comments for inclusion in the record of your hearing of October 12, 1993 

on HR 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act. The Wilderness Society supports HR 2866, the 

Headwaters Forest Act. As this Committee is well aware, The Wilderness Society has a 

long-standing interest in our nation's forests and supported similar legislation in the last 

Congress. Passage of HR 2866 is important for the protection and persistence of the 

redwood forest ecosystem in northwestern California. Enactment of HR 2866 will 

authorize Federal acquisition of important redwood forest lands and create the 

Headwaters Forest Wilderness. Public ownership and federal management of the 

proposed 44,000 acres acquisition is in the best, long term interests of the American 

public. 

HR 2866 would add The Headwaters Forest and other redwood forest to the Six 

Rivers National Forest. The bill would also create a 44,000 acre ancient redwood 

ecological reserve along watershed boundaries that will help preserve this unique 

ecosystem for future generations. 

These redwood forests have unmatched ecological, aesthetic, and recreational 

values, and are a unique part of our national heritage. Federal acquisition of these lands 

will insure that this important biological legacy will be passed on, in tact, to future 

generations of Americans. 

The Headwaters Forest is 4,000 to 5,000 acres of virgin, redwood (~ 

sempjrvirem) forest and is the largest, unprotected, block of virgin redwoods in the 

northern hemisphere. This is truly a pristine, unique, forest ecosystem worthy of 

protection as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

116 NEW MONTGOMERY, SUITE 526, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 

(415) 541 -9144 
188 

The Headwaters Forest and the other connected tracts of virgin and second 

growth redwoods comprising approximately 44,000 acres are proposed for addition to the 

Six Rivers National forest. These lands are a critical reservoir of genetic material for a 

rapidly diminishing redwood forest ecosystem. The Wilderness Society urges that all 

ecologically significant virgin redwood groves be preserved in perpetuity to insure the 

existence of this unique ecosystem. In particular, the entire headwaters of Salmon Creek 

should be included in the Headwaters Forest Wilderness. 

The lands proposed for acquisition in HR 2866 are found in what scientists call 

the Klamath Province, a distinct bioregion which encompasses northwestern California 

and southwestern Oregon. They include pristine, ancient redwood forest and provide 

important habitat for a myriad of wildlife species including the northern spotted owl and 

the marbled murrelet. Last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the marble 

murrelet as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Passage of HR 

2866 will help protect not only these two species, but many others who also depend on 

ancient forest for their habitat. 

The Klamath Province is recognized by scientists and others to possess 

unparalleled biological diversity. The region has been described as a "floristic and 

vegetational 'center' for the forests of the United States" (Whitaker 1961). It is" ... a 

center of biodiversity worldwide. Such a place deserves special care" (Noss 1989). HR 

2866 offers an opportunity to provide such care. 

Today, many conservation biologists agree that society should protect large, intact, 

natural ecosystems wherever possible to provides sites for evolutionary processes to 

unfold, unaffected by humans, as the temperature of the planet rises due to global 

warming. Passage of this legislation will provide such a site. 

Mr. Chairman, many efforts are currently underway in California to create an 

integrated, scientific based, land management scheme for the Klamath Province. One 

interagency effort under the auspices of the Executive Council on Biological Diversity 

involves representatives from federal, state and local agencies as well as public 

representatives, including the U.S. Forests Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the California Resources 

Agency, the California Department of Forestry, and the California Department of Fish 

and Game. The goal of this undertaking is to insure that all land use decisions in the 

region promote the maintenance of the biological diversity of the Klamath province. 

Federal acquisition of the Headwaters Forest and the other lands in HR 2866 is critical 

if this effort is to succeed. 

Acreage added to the Six Rivers National Forest will provide opportunities for the 

American public to participate in decisions affecting the management of these lands. 

Today, the Six Rivers National Forest is in the process of receiving comment on its much 

2 
189 

belated, draft land and resource management plan. Speedy passage of HR 2866 will 

mean that the newly acquired lands will benefit from the resource inventories and 

management decisions that are part of the forest planning process. This process will 

identify important, new multiple use opportunities. 

One particular value of the acquisition will be the new opportunities for public 

access to these lands. New recreational opportunities stimulate tourism and can , 

contribute significantly to local economies. In addition to unequaled primitive 

recreational opportunities in the Headwaters Wilderness, passage of this legislation and 

subsequent funding could provide access for new fishing, white water rafting, mountain 

biking sites, and other activities. Because public access is so important, we recommend 

that the legislation be amended to require the land owner to provide appropriate 

easements and rights-of-way. 

The population of California is expected to increase by 21 per cent over the next 

decade to exceed 30 million people. The demand for wilderness recreation will only 

increase as our population grows and our urban areas expand. Federal ownership will 

help meet this growing demand. 

The Wilderness Society is concerned that the appraisal by the Forest Service 

overestimates the cost of acquisition of the Headwaters Forest. Apparently, the Forest 

Service assumed that all of the parcel could be logged. Given that the Headwaters 

forest and much of the other land provides critical habitat for the northern spotted owl 

and marbled murrelet, both listed under the Endangered Species Act, this assumption is 

unfounded. CUrrent logging plans approved by the California Department of Forestry 

are held up in species-related court challenge. Chances are good that much of this land 

would not be logged. Thus, the Forest Service cost estimate is unrealistically high. 

Much of these lands possess mature second growth forest that would be subject to 

the forest planning process. After acquisition of the entire 44,000 acre parcel and 

completion of the planning process, these second growth forest lands might be added to 

the suitable timber base of the Six Rivers National Forest, providing a sustainable supply 

of timber to local communities and dollars to the U.S. Treasury. 

If managed at a sustainable level, the second growth forest on these lands could 

potentially produce up to 50 million board feet of timber annually. (In fact, the previous 

owner of the land logged 200 million board feet annually.) Should the federal 

government acquire all 44,000 acres, this addition to the Six Rivers National Forest could 

generate about 10 to $15,000,000 annually. The legislation could specifically earmark 

this revenue to pay for the acquisition. At this rate, the entire parcel could be paid for 

in twenty to thirty years while simultaneously generating funds for local counties through 

the Forest Service Revenue Sharing program. 

3 

78-078 - 94 - 7 
190 

Mr. Chairman, the Clinton Administration and California Governor Pete Wilson 

have both publicly expressed their support for the acquisition of Headwaters Forest. In 

1991, the Governor proposed a $300 million bond act to acquire these important forest 

lands. In addition, in a recent letter to the House Agriculture Committee, Jim Lyons, 

the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment 

expressed the Administration's "strong support for the ... legislation." 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, on behalf of our 300,000 members, 

50,000 of whom reside in California, The Wilderness Society urges you to act quickly and 

report HR 2866 out of your committee. Future generations of Americans will applaud 

your farsighted action. 

4 
191 

June ~!5, 1993 

Tbe Honorable Dan Haaburq 

United Statee Houae of Repreeentativea washington, DC 20!515 

Dear Coft9r .. aaan Hllllbur9: 

Sierra Club ia pleaaed to aupport paaaaqa of the Headwater• 

Redwood Foraat Act. 

'l'ha redWood foraat ia one of the dafinift9 natural vondera of 

California and the united Statea both for our own citiaana and tor people around the world. Thia laqielation'• protection for 

theae remaininq priatina IJrOYaa and the proviaion for reatorinq the connection between th- ia the only way to anaura that thia 

haritaqa toraat will continua to exiat aa a livinq anvironaent in 

perpetuity, 

on behalf of 175,000 .. mbera in california and the 377,600 

additional aambera nationwide Sierra Cl~ conqratulatea and 

applaud& Conqreeaman Dan Hamburg and Cono;Jraa ... n Pourtnay "Pate• 

stark tor aponaorinq the Haadwatara Redwood Foreat Act. We look 

forward to workinq for it• paaaaqa. 

CP:dpn 

Si~~1v 

carl Pope Executive Director 
192 

B.A.S.S. Inc. 

Serving Anglers- Admncing Environmenwl Awarene5S 

October 14, 1993 

The Honorable Dan Hamburg 

House of Representatives (!-~~ . --

114 cannon Building .uu~ b ~ lJIJ 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Hamburg, 

ALMILLS ENVIRONMENTAL DIREC!DR 

The Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S., Inc.) and its 

membership approaching 600,000 is fully supportive of H.R. 2866, 

the "Headwaters Forest Act,• sponsored by Representative Hamburg et al. Although B.A.S.S. members are primarily interested in 

angling for and supporting the future well being of black bass, we all have an understanding and respect for healthy watersheds 

and the role they play in the future of our fisheries resources. Healthy streams and watersheds are particularly 

important where migratory (anadromous) species like coho salmon are involved. 

We have a powerful testimony for the economics involved and the 

importance of protecting habitat for the future of our fisheries resources. Gamefish species like salmon and black bass are particularly sensitive. The public readily identifies with them 

and their •indicator role" in alerting us to the health of our watersheds and public waters. The fact that increasing numbers 

of species are threatened with extinction, or are often so contaminated with chemicals they can not be safely consumed by 

the public, is a national embarrassment. 

We are only beginning to comprehend the long term costs the 

public will bear when species appear on endangered and 

threatened lists in the numbers we are beginning to see. H.R. 2866 provides an unusual opportunity to begin reversing the 

trend of mortgaging our future for the extremely short sighted motives so evident in timber and fisheries resource decisions we 

have witnessed over the past century. 

Best wishes, 

.a/2~ Alvin D. Mills . Environmental Director 

AM/me 

cc: Paul Brouha 

Stan Moberly 

5845 Carmichael Road • Montgomery, AL 36117 

P.O. Box 17900 • Montgomery, AL 3614l-090J • (205) 272-9530 • FAX (205) 279-7148 
The Honoxab1e Dan Hamburg 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Hamburg: 

193 

WWF 

October 25, 1993 

On ~f of World o/!ldlife Fund (WWF) and our 1.25 million members 

nationwide, I am writing in support of H.R 2866,. the Headwaters Forest Act. 

During the past decade, WWF bas invested a great deal of effort protecting forest 

ecosystems throughout the world. Here in the Urtited States, our old-growth redwood forest 

ecosystems have been reduced to five percent of their ori&inal acreage, and we strongly 

advocate protection of the remaining fractions of these truly urtique forests. We support the 

provisions of H.R. 2866 which designate 44,000 acres as an addition to the Six Rivers 

National Forest. This acreage is vital to the maintenance of intact watersheds in the 

Humboldt region. Given that most redwood foresis have been substantially fragmented, 

maintaining the integrity of the remairting intact redwood ecosystems needs to become a 

priority for U.S. forest policy. 

The proposed addition of redwood forest to the Six Rivers National forest contains 

critical intact _watersheds for threatened saimonids,. the marbled mun~lct, and the northern 

spotted owl. The dire status of these species is a reflection of the health· of many of our 

northern temperate forests, which we need to take strong steps to improve. Old-growth 

redwood forests also generate millions of dollars foi local tourism industries yearly in 

California; hence these systems are vital to the economic health of the state. 

It is clear that the long-term costs outweigh the short-term profits generated by 

current timber practices in the Urtitcd States~ H.R 2866 will protect vital redwood forest 

habitat which we can no longer afford to degrade and dissipate. I congratulate you on this 

important piece of legislation and look forward to working with you in the future. 

Michael' Sutton 

Acting Vice President 

U.S. Land and Wildlife Program 

World Wildlife Fund 

1250Twemy-FourthS", NW Wuhln(ron, DC 20037-1175 USA 

Tel' (202) 29l-4800Toloxo 64505 PANOA FAlt {202) 293-9211 

lnoorporatin(Th<c:on..m.lionF ....... Iion. A/fil;,Jt.d.,;,h WorldW'Idt Fur.dfor N•=•-
194 

THE PAciFic RivERS CoUNciL 

The Honorable Dan Hamburg 

114 Cannon House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Hamburg: 

fonnerly THE OREGON Rivms CoUNcn. 

605 Prince • Alexandria. Virginia 22314 

(703) 836-3420 ·Fax (703) 739-9481 

October 20, 1993 

The Pacific Rivers Council would like to offer our support fur the protection of tbe 

Headwaters Forest in Northern California. This magnificent stand of ancient redwood fon:st is 

a vital, functioning old growth ecosystem, offering habitat and sustenance fur a number of 

increasingly rare and endangered species. The streams of tbe Headwaters forest still has some 

of the only remaining higb quality spawning and rearing habitat fur coho salmon in California, 

a species which is at risk throughout its range. 

The importance of the Headwaters furest will become increasingly apparent in tbe next 

year as data is gathered in response to Pacific Rivers Council's action today. Today we bave 

filed a petition to list the coho as an endangered species throughout its range under tbe authority 

of the Endangered Species Act. 

The mamt value of this privately held furest is quite higb, placing this fragile ecosystem 

in grave jeopardy from the very real potential of harvest. We cannot stand by and let the trees 

fall. The Pacific Rivers Council supports your effort to raise the pmUlction of tbe Headwaters 

forest in Congress. As with othcis, we also bave reservations about the anticipated cost of 

outtigbt pun:hase of the land. For the same amount of money we could !leCUre and restore every 

key watershed hatboring tbe best remaining salmon spawning and rearing habitat tbat is left on 

federal lands. But, we Ullderstand your commitment to work with tbe agencies, tbe owners of 

the land. and others to seek innovative methods, tbrougb donation or trade, to acquire the 

Headwaters forest. We think this approach is fair and appropriate and fully support you in tbat 

effon. 

We wish you weU in your eodeavor to save the Headwaters forest fur the fish and fur 

future generations of Americans. Please feel free to enter this statement in the hearing records 

fur those hearings held recently on this issue. 

;~ret~~ 

Bob Doppelt 

Executive Dimctor 

New VI-Sions to R(lSJ;DnlA~'s Rivers and Watersheds 
195 

OctobCr 19 1993 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVTCI! 

C Pacific Rlvel'5 Council 1993 

PBTI.T!ON TO THE NATIONAL MARJNE FTSHERTP.S SERVICE 

FOR A RULE TO LIST, POR DESJGNATJON OF CRmCAL HABITAT, AND FOR A STATUS 

REVIEW OF COHO SALMON <Oncorhyncbys ki!IUI!rh) niROUGHOUI' ITS RANGE JN 

WASHINGTON, OREGON, IDAHO, AND CALTPORNIA UNDER TH8 ENDANGERED SPEaBS 

ACT 

Pacific Rivers Council, Inc. ) 

Western Division, Amcricsn Fisheries Society (AFs) ) 

1be Wildcmcss Society ) 

Sierra Oub ) 

Nllional Audubon Society ) 

Leo Cronin, 1bc California Cauncll 

for Trout Unlimited 

National Wildlife Federation 

Siskiyou Regional Education Projcel 

Tenmile Cleek Associllion 

Oregon Natunl Resources Council 

Weslcm Ancien! Fo"'-" Campaign 

Nonhcoast Environmental Center 

Coast Range Association 

Siskiyou Audubon Society 

Pllehuck Audubon Society 

ML Shasta Area Audubon Society 

Friends of lhe River 

Coast Action Group 

Marble Mowttain Audubon 

Klunllh Forest Alliance 

Friends of lhe Garcia River 

Mendocino Environmental Center 

Friends of 1ltc Navarro Watershed 

PBTITION FOR A RULE TO LIST, 

FOR DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL 

HABITAT, AND FOR A STATUS 

REVIEW OF COHO SALMON 

THROUOHOl!T ITS RANGE UNDER 

THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

The: Pacific Rivers Council. Inc., Western Division of the American J'lshcrics Society (APS). The 

Wilderness Society, Sicm Cub, National Audubon Sol.il'ty, Leo Cronin of The California Coun(;ll for 

Trout Unlimited, Nllliunal Wildlife Federation, Siskiyou Regional Education Project, Tenmile CICCI!. 

Auoclalion, Oregon Narullll Rcsoutte.• Council. Western Ancient Porest. Campaign, Northcoast 

Environmental Center, Coa.'1 Range Association, Siskiyou AudubOn Society, Pilchuck Audubon 

Society, Mt. Shasta A~~:a Audubon Society, Friends o! lhe River, Coast Action G1011p, Marble 

Mountain Audubon, Klamath Forest Alliance, Friends of the Garcia River, Mendocino Environmental 

Center, and Friends of 1hc Navum Watel'5hcd hereby petition for listing as threatened or endangered, 

for dcllgnaJ.ion of critical habitat, and !or a status review of cohO ~almon throuahout il!i range under 
196 

SUMMARY AND IDGHLJGHTS: ENDANGERED SPECIE.<; PETITION FOR COHO SALMON 

rACIDC RIVERS COUNCIL 

SUMMARY: A number of factcm, most nolably the dcsuuctlon of habiW and mtsmanaaement of 

fisheries. has pul the coho (silver) salmon at risk of cxllncllon lhrou&floutlt.s range In the lower 48 states. 

This is J10l just an ecological lrlgedy ·- in addition it ~'lellt.• billions of dollars of lost nwcnue to the 

people of the Pacific Nonhwcst, and creates significant &OCial and cultural losses. As such, the steps 

required for the recovery of the region's once abundant and famous coho salmon runs do not Involve 

Issues of '1obs vs. the environment, • but rather some shon-tenn sacrifices for lona-tcnn economic gain. 

Some localized economic impactS may occur In Older to recover the coho, but much more has already 

been lost economically and much more is at stake unless recovery actions are rapidly put Into place. Since 

past effons to proiCCt or recover coho have failed, and since current ~egulatlon and conservation cffons 

remain inadequate, the liSt viable option to stop the hcmonflagina, 110 thlll. a proccsa 10 recover the coho 

salmon and their ecosystems can bc&ln, Is 10 secure pro~eel.lon under the Endangered Species Act. 

NehL.en et al., in the seminal article enlltled Pacific Salmon at the Cromoncls (1991), identified 35 stocks of coho 

salmon at risk of ncar-lcnn extinction In WIShington, Oregon, llld CalifomiL The authors ldcnllficd habitat Joss 

and adverse interactions with hatchery production as imponant contrlbutol"ll to 1hc~~e declines. An addlllonallS 

stoCks of coho from California, HUUthern Oregon, and the Columbia Basin were documented to be already extinct. 

Prisscll (1993) mapped coho aalmon and estimated that the species is extinct In the eastern half of Ita nnae. and 

Imperiled throughOut the southern two-third.• of Us range in the lower 48 staleS. By other similar estimates coho 

salmon populations arc extinct in about SS.S% of their htsiOric range in the lower 48 stales, endangered In about 

13% of 1hcir range, threatened In aboot 20%, and of special concem in S% of their historic nmJC. Coho 

populations J10l known 10 be cxlinct. dccllnlng, depre.•sed, ur facina Imminent thrclll. oomprillll just~ of lhl• 

historic range, all located in northwest Washington. 

As recently as the 1970s. coho aalmon suppuned a direct Income stream to commercial fishermen of S60 to $70 

mllllon doll.aB a year. This Is the ll!!!<!a value, with no multlpllm, indtn:c:t or tndu~ etrccts. The indirect 

economic tmponancc of the coho aalmon commercial fishery on the coastal economy was even larp:r, tn all 1hc 

gear, boats, supplies, fllcl. houslna. and all the other infrastructure required In the salmon fishery. As with other 

aalmon species, .diC value tn the recreatiOIIIII fishery adds a signtficanlly larger 1111ount. The n:creattonal angler 

Is willing to spend a great deal more per fish than the commercial angler, and In that SCII8C, each ooho salmon 

caujlhl rccn:al.lonally ccntrlbutes more to the regional economy than the commercial fiSh. The recreationalftsbcry 

and associated tourism industry is highly. signifiCant. 

Ills only reasonable 10 conclude-- very con..ervatively --that effons to return the coho fishery to even 1970 levels 

In Nurthern Callfomla. Orcaon and Washinaton would produce a direct Income strcun to the rcaion averaging 

weD In excess of SUlO mlllion a year. 

The economic loss 10 many parLS of the coast has been substantial. In poor years the Income atream 10 the troll 

fishery has been reduced to less than $200,000 for Callfomta or O~egon. and, under current condiLI0111, the 

commen:lal catch over wide IQChes Is zero. The net economic impiiCI of the demise of coho salmon has been 

substantial and pcrslatCIII - roughly $1 hllllun a decade:. As the loss of the ooho Is primarily attributed 1o habiW 

destnlc1ion, the rcJion has csscnLially been favoring one kind uf ec~momlc ~elivlty •• cxtl'll:dve industries -- over 

aoolher involving the fishery. As such. the issue is not "jobs vs. the envlmrment,• but jobs vs. jobs, or, uld 

Pa&c 1 

Coho Petition: SlllniUrf 
197 

differently, short-term pn>flts versus the Jong-tcnn sustainable economic benefits that Ule coho fishery could 

provide. 

LOSS OF HABITAT 

'Jbc long-tcnn decline of coho •almon populalions l• highly correlated wilh deterioration of freshwater habitat 

caused by human dl&tulbanccs. Coho arc e5JX'Cially vulnenble 10 Joss or dcgradlllion of spawning, summer 

n:arina, and winter rearing habitaL•. Loss of woody debris and habiw complexity In e&tuarics may reduce survival 

of ouJmigrating smolls and winter migranlll. Coho habital is lost when large woody debris and the stable, complex 

c:IJannela and wetlands associated wllh floodplain fon:sts IIJ'C damaged or destroyed by logging, gr17jna. 

channcli7.atlon, cropland agricultun:, or umani1.ation. .flow dlvcJSion for irrigation and hydropower generation pose 

serlou.~ problems for coho salmon in many area•. Scdimcntatlon, debris flows, and Increases In stream temperature 

often result from disturbance of headwater areas by logging roads and Umber harvest, and these bnpactS alone may 

be sufficicntiO damage or dcSIJ'Oy coho populallons even when: riparian buffer •.ones are left along !Ish-bearing 

streams. Habitat loss and the simplification of river ecosystems appears to be the most fundamcnlal and universal 

factor underlying coho depletion.• rcgionwidc. 

HATCHERIES 

In general, there are very few (if any) examples of hatchery programs that led to successful re-building or wild 

popullllions of Pacific salmon within their native range. When. successful in terms of producing hatchery fish, 

hatchery hrccding tends 10 reduce, rather than increase, diversity of wild populations. The caplure of !Ish for 

bn:cdlna purposes can be de.~ctive of small or dcclinlns wild populations. Due to small broodstock 

populations, prespawning morlality during capture or tran.<~port. unnatural mating combinations, disease. or artificial 

selection, wild brood stock typically contribute little genctic dlvemty to subsequent generations of hatcllcry fish. 

The taking of larger numbers of wild fish for brood..tock In an attempt to overcome these problems in hatchery 

stocb merely lncrea.es the risks for wild populations. 

Lalgc or repeated introductions of hatchery fish pose additional riSks for wild fish. Introduction of halebery fish 

can advel'liCiy affcct wild fiob throuJih competllion for food and •pace, disease tran.~cr, attracting predators, 

competition for mates, intcrbn:c<Jing, and other processes. Poorly adapted charactcrislics may persist In the 

population, particularly where wild population densities arc low or habitat has been altered. 

ADVERSE OCEAN CONDITIONS 

Ocean conditions have generally been deteriorating for coho in the lower 48 states during the past two decades, 

and there is little indication this slwation will reverse. Most varilllion in ocean mortality apparenlly occurs during 

lhe first few weeks of life so that ncar-shore conditions during late spring and early summer along the coasts of 

Washington, Oregon. and California dramatically affect lhc ~umber of young coho of that year that survive the 

first few week. Coho along the Oregon and California coa.~ts may be especially sensitive to lhc upwcllina of cold 

nutrient rich currents from the deep ocean, because lhcsc regions lack extensive bays. straits, and estuaries 10 

buffer oceanogrdphic effects. 

OVERFISHJNG 

Pqe2 

Coho Petition: SulllllUiry 
198 

Ovcrflshlnals ol\cn clled as a principle lilttor Clllslng decline of n1mon runs. Ho-. lhcrc a.re few historical 

or recent n:cords to indicate 1hat cunallment of fishing has lead 10 lncre8stxl spawning abundlncc of coho sabnon. 

For ewnple, curtaDmont of fishina seasons has been thought to have reduced harvcst·relaled mortality 1111es on Oregon coastal coho substantillly during !he past decade. However, there has been Dll. evidence ot ~ascd 

spawner escapement durina this period. suaacsling lhat fishing curWlmcnt iii at best merely wpina pace wllh 

npld habitat deterioration and declining productivity of coho population&. In odlcr words. environmental. change 

i8 driving sustainable hiiVest rates downward u fast as. or pcdlap.<l faster. than calch has been reduced. 

Cumlllt method.• of forecasting and in-season adjustment of fishlng arc Insufficient to CIISIIn: sustainable harvest 

ratea and wild fish escapement. Orcalct factors of safety for escapement targets and Improved indiclll0r8 of 

freahwoter and marine survival will be nc<:cssary. 

THE NEED FOR ESA PROTECTION 

The only sustained regulatory auempt to protoct coho salmon has been increasing J'lllitriction of the fishery. This 

approach has failed. lndeOO, thc historical record shows a dismal paucm or fal1un: .. and lhe •itualion Is no hclter 

today. Wild coho salmon arc poorty protcct.cd by cxi!itlng regulatory mecllanl•ms because ooho: 

I) arc managed in a complex and most oncn conflicting and indfcctlvc n:aulatocy landscape of lucal, state 

and federal laws that govern lhis fish's freshwater and marine habitats separately; 

2) represent an economic resource to lhc conuncmial ftshina Industry, native American tribes and 

Lhe recreation Industry and manaaement is frequently driven hy alt.cmpiS to maximi•.c shon-term 

e<:onomic return, and; 

3) an: not as visible or widely monitored or studied as terrestrial species or marine mammals and, as a 

result, do not receive the attention required to gain proteclion under a varicty of federal and state water 

and environmental quality laws. 

Pul'lllcrmore, hatchery produClion of coho salmon exaa:rbatcs each of lhcsc problems by: 

~ 

I) temporarily masking lhc decline in wild coho and thc degradation of their freshwater habitats; 

2) Increasing competition for potentially limited freshwater and ocean resources, and; 

3) contributing to lhe genetic dilution and loss of naturally occurring, wild coho. 

A few attempts have been made ID moblii<e efforts for recovery, again with lillie clfecL Tbc Norlhwest Power 

Plannin& Council was created In 1980, in part to rocuvcr all salmonlds wilhln Lhe Columbia basin. However, as 

Lhe recen1 lislinas of sockeye salmon and olhers indicates, to dllle lhis aacmpt IW failed. Oregon Governor 

Barbara Roberll< held a coastal lll1lllJIIit In December 1992 lhat eventually led to· some general conceptual 

agrccmeniS and movement 111wards some funding in lhc state legislature, but as of yet nothln& has aclually hit the 

ground in terms of specific recovery actions. 

President Olnton has proposed a s1ra1egy thai could provide protecUon and possibly restoration for coho habitat 

on federal lands. However, the future of Lhe so-called "Opllon 9" proposal remains uncctiSin. and, if implcmenled, 

it would not address private land river ecosy~tcms or coho habllaL It could provide the basic federal land habitat 

p~on and restoration strategy required for coho, however. 

J>a&c3 

Coho Petition: Summu:r 
• 

October 22, 1993 

The Honorable Dan Hamburg 

U.S. House of Representatives 

114 Cannon Houae Olflce Building 

Washington, D.C. 20.SIS 

Dear Representative Hamburg: 

199 

ns--sm.t 

s.. - -C19Cl05 415 111-02UJ 

fu4JH95-5996 

I am writing on behalf of the 170,000 members of the Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC) to CXJIICSS our strong support for the Headwater• Forest Act of 

1993, H.R. 2866. We appreciate your leadership in this important legislative effort. 

The Headwaters Forest and its asiiOCiatcd old growth redwood ecosystem is an unlque 

natural resource worthy of public acquisition. Only by the adequate protection and 

proper management provided by H.R. 2866 can we be certain that this ecosystem will 

persist over time and that future gencntions of Americans will be able to visit and 

enjoy this priceless treasure. In addition, we support the addition of the Headwaters 

Forest into the National Wilderness Preservation System as Section Four of your bill 

provides. 

Thank you again for your commitment to sound stewardship and environmental 

protection demonstralcd by the introduction of this important piece of legislation. The 

NRDC looks forward to working with you to secure passage of H.R. 2866 in this 

Congress. 

Very truly yours, 

~~ Senior Project Scientist 

40 Wm20tlo Slrwl 

Ntw YC'rt. New Yori-10011 

lll 727·2100 

f .n ].Jl 727-1'173 

J.t-,o Nrw YDri Aw .. N.W w.,,ninKhnt. oc 20005 

20Z 7,'fJ~7~0tJ 

fiu: 202 7Ht . ot. m., 

M 7 s..th Oliw Simi u~ AnJl'la, CA 90014 

21.1 H92-1500 

fwr 213 61.9-5189 

2J2 Mmluml 51., Sttitr UJJ 

Hrnttdt~lll, H,.,;'i.~H 

80H !33-1075 

FaxllOlJ52J-61UJ 
ENVIRONMENTAL 

DEFENSE FUND 

October 26, 1993 

The Honorable Dan Hamburg 

United States House of :Representatives 

114 Cannon House Office Building 

Washingto~ D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Hamburg: 

200 

CapilaJOf/l<o 

1875 Coanectic:ut Ave, N.W. 

W..Oillgron, DC 20009 (202) 387-3500 

Foz: 202-234-6049 

The Environmental Defense Fund, on bebalf of its more than 200,000 

members, is pleased to support H.R 2866, the Headwaters Forest Act. The 

bill represents a: responSible effort to secure protection for natiOnally 

important natural resources, including endangered species, salmon. and other 

old growth forest resources. Without the public acquiSitiOn of the lands that 

are the subject of this bill,· it is likely tbat these declining and ecologically 

important resources will be lost. 

Michael J. Bean 

Chairman, Wildlife Program 

N~H~------------------------------------- 'lj7PartAvenucSoult. · ~Collccc"A\"C. 1405AnpdoeA.v.. 1.28!:.asi:Har~tSL 

Now Y .... NV 10010 Oaldoad, CA 9<618 -· CO 80l02 lblc~ NC 27601 (212) .50S-l100 (511~ 65$.8001 (303) 440-4901 (919) ij2J.7'79l 

1000.~ ....... ._. 

1800~ 

A.-,TX78701 

(511)'78-5161 
201 

PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION 

Hononble Dan HambiiJI 

u.s. HoUIC of Represenlallves 

114 CHOB 

\\luhinitlm, DC 20S1S~Ol 

Dear Conpessman HambiiJI: 

4~ S.rt 82NO DRIVI:!, SUJT~ 100, GLADSTONn. ORr:CoON 97021-2522 

PHONE (503) 6.'1()-S<Ofl PAX (jQJ) 650·5426 

Oclober 21, 1993 

I am writin& on behalf of the Pacillc Statca Marine Fisheriea Commission in support of H.R. 

2866. 

'lbc Commission is a QOfllpact alllw western ll8les (v.llshln&ton, Oregon, California, Alaska 

and Idaho) established by Congress in 1947 to COOidlnale lntcrjurisdictional fisheries. 

'lbc anadromous rcaources at th~: Paciftc ocean am a aational llerita&~: threatened by the 

continued lou and de&radation of their spawnin& PJU1111s - the forea1M walenhcda. 

We fully mcognize the signlllcant value of ancient fon:sUin contnbutin& to the production of 

salmon and stcelhead. \1\b, ~ applaud H.It. 2866 u the \'Chicle to p,rolcet and m~~~~~:c 

nxlwood forests of Humboldt County. Without IUl. 2866 we will surely see further declines 

In coho Slllmon, with c:orresponcllnc nepliw impacls on l!pDrt, tribal and QOfllmetelal fisheries 

(and the coastal QOfllmunides who depend on ftshery-relaled lndllllries and Jifestylea) . 

... ___ Jir 

'"To pnmt>l<: the conscrw~ioo, ...._._, and managcmcno ol Pooillc cour 

flftry rctiOUr'Ca throusb COOC'dintJtd rctional ~. mcmitmins and Utiliution'' 
202 

PALCO 

T811 P40IFI 0 t. v MBBB COM P4NY OCOTIA . ....... OON IA •••••• <7071 , ... ... . 

The Honorable John T. Doolittle 

United States House of Representatives 

1524 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20515 

RE: HR 2866 

Dear Congressman Doolittle: 

October 26, 1993 

First, let me express my great appreciation for your &upport during the committee 

hearings on October 12th and 13th. Your vision of the constitution and private 

property rights is so correct, and on behalf of all of the men and women of The Pacific 

Lumber Company, we want to thank you for speaking out on our behalf. 

With reference to your recent letter asking for a response to severel questions, I am 

pleased to submit the following: 

a-- When did The Pacific Lumber Company's total timber harvest begin to increase 

significently and how did this coincide with the takeover by MAXXAM7 

A -- Overall harvest levels were increased in 1986, after an intensive independent 

survey by Hammon. Jeni5en, Wallen & AS&ociates (the same consulting firm which 

earlier had surveyed the Redwood National Park) showed that The Pacific Lumber 

Company's above-1:1verage inventory and growth made it one of the few lumber 

companies in California that could increase its harvesting without adversely impacting 

the company's long-range timber supply or the local economy. The consultants further 

said that by increasing the harvest withCii.lt jeopardizing continuous flow, PL could play 

an important role In bolstering the depressed California North Coast economy. 

a -- How much of this increase was in old growth vs. young growth? 

A-- The increase in harvest volumes from pre-19861evels was principally in young 

growth, residuals, and other species. The initial increase in virgin old growth 

redwoods was approximately 30 percent and is substantially lass today. 
Congressman John Doolittle 

October 26, 1993 

Page 3 

203 

a - There was considerable discussion at our hearing regarding your logging at Owl 

Creek last November. Please describe the reasons why you believe this was a legally 

authorl;zed timber harvest. 

A-- To put it very simply, our harvest activity in our privately owned Owl Creek area 

was done in full compliance with all applicable state and federal statutes and 

regulations -· and under the authority of a Timber Harvest Plan (THP) that was 

unanimously approved by the State of California. Having obtained all of the reQuired 

approvals, we began our selective harvest only to learn that yet another state agency, 

which did not have jurisdiction over the THP, had raised an objection. No additional 

approval was reQuired and so we commenced harvesting consistent with the law in 

the approved THP. 

To put the matter in perspective, one needs to know that the THP for Owl Creek is 

perhaps the most carefully reviewed THP in the history of California. It was first 

submitted in 1990 and has been approved end reapproved by the California Board of 

Forestry. In conjunction with the plan, wildlife biologists and foresters conducted over 

300 hours of surveys and found no evidence of marbled murrelets nesting in or 

occupying the area. Further, one needs to keep in mind that the THP calls for 

selective harvest on only 136 acres while wholly reserving 101 acres for mitigation 

habitat. 

a -- What evidence is there to refute testimony stating that these lands (the 44,000 

acres in H.R. 2866) are needed to ensure the survival of the murrelet in California? 

And what evidence or educated skepticism is there that murre lets can nest in second 

growth stands? 

A -- Testimony on various species was presented by supporters of Congressman 

Hamburg's bill. These are NOT correct and are scientifically flawed. 

I have taken the liberty of enclosing statements which strongly refute those given by 

Congressman Hamburg's witnesses. 
Congreuman John Doolittle 

October 26, 1993 

Page 2 

204 

a- Wh~ factors and methods did The Pacific Lumber Company use to determine that 

higher harvest levels were prudent? 

A- As stated above, the independent consultant's report showed that The Pacific 

Lumbar Company could selectively increase its harvesting without adverse Impact on 

timber supply or the local economy. This outside report coincided with our own 

Internally developed information. Additionally, one must remember thet we 

predominantly harvest by the selective method and do absolutely NO clearcuttlng In 

virgin old growth redwoods. 

a -- It Is my understanding that the MAXXAM high-yield junk bonds used to finance 

The Pacific Lumber Company takeover have been replaced with low Interest bonds. 

When was this debt reamortlzed and will your timber harvest remain relatively 

constant even with these lower financing costs? 

A-- The Pacific Lumber Company's remaining debt was refinanced In March of 1993 

at slgnlflcantly lower interest rates and much longer maturities. The largest portion 

of the debt now carries an investment grade rating. At present, our harvest level is 

running at an annual rate of approximately 220 million board feet per year. Harvest 

levels fluctuate according to market conditions, weather, and environmental 

conditions. At the present level, our harvest rate equals growth. In addition, we have 

acquired additional forestland since 1985-86 and intend to seek additional forest 

acquisitions. 

a - Some have alleged that although The Pacific Lumber Company has increased 

employment to proces& increased timber harvests. many of those workers will lose 

their jobs eventually because the current timber harvest is not sustainable over time. 

Could you elaborate on those allegations. 

A -· With the improvements and innovations in our production facilities -- and the 

expansion of our product lines-- our workforce should remain constant. Even though 

harvest levels fluctuate. our shipments should remain high because we have become 

more efficient at getting more product from each log. and we need the workforce we 

have to manufacture this increased volume and variety of wood products. For 

example, we have a relatively new end-and-edge glue plant to manufacture wood 

products from the kinds of boards that were formerly scrapped. That has generated 

jobs where formerly there were none. Also, as mentioned above, we have acquired 

and will seek to acquire additional forestland. 
Congresaman John Doolittle 

October 26, 1 993 

Page 4 

205 

We are very proud of the stewardship of our forestlands and would be pleased and 

privileged to provide you and a guest with a tour of our facilities. 

JAC:sp 

Enclosures 

Sincerely, 

THE PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY 

. ~ ,_,.-

"-·~¢·~ 

-A. CAMPBELL 

President & Chief Executive Officer 
206 

Watershed Conditions in the Headwaters Forest Act 

(HR 2886) 

Testimony Submitted on HR 2866 

to 

The House Agriculture Subcommittee 

on Special Crops and Natural Resources 

and 

The House Natural Resources Subcommittee 

on National Parks, Forests. and Public Lands 

By 

Thomas M. Herman, Resource Manager 

The P~~eiflc Lumber Company 

October 26, 1993 

I have had the opportunity to review the testimony of Peter B. Moyie in support of HR 

2866 submitted into the record at hearings on the subject legislation. 

While Mr. Moyie has an impressive background In fisheries biology, it Is patently 

obvious from his testimony that he is mostly ignorant as to the history and conditions 

of the watersheds he addresses. 

Mr. Moyie states that, "Elk River is an exceptional stream for coho salmon ... 

because the channel in many areas is In reasonably good condition, protected by 

having old growth redwood forests in the headwaters. • The fact Is that the Elk River 

watershed is one of the most heavily logged drainages on the north coast. During the 

1920's and 1930's, virtually the entire drainage was systematically clearcut and 

burned utilizing railroad logging techniques without any regard for protection of 

fisheries resources or reforestation. Moyie would heve one believe that most of the 

headwaters are pristine first growth forests. The fact is that less than 6% of the 

watershed supports such timber stands. It is ironic that a watershed that was 

intensively harvested utilizing some of the most destructive logging tecnniques before 

concerns for other resources, is "exceptional" with regard to fisheries. The drainage 

now supports healthy and productive 60 to 70 year old young growth redwood stands 

on managed industrial timberland:~. The conditions today are the product of private 

timber management. 

The Salmon Creek watershed Is "less productive . . . presumably es a result of 

cumulative effects of timber harvesting in the drainage, • according to Moyie. Moyie 

believes the meager runs are dependent upon protection of the headweters. Again, 

Selmon Creek was intensively logg9d prtor to adoption of any consideration for 

watercourse protection and less than 10% of the watershed supports old growth 

timber. What Mr. Moyie neglects to mention is that, until recent years, flood gates 
207 

have been maintained on the mouth of Salmon Creek for an extended period of years 

preventing passage of virtually all anadromous fish. If the productivity of Elk River is 

so exceptional following a similer lend management regime, then it would be expected 

that Salmon Creek is similar, but for intentional man-caused blockage. 

With respect to Yager Creek, Mr. Moyie pleads ignorence beceuse The Pacific Lumber 

Company (Pl) denied he and his crews access. PL has no knowledge of any request 

and denial of access, but what is interesting is his ability to comment on Elk River and 

Salmon Creek without any compunctions despite his lack of ever having been there. 

Mr. Moyie eludes to some "cursory surveys" of Yager Creek and that federal 

ownership will likely result in restoration efforts. The fact is that PL works 

cooperatively with California Department of Fish & Game and California Conservation 

Corps in a comprehensive watershed management and fisheries restoration program 

for all of its lands. Yager Creek and its tributaries have been the focus of the program 

efforts to date. The drainage is probably the most intensively surveyed and monitored 

watershed in the state and has had more in-stream and up-slope restoration projects 

completed than probably any other watershed in the state. PL maintains a fish 

hatchery on Yager Creek raising natal stocks Including coho to jumpstart the recovery 

of the fishery as habitat is made accessible and improved. Additionally, the company 

allows no fishing on its lands, that they may serve as a sanctuary for anadromous fish. 

All this is being done voluntarily under private ownership. Mr. Moyie again tries to 

portray the headwaters of Yager Creek and its tributaries as protected with old growth 

forests. The fact is that the majority of the headwaters areas of this drainage are 

natural grasslands use for cattle grazing. Studies commissioned by PL by independent 

consulting hydrologists concluded that the vast majority of sediment entering the 

drainage system originates from the more unstable grassland soils that are not on PL 

land and not included in HR 2866. Additionally, very little of the drainage supports 

old growth, estimated at less than 2%. 

Mr. Mayle's testimony is very disappointing coming from a so-called "scientist.• 

Testimony of this nature is symbolic of the erosion of scientific credibility we are 

experiencing today. Here is a man of impeccable credentials reporting the status of 

streams of which he has little knowledge in his effort to advocate condemnation and 

preservation of productive private lands. This testimony is not science, but pure 

conjecture masquerading as science by the nature of its source. The political leaders 

of this country must recognize this ploy and insist upon facts in their deliberations. 
208 

Marbled Hurrelet5 on Pacific Lumber company Land$ 

ColtllDents on House 13ill. IIR 21i166 

To 

The House Agrlcuitural Subcommittee on Special Creps ~d 

Natural Resourc~5 

And 

The House Natural Resource& Subcommittee on National Parks, Fore~t~ and Public Land£ 

By 

Steven J. Kerns 

cartitied Wildlife Biologist Principal Bioloqistjowner, Wildland Resource Man~gers 

October 2.6, 1993 

C01IIllllLt:.ee Melllber~:;, 

1 am ~ritinq you in regard to House Bill 2266 and the 

proposal tor the United States Government to purchase the so call "Headwaters Forest" for the protection of the marbled 

murrelet and other threatened wildlife ~pccie&. 

Hy way of introduction, I ~ a certified wildlife biologist with the Wildlife Society holding degrees in biology and 

anthropology. Since 1970 I have wor~ed as a field 

biologist, ~irat ror the ca1i~ornia OepRr~ent of Fish ~nd 

Game, then for the USDA Forest Service. Preseptly I am the owner ana princi~al research biologist for the consultant 

and manaqement t~rm of Wildland Resource Manaqers. My firm 

specializes in workin~ with private landowners in the 

agricultural and timber industries to !ind waya to manage the natural resources occurring on their property concurrently with producing a resource commodity. This is 

accomplished throush intensive on-site studies of the 

wildlife species in question and their lite cycles and 

habitat needs, and then working with the land manager to 

develope a management plan which will retaln the habitat qu~lity thrcuqh the management process. Through thi$ 

process I, and menbers of my staff have written ~nagement 

plan~ tor deer, ~ntelopa, upland game, waterfowl, spot~ed 

owls, fisher, marten and marbled murrelets. 
209 

My firm has been und~c ~untract with The Pacific L~er 

Company sine~ 1988 to study the habitat requirements of the 

northern spo.tte<1 owl, the marbled IIIQrrelet, the qoshawk, the 

red tree vole, the !i~har Knd marten, and other forest 

relatwd wildlife. Since 1988 Pacific LUMber has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars studying wildlife and 

developing man~c;l•tment plan,; that inteqrate timber operations with the ratent•on of-wildlife habitats. They haVQ been 

succeots!ul in th.i.lll proc•s:s. An example: 

In 1988 my firm w~~ contracted by Pacific Lumber to study the nortnern spotted owls whlch government scientists 

reported as requirln9 cla qrowth habitats. The scientists furth~r reported that the population was in decline and 

C.i.xeu Lhe bl<:une on loss of' habitat primarily through timber 

cuttinq. These studie5 resulted in the listinq of the ~potted owls as and endangered species anu the subsequent 

TSC report. 

OVer the next several years we located, banded, and tracked 

MpQttvd ow!s through the use of radio telemetry. What we !ound w~~ th~t northern spotted owls are not only in the old 

9:z:·o..,Lh hi:lb.i tats but a!so in the nusnaged forests as welL In f~~t. in northwest California, the highest densities of owls 

have been found in the managed forests types (ie, harv~~L~u). With the information qa!ned throuqh our re;:;;ea.c:ch, we wrote a northern spotted owl management phm 

for the entire ownership of Pacific Lumber. 

This mani:l<,~ement plan outlines the steps to take in order to 

retain spotted owl habitats concurr~ntly with harvesting a corum•rcial timber product (logging). The plan was reviewed 

and approved by both the California Department of Fish and 

Game and the u.s. r'lsh and Wildlife Service. The result is 

thal Va~i!lc Lumber Company can mana9e its land, and spotted owl hnbita~s are retained. 

Curinq this process there were those in and out of . government who said that the only way to retain spotted owl 

habitat ~o~as to preserve the forest as is. There answer was, 

and stlll is, to use the !ndan~ered species Act to acquire lanu !or U1~ ~ce~ervi:ltion of w1!dLife habitat. There are of course si~u•L~on~ where this approach is ap~ropriate, but 

not, I believe as a rule of thumb. The tak~ng o! land out 

of production in the long run .is damaginq not only to the resouree but to society. Far butter to learn to manaqe the n~lur~l ce~ource for the benefit of mankind, both 

maintainin9 wi!dli!e habitats and extracting commercial 

productc. 

Tba question now centers on the marbled mQrrelet. Can 

marbled murrelet habitat be ~a1ntained while a co~ercial 

timber prod~ct is h~rv•~ted? A5 with the owl, there are 
210 

~hose wno say wno•, that tnere is no xnow.n way to accomplish 

this. Vet that is exactly what was said alxlut the owl. In 

1988 the qove~nmental and unive~sity ~esearchers stated that ~e northern spo~ted owl was ole! ;rowth dependent. Neither 

owls or ~rb!ed .urre!ets know it a torest is old ;rowth or not. They only know Whether or not their habitat 

requirement& are present within the forest structure. Por 

the owl, nUllll!lT'OU"S types of m.ana9ed forests cont~t.i.n suitable 

habitat. Said another way, forests have been ~naged to 

produce owl habitat. 

Tor the marbled surrelet, its 1!88 all over a;ain. 

Governmental and university reaearcners are sayin; that 

liourrelets 111\lSt have the ola qrowth, ie. the "Headwat=s Forest.~ Kurrele~s only know that the habitat is pre~ent. 

Since 1988 our fir., inconjunction with foresters and 

biologists with The Pacific Luaber co•pany, bave been 

studying what constit~tes suitable murrelet nesting habitat on Pacific Lumber Company lands. We have spent thousands of 

hours monitoring the tli9ht and nestin~ b&havior of 

zurrelets on the propert¥· This past su~er (liil) we supervised over thirty !•elQ per~onnel who were collecting .i.I!.Cor11ution on mar.b.led mu:rrelet ne•tin9 behavior and habit11t stru~ture. We hnve traveled to other m~rrelet neat ~itea in 

Cali£ornia, oreqon, and Washington to gain information on the forest structural attributes that cons~itute marbled murre let habl tat. · 

Thlts .i.nl.•m,.iva en·ort h.Aa culainated in a d.ratt Habitnt 

Conservation P~an tor the marbled murrelet on Pacitic Lumber 

Company Lands. Under this comprehensive plan, marbled 

murrelet hnbitat is identified and management practices are impl~en~od to retain that habitat through time. 

For this plan to be imp~emented it will, like the QWl plan, nave to oe approved by the Calitornia Department or Fish and 

Game and tho U.S. Fish and Wi~dlite service. Until ~uch 

time ot approval, the bird., and its habitat are protected by 

the Endangered Spe~ies Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and the California rora"t Practic•• Act. 

so the que&tion before you is not one o~ will the b•bitat of 

the marbla murrelet be retained, b~t rather under what ~anaqcment authority. HR ~866 would, as I understand it, 

authorize the federal government to p~rcha&e the •aea~water& 

Foreet• and portlon~ of ~urrounding property, thus placing the land ln govMrnmen~l ownership, at a tremendous cost to 

the taxpayer. The result ~ill be a aands ot:.mana9ement. 

approach or the Corest. The result of that w111 be 1n t1~e 

a ~ajor fire, and a loss of the habitat the tax payer bouqnt. lt will also raeult in th~ loss o! jobs an~ tax 

rev.nue, both of whlch our north state ecgnoay can ill 

errnr.1. 
211 

I have read ~a notes and testimony of qovernmental and universi~y rese~rchers that support this bill. Their 

support 1s to be expected !or two reasons. First, ~ey are not !aced with the economic reality o! having to make a l.i v l n'i C ru.at t.h.. pruduct..ion o! .. na t.yral ra5o1u:·ce as a.re those whose ~ive~ihood is directly tied to the land. The 

qovecn4 .. nL~l and uni~erslty rese~reh~r salary will remain 

the same whether timber is loqqed or not. Therefore it is 

easy to sa.y ~at the proper manaqement is to "preserve" the 

forest as 1s. .ror those whose livelihood is dependent on production, the question is two !old, how to retain marbled ~r.relet habitat and how to proQuce a crop. The timber 

industry in California has learned to do that with the 

northern spotted owls (currently 5 companies have spotted owl manaqement plans in California). Given the opportunity they will do the same !or the ~urreJet. 

The second reason is that saainq the land in -the private 

sector does not serve the intvra&t of the qovernmental or university researchar, !or all to often they are not qiven the opportunity to work there. This is not without just 

cause, for simply put, when it comes to issues such a~ the 

•potted owl and the marbled •urrelet qovernmental r•••~rchec~ h~ve not been very helprul in ansverinq the qqes~ion or how to manage for a species concurrently with 

harvesting a product.- ·All to _often their answer is "locJc it 

up.• 

'l'huw .1 want to encouraqa you to do two thinqs: 

Tirst, reiect this bill a• a ~ostly, icce•pon~ible appru~ch 

to a complex management question that revolves around good 

bioloqy, fura~try, economics and politics. In doing so you will save taxpayers millions c! dollars, leave the 

manaqement to those who do it best (PL has been managing its 

property for over 1~0 years) and help retain jobs and the 

economy ln the north st~t •. 

Second, send a strong mesga9e to 9overnmental researchers to 

work toward the questions of real management; production of a real comao~ity while, in tni~ case, retention of •~!table 

wilalire babi~at. 

Thanx you for the opportunity to comaent. 

Rouna 

~f!tl.~ Mountain, CA Octubt:~r <16 1 199:1 
212 

DftDIDIIY OF VIaQJl W. DCJDUI, Ph.D. 

IIZL&!r:EVI: !rO 'DIE ~ POJIEitT &c!' AJID HS!'DIQrf OP PaTh B. 

MOELK (B.a. 2866) 

Qualifications: I aa a practieiAg f.ishe:d.es ac:ientist with 24 

years of professional azperlance with sal.monici issues in the 

Pacific ~orthwest. ~ have been a senior author on three major 

reports that have . analyzed ancl 4e•cribeci the rea110na for IICllllloDici 

clec:li.Des i~ northern California, Oregon ancl Wuhinqton States. I 

beqAD lilY professional caxear .. an .laai.taut Px"of....,r at the 

Uni-rai.ty of! W.aalU.zagtOD, working with the feedinq behavior a~~cl 

eool09Y of -lmon in Pu9et Sow.A. I have bee a eonsul tant ancl 

~lied ra .. areher ainc:e 1!172. I~~o DOrtMz'D California, I was the 

project manager of the !Cluath Basin fiahar1es llllD&qement ancl 

restoration plan which be- federal law With a 20 year fWidad 

raoovery plan (tor the t7. S. Department of the Interior, 1985) . I was also a consultant to Si.lllpaon Ti.lUMr COIIIplllly, Millar Redwood 

Company, Louisiana Pacific, Sierra Pacific Industries, the 

Cal.ifornia l'oren Protective bsoc:iation, the City of .Redding, 

ancl the Glen Colu.a Irri~JatioA District iD the regicn. All of 

these projects iDvolved salmonid problems evaluatioa aDd most 

involved the davelopaent of solutioDs to these problems. I was also a consultant to the United States Fish &Dd Wildlife Service on the identific:a~ion and mapping of all major wetlancls in 

Nortb.e;n California. 

This teati=ony comment$ and azpaads on the tost~uy of Profea•or 

Peter B. MOyle dated 7 October, li93. 

~· ea•ence ot Professor Moyle's testimony can be boiled down to 

four main poi.nta: 1. ~elativaly qood remaining sa~nid habitat is on forest 

lands. The rest is relatively ~dad. 

2. Relatively very goo4 aalmoDid h&b~tat oc:c:urs in ol¢ 

,.rowt:h forest. 

3 • DraUiages where heavy logging occurred in the past are relatively leas good than undisturbed forest stra~ 

habitat. 

4. Loqqinq and roadi~q in headwater areas will create ezcess sediment. This will impact all downstream 

habitats. 

Co111111enta follow on the above points: 

la. Forest stream habitat today is in the bast relative 

coDditi.on. Downst.ream habitat ~been badly da.&IJ8d• 

This is true. IJI'o C::OIIIP~able best 111a11aqement. practices 

exist to protect a,.ric:ultural or ·urban sueam areu a" 

in forested areu. This ia ·the reason preservation 

gTCUpa are strongly pushing to "save• what is le~t. 

However, the potential for restoration ana benatit is 

Page 1 
l:b. 

2. 

3. 

213 

much greater below the forest. This will be expanded 

upon below. 

PrimAry chinook and coho salmon habitat historically was below the prtsent ciay :forest. Chinook sallnon 

habitat was and is in tb floodplain, most of which is 

below the :forest. Primary coho salmon habitat was and 

is j~st below and somewhat into .the forest (below the 3 

percent land.cape gradient) • IlllpOrtant SUIIIIIIer and . critical overwintering coho ealmon habitat is in the 

floodplain, mostly below the forest, in l~ deep 

pool.s and in off chanl)el arau that flood in winter. 

These critical winter areas are also illlportant for 

ateel.heaci and sea-~ cutthroat trout for rafu~es from 

winter storm runoff conditions. Local flood control 

projects, agricultural land reclamation, and urban 

growth have very much impacted these important su=mer rearing and critical winter refuge habitats. 

Downstream human activity bas contributed much more sediment on a unit acreage basis and has seriously aggravated flood runoff conditiona than bas forest 

activities. Water diversions have seriously reduced summer flows. 

Salmonid habitat in old growth area streams generally is in relatively very good condition. The quality of 

specific streams varies wi~h natural conditions and 

events. This is the standard by which we evaluate 

other forest stream habitats. However, old growth area headwater streams have a limited productivity potential 

tor s&llllonicls. Stream area is low, stream gradients are bi9h, deep large poole are scarce, summer flows ore often low, and biological food chain production is 

relatively low. Headwater •treams are priznarily habitat for resident cutthroat trout and to a lesser 

degree steelhead t=ut. SOllie coho salll!o:a do use headwater stream areas but this really is secondary habitat with· limited potential for them. 

Heavy logging practices in the past did damage fish 

habitat. Fishery and land management agencies re~uired 

the removal of large woody debris from and along 

streams in the late 1960s, 1970s anci even into the 

early 1980s. Equipment operated in and adjacent to 

streams and streamside trees were harvested. Road 

construction and maintenance standards were not 

prescribed or were not generally routinely engineered. Present practices reflect the lesspns of the. past and 

the knowledge we have gained with time and experience. 

Present stream and soil protection ~asuras are designed to protect and even restore strea= habitats. 

One needs to carefully separate past practices and 

Page 2 

78-078 - 94 - 8 
214 

their impacts from present practices which continue to 

evolve. 

4. Headwater logging an~ roading will not necessarily 

create excess sediment in streams. Natural events cause slope failures &Qd such failures are important in 

the ecology of salmonid habitat development and use, 

They replenish stream gravels and nutrients and we would have s•rioua productivity problems without them. 

I a= not advocating slope failures, but I am pointing 

out that they are part of the natural process. !!:'he 

iaportant point is not to i.Acreaae the frequency of 

slope failures through h\IIIWLD. activity. soil losses are not in the beet interest of landowners who need these 

soils to maintain forest productivity. soil 

conservation for forestry and for fisheries ere compatible goals. 

Some direct and ~scellanaous points by Professor Moyle should 

also be addressed: 

Page 2, 2nd paragraph. RThe decline of coho salmon is 

pilrt1er.zlarly .severe in CaliforlJ.i.a, the soutbernmo•t part of their 

rilllge. • •• even the hatchery coho are in decline and the m:uung 

ot hatchery and wild stocks in some streams has probably eolJ.eributed eo the decline of wild atocks.w 

Professor Moyle has neglected estuaries and particularly the 

illlportance of ocean factors in his co11111ents. Estuary losses and 

degradations are severe in Oregon as revealed in our recent 

studies. From my work on the OSFWS wetland status mapping project in northern California, one could imply serious estuary loases in northern California and related serious wetland losses 

nearby. Eatuaries and marshes are critical components of chinook 

salmon and sea-= cutthroat trout habitat, and are important 

components for coho salmon and steelhead t~out habitat. These 

fish grow rapidly in these habitats if they are not limited in 

their acreage and quality, and they use the estuary habitat to 

transition to salt water. If foo4 becomes limited in the 

estuary, the salmcnids IUust enter the ocean prQI!Iaturely. The 

larger the smol t upon ocean entry, the higher its survival 

probability will be. In coastal Oregon and Washington, 90 

percent of estuary lo•ses were from land reclamation for 

agriculture and 10 percent were from dredge and fill activities 

to create municipal and industrial areas. These percentage losses are probably similar for northern California . 

In 1976, there was a major current change that has seriously affected coastal eoho and northern California and southern oregon chinook sallllon growth and survival. 

California and oregon coho salmon populations are depressed. 

Page 3 
215 

Chinook salmon populations from the Roque River in southern 

oregon are depressed, while populations north of the Roque River 

escapt for the Snake River and possibly the micl-ColUlllbia SUI!UIIer ' 

(fall type) chinook run, are satisfactory and in fact are ezploitable. Population status (except Columbia-Snake 

populations) corresponds primarily to migration behavior and ocean conditions. California and Oregon coastal coho and 

sc:outhern chinoc:ok stocks are "stay-at-home" fish in the nearshore ocean. In contrast, all chinook salmon stocks north of the Roque 

River are north migrating to Alaska area marine waters. 

oeean coho salmon catches in Oregon steadily decreased to 1960 axce~t for a temporary rise after world War II, then increased sigu~ficantly through 1976 to a record hiqh, and then decreased 

to the present. The increase from 1960 to 1976 reflected growing successful hatchery production plus good ocean conditions 

nearshore from Washington south to northern California. This is 

the ocean range of Oregon and northern California coho salmon. Ha~chery production has not declined since 1976 and hatchery 

production methods, disease control procedures, etc. have ~roved if anything. 

The coho salmon catch decline since 1976 reflects changes in the Cali~o~i•/Alaska Currents which split from the eastward flowing 

Noreh pacific Drift as it approach•• North America. In recent 

history through 1975, the.main current flow split was south as the California Current. During that period, the Alaska Current was relatively weaker. The strong california current brought 

cool, nutrient rich waters along Washington, oreqon and 

California. Related weather patterns were beneficial to local 

co&8tal salmon populations. Good precipitation occurred inland 

and strong winds out of the northwest resulted in relatively 

strong effective upwelling. ~hese upwelling events enhanced the 

cool surface temperature of the water ~ass and made nutrients even more available in surface waters for phytoplankton. 

Biological production was good and local salmon survival and 

growth were good during this period (through 1975) . 

Biological production and salmon survival in Alaskan waters were less good through 1975. since 1976, the Alaska Current flow has 

predominated and the California Currant has been weaker. 

Biological and salmon production (growth and survival) in Alaska 

waters has been excellent since 1976. 

In ~he weaker California Current since 1976, tamperature has been warmer (less optimal for salmoniQs) and the water mass has had 

less nutrient. Biological production has definitely been 

nutrient limited in the weaker California current since 1976. 

Related weather patterns have been relatively detrimental to 

local salmonid fish. Precipitation inland has been lower with 

several record drought years. Coastal upwelling events have been 

less frequent and, because of lowered nutrient concentration and 

Page 4 
216 

warmer water mass to start with, the upwellings have been less 

effective. The end result has been significantly lowared aalmon 

productivity since 1976. Other related fish community changes 

)lave occurred. Herrihq and anchovy standing stock is wticeably down and, by contrast, the IIIOI:'e llC:rmal.ly warm water associated 

mackerel ~redator has ~ot been uncomaon. 

Ocean survival tor oregon coastal coho salmon was about s percent during the dominant California C\lrrSJI.t flow years (pre 1976) and 

individual adult fish were larqe. This situation was similar for 

California coho salmon. Sinca then, ocean survival has been 2 to 

3 iercent and fresh w•ter survival may have been less because of 

de etarious weather related effects inland. Adnit fish have been 

noticeably small. ocean harvest rates were ~ot significantly adjusted for this definite drop in ocean (and possibly freshwater) survival, 5 to 6 percent, until 1992. 

Hatchery production accounted for about 75 percent of the coho 

salmon in local nearshore watera in the mid 1970s. socioeconomic 

preesures to harvest the relatively abundant hatchery fish 

resulted in a harvest rate of about 70 percent in a mixed stock 

fishery. This harvest rate was actually too low for hatchery stocks and with hindsight far too high for wild atocks. This 

caused a progressive decline in wild stock abundance and 

escapement which bas re~~hed a crisis level. 

The ~zed stock overharvest problem was progressive in its effect on wild coho salmon stocks. .l aiailar ocean product.1vity shift 

and subsequent overharvest im~t occurred to the relati"Bly non- migratory southern chinook salmon atocks. These ocean current 

and overharvest problema were aggravated by growing marine mammal 

predation. Salmon is not a 1114jor prey item for marine mammab, 

but on an annual basis, it is a significant item, perhaps 3 to lS 

percent of the annual diet varying by location. The decline in 

the herrinq and anchovy fisheries may well have caused a prey shift to salmonid prey since 1976. Simple first order dietary estimates of salmon consumption by marine mammals suqqest that it was equal to double the Oreqon commercial salmon catch in 1990. 

An independent data aet 1 Columbia ~ sn~ River fiah counting station counts of marine aomm4l bite and scratch wounds, 

definitely indicate that mari~e ma=mal impact is indeed 

significant and growing. 

The mention of lamprey decline problems by Professor Moyle is 

significant. Lamprey populations are in decline throughout the 

Pacific Northwest- Lamprey are a preferred prey of seals and sea lions and their decline is highly circUMStantial. Lamprey abundance was not an apparent problem in the Klamath Basin in 

1985 based on 1983 data. In fact, we concluded that marine 

mammal ~redation was not serioua in 1985 on salmonids, a concliUil.on that has changed in 1993 bas..:!. on 1990 data. The only 

apparent significant change that could have affected lamprey is 

Page 5 
217 

the growing seal and sea lion ~pulatioua. Forestry best ~anagament practices have si~ficantly i=provad since then. 

Habitat ccnditious in freshvater for la=prey have improved if 

anything since 1983. 

~rofessor Moyle's commauts on the differences in coho salmon 

production of the Ilk River, Salmon Creak, and Yager Creek are not scientifically IU1a:Kpected. It ia not unusual to observe 

basin to basin differences in coho salmon productivity. Basin areas differ, stream =ilea differ, geology differs, and perhaps, 

moat significantly, stream size and gradients differ. As noted 

earlier, pr~ coho aalaon habitat ia below the 3 percent gradient and most import.nt juvenile rearing habitat and critical 

winter habitat are in the flood plains, 111011t of which is below 

tha forest. Headwaters are not pri.JI.ary habitat for coho salmon 

and chinook sallllon habitat is 'lrirtually all balaw the forest. 

X sincerely hope that these comments assist you in your deliberations on this potential bill. 

Respectively submitted, 

/){A)K~ v.w. Xaczynax1, Ph.D. 

Certifie<1 i'1aheries SciGtist, us 

35042 Oliver Keiqhts court 

St. Helens, oregon 97051 

October 26, 1993 

Page 6 
218 

FOR HEADWATERS FOBEST ACf (B.R. 2M6) 

COMMENTS 51JBMITI'ED FOR CONSIDERATION 

llELATIVI TO 

MARBLED MURRELI:T POPULATIONS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

TO 

THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE SllBCOMMri'TEE ON SPECIAL 

CROPS AND NA'I'tlRAL RESOURCES 

AND 

THE BOUSE NATVRAL RESOURCE SlJBCOMMlM'EE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS. ANb PVBLIC LANDS 

BY 

STEVEN M. SPEICH. RESEARCH ECOLOGIST 

DAMES II MOORE, INC. 

CAMBRIC CORPORA'l"E CENTER 

1790 E. RIVER ROAD, SUITE E-300 

TUCSON, ARIZONA 15711 

TELEPHON£: (602) 52t-l141 

FAX: (601) 529-244' 

26 OCTOBER 1!193 
219 

BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE 

I am a research ecoloiJst who has studied and published on marine bird populatious al011g the 

Pacific; Ocean Coast of North America far the past 2S yeus. During this period, I have been 

fanunate to have the opporomity to work dlJeedy with Mu'blc:d Mwrelet populllioDs. Ill 

addition. I have been as!IOCiated with !he Mlrbled Murrelet Tec:Jmiw Coawiu.e of the Pacific 

Subitd Group since the formation of !hat couuaittee. I have been aaively involved with the 

OJI!Sei'Vation issues smmunding the Marbled Mum:lct aDd bave inra"~K:ted with Marbled Mumlct 

raearchers. For rhe pasr: few yean. I ba"VC worked u a CO!!$Ultant 10 !he wood ptod.octs i.Ddumy 

in the Pacific; N<mhwest. and Soutbwc:S! as well. adviaing them of environmental c:aac:ems. trying 

10 develop sollllions to resouree lltimalion-envitotunental concerns r;ouflic!s. 

Plcme see my attac:hcd Curriculum Vime and Publlc:alions list !or further dllraila of ~uncl 

llld expcrien=. 

OVERVIEW 

The RSC!ution of confllc:l!, peteeivcd or real, u r1:lates to the Marblr..d Munelct, has been and 

continues to be p4!'tic:ulad)' challenging ami inle~esting. This is the role !bat I continue 10 pursue 

as a consullllllt to The Pacific Lumber Company. This role is now focused on tbe devlllopment 

and writing of a Marbled Mumlet Habitat Conservation PWI (HCP) for The Paci& Lumber 

Company. The primary goal of the Marbkd Mum:let HCP is to dcvc.lop and implement faresay 

techniques that. when implemented, rcrain Marbled Mum:lct nesting habitat n.quin:mcnts within 

treated forest areas and thqs the mention of assoc:ialcd oesling Marbled Mlmdcts. The Mattlled 

Mmtclct HCP ill a process lhl1 utilizes Adaptive Manapment r;:onc:opu and pnx:esses 10 lcam 

bow to manage commercially viable knsls while mainraining Mmlc:d ~let pop~ 

Ultiinately, this process will lead to silvicnlture rechniqucs for !he c:n:ation of "now" Malb1cd 

Murrelct 11estillg habiw. The Marblo=cl Mtmelct HCP, and the Adaptive Manaccmcnt proeess 

c:ontaina:l within, conslatltly assimilate all new infonnalicn into the process. QJDtinJiollSly 

evolving and refining silvicult~R technique$. Plc:asc note that the Adaptive Matlagaaent procoss 

is ceatral to the Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (dnft; 1992) IIZ!d the tecently 

111lcascd report. Foresr Ecosystem Management: All Ecological. Economic, and Social Assessment 

(1993). Please also nolll that The Pacific Lumber Company has already implcmenred elcmcDts 

of the Adllptive Management process rcla!ive ro n~slinc MJrblcd Mlmelats on the laads of The 

Pacift<: Lumber Company. 

TECHNICAL COMMENTS 

I b&ve :reviewed the writu:u comments of Ms. S. Kim Nclsotl, presented to the subcommittees, 

daled 12 October 1993. and notes of the eommenlS of Dr. C. John llalph, presentc4 10 the Ho010 

Natural Resources Subcommi.tree on Pules and Illsubr Affairs, 12 Cktober 1993, 'I'hcR ue a 

few, but impommt, specific: clCI'Zitlllts of thdr tcatimony that deserve commeDI at this rime, and 

such follow. The testimony of Ms. S. Kirn Nelson is well prepared, documented and thought OIU, 

and r=tuiJcs a similar response, that I will submit ro Con~' in !he ncar future. 

-·1993 l?age 1 
220 

Tbe $!'lllemellt that Marbled MurreleiS have dcQlne4 by !JO 10 9S pcrcenr in Califomia is often 

made. &wever, dcapire !his oftctl-made Sl:llcment, :md belief ID ill lll:eiii"Ky, the sratelnellt u 

cmly a bypolbe&is, and !bert is no direct evideDc:o that the ~ Marbled Mmrelet populazion 

Ill. Callfornia is now sznallc:r or Wsc:r than in the past. 1bc hypothesis assumes tl!al Marbled 

Mundets occupied all former old srowth foresu in the Ql&Stal Qle crf CalJtonri• at dcllsitics 

now seen in Califomia foresm. lD addition. the hypothesis assuma that nembore mariDe areu 

along the coast of Califomia m: uniform and equally able 10 suppan fcnJina MarblliCi Mum:1dS.. 

Both these assumpti011S are iliSUpponable. Please nore that thete an: a C.w loc:ali01111 widlin tbe 

r~nze a( !be Mllrb1cd. M~let in California wh= binis are now ablcm from in1alld arcu 

formerly "occupied" and marine "foraiin1" areas, but these are limi!M (see the c:OII:Iplebcnsive 

reviews of Clrltlr and F..rickson 1988, 1992). lD short, in !be IICil'dnvest coast azca of n«Um 

California. the uea waere the l&Dd.~ or The Pad.fic: Lumber Company are [Qcateci, there is no 

direct evidence 10 auggest that !be reJiow Marbled Mll!f81et popqlalion now present is smaller 

or lmgu thin the put re&ioaal population. 

lii!Wit peint ow: dl&t throughout tJie listin& JlfOCCJ& in ~ llld It the federal lovd, there 

has been a general lack of lltlention to the capac:!ty. or laclr. tbc:rcot, ot coastal marine warers ro 

llllpport Marbled Mum:let populalioM. UnfortwlllBly, thia lack or aunlioa or tba Importance 

of the marine c:mying capacity 11enerall.Y coalinues. Jndeal, dlete are many reasons to ~ 

l!llriDc envi!onmcniS ro dift'cn:ntially limit Marbled Mwtelct popuiatirm., u cbc c:oual UW'iDe 

arw arc both temparally and Spatially l!ynamic, with some 11:11m produl;dvc than others, ud 

somo mote ~le tblll others. 

The worlc by mean:bers It cbc Redwood Sc:ic- Labonlory in AIQ&a, Calitonlla. a t.tam lad 

by Dr. c. 1oM Ralph. haa Md c:onsidenbJc tllCC:eSS of del8rmiDinc thc bow~~ at ..... disuibulioo 

and abundance of the Mamled M~~mlet in Northern Califcaia COIS1Il \VIleS. In addition, they 

have been actively engagr.d in forest surveys for Marbled Marrelers dlrouibom the rqion, and 

have esr.aJWhed, in broad aDd general rams. the lorest di.ltributim of lhe species in the area. 

inl:llldinllhc idcmi1ieation or IIW when Mublcd .Mmr$11 m ippiRIIdy more abundant. 

However. the cmrent stafl: of Marbled Mun-elet Slii'Vey to;imoloey (RJilph c:t a1. 1993) md 

lr::nowledge of Marbled Mutrelet soc:ia1 behavior at inland fcnst ~RU does DO( allow fill" the: 

~ estiDWioo of lllDDbcrs of Mamied Mutrelets IE pmic:ular torelt areas. Indeed, I do not 

l:lc:1ie"C that it u possible to de=mine the praportioa of the reJioaal Marbled Murrtlet population 

th..r. is usnciated wirh and nestS in fcnJt iRIIIl 011 the lands oC The PKW: Lumhc:r Compu~y. 

Dr. Ralph's esdmare that 20 pm=t or the regional Marblm Mlll'ftl!.t ~ 11e.sts an rho 

lands o! The Plcific l..umbe:r Company is • hyPOthesis. alld aorbiDI -. 

-...... Page 2 -·-111<. 
221 

The Pac:i& Lumber Company is aware lhallh~m are DCSiiD& Mcbled Mmn:leta oa ill Ianda, aad 

!he Cotupany lw fOIIIId an:as where Marbled Mumlcr fliaht and social ac:livity il focused. ud 

has eva~ folllld a few Mllrlilild Murrelet aosts. lbiJ lmowledcc was pined chroup an cxrensivt, 

and expensive, Marbled Marrel.el survey proeram on ita lands, coodU<:ted acconiln& to ~~ 

and often inc::orporuillg COITIIIlCiliS !mm federal and swc agenciu. HowevCI', own with Ibis 

daWJu: a.t band. it is not possibll: to es11b1Ub the overall aumbm of Marbled Mlmelets on tbe 

llllds of the Company nor to estimare what portion of the ~egional popWati011 nau ill Compay 

baa& areas. 

Of the uanost importance, the aoal of the Marbled Mvmlct HCP il ra mainW!l Marbl8d Mumw 

babltu, and usociatcd Marbled Munelet popalalioJJS. on the 1uds within trWIIlel2l arcu. Not 

the ttNl 11ambu of Marbled MurreleiS preJcDt alld nesting 011 the 1an4s of The Paci1W Luzuber 

Ccmpany, nor the ponioa af the tegioul popuWiocllhat ~~~ ue sipifi~L Evl:l)' cffolt 

to DllinUin them with an ac:rlve and rtspo!ISiW. &ilvlculture systemS is imparuzu and lliglli&aat. 

In a<lctition. the implcment.atiOtl af the Adaptive ~t Process like& rimo. and il 1 

pro~Uive precess, the speed of whic:h is derermined by the !W:ceu of !he Adaptive 

Mcapment Ptouss c:y.;:les. 

)'qe3 -·-110<. 
222 

Times-Standard Sunday. Ocr. 24, 1993 

Squawfish infest 

all parts of Eel, 

river study sayS 

By David Anderson 

The Times Standard 

RlO DELL - Salmon-eating 

squawfish now infest all parts of 

the lower Eel River system, stu· 

dent researchers have discovered .. Students from South Fork, For· 

tuna Union and Eureka high 

schools and California Consei:Vation Corps members joined Humboldt State University graduate 

students and professional 

biologists recently to track how far 

the predators have spread since 

their accidental introduction in 

1986. 

"We found over 200,000 

squawf1Sh. including 6,000 sexually 

mature females," said graduate 

student John Clancy, who designed 

the study. "They were in the Van 

0U%en, the South Fork and the 

main stem of the river as far as 

Fort Seward.'' 

Squawfish, a member of the 

mirulow family that can grow as 

large as 14 pounds, are voracious 

predators on all smaller fish, ineluding their own young. Native to 

the Sacramento River system, they were apparently introduced· 

to the Eel by fishermen Wling 

small ones as live bait. 

The Eel River, which was once 

deep, clear and cold, is now muddy, shallow and warm, biologist Patrick Higgins noted. It once 

supported spawning salmon and 

steelbead, but has become more 

suitable habitat for squawfash. 

A few surviving salmon still 

spawn in upper tributaries, but 

young fish must run a gantlet or 

waiting squawflSh to reach the 

sea. Higgins said chinook suffer 

more than coho because they 

return to the ocean earlier in their 

life cycle, when they are smaller. 

He said squawfish predation is 

almost certainly one factor in the 'reduction of the Eel River fall 

chinook run from at least 8,000 ftSh 

in 1987 to only a few hundred in re--

cent years. 

Clancy said about 75 students 

and other volunteers participated 

in the Sept 25 survey. which was 

intended as a .. snapshot'' of the 

squawfish population in the river, 

rather than a complete census. 

The squa~>ftSh were not evenly 

distributed, he said, but tended to 

concentrate in d~p holes. 

Data gathere<:t by the student 

volunteers will be u.sed by scien· 

tists trying to devise squawflsh 

control programs. Possible control 

methodS include gill netting and 

e:-<plosives in deep holes. 
223 

TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD OF THE HEARING OF OCTOBER 12, 

1993 ON H. R. 2866-HEADWATERS FOREST ACT 

SUBCOMMmEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

COMMmEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

My name is John Henry Grobey. I am a professor of economics at Humboldt State 

University where I am now in my '-nty-seventh year of teaching. I arrived in Humboldt in 

time to witness the opening shots in the timber wars as the establishment of Redwood 

National Park was being debated. Since then I have conducted extensive studies of the 

local economy and the role played in it by the forest products industry. 1 was a 1954 

graduate in forestry at the University of Washington with later advanced degrees in both 

forestry and economics. I chaired the department of economics for more than ten years until 

just this last year. I remain an active researcher and teaching professor of economics. 

have testified on numerous occasions on matters relating to the forest products industry in 

Humboldt County, including testimony before Phil Burton's subcommittee in the spring of 

19n related to the then proposed expansion of Redwood National Parle. I relate all these 

things in order to establish my bona Odes to present expert testimony in the present case. 

My statement is submitted in response to a request made by Congressman John Doolittle 

alter witness William Stewart stated that my ligures relating to the role of the forest products 

industry in the Humboldt County economy showad that 70 percent of income is directly 

derived from the industry. His own estimate was about eleven percent. When asked about 

this sizable discrepancy Mr. Stewart claimed that my ligure is based on only wage income 

while his is based on all income coming into the County. I was asked to examine Mr. 

Stewart's testimony and compare his data with my own studies of the Humboldt County 
224 

economy. I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight, and while 1 am at it, to 

render a full account of my views on thiS calamitous piece of proposed legislation. 

Let me quickly dispose of the discrepancy first and then go on to state my views on 

the bill. Mr. Stewart's statement attributing such an absurd claim to me proves the hazard of 

making a qulek-dra'N410t 1\'om the hlp. The llrst thing I did upon receiving the request was 

to try to Identify anything I had ever staled either In writing or orany that might be construed 

In that way. I might have stated orally at some time that 70 percent of manufacturing sector 

employment is accounted for by the forest products industry, (since that figure is embedded 

in the data included in one of the tables in one of my studies) but I have never made such a 

claim for total wage and salary income. I am attaching herewith copies of several of my 

publications or parts of publications that bear on the role of the forest products industry in the 

county's economy, and I ask Congressman Doolittle to submit them for inclusion In the 

record or not as he sees fit, due to their length. 

Documents submitted include copies of the following publications 

1. Grobey, John H. et al. April, 1987. The Impact of Timber hai"IIIISllevels on the 

Economies of Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity Counties, California. Economic 

Research Institute, Humboldt State University Foundation. ERIJSR87-1. 

2. Grobey, John H. et al. December, 1987. The Contribution of the Pulp Industry to 

the Humboldt County Economy. Economic Research Institute, Humboldt State 

University Foundation. ERIJSR87-2. 

3. Grobey, John H. March, 1991. The Destiny of the California Timber Industry in 

the Nineties. A paper presented at the 53rd annual Redwood Region Logging 

Conference, Ukiah, Califomia. 

4. Grobey, John H. June. 1991. The Forest Products Industry and the California 

Economy. Economic Research Institute, Humboldt State University Foundation. 

5. Grobey, John H. 1985. "Politics Versus Bioeconomlcs: Salmon FIShery and 

Forestry Values in Conflict. • in Forestlands· Pub!jc and Private Pacific Institute 

for Public Policy Research, San Frencieco, CaUfomia. 

6. Grobey, John H. Fall, 1993. Excerpts from a study tilled, 'The Humboldt Bay 

Harbor and the Humboldt County Economy: Economic Impacts of Harbor Deepening 

and Port Dewlopment. • This study is nearing completion under contract between the 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Humboldt State University Foundation. 

The last of the above documents constitute an Appendix to this ststement It includes charts 

and tables relating to Hun1loldt County personal Income, employment and unemployment 

and unemployment, wage and salary income by industry sector. and Chapter V of the 

3 
225 

referenced study titled "Ana~ of the Export-Base Sedors of the Humboldt County 

Economy.• This chapter dealS with the forest products industry, the tourist industry, the 

fishing . industry, and the agricunural sector. I offer these materials without comment since 

the data presented speak largely for themselws, except to note that they reveal a regional 

economy that is experiencing considerable distress. 

I note with soma interest that there are now apparenUy two different Paciftc Institutes 

In the San Francisco Bay area. The one In San Francisco noted In ~em 5 above has been In 

existence for many years. The one In Oakland with which Mr. Stewart is alfiliated is 

apparently as new as his new Ph. 0. One wonders if the choice of its name is coincidental 

or designed to confuse people Into accepting its legitimacy. I do have several spaciftc 

comments on Mr. Stewart's testimony. 

First, Mr. Stewart IS correct In stating that the forest producta Industry has declined In 

both relative and absolute terms, but he has presented data which understate its importance 

and present a distorted picture. For example, in 1990, total wage and salary income in the 

county was $1,041,n8,000 of which approximately $142,460 came from the forest producta 

industry when logging, sawmlls, remanufacturing, and estimated pulp mill wages are added. 

This constitutes 13.7 percent of total wage and salary income and 82 percent of 

manufacturing sector total W&S Income of $173,817,000. Note also that While the forest 

products industry had 70 percent of the manufacturing employment, it paid 82 percent of the 

wages, refteding the fact that average wages are higher in the forest products industry than 

in the rest of the manufacturing sector. 

Second, Mr. Stewart apparenUy does not Include pulp rrill wages and employment in 

hiS forest producta ln<lustry totalS. While these latter data are often not reported tn ofllcl81 

statistics in order to prevent disclosure. the data ware readily provided to rna for the study of 

the local pulp mills I conducted several years ago. But the problems with Mr. Stewart's data 

4 
226 

do not stop there. Part or property income accruing in Humboldt County, reported by Mr. 

St-rt In hiS Figure 1'Wo aa "Interest and Dividends" are attributable to the !brest products 

industry. For example, in 1985, rent. dividends and interest directly eemed by the rarest 

products industry amounted to $63,845,000 which constituted more than twenty-five percent 

of the total of $253,006,000 tbr that year. It is also the case that a pert of the remainder is 

indirectly attributable to the industry, aa iS a part of personal income coming from social 

security payments to timber industry retirees. 

I have not had lima to review (indeed I have not sean) Mr. Stewart's Ph. D. 

dissertation from which he has apparently drawn hiS figures on the relationships between 

Umber harvest and employment tbr the county, and I do not theretbre Wish to quibble over 

his figures. However, it would appear that he did not make a couple of adjustments needed 

if they are going to be applied to the problem of estimating the impacts of curtailed timber 

harvest specifically in Hur;'lboldt County. First, head-count employment data from the 

Calitbmia Employment Development Department must be adjusted to "full-time-equivalent 

workers•, and second, the net flows of logs across county boundaries must be acx:ounted tbr 

in the regression model estimating equatlona. These factors could help to account tbr his 

reported differences in labor productiliity between the north coaat and the central Sierra 

region. 

Mr. Stewart is also correct to note that some or the employment and population 

lo8MS predicted by var1oua modelS did not materialiZe. But he misinterprets the very nature 

of the application of wrioua Income and employment multipliers. Th- multipliers are 

denved by applying tne pnndple of cetet1s pa®us (holding other tntnga equal) to tne 

eatimating equatloM by taklng their partlal deriwtl..... In other worda, had it not been tbr 

the lnllux of refugees from 80\lthem and central Calltbmla and In-migratiOn of others driven 

by trenllf&r payments, larger Impacts would ha111 been experienced. I personally ha111 never 

uead employment multipliers as large as 2.5. But beyond that, part of the offlletting inftux of 
227 

people, and trade and service-sector activity has without question been driven by concealed 

segments of the economic base. Mr. Stewart seems to be suggesting that these offsetting 

etrects are themselves the resutt of reduced timber harvest that need to be accounted for in 

the timber -industry~mptoyment estimating equatiOns. sucn a suggestion Is simply 

nonsense, since these streets must be regarded as independent events. The same analysis 

that can be used to predict job losses can also be used to show how much larger and more 

prosperous the community would have been had it not been for the offsets. 

Mr. Stewart is apparently part or tha movement that has worked diligently for the past 

twenty-five years to try and shut down the forest products industry on the north coast. That 

movement has been successful beyond the early expectations of its leadership. It doesn1 

appear that the movement is going to quit as tong as it is winning the political rent-seeking 

battles. But it takas some chutzpah to ftrst cut off the legs of the timber industry and then 

point out how short and crippled it has become. Mr. STewart and his associates seem to be 

saying that since the industry is so small now, nobody should mind if they finish the job or 

killing it oiT. 

/lis Yogi Berra used to say, it Is~ all over again! Once again we are hearing 

the same lies about tourist bonanzas that we were told when Redwood NatiOnal Park was 

ftrst created and again when It was expanded. 'The buyout of the headwaters forest and the 

timberlands surrounding it are going to produce a tourist bonanza that will more than offset 

the loss of timber industry jobs. That claim for the original RNP and its subsequent 

expansion, were never substantiated by subsequent experience. Even Mr. Stewart seems to 

understand that when he states, 'The growth in non-wage income is considerably more 

important than the relatiwly small increase in tourism and recreation dollars that also 

occumad over the same period. • 

6 
228 

Ostensibly, Congressman Hamburg justifies the buyout of more lands than are 

needed In order to preserve the HeadWaters forest on the grounds that placing the addttional 

lands in the national forest is needed in order to prevent Pacinc Lumber Company from 

•overharvesting• timber on these lands. This argument is rnJch more revealing about the 

true environmental agenda of the currant administration than i8 perhaps Intended. If that 

argument can be made for Pacinc Lumber ( and I reject sucn a suggestion) then tt would 

presumably apply with equal force to all private tlmbertand ownership. The environmental 

movement has become a stalking horse for the installation of soviet-Cyla central planning 

under the guise of •Industrial policy. • Similar appeals are of course the dominant theme in 

the emerging debate over the socialization of the medical services industry. Sometimes 1 

tear that the American people are going to have to learn the hard way that n is easy to walk 

into the socialist swamp, but not so easy to nnd the way out again after it becomes obvious 

(which it surely will) that it doesnt work. 

The argument that those lands over and above the 3000 scree of the headwaters 

grove and the 1500 acre butler around n would be managed responsibly by the U. s . Forest 

Service under the mulllple use concept is patently false. Multlple use on the national forests 

has gol)e beyond being a mere joke to become a cruel hoax. The national forest system has 

become little more than a museum of dead and dying timber all the while that the same 

people Who succeeded in locking it up complain about the abaence of loW<ost housing tor 

the riSing homelees population. But the multiple-use promise is not new either. When RNP 

was expanded promilles were made to increase the harvest of tirmer off the Six Rivers 

National FotHt tor a period of llft .. n yurs in order to millgate - ot 11\e job ~e. but 

key congressmen were carefUl not to codifY tnelr oral promlsetl. lnlllead, they merely 

required the FotHt Service to Sil.!DY. the fea.;blllty of doing eo. The ntquired study was 

duly performed, known aa, .,-Imber Harvest Sdledullng Study: Six Rivera National Forest.• It 

was prepared in accordance with Section 1 02.(C) of Public Law 95-250, the act expanding 

the Redwood National Park. But once the study was done the harvest was reduced rather 

7 
229 

than increased, under the successful political pressure applied by the same people Who 

pusned the park expanSIOn, many of whom are back for more in this case. Once again the 

cry is that we must save the last redwoods. How many more times alter this one? 

It has been apparent to me for a long time now that difficult problems of coexistence 

were going to emerge between private-sector ownership of forestlands and the socialist 

planned national forest system. But we have consistently moved in the wrong direction in 

recent years, and ~ seems to get rt! The spectacle of President Clinton going to the 

Portland timber summ~ on one day to deal w~h problems arising essentially ~h a socialist 

institution in the U. S .• and the next day to go to Vancouver to try and advise President 

Yeltsin on how to extract the Russian economy from e socialist quagmire is simply too much 

irony for me to take. Mr Yeltsin is doing the best he can to privatiZe state assets including 

land, over the objections of the hard-line apparatchiks while the U. 5. continues apace to 

add more snd more land to federal ownership. 

The propo:!led taking under this bill is, however, someWhat different from either one of 

the RNP takings. In those cases noone doubted that fair marKet value would be paid for the 

land and severance on mills clo8ed as a result. The Redwood Employee Protection Program 

(REPP) wes the same sort of political bribery to call off labor opposition that the so-called 

option 9 program offers today. But now the claim is being made that the timber has already 

been effectively taken through confiscatory regulations imposed at the slate level and 

therefore eminent domain payments need not provide full market-value compensation. This 

cynical strategy has become the norm in today's environmental movement. 

The "science• behind the drive for more and more stringent regulation of forestlands, 

public and private, is also highly suspect. One need only to consider the self-interest of 

those who get major grants of federal money to study threatened or endangered species to 

realize that there is a fundamental conflict of interetlt involved. Ronald Bailey In his new 

g 
230 

11001c, "Eco-Scam: The F811e Prophet. [Pro .. ?] of Ecological Apocalypee", polnla out the 

blaeed ctlai1ICIM of miCII oi tfle cui'!Wit doomMiay prMChera. The lpObd owl pco'4idw a 

pe11eot ex~~fT1118. AftM the federal eclentlflc OOIM1Itee found that the owl II ·~ 

dependent" mMY t1m1er 001'11Mlnln lind their own wlldtlll ~ or contraoted-out 

COMUitanla to document that the owl thriwe In ~ rcx.ta. They IUCGIIIICied In 10 

pnMIIo only to lind thai thll ....tt not only tiMcloeed the llei'YIIIt of oJd.gOWih llriler but 

prtvat. ltand8 of ~ timber coniH'IIng owl neeta • wall! While aw.n the llbe111l 

ITIIdtS lla-. now ~ Ulet the epottecl owl flap wu 1 farce, llldel'lll r.gulftn lla'4en\ 

budged rrom maintaining the owtaa a thN8tened apeclel. 

I tniHil aay that I IMIW no llluaion8 about rnemtlelll of the comnlttae taking lha tlrna to 

ex~~rrine - a 11n111 hction of the 811pportlng I"'WWafflle I haw pnw1c1e0 With lhle 

ltatament, but that •Y' mon1 about the tendency b' eongr.. to aot With undue llaete 

rather Ulan • the WOI1d .. l':'88lllt dallbelllllw body that It te 811ppoeed to be. 1 urge the 

membel'll of the comrnltH to 0J1P0118 tiW unwtee bill. 

The table below Containa ..,.rioua multipllaiW tor torNI pnxiUcla lnc:tu.tty ~. 

Thela - d!WNII from item 6 on the lilt of aupporting n.ten.te g!Wn allovlt. Type 1 

multpllara indiclllta the dlract and lndl~ lmpacta on the comn.mlty of Cllllnget In the output 

lewte of thl8ll Motore. Type Ill II"AAIIIpllera ICICI In the ~- Induced wllen cnangea In 

houaahold income generated by the direct and lndtr.cl eftlecta are taken Into account. 
231 

The Mrtlot ltudy ltwl I flaw been I1II10IIdng on ,.. noted above lhowa liMit the 

econornc fiMibRy of~ ~to the harbor and .. ancillary~ 1e 

llnlc8d to the m.lnlttn~~nce of a viable rai'oed. Tile rai'oed, now operallad 11y a public raO 

authority, haa bMn jutt baNiy holcllna 1\11 own after lle'ling wi'Vived chapter 11 benknlpley 

PftiOMCIIngllly "going public". The precaltow euMvll of the railnlld h• been In jeopenly 

In the pat t.n )'MR moltly .,_.,. operating - Meded to --the hlgll coat of 

INinlllnlng the grade tllrough the ullltatlla elllpM of the Eel Alwr gcxv- dropped along Willi 

the rMuctloM In the volume of 111m. lhtpped due ID ~ Umber 11arwet 1ew11. l11e 

.......,.. Folwt Act • cun.ntJy drawn might Will be 1M 1traw 11'111 ~ the cenwr. 

Molt on the rallfoed Iince the tra.,.r of 44,000 KCM to the national _,real woutd lg8ln 

rwduce limber harvest perllape by •• much • 40 mlllon boaniiiMt per )'Hr. hence rwduclng 

the \IQiume of night oanied by tile l'lliln;lecl will Ill au.nclant Ia.- of operating niWf\UI. 

luoh Ill event would Oll8t 1M Wtblllly of llaltlor ~ and l'edenll intenlat In IIIII 

ln'C*Idlng piOjeet In doubt. 

Let me tldcl I ncM about wMt I hiW cdld I ptOblem of ~ betWMn the 

ITI8fiiCI8IYIIf of pctvete lbl8lllan<la lnd the ndonll ...... Flrlt the netlonal bwll .,.a.m. 

- CI'MI8d IUppOMCIIy to pNWnt limber t.mne. Ttlla - 40M on lhe .,.. of the 

demanlttlbly rue lliltonc:al enor u.t 111e ptMta -=tor WOUld nd diNCt ICI«!UIIIt 

ln....anent oapllallnto the p!Uductlon of ltandlng tln'Ger. It Ia now ODW>us thellhe ndonal 

bwlll)'llem l'la8 become the liiiM ,...,., tllen the ,_vention of timber lanille In the U. S. 

But the way lllat the netlonal fonllla are menagecs goee beyond tnla problem. Ml~ 

II not ll.lbjleted to the dllclpline of tile lloUOin line It I Is In the p!Mite IIIC:Uir. TI'IUI, 

NWIIUM ftow 11om timber eeiM Into the federal treeeury, end the coD ..aciated wiUI tnl 

netlciMI tloNel PIOQnlm era cleiiWd from the ~ry rather than fl'om timber •lea raven~»a 

r.wn~»a. Tl'llre le no GOfiMCtlon ~and coete. /vi a oon.aquence, the 

etlefl1ll by t'tHwt •rvlce buraaucrets to rnulniZ8 their budgeta Ia Cl01m10111y nlpllte Willi 

gold 1*1*1 ,.,..,._ ln'ION!ng coa 11111-..d bene• and rewnUM. But tMn the gold· 

10 
232 

p11tec1 pqac:t1cM .,. lleld up n modelllllat ought to be etft.lleWd In the r.gul8tlon of private 

~ wllefe IMIII9" oennot ...,_the IMIIIIM of lhe boUom ltne. Thlit '-led to 

oe .. ll!t~ priwlte ~lp of bMtlltnda dogeCher 10 111et allol..ea cu ~ 

1 ~ budvM b!Kk hole. To 1M 1M lhe ahrnlltlw •-~ obVIclu.-

pl'hlatD the Mtlonal foNala n the only way to lntracluoe elllclency and the dllclpllne of the 

~into the llu.llon. 

It cautc1 be argued !Nit the publceUon of eiiCMIII* cut. on tha ll8lloMI 11na1a In 

)'Mia pat emountad to •n ~ c:ona.ct. To Nduoe tho. •llllwl* harwet litllllle 

IUft'IIWIIIy and un.........,. lit tAntamount to • contract 'llolatlon. Aller aa, ~ 1n 

PfOOMelnQ oe~clly and _,... lnVMimenta In 11011.- _,.. mecle In liJOOd 1'111111 on the ~ 

of~ publlitMd ~ The pri¥1118 c:ol8tel'llln U.. ,... have been drallcalrf 

wt1en ~~ ~ r.nege on p!Mioua eo~•rnillmnta. AI of 111ee1 111uee .,. • part or 

wn.t lllave oellld tha ~ pftlbllm. But I em fir tom tha 11r1t pe!WDI1 to 111M tn.. 

dlflloultlll. MembM of the oorrmlltM .,. ulged to uplotw the phlloeoplllelil ..._ ln'IOivecl 

In !hilt matter. They could hanlly do 11e01r In doinG 10 to ....a two or., of Flieclrlctl Hll~k'a 

IIOCIICI; Die BQid Ig Bwfdqm publllhed In England In 1SW4, lnd The Fltll Cgnc;el· Jbt 

Enora or BoAefiMn publlatled by the ~of Chlceuo Pr..ln 1888. 

One final point on the Wllue of the ~ llllyout. Hp~tC~ally the ~ 

Glave of~ ntdWIOOdl: From •n ~~the buygut rnaua lillie only 

If b velue .. ~ -.ds lla Wllue for the ~I p!Oductlon of timber wlllcll market 

~ _,ld pnMIM W . If il doNn,, IMn I ought lei lie left for tlmller p!'OCIUOI!on In 1M 

PfiWIIe MClOf wllefe • w11 be eft!c18n11y malllgld. If 1 ooee, u.n buying It out at the owa!Ue of 

till MMI!n oontlnuoue Umber~ lit 1 Nlgllln. But one cannot haw I both wa~. 

II 
233 

On olollng let ll'lt quote 11om 1 Rudyant Klplng poem, "P11getl, M. P.•: 

The toed benMih the harrow--

Exacly,.,.... Mdl fDolh.polnt pa; 

The ~ llfiDII the ftled 

Prellc:Me contMitmlnt to that lollcl. 

PagMt. M.P.,-a liar, and alklent 

liar lhelwllh,-

12 
234 

>WOOD REGION LOG~ CONFERENCE 

I rooently rnmpleted a 1tudy entitled, The Forrnt Pzgdurta lndu.trv and 

The Ce!!rqmle Erongmy Thla p1per I• extnded In p•rt from a brief epilogue 

to th•t 1tudy, but hen~ I ewrythe III!IUe addreued then! C'Onl!lklorahly furthu. 

The purpot10 of the 1tudy Willi to develop e•timatea of the economic lrnpactA of 

lmpoelrtlf additionAl ngul•tory ret~trictiont on fMeet l•nd man•remcmt that 

would re•ult In reduced lovell of timber h•rve•t In California. Th.i1 efTort 

Involved tha development o( lmprovemenll to an e.tstinglnpu t.output model 

with reepect to ln~r·indu•try llnkap, and Ita adaptation to focu1 .,pec~n. 

ully on C•lifornla'• foreet products emnomy. 

SuR"tCC~ It to uy that the ~rrent •nd Impending DddiUone to limber 

hiU"Vellt n!llrittiOnl will hovo dJIIUSlF'OUI IXIDnomiC: Jmpncll!l on tt'gione or tho 

tlol.o lhat aro hcuwUy oriented toward tho fore•t product• indu•tTJ. Dut ln•t.o"d offc:~~:uelngon tho110 lmpliCt .,,tlm•t.c-•it 18 the purpoao orthl• p11por 

to dl'al ..nth rclatcod mat ten of political coonomy which I believe aro ot leo at 

a• eigntnunt, If not moro .a. 

Tho emnomit Impact eetlmatce developed In tho etudy reprei!ICnt co11t11: 

Rcductfonelnemployment.Jncome, wulthandlaltrevenu~fin•ntingpubllc 

ecctor activit\Ell that would folio,.. frt~m new rettrlcllonl. The bcnent1 would 

be environmental enhancement, eometlme• hx,.,ely defined, from which 

value accruing to the pub II~ wouJd now directly rather than throuch m~rk~tt. 

'"'' In the cue of the ront.e. Developina: et~timotc. of tho magnitude~ or theee 

benefit.! wa11 beyond th• I<Xlpt!l of my •tudy. However, 1ome brief r<!marke 

about thla omlaelon may bo helpful to thoeo who have ottlllion to ueo tho 

emnomlc Impact eetimataJ. 

Enviroruncntal benefit. .re largely penonaland peychologh:alln nature 

and they vary widcly among Pf!Ople of different income level•. Eatim•la!l or 

their magnitudes are. therefon~, at leaet partially arblb'ary and partially 

reOective or tho per10nal preference• ofthoM who prepare them, rather thAn 

,_I !:~~~=~y ;:~::~,:;t.~;:~•DI!In:,:~;::;v!~:::,~=~~:;::;7~ ,,) C'Onecquencee. Thue enonnoue C'Oeta may reault from d001ione taken for tho 

d uke of dubioue environmental valuea. 

:- 'f acc=~~~·:;:~~~:~~e~l~=l:::~ ~~:::!i~~~:·;n;~:c:o~~ , d difficuJt.to-mea.aun! bcneOt• of environmental rt"guletione on thl'l other. 

Morl!'llvcr, environmental l!laut'lare by no rnc11n• unlqw In thl11 rcg11rd. A 

rc:t~poneibi!lty of pollcy-makorel• to mo,ke decillion" even though fncod with 

euch circum•lancee. Jt can o,nlybo hopo:Jthat 10100 weighing ofbcnelit.oJ and 

coeta will be undertaken In roaching policy docielons. 

An additional point nooda to bo ralecd about any beMOt-.coet rr~meworlt 

used In appraieing the dmrablllty of environmental policies. Trade-ofT a 

bctworn emnomlc coat. and anticipated environmental ben~fita that aro 

apparent whrn a new rc:ogulatlon Ia edopted may be quiet dirferent from thoeo 

thnt actually develop in the longer run. In other words, unantidpat@d 

economic and pcrhap• environmental errect. may well oo:ur. 

At leaet •ince Adam Smith publ11hed hla ciiUielcal work on the wealth or 

n11tlone, tho ocntnl focu• of economic: anolyti• hat been on a comparison or 

tho aod.al performanco or various pollde• and their lnleractlon with the 

lnetltutJonalarrangementa within which economic activity tll.lte.•s plaCC~. '1110 

upllcit or implicit c:hangq In the ln•tituUonal arrNl<Cmeuta under l'l'hich 

fornatryle pr~ctlcM I• an Important tradfHlrtin addition to that betwetJn tho 

mcuurablo oc-onomlclmpacta and the much·mofl!--difficult·l.o--men•uro cnvJ. 

ron mental bonefit.J Involved In more restrictive forcet policy. 

More~ reruJation I• almoet ._rtaJnl.1 allentle.d by more bur eoucucy and 

there may bounantldpa~ and undennedcoete and other urrlnt.ondcd and 

undellirablo CC~neoquencet o( •uc:h ehange11. For eumple, moro reatrictlve 

rea:ul11.tionaln California moy only auttood In "exporting~ environmental 

problem• l.o other re(ion. \hat will be tappod u altec-naliva 10utCfll of 

wood IUpply to moet the high lovel• of demand for forn1t product~ In 

California. 

Fore~t policy governlniJ private land managemt'nt hu been 1Ubjed to 

policy faHurct that hove poorly~erved their a toted purpoeM. One example 

l• confiecatory property tax policiee during the 19JO'e, lnlended to nJ•o 

rcvenuca, that In• toad led to eJ.tcn11ivo land abandonment and removal of 

fore11t Iandi from tax rolle. Theeo e•enla era now largely for~ton, 

e11pecially by tho general public, and tax reforme have apparl;!ntly cor· 

rccted errant laX· policy failur01. But thi•loeeon Ia worth reviewing In the 

ddiberntionorenvironmentalr~letfonlc;UrTentlybclngpropoeodbeceu.a 

tl.c•o rngulatlon11 JDey hiYI'I •lmllar rc1ult•. Indeed, abandonment of 

prlvat.e roreat land• to pubUcownerahlp mey wall b. a 01ntral objectivool 

tho political opponent. of logslng. D11vid PCI!Ionen, tho DirC!d.or or tho 

CnllrorniaDcpartmcntofForel'b'JlnGovemorJerryDrown'••dmlnlatra· 

lion mnde thl• point e.lplidt during a 11ympoaium at Humboldt Stale 

Unlvcnity In 1979, Ono can well wonder whether thing11 havo ch•niJO. 

Timber production requlre1lhe maintenance oflnveetmenteln largo, 

O~~:cd cepital IIII!Cla. Traee take 11 long time to roach harvcatable ago. 

Con8C(fucnlly, tax burden. or elevated cotteof environmental rrgul•ttona 

might make privat.o owner11hlp impractical and uneconomical. Elevated 

coet•m~ty bo lolerablu until hllTYeet if•l.anda aro alreadywcll-c.tobllthed. 

But It may bo the ca&o that even moturo tim~r would be abandoned If tho 

combin11tion or outright cutting bana, hlght'r logging COlts, tho C08ta of 

Immediate rt~foreetation required bylaw th1t may well occur naturally 

given a longer period of time, and timber ta.lce, nlault In zoro or negative 

lltiiiCtVIIIueJ. 

An lllu.tration of what might happen In thl• respect hi tho recent 

proJIOIIal by State Senator Barry Keene to placo a bond meatura on tho 

bllllot to purcha11o tho hoad,..atere forCI!It. Whila he declared that the 

purchue price would probi!Wiy be In tho hundredJJ o( million& of doll an, he 

also11tated: 

"Putting a price tag on Hcadwetenle tricky bu1ineu, 

b«au1e the traditional mea1ure of a foreat'• vai~M~la the lumber It un 

produco. If political, public and regulatory forcea combine to prevent PL 

(PDcilit' Lumbtor Compony) rrom lof!'glnJJ lh!11dwelet1, tho forcet hu no 

value Ill lumber," (Eureka 'nmc•Stnndard, February 4, 1991.) 

In other word11, and followed to iliiiOf(ical nmdut~lon, Scno,tor K("(lno Is 

11nying that tho atato may not be! obliged to poy &n.Y.Lhio& for 1118Umlng r~ 

title In the land by the power of eminont domain bcc:au10lt hn Alre11dy ' 

confi&eated th• land through regula tiona without payiq a IX!ntl Jlo gQ(.'I ;: . , . 

=~ ~:::;::.~=~:~~o,:~:~~~!~,~~~;r~~~~:~:a::::=~~ fj .:·.!.':::: 

••t~latlona which In tho short run do not appear to have 1trongly ( J~:;~ ; adveraeefTectem•y In the longrun provetohlveeerlouacon&eqiH!neel fur F 1;:- ·;. :. 

the viability or printe timber production. Short-run 1m pacta on employ- :. -'.1

( , 

ment, iucome, wealth and tax rovtmuce ~oold thert'foreprovo lobe muc:h i_~; ~! :~ : lergl.'r over the long run. l,j.) .<:;:-:. 

Private timberland! that ,.,o rendered valuele .. for wood production [;:#JfPi ! by high·coet regulation• will gradually revert to public ownerehip for I ,.• 

rcaeon~~ of ta1 delinquency. (Tho o,d-valorem 'bare---land·vl'lluo '"'" ia li i~ .:'/ eufficil.'nt to lnduca thie elrl.'(;t.) Thie mean• that tho coti«Uvh.cd, ctn· f~ Wj ~ trally.planncd tce~r or forcat-bued economice will grow, Evidence from :~~ J.f · 

March 1991,. A paper presented. to the 53rd annual 

Redwood Region Lo9ging Confei;~»nce, Ukiah, california. 
EMternEwvpe ad&a..Soviec Uaioa•bou&dconl'inw u th1t 

publlc-fknhlpt.not-.nelfkMnllftadtlldon.IIUTaJ'C81MDt 

(or LIM producUon of maiMI.al rued- and •rvteo~, lndudinl 

wood. Tbe !•torn Ewvpeat~IIUIIIpleabo •houlcl conrince u 

that CMtotnliMd bureaua-alle plarudq 11 not • u~erul meana 

ol prOlQOtirc .nYiroruDantaJ qu.llt7. ,_ OO'III'Itriea.,.. the 

-• hiP'T pol!alall In lhe warld. 1bll NaUon.l Fweat•yat.m S. .. eu111pl. ef'ro-mment 

own•flthlp of' die mlltlnll at prod~:~c:don at timber whleh I• 

damon•lnlbltln.mdut .. ,..ell• l*IJI'hltbiJ vuln•abl.a to 

politlcallnterdlcdon. Tbe eo.t. ol-'.mlnilterinJ tim.b« 1alN 

on theNadonlll ForwU.,. onl.nolaaaplitudlt hiP• than 

lll the- o/Mllar openti._. on pri'+'ate laadA. and H- ti-IJ.ce.i ~-. Tbt bvt~ pocket vl tha rederlol. 

treanry enabl•lhi• to happ.n. n.. clladplln. olthti bottom 

line pr.ventlltrrom. happenlncon private land.. Le,lalati.,.IJ'· 

produo.d c:oalro'+'enJ and bureaucratic paral,..t1 1Urround· 

lnJ the achDinl•tr•tkm or the National For•t •yatem cumH 

toocbe t.o\be p~oltlwcentraJ..pla.MIDfparadlp t.o 

be llfhlJr di.U-'. 

Political tW.t.. 0¥1N' pt'OpQMd polk:!• tend to be reJa. 

tlflllyahcri-llfhted.. Thelm,_.•""olelect.ed.omd•l•l• \Mir 

nut eledloa campaip. a.nd thael.edoute m17 be not abla tG 

•ROd•ta ldverwa ~nc.. •ppearinl much l1ter lrith 

a.rliar polidel adopYd. b the eraJa or •hon.-run political 

•~pedieftda.. The llladertt.e allo aptM&H ~ to b. vulnu· 

Uleto•tkkpolitiealpropqanda.Ona....tlonlTtoarunttha 

numberolttm .. ~thalaMNdwoocl"'h• baoan ~ .. m· to maU 

thapolnt. 

E1thut.e.llfthalhort-run coati olpoJIC)' eh.oc- derived 

frODI.thainput-outputmathodof•tlmatlnlteOnomleimpadl 

IJ'Itobriou.l7 uteCulln 0. polk)' dibatM. F-t l1nd owntn 

whowiU .... rm....,, batlloi.U.oltha-tlolmonr.atrkdve 

anYironmant nsutadon• ll'll \mmntand.abiJ lnteran.ed. In 

re~pondinllo•pedfieraq-\a(orlmpact..ttmatellndel'and· 

lnJ thftr lnte,..t. But a.nalylla that lporM poaaibl.alonpl'· 

tlrm con~equanc:ealndudl"f thoaa IUIIOdated with ch•nlinr 

lnadtution-.JUranpmantatbol&ldbelabal..:ldurlrwithlha 

r.aiU1..aDJda:wiJ"nirc. A b .. (c and unatlw.d pramiM uodarlytna: fornt policy In 

California (a• wan u .t-h~n) ll that tha r,_, prt.-at.. 

muket docaPOt Work. amdan\J7In Corea try and mu•t thv• Core bo r11plaead b7 c:omprahlonal.,. governmon\ plannln•. 

Pollcy·taakOTI oeod tooonaldCII" car.Cull7w hether ,pve~mm1nt 

Intervention predical8d. on thl• buk ••u.mptlm I• correct, 

nantel7: That al~ · market. Ctllw-ea" reldl17 can b. mrreleted b7 •ubatltutint buraaucntk p\ann.l.nr for the deoantnlla.d plaNtlnl baplld.t In lh- muket mechani•rn. 

Tha dtl.um1 of lha 1\at.e have • 1tron1 tnt.areet In the 

preaerTatlon of privata propert.7 rlJhta. Oppo.lnl position• 

taken on lhe do.inbUhy of poll.;. alri!Ctingprlvtt.G property 

rlgbll oi\.Gfol tum on a ~b,-ca10 d&tormln~\ion Ill lb1 

lnddenca ollhcl eoaW and. tha benefic., rather lhan on qu01· 

tion~ of IIICOnomiC atrJdmq (that 1•, whGther the banetitl 

outwf!!gh tha coati) or aulldtutional prindplo• rel1ting to 

uncompenNt.ed, dLII.s:J,a confi~K&tion or priv•ta property. 

Redi•trihullonal mnaequaneea ofm.Ol"(l rutrlcti'+'e pol.! de• ar• 

eJ:ampl• ol ~ladOPI that IUdJ•rd Poaner h11 c.llod "the 

theor7 of Indirect taution. • LetaJ ~tl e.tabU~hed 

denying tha proparty rirht. orttmberlltld ownlll"l ml1ht well 

bG applied to other cl.__ ol property. The effidencJ with 

which the lflarkot oconomr op&fltel!i I• lllrillualy erodod trtha 

IU1pen1ion or private properlJ r1ihtl through roguJ1ti0n i1 

canlod too C•r and roi.fbtw.U becoiDe 1 doubll!-«<ged .word. 

Poliq a.n.lrli• that fOCUMJ on prinl.a p"'perty ri1h11, 

their abuM throa•h cumprahen~l '+'e rtJrUlatlotl, and the im- pllc.tto,.. fur th• .,.,....omlc •Y•C.m of doin•- ought properly 

to be! u.rried out in formulall11f policy chan,e1. The rationale 

for public policy lnterventicmlnto tha oper•tlon of the timber 

lndultl}' and the mnditlon111J)der which lnLel"+'entlon can be 

ell~toopara\eef!idanlJraodlnthapubjklnt.ermt,need 

tobe~ 1beproaped(orawor.enlnfofthelltu•tlon 

uther than an lmprov-ent b a diatinct po~~lbl llty that 

c:annotb.lrnor.J.. 

Tho aet ol.ocill in~titutionl for mak.lng eoonomlcdochrion1, 

(rei I tint to the allocation ofrlllllllrccl) l1 batlcallr uhauatod 

at two, l\lmel7: Either poilU.:. and Ill mntnl plannln1 

11tt1Cb1railm, or UMdecenlf alb.adpriva\e plannlnlmechanl•111 

Inherent In the market. Th.l1 S. not 1o ••Y lhll the market 

l!lllnom.y CIN\o\ be. lOlli I .imbtura o( pol.ltieaJ ~l1tle~n . 

But theral1 a Javel. orreru.Jatlon bl!yond which tha euence or 

market mechanic:• l1 •upplant.ed by lt.lte contra! plannln• 

rather than mu.l7 bel.nr adJ~:~•t.ed or augmantod Cor rur-

\ber•nca a(.,_ ••tra·marltat ,o.J. 

It l•tonwtd- &lleced that thapreferenoa fwoaa orthe 

otberoltb- polu alt.n•tl..,.l• pu.rely "pol.ltbl, and lh1.111 

l•notllqrit!mataaubjiCICoran.Zylii.Howev r,~ntanntl 

1tlll unroldinrtn c.ntrally-planned econom.lea •round tha 

world han prvrided l"idaneaon the perCorm•nce or politlcalCCIOnD~nicp1tnnina:rel•t1.,.1othltof"theroarkotth•tanlud. 

loOPiy oned .. r udobjeedV'at"Ondu.iOP: SodllliiiD doean't 

work. Ol cour~~e, pernmen.t raculation. of the economy In tho 

235 

REDWOOD REGION L0GG1«a CONFEREHC.E - 1 

withOllt pJ.\111"1" lo _,_,. that lnhaft In tha 

nbatltutea Cor aaarkat m.achanl•ml. Caref'ul Q)mpJ.r.tl..,. of 

-IEII\flhll:haniMDI Ia relati.,.IJMW, but It No deu that""'"""~ botwoon 

U. two It Mt a choica batwaea 1 daapl7 nawad market and I fllwle. poUtkal 

,_T'bacboblltuijldlo~com,.rf-olthefrrtlad.,.atrdaGdaa 

on tha bal:l• ol raal.ndenc:e.. Propw anal ,-.I• abo anablea the lmple-.tatioa. ol 

public pollcydadllona 10 .. t.o tab form• which c-an m.iniml&a bureau.~ndc naw• 

..-hichotharwiMproduc.probiiiZIIWorMthanthemubtnlwtthatlntarvantiOil 

-utomrt"'C"L 

Tba•Uempth••beeamad.lnwntrallT·PI•nnad"oommand"w:onoaiiMloue 

lllput.-output modela or other IOpN.c!CII\111 ••th•m•tic.l •r•t.ome u 1 bNk 

rraaa-OI"k (01"-pnot-l.,.~tn.tlon oCtha adlvldoeol•p.rata.,llnkad 

JKtcn. B~:~t tha• atc.:a.pt.a hava pnarall7 Call lid prod ~ely beeau~e the Inform,.. 

tton and 1lpa!Unr £u.nctlona par(ormed brmarket prleea cannot ba llmuJ•ted. 

1ndeCCD111moda.t.ed within thaV() frlmti'II'Wk., or forthatmatt.arb,~Q,Xmodal. 

input-output anal71il 11 UMtul In l"orec11tin1 \he Impact ol lt*pandent 

:::·:~~-:=:::-.:-~::~~u::o,:;;: l!l~~~~ •takeeln tb<l nllnaat- oltha roracut ara not too h\P and whera approxlmatlorw 1ra1umdant. But nat the ttd1 nor ti.D1Dthcr model can patf~ma the 

tuk ol centrlll~a~~~.omlc plannlna: elftdantly beca\111 tha lnlorc .. tton requiramentl and tha r:aelbamatic. become unman.,e•bl7 mmplluted.lonr 

b.l"on lh-711"1 nffid..,tJy -prahanlln lo all'"" for Ita ._In dJn!rltnr 

a/1-mtcaCttvttr. Thacolla,..oltbaSo'+'tlt•y•tam t.arlwitnaM tothl1 ··'"' Tha Irony olth-.--nt .._.tl t. th1t the u~ olthe world'a 

c:entrally·pla.nnad.econol!llll do not-m tohava re,t•teredln the United 

Statei.MiltonP'riedma.nr.can.t!Job-rT.J.thatdaapit.otha....tcl.ncath•t 

central pllll.n!,.-doeanot work and that \1M rrea marlr.et Ia a necHIUJ ""11<'"• .. ~•'• 

(bvt perha,. not •uf'l\deot)coodldon ror •I~ IDdl!tJ, many In tht U. 9. 

~ tbl Me4 rw 1oduatr1al pollC)'~ that IOYOlv• more .--nar.ent 

lntnaalon. 1nd lhe '+'efJ" lli1Chan.l1m1 that the peopl• ol CJ!Intral and 

eutern Europa are now tryin1lo abandon. It I• not yet clear whether 

they Will IUCI:C!Od. ll!liftlt I deepJJ .. ntfanc:hed bllriiUtTIC)' IOd I 

truculent politic.! elite. Tha appropriate laval of ~t~'+'crnment ln.volv• 

ment In th• -nomJand. the fu.ll ranp of mntequence~~ nowtn1 fonn 

morelnlel"flllltfoallanlaau.aO..tn-" tabelaoeod~•rdY by pD<I iC)'-

makera. Ecoo.omk Impact •nll)'tll can ~• •• a •t.artlnc point (or 

the examination oftheae Jarp trada-olr•lnvolved In the directton 

that roreet pollcyii!Cima ta ba t.aldnrtn Cali(omla. But analyl\1 al1o 

mu1t addrau the politial C'Ofi,MquanOIII of more pernment intna· 

lion In a tltuttion wher• rarulation oC for•t prllctict~~ i1 already 

•mont th• moM ttri,.e:nt Ira tha world. 

Thapolltleal implkation.•olmorar..uicd.-• rqJUI•tionolrareac. 

practketlar~ woll-illuatr•ted. b)' ~ma rf!Cftll nunmentl 111ade ln a 

brvader poHtla.l t'Ontaxt by acunOII\IIt Friedman, whose pQIIition 

on tht811 matkno Ia well-known and which h•• bcun thorourJtly 

vindicated by the evenll In th1 ~Soviet block" and el~twhare 

al11Und the world. Writingl11rthe UrUvert lty olColor•do, he hid: 

·eonven""n•l ..-iad0111 lbeea u,. ean be •um1111rized In the 

lonnola•.rllotilm. 

Mll,lor premlae: Sodali•m I• a !allure. Evon ll(olonlf Commu· 

nitta now aa:ept thl1 propoaitlon .... 

Minor prcmiM: C•pitalltar.lt 1 1ua:eu. Economle1 that have 

ulll!d Clpltalllm -lr01 priYite markatl - 11 ~ir principal 

mean• ol ort•nlrlnJecof'IOGilc acttvtt7 havt~ provad c:.p•bl• ol 

combining wldely•hared proep.-it7 and • hllfh mc11uno.ol h\l.lllan fr...,.d.om. A priv11.e on••k•t •T•te.., h•• pn>Yed to be • 

neceB1ary thoua:h not a e:uffident t11nditlon Cor proaperity and 

freedom. I 

Conclulion: ThoU. S. needl more loOCiall•m. An ob'+'1ou1 

non toquitur,Jet ther•l• nodenytn1 that m•nytpp•nontly 

r .. IOfllble J)fJOple. .. aooept all threct ,..-Uotlll •imu.llanaou•ly." Immediate economk lm,.rll of cu~n.t policy 

direction• .,..Important. but the7m•1 not b. u hn PQrtant 

11 tha othtr 1odal coati ol tha compreben~ive ch1~ In 

the•J•tem ot political oconomylnherentln r~nt propoal)a ror quantum ril•nroaln rorat policy d.ireet.ed loward 

undermWngr,..,. mukN. W• al10have to laca th.eolron.J 

tMt the N•tklnal For•l.,.ltem which wu orlJinally 

created to pi'O"rida a ,_,..,. tuppiJ e~r wiiOd n.ded. 

bocau.ll& or allc:tttlon• th1t tha market would rail to do 

IG, will in Ill likelihood (l(lvan I"'ICIIOt trenda) be totall7 

un•nilable Cor wood production. 

But wh.iia the loddq: up Ill th• National For•tl 

.. aiOit the production o( tlaabar ror which they ware 

Intended will obltp depend.noe oo. tha privata MCklr 

for the IUppJy of forest produc:t.a, public policy wtlJ 

ha'+'e ao trlppled pri'+'lta ror••lrJ that It mar not be •hi• to parror111 effectlvaly. Such ia tha apparent 

deat!n7 oftba (on!lt product~ lndUitr}' In Cali rom!• 

In the Nlnedea, barrio« a chi.- in the current 

pol:ilkall•ndte•po. 
·· . ~"finies;standa

,· h~;:;;~:·Offl9ft: 930 Sixth St., Eureka, Calilomla 95~ ~elephone: 442-1711; toll-tree trom outlying are

'is4·• F ··· ·· '' • "1 1: :. "" ·· · ·s%t. · ·• 

~i;~~!l!J+.. ;,J 0 ,~ . O" .. 

· vlm\pson· to"- iay , oft_.:.: .. I .. .. . ,.,_.,... 

s.g .~t~~ :~~9r.p~l ·· fa~_i.l! ~~i :If liowone Coet- ,_c:omplete, he laid, it II no loager 

,,.,. ~· · eoot-ef!ectlve lor the Korl>el mill , ,. · · to operate iii Headrlg, 1 aaw i ARCATA - About 55 people will deaignOd opeclflCally to cut iarler be'tbtlr jolll in January, SimP:. lop. · .. · , · ...... .... . 

!1011, Timber Co. officials aa1d KaDey oaid 1 sbortal• of Umber j'l'huraday. il allo a !actor in the layolfl.\ The Soatu.baaed company will SlmpooD Timber Co . ...,. abouli :DOt DOOd oo many wonera after it 380,000 acrea ·of timberland ·in scales back production at its Humboldt and Del Norte ....,ties.\ , Korbelaawmill and "'manu!actur· It aupplementl what It bansbl nn: iDI plut, Geaoni ~David ill 0W11 ~ with timber !ram> 

KaDeJaaid. --· ' . · ' : · l Sctieduled to be laid off are Logging restrlctionl bave 'about 13 percent of 4li5 people on dimiliWied the , oupply, Kaney the company poyroll.. aaid, makiDI it d!lriCIIIt r ... the "lt'a.& natural step in the proa- sawmill tooperateaUullcapaclty. 'reaalooi · ... in the lra118ition to 100 Loca~ about 10 miles <11! o! perCOIII )'00111 lll'OWth <timber)," Artata, the Korbel facility is the KaDe7 uld. .. ooly aawmllllhat Simpson 1lmber Slmpson Timber Co.. has been Co.. still operatea in California. 

lbllllng from large, old-arowth Kaney said it will continue redwond to amaller, second- operating at ita current capocity llfOWth t....ea since it started until Decem. ber, wbeo it will cl ... bperatlone in California in 1918, he for~ maintenaoce. " ... " aaid • · 

-..f !'lciw..tha~thetramiti"!' la~t ; .. . ..;:r ~~~ 

-· ·-·- -- .. _,.. ___ _ _ 

......_., •• aawmllland ~urtng p

\_..• :_ MM.o·., ~_, ~ - 
237 

SIMP~O~: T p .lay off 55 

FROM A1 .. :: ·;:f r ·· i . , ~ " · · · .In Ja~uary, , 11~ : 11ald, · the 1iiii!~~ii:~~ sawmill's annual prodUction will j 

drop from just more than 190 million board feet to slightly less than 

160 million board feet. ~~ · .. 

The last major layoff that Simp- son Timber Co. bad was \vben its 

Arcata remanufacturing plant 

closed in 1988 following tbe shut- down of its Klamath sawmill, 

Kaney said. , . .. . ·. · "-~· > \ : . Simpson Paper Co. ~ a sister 

company of Simpson Timber Co. - laid off 262 employees when its 

Fairhaven pulp mill closed at the 

endofFebf1;WY. 1 • .-' •, t, ', . . /~ ·: 

Kaney said employees were not 

happy when management broke 

the news to them Thursday, but 

that they understand the company 

basnocboice. • · .... . . " · ;. , "We certainly didn't have any outward hostility," be said. .. . . ". - ,.. .,r ·J,) 

Kany noted that ·.Simpson 

·Timber Co. is growing about 40. David Kaney 

~~~ ~7it ~~ t!: ~~~ral~~ran~~tion ste~ able to step up production ~ and shortly 'aftel- the turD . ,of the ceo- possibly ,.start· biring.l$··in '".,;_ ~·-·. .· .. ·. . .::'.,, . 

.. ;·i~!.~. -- •·. ·,ti;i:',i •. '; ' . ' . ' . i <~'- ~ ~--- ' . -· - Tn•.•nhAr IAUIC!! ,_..· •rea.: .. - _·.;.....,..;.ar-l..a_&... •• _. :.,.;:..;..r ·..:.,. -

0 

78-078 (248) 

.....