33 



Mr. Hamburg. Thank you. I would like to follow up on another 

 question from my colleague from California. 



Congressman Pombo asked you,JMr. Detrich, whether P.L. could 

 cut further in these virgin old-growth groves, and I think you re- 

 plied that they would require a take permit to do so. Is that cor- 

 rect? 



Mr. Detrich. That is correct if it is determined that take would 

 ensue. 



Mr. Hamburg. Did P.L. have a take permit in November of 1992? 



Mr. Detrich. No, they did not. 



Mr. Hamburg. Why not? 



Mr. Detrich. They apparently disagreed with our conclusion 

 that take would ensue. 



Mr. Hamburg. So if they were to disagree in the future, what 

 would keep them from doing the same thing they did before? 



Mr. Detrich. That would depend on the strength of the case that 

 the Fish and Wildlife Service could bring. 



Mr. Hamburg. After the fact, of course. 



Mr. Detrich. That is correct. 



Mr. Hamburg. Right. 



If I just could go back to this issue of the appraisal, the famous 

 appraisal of September 13, I have been real concerned — it seems 

 like any appraisal is only as good as the assumptions on which that 

 appraisal is based; and the assumptions on which this appraisal 

 was based seems to me to be suspect at best. 



One of the assumptions was that 3 percent of the total volume 

 of the virgin redwood forest that is contained within this pro- 

 posal — actually, within the 4,400 acres — would be set aside for ri- 

 parian wildlife protection. 



Is that, in your opinion, Mr. Leonard, a reasonable set-aside to 

 protect endangered species in this grove? 



Mr. Leonard. The appraiser went to the State of California at 

 the time he was starting the appraisal, obtained from them the 

 conditions under which they would issue a harvest permit, and uti- 

 lized those conditions to estimate the area which would be drawing 

 from timber harvesting. 



The appraisal was taking place at the time that the murrelet 

 was being listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and I think it 

 is clear that the appraisal does not reflect the additional require- 

 ments that might be imposed, associated with the murrelet. 



Mr. Hamburg. So would you say that in that sense the appraisal 

 is fundamentally flawed? 



Mr. Leonard. I question if fundamentally flawed is a little too 

 harsh a statement. 



Mr. Hamburg. Three percent, Mr. Leonard, 3 percent set-aside 

 for marbled murrelets after what we have heard from Dr. Ralph. 



Mr. Leonard. As I said, there would be additional areas that 

 would be off limits for the marbled murrelet. 



We don't have a recovery plan, so it would be difficult to indicate 

 exactly what the level of restriction would be, but it would be well 

 beyond where we are. 



Mr. Hamburg. Considerably above 3 percent? 



Mr. Leonard. Yes. 



