77 



Recently, the Save the Redwoods League in California celebrated 

 their 75th anniversary. Their sole purpose in life is to protect trees 

 of the nature that we are talking about. Our company has had a 

 70-year relationship with the Save the Redwoods League and many 

 of the finest groves in California, particularly in the Humboldt 

 Redwood State Park area, were lands at one time owned by the Pa- 

 cific Lumber Company. And in fact, after the merger in 1986, we 

 conveyed another 96 acres to the park by Maxxam, our parent, 

 working with the Save the Redwoods League. 



They have said that this bill is fatally flawed and does not meet 

 their long-term goals of protection of the parks that are already in 

 place. They would prefer to see land adjacent to the parks acquired 

 and the parks be enlarged and then move the traffic out of the old- 

 growth groves and into the younger timber. 



Three-and-a-half years ago, we voluntarily put a moratorium in 

 place on the Headwaters Forest. We have held that land without 

 production, in an effort to try and seek a solution. There were two 

 initiatives on the California ballot, which were defeated, which did 

 provide funds for this acquisition. And we support what is being 

 tried — trying to do within this bill, but we want to see it limited 

 to 4,500 acres. 



We would be more than willing to work with the subcommittee 

 or the administration in terms of accomplishing that goal, but we 

 do not want the additional 41,000 acres taken from our property 

 because it will severely impair our ability to maintain a viable tim- 

 ber operation and maintain employment in our region. 



I would like to correct one other thing that has come up in the 

 last couple of days. That is the business about information. With 

 all due respect to Congressman Hamburg, when he referred to Dr. 

 Moyle, that we withheld information and his ability to gather infor- 

 mation, we have a signed memorandum of understanding with the 

 California State Department of Fish and Game. 



We have worked collegially with them in terms of developing a 

 fisheries program on our property. We share all of the data from 

 that arrangement with them. They share information with us. And 

 we work together to enhance the fisheries on our property. 



With reference to Owl Creek, there was some indication that we 

 withheld information on that. In fact, if you go back and look at 

 the board of forestry record, when they voted seven to zero to ap- 

 prove this plan, within the findings they said that we were re- 

 quired to share the surveys from that spring with the California 

 Fish and Game Department. The word was "share," and we did 

 that. And we didn't hear anything from them for over a month. 



We went to work on the plan. I was called by the director and 

 he asked me to voluntarily cease the harvest and I did imme- 

 diately. They said that they would consult with the California Fish 

 and Game Department during the summer and come back to us. 



That consulting went on all the way through October, and I be- 

 lieve the bird was listed in October, and at about the same time 

 or just close to Thanksgiving, we received a letter from the State 

 saying that we could go ahead with the plan. We had received a 

 letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service saying that they 

 were concerned about the murrelet, but we felt that the body that 

 was governing the harvest was the Timber Productivity Act and 



