80 



Isn't it true that even with that regulatory package in place the 

 company has been able to go into that part of this property and cut 

 significant amounts of old growth? 



Mr. Campbell. Not recently since the litigation. I mean we have 

 been harvesting in that region for over 40 years and the head- 

 waters is there because in the early days the logging on our prop- 

 erty was mostly done by railroad, and of course they took the least 

 line of resistance and engineered the railroads to the lower areas. 

 And it was only with the advent of the Caterpillar tractor and the 

 high ratio trucks that you could get into these remote areas and 

 that is the reason these pockets are left on our property. 



But the balance of over 185,000 acres of our property is all most- 

 ly in second-growth timber and in second and third stage. 



Mr. Hamburg. Now, I am sorry you weren't in here when Ms. 

 Lanman showed an aerial photo that was taken in 1991 of the 

 4,500 acres which shows what looked to be very large significant 

 cuts within that 4,500 acres since 1986. 



Mr. Campbell. That is correct. We had approved harvest plans 

 and it was — as I said, it was the old Pacific Lumber Company's in- 

 tention to harvest that area over time and we did have approved 

 plans and we continue to operate in that area. 



Mr. Hamburg. I understand that it is your position and 

 Maxxam's position that unless the Government buys this property 

 that you will harvest it? 



Mr. Campbell. Well, we have a responsibility to our sharehold- 

 ers and yes that would be our intention — the land is zoned by the 

 State exclusively for timber production. That is the only use we can 

 use it for. 



Mr. Hamburg. Do you have any valid permits at this time for 

 cutting in Owl Creek? 



Mr. Campbell. We have in Owl Creek. Yes, we do. 



Mr. Hamburg. You have a valid THP to cut in Owl Creek? 



Mr. Campbell. Last Wednesday the first district court of appeals 

 in San Francisco said that we had a valid and approved plan and 

 rejected the litigation against us. 



Mr. Hamburg. Do you have any other valid THP's on the 44,000 

 acres? 



Mr. Campbell. On the 44,000 acres? 



Mr. Hamburg. Yes. 



Mr. Campbell. A number of them we are operating on those 

 today. 



Mr. Hamburg. Some of them are in this virgin old-growth area. 



Mr. Campbell. We have plans submitted and approved that are 

 being litigated. We have residual plans which are approved and we 

 are operating on and we have other plans that are approved and 

 we are operating on. 



Mr. Hamburg. So the only thing that is keeping you from further 

 harvest of this virgin old growth is litigation? 



Mr. Campbell. That is correct. 



Mr. KLamburg. You stated that the Save the Redwoods League 

 has taken a position in opposition to this bill. I haven't seen that. 

 Have you got documentation of that? 



Mr. Campbell. I have seen — there is a letter I think in the 

 EcoNews recently by John DeWitt explaining their position. I have 



