83 



Mr. POMBO. Even in the old-growth area, you could go in and log 

 that area with a management plan. 



Mr. Campbell. We wouldn't log the entire area at any one time. 

 I think you have to take into account the regulatory scheme that 

 is in place in California. There are stream protection zones for the 

 protection of anadromous fisheries. There are other riparian zone 

 protections as well for other species and water quality. So I think 

 we could get the job done in a proper way. 



Mr. POMBO. It has also been mentioned here earlier this morning 

 and then just on a previous question about in the appraisal that 

 3 percent was set aside as a protection area and that it is felt that 

 that is not enough of the entire area as a set-aside of habitat. What 

 would be the compan/s position if it were all taken as habitat, the 

 entire area was deemed primary habitat? 



Mr. Campbell. I think what you would have there is what they 

 call a regulatory taking and the property would be condenmed by 

 regulation and we would have to go through taking litigation with 

 the Federal Government. 



Mr. PoMBO. So if it were taken in that regard, that the entire 

 area was deemed prime habitat area, then you would have to go 

 through a takings litigation? 



Mr. Campbell. That is our understanding of it, yes. 



Mr. POMBO. One question for Mr. Dixon: How much of your coun- 

 ty is currently owned by the Federal Government or State govern- 

 ment level at this time? 



Mr. Dexon. Congressman, I couldn't answer that specifically. We 

 have a map that we use 



Mr. POMBO. On the map it looks like it is all federally owned. 



Mr. Dixon. It is a significant iK)rtion. I don't have a specific an- 

 swer for that, though. 



Mr. POMBO. Could you possibly attain that information and find 

 out what is on the tax rolls and submit that to us at a later time? 



Mr. Dixon. Certainly. 



Mr. PoMBO. Thank you. 



[The information follows:] 



