85 



Mr. POMEROY [assuming chair]. Mr. Dooley. 



Mr. Dooley. Just on the scope of the region. The 44,000 acres, 

 what participation did you have in defining that region or were you 

 consulted at all in that regard? 



Mr. Campbell. No, we were not consulted. 



Mr. Dooley. How was this area designated, then? 



Mr. Campbell. We don't know. I understand that the U.S. Forest 

 Service was asked to generate a map. I don't know where it came 

 from. But it does follow the majority of our boundaries in that area. 

 It does take in some other ownerships, I understand, but the ma- 

 jority of it is on Pacific Lumber Company land. 



Mr. Dooley. On the appraised value which you know, not being 

 familiar with timberland, have there been any comparable sales on 

 property that is similar that you know that you are aware of that 

 would be on a per-acre basis. 



Mr. Campbell. The most recent transaction of anywhere near 

 this size was the last taking of the Redwood National Park area 

 in 1978, and prior to that was the taking in 1968. 



Mr. Dooley. So there is nothing an5rwhere near current? 



Mr. Campbell. Nothing of this magnitude, no. 



Mr. Dooley. I guess the real decision is — if we are going to move 

 forward with legislation similar to what Mr. Hamburg is offering, 

 is it really comes down to scope and obviously you folks seem to 

 be willing to talk about the 4,500 acres and then I guess if we can 

 move on that, it is obviously contingent on reaching a mutually 

 agreeable level of compensation for that. 



If I understood you correctly, you think that that is possible to 

 some extent. But what I was interested in was some of the past 

 bond measures that have narrowly failed. Were there negotiations 

 and agreements that had been entered into that would have re- 

 sulted in a purchase of some of this on a voluntary basis? 



Mr. Campbell. No, not at that time. I think what you have to 

 understand is during this 3^2 years much has gone on since we put 

 on the voluntary moratorium, we worked with the Nature Conser- 

 vancy in developing, and their biology folks, on what they called 

 the logical-biological boundaries of the Headwaters Forest. That is 

 how we came up with the 1,500-acre buffer. That was not our idea. 

 The Nature Conservancy did that and they defined that boundary 

 working with our foresters and our biology folks. 



They felt that the 1,500-acre buffer was more than sufficient to 

 protect the 3,000 acres. 



Mr. Dooley. And there has been some alluding to a potential 

 bond measure that could be on the ballot in California in 1994 that 

 would perhaps provide some of the financing for the purchase and 

 at this point it is hard to tell what. 



Has anyone been involved in negotiations or talking with you 

 about this potential as a financing source? 



Mr. Campbell. I am not familiar with that measure. There has 

 been a lot of legislative effort in California over the last 2, 3, or 

 4 years, but I am not familiar with this particular piece of legisla- 

 tion. 



Mr. Dooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. PoMEROY. Mr. Doolittle. 



Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



