1

1 PUBLIC HEARING

2 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/

3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/SUMMARY

4 FOR THE

5 HEADWATERS FOREST ACQUISITION

6 AND

7 PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY

8 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND SUSTAINED YIELD PLAN

9

10

11

12 Sacramento Convention Center

13 Sacramento, California

14 October 29, 1998

15 1:00 p.m.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 Taken before WENDY E. ARLEN

23 Certified Shorthand Reporter

24 State of California

25 CSR License #4355, RMR, CRR

 

 

 

2

1 HEARING OFFICER: LOTARIO D. ORTEGA

2

3 PRESENT:

4 MICHAEL SPEAR, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

5 ROSS JOHNSON, California Department of Forestry

6 and Fire Protection

7 WILLIAM HOGARTH, National Marine Fisheries

8 Service (Afternoon Session)

9 VICKI CAMPBELL, National Marine Fisheries

10 Service (Evening Session)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 

 

 

3

1 --o0o--

2 PROCEEDINGS

3 --oOo--

4 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: We'll go on record. Good

5 afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this public

6 hearing. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service,

7 the National Marine Fisheries Service, the California

8 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the

9 California Department of Fish and Game are conducting a

10 joint process for the taking of comments on an

11 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact

12 Report for the Headwaters Forest Acquisition and the

13 Pacific Lumber Company's Habitat Conservation Plan and

14 Sustained Yield Plan.

15 My name is Lotario D. Ortega. I am an attorney

16 retired from the United States Department of the Interior

17 solicitor's office. I will be serving as the presiding

18 official for this hearing.

19 Here with me are the following representatives of

20 the agencies involved. In the middle of the table to my

21 right is Mike Spear, who is the manager of the

22 California/Nevada operations office of the United States

23 Fish and Wildlife Service here in Sacramento. On the far

24 right is Mr. Ross Johnson of the California Department of

25 Forestry and Fire Protection. His office also is here in

 

 

 

4

1 Sacramento. And the man nearest to me on the table to my

2 right is Mr. Bill Hogarth, regional administrator of the

3 National Marine Fisheries Service. His office is in Long

4 Beach, California.

5 You will find a table in the lobby with written

6 materials of the proposed action and the documents that

7 will be referred to in this public hearing. At this

8 point I would like to introduce Mr. Mike Spear, who will

9 make a brief opening statement, presentation, and he will

10 be followed by Mr. Johnson of the California Department

11 of Forestry and Fire Protection. Mr. Spear.

12 MR. SPEAR: Good afternoon. My name is Mike Spear

13 of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Endangered Species

14 Act has established protections for species threatened

15 and endangered and provides for authorization of certain

16 impacts where such impacts comply with criteria

17 established by the act.

18 The most fundamental protection provided by the

19 act is the prohibition against take of species listed

20 under the act. Take includes actions that would kill,

21 harass or harm listed species. Incidental take is

22 defined as take that is "incidental to and not the

23 purpose of the carrying out of an otherwise lawful

24 activity."

25 When incidental take may result from actions of

 

 

 

5

1 state or local governments, corporations or private

2 individuals, Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act

3 directs the secretaries of the Department of Interior and

4 the Department of Commerce to issue permits for

5 incidental take when certain conditions are met by the

6 applicant.

7 Those conditions are described in detail in the

8 act. Most importantly, the applicant must submit a

9 Habitat Conservation Plan, or HCP. Among other things,

10 the HCP must describe the impact of take and the steps

11 the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate such

12 impacts.

13 The standards for the agency's evaluation of the

14 HCP are also described in the act. Most importantly, the

15 agencies must find that the taking will not appreciably

16 reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the

17 species in the wild.

18 If the statutory conditions are met, the

19 incidental take permit will be issued by the Fish and

20 Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries

21 Service.

22 Pacific Lumber Company has prepared an HCP and

23 submitted an application for an incidental take permit

24 for several species. Also, the United States Congress

25 and the California Legislature have approved an

 

 

 

6

1 appropriations for acquisitions for portions of Pacific

2 Lumber's property if the HCP is approved.

3 Because the issue of an incidental take permit is

4 a federal action, the process is subject to review under

5 the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. The State

6 of California has also undertaken environmental review

7 under the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA.

8 Therefore, the state and federal agencies have entered

9 into an agreement to prepare a single environmental

10 document called a joint EIR/EIS.

11 Impacts considered under NEPA and CEQA are not

12 limited to impacts on listed species but include all

13 impacts of the action affecting the human environment.

14 In addition to the evaluation of the effects of

15 implementation of the HCP, the joint EIR/EIS will cover

16 the impacts of the proposed acquisition.

17 This comment public hearing is part of the

18 proposed comment period on the proposed EIR/EIS. It will

19 be closed November 16th, 1998. Because the

20 incorporations include a deadline of March 1, 1999, for

21 completion of the entire process, the public comment

22 period will not be extended beyond November 16th.

23 On behalf of Fish and Wildlife Service, the

24 National Marine Fisheries Service, I thank you for the

25 effort you have made to attend this meeting and also

 

 

 

7

1 thank you in advance for your comments. Now, we'll hear

2 some introductory remarks from Ross Johnson from the

3 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,

4 the representative of the State of California.

5 MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. My name is Ross

6 Johnson, deputy director with Department of Forestry and

7 Fire Protection. The department is a state lead agency

8 under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA,

9 for this project.

10 The department will use the Environmental Impact

11 Report to evaluate the environmental impacts of the

12 Sustained Yield Plan submitted by Pacific Lumber Company.

13 The department will use the EIR to identify potentially

14 significant adverse impacts and determine whether the

15 Sustained Yield Plan needs to be modified with

16 alternatives or feasible mitigations to avoid or mitigate

17 those impacts.

18 This EIR is a joint document with the Federal

19 Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS. The Sustained

20 Yield Plans, or SYP's as they are called, are one of the

21 mechanisms that timberland owners can use to meet the

22 state's requirement for maintaining maximum sustained

23 production of high quality timber products while giving

24 consideration to values relating to, among other things,

25 watershed, fisheries and wildlife.

 

 

 

8

1 SYP's must include protections of timber growth

2 and havesting over a the hundred year planning horizon, a

3 fish and wildlife assessment and a watershed assessment.

4 Subsequent timber harvesting plans may rely on the

5 approved SYP to the extent that issues are addressed in

6 it.

7 Following approval, the SYP is in force for a

8 period of no more than 10 years. The department does not

9 normally prepare an EIR for Sustained Yield Plans and

10 usually uses its CEQA functional equivalency in the

11 Forest Practice Act. However, in this case it was judged

12 to be more efficient and fair for the EIR to be a joint

13 document with the federal EIS.

14 I am glad to see you here and look forward to

15 hearing from you in your testimony.

16 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you, gentlemen.

17 Public comments on these comments will be accepted, as

18 indicated earlier, until November 16, 1998. After review

19 and consideration of your comments and all other

20 information gathered during the comment period, the

21 agencies will prepare a final Environmental Impact

22 Statement and Environmental Impact Report.

23 The purpose of this hearing is to receive your

24 oral comments on these proposals. The information you

25 offer on all aspects of these proposals is very important

 

 

 

9

1 and will be carefully considered. Because of the

2 importance of your comments, it is necessary that we

3 follow certain procedures in this hearing.

4 If you want to present comments at this hearing,

5 we would request that you register at the table outside

6 in the foyer. When you register, please indicate any

7 organization that you represent. When you are called to

8 present your comments, please come forward to one of the

9 two microphones here in the front. Please begin your

10 presentation by stating your full name and please spell

11 it for accuracy of the record, and then indicate what

12 organization you represent, if any. In order that we can

13 accept the maximum number of comments into the record, I

14 will call two names at a time, the speaker who will next

15 speak and the one to follow.

16 Now, we prefer not to limit the time allotted to

17 each speaker to make a presentation. However, in order

18 that we can accommodate all of those who have indicated

19 that they would like to make comments, I would ask you at

20 this time, although we are not going to impose any strict

21 time limits, to limit your comments to not more than five

22 minutes.

23 Now, this is an informal hearing. You will not be

24 questioned or cross-examined in connection with any

25 comment or presentation you make. Also, it is not

 

 

 

10

1 possible in the time frame that we have allotted to us to

2 answer your questions here. Official response to the

3 issues raised during the comment period will be set out

4 in a Final Environmental Impact Report or Environmental

5 Impact Statement.

6 Your statements are being recorded by a certified

7 court reporter in order to accurately preserve them for

8 the record. Please keep in mind, however, the reporter

9 cannot and will not record any statements from the

10 audience or which are made to the audience. Comments

11 have to be made, please, into the microphone.

12 In order to allow everyone here to amply present

13 their comments, it is important that we maintain an

14 atmosphere of courtesy and respect for each speaker.

15 Therefore, we can't allow any applause, argument,

16 cheering or any other disruptions from the audience. We

17 will try and hopefully maintain a fair, neutral

18 atmosphere in order to record all comments into the

19 record.

20 Now, instead of presenting oral comments here this

21 afternoon or in addition to any oral comments you may

22 submit, you may also submit comments in writing. Written

23 comments may be submitted today to the staff at the

24 registration table in the foyer, or they may be mailed to

25 Mr. Bruce Halstead of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife

 

 

 

11

1 Service. His address is 1125 16th Street, Room 209,

2 Arcata, California. The zip code is 95521-5582. That

3 address is available at the registration table in the

4 outer lobby.

5 Now, remember, written comments will be accepted

6 until November 16th, 1998, and also please bear in mind

7 that written comments will have the same consideration as

8 any oral comments presented here at this hearing.

9 At this point we will proceed with oral comments.

10 The first person to be called will be Charles Jourdain.

11 He will be followed by Camilla Hallinan. Mr. Jourdain

12 first.

13 MR. JOURDAIN: Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name

14 is Charles Jourdain, J-o-u-r-d-a-i-n. I'm a

15 representative of the California Redwood Association.

16 As vice president for technical and inspection

17 services for the California Redwood Association, I've had

18 the privilege of working closely with many employees of

19 Pacific Lumber Company for over a decade. During most of

20 this time period, controversy has surrounded the proposed

21 preservation of the Headwaters forest. Tens of thousands

22 of hours of scientific study and negotiations and

23 millions of dollars of public and private funds have

24 brought us to where we are today.

25 The September 28th, 1996, agreement and subsequent

 

 

 

12

1 is Assembly Bill 1986 provide the citizens of California

2 with the best opportunity for preserving the largest

3 remaining stand of old growth redwoods in private hands,

4 while simultaneously ensuring the viability of fish and

5 wildlife populations and stabling the long-term economy

6 of the north coast.

7 The proposed action outlined as Alternative 2 in

8 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental

9 Impact Report would add approximately 7500 acres,

10 including over 3100 acres of uncut old growth redwood, to

11 the nearly 100,000 acres of old growth redwoods already

12 preserved in perpetuity in state, federal and other

13 parklands along California's north coast.

14 According to the draft EIS/EIR, the proposed

15 action will create a 7503-acre Headwaters forest reserve

16 and will transfer 7,704 acres of Elk River lands to PALCO

17 ownership. This proposed action will result in no

18 significant cumulative impact on the air quality and

19 overall beneficial net reduction in sedimentation to

20 streams, improved aquatic habitat and resources through

21 riparian zone management, improved habitat conditions for

22 marbled murrelets by virtue of providing higher quality

23 habitat with better productivity, less than significant

24 cumulative impact on harvesting of old growth redwood and

25 Douglas fir at 3.2 and 2.6 percent, respectively, of

 

 

 

13

1 remaining uncut old growth, no long-term significant

2 adverse effect on northern spotted owl populations and,

3 finally, the greatest long-term sustained yield and

4 lowest economic impact and job loss.

5 It was in May of 1988 that the Pacific Lumber

6 Company put into place the first voluntary two-year

7 moratorium on the Headwaters in order to allow

8 environmentalists to develop a plan for acquiring of the

9 property. On August 31, 1998, the California Legislature

10 took the final major step towards ending the battle over

11 the Headwaters.

12 The Headwaters forest acquisition and accompanying

13 Sustained Yield Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan are by

14 far the most complex and comprehensive long-term land

15 management plans ever proposed for private property in

16 the United States. For the sake of the environment, the

17 marbled murrelet, the northern spotted owl, coho salmon,

18 and for the sake of the hard working people of

19 California's north coast, I respectfully urge the U. S.

20 Fish and Wild Life Service, the National Marine Fisheries

21 Service, California Department of fish and Wildlife and

22 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to

23 accept the draft EIS/EIR for the Headwaters forest

24 acquisition. Thank you very much.

25 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you, Mr. Jourdain.

 

 

 

14

1 Camilla Hallinan, who will be followed by Arthur

2 Freyer.

3 MS. HALLINAN: Good afternoon. My name is

4 Camilla, C-a-m-i-l-l-a, Hallinan, H-a-l-l-i-n-a-n, and

5 I'm attending this hearing as a private tax paying

6 citizen regarding Pacific Lumber's HCP/SYP, and I would

7 ask you excuse my mistake. I misunderstood the purpose

8 of this hearing. I thought I was appearing before the

9 Board of Forestry alone, and so any comments that I make

10 specifically to them I'd also like the federal to

11 consider my comments as well.

12 I think it would be unconscionable for the Board

13 of Forestry to approve Pacific Lumber's HCP/SYP as it

14 stands. This document is prepared by Pacific Lumber, so

15 it cannot be surprising the HSP/SYP favors the interests

16 of Pacific Lumber.

17 The Board of Forestry, however, has a fiduciary

18 duty to act in the best interests of all the citizens of

19 the State of California. It is incumbent upon the board

20 to ensure that the laws of our state are enforced.

21 The HCP/SYP suggests an unacceptable amount of

22 take for the marbled murrelet. To potentially and

23 irreversibly put such a large percentage of the bird's

24 population at risk is a slap in the face of the

25 California taxpayers who have just paid twice for the

 

 

 

15

1 Headwaters so that we can protect the ancient, endangered

2 and threatened species.

3 The HCP will have a deleterious effect on the wild

4 salmon, and I don't see either how Fish and Wildlife or

5 the maritime association can deny that.

6 The no surprises clause grants protection only to

7 Pacific Lumber and gives no protection to the citizens or

8 the law should any natural or manmade catastrophe befall

9 any of the rare species which live in the Headwaters

10 forest complex.

11 The HCP/SYP does not adequately address the

12 prevention of erosion on water resources and waterways or

13 provide mitigation for the concerns I heard expressed by

14 long-time Humboldt County citizens of gradient being

15 added to their already impacted waterways. The

16 provisions regarding roads, road maintenance and hill

17 slope management are inadequate. Over and over there are

18 problems with this HCP.

19 The Board of Forestry must act with utter

20 scrupulousness to avoid the appearance of a financial

21 conflict of interest in this matter. As state employees,

22 the members of the board can anticipate payment of

23 dividends to their retirement funds from Maxxam

24 Corporation, Pacific Lumber's parent company, should this

25 HCP/SYP be approved.

 

 

 

16

1 The Board of Forestry has an obligation to be

2 certain that HCP's, SYP's and THP's conform to the laws

3 of the State of California. California courts have made

4 rulings and judicial decisions on the way the law should

5 be applied in state forestry decisions. The Board of

6 Forestry must be certain that this HCP/SYP is in

7 accordance with those rulings and judicial decisions as

8 well as all of the law before it is approved.

9 Thank you. And I may, I add I appreciate John

10 Mund at Forestry, the courtesies that he's extended to

11 me.

12 (Applause.)

13 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you. If you would,

14 please, before we proceed, I think I have to announce to

15 you according to the number of people that indicate

16 they'd like to make statements here, we're going to have

17 to limit you to four minutes. I will set the timer. The

18 timer will speak for itself.

19 Next speaker Mr. Arthur Freyer to be followed by

20 Chris Keyser.

21 MR. FREYER: Hello, my name is Arthur Freyer,

22 F-r-e-y-e-r. I'm a union electrician, and I also work

23 with Sierra Club.

24 We have a compromise, but we can do a lot better.

25 It's a very bad plan. Many of us know, many of the

 

 

 

17

1 scientists, our speaker of the state assemby, Antonio

2 Villariogosa mentions in a letter to his constituents

3 that that's the best deal we can get at the time, but we

4 can do better.

5 You know, I feel for the loggers. I want their

6 kids to go to college. But, you know, when they come out

7 of college, are there any trees going to be left to cut,

8 you know, is there a future? What's going to be the

9 future of jobs in the economy?

10 There is a big future in the environment, in

11 fishing, in tourism. People from Europe and all the

12 world come to especially Northern California and look at

13 these trees. You know, five, ten years down the road,

14 when half the trees are gone anyway, we've got to look

15 ahead, you know, and we want foresight and long-term

16 thinking.

17 It's too bad about the, for instance, stockholders

18 of PL. They built a mill that was specifically designed

19 for old growth redwood. I feel for them, but on the long

20 term, given you see what's happening in the economy the

21 last year or so, you can't always protect the

22 stockholders. You kind of have to go with the future,

23 and the future is in the environment.

24 So I'd like you to make your recommendations on

25 10, 20 years in the future looking at the tourism, jobs,

 

 

 

18

1 the jobs with fish, with the strong, clean water. You

2 know, we can send the tourists up there, you know, to

3 look at a few trees left, but if the streams are muddy

4 and dead running through these areas, it's not going to

5 do much good for the future. So I urge you to make your

6 decision looking at 10, 20 years down the road with your

7 kids and your grandkids and the future. Thank you.

8 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you, sir.

9 (Applause.)

10 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Next, Cathie Tritel to be

11 followed by Phillip Batchelder.

12 MS. TRITEL: My name is Cathie Tritel, C-a-t-h-i-e

13 T-r-i-t-e-l. I am a member of the Sierra Club.

14 I thank you for the opportunity today to express

15 my opinion on the Habitat Conservation Plan for the

16 Pacific Lumber Company. I object adamantly to the

17 exemption from the Endangered Species Act which the

18 Clinton administration has promised Pacific Lumber.

19 Instead of our government enforcing this act, which is

20 our strongest protection for endangered species, it is

21 proposing to grant take permits in exchange for the

22 development of a Habitat Conservation Plan.

23 As for making comments on Pacific Lumber's farce

24 of a Habitat Conservation Plan, my comment is to throw it

25 away. It is a worthless document which does not conserve

 

 

 

19

1 habitat, provides little baseline data surveys of

2 endangered species, has inadequate stream buffer zones,

3 allows clear-cutting of almost 19,000 acres of old

4 growth, is projected to kill 33 percent of the spotted

5 owl population, impacts 36 unlisted but sensitive

6 species, will gravely imperil coastal coho salmon and

7 allows clear-cutting of the remainder of a 210,000-acre

8 forest.

9 This should be called a habitat destruction plan,

10 not a Habitat Conservation Plan. We need to toughen up

11 to Charles Herwitz and his timber fellows and stop

12 allowing them to make the public and the government a

13 laughing stock.

14 Habitat Conservation Plans have been shown to lead

15 to the decline of endangered species. Their adoption is

16 a tactic used by groups such as the timber industry and

17 developers to be able to exploit the land and take

18 species, an euphemism for kill.

19 Why are we going along with this in any way at

20 all? Why are we allowing the Endangered Species Act to

21 be weakened through these HCP's? Environmental,

22 fisheries and recreation advocates in this area have been

23 trying to get federal and state governments to enforce

24 the Endangered Species Act, but officials have done

25 nothing.

 

 

 

20

1 These officials are setting their agencies up for

2 lawsuits on not enforcing the law. We at least need to

3 make them accountable, and if they can't make the

4 decisions which will protect the public's interests

5 instead of Charles Herwitz's interests, we should ask for

6 their resignations. Thank you.

7 (Applause.)

8 MR. BATCHELDER: Hello. Thank you. My name is

9 Philip Batchelder. I'm here as a citizen, as a human

10 being, and my last name is spelled B-a-t-c-h-e-l-d-e-r.

11 I do a lot of work on a place called San Bruno

12 Mountain. This was where the very first HCP was

13 formulated, and it was touted at the time as an example,

14 a model for future HCP's. That was a long time ago.

15 That was 16 years ago. And in one very basic way I see

16 that it has served as a model.

17 You know, Palco says here in their material that

18 this is the most comprehensive Habitat Conservation

19 Plan/Sustained Yield Plan ever developed for privately

20 owned commercial timberlands. Well, this basic way in

21 which it is similar to the Habitat Conservation Plan for

22 San Bruno is that on San Bruno Mountain this habitat

23 conservation planning has been an utter failure, and this

24 is setting us up for utter failure as well.

25 I mean, 7500 acres, precious acres, but who are we

 

 

 

21

1 kidding? It's part of a much larger complex ecosystem

2 that is endangered as a whole, not just the species

3 inside it.

4 No surprises. Who are we kidding? That whole

5 idea of no surprises violates basic tenets of

6 conservation biology. Scientists around the country,

7 around the world are refuting this idea. And, in fact,

8 the Clinton administration, which has been pushing it, is

9 under lawsuit right now because of it.

10 No independent monitoring. This is a basic flaw

11 in habitat conservation planning. Who are we kidding?

12 On San Bruno Mountain the people who had decades-long

13 contracts to carry out the work of the HCP are also the

14 ones who are given review and approval powers for any

15 changes in the HCP.

16 Compromise of dangerously endangered species is

17 compromise that is absolutely unacceptable. It equals

18 death. Palco suggests that by setting aside marbled

19 murrelet conservation areas that they are somehow

20 mitigating for the destruction of some of the other

21 marbled murrelet habitat. Give me a break. It is

22 already there. They are not giving us anything.

23 I suggest that we stop talking about these plans

24 in terms of habitat conservation. This is a profit

25 conservation planning process. The habitat conservation

 

 

 

22

1 planning, Section 10 (a), is a gigantic loophole in the

2 Endangered Species Act that violates its central core,

3 and that is to protect endangered species, to prepare

4 recovery plans for endangered species.

5 This is a farce. This plan that Pacific Lumber is

6 suggesting a farce. It flies in the name of the basic

7 tenets of conservation biology, and I ask that you reject

8 it. Thank you.

9 (Applause.)

10 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you. Alan Moore to

11 be followed by Judith Iam.

12 MR. MOORE: Before you start, when I first came, I

13 was to sign up for two groups, a nonprofit that I belong

14 to and the City of Berkeley. Then you put a time limit.

15 If I could get one extra minute to read the statement

16 from the City of Berkeley, would that be all right?

17 After my four minutes?

18 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: I believe not, sir.

19 MR. MOORE: My name is Alan Moore. I represent a

20 group called the Butterfly Gardeners Association. We do

21 environmental education work, work with children with

22 nonviolence and reading programs.

23 We got involved with a gentleman who is the

24 founder of San Bruno Mountain Watch, David Schooly, and I

25 wish he was here today to tell what you a failure the

 

 

 

23

1 first Habitat Conservation Plan really was. He has a

2 slide show and he'll gladly take you to that location

3 where, when they ceded this land to developers and then

4 replaced it with other habitat for butterflies, they put

5 it in a habitat that had no sun and was in a lower

6 elevation, and within three years of all of their

7 tremendous efforts of plantings it was all lost and grown

8 in by native vegetation there.

9 I also want to talk about we're in opposition to

10 the Habitat Conservation Plans because of their past

11 failings and because of the failings of Pacific Lumber

12 Company to follow regulations and have been numerously

13 cited for violations, and the forestry department has

14 done nothing. In fact, when I called them up and asked

15 them what they'd be doing, they got annoyed and hung up

16 on me.

17 I think what they need if this plan is approved to

18 put in a training program. Some of these loggers have

19 been riled up. It's resulted in a death. Pacific Lumber

20 Company has stated that no one knew David "Gypsy" Chain

21 was there, and later they proved to be lying after a

22 videotape was made public and put on the radio.

23 So I think there should be a training program of

24 nonviolence for these forestry people before they are put

25 into the forest to work with protestors that will be out

 

 

 

24

1 there trying to stop any illegal acts that they do. And

2 I would think that should include a workshop where they

3 would act out and confront each other with some forest

4 protestors so they could see how a situation could arise

5 that would lead to some violence. They need to be

6 trained to watch out for that.

7 Two, I would suggest that in this plan there is

8 something that's called three strikes and you're out and

9 they put that law against most people, I think they ought

10 to use this law against the corporations.

11 (Applause.)

12 MR. MOORE: So I would say if you got all your

13 things there and you're going to monitor this and there

14 are violations, three strikes and they should lose all

15 rights to harvesting timber.

16 Now, I'm just going to read a letter that the City

17 of Berkeley has endorsed for Earth Day.

18 We are one people. We share one planet. We have

19 one common dream. We want to live in peace. We choose

20 to protect and heal the earth. We will defend and

21 preserve the redwoods, rainforest and other sacred

22 places. We will become stewards for the planet's

23 threatened and endangered species. We cherish the

24 Earth's bio and cultural diversity. We will do this for

25 our children and our children's children. We will choose

 

 

 

25

1 to create a better world for all. We will do our best to

2 make that dream come true. We will change what needs to

3 be changed. We will break free of our chrysalis

4 limitations. We will joyfully love, share and forgive so

5 that peace may prevail on Earth. May peace prevail on

6 Earth.

7 And not only has Berkeley endorsed this, but David

8 Brower and John O'Connell, the father of Earth Day,

9 people from all over the world. And I hope you think of

10 our children who will be holding you with their moral

11 outrage if any more destruction and the extinction of the

12 coho salmon is allowed to continue. Thank you.

13 (Applause.)

14 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Judith Iam will be

15 followed by Dottie Higby.

16 MS. IAM: Good afternoon. My last name is spelled

17 I-a-m.

18 I'd like to say that we're talking about of

19 remaining redwoods, there are three percent which exist

20 of the original redwoods which stood in this area. So

21 we're talking about cutting percentages of what is

22 already a very insignificant remnant of the most ancient

23 of trees.

24 Of the people who have spoken here and who are in

25 this room, there are a few who are paid. We've learned

 

 

 

26

1 from a couple of decades ago from Watergate to follow the

2 money when we look to see where criminal acts are being

3 committed. There are those of us who come because we're

4 motivated by something else. There are those of us who

5 are coming to speak because we are paid. That's the same

6 interest which motivates this HCP. This is a political

7 document. This is not drawn up by impartial people.

8 Those who are meant to represent the public and

9 the best interests of the people and the environment are

10 compromising. This is very evident to a layperson and

11 it's even more apparent to the scientists.

12 I have a list before me of what's wrong with the

13 Habitat Conservation Plan which does not have one or two

14 items. It has a dozen items on it. They range from the

15 coho status, no mention of watershed restoration, roads,

16 landslides, water temperature variances, sensitive

17 species, riparian protection.

18 There is no time or real reason for me to go into

19 these in detail because I think you are privy to this

20 material. Ignoring is what is both painful and egregious

21 in this case.

22 I heard something about a 10-year plan. For quite

23 a while now people have been aware of seven generations

24 being what we need to think about. Japan makes 50-year

25 plans. You know, it's a question of time. Whether the

 

 

 

27

1 trees run out in one year or the trees run out in five

2 years, the trees will run out, and as Joanie Mitchell put

3 it some time back, cut down the trees, put them in a tree

4 museum. We are already making tree museums. We don't

5 want slivers of forest that species -- it's not like a

6 zoo. There needs to be a larger vision. You gentlemen

7 are part of the process of holding that vision.

8 I don't know what more you can be given in

9 materials of information and in terms of outcry. This

10 has been a battle which has been going on for 15 years

11 about this specific area. I don't know what more it will

12 take. I hope you can awaken in enough time to make a

13 difference. It does rest on your shoulders. No one

14 else's. On your shoulders.

15 So we come here to cry, to speak once again about

16 this same area and about the larger awakening to the

17 planet. May we all wake up and learn to do whatever is

18 necessary to beyond to save it, to protect it, but to let

19 it flourish back to where it was and where it needs to be

20 again. Thank you.

21 (Applause.)

22 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Dottie Higby will be

23 followed by Shamus O'Bryon.

24 MS. HIGBY: My name is Dottie Higby, and I am a

25 California resident. I'm here representing myself, my

 

 

 

28

1 family, my friends. I'm not paid. In fact, it just

2 occurred to me I am paying to be here because I'm not at

3 work making money and I'm possibly getting a parking

4 ticket as we speak.

5 I was born and raised in the Bay Area, in the San

6 Francisco Bay area. I went to college and now live in

7 the Sacramento Valley. I've been a resident of

8 California all my life, which actually is longer, I hope,

9 than I look.

10 I resent the outsider Charles Herwitz and his

11 methods of financing his company and vandalizing our

12 forests and our natural resources in California. Under

13 his management, Pacific Lumber Company has shown itself

14 to be less than ethical. I don't think that this lumber

15 plan or whatever you call it, HCP, has any teeth in it

16 whatsoever.

17 I don't believe in oops. You can't put a tree

18 back on the stump. It doesn't matter what type of

19 planning we come up with, if it's not enforceable or if

20 it's not enforced, we've all wasted a whole lot of time

21 and whole lot of effort.

22 So I ask that you please make sure there are teeth

23 into the forest plan, that it can be monitored and that

24 there are consequences for not following the plan once it

25 is approved. Thank you.

 

 

 

29

1 (Applause.)

2 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you. Shamus

3 O'Bryon to be followed by Rose Taylor.

4 MR. O'BRYON: Hello, my name is Shamus O'Bryon,

5 S-h-a-m-u-s O apostrophe B-r-y-o-n.

6 I would like to thank you for giving me the

7 opportunity to tell you how I feel. What I feel is that

8 the people who are making the decisions for the trees,

9 the land and the animals really don't know or care about

10 what they are doing.

11 To destroy the last three percent of one of the

12 most beautiful things on earth is wrong and doesn't make

13 sense at all. I learned in school how these big trees

14 put oxygen in our air and how they help get rid of a lot

15 of pollution.

16 If they keep clear-cutting up there and run out of

17 trees, then where will they start clear-cutting?

18 I think what they are doing is disgusting and

19 needs to stop. Thank you.

20 (Applause.)

21 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you. Ros Taylor to

22 be followed by Dave Casebeer.

23 MS. TAYLOR: Hello, my name is Ros Taylor.

24 Spelled R-o-s T-a-y-l-o-r.

25 I just wanted you to know that this brave young

 

 

 

30

1 man here is my son. I wanted you to know that he knew

2 that I was coming to speak here today and he asked if

3 they would let kids speak, too. The words he said, the

4 words he spoke were his words and his concerns.

5 It saddened me to think how adults' short-term

6 interests have compromised our children's long-term

7 interests. It sits heavy in my heart to think that our

8 children today can't have the freedom to run and play

9 without the ever-present concern of how high the

10 pollution standard index is and whether it is safe for

11 their health to do things as children do without second

12 thought of concerning -- being concerned about the

13 pollution.

14 This brings me to the subject of the Headwaters.

15 I understand that this temperate forest is one of the

16 densist biomasses on the planet. My concern as a mother

17 is we already have a serious pollution problem in most of

18 the cities in California, especially in Sacramento, and

19 if we continue to clear-cut our forests such as the

20 Headwaters, and I understand it is going on in the

21 Sequoias and in the Sierras also, when will we decide

22 that we've had enough, that we are sick of breathing

23 dirty air that is difficult to appreciate.

24 It wasn't until recently that I discovered the

25 truth about the Headwaters. It was about a month ago. I

 

 

 

31

1 was appalled to find out that the California Board of

2 Forestry had been allowing third world forestry practices

3 in California. Most of the Californians I have shared

4 this information with had no clue and were shocked to

5 find out that this state would allow such level of

6 destruction to our watersheds, to our fish, to the

7 wildlife and to the people of Humboldt County.

8 I think history is our greatest teacher. Before

9 Maxxam seized this family owned and operated company, we

10 had a thriving multi-million dollar a year commercial and

11 recreational fishing industry. We do not have one now.

12 We had rural towns and citizens who had a high

13 quality of life. Their families enjoyed clean, nontoxic

14 drinking water. They didn't have to concern themselves

15 of the -- I understood in one of the articles I read that

16 on a 312-acre parcel they had sprayed 2,000 gallons of a

17 very highly toxic herbicide and 6,000 gallons of diesel

18 fuel. And that is documented and I can get that for you.

19 They are doing it all over. It's madness. It

20 does not make sense to me and it makes me angry, because

21 we are leaving this to our children to enjoy.

22 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Would you please

23 summarize and conclude, Miss Taylor?

24 MS. TAYLOR: Yes, I will. I'm very near the end.

25 All I ask you to do is just to look at the

 

 

 

32

1 history. Before Maxxam took over the company, we had a

2 company that practiced six decades of sustainable

3 forestry. We now have a company that has clear-cut

4 probably half of the 210,000 acres it owns and has

5 totally divided that community and devastated so many

6 lives. It is about the wildlife. It is about the fish,

7 but it is also about the people of California. Thank

8 you.

9 (Applause.)

10 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you. Dave Casebeer

11 to be followed by Rosalind Berger.

12 MR. CASEBEER: Dave Casebeer, C-a-s-e-b-e-e-r.

13 Thanks to all for showing up and thanks for

14 allowing me to speak. I am not a member of any group.

15 My concern is for the children and the grandchildren of

16 the future.

17 I'm a human being who has grown up being given the

18 opportunity to experience a family who spent almost every

19 vacation camping, hiking, fishing, enjoying almost every

20 national park in this country. I was taught by my

21 parents, who loved camping and my grandfather who loved

22 farming for 40 years to preserve our Earth and wildlife,

23 not to destroy them. To always put back more than we

24 took from the Earth.

25 Thanks to all who have taught me that money is not

 

 

 

33

1 the most important thing in life. Thanks to all who have

2 taught me family comes first and preserving our planet

3 comes first. Charles Herwitz and all those who live

4 their lives placing money first, please change your ways

5 before it is too late.

6 What has happened at Headwaters has gone too far,

7 too many trees destroyed, watersheds destroyed, fish and

8 birds destroyed, homes destroyed, jobs destroyed, and,

9 yes, ultimately loggers' and mill workers' jobs will be

10 destroyed by clear-cutting.

11 Clear-cutting destroys the environment in a way we

12 cannot replace what has been destroyed. Clear-cutting

13 does not make any sense. Enough is enough. It is time

14 to give back more than we've taken from our planet. It's

15 time to place our planet first and our families first.

16 We cannot continue to rape and destroy our planet. When

17 it is gone, we are gone. I ask the powers that be to not

18 approve this HCP. It is not good for our planet and it

19 is not good for our families. It takes more than it

20 gives back. Thank you.

21 (Applause.)

22 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Rosalind Berger, to be

23 followed by Shawnee Alexandri.

24 MS. BERGER: My name is Rosalind Berger, and I am

25 a registered nurse. I'm also chairman of the

 

 

 

34

1 environmental committee of the Berkeley Grey Panthers and

2 I'm a member of a religious body, Subud. They have an

3 environmental sustainability committee, they have 3,000

4 members. But mostly I am here today for myself as a

5 concerned person because the Earth is dying, and as far

6 as I can figure out, it's dying for profit.

7 The six ancient groves of Headwaters forest are

8 the last significant unprotected stands of ancient

9 redwood forest remaining on Earth. 95 percent of the

10 California redwoods that were here when the Caucasians

11 first set foot here are gone.

12 I don't understand why the debt that Herwitz

13 racked up, the 1.6 billion dollars he made the taxpayers

14 pay for his diddling around with the Texas thrift and

15 loan banking business, I don't understand why that debt

16 can't be traded for the Headwaters forest, part of that

17 debt.

18 Herwitz is a man who diminishes benefits for the

19 workers of the companies he takes over, a man who

20 pollutes rivers and floods out the homes of his

21 neighbors, a man who permits his workers to log in

22 illlegal areas, causing the death of David Chain, who was

23 there to caution the loggers that it was an illegal area,

24 and then concurred in telling a grieving mother that her

25 son caused his own death.

 

 

 

35

1 That man, if he can't be locked up, he should be

2 watched like hawk with independent monitoring allowed in

3 the Headwaters forest of all his activities.

4 The plan as it stands only protects two of the six

5 groves. 92 percent is open to unrestricted industrial

6 logging operations. It is a 50-year management plan

7 designed by Pacific Lumber which covers all 211,000 acres

8 of Pacific Lumber holdings in Northern California which

9 include the Headwaters forest.

10 Now, half of the eight percent -- I think 92

11 percent of this can be logged and eight cannot be logged.

12 Half this eight percent can be logged in the future if

13 Pacific Lumber presents evidence that certain species no

14 longer exist in the area.

15 The incidental take permit would allow Pacific

16 Lumber to kill endangered species and destroy their

17 habitat for the next 50 years in exchange for a few

18 mitigation measures.

19 HCP's are loopholes in the federal Endangered

20 Species Act which allows developers and resource

21 industries to skirt laws protecting endangered species.

22 It would allow clear-cutting of over 35,000 acres. It's

23 scientifically and biologically deficient, and in view of

24 Herwitz's financial and environmental history and

25 criminal forestry practices, their request for a permit

 

 

 

36

1 to take endangered species should be denied.

2 The watershed assessment data of this plan is

3 outmoded, it's outdated and incomplete and should not be

4 approved. A stream buffer of going down to 30 feet and

5 clear-cutting allowed within 200 feet is inadequate

6 protection for species. Water temperatures, streams,

7 watershed, the forest, the whole works.

8 Therefore, I request that the HCP plan should not

9 be approved, but the guidelines drawn up by the

10 stewardship plan of the Tree Foundation be followed. I

11 thank you.

12 (Applause.)

13 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you. Sean Dockery

14 will be followed by Shawnee Alexandri.

15 MR. DOCKERY: Hello. My name is Sean Dockery,

16 S-e-a n D-o-c-k-e-r-y.

17 I was thinking you hear all the time that jobs

18 versus environmentalist, but Maxxam Corporation, first

19 thing they do when they come in and took over Pacific

20 Lumber is they cancelled the pension fund. Right now

21 they recently cancelled the pension fund for Kaiser

22 Aluminum. The workers for the Kaiser Aluminum went on

23 strike and Maxxam Corporation brought in scabs to take

24 their jobs.

25 And the HCP is going to have short-term maximum

 

 

 

37

1 logging and then there is going to be barely anything

2 left and jobs are going to go down. It's not

3 environmentalists versus jobs. It's Maxxam Corporation

4 and Charles Herwitz versus jobs.

5 The HCP plan is inadequate and it's inaccurate.

6 It's inaccurate in it's not in its current form going to

7 protect coho salmon and it's not going to protect many

8 old growth that are out there. In the first few years

9 they are planning on cutting 2,236 acres of old growth,

10 and that's the ones that they are going to clear-cut.

11 Also, it ignores data from the 1997 cutting around

12 Bear Creek where it plainly shows the destruction of the

13 water habitat there. They took a nice forest area and

14 they cleared it, and now it's basically gravel, cement

15 like gravel with water running through it, sediment

16 filling all the waterways, no salmon habitat left.

17 I don't see any reason why, first of all, we

18 should be giving Charles Herwitz, who is against the

19 common people with his junk bond deals and his

20 liquidation of the natural resources, why we should even

21 be giving him millions of dollars for 7,000 acres. We're

22 giving him half of the money he spent for all of the land

23 he acquired in the PL takeover, plus all the mills.

24 We're giving him half of the money that he paid for all

25 of that, and we're getting about 10 percent, less than 10

 

 

 

38

1 percent of his holdings. It doesn't seem like a fair

2 deal for the taxpayers. It's not a fair deal for the

3 trees. So to the HCP and the SYP, I say that should be

4 no go and I think we should have no deal. Thanks.

5 (Applause.)

6 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you. Shawnee

7 Alexandri to be followed by Kristin Van Til.

8 MR. ALEXANDRI: My name is Shawnee Alexandri,

9 S-h-a-w-n-e-e A-l-e-x-a-n-d-r-i, and I'm here as a

10 private tax paying citizen today.

11 Now, you cut my time or everyone's time and so I'm

12 going to cut to the chase. Which is basically the

13 incidental take in this HCP allows the destroying of at

14 least a quarter of all known murrelet habitat on Pacific

15 Lumber's land. My question is, how does that facilitate

16 for the recovery of the species.

17 The HCP has no protection whatsoever for steep

18 Class III streams. Now, when there is a landslide, they

19 go into these Class III streams and then they all run

20 into the Class II and Class I. So when you destroy the

21 Class III streams, you destroy all the streams and all

22 the fish habitat.

23 HCP's in general are nothing more than a loophole

24 around the Endangered Species Act. We might as well not

25 make laws we're not planning to follow.

 

 

 

39

1 No surprises clause allows other species that will

2 eventually inevitably become endangered or threatened

3 because of the PL's liquidation logging no protection in

4 future days. This plan, this HCP, is for 50 years, and

5 25 years from now when God knows how many other species,

6 you know, in that forest that live there become

7 endangered, there is no protection for them because we've

8 told Maxxam out of Houston that they can do what they

9 want.

10 Those are just a few concerns with the HCP, but

11 what I really want to say is when you are approving a

12 plan, you approve the plan, then you allot the money.

13 You don't allot half a billion dollars for something

14 before the plan is ever approved. What politician in

15 Sacramento or anywhere is not going to approve an HCP

16 that has half a billion dollars there waiting in the bank

17 for it. It's ludicrous.

18 This HCP no matter what gains are made from this

19 public comment is win-win situation for Charles Herwitz.

20 He is the only one who benefits from this, not the

21 forest, not the animals and certainly not the community.

22 So, in essence, in my opinion, this is actually

23 pretty much a token public comment period we're given

24 because I don't think anyone here thinks that this HCP

25 won't be passed.

 

 

 

40

1 Also, in my opinion, the only real chance to kill

2 this HCP, which is what should happen, is to pressure CDF

3 into revoking PL's license. In the last three years,

4 Pacific Lumber has over 250 documented violations. They

5 are on probation already. They've been given a second

6 license. This year alone they have 40 more. That's a

7 few more than three strikes. We need CDF to revoke

8 Palco's license and then they can't get an HCP.

9 Also, you know, we need ecosystems, not museums.

10 You know. Oppression really breeds resistance and this

11 is one of the worst kind of oppression to our Earth, to

12 everything that supports us. Believe me, there will be a

13 lot of resistance to this plan. For nature, jail

14 Herwitz.

15 (Applause.)

16 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Kristin Van Til will be

17 followed by Phil Pluckebaun.

18 MS. VAN TIL: Hi. My name is Kristin Van Til, and

19 you spell the last name V-a-n T-i-l. I graduated with

20 environmental policy at the University of Michigan a

21 couple years ago. I've been working on this issue for a

22 year, maybe a little more than that.

23 Every time I think about the deal I'm pretty

24 overwhelmed with its audacity. First of all, we're

25 giving half a billion dollars to someone who isn't proven

 

 

 

41

1 to be a criminal, but pretty much is a criminal, to go

2 ahead and clear-cut 85 percent of Headwaters forest.

3 Okay. That's pretty sick.

4 97 percent of our ancient redwoods are gone.

5 Headwaters forest is a good portion of what is left. 10

6 percent of our coho salmon are existing of the original

7 100 percent. We're going allow them to clear-cut up to

8 hundred feet along the streams and go in there almost

9 right next to the streams to take some trees out.

10 Basically, trees are 300 feet tall, you know. When a

11 tree falls across a stream, it's not going to stop at the

12 buffer zone. The rivers are going to be destroyed.

13 We're going to end up with three tree museums which after

14 20 years of wind and rain will be nothing because of, you

15 know, more and more erosion along the buffers. Doesn't

16 make any sense.

17 I implore you to please, please listen to all the

18 letters you're getting, that I know you're getting,

19 please listen to us at the public comment period. I know

20 we're only peons and that the deal was basically made

21 with money and politics and people don't really matter, I

22 guess, but pay attention to your children and your

23 grandchildren's future, please. Thank you.

24 (Applause.)

25 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Phil Pluckebaun to be

 

 

 

42

1 followed by Keith Quinn. Also says Nakoma.

2 MR. PLUCKEBAUN: Good afternoon, gentlemen, and

3 thank you for this opportunity to speak.

4 Earlier a gentleman in front mentioned incidental

5 take. Clearly in study of environmental science and

6 ecology there is nothing incidental. As I understand it,

7 the term incidental is used in a most restricted legal

8 sense to mean only those things which do not violate

9 existing laws. Surely you can agree that as no thing is

10 incidental in its relationship to the evironment that

11 therefore nothing deserves an incidental legal

12 definition.

13 Also mentioned was maximum high quality timber

14 production as a priority to the sustainable use plan.

15 This is clearly unwise. Consideration for fish and

16 wildlife should not be an afterthought. We must protect

17 our future and all of our environments.

18 This is my friend Aaron. I'd like you all to

19 consider Aaron when you're reviewing this plan. This is

20 going to be Aaron's plan. We're the guys who signed it,

21 Aaron is the guy who gets to live with it. Thank you.

22 (Applause.)

23 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Keith Quinn to be

24 followed by Dominik Zabern.

25 MR. QUINN: Yes, my name is Nakoma Keith Quinn.

 

 

 

43

1 N-a-k-o-m-a K-e-i-t-h Q-u-i-n-n. I represent myself and

2 along with many of the people of humanity. I'd also like

3 to state that I'm a 38-year-old adult and mature child of

4 the creator and I acknowledge every individual in this

5 room as such.

6 I would like to state in regards to this Habitat

7 Conservation Plan that it is completely unacceptable as

8 has been stated by the majority of the people that have

9 come here to speak today.

10 In regards to the incidental take permit, this is

11 basically a political loophole that was written in as a

12 rider on another bill to grant permission to take some

13 areas of endangered species while if there are landowners

14 that have other areas with the same endangered species

15 that they can protect a portion thereof.

16 As has been stated that is completely

17 unacceptable. An endangered species is an endangered

18 species. As I have acknowledged that we are all adult

19 and mature children of the creator that I believe the

20 creator who has instilled in us love and reasoning and

21 common sense and the ability to care for ourselves and

22 our children and our children's futures, I believe that

23 as human beings it is more our responsibility to take

24 into account all aspects of the living inhabitants on

25 this planet; and I believe that the creator through all

 

 

 

44

1 of the many spiritual and religious teachings throughout

2 all of creation has given us certain guidelines in how to

3 respect and take with honor and humility that which we

4 need and not to take in excess. And I would like to ask

5 all people that are responsible for these decisions,

6 please take into account that everything that we do,

7 every choice that we make, especially people that have

8 chosen positions of power and authority to make these

9 decisions for humanity, to please take this into account,

10 that every action that we do to helps to benefit humanity

11 and our children's future, that takes precedence over how

12 much financial stability or security people feel we have

13 to have.

14 I would ask that all involved -- I think that this

15 entire Sustained Yield Plan does not cover -- the no

16 surprises in regards to if an HCP is drawn up and it

17 comes out in the future, even if it's in the immediate

18 future after the HCP is approved that there are

19 endangered species or it could seriously endanger either

20 a watershed, fish habitat, endangered species that if it

21 was already approved, no matter what the destruction we

22 come to find out is going to happen, that it is already

23 approved. That is completely unacceptable.

24 Please, we vote you in as our polltations. Please

25 hear our voices and speak for us. Please come from a

 

 

 

45

1 true place. That is why I am here today, for my

2 children, for your children, for all of our children. It

3 is a responsibility to be a human being, and we come here

4 peacefully asking, begging, please, be leading examples

5 for our children and our grandchildren. Thank you.

6 (Applause.)

7 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Ladies and gentlemen,

8 we've been in session about an hour and a half. So let's

9 at this point break for about 10 minutes and give our

10 court reporter here a little breathing room.

11 (Recess taken.)

12 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: All right. We will get

13 back on the record and reconvene this session. The next

14 speaker will be Dominik Zabern, who will be followed by

15 Virginia Jane Harris.

16 MR. ZABERN: Good afternoon. I wanted to say that

17 I think that this is kind of a pathetic situation to have

18 one branch of the government suing Charles Herwitz for

19 one and a half billion dollars that were absorbed by

20 Charles Herwitz's savings and loan that went bankrupt

21 from American taxpayers and having another branch of the

22 government discussing how to give Charles Herwitz another

23 half a billion dollars. To me, this kind of situation

24 would only happen with a billionaire because I can't see

25 how if someone had stolen a hundred dollars and was going

 

 

 

46

1 to court for that would at the same time be figuring out

2 to get another sum of money from the same government, you

3 know. To me, it seems like one hand of the government

4 doesn't really know what the other hand is doing because

5 it's being manipulated by money, by large amounts of

6 money.

7 I also think that Republicans are probably going

8 to lose the race for Governor in this election and that a

9 lot of the loyalties in the bureaucratic system, they are

10 going to be changing.

11 And Charles Herwitz is on trial right now. The

12 trial is supposed to end sometime next year. If the

13 judge is impartial, I have no doubt that he is going to

14 be convicted for illegal financial practices. So to me

15 it seems absurd that while he's being accused of a

16 massive crime that one and a half billion dollars is a

17 massive thing we're talking about, that is at the same

18 time considered credible enough to be involved in another

19 transaction, you know, at the same level of billions of

20 dollars.

21 So I see things are going to be changing in the

22 next couple years. I don't think it's going to be in

23 Charles Herwitz's favor because I think in the end reason

24 is going to prevail and it's not acceptable any more to

25 cut ancient redwood trees, it's not acceptable to kill

 

 

 

47

1 blue whales or, you know, and to do things like that is

2 also a crime against all people and all life such as

3 destroying the ozone is a crime against everybody.

4 And I think in the future that's going to be

5 acknowledged by the court systems, even though nowadays

6 it's not. People that are involving themselves in this

7 way are going to be held responsible for the

8 irresponsible or responsible actions which they may be.

9 And also my understanding is that in the history of

10 California there was a time when the government of

11 California used to pay people certain amounts of money

12 for scalps of Native Americans and that a lot of the land

13 rights in this state are based on homicide, and I think

14 in the future that's going to be acknowledged a lot more

15 than it is now that just as nowadays a lot of things

16 associated with the Nazi Holocaust are being acknowledged

17 by the courts in terms of money that was taken from

18 victims of the Holocaust and never returned until now

19 until 50 years later. Maybe a hundred years later after

20 the Indian Holocaust maybe those property rights are

21 going to be acknowledged.

22 (Applause.)

23 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Virginia Jane Harris to

24 be followed by Carter Brooks.

25 MS. HARRIS: Good afternoon. Thank you for

 

 

 

48

1 inviting us here. My name is Virginia Jane Harris,

2 H-a-r-r-i-s, and this is the first secret public hearing

3 I have ever attended.

4 When I arrived today at the convention center,

5 there were no signs telling me what room this hearing was

6 going to be in. Finally, I am persistent, I called the

7 security and the lady brought me up here and said that

8 they had been requested not to advertise what room this

9 hearing was in. So I now refer to it as a private public

10 hearing.

11 (Applause.)

12 MS. HARRIS: I am here as a private citizen. I'm

13 81 years old and I have belonged to the Sierra Club for

14 60 years. As a youngster I spent my summer vacations up

15 in the redwoods near the Russian River and we would go up

16 frequently to the Eel River. We never got up as far as

17 the Headwaters project, but I was devastated to see the

18 damage that has been done to that area.

19 I regard this as the botanical equivalent of the

20 Holocaust where the Jewish peoples are replaced by the

21 redwoods, the other persons that were also killed in

22 large numbers are the magnificent Douglas firs that also

23 have been taken.

24 They are not only killing the trees, they are

25 killing the land. The brush that has been attempting to

 

 

 

49

1 grow to prevent the erosion is now being sprayed to kill

2 the brush and allow the erosion to continue.

3 I regard this entire plan as inadequate, and I

4 think that it needs to be redone entirely. The Pacific

5 Lumber Company has repeatedly broken the law and why do

6 we assume that they can now be trusted. I am not from

7 Missouri, I'm from San Francisco, but I certainly believe

8 that actions speak louder than words.

9 The arrogance of the lawlessness of Charles

10 Herwitz and the Pacific Lumber Company should not be

11 tolerated. The current California Board of Forestry

12 needs to be dismissed for malfeasance and replaced with

13 people who will enforce the laws.

14 (Applause.)

15 MS. HARRIS: It is incongruous to be talking about

16 saving the coho when the Headwaters area is being sprayed

17 with a combination of combination of herbicide and diesel

18 fuels. The herbicides ensure that the land will erode

19 into the streams and the diesel ensures if the silt

20 doesn't kill the coho salmon, the diesel residue will.

21 I urge you to start over again with another plan

22 better than this one. Thank you.

23 (Applause.)

24 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you. Carter Brooks

25 to be followed by Chris Keyser.

 

 

 

50

1 MR. BROOKS: My name is Carter Brooks, spelled

2 B-r-o-o-k-s. I am here today as bard. I first quote

3 Dr. Seuss.

4 I'm the Lorax. I speak for the trees, speak for

5 the trees for the trees have no tongues and I am asking

6 you, sirs, at the top of my lungs, Are you going to

7 sanction the killing of my family? The trees are my

8 family. The redwoods are my elders, and I don't mean

9 this as an analogy. I mean this quite literally. I look

10 you both in the eye, all three of you, the trees are my

11 family.

12 The actions of Pacific Lumber are to me a

13 Holocaust and like the Holocaust in the '40's are being

14 carried out with state sanction. These hearings do not

15 exist outside of the context of what goes on outside of

16 the HCP process. Other governing agencies are enforcing

17 the violence of this process. It does not exist outside

18 the context of the violence that being inflicted on those

19 courageous enough to stand in the way of this killing.

20 We should not, for example, view the swabbing of pepper

21 spray in the eyes of protestors any differently than,

22 say, beating them with billy clubs.

23 (Applause.)

24 MR. BROOKS: I wish we lived in a world where law

25 enforcement had the courage to stand in defense of the

 

 

 

51

1 protestors, to stand in defense of their right to stand

2 in front of logging trucks. I hope that you have the

3 courage to stop legitimizing the extermination of, again,

4 my family, my elders.

5 I'm going to read two things now. One is a piece

6 by Charles Finn.

7 It was my first day as a tree planter

8 working for a company of out of Burns,

9 British Columbia. I was riding in an old

10 converted bus with 20 odd other rookies on

11 our way to learn out to plant. We were in

12 a boisterous that day, young and lean and

13 bright-eyed, drawn to these woods by the

14 promise of good money. We thought we knew

15 enough about the world to kick around in it

16 and not get hurt. We were talking big and

17 acting big, yet beneath it all we were a

18 little scared and a little lonely and not

19 quite sure of ourselves. We laughed and

20 joked, hiding our fears. Then we came

21 around the last turn and all our big talk

22 was forgotten. It was the first time any

23 of us had seen the clear-cut. We fell

24 silent, staring at the moonscape before us,

25 trying to make sense of what we saw, an

 

 

 

52

1 endless expanse of compressed earth and

2 charcoal stumps. Blood drained from the

3 faces around me. Mouths hung open without

4 words and all I could think was this is

5 wrong. This is horribly wrong.

6 When the bus lurched to a halt, none of us

7 moved at first. Then we filed out looking

8 as if we had just lost a hockey game.

9 There was a big clearing where dust devils

10 swirled and a pile of slash was plowed 15

11 feet high. The foreman was handing out

12 seedling bags and shovels. 'Welcome to the

13 future,' he said.

14 "Let the Trees be Consulted" by John Wright:

15 Let the trees be consulted. Before you

16 take any action, every time you breathe,

17 thank a tree. Let tree roots crackle

18 parking lots at the World Bank

19 headquarters. Let loggers be druids

20 specially trained and rewarded to sacrifice

21 trees at auspicious times. Let carpenters

22 be master artisans. Let lumber be treated

23 by gold. Let chainsaws be played like

24 saxophones. Let soldiers on maneuvers

25 plant trees. Give police and criminals a

 

 

 

53

1 shovel and a thousand seedlings. Let

2 businessmen carry pocketfuls of acorns.

3 Let newlyweds honeymoon in the woods.

4 Walk, don't drive. Stop reading

5 newspapers. Stop writing poetry. Squat

6 under a tree and tell stories.

7 To conclude my comments, I am with these people.

8 Unfortunately, I don't have faith that you also view the

9 trees as family. You use the word products. This

10 concerns me.

11 No HCP should be allowed.

12 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you, sir.

13 MR. BROOKS: Let me finish my quoting, again

14 Dr. Seuss.

15 Unless someone like you cares a whole awful

16 lot, a whole awful lot, nothing is going to

17 get better. It's not. So catch, calls the

18 onceler, and lets something fall. It's a

19 truffula seed. It's the last one of all.

20 You're in charge of the last of the

21 truffula seeds. Truffula trees are what

22 everyone needs. Plant a new truffula.

23 Treat it with care. Give it clean water.

24 Feed it fresh air. Grow forests. Protect

25 it from axes that hack. Then the Lorax and

 

 

 

54

1 all of his friends may come back.

2 Thank you for your patience.

3 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you.

4 (Applause.)

5 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Chris Keyser will be

6 followed by Michael Fry.

7 MS. KEYSER: Hello. My name is Chris Keyser I

8 live in Berkeley, California, and I am an environmental

9 writer. I've been writing about the destruction.

10 Redwood ecosystem for about 10 years.

11 This morning I was watching my cat, my tabby cat

12 Shua, enjoying herself in the sun, and I was instantly

13 reflecting on how her species evolved in north Africa and

14 the stripes of the tabby were because at that time in

15 history north Africa was densely forested with old growth

16 forest.

17 Well, we all know what north Africa is like today.

18 It's a Sahara desert. Same with the cedars of Lebanon.

19 Where are the famous cedars of Lebanon today?

20 There are two symbols of California which are

21 known worldwide and which people come from all over the

22 world to see. One is our redwood forests. The other,

23 unfortunately, is only now visible on the state flag, the

24 grizzly bear. It was state sanctioned hunted into

25 extinction at the beginning of the century.

 

 

 

55

1 Do we really want our redwood forests to perish in

2 that way? We have so few left.

3 Pacific Lumber's Habitat Conservation Plan is a

4 lawless document. It's using law -- it's using the smoke

5 screen of law to write into law things that will break

6 the law, mainly the Endangered Species Act.

7 Pacific Lumber rightfully should not be given any

8 incidental take permit to kill any endangered species

9 because of their hundreds and hundreds of violations of

10 state forestry law and the Endangered Species Act,

11 National Environmental Protection Act and so forth, as

12 witnessed by the Thanksgiving 1992 massacre in Elk Creek

13 grove where Pacific Lumber loggers went in and felled

14 dozens of old growth trees so they could destroy marbled

15 murrelet habitat.

16 It was only when the Environmental Protection

17 Information Center took them to court and got a federal

18 injunction and then actually they went all the way up to

19 the U. S. Supreme Court upholding the right of Endangered

20 Species Act, that it protects habitat as well as species.

21 Mr. Johnson, I'm sure you remember when we were

22 all up here in March 1996 when Pacific Lumber was trying

23 to punch a hole through the heart of Headwaters forest.

24 At that time in reply to someone from U. S. Fish and

25 Wildlife Service, a biologist, they said that they would

 

 

 

56

1 not prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan because they

2 didn't believe they would ever be given an incidental

3 take permit. So the fact that at this point the agencies

4 have signed off to this plan is very disturbing.

5 Another aspect of the plan which is extremely

6 disturbing is that it would allow Pacific Lumber to log

7 in the south fork of the Eel River. They have already

8 destroyed the north fork. They have already destroyed

9 the Freshwater watersheds. The residents of Freshwater,

10 the north fork of the Eel River and Stafford have all

11 filed lawsuits against Pacific Lumber for destroying

12 their homes. Pacific Lumber should not be given any more

13 watersheds to log. Maybe this is an old growth forest,

14 maybe it's second growth, but the impact on the entire

15 watershed will be devastating.

16 Thank you.

17 (Applause.)

18 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you. Michael Fry

19 to be followed by Craig Michaels.

20 MR. FRY: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Spear, Mr. Hogarth,

21 thank you very much for letting me speak. My name is

22 Michael Fry, F-r-y, with the University of California at

23 Davis. I've been the director of the Center for Avian

24 Biology, and I'm a former chairman of the Pacific Seabird

25 Group and former chairman of the Scientific Advisory

 

 

 

57

1 Panel for the Department of Interior's Environmental

2 Studies Program under Minerals Management Service.

3 I have five, six comments, excuse me, specifically

4 on the Habitat Conservation Plan and its implementation

5 that I think warrant considerable revision.

6 The Habitat Conservation Plan is carefully

7 designed for the protection of marbled murrelets. It

8 protects substantial portions of the known breeding

9 habitat within Palco land, but it clearly exempts known

10 nesting areas from protection. The best areas will be

11 protected. Assembly Bill 1986 assists further.

12 However, the plan admits that habitat for the

13 marbled murrelets will be degraded during the first 20

14 years of this, at least the first 20 years, and that only

15 with regrowth of existing residual habitat will, it is

16 hoped, that the marbled murrelets will find this land

17 acceptable so that there will be actually some recovery.

18 The habitat for marbled murrelets is already

19 highly fragmented and degraded and only a remnant

20 population of the birds exist in California, especially

21 compared to Alaska, for instance, but the species is not

22 listed in Alaska. It's listed in California. The

23 species is endangered now. It should be protected now,

24 not 20 years from now or 50 years from now.

25 With regard to spotted owls, there are many

 

 

 

58

1 spotted owls in the area, perhaps 120 sites. Many of

2 these will be protected, although only protected during

3 the nesting season. After the nest season areas can be

4 cut. It's presumed that the birds will move to other

5 reasonable habitat. The evidence for their moving to

6 other habitat is really shaky.

7 The habitat fragmentation is going to occur with

8 more clear-cutting around protected areas which, as it

9 has in other forests, will encourage the influx of barred

10 owls, which as a predatory species on spotted owls, may

11 in fact extirpate the birds themselves.

12 So irrespective of the plans to attempt to protect

13 spotted owls, the secondary loss of spotted owls through

14 the immigration of barred owls may occur; and the only

15 way you can prevent that is by reducing the amount of

16 cut.

17 With regard to salmonid habitat protection, the

18 federal protection guidelines called for riparian

19 protection corridors of 300 feet as a general guideline.

20 This HCP establishes 200 feet with selective cutting to

21 30 feet.

22 The riparian corridors are too narrow to prevent

23 siltation from clear cuts into streams, and selective

24 cutting within up to 30 feet may severely impact the

25 shade that is necessary on streams to preserve salmonid

 

 

 

59

1 habitat.

2 This plan is better than current practices, and

3 for that I am grateful, but it is still not really

4 adequate to protect coho salmon which, in addition to its

5 breeding habitat as an anadromous fish, is also a

6 commercial fish and has severe impacts at sea.

7 With regard to geological instability, the geology

8 of California north coast is highly unstable, with major

9 earthquakes within 30 miles. Part of the Palco land is

10 on very sleep slopes and the slopes are maintained only

11 by the tree roots that keep the land from moving down.

12 Clear-cutting will make many of the areas unstable and

13 highly prone to landslides.

14 Land slides are a major, probably the major

15 contributor to stream degradation, and in this plan the

16 protection of slopes will be the responsibility of a

17 corporate geologist without provision for review or

18 oversight by agencies. And with the corporate

19 responsibility demonstrated in the past by Palco, I think

20 that's an extremely unwise thing to have this corporate

21 geologist not have oversight management by agencies.

22 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you. Could you

23 please conclude?

24 MR. FRY: Yes. I'll conclude very quickly.

25 The granting of an incidental take permit on this

 

 

 

60

1 is your biggest hammer for enforcing things, and by

2 granting a 50-year incidental take permit without really

3 adequate monitoring and provisions for redress or

4 cancellation of the permit I think is really unwarranted.

5 Thank you.

6 (Applause.)

7 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Craig Michaels will be

8 followed by Robin Lindheimer.

9 MR. MICHAELS: Good afternoon. My name is Craig

10 Michaels. I have a Bachelor of Science from the

11 University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and

12 Environment. I've been doing environmental education on

13 the north coast of California for the past two years, and

14 I currently live in the Bay Area where I work for the

15 Headwaters Sanctuary Project.

16 The first 10 years of the so-called Sustained

17 Yield Plan called for logging over 25 percent of Pacific

18 Lumber's holdings, over 54,000 acres. Of these lands,

19 more than 45,000 acres will be clear-cut. Within the

20 first four years alone, 2,580 of old growth will be cut,

21 2,236 acres of which will be clear-cut.

22 This is clearly not a plan that will facilitate,

23 quote, "sustained production of high quality timber

24 products while giving consideration to environmental and

25 economic values," unquote, as required under Section 14

 

 

 

61

1 of the Code of Federal Regulations 1091.1 (b). In order

2 to facilitate this logging, 150 additional miles of road

3 will be constructed.

4 The stream survey data in these documents is

5 incomplete and outdated to the point where it provides an

6 extremely misleading picture of actual habitat

7 conditions. The Bear Creek watershed is a case in point.

8 The SYP stream data, which is several years old, shows a

9 high percentage of pools and shade cover even though

10 these conditions no longer exist. During the first heavy

11 rains of 1997, a massive landslide and debris torrent

12 originating on a recent logging plan eroded into Bear

13 Creek burying almost four miles of recovering salmon

14 habitat. Of the 84 habitat restoration structures placed

15 in the creek in previous years, all but one was buried or

16 swept away.

17 However, the SYP describes most of these instream

18 structures as, quote, "functioning," even though the

19 survey is dated five months after the landslide. This

20 example clearly illustrates the figures on which the SYP

21 is based on incomplete, inaccurate and intentionally

22 misleading.

23 Pacific Lumber has been convicted numerous times

24 of criminal violations of California forestry laws and

25 has displayed a clear disregard for public trust. Their

 

 

 

62

1 request for take permit should therefore be denied under

2 Section 50 CFR 13.21(b)(1).

3 The company's most recent crimes, and I'm sure

4 you're aware of these, Mr. Johnson, include clear-cutting

5 a stream-side buffer zone in THP 197004, overlogging in a

6 stream-side buffer zone in THP's 197221 and 198075,

7 clear-cutting around northern spotted owl nest trees in

8 THP's 198004 and 197548, and driving trucks directly

9 through fish-bearing streams in THP's 197401 and 197428.

10 Any one of these violations clearly, Mr. Johnson,

11 involves a, quote, "gross negligence or willful

12 disregard" of the Forest Practice Act and Forest Practice

13 Rules, as well as main other state and federal

14 environmental laws. Therefore, Pacific Lumber has

15 violated the terms and conditions set forth in their

16 stipulated agreement with the California Department of

17 Forestry which stated that Pacific Lumber was to remain

18 in, quote, "full compliance with the provisions of the

19 Forest Practices Act."

20 As an official of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife

21 Service, Mr. Spear, it is your responsibility to enforce

22 environmental laws. It is essential that this agency

23 institute a policy for strict oversight of the CDF since

24 the CDF is clearly unwilling to perform its duties and

25 suspend or revoke Pacific Lumber's operating license

 

 

 

63

1 pursuant to their stipulated agreement, paragraph four,

2 line 15 and/or Article VI, Section 4576 of the Forest

3 Practice Act.

4 The endangered species present on Pacific Lumber

5 property will undoubtedly suffer a lethal blow under the

6 company's Habitat Conservation Plan. The coho salmon in

7 particular will undoubtedly decline in numbers as a

8 result of the watershed analysis process being

9 predetermined. Although this watershed analysis process

10 is designed to prescribe site-specific recommendations

11 for logging practices in each watershed, the buffer zones

12 are arbitrarily capped at a maximum of 170 feet.

13 Any disagreement on the management prescriptions

14 are simply a failure to complete such process of

15 watershed analysis would result in a default prescription

16 which would not exceed 170 feet in Class I water courses

17 and 130 feet in Class II water courses. Such

18 predetermination negates the whole purpose of an

19 independent watershed assessment and clearly contradicts

20 the FEMAT recommended guidelines for protecting salmon.

21 In summation, Pacific Lumber's Draft Habitat

22 Conservation Plan and Sustained Yield Plan must not

23 approved as these plans scientific inadequate,

24 politically motivated and economically and

25 environmentally unsound at best.

 

 

 

64

1 Do your job, gentlemen. Thank you.

2 (Applause.)

3 MR. LINDHEIMER: My name is Robin Lindheimer.

4 This is a very bizarre process, sort of confuses

5 me, because it seems to me what we're coming here to do

6 is tell you many, many things that you already know. You

7 know the company that we're dealing with. You know it's

8 a company that violates California forestry code and laws

9 again and again and again and you're well aware of that

10 and we come up and tell you this. They just violated it

11 after the funding was approved. That's how audacious

12 they are about their violations. They just drive their

13 equipment right through rivers, thinking, you know, we

14 got guys in our pocket, we've got this HCP, we got this

15 money, so we can do what we want.

16 Seems like they think HCP stands for how crime

17 pays. With all due respect, you know what company you're

18 dealing with. You know the bad science that this is

19 based on. This is something that I can list. Many

20 people have come up and people who follow me will list

21 problems with the science. You're well aware of that,

22 but I wonder if it's going to do any good.

23 You know about the salmon. There's another thing

24 you know about. You know what's happened to the

25 population, how it's dwindled and dwindled and dwindled.

 

 

 

65

1 It's one percent, something like that.

2 So I wonder what I can come up and tell you that

3 you can make a difference. You know about redwood trees.

4 I hope you know about redwood trees. I hope you

5 understand there is no scientifically valid way to

6 mitigate permanent damage to ancient forests. I mean

7 it's just absurd.

8 But, you know, we come up because we care and it's

9 very important to us. So I hope that -- I guess what can

10 come out of here is that we can come here and show you

11 that we know what you know. We understand and we care.

12 And the fact that you know that we the people, the

13 experts, students, activists, residents, I mean people

14 really, really care about this issue and about this

15 forest and about these species.

16 Hopefully, if you understand that and you

17 understand how informed we are that maybe your conscience

18 will get the better of you and you'll do your jobs. I

19 don't mean to be disrespectful, but this is just a very

20 frustrating process.

21 My heart is with these people here who feel, I

22 mean they feel like coming up here and speaking is a

23 waste of time. And I feel that way, too, but I hope I'm

24 wrong and I hope you prove me wrong. Thank you very

25 much.

 

 

 

66

1 (Applause.)

2 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Thank you. Harriet Bly

3 will be followed by Donald Taylor.

4 MS. BLY: My last is spelled B-l-y.

5 Corporate America runs the government. Case in

6 point is Herwitz, you know, bought the redwood with

7 illegal junk bonds. He still owns them. The bottom line

8 is money. I know it, you know it, the audience knows it.

9 I am currently a second year student getting my

10 master's degree in social work, and I am submerged for

11 the last two years in information on how the government

12 doesn't care about the homeless, the sick, the poor. Why

13 would I think that they are going to care about a tree?

14 You know, but a tree has a dollar amount. So what

15 you're all going to do -- I know it, you know, they know

16 it -- is that you will rewrite the HCP plan in order to

17 take, you know, if by some miracle you should actually

18 save those 7200 acres, you'll rewrite it and you'll

19 justify taking the last of them. We all know this.

20 And with my knowledge in social work and my

21 passion for the environment, trust me when I tell you as

22 a species we're screwed. Okay? I keep hoping there's

23 another Earth I can go to because this is getting so

24 hopeless, and us as an environmentalists, I read an

25 article that said we're scared. We are so scared because

 

 

 

67

1 you people won't listen, but I have to keep trying. I

2 can't give up. For my son's sake, I will not give up.

3 But in the end when mother Earth has had enough, and she

4 will, it will not be because God willed it. It will be

5 because of greed and because plans like the HCP. Thank

6 you.

7 (Applause.)

8 HEARING OFFICER ORTEGA: Donald Taylor to be

9 followed by Phillip Guddemi.

10 MR. TAYLOR: Taylor, T-a-y-l-o-r. I am a small

11 businessman involved with the lumber industry.

12 Specifically, our three-person company sells lower grade

13 lumber to other small companies which process this

14 material into pallets, crates and packaging. In turn,

15 these products are used to store and ship a huge variety

16 of food and goods throughout our country and the world.

17 I am also a consumer of wood product, wood and

18 paper products in my home and business. I cannot imagine

19 my lifestyle without these vital and wonderful

20 commodities, nor can I imagine the world without the use

21 of these renewable resources.

22 I am also an outdoorsman and hiker. I have walked

23 in many of the redwood forests and treasure the emotional

24 and spiritual experience provided by them. I cannot

25 imagine a world without forests and wilderness.

 

 

 

68

1 When I evaluate a situation like the Headwaters

2 acquisition and related agreements with Pacific Lumber

3 Company, all of the above mentioned influences and

4 motivations come into play for me. The whole situation

5 is a complex one, requiring tradeoffs and balancing.

6 As I understand the agreement reached between

7 governmental agencies, environmental interests and

8 Pacific Lumber Company, I happen to favor its adoption.

9 This includes the Habitat Conservation Plan and the

10 Sustained Yield Plan which will allow Palco to operate

11 under a consistent set of guidelines.

12 I have heard a lot of impassioned talk to today,

13 especially about generations here and to come. And as I

14 see what is going on and I look at my children and my

15 hoped for grandchildren, to me there is no better product

16 than wood. It is intimately involved in the lives and