The Eureka Reporter
2/24/05
Time to bust some myths about PALCO
by by Robert Manne
(Editors note: There has been a lot written about The Pacific
Lumber
Co. in media. PALCO contends that some of this information has been
correct, but believes much of it has not. This is the first of a
two-part series from PALCOs perspective. The same courtesy will
be
shown to PALCOs critics if they choose to make a submission.)
Myth Busting
We all have read various books about Greek mythology, which were
great
books to stimulate our imaginations by discussing the 12 Olympian
gods,
creatures, places, heroes, figures and creation.
We need a new book about Humboldt County Mythology when
it relates to
The Pacific Lumber Co.
Webster defines a myth as: an unfounded or false notion
or a person or
thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence; something
like
an urban legend or an urban myth.
There are many myths that have been promulgated in the county and
throughout the state about our company, our owner, the Headwaters
Agreement, the everyday business practices on our forest lands, our
mills and our town of Scotia. Our opponents have spent many years
and
many dollars to promulgate these myths to benefit their cause and
we
have not effectively addressed them to the citizens of Humboldt County.
My sole purpose with this series is to present the facts,
away from
all the hype, to clear away and dispel the myths that have existed
for
far too long and way too many years.
Myth No. 1
PALCO is asking to renegotiate its habitat conservation plan.
This is
not true.
The Headwaters Agreement was a series of agreements and
permissions
emanating back to Sept. 28, 1996, between the United States, the state
of California and The Pacific Lumber Co. The agreement was the result
of
trying to resolve two takings lawsuits brought by PALCO
against the
United States and the state of California for preventing PALCO from
harvesting its timber due to the presence of endangered species.
Essentially, the agreement included the transfer of the Headwaters
and
Elkhead forests to the United States and California. In exchange,
PALCO
received a small piece of property and $300 million, Sierra Pacific
Industries received $80 million, the Humboldt County Headwaters Fund
received approximately $22 million to make up for the lost tax base,
and
finally the state of California got an option to purchase two additional
pieces of land from PALCO (Owl Creek and Grizzly Creek with an estimated
value of $100 million).
The state did exercise its option and purchased these lands from
PALCO
in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The federal and state governments also promised
PALCO:
1. An incidental take permit for the multi-species habitat conservation
plan to enable PALCO to work in certain areas, protect habitat and
provide mitigation on its remaining lands for 17 aquatic and terrestrial
species.
2. A sustained yield plan issued by the state of California that
defined
allowable harvests on PALCOs total property for the next 120
years to
ensure predictable and sustainable harvest levels to provide certainty
for PALCOs log supply.
3. A state and federal no surprises policy assurance
clause to provide
certainty that no new laws, under a wide spectrum of potential changed
conditions, would change the agreement once signed and could not place
new restrictions and limitations upon PALCOs ability to harvest.
4. An implementation agreement was also signed on Sept. 28, 1996,
and
federal legislation was passed in October 1997 that ensured the
conditions above.
The Habitat Conservation Plan
The HCP is a comprehensive scientific and administrative document,
designed to ensure that PALCO would conduct its forest management
and
timber harvesting with the most stringent restrictions in the state,
which were more restrictive than the standard forest practice rules
used
by every other timber company in the state, including:
50 percent of its timberlands and 60 percent of its volume
to be
off-limits to harvesting until more detailed science was completed.
A streamlined, simplified, one-stop shopping process
for THP
approvals;
The White House and the secretaries of the Interior and Commerce
departments assured PALCO in writing that economic concerns and
feasibility and viability would be taken into account and balanced
with
biological necessities.
A science-will-drive-policy approach provided
two processes for
making changes to the HCP when science dictates (watershed analysis
and
adaptive management).
No harvesting in areas prone to landslides.
Either no harvest and/or limited harvest
only would be allowed in
wide buffers along all watercourses.
Harvest restrictions in both Elk River and Freshwater watersheds
of
600 and 500 acres annually were imposed.
Leave trees are to be scattered throughout the
harvest area for
wildlife habitat.
6,000 acres, including a large portion of old growth, was
set aside
for 50 years to protect marbled murrelet habitat.
Large buffers were retained around 108 spotted owl sites each
year.
Detailed scientific watershed analysis is to be conducted
in all PALCO
watersheds to determine appropriate protections.
85 percent of PALCOs old-growth timber was conserved
in the
Headwaters Forest and the marbled murrelet conservation areas.
What has happened to the agreement?
Since the close of the Headwaters transaction in 1996 and signing
the
HCP in 1999, the following events have altered the agreement and have
put PALCO in a jeopardy financial position:
Starting on Jan. 1, 2003, a new law SB390 (passed in 2000)
went into
effect which declared that all waivers of waste discharge which
were
granted by the regional water boards would be vacated. All industries
including cattle, dairy, grape growers and the building industries
which previously had waivers temporarily lost their waivers as
of that
date. Most all boards re-enacted the waivers for 2003. For 2004 the
North Coast Regional Board instituted a policy allowing general waste
discharge permits if certain standards were met. Almost all other
timber
companies easily met these standards, which required an erosion control
plan for each THP. Only PALCO and one other small timber company from
the Sonoma area did not qualify for general permits but were required
to
seek a unique set of standards which called for watershed wide permits.
On Sept. 30, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District
of
Columbia, in a lawsuit brought by a group called the Spirit of the
Sage
Council, issued an order invalidating the federal no surprises
rule.
This decision raises serious questions as to whether the no
surprises
provisions of PALCOs federal incidental take permit, habitat
conservation plan and Implementation Agreement are valid.
On Oct. 12, 2003, the California Legislature passed and Gov.
Gray
Davis signed SB 810. Prior to that time, CDF was the final authority
to
approve or deny all THPs. Regional water quality control boards were
allowed input with respect to the impacts of the proposed plan on
water
quality, but the Forest Practices Act stipulated that differences
of
opinion between the regional water quality control boards and CDF
were
resolved by CDF as the lead agency. With SB810, THPs can be stopped
by
the regional water quality control board if it can show with
substantial evidence that timber operations cause discharges
into
impaired watercourses. Veto power now rests with the regional water
quality control boards.
On Oct. 31, 2003, the Humboldt County Superior Court (Judge
Golden),
in lawsuits filed by EPIC/Sierra Club/United Steelworkers of America,
invalidated the SYP, invalidated the state ITP, invalidated the state
streambed alteration permit that was part of the original agreement,
and
stopped PALCO from harvesting on any THPs that relied on the SYP;
all
due to minor deficiencies in the states approval procedures.
Although the early years of operating under the HCP were difficult
at
best, we did manage to work through the issues and were making
significant progress. We were seeing increases in harvest levels
approaching our agreed to sustainable harvest levels and were becoming
more efficient at logging and conducting science under the HCP.
Relationships with the other state and federal agencies were positive
and mutually supportive. In 2002 we were able to harvest at our
sustained level for the first and only time in the six years since
the
signing of the HCP.
Our HCP receives great recognition from many regulatory agencies.
Mike Long, of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, recently stated,
It
is the services conclusion that the aquatic conservation measures
contained in the HCP are superior in the level of protection they
provide to aquatic resources compared to what would be afforded under
the current Forest Practice Rules. Continued implementation of PALCOs
HCP will result in overall improvements in water-quality conditions
in
watersheds covered by the plan.
Early results from the Freshwater Creek aquatic monitoring
indicate
there already may be a reduction in turbidity and sediment delivery
as a
result of implementing the HCPs conservation measures. Continued
implementation of the conservation measures of the HCP will, over
time,
lead to better aquatic habitat conditions and will substantially benefit
all aquatic resources within the watersheds.
Starting in late 2002 and continuing to this day, the regional board
refuses to accept the Headwaters Agreement and permits as a binding
on
the Regional Board with respect to review and approval of PALCOs
THPs
and has little to no regard for the importance and results of the
environmental protection of the HCP. These actions have delayed and
limited approval of THPs, prevented harvesting pursuant to approved
THPs, and led to litigation between PALCO and the regional board and
sate board.
The regional board and its staff are seeking to further limit and
restrict PALCOs THPs beyond the conditions imposed by the Headwaters
Agreement by reducing PALCOs harvest to a level substantially
below
that authorized by the SYP and below that necessary for the company
to
survive economically.
PALCO has managed to receive third-party validation of the sustainable
activities from independent auditing firms. Our recent sustainable
audit
findings were summarized by Mike Ferrucci, independent audit project
leader, as follows: PALCO has demonstrated an extraordinary
commitment
to implementing a science-based forestry and land-management program
that is consistent with the principles of sustainable forestry,
stated
Ferrucci.
Our independent findings confirm that PALCO is doing a remarkable
job
of practicing sustainable forestry by using and promoting responsible
practices, protecting special sites and by investing in science to
drive
continual improvement in their forest management practices.
Taken individually and in combination, the impacts of the legislative,
regulatory and judicial developments since the signing have denied
PALCO
of the benefits of the Headwaters transaction. We are not asking for
anything more than what was in the agreement in terms of regulatory
certainty; all we want is what we agreed to. There must be a reason
that
there have not been other HCPs signed with the state of California.
The real question is did we make a smart business decision in dismissing
our federal and state takings lawsuits and selling the Headwaters
Forest
at less than its fair-market value. The answer will be determined
by the
behavior of the state of California and its various agencies and
processes.
(Robert Manne is PALCOs chief executive officer and president.)