In the last edition of the MEC Newsletter, we announced a major rally for Headwaters Forest which was set for September 15th. Well, a lot's happened since then, resulting in some good news and some bad news. The good news is that the main 3,000-acre Headwaters grove, the largest unprotected grove of ancient redwoods left on earth, still stands! The bad news is that there is no permanent protection for the grove, and the rest of the 60,000-acre coastal redwood forest, including four other old growth groves, is on the chopping block.
The Rally on Sept. 15
Every year, September 15th is a pivotal day in the life of Headwaters Forest. In California, logging usually starts in March or April and logging jobs are usually about finished by the time September rolls around. However, unlike most other forests in the state, Headwaters Forest still contains enough old growth that there is a functioning old growth ecosystem there. As such, Headwaters Forest is host to many species of flora and fauna which are not found in the vast (about 96%) cut over redwood forests elsewhere. In particular, Headwaters Forest is host to the endangered marbled murrelet, a small sea bird that comes ashore to nest and lay its eggs in the tops of old growth trees. The official last day of the murrelet nesting season is Sept. 15th (though, of course, the murrelets don't know this) and logging in and around murrelet sites can begin on Sept. 16th. So, Sept. 15th is the date selected for the major Headwaters Rally.
Carlotta, California is basically in the middle of nowhere. For instance, getting there from San Francisco requires a hard five-hour drive up Hwy. 101. Just east of Carlotta, Pacific Lumber (PL) has one of its mills on the south side of the road. Across the street on the north side of the road you can just see the southern boarder of Headwaters Forest. All the land there is private property and there's nowhere for a large group of people to gather. So, of course, it seemed like the perfect place to hold the Headwaters Rally.
In all fairness, we had a major Headwaters Rally at this same place in 1995. More importantly, we'll be having another major Headwaters Rally there this year too, so put Sept. 14th on your calendar now. But, more about that later. You see, 1995 was different. In 1995, PL, the lumber company that owns and is cutting down Headwaters Forest, gave permission for the rally to be on its land across the road from its Carlotta mill. In 1996, permission was denied. No matter.
Thousands showed up in '95. Thousands more showed up in '96. No one knows exactly how many protestors were there last Sept. It's generally agreed that 7,000 were there for sure, and probably more. People gathered by the road, on the state right-of-way beside Hwy. 36, and a line of people 20 to 30 deep stretched from horizon to horizon along the road through those rolling hills. A flat-bed truck served as a stage and the crowd stayed all day, though many could not see or hear the show. A fine show it was, too. Bonnie Raitt, Judi Bari, Rabbi Naomi Steinberg, to name only a few, and so very many more were on stage that day. You should have been there. At the end of the show the crowd headed north on Fisher Road, towards the entrance to Headwaters Forest. The intent was to perform a symbolic trespass onto PL's land; to symbolically place your body between the trees and the chainsaws. A line of police waited at the boundary line.
Officially, one-thousand-thirty-three people (that's 1,033) were arrested that day! That's the largest number of arrestees in a single action since the Viet Nam war protests. That's the largest number of people arrested in a protest about forests, ever! And the resistance was only beginning.
The Encampment
Hundreds more would be arrested by the time the short logging season in Headwaters Forest drew to a close around Nov. 15th. Hailing from a basecamp hosted by Earth First!, groups of protestors staged almost daily actions in a sustained effort to halt or slow down logging in the Headwaters Forest complex. Cunning and daring were the orders of the day.
For two solid months, protestors blocked logging roads, chained themselves to equipment, led loggers on cat-and-mouse chases through the trees and invented other creative ways to slow down the cut. It is important to say here that throughout the two months of sustained actions, all the protestors adhered to a strict policy of nonviolence. The nonviolence code included causing no harm, causing no property destruction, and refraining from the use of abusive language or threatening gestures.
One morning as loggers were showing up for work, they were greeted by a chorus of voices from the forest canopy high above their heads. Protestors had built and occupied a tree-top city, which they named Ewok Village. Built from nets, cables, ropes and platforms, the Village was also built on the assumption that the trees wouldn't be cut down while people were living in them; an assumption which, fortunately, proved to be true. On other days, cutting crews had to spend most of the day removing nets and miles of yarn in which the forest, the night before, had mysteriously become entangled.
Litigation
A barrage of lawsuits aimed at saving Headwaters entangled the forest as well. Spearheaded by the Environmental Protection and Information Center (EPIC), suits filed at the state and federal level kept PL as busy in the courtroom as in the woods. You may recall, the previous year it was an EPIC lawsuit that saved the day when a court ruled, late on Sept. 15th, 1995, that plans to cut in Headwaters could not proceed because of harm the cutting would cause the marbled murrelet. This year, litigation could not stop the assault on Headwaters, but it slowed down the assault and it raised some serious questions which have yet to be resolved by the court.
Challenged in court was PL's right to salvage log the entirety of its holdings, including the old growth groves within the Headwaters complex. State law allows salvage logging to occur outside the regulations that would otherwise apply to timber cutting. For salvage logging, the lumber company is neither required to file a Timber Harvest Plan (THP), nor are its plans subject to agency review or public scrutiny. Also challenged in court was PL's ability to destroy any forest habitat upon which rare, threatened or endangered species depend. Both the state and the federal Endangered Species Act lend weight to this challenge.
So, the litigation drags on and there will surely be more before the Headwaters issue is settled. In the end, though, lawsuits will not provide the settlement. The problem is, there is no law that says you have to protect an endangered ecosystem, even if you're down to the last one or two percent that's still functional. There is no law that says you must preserve a national treasure, even one that's in danger of being lost forever. That which is moral is not necessarily required by law. Even so, there are times when litigation may be the only thing that keeps Headwaters intact, providing precious time for the ultimate solution to be found.
Rallies and Things
During the time the basecamp, the direct actions in the woods and the lawsuits were proceeding, there was also a flurry of public rallies in support of saving Headwaters Forest. Rallies sprang up in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and in a bunch of the small towns in Northern California. Rallies in solidarity with the Headwaters cause also occurred in a number of other states: Texas, Minnesota, Washington, Indiana, New York and Colorado, to name a few. It is still unclear whether or not there was a Headwaters Rally in Oregon, but it is clear that a significant number of Oregonians came to the Headwaters Rallies in California, so the question is rather moot. One of the most poignant of the rallies happened at Pacific Lumber's headquarters in Scotia, California, where about 500 people surrounded the executive office building and commenced to have a wail in.
In addition, there was a walk to save Headwaters that went from Eureka to San Francisco. There were a host of radio shows that discussed Headwaters on a daily or weekly basis. There were numerous teach ins, video showings, class projects, fundraising concerts, talk shows, lectures, conferences, dances and functions of all descriptions dedicated to saving the forest. There was even an action where a few brave souls climbed up and hung a huge Headwaters banner across the Golden Gate Bridge.
All of this activity was, of course, intended to turn up the political heat and motivate the powers that be to take action and save Headwaters. Elected officials eventually noticed the pressure, too, and they took some action. Not surprisingly, however, the action they took lands somewhere between disappointing and disgusting. Unfortunately, this is the sort of outcome that is becoming all too familiar when "solutions" are handed down by the government.
The Government
Headwaters Forest became a topic of guarded discussion among a host of politicians including: President Clinton, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Representative Frank Riggs, Deputy Interior Secretary John Garamendi, Katie McGinty from the White House Council on Environmental Quality, California Governor Pete Wilson, and Doug Wheeler and Jim Branham from the California Resources Agency, to mention a few. These officials ended up talking with Charles Hurwitz, the billionaire owner of MAXXAM which owns PL which owns Headwaters, and John Campbell, the president of PL.
Evidently, preserving the last of the earth's functional, old growth, redwood ecosystem was not part of what they discussed. The rally cry for Headwaters supporters is, "Save All 60,000 Acres of Headwaters Forest." The 60,000 acres proposed is large enough to contain all the elements of a functional ecosystem. This acreage contains six old growth redwood groves. The land between the old groves is able to provide wildlife corridors and connectivity for the transmission of genetic material. Healthy waterways course through the area. These waters provide some of the last routes for salmon to reach the old growth forest, upon which they have depended for millennia, to spawn. The area is large enough that the landscape could change, as it will naturally, over time and still provide a stable ecosystem overall.
But, Hurwitz and the politicians weren't talking about 60,000 acres or about healthy ecosystems. They were talking about a way to get the public off their backs. So, after Hurwitz, et all, had some meetings at Senator Feinstein's office, their plan was announced. The newspaper headlines would proclaim, "Headwaters Forest Saved." However, the plan would, in the long run, accomplish just the opposite. Moreover, there were a host of other problems with this so called "deal".
The Deal
The deal was an agreement that the Federal Government and the State of California together would purchase about 7,500 acres of Headwaters Forest from Hurwitz for $380 million. The 7,500 acres would contain the Headwaters grove (about 3,000 acres) and a buffer zone around the grove (about 4,500 acres). The $380 million would be a combination of cash and state and federal assets. The deal was tied to a list of conditions and contingencies that must be met for the deal to go through. A ten month limit was set.
During this time all the pieces and parts of the deal have to come together to the satisfaction of all the "parties" involved. Also, during this time period Hurwitz agrees to a logging moratorium on the 7,500-acre Headwaters grove and buffer area. Note that the "parties" involved include neither the general public, the federal or state legislatures, nor any representatives from the environmentalist community. The deal is dated Sept. 28, 1996. Accordingly, the ten months is up around the end of July, 1997.
Among the conditions that must be satisfied during the ten month period, is that the federal government will require PL to complete a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the remainder of its timberland (roughly 200,000 acres, assuming the Headwaters deal goes through). The federal government will also require PL to comply with NEPA by preparing a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) or a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its holdings. In addition, the State of California will require PL to prepare a Sustained Yield Plan (SYP) for its timberlands.
Finally, even though this is a very abbreviated summary of the deal, it should not go without mention that the federal and state governments receive a little something extra from this deal, over and above ownership of the land being purchased. If the land purchase is successful, the deal also requires that PL drop two lawsuits; one against the federal government and one against the State of California. In these lawsuits, PL accused the federal and state governments of "taking" private property without just compensation. PL reasons thus: when the government prevents us from cutting trees on our land, this amounts to "taking" our private property and we should therefore be compensated in an amount equivalent to the fair market value of the property "taken". By including the dismissal of PL's lawsuits in the agreement, the entire "deal" might be seen as an out of court settlement with the government caving in to PL's demand for payment without any effort to defend against this claim. This apparent "caving in" to PL's demand is just one of many problems with the Headwaters deal.
Problem: Side-Stepping the Litigation
The Wise Use Movement, which we have often discussed in MEC Newsletters because it is also known as the "Anti-Environmental Movement", came up with the idea that a property owner could sue the government for compensation when the owner was forced to comply with environmental laws. The idea is based on a law that says the government must pay fair market value to any property owner who's property is "taken" by the government. Traditionally, this law was meant to apply to land that is actually seized by the government for a highway, railroad or other such use. The law was never meant to pay people off for complying with the law of the land.
But, the anti-environmentalists have decided to try to use this law against the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, NEPA, the Clean Air Act and other environmental regulations. The idea is to make it too expensive for the government to enforce these laws. At stake is the concept of the Public Trust. Basically, the Public Trust Doctrine says that individual property owners cannot do things on their property that adversely impact other people or the general environment. Environmental laws are supposed to protect the Public Trust. However, the Public Trust will not have its day in court this time. Instead, the government seems willing to acquiesce to PL's demand for payment. This side-step of the legal challenge seems to imply the government was, in fact, taking PL's property by forcing PL to comply with the Endangered Species Act. This side-step not only results in an undesirable outcome for Headwaters but, more importantly, may foreshadow that a horrible precedent has been set for other cases that may arise in the future.
Problem: The Price
Even if PL could prove its claim in a court of law and was then awarded the fair market value of its property by the court, there would still be a problem with the $380 million figure. Hurwitz, in a hostile takeover financed with junk bonds, bought the whole of PL for around $900 million. For his money, Hurwitz got about 200,000 acres of timberland, the entire town of Scotia, a string of lumber mills and all of PL's other assets including a fat pension fund, plenty of lumber ready to market and lots of decked logs waiting to be milled. Now Hurwitz is trying to sell off a small sliver of what he bought for about half of what he paid for the whole shootin' match. So, how did $380 million come to pass as fair market value for this land?
Surprise! It's the value because Hurwitz says it's the value. Actually, at Hurwitz's request, there were several attempts to appraise the land on the basis of the value of its standing timber. These appraisals were all over the map and the $380 million figure represents a sort of average of them. Problem is, the trees on this land cannot be cut because to do so would kill endangered species. It's illegal to kill endangered species, right? So, since the trees on this land cannot be cut, the trees on this land have no value whatsoever as timber! So, why are we using timber value to establish this exorbitant selling price? Apparently, because that's what Hurwitz wants and the government is not about to argue.
Too bad. If the government were to use any other reasonable basis, perhaps it would still arrive at a very generous valuation of $10,000/acre. The purchase price for the 7,500 acres would then be $75 million and the taxpayers would save a cool $300 million, plus some change, right off the bat.
Problem: The HCP
A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) can basically be viewed as a hunting license for endangered species. In a HCP, property owners tell the federal government how endangered species on one part of the property will be protected in exchange for a permit to kill endangered species on other parts of the property. When a HCP is approved, property owners are issued a "Takings Permit" under section 10 (a) of the ESA. Property owners are thereafter licensed to kill endangered species on certain parts of their property.
Historically, HCPs have usually been prepared for parcels of land which are much smaller than PL's 200,000-acre forest. In addition, most HCPs have focused on relatively simple species, like how to preserve some remnant of an endangered plant community. Even though most HCPs are much smaller and simpler in scope, they have usually taken a number of years to complete. Even so, according to the "deal", the draft of PL's HCP will be completed in 120 days and final approval will occur within ten months from start to finish. In fact, the government has agreed to "expedite" approval of PL's HCP.
This HCP will surely be flawed. Accounting for the long-term survival of complex species such as the marbled murrelet, spotted owl, and coho salmon, along with that of a myriad of other species that also depend on old growth forests, and to do so over such a large and varied landscape, is an enormous scientific undertaking to say the least. To accomplish the feat within ten months is inconceivable. Experts, for example, have already testified that marbled murrelets cannot stand any more destruction of their habitat whatsoever. Yet, PL's HCP will surely claim there is some way for PL to "safely" destroy more murrelet habitat. How could PL possibly have reliable data on such a complex issue in just ten months?
To its credit, the HCP (and the SYP) process does allow for public input and participation. In a combined federal and state EIS/EIR procedure, public comment on the deal will be heard. Already, a series of six public hearings have been concluded wherein the overwhelming weight of public opinion was opposed to the "deal" in general and opposed to any HCP/SYP which would allow further depletion or loss of old growth in the Headwaters forest complex. Yet, all the public sentiment will likely count for very little indeed because the government has agreed to expedite the approval of the HCP and of PL's "take" permit. In the end, if environmentalists file suit because the HCP is inadequate, that could kill the "deal", and thus kill Headwaters Forest. But, that's another problem and we'll talk about it later.
Problem: The SYP
California's Long Term Sustained Yield Plan (SYP) is a concept, a vision, a mirage in the mind of the beholder much the same as any other delusion perchance produced by smoke and mirrors. No SYPs exist. There is no track record upon which to judge the effectiveness, appropriateness or accuracy of SYPs. SYPs are the malversationist brainchild of the timber industry and the corrupt California Board of Forestry; conceived at a time when California's practice of forest depletion was under severe attack and brought forth into the world in place of the badly needed reform the people had hoped for.
In the mid-1800s, serious commercial logging began in California's pristine temperate rainforests. Depletion of the volume (mass, not number) of standing trees proceeded at an unrestricted pace for over a century. Finally, in the 1970s, the state Forest Practice Act was passed. The Act was supposed to halt the depletion, begin sustained yield logging and insure the health of California's forests. But, under the supervision of the newly created Board of Forestry, depletion continued at an alarming rate in spite of tremendous efforts from environmentalists and the general public to slow down the cut.
In 1990, depletion, particularly of corporate-owned forestlands, was so severe that residents began working on a set of special timber harvesting rules that would apply to logging in Mendocino County. If these special rules were approved by the Board of Forestry, it would have set a precedent that other counties could follow. In 1995, the Board of Forestry, without attempting to refute any of the evidence of depletion presented by the County, denied Mendocino's application for special county rules. The reason given was that the Board of Forestry would, instead, solve the depletion problem by requiring large corporate owners to have SYPs. Since then, depletion has continued unabated and there are no SYPs in place.
What little we have seen of SYPs in their developing stages is not encouraging. Several draft SYPs produced by large timber companies are formidable documents, to say the least. Typically, a SYP is a document composed of many thousands of pages of verbiage which, when combined with its attendant volume of graphs, tables and maps, constitutes a pile of paper over a foot high. The SYP documents are produced using state of the art technology. They employ satellite imaging data, computerized database GIS mapping systems and complex, computerized forestry modeling. Attempts to read and make sense of the end product, however, suggest that the SYPs are a typical case of garbage in, garbage out.
Careful analyses of draft SYPs have shown them to be disorganized, confusing, unintelligible and erroneous. It is somewhere between difficult and impossible to glean from them what, if any, changes will result in on-the-ground forestry practices. At any rate, it will be years into the future before we can accurately assess the effects SYPs will have on forest health. Even so, the State of California has agreed to expedite approval of PL's SYP. And in the end, once again, if environmentalists decide to bring suit because PL's SYP is inadequate, that could kill the "deal", and thus kill Headwaters Forest. But, that's another problem and, as promised above, we'll talk about it later.
Problem: The Loopholes
The Headwaters deal can be terminated at any point along the ten month timeline. Any of the "parties" (i.e., the feds, state or Hurwitz) can exercise their right of termination or the right to end the moratorium on cutting by notifying the other parties in writing two weeks prior to termination. This arrangement basically puts Hurwitz in the deal's driver's seat. While it is conceivable that the feds or the state might terminate the deal because they can't come up with the funds or the assets, it is unlikely. It is far more likely that Hurwitz will decide to terminate the deal. Perhaps he won't like the assets (in lieu of cash) he's being offered. Perhaps the government won't perform fast enough to meet the time table. Perhaps something else will displease him or perhaps he'll just change his mind. In any event, the moratorium on cutting the Headwaters Grove seems to be hanging by a thread. Hurwitz could send off his two-week notice anytime.
Another circumstance that's sufficient to terminate the deal is the failure of government agencies to approve the HCP, SYP, EIS/EIR and Take Permit within the ten month limit. If this mammoth task cannot be speedily completed, Headwaters could fall. At the same time, little comfort is derived from the government's promise to expedite approval of these documents. Hastily written plans rushed through the approval process are bound to be sadly inadequate, resulting, once again, in harm for Headwaters. And if environmentalists file lawsuits because the plans are inadequate, guess what?
Before the deal closes, any judicial decision resulting from a third party lawsuit that would significantly delay or impair the Headwaters transactions will kill the deal. Furthermore, if legal action is brought after the deal closes, then the feds, state and PL have pledged to cooperate to diligently preserve the deal.
For many, it is not possible to say whether it would be better if this problematic deal were to succeed or fail. Certainly, there are numerous opportunities for it to fail. However, if it succeeds, we may face the biggest problem of all.
Problem: It's The Ecosystem, Stupid!
Over the long term, it is simply not possible to preserve a small island of ancient forest ecosystem amidst a big sea of clearcuts. Forests change over time and a large landscape, embracing many thousands of acres, is required to allow for the changes and still provide a stable ecosystem. There are hundreds of old growth dependent species and no small grove can contain them all. Ecological processes like migration, natural selection and succession, which have evolved over many thousands of years in large landscapes, are disrupted when the forest is fragmented by intensive logging.
The 60,000-acre Headwaters Forest contains six old growth groves interspersed within land that has already been logged. Some of the land outside the ancient groves has been lightly cut and still contains a smattering of "residual" old growth trees. Other parts of this land have been logged so intensely that the land is damaged and bare. All of the ancient groves themselves have experienced some degree of logging.
The crown jewel, the 3,000-acre Headwaters grove, had a logging road cut halfway to its heart before protests and legal action brought the cutting to a halt. Elk Head Grove, which is part of the planned 7,500-acre preserve, was intended to be part of a protective buffer zone around the Headwaters Grove. However, Elk Head was badly damaged prior to the announcement of the deal.
Its only fair to say that, at the time, Elk Head was not owned by PL. It was owned by another timber company and is being acquired by PL as part of the deal. Part of the Elk Head property will become a buffer for the Headwaters Grove and the rest (about 7,755 acres) will be added to PL's holdings. Up to the day the deal was announced, the Elk Head property was being clearcut. The cutting was concentrated along the border of the Headwaters Grove. So, while the Elk Head property will function as a buffer around the Headwaters Grove, the protection it affords has been compromised.
The other four ancient groves are excluded from the Headwaters deal. They have been subject to logging via regular Timber Harvest Plans and by "salvage" logging operations which were the target of sustained protests last year. Even so, these groves each have enough ancient forest left that they still maintain some functional old growth habitat. The Headwaters deal would allow this habitat to be completely eliminated. However, there is reason for hope.
The United States Supreme Court, by refusing to hear PL's appeal, just let stand a ruling that says logging in the Owl Creek Grove cannot proceed because it would damage marbled murrelet habitat. This is a great victory for EPIC and its legal team that filed the lawsuit to stop the logging. However, it lays open the possibility that PL may file another lawsuit claiming the government is taking its property by prohibiting the cut. Could the future hold an Owl Creek deal similar to the Headwaters deal? What about the other three groves? Wouldn't it be better to take an ecosystem approach now rather than go through all this stuff year after year?
The Vision
All six ancient groves must be preserved and all 60,000 acres must be available to support them. Each of the ancient groves must have a buffer zone around it to enable the old growth habitat to function properly. Then the core preserves must be connected with corridors to allow for migration and other ecological functions. Ideally, these corridors would be composed of unlogged riparian zones around waterways and ridgetops running from one grove to another. Land that has been damaged should receive restoration work. This could not only create jobs for many years into the future but would also insure that the whole of the 60,000 acres would regain its ability to function as healthy forest habitat. None of this, of course, means that the entire 60,000 acres would be off limits to logging. Logging done wisely, and with the goal of preserving a functional forest ecosystem, could proceed year after year. There really is a way that this land can provide jobs, products and healthy old growth habitat into perpetuity.
For those of us who hold this vision, it simply makes no sense to allow a junk bond billionaire to liquidate the whole 60,000 acres now for a quick buck. After all, the giant trees and the critters that depend on them would be lost forever. There is no need for that, and besides, that which would be lost is far more valuable than the money to be made. Yes, we vision holders submit that there really are some things in life more important than money; any amount of money.
Yet, if you are among those who believe that Mr. Hurwitz should be allowed to do whatever he wants on land that he owns, please read on. We have one more bone to pick with Mr. Hurwitz, and it has to do with money. Our money.
We Want Our $1.6 Billion!
As mentioned above, when Charles Hurwitz positioned himself to launch a hostile takeover of PL, he raised the needed capital by floating junk bonds against his Texas S&L with the aid of convicted criminals Michael Milliken and Ivan Boesky. When it came time to pay the piper, Hurwitz let the S&L come crashing down. It cost us, via the FDIC directing our taxes, $1.6 billion to pay off the S&L's otherwise ruined depositors and investors. Those were our tax dollars and now we want our money back.
The government has filed lawsuits against Hurwitz personally and against his MAXXAM corporation, the parent company of PL, to recoup some of the $1.6 billion in losses. Still other charges may be filed in the future pending further government investigation. In all fairness, Hurwitz claims he is innocent and that he will prevail in court. In any event, it will be many years before we know the answer. With so much money, so many people and so many avenues for capital transfers, these lawsuits could drag on for many years to come. But, Headwaters Forest is in danger now.
So, even if there is presently no legal mandate for Hurwitz to repay our $1.6 billion, isn't there still a moral one? If Hurwitz is unwilling to give up Headwaters in exchange for not being prosecuted for the $1.6 billion debt, so be it. Doesn't it still make sense to freeze his assets, especially Headwaters Forest, until we have a clear legal outcome? Wouldn't it be a shame if the court eventually ordered Hurwitz to repay the debt, but by then the forest was gone and the money made from it already spent? Hurwitz might then be unable to pay and then we all end up losing not once, but twice. In fact, in view of this $1.6 billion debt question, why are we even considering paying Hurwitz another $380 million of our money for a deal that cannot possibly work anyway?
Please Help
A national treasure is at stake. It's a treasure as irreplaceable as the Grand Canyon or Yosemite Park. You can help save it. Organize a Headwaters support group in your area. Headwaters videos, audio tapes, literature and activists are available to help you. Make presentations in your community. Organize your block or your mountain top. Together, we can save Headwaters Forest.
Come To Headwaters Sept. 14th
This year there's going to be another massive Headwaters Rally. We're cordially inviting you, your Headwaters support group, and about 10,000 to 10,000,000 other good folks to come and join in. Already, local crews are working to scope out the required number of campsites and to rustle up a huge mess of edibles and other creature comforts we know you'll enjoy. Fact is, Sept. 14th will probably be the opening day of another Headwaters Forest protest season. So, if you have some time to spare, come to Headwaters Sept. 14th and plan to stay awhile. See you there.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1997
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is
cited