Free Response to Motion [Dispositive] - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:95-cv-00650-LSM

Document 129-5

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 1 of 10

EXHIBIT 4

Case MAC WILIAMS WITNSS: 1:95-cv-00650-LSM
1

Document 129-5 TM Filed 03/05/2008 Condenselt
Page 1
1

PageOCTOBER 11,.1996 2 of 10
Page 4

UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

2

3
4 5

2
3

being first du1y sworn, testified as follows:

MAC ROSS WILLIAS,

7 Plaintiffs,
6 ALFRED ALOISI, et al.,
8

4 EXAATION
5 BY MR. McBRIDE:
NO. 95-650L

9

VS. THE UNITED STATES,

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Defendant.

DEPOSITION OF MAC ROSS WILLIAMS
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1996

Computer-Aided Transcription

9 Q. AndyoUT job title or responsibility for the 10 Forest Service? 11 A. Distrct wildlife staff. 12 Q. Your distrct is? 13 A. Salmon River. 14 Q. In the course of my questioning, I may ask 15 questions which appear to ask you to tell me what 16 the law is, or what rules are, reguations ar. As 17 your counsel and I have discussed with the other 18 witnesses, I'm not askng for legal conclusions 19 here; I'm asking for what your understanding is of 20 what the requirements are that apply to you and the

6 Q. Mr. Wiliams, will you please state your full 7 name for the record? 8 A. Marc Ross Wiliams.

21 Forest ~eiiçe as you car out your
Reported by JOYCE A. FINK

23 24 25 26

22 respgnsibiltiès.
23 A. Uh-huh.

~~~ m~

24 Q. Could you describe for me your history of 25 employrent with the Forest Service, where you've
26 bee and what your responsibilities have been?
Page 2

1 APPEARANCES:
2 For Plaintis:

Page 5
1 A. Okay. I stad with the Forest Service in

3 ~MAi W. KROLL & SIMONDS 4. t\~~J!æ~~.'\'æl' NW.

5 BY:A't%~~w MCBRIE
6 For Deeidat:
7

2 1970 -- no, that's wrong -- 1967 as a teporar 3 employee on the Umpqua National Forest, and had 4 vanous duties there that teporar emplorees have

DEPARTM OP 8 & NA~iwOURCB JUSTICE DMSION

10
12

9 ~~~~~ue zll . . D:C:'

7 back to the same place in 1970 the Um~qua National 8 Forest, Tiler Ranger Distrct, T-I-L-L-E-R. Worked 9 in the range program in the wildlife prggram there
10 for the distrct olOlogist, and also did fire duties

5 working on plantation sureys, all sorts 0 6 different thngs, fire duties et cetera. I went

II BY:li1~'itì2.~K
ALSO 13 AlPREEN: Aloisi
14
15

11 and other thngs that teporar employees are
12 expected to do. And then I dia not come back to the
13 Forest Service until 1976; that was to the Winema 14 National Forest in Chiloquin. 15 Q. Marc, can you spell some of these names as you 16 go? 17 A. Sure' which one would you like? Winema is 18 W-I-N-E-M-A,and Chiloquin is C-H-I-L-O-Q-U-I-N. 19 Q. And Uml'qi.a?

16
17

18 DEPOSITON OP MAC ROSS WILLIAS, tan on
19 behalf of !b Plainti, at !b office of Klamth 20 National Foret Hedquars, 1312 FairlaneRoad, 21 Yre, California, on !b

11th day of Octobe, 1996, 22 commncin at !b hour of 9:36 a.m., beore JOYCE A
23 PIN CSR Licens No. 1225.

20 A. U-M-P-I.-U-A. Ump,gua Milk. . 21 Q. We're up to the late 70s now.

24
2S

22 A. '76, I came to the Winema and I worked as a 23 range conservationist and later as the distrct
24 wila.ife biologist, and then in 198Q¡,I came to the

i6

25 Salmon River Distrct here on the 1\amath where I've

26 priarly worked as the distrct wildlife

1 INDEX
2 EXINATION BY: 3
PAGE

Page 3

Page 6

2 in charge of the timber program, timber harest
5 recall?

1 biologist. There was a two-year period where I was

4 MR McBRIE
5 MS. COOK

64 4
60

3 proEIam. 4 Q. What years wou1d those have bee, if you can

6 7

6 A. Late '80s, early '90s, maybe. I'm not sure
7 exactly.

9 NONE MA
10
11

8 EXBITS

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

10 '90s. I don't remember exactly. Must have bee 11 that '92, '93, somewhere in there. 12 Q. You then moved back from running the timber 13 program to wildlife biologist position?

8 Then, as a staff officer, I've had -- it might 9 have been later -- it had to be later than the early

14 A. Yeah. Actually, I was doing both at the time. 15 I had a larger staff at that paricular time. The 16 distrct was consolidating people, people were
18 that two-year period, I was Just reguired to have 19 that program as well as the wildlife ~rogram. 20 Q.. And are you stil in the Salmon River Ranger
21 Distrct?

17 leaving, they were not bemg replaced. So durng

20
21

22
23

22 A. Yeah. 23. Q. And your responsibilities there are?
24 A. Priarly the wildlife and botany programs.

24
25 26

25 Q. How large a staff do you have? 26 A. Well, it vares from year to year, depending on

JOYCE A. FI COURT REPORTERS

Page 1 - Page 6

Case MAC WILIAS WITNSS:1:95-cv-00650-LSM

Document 129-5 1M Condenselt Filed 03/05/2008
Page 13
1 time.

PageOCTOBER 11, 1996 3 of 10
Page i 6

13 (Discussion held off the record¿
17 completed?

1 Q. nid you ever prepare a biological evaluation on 2 silvicultue? 3 A. We did that as par of a programatic that was 4 done -- I thnk it was about June of ths year that 5 we did a programatic biolo~cal evaluation that 6 went in with a number of tim er sales. 7 Q. . But, at ths time, you're not sure whether ths 8 is reference to that document or whether that 9 document came up later? 10 A. That document came up later. 11 MS. COOK: Let hi finish his question all the 12 way, because you sta to answer --.

2 Q. You laricipated in that ï:0up? 3 A. Yes, had a key role in t at group to make 4 sure the descriptions were adequate, and also to 5 talk about the effects. 6 & From what sources, if you recall, did you pull
7 e information that is the project description on

8 p~e 29 òf Libe~r

9 A. don't remem er specifically. I can only .

14 Q. BY MR. McBRIDE: stil looking at ocument 52,

15 Mr. Wiliams, did you make ~ represetations about
16 when biological evaluation mi t be done or

10 assume I got them from a plan of operations because 11 of the way there are numbers here, so I must have 12 come u~ with a number somewhere. 13 Q. That s the tye of research or -14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. -- information collection you would engage in?
16 A. ~itness nodding head up and down.)

18 A. It says in here, quote, "by spring," which it 19 was. 20 Q. When was it completed? 21 A. The forest did a programatic which went in
22 June of '90.
24 please?

17 Q. kayo Do fu0U have ant' recollection of
20 A. No.
23

18 specifically w 'ch plans 0 operations you went to 19 in order to get ths information?

23 Q. Could I ask you to look at document 66,
25 A. 66?
26 Q. Yes.

21 Q. More than one? 22 A. I don't know.
24 25 26
Page 14
MS. COOK: Keep your voice up. THE WI1NESS: I aon't know.

MS. COOK: I need to be able to hear you.
THE WI1NESS: I thnk I'm speakng up, but I

1 A. Yes. Okay. 2 Q. We have numbered the pages. If I could diect
3 ~our attntion to pages 28. ana following, maybe just

Page 17

1 guss I'm not.
2 (Discussion held off the record.)

3 Q. BY MR. McBRIDE: were you aware, when you were
4 wrting ths description, that there was both an

4 8 and 29?

5 A. Okay. 6 Q. Is tlìs the biolo~ical evaluation that you said
7 was later complete . in the spring?

5 approved plan of operations and a pending plan of 6 operations for Eddy Gulch Libert Mine activities at
7 ilat time?

10 in your mind, constitutes -- also constitutes par
11 of the biological.evaluation, or is ths it?

9 Q. Was there any other material or work-up which,

8 A. Yes. .

8 A. I doubt it.
10 to nisttngtish between already approved and proposed 11 activities? 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. I'll ask the question a little differently.
9 Q. So ths description was not designed in any way

12 A. Well, it's ths entire document, not just ths

20 Q. Could you explain w at else is excluded and 21 what else constitutes a biological evaluation along 22 with project descriptions? 23 A. It gives description of the effects of that
24 pr~ject.on listed species, and it sugests
25 mi¥latlOns.

15 e Salmon River Ranger Distrct, so I'm asking 16 about the Salmon River Ranger Distrct. 17 A. These are the projects -- project descriptions 18 for Salmon River, but those two ~ages by themselves 19 do not constitute a bioloÆical eva uation.

13 on~~e. 14 & e, these pages are the pages dealing with

14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. You were covering activities that were to
17 descnption?

16 happ~n tn the futue, proposed activities in ths
18 A. I'm not Sure I understand what you're saying. 19 Q. Are there any already permttd, already 20 underw~ activities in fhs biological evaluation as

21 a whole. .
24 Q. After ths June I

22 A. r-9.. Because these were supposedly all planned

23 activities. request went . 8th consultation
Page 15

26 Q. ocument 66 was a biological evaluation for the

25 to the Fish & Wildlife Service, did you notify Mr. 26 Aloisi that the Libert Mine had bee put into the
1 pack~e and set to the Fish & Wildlife Service?
2 A. I díd not personally, no.

1 Klamath National Forest as a whole?
2 A. Yes.

Page 18

3 Q. Did ~.ou p-reçare th~ project descriRtions on
4 pages 2 ana 2 of ths document 66.

5 A. Only on 29 concerning Liber- Mine. 6 Q. Okay. Someone else on staff prepared the other 7 ones? . 8 A. I could have. I'm not positive. 9 Q. There are other Salmon River Ranger Distrct 10 proposed actions elsewhere in the document. I'm not 11 ~ng to trap you into saying that's all you did 12 w en you díd other thnfls, out you had a role in
13 p-rep~ng ths biologica evaluation on behalf of
14 the distrct?

4 A. No.

3 Q. Did you Know if anyone else did?

5 & Did you have any discussions with anybody about

6 e fact that you were including a miing operation

7 in with what was generally a timber sale
8 consultation? 9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And with whom did thou have those discussions?

11 A. A person that wrote e final forest level 12 biological evaluation, who is Steve Anderson, the 13 person who sig!ed the document.
14 Q. Do you recãll those discussions? Did he have

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Okay. Were you the head of the team or the

17 task force, or wliatever, tha~roduced the Salmon

15 questions about doinfl so? 16 A. I don't realg reca I sp-ecific discussions.

18 River Ranger Distrct's pro uct for this
19 pr0:lamatic?

17 ~. But you bo ageed that it was appropriate to
19 A. Yes. We were tring to get the project 20 thoug. Sure. It was a mechanism to do it at the
23 Q. In the context of the development 0 the
26 evaluation?

18 0 so?

20 A. t w!1s probably the timber management officer
21 at the time. 22 Q. Rather than --

23 A. Rather than me. It was probably the timber
24 ma~er's office -- . 25 Q. 0 would have headed that?

21 time. It was affecting habitat and we needed to get 22 on with it, and ths was our opportni:r to do so.
24 nortern spottd owl issue, was ths the first time

26 A. I don't remember who that person was at the

25 the Klamath National Forest had done a programatic
Page 13 - Page 18

JOYCE A. FI COURT REPORTERS

WITNSS: 1:95-cv-00650-LSM Case MAC WILIAMS

Condenselt Filed 03/05/2008 Document 129-5 1M
Page 19
1 get a copy. And then I would

OCTOBER 11, 1996 Page 4 of 10
have distrbuted it to
Page 22

1 A. Yes. 2 MS. COOK: JUst for the record, althoug the 3 document makes that clear, there were two of these
4 done; one for planned sales, and one for -- .

2 timber staff, et cetea.

7 sales that are ongoing.

6 MS. COOK: -- one for sold sales, which are
8 MR. MCBRIDE: But both of those Rackages were

5 THE wimESS: sold sales.

3 Q. The copy that's bee put in the record 4 indicates a fax slag line to Klamath National

6 thereafter to the Salmon River Ranger Distrct. 0
7 r;ou recall getting it on the 26th or as soon as the
8 orest had it?

5 Forest. I assume it would have been faxed shortB;

9 set under the same cover for consu tation for the
10 Fish & Wildlife Service?

11 MS. COOK: That's correcti however, I don't

9 A. Probably a day or two later,. 10 Q. Did you tae any action with respect to the
11 l.bert project after you received tls and read

12 thnk the one for the sold sa es is in the exhbit
13 book.
14 THE WI1NESS: Right.

15 MS. COOK: This is only the one for planned 16 sales.
17 MR.

ALOISI: YoU mean lreviously sold?

18 THE WI1NESS: lreviouw; sold sales, the ones
19 that were already active. e had to characterize

20 them in a package. 21 MR. ALOISI: It's like a previously-approved
22 plan or previously-approved sale. .

13 A. I did not personally contact Mr. Aloisi, no. 14 Q. Did you ask anyone else to do so? 15 A. I don't remember if I did. I don't remember at 16 ths parcular time if I did. 17 R But you were aware when you received ths -18 I 11 ask it differently. Excuse me. 19 When you received ths, did you look to se if 20 all of the project's proposed actlOns that you'd 21 done a biol0.lical evaluation for were covered by
22 ths opinion. 23 A. Yes.

12 it?

23 MS: COOK: I can get you the other one, if you
26 I'm sorr, which was getting my atttion.

24 MCBRIDE: I wasit. to the intercom, want listeing . 25 MR.
Page 20

24 & So ~ou knew, at the time you received ths,
25 at Li ert Mine was covered by ths opinion?
26 A. Yes.

Page 23
1 Q. .C~uld I diect your atttion to page 6 of the

1 Q. Could you look at document 69, please? Are you 2 famliar with the document? 3 A. Yes, I am.
4 Q. Is ths the Fish & Wildlife Service's 5 biol~ical opinion in response to your June 18th,

2 opinlOn?

3 A. Uh-huh.
6 A. Yes.

4 Q. I tae it that the colum RD, down in that

7 A. Yes, it is.
10 A. a ay.

6 cons tatlOn lettr?
8 Q. Could I diect your atttion to the second

5 colum, the SA ites are your distrct's actions?

7 Q. Am I understanding it corrctly that there are
10 Q. And is that the HCA which is involved with the
11 Libert prpject?

9 paræaph of the cover lettr?
11 Q. Near the -- well, it's the last setece of the
12 par~aph. Refers to augenting documents and.
13 updates.

9 A. Yes. .

8 four of those actions involving HCA C-I0?

12 A. Yes, it is.

13 & Now the fact that all te -- or all four of

14 A. Uh-huh.

15 Q. Do you know if -- did you -- were you involved 16 in providinWnàí allenting documents or updates to
17 the Fish & il ife Service durng ths
18 consultation?

14 e C-IÒ projects were reportd back in ths, "Not 15 likely to Je08ardize biolotical opinion," that means 16 that taen a together, al four of them would not 17 be likely to jeopardize?
18 A. Yes.

19 A. I honestly don't remember. . 20 Q. Do you recall havinîi telephone conversations

20 impacts of all four? .
21 A. On thatlaricular HCA, yes.

19 Q. It is cumulative analysis which stacks up all

21 with tle Fish & Wildli e Service durng the
22 consultation? 23 A. No.

22 Q. Okay. nd how large -- do you know how large
23 HCA C-I0 was?

24 & I could be even more s~ecific and s~: Were
26 pertinea to the Libert Mine proposal?

25 ere any conversations a out the cons tation as
Page 21

24 A. It's about 60,000 acres. 25 Q. Is it the same size as SORA 24 to which we 26 referred before?
Page 24
1 A. No. 2 Q. What was the difference betwee the two units? 3 A. HCA C-1O is a collection of SORA's, probably
4 about twenty of them.

1 A. In the time frame imediately after or durng 2 ths period, betwee June and July, I don't remember
3 of \V' no.

4 Q. en did you lear of the existece of this 5 biological opinion; imediately, shortly thereafter, 6 not for a long time? 7 A. Shortii tlereafter. 8 Q. Woul it have been your responsibilitr, then;
9 to notify timber contractors or other staf that

5 Q. So it's a much larger area? 6 A. Much larger area.
7 Q. Does the transition from SORA's to HCA's
8 contain a listing of the owl

as a theatened

9 species?

10 th~ cc;ulct go forward wi~ processin~ or issuing
11 au onzatlOns, now that this was bac ?
12 A. It would have been my responsibility to ta to

10 A. In some regards, yes. 11 Q. There are other regards? Could you explain

13 other staff officers, yes. .
14 Q. Okay.
17 Q. Watershed?

12 how then else the transition occured?

13 A. Well, durn1 the perod that the owl is bein&

15 A. Ths was -- I want to add that this was a 16 watermark -- what's the word I want?
18 A. Water -- thank you. Ths was a watershed. 19 When this came b~ak, it was general knowledge.

14 considered for isting, a team of scientists hea ed 15 by Jack Ward Thomas, came out with a scientific 16 stratef/ for the conservation of the spottd owl, 17 and it s called the Interscientific Commtt and 18 they came out with a document, very lartte document,
19 several hundred p~es, in 1990, that, to at date,

20 Everyone was anticipating ths. 21 Q. How would a document like ths be distrbuted
23 gott a co¡g(

22 in the ranger distrct offce. Would everyone have

20 was the best know egge and the best strategy for 21 man~ng the spottd owL. And while the owl was 22 listed, the Forest Service adopted that strategy for
23 their management of the spottd owL.
26 time frame.

24 A. I don't ow in this paricular case, but

25 usualZr the staff that is paricularly involved 26 woul get a copy, the dístrct ranger would probably

24 Q. When was that owl adoption done? 25 A. It was in 1990 -- it was right around the same

JOYCE A. FI COURT REPORTERS

Page 19 - Page 24

Case MACWILIAS WITNSS:1:95-cv-00650-LSM
3 theatened species, not just for a candidate
4 species?

Document 129-5 1M Condenselt Filed 03/05/2008
,

PageOCTOBER 11, 1996 5 of 10
Page 28

1 Q. So ths biological opinion is consistet with 2 the standards of the management of the owl for a

Page 25

1 consultation, or in the other par of ths same
2 consultation?

3 A. Yes. At least thee that I can think of.
4 MS. COOK: off the record.
5 (Discussion held off the record.) 6 Q. BY MR. McBRIDE: You're famliar with the

5 A. The two aren't necessarly connected, no. They 6 were just two events that were occurng durng the
7 same time frame. 8 Q. Was the challing from SORA's to HCA's tied to
9 the Jack Ward Thomas

10 A. HCA's were a key element of the strategy he 11 helped to author.

scientific record?

7 regulations for consultations in the Fish & Wildlife 8 Service portion of the CFR; you've worked with
9 them?

12 Q. And what were the -- sort of the stadards for

13 tree age and the growt and the like for habitat 14 conservation area for declarng or designating an 15 area where it had to do with owl proximty nesting 16 and habitation sites, or does it have to do with
17 both?

11 Q. Are you famliar with the term, "applicant" 12 which is in those rules? . 13 A. I believe so, yes.

10 A. Somewhat.

14 Q. And was it your. understading, at ths time,

18 A. It has to do with both. The HCA'S were based 19 on where the owls were and the quality and quantity 20 of habitat in that area. 21 Q. And quality and quantity of habitat, what were 22 the stadards that were relevant or sougt? 23 A. Well, in quality, I guss we could say these

15 that with resI1ect to the Liber project, the 16 propqnents of the project were applicants withn the 17 meanmg of those rules?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Document 71, please tae your time. If you 20 would like to ski it.

22 numDered 1.
25 A. No.
Page 26

21 My focus is going to be on the paragaph

24 would be older, matue and old ~owt stands. A 25 certin amount of deadwood would be preset in the
26 stands; snags, down logs, larger trees, closed
1 can.9pies.

23 A. Uh-huh. All right.
24 Q. Did you wrte ifs lettr?

26 Q. And did you wrte paragaph 1 of it pertining

2 Q. Was there also sort of an age range zone for 3 nesting sites and the like? . 4 A. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Do 5 you want to rephrase that? 6 Q. Was there a standard in the progtam for a 7 protective area around nest sites? Was that not
8 par of habitat conservation area treatment?

1 to HCA's and Fish & Wildlfe Service?
2 MS. COOK: objection. Asked and answered. He

Page 29

4 wrttn any par in it?
6 answered.

3 said he didn't wnte the lettr. How could he have
5 MR. McBRIDE: I'm not sure that was asked and

7 Q. Did you wrte the entire lettr?
9 Q. Did you wrte paragaph 1 of the lettr? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you know who would have?
8 A. No.

9 A. Yes. Yes. There were. There was definitely a 10 distubance issue around nesting areas where -- to
11 limt the tye of noise distubance withn --

12 originally, it was a half a mile, and then later it 13 changed to a quarr of a mile. But, originally, it 14 was a half a mile. 15 You know, withn the HCA's themselves, timber 16 harest was not allowed after the sales were done.
17 The purose was to maintain that habitat tholl
18 time, so aftr the -- these associated sales on the

12 A. No. I assue Earl Grfith wrote it.
15 lettr like ths, as a general mattr'?

13 Q. Would Earl Grffth have consulted with rOU on

14 the suastan~ of a paragaph lie paragaph in a
16 A. Not necessarly. 17 Q. How wóuld he, then, know what the status of

20 longer planning timber harest in those sales, in
21 that HCA.

19 original 1990 BO went thoug, then we were no

18 Fish & Wildle consultation was? .
20 it. I'm sure we did.

19 A. We may have had previous conversations about

22 Q. In any HCA? 23 A. In any HCA.

21 Q. Do you have any understandinK of what the 22 reference is about the Fish & Wildlife report that

24 Q. Back to page 6 of the biological opinion. Do 25 you know what then happened with respect to the
26 thee timber sales that were also in HCA C- 1O?

23 would be available Septeber 1 st? The second
24 setece of paragaph 1.
26 report.

25 A. No. I don't lãow what he's referrng to by the
Page 27

2 and Highview were dropped, eventually, TÕr varous
3 reasons.

1 A. If my memory serves me right, both High Winds

1 Q. And then the last setece of paragaph I?
2 A. Yes.

Page 30

3 Q. I don't know if ths brings back the .

4 Q. What does "dropped" mean? 5 A. They weren't f01Iowed up on; they were not sold

6 or harested.
7 Q. Okay.

4 recollection, but is that a reference to the change 5 in plans that you discussed with Mr. Aloisi back in
6 April of 1989?

11 were allowed to occur withn the HCA. The first

8 A. Then Crawford Heli sale. It was modified 9 significantly and then finally sold. What 10 eventually happened was that none of these sales

7 MS. COOK: objection, calls for speculation. 8 You can answer. .
9 TH WI1NSS: I don

't know when it was, but

10 Fred and I did have a conversation about par of his

12 two, High Winds and Highview, were entirely within
13 the HCA, and so they were eventually dropped. And 14 the last one --

is Q. Crawford Heli

16 A. Crawford Heli. Par of the sale was outside
17 the HCA and that was allowed to go on.

11 proposal which, I believe, is beil1g referred to here 12' m talkng about the mill site at Yanee Flat being 13 withn a certin distance of the activity ceter of 14 this owl's home range. That distace is .7 miles, 15 and there is a -- there was a requiement in the 16 biological opinion not to reduce habitat below 500

20 Sta sale, or was that a searate sale?
21 A. They

18 Q. Is Crawford Heli a sale which was related to, 19 or contained pars of what was known as the Evening

17 acres withn that. 7 miles. If Mr. Aloisi was to go 18 forward with constrcting the mill site at Yankee

24 A. Yes, it was. 25 Q. So there was another set of already sold sales
26 in the C -10 HCA that were already in that separate

are separate sales. 22 Q. Was Evening Sta par of the already sold 23 consultation ana biological opinion?

20 paricular home range, it was below 500 acres 21 ãleady, and I remember having a conversation with
22 hi and sugesting to hi that it would probably be
23 m~rc: appropriate to not remove additional habitat

19 Flat¡ it would have reoved some habitat. For ths

24 withn .7 rmles.
26 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did he agee with you?

JOYCE A. FI COURT REPORTERS

Page 25 - Page 30

Case MACWILIAS WITNSS:1:95-cv-00650-LSM
3 theatened species, not just for a candidate
4 species?

Document 129-5 1M Condenselt Filed 03/05/2008
,

PageOCTOBER 11, 1996 6 of 10
Page 28

1 Q. So ths biological opinion is consistet with 2 the standards of the management of the owl for a

Page 25

1 consultation, or in the other par of ths same
2 consultation?

3 A. Yes. At least thee that I can think of.
4 MS. COOK: off the record.
5 (Discussion held off the record.) 6 Q. BY MR. McBRIDE: You're famliar with the

5 A. The two aren't necessarly connected, no. They 6 were just two events that were occurng durng the
7 same time frame. 8 Q. Was the challing from SORA's to HCA's tied to
9 the Jack Ward Thomas

10 A. HCA's were a key element of the strategy he 11 helped to author.

scientific record?

7 regulations for consultations in the Fish & Wildlife 8 Service portion of the CFR; you've worked with
9 them?

12 Q. And what were the -- sort of the stadards for

13 tree age and the growt and the like for habitat 14 conservation area for declarng or designating an 15 area where it had to do with owl proximty nesting 16 and habitation sites, or does it have to do with
17 both?

11 Q. Are you famliar with the term, "applicant" 12 which is in those rules? . 13 A. I believe so, yes.

10 A. Somewhat.

14 Q. And was it your. understading, at ths time,

18 A. It has to do with both. The HCA'S were based 19 on where the owls were and the quality and quantity 20 of habitat in that area. 21 Q. And quality and quantity of habitat, what were 22 the stadards that were relevant or sougt? 23 A. Well, in quality, I guss we could say these

15 that with resI1ect to the Liber project, the 16 propqnents of the project were applicants withn the 17 meanmg of those rules?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Document 71, please tae your time. If you 20 would like to ski it.

22 numDered 1.
25 A. No.
Page 26

21 My focus is going to be on the paragaph

24 would be older, matue and old ~owt stands. A 25 certin amount of deadwood would be preset in the
26 stands; snags, down logs, larger trees, closed
1 can.9pies.

23 A. Uh-huh. All right.
24 Q. Did you wrte ifs lettr?

26 Q. And did you wrte paragaph 1 of it pertining

2 Q. Was there also sort of an age range zone for 3 nesting sites and the like? . 4 A. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Do 5 you want to rephrase that? 6 Q. Was there a standard in the progtam for a 7 protective area around nest sites? Was that not
8 par of habitat conservation area treatment?

1 to HCA's and Fish & Wildlfe Service?
2 MS. COOK: objection. Asked and answered. He

Page 29

4 wrttn any par in it?
6 answered.

3 said he didn't wnte the lettr. How could he have
5 MR. McBRIDE: I'm not sure that was asked and

7 Q. Did you wrte the entire lettr?
9 Q. Did you wrte paragaph 1 of the lettr? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you know who would have?
8 A. No.

9 A. Yes. Yes. There were. There was definitely a 10 distubance issue around nesting areas where -- to
11 limt the tye of noise distubance withn --

12 originally, it was a half a mile, and then later it 13 changed to a quarr of a mile. But, originally, it 14 was a half a mile. 15 You know, withn the HCA's themselves, timber 16 harest was not allowed after the sales were done.
17 The purose was to maintain that habitat tholl
18 time, so aftr the -- these associated sales on the

12 A. No. I assue Earl Grfith wrote it.
15 lettr like ths, as a general mattr'?

13 Q. Would Earl Grffth have consulted with rOU on

14 the suastan~ of a paragaph lie paragaph in a
16 A. Not necessarly. 17 Q. How wóuld he, then, know what the status of

20 longer planning timber harest in those sales, in
21 that HCA.

19 original 1990 BO went thoug, then we were no

18 Fish & Wildle consultation was? .
20 it. I'm sure we did.

19 A. We may have had previous conversations about

22 Q. In any HCA? 23 A. In any HCA.

21 Q. Do you have any understandinK of what the 22 reference is about the Fish & Wildlife report that

24 Q. Back to page 6 of the biological opinion. Do 25 you know what then happened with respect to the
26 thee timber sales that were also in HCA C- 1O?

23 would be available Septeber 1 st? The second
24 setece of paragaph 1.
26 report.

25 A. No. I don't lãow what he's referrng to by the
Page 27

2 and Highview were dropped, eventually, TÕr varous
3 reasons.

1 A. If my memory serves me right, both High Winds

1 Q. And then the last setece of paragaph I?
2 A. Yes.

Page 30

3 Q. I don't know if ths brings back the .

4 Q. What does "dropped" mean? 5 A. They weren't f01Iowed up on; they were not sold

6 or harested.
7 Q. Okay.

4 recollection, but is that a reference to the change 5 in plans that you discussed with Mr. Aloisi back in
6 April of 1989?

11 were allowed to occur withn the HCA. The first

8 A. Then Crawford Heli sale. It was modified 9 significantly and then finally sold. What 10 eventually happened was that none of these sales

7 MS. COOK: objection, calls for speculation. 8 You can answer. .
9 TH WI1NSS: I don

't know when it was, but

10 Fred and I did have a conversation about par of his

12 two, High Winds and Highview, were entirely within
13 the HCA, and so they were eventually dropped. And 14 the last one --

is Q. Crawford Heli

16 A. Crawford Heli. Par of the sale was outside
17 the HCA and that was allowed to go on.

11 proposal which, I believe, is beil1g referred to here 12' m talkng about the mill site at Yanee Flat being 13 withn a certin distance of the activity ceter of 14 this owl's home range. That distace is .7 miles, 15 and there is a -- there was a requiement in the 16 biological opinion not to reduce habitat below 500

20 Sta sale, or was that a searate sale?
21 A. They

18 Q. Is Crawford Heli a sale which was related to, 19 or contained pars of what was known as the Evening

17 acres withn that. 7 miles. If Mr. Aloisi was to go 18 forward with constrcting the mill site at Yankee

24 A. Yes, it was. 25 Q. So there was another set of already sold sales
26 in the C -10 HCA that were already in that separate

are separate sales. 22 Q. Was Evening Sta par of the already sold 23 consultation ana biological opinion?

20 paricular home range, it was below 500 acres 21 ãleady, and I remember having a conversation with
22 hi and sugesting to hi that it would probably be
23 m~rc: appropriate to not remove additional habitat

19 Flat¡ it would have reoved some habitat. For ths

24 withn .7 rmles.
26 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did he agee with you?

JOYCE A. FI COURT REPORTERS

Page 25 - Page 30

Case MAC WILLIAMS WITNSS: 1:95-cv-00650-LSM

Document 129-5 1M Filed 03/05/2008 Condenselt
Page 3 1

PageOCTOBER 11, 1996 7 of 10
Page 34

1 Q. If I can tae you back to document 15. Is that 2 a memorialization of that conversation? 3 A. Document 15 is the wildlife input to the
4 Libert Mine EA?
5 Q. Yes.

3 A. Uh-huh. .
2 prelimnar information to date." .

1 a setece, "We have received only sketchy

4 Q. What is that a reference to? What information
6 A. Okay.

6 A. No, I don't thnk ths had anytng to do with 7 it. 8 Q. Okay. The conversation you're referrng to 9 happened at a different time, you thnk? 10 A. -Yes. I believe it was -- it ses to me that 11 it would have to be after the biological opinion in
12 July.

5 is being referred to there? .

7 MS. COOK: Not if you're speculating what Mike

8 Le meant, if he added those words; only if you 9 added those words or used those words when you were
10 drafting your par of the lettr.

11 MR. McBRIDE: That's absolutely appropriate.

13 Q. Okay.

12 That's what I'm after.

13 THE WI1NESS: Yes. Okay. What was occurng

15 bee over reducing habitat furer withn .7 miles,
19 bee concerned about that.

14 A. Because that was the -- the concern would have

16 and until that biological opinion came out with 17. those terms and conditions, that would not have bee 18 a concern of mine. I would have not known to have

14 at the time was that we had received clearance from 15 Fish & Wildlfe Service on planned activities. Some 16 of those activities went forward. These were
17 priarly timber sales, as you know. Some of those

20 Q. Could I ask you to look at document 74, 21 please. 22 A. Any paricular par you want me to look at? 23 Q. Yes, the bottom of p~e 2. 24 A. (Witness complying.) 25 Q. Did you wrte the jJaragaphs at the bottom of 26 page 2 and the top or page 3?
2 Q.. Do you recall disc~ssing them with anyone who
3 might have been draftmg, tlat lettr? .

18 timber sales had changes proposed in them, and when 19 those changes came aoout, we, the Forest Service or
20 Salon River Distrct, anyway, were unclear on what

24 It's my understading that the same is also
Page 32

21 that meant as far as the consultation, because now 22 they were becoming a different project, different 23 proposal.

25 clear for Fred's proposal, at least my understanding 26 of it is; that there were some changes th~t were

1 A. I don't believe so.

4 A. 1\ot -- I don't recall discussing ths
5 specifically to draft ths lettr, but there were 6 conversations prior to drafting ths lettr

1 occurng, so it putit in the same1ight as these 2 ~lained trmber projects that we were beingJold, 3 Wait a minute, these are being changed. We may
4 need to &0 back into consultation on these

Page 35

7 regarding these issues. 8 Q. Fine. Is the referece to the wildlife
10 A. Yes.

5 projects. i 6 Q. BY MR. McBRIDE: who was saying, "Wait a

9 biologist -- you tae that to be you?

7 minute, we may need to go back into consultation"? 8 A. I don't know specific names.
9 Q. Is this the forest supervisor's office or the
10 regional offce or other people in the distrct

11 Q. Coulllyou describe the consultation with the 12 Fish & Wildlife Service that's referred to there?
, 13 Is that the same thng as the June 1990

11 ranger's office? .
12 A. I thnk it was our interpretation, the forest
13 interpretation of the BO, wlich says, "If there are

. 15 consultations with the Fish & Wildle Service?

) 14 consultation, or were there additional and separate

16 A. Not at that time. That was later. 17 Q. There were not separate ones?
18 A. Correct.

14 changes, you need to consider." 15 Q. When yo~ saYi"The forest," do you mean the 16 Klamath NatlOnai Forest?

17 A. Yes. There is a lettr -- you should have it.
18 It came -- is it that white one? It was a lettr

20 that the people who were askng you and with whom 21 you were discussing it, understood that there was a 22 response of biological opinion that responded to the
23 Fish & Wildlife Service'? 24 A. Yes.

19 Q. In those consultations, was it clear to you .

19 wrtt, I believe December 3rd or Deceber 4th, by

20 a Forest Service biologist here in the so here, 21 askip~ th~ auestion. 22 Q. What is the SO? 23 A. The su~ervisor's office here, asking the
24 . question, 'What do we need to do here because this

25 Q. They understood the biological opinion had bee

26 retued by the Fish & Wildlife Service?

25 proj~ct is changing?"
Page 33

26 Q. Was that a fettr wrttn with respect to the
Page 36

1 MS. COOK: objection, calls for speculation.
2 MR. McBRIDE: That's fine. Witldraw the
3 question.

1 timber sales or with respect to Libert?
2 A. It was with respect to Libert.

4 Q. At the top of page 3 Mr. Wi1iams, is a 5 reference to review at the Washington offce level?

3 Q. In the next clause of the same setece it has .

6 A. Uh-huh. .
9 owls?

4 a remark about "The Forest Service now to follow the 5 recommendations or' --

7 Q. Do you recall ever receiving Washington office 8 level instrction or guidance about mimng and
10 A. No.

6 A. I'm sorr. Where are --

7 Q. The same setece back in document 75, for the 8 second half of the setece, "sketchy information,
9 priarly, that the Forest Service was now to follow

11 Q. Do you recall that you have not, or that you
12 did not receive such guidance? ' 13 A. We did not.

10 the recommendations of the interagency scientific
11 report." Is the interagei_cy scientific report the

12 same thng as the Jack Ward Thomas study you were
13 talkg about?

14 Q. Document 75, please. 15 A. Is there a paricular par? 16 Q. The first two par~aphs. 17 A. CWitness cO).plying.)
18 Q. Did aOU wnte ths lettr?
19 A. Go.o . question. I pr~bably had a p'rett strong

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And is it your understanding that the July 16 23rd" 1 990 l:iological 9pinion was consistet with 17 and oased on the-Jack Ward Thomas record?
19 biological opinion discusses the effects of those 20 paricular projects on the theatened species. The 21 Jack Ward Thomas report, or the conservation 22 strategy for the nortern spottd owl is just that, 23 it's a strategy for management. The two were going 24 on at simlar times, but they are not necessarly
25 connected.

18 A. No, they are not necessarly related. The

20 hand m it1 yes, .because it was recappmg a 21 conversatlOn with Fred. 22 Q. Do you recall with whom you worked in drafting
23 ths lettr, if you did not actually draft it

24 yourself?

25 A. I would say Mike and I worked on it together. 26 Q. Okay. In the middle of the first paragaph is

26.Q. Turing your atttion back to document 69.

JOYCE A. FI COURT REPORTERS

Page 31 - Page 36

Case MAC WILLIAMS WITNSS: 1:95-cv-00650-LSM

Document 129-5 1M Filed 03/05/2008 Condenselt
Page 61
2 breeding season? 3 A. Yes.

PageOCTOBER 11, 1996 8 of 10
Page 64

1 elsewhere, because that unit was withn a half mile 2 of a known activity ceter. 3 Q. You actully have to talk in her diection 4 because it's most importnt that she hear you as 5 well as me. 6 A. Okay. 7 ~. I'm asking you now to look for a moment, and
8 urng the breãk I had you look at them, documents

1 Q. And that was the limtation durng the owl

4 ~. Of Februar 1 to July 1, that you discussed
5 urng your diect examnation with counsel?
6 A. Yes.

9 L-5 and L- 14, which are different authorizations;
10 one dealing with GWZ, and the other with Libert

7 Q. Do you recall whether or not Mr. Aloisi asked 8 you about the biol0l.ical opinion; in other words, . 9 the document, itsel , as opposed to your discussion
10 with hi about the provislOns that you've just

12 Did 10U look at those? 13 A. Yes, did. 14 Q. First looking at L-5. Is there any problem 15 with regards to that authorization; m other words, 16 was there consultation needed under the Endangered 17 Species Act before it was issued?
18 A. No. 19 Q. Why not?
20 A. Because there's no vegetative distubance.

11 Consolidated Mines.

11 described? 12 A. No. I can't say that I do.
13 Q. If

14 have furished it to hi?
15 A. Sure.

he'd asked you for a copy ofit, would you

16 17 18

MS. COOK: I have no furer questions.

FURTHR EXAINATION

19 BY MR. McBRIDE:

mainly reoEening roads. 22 & Asking you to ook now at document L- 14. Was 23 ere any consultation required prior to the 24 issuance of that authorization? 25 A. Well1 there wasn'~ but it's difficult to tell
21 That's

26 from ths paricular ocument because you're

20 Q. Mr. Wi1iams, were you consulted or did you 21 paricipate in makng a determnation that no 22 consultation was needed in connection with, I thnk 23 it was L-5, authorization? 24 A. I believe -- L-5? Yes I believe so. 25 Q. What about the need for operatinåiperiod 26 restrctions, independent vegetative . stubance
Page 62 Page 65
1 issue?

1 priar~ talkng about plans and the plans aren't
2 s~ecifie . They are just saying what Kinds of

3 pans.

2 A. We -- yeah, we discussed it. It would have
5 a quar of a mile and the operation is much 6 furer than that from known owl ceters.

4 Q. Are you otherwse famliar with that paricular
5 authorization?

3 bee at the same time. But there was no need for it

4 because, at ths point, we were talkng about withn
7 & Are there any adolescent birds in the par of
10 A. There coüld be. It's possible, sure. 11 âi Would those result in any vegetative 12 'stubance restrctions or operating period 13 restrctions if there were?
14 A. If young were found withn a '1uar mile, 15 there woula be a restrction until ugst 1st -- a

6 A. Yes. Somewhat. Uh-huh.
7 MR. McBRIDE: speak up, please.

8 THE WI1NESS: Somewliat. Not in detail, but
9 somewhat. There was no consultation done. 10 Q. BY MS. COOK: why not?

8 e Eddy Gulcli area that is treated in that 9 authorization L-5?

11 A. Again, there was no distubance to vegetation. 12 Q. Now, earlier when you were talkn~ with. 13 counsel, you also discussed the 1990 iological 14 ~nion in the context of discussions you liad with

15 . Aloisi. Do you recall that discussion?
16 A. Yes. The discussion today or -17 Q. The discussion today?

16 noise restrction until Augst 1st.
19 authorization in document L-5? 20 A. I believe so.
21

19 Q. Because my next question is, then: Do you 20 recall discussmg with Mr. Aloisi the provisions of
21 the 1990 biological opinion?
24 SCUSSlOns occurrmg?

18 A. Yes.

17 Q. Wereul0u involved in makng the determnation 18 no cons tation was required in connection with the
MS. COOK: Did you mean L- l4?

22 A. Certin pars of it, yes. 23 âi First. of all, wh~ do you recall those
25 A. I don't have a date. There -- there's probably 26 an exhbit that discusses it, thoug.
Page 63
1 Q. The exhbits tha~ou discussed with counsel? 2 A. I believe so. Ye . I believe we talked about
3 that before. Yeah. 4 Q. What do you recall discussing with hi; that

22

THE WI1NESS: L-14.

23. MS. COOK: That was what he and I just -- or

24 did I have the wronr. number?
25 THE WI1NESS: It S L- 14.

26 Q. BY MR. MCBRIDE: In connection with L- l4?

Page 66

1 A. Yeah. Al would have discussed that with me as 2 he does with any mining operation. 3 Q. Al who?
4 A. Al Buchter.

5 is, with Mr. Aloisi? 6 A. Oh. Okay. There were two areas of discussion;
7 one was that par of the operation was within .7 .

5 Q. What was your determnation regarding operating 6 perod limtations there?
7 A. That it was not appropriate.
8 Q. Why not?

11 distubance -- but vegetative removal within that

8 miles of the activity ceter and that it would be 9 beneficial to the owl and to his operation if we 10 could elimnate distubance -- excuse me, not

9 A. Because our known surey information did not 10 show any activity in that area by owls, and again I
11 stress "mown." We do not routinely surey every

12 distance, and that was the Yankee Flat, I believe 13 it's called mill site. And then there was some

12 year for all the owls on the district. 13 MR. McBRIDE: if we could go off the record for

14 other road' work that was in that area and somexits,
15 and Fred was very ageeable to dropging t:at. nd

14 a second. I thnk I need to find an exhbit.
15

16 then the second point was the limte operating
17 period. I believe Fred asked or I may liave

16 (Discussion held off the recorU
17 ~ BY MR. MCBRIDE: Document 75, . Williams?

MS. COOK: sure.

20 would not affect his operation because everyng 21 was furer than a hal a mile. 22 Q. But he asked about it? 23 A. We had discussed it. I don't know who bro~t 24 it up. He either asked about it or I offered it an 25 then we discussed it. I'm not sure which way it
26 went.

18 voluntered that there is a limted operating period 19 for activities within a half a mie and that it

18 ou have Forest Service 75? 19 A. Deceber 7, 1990?
20 Q. Yes.

21 A. Okay.

22 Q. Ths lettr, I believe you testified, you had a 23 hand. in preparng? 24 A. Riglt. 25 Q. In ths lettr, did Mr. Le tell Mr. Aloisi to 26 stop callng you?

JOYCE A. FI COURT REPORTERS

Page 61 - Page 66

Case MAC WILLIAMS WITNSS: 1:95-cv-00650-LSM

Document 129-5
Page 31

Condenselt TM

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 9 of 10 OCTOBER 11,1996
Page 34

1 Q. If I can tae you back to document 15. Is that 2 a memorialization of that conversation? 3 A. Document 15 is the wildlife input to the
4 Libert Mine EA?
5 Q. Yes.

4 Q. What is that a reference to? What information
5 is being referred to there?

3 A. Uh-huh. .
2 pre1imnar information to date." .

1 a setece, "We have received only sketchy

6 A. No, I don't thnk ths had anytng to do with 7 it. 8 Q. Okay. The conversation you're referrng to 9 haimened at a different time, you thnk? 10 A. -Yes. I believe it was -- it ses to me that 11 it would have to be after the biological opinion in

6 A. Okay.

you're specu1ating what Mike 8 Le meant, if he added those words; only if you 9 added those words or used those words when you were
7 MS. COOK: Not if

10 drafting your par of the lettr.

11 MR. McBRIDE: That's absolutely appropriate.
12 That's what I'm aftr.

13 Q. Okay. . 14 A. Because that was the -- the concern would have
12 July.
15 bee over reducing

13 THE WITNESS: Yes. Okay. What was occurng

16 and until that biological opinion came out with

habitat furer withn .7 miles,

18 a concern of mine. I would have not known to have 19 been concerned about that. 20 Q. Cou1d I ask you to look at document 74, 21 please. 22 A. Any Raricular par you want me to look at? 23 Q. Yes, the bottom of page 2. 24 A. (Witness complyig.)
25 Q. Oid you wrte the ~aragaphs at the bottm of

17. those tes and conmtions, that would not have been

14 at the time was that we had received clearance from 15 Fish & Wildlife Service on planned activities. Some 16 of those activities went forward. These were
17 Rriarly timber sales, as you know. Some of those

18 timber sales had changes proposed in them, and when 19 those changes came atiout, we, the Forest Service or 20 Salmon River Distrct, anyway, were unclear on what 21 that meant as far as the consultation, because now 22 they were becoming a different project, different
23 proposaL.

24 It's my understading that the same is also
Page 32
1 occurng, so it putit in the same 2 l?lar'ined trmber projects that we were being 3 Wait a minute, these are being

26 page 2 and the top or page 3?
2 Q.. Do you recall disc~ssing them with anyone who 3 miimt have been draftinR that lettr?

25 clear for Fred's proposal, at least my understanding 26 of it is; that there were some changes th~t were
Page 35

1 A. I don't believe so.

4 A. Not -- I don't recall discussing ths

5 specifically to draft ths lettr, but there were

4 need to &0 back into consultatlOn on these 5 projects.'

changed. We may

light as these told,

6 conversations prior to draftng ths lettr

6 Q. BY MR. McBRIDE: who was saying, "Wait a

11 Q. Coulllyou describe the consultation with the 12 Fish & Wildlife Service that's referred to there? 13 Is that the same thng as the June 1990 14 consultation, or were there additional and separate 15 consultations with the Fish & Wildlife Service? 16 A. Not at that time. That was later. 17 Q. There were not separate ones? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. In those consu1tations, was it clear to you 20 that the people who were asking you and with whom 21 you were discussing it, understood that there was a 22 response of biological opinion that responded to the
23 Fish & Wildlife Service"? 24 A. Yes.

10 A. Yes.

9 biologist -- you tae that to be you?

7 regarding these issues. 8 Q. Fine. Is the referece to the wildlife

7 minute, we may need to go back into consultation"? 8 A. I don't know specific names.
9 Q. Is ths the forest supervisor's office or the 10 regional office or other people in the distrct

11 ranger's office? 12 A. r thnk it was our interpretation, the forest
14 chal1ges, you need to consider."

13 interpretation of the BO, wmch says, "If there are

15 Q. When you. say! "The forest," do you mean the

16 Klamath NatlOna Forest?
17 A. Yes. There is a lett -- you shou1d have it.

18 It came -- is it that white one? It was a lettr
19 wrtt, I believe Deceber 3rd or Deceber 4th, by
20 a Forest Service biologist here in the SO here,

21 aski.ig th~ question. 22 Q. What is the SO? 23 A. The su~ervisor's office here, asking the
24 . question, 'What do we need to do here because this

25 Q. They uiiderstood the biological opinion had bee

26 retued by the Fish & Wildlife Service?

25 proj~ct is changing?"
26 Q. Was that a lettr wrtt with respect to the

1 MS. COOK: objection, calls for speculation.
2 MCBRIDE: That's fine. Wittidraw 3MR.question. .. . the

Page 33

1 timber sales or with respect to Libert?
2 A. It was with respect to Libert.

Page 36

4 Q. At the top of page 3 Mr. Williams, is a 5 reference to review at the Washington office level?

6 A. Uh-huh. .
8 level instrction or guidance about mining and

3 Q. In the next clause of the same setece it has .

4 a remark about "The Forest Service now to follow the 5 recommendations or' --

7 Q. Do you recall ever receiving Washngton offce
9 owls?

6 A. I'm sorr. Where are --

7 Q. The same setece back in document 75, for the 8 second half of the setece, "sketchy information,
9 Rriarly, that the Forest Service was now to follow

10 A. No. 1 1 Q: Do you r~call that Y9u have not, or that you 12 did not receive such guidance? . 13 A. We did not. 14 Q. Document 75, please. 15 A. Is there a paricular par? 16 Q. Th~ first two par~aphs.
17 A. CWltness cOp1plY;ng.) 18 Q. Oid you wnte tils lettr? 19 A. Good question. I probably had a prett strong

10 the recommendations of the interagency scientific 11 report." Is the interaget_cJ' scientific report the 12 same thng as the Jack Ward Thomas study you were
13 talkng about?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And is it your understanding that the July

20 hand in it, yes, because it was recapping a 21 conversatlOn with Fred. 22 Q. Do you recall with whom you worked in drafting
23 ths lettr, if you did not actually draft it

24 yourself?

25 A. I would say Mike and I worked on it together. 26 Q. Okay. In the middle of the first paragaph is

19 biological opinion discusses the effects of those 20 paricular projects on the theatened species. The 21 Jack Ward Thomas report, or the conservation 22 strategy for the nortern spottd owl is just that, 23 it's a strategy for management. The two were going 24 on at simlar times, but they are not necessarly
25 connected.

16 23rd" 1990 oiological ()pinion was consistet with 17 and Dased on the-Jack Ward Thomas record? 18 A. No, they are not necessarly related. The

26.Q. Turing your atttion back to document 69.

JOYCE A. FI COURT REPORTERS

Page 31 - Page 36

, ') ~

Case WITNSS: 1:95-cv-00650-LSM MAC WILLIAMS
1 A. Stop calling me?
2 Q. Yes.

Document 129-5
Page 67

Condenselt TM

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 10 of 10

OCTOBER 11, 1996

3 A. It says to "Please address your comments or
4 questions tholl me. "

5 Q. And how about the second line about having 6 conversations with too many players?
7 MS. COOK: The document speãks for itself. Do
8 you have a que~tion for hi about it, or do you want

10 Q. BY MR. McBRIE: Did you understand that you

9 to argue about it?

11 were not supposed to call hi and he was not
12 sUQQosed to call you?

13 A. No. I was toia not to call hi because there

14 was too many contacts and it was getting confusing.

15 But, I mean, if Mr. Aloisi called me, if it was 16 pertinent to wildlife issues, then I would discuss
19 Q. Do you recall having any conversation after
20 ths date with Mr. Aloisi?

17 it with hi. But, for the most Qar, Mike wanted 18 most of the conversation to go throug hi.

21 A. Well, I would imagine so, but I can't say 22 absolutely. We had a number of meetings.
23 MR. McBRIDE: okay. No furer questions. 24 MS. COOK: I have nothng furer. Thank you.

25 TIE WTESS: You're welcome.
26

Page 68
1

2

3 (Deposition concluded at 2:14 p.m.) 4
5

6 7
8

9 10

11 PENAL1Y OF PERJRY.
12 I the undersigned, hereby certify that I have

13 read the foregoing deQosition; that I know the 14. contets thereof, andl declare under penalty of 15 Qeijur under the laws of the State of California
16 that tne foregoing is tre and correct.

17

18 Executed on
19

20

21 MAC ROSS WILLIAS
22 23 24 25 26

Page 69

1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2

3 I, JOYCE A. FIN, certified Shortand Reportr,

4 State of California, Licese No. 1225, hereby 5 certify that witness in the foregoing deposition
6 namea:

7 MAC ROSS WILLIAS

10 withn entitled cause; tlat said deposition was
11 taen at the time and plac therein named;

9 whole trth, and nothng but the trth, in the

8 Was duly sworn by me to tell the trth, the

12 That the testimony of said witness was reportd

13 by me, a certified Shortand Reportr and a

14 disinterested person, to the best of my ability, and 15 was thereafter transcribed into tyewrting under my
16 diectian !lnd supervision using computer assisted

17 transcnptlOn; 18 That deponent was notified of the availabilty
19 of the deposition for review.
20

21 DATE: November 4, 1996
22 23 26

24 JOYCE A. FIN 25 certified Shortand Reportr 1225

JOYCE A. FI COURT REPORTERS

Page 67 - Page 69