361 



4d. Why did the Alaska Coalition override SEACC's objectives to the Southeast Alaska 

 compromise? 



A: The Alaska Coalition, with its Alaska-wide and national constituency, chose not to oppose 

 ANILCA despite Section 705. The Section 705 language was put into the bill during closed- 

 door sessions in the Senate with Senators Tsongas, Stevens, and Jackson, and Forest Service and 

 other agency and administration people. No members of the public were allowed in that 

 meeting. By the time the Senate version of ANILCA passed, there was no time for the House 

 to make any amendments and return it to the Senate before Congress was to adjourn -- it was 

 a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The Alaska Coalition reluctantly decided to take it and come back 

 later, just as Senator Stevens and Congressman Young intended to do. 



4e. Doesn't the forest industry have a point that the environmental community is reneging on the 

 1980 compromise? Isn't it true that the industry gave up quite a bit to achieve the 1980 

 compromise? Why should people on the Tongass have to compromise again? 



A: No. Even if it was a "deal," it is would be foolish to continue with a "deal" that isn't 

 working. The past 10 years have clearly shown that this "deal" is not balanced management on 

 the Tongass -- the 50-year contracts and ANILCA Section 705 allow the timber industry to 

 run rough shod over the nontimber industries and communities, regardless of the negative 

 impacts. 



No, the timber industry did not give up quite a bit. In fact, the two pulp mills got a great 

 deal. Their contract areas were almost untouched by ANILCA's wilderness designations, and in 

 the few cases where they were affected an equal amount of "substitute timber" was granted 

 under Section 1315(e). On top of this they receive the benefits of the 4.5 and the guaranteed 

 funding to underwrite roads and logging plans. 



No. Only 1 1/2% of the Wilderness contains the type of timber the industry has concentrated 

 cutting on in the past. 



The timber industry continues to falsely portray this issue as one of "outsiders" versus Southeast 

 Alaskans. The timber industry is not the only user of this forest. They don't own the Tongass 

 -- the American people do. With only 30% of the key fish and wildlife areas currently 

 permanently protected, many million dollar fisheries are threatened with logging, as are areas 

 important to nontimber businesses and communities. The status quo is creating a conflict on 

 the Tongass that must be resolved now. 



4f. Will SEACC be back for more wilderness again? 



No. This is the last stand for these key areas. 



4g. Would SEACC agree to exchanging some of lands now in wilderness for lands now put in 

 wilderness? In other words, is SEACC willing to prioritize areas? 



A: No. 



We are willing to prioritize the 24 proposed areas if necessary. 



5. SEACC is presently engaged in lawsuits against the Alaska Pulp Corporation ( APC) and 

 Ketchikan Pulp Company ( KPC) five-year operating plan Environmental Impact Statements. 

 The injunctions SEACC is after would tie up more than 600 million board feet that have been 



11 



