362 



through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process. This means that the 

 industry is not able to obtain timber from areas ostensibly left open to timber harvest. Is 

 SEACC willing to accept limits on its ability to bring lawsuits which lie up limber sales in 

 exchange for additional wilderness areas? For example, would SEACC agree to language 

 similar to that in Section 318 of last year's Appropriations bill (Spotted Owl language)? 



A: SEACC has no lawsuits against KPC. We have filed an administrative appeal of the 1989- 

 94 KPC Operating Plan EIS, but we have noj asked for a stay. 



However, the Salmon Bay Protective Association, a group of commercial fishermen is currently 

 litigating against the Forest Service over buffer strips and the Salmon Bay Lake watershed in 

 the KPC 50-year contract area. So far the temporary restraining order that is in place effects 

 only 36 million board feet (2 VCUS and buffers) out of KPC's approved volume of 850 million 

 board feet. 



SEACC is engaged in a lawsuit against APC's 1981-86/86-90 Final Supplemental EIS. We are 

 joined in this lawsuit by the three subsistence villages of Angoon, Kake, and Tenakee Springs. 

 The figure of 600 million board feet is grossly inflated --no injunction has been granted, 

 although we have requested an injunction on only two areas that they could have entered — 

 Game Creek and S. Passage Point. U an injunction is granted, it will affect 130 million board 

 feet. This would still leave over 250 million board feet -- about a 3-year's supply. The 

 highest amount APC has harvested in recent years is 86.1 million board feet in a year. SEACC 

 has carefully crafted its environmental litigation to protect the environment with a minimal 

 disruption of the timber industry. Our reasonable approach is directly responsible for the fact 

 that five years of active litigation on APC's contract area (three lawsuits) has not resulted in 

 the loss of one single timber camp, the displacement of workers, the shutdown of either a 

 sawmill or pulp mill, or the loss of any timber jobs. This is totally different than the "spotted 

 owl" situation. 



Neither SEACC nor the logging companies should give up rights to access the federal courts to 

 enforce existing environmental or other laws. The Tongass Timber Reform Act (H.R. 987) will 

 greatly reduce the litigation over Tongass forest management. Since 1971, of the nine major 

 Tongass timber lawsuits, by environmentalists, eight were filed over administration of the 50- 

 year contracts. Eliminating these anomalous contracts will eliminate the source of the 

 litigation. (Timber company lawsuits on the Tongass have also been caused almost exclusively 

 by the 50-year contracts -- i.e. recent KPC and APC damage suits, Reid Brothers litigation.) 



12 



