Employment and community impacts
The District of Stewart expresses concern about the stability of their community. The district claims that the Socio-Economic Assessment failed to address the social and economic development costs and lost opportunities Stewart has experienced as a result of raw log exports. They highlight the community stability that would come from having a manufacturing plant in Stewart.
Another respondent acknowledges the potential of the Forest Renewal Plan and value-added forestry manufacturing to offset projected job losses arising from a reduced timber supply level.
One respondent commented on several aspects of the Socio-Economic Assessment:
• a direct relationship between harvest levels and employment does not account for the threshold effect where a reduction in timber supply may result in mill closure
• employment multipliers should be higher for single industry towns like Terrace
• person-years underestimate employment due to the seasonal nature of much forestry work
• employment income estimates are too low because they don’t include benefits
• it is false to assume Forest Service staffing levels are not affected by changes in timber supply levels
• the value of timber is underestimated because the stumpage rates used are lower than current rates
One respondent insists forestry activities in the timber supply area should benefit local communities. Another suggests the forest industry could increase its timber utilization at the current allowable annual cut, thereby increasing employment and income. It is also suggested that consideration be given to smaller logging operations.
Three respondents, including the City of Terrace, express concern about the lack of recognition given to the larger economic region of the northwest in the Socio-Economic Assessment. They claim the interdependence of northwest communities and the cumulative effects of timber supply adjustments in surrounding timber supply areas were not considered. One respondent observes that the tree farm licence which generates about 70 per cent of the timber harvesting activities within the Kalum was not considered in the analysis.
Non-timber values
The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is concerned that the Socio-Economic Assessment gives the impression that fish, wildlife and biodiversity goals are being achieved under current practices. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks maintains current practices provide only minimum protection for fish and wildlife values, in particular:
• streamside protection is practiced throughout the area at minimal levels. They suggest that because of the variability inherent in establishing streamside management zones, the analysis underestimates the area actually set aside by as much as 100 per cent
• only two spots throughout the timber supply area have been retained as wildlife tree patches
• biodiversity corridors are found in only one planning area
Two submissions suggest benefits from non-timber values such as mining, mushroom picking, tourism and inland fisheries should be considered and balanced with the needs of the timber industry. Additionally, the economic benefits of tourism need to be recognized and its assets (unspoiled scenery, fish and wildlife habitat) protected.
First Nations
Six respondents note that First Nations concerns were not adequately addressed in the Timber Supply Review. Two specifically state that the impacts of land claims on the timber supply were not acknowledged.
One First Nation suggests that until First Nations interests have been fully addressed through treaty negotiation or other processes, inclusion of timber from traditional territories in the timber supply is not appropriate. They further contend that licences are being continuously renewed without consultation. They state that they haven’t received any employment benefits from forestry activities and suggest an apportionment of the allowable annual cut so they can participate in resource management.
Another First Nation points out that aboriginal rights are not mentioned in the reports and affirms the existence of these rights. They also indicate that timber in the Fiddler Creek Planning Area is not available for harvest.
A third First Nation comments that they could not provide comments on the reports, as they had no funding to hire experts to do so. They further affirm their aboriginal rights with regard to forestry activities.
A submission from the Kitamaat Village Council questions the methodology of the consultant who prepared the Socio-Economic Assessment.
A respondent claims that although they were never interviewed regarding the Kalum Timber Supply Area, they are quoted in the report Socio-Economic Assessment.
