employment and community impacts
An industry submission asserts that the negative impact of a reduced deciduous harvest is much more significant than indicated in the Timber Supply Review. The assumption that workers losing jobs would simply shift to employment in the coniferous forest industry is untrue because there are already sufficient coniferous contractors. The company maintains the deciduous harvest provides reliable employment in an area where farming and the oil/gas industry provide only seasonal employment.
Another industry respondent notes that the Forest Service analysis identifies mining as a larger employer than the forest industry. However, the company says the fact that forestry is based on a renewable resource must be recognized.
The perspective of another submission is that other economic sectors (trappers, hunters, outfitters) and First Nations spiritual values will be eliminated over time if harvesting is increased.
provincial revenues
Two forest industry submissions express the opinion that the Timber Supply Review underestimates the contribution that timber harvesting in this timber supply area makes to the rest of the province’s economy.
One company questions whether the Forest Service analysis understates provincial government revenue. The submission states the Socio-Economic Analysis shows an average stumpage rate of $13.45 per cubic metre, while it has experienced average rates much higher than that.
A second company maintains the Socio-Economic Analysis should use 1994 and 1995 stumpage rates in calculating provincial revenue, since those rates include Forest Renewal contributions. The company also says Forest Renewal projects should be included as contributing to increased employment and additional government revenues through taxation.
non-timber values
Another industry respondent is of the opinion that the importance of visual quality impacts on drive-through tourist traffic to Alaska is overstated. The company says the visibility of harvesting in highway corridors will not change tourists’ plans or destinations.
Another submission expresses concern that available timber has been overestimated because reductions to account for other values are inadequate. The respondent notes there was no provision for old growth retention requirements or for removals resulting from the Protected Areas Strategy. In addition, the timber harvesting land base reduction to protect riparian areas was only one per cent, whereas the actual requirement may be five to six per cent.
The individual submission shares the concern that other values such as old growth, visuals, riparian and protected areas have not been fully accounted for.
This submission also expresses its opposition to a reduction in green-up ages by five years.
wildlife values
A forest industry submission says the Ministry of Environment places excessive emphasis on management of wildlife through conservation of undisturbed habitat. The company says the ministry should use integrated management strategies and increase regulatory management of populations instead.
Another company agrees with the Forest Service regarding the need for properly managing increased road access and notes that increased conservation measures may be required to minimize impacts on fish and wildlife habitat and populations.
Another submission contends the inventory information on wildlife and their habitat needs is very superficial. In particular, the relationship between mature forests, aspen and wildlife, and the need for adequate reserves and corridors, is not addressed in the Forest Service analysis.
The respondent also maintains the green-up requirements for both deciduous and coniferous are inadequate to meet wildlife needs, especially for those species dependent on older forests.
First Nations
A forest industry respondent notes that the Socio-Economic Analysis says Treaty 8 First Nations are interested in a co-management agreement with the timber industry. The company supports consultation with First Nations, but does not agree with co-management.
