One respondent suggests accepting the assessment as it is written.
The following comments include suggested improvements to the assessment and views on topics raised in the report:
Environmental concerns
One respondent notes that since quantitative wildlife studies have not been done in the area, it is difficult to identify what might be damaged.
Economic impacts
Four respondents indicated log export from the Nass Timber Supply Area should end, with the resulting wood supplied to local mills. One added that local fibre processing facilities should be constructed.
One respondent suggests research should focus on developing timber product mixes and new markets. Another suggests new secondary milling facilities and value added techniques should be encouraged and that by-products of timber production, such as co-generation using hog fuel for energy, should be developed.
Two respondents note that forest uses for recreation, tourism, education, research and alternative resource manufacturing should be encouraged. One suggested pine mushroom harvesting as an economic opportunity.
Employment impacts
Two submissions suggest the value of present and future employment be considered in the determination. One indicates it is not necessary to protect future jobs at the expense of present jobs.
One respondent states that the Discussion Paper suggests it is appropriate to presume a conservative economic growth rate until a higher rate can be substantiated. The respondent suggests this approach could lead to economic disruption and job losses without increasing environmental protection.
Community impacts
One respondent suggests increasing benefits from the forest resources received in Stewart, Kitwanga, the Hazeltons and the small Nass communities would be beneficial, but not at the expense of businesses in Terrace and Kitimat.
Three respondents provided comments about the community of Stewart: one suggested Stewart should focus on processing wood rather than exporting it; another supplied a lengthy list of opportunities to help sustain Stewart; a third suggested a new tenure, with a requirement to locate a manufacturing plant in Stewart, and an option to obtain wood from existing forest licenses.
Another suggests that once a project, such as the recent proposal for a new mill, has been found to be in the Province's interest, the chief forester should not jeopardize it by reducing the harvest rate. Furthermore, the Forest Service analysis shows a range of reasonable actions that do not conflict with the project.
