Several issues raised in the Public Discussion Paper prompted public comment.
Old growth
One submission asserts that old growth forests exist only when the trees have reached a minimum age of 250 years.
Another submission states that much of the old growth and mature forests of hemlock, cedar and balsam contain many unusable decayed trees. This respondent suggests these forests should be preserved for the wildcraft community and for the production of pine mushrooms.
Root diseases
A number of submissions identify the potential of root disease to impact both current and future harvest levels. One submission notes that more data is required to better reflect this influence in the timber analysis.
Allowable annual cut adjustment
Input on whether and how the allowable annual cut should be adjusted varies from a suggestion that a reduction is not needed in the short term to support for immediate reductions by as much as 32 per cent. Most submissions agree that a reduction to the allowable annual cut is inevitable.
One respondent suggests a 32 per cent reduction is required to protect biodiversity, watersheds, visual sensitivity and other non-timber resources. A 32 per cent reduction would result in an allowable annual cut of 422,000 cubic metres, the long-term timber supply level projected in the Forest Service analysis.
Another respondent suggests that much public opposition has resulted from the impacts of approximately 30 years of harvesting at the current level. Furthermore, this opposition is not likely to change unless the harvest level is significantly reduced.
One submission proposes an immediate annual allowable cut reduction of 10 per cent to compensate for poor and inadequate growth in planted forests.
An industry submission remarks that based on both the Forest Service analysis and the technical critique, a reduction is not required for 50 to 70 years. It suggests other government processes (CORE, Protected Areas Strategy, Forest Practices Code) will ultimately influence the short-term harvest level.
The First Nations submission suggests a percentage of the allowable annual cut be reserved to satisfy treaty obligations.
One respondent acknowledges the uncertainty in the Forest Service analysis and suggests that this uncertainty does not detract from the base case scenario. The respondent concludes that the Arrow Timber Supply Area has an adequate timber supply to sustain the current level of harvest for a number of decades.
A number of submissions acknowledge that more reliable and accurate information is needed for assessing the timber supply and for considering acceptable harvest levels. These submissions suggest a concerted effort is necessary to acquire data before the next timber supply review.
