In general, the licensees' review agrees with the Forest Service timber supply analysis in its estimate of short-term timber supply. Nonetheless, the review contends that the analysis uses untested assumptions and therefore underestimates present and future timber supply volumes.
Specifically, the licensees' review maintains that the Forest Service analysis depends a great deal upon the estimates of existing mature timber volumes and the amount of timber that can be expected from regenerated stands. It is alleged that both these values are underestimated in the base case.
Estimates of mature stands
A study by Sterling Wood of a sample of harvested areas compared the amount of timber actually harvested with the timber volumes predicted in the Forest Service timber supply analysis. The actual harvested volumes are 14 per cent higher than predicted. The licensees' review contends this indicates the current harvest level can be maintained for longer than projected in the base case.
Estimates for regenerated forests
Estimating timber or site productivity (through the use of site indexes) is the key to determining timber growth for particular sites. Based on the results of studies from regenerated forests in other parts of British Columbia, Canada and the United States, the licensees' review asserts the Forest Service timber supply analysis underestimates the future timber productivity in the Boundary Timber Supply Area. It has been widely demonstrated that productivity estimates for regenerated stands significantly exceed those for the original stands. For Interior forests, increases of at least 20 per cent in the long-term timber supply can be expected, compared to the base case.
The licensees' review also contends that the timber supply analysis overestimates the extent of inoperable areas: i.e. those areas that are infeasible or uneconomical to harvest. Based on a sample of six mapsheets the Forest Service estimate of inoperable areas is 14 percent higher than that made by a local forest company. In addition, the review concludes non-recoverable losses are overestimated: root rot losses, for instance, are deducted twice in the analysis.
With regard to updating development plans, the licensees' review states increasing flexibility is needed to allow continued access to merchantable stands, while meeting all reasonable integrated resource management objectives. It cautions against over-application or anticipation of the Forest Practices Code, which could take away some of the necessary flexibility.
