Comments from other respondents cover a wide spectrum of concerns, from suggesting the timber supply analysis is very optimistic, to expressing surprise and pleasure that the allowable annual cut is to remain much the same for a while.
The comments have been summarized into the following categories:
Forest inventory
One respondent expresses concern that outdated and inaccurate forest inventory data was used in the Forest Service analysis.
Growth and yield
One respondent asserts that the paired-plot study, which compared plantation growth rates of lodgepole pine to those of natural stands, appears to have a vague scientific base. A second respondent, in contrast, supports the results of the study, and states he is doing research that shows similar results for spruce. However, he is concerned that the initial results only extend to 25 years.
Timber harvesting land base
One respondent notes the potential exists to increase the timber harvesting land base. He points out that in older logged blocks, the roads and landings are coming back into production with no significant losses in productivity. He further contends that the land base deductions for low site class and height class 2 (10.5–19.4 metres) stands are too great.
Non-timber inventory information
One respondent maintains the information for recreation and tourism values is inaccurate and out-dated. She adds that the caribou winter range is larger than described in the analysis reports.
Another submission states that the review disregards other life forms and the importance of maintaining water quality. A third respondent notes that it is difficult to verify information used in the analysis and is concerned that there are many uncertainties associated with it.
