General
One industry submission comments that the classification of areas in the timber supply analysis was factual and definitely indicative of the current management of the area. Another suggests that the analysis does not address the management of the large proportion of mature forest exposed to losses from insects, disease and windthrow. Another industry submission suggests the short-term timber supply may be lower than projected and the operable and inoperable volumes are not correct.
Inventory
One industry submission contends the forest inventory incorrectly labels hemlock as fir.
Site productivity
An industry submission states site index methodology is influenced by the preponderance of mature old growth, which causes an underestimate of growth. It therefore presents a conservative approach to the assumptions used in the analysis. The respondent states better information from paired plot work may reduce the uncertainty around these estimates.
Timber harvesting land base
Several comments express concern that the 1 per cent removed for riparian areas is not enough. Three respondents propose a range of 1.5 per cent to 3 per cent, and one proposes a range of 5 per cent to 10 per cent.
Growth and yield predictions
One industry submission proposes that the mean annual increment of 2.4 cubic metres per hectare per year—assigned to areas designated "partial cut" in the Forest Service analysis—be applied to all regenerated stands, resulting in a long-term timber harvest level of 480,820 cubic metres per year.
One submission questions the assumption that plantations will grow as planned because far too little is known about how forests develop and how they are affected by erosion, single species plantations, over-roading, and leader weevil and hemlock looper infestations.
Another submission states that yields in regenerated stands are predicted to be much lower than those used in the Forest Service analysis.
An industry submission suggests that with the uncertainty in the yield predictions and minimum harvestable ages there is the potential to maintain the AAC for another decade.
Silviculture
Industry input suggests that improved or enhanced silviculture treatments may serve to increase the managed stand volumes in future years.
Green-up and other forest cover requirements
One submission states that on small, steep-slope streams the hydrological conditions needed to maintain fisheries are not reached until planted trees are 12–15 metres high; therefore the green-up requirements of 3–5 metres used in the analysis are insufficient. The respondent further suggests that the forest cover requirements used in analysis do not fulfill integrated resource management objectives.
Two industry submissions indicate that the visual quality objectives should be reduced.
Wildlife
One submission states wildlife-sensitive areas and preservation areas for wildlife other than caribou are necessary.
