Several submissions include specific comments on geographic areas to leave in or out of the timber harvesting land base.
One submission questions the inclusion of ownership code 69 land ("Crown-Miscellaneous Reserves, with or without Order In Council"). The author suggests that, if included, it should be for the first rotation only.
One respondent writes that the area inclusion factor for immature stands should be higher than for mature stands because old-growth stands are netted down heavily due to deterioration, which does not occur in immature stands.
According to forest industry comments, portions of the following should have been included in the land base:
• mixed coniferous types classified by inventory as cedar- and hemlock-leading that may have significant volumes of spruce, fir or balsam
• deciduous-leading stands that may have significant coniferous volume or may have become coniferous-leading over time or will in the future become coniferous-leading
One forest industry submission contends that leaving deciduous forest types out of the analysis results in a significant underestimate of the long-term timber supply. More than 290,000 hectares of deciduous forest that were not affected by other constraints should have been included in the timber harvesting land base.
Another submission states the reason some forest types have not been harvested is that companies have been required to harvest beetle-attacked stands. Concern is expressed that if these types are left out of the land base it may lead to the false assumption that they are available for an "opportunity wood" licence.
Several submissions maintain the economically operable volume thresholds for inclusion in the timber harvesting land base are too high in the current market and should be reviewed. One submission comments that the Forest Service has not required licensees to harvest any particular site or types and therefore lacks an objective measure of what licensees will or want to take.
A forest industry submission contends that over 1,000 hectares classified as inoperable because of poor site quality actually contain a mixture of site classes and should be included in the timber harvesting land base.
One respondent writes that operability should be defined by physical factors and that economic operability should be dictated by market conditions. Another one recommends a new assessment of operability limited to soil and topographic conditions be done before any operability constraints are applied in additional planning for the Prince George Timber Supply Area.
A forest industry submission contends the delivered-wood-cost concept should not be used in the analysis. Stands that are unmarketable because of high wood-delivery costs will not remain that way—just as stands that were marginal in the past have become marketable with today's prices.
Another forest industry submission states the per cent reduction for future roads should be at levels comparable to experienced levels —approximately four per cent.
