Several issues raised in the Discussion Paper prompted public input.
Current management
The Quesnel River Watershed Alliance states that changes to existing forests such as conversion to young age classes, simplification of diverse forests to plantations, creation of small isolated patches and damage due to landslides have put conservation values at risk.
One person observes that monocultures in European forests have an increased forest health risk.
Maintaining old forests
The Quesnel Environmental Society supports the allocation of substantial old growth forests for non-timber resource values and not the harvesting of environmentally sensitive areas. They endorse management practices which protect biodiversity, forest soils and less obvious organisms.
Deciduous partition
Input from one individual indicates that deciduous forests should not be converted to conifer forests after harvest due to their importance to wildlife, particularly cavity nesting birds.
Wildcraft
Substantial input was received from the Cariboo-Chilcotin Wildcraft sector outlining the significance of this resource to all segments of local communities. The importance of inventory and regulation of this resource was stressed to ensure that wildcraft resource management is integrated with uses by other tenure holders and that specific sensitive areas are protected. Their input points out that wildcraft resources, of different types, are found through all stages of a forest's life cycle. They also note that first nations communities are typically more dependent on wildcraft resources than non-aboriginal groups.
They indicate that management for wildcraft values would require some changes to current management practices and would be aided by the development of a wildcraft tenure system.
Pulpwood harvesting
The Quesnel Environmental Society and C&C Wood Products Ltd. concur that no timber should be harvested under pulpwood agreements in the timber supply area.
The Quesnel Environmental Society suggests that more employment is generated through allocation of wood supply to major licensees and the Small Business Forest Enterprise Program than through harvesting for pulpwood.
C&C Wood Products Ltd. states that solid wood fibre which is of adequate size and the quality for the manufacture of value-added forest products, should never be harvested for use as pulp or medium density fibreboard.
Allowable annual cut adjustment
Several suggestions were provided on adjustment of the allowable annual cut. This input varies from a suggestion that the harvest levels from problem forest types should be increased, to support for immediate reductions, either to the long-term sustainable level or by as much as 30 per cent. The input which recommends lowering the allowable annual cut cites the uncertainty regarding future site productivity, cumulative impacts on ecosystems and impacts of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan and the Forest Practices Code as reasons for a reduction.
The results of the technical critique indicate that the current coniferous allowable annual cut could be maintained for 70 years followed by a 2 per cent decline to a long-term timber supply level of 2,220,340 cubic metres per year for 250 years.
A statement from C&C Wood Products Ltd. indicates the Forest Service analysis presents a clear and concise picture of the annual rate of timber harvest. However, they observed that the optimism felt by the industry regarding timber supply is not reflected in the background documents. They pointed out that existing problem forest type stands will remain unharvested 160 years from now if the current harvest level of 300,000 cubic metres per year is maintained as indicated in the technical critique. They suggest that the problem forest type component of the allowable annual cut should be increased in order to recover this volume before it is lost due to old age and to reflect the increased volumes these sites may produce.
The Quesnel Environmental Society emphasizes the inherent stability of the base case harvest forecast; however, they suggest that an alternative harvest flow option which in which harvest levels fall to the long term level after the second decade would encourage the industry to invest in value-added manufacturing.
The Wells-Barkerville Headwaters Alliance opposes any increase in the allowable annual cut to off-set job losses associated with forest industry automation. They feel an increase compromises the health of the environment. They also suggest that a greater emphasis be placed on value-added manufacturing as a means of increasing the ratio of jobs to harvested volume. They conclude that non-extractive uses require the allowable annual cut to be reduced immediately to the long-term harvest level or lower.
Protection of ecosystems and uncertainty of impacts from climatic change and soil degradation are the key reasons for the Quesnel River Watershed Alliance recommendation to lower the allowable annual cut to the long-term harvest level. They feel this is the maximum sustainable rate of harvest.
The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks suggests the use of management strategies developed in the late 1980's is misleading because of the effects of the Douglas fir beetle on critical mule deer winter ranges. Due to these types of factors and general overestimation of timber supply they suggest that a conservative allowable annual cut would benefit the management of all forest resources.
Two individual submissions indicate that the timber supply review estimates of long-term timber supply level are too high because the timber supply model is limited in its ability to model complex forest ecosystems, in the underestimation of land base reductions due to roads and other factors which cause the timber supply to be overestimated.
One respondent highlights the high level of sensitivity of harvest level predictions to existing stand volume estimates as a cautionary point in determining an allowable annual cut.
