Several issues raised in the Discussion Paper prompted public input.
Intensive silviculture and enhanced management
Two interest group submissions, the form letters, and the petition say that as a result of new land use decisions pending in the timber supply area the potential for enhanced management and incremental silviculture has increased. They particularly note the dedication of Enhanced Resource Development zones, which occupy 40 per cent of the land base in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and offer additional forested area and increased harvest through intensive management.
Allowable annual cut adjustment
Virtually all submissions comment on the level of the annual allowable cut, taking one of two positions:
Maintain the allowable annual cut at 2.5 million cubic metres per year
Because of community dependence on the forest sector and because of pending land-use decisions that will likely lead to increased timber supply, the submissions from two interest groups, the forest industry, Lignum Ltd., the 767 form letters and the petition support the maintenance of the current allowable annual cut.
Because of the economic importance, continuing availability and merchantability of beetle-killed stands, about one third of the form letters received (not including the petition) and two forest industry submissions specifically indicate support for a continuation of the harvest of beetle-killed pine in the West Chilcotin.
Lignum Ltd. says that if any adjustment to timber supply is required, it should be made from the pulpwood agreement because of the company’s belief that a significant sawlog component is included within the land of the pulpwood agreement. Lignum’s submission suggests a partitioned cut would be an option to allow this volume to be part of the allowable annual cut and yet ensure these problem forest types are harvested.
Lignum Ltd. also maintains a decrease in the allowable annual cut would have a negative impact on the innovative approaches needed to meet both the timber and non-timber goals of sustainability.
Reduce the allowable annual cut immediately
Because of past over-harvesting and poor management practices, as well as pending land-use decisions and the Forest Practices Code, eight submissions support an immediate reduction in the allowable annual cut to protect non-timber resources (both for economic and conservation reasons) and to achieve a sustainable harvest level that will not cause job loss and instability for future generations.
Four submissions do not indicate a preferred level for a reduced allowable annual cut. Three support an immediate reduction to the long-term timber supply level (2.1 million cubic metres per year). Another says while that level could be acceptable, the effects of past over-harvesting require that a truly sustainable cut would be substantially below 2.1 million cubic metres per year.
One form letter with 163 signatures says the discrepancy between the forest industry timber supply analysis and the Forest Service analysis must be addressed before the allowable annual cut is set. The forest industry submission says further analysis is required to assess the potential contribution of the three western supply blocks to the timber supply, providing net benefit to the Crown and potential stabilization of the allowable annual cut for the whole timber supply area.
