Other legislation and planning processes
The Discussion Paper specifically states that the results of decisions from the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land-Use Plan and from implementation of the Forest Practices Code are not included in this Timber Supply Review. Nevertheless, almost all submissions state that the effects of these other processes, especially the land-use plan, must be considered before determining an allowable annual cut.
However, input was divided on the outcome if these factors were considered. Two interest group submissions and the form letters and petition are optimistic that the land-use plan, in conjunction with resources made available under Forest Renewal B.C., will result in continuation or an increase in the current allowable annual cut. Five interest groups, one individual, and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks maintain the land-use plan will result in a reduced land base and less timber being available, in order to protect other values such as visual quality, fish and wildlife habitat, biodiversity and water quality. These submissions say it is possible and essential to incorporate the results of these other processes at this time.
The forest industry group, while noting that these other processes were not considered, does not comment on the appropriateness of including them or not.
The Timber Supply Review process
The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks says they were not consulted in the course of the Timber Supply Review and are therefore unable to evaluate which decisions were made on their behalf by the timber supply analysts.
The interest group submission states the Forest Service analysis failed to incorporate many of the recommendations made in the 1991 Review of the Timber Supply Analysis Process for B.C Timber Supply Areas, including better training of Forest Service personnel, identifying and consistently applying management assumptions, and updating analysis procedures, particularly the methods for calculating and interpreting long-run sustained yield. The authors say in their review of the Forest Service analysis, they were unable to verify sources for research methodology and management assumptions and thus felt hampered in their attempt to assess the validity of data used. The group submits that, in general, neither the Forest Service Timber Supply Analysis nor the Socio-Economic Analysis was independent or objective.
With regard to the Discussion Paper, the interest group says it also contains inaccuracies, is not up-to-date, and does not fully integrate all concerns and values. The authors say the Discussion Paper provides public information but does not act as a vehicle for genuine public participation in the allowable annual cut decision-making process.
Sustainable units
One individual expresses the opinion that sustainable yield should be based on smaller units, such as forest districts, rather than the entire Williams Lake Timber Supply Area.
