Environmental and socio-economic objectives
The following concerns regarding the environment were stated.
• the extent of past cutting restricts our ability to maintain biodiversity and seral stage distribution
• that potential climate change and the resulting impacts on forest growth were not considered in the Timber Supply Review
• the lack of knowledge of habitat requirements and current status of some species might mean that all values are not being managed for, and
• the growing importance of tourism will lead to more pressure to protect the visual quality of the landscape, specifically the backdrop of the Broken Islands Group
The following socio-economic concerns were raised.
• contrary to the impression in the Discussion Paper, there will be a cost associated with reducing the harvest rate because of the shrinking harvest levels in other areas
• there is no discussion of the fact that with lower harvest ages, such as those indicated by the minimum harvest ages, the product focus will shift from high-quality sawlogs to pulp and low-quality sawlogs. Data showing the profitability of various forest sectors might be helpful
The following recommendations were made.
• process more wood locally to retain and create jobs
• experiment with true eco-forestry because it will provide continuous work per hectare and even more jobs if small portable mills are used to process the timber at the cutting site. True social stability and long-term viability of the forest ecosystem might be possible if the timber supply area was divided into 200-hectare parcels, each supporting one family
• Forest Service employees should be aware of some excellent logging techniques used in the 1960s
• make maximum use of all forest land for harvesting purposes. Use television to educate the public by showing selective logging
• focus on jobs per hectare not jobs per cubic metre.
• do not harvest at a level to meet processing capacity
• the forest industry should rely on cultivation and good utilization rather than timber quotas to remain strong
Current Management Practices
Forest health and unsalvaged losses mentioned in the Discussion Paper prompted the following comments and questions.
• only dead trees should be removed from infested areas because the survivors represent the resistant gene pool.
• doesn’t evidence now show that some fires should be allowed to burn to remove (artificial) fuel loads?
• is the root rot mostly in old growth or in the replanted areas?
• what will happen if wildfire or catastrophic windthrow occurs on a large part of the timber supply area?
Comments regarding timber utilization were as follows.
• the western redcedar loss factors may underestimate actual losses
• government and industry accept high breakage levels in redcedar even though this can be prevented by using special harvesting techniques
• waste and residue levels should be included in the timber supply analysis data to help the reader judge how well the TSA has been managed
• there should be better utilization of blowdown, dying trees and small-diameter timber. Different methods of enforcement should be used rather than fines; e.g. requiring removal of broken wood
Viewscape management
One submission states that the green-up and visual quality provisions were put into place to protect forest values such as landscape, soils, and salmon habitat, and, therefore, are needed. Modifying the visual quality guidelines to free up more timber should not be considered.
Allowable annual cut adjustment
One submission suggests that the allowable annual cut should be lowered by at least 30 per cent because:
• timber supply will be reduced from the base case with implementation of the Forest Practices Code, Vancouver Island Land-Use Plan, and Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel recommendations
• the longer the reductions are postponed, the greater they will have to be in future decades, and
• it is necessary to achieve a sustainable rate of harvest so that the environment, communities and economy are not jeopardized.
Another respondent states that the allowable annual cut should be set no higher than the long-term harvest level of 385 000 cubic metres for reasons similar to those above and also because:
• the 1994 harvest volumes were close to this amount, so the short-term effect would be to maintain the status quo
• reductions to the land base from urbanization may not have been fully taken into account
Based on the results of the industry review, one submission indicates that the goal should be to maintain the current allowable annual cut.
The industry review concludes there is no technical reason to reduce the harvest.
