Many suggestions concern whether and how the allowable annual cut should be adjusted. This input ranges from support for maintaining the current harvest level to requesting an immediate reduction, to requesting no decision be made at this time. The following comments are made.
To allow time for community and industry adjustment, improved inventory, and assessment of ramifications of other initiatives such as the Forest Practices Code and the West Kootenay-Boundary Land-Use Plan, four submissions (two from the forest industry and one each from the Village of Midway and the City of Grand Forks) suggest the current allowable annual cut of 700,000 cubic metres should be maintained for at least the next 5 to 10 years.
The authors of the licensees' review support maintaining the allowable annual cut at the current level for 250 years, based on the greater existing mature timber volume estimated by the forest industry and on their estimates of timber productivity that suggest increases of at least 20 per cent in the long-term timber supply can be expected. They contend that the Forest Service timber supply analysis provides no reasons to reduce the allowable annual cut below 700,000 cubic metres in the short term.
Three submissions contend that the timber supply projections are over-optimistic since natural systems are being destroyed and the inputs needed for forest growth are not being supplied. These submissions indicate a preference for an immediate or early reduction in the allowable annual cut to the long-term sustainable harvest level. Based on observations of logging truck activity from the area, one submission doubts if annual growth is able to keep up with the wood being removed. This individual suggests the reduction is also needed to address new wildlife management practices.
Three submissions urge a cautious and conservative approach to determining harvest levels but do not express a preference for a specific annual allowable cut. They support their position as follows:
• it is foolish to assume all estimates and assumptions are complete and correct
• the functioning of natural systems is not fully understood
• it will be easier to adjust upward if future events permit
• supply pressure will encourage better and/or alternative wood uses and promote value-added manufacturing
• there are too many unknowns that could decrease supply—e.g. initiatives under the Commission On Resources and Environment and the Forest Practices Code—or that could increase supply—e.g. volume additions for mature trees within immature stands, commercial thinning, increased growth from intensive silviculture, and methods to harvest currently uneconomical stands
Six submissions request that no allowable annual cut determination be made until an audit of the beetle kill uplift is carried out and a mitigation or forest industry rationalization plan (as proposed in the West Kootenay-Boundary Land-Use Plan) is in place. The submissions maintain these actions are needed to restore trust in the Forest Service and the forest industry, and confidence in the future.
