The technical critique describes the Timber Supply Analysis Report as being similar to "walking through a corridor with closed doors." The critique suggests the arbitrary rules and assumptions used in the analysis lead to only one answer: the base case timber supply forecast.
The critique states that the timber productivity projections used in the Forest Service analysis for managed forests are unreliable because:
• the existing timber harvesting land base is dominated by old growth or very young forests and therefore the long-term productivity of these sites is not accurately known
• the minimum harvestable ages (which define when second growth timber is available for harvest) were arbitrarily set at 95 per cent of the age when trees reach their maximum annual growth. The critique maintains that more flexibility in harvestable age is possible because annual growth is fairly constant for a number of years before that maximum is reached
The critique indicates that the Forest Service analysis did not use the minimum harvestable age determined by the Forest Service and asks that this inconsistency be explained.
The critique also suggests the timber harvesting land base has been defined very conservatively, with 81 per cent of the land protected for other values. The critique notes the timber supply analysis confirmed that timber supply over the next 50 years depends to a great extent on the size of the timber harvesting land base.
In addition, the critique asserts that timber supply is very sensitive to forest cover requirements and this was not reflected in the Forest Service analysis.
The critique recommends that over the next few years, the Forest Service should:
• remove as many uncertainties in the data as possible
• accurately assess the productivity of managed forests
• determine the opportunity for uneconomical timber to become economical
• accurately assess available volumes of old growth timber
