Many submissions comment on whether and how the allowable annual cut should be adjusted. This input varies from two suggestions to maintain the current harvest level, to 11 suggestions supporting immediate reductions. Two other submissions state it would be a mistake to maintain the current level of harvest. Reasons given for reducing the allowable annual cut include protecting tourism, accounting for the land base and mature volume uncertainties, protecting biodiversity and environmental values, and protecting aboriginal land interests. Most of the input agrees that a reduction to the allowable annual cut is inevitable. Several alternative ways to implement a reduction are provided:
• one submission recommends a constant harvest level of 400,000 cubic metres per year to provide stability within the industry
• two submissions suggest an immediate reduction as outlined in Scenario Two of the Socio-Economic Analysis
• one submission suggests an immediate reduction to 350,000 cubic metres per year
• one suggests a one per cent per year reduction, stating it would be less disruptive
• another submission recommends setting the harvest level at 585,000 cubic metres per year for the next three decades, followed by an eight per cent per decade decline before reaching the long-term harvest level of 351,000 cubic metres per year in 80 years
A number of submissions contend that the Mid-Stein and Spruce Lake areas should be excluded from the timber harvesting land base when determining the allowable annual cut, or else overharvesting of other areas will result. One submission recommends that the land base be immediately reduced by 20 per cent and a five-pass harvest system implemented.
The licensee analysis and the Lillooet Select Economic Development Committee acknowledge that the current harvest level cannot be sustained indefinitely, but suggest maintaining the current allowable annual cut for another five years. They assert this will not affect the short or long-term harvest levels and it will allow local communities time to address land-use planning issues and develop economic strategies. The licensee analysis maintains that the current allowable annual cut provides a critical volume of fibre for timber supply area mills. Both submissions predict that an immediate reduction would be devastating to the Lillooet economy.
A number of submissions suggest how to apportion a reduced allowable annual cut. One submission notes that operating areas may need to be reviewed in the event of a reduction in cut. The submission also suggests that operability lines be reconsidered due to the more frequent use of new harvesting technologies such as helicopter logging in the timber supply area.
