Much of the public input focuses on the question of how to define the timber harvesting land base, the area considered feasible and economical for timber harvesting. Two submissions state the Forest Service analysis withdrew too much area from the timber harvesting land base in order to address other values and issues, or because of incorrect assumptions. Another submission contends not enough area was withdrawn.
The following specific concerns are addressed:
Withdrawal of deciduous forests
The Community Task Force maintains that deducting 228 000 hectares of deciduous forest from the timber harvesting land base overlooks two factors:
• new production facilities in Mackenzie will be capable of using deciduous wood in a mix with coniferous
• these forests are evolving toward coniferous stands and will therefore have commercial value in the future
The forest industry submission agrees and adds that excluding deciduous forests at this time is the same as excluding immature coniferous stands until they become harvestable. The industry says the timber harvesting land base could be increased by 20 per cent by including deciduous forests.
Deductions from the northern area
According to the forest industry and the Community Task Force, the size of the timber harvesting land base in the northern part of the timber supply area was underestimated. Although these forests are a considerable distance from processing plants in Mackenzie, the availability of low-cost towing on Williston Lake now makes them economically feasible to harvest.
The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks questions the use of standards from the southern portion of the timber supply area to assess the feasibility of harvesting in the north. The agency notes significant differences in physical characteristics, growing conditions and timber types, and says use of factors from the southern portion overestimates by 10 to 20 per cent the size of the timber harvesting land base in the north.
The submission from the forest industry workers’ union supports the need for a better assessment of the feasibility of harvesting in the northern area, and questions whether differences between the northern and southern areas were properly accounted for.
Exclusion of coniferous forests
The forest industry submission contends too much area occupied by coniferous forests was defined as non-merchantable and removed from the timber harvesting land base in the Forest Service analysis. It particularly questions the exclusion of coniferous forests growing on poor sites and the exclusion of residual stands (poorly stocked forests following selective harvesting). The industry submission notes that if only 25 per cent of the area excluded were instead included, this could add as much as 200 000 cubic metres per year to both the short- and long-term timber supply.
Area of roads, trails and landings
The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks asserts the productive forest area lost to roads is significantly underestimated in the Forest Service analysis. The agency’s submission recommends the reduction for past roads be at least two per cent of the land base, increasing to four or five per cent for future roads and landings.
Changes in economic conditions
Two submissions express concern that new technology, higher utilization, higher prices and changing markets are not considered by the Forest Service analysis when defining areas considered feasible for harvesting. These submissions say that economically marginal stands should be included in the timber supply at times of high market prices and low stumpage rates.
The forest industry submission maintains it is unlikely that any forests in the timber supply area are not feasible to harvest during good market conditions, except where it is physically impossible to construct access roads. An additional 150 000 hectares could be added to the timber harvesting land base by including these commercially marginal areas.
