The Discussion Paper prompted input on several issues.
Timber utilization
The Merritt Forest Licencees consider the description of timber utilization in the Discussion Paper is incorrect. They assert that there is no mandatory requirement to utilize dead wood volume or material suitable for pulp chipping.
One public response form comments on timber utilization:
"Logs should not be chipped for the sake of high chip prices. Our direction must continue to be for maximum log recovery even for small diameter logs."
Intensive silviculture
Four submissions comment on the importance of intensive silviculture. The submissions suggest intensive silviculture treatments could potentially result in higher harvestable volumes and could provide an avenue to maintain the allowable annual cut in the future. One respondent states that intensive silviculture could result in more timber supply area employment.
Unsalvaged losses
One comment was received regarding unsalvaged losses. It indicates that stronger attempts to utilize blow down and beetle damaged timber should be made using horse and helicopter logging.
Water and watersheds
Three respondents indicate the importance of watershed maintenance and the protection of water habitat. One respondent states:
"I agree with protecting watercourses and hydrological values, but sensibly. Modern equipment permits selective logging of old trees without damaging the area."
Employment
Four respondents mention the importance of the timber industry as a source of employment and an avenue for future job creation in the Merritt Timber Supply Area.
Allowable annual cut adjustment
The Merritt Forest Licencees suggest that the base case scenario is supportable longer than 110 years as shown in the Forest Service analysis. They indicate that the allowable annual cut should not be decreased. The Merritt Forest Licencees state:
"The high component of mature and over-mature stands increases the risk of loss to disease, insects, fire and/or windthrow. The determined harvest level must be at a level to maintain existing salvage programs, as well as, allow for the orderly and timely harvest of the forest. Any reduction to the current harvest level would threaten this process."
The Merritt Forest Licencees emphasize that a reduction in cut would immediately impact the operation of the mills as wood supply cannot be obtained from other sources.
The Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks recommends a decrease in the allowable
annual cut. They claim that the base case shown in the Forest Service analysis could result in the reduction of old growth forests which may put species requiring old growth habitat at risk. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks recommends an immediate five to 10 per cent reduction in the allowable annual cut, with a reduction to the long run sustainable yield in less than 140 years.
The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks suggests a separate allowable annual cut be set for small wood forests. They suggest that this would offset the effect of a reduction in the allowable annual cut of the commercial forest.
Three respondents would like to see the allowable annual cut increased. All three made reference to the high component of mature small wood currently excluded from the land base. Respondents indicate that small wood should be harvested to:
• create a graduated maturity level to ensure a sustainable yield
• make room for quality forests
• increase industry stability
Although few respondents directly address the allowable annual cut, seven respondents mention the dependence of timber supply area communities on the forest industry. Three respondents suggest that any reduction in the allowable annual cut would have an effect on the local economy. One states:
"A sufficient volume of timber must be made available to sustain existing timber processing businesses without whom, our employment base in the region would be decimated."
