Comments on other ongoing government processes and issues in the Soo Timber Supply Area are summarized here to indicate perspectives on issues that may influence timber supply in the future.
Timber Supply Review
Recommendations for subsequent timber supply reviews include:
a sub-committee be established to review operability for the next timber supply review
use of a volume cutoff instead of tree height
improvement of inventory in the longer term
the determination of minimum harvest ages by using product objectives be examined
site productivity estimates be improved
continued research into growth and yield is required; accurate projection of future volumes is critical
Allocation of allowable annual cut
One submission questions the appropriateness of Forest Licences with chart areas representing less than 25 years of allowable annual cut.
Protected Areas Strategy and Spotted Owl Interim Conservation Strategy
One submission from industry suggests land-use issues must be resolved quickly. Goals and objectives must be firmly established to enable planning of timber operations.
Another industry submission requests that the chief forester look at the Timber Supply Review independent of other government processes in order to establish a baseline allowable annual cut. The submission states that the forest industry is working
cooperatively with government in developing strategies for protected areas and spotted owls that will minimize allowable annual cut impacts and achieve the maximum value (economic, social and environmental) from our forests.
One respondent comments that land-use issues confuse the allowable annual cut decision and create uncertainty. Additionally, single interests do not serve the public at large in a planning process.
Some submissions included specific suggestions for the conservation of forest resources on a valley by valley basis.
Concerns regarding treaty negotiations were noted among other land-use issues requiring resolution.
Forest Practices Code
A submission notes that the impacts from other processes and the Forest Practices code were not included in the analysis.