TL: VIOLATIONS OF FOREST PRACTICES, CLAYOQUOT SOUND BC SO: Greenpeace Canada (GP) DT: July 26, 1994 Keywords: forests canada bc regulations violations logging effects rainforests clearcuts terrec greenpeace reports gp / 1.0 INTRODUCTION Sound scientific studies clearly show that clear-cut logging, as it is practised in B.C, can result in a serious decrease in forest site productivity and has resulted in extensive damage to fish habitat in countless rivers and streams. This fact has been acknowledged by both government and industry. (Unfortunately, the impacts of this method of harvesting on thousands of other organisms that depend on old growth forests have never been clearly documented). Despite this, the B.C. Government and the Forest Industry in this province have been waging a public information campaign world wide in an effort to convince anyone who will listen that current, up-to-date logging practices in B.C. are environmentally responsible and of a world class standard. The underlying premise is that the old way of doing business in B.C.s forests is gone. New environmentally responsible forest practices are the order of the day. The B.C. Government and the forest industry have promised new directions in the way forests are to be managed in B.C. However, the "new way" still involves the environmentally destructive logging method known as clear-cutting, and an unwritten policy of elimination of virtually all of the accessible, harvestable old growth in this province still prevails. Government and industry also promise new and better methods of managing the forest to minimize the effects of clear-cut logging on fish habitat. Recent information obtained by Greenpeace from various governmental and non-governmental organizations in B.C. suggested that, in fact, things have not changed in the way B.C.s forests are being harvested. Several independent reports indicated that destructive logging practices continue to be used in the forests of Clayoquot Sound on Vancouver Island and that forest companies were still not complying with even the most basic of guidelines. Therefore, Greenpeace commissioned this study to determine whether or not current logging practices on Vancouver Island, in particular in Clayoquot Sound, were in compliance with the current guidelines and standards. The mountains of coastal British Columbia and Vancouver Island contain the headwaters of many large, commercially important salmon rivers. Thousands of small, steep mountain streams drain this vast region and channel surface water flow into successively larger streams then into rivers that flow to the ocean. The smaller mountain streams higher up in the watershed are critical coho salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitats. These fish once were the mainstay of the Canadian and northwestern United States commercial and recreational fishing industries, but stocks have become severely depleted both in British Columbia and in the States of California, Oregon and Washington. In the U.S. many of these wild salmon runs have been petitioned for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. In fact, the situation is so grave that in April 1994, American regulatory agencies closed virtually the entire west coast of the U.S. to commercial and sportfish harvesting of all Pacific salmon. The declines in wild stocks of coho and steelhead on the west coast of North America can be largely attributed to habitat loss and damage caused by logging, agriculture and industrial and urban development, and by the damming of rivers for hydroelectric power generation. In the largely unpopulated, non- industrialized, and mountainous coastal regions of B.C., clear- cut logging is the primary cause of this fish habitat loss. 2.0 Clear-cut Logging and Fish Habitat LOSS Although clear-cut logging is the most environmentally destructive form of tree harvesting it is the dominant method of logging in British Columbia. Even the B.C. Forestry Act is specifically written to sanction this kind of tree harvesting. Clear-cutting entails the removal of every single tree over 3 m high from a designated plot of land. Nothing is to remain standing, except, perhaps, an eagle nesting tree. One of the major environmental impacts associated with clear-cut logging is the destruction of fish habitat. In virtually every area being harvested in this province there are rivers and streams that support salmon and/or trout and other important fish species. Long term studies (25 consecutive years) of fish-forestry interactions in the Carnation Creek watershed on Vancouver Island indicate that forestry activities there resulted in reduced survival of coho and chum salmon populations in that stream by 50% and 25%, respectively. This occurred despite the fact that much of the logging was supposedly controlled to minimize stream impacts. The study found that increased streambank erosion and sedimentation rates, downstream transport of woody debris left on streambanks, loss of large stable LOD (Large Organic Debris - logs, root masses and other naturally occurring woody debris) and altered stream flow patterns were the most severe effects caused by logging in the watershed. The results of this and other studies conducted throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska showed a clear connection between clear-cut logging and damage to fish habitat. This fact is also recognized and accepted by the resource agencies and by the logging companies. It was also recognized that something had to change or we would risk losing what little unaltered fish habitat remained. To ensure that fish habitat was afforded a higher degree of protection from logging activities, the Ministry Of Forests (MOF), the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and the Council of Forest Industries (COFI - the agency representing all of the major logging companies operating in the province) formulated a set of guidelines to integrate fisheries and forestry resource management in coastal British Columbia. The aim of the guidelines was to "improve the performance and effectiveness of the consultative process required for fish habitat protection and concurrent forest harvesting management". The Coastal Fisheries Forestry Guidelines address habitat requirements for fish and what steps should be taken by the forest industry to protect fisheries values. A stream reach classification system was developed which identifies a range of fisheries habitat values ranging from Class I (highest value - salmon and sport fish present) to Class IV (lowest value - no fish present). Class II fish habitat meant there were only resident sport fish present. Class III meant that only resident non-sport fish (trout and char less than 30 cm in length) were present. Accompanying this is a series of operating guidelines for all of the major forestry operations which are to be implemented in accordance with stream reach class objectives. (Note: the stream classification system was revised in January 1993. Class I and II became Class A; Class III became Class B; and Class IV became Class C). One important aspect of the Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines was the introduction of Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) on all Class I and II streams (Now Class A). SMZ's were designed to protect streams by preventing logging companies from operating too close to fish-bearing streams. The Guidelines provide for leave strips, which are stands of trees left along the streams to protect the banks and to provide a future source of LOD (large organic debris). Further, within the SMZ, only selective logging that does not involve the use of heavy equipment can take place. 3.0 COMPLIANCE BY LOGGING COMPANIES WITH THE B.C. COASTAL FISHERIES/FORESTRY GUIDELINES The Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines were first implemented in 1988. At that time, the Ministry of Forests was to take the lead role in the implementation and monitoring of the effectiveness of the program. However, due to the limited response capability of its staff, the MOF, through a Letter of Understanding transferred these responsibilities to industry. The logging companies were, in effect, to police themselves and, as a result, government enforcement agencies were for the most part left out of the picture. The B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines were to be the ultimate solution to ensure the protection of fish habitat from damage caused by poor logging practices. It was thought that this would avoid having to use enforcement of environmental legislation to achieve the same result. In early 1991, three years after the introduction of the Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines, the B.C. Ministry of the Environment retained a private consulting firm, D. Tripp Biological Consultants Ltd. of Nanaimo B.C., to evaluate logging operations on Vancouver Island to determine the degree of compliance with the Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines. Twenty-one randomly selected cut blocks were audited, all of which had been logged after 1988. The resultant Tripp Report, which was released in March 1992, found that, for the most part, logging companies were not complying with the Guidelines. Tripp found that there was at least one major or moderate impact to fish habitat in at least one stream on every single cut block examined, an alarming statistic given that over the past five years more than 6000 cutblocks have been logged along the B.C. coast. Half of impacts were to Class I and II streams. In all, he found that 34 (64.2%) of the 53 streams examined had been damaged by negligent logging practices. Damage included streams filled in with gravel, collapsed and eroded stream banks and streams filled with logging debris. A second report released by Tripp in January 1994 showed that similar results were obtained during a subsequent audit of forest practices on the Queen Charlotte Islands and coastal mainland areas. These reports indicated that fish habitat destruction was being caused by poor gully management, inadequate drainage control on logging roads, failure to provide a leave strip of trees along streambanks, mis-classification of streams and in over 25% of the streams surveyed, failure to even classify streams at all. Significantly, the reports make it quite clear that the Government regulatory agencies were in many ways responsible for these negligent logging practices in that they often failed to invoke pre-harvest prescriptions that were specific and enforceable and failed to conduct adequate on-site inspections both before and during logging activities. Following the release of the first Tripp report (April 1992), the B.C. Ministry of Forests ordered all logging companies operating on Vancouver Island to re-visit all cutblocks logged since 1988 and prepare audit reports identifying areas of non-compliance with the Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines. In addition, the Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Environment and DFO were to conduct their own independent audits of 10% of these cutblocks. The findings of one of these government/company audits, specifically, audits relating to MacMillan Bloedel's activities in Clayoquot Sound (TFL 44), were detailed in a letter from MOF Port Alberni District to MacMillan Bloedel, Kennedy Lake Division, dated August 6, 1993. This document was released to the public at a Greenpeace press conference in October 1993. The letter pointed out that MacMillan Bloedel's activities throughout the Sound since 1988 had a very low level of compliance with virtually all major aspects of the Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines, especially those relating to road construction, road maintenance, streamside management zones and debris management in Class III and IV Creeks. Importantly, this document also made it obvious that both federal and provincial resource agencies had approved some of the inadequate logging prescriptions that lead to damage to fish habitat. MacMillan Bloedel responded by saying that all of the issues raised in the letter involved old logging and old logging practices and that the company was now more responsible and no longer conducted itself in this manner. In April 1994, Greenpeace retained the services of Sierra Legal Defence Fund's Environmental Investigations team consisting of a fisheries biologist and a lawyer. The team was requested to conduct field investigations focusing on the Port Alberni Forest District and TFL 44 to assess MacMillan Bloedel's most recent performance as it applies to application of the B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry guidelines. In addition, the team was also asked to review a cutblock in the Tsitika River watershed on Northern Vancouver Island. 4.0 METHODS Four field trips were conducted to examine currently active and recently logged (since October 1992) cutblocks on Vancouver Island to assess compliance by logging companies with the 3rd Edition Coastal Fisheries Forestry Guidelines (October 1992). Due to time constraints, the study focused only on harvesting activities in the Port Alberni Forest District which included all of TFL 44 and Toquart Bay. In addition, one cutblock in the Tsitika River watershed (Boulder Creek) on Northern Vancouver Island was reviewed. Field trips were undertaken during the periods May 12 - 18, May 23 - 30, June 6 - 14, and July 8-10, 1994. Cutblocks were selected by random encounter. Essentially, this means that first a general geographic area was selected (i.e. Clayoquot Sound, Cameron/Franklin Division, North Island, etc..), then selected watersheds in these areas were accessed by 2WD vehicle, boat (then on foot or bicycle) and helicopter. Main haul roads and branch roads in those watersheds were then travelled until an active or recently logged cutblock was encountered. Because the study was limited to a review of only active and/or recently harvested blocks, long distances had to be travelled to find these areas thereby restricting the number of sites that could be located. In all, 17 cutblocks were encountered of which 16 were in the Port Alberni Forest District. Of the 16 sites visited in the Port Alberni Forest District, 9 were in immediate proximity to fish bearing waters. The remainder (Klanawa Mainline (2), Central North Mainline (1), Corrigan Creek (1) - all in Cameron/Franklin Division TFL 44; Tranquil Creek (1), Kennedy River Mainline (2) - in Kennedy Lake\Estevan Division TFL 44) were located in areas far removed from important fish habitat. Because our focus on this project was primarily to assess logging company compliance with the 3rd Edition (October 1992) B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines, detailed site assessments were only carried out on those blocks where logging activities could potentially impact negatively on fish habitat. Field reviews of harvested areas consisted of traversing cutblock boundaries adjacent to all major watercourses and measuring stream widths and leave strip widths where appropriate. In addition, all watercourses flowing through the block were walked as were all branch and spur roads and hoe trails. All instances of non-compliance with the 3rd Edition B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines were detailed in field notes and either videotaped or photographed or both. Once a cutblock had been field reviewed, all relevant documents pertaining to the cutblocks were obtained (where possible) from the Ministry of Forests District Office. These included Cutting Permits, Cutting Permit Amendments, Pre-Harvest Silviculture Prescriptions (PHSPs), Road Building Permits, Harvest Inspection Reports and all letters of communication between the MOF, the company, DFO and MOE. These documents were then examined to determine whether site-specific prescriptions, if any, were adhered to. No statistical analyses or ratings of the data to determine a set level of compliance were conducted . 5.0 RESULTS The data (Appendix 1) indicate that there was at least one minor or major infraction of the B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines on every single cutblock that was reviewed. Minor infractions related primarily to permitting or causing a few trees to enter a creek (i.e. McDee Creek), while major infractions included not classifying streams, mis-classifying streams as to fisheries resource values, lack of road maintenance, improper road building practices and providing inadequate leave strips along Class A streams (i.e. Toquart River, Boulder Creek and S. Sarita River). In addition, some potential infractions were noted which may have violated other regulatory agency approval documents such as Cutting Permits, PHSP prescriptions, Road Building Permits, the B.C. Forestry Act and the federal Fisheries Act. For example, harvesting of blowdown on a block without obtaining the necessary government approval (i.e. Amendments to Cutting Permits and/or PHSPs) as in the case of Block 56, C.P. 26, FLA19234 in the Toquart River may have been a violation of the Forestry Act. In this case, the site was reviewed and approximately 20 trees were observed which had been recently felled and yarded from a leave strip left along a Class C stream gully. The freshness of the cut stumps suggested that the trees had been harvested long after the main block was cut. Inquiries were made with the Ministry of Forests District Office and it was subsequently revealed that no Cutting Permit Amendment had been issued nor had a PHSP been approved for this activity. One or both of these documents are required to permit harvesting of blowdown within a previously harvested cutblock. Another observation was that, with the exception of only one cutblock (Boulder Creek, Tsitika River), the cutting boundaries on virtually every cutblock examined, had not been clearly marked as required in the Cutting Permit. This document states that all cutting boundaries must be clearly marked with painted and/or blazed trees and ribbons and that the marked boundary must be clearly distinguishable once harvesting is completed. For the most part, the cutblocks visited had only been marked with coloured flagging tape tied to small twigs and branches and that many of these boundary ribbons were on the ground and buried in logging slash following harvesting. Therefore, it was difficult to determine whether the cutting boundary on the ground following harvesting was the same as the permitted cutting boundary prior to harvesting Finally, it was apparent from field excursions that there is a significant problem with the manner in which roads have been constructed and maintained throughout Clayoquot Sound. In virtually every watershed visited, a high degree of landsliding was observed, where the landslides, both old and new, were initiated by road failure (See Photos 15 and 16 - Appendix 1). Many of these roads have been constructed on very steep slopes and have not been properly put to bed following logging. Problems like accelerated ditch erosion, lack of water barring, and failed drainage structures (ditches and culverts), all of which contribute to road slope failures, were noted. In several locations, these landslide have deposited tonnes of debris in fish bearing streams. This was particularly noticeable in the Sands River, Tofino Creek, Tranquil Creek and Cypre River drainages and along many of the inlets in and around the Sound. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Appendix 1 details the site-specific observations made at several logging operations in Clayoquot Sound, the Port Alberni Forest District and the Tsitika River watershed. The findings clearly show that there were a number of problems which were common to most of the sites where potential fish habitat damage has been documented, some of which are: 1) Streams are being mis-classified. Often the streams draining cutblocks are small and seemingly insignificant. However, they often provide important spawning and rearing habitats for fish from larger systems to which they are tributary. These smaller streams are being classified as Class III and IV (Class B and C) systems when in fact they should be treated as Class I or II streams (Class A). This practice, whether intentional or not, enables logging companies to operate under less stringent guidelines which can result in significant stream damage. As a consequence, valuable habitat is still being lost. In should be noted that it is the logging companies, not the regulatory agencies that conduct stream classifications and it is in their economic self-interest to mis-classify them. It is a known fact that the best and largest trees tend to grow closer to water. If a stream is classified as Class I or II (Class A), these trees may have to be left within a designated Streamside Management Zone (SMZ). However, if a stream is classified as Class III or IV (Class B or C) there is no requirement to leave merchantable timber in an SMZ. 2) Poor road building and maintenance practices continue to result in sediments from road and ditch erosion and landslides entering fish habitat. The companies are not following accepted road building guidelines which are designed to prevent erosion and protect streams from sediment contamination, particularly with respect to abandoned roads. Much of Clayoquot Sound was harvested before the B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines were implemented and abandoned roads were left to the elements. However, it was evident from the present survey that this is still a problem as evidenced by road building and maintenance problems observed in the Cypre River and Cold Creek drainages. The companies should be required to revisit old logging roads and put them to bed properly to minimize the landsliding and erosion problem. 3) Inadequate leave strips are being left along Class I and II streams. Leave strips are supposed to protect streams by providing a buffer zone which keeps logging activity away from important fish-bearing streams. The B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines specify that leave strips equivalent to the width of a stream (minimum of 10 m for Class I and II streams 10 m wide or less, up to a maximum of 30 m for streams wider than 10 m) should be left on Class I and II (Class A) streams. However, this study and the Tripp Reports clearly show that the leave strips that are typically being left do not even conform to these standards, particularly those left along the smaller Class I and II (Class A) fish streams. In some cases, the companies and government regulatory agency personnel argue that approval to log some of the most recently harvested cutblocks was given years ago (i.e. Klanawa River Block 301, C.P. 5, TFL 44 and Boulder Creek Block 319, C.P. 20, TFL 39), prior to implementation of the current guidelines and, as such, the companies are not bound to them. This is environmentally irresponsible. 4) The resource agencies (DFO and MOE) often approve the clear-cutting of Class I and II streams. DFO and MOE typically only provide input on the logging of a cutblock at the 5-Year Development Plan level. Often, there is insufficient information with regard to fisheries resources provided at this level of planning for these agencies to make a proper, informed decision whether or not to allow logging or request modifications to the proposed logging plans. Funding and staffing constraints on regulatory agencies prevent them from checking each and every cutblock so, at times, approvals are granted without sufficient conditions attached for the proper protection of fish habitat, usually because a proper inventory of fisheries resources is lacking. 5) Logging companies are failing to follow their approved logging plan. In some cases, DFO and/or MOE make specific recommendations on how a cutblock should be logged or roads should be built to best protect fish habitat. This is usually done following a field review. These recommendations are often a condition of approval. However, this study and previous studies (Tripp Reports I and II) clearly show that in some cases, the companies are not following these recommendations, often with disastrous consequences for fish streams. 6) The Current B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines do not provide adequate protection for fish and/or fish habitat. The current provincial guidelines for the protection of fish habitat from the effects of clear-cut logging are inadequate because they are non-enforceable, loosely worded and open to a wide range of interpretation. For example, the statements In streamside areas prone to blowdown ... Consider widening the zone [Streamside Management Zone] to a windfirm boundary (3rd Edition B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Section 2.5.7), and In circumstances of high windthrow risk, consider removing only windthrow-prone trees from the Streamside Management Zone (3rd Edition B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Section 2.5.8) can be, and has been, interpreted to read remove all of the trees in the SMZ because they will all blow down as operations are being conducted in an area of high windthrow risk. The alternative, widening the SMZ to a windfirm boundary, is only an option, and one that the forest industry would rather not consider in most circumstances. Recent changes to the B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines (3rd Revised Edition, January 1993) make harvesting of trees within Streamside Management Zones even easier for forest companies. Section 2.5.4 of the 3rd Edition B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines used to read Selective tree removal in the SMZ may only occur beyond 10 m of the streambank ... This section now permits harvesting of trees within 10 m of the streambank at the discretion of the resource agencies. 7.0 DISCUSSION The findings of the present study clearly show that fish habitat in B.C. is still being compromised both directly and indirectly from the effects of clear-cut logging and the large network of poorly built and inadequately maintained roads required to support this type of harvesting. In addition to observed incidences of non-compliance with the B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines, there was also evidence of non-compliance with the terms and conditions of several other regulatory procedures including potential Cutting Permit, Road Building Permit, Forestry Act and Fisheries Act violations. It is quite obvious that many of the potential violations have occurred with the approval of both provincial and federal government officials because of the historical relationship that has developed between them and the logging industry. This special relationship has resulted in a negotiate and compromise attitude and a resultant lack of enforcement of existing environmental legislation such as the Forestry Act and the Fisheries Act as it relates to negligent logging practices. There have been recent provincial government promises to enact a new Forest Practices Act with strict and enforceable guidelines and severe penalties sometime in late 1994. However, the draft Forest Practices Act, as it is written today, fails to provide promised protection for fisheries resources from the ravages of clear-cut logging. While it embodies many of the major forestry operations guidelines outlined in the B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines, the wording of the Act leaves many of these clauses open to a wide range of interpretation and there are too many loopholes that will allow violators to escape prosecution under the Act if they can show they have obtained approval for a specific undertaking from the historically lax regulators. Furthermore, the regulatory regime in this province currently lacks an adequately staffed environmental enforcement body that is completely independent of bureaucratic or political influence to administer the Act. In addition, there is nothing to say that the negotiate and compromise at all costs attitude of government regulatory bodies will not prevail, thereby rendering this Act just as ineffective as any other environmental legislation. The government of B.C. publicly maintains that forest practices in this province are among the best in the world. However, the basic standards now being applied to forestry activities on Federal lands in the U.S. Pacific Northwest far surpass anything being espoused for B.C. In the U.S. example, leave strips 90 m in width must be left along any watercourse bearing fish of any species. Perennial streams not bearing fish require leave strips of 45 m and intermittent streams, those with water flowing in them for only part of the year, require leave strips 15 - 30 m wide (width dependent on stream stability factors). Harvesting within the leave area is not permitted. In B.C., only streams that support anadromous (sea-going) salmon and trout and resident sport fish require leave strips. Resident sport fish are defined as only those stream fish which may be caught and retained under the provincial sport fishing regulations, which for Vancouver Island means trout and/or char greater than 30 cm (12 inches). All other fish are excluded from this definition. Streams containing anadromous fish and resident sport fish are designated Class A streams and require leave strips equal to the width of the stream up to a maximum of 30 m. The minimum leave strip is 10 m for streams 10 m wide or less. However, in all cases selective harvesting can take place within the leave strip and in some cases all merchantable timber may be removed (clear-cut). The objective of a leave strip is to protect streams by providing a buffer zone which keeps logging activity away from the stream yet the regulators in this province continue to allow invasive logging activities to threaten important fish habitat by, in some cases, permitting clear-cutting right up to streambanks. Not all of the blame for this should be shouldered by the regulatory agencies, however, because they are often only acting on the basis of incomplete and often inaccurate information on fisheries resources compiled by the logging companies. Greenpeace, with the support of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, proposes to continue investigations of this type and to publicly bring our findings to the attention of the existing enforcement agencies at both levels of government to pressure them into establishing a clear and workable environmental enforcement policy to protect this provinces forests and fish habitat. Greenpeace and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund strongly feel that continued involvement in the practice of conducting private investigations will assist in bringing about these changes. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS In light of the findings of this study and of the environmental audits conducted by D. Tripp Environmental Consultants in 1992 and 1994, we propose the following recommendations: 1) All forestry companies should be required by law to provide regulatory agencies with detailed site assessment reports concerning fish and wildlife use in proposed harvest areas. This would enable regulators to make informed decisions regarding site-specific logging prescriptions designed to protect these resources in situations that prevent regulatory personnel from conducting on-site reviews. 2) All forestry companies should be required by law to retain Registered Professional Biologists (R.P. BIO) specializing in fish and/or wildlife biology to properly assess these resources in proposed harvest areas and provide recommendations as to how the area should be harvested to protect these resources. R.P. Bios are bound by a professional code of ethics making them accountable to their employers, the public and their peers. 3) The Provincial and Federal Governments should not compromise the ability of MOE and DFO to fulfil their mandated function as stewards of the environment. Adequate funding should be provided to these agencies to enable the hiring of sufficient capable staff as to be effective. As it stands now, these agencies face severe budgetary cutbacks and reduced staffing levels at a time when money and personnel are most needed. There simply are not enough resources to do the job. 4) The B.C. Government should immediately adopt riparian management zone standards similar to those being employed in the U.S. Pacific Northwest as a minimum standard for the protection of fish, fish habitat and riparian dependent wildlife species. Considering the potential threat of a major collapse of salmon stocks on the Pacific Coast, this should be a high priority issue. 5) Forest companies should be required to re-visit all abandoned logging roads situated within their tenures and decommission those roads that pose a threat to fisheries resources in such a manner as to eliminate erosion and landsliding caused by road failure. 6) The notion that cutblocks approved before a specific set of guidelines were adopted should be exempt from following those guidelines should be abandoned immediately. Despite the inadequacies of the current guidelines, some of the problems observed during this study (i.e. inadequate leave strips) could have been avoided if the forest companies had simply adjusted their logging plans to conform to the most recent guidelines. APPENDIX 1 Site-specific Findings of an Independent Assessment of Active and Recently Harvested Cutblocks in the Port Alberni Forest District and in the Tsitika River Watershed, Northern Vancouver Island. Following are the block-specific findings recorded for several logging operations in Clayoquot Sound, the Port Alberni Forest District and the Tsitika River watershed. The terms in parentheses (where present) following the description of the problems noted, relate to specific documents which contain terms and conditions and/or guidelines which may not have been complied with at each site. 1) Cypre River - Block 120A, C.P. 14, TFL 44 Stream Class - Class A Status - Active Harvested by - MacMillan Bloedel Field Reviewed - May 16, 1994 and May 28, 1994 - Entire ditchline within block along the Cypre North Main was filled with logging debris and material from road cut slope failures (predominantly rock and sediment) caused by the yarding felled trees down the slopes. Ditch drainage flowing into existing water courses (B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 1.8.1 and 1.8.2). - 2 culverts, one approximately 15 m south of the junction of Cypre North Main and spur CN10 the other approximately 20 m north of the same junction were plugged and not functioning properly. Water from the ditchline north of CN10 was being directed onto the road surface (Cutting Permit Section 8.02, Forest Road and Logging Trail Engineering Practices, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 1.7.4, 1.7.7, 1.7.8 and 1.8.1). - On the downstream side of Cypre North Main, both stream channels (Class C) were jammed tight with logging debris over a distance of approximately 5 - 10 m and had large sediment wedges behind them (sediment from road and ditch erosion - see Photos 1 and 2). Streamflow at this point was forced subsurface through the sediment for about 10 m (B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 1.8.1, 1.8.2 and 1.8.3). - Trees felled across and into both stream channels on the downstream side of the road. This was approved by DFO. However , some of the felled trees in the channel had large sediment wedges building up behind them. It appears that clean out of the above mentioned debris jams subsequent to our first visit in May caused large amounts of trapped sediment to sluice through the system. If felled trees are removed there will be further transport of this material downstream to Cypre River (Class A). Felled trees in streams forcing streamflow out of natural channel; cutting new channels with subsequent erosion problems (B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Section 2.1.5, 2.5.2, 2.5.13, 2.5.14, 2.5.15) . - New bridge construction on Cypre North Main (Photos 3 and 4) resulted in stream channel (Class C) under the bridge being littered with freshly broken pieces of wood and logging debris and fresh sediment from road building being deposited within the high watermark on both sides of the stream both upstream and downstream of the crossing (Cutting Permit Sections 8.02, 9.01 and 9.02, Forest Road and Logging Trail Engineering Practices, Fisheries Act Sections 35(1) and 36(3) and B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Section 1.7.14). - Road building crew working during heavy rainstorm (May 28, 1994). Resulted in sediment laden water being transported directly to local water courses. MOF documents state that all road building along this section of road must be conducted under direct, daily supervision of competent inspector (Letter from W.N. Brook, MOF to J. Duckworth, MB dated March 24, 1994). No such inspector was on site (Road building Permit, Forest Road and Logging Trail Engineering Practices, Fisheries Act Sections 35(1) and 36(3), and B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.6). - Small Class C stream (1.5 m wide) draining hillside in new road construction area flowing freely across road without being culverted. Crossed numerous times by road building equipment (blasting drill, excavator). Drill wash water and road surface runoff entering stream directly (Fisheries Act Sections 35(1) and 36(3), Road Building Permit Sections 2.02 and 2.04, Forest Road and Logging Trail Engineering Practices, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 1.2.4, 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.7.1, 1.7.3, and 1.7.15). - Side cast of road building material (right of way logs, shot rock and spoilage into above mentioned stream channel (Cutting Permit Sections 8.02, 9.01 and 9.02, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Section 1.2.1, 1.6.1). - Cutting boundary not clearly marked (Cutting Permit Section ????) 2) Cypre River - Block 119, C.P. 14, TFL 44 Stream Class - Class A Status - Active Harvested by - MacMillan Bloedel Field Reviewed - May 16, 1994 (Note: this block was not inspected up close, rather it was viewed from across the river). - large, natural slide track containing ephemeral Class IV stream on southwest block boundary was logged to edge of gully. It appears that this section of slope is inherently unstable and may be highly capable of transporting debris so it might have been unwise to log so close to the slide track (B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Section 2.5.14). - debris from logging left in gully (B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines 2.5.14). - Cutting boundary not clearly marked (Cutting Permit Section ????) 3) Bawden Creek - Block 112, C.P. 14, TFL 44 Stream Class - Class A Status - Inactive Harvested by - MacMillan Bloedel Limited, Winter/Spring 1993 Field Reviewed - May 18, 1994 - Class A tributary to Bawden Creek at north end of block where access road enters site is heavily damage at road crossing (Photos 5 and 6). Excessive bank erosion. Signs of heavy equipment operating on south bank of stream below road (compacted gravel, trail). Channel eroded from original 5 m wide channel at block boundary to > 10 m. Streamflow has gone subsurface and is no longer flowing in original channel downstream of road. Entire stream downstream of road is dry except during highest flows (Cutting Permit Sections 8.02, 9.01 and 9.02, Fisheries Act Sections 35(1) and 36(3), Forest Road and Logging Trail Engineering Practices, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 1.7.5, 1.7.9, 1.7.10, 1.7.13, 1.7.14). - PHSP map indicates that a leave strip approximately 10 m wide would be left along Bawden Creek both along the upstream Class IV section (probably because this section is a highly active and mobile channel) and along the Class A section above and below the road. In fact, the trees have been removed right up to the banks in these locations. The west bank of this unnamed tributary has been clear-cut over a distance of approximately 50 m on the downstream side of the road and for about 25 m upstream of the road. - Cutting boundary not clearly marked (Cutting Permit Section ????) 4) Bulson Creek - Block I-76, C.P. 12, TFL 44 Stream Class - Class B Status - Active Harvested by - MacMillan Bloedel, Spring 1994 Field Reviewed - May 13, 1994 - Two cutblocks Block B and C have large Class C streams flowing though them which drain to Bulson Creek (Class B). Both streams have had trees felled across and into the stream channels (Photos 7 and 8 - Cutting Permit Sections 9.01 and 9.02, PHSP special commitments and considerations, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 2.1.5, 2.1.14). - Cutting boundary not clearly marked (Cutting Permit Section ????) 5) McDee Creek - Road Building, C.P. 12, TFL 44 Stream Class - Class C Status - Active Harvested by - MacMillan Bloedel Field Reviewed - May 13, 1994 - Material from road building has entered McDee Creek and remains there. Appears that trees toppled by blasting were blown into Creek (Road Building Permit, Forest Road and Logging Trail Engineering Practices, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Section 1.1.6, 1.2.2). 6) Cold Creek - Block 203, C.P. 10, TFL 44 Stream Class - Class C Status - Inactive Harvested by - MacMillan Bloedel Limited starting Winter 1992 Date Inspected - July 8, 1994 - Road cut slope over approximately 300 m stretch of upper road has slumped into ditchline blocking ditch. Ditch water running down road has eroded a long (approx. 30 m), deep (approx. 40 cm) trench in the road surface (Photos 9 and 10). Road surface water and associated erosion material deposited in natural drainage channel. Channel has transported eroded road surface material downslope across lower road depositing several cubic metres of sand and gravel directly into Cold Creek (Cutting Permit Sections 8.01, 8.02, 9.01, 9.03, Forest Road and Logging Trail Engineering Practices, Fisheries Act Sections 35(1) and 36(3), B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 1.1.4, 1.7.3, 1.7.6, 1.7.8, 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 1.9, 2.6.1). - large landslump within cutblock on east corner of block above mainline has resulted in the transport of erodible materials downslope into ditch. Deep erosion gullies forming within landslump scar indicate erosion is ongoing during runoff periods (Cutting Permit Section 9.03, 9.05, B.C. Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 2.1.2, 2.6.1). - In several locations over the entire harvested area, areas of exposed mineral soil on steep slopes above and below the road are eroding downslope, filling in ditches and drainage structures on the lower road (Cutting Permit Section 9.05, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Section 2.6.1) 7) Toquart River - Block 56, C.P. 26, FLA19234 Stream Class - Class A Status - Active Harvested by - Coulson Forest Products, June 1993 Field Reviewed - June 13 and July 8, 1994 - Mis-classification of streams on Block (B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Section 2.5.1) Creek 1 was classified as Class I (Class A) up to the bridge and Class IV (Class C) for the remainder of the creek. There is no justification for a change in stream class of this magnitude at the bridge. The only distinguishing feature at the bridge is a slight increase in stream gradient (from 0-5% below bridge to 5-10% above bridge) over a distance of approximately 200 m which then levels out. There is no barrier to fish passage. The entire creek bordering the block is Class A. On July 8, 1994 we captured 5 juvenile Dolly Varden char and 2 juvenile rainbow trout in 4 minnow traps set in Creek 1 above the bridge. Creek 2 was classified as Class IV (Class C). In fact, the lower reach (25 m) of this stream is Class A by virtue of the fact that it is of low gradient and there is no barrier preventing fish from Creek 1 from entering this creek. Creek 3 was classified as Class I (intermittent). There is no such classification. A stream that is Class I (Class A) remains Class I unless there is a physical change in the stream channel that would totally exclude anadromous and/or sport fish from the stream. This is not the case here, the stream is easily accessible to all fish species inhabiting the Toquart River. Portions of the creek within the cutblock now run dry during low water periods as a result of drainage pattern alterations (ditching and culverting). Creek 4 was classified as Class IV. In fact, the lowermost reach of Creek 4 below the mainline flows into Creek 3 and is Class A over a distance of approximately 50 m and may be Class B up to the mainline. Creek 5 flows into Creek 1 above the mainline bridge. Creek 1 is Class A at this point and the lower reaches of Creek 5 are of shallow gradient making the bottom end of this creek Class A as well. One small creek tributary to Stream 3 which would be Class A over a distance of approximately 50 m was omitted from the PHSP. - Inadequate leave strip left along the east boundary of cutblock bordering Creek 1. Creek 1 varies between 17 - 32 m wide along the entire cutblock and is Class A. The PHSP (under heading fish and water) and associated map calls for at least 20 - 25 m to be left on Creek 1. In fact, the leave strip is actually between 5 and 15 m wide all along Creek 1 and there is excessive blowdown (40-50%) of the trees that were left standing below the bridge and for approximately 100 m upstream of the bridge. Blowdown has resulted in severe streambank disturbance in Class A section of Creek 1 at FC 33. Four (4) large trees, roots and all have collapsed into stream causing excessive bank disturbance, diversion of flow and accelerated bank erosion. Leave strip at this corner was only 8 m (Cutting Permit Section 9.02, PHSP, Fisheries Act Sections 35(1) and 36(3), B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 2.5.2, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8). - Creek 3, a Class A stream and all of its associated tributaries and off channel habitat situated in the lower portion of the block between the road and the leave strip bordering the Toquart River has been clear-cut (Photos 11 and 12). Trees were felled across and yarded across the main channel of Creek 3. Small channels and off channel habitat has been yarded through. Access to some of these areas by fish from Creek 3 is now blocked by collapsed banks, soils and logging debris in several locations. Large ground depressions that form pools during high water are filled with logging debris. A large pile of logging debris sits within the high water channel of Creek 3 and, at the time of our survey was actually within the wetted portion of the channel. LOD has been removed from Creek 3. There is SOD building up in Creek 3 forming small dams and flow diversions (Cutting Permit Sections 9.01 and 9.02, PHSP, Fisheries Act Sections 35(1) and 36(3), B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.5, 2.5.13). - Inadequate ditching (actually no ditchline in some places) resulting in silt laden water flowing down road during rainstorms. Surface runoff from road entering natural stream channels. Creek 3 was heavily impacted in this manner. Large piles of easily eroded material sitting on both sides of un-ditched portion of road which drains to Creek 4, which is Class A in its lower reaches (Cutting Permit Sections 8.02, 9.01, 9.02, 9.03, and 9.05, Road Building Permit, PHSP, Fisheries Act Sections 35(1) and 36(3), B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 1.7.3, 1.7.4, 1.8.1, 1.8.2). - Blowdown has been harvested from east bank of Creek 2 within draw. Approximately 20 trees have been cut and limbed and yarded up to the road. In addition approximately 20 more trees have very recently been felled (judging from the freshness of the stumps) and yarded (to the road) from the leave area bordering Creek 1 above the mainline. We have inquired with MOF and found that no Cutting Permit amendments or PHSP amendments have been issued to permit blowdown harvest on this block. This may constitute an illegal trespass (Cutting Permit Section 1.01, 1.02, PHSP, Forestry Act Section 65(1)). - The PHSP states that a 20 - 50 m wide leave strip would be left within the draw of Creek 2. In fact, the leave strip is less than 20 m wide and large, windthrow-prone trees were left along the slope break on the top of the draw on the west bank of Creek 2. Most of the trees along the top of the draw have blown down into the creek with concomitant bank destabilization where the root wads have ripped out of the ground. Soil from the disturbed areas is eroding into Creek 2 (Cutting Permit Section 9.02, PHSP, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 2.5.6, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 2.5.11, 2.5.14). - Cutting boundary not clearly marked (Cutting Permit Section ????) 8) S. Sarita River - Block 8605, C.P. 3, TFL 44 Stream Class - Class A Status - Active Harvested by - MacMillan Bloedel Limited starting March 1994 Date Inspected - June 9 and 10, 1994 - Mis-classification of stream bordering block (S. Sarita River). The original PHSP dated July 16, 1991 states that the S. Sarita River adjacent to the proposed cutblock was Class III (Class B). However, in a subsequent letter from Mr. Dave Trim, Area Engineer M&B to Mr. Bob Cerenzia of B.C. MOE dated November 12, 1991, Mr. Trim indicates that the section of the S. Sarita River adjacent to the cutblock was Class I (Class A) and that the company would fall and yard away from the stream to protect it. In September, 1992 M&B supplied MOF with an updated stream class inventory of all streams in TFL 44 and again indicated that the S. Sarita River adjacent to the block was Class I (Class A). In the PHSP dated July 16, 1991, M&B indicated it would comply with the 1988 B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines which, at that time did not specify any leave strip widths. However, prior to cutting, MOF by letter dated February 4, 1994, amended the cutting permit and ordered the company to fully comply with the 3rd Edition of the Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines. This document specifies leave strip widths must be left on all Class I streams equal in width to the stream channel up to a maximum of 30 m. The S. Sarita River adjacent to Block 8605 varies in width from 21 m to over 35 m, which means that a minimum leave strip of between 20 and 30 m should have been left. However, the company logged the block and left a leave strip that is only between 2 and 5 m wide along most of the Block boundary (Photo 14 - Note: there is one 50 m section along the river, adjacent to a small knoll, where the leave strip does exceed 20 m). All merchantable timber was removed from these areas including a stand of huge Sitka Spruce (Cutting Permit, Cutting Permit Amendment, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Section 2.5.1, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8). - MOE is on record (letter dated December 10, 1991) requesting that M&B retain old growth timber on the eastern half of this block for a biodiversity corridor. MOE also states their concern that there is not much old growth timber left along the Sarita River. No timber was left along eastern half of block as requested. - Gully sidewalls on large Class IV (Class C) stream flowing through centre of block have been damaged by yarding of trees across channel. Exposed mineral soil is eroding into the stream channel (Cutting Permit Section 9.01, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 2.5.14). - Class IV (Class C) stream referred to above is choked with logging debris ( Photo 13) including tops, branches, bucked pieces and whole logs (Cutting Permit Section 9.01, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 2.5.14). - The entire ditchline within the block was filled with logging debris. All culverts were buried under the debris on both the upstream and downstream side of the road. In addition there was litter strewn throughout the block (oil cans, wire cable, food wrappers, old newspapers) (Cutting Permit Section 8.02, Forest Road and Logging Trail Engineering Practices, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, Waste Management Act). - Trees were felled into a small low gradient stream and adjacent wetted areas in the lower northwest corner of the block below lower road (Br 213). The stream class for this stream was undetermined (Cutting Permit Section 9.01, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.5). - Lower east-northeast corner of block below Br 213 and northeast boundary of block adjacent to S. Sarita River has excessive soil disturbance caused by backhoe. It is evident that at several locations along the hoe trail, the machine wandered off the trail and significantly damaged adjacent marshy area. Drainage patterns in this location significantly altered. Large amounts of exposed mineral soil eroding down hoe trail incline in machine track grooves (Cutting Permit Section 9.02, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.4, 2.5.12, 2.6.1). - Endhaul dump site on downslope side of Br 213 on west corner of block has resulted in several (10 - 14) small conifers on adjacent block (second growth) being knocked over and buried. Discarded oil cans in new growth timber (B.C. Forest Act?). - MOF Harvest Inspection Report (FS107) dated March 3, 1994 indicated that operations were not being conducted in accordance with conditions of the Cutting Permit. Specifies endhaul site sloughing in 4 locations and lack of routine maintenance of roads and drainage structures. Similar observations were made by SLDF staff on June 9 and 10, 1994 (Cutting Permit). - Cutting boundary not clearly marked (Cutting Permit Section ????) 9) Klanawa River - Block 301, C.P. 5, TFL 44 Stream Class - Class A Status - Inactive Harvested by - MacMillan Bloedel Limited Spring 1994 Date Inspected - June 8, 1994 - Inadequate leave strip on Class A tributary to Klanawa River. Stream borders block on northeast corner. Leave strip (<10 m) over approximately 100 m is significantly less than required under B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines. In addition, site conditions (old and new windthrow) suggest the leave strip will be highly prone to blowdown (B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.4, 2.5.7). - Cutting boundary not clearly marked (Cutting Permit Section ????) Boulder Creek - Block 319, C.P. 20, TFL 39: Stream Class - Class A Status - Inactive Harvested by - MacMillan Bloedel, Fall 1992 - Spring 1993 Field Reviewed - June 12 - 13, 1994 - Mis-classification of streams on Block (B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Section 2.5.1) Stream 1 (Boulder Creek) was classified as Class I (Class A) up to a point located approximately 75 m downstream of the Boulder Mainline bridge crossing and Class IV (Class C) for the remainder of the creek. There is no justification for a change in stream class of this magnitude below the bridge. There were no barriers to upstream migration of fishes in this stream reach and stream gradient (0-5 % below bridge) does not change appreciably until a point approximately 20 m upstream of the Boulder Mainline crossing where the gradient increases to between 5 and 10 % for another 100 m. At this point there is a potential barrier to upstream migration in the form of a log jam. The creek is Class A up to this point. July 13, 1994 we captured 2 juvenile Dolly Varden char and 1 juvenile rainbow trout (possibly steelhead) in 3 minnow traps set in Stream 1 above the bridge. Stream 4 was classified as Class I (Class A) to a point approximately 25 m upstream of the Boulder Mainline. However, the remainder of the creek plus a tributary which enters Creek 4 from the west southwest, all of which exhibit the same reach characteristics as the Class A portion of Creek 4 above the road, were classified as Class IV. However, there were no barriers to fish migration isolating these supposed Class IV reaches. In fact, on June 13, 1994, we captured juvenile cutthroat trout in two of these Class IV channels. One large Class A channel (12 - 20 m) which branches off Boulder Creek below the mainline and parallels the northeast block boundary for approximately 200 m was omitted from the PHSP. - Inadequate leave strip left along the south bank of Stream 1 (Boulder Creek). The creek varies between 28 to over 50 m wide along the entire cutblock boundary below the bridge and is Class A. The stream is wide and braided and all of the channels in this reach would be Class A fish habitat. The PHSP map shows that 10 -15 m leave strip would be left on this side of the stream. In fact, the leave strip is actually between 0 and 5 m wide all along Creek 1 and there is some blowdown which has caused streambank disturbance (Cutting Permit Section 1.01, PHSP, B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 2.5.2, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8). - Stream 4 (Class I) was clear-cut above the road and merchantable timber was harvested out of the leave strip left below the road. Trees were felled across the stream above the road in direct contravention of the prescription outlined in the PHSP. There is no evidence of any bank disturbance occurring as a result of this activity. However, the stream is now exposed to direct insolation which could elevate summer water temperatures to the point where they could be lethal to fish. In addition, reduced summer flows can be expected as a result of increased evaporation rates. All three channels of Creek 4 above the road have been directed into one single channel and culverted under the mainline (PHSP, Fisheries Act Sections 35(1) and 36(3), B.C. Coastal Fisheries/Forestry Guidelines Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.5, 2.5.13). Landsliding in Clayoquot Sound caused by road failures. It was apparent from our field excursions that there is a significant problem with the manner in which roads have been constructed and maintained throughout Clayoquot Sound. In virtually every watershed visited, we observed a high degree of landsliding where the landslides, both old and new, were initiated by road failure (Photos 15 and 15). Many of these roads have been constructed on very steep slopes and have not been properly put to bed. We observed accelerated ditch erosion, lack of water barring, and failed drainage structures (ditches and culverts) all of which contribute to road slope failures. In several locations, these landslide have deposited tonnes of debris in fish bearing streams. This was particularly noticeable in the Sands River, Tofino Creek, Tranquil Creek and Cypre River drainages and along many of the inlets in and around the Sound.