The Code promised adequate buffers in streamside or "riparian areas" -- for streams in cutblocks. A "riparian area" is considered the key to both forest and stream health for the control of sedimentation, water temperatures, nutrients and hydrology throughout the forest ecosystem. In fact, the provincial government promoted "world class" protection for streams.
But, the reality on the ground is:
83% of all streams in 1996 cutblocks were clearcut right to their banks, leaving no "riparian zone" of forest adjacent to the streams.36
The intent of the Code was to require mandatory buffers around certain classifications of streams and rivers, especially those that are classified as fish-bearing, while encouraging sensitive selective logging next to smaller streams and headwaters.
While the B.C. Code requires no-harvest buffers for fish-bearing streams to be only one-third the size of those required in the U.S., obviously even this minimal requirement has not been met by the forest companies cutting under the Code.37
In most cases, the clearcutting of riparian areas was completely legal because the Ministry of Forests had required "no-harvest zones" for only 9% of streams. A major weakness of the Forest Practices Code is that the classification and protection of streams is left up to the discretion of the logging companies and the District Manager.38
During the drafting of the Code, environmentalists warned that the draft regulations provided forest service District Managers and the logging companies themselves too much discretionary power over the classification of streams. Unfortunately this caution went unheeded.
After almost two years under the Code, it is now clear that the discretionary powers given to District Managers have effectively destroyed any power the Code may have had to regulate better forest management. By law, companies have mandatory responsibilities to prepare logging plans that provide basic information about the streams in their cutblocks and the measures they will use to protect them. But the reality is:
The evidence shows that the Ministry of Forests is approving a significant number of logging plans that do not meet the information requirements legally set out in the Code. 39
As well, Registered Professional Foresters are not honouring the law of the Code, which requires them to provide basic information about their cutblock plans, including the streams within them.
Out of l,086 streams reviewed by the audit, logging companies had failed to provide adequate information for about 478 of these streams. Nevertheless, Registered Professional Foresters had certified that every one of these deficient and inadequate plans complied with the Code.40
In April 1995 Environment Minister Moe Sihota had claimed that the Code would provide "enough of a protection zone that we are confident that the kind of damage we have seen to streams in the past will not occur again in B.C."41
But the reality is:
The destructive logging practice called "cross-yarding" in which downed trees are dragged across streambeds continues to be common and routine. 82 per cent of the streams checked in the field were felled and yarded across.42
By December 1996, the Ministry of Environment was estimating that it will cost taxpayers $1 billion to fix damaged watersheds throughout the province.43 This is an outrageous expense in a province where more than $1 billion in annual government subsidies has been given to the forest industry for years.44