Newsletter

Fall 1997

The Passmore Slide -
a Warning Sign for the Slocan Valley

by Jennifer Yeow

Looking back, this year was impressive for the number and severity of slides that occurred throughout the Slocan Valley. However, in terms of shear volume of earth movement, destruction of the water resource, and continuation of the downstream effects, the Passmore Slide on the Little Slocan River can be cited as a major event with long term implications for the valley.

The slide is located in Upper Passmore on the south side of the river and is approximately 360 meters in length. It ranges from 10 to 70 meters in height. During the spring and summer it receded towards Upper Passmore Road by approximately 25 meters and it continues to move. Streams that appear in the mouth of the slide carry muddy water that flows onto a delta pushing into the middle of the river. Silt laden water constantly oozes from the delta into the clean water and is quickly carried into the main Slocan River.

Is this an unavoidable "act of nature" or has man's activities played a causative role? There are unanswered questions about this slide that are important in land management. For example, why didn't anyone notice the fact that an old slide and unstable slope existed on the land before it was privately logged 4 years ago? Also, why haven't there been any studies that look at "down stream effects" from intensive road building and clear cut logging in the Little Slocan River Watershed? Surely, there is, or was a fisheries interest in this river. It is well known that forestry activities increase flow and sediment levels and the Little Slocan River is the main drainage for Tree Farm license number 3, Slocan Forest Products core operating area.

Airy Creek which flows at the base of Frog Peak enters the Little Slocan upstream from the Passmore Slide. Reports on poor logging practices, and avalanches in the Airy Creek Watershed have been reported in previous newsletters. Hence, it was not surprising to hear hydrologist, Al Isaacson, say that the Passmore Slide is evidence that "the Little Slocan River is unravelling from the cumulative effects of hundreds of management activities, many of which are of poor quality" and that "This is going to happen in all the major watersheds of the Slocan Valley where extensive clear-cutting and poor road building in the past have put the watersheds near the threshold where unravelling begins". The culprit and cause of this unravelling is increased flow and sediment i.e. gravel, sand and rock that washes down from the roads, land slides and barren soil in the logging operations. This material fills the river channel and pools causing the river to jump its banks and erode valuable top soil. The river bed becomes enlarged and the flow alternates between a raging torrent in the spring and a shallow, rock clogged stream in the summer - unsuitable for fish or other aquatic creatures.

In the case of the Passmore Slide, a shift in the channel caused a large new gravel bar to form just above the slide and diverted water onto the unstable bank. The private land logging above and beside the unstable bank likely contributed to the problem with an increase in. ground seepage from the logged land.

The problems with changing river channels, ground water and unstable slopes occur throughout the valley and are often not considered when land is developed. What does this mean to residents who live near the river? Freya Grey who lives beside the Little Slocan River just south of the slide has lost 75 -100 feet of land as the river that previously went parallel to her property now flows directly towards her house.

Other residents who once enjoyed the pristine quality of the river are saddened by the site of brown opaque water and mud filled pools. In addition to the tangible loss from erosion, land value is closely related to aesthetic qualities for prospective property buyers and as the main Slocan runs heavy with silt, all the residents in the Slocan Valley lose.

Judge Overturns Perry Ridge Injunction

by Susan Hammond

Following a two day court hearing in November, Justice Parrett set aside the Perry Ridge injunction that prohibited protesters from standing on the proposed road Justice Parrett issued a strong rebuke to the Attorney General and Ministry of Forests for failing to make available to the court information that was critical to the decision to issue the injunction.

In his Reasons for Judgement, Justice Parrett recognised, from the affidavit of Ian Hamann of the Ministry of Forests, that the Ministry's intent was to access a large quantity of timber on Perry Ridge and not just to build the road. Mr. Hamann also listed a large number of reports completed for Perry Ridge. Justice Parrett quotes Mr. Hamann's affidavit:

...the Ministry conducted numerous hydrological, slope stability and engineering assessments. The studies which have been conducted meet, and in most cases exceed, the stringent requirements set out in the Forest Practices Code for the construction of a new forest service road Attached and marked as Exhibit 'C' to this my affidavit is a true copy of a list of reports, plans and assessments which have been undertake to ensure that both road construction and future timber harvesting within Perry Ridge are as environmentally sensitive as possible.

Neither of these reports was undertaken by the Ministry nor, by any stretch of the imagination is it accurate to suggest that they were undertaken to make sure road building and timber harvesting was as environmentally sensitive as possible.

RECOMMENDATION: Do not enter Perry Ridge with road construction, especially the area above an elevation of 4400 feet. Any wetland, bog area, active stream course, and high elevation steep headwater land types should be avoided.

Although timber harvesting activities were not found to be a contributing factor in this landslide, it is well known that timber harvesting activities can have impacts on surface drainage and near surface groundwater flow. Tree removal, especially larger clearcuts, can result in increased runoff during the snowmelt. Roads, trails and landings can intercept water and cause concentrated flows in areas previously not subjected to such silt flows. Timber harvesting on the east side of Perry Ridge has the potential of increasing runoff and/or altering drainage patterns. Changes such as these could after the flow patterns on the valley bottom which could result in increased landslide hazard. All timber harvesting proposals on the east side of Perry Ridge should take these concerns into consideration.

Logging and the associated forest roads likely had little, if any, effect upon the occurrence of the October 1996 landslide. Logging activities, however, can have an effect on landsliding and other terrain stability hazards. Future logging on the east slope of Perry Ridge should only be carried out after all potential downslope and downstream effects are considered.

There is found within these expert reports a disturbing consistency. Each raises significant concerns and each directly or by implication calls for or recommends more detailed study... I have taken the time I have to set out these passages because in my view those reports, coupled with the incidents of landslides detailed by the various affidavits, represent a significant area of concern which was almost entirely absent from the court application in July.

In my view these reports raise legitimate concerns about even the construction of that road itself, but it is clear from Mr. Hamann's original affidavit that the construction of this road is only part of a plan to access. the timber on Perry's Ridge. That broader longer range plan brings home all of the concerns expressed in these reports.

Justice Parrett's Reasons for Judgement echo the concerns expressed over the past several years by the Perry Ridge Water Users' Association. The PRWUA cited these same studies in a petition that 9pposed the road construction and that was signed by more than 225 water users on Perry Ridge and submitted to the Ministry of Forests in June 1997.

Yet the Ministry of Forests listens neither to the people nor to the courts. Road building on Perry Ridge is scheduled to continue next spring, while throughout the winter, MoF will develop logging plans for Perry Ridge through a Local Resource Use Plan (LRUP).

Hasty Creek:

Water Users' Concerns Go Unanswered

by Paul Gibbons

There are about 50 families who will be affected by plans, being considered by the Ministry of Forests, to allow Slocan Forest Products to begin logging and extensive road-building in this very sensitive watershed. The threat of permit-signing had been hanging over our heads like a sword of Damocles and at the end of November the sword fell when MoF signed SFP's permit application.

Concerns about quality, quantity and timing of flow of our water have not been adequately addressed. We are worried about damage to health and property from increased sedimentation which can bring an increase in water-borne diseases, and dog up intakes for domestic water and small hydro systems. We are worried about erosion, destruction of wetlands, and damage to the small seeps and springs which provide many people's water.

We are worried about changes in timing of flow (too much in spring, not enough in fall), about petro-chemicals and human waste entering the water system, and about opening up the area for "casual" use.

Throughout the summer we have been trying to gain access to information about the logging and road-building plans. This has not been easy and we have now had to resort to regular monthly Freedom of Information requests to both MoF and MELP in order to make sure that no important information falls between bureaucratic cracks.

Fund-raising efforts by RMRA members raised enough money to be able to hire hydrologist Al Isaacson to review logging and road-building plans. We found it very useful to have an expert opinion other than government officials or consultants hired by SFP. The on-site problems which he discovered with the plans are very similar to those found by staff from Sierra legal Defence Fund. Their help has been invaluable.

Apart from the specific technical critiques which such experts can provide, there remain several more general problems with the plans being considered by MoF for the Hasty/Vevey/Aylwin Watershed. These can be summarised as follows:

1. Application has been made (in August 1997, both by the RMRA and by individual water users) to have the Hasty/Vevey/Aylwin watershed declared a Community Watershed. MoF and MELP say they will not even consider this application before 1998.
2. MoF appears to be adopting a piecemeal approach to proposed developments in this watershed. A permit for cut-blocks at the north end is being considered separately from the new proposed road #200 which leads south. This in turn is considered separately from several other proposed roads and cut-blocks. Obviously the impact on our water will come from all of these activities combined. Any risk analysis must look at the overall cumulative effects.
3. In September we asked MoF and MELP the following questions: Do they have a coherent risk analysis in place? What guaranteed protections are being offered to us - after all we are the ones being told we have to accept the risks? How are determinations of "acceptability" made and why have we not been consulted? Who accepts the liability? To date (16 Nov 97) no replies to these questions have been received,
4. An Integrated Watershed Management Plan for this watershed is still in effect. The stated goal of this document is that "the number one priority is the protection of water quality, quantity, and timing of flow".

We are still waiting for MoF to explain how putting water at risk protects it.

Cutting Permits Issued For Bonanza Creek

by Richard Allin

The Ministry of Forests has issued cutting permits for Bonanza Creek after the road-building permit issued in September resulted in a two-week blockade and the arrests of 12 people

The cutting permits, issued in the middle of November, approve several ,"patch cuts" and nine clearcuts up to 14 acres in size. They are the first in a 20-year plan that will see a road network and cutblocks covering over 1500 acres on the slope above Bonanza Creek, overlooking Hills.

Bonanza Creek connects Summit and Slocan Lakes and has been recognised as the most important fish spawning creek on the Slocan Lake system. The Bonanza Marsh, where the creek enters Slocan Lake, is one of few remaining natural wetlands in the Kootenays and is home to nearly 150 species of birds and several rare plants.

"Bonanza Marsh is a veritable haven in which young animals can grow up," says biologist Nancy Anderson of Silverton, "The quality, quantity and rate of flow of the water are important to the marsh and any changes can directly affect its health."

In May, Hills residents asked the Ministry of Forests (MoF) to meet with the community to discuss the logging plans, but the ministry refused saying people could have attended a Permit Review meeting a year ago or attended open houses last spring.

Following the MoF refusal, a petition of over 100 signatures, representing 90% of Hills households, was sent to the Ministry of Forests in July. It called for a halt to logging plans until impacts on Bonanza Creek and Marsh, the community's viewshed, and water licensees were addressed, and it renewed the request for a meeting in Hills. Again MoF refused.

Finally, the Hills Watershed Committee requested copies of the studies that were done to assess the impacts of the logging, but they were told they would have to pay $350 first. A few days later the road permit was signed.

Following the break-up of the Bonanza blockade, SFP claimed in the local press that its studies showed that Bonanza Creek does not flow into Bonanza Marsh, implying that any impacts on the creek would not affect the marsh. Local residents were shocked that SFP could have made such a blunder as the creek clearly flows into the marsh, even in low water.

This was serious misinformation on SFP's part because the Ministry of Environment (MoE) relied upon the company's reports to approve the Bonanza road building and logging plans.

A check with MoE in Nelson verified that they indeed had not checked out SFP's claim that the creek and marsh were not connected. MoE did say, however, that they caught another mistake in SFP's study: a claim that there were no fall-spawning fish in Bonanza Creek. This was another outrageous error as the Bonanza Kokanee run is well known and well documented and is the most important on Slocan Lake.

The fact that SFP could make such major mistakes involving such important information demonstrates the problem with having the timber licensee do the planning for areas which contain important values besides timber. The consultants the company hires are in a conflict-of-interest: ethically they are bound to principles of honesty and good science, but practically they must produce favourable reports that allow the company to log its allowable annual cut!

Most of SFP's planned Bonanza logging will be clearcuts, although the area has been selectively logged by Hills residents over the years. The old-time loggers argue that selective logging with small machines and. horses is most appropriate in such sensitive areas.

SFP's logging up Shannon and Wragge Creeks, very close to Bonanza, has left landslides and huge scars. Terrain stability is a major concern here as elsewhere in the valley.

The objections to the Bonanza plans are similar to those in the other logging stand-offs in the Slocan Valley this summer: concern over sloppy and inadequate planning, and a refusal to deal fully and openly with issues raised by other stakeholders and the public.

For now, residents are working on monitoring the road-building and logging and considering the next steps.

Elliot Anderson Road Permit Applied For

-by Miriam Mason Martineau and Candace Batycki

This summer the Elliot-Anderson-Christian-Trozzo Water Users Committee (EACT WUC) managed, through community organising, to slow down the planned development of our watersheds. Many of us who feared Slocan Forest Products (SFP) would apply for, and be given, a permit to begin work on the Elliot Creek Forest Service Road this year are relieved that road-building season has passed for another year with our watersheds still unroaded. However, SFP has indeed applied for the Elliot Creek road permit, and still plans to clearcut the sensitive headwaters above our homes.

In June the EACT WUC went door-to-door in the watershed, asking water users to sign a petition to SFP and the Ministry of Forests. The petition requested a moratorium on their activities in our watersheds until they agree to:

1. Work with the SVWA to develop a planning process which is ecologically responsible, and sensitive to the values of water users;
2. Test this planning process in a non-consumptive, non-contentious area outside of the Slocan Valley; and
3. Defer harvesting activities within the Slocan Valley until this testing phase has been completed.

Community support for this petition was incredible! Of the 107 EACT water users we approached, 103 agreed to sign the petition. We presented it at a public meeting at the Winlaw Hall on June 19. The meeting had been called by SFP so they could show us their road development plans for the Elliot-Anderson watersheds. Instead they were met by over 120 EACT water users and supporters from the broader community, who demanded they stop their plans for clearcutting in watersheds, and support a community-based planning process with real community decision-making power. They were very firmly asked to NOT apply for the Elliot-Anderson road permit.

We also took an informal poll at the door, which showed approximately half of those in attendance supported implementation of the Silva Plan, half supported no logging in watersheds at all, and three supported SFP's plans (one of the handful was an SFP forester, the other two were unsigned). SFP assured us that they would present the petition and the results of the poll to the Arrow District Manager, Brian Simpson, and seek his advice.

His advice came a month or so later. He told SFP that the community opposition had been noted, and that they should go ahead and apply for the road-building permit. They applied on August 26.

The road permit application is presently in the hands of an interagency (Ministries of Environment and Forests) review team, and could be handed over to Brian Simpson for final approval as early as the beginning of December 1997. The earliest date that a road permit could be issued by the Ministry of Forests is therefore December 1997. Once a road permit is signed it is very difficult to overturn.

While the interagency team is reviewing the road permit application, we still have the opportunity to submit any information we have which shows why we are convinced that road building and logging should not happen in our watersheds. Relevant reports, including two studies done by well known hydrologist Allen Isaacson, have been submitted. Residents of the Sawan/Anderson creeks put together a report containing data about the water quality, quantity and timing of flow in their area, and what effect any disturbances could have on their Water supply. Jennifer Yeow submitted a similar report for Elliot Creek.

It would be useful if other EACT residents submitted information about their water sources. This could include historical information about flow patterns, photos of springs, creeks, and hydrological patterns, and physical geography of your water source areas. Please pass on any information you might have about your creeks and water sources to Nicholas at 355-2327, and we will forward, it to the appropriate Ministries.

We are also attempting to gain more protection under the Forest Practices Code by applying to become a Community Watershed. The planning process in a Community Watershed is different: smaller creeks have to be taken into consideration and riparian areas are protected, neither of which we have at this point under our current Domestic Watershed status.

If you are a water user in the EACT watershed, please consider becoming more involved with the Water Users Committee. This is a very critical time, and we need everyone's energy to help protect our watersheds.

Letter to the editor:

Of Logging and Landslides

Dear Editor:

I would like to bring to your attention a fact which is not widely known around Nelson, but should be.

Roads built for logging caused three major landslides in Blewett in 1996 arid 1997. The first two happened on Referendum Creek, a tributary to 49 Creek, with considerable damages to the creek channel, water quality, and to most of the water intakes of the holders of more than 80 water licenses. The third slide occurred this spring on Sandy Creek and muddied the domestic water of considerably more licensees than on 49 Creek These open scars on steep slopes will cause elevated sediment loads for many years to come.

In each of the cases the Ministry of Forests acknowledge that road building logging was the main contributing factor for the slides, and hence organised the compensation of incurred damages and the seeding of the slide path.

Since Blewett, like the rest of the Kootenays, mainly consists of steep hills and the population depends heavily for their water needs on the creeks, it is of greatest importance that a substantial part of the forest cover stays intact and mature.

The Blewett Watershed Committee doesn't want to see more landslides and is opposed to any further planning of cuts until an extended green up period significantly increases the maturity of the forest.

PERRY RIDGE:

PRWUA Statement to the Perry Ridge LRUP Table

- December 01, 1997

The Perry Ridge Water Users Association membership has voted not to participate in the Perry Ridge LRUP table at this time. We had hoped that by defining an adequate terms of reference, we could have confidence that our need for the protection of water quality, quantity, and timing of flow would be met through the LRUP. However, the Reasons for Judgement by Justice Parrett on November 13, 1997 clearly indicate that the LRUP is premature. Justice Parrett quoted extensively from the most recent government-commissioned reports that state that, due to the inherent instability of the Perry Ridge landform, much more detailed studies need to be completed prior to further planning for the ridge.

We request that the Ministry of Forests suspend the LRUP until the further studies recommended by Boyer and Vandine and the incomplete studies by Putt have been completed. We believe that the Ministry of Forests is defying the court's decision by continuing with the LRUP and the road building.

In addition to Justice Parrett's decision, several other aspects of the court case cause us to believe that our needs will not be met through the LRUP. We have read the affidavit of Ian Hamann, official MoF representative and decision maker at the LRUP table and note the following:

1. Mr. Hamann states that the LRUP will decide how to log Perry Ridge. The PRWUA needs to ensure that the LRUP will first determine whether or not logging is possible on Perry Ridge without degrading water quality, quantity, and timing of flow in the short and long terms. For portions of Perry Ridge that pass this test, the LRUP will then determine how logging will occur in ways that protect water supplies. Mr. Hamann's sworn affidavit contradicts this approach, and we believe that his sworn affidavit reflects his intentions for the LRUP. We therefore do not believe that MoF has any intention of accommodating water user concerns, in particular addressing the issue of whether logging can be carried out over much of Perry Ridge without damage to water supplies.
2. Mr. Hamann goes to some length in his affidavit to discredit hydrologist Allen Isaacson, a professional hired by the PRWUA to perform reconnaissance work in the headwaters of Perry Ridge creeks and by the Valhalla Society to assess the 7.7 km of road on Perry Ridge. Mr. Hamann's attempts to publicly discredit Al Isaacson lead us to believe that any experts suggested or hired by the PRWUA will be given no credibility by the MoF in the LRUP process. Mr. Isaacson is arguably one of the most experienced and knowledgeable hydrologists in North America regarding watersheds located in topography and geography similar to the Slocan Valley. We attach Mr. Isaacson '5 description of his credentials to this statement.

Given that 225 Perry Ridge water users signed a petition in June 1997 that opposed building the 7.7 km of road prior to completion of the LRUP, we would have expected the MoF to ensure that the road construction was state of the art to reassure water users that their fears were unfounded and that the MoF is capable of building quality roads that will protect water. The visit to the Perry Ridge road on Sunday, November 9 proved disturbing for a number of reasons:

1. Some portions of the road are adequately constructed and do not appear to have significant problems at this time. However, near the height of land, we observed that the road is built within the riparian zone of an ephemeral creek and through the headwaters of a creek that may be licensed for domestic water use. The MoF's road engineering consultant agreed with the PRWUA's technical advisor that this construction would damage water movement and water quality. When questioned, MoF staff stated that they had not determined if this was a domestic watershed arid therefore had not notified any water users. The engineer agreed that the road was poorly located in this section and that there was a better location available. This was the first time that the PRWUA technical advisor had walked the road and he was immediately able to identify these problems. We have to wonder about both the intent and the competence of MoF staff and their contractors if such an obvious problem was neither anticipated nor corrected. We have no confidence that MoF is capable of designing or building roads that will not damage water quality, quantity, or timing of flow.
2. At this same location, heavy machinery was sitting on the road where any leaks would enter the water sources. No attempt was being made to prevent potential leakage from entering the water.
3. In a steep lower section of the road there were inadequate numbers of culverts and the catch basins for culverts were too small, many already filling with sediment. This lack of good sediment management is unacceptable on a road that alleges to protect water.
4. In a lower section of the road, soil and organic debris has been sidecast Into a wetland complex, and fill slopes further up the road are likely to con-tribute sediment to this wetland complex during heavy storm events and/or spring runoff. These types of small wetlands are typical of headwaters of domestic watersheds, and the type of road construction which has occurred on the Perry Ridge road would definitely damage the functioning of wetland systems.
5. It is not reassuring to hear an MoF employee, a registered professional forester, respond, "I do what I'm told." Where is the professionalism in this kind of statement?

The LRUP table is heavily biased to those with a timber Interest or who stand to benefit directly from timber extraction. These include independent contractors, MoF, IWA, woodlot licensees, Slocan Forest Products, independent (non-aligned) water users. Representatives from some of these sectors have stated at the U~UP table that they consider this to be a logging plan and do not accept that the number one priority of the LRUP is to protect water quality, quantity, and timing of flow. We therefore believe that these sectors are unlikely to agree with any limitations on logging, regardless of watershed sensitivity. We would also note that of these sectors, only MoF was represented on the field trip to the road on November 9. We anticipate that these sectors will prevent accommodation of legitimate PRWUA needs in the LRUP process, thereby preventing consensus and leaving the District Manager free to make the final decision without being bound by the work of the table. This means that the LRUP process presents merely an illusion of a fair process.

MoF has been unable to ensure that adequate funding will be available for the studies needed to effectively plan Perry Ridge, or for independent professional review of any studies. The judgement by Justice Parrett clearly Identifies the need for detailed studies on the stability of the entire ridge prior to any further logging, based on the reports of Vandine, Boyer, and Isaacson. Mr. Vandine also warned that many properties along Perry Ridge are already at risk. MoF has shown no indication that it intends to complete such studies and is proceeding with development of logging plans through the LRUP in the absence of this information.

The PRWUA has put significant resources into developing a satisfactory terms of reference. We would put equivalent efforts into full participation at a fairly constituted LRUP table. For the above reasons, we do not at this time have confidence that such an expenditure of time and resources in the LRUP process will produce a plan for Perry Ridge that will protect water quality, quantity, and timing of flow in the short and long terms. Therefore, we find it inappropriate to participate in the Perry Ridge LRUP at this time.

We do not believe that the LRUP represents a valid process Without our participation since we represent by far the majority of the water users on Perry Ridge, as evidenced by the 140 Perry Ridge water users who identified to MOF that the PRWUA represents them on water issues and the 225 who signed the petition opposing the road. Therefore, should someone not from the PRWUA decide to represent water users, we do not accept that person as representing our interests at the table.

We wish to reiterate that it has never been the position of the PRWUA that there should be no logging on Perry Ridge. However, we do strongly support an ecosystem-based approach such as that in the Silva plan that identifies where logging is ecologically appropriate as a first step.

Again we request that MoF suspend the LRUP until the detailed studies recommended by Vandine, Boyer, Putt, and Isaacson have been completed. Should the MoF complete the required studies and then' reconvene the LRUP, the PRWUA will return to its membership' for reconsideration of participation.

Should the Ministry of Forests decide to continue with the LRUP, even though to do so is counter to the judgement rendered by Judge Parrett, the PRWUA reserves the right to send observers to each LRUP meeting to monitor the. process and to obtain and examine information presented to the table.

Don Warthe, Co-chair,
on behalf of the Board of Directors and Members of the Perry Ridge Water Users Association

State Of The Art, Or Business As Usual?

By Herb Hammond

In their assault on Slocan Valley watersheds this summer and fall, both the Ministry of Forests and Slocan Forest Products have alleged that there was nothing to worry about because their planning and practices are "state of the art." Let's take a look:

1. In all areas (Perry Ridge, New Denver Flats, and Bonanza Creek), road construction and logging have been carried out in very rainy, wet conditions when road construction and logging should have been halted to protect water and soil.
2. During road construction on Perry Ridge, soil, rock, and organic matter have been sidecast (i.e. tossed) into a wetland and small, occasional stream. These are water bodies typical of those from which many of 115 draw our water.
3. On Perry Ridge, the road has been constructed through a sensitive headwaters area without a bridge or even a culvert to protect the headwaters. This headwaters area may be a consumptive use watershed, although its status is not known since MoF had not checked the status of the creek. Heavy equipment was parked in the headwaters area with no protection for oil or fuel leaks into water supplies.
4. During construction of the New Denver Flats road, a particularly sensitive section of road was partially sidecast (i.e. material was dumped over the side), rather than following the road specifications for full bench construction and end hauling (i.e. excavating material from the slope and hauling it to a safe site).
5. On the New Denver Flats road, a steep ditch' empties onto a sandy, erodable slope above a tributary stream to Carpenter Creek. During spring runoff, when water will move at high velocities, this is likely to cause siltation of Carpenter Creek and may result in a landslide.
6. Slocan Forest Products' report on Bonanza Creek indicates that Bonanza Creek does not flow into Bonanza marsh when, in fact, it does.
7. Slocan Forest Products' report on Bonanza Creek initially indicated that there are no fall spawning Kokanee in Bonanza Creek, while this is known as the most important fall spawning run of Kokanee on Slocan Lake.
8. This past spring, Slocan Forest Products proudly announced that they were preparing a "state of the art" ecosystem design plan for Bonanza Creek. SFP said that this plan was similar to the Silva Plan and was in a draft form. The ecosystem design has yet to be finalised, yet road and cutting permits were issued for Bonanza Creek and road construction is well under way. Is ecosystem design public relations or "state of the art" forestry planning.

SVWA Participates In Public Processes For 15 Years -
For What?

by Susan Hammond

Some people criticise the SVWA for withdrawing from or not participating in public involvement processes. In fact, the, SVWA has participated for more than 15 years in a wide variety of public processes, spending thou-sands of volunteer hours and thousands of dollars in sincere efforts to try to protect water quality, quantity, and timing of flow. The following is a brief chronology of that participation.

Local watershed groups joined together to form the Slocan Valley Watershed Alliance (SVWA) in 1981. The SVWA, its member groups, and individual water users participated throughout the 1981-1985 Slocan Valley Plan process that resulted in the adoption of the Slocan Valley Development Guidelines. The major issue in this planning process was the protection of domestic watersheds and the development of an appropriate risk analysis to determine whether logging could be carried out while protecting water. The SVWA spent many hundreds of hours preparing briefs, making public statements, and educating themselves in order to ensure that water would be protected. While water users were not completely satisfied with the watershed portion of the Slocan Valley Development Guidelines, some important gains were made. However, once adopted, the guidelines were put on the shelf and were not used in government or timber industry planning for logging in the Slocan Valley. When the SVWA tried to insist that the document be implemented, we were told that they were only guidelines and did not have to be applied.

The SVWA and its member groups in the vicinity of the village of Slocan participated in the Springer-Ringrose Integrated Watershed Management Plan (IWMP). After more than three years of frustrating participation that saw the technical input of water users ignored and often ridiculed, the SVWA and its member groups with-drew because the process refused to incorporate their concerns.

The Ministry of Forests announced an IWMP for the Hasty Creek area just south of Silverton. Given the failure of the Springer-Ringrose IWMP and no commitment on the part of the Ministry of Forests to provide for meaningful public participation, the Red Mountain Residents Association and the SVWA decided not to participate. In 1991,83 people were arrested for protesting on the road proposed into Hasty Creek.

The SVWA was a full participant at both the local pilot projects under CORE and in the Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan (KBLUP). Again, the goal of participation was to ensure that the quality, quantity, and. timing of flow of drinking water would not be adversely affected by logging. Again, volunteers spent thousands of hours participating in good faith in these processes. Again, the processes failed t6 adequately protect water.

Two SVWA members from Perry Ridge represented all water users in the West Kootenay at the KB LUP table. The participants at the KBLUP felt that they had negotiated relatively good protection for water at the table, but the table's consensus was ignored when the government completely revised the work of the table and permitted logging in all domestic watersheds.

In the Slocan Valley pilot project, participants understood, from an agreement reached at the final meeting of the table, that they would continue to participate fully in the operational plans for the Slocan Valley. The SVWA understood that concerns of water users and' other interests would be accommodated in the planning.

Instead, the Ministry of Forests established the Sector Review Process where MoF and the timber industry put forth plans for logging in nearly every contentious watershed in the Slocan Valley and refused to allow meaningful input from concerned citizen groups. The sham of the Sector Review process was made abundantly clear when 75 people attended a meeting regarding New Denver Flats in fall 1995. Representatives from the village councils and others were denied an opportunity to voice their concerns and were told that the decision had been made by both Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, that the road building and logging in New Denver Flats would be approved as submitted by Slocan Forest Products. The SVWA and other interest groups refused to attend further meetings of the Sector Review process because the Ministry of Forests was unwilling to change the format and would not agree to any kind of meaningful public ,participation. To date, no changes to the functioning of the Sector Review process have been made.

When it became clear to Slocan Valley water users that the MoF and the timber industry intended to log all of the domestic watersheds, the SVWA sent a request to Premier Clark and Forest Minister Zirnhelt in October 1996 to meet with them and other interests in the Slocan Valley to resolve the outstanding conflicts surrounding logging in domestic watersheds. The goal was to reach a negotiated solution before road protests happened. Despite repeated pleas throughout the winter of 1996-97 that government meet with the community, there was no response and no meeting.

In November 1997, the SVWA repeated its plea to Premier Clark requesting negotiations with the community in order to avoid further conflict and to resolve the issue of protecting water. No response has yet been received.

The summer of 1997 saw hundreds of people protesting at New Denver Flats, Perry Ridge, and Bonanza, with 35 arrested. The protests were an indication of the level of frustration of citizens over the failure of government to meet their legitimate needs for clean drinking water, despite many thousands of hours of sincere participation over 15 years in government-led processes.

Resolving Water Conflicts In The Slocan Valley:

a proposal to Premier Clark and the B.C. Cabinet -- November 10, 1997

For 17 years, the Slocan Valley Watershed Alliance (SVWA) has worked for the protection of water supplies in the Slocan Valley, located in south-eastern British Columbia. The SVWA represents about 2,000 people, including 11 member groups, throughout the Slocan Valley. During the summer and fall of 1997, the Ministry of Forests and Slocan Forest Products began road construction and logging in at least four consumptive use watershed areas, ignoring years of negotiations and a sustainable ecosystem-based plan for the Slocan Valley that had gained wide-spread community sup-port. Hundreds of Slocan Valley residents and supporters have protested these activities, with more than 35 committed people arrested. Residents throughout the valley are expressing their determination to continue to protest the road building and logging of their watersheds.

Throughout this entire conflict, political decision makers have been absent while government bureaucrats and the RCMP carry out strategies conceived and implemented by these political leaders. We again call upon political decision makers to meet with community leaders in the Slocan Valley to negotiate a resolution to the watershed conflicts based upon the best scientific knowledge of what is necessary to protect water and upon what is necessary to meet the needs of today without sacrificing the needs of future generations.

The SVWA wants to assure government that we see this process as a negotiation, where there will be give and take. However, a primary ingredient of a negotiated settlement must be a commitment to transition from a system of planning and management that does not protect water to one that does.

We look forward to your early response, and thank you for considering this proposal for a negotiated settlement. Sincerely yours,

Slocan Valley Watershed Alliance

Report:

The Water Monitoring Program

by Jennifer Yeow

The Slocan Valley Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring program has completed its second year and the data is now compiled and analysed. The Monitoring Pro-gram is carried out entirely by local people who regularly hike up their creeks to read specially placed gauges, record water temperature, and collect samples.

Last year, with Forest Renewal B.C. funding, the program was expanded to include flow and sediment measurements on 11 creeks from Hills to Passmore. In addition, testing for low level minerals and Coliform Bacteria was done on some of the creeks. Many of the creeks flow through the controversial Watersheds we've come to know this past summer of discontent. Bonanza, New Denver Flats, Perry Ridge and Elliot - Anderson are all represented. From north to south the creeks in the program are: Cadden, Bonanza, Harris, Bartlett, Hasty, Lemon, Elliot, Jerome, Winlaw, McFayden and Airy.

Why are we collecting this information? How will the data be used? And, most important, what have we learned to date?

The Monitoring Program was initiated by the Slocan Valley Watershed Alliance because people are concerned about impacts on their drinking water from road building and logging. They have also made it clear that government assurances of protection of water resources under law aren't sufficient and, based on what we've seen in the Blewett, Lemon and Airy Watersheds (to name a few) where water quality has been compromised due to forestry activities, these concerns are well founded.

Although technical consultants are hired by the forest licensees to assess watersheds, their studies mainly look at the most efficient way to access timber. Except in Community Watersheds, the Forest Practices Code does not specify that studies include the measuring of stream flow, sediment and coliform bacteria.

The science on how to do these studies and how to use information from the data to predict impact on streams is well documented. However, it needs to be done for at least 5 years prior to road building and cutting so that normal seasonal variations and trends can be seen and, unfortunately, operations are now beginning in at least 3 of the study areas.

In addition to collecting data from stream gauges and water samples, we intend to record sources of sediment and the condition of the stream channel. When the data and field observations are related to the work done by hydrologist, Al Isaacson and the Valhalla Society, a clearer picture of how the watershed functions, where the sensitive areas are and how best to document impacts from development will emerge.

What have we learned to date? Regarding flow levels, this past years spring high water did reach record levels on some creeks but the extended length of the time that the water was high was most notable. Also, the rain on snow event that occurred at the end of March (when we had so many slides) was dramatically seen on many of the creeks. Each creek was seen to respond differently to the stress of spring high flow.

Some creeks rose very quickly and dropped, others rose steadily and stayed high. Lemon showed more bouts of high turbidity than other large valley creeks because of the numerous slides it experienced. Elliot Creek was notable for its lack of sediment and small rise in flow at high water.

A report on the program to date is available. Please let me know if you want information on your creek or would like to read the entire report.

Jennifer Yeow

The Forest Practices Code Does Not Protect Water

by Herb Hammond

• Large portions of the consumptive use watersheds are moderately to extremely sensitive to disturbance. Many of these areas (including steep slopes, fine textured soils, wet areas, and sensitive headwaters areas) are planned for logging and are not excluded from logging by the Code. These areas have ecological limits to road construct ion and logging. If road construction and logging proceed in these areas, no matter how carefully they are done, water supplies and forest functioning will be damaged.
• The small feeder streams and wetlands, which together are responsible for our high quality water, will receive little or no protection under current road construction and logging plans. Slocan Valley water supplies originate in a web of small streams and wetlands. Hundreds of small rivulets and spongy wet areas come together to provide our water. These small Systems are neither protected by the Forest Practices Code, nor are they recognised as important by foresters, engineers, and loggers.
• The oldest forests provide the highest quality water. While some of the headwaters areas contain old growth, most of the mid to lower slope forests and some of the headwaters areas in the consumptive use watersheds of the Slocan Valley are young forests that need to grow older in order to maintain or improve water quality quantity, and timing of flow. High quality water production requires trees of at least 150 years of age in areas like the Slocan Valley. The majority of trees in the valley's consumptive use watersheds are less than 100 years old.
• High quality water depends upon large quantities of decayed wood provided by large old trees when they die. The largest quantities of decayed wood and therefore the highest quality water, occur in old growth forests. Decayed wood is Nature's water storage and filtration system, holding about 20 times more water than the same volume of most soils. The Code does not require licensees to protect the existing supplies of decayed wood, nor to provide for future supplies of decayed wood from large old trees. Logging and road building are planned in old growth forests and plans do not provide for the development of old growth forests in the future.