Hello neighbours! Trevor Goward here.

Preamble. This map of southern Wells Gray Park and vicinity calls attention to its status as an island of protection in a much vaster sea of corporate cutblocks. It’s worth nothing that most of these cutblocks were created by logging companies that closed their mills when overcutting caused their allotted timber supply to run out.

So far, Upper Clearwater itself has fared much better than most other small communities in inland British Columbia, many of which are now faced with the downstream impacts of excessive logging.

Looking back, there are four main reasons for this: first, our proximity to Wells Gray; second, the determination of local residents and others to have a meaningful say in land-use decisions affecting our valley north of Spahats Creek; third, a local landuse agreement signed into effect in 1999 and called the Upper Clearwater Guiding Principles (see below); and fourth, the Upper Clearwater Referral Group, a government-appointed watchdog body charged in 2000 with ensuring that the terms of the Guiding Principles are respected by government and industry (see below).

The current spokesperson for the Referral Group is myself, Trevor Goward. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you’d to like serve as member.

First Approximation

he purpose of this web page is to summarize more than four decades of valley engagement with the BC government and, more recently, the forest industry around land use decisions of various kinds in Upper Clearwater. Included here are accounts of our collective opposition to proposals that threatened the natural values most of us came to the valley to enjoy.

Also included, unfortunately, are several accounts of government and forest industry representatives who betrayed their commitments to engage with valley residents in a spirit of respect and even-handedness. While most of these people have since moved on to other things, including retirement, it seems appropriate that their poor behaviour toward their fellow citizens should be recorded here for posterity.

This web page is divided into three parts: (I) The Upper Clearwater Guiding Principles, (II) The Upper Clearwater Referral Group and (III) The Upper Clearwater Forestry Chronicle.

I: The Upper Clearwater Guiding Principles

Background

In early 1997, the BC Forest Service called a public meeting in Upper Clearwater to announce its intention to establish two woodlots in the valley. This announcement was met with intense opposition by valley residents, who felt that woodlots were inappropriate so close to Wells Gray Park. In response to this, the Forest Service proposed a facilitated, consensus-based process that sought to win public acceptance for the proposed woodlots through a negotiated Local Land-Use Plan that encouraged valley residents to expect a meaningful say in future forestry ventures here.

The Upper Clearwater Public Input Process began in April 1997 and ultimately resulted in the “Guiding Principles for the Management of Land and Resources in the Upper Clearwater Valley”, also known as the Guiding Principles. Technically the Guiding Principles constitute a Local Land-Use Plan under the 1995 Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan. Signed into effect in November 1999 by District Manager Jim Munn, this agreement can be thought of as a kind of formal “treaty” concerning forestry practice on crown land in the Clearwater Valley north of Spahats Creek.

In effect the Guiding Principles are intended to strike a lasting balance between forestry interests and the rights and needs of other user groups. The negotiations that led to their creation were seen by many as exemplary of participatory democracy. District Manager Jim Munn expressed this in the following terms:

“I believe that through [the Upper Clearwater Public Input Process] we have achieved a new level of understanding and trust in each other as individuals, businesses and government agents entrusted with the task of finding and implementing solutions to a broad range of sometimes seemingly conflicting values. I believe that with the guiding principles, there is a balance with which we can all live.“

The following passages excerpted from the Guiding Principles document are intended to provide a summary statement of the BC government’s commitment to a high standard of resource management in the Upper Clearwater Valley, here with an emphasis on Area G:

Introduction

The guiding principles presented in this document are the work of a dedicated group of individuals who have met regularly … to discuss issues around appropriate stewardship of land and resources in the Upper Clearwater Valley north of Spahats Creek. The Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan identified the Upper Clearwater as a General Resource Management Zone and the Upper Clearwater process was initiated to ensure that any resource development activities in the area were carried out in consideration of the interests and values of local residents.

As part of the process, residents of the valley provided statements of interest outlining their values and concerns. Residents also worked hard to gather and map information about resources in the valley, including information about wildlife habitat, land ownership, commercial uses and values, human uses and values and features of geographical and geological interest. This combined information provided the foundation for a set of guiding principles for land and resource use.

These guiding principles were arrived at through an interest-based and consensus-based process. While not everyone agreed wholeheartedly with all aspects of the guiding principles, participants made a consensus agreement to live with the direction shown in this document in the greater interest of all.

II: The Upper Clearwater Referral Group

Having signed the Guiding Principles document into effect on 19 May 1999, MoF called for the establishment of a citizen committee to ensure that the terms set out within it would be adhered to by all parties, i.e., local citizens, industry, and the B.C. government.

The Upper Clearwater Referral Group received its mandate from MoF on 22 November 2000, and was tasked by the MoF District Manager with gathering and dispersing information pertinent to future applications for logging permits in Upper Clearwater.

From that day until this, the Referral Group has faithfully discharged its duty to the Guiding Principles, ever-cognizant of its responsibility to a hard-won Local Use agreement intended to establish a lasting balance of community, industry and government interests.

Unfortunately, MoF’s observance of the Guiding Principles has been considerably less rigorous. Since about 2002, the terms of this formal land use agreement have been violated on about ten separate occasions by MoF District Managers and their staff, who neglected to notify the Referral Group of pending forestry activity in Upper Clearwater, as documented here.

Of these, by far the most egregious violation – betrayal is a better word – occurred during the period 2002 to 2004, as follows:

The Period 2002 to 2004:

Between 2002 and 2004, the B.C. government transitioned from the Forest Practices Code (FPC) to the Forest and Range Practices Act(FRPA). During this process, government was obliged to specially accommodate certain existing government agreements within FRPA. Among these was the Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), i.e., the umbrella agreement under which the Guiding Principles constituted a Local Use Plan.

Now it seems clear that the Guiding Principles document should have been accommodated during the transition within FRPA – a responsibility that fell to the MoF District Manager. Unfortunately this did not happen. Instead the Guiding Principles document at some point became decoupled from the Kamloops LRMP, with the result that, while the latter now has legal standing under FRPA, the Guiding Principles document does not. Unfortunately this situation remains in place to the present time – a persistent source of ambiguity with regard to the implementation of the Guiding Principles.

The difficulty created by this violation is as follows: Under FPC the District Manager had final authority over cutting permits, whereas under FRPA this authority is in effect transferred to the logging companies themselves under the cloak professional reliance. Accordingly the MoF District Manager now has limited ability to withhold permits based on input from third party groups like the Referral Group – a situation in effect fatal to the Guiding Principles agreement, which relied upon the discretion of the MoF District Manager for its implementation].

Notwithstanding that the Guiding Principles document has lacked legal standing under FRPA for two decades, subsequent MoF District Managers have professed respect for it and a willingness to abide by the terms set forth within it, though with one notable exception. [LINK TO PDF OF FINAL MEETING]

Representatives of CANFOR have likewise claimed to respect the Guiding Principles document. But in light of events that unfolded between 2012 and 2016, it seems important to present an instance of what that “respect” actually amounts to, below:

Concerning CANFOR’s Commitment to the Guiding Principles

On 28 January 2012, CANFOR met with the Referral Group to announce its intention to conduct industrial-scale logging on the western slopes of the Trophy Mountains between Spahats Creek and Grouse Creek, that is, within the area designated as Plan Area G under the Guiding Principles. CANFOR provided the Referral Group with a map of its plans.

On 17 June 2012, the Referral Group held a public meeting with 40 Upper Clearwater residents to share CANFOR’s logging plans. Participants reaffirmed support for the Guiding Principles and unanimously concluded that CANFOR’s plans ran contrary to the intent of this agreement. Many letters were subsequently sent to CANFOR expressing concern over possible downstream impacts from the proposed cutblocks. So far as we know, these letters remain unanswered and unacknowledged.

On 26 March 2014, the Referral Group met with CANFOR and MoF to discuss CANFOR’s updated cutting plans. Again, CANFOR supplied a map for public viewing.

On 27 April 2014, the Referral Group held a meeting with 50 valley residents to unveil CANFOR’s updated logging plans. Once again participants overwhelmingly felt that CANFOR’s plans ran contrary to the intent of the Guiding Principles. The meeting resulted in a community letter to CANFOR calling for a moratorium on industrial-scale logging in Upper Clearwater “until such time as the effects on community values, wildlife and tourism have been fully addressed by a wide range of stakeholders.” A second meeting held on 16 May 2014 drew 30 valley residents and yielded the same result.

On 27 November 2015, the Referral Group entered into a formal Information Exchange Process with two CANFOR representatives as well as with a representative from MoF – all of whom professed respect for the Guiding Principles. The main purpose of this process was to review concerns of valley residents vis-à-vis Canfor’s logging plans, in hope of finding resolution consistent with the terms of the Guiding Principles. Discussions ensued over four meetings. On 6 April 2016, CANFOR agreed to supply an updated map for public viewing.

On 27 May 2016, the Referral Group held a meeting with 35 valley residents to share CANFOR’s latest iteration of its logging plans. At the end of the meeting, valley residents voted by ballot on the following proposition: CANFOR’s logging plans respect the intent of the Upper Clearwater Guiding Principles. Fourteen additional votes were later received by e-mail from valley residents unable to attend the meeting. In total, 44 votes were received representing 29 households. The outcome was unanimous: all who voted felt that CANFOR’s latest logging plans did not respect the intent of the Upper Clearwater Guiding Principles.

On 16 June 2016, the Referral Group met with CANFOR and MoF to share the outcome of the May public meeting. Contrary to the perception of valley residents, CANFOR insisted that its logging plans were indeed consistent with the intent of the Guiding Principles, noting that CANFOR had:

1. Considered the interests of valley residents.
2. Deleted cutblocks that would have visual impacts.
3. Reconfigured other blocks using a different harvesting system.
4. Hired a biologist who recommended maintaining travel corridors.

At the end of this meeting, CANFOR gave notice of its intent to apply to MoF for cutting permits for an unspecified number of cutblocks in Plan Area G. It also announced that cutting would shortly begin on the slopes west above the Clearwater River – this notwithstanding our agreement at the outset that logging plans would be put on hold for the duration of our consultation. Both actions left a bad taste in the mouths of Referral Group members and in the long run taught us never again to trust industry representatives to follow through with their “respect” for the Guiding Principles. When push comes to shove, corporate profit will always prevail, at whatever cost. These are hard lessons to learn.

Postscript. On xxx, CANFOR closed its Vavenby mill, claiming insufficient volume. In light of this, and to its lasting credit, MoF thereafter cancelled all cut block applications located on the west slopes of the Trophy Mountains above Upper Clearwater, making it clear that any new cutting proposals would have to begin from the ground up.

III: Upper Clearwater Forestry Chronicle

Several years ago, in connection with an extended public engagement process between the Upper Clearwater Referral Group and CANFOR, I took some time out to assemble a detailed chronicle of land use initiatives that have impacted or threatened to adversely impact Upper Clearwater over the 40-year period between 1977 and 2016. Since then I’ve also taken a bit more time out to bring it up to date to March 2024. I could be wrong but it seems to me the resulting timeline makes for some interesting reading. Still, it’s unfortunate that the people at MoF, no less than some of the logging interests they serve, gives such a poor showing of themselves. But don’t take my word for it; you be the judge.

On 11 January 2024, Benjamin Humphrey, Senior Authorizations Officer with MoF in Kamloops, kindly brings us up to date on the status of land tenure in Upper Clearwater north of Spahats Creek subsequent to CANFOR’s closure of its Vavenby Mill in July 2019. The pertinent portions of his e-mail read as follows:

You wanted to know more about the CANFOR Interfor transfer and how Simpcw and Wells Gray Community Forest Corporation were involved. I’ll attempt to outline and simplify what has taken place and what is still ongoing:

1) CANFOR transferred their Replaceable Forest Licence to Interfor which consisted of approximately 184,500m3 of annual allowable cut

2) As part of the public interest test (Bill21) during the forest licence transfer local First Nations (Simpcw) and the Wells Gray Community Forest Corporation received a portion of the volume that Interfor was transferred

3) This was done by subdividing a portion of the volume Interfor received under the Replaceable Forest Licence

4) Simpcw received 35,000m3 and Wells Gray Community Forest Corporation received 5,000m3

5) Simpcw now holds that volume under a Replaceable Forest Licence for the entire Kamloops TSA

6) Wells Gray Community Forest Corporation holds their volume under a Replaceable Forest Licence as well but the intent is to expand the Wells Gray Community Forest Corporation area to support the 5,000m3 of volume received.

7) Interfor gave Wells Gray Community Forest Corporation their Upper Clearwater operating area (previous CANFOR’s area)

8) Wells Gray Community Forest Corporation is in the very early stages of the Wells Gray Community Forest Corporation expansion process

9) This includes referrals and engagement with stakeholders

Trevor, you also had interest in Tolko’s operating area in the Valley:

1) Kamloops Timber Supply Area (TSA – which is : Blue River to Logan Lake and Ashcroft to the Shuswap geographically) has Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB). Crown Land that timber can be harvested upon.

2) With in the Timber Harvesting Land Base and TSA there are forest licensees that hold a forest licence with an associated AAC

3) Their AAC associated with their licence is then agreed upon to have a general operating area (these may or may not be legal depending on the tenure). For Replaceable Forest Licences they’re an agreement rather than a legally established boundary

4) The general operating area then helps support the licensees AAC. These operating areas can change from time to time and certain licensees can operate in others operating area depending on their licence.

5) Interfor (formerly CANFOR) and Tolko have operating areas in the Upper Clearwater Valley that support their AAC

6) There currently are no plans or activity in these areas. However it still remains harvestable landbase

Wells Gray Community Forest Corporation is conceptually looking at both Interfor and Tolko’s operating area during the expansion planning. This process includes First Nations consultation along with stakeholder engagement.

On 15 May 2023, Wells Gray Community Forest Corporation purchases from Simpcw Resources Ltd. the right to log 5,000 cubic m of timber per year, though it is uncertain if any of this is in Upper Clearwater. You can link to the press release here.

On 25 November 2021, Simpcw takes over CANFOR’s former forest tenure in Upper Clearwater, which had been purchased by Interfor in 2019. You can link to the media report here.

On 16 July 2021, word reaches me that MoF in Kamloops have, to their credit, cancelled the cutting permit on the west slopes of the Trophy Mountain issued to CANFOR back in 2012, and the cause of so much consternation and time expenditure for the Upper Clearwater Referral Group for several years, ending (very unsatisfactorily) on 12 December 2016. It is said that any future application for a cutting permit on these slopes will have to start from scratch and satisfy numerous concerns, presumably including some of the ones documented below for 16 June 2016.

On 3 June 2019, three years after its refusal to respect the terms of the Upper Clearwater Guiding Principles, and having applied to log the west slopes of the Trophy Mountains above Upper Clearwater, CANFOR announces that it will close its Vavenby mill later this summer. According to CANFOR CEO and President Don Kayne, the closure is “due to the current and long-term log supply constraints we face in the Vavenby region, along with the high cost of fibre”. As might be expected, no mention is made of CANFOR’s outsized role in bringing about such “log supply constraints” through years of logging the area’s oldgrowth forests at an unsustainable rate.

On 27 December 2016, the Clearwater Times reported that “a small committee continues to work to obtain UNESCO World Heritage status for the volcanoes of Wells Gray Park.” Deadline for submission is 27 January 2017.

Analysis by the Referral Group: This unfortunate outcome creates a dilemma for the Referral Group, for two reasons. First, MoF has now manifestly walked away from the same Guiding Principles document – a Local Use Plan under the Kamloops LRMP – that it called for in 1996 and signed into effect in 1999. And second, in doing so, MoF has thereby also walked away from any meaningful engagement with the Referral Group, the same watch dog committee that MoF itself tasked in 2000 with ensuring that the Guiding Principles are respected. The paradox embedded in this situation now obliges the Referral Group to enquire concerning its primary allegiance – whether to MoF or to the Guiding Principles.

In light of the sustained effort on the part of Upper Clearwater residents to negotiate the Guiding Principles document, and especially in light of its status as a formal consensus-based agreement with the B.C. government, the Referral Group concludes that its primary allegiance lies with the Guiding Principles. Accordingly the Referral Group now finds itself obliged to persuade MoF to honour its formal commitment to the Guiding Principles.

On 12 December 2016, members of the Referral Group received an e-mail from MoF D.M. Rachael Pollard informing them that she had approved two permits to CANFOR: one to salvage log a block called T121 immediately south of Buck Hill (which the Referral Group was aware of); and the other to extend an existing permit (which the Referral Group was not aware of). According to Ms. Pollard, “CANFOR has met the conditions for issuing or amending these permits and none of the limited circumstances in which permits can be refused apply. Accordingly, I am required by law to issue the cutting and road authorities, which I have now done.”

Regrettably, no reference is made by Ms. Pollard to her promise to give serious consideration to MoF’s moral obligation to the Guiding Principles, nor of her requirement under the Guiding Principles itself to engage with the Referral Group on both applications, nor indeed of her pledge (three times reconfirmed) to do so prior to any decision being made.

The Referral Group takes the position that MoF D.M. Rachael Pollard’s failure to honour her responsibility to the Referral Group constitutes a flagrant lack of respect for the terms of the Guiding Principles – the more so because it comes on the heels of a year-long Information Exchange Process during which the Referral Group and MoF had begun to rebuild a level of trust. By so flagrantly acting in poor faith, Ms. Pollard has unfortunately now shattered that trust.

It must be understood that Ms. Pollard’s failure to respect the Guiding Principles is by no means the first insult it has sustained from MoF. Similar or even more egregious betrayals are referenced in the above time line, for example under Summer 2002, Early 2004, 6 September 2006, 6 April 2016. Taken together, these form a pattern of betrayal that can no longer be ignored. By her recent action, Ms. Pollard has given the Referral Group a definitive answer to the question first put to MoF in 2012: Will MoF stand by its commitment to the Guiding Principles?

The answer is: No, it will not. On the contrary, MoF washed its hands of the Guiding Principles many years ago and has since then been engaging with the Referral Group in bad faith.

On 24 November 2016, B.C. Information Access Operations released Freedom of Information request FNR-2016–62778. The request was for “reports and documents related to the application and processing of the request of CANFOR to log in the Upper Clearwater Valley; reports and documents related to the application of the Guiding Principles agreed upon by the residents of the Upper Clearwater Valley, CANFOR and the Ministry.” The document contains clear evidence of unethical information sharing by B.C. Timber Sales.

On 17 November 2016, MoF Resource Manager Rob Schweitzer responded to a second note from Referral Group spokesperson Trevor Goward enquiring about MoF D.M. Rachael Pollard’s commitment to be in touch with the Referral Group ahead of any decision on CANFOR’s submission for a cutting permit: “Thanks for your note. You are correct it’s my understanding that no authorizations have been granted to CANFOR and that the D.M. is still committed to maintaining communication with the Referral Group.”

On 29 October 2016, MoF Resource Manager Rob Schweitzer responded to a note from Referral Group spokesperson Trevor Goward enquiring about MoF D.M. Rachael Pollard’s commitment to be in touch with the Referral Group ahead of any decision on CANFOR’s submission for a cutting permit: “Thank you for checking in as to the status of CANFOR’s permit. The D.M. has confirmed this permit has not been approved and is still in the review phase. The D.M. remains committed to maintaining communication with the Referral group and will be providing further information in the coming weeks.”

On 4 October 2016, the Federal and British Columbia Ministers of Environment announced a joint study to review the regulations in place for the protection of Southern Mountain Caribou and their habitat, and to “determine what additional steps may need to be taken by federal or provincial governments to protect and recover” these animals. The study is being conducted as part of the collaboration between Canada and British Columbia under the Canada-British Columbia Bilateral Agreement on Species at Risk.

On 29 September 2016, the Referral Group provided MoF Resource Manager Rob Schweitzer with a preliminary list of concerns pertaining to CANFOR’s block T121. These included its size (32.2 ha), its potential to disrupt a major wildlife crossing, and its likely negative impact on a 2008 proposal by the Thompson-Nicola Regional District to designate Buck Hill (a nearby young volcanic cone) as a Regional Park – this in support of a larger initiative to achieve UNESCO GeoPark status for the Wells Gray area. The Referral Group also questions whether the block as a whole truly qualifies as salvage. Rob Schweitzer passed the e-mail along to CANFOR and MoF D.M. Rachael Pollard. You can read the meeting minutes here, for the record.

On 26 September 2016, Tolko Industries Ltd announces that it will close its Merritt sawmill by the end of the year, throwing 200 workers out of work. Forests Minister Steve Thomson called it “an unfortunate development,” but said the province is sending a community transition team to provide support services for workers losing their jobs just before Christmas.

On 26 September 2016, CANFOR Vavenby Planning Supervisor Stefan Borge informed the Referral Group that CANFOR has submitted a permit application to MoF D.M. Rachael Pollard, regarding a 32 ha block T121, immediately south of Buck Hill. CANFOR “may harvest this block prior to Christmas.” Other permit applications were pending.

Analysis by West Coast Environment Law of FRPA with Emphasis on Professional Reliance (2004): “The requirements of FRPA are vague and involve judgments on issues that are both controversial and inherently political. They involve judgments for which government must be accountable. For instance, professionals could certify that a logging plan will “without unduly reducing the supply of timber … conserve sufficient habitat for survival of a species at risk.” If regulations allow professional certification in this context, the private sector, not government, will be deciding what is needed to protect species and what constitutes an undue impact on timber supply. These requirements are simply not straightforward, non-controversial technical issues such as compliance with a building code. Government is forced to approve certified logging plans even if government officials believe the plans do not comply with the law and do not protect the environment. There is no liability regime in place to ensure professionals are accountable. While a professional association could theoretically decide to discipline a professional for outright incompetence, these powers are reserved for the most flagrant cases. In other areas where professional certification is used, fear of legal liability, in addition to the oversight of a professional body, helps to ensure that professionals are cautious and ensure compliance. For instance, engineers who wrongly approve a faulty building plan can be sued if the building collapses. However, in the context of FRPA it is far less likely that a professional forester could be held liable if a bad logging plan contributes to the extinction of a species.”

On 29 August 2016, the Referral Group meets with MoF D.M. Rachael Pollard and MoF Resource Manager Rob Schweitzer. At the request of MoF, the meeting is not recorded. The following notes are taken from the briefing notes prepared by the Referral Group.

• Tourism Concerns:
  1. Wells Gray plays an important role in the local economy – in 2011, Clearwater hosted more than half a million visitors from around the world. 15% of the local population is employed or involved in the hospitality industry, which is estimated to bring in over $20M per year in community revenue.
  2. According to the Guiding Principles, “The right of the public to use all plan areas for purposes of recreation on and enjoyment of Crown land must be respected, encouraged and not infringed upon… All other uses of Crown land must respect the importance of public recreation.”
  3. It is important to assess CANFOR’s logging proposal for its potential to negatively impact public recreation that relies on this “wilderness buffer” as a connection between Clearwater and Wells Gray Park.
  4. CANFOR’s response to these concerns has mostly been to generate computer images of the proposed cut blocks and attempt to convince the Referral Group that these concerns are thereby taken care of. Quite apart from the inadequacy of the images, this approach doesn’t meaningfully engage with the issue, which pertains to visual quality as experienced by tourists seeking a ‘wilderness’ experience.
• CANFOR vis-à-vis the Guiding Principles:
  1. In a recent article in the North Thompson Times, it came to light that CANFOR expects to secure 20% to 25% of its annual cut from the Clearwater Valley – this being the answer to a question the Referral Group posed early on (How much?), but which CANFOR’s representatives refused to disclose. How it is possible equate this level of logging with respect for the Guiding Principles is frankly beyond understanding.
  2. The question the Referral Group’s deliberations with CANFOR was meant to address had nothing to do with CANFOR’s legal right to log – that was a given – but rather with its moral commitment to an agreement four years in place prior to the switch-over to FRPA. Unfortunately, CANFOR in the end chose instead to negotiate entirely from its legal advantage. The final proof of this, again, is its steadfast decision to move forward with cutting plans unanimously opposed by valley residents.
• CANFOR’s use of Professional Reliance:
  1. A cornerstone of Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) is its emphasis on professional reliance. In the case of CANFOR’s proposed cutting plans, this emphasis is problematic.
     • CANFOR’s “caribou biologist” is in fact an owl expert for whom no on-line link to Mountain Caribou could be found.
     • CANFOR’s hydrologist refuses to modify his prescriptions in light of deepening climate change, preferring to predict the future based on the past.
     • CANFOR refuses to allow its terrain report to be vetted by a highly regarded terrain specialist closely informed on the implications of working in volcanic settings.

On 8 August 2016, Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna called upon Canadians to nominate “national gems” as candidates for UNESCO World Heritage Sites, i.e., places of cultural or natural significance that members of the global community have committed to preserve for future generations, sometimes through financial assistance or expert advice.

On 13 July 2016, Peter Baird, CANFOR General Manager for Forest Planning, disclosed during an open house in Clearwater that CANFOR Vavenby’s ongoing and proposed logging in Upper Clearwater would yield about 20 to 25 per cent of its annual allowable cut. This is the answer to a question asked repeatedly by the Referral Group at its meetings with CANFOR – a question that CANFOR refused to answer until the open house. Logging the Clearwater Valley would thus keep the Vavenby mill running two to three months longer than it would otherwise run.

On 7 July 2016, Volcanologist Dr. Catherine Hickson wrote to Kamloops MLA Terry Lake expressing concern over CANFOR’s refusal to make its slope stability report available for review by qualified professionals. “Is this a CANFOR policy or one of the Government of British Columbia?”

On 16 June 2016, a fifth meeting of the Upper Clearwater Information Exchange was held to brief CANFOR and MoF on the results of the public meeting on 27 May 2016. You can read the meeting minutes here, for the record.

• CANFOR:
  1. A decision has been made not to harvest within view of Spahats Falls.
  2. Contrary to the unanimous perception of Upper Clearwater residents that CANFOR’s plans do not respect the intent of the Guiding Principles, Stefan Borge and Al Anderson insist that CANFOR does in fact respect the intent of the Guiding Principles.
     • We’ve considered the interests of valley residents.
     • We’ve deleted cutblocks that would have visual impacts.
     • We’ve reconfigured other blocks using a different harvesting system.
     • We hired a biologist who recommended maintaining travel corridors.
     • We feel we can harvest some timber while at the same time respecting the Guiding Principles.
  3. The hydrological concerns raised by the Referral Group did not result in any changes to block design.
  4. CANFOR will not allow Volcanologist Dr. Catherine Hickson to review CANFOR’s Terrain Report.
• Referral Group:
  1. CANFOR did make accommodations, but its existing plans are nonetheless still out of step with the intent of the Guiding Principles. All Upper Clearwater residents who took the time to inform themselves on the issues are agreed on this point. CANFOR is simply outvoted on this point.
     • How an owl expert came to be hired as CANFOR’s caribou biologist has never been explained.
     • CANFOR has publicly acknowledged – on at least two occasions – that further logging will adversely impact Wells Gray’s dwindling Mountain Caribou. This has not been addressed in the rationale to its cutting plans.
     • Insofar as CANFOR’s hydrologist is agnostic with respect to coming impacts of climate change, he is out of step with reality: his assessments of downstream impacts are null and void.
     • The Guiding Principles specify that only salvage logging should be undertaken, yet only a few of CANFOR’s blocks qualify as salvage. This discrepancy remains to be addressed.
     • The Guiding Principles disallowed the logging of oldgrowth, and yet several of CANFOR’s blocks are in oldgrowth forests. This also remains to be addressed.
     • The Guiding Principles specify that water quality, quantity and timing of flow on Fage, Ordschig, Case, Byrd, Duncan Creeks and Shook Brook must be maintained within their natural range of variability. This requirement is incompatible with CANFOR’s planned industrial-scale clearcut and therefore remains to be addressed.
     • If Plan Area G hadn’t already been ‘heavily impacted’, then things would be different. Perhaps valley residents could accept some of CANFOR’s proposed cutblocks. As things stand, however, any industrial scale logging CANFOR undertakes will be additive to excessive logging during the 1980s. People living downstream with be faced with cumulative impacts.
     • CANFOR’s decision to disallow an independent review of its terrain report by Volcanologist Dr. Catherine Hickson is cause for concern – especially given the fact that the volcanic terrain in question is outside the expertise of its terrain specialists. The process would be more robust were CANFOR to allow for a second opinion.
     • CANFOR Vavenby’s decision to proceed with cutting plans unanimously opposed by valley residents makes a mockery of CANFOR’s much touted pledge not to support actions that overturn landscape objectives set through public planning.
     • Given the existing cutblocks north of Buck Hill, valley residents would be hard pressed to prove that damage to their property was caused by a particular cutblock. Downstream consequences will likely be seen as cumulative, hence most residents would not get very far seeking legal action.
  2. In July 2012, CANFOR’s CEO Don Kayne publicly outlined the terms of CANFOR’s social licence:
     • “CANFOR does not support actions that would overturn landscape objectives set through public planning processes unless there is full public consultation and support.”
     • “We will not support actions that impact parks, riparian areas or areas that provide critical habitat for species at risk, or other important environmental values such as biodiversity and old growth.”
     • “We will not support actions that put us at odds with obligations of our registered professional foresters to uphold the public trust by managing forests sustainably.”
     • “And we will not support actions that jeopardize our third-party forest certification, and risk access to domestic and international markets.”
  3. CANFOR Vavenby is now poised to make a mockery of all of Kayne’s commitments.
  4. The Guiding Principles are meant to be guiding principles, not guidelines. The document expresses a definite intent, but doesn’t contain specifics, nor was it meant to.
  5. After 18 months of negotiations, Upper Clearwater residents endorsed woodlots in the clear understanding that MoF would give something in return. Business as usual isn’t what anybody had in mind.
  6. The question the Upper Clearwater Information Exchange was meant to address had nothing to do with CANFOR’s legal right to log – that was a given – but rather with its moral commitment to the Guiding Principles – a government-sponsored agreement five years in place prior to the switch-over to FRPA. Unfortunately, in the end CANFOR chose instead to negotiate entirely from its legal advantage. The final proof of this, again, is CANFOR’s decision to move forward with cutting plans unanimously opposed by valley residents.
  7. As regards the Upper Clearwater Information Exchange, business as usual means that the Referral Group’s assumption that CANFOR was working in good faith was misplaced.

On 27 May 2016, the Referral Group held its fourth public meeting to share CANFOR’s proposed logging plans. Thirty-five valley residents attended. The meeting focussed on the proposed cutblocks north of Buck Hill, as these are of greatest immediate concern to valley residents living downstream. You can read the meeting minutes here, for the record.

1. Many participants expressed the view that the Referral Group’s engagement with CANFOR and MoF would prove useless; that CANFOR would log without regard for the Guiding Principles.
2. At the end of the meeting, valley residents were invited to vote by ballot on the following proposition: CANFOR’s logging plans respect the intent of the Upper Clearwater Guiding Principles. The result was 30 no votes and no yes votes.
3. Fourteen additional votes were later received by e-mail for a total of 44 votes representing 29 households. All voted no.

On 16 May 2016, Volcanologist Dr. Catherine Hickson wrote to CANFOR Vavenby Planning Supervisor Stefan Borge pointing out that refusing to allow a professional Geologist to review CANFOR’s stability report “is an odd position to take” given that none of the Referral Group members are qualified to do so.

On 16 May 2016, CANFOR Vavenby Planning Supervisor Stefan Borge wrote to Volcanologist Dr. Catherine Hickson informing her that only Referral Group members would be permitted to review CANFOR’s slope stability report.

On 9 April 2016, Volcanologist Dr. Catherine Hickson wrote an e-mail to CANFOR Vavenby Planning Supervisor Stefan Borge, in which she provided background information concerning the possibility of slope failure resulting from CANFOR’s proposed logging above First, Second and Third Canyons. This letter remains unacknowledged.

On 6 April 2016, CANFOR Vavenby Planning Supervisor Stefan Borge informed the Referral Group that MoF D.M. Rick Sommer had recently approved two permits for logging on the west side of the Clearwater Valley. Logging in fact had already begun. This came as a shock to the Referral Group, who had been led to believe this area was under discussion. In effect this represented a betrayal of the Information Exchange Process by CANFOR Vavenby Planning Supervisor Stefan Borge (who applied for the permits), and of the Guiding Principles by MoF D.M. Rick Sommer (who approved the permits without consultation with the Referral Group).

On 6 April 2016, a fourth meeting of the Upper Clearwater Information Exchange was held. Guest speaker was Volcanologist Dr. Catherine Hickson, who wrote her doctoral thesis on the volcanics of the Clearwater Valley. You can read the meeting minutes here, for the record.

• Catherine Hickson:
  1. What’s special about Wells Gray’s volcanics is, first, the tremendous diversity of features and, second, their accessibility.
  2. The ongoing effort to achieve UNESCO GeoPark status for Wells Gray is a stepping stone for eventually inscribing the valley as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
  3. South of Buck Hill, CANFOR’s proposed cutblocks are situated on “subaerial lava that forms a thin cap over the unstable material. That cap has already been incised by the three Canyon Creeks. If you breach it from behind, you will have failures. I have no doubt about this.”
  4. CANFOR’s terrain specialists are making ‘professional’ judgements on a kind of terrain they have no experience with. Plan Area G may be unique in the world as a locality where hyaloclastites – an inherently unstable and therefore highly unpredictable bedrock – intersect with industrial development.
• CANFOR:
  1. Announced that its initial permit application would cover only the five proposed cutblocks south of Buck Hill.
• Referral Group:
  1. Wells Gray is a wilderness park. As wilderness continues to decline worldwide, large protected areas are certain to become more valued over time. At the moment, Clearwater is positioning itself as gateway to wilderness; but of course that would change once the wilderness character of the valley is undermined by extensive logging.
  2. The economic implications of GeoPark status for the Upper North Thompson are huge. In 2009, tourism generated $20 million for our area. Each year since then tourism has increased, with an 18% increase in 2015.
  3. Wells Gray isn’t going anywhere. CANFOR, however, closed in 2009 and may well close again – permanently – once its wood supply runs out. What happens then? CANFOR needs to take care it doesn’t paint Clearwater into an economic corner. Its social license demands sensitivity to the needs of wilderness tourism.
  4. In 2008, Buck Hill was put forward as a future regional park under the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. In this scenario it would act as a volcanic mascot for Clearwater in its bid for GeoPark status.
  5. The southern population of the Mountain Caribou is formally classified by COSEWIC as endangered. Since 2002, Wells Gray has lost 75% of its caribou, that is, down from 325 to about 80. The ultimate cause is logging near the park. Additional logging will inevitably place further stress on these animals.
  6. The best test by which to assess CANFOR’s respect for the Guiding Principles is the extent to which its proposed cutblocks do not look like business as usual. Unfortunately, CANFOR’s proposed cutblocks fail this test.

On 26 February 2016, a third meeting of the Upper Clearwater Information Exchange was held. Guest speaker was CANFOR consulting hydrologist Mike Milne. You can read the meeting minutes here, for the record.

• Mike Milne:
  1. Only a single “channelized event” has occurred in Plan Area G (on Fage Creek) subsequent to the great stand-replacing wildfire of 1926. Based on this, he concluded that most of the streams here are fairly resilient to disturbance.
  2. His logging prescriptions are based on ground surveys, consultation with terrain specialists, and analysis of past streamflow based on old aerial photos.
  3. No guarantee can be made that adverse hydrological impacts will not result from his prescriptions, but he insists that he’s taking a “conservative approach.”
  4. Notwithstanding this, he made no attempt to build in extra precautions in light of increasing extreme weather events associated with deepening climate change.
• Referral Group:
  1. Using past stream behaviour as a predictor of future stream behaviour worked in the past but can no longer be justified in a time of climate change.
  2. The downstream effects of industrial-scale cutblocks logged today will play out over a multi-decadal period of increasingly extreme weather.
  3. Were the proposed cutblocks planned for watersheds not previously ‘heavily impacted’ by industrial logging, the situation would be different. However, once logged, CANFOR’s proposed clearcuts will simply exacerbate an ‘experiment’ in long-term risk management that began with excessive logging in the 1980s.
  4. CANFOR’s current cuttings plans are just one pass. Why are we niggling over specific clearcuts when we know CANFOR will be back for the rest later?
  5. The recent scientific literature shows that logging in humid regions like Upper Clearwater actually increases the likelihood of wildfire. This is an important insight insofar as fire results in increased downstream hydrological impacts.

On 15 January 2016, a second meeting of the Upper Clearwater Information Exchange was held. You can read the meeting minutes here, for the record.

• CANFOR:
  1. CANFOR unveils its latest map showing proposed logging plans for Plan Area G.
  2. CANFOR shares notes on hydrology by its consulting hydrologist Mike Milne.
  3. Two of the proposed blocks above Roland Neave’s property have been deferred due to hydrological constraints. “They are still in the harvest plan and will be revisited in five to ten years.”
• Referral Group:
  1. The Guiding Principles disallow further logging of oldgrowth in Plan Area G.
  2. Even if logging of oldgrowth were to occur, CANFOR’s oldgrowth set asides for Mountain Caribou are too few, too small and, therefore, likely to experience extensive blow down; they are of no benefit to caribou.
  3. Logging oldgrowth will have disproportionately negative downstream impacts on downstream hydrology, owing to loss of highly retentive ground layer not well developed in younger forests.
  4. Of the remaining cutblocks, at least one will inevitably create dense alder thickets difficult to restock without resorting to herbicides.
  5. CANFOR’s hydrologist suggests that only one of the proposed cutblocks (T125) can be justified as salvage, thus raising the question whether dead pine is really uniformly distributed throughout the other ‘salvage’ blocks or only present as scattered clumps. If the latter, the blocks should be much smaller.

On 7 December 2015, BC Timber Sales (BCTS) Woodlands Manager Steve Webb called Referral Group spokesperson Trevor Goward to advise that industrial logging would commence on the western slopes of the Clearwater Valley in the next few days. Though he claimed that the Referral Group had been sent a letter requesting input, no such letter was ever received – nor was any further attempt made to engage with the Referral Group. Result: Contrary to standard government practice, MoF BCTS approved extensive logging without consultation with local residents.

On 27 November 2015, the Referral Group entered into a formal Upper Clearwater Information Exchange with CANFOR Vavenby Planning Supervisor Stefan Borge, CANFOR Vavenby Operations Manager Al Anderson and MoF Resource Manager Rob Schweitzer. All parties expressed respect for the terms and spirit of the Guiding Principles. You can read the meeting minutes here, for the record.

• CANFOR:
  1. ”CANFOR is committed to working with the residents of Upper Clearwater. We need to understand who the stakeholders are and what their concerns are. The most important concerns we’ve noted are around visuals, water quality and hydrology, and wildlife and caribou.”
  2. ”First and foremost our objective is to develop long-lasting, professional relationship with everybody here in the room. Otherwise, we’re not going to be able to get any wood off the hillside, which is probably our second objective.”
  3. ”We don’t have a legislated mandate to do anything up there for caribou, so we’re doing what we would call best management practices.”
• MoF:
  1. ”In the short term, the district is fully committed to seeing this process succeed… In the long term, I heard loud and clear that the Referral Group doesn’t want to go through this again in five years or in ten years. I will continue to work towards finding a solution towards that from the government perspective.”
• Referral Group:
  1. ”The Referral Group was established as a vehicle for information exchange among government, industry and local residents. We are not an activist group, nor are we mandated to negotiate on behalf of valley residents.”
  2. From the perspective of the Referral Group, we are engaged here in two overlapping processes: a short-term process relating to CANFOR’s immediate plans for Plan Area G; and a longer term process pertaining to an injustice perpetrated with the move to FRPA on 31 January 2004. In short, MoF has a moral obligation to reinstate its legal commitment to the Guiding Principls: the same consensus-based agreement it invited the people of Upper Clearwater to enter into in 1996 and signed off on in 1999.

On 9 November 2015, CANFOR closed its Canal Flats sawmill, laying off 65 workers and nine staff members. “While we understand how difficult this will be for our employees and the community of Canal Flats, recent downturns in the oil and gas and lumber markets that the mill served, combined with a lack of economically available fibre for the mill, have brought operating losses we can no longer sustain,” said CANFOR spokesperson Corinne Stavness in an e-mail. All employees are to be offered the chance to transfer to other divisions in the company said CANFOR president Don Kayne.

On 19 October 2015, the Forest Practices Board (FPB) released a report titled Local Planning Commitments and Logging near Wells Gray Park, in response to a complaint lodged against CANFOR, MoF and B.C. Timber Sales by the Wells Gray Action Committee on 30 June 2014. FPB noted that the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA), passed into law in 2004, removed the District Manager’s power to withhold cutting road permits based on the input from third parties like the Referral Group. However, it did note that “District Managers can use their powers of influence to create desired outcomes” and encouraged the parties concerned to work out their differences through respectful engagement; see 27 November 2015.

On 2 October 2015, the Referral Group met with MoF Resource Manager Rob Schweitzer to discuss possible MoF involvement in a formal exchange process with CANFOR. MoF agrees to take part. You can read the meeting minutes here, for the record.

• MoF:
  1. ”The Guiding Principles document does not have legal standing under FRPA, so perhaps nothing can be done from a legal perspective; but still there is the question of social license, of moral and ethical issues, where influence can be made.”
  2. ”There’s no defending what went on in the past. Much hard work went into the creation of the Guiding Principles and this should continue to be honoured.”
• Referral Group:
  1. The reason the Guiding Principles document does not have legal standing under FRPA traces to negligence on the part of MoF D.M. Max Tanner, who deliberately or through oversight failed to ensure the Guiding Principles were accommodated during the transition to FRPA.
  2. Therefore MoF has a moral obligation to respect the Guiding Principles, regardless of its current legal obligations under FRPA.
  3. CANFOR has not respected Guiding Principles, e.g., concerns raised by the Referral Group in 2012 prompted Dave Dobi to increase proposed clearcuts.
  4. ”As local residents become more invested in Wells Gray Park as an economic generator, people will expect land use decisions to reflect the needs of tourism.”

On 1 October 2015, lawyer Ethan Krindle sends a letter to MoF D.M. Rick Sommer on behalf the Wells Gray Action Committee, representing approximately 300 members: “…the Ministry must honour its public commitments to the residents of Upper Clearwater, as codified in the Guiding Principles, and also uphold its obligation to the residents of the greater Clearwater area as stakeholders in a future that will be affected by CANFOR’s plans for the valley and the Ministry’s subsequent response to those plans.” The letter remains unanswered.

On 29 July 2015, following Dave Dobi’s transfer to CANFOR Cranbrook, the Referral Group met with CANFOR Vavenby Planning Supervisor Stefan Borge and CANFOR Vavenby Operations Manager Al Anderson to discuss concerns pertinent to CANFOR’s logging plans in Plan Area G. The possibility of engaging in a formal exchange process was also discussed. You can read the meeting minutes here, for the record.

• CANFOR:
  1. CANFOR is still looking at timber development in Plan Area G but assures the Referral Group that they are also weighing considerations of terrain, water, and wildlife.
• Referral Group:
  1. One test of CANFOR’s commitment to the Guiding Principles might be the degree to which CANFOR’s harvesting plans for Plan Area G “look different” from harvesting plans elsewhere.

On 30 June 2015, the Wells Gray Action Committee lodged a formal complaint with the B.C. Forest Practices Board, alleging that neither CANFOR, the BC Forest Service, nor BC Timber Sales were following the Guiding Principles.

In the spring of 2015, an aerial survey conducted by B.C. Ministry of Environment caribou biologists in and near Wells Gray Park resulted in an estimated Mountain Caribou population of about 50 animals, down from 628 in 1995, 325 in 2002, 307 in 2004, 225 in 2006, 180 in 2008, 172 in 2011 and 109 in 2013. Industrial-scale logging in the vicinity of the park is widely accepted as the ultimate cause of the decline.

In the spring of 2015, an aerial survey conducted by B.C. Ministry of Environment caribou biologists in and near Wells Gray Park resulted in an estimated Mountain Caribou population of ?80 animals, i.e., down from 336 in 1995, 325 in 2002, 307 in 2004, 242 in 2006, 180 in 2008, 172 in 2011 and 133 in 2013. Industrial-scale logging in the vicinity of the park is widely accepted as the ultimate cause of the decline. [Note: the 2015 estimate is based on an incomplete survey and hence is very approximate. A request for confirmation of these figures was sent to B.C. government caribou biologist John Surgenor on 15 January 2017, but no response was received].

On 16 March 2015, valley landowner Roland Neave sent a letter to CANFOR Vavenby forester Dave Dobi expressing ongoing concern for hydrologic impacts of industrial-scale logging: “Although you have assured me verbally that there is little likelihood of [Shook Brook’s] typical flow patterns, you refused to put this in writing. … The lessons from earlier logging on Trophy Mountain should have been an opportunity for you to learn that this mountainside is a sensitive area for stream flow.” The letter remains unanswered.

On 29 December 2014, CANFOR Vavenby forester Dave Dobi provided valley landowner Roland Neave with a partial map of CANFOR’s proposed cutblocks – notwithstanding that this map remained unavailable to the Referral Group until 29 July 2015.

On 6 November 2014, the Clearwater Times carried a letter by Kamloops-North Thompson MLA Dr. Terry Lake, in which he states: “Although the west side of the valley was not included in [the Guiding Principles], any activity undertaken by BC Timber Sales should involved adequate public consultation and I have made Minister Thomson aware of concerns in this area. … I will continue to follow the issue closely.” [But see 7 December 2015, 6 April 2016, 12 December 2016.

On 30 October 2014, CANFOR Vavenby Forester Dave Dobi holds a private meeting with valley landowner Roland Neave to discuss hydrological concerns, terrain assessment and visual management – items which, according to the terms of the Guiding Principles, should be discussed with the Referral Group.

On 27 October 2014, the Clearwater Times published an editorial by valley resident Trevor Goward: “The question whether or not CANFOR should continue with its plans to log the Clearwater Valley north of Spahats Creek can be framed around three issues:” (1) the fate of Wells Gray’s declining Mountain Caribou, which will be adversely affected by logging immediately adjacent to the park; (2) MoF’s responsibility to the Guiding Principles; and (3) the future of Clearwater. “Clearwater has much more to gain from leaving the Clearwater Valley intact than from cashing in on its trees.”

On 23 October 2014, CANFOR General Manager for Forest Planning Peter Baird stated in the Clearwater Times that the CANFOR Vavenby mill employs 175 people and “injects” $54 million into the local economy.

On 23 October 2014, an editorial by CANFOR General Manager for Forest Planning Peter Baird in the Clearwater Times asserted that “CANFOR is focussed on creating solid, science-based plans to ensure our operations meet the highest standards in the areas designated for sustainable forestry.”

On 14 August 2014, the Clearwater Times ran a letter from Roland Neave, Upper Clearwater landowner, expressing concern that two letters sent by his lawyer to CANFOR Vavenby Forester Dave Dobi in April and May 2014 remain unanswered. This letter elicits an immediate e-mail and voicemail response from Corinne Stavness, CANFOR’s Director of Public Affairs and Responsibility, urging Mr. Neave to be in touch with CANFOR Vavenby Forester Dave Dobi – precisely what Mr. Neave’s lawyer had been attempting to do since 22 April.

On 25 July 2014, the Referral Group sends a letter to the Clearwater Times responding to the earlier letter by CANFOR General Manager for Forest Planning Peter Baird: “Mr. Baird … states that the letters CANFOR has received to date ‘don’t provide us with the level of information we need to make progress.’ To the best of our knowledge, CANFOR and the Ministry of Forests have received many letters written in considerable detail – some by highly qualified land use professionals. On the other hand we are not aware that CANFOR has answered any of these letters.”

On 17 July 2014, the Clearwater Times carried a letter from CANFOR General Manager for Forest Planning Peter Baird, in which it was claimed that CANFOR “has been working through the Upper Clearwater Referral Group to design our harvesting activities in a way that is respectful of the Guiding Principles …”

On 28 June 2014, the Wells Gray Action Committee, in cooperation with the Referral Group, organized a field tour of the Upper Clearwater Valley north of Spahats Creek, with MLA Terry Lake, MoF Resource Manager Rob Schweitzer, Volcanologist Cathie Hickson, and about 30 others were in attendance. The event focussed on concerns over logging on both sides of the valley, and pointed to the tremendous potential of the Clearwater Valley as an economic generator for Clearwater. Ongoing efforts to secure UNESCO GeoPark and World Heritage Site status for Wells Gray and area were also discussed. The tour ended with lunch at the Upper Clearwater Hall (prepared and served by local residents) followed by a brief meeting in which profound disappointment was expressed at logging recently undertaken through B.C. Timber Sales within the viewscape on the west side of the Clearwater River.

On 9 June 2014, the Referral Group wrote to MoF D.M. Rick Sommer, communicating the results of the public meetings held on 27 April and 16 May 2014 and expressing growing concern that the Guiding Principles were being disregarded by CANFOR and by MoF. The letter noted, for example, that CANFOR’s plans for industrial scale logging in Plan Area G were at variance with the maintenance “within their natural range of variability” of “water quality, quantity and timing of flow” in six streams named in the Guiding Principles. Frustration was also expressed that letters of concern were not being answered by either CANFOR or MoF. This letter also remains unanswered.

Assessment by the Referral Group:On page 87 of the recovery strategy, the southern Clearwater Valley is assessed as ‘critical habitat’ for the Wells Gray-Thompson Local Population Unit of the southern Montain Caribou. The area included covers both the east and west sides of the Clearwater Valley, including areas in which MoF subsequently awarded permits for industrial-scale logging.

On 6 June 2014, the Federal Species at Risk Public Registry posted its Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada, which complements the British Columbia Liberal government’s 2008 Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan.

On 3 June 2014, Scott Huyghebaert, lawyer for Upper Clearwater landowner Roland Neave, sends a second letter to CANFOR forester Dave Dobi, pointing out that the scope of CANFOR’s planned logging operations is inconsistent with the intent of the Guiding Principles. The letter remains unanswered.

On 2 June 2014, MoF D.M. Rick Sommer responds to the Catherine Hickson’s letter of 28 May 2014.

1. Her letter has been forwarded to CANFOR Vavenby.
2. MoF supports the Guiding Principles, noting that future harvesting should focus on salvage.
3. ”As with the development of the Guiding Principles, I am hopeful that the community conversation can respect the interests of all parties and result in a plan going forward that represents those interests.”

On 29 May 2014, Second Canyon Creek blocks the culvert at the park road, backing up and nearly washing out the Clearwater Valley Road.

On 28 May 2014, Volcanologist Dr. Catherine Hickson wrote to MoF D.M. Rick Sommer outlining the international significance of volcanic features in the southern half of Plan Area G, pointing to their key importance to an ongoing application for UNESCO GeoPark status for Wells Gray Park and area – a proposal of tremendous potential benefit for the local economy. “Logging in this geologically and visually sensitive area is likely to have a significant negative impact on the UNESCO GeoPark initiative and, as a result, on future economic development in the local community.”

On 22 May 2014, the Clearwater Times carried a letter from the Wells Gray Action Committee, calling for “a moratorium on industrial-scale logging in Upper Clearwater “until such time as the full impact of CANFOR’s plan has been fully addressed by a wide range of stakeholders.”. The letter was also cc’d to Don Kayne, president and CEO of CANFOR, but remains unanswered.

On 16 May 2014, the Referral Group held a third public meeting to share CANFOR’s latest logging plans for Plan Area G. About 30 valley residents were present. Once again, there was unanimous opposition to CANFOR’s plans, which had not greatly changed since the previous public meeting.

On 2 May 2014, the Wells Gray Action Committee (WGAC) was formed, with two main objectives concerning logging in Upper Clearwater: first, to ensure that land use decisions take into account all social, environmental and economic values through open public consultation with all stakeholders; and second, to broaden the current discussion around local forestry to include all Crown lands lying north of Spahats Creek on the east and west slopes of the Clearwater Valley. More specifically, it called for a moratorium on industrial-scale logging until such time as these two objectives are achieved. [WGAC proves a very effective lobby group deserving of a time line of its own. Only a few of its key actions are referenced here].

In May 2014, the status of the southern Mountain Caribou population was re-examined by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and upgraded from threatened to endangered: “The current estimate for the population is 1,356 mature individuals, which has declined by at least 45% in the past three generations, and 27% since the last assessment in 2002. … Surveys have shown consistently high adult mortality and low calf recruitment, accelerating decline rates. Threats are continuing and escalating.”

On 27 April 2014, the Referral Group made a second presentation on CANFOR’s logging plans to about 50 valley residents at a meeting of the Upper Clearwater Farmers’ Institute (UCFI). In light of overwhelming opposition to CANFOR’s plans in their current iteration, UCFI chair Andrew Nelson was instructed to write to CANFOR Vavenby Forester Dave Dobi calling for “a moratorium on industrial-scale logging in Upper Clearwater “until such time as the effects on community values, wildlife and tourism have been fully addressed by a wide range of stakeholders.” The letter was sent on 9 May 2014 but remains unacknowledged and unanswered.

On 22 April 2014, Scott Huyghebaert, lawyer for Upper Clearwater landowner Roland Neave, sends a letter to CANFOR Vavenby Forester Dave Dobi voicing concern for downstream effects of industrial scale logging in Plan Area G above his property. The letter remains unanswered.

In April 2014, the Referral Group collates the block-by-block information provided by CANFOR at the 26 March meeting, indicating concerns where appropriate. The document is then submitted to CANFOR for review, in the expectation that at least some adjustments to CANFOR’s logging plans would result. The document goes unacknowledged and no response is ever received.

On 26 March 2014, the Referral Group met with CANFOR Vavenby Forester Dave Dobi and MoF Resource Manager Rob Schweitzer to discuss CANFOR’s latest cutting plans. At the insistence of Dave Dobi, the meeting was not voice-recorded.

• CANFOR:
  1. CANFOR will provide the Referral Group a map of its cutting plans “as long as it is used for information purposes for the community.”
• Referral Group:
  1. Since MoF D.M. Jim Munn signed the Guiding Principles into effect in 1999, two major events have occurred in the Clearwater Valley: first a major Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak between 2004 and 2007; and second the drastic decline of Wells Gray’s Mountain Caribou herd, from by about 325 animals in 2002 to about 80 animals in 2014.
  2. The appropriate response to these two events are necessarily in conflict insofar the first encourages salvage logging, while the second requires that no further logging take place. Three reasons:
     • because the Mountain Caribou is designated as threatened in Canada under COSEWIC.
     • because Wells Gray Park was set aside in 1939 partly to protect the Mountain Caribou.
     • because industrial logging is widely acknowledged as the ultimate cause of their decline, as already noted by CANFOR Vavenby Forester Dave Dobi on 28 January 2012; see above.
  3. Responsible land-use management now requires that the B.C. government weigh up its responsibility to the future of Canada as a whole and not merely to CANFOR’s profit margin.
  4. The Guiding Principles were intended to establish a lasting balance among multiple stakeholders across a wide range of values. Following 18 months of negotiations, valley residents endorsed the creation of two woodlots they had originally opposed and agreed to the expansion of a third pre-existing woodlot, totalling 1350 ha of crown land. The question MoF D.M. Rick Sommer now needs to answer is: What did valley residents get in return for this endorsement if not the right to expect the intent of the Guiding Principles to be upheld? This question remains unanswered.
  5. It is agreed by all present that Plan Area G extends upslope from the Clearwater Valley Road to the boundary of Wells Gray Park, i.e., consistent with Jim Munn’s written comment on 19 May 1999 that Plan Area G had been ‘heavily impacted;’ see also 28 January 2012.
  6. The Referral Group will attempt to have public feedback on CANFOR’s logging plans by the end of May.

On 29 October 2013, CANFOR Vavenby Forester Dave Dobi writes a letter informing the Referral Group of progress with logging plans.

On 24 October 2013, CANFOR announced it will close its Quesnel Mill in March 2014. “Closing a saw mill is very difficult,” wrote CANFOR president Don Kayne, “but there is simply not enough fibre remaining in the Quesnel area to support all of the mills in the community. While we considered every option – including harvesting areas currently constrained for environmental reasons or bringing in wood from longer distances – these would only have delayed the inevitable.”

On 23 October 2013, Upper Clearwater resident George Briggs wrote a 17-page letter to MoF D.M. Rick Sommer outlining the downstream impact of medium- and high-elevation logging within the watersheds of Fage and Ordschig Creeks between 1980 and 1987 (see 26 May 1992), and requesting confirmation that remedial action was ever undertaken to repair substandard road construction by Slocan Forest Products. The letter remains unanswered.

On 14 May 2013, the British Columbia Liberal Party won its fourth consecutive election, this time under Christy Clark.

In the spring of 2013, an aerial survey conducted by B.C. Ministry of Environment caribou biologists in and near southern Wells Gray Park documents an estimated 133 Mountain Caribou, down from 172 in 2011. Nearby industrial-scale logging is widely accepted as the ultimate cause of the decline. [Note: the 133 estimate appears in COSEWIC 2014, but is at variance with the 121 estimate given in an e-mail attachment from Kamloops caribou biologist John Surgenor to Louise Ludham-Taylor dated 19 June 2015].

On 15 August 2012, the Referral Group sent a letter to MoF D.M. Rick Sommer summarizing the outcome of the public meeting on 17 June and requesting confirmation that MoF would respect the Guiding Principles. Concern was expressed that CANFOR was already working in Plan Area G despite no responses having been received either by CANFOR or from MoF. The letter remains unanswered.

On 8 August 2012, an article in the Clearwater Times reported on an upcoming year-long initiative – Wells Gray World Heritage Year – in support of a government-endorsed proposal to put British Columbia’s fourth largest park forward as a candidate for a UNESCO World Heritage Site. “World Heritage designation not only strengthens the tourism sector, it also catalyzes economic development and regeneration, creates new funding opportunities, and stimulates private investment.” Co-sponsored by Thompson Rivers University, Wells Gray Heritage Year ran from September 2012 through October, with about 25 separate events attended by more than 1000 participants.

On 9 July 2012, CANFOR president and CEO Don Kayne made a presentation to the B.C. government’s Special Committee on Timber Supply in which he asserted that: “while we certainly welcome opportunities that might improve the mid-term timber supply, we first must be convinced these actions are well thought out, fair, and inclusive – and fit with our vision of sustainability. Let me give you a few examples:

• “CANFOR does not support actions that would overturn landscape objectives set through public planning processes unless there is full public consultation and support.
• “We will not support actions that impact parks, riparian areas or areas that provide critical habitat for species at risk, or other important environmental values such as biodiversity and old growth.
• “We will not support actions that put us at odds with obligations of our registered professional foresters to uphold the public trust by managing forests sustainably.
• “And we will not support actions that jeopardize our third-party forest certification, and risk access to domestic and international markets.”

During the summer of 2012, residents of Upper Clearwater wrote many letters to CANFOR expressing concern for downstream impacts of its proposed industrial-scale logging. The letters remain unanswered.

On 17 June 2012, the Referral Group held a first public meeting with 40 valley residents to share CANFOR’s plans based on details provided by CANFOR Vavenby Forester Dave Dobi. Participants unanimously reaffirmed support of the Guiding Principles and concluded that CANFOR’s plans in this iteration ran contrary to the intent of the Guiding Principles.

On 24 April 2012, the Referral Group met with MoF D.M. Rick Sommer to summarize initial concerns with regard to CANFOR’s plans to conduct industrial scale logging in Plan Area G. The meeting was not recorded.

On 1 March 2012, CANFOR Planning Coordinator (south) Jim McCormack replied to a letter by valley resident Trevor Goward sent on 17 February 2012: “If I have interpreted your e-mail correctly, you have identified three main issues that CANFOR needs to be aware of as we develop our plans for the area: (1) the potential impacts to Mountain Caribou; (2) the potential impact of harvesting on visual quality; (3) that harvesting plans take into account their proximity to Wells Gray Park.”

On 28 January 2012, CANFOR Vavenby Forester Dave Dobi met with the Referral Group to announce CANFOR’s intention to conduct industrial-scale logging on the northwestern slopes of the Trophy Mountains between Spahats Creek and Grouse Creek, that is, in Plan Area G. About 1000 ha would be cut in this scenario. You can read the meeting minutes here, for the record.

• CANFOR:
  1. CANFOR acknowledges the negative impact of logging near Wells Gray Park on its declining Mountain Caribou.
  2. No visual management plans are in place for the Clearwater Valley; or, if plans are in place, CANFOR is not bound to adhere to them in the case of salvage logging.
  3. CANFOR’s current proposal to log the Clearwater Valley is only one in a series of passes that will continue until all available merchantable timber has been cut.
  4. CANFOR intends to treat the Clearwater Valley no differently than any other valley in the province, notwithstanding the many demonstrated values – tourism, conservation, scenic beauty – captured in the Guiding Principles.
  5. CANFOR respects the Guiding Principles and agrees to accept Plan Area G as extending eastward from the park road to the boundary of Wells Gray Park, i.e., consistent with MoF D.M. Jim Munn written statement on 19 May 1999 that Plan Area G had been ‘heavily impacted.’
  6. “There is a fall-down effect coming, and powers much greater than me are making decisions on how they’re going to address that when it comes. In the interim, the saw mills that are out there are running and they are trying their best to make money, and those that aren’t making money have been shut down”.
  7. CANFOR is prepared to engage with only one Referral Group member; all concerns of valley residents should be channelled through that one person.

In January 2012, MoF D.M. Rick Sommer instructed staff member Ron van der Zwan to reinstate that portion of Plan Area G that had been quietly deleted nine years earlier; see 2003, above. (Note: That portion of Plan Area G lying east of 120°N and west of the Wells Gray Park boundary was inadvertently excluded on government maps but is subsequently accepted by all parties as belonging to Plan Area G – consistent with MoF D.M. Jim Munn’s statement in his letter of 19 May 1999 that Plan Area G had been “heavily impacted.” (See also 28 January 2012 and 26 March 2014, below).

In January 2012, CANFOR Vavenby added a second shift for a total of 145 jobs, thereby processing wood faster than can be sustained.

In September 2011, CANFOR reopened its Vavenby mill after $24 million in capital upgrades.

In the spring of 2011, an aerial survey conducted by B.C. Ministry of Environment staff in and near southern Wells Gray Park documents an estimated 172 Mountain Caribou, down from 628 in 1995, 325 in 2002, 307 in 2004, 225 in 2006 and 180 in 2008.

In March 2010, MoF D.M. Garth Wiggill reinstated Plan Area C, which had quietly been deleted by MoF seven years earlier; see 2003, above.

On 7 March 2011, the Clearwater Times reported that Tourism Wells Gray was in the process of hiring a consultant to develop a UNESCO World Heritage Development Plan. “World Heritage Status from UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) would mean international recognition of Wells Gray Park and its many natural wonders – not the least of which is its fascinating volcanic history.” “…the development plan will also look at the possibility of initially seeking UNESCO GeoPark status, which could help in the larger heritage designation. GeoPark status is an initiative launched by UNESCO to recognize sites that are significant for earth sciences.”

In 2009, the British Columbia liberal government cancelled its Caribou Management Area on the western slopes of the Trophy Mountains, which had been in place under the Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) since 31 March 1996. This results in a net gain for future logging on the Trophy Mountains and a net loss for Mountain Caribou protection.

On 29 May 2009, CANFOR announces plans to close its Vavenby Mill as well as its Radium Hotsprings Mill and its Rustad mill in Prince George, putting more than 570 employees out of work. “CANFOR must continue to restructure its production capabilities to match the demands of the market and ensure the needs of key customers continue to be met,” said CANFOR president and CEO Jim Shepard in a prepared statement.

On 12 May 2009, the British Columbia Liberal party won its third consecutive election under premier Gordon Campbell who, however, was replaced by Christy Clark on 14 March 2011.

Analysis by Valhalla Wilderness Society (2010): Actually only 380,000 hectares were new protection, the rest either being already protected in parks or designated wildlife habitat, or else consisting of “modified harvest zones” subject to fragmentation. Only 77,000 hectares were located on the Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB), i.e., 0.66% of the THLB over the mountain caribou range. Most of the 2.2 million hectares came from the “non-productive” or “inoperable” forest – forest too high or too steep to profitably log. In fact, 82.9% of the caribou reserves are high or very high elevation spruce-fir forest in caribou winter habitat, while only (12.8%) were located in low- to mid-elevation Interior Cedar-Hemlock forests, i.e., in critical spring and early winter caribou habitat.

In February 2009, the British Columbia liberal government under its Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan claims to have “protected approximately 2.2 million hectares of Mountain Caribou habitat from road building and logging.”

In the spring of 2008, an aerial survey conducted by B.C. Ministry of Environment staff in and near southern Wells Gray Park documents an estimated 180 Mountain Caribou, down from 628 in 1995, 325 in 2002, 307 in 2004 and 225 in 2006.

Analysis by Valhalla Wilderness Society (2016): The 2007 Recovery Plan for the Mountain Caribou herds of the Interior Wetbelt aimed to stop the decline of the southern herds by 2014, yet by 2014 these herds had lost 500 mountain caribou. Only 1,358 remained, and their numbers continue to decline. Predator control, maternity penning and translocations are receiving the mass of the focus and funds. In 2015, seven caribou died in pens in BC while the Revelstoke Rearing in the Wild (RCRW) for the North Columbia herd cost $367,582 for one year, and the Klinse-Za maternity penning project near Chetwynd cost nearly $1,000,000 in 2014 and 2015. In 2015, wolf killing reportedly cost BC taxpayers $500,000. However, these projects do nothing to address habitat loss and fragmentation of oldgrowth forest – the root causes of the decline.

On 16 October 2007, the British Columbia Liberal government announces its BC Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan (MCRIP), which is intended to “halt the decline of mountain caribou within seven years for each Planning Unit and recover mountain caribou to 1995 population levels (2500 animals) across the mountain caribou range within 20 years in those Planning Units with greater than 10 animals.” [Note: the Wells Gray – Thompson herds are designated as Planning Unit 4A].

On 6 September 2006, MoF engaged with the Referral Group concerning a request to salvage log dead Pine in Plan Area G east of the Clearwater Valley Road near Grouse Creek. The Referral Group endorsed this permit, but was later disturbed to learn that it was subsequently expanded include a nearby area that supported virtually no Pine. Later inspection of cut stumps revealed that the overwhelming target species here was birch, not pine – an infraction brought to the attention of MoF in March 2007. No action was taken.

In the summer of 2006, MoF D.M. Tom Volkers approved a permit to log a healthy forest on the south face of Buck Hill in support of proposed mining for decorative lava rock. Contrary to the Guiding Principles, the Referral Group was not consulted.

On 26 May 2006, a report to the Chief Forester concerning lodgepole pine stands affected by the Mountain Pine Beetle, B.C. government forest ecologists Dave Coates and others state: “There appears to be considerable potential to reduce the impact to mid-term timber supply and enhance biodiversity values, hydrologic recovery, visual quality and wildlife habitat by strategically protecting certain pine-leading stand types from immediate harvest and/or protecting secondary structure during salvage operations.”

In the spring of 2006, an aerial survey conducted by B.C. Ministry of Environment staff in and near southern Wells Gray Park documents an estimated 225 Mountain Caribou, down from 628 in 1995 and 307 in 2004.

On 17 May 2005, the B.C. liberal party won its second consecutive victory under Premier Gordon Campbell.

On 1 April 2004, Slocan Forest Products merged with Canadian Forests Products, a.k.a CANFOR.

In the spring of 2004, an aerial survey conducted by B.C. Ministry of Environment staff in and near southern Wells Gray Park documents an estimated 307 Mountain Caribou, down from 628 in 1995 and 325 in 2002.

Analysis by West Coast Environmental Law (2004): “the Forest and Range Practices Act and regulations bring in a new era of forestry deregulation which places an unprecedented degree of control over public resources in the hands of forest companies. There are inadequate checks and balances in the regulations. The potential to hold forest companies accountable is reduced by narrow definitions of terms like damage to the environment, and an increase in the defences available for non-compliance. Government itself will not have critical information necessary to diligently approve logging on public land. It has tied its own hands by imposing extraordinary restrictions on statutory decision makers, and introducing excessive red tape and bureaucracy to measures now necessary to protect the environment. The government has made a major ideological shift, stating that it intends to rely on professional foresters employed by forest companies to deliver the public interest, more than civil servants. All of this could render public and community input into forestry decisions less meaningful. Protecting the environment and maintaining community relations will be more due to the pleasure of a given forest company than a result of these regulations. Over the last decade, in many parts of the province the agencies have been stalled in implementing important conservation initiatives such as landscape level planning, wildlife habitat areas and ungulate winter range in many places in the province. The government has not ensured that these conservation measures were in place before handing over this level of responsibility and control to logging companies. The fact that regulations are now much more lax does not inevitably mean that the environment will be irreparably harmed, as that depends on how forest companies choose to act. But it does significantly increase the risk. Given the time lag that sometimes exists between forestry operations and impact, for some values it may take several years before the impacts are evident on the landscape. Overall, British Columbia has much to lose as a result of this deregulation.”

On 31 January 2004, the BC government completed its transition from the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act (FPC) to the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA). Under FPC, the MoF D.M. had final authority to withhold cutting and road permits, whereas under FRPA (a professional reliance model), that authority was transferred to the logging companies themselves – and, through them, to the professional foresters, hydrologists, terrain specialists and others hired to advise them. From this point on, all logging proposals that meet an approved forest stewardship plan and respect First Nations rights and title MUST be approved. Hence the MoF D.M. can no longer withhold a cutting permit or road permit based on input from a third party such as the Referral Group. This of course effectively countermands the Guiding Principles, which relied on the MoF D.M. to adjudicate cutting proposals.

Analysis by West Coast Environmental Law (2004): “the Forest and Range Practices Act and regulations bring in a new era of forestry deregulation which places an unprecedented degree of control over public resources in the hands of forest companies. There are inadequate checks and balances in the regulations. The potential to hold forest companies accountable is reduced by narrow definitions of terms like damage to the environment, and an increase in the defences available for non-compliance. Government itself will not have critical information necessary to diligently approve logging on public land. It has tied its own hands by imposing extraordinary restrictions on statutory decision makers, and introducing excessive red tape and bureaucracy to measures now necessary to protect the environment. The government has made a major ideological shift, stating that it intends to rely on professional foresters employed by forest companies to deliver the public interest, more than civil servants. All of this could render public and community input into forestry decisions less meaningful. Protecting the environment and maintaining community relations will be more due to the pleasure of a given forest company than a result of these regulations. Over the last decade, in many parts of the province the agencies have been stalled in implementing important conservation initiatives such as landscape level planning, wildlife habitat areas and ungulate winter range in many places in the province. The government has not ensured that these conservation measures were in place before handing over this level of responsibility and control to logging companies. The fact that regulations are now much more lax does not inevitably mean that the environment will be irreparably harmed, as that depends on how forest companies choose to act. But it does significantly increase the risk. Given the time lag that sometimes exists between forestry operations and impact, for some values it may take several years before the impacts are evident on the landscape. Overall, British Columbia has much to lose as a result of this deregulation.”

On 31 January 2004, the BC government completed its transition from the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act (FPC) to the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA). Under FPC, the MoF D.M. had final authority to withhold cutting and road permits, whereas under FRPA (a professional reliance model), that authority was transferred to the logging companies themselves – and, through them, to the professional foresters, hydrologists, terrain specialists and others hired to advise them. From this point on, all logging proposals that meet an approved forest stewardship plan and respect First Nations rights and title MUST be approved. Hence the MoF D.M. can no longer withhold a cutting permit or road permit based on input from a third party such as the Referral Group. This of course effectively countermands the Guiding Principles, which relied on the MoF D.M. to adjudicate cutting proposals.

In the summer of 2003, MoF D.M. Max Tanner approved a permit to CANFOR to salvage log about 50 ha within Plan Area G east of the Park road north of Third Canyon Creek. Contrary to the Guiding Principles, this was undertaken without consultation with the Referral Group.

In March 2003, Weyerhaeuser Canada shut down its Vavenby mill. Of the 180 workers employed in Vavenby, 100 were relocated to Kamloops, Princeton and Okanagan Falls.

In about 2002, MoF D.M. Max Tanner quietly deleted two of the seven Plan Areas originally included in the Guiding Principles, i.e., Area C and the southwestern portion of Plan Area G. Apparently, the first deletion was intended to free up additional land for Woodlot 0302, while the second facilitated salvage logging north of Third Canyon Creek.

In November 2002, the British Columbia Liberal government passed its Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA), intended to help meet its target set in 2001 to eliminate one-third of all regulations.

Analysis by Environmental Law Centre (2010): “One of the more controversial provisions in the new Act was a requirement take into account and reflect government policy identified…by a government agency or organization responsible for the identified policy area” – in effect politicizing the environmental assessment process.

On 30 May 2002, the British Columbia Liberal government repealed the 1994 Environmental Assessment Act, replacing it with its own Environmental Assessment Act as part of a broad deregulation of many environmental laws, and reducing 93 sections of the 1994 Act to 51.

In May 2002, the status of the southern Mountain Caribou population was re-examined by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and confirmed as threatened. “Local herds … are generally small, increasingly isolated, and subject to multiple developments. Their range has shrunk by up to 40% and 13 of 19 herds are declining.”

In the spring of 2002, an aerial survey conducted by B.C. Ministry of Environment caribou biologist in and near southern Wells Gray Park documents an estimated 325 Mountain Caribou, down from 628 in 1995. [Source: The Mountain Caribou Technical Advisory Committee. 2002. A strategy for the recovery of Mountain Caribou in British Columbia.]

On 17 July 2001, prolonged summer rain caused Grouse Creek to wash out the bridge crossing on the Wells Gray Park Road – the fourth such event at least partly traceable to clearcut logging on the Trophy Mountains. Conclusion: Land management decisions taken by MoF D.M. Mel Monteith between 1978 and 1987 contributed substantially to the destruction of road and bridges, thereby ultimately cost B.C. taxpayers $6 million – $7 million in repairs. As far as is known, none of this cost was borne by industry.

Between 2001 and 2005, the British Columbia Liberal government repealed, amended or replaced a wide range of environmental statutes, as well as cutting funding to environment-related ministries.

On 5 June 2001, the B.C. liberal party came to power under Gordon Campbell.

In the spring of 2001, MoF D.M. Max Tanner established two woodlots in Upper Clearwater (WL 1856, Pete Pelton, and WL 1856, George Briggs) and expanded a third existing woodlot (WL 0302, Larry Colborne), as agreed to in the Guiding Principles. The total crown lands involved: 1350 ha.

On 22 November 2000, MoF D.M. Max Tanner accompanied by staff members Rob Enfield and Ro Martin met with Referral Group members to ratify Amendment # 1 of the Guiding Principles and to establish terms of reference for the Referral Group. Broadly speaking, the Referral Group is tasked with ensuring that the spirit of the Guiding Principles agreement is respected by all parties. More specifically, it is intended to act as a vehicle of information gathering and exchange between local residents, government and industry.

In May 2000, the southern Mountain Caribou population was listed as threatened by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).

On 8 July 1999, a prolonged summer rain event caused Spahats Creek to tear out its culvert and the Clearwater Valley Road. Upstream logging is implicated in this event.

On 19 May 1999, MoF D.M. Jim Munn wrote a letter to Upper Clearwater Valley Public Planning Process participants in which he signed the Guiding Principles into effect and offered his congratulations: “I believe that through this process we have achieved a new level of understanding and trust in each other as individuals, businesses and government agents entrusted with the task of finding and implementing solutions to a broad range of sometimes seemingly conflicting values. I believe that with the Guiding Principles, there is a balance with which we can all live.” On the one hand valley residents had agreed to endorse the creation/expansion of woodlots (1350 ha) in three of the seven Plan Areas, while on the other hand MoF had agreed to give due consideration to non-forestry values in the remaining four Plan Areas. In particular, MoF noted that Plan Area G (the western slopes of the Trophy Mountains east to the boundary of Wells Gray Park) had been ‘heavily impacted’ by previous logging and therefore agreed to:

1. Refrain from further logging of oldgrowth forests.
2. Restrict future logging to salvage operations.
3. Maintain water quality, quantity and timing of flow of Fage, Ordschig, Case, Byrd, Duncan Creeks and Shook Brook within their natural range of variability (i.e., thereby signalling that only small salvage operations would be undertaken).
4. Give valley residents a meaningful say in future MoF land use decisions.
5. Refer any planned forestry activities in the four Plan Areas to the Upper Clearwater Referral Group – a commitment that applied also to the western slopes of the Clearwater Valley north of Spahats Creek.

On 19 April 1998, the Upper Clearwater Valley Public Planning Process held its final meeting, at which the Guiding Principles document was ratified by Upper Clearwater residents, and the Referral Group was established; see 22 November 2000.

On 11 July 1997, prolonged summer rain caused First Canyon Creek to wash out Clearwater Valley Road, creating a cleft 40 m deep and 20 m across, and stranding valley residents and park visitors for several days. The same rain event blocked the culvert at Second Canyon Creek and caused the road to shift downhill.

On 17 April 1997, CANFOR writes to MoF employee Rob Martin in response to invitation to partake in the Upper Clearwater Planning Process: “Although the company appreciates the invitation to have a representative attend the meetings of the Upper Clearwater Resource Planning Committee, we are unable to attend Saturday or Sunday meetings. We would be most willing to attend should the meetings be scheduled during the week”. [For the record, no meetings were attended by CANFOR regardless of day of the week].

On 26 November 1996, Upper Clearwater residents agreed to engage with MoF in a formal, government-sponsored, consensus-based initiative referred to as the Upper Clearwater Valley Public Planning Process and constituting a Local Use Plan under the 1995 Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).

1. The stated purpose of this process was “to consult and come to agreement on Forest Stewardship Plans for the Upper Clearwater Valley, north of Spahats Creek.”
2. Meetings were initially chaired by local landowner Tay Briggs, and later by Hannah Horn, a professional facilitator hired by MoF for this purpose.
3. Statements of interest were received from 37 valley households, as well as from BC Environment, BC Parks, Canadian Parks & Wilderness Society, Clearwater Chamber of Commerce, Friends of Wells Gray Park, MoF, Slocan Forest Products, Thompson Rivers University, and Wells Gray Backcountry Chalets. CANFOR declined to participate.
4. For convenience, crown land in Upper Clearwater was divided into seven areas of interest, or Plan Areas, designated A through G.
5. The planning process required about 20 public meetings (including three field trips) over 17 months from 26 November 1996 to 20 April 1998.
6. The end product was a 19-page document entitled Guiding Principles for the Management of Land and Resources in the Upper Clearwater Valley or simply the Guiding Principles.

Note: The following entries from the diary of valley resident Ellen Ferguson attest to the tremendous dedication and effort involved in bringing the Guiding Principles to completion:

• 26 November 1996: To hall @ 7 for meeting w/MoF. Good turn-out. Shall meet again @ 10 AM Dec 8th @ hall.
• 8 December 1996: K & I to hall for meeting @ 10:00 AM. Next meeting @ 10:00 AM on Dec 22. I took minutes so will type tomorrow.
• 22 December 1996: To hall @ 10:00 AM till 12:30 PM for meeting. Next meeting Feb 2.
• 2 February 2 1997: Went to meeting at hall. Shall go thru Interest Statements and pick out specific references to specific District Lots.
• 4 February 1997: Did minutes and faxed to Tay.
• 20 February 1997: Got land use statements of interest all compiled.
• 2 March 1997: Meeting at the hall @ 1 — next meeting back to 10:00 AM. K will attend & Sharon will do minutes — I’ll be in Kamloops.
• 3 March 1997: Got minutes done. Delivered to MoF w/UREP info & all statements in to date.
• 6 April 1997: K said land use meeting took 4 hours. 35 participants.
• 8 April 1997: Did up land use minutes. Will take to Forestry later.
• 10 April 1997: Got land use stuff from Rob Martin.
• 4 May 1997: To meeting @ hall @ 10:00 AM. 22 participants. Home @ noon.
• 5 May 1997: Did land use minutes & dropped off @ MoF for Rob Martin.
• 13 June 1997: Meeting from 7:30 PM to 9:45 PM.
• 15 June 1997: Worked on land use notes for HOURS.
• 16 June 1997: Worked on land use; talked with Hannah.
• 8 July 1997: Need to take land use info re wildlife to MoE co-op students.
• 11 August 1997: to Trevor’s in evening to work on mapping until 10:30 PM; will go back on 18th.
• 18 August 1997: Trevor & I finished 2 mylar sheets; need Letrasign animals.
• 21 August 1997: spent 1 hr making animals for map; still a few species needed. Got a mylar and water plans from Randy Harris of MoE.
• 26 August 1997: wildlife mapping at Trevor’s this evening until 9:30 PM.
• 3 September 1997: finished mapping water licenses.
• 5 September 1997: to old school with maps in evening; presentation went well; 26 participants; finished @ 9:00 PM.
• 8 September 1997: typed minutes of meeting & left for Rob Martin @ MoF. Spoke with Trevor — said I’ll go on all 3 field hikes.
• 13 September 1997: Field trip I: walked from 9:00 AM until 1:00 PM with Rob Martin, Al Henderson, Roland Neave, George & Judy Briggs, with Joe Fischer along on horseback for part of the day. In at Moul Falls access, west off road, then north on a cattle trail, and east across Fischer’s easement. Returned to vehicles via the road.
• 16 September 1997: Found a reference to another Section 12 Map Reserve on the land we are going to hike this Saturday. Phoned Roland and will call Rob Martin tomorrow.
• 17 September 1997: Talked with Rob Martin and dropped of Section 12 Map Reserve info.
• 20 September 1997: Field trip II: to Colborne’s at 9:00 AM. Hiked west, south, west, south, and met up with Roland’s road. Then went east & north, and were home at 1:00 PM.
• 27 September 1997: Field trip III: hiked with MoF and land use group. Left Flatiron trail head at 9 and returned, after various wanderings, at 1:40 PM.
• 3 October 1997: To hall from 6:30 PM until 9:00 PM. Have 3 pages of minutes to transcribe. Told Hannah I may not be at October 17 meeting.
• 18 October 1997: Sharon Neufeld stopped by with minutes from yesterday’s meeting to be typed.
• 21 October 1997: finished minutes; left disk at MoF for one of the Robs to share with Hannah.
• 21 November 1997: meeting from 6:30 PM – 9:30 PM; 25 participants.
• 10 December 1997: Talked with Trevor; plan to meet Saturday afternoon to work out the introduction to the Guiding Principles.
• 13 December 1997: To Trevor’s for 4 hrs; working on intro and epilogue. Tomorrow’s meeting postponed.
• 9 January 1998: Trevor re-working intro; looks good.
• 11 January 1998: meeting from 10:00 AM until 2:30 PM that did not accomplish anything. 24 participants. Simply beat to death a whole lot of old business and got nothing more done than to go through the minutes of the last meeting.
• 12 January 1998: Hannah phoned to say “what went wrong?!”
• 15 February 1998: land use meeting from 10:00 AM until 1:40 PM. Told Hannah I have a busy week planned, so gave her my raw notes to transcribe. Next meeting will be March 12 in evening @ MoF.
• 10 March 1998: Hannah phoned; problems with acceptance of our introduction.
• 13 March 1998: Kelly says I was lucky to miss last night’s meeting.
• 20 April 1998: Latest minutes from land use group in the mail.

In October 1996, MoF called a meeting with Upper Clearwater residents to announce establishment of two woodlots in the valley – in addition to one already established without consultation. Frustration over earlier logging practices and lack of consultation resulted in the MoF representatives leaving the meeting hastily – out of concern for their personal safety.

On 31 March 1996, the British Columbia NDP government established a Caribou Management Area on the western slopes of the Trophy Mountains under the Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).

On 17 July 1995, Slocan Forest Products applied to Forest Renewal BC for $25,123.60 in public funds to repair the poorly constructed haul roads in the Fage Creek watershed. Notwithstanding numerous subsequent enquiries to MoF staff, Mr. Briggs has been unable to establish whether remedial action was ever undertaken.

In the spring of 1995, an aerial survey conducted by B.C. Ministry of Environment staff in and near southern Wells Gray Park documents an estimated 628 Mountain Caribou.

In 1994, the British Columbia NDP government passed its Environmental Assessment Act, in effect B.C.’s first-ever comprehensive Environmental Law. At the same time it also established the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) in the Ministry of Environment to oversee administration of the new law, thereby providing “an open, accountable and neutrally administered process for the assessment” of a broader range of “reviewable projects.”

On 26 May 1993, George Briggs visited the Fage Creek cutblocks with MoF engineer Leon Odette. No remedial action had as yet been undertaken by Slocan Forest Products. Mr. Briggs was unable to irrigate his fields that summer owing to continuing siltation.

On 9 October 1992, MoF D.M. Mel Monteith responds to George Briggs’ letter of 16 September: “Our engineering staff have inspected some of the roads in the [Fage Creek] watershed, and found that they were not constructed to the required standard, and were not properly maintained or put to bed following harvest. … The licensee responsible for these roads [Slocan Forest Products] has been instructed to remedy the situation.”

On 16 September 1992, Upper Clearwater landowner George Briggs wrote to MoF D.M. Mel Monteith concerning the Fage Creek flood of 26 May: “I was shocked by the sight, an unbelievable wild torrent of water was … toppling trees along the banks and the … rumble of huge boulders being pushed along … could be continuously heard, even over the flood.” “Fish stocks in the creek seem to have been destroyed.”

On 26 May 1992, Fage Creek flooded, partly taking out the Clearwater Valley Road and damaging the water intake system of valley residents George and Judy Briggs. Nearby Ordschig Creek also flooded during this same period. Both floods were later attributed to debris from mid-elevation clearcut logging by Slocan Forest Products.

In 1987, Clearwater Timber Products was sold to Slocan Forests Products, resulting in closure of the two existing mills in Clearwater and the opening of a fully modern mill in Vavenby.

In the spring of 1981, flooding caused the water intake system of valley residents Les and Pat Hansen to wash out as a result of logging by Clearwater Timber Products on the slopes of the Trophy Mountains above their property. In response, Clearwater Timber Products provided the Hansens with a replacement system.

Between 1980 and 1987, further permits were approved to Clearwater Timber Products and later Slocan Forest Products to establish ten cutblocks on the northwestern slopes of the Trophy Mountains, resulting in the loss of about 80 per cent of the available oldgrowth, and denuding large portions of the upper watersheds of Fage Creek, Ordschig Creek, Duncan Creek and Shook Brook; see 26 May 1992. Note that the four uppermost clearcuts extended well above the recommended upper limits of sustainable forestry – set at about 1675 m by the B.C. Ministry of Environment in 1981 – virtually to timberline.

Beginning in 1985, MoF D.M. Mel Monteith approved a succession of permit extensions to Clearwater Timber to undertake further work on the southwestern Trophy Mountain cutblocks. Initially these had been laid out as four long, rectangular blocks oriented northwest-southeast and separated narrow leave strips. By 1985, however, extensive blow down in the leave strips, combined with consequent spruce bark beetle outbreaks, prompted periodic further logging until, by 1987, the leave strips were gone. The result was Big Bertha: a single, amalgamated cutblock 3.75 km long by 2.25 km wide and covering about 550 ha. The creation of Big Bertha (a.k.a. Big Max) liquidated more than 90 per cent of all merchantable oldgrowth on the southwestern slopes the Trophy Mountains, thereby denuding the entire upper watersheds of First and Second Canyon Creeks, and hence leaving them prone to flooding; see 11 July 1997.

On 20 February 1984, the Clearwater Times carried a letter from local resident Trevor Goward calling for a moratorium on further high-elevation logging on the Trophy Mountains until such time as a broadly based assessment of potential adverse environmental and economic impacts had been made by MoF in concert with B.C. Parks, B.C. Ministry of Environment and local residents.

On 9 January 1984, MoF Assistant D.M. Ian Brown responded to Trevor Goward’s letter of 21 December 1983, expressing “a great deal of confidence” that the Ministry’s logging plans are ecologically sound, and advising that “the intent is to proceed as indicated.”

On 21 December 1983, local resident Trevor Goward wrote to MoF D.M. Mel Monteith opposing further high-elevation logging on the Trophy Mountains on grounds of unacceptable windthrow, probable delayed regeneration, adverse downstream impacts and loss of critical winter habitat for Wells Gray’s Mountain Caribou.

In 1981, the British Columbia Social Credit government passed its Environment Management Act, which allowed the Minister of Environment to require “any person who proposes to do anything that would have a detrimental environmental impact” to prepare an environmental impact assessment.”

Beginning in 1978, MoF D.M. Mel Monteith approved several permits to Clearwater Timber Products and later Slocan Forest Products to log high-elevation oldgrowth forests on the western slopes of the Trophy Mountains. Logging was concentrated in two distinct areas, one to the south of Third Canyon Creek (= southwestern slopes) and the other to the north (= northwestern slopes).

On 20 December 1977, Clearwater Timber Products wrote to Ministry of Forests (MoF) District Manager (D.M.) Mel Monteith to express opposition to a government proposal to establish an Ecoreserve above 1385 m on the Trophy Mountains: “The last mature timber stands in the Raft SYU [Sustained Yield Unit] to be developed are located on the Trophy Mountain slopes. Any proposal which will result in denying this timber to the Clearwater and Vavenby sawmills will result in considerable unemployment through layoff of one shift at one and possibly both sawmills.”