BCTS Planning Session

Community Raises Alarm Over Logging Plans in Falls Creek Watershed

Around 60 Bonnington/Beasley Residents were at the BCTS planning session on January 14th, many of which are expressing growing concern over proposed BC Timber Sales (BCTS) activities in their community watershed, citing a lack of transparency, unresolved safety risks, and what many describe as a fundamentally flawed approach to wildfire protection.

Not all Beasley residents were in attendance as Solita Work was denied entry.

No Clear Plan, Conflicting Answers

A recurring theme from the engagement session was the absence of a clear plan. Despite repeated questions, BCTS representatives were either unable or unwilling to articulate guiding principles, concrete objectives, or operational details. Participants reported receiving three different answers to the same question from three separate BCTS staff. Unfortunately Mark Tallman was ill and not in attendance. Many answers were prefaced with what he would likely say, or did not know the details of his work. This was a significant barrier to receiving specific information. 

Throughout the session, BCTS representatives repeatedly relied on conditional language such as “we hope we can do this” and “we hope policy changes will support this.” When asked for specifics about timelines, treatments, safeguards, or monitoring many responses amounted to “I don’t know.” We were also told that long term monitoring has not occurred because it is expensive. Thus planning is based on fragmented data and modelling.

Community members were told that detailed plans could not yet be shared because they were still being developed using community input. However, many felt this explanation was circular and dismissive, especially given that BCTS documents already contain answers to some of the questions raised, documents that residents had in hand. BCTS staff maintained they could not share specifics.

Several inaccurate or misleading statements were made during the session, including assertions that local roads are not being impacted by current logging activities in the woodlot at the top of Mountain View Road. It was described as “just fine”. When asked if riparian zones could be reduced as a result of an increase in another riparian zone, the response was that logging “never happens in riparian zones because it’s illegal.” There was no opportunity during the share-out to challenge or correct these claims, nor any structured way to follow up on concerns raised.

Logging Truck Route Raises Safety Concerns

One of the most alarming revelations involved the logging truck route currently used for the woodlot at the top of Mountain View Road. Trucks  travel down Mountain View Road—despite known infrastructure damage, including a sinkhole at a hairpin turn–then along Thompson/Bonnington Road before turning at the mailboxes onto Brown Road and down Viewridge to the highway. It is too dangerous for the trucks to access the highway via Bonnington Road. There have already been a “couple of close calls”, so highways asked for the change. Although BCTS was not forthcoming with exact routes, it is reasonable to assume it will be the same for other logging operations.

This route passes a school bus stop and a public transit stop, and is heavily used by children walking to catch the bus or access the park on Brown Road. Residents were given no information about truck volumes, schedules, speed management, or safety accommodations for pedestrians and children. For many, this omission underscored how little practical planning has been done.

BCTS was emphatic that no access routes to the watershed for logging trucks had been secured. Access requires crossing private land, for which no agreement has been finalized. If access is not secured through Mountain View Road, it is unclear where alternatives could be and BCTS was not forthcoming with this information.

Indemnity Insurance Declined

A further point of concern raised by community members is that George Edney declined to provide indemnity insurance to the community in relation to proposed activities in the watershed.

For residents, this raises serious questions about risk and accountability. If damage were to occur, whether to roads, water infrastructure, private property or drinking water quality, the absence of indemnity protection leaves the community exposed, while decision-makers and proponents, and contractors  remain shielded. Many felt this decision was inconsistent with the level of risk being asked of a community whose sole drinking water source could be affected. Concerns were raised about how an already stressed water system at full capacity could adapt to more disturbances in the watershed.

Co-Creation in Name Only?

BCTS framed the engagement as a form of co-creation, yet many residents questioned how this could be the case when foundational conversations about community values had never occurred.

Participants noted that if co-creation were truly the goal, the process should have begun at least eight months earlier starting with discussions about what Bonnington and Beasley residents value most, followed by an iterative planning process built together over time. Instead, residents were asked to react to a largely pre-defined direction, with limited ability to influence scope, assumptions, or alternatives. Selkirk forestry students were present to facilitate the discussions, if Environmental Planning students would have been given those roles, it may have encouraged deeper learning and holistic viewpoints.

Compounding this frustration was the fact that participants were not informed until late in the process of table discussions that we needed to distill  our wide ranging list of concerns into a single question, leaving many important concerns unheard and unanswered.

A “Home Protection Zone” That Extends Kilometres Into the Watershed?

At table discussions, participants questioned how the project could be described as a “home protection zone” when FireSmart evidence consistently shows that the most effective wildfire risk reduction occurs within approximately 30 metres of structures, not 4 km into a community watershed.

Fire does not respect boundaries drawn on a map, residents noted, making it difficult to see how isolated wildfire risk reduction treatments deep in the watershed would meaningfully protect homes. This concern was echoed by a few residents who also felt Falls Creek watershed relatively well suited to manage wildfire risk as it currently stands given the humidity it creates.

FireSmart science consistently shows that defensible space close to structures is what most reliably reduces home ignition risk, while the effectiveness of landscape-scale thinning deep in watersheds is still a subject of scientific debate.

Wildland–Urban Interface Mapping Raises Broader Concerns

One of the most significant takeaways for many attendees was the Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI) mapping that stretches from the Falls Creek junction toward Kaslo. The operator of the woodlot at the top of Mountain View Road described the project as a “pilot” that could inform how multiple watersheds along the corridor might be treated if BCTS proceeds with its mapped approach.

For residents, this raised the stakes considerably. If other communities understood that what happens in Falls Creek could set a precedent for watershed-level logging under the banner of wildfire mitigation, many believe there would be widespread concern and opposition.

Hope, Conditions, and Community Power

Despite the frustration, some comments offered cautious hope. Some residents suggested that the community could impose conditions on any activity in the watershed, such as selective logging practices or robust water contingency plans. Another belief was stated that the project could be stopped entirely if that is what the community ultimately wants.

These statements reinforced a sense among attendees that the situation is not a foregone conclusion and that strong, organized community opposition could still influence the outcome.

Water First: Lived Experience and Ongoing Impacts

Concerns about water quantity and quality were not abstract. Many raised the lack of water in summer months that is already occuring. One participant from Taghum shared that their community is still dealing with water issues stemming from logging on private land above their watershed last summer, with no agency taking responsibility for the damage. We were given no assurances by BCTS representatives on these points, but rather a fallback to wildfire protection concerns.

Participants also discussed the idea of recognizing the Falls Creek watershed as a natural asset living infrastructure with measurable economic value through clean drinking water, ecosystem services, and avoided treatment costs. From this perspective, logging poses not just an environmental risk, but a financial one.

Falls Creek also seems well suited to withstand a wildfire in some sense as it is steeps, creates it’s own humidity and cooling affect as well as is close by a natural body of water for fighting fires.

Bonnington Improvement District Takes a Firm Stand

Importantly, the Bonnington Improvement District (BID) has formally stated its opposition to BCTS activities within the Falls Creek watershed. BID has made clear that drinking water protection must take precedence and has indicated a willingness to negotiate land expropriation if necessary to prevent pollution and protect community water sources from logging impacts.

Friends of Falls Creek received a grant from West Coast Environmental Law. This grant money supported BID to work with Environmental Lawyer, Ben Isitt who has sent a letter to BCTS with their formal objection. The deadline for a response from BCTS was January 15th. 

Community Solidarity Grows

While many left the session frustrated by the lack of answers, one positive outcome stood out: connection. Residents from across the area were able to share experiences, align concerns, and recognize the broader implications of what is being proposed.

At multiple tables participants were largely opposed to logging in the watershed and raised consistent, well-founded concerns about safety, water, wildfire science, and governance.

As one attendee summarized: if this is truly about protecting homes and communities, then the science, the planning, and the engagement must reflect that. Right now, many feel it does not.

Given the state of our world right now, ecosystem health should be top priority to support all our relations.

For more information or to get involved sign up to be a member of Friends of Falls Creek, and/or sign the https://www.friendsoffallscreek.ca/petitionpetition.