Following wildfire mitigation work in Little Mountain Park (LMP) in 2022, the Shuswap Naturalist Club wrote to the City of Salmon Arm expressing our concern that the work had been carried out in a manner that substantially negatively impacted forest ecology and the park-user experience (ie: opening up long sight lines and sound penetration and diminishing the sense of being in a natural forest).
The city responded by changing contractors for the 2024 wave of mitigation work in LMP as well as Park Hill. In December 2023, the city hosted an open house to share the new prescription plans and the 40-plus people who attended were very pleased to see reflection of a much improved balance of essential fuel mitigation work with conservation of ecological and park user values.
At the open house, the proponent stated, “BC Wildfire (the agency tasked with making decisions re: municipalities’ applications on these projects) gave us a hard time about not taking a more aggressive approach (to reduce fuel), but we fought for these plans and they ultimately approved them.”
There was nothing said about this approval being tentative or preliminary; attendees left believing the new plans had been fully approved and reflected the work that would be undertaken this past summer. Given this positive turnaround, the Shuswap Naturalist Club wrote a Viewpoint article in the Observer commending them on their leadership and responsiveness on this issue.
Salmon Arm residents were subsequently shocked to learn the “approved” plans were not actually approved, and the city allowed major changes to the LMP plan required by BC Wildfire, that resulted in undertaking wildfire mitigation over a much larger footprint of the park, with virtually all of the work done this May and June, during prime bird nesting season. Beyond checking for pileated woodpecker nests, apparently no time or effort was devoted to assessing impacts of the work on other nesting species. In addition, numerous small trees and vegetation were removed on a steep slope leading to the shore of the only pond in the park, creating potential erosion issues.
Instead of immediately removing or chipping the debris from the fuel mitigation work, the contractor deposited it all in 100 or so 1 to 2-metre high by 2 to 5-metre wide slash piles. They plan to burn these after fire season this fall.
In addition to the piles posing a fire hazard and presenting an eyesore to park visitors, these slash piles could prove deadly to wildlife in the park. With the removal of natural denning and winter food supply storage sites through the fuel mitigation efforts, these slash piles have likely been attracting small animals to den and/or store their winter food supplies in them. Burning the piles right before winter could decimate the small animal population by killing them outright and/or destroying the winter food supply they’ve spent months gathering, cruelly leading to their starvation. The loss of these animals could, in turn, significantly affect the food web. Small mammals like squirrels and voles, birds such as juncos and towhees, and reptiles like Northern alligator lizards and salamanders that are eaten by owls, garter snakes (a species that may also den in the slash piles) and other predators may all be impacted. In addition, Western toad (a protected species in Canada) toadlets have been observed in significant numbers near the pond this summer, and toads may very well also have moved into nearby slash piles as hibernacula. This is all very distressing.
The city and the contractor threw out the balanced, well-received prescription plans they shared open house, and proceeded with no input from professional biologists/ecologists, its Environmental Advisory Committee and/or interested citizens who could have helped to adjust plans to something substantially less destructive. They failed to even notify the public of the radically changed plan at any point in the process.
People who care about our parks are shocked and dismayed and feel betrayed.
This issue is, however, much larger in scale that just this one city. It will require a concerted effort to develop and implement appropriate criteria so municipal governments are not put in an unnecessarily adversarial position with their citizens. Wildfire mitigation work and the conservation of forest ecology and park-user values are not mutually exclusive. If left unaddressed, the negative impacts of unfettered wildfire mitigation work in municipal parks across B.C. on wildlife populations and citizens’ experiences of their local parks could be cumulatively enormous.
The BC Wildfire Service apparently exerts complete control of the criteria and decisions for the funding of fuel mitigation projects in communities. The agency relies solely on criteria outlined in its Fuel Management Prescription Guidance document to determine whether a community gets their applications funded or not. Despite some lip service to the contrary, these guidelines treat urban woodland parks largely the same as remote forest environments. There is little or no consideration of the different values communities hold for their local parks (ie: recreation, education, nature appreciation, aesthetics and ecosystem services).
Communities like Salmon Arm do need funding assistance to reduce fuel loads in their parks.
It is important we integrate that support with considerations of the citizenry to maintain healthy forest parks. Salmon Arm and other municipalities need to work with BC Wildfire to get the funding criteria modified so they recognize not only the goal of minimizing the potential for uncontrollable wildfire, but also the rights and responsibilities of municipal governments to conserve and protect local parks for their social and ecological values.
Citizens in Salmon Arm are encouraged to call or write the city to let them know the narrow approach BC Wildfire is using is not acceptable or appropriate for our municipal forested parks. Future waves of this work here need to be undertaken with a more balanced approach and with meaningful public input. Ask our City Council to tell BC Wildfire they require more flexible funding criteria.
Alternatively, we should seek out other ethical/science-based funding sources.
Glenda Hanna is a member of the Shuswap Naturalist Club
