Ongoing wildlife mitigation proposed by TSMV

While Alberta Environment and Parks assesses the application for the final wildlife corridor in Canmore to be designated, elected officials and community members are also trying to understand the major development application associated with it and its long term implications.

One of those areas where little public debate has ventured is the comprehensive mitigation strategy being proposed by Three Sisters Mountain Village as part of two development applications it has submitted to the Town of Canmore for approval.

Those two applications are separate, yet connected, as the implications and plans for wildlife mitigation are the same in each. They are a brand new area structure plan for the Smith Creek area and an amendment to the Resort Centre area structure plan, which was approved by a previous council.

But, in order to decide on where development should be located, as well as considerations for appropriate adjacent activities near corridors and mitigations, corridor location is an important decision that should occur first.

That decision rests in the hands of Roger Ramcharita, regional executive director for the South Saskatchewan Region for Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), who is undertaking a public engagement process until April 20.

The Rocky Mountain Outlook has made multiple requests to AEP to speak to officials knowledgeable and involved with the wildlife corridor process dating back to October, 2015.

All requests for interviews with officials, before and after the wildlife corridor application was submitted, have been denied.

Banff-Cochrane MLA Cam Westhead, however, was willing to speak to the issue as it is something that has been on his radar as the member of the provincial government for the Bow Valley since he was elected.

Westhead said timelines for the AEP decision have changed, with feedback being accepted until April 20, and a draft decision is expected at some point in May and he has met and discussed the process with Ramcharita personally.

“I was really quite reassured that the way he was going about decision making was through a rigorous scientific process using wildlife biologists and making sure the decision being made is in the best interest of the public and corridor,” he said. “What is also important to note is that this should not be a political decision.”

Westhead said he would like people to have faith in the process that is being undertaken because it is not a political one, but being made by an arms length person who is an expert in this area.

The draft decision as well will be subject to a public feedback process after it is announced.

“I want people to have faith in the process and I encourage them to be involved,” said Westhead.

The process AEP chose to take with TSMV on gathering feedback on the proposal caused concerns for many in the community. The developer hosted the official open house and feedback collected provided to AEP – even though many felt the provincial government should have invited feedback independently of the landowner.

Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative program director Stephen Legault has called on Minister of Environment and Parks Shannon Phillips to intervene in the process.

Legault said a cumulative impact assessment is necessary for the Bow Valley at this time to understand the full nature of the effects that the corridor proposed would have on wildlife connectivity valley-wide.

“This whole decision making process is quasi-regulatory and it falls outside the normal scope the regulatory process the province uses,” he said at a recently held community discussion on future development in the community.

“Even the decision maker says this is unlike any other decision making process the province has ever used before.”

Government of Alberta press secretary Brent Wittmaier confirmed last week the minister has no intention of calling for a cumulative impact assessment on the corridor application.

The Town of Canmore has been asked to provide its input into the decision making process and manager of municipal infrastructure Michael Fark said Tuesday (April 11) there are several issues the Town would like the province to consider.

That includes a review of the already designated corridor adjacent to the Resort Centre ASP amendment area. That corridor was adjusted in 2002 based on an assessment done by Golder that included the golf course adjacent to the corridor as contributing to its “effective width.”

Fark said given that TSMV has applied to develop the golf course lands, there is a need to clarify what that means respective to the effective width and functionality of the corridor.

“Given the connectivity aspect of the functioning of the corridor and its proximity (to proposed development), we felt it was the appropriate time to ask the province to clarify that issue,” he said.

The other area the municipality would like further assurances and communication from AEP on is the shared responsibility for monitoring, education and enforcement, as well as the monitoring and adaptive management program proposed by TSMV.

According to Fark's report to council this week, shared responsibility with the Town of Canmore and the Province of Alberta is needed to ensure adequate resources are available for the long-term success of the wildlife corridor.

The Town of Canmore took the leadership role a couple years ago to begin a conversation around human use inside wildlife corridors, as human activity is prohibited in those protected areas unless on designated trails. But there has been no enforcement of those rules by AEP, which is in charge of managing the corridors and monitoring them.

Monitoring of human use in corridors is underway, with an AEP camera study expected to wrap up after two years of collecting data on the landscape. Preliminary results show a high level of human use in corridors, which is concerning because human activity disturbs wildlife and can diminish the effectiveness of a corridor for movement, according to biologists with AEP that have presented findings so far to Canmore council, the Canadian Parks Conference and several upcoming presentations are also scheduled.

But the corridor is only one proposed way TSMV has suggested for mitigating human use and the impact of humans in developed areas on wildlife. The other is a proposal to fence all developed areas and to engage in a brand new monitoring and adaptive management program.

QuantumPlace principle Jessica Karpat said people should be aware it is not about one mitigation, it is an entire suite of mitigations that are being proposed and an adaptive management process that would be applied proactively over time as development proceeds in partnership with the Town of Canmore and the Province.

Karpat said the plan is not to just put up a fence and go away, but to combine proposed fencing with other mitigations within the development and increased monitoring and habitat improvements in the corridor.

“The fence and the mitigations are about a long-term view to human use management and it is not only the stick, it is about the carrot as well,” she said. “We are looking at the reasons why people are using the corridor and being pragmatic about how we get them to stop and a fence is a very visual technique that is about protecting animals and humans.”

In addition to a fence, TSMV is proposing attractant management, construction mitigations, education, signage and providing alternatives for people to recreate outside, but not in, a wildlife corridor.

That would represent planning off-leash dog parks for neighbourhoods, multi-use designated trails, trails just for mountain biking, and other possibilities for outdoor activities in the Smith Creek area.

Karpat said telling people to stay out of the corridor is not enough, there needs to be alternatives available for people to recreate appropriately while respecting the corridors as places for wildlife unless on a designated trail.

But in order for the fence to work, Karpat said Alberta Environment and Parks, as well as the Town of Canmore, need to be involved in the adaptive management strategy as it progresses.

She said the three partners would form a committee that analyzes monitoring of human use, the functionality of corridors, development of the fence as building progresses throughout the area, monitoring of the fence for incursions, enforcement and improving connectivity for wildlife until the last building is in the ground.

“What we are saying is we need to monitor the development and the effects on the corridor and work with the province and the Town of Canmore on it,” she said. “It is a different strategy because what we are hearing from our experts is we need to think about this differently.”

Wildlife mitigations proposed, and more specifically the wildlife fence, is a departure from prior efforts to manage interactions between humans in developed areas and wildlife.

Until now, the Town of Canmore has used a soft edge approach of keeping high densities away from the corridors and tapering off development on the edges. With the fence, it would be a hard edge approach, where a barrier is put in place to prevent wildlife from entering developed areas.

The proposed adaptive management process would be funded 50 per cent by the developer and the remaining costs split between the Town and province. It is also proposed that the developer would pay for and install the wildlife fence, but it would be the municipality's responsibility to maintain it and replace it in future.

The fence is also proposed to be installed along the 35-metre conservation easement that runs adjacent to a designated corridor.

The development was approved as a resort-based addition to Canmore through the 1992 Natural Resources Conservation Board decision. Development in TSMV was further clarified in the 1998 master bylaw, which sets out the number of units (residential and accommodation) the landowner can develop.

Both ASPs have an environmental impact assessment publicly available online, and the Town of Canmore is undertaking a third party review of both.

“I think what both these area structure plans reflect is a greater understanding of the complexities that come around wildlife corridors and how we need to co-exist and still develop and achieve that balance,” Karpat said.

The Town of Canmore has chosen to not to present the ASP applications to council for first reading until the first regular council meeting in May. A public hearing for the two bylaws is tentatively scheduled for May 23 and 24.