Any community can develop. It takes a special community like Canmore to protect its natural heritage of wildlife, their movement corridors and habitat patches.
On Tuesday (March 22) at 6 p.m., Canmore’ s 2016 Municipal Development Plan is being brought forward to a public hearing, even though it is deficient in most of the statutory policies to protect Canmore’ s wildlife corridors and habitat patches that were included in the 1998 MDP and the 2009 Community Sustainability Plan (CSP) at second reading.
This is surprising, since Canmore council has made a commitment to protect Bow Valley wildlife corridors and habitat patches. They backed this with a strong stand against development in a wildlife corridor, both in Canmore and Dead Man’ s Flats, and supported permanent protection of corridors in the Stewart Creek area of Three Sisters Mountain Village (TSMV) under a provincial conservation easement, registered with land titles in 2015.
The community was told that the CSP, with its two-year, grass roots, hands-on community consultation process, would form the basis of the 2016 MDP. Instead, the 2016 MDP had a top down consultation process, with the planning department drafting the MDP and then soliciting online input from the Canmore community. Planning received 23 pages of suggestions on the environmental stewardship section alone, yet all were dismissed with the recommendation to council of: No change in policy direction.
Council members requested several changes to the MDP to increase protective policies for land uses both in and adjacent to corridors and habitat patches, but so far these have not been incorporated by administration.
As a consequence, the environmental stewardship section of the MDP at first reading continues to fall short of the 1998 MDP and the 2009 CSP. It is still without: the required environmental impact statement (EIS) to assess any negative impact of development proposed adjacent to a corridor or habitat patch; the required independent third party review of the developer’ s EIS by a qualified biologist hired by the Town and the option for council to request more information through an independent environmental impact assessment (EIA) in order to provide the best possible protection for corridors and habitat patches.
In addition, there is no concrete definition of ‘adjacency’ in terms of distance in metres from the boundary of the corridor or patch which can apply to all development proposals, unlike the 2009 CSP, which defines ‘adjacency’ as a distance of 250 metres, an area within which land uses will be assessed to ensure they do not compromise corridor or habitat patch functionality.
Consistent with provincial scientific data, ‘adjacency’ is defined as “a distance of 175m from a multi-species wildlife corridor and 250m from a regional or local habitat patch” in the 2012 Bow Corridor Ecosystem Advisory Group (BCEAG) Wildlife Corridor and Habitat Patch Guidelines for the Bow Valley. However, because of a provincial political decision in 1998, BCEAG is not directly applicable to “projects for which approvals have been previously granted by the Natural Resources Conservation Board” (NRCB), i.e., TSMV. Whereas, ‘adjacency’ as defined in number of metres from a corridor or patch can be applied to all development equally, whereas the 2012 BCEAG guidelines cannot.
Good Stewardship in the 1998 MDP and 2009 CSP
The 1998 MDP required all of the protective conservation measures currently lacking in the 2016 MDP at first reading, with the exception of a concrete definition of ‘adjacency’ , which was left to the required independent third party review of the developer’ s EIS to determine.
In the CPS at second reading, the precautionary principle of requiring careful assessments of development proposals was in even greater evidence, where an EIS was required for any “statutory plan applications or amendments, Land Use Bylaw amendments, subdivision applications or development proposals where site disturbance is proposed within or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive area (ESA)”, and where ‘adjacent’ was defined as “a distance of 250m” from a wildlife corridor or habitat patch.
The CSP stewardship policies had unanimous support from council, conservationists, and the community at large. However, the CSP was not given third reading as a result of a publicly reported threat of a lawsuit from the receiver of Three Sisters Mountain Resort (TSMV).
The proposed 2016 MDP at first reading compared to the CSP
The 2016 MDP brought forward by planning to council has been given first reading. Promised to be based on the 2009 CPS at second reading, the new MDP remains deficient in the following statutory polices included in the CSP and the 1998 MDP to protect Canmore’ s wildlife corridors and habitat patches:
No clear definition of adjacency which can be applied to all development proposals, (unlike the 2012 BCEAG guidelines).
At present the 2016 MDP breaks adjacency down into two polices: 4.2.14, which “may refer to” BCEAG guidelines, and 4.2.15, which exempts TSMV from BCEAG or any other requirement of adjacency beyond “an accepted EIS or an area structure plan, as amended from time to time. The Town may require the preparation of an EIS in accordance with the Town’ s EIS policy.”
No requirement of the developer to provide an EIS for development proposed adjacent to a corridor or patch.
No independent third party review of the developer’ s EIS to determine the impact of land uses adjacent to a corridor or patch, where independent reviews are a common professional practice.
No provision for council to request an in-depth EIA from an independent biologist if deemed necessary.
The reason given by planning for not including these protective policies in the MDP is that they can be difficult to implement and reduce flexibility.
However, this minor cost to Town staff needs to be weighed against the cost of a significant lack of environmental protection for Canmore’ s most important environmentally sensitive areas.
These corridors and habitat patches are necessary to protect the survival of the Bow Valley’ s bears, elk, deer, wolves, cougar and other wildlife, and are highly valued by the community.
One stronger policy in the MDP is Policy 4.2.11 which allows no new development in a wildlife corridor or habitat patch. However the policy permits “non-intensive, trail-based recreational uses” without a mandatory requirement that trails ‘will’ only be allowed if they do not compromise corridor functionality.
Recent economic reports suggest that Canmore is faring well in challenging economic times. Including the best possible environmental protection in the MDP will not adversely affect this prosperity. Good conservation policies will not prohibit development adjacent to corridors and patches, they simply manage land uses in a responsible way, whether to reduce high risks for fire, or ensure that land uses do not compromise corridor or habitat patch functionality.
Canmore’ s wildlife corridors and habitat patches are an environmental legacy for the community.
Town council, as Canmore’ s elected representatives and the stewards of the Bow Valley, is responsible for the final decision on environmental policies, including policies such as a specific criterion for adjacency which applies to all developers in the Bow Valley equally, the requirement of an EIS for development either in or adjacent to a corridor or habitat patch, an independent third party review, and the option of an EIA.
Heather MacFadyen and members of BowCORD,
Canmore
