Editor:
I refer to the article on ESRD comments on Peaks of Grassi development on Nov. 20.
The Government of Alberta in its ESRD letter of Oct. 20, 2014 recognizes that the Peaks neighbourhood is adjacent to important wildlife habitat a pinch point for wildlife travel routes in the area. The Quarry Lake local habitat patch is immediately adjacent to the western-most parcels of land in the application (per BECAG 2012).
These western parcels are zoned UR and are approximately 150 metres from the water at the south end of the lake, with a direct sight line to the park. To put this in perspective, it is 212 meters from the Quarry Lake parking area to the water at the north end of the lake, with trees in between. The development will be 62 metres closer to the lake than is the parking lot.
The letter makes reference to: “Will increase the number of residents in the subdivision but will not contribute greatly to already existing levels of conflict.”
“Greatly” is the key word here. Twenty new homes plus five suites for young families (per application) will surely add an additional 62 people (20 homes at 2.6 and five suites at two on average per household) to the 2014 census number of 750 full-time population. These 62 people represent an eight per cent increase in the neighbourhood, which is the second densest in Canmore and with higher density than 75 per cent of Calgary neighbourhoods.
Wildlife encounters in the Quarry Lake habitat area and power lines is an issue for all of Canmore to address. In fact, the Town is presently conducting a survey with Town residents on human use and wildlife corridors. The proposed development area is adjacent to the Quarry Lake habitat patch and the power lines. Four acres and even one acre may be a drop in the bucket, but every drop counts and eventually the water spills over. This rezoning compounds the existing encounter problems in the area. It will contribute to “death by a thousand cuts.”
Canmore town council cannot control what trails wildlife use as travel routes or what patches they use as refuge; however, council can control the number of people that will reside in the adjacent area. When the Peaks was developed there was great outcry as to the impact the development would have on the wildlife travel routes and habitat patch (numerous articles in Canmore Leader chronicled those discussions). There were arguments that the Peaks was not the right area to build and that the development was a mistake. Does council want to continue to feed the problem that exists already?
If council had known when Cougar Creek was developed what it knows today, would that development have been approved? If there were land parcels in the Cougar Creek area zoned as “potentially suited for urban development,” would council approve rezoning them for additional housing development in Cougar Creek in 2014?
Does council want to roll the dice and approve housing to have more people exposed to encounters? The new residents may not contribute “greatly” to encounters, but may contribute “significantly” to more encounters. When decisions are made that continue to compound existing problems no real community interest is being served.
Point 3 in the letter states – “Vegetation clearing, there is potential for … conflict with both the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Wildlife Act …. Habitat destruction activities in areas attractive to migratory birds carry a particularly high risk of disturbing or destroying migratory bird nests or eggs ... It is advised that the Canadian Wildlife Service be contacted.”
The ESRD letter only addresses the loss of habitat during the construction period, without any comment as to permanent loss of habitat to migratory birds and non-migratory birds. Do the developers intend to post a sign to alert birds to move elsewhere, as this familiar nesting ground will now become a “no stopping” area?
Why have the developers not taken steps to contact the Canadian Wildlife Service in advance of applying for rezoning of these URs? Has the applicant attempted to obtain a Department Licence of Occupation (DLO) for the proposed homes that will abut the tributary that feeds into Quarry Lake?
The connectivity of the wildlife travel routes is like a chain; it is only as strong as the weakest link.
Blanca Cervi,
Canmore
