ROB MURRAY: I am speaking with Tim Johnson, Alberta Program Associate with the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. The Town of Canmore is currently weighing the Area Structure Plan proposals from Three Sisters Mountain Village for Three Sisters Village and the Smith Creek areas. This is an issue that Yellowstone to Yukon has been engaged with for many years, haven’t they?

TIM JOHNSON: Yeah, absolutely. It’s well known that Canmore is a great example of how people in nature co-exist on a shared landscape, with the Bow Valley being one of the most heavily developed places in North America where we still see animals like grizzlies and wolves. We’ve worked hard as a community to maintain that status. Our perspective on these plans is that the scale of them, the scope of them, we fear will lead to some irreversible impacts on some of the things that make this Valley special to the people that live here and that visit here.

RM: What are some of your top concerns?

TJ: Again, back to the overall size, expanding the town’s developed footprint all the way to Dead Man’s Flats, the proposed number of units that could add up to 14,500 residents and visitors to the town. This past year we’ve seen how much visitation to the Rockies is increasing everywhere. There’s a lot of uncertainty over how we’re going to deal with the inevitable rise in human-wildlife conflict when you’re putting that many people into an area that’s a really significant movement corridor for animals between protected areas in Canmore, Kananaskis, and Banff.

RM: The corridor discussion is something that Y2Y has been engaged with for a really long time. That’s a provincial jurisdiction. What kind of purview does the Town of Canmore have over decisions that relate to wildlife movement?

TJ: I think the feeling is that the corridor decision as approved by the province is a done deal, but I do believe the town has some jurisdiction in terms of how we address human-wildlife conflict. While there may not be specific tools to widen the corridor, per se, that the town has in its toolbox, I think there are some recommendations and amendments related to the overall scale of the development. Maybe not pushing as far into the corridors, and also looking at things like the unfinished golf course, which from earlier decisions in earlier ASPs was deemed to be a pretty important part of ensuring that along valley corridors are functioned well. We think it would be great if the Town suggested that maybe Three Sisters goes back and looks at some of the earlier proposals where that golf course was included as sort of a functional buffer to the corridor in that area.

RM: What about this whole concept of the hard edge, the wildlife fence that is part of the ASPs. What’s Y2Y’s position on that?

TJ: We think it’s a pretty big experiment with high stakes risks in the sense that this use is not really a tested strategy that has any real world examples in other areas. The uncertainty over the fencing as a proposed mitigation is definitely one of our bigger concerns, and that’s something that’s even reflected in Three Sisters’ own Environmental Impact Statement, where they state that if the proposed fencing and other mitigations don’t work as planned the consequences for wildlife could be significant or severe. When you look at the corridor, and the Smith Creek area in particular, having a hard edge of a fence really limits the effective width of that corridor.

RM: There’s definitely a sentiment in town that further development of Three Sisters at all is an option that shouldn’t be considered right now. Is there any level of development that would be tenable according to Y2Y’s position?

TJ: Absolutely. We’re not anti-development. We seek collaborative solutions to ensure that we leave room for wildlife to roam. The Bow Valley is a great place to live and that’s why we live here and choose to make our lifestyle here. We think that we should be making local decisions that reflect that they’re affecting a continental-scale wildlife corridor, but by no means are we anti-development. We just think that there are some concerns with the extent and the overall scale of this. The irreversibility of the impacts is something we’re concerned about.

RM: It sounds like the community as a whole has been very engaged with this subject so far. I’m hearing that next week the Town of Canmore is already looking at three, possibly four days of community engagement around the public hearing and the submissions received so far. I don’t think it’s too late to put in a submission.

TJ: I believe that submissions will be accepted right up until the end of the hearing. It’s great to see the level of community engagement involvement. This is the decision that’s been in the works for over three decades now and it’s great to see the community engaged. I know from watching the first reading Council really wanted to hear from the community about their suggestions and ideas for the Area Structure Plans so that they meet the community needs in terms of what was being proposed. It’s great that people are speaking up. I hope folks will take the opportunity to write to council and to maybe sign up for public speaking.

RM: Before we wrap things up today, is there anything else you’d like to add?

TJ: I’d like to thank Council for their dedication to public office. This is a huge decision and I can’t imagine that’s easy for them. We really hope that the community will continue to engage respectfully with the Town and provide solutions so that if there is development on the Three Sisters lands, whether it’s now or down the road, that it’s really meeting our needs for the future as a community and also for the wildlife that we share this landscape with.

Filed under: Canmore, Three Sisters Mountain Village, Yellowstone to Yukon