ROB MURRAY: I’m speaking with Karsten Heuer and Wade Graham from Bow Valley Engage. You have been a huge part of the process when it comes to the Area Structure Plans for Three Sisters Village and Smith Creek. Are either of you surprised at all at the amount of engagement you’ve received from the public so far?

KARSTEN HEUER: We’re pretty pleased. We started to organize when these ASPs we were first proposed and we were hearing a lot of concerns, and we just wanted to help people with the courage and the tools to bring those to light. We really feel like we’ve facilitated a discontent and concern that was already out there. We haven’t created it.

RM: There was a big meeting on April 27th where Town Council took a look at these ASPs. Overall, what’s the reaction to their decisions that they made at second reading.

WADE GRAHAM: We were pleased with certain aspects. The denial of Smith Creek, the amendments to affordable housing, accessory dwelling units, the assurety of commercial taxation. Limiting the scope was also one of the community concerns we heard. However, we didn’t hear  Council address the concerns of the wildlife corridor, undermining, or really addressing Truth and Reconciliation with the Stoney Nakoda.

RM: Those are the focus of this open letter you have written to Town Council, so let’s go through those three issues. Karsten, with regards to the wildlife issue, what are some of the significant concerns with what’s going forward right now with Three Sisters Village from second reading?

KH: The current Area Structure Plan, the footprint of it, completely disregards past agreements that meant for a large proportion of that area to remain open space, to actually make what is an otherwise too narrow squeeze point for wildlife to get through consistently and open it up for them to do that. Leaving it private recreation, or golf course, as it’s zoned now was the intent. That was part of an independent study that was commissioned by the Town back in 2002, and then a panel of provincial and federal wildlife experts that sat with the town and TSMV. This proposal to blanket that entire area with housing and commercial development completely disregards that whole process and the agreement that’s actually captured in our existing Municipal Development Plan.

RM: Regarding the wildlife fencing – there was an amendment put forward to have the fencing built right off the hop. The concept of the wildlife fence itself – is this sound wildlife science?

KH: A fence will not mitigate an inappropriately large footprint. I firmly believe that this whole discussion around a fence has actually been a bit of a red herring. We need to get the footprint right, and then the discussion about a fence can follow.

RM: The wildlife corridor was designated by the Province. It’s provincial jurisdiction. Whether it’s an appropriate corridor is definitely a big discussion to be had, but does the Town actually have any jurisdiction to reject a proposal based on wildlife movement since it’s more of a provincial responsibility?

KH: We’re getting down to the details here, but I’m really glad you asked that because the Village Centre Area Structure Plan actually has nothing to do with the recently approved provincial corridor. In 1999, the Province approved this section of the corridor, and the Town, in 2002, questioned that. So they do have the authority to do that, and they did it in 2002. That was the result of a joint study between the Province, the Town, TSMV, and some federal wildlife experts. They all decided that it has to stay open. It has to have some sort of an adjacent land use that adds to what is otherwise an inappropriately narrow corridor. It isn’t a question of whether the Town has the authority. They’ve exercised it in the past. It’s a question of whether they stick to the previous agreement.

RM: Regarding undermining – TSMV has put forward some mitigations. They’re saying it’s safe to develop on these lands with the appropriate mitigations. Is there some dispute there?

WG: Absolutely. Technology has come a long way. Understanding the mines has come a long way. However, we’re still uncertain as to what happens when an incident happens. It’s not if an incident happens, it’s when an incident happens, to both private land and public land. We’re still not convinced we know where that liability will land. We have numerous examples, some in the United States, some in BC, lawsuits all pointing in every other direction. We’re not certain that the Town and the taxpayers are absolved of any liability.

RM: It’s my understanding that the Province assumed the liability for any undermining related issues as part of some of the decisions that were made in the past. Are there still some questions regarding whether that’s true?

KH: The province assuming the liability…it’s still us. We’re provincial and municipal taxpayers. When the province ponied up to pay $600,000 for the sinkhole that occurred at Dyrgas Gate, it’s still our money that’s paying for inappropriate development on an undermined area.

RM: The other point regarding Truth and Reconciliation – Councilor Comfort put forward some amendments to try to address some of the concerns that were brought up at the public hearing. Do those go far enough?

KH: That’s not really a question for Wade or I to answer. It’s a question for the Stoney Nakoda to answer. I think they answered it pretty clearly at the opening of the public hearing. They basically asked the town to reject both Area Structure Plans until they were properly consulted. That happens before an Area Structure Plan. It doesn’t happen during or at the late stages.

RM: You have this open letter, and I understand you’re looking for signatures? Also, what are the next steps for Bow Valley Engage?

KH: This open letter is super important. People are still concerned. A lot of people are losing sleep in the community and there’s a real mental health toll to these proposals. A lot of people feel they’re just inappropriate for the time and history we’re at with a huge biological extinction crisis in process, the climate change crisis, and this Valley feeling very full on multiple fronts. The latest wildlife science is showing that we’re at or beyond the threshold of what many wildlife can withstand. Next steps for us short-term is this letter. We have one other thought here before third reading, and then like so many other people we’re going to be watching closely as to how Council deals with all the feedback that they’ve received at third reading.

WG: I’ve never seen anything like this, the amount of community engagement, the amount of community support, the number of messages that we get. We have over 900 signatures on the letter that we released. This town is passionately engaged in this, and I do hope Council takes this opportunity to seriously consider everyone’s concerns regarding these proposals. It’s not too late to get this right, and I do hope that we get it right before we pass third reading.

Filed under: Canmore, Three Sisters Mountain Village