Planned Icefields Parkway trail needs scrutiny
Time for consultations is required,
A recent House of Commons environment committee report in March was very critical of the lack of transparency and sufficient ecologically sensitive planning at Parks Canada.
They zeroed in on lack of information that led to a brief reference in Budget 2016 that a $65.9-million, 107-kilometre bike pathway would be built between Jasper and the Columbia Icefield. The parliamentary budget officer, in a February report, had already decried the limited information available on such infrastructure spending projects either underway or planned.
Announced afterwards was that an additional $20.5 million was coming from Parks Canada’s capital budget to undertake the Icefield trail construction, with completion expected before the next election in 2019.
Parks Canada began some public consultation on the trail in January. So far, the plans call for a separate trail, on average 10 to 20 metres away from the existing road.
Their plans came under criticism at consultations held to date, with some environmental groups calling for the project to be rethought and cancelled in its present form, with preference for a wider shoulder for a bike path next to the existing road.
Records obtained under freedom-of-information legislation reveal that Parks Canada officials are likely treating such public consultations as a window-dressing exercise, although outside groups are trying for changes. Park officials would prefer to go full-speed ahead even though public consultations will not be concluded until the summer.
In meetings and email exchanges, officials are driven to meeting tight deadlines and even prepared a timetable with a shovel-ready, ribbon-cutting ceremony for the separate trail. Officials indicate that “engineers cannot wait until the IA (environmental impact) process is complete.”
They worry over “missing target completion dates” and getting going because “access to the trail location for both construction personnel and equipment will be very challenging”.
Officials appear eager to get the public consultations over so they can get going and begin tree-clearing while avoiding the bird-breeding, tree-nesting season, if possible. They want to reopen gravel pits — a mining exploitation that could add to the route, disturbing habitats and area ecology — for use in creating the threemetre wide trail.
One official wrote, however, that “the project schedule is extremely aggressive and could be considered high-risk, however it is listed as medium-risk.”
At the same time, officials are aware that the trail would go through ecologically sensitive areas, including a nine-kilometre stretch where the wildlife habitat of grizzly bears, caribou, bats, olive-sided flycatchers and other species at risk — the mountain goat and whitebark pine — could be harmed.
Conflicts between wildlife and trail travellers (bikers, scooters, skaters and walkers) could be dangerous and trail users should, the access records note, bring bear spray and that they should “use signs to ask users to make noise” as a warning against nearby bears.
Officials admit in internal meetings that they need additional funds for developments needed along the trail like rest, camping and parking sites not covered in the budget given. They recognize, too, that the trail will bring about nearby further commercial development projects.
There would be more monies required too “if we want to expedite the construction itself.” They worry that the treasury board could take back unspent monies and noted that “due to future budget constraint it will be expensive to terminate Phase 2 of the project” that would extend the separate trail to Banff.
The House of Commons environment committee report reviewed how this, and other rushed spending by Parks Canada on infrastructure, impacted the complex ecological integrity of national parks. The iconic Banff and Jasper parks are already under immense pressure with increased activities and conflicting usages.
The public should know these factors in the push forward. Such infrastructure spending requires the public knowing how decisions were reached and their impacts on communities and the environment.
Only then, will the public get less poorly thought-out, behind-closed-door decisions and receive decisions more in harmony with the environment and affected communities.