Wildlife Corridor Under Threat by Two Projects

1) A Bike Skills Facility

2) upzoning proposal in Rossdale by Eugene Dub

1) Proposed River Valley Bike Skills Park, Myths and Facts (Illustrutive photos at the bottom of all 10 Myths )

After reading please consider signing and sharing this petition. Once you are informed, send a short letter to
city.clerk@edmonton.ca. If your letter is addressed to “Mayor and Council”, the clerk will distribute to them all.

1. Myth: The proposed river valley location is necessary.

Fact: While the proposed location in the central river valley was included in the Queen Elizabeth Master Plan in 2013, a Site Location Study (SLS) was not done at the time. The SLS was only completed in 2024. Section 3.5.3 of the River Valley Bylaw states,

“It is a policy of this Plan that all proposals for the development of a major facility that is publicly owned or is developed on public lands shall be subject to an environmental impact screening assessment as outlined in Schedule D, and a detailed site location study detailing costs, and social, environmental and institutional constraints which make a River Valley location essential must be prepared for Council approval. These studies shall be undertaken prior to Council committing funds for capital expenditure for the development of this proposal.”

The SLS completed in 2024 does not detail the various constraints which make a River Valley location essential. It states only that this location was included in the QE Master Plan. And Master Plans do not supersede bylaws; they are subject to them. The whole argument is thus backward; it ignores the whole point of the River Valley Bylaw. And the fact Administration has even granted EMBA permits for “preliminary work” at the site undermines City Council’s decision-making authority.

 The proposal does not prove, or even argue, that a river valley location is essential for this project. The criteria they list could be met by a location outside the river valley. City council cannot legitimately deem the river valley location essential.

 Furthermore, much has changed in the central river valley in the 12 years since the QE Plan was created: there is much new infrastructure (Valley Line LRT, new Walterdale Bridge, funicular, Epcor’s flood mitigation work, and illegal trails), and recreational use of the river valley has skyrocketed since 2013, especially since the 2020 Covid lockdown. On top of that, there is the climate and biodiversity crisis. All of these factors have increased the pressure on wildlife who depend on the river valley as a wildlife corridor and habitat. The context has dramatically changed since 2013. None of this is considered by the SLS. Even in terms of transportation safety, the plan is outdated as many more people use the Kinsmen parking lot today than in 2013 and it is already frequently at capacity.

 Finally, Site Location Studies should include a detailed consideration of alternative locations (how about Gold Bar Park?) and the option of doing no project.

2. Myth: The land on which the bike skills park is proposed is a brownfield site of little ecological significance.

Fact: The area where the bike skills park is proposed is mature forest and a renaturalized clearing with native plants and wildlife. The fact it is the site of a former wastewater plant is irrelevant – the entire river valley park system has been previously disturbed and restored. The City’s own ecological sensitivity mapping shows this area to be predominantly of “extremely high ecological significance.” The EIA itself notes that the area is habitat for “13 species [of birds] that are listed provincially as Sensitive or May Be At Risk, and two that are listed federally as Special Concern.” This area needs to be left alone, not degraded all over again.

3. Myth: “The bike skills park and trails will not cause significant environmental impacts.”

 Fact: The project will extend over nearly ten acres – more than twice the size of Remax Field in Rossdale, and around the same size as the Kinsmen Field House and pool complex, including the parking lot – and is set back only 20 metres from the river (when even EPCOR’s solar farm was mandated to be set back 100 metres). It will largely block the wildlife corridor as well as impact habitat, including from loss of trees and vegetation, noise, movement, and lighting, year-round. The EIA was, by its own admission, largely a desktop study and involved no site visits in spring (when dens would be apparent) or winter (when tracks, tree browse, etc. would indicate winter habitat use).

Notably, the EIA was completed by Fiera Biological, a small consulting firm made up of two former competitive mountain bikers and a current director of the Edmonton Mountain Bike Alliance (EMBA) – the group who commissioned the report. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act says an EIA “must…be unbiased and free from any conflict of interest relative to the project.” When reading this EIA – which describes the wildlife corridor as “underutilized land” and beaver as a nuisance that should be “proactively managed” – it is clear why.

The case of the moose cow and calf who were trying to move through the city via the river valley a few weeks ago, with the cow becoming aggressive and the calf ultimately being hit and killed by a car, shows the importance of keeping the wildlife corridor unobstructed. We need to remove pinch points, not create a massive new one.

4. Myth: This project offers “equitable access” to the river valley.

 Fact: One has to be able-bodied and have a bike to use this bike park; one has to be physically and economically privileged. The bike skills park offers far less equitable use than what is there now: a peaceful forest and clearing where anyone can go and appreciate nature doing a wide variety of activities. Furthermore, the EIA and SLS (and EMBA directors’ posts on social media) emphasize one “benefit” of a bike park in this location is that it will “manage human use” of the area by preventing encampments. The report even includes a map of locations of encampments and so-called “noxious” plants together (Map 9). Where is the interest in equity here?

 5. Myth: The project has undertaken Indigenous and public consultation.

 Fact: As the EIA notes, the engagement done in 2013 was for the entire QE Park design. It then notes that EMBA’s own engagement since then was only from “potential users…via an on-line survey … [that] was advertised through EMBA’s social media channels, newsletter, website, and an in-person fundraising event” (p. 42). The EIA does not mention any consultation with Indigenous communities or the wider public. It mentions only feedback from 134 people from within EMBA’s own community – far lower than the over 400 people who have signed ERVCC’s petition for the bike skills park to be located outside the central river valley, in an area where it will cause little ecological harm. As there was no wide public engagement, most Edmontonians, including those who currently enjoy this part of the river valley, have no idea of this proposal.

 6. Myth: The land on which this bike skills park is to be built is stable.

Fact: The EIA itself notes that the site sits within a landslide zone and a secondary landslide zone. Perhaps these “appear to be” (the wording in the EIA) inactive because the area has been left alone for decades? What will happen with tree and vegetation removal, construction activity, and high use? The Capilano Trail, which collapsed after an illegal trail was constructed on the steep bank above it, cost $5.3 million to repair in 2021, and this was for only 150 metres of trail. We cannot afford to build in landslide areas. The EIA further admits that the bike skills park plan does not follow the setback distance from top of bank recommended by the geotechnical engineers. The EIA also notes the engineers’ recommendation that “tree clearing and any vegetation disturbances should be minimized.” Yet the EIA states, “Extensive vegetation clearing and stripping of topsoil will be required in the main area of the Bike Park” (s. 3.2.5).

 7. Myth: The project has a solid plan for ongoing maintenance costs.

Fact: EMBA told the Urban Planning Committee meeting that they are depending on volunteers for labour, and money from city operations to cover maintenance costs. We have learned that EMBA wishes to receive $50K per year. Is this funding fair when the City recently decided to focus on core services and discontinued the Urban Farms program, which tied to local food security, and a pilot overdose prevention program, which paired nurses with outreach workers as well as Communities in Bloom?

 How much more will EMBA request for the bike skills park?

 Furthermore, where are the contingency funds if the bank slumps – potentially impacting the whole forest, the paved trail above, and the roadway (see #5 above)?  

8. Myth: This bike skills park will help lower illegal trail-building in the river valley.

 Fact: EMBA made this same claim in requesting to be allowed to ride and “maintain” trails in preservation areas of the river valley a few years ago, yet there is no evidence that this has been the outcome. On the contrary, there has been continued illegal trail cutting and infrastructure construction, and no apparent effort by EMBA to curb this behaviour by mountain bikers.

 9. Myth: This bike skills park aligns with the City Plan and other city policies.

 Fact: While the EIA claims that the bike skills park aligns with the following specific plan sections, we ask HOW?

City Plan s. 5.1.2: “Promote the conservation and restoration of natural systems to improve ecological connectivity and reduce habitat fragmentation.”

* Breathe, s. 4.7.1b: “Maintain and enhance wildlife connectivity by preserving existing areas of natural land cover; minimizing disturbance and removing barriers in the River Valley and Ravine system and other connectivity corridors.”

* TRC Calls to Action & Indigenous Engagement Commitments

 10. Myth: ERVCC hates mountain biking.

 Fact: Many ERVCC members are cyclists and a few are mountain bikers. We don’t oppose a bike skills park – we just want to see it in an appropriate location. We also want to see a funded and completed Trails Strategy – which both City Council and Administration say they support – before the bike skills park is approved.

“Flow Trails”

Rossdale Rezoning Proposal

On Monday, June 30, City Council will decide whether or not to approve an amendment to the Rossdale Area Redevelopment Plan that would allow for three residential / commercial towers of up to 17 storeys and 490 units. ERVCC opposes this proposal for four main reasons:

1. Environmental impact on the wildlife corridor and bird migratory corridor. This area is an important part of the wildlife corridor and migratory bird corridor. It is currently riparian habitat and park space. As the City Plan, the Ribbon of Green, the River Valley Bylaw, the Natural Connections Strategic Plan and other city plans and policies make clear, we need to protect the river valley, not develop it.

2. The land is a flood plain. As Calgary and High River learned twelve years ago, it is a bad idea to build in flood plains. This is particularly important to understand now that we are in an ecological crisis and are seeing extreme weather events and massive flooding at unpredictable levels. It is misguided to say that because the glaciers are receding, the risk of flooding is low; the fact is that the wildfires in Alberta forests mean that all the rivers in our province have a great risk for flooding now, as the trees and topsoil that would normally slow runoff, especially in the mountains, are gone. Respecting flood plains is more important than ever. Considering the City recently granted Epcor permission to do “flood mitigation” work in Rossdale, it makes no sense to allow further development in this area. 

3. This development detracts from downtown residential development. We need more people to move downtown in order to support the businesses there. This project would detract from downtown residential development. If instead the land was protected and restored as biodiverse parkland, it would serve downtown residents (and all Edmontonians). 

4. Public and Indigenous engagement results. The public engagement process showed that nearly three times as many people oppose the project than support it, largely for the reasons above. We have also heard from Indigenous community members that they are concerned about the impacts of this project on such culturally sensitive land. 

Action: Please email city council (see their email addresses below) and tell them you oppose this project and want to see the river valley protected. You can also sign up to speak here. It is item numbers 3.13 / 3.14, “Rossdale proposed development."

CBC coverage with ERVCC chair Kristine Kowalchuk and Edmonton Journal Opinion piece by Eric Gormley