For information concerning the Glacier Discovery Walk issue please visit our blog that has been specifically set-up for this particular issue: Glacier Discovery Walk Jasper

The site has posts on the Avaaz petition delivery to Greg Fenton, Superintendent of Jasper National Park as well as information on the background of Brewster Travel and their parent company Viad.

It also covers Parks Canada’s mandate as stewards of Canada’s National Parks, and contains comments from other NGO’s such as CPAWS as well as comments from locals who are against the project.

Blog: Glacier Discovery Walk Jasper

 

December 15, 2011

Graeme Pole
15 Wookey Road
Hazelton, BC
V0J 1Y5

Greg Fenton

Re.: Screening Report, Proposed Glacier Discovery Walk, Jasper National Park

Dear Greg:

General Comments

Although I was strongly inclined not to submit comments on the proposed Glacier Discovery Walk in Jasper National Park, I feel an obligation to do so. This is not out of respect for the process, which I view as contrived and patronizing, but out of a deep respect for protected areas in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, and out of an intense dissatisfaction with how the Parks Canada Agency is managing those areas and its response to this proposal in particular.

Given that Brewster Transportation spent nine months back-peddling from the original public outcry in order to craft this environmental assessment, it is a disgrace that the Parks Canada Agency has allowed just 23 days for public comment; all of it in the pre-Christmas window. I strongly believe that the agency, which is on record as wanting to see this development proceed, is being pressured by the proponent to shape the process to the construction window for 2012. I also believe that the decrease in visitation to Brewster Transportation’s Columbia Icefield operations, documented in the environmental assessment, indicates that the primary motive for the project is economic. The Parks Canada Agency has no legislated mandate to sacrifice national park land to ensure the economic viability or continuance of private commercial enterprise. I therefore urge the Parks Canada Agency to say “no” to this proposal. To say otherwise will open the floodgates for more proposals like it, to the everlasting detriment of protected places and sensitive species in Canada.

Specific Comments

1. “We don’t find it to be a particularly inspiring site. The view is spectacular … but it’s really not an appealing environment.” (Michael Hannan, Brewster Transportation President, quoted in the Edmonton Journal, February 2, 2011.)

This statement suggests that Brewster Transportation is insensitive to the natural processes, natural dynamics, and topography of the study area in particular, and perhaps to those of the mountain national parks in general. The intent of this proposal is simply to build a revenue generating contraption to prop-up a commercial enterprise whose viability in the study area is being threatened by declining visitation and by climate change.

2. Other than when considered within the symbiotic paradigms of Parks Canada’s desire to increase park visitation, and Brewster Transportation’s desire to offset declining revenue at its Columbia Icefield operations, there is no demonstrable need for the project. The proposed site is an existing viewpoint that offers fine views up, down, and across the Sunwapta Valley. If highway safety concerns exist at the viewpoint and in the vicinity, these should be addressed directly as matters of public safety and wildlife protection by the agency responsible – Parks Canada – and not become entrenched within a specious argument for development.

3. A heavily engineered, metal and glass structure is completely out of place with the natural setting along the Icefields Parkway, and with the proposed location in particular. The best way to “discover” a glacier nearby is to get your boots wet and your face wind-burned by walking, free of charge, the Forefield trail at Athabasca Glacier. If Parks Canada really feels that visitors need the thrill of space beneath their feet to become “engaged” with national parks, the agency should direct them to Johnston Canyon, Maligne Canyon, Athabasca Falls, Sunwapta Canyon, or Marble Canyon, where existing pedestrian bridges span considerable drops. Brewster Transportation already runs tours that stop at each of these places. Done deal.

4. The broadening of the site footprint over the original proposal, to include the Tangle Falls parking area and a linking trail, greatly increases human disturbance of area. The Tangle Falls parking lot is on an eight percent highway grade. There exists the possibility of a net increase in highway safety hazards by promoting greater use of this parking area.

Bighorn sheep and mountain goats frequent Tangle Falls. There exists the possibility of a net increase in hazards to wildlife by increasing the use of the parking area. Reference page 36 of the Screening Report, which documents an existing wildlife concern that is about to be compounded without any planned mitigation:

“Bighorn sheep mortality in the LSA is an issue of concern; the majority of animal highway deaths within 1 km of Tangle Falls involve bighorn sheep (Parks Canada, unpublished data; Appendix I). The site has been identified as a location where conservation efforts need to be implemented in order to mitigate bighorn sheep highway mortality (Icefields Parkway Advisory Group 2009).”

5. The wildlife “study” of the project area lasted 17 weeks. There is no solid data concerning winter use by any species. The paucity of data is supplemented by anecdotal evidence, some of which places trust in recollections going back more than thirty years. It is interesting to note that much of the anecdotal evidence documents observations of contradictory behaviours by both mountain goats and bighorn sheep when subjected to obvious human influence – i.e., traffic and pedestrians at close range. Some times the animals flee; sometimes they don’t. Why might this be so?

The conclusion should be obvious: With regard to wildlife in general and these two species in particular, we still don’t know enough about the cause-effect relationships of human influence. The default pathway here should be to take a precautionary principle, particularly when the proponent is promoting a site visitation increase of 219 percent. If the safety of wildlife and the public truly is a concern, Parks Canada should spend a few hundred thousand dollars to modify the highway lanes and improve the signs. Failing that, it should close the viewpoint. This would be an infinitely better option than what Brewster Transportation is proposing.

Perhaps certain Parks Canada Agency staff need to revisit their guiding documents, which (and perhaps this also needs to be emphasized) have the power of law in this country:

“Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection of natural resources shall be the first priority when considering park zoning and visitor use in a management plan.”

(Canada National Parks Act, 1988)

“Parks Canada defines ecological integrity as “a condition where the structure and function of an ecosystem are unimpaired by stresses induced by human activity and are likely to persist” (Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies, 1994). In other words: a national park has ecological integrity if all the plants and animals that should be in the park still thrive there, and people use the park and its surroundings in ways that respect the needs of those plants and animals and allow fires, floods, weather and other natural processes to create natural habitat.

Ecological integrity is measured in terms of:

• ecosystem health, including the ability to evolve, develop, and adapt to change;

• biological diversity, including the ecological and evolutionary processes that keep species functioning;

• the ability of plant and animal communities to resist or adapt to stresses and change;

• the ability of plants and animals to sustain healthy populations; and

• the integration of people into the environment in ways that sustain both human quality of life and biological diversity.”

(Jasper National Park of Canada Management Plan, Section 3.1; 2010)

 

6. Appendix A (Salt Marketing: Glacier Discover Walk (GDW) Survey Results Summary) is an affront to the process. Instead of soliciting a response from the choir, why did Brewster Transportation not use its GDW e-mail list to survey responses from those who are on record as being opposed to the project? How can the Parks Canada Agency possibly maintain any semblance of impartiality when it accepts and distributes an outright component of the proponent’s business plan as part of the rationale for the project?

7. With regard to Cultural Heritage and the comments on p. 41, early white explorers (including Walter Wilcox, A.P. Coleman, and Mary Schäffer), used Wilcox Pass and Tangle Creek to bypass the constrictions in the Sunwapta Valley posed by the terminus of Athabasca Glacier and by the Mt. Kitchener slides. The trail being referred to probably post-dates that era, and may well have developed within the last 50 years from the activities of people housed at Parks Canada’s former Tangle Creek compound. A sizable section of the pre-1960 highway alignment south of Tangle Creek is on the east side of the Icefields Parkway, not on the west side. The lower section of the Tangle Creek trail is routed along it.

8. A shuttle fleet of 56 vans will add significantly to the net carbon footprint of visitation on the Icefields Parkway. Many of those shuttle trips will duplicate or even triplicate the vehicular journeys of visitors along a 6.5 km section of the road. Should this be a concern to the Parks Canada Agency? Apparently not, now that Canada has officially abandoned the Kyoto Protocol. That spineless-ness and head-in-the-sand mentality has, however, not gone unnoticed, is reprehensible, and will only compound the environmental problems of the future, not contribute toward solving them. To build the Glacier Discovery Walk will quite literally be to glass-over and entomb any potential climate change solutions in the “local study area”, a place where glaciers, not coincidentally, are literally disappearing.

Conclusion

Given the importance of the decision on this proposal, and the time that I have invested in responding to it during the last ten months, I respectfully request a written response to each of the concerns raised above, not a form-letter reply. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Graeme Pole

(submitted by e-mail)

 

December 15, 2011

 

Dear Jasper National Park Superintendent:

RE: Brewster Glacier DiscoveryWalk(GDW) – Canada’s Decision

I am told that, by way of process, the decision to permit, or not, the Brewster Glacier DiscoveryWalk in Jasper National Park is now up to you…one single Canadian. I submit that it is not up to you. It is up to all Canadians, to whom this park belongs. Yet, Canadians have not had adequate opportunity to have a say, they have not been adequately informed or consulted…largely because this project is so ‘buried’, so hidden, and so little is known about it, most Canadians are not aware of this project…a project that will FOREVER change not only Jasper national park, but all Canadian national parks through the precedent that will be set…by your decision alone.

It is with great interest that I have been watching the Brewster Glacier DiscoveryWalk Project since its early concept stage. I have tried to be open minded about what is being proposed and achieved through this project, but as each step of the process led to another, my mounting rage tipped over the top when I learned of the release of the recently completed Environmental Assessment Study.

The public input process for the environmental assessment both flawed and contrived. Firstly, Brewster paid for the study and hired the firm that produced it. I have worked with consultants for many years, on many projects, and what I do know from the perspective of the person/firm that hires the consultants, is that they give you what YOU want. From a business perspective, no consultant in their right mind is going to tell the entity that hired them, and spent millions of dollars in project development, that a project should not happen, period, for whatever reason. The study supports the project but I believe this was a foregone conclusion going in. Clearly, this process shows that the best interests of the Park are not what Brewster and their consultants have in mind. My question back to you is what do YOUR (Jasper National Park’s)wildlife and traffic experts tell you about this project. What do independent(not paid by Brewster) environmental scientists have to say? Why did Jasper NP not undertake this study on behalf of all Canadians?(and have Brewster pay for it). This would have been the correct way to go about doing an unbiased environmental assessment.

Secondly, It is not clear when the study was commissioned (or I missed the date) but my guess is that it was at least a 16 month process. So, 16 months to produce; 3 weeks to react and provide meaningful input. I am not a wildlife or environmental biologist or a traffic specialist. I don’t know the science involved here but I do understand that to do a thorough review of data and conclusions would take an amount of time equal to half the time it took to do the study. In addition to the problem of a very short timeline to react to the study, the timing of the release of the study for input is so contrived and deliberate it makes one wonder if even Jasper NP has any sincere interest in receiving any meaningful input. Three weeks leading up to Christmas…a time when those most qualified to review and react to this study(university professors in the appropriate sciences) are so swamped with educating Canada’s youth(exams, marking), not to mention all the other pressures of this time of year; who could possibly be able to review this study in the context that it should be reviewed in? Clearly, the public input strategy of Brewster and Jasper National Park is to get as little qualified public input as possible on the environmental assessment as evidenced by its release date and the amount of time given to react. Only ONE open house specific to the environmental assessment was scheduled and it was appropriately held in Jasper…but what about the rest of us? When is our opportunity to dialogue with those that authored the report? When can scientists, the only ones qualified to do so on a meaningful level, question the authors?…the opportunity and timeline to do so is totally inadequate, there is no opportunity, period.

Now, to the much larger picture.

Jasper National Park, along with all the other national parks, is CANADA’S national park. It belongs to all Canadians…not just residents of Jasper, or residents of Alberta, or ofWestern Canada…but ALL of us. Do people of Newfoundland, or Quebec or Saskatchewan know anything about what is planned for Jasper NP (it’s their Park too) in terms of the Glacier DiscoveryWalk?? Should they know? Yes, of course they should…just like I would want to know if Gros Morne NP (Newfoundland) is putting a paddlewheel boat inWestern Brook Pond to enhance the ‘tourism experience’ or Grasslands NP is permitting gas guzzling ‘grass-coaches’ into its pristine wilderness (I equate this fictitious ‘boat’ and ‘grass-coaches’ with Brewters plan for the GDW). I would want to know…and I would get involved. But how would I find out?

How do Canadians find out about the GDW in Jasper NP? Certainly not by the official Parks Canada Website for Jasper National park….the one place one would think would be a major source of information on the GDW initiative. The Jasper NP website, YOUR website, is completely devoid of any mention of this initiative. It should be on the Main page, up front and center…the first thing any and all Canadians should see when visiting your website. The question on YOUR web site, main page, should be “DO you want this in your park?” But no, it does not exist on YOUR web page, anywhere. The lack of information regarding this precedent setting project is mind boggling…nothing on YOUR official website, nothing in the Jasper NP information centre soliciting input, no online surveys asking ALL Canadians what they want for THEIR national parks…nothing! It appears that this is a deliberate attempt to stifle meaningful input. Brewster and, it seems, Jasper NP does NOT WANT any direct input except that garnered though Brewster’s very few public input sessions (five in total) which is clearly at ‘cross purposes’ in this regard.

What is the business plan for the GDW? In fact, where is the business plan? If this project involves a lease of public lands, which it does: if it involves a compromising of the environment, which it does; if it involves a private operator profiting from the ‘prostitution’ of a already beautiful viewpoint, which it does…then Canadians have a right to see this plan…the ‘who gets what from where and at what cost’ plan. Surely such a plan must exist. But again, it is totally inaccessible. Why? Why are not copies available on the Brewster or Jasper web site? Why can I not get a copy directly from the Jasper Visitor Information center, or from Brewster directly?…is there a secret here? Clearly there is profit for Brewster in the GDW, otherwise they would not be spending millions of dollars in its development and potential construction. Nowhere on Brewters web page is there any mention of how much people will have to pay to visit this site and to take in the view…it’s already their view, and they have a right to see at no cost. It will be beyond financial reach of most hard working Canadians that have already paid high fees to get into the park. What is ‘in it’ for Jasper NP and why are we not privy to this information?…after all the park belongs to us…all Canadians.

I have spent much time in Jasper NP undertaking my own leisure pursuits, both long before and since the emergence of the GDW concept. At every single opportunity, I have ‘surveyed’ the Jasper NP staff…the people in the Visitor Info. Centre, the maintenance people, the campground kiosk people, the wardens, park gate people, park interpreters, even the guy that sucks out the pit toilets with his big truck and ALL have said the same thing: That they are totally in the ‘dark’ regarding this project and that they are totally against the GDW … totally, without exception, to every woman and man I spoke with. A biased sample and non-scientific survey? Yes of course. However, these are the people that know Jasper national park like no others do. Their passion and understanding of this area go far beyond what I think I know and feel about Jasper NP…and they say “NO” to the GDW. What does that tell you about the GDW and what should be important to Jasper NP?

Assuming Brewster wants to the do the right thing as they purport on their GDWweb site, and believes strongly in its mission regarding the GDW, then they should construct it OUTSIDE of the park…just as the privately operated Grand Canyon Skywalk exists outside of the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. Sure, there will be no glaciers to view but there are far more spectacular views available on vistas outside of the park in the front ranges, much closer to the major populations that would pay the going rate to see the view. Brewster can exploit these areas instead and save the Jasper National Park views for the way mother nature intended and at no additional cost to the users of the park or to the flora and fauna that call the park home. Through the limited public input opportunities; the useless and biased Brewster survey (carried out by another consulting firm [SALT Marketing] and involving ONLY past Brewster customers), the Brewster supported environmental assessment, all supporting the GDW; through all this process the totally ignored ‘elephant in the room’ is that no one, other than those with a vested financial interest, wants this monstrosity hanging over a beautiful valley with a breathtaking viewpoint already in place. Canadians have not had a say and this decision belongs to them.

Superintendent: I visit Jasper NP frequently and have for many years. I have hiked the trails, paddled the rivers, skied the backcountry, camped in the campgrounds, climbed the glaciers and even stayed in town at local hotels….all the while stimulating the local economy thought he purchase of goods, gas and services. I have donated funds to the ‘Friends Of’, have filled out park surveys and provided input on Park issues. It all ends if this project goes ahead. I have not always agreed with the direction Parks Canada has taken with regard to the welfare of our national parks, but I have continued to support the parks system, and sing its praises whenever given the opportunity because in the big picture, I see the importance of our national parks. I have a great appreciation for what the park system is, to all Canadians, and what it should be, not just for the next generation, but for futuregenerations upon generations of Canadians. We know that what happens with the GDW decision is going to set a precedent…one way or another, for all of our national parks. Preserve and protect our parks, forever…or turn them into opportunities for the profit driven at an irreversible, unfathomable cost to all Canadians. The choice, Superintendent, is apparently yours to make.

Responsible environmental organizations and individual Canadians are lining up in opposition of this project. It is ironic that Canadians have to rely on independent environmental organizations to protect our parks against ‘disney development’ and the national parks system itself. This is the role of our national parks system. It is YOUR role. YOU are entrusted to keep the GDW and projects like this out of our parks.

Superintendent: The Brewster Glacier Discovery Walk in Jasper National Park is just plain wrong. It is not needed, is not wanted and this and other similar projects do not belong in Jasper or any of Canada’s other national parks. Listen to your staff; listen to environmental organizations; listen to Canadians. Tell Brewster “no”…not in Canada’s Park.

 

Respectfully;

 

Paul Nielsen
6015 – 54 A Ave,
Camrose, AB
T4V 4G7

c. All Members of Parliament
Members of the Alberta Legislature
Parks Canada
Brewster
Jasper Chamber of Commerce/Town of Jasper

 

From: Jasper.Superintendent@pc.gc.ca

Date: December 5, 2011 1:23:41 PM MST

Subject: Proposed Brewster Glacier Discovery Walk Draft Environmental Assessment – Request for the review extension

I am writing in follow-up to your email regarding your request for consideration of an extension to the deadline for providing comments on the draft environmental assessment for the Glacier Discovery Walk proposed by Brewster Travel Canada in Jasper National Park.  My staff and I have discussed yours and other similar requests carefully and have taken the decision that we will continue to ask for comments by the December 16th deadline date that had been previously set.

Providing opportunities for early public participation is an important part of the environmental assessment process.  Brewster has conducted a public participation program since January 12, 2011, and held four community open houses in January 31 – February 3, in Jasper, Banff, Calgary and Edmonton.  The open houses offered members of the public an opportunity to review detailed project information and to meet with project staff.  Brewster Travel Canada has also maintained a toll-free phone line and dedicated project email and website since January 18, 2011 to provide project information and updates.With this early public engagement process and the draft environmental assessment being available since November 23rd, we believe that a 3 week review period gives sufficient time for interested Canadians to review and provide their comments.

My staff and I will make every effort to respond to any questions you may have concerning the environmental assessment process.  Additionally, I would like to remind you of the Open House that Brewster is hosting in Jasper this Tuesday, December 6th.  Information is also available on their website at http://www.glacierdiscoverywalk.ca.

The draft environmental assessment prepared by Brewster is available for public review until December 16, 2011 at the following locations:

·  The Glacier Discovery Walk website at: www.glacierdiscoverywalk.ca/downloads.html

·  The Jasper National Park Administration Office (607 Connaught Drive)

·  The Jasper Municipal Library (located in the Jasper Activity Centre, 303 Pyramid Ave).

·  By contacting the Office of the Superintendent at 780-852-6171, fax at 780-852-6229, or e-mail at jasper.superintendent@pc.gc.ca.

 

Parks Canada is expecting to take a decision regarding the environmental assessment and proposal by late January, 2012.  A notice of decision will be posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry at www.ceaa.gc.ca. once a decision has been taken.

 

Sincerely

 

Greg Fenton

Superintendent

Jasper National Park of Canada

 

 

 

 

 

http://noglacierdiscoverywalk.ca/

A letter from the Northern Alberta Branch of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society to Park Superintendent Greg Fenton, regarding the proposal by Brewster Travel Canada to build a ‘Glacier Discovery Walk’ (Skywalk) above the Sunwapta River in Jasper National Park:

 

Comments pertaining to Brewster’s proposed Glacier Discovery Walk to Parks Canada, from CPAWS NAB & SAB Chapters by Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society of Northern Alberta (CPAWS NAB) on Monday, March 14, 2011 at 4:48pm

March 14, 2011

 

Greg Fenton
Superintendent Jasper National Park
P.O. Box 10
Jasper, AB
T0E 1E0

 

Re: Comments pertaining to Brewster’s proposed Glacier Discovery Walk

 

Dear Mr. Fenton,

The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Northern and Southern Alberta Chapters (CPAWS NAB and CPAWS SAB respectively) are pleased to provide these comments pertaining to the Glacier Discovery Walk (GDW) as proposed by Brewster Travel Canada. We are supportive of the effort to increase public education and interpretation along the Icefields Parkway, but feel strongly that this proposal is not the best way to achieve that objective. We are fundamentally opposed to this new development and feel that it will detract from the visitor experience along the Icefields Parkway.

On Tuesday, January 25, 2010, staff from Brewster Travel Canada came to speak with the Executive Director and the Senior Conservation Planner of CPAWS SAB. This meeting was a useful means to obtain more detailed information regarding the proposal. During this meeting, we raised several concerns and Brewster provided us with detailed responses. However, that their responses were not sufficient to generate support for this development proposal.

The Icefields Parkway is a wondrous and beautiful place, a true gem of the World Heritage Site that contains Jasper National Park. Part of the beauty of this place is its current simplicity, which serves to showcase the true wilderness of Jasper National Park in a more pure form. We are concerned that proposals such as this one will impede that simplicity and detract from the real, inspiring experience of driving along the Icefields Parkway. The GDW is not in line with the Jasper National Park management plan to enhance visitor experience and decrease environmental effects to the Icefields area and it sets a dangerous precedent for the types of development that are permitted along the Parkway.

Our main concerns regarding the Glacier Discovery Walk are as follows: process and interpretation of the Jasper National Park management plan, the public’s increased disconnection to a National Park experience, the privatization of a public viewpoint, the construction of massive infrastructure to improve a view, and environmental impacts.

Areas of support

As an organization, we place a high value on educating people and helping foster an increased connection to wilderness. We are supportive of increasing educational opportunities along the Icefields Parkway, including improved interpretive signage at viewpoints. The Glacier Discovery Centre is currently the primary location for these kinds of educational opportunities and we are supportive of redesigning it to increase effectiveness. For example, having visitors enter through the interpretive section of the centre should be a top priority for this building.

During the Icefields Parkway planning process, the Tangle Ridge viewpoint was identified as one requiring improvements to reduce vehicle collision risk. CPAWS is supportive of altering the design of the viewpoint to increase safety for people and wildlife traveling along the Icefields Parkway. Last year, there were five motor vehicle collisions on Tangle Hill, slightly higher than the annual average of 3.4 (based on motor vehicle collision statistics for Tangle Hill from 2004 to present). Decreasing collision risk is good for people and for wildlife. However, if that is an objective of Parks Canada, then all possible tactics to achieve that objective need to be investigated and the most appropriate one selected. Other measures, such as improved signage, or closing the north end of the viewpoint may also be effective. If decreasing traffic collisions is an objective, then the solution should be based in scientific research that includes wildlife movement patterns and habitat use. A reduced collision rate does not justify this development.

Concerns regarding process and interpretation of the Jasper National Park management plan

Jasper National Park is a park of the Canadian Rocky Mountain World Heritage Site, recognized for its striking mountain landscape that “exemplifies the outstanding physical features of the Rocky Mountain Biogeographical Province” (www.whc.unesco.org/en/list/304). This development proposal stands to take something already authentic and outstanding and turn it into a commercial sensation for profit. Due to its international significance, the Icefields Parkway not only belongs to the citizens of Canada, but to the citizens of the world. This development proposes to charge a fee for something that is already free, namely the view of the Tangle Ridge viewpoint. Although access to the viewpoint will still be free, the “free” view will involve looking out over a metal and glass structure. That is not improving visitor experience.

This development sends a message that a natural view, which took millions of years to create, is not enough to satisfy the visitor; that we have to dress it up somehow. This attitude isn’t real or inspiring.

It is unclear at this time what the scientific rationale for this development is. As with other development proposal in the Rocky Mountain Parks, there is a lack of social science showing this is part of what visitors expect to find in a National Park and that this type of structure is required to improve their satisfaction. There is an assumption that the average visitor wants and is seeking some kind of adrenaline rush activity that “keeps the product fresh”. We are dismayed at the complete lack of social science research to prove these assumptions. In fact, the public outcry since this proposal has come forward would suggest the exact opposite; people appreciate the simple beauty of the Icefields Parkway and don’t want it to become some kind of sensationalized attraction. Brewster has conducted a survey with its paying clients and found that 90% would use the GDW when visiting Jasper National Park. It needs to be acknowledged that this survey is in no way a statistically defendable or representative sample of visitors to the Icefields parkway. Therefore, while this result appears evidentiary of public support for the GDW, it should be discounted as its significance and relevance can easily be disputed.

Privatization of a Public Viewpoint

Currently, the Tangle Ridge viewpoint is a pull-out with space for 60 vehicles. The current Brewster proposal requires the viewpoint become gated and closed to private vehicles. The proposal, however, does provide the option for people to drive the 6.5Km to the Glacier Discovery Centre and take a free shuttle back to the viewpoint. If someone is traveling south, this trip requires nearly an additional 20Km of travel to enjoy the view from Tangle Ridge. While that does not sound like a significant distance, it would turn a 10 minute stop to stretch your legs into an hour long stop. We are concerned that many people will not want to take the extra time and effort to enjoy this incredible viewpoint. In addition, it is possible that some visitors will feel slighted that they cannot access a public viewpoint while traveling independently down the Icefields Parkway. There is the possibility that the closing of this viewpoint will decrease visitor satisfaction for those people who do not wish to take the extra effort to get a shuttle back to where they just came from. Closing this viewpoint to private vehicles is unacceptable.

We are also concerned that the bus traffic to and from the viewpoint may negatively impact traffic flow in this portion of the Icefields Parkway, thus further impacting visitor experience and satisfaction.

Constructing massive infrastructure

CPAWS is opposed to the construction of new massive infrastructure in the Mountain National Parks. A similar structure in the Grand Canyon, which is located outside of National Park boundaries, involves 500 tonnes of steel, 90 tonnes of glass, and 8 concrete post footings held by 96 rod anchors. Putting a structure such as this together will be disruptive in itself. It is also unclear as to what will happen with the debris created from the “gentle” blasting. The proposal says the debris will be placed somewhere near the Icefields Discovery Centre, but where? More details are required.

Once in place, Brewster has asserted that this massive piece of infrastructure will serve to further connect people to the park. Again, we question that assumption. There is a worthy emphasis in the Jasper National Park management plan to connect people to this magnificent wilderness. We maintain that the best way to connect people to the park is to provide them with opportunities to touch, smell, and feel it. Structures such as this could just as likely serve to further disconnect people from the natural world and the wilderness of the park. Separating people from nature with steel and glass will not likely improve their connection to it.

Environmental Impacts

We acknowledge that the environmental impacts of this structure are not as obvious as other proposals that have come forward in the past year. The structure will not be built in the heart of core grizzly bear habitat, for example. The area is, however, essential habitat for bighorn sheep and mountain goats. The positioning of this viewing structure could impede mountain goat movement through the area as they do not tolerate potential predators above them. Therefore, they are more likely to leave the area rather than travel underneath the viewing structure. Impacts to wildlife will undoubtedly occur. It is unclear how this structure will impact wildlife movement through the area and how these impacts will be mitigated.

Brewster has also suggested that the structural improvements to the viewpoint will decrease wildlife-vehicle collisions. This justification for the viewpoint is weak, however, as there are other ways to decrease wildlife-vehicle collisions in the area (e.g., signage, rumble strips, reduced speed limits).

A simple calculation reveals that each trip will contribute 4.95 pounds of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere per person per trip. Knowing that the glaciers along the Icefields Parkway are retreating partly due to the increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere renders an activity such as this hypocritical and sends the wrong message to visitors. This level of greenhouse gas contribution to the atmosphere is another potential environmental and social impact that requires consideration.

We are unclear as to why this particular location has been selected for this viewing platform when other locations along the Icefields Parkway offer better views of the glaciers. The viewing platform would only be approximately 100 metres above one of the less spectacular gorges in the Rockies. Thus, even from a thrill-seeking perspective, the Glacier Discovery Walk appears to fall short. From this perspective, we would like to see more concrete justification as to this particular location and how it fits into Brewster long-term business plans for the Icefields Parkway.

While we are supportive of increased educational opportunities for visitors to the Icefields Parkway, we are fundamentally opposed to this development. Attractions like this can easily become distractions from the natural and splendid beauty of this world heritage site.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Katherine Thompson, Executive Director, CPAWS NAB
Anne- Marie Syslak, Executive Director, CPAWS SAB

 

Cc: Bill Fisher, Director General, Western & Northern Canada, Parks Canada Agency
Tracy Thiessen, Executive Director, Mountain Parks, Parks Canada Agency
Kevin Van Tighem, Superintendent, Banff Field Unit, Parks Canada Agency
Pam Veinotte, Superintendent, Lake Louise/Yoho/Kootenay Field Unit, Parks Canada Agency
Alan Latourelle, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency

 

 

A Major Threat to the Icefields Parkway in Jasper National Park

Brewster Travel Canada ¬– now owned by VIAD of Arizona – wants to construct a ‘skywalk’ beside the Icefields Parkway in Jasper National Park.

• Jasper National Park is part of the Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage Site under UNESCO.
• The ‘skywalk’ location would be at the popular Tangle Ridge Viewpoint, 6.5 km north of Brewster’s Icefields Centre. The viewpoint would no longer be open to the driving public who will only be able to access it by shuttle bus from the Centre.
• For ‘$15-$30’, visitors may access a ‘Glacier Discovery Walk’ including a 400 m trail, blasted out of the side of the cliff, and the ‘skywalk’ about 200 m above the Sunwapta River. The nearest glacier would be 10 km away.
• The ‘skywalk’ – a massive structure of cantilevered steel jutting out 30 m with a glass floor –would be 6 m longer than the one outside the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona that required 500 tons of steel and 90 tons of glass fixed onto supports drilled 15 m into the cliff face.
• Part of Parks Canada’s rationalization for this development is that the present viewpoint creates a traffic hazard and Brewsters will make the road safer. Why didn’t Parks Canada put speed bumps and ‘caution’ signs there? Is it up to a private company to redesign roads in a national park?
• No studies or monitoring have been carried out on the bighorn sheep and mountain-goat populations in this area. Mountain goats in particular do not tolerate sustained disturbance and may abandon the area – forced onto more marginal habitat by the blasting and construction noises and later by the number of visitors above them.
• Brewster would be given a licence-of-occupation – privatizing that part of the highway right-of-way. This sets a dangerous precedent because other businesses anticipate similar favors along this world-famous Parkway.
• A precedent-setting project of this magnitude should be subject to a full Comprehensive Study that will look at the potential cumulative effects of this project together with the 50 years of past development – not just a simple Screening Assessment as is now planned.
• No suggestion of this huge project can be found in the report of the 2009 Icefields Parkway Advisory Panel or the 2010 Jasper National Park Management Plan.
• Input must come from Canadians across the country – the owners of these national parks.

Please voice your concerns to the Prime Minister of Canada, with copies to the Minister of Environment, the Environment Critics for the opposition parties and the CEO of Parks Canada Agency.

Right Honorable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada <stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca>

Hon. Jack Layton, Leader of the Official Opposition < jack.layton@parl.gc.ca>

Hon. Peter Kent, Minister of Environment at 613-992-0253 or <peter.kent@parl.gc.ca>

Megan Leslie, M.P. NDP Environment Critic at 613-995-7614 or <megan.leslie@parl.gc.ca>

Kirsty Duncan, M.P. Liberal Environment Critic 613.995-4702 or <kirsty.duncan@parl.gc.ca>

Alan Latourelle, CEO Parks Canada Agency at 819-953-4013 or <Alan.Latourelle@pc.gc.ca>

(All MPs can be reached by ordinary mail (no stamp needed) at House of Commons, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6. Alan Latourelle’s address (with stamp) is 25 Eddy Street, Hull, QC K1A 0M5)