Wildlife Corridor Under Threat, Information and Petition
Read below and consider signing and sharing this petition
Proposed River Valley Bike Skills Park
Ten Myths and Facts
(Illustrutive photos at the bottom of the page below all 10 Myths )
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 (or the EIA).
Finally, Site Location Studies should include a detailed consideration of alternative locations and the option of doing no project. How about the bare hill just north of the Walterdale Bridge (enabling tree planting rather than cutting), or Gold Bar Park? How about Blatchford?
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 375 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 admitted in 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 already receives $50K per year. Why? In 2024 council had to cut all but core services slicing 40K from loved programs like Communities in Bloom. It seems wise to cut programs to support housing and climate initiatives yet EMBA is cutting trees. 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 #6 above)? This bike skills park is not a core service.
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.
EMBA leadership could model better DEI
