Introduction:
·
North Saskatchewan Regional Plan is the basis of
this new plan. This has been given priority ahead of regional plan (I did
sense desperation in this statement).
·
This will allow increased protection of the
area.
·
They are not taking away recreational use – they
are “enhancing” it.
·
This plan addresses “increasing industrial
pressure”
·
There is “untapped potential for tourism”
·
My comments and questions to the introduction
were:
1. What
necessitated legislated protect? Answer: Protecting the headwaters and the land
use. This is a direct result from the Saskatchewan Regional Plan suggested.
2. You
talk about meetings with stakeholders yet there is no public consultations with
Clearwater residents and they are your largest stakeholders. Why no public
meetings? Answer: We are sharing with the residents via the feedback from the
website and the telephone town hall. I responded with – Many people are not
comfortable with online feedback or do not access to the internet and I have
participated in telephone town hall meetings and they are terrible at best. I
finally had to hang up because the quality was so terrible. I suggest you have
town hall meetings open to the public. If this is a plan that everyone supports
and encourages and you yourselves stand behind then you should get incredible
buy in and if not then I think you are obligated to do further work.
3. What
determines the “Development Plan” after Jan 2019? No clear answer on this.
Provincial Parks:
·
3 parks planned:
o David
Thompson Provincial Park
§ From
Cline River to the existing park.
§ It
would incorporate Two O’clock Creek, Kootenay Plains group sites and Thompson
Creek
§ These
existing campgrounds would be “refurbished with the ability to increase in
future”
§ There
would be private investment
§ My
comments were:
·
Would random camping still be available at
Preacher Point? Answer: Yes, they would fix the loop road and add outhouses and
garbage facilities. I commented the in my experience garbage facilities
aided in littering, using the pull off at both Nordegg and along Abraham Lake.
Those garbage cans are overflowing and usually not used. Garbage is set beside
the garbage cans.
·
Private investment in a provincial
campground? Please explain how this would look. Paul Radchenko, Team Lead, Land Use Planning Tourism Policy and Strategy Unit, responded that
it could be ice climbing guides, rock climbing guides, fishing or hunting
guides or comfort camping. I responded that many of those options are organic
until we get to the comfort camping option. I am also leery of private
investment – this is a vague statement that makes me uneasy.
o Ya
Ha Tinda Park
§ Existing
trails would be kept
§ Again,
potential for private investment
o North
Saskatchewan River Provincial Park
§ Upriver
from the trunk road
§ Would
continue to include river boat use
§ OHV
use will continue
§ More
formalized campground
§ Possibility
of “camping huts” for canoers
Provincial Recreation Area:
·
4 Areas Planned:
o Bighorn
Dam
§ A
visitor hub available
§ There
will be “facility tourism opportunities”
§ Again,
private investment opportunities
§ My
comments were:
·
Again your verbiage is disconcerting. The use
of words like “tourism opportunities” and “Investment Opportunities” are vague
and provide fairly broad spectrum of possibilities. Do you understand that this
lack of clarification makes it difficult for people to buy in to your plan?
Answer: Truthfully I got no clear answer.
·
I am not opposed to development but this
development does not sound organic. Paul Radchenko again said that they would
be respectful of the area and said, “We wouldn’t for example put in a Ferris
wheel at Bighorn” to which I responded – there is talk of a zip line at the da,
that is pretty damn close to a Ferris wheel in my opinion.
o Hummingbird
§ Rustic
Fixed roof – wall tents and cabins
§ “Small
scale tourism facilities”
o Snow
Creek
§ Expand
the area
§ Nordic
ski centre development
§ “Small
scale tourism facilities”
§ Expand
the campground
§ Ecolodge
cabins
§ Four
seasons development
o Shunda
§ Would
include Goldeye and Fish Lake – both sides of the highway
§ 4
seasons resort
§ Ecolodge,
hostels, cabins (please note: both of those words are plural)
§ “Large
scale tourism facilities”
PLUZ
·
2 Planned:
o Kiska
§ “mid
to large scale accommodations”
§ “extensive
outdoor recreational activities”
o West
Country
§ “mid
to large scale accommodations”
§ Front
country camping
§ Outdoor
recreational activities
§ “Phased
planning approach”
§ And
camping “until an opportunity to develop recreational management plans”
·
My comments: Again the verbiage is so vague
that you are covering all your bases. And your “until an opportunity to develop
recreational management plans” is literally occurring in my back yard. So the
fact that your legislating the use of my backyard I take issue with.
The West PLUZ if further split into 4 areas”
·
Braz River
·
Nordegg River
·
Prairie Creek
·
James River
I have lived in the area for my life, I have used the area,
my grandparents lived and worked in Nordegg and this is a community that to
this day is impressive for their tight knit family. This area had been used for
70+ years and has been self-managed and the footprint in the area is
negligible. I take offense to the government coming in under the guise of
“protecting the environment” when in actuality it is another form of control.
This is an area I literally know like the back of my hand, we live on the
Northfork Road - that is not a name on the map to me – it is real. The
“Kananaskis to the North” or “Edmonton’s playground” offends me more than I
could ever share. This is our home – where we work, live and play. It is so
disrespectful and even more so when our elected officials will not even listen
to our concerns. This could be the greatest plan ever developed and you have
lost all buy in because of your delivery method. If this is intended to be
Rachel’s legacy then let me reassure you it is not, her legacy will be
confusion, deception and desperation.
