Banff National Park of Canada

Banff National Park Record of 2007 Forum

Record of 2007 Forum

[ Previous | Table of Contents ]

7.0 Superintendents' Open Forum

Round Table members and general public had a range of questions for the superintendents. Questions below are paraphrased and summarized, especially in cases where portions of them are inaudible due to the handheld mikes.

Q/C: what's your personal vision for the perfect park?

Terry: with present-day challenges, there's no opportunity to create the perfect park. I think we have to do our best to maximize what the park has to offer for people, for wildlife, for vegetation, etc. So I don't even dream of a perfect park, I'm more realistic, I'm thinking of optimizing the opportunities that exist within the given challenges and real-world situation. That's what our management plan is all about – helping us achieve the best possible park for resource protection, visitor experience and public education within the constraints.

Jillian: I'm going to change the question. A perfect park is, to me, neither here nor there. It's more about looking at the overall system of protected areas, which I think in Canada is amazingly good. We have national parks like Banff that are heavily visited, heavily developed, but still have grizzly bears on the landscape – I personally think it's a pretty good park. We also have parks in the north that get 11 visitors a year. It's a very well protected park – but is it a good park. I feel disappointed when we have a national park that people can't get to. I think we have a whole range of national parks across the world, and there is no one perfect park – you look at a whole system. In Banff, if you don't like the busyness of the townsite, you can go into the backcountry (which is very accessible). The whole park can't be perfect for everyone, but if you search you can find parts of the park that are pretty perfect to meet your needs.

Q/C: Park facilities are in a worse state than they were 36 years ago – trails, pulloffs, washrooms. I think the visitor experience quality was better in the past, and the visitors were happier. Kudos to Town of Banff for the work that's been done to improve the townsite since incorporation. I think the park system has gone backwards in terms of facilities – I hear that there's not enough money, but new parks are being acquired – maybe we should take care of what we already have.

A: First I'll address the question of whether BNP infrastructure is deteriorating. I think that's something all Canadians recognize, and it's an effect of significant economic decline in the 90s. There was a federal government program review and difficult decisions were made – there was less money to go around. However, the recent trend is improving. In 2003, Parks Canada got new funds from parliament to address this infrastructure deficit. In 2005, we got approval for fee increases and the opportunity to invest those directly in parks infrastructure, so it's only in the last couple of years that we're starting to see the trend to improvement. Paving on Icefields Parkway and Moraine Lake road, improved facilities at day-use areas, washrooms being replaced with environmentally friendly new facilities. We may not be where we were 30 year ago, but the trend has finally reversed and improved. We have significant, visible improvement – maybe not as much as the Town of Banff, which is quite impressive, but at least the trend is good. Those funds continue to increase in future years, so we're going to see a lot more improvement. Now, as to new parks, around the turn of the millennium, there was a cross-Canada consultation and debate about whether to invest in new parks, and it went to the Senate as well, and the vision of the Prime Minister at the time was that if you don't continue to expand the system of national parks and national historic sites, that some of the opportunities would be lost forever. It was a difficult choice. When Parks Canada is negotiating for a new park, area or site, there is a lot of negotiation with local indigenous peoples, local and regional governments. I can recall from my own experience some parks that were on the brink of being announced, but have not yet come to fruition. Others have taken much longer than expected to do so. You mentioned the Gulf Islands National Park – that's an example of a park that might never be created, if it wasn't done at the time it was done. You and I and our descendants will be able to look back and say how pleased we were that that park and others were put in place. It's such a difficult thing to achieve, that I give great credit to those involved and acknowledge how hard it was for them to make those decisions while living with deteriorating infrastructure in other parks.

Jillian: I wanted to comment on visitor satisfaction. The numbers that we have in the State of the Park Report do come from that visitor survey, and I can't remember the actual phrasing of the question. People were asked what they were satisfied and less satisfied with. I think that Parks Canada staff and people who run businesses in the park are probably more critical than the visitor. People come here because they see something attractive that they want to come to, and they expect to have a good time. The satisfaction numbers from visitors are very high. Of course, there are lots of things we could do better. I personally think that signage is one of those things. Signage ought to be an indicator of our pride in the whole package. I also want to talk about the Town of Banff and your comment about the improvements after 1990. When incorporation happened, I had my own big questions about whether it was a good move or not. I cannot believe how fantastic the town of Banff is, now that we have a group of people who focus on it. Parks Canada didn't have the experience or the people to focus on it. I think that the community, paying its taxes and so on, has done a bang-up job of creating something that we can all be proud of. It's an indication of a partnership that has benefited the park, benefited the town, and benefited all Canadians. Mayor Stutz, you and your staff have done a great job and continue to.

Q/C: inaudible ... need the focus and vision to carry projects out. How can we get the trends in the State of the Park pointing up in terms of visitor experience – how can we move ahead, we do have to move ahead.

Q/C: thanks to everyone for giving us green happy smiley-faces on visitation, I personally ... inaudible ... 2003 numbers out-of-date, questioning visitor satisfaction. ... We don't have picnic tables that are in good shape, we don't have trails that are in good shape ... I want to recognize the work done by the mountain bike association on the trail restoration, and the work done by various groups on cleanup days ... I'd like to get your comments on trail maintenance – I understand that it is quite understaffed. How much resourcing are we putting into trail restoration and maintenance? ... pine beetle …(inaudible).

Jillian: The trail maintenance we did this year is not less that recent years, but fifteen years ago we spent a lot more on trail maintenance. More recently, we have spent money on upgrading intensively used day-use trails. On back-country trails, we've taken the point of view that there are not a lot of people in the backcountry, and it's expensive to do major maintenance in the backcountry, so we've had to set some priorities on where we spend our money. I am a backcountry user, I have hiked these trails every summer since 1981, and it's my observation that they are not in markedly worse shape now than they were in '81. Of course, if they were the pits then, they're the pits now. Some of those have been relocated. But the crunch will come when some of our backcountry bridges fail. Do you spend that kind of big bucks for a trail that has 30 – 100 people on it? We've tried to establish priorities; the ones that are closest to the front country get more priority.

On pine beetles – we have the same strategy that we've had for quite a while, that is that east of the town and Norquay we control: cutting trees, burning, identifying infected trees, using pheromones to keep the beetles from flying far away. That strategy was worked out in collaboration with the province of Alberta, and we have been doing more of that with that inter-boundary area – we had a number of burns scheduled with the province to protect the forest and slow down the movement of the pine beetle. The province is taking the issue more and more seriously on their own lands. It's a program that will continue for some time – we have money through Forestry Canada for future years. We're not stopping the pine beetle; we're slowing down its advance. Only a climate event would stop them.

Q/C: inaudible, related to cross-country ski trails, track-setting and user numbers. Suggestion re trail user fees, backcountry user fees. Average skier has no concept of how much trails cost to maintain. Comment re volunteer assistance with maintenance of cross-country trails.

Q/C: question about gate line-ups, poor visitor experience – any thoughts about changing the access to park and park gates?

Jillian: Yes, we have been thinking about this, and what we've been pursuing is to sell a higher proportion of passes off-site. Right now, we sell through Husky, AMA, etc, but not a high percentage is bought that way – it hasn't led to a significant reduction of line-ups during those peak periods at the gate. We have looked at putting one or two more lanes in at the gate, not just because of the line-ups but because it's also a traffic problem. Sometimes the lines block the through lane, and the RCMP have told us that that is not acceptable. In my view, until we get a really strong national system for buying your pass offsite, we are going to continue to have problems. We have had a study this summer on numbers of occasions of unacceptable line length, we have done some interviewing of people in the line, and we're working with Terry McGuire, head of the highway service centre, to come up with an approach. In Kootenay, they have two gates one behind the other, and that's a potential idea for peak periods.

Q/C: What's your definition of “sound science”?

Jillian: it's credible, the research has been done properly, it's gone through a peer review, it's supportable. Our interest in sound science is information that can feed into decisions. We don't do science for its own sake. Most of our research is done by students or consultants.

Q/C: various questions/comments re proposed commuter trail Banff/Canmore.

Jillian: This idea has been around for a while, but it really came to the fore during the work on the Lands Adjacent to the Town of Banff. Mike Murtha can provide lots of details on that. A lot of people are interested in a cycling and walking commuter trail between Canmore and the Town of Banff. So following the completion of the LATB planning program, the province provided some money for a feasibility of the trail. The route would run basically between the fence lines, although in some places we would relocate the fence to give a better alignment and experience. The study says it's feasible. The biggest and most costly issue is getting people over or around the wildlife crossing structures without degrading their effectiveness. We also have a cost study, and we're working with the province now on a risk and safety analysis. We have primarily designed it between the fences, on the south side, but there are areas there where the fence is between the railway track and the road, and we think we could move the fence to the far side of the track and have a wildlife mortality benefit as well as a trail siting benefit. The alignment will be generally as far as possible from the road, e.g. at the Valleyview picnic site we'd go below that with a beautiful view of the valley. It's more than a commuter trail; it's also a tourism attraction. And there's now a trail on the north side, between the town of Canmore and Harvie Heights, so the trick would be connecting the two. What's holding it up – money! But we have been talking with the Trans-Canada trail people about a potential partnership, and we have been told that there are corporate sponsors out there who would be interested in contributing to that sort of thing. You might see it in 10 years.

Q/C: another question/comment re trail maintenance and ecological impact ... poorly designed and located trails causing ecological impact ... is trail maintenance/construction driven by visitor convenience or by ecological imperatives.

Jillian: It's been so long since I made a decision about a trail in anything other than a crisis reaction situation. There's no big decision-making process, unless Ian Syme does it. We do work together in the mountain parks through Gerry Israelson, looking at priorities, because the money is pooled from the gates for spending within the mountain parks.

Quite often visitor convenience and ecological impact reduction are the same thing. If it's a braided trail, it's in a wet area so people will have to take another route and there's ecological damage. But having the ability to say that this trail is in the wrong location, and ten kilometres of it should be rerouted so it's on the side-cut and not in the valley bottom – I don't know when the last time was that we did anything like that other than Paradise Valley.

Terry: The Lake Louise Area Strategy is probably the best example of where we made some significant trail decisions in recent years. That includes Paradise Valley, Larch Valley, and the trail to Eiffel Lake. The first thing we considered was the impact on grizzly bears in the area. Trails were traditionally made by horses, then by people, and eventually by more and more people, but usually in the areas where wildlife had originated some kind of a path. So, in going into those areas, the first thing we said to ourselves was: if we were to design this trail today, would it be in the same place? In the case of Paradise Valley, we said: absolutely not, this trail's right in the middle of prime grizzly habitat, and public safety is an issue. We decided to move the trail so that it's still good for hikers but no longer in the middle of prime grizzly habitat. In the case of Larch and Eiffel, it was too expensive to move the trail, even though it's not exactly where the carnivore specialists would like it to be, but what we have done is make it safer for bears and for people, so we took some of our stakeholder representatives, showed them our pilot modifications, got their input. We've decided on significant brushing for better sight lines, and used historical data on sow-cub observations to determine risk areas, and do temporary restrictions as necessary. It became a better visitor experience, and a safer situation for bears.

The percentage of the gate fees that we're investing in backcountry trails is about double the percent of the revenue that we collect from the people that are actually using the trails. That's in part because the frontcountry users have told us that they think that maintaining backcountry trails is important, even if they don't experience them themselves.

Most recently, as part of the Lake Louise Area Strategy, we have been working on separating the commercial horse users from the hikers, so we've made significant adjustments on lake Agnes and Plain of Six trails, to improve the visitor experience, to move the visitors away from prime habitat, and to allow for less horse droppings on the trail so that everyone's happy.

In general, we've been looking at all the implications for a high use area, and coming up with a coordinated plan, rather than one-offs where the natural science and social science are not combined to assist management teams with decision-making. That's a quick rundown of what we've been doing. We're quite proud of it, and there's a lot more to do.

Q/C: congratulations to Jillian on your retirement. What was your worst surprise and your most pleasant surprise during your term here?

Jillian: The worst one is the volume of work. I acted in summer of 2003, and thought that if I was “real” superintendent I'd be able to get on top of all this information. Then I became real superintendent and found out how hard it is to do. I would have found the job very difficult to do if I had not known that there was a light at the end of the tunnel, and that I wasn't going to be doing it for 15 years. However, having said that, I have thoroughly enjoyed the job, I have thoroughly enjoyed working with Parks Canada. It's a wonderful agency, with a wide range of opportunities. The people I've worked with have been great both inside and outside Parks Canada – we may have our differences, but we all love this place. I'm very pleased that I'm not leaving the Bow Valley, because the mountains are important to me, as are the people and the experiences.

Q/C: question/ comment re the importance of a coordinated transportation/transit system and its effect on visitor experience, carbon emissions and environmental responsibility, opportunities for public education, increasing length of visitor stays.

Jillian: Yes, well said. The Mayor has shown great leadership in this area, as well. As you point out, the potential for educating visitors about their national park is much greater when you have a transit system. It won't happen tomorrow, but I think we will all jointly get there, one day.

8.0 Breakout Group Inputs to Mangement Plan Review Areas

Starting with the list of potential areas for amendment of the management plan, as presented by Parks Canada, three breakout groups with group facilitators examined the following questions:

• Where have we hit the mark with our list of potential amendments – what ideas do you really like?
• Where have we missed the mark – what have we missed?

The groups were also asked to identify common threads – their areas of greatest concurrence among group members.

Raw flip chart notes from the three groups are attached in Appendix B. These notes include the further comments of the groups on various individual areas for amendment.

8.1 Response of Round Table members group 1:

This group thought that all the areas presented were appropriate, with the most group concurrence around the following (in order):

• Visitor experience
• Icefields Parkway
• Education
• Indicators
• Ski areas
• Grizzly bears

This group proposed three additional areas for consideration:

• Transportation
• The role of the ADB
• Revisiting the vision

8.2 Response of Round Table members group 2

This group thought that all the areas presented were appropriate, with the most group concurrence around the following (in order):

• Icefields Parkway
• Indicators
• Forest health – pine beetle
• Ski areas
• Inclusion of TOB community plan
• National historic site plans
• Grizzly bears
• caribou

This group proposed three main additional areas for consideration:

• Transportation – public service commission.
  • PC to acknowledge commission,
  • PC to be contributing member (value added role e.g. communication/education, e.g. $ for alternative energy vehicles)
• Winter use:
  • Definition of winter experience to be offered
  • Improved understanding of winter ecology and impacts
  • Relationship between EI data and impacts on visitor experience
  • Monitor impacts e.g. highway run-off
• Climate change:
  • Use of effective monitoring data
  • Principles for decision making
  • Actions to support BNP's contribution to communication and education

8.3 Public group

This group expressed some challenges with the process, since they included members with widely varying degrees of knowledge of the management plan and of the planning forum process.

This group agreed with all areas presented, with special mention of the following:

• Icefields Parkway -- North and south, relate to transportation package
• Grizzly bear management -- Regional collaboration
• Inclusion of Community plans
• Caribou --Under Species at Risk
• Visitor experience -- Sense of welcome, commercial partners
• Aboriginal relationships -- Include aboriginal group culture
• Education -- Connecting and engaging people

This group proposed the addition of the following areas for consideration:

• Implementation strategy and action plan
• Species at risk
• Changing demographics (include in visitor experience)
• Climate change

9.0 Facilitator's Review of Objectives and Accomplishments

The input from this Forum has been clearly heard by the superintendents, and they are already thinking about how to respond to the input received.

9.1 Objective 1:

Set the context for the management plan review, and explain the ‘building blocks' (including the State of the Park Report) leading to potential management plan amendments.

Parks Canada's presentations covered these topics and we had a brief opportunity for discussion. There was clearly an appetite for more on the SOPR. Round Table participants may want an opportunity to review their own sources of data related to the discussion about the SOPR. The superintendents have stated their interest in receiving further input from participants about specific ideas, caveats, and additional data sources. They look forward to receiving your emails.

9.2 Objective 2:

To foster discussion and feedback on potential areas for amendments to the management plan.

These items have just been reported upon by the small group spokespeople. These ideas from Parks Canada for potential amendments are at the very earliest stage right now. They are ideas only – there will be input from many sources, this Forum included. In coming to you with the potential amendments at this early idea stage, Parks Canada is responding to what they have heard at previous planning forums, that you want to be involved at early stages.

9.3 Objective 3:

To review and discuss the accomplishments and future of the Round Table and the annual planning forum.

There were many comments and suggestions, all of which will be captured in the record. There was an overall celebration of the value of the Forum, as an opportunity for collaboration, networking, goodwill, a chance to hear and understand other points of view, and there was a strong recognition that the forum has already evolved over its ten year existence. There were also suggestions for a range of improvements and potential adjustments, as I summarized yesterday. Parks Canada has heard these recommendations, and is already giving some thought to how they might be responded to in the design of future Forums. Something that was heard loud and clear is the wish to “close the loop”, to hear back from Parks about what was done, what actions were taken, as a result of input. There's a real wish to respond to this appropriately. Your input is used, and it is valued, and Parks Canada wants to find ways to ensure that you get reported back to, so that you can see the actions and change that have resulted from input.

10.0 Superintendents' Closing Remarks

10.1 Jillian Roulet, closing remarks

I just want to say that I still feel that these sessions that we have every year are extremely valuable from a Parks Canada perspective. We get feedback; we look ahead to our next year and the work that we have to do together.

The management plan review is very definitely an evolving process. The input that we had today will be very valuable, both in choosing the areas for amendments and in designing the public consultation process that we will follow.

Thank you all for participating.

10.2 Terry Perkins, closing remarks

I don't want to repeat Leslie's excellent summary of the past two days. But I did want to share with you a couple of things that struck a chord for me personally.

One was the interesting discussion at the round table yesterday about trying to find ways to engage the younger members of the user community and the service industry in Banff National Park. I had some interesting discussions about that over lunch yesterday. One thought that I have, that I'd like to throw out there for you to think about, is that we should all consult with the younger members of our own circle of friends and neighbours about the new technologies, which ones are most popular, and how we might be able to incorporate them into our engagement strategy. I'd be interested to hear any ideas that might come out from that. I'd also be prepared to consider having a youth and technology summit, if that might help us.

You've provided really interesting input on the measures we use and could use for the State of the Park, and in particular, the indicators that are Banff NP-specific, as opposed to the national indicators. We'll have to look at that area more closely, to figure out how best to do that.

I found it interesting that several of the breakout groups focussed on transportation solutions today. I think that's valuable input. Darren had a significant role in initiating that topic, but it obviously struck a chord with a lot of you – we're clearly getting the message that that should be a priority for our park.

Forest health and climate change also drew some interesting input that we weren't necessarily anticipating.

Those were some of the additional highlights for me that I will be taking home, so thank you very much.

11.0 Round Table thanks Retiring Supt. Jillian Roulet

Dave Poulton:

I know that Jillian isn't retiring for a couple of months, but this may be the last opportunity I have to publicly acknowledge her contribution, and I really want to that you, Jillian. You've shown a great deal of integrity, not just as superintendent but throughout your career at Parks Canada. You've been a pleasure to work with and I want to pay tribute to you publicly. Thank you and good luck.

(Applause)

[ Previous | Table of Contents ]