Banff National Park of Canada

Day One

Introduction
Round Table Member Reports
The Two Superintendents Reply
The Five-Year Management Plan Review
Indicators
BNP Aquatics Program Overview

Introduction

Bill McMillan (Facilitator) called the meeting to order. He noted that this meeting provides an opportunity for the members of the roundtable to present the views of a wide range of stakeholders to the park managers. The meeting is held in public, and public observers will be able to add their comments where time allows.

Michel Boivin, Superintendent, Lake Louise Field Unit

Michel welcomed everyone and thanked those who have been involved in advisory groups over the year. He pointed out that this year's forum will focus primarily on the human use management strategy and the five-year review of the Park Management Plan. Another important topic will be indicators that help to measure progress in the plan. Thanks to the Banff Centre for hosting the event.

Bill Fisher

Michel and I are participating in our third planning forum. It is a highlight of the year. Thank you for taking the time. There are several advisory groups, including one addressing the needs and expectations around the town of Banff.

Round Table Member Reports

Bob Haney, Banff Heritage Corporation

The Heritage Corporation has moved positively in trying to get Alberta heritage values incorporated into the municipal model. We are continuing to inventory buildings within the town. All analysis is completed up to the 1965 era. We have an excellent inventory. We have, with cooperation, achieved recognition for the first four buildings. There is a proposal before council addressing heritage resources.

Chief Adrian Stimson, Siksika First Nation

Chief Stimson was unable to attend the Forum.

Ray Andrews, Alberta Government

Banff National Park has continued its work on many regional issues, with a greater emphasis upon an integrated ecological and social approach to land management. Within this context, the park has been part of :

• Ongoing coordinated research on threatened and at risk species.
• Cooperative approaches to wildlife research and datasharing.
• Cooperation with provincial water management planning and air quality monitoring.
• Collaboration on landscape level wildland-urban fire strategies.
• Participation in various forest management strategies affecting Alberta's eastern slopes, including mountain pine beetle management, transportation, and coordination of management planning with adjacent parks and reserves.
• Alberta is very interested in the human use decisions, because these decisions can potentially have significant impact upon the surrounding region. Human use demand does not disappear; it is simply displaced. Decisions about human use outside the park affect use in the park. We support the importance of continuing regional coordination of environmental, social and economic planning and decision-making. Banff National Park is an important Special Place within the province of Alberta. We encourage the development of a suite of ecological, social and economic indicators and the respective monitoring methodology needed to ensure sustainability.

Julie Canning, Tourism Sector

This is an important process, especially because it is the five-year review. I was disappointed with the document provided related to the five-year review. There is no clear reporting on measures of success. We need to recognize those who have done great work. We have some great successes that could be recognized in the review. The lack of quantitative assessment in the report is a missed opportunity.

The LATB focus group on community needs was a great report which brought out the local perspectives. The majority of concerns related to a profound lack of trust in the decision making process. People were concerned about bureaucracy, knee jerk reactions and lack of local input into trail planning activities. This is an unfortunate perception that still exists.

However, the park is making a greater effort to be proactive. The Human Use Management Strategy is an excellent example of the effort to gain input through advisory groups is commendable. Also, Ian Pengally has made great effort to improve communication about fire management.

There are some concerns about the grizzly bear studies. The expenditures have tended to be approximately $150,000 per year for grizzly bear monitoring. We do not seem to get the report that results from all of this research investment. We need accountability for this expenditure.

We need to recognize the new positive leadership that the superintendents are bringing to all of these park management tasks.

Harry Ulmer, Park Users

I have been involved in this forum for the past five-years. There has been a genuine desire to work with stakeholders. The perception of lack of involvement is unfortunate. I encourage anyone to get involved.

I have been involved in the Human Use Management Strategies: both the general strategy and the Lake Louise strategy. These have not been easy problems to tackle. There is a balance issue: meeting the requirements of ecological integrity and also ensuring that Canadians can continue to experience wilderness. I am not always happy with the decisions, but I think we are being heard. It won't be perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.

We tend to work in the committee without enough feedback on the results. We need to confirm that we are doing the right thingsthere are only 10 or so people involved in the groups. I moved from being pleased with progress to being unhappy with the progress because there is so much to do.

Kerry Brewin, Aquatic Environment

Last year, I raised aquatic environment and this year it is on the agenda. The five-year review was helpful, but there is not enough attention to aquatics. We need more information about how we use the monitoring and research to achieve mitigation, compensation and restoration. Water does run downhill: 1.5 million people drink the water that flows from this park.

It is easy to complain, but there are many positives. We can all do better. At our last meeting of the Aquatic Advisory Group we felt we should become better informed of the other planning processes in the park. We want to take a more strategic role.

One other thing: aquatic specialists are planning to host a workshop among themselves within Parks Canada. This is an important first but should have happened long ago.

Crosbie Cotton, Ski Industry

Thank you, Parks Canada, for working with us. You helped us win a heritage tourism award at Lake Louise this summer. In the five-year review, you call "ski area guidelines" progress - we doubt this is progress. Much less of the report is dedicated to a "place for people" than is given to a place for nature. The "place for people" section includes extensive closures. That tone goes through the "place for people" section. Instead, you should showcase some of the excellent work to improve the human experience. We would argue that the ski area guidelines make this difficult. I question whether current reality indicates a growth in the number of visitors. The management plan values a quality experience for visitors - the ski guidelines do not support this. Examples: capacity limits will be permanently capped. No new runs. No expansion. No new parking lots.

These guidelines constitute a serious threat to our long-term competitive opportunity. The people of Canada must determine whether ski opportunities in the parks are legitimate. We question the CPAWS statement that skiing is not a compatible activity within the parks.

Dave Poulton, Environmental Groups-National

This is a watershed occasion for us. Thanks for the publicity of our new booklet from Crosbie. It is obvious in the five-year plan that a good deal of progress has been made. We think, however, that Mike McIvor's request for frankness has not been taken to heart in the wording of your five-year review. Parks Canada has faced a shortage of resources. The Prime Minister has suggested increased funding. We know a lot more about the human and natural elements within the park than we did five-years ago. This has been peer reviewed. You have done the consultation and research. When you get the money we will look for progress.

Andre Schwarz, Lake Louise Community Council

Living at Lake Louise, we commend Parks Canada for progress on the sewage treatment facility (first rate). Lake Louise is the "peak of the problem" in the park high-visitation in the summer, and the transportation problems it presents. On top of that, we are famous for the highest number of peoplebear interactions. Do we think far enough out of the box to solve these problems? People restrictions seem simplistic. The transportation issue will be major in the future. I really recommend the inclusion of affected businesses in the transportation planning process. We could put a transportation system in that is effective, but this will require a large financial investment. Simple retrofit looks easy but it is no solution. Fencing of the town is currently in the newspapers (the media has blown this out of proportion). Lake Louise will recommend to Parks Canada that the fencing be set aside until the highway is twinned, and then integrate the solution with animal crossings and so on.

Does Parks Canada think that the employees and workers of Lake Louise are expendable? No new housing has been allowed, and this means that no one can really create a career there.

In general, we commend Parks Canada for working with stakeholders. The consultation is appreciated, but it slows decisions and hampers productivity.

We should not question visitors' motives or their patterns of use. Parks Canada documents seem to imply that some users have more acceptable patterns than others. If someone wants to appreciate the park by golfing on the course that is provided, they should be able to do so.

Walter Bruns, Advisory Development Board

We are a moderating influence and try to remove contentious debates. The Advisory Development Board reviews development permit applications for appropriateness and acceptability under the current management plans. We provide a fair and transparent review. We can make policy recommendations... The process allows for further public input.

Business has been slow over the past year. I want to thank Bill and Michel for keeping us up-to-date on policy discussions. We reviewed and refined our terms of reference: a clarification of how CEAA fits into this process. We are confronted with a huge pile of planning information. We urge Parks Canada to strive at every opportunity for simplicity. Set a timeframe for approval of the planning documents and stick to it. Use clear terminology (e.g. "no net environmental impact" was not clear and has slipped off the radar screen). Do not move the goal posts. Stick to them. Try not to layer planning documents because that makes intentions less clear. We would dearly love to have a long-range ski area plan in place. Rather than value-laden statements, try for a synthesis of the stakeholder values. Try to give guidance rather than directives. We are dealing with natural adaptive systems (fuzzy logic). They are not numerical, predictable systems.

Richard Chesham, Tourism Services

The tone of the five-year review continues to bother me. Parks Canada wears two different hats. Parks Canada has a mandate to supply a quality experience to the visitors and are the largest supplier of accommodation for visitors to the park. The campgrounds should be spun off into a separate facility like the hot pools. The lack of detail in the review document is disturbing. The original document set specific targets, but the review does not tell us if we hit these targets.

I don't like the tone of the review document: control and closure are regularly mentioned. The closures in the Bryant area particularly worry me. Are we trying to offload the use in these areas to the provincial facilities? When we close some facilities, we must consider opening some new facilities. I cannot believe that no new development is reasonable.

We are letting infrastructure deteriorate, and this leads to closure. It seems like an effort to continue moving toward closure.

Michael Clark, Hotel/Motel Industry

This five-year plan has had positive impacts upon our industry. The vision notes that people from around the world participate in the life of the park, finding inspiration and understanding. We believe that hotels and motels are necessary infrastructure to provide a basis for human use and human experience in the park. Through heritage tourism we can now impart knowledge and understanding to our guests. For many, this is the experience of a lifetime. We are the largest employers and we pay taxes to support the sustainability of the park. Our association requires all members to gain a minimum "three green leaf" environmental rating, and all members have assumed a greater role in ecological management (e.g. water conservation, recycling). We support environmental stewardship in the park directly through our efforts. Our sustainability is greatly impacted by the matters we will discuss today.

Bruce Bedwell, Transportation and Utilities Advisory Group

The Transportation and Utitlies Advisory Group was formed in 1998. We have had productive discussions-addressing wildlife protection on railway and highway corridors, and utility corridor management, as well as the restoration of the Vermilion wetlands. We have not had sufficient input on transportation issues affecting the park. We need a regional transportation plan-our group should be an ideas group built into this process. We have concern about lack of political will to address transportation issues.

Mike McIvor, Local Environmental Groups

Some steps over the past five-years are worthy of celebration. The summary report is self-congratulatory, and could be more descriptive of the difficulties of managing this park. For example: apparently no mistakes were made and no lessons were learned. There is no outline of what remains to be done. There were many areas of progress that deserve recognition: Banff Springs snail, Devon lakes, fire management, comprehensive grizzly bear management that is integrated with human use. We still look for the establishment of a science advisory committee and genuine long-term monitoring, with early establishment of baselines. We are concerned that more attention is given to bison than to retaining mountain caribou. The voluntary closure of the Bow Valley Parkway is not working and Parks Canada should look at a gated closure. Sometimes the efforts are inadequate, and the work for guided hiking licenses explores new depths.

We avoid considering the effect of human use in winter and shoulder seasons. Human use and impacts cannot continually be relocated-the landscape has its own constraints. Parks Canada needs more resources. What would you do if you get some dough? What would be your priorities?

I am concerned that Parks Canada fails to deal in a straightforward way with the finite system we are part of-there is too much reaction to issues and single issue interest groups. Closures and restrictions are necessary sometimes. That should be respected. Reducing excess is one avenue toward health. All of us who visit this park take so much out; we should be able to give something back.

Robyn Dinnadge, Heritage Tourism

"A place for heritage tourism" is an exciting component of the management plan. A number of the items listed on page 35 and 36 have been fulfilled and the new Heritage Tourism Corporation (created through partnership between Parks Canada, the town of Banff and the tourism bureau) will fulfill many more. It is a challenge to provide the tourism experiences while protecting the environment that brings people here. Focussing on the objectives in the heritage tourism strategy will help achieve that. This year's initiative focused on the UN International Year of Mountains. 2003 will be the International Year of Fresh Water, so we will initiate a two year theme entitled "The Wonder of Water", to celebrate the importance of water to visitors and residents. Tourists are more interested in learning about what makes this place special. In 2001 we had 60 partners. In 2002 we had 160 partners. We hope to increase that again next year.

We are very excited about new publications within the next year. Many new products are being created through the efforts of the Friends of Banff.

Andre Gareau, Town of Canmore

The Town of Canmore appreciates interpretation and information. The heritage tourism projects are great assets. This heritage approach celebrates the natural and cultural links and is an invitation rather than a lecture. I am impressed at how much has been done over the past five-years. The Cascade Corridor is a great improvement. Carnivores now use the parks much better. I have talked to the new cadet camp (moved from the Cascade Corridor) in the past year, and emphasized their contribution to the carnivore corridor in the park.

Many Canmore residents (over 1,000) work in Banff. We eventually need transportation improvements (public transit, cycling commuter route). As soon as you leave the east gate, you can go from 90 to 110 kms per hour. Wildlife are in danger in this area. With that in mind, I appreciate the coordination through BCEAG and other efforts. I would like to acknowledge Parks Canada's work with the Rundle Forebay. Canmore residents are interested in wildlife corridor development. Canmore is planning for human use within our corridors, so we should coordinate these efforts.

Jim Bennett, Town of Banff

There have been many initiatives within the town related to the management plan. Parks Canada has done an exceptional plan of achieving goals described within the plan. The town has worked closely with the park. A number of achievements have resulted from our work together.

• Banff Community Plan 1998 addressed all of the issues in the management planbalanced community not to exceed 10,000 residents.
• We control the rate and type of commercial growth.
• Boundary of town has been redefined to protect montane environment.
• CEAA applies to town development.
• Heritage tourism strategy has been adopted by the town. We have supported the creation of the Heritage Tourism Corporation.
• We are determined to be a model environmental community with ongoing monitoring and management. We are enrolled in the FCM Environmental protection program. We have an environmental advisory committee. We are trying to define and achieve "no net negative environmental impact". We hired our first environmental manager, who is attending today's meeting. We established funding to carry out a greenhouse gas audit. We produce a "state of environment report" which includes air, water environment monitoring. First of two communities to be assessed under the green leaf program. We are the site of Canada's largest R2000 energy efficient development. We place a high priority on the conservation of water, using a metered utility. We participate in many committees to address regional issues, and we are pleased that our new sewage treatment facility is already exceeding the increased environmental standards provided by Alberta Environment.
• Some outstanding issues: We encourage an integrated plan for fire protection. We believe that transportation issues will be the major concern over the next ten years. We look for further work on an appropriate use framework. We require a working modelwhat are appropriate services within the park? The proposed environmental education centre should be supported (it should be a focal point for Banff visitors). We need a firm plan for the Sulphur Mountain Hotspringsand the town wants to be involved. We also want to point out that the three ski areas are the cornerstone of winter tourism.

The Two Superintendents Reply

Michel Boivin

You have raised an enormous number of expectations; it is a challenge to meet them all. I am pleased that you feel we did improve over five years, and that you appreciate the increased emphasis we have placed on consultation with stakeholders. I heard general support for the management plan from the round tableand a recognition that we do not have all of the solutions.

Regarding ski hill competitiveness: While there are restrictions on ski hills, there is also a competitive advantage of being in the environment of Banff National Park. We believe we can work with you to meet the competitive challenges and keep your business sustainable.

You asked what we would be our priorities if we had more money. Off the top of my head, I would mention: Improve interpretation and education, transportation planning and improvement, improve infrastructure, improve monitoring and reporting.

Regarding Lake Louise transportation requirements: We will hear tomorrow about planned proposals in the Human Use Management Strategy. Andre, we have tried to get away from the notion of categorizing visitor experiencewe are providing for a wide range of opportunities.

Walter mentioned the need to reduce the multi-layering of documentsI have no answer to this, but agree that simplicity is desirable.

Greater promotion of the Heritage Tourism Strategy is very positive and we are pleased about the many who have contributed to this.

Bill Fisher

This is the best 60 minute summary of public input that we get each year. Thank you for your comments. There were many comments related to human use management so I am looking forward to tomorrow's discussion. There is a lot of interest.

Many of you emphasized the need for a regional basis for planning and management. We agree that this is important part of our management plan.

There was some concern about our efforts to consult with people. It is a challenge for any organization to continue to engage people. We do it though advisory groups, meetings and posted reports. We need to continue to expand those options, and do a better job of educating people and getting them informed of the opportunities. We will never engage everyone, but we need to strive for more. We can never achieve everything on our own, and your involvement and effort contributes greatly to the success of the plan.

The concern about grizzly bear results referred (I think) to the East Slopes Grizzly Bear Project report. This is a report shared with many other agencies. We are awaiting a report, but have not yet received it.

Several people mentioned the need for a scientific advisory panel: the Mountain Parks will create a shared science advisory committee within the year. The details have not yet been determined, but we are moving forward and will give you more information.

Heritage Tourism Strategy was supported in two presentations. I am pleased that the Heritage Tourism Corporation can now move forward on these initiatives, and will play a greater role in heritage tourism.

Regional Transportation Study: we are encouraged by the commitment from you. We are hoping for an announcement on this matter very shortly regarding funding to undertake this study.

Regarding infrastructure maintenance: infrastructure deterioration is not a strategy. We are trying to repair and upgrade the existing facilities, but these are expensive projects. We have spent money in our campgrounds. We will continue to do that. We will see what comes in February when the federal budget is announced.

Simplicity: we agree on the value of simplicity and clear and well defined guidelines. We must do this, however, without overlooking the complexity of the issues.

Some of you were concerned about the lack of detail in the five-year results report. This afternoon we will talk about a suite of indicators to help make the next report more specific, with better measurement of progress. A report card will get us moving in that direction.

The Five-Year Management Plan Review

Bill Fisher

A Park Management Plan is written to provide guidance for 15 years. It is reviewed every five-years to ensure progress is being made toward achieving the goals of the plan. This is a five-year review point. All five mountain parks management plans will be reviewed simultaneously over this winter. This will bring all mountain parks under the same review cycle. (Most of the other parks have plans that were initiated in 2000, so we expect few changes in those plans).

A new management plan for Mt. Revelstoke and Glacier national parks is underway for 2004. The next five-year review will be in 2008 and will include these parks.

This forum is a kick-off to the five-year review. The state of the parks report will be released soon, and will provide a lot more detail than the initial review document discussed this morning.

Grizzly Bear Management

Bill Fisher noted that an important part of the five-year plan to date has been our effort to manage grizzly bears and their habitat requirements. He introduced Ed Abbot to speak on that topic.

Ed Abbot

Grizzly bears are our most developed indicator of ecological integrity. We have the slowest growing population studied in North America. We also have much higher mortality caused by interaction with humans. We lost three bears this year; two from trapping efforts. This was shocking, but not unprecedented. We are convinced we took all possible precautions, but encountered a worst case scenario. There were eight bears killed in the Bow Valley Watershed in 2002. This is a very alarming rate of mortality.

Goal: maintain a viable grizzly bear population within the regional landscape through collaborative management.

Grizzly bears are an indicator of ecological health and an important symbol of wilderness for Canadians. Recent research has given us two new types of habitat needs that will help us predict habitat effectiveness for grizzly bears: secure areas and reproductive engines. This model is just one tool to help bear management (by informing us of what areas to protect most strenuously).

There are many other concerns related to bear management. Bear safety around roadways is an example. DNA analysis and radio telemetry are tools that help us. We would like to use less invasive approaches than collars, but that is not yet possible. (By the way, we get DNA samples from hairs left behind by the bear.)

The interaction between bears and humans is a constant challenge. We need more emphasis upon interpretation and education, and management of visitor activities to prevent bear-human encounters. In the past two years, we have used tools like the electric fence at the Lake Louise campground, and the requirement for group hiking near Moraine Lake to help reduce dangerous interactions.

Q. What was the actual mortality rate in Banff?
A . It was 3% this year; we strive for 1% or less.

Q. Grizzly ranges change. Why not use watersheds as environmental management areas?
A. Most of the EMAs coincide with watersheds. There are a few places where this is not the case. Watershed management is not always the best approach.

Q. Will Parks Canada publish a grizzly bear strategy and what will it include?
A. Mike Gibeau has been working on the strategy for a year, but it is still in draft. The strategy will not address grizzly issues on a valley-by-valley basis. Grizzly specialists met in 2001 to identify what research we need, so this strategy will continue to evolve. Right now we want to maintain our monitoring. The end product should include clear guidelines and it should mesh with the recovery strategy in the Province of Alberta.

Comment: A regional approach is needed. Canmore would like you to continue outreach efforts; talking to town councils would be a useful part of this.

Q. If we were successful in creating habitat for bears and lure bears away from Lake Louise, would that be a gain or a loss?
A. It is not easy to predict that producing new habitat would draw bears away from Lake Louise.

Q. Reproductive rate has been tied to habitat quality. Has that been addressed in the study?
A. The central Rockies habitat is relatively poor, but no study here has correlated quality with reproductive rates. It is well known that better food supplies will lead to higher reproductive rates.

Q. For 2003, do we have a disciplined process that will look at a process and plan to improve our handling of bears? How will we incorporate the information we have gained from the $1.6 million spent so far? Have we stopped trapping after the tragic loss of two bears?
A. The trapping was stopped. An EA has been written for the process. We will review all procedures to ensure that we are using the best possible methods, but it is our intention to trap and collar more bears in 2003. Maintaining our population monitoring is essential.

Q. What grizzly goals are included in the management plan?
A. Maintain viable populations.

Q. Given the loss of several bears this year, can you ensure that the baseline population is not unnaturally low in your plan?
A. The plan will be based upon population trends over the entire measurement period.

Q. I do not see any investment in fire planning west of Castle Mountain.
A. We have not made as much progress in fire management in this area as we would like. This must be a critical part of management. Hamers research shows that fire management is positively correlated.

Indicators

Bill Fisher noted the importance of having indicators so that we can track our progress in achieving the vision of the 1997 plan.

Derek Petersen

Derek noted that it is not simple to answer whether we are making progress. He presented a slide show that raised many possible indicators for economic, social and ecological conditions within the park. He cautioned that there are many strategic goals and many programs that people expect indicators to be applied against. And yet, everyone values the need for simplicity and efficiency.

Group Reports on Indicators

Three roundtable groups and one public group discussed indicators. Summaries of their discussion results follow. During this time, public observers had an opportunity to discuss items directly with the superintendents.

Group 1: Ecological Integrity Measures

Overall guidelines:

• All indicators and reports should consider the regional landscape, and should not be limited by park boundaries.
• All indicators should recognize an anticipated range of variation, rather than a static benchmark.
• All indicators should include both terrestrial and aquatic references.
• There is a need to define a baseline at the outset to compare ongoing measures against.
• There should be an overall ecological integrity scale that is a simple comparative indicator (like the Dow-Jones Industrial Average) based upon a basket of indicators.

The following indicators were selected by the group as the most important EI indicators, based upon a 10-5-1 rating . Participants generally supported indicators for their meaningfulness rather than their simplicity or ease. The number in brackets describes the level of investment from the group:

• Full complement of native species (32)
• Full complement of ecological processes (20)
• Selected species management unit effectiveness ratings (11)
• Landscape scale (exhibits dynamic process of vegetative succession) (11)
• Water quality (11)
• Habitat connectivity (5)
• Site/area specific ecological gains and losses (5)
• Ecological footprint (perceived rate of human facility development) (1)

Other possible indicators noted by the group:

• Rate of ecological integrity restoration
• Habitat quantity (water, wetlands and land)
• Species populations: distribution and demographic trends
• Opportunity for visitors to know they can co-exist with species in park
• Variety of habitat types
• Comparative indicator: human footprint inside park compared with sites outside the park
• Glacial mass and snowpack trends
• Groundwater quantity and quality
• Air quality
• Climate trends
• Presence of exotic or invasive species
• Wildlife mortality rates
• Awareness of residents about park ecology
• Wildlife movement patterns

Group 2: Social Indicators

This group also used a 10-5-1 sort to establish which kinds of measures they would see as most valuable.

The following indicators were recommended:

• Visitor use: what services, seasonal patterns, demographics
• Type of activity: what, where, when
• Changes in behaviour: learning, interpretation opportunities, increased awareness of park values
• Public involvement participation levels
• Quality of life measure in communities
• Evidence of displacement of activities
• Satisfaction (as long as it is in the context of visitor expectations)

Group 3: Economic Indicators

This group focused most of their discussion on indicators that could be used to help Parks Canada determine if Banff was economically viable as an enterprise unit within the Agency. They noted that in all of the 74 strategic goals that could be referenced, none of them are economic goals. They suggested that Banff National Park may have many undocumented financial liabilities as its asset base deteriorates.

They recommended the following indicators:

• Asset inventory: what assets do we own, what is their condition/re-investment requirements
• Audit of investments that the park is responsible for
• Revenue trends (are revenue sources sustainable?)
• Consistency with other Parks Canada sites across Canada
• Range of revenue sources (should be expanding)
• Return on investment; retained earnings
• Audit of sound business practices and accountability measures
• Relationship with business community in the park
• Sustainability (i.e. % reliance upon revenue vs. tax base)

Overall, the group noted that Parks Canada's most important investment is in people.

BNP Aquatics Program Overview

Ian Syme, Chief Park Warden

The program covers everything from water quality to land formation (alluvial) to air quality (pollutant measurements in glaciers). It is also concerned with downstream impacts of water quality changes in BNP.

In the past decades, we have had many changes that were not favourable to the sustainability of the aquatic environment:

• past fisheries management practices
• altered flow patterns
• changes to aquatic habitats
• transportation and utility corridors
• water quality changes

The renewed Aquatic Environment Program is addressing the causes of unwanted changes to the aquatic environment.
The Aquatic Environment Program supports many of the management plan objectives:

• research and information
• communications
• species and genetic diversity
• air quality
• geology and landforms
• aquatic ecosystems
• stewardship

Accomplishments over the past five-years:

• All aquatic information is in a digital database (GIS system) that supports easy retrieval of information, and use of information in modelling and scenario development.
• Restoration of the Vermilion wetlands
• Wastewater treatment plant upgrades at Banff townsite and Lake Louise (great improvements in downstream)
• Water quality monitoring (closer monitoring to ensure quality improvement in Bow)
• Restoration of alpine lakes (high alpine lakes brought back to original condition)
• Flow restoration (discussions/data collection)
• Input from Dr. David Schindler regarding pollutant management in water
• Recovery plan for Banff Springs snail
• Aquatics Advisory Group
• Aquatic Ecosystem Communications (fact sheets produced, more to be done)
• Stewardship (back country lodges like Shadow Lake have managed grey water very effectively; promoting water conservationtourism industry promotes water conservation)

What's next for the Aquatic Environment Program:

Will we get more money?

• Science Advisory Committee will provide advice
• International year of freshwater (meeting of all Parks Canada aquatic specialists)
• Continued innovation (e.g. Lake Louise ski hilluse of grey water for snowmaking)
• Including aquatic needs in Human Use Management Strategy
• Increased public understanding, support and participation
• Improving the monitoring program

Q. Concern about Cascade River. Some users get a free ride (access to public water resource). When will we get action?
A. We are looking into it.