Banff National Park of Canada

Day Two

Introduction
Human Use Management Strategy - Part 1
Overview and General Guidelines
Human Use Management Strategy - Part 2
Key Actions in Specific Management Areas
Forum Evaluation
Conclusion

Introduction

Bill Fisher noted the day's focus would be on the Human Use Management Strategy. Parks Canada cooperated with Alberta Economic Development and the Banff/Lake Louise Tourism Bureau to conduct a patterns of use study that was reported at the 2000 forum. This expanded our knowledge and laid the groundwork for the human use management strategy. At last year's forum we also presented some preliminary thinking about human use mangement.

This year we have a DRAFT that we are putting out to you for feedback. This document reflects the input of several people here today who participated in advisory committees over the past 10 months. Thank you to the advisory group members. The finalization of the human use strategy will require further consultation, which will occur early in 2003.

Human Use Management Strategy - Part 1 Overview and General Guidelines

Mike Murtha

Mike provided an overview of the document (see attachment #4). He pointed out that the document is in DRAFT form (out for discussion) and that it describes management of people, their behaviours and activities, and the infrastructure that serves people within the park.

For planning purposes, the park is divided into highways and front country areas, and five ecological management areas. The strategy does not directly address the lands adjacent to the town of Banff. He noted that in the front country areas, the plan is primarily aimed at upgrading facilities (like toilets) and providing better heritage information. In the backcountry, the plan aims to maintain existing human use but protect ecological integrity. A key point in the backcountry areas is the effort to protect the three areas in the park that are documented as reproductive engines for grizzly bears.

We have already worked out a sharing arrangement between the Skyline Hikers and Trail Riders organizations on certain backcountry campsites.

Mike summarized the overall strategy as follows:

• improve front country opportunities and facilities to reflect the World Heritage Site Status of the park;
• reduce ecological impacts associated with human use;
• maintain the range of visitor opportunities in backcountry; and
• preserve truly wild areas within the park.

Financial costs, and the availability of staff, will require that Parks Canada achieve this work over an extended period. Partner support will be important on many of the infrastructure projects.

Q. Does the conversion of some backcountry areas to the wildland category change the facilities and uses currently allowed?
A. This change seldom affects the current trails, facilities and uses in those areas. It will guide future decisions about facilities or use. There is very little cost associated with these changeseither to parks or to the few users. One trail riding camp is affected in the lower Panther area, but the users have been informed and this is not an issue.

Q. Can you give us regional maps instead of mapping only the area within the park boundary?
A. Good idea. You will see that approach in future documents.

Q. Vermilion Lakes: there is a desperate need for a new facility toilet.
A. Thanks, but we are not yet at that level of detail.

Q. I am concerned that we properly maintain visitor infrastructure. There seems to be an implication that some facilities will be left in place, but not maintainedall facilties should either be open (and maintained) or closed.
A. We intend to continue maintaining visitor facilities where they are necessary to support a quality visitor experience.

Q. I am happy to hear that you are planning new toiletshow about new experience areas?
A. There has been no discussion of new experience areas. This would have to be discussed within the context of ecological integrity.

Round table member: No new trails or facilities are being considered. Improvement does not imply any new visitor opportunities.

Q. This document is summer focussed. It needs to include winter and shoulder season use.
A. We intend to address the other seasons, but we have not got that far yet.

Note: There were several comments made that emphasized the importance of addressing backcountry use in winter. A suggestion was made to include more shorter ski trails, and more loop trails.

Q. Will you address aquatic uses and impacts? It seems that fishermen and canoeists have been left out?
A. Well look into that.

Q. When will there be a public consultation opportunity?
A. We will be asking for public comments in February. However, the window for receiving comments has to be limited. We must submit our amendments for parliamentary approval in April.

Group Reports on Human Use Management Strategy Goals and Objectives

Two groups of roundtable members discussed the Human Use Management Strategy in breakout sessions, while the public observers held a similar discussion in the plenary room. The following notes on this topic document the major comments received and include input from the public observers.

Strategic Goal 1: High quality visitor experience based upon park values.

Objective 1 (Information about opportunities)

• This is a very important objective and a current weakness of Parks Canada. The focus has been on getting people here, not on informing them of the range of opportunities once here.
• Involvement of partners in this objective will be critical. Need to work with tourism agencies, ENGOs, etc.
• Must strive to reach hard core users (e.g. climbers) and habitual users (that do the same activities over and over).
• Emphasize key message audiences (consider highway-based information).
• Use innovative ways to engage residents.
• Need to position Banff properly to prospective visitors (re: appropriate activities, crowds during high season); work closely with marketing agencies and tour agencies through Heritage Tourism Program.
• Provide local maps that direct people where you want them to go: they will take your advice.
• More emphasis upon highway signs that describe mountains and elevations.

Objective 2 (Manage park according to established patterns; WHS status)

• Change word established to appropriate. Reword to make this more iterative and responsive to changing situation. Examine whether current backcountry use is appropriate.
• Make it obvious: this refers to the front country.
• Support emphasis on new strolls and short trails, e.g. rockpile at Moraine and along highway.
• Indicators of success will be critical.
• Action #6: modify facilities when necessary to reduce impacts or improve services.
• #7: clarify what pursue partnerships includes. If it includes funding, refer to an example like the Spiral Tunnels. Tie to national partnership strategy.
• #8: makes it sound like everything is set and inflexible.
• #11: ensure that Asian tour operators are included.
• Ensure that you have taken a regional approach: urban forces outside the boundaries may make it difficult to maintain backcountry.
• Need to address informal uses like mountain biking.
• Refer to Bow Valley committee and LATB efforts.
• Consider access to the park by routes other than the highway.

Objective 3 (Use a variety of tools)

• Action #13: will be maintained does not align with intention to reduce service in areas that are being re-categorized as wildland.

Strategic Goal 2: Protect the park's ecological integrity

Objective 4 (Regional approach)

• There was widespread support for increased emphasis upon regional integration. There should be a forum (like this) where the whole region view is discussed.
• Need more regional effort towards coordinated human use, not just land management.
• #24: Concern about displacement. The issue of restriction and displacement has to be looked at seriously, and discussed with other land managers. We should inventory uses now, especially winter use, so that we are not facing new displacement issues in the future.
• Consider what activities are appropriate: are new non-motorized access technologies like mountain bikes and multi-terrain roller blades accounted for?
• Recognize that the regional ecosystem is finite; there cannot always be an effort to provide opportunities elsewhere.
• The implication is NNAI (no net access impact). Is this appropriate? This requires discussion.
• Human use numbers can be misleading. There can be threshold effects at very low levels.
• Remember the patterns of use study last year. The majority of park users favoured limits on use where necessary.
• There are many concerns about trail sharing. Especially in winter: new snowshoes cause damage to ski trails.

Objective 5

• There should be a wider range of species indicators, not just carnivores. Need a wider range of indicators.
• Need to link objectives 4 and 5 with a long-term vision from which human use is managed.
• Try to keep this concrete: the impacts are becoming abstract and difficult to understand.
• These action statements look more like objectives.
• Lake Louise needs to be separated and given more focus.

Need a section in this document called knowledge gaps and priorities for future management. Does the process allow for review of areas that have been closed to ensure that we are accomplishing what is intended?

Human Use Management Strategy - Part 2 Key Actions in Specific Management Areas

Rod Pickard

Highway and Front Country Areas North Saskatchewan EMA and Upper Bow EMA
Rod provided an overview of the highway and front country area management plans (see attachment #5). He noted that the concept is to provide improved services along the highways, in keeping with the status of the park. He also noted the concept of improving short walk and stroll opportunities at well-visited sites in the front country.

Rod noted that there is a separate planning process addressing the many issues and challenges in the Lake Louise area, but that this plan provides a compatible framework for human use management. He also discussed the challenge to accommodate high levels of traffic in the North Saskatchewan EMA along the Icefields parkway.

Mike Murtha Ecological Management Areas in Banff Field Unit

Mike overviewed the three ecological management areas in the east end of the park. He used a series of maps to describe facility and access changes that were indicated in each of the areas (refer to attachment #4). He noted that no major changes were contemplated in the plan for these areas, except in the Spray/Bow, because of the need to protect a grizzly reproductive engine.

Group Reports on Statements for Ecological Management Areas

The roundtable participants were divided into two groups who discussed the mapped proposals in the draft Human Use Management Strategy, on an area-by-area basis.

Group 1 Ecological Management Areas in the Lake Louise Field Unit

• Throughout the document there is no reference to fish movement and aquatics. These could be significant considerations when road construction, parking lot maintenance or stream crossings are considered. Also, water-based users (those who fish or canoe) seem to be overlooked.

Front Country and Highway

• Under Trans-Canada Highway (#16) there is a reference to fencing. Since this is stated, the action and intention should be clarified in the document.
• On Highway 93, there should be clear action items related to winter maintenance: There should be greater consistency in winter maintenance along the entire route (why is the southern half less well maintained?).
• Passing lanes are welcomedcaution about interfering with bicyclists.
• Without a doubt, everyone's favourite item: recognizing the need for winter outhouses on Highway 93.
• On Highway 93, there is an urgent need to identify pull-outs on maps and well ahead for the driver. This is an important part of public information for these travellers.

Upper Bow EMA

• There is a suggestion under trails (#24) that use will be focused in certain areas. What does the word focus mean in this context?
• More clarity is required: what is the difference between low and moderate use?
• The Temple Road shuttle limits access to Skoki. Some members wanted to caution that it might cap use (not unanimous). This is a new method. Could be a use inhibitor or alternately enhance the hiking experience: more time in the high country, less time on the road.
• We note that at Moraine Lake, there is a need for information for hikers before they get to the trailhead. It is difficult to form the required group of six on-site and many people waste time waiting for others who might join them.
• There is mention of realigning the trail from the upper townsite. Be sensitive to town residents who use the trail regularly.
• Monitoring and control of weeds is a factor that should be mentioned.
• Boundaries of EMA: There may be some inconsistencies because of the boundaries. Consider rethinking boundaries along watershed breaks.
• Sunshine has a summer use planhow does this fit?

Group 2 Ecological Management Areas in the Banff Field Unit Spray Bow EMA

• Goat Creek trail will require coordination between different agencies that apply different regulations. This may require signs.
• There is confusion about the direction for campsite SP6: is it barrier free camping? What does that imply? This is the only walk-in site near town. Recommend that you maintain as is.
• Hiking trailheads near Mt. SharkParks Canada has to work with Alberta government, especially regarding large group use. Should this area support overnight use or day use only?
• Bryant Creek area shelter. Agree that scientific analysis of summer use is needed. Deal with winter use separately from summer use.
• Support continued use of the Egypt Lake shelter. We suggest that you enhance the user pay program. Fix the shelter up soon. Don't look for partnerships to pay for this.
• Sunshine area management plan has to move forward in a positive manner. Parks should come to the table with clear concise requirements. Summer use must be part of itthis seems to be different than the plan of the mid-1980s. The access road to Bourgeau Base is a Parks Canada responsibility.
• Middle Spray designation change: There was a lot of confusion about changes from semi-primitive to primitive, etc. What do these zone changes mean? Make it clear what effect this has upon the user.
• Monitoring and limiting the impacts of helicopter use. This type of use seems to be increasing. Parks Canada needs a specific plan to reduce impact soon. The plan should encourage more cooperative work with helicopter companies.

Cascade/Bow EMA

• Closure of trails on the south of Minnewanka Lake is reasonable. We would like an assessment of the voluntary closures on Fairholme (e.g. Carrot Creek). If voluntary closure is not working, then there should be an official closure.
• Reducing the number of campgrounds along Minnewanka Lake is ok, but maintain the remaining campgrounds in proper condition.
• Should the closure of trails be voluntary? Do complete trail closures work better than voluntary closures. Recognize that horseback users often get by barriers.
• Outside of the park, there is new snowmobile access on Forbidden Creek. Parks Canada should monitor the effects of this on the park.
• Changes in the lower Panther: the removal of the horse camp near wolf den was not a big concern.
• Middle Spray LMU. Recall that this was a unit to monitor the displacement of bears. Do not move away from restrictions associated with this intention soon.

Forum Evaluation

The session ended late on Saturday afternoon. Some people had left earlier, but the majority of the roundtable, and seven additional observers remained. These people were asked to answer a number of evaluation questions, using an electronic decision support system called OptionFinder®. The responses to these questions, and the few comments provided, are described in Appendix 1 .

Conclusion

The group conducted a brief review of methods for consulting their sectors early in 2003 regarding the Human Use Management Strategy. They used OptionFinder® to evaluate the best methods for consultation. The results, along with their comments, are attached to this document as Appendix #2 .

The superintendents thanked everyone for their attendance and their contribution. They noted the superlative effort from Parks Canada staff to prepare for, and host, this major event.