Banff National Park of Canada

Summary of Public Comment

• Lands Adjacent to the Town of Banff, External Advisory Committee, Final Report, May 2005
• Lands Adjacent to the Town of Banff, Final Proposals, May 2006
• Summary of Public Comment
• Lands Adjacent to the Town of Banff, Next Steps
• Lands Adjacent to the Town of Banff, External Advisory Committee
• Lands Adjacent to the Town of Banff, Maps

1.0 Opportunities for Comment

The Lands Adjacent to Banff (LATB) Human Use Management Strategy proposals provide specific direction for improving ecological integrity and visitor opportunities in the montane lands surrounding Banff. This is the most developed and visited area of the park. It is also one of the most ecologically sensitive areas, with grasslands, wetlands, thermal springs and regional wildlife corridors. The proposals are based on comprehensive recommendations which were developed by an advisory group representing a broad range of interests.

To provide the public with the opportunity to review LATB Human Use Strategy proposals, the proposals were posted on the Banff National Park webpage on June 21, 2006 and were made available at open houses conducted at the Town of Banff office on June 27 and 28, 2006. Public comment about the proposals was solicited via a standardized survey which was available on the website and at the open houses. Completed surveys could be submitted on-line or by mail or fax.

Public responses were accepted until the end of July 2006.

During the public comment period, 392 surveys were submitted and three written responses were received. The Praxis Group, an independent public participation consultant, was contracted by Parks Canada to review and summarize the public comment.

The LATB Human Use Strategy proposals will be revised on the basis of public comments and submitted to the Minister. Once approved, they will become an amendment to the Park Management Plan.

2.0 Summary Methodology

All survey responses were either directly submitted or manually entered into a database. Using the database, quantitative frequencies (indicating the frequency of responses to each of the options) were generated for each question. Qualitative responses (i.e. open-ended comments) for each question were grouped according to quantitative response (i.e. yes, no, unsure/don't know) and were reviewed manually. Written submissions were reviewed and summarized independently.

Because the qualitative comments involve the collection of subjective information they are not statistically valid. The qualitative summaries are intended to provide a general indication of trends in concerns, issues, and preferences.

3.0 Summary of Survey Responses

This section provides an overview of the LATB Human Use Strategy Proposal survey responses. Quantitative results are presented in tabular format for each question. Within each of the frequency tables, the total number of responses for that question (i.e. n = #) has been noted. The qualitative summaries for each question are grouped according to quantitative response (i.e. yes, no, unsure/don't know). Verbatim sample comments, appearing in bold italics, are provided throughout.

Question 1

The goals of the proposed strategy are to improve visitor experiences and recreational opportunities and, at the same time, to maintain and restore ecological integrity. A major objective to achieve this is to enlarge the network of formal trails in appropriate locations in place of the random network of informal trails that currently exist. Do you agree with this objective?

n = 392	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	349	89
No	22	6
Unsure/Don't Know	21	5

Yes – 71 comments
Respondents supporting the objective of enlarging the network of formalized trails provided a broad range of feedback. Most commonly, respondents supporting the objective said that the proposed network of formalized trails would enhance visitor experiences. Benefits to visitors identified by some of these respondents included: expanded recreational opportunities, defined transition from the Town of Banff to the park, and increased opportunity to experience nature.

“Strongly agree. great for visitor experience.”
“It is critical that visitors have a safe, clear means of entering the environment beyond the town of Banff boundaries. Entering that environment on foot or bicycle is an entirely different and richer experience than viewing it from within the town or worse yet, from a vehicle.”
“An increased network of well-maintained trails will make it easier for visitors to see so much more of the Park, while giving frequent visitors (and residents alike) more choices of trails to hike or bike.”

General comments from a few supporters suggested that the expanded network of formalized trails would reduce the use and/or creation of informal or random trails.

“... will cut down on the creation of informal trails that presently exist and give visitors a very poor impression of how trails are designed, managed and maintained for their use and enjoyment.”
“With the expansion of the formal trails usage should be reduced on the informal.”

A few specifically noted the environmental benefits of an expanded system of formalized trails, including, for example: fewer human/wildlife conflicts, less disruption of wildlife corridors, and decreased erosion.

“Concentrating human use on well designed formal trails can increase habitat values for many species of wildlife by reducing fragmentation and disturbance associated with a proliferation of informal trails.”
“The big winner will be the reduced impact by keeping people on managed and prepared (controlled) terrain.”
“Knowing that random trail use and creation increases erosion its hard to disagree with this…”

Cautions about the number, design and location of the formalized trails were given by a few. Generally these respondents said that proposed formalized trails need to be well planned and managed to effectively improve ecological integrity and satisfactorily replace the existing informal trail network.

“A very limited or inappropriate collection of formal trails will not match recreational opportunities in the current informal network, so the formal network needs to be well designed and reasonably extensive.”
“Any new formal trails must be only in appropriate locations, determined by environmental assessment.”

Comments from some respondents supporting the objective centred around multi-use trail access. These respondents generally agreed that the proposed trails should accommodate all user groups. A few indicated that all user groups should have equal access to all trails. Conversely, a few others said that some of the formal trails should be designated for specific types of use.

“I agree with this as long as each user group is able to continue to use all of the trails available. Multi-access use is a must. Hikers, bikers, joggers, dog walkers, horse riders etc. must all have equal access!!”
“These trails should be open to EVERYONE ........ or at least designate specific use of specific trails to ALL groups of users eg:walking, biking and horses”
“Forcing everyone to use the same trails will eventually cause these safety issues. Horses need trails that are away from bikers and most people traffic.”

Concerns about trail diversity were expressed by a few. These respondents said that the proposed formalized trail network must provide users with a range of experiences and levels of challenge. Some specifically indicated that it would be unacceptable if all the trail surfaces were paved and/or graveled.

“But the formal trails must have varying levels of difficulty. A whole bunch of paved/gravel trails does not appeal to the significant number of people looking for something more challenging.”
“I would hate to see paved pathways proliferating throughout the park.”
“As long as the trails appear to be wild and adventurous and natural, not paved gravel paths for rollerblading.”

Some suggested that a proportion of the existing informal trails should remain accessible. Others suggested that existing informal trails become part of the formalized trail network.

“Some informal trails are so well used now that wild life know them. They should be accepted as formal trails rather than cut a new trail.”
“As long as the formal trails do not completely replace all the great trails we can bike on Tunnel Mountain. Trails for visitors are great, but the locals need a little more than just flat, easy riding cruisers.”
“But don't make interesting locations 'off-limits'! The idea should be to convert those 'informal' trails that have merit into the 'formal' trail network.
“Its difficult not to, however, I would hate to see the closure of the so-called random trails since there have been so many closures in the past.”

By contrast, a few respondents said that informal trails should be decommissioned concurrent with the development of additional formal trails.

“Yes, this objective is a good one, provided that the expansion of the trail system occurs in immediate conjunction with or after the decommissioning of informal trails, so that this proposal doesn't inadvertently lead to a simple increase in trails and a consequent increase in ecological impact.”
“Discontinued use and decommissioning of informal trails must occur at the same time as new developments."

A few individuals voiced dissatisfaction because local users/residents were not adequately acknowledged in the Human Use Management Strategy.

“Would like to see residence acknowledged as in improve experiences and recreational opportunities for visitors and residence of Banff (and area).”
“One of the long forgotten aspects of Parks Canada Management is a simple recognition that a townsite with actual year-round residents is a part of Banff National Park. ... While visitor experience is critical, it is equally important that residents of the park, who provide visitor experiences and service the park, are also not forgotten. It is simply insulting to leave residents out of the stated goals of the HUMAN USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY."

No – 13 comments

While often supporting the expansion of the formal trail system, most of the individuals in disagreement cited the proposed closure of random/informal trails as the main reason for opposing the objective. Generally, these individuals said that informal trail closures would be too limiting and would diminish recreational experiences. Several specifically indicated that the proposed closures would adversely impact local residents by restricting access to informal trails that are almost exclusively used by locals.

“This will hurt local experiences by limiting where we can walk/run/bike and enjoy the outdoors close to home, and it will affect how I and my family see and use the park.”
“Formal trails are needed to improve visitor experiences- agreed. The local recreational trails that exist are important to the residents that chose to live here. There is not a random network of informal trails. These are the trails that residents use. They should not be expanded nor advertised to the general public.”
“I agree with the enlargement of trails in appropriate locations but disagree with the random network of informal trails". Mountain bikers are not looking for a straight road to get from point A to Point B. We are looking for excitement which "random networks" offer.”

Unsure/Don't Know – 21 comments

Comments from individuals who were unsure/don't know varied. Similar to the respondents who opposed the objective, most suggested that the closure of informal trails would be too restrictive.

“New trails, more trails should be put in place before any restrictions are placed on existing trails. Already too restricted!”
“Depends on the quality and diversity of the 'official' trails, and what they will offer us for recreational use...”
“The beauty of Banff is the ability to casually explore areas. I would hate to see these areas shut down.”

A few said that the creation of informal trails is inevitable and reflects user need.

“The underlying assumption seems to be that an informal network of trails is a bad thing. It might be that hikers, the end user of the area, is the most familiar with the area, and are therefore in the best position to select and maintain trails.”
“There are informal trails in every trail environment I have ever hiked. It is human nature to make shortcuts.”

Another few respondents cited environmental concerns.

“To enlarge the network of trails would entail encroaching on more land? What areas would the new trails be in? Would this affect wildlife corridors or encroach on bear habitat?”

Question 2

The strategy proposes formalized trail crossings of the Trans Canada Highway and the Canadian Pacific Railway in place of the current use of several wildlife structures. Do you agree with this proposal?

n = 388	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	309	80
No	24	6
Unsure/Don't Know	55	14

Yes – 52 comments

Supporters identified several advantages to distinct trail crossings for human use, including, in order of frequency: reduced human and wildlife conflicts, increased public safety, and enhanced visitor experiences.

Several respondents viewed interaction between humans and wildlife in the existing crossing structures as problematic. Examples of specific concerns mentioned include: human use limiting some wildlife species' willingness to use the crossings, wildlife habituation to human presence, and ecological deterioration from human activity. A few called for the restoration of the integrity and original purpose of the existing wildlife structures.

“The current human/wildlife crossing areas need to be restored – animals do not want to cross through a heavily impacted tunnel.”
“Wildlife crossings should be left for wildlife. Acclamation [sic] to human presence is to be discouraged”

A few suggested that once the proposed crossings are built, humans using wildlife crossings should be fined.

“When people crossings in place; fines for wildlife structure use by humans should be implemented.”

A few others indicated that, until human trail crossings are developed, the Cascade underpass offers an agreeable compromise.

“So, while we will support consolidating human traffic through the Cascade wildlife underpass as a compromise measure, ideally the federal government would construct a new crossing structure dedicated to human use only.”

In some cases, increased public safety and improved visitor experiences were linked. Safe and secure access to non-motorized traffic across the major transportation corridors was viewed as a significant benefit for residents and visitors alike. A few noted the importance of ensuring that the human crossing trails are developed in realistic and accessible locations.

“Formalized trail crossings will provide safe and secure access across dangerous transportation corridors. This should be an immediate government funding priority”
“Safety of users is a prime consideration.”
“... in the interest of improving visitor experience, trail crossings should be provided so that non-vehicular traffic may safely cross the highway and rail tracks.”

No – 8 comments

Some of the respondents who did not agree with the proposal indicated that the current human/wildlife shared crossings structures are adequate. Some others viewed the proposed trail crossings as a waste of money. One respondent said that human access while on horseback should remain in wildlife crossings and away from people.

“Unless there is a reason people and animals cannot use the same crossings, I would not support building new ones.”
“The present system seems to be working.”

Unsure/Don't Know – 13 comments

Of the respondents who were unsure/didn't know, some indicated that they did not have adequate knowledge or understanding to comment. A few said that they supported the proposed formalized trail crossings if they were in place before humans are prevented from using wildlife crossings.

“One should not take place at the expense of the other. Human crossing must be in place before use of wildlife crossings are reduced”
“This strategy is acceptable if those crossings are in place before humans are prevented from using wildlife crossings.”

Question 3

Do you agree with the proposal for a ring trail around Banff?

n = 387	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	318	82
No	19	5
Unsure/Don't Know	50	13

Yes – 50 comments

Comments from the respondents who supported the proposed development of a ring trail around Banff were generally positive – e.g. “great idea”, “fantastic”, “strongly agree”, “long overdue”. Several respondents agreed that the proposed trail would enhance experiences for both visitors and residents. Respondents perceived a variety of specific benefits resulting from a ring trail, including for example: reduced vehicular traffic by facilitating non-motorized travel, decreased congestion on Banff Avenue, encouraging exploration of the natural environment, provision of family oriented recreational opportunities, and accessible four season recreation.

“Great idea that will greatly improve visitor experience.”
“A formalized trail would definitely increase the Banff experience for locals and visitors and likely make navigating around the town safer.”
“... encourage visitors to learn and experience more of the values of Banff National Park”
“This is a reasonable proposal that will reduce vehicular traffic in the town.”
“Would prompt more family use, encourage visitors to move off of the main street and into more picturesque areas”

A few respondents offered conditional support of the proposal. Examples of conditions included: assurance that the ring trail would not damage ecological integrity, ensuring that the trail would be outside of Town boundaries, and commitment to include locals in the ring trail planning process.

“Agree only if trail does not damage the already fragmented and fragile ecological integrity.”
“As the boundary of town of Banff is fixed, ring trail should never end up being inside the town.”
“If and when specific plan evolves, more local input required.”

No – 5 comments

Most of the individuals who opposed the proposed ring trail simply said it was not required (i.e. existing trails are suitable).

“Do not see any necessity for that.”
“Don't fix what is not broken.”

Unsure/Don't Know – 12 comments

Respondents who reported being unsure/don't know about the proposal most frequently expressed concerns about ecological conflicts and impacts on wildlife. A few noted that the trail would not be suitable for horses.

“As long as the trail is not encroaching on major wildlife areas.”
“As long a previously undisturbed areas are not opened up to increased human use to the impediment or detriment of wildlife movement.”

Question 4

Do you agree with the proposal to investigate the feasibility of a commuter trail between Banff and Canmore?

n = 392	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	359	93
No	14	3
Unsure/Don't Know	17	4

Yes – 79 comments

Improved safety for commuters was the most frequently mentioned reason for backing the proposal. A few supporters noted that by providing a safer alternative to the Trans Canada Highway (TCH), the volume for non-motorized communing would likely increase.

“Travel on bicycles on the Trans Canada Highway is very dangerous and just a matter of time before a cyclist is seriously injured or killed.”
“Having a safe trail that and provide commuters and visitors with an alternative to the Trans Canada Highway is a wonderful idea.”

The next most popular reason for favouring the proposal was that the commuter trail offers a “green” transportation alternative and the environmental impacts of vehicular traffic (e.g. air emissions) would be diminished.

“Go green!”
“Less cars = less pollution = cleaner air.”

Other positive aspects of the proposed commuter trail cited by survey respondents included: the promotion of healthy lifestyles, development of infrastructure for other user types (e.g. cross-country skiers), recreational opportunities for tourists, and reduced traffic congestion on the TCH and in Banff. A few lamented that the commuter trail should have been developed years ago. Cautions about ensuring that the design proposed trail minimized ecological impacts were made by a few.

“This would be a great attraction for families and demonstrate healthy lifestyles.”
“I believe that a commuter trail would be very popular with tourists.”
“I agree and then it could be used as a x-country ski trail in winter.”

No – 6 comments

Unsure/Don't Know – 6 comments

Of the survey respondents who did not agree with or were unsure/don't know about the proposal to investigate the feasibility of a commuter trail, some indicated that there are existing trails that are suitable (e.g. Goat Creek Trail). A few thought that the commuter trail should not be a funding priority, particularly at the expense of other proposals. A few others suggested that the proposed commuter trail would not benefit enough people to justify the cost.

“We already have the Goat Creek Trail and the Banff Trail by the golf course .”
“No, I think the money could be spent on better projects (ring trail).”
“Seems like a huge expense for a small amount of potential users.”

Question 5

The strategy proposes off-road trails connecting the Town of Banff with Lake Minnewanka and Johnson Lake. Do you agree with this proposal?

n = 389	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	318	82
No	33	8
Unsure/Don't Know	38	10

Yes – 49 comments

Providing an environmentally friendly access alternative to motorized vehicular travel was the most frequently mentioned reason for supporting the proposal to connect the Town of Banff with Lake Minnewanka and Johnson Lake with off-road trails. In that vein, a few respondents pointed out the current contradiction of having to drive to access bike trails.

“A proper trail system would allow more people to opt for a more environmentally friendly means of travel.”
“It will reduce traffic congestion on the roads and in the parking lots”
“It doesn't make sense from an environmental perspective to force people to drive to the bike trails.”

Safe access to popular destinations and enhanced outdoor experiences for visitors were mentioned next most often as favourable outcomes of the proposed trails.

“Separating human powered and vehicular traffic will improve safety, visitor experience, and ability to appreciate the natural beauty of the area.”
“A beautiful hiking, riding or walking experience that more people may feel safe to use.”

Among the individuals who supported the trails, a few indicated that the design must ensure that impacts to wildlife are minimized. Some of these individuals suggested that seasonal trail closures might be required. A few indicated that horse trails should be separated from the hiking/biking trails.

“If trails are to be built, the plans should ensure that no wildlife is displaced and that seasonal closures are enforced when necessary to reduce impact on wildlife during specific feeding, rearing and breeding seasons.”
“Just please make sure we have separate horse trails to use for the safety of the animals and the people.”

A few indicated that, because informal trails currently exist, it would be sensible to formalize them.

“These exist in rogue form already, formalizing them would be in the Parks best interest.”

No – 13 comments

Most commonly, respondents who opposed the proposed off-road trail said that the existing roads and trails to Lake Minnewanka and Johnson Lake are adequate. A few said that retrofitting the existing roads (e.g. widening shoulders, lane closures) would achieve the proposal objectives (e.g. access, safety) and minimize environmental impacts. Other respondents cited concerns related to wildlife, including: encroachment on home ranges of various species, disruption of wildlife corridors, and human/wildlife conflicts.

“There are already roads in place to gain access to these areas. Off-road trails are unnecessary and will intrude on the wildlife”
“Just work on road improvements and maybe make the existing road a little more wide with a biker path on one or both sides.”
“We are already having problems with local residents having encounters with wildlife. I would hate to see a tourist in this situation.”

Unsure/Don't Know – 4 comments

Comments from individuals who were unsure/don't know typically centred on the ambiguity of the definition of “off-road” (motorized vs. non-motorized) and concern about the environmental impacts of the proposed trails.

“Not sure if this means motorized traffic.”
“What about bear habitat in this area?”

Question 6

The strategy proposes a feasibility study for a trail from the Brewster Creek trailhead to the Vermilion Lakes road, with the objective of completing a loop around Vermilion Lakes. Do you agree with this objective?

n = 392	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	310	79
No	23	6
Unsure/Don't Know	59	15

Yes – 39 comments

Individuals who agreed with the objective of completing a trail loop around Vermilion Lakes offered a range of feedback. Most frequently, respondents said that the trail was a good idea and that it would be an asset to both visitors and locals. A few respondents said that the trail would encourage visitors to “get out of their cars” and experience the Park.

“Yes, once again a trail the 95% of visitors would use.”
“Strongly agree. Continues to enhance the outdoor position of Banff.”
“I think it sounds great.”
“Get the visitor out of his car and have good intro trails for the locals.”

Other reasons for supporting the objective, in order of frequency of response, included: the potential for a trail link to Sunshine, the opportunity for multi-use recreation, and the opportunity for family activities.

“Has many benefits including a potential link to Sunshine and allowing a trail base for several users.”
“Will provide infrastructure appropriate for various user types.”
“We need to provide safe paths for families, there is not [a] flat family trail in Banff.”

A few respondents indicated that they would support the loop trail if it were environmentally sound. Some of these respondents provided specific conditions, for example: if interference with wildlife crossing structures is minimal, if seasonal closures are implemented during calving season, and if scientific studies are conducted prior to development.

“I think this trail is a good idea provided that it runs immediately adjacent to the Trans Canada Highway and does not interfere with wildlife crossing structures.”
“Would support season closures as well during calving season”
“Subject to the findings of the study.”

No – 9 comments

Most of the comments from respondents who did not agree with the objective centred on negative environmental impacts. Several opposers said that establishing a new trail in this environmentally sensitive area is inappropriate. A few suggested that the development of the proposed trail would increase the volume of human use beyond an acceptable level.

“This will also disturb a sensitive area, you can see the other side of the lakes and so not need to drive around.”
“There has been so much talk about protecting wildlife and you want to put a trail where there currently aren't any. This seems like a step in the wrong direction.”
“Again, cutting up the natural environment for the pleasure of humans. Shouldn't a national park such as Banff be the one place where animals come first?”

Unsure/Don't know – 9 comments

Respondents indicating they were unsure/don't know about the objective most frequently identified environmental impacts as a concern. Similar to the individuals in opposition, many of the comments questioned the appropriateness of development in an environmentally sensitive area. A few said that to reduce the environmental impact, the trail should be located between the highway and the fence.

“Isn't this contrary to the Management Plan – how will ecological integrity be maintained or restored by increasing traffic near coyote dens or loon breeding areas…”
“The only possible connector trail would have to be along the TCH fence on the highway side.”

Question 7

A network of secondary trails is proposed for the Tunnel Mountain “bench”, north and east of the campground and east and south of the Hoodoos viewpoint. Do you agree with this proposal?

n = 389	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	312	80
No	27	7
Unsure/Don't Know	50	13

Yes – 42 comments

Respondents in favour of the proposal most often reported that a network of formalized trails in the Tunnel Mountain bench is preferable to the existing informal trail system. Some said that the existing informal network should be used as the basis for the proposed secondary trails. Supporters saw a range of benefits resulting from the development of a formalized trail system, including, for example: discouraging the expansion of random/informal trails, proper trail management, improved organization and trail definition, and increased compliance among users.

“Trails in areas where they already exist should be used and it is far better than using the road or making your own. Again we are not talking about exploiting the backcountry areas but only modifying areas that are already in wide use.”
“This will bring organization and proper trail management to what is currently a labyrinth of wild trails.”
“This may be the solution to the vast number of informal trails currently in that area.”

Some proposal supporters viewed the development of a secondary trail system as an opportunity to enhance experiences for visitors and locals. A few noted that, given the area's proximity to the Tunnel Mountain campground, providing formal access to the area is essential.

“This is the ideal location for a series of trails to enhance visitor experience and residential lifestyles.”
“It is an absolute must that a series of good trails remain open to all visitors and locals. You have a small town (Tunnel Mountain campground) on the mountain in the summer and providing trail access is without a doubt an absolute necessity.”
“A perfect location for such a trail with easy access for the thousands that use the campground and for those that like to hike, walk or run close to town and in a safe environment.”

While generally agreeing with the proposal, a few individuals expressed concern about losing access to the diversity and challenge of the existing informal trails – particularly as it relates to mountain biking.

“The idea should be to give a number of interconnecting trails some diversity that allow for interesting use of the terrain and the area.”
“Please, please, please, do not close the ones we are currently riding on.”

A few supporters viewed the proposed multi-use nature of the trails as problematic, noting inherent conflicts between user groups (i.e. mountain bikers and equestrians).

“I would prefer not to have to share trails with horses and MTB, neither user group enjoys an encounter with the other. This area is where I would prefer to have as many trails as possible open to MTB…”
“Horses, bikes and wheelchairs require different footing and have different needs. Again, no closures without suitable alternatives…”

No – 8 comments

Most commonly, respondents cited environmental impacts, particularly wildlife disturbance, as the major reason for opposing the proposal. A few specifically indicated that the trails should not extend east to the Cascade-Bow confluence because the area is an important montane wildlife corridor.

“I feel that this will encroach too much on wildlife in the area”
“Decommission existing east going trails and do not go or formalize any trails further east to the Cascade-Bow convergence.”

A few of the respondents who did not support the secondary trail proposal said that the existing, informal trails are adequate.

“Proposed? There are wonderful trails there now.”
“We only need the one hoodoos trail. Nobody really uses the other trails in that area.”

Unsure/Don't Know – 9 comments

Individuals indicating that they were unsure/don't know typically offered provisional support. Examples of conditions, in order of frequency, included: if ecological integrity of the area is maintained (e.g. special plant and flora areas, wildlife corridors, erosion issues), if trails are not developed in virgin land, and if the minimum number of trails are developed and all informal trails are decommissioned.

“Will have to be carefully planned and managed to ensure ESS not adversely effected; special plant flora areas will have to be clearly identified and protected.”
“Only if there are a minimum number of trails and all random use stops and all informal trails are decommissioned.”

Question 8

Two technical mountain bike trails are proposed, from the vicinity of the Tunnel Mountain reservoir to the riverside trail between Surprise Corner and the Hoodoos. Do you agree with this proposal?

n = 391	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	310	79
No	40	10
Unsure/Don't Know	41	11

Yes – 58 comments

Some proposal supporters noted that with a rise in the popularity of mountain biking, particularly among young people, there is an increasing demand for technical mountain biking opportunities in the Park. A few commented that provisions to service the needs of this user group are overdue. In addition to increasing technical mountain biking opportunities in the Park, several respondents suggested that the primary benefit of formalized mountain bike trails would be that riders would be more apt to stay on designated trails and the use and development of random wilderness trails would be slowed.

“Yes, yes, yes, yes. They have to have somewhere to go. The park needs to recognize that in order to bring young people here to experience the park... you must provide them with the opportunity to do it on their own terms. This is a win situation for everyone. If you don't give them a place to go they will go anyway and not necessarily to a place you want them to go.”
“Mountain biking has been too severely limited in the park in the past, this is a great step forward for mountain bikers.”
“If we don't provide trails folks will create their own trails and probably in locations less desirable by Parks. Young people enjoy this type of activity so let's help them enjoy the outdoors in a way that meets Parks objectives.

A few supporters said that technical mountain bike trails would help reduce trail conflicts between bikers and hikers and equestrians.

“It is necessary to ensure everyone's safety and pleasure when using the park and giving the mountain bikers their own trails is a far better idea than making them ride on the hiker and horse trails.”

A few others said that, from an environmental viewpoint, the proposed location of the trails is acceptable.

“From a large carnivore habitat and movement perspective, this area is something of a dead-end, hence a bile trail here will have minimal impact on wildlife while providing interesting riding.”

No – 13 comments

Unsure/Don't Know – 7 comments

Comments from individuals opposing the proposal and from those who were unsure/don't know were similar. Most frequently, respondents said that technical mountain biking should not be accommodated because the activity is not consistent with National Park values and it will damage the environment.

“The park is a wilderness reserve, not a playground for mountain bikers, there are lots of places for them in the Kananaskis already”
“Technical mountain bike trails cause erosion and ecological damage and this proposal is therefore inconsistent with the mandate of national parks to protect ecological integrity.”

A few of the respondents in opposition expressed concern about user conflicts on the trails. A few others suggested that interactions with wildlife might be an issue in this area.

“I can only agree if there is a good way to separate these users from walkers as they access their technical trails.”
“Given the bear encounters of the past two summers, maybe that's a bear collision waiting to happen.”

Finally, a few commented that they could not support the proposed trails because, compared to existing mountain bike trails, the proposed trails would not provide enough challenge or excitement.

“I just can't find space on this trail for the adrenaline seeking, accelerating, armor-clad approach to the landscape.”

Question 9

The strategy proposes that the Valleyview warm spring wetland be designated an Environmentally Sensitive Site, with well defined trails in order to provide more protection for the area. Do you agree with this proposal?

n = 387	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	337	87
No	16	10
Unsure/Don't Know	34	11

Yes – 29 comments

Comments from respondents who agreed with the proposal typically reflected general support.

“Wetlands need to be protected in order to support our wildlife.”
“We believe this is needed in that area.”
“Good stewardship”

Some individuals provided suggestions for protecting the wetland and enhancing users' experience, including, in order of frequency: offering educational and interpretive programs, closing informal trails, providing signage, and restricting cyclists.

“Keeping people on established trails and providing interpretative hikes there can help educate people.”
“Establishment of such trails should only occur as part of a consolidation of the informal trails in the area.”
“Need to have better signage and include trails on maps.”
“Cyclists should not be permitted in this area as the area is extremely wet and is severely damaged by bike tires.”

No – 5 comments

Comments from individuals against the proposal ranged from: concern about attracting wildlife to an area adjacent to a residential development, to suggestion that too much land is being protected, to belief that use will increase if the area is designated and publicized.

“There is too much land already over protected.”
“This is already close to a lot of family homes, are you sure you want to attract more wildlife?”

Unsure/Don't Know – 5 comments

Among respondents answering unsure/don't know, a few indicated that they were unaware of issues in the area. Another few said they would support the proposal as long as access to the wetland remained available.

“I am not aware of problems that currently exists.”
“I think this is acceptable as long as the strategy is not about limiting access.”

Question 10

The strategy proposes that the Minnewanka loop road be improved as a scenic drive. It is also proposed that a permanent winter vehicle closure of the western part of the road be implemented. Do you agree with this proposal?

n = 390	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	265	68
No	58	15
Unsure/Don't Know	67	17

Yes – 44 comments

On balance, respondents supporting the proposal acknowledged that improvements to the Minnewanka loop road are required.

“The road is in great need of surface improvements. One of the most beautiful road ride and driving loop in the immediate vicinity yet it is unsafe.”
“The road is in a sad state of repair and should be improved immediately.”

However, survey comments showed that opinion about winter closures was divided. Many supporters said that they backed the proposal as presented (i.e. provided positive response to the proposal, did not specifically contest winter closures, or specifically indicated support for permanent winter closures).

“This is a popular visitor area and needs improving”
“We've been living with winter closures for years, that shouldn't be too much to ask us humans.”
“Winter closure is fine, but would ensuring even the closed section is cleared of snow during the winter not help to maintain surface?”

A small number of these thought that winter closures had already been implemented.

“Isn't this the current situation?”
“Is it already closed in winter?”

Remaining respondents supported the proposal to improve the Minnnewanka loop road, but disagreed with winter closures, or agreed with the proposed upgrading the road, but would only support winter closures if access to cross-country skiing remained available.

“ I agree with improving the road but disagree with winter closure.”
“A scenic drive, leave it open all year round.”
“I agree as long as there is still access to cross country skiing on the Cascade fire road.”
“Winter closure of the read needs to allow access for xcountry skiers so I would hope that a trail head and trails to ski will not be neglected”

Some supporters offered suggestions for improving the Minnewanka loop road, including, in order of frequency: providing a dedicated bike lane, enforcing speed limits, developing more pull-offs, and including interpretive signage.

No – 22 comments

Respondents who opposed the proposal most frequently indicated that they disagreed with the permanent winter closure of the western part of the road.

“Any closure is totally unacceptable. The purpose of a National Park is for the enjoyment of its use by the people. If it is closed, it reduces the amount of guests that can enjoy.”
“Improve the drive, but DO NOT CLOSE IT IN WINTER!!!”
“I think that road closure brings the predators closer to the humans, is that what you really want?”

Concern about access to cross-country skiing was next most popular reason for disagreeing with the proposal.

“I'm not in favour of any initiative that eliminates access to the Cascade fire road for xc skiing.”
“I want to be able to use the fire road for cross country, you have to get there some how.”

A few of the respondents indicating that they did not support the proposal said it was because motorized vehicular traffic in the Park should not be encouraged.

“There are enough drives in Banff already. Encouraging trail use – yes. Encouraging driving – NO.”

Unsure/Don't Know – 14 comments

Comments from individuals who were unsure/don't know ranged significantly, including for example: yes to improvements, no to winter closures; no to improvements and yes to winter closures; kudos for attempting to limit vehicular traffic; concern that the proposal would limit access to cross-county skiing; comments about the wording of the question; and admissions about lack of familiarity with the road.

Question 11

The current Management Plan authorizes the closure of the Vermilion Lakes road to vehicles at First Lake. This strategy proposes that the road be retained and improved as a scenic drive to Third Lake Do you agree with the proposed revision to the Management Plan?

n = 390	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	263	68
No	44	11
Unsure/Don't Know	83	21

Yes – 41 comments

The prevailing reason for supporting the proposed revision to the Management Plan was that the scenic drive to Third Lake offers individuals with limited mobility (e.g. seniors, persons with disabilities) the opportunity to experience the Park's natural environment.

“This is a beautiful area and would be a shame to prevent our senior population from enjoying this.”
“The Vermilion Lakes road is one of the last scenic drives available in Banff. There are many visitors and senior residents who love this road, use it for occasional drives, and feel that they can connect with the environment – even if they are unable to leave their cars.”
“Visitors cannot all ride bikes. A scenic drive is needed for the older and handicapped.”

Some of the supporters noted that both tourists and locals value the drive to Third Lake. One said that it is one of Banff's “most iconic attractions”.

“Tourists and locals love this drive. The road needs improvement.”
“Do not close this road! It has always been a favorite for locals and tourists alike. Don't limit our access to our favorite places.”
“This road is a very popular drive for visitors and we cannot close them out.”

A few of the respondents supporting the revision said that because the road is already established, retaining and improving the scenic drive is reasonable.

“As an existing resource it makes sense to maintain access to Third Lake.”
“Why not, the infrastructure is in place.”

Individuals in agreement provided suggestions for improving the scenic drive to Third Lake, including, in order of frequency: developing a trail adjacent to the road for hikers and bikers, building pull-outs in key scenic locations, providing interpretive signage, and ensuring the area is well serviced and maintained (e.g. clean-up, garbage facilities).

No – 21 comments

Opponents of the proposed revision of the Management Plan most frequently said that vehicular travel in the park should not be facilitated and Park users should be encouraged to get out of their cars.

“Close the road – force people to get out of their cars!”
“Visitors should be encouraged to leave their vehicles behind.”
“Close the road and make people walk a very short distance to enjoy.”

Almost as often, individuals against the proposed revision said that to improve the ecological integrity of the area, the Management Plan should be followed and the road to Third Lake should be closed to vehicles. A few respondents identified specific environmental concerns, including: disruption of eagle nesting sites, noise and pollution impacts in the Vermilion Lakes wetland, and diminished wildlife habitat connectivity.

“This road should be closed to help improve ecological integrity of the area.”
“Straying from this plan will not contribute to greater ecological integrity.”
“I support the authorization to close Vermilion Lakes road to vehicles at First Lake, this will improve wildlife habitat connectivity.”

Unsure/Don't Know – 6 comments

Of the individuals who reported being unsure/don't know providing comment, responses most commonly reflected confusion about the question.

“Question misleading.”
“Is the statement in favour of the road open or closed??”

Question 12

The strategy proposes upgraded facilities, improved ecological conditions, and enhanced interpretation at day use areas (Lake Minnewanka, Johnson Lake, Hoodoos, etc.). Do you agree with this proposal?

n = 391	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	353	90
No	14	4
Unsure/Don't Know	24	6

Yes – 45 comments

Comments from supporting respondents were typically positive. Some specifically applauded the interpretive component, viewing it as a means of educating tourists about the Park's resources and values. A few noted that the proposed upgraded facilities would enhance Park experiences for both locals and visitors. A few others said that the proposed improvements are long overdue.

“Offer a quality visitor experience.”
“Improving the accessibility to tourists to view the beauty of Banff is always encouraged.”
“Education is vital to improving responsible use of Banff National Park by visitors.”
“The more information visitors have on the area the greater their appreciation.”
“Education is what will sustain our love affair with the parks and wildlife.”

Much of the remaining feedback offered specific suggestions related to the proposal, including for example: timing upgrades to ensure wildlife disruption is minimized, including maps of trails and geographic features in interpretive signage, footprint of existing facilities should not be increased, more sand on beaches at Johnson Lake and Cascade Ponds, and no concession stands.

No – 2 comments

Unsure/Don't Know – 4 comments

Very few individuals answering no or unsure/don't know provided comment. Of those who did, a few said that existing facilities and interpretative materials are adequate. A few others said they required more information about the proposal.

“I think facilities are fine as is.”
“Depends on what these upgrades involve.”

Question 13

The strategy proposes a feasibility study for an aerial tramway from the Town of Banff to Mt. Norquay ski area. Do you agree with this proposal?

n = 389	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	319	82
No	46	12
Unsure/Don't Know	24	6

Yes – 106 comments

In general, respondents in agreement were enthusiastic about the notion of a tramway to Mt. Norquay and offered words of support. Feedback from many supporters typically related directly the aerial tramway, implying support for the feasibility study.

“This is a superb idea!”
“Simply a great idea – go for it.”
“Best suggestion in the entire plan.”
“Win-win for all concerned.”
“This is by far the most important question on this list... much needed an totally overdue. A tram to Mt. Norquay would be wonderful.”

Respondents believed that an aerial tramway to Mt. Norquay would generate a range of positive outcomes. Most frequently, supporters viewed reductions in vehicular traffic on the Mt. Norquay road as a major benefit.

“Less cars – perfect.”
“It should dramatically reduce the cars going up the road.”
“This would also be an amazing opportunity for Parks Canada to eliminate excess vehicle use up and down this road.”
“Such a facility would reduce traffic on the Mt. Norquay road, a result that should be applauded by all stakeholders in the Park.”
A few supporters suggested that, once the tramway is developed, vehicular access to Mt. Norquay should be restricted to service and emergency vehicles.
“Vehicle access should be restricted to ski area vehicles, parks and others only.”
“Its a great way to keep bus traffic off dangerous roads.”

Improving the ecological integrity of the area by reducing and/or eliminating vehicular traffic on Mt. Norquay road was mentioned next most often as a benefit of the proposed aerial tramway. Examples of specific environmental improvements named include: better air quality from fewer emissions, reductions in wildlife disturbances, improved wildlife safety (i.e. fewer traffic related injuries or deaths), and fewer human/animal interactions.

“The tramway would be a great way to move visitors up the mountain with minimal ongoing wildlife disturbance.”
“Yes, this would be very ecologically friendly and be a wonderful addition to our first ski area.”
“Less shuttles running back and forth = less pollution.”
“An aerial tramway will reduce travel between the town of Banff and Mt Norquay ski area by automobile thus reducing impact and emissions.”

Some supporters viewed the aerial tramway as an opportunity to expand Mt. Norquay's potential as a four-season destination and to improve the overall viability of the attraction. Of these, several respondents specifically backed summer recreational use.

“It is crucial to the area that Mount Norquay be kept viable as a 4 season area.”
“Norquay would have more visitors and be an attraction site for the summer, just like the Sulphur Gondola.”
“Vital to the viability of Norquay as an all season resort, something that is needed so [as] to maintain one of Banff's most redeeming and recognizable features.”
“This study would be very useful to make a determination for a lasting summer plan for Norquay - it would put Banff back on the map as an exciting place to visit.”

In that vein, a few respondents suggested that the year round recreational opportunities provided by an aerial tramway would enhance visitor experiences. A few others mentioned that the tramway would improve Mt. Norquay's (and Banff's) competitive edge, particularly by providing a “ski to your door” experience.

“This would offer a unique view of the valley and would greatly enhance the visitor's experience.”
“We also have to realize Banff is a tourism product and competing on a world wide scale. Anything with minimal impact to the environment to improve visitor experience.”
“That would give skiers more incentive to ski Norquay and Banff could say it has ski in, ski out accommodations.... currently a big drawback for Banff when competing with other ski areas.”

Some said that they supported the tramway because Mt. Norquay is an integral part of Banff's history and therefore it should be improved and maintained.

“Please don't lose the historic Mt. Norquay ski area. Norquay, along with Sunshine, are important parts of the history of the area.”
“Absolutely, Mt. Norquay has long been a town tradition and steeped in history. The tramway is a great step in improving accessibility and the promotion of this great area.”
“Mt. Norquay is a an original Banff showpiece and in my opinion, an important historic site to the birth of skiing in Canada, anything to encourage visitors and locals to enjoy this area I would support.”

A few commented about Mt. Norquay's importance to the local community.

“This ski area is very important to both Banff and Canmore communities.”
“If the ski hill closes it would be disastrous for Banff/Canmore!!!!”
“My children learned to ski at Norquay, I learned to ski at Norquay, and so did my parents before me.”

No – 25 comments

The most common reason for opposing the proposal was that the ecological integrity of the area would be harmed by significant increases in human use, particularly summer use. A few specifically noted that the proposal contradicts the objective to reestablish the wildlife corridor on the north side of the Trans Canada highway.

“The increased noise and human traffic would adversely affect the ecological integrity of the area.”
“…such infrastructure would only serve increased human use in summer - defeating the purpose of restoring the North of TCH wildlife corridor.”
“Absolutely not. This is too much of an intrusion on the environment in this area. This is not just trails for horses or hikers to walk on but a permanent structure 24-7 which I am totally against.”

A few suggested that previous agreements related to summer closure of Mt. Norquay should be respected.

“The approval of such a proposal would demonstrate a failure to honour past agreements regarding the exchange of summer use of Mt. Norquay for the expansion of the ski hill.”
“Norquay's previous owners gave up rights for summer use-this should not be even discussed.”

The next most popular reason for opposition was the prohibitive cost of an aerial tramway. A few suggested that limited resources could be better spent.

“I can't imagine that the economics of this make any sense.”
‘Too expensive, too much infrastructure.”
“I think there are much more meaningful and/or useful things that you could spend that money on.”

In order of frequency, other reasons for opposing the proposal included: the tramway would diminish the Park's visual aesthetic, locating the tramway base in Banff would conflict with the commercial cap, and another gondola/tramway in Banff is not necessary.

“What an unnatural eyesore!”
“Will upset commercial cap on development space.”
“Don't see the need for two gondola lifts here.”

Finally, a few of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal said that they did not support the tramway but supported summer use of Mt. Norquay.

“I think summer use of Mt. Norquay's existing facilities should be considered. I don't believe an aerial tramway is necessary.”
“But I do agree with a limited summer usage at Norquay to make it a viable year round resort.”

Unsure/Don't Know – 9 comments

Individuals who were unsure/don't know about the proposal most commonly said that more research, particularly environmental research, is required.

“Would need to see an EA for this prior to comment.”
“This is a sensitive area in summer, possibly a migratory, definitely a nursery area for bears ... more info/research may be required.”

Question 14

The strategy proposes a variety of partnerships to improve information of all kinds. Do you agree with this proposal?

n = 388	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	333	86
No	5	1
Unsure/Don't Know	50	13

Yes – 34 comments

In general, respondents agreed on the value of improving information through partnership.

“More information is good.”
“Information is essential.”
“Partnerships are good. Different viewpoints and capabilities would be wonderful.”

Supporters provided suggestions for partnering opportunities, including for example: all levels of governments, user groups, business community, environmental organizations, tourism associations, and local residents.

“Trail users of all kinds are usually passionate... they should have a voice.”
“Bring the business community in as they are the ones with their necks out trying to survive and create an experience that will bring visitors back.”
“All levels of government should work together.”

A few supporters saw activating volunteers and increasing trail stewardship/sponsorship as potential by-products of partnership arrangements.

“There is an untapped volunteer base available.”
“Provides opportunities for trail stewardship.”

No – 1 comment

Unsure/Don't Know – 16 comments

Almost all responses from individuals who did not agree with the proposal or were unsure/don't know indicated that the survey question was unclear and that more specific detail about the proposal is required.

“This must be defined as this statement could mean a lot of things.”
“This statement is too vague to act upon. Be more specific.”

Question 15

The strategy proposes the resolution of trail issues at various locations. Do you agree with this proposal?

n = 391	Frequency	Per Cent
Yes	296	76
No	10	3
Unsure/Don't Know	85	21

Yes – 29 comments

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, some said that decisions surrounding the resolution of trail issues should be made on a trail specific basis. A few said that the approach to decision making should be characterized by cooperation, on-going dialogue, and fair and equal representation among stakeholders.

“Of course this depends on the specific issues.”
“Subject to specific trail issues.”
“Ongoing discussion about any trails in the Banff area is vital.”
“I hope that the opportunity to be a stakeholder at these resolution groups will be made available to people who use the trails rather that just choosing group representatives from the usual suspects.”
“Let's work together to implement positive changes that affect all of us.”
A few supporters specifically backed the decommissioning of informal trails.
“Yes, in particular ... the proposal to decommission informal trails to reduce fragmentation of wildlife habitat and movement corridors.”
“Prompt closure of informal trails will be necessary.”

A few others provided feedback about specific locations, particularly as they relate to access on horseback. Areas of specific concern mentioned include: the airport strip, “old” cross-country ski trails in Johnson Lake, and Tunnel Mountain.

“The Airport strip was promised to be available [to us] for riding... it allows us access to the back country via Stoney Squaw, and our small riding season, and few numbers do not impact ecologically.”

No – 7 comments

Of the individuals who disagreed with the proposal, some said that the question was vague and that more information is required.

“Holy ambiguous statement, any idea what it means?”
“In order to support this I would need more information.”

About the same number suggested that there should be no or very limited trail closures.

“Sometimes there are trails and areas which should just not have outside interference from Parks or the Town.”
“All trails should be open and no trail closures should be implemented.”

Unsure/Don't Know – 24 comments

Several respondents who indicated that they were unsure/don't know said that they were uncertain about the meaning of the question.

“This question is unclear.”
“That is a pretty vague question. What trail issues at what locations?

Other comments ranged from: opposition to mountain bike trail closures, to support for protection of wildlife habitat, to promoting trail stewardship.

Question 16

Do you have any other suggestions or comments?

Just over a quarter of survey respondents provided final suggestions and comments. Responses ranged significantly in both content and level of detail. For summary purposes, the general comments were reviewed individually to identify trends and common themes. Specific suggestions were isolated and grouped by topic area.

In the following section, the key thematic categories have been listed in order of frequency of mention. Within each thematic category, examples of common responses and sample comments have been provided. Specific suggestions are presented in tabular format by topic area.

A/ General Comments by Theme

Support for improving visitor experiences and recreational opportunities

• Enhance experience for visitors and locals
  “Let's really try to improve the experience here for visitors and residents.”
  “LATB must make visitor experience and accessibility a high priority. Make the Park ‘people friendly'.”
  “Looking forward to seeing improvement on the ground for the community and visitors.”
• Balance human use and ecological improvements
  “The National Parks and in particular the Banff and Jasper Parks need to be more open to human interaction. The more that people are able to see, touch and feel these two parks, the greater is their appreciation of the need to preserve the wilderness
  “The Town of Banff and its environs is an unbelievable destination and resource. Anything that can be done to protect the environment and the wildlife while allowing [access] to those who use the facilities should be done.”
  “Parks Canada needs to be more open to human usage of parks. It can be done in a sustainable way.”
• Encourage sustainable tourism
  “Ease up on usage restrictions inside the Park. There is plenty of land to protect. Developing more of it to allow Canmore/Banff to become world class tourist destinations is in everyone's best interest.”
  “We are major supporters of the environment, and at the same time, see the necessity of maintaining the current facilities and allowing them to expand in order to compete. We need to address this and ensure that we can continue to compete.”
  “We NEED to offer more to the traveling public. We must take a progressive approach toward improvements and enhancements to remain interesting and attractive to visitors who are demanding varied experiences and good value for their tourism dollar.”

Support for Mt. Norquay proposal

• Back development of aerial tramway
  “Having a tramway from Banff, an interesting interpretative centre, and some well-defined hikes on the hill with some food services would be a way to enhance tourist experiences without having a huge environmental impact.”
  “I strongly support the idea of a tramway between the Banff townsite and the Norquay Ski hill, as it reduces the number of car driving number of skiers visiting the area.”
  “From all the above I think the most important is the tram to Norquay. It makes complete sense to finally stop heavy fuming car traffic there.”
• Support opening Mt. Norquay for summer use
  “If the hill does have summer usage in the lease, the Parks should be able to give them a business license for summer usage. I was a child when there was summer usage, and a fond memory is taking visitors up to the teahouse.”
  “Please allow Norquay summer operations. Its one of the few local places that retains the flavour of Banff as a small ski town. I think many people who visit want this kind of experience. All the other ski hills are allowed to operate in the summer!”
  “I believe the Norquay Summer use issue is one those opportunities that cannot be dismissed out-of-hand. Both sides can coexist if the issues are known and minds are open.”
• Preserve Mt. Norquay
  “You must find a way to keep Norquay operational. Needs to be preserved as a family ski area.”
  “Please give Mount Norquay every opportunity to remain viable!!! Losing Norquay as a ski hill would be a disaster.”
  “I feel that whatever possible should be done to ensure the health of the Norquay ski area.”

General support for the proposed Human Use Management Strategy

• Applaud strategy content
  “This is a giant leap forward in addressing the needs of the visitors and residents.”
  “I believe that this shows incredible environmental leadership by addressing environmental concerns/issues with alternative solutions that allow equal or greater personal interaction with our parks.”
  “I think the proposals being considered are an excellent compromise and will greatly improve the appreciation/understanding/respect of the area around the town of Banff.”
• Appreciate opportunity to participate
  “I do appreciate the difficulty of managing a National Park, and trying to balance environmental impact, ecological integrity and human use, and the opportunity to be able to voice my concerns. Thank you.”
  “Congratulations to the hard-working committee, and thanks for the opportunity to have input.”
  “Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input.”

Concern related to trail closures and restrictions

• Trail closures and restrictions are excessive
  “If trails are closed will still have the same number of users just jammed into a smaller number of trails and that will create and poor visitor and local experience. More trails = more spread out and less net effect on the wildlife and a better experience for humans.”
  “ Is this just another attempt to shut down trails and stop people from using the park they love?”
  “Managing human use in Banff National Park or any national park cannot be accomplished by only implementing closures and limiting access.”

Emphasize ecological integrity

• Priority should be given to improving ecological integrity
  “Parks Canada should not lose track of the purpose and first mandate of parks. Ecological integrity comes first, the people that are lucky enough to live in this place have to accept the reality of this place and stop believing that them and their toys have to be accommodated.”
  “Where, when from whom did these 3 equal pillars come from?? I understand and accept that CNPAct Sec 8 (2): "maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through... shall be the first priority of the minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks." I sincerely appreciate all the work of the LATB advisory group. However I do not accept the three "pillars"!"
  “Respect for initial recommendations of the Bow Valley Study and the integrity of the wildlife corridors.”

Equestrian Trail Network

• Concerns about trail closures
  “When the horses were moved to the new site, access was harder to get to a network of trails and we were promised use of trails and access as needed. Far more natural than allowing those on mountain bikes.”
  “As a member of the horse club I am concerned about trail closures. Tunnel Mountain is our closest and safest area to ride. Reducing the secondary trails would leave little in options and variety.”
• Issues with multi-use trails
  “Horse use in this study seems to have been overwhelmed, seemingly lumped in as an exact replica of mountain biking.”
  “Horses and riders have been stewards of the Park, its trails and wildlife for a very long time. Multi-use trails are not always a good idea. Mixing horses with bikes, skate-boarders is a recipe for disaster.”

B/ Specific Suggestions by Topic Area

Trails, Trail Network, Pathways, Access

• Create a trail link between Bow Avenue and Fenland Trail
• Re-open study on the Howse Pass Highway
• Retain trail from Cascade Pits to Johnson Lake
• Maintain the voluntary nature of the Fairholme trail system
• Allow use of Hellraiser, 2JM and Bucky's
• Re-open summer bike and horse trails in the Sunshine Village area
• Winter use from Boat docks (end of Wolf Street) across the river to connect with Sundance Canyon
• Allowed use the airstrip area and the Indian Grounds for horseback riding
• Better pathway along the road from the RR tracks to the overpass
• Work with the CPR to create a pedestrian underpass between the industrial compound and the area near Cougar Avenue
• Better pathway/crossing elements across the highway overpass for pedestrians
• No hard surfaced trails for multi-use unless a dirt trail parallels

Infrastructure

• Post signage at wildlife underpasses regarding their purposes as wildlife crossings
• Improve parking in ski areas (especially Sunshine Village)
• Illuminate the Admin Grounds trail to Middle Springs
• Groom a night skiing loop in the Tunnel Mtn campground; illuminate until 10 pm.
• Improve facilities in Banff townsite (e.g. benches, weeds in central park area, litter)
• Provide bike lane markers on all townsite roads
• Signage along the Juniper Way access road to discourage downhill mountain bikers
• Cattle guards by highway entrances should be made more pedestrian and bike friendly
• Commercial rafters using the Bow River from Spray River outlet to the end of the golf course should construct public toilets in the area.
• Reduce night lighting at highway interchanges and in the Town of Banff

Process issues, HUMS Strategy

• Improved regional transportation plans - integrated with Bow Valley
• HUMS for the LATB must pay more attention to sound calming methods to dampen mechanical and motor vehicle sounds; public transit options (e.g. earthen berms along railway and vehicle transportation routes)
• Review trail landscaping and design guidelines, departure from the 1920s-50s design aesthetic promoted by early Parks Canada supporters (e.g. trails, trailheads, gathering areas, interpretive signage, wayfinding)

Interpretive Signage

• Stretches of road between (i) Bumpers out to the industrial compound and (ii) the curling rinks to the park entrance require improvements in interpretive signage and landscaping
• Interpretive signage about the pine beetle story, perhaps along the access road
• Improve the interpretation of the archaeology of Banff National Park

Historic Resources

• Preserve the Wheeler House

Other

• Improve web site to communicate trail information, conditions, closures more effectively
• Decrease vehicle speed limit to 50 kph from 60 kph on the road to Sulphur Mtn
• Reduce lighting glare to provide astronomers with better visibility

4.0 Summary of Written Submissions

Four written submissions were received during the public comment period. The written submissions are summarized in the following section.

July 2, 2006 – email submission from general public member
• Impression that for every question of the survey the obvious (and desired ) answer is yes.
• Ambiguity of questions and opposing concepts combine to give the impression that respondents will be giving Parks Canada blanket approval to proceed as they wish.
• Statements including the concept of "where possible" or "when appropriate" can result in actions opposite to popular wants and needs 100% of the time.
• Agreeing with the statements in question 1 suggests that there is disagreement with question 13.
• Strongly support the proposal presented in question 13.

July 10, 2006 – written submission from local education/arts institution
• Commend External Advisory Committee for their excellent work.
• Interests relate to Tunnel/Rundle/Indian Grounds (LATB Section 7 – Key Actions 2, 3 and 7).
• Pleased with the removal of mountain bike trail #1 in the Human Use Strategies Report; incompatible with the institution's programs.
• Strongly support creation of a commuter trail between Banff and Canmore.

July 20, 2006 – written submission from an ENGO
• Survey question 1
o Good objective provided that the expansion of the trail system occurs in immediate conjunction with or after the decommissioning of informal trails.
• Survey question 2
o Agree with the proposal; particularly urgent given the results of the recent LATB Trail Study.
o Proposal would improve visitor experience by providing safe non-vehicular crossing of major transportation corridors.
• Survey question 3
o Agree with the proposal provided that the ring trail does not infringe upon sensitive wildlife areas.
• Survey question 4
o Agree with the proposal. Benefits of a commuter trail: increased public safety, encourage non-vehicular commuting, reduce traffic congestion in Banff and Canmore, reduce pollution.
• Survey question 5
o Agree with the proposal. Benefits of off-road trails connecting the Town of Banff with Lake Minnewanka and Johnson Lake: facilitate non-vehicular access to popular destinations, improve visitor experience, reduce traffic congestion.
o Trail plans should ensure that no wildlife is displaced and that seasonal closures are enforced.
• Survey question 6
o The trail from the Brewster Creek trailhead to the Vermilion Lakes road should only be considered in conjunction with the closure of the Vermilion Lakes road to vehicular traffic at First Lake.
o Vermilion Lakes Wetland Area is an environmentally sensitive site and should be protected.
o Facilitating human traffic is inappropriate in an identified wildlife movement corridor.
• Survey question 7
o Agree with qualification.
o All efforts should be made to determine wildlife use of the area, and the approval of any proposed trail system should be based on sound knowledge that wildlife will not be affected.
• Survey question 8
o Oppose the proposal because technical mountain bike trails cause erosion and ecological damage; inconsistent with Parks mandate.
• Survey question 9
o Agree with the proposal. Valleyview warm spring wetlands should be designated an environmentally sensitive site.
o Trails should be established concurrent with the consolidation of the informal trail so the overall outcome is a reduction in human use.
• Survey question 10
o Agree with the proposal. Strongly support the addition of interpretive signage to the Minnewanka loop.
o Would like to see the loop improved to better accommodate cyclists and pedestrians.
• Survey question 11
o Oppose the proposal; current Management Plan should be followed.
o Will damage ecological integrity; given the status of Vermilion Lakes wetlands every means should be taken to preserve the area.
o Area's bird habitat merits interpretive walks and remote automatic cameras monitoring diurnal wildlife use.
• Survey question 12
o Agree with the proposal. Upgrades should be completed at times that will ensure minimal wildlife disturbances.
• Survey question 13
o Oppose the proposal. Construction of a tramway would defeat all work to reestablish the wildlife corridor north of the Trans Canada Highway.
o No suitable locations for a gondola base because of capped development space in the Town of Banff.
o Increased noise and human traffic would adversely affect the ecological integrity of the area.
o Approval of the proposal would demonstrate a failure to honor past agreements.
o The road would continue to be used by individuals, cyclists, tour buses; would reflect a switch from public to private commercial access.
• Survey question 14
o Oppose the proposal because the wording is too vague to be understandable.
• Survey question 15
o Agree with the proposal, in particular the proposal to decommission informal trails.
• Suggestions and comments (question 16)
o Until human crossings are developed, signage should be posted at wildlife underpasses regarding their purpose; once human crossing are developed, humans should be restricted by law from using wildlife crossings.
o Cattle guards by highway entrances should be made pedestrian and bike friendly.
o Stretches of road between Bumper to the industrial compound and the curling rinks to the Park entrance require improvements in landscaping and interpretive signage.
o Work with the CPR to create a pedestrian underpass between the industrial compound and Cougar Avenue area.
o Create a trail link between Bow Avenue and Fenland Trail.
o Improve the interpretation of archeology of Banff National Park.
o Reduce night lighting at highway interchanges.
o Commercial rafters using the Bow River from Spray Lake to the golf course should construct public toilets.
o Because of a departure from 1920s – 1950s design, trail landscaping and design guidelines should be reviewed.
o Attention needs to be given to sound calming measures to dampen mechanical and motor vehicle sounds.

July 28, 2006 – written submission from an ENGO
• Environmental Assessment
o Offer general support provided that the proposals present no risk to the maintenance and restoration of ecological integrity as determined through environmental assessment (EA).
o EA should not be limited to the minimum requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA).
o EA should identify and assess the individual and cumulative effects of the LATB proposals.
o Strongly oppose Mount Norquay's proposal for summer use.
o Parks Canada must provide the public with information about the scope and approach to environmental assessment prior to implementation of the LATB proposals.
• Ensuring Ecosystem Gains
o Must be a plan for decommissioning informal trails; informal trails should be decommissioned prior to or concurrent with the development of new projects.
o Effort should be made to develop and enforce measures to ensure that unacceptable human use does not continue.
• Follow Established Habitat Protection Guidelines
o New patterns of human use and infrastructure must respect the Bow Corridor Ecosystem Advisory Group guidelines for establishment and maintenance of wildlife movement corridors.
• The Purpose of Feasibility Studies
o Support of feasibility studies must not be misconstrued as support for proposals.
o Do not support proposals to develop a trail along the Trans Canada Highway to connect to the Healy Creek fire road or an aerial tramway to Mount Norquay.
• Scientific Review
o Advocate the establishment of an independent scientific review committee for Banff and the mountain park block.
• Maintain the National Perspective
o Important to ensure that all LATB human use proposals are in the interest of all Canadians.