Banff National Park in Alberta, Canada is considered by most Canadians to be the crown jewel of their nation. It is located in the southwest corner of Alberta abutting the Canadian Rockies to the west. Founded in 1883 as the first national park in Canada, it is 6,641 square kilometers of valleys, mountains, glaciers, forests, meadows, and rivers (www.worldweb.com/parkscanada-banff). Banff offers a host of recreational activities for visitors, such as hiking, mountain climbing, fishing, soaking in hot springs, sightseeing, or just relaxing. It is a home to many wildlife species, including the grizzly bear, gray wolf, elk, bighorn sheep, and many rare and threatened plant species. Due to the increasing popularity of this destination people became concerned over the parks environmental sustainability. Many were asking, how could the ecological integrity of Banff National Park be maintained in the face of these pressures? As mandated by the National Parks Act, Parks Canada is required to maintain ecological integrity. Posed with a question that they could not answer, Parks Canada assembled the Bow-Valley Task Force to assemble a plan that was later completed over the duration of two years on October 1996.

The Bow-Valley Task Force was a collection of professionals from varied disciplines. The research objectives were to look at the present and future of Banff and the surrounding area from a variety of perspectives: environmental, social, and economic (Bow Valley, 1996). The Canadian public was involved in every step of the process, with Round Table discussions, and interviews being conducted. Public meetings were held throughout Canada, in places such as Vancouver, Lake Louise, Calgary, Waterloo, Peterborough, Toronto and Ottawa. Non-government organizations such as Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Banff Flying Club, and Lake Louise Trailer Court Association were also involved in discussions with the task force. Through research and discussion with these and many other groups, the task force concluded, "if current trends and pressures are allowed to continue, they will threaten the qualities that make Banff a national park" (Bow Valley, 1996).

The task force reached this conclusion based on ten premises, which they considered to be the key issues facing Banff:

Banff National Park will continue as a major tourism destination.

Total visitation at Banff in 1950 was 459,000 people. In 1995, that number significantly rose to more than 5 million people. Based on current growth rate models, by the year 2020 the annual visitation is estimated to reach 19 million. (Bow Valley, 1996) These visitors will come from all parts of the world, bringing with them different needs, expectations, and economic opportunities. This will provide great revenue increases within the park and surrounding communities, but will also increase the difficulty of managing use and offering equal access to all while maintaining ecological aspects. A major point made by the task force was that all Canadians would not have equal access to their own national park.

Regional Growth will place dramatic pressures on Banff.

According to the task force, "Regional growth and the accompanying demand for outdoor recreation will isolate the Central Rockies Ecosystem and consume the natural areas that now serve as ‘safety valves’ for Banff National Park" (Bow Valley, 1996). The growth of the towns of Calgary and Canmore were of most concern, due to their relatively close proximity to Banff. By the year 2010, the population of Calgary is estimated to reach 1 million people; while the town of Canmore is projected to rise to 20,000(Bow Valley, 1996). Visitors will then be able to find accommodations outside of the park, increasing revenues, and thus development in the town of Banff and the Hamlet of Lake Louise. The final concern regarding the growth of Canmore was that a larger population will give the town more political clout, potentially impeding regional cooperation.

The transportation/utility corridor will remain, expand and continue to fill an important National role.

Due to this increase in population and development, inevitably the transportation corridors will increase. The projected increase in the amount of road and rail travel, along with energy consumption/demand, will place heavy pressures on the park and potentially lead to park fragmentation (Bow Valley, 1996). The Trans-Canada Highway runs directly through the middle of Banff National Park. An increase of 3% in volume of traffic will force a widening of the highway (Bow Valley, 1996), fragmenting the park habitat further. According to the task force, Banff will also experience an increase in rail traffic. This may lead to the thinning of the CPR mainline.

Declining public funding will force Parks Canada to look for alternatives.

The concern is that national parks will be exposed to market influences and be tempted to share in retail profits. As funding decreases, managers will be forced to cut services and staff. When these services decline and the fees increase, the public will grow dissatisfied.

The Ecological Integrity of the Banff-Bow Valley cannot be sustained.

The task force succinctly summed this up by saying, "Banff National Park and the adjacent protected areas may well become Canada’s Yellowstone – a remnant of wilderness surrounded by human development" (Bow Valley, 1996). The task force broke this issue down into 5 specific concerns.

Fragmentation of the Central Rockies Ecosystem will accelerate. Roads, railways, popular trails and development within Banff have already altered dispersal patterns of large mammals. Wolves already avoid the town of Banff, and are highly skeptical of crossing the Trans-Canada Highway (Bow valley, 1996). Elk populations are declining in the western part of Bow Valley due to current fragmentation.

1. Access to previously remote areas will make these areas unattractive to large carnivores. These remote areas support smaller populations than the readily-accessible habitats (the montane) (Bow valley, 1996). Increased hiker use could drive these numbers even lower.
2. When the four-lane, fenced highway through Banff is complete, it will divide the park in two. Large carnivores, either unable or unwilling to cross, will be separated into genetically isolated groups (Bow valley, 1996).
3. Suppressing natural fires will cause the Park's vegetation to age, particularly in the montane and lower sub-alpine areas. The concern is that White spruce will replace most of the aspen and will spread into the remaining grasslands. The possibility of an uncontrollable wildfire will increase as debris accumulates within the forests (Bow valley, 1996).
4. Aquatic systems, already severely affected by human use, will deteriorate further. Native fish populations are in decline in Banff, and the task force was concerned that they will disappear completely. Nutrient loading, specifically phosphorous in sewage, will increase, dramatically reducing water quality (Bow valley, 1996).

According to the task force, over the next 10-20 years, the tourism industry will be unable to respond to the increasing demands. This will occur because of limitations imposed by the National Parks Act, build-out in the town of Banff, and limitations imposed by the Hamlet of Lake Louise Action Plan (Bow valley, 1996). Restricted by supply, the economy will reflect the values of an "elite recreational centre" (Bow valley, 1996). This will reduce/eliminate equitable use of the park.

Concern about equity of access to Banff National Park will increase.

Canadians must be provided with fair, affordable, and equitable opportunities within the park. These are unrealistic expectations when these other pressures are taken into consideration.

The town of Banff can expect a tidal wave of consequences as a result of tourism growth: Demand for more services, higher densities of people, pressure to expand its boundaries, strain on infrastructure, shifts in land use, more traffic congestion, and increased pollution (Bow valley, 1996).

There will be a demand to reconsider the limits imposed by the Lake Louise Action Plan.

By restricting development in the Hamlet without restricting the number of visitors, a decline in service and visitor satisfaction will occur. Existing leaseholders will charge higher prices due to land restrictions (Bow valley, 1996). Pressure for additional accommodations for downhill skiers will grow, traffic congestion and fuel consumption will increase, and the need for public transportation will become apparent (Bow valley, 1996).

The Park's cultural heritage will be seriously compromised.

The task force focused on the cottage-like atmosphere that the town of Banff has maintained since it was founded. Development will gradually eliminate the local architecture, and in doing so, the town will lose its ambience and architectural history (Bow valley, 1996).

The ten premises that the Bow-Valley Task Force focused on were the foundation for the unpleasant and uncertain future that faced Banff National Park. These premises were also the foundation for the proposed management actions that were put forth by the task force. Over 500 specific management actions were proposed, and most of these actions required a cooperative effort by all stakeholders involved (Bow valley, 1995). The need - simply put, is to save the park for future generations, and it is the responsibility of Parks Canada to provide the leadership to make this possible.

The task force outlined several goals and objectives for the Banff - Bow Valley Ecosystem. These goals became the foundation for all recommended and implemented management actions. These goals, outlined in the Bow Valley study (1995), are as follows:

• Restoration of Aquatic Systems
• Development of Planning Initiatives dealing with Human Use
• Cooperative Regional Management
• Improved Communication with the Public
• Improvement and Continuation of Research and Monitoring Programs
• Development of a new Tourism Model

Recommended Management Actions

The Bow-Valley Task Force regarding Banff National Park recommended over 500 management actions. These ranged from Park-wide actions to site specific actions. The Park-wide recommendations for maintaining ecological integrity were broken down to six subgroups.

Aquatic Ecosystems: These recommendations focus on reducing nutrient loads and restoring native species (Bow valley, 1996). Proposed actions are as follows:

• Encourage sport fishing to eliminate non-native species
• End sport fishing in lakes and streams that have only native fish and, in the long term, eliminate fishing in the park
• Reintroduce bull trout and cutthroat trout in selected lakes and streams
• Designate benchmark aquatic systems
• Prepare an emergency response plan for spills
• Participate in programs to reduce the long range transport of air pollution (Bow valley, 1996)

Planning Initiatives: The task force recommended a comprehensive and holistic approach to plan development in the following areas:

• Aircraft use
• Water regulation
• Stream channelization
• The Trans-Canada Highway
• The CPR (railway)
• Native vegetation
• New facilities
• Management of human use- In particular, the impacts of ski areas on ecological integrity. (Bow valley, 1996)

Regional Management: The Bow Valley Task Force advises that Parks Canada, the provincial government of Alberta, and the provincial government of British Columbia work together to develop programs for the following:

• Managing garbage
• Preparing wildlife response plans
• Managing hunting
• Reducing landscape fragmentation
• Coordinating fire management (Bow valley, 1996)

Communication: In order for many of the recommended actions to be successful, visitors and residents must change their use, behavior, and expectations while in Banff. For this to happen, the task force recommended that the following public information programs be developed:

Aquatic Ecosystem Programs

• Giardia - avoiding risks
• The impact of fishing
• The relationship between human use and water quality
• Water regulation and its effect on aquatic ecosystems
• The cultural and heritage value of the hot springs
• Long range transport of air pollutants and its effect on fish in the park

• The role of fire and the prescribed burn program
• Elk - human conflicts
• The need for garbage management
• The risk of introducing non-native plants(Bow valley, 1996)

Research and Monitoring: There are still many gaps remaining when it comes to information about Banff National Park. The task force recommended establishing research and monitoring programs for the following fields:

• Baseline information on species
• The response of ecosystems to human use
• Cumulative effects of human use
• Effectiveness of environmental protection measures
• Visitor activities
• The quality of the visitor experience
• Visitor satisfaction
• Effectiveness of human use management techniques (Bow valley, 1996)

The Touchstone Tourism Destination Model: Tourism has played a pivotal role in the history of Banff. In 1995 alone, over 709 million dollars was spent in the park by tourists. Balancing the relationship between tourism and ecological integrity is vital. The task force proposed adopting a new tourism model, called the "Touchstone of the Canadian Rockies" (Bow valley, 1996). The underlying principles of this model represent Banff as a place that:

• Fully respects the ecological integrity of its unique setting
• Reflects the values of Canadians
• Is accessible to all Canadians on a fair and equitable basis
• Seeks to inspire and enable visitors to learn about, understand and better appreciate nature and the culture in the Canadian Rockies
• Within the constraints of ecological integrity, allows and encourages visitors to enjoy recreational experiences that are judged appropriate
• Recognizes its importance to the economic vitality of the local region and to the economy of Canada
• Recognizes its very special role in Canada as a vehicle for inspiring and fostering national pride and national unity
• Recognizes that nature is not free, and that pricing must reflect Banff's obligations as a national park
• Acknowledges the diverse interests of Canadians
• Provides authentic rather than artificial experiences (Bow valley, 1996)

With these goals in mind, the task force recommended designating the park into five major zones (Bow valley, 1996). Zones one, two and three are: wilderness, special preservation, and natural environments. Human use will be highly controlled (Bow valley, 1996). Zone four is outdoor recreation and will provide a wide range of recreational experiences (Bow valley, 1996). Zone five is the town of Banff and the Hamlet of Lake Louise, where basic and essential services will be provided (Bow valley, 1996). Key actions necessary to implement this tourism model are as follows:

• Development of a comprehensive tourism destination management information system
• Research to determine which visitor experiences are consistent with ecological integrity
• Developing a broad range of high quality experiences that will foster an improved understanding of nature and the Rocky Mountain culture
• A comprehensive educational program. This will include the development of a major interpretation center in the town of Banff
• Opportunities for visitors to learn about the park in as many tourism operations as possible
• Enhancing the visual appeal of the town of Banff, the Hamlet of Lake Louise and other facilities in the park
• Ensuring that all Canadians have an equal opportunity to experience Banff
• Marketing programs that enhance the appeal of Banff, while ensuring that visitors have realistic expectations about what the park can offer
• Making sure that all visitors feel welcome
• Fostering national unity and pride through recognition of the importance of Banff to Canadians
• Programs that ensure a strong and fair contribution of financial and human resources to support the protection and operation of the park. (Bow valley, 1996).

Parks Canada reviewed the Bow Valley study and concluded that management actions geared towards wildlife, aquatic systems, wildlife corridors, and vegetation were essential. Parks Canada recognized that for any management actions to be successful, close cooperation between land managers in neighboring jurisdictions is necessary (Banff National Park Management Plan Summary, 1997). A full listing of management actions is provided in Appendix 2.

Vegetation: Parks Canada felt it necessary to preserve the diversity of vegetation and habitats critical to the ecological integrity of Banff, so the following actions were proposed (BNPMP, 1997):

• Development of Vegetation Management Plan
• Reestablishment of fire within the Banff - Bow Valley Ecosystem
• Elimination of non-native species (BNPMP, 1997)

Aquatic Systems: The restoration of the natural water regime, as well as the biodiversity of the aquatic ecosystems are the focal points of these actions (BNPMP, 1997).

• Investigate the possibilities of dam removal
• Identification of benchmark aquatic systems (BNPMP, 1997).

Wildlife: The maintenance of viable populations is the underlying premise of these actions (BNPMP, 1997).

• Improvement of habitat security
• Continuation of research on predator-prey relationships
• Reduction of wildlife mortality along park roadways (BNPMP, 1997).

Wildlife Corridors: The protection of existing wildlife corridors is essential for movement between areas.

• Placing ceilings on human use relating to development in areas identified as wildlife corridors (BNPMP, 1997).

As a group we looked to the ten common themes of ecosystem management provided by Grumbine (McGarigal; Lecture 4) and then compared this to the Banff-Bow Valley plan to see how well it complied. The ten themes are as follows: Hierarchical context, ecological boundaries, ecological integrity, data collection, monitoring, adaptive management, interagency cooperation, organizational change, humans embedded in nature, and values. Specific definitions are provided in the appendices.

The Hierarchical Context is also known as the systems approach. More specifically this means that all levels of a system or hierarchy are interconnected and in order to manage for an ecosystem we must remember this connection and not just look at it from one level. The Banff-Bow Valley Plan kept this factor in mind organizing the plan from both a coarse and fine level.

The second theme is that of Ecological Boundaries. This theme is especially important, in this case for managing a national park. The Banff-Bow Valley plan did an excellent job of looking beyond the parks’ political boundaries and incorporating the larger ecological and human geography. This is apparent even in the name of the plan where the park isn’t the emphasis but the entire valley in which it resides. The inclusion of maps showing where it is located from a further perspective between Vancouver and Alberta shows that they are looking at the park from a broader perspective. The plan includes estimated projections of nearby town population and infrastructure spurts and how this may affect the valley as a whole and the national park in the future. The plan also indicates that the park and the surrounding parks have global implications and is therefore listed as a World Heritage Site. Not only does the plan indicate the need for Banff National Park to be looked at by a wider context geographically but also temporally; both on a political, ecological time scale, and an immediate one.

This theme of crossing political boundaries is made possible in practice by this next concept of Interagency Cooperation and Organizational Change. The cooperation suggested in this plan goes beyond the local and provincial to even the necessity of global cooperation. Many pages of this plan are devoted to this concept that surrounding towns, parks, and varying agencies (such as the highway department or the tourism agencies) need to work together and compromise in order for the implementation and sustainability of this plan to be successful. Again, the emphasis is on the regional cooperation to solve the regional interconnections of this park. We feel these themes are also deeply imbedded in the last two themes of  Humans Embedded in Nature and that of human Values. As the notes indicate, "People cannot be separated from nature. Humans are fundamental influences on ecological patterns and processes and are in turn affected by them."(McGarigal, Lecture 4) This plan illustrates this point of human influence throughout the document.

The Ecological Integrity section goes beyond the standard definition to include: communication, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (i.e. Prescribed burns), research, monitoring, tourism, human use management, community needs including commercial, history, culture, organization, decision making, and education. It is important to note as a caveat the task force included some "principles of precaution" the one most note worthy to our discussions on ecosystem management is that, " all decisions have a cost. Exercising caution may mean some people must forgo opportunities for recreation or profit." (Bow Valley; p.13) This is directly in line with the concept that if the goal is to maintain ecological integrity that it is impossible to keep the ideology of the MUSY concept.

Section six of the plan (Bow Valley; p.32-66) is entitled Ecological Integrity and strives to recommend ways in which the park can achieve this. The plan devotes much more weight to this theme in eco-system management out of the other nine. The main reason for this is that as population numbers increase, so does the infrastructure and tourism rate, which in turn directly has a negative impact on the ecosystem inside and surrounding the park boundaries. The parks main environmental concerns are as follows: fragmentation, difficulty of wildlife movement between major protected areas, loss of aquatic habitat, the effect of dams on the movement, diversity, and viability of fish and aquatic organisms, human caused mortality of fish and wildlife, the effect of fire suppression and water regulation on vegetation, montane habitat loss, altered predator/prey relationships, wildlife/human conflicts, sewage and water quality, and the introduction of non-native flora and fauna. We found this list more or less comprehensive however it was missing some regional issues such as air quality. Other regional issues they did address as part of ecological integrity recommendations were a collaboration between Parks Canada, Alberta, and British Columbia. These actions were managing garbage, wildlife response plan, reduction of landscape fragmentation, and the coordination of fire management.  

      The fourth and fifth theme of Data Collection and Monitoring was also addressed in the plan. It was actually listed as one of the three major objectives; "To complete a comprehensive analysis of existing information, and to provide direction for future collection and analysis of data"(Bow Valley, 1996). The task force also reviewed how Parks Canada manages research (Bow Valley, 1996). This shows that not only is it important to conduct the research but also it is important how this research is conducted. The plan acknowledges that the park has a large amount of information gathered however there are gaps in the data. There also is a need to do research not only on the species and environmental protection measures but also the effects of tourism and management techniques. (Bow Valley, 1996)

Adaptive Management is a key component of ecosystem management. This theme, "focuses on management as a learning process or continuous experiment". (McGarigal, Lecture 4) This theme illustrates how since ecosystems are dynamic so should the management plans being made for them. This is shown in the Banff Bow Valley Plan by the current implementation process. The principle of adaptive management is clearly demonstrated and represented by the continued research and monitoring to be conducted by Parks Canada in the Banff – Bow Valley ecosystem. When this management plan eventually comes up for review (this time frame was not specified), the information compiled by research and monitoring efforts will influence whether or not the plan is reauthorized in its current form, or altered to better achieve the management goals and objectives clearly laid out by the Banff – Bow Valley study.

Our only negative critique concerning this plan was that there weren’t any specific keystone or indicator species listed. The elk and wolf were briefly mentioned but as we understood it, as more of an umbrella species. We also found that a discussion of the vegetative species and their current and future state would have been helpful. This was a large weakness throughout the plan; leaving the reader with a clear picture on the nearby human inhabitation but no clear picture was created concerning the flora and fauna in and around the park. In the plan, they proposed the eventual ban on fishing throughout Banff National Park. We found this to be impractical, and it fails to embrace the notion of humans being embedded in nature.

CONCLUSION

As of April 3, 2002, this plan is currently being implemented. No word on current success has been reported. The document as a whole incorporates many principles of ecosystem management. True, Banff National Park is defined by political boundaries, however, it is recognized and managed as a smaller part of a larger natural landscape: The Banff – Bow Valley Ecosystem.  

Appendix 2: Found at: Banff National Park Management Plan Summary:

A Place for Nature:www.worldweb.com/parkscanada-banff.2002.

Banff-Bow Valley: at the Crossroads; The Banff-Bow Valley Task Force:

A Place for Nature:www.worldweb.com/parkscanada-banff.2002.