next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
I think I'm about the 4th forward of the original message. While Banff
is well beyond the Maritimes, it sets the tone for sustainability within
park systems. Hopefully you agree it's "in bounds" for this group.
Colin Stewart (CPAWS-NS)
See below for a message from Mike McIvor of the Bow Valley Naturalists.
CPAWS is cooperating in taking the issue of more commercial development in
Banff to the broader public. We will have ballot boxes set up in all Good
Earth Cafes and Mountain Equipment Coop in Calgary, as well as some
locations in Ottawa. Please be sure you send your ballot in to Sheila
Copps on March 26th to let her know Canadians want NO MORE DEVELOPMENT in
Banff. Thanks.
>From Mike & Diane McIvor:
ACTION ALERT
Banff Town Council has decided to take the issue of commercial growth to
its citizens in the form of a plebiscite to be held on March 26,1998.
Keeping in mind that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has ultimate
approving authority for the Community Plan and Land-Use Bylaw prepared by
the Town, we are suggesting that March 26 would be a useful target date for
a day of action.
Why should a few thousand privileged residents of Banff decide the future
of a national park town which is the property of all Canadians? We are
asking people no matter where they live, to cast their votes on March 26 by
faxing a letter that day to Minister Sheila Copps.
There are significant development proposals for areas of Banff National
Park outside the Town. We suggest that the issue of growth in the Town be
used as a point of entry to the broader issues in the Park as a whole.
Please take the opportunity to cast a second vote on March 26
____________________________________________________________________
Use this ballot or make your own:
____________________________________________________________________
BANFF PLEBISCITE - CAST YOUR BALLOT IN OTTAWA ON MARCH 26, 1998.
I VOTE YES TO NO GROWTH IN THE TOWN OF BANFF!
I VOTE YES TO NO GROWTH IN BANFF NATIONAL PARK!
YOUR NAME Signature:_____________________________
PRINT: _____________________________
YOUR ADDRESS _____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
ON MARCH 26, Fax to Minister Sheila Copps, Canadian Heritage Fax # (819)994-5987
or mail it to her address at:
Room 511-S, Centre Block
Parliament Bldg.
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0M5
Copy Prime Minister Jean Chretien and your own MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0H6
and send us a copy if you can at:
BOW VALLEY NATURALISTS
Box 1693, Banff, AB T0L 0C0
e-mail mcivor@telusplanet.net
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
There is a very widespread misconception amongst Canadians - even amongst
members of the conservation community - that Canadian Heritage Minister
Sheila Copps has acted decisively to "save" Banff National Park from
rampant commercialism and over-development. There is a belief that
commercial development has come to a full stop.
This appears to be the result of an impression that was created when the
Minister travelled to Banff in October, 1996 to release the final report of
the Banff Bow Valley Study. She subsequently returned to Banff in
September, 1997 to address issues related to the Town of Banff's Community
(Municipal Development) Plan.
Unfortunately, this impresssion is a false one. While some undeniably good
things have occured in response to the Banff Bow Valley Study, and while
there are some indications that the decision-making process will be more
rigorous and open, the roll-call of potential new or expanded commercial
development is longer and more disturbing than most people realize.
Here are some of the major causes for concern.
- Town of Banff
Town Council continues to promote a Community Plan which would permit
850,000 sq. ft. of additional commercial development, an increase of 25%
over the substantial amount that exists already. This is the same amount
proposed before the Minister rode into Town.
- Storm Mountain Lodge
This is an Outlying Commercial Accommodation facility located beside the
Kootenay Parkway in Vermilion Pass, south of Castle Junction. It is in the
midst of the major ecological linkage and primary travel route for large
mammals, including carnivores, between the Bow Valley and the Kootenay
River drainage. At present, it consists of 12 small tourist cabins which
are open for about 5 months of the year. The owners, including Husky Oil,
want to build a much larger, up-scale, year round resort with accommodation
for approximately 120 visitors and as many as 50 staff.
- Chateau Lake Louise
Canadian Pacific Hotels is waiting for approval of their modest little 7
storey convention centre which would be added to the massive complex on the
shore of Lake Louise. Although this project would contravene National Park
Policy, Parks Canada continues to give it serious consideration.
- Lake Louise Area
In the summer of 1997, Parks Canada released a draft Lake Louise Framework
for Managing Development. It called for some degree of expansion ot every
commercial overnight accommodation facility in the Lake Louise area,
producing a total increase of 25% over the current, extensively developed
situation. Following some second thoughts, Parks Canada will be bringing a
revised draft back to the public for review and comment.
- Skiing Louise
Despite the fact that it routinely exceeds the daily skier capacity
identified in its long range plan, the Lake Louise ski area is being
permitted to move forward with proposals for at least 2 major new lifts and
associated runs that would be cut into new terrain. Review of the proposed
Wolverine and Richardson lifts will take the form of Comprehensive Study
under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
- Num-Ti-Jah Lodge
This Outlying Commercial Accommodation facility along the Icefields Parkway
is located in a very sensitive site on the edge of Bow Lake. It changed
hands recently and the new owners are expected to come forward this year
with their long range plans. Any expansion would be problematic but Parks
Canada's guidelines are very generous.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects