LAST RESORT: FAIRMONT HOTELS’THREAT TO BANFF’S

GRIZZLY BEARS

“Of course we cannot guarantee no grizzly bears will die

as a result of the meeting facility. . . ”

Fairmont Hotels CEO William Fatt, shareholders meeting 15 April 2002.

www.eia-international.org

IntroductionAs this report goes to press, Fairmont Hotelsand Resorts Inc. (formerly Canadian Pacific),North America’s largest luxury hotel chain, ispreparing to break ground for a 150,000 squarefeet, 105 feet tall convention center at itsChateau Lake Louise hotel. Located in themiddle of ecologically sensitive Banff NationalPark, the development will increase traffic andvisitor numbers, and extend tourist seasons.This will harm already stressed ecosystems, andthreaten key species such as grizzly bears,wolverines and mountain goats, particularlygiven other proposed commercial andresidential growth in the area.

Such a plan goes against a host of expertadvice. As Parks Canada Warden Hal Morrison

The Environmental Investigation Agency(EIA) is an independent, internationalcampaigning organisation committed toinvestigating and exposing environmentalcrime. Since 1984, EIA has used pioneeringinvestigative techniques all over the world toexpose the impact of environmental crime andto seek lasting solutions. EIA’s aims are to:

• Stop illegal trade in endangered species

• Gain lasting protection for species under threat

• Protect the shared environment of man and wildlife

Introduction

AcknowledgementsThis report was written by Martin Powell. Research and productionby Martin Powell, Wendy Elliott and Shea O’Donnell. Pictureresearch by Wendy Elliott and Paul Redman.

The generous support of Susan Bloom and the Onaway Trust(www.onaway.org) is gratefully acknowledged.

Many thanks to Boo Mitford for the cover design and BrianEmmerson and all at Emmerson Press for printing this report.Emmerson Press Tel: 01926 854400

Report design by Full Stop, London. clare.mellor@btinternet.com

Printed on recycled paper.

stated in 2000: ‘We truly do have a problem[around Lake Louise] and yet we’re still notcutting back or just maintaining a cap, we’reallowing further growth. And what is it that’sgoing to spark some sort of political action? It’snot a very palatable thought, but it’s going tohave to be a whole bunch of bear deaths.’1

Banff is Canada’s oldest and most famousnational park, a symbol of Canadian identity, and maintaining its delicate ecosystem is crucial if Canada is to fulfil its commitments to theConvention on Biological Diversity. It is also aWorld Heritage Site, designated by the UnitedNations Education, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) for its outstandinglandscapes and ecosystems, placing a great honorand responsibility on the people of Canada, itsgovernments and its corporate citizens.

‘We truly dohave aproblem[around LakeLouise] andyet we’restill notcutting backor justmaintaininga cap, we’reallowingfurthergrowth’Parks Canada Warden HalMorrison,May 31 2000

Front cover photo: © CFCN/CTV. Title banner photo: © EIA. Back cover photo: © BEAR Society

© M

arti

n P

owel

l/E

IA

Left: The hugeFairmont ChateauLake Louise Hotelintends building aconventioncenter that furtherthreatens Banff'sfragile ecosystem.

The Plight of Banff National Park

The Plight of Banff NationalParkAs a protected area, Banff should be a haven forwildlife. Yet it is already the most over-developed national park in North America, itswildlife pressured by more development than theUS National Parks of Yellowstone, GrandCanyon and Yosemite combined. Even theWorld Conservation Union (IUCN) hasexpressed concern over its plight

2.

With over five million visitors annually, twotowns, a transcontinental railway, a four-lanehighway, three major ski hills, and almost 50campgrounds there is not one corner of thissupposedly protected area that has not beeninvaded. Past and current management anddevelopment are having negative effects on theecological integrity of Banff, with many wildlifepopulations drastically reduced, and ecosystemsdegraded3. In the last 20 years over 2,350 largemammals and many thousands of smalleranimals and birds have died on the highwaysand railway in the park alone (see table 1). Yetif past growth rates continue, up to 19 millionpeople a year will be visiting the park by 2020,and even if growth is cut to three percentannually, visitor numbers could surpass 10million by that date 4.

In 1997 the Banff Park Management Planlimited development at Lake Louise in the heartof the park to what is basic and essentialspecifically excluding a school or hospital.Despite Fairmont Hotels’ admission that theconvention center is purely for “profitenhancement”, and despite early opposition tothe scheme5, in 1998 Parks Canada and theFederal Government bowed to pressure fromCanadian Pacific, Canada’s fifth largestcompany. This was despite a confidential memofrom the office of Federal Heritage MinisterSheila Copps stating “The issue of theappropriateness of the meeting facility isdifficult to address, as facilities of this naturewould not be permitted in any other nationalpark . . .”6

Fairmont Hotels emphasizes that theproposed convention center would be onpreviously disturbed land. However, it is thewider ecological footprint of the facility and itscustomers, and resulting negative impacts onsensitive species, that concerns biologists.

Grizzly Bears – An Indicator of EcologicalIntegrity The grizzly bear serves as the premier indicatorof the health of the broader terrestrialecosystem in Banff National Park.7,8 There ishowever, overwhelming evidence that the grizzlypopulation in the park is far below historiclevels, and continues to be severely stressed byexcessive human development with almost noadult grizzlies dying natural deaths9.

Grizzly bears are the slowest reproducingland mammals in North America and occur atlow population densities. In Banff NationalPark females do not produce cubs until they areon average six to nine years old, have thelowest reproductive rate known for any grizzlybear population in North America, and needproductive and secure habitat to breedsuccessfully. As a result, grizzlies are extremelyvulnerable to human caused mortalities andtake many years to recover from populationdeclines, if they do so at all10.

Banff’s grizzlies are classed as vulnerable by COSEWIC (Committee on the Status ofEndangered Wildlife in Canada). In February2002 the Provincial Government of Alberta’sEndangered Species Conservation Committeerecommended that the entire Alberta grizzly bearpopulation be listed as “threatened” because ofthe impact of human development. By definition,this means that without an effective recoveryplan the species faces regional extinction11.

1

“The issue of theappropriatenessof the meeting facility isdifficult toaddress, asfacilities of this naturewould not be permitted in any othernational park . . .”Confidential memo from the office of Federal HeritageMinister Sheila Copps.Feb. 21, 1998

© I

an M

cAlli

ster

/ww

w.r

ainc

oast

.org

Right: Grizzlies require wilderness to survive, and are thepremier indicator of Banff's ecological integrity

Banff’s Unsustainable Grizzly Bear Deaths

2

Despite rampant over-development, BanffNational Park is still considered a primary coregrizzly bear refuge for the entire region. Thelong-term presence of grizzly bears in theCentral Rockies is directly dependent onsuccessful management within Banff NationalPark12. It is therefore worrying that recentauthoritative research predicts populationdeclines in the park and surrounding areas13.

Just as Banff National Park is vital to theregional bear population, so the Lake Louisearea is crucial to Banff’s grizzlies. Lake Louisehas one third of the park’s approximately 60grizzlies, including one of only threeconcentrations of breeding females, and isimportant for maintaining populationconnectivity14.

Parks Canada reported recently: “LakeLouise, with more than two million annualvisitors and almost one third of Banff NationalPark’s grizzly population, faces a situationunique in North America . . . Bear researcherswarn that unlimited human use will jeopardizethe sustainability of a species already classifiedas of special concern. Commercial operatorsworry that decisions, which could severelyrestrict human use, will impact their business.”15

It is clear that business interests are winningat the expense of conservation concerns.Consultation for the Lake Louise CommunityPlan did not offer a zero growth option, andallows accommodation for an additional 285residents and 300 more guests per night, 104 ofthem at the proposed convention center. Atcurrent occupancy rates of 77 percent16 thatwould mean 84,315 extra guest nights per year,plus the expanded staff numbers, plus peopleusing the convention center but stayingelsewhere. Increased hotel occupancy rates as aresult of the convention center would alsofurther boost use of the area.

Banff’s UnsustainableGrizzly Bear DeathsIt is well established that human use anddevelopment act as barriers to movement forgrizzly bears, fragmenting habitat andincreasingly isolating pockets of the grizzly bearpopulation17. With 80-90 percent of adult grizzlymortalities (and removals) in Banff National Parkbeing human-caused, there is also a direct

Aft

er B

enn

and

Her

rero

, 20

00(r

ef.

18)

Note: only mortalities / removals with known locations that lie within the borders of this map are represented

“Bearresearcherswarn thatunlimitedhuman usewilljeopardizethesustainabilityof a speciesalreadyclassified asof specialconcern”Parks Canada

Right: Figure 1More Grizzly bearmortalities andremovals in BanffNational Park haveoccurred around Lake Louise thananywhere else

Banff’s Unsustainable Grizzly Bear Deaths

relationship between human development and useand grizzly deaths. From 1971-1998, 107 grizzlieswere killed or removed from Banff National Park,with more deaths near Lake Louise thananywhere else in the park (see Fig 1). Every deathof known location was within 500 meters of aroad or 200 meters of a high use trail19.

Recognizing that the grizzlies of BanffNational Park risk terminal decline, ParksCanada has introduced some new managementmeasures, including temporary trailrestrictions, speed limits and fencing off theLake Louise ski hill and campground. Theseare wholly inadequate, as was acknowledgedin a Parks Canada review of 2000/2001. “Inspite of increased efforts to preserve grizzlybears, Parks Canada has not achieved themanagement plan target of less than onepercent human-caused mortality.” 20

Less than one percent per year means amaximum of about one grizzly lost every twoyears from the estimated population of 60 grizzlybears21. However, recent mortalities and removalsfrom Banff include:

• August 2000 adult female (bear #60) died onthe railway near Lake Louise

• May 2001 adult male grizzly (bear #67) killedon the highway near Lake Louise

• September 2001 adult female (bear #56) killedon the railway near Lake Louise orphaningtwo cubs

• September 2001 male grizzly (#68) removedfrom Canmore 2km outside the park

• September 2001 female grizzly (#69) removedfrom Canmore 2km outside the park

• June 2002 sub-adult female (one of the twoorphaned cubs) killed on the highway near Lake Louise

• June 2002 female grizzly killed in Banff duringtrapping for a monitoring program

• June 2002 male grizzly killed in Banff duringtrapping for a monitoring program

In less than two years, six grizzlies from Banffhave been killed (four of them from the LakeLouise area alone) or ten percent of the estimatedpopulation. Including the additional two bearsremoved from Canmore, the effective mortalityrate of Banff’s grizzly population was a massive11.7 percent from May 2001- June 2002 alone.To meet Parks Canada’s own mortality target nomore grizzlies should die for over ten years. In all,43 grizzlies have been removed or killed becauseof human activity in the Bow Valley Watershed

3

© R

. V

. Sy

lves

ter

© C

FCN

/CT

V

Left: Bear #16 wasremoved to Calgaryzoo, after becominghabituated to people

Below: Young grizzlykilled by a speedingdriver near LakeLouise

Bottom: 2 grizzlies in 2 years have beenkilled on the railwaynear Lake Louise,oneafter its escaperoute was cut off by tourists

© BEAR Society

The Price of Expansion

4

(which includes Banff and Lake Louise townsites)between 1994 and June 200222.

Protecting female grizzly bears in particular isfundamental to conserving the species. Yet from1985 to 1998, 80 percent of the reported humancaused mortalities in Banff and neighboring YohoNational Parks were female – the highest reportedfor a 10- year plus period for any grizzlypopulation23. This unsustainable female kill ratehas continued with five out of the eightmortalities and removals from around BanffNational Park between Aug 2000 and June 2002also being female. With only about 16 adultfemales left in Banff24, further deaths risk tippingthe balance towards irreversible populationdecline, and ultimately extinction within the park.

As human use impact increases, preferredareas of habitat with little human disturbance aretaken by dominant males. Adult females withyoung are forced to use inferior habitat nearpeople25. This means a far greater likelihood ofbeing killed or removed as problem animalsbecause they tend to become more habituated topeople and attracted to human food, and are morelikely to be killed on roads and railways26. Forexample, Bear #56 was killed on the railway nearLake Louise in September 2001 after touristsstopped to watch it and cut off its escape route. A driver ignoring the speed limit near Lake Louisesubsequently killed one of her orphaned cubs.

Exclusion from preferred habitat also reducesbreeding success because females are in poorercondition, and have less secure habitat to rearcubs27. Further alienation of habitat through bearsavoiding convention center clients would alsoreduce the carrying capacity of the area.

This threat is recognized by a Parks Canadabear biologist who said: “One of the primaryconcerns with high levels of human presence is

Fairmont Hotels Proposed Lake Louise Convention Center

Cost $50 million

Area 150,000 square feet

Height 7 stories, 105 feet (32.7 m)

Main meeting room 700 person capacity

6 Breakout rooms 252 person combined capacity

Dining room 252 person capacity

Added Guest Rooms 52 rooms minimum extra capacity 104 persons

Other Fairmont New staff housing, a spa/poolprojects upgrade, new parkade floor

and luxury dining room conversion.

a loss of habitat effectiveness which could havean influence on carrying capacity, hencerecruitment and survivorship. This may be amore subtle but at least as profound an impacton animal populations as direct mortalities.” M. L. Gibeau 200028

The Price of ExpansionThe expansion of not just the number oftourists, but also the duration of disturbance ofwildlife into the shoulder seasons (spring andfall) is of particular concern. At these timesgrizzlies are especially vulnerable as they needto consume large amounts of food forhibernation, or have just emerged weak andhungry from their winter dens.

The Lake Louise Community Planacknowledges this threat, stating: “Spring and fallare sensitive times for many wildlife species. It isimportant not to promote shoulder season visitoractivities that could conflict with wildlife.”29

Fairmont Hotels says the proposedconvention center would “diversify thecustomer base” by bringing new people to thepark30 (See box 2), and has admitted in courtthat negative impacts on wildlife would likelyoccur. The company also admits its aim is toextend tourist activity into the shoulder seasons– exactly what the Lake Louise CommunityPlan says should be avoided.

Even Fairmont’s own lawyer has told a

Bear #56was killed onthe railwaynear LakeLouise inSeptember2001 aftertouristsstopped towatch it andcut off itsescape route

Box 1

© R

.V.

Syve

lste

r

Below: As touristnumbers increasefurther, so do human-wildlifeconflicts

Bear Biologists’ Condemnation

5

Increase in visitors at Lake Louise

The Chateau Lake Louise Community Plan allows for 302 additionalovernight visitors, and 130 new staff in the area. Of these, 104 visitors (52 rooms) will be at the Chateau Lake Louise convention center. Givenstated occupancy rates of 77 percent that will lead to 29,300 extra guest nights per year.

As the Environmental Assessment for the convention center concedes“The principle contribution of build-out at Chateau Lake Louise to cumulative effects will arise with (gradual) increases in low seasonoccupancy of the hotel. Current occupancy rates that dip below 20 percent onseveral weekdays of the low season, with appropriate and successfulmarketing, will draw occupancies towards much higher percentages.”34

If the convention center boosted occupancy in the 1002 capacity mainhotel by an average of 10 percent per year, that would be a further 36,573 guest nights per year.

With a proportion of convention guests staying in other cheaper hotels aswell, it is clear the proposed 700-person capacity convention center couldeasily result in well over 100,000 more visits to Lake Louise and thesurrounding area annually. With over $50 million being invested in theconvention center, it would not be financially viable without substantiallyincreasing guest numbers.

management plan for the [Lake Louise] bearmanagement unit will require drastic changes inhuman use.” 33

Clearly, a new convention center thatincreases traffic and human use, further impactshabitat and increases wildlife encounters willworsen the already dire situation for the LakeLouise grizzly bears. Grizzly bear biologistWayne McCrory has confirmed this is the case:“Fairmont have made millions from theprivilege of being allowed to run hotels in ourNational Parks and I think it is unconscionablethat for economic reasons they want to expandthis facility further. This convention centerwould be one more nail in the coffin for Banff’sgrizzlies, and the company should withdraw theproposal willingly.” (May 2001).

Federal Court: “Increased use of trails by guestsis expected . . . Volumes and extended seasonsmay impact habitats and increase human-wildlife encounters.”31

While failing to address the impact ongrizzlies directly, Fairmont’s EnvironmentalAssessment for the proposal also concedes that“National park landscapes and habitats willcontinue to be accessed by national parks usersincluding users of the Meeting Facility . . . Overtime demand may exceed capacity of certainlandscapes, habitats and constituent species toaccommodate increased use.” 32

Bear Biologists CondemnFurther Human DisturbanceUniversity of Calgary grizzly biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero, Chair of the EasternSlopes Grizzly Bear Project, has said the areaaround Lake Louise is one of the mostdeveloped and deadly for grizzly bears in anyNorth American national park, with grizzliesforced to fit their needs around the commercialagendas of facility owners. Dr. Herrero wrote toParks Canada in January 2001 that:

“Human use and developments fragmentthis habitat. This compromises grizzly bear use.Current human use also increases mortality andremoval probabilities for grizzly bears.”Furthermore a significant increase in human useof the grizzly habitat around Lake Louise: “. . . would likely cause more habitat underutilization, and would increase mortality risk in an already stressed population.”

Research demonstrates that grizzlies arecurrently unlikely to survive in the Lake Louisearea unless human disturbance is significantlyreduced. Even in 1999, prior to the recent spateof grizzly deaths in the Lake Louise area, areport prepared for Parks Canada and the SkiingLouise Group concluded:

“The grizzly bear population within the LakeLouise study area is probably at risk . . . Habitateffectiveness is seriously compromised by humandevelopment in the Lake Louise, Skoki andBaker Bear Management Units . . . Lake Louisehas been and continues to be a mortality sinkwithin the larger Central Canadian RockiesEcosystem (Benn 1998). Significant changes tohuman land use patterns are required in the LakeLouise area to reverse these trends.”

The damning report added: “Increases in Habitat Effectiveness to reach

the target set out in the [Parks Canada]

Box 2

© M

arti

n P

owel

l/E

IA

Below: Existingdevelopment at Lake Louise alreadyintrudes on scarcegrizzly habitat

Fairmont Admits Possible Harm

6

Fairmont AdmitsConvention Center May Lead to Increased GrizzlyDeathsFairmont CEO William Fatt stated at thecompany shareholders meeting in April 2002:“Of course we cannot guarantee no grizzly bearswill die as a result of the meeting facility . . . ”

However, the company has used a number ofmisleading arguments to try to justify thisproposal.

1. Fairmont claims convention center users cause less harm

The current Lake Louise Community Plan (June2001, p30) states that typically 70 percent ofguests at the Chateau Lake Louise are part oforganized tours that “stay one night at LakeLouise and have little time for explorationbefore moving on . . .” As convention guestswill typically stay several days there is anincreased likelihood that they will participate intrips further afield, so increasing the chances ofdisturbing wildlife.

As bear biologist Cedar Mueller put it “The Hamlet of Lake Louise attracted over21,000 visitors per day in July and August of1998, 1999 and 2000. Even greater use ispredicted following the completion of therecently approved Chateau Lake LouiseConference Center.” 35

2. Fairmont will stop non-guests lunching atthe hotel during peak season

This would not reduce visitation to the area.Clearly, non-convention center visitors come tosee Lake Louise and its surrounds, not theChateau Lake Louise hotel restaurant, and willjust bring food or eat in Lake Louise Villageinstead.

3. Fairmont will support wildlife monitoring programs

Such programs will need to run for years toprovide meaningful results by which timedamage will already be done. For grizzlies theloss of a single additional female could bedisastrous. Also the company will not pledge totake down the convention center even if it isshown to be harming wildlife. An in depthstudy of grizzly bears in the region pointed outthe dangers of waiting for monitoring to showharm before action is taken:“A common characteristic of managementdecision-making processes throughout the worldis to argue for delay of management decisionsto wait for additional or definitive (oftenunattainable) information. This poses a realthreat to effective management before apopulation reaches a severe decline or terminalcrisis stage.” 36

4. Fairmont will get trails closed if harm is proven

If the conference center leads to people harmingwildlife, Fairmont and Parks Canada have saidtrails would be shut and fences built37. HenceFairmont would allow harm to vulnerablespecies to occur, wait until it was proven, thendeny the public the opportunity to see parts ofBanff National Park that have been accessiblefor generations. Furthermore shutting one trailwould likely simply result in more people onother trails.

5. Fairmont claims convention guests arriveby coach, reducing traffic

Some may, but many will rent a car, which ispresumably why no reduction in parking forcustomers is being proposed.

Fairmont also claims that as conventionguests will stay for more than one day, this willreduce traffic, but this would only be true ifthey displaced other guests. In fact duringnon-peak season the hotel is not full soconvention guests will be in addition to existingvisitors, and the convention center will be opento non-guests encouraging additional traffic.

“Evengreater useis predictedfollowing thecompletionof therecentlyapprovedChateau Lake LouiseConferenceCenter.”Bear biologist CedarMueller, July 2001

© B

rigi

d B

enso

n,

Ed

Whi

ttin

gham

/B

EA

RSo

ciet

y

Below: During thepeak season thatFairmont hopes toextend, Lake Louiseis more a touristbottle neck than a wildlife haven

Fairmont Admits Possible Harm

The convention center would also generateincreased traffic from service vehicles andthrough higher hotel occupancy, plus extend theseasons when traffic is particularly heavy. Infact, Fairmont’s Environmental Assessmentdocuments for the proposed convention centerstate clearly that traffic will increase: “Theeffect of the Chateau build-out will be to addslightly to staff vehicles and traffic during thepeak season, and increase traffic flows in lowseason...” 38 “The meeting facility willcontribute additional users to the road systembeyond Lake Louise, notably the Trans-CanadaHighway.” 39

6. Fairmont claims no water pollution will occur

Fairmont claims a planned upgrade to the LakeLouise Wastewater Treatment Plant wouldprevent pollution, and the company would notbe producing more wastewater than before. Infact, a new water permit has been applied forby the Chateau Lake Louise hotel that wouldallow a 20 percent increase in wastewaterentering the Bow River. The application faces acourt challenge by environmental groups andthe Siksika First Nations.

The Bow River has naturally low levels ofphosphorus making it particularly sensitive toeffluent pollution which results in algal bloomsand deoxygenation of the water, harming fishand invertebrates, in turn impacting wildlife.

In a review of a Parks Canada report on theissue, University of Calgary aquatic biologistMichelle Bowman stated “Estimates in thereport suggest that average wastewater flows . . .could increase about 25 percent in an averagesummer and 50 percent in an average winter! . . .

7

© R

eno

Som

mer

haul

der

© D

. P

oszi

g

Road and Rail Current mortalities in populationBanff National size in Banff

Species Park since 198140 National Park41

Black bear 41 ~ 60

Moose 86 ~ 40-60

Wolf 34 ~ 55

Elk 1264 ~ 2000 (summer)~ 500 (winter)

Deer 602 ~ 660 (summer)~ 160 (winter)

Photo series left :The major roads andrailway that runthrough BanffNational Parkfragmentwildlife populations,and causeunacceptable levelsof direct mortality.

© E

mie

Kro

eger

© E

IA©

Kar

sten

Heu

er

Fairmont’sown reportsadmit that theconventioncentre willincreasetraffic both in the LakeLouise area,and inthe roadsystembeyond LakeLouise suchas the TransCanadaHighway

Table 1 - Road and rail mortalities in Banff National Park

Black bear

Moose

Wolf

Elk

Deer

Fairmont Admits Possible Harm

8

In my opinion, there is good evidence to suggestthat the cumulative environmental effects thatare likely to result from the project incombination with other projects (increasedgrowth and day use in Lake Louise and wintervisitation to the Chateau Lake LouiseConference Center and the Lake Louise skiarea) could clearly result in net negative effectson the water quality of the Bow River.”

In fact, Parks Canada concedes that it willbe unable to meet its targets on phosphoruspollution even with the upgrade to the LakeLouise wastewater plant. Instead, an “interim”higher level of pollution will be allowed until

better technology is available at an undeterminedpoint in the future 42.

7. Environmental Assessment and No Net Negative Environmental ImpactTo justify building a new convention center inBanff National Park – something that wouldnot be allowed in any other National Park inCanada or the US43, Fairmont Hotels receivedadvice from Parks Canada on how to frame anEnvironmental Assessment (EA) that would beaccepted.

The EA has been heavily criticized, and wasthe subject of a 1998 Judicial Review and courtappeal in 2000. The court refused to examinethe EA, ruling that it lacked the power toquestion Parks Canada’s interpretation of thelaw because of Parks Canada’s assumedexpertise. This decision is disturbing given thata Canadian Federal Government commissionedpanel found “Parks Canada currently lacks thecapacity in both the natural and social sciencesto effectively manage ecological integrity innational parks.” 44 The panel’s report alsodescribes the long history of Parks Canadaallowing ecologically damaging development inBanff and other national parks, something alsooutlined in the Banff-Bow Valley Study 45.

The justification for allowing the conventioncenter was that there would be “no net negativeenvironmental impact”. Fairmont Hotels arguesthat negative impacts would be balanced bymeasures such as returning a few acres of landto the park, and offering meeting participantsheritage tourism information46. Such“mitigations” bear no relation to the actualharm being done. For example, havingconvention delegates recycle their newspapersdoes nothing to reduce the impact on grizzliesof thousands of additional people driving andhiking in key habitat.

Furthermore, the original inadequateEnvironmental Assessment was done in 1997.Since then new evidence of environmental damagehas come to light – for example the numerousgrizzly bear deaths in the area, and the recognitionby a provincial government committee thatAlberta’s grizzlies are threatened with extinction.

© I

an M

cAlli

ster

/ww

w.r

ainc

oast

.org

© P

at M

ollo

y

Left: Fairmont faces opposition from over 70environmental groups, 100 travel companies and a variety of experts. Despite strong negative publicopinion, Fairmont is going ahead for the sole purpose of ‘profit enhancement’

Above: If grizzlybears have no futurein Banff NationalPark, where will theyhave a chance?

Conclusions and recommendations

9

ConclusionsBoth Fairmont Hotels and Parks Canada havefailed to demonstrate that construction and use ofa new convention center at Lake Louise will notlead to an increase in grizzy bear deaths. FairmontHotels has even admitted that construction of anew convention center will increase traffic andvisitor numbers, extend seasons, impact wildlifehabitat and may lead to more grizzly bears dying.

Yet Parks Canada bear biologist Dr. MikeGibeau stated in 2000: “Because of populationstresses, management of grizzly bears in BanffNational Park must become more conservative.The precautionary principle ought to be thenew paradigm. The burden of proof regardingthe potential impacts of new developmentshould shift to the proponent to prove therewould be no significant local or cumulativeeffect on grizzly bears.” 47

Over 70 local, national and internationalenvironmental groups48 are campaigning againstFairmont Hotels’ proposal. In 2001 Michael JantziResearch Associates (MJRA), the leading advisorto socially responsible investment funds in Canada,dropped Fairmont Hotels from its recommendedstocks in large part because of this proposal, andover 100 travel companies from Europe and theUS are opposed to the development.

If such damaging and inappropriatedevelopments are allowed at the heart of a WorldHeritage Site in the flagship National Park ofCanada, where will vulnerable species be safe?

RecommendationsThe Environmental Investigation Agency: Calls on Fairmont Hotels and Resorts Inc. to;

• Immediately withdraw the application to build a newconvention center at Lake Louise

• Agree to a moratorium on all further development in BanffNational Park

• Enact more far-reaching measures to protect wildlife andhabitat impacted by visitors to the area around theFairmont Chateau Lake Louise hotel complex.

Calls on Parks Canada to:

• Withdraw all permits for the construction of a conventioncenter at Lake Louise

• Implement a comprehensive and precautionary grizzly bearmanagement strategy for Banff National Park, includingurgent measures to mitigate the destructive effects ofexisting development on grizzly populations

• Implement a moratorium on all further commercialdevelopment in Banff National Park and take action toreduce excessive existing development.

References1. Crag & Canyon newspaper, Banff. May 31st 20002. Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads Summary Report of the

Banff-Bow Valley Task Force, Oct 1996 p123. Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads Summary Report of the

Banff-Bow Valley Task Force, Oct 1996 p44. Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads Summary Report of the

Banff-Bow Valley Task Force, Oct 1996 p495. Sandy Aumonier, Parks Canada review officer in Calgary

recommended refusal for the development in Sept 1997source - Department of Canadian Heritage Memo Jan 1998

6. Suzanne Hurtubise, Memo to the Honourable Sheila Copps.‘Chateau Lake Louise meeting facility, restaurant and roomsproposal’, Feb 21st 1998, Ministry of National Heritage

7. Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads Technical Report, Oct1996 p111

8. Lake Louise: sharing the land with grizzly bears, ParksCanada, July 2002, p1

9. Benn, Bryon. 1998. Grizzly bear mortality in the CentralRockies Ecosystem, Canada. Master's Degree Project,University of Calgary, Alberta p3

10. Lake Louise: sharing the land with grizzly bears, ParksCanada, July 2002 p1

11. Status Evaluation for the Grizzly Bear in Alberta – ESCCScientific Sub Committee January 2002

12. Gibeau ML 2000, A Conservation Biology Approach toManagement of Grizzly Bears in Banff National Park, Ph.D.Dissertation, University of Calgary p38

13. Herrero, S., P.S. Miller, and U.S. Seal (eds.). 2000.Population and Habitat Viability Assessment for the GrizzlyBear of the Central Rockies Ecosystem (Ursus arctos).Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project, University of Calgary,Calgary, Alberta, Canada and Conservation BreedingSpecialist Group, Apple Valley, Minnesota, USA

14. Banff National Park Management Plan Annual PlanningForum 2000, Record of Forum, Parks Canada

15. Banff National Park, A Year in Review 2000/2001, Parks Canada.

16. Parks Canada, June 2001, Lake Louise Community Plan, p1617. Gibeau ML, 2000 A Conservation Biology Approach to

Management of Grizzly Bears in Banff National Park,Alberta, University of Calgary, p4

18. Benn B, and Hererro S, Grizzly Bear Mortality and HumanAccess in Banff and Yoho national parks, 1971-98, 2000,ESGBP p8

19. Benn B, 1998 Grizzly Bear Mortality in the Central RockiesEcosystem, Canada, Masters Degree Project, Faculty ofEnvironmental Design, University of Calgary

20. Banff National Park of Canada, A Year in review 2000/2001,Parks Canada p10

21. Banff National Park of Canada, A Year in review 2000/2001,Parks Canada p10

22. Figures based on Gibeau M, Herrero S, Eastern SlopesGrizzly Bear Project 2001 Progress Report

23. Benn B and Hererro S, Grizzly Bear Mortality and HumanAccess in Banff and Yoho national parks, 1971-98, 2000,ESGBP p12

24. Lake Louise: sharing the land with grizzly bears, ParksCanada, July 2002 p1

25. Benn B, and Hererro S, Grizzly Bear Mortality and HumanAccess in Banff and Yoho national parks, 1971-98, 2000,ESGBP p12

26. Lake Louise: sharing the land with grizzly bears, ParksCanada, July 2002, p3

27. Gibeau ML, 2000 A Conservation Biology Approach toManagement of Grizzly Bears in Banff National Park,Alberta, University of Calgary p28

28. Gibeau ML, 2000 A Conservation Biology Approach toManagement of Grizzly Bears in Banff National Park,Alberta, University of Calgary p4

29. Parks Canada, June 2001, Lake Louise Community Plan, p3030. Fairmont Hotels and Resorts 2001. The Fairmont Chateau

Lake Louise Meeting Facility Fact Sheet.31. Court Transcripts, Federal Court of Canada, Vancouver,

July 199932. Chateau Lake Louise Environmental Screening, Section 5.5,

20 June 1997, Stanley Environment

33. Jalkotzy, MG et al. 1999. Grizzly Bears, habitat, and humansin the Skoki, Baker, South Pipestone and Lake Louise bearmanagement units, Banff National Park, Arc Wildlife Services.

34. Chateau Lake Louise Development Plan with MeetingFacility, areas of concern and mitigation responses. p. 12, 20June 1998, Stanley Environment

35. Distribution of Sub-adult and Adult Grizzly Bears in Relationto Human Development and Human Activity in the BowRiver Watershed, Alberta, July 2001 p.61

36. The grizzly bear of the Central Rockies ecosystem, PHVAAssessment, ESGBP 2000, p.7

37. Court Transcripts, Federal Court of Canada, Vancouver, July 1999

38. Chateau Lake Louise Development Plan with MeetingFacility, areas of concern and mitigation responses. p. 12, 20June 1998, Stanley Environment

39. Chateau Lake Louise Environmental Screening, Section 5.4,June 20 1997, Stanley Environment.

40. Parks Canada Public Relations Department, July 200241. Pers com. Wildlife Specialist, Parks Canada July 200242. Banff National Park, A Year in Review 2000/2001, 9.3

Tertiary Sewage Treatment and Phosphate Removal43. The Organic Act, 1916 (16 U.S.C.), 1970 National Park

Service System General Authorities Act, as amended in 197844. Unimpaired for Future Generations? (Vol II, 4-1) Panel on

the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks Feb 200045. Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads Summary Report of the

Banff-Bow Valley Task Force, Oct 199646. Fairmont Hotels and Resorts 2001. The Fairmont Chateau

Lake Louise Meeting Facility Fact Sheet.47. Gibeau ML, 2000 A Conservation Biology Approach to

Management of Grizzly Bears in Banff National Park,Alberta, University of Calgary p39

48. Including Greenpeace, National Resources Defense Council,Sierra Club, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society(CPAWS), David Suzuki Foundation, International Fund ForAnimal Welfare (IFAW), Western Canada WildernessCommittee (WCWC), Canadian Nature Federation and theHumane Society of the US (HSUS).

EIA UK62-63 Upper Street

London N1 0NYUnited Kingdom

info@eia-international.orgTel (+44) 20 7354 7960

Fax (+44) 20 7354 7961 www.eia-international.org

EIA USP.O. Box 53343Washington DC 20009USAEIAgency@email.msn.comTel (+1) 202 483 6621Fax (+1) 202 986 8626www.ecocrimes.org