Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks

Country
Canada
Inscribed in
1984
Criteria
(vii)
(viii)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "good with some concerns" in the latest assessment cycle. Explore the Conservation Outlook Assessment for the site below. You have the option to access the summary, or the detailed assessment.
The contiguous national parks of Banff, Jasper, Kootenay and Yoho, as well as the Mount Robson, Mount Assiniboine and Hamber provincial parks, studded with mountain peaks, glaciers, lakes, waterfalls, canyons and limestone caves, form a striking mountain landscape. The Burgess Shale fossil site, well known for its fossil remains of soft-bodied marine animals, is also found there. © UNESCO
Andrews Kearns CC BY 2.0

Summary

2020 Conservation Outlook

Finalised on
02 Dec 2020
Good with some concerns
The values of the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage site, inscribed under criteria (vii) and (viii) have so far remained well preserved and the management of individual protected areas comprising this serial site has been relatively effective. However, there are a number of concerns and threats negatively affecting these values. Glaciers are receding dramatically and are predicted to shrink by 95% by 2100. This will have a significant impact on hydrological systems, particularly river flows. An important mammal sub-species, mountain caribou, has been lost from much of the site and is declining towards extirpation. Rapidly increasing tourism numbers and tourism infrastructure are impacting the scenic value of the main valleys, and external pressure from increasing development activities outside of the site is affecting it. Reduced budgets and staffing levels raise questions about the commitment and capacity to address these threats, especially in the provincial parks. Overall, the conservation outlook for the site is considered Good with some concerns, noting that those concerns are persistent from previous Outlook assessments and are growing in some cases. 

Current state and trend of VALUES

Low Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
Whilst there are conservation issues in the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks the attributes of the site's OUV remain preserved for the moment. Some threats cannot easily be addressed by management such as climate change and its contribution to the loss of glaciers, part of the iconic mountain scenery. The globally important Burgess Shale fossil beds appear to be well managed and protected. The values for which the site is inscribed under (vii) and (viii) remain relatively intact across the site as a whole. The strict limits to growth in all the mountain parks that do not allow expansion to the footprint of the town or outlying accommodation contributes to the conservation.

Overall THREATS

High Threat
Threats to the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage site are cumulative, and its most significant threats arise from climate change, industrial development pressure, and increasing tourism. Tourism infrastructure is additive to the main road and transportation corridors and the natural resource development pressures on the outside. While the actual footprint of the impacts are small as a percent of the entire World Heritage site, the impact is large because the impacts are primarily in the main valleys, which are central to the scenic values and also critical for wildlife movement and feeding. Furthermore, in addition to the significant effects of climate change already observed within the World Heritage site, it poses a further potential threat to those values for which the site is inscribed as well as the significant associated biodiversity values.

Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT

Mostly Effective
Parks Canada has a considerable record of conservation innovation at the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage site. Notable achievements are wildlife mitigation of the major highway corridor, improvements in aquatic connectivity, the use of prescribed fire and effective science to understand ecological conditions and trends. However in recent times, the role of resource management has diminished at the site and there is an increased emphasis on tourism, visitor experience and recreational opportunities (Auditor General, 2013; CPAWS, 2016). Ecological integrity is a mandate of Parks Canada, and is proving to be ever more important amidst increasing threats to the site from climate change and pressure for more tourism. Without prioritized human use monitoring or social science capacity, not all management aspects are being adequately addressed. For the British Columbia Provincial Parks there is very little management capacity to enforce the management plans due to ongoing budget constraints. 

Full assessment

Click the + and - signs to expand or collapse full accounts of information under each topic. You can also view the entire list of information by clicking Expand all on the top left.

Finalised on
02 Dec 2020

Description of values

Striking mountain landscape of exceptional natural beauty

Criterion
(vii)
The seven parks of the Canadian Rockies form a striking mountain landscape. With rugged mountain peaks, ice fields, and glaciers, alpine meadows, lakes, waterfalls, extensive karst cave systems, thermal springs and deeply incised canyons, the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks possess exceptional natural beauty (World Heritage Committee, 2019).

One of the most significant fossil areas

Criterion
(viii)
The Burgess Shale is one of the most significant fossil areas in the world. Exquisitely preserved fossils record a diverse, abundant marine community dominated by soft-bodied organisms. Originating soon after the rapid unfolding of animal life about 540 million years ago, the Burgess Shale fossils provide key evidence of the history and early evolution of most animal groups known today, and yield a more complete view of life in the sea than any other site for that time period (World Heritage Committee, 2019).

A classic representation of on-going glacial processes

Criterion
(viii)
The seven parks of the Canadian Rockies comprise Banff National Park (BNP), Jasper National Park (JNP), Kootenay National Park (KNP), Yoho National Park (YNP), Mount Robson Provincial Park, Hamber Provincial Park, and Mount Assiniboine Provincial Park. These seven parks are a classic representation of significant and on-going glacial processes along the continental divide on highly faulted, folded and uplifted sedimentary rocks (World Heritage Committee, 2019).
Biodiversity - rich assemblage of North American mammals and other species
The Rocky Mountain Parks encompass three life zones or ecoregions: montane, subalpine and alpine. Montane zones lie within major river valleys and support deciduous and coniferous forests, wetlands and meadow habitat, and the highest biodiversity of the three ecoregions. Forests extend through the subalpine zone, the most extensive ecoregion in the Rockies. Alpine zones are above treeline and support hardy, low-growing vegetation. A total of 56 mammals have been reported in these parks as well over 300 avian species, five amphibian and 2 snake species (IUCN, 1984; Rogers, 2011). This list includes several iconic or IUCN Red-listed species such as American pipit, golden eagle, wolf, wolverine, hoary marmot, Clark’s nutcracker, American pika, elk, cougar and caribou (reindeer). The mountain parks support a number of species that have lost historic range due to fragmentation effects of early settlement and post-settlement development in the adjacent boreal, foothill and prairie landscapes (Laliberte and Ripple, 2004). This is particularly true for large mammals (carnivores and elk), whose range contracted considerably after settlement of the adjacent prairie landscapes. The mountain parks currently support a number of species with federal protected status under the Species at Risk Act (2012), including the mountain caribou, Banff Springs snail, whitebark pine, little brown myotis, black swift, barn swallow, bank swallow, bull trout, Athabasca rainbow trout and west slope cutthroat trout.

Assessment information

High Threat
External pressure on the World Heritage site due to increasing developments and tourism numbers has been on the rise. Although the site is nearly 2.3 million hectares in size it is still vulnerable to these impacts with limitations to its resilience. Tourism numbers and pressure for additional or expanded tourism infrastructure is rising. Infrastructure developments undergo comprehensive impact assessments which include visual impact considerations, and with likely future demands, the cumulative impacts of multiple developments will become increasingly important. Other threats include those linked to climate change. Between 1919 and 2012, glacier cover in the study area decreased by 590±70 km2 (40±5 %). Seventeen of 523 glaciers disappeared and 124 glaciers fragmented into multiple ice masses. Predictions are that Glaciers in Canadian Rockies could shrink by 95% by 2100. The reactivation of the oil pipeline through Jasper National Park raises environmental concerns as well as contributing to climate change. The Burgess Fossil shales are well protected (camera, alarms, enforcement staff) and visitation to the sites is controlled and well managed.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Invasive Alien Species)
Very Low Threat
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
Invasive non-native species are found in all the component parts of the World Heritage site and affect some of the threatened species present in the site, but this does not affect the striking mountain scenery, fossil or glacial processes for which the site was given its World Heritage status. The threat rating therefore reflects the level of impact on these World Heritage specific values, while the threats themselves are of concern. Invasive montane and subalpine plant species are present in Jasper, Banff, Kootenay and Yoho National Parks. Rainbow trout and Brook trout are found in all parks except Jasper, where they are readily hydridizing with native Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Invasive species diversity has increased significantly in the last decade in all parks (Parks Canada, 2019c; Parks Canada, 2019d) and efforts are continuing to remove or manage the threat.
Fire/ Fire Suppression
(Fire suppression)
Data Deficient
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
All National Parks in the World Heritage site have a sophisticated fire management program detailed in management plans. However, prescribed burns throughout the site are complicated because of the need to keep visitors and facilities safe, and maintaining the functionality of national transportation corridors. Species at risk concerns and wildfire models should be integrated to plan for prescribed burns within the context of species at risk habitat needs (Hunt et al., 2018). Consistent funding is needed for both new fuel management and maintenance of existing fuel management to ensure wildfire risk and management programs are maintained. Funding and park priority should also focus on modelling wildfire with the habitat needs of species at risk to take an ecosystems approach to wildfire management.
Roads/ Railroads
(Linear infrastructures (powerlines, oil pipelines, highway and railway infrastructure))
High Threat
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
Highways and railways through the World Heritage site have led to wildlife mortality, and railway is the highest cause of mortality for grizzly bears in Banff, Kootenay, and Yoho National Parks (Hunt et al., 2018), and a cause of high mortality for black bears in Jasper National Park. Parks Canada partnered with CP rail to examine solutions to railways mortality within the parks. Several strategies and mitigation tools to reduce mortality emerged from this work. Noting some additional recent research such as Cassidy et al. (2020) which identified train speed, proximity to water and track curvature as causes for greater railway mortalities, such findings should also inform park management. On Highway 16 (a national transportation corridor that passes through Jasper National Park), Parks Canada recently added passing lanes to several sections as traffic calming measures that enhance traffic safety, and continuing to explore other measures to reduce collision with wildlife. Twinning of the 1952 oil pipeline through Jasper National Park and Mt Robson Provincial Park added to the permanent linear disturbance parallel to the transportation corridor, the old pipeline is currently (2020) undergoing reactivation work causing increased disturbance in the right of way. Considering the serious threat that climate change poses on the values of the site, the indirect contribution of the oil pipeline project to climate change is controversial, not to mention the impacts of any accidental spills. In 2019 a new above-ground, electrical utility line in Jasper National Park was constructed alongside the pipeline and park roads in the montane ecosystem; its positioning selected to utilise existing disturbances. While the threat levels of the highways and railways on the World Heritage values can be considered to be low in line with the 2017 assessment, the recent development regards the oil pipeline reactivation inside the World Heritage site raises greater concern.
Oil/ Gas exploration/development, Mining/ Quarrying
(Forest harvest, oil and gas exploration and mining outside parks)
Low Threat
Outside site
Most of the mountain parks abut active resource extraction areas (forest harvest, oil and gas, and mining areas) and park managers have identified potential impacts to wildlife movement and species (e.g. grizzly bear, woodland caribou) posed by such activities. Considerable research has been done to confirm mining and other industry impacts predicted for wildlife in the park after approval of the Cheviot Mine. Analysis of monitoring data has shown that reclaimed mining areas are providing better habitat than originally predicted for grizzly bear and bighorn sheep. The fRI Research (previously the Foothills Research Institute) has conducted other work in conjunction with the University of Alberta and other institutions to investigate cumulative effects of development along the eastern boundaries of Jasper National Park. The Coal Valley site remains active, the Cheviot mine is being closed, two mines in this area (Luscar, Gregg River) are closed and reclamation planning will incorporate these findings and aim to maximize biodiversity. There is one new mine (Vista Coal) as well as a new limestone quarry lease approved in 2018 near Jasper. Forestry and oil and gas development remain important activities on the east and west sides of the mountain parks. Participation in the fRI Research allows JNP to collaborate with regional industrial interests. Mt Robson PP participates in regional land use groups to similar purpose. All of the mountain parks belong to the Central Rockies Ecosystem Interagency Liaison Group, which allows coordination with other government agencies involved in regulating resource management beyond the parks, although in recent years, this group has not been very active.
Habitat Shifting/ Alteration, Temperature extremes
(Rapidly disappearing glaciers)
Very High Threat
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
Glaciers are melting due to a changing climate. Between 1919 and 2012, glacier cover in the study area decreased by 590±70 km2 (40±5 %). 17 of 523 glaciers disappeared and 124 glaciers fragmented into multiple ice masses. Predictions are that glaciers in Canadian Rockies could shrink by 95% by 2100. The loss of glaciers and icefields will alter flow regimes, which may lead to flooding of low-lying habitats, and inhibit any ongoing glacial processes. Glaciers in Banff and Yoho National parks are in a state of strong, negative mass imbalance. Glacier mass balance signals integrated the impacts of climate change and climate variability, thus teasing out the precise cause of glacial melt is difficult (Hunt et al., 2018). Over the period of 2014-2016, unprecedented mass losses and firn pack depletion occurred in the region, this may be due to an El Nino event. The declining mass is evident in glacier losing thickness, changing in configuration, and area reduction. Wide ranging impacts include a loss of water throughout the summer; in 2017, many glaciers in the World Heritage site lost all or nearly all of the accumulated firn pack in their upper reaches (new ice was not being generated).  The change in flow regimes has habitat impacts for a multitude of species including trout (species at risk) and pikas. Continued tracking of the region's aquatic resources will be critical for assessing current and future vulnerabilities under the influence of climate change and the complex processes that control climate variability (Hunt et al., 2018).
Tourism/ Recreation Areas
(Tourism infrastructure and visitor use)
High Threat
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Tourism to the World Heritage site is increasing and there are infrastructural developments to meet these needs. Regulatory processes are generally effective and has led to some infrastructure projects to not proceed following public and environmental concerns e.g. a proposed recreational pathway from Jasper to Columbia Icefield Center. An expansion of the Sulphur Mountain gondola station was completed following environmental and public review, though there are views that the large expansion with lighting from an evening restaurant can be seen across the valley. A proposal is at a preliminary stage to relocate and expand the Skytram in Jasper National Park (still subject to an EIA). The Lake Louise Ski Area development was subject to a Detailed Impact Assessment (DIA) and a Long Range Plan. The DIA looks at the combined impacts of various factors including wildlife, hydrology, aesthetics, visitor experience, climate change etc., and therefore a comprehensive assessment was undertaken. It is nevertheless important to note that whilst the development may only occupy a small area of Banff National Park an argument cannot be made based on the physical footprint of the project and therefore the percentage of the World Heritage site’s surface area. Rather it must consider the broader implications of the project on the World Heritage site as a whole, such as the increased visitation to the wider area, increased road use during and post-construction outside of the project area but still within the World Heritage site boundaries. Already, traffic and trail congestion in the Lake Louise area has been noted to have increased over the last decade. The effectiveness of the shuttle buses introduced in 2020 will need to be evaluated after the COVID-19 pandemic when the visitation returns to normal levels. With the increasing numbers and diversity of visitors to these protected areas, impacts on the environment are becoming evident in several locations. For example, increased visitation and operating times at the Sunshine Gondola in Banff has led to increased summer traffic on the access road, where the Healy Wildlife Corridor is less effective (based on winter monitoring) than at comparable control sites (Hunt et al., 2018), especially in the main valleys where there are key feeding and movement areas for large mammals exist. By 2018, environmental organizations were calling on Parks Canada to implement visitor quotas in busy areas. In response Parks Canada chose voluntary management tactics that included encouraging people to visit during less busy times, marketing shuttle bus systems, and awareness campaigns (Cecco, 2018). Parks Canada is continuing to develop and implement tools to manage visitor use, as well as enacting limits to developments under legislation and policies. While visitation is growing, there are limits to growth in these areas such as 97% of Jasper National Park being protected as wilderness with limited facilities and visitation.
Tourism/ visitors/ recreation
(Human-wildlife conflict)
Very Low Threat
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Human-wildlife conflict has an effect on the biodiversity values of the site but not on the values for which the site was inscribed on the World Heritage list. This threat is therefore rated as very low, but the threat to the biodiversity is higher. Active wildlife attractant management exist at Banff National Park, and Parks Canada partnered with adjacent land agencies in the Bow Valley Human-Wildlife Coexistence Roundtable in 2017 to identify the current state of human-wildlife coexistence inside and outside of the World Heritage site. It also identified mitigations and management actions that are currently being implemented. Mount Robson Provincial Park has established human-wildlife mitigation plans that have resulted in a decrease of conflicts but there is still room for improvement. The two other provincial parks do not have park-specific plans, but BC Parks does have an overarching plan that provides guidance for mitigating human-wildlife interactions.
Problematic Native Species, Diseases/pathogens
(Exotic disease)
Low Threat
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
Blister Rust (an exotic fungal disease) is affecting Whitebark pine numbers (an endangered species in Canada). The disease, together with climate change and fire suppression will affect the long term health and vitality of whitebark pine stands. Such changes will affect the visual aesthetics of the World Heritage site.
Data Deficient
In addition to the significant effects of climate change already observed within the World Heritage site, it poses a further potential threat to those values for which the site is inscribed as well as the significant associated biodiversity values.
Habitat Shifting/ Alteration, Droughts
(Increasing drought frequency)
Data Deficient
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
Ongoing loss of glacier mass in the mountains due to climate change has implications for reduced flows in prairie rivers. As the glacial melt increases during warmer summers, water flow downstream tends to increase in late summer. Climate change predictions suggest that glaciers will recent and eventually disappear, thereby reducing downstream flow. Drought conditions increase the likelihood of more extensive and severe fire seasons, potentially changing wildfire recovery trajectories of vegetation from historic norms.
Storms/Flooding
(Flooding)
Data Deficient
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
Warmer spring temperatures may increase spring run-off, with risk of more frequent or extreme flooding. With increased spring precipitation and more rain-on-snow events in the early spring, the risk of significant flooding also exists. In 2013, Banff National Park was part of a massive spring flood that was the greatest flooding event in Alberta history and one of the largest natural disasters in Canadian history (MNP LLP, 2015). The flood was caused by a combination of meteorological and hydrological factors. Although a primary contributor to the flood was a large rainfall event, analysis suggests that human induced greenhouse gas increases may also have contributed through increased evapotranspiration rates, frozen and snow-covered soils at high elevations generated record streamflows. These factors led to a doubling of surface runoff due to frozen conditions (Teufel et al., 2016). Although the timeframe for this shift and the increase in frequency are uncertain, models do predict an increase in the occurrence of extreme precipitation events for the end of the 21st century (Teufel et al., 2016). As above, the uncertainty in the variables affecting this prediction (for example the rate of rise in annual temperature over time, and relative reduction in snowpack) makes prediction of timeframe and severity difficult.
Habitat Shifting/ Alteration
(Habitat shifting/alteration)
Data Deficient
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
As noted above, a warming temperature trend is predicted within the mountain parks, but the rate of change is uncertain. Range expansion to higher elevations of forest species is anticipated to impact subalpine and alpine habitat but the extent of habitat reduction is unknown. The World Heritage site has potential to serve as refugia for multiple species that get displaced as their habitats shift. A changing climate is expected to result in substantial alteration to species’ ranges as they migrate to follow suitable climate conditions (Mohr, 2008). Much of the work of climate adaptation will necessarily occur at various scales at the park, watersheds, or landscape management unit. The protected areas in the LMU should include climate change specific objectives throughout their management plans. Park management should incorporate climate change modelling that identifies potential habitat refugia, identifies rare species habitat needs, and conduct vulnerability analyses to identify species and ecosystems that may be particularly vulnerable to climate change (Morelli et al., 2016).   
Diseases/pathogens
(Exotic diseases of plants and animals)
Very Low Threat
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
A number of exotic diseases have the potential to heavily impact the threatened species present in the World Heritage site, but which will not affect the striking mountain scenery as inscribed on the World Heritage List. While overall this issue is of concern, this threat is considered very low for the World Heritage values of the site specifically. The exotic diseases include the whirling disease, chronic wasting disease, and white-nose syndrome. Whirling disease (an exotic disease affecting salmonids) was confirmed in the Bow River watershed in the World Heritage site in 2017 (Hunt et al., 2018). Due to the potential population-level impacts on species at risk, Parks Canada and Alberta fisheries managers have taken significant steps to address this. Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is fatal to cervidae (deer family) and is currently found outside of the World Heritage site, but it is recorded to be spreading westward towards the site. The disease would have a drastic impact on the woodland caribou population if the disease were to reach the site. White-nose syndrome is fatal to bats and has been found in regions approx. 1000 km from the site.
Threats to the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage site are cumulative, and its most significant threats arise from climate change, industrial development pressure, and increasing tourism. Tourism infrastructure is additive to the main road and transportation corridors and the natural resource development pressures on the outside. While the actual footprint of the impacts are small as a percent of the entire World Heritage site, the impact is large because the impacts are primarily in the main valleys, which are central to the scenic values and also critical for wildlife movement and feeding. Furthermore, in addition to the significant effects of climate change already observed within the World Heritage site, it poses a further potential threat to those values for which the site is inscribed as well as the significant associated biodiversity values.
Management system
Mostly Effective
The Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks is a serial site, comprised of a number of National and Provincial Parks, each with individual management plans which inform and provide the framework for the management of each component. However, there is no integrated management plan for the entire site. That being said, the four national and provincial parks collaborate on the development of transboundary relevance, and the mountain national parks are collaborating on their respective managment planning processes to ensure alignment across these parks. Federal and BC parks are managed by designated government departments (Parks Canada and BC Parks), both of which have built capacity in recent years having suffered from funding cutbacks at the turn of the last decade as governments worked to address the recession economy (Parks Canada, 2012a; Parks Canada, 2012c; BC Parks Division, 2011).
Effectiveness of management system
Some Concern
Parks Canada has dedicated resource management specialists, scientists and technicians in every one of the national parks. They are supported by a decentralized team of senior scientists with specialized expertise in species at risk, monitoring, restoration, environmental assessment, wildlife diseases, etc. Parks Canada continues to achieve many of its ecological integrity objectives successfully maintaining and enhancing ecological integrity in some sites; investing millions of dollars into monitoring, habitat protection, restoration, the recovery of threatened and endangered species and environmental assessment. The vast majority of monitoring focuses on ecological related indicators and thresholds, yet these parks offer some of Canada's premier recreational opportunities. The park management plans contain little to no quantifiable visitor related management objectives. Many parks collect only visitor entrance data and have little to no visitor monitoring (Eagles, 2013). There are differences between the individual Rocky Mountain Parks in this regard, however, all parks lack direction at the National level to implement successful, robust visitor monitoring programs. Without this National direction, social science is funded with whatever funds may be available, programs lack scientific robustness due to lack of priority, and specialized social scientists are not hired. Nonetheless, all Parks Canada Field Units continue to have a well-supported science and resource management program that enables long-term monitoring programs, targeted research concerning species of interest or at-risk.

Parks Canada does State of Parks reports every 10 years and system wide reports every 2 years with a brief summary of visitation, ecological integrity, heritage resources and facilities at each site. However, these do not focus on the management system per se. As part of the 2020 management planning process, Parks Canada resource conservation teams released Technical Monitoring Reports that detailed all monitoring efforts, their results, and recommendations. These reports are filled with data, robust analyses and are incredibly useful in the management planning process. The reports, however, focus almost entirely on ecological related objectives and there is no human use/visitor experience equivalent. There is also no cultural monitoring report even though the parks are recognized as significant cultural resource for local Indigenous groups and Canadians on the whole.
Boundaries
Highly Effective
The boundaries of the site are clearly demarcated as per the clarification of the boundaries, provided to the World Heritage Committee in 2014 in response to the retrospective inventory (World Heritage Committee, 2014), when a clear map of the World Heritage site, displaying the boundaries and area in hectares were indicated. Previously, Mt Robson PP and Mt Assiniboine PP both had proposed expansions to extend protection to adjacent lands with conservation value (BC Parks Division, 2006, BC Government and Service Employees Union, 2012). However, the expansion was only completed for Mt. Robson PP (BC Parks Division, 2006). The Assiniboine and Aurora Creek drainages subsequently experienced forest harvest that somewhat compromised the original values (BC Government and Service Employees Union, 2012).
Integration into regional and national planning systems
Some Concern
Regional integration varies across the parks. JNP, KNP, Mt. Robson PP, and Mt Assiniboine are involved in a variety of regional research, land use and industrial collaborations (fRI Reserach, 2020). However, there is no formal umbrella planning system in place for the entire World Heritage site. The disbandment of the Central Rockies Ecosystem Interagency Liaison Group, which allowed coordination with provincial and federal land managers along the Canadian Rockies, is of concern given the lack of any tangible replacement regional planning platform. In Banff, Parks Canada has been engaged in a Human-Wildlife Coexistence working group that involves Alberta Environment and Parks land managers and the Town of Canmore. This group focuses on human-wildlife conflict across the National Park boundary and has had some success. Parks Canada has also implemented the Trans Boundary Planning Group with the Government of Alberta that focuses on shared learning on visitor activities, demand management, policy and development, park management planning etc.
Relationships with local people
Some Concern
The National Parks, administered under Parks Canada, are mandated to undergo scoping phases in the process of reviewing their respective management plans, as well as engaging on draft management plans. This process is carried out prior to their review and eventual renewal. This process includes the publishing of 'What We Heard' reports, which present findings from Indigenous and public engagement, including the views of Indigenous groups with historial connections to the parks. Relationships with Indigenous groups are also presented in the State of the Park reports for each National Park, however were not actually rated in three out of the four assessments and rated 'Fair' in the case of Jasper NP, acknowledging that 'Parks Canada is in the early days of building its relationship with these groups and in understanding their history, interests and perspectives on this place' (Parks Canada, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; 2018d). Parks Canada's relationships with Indigenous groups are not consistent across Nations or parks. In addition, results of Indigenous consultations are not always publicly accessible making it difficult to assess the productiveness of those relationships in addressing Indigenous needs. Even though Parks Canada has recognized the benefits of co-management regimes in National Parks (Devin and Doberstein, 2004), the older parks in the World Heritage site still struggle to effectively involve Indigenous peoples in park management in a meaningful way. The current management planning process does engage Indigenous communities by allowing their perspectives to influence the identification of key issues, challenges, and opportunities to be considered in the scoping documents and in management plans (Langdon, et al., 2010). Parks Canada, however, remains the decision maker and input from Indigenous groups is not consistently reflected in management plans. The greatest challenge remains in finding ways to braid traditional knowledge into natural resource and park management in a manner than enhances each way of knowing and ensures that cultural integrity, as well as ecological integrity, are recognized as important goals. Parks Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with Indigenous peoples through renewed nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation, and partnership (Parks Canada, 2019b). For example, Parks Canada conducts robust ecological monitoring of the impacts regarding the bison reintroduction in Banff National Park (Parks Canada, 2020b). Yet, there was no monitoring effort made to measure or describe the cultural impacts of bringing bison, a highly significant species to all First Nations in Alberta, back to the Traditional Territories of all Treaty 6 and 7 Nations. The impetus to describe the cultural impact of bison reintroduction, including financial cost, has fallen to the Stoney First Nation, who are working on a cultural monitoring project now. The relationships with local people and stakeholders is improving in terms of frequency and variety of engagement methods. It is still unclear, however, how input impacts resulting management plans. For BC Parks, management plan development processes include both Indigenous and public engagement and consultation with Indigenous Peoples is required when considering management decisions. None of the parks have an active management planning process underway. However, relationships with Indigenous Peoples are considered in each of the parks' respective management plans (BC Parks, 2011; 2012; 2015). Also as a provincial Natural Resource Ministry, BC Parks is often included within government-to-government agreements with Indigenous governments such as the Strategic Engagement Agreement between the Province of British Columbia and the Ktunaxa Nation.
Legal framework
Mostly Effective
There is strong legal framework in place under the National Parks Act and the British Colombia Parks Act and the rule of law prevails. It is important to note that ecological integrity is a distinct mandate of Parks Canada but implementation varies.
Law enforcement
Mostly Effective
Laws and regulations are well enforced in the National Park components of the site by National Park Wardens who enforce the Canada National Parks Act and Regulations (Government of British Columbia, 1996) and there have been generally no reported cases where a lack of enforcement is a problem. BC Park Rangers and BC Conservation Officers are responsible for enforcement of park and wildlife conservation law, such as the Park Act, Ecological Reserve Act and Wildlife Act, where full time enforcement positions were maintained even in the face of budget cuts which funded similar positions in other Provincial Parks in British Columbia. 
Implementation of Committee decisions and recommendations
Data Deficient
This World Heritage site has not been examined by the Committee since 2006.
Sustainable use
Mostly Effective
Several federal and provincial parks have identified stewardship initiatives demonstrating sustainable environmental management as a priority (Invest in north Central British Columbia, 2012, BC Environment, 2012, BC Parks Division, 2006). These include improvements to waste water treatment, recycling programs and energy and water conservation initiatives. The only formal harvest within the World Heritage site is for recreational fishing, which appears to be well managed. Indigenous peoples can collect flora and natural objects, but this collection is on a small scale for ceremonial and personal use. One Indigenous hunt has been conducted in Jasper NP, but it was small in scale and was carried out with respect to conservation concerns (Jasper Environmental Association, 2017). 
Sustainable finance
Some Concern
Parks Canada is relatively well financed for the four component National Parks in particular areas. However, an increase in expenditures over the three years (2017–18 to 2019–20), primarily due to the Government of Canada’s investments of 'approximately $3.7 billion in national parks to rehabilitate a significant portion of its heritage, visitor, highway and waterway built asset inventory', will gradually decrease starting in 2020–21 towards 2023, when planned spending is projected to be less than half of its 2019 operational budget for core responsibilities and internal services (Parks Canada, 2019b). This is particularly concerning given the need to increase social science related funding to improve park management. However, the Agency reports that it is 'continuing its effort to secure additional funding in 2020–21 and 2021–22 to address the forecasted decrease' (Parks Canada, 2019b). The impact that these spending cuts across the whole Parks Canada Agency will have on the four National Park components of the site is unclear. Comparatively, British Columbia has very low levels of resourcing for its three component provincial parks which are orders of magnitude below that of the national agency. Though financial sustainably remains an ongoing challenge, new and innovative revenue sources have been developed by BC Parks to support financial sustainability through the implementation of the BC Parks Future Strategy including the specialty License Plates program initiated in January 2017 and the development of the BC Parks Foundation. BC Parks has been allocated a minor budget reduction for 2020 to $40.6-million, from $41.7 in 2019 (City News, 2020), which is deemed to be well below that of basic management and the ability to deal with threats and take management action, especially considering the growing tourism industry in the Province.
Staff capacity, training, and development
Mostly Effective
Staff are well trained but there is considerable variation between the national park and provincial parks (IUCN Consultation, 2017). In response to the Office of the Auditor General report on ecological integrity, BC Parks committed to training staff in the Conservation Risk Assessment tool, which assists in park management (BC Fish and Wildlife, 2012c) and are trained in applying the Conservation Policy For Ecological Reserves, Parks, Conservancies, Protected Areas and Recreation Areas which consolidates general conservation policies to provide direction to a wide variety of activities, services and uses including prescribed fire, consumptive use, human-wildlife interaction etc. (BC Parks, 2014). 
Education and interpretation programs
Some Concern
Visitors report high satisfaction levels in Parks Canada surveys (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Some commercial operators also do an excellent job of interpretation. Visitors in recent studies have expressed a strong desire for educational materials and programming (Groulx et al., 2017; Weber et al., 2019). The State of Parks reports for the Rocky Mountain National Parks refer to education and outreach programs sharing material regarding species at risk and habitat restoration initiatives. Parks Canada offers a varied interpretive program, including Indigenous interpretation, theatre programming, guided hikes, roving stations at popular day use areas and trails, and wildlife guardians. There are also a number of self-guided interpretive trails and exhibit panels in key locations throughout the park. In Jasper National Park, the Palisades Stewardship Education Centre brings youth to the park for experiential education programs that blend mountain recreation with environmental stewardship. Education programs include creating videos, conducting in person programs, social media and website materials, yet contain no data describing the number of people reached or the effectiveness of these educational efforts. 
Tourism and visitation management
Some Concern
Although visitation in the federal parks has consistently grown over the past decade (by over 20% in all National Parks) providing important revenue for the management activities of the parks, management has recognized the challenge of remaining relevant to national and international visitors in the face of changing demographics (BC Environment, 2012). There have been quite innovative  programs supporting tourism and interpretation, with projects including developing and promoting special events and new recreational activities (BC Environment, 2012). There are reported capacity issues at peak periods which are of concern, especially with visitor numbers on an upward trend. While some management actions have been implemented to address overcrowding and associated ecological impacts (e.g., shuttle buses, parking lot limits), their actions have simply displaced human use to other sites or resulted in visitor frustration. Without an overarching visitor use strategy, it will remain difficult to provide ample, quality visitor experiences while meeting ecological integrity objectives. In Banff National Park, managing these unique special events has come with an array of unique challenges pertaining to waste management, large volumes of people in sensitive front country habitats, and human-wildlife conflict during events. As a result, some special events were rerouted to avoid bears actively feeding along race routes (Hunt et al., 2018), and the canceling of the Banff triathlon and Gran Fondo. This resulted in a change of special events going from >1000 participants and being road-based to being smaller-scale races and stationary events in 2017 (Hunt et al., 2018). All new activities, events and development in national parks are subject to environmental assessment, and undertaken within the context of protecting ecological integrity. The BC parks attract visitors interested in a wilderness experience, and visitor services are maintained in a manner consistent with environmental goals (BC Parks Division, 2006, BC Government and Service Employees Union, 2012, BC Parks Division, undated (b)). The mountain parks are featured prominently in tourism promotion material in Alberta and British Columbia. Park user fees provide partial funding for park operations for the federal and provincial parks. However, greater effort could be invested in informing visitors that the sites are protected areas and part of World Heritage Site (IUCN Consultation, 2017).
Monitoring
Mostly Effective
There is a strong monitoring program in place. The State of the Park reports published for each National Park present information on ecological integrity; cultural resources; external relations; indigenous relations; visitor experience and built assets. Only the summary ecological condition monitoring is available to the public and is centred around four broad ecosystems (varying according to the specific park): Alpine, Forests, Freshwater and Tundra (Parks Canada 2018 a,b,c,d). However, significant ecosystems such as Montane grasslands are no longer covered and there is no information on the results of management interventions (IUCN Consultation, 2017). The report also heavily favours ecological monitoring; cultural and visitor monitoring lacks robustness, discussion, and clarity regarding impacts to future management objectives. There is minimal monitoring in the provincial parks in British Columbia provincial parks (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Baseline inventory data is missing, an acknowledged gap (BC Parks Division, 2006, BC Government and Service Employees Union, 2012) and action to address ecological integrity objectives has not been consistently undertaken (BC Fish and Wildlife, 2012c). However, baseline inventory data requirements have been identified in some of the Provincial Park management Plans (BC Parks, 2011; 2012; 2015).
Research
Mostly Effective
The mountain National Parks continue to support active research programs both internally and through partnerships with other agencies and institutions (B.A. Blackwell & Associates Ltd. And Compass Resource Management; fRI, 2020). In YNP and KNP, Parks Canada supports ongoing scientific research into the Burgess Shale, which has led to the discovery of a significant new fossil deposit, several species new to science and an increased understanding of middle Cambrian ecosystems, and the Burgess Shale continues to be a site of world class research (e.g. Anderson et al., 2018). However, federal funding cuts over the course of the last decade have affected research funding at external agencies as well as within the federal and provincial parks. For example, capacity to conduct social science research (in house) was largely eliminated in the federal mountain parks and the number of external research permits has declined significantly in recent years (IUCN Consultation, 2017), and greater efforts into building partnerships with universities could be made (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Parks Canada has a considerable record of conservation innovation at the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks World Heritage site. Notable achievements are wildlife mitigation of the major highway corridor, improvements in aquatic connectivity, the use of prescribed fire and effective science to understand ecological conditions and trends. However in recent times, the role of resource management has diminished at the site and there is an increased emphasis on tourism, visitor experience and recreational opportunities (Auditor General, 2013; CPAWS, 2016). Ecological integrity is a mandate of Parks Canada, and is proving to be ever more important amidst increasing threats to the site from climate change and pressure for more tourism. Without prioritized human use monitoring or social science capacity, not all management aspects are being adequately addressed. For the British Columbia Provincial Parks there is very little management capacity to enforce the management plans due to ongoing budget constraints. 
Assessment of the effectiveness of protection and management in addressing threats outside the site
Some Concern
The WHS is inscribed under criteria (vii) and (viii) and, whilst these values remain relatively intact, there are external pressures such as climate change which are challenging the capacity of management. On biodiversity values with the exception of freshwater ecosystems, Parks Canada ecological forest and tundra (Alpine) indicators all show either good or fair condition, and are stable or improving in trend (Parks Canada, 2018 a,b,c,d), with a few exceptions such as the alpine systems in Jasper (Parks Canada, 2018b). Mountain Caribou are extirpated from Banff and declining rapidly in Jasper. There has been a reintroduction of bison to one area of Banff in 2017, which is proving successful in meeting various ecological indicators from vegetative structure and population viability. Management is largely internally focused and there are concerning downward trends in budgets and staff levels particularly for scientific staff.
Best practice examples
1. Reintroduction of plains bison
2. Replacement of aging tourism infrastructure without significantly increasing the developed footprint
3. Improvement of aquatic connectivity by replacing dysfunctional highway culverts
4. Implementation of world-renowned wildlife crossing structures across the TransCanada Highway
World Heritage values

Striking mountain landscape of exceptional natural beauty

Low Concern
Trend
Stable
Tourism numbers and infrastructures are increasing. The crowding and facilities being permitted are impacting, and will impact, the scenic beauty of the site. One example is the large expansion of the gondola terminal at the top of Sulphur mountain which now has an evening restaurant with lighting that can be seen across the valley thus detracting from the naturalness of the experience. Other examples are the expansion of overnight summer use at Sunshine ski hill, which impacts the solitude wilderness experience of visitors and has implications for grizzly bear habitat security and movement. The key features under criterion (vii) remain preserved for the moment but new tourism developments may impact the viewscapes (Weber et al., 2019) especially cumulatively.

One of the most significant fossil areas

Good
Trend
Stable
Burgess Shale, other fossil deposits and significant caves have been identified in management plans in applicable parks and public access, conservation and protection have been addressed through various means (BC Parks Division, 2006), including camera, alarms, enforcement staff and visitation to the sites is controlled and well managed (IUCN Consultation, 2017). YNP and KNP has an on-going partnership with the Royal Ontario Museum to identify and preserve fossil material from the Burgess Shale, and to promote the sites. Research is carefully managed with a zoning system. Additional outcrops of the fossil bed are being carefully managed. All visitor use is tightly controlled through a permitting process; visitors must be accompanied by a guide to go to Burgess Shale fossil sites. Parks Canada has not disclosed specific fossil locations publicly to reduce the risk of people finding and stealing fossils.

A classic representation of on-going glacial processes

High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
Glaciers are melting due to a changing climate. Between 1919 and 2006, glacier cover in the central and southern Canadian Rocky Mountains decreased by 590±70 km2 (40±5 %). 17 of 523 glaciers disappeared and 124 glaciers fragmented into multiple ice masses (Tennant et al. 2012). It is likely that glaciers have continued to shrink and predictions are that glaciers in Canadian Rockies could shrink by 95% by 2100.
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Low Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
Whilst there are conservation issues in the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks the attributes of the site's OUV remain preserved for the moment. Some threats cannot easily be addressed by management such as climate change and its contribution to the loss of glaciers, part of the iconic mountain scenery. The globally important Burgess Shale fossil beds appear to be well managed and protected. The values for which the site is inscribed under (vii) and (viii) remain relatively intact across the site as a whole. The strict limits to growth in all the mountain parks that do not allow expansion to the footprint of the town or outlying accommodation contributes to the conservation.
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important biodiversity values
High Concern
Trend
Stable
Parks Canada has a comprehensive ecological monitoring program, which shows the biodiversity values of the site to be in generally fair condition. The 2018 State of Park Assessments for Banff, Yoho and Kootenay indicate that for most EI indicators the trend is stable. Introduction of non-native species and diseases pose potential threats to some of the species at risk. Key issues are the dramatic decline in mountain caribou, and low levels of fire changing ecological communities. The high levels of visitation are currently managed on a site by site basis without an integrated management plan.

Additional information

Access to drinking water,
Commercial wells
The WHS rivers provides drinking water, irrigation water and industrial water for most of Western Canada. This includes water for major cities such as Calgary, Edmonton and Saskatoon. The melting of the glaciers will dramatically impact summer flows with far less water in the summer on the river. Many communities rely on glacial runoff for water supply during the warm and dry season (late summer). Models show that once glacier run off become negligible, several communities in Alberta will suffer with unprecedented streamflow lows (Anderson and Radic, 2020).
Factors negatively affecting provision of this benefit
Climate change
Impact level - Very High
Trend - Increasing
Direct employment,
Tourism-related income,
Provision of jobs
The WHS is one of Canada main tourist attractions and an iconic international tourism destination for Canada. Visitors to the Rockies generated 1.09 billion dollars in economic impact in 2012, representing 15% of total direct tourism expenditures in Alberta (Grant Thornton and Econometric Research Limited, 2016). During the recent Covid-19 pandemic when all businesses except essential services were shut down, the Town of Banff experienced nearly 85% unemployment. The majority of these job losses were associated with the loss of tourism as the park shut down to outside visitors. This demonstrates the percentage of the local economy that is dependent on the tourism industry for employment. 
Factors negatively affecting provision of this benefit
Climate change
Impact level - High
Trend - Increasing
Overexploitation
Impact level - High
Trend - Increasing
Importance for research,
Contribution to education
The Rocky Mountains have a long history of being important research areas for large wildlife, glacial processes and many other natural features. Many graduate students and trained there and many classes have field trips there.
Factors negatively affecting provision of this benefit
Climate change
Impact level - High
Trend - Increasing
Overexploitation
Impact level - Moderate
Trend - Increasing
History and tradition,
Wilderness and iconic features,
Cultural identity and sense of belonging
The Rocky Mountains are the traditional territory to several First Nations (indigenous peoples) who still use and have important connections to the land. Jasper issues Indigenous passes, has supported a limited Indigenous hunt, provides special access to sites for spiritual connection and traditional practices such as medicinal plant gathering and has a Cultural Use Area for Indigenous partners to use as a gathering place and to practice cultural practices. The Rocky Mountains WHS contains Banff, Canada's first and oldest National Parks. Banff is one of best known parks in the world. The site is also a wilderness icon in Canada and globally. Images from the site have been printed in Canadian currency. 
Factors negatively affecting provision of this benefit
Climate change
Impact level - High
Trend - Increasing
Pollution
Impact level - Low
Overexploitation
Impact level - Very High
Trend - Decreasing
Invasive species
Impact level - Low
Trend - Continuing
Habitat change
Impact level - High
Trend - Increasing
The site is the water tower for western Canada, one of Canada's largest tourism draws and part of the Canadian identity. The Rocky Mountains are also the traditional territory of more than 40 Indigenous groups who still use and have important connections to the land. It has a long history and was the beginning of National Parks in Canada.
Organization Brief description of Active Projects Website
1 Parks Canada Reintroduction of Plains Bison to Banff
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/banff/info/gestion-management/bison
2 Parks Canada Parks Canada is implementing actions set out in the Multi-Species Action Plan for Jasper National Park (2017) to support caribou conservation and recovery, including assessing the feasibility of additional measures to enhance protections for caribou and their habitat and to augment caribou populations in Jasper National Park towards self-sufficiency. Parks Canada has been investigating the feasibility of developing a caribou conservation breeding program and is now at the point where a proposal will undergo a review by external experts.
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/banff/decouvrir-discover/faune-wildlife/caribou/captive-captive https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/jasper/nature/conservation/eep-sar/caribou-jasper
3 Parks Canada Many of the high elevation lakes in the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks were originally fishless and home to a diverse community of amphibians, reptiles and aquatic invertebrates. Lower elevation lakes were home to a number of native fish species. Sportfish socking during the 20th century altered these native communities. Recently, small, experimental efforts to remove stocked fish species to recover their original aquatic communities. Invasive aquatic species, such as whirling disease, quagga mussels, and zebra mussels, pose emerging threats to aquatic ecosystems. Beginning in 2020, the mountain national parks launched a collaborative project to address this threat as part of its larger Shoreline Action Plan. Transmission of aquatic invasive species is generally through the movement of contaminated boats and boat trailers, aquatic recreational equipment, fishing gear, or contaminated fish from an infected watershed. In conjunction with regional provincial agencies, the mountain national parks are developing and implementing a strategy to prevent the establishment of aquatic invasive species throughout the parks focusing on improving visitor awareness, implementing inspection and decontamination facilities, and considering access management options for priority waterbodies.
https://www.thecragandcanyon.ca/news/local-news/parks-canada-working-to-restore-threatened-trout-at-hidden-lake https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/banff/bulletins/8aed9515-9f7d-4cdd-9b1e-d03d9f8a7401 https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/052/details-eng.cfm?pid=62436 https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/jasper/info/plan/rivage-shoreline
4 Parks Canada, BC Parks Collaborative conservation and restoration programs across the mountain parks and with the province of Alberta and BC have been developed to monitor the health and status of whitebark pine and reduce future declines. Active management and restoration activities ongoing across the mountain parks focus on creating favourable habitat and planting seedlings resistant to the introduced blister rust pathogen. The objectives of these activities are to lessen declines of whitebark pine populations and ensure they persist in the mountain parks in perpetuity.
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/jasper/nature/conservation/eep-sar/wbp
5 BC Parks Long Term Ecological Monitoring Project in Mt. Assiniboine Park focussed on monitoring the heath of alpine vegetation.
http://bcparks.ca/partnerships/ltem/
6 Parks Canada Multi-species Action Plans for Banff, Kootenay, Yoho, and Jasper set out goals for species found on Parks Canada lands that are listed as endangered or threatened under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. The goal of these action plans is to identify, coordinate and prioritize site-specific actions to support species at risk recovery and management in the parks.
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/jasper/nature/conservation/eep-sar
7 Parks Canada Parks Canada’s fire management program acknowledges the importance of fire in the ecosystem. While the national parks continue to suppress threatening wildfires, they also work to reintroduce fire and its benefits to the landscape. Parks Canada uses carefully planned prescribed fire to safely restore and maintain important ecological processes. The current program has been developed based on decades of experience and research, and has made Parks Canada a leader in fire management.
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/nature/science/conservation/feu-fire/feuveg-fireveg

References

References
1
Anderson, R. P., Tosca, N. J., Gaines, R. R., Koch, N. M., & Briggs, D. E. (2018). A mineralogical signature for Burgess Shale–type fossilization. Geology, 46(4), pp.347-350.
2
Anderson, S., Radić, V. (2020). Identification of local water resource vulnerability to rapid deglaciation in Alberta. Nat. Clim. Chang.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0863-4
3
BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and natural Resource Operations. (2020). Exotic Alert: Whirling Disease [Online]. Victoria, Canada: Government of British Columbia. Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/sport_fish/exotic/#Whirling [Accessed 10 May 2020].
4
BC Parks. (2011). Mt. Robson Provincial Park Management Plan. [online] Available at: http://bcparks.ca/explore/parkpgs/mt_robson/mt-robson-mp-ma… [Accessed 4 August 2020]. 
5
BC Parks. (2012). Mt. Assiniboine Provincial Park Management Plan. [online] Available at: http://bcparks.ca/planning/mgmtplns/mt_assini/mt_assiniboin… [Accessed 4 August 2020]. 
6
BC Parks. (2015). Hamber Provincial Park Management Plan. [online] Available at:http://bcparks.ca/explore/parkpgs/hamber/hamber-mp.pdf?v=15… 4 August 2020]. 
7
Banff, Jasper and Canmore: Tourism Economic Impact Study 2016. Prepared by Grant Thornton, WMC and Econometric Research Limited.
8
Bath, A.,  & Enck, J. 2003. Wildlife-Human Interactions in National Parks in Canada and the USA. United States National Park Service: Social Science Research Review, 4, 1–32.
9
Binnema, T., and Niemi, M. (2006). Let The Line Be Drawn Now: Wilderness, conservation, and the exclusion of Aboriginal People from Banff National Park in Canada. Environmental History, 11(4), 724-750.
10
Bow Valley Human-Wildlife Coexistence Roundtable. (2018). Final Report, Human-Wildlife Coexistence: Recommendations for improving human-wildlife coexistence in the Bow Valley. Canmore, Alberta. pp. 1-86. ISBN 978-1-4601-4005-5
11
Brett, R. (2016). Forest Health Conditions in the Rocky Mountain National Parks. Forest Health Technician, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, 5320 – 122 Street, Edmonton, AB T6H 3S5
12
CPAWS (2016) Protecting Canada’s National Parks: A call for renewed commitment to nature conservation. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society 2016 Parks Report.
13
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [CBC]. (2019). Jasper mountain pine beetle population in decline for first time in 6 years. [online] Available at: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/jasper-pine-beetle-…;. [Accessed on August 24, 2020]
14
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (2019). Chronic wasting disease (CWD) fact sheet [Online]. Ottawa, Canada: Government of Canada. Available: https://www.inspection.gc.ca/animal-health/terrestrial-anim… [Accessed 10 May 2020].
15
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. (2017). Submission to the Ministers Round Table. [online] Available at: http://cpaws.org/uploads/CPAWS_submission_to_Ministers_Roun… [Accessed 23 November 2020].
16
Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative. (2019). Bat White Nose Syndrome - Reports [Online]. Saskatoon, Canada: CWHC/RCSF. Available: http://www.cwhc-rcsf.ca/surveillance_data_wns.php [Accessed 10 May 2020].
17
Cassady St. Clair, C., Whittington, J., Forshner, A., Gangadharan, A., and Laskin, D.N. (2020). Railway Mortality for Several Mammal Species Increases with Train Speed, Proximity to Water, and Track Curvature. To be published in Scientific Reports.
18
Cecco, L. (2018). Crowds, Congestion, No Parking: Should Canada limit visitors to its majestic parks? [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/04/canada-… September 2020].
19
City News. (2020). BC Parks funding takes hit despite pleas of outdoor advocates. [online] Ash Kelly, 29 February. Available at: https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/02/29/bc-parks-funding-hi… [Accessed 4 August 2020]. 
20
Clarke, G. K., Jarosch, A. H., Anslow, F. S., Radić, V., & Menounos, B. (2015). Projected deglaciation of western Canada in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience, 8(5), 372-377.
21
Devin, S., and Doberstein, B. (2004). Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Parks Management: A Canadian perspective. Environments, 32(1), 47-69.
22
Eagles, P. F. (2001). Evolution of the Concept of Visitor Use Management in Parks. Industry and Environment, 24(3), 65-67.
23
Eagles, P. F. (2013). Research Priorities in Park Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-23. doi:10.1080/09669582.2013.785554
24
Ellis, C. (2020). Parks Canada Introduces Bus Reservation System for Lake Louise, Moraine Lake. [online] St Alberta Today. Available at: https://www.stalberttoday.ca/beyond-local/parks-canada-intr… September 2020].
25
Fefer, J. P., De-Urioste Stone, S., Daigle, J., and Silka, L. (2016). Using the Delphi Technique to Identify Key Elements for Effective and Sustainable Visitor Use Planning Frameworks. SAGE Open, 1-16, doi:DOI: 10.1177/2158244016643141
26
Festa-Bianchet, M., Pelletier, F., Jorgenson, J. T., Feder, C. and Hubbs, A. (2014). Decrease in horn size and increase in age of trophy sheep in Alberta over 37 years. Jour. Wild. Mgmt., 78: 133–141. doi:10.1002/jwmg.644
27
Festa‐Bianchet, M., Pelletier, F., Jorgenson, J. T., Feder, C., & Hubbs, A. (2014). Decrease in horn size and increase in age of trophy sheep in Alberta over 37 years. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(1), 133-141.
28
Fletcher, R. (2016). Canada's Already Booming Mountain Parks Brace for 2017, When Entry Will Be Free. [online] Sep 27, CBC News: Calgary. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/banff-kootenay-yoho-… [Accessed 6 September 2020].
29
Gilhooly, P.S., Nielsen, S.E., Whittington, J., and Cassady St. Clair, C. (2019). Wildlife Mortality on Roads and Railways Following Highway Mitigation. Ecosphere. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2597
30
Government of Alberta. (2020). Whirling Disease [Online]. Edmonton, Canada: Government of Alberta. Available: https://www.alberta.ca/whirling-disease.aspx [Accessed 10 May 2020].
31
Grant Thornton and Econometric Research Limited. (2016). Banff, Jasper, and Canmore: Tourism Economic Impact Study. Vancouver, BC: Grant Thornton LLP.
32
Graveland, B. (2020). Lake Louise Ski Resort Loses Appeal of $2M Fine for Cutting Endangered Trees. [online] Jul 22, City News. Available at: https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/07/22/lake-louise-ski-reso… [Accessed 6 September 2020]. 
33
Groulx, M., Lemieux, C., Lewis, J., & Brown, S. (2017). Understanding consumer behaviour and adaptation planning rseponses to climate-driven environmental change in Canada's parks and protected areas: A climate futurescapes approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(6), 1016-1035.
34
35
Howe, E.J., Obbard, M.E., and Smith, H. (2014). Appendix 9: Literature Review of Factors Affecting Nuisance Bear Activity (W. R. a. D. Section, Trans.). Peterborough, ON: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. pp. 1-42.
36
Hunt, W.A. [Editor]. (2018). Banff National Park State of the Park Report – Resource Conservation Technical Summaries 2008 to 2017. Parks Canada, Unpublished Technical Report. pp. 1-444.
37
Jasper Environmental Association. (2017). Indigenous Hunt in Jasper National Park. [online] Available at: http://www.jasperenvironmental.org/indigenous-hunt-in-jaspe… [Accessed 4 August 2020]. 
38
Lake Louise Ski Area Site Guidelines for Development and Use. [online] Available at: https://lrp.skilouise.com/7967/documents/15076 [Accessed 23 November 2020]
39
Langdon, S., Prosper, R., and Gagnon, N. (2010). Two Paths One Direction: Parks Canada and Aboriginal peoples working together. The George Wright Forum, 27(2), 222-233.
40
Lemieux, C., Groulx, M., Halpenny, E., Stager, H., Dawson, J., Stewart, E., & Hvenegaard, G. (2018). “The end of the ice age?": Disappearing world heritage and the climate change communication imperative. Environmental Communication, 12(5), 653-671.
41
Matthews, S.M, Lackey, B.K., Greenleaf S.S., Leithead, H.M., Beecham, J.J., Ham, S.H., & Quigley, H.B. (2003). Final Report: Human-Bear Interaction Assessment in Yosemite National Park, pp. 679. Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho.
42
Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Canada (2017). Address to The Canadian Parks Conference Banff, AB March 10, 2017.
43
Mohr, J. (2008). Biodiversity, Protected Areas, and Climate Change: A Review and Synthesis of Biodiversity Conservation in Our Changing Climate. A report to the Nature Conservancy Global Protected Areas Unit.
44
Morelli T.L., Daly C., Dobrowski S.Z., Dulen D.M., Ebersole J.L., Jackson S.T., et al. (2016). Managing Climate Change Refugia for Climate Adaptation. PLoS ONE, 11(8), e0159909. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0159909
45
Mount Assiboine Provincial Park management plan. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/mt_assin…
46
Mount Robson Provincial Parks Management Plan. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/mgmtplns/mtrobson…
47
Office of the Auditor General of Canada (2013) Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Chapter 7—Ecological Integrity in National Parks. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201311_…
48
Parks Canada Agency. (2019). Parks Canada Attendance 2018–2019 [Online]. Gatineau, Canada: Environment and Climate Change Canada. Available: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/docs/pc/attend [Accessed 10 May 2020].
49
Parks Canada. (1994). Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies. [online] Available at: <https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/docs/pc/poli/princip/sec2/part2a/pa… > [Accessed 24 August 2020].
50
Parks Canada. (2015a). Lake Louise Ski Area Site Guidelines for Development and Use Strategic Environmental. Assessment. [online] Parks Canada. Available at: https://lrp.skilouise.com/7967/documents/15077 [Accessed 23 November 2020].
51
Parks Canada. (2015b). Briefing Book. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Parks Canada. Available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/agence-agency/mandat-mandate/transi…. [Accessed 29 August 2020].
52
Parks Canada. (2016). State of Canada’s Natural and Cultural Heritage Places 2016. [online] Parks Canada. Available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/docs/pc/rpts/elnhc-scnhp/2016/index [Accessed 23 November 2020].
53
Parks Canada. (2017). Attendance 2011-12 to 2015-16. [online] https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/docs/pc/attend. ;
54
Parks Canada. (2018a). Banff National Park State of the Park Assessment. [online] Available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/banff/info/gestion-managem… [Accessed 4 August 2020].
55
Parks Canada. (2018b). Jasper National Park State of the Park Assessment. [online] Available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/jasper/info/plan/involved/… [Accessed 4 August 2020]. 
56
Parks Canada. (2018c). Kootenay National Park State of the Park Assessment. [online] Available at:https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/bc/kootenay/gestion-mgmt/cons… [Accessed 4 August 2020]. 
57
Parks Canada. (2018d). Yoho National Park State of the Park Assessment. [online] Available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/bc/yoho/gestion-mgmt/consulta… [Accessed 4 August 2020]. 
58
Parks Canada. (2019a). Banff National Park- What we Heard Report. [online] Available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/banff/info/gestion-managem… [Accessed 4 August 2020]. 
59
Parks Canada. (2019b). Departmental Plan 2020-21. [online] Available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/agence-agency/bib-lib/plans/dp/dp20… [Accessed 4 August 2020]. 
60
Parks Canada. (2019c). Kootenay National Park: State of Park Report Technical Compendium. Parks Canada, Unpublished Technical Report. pp. 1-197.
61
Parks Canada. (2019d). Yoho National Park: State of Park Report Technical Compendium. Parks Canada, Unpublished Technical Report. pp. 1-197.
62
Parks Canada. (2019e). Jasper National Park State of the Park Assessment 2018 [online] pp. 6. Available at: <https://pcacdn.azureedge.net/-/media/pn-np/ab/jasper/WET4/p…; [Accessed 20 August, 2020].
63
Parks Canada. (2020a). Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks. [online] Available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/culture/spm-whs/sites-canada/sec02h [Accessed 24 November 2020].
64
Parks Canada. (2020b). Plains Bison Reintroduction. [online] Parks Canada. Available at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/ab/banff/info/gestion-manageme… [Accessed 24 November 2020].
65
Pigeon, G., Festa‐Bianchet, M., Coltman, D. W., & Pelletier, F. (2016). Intense selective hunting leads to artificial evolution in horn size. Evolutionary Applications, 9(4), 521-530.
66
Poirier, R., and Ostergren, D. (2002). Evicting People from Nature: Indigenous Land Rights and National Parks in Australia, Russia, and the United States. Natural Resources Journal, 42, 331-351.
67
Pollock, S.Z., Nielsen, S.E., and Cassady St. Clair, C. (2017). A Railway Increases the Abundance and Accelerates the Phenology of Bear-Attracting Plants in a Forested, Mountain Park. Ecosphere. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1985
68
Pollock, S.Z., Whittington, J., Nielsen, S.E., and Cassady St. Clair, C. (2019). Spatiotemporal Railway Use by Grizzly Bears in Canada's Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management. 83(8), 1787-1799.
69
Shepherd, B., Jones, B., Sissons, R, Cochrane, J., Park, J., Smith C.M. & Stafl, N. (2018). Ten years of monitoring illustrates a cascade of effects of white pine blister rust and focuses whitebark pine restoration in the Canadian Rocky and Columbia Mountains. Forests, 9, 138.
70
Shultis, J., and More, T. (2011). American and Canadian National Park Agency Responses to Declining Visitation. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(1), 110-132.
71
Tennant, C., B. Menounos, R. Wheate, and J. J. Clague. (2012). Area change of glaciers in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, 1919 to 2006. The Cryosphere, 6(6), 1541.
72
Tennant, C., Menounos, B., Wheate, R., & Clague, J. J. (2012). Area change of glaciers in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, 1919 to 2006. The Cryosphere, 6(6), 1541-1552.
73
Teufel, B., Diro, G. T., Whan, K., Milrad S.M., Jeong D.I., Ganji A. Huziy O. Winger K., Gyakum J.R., de Elia R., Zwiers F.W., and Sushama L. (2016). Investigation of the 2013 Alberta Flood from Weather and Climate Perpsectives. Climate Dynamics. 48, 2881-2899.
74
Weber, M., Groulx, M., Lemieux, C., Scott, D. & Dawson, J. (2019). Balancing the dual mandate of conservation and visitor use at a Canadian world heritage site in an era of rapid climate change, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI:10.1080/09669582.2019.1620754.
75
World Heritage Committee. (2019). Decision 43 COM 8E. Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value- Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada). [online] Baku, Azerbaijan: UNESCO. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/7393 [Accessed 7 October 2019].
76
fRI. (2020). fRI Research 2019–2020 Annual Report. [online] Available at: https://friresearch.ca/resource/fri-research-2019%E2%80%932… [Accessed 4 August 2020]. 

Would you like to share feedback to support the accuracy of information for this site? If so, send your comments below.