Parks Canada and Marmot Basin consider expansion into critical wildlife habitat in Jasper National Park

Jasper's Marmot Basin ski hill is in a critical wildlife area. Any expansion into the adjacent Whistlers Creek valley or use in the summer season would adversely affect woodland caribou, grizzlies, wolverines and mountain goats and would contravene Parks Canada's first priority to protect wildlife and wilderness.

..any lift proposals that would ease the present difficulty for humans to gain access to any place on the Marmot Mountain skyline and beyond will constitute an unmitigable impact for goats and caribou.

– Parks Canada 1981

MARMOT BASIN SKI HILL: a slippery slope for wildlife

Update: Site guidelines approved by Parks Canada
In March 2008, in spite of strong objections from conservation groups, Parks Canada approved the Marmot Basin Ski Area Site Guidelines as part of a long-range plan (LRP) process for future development at the ski hill.

Background

In 2006 the federal government announced that it would allow expansion out of a ski hill’s existing footprint if it could be shown to be a ‘substantial environmental gain’ – for example ‘a leasehold reduction or reconfiguration that results in better protection of sensitive areas in exchange for development in less sensitive areas’.

Conservation groups accepted this in good faith trusting Parks Canada to follow its mandated first priority of protecting wilderness and wildlife.

Somewhat more than 30% of Marmot’s lease lies over a ridge in Whistlers Creek valley to the north of the present developed footprint. It is a pristine, undeveloped valley and is important habitat for woodland caribou, listed as ‘threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). It also serves as a refuge and movement corridor for wolverine and grizzlies – both listed under the Committee On the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as species ‘of special concern’ – as well as mountain goats, moose, lynx, black bears and wolves.

In 1981 Parks Canada refused any development in Whistlers Creek valley, citing:

the importance of the area to wildlife

fragile plant communities

unstable soils and vegetation mat

potential adverse effects of ski lifts and other infrastructure on the view from the important tourism destination of Whistlers Peak across the valley

It also refused a ski lift to the summit of Marmot Peak because this would have facilitated access into the valley (the Knob Chair, the highest lift on the hill, stops about 500 meters below the summit.)

Parks Canada was very firm on its decision: “Any development out of the basin – such as into Whistlers Creek Valley or over the peak of Marmot Mtn, would cause a loss of natural resource heritage values and is contrary to National Parks’ purposes, corporate policy, and stated ski area planning development policies” Parks Canada 1986.

Whistlers Creek valley with proposed ski runs and surrendered area. Marmot Basin lies behind the ridge to the left.

Approved guidelines for future development

Now, however the approved site guidelines have opened the door to:

possible construction of two ski lifts in the valley

a ski lift to the summit of the developed basin

expansion into a 60-ha licence-of-occupation outside the south boundary of the lease

summer use of the ski hill

All this would be in exchange for a leasehold reduction of a narrow 119.6 ha strip of heavily forested land on the north boundary of Marmot’s lease in Whistlers Creek valley. As this area was already protected from any development how can the exchange possibly be a ‘substantial environmental gain’?

The two ski lifts proposed for this valley would be adjacent to the exchanged area and these – together with the proposed ski lift to the basin summit cannot help but disturb and ultimately displace wildlife from the area.

Parks Canada says it will allow these two lifts if issues relating to caribou can first be addressed and proposes a three-year ‘caribou risk assessment’ for the area; an incomprehensibly short time for such a far-ranging unpredictable species as woodland caribou – and what of other sensitive wildlife species?

Searching for ‘certainty’

For years the four mountain park ski hills have resisted updating their LRPs, preferring to pressure Parks Canada – often successfully – into allowing piecemeal developments with little regard for the cumulative effects on the parks and their wildlife.

Parks Canada now wants closure and says it is ‘working towards land-use certainty.’ Marmot is the first of the four ski hills to negotiate its LRP with Parks Canada and conservation groups are watching closely, concerned about the three species-at-risk and aware that whatever Marmot gets the three Banff ski hills will also want.

Summer use of Marmot Basin

Summer use is of major concern because – as Parks Canada admits in the draft site guidelines: ‘Marmot is located in high quality summer grizzly habitat.’ In 1999, for this same reason, Parks Canada assured the public ‘a summer use program is neither proposed nor contemplated.’

Why is it now considering summer use that would either drive grizzlies from this important habitat or force them to tolerate human use of the hill? Bears that tolerate development have been shown to experience increased mortality risk and the 2000 Jasper National Park Management Plan clearly states: ‘the most important factor in grizzly bear survival is minimizing contact with people’

Parks Canada is considering allowing summer use on the ski hill while admitting it is high-quality summer grizzly habitat

Environmental Gain or Commercial Gain?

Where is the substantial environmental gain in this exchange of a narrow strip of already protected wildlife habitat for a list of projects enabling Marmot to expand into this critical valley and develop summer use? How does moving a line on the map better protect the wildlife?

If the two valley ski lifts – ‘Outer Limits’ and ‘Tres Hombres’ – are allowed to go ahead the disturbance and requisite avalanche control on those slopes will make the adjoining surrendered strip useless to the wildlife that now use it.

These same factors will also disturb mountain goats that use the adjacent rocky slopes. An extension of the Knob Chairlift to Marmot Peak will block their winter travel route along the windblown summit ridge and summer maintenance on ski lifts could disturb an important mineral lick for the goats.

This is not an environmental gain – it is purely and simply a commercial gain. See 'Language Matters: The Gain Game'

Skier Capacity increased by 60%

Before this process was even released to the public, Parks Canada and Marmot Basin had negotiated growth limits based on industry standards. Why does a national park not have to use environmental standards?

These limits will allow 6,500 skiers a day on the hill – an increase of more than 60% on the present average peak day of 4,045. New ski lifts, ski runs, ‘glading’ (cutting trees), terrain parks, extra parking and expansion of snowmaking will be allowed as well as an increase of 43% in commercial space including possible relocation, replacement and increase in size of lodges and facilities and the installation of warming huts ‘in areas remote from lodges.’

Parks Canada and Marmot Basin have negotiated an increase in industrial carrying capacity of more than sixty percent

What will be the cumulative effects of these changes e.g. the increase in power consumption, sewage, water use, staff numbers, highway traffic etc.? These concerns are dismissed by Parks with: ‘The cumulative effects associated with ski area development are not expected to compromise ecological integrity in the region.’

No mention is made of the effects of increased traffic on the 10-km Marmot access road through a wilderness area frequented by most species of the park’s wildlife, including three species at risk. Parks Canada simply states: ‘The existing access road appears to have the capability to adequately accommodate increased traffic if the ski area were to reach its design capacity at build out’.

But does the wildlife have the capability to accommodate the increased mortality?

Lack of research and monitoring

Parks Canada has done practically no monitoring or research in the area since 1981 when the original decision was made and now admits to an estimated 40 knowledge deficiencies – including no inventory of water resources for snowmaking. How can it make credible decisions with no data?

Parks Canada must honour its 1981 decision, made after completion of a full environmental assessment. Even without up-to-date studies and monitoring we know that the plant communities are still fragile; the soils and vegetation mats are still unstable; mountain goats and caribou still frequent the area and Whistlers Peak across the valley is now accessed by more than 30,000 Jasper Tramway visitors each summer to photograph the magnificent wilderness landscapes.

Whistlers Creek valley. Important caribou habitat. Cladina species lichens next to proposed Tres Hombres ski lift area

How certain is ‘certainty’?

Parks Canada argues that by accepting Marmot’s lease reduction it will achieve ‘land use certainty’ by removing the option for a future government to allow development in the surrendered strip of forest.

One of Marmot’s desired developments involves a 60-ha licence-of-occupation outside the south boundary of its lease for a beginner’s area and Nordic skiing. Another licence-of-occupation would be required on the summit of Marmot Peak if a summit ski lift is approved. However, creating licences-of-occupation would require an amendment to the Canada National Parks Act because Section 36 (1) states: ‘No lease or licence of occupation may be granted for the purpose of commercial ski facilities on public lands in a park except within a commercial ski area described in Schedule 5.’

If Parks Canada finds it a relatively simple exercise to sidestep the Canada National Parks Act to suit this proposed exchange how can any lease boundary changes be ‘certain’?

The only ‘certainty’ seems to be that the crucial wildlife habitat of Whistlers Creek valley is in danger of being opened up to development.