An Assessment of Mountain Hazards and Risk-Taking

Activities in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada

by

Derrick S. Brown

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of

The University of Manitoba

in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of

Master of Science

Department of Environment and Geography

University of Manitoba

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Copyright © 2009 by Derrick S. Brown Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-63484-4 Our file Notre r6f6rence ISBN: 978-0-494-63484-4

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Nntemet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

1+1 Canada THE UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA

FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES k •& k k k COPYRIGHT PERMISSION

An Assessment of Mountain Hazards and Risk-Taking

Activities in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada

By

Derrick S. Brown

A Thesis/Practicum submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of

Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree

Of

Master of Science

Derrick S. Brown©2009

Permission has been granted to the University of Manitoba Libraries to lend a copy of this thesis/practicum, to Library and Archives Canada (LAC) to lend a copy of this thesis/practicum, and to LAC's agent (UMI/ProQuest) to microfilm, sell copies and to publish an abstract of this thesis/practicum.

This reproduction or copy of this thesis has been made available by authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research, and may only be reproduced and copied as permitted by copyright laws or with express written authorization from the copyright owner. AN ASSESSMENT OF MOUNTAIN HAZARDS AND RISK- TAKING ACTIVITIES IN BANFF NATIONAL PARK, ALBERTA, CANADA

"If we view a great mountain soaring into the sky, it may excite us, evoke an uplifted feeling within us. There is interplay of something we see outside of us with our inner response." Lawren S. Harris. 1924

Mt. Temple Banff National Park

u ABSTRACT

Human and economic costs associated with human activities in mountain regions have been increasing in Banff National Park (BNP) and in the Bow Valley (BV) in particular. Human activity in mountain environments inextricably juxtaposes humans and environment in a potentially deadly manner due in part to the plethora of natural hazards and their unpredictable nature but also due to the level of experience and decision making process of an individual or group. The combination of these factors determines the level of risk and vulnerability for humans, infrastructure, and ecosystems from various hazards, dangerous processes and human activity. Understanding the complex temporal and spatial relationship between landform, process, people, is thus critical to determining and mitigating anthropogenic risk and vulnerability to hazard in mountain regions.

This study looks at a new approach to assessing risk for humans from mountain hazards and risk-taking activities in BNP by analysis of death, injury, and non-injury incident reports. Additionally, this study incorporates a spatial and temporal analysis, including inter-annual and seasonal variations, of hazards. Hazards were identified and categorized in one of five hazard groups - animal, rockfall/icefall, recreation, mass movement processes, and snow avalanche and evaluated against high risk activities such as hiking, scrambling, skiing, bicycling, and climbing. The risk potential framework consists of assigning weighted ranks of 100, 1000, 10000, and 100000 based on the level of incident severity - no injury, minor injury, serious injury and fatality respectively. Risk potential is calculated using a variation of Blaikie's et al. (1994) risk equation, R = HxV->R = IRPn = (I* t/T0 / (Hc*Vp) * SWF which equates to ((incident probability) / (user population x hazard population)) x severity weighted rank (SWF). Annual and seasonal risk along with event counts were further analyzed to develop a set of hazard matrices (low, medium, considerable, high, and extreme) and a set of hazard maps for specific hazards and risk-taking activities spatially in BNP.

in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project has benefited from the assistance of many people and organizations, and I have many to thank. I appreciate the generous financial, logistical, and in kind support from Parks Canada, Banff National Park Warden Services, Nav Canada, Banff National Park Library, The Whyte Museum, University of Manitoba Faculty of Graduate Studies, Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation, and the Department of Environment and Geography, University of Manitoba.

The Banff Park Warden Services provided assistance and data on mountain and animal hazards, rescue occurrences and incident data on injuries and fatalities. I thank Tao Gui for providing much of the Parks Canada data, and for providing logistical assistance and support. I also thank Cliff White, Gord Erwin, Ian Syme Bradford White, and Ron Allen (Lake Louise Ski resort) for their input, discussion and thoughts on this project.

Thank you to Cathy Hourigan of the Banff National Park Library whose tireless dedication in providing me with the numerous reports, papers and studies that I requested, was instrumental in the completion of this project.

To Jim Gardner, whose passion for the mountain environments, their natural beauty, their inhabitants and the processes that shape them has been so influential in driving my research and shaping my affection for mountain ecosystems. Your influence as a professor, mentor, and a friend will be forever valued.

To Brian Stimpson, Thank you for providing so much valuable input and for the stimulating conversation on various topics that transcended the requirements of this project.

To Tim Papakyriakou and Emdad Haque, thank you for being there to push me to develop a project that was manageable, interesting and contributory. To Tim, thank you for listening and keeping me focused on the goal at hand.

To John Iacozza, Rob Gerry and Alison Buckingham, Thank you for your assistance on developing the hazard maps. John, Thank you for all the other invaluable suggestions and contributions you have made over the years.

Thank you to my family - Mom Dad, David, Debbie and Stephen your assistance was invaluable to completing this project.

To my daughter Meghan, thank you for your assistance during the field research and putting up with me during the home stretch. ©

Finally, I wish to express my thanks to Banff National Park. The many years I have spent hiking, climbing, skiing and observing through this marvellous park have shown me there are still many wild beautiful places in the world and much that is truly incredible to see. Banff National Park is a jewel among wild lands everywhere. I have seen a Banff that few others have seen and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to see it in all its glorious nature. My great hope is that we continue to appreciate and preserve through research and adventure the intrinsic beauty of what remains of the world's great natural environments.

IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Abstract Hi

Acknowledgements iv

Table of Contents v

List of Tables ix

List of Figures xii

List of Acronyms xvii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Issues and rationale 1

1.2 Banff National Park 4

1.2.1 A brief history 4

1.2.2 Park management 9

1.2.3 The town of Banff and hamlet of Lake Louise 12

1.2.4 Tourism and human use 14

1.2.5 Visitor safety 17

CHAPTER 2: MOUNTAIN HAZARD, HIGH RISK ACTIVITY, AND RISK

2.1 Mountain hazard 24

2.2 The intrinsic benefit of mountain activities 26

2.3 High risk activities 30

2.4 Hazard, risk, and risk perception 35 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Page

3.1 Study area 47

3.2 Data collection 52

3.3 Baseline determination 54

3.4 User group population 54

3.5 Animal populations and hazard inventory 60

3.6 Incident data 62

3.7 Risk potential calculations 63

3.8 IPTPD and FPTPD calculations 67

3.9 Hazard matrix and bulletin 67

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

4.1 Results 72

4.1.1 Overall annual incidents and rescue response in BNP

1985-2004 72

4.2 Hazard based risk potential 78

4.2.1 Mass movement 78

4.2.2 Snow Avalanche 80

4.2.3 Rockfall/icefall 86

4.2.4 Elk 91

4.2.5 Grizzly Bear 95

4.2.6 Cougar 100

4.2.7 Wolf 101

VI CHAPTER 4 continued... Page

4.3 Activity based risk potential 102

4.3.1 Downhill skiing 102

4.3.2 Cross country skiing 107

4.3.3 Backcountry skiing 107

4.3.4 Ice climbing 110

4.3.5 Rock climbing 113

4.3.6 Mountain climbing 116

4.3.7 Hiking 119

4.3.8 Scrambling 123

4.3.9 Mountain biking 124

4.3.10 Paddling sports 127

4.4 IPTPD and FPTPD calculations 128

4.5 High risk zones 130

4.6 Hazard maps 134

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Discussion 140

5.1.1 Evaluation and limitations of data 140

5.1.2 Evaluation of risk potential and incident data as a hazard

assessment tool 148

5.1.3 Evaluation of hazard type 154

5.1.4 Evaluation of high risk activities 159

vn CHAPTER 5: continued.... Page

5.1.5 Evaluation of hazard risk zones 164

5.1.6 Implications for Parks Canada 168

5.2 Conclusion 171

5.3 Future research 173

APPENDICES

Appendix 3-1 Overall person visits and person visit days, BNP 175

Appendix 3-2 Annual Person visits and person visit days for

Visitors and user groups, BNP 176

Appendix 3-3 Coordinates for mass movement processes 179

Appendix 3-4 Raw incident data from all sources 181

Appendix 3-5 Example of IRPn calculation, graph, and equation 213

Appendix 3-6 Annual individual incident data in table format for

mountain hazards and risk taking activities, BNP 215

LITERATURE CITED 222

vni LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 2- 1: Hazard-Perils matrix as proposed by Williamson (2009) 37

Table 2- 2: Major differences between risk assessment and risk perception 40

Table 2- 3: Definitions of risk terminology following appendix 1 of

IUGS (1997) 42

Table 3- 1: Percentage of visitors that participate in high risk activities 51

Table 3-2: Annual visitor numbers, Banff National Park and Bow Valley 56

Table 3- 3 : Acronyms for user activity groups 57

Table 3- 4 : Estimated population of user groups 58

Table 3- 5: Hiking as a percentage of overall visitors to BNP 58

Table 3-6: Estimated quarterly user group population percentages 60

Table 3-7: Hazard counts for activities in BNP 62

Table 3-8: Incident types 63

Table 3- 9: Severity weighting factor for each incident type 65

Table 3- 10: Risk Rating frequency and severity scale 68

Table 3-11: Likelihood and consequence scheme 69

Table 4 - 1: Decadal summary of incident type and helicopter rescue

method 73

Table 4 - 2: Percentage difference in incident type for hiking and

scrambling 75

Table 4-3: Warden Services rescue responses for high risk activities 75

Table 4 - 4: Known mass movements in or near BNP 79

Table 4-5: Avalanche hazard events by incident type 81

IX LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 4-6: Cross country ski events by incident type 107

Table 4-7: Annual AERPn for cross country skiers 107

Table 4-8: AIRPn for IC overall and by incident cause 113

Table 4 - 9: Decadal differences in rock climbing incident types 113

Table 4 - 10: Annual risk for rock climbers 116

Table 4-11: Difference in mountain climbing events 117

Table 4-12: Annual level of risk, AIRPn, for mountain climbers by cause 119

Table 4-13: Hiking events by incident type and decade with percentage

change 120

Table 4 - 14: Hiking events by incident type and decade from sample data 120

Table 4-15: AIRPn for hikers and cause of hiker incident 123

Table 4-16: Scrambling incidents by incident type and decade 124

Table 4 - 17: Incident data for mountain bikers in BNP 125

Table 4-18: Encounter types used for IRPn calculation 126

Table 4-19: IRPn for bear-mountain bike encounters BNP 126

Table 4-20: Calculated AIRPn for paddling activities 128

Table 4-21: Average FPTPD and IPTPD for high risk activities 128

Table 4 - 22: Ranking of high risk activities based on fatalities 130

Table 4-23: Ranking of high risk activities by Risk Potential (IRPn) 130

Table 4 - 24: High risk "fall" hazard zones for in BNP 131

Table 4-25: Hazard zones for climbing, scrambling, and hiking in BNP 131

Table 4 - 26: High risk grizzly bear zones in BNP 132 LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 4-27: High risk rockfall zones in BNP 132

Table 4 - 28: High risk avalanche zones in BNP 132

Table 5- 1: Occurrence events by activity type 159

Table 5-2: High risk activity from sample data 161

XI LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 1- 1 Annual rescue responses Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay 20

Figure 1-2: Fencing with barrier gate to restrict animal access 21

Figure 1- 3: Texas barrier gate at entrance to Banff Townsite 21

Figure 1-4: 2.4m page wire fence along TCH in BNP 22

Figure 1-5: Animal overpass on TCH between Banff and Lake Louise 22

Figure 1-6: Animal Underpass on TCH between Banff and Lake Louise 22

Figure 1-7: Elk Jam 23

Figure 2- 1: The Adventure Experience Paradigm 29

Figure 3- 1: Banff National Park (Wikipedia) 47

Figure 3- 2: Bow Valley Ecosystem, (BVE) 48

Figure 4- 1: Relationship between annual occurrences and incident type 73

Figure 4- 2: Total annual activity events that generated a rescue response 74

Figure 4- 3: Annual human encounters with elk, grizzly bear, cougar

and wolves 76

Figure 4- 4: Annual human injuries and fatalities from elk, grizzly bear,

and cougar 77

Figure 4- 5: Overall annual natural hazard events by incident type 78

Figure 4- 6: Overall annual fatality and injury incidents for natural

hazard events 78

Figure 4- 7: Estimated annual risk for each user group from mass

movement 80

Figure 4- 8: Annual avalanche events by incident type 81

xn LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 4- 9: Annual avalanche events in BNP 82

Figure 4- 10: Avalanche hazard events by activity and incident type 82

Figure 4-11: Quarterly avalanche events by incident type 83

Figure 4-12: Distribution of avalanche events by quarter 83

Figure 4-13: Avalanche events by quarter in BNP 1985-2004 84

Figure 4- 14: Quarterly avalanche events by activity in BNP 84

Figure 4-15: Annual IRPnby incident type from avalanche for all visitors 85

Figure 4-16: Average risk potential for each user group from avalanche

hazard 86

Figure 4-17: Rockfall and icefall events by incident type 87

Figure 4-18: Rockfall events by activity and incident type 88

Figure 4-19: Icefall events by activity and incident type 88

Figure 4- 20: Annual rockfall and icefall events by quarter 89

Figure 4-21: Quarterly rockfall and icefall events by incident type 89

Figure 4- 22: Quarterly rockfall and icefall events by activity type 89

Figure 4- 23: Annual IRPn for visitors by incident type and year 90

Figure 4- 24: Average risk potential for user groups from rockfall

and icefall 91

Figure 4- 25: Annual elk-human encounters by incident type 92

Figure 4- 26: Wolf population in Bow Valley, east and west wildlife zones 93

Figure 4- 27: Elk population in Bow Valley east, central and west

wildlife zones 93

xm LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 4- 28: Visitor PVD BNP Bow Valley central zone 93

Figure 4- 29: Annual IRPn by incident type for visitors to Banff

Towns ite area 94

Figure 4- 30: Average annual risk from elk by user group 95

Figure 4-31: Annual Grizzly bear-human encounters by year and

incident type 96

Figure 4- 32: Grizzly bear human encounters by activity and incident type 97

Figure 4-33: Grizzly bear-human encounters by quarter and incident type 97

Figure 4- 34: Grizzly bear-human encounters by quarter and year 98

Figure 4- 35 Grizzly bear-human encounters by month and incident type 98

Figure 4-36: Grizzly bear-human encounters by quarter and activity 99

Figure 4-37: Annual degree of risk for hikers from grizzly bears 99

Figure 4-38: Average annual risk from grizzly bears by user group 100

Figure 4- 39: Annual downhill skiing and snowboarding events by

incident type 103

Figure 4- 40: Annual variation in PVD for downhill skiers/snowboarders 103

Figure 4- 41: Cause of injury or fatality for downhill skiers/snowboarders 104

Figure 4- 42: Decadal injury and fatality cause for downhill skiers

And snowboarders 104

Figure 4- 43: Monthly distribution of downhill ski and snowboard events 105

Figure 4- 44: Annual downhill ski and snowboard events by quarter 105

Figure 4- 45: Annual IRPn for Downhill skiers and snowboarders 106

xiv LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 4- 46: PVD for downhill skiers and snowboarders 106

Figure 4- 47: Annual downhill ski and snowboard incident events 107

Figure 4- 48: Annual events for backcountry skiers by incident type 108

Figure 4- 49: Distribution of backcountry events by quarter and

incident type 109

Figure 4- 50: Most probable cause of injury or fatality for backcountry

skiers 109

Figure 4-51: Annual IRPn for Backcountry skiers 110

Figure 4- 52: AIRPn for each cause of injury or fatality for backcountry

skiers 110

Figure 4- 53: Annual ice climbing events by incident type and year 111

Figure 4- 54: Ice climbing events by incident type and month 111

Figure 4- 55: Most likely cause of ice climbing incidents 112

Figure 4- 56: Annual IRPn for ice climbers 113

Figure 4- 57: Annual rock climbing events by incident type and year 114

Figure 4- 58: Rock climbing incidents by quarter and incident type 114

Figure 4- 59: Most likely cause of a rock climbing incident 115

Figure 4- 60: Rock climbing incidents by quarter and year 115

Figure 4-61: Annual IRPn for rock climbers 116

Figure 4- 62: Annual mountain climbing incidents by incident type 117

Figure 4- 63: Quarterly mountain climbing incidents by month and

incident type 118

xv LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 4- 64: Common cause of mountain climbing incidents by

incident type 118

Figure 4- 65: Annual IRPn for mountain climbers 119

Figure 4- 66: Hiking incidents by incident type and year 121

Figure 4- 67: Quarterly hiking events by month and incident type 121

Figure 4- 68: Most common cause of hiking incidents by incident

and cause 122

Figure 4- 69: Annual IRPn for hikers calculated from Parks Canada

decadal data 122

Figure 4- 70: Annual IRPn for hikers calculated from sample data 123

Figure 4-71: Most likely cause of hiking event by incident type and cause 124

Figure 4- 72: Incident data for mountain biker-bear encounters 125

Figure 4- 73: Annual incidents for paddlers by incident type and decade 127

Figure 4- 74: Mass movement processes located along highways and roads 134

Figure 4-75: Hazard zone map for grizzly bear for BNP 135

Figure 4- 76: Hazard zones map for falling in BNP 136

Figure 4- 77: Hazard zone map for climbing, scrambling, and hiking

in BNP 137

Figure 4- 78: Hazard zone map for avalanche in BNP 138

Figure 4- 74: Hazard zone map for rockfall in BNP 139

xvi LIST OF ACRONYMS

AEDT Alberta Economic Development and Tourism AEP Adventure Experience Paradigm

AIRPn Average Individual Risk Potential ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable BBVS Banff-Bow Valley Study BC Backcountry Skier BNP Banff National Park BNPMP Banff National Park Management Plan BV Bow Valley BVE Bow Valley Ecosystem CAA Canadian Avalanche Association CAC Canadian Alpine Club CanSIS Canadian Wildlife Tracking System CB Code Black CG Code Green CKR Canoers, Kayakers, Paddlers CNPA Canadian National Park Act CPR Canadian Pacific Railway CR Code Red CTC Canadian Tourism Commission CY Code yellow DH Downhill Skier ET Evapotranspiration FPTPD Fatalities Per thousand Participant Days GIS Geographic information System GLM Generalized Linear Model GPS Global Positioning System H Hikers HBNP Hikers Banff National Park HR Helicopter rescue

XVll LIST OF ACRONYMS HSR Heli-sling Rescue IC Ice Climber IPTPD Injuries Per Thousand Participant Days IPTSD Injuries Per Thousand Skier Deaths IRPn Individual Risk Potential IUGS International Union of Geological Sciences KC Crop Coefficients KNP Kootenay National Park MC Mountain Climber MCF Magnitude-Cumulative Frequency MCNP Mount Cook National Park MDBI Mean Days between Injuries NARSID Non Avalanche Related Snow Immersion Death NGO Non Government Agency NPA National Park Act NSAA National Ski Areas Association PC Parks Canada PCPVD Parks Canada Person Visitor Days PCGPOP Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies PVD Person Visit Days RI Recurrence Interval RC Rock Climber RMP Rocky Mountain Parks RP Risk Potential SB Snowboarder SC Scrambler SNRS Stratified Non-Random Sample SWF Severity Weighting Factor TAR Total Annual Risk TBIA Town of Banff Incorporation Act

XVlll LIST OF ACRONYMS TCH Trans Canada Highway TE Total Events UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization VBT Visitors Banff Townsite VR General Visitors WSO Weather Service Office XC Cross Country Skier YNP Yoho National Park

xix 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Issues and Rationale

Banff National Park (BNP) 6641 km2 in area and part of the Canadian

Rocky Mountains in Alberta was Canada' first national park and has perennially been a favourite destination for visitors and recreationists wishing to enjoy and utilize its natural splendour. With over 3 million visitors annually and 20000 + cars daily on average during the summer months passing its eastern gate, it is by far

Canada's busiest and most utilized national park (Parks Canada, 2003, 2008).

Renowned for its extreme mountain scenery and outstanding features that include: diversity of wildlife, turquoise lakes, waterfalls, glaciers; thermal hot springs; endangered species; largest known cave system in Canada; seven national historic sites; more than 900 plant species; 56 mammals; 265 bird species; 5 reptile species; and 20 fish species, it is not hard to see why it is a premier destination for tourists (Parks Canada 2008). In the past 25 years, however, there has been a rapid increase in park use by visitors eager to feast on the untamed rugged splendour and wild nature of the park and recreationists who are drawn by the abundant accessible rugged peaks, wild untamed lands, abundant hiking and biking opportunities and the world class ski terrain. The juxtaposing of hazardous mountain terrain and wild animals with tourists inexperienced with the wildness of a mountain park and enthusiastic recreationists seeking to experience and embrace its majestic wonder, increases the risk from exposure to environmental hazard.

For Ives et al., 1976, the rapidly increasing hazard to human life and property is directly attributable to the accelerated growth of the winter recreation 2 industry and the construction of mountain homes. The proximity of BNP to Calgary with its recent population boom and the recent growth of the Alberta economy, coupled with the growth of communities just outside the park boundaries have led to an increase in regional visitors to 42.3% of all visitors annually (59.3% in winter). This has offset the decline in international visitors in recent years (Parks

Canada 2008).

Increased human traffic in Banffs mountain zones generated increased incidents with animal and natural hazards (White and Gui, 2004) which required new approaches to risk assessment and hazard mitigation. One of the determining factors for this research was the paucity of detailed spatial and temporal data related to human use, user numbers, incident occurrences and risk evaluation. The deficiency of human use research was outlined in the Banff Bow Valley Study

(BBVS) (1996).

Determining an accurate methodology for hazard risk assessment within the park is critical to minimizing the severity and cost associated with hazard incidents.

Past practice looked at individual natural hazards from an natural process-impact perspective and typically focused on natural processes such as flooding, landslides, debris flow, rockfall, and snow avalanche (VanDine, 1984; Hewitt, 1987; Fell,

1994; Bunce, 1994; Morgan et al. 1992; Bunce et al., 1997; Cruden, 1997; Carrara et al., 1999; Hungr and Beckie, 1998; Kaab, 2000; Hiibl and Steinwendtner, 2000;

Schardt et al., 2000; Mamaev et al., 2005). Some personnel, however, have attempted to assess regional risk from a multi-hazard approach. Gardner (1981) documented multiple natural hazard events in the Bow Valley region of Alberta. 3

Maas and Ondrasik (2005) looked at risk reduction in the Western Carpathians from multiple natural hazard processes. Zhang and Shan (2005) used a similar process in

China.

The goal of this study is to complete a hazard risk assessment of mountain hazards and risk taking activities in BNP that incorporates a spatial and temporal analysis, including annual, inter-annual and seasonal variations, of hazards based on the impact of a human-hazard encounter on human life. The study will attempt to holistically assess hazard from a "geographicalness" of place perspective (Hewitt,

1997) where consideration is given to geography, peoples' experience, spatial associations and interactions with the environment. The analysis will have a multiple hazard perspective that includes risk from natural geomorphic processes and animal encounters.

Hazards were identified and categorized in one of five groups - animal, rockfall/icefall, recreation, mass movement processes, and snow avalanche which were evaluated against high risk activities such as hiking, scrambling, skiing, bicycling, and climbing. The risk potential framework consists of assigning a severity weighting factor (SWF) of 100, 1000, 10000, and 100000 based on the level of incident severity - no injury, minor injury, serious injury and fatality respectively.

Risk potential is then equal to ((incident probability) / (user population x hazard population)) x SWF. Annual and seasonal "risk potential" and incident counts are spatially evaluated to determine a set of hazard matrices that identify high risk zones for specific mountain hazards and risk taking activities in BNP. Hazard zones are identified following the Canadian Avalanche Association (CAA) scheme of low, 4 moderate, considerable, high and extreme using a modified risk assessment scheme based on a hazard risk assessment methodology suggested by Ferrier and Haque

(2003).

Foremost to understanding and assessing the inherent risk from any hazard or activity is the development of a comprehensive knowledge not only of the physical aspects of a particular hazard but also of the intrinsic role of vulnerability, at the individual and the societal level.

1.2 Banff National Park

1.2.1 A Brief History

Throughout Banff National Park's history the friction between conservation and development interests has served to mould BNP. According to the BBVS

(1996), "current tensions have not suddenly emerged, but are a product of economic, social, environmental, and political forces that have shaped the Bow

Valley over time". It was a conflict over development of the Cave and Basin Hot

Springs that ultimately led Sir John A. MacDonald to create the original small protected reserve to preserve it from commercial developers in 1885. It was conflict again in 1972 that forced then Minister of Environment, Jean Chretien, to bow to pressure from the environmental lobby and withdraw government support for Banff s bid for the 1972 Winter Olympics

With the admission of British Columbia to confederation in 1871 and the accompanying desire to create a coast to coast national railway, the wheels were set in motion for the discovery of Canada's first national park. In 1882 a Canadian 5

Pacific Railway (CPR) Surveyor, Tom Wilson, with the help of a Stoney-Nakoda guide Edwin Hunter, discovered Lake Louise (Wilcox, 1900). He named it

Emerald Lake but it was changed to Lake Louise in 1884 after Queen Victoria's daughter, Princess Louise Caroline Alberta. A year later, in the fall of 1883, three

CPR construction workers stumbled across a hot spring fed cave on the eastern slopes of the Canadian Rocky Mountains in Alberta, and Banff was discovered.

Thereafter, more and more people descended on the area to bathe in the purported medicinal waters of the hot springs (Scace, 1982; CRnet, 2009).

Two years later, in 1885, the 26 sq km Banff Hot Springs Reserve was created by then Prime Minister John A. MacDonald. Two years later the Rocky

Mountains Park Act of June 23, 1887 created an expanded park of 674 sq km called the Rocky Mountains Park (RMP), the precursor to the present day Banff

National Park (BNP). It became Canada's first national park and only the third national park world wide. In 1902, the park was expanded to 11400 sq km but following intense pressure from logging and grazing groups the park was scaled back to 4663 sq km. Tourism was the catalyst but conservation quickly supplanted it as the driving force behind the future of the park. With the passing in 1911 of the

National Parks Act (NPA), conservation was entrenched as the primary purpose of the then RMP. In 1930, the present size was fixed at 6697sq km with the passing of the Canada National Parks Act (CNPA) and the name was officially changed to

Banff National Park (BNP) after the CPR train station (Hildebrandt, 1995). The province of Alberta transferred 207.5 acres to BNP in 1933 after completion of the 6 east gate and with a few more changes over the years; BNP boundaries now enclose 6641 sqkm (Lothian, 1987)

But Banffs history as a meeting place goes back farther that that. Ten thousand years ago, small bands of nomadic hunters roamed the plains and met at

Vermillion Lakes and Lake Minnewanka (Fedje, et al., 1995). In later years, bands of Tsuu T'ina, Kainai, Peigans, Kootenay, Siksika of the Plains Blackfoot Nation, and Stoney-Nakoda Sioux frequented the Bow Valley to hunt, fish and trade. It was the native peoples with their acute knowledge of the mountain passes and trails through the valleys who guided the many explorers and railway workers that came to the Rocky Mountains in the early years.

In the early days of the park, the CPR was instrumental in promoting and developing the Park. The economic dominance of the CPR in the Bow Valley developed naturally from its entrepreneurial prowess and proud history. It was the

CPR's quick realisation of the tourist potential of the Bow Valley that precipitated the construction of the Banff Springs Hotel, opened in June of 1988, and the

Chateau Lake Louise, finished at the beginning of the 20th century. The first general manager, Cornelius Van Home, stated unequivocally: "If we can't export the scenery, we'll import the tourists." (BBVS, 1996) It was the CPR's vision to make BNP a premier destination for wealthy Europeans and Americans many of whom were interested in the growing sport of mountaineering (Wikepedia).

In 1899, the CPR brought Swiss mountain guides, Eduard Feuz Sr. and

Christian Haesler, to Canada and promoted the park as 50 Switzerlands in one.

Feuz and Haeslar guided many early Banff visitors to the summits of the majestic 7 peaks of the region. In 1911, the CPR built homes for them as well as for other guides in Golden and named it the 'Swiss Village', or 'Edelweiss.' The Canadian

Alpine Club (CAC), founded by Arthur O. Wheeler and Elizabeth Parker, grew out of the "Edelweiss" community and drew many more guides from Switzerland in the following years (TourismGolden, 2009). The CPR promoted the safety and benefits of the experience of Swiss guides in summiting peaks in the Canadian

Rocky Mountains. The guides introduced safe climbing practices and expert techniques to the aspiring mountaineers. To facilitate access to many of the sought after peaks, the guides created a network of trails, many emanating from the

Illecillewaet campground area of Glacier National Park. The guides also introduced the local population to skiing (Parks Canada1). The boom in skiing over the years led to the creation of the mountain ski resorts of Lake Louise, Sunshine Village and

Mt. Norquay.

The development of the outdoor recreation industry had its beginning during this time as the steady increase in explorers and adventurers led to the development of outfitting and guiding businesses. Some of the earliest were Bill

Peyto, Tom Wilson and Jim and Bill Brewster who dominated tourist transportation in the park until 1965 when they sold their businesses to Greyhound.

Over the years many well known climbers established themselves in the mountains of Banff National Park. Climbers like Conrad Kain, Walter Wilcox, James

Outram, J. Norman Collie, Charles E. Fay and Don Forest are synonymous with climbing in the Rockies. Conrad Kain, an Austrian, who was the first professional guide of the Alpine Club of Canada, set the standard for mountaineering in the 8

Canadian Rockies, while Don Forest, who started climbing in his forties, became the first to scale all 11,000 foot peaks of the Canadian Rockies with his ascent of

Lunette Peak in 1979.

BNP development was founded on tourism and the growth of climbing and other outdoor recreational risk taking activities like hiking, skiing and paddling.

Visitors, 3,139,934 in 2004, who were captivated with its grandeur, flocked en masse to explore its scenic wonders. The construction of a network of roads starting with the Banff/Calgary Coach Road in 1911, the Banff/Lake Louise Road in 1920 and the Windermere Road connecting Banff to British Columbia increased automobile access to the park. By 1940, the Icefield Parkway connecting Banff to

Jasper was completed. Today 92% of all visitors to BNP come by private vehicle

(Parks Canada 2004).

In 1984, Banff was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site, together with the other national and provincial parks that form the Canadian Rocky Mountain

Parks, for the mountain landscapes containing mountain peaks, glaciers, lakes, waterfalls, canyons and limestone caves as well as the Burgess Shale Fossils found there (UNESCO). Today, finding a way to adhere to a policy that emphasizes preservation of ecological integrity and community species populations within the

BNP, while managing the burgeoning visitor population and continuing push for development, is a difficult task. Direction for BNP management comes from the current mandate as set out in the original CNPA of 1930, CNPA amendments in

1988, and from Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies

(CGPOP) Part 2, 1994. 9

1.2.2 Park Management

The mandate of the Parks Canada Agency is presented in the Parks Canada

Agency Act and states: "On behalf of the people of Canada, we protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage, and foster public understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment in ways that ensure the ecological and commemorative integrity of these places for present and future generations."

Over the years, park management policies have changed to reflect a greater emphasis on environmental protection than on development. Policy has changed drastically from the tourism based approach of the late 1890's and early 1900's to an ecological conservation approach. Much of the activities allowed in the park in its formative years would not be tolerated under existing policy. Hunting, for example, was prohibited in 1885 but predator control was allowed until 1959. Fire suppression, a major initiative to protect human developments and infrastructure, also interferes with natural processes and has now been replaced with prescribed burns to try and restore the ecosystem to a natural state (White et al., 2004). Dams such as the one at Lake Minnewanka have damaged ecosystems, destroyed natural areas and meant the loss of naturally flowing streams (Parks Canada, 2007).

A 1964 policy statement reaffirmed the ideals of conservation defined in the 1930 Act. A major policy statement in 1979 emphasised conservation. The

CNPA was amended again in 1988 and made preserving ecological integrity and protecting intact ecosystems the first priority in all park management decisions

(CNPA Section 8 (2)). The amendment also allowed non-governmental 10 organizations (NGO) to challenge Parks Canada in court for breaches in adhering to the act. The Act also required each park to produce a management plan (CNPA

Section 11(1)), with greater public participation. To achieve greater public participation CNPA Section 12(1) states that where applicable, the minister will

"provide opportunities for public consultation at the national, regional and local level including participation by aboriginal organizations, bodies established under land claims agreements and representatives of park communities, in the development of parks policy and regulations, the establishment of parks, the formulation of management plans, land use planning and development in relation to park communities and any other matter the minister considers relevant".

In the early 1980's, Parks Canada took a different approach, focusing on methods of integrating ecological science and management to better meet their commitment to preserving ecological integrity. Although much scientific data was produced, it tended to be issue specific; primarily wildlife based, and did not encompass a holistic approach to ecosystem management. With the burgeoning visitor numbers and the potential for significant negative impact on the ecosystem,

Parks Canada changed its paradigm to reflect an ecosystem-based management approach. In 1994, Parks Canada established revised "Guiding Principles and

Operating Policies", which included a mandate for the Banff-Bow Valley Study

(BBVS).

As a result of budget cuts, downsizing, a staff hiring freeze and the cancellation of the Green Plan in the mid 1990's, Parks Canada was faced with the 11 dilemma of not being able to maintain services while still meeting their commitment to completing the National Park system.

Parks Canada's answer was approval of the National Business Plan

1995/1996-1999/2000 which proposed to double revenues from $35 to $70 million by increasing user fees, visitor entry fees, and profit based enterprise units (BBVS

1996). This shift in management philosophy away from ecological preservation to resource generation juxtaposes two major ideologies and approaches to management of parks and protected places. The next few years showed that incorporating this change in management made it difficult to comply with the

CNPA requirement to put preservation and integrity of the ecosystem above all else.

Amid concerns over management policy and compliance with the CNPA the BBVS was commissioned, by then Minister of the Environment, Sheila Copps, to provide recommendations on how BNP management could best manage human use and development and still comply with the CNPA.

The BBVS findings, published in 1996, stressed ecosystem based management and Park management in a wider context that went beyond the official boundaries of BNP. The BBVS also stressed that visiting the park should be a rewarding experience, affordable and accessible to as many Canadians as the park can support and still maintain ecological integrity, and that the sole purpose of the town of Banff and the Hamlet of Lake Louise is to provide essential and basic services for park visitors. 12

1.2.3 The Town of Banff Townsite and Hamlet of Lake Louise

One of the anomalies with BNP is the concept of Incorporated Park

Communities such as the town of Banff. In 1887, Banff consisted of a total of 180 lot leases, six hotels, nine stores, two churches, a school and a post office (Lothian,

1977). Today Banff is a bustling community with numerous stores, bars, businesses, and houses and a permanent population of 6700 (Statistics Canada, census 2006) and receives approximately 2.8 million visitors annually (State of the

Park, 2008). Census 2006 data indicate that there are 2844 private dwellings in

Banff and of these 2568 are occupied by permanent residents. On January 1st, 1990, pursuant to section 8.2 of the CNPA, the Government of Canada and the Province of Alberta signed the Town of Banff Incorporation Agreement (TBIA, 1990) under the auspices of the Park Towns Act. This agreement granted the town self government by establishment of a municipal corporation under specific guidelines contained within the CBNPA and the Alberta Provincial Parks Act.

Banff was developed as a service centre for tourists and not much has changed over the years from this perspective. Its primary purpose today is as a centre for visitors and to supply accommodations, goods and services as required by tourists to enhance their park experience. The town is also required to provide a wide range of interpretive and orientation services to BNP visitors and maintain a community character that is consistent with and reflects the surrounding environment (TBIA, 1996). A 1996 survey indicated that residents opposed further commercial expansion but wanted more residential growth (Praxis 1996). CNPA 13 regulations, however, state that a persons residing in BNP must be employed in the tourism sector.

The Hamlet of Lake Louise is primarily a visitor service centre and has a population of about 1500 (BNP Mgmt Plan 2007). Lake Louise has always been a premier destination for visitors to BNP and approximately 2.7 million visitors annually come to the Lake Louise area (State of the Park, 2008). However, the hamlet is struggling to maintain affordable housing and community services. In addition, the Lake Louise area is a critical component to the BVE and has some of the best habitat for grizzly bear, elk, cougar, wolves and other wild life in the park

With the focus of Parks Canada management on preserving ecological integrity and with the sensitivity of grizzly bears, in particular, the Lake Louise area has seen a number of changes and restrictions over the last few years. Parks

Canada has developed the Lake Louise Growth Management Plan in 2001 to address concerns surrounding human use and ecosystem health in the Lake Louise area. These changes have focused on resource protection and thus limited their room for growth. Current BNP goals are to reduce the community boundary by

37% (49ha), introduce a no net negative environmental impact framework, limit current leaseholders to their current size, ban development outside the hamlet for commercial purposes and remove the trailer court by 2005 all of which are currently in place. Parks Canada has stepped up monitoring of trail use and activity impact on ecosystems and wildlife and will impose restrictions where necessary to preserve ecological integrity. In addition, shoulder season use (the months of May,

June, September and October) is being assessed to ascertain if more restrictions are 14 required seasonally to protect wildlife during critically birthing and pre winter feeding periods.

1.2.4 Tourism and Human Use

Canada has a vast natural environment with an unparalleled inventory of pristine environments, unique wildlife, and spectacular scenery of which BNP is the cornerstone; it is our postcard to attract visitors from around the world that has helped bring on average more than 3 million visitors annually. To put this in perspective, Yellowstone National Park, which is 25% larger than BNP had 2.4 million visitors in 1998 and 2.8 million in 2000 (Street, 1998; Yellowstone 2008) while BNP had 3.7 million in 1998 and 3.9 million in 2000.

BNP has considerable infrastructure in place to assist all of these visitors have g the best experience possible. The two communities, the four-lane Trans-

Canada Highway (TCH), a major rail link and the international airport at Calgary increase accessibility to BNP. The park has 54 hiking trail with a total length of more than 1500kms, 177+ ice climbing routes, 780+ rock climbing routes, 300+ mountain climbing routes, 31 mountain climbing trails, 53+ scrambling routes, three downhill ski resorts with a total of 290+ runs, 73+ backcountry ski trails, 23+ cross country ski trails, and numerous lakes and rivers for paddling to satiate the recreational user.

Banff has always been, and always will be, a place for people. The park has provided inspiration for artists like Lawren Harris, Belmore Browne, and Peter and

Catharine Whyte. Mountain men like Bill Peyto, Walter Wilcox and Phillip Stanley 15

Abbot were drawn by its majestic peaks. Still others came to hike the many trails, such as those around Lake Agnes and Saddleback Mountain, built by Willoughby

Astley in the early 1880's (CRnet). Today, we see postcards, books, television commercials, government ads, all promoting the Canadian Rockies as a premier tourism destination. In many ways it is a paradox. We want people to visit our crown jewel but those very visitors strain the ecological integrity of the Park.

People are also a part of the ecosystem. One of the goals of the BNPMP is to "provide opportunities for Canadians and international guests to enjoy high quality, authentic leisure and travel experiences that are based on national park values" (BNPMP, 2007), and the opportunities for these activities abound. The significance of tourism is not lost on Parks Canada management. The Canadian

Rockies and Banff National Park in particular are the embodiment of our culture, our image, our history and the very identity that we as Canadians have of ourselves and others have of us. BNP epitomizes the link between tourism and conservation and the social and economic benefits of tourism are well documented (Province of

BC, 2001; Wilton 2003; Wall and Mathieson, 2006.

Tourism doesn't just provide money to business interests; it is also a major contributor to conservation through the collection of taxes and user fees. The 1991 expenditures by visitors to Banff were approximately $614 million for the provincial economy, while tax revenues generated by visitor expenditures were approximately $170 million (AEDT 1994). However, Page et al. in the BBVS

(1996) estimated that tourism in BNP contributes $6 billion annually to the

Canadian economy. 16

Hinch and Butler (1996) proposed that the spread of tourism is partly due to

a deep rooted need to search out new destinations and see places in a natural or unspoiled state. To effectively manage a national park requires an understanding of

all the dimensions of tourism in an area and recognition that tourism is part of an interdependent system of causes and effects (Mcintosh et al., 1995)

Tourism has been referred to as an industry but does not produce a

standardized product. Sub components of tourism such as resorts, outdoor gear manufacturers, and airlines can conceivably be seen as industries but the product of tourism is one's experiences (Wall, 2003). Clawson and Knetsch (1966) noted five

stages to the tourist experience. These stages are: anticipation, journey to the destination, experiences gained at the destination, the return journey, and the recollection phase as one relives the experiences. For most, the focus is the destination phase. Wall (2003) notes a distinction between a tourism resource, a tourist attraction and a tourism product. Tourist resources are natural or human made attributes that contribute positively to a tourist's experience by satisfying a need or want. A tourist attraction is "all those elements of a non-home place that

draw discretionary travellers from their homes". According to MacCannell (1976) this includes a tourist, a site to be viewed and the marker or image that makes the

site significant. The product then is the culmination of all experiences throughout one's journey. Tourism impacts not only the tourist but also impacts businesses,

organizations, governments and the environment.

Although the CNPA and the 1994 policy statement stress the ecological role of national parks and Parks Canada's role in preserving ecological integrity and 17 maintaining intact ecosystems, it also acknowledges at a secondary level the significance of tourism to the park and to the cultural image that Banff portrays of

Canada worldwide. Tourism was the driving force behind the CPR development of

Banff in the late 1800's and early 1900's and it is tourism that fuels the park today.

The key mission for Parks Canada today is maintaining BNP as a place for people while fulfilling its obligations under the CNPA to preserve the ecological integrity of the park. This could be its biggest challenge.

1.2.5 Visitor Safety

Parks Canada states that its public safety program "aims to reduce visitor safety incidents and to minimize severity of incidents which do occur through prevention and appropriate response". The responsibilities of Parks Canada include the following: 1) identification and remediation of risk, 2) visitor risk management and public safety planning, 3) appropriate levels of search and rescue services, 4) targeted prevention, education and information programs that encourage self reliance, 5) communication of site specific hazards to visitors and 7) cooperation with other departments, non-governmental organizations, tourism operators, concessionaires and service providers (Parks Canada ).

Public safety has been a concern for Parks Canada since the 1920's when recreational ski touring began and was initially focused on avalanche hazard.

During the 1930's several avalanche accidents occurred that required rescues by

Park Warden's. The rescues identified the need for wardens to have both ski training and avalanche snow-craft training to adequately and safely respond to 18 accidents and protect the public. The first avalanche and skiing awareness schools were instituted by Noel Gardner in the early 1950's. Mountaineering activities continued to grow the Rocky Mountains and by the mid 1950's mountaineering accidents in the mountain National Parks increased to a point where alpine search and rescue skills became a requisite skill within Warden Services. In 1955, a Swiss guide hired as a chief park warden was tasked with administering the mountain rescue and travel training in National Parks. Two alpine rescue specialists were hired to train wardens in Banff and Jasper National Parks and three select Wardens were sent to Alta, Utah to learn avalanche skills under the famed Monty Atwater

(White, 2002).

The first avalanche bulletins and public information notices were issued in the early 1960's and wardens routinely performed ski patrol and avalanche duties at the local ski hills (White, 2002) until 1993 when ski hill operators assumed sole responsibility for avalanche control (Crag & Canyon, 1993). By the 1970's technical advances led to avalanche control along highways, roads and ski areas, avalanche bombing on high risk slopes, and the use of a double cable rescue system for evacuating climbers from difficult rock faces (Parks Canada3). Today, the use of explosives and 50 calibre howitzers for avalanche control along highways is standard practice and road closures during high risk periods are commonplace.

Today, high angle rescues have advanced to the use of helicopters and helislings which reduce rescue response times and increased available resources since fewer personnel are required. Helicopter rescues are up 33% and helislings 19 rescues up 54% from 1995-1999 to 200-2004. Warden rescue hours have decreased by approximately 4% in the decade 1995-2004 from 1985-1994 (Parks Canada,

20041).

Hiking activities account for about 1/3 of all rescue responses that were greater than or equal to a Parks Canada level 1 response (Level 1 = Standard search or rescue response with available in park resources. Rescue base set up. Rescue leader required). Second highest were climbing activities at approximately 1/5 of all responses. Third were ski activities, accounting for 1/7 of responses. Fourth was scrambling at 1/11 of total rescue responses. Overall rescues responses have increased from 1985 to 2004 (Figure 1-3) Responses equal to or greater than a level one, where a level one rescue is a standard search or rescue response with available park resources, rescue base set up, rescue leader required. The months June to

September account for 65% of all rescue responses with 40% occurring on a

Saturday. Avalanche rescue responses have increased in the Banff Yoho and

Kootenay National Parks by 38% in the decade 1995-2004 from 1985-1995, while fatalities have decreased from 16 to 14 (Parks Canada, 20041).

Figure 1-1: Annual rescue responses, level >=1, for Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay Warden Services 1985-2004 (Parks Canada, 2004) 20

The major animal hazards in the park are elk, grizzly bear, cougar, and wolf. Historically, encounters with cougar and wolf are rare. Grizzly bear encounters have remained steady with an average 12 encounters annually from

1992-2003 (Bertch and Gibeau, 2008; 2009). To reduce grizzly bear-human encounters and to protect bears as well as humans, Parks Canada instituted minimum hiking party size rules, campground restrictions, trail restrictions, and trail closures in sensitive and high use grizzly areas and posts bear activity warning signs in areas frequented by bears and humans. Additionally, a guide to safety called "Bears and People" was published, outlining how to avoid an encounter with a bear.

Elk hazard was minimal until wolves relocated to the Park in 1985

(Pacquet et al., 1996). Since then, elk-human encounters increased in the Banff

Townsite area to a high of 106 in 1999. Parks Canada introduced extensive mitigation in the 1990s following creation of the Elk Advisory Board in an effort to reduce elk-human encounters. Mitigation of the elk hazard by culling and relocating elk, erecting fences (Figure 1-4), installing Texas gates (Figure 1-5), and implementing aversive techniques helped reduce elk-human incidents to 19 in 2003 and decreased the elk population in town from over 500 in the 1990's to less than

200 by 2003 (Parks Canada3). 21

Figure 1- 2: Fencing with barrier gate to restrict animal access to Banff Townsite

:.j^.*.-.

Figure 1- 3: Texas barrier gate at entrance to Banff Townsite

Animal hazard was also severe for motorists and for animals. Animal fatalities were increasing at alarming rates from the 1970's through the 1990's, with vehicle traffic in excess of 20,000 per day. During the 1970's so many animals were killed on the TCH that it was locally known as the "meatmaker". Elk are the most vulnerable species affected by the highway (Leeson, 1996). In an effort to decrease animal-vehicle collisions, the decision was made to fence both sides of the highway with 2.4m page wire fences (Figure 1-6), to construct animal overpasses and underpasses to facilitate wildlife crossings (Figures 1-7, 1-8), to install Texas gates and stiles to allow vehicle and pedestrian traffic (Figure 1-5), and to install one way gates (Figure 1-4) for wildlife management (Leeson, 1996). 2:

Figure 1- 5: Animal overpass on TCH between Banff and Lake Louise

Figure 1- 6: Animal Underpass on TCH between Banff and Lake Louise

Warden services also mitigate animal-human hazard by enforcing wildlife regulations restricting garbage disposal, food storage, feeding of wild life and

approaching wildlife. Animal jams such as bear and elk (Figure 1-7), are prohibited ;r tools to miniimize human encounters are aversive conditioning of animal use of Karelian

jfssr

•psawa

1-1% Elk Jain TCH between Lake Louise and Castle Junction 24

Chapter 2 Mountain Hazard and High Risk Activity

2.1 Mountain Hazard

Gardner (1981) states "the natural environment continuously provides benefits and imposes costs on the people who use it". Nowhere is that more palpable today than BNP where an increase in visitor numbers and an increase in the number of people engaging in high risk activity have resulted in an increased number of rescue responses by Parks Canada Warden Services even though total rescue response hours have decreased.

Gardner identifies the benefits as natural resources and the costs as natural hazards. The interaction between people and the environment determines the value or cost of the resource or hazard. The benefit in this study is the "experience product" derived from visitor interaction with the natural environment. The cost is the potential personal loss or "negative experience product" resulting from the interaction with the environment.

Natural hazards in the Canadian Cordillera consist of snow avalanche, landslide processes, rock and ice fall, fire, flood, and animal encounters (Gardner,

1981; Eisbacher and Clague, 1984, 1997; Jackson, 1987, White et al., 2004; Schmor,

1999; Herrero and Herrero 2000; Bertch and Gibeau 2008, 2009). With the boom in recreational pursuits in BNP and the influx of visitors, the relative importance of these hazards and their impact on visitors has been transformed over the years. In the mountain environment of BNP today, the negative outcome experience (loss of life or injury) for the recreationist and visitor can result from three basic hazard types: geomorphic hazard, animal hazard, and action hazards. 25

The most potent geomorphic hazards to the visitor and recreationist in BNP consist of rock fall, ice fall and snow avalanche. Snow avalanches continue to be a concern for winter recreationists and travellers on the TCH and Highway 93 with 76 events affecting visitors from 1980 to 2004 (Parks Canada, 20041). Rock fall and ice fall events have occurred but on a much smaller scale. Although mass movements such as debris flows, mud slides and rock avalanches can occur, historically there have not been any significant occurrences that have resulted in a fatality or injury.

Five large animal hazards are prominent: grizzly bear, cougar, elk, black bear, and wolf. Historically, the grizzly bear hazard has always been the biggest concern for visitors and for Parks Canada and has gained the highest notoriety in mainstream media reports. By the mid 1990's the elk was quickly becoming a serious concern for visitors in and around the town of Banff. Elk-human encounters peaked at 106 in 1999 with 7 incidents causing injury to visitors (Elverum, 2009;

Parks Canada3). The elk population began to rise in Banff townsite following re- colonization of the Bow Valley by the timber wolf in the 1990's (Pacquet et al.,

1996). Cougar incidents are rare with only one event occurring in the history of

BNP, that coming in January, 2001. There has never been a formally reported wolf- human encounter.

Action hazards are hazards that occur when human decisions and behaviour result in a negative outcome experience. These hazards include falling, colliding with others (skier- skier, mountain biker-hiker for example), hitting a tree, and Non-

Avalanche Related Snow Immersion Deaths (NARSID) commonly called "tree well deaths". 26

NARSID events are a relatively new phenomenon that occurs when a snowboarder or skier falls into a soft, deep, unconsolidated snow area surrounding a tree. The more the skier or boarder struggles the deeper they sink and death by suffocation is quick. The odds of survival are low if a partner is not nearby. Two separate experiments in Canada and the United States found that 90% of volunteer subjects could not self rescue from a tree well (Baugher, 2006, Baugher and

Stanford, 2006).

2.2 The Intrinsic Benefit of Mountain Activities

Various theories have been postulated as to the reason people participate in extreme mountain activities despite the inherent risk. For many it is an adventure.

Adventure is a quest; a human desire to explore and experience what is unrevealed and concealed to satiate an inherent desire to discover. Adventure is purely a state of mind (Miles & Priest 1990, p. 158).

Research on non-guided climbers in New Zealand identified wilderness and nature enjoyment, recreation and relaxation, exercise and fitness, scenic viewing, escape from daily routines, social networking, and exhilaration as reasons for participation in mountain climbing (Bratton et el., 1979). Aukerman and Davison

(1980) identified "personal needs for esteem, self actualization and achievement" as motivational reasons to climb. Johnston (1989) found that climbers felt "that acceptable levels of risk contributed to the experience of intrinsic benefits such as personal challenge, achievement, exhilaration and peak experience" as long as the risk component was not greater than the skill level of the climber. Risk level below 27 the skill and experience level of the climber led to boredom. Carr (1997) surveyed

67 guided mountain climbers in New Zealand and found that the top reasons they climbed were (in decreasing order) to enjoy the outdoors, to experience alpine areas, to appreciated the beauty of nature, to learn new skills, to have an adventure, for a personal challenge, for a sense of achievement, to encounter wilderness, to face

Nature's challenges, and for physical exercise.

Many studies describing the innate reward processes that are satiated by high risk experiences flow from the humanistic literature field. Motivational theories suggest two constructs: 1) "Peak Experience" (Laski, 1962: Maslow, 1962, 1964,

1971) was defined as an intense highly valued moment and 2) "Peak Performance"

(1965, 1968, 1981, 1982; 1983; Privette and Landsman 1983) was defined as an episode of superior functioning. Each construct suggests behaviourally independent, subjective optimization of experiences. Maslow (1971) saw this as a self actualization model of human experience that was part of individual personality evolution where "peak experiences" were moments of highest happiness and fulfillment" (Maslow, 1962 p. 69). The level of psychological experience resulting from the high risk activity greatly surpassed the normal individual level of intensity, meaningfulness and richness. Csikszentmihalyi (1975a, 1975b; 1990) and Furlong

(1976) defined a third construct called "Flow", as essential rewarding experience.

Flow was found to be most often experienced in games and play where the activity itself was the rewarding experience. A key component was a challenge sufficient to match an individual's skill set to allow flow outside the concept of boredom and anxiety. Ewert (1985) suggested six motivational factor groups: challenge/risk, 28 catharsis, creativity, locus of control, recognition, and physical setting. Ewert further determined that the motivation changed with experience. Less experienced mountaineers pursued the sport for extrinsic reason such as social opportunities, recognition, or escape from regularity while more experienced mountaineers required intrinsic benefits such as "flow" and ultimate "peak experience".

Martin and Priest (1986) suggested "peak adventure" when describing the motivational factor behind individual high risk adventure activities. The "Adventure

Experience Paradigm" (AEP) (Martin and Priest 1986; Priest 1990, 1999; Priest and

Gass 1997) is based on two theoretical dimensions, personal skill (competence) and situational challenge (risk) that interact to provide a psychological experience of five distinct states of increasing arousal: 1) exploration and experiment, 2) adventure, 3) peak adventure, 4) misadventure, and 5) devastation and disaster. A diagrammatic representation of the concept (Figure 2-1) has been used extensively in the design and management of perceived risk in adventure education (de Bruin, 2002). de Bruin

(2002) stated that adventure activities are a means of "experiential learning", defined as doing something and reflecting back on it to gain experience, de Bruin stated

"thinking without learning was useless but learning without thinking was dangerous". In mountain environments it can mean the difference between life and death. 29

Conpefance Figure 2-1: The Adventure Experience Paradigm diagramming the relationship between risk and competence (Martin and Priest, 1986; Priest, 1990, 1999)

Thrill or sensation seeking has long been speculated as a primary motivator for individuals looking for an extreme sport experience. The trait theory explains the perpetual need for risky, complex or unique experiences that define sensation seeking (Rossi and Cereatti, 1993; Schroth, 1995). Zuckerman (1978) states that one is "born with a general sensation seeking motive" that is best measured using the sensation seeking scale (Straub, 1971; 1978; 1982). Slanger and Rudestam (1997) question whether the "sensation seeking scale" is reliable for athletes and that it may be best utilized for the general population. Their multi-faceted, quantitative and qualitative study on extreme and high risk athletes from rock climbing, white water kayaking, skiing, and small plane piloting and a low risk control group form various sports, found no significant difference in sensation seeking between the extreme and high risk groups and the control group.

Goma (1991) found little difference in sensation seeking scores between alpinists and mountaineering related-sportsmen or alpinists and general sportsmen; 30 however, there was a difference between mountaineering sportsmen and general sportsmen. Brymer (2009) questions whether there is a limit to the level of risk taking or the desire to discover new thrills and adventure that limits the effectiveness of the sensation seeking scale. He argues that existing research on extreme activities is theoretically limited because it focuses too much on the risk and not enough on the experience. He suggests that a more qualitative research approach is required with a focus on phenomenology.

2.3 High Risk Activities

Playing with risk is implied when one participates in extreme activities. The mountain environment is an unforgiving and harsh place that can overwhelm even the strongest of participants on any given day if the environmental and behavioural conditions are aligned. As participants we know that risk is part of the game that risk can happen at anytime to anyone; for many it is the "fuel" that drives them.

The majority of society lives in a concrete environment far removed from the mountain playground and the mountain sports enjoyed there. Exposure is limited to sources such as The Discovery Channel, National Geographic, RUSH TV, or prime time news reporting the latest disaster. When disaster hits, the world stops and takes a deep breath. Everyone remembers the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the 1996

Everest disaster, the Bhopal, India disaster, and the pain etched on Margaret

Kemper's face following the tragic loss of Michel Trudeau by an avalanche while skiing in Kokanee Glacier Park. 31

For those who have never been there, who don't understand the mountain world and the activities that take place there, it is easy for the perception of danger to prevail. It is common to hear individual people or the press comment on how dangerous recreational snow sports, mountain climbing, hang gliding or white water kayaking are and that participants are crazy. Times Magazine published an article in

1983 titled "Risking It All", which contained stories on bungee jumpers, mountain climbers, swimmers, runners, paddlers, parachutists, pilots and sailors. The author wrote "there have always been adventurers, footloose and sometimes screwloose, and their 'Why Not' has always stirred alarming and delicious fears in settled souls whose timid question is 'Why'".

But is it "risky" business? Davidson (2008) states "the media, it appears, will inevitably emphasize negative outcomes in outdoor adventures, and this will undoubtedly frame the way in which the non-mountaineering public views the hazards involved in this activity". Two scenarios emerged from his study on the media and mountaineering accidents in New Zealand. Mountaineering accidents were described in the media as being caused by bad judgment and/or inexperience or the victims were skilled decision makers and their accident was a result of bad luck

(Davidson, 2008). The more negative an event and its consequence, the more likely the media will cover it (Galtung and Ruge, 1999). The highlighting of negative events by the media allows easier recall by the public at a later time and leads to overestimation about the frequency and magnitude of such events (Singer and

Endreny, 1993). Kasperson and Kasperson (1996) note that the media is the primary vehicle by which the general public obtains information about risk and is " one of 32 society's 'risk communicators,' responsible for 'amplification and attenuation' of risk".

Mountaineers have long criticised the media for fashioning a public image that mountaineering is inherently risky and unsafe (Davidson, 2008). The media does not dispute this (Singer and Endreny, 1993; Kaspersona and Kasperson, 1996).

News, in reality, is not a reflection of social conditions but a snapshot of a specific event that has extended beyond the daily considerations of society (Lippman, 1999).

"High risk adventure sports have become a badge of our times" states to Celsi et al.

(1993). We are all encouraged to "just do it" and "play hard" for "life is short" states

Davidson (2008). Celsi et al. (1993) argue that the dramatic nature of high risk activities is motivated by a dramatic worldview which is both reflected in and reinforced by the media.

Dr. Mike Langran (2009) states that recreational ski sports are actually very safe and that the perception that they are associated with high risk injury is a myth perpetuated by mainstream media. Langran identified two means of expressing snow sports injury rates, injuries per thousand skier days (IPTSD) and mean days between injuries (MDBI), to calculate injury rates.

EPTSD is determined by dividing the number of injuries seen annually by the total number of skiers/snowboarders and then multiplied by a factor of 1000 to generate a rate per thousand skier days. Langran states that alpine skiing has less than 3 injuries per 1000 skier days which equates to a 0.3% probability of injury over 1000 days. For snowboarding the IPTSD is slightly higher at 4 per 1000 snowboarder days. Langran goes on to state that on average there are at least 3 33 soccer injuries per 90 minute game which equates 3/22 (22 being the typical number of soccer players on soccer field during a game) or 14% which is 35X higher than the skier/ snowboarder injury rates. A lower value equates to a lower likelihood of an injury or fatality.

Data from the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) in the United States appears to support Langran. NSAA data indicate that the average annual fatalities from skiing and snowboarding in the US are 39.8 fatalities. NSAA figures for

2008/09 indicate 39 fatalities occurred out of 57.4 million skier/snowboarder days

(equivalent to Parks Canada PVD) reported for the season. Thirty were skiers (19 male, 11 female) and nine were snowboarders (8 male, 1 female). The fatality rate converts to 0.68 fatalities per million skiers/snowboarders. Serious injuries

(paraplegics, serious head and other serious injuries) occur at the rate of 43.5 injuries per year. In 2008/09 there were thirty six injuries, twenty- one were skiers

(17 male, 4 female) and fifteen were snowboarders (12 male, 3 female). The rate of serious injury was 0.77 per million skier/snowboarder visits. Collisions with any object accounted for 90% of fatalities while collisions with trees accounted for 60% of all fatalities.

MDBI is used most often to calculate frequency of injuries and gives a probability statistic on the expected number of days that you would have to participate in an activity before incurring an injury or fatality. The higher the MDBI value the less likely an incident is to occur.

Bentley et al. (2006, 2007) found that 60 % of ecotourism and adventure tourism sports injuries in New Zealand were attributed to horseback riding, 34 mountain biking, tramping and surfing from July 2004 to June 2005. Skiing and snow boarding was responsible for 0.7% and 1% respectively. They also found that white-water rafting was responsible for 0.6%, mountaineering for 1.1%, rock climbing for 2.3% and kayaking/canoeing for 4.6% of all injury claims. Their study documented 27 fatalities of which zero were for snow sports, six were for mountaineering, two for white-water rafting and one for rock climbing.

Bentley (2008), in studying health and safety in the adventure tourism industry, surveyed 127 operators and found the highest risk was from riding, ecotourism and white-water rafting. The most common injuries were attributed to slips, trips and falls on level ground, foot or ankle injuries from stepping on unstable objects, striking against an object, fall from a height, exposure to heat and cold, and injury by an animal. According to the operator responses, the most common risk factors precipitating an injury are clients not following instructions, clients with weak knowledge, skills and abilities, client fitness level, weather conditions, and slipping/tripping hazards (Bentley et al., 2008).

Malcolm (2001) estimated risk of death and characteristics of fatal events associated with mountaineering in Mt. Cook National Park (MCNP) in New

Zealand. Malcolm found the overall fatality rate was 0.62/1000 hut nights which, based on an average of three persons staying at a hut nightly, equates to a fatality rate of 1.87/1000. Malcolm also noted that fatalities were closely linked to the difficulty of the climbing objective with high risk areas having a fatality rate of

6.5/1000 and low risk areas having a fatality rate of 0.3/1000. A British study from

1982 to 1988 estimated the risk of death from sports, including mountaineering, at 35

2.3 per million days, (Avery et al., 1990). An Austrian study of hikers had a similar estimate of 5.7 deaths per million days of exposure (Burtscher et al., 1995).

Participation in extreme activities in mountain environments is a serious undertaking and the degree of risk and the exposure to perils and hazard varies with the activity of choice and the individual's own perception of risk. Celsi et al. (1993) identified many examples of well respected, extreme sports participants that did not consider their actions to be outside their comfort zone. However, there was no illusion as to the level of risk and the seriousness of the potential consequences.

Death or serious injury is always a potential outcome from even a slight mistake.

According to Greenway (1996), the participant must balance between real risk - the true amount of danger an activity involves - and perceived risk - an assessment of the danger they feel they face. The real risk must be reduced by managing hazards and incidents and the perceived risk needs to be at a level they are comfortable with

(Greenway, 1996).

2.4 Hazard, Risk, and Risk Perception

The terms Risk and Hazard have been widely used and interchanged in assessing hazards, disasters and losses. Although hazard and risk are similar, Smith

(1991) notes risk has "the additional implication of the chance of a particular hazard actually occurring". Ferrier and Haque (2003) make the distinction "that hazard is a potential threat to humans and their welfare whereas risk is the probability of hazard occurrence". Regardless, the definition of risk has been elusive since the term

Risque first appeared in 1661 when Thomas Blount published Glossographia where 36 risk was defined as peril, jeopardy, danger, hazard, chance (Blount, 1661 from

Cline, 2003). Speaking on the Society for Risk Analysis' struggle to define the word

"risk", Kaplan (1997) stated "the committee labored for 4 years and then gave up".

Hall (2002) noted that of the 22 separate academics and professionals surveyed, there were 46 working definitions of risk. Hall (2001) conducted a survey of 186 professionals and found that 54% of respondent's defined risk as "Uncertain event with a negative effect" while 34% defined risk as" Uncertain event with a negative or positive effect". Cline (2003) states that the "resulting lack of clarity has led not only to conceptual errors, but also to conflicted attempts at resolving social problems".

Boyne (2003) declared that our culture influences those risks we will acknowledge and those we will ignore, suggesting "that the question of risk is ephemeral, contingent and merely a present form of cultural variation". The negative outcome experience is a construct of our cultural and social influences contingent on our past and future experiences. Risk is dynamic and is individually based.

What then is the meaning of RISK? Williamson (2006) argues that this is an oft abused and well worn term. Williamson states that "Risk is the potential to lose something of value to us". He also argues that it is a paradoxical term since "our

MOTIVATION FOR RISK is to GAIN something of value". "Good health, self confidence, recognition, spiritual growth, money, friends, relationships, career move, whatever it might be". It comes out to a life worth living (Williamson, 2006).

Williamson goes on to argue that it is used all too often when discussing the factors that lead to risk and not the risk itself. He states that danger is a term to use 37 for exposure to hazards and perils. A peril is the source of the loss whereas the hazard is the physical factors and conditions - human or natural - that increase the probability of loss. The matrix in Table 1-1 outlines examples of his view.

PERILS HAZARDS Conditions Actions Human Factors Loose Rocks Might Fall Being in Fall Line Animals Might Attack/Kick Being in Path or Not Aware Of Swift Water Might have to cross Temp, Speed, Bottom, Skill, Frayed Rope Might Break Using over Sharp Objects Rock Cliff Might Climb/Rappel Inadequate Protection, etc Lightning Might Strike Being on Ridge or in Water Table 2-1: Hazard -Perils matrix as proposed by Williamson (2009) that can increase probability of loss

Ferrier and Haque (2003), based on work done by Kates and Kasperson (1983), note three components required for hazard risk assessment: 1) hazard identification, 2) estimation of risk and vulnerability, and 3) social consequence evaluation. Hazard identification is die identification of hazards that are likely to pose a threat to humans or infrastructure. To estimate the risk and vulnerability to a hazardous event requires knowledge of the probability that an event will occur and understanding of the nature of the consequences. Social consequence evaluation means determining if the individual or communities have the means to cope with the consequences (Ferrier and

Haque, 2003).

There are two commonly used risk equations. The first risk equation is:

RISK = Hazard x Vulnerability (Blaikie et al., 2004)

Blaikie et al. (2004) defines Hazard as "the extreme natural events which may affect different places singly or in combination (coastlines, hillsides, earthquake faults, savannas, rain forests, etc.) at different times (season of year, time of day, 38 over varying return periods, of different duration)". Hazard is defined by Smith

(1991) "as a naturally occurring or human-induced process, or event with the potential to create loss, that is, a general source of future danger". This can be simplified to an adverse condition or event that can cause harm. According to

Blaikie et al. (2004) "hazard has varying degrees intensity and severity". Cannon

(1994) states that "vulnerability is a characteristic of individuals and groups of people who inhabit a given natural, social, and economic space, within which they are differentiated according to their varying position in society into more or less vulnerable individuals or groups".

The second risk equation is:

RISK = Probability x Consequence (Severity) —•

R = Probability of a Particular Hazard Occurring x Consequence or Severity of the Outcome when the Hazard Event Occurs (Helm, 1998)

According tcTHelm (1998), "Probability is: the chance of an adverse outcome or event expressed as occurrences/unit time, while Consequence is: if a hazard event occurs, what are the consequences i.e. injuries, fatalities, property losses, environmental damage, and market damages"?

Severity can be measured by type of injury, loss of life or loss in dollars etc.

Risk can be reduced to an acceptable level by focusing on either of the two variables in the equation. Prevention is the reduction of risk through the reduction of probability. Safety measures focus on reducing the probability of the occurrence of unexpected events while mitigation is the measures used to reduce loss of life or property by lessening the impact of a hazardous event. Risk cannot be eliminated. 39

The goal is to reduce risk to a point where it is "As Low As Reasonably Practicable"

(ALARP) (Transport Canada).

Risk means different things to different people and can be interpreted as how likely one believes they are to encounter various negative consequences relative to their activity and its location (Todesco and Hillman, 1999). Typically, individuals who take part in any volitional activity or action with a potential for loss or injury do so knowing that risk is inherent in the activity (Beyth-Marom, et al., 1993).

The perception of risk will determine the actions and activities of individuals and groups. All risk is perceived risks and just because we are told an environment or an activity is safe doesn't mean it is (Shrader-Frechette, 1990). People must believe that they are facing risk in the first place before they will initiate steps to protect themselves (Bernard and Krupat, 1994; Weinstein, 1988). Assessment is the first step which involves evaluation of a specific risk quantitatively and/or qualitatively (Smith, 1991) and requires good science and good judgment (Keeney,

1995). Both are intertwined and are inextricably based on value judgments and choices developed from our beliefs, culture and, ultimately, our perception of a particular risk. Furthermore, the perception of risk varies between individuals of the same gender and age or of different gender and age and is a function of personal factors such as spatial location, occupation, lifestyle and personality (Rohrmann,

1994).

Smith (1991) states risk is both voluntary (risk taken of free choice) and involuntary (unknown risk). In the hazards field, the model of decision-making most often used is based on the concept of bounded rationality, which centers on 40 individual choice in decision-making (Smith, 1991). Simon (1956) states, that perception is essentially a filter through which individual decision-makers view the objective environment and its hazards. Because risk means different things to different people all perceptions are valid and each individual response will be different based on what is considered acceptable risk for a perceived benefit, so much so that the consequences often assume a greater significance than the probability (Whyte and Burton, 1982). Risk assessment and risk perceptions are contrasted in Table 2-2.

Table 2- 2: Major differences between risk assessment and risk perception (Smith, 1991. p 68) Phase of analysis Risk assessment process! Risk perception process Risk identification Event monitoring Individual intuition Statistical inference Personal Awareness Risk estimation Magnitude/frequency Personal experience Economic costs Intangible loss Risk evaluation Cost-benefit analysis Personality factors Community policy Individual action

When faced with the possibility of experiencing misfortune, Weinstein

(1987) observed that most people tend to be optimistic beyond what would be considered a reasonable and hopeful outlook on life and that their own risk is much lower than that of their peers. This was further supported by Rothman, Klein, and

Weinstein (1996) who determined that people were unrealistically optimistic about their chance of avoiding negative events in their life. Their study found that people quite strongly overestimate peer risk for 9 out of 10 hazards and that the majority of subjects estimated their own risk at a level much lower than the true risk. This phenomenon was classified as an optimistic bias whose manifestation may range from distorted risk perception to biased expectations of the relative degree of negative events in one's life compared to others (Price et al., 2002; Rothman, Klein 41 and Weinstein, 1996; Harris and Middleton, 1994). Moreover, Rothman, Klein, and

Weinstein suggest that optimistic biases are quite resistant to change.

In comparative risk judgements, people perceive their own risk as relatively low compared to their peers and that in absolute judgements event frequency was positively related to optimistic bias (Price et al., 2002). Perloff and Fetzer (1986) note that optimistic bias may create an "illusion of unique invulnerability " with respect to personal risk and lead to inadequate or ineffective precautions to assuage personal disaster or calamity (Thornton et al., 2002). Todesco and Hillman (1999) suggest that risk-taking is more prevalent among adolescents but whether they showed unrealistic optimism or realistic expectancy depended on which comparison group was used (peers and parents or children, respectively).

Klein and Weinstein (1997) state that biased risk perceptions are a result of an inappropriate social comparison with someone else that can lead to a determination that their vulnerability is relatively low. In many cases, individuals erroneously perceive that their behaviour precludes them from experiencing a serious calamity (Thornton et al., 2002). They further state that this leads to a

"willingness to engage in a similar risky behaviour". Halpern-Felsher et al. (2001) had also noted that perceptions of invulnerability to harm were partly responsible for one's engagement in risky behaviour. In studies comparing risk judgements between participants with and without behavioural experiences, Halpern-Felsher et al. (2001) found that participants who had experienced a natural hazard or engaged in risk behaviour rated the potential for the occurrence of a negative consequence to be lower than those participants without such behavioural experience. 42

The danger posed to people from a particular natural hazard is best

calculated using conventional risk analysis (Einstein, 1988; Morgan et al. 1992;

Fell, 1994; Cruden and Fell, 1997). Keylock et al. (1999), Jonasson et al. (1999), and Keylock and Barbolini (2001) have recently applied conventional risk analysis to analyze snow avalanches risk. The Committee on Risk Assessment of the

Working Group on Landslides of the International Union of Geological Sciences

(IUGS 1997) states quantitative risk analysis comprises expressing risk as a function of the specific hazard, elements at risk, and vulnerability as defined in

Table 2-32 based on IUGS (1997) guidelines. Calculating vulnerability is difficult for avalanches and landslides because the specific dynamics of flow behavior are unknown (Keylock and Barbolini, 2001) and furthermore the effect of the social, cultural, and behavioral components of individuals and communities on risk taking are difficult to determine.

Table 2- 3: Definitions of risk terminology following appendix 1 of IUGS (1997) Term IUGS Definition Risk A measure of the probability and severity of an adverse effect to health, property, or the environment. Hazard The probability a particular avalanche (landslide) occurs within a given time. Elements at The population, buildings and engineering works, economic risk activities, public service utilities, and infrastructure in the area potentially affected by avalanches. Vulnerability The degree of loss to a given element or set of elements within the area affected by avalanche(s) [landslide(s)]; it is expressed on a scale of 0 (no loss) to 1 (total loss), the loss will be the value of the property, and for persons it will be the probability that a particular life (the element of risk) will be lost, given the person(s) affected by the avalanche.

In many instances, recreational enthusiasts seek out extreme terrain for their activities, such as skiing or mountaineering, to continuously push the envelope of their abilities and seek bigger and better thrills, further juxtaposing them with 43 mountain hazards and subsequently increasing their vulnerability and risk potential.

This makes it difficult for ski operators and park officials to take extreme measures to mitigate the hazard - such as using explosives or closing areas. In the backcountry, where many fatalities and injuries occur, such measures are logistically and economically impractical. This puts added pressure on the individual to incorporate risk self-reduction measures into their trip planning that are part of risk assessment and risk perception. These measures include consulting avalanche warnings and bulletins, taking training courses, knowing proper companion rescue techniques, gaining experience, carrying adequate food and clothing, being aware of all hazards in the area and using weather and snow observations to facilitate safe route finding. Each individual has different levels of acceptable risk, which in turn depends on the perceived benefit the activity will bring. According to Wilde (1994) most people continuously evaluate risk to determine an acceptable level of risk for each activity to justify and maximize their physical and psychological gain from the activity. Wilde (1994) defined this optimal risk as an individual's target risk, which is a larger component of his risk homeostasis theory based on the degree of risk-taking behaviour for an individual.

Self-evaluation is a dynamic process that fluctuates not only with experience but also the psychological and emotional state of an individual or group, temporally and spatially leading to constant behavior and activity modification. Cold and tired skiers, climbers and snowmobile operators may assume greater risk to return to the trailhead or lodge before nightfall or at the end of a weekend (Logan and Atkins, 44

1986). Their risk assessment may vary spatially and temporally and may be influenced by such human conditions as fatigue and stress.

Risk can be taken as the probability or chance that death or losses will occur

(McClung, 2002). This applies at both the community and individual scale. Adams

(1995) breaks risk analysis down into 1) an engineering analysis - such as using statistical principles for land use planning in avalanche environments (Keylock et al. 1999) and 2) subjective, judgmental, dynamic time, dependent analysis using inductive reasoning with an intuitive element (McClung 2002). LaChapelle (1980) also noted that in avalanche forecasting the reasoning process was typically a dynamic, inductive, integrated process, probabilistic in nature with an intuitive approach and some deductive reasoning. Inductive decisions are typically made based on an individual's experiences and knowledge and are therefore different for each individual. Cross (1990) found that consistent and repeated experiences with hurricanes in the United States had elevated both an understanding and a more realistic perception of risk. However, Rogers (1997) indicates that, in general, there is a strong component of inertia that leads to holding perceived risk at stable preconceived levels. In most communities, the threat from any specific hazard is relatively infrequent which develops a strong sense of threat denial (Drabek, 1999) to the extent that many people feel that they are not at risk or that it won't happen to them.

Humans or human activities trigger the majority of avalanches that cause fatalities in Canada today with most resulting from recreational activity (McClung and Schaerer, 1993). It follows that humans somehow do not perceive the potential 45 risk that exists from a snow avalanche and this lack of perception increases the recreationalist's vulnerability in avalanche terrain: human perception does not match reality (McClung, 2000). Poor perception can also be at a larger scale of human intervention (e.g. ineffective public policy, poor forecasting, or inadequate restrictions (McClung, 2000). Perception according to McClung (2000) is a picture of reality based on information processing that a person or group of people gathers from their senses.

Perception and its variations are critical to accurately understanding the role of human vulnerability to hazards (White, 1974). McClung (2000) expands on

White's work to divide human influences regarding snow instability in avalanche forecasting into two groups: basic general personality traits (risk propensity), and elements of perception, which he states are common in avalanche forecasting and impact on the accuracy of forecasts. Risk-taking propensity has a marked effect on human activity (Adams, 1995) and is a function of one's life experience, personality, and view of nature, fate control, skill level, family status, cultural factors, and others. Furthermore, it changes with the stage one is at in life (age) (McClung, 2000) and is influenced by gender (Jamieson and Geldsetzer, 1997).

Fredston et al. (1995) states that one of the underlying problems of poor human perception for detection of slope instability in avalanche terrain is the overall lack of avalanche training which inhibits the ability of recreationists to recognize and compensate for the human factors that affect decision making. Factors such as

"machoism", impulsiveness, and a sense of invulnerability (Transport Canada) are now included in avalanche education programs in Canada (Spear, 2000) and the 46

United States (McCammon, 2001). Programs appear to improve avalanche knowledge (Sutherland and McPherson, 1987; Manners, 2000; Skjonsberg, 2000;

Spear, 2000; Jamieson and Stetham, 2002). However, quantitative data that would support a subsequent reduction in risk is unavailable because accurate numbers of actual backcountry users in avalanche risk zones are not easily obtained nor are the level of experience and education of each user readily available.

As individuals we perceive risk at different levels for different activities as a result of our culture, our attitudes, our beliefs and our cognitions of risk (Aven and

K0rte, 2003, Coleman, 1993). Adams (2005) identified three key influences on risk perception in avalanche terrain: 1) voluntariness - tolerance for risk is greater if we volunteer than if we do not volunteer, 2) affective - emotional responses directly correlate to an over or under estimation of risk, and 3) familiarity - exposure to familiar risk leads to an underestimation of the frequency and consequence, while exposure to unfamiliar risk leads to overestimation of frequency and consequence.

Adams suggests the need for a holistic approach to understanding how risk is perceived and evaluated to effectively mitigate risk in avalanche terrain. 47

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Area

BNP, 6641 km2 in area, is situated on the eastern slope of the Continental divide and is part of the front and main ranges of the Canadian Rocky Mountains

(51°15'N, 116°30'W) (Figure 1.1). Nestled between Jasper National Park to the northwest, Yoho and Kootenay National Parks to the west, Kananaskis Country to the south, numerous wildlands such as the Ghost River, Siffleur and White Goat

Wilderness areas to the east and a scant 128km west of Calgary, Alberta makes BNP a hotbed for tourists and recreationists alike.

The park has extreme mountainous topography (1400 - 3400m) that is accentuated with geomorphic splendor and uniqueness, abundant and diverse wildlife in a natural environment, diverse vegetation, active geomorphic process and high concentrations of humans most notably in the easily accessible front country and primarily in the Bow Valley Ecosystem (BVE). The BVE is approximately 2000km2 on the headwaters of the Bow River (Figure 1-2). 48

Figure 3- 2: Bow Valley Ecosystem, (BVE) and surrounding region illustrating sub-areas (West, Central, East and Cascade). (White et al 2007)

The climate is characterized by unpredictable weather, heavy snowfall, long, cold winters punctuated by sporadic warm spells brought on by Chinook winds, and comparatively dry short summer seasons. Abundant valleys with bottom areas ranging in width from 2-5 km and vertical extent of 1350m to 1600m provide opportunity and access for humans and wildlife to navigate the park's many regions.

Vegetation can be subdivided into montane, sub-alpine, and alpine eco-regions each with its own unique characteristics.

The montane zone, the smallest ecoregion at 3% of total park area, is located at low elevation in valley bottoms (1350m to 1500m) and is relatively open forest populated predominantly with lodge pole pine {Pinus contorta), interspersed with riparian Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanii), Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii), white spruce {Picea), aspen (Populus tremuloides) and balsam fir (Abies) and willow

(Salix spp) (Parks Canada5; Hebblewhite, 2000). The montane eco-zone is the highest quality of habitat for elk (Cervus elaphus) (Hebblewhite, 2002), black bears (Ursus 49 americanus) and wolves (Canis lupus) (Holroyd and Van Tighem 1983). Jalkotzy et al. (1999) found that good to very good grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) habitat existed in the Bow River, Pipestone River, Baker Creek and upper Red Deer River Valley bottoms with the Bow Valley and Lake Louise ski areas providing the largest contiguous tracts of good to very good habitat for all seasons. Hebblewhite et al.

(2002) noted that black bear primarily use the montane ecoregion in BNP of which

80% is contained within the Bow Valley. Cougar (Puma concolor) have always maintained a presence in BNP and in particular the BVE and maintain a current population of approximately 8 to 10 cougars (Parks Canada4'5). Cougar use the BVE year round and have a summer range that extends into the sub-alpine and alpine meadows region (Kortello et al., 2007). Wolves were eradicated form the park in the

1950's but began to recolonize the area in the mid 1980's but did not reach the BVE until the early 1990's (Paquet et al. 1996). Wolves also utilize the same habitat as cougar and elk (Kortello et al., 2007). The park is home to 35 to 40 wolves. The BVE is home to two packs, the Cascade and Bow Valley packs, with a population that fluctuates between 9 to 22 wolves (Parks Canada4'5; Hebblewhite, 2000; Hebblewhite and Pletscher, 2002). Elk populations in BNP have been stable at 3200 elk while in the BVE the population has varied considerably during the study period from highs of near 1000 in the late 80's to approximately 225 today (Parks Canada 2008;

Hebblewhite 2000). The grizzly bear population has remained steady at approximately 60 bears (Parks Canada 2008; Bertch and Gibeau, 2008, 2009) while the black bear population is approximately 40 bears (Kansas et al., 1989; Parks

Canada4'5). 50

The sub alpine ecoregion, an intermediate zone between the montane and alpine zones, is subdivided into upper and lower subalpine regions. The lower subalpine region covers approximately 27% of total park area and is mainly vegetated with dense forests of lodge pole pine, Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). The upper subalpine ecoregion covers 26% of total park area. The primary vegetation is Engelmann Spruce and subalpine fir interspersed with dwarf willow-shrub meadows, subalpine grasses, riparian communities and avalanche path communities that give way to open shrub communities in the alpine ecoregion (Parks

Canada5, Hebblewhite 2000).

The Alpine ecoregion lies above the tree line and covers 44% of total park area, 6% Of which is alpine meadows and shrubs. The remaining 38% comprises un- vegetated rock, talus, snow, ice, water, moraines and avalanche zones which tend to fragment the montane and sub-alpine regions (Parks Canadal). The alpine zone is the primary area of choice for climbers, backcountry skiers on mountain traverses and scramblers. It is also a zone with a high frequency of natural hazards such as snow avalanche, rock and ice fall, land and rock slides, debris flows, gully flash floods.

Although frequented by grizzly bears, wolves and cougar during the short summer season, its use is mainly for food forays into the alpine meadow and travel between montane and sub-alpine zones.

There were two primary study areas. The first was BNP as a whole and the second was the Bow Valley from the BNP east gate to Lake Louise in the northwest.

BNP receives approximately 3.4 million visitors annually with a high of just under 4 million in 1999/2000. Based on the average stay of 2.45 days this generates 51 approximately 8 million person visit days (PVD) annually. The majority of these visitors, approximately 2.8 million spend the bulk of their time in the Bow Valley and, in particular, the Banff townsite area with an average of 7.0 million PVD annually for the Bow Valley. BNP also has 54 trails providing approximately 1500km of hiking and X-country ski terrain (Parks Canada; Copeland and Copeland 1998;

Pole 2005), 30 mountain biking trails (Parks Canada), 169 ski runs, 337 peaks with numerous mountain climbing routes (Dougherty 1999; Peakfinder 2009), approximately 780 rock climbing (Jones 2006), 177 ice climbing (Josephson, 2002) and 53 scrambling (Kane 2003) routes, 73 backcountry ski trails (Scott, 2005) and over 480 rivers and bodies of water (Parks Canada). Many visitors participate in recreational activities (Table 3-1) within BNP and the BVE increasing the "Risk

Potential" from a natural hazard event or a negative wildlife encounter with animals such as bear, elk, cougar and wolf. In addition, a town, a village, three ski resorts, a golf course, a national railway, a national highway system and numerous other local roads provide increased access to previously remote locations and help draw more visitors to the park year round.

Table 3-1: Percentage of visitors who participate in high risk activities in BNP (Parks Canada, 2003; 2004; 2008; TAMS, 2007) Activity Percentage of Total Visitors Hiking 24.3 Downhill Skiing/ Snowboarding 11.6 Paddling (canoe/kayak/raft) 5.57 Mountain Biking 2.75 X-Country Skiing 2.64 Rock Climbing 1.35 Mountain Climbing 0.83 Backcountry Skiing 0.60 Ice Climbing 0.13 52

3.2 Data Collection

The data required to complete a comprehensive hazard risk assessment of BNP were compiled by four methods: 1) a literature review 2) a field collection of data 3) an archival search for data, and 4) interviews with subject matter experts.

A literature review was conducted between January 2003 and December

2005 and consisted of a comprehensive review of the published works on geomorphic and animal hazards, risk assessment and calculation, hazard mitigation, and human use in national parks. Studies that supplied primary research data that were pertinent to the objective of this study were acquired and assessed. Where applicable, data were extracted and adapted to address the requirements of this study's objectives.

Field work was completed between July and August of 2004, 2005 and 2006 in BNP. The main components of the field stage consisted of developing a GPS database of natural hazards adjacent to major roads, documenting animal hazards such as bear and elk jams, and documenting and photographing hazard mitigation measures in use in BNP. This was accomplished by driving the major roads in the

Park and walking, hiking, climbing, and skiing the high use areas, trails, mountains, and ski hills in BNP.

Archival searches retrieved incident data for the period 1985 to 2004. The archival stage had two components. The first component involved retrieving data from The Whyte Museum's archives, and the online archives of the Crag and

Canyon and Rocky Mountain Outlook newspapers for articles related to human- 53 animal encounters or human-natural hazard-events from 1980 to 2005. The second component included collecting data from several Parks Canada databases with the assistance of Tao Gui, Parks Canada database specialist who along with Brad White,

Public Safety Warden, verified the accuracy of all occurrence data supplied by Parks

Canada. Data was extracted from the CanSIS, MILES +, and BAFU databases, as well as from public safety and wildlife occurrence reports. Incomplete data, and duplication of data as a result of inconsistent data recording methods, multiple recording standards, duplication of data in multiple databases, lack of a common key for data entry, optional reporting of occurrences, non compatible software platforms and databases, and coded formats that included value fields and multiple text fields that did not necessarily record accurate spatial and temporal data made data retrieval problematic.

The problems were compounded by databases that use different software and are not cross compatible, and software that could not query multiple tables and sort data accurately, and the implementation of a new desktop based oracle occurrence reporting system that was not compatible with any of the legacy systems.

Interviews and conversations with various subject matter experts included

Parks Canada management, members of BNP warden services, representatives of

Lake Louise Ski Resort, and experts in avalanche research. These interviews were conducted to gain insight, perspective, and understanding of hazard and human use in BNP. 54

3.3 Baseline Determination

A baseline for human-hazard incident types and numbers was required to establish a starting point for the hazard risk assessment. Analysis of the data revealed that the best available data was Parks Canada's rescue response occurrence reports for 1985 to 2004. Although rescue response data was not complete for each year of the study, for each hazard or for each high risk activity, the decadal counts for each geomorphic hazard and each high risk activity were accurate and provide a suitable baseline for this study. This study will become a new baseline for human- hazard and high risk activity- hazard in BNP.

3.4 User Group Population

One of the more difficult tasks of this research was to determine the visitor population for BNP and the Bow Valley and to determine the specific population for user groups in the park. Overall visitor numbers are available and consist of independent visitor estimates collected at strategic locations, such as the Banff East

Gate, from visitor surveys handed out to visitors as they enter the park, from vehicle counts, from vehicle occupant counts, and from traffic counters. User group population data are limited to specific trail use where increased human populations pose a high ecological threat to the ecosystem and its wildlife, especially grizzly bears. User groups are defined as those people participating in a specific at-risk activity within BNP. These user groups include hikers, scramblers, rock, ice and mountain climbers, backcountry, x-country and downhill skiers, snowboarders, paddlers and mountain bikers 55

Data for overall visitors to BNP were acquired from two sources: Parks

Canada and State of the Park Compendium (Pacas et al., 1996). Parks Canada

supplied the attendance data for all national parks and heritage sites for the period

1996 to 2004 (Appendix 3-1). Data for the years 1985 to 1995 were extracted from

the State of the Park Compendium (Pacas et al., 1996). In 2004, a change in the

method used by Parks Canada to determine visitor data indicated that previous

methods had overestimated visitor numbers by 13% to 16% (PCA, 2004; Parks

Canada footnote Appendix 3-1). Therefore, data for years prior to 2003 were

decreased by 16% to better reflect person visits to BNP. The midpoint of overall

visitor numbers for the Bow Valley, 89%, from Pacas et al. (1996) and total visitors

to the Bow Valley, 79%, from Parks Canada State of the Park Report (2008) was

used to determine that the Person Visits (PV) for the Bow Valley was 84% of total

park visits. Visitor numbers for the Bow Valley are based on the percentages of

overall visitors who visit locations in the Bow Valley in summer and fall (Parks

Canada, 2008). The number of days visitors actually spend in BNP is required to

accurately calculate 'Risk Potential". To determine the actual number of days

visitors spend in national parks, Parks Canada uses the term person visit days

(PVD). A PVD occurs when a visitor stays in a national park for a day, or part

thereof, and represents the number of day and overnight visitors in BNP annually.

This is calculated from the number of park visits multiplied by the reported length of

stay. A Park Visit is defined by Parks Canada as "each time a person enters a

reporting unit for the purpose of heritage appreciation or recreation" It does not

include same day re-entries or re-entries by visitors staying overnight. Data from 56

Pacas et al. (1996) and a visitor survey of the four mountain parks by Parks Canada and Canadian Tourism Commission (2003), determined that the average stay per visitor was 2.5 days and 3.4 days, respectively. For the purpose of this study the midpoint, 2.95, of the two figures was used to determine annual PVD (Table 3-1;

Appendix 3-2). The PVD values in Table 3-2 vary between BNP and the Bow

Valley because not all visitors to BNP spend time in the Bow Valley.

Table 3- 2: Annual visitor numbers for Banff National Park and Bow Valley 1985-2004

Person Year visits PVD BNP PVDBV 1985 2,838,000 8,372,100 7,032,564 1986 3,010,000 8,879,500 7,458,780 1987 2,924,000 8,625,800 7,245,672 1988 3,192,000 9,416,400 7,909,776 1989 3,360,000 9,912,000 8,326,080 1990 3,360,000 9,912,000 8,326,080 1991 3,528,000 10,407,600 8,742,384 1992 3,106,793 9,165,039 7,698,633 1993 3,208,193 9,464,169 7,949,902 1994 3,325,821 9,811,172 8,241,384 1995 3,402,353 10,036,941 8,431,031 1996 3,740,538 11,034,587 9,269,053 1997 3,586,048 10,578,842 8,886,227 1998 3,669,264 10,824,329 9,092,436 1999 3,929,071 11,590,759 9,736,238 2000 3,893,992 11,487,276 9,649,312 2001 3,340,135 9,853,398 8,276,855 2002 3,088,390 9,110,751 7,653,030 2003 2,935,140 8,658,663 7,273,277 2004 3,139,934 9,262,805 7,780,756

Population data for user activity groups (Appendix 3-2) is not available on an annual basis. Table 3-2 indicates the user groups assessed in this study and the acronym that was used to identify each activity group in tables and graphs. For the purpose of this study, and to track trends over the study period, it was accepted that the visitor population distribution was normal, based on annual percentages of 57 overall visitors for each activity as indicated in PC/CTC (2003) study and State of the Park Report (2008), and that the percentage of overall visitors participating in each activity was constant annually over the study period. To calculate the percentage of overall visitors participating in each activity the data from a number of sources for specific years and specific user groups was averaged and used to calculate a representative value for user group population. Activity population data were collected from the following sources: Pacas et al. (1996), Parks Canada and

CTC (2003), Lang Research (2007'•2'3> 4), Simic (2007), Parks Canada, State of the

Park Report (2008).

Table 3- 3 : Acronyms for user activity groups User Activity Group Acronym Visitors Banff National Park VBNP Visitors Bow Valley VBV Hikers Banff National Park HBNP Hikers Bow Valley HBV Scramblers SC Mountain Bikers MB Rock Climbers RC Mountain Climbers MC Ice Climbers IC Cross Country Skiers XC Backcountry Skiers BC Downhill Skiers DH Snow Boarders SB Paddlers (Canoe/Kayak/Raft) CKR

The data from Lang Research (2007'' 2' 3' 4) had an overall Canadian percentage and an Alberta percentage for specific activity groups. Studies by Pacas et al., 1996, Parks Canada and CTC (2003), Parks Canada 2008 indicate a majority of visitors to BNP are Canadian and from Alberta. To more accurately reflect the visitor and user group populations in BNP, both values from the Lang Research were included in the average calculation. An Alberta regional number was 58 calculated and averaged with the overall visitor percentage where a specific user group value was not stated. The Alberta regional number is a ratio of the percentage of Canadian user group population to all user group activities vs. the percentage of

Alberta user group population to all Alberta group activities e.g. the ratio of percentage of Canadian mountain bikers to all cycling activities vs. the percentage of Alberta mountain bikers to all Alberta cycling activities. The Parks Canada and

CTC (2003) study also had an overall visitor and an Alberta regional component for overall activities within a group type. Pacas et al. (1996) was used specifically for downhill ski and snowboard user groups from 1985 to 1993. Simic (2007) was used specifically for ice climbing, backcountry ski and x-country ski user populations.

Individual user group population percentages are shown in Table 3-3. The population of hikers in the Bow Valley was the sum of the average percentages of hikers as a percentage of overall visitor population for major hiking locations in the

Bow Valley as outlined in Parks Canada, State of the Park Report 2008 (Table 3-4).

l able .3- 4 : fcstimatec1 populatio i or user gr oups in iiIN P as percenta ge or ove rail visitor to t Average PC/CTC Lang Lang Simic User pop Activity PC % % Cdn% AB% % % Hiking 24 27 23.7 22.5 - 24.3 Rock Climbing - - 1.35 - - 1.35 Ice Climbing - 0.15 - - 0.11 0.13 Mountain Climbing - 0.83 - - - 0.83 Mountain Biking 1.6 3.0 3.65 - 2.75 X-country skiers - 1.46 4.6 3.6 0.86 2.63 Downhill Ski/Snowboard 12 7.3 10.9 16.3 11.625 Backcountry Skiers 0.9 0.7 0.21 0.603 Paddling - 4.7 - - - 4.7

Table 3- 5: Percentage of visitors to the Bow Valley who hike by location and as a percentage of overall visitors to the Bow Valley, BNP (Parks Canada State of the Park, 2008) Upper Banff \ Lake Moraine Lake Lake Average Area Louise Lake Louise Minnewanka Hikers BV Hiking Bow Valley 40.2 48.4 56.7 80.1 42 53.48 59

PVD was calculated for each activity using 2.95 days/visitor stay. The exception to this was for x-country and backcountry skiers and ice climbers in BNP.

For these groups PVD was calculated from Simic (2007). Simic conducted a winter recreation study that surveyed ice climbers, x-country skiers, and backcountry skiers and recorded the maximum and minimum days that each user group surveyed participated in their activity. PVD was taken by averaging the maximum and minimum user days and dividing by the number of individuals in each sample/survey activity group.

Seasonal population data was again difficult to ascertain because data were not available for all user groups. The major source of quarterly data was the 2003

Parks Canada and CTC visitor survey of the Four Mountain Parks. The standard

Parks Canada format was quarter one (Ql) being April-May-June and each quarter following in sequence to Jan-Feb-Mar (Q4). The quarterly estimated numbers of participants for the activities in the 2003 Parks Canada and CTC study that correlate with the activities assessed in this study were divided by the total estimated visitors in that report to get an estimated quarterly user population for each activity studied

(Table 3-5). Again assuming that the distribution of user populations as a percentage of overall visitor population is normal over the study interval, the quarterly population percentage for each user group was multiplied by the annual overall visitor population for BNP. Quarterly estimated populations were then calculated for each year of the study for paddlers, mountain bikers, mountain climbers, ice 60 climbers, hikers, downhill skiers/snowboarders, x-country skiers, and backcountry skiers (Appendix 3-2).

Table 3- 6: Estimated quarterly user group population percentages for BNP Activity Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Hiking 26% 64% 5% 4% Downhill Skiing/ Snow Boarding 27% 0 17% 57% Mountain Biking 25% 72% 3% 0 X-country Skiing 6% 0 13% 82% Backcountry Skiing 6% 0 13% 82% Mountain climbing 37% 56% 0 7% Ice Climbing 46% 0 15% 39% Paddling 19% 79% 0.67% 0.82%

3.5 Animal Population and Hazard Count

Population data on wildlife in BNP are available primarily due to Parks

Canada's mandate to preserve ecological integrity and intact ecosystems. Relatively accurate population data are available for the four wildlife hazards assessed in this study; elk, grizzly bear, cougar and wolf.

Grizzly and black bear populations in BNP are estimated at 60 and 40 animals, respectively (Parks Canada 2008; Bertch and Gibeau, 2008, 2009; Parks

Canada3,4'6) Elk populations vary annually in the Bow Valley Ecosystem (BVE) but remain constant at 3200 for the Park (Parks Canada 2008; Hebblewhite 2000). The park is home to 35 to 40 wolves (Hebblewhite and Pletscher, 2000)) but the BVE is home to two packs, the Cascade and Bow Valley packs, whose population fluctuates between 9 to 22 wolves (Parks Canada3'4,6; Hebblewhite, 2000; Hebblewhite and

Pletscher, 2002). Cougars have maintained a historical population of 8 to 10 animals for more than 330 years (Parks Canada3, 4' 6). Animal population data were used strictly as a variable in calculating "Risk Potential" (RP) for user groups from each animal hazard. 61

When calculating "Risk Potential" from animal hazards, the animal population was used to more accurately reflect the probability of a specific outcome from an encounter with a specific animal. Consequently, to accurately assess "Risk

Potential" from a specific hazard, a representative hazard count was required to represent the number of avalanche, rockfall, icefall and mass movement zones. This proved to be a challenging task as there are no accurate studies that provide such data. It is also nearly impossible to identify the location of every natural hazard. It was decided to determine the hazard count using a proxy. The proxy chosen was the number of routes, runs, or trails for each activity with the assumption that there was the potential of a minimum of one hazard zone for each hazard present on each trail, run or route. The exception was mountain biker risk from avalanche hazard since this activity very rarely if ever entered into an avalanche zone. Similarly, risk to skiers of all types from rockfall hazard was not calculated since this activity rarely if ever enters a rockfall zone. Accurate estimates for mass movement were more easily determined since others had documented mass movement hazards along roads in the front country of BNP (Clarke, 1992; Saczuk, 1996). Additionally, this author's study compiled a GPS database of 71 mass movement hazard locations along major highways, secondary roads and well used access roads in BNP (Appendix 3-3).

The hazard counts for x-country skiing, hiking and mountain biking, 24, 54 and 30 respectively, represent the number of documented official trails in Parks

Canada trail guides (Parks Canada7). There are 70 backcountry/telemark trails

(Scott, 2005), 53 scrambling (Kane, 2003), 177 ice climbing (Josephson, 2002), and

780 rock climbing (Jones, 2006) routes in BNP. To determine the mountain 62 climbing hazard this study used the number of mountain peaks with established climbing routes in the BNP, 337 (Peakfinder, 2009) multiplied by 2.35, the average number of climbing routes on mountains in BNP as determined from Dougherty

(1999) which gave a hazard count of 792. Two values were used to determine the hazard count for downhill skiing and snow boarding: 1) To determine avalanche risk for downhill skiing and snow boarding, the number of black, double black (the standard codes used for degree of difficulty for ski runs at ski resorts) and bowl runs

(169) were used for the three ski resorts in the Park since they had the slope and terrain most susceptible to avalanche. 2) To determine general risk for downhill skiing and snow boarding the total number of runs (290) at all three resorts was used. To determine "Risk Potential" for all visitors for a specific hazard, the sum of all the hazard counts for that hazard was used. Table 3-6 indicates the hazard count which was used to calculate "Risk Potential" for each hazard and activity assessed in this study.

Table 3- 7: Hazard counts for activities in BNP Activity Hazard Count BNP Hazard Count BV Hiking 54 38 Mountain Climbing 792 660 Ice Climbing 177 74 Rock Climbing 780 404 Mountain Biking 30 30 Scrambling 53 40 Downhill Skiing/Snowboarding 290/169 290/169 Cross Country Skiing 24 24 Backcountry Skiing 70 -

3.6 Incident Data

Incident data for this study consisted of a fatality, serious injury, minor injury, or non-injury human-animal encounters and human-natural hazard events in 63

BNP from 1985-2004. The period 1985-2004 was used because accurate data prior to 1985 were very difficult to find and it was decided that 20 years was needed to accurately assess "Risk Potential". Data were compiled from archival searches of the

Crag and Canyon newspaper from 1980 to 2005. Additional incident data were provided by Parks Canada, retrieved from Accidents in North American

Mountaineering (AAC/ACC, 1985-2004), and retrieved from Avalanche Accidents in Canada (Jamieson and Goldestzer, 1997) (Appendix 3-4).

Data were compared by date to ensure that duplicate entries were not included in risk calculations or incident comparisons. Incident data were compiled by year, quarter and month (where available) to calculate Risk Potential. Incident type was also compared to user groups to determine vulnerable groups by hazard type. Trends in both "Risk Potential" and incident type annually and quarterly (for available data) were calculated and graphed. The naming convention used to identify incidents follows that currently in use by Parks Canada in BNP with the exception of Code Green (CG) which was used in this study to identify a non-injurious incident. (Table 3-8).

Table 3- 8: Incident types Incident Type Acronym Fatality CB Serious Injury CR Minor Injury CY Non-Injury CG

3.7 Risk Potential Calculations

The calculation of "Risk Potential" required development of an appropriate equation to represent the variables that influence risk for human use in BNP. The general risk equation was first considered (Equation 3-1) where H equals probability 64 of a hazard event and V equals the vulnerability or severity of the outcome on a person.

R = H x V Equation 3-1

The basic equation required modification to include the variables utilized in this study to more correctly represent and assess "Risk Potential in BNP for visitors exposed to mountain hazards and individuals participating in risk taking activities.

The first consideration was to assess the severity of the outcome of each incident type and assign a representative Severity Weighting Factor (SWF). A weighting factor was deemed necessary to account for the distinct differences in the outcome severity of each incident type.

Four criteria were considered in determining and assigning the SWF: 1) The irrevocability of incident outcome (e.g. death vs. injury vs. no injury). 2) The recovery time from a severe injury versus a minor injury. 3) The potential emotional impact on the individual and their family. 4) The potential lost income for the individual and their family. Based on these criteria two determinations were made:

1) The Code Black (CB) type incident, because of the finality of death, is assigned the highest WF. 2) Since severity decreases proportionately with incident type the

WF should also decrease proportionately from a CB to CR to CY to CG.

The SWF scale needed to be sufficient to account for the difference in severity for each incident type. The first consideration in determining the SWF for each incident type was to determine a SWF based on the cost difference between a fatality, a serious injury, a minor injury and a non injury incident. Since the determination of a detailed financial and social cost evaluation of each incident type outcome was beyond the scope of this study, a SWF range was developed that 65

arbitrarily represented the difference in severity between each incident type based on the aforementioned four criteria (Table 3-9). The SWF was applied to each incident

type to more appropriately assess the level of "Risk Potential" for general visitors to

BNP and individuals participating in specific risk taking activities in BNP from the mountain hazards identified and covered by this study.

Table 3- 9: Severity weighting factor for each incident type Incident Type (lt) Weighting Factor (WF) CB 100000 CR 10000 CY 1000 CG 100

It was necessary to determine the variables required to assess "Risk

Potential" for hazards and high risk activities. Two components of risk were used, namely, the probability of an incident (Pi), and the probability of a fatal or injurious outcome (Ps0) (or severity of the outcome) multiplied by the SWF (Equation 3-2), to assess hazard risk (Lindstrom, 1989, Wrona and Dixon, 1991, Hebblewhite, 2000).

Pi is defined as the probability of an event or encounter, calculated by dividing

incident count for each incident type (Ict) by total incidents (Tj) for a given year. Pso is defined as the severity of the outcome for one individual (I, where I is always equal to 1) from a given event or encounter divided by visitor population (Vp) and the hazard count (Hc) (for natural hazards) or hazard population (Hp) (for animal hazards). Hc and Hp are interchanged depending on the hazard type, animal or natural. Annual and seasonal risk potential for visitors to BNP from a given hazard

is estimated using Equation 3-2.

IRPn = Pi * Pso * SWF Equation 3 - 2

Substituting the components of Pi and Pso gives 66

IRPn = (Ic/Tj) * (1/ (Hc*Vp)) * SWF Equation 3 - 3 which becomes

IRPn = (let t/TO / (He*Vp) * SWF Equation 3- 4

Since each hazard has total incidents (Tj) that include all populations Vp and since IRPn was also going to be calculated for participants in specific high risk activities, the individual user group population (Up) for each high risk activity was substituted into the IRPn equation to calculate risk for each activity. Additionally, to assess risk from a specific hazard for each high risk activity a second variable was required to assess IRPn for each Up for a given hazard (H). This variable was a function of the actual total specific hazard incidents (SH;) of each incident type for a given hazard for a user group over the study period divided by the actual total incidents for a given user group over the study period (AIup) multiplied by the general risk equation. Annual and seasonal risk potential for a specific user group from a specific hazard is estimated using

IRPn = (let / TO / (He*Up) * (SH; / AIup) * SWF Equation 3- 5

This equation is used to calculate IRPn for CB, CR, CY, and CG incidents for each year of the study period for each high risk activity from a specific hazard.

The sum of the four IRPn's is the estimated total annual risk (TAR) for a given year.

The sum of the annual TAR values divide by 20 (years in the study) gives the average IRPn for each user group from each hazard. The sum of all individual ERPn for a user group for all hazards they are exposed to is the cumulative risk for a high risk activity user group from all hazards that they are exposed to. As sample of the

IRPn equation, calculation table and graph can be found in Appendix 3-5. 67

3.8 IPTPD and FPTPD Calculation for High Risk Activities

Injuries per thousand skier days (IPTSD), has been traditionally used to represent an overall injury rate for skiers. The lower the IPTSD the less likely injuries are to occur (Langran 2009). In this study, injuries per thousand participant days (IPTPD) and fatalities per thousand participant days (FPTPD) were used to calculate injury and fatality rates for high risk activities in BNP. IPTPD and FPTPD are calculated by dividing the number of injuries or fatalities annually by the total annual number of participants for each activity and then multiplying by 1000

(equation 3-5). Essentially, this rate says that for every thousand participants in an activity x number will sustain an injury or a fatality.

CB or (CR+CY) /total participants in activity annually * 1000 Equation 3 - 6

3.9 Hazard Matrix and Hazard Risk Zones

The spatial and temporal components of the incident data were used to identify high risk hazard zones for each hazard and high risk activity where sufficient incident data was available. The high risk hazard zones are areas where recurrence frequency of negative outcome experiences among individual participants in risk taking activities are sufficient to warrant identification of areas of increased potential risk. To determine the zones of risk a hazard matrix had to be developed. A hazard matrix for this study was designed from an adaptation of criteria set out by Ferrier and Haque (2003). Ferrier and Haque calculated hazard

Risk Ratings from the product of a frequency evaluation score, a severity evaluation score and a social consequences score for all hazards based on occurrence characteristics and impact characteristics. 68

The first step in creating the hazard matrix was to determine the elements of the incident data that would be used to calculate the risk rating. It was decided that the risk rating would be the product of the severity of the outcome and the total number of incidents. The social consequence score was not used because the data was not available.

The second step was to determine the most effective graduated scale to use for the severity of outcome and the total number of incidents. A graduated scale from 1 to 10 was selected based on the number of incident types used in the study, the range of incident outcomes for each hazard and activity, and the range of total incident counts for each hazard and activity (Table 3-9).

The third step was to calculate the risk rating for those hazards and high risk activities with sufficient spatial data to determine hazard zones. To accomplish this the spatial data was examined and sorted by the geographic location, the severity of outcome, and the total incidents for each hazard and high risk activity being evaluated.

Table 3-10: Hazard rating frequency and severity scale for 20 years of study Severity Scale Frequency Scale Hazard Rating CB>10 >17 10 CB6to10 16to 17 9 CB 0 to 5 14to 15 8 CR>10 12to13 7 CR6to10 10 to 11 6 CR 0 to 5 8 to 9 5 CY>5 6 to 7 4 CY 0 to 5 4 to 5 3 CG>5 2 to 3 2 CG 0 to 5 0to1 1 69

The fourth and final step was to determine the consequence and likelihood scheme and associated Risk Rating Colours. The consequence and likelihood scheme is the hazard score range for each defined hazard zone level The

Canadian Avalanche Association (CAA) bulletin scheme was used as a reference to determine the most effective consequence and likelihood scheme (Table 3-10).

Table 3-11: Likelihood and consequence scheme Hazard Rating 90 to 100 High ; l 70 to 89 Considerable 40 to 69 Moderate 10 to 39 Low j 1 to 9

The sample size for each high risk activity, geomorphic hazard and action hazards was used to determine the scale of the hazard zones. The small sample size and mountain specific incident data dictated the use of a fine scale (specific mountains and immediate surrounding areas) as opposed to a coarse scale (larger geographical areas that include complete mountain ranges). The fine scale represented hazard zones in BNP for rockfall, avalanche, and fall hazards as well as climbing/hiking/scrambling activities for each specific high incident mountain peak.

The scale for the hazard matrix for grizzly bears was modified to reflect the mobile nature of grizzly bears. Four hazard zones were determined based on spatial distribution of grizzly bear encounters. The zones were the Lake Louise zone, the

Bryant Creek Mount Assiniboine Zone, the Lake Minnewanka - Cascade mountain zone and the Dolomite Pass zone.

The Lake Louise zone is bounded by Kootenay National Park (KNP) and

Yoho National Park (YNP) to the south and west, high way 93 in the south east the 70

Bow River to the east to Castle Junction. At Castle Junction a vector was taken north east to the Sawback Range which delineates the north east boundary as far as

Little Pipestone Creek. From Little Pipestone Creek west along the Pipestone River to the Icefield Parkway is the northern border

The Bryant Creek - Mount Assiniboine zone is bounded by High 1A from

Banff to The junction of Highway 93 and Highway 93 south to KNP, Mount

Assiniboine Provincial Park and KNP in the south, and a vector east from Banff

Townsite along the Goat Range to Spray Lakes Provincial Park.

The Lake Minnewanka - Cascade zone extends from the Sawback Range in the west to the Ghost River area in the north. The southern limit is highway 1A while the eastern boundary is the BNP boundary. It includes that area east of the

Bow River and south of Castle Junction to High way 1A

The Dolomite Pass zone is bounded by the Icefield Parkway to the south, the

Wapta Icefield and Crowfoot Glacier to the west, Mosquito Creek and Roaring

Creek to the east, the Siffleur Wilderness Area to the North and Porcupine Creek to the North West as far as the Icefield Parkway.

There was insufficient data available to create a hazard zone or matrix for other hazards and activities. Action hazards such as hitting a tree and collision with others that were specific to downhill activities at resorts did not require a hazard matrix, hazard zone or hazard map.

A set of hazard maps using Geographic Information System (GIS) were created to represent each hazard and each high risk activity represented by a hazard matrix. Hazard zones are represented on the map by a circle that is colour coded to 71 the corresponding hazard zone rating as identified in the associated hazard matrix for each mountain hazard or risk taking activity. The exception is the mass movement hazard map that identifies mass movement locations along the TCH, the

Icefield Parkway and the Lake Minnewanka loop road. Since there were no fatalities or injuries associated with mass movements, circle colours on the mass movement map are strictly used to identify spatial distribution of snow avalanche, debris flow, land slide, mudslide, rockfall slump, and flash flooding alongside highways ands roads in BNP. 72

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS and DISCUSSION

4.1 Results

4.1.1 Overall Annual Incidents and Rescue Responses in BNP 1985-2004

Hazard events or encounters in BNP were identified based on the incident type (CB-fatality, CR-serious injury, CY-minor injury, and CG-no injury) for geomorphic or animal hazard, respectively. Parks Canada provided detailed annual data for hazard occurrences by incident type, for all occurrences combined, that elicited a public safety response by Warden Services from 1985-2004 in BNP as well as the rescue method employed. Additionally, detailed annual data were provided for avalanche hazard, and for mountain climbing (MC) and scrambling

(SC) activities from 1985-2004. Data were also provided for occurrence events by week and month. Decadal data from 1985-1994 and 1995-2004 were supplied for hiking activities. Public safety occurrence events and subject injury extent data for all types of activity were provided as decadal totals only for the period 1995-2004.

None of the data included spatial, temporal or information as to cause for specific hazards or activities, nor did it include data related to human-animal encounters.

Annual activity rescue responses provided by Parks Canada are shown in

Figure 4-1. The data indicates that overall incidents began rising in the 1990 and peaked in 1998. Overall incident counts are still much higher than the 1980's. All incident types showed increases from 1985-1994 to 1995-2004 (Table 4-1) with CG and CY incidents having the most significant increase. 73

Figure 4-1: Relationship between annual occurrences and incident type 1985-2004 for BNP based on Parks Canada Rescue Response Reports (White and Gui, 2004)

Table 4 -1: Decadal summary of incident type and helicopter rescue method, BNP (adapted from White and Gui, 2004) Helicopter Decade CB CR C,.(jf Rescue Heli-sling Rescue 1995-2004 81 40 160 601 245 206 1985-1994 59 32 107 367 125 89 % Increase 37% 25% 50% 64% 96% 131%

One change of note from 1985-1994 to 1995-2004 is the 96% increase in

helicopters (HR) and 131% increase in helislings (HSR) for rescues by BNP Warden

Services (Table 4-1, Figure 4-2). Figure 4-2 clearly indicates an increase in total

events (TE) responded to by public safety wardens and a corresponding increase in helicopter and helislings rescues. The polynomial fit to data curves and the

associated high R values indicate a strong correlation between the annual increase

in helicopter and helislings use for rescue responses and the increase in total rescue

responses to public safety events by BNP Warden Services. 74

Figure 4- 2: A comparison of total annual activity events (TE) that generated a rescue response by public safety wardens and the rescue method used. 1985-2004 (adapted from White and Gui, 2004)

Data collected for this study includes animal and geomorphic events and encounters but lacks detailed data for hikers, scramblers and mountain bikers. This is especially problematic when assessing incident data to calculate "Risk Potential" since a large enough sample size is required to represent the user population to accurately assess risk. Although hikers accounted for the highest rescue response from warden services at 32% and had an overall numerical increase in 1995-2004 of

80% (Table 4-2), complete data sets are difficult to compile. Incident data for scramblers were also difficult to compile even though they account for 9% of all responses and have an event count that has increased by 55% from 1985-1994 to

1995-2004 (Table 4-2). Table 4-3 shows the rescue response events by activity type for the high risk activities assessed in this study. 75

Table 4 - 2 Percentage difference in incident type for hiking and scrambling based on White and Gui, 2004 Scrambling Decade Totals Events CB CR 1995-2004 87 10 2 13 62 1985-1994 56 7 3 11 35 % Overall 55.36% 42.86% -33.33% 18.18% 77.14% Difference

Decade Totals Hiking Events CB CR W\3 1995-2004 288 20 11 60 197 1985-1994 160 3 Not Not Not Supplied Supplied Supplied % Overall Difference 80.00% 567% . _ _

Table 4 - 3: Warden Services rescue responses by activity for high risk activities covered in this study adapted from (White and Gui, 2004) Activity Event Count CB CR CG : Hiking 288 20 11 60 197 Mountain Climbing 95 11 5 9 70 Scrambling 84 10 2 13 59 Mountain Biking 52 1 2 18 31 Ice Climbing 51 11 5 14 21 Downhill 39 3 5 4 Skiing/Snowboarding 17 Cross country Skiing 33 2 0 8 23 Backcountry Skiing 31 1 0 4 26 Ski Mountaineering 28 3 0 1 24 Canoeing/Kayaking/Rafting 26 2 0 5 19 Rock Climbing 21 3 5 2 11

Incident data collected during this study indicated that human-animal encounters (Figure 4-3) are more common than human-natural hazard events (Figure

4-4, Figure 4-5). There were 931 human-animal encounters between 1985 and 2004 compared to 602 human-natural hazards events. Seventy nine percent of the human- animal involved elk and 20% involved grizzly bears with code red accounting for

9% of elk and 10% of grizzly bear encounters. Human animal encounters peaked in

1998 and 1999. These encounters corresponded to the period when elk populations in the Bow Valley Central zone, which is mainly the town of Banff and the immediate surrounding area, peaked with populations of approximately 500 elk from 1993 tol999. During the same period visitors to BNP peaked at 3,929,071 in 76

1999 with PVD in the town of Banff averaging 9, 736,238 (Parks Canada).

Thereafter, human animal encounters have decreased steadily in part due to the removal of some 500 elk from the BV central zone and a slight decrease in visitor numbers to 7,780,756 PVD in 2004.

The most noticeable difference between human-animal encounters and human-natural hazard events is the number of fatalities. There was only one fatality from a human-animal encounter in BNP for the twenty years covered by this study.

A cross country skier suffered a fatality from a cougar in 2001 near Lake

Minnewanka. In comparison, there were 132 recorded fatalities associated with natural hazards and high risk activities. Climbing activities accounted for 47%, skiing activities accounted for 30% and hiking activities accounted 16% of these fatalities.

120

100 j

80- (O DCB i § 60 i • CR o o c j nCY HI • CG

40 j

i 20 0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Figure 4- 3: Annual human-animal encounters with elk, grizzly bear, cougar and wolf, BNP 1985- 2004 77

14 - -

12

10

(0 i £ 8 c / DCB 3 o • CR g 6 DCY HI

4

2

0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Figure 4- 4: Annual injurious and fatal human -animal encounters for elk, grizzly bear, cougar, and wolfBNP, 1985-2004.

Human-natural hazard events do not present the same obvious trend as animal-human encounters. Incidents of CR have been relatively constant from 1985-

2004 but CG incidents appear to be increasing more steadily. CY and CB incidents show some variation over the 20 year study but the general trend suggests that the number of incidents is increasing. Since there are more than four peaks and troughs in the data, a polynomial trend line to the sixth order was used (Figure 4-5, 4-6). The polynomial fit to data trend lines and the R2 regression values indicate a moderate correlation between incident type and an annual increase in incidents. 78

40

35

30 DCB 25 • CR

2 DCY 20 R = 0?0?5> • CG 15 \- -Poly. (CG) -Poly. (CR) 10 0-1793 :«ffliitfW MM ffiffll 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Figure 4- 5: Overall annual natural hazard events by incident type in BNP, 1985-2004

30

25

20

15 1CB R2 = 0.3059 !CR ICY Fbly. (CY) -Poly (CB)

Lncoi^coa>o^-CMc*D^-mcor^co050^-c\jco^lifg- C000a0C0C005O5O)CT)050505O5O>O>OOOCZ)O CTJ03050)050>CT)030505030>0>0>05OOC5OO -r- y- i- *— *- i— -T— I-»-T-T— y- -r- -r- i— CJCNJCMCMOJ

Figure 4- 6: Overall annual fatality and injury incidents for natural hazard events in BNP, 1985- 2004

4.2 Hazard Based Risk Potential

4.2.1 Mass Movement

When discussing hazard and risk in the context of mass movement processes in BNP, one has to look at a larger scale since large scale mass movements do not have a high frequency interval, nor have they caused human injury or loss of life.

The loss is rather one of an economic nature. From 1985-2004, there were seven documented mass movements that occurred in or close to BNP that affected people, 79 delayed transportation, and damaged infrastructure (Table 4-4). When assessing the

Risk Potential from mass movement a recurrence interval (RI) of 2.85 was used with a probability of recurrence (P) equal to 0.35. Ice climber, downhill skier, cross­ country skier and backcountry skier user populations for Q4 were not used since mass movements had only occurred in Ql to Q3.

Table 4 - 4: Known mass movements in or near BNP that impacted on visitors or infrastructure, 1985-2004 Hazard Economic Date Location Type Cost Size West Wilson Creek IP closed 16hrs 24 hrs for full Debris 1989 cleanup flow 25-7-91 2 slides block L. Minnewanka Rd. Mud slide Kick. H. R. blocked by Mt. Stephen TCH closed Debris 03/08/94 trapped visitors and campers in Yoho NP flow Five-Mile Creek cleanup starts at 300k. 1M lost from Debris 45 11/08/99 economy every hour closed to transportation. 24 hrs flow/Mud 000 P.1 before 1 lane open. 4 days till all 4 lanes open slide >25M m 27/04/01 Vermillion Lakes lookout Point Mud slide 28/8/02 Landslide closes highway 93 north of Sask crossing Landslide

Estimated IRPn for each user group (Figure 4-7) is based on CG only since there has not been an injury or fatality from a mass movement in BNP from 1985-

2004. The graph in Figure 4-7 shows higher risk from mass movement for ice climbers (IC) and backcountry skiers BC than groups such as hikers BNP (HBNP), who visit the park during the more likely mass movement season. The primary factor causing this result is the small population size of groups such as IC and BC compared to other groups, given that event counts remain constant.

There are obvious limitations to a database created for mass movement events that occur infrequently and have yet to cause a serious injury or fatality in

BNP. Mass movement events that occurred in BNP between 1985 and 2004 are insufficient to constitute a non-random sample of mass movement events that impact on human users. The infrequency of mass movements also does not allow seasonal 80 calculations of risk. Seasonal calculations of risk would provide a better estimate of risk for seasonal user groups. Therefore, a biased view may develop that marginalizes the potential risk from the catastrophic damage a large scale mass movement can have on human life. One has to look no farther than Turtle Mountain in the Crowsnest Pass area of Alberta to see the devastation caused by the 1903

Frank Slide. Approximately 80 people lost their lives in this massive 36.5 X106 m3 slide (McConnell and Brock, 1904).

6.00E-06

5.00E-06

£ 4.00E-06

J 3.00E-06 o a> & 2.00E-06 V a 1.00E-06

0.00E+00 VBNP HBNP CKR DH/SB MB I TAR 2.38E-08 8.26E-08 3.60E-07 475E-07 7.30E-07 167E-06 169E-06 2.42E-06 5.03E-06 527E-06

Figure 4- 7: Estimated annual risk for each user group from mass movement in BNP 1985-2004

4.2.2 Snow Avalanche

Incident Data Analysis

Incident data for avalanches was more readily available and provided sufficient numbers to create a representative database of avalanche events based on incident type and user activity. Figure 4-8 illustrates the annual incident types for avalanche events. The distribution of CR and CB identifies a marked decrease in

CR and a slightly less steep drop in CB since 1988. Both CY and CG have seen significant increases. 81

Figure 4- 8: Annual avalanche events by incident type for BNP, 1985-2004

Between 1985 and 2004 there were 91 total avalanche events in BNP of which CB accounted for 38.5% of all events (Table 4-5 and Figure 4-9). Decadal counts show an overall decrease in CB and CR incidents by 16% and 25% respectively but increases in CY and CG incidents of 66.7% and 1450% respectively

(Table 4-5). Visitor numbers increased slightly from 1996 to 2000 by 500 000 to a peak of 3 929 071 in 1999. This does seem to correspond to a slight increase in total avalanche events from 1997 to 1999. The availability of improved avalanche bulletins provided by Parks Canada and the Canadian Avalanche Association, and more advanced avalanche training and better equipment may account for a decrease in fatality and serious injury incidents since 1995.

Table 4 - 5 Avalanche hazard events by incident type, BNP 1985-2004 Decade totals CB OR 1995-2004 16 3 10 31 1984-1994 19 4 6 2 %difference -15.79% -25.00% 66.67% 1450.00% Total Events 35 7 16 33 % of overall events 38.50% 7.70% 17.60% 36.20% 82

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

• Avalanche Events 2347060063 6395 10 54783

Figure 4- 9: Annual avalanche events in BNP 1985-2004

Members of all activities, with the exception of mountain bikers and paddlers, have experienced an avalanche hazard event in BNP (Figure 4-10). Ice climbing, backcountry skiing, mountain climbing, and downhill skiers and snowboarders account for 90% of all avalanche events. Ice climbers account for

33% of all events and 34% of all fatalities, backcountry skiers 21% of all events and

28% of fatalities. Mountain climbers and downhill skiers/snowboarders account for

21% and 17% of overall events and 15.6% and 12.5% of all fatalities respectively.

All general visitor events were a result of avalanches hitting cars on highways and roads, most notably the Icefield Parkway.

l 6 c !_ _ Uj 4 \^ . 2 n t^r n oi BC DH/SB C I H 0 \ ss/xc sc DC8 iB5 9 4i 11 1 1 0 BCR 3 3 2 3 () 0 0 1 DCY 3 0 8 10 i 1 0 0 0 QCG 8 9 3 9 i 0 _ 0 ~" 0

Figure 4-10: Avalanche hazard events by activity and incident type in BNP 1985-2004. 83

Incident data was also assessed seasonally. Quarter 4 accounted for the

majority of incidents (Figure 4-11) with a total of 72.3% of all events (Figure 4-12).

January, February, and March had 22%, 23% and 28% of all events respectively. CB events occurred in each month of Q4 but 61% occurred in February. In contrast, CR

and CG events were highest in March at 67% and 65% respectively while CY events

were highest in January at 56%. Despite Q4 accounting for the majority of avalanche hazards events, ice climbing had 27.3% of total IC events in Q3, downhill skiing and snowboarding had 24% in Q3, while mountain climbing had

37% combined in Qland Q2 (Figure 4-14).

Figure 4-11: Quarterly avalanche events by incident type in BNP, 1985-2004.

^£^

10% f" . f^^TH -./ •• rCT W Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 • 1985-2004 8.90% 3.90% 14.90% 72.30%

Figure 4-12: Distribution of avalanche events by quarter. 84

Avalanche activities increased from the mid 1980's to 1998-1999 when events in Q3 and Q4 peaked. Since 1999 events have shown a downward trend and leveled off at the Q4 average of four events per year (Figure 4-13). This trend corresponds to an overall peak in general visitor numbers and user group numbers for the same period.

-- • • 14 -

12 -

10 -

-»-Q1 8 -<*• Q2 » Q3 | 6 Q4 UI P? = 0.2008 Poly. (Q4) 4 Poly. (Q3) ,*, # = 0.1538 A 2

0

Figure 4-13: Avalanche events by quarter in BNP 1985-2004

25

20

15

10

£L Q1 rtQ 3 DMC 4 3 0 • c 2 0 9 DBC 1 0 2 aDH/SB 2 0 4 • WSS 0 0 0 • VIW 0 0 0 aSC 0 1 0

Figure 4-14: Quarterly avalanche events by activity in BNP, 1985-2004 85

Annual Risk Potential

Annual Individual Risk Potential (IRPn) calculations indicate an inverse relationship with incident data. Risk was high in the mid to late 1980's, reached its lowest during the late 1990's and returned to late 1980's levels by 2004. Although the magnitude of IRPn changes for each user group the annual trend is consistent. A correlation with increased visitor and user populations from 1996 to 2001 is again evident. This conforms to risk theory and the population variable. A large increase in population combined with a low to moderate increase in events will decrease overall risk. Two above average years in 2002 and 2003, in which events were twice the annual average combined with a 33% decrease in both visitor numbers and PVD from 1999 to 2003, contributed to an overall increase in IRPn (Figure 4-15).

9.00E-06 r

8.00E-06

7.00&06

2.00E-06

1.00&06

0.00E+00 —

Figure 4-15: Annual degree of risk, IRPn, by incident type from avalanche for all visitors, BNP 1985-2004

The 20-year average Risk Potential (AIRPn) calculations for activity user groups indicate that ice climbers are exposed to the greatest risk from avalanche hazard followed closely by backcountry skiers. Mountain climbers, cross country, and downhill skiers/snowboarders round out the high risk activities (Figure 4-16). 86

4.00E-04 ,

3.50E-04 ' I 3.00E-04 ' ^ 2.50E-04 DC "° 2.00E-04 03 CD

S1 1.50E-04

1.00E-04

5.00E-05 n n n n n n O.OOE+00 VBNP VBV HBNP HBV MB RC MC IC XC BC DH/SB CKR

nCBaCRaCYiCGnTAR

Figure 4-16: Average degree of risk, AIRPn, for each user group from avalanche hazard, BNP, 1985-2004

4.2.3 Rockfall and Icefall

A stratified non-random sample was employed with n = 32 to provide spatial and temporal data. Of the 32 rockfall and icefall events between 1985 and 2004

(Figure 4-17), distribution between fatality and injury incident types was moderately even with CB (Fatality) and CR (serious injury) incidents at 25% each and CY

(minor injury) incidents at 44%. The increase in incident counts in the late 1990's corresponds with an increase in visitor numbers during this period.

Rockfall and icefall events peaked in 1988 at 5. Most of these occurred in

July. Environment Canada data indicate that the total precipitation in both May and

June of 1988 was 82.7mm and 120mm respectively, twice the average precipitation for the 10 year period 1995-2004. May and June also recorded 19 plus-minus temperature alternations as recorded at the Banff CS weather station, WMO ID

71122. Above normal rainfall coupled with frost wedging along foliation lines in the predominately sedimentary and metamorphic rock may have led to increased 87 rockfall activity in July of 1998 and subsequent years. There does not appear to be any obvious reason for the 1986 peak where total events were 3x the 20-year average and CB events were 2x greater. Environment Canada data were not available for the 1985 to 1994 period. CB and CY incidents remained constant from

1985-1994 to 1995-2004; however, during the same period, CR incidents increased

600%.

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Figure 4-17: Rockfall and icefall events by incident type in BNP 1985-2004

The sample data identified five user groups who encounter rockfall and two who encountered icefall (Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-19). Mountain climbers account for 59% of all events and ice climbers 28%. Quarterly data indicate that the majority of rockfall and icefall events occur in Q2 (62.5%) and Q4 (34.4%) (Figure 4-20).

Rockfall events (3) have occurred in Q4; however, icefall events have not occurred in Q2. There were no icefall or rockfall events in Ql. Annual distribution of events by quarter indicates an increase in activity in Q4 since 1997 and a slight overall increase in all three quarters (Figure 4-21). 88

Quarterly event distribution by activity (Figure 4-22) illustrates mountain climbers (MC) are exposed to higher risk in Q2 accounting for 80% of all Q2 events.

Ice climbers (IC) are exposed to higher risk in Q4, accounting for 73% of all Q4 events. August accounts for 55% of all Q2 events and 47% of all MC events with the rest of MC events divided fairly evenly between July (21%), September (16%), and March (16%). Q4 events are spread evenly across the quarter with 75% of ice climbing (IC) events in January and February.

Figure 4-18: Rockfall events by activity and incident type in BNP 1985-2004

Figure 4-19: Icefall events by activity and incident type in BNP 1985-2004 89

Figure 4- 20: Quarterly rockfall and icefall events by incident type, BNP 1985-2004

5 -

4

4 -»-Q1 3- -J-Q2 3- Q3 (0 M ' • : '••. Q4 1 2 \ ; > /' A —- Linear (Q2) m 2 r_=^-^- is —p- Linear (Q4) j—-4——*-—y™~~*^~~^^~^r^ 1 - \ Linear (Q3) 1 «^*u, tf> CO f-~ CO 0> O 0 - .JOBL. CD JHBt_. S33L_ Cft.- O... .O en o) o) a) o> o>

Figure 4- 22: Quarterly rockfall and icefall events by activity type, BNP 1985-2004 90

Annual Risk Potential

Annual Individual Risk Potential (IRPn) calculations (Figure 4-23) indicate two possible relationships between IRPn and rockfall/icefall events. From 1985 to

1994 there appears to be a direct relationship between IRPn and event counts; however, from 1995 to 2004 an inverse relationship exists. A possible explanation centers on rates of population change versus the rates of incident change. From 1985 to 2000 visitor numbers were increasing and peaked in 1999 while rockfall/icefall events were stable or decreasing. From 2000 to 2004 rockfall events decreased but only by one event each year while PVD dropped by almost 2 million during the same period. A R2 value of 0.2135 indicated a low to moderate correlation between

IRPn and annual incident data.

2.00E-06

1.80E-06

1.60E-06

1 40E-06

| 1.20E-06 DC ° 1.00E-06 $ |> 8.00E-07 o 6.00E-07 T

4.00E-07

2.00E-07

0.0OE+O0 CO G> Q) Q) Ol G) O) O) 05 o> Gi o) 885888888

Figure 4- 23: Annual degree of risk, IRPn, for visitors by incident type and year, BNP 1985-2004

The 20-year average Risk Potential (AIRPn) calculations for activity user groups indicate that rockfall and icefall present a much greater risk to ice climbers

(IC), mountain climbers (MC) and rock climbers (RC) (Figure 4-24). Ice climbers have a slightly higher risk potential from rockfall and icefall than do mountain climbers. AIRPn for rock climbers (RC), however, is lower by a factor of five. Both 91

incident data and calculated AIRPn indicate that IC, MC and RC are most at risk from rockfall and icefall. This information validates the AIRPn calculation.

6.00E-05

5.00E-05

•g 4.00E-05 if ° 3.00E-05 $

^ 2.00E-05

1.00E-05

0.00E+00 Visitors Visitors Hikers Hikers Rock Mtn Ice BNP BV BNP BV Climbers Climbers Climbers Figure 4- 24: Average degree of risk, AIRP,, for user groups from rockfall and icefall BNP, 1985- 2004

5.2.4 Elk Hazard

Human-elk encounters in BNP from 1985-2004 totaled 733. This was the highest recorded number of hazard encounters or events of any hazard type in BNP.

There were no fatalities associated with elk-human encounters. The majority of encounters were CG (90.3%) and CR (9.1%) (Figure 4-25). In 1998 and 1999, encounters peaked at 107 and 106 respectively and elk counts in Banff townsite were 388 and 467 respectively. PVD was 8.16M in 1998 and peaked at 8.74M in

1999. Contact charges, elk charges that resulted in contact with humans, began rising in 1994 (4) and peaked in 1997 (8). Contact charges averaged 6 per year from

1990 to 1997 but dropped to 0.6 contact charges per year from 2000 to 2004. This is in line with pre 1990 levels when contact charges averaged 1 per year from 1985-

1989. Between 1990 and 2000 CG encounters averaged 59 per year. 92

120;

100 i

80/ • CG c 60 r^ nCY oO c • CR HI aCB

20 K~ niiiiiii

.JH.. JR.. JR__JI__JR__.H--JB _Ji. MM* 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Figure 4- 25: Annual elk-human encounters by incident type, BNP 1985-2004

Elk population is distributed throughout the Bow Valley in three zones,

Eastern, Western, and Central as determined by Hebblewhite et al. (2002).

Population redistribution has occurred in these three zones since re-colonization of the Bow Valley by wolves in 1985 (Hebblewhite, et al., 2002). A direct correlation between wolf population, elk population and visitor population is apparent (Figure

4-26, Figure 4-27, and Figure 4-28) with high concentrations of elk moving into the central zone subsequent to an increase in wolf population. This juxtaposition of high wolf, elk, and visitor numbers over the same time period sparked a marked increase in elk-human encounters. Unfortunately, more detailed spatial and temporal incident data were unavailable. 93

25

20

o 15 5 -BV Wolves 10 -

<& c# <$• o* <# # o?N c# # <# o* <# o£ d* o* «# <§>N # c# <#

Figure 4- 26: Wolf population in Bow Valley east and west wildlife zones BNP 1985-2004

600

500

^ 400 uj -East | 300 - Central E West z 200

100

0 J

os* o* o£ <& os* # o?>N <# o,# of*" «# o* o,^ <# <# c# c?" <# <# <#

Figure 4- 27: Elk population, Bow Valley east, central and west wildlife zones BNP 1985-2004

10.00 - ..... •" • 9.50 • * 9.00 - ,•' i *• \ 8.50 A ~# ; .-• ..•" • -•-PVDBV r * 8.00 • .-• ¥ • 7.50 -•

Visito r PV D i n million s *v '* •' 7.00 +

6.50 066 1 198 5 198 7 199 3 199 4 199 5 199 7 199 8 199 9 198 6 199 1 199 6 200 0 200 1 200 2 i 198 8 j 198 9 i 200 3 I ! 199 2 I 200 4 Figure 4- 28: Visitor PVD BNP Bow Valley central zone (Banff Townsite) 1985-2004. 94

Annual Risk Potential

Annual Individual Risk Potential (IRPn) calculations (Figure 4-29) illustrate a decreasing ERPnfrom 1985 to 2004. Incident data from the same period (Figure 4-

25) illustrate an increase in elk-human encounters. A comparison of the two indicates an inverse relationship between incident data and IRPn. From 1985 to 1991 risk was much higher; however, during this time elk numbers in the BV central zone were steadily climbing each year while visitor PVD and elk-human encounters remained stable. Between 1991 and 2000, when elk-human encounters increased, actual risk decreased. During the same period visitor PVD in the central zone, which includes Banff townsite, increased by 21% or 1.5 million? Concurrently, elk numbers increased from 212 in 1985 to a high of 600 in 1999 (183%). Numbers of elk throughout the BV central zone remained near 500 between 1993 and 1998. The sizeable increase in PVD more than offset the increase in elk population and the concurrent increase in elk-human encounters, thereby lowering actual risk.

7.00E-06

6.00E-06

5.00E-06 -CB

-CR

CG £ 3.00E-06 -TR

S -Poly. (TR) 2.00E-O6 •+

1.00E-06

O.OOE+00 J— iocQf-aoo)Ot-c\iO'^-Ln(or~-aoa>OT-c\ic3 COCOOOOOCOO>0)OT005010>0>0)0>0000 0)CT)0^0)050)0>0)0)0>0)0>0>0)0)0000 i-T--i-i-i-i-7--i--i-r-i--,-t-,-T-C\|C\IC\IC\J

Figure 4- 29: Annual IRPn by incident type for visitors to Banff Townsite area, BNP 1985-2004. 95

The 20-year average Risk Potential (AIRPn) calculations for each user group in BNP indicate that the most at risk group for elk encounters is visitors to Banff

Townsite (VBT) area in the BV central zone with MB the next closest, although this is deceptive since the difference is greater than one order of magnitude (Figure 4-

30). Since the majority of elk-human encounters occur in or near Banff Townsite

(Hebblewhite et al., 2002, Parks Canada 2008, 2009), the AIRPn calculation parallels well with actual events.

8.00E-06

7.00E-06 DCB 6.00E-06 - • CR 1 5.00E-06 cc OCY o 4.00E-06 a • CG | 3.00E-06 • TR Q 2.00E-06

1.00E-06

0.00E+00 J o->i— Q_>DDOOOOOCDCC: m>>mx ^ o > = o

Figure 4- 30: Average annual degree of risk, AIRPn, from elk by user group, BNP 1985-2004

4.2.5 Grizzly Bear

Grizzly bear-human encounters have a large impact on the bear's overall survival rate in BNP since anthropogenic disturbance weakens their resilience, behaviorally and demographically (Weaver et al., 1996). A negative encounter between a human and a grizzly bear most often results in destruction of the bear.

Between 1990 and 2008 there have been 63 human caused fatalities of grizzly bears, six of which were a result of public safety measures in BNP (Bertch and Gibeau,

2009). 96

BNP has never had a human fatality resulting from a grizzly bear-human encounter. Between 1985 and 2004, 180 grizzly bear-human encounters were recorded. Ninety four percent were CG and 6% were CR (Figure 4-31). Serious injury (CR) encounters averaged slightly more than one every two years from 1985-

2004 with zero CR encounters in most years. If the six CR encounters resulting from one attack in 1995 are removed, average CR encounters would drop to one every four years. The six CR encounters in 1995 is somewhat of an anomaly and could be considered an outlier. In this case two bears, an adult and a yearling, attacked campers in a tent which resulted in six people injured and four bears destroyed

(Bertch and Gibeau, 2009).

20 /—- • 18 I 16 ^ 1 14 mt M {• 2 12 /- • CG / • l.ll I Ifll- aCY iu 8 /• IHHilllinHII • • CR -, nCB 6-/ •••iiiiiinii • 4 • Tl 1 1 • 1 • • • • 1 1 • • 2 If! MM III HMM ill II JBL -Ji..' ML.iM~-J* JL J M_JB_' ML 1 M ML.ML. M . JBLJ in co s*-CDaio-»-c\jco^tiotork-coa>Oi-ojc*35 CO CD BCOOOCT>ai0505C3>OiOiajO>C3>00000 o> en 3>0>050)0)0)OiO>OJO)01010>00000

Figure 4- 31: Annual Grizzly bear-human encounters by year and incident type, BNP 1985-2004

Detailed spatial data was not available for every grizzly bear-human encounter. A stratified non-random sample (SNRS) was employed, n = 70, to provide spatial and temporal data. The sample data established that 50% of all grizzly bear-human encounters involved a hiker, 31% involved a mountain biker

(data extracted from Schmor, 1999; and Herrero and Herrero, 2000), 13% involved campers, 4.3% involved general visitors or local residents (VR), and 1.4 % involved 97 paddlers. All mountain biking encounters were CG (non injury) incidents. In total,

85% of hiking encounters were CG and 15% were CR. Campers (C) had 66% as CR and 33% as CG (Figure 4-32).

Figure 4- 32: Grizzly bear human encounters by activity and incident type BNP 1985-2004

Quarterly analysis of the SRS data shows that the majority of annual grizzly bear-human encounters occur in Q2 (77%) (Figure 4-33, 4-34). The year 2004, when every encounter occurred in Ql and all in June (Figure 4-34), was an exception.

Figure 4- 33: Grizzly bear-human encounters by quarter and incident type, BNP 1985-2004 98

%/ r f c 5^ 01 » 4/ DQ4 e • Q3 23 3 / • Q2 c 111 2 •' • Q1 1/ i_ n ul"I7l . II C000C0C0C00}a30)0>OT0>050>CT>OTOOOO a5(350105<7>0^050>0>CnCT>0>05030>OCDOO *— *-*-*— i— *— -t— T— *— *— T— .— ,- .— i— C\JC\iC\JC\J

Figure 4- 34: Grizzly bear-human encounters by quarter and year, BNP 1985-2004

Analysis of quarterly and monthly data shows all CR encounters occurred in

Q2 and in August (58%) and September (42%) which coincides with the berry season when bears are aggressively feeding. The majority of CG events occurred in

Q2 (69%) with 37% in July. Of the 31% of encounters in Ql, 25% were in June

(Figure 4-35).

Figure 4- 35 Grizzly bear-human encounters by month and incident type BNP 1985-2004

Further analysis of quarterly data indicates that most grizzly bear-hiker encounters occur in Q2 (73.5%) with 31% in July and 28.6% in August (Figure 4-

36). These findings are in keeping with Herrero and Higgins (2003) and Bertch and

Gibeau (2009). 99

30 - - -

<" s: g 15 o 5 j-- 1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 D Hiker 9 26 0 0 a Paddler 1 0 0 0 n Camper 0 9 0 0 D Visitor 1 2 0 0

Figure 4- 36: Grizzly bear-human encounters by quarter and activity, BNP 19985-2004

Annual Risk Potential

Annual Individual Risk Potential (IRPn) calculations (Figure 4-37) reveal two distinct trends. The degree of risk was uniform from 1985 to 1994 and also from

1994 to 2004. In the first decade of the study, IRPn was minimal primarily because no grizzly bear-human encounters resulted in a fatality or injury. From 1994 to

2004, however, the degree of risk increased by a factor of 36. The marked increase in IRPn aligns with a similar increase in encounters over the same period indicating a direct relationship between encounters and degree of risk (Figure 4-37).

4.50E-07 i

4.00E-07

3.50E-07

3.00E-07 -CB at i 2.50E-07 -CR o CO CY §, 2.00E-07 CG CO -TR 1.50E-07

1.00E-07

5.00E-08

0.00E+00 wcor^como.-ojcn'tfmtoi^cooi COCOC0C000G}CTO>O)O)O)O)O)G)O) OlCBCncncnOlOlCnCDOOTOlOlOlCn o o o o o C\J C\J CM CM CO Figure 4- 37: Annual degree of risk, DRPn, for hikers from grizzly bears in BNP, 1985-2004 100

Throughout this study bear population has remained constant at 60 bears. At the same time the PVD for visitors has increased substantially from 8.37 million

PVD in 1985 to 11.49 million PVD by 2000 with an average PVD of 10.93 million from 1995 to 2000. A corresponding increase in hikers is also associated with this period when PVD for hikers in the Bow Valley peaked at 3.42 million in 1999. The intrusion of more hikers into an already confined and fragmented grizzly bear habitat is most likely the cause of increased encounters.

The 20-year AIRPn calculations for each user group in BNP indicate that the most at risk group is mountain bikers (Figure 4-38) even though hikers incur the majority of encounters. Individual hikers are at a much lower degree of risk because the population of hikers is 11 X greater than that of mountain bikers.

1.40E-06- r n

1.20E-06

^ 1.00E-06

j* 8.00E-07 o | 6.00E-07 o>

° 4.00E-07

2.00E-07

0.00E+00 VBNP VBV HBNP HBV MB RC MC CKR

Figure 4- 38: Average annual risk, IRP„, from grizzly bears by user group in BNP 1985-2004

4.1.2.6 Cougar

Cougar are elusive animals and their numbers in BNP are very low, approximately 8-10 animals. These two factors have minimized cougar-human encounters. There was only one direct cougar encounter in BNP during the study 101 period and that was a cross country skier fatality in January of 2001. This is the only cougar fatality ever recorded in the history of BNP. Ian Syme, Chief Park Warden

BNP, speculated that cougars are hunting closer to town in response to the elk herds moving into town to avoid increased predation from wolves. Cougars are starving and the fear of humans is supplanted by the search for food (Syme, Per comm., July

15, 2005).

The majority of cougar references found in a search of the Crag and Canyon newspaper referred to dog attacks and infrequent sightings that are non-threatening in nature. An exhaustive search for wolf encounters of any type noted 1 human fatality, 2 dog attacks and 6 sightings in the Bow Valley.

A sample size of one is not sufficient to calculate a reliable value for risk nor possible to calculate a recurrence interval. The fatal event of 2001 may be a one­ time event, since there have been no further attacks in BNP. In addition, elk have been removed from Banff townsite and mitigation measure put in place to force them back into their natural habitat. This event is a reminder that BNP is a place for wildlife and carnivore risk does not end when bears hibernate for the winter.

4.2.7 Wolf

As was the case with the cougar, there has not been a documented case of a wolf attacking a human in BNP. The wolf, (also an elusive), tends to avoid human communities. This is the premise behind the migration of elk from the Bow Valley east and west zones into the town of Banff which has created the elk blob hazard

(Hebblewhite et al., 2002, Hebblewhite, 2008). An exhaustive search for references 102 to wolves in BNP resulted in seven articles found in the Crag and Canyon. There were no wolf-human encounters. Wolf references were limited to sightings (3), hunting in town (2) or attacks on dogs (2). One cannot estimate the degree of risk from a wolf-human encounter if you do not have human-wolf encounters in sufficient numbers for a sample size to be representative of the dynamic being tested. Since there are zero wolf-human encounters in BNP, calculation of annual

AIRPn is less than the smallest number calculated for other animal hazards. Analysis of data collected shows that 86% of wolf activity observed by humans was between

January and April.

4.3 Activity Based Risk Potential

4.3.1 Downhill Skiing and Snowboarding

A stratified non-random sample of skiing and snowboarding incidents, n=72, was used to assess downhill skiing and snowboarding risk as well as fatality and injury caused in BNP. Detailed data for CG (no injury) and CY (minor injury) incidents were not found for 1985 to 1994. Annual incident data (Figure 5-39) indicate a 53% decrease in CB (fatality) incidents from 1985-1994 to 1995-2004 but a 66% increase in CR (serious injury) incidents. Incidents were almost doubled annually from 1995 to 1999 before decreasing at a slightly slower pace. The increase in incidents from 1995 to 2000 corresponds to an overall increase in PVD for downhill skiers (DH) and snowboarders (SB) from a low of 750,000 in 1985 to a peak of 1,344,528 in 1999 with average PVD of 1.27 million from 1995 to 2000

(Figure 4-40). 103

10

8/ " 7/ 6 JS.

o QCG DCY > \-' f i - f% OCR LU 3-x £• aC8 • T. JTjh: ffc loeoi^-ooojcD-.— c\jcr>-^j-ir5cor-oocnc3-— CVJCD'"* OS CT1 Oi 0> O) OS CTJ 0> O) 0> Oi C31 CT> 05 O) O O C3 O O -.— i— •.— •.— T— -— i— T— i— ..— •.— ,— •.— i— -.— CSJCNJOJCMC\J

Figure 4- 39: Annual downhill skiing and snowboarding events by incident type and year BNP 1985-2004

Figure 4- 40: Annual variation in PVD for downhill skiers and snowboarders in BNP, 1985-2004

Analysis of the sample data determined that the cause of the incident was known in 48 cases. The most frequent cause of injury or fatality was from hitting a tree (29.6%) followed by avalanche (22.7%) and collisions (16%) (Figure 4-41).

Further analysis of injury causes indicate that a DH or SB is more likely to suffer an injury or fatality from hitting a tree or encountering an avalanche since 1995 than before that date. Injuries and fatalities from hitting a tree have increased 125% in the 104 decade 1995-2004 while avalanche injuries and fatalities increased an alarming

300%. Collision incidents decreased 60%, falls decreased 50% and falls from a chairlift have remained the same (Figure 4-42).

8i

7 1-"

I 5r" DCB m CR l2 3 + • CY 2K

Hit Tree Avalanche Collision Other Fall Fall From Hit Rock IB Chairlift

Figure 4- 41: Cause of injury or fatality for downhill skiers and snowboarders in BNP 1985-2004.

• 1 985-1 994 m 1 995-2004 5 3

hit tree avalanche collision fall fall from chair

Figure 4- 42: Cause of injury or fatality for downhill skiers and snowboarders by decade, BNP 1985-2004

As expected, most downhill ski and snowboard events occur in Q4 (60%) with Ql and Q3 near 20% each. Q4 incidents were fairly evenly distributed across the months of January February, and March (Figure 4-43). 105

7 ......

I I X 3 1 i 2

o . 1 BHI I hr Nov Dec Feb Mar Jan Apr* May • CB_ _1_ 3 4 5 6 4 O • CR 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 • CY O O 1 1 4 1 O m CG o 3 O O 0 1 O Figure 4- 43: Monthly distribution of downhill ski and snowboard events by incident type in BNP 1985-2004

Quarterly distribution of all events in Figure 4-44 illustrates the annual predominance of Q4 for downhill skiing and snowboarding activities and the surge in DH/SB events from 1995 to 2000.

5

4

I 3 o • Q1 o aQ2 c

> *• DQ3 UJ • Q4 1 TI— n— in n —• m " n i ~^ I III I III III1

0 'I IIo I cu n •q-I m COII r>~I OO o> o IIICM CO T ' CO OO CO CO GO —o., > o> o> cn o> o> o> o> o> o —o, o o o 0> O) CJ) CJ> O a> o> en O) en o> o> o> en en o o o o o C\J CM CM CM CM

Figure 4- 44: Annual downhill ski and snowboard events by quarter BNP 1985-2004

Annual Risk Potential

Calculation of the annual Individual Risk Potential (IRPn) (Figure 4-45,) demonstrates an inverse relationship with the temporal distribution of DH and SB 106 incidents and visitor numbers between 1985 and 2004 (Figure 4-46 and 4-47).

Conversely there is a direct relationship between visitor numbers and incident events

(Figure 4-46, 4-47). Beginning in 1994 overall risk dropped by a factor of three and has remained stable at this level. The 1994 drop in risk levels coincided with a steep increase in visitor numbers and person visit days (PVD) between 1995 and 2004

(Figure 4-46).

6.00E-04 5.00E-04 4.00E-04 £ 3.00E-04 2.00E-04 1 .OOE-04 0.00E+00

Figure 4- 45: Annual IRPn for downhill skiers and snowboarders in BNP 1985-2004

00000000)0)00)00 a)OOCT>0)0)0)CT>00 1-T-i-i-i-i-i-i-CVICVJ

Figure 4- 46: PVD for downhill skiers and snowboarders in BNP 1985-2004 107

Figure 4- 47: Annual downhill ski and snowboard incidents in BNP 1985-2004

4.3.2 Cross Country Skiing

Detailed data for cross country skiers (XC) were limited to that supplied by

Parks Canada for 1995 to 2004 and was cumulative data only (Table 4-6). The only other incident data was for the fatality from a cougar-human encounter in 2001 which was already included in the Parks Canada data. AIRPn was calculated for cross country skiers in general and for cougar specifically. Results are shown in

Table 4-7.

Table 4-6: Cross country ski events by incident type, BNP 1995-2004 CB CR CG 'Vi 1985-2004 2 0 8 23 33

Table 4 - 7: Annual AIRPn for cross country skiers BNP 1995-2004 Hazard Decade CB CR AIRPn General 1985-2004 1.68E-04 0.00E+00 6.72E-06 1.93E-06 1.77E-04 Cougar 1985-2004 5.04E-06 0.00E+00 2.02E-07 5.80E-08 5.30E-06

5.3.3 Backcountry Skiers

A stratified non-random sample of backcountry skiers (BC), n=30, was used to assess backcountry ski risk as well as fatality and injury causes in BNP. Data was slightly more detailed for the period 1995-2004 than for the period 1985-1994. 108

Annual incident data (Figure 4-48) does not show any significant change in total events between the two decades. There was, however, an 80% decrease in CB

(fatality) incidents from 1985-1994 to 1995-2004 which was offset by an increase of

400% in CR (serious injury) incidents and a 300% increase in CY (minor injury) incidents.

D

A HCG • CY nt s 1 HCR Ev e 1 • CB II _ n 1 l lT)(Or>-00050i-IMCO-<3-U5CDh-000)Oi-CJC«5-g- OOOOCOOOC0050>0)0>050>0>0)0>0)00000 0>0>0>0>0)000>00500>C50)0)00000 i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-CMCMCMCMCM

Figure 4- 48: Annual events for backcountry skiers by incident type and year BNP 1985-2004

Quarterly data indicates that 77% of all BC events occur in Q4 with the majority of those events (76%) taking place in January and February (Figure 4-49).

Avalanche incidents (74%) are the most prominent cause of fatalities or injuries for backcountry skiers while 13% of fatalities and injuries are attributed to fall events.

Overall, avalanches accounted for 80% of overall incidents and 86% of CB incidents for backcountry skiers (Figure 4-50). 109

------— _ . _ . . _. . .. 12 i- 10 . — •• 8 f- f—m~ "ppi > •u 4 - - " " •" r mm : I—EH JlJfp; Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 DCB 3 0 1 10 aCR o 0 1 3 DCY 0 0 0 1 aCG 2 0 0 9 - ...... _ _. . - -. _. Figure 4- 49: Distribution of backcountry events by quarter and incident type BNP 1985-2004

_. ---] (""••'-'A 12

10

8 ;: • • OB 6 • i nCR Event s 4 4 i nCY

2 ?1 j£Zi53tKKBEZZ?l :GLK=7% J 0 Avalanche Fall Frozen

Figure 4- 50: Most probable cause of injury or fatality for backcountry skiers BNP 1985-2004

Annual Risk Potential

Calculation of annual Individual Risk Potential (IRPn) (Figure 4-51) shows a moderate direct correlation to incident data with corresponding peaks in 1988 and

1990. Risk appeared to be high when incidents were high. Overall risk decreased in the mid nineties when visitor population increased and incident numbers decreased.

Peaks in both risk and incidents appear again from 2000 to 2002. Overall, risk varied inversely with population fluctuations throughout the 20 year study. AIRPn no values for each cause of backcountry ski injuries and fatalities identified from the sample data are indicated in Figure 4-52.

2.50E-03

2.00E-03

-CB

1.50E-03 CR

Cy

1 .OOE-03 CG

-Poly. (CB)

5.00E-04

0.00E+00 mcDh~coa>o*-c\ico'frmcor^coa>oi-c\jco aOOOCOGOGOO)0)0)0>(7>0>0)0>0)C>0000 O)050>0505050)050>0>0>05050)0>0000 i-i-i-i-T-T-*-,-,-i-,--i-T--r-.i-C\JOJ(NC\l

Figure 4- 51: Annual IRPn for Backcountry skiers in BNP 1985-2004

5.00E-04

4.00E-04^

3.00E-04K < 2.00E-04 X 1.00E-04-K

0.00E+00 I BC BNP Avalanche Fall Freezing

Figure 4- 52: AIRPn for each cause of injury or fatality for backcountry skiers, BNP 1985- 2004

4.3.4 Ice Climbing

A stratified non-random sample, n=79, was used to assess risk as well as fatality and injury cause in BNP in ice climbers (IC). The data indicate a surge in events in decade two starting in 1997 with a slight decrease in 2001 and 2002 before increasing again in 2003 and 2004 (Figure 4-53). Average IC incidents from 1995 to

2004 were 6.6 incidents per year. Prior to 1995, average ice climbing incidents averaged 1.3 events per year from 1985 to 1994. A corresponding surge in visitor Ill numbers from 1995 to 2000, coupled with rising popularity and the inherent dangers associated with the activity, most likely contributed to an overall surge of 408% in incidents froml995-2004. All incident types have shown an increase with the largest being CG (1900%) followed by CY (480%), CB (267%) and (CR (50%).

12,

w'S

a QCG • CY aCR • CB

2K JJTZ T-cMco^mtor-cooo oCO Tof o o W W N 00 CM

Figure 4- 53: Annual ice climbing events by incident type and year BNP 1985-2004

A seasonal analysis of the data set indicated that the majority of IC incidents occur in Q4 (73%) and Q3 (20%). March accounts for the highest number of incidents in Q4 with 37%. February, slightly lower with 23% and January at 13%, round out Q4 incidents (Figure 4-54). March also accounts for most non-injurious incidents (95%).

20 i- 1 15 : * 10 ', ! . 1 Even t Coun 1 _bdn 5 i —. ~ T~W 1 H S3 I n n 0 i Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

OCB 0 0 1 3 1 5 1 3 BCR 1 0 0 3 0 4 2 0 • CY 0 0 1 8 9 9 6 0 •_CG . 1 0_ 0_ 0. 0^ _0_ 20 0

Figure 4- 54: Ice climbing events by incident type and month BNP 1985-2004 112

Further analysis of the data determined avalanches were the cause of 43% of all ice climbing (IC) incidents, followed closely by falls at 35%. A fatality is 50% more likely to occur from an avalanche, while incidents from falls result in an injury rate of 86% (Figure 4-55).

nCB iCR i2 aV DCY d CG

fT_ —HB Fall Ice Fall Avalanche Rockfall Stranded Weather

Figure 4- 55: Most likely cause of ice climbing incidents in BNP 1985-2004

Annual Risk Potential

Calculation of annual Individual Risk Potential (IRPn) (Figure 4-56) shows a moderate inverse correlation to incident data. Risk was highest in 1987 when incidents were lowest; however, 1987 only had CB (fatality) incidents which have the highest severity weighting factor and thus a more direct impact on annual risk.

Conversely, risk decreased through the late 1980's and remained fairly even from

1993 to 2004. Although incidents counts were highest in this period at 84% of total incidents, visitor numbers also increased by 29% during the same period and would have offset any risk attributed to increased incident counts. As expected, the risk for individual causes of fatality and injury mirror the incident causes (Table 4-8). 113

-»-CB • - • CR CY CG -*- IRPn Poly. (IRPn)

ir>cor^ooo>o*-c\jcO'«*mcDr^coo>oi-c\jco^- COOOOOOOCOO>CJ>O>O>G>O>0}0>O>O>OOOOO 0}05050>0>0>0)0>0>050>OOCJ>0)00000 T-T-1-l-t-T-T-l-T-1-T-l-l-7-^-CJCVJOJOgCM

Figure 4- 56: Annual IRPnfor ice climbers in BNP 1985-2004

Table 4 - 8: AIRPn for IC overall and by incident cause BNP 1985-2004

CB CR CG AIRPn ICBNP 1.27E-03 1.37E-04 3.17E-05 9.49E-07 1.44E-03 Fall 5.64E-05 1.37E-05 6.34E-06 5.42E-08 7.65E-05 Avalanche 7.51 E-05 5.87E-06 4.53E-06 1.22E-07 8.56E-05 Icefall 5.64E-05 1.96E-06 1.36E-06 0.00E+00 5.97E-05 Rockfall 1.88E-05 3.91 E-06 4.54E-07 0.00E+00 2.32E-05

4.3.5 Rock Climbing

A stratified non-random sample, n=40, was used to assess risk as well as fatality and injury cause for rock climbers (RC) in BNP. The data indicates an overall decrease in total incidents from 1985-1994 to 1995-2004 by 26% (Table 4-

9). With the exception of 1991, when RC incidents spiked to nine for the year, incident totals have remained at three or less annually (Figure 4-57).

Table 4 - 9: Decadal differences in rock climbing incident types BNP 1985-2004 Decade Totals CB CR CG Te i 1995-2004 2 6 7 2 17 1985-1994 6 8 6 3 23 % Overall -66.67% -25.00% 16.67% -33.33% -26.09% Difference 114

9 8 ''

7 <•" 6 s~ c 5 aCG • CY BCR • CB

Qi-CMC03; S cooooocoo)a)0)0)a>a>a>o)o>o>ooooo 0)O5O5O)O)O)O5O5C35O>O)O5O^O)O)OOOOO -i-i-T-i--i-T-i-i-7--i--i--r-i-i--i-C\IC\JC\l

Figure 4- 57: Annual rock climbing events by incident type and year BNP 1985-2004

Analyses of the data indicate that 61% of all rock climbing (RC) incidents occurs in Q2, with 27% in July, 19.5% in August and 14.6% in September. Incidents in Q2 total 27% of all incidents (Figure 4-58). Further analysis determined that 83% of all RC incidents resulted from a fall with 71% resulting in some form of injury

(Figure 4-59). The majority occurred in June, July, and August. (Figure 4-58).

Annual distribution of incidents by quarter (Figure 4-60) illustrates the temporal consistency of incidents in Q2 each year. Incidents in Ql are also moderately consistent annually; however, Q3 has recently started recording RC incidents.

8 T- 7-1 6 4-

Figure 4- 58: Rock climbing incidents by quarter and incident type. BNP 1985-2004 115

nCB (0 «•* rjCR c > nCY gCG

Stranded Rockfall

Figure 4- 59: Most likely cause of a rock climbing incident. BNP 1985-2004

6

5

4 • Q1 nt s > • Q2 HI • Q3 2 •—— — HQ4

1

n 0*-CMCO'*lO0'i-CMCO^- s-_cooococoo>0)0>0505a)aia>050)00oo o 050>05050^0>0>030>05CDC7ia>0>CT)00000 *-I-T-T-T-,-T-,-I-,-,-,-,-T-I-C\JC\IC\JC\IC\I Figure 4- 60: Rock climbing incidents by quarter and year. BNP 1985-2004

Risk Potential Analysis

Calculation of annual Individual Risk Potential (IRPn) (Figure 4-56) shows a moderate correlation to incident data with yearly variations coinciding with variations in incident data. Rock climbing was one of the few activities that recorded a decrease in incident events associated with an overall moderate 18% increase in user numbers. User numbers, however, only increased beyond the 20-year annual 116 average in five of those years, 1996 to 2000. Analysis of the AIRPn calculations indicated the greatest risk for rock climbers is from falling (Table 4-10).

I

o

jn 2.00E-04 f-

1.00E-04 -4-

0.0OE+O0 m to i-- co 05 00 CO CO 00 GO O O O) O) O)

Figure 4- 61: Annual degree of risk, IRPn, for rock climbers in BNP 1985-2004

Table 4 -10: Annual risk for rock climbers by incident type and incident cause BNP 1985-2004 CB CR CG TAR Rock Climbing BNP 1.18E-04 1.89E-05 3.18E-06 7.84E-08 1.41E-04 Falling 2.24E-05 5.61 E-06 9.45E-07 2.12E-09 2.90E-05 Rockfall 3.20E-06 0.00E+00 8.58E-08 0.00E+00 3.28E-06

4.3.6 Mountain Climbing

A stratified non-random sample, n=156, was used to assess risk as well as fatality and injury causes for mountain climbers (MC) in BNP. A larger data set was used for MC incidents. Since mountain climbing is more high profile due to the perceived high risk nature of the activity, data are recorded in numerous places and are readily available. In the last decade of the study (1995-2004) overall MC incidents decreased by 34%. Additionally, all incident types showed declines with the greatest decreases occurring in CR (61%) and CB (40%). (Table 4-11). Average incidents from 1985 to 1994 equaled 9.4 incidents per year, while average incidents from 1995 to 2004 were 6.2 incidents per year. Annual data indicates high incident 117 numbers in 1986 and from 1990 to 1994. Since 1994, numbers decreased steadily until 1998. Incident numbers remained near the decadal average of 6.2 incidents per year from 1998 to 2004 with the exception of 2001 and 2004 when incident numbers surged near the 20-year average of 15.6 incidents per year (Figure 4-62). No obvious trends in weather account for these spikes and visitor numbers decreased by approximately 20,000 from 1999 to 2004.

Table 4 -11: Difference in mountain climbing events by incident type and decade BNP 1985-2004 CB CR CY CG TE 1995-2004 15 7 19 21 62 1985-1994 25 18 21 30 94 % Change -40% -61% -9.5 -30% -34%

OCB • CR OCY aCG

EBBE M mJl nJl COCOOOCOGOO)0>0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0000m 0 0)0)0)0)0>0)G)cno)0)0]a)0)0)?)OOOoo l-T-1-!-1--^T-*-l-,-T-T-T-T--^C\|CNCNCgCM

Figure 4- 62: Annual mountain climbing incidents by incident type and year BNP 1985-2004

Mountain climbing incidents were found to occur predominately in Q2

(72%) (Figure 4-63) with the majority happening in July and August (61%) (Figure

4-63). Weather is the deciding factor in quarterly and monthly distribution of MC incidents as the months of July, August and September are the warmest and driest months and the snow has sufficiently melted to allow access to the mountain passes and peaks.

Further analysis determined that 78% of all MC fatalities and 56% of all incidents were attributed to a fall. Incidents involving a rescue of stranded climbers were a result of either climbing beyond their abilities, or from becoming fatigued. 118

These factors accounted for 57% of all CG incidents and 16% of total incidents.

(Figure 4-64).

20 • •------;

15 I I

Figure 4- 63: Quarterly mountain climbing incidents by month and incident type BNP 1985-2004

45 - -- - •

35 j-

30 r- | 25)- § 20 L Ul I 15 r- 1 10 i- I — IH •1 n .—. IFall • nIc_e Fal l Avalanche Rockfsil l Lost Stranded Weather DCB 40 4 3 2 0 0 2 • CR 21 1 4 2 0 0 0 DCY 25 0 3 8 0 0 1 aCG 5 0 3 1 11 26 0

Figure 4- 64: Common causes of mountain climbing incidents by incident type BNP 1985-2004

Risk Potential Analysis

Calculation of annual Individual Risk Potential (IRPn) (Figure 4-65) shows a moderate to strong correlation to severity of the incident annually, and a low to moderate inverse correlation with incident counts over the 20 year study period.

Overall there is a slight trend upwards in MC IRPn, while incident numbers have 119 decreased over the same period. Risk tends to increase when CB incidents increase and decrease in their absence, even if incident counts for CR, CY and CG remain high. Low IRPn in 2001 reflects the effect of incident severity on risk level. In 2001 incidents totaled 13 which was 2x the 10-year average yet ERPn decreased that year because the majority of the incidents were low risk CG incidents and only one was a

CB incident. Calculations of AIRPn for mountain climbers were, as expected, highest for a fall (Table 4-12).

2.00E-03

1.80E-03

1.60E-03

c 1.40E-03 0. 1.20E-03

Ris k I F 1.00E-03

8.00E-04 ie\ o f

6.00E-04

4.00E-04

2.00E-04

0.00E+00 mcDh-oooiOT-ojco^iocor^cocDO-^cNjcO'* C00000C0000)0)0)O010)050)0)0)OOOOO 0)0)C7>OT010)0)0)OaiO)0)0)(7)0500000 *-i-!-f-*-T-i-i-f-i--»-T-i-T-T-C\iCMC\ICSJCM

Figure 4- 65: Annual IRPafor mountain climbers in BNP 1985-2004

Table 4 -12: Annual level of risk, AIRPn, for mountain climbers by cause type BNP 1985-2004 CB CR CG AIRPn Mountain Climbers BNP 4.22E-04 2.63E-05 3.52E-06 4.26E-07 4.52E-04 Falling 1.02E-04 3.26E-06 5.29E-07 1.39E-08 1.06E-04 Avalanche 8.27E-06 6.86E-07 6.90E-08 8.35E-09 9.04E-06 Icefall 5.53E-06 1.71E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.70E-06 Rockfall 5.53E-06 3.44E-07 1.84E-07 2.77E-09 6.06E-06

4.1.3.7 Hiking

A stratified non-random sample, n=55, was used to assess risk as well as fatality and injury cause for hikers (H) in BNP. Parks Canada supplied decadal data for hiking which indicated that the total incidents for hikers had increased by 80% 120 from 1985-1994 to 1995-2004. During this time period CB had increased by 150%

(Table 4-13). Complete annual data for hiking incidents were unavailable from

Parks Canada.

Table 4 -13: Hiking events by incident type and decade with percentage change for Public Safety Warden Rescue Responses in BNP 1985-2004 (Parks Canada White and Gui, 2004 CB CR CG 1995-2004 20 11 60 197 288 1985-1994 8 7 34 116 160 % Overall Difference 150.00% 57.14% 76.47% 69.83% 80.00%

Analysis of the sample data also indicated increases for all incident types but with the total incidents increasing 165% (Table 4-14); however, the bias, resulting from under representation of 1985-1994 data and incident types, can account for the differences in the degree of increase between both data sets.

Table 4 -14: Hiking events by incident type and decade from sample data BNP 1985-2004 Decade CB CR CG '•: ..: 1995-2004 12 6 2 19 45 1985-1994 8 0 1 7 17 % Overall Difference 50% 600.00% 100.00% 171.43% 164.71%

The data collected indicate a 600% increase in CR incidents and a 50% increase in CB incidents in decade two. The overall trend was towards increased hiking incidents in decade two (Figure 4-66). Analysis of the sample data collected indicates that more hiking incidents occurred in Q2 (27%) with most occurring in

July (13%). The month of June in Ql has the second highest monthly incident count at 11% (Figure 4-67). 121

£3 CG OCY OCR DCB

lOOT-o>0)0)0>0)a>o>a>0)000 05050>0>a>0>0>0^0>0>0)0>0>0)OTOOO •T--^t--^T--I-t-1-7-1-t--I--I-t-l-C\JCJCg

Figure 4- 66: Hiking incidents by incident type and year BNP 1985-2004

E Apr May Jun Mar

Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q3 Q4

DCB 0 1 2 6 4 1 SCR 1 0 0 2 0 0 DCY 0 0 2 1 rjCG 0 2 6 7

Figure 4- 67: Quarterly hiking events by month and incident type BNP 1985-2004

Further analysis of the sample data determined that hiking fatalities were most likely to be a result of a fall (93%) but the majority of incidents were CG and were a result of an encounter with a grizzly bear (40%) (Figure 4-68) 122

25 Incident s 5 — GUI 8^9 -^ i M mm M •—• ^ Fall Grizzly Bear Stranded Avalanche Rockfall • CB 14 0 0 1 0 • CR 1 2 0 0 1 DCY 2 0 0 0 0 aCG 0 20 5 0 0

Figure 4- 68: Most common cause of hiking incidents by incident and cause BNP 1985-2004

Risk Potential Analysis

Annual Individual Risk Potential (IRPn) was calculated from the Parks

Canada decadal data and the sample data. Calculated IRPn for the decadal data indicates increasing risk from 1985-1994 to 1996-2004 (Figure 4-69) with annual

IRPn of 5.11E-05. The sample data IRPn is 2.78E-4 (Figure 4-70) and indicates an inverse correlation with incident data. The variation in the two calculated risks can be attributed to a small sample size with uneven distribution of the incident types.

7.00E-05 -r - £. 6.00E-05 ~ 5.00E-05 __———"Z^^* I g 4.00E-05 x—-—m^ '—" ! • "5 3.00E-05 - • $ 2.00E-05 g1 1.00E-05 Q 0.00E+00 1985-1994 1995-2004 -•-CB 3.72E-05 5.44E-05 -»- CR 3.25E-06 2.99E-06 _ CY 1.58E-06 1.63E-06 CG 5.39E-07 5.36E-07 -*- IRPn 4.26E-05 5.95E-05 Decade

Figure 4- 69: Annual IRPnfor hikers calculated from Parks Canada decadal data BNP 1985- 2004 (from Parks Canada White and Gui, 2004) 123

9.00E-04

8.00E-04

7.00E-04

-CB CR » 5.00E-04 cc CY o 4.00E-04 o> CG o) 3.00E-04 -IRPn S 2.00E-04

1.00E-04

0.00E+00 -1-*—*—* ino*-{NC)'st- OOCOCOC000050)05050>0>0)050>0)00000 05030>0)0505050>0)0>0>CJ)C350>0)00000 i-t-i-T-i-T--i-i~i-T-i-i-7-i-i-cvj(N(MC>JCJ

Figure 4- 70: Annual IRPn for hikers calculated from sample data BNP 1985-2004

Calculations of AIRPn values for hikers were highest for hiking in the Bow

Valley and the AIRPn for falling was the highest of the hiking incident causes (Table

4-15).

Table 4 -15: AIRPn for hikers and cause of hiker incident BNP 1985-2004 CB CR CG TAR Hikers BV 3.20E-04 6.37E-06 3.48E-07 2.16E-07 3.27E-04 Hikers BNP 2.72E-04 5.45E-06 2.97E-07 1.83E-07 2.78E-04 Falling 8.11E-05 1.16E-07 1.26E-08 0.00E+00 8.13E-05 Avalanche 5.80E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.80E-06 Grizzly Bear 0.00E+00 2.32E-07 0.00E+00 7.80E-08 3.10E-07 Rockfall 0.00E+00 1.16E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.16E-07

4.3.8 Scrambling

A detailed sample of scrambling incidents (SC) spanning the 20-year study period was unavailable despite the growing popularity of scrambling, the inherent risks of the activity, and the growing number of rescue responses by BNP Public

Safety Wardens.

Parks Canada was able to supply decadal scrambling data only for 1985-

1994 and 1995-2004 (Table 4-16). Analysis of the decadal data indicates an overall increase of 55% for scrambling incidents. All incident types have increased with the 124 exception of CR incidents which have decreased by 33% (Table 4-16). Population data for scramblers were also unavailable; therefore, IRPn could not be calculated.

Table 4 -16: Scrambling incidents by incident type and decade in BNP 1985-2004 (from data supplied by Parks Canada White and GUI, 2004) Decade CB CR CG 1995-2004 10 2 13 62 87 1985-1994 7 3 11 35 56 % Difference 42.86% -33.33% 18.18% 77.14% 55.36%

An extensive search of newspapers and archives at the Whyte Museum uncovered 12 documented scrambling incidents which is too small a sample size to determine risk. The data were analyzed and indicated that a scrambler was 75% more likely to suffer an injury from a fall than from other incidents and that 66% of the time the fall was fatal (Figure 4-71). Given the limitations of the small sample size the interpretations are to be taken with a degree of caution.

7..— - — • - - -,

5

c 4 9? > T - 2 1 • 0 •H •• IS Fall Stranded Rockfall • CB 6 0 0 aCR 1 0 0 • CY 1 0 1 • CG 1 3 0

Figure 4- 71: Most likely cause of hiking event by incident type and cause BNP 1985-2004

4.3.9 Mountain Biking

A detailed sample of mountain biking incidents spanning each year of the

20-year study period was unavailable. Despite a thorough search, only two events 125 were found in local newspapers. Parks Canada did not have detailed annual data but did supply decadal data for 1995-2004. As was the case with many activities, there has been little done to track spatially and temporally the hazards and risk associated with mountain biking. There has been limited work done on mountain biking and bears (Schmor, 1999; Herrero and Herrero, 2000). Data collected by Schmor is used to evaluate risk in this study.

The Parks Canada data was used to calculate risk based on the data supplied for 1995-2004 (Table 4-17). Data extracted from Schmor (1999) are outlined in

Figure 4-72 indicating encounter type and bear species.

Table 4 -17: Incident data for mountain bikers in BNP (Parks Canada White and Gui, 2004) and calculated AIRPn based on decadal numbers. 1995-2004 CB CR CG Incidents 1 2 18 31 52 CB CR CG AIRPn IRPn 7.17E-03 1.43E-03 1.29E-03 2.22E-04 1.01E-02

ran short advanced no Ran for cover distance looked ne reaction charge charge

I Black bear 12 I Grizzly bear Figure 4- 72: Incident data for mountain biker-bear encounters BNP 1998 adapted from Schmor 1999

Data collected by Schmor differentiated human-bear encounters based on a bear's reaction when a mountain biker invaded its personal space. The encounter types used by Schmor were reclassified as either non-threatening or threatening- 126 charge, following the standard utilized by other researchers in bear-human encounters (Bertch and Gibeau 2008, 2009) (Table 4-18). IRPn was calculated based on these two encounter types.

Table 4 -18: Encounter types used for IRPn calculation Encounter types used by Schmor 1999 Encounter type used for IRPn calculation Bear ran for cover without stopping Non-threatening Bear ran short distance, stopped and looked back Non-threatening Bear had no reaction Non-threatening Bear advanced or charged Charge

Overall IRPn was calculated based on this study's definition of a CG incident being any non injurious encounter as applied to data extracted from Schmor (1999).

IRPn was also calculated on data extracted from Herrero and Herrero (2000) who identified mountain bike-grizzly encounters in BNP from 1967-2000 and specifically for the Moraine Lake trail in 1998 (Table 4-19). Calculated IRPn are all close in value indicating a high likelihood of accuracy in the calculation and a low level of risk for a human-bear encounter. The value is much lower than the Parks

Canada data which includes incident from all hazard types for mountain bikers requiring a rescue by Public Safety Wardens.

Table 4 -19: IRPn for bear-mountain bike encounters BNP Bear and Encounter Type for Individual Years as Noted Below AffiP.

Overall IRPn from grizzly and black bear 1998 ' 3.03E-06 l IRPn From black bear encounter 1998 6.13E-06

IRPn From grizzly bear encounter 1998 ' 1.97E-06

IRPn From grizzly bear charge 1998 ' 3.03E-07 2 IRPn From grizzly bear encounter in BNP 1967-2000 5.60E-06 2 IRPn From grizzly bear encounter on Moraine Lake trails 1997-1998 2.49E-06 Based on data from Schmor, 1999 2 Based on data from Herrero and Herrero 2000 127

4.3.10 Paddling

As with many activities enjoyed by humans in BNP, detailed accounts of mishaps are severely lacking. Paddling activities are no exception. An extensive search of newspapers and archives found nine events from 1985-2004 involving 17 people. 30% of these incidents resulted in fatalities, all of which were drowning fatalities.

Parks Canada supplied decadal data only for canoeing, kayaking, and rafting for the period 1995-2004, which was combined with data collected from a search of the Crag and Canyon. Overall paddling incidents are low. From 1995-2004 the total was 26, 15% of which were fatalities (Figure 4-73). rRPn was calculated using the combined decadal data to calculate risk for each of the three types of paddling activities and overall paddling risk. Rafters are exposed to a slightly higher risk than kayakers while canoeists are an order of risk lower than both kayakers and rafters

(Table 4-20).

8 i

6

nt s 4

Ev e 2 0 • CANOEING RAFTING KAYAKING • CB aCR • CY • CG

Figure 4- 73: Annual incidents for paddlers by incident type and decade 1995-2004 128

Table 4 - 20: Calculated AIRPn for paddling activities by incident type and overall annual risk BNP1995-2004 CB CR Canoeing 8.34E-03 0.00E+00 3.76E-04 1.13E-04 8.83E-03 Kayaking 9.73E-03 0.00E+00 1.75E-03 0.00E+00 1.15E-02 Rafting 9.73E-03 0.00E+00 1.75E-03 6.14E-04 1.21E-02 mp„ 2.78E-02 O.0OE+0O 3.88E-03 7.27E-04 3.24E-02

4.4 FPTPD and IPTPD

Calculation of the FPTPD and the IPTPD were used to assess overall fatality and injury rates for high risk activities in BNP (Table 4-21). The calculations indicate an overall low probability of injury or fatality in BNP from high risk activities.

The injury rate for downhill skiing and snowboarding is 1.3 injuries per 1000 skier/boarder days which are lower than that of Scotland. In Scotland downhill skiers had an IPTSD of 1.74/1000 skier days while snowboarders had and IPTSD of

3.55/1000 boarder days. Scottish figures for cross country/Nordic skiing show and

IPTSD of 0.41/1000 which is slightly higher than the BNP figure of 0.3/1000 skier days (Sharp, 2007). Bentley et al. (2007) determined there were 0.6 injuries per

1000 skiers based on injury claims for downhill skiers only.

Table 4 - 21: Average FPTPD and IPTPD for high risk activities in BNP 1985-2004 High Risk Activity FPTPD IPTPD Mountain Climbing 2.45% 3.88% Ice Climbing 1.11% 3.52% Scrambling 1.03% 1.75% Rock Climbing 0.34% 1.14% Backcountry Skiing 0.33% 0.20% Downhill Skiing Snowboarding 0.12% 0.13% Hiking 0.06% 0.23% Mountain Biking 0.04% 0.73% Canoeing/Kayaking/Paddling 0.04% 0.09% Cross Country Skiing 0.03% 0.12% 129

The average BNP fatality rate from 1985 to 2004 is 1.2 fatalities per thousand skier days which is approximately twice as high as the 0.75 fatalities per thousand skier days at US ski resorts from 1991 to 2003 (NSAA, USA). However, fatalities in BNP from 2002 to 2005 decreased to zero for each year while US fatalities decreased to 0.4/1000 skier days over the same period (NSAA, USA).

Injury and death rates for the remaining high risk activities were calculated for BNP but comparable data from other locations and countries was not found.

Many studies noted the difficulty in accurately establishing the user group population for each activity (Monasterio, 2005; Bentley et al., 2006; Langran, 2009).

The results for the IPTPD and FPTPD calculations indicate that the highest probability for injury or fatality occurs in the mountain climbing, ice climbing, scrambling activities, rock climbing and backcountry skiing. In comparison, based on fatality and injury incident counts the top five activities where participants are most likely to incur a fatality or an injury are mountain climbing, downhill skiing/snowboarding, hiking, scrambling, and ice climbing (Table 4-22). However, incident counts do not account for population size. The BRPn values, in contrast, indicate scrambling, ice climbing, mountain climbing, backcountry skiing, and mountain biking are the activities most at risk (Table 4-23). Again it is difficult to compare since the IRPn value takes into account population and potential routes for each activity. However, the activities of mountain climbing, ice climbing, scrambling and back country are in the top five in each group but, although the order changes, what doesn't changes is that participants in these activities are more likely to incur and injury or fatality than in other activities. 130

Table 4 - 22: Ranking of high risk activities based on fatalities from 1985 to 2004 in BNP Activity CB CR CY Mountain Climbing 40 25 40 Downhill Skiing/Snowboarding 25 16 7 Hiking 21 12 3 Scrambling 17 5 24 Ice Climbing 14 10 34 Backcountry Skiing 14 4 5 Rock Climbing 8 14 13 Canoeing/Kayaking/Rafting 5 0 5

Table 4 - 23: Ranking of high risk activities by Risk Potential (IRPn) in BNP 1985-2004 Activity CB CR IRPn Scrambling 2.91E-03 8.85E-05 4.20E-05 3.05E-03 Ice Climbing 1.27E-03 1.37E-04 3.17E-05 1.44E-03 Mountain Climbing 4.22E-04 2.63E-05 3.52E-06 4.52E-04 Backcountry Skiing 3.99E-04 3.76E-06 2.13E-06 4.07E-04 Mountain Biking 2.31E-04 4.63E-05 4.17E-05 3.27E-04 Downhill Skiing/Snowboarding 1.76E-04 7.02E-06 2.92E-07 1.84E-04 Cross Country Skiing 1.68E-04 0.00E+00 6.72E-06 1.77E-04 Rock Climbing 1.18E-04 1.89E-05 3.18E-06 1.41E-04 Hiking 4.44E-05 2.13E-06 5.99E-08 4.71E-05

4.5 High Risk Zones

Identification of high risk regions was a key goal of this work; however, the lack of spatial and temporal data associated with incidents and the small sample sizes made it difficult. Based on the available data, high risk zones were determined for grizzly bear, avalanche, and rockfall hazard, while high risk zones were identified for all climbing, scrambling and hiking activities combined. Hazard zones were determined based on methodology defined by Ferrier and Haque (2003). There were 9 grizzly bear hazard zones, 22 climbing /scrambling/hiking hazard zones identified, 20 fall hazard zones, 16 avalanche hazard zones, and 16 rockfall hazard zones (Tables 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27 & 4-28). 131

Table 4 - 24: High risk "fall" hazard zones for in BNP

High risk areas for fall Hazard hazard CB l R r f; Rating Hazard Zone Mt. Temple 13 1 0 3 17 90 Mt. Rundle 7 2 8 0 17 90 Cascade Mt. 6 5 3 1 15 72 High Mt. Andromeda 5 5 3 0 13 56 Considerable Tunnel Mt. 4 3 2 0 9 40 Considerable Mt. Victoria 2 2 3 2 9 40 Considerable Back of the Lake Crag 0 5 6 0 11 30 Moderate Mt. Aberdeen 0 5 5 0 10 30 Moderate Castle Mountain 3 1 1 0 5 24 Moderate Mt Murchison 1 0 2 0 3 16 Moderate Mt. Lefroy 0 2 2 0 4 15 Moderate Grand Sentinel 0 2 0 0 2 14 Moderate Mt Deltaform 3 0 0 0 3 8 Low Saddle Mountain/Pass 2 0 0 0 2 8 Low Mt. Richardson 1 0 0 0 1 8 Low MtWhyte 0 0 2 0 2 6 Low Mt Babel 0 1 0 0 1 5 Low MT Collier 0 2 0 0 2 5 Low Mt. Wilson 0 1 0 0 1 5 Low MtCory 0 0 1 0 1 3 'Low

Table 4 - 25: Hazard zones for climbing , scrambling, and hikinjI in BNP High risk areas for climbing/scrambling and Hazard hiking CB CR CG Rating Hazard Zone Mt. Temple 12 3 4 18 37 100 Cascade Mt. 10 8 6 2 26 90 Mt. Rundle 9 2 2 14 27 90 Mt. Andromeda 4 5 1 6 16 72 High Tunnel Mt. 5 3 2 1 11 48 Considerable Mt. Victoria 2 2 3 2 9 40 Considerable Mt. Wilson 4 1 2 0 7 32 Moderate Back of the Lake Crag 0 5 6 0 11 30 Moderate Mt. Aberdeen 0 5 5 0 10 30 Moderate Mt. Lefroy 0 2 4 2 8 25 Moderate Mt Murchison 1 0 1 3 5 24 Moderate Mt Deltaform 3 0 0 0 3 16 Moderate Fossil Mountain 2 0 0 0 2 16 Moderate Saddle Mountain/Pass 2 0 0 0 2 16 Moderate Mt Cory 0 1 1 0 2 10 Moderate MT Collier 0 2 0 1 3 10 Moderate Castle Mountain 0 2 1 0 3 10 Moderate Mt Ishbel 0 1 2 0 3 10 Moderate Grand Sentinel 0 1 1 0 2 10 Moderate Mt. Richardson 1 0 0 0 1 8 Low Mt Whyte 0 0 2 0 2 6 Low Mt Babel 0 1 0 0 1 5 Low 132

Table 4 - 26: High risk grizzly bear zones in BNP High Risk Zones for Grizzly Hazard Bear Encounters CB /'•;>, Rating Hazard Zone Lake Louise area 0 7 0 12 19 60 Considerable Lake Minnewanka - Cascade 0 1 0 15 16 45 Considerable Bryant Creek - Mt. Assiniboine 0 2 1 1 4 15 Moderate Dolomite Pass 0 0 0 7 7 8 Low

Table 4 - 27: High risk rockfall zones in BNP High Risk RockfaU Hazard Zones CB CR C.Ci Rating Hazard Zone Mt. Temple 2 0 3 0 5 24 Moderate Cascade Mt. 1 1 1 0 3 16 Moderate Mt. Victoria 1 0 1 0 2 16 Moderate Mt. Lefroy 0 2 2 0 4 15 Moderate Mt. Cory 0 2 0 0 2 10 Moderate Mt. Little 1 0 0 0 1 8 Low Castle Crags 1 0 0 0 1 8 Low Mt. Patterson 0 0 1 1 2 6 Low Mt. Louis 0 0 1 1 2 6 Low House Peak 0 1 0 0 1 5 Low Weeping Wall 0 1 0 0 1 5 Low Moraine Lake 0 1 0 0 1 5 Low Grand Sentinel 0 0 1 0 1 3 Low Mt. Fay 0 0 1 0 1 3 ; Low Louise Falls 0 0 1 0 1 3 Low Johnson Canyon 0 0 1 0 1 3 Low

Table 4 - 28: High risk avalanche zones in BNP High risk areas for Hazard avalanche hazard CB CI €G Rating: Hazard Zone Cascade Mountain 6 2 7 0 15 72 High Lake Louise Ski Resort 3 1 8 0 12 56 Considerable Wapta Icefield 1 1 2 2 6 32 Moderate Sunshine Village Ski Resort 2 0 0 3 5 24 Moderate Mt. Temple 2 3 0 0 5 24 Moderate Bow Summit/Falls/lake 2 2 0 0 4 24 Moderate Mt. Baker 2 0 0 3 5 24 Moderate Healy Creek 4 0 0 0 4 24 Moderate Mt. Wilson 3 0 2 0 5 24 Moderate Fossil Mountain 2 0 0 0 2 16 Moderate Plain of Six Glaciers/Lake Agnes 1 0 1 0 2 16 Moderate Parker Ridge 1 1 0 0 2 16 Moderate Icefield Parkway 0 0 4 2 6 12 Moderate Mt. Andromeda 0 1 0 1 2 10 Moderate Mt. Howard Douglas 1 0 0 0 1 8 Low 133

Hazard zones for mass movement were also identified along the Trans-

Canada Highway, Icefield parkway, Highway 93 and 93A, and other secondary use roads (Figure 4-74) Mass movements were not classified using the system developed for other hazards because these events did not cause injuries or fatalities to humans. They have been documented using GPS coordinates to identify their spatial extent along the above mentioned highways (Appendix 3-3).

The GIS map for the mass movement hazards (Figure 4-74) identifies the spatial distribution of debris flow, landslide, mudslide, rock fall, flash flood, and slump hazards along the TCH, Icefield Parkway, Lake Minnewanka loop, Bow

Valley Parkway and Sunshine Village access road. The associated GIS maps for grizzly bear hazard zone, fall hazard zone, climbing, scrambling and hiking, avalanche hazard zone, and rockfall hazard zone (Figures 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-

79) clearly identify the spatial distribution of hazard zones for natural hazards and action hazards for the assessed high risk activities. 134

Figure 4- 74: Mass movement processes located along the Trans Canada Highway, Icefield parkway, Highway 93 and 93A, Lake Minnewanka Loop Road in BNP. 5' £P p C o ft

3! P

a- CD 3- p N P

o

03 p 3 3! Z p 5° 3 P_

oo Lake Minnew anka i Moderate Cascade oK) o Considerable , CSSCS33 U*. High p N P • Extreme Bryant Creek - oN 3 Mount Assiniboine 0 10 20 30 Kilometers 136

—ttf— X* /''' ^ o>E /_.-' to ^ u

• ••;•; •

Figure 4- 76: Hazard zones for falling while participating in risk-taking activities in BNP 1985-2004 \ V. Mt Risi*«J5*s© B V^^ lv._ • Fosst Mt Basket the Laies Cfjg . 1 h^f*W it»«(bu>»i» .-••-* WtCoSisr! W MM**** Mt Victoria V \

'C#stls ^t Moderate \*•••-•:. /•3t3^ Se^ti^e^ ' ^mSsss? ?,3t SeSafefm '^^-.„ Considerable ^^-~-

High -..£4: G&tjf.. • Extreme

\ 0 10 20 30 Kilometers X;,,

^1 00 s

P N P o ft

P< P_ P 3 o

Wl

o o

• LOW Moderate Considerable High • Extreme

oo 480000 53D000 560000 600000 5S40ooo "~\A + + -5S400CO f / Hazard Zones Hazard zone legend.dbf / % LOW / MODERATE 5800000 -5800000 + CONSIDERABLE / HIGH

Jasper l(l EXTREME "^v-Weeping Wall \ ,..r.,v.- ,) -, .....v

+ - / \ 57S00CO -5760000

\ ?JHawse Peak

•SMt. Patterson / •> -,./ Banff , c ^"x \ / ., 5720000 + .5720003 f " SI / / / r r*' Yoho S\ / '"""' \ • : , Louise nalts ^ C" Mt VictoriaJmLake Louisa.-, •' V -' v / Field* iSftfemple " N ' .. \ Mt. Lefroy llyjMaaine Lake ', •Golderk Grand Senti]iei fct rt#Castle C,885S^: 5680000 -Glacier ^\+"r +"] Mi. Little - ,-^^mMt. Cory )tir\af ' -5680000 \ \ Johnson Canyon"sV • * JKcascade Ml

\Kootenay) * !. s '\#C.anmore > -i • v- •• '

3640000 -5640000 + x \ V ' \-

5600000 + + + + -5600000

480000 52)000 960000 600000

Figure 4- 79: Hazard zones for rock fall in BNP 1985-2004 140

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Discussion

5.1.1 Evaluation and Limitation of Data

Banff National Park has been a premier destination for recreationists and tourists since its inception in 1885. A unique blend of geography, vegetation, and wildlife satiate the needs of a wide range of recreational users and tourists and, as such, the complexity of users and activities is great. The wild nature of a mountain park, its animals, its ruggedness, its remoteness, and its exposure to the elements, naturally create an environment of risk for human users operating outside their normal milieu.

This study utilizes a compilation of hazard incidents for geomorphic and animal hazards, and high risk activities in BNP from 1985-2004 in order to assess

"Individual Risk Potential"(IRPn). The retrieval of incident data, especially as it applied to animal hazards, was challenging. Prior to 1994, Parks Canada tracked wildlife observation and occurrence reports in a national wildlife tracking system

(CanSIS). The occurrence data base records animal encounters that result in an incident but the data is inaccurate and unreliable because of inconsistencies in recording and duplication of data. Many reports were entered in this system as well as a wildlife observation card database with a format that included coded value fields and multiple text fields.

The transition to a desktop technology resulted in new oracle databases being designed and implemented to allow a range of park specific record keeping methods.

Many omissions and duplication occurred during the transition to the new database 141 and there is no backwards compatibility with any of the old systems. To compound matters, the new National occurrence tracking system is stationed in Ottawa and local database specialists have limited access. The public safety portion of the occurrence reports is more reliable mainly due to the diligence of Tim Auger, former

BNP Public Safety Manager, who input all occurrence data manually (T. Gui, pers. comm., October, 2009).

The data supplied by Parks Canada has been verified to have a high level of accuracy by the Parks Canada database specialist, Tao Gui; however, the completeness of the database comes with a lower confidence. Detailed annual and seasonal data for all high risk activities and specific hazard types were not available.

Data for activities such as mountain climbing and hazards such as avalanches were complete for the 20-year study period. Data supplied for all other activities and hazards were at varying degrees of completeness. The majority of data for some activities and hazards were supplied in decadal form only for the periods 1985-1994 and 1995-2004, but for most activities and hazards the data were considered reliable only for the period 1995-2004.

The problem with the Parks Canada database is that it only tracks events that are serious enough to warrant a response from public safety wardens. Events that are unreported, human-animal encounters, and those where victims transport themselves or are transported by others are not included. Data compiled from this research attempted to bridge this gap.

The retrieval of incident and hazard data from newspaper archives is also problematic. In many cases, neither the required spatial or temporal detail nor the 142 root cause of the incident is available. Completeness of the data retrieved from newspaper archives is also an issue. Newspapers tend to report the disasters, the injuries and the deaths, especially for high profile activities such as mountain climbing or high profile occurrences such as avalanches but do not for less glamorous activities such as hiking and scrambling. There is also no guarantee that every incident makes it into the national or local newspapers. In particular, incidents where there is no injury or fatality, the code green or non injurious incident as defined by this study, do not get reported consistently.

Accurate data for climbing activities were collected from Accidents in North

American Mountaineering 1985 through 2004 published jointly by the American

Alpine Club and the Alpine Club of Canada. This publication provides detailed data on climbing accidents which includes spatial, temporal, and causal data. In addition, weather conditions, experience level and gender data are sometimes included.

The collection of any data raises a concern of how complete and representative the sample is of the population you wish to assess? It is difficult to know what portion of animal encounters or hazard events are actually reported

(Herrero and Herrero, 2000; Bertch and Gibeau, 2008; 2009). Schmor (1999) found that 76% of grizzly bear-mountain biker encounters went unreported. A number of factors can affect the reporting of incidents. The non-reporting of incidents may be influenced by the severity of the incident, the proximity to a telephone or to cellular coverage, remoteness of the location, available reporting locations and hours of operation, knowledge of where to report and how to contact authorities, or closeness to home. 143

One of the limitations of this study was the paucity of detailed annual data for activities such as scramblers, hikers, mountain bikers and cross country skiers.

The lack of information on human use and activities is a limiting factor in acquiring representative samples and determining risk. The documentation of visitor use and activities is limited (Hodgins et al., 2000). The studies that have been done are decades old (Simic, 2007) or deal with human use levels on specific trails or in key areas (Hopkins and Mickle, 1997; Parks Canada 1995; 1995a; 1995b; 2000). The paucity of data limited sample sizes in some cases and prevented the calculation of

IRPn-

A second limitation involved the accurate determination of population or visitor numbers for tourists and specific activity user groups. There are no definitive datasets on visitor numbers and specific user group numbers in BNP (Pacas et el.,

1996). For the purpose of this study, and to calculate risk potential, visitation numbers estimated by parks Canada were used. User group populations were calculated as a percentage of overall visitor numbers based on activity participation percentages as noted in various visitor surveys on BNP and the Mountain Parks

(Pacas et al., 1996; Parks Canada 2003; Simic, 2007; Lang research, 2007; Parks

Canada 2008). Although the user population values are not complete, they are representative of the user groups and were applied consistently to each year of the study and as such are sufficient to determine "Individual Risk Potential".

A third limitation was lack of a detailed spatial inventory of geomorphic hazard in BNP. Though it may be unrealistic and impossible to identify every geographic location of every geomorphic hazard, an inventory outlining geomorphic 144 hazards in high use areas would be advantageous. Knowledge of spatial location of hazard type and location would increase the accuracy of "Risk Potential" calculations for individuals and would better define regions of risk. The number of climbing routes, scrambling routes, ski runs, hiking trails, mountain biking trails and mountain peaks was used as a proxy in the absence of accurate hazard inventories for BNP. Bias may be introduced as there is no way to know if the path chosen was exposed to specific hazard areas or how many times a bear, cougar, wolf, or elk crossed a trail used by humans. A better variable to use may be the vertical feet skied or climbed, kilometers of trail hiked or biked or kilometers of water paddled.

Limitations are a reality of scientific research when studying new areas where definitive variables are not readily available. Nascent results, however, are often gathered through well-informed estimation of various parameters and variables critical to the current research question. In many cases the only means of estimating hazard or predicting outcomes is by making assumptions. Knowledgeable assumptions, adjustments and standardizations are necessary to obtain estimated parameters which become tools for prediction, planning and, policy and program development.

The core of scientific inquiry is the continual process of rigorous reasoning supported by dynamic interplay among methods, theories, and findings (Shavelston,

2002). Shavelston proposed six guiding principles to effective scientific research, first, "pose significant questions that can be answered empirically". Secondly, "link research to relevant theories". Thirdly, "use methods that permit direct investigation of the question". Fourthly, "provide a coherent and explicit chain of reasoning". 145

Fifthly, "replicate and generalize across studies". Sixthly, "disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique". To meet these principles it is often required to make assumptions, predictions, and standardizations to estimate outcomes and generate discussion and further research.

Fisher (1955) states that "during the present century a good deal of progress seems to have been made in the business of interpreting observational data, so as to obtain a better understanding of the real world". Fisher further notes, that progress has been made possible by three aspects of importance, first, the use of more accurate mathematical methods and more ideas in mathematical statistics, which lead to "more correct or exact methods of calculation, applied to the given body of data". Secondly, as better methods of summarizing and drawing conclusion approached adequacy, the subject of experimental design was developed with the aim of obtaining more precise and complete data. Thirdly, "as a natural or even concomitant of the first two, a more complete understanding has been reached of the structure and peculiarities of inductive logic-that is of reasoning from the sample to the population from which the sample was drawn, from consequences to causes"

(Fisher, 1955).

Accurately assessing statistical associations is a common problem in social research (Kalton, 1968). Statistical measures can indicate strength, but not provide evidence for the basis of an association thereby telling nothing of cause and effect

(Kalton, 1968). Kalton proposes the use of standardization as a technique to control extraneous variables in survey analysis. Standardization weights are chosen, "in the 146 case of estimation, in order to minimize the variance of the estimator and, in the case of a significance test, in order to maximize the power of the test" (Kalton, 1968).

Standardization is routinely used by demographers to combine results after control of an extraneous variable led to subgroup analysis. Standardization is often required to interpret measurements for concomitant factors (Heagerty and Pepe,

1999). Kitawaga (1964) discussed various standardization methods the relationship between standardized rates and index numbers. Standardization is also effective as a survey analysis tool (Yates, 1960; Rosenburg, 1962). A limitation of standardization is the determination of weighting schemes used to form indices. In some cases comparison dictates the weight, but not in all cases. Commonly, it is only necessary to use the same weights for both groups in a comparison and, in order fore the indices to be meaningful, that the weights reasonably reflect the distribution of the group over the control. The British Index of Retail Prices is an economic example while the standardized mortality ratio and the comparative mortality factor are demography examples (Kalton, 1968), while Generalized Linear Models (GLM's) have been used to develop standardized catch and effort data for the fisheries industry ( Nelder and Wedderburn, 1972,; Gavaris, 1980; Maunder and Punt, 2004).

Assumptions are sometimes necessary in scientific research when previous research does not exist, variables and or their influence are unknown, or where quantitative measurement is not possible. Bunce et al. (1997) made simplifying assumptions about traffic and rock falls to estimate hazards to vehicles in the

Argillite Cut on British Columbia Highway 99. Assumptions on rockfall and rock slide class as well as the size of events of unknown magnitude were instrumental in 147 the development of magnitude-cumulative frequency (MCF) relationships by Hungr et al. (1999). Hungr et al. noted the difficulty in estimating the vulnerability of occupants of vehicles from an given rockfall impact due to the difficulty in predicting the frequency and magnitude of rockfall events and vehicle movement.

Estimates and assumptions are also commonplace in the field of climatology.

Hargreaves (1994) noted that "estimates of reference evapotranspiration (ET0) and crop coefficients (KC) are widely used to estimate crop and vegetative water use and requirements". Claussen (1990) utilized "the concept of blending height to estimate areally averaged surface fluxes of momentum and heat in a stratified, horizontally inhomogeneous surface-layer flow". Clausen based this on the assumption that if at adequate heights above a heterogeneous surface subsequent surface modifications will not be recognized in the flow individually, but the overall surface conditions of a large area will are represented by the flux and mean profiles. Kirnbauer et al.

(1994) identified the need for spatially distributed estimates of snow cover and snowmelt in current snow models, erosion models, solute transport and land use change models. The role of albedo in determining rate and spatial distribution of snowmelt is widely known (Peterson, 1974; Male and Granger, 1978, 1981;

Choudbury and Chang, 1981; Woo and Dubreuil, 1985). Bloschl (1991) simulated albedo using a range of model parameters representative of different snow cover conditions to determine snowmelt rate in the Austrian Alps.

It is evident that the use of assumptions, data adjustments, and standardizations are necessary to obtain the necessary estimated parameters required to carry out effective scientific research and build knowledge over time. They are 148 essential in an effort to fill in gaps in existing knowledge, to seek new knowledge, identify causes, or to validate hypotheses.

5.1.2 Evaluation of Risk Potential and Incident Data as a Hazard Assessment

Tool

Risk means different things to different people and can be interpreted as how likely one believes they are to encounter various negative consequences relative to their activity and its location (Todesco and Hillman, 1999). Typically, individuals who take part in any volitional activity or action with a potential for loss or injury do so knowing that risk is inherent in the activity (Beyth-Marom, et al., 1993).

Participants voluntarily decide to accept a certain level of risk for the thrill the sport gives them. What then separates participants of risk - taking activities from the population at large? First, they understand the clear distinction between risk and danger. Secondly, and more importantly, they understand there are ways to approach a potentially dangerous task or place in such a way as to reduce risk to and acceptable level. The non-practitioners lack of familiarity with a risk-taking activity or the environment where it takes place, prevent them from seeing the serious level of conscientious preparation that individuals bring to their respective activity. For the participant, it is their perception of the inherent risk of each successive action they take and the corresponding behavioral response which ultimately determine their level of risk

A user's reaction to the environment, their perception of risk, and their understanding of the hazards defines their situational awareness. Stewart-Patterson 149

(2003) defines situational awareness as "the ability to: maintain an accurate perception of the external environment, identify the source and nature of problems and detect a situation requiring action". Situational awareness and personal awareness of risk are at the core of decision making in mountain environments, especially when considering "Target Risk" which Wilde (1994) defined as each individual's personal perception of the acceptable risk that they are willing to take to maximize the experience from an activity. This was considered "Risk Homeostasis, the degree of risk taking behaviour, by Wilde (1994). Wilde argues that risk homeostasis and the magnitude of loss from activities and lifestyle related illness are maintained over time in the absence of a life altering event. Wilde argues that we all have an optimal risk level that we endeavour to sustain. By Wilde's definition then, if we wear a helmet and carry an avalanche transceiver we will ski faster and in more dangerous terrain. If we don't correspondingly change our level of risk we have not increased our personal safety. Wilde (1994) suggests that the solution to reducing risk is to design safety programs that are focused on human behaviour instead of product safety or environment modification. The key, Wilde said, "is understanding that risk is not something humans avoid - it's something we manage.

Risk homeostasis is critical to a valuable and successful experience from a chosen activity in the mountain environment. A user-made decision that leads to a situational incident where the Risk Potential is exceeded by the hazard strength, results in a potentially fatal negative experience or a hazard incident. Factors such as weather, remoteness, darkness, and un-preparedness can compound the initial hazard incident. 150

McClung (2000) took a similar view to Wilde (1994). McClung states that risk propensity (personality traits) is a function of items such as a person's life experience, personality, view of nature, fate control, skill level, family status and cultural factors. Furthermore, it changes with the stage one is at in life (age)

(McClung, 2000) and is influenced by gender (Jamieson and Geldsetzer, 1997). The correlation between age and gender with risk perception was also identified by

Weinstein (1987) and Todesco and Hillman (1999) who defined risk perception in adolescents as "Unrealistic Optimism" (Weinstein, 1982, 1984, 1987; Todesco and

Hillman, 1999). Regardless of how risky a behaviour may be, or how a society or individual may perceive an activity, we are less fearful of it when we are in control of it than when we are not.

Hazard-based risk potential assessed individual risk from a specific animal or natural hazard. Risk was calculated as a theoretical "Risk Potential" and does not take into account an individual's perception of risk, experience, or tolerance of risk.

The lack of gender and age data precludes their use in the IRPn calculation and they are not discussed in any context with respect to the results found in this study.

Individual risk potential was calculated to address a lack of research on human use and individual hazard risk for visitors and high risk users in BNP. It specifically targeted the major natural hazards that confront Park visitors and more specifically participants of high risk activities. In addition to individual risk, an assessment of the cumulative nature of hazard was explored with the intent of calculating regions of risk based on the Hewitt's (1997) "geographicalness" of 151 hazard. The paucity of data, as previously discussed, precluded an accurate assessment of IRPn for all hazards and user groups.

The overall trend for the 20-year study from 1985-2004 was that there was in an inverse relationship between IRPn, visitor numbers, and incident counts. This was attributed to visitor PVD increasing to such high numbers that any increased risk resulting from increased incident events of any type was offset by the substantial increase in population. This held true for AIRPn calculated for individual user groups affected by each hazard, again attributable to a corresponding substantial increase in user group PVD. However, it is possible that the inverse relationship observed between IRPn, visitor numbers and incident counts is a function of a small incomplete data sample that does not adequately represent the individual user population. Evidence of this is supplied by IRPn for mountain climbers. IRPn for mountain climbers was the exception to the inverse relationship.

Calculations of IRPn for mountain climbers indicated a direct relationship between

IRPn, visitor numbers and incident count. Mountain climbers had the largest sample size and the greatest distribution of incidents across all years of the study.

Calculations of AIRPn for incident causes for each high risk activity, as was expected, corresponded to the cause attributed with causing the greatest severity of loss for individuals of a particular user activity group. It also indicated that a participant was not just exposed to one hazard at a time. In many cases, there are numerous hazard exposures at different times during the pursuit of a specific activity. A hiker is not just exposed to risk of a bear attack. They are also potentially exposed to hazard risk from elk, cougar, wolf, avalanche, drowning, 152 rockfall, icefall, weather, traffic and mass movement to name a few. Assessing Risk

Potential for each user group based on the incident type and incident cause for each activity reinforces the idea that you need to assess Risk Potential from an all-hazards perspective based on the "geographicalness" of hazard in time and space. Failure to assess Risk Potential from an all-hazards perspective weakens the accuracy of the risk calculation, may increase individual risk and may redirect resources to lower risk activities and groups.

The numerical values derived from the IRPn calculation for each risk-taking activity and mountain hazard are small (in the order of lxE -4 to lxE -9); however, their significance is in the fact that the risk values when compared relative to each other allows each risk-taking activity to be ranked by IRPn to assess the risk potential for participants of each activity in BNP. Knowing the risk rank for each risk-taking activity allows targeted mitigation by Parks Canada.

The extremely small numerical values for IRPn can also be a drawback.

Although the IRPn calculations indicate relative risk potential in a number that is useful for the hazard manager, the numbers are too small for the general public to comprehend as a serious risk to their well being. Using the IRPn calculation as a means to represent risk to users may marginalize the true hazard because of the perceived low value of the risk number. To represent "Risk Potential" in a format that more effectively conveys the real risk to the general public is essential to effective mitigation. Furthermore, the method of representation should be clear and simple to the target audience. One method would be to determine a hazard score and 153 create an accompanying hazard matrix following the same criteria as used in the incident data hazard matrices and hazard maps.

Several methods can be utilized to represent "Risk Potential" in a simple but effective format easily understood by the general public. The first method using

"Risk Potential" only would require employment of a graduated rating scale that assigned an arbitrary risk value to the IRPn for each hazard the study user group are exposed to. The range of values would have to parallel the range of IRPn values for each mountain hazard and risk - taking activity assessed, while the arbitrary scale range would have to be sufficiently large as to stimulate the required attention from and recognition by the general public of the potential risk from a given mountain hazard or risk - taking activity.

A second method, utilized in this study, assigns a hazard score to each hazard and risk - taking activity based on the product of the occurrence frequency and outcome consequence of specific mountain hazard and risk - taking activity incidents. Again, the hazard scores need to be sufficiently large to allow recognition by the general public as to the potential risk for hazards and activities in the mountains.

A third method would incorporate the product of the hazard scores from methods one and two. The effectiveness of each method is improved by compiling the hazard ratings into a hazard matrix that identifies risk zones based on a colour coded rating system similar to that used by then CAA to identify avalanche risk zones. This study developed such a hazard risk matrix to identify hazard zones in

BNP. The hazard risk zone concept is discussed in more detail in section 5.1.5. 154

5.1.3 Evaluation of Hazard Type

The data collected identify a much greater severity of loss from geomorphic hazards than animal hazards. Incidents between wolves and humans have been limited to attacks on dogs as the wary and elusive wolf tends to evade human contact. Typically, fatalities were not associated with animal hazards, with the exception of one fatality from a cougar in 2001. The elusive nature of the cougar and its natural wariness of humans make sightings rare and attacks even rarer. The killing of the cross country skier at Lake Minnewanka is probably an exclusive event and likely a result of starvation (Ian Syme, Pers. Com July 15, 2005) brought about by dwindling elk numbers in the eastern and western zones of the Bow Valley and by competition with wolves (Kortello et al., 2006)

The population of elk, a primary food source for cougar, had declined in the eastern and central zones of the Bow Valley throughout the 1990's. By 1995 elk had moved into the central zone of the Bow Valley, essentially the Town of Banff in response to heavy predation by wolves (Hebblewhite et al 2002; Hebblewhite 2008).

Other factors, such as the fencing of the TCH, loss of habitat from development, and the abundance of exotic food sources in town gardens, may have also contributed to the elk migration to the Town of Banff (Parks Canada, 2008). The migration caused a drop in elk populations to approximately 70 animals each in the eastern and western zones, while Central zone elk numbers swelled to approximately 500. In response to increased elk-human encounters, Parks Canada relocated 156 elk in

1999-2000 and a further 35 in 2000-2001. Elk numbers declined, further forcing 155 predators to forage closer to areas with higher human population in search of food

(Kortello et al., 2006).

The relationship between elk and humans changed with re-location of wolves to the Bow Valley in 1985. With increased predation and the migration of the elk blob (Hebblewhite, 2008) to the Town of Banff, animal incidents increased rapidly from three in 1985 to a peak of 107 in 1998, with an annual average of 7 injuries per year from 1995 to 1999. The high profile of the elk encounters in a town dependent on tourism sparked a cry for Parks Canada to address the elk issue in the town of

Banff. Relocation of over 192 elk and aversive mitigation such as Texas Gates, rubber bullets, and culling, served to reduce incident counts and elk population by

2003.

Grizzly bears tend to be maligned as a ferocious predator and deadly hazard, yet there have only been 11 injuries associated with grizzly bear attacks froml985-

2004 and six of those occurred in a single incident. Although they are potentially dangerous, most bear encounters are CG incidents and for the most part are close encounters. Bear mitigation practices, such as trail closures, hiking restrictions and the enforcement of minimum party size for hikers, by Parks Canada have all served to minimize grizzly bear- human encounters. Additionally, more human awareness of bear risk and safety awareness in bear country, in conjunction with bear smart aware programs that inform visitors of the location of bear activity, have helped minimize, grizzly bear-human encounters. The majority of reported encounters involve hikers who are the largest user population for any activity in the Park. It would be valuable to know how often bears utilize hiking trails as a transit corridor 156 or how many times they cross a hiking or biking trail daily, weekly, monthly or seasonally.

Natural hazard events account for more fatalities and injuries than animal hazard. They also elicit more rescue responses from Public Safety Wardens (Parks

Canada, 2004). Most natural hazards in BNP do not impact on the majority of visitors daily, monthly or seasonally. A major group of natural hazard is the geomorphic hazards of debris flow, mudslide and landslide. Low frequency, high magnitude, mass movements by their very nature occurs at intervals that lull visitors into a perception of minimal risk.

There are seven documented major mass movements that impacted on visitors in BNP during the 20-year study period with a recurrence interval of 2.85 years; none caused an injury or fatality. Their cost is measured in dollars. West

Wilson Creek, an active mixed aggregation fan formed by a combination of debris and stream flow, has flowed across the Icefield Parkway many times over the years, most recently in 1989 causing extended traffic stoppages (Podor, 1992; Brown,

2002). Five-Mile Creek was the location of the largest debris flow to impact BNP, caused highway closure for 20 hours, and reduced traffic for an additional two days.

Total cost of the cleanup was in excess of $1,000,000 (Couture and Evans 2000; de

Scally et al., 2002; 2004) and total losses to the economy may have been in excess of $2M based on economic loss calculated using the loss equation defined by

Morrall and Abdelwahab (1992). A survey of natural hazard sites along major highways in BNP noted numerous areas of clogged culverts and restricted flow at 157 active debris flow sites (Brown, 2002). Parks Canada has continued to address this situation by cleaning culverts and channels to minimize impact on highways.

Snow avalanches can be categorized as both a large scale mass movement and a small scale localized hazard. And their impact is both economic and human.

Massive snow avalanches block highways yearly in BNP with seven documented large scale flows that blocked highway access for extended periods of time. Morrall and Abdelwahab (1992) estimated the economic cost of a two hour highway closure for a snow avalanche to be $50'000 to $90'000, depending on the ratio of transport trucks in a traffic volume of 350 vehicles per hour. Since the TCH is a single access highway through most of the mountains and does not allow for alternate route selection until it enters the foothills area east of BNP, the economic impact is felt at a national level.

Snow avalanche events at the human level are a byproduct of high risk activities in extreme mountain terrain. Their impact is severe and massive as they can reach frontal velocities of > 60m/s with volumes in excess of 100,000m3 over a run out zone in excess of 2000m (Borstad and McClung, 2009). Humans or human activity trigger the majority of avalanches that causes fatalities in Canada today with most resulting from recreational activity (McClung and Schaerer, 1993).The inference that follows from this fact is that humans somehow do not perceive the potential risk that exists from a snow avalanche and this lack of perception increases the recreationalist's vulnerability in avalanche terrain. Essentially human perception does not match reality (McClung, 2000). 158

There are many tools available for recreational users to increase their awareness of daily variations in avalanche conditions and decrease their risk potential. The Canadian Avalanche Association (CAA) website updates conditions daily and issues detailed bulletins of hazard ratings for high use avalanche hazard zones. The CAA also provides avalanche training. Avalanche training in combination with field experience and knowledge of safety techniques and avalanche assessment practices are needed to assess avalanche risk and to ensure a safe experience. Carrying appropriate technical gear to assist rescue in the event of an avalanche is critical. However, the most important tool that a recreationalist in avalanche country requires is situational awareness and sound decision-making abilities to prevent a fatal or injurious incident in the mountains.

Avalanche events accounted for 32 fatalities and 31 injuries out of 101 events in BNP over the 20-year study with ice climbers and skiers affected most.

This is in keeping with the findings of Jamieson and Geldsetzer (1997). By comparison, rockfall and icefall events accounted for 8 fatalities and 22 injuries

(mostly minor) out of 32 events. Although, as a percentage of overall incidents, avalanches appear less of a risk than rockfall, the determining factor is the number of fatalities and the finality of death. The nature of avalanches, with death or injury made possible by asphyxiation, exposure, trauma or fall, and the high total event count, indicate a much higher degree of severity.

Most rockfall events are likely to result in some sort of injury or even a fatality. The most likely result is a minor injury and the most likely victim is a mountain climber. Again, the nature of the activity and its location inherently 159 determine the incident potential and level of risk. Helmets can help, however, in some cases, such as the fatal incident on Mt. Little, neither a helmet nor the right decision making can prevent a negative outcome from a freak accident in an otherwise low risk zone.

Natural hazard as presented in this discussion can have an obvious affect on the safety and experiences of the recreationalist and visitor. Soft hazards resulting from human use in terrain subject to weathering and erosion, inclement weather conditions or ephemeral water flow, can also cause fatalities or injuries. Such soft hazards are hazards that seem benign and are not obvious until it becomes too late to recover. A climber grabs a rock or ledge that appears strong until under load, a rock face that becomes slippery and impassable during rain, an ephemeral flow that results from microburst activity higher up a mountain, are examples of soft hazards.

These kind of hazards can leave a participant stranded and in need of a rescue or they can initiate an action such as falling that leads to injury or fatality.

5.1.4 Evaluation of High Risk Activities

High risk activities in BNP are numerous. High risk activities were chosen based on BNP Public Safety Warden Rescue responses as identified by Parks

Canada (2004). The activities: ice, rock and mountain climbing, downhill, cross country and backcountry skiing, snowboarding, hiking, scrambling, mountain biking, and paddling, generated the most rescue responses and event occurrences. 160

High risk activities, by their very nature, generate a certain degree of risk. It is the thrill generated from accepting the challenge and the risk that provides the sense of accomplishment that pushes many participants to excel.

One would think that climbing, with participants exposed and vulnerable, high above the ground is more likely to require rescue responses, but it is hiking that enjoys that designation with 288 total occurrences compared to 195 for all climbing events combined. Scramblers are right in the mix with 84 occurrences, just below mountain climbing at 95 occurrences (Table 5-1). As an individual activity hiking accounts for more fatalities and serious injuries and more rescues than any other activity in BNP based on Parks Canada occurrence reports (Parks Canada, 2004).

Table 5-1: Occurrence events by activity type for 1995-2004 as supplied by Parks Canada High Risk Activity CB CR CG Hiking 20 11 60 197 288 Mountain Climbing 11 5 9 70 95 Scrambling 10 2 13 59 84 Mountain Biking 1 2 18 31 52 Ice Climbing 11 5 14 21 51 Downhill Skiing/Snowboarding 3 5 4 17 39 Cross Country Skiing 2 0 8 23 33 Backcountry Skiing 1 0 4 26 31 Ski Mountaineering 3 0 1 24 28 Canoeing/Kayaking/Rafting 2 0 5 19 26 Rock Climbing 3 5 2 11 21

As identified earlier, one of the limitations of the data collected was the lack of completeness of the annual data both spatially and temporally for specific activities for all years of the study. This makes it more difficult to compare activities based on incident type and season. Sample data for all climbing activities, backcountry skiing, downhill skiing and snowboarding were considered more accurate because of the sample size and similarity to Parks Canada's rescue response data. Based on the 161 sample data collected, mountain climbing accounted for the highest number of total incidents and combined injuries and fatalities, followed by ice climbing, downhill skiing/snowboarding, hiking, rock climbing and backcountry skiing. When only known fatalities are taken into account, mountain climbing remained the most deadly activity (Table 5-2). Accepting the limitations of the sample data, the Parks

Canada occurrence data may be more indicative the overall outcome of high risk activity rankings based on incident type but not necessarily of overall risk.

Table 5- 2: Risk-taking events by activity and incident type from sample data BNP 1985- 2004 High Risk Activity CB CR CG Mountain Climbing 41 27 37 51 156 Ice Climbing 14 10 33 21 78 Downhill Skiing/Snowboarding 25 16 7 25 73 Hiking 20 6 3 23 52 Rock Climbing 8 15 13 5 41 Backcountry Skiing 14 4 1 11 30

Since the Injury Per Thousand Participant Days (IPTPD) and the Fatality Per

Thousand Participant Days (FPTPD) calculations incorporate user population along with injury and fatality data for risk taking activities, they are good indicators of the human cost of specific high risk activities from mountain hazards. IRPn data also indicates and overall potential for human loss by taking into account the population size and incident type of each hazard and high risk activity. The use of injury and fatality data carries more "WOW" factor when analyzing risk; however, reliance on injury and fatality data alone for risk assessment of high risk activities and mountain hazard is potentially problematic because of the ignorance of population size.

Regardless of which method is used to assess risk and potential human losses, the activities of mountain climbing, ice climbing, scrambling and back country skiing are in the top five in each group and although the order changes, what doesn't 162 changes is that participants in these activities are more likely to incur an injury or fatality than in other activities. If the overall goal is to reduce human losses to a level that is "As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) then any fatality is unacceptable.

The use of the "WOW" factor that negative experience incident data can create is certainly capitalized on by main stream media in presenting a perception of high risk associated with mountain activities. This can be both beneficial and detrimental. Beneficial in that heightened awareness of risk and potential outcome can be an effective tool to educate participants of high risk activities in mountain environments of the inherent dangers associated with their activity. Detrimental in that it can inaccurately create a negative public perception of high risk activities as unnecessary or unacceptable. Because of the perceived risk level and the associated cost to taxpayers and to families in the event a rescue or a recovery is required many uninformed members of the public believe the emotional and physical reward is not worth the risk of a negative experience.

Where decadal data were available, the percentage difference between 1985-

1994 and 1995-2004 was calculated. Indications are that overall events for downhill skiing/snowboarding, ice climbing, hiking and scrambling have increased, while overall events for mountain climbing and rock climbing have decreased.

Demographic data was unavailable to identify any reason for the decrease in mountain and rock climbing events despite an overall increase in visitor numbers from 1985 to 2004. It is possible that safety techniques, experience and equipment have allowed a reduction in incidents for mountain and rock climbers. Conversely, 163 increased visitation might include new inexperienced participants in downhill skiing/snowboarding, ice climbing, hiking and scrambling activities that could account for an increase in overall incident counts.

Spatial, temporal and causal data, contained in the collected sample data but missing from Parks Canada data, were used to identify seasonal distribution of hazard. Over the last 20 years using temporal distribution of incidents as a proxy, overall summer-based activity continues to have the highest number of participants in quarter two, while overall winter-based activity continues to have its highest number of participants in quarter four. The one exception is ice climbing activities which appear to have increased participant numbers in quarter three. This trend may result from increased participant numbers, overcrowded prime ice climbing sites in quarter four, and colder more favorable weather in quarter three.

Natural hazards account for only 27.1% of high risk activity incidents, while animal hazards account for 5.26%. Many of the remaining 67.7% can be attributed to a soft natural hazard, fatigue, poor decision-making, reckless behaviour, or inexperience. Non-injurious rescues account for 21%. The majority of incidents,

43.6%, are attributed to a fall, with 40.5% of these causing a fatality and 44.9% causing an injury. Climbers account for 82.7% of all fall-related incidents. Natural hazards account for many incidents related to high risk activities.

Whether or not to cross avalanche terrain, choose a particular route, or continue when conditions are worsening factor into the decision-making process for many incidents. Many fall-related incidents can also be attributed to complacency, poor route selection, poor protection placement, failing to recognize environmental 164

indicators of pending disaster, and inexperience. These key factors have been

identified as critical to minimizing risk in a mountain environment (Simon, 1956;

Wilson and Crouch, 1987; Wilde, 1994; McClung, 2000; Stewart-Patterson, 2003;

It is apparent that any compromising of an individual's situational awareness,

decision-making or risk perception, can contribute to a negative experience that

could without doubt lead to death.

There were two aspects of downhill skiing and snowboarding that would

have been interesting to evaluate if more detailed data had been available. The first

would have been a comparison of incidents with reference to in bounds and out of

bounds skiing or snowboarding with respect to avalanche-caused of injury or

fatality. The second would have been to determine the percentage of skiers or

snowboarders that suffered an injury or a fatality from hitting a tree when they were

wearing helmets compared to the number of injuries or fatalities that occurred when

they were not wearing helmets.

5.1.5 Evaluation of Hazard Risk Zones

A hazard matrix was created using incident occurrences and type for specific

mountain hazards and risk - taking activities (method two outlined 5-l-2).by

following the criteria set out by Ferrier and Haque (2003). The matrix was then used

to generate a hazard bulletin that identified zones of risk for areas used by all

climbing, scrambling and hiking user activity groups as well as areas susceptible to

avalanche, rockfall/icefall, fall, and grizzly bear hazards. These were the only hazards and user groups with sufficient sample size and spatial detail for the incident 165 data to allow the creation of hazard zones of risk with any degree of accuracy. The use of standard colours of green, pale yellow, bright yellow, orange and red for low, moderate, considerable, high and extreme hazard zones, respectively, enables users to readily identify with a colour scheme used in other hazard bulletins. The use of colours to identify increasing risk potential is an effective method to increase public awareness of possible risk in a given area.

The hazard bulletin is intended to be used as a tool in conjunction with a

Risk Management Plan to identify the zones of risk associated with specific user groups and hazards. The management plan goal would be to mitigate risk for visitors and users in BNP. The matrix was designed to be portable to any geographical area where sufficient incident data are available to accurately identify regions of risk.

Ideally, hazard bulletins, as defined in Chapter 3, would be available for all hazards in BNP as well as all high risk activities. A complete set of readily accessible hazard bulletins would allow users to identify potential hazard individually and cumulatively and assess their personal level of risk prior to entering a specific geographical zone. Hazard bulletins would be more effective when used with hazard terrain maps.

The hazard maps created using GIS had a dual purpose. First, they were developed to spatially identify the areas of negative experience outcomes for high risk activities in BNP. Second, it is anticipated that individuals that view the hazard maps will be more aware of the increased negative experience potential in a specific area and exercise safer practices to ensure a negative experience is not the result of their outing. 166

It is inconceivable to think that when you venture into the wild lands of a relatively undeveloped mountainous national park to participate in risk-taking activities that you are only exposed a single hazard at any one time. The very nature of a remote mountain environment should be an indication of the multiple perils that await visitors to the region. Burton et al. (1978) saw the environment as hazard; however, extreme events are not necessarily hazards unless they impact on humans in a negative manner.

Hewitt (1971) put forth the concept of hazardousness of place and suggested the need for a compound approach to hazard assessment in a region. Hewitt (1997) identified the need to look at regions of risk in disaster management. This study looked at the hazardousness of place through the use of risk mapping of locations and places with intent to identify the compound nature of mountain hazards to the public and specifically participants of risk - taking activities. Risk mapping was used to identify not only the risk zones within BNP but the varying nature of risk by zone and the multiple nature of hazard within each risk zone.

Understanding the compound nature of hazard within the specific regions of risk within BNP is critical for the public and hazard manager. The public needs to understand the compound nature of hazard so that relevant training is acquired, adequate equipment and supplies are procured, and appropriate safety measures are taken while pursuing a specific risk - taking activity. The hazard manager needs to understand the compound nature of hazard within their geographic area of responsibility to mitigate risk, develop safety policies, implement safety measures, educate visitors and train public safety staff. 167

The primary objective of this study was to assess "Risk Potential" from specific mountain hazards for specific risk - taking activities in Banff National Park.

A secondary objective was to determine hazard risk zones for each hazard and risk - taking activity. The approach taken was to not only assess each mountain hazard and risk - taking activity individually, but also to assess how and an integrated approach to assess "Risk Potential" from mountain hazards and risk taking activities can be developed to determine the hazardousness of place.

As outlined in section 5.1.2, three methods to determine the level of risk for visitors to BNP from mountain hazards and risk - taking activities and the hazardousness of place for visitors to BNP were identified. The use of "Risk

Potential" (IRPn) on its own is not effective in determining regions of risk because it lacks a spatial component; however, it is effective in identifying the level of risk for participants of risk-taking activities from specific mountain hazards. The use of occurrence frequency of negative events and the consequence (severity) of occurrences is effective in identifying hazardousness of place because incident data contains a spatial component. The combined use of the "Risk Potential" and hazard bulletins provides a good representation of the inherent and compound nature of risk from specific hazards for visitors to BNP by region and activity. Spatial representation of this data in map format makes for quick and easy identification of specific high risk regions. Furthermore, the creation of individual maps for each mountain hazard and risk-taking activity allows the hazard manager and visitor to look at the multiple hazards potential within a specific hazard zone of BNP. 168

Two factors limited this study in carrying out a complete assessment of the compound nature of the hazardousness of place for each hazard zone. The first was the lack of spatial data for some mountain hazards and risk - taking activities. The second was insufficient sample size for some mountain hazards and risk - taking activities. Additionally, the insufficient sample size precluded the calculation of the

"Risk Potential" for specific hazard regions.

5.1.6 Implications for Parks Management

Several implications for Parks Canada management in BNP arise from this study. The calculation of IRPn, IPTPD and FPTPD and hazard zone maps clearly indicate that activities such as mountain climbing, ice climbing, scrambling and back country skiing have a higher degree of risk potential than others. However, the data also indicates that overall the degree of risk based on visitor numbers and population of user groups for individual activities are quite low. When compared to other activities and to the same activities in other countries the overall risk in BNP is very low.

Parks Canada is faced with a question as to what is acceptable risk and what costs are appropriate and practical to mitigate said risk. Parks Canada has to decide how important it is to achieve a level of zero fatalities and zero injuries for all users in each activity within current budgetary and manpower constraints. Another factor to take into consideration is the perception of risk, what level of risk is acceptable to society and what is acceptable to risk-taking activity participants. There is an expectation of risk with all activities in mountain environments and Park Canada 169 puts a considerable amount of onus on the participants of high risk activities to be aware of said risk and take appropriate measures to minimize said risks. As such is it reasonable and practicable to mitigate all hazards to a zero point or is a zero state potentially detrimental? Risk is also important. Risk contributes to the intrinsic value of the experience that visitors seek in BNP. Our culture and heritage as a country is predicated on risk - taking. Over-mitigation could lead to a play it safe mentality and playing safe is not the best method because it has the potential to lead atrophy and potential death of spirit, culture and venture.

Furthermore, complete mitigation can only be achieved by restricting access which is neither possible nor realistic. Visitors, and in particular, participants in risk- taking activities come to BNP to experience risk in the hopes of gaining an intrinsic self developing experience. The climbers, skiers, paddlers, or cyclists are driven by risk and accept risk because they are in control and understand the clear and distinct difference between risk and danger. It is risk that drives them. This is the paradox of risk assessment and risk mitigation. Risk is defined as the potential to lose something of value yet it is the pursuit of risk to gain something of value that is the motivation for participants of risk-taking activities. It is evident that the fundamental basis of these activities is pleasure and fun through risk.

Risk balance is the key goal which is achieved through a combination of policy and control, education, and allowing visitor experiences of the natural environment. First, clarifying the distinction between risk and danger and second, outlining approaches so that an otherwise dangerous activity is reduced to an acceptable level risk without diminishing the risk driven experiences and goals of 170 park visitors should be the goals. Parks Canada's approach of mitigation through education and awareness combined with reinforcement of user awareness and acceptance of risk and responsibility for their actions should continue.

Parks Canada also has to be aware of the impact of high risk activity in the park on sensitive ecosystems. There has been an increase in both overall visitors and specific user group populations which is stressing such species as grizzly bears.

Human encounters with grizzly bears, cougars, wolves and elk typically result in a negative outcome for the animal. With increased habitat fragmentation, human visitation, access to once remote areas and rescue requirements parks may have to consider tightening restrictions, limiting access or closing areas altogether to comply with the prime directive of the NPA of maintaining ecosystem integrity.

Finally, Packs Canada has to develop better hazard incident record keeping methods and has to find a balance between budget cuts vs. tourism revenues - preserving ecosystem integrity vs. intrinsic value of visitor experiences - and public safety.

The results of this study could assist parks Canada in hazard mitigation planning, policy development and resource allocation in Banff National Park in four ways. First, the identification of the most at risk user groups will allow development of customized education and mitigation programs.

Second, the identification of hazard zones will allow development of new or modification of existing mitigation techniques and public safety policy that is directed at specific hazards and users in specific areas of BNP. This may include 171 increased signage, hazard warnings, posted hazard bulletins, restricted access periods or area closures.

Third, based on the seasonal and spatial distribution of hazard zones and at risk groups, financial and human resources could be reallocated to further improve rescue response times and to provide directed public education and awareness campaigns.

Fourth, further research studies can be developed to address gaps in user and incident data identified in this study. These future studies would allow for a more complete understanding of the interaction between mountain hazards, risk-taking activities, park visitors and the Park ecosystem. Understanding this relationship would allow for development of a more holistic approach the ecosystem and visitor management designed to protect the ecological integrity of Banff National Park while at the same time reducing risk for visitors to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable.

5.2 Conclusions

The use of incident data is an effective method to calculate individual risk potential and determine the hazardousness of place provided accurate and representative sample data of sufficient quantity, including a temporal and spatial component, are available. Accurate visitor and user numbers representative of each user population are also critical to calculating IRPn for specific user groups from specific hazards. 172

In this study, historical data have proved useful in determining individual risk based on past incidents, identifying hazard zone areas and creating hazard maps.

However, the accuracy and relevancy of historical data for future research may be less certain due to the rapid anthropogenic induced changes in climate, environment, and technology along with the increased visitor numbers in BNP and other Parks.

Additionally, the rising occurrence of pestilence and disease type hazards may increase the "Cascade Affect" of hazards in the Park and further reduce the relevancy of historical data in all facets of hazard research. This reinforces the need for further study on the role and impact of climate change, technology, environmental modification, pestilence, and disease on anthropogenic risk in

National Parks and mountain ecosystems.

Incident type and total incident data can be used to design hazard terrain bulletins. Hazard terrain bulletins can be an effective tool, when used in conjunction with other mitigation techniques as determined in a Risk Management Plan, to effectively mitigate risk to an ALARP level. Combining the IRPn calculation with the incident data gives a good representation of the overall risk for visitors to mountain hazards when participating in risk-taking activities in specific areas of

Banff National Park.

Three extreme risk zones were identified using the hazard terrain bulletins.

These zones exist at Lake Louise and surrounding areas, areas surrounding the

Town of Banff including Cascade Mountain, Mt. Rundle, and Tunnel Mountain and the Mt. Andromeda area. The Hazard maps provide a quick and effective means to 173 identify the compound nature of hazard in specific hazard zones and reinforce the geographical hazardousness of place in hazard assessment and management.

Risk is inherent in any activity that takes place in a mountain land.

Identification of high risk zones and high risk groups is critical if a Risk management Plan is to effectively target the appropriate audience to mitigate risk to a point where risk is "As Low As Reasonably Practical" (ALARP).

The role and benefit of education and training on participant risk potential, in risk management, in risk assessment and policy development requires further study.

The paradox with education programs and training techniques is they do not always lead to rational decisions or behaviour on the part of participants of risk-taking activities. Both technical training and education programs are needed but are not sufficient of their own. Future programs should focus on human factors, behaviour modification, and decision-making processes.

5.3 Future Research

This study identified the need for comprehensive research on human use in

Banff National Park, an issue previously identified in the Banff Bow Valley study

(1996). Research on human use would need to specifically target high risk activity groups to ascertain user numbers for all activity zones in BNP. Data identifying gender, age, experience level, and training, frequency of use and visitation is required in addition to spatial and temporal data. There is a need to determine accurate incident data for all user groups and hazards in BNP and to determine if the quantity of incident reports received weekly, monthly seasonally and annually is 174 representative of actual incident occurrences. Incident data with a spatial component for all mountain hazards and risk-taking activities is required to supplement the findings of this study and to fill in identified data gaps. This data is required to identify: 1) high use areas, 2) high risk activities 3) calculate "Risk

Potential", 4) determine human use impact on flora and fauna, and 5) to create additional hazard zone maps for those mountain hazards and risk-taking activities that had insufficient sample data in this study

A comprehensive hazard assessment that includes such hazards as parasites, bug infestations, and fire, is required to addresses the "Cascade Effect". The

"Cascade Effect" is defined as the process set in play when an event seen as benign from a perspective of human risk ultimately has a cascade effect that leads to development of a high risk hazard zone. An example is the mountain pine beetle —• kills a forest —> accumulation of dead wood —-• fire occurs —> over land flow —> erosion develops —> avalanche happens —»• meadow created —•» grizzly bears arrive

—*• humans arrive —•*• new "Risk Potential".

Other areas requiring further study are 1) the impact of climate change on frequency and magnitude of hazard, and of incident occurrences, 2) the expansion of the study to include all four adjacent national parks, 3) the creation of hazard terrain maps, and 4) the expansion of hazard risk zone bulletins. 175

APPENDICES

Appendix 3-1

person visits and person visit days, for BNP 191

PVD PVnot PV (millions) Year corrected Corrected2 BNP 1985 3,337,857 ' 2,838,000 8,372,100 1986 3.583,333 ' 3,010,000 8,879,500 1987 3476190 ' 2,924,000 8,625,800 1988 3,800,000 ' 3,192,000 9,416,400 1989 4,000,000 ' 3,360,000 9,912,000 1990 4,000,000 ' 3,360,000 9,912,000 1991 4,200,00 ' 3,528,000 10,407,600 1992 3,612,550' 3,106,793 9,165,039 1993 3,7304,58 ' 3,208,193 9,464,169 1994 3,8672,34 ' 3,325,821 9,811,172 1995 3,9562,25 ' 3,402,353 10,036,941 1996 4,453,021 3,740,538 11,034,587 1997 4,269,105 3,586,048 10,578,842 1998 4,368,172 3,669,264 10,824,329 1999 4,677,466 3,929,071 11,590,759 2000 4,635,705 3,893,992 11,487,276 2001 3,976,352 3,340,135 9,853,398 2002 N/A 3,088,390 9,110,751 2003 N/A 2,935,140 8,658,663 2004 N/A 3,139,934 9,262,805 2005 N/A 3,174,043 9,363,427 2006 N/A 3,297,460 9,727,507 1 State of the Park Compendium Pacas et al 1996 "2003 PC survey determined overestimation of previous visitor numbers by 13-16%

Person Visits (PV) occurs each time a person enters a reporting unit for the purposes of heritage appreciation or recreation. Same-day re-entries do not constitute new person-visits. Similarly, re­ entries by visitors staying overnight in the reporting unit do not constitute new person-visits. Person-visits are based on the percentage of individuals entering the Park who "stop inside the park for any reason" as determined by periodic visitor surveys conducted in the national parks. Parks Canada estimates that, of all people entering the Park (person-entries), 47% stop in the Park for some reason (person-visits) Person Visit Days (PVD) is the total visitors by average stay of 2.95 for BNP based on midpoint of 2003 PC and Province of Alberta survey and PC 2008 State of the Park report and lack of quantitative data for individual activities necessitated using average number as a constant for all activities. Appendix 3-2

Annual Person Visits (PV) and Person Visit Days (PVD) for Visitors and User Groups in BNP 1985-2004 PVD Person Hikers Hikers PVD visitor PVDBV PVD Bow Bow BNP total1' hikers Year BNP PVD BNP Central) Valley Valley 9 BNP 1985 2,838,000 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,270,615 2,818,725 689,634 2,034,420 1986 3,010,000 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,270,615 2,818,725 731,430 2,157,719 1987 2,924,000 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,270,615 2,818,725 710,532 2,096,069 1988 3,192,000 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,094,730 2,724,662 775,656 2,288,185 1989 3,360,000 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,251,090 2,808,283 816,480 2,408,616 1990 3,360,000 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,251,090 2,808,283 816,480 2,408,616 1991 3,528,000 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,791,835 3,097,473 857,304 2,529,047 1992 3,106,793 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,101,245 2,728,146 754,951 2,227,105 1993 3,208,193 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,081,700 2,717,693 779,591 2,299,793 1994 3,325,821 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,413,965 2,895,388 808,175 2,384,115 1995 3,402,353 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,541,582 2,963,638 826,772 2,438,977 1996 3,740,538 8,372,100 7,032,564 6,092,401 3,258,216 908,951 2,681,405 1997 3,586,048 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,840,776 3,123,647 871,410 2,570,659 1998 3,669,264 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,976,314 3,196,133 891,631 2,630,312 1999 3,929,071 8,372,100 7,032,564 6,399,474 3,422,439 954,764 2,816,555 2000 3,893,992 8,372,100 7,032,564 6,342,339 3,391,883 946,240 2,791,408 2001 3,340,135 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,440,245 2,909,443 811,653 2,394,376 2002 3,088,390 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,030,215 2,690,159 750,479 2,213,912 2003 2,935,140 8,372,100 7,032,564 4,780,609 2,556,670 713,239 2,104,055 2004 3,139,934 8,372,100 7,032,564 5,114,168 2,735,057 763,004 2,250,862

PVD DH & Year DH & SB BNP 2 SB8 MB BNP 3 PVD MB MC BNP 4 PVDMC 1985 750,000 78,045 230,233 23,555 69,488 1986 800,000 82,775 244,186 24,983 73,700 1987 850,000 80,410 237,210 24,269 71,594 1988 800,000 87,780 258,951 26,494 78,156 1989 850,000 92,400 272,580 27,888 82,270 1990 900,000 92,400 272,580 27,888 82,270 1991 800,000 97,020 286,209 29,282 86,383 1992 700,000 85,437 252,039 25,786 76,070 1993 800,000 88,225 260,265 26,628 78,553 1994 900,000 91,460 269,807 27,604 81,433 1995 394,673 1,164,285 93,565 276,016 28,240 83,307 1996 433,902 1,280,012 102,865 303,451 31,046 91,587 1997 415,982 1,227,146 98,616 290,918 29,764 87,804 1998 425,635 1,255,622 100,905 297,669 30,455 89,842 1999 455,772 1,344,528 108,049 318,746 32,611 96,203 2000 451,703 1,332,524 107,085 315,900 32,320 95,344 2001 387,456 1,142,994 91,854 270,968 27,723 81,783 2002 358,253 1,056,847 84,931 250,546 25,634 75,619 2003 340,476 1,004,405 80,716 238,113 24,362 71,867 2004 364,232 1,074,485 86,348 254,727 26,061 76,881 Appendix 3-2

Annual Person Visits (PV) and Person Visit Days (PVD) for Visitors and User Groups in BNP 1985-2004

Year IC BNP 5 PVD IC 10 PVDRC XC BNP 7 PVD XC 14 BC BNP 11 PVDBC 1985 3,689 52,021 99231 74,852 545,673 17113 181399 1986 3,913 55,173 105245 79,389 578,744 18150 192393 1987 3,801 53,597 102238 77,121 562,208 17632 186896 1988 4,150 58,509 111608 84,189 613,738 19248 204026 1989 4,368 61,589 117482 88,620 646,040 20261 214764 1990 4,368 61,589 117482 88,620 646,040 20261 214764 1991 4,586 64,668 123357 93,051 678,342 21274 225503 1992 4,039 56,948 108629 81,942 597,355 18734 198580 1993 4,171 58,806 112174 84,616 616,851 19345 205061 1994 4,324 60,962 116287 87,719 639,468 20055 212580 1995 4,423 62,365 118963 89,737 654,183 20516 217472 1996 4,863 68,564 130788 98,657 719,207 22555 239088 1997 4,662 65,732 125386 94,582 689,503 21624 229213 1998 4,770 67,258 128296 96,777 705,503 22126 234532 1999 5,108 72,020 137380 103,629 755,457 23692 251138 2000 5,062 71,377 136153 102,704 748,712 23481 248896 2001 4,342 61,225 116788 88,096 642,220 20141 213495 2002 4,015 56,610 107986 81,456 593,816 18623 197404 2003 3,816 53,801 102627 77,414 564,350 17699 187608 2004 4,082 57,555 109788 82,816 603,727 18934 200698

PVD Year BC BNP 11 PVDBC CKR BNP CKR 1985 17113 181399 158077 466326 1986 18150 192393 167657 494588 1987 17632 186896 162867 480457 1988 19248 204026 177794 524493 1989 20261 214764 187152 552098 1990 20261 214764 187152 552098 1991 21274 225503 196510 579703 1992 18734 198580 173048 510493 1993 19345 205061 178696 527154 1994 20055 212580 185248 546482 1995 20516 217472 189511 559058 1996 22555 239088 208348 614627 1997 21624 229213 199743 589241 1998 22126 234532 204378 602915 1999 23692 251138 218849 645605 2000 23481 248896 216895 639841 2001 20141 213495 186046 548834 2002 18623 197404 172023 507469 2003 17699 187608 163487 482288 2004 18934 200698 174894 515938 178 person visit days = total visitors by average stay of 2.95 for BNP according to PC 2008 State of the Park report lack of quantitative data for individual activities necessitated using average number as a constant for all activities 1 average of PC number (24% 2008) Alberta Government number (27% 2003) and TAMS research survey (23.7%)2007 and TAMS research survey ( 22.52% Alberta regional number9) 2 average of PC number (12% 2008) Alberta Government number (7.3% 2003) and TAMS research survey (10.9% of total Canadian population)2003 and TAMS research (16.3% Alberta regional Number) 2003 3 average of Alberta Government number (1.6% 2003) and TAMS research survey (3.0% of total Canadian population)2007 and TAMS research (3.65% Alberta regional Number) 2007 (The Alberta regional number is a ratio of percentage of Canadian Mt. Bikers to all cycling activities vs the percentage of Alberta Mt. bikers to all Alberta cycling activities) 4 Alberta Government number (0.83% 2003) 5 Average of from Jovan semic 2007 combination of ice climber numbers from trail counts and PC number surveys and percentage of backcountry skiers, X-country skiers that ice climb) and (0.11 %) ( province of Alberta number (0.15%) 2003 6 from Alberta government number (0.83%) 2003 7 Average of PC number 0.86% (from Jovan Semic 2007) and Government of Alberta number (1.49 2003) and TAMS research 2007 number for all Canada (4.6%) and Alberta regional number Tarns research 3.6% for an average of 2.6375% 8 1985 to 1993 from Pacas 1996 SBVR chapter 4 9 The Alberta regional number is a ratio of percentage of Canadian hikers to total hiking climbing and paddling activities vs the percentage of Alberta hikers to total Alberta regional hikers, climbers and paddlers 10based on 2007 winter rec study numbers calculated from ice climbers' survey indicate average days spent climbing per climber is 14.1 in Banff, LL and Icefield parkway. Average of max and min days for each location added together then divided by number of individuals surveyed (No TAMS data available) 11 from PC number 0.0021% from Jovan Semic 2007 and total Canadian number (0.9%) and total Alberta regional number (0.7%) TAMS 2007 12 Person visit days is the number of visitors multiplied by the average number of days a visitor spends in the park (this number is the average of the parks Canada yearly average of 2.5 and the Alberta Government average for the Mt. parks of 3.4 giving a total average stay of 2.95) not used for winter rec activities as individual numbers calculated 13 based on 2007 winter rec study numbers calculated from backcountry skiers survey indicate average days spent skiing per BC skier is 10.6 in Banff, LL. and Icefield parkway Average of max and min days for each location added together then divided by number of individuals surveyed (No TAMS data available) 14 based on 2007 winter rec study numbers calculated from X-country skiers survey indicate average days spent Skiing per X-country skier is 7.29 in Banff, LL. and Icefield parkway Average of max and min days for each location added together then divided by number of individuals surveyed (No TAMS data available) Appendix 3-3

Coordinates and Type of Mass Movement Processes Along the TCH, Highway 93 and 93A, Icefield Parkway, Bow Valley Parkway and Secondary Roads in BNP Mass Movement ; Latitude Latitude Longitude Type Start Longitude Start Finish Finish Size 1 DF1 51 10.167 115 40.265 20ft 2 DF2 51.17808 115.71655 <20ft 3 DF3 51 11.951 115 44 993 <20ft 4 DF4 51.21705 115.76973 <20ft 5 DF5 51.58422 116.3096 30ft 6 DF6 51.5906 116.30892 25 ft 7 DF7 51.60217 116.3095 <20ft 8 DF8 51.76393 116.53957 <20ft 9 DF9 51.83977 116.61543 60ft 10 DF10 51.86273 116.66088 <20ft 11 DF11 51.87168 116.67278 100ft 12 DF12 51.88947 116.69012 65ft 13 DF13 51.902 116 42.184 30ft 14 DF14 51.90353 116.70307 <20ft 15 DF15 51.9508 116.712 <20ft 16 DF16 51.97888 116.77575 <20ft 17 DF17 51.98137 116.78608 <20ft 18 DF18 51.98532 116.79695 <20ft 19 DF19 51.99072 116.80802 <20ft 20 DF20 52.0031 116.82682 21 DF21 52.00943 116.8327 200ft 22 DF22 52.0184 116.83903 23 DF23 52.02392 116.84202 24 DF24 52.03568 116.8526 25 DF25 52.13615 116.9927 26 DF26 52.15245 117.00768 27 DF27 52021243 117.15485 28 DF28 52.21458 117.16127 29 DF29 51.80683 116.58325 30 DF30 51.73777 116.5093 31 DF31 51.62203 116.32057 32 DF32 51.19397 115.56133 51.28369 115.59237 >300ft 33 DF33 51.17278 115.65113 51.18254 115.66521 > 150ft 34 DF34 51.09827 115.35672 35 DF35 51.16945 115.67108 36 DF36 51.14938 115.42888 37 RF1 51.74525 116.51487 51.77214 116.52002 38 RF2 51.84327 116.61933 51.85673 116.64697 39 RF3 52.04643 116.86922 52.05308 116.8794 40 RF4 52.12045 116.9826 52.12552 116.98628 41 RF5 52.14553 116.99942 42 RF6 52.17052 117.07297 52.17638 117.05562 43 RF7 51.18482 115.59452 51.23458 115.62154 44 RF8 51.23458 115.62154 51.48523 115.68954 45 RF9 51.17788 115.62632 51.22352 115.64575 46 RF10 51.11815 115.75077 47 RF11 52.02814 116.85423 52.05308 116.8794 180

48 RF12 51.84327 116.61933 51.85673 116.64697 49 RF13 51.39962 116.12738 50 MSI 51.11602 115.75743 51 LSI 51.31497 116.01262 52 LS2 51.20377 115.52005 53 LS3 51.34485 116.17463 54 LS4 51.40503 116.18173 55 AVI 51.56838 116.30477 51.57258 116.3062 56 AV2 51.60317 116.30998 51.62215 116.32083 57 AV3 51.65103 116.36337 51.65458 116.3763 58 AV4 51.7534 116.52182 51.75735 116.5259 59 AV5 51.84327 116.61933 51.85673 116.64697 60 AV6 51.8702 116.6708 51.87275 116.67415 61 AV7 51.98017 116.78233 51.9907 116.80802 62 AV8 52.04643 116.86922 52.06725 116.9012 63 AV9 52.10505 116.96405 52.13357 116.99172 64 AV10 52.13615 116.9927 52.1685 117.0341 65 AV11 52.17052 117.07297 52.17638 117.05562 66 AV12 52.18975 117.0808 52.19552 117.09805 67 AV13 51.80683 116.58325 5283292 116.60858 68 AV14 51.34922 116.17218 51.42541 116.20163 69 AV15 51.1305 115.71008 51.38675 115.86721 70 FF1 52.04157 116.8629 71 SL1 51.65332 116.37168 DF = Debris Flow, RF=Rockfall, MS=Mud Slide, LS=Landslide, AV=Avalanche FF=Flash Flood, SL=Slump 181

Appendix 3-4

Incident data retrieved from the Crag and Canyon newspaperl982-2006, Accidents in North American Mountaineering journals 1985-2004, and Avalanche Accidents in Canada Volume 4,1984-1996 Code Specific Date Where/What Damage Fatality injury 6 Traffic 1-2-80 p. 1 Eisenhower Junction 3 6 Traffic 1-2-80 p.1 Hway 93 N 3 4 Built env. 1-2-80 p.1 Crich Hall, Banff Centre $2,000,000 6 Climbing 1-9-80 p.9 Base of Cascade - ice fall 1 6 Skiing 2-6-80 p. 10 Mt. Norquay - off trail into trees 2 6 Skiing 2-13-80 p.l Lake Louise - collision 1 6 Skiing 2-13-80 p.8 Four Mile Bridge, Spray return equipment 1 6 Traffic 2-20-80 p.l Canmore Crossing 6 Accident 2-27-80 p. 16 Canada Cement Co. - fall from structure 1 6 Traffic 3-5-80 p. 15 West of Banff West Gate - icy 2 6 Traffic 3-12-80 p.l West of Banff East Gates 2 6 Snowmobile 3-12-80 p.18 Near Elbow Falls Ranger Station 1 1 6 Hiking 4-30-80 p.l Behind Rockwood plant near Exshaw 1 4 Built env. 5-7-80 p. 19 Railway Ave. Canmore 2,6 Avalanche/MC 6-4-80 p.l Isolation Peak Yoho NP 1 6 Traffic 6-11-80 p.l Castle Mt. Junction - swerve to miss elk 1 2 4 Built env. 6-18-80 p.l House in Canmore - cooking oil 6 Climbing 6-18-80 p.l Castle Mt. 4 Built env. 7-2-80 p.l Canmore home 6 Climbing 7-9-80 p.l Mt. Victoria 1 5 Bear 7-23-80 p.l Near Banff -14 bears trapped and moved 6 Drowning 7-23-80 p.l Bow R. near Banff 1 4 Built env. 7-23-80 p.l Kiosk - Tunnel mt. Campground $30,000 6 Climbing 7-23-80 p.l Valley of the Ten Peaks 1 6 Hiking 7-23-80 p.l Peyto Glacier 1 6 Hiking 7-23-80 p.l Panther River area 1 6 Traffic 7-23-80 p.l Tunnel Mt. Rd. 1 6 Traffic 7-23-80 p.l Tunnel Mt. Rd. 4 6 Traffic 7-23-80 p.l Banff $20,000 6 Traffic 7-30-80 p.l TCH near red Earth Ck. 1 2 6 Traffic 7-30-80 p.l Near L. Louise 1 2 6 Traffic 7-30-80 p.l Eisenhower Junction 1 6 Traffic 7-30-80 p.l East of Eisenhower Junction 2 6 Traffic 8-6-80 p.l Mt. Temple 1 6 Traffic 8-6-80 p.l Fire road closed 2 6 Traffic 8-6-80 p.7 West of Banff East gate 3 6 Diving 8-20-80 p.l Minnewanka Lake 1 4 Tanker fire 8-20-80 p.l Tanker explosion 5 Bear 8-27-80 p.l Whiskey Ck. Area 1 6 Traffic 8-27-80 p.l West of Hway 40 - Kananaskis 2 4 built env. 8-27-80 p.2 Riverview Place Canmore 6 Climbing 8-27-80 p.2 Cascade Mt. 1 6 Climbing 8-27-80 p.2 Moraine Lake 3-4 Couloir 1 5 Bear 9-3-80 p.l Whiskey Ck. Area 1 6 Traffic 9-3-80 p.l Hway 93 N of TCH 2 3 5 Bear 9-10-80 p.l Forty Mile Ck. In Whiskey Ck area 1 6 Traffic 9-17-80 p. 17 Banff - motorcycle 1 6 Boating 10-1-80 p.2 Canoe accident Bow Falls 2 6 Hiking 10-8-80 p.l Castle Mt. 1 6 Traffic 10-8-80 p.l TCH west of Sunshine Turnoff 1 10-16-80 6 Traffic p.13 Fall fro silo Canada Cement 1 10-29-80 4 Built env. p.14 Canmore - arson 6 Traffic 11-5-80 p.3 Banff traffic circle 4 Built env. 12-3-80 p.l Structure near L. Louise $250,000 6 Traffic 12-10-80 p.l West of Seebe overpass Blk ice 6 Traffic 1-7-81 p.2 East of Junction Hway 93 and TCH 2 182

6 Skiing 1-14-81 p.l Mt Norquay - fall 1 6 Traffic 1-14-81 p.l TCH near Banff 2 4 Built env. 1-21-81 p.l Staff Structure Chateau L. Louise $350,000 4 Built env. 1-21-81 p.l Douglas Fir Chalet - Banff $1,500 4 Built env. 1-28-81 p. 15 Truck fire - arson $140,000 4 Built env. 2-4-81 p.l Gas line explosion $200,000 6 Skiing 2-11-81 p.l Sunshine Village - too fast 1 6 Skiing 2-11-81 p.l Lake Louise - too fast 2 4 Built env. 2-11-81 p.l Banff bus depot - electrical 4 Built env. 2-18-81 p.l gas explosion - house Banff 1 1 2 Avalanche 2-25-81 p.l Back of Whale Back - Yoho NP 1 2 Avalanche 2-25-81 p.l Skiing above Lake Bourgeau 1 1 2 Avalanche 2-25-81 p.l Heli-skiing near Golden 3 1 2 Avalanche 2-25-81 p.l Mt Thompson - Peyto Glacier - climbers 1 6 Traffic 3-4-81 p.l East of Seebe on TCH 2 Pedestrian on TCH at Kananaskis 6 Traffic 3-18-81 p.17 overpass 1 Pedestrian on TCH at Kananaskis 6 Traffic 4-1-81 p.l overpass 1 6 Climbing 4-1-81 p.l Mt. Rundle - fall 1 2 Avalanche 4-8-81 p.l Mt. Stephen - near Field - climbers 2 6 Traffic 4-15-81 p.6 Bow R. bridge East L. Louise 2 6 Traffic 4-22-81 p.2 TCH near L. Louise 1 6 Traffic 4-29-8lp.2 Near Marble Canyon Hway 93 4 6 Traffic 4-29-81p.2 TCH near L. louise - Vermillion Ck. 2 5 Bear 5-6-81 p.l Bear shot - near Harvie Heights 4 Built env. 5-21-81 p.l Canmore Auto Park - arson $60 000 6 Hiking 6-3-81 p.l Tunnel Mt. trail - cause unknown 1 3 Hood 6-3-81 p.l Warm temps lots of rain - Canmore 6 Traffic 6-17-81 p.2 Banff traffic circle 1 6 Traffic 6-24-81 p.l Hway 93 North of Sask. Crossing 3 6 Traffic 6-24-81 p.l Hway 93 near Num Ti Jah Lodge 3 6 Climbing 7-15 81 p.l Mt St. Louis Nw of Banff - rescue 1 6 Traffic 7-15 81 p.l Hway 93- Cirrus Mt. Campground 4 Natural env. 7-15-81 p.l 2 grass fires along CPR tracks Dyke near Old Engine Bridge - restricted 6 trail bike 7-15-81 p.16 area 1 6 Traffic 7-22-81 p.l Cave Ave. Banff 2 2 6 Traffic 7-22-81 p.l Hway 93 near Parker Ridge 2 6 Traffic 7-22-81 p.l B anff-motorcyc le 1 6 Climbing 7-22-81 p.2 Mt. Lyantley Kananaskis 1 6 Climbing 7-29-81 p.2 Cascade Mt. 1 6 Climbing 8-5-81 p.l Mt. Deltaform 1 6 Traffic 8-19-81 p.l Hway 93 near Mosquito Creek 1 4 Built env. 8-18-81 p.15 Gas explosion house Spring Ck. $225,000 6 Climbing 8-26-81 p.7 Mt Corey rescue 6 Climbing 8-26-81 p.7 Mt Assiniboine fall 1 6 Climbing 8-26-81 p.7 Cascade Mt. 1 6 Hiking 8-26-81 p.7 Thompson Ck. - fall 1 6 Hiking 8-26-81 p.7 Paradise Valley - fall 1 6 Hiking 8-26-81 p.7 Lake Agnes 1 6 Hiking 9-2-81 p.l Johnston's Canyon 4 fell in 4 6 Traffic 9-9-81 p.l east of L. Louise on TCH 5 6 Climbing 9-23-81 p.l Mt Freshfield 1 10-14-81 5 Bear p2.1 Larch Place Canmore 6 Traffic 11-4-81 p.l Norquay Rd. impaired driver 2 6 Traffic 11-18-81 p.l TCH west of gates 1 6 Traffic 11-18-81 p.l TCH west of gates 1 6 Traffic 11-18-81 p.2 Norquay overpass 2 4 Built env. 11-18-81 p.2 Squirrel St Banff 6 Drowning 12-16-81 p.l L. Louise - Bow River 1 2 Avalanche 12-16-81 p.l Parker Ridge 6 Traffic 1-6-82 p.l Sunshine Tumoff Black ice 2 2 6 Traffic 1-6-82 p.l West of L. Louise on TCH 2 6 6 Traffic 1-6-82 p.l Bow R. bridge East L. Louise 2 Avalanche 1-20-82 p.l Heli-skiing Bugaboos 2 183

6 Traffic 1-27-82 p.10 truck overturned west L. Louise $50 000 6 Traffic 2-3-82 p. 1 Sunshine tumoff 1 2 6 Traffic 2-3-82 p. 1 Tunnel Mt. turnoff 12 cars 4 Mica Ck. Hotel N. of Revelstoke 4 Built Env. 2-3-82 p.1 explosion & fire 2 2 Avalanche 2-10-82 p. 1 Mt Cirrus icefall -climber 1 Gas explosion Spray Valley building 4 Built env. 2-10-82 p. 1 Services 2 Avalanche 2-24-82 p. 1 Cornice peak S. of Jasper 1 1 6 Traffic 3-3-82 p.1 Sunshine turnoff 2 4 Built env. 3-10-82 p.8 Cabin on Tunnel Mt. - gas Natural 4 env. 5-19-82 p.l campfire at foot of Cascade waterfall 6 Hiking 5-26-82 p. 1 Mt Norquay rescue Grizzly tranquillized near Two jack 5 Bear 5-26-82 p.l Cmpground 6 Climbing 7-14-82 p.l Mt Norquay rescue Taylor Ck. Picnic area - Grizzly attacked 5 Bear 7-28-82 p.l child 1 6 Traffic 8-4-82 p.l Junction Hway 93 and TCH 2 6 Traffic 8-4-82 p.l Hway 93 N of L. Louise - motorcycle 1 6 Hiking 8-4-82 p.l Elk Lake area l)horse kick, 2) fall 2 6 Climbing 8-11-82 p.l Mt temple cornice collapse 2 6 Climbing 8-11-82 p.l Lost Mt. Temple 6 Climbing 8-11-82 p.l Rescue Mt. Temple due avalanche hazard 1 Rockfall 8-11-82 p.l 3-4 Couloir 1 6 Traffic 8-11-82 p.l Canmore Mine property 2 6 Climbing 9-1-82 p.l Mt. Charles Stuart 1 6 Traffic 9-1-82 p.2 Eisenhower Junction -Blk ice 2 12 Canmore sewage lagoon - 5 Bear 10-6-82 p.3 chased person Built 4 Environment 10-27-82 p.l Gas explosion house Banff 1 5 Buffalo 12-15-82 p.l Loose from paddock Helicopter 6 crash 1/19/83 p.l 80km SE Golden 2 1 Blocked Hwy 93 several places 2 Avalanche 1/19/83 p.l (Mt.Whymper and Rogers Pass) 2 Avalanche 2/16/83 p.l Tent ridge - Kananaskis (Skiing) 1 6 Skiing 2/16/83 p.l Lake Louise collision with fence 1 dead 1 Built 4 Environment 2/23/83 p.l Royal Canadian Legion Arson $300,000 6 Climbing 2/23/83 p.l Goat Mtn. near Exshaw 1 6 Traffic 3/2/83 p.l Junction Highway 93 and TCH 1 7 Traffic 3/2/83 p.l West of Lake Louise bus 5 Built 4 Environment 3/30/83 p.l Green Acres motel Arson $300,000 Built 4 Environment 4/6/83 p.2 Canmore Arena Arson 6 Traffic 4/27/83 p.l Wolf St. Banff 1 Natural 1.5 acre blaze Vermillion Lakes - 4 Environment 4/27/83 p.l cigarette Built 4 Environment 4/27/83 p.l Carrot Ck Landfill Natural 4 Environment 4/27/83 p. I Pile of Slash near Tunnel Mt. access Natural 4 Environment 4/27/83 p.l Fire near Vermillion Lakes - 4 acres Built 4 Environment 5/4/83 p.2.1 Bam near 1A Canmore 2 horses die 5/4/83 7 Wind Storm p.2.11 Power lines down - icing 6 Traffic 5/18/83 p.l Bicyclist hit by car - Banff 1 6 Drowning 06/08/83 p.l Below Bow Falls 1 6 Traffic 6/8/83 p.l Near Taylor Creek TCH 1 5 Deer/traffic 6/22/83 p.l West of Banff motorcycle hits deer 1 184

6 Traffic 6/29/83 p.2 Fort Chiniquay 5 Lake Louise Grizzly sow with cubs - bear 3 bears 5 Grizzly Bear 7/27/83 p. 1 shot dead 6 Hiking 7/27/83 p. 1 trail above Lake O'Hara - fall 1 6 Drowning 8/10/83 p. 1 Cascade Pits 1 6 Drowning 8-10-83 p. 1 40km W. of Radium 1 6 Climbing 8-17-83 p. 1 Mt. Temple 1 6 traffic 8-31-83 p.l 10KW. ofMorley 2 4 built env. 10-21-83 p. 1 Bomb blast destroys car - Banff $30,000 4 built env. 11-5-83 p.l Phil's Pancake House Banff $20 000 6 Accident 1-11-84 p.l On truck Machinery 1 6 traffic 1-4-84 p.l W. of L.Louise slippery 2 6 traffic 1-4-84 p.l Eisenhower Junction -Black ice 1 2 6 Accident 1-4-84 p.l CO poisoning in van, L.Louise 1 6 traffic 1-4-84 p. 11 12-car pile up - Pigeon Mt. $7,000 Cascade Waterfall - brought down by 6 Climbing 2-8-84 p.l avalanche 1 6 Skiing 2-8-84 p.l Died of Exposure - Grizzly L. 1 2 Avalanche 4-4-84 p.l Mt Deltaform 1 1 6 traffic 4-25-84 p.16 Seebe overpass swerve to miss elk 1 6 traffic 5-30-84 p.3 Sidewalk in Banff 1 6 Parachutist 6-13-84 p.l Rescue from Yamnuska 1 5 Bear 6-20-84 p.l Larch Place Banff some damage 6 traffic 6-20-84 p.l Bicyclist hit by car - Banff 1 6 traffic 6-6-84 p.l motorcycle 1 7 Winds 7-4-84 p.l Brought down Jenning's tree 5 Bear 7-4-84 p.2 G. Bear siting west of Banff 6 Train accident 7-11-84 p.3 Gap L. west of Banff - fisherman 1 6 Drowning 7-18-84 p.l Twin Falls Yoho NP 1 5 Bear 7-18-84 p.l B. bear through L. L. 4 built env. 7-25-84 p.l Motor home destroyed at gas station $35 000 Damage at Chateau L. Louise 7 Storm 8-22-84 p. 10 wind/rain/hail 6 Traffic 8-29-84 p.l Train/car near Sunshine tumoff 1 5 6 Climbing 9-5-84 p.l Yamnuska rescue 1 Prescribed bums l)Lower Mt Corey, 2) S. 4 Natural Env. 9-5-84 p.9 of Johnson Lake 4 Built env. 10-10-84 p.l Propane explosion 1 4 Built env. 10-10-84 p.9 Banff Rec. Centre $70 000 Attacked skiers at Sunshine & Mt. 5 G. Horned owl 12-12-84 p.l Assiniboine 6 traffic 12-12-84 p.l TCHW. of Banff 1 1 6 Skiing 1-23-85 p.l Ski in forbidden zone - avalanche 1 4 Built env. 1-23-85 p.l Underground parking lot $40 000 6 traffic 1-23-85 p.9 W. of Norquay overpass $45 000 6 traffic 1-9-85 p.l W. L. Louise 1 1 2 Avalanche 1-9-85 p.2 Wawa Bowl, Sunshine Village -skier 1 2 Avalanche 1-9-85 p.2 Near Rossland BC skiers 2 5 Cougar 1-9-85 p.2.2 Kananaskis Country - cougar attacks dog 6 Traffic 1-2-85 p.l E. Pigeon Mt. TCH - icy Rds. 1 2-27-85 6 Traffic p.2.1 TCH E. Canmore 4 2 Avalanche 2-20-85 p.l MT Duffy, Monashees near Blue R. BC 2 2 Avalanche 3-20-85 p.l triggered by Wardens for film 3-13-85 6 Traffic p.2.1 S. of TCH on Hwy 40 2 1 Presc. Bums 1) Bow R. near Muleshoe, 2) 4 Natural Env. 4-24-85 p. 11 Johnson L., 3) Nt. Corey 6 Traffic 6-26-85 p. 10 Icefields Pkwy - Helen Ck. Bridge 1 1 4 Built env. 6-12-85 p.l Banff Ave. Vacant house 6 Traffic 7-31-85 p.l Banff & Caribou, Banff 6 Traffic 7-17-85 p.l Motorcycle, Banff 2 4 Built env. 7-10-85 p.l Brewster bus Arson $350 000 6 Climbing 7-10-85 p.9 Barrier Mt. Kananaskis 1 185

6 Traffic 7-3-85 p.2.4 Spray Lake Rd. 2 6 airplane crash 9-25-85 p. 1 Banff, Army Cadet Camp 2 5 Coyotes 9-18-85 p.19 Attack on Muskrat St., Banff 1 9-18-85 6 Train accident p.2.1 Canada Cement Co. rail accident 1 G. Bear sow and cubs attack hiker near L. 5 Bear 9-U-85p.l O'Hare Lodge 1 6 Climbing 9-4-85 p. 1 Cliff by Ross L., Yoho NP 1 Pedestrian struck by truck Hwy 93-near 6 Traffic 9-4-85 p.3 Herbert L. 1 10-16-85 6 Traffic p.2,1 Cyclist on Main St. Canmore 1 6 Traffic 10-16-85 p. 1 Highway 93 -slippery 1 5 Bear 10-30-85 p. 1 Pigeon Mt. - wounded grizzly 6 Traffic 10-30-85 p.9 TCH Lac des Arcs 1 4 Built env. 11-6-85 p. 1 Eagle Cres. $125 000 1 5 elk 12-4-85 p. 11 Jumped from Bow R. bridge 12-18-85 6 Traffic p.2,1 Canmore 1 2 6 Climbing 1-8-86 p.2 Silk tassel ice climbing Rt. Field BC 1 4 Built env. 1-29-86 p.14 Car fire Norquay Rd. $8,000 4 Built env. 1-29-86 p. 1 Banff Govt. Cmpgnd - boiler explosion $27 500 4 4 Built env. 2-12-86 p. 1 Cabin W. L.L. e. of Field 1 1 earth dam 2-12-86 p.l Earth dam burst - S. Johnson L. Mt Stephen E. of Field Traffic blocked 2 Avalanche 2-19-86 p. 1 8hrs 6 Traffic 2-26-86 p.l TCH W. of Banff-icy 3 E and W of Golden 25 slides covering 2 Avalanche 2-26-86 p.l highway 3 Flood 2-26-86 p.l Banff -rain and high temps 6 Climbing 3-26-86 p.l Slipstream Rt. - Snowdome 1 6 Mountaineers 4-9 86 p.l Wapta Icefields - lost 4 6 Traffic 4-9-86 p.l East Park gates 2 6 Climbing 4-30-86 p.l Mt. Andromeda - fall into crevasse 1 6 Accident 5-14-86 p.l Lineman fell, Canmore 1 5-28-86 5 Bear P.2,1 B. Bear and 2 cubs sited near Canmore 6 Climbing 5-28-86 p.3 Cascade Mt. fall 1 3 Hood 6-4-86 p.2,1 Threat - Bow R. Canmore & Banff 6 Climbing 6-4-86 p.l Cascade Mt. 1 6 airplane crash 6-18-86 p.l Twin otter crash into mountain 8 helicopter 6 crash 6-18-86 p.l Helicopter crash into Protection Mt. 5 6-25-86 6 Traffic p.2,4 TCH near Canmore 1 6-25-86 6 Traffic P.2,4 Motorcycle Gap Lake Hill 1 6 Traffic 6-25-86 p.l Near Jumping Pound weigh scale 1 1 6 Traffic 7-2-86 p.l TCH E of Canmore 1 1 6 Traffic 7-9-86 p. 1.2 12hrs later again TCH E of Canmore 6 Climbing 7-9-86 p.l Mt Temple 2 6 Traffic 7-16-86 p.l TCH E of Banff 1 2 6,5 elk/traffic 7-16-86 p.l Banff/L. Minnewanka Rds intersection 1 7-23-86 TCH E. of Dead Man's Flats - obstacle on 6 Traffic p.2,1 Rd. 4 6 Traffic 7-23-86 p.l TCH E. of L. Louise 3 6 Climbing 7-30-86 p.l Mt. Corey - injured - fall 1 6 Climbing 8-6-86 p.l Mt. Temple - icefall swept off 2 8-20-86 Old mine timbers collapsing RV park 1 Mine collapse p.2,4 hazard 6 Traffic 8-20-86 p. 11 Highway 1A near Johnson Canyon 1 6 Climbing 8-20-86 p.7 Mt. Rundle 1 6 airplane crash 8-20-86 p.l Near Sunshine Village 2 2 Climbers on Mt. Baker fall - then cause 2 Avalanche 9-3-86 p.8 avalanche 2 186

2 Avalanche 9-3-86 p.3 Mt. Temple 1 6 Traffic 11-5-86 p. 10 TCHE. of Highway 93 1 12-10-86 6 Traffic p.24 in Banff 2 4 Built env. 1-12-87 p.l Propane explosion Mt Assiniboine Park 4 Built env. 2-25-87 p. 1 Banff Rocky Mt. Resort $1000 00+ 4 Built env. 3-18-87 p.l CIBC in Banff $1500 000 L.Louise Buried in snow And Sunshine 6 Skiing 4-15-87 p.2 Village Heart Attack 2 Grizzly siting - Mt Hunter fire lookout 5 Bear 5-6-87 p.6 trail, Yoho 6 Climbing 5-13-87 p.l Mt. Rundle stranded 5-27-87 Canmore Golf Course Bow R. Bank 1 Erosion p.2,1 erosion 2 Avalanche 6-17-87 p.l Mt. Bryce climbers 3 6 Traffic 7-1-87 p.l Sunshine Rd. W. of Banff 2 6 Train accident 7-22-87 p.8 CPR tracks Canmore 1 6 Drowning 7-22-87 p.9 Nigel Ck, Whirlpool 1 G. Bear treed hikers Red Deer L. Merlin 5 Bear 7-22-87 p.l Meadows Hidden L. Cmpgnd 6 Traffic 8-5-87 p.3 Motorcycle 1 6 Traffic 8-5-87 p.3 Motorcycle 1 6 Drowning 8-26-87 p.6 Cascade Mt. 1 6 Accident 8-26-87 p.3 Athabasca Falls 1 6 Traffic 8-26-87 p.l TCH W. of Banff 1 3 6 Climbing 9-2-87 p.15 Cascade Mt. stranded 5 elk 9-2-87 p. 15 Castle Mt. Junction - swerve to miss elk 1 4 Built env. 9-23-87 p.3 Banff Centre Studio - Electrical $6,000 6 Accident 10-7-87 p.8 Canmore -railway accident 1 6 Accident 12-9-87 p.3 Sunshine Village - fall from chairlift 1 6 Traffic 1-6-88 p.2 L. Minnewanka 6 Skiing 1-20-88 p. 10 Touring -fall 1 4 Built env. 1-27-88 p.6 Propane explosion Banff centre of Arts 6 Skiing 1-27-88 p.6 Peter Lougheed Prov. Pk. Ski fall 1 2 Avalanche 2-10-88 p.3 Skier buried Bow Lake 1 2 Avalanche 2-24-88 p.3 Fossil Mt. Skiers 2 6 Skiing 3-2-88 p.3 Skier collision with snowmaker 1 2 Avalanche 3-2-88 p.3 Cascade Mt. climbers 2 6 Traffic 3-30-88 p.7 TCH W. of Banff 1 4 Natural Env. 4-20-88 p.3 Prescribed bum L. Minnewanka 4 Built env. 5-25-88 p.5 Banff Caribou Lodge $30 000 4 Built env. 5-25-88 p.3 Banff Springs Hotel 1 2 young G. Bears in CmpGnd, 5 Bear 6-22-88 p.4 Kananaskis 6 Traffic 7-17-88 p.2 Norquay overpass 1 5 6 Hiking 7-13-88 p.2 Castle Mt. Slipped 1 6 Traffic 7-20-88 p.3 TCH E. L. Louise 2 L. Minnewanka/Mt. Norquay G Bear 5 Bear 7-27-88 p.3 charge hikers Tunnel Mt. Cmpgnd. 5 coyotes destroyed 5 Coyotes 8-4-88 p.3 due aggressiveness 6 Climbing 8-10-88 p.3 Mt. Lougheed - fall 1 Cathedral Mt. (prob. Debris flow) blocks 3 Hood 8-31-88 p.4 river/rail/road 6 Traffic 8-31-88 p.3 Ped. Hit by truck Canmore overpass 1 6 Traffic 9-8-88 p.2 TCH E. L. Louise 1 7 G. Bear sow w/2cubs Lakeshore trail L.L. 5 Bear 9-28-88 p.7 charged hikers 10-26-88 6 airplane crash p.ll Crash into Elpora Mt. Kananaskis 1 6 Traffic 11-9-88 p.3 TCH W. of Banff 2 6 Accident 12-7-88 p.3 Sunshine Village gondola accident 6 6 Skiing 1-18-89 p.5 Skier frozen-Sundance Pass 1 6 Skiing 2-15-89 p.ll Nakiska - skier crashed into tree 1 6 Climbing 3-8-89 p.9 Sulphur Mt fall 1 187

6 Traffic 4-12-89 p.5 TCH between Castle Junction & Banff 6 Skiing 4-12-89 p.3 Sunshine Village fall from lift 1 6 Hiking 5-25-89 p.9 L. Minnewanka trail - fall 1 6 Climbing 6-7-89 p.9 Mt Niblock near L. Agnes L.L 1 Grizzly sow removed from Mt Norquay 5 bear 6-7-89 p.3 area. Prescribed burn Aylmer Lookout L. 4 Natural Env. 6-14-89 p.6 Minnewanka 5 bear 6-28-89 p.3 Cascade fire rd. G Bear trees hiker 4 Built env. 7-12-89 p.8 Banff house fire $20 000 4 Built env. 7-19-89 p.4 Ptarmigan staff House fire - cigar $10 000 7 lightning 7-19-89 p.2 Mist Mtn. hiker hit 1 6 Traffic 7-26-89 p.4 TCH near Castle Junction 1 4 6 airplane crash 7-26-89 p.3 Ranger Canyon 20 km from Banff 1 6 Traffic 8-2-89 p.2 west of Junction TCH Hwy 93 1 2 6 Climbing 8-10-89 p.3 Mt. Temple rescue G Bear charges Hikers Helen L./Dolomite 5 Bear 8-23-89 p.3 Pass 6 Traffic 8-30-89 p.3 Pedestrian hit E. of L.Louise 2 6 Climbing 9-27-89 p.2 Cascade Mt. fall 6 Skiing M-90 p.4 Sunshine Village - collision with tree 1 6 Skiing 1-24-90 p.9 L. Louise - collision with tree 1 2 Avalanche 2-7-90 p.3 Warning Backcountry 4 Built env. 2-7-90 p.3 Mt. Royal Hotel - sauna 2 Avalanche 2-14-90 p.3 Helen Ck. Skiers 4 6 Skiing 3-7-90 p.3 L.Louise - collision with sign 1 6 Traffic 3-14-90 p.3 Sunshine access road 2 Chateau L. Louise pool roof collapse due 6 Accident 3-21-90 p.3 to snow 5 6 Mountaineers 3-21-90 p.3 Waputik Icefield - whiteout - lost 6 Skiing 3-28-90 p.7 Sunshine Village collision with tree 1 2 Avalanche 4-25-90 p.3 Cascade Mt. fall - climber 1 helicopter 6 crash 4-25-90 p.3 Helicopter crash Blue R. BC 3 2 4 Built env. 5-16-90 p.3 Travelers Inn arson $30 000 3 Flood 5-30-90 p.4 Cougar Ck. Dam broke - Canmore 5 Bear 6-6-90 p.5 B. bear broke through screen door - Banff 5 Elk 6-6-90 p.3 Fenland Trail elk with calf attack 1 grounds of Banff centre 2 cows attack 5 Elk 6-13-90 p. 13 tourist 2 6 Climbing 7-4-90 p.3 Mt. Rundle fall 1 6 Traffic 7-11-90 p.3 Icefields Pkway S. of Sask. Crossing 1 4 Outram Peak, Sask. Crossing 5 acres - 4 Natural Env. 7-18-90 p.3 lightning 6 Climbing 8-9-90 p.4 Mt. Temple- fall 1 Chateau L. Louise Employee Res. 4 Built env. 8-9-90 p.3 Propane explosion 4 Natural Env. 8-15-90 p.6 Prescribed burn Cascade Valley 6 Traffic 8-15-90 p.4 West of Sunshine Village turn off 2 6 Climbing 8-15-90 p.3 Mt. Temple fall 1 6 Climbing 8-22-90 p.3 Mt Assiniboine fall 1 6 Traffic 8-29-90 p.7 TCH west of L.L 4 Prescribed Bum Minnewanka, Panther 4 Natural Env. 10-3-90 p.8 and Stoney 2700ha Hiker electrocuted on HV tower L. 6 Accident 10-31-90 p.4 Minnewanka 1 11-14-90 2 Avalanche p.12 Warning Backcountry 11-28-90 2 Avalanche p.12 Warning Backcountry 2 Avalanche 12-5-90 p.7 Warning Backcountry 6 Traffic 12-19-90 p.5 TCHE. ofL.L 1 6 6 Climbing 1-3-91 p.3 Rescue from cascade ice fall 1 6 Climbing 1-9-91 p.5 Mountain Rd. Banff 11 4 Built env. 1-9-91 p.3 Mt Hound Chalet condo complex $11 188

million 6 Accident 1-23-91 p.4 sledding Mt. Norquay 1 6 Mountaineers 2-6-91 p.3 Saddle Mt. near L.L. 1 2 Avalanche 3-20-91 p.6 Bugaboo heli-skiing 9 6 Traffic 4-10-91 p.8 TCH Sunshine Village tumoff 4 4 Built env. 4-10-91 p.5 Maintenance shed L.L 900 000 Icefields Pkway Mosquito Ck. wounded 5 Bear/traffic 5-8-91 p. 10 bear 6 Traffic 5-15-91 p.4 TCH W. L.L. 1 5 Wolf/traffic 5-15-91 p.3 TCH Sunshine Village turnoff Wolf killed 5 Elk 5-23-91 p.5 St Mary's Catholic Church elk kicks child 1 5 Elk 6-5-91 p.3 St Julien Dr. attack 1 Tunnel Mt. Large chunk of rock caused 1 Rock fall 7-16-91 p.4 fall 1 6 Climbing 7-4-91 p.3 Mt Rundle fall 2 6 Hiking 7-31-91 p.3 Mt. Rundle fall 1 1 Mudslide 7-31-91 p.3 2 slides block L. Minnewanka Rd. Grizzly sow w/2 cubs attacks hiker near 5 Bear/hiker 8-8-91 p.6 Kaufmann L. 1 5 Hiking 8-8-91 p.5 Castle Crags near L.L on BV Parkway 1 6 Traffic 8-14-91 p. 11 Hway 93 cyclist hit by car 1 6 Skiing 8-28-91 p.5 Sunshine Village Resort - reckless skiing 1 6 Climbing 9-4-91 p.7 L.L. Back of the Lake Crag 1 4 Built env. 9-4-91 p.5 Banff Springs Hotel - smoking $1,000 1 6 Caving 10-23-91 p.2 Mt. Robson - rock dislodged in cave 1 6 Traffic 11-6-91 p.7 Chateau rd. L. Louise 1 Sunshine Village Resort - accident on 6 Skiing 12-18-91 p.3 closed run 1 4 Built env. 12-24-91 p.3 shed at Mt. Norquay ski resort $450 000 2 Avalanche 2-12-92 p.2 Lake Louise ski area 4 Built env. 2-26-92 p. 2 Banff house fire - fire place $10 000 Lake Louise - collision with skier then lift 6 Skiing 3-4-92 p.6 tower 1 6 Skiing 3-18-92 p.2 Lake Louise-fall while racing 1 5 Elk 3-18-92 p.3 Banff- people harassing elk 6 Climbing 3-18-92 p. 3 Field BC fall 1 Prescribed bum Mt Norquay, Hillside 4 Natural Env. 4-8-92 p.3 Meadow, Stewart Canyon Prescribed bum out of control at Mt 4 Natural Env. 5-13-92 p.2 Norquay $80 000 Black Bear broke into freezer at L.L. Bear 5 Bear 6-3-92 p. 11 fatality 6 Traffic 6-3-92 p.5 Tunnel Mtn car into ditch, tree 1 5 Bear 6-3-92 p.2 Spray River Valley - black bear 1 6 Airplane Crash 6-17-92 p.8 Crash into trees at end of Banff airstrip $18 000 Vermillion Lakes Trail closed due to 5 Coyotes 6-17-92 p.13 visitor harassment of kits.

Code Specific Published Where/What Fatality Injury Incident "Elk Points" Public info, article on elk 5 Elk 24/06/92 hazard on roads Motorcycle accident Saskatchewan. 6 Traffic 08/07/92 River Crossing 1 5 Elk 15/07/92 Fence for schoolyard elk - Banff . 1 5 Bear 29/07/92 Bear awareness night - bear info - Wardens lose fight to save grizzly 5 Bear 29/07/92 bear 5 Bear 29/07/92 Crackdown on illegal garbage cans - 5 Elk 05/08/92 Elk incidents down by 50% - 6 Traffic 19/08/92 Lake Louise Crash 1 6 Traffic 19/08/92 Head on Thompson Drive 1 6 Traffic 02/09/92 Accident claims life of local on TCH 1 189

5 Bear 02/09/92 Bear attack Lake O'Hara - trail closed 2 6 Drowning 09/09/92 Near Lake Louise on Bow river 1 5 Elk 09/09/92 Park notice re elk hazard _ Weather related fall near Lake Louise 6 Climbing 16/09/92 Saddle Pass Snow Squalls 1 Weather related fall near Lake Louise 6 Climbing 16/09/92 Mt. Temple Snow Squalls 1 5 Elk 23/09/92 Warning re rutting elk bulls - 5 Bison 23/09/92 Warden gored by bison 2 Jasper grizzly attack (1st since 1929 in 5 Bear 23/09/92 Jasper) 1 5 Elk 30/09/92 Relocation of aggressive elk 1 5 Elk 30/09/92 Park notes - elk antler removal - 6 Emergencies 21/10/92 ERT ready - Moffat Manor - Banff $200 000 4 Fire 28/10/92 damage 6 Hiking 28/10/92 Fall on Snowy trail Stewart Ck. 1 5 Elk 11/11/92 elk fence in Jasper _ 5 Bear 18/11/92 Wardens shoot spoiled bear _ - 1 Bear tally - 8 relocated, shot or killed 5 Bear 18/11/92 by traffic Park notes - article on fire history and 4 Forest fire 18/11/92 hazard 6 traffic 25/11/92 Icefield Pkwy closed discussed costs - - 6 Climbing 02/12/92 Ice climb fall Beauty Ck. 1 - 6 Skiing 09/12/92 Judge - ski hill ropes can kill - - Garbage & animals - 65 incidents 5 Animals 09/12/92 since spring Head on collision on TCH near 6 Traffic 14/12/92 Sunshine TO 2 6 Traffic 16/12/92 9 yr old struck in Banff - 1 Safe heli-skiing and weather 6,2 Skiing 16/12/92 prediction 5 Elk 30/12/92 Antler less elk don't change behaviour . High avalanche hazard, thin snow, 2 Avalanche 06/01/93 depth hoar 5 Elk 06/01/93 Bad elk may be moved to KNP - 6 Traffic 03/01/93 3 killed 16 kms west of Banff 3 6 6 Skiing 03/01/93 Snowboarder injured on rock - 1 Avalanche hazard still high - cold 2 Avalanche 13/01/93 temps 2 Avalanche 20/01/93 Park notes - depth hoar - 4 Fire 21/01/93 Rimrock minor damage - 1 Elk should be kept out of town to 5 Elk 27/01/93 Letter to Ed 2 Avalanche 03/02/93 Avalanche catches climbers - all safe - 1 6 Traffic 03/02/93 Accident TCH 5kms east of L.L - 1 6 Skiing 03/02/93 Lake Louise 1 injured . 1 Elk have indigenous rights - Letter to 5 Elk 03/03/93 Ed. Angry elk fights tormentors - Central 5 Elk 10/02/93 Park 1 Potential tanker spill 5kms W of Park 6 Traffic 17/02/93 Gate . 1 190

4 Fire 24/02/93 Elementary school minor damage . 6 Pollution 24/02/93 BowR. Polluted . 5 Elk 24/02/93 Study questions elk relocation - 6 Climbing 03/03/93 Rockfall on Cascade Mt. 1 1 6 Climbing 03/03/93 Fall on Mt. Athabasca 1 6 Skiing 10/03/93 skier collides with tree 1 7 Snowstorm 17/03/93 29cms in 24 hrs - 6 Climbing 11/03/93 Fall injuries turn fatal 1 6 Traffic 24/03/93 "Deadly Hwy" to be twinned - 6 Traffic 31/03/93 Head on west of Castle Jet. 1 6 Climbing 07/04/93 Fall at Cougar Ck. 1 CB 1 4 Fire 28/04/93 Forest fire threat due to dry winter - 5 Ticks 05/05/93 Tick time - hikers beware - 6 Climbing 12/05/93 Fall on Cascade Mt. 1 CB 1 4 Fire 19/05/93 Prescribed Forest fire strategic - 5 Elk 26/05/93 Danger of elk attacks - calving - 6 Hiking 26/05/93 Boy falls into Rampart Ck. 1 4 Fire 26/05/93 Concerns about value of burns - 6 climbing 09/06/93 10 climbers killed this year - 6 Hiking 09/06/93 heart attack and fall 1 6 Traffic 30/06/93 TCH 10 kms west of Castle Jet. 3 4 6 Traffic 07/07/93 Rollover Bow summit 2 6 Hiking 21/07/93 hikers keep wardens busy 1 6 Traffic 14/07/93 TCH near Lake Louise 1 6 Hiking 28/07/93 Fall at Sunwapta Falls 2 6 Climbing 04/08/93 Fall Mt. Loder 1 6 Rafting 11/08/93 Bow Falls 1 6 Climbing 25/08/93 Fall Mt. Deltaform 1 6,2 Avalanche 18/08/93 Avalanche Mt. Temple 1 6 Climbing 18/08/93 Fall on Watchtower 1 5 Bears 18/08/93 Odaray Pt closed to protect grizzlies 1 6 Traffic 01/09/93 TCH 3 Km east of Lake Louise 1 6 Traffic 01/09/93 Highway 93 1 5 Elk 01/09/93 Elk hazard warning - 6 Traffic 08/09/93 Near Canmore 3 6 Traffic 08/09/93 Near Exshaw 1 6 Climbing 06/10/93 Fall backside Lake Louise 1 2 Avalanche 03/11/93 Wardens give up control in ski areas . 2 Avalanche 10/11/93 Parks ready at Roger's Pass - 6 Traffic 10/11/93 Motorcycle Banff 1 6 Climbing 24/11/93 Fall on Mt. Burgess 1 Notice on Backcountry avalanche 2 Avalanche 24/11/93 safety 6,2 Avalanche 01/12/93 out of bounds skier Sunshine 1 6 Traffic 01/12/93 TCH 11 kms East of Lake Louise 1 6 Traffic 15/12/93 TCH Banff - Lake Louise 1 5 Flu 05/01/94 Flu strikes Banff area 1 6,2 Avalanche 26/01/94 Skiers trigger 5 avalanches 1 5 Wildlife 02/02/94 Restricted access to wildlife corridors 1 191

6 Traffic 02/02/94 Speed is what kills on TCH . 6 Skiing 09/02/94 Skier hits tree at Nakiska 1 4 Fire 12/03/94 Num-Ti-Jah laundry building - 6 Skiing 30/03/94 Skier skied off cliff in Lake Louise 1 6 Traffic 27/04/94 MP says highway twinning necessary - 4 Fire 11/05/94 Article on prescribed bums - 4 Fire 18/05/94 Burning policy opposed - 4 Fire 25/05/94 Pro burn letters to ed. - 4 Fire 01/06/94 Park pressed on fire plan - 6 Traffic 01/06/94 Woman stable after hit and run 1 5 Elk 08/06/94 Person escapes elk attack 1 6 Traffic 08/06/94 Motorcycles on Hwy 93 1 5 Bears 08/06/94 Move bears Letter to Ed. - intense wind and electrical storm in 7 Storm 22/06/94 Bow Valley Rollover TCH 10 km east of Lake 6 Traffic 06/07/94 Louise 2 6 Traffic 06/07/94 TCH at Banff single vehicle 1 6 Traffic 20/07/94 Engineer says twinning plan faulty - 4 Fire 27/07/94 Fire hazard extreme in BNP Kick. H. R. blocked by Mt. Stephen 1,3 Debris flow 03/08/94 TCH closed 1 trapped campers and tourists in Yoho N.P. Baker Ck. Grizzly gone - area 5 Bear 10/08/94 reopened 4 Fire 17/08/94 Baker Ck. Forest fires _ 2 bulls moved from Banff due 5 Elk 24/08/94 aggressiveness 1 6 Climbing 02/09/94 2 fall on Mt. Victoria 2 CB 2 6 Canoeing 01/09/94 Hector Lake drowning 1 Fall triggered avalanche Mt. 2,6 Climbing 07/09/94 Athabasca 2 Prescribed bum out of control R.D. 4 Fire 28/09/94 River 4 Fire 12/09/94 One fire could cook town - fire chief - 5 Elk 14/12/94 Elk conflicts: 1993 = 45, 1991 = 75 . 6 Railway 21/12/94 CP tracks shortcut to death - 6 Traffic 21/12/94 Report rejects TCH status quo - 2,6 Skiing 07/12/94 1 search called off for climber Columbia 6 Climbing 08/02/95 Icefield 1 2,6 Skiing 22/02/95 Burstall Pass Kananaskis 1 2 Avalanche 02/03/95 Use your head . 2,6 Climbing 24/02/95 Avalanche at Cascade Mt. 2 2,6 Skiing 15/03/95 Avalanche accident at Bow Summit 2 2,6 Skiing 29/03/95 High avalanche hazard "warning - 4 Fire 26/04/95 prescribed bum program put on hold _ 6 Rafting 14/06/95 Overturned raft Bow River all rescued 1 New search for climber on Cascade 6 Climbing 05/07/95 Mt. See Feb 5 Elk 12/07/95 By the throat - elk confrontation - 192

6 Traffic 19/07/95 Rollover TCH Pigeon Mt. 1 5 Bear 19/07/95 Anthropomorphist and bears - Herraro . re: Feb 24 incident recovered 1 dead 6 Climbing 26/07/95 Cascade Mt. Infection 02/08/95 Middle closed due to infection . Infection 09/08/95 Meningococcal infection 1 6 Traffic 09/08/95 9 injured TCH rear-ender 9 Climb/hike 4 rescued Sunset P and 6 hikers/Climbing 09/08/95 Mt. Assiniboine 4 Bear confrontation Kananaskis 5 Bear 23/08/95 Country trails closed 5 Elk 23/08/95 Elk stomps 9 yr old 1 6 Hiking 30/08/95 3 accidents in few hours 1 2 6 Climbing 13/09/95 Fall on Mt. Rundle 1 6 Traffic 13/09/95 Motorcycle accident 1 L. Louise Campground 5 Bears 23/09/95 mailings'(previous warnings) 3 6 Traffic 30/09/95 TCH East of Lake louise 3 3 6 Traffic 11/10/95 Expectations cause traffic problems - Wardens sure right L. Louise bears 5 Bears 18/10/95 killed 6 Traffic 15/11/95 Cautioning article re parkway travel - Avalanche hazard high several 2 Avalanche 22/11/95 incidents 5 Bear 22/11/95 Grizzlies endangered by attitudes - 2,6 Skiing 29/11/95 Watch ski area boundaries - 2 Avalanche 06/12/95 Avalanche hazard high - 6 Traffic 06/12/95 numerous accidents on slippery roads 4 4 Fire 07/12/95 Banff/Norquay day lodge leveled - Rescue roundup: on average 1995 6 Misc 27/12/95 annual incidents 22 hikers, 11 scrambling, 5 Skiing (all types) and climbing, 4 bicycle, 2 boating, 1 fishing, 2 horseback 65 incidents outside the park 4 fatalities Woman killed after hitting trees at 6 Skiing p. 2 31/01/96 Lake Louise 1 2 separate highway accidents L. 6 Traffic p.3 07/02/96 Louise & Field 2 7 6 Skiing p.3 07/02/96 Safe boarding beats avalanches - Two serious highway accidents TCH 6 Traffic p.3 21/02/96 west of Banff 1 3 Wardens may have killed wrong L. 5 Bears p. 1 27/03/96 Louise bears Bow Valley group info to help reduce 4 Fire p. 13 08/05/96 fire risk 4 Fire p. 13 08/05/96 Beware it's almost fire season - Woman killed TCH 11km East of 6 Traffic p. 10 15/05/96 Banff slippery roads 1 6 Climbing p.3 22/05/96 ?? Dies in field on Tunnel Mt. 1 Motor home leaves TCH 15 kms east 6 Traffic p. 1/2 29/05/96 of L. Louise 2 193

6 Traffic p. 3 05/06/96 Motorcycle hits car near Lake Louise 1 6 Scrambler p. 1 12/06/96 Scrambler killed on Mt. Norquay 1 Accidents plague Mt. sports fall on 6 Mt. Spit p. 3 19/06/96 cascade and 3 2 mountain bike accidents 6 K-100p.6 19/06/96 Woman dies in K-100 1 6 Mt. Sports p. 8 19/06/96 accidents mostly young males - high drama rescue saves 2 canoeists 6 canoeing p. 1 17/07/96 averts drowning 1 Injured climber rescued from 6 Climbing p. 2 24/07/96 Chinaman's Pk. 1 Banff cadets rescue plane crash 6 Plane p. 1 31/07/96 victims 2 Crash on TCH 8 kms west of Castle 6 Traffic p. 3 31/07/96 Jet. 1 6 Climbing p. 4 31/07/96 2nd climber falls on Chinaman's peak 1 Trapped infant rescued TCH vehicle 6 Traffic p. 1 07/08/96 accident E. of B 1 6 Climbing p. 2 07/08/96 Fall injures expedition leader 1 Elk dies tragically after impaling on 5 Elkp.l 21/08/96 picket fence 2wildfires Spray Valley and Healey 4 Wildfire p. 3 21/08/96 Ck. Extinguished Real rocky Mt. heat wave raises fire 4,7 Heat wave p. 1 28/08/96 hazard Promising lives snuffed out accident 6 Traffic p. 3 28/08/96 E. of Banff 2 4 Fire 04/09/96 Banff spared but not Jasper and Yoho - Wild Swerving drive ends with 6 Traffic p.3 11/09/96 charges 1 Grizzly charge forces evacuation 5 Bear p. 4 11/09/96 Larch V. trail closed 1 Tough choice elk in the crosshairs 5 Elk p. 1 11/09/96 animals in town exhaustion factor in fatal accident 6 Traffic p.l 18/09/96 15kmsW. of Banff 3 3 4 Fires p. 8 09/10/96 Detectors warn residents of fire - 6 Hiking p. 3 16/10/96 Hiker falls off cliffs on tunnel Mt. 1 Bus accident near Lake Louise 6 Traffic p. 6 16/10/96 slippery roads 7 Bear attack victim at L.L. 5 Bear p.4 06/11/96 Campground sues Pk Canada Grizzly numbers stressed say experts 5 Bear p.l 13/11/96 75 bears killed or removed from park between 71 and 95 Icy rescue as Climber falls on Mt. 6 Climbing p.l 11/12/96 Rundle 1 Avalanche claims life of Canmore 2 Avalanche p.3 18/12/96 man near L. O'Hara 1 Elk and tourists make for a dangerous 5 Elk 18/12/96 mix L to Ed. Weather keeps some off hills brutal T. 7 Weather p.3 31/12/96 near -30C Icy crash 10 kms west of Banff on Jan 6 Traffic p. 4 08/01/97 6 3 194

Sunshine area avalanche prompts 2 Avalanche p.7 08/01/97 safety warning Avalanche awareness public service 2 Avalanche p.8 22/01/97 article Avalanche activity low but caution 2 Avalanche p. 10 05/02/97 still warned Fed study looks at SAR cost $200 000 6 SAR p.5 12/02/97 95/96 70 ops Falling boulder catches climber on 6 climbing p. 2 26/02/97 head 1 Family hammered by avalanche - car 2 Avalanche p. 15 26/02/97 hit 1 Driver killed in head on 7 kms west of 6 Traffic p. 6 26/03/97 L. Louise 1 Ice climbers rescued Wapta Icefield 6 climber p. 7 26/03/97 after several days 1 Chinook brings avalanche to Spray 2 Avalanche p.21 26/03/97 Rd. in K. Country _ - - 150 m of road covered and closed - Treacherous conditions slippery roads 6 Traffic p. 1 09/04/97 rollover at E gate 1 Skier hits tree at L. Louise dies later in 6 Skiing p. 15 16/04/97 hospital 1 Cause of fatal crash questioned head 6 Traffic p. 17 21/05/97 on 3 km E Field 2 2 5 Elk p. 12 28/05/97 Calving season closes trails 1

5 all p. 1 valley 28/05/97 People living with wildlife Public info flood p 3 River watchers have chance to learn 3 Valley 28/05/97 more-Bow River floods 5 elkp.2 11/06/97 5 yr old run over by elk 1 3 flood p. 5 11/06/97 Bow R. flood watch over - 6 bike p. 2 18/06/97 Banff man killed on bike hit by car 1 Safety program targets young 6 climbing p.20 18/06/97 climbers Bear p. 1 Bear aware study on research about 5 Valley 18/06/97 effect of bear . - - jams on bears - Scramblers death highlights risks: 6 Scrambler p.3 25/06/97 150m fall 1 rescue of hiker with injured leg from 6 Hiker p. 9 25/06/97 Sulphur Mt. 1 Scrambler injured by falling boulder 6 Scrambler p. 3 02/07/97 Mt. Cory 1 5 Elk p. 9 09/07/97 Tourist trampled by elk 1 K. country squad rescues climber on 6 climbing p. 8 09/07/97 Chinaman's Pk. 1 Elk charged children but didn't but 5 Elk p. 3 16/07/97 them 1 Father rescues 8yr old daughter from 6 canoeing p.8 16/07/97 BowR. 1 6 Scrambler p. 3 23/07/97 Scramblers rescued above bow falls 1 Climbing accident claims Calgary 6 Climbing p. 2 23/07/97 teacher Castle Mt. 1 Grizzly scares lakeside strollers 5 Bear p. 3 30/07/97 Moraine Lake 1 195

Rollover single car accident 3 km east 6 Traffic p. 2 30/07/97 of Banff 2 hiker/weather p. Hiker hit lightning-knocked 6,7 3 06/08/97 unconscious Mt. Aylmer 1 Wife watches husband plunge off 6 climbing p. 2 13/08/97 mountainside 1 Humans barely aware of bears; 5 Bears p. 14 13/08/97 editorial Helping save Moraine L. Grizzly Pub 5 Bear p. 1 valley 13/08/97 ed. Awareness Changing river dangerous Wardens 6 Canoeing p. 2 20/08/97 warn paddlers Mountains claim lives of three 6 climbing p. 1 27/08/97 climbers: 1 fall on Mt. Temple and 2 in fall on Chinaman's Pk 3 Texas tourist run over at bear jam 5,6 bear/traffic p. 3 27/08/97 Icefield Pkwy 1 Taunting tourist stomped by cow elk 5 elk p. 2 03/09/97 protecting calf 1 Living safely with Banff s wild elk 5 animals p.B 1 03/09/97 public ad rutting elk How Banff community can help 5 animal p. B1 03/09/97 reduce elk problems cycling deaths prompt talks after 2 6 cycling p. 8 10/09/97 cycling deaths school to elk "keep out" additions to 5 elk p. 18 17/09/97 school fence Larch Valley trail closed due to 5 bear p. 15 17/09/97 curious bear 1 TCH twinning complete 18 km west 6 traffic p. 8 08/10/97 to Castle Jet. Highway claims 2 in two separate 6 traffic p. 3 15/10/97 accidents 2 2 Hwy 93 at Storm Mt. and TCH at Redearth Ck. Area ski hills cool on El Nino-may 2 weather p 5 05/11/97 postpone opening Minding your elk manners - Elk 5 Elk p. B3 19/11.97 awareness article Climber falls to death- rappelling 6 climbing p. 3 26/11/97 down Mt. Murchison 1 Wardens issue waming-in wake of 2 avalanche p.3 03/12/97 Fortress Mt. Ski - - - resort accident where 4 were killed 4 Train derailment one of biggest in CP 6 train p.3 10/12/97 history - steep 1 . . - slope east of Field 75 grain cars - chance for volatile Christmas no 2 weather p. 16 17/12/97 snow/mild temp Know the risk of playing in the 2 avalanche p.9S 24/12/97 backcountry- warning about avalanche hazard following Fortress accident Multi-vehicle crash claims Calgarian- 6 traffic p. 2 31/12/97 6k W of Castle jet. 1 10 196

15 vehicle crash TCH 17 kms W of 6 traffic p. 1 07/01/98 Banff 6 4 closely escape avalanche partially 2 avalanche p. 1 07/01/98 buried L.L. O of B 4 6 traffic p. 4 07/01/98 2 car collision 2 km west of field 1 2 avalanche p. 11 14/01/98 public awareness article/session . 5 wolves p. 5 14/01/98 Fear mongering wolves are fables . injured skier drags self to safety 6 Skiing p. 1 04/02/98 overnights in back 1 - - - with broken leg . 5 flu p. 7 04/02/98 Flu strikes Banff area 1 5 flu p.10 4/25/98 flu hits Banff students 30 sick per day 1 Avalanche in Field-ice climber 2,6 avalanche p.3 18/03/98 rescued 1 man rescued with broken leg - Mt. 6 climber p. 18/03/98 Murchison 1 5 dog p.4 25/03/25 dog attacks three teens 3 skier survives avalanche - swept 1000 2,6 Skiing p.3 01/04/98 ft at L. louise 1 chairlift evacuated - 60 skiers rescued 6 Skiing p. 2 29/04/98 from Ptarmigan 1 campfire believed to have started 2 Fire p. 13 06/05/98 blaze 1 Lightning starts fire in KNP: another 2 fire p. 3 13/05/98 15k W of Banff 1 started from illegal camp fires Hillside to Mt. Cory closed 1 Living with fire public awareness 2 firep.Bl 20/05/98 article Wardens remove aggressive elk from 5 elk p. 2-4 20/05/98 Banff: Elk 1 _ _ _ charges wardens - Canoeing couple capsizes Bow R. 6 canoe p. 3 20/05/98 near Redearth 1 Boat lands on rocks tour boat 6 boating p. 3 27/05/98 grounded on L. Minnewanka 1 grizzly charges hiker C- level cirque 5 g. bear p. 5 03/06/98 may 27 1 Park wardens warn of elk: public 5 elk p. 14 03/06/98 awareness article 5 tick p. 20 03/06/98 tick season winding down - hiker rescued tunnel Mt. climber falls 6 hiker p. 5 24/06/98 on popular route 1 6 hiker p. 1 08/07/98 young Banffite falls from Tunnel Mt. 1 5 G. bear p. 3 08/07/98 visiting grizzly alarms neighborhood 1 6 warning p. 5 08/07/98 river dangers are real public warning . injured cadet rescued from Presidents 6 climber p.3 15/07/98 Glacier 1 5 g. bear p.3 15/07/98 grizzly startles Moraine Lake hikers 1 elk charges toddler cow elk in Banff. 5 elk p. 3 29/07/98 Father demands 1 - . - elk be removed from the townsite. - plan to remove 400 elk from town. 5 elkp.5 29/07/98 Many bom in Banff now habituated 197

Rescuers spend night up high Mt. Edith due to elect. St. 2 stranded 6 climbers p 5 12/08/98 climbers 1 public awareness poster-watch for 2 fire p. 9 19/08/98 fires 5,6 g. bear p. 1 19/08/98 hiker survives grizzly mauling 1 6 traffic p. 3 26/08/98 hazardous material spill on hwy 93 1 wardens issue backcountry bear 5 bear p. 12 26/08/98 warning after mauling fire at sunshine destroys teepee town 4 fire p.3 06/01/99 chairlift 1 backcountry users warned about 2 avalanche p. 9 06/01/99 avalanche hazard helmets urged - person hits tree and 6 skiing p.3 20/01/99 dies at Sunshine 1 avalanche warning following skier 2,6 skiing p.3 20/01/99 triggered avalanche 1 _ - . at L. louise - climber crushed by ice - falling ice at 6 ICE climber p.3 27/01/99 Weeping Wall 1 wardens issue warning following 2 avalanche p.9S 17/03/99 avalanche at Field that 1 - . - just missed climbers - snowboarder critical following 6 snowboard p.3 24/03/99 collision with another SB 1 climber critical condition - hit by large 6 climber p.3 24/03/99 block of ice on 1 - - - Mt. Wilson - snow slide derails train 1 km east of 2 avalanche p.3 31/03/99 field 3 cars off 1 6 skier p.5 31/03/99 skier hits tree at Mt. Norquay 1 injured climber rescued- after being 6 climber p.6 31/03/99 struck by cornice 1 1 - - - on House Peak - avalanche buries car Icefield Pkwy 2 avalanche p.7 31/03/99 near Weeping Wall 2 trapped teen drowns at falls-trapped 6 drowning p. 1 05/05/99 under shopping cart 1 Calgary man killed-single vehicle 6 vehicle p. 7 05/05/99 TCH west of Banff 1 5 elk p.3 02/06/99 aggressive elk, newborn destroyed 1 rising water poses risk-Banff- 3 flood p.8 02/06/99 Canmore section 1 6 ski p.2 09/06/99 injured ski hill worker airlifted 1 5 bears p.7 09/06/99 wardens warn of bear jam dangers 1 missing hikers body found in K 6 hiker p. 9 09/06/99 country 1 3 flood p. 12 16/06/99 Little concern for flooding - Forecasters watching Bow R. minor - 3 flood p. 20 23/06/05 Snowmelt flooding Fencing townsite boundary revisited- 5 elk p. 1 30/06/99 to keep elk out Banff rock climber lucky to be alive- 6 climber p. 7 04/08/99 fall at Castle Mt. 1 car accident injures four-2 vehicles E. 6 vehicle p. 9 04/08/99 of Lake Louise 4 198

6 mudslide p. I 11/08/99 highway washed out . 1 6 mudslide p. 1 11/08/99 mudslide price tag starts 300 k . 1 6 mudslide p.3 11/08/99 The big cleanup . 6 mudslide p. 16 11/08/99 Resorts shine through mudslide . Mt. Stanley claims climber-fall on 6 climber p. 7 11/08/99 North face 1 Bear shot after biting onto tent at L. 5 bear p. 1 18/08/99 Minnewanka campground 1 slides effect minimal-not from man- 6 mudslide p. 8 18/08/99 made cause 1 storm wreaks havoc-trees down in 7 storm p. 3 26/08/99 Bow V. Tunnel Mt. 1 father, daughter injured in crash with 6 vehicle p. 14 01/09/99 semi 2 Canmore climber injured in fall on 6 climber p. 13 01/09/99 Mt. Victoria 1 Moraine L. grizzly and people - 5 G. bearp 15 08/09/99 opinion piece that says - - - M. L. should be for people not bears - P.B. begins in autumn in Spray V. to 4 P. B. p. 11 22/09/99 create protective - - - barrier fro townsite - Be careful warning-elk mating season 5 elk p. 16 22/09/99 started lone climber killed on Mt. Assiniboine 6 climber p. 4 29/09/99 400ft fall 1 highway accidents abound - no 6 vehicle p. 4 29/09/99 fatalities 3 3 hikers allowed in Larch V.-lst time in 6 hikers p. 12 29/09/99 3yrs hiking permit Driver escapes inferno 14km E. of 6 vehicle p. 3 06/10/99 Banff 1 6 vehicle p.3 13/10/99 car plunges into icy river-1 dead 1 1 dead near L.L. TCH head on 2 6 vehicle p. 3 13/10/99 injured 1 2 2,6 Avalanche p. 3 08/12/99 Avalanche buries skiers at glacier 3 4 Cascade climbers killed first a fall 2,6 climber p. 3 22/12/99 then avalanche 2 4 slide at sunshine 3 caught but ride it 2,6 avalanche p. 1 22/12/99 out 3 7 ice p. 5 22/12/99 ice crust danger to climbers - Mt. realities teach lessons-high risk 6 warning p. 18 22/12/99 activities danger 2 avalanche p.3 29/12/99 avalanche warnings continue - Wardens round up 150/450 elk to be 5 elk p. 3 29/12/99 moved out of town 2 avalanche p. 3 19/01/00 Slide kills woman Jan 17- Tout ridge 1 elk plan put in motion-most 5 elk p. 3 19/01/00 aggressive elk penned - - _ waiting for relocation - 7 ice p. 4 19/01/00 icy roads wreak havoc on drivers 1 1 crash kills L. L. woman on TCH near 6 vehicle p. 3 26/01/00 L. Louise 1 boarder's injuries critical after hitting 6 boarders p. 8 02/02/00 trees at L. Louise 1 199

rescuers battle wind to reach climber- 6 climbers p 2 09/02/00 Ghost lakes area 1 snow experts warn of slides-KNP 2 avalanche p. 9 09/02/00 avalanches wildcat sightings on rise near town 5 cougar 16/02/00 warning issued 1 Rockies ski trip turns tragic 11 yr old 6 skiing p. 1 23/02/00 dies in collision 1 _ _ _ with tree at Mt. Norquay _ 6 skier p. 3 23/02/00 skier falls off lift at Mt. Norquay 1 6 skier p. 3 08/03/00 wardens attend ski hill accident 1 wardens rescue climber from Mt. 6 climber p. 3 08/03/00 Rundle 1 snowboarder snowboarder killed at Sunshine 6 p.3 15/03/00 /Goat's eye 1 _ _ - Cornice failure leads to 600 m fall _ snow slide hazard high-series massive 2 avalanche p. 16 22/03/00 slides-sunshine Rd. 1 avalanche control shuts down 2 avalanche p. 16 22/03/00 highway 1 2 avalanche p. 16 22/03/00 four swept by slide Trapper's Pk. 4 6 vehicle p.5 22/03/00 five escape flaming car in Banff 1 semis collide on highway $100 000 6 vehicles 29/03/00 damage 1 skiers body recovered fell in crevasse 6 skier p.2 26/04/00 Mt. Athabasca 1 hiker cheats death Mt. Burgess 6,2 hiker p.4 26/04/00 avalanche and fall 1 6 vehicle 03/05/00 Banff man struck by car and dies 1 6 cougar 03/05/00 dog survives cougar attack 1 6 boaters 24/05/00 boaters rescued on Lake Minnewanka 1 7 global warming 31/05/00 global warming may cause park fires . 5,6 grizzly p.8 07/06/00 grizzly charges traveler Bow R. 1 grizzly charges couple Tokum Ck. 5,6 grizzly p.4 28/06/00 KNP 1 hope fading for climbers rescue on 6 climber 28/06/00 Cascade Mt. 1 5 injured in 2-car accident near 6 vehicle p. 1 28/06/00 Buffalo Paddock 5 hikers get fright from charging grizzly 5,6 grizzly p. 9 19/07/00 Helen L. winter trail 1 6 climber p.3 02/08/00 climber impaled o tree during fall 1 6 drowning p.5 09/08/00 Canmore man drowns in lake 1 5,6 grizzly p.1 16/08/00 bear attack lands hiker in hospital 1 elderly couple survive plunge off 6 vehicle p.2 16/08/00 highway at Vermillion Lake 2 6 climbing p.3 23/08/00 wardens injured in fall on Mt. Lefroy 2 5,6 grizzly p.5 23/08/00 hungry bear prompts trail closure 1 aggressive bear forces closures at Two 5,6 grizzly p. 1 30/08/00 Jack lake 1 5,6 grizzly p.2 30/08/00 grizzly mauls hiker in K-Country 1 climber killed in freak rockfall Mt. 6 climber p. 2 06/09/00 Little 1 highway deaths down 93-24, 94-12, 6 vehicle 06/09/00 95-13, 96-4, 97-6, 98-2,99-2, 2000-1 200

hiking trails closed Larch valley to 5,6 grizzly p. 15 27/09/00 spare hungry bear 1 hiker dies from heart attack at 6 hiker p.3 04/10/00 Johnston Canyon 1 5,6 grizzly p.9 11/10/00 bears forage in town 1 woman killed in highway plunge at 6 vehicle p. 1 01/11/00 Vermillion Lakes 1 6 climber p. 3 06/12/00 climber dies in fall on Sulphur Mt. 1 woman killed by cougar near L. 5,6 cougar p. 1 03/01/01 Minnewanka 1 5,6 cougar p. 3 04/01/01 several cougars spotted in town 1 6 traffic 31/01/01 Man killed in rollover 1 5 cougar 21/02/01 cougar caught on Stoney Squaw 1 6 skier 28/02/01 skier injured in crash at Sunshine 1 fatal crash TCH 1 km from divided 6 traffic 21/03/01 highway 1 1 French woman killed in avalanche at 2,6 avalanche 21/03/01 Rogers Pass 1 6 climber 28/03/01 climber rescued from Mt. rundle 1 5 wolves p.6 11/04/01 wolves hunting in town 1 mudslide vermillion lakes lookout 1 mudslide 27/04/01 point 1 5,6 bear 24/05/01 bear rips at shirt 1 6 traffic 30/05/01 two thrown from car 2 4 Fires p. 11 30/05/01 small fires around town 1 4 hurt sliding down snow slope Parker 6 recreation 06/06/01 Ridge 4 3 highway 06/06/01 5 mile creek burst its bank 1 woman swerves to avoid elk and 5,6 elk 20/06/01 crashes 1 5 cougar 27/06/01 cougar caught in town 1 6 traffic 04/07/01 woman killed in rollover 1 4 fire 11/07/01 fires threaten Banff I 4 fire 11/07/01 fire threat at vermillion lakes 1 6 climber 18/07/01 climber falls 40ft at Mt. rundle 1 camping no longer allowed at L.L. 5 bear 25/07/01 campground 1 5 wolf 25/07/01 wolf kills family dog in town 1 Holiday bear scare at two jack lake. 3 5 bear 08/08/01 grizzlies 1 black 1 4 fire 15/08/01 fire spills into Banff from Kootenay 1 elk incidents down only 6 to date in 5 elk 15/08/01 town fire rages through Kootenay may 4 fire 22/08/01 threaten Banff 1 woman swept over fall at Johnston 1,6 hiker 29/08/01 canyon 1 5 bear 05/09/01 Banff man treed by grizzly 1 5 bear 05/09/01 woman bit by bear at L. Minnewanka 1 woman dies of Heart attack at marble 6 hiker 12/09/01 canyon 1 climber stranded on Mt. Patterson 6 climber 12/09/01 after fall 1 201

motorist hit deer at Saskatchewan 5,6 traffic/deer 19/09/01 crossing 2 climber dies on Mt. Temple from 6 climber 19/09/01 heart attack 1 6 climber 17/10/01 climber hurt in glacier fall at L. L. 1 skier buried up to neck at Parker 2 skier 17/10/01 Ridge 1 woman walks into train while wearing 6 train 31/10/01 headphones 1 man dies from heart attack on slopes 6 skier 21/11/01 at sunshine 1 woman dies in dog sledding accident 6 dog sledding 19/12/01 thrown into tree 1 6 traffic 03/01/02 L. Louise: man dies woman injured 1 1 Warden Mike Wynn killed at Parkers 2,6 avalanche 16/01/02 ridge 1 wolves hunting in Banff townsite 5 wolf/elk 16/01/02 chasing after elk cougar seen Sulphur Mt. wardens 5 cougar 16/01/02 track to vermillion L no cat found prescribed bums to battle beetle 5 pine beetle 23/01/02 infestation lengthy battle ahead wardens collar and release 2 cougars 5 cougar 23/01/02 prowling near Banff town slide strands skiers at sunshine village 2 avalanche 23/01/02 due to road closure male cougar feeding in vermillion 5 cougar 06/02/02 lakes warning issued wolves attack family dog in Banff 5 wolves 13/02/02 town wolves chasing elk at vermillion lakes 5 wolves 13/02/02 cause traffic slowdown wolves follow sleigh near Warner 5 wolves 13/02/02 Stables 6 traffic 13/02/02 car accident minor injuries 6 traffic 13/03/02 man hit by car in Banff breaks leg ice climber dies from falling ice veil at 6 ice climber 13/03/02 Lake louise falls 1 climber falls 25m at Sulphur Mt. 6 climber 13/03/02 suffers broken leg snowboarder knocked out at L.L after 6 snowboarder 22/03/02 collision with tree in Hospital 6 semi flips 03/04/02 semi flips on TCH near Banff 1 Chair lift chair falls and dumps skier 6 skier 03/04/02 to ground 14yr old girl bruised 6 skier 03/04/02 6 yr old boy hits tree severe injuries ski patroller recovered from Mt. 6 skier 24/04/02 Balfour e. face after fall off cornice 1 5 elk 01/05/2002 warning re calving elk 1 5 bear 15/05/2002 bear injures camper in tent skier hurt L.L. fractured vertebrae, 5 skier 15/05/2002 ribs and bruised lung bear prowling cave & Basin H. 5 bear 22/05/02 springs disturbs 4 tents 1 grizzly spotted at vermillion lakes 5 bear 15/06/02 warning issued 1 202

elk in town desensitized to humans 5 elk 15/06/02 warning issued 1 gondola fails Sulphur Mt. strands 100 6 gondola fails 19/06/02 people for 2 hrs 1 horse spooked by broken carriage 5,6 horse 19/06/02 injures woman 1 32 yr old woman drowns in Cold 6 kayaker 19/06/02 Canyon on Mistaya river 1 Mt. Biker seriously injured at Banff 6 Mt. biker 19/06/02 Springs golf course 1 moraine L. trail closed due to grizzly 5 grizzly 26/06/02 sightings Trail restrictions 1 Yoho, LL, Kootenay & Banff parties of 6, horses parties of 2 Eiffel L. Larch V. Consolation L. grizzly roaming through Banff town 5 grizzly 26/06/02 scares shoppers send running 1 man dies after head on collision near 6 traffic 03/07/02 L.L. 5 others injured 1 5 mitigation at Five Mile Ck may save 1 debris flow 17/07/02 lives reduce highway closure tents banned 2Jack lake Campground 5 grizzly 17/07/02 due bears attracted to B. berries 1 bear warnings temple rd fish Ck to 5 grizzly 24/07/02 Skoki after sighting F with 2 cubs 1 head on near L.L. van- 4 people hit by 6 traffic 24/07/02 car with 3 L.L. employees 3 4 hiker ahead of party meets bear lies on 5,6 grizzly/hiker 24/07/02 ground bear puts paw on back 1 rockfall moraine lake injures 8 yr old hiker 24/07/02 hit on head in foothills hospital 1 climber stranded on Mt. rundle 6 climber 31/07/2002 rescued by helicopter 1 summit of Mt. Fairview 63 Yr old 6 hiker 31/07/2002 struck by lightning and killed 1 lake Minnewanka road elk hazard 5 elk 31/07/2002 people warned to stay clear 1 car plows into vehicles parked 5,6 bear/traffic 07/08/2002 watching bear(bear jam) serious 13 bear rummaging thru coolers & garbage Rempel campground rubber 5 bear 07/08/2002 bullets used 1 landslide closes highway 93 north of 1 landslide 28/08/2002 Saskatchewan Crossing 1 fires started by lightning strikes rip 4 fire 28/07/2002 through region posing risk 1 feeding bears force trail closure at 5 grizzly 04/09/2002 Stanley glacier 1 6 traffic 04/09/2002 Head on collision 3k W casUe Jet. 4 hiker fights off grizzly w/bear spray Mt. Assiniboine forest 9 more airlifted 5,6 bear/hiker 25/09/2002 out 9 cougar eyes dogs thru fence - middle springs housing/carnivore signs 5 cougar 25/09/2002 posted 1 2 climbers rescued by helicopter after 6 climbers 02/10/2002 cold night on the finger 2 203

scrambler rescued by wardens on 6 hiker/scrambler 02/10/2002 tunnel Mt. 1 2 lyr old girl injured after rollover on 6 traffic 16/10/2002 sunshine tumoff 1 6 traffic 30/10/2002 single vehicle accident no injuries 1 2 killed highway 2 male73 and 6 traffic 30/10/2002 female70 2 6 traffic 13/11/2002 3 accidents west of L.L no injuries 3 accident east of castle junction 5 6 traffic 13/11/2002 people 1 injured 4 uninjured 1 4 slippery roads cause 6 accidents 4k w 6 traffic 27/11/2002 of sunshine turnoff 4 crash between jeep and CP truck 6 traffic 18/12/2002 minor injuries 2 6 traffic 18/12/2002 jeep plunges off road to Mt. Norquay 1 5 accidents between L.L and bow river turnoff south 12 crashes over 6 traffic 01/01/2003 weekend 1 5 ice climber injured Corey pass sever 6 ice climber 22/01/2003 knee injury 1 6 traffic 05/02/2003 two vehicle accident 2 6 traffic 19/02/2003 4 car accident minor injuries 4 6 ice climber 26/02/2003 ice climber falls at louise falls 1 6 snowboarder 26/02/2003 snowboarder hits tree twice no helmet 1 American killed by avalanches near snowshoe 19/03/2003 Lake Agnes 1 hiker killed after traversing avalanche 2,6 hiker 19/03/2003 chute despite warnings of hazard 1 weather sparks avalanches closes 2 avalanche 19/03/2003 highway between L.L. and Golden 1 6 traffic 19/03/2003 deadly rollover TCH at red earth ck 1 hiker injured in Johnston canyon 6 hiker 02/04/2003 serious knee injury 1 6 traffic 30/04/2003 single vehicle accident no injuries 1 controlled bum flames across road 4 fire 30/04/2003 slowing traffic and reducing visibility 1 6 traffic 30/04/2003 Johnston lake rollover injuries 1 1 rollover hwy 93 near Stanley glacier 6 traffic 07/05/2003 injures 2 2 boater presumed drowned Shuswap 6 boater 28/05/2003 Lake 1 grizzly returns to town feeding on 5 grizzly 25/06/2003 edge of town 1 6 Plane p. 19 16/07/2003 plane crash not located 3 feared dead 3 2 cyclists, M and F killed near L.L. 6 cyclists 16/07/2003 after being hit by inattentive trucker 2 14yr old male survives 20m fall from 6 hiker 30/07/2003 marble canyon into Tokumn Ck 1 raging fires force many trail closures j 4 fire 06/08/2003 canyon, M L, Sulphur Mt. ,cons .L. 1 grizzly in ditch-encounters with people H93 closes 2jack main 5 grizzly 13/08/2003 &lakeside 1 raging fires affect breathing increase 2 fire 13/08/2003 eye infections/asthma/repertory illness 1 204

containment at vermillion pass halt raging KNP fires from spreading to 4 fire 27/08/2003 Banff 1 17yr old dies after 30m fall cascade 6 hiker 03/09/2003 Mt. 1 53yr old dies from heart attack on 6 hiker 03/09/2003 Peyto glacier 1 lightning strikes spark fires at Taylor 4 fire 03/09/2003 lake 1 rollover east of sunshine turnoff 6 traffic 10/09/2003 claims 21 yr old male 1 34 yr old dies from serious head injury 6 climber 10/09/2003 after fall at devils gap 1 6 traffic 17/09/2003 single vehicle accident minor injuries 2 2 hikers plucked from Mt. rundle after 6 hikers p. 12 08/10/2003 freezing night on Mt. 2 multiple accidents after winter storm 6 traffic 22/10/2003 minor injuries 4 5 accidents between L.L and castle 6 traffic 16/12/2003 Junction. No injuries 5 two semis collide hwy 93 near marble 6 traffic 27/01/2004 canyon 1 6 traffic 20/01/2004 car accident west of Banff no injuries 1 habituated elk show aggressive 5 elk 20/01/2004 behaviour - face death 1 6 traffic 03/02/2004 roll over east of L. Minnewanka 1 5 elk 03/02/2004 bull elk running through town 1 3 ice climbers swept off south face 6 ice climbers 17/02/2004 Mt. Wilson 3 6 traffic 17/02/2004 jeep roll over sunshine road 2 5 wolves 02/03/2004 wolves sighted at airport 1 6 traffic 02/03/2004 semi overturns L. Minnewanka 1 teen girl airlifted to Calgary after hitting tree at Mt. Norquay - no 6 skier 09/03/2004 helmet 1 Banff not to spray for west Nile as 6 west Nile 23/03/2004 cost greater than risk rescuers pluck 26 yr old man from 6 climber 13/04/2004 crevasse Mt. Athabasca N. glacier 1 semi crash near castle junction no 6 traffic 20/04/2004 injury 1 semi roll over between L.L. and castle 6 traffic 04/05/2004 junction 1 motorist plunges into bow river 8 km 6 traffic 11/05/2004 west of castle junction 1 grizzly spotted near Sulphur Mt. 5 grizzly 11/05/2004 surprises two hikers 2 aggressive cow elk threading 5 cow elk 25/05/2004 behaviour to people (calving) 1 warning to hikers about sow and cubs 5 grizzly 25/05/2004 L.L. area 1 two climbers feared dead on Mt. Delataform after fall from super 6 climbers 08/06/2004 couloir 2 5 bear 66 08/06/2004 bear 66 foraging for food in townsite 1 bear 66 frequents town looking for 5 bear 66 15/06/2004 food 1 205

grizzly bluff charges 2 separate groups 5 grizzly 22/06/2004 of hikers at cascade amphitheatre 2 male hiker dies of heart attack while 6 hiker 22/06/2004 hiking on Mt. rundle 1 surprised hiker hits bear on nose with 5 grizzly 29/06/2004 hiking pole - sow with 2 cubs to 1 M 1 man falls from horse near Bow Falls 6 horse rider 29/06/2004 injured 1 truck hits snowplow causes 8 vehicle 6 traffic 29/06/2004 pileup after jack knifing 8 6 traffic 06/07/2004 3 vehicle collision 20 km east L.L. 3 6 fencing 13/07/2004 L.L fenced to protect wildlife woman dies from rockfall while 6 climber 27/07/2004 ascending to Abbott hut 1 fire just outside BNP- heavy smoke in 4 fire 27/07/2004 town concern fro respiratory illness 1 parks employee falls to death at night 6 hiker 17/08/2004 in Johnston Canyon - alcohol factor 1 climber hit by natural rockfall Mt. 6 climber 17/08/2004 Athabasca dies 1 23yr old L.L employee dies 6 hiker 14/09/2004 scrambling on Mt. Richardson 1 6 traffic 14/09/2004 two vehicle crash east of BVP exit 2 6 B. bear 21/09/2004 bears foraging in town 1 semi tanker roll over south of castle 6 traffic 12/10/2004 JCT. fire closes HWY 93 1 major storm and high winds uproot 7 storm/winds 09/11/2004 trees down hydro lines 1 study shows bears use ski hill terrain 5 grizzly 30/11/2004 as new foraging habitat heavy snow fall caused fatal crash 8.2 7,6 traffic/storm 14/12/2004 km west of L.L. 1 2 bad weather causes crash near 7,6 traffic/storm 21/12/2004 Bourgeau Lake road no injuries 1 bad weather icy roads cause van to 7,6 traffic/storm 21/12/2004 plunge off icy Mt. Norquay rd 3 icy roads freezing rain close hwy L.L. 7 weather 25/01/2005 & Jasper and hwy 93 1 icy rods cause car to slide off Tunnel 6 traffic 01/02/2005 Mt. rd 5 storm knocks out power topples trees 7 storm 08/02/2005 on homes 1 tour bus slips off Mt. Norquay rd. 30 7,6 weather/traffic 08/02/2005 passengers 1 young skier dies after hitting tree Mt. 6 skier 18/02/2005 Norquay - 7 yrs old 1 6 traffic 02/03/2005 semi overturns L. Minnewanka 1 teenaged skier flown to Calgary after crash into trees Mt. Norquay no 6 skier 09/03/2005 helmet 1 driver injured after crash into tree icy 6 traffic 16/03/2005 roads and speed factors 1 minivan roll over west of sunshine 6 traffic 16/03/2005 turnoff 3 two crashes one in Banff one near 6 traffic 24/03/2005 town 2 206

serious crash east of L.L. crossed 6 traffic 24/03/2005 centre line 1 26yr old male plucked from crevasse 6 hiker 13/04/2005 Athabasca glacier after 40 m fall 1 6 traffic 12/06/2005 vehicle roll over sunshine turn off 1 bear 66 and three cubs interrupt 5 grizzly 17/06/2005 golfers at Banff golf club 1 highway 1A flooded after culverts 3 flooding 14/06/2005 plugged 1 mudslide westbound TCH 1km west Norquay overpass near vermillion 1 mudslide 19/06/2005 lakes 1 6 traffic 21/06/2005 car crash claims 58 yr old man 1 heavy rain caused overland flow 7 heavy rain 28/06/2005 strands campers Ya Ha Tinda ranch 1 bear 66 and three cubs scare illegal 5 grizzly 28/06/2005 camper 1 Johnston lake 27 year old male 6 water sports 28/06/2005 drowns 1 6 water sports 28/06/2005 bow river 25 year old male drowns 1 6 traffic 05/07/2005 motorcycle hits rock on roadside 1 climber triggered avalanche Mt. 2,6 avalanche 12/07/2005 Athabasca seriously injures climber 1 bear mauls hiker on L. Minnewanka trail after coming between sow and 5,6 hiker/bear 30/08/2005 cubs 1 crash: Icefield pkwy between Saskatchewan crossing & Jasper 6 traffic 13/09/2005 claims Australian woman's life 1 5 missing hiker feared dead Henry Fan missing in Moraine L. area 3 weeks 6 hiker 18/10/2005 ago 1 skier hits head on rock after fall on 6 skier 11/11/2005 Standish run at Sunshine resort 1 38 yr old mans leg crushed by boulder 5 climber 23/08/2005 near bugaboo spire 1 gondola at L.L. fails due to faulty 6 gondola fails 29/11/2005 bearing strands 75 people for 3.5 hrs 1 avalanche hazard closes Icefield 2 avalanche 13/01/2006 parkway for 28 hrs 1 avalanche hazard/ avalanches close 2 avalanche 31/01/2006 highway from L.L. to field 1 avalanche hazard/ avalanches close 2 avalanche 05/02/2006 highway from L.L. to field 1 skier takes fall on L. Louise 6 skier 03/03/2006 Intermediate run breaks neck 1 skier crashes at sunshine resort on 6 skier 16/03/2006 headwall run Mt. Standish 1 Rollover crash near Sunshine tumoff 6 traffic 21/05/2006 injures three males 4 rollover crash at middle springs kills 6 traffic 24/03/2006 one injures another 1 1 father drowns after rescuing son from 6 drowning 11/04/2006 fall through thin ice on Bow river 1 climber survives 3100ft slide & 3 nights on Mt. Deltaform after 5 climber 25/04/2006 avalanche claims friends life 1 1 207

black bear mauls biker on popular 5 bear 12/05/2006 Hoodoo trail 1 5 bear 26/05/2006 black bear on steps of house in Banff 1 solo hiker bluff charged on Sundance 5 bear 19/09/2006 trail 1 solo caver at base Mt. Bourgeau drowns after pinned below ice in 6 caver 21/11/2006 plunge pool 1

Hazard Code Interpretation 1 Geological Hazards 2 Avalanche Hazards 3 Flood Hazard 4 Fire Hazard - Natural or Built Environment 5 Animal Hazard 6 Activity Hazard - Recreational or Traffic Hazard 7 Atmospheric Hazard

Accidents in North American Mountaineering 1985-2004 AAC/ACC Location Date Result Cause MT. Rundle RC 26/05/1985 ICY Fall Tower of Babel SC 08/06/1985 1CR Fall MT.Louis MC 11/07/1985 2CG Stranded MT. Ishbel MC 13/07/1985 1CR Fall The Lyell group MC 13/07/1985 ICY Fall Wapta Icefield MC 30/03/1986 4CG Lost MT. Temple MC 08/03/1986 2CB Icefall/fall Mt. Andromeda MC 25/04/1986 1CB Fall Cascade Mt. MC 25/05/1986 1CR Fall Cascade Mt. RC 27/05/1986 1CR Fall Mt. Temple MC 06/07/1986 2CB Fall Mt. Cory MC 28/07/1986 1CR Rockfall Mt. Whyte MC 02/08/1986 ICY fall Mt. Temple IC 03/08/1986 2CB Icefall/fall Bow Glacier MC 08/08/1986 ICy Fall 1CB, Mt. rundle RC 16/08/1986 ICY Fall MT. Victoria MC 20/08/1986 ICY, ICG Fall Mt. Temple MC 03/08/1986 2CB Icefall/Fall Mt. Temple MC 27/08/1986 2CY Rockfall 2CB, Mt. Baker MC 03/09/1986 3CG Fall/Avalanche MT. Temple MC 03/09/1986 1CR Avalanche Fossil Mt. IC 20/02/1987 2CB Avalanche Mt. Rundle MC 05/07/1987 ICG Stranded Mt. Lefroy MC 12/07/1987 ICY Fall Mt. Temple MC 27/07/1987 2CG Stranded Cascade MT. MC 23/08/1987 ICG Stranded MT. Ishbel MC 05/10/1987 ICY Fall Cascade Waterfall IC 26/02/1988 1CR,1CY Avalanche Cascade Mt. SC Jul-88 ICY Fall Mt. Andromeda/Athabasca Col MC 31/07/1988 1CR Fall 1CB, Freshfield Glacier BC/MC 25/03/1989 ICG Fall Columbia Icefield MC 23/04/1989 1CB Fall Mt. Niblock MC 02/06/1989 1CB Fall Sulfur Mt. RC 03/06/1989 ICG Fall MT. Temple MC 08/06/1989 2CG Stranded Mt. Andromeda MC 01/07/1989 1CB.1CR Fall Mt. Rundle RC 11/08/1989 1CR Fall Crowfoot Mt. MC 13/08/1989 ICG Fall Cascade Mt. SC 21/09/1989 ICG Fall MT. Aberdeen MC 14/07/90 2CR fall Mt. Andromeda IC 04/09/1990 1CR/1CG Avalanche/fall Cascade Mountain MC Apr-90 ICY Fall Cascade Mt. MC Jul-90 1CR Fall Cascade Mt. IC Dec-90 ICY Stranded Grand Sentinel RC 11/08/1990 ICY Rockfall Mt. Lefroy MC 07/07/1990 ICY Fall MT. Rundle IC 10/03/1990 ICY Fall Waputik Icefield Mc 21/03/1990 3CG Lost MT. Rundle SC/RC 01/07/1990 1CB Fall Spray Slabs RC 01/07/1990 ICY Fall MT. Temple MC 01/08/1990 1CB,1CR Fall Mt. Temple MC 13/08/1990 1CB Fall Mt. Assiniboine MC 18/08/1990 1CB Fall Mt. White Pyramid MC Feb-90 ICY Fall Saddle Mt. SMC 29/01/1991 1CB Fall Mt. Rundle IC Jan-91 ICY Fall Sunshine Slabs RC Jul-91 1CR Fall Mt. Abraham RC * 09/06/1991 2CG Stranded Cascade Mt. Bankhead RC Jun-91 1CR Fall Mt. Rundle RC 08/07/1991 2CB Fall Mt. Niblock MC 14/07/1991 1CR Fall Tunnel Mt. RC Jul-91 1CR Fall Castle Crags RC 05/08/1991 1CB Fall/Rockfall Mt. Collier MC 18/08/1991 1CR Fall Mt. Victoria MC 19/08/1991 2CR,1CG Fall Back of Lake Crag L.L. RC 01/09/1991 1CR Fall Mt. Fay MC 16/09/1991 ICY Fall Mt. Andromeda MC 07/10/1991 1CR,1CG Fall Mt. Temple MC 06/08/1992 ICG Stranded Mt. Temple Mc 01/09/1992 ICY Snowblock fall Mt. Temple MC 12/09/1992 1CB Fall/ Blizzard Saddle Pass L.L. MC 12/09/1992 1CB Fall/Blizzard Bow Summit Falls IC 02/02/1993 1CR Fall Cascade Falls IC 26/02/1993 1CB ICY Rockfall Sunwapta Pass/Panther falls IC * 08/03/1993 1CR Fall Tunnel Mt. RC 11/03/1993 1CB Fall Plain Of the Six Glaciers L.L MC 11/05/93 ICY Avalanche Cascade Mt. Mc 12/05/93 1CB Fall Back of the Lake Crag L.L. RC 06/06/1993 ICY Fall Mt. Andromeda MC 21/06/1993 ICG Fatigue Mt. Whyte MC 01/08/1993 ICY Fall Mt. Loder MC 04/08/1993 1CB Fall Mt. Temple MC 09/08/1993 1CR,1CB Avalanche Mt. DeltaformMC 21/08/1993 1CB Fall Back of the Lake Crag L.L. RC 27/09/1993 ICY Fall Mount Ishbel MC 18/06/1994 ICY electrical storm/Fall Grand Sentinel RC 21/07/1994 1CR fall 1CR, MT. Aberdeen MC 23/07/1994 2CY fall Mt. Collier MC 25/07/1994 1CR Fall Back of the lake Crag RC 26/07/1994 1CR fall MT. Temple MC 01/08/1994 2CG Fatigue MT. Temple MC 01/08/1994 3CG Fatigue Mt. Temple MC 03/04/1994 ICY fall Mt. Lefroy MC 14/08/1994 2CY Rockfall Mt. Victoria MC 01/09/1994 2CB Fall Ghost River IC 28/01/1995 ICY Fall Cascade Mt. IC 24/02/1995 2CB Avalanche Louise Falls IC 20/03/1995 ICY Fall MT. Aberdeen MC 27/08/1995 1CR,1CY Fall Mt. Rundle MC 27/08/1995 1CB Fall Sunset Pass MC 09/08/1995 ICY Fall Mt. Assiniboine MC 09/08/1995 2CY Fall Mt. Rundle MC 13/09/1995 1CB Fall Hadoo Peak MC 17/09/1995 ICY Fall Back of the Lake Crag L.L. RC 06/10/1995 1CR Fall Weeping Wall, IC 29/12/1995 ICY Icefall Tunnel Mt. RC 22/05/1996 1CB Fall Cascade Mountain RC 19/06/1996 1CR Fall Mt. Rundle IC 11/12/1996 1CR Fall Cascade Falls IC 20/02/1997 1CR Rockfall Wapta Icefield IC 26/03/1997 2CG weather Mt. Murchison Falls IC 27/03/1997 3CG Fatigue Bow Falls IC 23/02/1997 ICY Fall Castle Mt. MC 15/07/1997 1CB Fall Mt. Andromeda MC 31/07/1997 ICY Jump Neptuak Mt. MC 10/08/1997 1CB,1CG Fall Mt. Louis RC 10/08/1997 ICY Stranded Mt. Temple MC 20/08/1997 1CB Fall MT. Rundle IC 23/11/1997 ICY Fall Mt. Murchison IC 23/11/1997 1CB Fall Weeping Wall IC 07/03/1998 2CG Stranded Mt. Andromeda MC 07/03/1998 2CG Lost Tunnel Mt. RC 21/06/1998 ICY Fall ICY. Mt. Louis MC 26/07/1998 ICG Lost/rockfall Mt. Fay IC/MC 02/08/1998 ICY Rockfall Mt. Victoria MC 12/08/1998 ICY Rockfall Back of the Lake Crag RC 30/08/1998 1CR Fall Back of the Lake Crag RC 15/09/1998 ICY fall ICY, Mt. Dennis IC 14/03/1998 8CG avalanche Mt. Murchison MC 18/03/1998 ICY Fall House peak Mc 31/03/1998 1CR Icefall/Cornice Mt. Wilson IC 24/01/1999 1CB ice fall Mt. Wilson IC 17/03/1999 1CR fall Mt. Andromeda 30/05/1999 2CB Fall Castle Mt. MC 27/07/1999 1CR Fall MT. Aberdeen MC 20/08/1999 2CY Fall Mt. Victoria MC 28/08/1999 ICY Fall 2CB, Fall then Avalanche 2CB fall & Cascade Waterfall IC 17/12/1999 1CR,6CY 7 in avalanche Louise falls IC 20/01/2000 ICY Icefall Wicked Wanda IC 02/02/2000 ICY Fall Ghost River IC 13/02/2000 ICY Fall MT. Rundle IC 08/03/2000 ICY fall Wapta Icefield/Peyto Glacier approach MC 19/03/2000 1CR,2CY Avalanche Back of the Lake Crag RC 17/06/2000 ICY Fall Cascade Mt. MC 23/06/2000 1CB Fall Back of the Lake Crag RC 29/07/2000 1CR Fall Mt. Lefroy MC 18/08/2000 2CR Rockfall lead to Fall Mt. Little MC 29/08/2000 1CB Rockfall Selenium Falls IC 12/12/2000 1CB Fall Johnson Canyon Upper Falls IC 19/01/2001 ICY Icefall Louise Falls IC 14/02/2001 ICY Fall Professor Falls IC 20/03/2001 ICY Fall Hadoo Peak MC 21/07/2001 4CG Stranded Mt. Temple East Ridge MC 10/08/2001 3CG Fatigue Mt. Lefroy MC 01/08/2001 2CG Stranded Mt. Patterson east face MC 05/09/2001 ICY, ICG Rockfall Mt. Temple East Ridge MC 15/09/2001 1CB Fall MT. Aberdeen MC 14/10/2001 1CR Fall Bow Falls IC 12/02/2002 1CR Fall Louise falls IC 07/03/2002 1CB Icefall Professor Falls IC 10/03/2002 ICY Fall Mt. Balfour/ Balfour High Col SMC 12/04/2002 1CB Fall Mt. Rundle MC 31/07/2002 ICG Stranded Mt. Temple East Ridge MC 27/08/2002 ICG Stranded due medical issue The Finger RC 28/09/2002 2CG Stranded Ghost River, Duveinafees RC 08/10/2002 ICY Fall Mt. Wilson IC 10/01/2003 2CY avalanche Five-mile Ck/Mt. Cory IC 19/01/2003 ICY Fall Mt. Murchison, Balfour Wall IC 09/02/2003 ICY Fall 13-2-2003 IC Johnston Canyon IC 13/02/2003 ICY Fall Louise falls IC 22/02/2003 ICY Icefall 211

Moraine L./Scheisser Ledges MC 23/07/2003 1CB Fall Cascade Mt. MC/SC 30/08/2003 1CB Fall Ghost river/Bonanza/Devil's Gap RC 06/09/2003 1CB Fall Back of the Lake Crag RC 10/10/2003 ICY Fall Back of the Lake Crag RC 19/10/2003 ICY Fall Weeping Wall Center Pillar IC 21/12/2003 1CR Icefall Cascade Mt. IC 03/01/2004 ICY Fall Bourgeau Right Hand IC 04/01/2004 ICY Fall Mt. Rundle Professor Falls 23/03/2004 5CG Avalanche MT. Wilson Midnight Rambler IC 12/04/2004 3CB Avalanche Mt. Deltaform MC 05/06/2004 2CB Fall Mt. Andromeda MC 04/06/2004 1CRJCY Fall Abbott Hut area MC 27/07/2004 1CB Rockfall Tunnel Mt. RC 06/07/2004 1CR Fall Grotto Canyon RC 18/07/2004 1CR Fall Mt. Rundle SC/MC 29/07/2004 ICG Stranded Mt. Temple, Aemmer Couloir MC 31/07/2004 4CG Fatigue Tunnel Mt. RC 26/08/2004 1CR Fall

Avalanche Incidents in BNP from Avalanche Accidents in Canada Volume 4,1984-1996 (Jamieson and Goldsetzer, 1997; AAC/CAA (1985-2004) Date Location Result User Group 23/01/1985 Skier in forbidden Zone 1CR DH 27/12/1985 Wawa bowl Sunshine AVALANCHE 1CB DH 29/08/1986 Mt. temple 1CR SC 09/03/1986 Mt. Baker MC Fall then avalanche 2CB, 3CG MC 09/03/1986 MT. temple MC Avalanche 1CR MC 04/04/1987 Lake Louise buried in snow AVALANCHE 1 CB DH 29/05/1987 Bow Summit, Banff National Park, Alberta 1CB BC 07/02/1988 skier buried Bow Lake avalanche 1CB BC 20/02/1988 Fossil Mt. IC avalanche 2CB IC 26/02/1988 Cascade Waterfall IC Avalanche 1CR,1CY IC 11/02/1990 Healy Creek, Banff National Park, Alberta 4CB BC 09/04/1990 Mt. Andromeda IC fall/ Avalanche 1CR/1CG IC 12/01/93 out of bounds skier Sunshine 1 CB avalanche 1CB DH 03/02/93 Avalanche catches climbers - all safe 3CG MC 11/05/93 Plain Of the Six Glaciers L.L MC Avalanche ICY MC 09/08/1993 Mt. Temple MC Avalanche 1CR,1CB MC 18/08/93 Mt. Temple Avalanche 1CB MC 28/11/1993 Mt. Howard Douglas, Banff National Park Alberta 1CB BC 26/01/94 Skiers trigger 5 avalanches 5CG BC 15/03/95 Avalanche accident at Bow Summit 2injured 2CR BC 24/02/1995 Cascade Mountain IC 2CB IC 07/01/1997 Lake Louise Out of Bounds avalanche 4CY DH 24/02/1997 IC Cascade MT. avalanche 2 CB 2CB IC 26/02/97 Family hammered by avalanche - car hit 4CY Visitor/car 212

07/01/98 4 escape avalanche partially buried L.L. 0 of B 4CY DH 14/03/1998 Mt. Dennis IC Avalanche ICY, 8CG IC skier survives avalanche - swept 1000 ft at L. 01/04/98 louise 1 Injured 1CR DH avalanche warning following skier triggered 20/01/99 avalanche at Lake Louise 1CB 1CB BC 13/01/1999 Lake Louise, AB avalanche 1CB DH 31/03/99 avalanche buries car Icefield Pkwy Weeping Wall 2CG Visitor/car 17/12/1999 Cascade Waterfall IC Fall then Avalanche 2 CB, 1CR,6CY IC 22/12/99 slide at sunshine 3 caught but ride it out 3CG DH 19/01/00 Slide kills woman Jan 17- Tout ridge 1CB BC 19/03/2000 Wapta Icefield/Peyto Glacier approach MC 1CR,2CY MC 22/03/00 four swept by slide Trapper's Pk. 4CG BC skier buried up to neck at Parker Ridge 1 injured 17/10/01 CR 1CR BC 16/01/02 Warden Mike Wynn killed at Parkers ridge 1CB Worker slide strands skiers sunshine village due road 23/01/02 closure ICG visitors Balfour High Col Wapta Traverse 3 Ski 1 CB, 2CG 11/04/2002 Mountaineers MC 10/01/2003 Mt. Wilson IC Avalanche 2CY IC hiker killed after traversing avalanche chute despite 19/03/03 warnings of hazard 1CB H 19/03/2003 American Snowshoer killed L. Agnes Avalanche 1CB SS 17/02/04 3 IC swept off south face Mt. Wilson avalanche 3CB IC 213

APPENDIX 3-5

An Example of the IRPn Calculation Table, Sample Graph and Sample Equation

Table A3-5-1: Incident counts for mountain climbin gBNP 1985-2004 Year CB CR TS PVD Mountain Climbers 1985 0 1 1 2 4 80,898 1986 9 3 5 8 25 80,898 1987 0 0 i 4 6 80,898 1988 0 1 0 0 1 78,156 1989 4 1 0 4 9 82,270 1990 3 4 3 3 13 82,270 1991 1 5 1 2 9 86,383 1992 2 0 1 1 4 76,070 1993 4 1 2 1 8 78,553 1994 2 2 6 5 15 81,433 1995 1 0 3 0 4 83,307 1996 0 0 0 0 0 91,587 1997 3 0 I 1 5 87,804 1998 0 1 4 3 8 89,842 1999 T 1 3 0 6 96,203 2000 2 3 i 0 7 95,344 2001 1 1 1 10 13 81,783 2002 1 0 0 2 3 75,619 -» 2003 £. 0 0 0 2 71,867 2004 3 1 5 5 14 76,881 MC Totals 40 25 40 51 156

Table A3-5-2: Calculated IRPn for mountain climbers from rockfall hazard in BNP 1985-2004

Activity Degree of Risk by Encounter Result Type

Mtn. Climbing BNP Year CB CR CG Annual IRPn Hazard Rockfall 1985 0.O0E+00 5.11E-07 2.04E-07 5.07E-09 7.20288E-07 1986 7.36E-06 2.45E-07 1.63E-07 3.25E-09 7.77237E-06 1987 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.72E-07 6.76E-09 2.78855E-07 1988 0.00E+00 2.12E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.11633E-06 1989 8.94E-06 2.23E-07 0.00E+00 4.43E-09 9.16343E-06 1990 4.64E-06 6.19E-07 1.85E-07 2.30E-09 5.4458E-06 1991 2.13E-06 1.06E-06 8.49E-08 2.11E-09 3.27834E-06 1992 1.09E-05 0.00E+00 2.17E-07 2.70E-09 1.I0916E-Q5 1993 1.05E-05 2.63E-07 2.10E-07 1.31E-09 1.10Q29E-05 1994 2.71E-06 2.71E-07 3.24E-07 3.36E-09 3.30678E-06 1995 4.96E-06 0.00E+00 5.95E-07 0.00E+00 5.55822E-06 1996 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1997 1.13E-05 0.00E+00 1.50E-07 1.87E-09 1.1455E-05 1998 0.00E+00 2.30E-07 3.68E-07 3.43E-09 6.01066E-07 1999 5.73E-06 2.87E-07 3.43E-07 0.00E+00 6.36082E-06 2000 4.96E-06 7.43E-07 1.98E-07 0.00E+00 5.90E-06 2001 1.56E-06 1.56E-07 6.21E-08 7.72E-09 1.78E-06 2002 7.29E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.24E-09 7.30E-06 2003 2.30E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.30153E-05 2004 4.61E-06 1.54E-07 3.07E-07 3.81E-09 5.07443E-06 Total R by Incident type 1.11E-04 6.88E-06 3.68E-06 5.54E-08 1.21E-04 Average Annual IRPn 5.53E-06 3.44E-07 1.84E-07 2.77E-09 6.06E-06 214

Mountain climbing hazard from rockfall

2.50E-05

2.00E-05

1.50E-05

0. DC

1.00E-05

5.00E-06

O.OOE+00 LOOT-c\jco-^-tf)o-»-CMro-^- cocococoaoo>a)Oioio>oiO>o>oiojooooo ooioioic3)C3>o>oJO)0)Oia>ajo>c3)Ooooo T-T-*-T-*-i-i--r-*--i-i-T-T-i-T-C\JC\ICMWC\l Figure A3-5-1: ERPn for mountain climbers from rock fall hazard in BNP, 1985-2004

Example of a CB incident type IRPn calculation for mountain climbers from rock fall hazard in BNP for the year 1993. The number of mountain climber fatalities from rock fall

(SHi) from 1985-2004 was 2 and the total number of mountain climber fatalities in total

(AIup) from 1985-2004 was 153.

Equation -• IRPn = (Ict / TO / (HC*UP) * (SH; / AIup) * WF

= (4/8) / (792 * 78,553) * (2/153) * 100000

= (0.5 / 62213976) * (0.013072) * 100000

= 0.000010506

= 1.05 E -05 APPENDIX 3-6

Annual Incident data in table form for mountain hazards and risk taking activities in BNP 1985-2004

Elk-human encounter incident numbers BNP 1985-2004

Year CB : ••'•« 1985 1 1986 1 1987 2 3 1988 1 1989 1 1990 4 4 1991 5 70 75 1992 9 29 38 1993 2 43 45 1994 4 38 42 1995 7 57 64 1996 6 44 50 1997 8 62 70 1998 7 100 107 1999 7 99 106 2000 0 4 51 55 2001 2 18 20 2002 0 19 19 2003 1 18 19 2004 0 12 12 Totals 67 4 662 733

Elk population distribution by zone in BNP 1985-2004 East Zone Central Zone West Zone Year BV BV BV Bow Valley BNP 1985 139 223 411 773 3200 1986 237 334 332 903 3200 1987 191 277 366 834 3200 1988 277 369 288 934 3200 1989 225 385 218 828 3200 1990 211 371 302 884 3200 1991 141 412 179 732 3200 1992 184 390 113 687 3200 1993 192 533 88 813 3200 1994 194 459 72 725 3200 1995 174 497 99 770 3200 1996 90 458 49 597 3200 1997 72 455 40 567 3200 1998 94 388 50 532 3200 1999 71 467 69 607 3200 2000 73 320 68 461 3200 2001 83 130 55 268 3200 2002 25 125 22 172 3200 2003 53 125 48 226 3200 2004 50 100 48 198 3200 216

Grizzly bear -human encounter incident numbers in BNP 1985-2004 Se.u Year CB i'R 1985 0 0 0 1 1 60 1986 0 0 0 1 1 60 1987 0 0 0 3 3 60 1988 0 0 0 6 6 60 1989 0 0 0 3 3 60 1990 0 0 0 5 5 60 1991 0 0 0 6 6 60 1992 0 0 0 14 14 60 1993 0 0 0 12 12 60 1994 0 1 0 10 11 60 1995 0 6 0 14 20 60 1996 0 0 0 12 12 60 1997 0 0 0 10 10 60 1998 0 1 0 12 13 60 1999 0 0 0 8 8 60 2000 0 1 0 14 15 60 2001 0 1 0 11 12 60 2002 0 1 0 12 13 60 2003 0 0 0 11 11 60 2004 0 0 0 4 4 60 Totals 0 11 0 169 180 -

Cougar-human encounter incidents in BNP 1985-2004 :;t€ougar Year CB CR - population 1985 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1986 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1987 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1988 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1989 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1990 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1991 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1992 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1993 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1994 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1995 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1996 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1997 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1998 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 1999 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 2000 0 0 0 1 1 8.5 2001 1 0 0 4 5 13 2002 0 0 0 4 4 8 2003 0 0 0 0 0 10 2004 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 Totals 1 0 0 9 10 - Avalanche events in BNP 1985-2005 Year CB 1. li 1985 1 0 1 0 2 1986 2 1 0 0 3 1987 4 0 0 0 4 1988 5 2 0 0 7 1989 0 0 0 0 0 1990 5 1 0 0 6 1991 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 1993 2 0 2 2 6 1994 0 0 3 0 3 1995 3 2 0 2 7 1996 0 0 0 3 3 1997 4 0 4 1 9 1998 0 1 2 2 5 1999 3 0 4 3 10 2000 2 0 0 4 6 2001 0 0 0 4 4 2002 1 0 0 6 7 2003 2 0 0 6 8 2004 3 0 0 0 3 Totals 37 7 16 33 93

Rockfall incidents in BNP 1985-2004 Year CB CR 1985 0 0 0 0 0 1986 2 1 2 0 5 1987 0 0 0 0 0 1988 0 0 0 0 0 1989 0 0 0 0 0 1990 0 0 1 0 1 1991 1 0 0 0 1 1992 0 0 1 0 1 1993 1 0 1 0 2 1994 0 0 2 0 2 1995 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 2 0 0 2 1998 0 1 3 1 5 1999 1 0 0 0 1 2000 1 2 1 0 4 2001 0 0 2 1 3 2002 1 1 0 0 2 2003 0 1 1 0 2 2004 1 0 0 0 1 Totals 8 8 14 2 32 Mass Movement incidents in BNP 1985-2004 Year CB CR 1985 0 0 0 0 0 1986 0 0 0 0 0 1987 0 0 0 0 0 1988 0 0 0 0 0 1989 0 0 0 1 1 1990 0 0 0 0 0 1991 0 0 0 2 2 1992 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 1 1 1995 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 1 1 2000 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 1 1 2002 0 0 0 1 1 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 0 0 0 7 7

Downhill Skiing and snowboarding incidents in BNP 1985-2004 Year CB CR (".(j 1985 1 1 0 0 1 1986 0 0 0 0 0 1987 2 0 0 0 2 1988 2 1 0 0 3 1989 2 0 0 0 2 1990 4 0 0 0 4 1991 1 1 0 0 2 1992 2 0 0 0 2 1993 2 3 0 0 5 1994 1 0 0 0 1 1995 0 0 0 2 2 1996 1 0 0 3 4 1997 1 0 0 2 3 1998 0 1 4 2 7 1999 3 2 1 4 10 2000 2 3 0 2 7 2001 1 0 1 3 5 2002 0 3 1 2 6 2003 0 0 0 2 2 2004 0 1 0 3 4 Totals 25 16 7 25 72 Backcountry ski incidents in BNP 1985-2004 Year CB CR 1985 0 0 0 0 0 1986 0 0 0 0 0 1987 1 0 0 0 1 1988 3 0 1 0 4 1989 1 0 0 0 1 1990 4 0 0 0 4 1991 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 1993 1 0 0 0 1 1994 0 0 0 5 5 1995 1 2 0 0 3 1996 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 1 0 0 1 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2000 1 0 4 0 5 2001 0 1 0 0 1 2002 2 0 0 2 4 2003 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 14 4 5 7 30

Rock climbing incidents in BNP 1985-2004 Year CB CR \. 1;^ 1985 0 0 1 0 1 1986 1 1 1 0 3 1987 0 0 0 0 0 1988 0 0 0 0 0 1989 0 1 0 l 2 1990 1 0 2 0 3 1991 3 4 0 2 9 1992 0 0 0 0 0 1993 1 0 2 0 3 1994 0 2 0 0 2 1995 0 0 0 0 0 1996 1 1 0 0 2 1997 0 0 1 0 1 1998 0 1 2 0 3 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 1 1 0 2 2001 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 1 2 3 2003 1 0 2 0 3 2004 0 3 0 0 3 Totals 8 14 13 5 40 Mountain climbing incidents in BNP 1985-2004 Year CB CR 1985 0 1 1 2 4 1986 9 3 5 8 25 1987 0 0 2 4 6 1988 0 1 0 0 1 1989 4 1 0 4 9 1990 3 4 3 3 13 1991 1 5 1 2 9 1992 2 0 1 1 4 1993 4 1 2 1 8 1994 2 2 6 5 15 1995 1 0 3 0 4 1996 0 0 0 0 0 1997 3 0 1 1 5 1998 0 1 4 3 8 1999 2 1 3 0 6 2000 2 3 2 0 7 2001 1 1 1 10 13 2002 1 0 0 2 3 2003 2 0 0 0 2 2004 3 1 5 5 14 MC 40 25 40 51 156

Ice climbinjI incidents in BNP 1985-2004 Year CB CR CG :'i 1985 0 0 0 0 0 1986 0 0 0 0 0 1987 2 0 0 0 2 1988 0 1 1 0 2 1989 0 0 0 0 0 1990 0 1 2 1 4 1991 0 0 1 0 1 1992 0 0 0 0 0 1993 1 2 1 0 4 1994 0 0 0 0 0 1995 2 0 3 0 5 1996 0 1 0 0 1 1997 1 1 2 5 9 1998 0 0 2 10 12 1999 3 2 6 0 11 2000 1 0 4 0 5 2001 0 0 3 0 3 2002 1 1 1 0 3 2003 0 1 6 0 7 2004 3 0 2 5 10 Totals 14 10 34 21 79 Hiking incidents in BNP 1985-2004 Year CB CR 1985 0 0 0 0 0 1986 0 0 0 0 0 1987 0 0 0 0 0 1988 0 0 1 6 7 1989 2 0 0 1 3 1990 0 0 0 0 0 1991 2 0 0 0 2 1992 1 0 0 0 1 1993 3 0 0 0 3 1994 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 2 2 1996 1 0 0 0 1 1997 0 1 1 0 2 1998 1 1 1 3 6 1999 0 0 0 0 0 2000 1 1 0 1 3 2001 2 0 0 0 2 2002 1 1 0 4 6 2003 3 2 0 2 7 2004 3 0 0 7 10 Totals 20 6 3 26 55

Scrambling incident totals by decade in BNP 1985-2004 Decade CB CR CG 1995-2004 10 2 13 62 87 1985-1994 7 3 11 35 56

Mountain bike incidents by decade in BNP 1995-2004 Decade CB CR CG 1995-2004 1 2 18 31 52

Cross country skiing incidents by decade in BNP 1985-2004 Decade CB CR j C-G 1995-2004 2 0 8 23 33

Canoeing, rafting, and kayaking incidents by decade in BNP 1985-2004 Decade Activity CB CR CG 1985-2004 Canoeing 2 0 1 12 15 1985-2004 Rafting 1 0 2 4 7 1985-2004 Kayaking 1 0 2 3 6 222

LITERATURE CITED

Accidents in North American Mountaineering, Volumes 1985-2004, Issues 38 to 57, (Eds.)- J Williamson, J. Whitaker, O. Miskiw, R. Plasman, N. Hansen, E. Podemski, Published by American Alpine Club, Inc. Golden CO, USA. Adams, J. 1993, 16 April "Twinning Breaks Pledge, Says Expert". Calgary Herald: p. B11 Adams, J. 1995. Risk. London, UCL Press. Adams, L. 2005, Perspectives on avalanche risk: the need for a social sciences and systems thinking approach. In Avalanche News, 72. 1-7. Alberta Economic Development and Tourism (AEDT). 1994. Economic Impact Analysis of Visitors to Banff National Park in 1991. Alberta Economic Development and Tourism, Edmonton AB Aukerman, R. & Davison, J. 1980. The mountain land recreationist in New Zealand. Lincoln Papers in Resource Management No. 6. Tussock Grasslands and Mountain Lands Institute. Lincoln College, Chanterbury. Aven, T., & Korte, J. 2003. On the use of risk and decision analysis to support decision-making, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 79: 289-299. Avery JG, Harper P, & Ackroyd S. 1990. Do we pay too dearly for our sport and leisure activities? Public Health: 104: 417-23. Banff-Bow Valley Study. 1996. Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads. Summary Report of the Banff- Bow Valley Task Force (Robert Page, Suzanne Bayley, J. Douglas Cook, Jeffrey e. Green, & J.R. Brent Ritchie). Prep. For the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, ON. Banff Crag and Canyon, 1980-2006. Archives of the Canadian Rockies, Banff Baugher P. 2006. Risk trends at U.S. and British Columbia ski areas: an evaluation of the risk of snow immersion versus avalanche burials. International Snow Science Workshop 2006, October 1- 6, Telluride, CO, USA. Bentley, T.A., Macky, K., & Edwards, J. 2006 Injuries to New Zealanders participating in adventure tourism and adventure sports: An analysis of Accident Compensation Corporation claims. The New Zealand Medical J. 119 (1247). Bentley, T.A., Page, S.J., & Macky, K.A. 2007. Adventure tourism and adventure sports injury: the New Zealand experience. Applied Ergonomics. 38. 791-796. Bentley, T.A., Page, S. & Edwards, J. 2008. Monitoring injury in the New Zealand adventure tourism sector: An operator survey. Intl. J. Travel Medicine. 15b (6): 395-403. Beyth-Marom, R., Austin, L., Fischoff, B., Palmgren, C, & Jacobs-Quadrel, M. 1993. Perceived consequences of risky behaviors: Adults and adolescents, Developmental Psychology. 22: 445-455. Baugher, P. & Stanford, B. 2006. Non-avalanche related snow immersion death (NARSID). International Snow Science Workshop 2006, October 1-6, Telluride, CO, USA. Bernard, L. C. and Krupat, E. 1994. Health Psychology: Biopsychosocial Factors in Health and Illness. Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth, Texas. Bertch, B. & Gibeau, M 2008. Grizzly Bear monitoring in the Mountain National Parks: mortalities and bear/human encounters 1990-2007. First Annual Report, Parks Canada, Ottawa, ON. 22p. Bertch, B. & Gibeau, M 2009. Grizzly Bear monitoring in the Mountain National Parks: mortalities and bear/human encounters 1990-2008, Parks Canada, Ottawa, ON. 22p. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. 1994, At Risk: Natural Hazard's, Peoples Vulnerability, and Disasters, Routledge, London: Routledge Bloschl, G. 1991 The influence of uncertainty in air temperature and albedo on snowmelt, Nordic Hydrology, 22:95-108 Blount, T. (1661). Glossographia: or A dictionary, interpreting all such hard words of whatsoever language, now used in our refined English tongue with etymologies, definitions, and historical observations on the same. Also the terms of divinity, law, physick, mathematicks, and other arts and sciences explicated. Very useful for all such as desire to understand what they read. The second edition. London, printed by Tho. New [comb 223

and are to be sold by] Humphrey Moseley at the P[rince's Arms in St Pauls Churchyard and George Sawbridge at the Bible in Ludgatehill. Borstad, C.P. McClung, D.M. 2009. Sensitivity analyses in snow avalanche dynamics modeling and implications when modeling extreme events. Can. Geotech. J. 46: 1024-1033. Boyne, R. (2003) 'Risk.', Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. McGraw-Hill Education, pp.144. Bratton, R., Kinnear, G. & Koroluk, G. 1979. Why man climbs mountains. Intl. Rev. Sports Socio.14 (2): 23- 36. Brown, D.S. 2002. Evolution of an alpine debris fan: determining age and accretion rate for the West Wilson Creek alluvial fan, Banff National Park, Canadian Rocky Mountains. Unpublished BA Honours thesis, Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts, University of Manitoba: pp.109. Brymer, E. 2009 http://www.oric.org.au/Resources/Rsch extreme.html Retrieved 01-11-2009 Bunce, CM. 1994. Risk analysis for rock fall on highways. M.Sc. thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Bunce, CM., Cruden, D.M., & Morgenstern, N.R. 1997 Assessment of the hazard from rock fall on a highway, Can Geotech J. 34: 344-356. Burns, Robert J & M Schintz, 1999. A History of the Warden Service of Canada's National Parks, pp 310-328 & 358-366. Burtscher M, Philadelphy M, Nachbauer W, Likar R. 1995. The risk of death to trekkers and hikers in the mountains. JAMA: 273: 460. CNPA, Canadian National Park Act. Government of Canada, http://laws.iustice.gc.ca/en/N-l4.01/ retrieved 23-08-2009 Cannon, T. 1994. Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of 'natural' disaster, In A. Varley (ed.), Disasters,Development and Environment, John Wiley and Sons, Chicester, pp 13-30 Carr, A. 1997. Guided mountaineering in New Zealand's Southern Alps. In J. Higham and G.W. Kearsley (eds.) Proceedings of trails, tourism and regional development. Centre for Tourism and IGU, University of Otago at Cromwell, New Zealand, 2-5 December 1997. 23-32. Carrara, A., Guzzetti, F. Cardinali, M., & Reichenbach, P. 1999. Use of GIS technology in the prediction and monitoring of landslide hazard. Natural Hazards. 20: 117-135. Celsi, R.L. Rose, R.L., & Leigh, T.W. 1993. An exploration of high-risk leisure consumption through skydiving. J. Consumer Research. 20: 1-23. Choudbury, B.J. & Chang, A.T.C 1981. The albedo for snow for partially cloudy skies, Boundary Layer Meteorology. 20: pp.371-389. Clarke, J.A. 1992. Geomorphic hazard along the Icefields Parkway, Banff National Park, unpublished honours thesis, Department of Geography, Faculty of Environmental Science, University of Waterloo. Claussen, M. 1991 Estimation of areally-averaged surface fluxes, Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 54: 387-410. Clawson, M. & Knetsch, J. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Cline, P.B. 2003. Re-examining the risk paradox. Wilderness Risk Managers Conference, NOLS: 23- 27. Web site: http://www.nols.edu/nolspro/pdf/wrmc proceedings 03 examing cline.pdf retrieved 18-09-2009 Coleman, C. 1993. The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research, 20(4): 611-628. Copeland, K. & Copeland, C. 1998. Don't Waste Your Time in the Canadian Rockies: An Opinionated Hiking Guide. Voice in the Wilderness Press, Inc. Riondel, BC, Canada. pp.374. Couture, r. & Evans, S.G. 1999. The Five-Mile Creek debris flow, Banff, Alberta, August 4th, 1999. Geological Survey of Canada, Open file #3876: pp. 63. Couture, r. & Evans, S.G. 2000. The August 1999 debris flow in the vicinity of Banff, Banff National Park, Rocky Mountains, Alberta (Abstract). GeoCanada 2000, Calgary 29-may to 2nd of June, 2000. Cross, J. A. 1990. Longitudinal changes in hurricane hazard perception. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 8. 31-47. CRnet http://vvvvw.canadianrockies.net/luminous/mpintro.html .As of September 19, 2009 224

Cruden, D. M. 1997 Estimating the risk from landslides using historical data. In Landslide Risk Assessment. Edited by D.M. Cruden & R. Fell. A.A. Balkema, Riotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 177-184. Cruden D. ML, and Fell, R. (Editors) 1997. Landslide Risk Assessment, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Landslide Risk Assessment, 19-21 Feb. 1997, Honolulu, Hawaii. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1975a. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: The Experience of Play in Work and Games. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco. California. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1975b. Play and intrinsic rewards. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15(3): 41-63. Davidson, L. 2008. Tragedy in the adventure playground: Media representations of mountaineering accidents in New Zealand. Leisure Studies. 27 (1): 3-19. de Bruin, H. (2002). Psychological risk in adventure-related experiential learning. SPARC Risk 2002: New Zealand Conference on Outdoors Risk Management, de Scally, F., Mattson, E. & Rowbotham, D. 2004. The August 1999 debris flow at Five Mile Creek, Banff National Park, Alberta. Western Geography 13/14: 1-18. Dougherty, S. 1999. Selected Alpine Climbs in the Canadian Rockies. Rocky Mountain Books, Calgary, pp.320. Einstein, H. H. 1988. Landslide risk assessment procedures. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Landslides, 10 July, 1988, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. 1075-1090. Eisbacher, G.H. & Clague, J.J. 1984. Destructive mass movements in high mountains: hazard and management. Geological Survey of Canada. Paper 84-16. 76pp. Elverum, C. 2009. Elk-human conflicts in Banff National Park. Originally published in Research Links, Parks Canada, Alberta Region Publication. Recent web site: http://ravsweb.net/banff/pages/elkpeople.html. retrieved 24-04-2009 Ewert, A. 1985. Why people climb: the relationship of participant motives and experience level to mountaineering. /. Leisure Research. 17 (3): 241-250 Fedje, D. W., White, J. M., Wilson, M. C, Nelson, D. E., Vogel, J. S., & Southon, J. R. 1995 "Vermilion Lakes Site: Adaptations and Environments in the Canadian Rockies during the Latest Pleistocene and Early Holocene". American Antiquity 60 (1): 81-108. Fell, R. 1994 Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk, Can. Geotech. J. 31: 3025-3034. Ferrier, N & Haque, C.E.: 2003, Hazard Risk Assessment Methodology for Emergency Managers: A Standardized Framework for Application, Natural Hazards 28: 271-290 Fischer, R. Sir. 1955 Statistical methods and scientific induction, J. Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 17 (1): 69-78. Fredston, J., Fesler, D., and Tremper, B. 1995. The human factor - lessons for avalanche education. Proceedings of the International Snow Science Workshop at Snowbird, International Snow Science Workshop 1994. PO. Box 49, Snowbird, Utah 84092, USA. 473-486. Fuller, P. 1994-02-14 "No ray of light for Sunshine Village". Alberta Report Furlong, W. 1976. The fun in fun, Psychology Today. 10(1): 35-38 Galtung, J. & Ruge, M.H. 1999. The structure of foreign news, in H. Tumber (ed.) News: A Reader, Oxford, Oxford University Press: pp21-31. Gardner, J.S. 1981. Natural Hazards in a mountain environment: the Bow Valley region, Alberta. Manuscript prepared for The Kananaskis Centre for Environmental Research: pp 41. Gavaris, S., 1980 Use of a multiplicative model to estimate catch rate and effort from commercial data, Can J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 37: 2272-2275. Goma, M. 1991. Personality profiles of subjects engaged in high physical risk sports. Personality and Individual Differences. 12 (10): 1087-1093. Greenway, R. 1996. Thrilling not killing: managing the risk tourism business. Management (May-96): 46-49. Gui, T. Banff National Park database specialist. Personal communication, October 2009. Hargreaves, G.H. 1994 Defining and using reference evapotranspiration, J. Irrigation Drainage Engineering, 120 (6): 1132-1139. Hall, D.C. 2001. "What is Risk"? Results from a survey exploring definitions. Greenbelt, MD, PMProfessional Solutions: p8 Hall, D.C. 2002. "What is Risk"? Greenbelt, MD, SRS Information Services Inc.: pl2. 225

Halpern-Felsher, B. L., Millstein, S. G., Ellen, J. M., Adler, N. E., Tschann, J. M., and Biehl, M. 2001. The role of behavioral experience in judging risks. Health Psychology. 20 (2). 120- 126. Harris, P., & Middleton, W. 1994. The illusion of control and optimism about health: On being less at risk but no more in control than others. British Journal of Social Psychology. 33. 369- 386. Helm, P. 1998. Comprehensive risk masnagement for environmental hazards, in D. Elms (ed.) Owning the Future: Integrated Risk Management in Practice Centre for Advanced Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealandpp.241-243. Heagerty, P.J. & Pepe, M.S. 1999 Semiparametric estimation of regression quantiles with application to standardizing weight from height and age in US children, Applied Statistics, 48, Part A: 533-551. Hebblewhite, M. 2000. Wolf and elk predator-prey dynamics in Banff National Park. M.S. thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. Hebblewhite, M., Pletscher, D.H., & pacquet, P.C. 2002. Elk population dynamics in areas with and without predation by recolonizing wolves in Banff National Park, Alberta. Can. J. Zool. 80: 789-799. Hebblewhite, M. 2008. Elk habituation in the wildland-urban interface: A challenging management, ecological and social problem. Website: http://www.mhfi.org/MissoulaElkHerds/PDFs/ NHEH-Pres- 2008-MarkHebblewhite.pdf retrieved 10-08-09. pp.34. Herrero, J, & Herrero, S. 2000. Management options for the Moraine Lake Highline Trail: grizzly bears and cyclists. Bios Environmental Research Ltd. Prepared fro Parks Canada, Banff National Park. 23pp. Herrero, S. & Higgins, A. 2003. Human injuries inflicted by bears in Alberta: 1960-1998. Ursus. 14:44-54. Hewitt, K.:1997, Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters, Addison Wesley Longman, Essex. Hildebrandt, W.: 1995,"Unimpared for the Enjoyment of Future Generation" History of Parks Canada and Banff, 1968-1995. Draft report prepared for the Banff-Bow Valley Study. Hinch,T. & Butler, R. 1996. Indigenous tourism: a common ground for discussion pp.3-19 in Butler, R & T. Hinch (eds) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples: International Thomson Business Press, London Hodgins, D.W., Green, J.E., Harrison, G. & Roulet, J. 2000. From confrontation to conservation: The Banff National Park experience. USDA forest Service Proceedings RMRS. P. 15. 2: 281-289. Holroyd, G.L. & K.J. Van Tighem (eds.), Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification of Banff and Jasper National Parks. Volume 1. The Wildlife Inventory. Part A. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta Hopkins, F. & Mickle, J. 1997. Banff National Park human use survey 1997, Bryant Creek trail use questionnaire results. Parks Canada, Banff National Park, 1997 Hiibl, J. & Steinwendtner, H. 2000 Debris flow hazard assessment and risk mitigation, Felsbau, 18: 17-22. Hungr, O., & Beckie, R.D. 1998 Assessment of the hazard from rock fall on a highway: discussion, Can. Geotech. J. 35: 409. Hungr, O., Evans, S.G., & Hazzard, J. 1999 Magnitude and frequency of rock falls and rock slides along the main transportation corridors of southwestern British Columbia, Can. Geotech. J. 36: 224-238. Ives, J.D., Mears, A.I., Carrara, P.E., & Bovis, M.J. 1976. Natural hazards in mountain Colorado. Annals Assoc. Am. Geographers. 66(1). 129-144. IUGS. 1997. Quantitative risk assessment for slopes and landslides - the state of the art. In . D. M. Cruden, and R. Fell. A. A. Balkema (eds.), Landslide Risk Assessment, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Landslide Risk Assessment, 19-21 Feb. 1997. Honolulu, Hawaii, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2-12. Jackson, L.E. Jr. 1987. Debris flow hazard in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Can. Geological Survey. Paper 86-11. 20pp. Jalkotzy, M.G., Riddell, R.R., & Wierzchowski, J. 1999. Grizzly bears, habitat, and humans in the Skoki, Baker, South Pipestone, and Lake Louise bear management units, Banff National 226

Park. Prepared for Parks Canada and The Skiing Louise Group. Arc Wildlife Services Ltd., Riddell.Environmental Research Ltd., and Geomar Consulting Ltd. 101 pp. Jamieson, B., & Geldsetzer, T. 1997 Avalanche Accidents in Canada Volume 4, 1984-1996. Canadian Avalanche Association, Revelstoke, BC. pp. 1-20, 22-128. Jamieson, B., and Stethem, C. 2002. Snow avalanche hazards and management in Canada: Challenges and progress. Natural Hazards. 26. 35-53 Johnson, M.E. 1989. "Peak Experience: Challenge and danger in mountain recreation in New Zealand" Ph.D. Geography thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch. Jonasson, K., Sigurdsson, S. T., and Arnalds, T. 1999. Estimation of avalanche risk. Icelandic Meteorological Office Report. Vi-R99001-UR01. 44pp. Jones, J. 2006. Sport Climbs in the Canadian Rockies: 6th Ed. Heritage House Publishing, pp. 358. Josephson, J. 2002. Waterfall Ice Climbs in the Canadian Rockies. 4th Ed. Rocky Mountain Books. pp.400 Kaab, A. 2000 Photogrammetry for early recognition of high mountain hazards: New techniques and applications, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth (B) 25 (9): 765-770. Kalton, G. 1968. Standardization: A technique to control for extraneous variables, J. Royal Statistical Society, Series C {Applied Statistics). 17 (2): 118-136. Kane, A. 2003. Scrambles in the Canadian Rockies. Rocky Mountain Books, pp.336. Kaplan, S. 1997. "The Words of Risk Analysis". Risk Analysis, 17(4): 407-417. Kasperson, R.E. & Kasperson, J.X. 1996. The social amplification and attenuation of risk, the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545, pp95-105. Kansas, J.L., Raine, R.M., & Gibeau, M.L. 1989. Ecological studies of the black bear in Banff National Park, Alberta 1986-1988, Final Report, April 1989. Beak Associates Consulting. Prepared for Canadian Park Service, Banff National Park Warden Service. Kates, R.W. & Kasperson, J.X. 1983. Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards: A review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. USA, 80: 7027-7038. Keeney, R. L. 1995. Understanding life threatening risks. Risk Analysis. 15. 627-637. Keylock, J. K., and Barbolini, M. 2001. Snow avalanche impact pressure - vulnerability relations for use in risk management. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 38. 227-238. Keylock, C, McClung, D., and Magnusson, M. M. 1999. Avalanche Risk mapping by simulation. Journal ofGlaciology. 45 (150). 303-314. Kirnbauer, R., Bloschl, G., & Gutknecht, D. 1994 entering the era of distributed snow models, Nordic Hydrology, 25: 1-24. Kitawaga, E.M. 1955 Components of the difference between two rates, J. Amer. Statistic. Assoc, 50: 1168-1174. Kitawaga, E.M. 1964. Standardization comparisons in population research. Demography!. 1: 296- 315. Klein, W. M., and Weinstein, N. D. 1997. Social comparison and unrealistic optimism about personal risk. In B. Buunk and F. X. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, Coping and Well Being: Perspectives from Social Ccomparison Theory. Erbaum, Mahwah, NJ. 25-61. Kortello, A.D., Hurd, T.E., & Murray, D.L. 2006. Interactions between cougars (Puma concolor) and gray wolves (Canis lupus) in Banff National Park, Alberta. Ecoscience, 14(2): 214- 222. Lachapelle, E. R. 1980 The fundamental process in conventional avalanche forecasting Journal of Glaciology. 26(94). 75-84. Lang Research 2007'. Canadian activity profile for downhill skiing & snowboarding while on trips of one or more nights. Website: http://www.tpr.alberta.ca/tourism/research/docs/ ca tarns skiing snowboarding.pdf retrieved 13-09-09. Lang Research 20072. Canadian activity profile for cross-country skiing & snowshoeing while on trips of one or more nights. Website: http://www.tpr.alberta.ca/tourism/ research/docs /ca tarns skiing snowshoeing.pdf retrieved 13-09-09. Lang Research 20073. Canadian activity profile for hiking, climbing & paddling while on trips of one or more nights. Website:http://www.tpr.alberta.ca/tourism/research/docs/ca tarns hiking climbing paddling.pdf retrieved on 13-09-09. 227

Lang Research 20074. Canadian activity profile for cycling while on trips of one or more nights. Website: http://wwwjti.gov.ntxa/publications/2007/ToiirisrnParks/CT AMS2("X)6Cycling Oct07 .pdf retrieved 13-09-09 Langran, M. 2009. An introduction to snow sports injuries and safety. Web site: http://www.ski- injury.com/intro Retrieved 07-09-2009. Laski, M. 1962. Ecstasy: A Study of Some Secular and Religious Experiences. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Leeson, B.F. 1996. Highway conflicts and resolutions in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. P. 80- 84 in Evink, G.L., P. Garrett, D. Zeigler, & J. Berry (eds) Transportation and Wildlife: Reducing Wildlife Mortality and Improving Wildlife Passageways Across Transportation Corridors. Proceedings of the Florida Dept. of Transportation /Federal Highway Administration Transportation-Related Wildlife Mortality Seminar (April 30-May 2, 1996 Orlando, Florida) 330pp. Lindstrom, A. 1989. Finch flock size and risk of hawk predation at a migratory stopover site. The Auk 106:225-232. Lippman, W. 1999. Public opinion, in H. Tumber (ed.) News: A Reader, Oxford, Oxford University Press: pp5-10. Logan, N., and Atkins, D. 1996. The Snowy Torrents - Avalanche accidents in the United States 1980-86. Colorado Geological Survey, Special Publication 39. 275 pp. Lothian, W.F. 1977. A History of Canada's National Parks Volume II. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Parks Canada, Ottawa, ON. Lothian, W.F. 1987. A Brief History of Canada's National Parks. Environment Canada, Parks. Ottawa, ON 156pp. Loup, B & Raetzo, H, 2005. Landslide mapping and risk assessment according to the Swiss guidelines. http://eost.u-strasbg.fr/omiv/Landslide Processes Conference/Loup et Raetzo jodf retrieved 13-10-09 MacCannell, D. 1976. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. Schocken Books, New York Maas, P. & Ondrasik, R. 2005 Natural hazard prevention and the mountain land risk reduction in the Western Carpathians, /. Mountain Science, 2 (3): 202-210. Malcolm, M. 2001, Mountaineering fatalities in Mt. Cook National Park. The New Zealand Journal of Medicine. 114. (1127): 78-80. Male, D.H. & Granger, R.J. 1978. Energy mass fluxes at the snow surface in a prairie environment. In S.C. Colbeck & M.Ray, (eds.), , Proc. Modeling Snow Cover runoff. US Army Cold regions research and Engineering Lab., Hanover, NHm 101-124. Male, D.H. and Granger, R.J. 1981. Snow surface energy exchange. WaterResources Res. 17. 609- 627 Mamaev, Y.A., Gratchev, I.B., & Vankov, D.A. A hazard assessment of settlements and historical places in the Upper Volga River region, Russia. In (eds.) K. Sassa; H. Fukuoka; F.W. Wang; G. Wang. Landslides: Risk Analysis and Sustainable Disaster Management Proceedings of the First General Assemble of the International Consortium on Landslides: 12-14 Manners, E., Operations Manager, Canadian Avalanche Association, Personal Communication, April 4, 2000 Martin, P. & Priest, S. 1986. Understanding the adventure experience. Adventure Education. 3: 18-21. Maslow, A. Towards a Psychology of Being. Princeton N.J.: Van Nostrand. Maslow, A. 1964. Religions, Values, and Peak Experiences Ohio State University Press, Columbus. Maslow, A. 1971. The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. Viking Press, New York Maunder, M.N. & Punt, a.E. 2004 Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches, Fisheries Research, 70: 141-159. McCammon, I. 2001. The role of training in recreational avalanche accidents in the United States. Proceedings of the International Snow Science Workshop in Big Sky, Montana, October 2000. American Avalanche Association, PO Box 1032, Bozeman Montana, USA. 37-45. McClung, D. M. 2000. Predictions in avalanche forecasting.. Ann. Glaciol. 31. 377-381 McClung, D. M. 2002. The elements of applied avalanche forecasting Part I: The human issues. Natural Hazards. 26. 111-129. McClung, D. M. 2002. The elements of applied avalanche forecasting Part II: The physical issues and the rules of applied avalanche forecasting. Natural Hazards. 26. 131-146. 228

McClung, D. M., and Shaerer, P. 1993. The Avalanche Handbook, The Mountaineers. Seattle,. 271 pp. McConnell, R.G. and Brock, R.W.. 1904. The Great Landslip at Frank, Alberta. Canadian Department of the Interior Annual Report. 1902-1903. Pt. 8. Report of the Superintendent of Mines. Appendix, 17p. Mcintosh, R.W., Goeldner, C. & Brent, R. (1995): Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, 1-564. Miles, J.C. & Priest, S. 1990. Adventure Education. Venture Publishing, Inc. State College, PA. 480pp. Morrall, J.F. & Abdelwahab, W.M. 1992. Estimating traffic delays and the economic cost of recurrent road closures on rural highways. Logistics and Transportation Review. 29(2): 159-177. Morgan, G.C., Rawlings, G.E., & Sobkowicz, J.C. 1992. Evaluating total risk to communities from large debris flows. In Geotechnique and Natural Hazards. Bi Tech Publishers, Vancouver, B.C., pp.225-236. Nelder, J.A., Wedderburn, R.V.M. 1972 Generalised linear models, J. Royal Statist. Soc. Series A, 137: 370-384. NSAA, national Ski Areas Association-USA. Website: http://www.nsaa.org/nsaci/home/ retrieved 01- 10-2009 OCFJAC 1994. Web site, http://reports.fia.gc.ca/eng/1994/1995fcu0242.html/1995fca0242.html.html 10-14- 2009 retrieved 11-07-09 Pacas, C, Bernard, D., Marshal, N., & Green, J.: 1996, State of the Banff-Bow Valley: A Compendium of Information. Prepared for the Banff-Bow Valley Study. Dept. Cdn. Heritage, Ottawa, ON, 291 pp. and Appendices Pacquet, P.C., Wierczhowski, J., & Callaghan, C. 1996. Summary report on the effects of human activity on gray wolves in the Bow River Valley, Banff National Park, Alberta. Report. Banff-Bow Valley Task Force, Banff, Alberta, Canada. Parks Canada. 2003. 2003 Mountain Park Visitor Survey: A year long survey of visitors to Banff, Jasper, Kooteey, and Yoho NationalsParks of Canada. Sponsored by Parks Canada, Canadian Tourism Commission, the Mountain Park Visitor Survey Partnership with a contribution from Alberta Economic Development. 30pp. Parks Canada Agency 2004 Review of Parks Canada's attendance monitoring and visitor information programs, Performance, Audit and Review Group strategy and Plans, pp. 16 Parks Canada Agency, 20041. White, B & Gui, T. Risk review: Incident Response Analysis Banff, Kootenay and Yoho National Parks Based on MILES+ database analysis 1985-2004. 22p. Parks Canada Agency 2007 Banff National Park Management Plan, July 2007, Amendment. Environment Canada, Parks Canada, Ottawa, ON. 116pp. Parks Canada Agency. 2008. Banff National Park, State of the Park Report, May 2008, Environment Canada, Parks Canada, Ottawa, ON. 54pp Parks Canada1 Web site: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/bc/glacier/nateul/nateul2/b.aspx. retrieved 10- 08-09 Parks Canada2 Website: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/pc/guide/securite-safetv/safetv-securite03.aspx retrieved 11-08-2009. Parks Canada3 Web site: http://wwvv.pcgc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/plan/plan23a E.asp retrieved 11-08-09 Parks Canada4 Website: http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/natcul/natcul5 E.asp# carnivores retrieved 11-08-2009 Parks Canada5 Web Site: http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/plan/plan8a e.asp retrieved 11-08-09 Parks Canada6 Web site: http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/v-g/oursgest-bearmanag/sec2/og-bm2ai E.asp retrieved 11-08-09 Parks Canada7 Web Site: http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/biinff/activ/activl e.asp retrieved 11-08- 09 Peakfinder, Website: http://www.peakfinder.corn/displavpark.asp?ParkName=Banff retrieved 27- 09-09 Perloff, L. S., and Fetzer, B. K. 1986. Self-other judgements and perceived vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50. 502-511. 229

Peterson, N.J.K. 1974. Physical characteristics of snowbeds in the Richardson Mountains, N.W.T. In Mackay, D. K. (ed.) Hydrologic Aspects of Northern Pipeline Development. Environmental- Social Program 74-12. Ottawa: department of the Environment, 109-201. Podor, A.P. 1992. Recent debris flow frequency and magnitude at West Wilson Creek, Banff National Park, Alberta. Unpubl. M.A. thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada pp.211 Pole, G. 2005, Classic Hikes in the Canadian Rockies. Altitude, Canmore. pp.288. Praxis Inc & Chinook Winds Consulting Limited. 1996. Banff Householder Survey. Prepared for the Town of Banff Community Plan Steering Committee. Banff AB. Price, P. C, Pentecost, H. C, and Voth, R. D. 2002. Perceived event frequency and the optimistic Bias: Evidence for a two-process model of personal risk judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 38. 242-252. Priest, S. (1990). The adventure experience paradigm. In J.C. Miles, & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Recreation. State College PA: Venture Publishing, pp. 157-162. Priest, S. (1999). The adventure experience paradigm (2nd ed.). In J.C. Miles, & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure Recreation, (pp. 159-162). State College PA: Venture Publishing. Priest, S., & Gass, M. (1997). Effective leadership in adventure programming. Champaign, EL: Human Kinetics. pp336. Privette, G. 1965. Transcendent functioning. Teachers College Record. 66 (8): 733-739. Privette, G. 1968. Transcendent functioning: The full use of potentialities in h. Otto & J. Mann (eds), Ways of Growth. Grossman Publishers, New York. Privette, G. 1981. Dynamics of peak performance. J. Humanistic Psychology. 212 (l):57-67. Privette, G. 1982. Two topologies of peak performance: correlates of personality construct (No. 8217). Pensacola: University of West Florida. September 1982. (NTIS No. PB 82- 194481) Privette, G. 1983. Peak experience, peak performance and flow: A comparative analysis of positive human experiences. J. personality and Social Psychology. 45 (6): 1361-1368. Privette, G. & Landsman, T. 1983. Factor analysis of peak performance: The full use of potential. /. Personality and Social Psychology. 44: 195-200. Province of BC. 2001. Economic Benefits of British Columbia's Provincial Parks, Ministry of Water, Lands, and Air Protection 2001. Rogers, G. O. 1997. Dynamic risk perception in two communities: Risk events and changes in perceived risk. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 40(1). 59-79. Rohrmann, B. 1994. Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and cross- national comparisons. Australian Journal of Psychology. 46. 150-163. Rosenberg, M. 1962 Test factor standardization as a method of interpretation, Social Forces, 41:53-61. Rossi, B. & Cereatti, L. 1993. The sensation seeking in mountain athletes as assessed by Zuckerman's sensation seeking scale. J. Sport Psychology. 24: 417-431. Rothmann, A. J., Klein, W. M., and Weinstein, N. D. 1996. Absolute and relative bias in estimations of personal risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 26. 1213-1236. Saczuk, E.A.R. 1996. Mapping geomorphic hazard sites using GIS between Bow Pass and Seebe in southwestern Alberta. Unpublished BA honours thesis, Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts, University of Manitoba: pp.56 Scace, R.C. 1982. Banff Townsite: An historical-geographical view of urban development in a Canadian National Park. In G. Wall & J.S. Marsh (eds.) Recreational Land Use: Perspectives on its Evolution in Canada. Carleton University Press, Ottawa, ON. Pp 203-219. Schardt, M., Schmitt, U., Granica, K., & Gallaun, H.: Satellite remote sensing for risk assessment in the Alps. Web site. http://www.ioanneum.at/dimate/Publications/Solutions/ PUB00FER012.pdf retrieved 05-12-09 Schmor, M. 1999. An exploration into bear deterrents related to mountain biking: and the design of an ultrasonic warning device. Master's Degree Project EVDS, University of Calgary. Schroth, M.L. 1995. A comparison of sensation seeking among different groups of athletes and nonathletes, Personality and Individuals Differences. 18 (2): Scott, C. 2005. Ski Trails in the Canadian Rockies. Rocky Mountain Books, pp. 240. 230

Sharp, B. 2007. Scottish mountaineering incidents. (1996-2005) Research report no. 109. Sportscotland Caledonia House, Edinburgh, pp.44 Shavelston, RJ. 2002. Scientific research in Education. National Academic Press, pp.188. Simic, J. 2007. Winter recreation in the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks: pilot study. Prepared for Parks Canada Agency, pp. 58. Simon, H. A. 1956. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psych. Review. 63. 129- 138. Singer, E. & Endreny, P.M. 1993. Reporting on Risk: How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Disasters, and Other Hazards. New York, Russell Sage Skjonsberg, D., Avalanche Program Manager, Glacier- Revelstoke National Parks, Parks Canada, Personal Communication, March 24, 2000 Slanger, E. & Rudestam, K.E. 1997. Motivation and disinhibition in high risk sports: Sensation seeking and self-efficacy, J. Research personality. 31: 355-374. Smith, K.: 1991, Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster, Routledge, New York. Spear, P., Canadian Ski Patrol, Personal Communication, March 24, 2000 Statistics Canada. 2006 Census report 2006 Town of Banff, Alberta. Web site: http://wwwl2.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92- 591/details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geol=CSD&Codel=4815035&Geo2=PR&Code2=48& Data= Count&SearchText=Banff&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&Bl=AH& Custom retrieved 23-08-09 Straub, W.F. 1982. Sensation seeking among high and low-risk male athletes. Journal Sports Psychology, 4: 246-253. Sutherland, L. A., and McPherson, H. J. 1987. In (Eds.) B. Salm and H. Gubler. Avalanche Risk Assessment by Backcountry Skiers. Avalanche Formation, Movement and effects, International Association of Hydrological Sciences, Publication 162. 670-684 Stewart-Patterson, I. 2003. Decision making in the mountain environment. International Snow Science Workshop Proceedings, 2004, Jackson Hole, Wyoming. 535-545 Street, B. 1998. Yellowstone National Park total visitor use at all entrances. 1992-1998. National Parks Service NatureNet. Http://l65.83.32.34/stats/velltotal.htm Swiss Guide info http://www.tourismgolden.com/about/historv retrieved 13-09-09 Syme, I, Chief Park Warden Banff National Park Personal communication, July 15, 2005 TBIA, 1990 The Town of Banff Incorporation Agreement from http://www.banff.ca/Assets/PDFs/Town+Hull+PDF/Reference+Docs+PDF/Incorporation+P DF/Banf f+Incorporatkm+Agreement+1990.pdf retrieved 16-10-09 Thornton, B., Gibbons, F. X., and Gerrard, M. 2002. Risk perception and prototype perception: Independent processes predicting risk behavior. The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 28 (7). 986-999. Todesco, P. and Hillman, S.B. 1999. Risk Perception: unrealistic optimism or realistic expectancy. Psychological reports. 84: 731-784. Transport Canada: (No date), Human Factors for Aviation - Basic Handbook. Transport Canada TP 12863E, Ottawa, Canada. 196 pp. UNESCO http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/304 retrieved Sept 24, Retrieved 05-09-09. VanDine, D.F. 1984 Debris flows and debris torrents in the Southern Canadian Cordillera, Can. Geotech. J. 22: 44-68 Wall, G. 2003. The nature of tourism pp. 1-8. in G. Wall (ed) Tourism: People, Places and Products. University of Waterloo, Department of Geography Publication Series, Occasional Paper Number 19 Wall, G., & Mathieson, A. 2006. Tourism: change, impacts, and opportunities Pages 7, 75, 144 164- 165, 176-177,200 Wall, G., & Mathieson, A. 2006. Tourism: change, impacts, and opportunities. Book review. Journal of Vacation Marketing. 12 (3). Pp. 292-293. Weaver, j.L., pacquet, P.C., & Ruggiero, L.F. 1996. Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:964-976. Weinstein, N. D. 1988. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology. 7. 355-386. 231

Weinstein, N. D. 1987. Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 10. 481-500 Weinstein, N. D. 1984.Why it won't happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology. 3: 431 -45 7. Weinstein, N. D. 1982. Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. J. Behavioural Medicine. 5: 441-460. White, G. F. (Ed.). 1974. Natural Hazards: Local, National, Global. Oxford University Press, Oxford. UK White, B. 2002. Development of avalanche safety and control programs in the Canadian Rocky Mountain National Parks: An historical perspective. Intl. Snow Science Workshop. Penticton, BC: 13pp. White, B. & Gui T. 2004. Risk review: Incident Response Analysis Banff, Kootenay and Yoho National Parks Based on MILES+ database analysis 1985-2004. 22p. White, C.A., Hurd, T.E., Hebblewhite, M. & Pengelly, I.R. Mitigating fire suppression. 2004 Highway and fragmentation effects in the Bow Valley Ecosystem, Banff National Park: Preliminary evaluation of a before-after-control-impact (BACI) design with path analysis. Paper presented at the "Monitoring the Effectiveness of Biological Conservation" conference, 2-4 November 2004, Richmond, BC. Available at http://www.forrex.ofg/events/mebc/papers.html. retrieved 17-07-09 Whyte, A. V., and Burton, I. 1982. Perception of risk in Canada. In I. Burton, Fowle, C. D., and McCullough, R. S. (Eds.), Living With Risk. Toronto: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Toronto. 39-69. Williamson, J. 2006. Risk management theory: understanding the meaning of risk. Wilderness Risk Managers Conference 2006, NOLS. Website: http://www.nols.edu/nolspro/pdf/wrmc proceedings 03 examing cline.pdf retrieved 18-09- 2009 Wikipedia from http://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/File:Banffmapv2.ipg Free License found at http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/bv-sa/3.0/ retrieved 24-08-09. Wilcox, W.D. 2009 (1900). The Rockies of Canada. A Revised and enlarged Edition of Camping in the Canadian Rockies. Rocky Mountain Books. 216pp. Wilde, G. J. S. 1994. Target Risk : dealing with the danger of death, disease and damage in everyday decisions. Toronto, PDE Publications ; Castor & Columba. Wilde, G. 2001. Target Risk 2: A new psychology of safety and health. Toronto: PDE Publications. Wilton, D. 2003. Tourism and the Canadian Economy: trends, cycles, and the seasonal variation in tourism demand, pp. 9-58. in Wall, G.D. (ed) Tourism: Peoples, Places and Products. University of Waterloo, Department of Geography Publication Series, Occasional Paper Number 19. Wilson, R., & Crouch, E.A.C. (1987). Risk assessment and comparisons: An introduction. Science, 236: 267-270. Woo, M.-K. & Dubreuil, M.-A. 1985. Empirical relationship between dust content and arctic snow albedo. Cold Regions Science and Technology. 10:25-132. Wrona, F.J., Dixon, W.J. 1991. Group size and predation risk: a field analysis of encounter and dilution effects. The American Naturalist 137(2): 186-201. Yates, F. 1960 Sampling Methods for Census and Surveys (3rd ed.). Griffin. London Yellowstone National Park. 2009. Yellowstone National Park Visitor Statistics 2000-2009. Web site: http://www.vellowstoneupcloseandpersonal.com/stats.htm Retrieved 7-10-09 Zhang, L. & Shan, W. 2005 Early warning and prevention of geo-hazards in China, in (Eds.) K. Sassa; H. Fukuoka; F.W. Wang; G. Wang. Landslides: Risk Analysis and Sustainable Disaster Management Proceedings of the First General Assemble of the International Consortium on Landslides: pp. 285-289. Zuckerman, M. 1971. Dimensions of sensation seeking, J. Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36(1): Zuckerman, M. 1978. Sensation Seeking, in Dimensions of Personality. In H. London & J.E. Ermer (eds). John Wiley and Sons, New York.