Here we go again (Squamish Gondola proposal)

[scrubber]

Well said.

While I can sympathize with the developer not wanting a whole bunch of vehicles close to their top station, I'm sure a parking area near the habrich/ sky pilot spur could be realized (just like where we were parking 15 years ago) without impacting their psudo-mountain-wilderness experience.

I've seen where they're building from the air. In my opinion there is an adequate buffer between the road and their top station. The little side road they constructed to access their building site has legitimate reasons to be gated IMO.

Kris Wild

[J Mace]

That would be really nice, a parking area at the Habrich spur. I think its worth remembering that the Stawamus road was gated at Mamquam for many years recently, so just being able to drive to the blockade is an improvement. They were actually giving out tickets for driving the bypass at the gate.

Regarding roads with keys, Centre creek road to access east side of Rexford, Old Settler often needs a key, Slesse for the old descent...all somewhat reasonably easily accessed with a bit of planning. However, obtaining a key from the BCMC to get up to the mountain lake area has, for me, been very frustrating. It requires a reservation with a long lead time and money. Furthermore, Ski Capilano used it for their private ski tours for many years, with no general public vehicle access allowed. I tried to borrow the key from the Squamish forest district and was told no way.

I would hope that we could avoid the key thing

[FrankB]

That would be really nice, a parking area at the Habrich spur. I think its worth remembering that the Stawamus road was gated at Mamquam for many years recently, so just being able to drive to the blockade is an improvement. They were actually giving out tickets for driving the bypass at the gate.

And the S2S Gondola folks may very well try and convince the Ministry to re-establish the gate at the start of the Stawamus Road- claiming, for example, that it would keep people out of one of Squamish's water supply areas; a valid concern, even though most of the town's water presently comes from the Mamquam lava springs water source.

We always need to understand the motivation of these folks: they are only there to make money; anything they can do to further that goal is fair game. I don't have a problem with that- but only if it is consistent with what was agreed to under the land tenure agreement, and does not compromise the legitimate right of the Public to access Crown Land that has a long history of recreational use.

There is always a problem when new precedents, such as installing a gate, are set- they can become the thin edge of the wedge. First, there is a mid-elevation gate to encourage people to use the gondola instead of driving up a public road on Crown Land. Once that is approved, the S2S Gondola folks can try lobbying the Ministry to move the gate farther down the road, ideally all the way down to the start of the Stawamus Road. Then they'll try and convince the Ministry to discourage people from walking or biking up there- maybe under the excuse of reducing vandalism, reducing the risk of forest fires, or disturbing some newly discovered or perceived First Nation's cultural or spiritual sites.

Regarding roads with keys, Centre creek road to access east side of Rexford, Old Settler often needs a key, Slesse for the old descent...all somewhat reasonably easily accessed with a bit of planning. However, obtaining a key from the BCMC to get up to the mountain lake area has, for me, been very frustrating. It requires a reservation with a long lead time and money. Furthermore, Ski Capilano used it for their private ski tours for many years, with no general public vehicle access allowed. I tried to borrow the key from the Squamish forest district and was told no way.

I believe all the gates on the Furry Creek or Britannia Creek access roads have now been opened.

One of the biggest remaining access frustrations in the Sea to Sky area is the lack of good access to the Singing Pass trailhead at Whistler. The lack of viable places to park overnight, the extra distance that must be walked to get to the original trailhead, the continuing movement of the Fitzsimmons Slump, the need to avoid being run over by mountain bikers blasting down from Whistler, and the removal of the Fitzsimmons Creek bridge at the water intake on the Blackcomb side, all make it very inconvenient to get to one of the prime access points into Garibaldi Park.

[Anders Ourom]

Thanks to FrankB for raising some very important issues.

For background, the forest road into upper Shannon Creek watershed was built in the 1960s. Logging occurred there in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and the road was usually driveable before, during and for some time after logging occurred. Most of the area was logged.

It is a public forest road, built, rebuilt and maintained until recently with public money (stumpage fees), and on public forest land. The developers have only a licence for a small area off the road, and presumably any required licences and permits for restoring and using the road, and building trails and facilities. What permits and licences do they in fact have for that area?

There are overlapping jurisdictions, also. The District of Squamish (watershed), Squamish Lillooet Regional District (upper Shannon Creek), and Ministry of Environment (parks) are all involved, and perhaps other government agencies.

It is a fundamental principle of Canadian law, derived from common law, that public highways are accessible to the public. Any road built or maintained with public money, or on land accessible to the public, may be used by the public for legal/non-consumptive activities. (There are few private roads in B.C.) The same also applies to public lands - B.C. is over 85% public land. The Shannon Creek road is a forest road, and so not exactly a public highway, but the same general principles apply, or ought to apply. We paid for it, so we can use it – unless there’s a darn good reason otherwise.

(There were endless battles in the 1960s and 1970s about gates on logging roads in BC, often placed with little or no legal justification. Some of our first access issues. Déjà vu, all over again.)

As a forest road, the Shannon Creek road seems subject to the Forest and Range Practices Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... 0_02069_01) - see section 22.2, which relates to "non-industrial" use of such roads, i.e. by us. I haven't reviewed the Act and regulations in detail, and no doubt the district manager and ultimately her/his political bosses has considerable discretion in making management decisions, i.e. road closures, permit conditions, etc. For example, section 22.2 (2)(c)(iii) says that the manager can close a road if use would "endanger property, public health or public safety". Presumably that's the basis for the current closure and gate - industrial traffic safety. At the same time, the manager has to be informed, and take into account public comments on any proposed action – or at least plausibly claim to have done so.

In terms of the immediate issue, that is having the road open, and use of public land in upper Shannon Creek, the only course now is to write to the district manager (address above), and if necessary go to the news media. That said, it is clearly in the developers' interests that the road be gated as low as possible, and always has been. They will no doubt argue that they need to protect their investment from four wheel drive/all terrain vehicle/snowmobile/hunting vandals, and in any case want to 'control' as much of the area as possible, so as to generate as much income as possible for an economically marginal project. It may long since have been decided.

As FrankB mentions, the sole interest of the promoters, investors and developers is return on financial investment. Whatever they say and do is with that purpose in mind. Whatever some may have led themselves to believe, it is safest to assume that the developers will only deliver on promises made in writing – that is, promises in the restrictive covenant that the District holds on the lower property, in the park use permit, or in other permits or licences. And that’s assuming that the relevant government body is willing to enforce the promises.

One ironic side-effect of all this may be that upper Shannon Creek may in effect be removed from the working forest for the Squamish area. The first logging was about 50 years ago, so the forest there should be ready to be re-logged in a few decades. The developers – assuming that the thing hasn’t long since gone belly-up - will hardly want that. Likewise, they won’t want anyone to hunt up there anymore.

[FrankB]

I took a drive up the Shannon Creek road to see first hand how construction of the Sea to Sky Gondola is proceeding; here are a few pictures and comments. The top station of the Gondola (880 m elevation) is about an 11 km drive from Highway 99 via the Mamquam, Stawamus, and the Shannon Creek Forest Service roads. The Shannon Creek road is quite bumpy and steep and suitable for high clearance vehicles only.

Here is the definitive view of what the paying customers will see from the top station of the Gondola (assuming it isn't cloudy, of course). From left to right: old clear cut logging in the Shannon Creek watershed, Highway 99, the old Woodfibre Mill site and proposed location of a LNG Plant and export terminal, and the wide expanse of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line above the waters of Howe Sound.



Here is the view a bit more to the north; Mt. Garibaldi is at top right. Unless you can walk about a half kilometre through the forest, you won't be able to see the Chief, Squamish, or Mt. Garibaldi from the top station of the Gondola. The good news: if they can't see you, you won't be able to see them!



Now here is the location of a newly-installed gate (770 m elevation), which is much farther up the road than the original gate (590 m elevation). The new gate is at the site of the fatal car accident of a few years ago- from here, it is about 1.3 km and 100 vertical metres to the top station of the Gondola (880 m elevation), and about 2.9 km to the present end of the re-opened Shannon Creek road (854 m elevation). There are some fine crags here- which we tended to ignore in the early days because there was much better climbing on Mt. Habrich. From the present end of the road (at decimal degrees 49.6614,-123.1186) Habrich is probably about an hour and a half hike away (2.5 km along the old road on a trail, and then up to the base of the climbs). Of course, you'll still need to hike the 2.9 km from the gate to the end of the presently-re-opened road.



Assuming it stays here, and a gate really is necessary, this isn't that bad a location- it eliminates much of the vertical hiking involved, but still maintains a good buffer (1.3 km) for the Gondola folks. However, I still believe that the public should be able to drive right up to the end of the road and if the Gondola folks don't want freeloaders using their washrooms, they should install a gate and a fence closer to the top station.

Here is another view of the gate, looking south- the Chief is at right, and the rounded and wooded bump in the background is where people from the Gondola will need to hike to to see the Chief. It looks like they've cleared a parking area to the left of the gate for the hiking, biking, climbing, and freeloading crowd. Notice that the road is pretty straight through here- so the teenage group that drove off the road and plunged over the lower cliff shown in the picture above must have either backed off the road or really badly missed the slight curve where the car is parked (it was snowy). That accident was one of several that convinced the Provincial Emergency Program folks to reinstate helicopter long line rescues (HETS)- sadly, several people probably died unnecessarily before that happened.

[Tricouni]

Good, informative post, Frank. Thanks!

[Anders Ourom]

(Part 1)

Thanks to FrankB for the helpful information.

It is unfortunate that the project never underwent the transparent, independent public scrutiny it ought to have had. The Ministry of Environment acted as though its role is to facilitate development in provincial parks, rather than to protect and steward them, and the result is this monstrosity. (I in no way criticize B.C. Parks, which has been starved for resources for years.) As they say, privatize at haste, repent at leisure – and the record of these sorts of developments in and near provincial parks isn’t pretty.

The Ministry did not in any meaningful way comply with its own policy and normal practices with regard to the proposal. The policy, the “Provincial Protected Area boundary Adjustment Policy, Process & Guidelines”, is at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planni ... olicy.html The Elders Council for Parks in B.C., a respected, independent body (http://www.elderscouncilforparks.org/), reviewed the matter in considerable detail, including meeting with senior officials and the promoters. They concluded that the policy had not been complied with. Amongst other things, there was a lack of independent review of the proposal, a lack of an independent and transparent process, and nothing to show that viable and perhaps superior alternatives outside the Park, such as that at Gonzalez Creek, had been meaningfully considered. Such process as there was, was local, fragmented and under the control of the promoters – disregarding the international stature of the Chief. There may have been enough process to provide the Ministry and local cheerleaders with a figleaf, but no more.

The Ministry could not even be bothered holding a public meeting or two, run by B.C. Parks, even if the politicians had already decided the issue – notwithstanding that such meetings have been its normal practice for decades. So much for democracy.

As others mention, a trail to the top station that uses on the same start as the Chief trail is worse than useless. It’s one of the busiest mountain trails in B.C. The developers should build a completely independent trail (or trails) from the base to the top. And what about parking? Will the non gondola-using public be allowed to park in the gravel pit, without charge? Overflow parking, as is badly needed on busy weekends?

As for the gate, it seems likely that the location was chosen as a point where it is physically impossible for vehicles to get around it. I wouldn’t hold my breath on it being removed, but it seems likely that there will be limited parking at the gate, and nearby.

It would be a delight if the upper station etc isn’t visible from anywhere on the Chief, but somehow it seems unlikely. The towers will be visible from the Chief’s summits and trail, although the park use permit requires that they be painted flat black, for what that’s worth. No doubt the cars will be more visible.