Here we go again (Squamish Gondola proposal)

[squamish climber]

Sea to Sky Gondola Corp has hired Whistler resident, Jayson Faulkner as General Manager.

A posting on their website today announces the hiring of Faulkner. His bio says he's a climber, skier, mountain biker and paraglider.

He's also has a strong resume working in the outdoor rec industry as: vice president sales and marketing at Arc’teryx, founding partner in The Escape Route (Whistler and Squamish) and Whistler Alpine Guides Bureau. And he's been an advocate for conservation and back country access as a director for Tatshenshini Wild and most recently his position as chair of the Spearhead Hut Project Committee.

What do people think? Do you think he can promote the concerns of climbers, and improve access to alpine climbing and mountain biking?

Will this appointment make any difference to the people opposed to the Gondola?

[squamish climber]

I'm confused. A story today in the Chief paper says the Sea to Sky Gondola got the approval from the provincial government.

“We received the border line adjustment from the provincial government last week,” said Trevor Dunn, one of the principals of the Sea to Sky Gondola Corp.

Now, the proponents are tying up loose ends, which include a management agreement with B.C. Parks. The project also awaits final adoption of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) bylaw amendments, which were deferred until after the park's reclassification.

I didn't see any media story about this approval, a CBC story on May 9 says a bill for boundary realignment was introduced -- I don't see any mention the bill passed.

Are the remaining hurdles -- management agreement with BC Parks and SLRD bylaw ammendments -- just about the details and for the most part a negotiation formality?

Anders do you want to jump in here?

[squamish climber]

An article today in the Squamish Chief says the Sea to Sky Gondola proposal has almost received all the approvals it needs. The big one remaining is the park-use permit.

Friends of the Squamish Chief submitted a petition with 900 names on it calling for the provincial government to hold public hearings for the park-use permit.

Project opponents insist their concerns about the environmental and social impacts haven't received a sufficient airing, and are calling on provincial officials to open up the process of reviewing the proponents' application for a park-use permit for public input, rectifying what they see as a flawed process to date.

Also this week, Jayson Faulkner the new General Manager and founding partner for the Sea to Sky Gondola wrote in his personal blog his first take on the gondola and the approval process. There is some interesting stuff in the post, here is a snippet:

The review process that this project has been thru is nothing short of exhaustive. I have sat on both sides of this type of process before and I can say without any reservation that the environmental standards/process that it is being held to are very high indeed. Can you imagine an more difficult project to get approval for as one that has four completely different jurisdictions governing it? The base area is Squamish District, the lift line is BC Parks and the top station is Squamish Lilloet Regional District!! Let’s not forget First Nations who have a lot to say about this project. In fact, in some ways their support was most important because of the historical engagement in the area, the incredible stories they have about the Chief and Shannon Falls environs. All of these groups have been very supportive for a huge number of reasons.

I would be interested in reading what comments other have on Faulkner's comments and if you agree with FOSC that the permit approval process should be opened up to public hearings.

[squamish climber]

According the the Georgia Straight yesterday (Oct 1) the BC government is about to issue the park-use permit for the Sea to Sky Gondola.

The B.C. Ministry of Environment served notice last week that it intends to issue a park-use permit for the Sea to Sky Gondola project. According to advertisements placed in Squamish and Whistler newspapers, the permit will allow “commercial gondola” activity in the Stawamus Chief Protected Area.

What does this mean for the campaign Friends of the Chief?

[squamish climber]

Another little update appears in this week's Squamish Chief newspaper

Sea to Sky Gondola clears last major hurdle
Proponents 'ecstatic'; park-use permit issued despite ongoing ombudsperson's probe

The B.C. Ministry of Environment (MOE) is in the process of issuing a park-use permit to the proponents of the Sea to Sky Gondola, clearing the way for construction of the tourist attraction that will whisk guests up to a ridge next to the Stawamus Chief.

read the full article here

As of the paper's publication, Sea to Sky Gondola Corp has not received a signed version of the park-use permit.

Meanwhile, the article notes that Friends of the Squamish Chief are hoping a complaint they filed with the BC Ombudsperson will stop the project from happening. They argued that MOE/B.C. Parks officials had not provided sufficient opportunity for public input in the park-use permitting process.

Anders Ourum, a spokesperson for the group, on Oct. 9 said that after an initial review to ascertain whether the ombudsperson's office had jurisdiction to look into the complaint, an investigation into the group's claims was launched.

“I spoke to them today and they said they expect that it'll be several more weeks” before the probe is concluded, Ourum said.

[Anders Ourom]

The current status, AFAFOSCK: http://www.straight.com/article-815556/ ... nal-stages

[squamish climber]

In the interest of maintaining a relatively accurate record of this issue - here's a significant update:

From the Chief Newspaper:
Sea to Sky Gondola construction commences

Proponents of the Sea to Sky Gondola, which has been in the government approvals pipeline for the past 20 months, planned to start work on Wednesday (March 6) on the base area for the aerial tram that will transport visitors to a point 2,700 feet (825 metres) above the valley floor, between Stawamus Chief and Shannon Falls provincial parks.

Here are a few details of what the base area will include:

In a presentation to council, DOS planner Sarah McJannet said there will be four structures in the base area including a gondola terminal building, a guest services building, a coffee bar/concession facility and an administrative office with an accessory residential dwelling. By agreement with the District of Squamish, the retail portions of the base area will be “restricted use” areas — that is, available only to ticket holders.

[squamish climber]

For the record Friends of the Stawamus Chief repeated their opposition and concerns for the project in a letter to the editor at the Chief newspaper on March 14:

Gondola process flawed
EDITOR,

The recent approval of the gondola project, and start of construction, was a disappointment for all those who love the Stawamus Chief, and provincial parks. The decision resulted from a flawed process, and sets a dangerous precedent for development in parks. The project will have substantial impacts on a heavily used and hard-won park, and the land ripped from it is hardly an “adjustment.”

The proposal has never been independently and thoroughly scrutinized, or undergone any real public debate. There has been neither due process nor due diligence — which is largely the fault of the Ministry of Environment, which failed to do its job as guardian of provincial parks. The process was a charade, despite self-serving protestations to the contrary. Examples:

1. In 2005, The Land Conservancy of B.C. purchased the land at the base, and was asked to ensure it could never be used for a gondola or any other inappropriate development. The land was transferred to the promoters in 2012, with an inadequate conservation covenant. What happened, and why did TLC fail to do its job?

2. Such proposals are subject to the government’s “Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy,” which has not been complied with. The Elders Council for Parks in B.C., a respected independent body that includes those who wrote and formerly administered that policy, thoroughly reviewed the proposal. Major problems:

• The process was largely local, fragmented, and controlled by the promoters, leading to a predictable result. Similar processes in the past have been conducted by B.C. Parks, and involved thorough scrutiny and public meetings, to ensure that they are transparent, inclusive and impartial. When the park was created, there was extensive study by B.C. Parks, followed by public meetings in Vancouver and Squamish.

• Plausible locations outside the park weren’t examined. If there’s a location outside a park that would work, it must be used. A location from just north of Gonzales Creek to a knoll northeast of Petgill Lake wasn’t examined, and indeed seems superior in some ways.

• Parks didn’t do its job, although one can’t blame it for that, given that it has been gutted by the current government.

3. The proposal is contrary to the master plan for the park.

4. Failure to consult with existing user groups and those affected, in particular hikers and the public outside the Squamish area. Surveys by Friends of the Stawamus Chief showed that most hikers hadn’t heard of the proposal. The vast majority objected to it and the lack of process, and signed a petition, in person or online, to object. Over 1,000 total, with 15 to 20 per cent who live in the Squamish area. Why weren’t all those who have an interest in the Chief consulted? After all, it is a provincial park, belonging to us all.

These concerns were shared by many B.C. conservation and recreation organizations.

The project is likely to have fewer benefits and greater impacts than claimed, although that’s nothing new. There’s little commitment beyond building and operating a gondola, and it’s unlikely to benefit the park, although some absurd claims in that regard have been made.

Whatever happens, we’ll be watching.

Anders Ourom

Friends of the Stawamus Chief

[Anders Ourom]

(Thanks, Dave - it's been a while since I had time to check the forum. The letter was edited somewhat, to fit their 500 word limit. Full text as follows - I don't know why it's putting it in this font.)

The recent approval of the gondola project, and start of construction, was a disappointment for all those who love the Stawamus Chief, and provincial parks. The decision resulted from a flawed process, and sets a dangerous precedent for development in parks. The project will have substantial impacts on a heavily-used and hard-won park, and the land ripped from it is hardly an “adjustment”.

The proposal has never been independently and thoroughly scrutinized, or undergone any real public debate. There has been neither due process nor due diligence – which is largely the fault of the Ministry of Environment, which failed to do its job as guardian of provincial parks. The process was a charade, despite self-serving protestations to the contrary. Examples:

1. In 2005, The Land Conservancy of B.C. purchased the land at the base, and was asked to ensure it could never be used for a gondola or any other inappropriate development. The land was transferred to the promoters in 2012, with an inadequate conservation covenant. What happened, and why did TLC fail to do its job?

2. Such proposals are subject to the government’s “Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment Policy”, which has not been complied with. The Elders Council for Parks in B.C., a respected independent body that includes those who wrote and formerly administered that policy, thoroughly reviewed the proposal. Major problems:

• The process was largely local, fragmented, and controlled by the promoters, leading to a predictable result. Similar processes in the past have been conducted by BC Parks, and involved thorough scrutiny and public meetings, to ensure that they are transparent, inclusive and impartial. When the Park was created, there was extensive study by BC Parks, followed by public meetings in Vancouver and Squamish.

• Plausible locations outside the park, weren’t examined. If there’s a location outside a park that would work, it must be used. A location from just north of Gonzales Creek to a knoll NE of Petgill Lake wasn’t examined, and indeed seems superior in some ways.

• BC Parks didn’t do its job, although one can’t blame it for that, given that it has been gutted by the current government.

3. The proposal is contrary to the master plan for the Park.

4. Failure to consult with existing user groups and those affected, in particular hikers and the public outside the Squamish area. Surveys by Friends of the Stawamus Chief showed that most hikers hadn’t heard of the proposal. The vast majority objected to it and the lack of process, and signed a petition, in person or online, to object. Over 1,000 total, with 15 – 20% who live in the Squamish area. Why weren’t all those who have an interest in the Chief consulted? After all, it is a provincial park, belonging to us all.

These concerns were shared by many B.C. conservation and recreation organizations.

The project is likely to have fewer benefits and greater impacts than claimed, although that’s nothing new. There’s little commitment beyond building and operating a gondola, and it’s unlikely to benefit the Park, although some absurd claims in that regard have been made.

Whatever happens, we’ll be watching.

Friends of the Stawamus Chief

[Anders Ourom]

Other thoughts, which didn’t fit into the letter:

The start of construction coincides with the start of the hiking and climbing season, and it’ll be interesting to see what the reaction is. FOSC surveys last summer indicated that most hikers – and there are 50,000+ a year – hadn’t even heard of the proposal.

The promoters seem certain to come back for more, including a direct link to Shannon Falls parking area, and “adjusting” more from Stawamus Chief and Shannon Falls Provincial Parks, to expand their base area. They’ll be depending on bus tours for customers, and want direct access to them. (They may argue that it’s safer for the buses not to have to return to the highway for a short distance.) Plus if such developments succeed, they always want more. If they’re failing, they also want more. If they have some other plans – well, who knows?

It is in the promoters’ interests to block vehicle access to Shannon Creek road as low as possible, to protect their investment. Don’t expect any better access, although they’ll have to grade it, and so it may be more accessible on foot or bicycle.

Whatever some might believe, or vague promises that may have been made, the park use permit does not legally require that the promoters do much for the Park. As to who’ll clean up the mess if the thing fails – well, it only took 40 years at Brohm Ridge.

[FrankB]

As a matter of interest, the proponents told me that they need the existing FSR maintained for their operation (post construction) and it would be open to the public. In other words, if you don't want to ride the lift you can drive, which is a better situation than at present.

I haven't had much time to become involved in this debate- but some recent significant developments should be noted.

In an email to me last week, Dave Southam, the District Manager for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations in Squamish confirmed that he has approved the installation of a gate on the Shannon Falls road at about 630 metres elevation- this is due east of the 3rd peak of the Chief at a point close to where it was previously blocked by some rockfall.

Dave further confirmed that:

One of the factors considered before approving the gate was that the S2S gondola is bringing significant investment into our community and they were concerned about having unrestricted vehicle traffic driving up to their upper station while guests were paying to get there from the bottom. The installation of the gate was approved to allow them to get their business concept up and running.

Now I believe that although the Sea to Sky Gondola folks have a legal right to restrict access to their facilities and to their tenure area, they should not be allowed to restrict access to a public road located on Crown Land. If they don't want freeloaders going up to their top station, then they need to do what every other private developer can do: install a fence along their tenure boundary and erect "No Trespassing" signs. Personally, I think this would be a waste of time since my guess is that virtually everyone driving up the road would be much more interested in getting to Habrich, Sky Pilot, or Goat Ridge, rather than taking a side trip to join the crowds on the gondola deck. And if they have their car up there, they certainly wouldn't be interested in taking a free ride down the gondola! If a gate is to be erected, put it on the branch road that leaves the Shannon Creek road and goes up to the upper gondola station- doesn't that make a lot more sense?

The Shannon Creek area is dear to my heart: Sky Pilot was the first "technical" climb I ever did- way back in 1964 before most of your mothers were born. Later, I spent many, many enjoyable days in the Sky Pilot group, climbing on Mt. Habrich, and hiking up Goat Ridge; in my opinion, it is one of the nicest little compact alpine areas in this part of B.C. When the Shannon Falls road was closed by rockfall, I worked with the Forest Service to see if it could be re-opened- but at that time, no logging companies were active there anymore, and so there was no funding available.

So when the Sea to Sky Gondola gang announced that they would be re-opening the road, I was elated! But that quickly changed to disappointment when I was told that the road would be gated, and that the whole Shannon Creek valley was going to become the semi-private domain of the Gondola folks, even though it's not even in their tenure area! And if you think I'm exaggerating, check out this map of their proposed facilities:



The gate will be located at the very top of the map where a new trail from the Chief will connect. Their version of the "Grouse Grind" will follow the lower part of the existing Chief Trail up to the Shannon Falls branch- so if you thought the present trail was crowded on weekends, just wait till you have to compete with a bunch of runners pushing to be the first up to the top station to enjoy a latte.

Anyway, if you feel, like I do, that democracy has spoken with regard to the basic concept of a gondola, and it therefore has a right to exist, but you don't believe that this should give the proponents a right to restrict access to a public road and Crown Land, especially to Crown Land that has a long history of mountaineering and climbing use, then please take a moment to write and email Dave Southam and express your concerns- his contact info is as follows:

Dave Southam, District Manager
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
Sea to Sky District
101 – 42000 Loggers Lane
Squamish, BC
V8B 0H3

email: Dave.Southam@gov.bc.ca

[squamish climber]

Frank B(Bauman?),

Thanks for your post and alerting the climbing community on this issue. First a disclaimer, I have never been on the Shannon Falls FSR or hiked or climbed Habrich, Sky Pilot or on Goat Ridge but I would sure like to get up there one day. So my knowledge of historical access to the area is limited.

I think this is a discussion worth having and I have a few questions:

How has accessed changed with the upgraded road? My understanding is that there was a gate on the road before near the bottom after safety concerns (some youth were injured). So in effect access has not changed. In fact it could be improved as I hear S2S gondola construction crews will allow vehicle access to the top during the day.

Other FSR roads in the Sea to Sky corridor are gated restricting access to crown land. How is this different?

Is it possible for legitimate outdoor rec users to obtain a key when they want to access the backcountry in the corridor or above Shannon Creek?

How much of a case do climbers and hikers have for insisting on unrestricted vehicle access to the top?

[FrankB]

Frank B(Bauman?),

Baumann (two "n's").

Thanks for your post and alerting the climbing community on this issue. First a disclaimer, I have never been on the Shannon Falls FSR or hiked or climbed Habrich, Sky Pilot or on Goat Ridge but I would sure like to get up there one day. So my knowledge of historical access to the area is limited.

I don't know what the numbers are now- but I understand that a lot of the current generation of rock climbers go up there to numerous crags to get away from the crowds and the noise on the Apron and other more popular Squamish climbing areas.

For many years, you could drive to the end of the road right underneath Mt. Habrich- which was a very popular rock climbing destination in those days. It was also the much preferred start-off point for mountaineers going up to the Sky Pilot area. The main road, which crosses Shannon Creek, was popular with hikers going up Goat Ridge.

How has accessed changed with the upgraded road? My understanding is that there was a gate on the road before near the bottom after safety concerns (some youth were injured). So in effect access has not changed. In fact it could be improved as I hear S2S gondola construction crews will allow vehicle access to the top during the day.

The upgraded road essentially restores access to the beginning of the Shannon Creek valley- saving about 2.2 km and 250 vertical metres of walking. But beyond that, the road goes through pretty easy terrain and could be relatively easily restored to once again provide access to right underneath Mt. Habrich.

I attended to both the road accident that you mention and also to the later rockfall that partially blocked the road and prompted the Forest Service (under Ken Patterson, their Engineering Officer at the time) to close the road and install the original gate.

Contrary to some rumours, the fatal car accident in the 1990's had nothing to do with poor road construction or unusually dangerous terrain. After all, while the area was being logged, hundreds of logging trucks and other company vehicles drove that road without incident.

I knew two of the teenagers involved in the accident and spoke to the survivors right after it happened. They had driven up there on a lark after dark to play in the fresh snow- as far as I recall, no alcohol or drugs were involved. On their descent, the road was covered with a few centimetres of new snow, and visibility was poor. So at one point they missed a curve and slid on the slippery ground and plunged off a 75 metre high cliff, killing two of them. One survivor was able to walk through dense bush and then down an old logging road. She was eventually found by two guys on dirt bikes, who alerted the RCMP, who then launched a full scale rescue effort.

Bottom Line: there are no unusual safety concerns or other reasons why this road couldn't be re-opened to provide public access to a really nice alpine and rock climbing area that has a long record of historic use. As Dave Southam (the MFLNRO District Manager) admitted, the only reason for closing the road to vehicular access is to help the economic interests of the Sea to Sky Gondola folks. It will also give them an opportunity to develop hiking and biking trails on Crown Land that will mainly benefit their customers and discourage use by other members of the public.

Other FSR roads in the Sea to Sky corridor are gated restricting access to crown land. How is this different?

Which ones? Unless they cross private land, are in a community watershed, or keep the public out of environmentally special areas (such as grizzly habitat in the upper Bridge River valley) or community watersheds (such as the Greater Vancouver Water District), they aren't supposed to be gated.

Is it possible for legitimate outdoor rec users to obtain a key when they want to access the backcountry in the corridor or above Shannon Creek?

Why should the public be forced to arrange for keys to access Crown Land?

How much of a case do climbers and hikers have for insisting on unrestricted vehicle access to the top?

Public roads on Crown Land should never be closed to the public, except in very exceptional circumstances. Allowing closures for purely self-serving private interests sets a dangerous precedent that should not be tolerated by climbers, hikers, or anybody else that wants to access these lands

[mcfly]

Above is a great post!
I agree 100%
Thank you Frank B!

[natsdad]

Thank you Frank B!

Second that.

Steve