Public Consultation Consultation Public Summary Report Summary Balfour Ferry TerminalBalfour Ferry Project Prepared by Acumen Communications February 2017

PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • • • • • Appendices Organized Community Advocacy • • • • • Consultation Results Participation • • • Public Consultation Approach • • • Introduction • • • • Executive Summary Poster Board Comments from OpenHouse Poster Boards from OpenHouse Discussion Guide Release News andAdvertisement Household Mailer to Invitation Stakeholders Meeting ofConsultation Results Overview Questionnaire Responses Survey Key Themes from Email/Written Submissions Key Themes from OpenHouse Key Themes from Meetings Stakeholder Consultation Methods Outreach andAdvertising Identification Stakeholder Public Consultation Overview Purpose Project Background ofConsultation Results Overview Response Questionnaire Summary Survey Consultation Overview Background ...... TABLE OFCONTENTS 44 42 21 20 17 13 3 1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 2 BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT decision-making. inform area residents, provide an opportunity to hear from and them, input their use to inform businesses, inJune MOTI 2016the initiated apublic consultation and engagement process to region area inthe impact local residents changesRecognizing will services to and inland ferry • • The MOTI hasthat determined there aretwo viable options: safety andperspectives, financial it did notevaluate rangefull the of impacts thecommunity. on While technical the feasibility study examined terminal location the from anumber of technical, site at Queens Bay North, approximately northof 3km Balfour along Highway 31. The study,completed in March 2016,included a recommendation to relocatethe terminal to a analysis of anumber of sites, potential as ferry well as improvements to existing the Balfour site. In MOTI 2015the commissioned atechnical feasibility study from SNC to Lavalin conduct an hours. Furthermore, aging the MVBalfour is scheduled for retirement within next the few years. marine and land-side. This impactsthe site’scapacity to supportthe level of demand peak during traffic has increasedthe to point that the existing site is experiencing increased pressures –on navigation issues west inthe arm that may require dredging. At and same highway the time, ferry have developed around terminal as the community the has grown. Recent studies have revealed and holding location the berth been for compound ferry the for many years, and some amenities as western the terminusBalfour has served of Kootenay the since 1947.The site ferry has Lake transportation system. This includes on a vehicleservice Kootenay passengerand Lake. ferry investments inBritish Columbia’s transportation infrastructure to support asafe and reliable of BC Ministry The Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) is responsible for making strategic BACKGROUND Relocate terminal to the Queens Bay Remain at Balfour and make improvements; or EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 Executive Summary PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 4 Executive Summary BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • included: consultation The stakeholders were informed about public the consultation. A significant advertising and public outreach initiative was undertaken to ensure residents and • • • • • There were a total participantof 3,011 interactions theduring publicconsultation. • • • CONSULTATION OVERVIEW PUBLIC CONSULTATION PARTICIPATION A series of community series A stakeholder engagement meetings A public House Open inBalfour 673 postcards submitted 237 unique emails and mail responses submitted 1766 questionnaires were submitted attended people 35 four stakeholder engagement meetings 300+ people attended June the House 15Open questionnaireA survey projectA Discussion Guide website project a of Development regarding project. the Atotal of 1766questionnaires were received. The questionnairescompletedbe could either online personor in andcontained nine questions JuneBetween 15and 6residents October had opportunity the to complete questionnaire. asurvey SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY RESPONSES 35% answered yes and 65%answered no. beofvalue toWould you? service ferry hourly 21% said yes and 79%said no. to you? important ofareducedIs theprospect crossing timefrom 35minutes to 17minutes 24% responded yes and 76%responded no. Highway?Have onthe you traffic parking ever by beenimpacted ferry “environmental impact” as first secondor most importantconsideration for planners. 76% ranked “community impact” as first the secondor most important and 74%ranked considerations terminal site evaluating locations plannershadfive thevarious ferry In major QUESTION 4 QUESTION 3 QUESTION 2 QUESTION 1 .How would you rank theseconsiderations for you? interms ofpriority

5 Executive Summary PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 6 Executive Summary BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT 54% said yes and 46%said no. inconvenience for you? youIf have to travel to anewterminal site, anadditional3km willthisbean • • • provided. The topthreethemes were: A significant number of respondents chose to provide a reason than other or in addition those to businesses“local would affected if be moved”terminal the firstas second or most important. community around terminal” as first the secondor most important reason and 81%ranked respondentsOf the indicated who favoured they Balfour, 84%ranked “established Balfour Preference 76% favoured Balfour, 17%favoured QueensBay North and 7%had no favourite. location –Balfour orQueensBay North? After reviewing theresults ofthetechnical feasibility study, doyou favour aparticular QUESTION 5 QUESTION 6A QUESTION 6 Environmental impact of constructing at Queens Bay swimming/ at Queens Bay naturalPreserve beauty/pristine environment/public recreation access/beach familiar/ ifit isn’t broke don’t fix it Terminalwhere fine it is (Balfour)/already established/ infrastructure intravellers place/ • • • The topthreethemes were: Some respondents chose to provide areason other than or inaddition provided. to those “transit (bus stop)” were second the highest preferences (42%). 72% ranked “public washrooms” as first secondor most important, “publicparking” and terminal? What amenitiesdoyou for thinkare theneworexpandedferry mostimportant • • • The topthreethemes were: Some respondents chose to provide areason other than or inaddition provided. to those sailings” as first the secondor most important reason. crossing time” as first the secondor most important reason and 56% ranked “morefrequent respondentsOf the indicated who favoured they Queens Bay North, 60%ranked “shorter PreferenceQueens Bay North QUESTION 7 QUESTION 6B Restaurant/coffee shop/fixed (not mobile) eating establishment Maintain existing is already Balfour businesses needed there as everything Don’t support relocating terminal/prefer Balfour/ don’t move ferry/protect QueensBay emissions environmentalLess impact than at Balfour/ no dredging inWest Arm/lower carbon hospitals emergency services/ Better/faster access services/ to medical siteBetter overall/ makes more than Balfour/ sense improved access/ efficiency 7 Executive Summary PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 8 Executive Summary BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT by 16%. was for “general community use” by selected 21%.“Business/commercial use” was selected 34% ranked “preserve as apublic park” as first their choice.second The most popularuse you would liketoproperty see? terminal isrelocated, theferry If how would you rank thefollowing usesofthevacant • • • • • • What doyou community live in? • • • top three themes were: Some respondents chose to provide other ause than or inaddition provided. to those The QUESTION 8 QUESTION 9 or International or remainingthe 9%of respondents all identified livedthey in parts other of Canada,B.C., and Procter, Ainsworth, North Shore, Kaslo, Sunshine Bay, Slocan Valley, Trail and Castlegar, 26% of respondents all identified other west sidecommunities Longbeach, like Harrop, and Cranbrook Bay, Riondel, Gray Creek, Sanca, Boswell, Sirdar, Kuskanook, Wynndel, Yahk, Creston identifiedeast sidecommunities 21% of all respondents like KootenayBay, Crawford 20% of respondents all identified Nelson 14% of respondents all identifiedBalfour 10% of respondents all identifiedBayQueens communityArts/ centre/ museum/ heritage and Native heritage centre Public access park/playground/ beach/ boat ramp Don’t relocate/ landing/ leave protect as ferry Queens Bay • • • 3. Participants suitability expressed concern the with site of proposed the Bay at (QB): Queens • • • • • 2. Participants expressed concern over consultation the process itself: • • • • 1. Participants want strongly Balfour to the they remain ferry indicated where it is: themesThe emergingkey throughout components all theconsultation of are as follows: 3,011 participants during public the consultation. theconsultation of The level participationof all aspects was in significant. There were atotal of OVERVIEW OF RESULTS the QB ferry site QBthe ferry Questions were concerning raised instability the of soils the along Highway 31directly above operation from of QB would ferry the impact quality the and supply of water their It was expressed that community the water intake is located inQB and that construction and terminal to QB It was felt that there were numerous and unknown environmental impacts of moving the a decision to move terminal the It was felt that process the was not transparent, fully and had that already made Ministry the did not(e.g. they include other studies such as socio-economic) It was felt that reports the and information were not sufficiently comprehensive and complete side of lake the It was expressed should that have Ministry the conducted another House Open on East the terminal the There were questions aboutthewhether study and reports werefavour in biased of relocating extended by 3months) It was expressed that initial the 3-week consultation was not long period enough (it was later businesses the particularly located within and around terminal site the There wasconcern a that there be wouldsignificant economy the to impact Balfour, of tourismlocal The existing route is the in longest“the world”run freeferry and a significant contributor to relocated ferry It was expressed of is part identity the that ferry the of Balfour the and it would lost ifthe be location inBalfour More than 75%of overall the responses favoured terminal retaining at its ferry the existing 9 Executive Summary PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 10 Executive Summary BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT 4. Participants significant questions had about dredging: • • • • • 6. • • • • • 5. • • • • access was a significant concern: was asignificant access existing and into future the once MVBalfour the retires: Participants that not did think congestion the existing the within terminal and highway both Participantsservice, concern expressed significant about the vessel(s) and ferry unsuitable operations for ferry It was that raised site the is prone to strong storms and winds which high would make site the area lost would which be It was strongly expressed that QB the foreshore was apristine and beach public recreation operation;construction and ferry property values; etc.) was expressedConcern regarding impact the on residents at QB (noise during terminal highway access or alternate measures such of ause lights and signage to improve safety It was felt that problems the through fixed could be reconfiguration of existing terminal and onto Highway the were infrequent primarily during (occurring long weekends and festivals) It was felt that congestion the was not a major issue at existing the terminal as vehicle backups offered by relocating to also) QB (faster to get emergencyservices shoreEast residents expressed that would they like faster and more service regular ferry of moving terminal the It was felt that “right-sized” anew vessel existing the should route built be to service instead firstthe place and for going forward Questions were about raised MVOsprey the whether was “right” the in vessel for service the from proposed the QB terminal service Concerns were identified about thethe adequacy of proposed“back-up barge” to provide located (Balfour or QB) to provide for unplanned breakdown vessel of primary the It was expressed that asecond vessel was desireable regardless of where terminal was the Westthe and Arm thus for need the dredging It was expressed that perhaps MVOsprey the itself was contributing to shiftinglake depths in allow dredging West inthe Arm concerns wereSeveral regarding raised environmental the process and approvals to necessary avoided completely There were questions raised about the todredge need the West Arm whetherand be couldit of idea the dredging inQB moreseemed to willing accept dredging at existing the location, necessary, ifdeemed than during construction or existing the West for Arm ongoing operations), but participants Concerns were expressed regarding dredging at either location proposed the (both QB site • • • 7. to QB: Participants raised concerns with traffic along Participants concerns traffic with Highway raised the 31,if terminal were to relocate intersection at Balfour more unsafe It was felt that increase the in through traffic along the HighwayBalfour at make could the would impact residents along QB Concerns were expressed about how increase the in traffic volume betweenBalfour QB and were to relocate to QB It was felt that safety improvements along Highway, would the necessary be terminal ifthe

11 Executive Summary PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 12 INTRODUCTION BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • The MOTI hasthat determined there aretwo viable options: safety andperspectives, financial it did notevaluate rangefull the of impacts thecommunity. on While technical the feasibility study examined terminal location the from anumber of technical, terminal to asite at QueensBay North, approximately northof 3km Balfour along Highway 31. Balfour site. The study,completed in March 2016,included a recommendation to relocatethe analysis of anumber of terminal sites, potential as ferry well as improvements to existing the In MOTI 2015the commissioned atechnical feasibility study from SNC to Lavalin conduct an Balfour is scheduled for retirement within next the few years. site’s capacity to support level the of Furthermore, demand periods. during aging the peak MV existingthe site is experiencing increased pressures –on marine and land-side. This impactsthe may require dredging. At and same highway the time, ferry traffic has increasedthe to point that as community the has grown. Recent studies have navigation revealed issues West inthe that Arm and holding compound for many years, and some amenities have developed around terminal the ferries tothe slow on approach and departure. The sitethe locationberth been has forthe ferry site is located west inthe arm of lake, the arelatively narrow and congested channel that requires as western the terminusBalfour has served of Kootenay the since 1947.The terminal ferry Lake operated under contract by Western Pacificoperates Marine. 365 service The days ayear. 1954, which operates summer inthe demand when is higher. The vessels are owned by MOTI and is currently provided by two MVOsprey, ferries, the built in2000and MVBalfour, the built in operates Balfour and between service free Kootenay Bay, adistance of nearly 9kilometers, and This includes inBC. on a vehicleservice Kootenay services passengerand Lake. The ferry toll- of BC Ministry The Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) is responsible for inland ferry PROJECT BACKGROUND Relocate terminal to the Queens Bay Remain at Balfour and make improvements; or INTRODUCTION 13 INTRODUCTION PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 14 INTRODUCTION BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT The thattheMOTI in region,particularly in a recognized changesservices to inland ferry and develop aplan of action to address challenges the at Terminal. Balfour the Ferry The MOTIthe undertook publicconsultation inputseek to into determiningthe way forward views ina variety ofviews ways. Theconsultation was broadly advertised andcommunity members were invited to sharetheir • • • • TerminalFerry Project commencing June 15,2016until July 6,2016.Theconsultation would include: In May MOTI 2016,the publicly announced it would conduct apublic consultation on Balfour the • • • The objectives the of publicconsultation are: area,in the early process. inthe MOTIthe initiated a public consultation and engagement process, with residents and businesses futurethe of terminal and the to provide amechanism for public input on proposed the changes, To ensure broad public awareness of recommendations from recent studies, potential options for Balfour terminal could have asignificant impact residentson local and businesses. community with along-established and history related community-based to services existing the PUBLIC CONSULTATION OVERVIEW PURPOSE a paper and online questionnaire. meetings with key community and business stakeholders; and an informational website; a public House; Open Terminal.Ferry To invite public the to share on views their various options for improving or relocating the TerminalFerry to Queens Bay North. technical feasibility report, including recommendation the to relocate existing the Balfour To share with residents and businesses area, inthe and directly impacted, those recent the Terminal.Balfour Ferry To inform public the of MOTI’s the intention to proceed with improving or relocating the plans for future the of Kootenay the service. ferry Lake technical, archaeological, environmental and financialconsiderations the as MOTI decides and Following consultation the public the period, and stakeholder input considered be will along with consultation on 6,2016. closed October consultationthe deadline, allowing an additional three months for public comment. The online importancethe input, of local and degree of high the thoughtful comment, MOTI the extended Public consultation to extended October 6,2016 period – Based on level the of– Based public response, 15 INTRODUCTION PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 16 PUBLIC CONSULTATION APPROACH BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • • In advance of official the start of public consultation: consultation initiative and had access to information to enable to them engage and participate. The MOTI undertook to ensure stakeholders and residents were informed aboutthe public • • • • • • • • • • This included: stakeholders as possible. In planning public the consultation MOTI the endeavoured to identify as many interested OUTREACH AND ADVERTISING STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION of consultation the process through MOTI the West Kootenay Office. District area, governmentLocal and non-government MLAs, mayors and councillors were informed letters to First Nations with information outlining project the and a request for feedback. A First Nations consultation process was initiated. This includedsending initialconsultation meetings. informing of them public the consultation and timelines and scheduling information Emails were sent stakeholders to key district updating on them status the of project, the Media publicGeneral organizations Educational providersHealth and EmergencyService First Nations GovernmentRegional representatives Government and Ministries Agencies Chambers of Commerce and cultural organizations area businesses Local community Local organizations and residents associations PUBLIC CONSULTATION APPROACH 17 PUBLIC CONSULTATION APPROACH PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 18 PUBLIC CONSULTATION APPROACH BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • • • • • • • • • • Information and included: links publications, releases, media information updates, contact information and access to an online survey. balfourterminal). The website provided access to a range of information including reports and The MOTI developed a websiteBalfour the to specific Ferry (www.gov.bc.ca/Terminal Project Project Website AppendicesSee for “Outreach and Advertising” documents. • • • • CONSULTATION METHODS Open HouseOpen and website. newspapers on east the and west side of lake, the informing residents of public the consultation, releaseA media was issued regional to all and media ads were community placedinlocal residents informed of public the consultation process, key dates and activities. A project website was developed which provided access to a range of information and kept to projectlinks the website which had extensive additional information. ofthem public the consultation process House. and Open the The direct also mail provided A direct mail piece was sent residents to all inBalfour and surrounding the vicinity informing Telephone contact information Telephone contact Email and link address Online survey of Public ConsultationOverview Process (Including key dates and activities) House DisplayOpen Boards to SNCLink Technical Lavalin Feasibility Study to variousLinks transportation studies over past 25years TerminalBalfour Ferry Project Discussion Guide request. The MOTIBaywith a Queens added meeting Residents Association (QBRA) the at organization’s Kootenay Bay to invite to them meetings held to be inadvance of public the House. Open Balfour Recreation Commission and Historic Association area and local businesses inBalfour and Invitations were sent to representatives from of Regional Kootenay the District Central (RDCK), project and public consultation process. (Facebook media and Twitter)Social to provide was used and update information on the and on MVOsprey. the 50 posters were placed in and around existing the both Balfour and Kootenay Bay terminals More than 300people attended House. Open the QuestionnaireThe and Discussion Guide were also available online following Open the House. encouraged to complete. questionnaires 170survey were completed and handed inthat evening. The Discussion Guide was availablewhich includedquestionnaire a survey that attendees were and sticky notes to attach questions their and comments on various the boards. attendees were encouraged with staff to speak andand experts were also providedpenswith upset around room. the Subject matter were experts stationed at appropriate boards and Two of sets poster Appendices) boards (see with extensive information about project the were inBalfour Road) fromBryan 5:00–8:00PMon June 15,2016. A public House Open wasSchool held at (2651 gymnasium inthe Elementary Redfish the House Open • • • • Four stakeholder meetings were held: • • • the Theof was:meetings purpose well as technical experts. recreational groups. The MOTI was represented seniorby Marine Branch andstaff District as representatives; business local operators; community residents associations; and cultural and The MOTIconducted with meetings stakeholderskey the in area including: regional government Stakeholder Meetings major considerations inevaluating project the options. stakeholder meetings and online through project the website. The discussion guide outlined A comprehensive discussion guide was prepared and distributed House, through Open the at Guide Discussion Balfour Recreation Commission and Historic Association –June 15 area businessesLocal (Balfour and Kootenay Bay) –June 15 Queens Bay Residents Association –June 14 ofRegional Kootenay District Central –June 14 to answer questions regarding project. the to listen to concerns about proposed the options; and to present and explain options the for maintaining or relocating terminal; ferry the 19 PUBLIC CONSULTATION APPROACH PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 20 PUBLIC CONSULTATION APPROACH BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT PARTICIPATION each question and some included information inaddition to responses to questions the asked. There were a questionnairestotal of 1766 survey submitted;some did not include a response to nine questions regarding project. the questionnaire. The questionnairescompletedbe could either online personor in andcontained JuneBetween residents 15and 6,local October had opportunity the to complete asurvey Survey Questionnaire • • • • • There were a total participantof 3,011 interactions theduring publicconsultation. Public Consultation Participation information. line where interested could express parties or views their obtain additional clarification or outreachAll and informational material included email the contact address and adirect telephone A dedicated email and direct telephone line were established during public the consultation period. Email Address and Telephone Line Direct over 30minutes completing questionnaire. the A total of 1154(65%)had aresponse nine to questions. all Respondents spent an average of just 673 postcards submitted 237 unique emails and mail responses submitted 1766 questionnaires were submitted attended people 35 four stakeholder engagement meetings 300+ people attended June House 15Open • • • • Comments from participants covered anumber of key themes: terminal. Heof ferry the invited questions from participants. HouseOpen inBalfour. He stressed had that not Ministry the made adecision regarding location attendees that was this one of of aseries stakeholder meetings planned inadvance of public the of project the overview and process to date. He introduced staff and expert and Ministry informed MOTI Project Manager Mike Hallas introduced two-hour the meeting and provided level ahigh Kim Van Bruggen Tom Tasaka Langevin Maryse Callum Campbell Eberle High Handrahan Kirk Hallas Mike Jackman Gary FaustRamona Tom Newell Aimee Watson Horn Stuart Name Attendees June 14,2016,2:00–4:00PM ofCentralRegional District Kootenay (RDCK) from Meetingsare*Minutes available uponrequest. KEY THEMES FROM STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS traffic Queens at Bay and how unplanned vessel maintenance be handled.would Concerns were expressed about MV Osprey the whether alone was sufficient tothe all handle regarding project. the Participants expressed concern about role the of First Nations inresearch and consultation if acompensation mechanism and/or Fund aLegacy might available. be Participants were concerned about impact the of relocation Balfour on businesses, local and including increased noise, and lighting and property values. Concerns were expressed about impact the on private land and adjacent property holders Acumen Communications SNC-Lavalin MOTI MOTI MOTI MOTI MOTI RDCK Director Area –Electoral A(viatelephone) RDCK Director Area –Electoral E RDCK Director Area –Electoral F AreaRDCK Direct –Electoral D ChiefAdministrative Officer RDCK, Business| Affiliation CONSULTATION RESULTS 21 Consultation Results PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 22 Consultation Results BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT June 14,2016,6:30PM BayQueens Residents Association • • • ofA summary key discussion themes: proposed on of part the residents. Extensive discussion ensued among meeting participants. QBRA had engaged a consultant, Cathy Scott-May, spoke who to an alternative consultation process keep residents informed. Bay but that QBRA the would work engaged to keep respectfully consultation inthe process and since 1994.She stressed that community the is not interested relocating ferry inthe to Queens attendees that QBRA the representing had been 150 residents the and close to 100 households saying it maintained had been by community members for over 100years. She informed the for She meeting. the welcomed participants to church the where meeting the was beingheld Maureen Jansma of QBRA the introduced meeting participants and thanked MOTI representatives Kim Van Bruggen Tom Tasaka WardKatie Hugh Eberle Callum Campbell Handrahan Kirk Cathy Scott-May Rutherglen Mark Greg Paddon Betts John BeerbowerJohn Corrin Nancy Maureen Jansma Campbell Katya Name Attendees of increased traffic the on highway Queens to Bay. Participants had questions about highway widening and safety improvements and impact the and expressed concerns about unstable conditions soil at proposed the terminal area. Participants pointed out that Queens Bay the site would an take incredible amount of lakeshore extending for deadline the submissions. stated three-week the consultation was short too for period adequate input and proposed Participants expressed shock regarding with which process speed the was proceeding. They Acumen Communications SNC-Lavalin MOTI MOTI MOTI MOTI Consultant QB Resident QB Resident QB Resident QBRA Board ofDirectors QBRA Board ofDirectors QBRA Board ofDirectors QBRA Board ofDirectors Business| Affiliation Kirk Handrahan Kirk Langevin Maryse Callum Campbell Hugh Eberle Lang Ron Lang Deanna Cobban Marilyn Darlene Townend Truus Zelonka Zelonka Randy Bob Haze Holly Haze Djakovic Anka Jack Djakovic Don Townend Reginald J. Goldsbury Goldsbury Robin Reginald P. Goldsbury Name Attendees June 15,2016,9:30AM Local Area Businesses • • • • • • • • studies did not factor cost inthe of highway improvements Balfour and between QueensBay. andspeeds that congestion terminal only a few days at occurs a year. ferry the said They recent Participants pointed out that traffic alleviating congestionBalfour increasewill at highway stretch well used very of for beach public. the Participants expressed that land the designated as undeveloped in planning documents is a made to MVOsprey the to alleviate some marine problems. Participants had questions about future the of MVBalfour the and changes whether could be Participants were that pleased MOTI the was prepared to consider dredging at Balfour. water from Queens Bay downstream. and further Participants pointed out concerns about impact the on water quality for residents that draw Discussion Guide and Questionnaire. Participants wondered why community their identified had the not in specifically been Nations and socio-economic factors had not sufficiently been examined. Participants expressed concerns that cumulative the effects the of proposed relocation, First hadconcernsalso They abouttheconsultation process itself, and proposed adifferent process. MOTI MOTI MOTI MOTI Lang’s Marina Lang’s Marina Clothing Blue Sky Cedar GlenCampground Gill +Gift Gill +Gift Holly’s Diner Holly’s Diner Balfour Superette Balfour Superette Cedar GlenCampground Inc. Entertainment Moose Muddy Inc. Entertainment Moose Muddy n’Dock Duck Business| Affiliation 23 Consultation Results PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 24 Consultation Results BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT and further investigationand further including an archeological study, environmental study and dredging technical study by undertaken SNC but Lavalin indicated for need the input from community the projectthe with was challenges, to deal not necessarily move terminal. He ferry the referred to the MOTI Project Manager Mike Hallas introduced Hemeeting. the stressed that rationale the behind Kim Van Bruggen Tom Tasaka WardKatie Hallas Mike • • • • • • • • • key themes wereSeveral expressed by participants: input and questions. investigation. He turned then meeting the over to Balfour the Business representatives for their Balfour would its lose identity. have a negative impact tourism, on local which is a major region, in the industry and that Participants were concerned that loss the of “the longest world” inthe ride ferry free would of service. frequency safety issues, increased commercial particularly vehicle traffic resulting from increased Participants were concerned about potential the for increased highway traffic and resulting socio-economic impact of relocating. quieter lifestyle area. inthe Participants asked ifastudy conducted could be to capture the that many would not Concerns were survive. expressed also about impacts the on slower, the Participants were concerned that Balfour businesses all would affected be by relocation and There was a wouldcontinue questionservice thewhether of be toll-free.to analysisthe did not include cost the of replacement the barge and site clean up. Concerns were expressed about of financial the accuracy the analysis for relocation thatand would it come from? Participants had questions about how much be would fill required BayQueensat whereand about what happen will MVOsprey the when is out of service. that there inadequate had been storm and wave studies at Queens Bay and had concerns rightthe vessel for route the and causing could be problems. the expressedalso They concerns Participants had arange of concerns and suggestions regarding MVOsprey the whether was undertaken. downstream impacts including water quality and asked there whether any had been studies Participants expressed concerns about environmental the impacts of dredging at Balfour and deadline. consultation questioned timelines if the for moving forward were reasonable and supported extending the were concerned that studies and reports were infavour biased of relocating terminal and the Participants were concerned that adecision had made already to move been terminal. They

Acumen Communications SNC-Lavalin MOTI MOTI • • • The followingthemes key werefrom summarized questions and discussion: to range the of issues that addressed. to be needed Questions were from taken then attendees. MOTI Project Manager, Mike Hallas spoke to various the studies over undertaken years the and that public consultation of part process the is also and that more technical work was needed. only astudy of what is feasible and as astarting point should for serve discussions. He indicated also project to address issues at Balfour the terminal. He explained that technical the feasibility study is MOTI Executive Director Kirk Handrahan introduced meeting the and outlined intent the of the Kim Van Bruggen Tom Tasaka Hugh Eberle Callum Campbell Hallas Mike Handrahan Kirk Reginald P. Goldsbury G Candliss Glen Konowalkchuk Janice Cooper Zelonka Randy Truus Zelonka Shayla Harding Gordon Bruce Ellen Schmidt Name Attendees Balfour Recreation Commission and Historic Association • June 15,2016,1:00–3:00PM and amotorized whether barge would sufficient be to support the route. Participants questioned estimated the cost of areplacement financial inthe used analysis ferry viability and impact of dredging. Participants had numerous questions about cause the of siltation West in the and Arm the terminal is already adone and deal, that MOTI should do more to stem belief. this Participants stated that there is a sentiment community in the that relocation the of the money be there to improve will it into atourist site. Participants wondered what would happen with existing the site and whether, ifrelocated, Acumen Communications SNC-Lavalin MOTI MOTI MOTI MOTI n’DuckBDBHA –Dock BDBHA BDBHA BDBHA BDBHA BDBHA Balfour Recreation Commission Balfour Recreation Commission Balfour Recreation Commission Business| Affiliation 25 Participation PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 26 Consultation Results BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • • • terminal inBalfour. The tone thecomments of was widemostlyThe respectful. majority favoured retaining the ferry comments on various the boards. Attendees were provided with pens and sticky notes and encouraged to attach questions and Keith Dunbar –SNC-Lavalin, Technical Expert Tom Tasaka –SNC-Lavalin, Technical Expert Mike Bancroft property expert Local – Kim Van Bruggen –Acumen Communications, Issues Management Contractors Heidi Postnikoff Road Area – Manager –Creston TanasichukBen Area – Road Manager –Nelson Katie Ward –Operations Manager, West Kootenay District Hugh Manager Eberle –District Transportation, West Kootenay District MOTI West Kootenay District Jordan Mason Analyst – CampbellCallum –Manager –Manager Langevin Maryse Kirk Handrahan –Executive Director (main spokesperson during House) Open Mike Hallas – Project Manager MOTI –Marine Branch Attendees June 15,2016,5:00–8:00PM House Open • KEY THEMES FROM OPEN HOUSE Participants had questions regarding to arelocated bus terminal. service Participants questioned value the of ashortened sailing to time travel the experience. signage to improve used could be safety. oneoccurred weekend ayear and wondering ifalternate measures such of as use lights and Participants questioned source the of data regarding queuing at Ferry, saying congestion only for Balfour and asked ifasocio-economic study was planned. Participants indicated terminal definesthecommunity that ferry the and is a tourist attraction Participants felt strongly that consultation the process should longer. be • • • • • • • • • • • • The followingthemes key werefrom summarized the BoardPostercomments: Impacts on Balfour businesses ifexisting terminal is moved to QueensBay. Bay.Queens Dredging West inthe should as Arm opposed to undertaken relocating be terminal to the existing terminal. Vehicle capacity and other issues addressed could be by improving and/or expanding the summer.the Traffic congestion Balfourthe existing at isolated is Terminal tooccurrences only afew during landside) at Balfour were exaggerated. Questions of SNC-Lavalin the whether report’s evaluation of safety issues marine (both and Request for House an Open on east the shore of lake. the including: environmental impact; socio-economic input; and archaeology. A perceived bias of SNC-Lavalin the report and for need the additional studies and reports Requests for additional consultation time. Theconsultation process was nottransparent as or wasviewed simply a PR exercise. subject of numerous comments. Negative or unknown environmental impacts of moving terminal to the QueensBay were the winding highway ifexisting terminal moved to Queens Bay. Highway 31safety issues that would result from increased traffic on already an narrow, loss of foreshore and loss of public access for to beach swimming and public recreation. area; exposure to winds and high storms; impact residents; on local protecting water quality; Unsuitability of proposed the Queens Bay site for avariety of reasons: instability soil inthe 27 Consultation Results PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 28 Consultation Results BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • The followingthemes key were identified: consultation June period 6,2016. 15–October A total of 237unique email and mail responses and 673postcards were received during the • • • • • • • • KEY THEMES FROM EMAIL/WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS was disconcertingly short. Correspondents expressed concerns that frame time the for consultation local the process something planners the to disregard seem out of ignorance or research. poor There is a significant established community directlyabove the terminal proposed site… completelyterminal will destroy Queens Bay. placesmagical that are clean, quiet peaceful, and beautiful. It was strongly felt that aferry Queens Bay is abroad shallow bay where people live and people recreate. It is one of those MV Balfour replacing, needs don’t altogether. scrap of idea the asecond ferry breaks down or upkeep? needs The viableonly solution is to have another ferry. current The Correspondents expressed to need retain the a second vessel. What happens ferry the when shallow draught would mitigate marine the issues. lineups would avoided be and backing up onto highway the would mitigated. be Amore forever. It was felt with adequate that right withferry anew sized vessel capacity, extensive and technologically dated now, for 16years it and inservice has is been not made to last propellers coupled with reduced directional sediment agitation. The MV Ospreyis old ferry MVOsprey the Re-design 2000propulsion systems to allow for more clearance under location of proposed the terminal. even bigger. There wasconcern that southernthe swellspound intoBayQueens the exact at souththe that can quickly create six-foot rock hard swells and storms from north can the get The was terminal builtthe in West Arm forsafety reasons.lake The is prone to storms from currents that would not disburse effluents efficiently. disbursed on current. the Thelocation baynew ina with would circulatingthe place ferry stream location of terminal allows the for any oil or quickly to be other from seepage ferry the low water turnover –no study for is this included inQueens Bay estimate. The existing down- accumulate will from and ferry the slowlysouth drift contaminating the entire bay because of Most residents of Queens Bay on depend bay the for water. drinking It was felt that pollution dredging West inthe currently Arm does. Queens Bay site have will more environmental impact on lake plant the and fish lifethan Westthe channel Arm and QueensBay the site require will dredging. It was felt that the Proposed dredging is fraught with environmental risk and impactsBoth certain to fisheries. Developments on lake should the done be inconsultation with First Nations. • • • • • • • • maybe the world. the maybe quickly as possible. The Kootenaythe islongest Lake in freeFerry car – America North ferry is not about ferry thisparticular of gettingfromtrue Thepurpose point point A to B as Hwy. 31from Balfour to proposed the site. new It was expressed that no mention is made of what improvements required be will for summer2-3 times inthe season. inhigh It was felt that claim the overflowtraffic is a hazard is exaggerated,locals say it only happens of work this and terminal is relocated. positions these become even scarcer ferry will ifthe There littlealready is yearvery round workBalfour. in provide services Ferry-related much homes and cottages. It was felt bea that bigwill traffic issue the impacting enjoyment Queens of Bay residents’ safer, quicker and more energy-efficient way of crossinglake. the Some of Shore East the residents move the think would help community their by creating a noise pollution of hundredstravelling of of fill truckloads the highway? humans and fish;what the dollaris cost as the well environmentalas cost in terms of air and m3). Where is it coming from and what is potential the for contamination of lake water for A major feature of Queens Bay the North designis required the (approximately fill 100,000 site. terminal It was expressed that there is apermanently unstable clay directly hillside above proposed the

29 Consultation Results PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 30 Consultation Results BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT submitted of had all questions the completed. numberthe of responses varies from question to question. Atotal of 1,154(65%)of surveys the 1,766responsesOf the received, some did not provide aresponse for each question, therefore Survey/Questionnaire No Yes Response Highway?Have onthe you traffic parking ever by beenimpacted ferry most important, followed by “environmental impact” and on so down to “financialconsiderations”. As depicted above responses the have by sorted rank been with “community impact” ranked as rank theseconsiderations for you? interms ofpriority how would you and5beingleastimportant, 1–5,withbeingmostimportant Numbering terminal site evaluating locations plannershadfive thevarious ferry In major considerations SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES QUESTION 2: QUESTION 1: Considerations Financial LevelService and vehicle) (Marine Safety Impact Environmental Impact Community Total: 1489 1125 364 Count (10.2%) (35.1%) (45.2%) (3.2%) (9.2%) 116 131 451 577 40 1 (15.4%) (39.2%) ( (7.8%) (8.8%) 28.9% 110 197 504 369 99 2 ) 24.4% (24.7%) (13.0%) (38.5%) (11.5%) (12.8%) 312 163 493 148 163 3 (25.7%) (29.8%) (27.6%) (8.8%) (6.7%) 325 374 353 113 86 4 (38.7%) (39.3%) (8.4%) (5.4%) (6.4%) 489 494 107 70 82 5 75.6% Responses Total 1265 1257 1281 1286 1277 . No Yes Response for you? youIf have to travel to anewterminal site, anadditional3km willthisbeaninconvenience No Yes Response beofvalue toWould you? service ferry hourly No Yes Response ofareducedIs theprospect crossing timefrom to 35minutes you? to 17minutes important QUESTION 5: QUESTION 4: QUESTION 3: Total: 1481 677 804 Count Total: 1484 963 521 Count Total: 1487 1170 317 Count 21.3% 35.1% 45.7% 54.3% 64.9% 78.7% 31 Consultation Results PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 32 Consultation Results BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT No favourite BayQueens North Balfour Response location? After reviewing theresults ofthetechnical feasibility study, doyou favour aparticular provided option the of another selecting reason. favouredthey site this from most important to least important reason. Respondents were also The 1080 respondentswho indicated favoured they Balfour wereaskedfurther the to rank reasons Balfour Preference QUESTION 6: QUESTION 6A: around terminal community Established terminal moved if affected would be Local businesses Other times route and travel Familiar with (for residents) are established Travel patterns business area established through Loss oftourists Total: 1418 103 235 1080 Count (63.6%) (29.8%) (2.4%) (8.3%) (9.5%) 291 616 24 86 96 1 (20.1%) (50.7%) (11.4%) (15.2%) (5.3%) 496 195 114 154 55 2 7.2% 16.6% (12.0%) (15.1%) (13.6%) (48.4%) (9.3%) 148 116 136 489 97 3 (27.1%) (38.9%) (19.2%) (3.0%) (3.5%) 271 404 194 29 34 4 (45.5%) (38.2%) (1.3%) (7.7%) (0.9%) 455 396 13 78 5 9

76.2% Responses Total 1000 1038 1011 969 834 978 Other Reasons for Reasons PreferringOther Balfour Location of themes/ideas the responses. inthe The followingthemes key were identified and are listed below the on based number of mentions providedthose for selection. A significant number of respondents (834) chose to provide a reason than other or in addition to if terminal moved” and on so down to “familiar with route and travel times”. terminal” ranked as most the important reason, followed by businesses “local would affected be As depicted above, responses the have by sorted rank been with “established community around • • • • • • • • • More studies/alternative solutionsrequired (13mentions) oflocatingHighway toQueens safety andtrafficimpacts Bay (18mentions) Existing location/route (26mentions) are attraction tourist expense(32mentions) Cost ofrelocating notworth onexistingBalfour (48mentions) community/business/employment Impact onQueensBay (79mentions) Negative community/residents/water impact quality atQueensBayEnvironmental (115mentions) ofconstructing impact swimming/ atQueensBay (145mentions) environment/publicPreserve naturalbeauty/pristine recreation access/beach familiar/ ifitisn’t brokedon’t fixit(154mentions) Terminal finewhere itis(Balfour)/already established/infrastructure inplace/travellers 33 Consultation Results PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 34 Consultation Results BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT also providedalso option the of another selecting reason. reasonsthe favoured they site this from most important to least important. Respondents were The 235 respondentswho indicated favoured they BayQueens North wereaskedfurther to rank PreferenceQueens Bay North of themes/ideas the responses. inthe The followingthemes key were identified and are listed below the on based number of mentions selection. for Some respondents (131)chose to provide areason other than or inaddition provided to those improved facility". modern as most the important reason, followed by "more frequent sailings" and on so down to "new, As depicted above respondents the have by sorted rank been with "shorter crossing ranked time" QUESTION 6B: crossing time Shorter Other modern facility New, improved option effective Most cost time at peaktravel More capacity safety and marine Improve traffic sailings More frequent (38.3%) (10.5%) (22.2%) (28.6%) (2.3%) (6.6%) 23 14 48 63 88 1 5

(13.4%) (27.7%) (21.3%) (12.7%) (25.4%) (3.6%) 29 61 49 28 54 2 8

(16.7%) (21.4%) (12.6%) (13.2%) (28.2%) (8.6%) 36 47 29 29 60 19 3

(22.2%) (13.2%) (11.3%) (21.4%) (21.6%) (8.6%) 48 29 26 47 46 19 4

(25.5%) (12.7%) (17.1%) (6.8%) (8.7%) (24%) 37 15 20 56 27 53 5

(16.8%) (52.9%)

(2.3%) (7.8%) (5.6%) (8.3%) 117 18 18 37 12 6 5

Responses Total 220 213 216 220 230 131 221 As depicted above responses the have by sorted rank. been provide written a answer. in order of importance. They were also provided an opportunity to indicate “other” amenities and terminal. They orwere expanded ferry providedwith five selections and were asked to them rank Respondents were asked to identify what amenities thought they were most important for a new What terminal? amenitiesdoyou for thinkare theneworexpandedferry mostimportant for Reasons PreferringOther Location QueensBay North QUESTION 7: Other Play area coffee trucks Mobile food/ (bus stop) Transit Public parking washrooms Public • • • • • • • Better for (7mentions) business/tourism Cost benefits/fuelsavings (8mentions) Better for needsofcommunities(11mentions) long-term andtrafficsafety (14mentions) Marine emissions (14mentions) Less environmental thanatBalfour/ impact nodredging in West Arm/lower carbon hospitals(17mentions) services/ emergency Better/faster accessto medicalservices/ (22 mentions) Better site overall/ more makes sensethanBalfour/ improved access/efficiency

(37.9%) (17.6%) (22.8%) (3.7%) (7.5%) 178 231 391 36 73 1

(34.2%) (10.5%) (24.2%) (19.6%) (10%) 103 245 199 356 99 2

(18.4%) (13.4%) (25.3%) (22.9%) (16%) 132 157 257 232 190 3

(25.3%) (15.3%) (19.4%) (6.7%) (29%) 286 248 155 197 69 4

(34.7%) (12.5%) (26.7%) (2.0%) (15%) 342 261 152 127 21 5

(9.2%) (2.7%) (2.7%) (0.7%) (14%) 137 91 27 27 6 7

Responses

Total 1014 1013 1034 561 986 979 35 Consultation Results PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 36 Consultation Results BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Other AmenitiesM Other The followingthemes key were identified and listed below the on based number of mentions: for and/or selection to add own their comments/suggestions. Some respondents (561)chose to indicate amenities other than or inaddition provided to those • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Relocate/ compensate Balfour businesses(8mentions) dock(8mentions) Boat services/ (9mentions) andride Parking/ transit/park your mindsareUnfair/ biasedquestion/seemslike madeup(12mentions) Pristine area/ naturalhabitat(13mentions) Green space/picnicarea (21mentions) (30mentions) Swimming/ beachaccess/publicaccessto lake Traveller rest area/ services/ WIFI, ATM, (34mentions) telephone/ garbage Tourist information/cultural info/visitor andhistorical centre/ museum(38 mentions) store (39mentions) gasstationandconvenience fixed businessesand smallbusinessopportunities/ Other shop(43mentions) gift andcrafts/ arts marketplace/ shopping/kiosks/ Retail Restaurant/coffee shop/fixed (notmobile)eatingestablishment(47mentions) (56 mentions) neededisalready there everything existingBalfourMaintain businesses/services/ (91 mentions) Don’t relocating terminal/prefer support Balfour/ don’t Queen’s move ferry/protect Bay ost Important for NeworExpanded ost Important T erminal

The followingthemes key were identified and are listed below the on based number of mentions. Some respondents (413)chose to provide other ause than or in addition provided. to those As depicted above responses the have by sorted rank. been ownin their preference. inorderthem of importance. They givenwere also the opportunity to indicate “other” andwrite terminal was relocated. ferry if the They were providedselectionswith and were asked to rank Respondents were asked to indicate would they which for uses like to see vacant the property you would liketoproperty see? terminal isrelocated, theferry If how would you rank thefollowing usesofthevacant QUESTION 8: Other Residential use commercial use residential/ Mixed Marina use commercial use Business/ community use General public park Preserve as (12.8%) (15.6%) (20.9%) (34.4%) (1.5%) (8.5%) 117 137 192 320 13 76 1

(15.6%) (13.2%) (40.1%) (19.7%) (2.8%) (9.4%) 142 116 368 183 24 84 2

(13.9%) (26.9%) (14.4%) (24.1%) (12.3%) (6.7%) 124 246 127 221 114 58 3

(11.8%) (11.8%) (26.3%) (19.7%) (18.9%) (8.1%) 110 102 234 180 166 74 4

(12.8%) (20.1%) (29.0%) (11.9%) (17.3%) (4.9%) 119 174 258 109 152 45 5

(47.5%) (10.8%) (10.0%) (14.2%) (1.9%) (7.3%) 412 125 17 68 96 91 6

(1.6%) (9.7%) (1.9%) (3.1%) (6.4%) (0%) 15 84 17 28 56 7 0

Total 917 929 413 867 889 913 879 37 Consultation Results PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 38 Consultation Results BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Other PreferredOther U Other Springs Ainsworth Hot Harrop Gray Creek Longbeach Kootenay Bay Procter Riondel Crawford Bay BayQueens Balfour Response namethe of community their “Other”. titled inasection ten (10)communities ferry’s inthe surrounding area, and were given also an option to provide Respondents were asked to identify inwhich community lived. they They were provided alist of What doyou community live in? QUESTION 9: • • • • Biased/ unfair, unclearquestion(15mentions) centre/ andNative centre community museum/heritage heritage (20mentions) Arts/ Public accessbeach/park/playground/ boatramp(51mentions) Don’t relocate/ landing/protect QueensBay leave (154mentions) asferry ses for Total: 1140 607 10 26 33 36 38 46 52 56 75 161 Count V acant Property ifFerry IsRelocatedacant Property 0.9% 2.3% 2.9% 3.2% 3.3% 4.0% 4.6% 4.9% 6.6% 14.1% 53.2% • • • • • • totalOf the 1,140responses to question: the • • • • • respondents live: A large number of respondents “Other”. (607)selected Following is abreakdown of where these International (103responses) remainingthe 9.0% of respondents all identified livedthey in parts other of Canada,B.C., or responses), and Procter, Ainsworth, North Shore, Kaslo, Sunshine Bay, Slocan Valley, Trail and Castlegar (295 25.9% of respondents all identified other west sidecommunities Longbeach, like Harrop, Cranbrook (236responses) Bay, Riondel, Gray Creek, Sanca, Boswell, Sirdar, Kuskanook, Wynndel, Yahk, Creston and 20.7 %of respondents all identifiedeast sidecommunities like KootenayBay, Crawford 20.6% of respondents all identified Nelson (234 responses) 14.1% of respondents all identifiedBalfour (161 responses) 9.7% of respondents all identifiedBayQueens (111 responses) remainingthe 103 identified livedthey in parts other of Canada,B.C., or International 234 identified Nelson, and 176 identified other west sidecommunities 58 identified east other sidecommunities 36 identified other areas BayQueensof (North,South, Townsite, etc.) 39 Consultation Results PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 40 Consultation Results BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • 1. Participants want strongly Balfour the to they Ferry indicated remain where it is: themesThe emergingkey throughout components all theconsultation of are: 3,011 participants during public the consultation. theconsultation of The level participationof all aspects was in significant. There were atotal of • • • • 3. Participants suitability expressed concern the with site of proposed the Bay at (QB): Queens • • • • • 2. Participants expressed concern over consultation the process itself: • • • OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION RESULTS More than 75%of overall the responses favoured terminal retaining at its ferry the existing construction and ferry operation;construction and ferry property values; etc.) was expressedConcern regarding impact the on residents at QB (noise during terminal site QBthe ferry Questions were concerning raised instability the of soils the along Highway 31directly above operation from of QB would ferry the impact quality the and supply of water their It was expressed that community the water intake is located inQB and that construction and terminal to QB It was felt that there were numerous and unknown environmental impacts of moving the a decision to move terminal the It was felt that process the was not transparent, fully and had that already made Ministry the did not(e.g. they include other studies such as socio-economic) It was felt that reports the and information were not sufficiently comprehensive and complete Shore of lake the It was expressed should that have Ministry the conducted another House Open on East the terminal the There were questions aboutthewhether study and reports werefavour in biased of relocating extended by 3months) It was expressed that initial the 3-week consultation was not long period enough (it was later businesses the particularly located within and around terminal site the There wasconcern a that there be wouldsignificant economy the to impact Balfour, of tourismlocal The existing route is the in longest“the world”run freeferry and a significant contributor to relocated ferry It was expressed of is part identity the that ferry the of Balfour the and it would lost ifthe be location inBalfour • • 6.  • • • • • 5.  • • • • 4. Participants significant questions had about dredging: • • significant concern: significant existing and into future the once MVBalfour the retires: Participants that not did think congestion the existing the within terminal was a both Participantsservice, concern expressed significant about the vessel(s) and ferry highway access or alternate measures such of ause lights and signage to improve safety It was felt that problems the through fixed could be reconfiguration of existing terminal and onto Highway the were infrequent primarily only (occur during long weekends and festivals) It was felt that congestion the was not a major issue at existing the terminal as vehicle backups offered by relocating to also) QB (faster to get emergencyservices ShoreEast residents expressed that would they like faster and more service regular ferry of moving terminal the It was felt that “right-sized” anew vessel existing the should route built be to service instead firstthe place and for going forward Questions were about raised MVOsprey the whether was “right” the in vessel for service the from proposed the QB terminal service Concerns were identified about thethe adequacy of proposed“back-up barge” to provide located (Balfour or QB) to provide for unplanned breakdown vessel of primary the It was expressed that asecond vessel was desirable regardless of where terminal was the Westthe and Arm thus for need the dredging It was expressed that perhaps MVOsprey the itself was contributing to shiftinglake depths in allow dredging West inthe Arm concerns wereSeveral regarding raised environmental the process and approvals to necessary avoided completely There were questions raised about the todredge need the West Arm whetherand be couldit than of idea the dredging inQB wereseemed more to willing accept dredging at existing the location necessary, if deemed during construction or existing the West for Arm ongoing operations), but participants Concerns were expressed regarding dredging at either location proposed the (both QB site unsuitable operations for ferry It was that raised site the is prone to strong storms and winds which high would make site the area lost would which be It was strongly expressed that QB the foreshore was apristine and beach public recreation

41 Consultation Results PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 42 Organized Community Advocacy BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • • 7.  Association contained 4,613signatures.petition The signatures 6,825. totalled Partnership, and Queens Bay Business Balfour; Residents Balfour Ferry Choose Coalition, change.org Two petitions opposing relocation the were created and submitted to MOTI. The petition online Landing”.Ferry The websites linked to an petition online “StayCourse.Queen’sthe Preserve Bay. Balfour Choose • • Two websites were launched opposing relocation of ferry: the of public scrutiny and community advocacy. From of start the public consultation, Balfour the Terminal project subject to has a great been deal ORGANIZED COMMUNITY ADVOCACY • relocate to QB: Participants raised concerns with traffic along Participants concerns traffic with Highway raised the 31,if terminal were to There were questionstraffic raised accessing newterminal the to and thefrom Highway at impact residents along QB Concerns were expressed about increase the intraffic volume betweenBalfour QB and would were to relocate to QB It was felt that safety improvements along Highway, would the necessary be terminal ifthe www.savequeensbay.com www.choosebalfour.com intersection at Balfour more unsafe It was felt that increase the in through traffic along the HighwayBalfour at make could the site QB contained signatures 2,212virtual and petition the from: Kootenay Landing Ferry Lake 43 Organized Community Advocacy PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 44 Appendices BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • • • • • Poster Comments Board from House Open Poster Boards from House Open Discussion Guide News Release Household Mailer and Advertisement Meeting Invitations to Stakeholders APPENDICES 45 Appendices PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 46 Appendices – Meeting Invitation BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Ramona Faust, Area Director Electoral E RDCK Dear: RE: Addressing at Balfour Terminal Challenges Ferry at Kootenay Lake Email messagefrom M 4:00 pm office at in RDCK the Nelson. Directors House of ahead Open the and would like to suggest ameeting on June 14 operators and cultural and recreational groups. We would like have also ameeting with key Area Prior House to Open the arranging be we will key stakeholder business meetings with local informing posts media residents the social about upcoming the House. Open inBalfourSchool for June 15 announcing public the consultation and House an Open held to be atElementary Redfish the consultation June place take between will 15 consultation region inthe to better understand range full the concerns of local and Public views. Prior to making any decisionsfinal two these on options, be undertaking public MOTIwill oftime 35minutes and future the meet of needs region’s the transportation system. navigation safety, reduce crossing by time 50%to 17minutes one-way from current the crossing Recent technical feasibility studies indicate proposed the QBN site would improve marine Highway 31. to site anew at QueensBay North (QBN) approximately three kilometers northof Balfour along users. These foroptions ferry include improvementsmaking the existingto terminal or relocating (MOTI) looking at has been avariety of options to enhance access and improve safety and service lake) andthe Kootenay Bay on east the side.of The Ministry Transportation and Infrastructure As you know, currently operates service Balfour (just between ferry the inside west the arm of addressing challenges at Terminal Balfour the Ferry at Kootenay Lake. I am writing to inform you of state the of planning and upcoming the public consultation for Stuart Horn, CAO RDCK Ron Toyota, Mayor Town of Creston Aimee Watson, Rural Director RDCK Area A Susan Hewat, Kaslo Mayor Kozak,Deb Mayor City of Nelson Jackman,Gary Area Director Electoral A RDCK Tom Newell, Area Director Electoral F RDCK APPENDIX: MEETING INVITATIONS TO STAKEHOLDERS ike Hallas, Project M [email protected] [email protected] th from shortly. 5:00–8:00pm very In addition, ads and you see will [email protected] [email protected] anager th [email protected] and July 6 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] th . We issuing be release amedia will th from 2:00- that terminal. Balfour These utilize the Ferry options have narrowedbeen to either making evaluating avariety of options to enhance access and improve users for safety ferry and service As you may aware, be of Transportation Ministry the and Infrastructure (MOTI) has been addressing challenges at Terminal Balfour the Ferry at Kootenay Lake. I am writing to inform you of state the of planning and upcoming the public consultation for BusinessDear Operator: RE: Addressing at Balfour Terminal Challenges Ferry at Kootenay Lake Mojo’s Café Lang’s Marina and Snack Bar Hooked Up Charters and Tours andGill Gift Fairy Treats Restaurant ‘N’ Duck Dock LakeshoreCedars Inn and Marina Blue Sky Clothing Balfour Superette andBalfour Resort Marina (Balfour andKootenay Bay) Email message/letter from M Manager Project Mike Hallas Sincerely, ManagerEberle, District at 250-354-6628. consultation process contact please me directly at 250356-9328or you contact can also Hugh If you require any clarification or want more information aboutthis project theand public on internet the at We posting up-to-date be also will information about project the and public consultation activities resultsthe of our consultation efforts. We are committed to listening residents to local and business operators and publicly will share www.gov.bc.ca/balfourterminal ike Hallas, Project M . anager, MO TI to localarea businesses 47 Appendices – Meeting Invitation PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 48 Appendices – Meeting Invitation BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Prior to making any decisions final two these on options be undertaking public MOTIwill system. one-way from current the 35minutes and future the meet of needs region’s the transportation QBN site would improve marine navigation safety, reduce crossing by time 50%to 17minutes Recent technical feasibility studies indicate moving the terminal to aproposed Balfour the Ferry approximately three kilometers northof Balfour along Highway 31. improvements to existing the terminal or relocating to site anew at Queens Bay North (QBN) Mike Hallas Sincerely, process contact please me at 250356-9328. group If meeting. you require any clarification aboutthis request the or publicconsultation Can you RSVPby please email at: on internet the at We posting up-to-date be also will information about project the and public consultation activities resultsthe of our consultation efforts. We are committed to listening residents to local and business operators and publicly will share June 15 Gymnasium School Elementary from 5:00to 8:00pm. Consultations place take between will The broader public/community House Open is beingplanned for June 15 11:30 pm at Balfour the Community Hall. invite you to attend group asmall meeting with our technical team on June from 15th 9:30– ofahead public the House Open to share information with you and hear directly from you. We business stakeholders toproject the discuss options and community impacts and opportunities Terminal,Balfour Ferry we would like to invite your input and participation at ameeting with key thatRecognizing businesses inBalfour have an ongoing interest proposed inthe relocation of the share information on state the of planning on Terminal Balfour the Ferry Project. consultation region inthe to better understand range full the concerns of local and and views to th and July 6 www.gov.bc.ca/balfourterminal th . [email protected] . ifyou are able to attend small the th at Redfish the resultsthe of our consultation efforts. We are committed to listening residents to local and business operators and publicly will share 15 GymnasiumSchool inBalfour from 5:00to 8:00pm. Consultations June place take between will A broader public/community House Open is being planned for June 15 Hall. Community groupa small meeting with our technical team on June 15 of your members of as part our stakeholder consultations and would like to invite you to attend being involved regarding what might transpire at existing the location. We wish to hear views the Should decision the made to be relocate terminal, the we know you have expressed interest in opportunities. at ameeting with key stakeholders to project the discuss options and community impacts and relocation of Terminal, Balfour the Ferry Iwould like to invite your organization’s participation thatRecognizing Balfour the Recreation Commission has an ongoing interest proposed inthe share information on Terminal Balfour the Ferry Project. consultation region inthe to better understand range full the concerns of local and and views to Prior to making any decisions final two these on options be undertaking public MOTIwill minutes and future the meet of needs region’s the transportation system. navigation safety, reduce crossing by time 50%to 17minutes one-way from current the 35 Recent technical feasibility studies indicate proposed the QBN site would improve marine Highway 31. to site anew at QueensBay North (QBN) approximately three kilometers northof Balfour along options have narrowed been to either making improvements to existing the terminal or relocating at avariety of options to enhance access and improve users. These for safety ferry and service As you are aware, of Transportation Ministry the and Infrastructure (MOTI) looking has been addressing challenges at Terminal Balfour the Ferry at Kootenay Lake. I am writing to inform you of state the of planning and upcoming the public consultation for Mr.Dear Norbert: RE: Addressing at Balfour Terminal Challenges Ferry at Kootenay Lake Norbert,Leon President, Balfour Recreation Commission AssociationHistoric Email/letter from M th and July 6 th . ike Hallas, Project M anager, MO TI to Balfour Recreation Commission and th from 1:00–3:00pm at Balfour the th atElementary Redfish 49 Appendices – Meeting Invitation PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 50 Appendices – Meeting Invitation BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Mike Hallas Sincerely, process contact please me at 250356-9328. group If meeting. you require any clarification aboutthis request the or publicconsultation Can you RSVPby please email at: on internet the at We posting up-to-date be also will information about project the and public consultation activities impacts and opportunities. participation at a meeting with key stakeholders to project the discuss options and community proposedin the relocation of Terminal, Balfour the Ferry we would like to invite your organization’s Acknowledging ongoing the interest of Balfour the and Business District and Historic Association share information on state the of planning on Terminal Balfour the Ferry Project. consultation region inthe to better understand range full the concerns of local and and views to Prior to making any decisions final two these on options be undertaking public MOTIwill minutes and future the meet of needs region’s the transportation system. navigation safety, reduce crossing by time 50%to 17minutes one-way from current the 35 Recent technical feasibility studies indicate proposed the QBN site would improve marine Highway 31. to site anew at QueensBay North (QBN) approximately three kilometers northof Balfour along options have narrowed been to either making improvements to existing the terminal or relocating at avariety of options to enhance access and improve users. These for safety ferry and service As you are aware, of Transportation Ministry the and Infrastructure (MOTI) looking has been addressing challenges at Terminal Balfour the Ferry at Kootenay Lake. I am writing to inform you of state the of planning and upcoming the public consultation for Cooper: Janice Dear RE: Addressing at Balfour Terminal Challenges Ferry at Kootenay Lake Janice Cooper, Coordinator, Balfour and Business District and Historic Association AssociationHistorical Email/letter from M www.gov.bc.ca/balfourterminal ike Hallas, Project M [email protected] anager, MO . TI to Businessand Balfour andDistrict ifyou are able to attend small the to gather information the inatimely fashion. allowing three weeks to gather input and feedback through various channels, and it is important In terms of timing the of consultation, the I can appreciate that it is a busy oftime year, but we are questions. informationthe being presented at House Open the and allowing majority the of for time your 6:30 –8:30pm at community the We hall. Discussion reviewing the be Guide will and sharing mentioned) of as part our stakeholder meetings prior House to Open the on June from 14th QueensBaythe Residents Association of Board Directors (and some of working the group you Further to our phone conversation, Iwould like to confirmthat with to be meet pleased will we Hello Maureen, RE: consultation process re Balfour ferry Bay Residents Association Email/letter from M Mike Hallas Sincerely, me at 250356-9328. If you require any clarification aboutthis request the or publicconsultation processcontact please on internet the at We posting up-to-date be also will information about project the and public consultation activities business operators and publicly will share results the of our consultation efforts. – 11:30at Balfour the Community Hall. We are committed to listening residents to local and We invite you to attend group asmall meeting with our technical team on June 15 June place take between will 15 15 We would like to suggest we of ahead meet public the House Open which is beingplanned for June your members to as consult we begin with broader the community. past that merit consideration of as part our public consultation and we wish to of hear views the Should decision the made to be relocate terminal ,you the have anumber raised of issues inthe th at Redfish Elementary School at Elementary Gymnasium Redfish Balfourfrom in 1:00 Consultationsto 3:00 pm. www.gov.bc.ca/balfourterminal ike Hallas, Project M th and July 6 anager MO th . . TI to M aureen Jansma,President, Queens th th from 9:30 51 Appendices – Meeting Invitation PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 52 Appendices – Meeting Invitation BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Mike youSee on 14th. the and15th we would encourage residents to participate that way as well. Questionnairebe a Therealso will and available online survey part Open as the of House June House—hopefully Open the tomorrow by end of day.www.gov.bc.ca/balfourterminal Theis link As we are discussed, working on feasibility postingthe study and Discussion Guide online of ahead APPENDIX: HOUSEHOLD MAILER AND ADVERTISEMENT WHERE TIME WHEN site. or terminal to terminal relocating anew existing ferry ferry the We have looking at been options that include improving the address challenges at Terminal. Balfour the Ferry TerminalBalfour Ferry forCourse the Help Future the Chart We now want to hear your on options. views the e Ministry of Transportatione Ministry and Infrastructure is looking to Public InformationMeetingand ere are challenges and bene www.gov.bc.ca/balfourterminal Community OpenHouse Nelson, B.C. Road Bryan 265 Gymnasium School Redfish Elementary 5:00 –8:00pm Wednesday, June15th ts to eachoption. WHERE TIME WHEN into future. the Your input help will ensure safe and reliable service ferry provide your feedback through Questionnaire the until July 6th. meeting on June You 15th. able materials the be toall and review will Discussionthe Guide, Questionnaire and Poster Boards from the If you are unable to attend House, Open the posting be we will We to hearfrom want you. and share your views. join usto more,Please learn ask questions from theexperts helpwill guidefuture improvements over next the few years. transportation project and acourse set for future. the Your views Your input e time hase time come to move forward on important this Public InformationMeetingand www.gov.bc.ca/balfourterminal Community OpenHouse Nelson, B.C. Road Bryan 265 Gymnasium School Redfish Elementary 5:00 –8:00pm Wednesday, June15th 53 Appendices – Mailer PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 54 Appendices – Advertising BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT following date: The information drop-in sessionisscheduledfor the answer questions. staffwillbe available to provide information and Ministry provides inthefuture. continuedsafe andreliable service being considered. Your inputwillhelpensure theferry provide inputontheproposed relocation andtheoptions invites thepublicto attend anopenhouseto The Ministry users. foraccess andimprove ferry safety andservice to terminal enhance relocatingconsidering theinlandferry of is TheTransportation Ministry andInfrastructure Public Notice ofOpen House Balfour Ferry Terminal Project For more information, pleasevisitourweb site: Redfish Elementary School Gymnasium Elementary Redfish www.gov.bc.ca/balfourterminal 265 Bryan Road, Nelson,B.C.265 Bryan Wednesday, June15,2016 5:00 p.m. to 8:00p.m. 4.3125” X5.0000” (3 columnsx70lines) 210 lines 9 Thursdays June2, Advertiser Nelson WestKootenay June 8 Wednesday June1st, Nelson Star Balfour OpenHouse MoTI Ad #1161- of its 14 inlandferry routes. The Government ofBritish Columbia invests approximately $29 million annually into operation 1947. since place in been has terminal ferry Balfour service. summer the 35 minutes. The MV Osprey provides year round service with the MV Balfour supplementing Kootenay Bay onthe east side. The distance isabout 9 kilometres, with acrossing time ofabout and side west the on Balfour between operates currently Lake Kootenay on service Ferry The open house runs from Elementary school Area residents are alsoinvited to apublic open house onWednesday, June Information will be available online at and provide their feedback onthe future ofthe terminal. June Beginning year. Bay area, including the existing location, aspart ofatechnical feasibility study undertaken last Several potential locations for the terminal were considered inandaround the Balfour/Queens schedule. ferry the safety concerns. Traffic volumes can alsoslow the unloading ofvehicles, resulting indelays to During peak season, vehicles can back uponto Highway 31 and Highway 3A, creating traffic summer, isalsoaconcern for the ferry operator asthey navigate this narrow channel. damaging the hullofthe MV Osprey. The increase inpleasure boat traffic, particularly during traffic. In the water, the narrow west arm ofKootenay Lake isbecoming increasingly shallow, The location ofthe current Balfour terminal ispresenting challenges for marine andvehicle Minister ToddStone. it, on rely who travellers the to and government, our to “ will have anopportunity to provide input into the future ofthe terminal. Beginning mid-June 2016, residents andbusiness owners inBalfour andthe surrounding area users. ferry for service and safety improve the inlandferry terminal onthe west side ofKootenay Lake inorder to enhance access and BALFOUR consideration for my ministry aswe assess our options. the development ofaplanthat works for the local community. Public input isamajor 2016 Release Immediate For May May APPENDIX: NEWS RELEASE The continued safe and efficient operation ofour inlandferry service isextremely important 31 TRAN , 2016 – 0112-000895 The Ministry ofTransportation andInfrastructure isconsidering the relocation of Community input requested for the future of Balfour terminal Balfour of future the for requested input Community ’ s gymnasium located at 15 “ The issues we , 2016 5 p.m. to , area residents will have anopportunity to review these options NEWS RELEASE NEWS ’ 8 re facing with the current terminal require action, through through action, require terminal current the with re facing p.m. www.gov.bc.ca/balfourterminal 265 Bryan Rd inNelson. Ministry ofTransportation andInfrastructure ” ” said Transportation andInfrastructure 15 at Redfish 55 Appendices – News Release PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 56 Appendices – Discussion Guide BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT COURSe ASettING APPENDIX: DISCUSSION GUIDE 1 Setting ACourse Setting Moving Forward: Terminal Project Balfour Ferry Consultation Guide Discussion 2 action. Your input help will inform eachof options these and inform development the of afinal plan of Bay North. (marine terminal and existingthe Balfour land-side) ferry or relocateto terminal Queens ferry the determine course which to inorder take –make to significant maintain improvements service the at westthe arm—confirming MOTI’s findings. initial Asa result, time actthe is to now. MOTI must Recently, Guard Canadian the Coast indicated concerns with water depth for MVOsprey the in Osprey hull, as well as propeller damage. requires careful navigation and is causing coating local breakdown and pitting problems for MV the The narrow navigation channelthe in west arm of KootenayLake and its shifting, sandy bottom terminal. Balfour ferry Making minor improvements to or terminal the doing nothing is no longer an option for current the Why Now? totime action. take transportation studies at Balfour the site for some years, emerging marine safety issues means it is of TransportationWhile Ministry the and Infrastructure (MOTI) has conducted various your views. improve users and for we would safety ferry and like to service hear is looking to address challenges at Terminal Balfour the Ferry to consultation for Terminal Balfour the Ferry Project. The Ministry Thank you forparticipating in Moving CourseSetting Forward: a W Consultation Guide Discussion North, significant the transit particularly savings time in theand increaseferry inlevel service. of a number of development issues and limited benefitswhen compared withthe site BayQueens at The Ministry, in moving forward, not does considerBaySouthQueensthe site optionviable due to existing Balfour site with significant improvements. The comparisonlooked at: to one site at Bay Queens South and one at Bay Queens North. comparedthey Then both the to SNC found Lavalin that two options were not technically feasible and narrowed options the down transitiontraffic into thethe terminal, vehicle holding compound and property impacts. marine navigation, transit on time respective the routes, respective the highway intersection and The LavalinSNC Technical Feasibility Studyeach the locationsof reviewed by considering: location, north end of Bay. Queens previous concept studies. This includedtwo sites souththe at end BayQueens of andtwo sites the at SNC apreliminary undertook Lavalin evaluation of numerous sites that identified in had been as improvements to existing the Balfour site. completed They their study in March 2016. study from SNC to Lavalin conduct an analysis of anumber sites, of terminal potential as well ferry transportation options for corridor. the Most recently, MOTI commissioned feasibility atechnical Numerous transportation studies have over undertaken been past the 25years looking at been has awareThe Ministry capacityof challenges Balfourthe at site terminal for many years. ING Sett M e • • • • • O Financial considerations Environmental impact Community and stakeholder impact Service Safety LCOM v ING F

A ORWARd C OURSe e Balfour Ferry Terminal Project |Moving Forward: ACourse Setting Balfour Ferry Terminal Project |Moving Forward: ACourse Setting We Want to HearFrom You periods. during peak pressures - on marine and land-side. This impactsthe site’s capacity to supportthe level of demand and highwayferry traffic has increasedthe to point that the existing site isexperiencing increased significantrevealed navigation issuesthe in westthat arm will require dredging. samethe At time, amenities havedeveloped aroundas community terminal the the has grown. Recentstudies have and vehicle locationa satisfactory berth holding for compound ferry the for many years, and some as western the of terminal KootenayBalfour the has served since 1947.The site been ferry has Lake transportation system. strategic investments into British Columbia’s transportation system to support asafe and reliable of BC Ministry The Transportation and (MOTI)Infrastructure is responsible for making P • • ROjeC Consultation June place isbetween taking 15 It’s important for MOTI now. course terminal anew to for set ferry the the viableoptionsare: • • Proposed Relocate to terminal the Bay Queens North Remain at Balfour and make improvements Ferry t B

Terminal

Queens Balfour Terminal AC Bay

Ferry

k

GROUNd Kootenay Balfour ~

9

km Queens

to Bay th

Kootenay and July 6 ~

5.4 Bay km North Bay Ferry Kootenay th

to Consultation Guide Discussion .

Terminal Bay

3 57 Appendices – Discussion Guide PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 58 Appendices – Discussion Guide BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT 4 NavigationMarine Challenges expenditures made. being site is not sustainable over medium-long the termwithout significant The circumstances terminal Balfourthe existingat at meanstheferry • • • • • • • Ferry wake impacts privateFerry area terminal inthe docks power Currents channel inthe strong, can be increasing risk of collision or grounding loses ifferry Increased congestion from pleasure risk boats poses channel Constricted and navigation hazards require to slow channel ferry inthe Osprey Minimal vessel draft during low water causingis periods andhull propellerdamage the MV of Guard Canadian Coast recentlythe confirmed westbecoming is arm more shallow Shiftingsand deposits currentsand the in west arm are creating low clearance for navigation OPTION Consultation Guide Discussion d and existingimprovethe level of service safety and reliability at existing the location. There are a number of significant improvements that be requiredwould to maintain about 35minutes. is about 50minutes for with eachleg, areturn tripof time 100minutes. crossing The actual takes transit fromtimeThe Balfourferry to terminal KootenayBay, including loading and unloading t I Balfour to Kootenay Bay Transit Time Segment Durations Terminal Balfour TermI ImP ransit s MPRO redging -Improving theNavigation Channel egment • • • • 2 1 6 5 4 3 8 7 The ferry may Thenot be ferry able to operate dredgingwhile the in narrow channeltakes place. frequencyThe of ongoing dredging, how longtake theandbeing costwill it investigated.is Environmental, navigation and regulatory approvals for dredging would required. be estimate is $3million. The west will requirearm asignificant, and dredging recurring, effort. Theinitial dredging

Description Navigate thechannelentrance outofBalfour Load at Balfour Crossing Kootenay Lake(Kootenay Bay to Balfour) Load at Kootenay Bay atKootenayOffload Bay Crossing Kootenay Lake(Balfour to Kootenay Bay) Total atBalfourOffload Navigate thechannelentrance into Balfour t ime rove rove Channel at veM

–5

nal a m

width

CD

e e N x t S T I s Needed Balfour Ferry Terminal Project |Moving Forward: ACourse Setting Bal Inadequate TIn depth

and

channel width G F

our

Duration Approximate ferry 100 10 10 25 10 25 10 5 5

route

(50 mins per leg) (50 minsper 35 mins. total 35 mins. total crossing time crossing time n otes Balfour Ferry Terminal Project |Moving Forward: ACourse Setting traffic lead can to safety issues. isthis lessover than ideal long the term.When management the is terminal full, the of ferry-bound residentsWhile local have become accustomed traffic to these patterns the in busy summer months, must draw along queue the highway. the evenfurther Highway 3A.In order to avoid blocking access to residences and businesses, traffic control personnel Highway 31is directed to turn around near Old Wharf and Road join of tail the queue the along traffic fromqueue ferry-bound Highway along 3A the highway shoulder. traffic from Ferry-bound of traffic, control personnel To help ensure steady the flow summer months, peak During vehicle trafficthe exceeds holding capacity the of compound which: size is limited by businesses, arest area, private properties, abus stop and field. aseptic vehicle capacity (80vehicles) and have room for 30additional vehicles. The holding compound’s The holding compoundcan accommodate 110 vehicles. This is sufficient to the handle MV Osprey’s v ehicle HoldingCompound andHighway Access • • delays efficiently, resulting in and ferry the load unload Impacts ability the to highway system safety and the efficiencyof Impacts operational the Entering Cost – e e – Service Improving Highway andCommunity Safety Westbound Old nvironment • • • • • • •

Wh hf Wh

Highway would $36-$40million inthe range. be estimatedOverall costs for upgrading existing the terminal, replacement vessel and dredging environmental regulation requirements. Estimated replacement is $500,000. The existingseptic system Balfourat future is not enoughserve growth to or meet changing Thecapital cost to Balfourthereplace MV is estimatedthe range in of $30million. increase with forecasted use. growth inferry The MV Ospreycannot current demands. meet peak Pressures levelswill only service on Its operating costs are increasing. BalfourThe MV was built in1954 theand scheduledbe vessel is to theretired in next few years. its washroom and rest area. withoutterminal awashroom facility. Estimated costs are lose $2million and will terminal the area removed can be but would this require removing existing the field septic and leavethe There limitedis opportunity improveto and expandthe holding compound. The terminal rest range of $1million with only marginal safety improvement. Highway require 3Awill widening and additional right-of-way inthe be will Costs is needed. ar f

Rd R

Traffic oa

Queue d xisting Site withImprovements

v essel Replacement and Westbound enter

turn

the around

highway traffic

near

must

overflow Old

bypass

Wharf

queue

Balfour Road

to

Consultation Guide Discussion X Terminal 5 Marine NavigationMarine intersection and additional holding capacity periods. during peak be no There queuingwill the highway,on no congestionthe compound, in safety no issues the at transit by time 40%to allow for and an improve hourly service marine and highway safety. The sitebeing outsidethe west arm would addressBalfourthe marine navigation challenges,cut the northof3 km Balfour the terminal. This is an undeveloped site located on Crownland approximately Ove 6 • • • sheltered from southerly winds. The location is shelteredfrom northerlywinds due to its proximity to McEwen Point. It is not slow navigating while through achannel and no draft be there issues will forthe MV Osprey. riskThe of collisionwith pleasure craft be reduced, would bewould therequirednot ferry to Access is not limited by anarrow, shallow channel. OPTION Consultation Guide Discussion v T r ehicle HoldingCompound andHighway Access • • • • • RALL o Queens Bay n elo desired. The intersection could includecable allowducting to forfuture installation trafficlightof a if intersectionthe before horizon the year of 2065. outpacing capacity the of risk of traffic growth there would minimal be A traffic analysis indicates each direction. highway through lane in and terminal oneferry lanes into and out of the allow left rightand turn from Highway 31would A proposed intersection eliminated. an access road that could accommodate an additional 60vehicles. Highway queuing would be This site largeis enough to accommodate a vehicle holding compound for 160 vehicles and The proposed site fromterminal be accessed would Highway 31. MOTI Design Standards BeN C a T e without highway Vehicle overflow e TermI FIt queuing S

Balfour Ferry Terminal Project |Moving Forward: ACourse Setting Turning Grade orLess 2% Road

lanes nal orT 160 AEUholding compound

h treatment On-shore Through

lanes

Balfour Ferry Terminal Project |Moving Forward: ACourse Setting Balfour –a40%improvement. Bay, including loading and would unloading, about be 30minutes as compared to 50minutes at The reductiontransit in time is substantial. transit The time from Queen’s Bay toNorth Kootenay t Queens BayQueens n Transit Time Segment Durations s ransit egment • • • • • 5 6 4 3 2 1 forecast to 2065. period The shortenedtransit distance ensuresthere are no capacityvessel issues now or theduring MV Osprey is not available. such as aself-propelledA back up barge, service, could provide the when temporary service Improvements incapacity mean route this year round served can with MVOsprey the be only. Support hourly sailings of MVOsprey the therefore increasing levels of service. The reduction transitof time would increasecapacity the on route periods. by 36% peak during Crossing is time reduced by 50%to 17minutes. sustainable for terminal Kootenay the ferry service. ferry Lake technically feasible, it was recommended the option, as it would result inasafer, more efficient and The LavalinSNC Technical Feasibility Study concludedthat BayQueensthe siteNorth was not only Study Recommendations Cost Bay – Queens North e Impacts Property nvironment Crossing Kootenay Lake(Kootenay Bay to QBN) Total Queens at Bay North Offload Load at Kootenay Bay atKootenayOffload Bay Crossing Kootenay Lake(QBN to Kootenay Bay) Load at Bay Queens North Description • • • • • • • • t ime With option, this would significantly incur Ministry the lower operating costs. years providing while an increased level of service. The move would providethatthe community terminal a modern serve would forthe next 50 conceptualOverall estimates put $25-$30million inthe range. terminal new the Environmental and Archaeological Impact Assessments at undertaken be site. the will site. assessmentA preliminary overview indicates there ishabitat no critical or at species risk at the would considerThe potentialMinistry property impactsdevelopmentthe design in phase. There are fewer Queen’sthe properties in north Bay thansouth. the in located on Crown Land. The proposed site terminal includingthe access road and vehicle holding compound are orth to Kootenayorth Bay Consultation Guide Discussion Duration 60 17 10 17 3 5 8 (30 mins per leg) (30 minsper total crossing time total crossing time 17 mins. 17 mins. n otes 7 59 Appendices – Discussion Guide PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 60 Appendices – Discussion Guide BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT 8 environmental to make used adecision. analysis be will to project planners and public. the The along technical, report withfurther archaeological and and will review prepareThe Ministry athisreport consultationsummary of be made to available effort bestto the decisionsmake benefit to the communityall British Columbians.and A lot of work has already gone into evaluating project options and consultation this of is part an consultation before proceeding to procurement and construction. includeThey technical and financial analysis, environmental and archaeological assessments, and Major capital projectssuch asKootenay the Terminal Ferry Lake years take toplan anddeliver. StepsNext We conducting be also meetings with key stakeholders will area inthe to potential discuss solutions. options. safety issues inmore detail, and ask questions of engineers and about other experts technical the An allow open house residents will to at look two the site options, understand emerging the marine into consideration as decisions are made. We have included of aset questions that we would like you to answer. Your taken be feedback will you and your community? arebelieve most the important considerations in evaluating options? the What are impacts the on We want to hear what you have to say site terminal about options. two ferry these What doyou Having YourSay proceeding development. to further Community input is an important of part weighing options the before makingdecision afinal and It is that recognized adecision to relocate have will positive both and negative consequences. issuesThese and others require consultationwiththe broader community stakeholders.and specific community havesay a inits future and use development? Who manage will property the infuture? If is terminal relocated, the what happen property? terminal will Will to Balfour the ferry the around terminal. the How addressed? impacts be these will If is terminal relocated, the impacts on be there businesses will and amenities that have developed safety andperspectives, financial not evaluateit does rangefull the of impacts the community.on While feasibility technical the study examines location terminal the from anumber of technical, C OMMUNIt Consultation Guide Discussion 5.) information isnotcollected. that any personalorthird party reasonable yourto responses step thesurvey.keep willbetaken Every confidentialand to ensure information (i.e.,personal informationtalkaboutothersby name)inyour orthird-party responses andaresponse isencouraged, notrequired. isvoluntary This survey Please donotprovide any Balfour Ferry 1.) 4.) Would of to value be you? service hourly ferry 3.) parking2.) Have onthe traffic by ferry Highway? impacted you been ever Q for you? If you have to travel an inconvenience terminal thisbe to an additionalsite 3km anew will most important important? and 5being least Numbering considerations 1–5,howyou these would rank interms of priority 1being with In evaluating terminal thevarious site ferry planners locations hadfive majorconsiderations. Is crossing of theprospect time reduced from 35minutes to 17minutes important to you? Y Y Y Y U 1 1 1 1 1 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No e 2 2 2 2 2 S t 3 3 3 3 3 N N N N Y IONNAIRe C t 4 4 4 4 4 erminal Project ONSIdeRA 5 5 5 5 5 Service Level Service and Safety (Marine Vehicle) Financial Considerations Environmental Impact Community Impact Balfour Ferry Terminal Project |Moving Forward: ACourse Setting

t IONS Balfour Ferry Terminal Project |Moving Forward: ACourse Setting Email: [email protected] Web: www.gov.bc.ca/balfourterminal For more information: Please rank inorder rank ofPlease importance, where 1ismost important important and 7isleast BAYIF QUEEN’S NORTH CHOSEN: Is there areason you favour thissite? Please rank inorder rank ofPlease importance, where 1ismost important important and 6isleast IF BALFOUR CHOSEN: Is there areason you favour thissite? 6.) 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 a particular location? particular a the feasibility results studyof the do Afteryou favourtechnical reviewing Y N Yes No Queens BayQueens North Balfour Other: pleasespecify______Other: Travel patterns are established(for residents) Loss oftourists through establishedbusinessarea Local businesseswould beaffected if movedterminal Familiar withroute andtravel times aroundEstablished community terminal

Other: pleasespecify______Other: crossing time Shorter New, improved facility modern More frequent sailings costMost effective option at peaktravelMore capacity times Improved traffic safety andmarine Consultation Guide Discussion

9 7.) 10 9.) 8.) What you area do live in? (where 1ismost important to important) andlike 7isleast see? of ofIf terminal thefollowing uses property thevacant which you isrelocated theferry would What amenities you are do think terminal? most important ferry for or expanded anew (where 1ismost important important) and 6isleast 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 123456 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567 Harrop Gray Creek Crawford Bay Balfour Ainsworth HotSprings Ainsworth Other (pleasespecify)______Other Transit (busstop) Public washrooms Public parking Play area food/coffeeMobile truck(s) Other (pleasespecify)______Other Residential use Preserve asapublicpark Mixed residential/commercial use use Marina use General community Business/commercial use Riondel Bay Queens Procter Longbeach Kootenay Bay Other: ______Other:

Balfour Ferry Terminal Project |Moving Forward: ACourse Setting You can return completed feedback forms by: Public and stakeholderreceived be feedbackuntil will July 6,2016. We lookforward to your feedback orcomments… 10.) 250-356-9861 Phone: www.gov.bc.ca/balfourterminal Website: [email protected] e V8W 9T5 Victoria, BC 9850StnPO Box Prov Govt of TransportationMinistry –Marine Branch Mail: Do youDo have additional comments, questions or concerns to you like share would us? with mail: Consultation Guide Discussion 61 Appendices – Discussion Guide PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 62 Appendices – Poster Boards BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT APPENDIX: POSTER BOARDS Moving Forward: aCourse Setting Welcome All informationAll gathered during public consultation shared be will with public. the Public consultation includes: at sharinginformation andhearingyour views. Public consultation place istaking between June15thandJuly6thisaimed users. for ferry service Terminal to enhance access and improve safety and is looking to address challenges at Balfour the Ferry of Transportation eMinistry and Infrastructure • • • • • On-line survey On-line Project website www.gov.bc.ca/balfourterminal GuideandQuestionnaire Discussion Stakeholder meetings Public House-June15Redfi Open School sh Elementary Moving Forward: ACourse Setting TerminalBalfour Ferry Project Two to Options Consider Balfour Ferry Proposed North and Kootenay Bay. travellingoption QueensBay ferry the between could see Kootenay Bay on east the side of Kootenay An alternative Lake. Balfour just inside west the arm of Kootenay and Lake on Kootenay service Ferry currently Lake operates between Ferry

Terminal

Queens Balfour Terminal

Bay

Ferry

Kootenay Balfour ~

9

km Queens

to Bay

Kootenay ~ Moving Forward: ACourse Setting TerminalBalfour Ferry Project

5.4 Bay km

North

Bay Ferry Kootenay

to

Terminal

Bay

63 Appendices – Poster Boards PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 64 Appendices – Poster Boards BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Project Overview Balfour Ferry TerminalBalfour Ferry • • • • Kootenay for past the 20years. ferry Lake for corridor, the which have included terminal options the to serve best MOTI looking at has been arange of transportation issues and options 20 Years ofStudy • • • • • March 2016 TerminalBalfour Ferry Relocation Project Technical Feasibility Study – Queens Bay Concept Study –June 2012 Kootenay System Ferry Lake Study –September 1996 Kootenay Study Ferry Lake –June 1990 existingBalfour terminal or relocating terminal to the another site MOTI has recently studies undertaken looking at improving is becoming more shallow, creating navigation challenges GuardCanadian Coast recently con west the rmed arm of Kootenay Lake operations MOTI and regularly safety of its access, the all ferry reviews service users for ferry service Improvements are aimed at enhancing access and improving safety and responsible inBC for services inland ferry of Transportation Ministry eBC and Infrastructure (MOTI) is Moving Forward: ACourse Setting TerminalBalfour Ferry Project

Terminal Navigation Balfour Marine Challenges Balfour

• • • • • • • wake impacts privateFerry on inbeaches docks channel foreshore and corrosion of MV Osprey hull Minimal vessel dra during low water is resulting periods inpitting grounding power loses ifferry Water currents at Balfour are strong, increasing risk of collision or collision summer during months peak Increased congestion from pleasure signi boats poses cant risk of navigatingwhile channel the channelConstricted and navigation hazards require to slow ferry recon gured GuardCanadian Coast navigation aids being replaced and sand deposits and currents Navigation channel inwest arm changes over due time to shiing Channel at

–5

m

width

CD

Moving Forward: ACourse Setting TerminalBalfour Ferry Project Inadequate depth

and

channel width

Approximate ferry

route

65 Appendices – Poster Boards PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 66 Appendices – Poster Boards BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Balfour Vehicle Challenges and Highway Access Holding Compound Entering Westbound Old

Wh hf Wh • Highway 3A. holding compound, and lines up along shoulder the of waits, vehicle tra capacityc exceeds the of the summer months peak During there when are sailing • • • •

Highway

and  septic eld limited by location of businesses, rest area Increasing sizeof the compound the is ar Trac queues may block access to residences and businesses Trac control personnel on needed highway periods during peak sailings loaded eferry ciently results indelays inschedule and not fully Blocked access to terminal impacts ability to and load unload westbound trac turning into terminal queue along Highway 3Acon withicting At times waiting peak vehicles form a f

Rd R

Traffic oa

Queue d

and Westbound enter

turn

the around Moving Forward: ACourse Setting TerminalBalfour Ferry Project

highway traffic

near

must overflow Old

bypass

Wharf

queue

Balfour Road

to

X Terminal Option 1 – Improve Existing Terminal at Balfour • Project Cost -Existingsite withImprovements • Environmental • • - Service Vessel Replacement • • Improving Highway/Holding Compound andCommunity Safety • Marine navigation aidsupdated • • • • Dredging $36-$40 million estimated Overall costs for upgrading terminal, vessels and dredging would exceed treatmentsewage facility to cost an estimated $500K) Existing system septic not will future meet growth and environmental modern standards (new to replace MVBalfour the is estimated at $30million) MV Osprey cannot current meet without demands periods during asecond vessel peak (Cost MV Balfour is aging and must retired be next inthe few years removing  septic the eld, leaving terminal without awashroom facility. Estimated cost $2million) Limited ability to increase sizeof holding compound. (ie. rest area removed, can be would require could $1million exceed (Costs with only needed. way be marginal will safety improvement) Highway for widened to 3Ashoulder need be safer will highway queuing and additional right-of- recongured and replaced Existing Guard Canadian Coast navigation aids inwest arm are obsolete and are being mayFerry not able be to operate during dredging Environmental approval required for dredging cost is being investigated Ongoing channel required– be dredging will frequency, the how long and take it ongoing will (estimated initial dredging cost $3million) Maintaining navigation safe ferry west inthe require arm will signicant dredging Moving Forward: ACourse Setting TerminalBalfour Ferry Project

67 Appendices – Poster Boards PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 68 Appendices – Poster Boards BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT at Bay Queens North Option 2-Relocate to terminal new accessible, ecient terminal. and safer ferry site and was best the most cost e optionective for amore terminal. Arecent technical feasibility study indicated this undeveloped Crown land northof 3.5km existing the Balfour eproposed site of QueensBay the North terminal is on Map 2 Map Moving Forward: ACourse Setting TerminalBalfour Ferry Project : Google Earth image showing the l Preliminary Field Reconnaissance Fer (PFR) of MoTI’s New Proposed Prepared by Arrowstone Archaeological Research and Consulting Limited ocation of the proposed ferry terminal 3 ry Terminal near Balfour, B.C. near Balfour on Kootenay Lake near Queens Bay . .

Marine Navigation and TransitNavigation Marine Time BayQueens North Balfour to Kootenay Bay Transit Time Segment Durartions • • • • • • • • Benefi ts Segment narrow channel narrow navigation challenges as at Balfour as access is not limited by a 6 8 7 2 5 4 3 1 between nowbetween and 2065 Shorter travel distance means no capacity issues barge) providedreplace MVBalfour up (Back by service aself-propelled yearRoute long by served can be MVOsprey the only. No to need Support hourly sailings of MVOsprey the 35% and transitReduced increase capacity will time on route the by nearly 17 minutes from current 35minutes transitReduced is time substantial –crossing reduced by 50%to Water enough is deep that site the not will have vessel dra issues No concerns with congestion and con with pleasureicts boats esite is outside west the arm not of lake -will the have same the (Kootenay Bay to Balfour) Crossing Kootenay Lake Total Offload at Balfour entrance into Balfour Navigate thechannel trance outofBalfour Navigate thechannelen- Load at Kootenay Bay Offload at Kootenay Bay (Balfour to Kootenay Bay) Crossing Kootenay Lake Load at Balfour Description Duration 100 25 10 10 10 25 10 5 5 (50 minsperleg) 35 mins. total 35 mins. total crossing time crossing time Notes Moving Forward: ACourse Setting TerminalBalfour Ferry Project Queens Bay North to Kootenay BayQueens North Bay Transit Time Segment Durartions Segment 4 5 6 1 2 3 Load at Kootenay Bay (Kootenay Bay to QBN) Crossing Kootenay Lake Total Offload at QueensBay North Load at QueensBay North (QBN to Kootenay Bay) Crossing Kootenay Lake Offload at Kootenay Bay Description Duration 60 10 17 17 3 8 5 (30 minsperleg) Notes 69 Appendices – Poster Boards PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 70 Appendices – Poster Boards BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Queens BayQueens and Other Considerationsand Other Vehicle Compound Highway Access • Project Costs Bay -Queens North • Environmental • • Archaeological Review • • Impacts Property • • • • • Early conceptual estimates put $25-$30million terminal inthe new range. the is gives us a Current information indicates habitat no critical or at species risk at site the Archaeological Impact Assessment undertaken be will A preliminary archaeological eld reconnaissance at was undertaken ere are two residences along shoreline the to northeast the of proposed the terminal site. eproposed terminal site, including access road and vehicle holding compound, is on Studies show proposed intersection can safely handle trac until 2065. A proposed intersection from Highway 31to terminal access the road would allow le and right ere is additional space along access the road to accommodate 60vehicles compound ifthe Site large enough for avehicle holding compound for 160vehicles- vehicle the twice capacity Access to proposed the terminal site would an via access be road from Highway 31running modern terminal that community the modern would serve for next the 50years. proposedthe site would consider eMinistry potential impacts and mitigations designdevelopment inthe phase Crown Land ( pre-ducted eintersection be will for atra c light ifdesired.) turn lanes into and out terminal and one of ferry the highway through lane in each direction an overexperiences ow of MVOsprey the toparallel highway the and shoreline

North North Moving Forward: ACourse Setting TerminalBalfour Ferry Project Have your say Terminal Relocation • • • • • site?new publicthe want at to see the what kind of amenities does relocate terminal site, the If decision the is made to Amenities at Bay Queens North process. consultation public considered and business owners consulted be will of as part the well as challenges. of eneeds business these operators be will on businesses. these Relocating may o opportunitieser new as users of ferry. the have will Relocating adirect impact ferry the anumber time Over businesses of local have developed to serve businesses onlocal Impact Mobile food/co truck(s) ee Public parking Public transit Rest and play area Public Washrooms Moving Forward: ACourse Setting TerminalBalfour Ferry Project or hogh 71 Appendices – Poster Boards PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 72 Appendices – Poster Boards BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT of vacated landifterminal isrelocated Potential Uses • • • • • • Possible include: uses What do you think? vacant property and how should it used? be vacant.property be will Who should manage this If terminal is the relocated Balfour the Terminal Other and commercial residential Mixed use Residential Business/commercial use Marina use as publicPreserve park Moving Forward: ACourse Setting TerminalBalfour Ferry Project or hogh Next Steps • • • planners and the public. and the planners on consultation this made to available be to project andMOTI review prepare will report a summary construction. and of beforeAll occurs this proceeding to procurement Planning includes: Major capital projects years take to plan and deliver. • • • • Detailed Project Plan consultation Public Environmental and archaeological assessment Technical and nancial analysis Moving Forward: ACourse Setting TerminalBalfour Ferry Project 73 Appendices – Poster Boards PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 74 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • Poster Board 1: Welcome. Moving Forward: aCourse Setting by participants. comments on various the poster boards on at House. view Open the These arecomments provided Attendees were provided with pens and sticky notes and encouraged to attach questions and • • • • • • • • • • • • • Poster Board 2:Balfour Ferry Terminal to Options Consider • • • • • APPENDIX: POSTER BOARD COMMENTS FROM OPEN HOUSE in March. Insufficient public consultationallowed time since the makingthewas in report and presented Opportunity to redevelop Balfour into tourist village. SNC corrupt Lavalin company. it is big too for job. the overratesLavalin safety issues. The only issuereal that is they put the and Ospreyservices in MOTI &SNC should open up. this You can do better. You have... Give us more time. This shortconsultation processbogus. is Why keep studies secretfor long? so soundsThis decision? like afinal If not, give us more time. to capacityFilled percentage asmall of time. the forelectricity US? the have this Does anything to do with dredging of Grohman narrows inorder to provide more it! SNC-Lavalin–the company wants who project–is this corrupt. Very company! bad into Look What safety issues? Has afatality there been or injuries? safety concern for children getting out of vehicles. What about increased traffic safety along QB cabin traffic. 100% area increased with Very real This is one sided. This way needs moretime, consultation, listening and creativity. This is historic! Needs to have more than apreliminary environmental assessment +cultural assessment. The Osprey big is forjob,toooo the cut outthe B.S. Make sure you if you fill out wantthe survey your voice heard. This “consultation” is mere The doesn’t PR. MOTI careabout people, only money. • • • • • • • • • • Poster Board 4:Balfour MarineChallenges–Navigation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Poster Board 3:Balfour Ferry Terminal Overview There are privateQueen’s in docks Bay, too! There are pleasureboats Queen’s in Bay Beingthe as warmest beach waters.well. Yes, pleasure boats ANDswimmers, kayakers, stand up boarders, paddle etc. Increased wind and waves inQueen’s Bay power loses –are as well. arisk ifferry When was last the arm the time was dredged? Stop much sending so water over control water levels. Where is study the regarding for frequency dredging arm? the What happens ifthere’s only and one something ferry goes wrong? Where’s money the savings ifyou build abarge? Talking incircles. impact not wake QB will etc. beaches, the docks, Does fix Ferry problem just moves it! drive. Longer homesOur Bay inthe are closer to highway. the More traffic isnoise notacceptable. Where is Ktunaxa the input? A designated slide zone across highway the from landing. potential ferry ofDestruction anatural habitat and only the public shore access area. inthe Improve present location. Save money, save environment, the listen to people. the Queen’s Bay is one beach of last the remaining jewels on lake. the Don’t destroy it! What about other three locations considered viable by Ministry’s own study? Fix it &follow through on systems re: up set on flushing ferry sewage. Yes, improve Balfour and save money, and energy environment. Relocation =disruption waste $. Fix it! Yes, improve existing terminal! WHO ingovernment has picked SNC-Lavalin as adance Sounds suspicious. partner? Not distance! the half Not worth cost the and residents. impact to local 75 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 76 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Poster Board 5:Balfour Vehicle Challenges–HoldingCompound andHighway Access • • • • • • • This is alie. There are five boats. 20maybe years thereago, were 150 to200 the and Anscomb dredged? Little to no issue for 16years of Osprey use! Where is study the saying how often dredging be wouldneeded? theHas westeverbeen arm currentsThe be strongerto used before thedam. When was last the channel the time to Balfour was dredged? science. Show the There currentis no data to support the forneed regular dredging Balfourthe of channel. congestion it because hardly ever happens. The little blue rectangles are notcars... there little is very opportunity take to photos trafficof Expropriate adjacent empty land for parking. existing facility. Existing land and dock beside duck is for Use sale. it to keep what we have and improve our Put inatraffic light.Duh. of fixed. canAll be these Why would relocation any be different? $$. 35 million couldthis. fix year. At most, the might this happen once ayear! StarBelly During Jam, which isn’t happening this season. parking inpeak problems here (Balfour) are fixable. Eg. Staff parking be lot could moved to ___ more back up There is way more space forthe expansion Balfourat than at proposed site. Intofuturethe What about businesses? local the Shiftingland depositscaused by weather fluctuation? For Osprey, the maybe... not asingle accident reported channel inthis up to date. Balfour is aprotected bay–safest for ferry. Comment inwriting. Make it count. Dredging should easier inWest be vs. Queen’s Arm Bay. Navigation channels have constructed for been 1000of years. Keep captains retired quite ferry retired–then running aground. they’ll was less maneuverable. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Poster Board 6:Improving Existing Terminal at Balfour • • • • • • and the wetland. and the It aterrible environmental be will disasterthelake in toand fill destroythe only publicbeach requiredA second be vessel will anyway. thanLess 30m! Bay is on other the hand, foolish. An early, simple solution with minimal environmental and public impacts. Choosing Queen’s Dredge it. Highway inQueen’s widened to need be will Bay as and ahillside well –between water. What about cost the of putting washrooms septic at Queen’s Bay? Dredging is common worldly. Large, adjacent property is for now! sale conditions. weather dangerous Balfour is aprotected bay. Safer for ferry. the Kootenay changeable very can be Lake and Relocate compound and washrooms to vacant lot nearby? New system septic would made to anyways! need be Where’s cost the analysis? old and sites. new million could easily turn into much more afterthe testingall proposals and renovations to You’re going to have to build system septic anew at Queen’s Bay. What’s difference? the $40 The government has lots of wantmoneythey (when so spend to) it. pleasureRe: boats: isLand for in Balfour directly sale next + Duck. to Purchase Dock to improve Balfour facility. not this fixedCould be for 36-40 million dollars? About 10days year per there is any congestion. ferry Rarely ayear). (twice Lots of room for parking expansion (arrow towards board). next to existing the parking lot. seldomThis happens andbe could easilythrough remedied reconfiguration the of picnic area – Minimal risk–very few ifany– Minimal risk–very collisions arm. inthe with ferry – Analysis assumes increased traffic. I don’tagree. 77 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 78 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Poster Board 7:Relocate to New Terminal –At Bay Queens North • Really? Could be alot be more. Could Really? No, not really. For two days of heavy peryear. traffic Can you notthe existing fix situation for 36-40 million dollars? I live inQueen’s Bay. What about my water? 30million.2 million cheaper than so-called the No environmental study done has been on option of dredging. Why? What about loon has the who her babies proposed inthe spot? have She will no home. Sturgeon come up summer inthe (arrow pointing to board). the How much fill required to accommodatelanes? (Arrowpointing Board) to Comment online for apermanent record. swimming areaBest on Kootenay (with arrows Lake pointing to board). Terrible of use prime and pristine parkland waterfront. real! Get Winds and waves are totally understated inSNC report.bay The wild! canbe move Really? 3km? limit, what makes any you hour be 160vehicles think will different? every 36-40 million to If current the traffic coming throughBalfour heading to Nelson isn’t postedspeed the obeying We find first still Lastbeach. nations summer, the artifacts on another stonearrowhead. Great of use private beachfront –not! Why get of rid alovely public local beach? Designated slide zone across highway from proposed landing. QB Ferry of highway at Queen’s Bay. Much, much greater safety concern due to increased traffic already in narrow, congested area Thousands (with arrowpointing page).to beautifulbeach this ruin forever. will Thisterminal proposed ferry visitors summer. every Queen’s Baywhere has fewleft beaches some the of water very the is enjoyed by hundreds of Queen’s Bay is aback-eddy. More pollution concerns. No protection from south winds! muchFix it. So technology. new Use it. • • • • • • Poster –Overall Bay Board 8:Queens Benefits North • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • How can aback-up barge work fro QB the option–but two ferries need for Balfour the option? 2 major landslides. Not recorded? archives. Check the left intoterminal? the ferry No safety issues with highway? the What about that long starting at hill Coffee Creek and a Most is under-utilized. of year the ferry the A barge? How much that will cost? Where are of people going all these to eat? to washroom? the Go Comment inwriting. Stickies disappear. Public beach! Should plan for proper and beach amenities. Don’t wreck Creatively this. problems solve what there is. starting. Not more efficient!all sail day.still would Ferry less In fact, efficient with more stopping and museum”. paved paradise and“They put parkingup a lot. cut They the down trees and them ina put Study some more! Terrain stability study required for sinkhole. Sluffingabout site (arrow pointingboard) at A soul-less transportation hub. People sit will cars intheir to and no one no talk one be there to because to will talk This area shouldbe designated parkland for all residents to recreate in and enjoy. Isn’t proposed the site under alandslide area –directly below? Talk operators. to ferry the know They this is not smart. The only remaining publicbeach includes wetland. We bought land here of because lack the of development. economics. Feasibility studies do not include many of cultural, aspects environmental and socio- Bay residents. The only public shoreline accessiblethe in area used by Nelson,Balfour, east shore,Queen’s 79 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 80 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Current foreshore not adequate to accommodate 160parking materials spots–will pushed be Run inQueens Bay tests to gauge with ferry wave and related effects beachfronts.on How would terminal handle the major south storms? Why wreck a pristine bay? flawed. is analysis operationone ferry from QB. If 10-20years from is nowrequired, asecond ferry your 2 ferries eliminate for need abarge (what cost?) and may provide more capacity than the What about bus the service? What about impact on Balfour the community water supply? (Pollution from ferry...) unstable.Banks massive be Retaining will and walls costly. Should made parkland! be Wherecoming is fill from? the What if160car holding facility is not enough.what? Then Should made into be parkland. Storm impacts from 3directions. comeBoats from over all to sit bay inthe and warm inthe water. swim Warmest of part lake. the two lanesunload at once. Unloading two lanes at once is asafety issue. Renovations to would made to to need be ferry Haven’t any seen environmental or archeological studies yet? people. 3 There havealreadylandslips been that have theblocked highway, destroyed a house andkilled Will there competing be businesses and washrooms? Not enough room for large to turn trucks around. Unregulated water upslope use onto unstable is banks arisk to line-up. parked cars inferry US)/ is moved,If protect ferry the will who water the of Kootenay (From Lake? beinggiven to the There is not a strongcurrent goingthrough Bay.the re-circulates Driftwood constantly. equipment (i.e. 330EX)or truck. logging loaded Turning radius not to N.off adequate ferry to accommodate 7-9axle withlow bed heavy Don’t wreck another beautiful piece of land! Make present the terminal work. out into lake or the built out over water? the • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Considerations Poster – Bay Board 9:Queens North Vehicle Compound Highway Access andOther More roads, more money, pays? who Estimates always double for such projects. Check it out online. Public beach?! Public 100people aday beach. here. swim There is not enoughcurrent Baythe in to clean water our dirty from the terminal. listedRed Burbot habitat! Fuel tanker turning radius? trucks. Logging Hundreds of loads of trucks, fill. How does it not into leech thelake? Slope destabilization at proposed highway junction. Worst of corruption Company Lavalin Canada has scandals ever seen! is news. bad Where are environmental the and archaeological assessments? Terrible location. Destroying 2000feet of public beach. Highly unstable continually bank, sliding (arrows pointing to board) Where is going tollbooth the We to be? know it’s coming. Just imagine what turning here is going like! to Anightmare. be Why park on beachfront? Slide area­ Is more this about giving more of Kootenay waters Lake to states? the Build abridge! Ainsworth–Riondel. What about impact on Balfour water supply? What about impact on Queen’s Bay water users? is now beach Our on list. critical the Has foreshore the inventory mapping looking at aquatic habitat looked at been or consulted? environmental impact assessment and regulations. Oh really, and how and detailed involved was habitat this impact study? It likely not will pass coming trucks Logging down big the aren’t hill going to stop traffic. for ferry and put up aparking lot. Don’t it always go–you don’t know what you’ve got it’s til gone. want They paveto paradise, –banks are–banks unstable, ready for another slide. 81 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 82 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Has proposal this considered effects the largerof storms the on mainlake? insummerOnly needed time. need replacement.will They No matterwhat, bargecost a a lot still will of money. Increased taxpayers costs to have ferry–do to fork out that cost? Are you kidding?suffice Thiswill for50 years? hour. is only every service season, In peak Slower 50minutes. than current, every Takes from time extra Harrop ferry. is unloading. ferry the up trafficSet lights the at intersection the of highway loading the and area, to come when on 17minutes. be they How is as same the capacity size?And ifsailings are ferry increased ifthe hourly–how can What about repair/outfittime on OspreyBalfour? if no navigational skills. The narrow, shallow channel is enjoyed all andby the crew keeps sharp educatedand on or last inthe decade? decreased We with less draw aferry and need have still capacity for same the carload. Has traffic increased What about two the sites “viable” deemed at QueensBay south? Eg. Existing boat launch! No around, beautiful people walking smiling and enjoying themselves. Lots of space to expand at current site. No room to expand at proposed site infuture years. squalls The Queen’sat Bay could wreck the Osprey. size boat). Where loading the inefficiencies time does come from? times (Off-load time–same be should commentsSend inonline. Public record. crossingThe is a ferry tourist attraction, not just a means to an end. terminal? What about safety the of kayaks, boarders? canoes, paddle How we get will around the The mainlake hasdangerous weatherconditions. Balfour is a protectedbay. More trips? More savings? Cost fuel? What about loss of employment? Driving increases time 10minutes. More Tourists needed. fuel love ferry, the it’s arelaxing attraction. Crossing is atourist attraction –reducing it is not abenefit. How Balfour and will Crawford Bay economy effected be by shorted waitingtimes? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Poster Board 10: Terminal Relocation: Have Your Say Bad reputation,Bad corruption worked scandals, for KadafiLibya.Lavalin in is a terriblecompany. 2016, and of use best the pristine waterfront is along parking lot? Yuck! How many thousands of tones of required? material be will Comment online. Public record. How terminal? about aferry ofCost Queens Bay option surely must consider cost within 50years of second ferry. Additional cost? How much more to move plus re-establish ferry the “old” this area. Balfour lakeside park reserve. Let’s what preserve we have, not wreck precious the we beach have left. for “who pays”? taxpayers. How Local about that money to dredgewhat to fix is workable? like moreSeems “waste’ of taxpayers money, of use energy, time, hurt to economical budgeting What we have is wonderful. Let’s keep improving and making it better. Can never replace ambiance the at site. new the We own it. Restore it. Quit adding costs to taxpayers. Keep terminal at Balfour. that has less aferry draw Construct than Osprey. the Quit giving up government assets. Let’s keep it and make it work. Is aplan this to access more water to give to states? the Doesn’t piece this of land belong of Highways? to Ministry the Sure! Spend even more taxpayer dollars. Great. Leave it and improve what we have. dollar. We don’t want this. Whatever would happen to Balfour the terminal would your be responsibility and it’s on your Are you going compensate to fully businesses the that rely traffic? on ferry Has aremedial impact plan on industrial clean put up been into overall the costs? spentto be on bathrooms.... Water iscold too to inand swim polluted. Vacant land exists next door. More have money will And what would additional the cost of of It all be? this is not assessment! inthe added parkland. Mostly 83 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 84 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Poster Board 11:Potential Uses: ofvacated landifterminal isrelocated • • • • • • • Why exchange one of warmest the swimming for beaches one that is well by cooled currents off–high water? How about of all flotsam the jetsamand (logs, etc)that float into the bay during run spring Washrooms for cars those and all people? Storms really can bad. be waterfront? What is system in40-50years parking when lot is no longer sufficient?Take up more to businesses. the ofCost business economic loss –move businesses the to Queen’s Bay?of Cost compensation For how many years to come? Financial payouts? Taxpayers $. insufficient capacity. Inacceptable. Parking area at Balfour expanded could future. inthe be Right now rare the time, there is Relocate? Where? How? (arrow pointing at board). How much is Fortis Hydro or BC contributing partnership? USdollars. understood. Balfour is starting to hum! *This impact is huge! economicIts and historic impact is understatedsocial and and not Let’s support businesses, local the steady employment, community spirit. Dumb idea. room. More challenges than opportunities. There is no room the on highway at QB.Balfour thehas What about issues septic at location? this moveDon't think at Keep is all! and necessary beach the dredge necessary when How proposed the protected will terminal be from South winds and waves? Those businessessufferwill due to loss of traffic.tourist be Thereeconomic an will impactthe iflongestthe ride in worldfree is discontinued. ferry We have enough ghost towns already! Upgrade present location–save Balfour and Queen’s Bay Huge $$$economic impact–currently waiting inline supports business. local andrunning swifter water? • • • • • • • • Poster Board Steps 12:Next • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • What about Indian the buried at proposed site? Why not get ferry. an electric Need more information cost on of true the either proposal. Not enough time. Think of preservation not destruction for future.our report?the Are negatives the all of and moving positives ferry the of keeping it inBalfour going in to be handle it. to relocation.Opposed Dredgeseptic. inarm +fix if Osprey No forneed can new ferry Kootenays. “New route” Osprey can handle present route. ifbuilt Jobs through in ferry secured anew Northbound crawling be up will trucks Queen’s Bay (no passing hill lane). andRocks on a garbage driftwood beach.free What about GDP from area business and local with a14%unemployment rate inBC? broad be will side to safety-barge winds–poor Ferry bad. would very be Dumb idea. amenities the All we love are already there–leave alone them please! Leave it as it is! Move Harrop the to Balfour. ferry Would help shops local the Public park, marina, beach, businesses options. good all Public Park. shop? How boring. What about arestaurant, bakery, dress shop, stand, fruit gas station and gift Too much additional environmental damage. Leave Queen’s Bay alone. No way. notDo support relocation. Isupport business local and well-being. People and water drinking matter. This plan is adisaster. not contaminateDO our water! drinking Build abridge from Ainsworth to Riondel. Stop water selling we don’t have to U.S the +we won’t to need move landing. ferry the 85 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 86 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • BayQueens Community Board • • • • • Reveal true costs of true QueensBay move.Reveal wind, wave, and water quality. not Do change for no reason. Take more totime doenvironmental the studies BEFORE any decision is made. Consider More time. isLavalin aterrible choice. Corruption scandals. isLavalin acorrupt company. Is there enough June time? 15th-September? Slope/terrain analysis. Our drinking water drinking Our for our homes comes from that bay! Dumb! water. drinking Our Recreation area. No to ferry. Environmental disaster. Waste of taxpayers money. No. Who consulted community? the Where was public the meeting? We want landing to at keep ferry the Balfour. Why isn’t Queens Bay at tickboxes the of “where do you live?” paved They paradise and put parkingup a lot. Don’t pave paradise! gone. No at Queens Bay. ferry Ruining public by used beach 100s. Longest = tourism ferry free This is B.S. paved paradise and“They put parkingup a lot”. down that that hill at starts Coffee Creek? Have you really looked at traffic the issues of logging andtrucks other barrelingindustrial Too short. The was report presented to MOTI inMARCH. Community of QueensBay/public stakeholders. Ididn’t get an invite to #2. Process isfast. too Consultation inperson. is Give needed, us time. Study is public info (FOI). we to Do need request? Where is study? this • • • • • • • • • • • only! Suppose millions saved ifmoving. dollars those should All kept be inBalfour/Queens Bay where itLeavepeople is. ferry The the the of region do not wantthis move! Above comment–the thinkers of don’t moving ferry the have minds. Are your minds already made up? 3weeks is not long enough. Destroy apublic is atourist ride Longest beach. attraction. ferry free Property west for of +Duck has for been Dock sale years–vehicle parking and sewage. coming truck Logging from north. the Safety first! Unstablebanks landing. at proposedSlide area.ferry Narrow,windy roads. My water drinking comes from bay. the Build abridge­ Don’t it always to show seem that you don’t know what you’ve got it’s til gone. Don’t wreck apristine beach. –Ainsworth to Riondel. 87 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT 88 POSTER BOARD COMMENTS BALFOUR FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT