Balfour Final - November 15-2016

Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project:
Socio-Economic Implications
November 14, 2016

Submitted to:
Queens Bay Residents Association

Central Kootenay Regional District
202 Lakeside Dr., Nelson, British Columbia
Tel: (250) 352-6665
Submitted by:
Peak Solutions Consulting Inc.

Kamloops, British Columbia
Tel: 250.314.1842
EM: rsunman@telus.net
Important Notice
Peak Solutions Consulting Inc. and Robinson Consulting and Associates Ltd. undertook
this project on behalf of the Queens Bay Residents Association with funding provided by
the Central Kootenay Regional District. This report is the sole property of the Queens
Bay Resident Association and the Central Kootenay Regional District and has been
prepared solely for the use of these two organizations.
The consultants and the Queens Bay Resident Association and the Central Kootenay
Regional District do not accept liability for any direct or indirect damage caused to any
person or organization or property as a result of use of or reliance on this report and its
contents. Given the shelf life of information in this report it is advised that
individuals and organizations undertake their own research and should not rely on
this report for definitive information or direction.
Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project: Socio-economic Implications
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report was to identify the socio-economic implications of the
Balfour ferry terminal decision on the community of the Balfour area. This was achieved
by:
Using a multiple accounts analysis framework.
Specifically, focused on the local economy and identified through the Economic
Development Account, and the social implications as addressed in the
Community Account.
The baseline is the continued use of the existing Balfour terminal as characterized by
SNC Lavalin study (2016). This is compared to relocating the terminal to Queens Bay
North, also as described in SNC Lavalin (2016).
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT
The Economic Development Account reports on the change in incomes and
employment that is driven by the project expenditure. The assessment recognizes the
direct employment dependent on the project expenditure, and also the "multiplier"
effects in the industries supplying goods and services to the project and their
employees. Project expenditure, hence potential economic impacts is associated with
ferry operations, terminal construction, and ferry user spending.
Economic Implications of Ferry Operations
Under the Base Case Scenario (current) conditions, Ferry Operations:

o Supports a total of 43,000 person hours of employment annually on the
two vessels (excludes shore side administrative staff,
o This is about 40 employees, with about 20 being full time year around and
20 being part time year around. About half of the employees are residents
of Balfour area, and,
o Contributes annual income of about $1.4 million, and resident income is
estimate to be approximately $0.73 million.

October 2016
Page | i
Under the Project Scenario (moving the ferry terminal to Queens Bay), Ferry
Operations:
o Vessel capacity could be met from operating MV Osprey alone,
o Reduce crew hours worked annually to 38,600 hours, and,
o Contributes annual income of about $1.35 million.
Net Change is estimated to be:

o A reduction of 4,300 person hours of employment (1 to 1.5 person years),
o $0.12 million in gross employment income, and,
o No reduction in permanent staff or number of jobs with the intention to
focus reduction on part time non-residents.
Economic Implications of Terminal Construction
Under the Base Case Scenario (current) conditions, the enhancements to the
Balfour terminal are required to address service and safety needs (SNC Lavalin
(2016)):
o preliminary construction cost is estimated at $36 to $40 million,
o abour$30 million is to replace the MV Balfour, and,
o Total direct construction employment in BC is estimated at 230 to 260
jobs, with 190 jobs are attributable to building the replacement vessel.
Under the Project Scenario (moving the ferry terminal to Queens Bay), terminal
construction would involve:
o preliminary construction cost is estimated at$25 million ,+/- 25 percent
($31.25 million to $18.75 million), and,
o The number of direct construction jobs in BC would be in the range of
120-200 jobs.
Net Change is estimated to be:

o Small local labour force limits local hires,
o best strategy for constructing the replacement vessel not identified at this
time, and,
o local spending by the temporary construction labour work force in
Balfour's retail industries likely the most substantial economic impact.

October 2016
Page | ii
Visitor and Local Ferry Terminal Business Activity
Under the Base Case Scenario (current) condition ferry traffic has become an
important employment and employment income generator currently
representing:
o $5.76 million to $6.25 million in gross sales annually;
o 68 direct jobs representing 42.5 person-years of employment annually;
and,
o Approximately $1.19 million in employment income.
Project Scenario is not developed to the level of detail that would highlight the
amenities that might be available. However, if no accommodation is made to
relocate the Balfour ferry terminal businesses their collective gross revenues
could decline to $3.75 to $4.00 million annually.
Net Change is outlined in ES-1 and highlights a decline of between 59 and 73

percent of the total workforce among businesses at the Balfour ferry terminal.
This job loss would represent between 8.4 percent and 10.6 percent of the total
Balfour and Harrop-Procter labour force.
Table ES-1: Change in Balfour Ferry Terminal Business Direct Employment
PotentialEmployment
Decline
DeclineComparedto
CurrentJobs
(Number)
(PercentageChange)
Fulltime,fullyearEmployment(labourforce jobs)
10
15
37%
56%
Parttime,fulltime,
30
35
73%
85%
TotalEmployment(labourforcetotaljobs)
40
50
59%
73%
TotalEmployment(personyears)
25
30
60%
70%
Source: Peaks Solutions (2016b).
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS ACCOUNT

A survey of Balfour and area residents was conducted.
Under the Base Case Scenario (current) conditions residents identified:

o They tended to frequent the Balfour ferry terminal businesses on a regular
basis to use services and buy goods; and,
o They do not see their quality of life adversely impacted by the current
activity at the ferry terminal.

October 2016
Page | iii
Under the Project Scenario (moving the ferry terminal to Queens Bay) residents
stated:
o They were concerned that the local area would suffer economically;
o That property values around the community would decline; and,
o If businesses closed at the at the Balfour ferry terminal there would be an
adverse impact on their quality of life.
Respondents were asked about the impact of specifically relocating the ferry
terminal to Queens Bay here residents identified:
o That Queens Bay in its current state, makes a contribution to the overall
quality of life;
o They felt Queens Bay area in its current state had important environmental
values; and,
o Residents were concerned that property values in the Queens Bay area
would decline if the proposed Queens Bay North ferry terminal was
constructed.
Population Change
The relocation of the Balfour ferry terminal under the Project Scenario and the
associated job loss could result in between 25 to 35 residents leaving the Balfour
local area.
There could be additional population impacts if services are lost and quality of
life in the area changes these have not been quantified.
Property Values
It is also important to recognize that the quality of life sought by rural residents
reflects the sum total of the many desirable attributes of a rural setting including
peace, solitude, and proximity to nature, among others
The relocation of the ferry terminal could change this for residents in the Queens
Bay area.

October 2016
Page | iv
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. i
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT ............................................................................ i
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS ACCOUNT ................................................................................. iii
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1
Project Location ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2
Project Need and Definition ................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC REPORT................................................................................ 3
1.2.1
More thorough examination of Unmitigated Socio-economic Effects of Project ............................ 3
1.2.2
Limitations of Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.3
1.4
MULTIPLE ACCOUNT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 4

REPORT OUTLINE .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT ..................................................................... 7

2.1
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS OF FERRY OPERATIONS..................................................... 7
2.1.1
Base Case Scenario ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2
Project Scenario ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.3
Net Change ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
2.2
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS FROM TERMINAL CONSTRUCTION EXPENDTIURE...............................10
2.2.1
Base Case Scenario .................................................................................................................................................. 11
2.2.2
Project Scenario ........................................................................................................................................................ 12
2.2.3
Net Change ................................................................................................................................................................ 12
2.3
VISITOR AND LOCAL FERRY TERMINAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY ....................................................................13
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
Net Change ................................................................................................................................................................ 16
3 SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS ACCOUNT .......................................................................... 18

3.1
SOCIO-COMMUNITY IMPLICATIONS OF FERRY OPERATIONS ................................................................18

October 2016
Page | A

3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
Net Change ................................................................................................................................................................ 20
4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 24

4.1
4.2
MULTIPLE ACCOUNT SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................24

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY MITIGATION STRATEGIES ...................................................................................27
Appendix A
Balfour and Area Socio-Community Baseline ................................... 29
A-1 DEMOGRAPHICS..........................................................................................................................................................29
A-1.1 Population Change .................................................................................................................................................. 29
A-1.2 Age Characteristics .................................................................................................................................................. 29
A-2
LABOUR FORCE ........................................................................................................................................................ 31
A-3
PRIVATE DWELLING COUNTS ............................................................................................................................. 32
Appendix B REFERENCES.............................................................................................. 33
B-1 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................................................................................33
B-2 PERSONAL COMMUNITICATIONS........................................................................................................................34
Appendix C Detailed Survey Responses ..................................................................... 35

C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
DETAILED RESPONSES TO QUESTION 9 ............................................................................................................35

DETAILED RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11 ..........................................................................................................39
Appendix D
Resident Survey Summary Responses................................................ 52

October 2016
Page | B
Abbreviations
CKRD ........................................................................................................ Central Kootenay Regional District
MOTI .................................................................................... Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
QBRA ......................................................................................................... Queens Bay Residents Association
SNC ............................................................................................................................................. SNC Lavalin Inc.
WPM ................................................................................................................................Western Pacific Marine
Peak Solutions Consulting Inc

October 2016
Page | C
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Balfour has been the western terminus of the Kootenay Lake ferry service since 1947.
Currently the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) is exploring the
relocation of the ferry terminal site. MOTI states that the site has been a satisfactory
location for a vehicle holding compound and berth for many years; however, they feel
the time has come to look at the feasibility of relocating the Balfour ferry terminal. In
fact, the feasibility of relocating the Balfour ferry terminal service has been studied
several times over the past twenty-five years, with the more recent concept studies
reviewing the merits of relocating the ferry terminal from Balfour to select locations
further north in Queens Bay. (SNC-Lavalin. 2016).
The SNC-Lavalin (SNC) report outlines that earlier studies were conceptual in nature,
and further development was required in order for MOTI to be assured all issues had
been analyzed. Therefore their technical feasibility study was undertaken to expand on
the earlier studies to provide MOTI the analysis for understanding the challenges and
implications of a new ferry terminal location. (SNC-Lavalin. 2016)
1.1.1 Project Location
Figure 1 outlines the location and proximity of the current Balfour ferry terminal and the
proposed Queens Bay North terminal site in relation to the town of Balfour, the Queens
Bay neighbourhood, and the Kootenay Bay ferry terminal.
Balfour Ferry Terminal - The ferry terminal at Balfour is located in the west arm of
Kootenay Lake with this site including good upland terrain, a sheltered berth location in
the west arm of Kootenay Lake, and close proximity to Highway 31 for northern travel
and Highway 3A for western travel and beyond.
Queens Bay North The SNC-Lavalin report evaluated two sites in the Queens Bay
North area and determined that the site they identified as Site Location 2 would move
forward for further consideration. Site Location 2 is an undeveloped site located on
Crown land immediately south of McEwen Point. (SNC- Lavalin. 2016)

October 2016
Page | 1
Figure 1: Location of Kootenay Bay and Queens Bay North and Balfour
Source: SNC Lavalin (2016).
1.1.2 Project Need and Definition

The objective of the SNC-Lavalin report is to provide tangible recommendations,
including confirmation on the technical feasibility of constructing and operating a ferry
terminal on an alternate site. Specifically, the study focuses on viable site locations at
the south end and the north end of Queens Bay, and qualitatively compares this to the
Balfour location, both in its existing state and with possible improvements.
The sites chosen for consideration have been reviewed from the perspective of the
highway intersection and the transition into the terminal, the vehicle holding compound,
October 2016
Page | 2
marine navigation and transit time. The results of the SNCLavalin also identified that
they were compared and rated based on:
Safety;
Service;
Community / Stakeholder impact;
Environmental impact; and,
Financial assessment. (SNC-Lavalin. 2016)
1.2 PURPOSEANDSCOPEOFSOCIOECONOMICREPORT
1.2.1 More thorough examination of Unmitigated Socio-economic Effects of Project
Peak Solutions Consulting Inc. was retained by the Queens Bay Resident Association
(QBRA) with funding provided by the Central Kootenay Regional District (CKRD) to
identify the socio-economic implications of the potential Balfour Ferry terminal
relocation and the possible impacts on residents on the west side of Kootenay Lake and
the community of Balfour in particular. This report presents the findings of that research
and investigates the impacts prior to the application of any socio-economic mitigation
measures (unmitigated) that might be developed by the MOTI.
1.2.2 Limitations of Analysis
Given the limited time to complete the study, the economic and business impacts
associated with the potential Balfour ferry terminal relocation have been confined to the
residents and business located at the exiting ferry terminal and the identified site at
Queens Bay. While it is anticipated these businesses will be most directly impacted,
during the course of the project it was identified that there are additional economic and
business effects impacting the wider region or of a different nature (e.g. effect on
government revenue) that have not been fully addressed.
In addition, the resident survey identified several specific environmental concerns for the
relocation of the terminal. While some of the common environmental concerns, as they
related to quality of life, have been discussed here, it is beyond the scope of this report
to address specific environment issues and concerns that may be created by the ferry
terminal relocation.

October 2016
Page | 3
1.3 MULTIPLEACCOUNTANALYSIS
This report follows the standard multiple account analysis framework that is commonly
used in socio-economic assessments. Government programs and public investments are
often intended to address multiple objectives that have implications to communities, the
environment, the economy, and government revenues. In British Columbia, it is now
common to adopt a "multiple accounts" framework. The framework provides
stakeholders and decision makers information on the full range of effects and supports
an informed decision making process (Ministry of Agriculture and Lands 2007).
With respect to the assessment of socio-economic implications, the distinct areas of
interest, or accounts, and the key indicators for the respective accounts are summarized
in Table 1.
Table 1 Socio Economic Multiple Accounts
Socio-Economic Account
EconomicDevelopment
Primary Indicators
Employment,income,multipliereffects
ProvincialGovernmentFinances
Netprovincialgovernmentrevenue
SocialImplications
Population,amenityvalue,wellbeingindicators,
propertyvalues
SpecificFirstNationimplicationsnotaddressedinother
accounts
Netgaininprovincialeconomicwelfare.Economic
resourcesvaluedatsocialopportunitycosts(benefit
costanalysis)
FirstNations
NetEconomicValue
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, (2007).
Given the terms of reference of this study, the focus of this study is on research
associated with the Economic Development and the Social Implications Accounts.
The Economic Development Account reports on the change in incomes and
employment that is driven by the project expenditure. The assessment recognizes the
direct employment dependent on the project expenditure, but also the "multiplier"
effects in the industries supplying goods and services to the project and their
employees. The implications are often quantifiable, although total economic impacts at
the local level may be very approximate. For the purposes of this study the geographic
boundary of the account is the Balfour area (including Harrop-Procter) to the Queens
Bay area.
October 2016
Page | 4
The Social Implications Account reports on the community effects associated with
changes in community population as a consequence of the project, as well as project
effects that have implications to non-priced amenity and quality of life considerations.
Population change is a consequence of the employment implications identified in the
Economic Development Account, with the potential for households moving in/out of the
area due to an increase/decrease in employment opportunities. With respect to
amenity and quality of life implications, these are generally difficult to isolate in practice
or objectively quantify. An analysis of resident interview responses is reported here to
address this value.
It is noted that several of the indicators reported in SNC are examined here, limited to
the Balfour area which are examined in greater detail than previously reported. While
SNC applies a subjective weighting to the criteria in assessing alternative terminal sites
to determine the preferred site, multiple accounts relies on the user/decision maker to
adopt criteria that reflects the respective values and priorities.
In order to clearly identify the incremental socio-economic implications, a comparison is
required of what might occur under the "base case" and "project" scenarios. The base
case is the status quo, assuming a continuation of existing trends and reasonably certain
future events. For the purposes of this assessment, the base case scenario is defined as
set out in SNC, which includes various expenditures related to maintaining the current
terminal site at Balfour and addressing various safety, environmental and navigation
issues identified in that report. The "project" scenario is also from SNC and is defined as
relocating to Queens Bay North, site location 2. The relevant aspects of these scenarios
will be addressed further in the context of each account.
It is noted that the definition of the scenarios directly influences the magnitude of the
project effects identified. In this regard, multiple accounts analysis can be used to
assess intermediate scenarios, identifying undesirable implications that can be mitigated
by changes in the project or baseline scenarios. These iterations may lead to optimizing
of the scenario, enhancing the beneficial effects while minimizing the negative. In this
regard, MOTI consultation (stakeholder consultation and technical studies) that is
underway may lead to project revisions. The scenario adopted in this analysis is
reflective of the process at this point in time and could be subject to revisions in the
future. Given this possibility and the fact that MOTI has not disclosed any measures to
October 2016
Page | 5
mitigate adverse socio-economic impacts at this stage the project scenario is also
recognized in this report as being unmitigated project scenario.
1.4 REPORTOUTLINE
Following this introduction, the report is organized as follows:
Section 2 outlines the economic development account and the impacts of

business and ferry activity associated with the Base Case and Project Scenario;
Section 3 describes the community account impacts and highlights residents

perspectives and concerns of the project, along with a forecast on population
change;
Section 4 provides the project summary and conclusions including suggestions

and insights on project mitigation measures.
This is followed by detailed appendices which include additional information to support

the project, project references, and details on the residential survey.

October 2016
Page | 6
2 ECONOMICDEVELOPMENTACCOUNT
2.1 ECONOMICDEVELOPMENTIMPLICATIONSOFFERRYOPERATIONS
The economic development account records the local economic activity from three
sources:
Ferry Operations: The ferry's operating expenditure comprised of wages and

salaries of persons working directly for the ferry operator, and the purchase of
goods and services from local suppliers to maintain the ferry service;
Terminal Construction Expenditure: the terminal construction cost estimates

prepared by SNC and reflected in direct employment and incomes
Ferry User spending: The purchase of goods and services from Balfour
merchants by ferry users as measured by aggregate business income, personal
income and jobs.
The following sections address the nature and magnitude of the economic impacts
associated with enhancing the existing terminal or relocating the terminal to Queens
Bay.
2.1.1 Base Case Scenario
The economic impact of the ferry operations is associated with the direct employment
of Balfour residents in the running the service and the ferry operator's (Western Pacific
Marine Ltd (WPM)) purchase of goods and services related to operating and maintaining
the service.
The Kootenay Lake route is serviced by two vessels, the MV Osprey and the MV Balfour.
The M.V. Osprey provides daily year-round service, departing Balfour at 6:30 AM and a
final departure from Kootenay Bay at 10:20 PM. The MV, Balfour operates from June 20
to Sept 11 providing additional capacity to meet the higher summer passenger volumes.
The total person hours of employment created by the ferry operations is estimated to
be about 43,000 person hours annually (Table 2).

October 2016
Page | 7
Table 2
Person hours of operation at Existing Balfour Terminal (current)

Crew(positions)1
dailyhrs1
7summer
6restofyr
5
17
365
38,624
8.5
82
3,485
10
82
820
Osprey
Balfour
Balfour
Terminal
Total
days/yr
Totalpersonhours
comment
Yearroundschedule
summeroperation
42,929
Source: Cole 2016. pers comm, and SNC Lavalin (2016).

Notes:
1. Does not include shore side administration and management positions
2. includes 20 minutes to complete start-up inspection
WPM indicated that the operating hours are distributed among about 40 employees,
with some 20 employees holding full time year-round positions and 20 employees
holding year-round part time positions. About half of the employees are residents of
the Balfour area (including Harrop-Procter). About 30 percent reside in Nelson and
Kaslo, while about 20 percent are from elsewhere in BC. The crew is a specialized work
force since specific certificates and training are required to work on the vessels. A
shortage of suitably trained persons is common in the summer.
During the summer period, there is one attendant working 10 hours per day at the
Balfour terminal.
The total employment income associated with this employment was estimated using the
number of hours worked (Table 2) and the hourly pay reported in the union contract
(BCGEU 2015). The average wage per vessel using the April 2016 contract rates are
approximately $35per hour for the MV Osprey, $28 per hour for the M.V. Balfour and
$24 per hour for the terminal attendant. Total annual income to ferry workers is about
$1.4 million. Given that about 50 percent of the labour force is resident in the Balfour
area, the Kootenay Lake ferry operation presently contributes an estimated $0.73 million
to local income.

October 2016
Page | 8
Table 3
Gross Payment to Ferry Workers (Balfour Terminal)
($000)
MVOsprey
$1,348
MVBalfour
$96
Terminal
$20
Total
$1,464
Source: Peak Solutions (2016a).
The ferry operator does not make substantial purchases of goods and services from
local suppliers to operate the ferry, except fuel and support for its administrative office
in Balfour. Estimate of this expenditure was not provided, but it was indicated that the
local expenditure would be the same given either terminal option (Coe 2016. pers
comm.).
2.1.2 Project Scenario
If the decision is taken to relocate to Queens Bay North, than the route distance would
be shortened. SNC provided a hypothetical ferry schedule that provides the same hours
of service, so it is technically acceptable and is adopted here for the purposes of
estimating economic impacts.1 The schedule envisages the M.V. Osprey completing a
round trip every one hour and making 16 departures per day as compared to 10
departures presently. The extra sailing provides capacity and negates the need for the
MV Balfour to provide summer peak capacity.
The MV Osprey operating hours and crew complement would be unchanged from its
current Balfour/Kootenay Bay route. Total crew person hours per year would be in the
order of 38,600 hours. Further, the design of the Queens Bay terminal may better
facilitate loading/unloading of the vessel which could eliminate the need for a terminal
attendant (Handrahan 2016 pers comm.). Table 4 summarizes the person-hours
required to operate from the proposed Queens Bay terminal.
The actual operating schedule if service is from Queens Bay would be reflective of community consultation process
(Handrahan 2016. pers comm.). Hypothetical schedule is from SNC Lavalin page 51. Table11.
October 2016
Page | 9
Table 4
Person hours of operation for Proposed Queens Bay Terminal
Crew(positions)
dailyhrs2
days/yr
7summer
6restofyr
17
365
Source: Coe 2016. pers comm, and SNC Lavalin (2016).
Osprey
Total personhours
Comment
Yearroundschedule
38,624
The total annual employment income to ferry employees was estimated using the total
hours worked reported in Table 4, multiplied by the average hourly rates noted above.
Total payments to crew are about $1.35 million annually.
2.1.3 Net Change
The economic impact of switching from the existing terminal in Balfour to the Queens
Bay terminal is a reduction of 4,300 person hours of employment and $0.12 million in
gross employment income. This is equivalent to 2 to 3 person years of employment.
While Balfour area residents are reported to make up about half of the crews, it does
not follow that the reduction in work hours would be distributed proportionately based
on place of domicile. If that was the case, then about 1 to 1.5 person years may be lost
to the local area labour market. However, the expectation is that there would be no
reduction in permanent staff and the reduction in hours worked would be distributed
across the workforce such that there would be no loss in the number of jobs, but a
reduction in the need for employing part time non-residents (Cole, Handrahan 2016
pers comms.).
An estimate of the spin-off employment is not provided because the direct effect is not
large and likely within the estimating error of the methodology.
2.2 ECONOMICIMPLICATIONSFROMTERMINALCONSTRUCTION
EXPENDTIURE
The construction expenditure associated with updating the Balfour terminal or
relocating the terminal to Queens Bay will support jobs and employment income during
the construction period. The construction phase economic impacts on Balfour are
addressed qualitatively because of the substantial uncertainties with respect to the work
October 2016
Page | 10
that would be undertaken, the magnitude of the expenditure, procurement results, and
the suitability/availability of local labour force. MOTI will make decisions on the actual
improvements to be undertaken based on the technical evaluations and input from the
consultation (Handrahan 2016. pers comm.).
SNC-Lavalin - prepared preliminary cost estimates for each development option. As
illustrated in Table 5, the cost of addressing the various needs associated with
continuing to operate from the Balfour terminal is in the order of $36 to $40 million.
Most of this expenditure is to replace the MV Balfour.
Table 5
Construction Summary for Balfour Terminal
Element
Description
WideningHwy3A Purchaserightofway
Est.Cost
($000)
$1,000
Comment
Purchaselanddoesnotcreate
economicimpact
Does notaddressneedtorelocate
washroomandsepticfield.
ExpandHolding
Earthmovingandasphalt
$2,000
Area
DredgeWestArm Reoccurringexpenditureto
$2,000
entrance
accommodateM.V.Osprey's
draft
ReplaceMV
Oldvessel,increasingoperating
$30,000
Uncertainifpurchaseexisting,
Balfour
costsanddoesn'tmeetfederal
buildnewandifsowhereitwould
safetyrequirements
bebuilt
ReplaceSewage
Existingfacilitydoesnotmeet
$500
facility
regulationsandnotcapacityto
meetfuturegrowth
TotalCost
$36,000to$40,000
Source: SNC-Lavalin (2016).
The total direct employment in BC of upgrading the Balfour terminal is 230 to 260 jobs,
of which about 190 jobs are attributable to building the replacement vessel. 2 The
preferred strategy for building the replacement vessel has not been identified. Plausible
options include prefabricating off-site and transporting to Kootenay Lake for assembly,
or building nearby the lake. The decision will largely determine the region or
communities to be affected by the construction activity. Excluding the construction of
The construction industry employment ratio in BC is estimated at 6.46 jobs per million dollars (Horne 2008).

October 2016
Page | 11
the replacement vessel, the number of direct construction jobs in BC is 40 to 65 job

range.3
The estimated cost of building a terminal at Queens Bay North site was $25 million ,+/25 percent ($31.25 million to $18.75 million). A breakdown of the total cost for this
project was not provided. The construction period is 38 months.
The number of direct construction jobs in BC involved in building the terminal at
Queens Bay would be in the range of 120-200 jobs.
2.2.3 Net Change
The proportion of direct construction jobs that may be filled by Balfour residents will
depend on the availability of suitably skilled residents as well as MOTI's procurement
and contracting provisions. Once a decision is made to proceed, contracting would be
through an open and competitive process using BC Bid and in accordance with
provincial government policy and procurement practices. Local contractors would have
opportunity to bid during the open and competitive process on BC Bid (Handrahan
2016. pers comm.).
The most up to date information about the Balfour labour force is from the 2006 Census
(See Appendix A).4 At that time, Balfour's construction industry labour force accounted
for about 5 percent of its total labour force as compared to a provincial average of 7.5
percent (Table 14). The combined Balfour and Harrop-Procter construction labour force
is comparable to the provincial average. However, given the relatively small size of the
local population and labour force, the absolute number of construction industry workers
is small, at about 10 persons in Balfour and 25 in Harrop-Procter.
The input/output methodology for estimating economic impacts requires production of goods/services.
Consequently, purchase of assets, such as an existing vessel, land, etc. that don't involve production, do not give rise
to economic impacts.
4
The population of Balfour and Harrop-Procter are little changed from 2006 to the latest Census (2011) so it appears
reasonable that the labour force size and make up is also little changed.
October 2016
Page | 12
Furthermore, tradesmen are generally a mobile work force with a low unemployment
rate. This would suggest that the availability of local tradesmen will limit community
participation during the construction phase to similar number of resident tradesmen
given either construction project. Excluding the employment associated with building
the replacement vessel, the likely longer construction period to complete the Queens
Bay terminal may offer employment of longer duration.
Additionally, one would expect some local "spin-off" employment during the
construction period, particularly associated with spending by non-resident tradesmen
and labourers on consumer goods and services. Local merchants could realize a boost
in sales that may require new hires during the construction period. The spin-off impact
may be larger given construction of the Queens Bay Terminal because of its duration, or
particularly if there is relatively little local spending associated with the replacement of
the MV Balfour.
2.3 VISITORANDLOCALFERRYTERMINALBUSINESSACTIVITY
Ferry users are an important market for Balfour businesses, particularly for those located
near the terminal and cater to persons travelling on the ferry. There is a strong
correlation between visitor spending in Balfour and passenger traffic on Kootenay Lake
route.
SNC notes that traffic volumes in BC (except the Lower Mainland) have been steady, or
on a slow decline since the downturn in the economy in 2008.5 As outlined in Figure 3,
this trend is also evident in the vehicle count on the Kootenay Lake ferry route. Between
2009 to 2013 traffic volumes declined with some recovery in recent years, but total
vehicle count in 2015 was 8 percent below the 2009 peak. The vehicle type is primarily
private vehicle, averaging about 90 percent of the traffic volume. Industrial traffic
accounts for 7 percent of vehicle equivalent units and recreation vehicles are 2 percent.
See SNC, pg 56.

October 2016
Page | 13
Figure 2 Kootenay Lake Traffic MV Osprey 2000 and MV Balfour Ferries
ThousandsofVehicleUnits
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
NonIndusrialexcludingRec.Vehicles
2012
Industrial
2013
2014
2015
RecreationVehicles
Source: MOTI (2016b).
For the purposes of forecasting future traffic volumes (for Queens Bay intersection
design) SNC adopted a 0.3 percent annual growth rate, which is the anticipated growth
in the Kootenay population to 2065.
Visitor traffic has become an important source of income for businesses located at the
Balfour ferry terminal. This along with the local resident spending supports the business
at the Balfour ferry terminal.
In 2016, there are eight businesses and several kiosks in operation at the Balfour ferry
terminal. These businesses typically operate year round; however, they are sensitive to
tourism activity in the region and typically experience increase business activity in the
summer months in the period from June to September. Collectively the businesses and
kiosks generate between $5.75 million and $6.25 million in gross sales annually and
collectively support 68 jobs.
As illustrated in Table 6, the 68 jobs created by the Balfour ferry terminal businesses is
equivalent to 42.5 person-years.6
A person-year is a standard measure of employment that takes into account part-time and seasonal full-time work.
In this report, person-year of employment is equivalent to 1,800 hours of work in a year.

October 2016
Page | 14
Table 6: Current Balfour Ferry Terminal Business Direct Employment
YearRound
DirectEmployment(labourforcetotaljobs)
DirectEmployment(personyears)
Seasonal
Total
Fulltime
Parttime
Fulltime
Parttime
Total
27
12
23
68
27.0
6.1
8.0
1.4
42.5
As outlined in Table 7, the associated employment income created by the Balfour ferry
terminal businesses is approximately $1.19 million.
Table 7: Current Balfour Ferry Terminal Business Direct Employment Income
($000s)
DirectEmploymentIncome
YearRound
Fulltime
Parttime
Seasonal
Fulltime
$788.20 $122.10 $239.50
Parttime
Total
Total
$38.80 $1,188.60
With the Balfour ferry terminal remaining in its existing location, the businesses at the
ferry terminal generally see their business activity growing slightly in future years.
However, in general, they do remain closely tied to overall economic trends and the
behaviour of tourists traveling in the area. Several local businesses noted that they are
now getting back to levels that they saw pre-2008 when the last economic downturn
impacted activity locally. Overall the under the base case scenario employment and
employment income at the Balfour ferry terminal are anticipated to remain steady to
growing slightly moving forward.
At the time of writing, the concept design of the Queens Bay holding area is not
developed to the level of detail with regards to the amenities that might be available. If
a decision is made to relocate to Queens Bay the design would proceed forward and
details such as provision for amenities would need to be considered at that time
(Handrahan pers. comm. 2016). For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed there
would be no businesses located at the Queens Bay terminal. Therefore, the unmitigated
Project Scenario assumes no business located at the Queens Bay North terminal.

October 2016
Page | 15
The relocation of the Balfour ferry terminal will then have an adverse impact on the
businesses located in the immediate vicinity of the Balfour ferry terminal landing. The
impact will vary by business but is collectively anticipated to be significant. Based on
interviews with ferry terminal businesses the decline in gross sales will range from
between $2.0 million and $2.25 million annually. This will leave the total gross sales
revenue at between $3.75 and $4.0 million annually.
As illustrated in Table 6, the unmitigated Project Scenario created by the Balfour ferry
terminal businesses is estimated to decline to 42.5 person-years.7
2.3.3 Net Change
As illustrated in Table 8, the total number of jobs lost at businesses located at the ferry
terminal is estimated at between 40 and 50 and includes employment ranging from fulltime, full-year to part-time, seasonal employment and represents between 59 percent
and 73 percent of all employment at the landing. This is estimated to represent a total
of between 25 and 30 direct person-years of employment annually that could be lost.
Table 8: Change in Balfour Ferry Terminal Business Direct Employment
PotentialEmployment
Decline
DeclineComparedto
CurrentJobs
(Number)
(PercentageChange)
Fulltime,fullyearEmployment(labourforce jobs)
10
15
37%
56%
Parttime,fulltime,
30
35
73%
85%
TotalEmployment(labourforcetotaljobs)
40
50
59%
73%
TotalEmployment(personyears)
25
30
60%
70%
A job loss of between 40 and 50 employees in the Balfour and Harrop-Procter area
represent a significant portion of the local labor force. Balfour and Harrop-Procter labor
is estimated at 475 and a job loss of 40 to 50 workers would represent an impact of
between 8.4 to 10.6 percent of the total labor force (BC Stats. 2010).
The decline in employment will also have a corresponding decline in employment
income. As illustrated in Table 9 the decline in employment among the Balfour ferry
A person-year is a standard measure of employment that takes into account part-time and seasonal full-time work.
In this report, person-year of employment is equivalent to 1,800 hours of work in a year.

October 2016
Page | 16
terminal businesses that will result in a decline in employment income of between $0.65
million and $0.75 million. This will represent between 55 and 63 percent of the total
payroll associated with the businesses at the Balfour ferry terminal.
Table 9: Balfour Ferry Terminal Employment Income Impact, ($000s)
PotentialEmploymentIncomeDecline
DeclineComparedtoCurrentIncome
($000s)
(PercentageChange)
DirectEmploymentIncome
$650
$750
55%
63%
Given the uncertainty on how tourism spending will be reallocated in the greater local
area (outside the immediate Balfour ferry terminal area) if visitors no longer spend their
money at businesses at the Balfour ferry terminal makes it challenging to estimate the
follow on spin-off impacts. However, it is understood that the greater local area still
does appear to gain benefit from the current proximity of the businesses at the Balfour
ferry terminal.8
In addition, local businesses highlight the importance of connecting the travelling public
to information on sites of interest, activities and circle tour opportunities in the region.
In addition, one local business uses the Balfour ferry terminal as their base operation
and supports business activity in Nelson. While this additional business activity or the
spin-off tourism linkage has not been quantified in this report, it is important to
recognize there is a linkage that could create additional adverse employment and
employment income impacts beyond businesses at the ferry terminal.
Interviews with the Balfour ferry terminal businesses.

October 2016
Page | 17
3 SOCIALIMPLICATIONSACCOUNT
3.1 SOCIOCOMMUNITYIMPLICATIONSOFFERRYOPERATIONS
A survey of Balfour and area residents was conducted between September 24 and
September 30, 2016. Residents identified by the Queens Bay Resident Association and
businesses at the Balfour Ferry Terminal were contacted directly by email to participate
in the survey. In all, a total of 95 responses were received (See Appendix C and D).
Residents were asked three questions on their perspective of operations and usage at
the exiting Balfour ferry terminal. The responses included:
Residents found that they

overwhelmingly (98 percent)
had not experienced
congestion issues or
experienced only periodic
congestion (a few times a
year).
Respondents also tended to
frequent the ferry terminal
businesses on a regular basis
to use the services provided
and buy goods (100 percent).
VehicleCongestion
No,havenot
experienced
anytraffic
congestion
60%
Yes,
regularly
0%
Yes,butonly
periodically
(afewtimes
ayear)
38%
Notsure
2%
Finally, residents do not see their quality of life adversely impacted by the current
activity at the ferry terminal. When looking more closely at the residency of
residents and their responses to their impact on quality of life, it was found that 7
residents lived less than one kilometre from the terminal and 6 stated they were
not adversely impacted while one resident was not sure.

3.1.2.1 Ferry Terminal Closure Impacts
Residents were asked six questions on their perspective on what they felt might change
if the Balfour ferry terminal were to close. The responses included:

October 2016
Page | 18
Residents are overwhelmingly concerned that the local area would suffer
economically if the Balfour ferry terminal is relocated.
Fifty-three percent of residents felt property values near the ferry terminal
would change, with 41 percent believing it would decrease marginally or
noticeably, while a further 11 percent thought it would increase marginally or
noticeably. The remainder felt there would be no change.
Residents perspective on residential property values elsewhere in the

community (outside of one kilometre) highlighted concern that property would
decline (60 percent), while the remainder felt it would stay the same, with one
respondent feeling it would
ImpactOnServicesOrQualityOfLife
increase.
The vast majority (87 percent) of

residents had concerns that if
businesses closed at the Balfour
ferry terminal, there would be an
impact to services or their quality of
life. The remaining 13 percent were
either not sure or felt there would
be no change.
Notsure
7%
No
6%
Yes
87%
Another question asked residents

what those values might be if businesses closed at the Balfour ferry terminal. A
total of 73 residents provided specific comments, with some of the more
common responses including:
o
Increased travel time (upwards 30 to 40 minutes) to stores and shops that

they have come to depend on locally;
o Loss of local services to support the tourism industry traveling in the area
and vacationing locally;
o The challenges of older residents travelling to Nelson and the importance
of local services for this population cohort; and,
o Loss of the cultural and economic centre of Balfour and the convenience
of having these services in the area (All respondent answers to Question 9
can be found in Appendix C).
In exploring the potential of new economic development activities at the site if

the Balfour terminal was relocated, 59 percent of residents say no, while 30
percent said they were not sure, and 11 percent said yes.

October 2016
Page | 19
Residents offered some insights into new economic activities, with 16

respondents providing answers, with the most popular comments including:
o Development of a public beach and park area;
o A government campground with the ability to accommodate RVs; and,
o Public wharf and marina along with a tourist information center and town
centre (All respondent answers to Question 11 can be found in Appendix
C).
3.1.3 Net Change

3.1.3.1 Queens Bay Impacts with Ferry Relocation
A further six questions were asked with a specific focus on relocating the ferry terminal
to the Queens Bay area. Among the responses were:
The Queens Bay area, in its current state, makes a contribution to the overall
quality of life that is enjoyed by residents (100 percent stating yes it did).
Several specific activities and values were identified by residents in the Queens
Bay area that contributed to the quality of life response, with several common
themes emerging including:
o Recreational activities in an unspoiled environment including activities
such as swimming, walking, kayaking, fishing, SCUBA, and playing on the
rocky shore. The area is recognized as one of the warmest places on the
lake to swim.
o The pristine nature of the area with numerous rare animal and vegetation
species including red-listed, blue-listed and yellow-listed species at the
site. In addition, the area is valued by birders who recognize the area for
its bird nesting grounds.
o For those with cottages and homes in the Queens Bay area, it is important
as a source for clean drinking water, a pristine view of Queens Bay and
Kootenay Lake, and the overall peacefulness and tranquility of the area.
(All respondent answers to Question 13 can be found in Appendix C).
Residents felt that their quality of life would decrease noticeably if the ferry
terminal was relocated to Queens Bay (93 percent).
Further, residents were asked if the Queens Bay area, in its current state, had
important environmental values, and a full 99 percent felt it did.

October 2016
Page | 20
Residents again provided a range of environmental values and interactions in the

Queens Bay area that they were concerned about, with the most common
responses including:
o Critical habitat for birds and wildlife including several unique flora and
fauna for the Kootenay Lake system. Further, several respondents
identified that there are several blue and red listed flora and fauna,
including the blue listed Western Skink. One respondent listed 4 species of
fish population at risk: 2 red-listed and 2 blue-listed; and 18 species of
wildlife at risk: 5 red-listed, and 11 blue-listed were located in the area.
o The importance of Queens Bay as a fish habitat and the importance to the
locally extirpated burbot.
o The adverse interaction of the proposed ferry terminal on the land and
marine ecosystems and potential damage of a pristine beach area; and the
concerns of noise pollution and traffic on the ecosystem and the wildlife
from the terminal traffic.
o The adverse impact associated with the large amount of fill and dredging
that would be required at the proposed terminal site, and how this would
further impact the Queens Bay aquatic system. (All respondent answers to
Question 16 can be found in Appendix C).
Residents were concerned that property values in the Queens Bay area would
decline if the proposed
Queens Bay North ferry
ImpactonQueensBayPropertyValues
terminal was constructed, with
Propertyvalueswilldecrease
81 percent (73 responses)
73
noticeably
anticipating a noticeable
Propertyvalueswilldecrease
13
decrease, while 14 percent
marginally
thought there would be a
Propertyvalueswillremainthe
3
marginal decline. The
same
remaining 5 percent thought
Propertyvalueswillincrease
1
marginally
prices would increase.
PropertyValueswillincrease
noticeably
3.1.3.2 Population Change

The relocation of the Balfour ferry terminal under the Project Scenario and the
associated job loss from businesses located in the immediate area of the existing Balfour

October 2016
Page | 21
ferry terminal could result in an out migration of residents who will seek employment
elsewhere. During the interviews with business owners, it was discovered that almost all
of the labour employed is from the Balfour and Harrop-Procter area and as illustrated in
Table 10, an estimated 10 to 15 full-time jobs could be lost (See Section 2.3).
Table 10: Change in Balfour and Harrop-Procter Area Households and Population
DeclinefromCurrentBalfourandHarropProcterAreaTotals
DirectFulltimeJobs(labourforce)
Householdimpacted
Populationoutflow
(Number)
10
15
10
25
15
35
(PercentageChange)
2.1%
3.2%
2.0%
2.2%
3.0%
3.1%
Source: Peaks Solutions (2016b); Statistics Canada (2012); BC Stats (2010)

Note: The Percentage shares are based on direct business impacts as a share of the Balfour and Harrop- Procter
community
A conservative estimate of the population outflow associated with the full-time

employment is that 10 to 15 households would relocate. With approximately 502
households in the Balfour and Harrop-Procter area represents an impact of 2.0 to 3.0
percent of all local households. The associated population outflow from the full-time
employees and their families is estimated at between 25 and 35 people, representing
between 2.2 and 3.1 percent of the local population, which is estimated at 1,125
(Statistics Canada. 2012).
While this represents those residents that are most likely to leave the area, it is well
known in rural BC that once services and amenities begin to decline or disappear, it is
often followed by further outflow of residents, and, as indicated in the resident survey,
there was concern expressed that it would be more difficult for seniors who depend on
local services and who are uncomfortable on the regular travel to Nelson. This should
be a concern to the Balfour and Harrop-Procter area given that a large portion of the
population is over the age of 65 years.
In addition, this population impact does take into account what current residents at
Queens Bay may do if the terminal is relocate to Queens Bay North. It is possible that
additional full-time residents from the Queens Bay area may choose to seek out the
qualities that they currently enjoy in other communities.

October 2016
Page | 22
3.1.3.3 Property Values

Residents have expressed concern about the impact of relocating the Balfour ferry
terminal to Queens Bay North location and its impact on local property values. Overall,
many factors influence property values including the characteristics of the home itself
(house age, size, lot size, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, quality of
construction and upkeep, among others). Other factors also play a significant role,
including proximity to amenities (a lake, views, pleasant neighbourhoods, major
employment centres, urban services, etc.) or to disamenities (landfill sites, pollution sites,
quarries, busy highways) (C4SE. 2009) as well as the state of the economy.
It is also important to recognize that the quality of life sought by rural residents reflects
the sum total of the many desirable attributes of a rural setting including peace,
solitude, and proximity to nature, among others (C4SE. 2009). Further research has
highlighted specific features such as high quality ocean views can increase home values
from between 8 percent to 58 percent (Benson. 1998). In addition, amenities such as
beaches (associated with a positive property value of 13.5 percent) and beachfront (25.9
percent) have been statistically proven to positively influence property values when in
close proximity to properties. Conversely, disamenities such as highways (negative 5.3
percent) and electricity transmission lines (negative 9.3 percent) can detract from the
value of property in close proximity to these features (Atkinson-Palombo, et el., 2014).
Relocation of the Balfour ferry terminal to the Queens Bay North area will potentially
degrade positive amenities (beach, view) and at the same time introduce disamentities
(highway traffic, noise) to clearly place risks on the local property values in the Queens
Bay area. While a property value assessment is beyond the scope of this assignment, it
will be critical to determine the area to be impacted and extent of the impact.

October 2016
Page | 23
4 SUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONS
4.1 MULTIPLEACCOUNTSUMMARY
Table 11 below summarizes the key findings for the Base Case, the Project Scenario and
the Net Changes. It is important to highlight that these impacts have been developed
based on information available at the time of writing. In addition, these impacts should
be considered the non-mitigated impacts and have not considered mitigation measures
that have been outlined in Section 4.2 or other mitigation measures that may be
incorporated as further work is undertaken on the overall project development.

October 2016
Page | 24
Table 11: Socio-economic Impact Summary

Base Case
EconomicDevelopmentAccount
FerryOperations
ConstructionPhase
Project Scenario
Net Change
42,900hourswork
40fulltimeandpositions
About50%localemployees
$1.46Mtotallabourincome
$0.73Mlocallabourincome
38,624hourswork
About38positions
Atleast50%localemployees
$1.35Mtotallabourincome
About$0.73Mlocallabour
income
$36Mto$40Mconstructioncost
Constructioncostlargelyvessel
replacement
230to260directjobsinBC
Smallnumberofresidenttradesmen
limitslocalparticipation.
$18.7Mto$31.2M
constructioncost
120to200directjobsinBC
Smallnumberofresident
tradesmenlimitslocal
participation
Localandvisitorspending
$5.75Mto$6.25Mgrosssales
Labourforce:68jobs
Personyears:42.5PYs
Totalemploymentincome:$1.19M
$3.75Mto$4.0Mgrosssales

October 2016
Page | 25
4,300hourswork
Reductioninseasonalnonresident
hires
Declineof$0.12Mtotalemployment
income.
Negligibledeclineinlocallabour
income
ProjectScenariolowerconstruction
costsof$9Mto18M
ProjectScenariolowerBCdirect
employmentof60to110jobs
Samelevelofresidenttradesmenhire
becauselimitedbylocalsupply.
Maybeshorttermboostinnon
residentspendingifvessel
replacementsubstantiallyconstructed
locally.
Decline$2.0Mto$2.25Mgrosssales
Labourforcedecline:40to50jobs
Declineinlabourforceshare:8.4%to
10.6%
Declineinpersonyears:25to30PYs
Declineinemploymentincome:
$0.65Mto$0.75M.
Uncertaintyonfollowspinoffimpacts
butanticipatedtocreateaddition
adverseimpacts.
Table11: Socio-economic Impact Summary (continued)

CommunityAccount
QualityofLife
Recreation&Environment
Base Case
Project Scenario
Residentsfrequentferryterminalfor
services.
Residentsqualityoflifenotimpacted
bycurrentactivity.
QueensBayincurrentstatecontinues
tocontributetorecreationand
environmentalvaluesofarea.
Population
Populationwouldremainstable.
Propertyvalues
Propertypricesremainstable.

October 2016
Net Change
Lessemploymentassociated
withpotentialpopulation
impacts.
Concernaroundpotential
propertyvaluechange.
Page | 26
Concernaboutadverseeconomic
impact
Concernbusinessclosurewould
negativelyimpactqualityoflife.
ConcernQueensBayferryterminal
willadverselyimpactrecreationaland
environmentalvaluesimportantto
residents.
Populationdeclineofapproximately
25to35residentsinBalfourarea.
Concernpropertyvaluescoulddecline
intheQueensBayarea.
4.2 PROPOSEDPRELIMINARYMITIGATIONSTRATEGIES
Over the years, the Balfour ferry terminal has become a key economic hub for the
Balfour area. The relocation of the ferry terminal will create a high probability of an
adverse economic impact on the community and its local labour force, as presented in
this report. However, after MOTI has identified its preferred option we would anticipate
MOTI to address expected adverse effects and formulate mitigation measures that are
effective and feasible. Opportunities for the Balfour area residents to participate in the
identification and adoption of mitigation measures are generally identified in the
following and would be key to mitigating adverse impacts.
If MOTI decides that it is preferable to relocate the Balfour ferry terminal, it is proposed
that several specific activities be considered for the Balfour ferry terminal site, including:
Undertaking an economic development strategy for the Balfour area focused on

diversifying its local economy and rebuilding its basic sector activities;
Create a comprehensive redevelopment plan focused on how best to repurpose

the Balfour ferry terminal landing; and,
Ensure the planning processes are accompanied with implementation resources

to see the transformation through to completion.
If the proposed Queens Bay ferry terminal is considered by MOTI as the desired
relocation site then specific mitigation consideration should be given to:
Investigate the incorporation of new buildings at the proposed Queens Bay North
terminal location that can house the business strategically linked to the visitor
traffic using the ferry terminal;
Completing a full property impact assessment, focusing on the transition of the

site from current use to a ferry terminal. In addition, this study should explore the
appropriate property protection plan that should be considered to ensure that
Queens Bay residents are not financially impacted as a result of the project; and,
Establishing a Queens Bay development advisory committee to explore how the

Queens Bay terminal might be able to proceed with construction and operation
in a fashion that focuses on addressing local residential values.
Finally, it is also assumed that a full environmental assessment would be completed as

part of the relocation investigation if the Queens Bay North site was further considered
October 2016
Page | 27
as an option by MOTI. It is assumed that the environmental assessment would further

address mitigation measures required for the project specific to address environmental
values.

October 2016
Page | 28
AppendixA BalfourandAreaSocioCommunityBaseline
A1 DEMOGRAPHICS
A-1.1 Population Change
Table 12 outlines the population for Balfour, Harrop-Procter and Central Kootenay Area
E for the period between 1996 and 2011. As illustrated Balfour has shown steady
growth in population over the period, almost doubling the rate observed by the
Electoral Area and much strong than the growth observed at the Regional District level.
Meanwhile, the population for Harrop-Procter has remained flat over the same period.
Overall, while the growth rate for Balfour has trended up nicely it does represent a
relatively small change in overall population locally with a collective increase of 52
residents.
Table 12: Balfour and Central Kootenay Area E Population, 1996 to 2011
Change:
1996
2001
2006
2011
1996to2011
Balfour(unincorporated)
428
445
479
480
12.15%
HarropProcter
650
620
620
650
0.00%
TotalBalfourArea
1078
1065
1099
1130
4.82%
CentralKootenayRDElectoralAreaE
3,531
3,521
3,716
3,781
7.08%
BalfourshareofElectoralAreaE
30.53%
30.25%
29.57%
29.89%
CentralKootenayRD
58,100
57,020
55,885
58,440
0.59%
BritishColumbia
3,724,500
3,907,735
4,113,485
4,400,055 18.14%
Source: Statistics Canada ( 2012); BC Stats (2003) (2010).
A-1.2 Age Characteristics

Age characteristics for Balfour and Harrop-Procter highlight a significant population
over age of 65 years old. Almost 25 percent in Balfour and 18 percent in Harrop-Procter
are 65 years of age or older, this is higher share than observed in Electoral Area E, or the
larger Central Kootenay Regional District. The population between 20 and 64 years of
age for Balfour and Harrop-Procter are above those observed at the Regional District
level. Both Balfour and Harrop-Procter have a smaller school age population than the
Regional District.
October 2016
Page | 29
Percentage
Figure 3: Age Distribution, 2011

50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Balfour
Harrop
Procter
CKRDEAE
CKRD
BC
0to19
16.0%
18.8%
19.9%
20.7%
21.6%
20to39
14.9%
16.4%
19.6%
19.9%
25.6%
40to64
44.7%
46.9%
44.2%
40.0%
37.1%
65+
24.5%
18.0%
16.3%
19.5%
15.7%
Source: Statistics Canada ( 2011).
Table 13 outlines the median age in the communities of Balfour and Harrop-Procter and
compares them to the larger Central Kootenay Regional District and province. As
illustrated Balfour and Harrop-Procter both have older population than the Regional
District and British Columbia. The province is noticeably younger than the Central
Kootenay Regional District.
Table 13: Median Age for Balfour and Harrop-Procter, 2011
Balfour
HarropProcter
CKRDEAE
CKRD
BC
52.7years
50.5years
47.4years
47.4years
41.9years

October 2016
Page | 30
A-2
LABOUR FORCE
Table 14 outlines the labor force for Balfour and Harrop-Procter and compares the
shares to the Central Kootenay Regional District Electoral Area E and British Columbia.
Table 14: Balfour and Comparison to Electoral Area E and BC, 2006
Balfour
Harrop
Procter
Balfour
Total(Number)
Total labour force 15 years and over
Harrop
Procter
CKRD
EAE
BC
(percentage)
210
290
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
1.5%
210
290
100.0%
100.0%
98.2%
98.5%
10
65
4.8%
22.4%
6.2%
3.4%
Mining and oil & gas extraction
10
0.0%
3.4%
0.5%
0.9%
Utilities
2.4%
0.0%
1.3%
0.5%
Construction
10
25
4.8%
8.6%
12.4%
7.5%
Manufacturing
15
7.1%
0.0%
7.8%
8.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
4.1%
Retail trade
20
55
9.5%
19.0%
14.2%
11.2%
Transportation & warehousing
15
7.1%
0.0%
4.7%
5.2%
Information & cultural industries
10
4.8%
0.0%
2.3%
2.6%
Finance & insurance
10
4.8%
0.0%
2.1%
3.8%
15
0.0%
5.2%
1.6%
2.3%
10
15
4.8%
5.2%
6.7%
7.3%
Management of companies & enterprises
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.1%
Admin. & support, waste mag & remedn
25
0.0%
8.6%
3.6%
4.4%
Educational services
10
2.4%
3.4%
6.5%
6.9%
Health care & social assistance
30
14.3%
0.0%
9.8%
9.6%
Arts, entertainment & recreation
10
4.8%
0.0%
1.0%
2.3%
Accommodation & food services
50
20
23.8%
6.9%
7.5%
8.1%
Other services (exc. public admin.)
10
40
4.8%
13.8%
4.7%
4.9%
10
0.0%
3.4%
3.9%
5.0%
Industry - Not applicable

All industries
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting
Wholesale trade
Real estate & rental & leasing

Professional, scientific & tech. services
Public administration
Source: BC Stats (2010).

October 2016
Page | 31
A-3
PRIVATE DWELLING COUNTS
Table 15 outlines the private dwellings counts and the number of occupied private
dwellings. This table also compares the number of occupied dwellings, the lower
percentage shares for Balfour and Harrop-Procter suggest that a greater share of local
properties are either second homes or summer cottages.
Table 15: Private Dwelling Counts for Balfour and Harrop-Procter, 2011
Balfour
2011
Totalprivatedwellings
291
Privatedwellingsoccupiedbyusualresidents
218
Ratiooftotaldwellingstooccupied
74.91%
HarropProcter
376
284
75.53%
CentralKootenayRDElectoralAreaE
1985
1661
83.68%
CentralKootenayRD
29474
25806
87.56%
BritishColumbia
1945365
1764637
90.71%

October 2016
Page | 32
AppendixB
REFERENCES
B1 LITERATURECITED
Atkinson-Palombo, C, and Hoen, B. 2014. Relationship Between Wind Turbines and Residential
Property Values in Massachusetts A Joint Report of University of Connecticut and
Lawerence Berkeley National Laboratory January 9, 2014. Available at:
https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6371e_0.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2016.
Benson, E. D., Hansen, J. L., and Schwartz Jr., A. L. 2000. Water Views and Residential Property
Values. Appraisal Journal, 68(3), 260.
BC Government and Service Employees' Union and Western Pacific Marine Ltd. undated. (draft)
Collective Agreement, effective April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2019. Available at:
http://www.bcgeu.ca/sites/default/files/M-00514.pdf. Accessed Sept 28, 2016.
BC Stats. 2010. 2006 Census Profile of BC Regions. Available at: www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca. Accessed
September 14, 2016.
BC Stats. 2003. 2001 Census Profile of BC Regions. Available at: www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca. Accessed
September 14, 2016.
BC Construction Association. 2016. 2016 BC Construction Industry Survey, Reality Cheque.
Available at: https://www.bccassn.com/media/survey-bc-construction-industry-2016.pdf.
Accessed Oct 4, 2016.
Centre for Spatial Economics (C4SE). 2009. The Potential Financial Impacts of the Proposed
Rockfort Quarry.
Horne, G. 2008. 2004 British Columbia Provincial Economic Multipliers and How to Use Them.
BC Ministry of Management Services.
Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. 2007. Strategic Land Policy & Legislation Branch.
"Guidelines for Socio-Economic and Environmental Assessment".
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI). 2016. Kootenay Lake Traffic MV Osprey
and MV Balfour Ferries, 2008 to 2015.
Peaks Solutions Consulting. 2016a. Primary data from BC Government and Service Employees'
Union and Western Pacific Marine Ltd. (undated) and SNC Lavalin. 2016.
Peaks Solutions Consulting. 2016b. Interviews with Balfour Ferry Terminal Businesses (September
14 to September 29, 2016).
Peaks Solutions Consulting. 2016c. Balfour Ferry Terminal Resident Survey (September 26 to
September 30, 2016).
SNC Lavalin. 2016. Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project. Submitted to the B.C. Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure. March 31, 2016.

October 2016
Page | 33
Statistics Canada. 2012. Census Profile - 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316XWE. Ottawa June 27, 2012. Available at: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census
recensement/2011/dppd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E.AccessedSeptember14,2016.
B2 PERSONALCOMMUNITICATIONS
Betts, John, Queens Bay Residents Association. Several telephone conversations and emails in
August 28 and October 8, 2016.
Coe, Bryan, Regional Manager Kootenay Lake Region. Western Pacific Marine Ltd. Telephone
interview and follow-up emails. September. 21, 2016.
Djakovic, Jack. Owner. Balfour Superette. Telephone conversation. September 29, 2016.
Goldsbury, Reg. Owner Dock n Duck Grill/Pub/Lodge and Muddy Moose Enterprises. Telephone
conversation. September 29, 2016
Goldsbury, Robin. Owner Dock n Duck Grill/Pub/Lodge and Muddy Moose Enterprises.
Telephone conversation and emails. September 14 and 16, 2016
Hale, Holly. Owner. Hollys Diner. Telephone conversation and follow up email. September 17,
2016.
Handrahan, Kirk. Director, Marine Branch, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Email,
Oct. 5, 2016 and telephone conversation, Oct. 7, 2016. .
Lang, Ron. Property Owner. Telephone conversation and follow up email. September 27, 2016.
Robinson, Marilyn. Owner. Blue Sky Clothing Co. Telephone conversation and follow up email.
September 17, 2016.
Townend, Darlene. Property Owner. Telephone conversation and email. September 25, 2016.
White, Darla, Owner. Old World Bakery. Telephone conversation and follow up email.
September 28, 2016.

October 2016
Page | 34
AppendixC DetailedSurveyResponses
C1 DETAILEDRESPONSESTOQUESTION9
Question 9 Stated: If you answered yes above (question 8 if businesses close what would
be the impact on quality of life) please outline what those concerns might be.
I live near McEwan Point, visiting the QB Beach regularly on foot, bicycle or kayak. All this would
be lost if the terminal were moved. I also cycle often South but it would be very dangerous
along the QB Beach stretch where it is already congested in summer. I would be less likely to
visit Balfour for commercial necessities.
it seems pretty obvious if business close it will affect our access and quality of life!!!!
access to restaurants, gas station, bakery, auto repair and grocery would all be at risk. It is not
just the business at the ferry landing but all Balfour businesses
All local and visitors use all of the facilities available on a regular basis. The loss of the terminal
would pare the heart from the community.
As a gallery owner 2kms. from the ferry terminal on Hwy. 3A, my business will be negatively
impacted.
As a retired resident of 40+ years, I become more and more dependant on local services: gas,
groceries, bakery... I anticipate that the future may hold mobility issues for me and I am loathe
to think of more trips to Nelson as I age.
Balfour is a transportation hub and local service center. If the terminal moves these will be
disrupted, some businesses will close and services will be reduced. The Queens Bay site does
not provide the opportunity for replacement of those services
Businesses other than the gas station will close and hugely impact the quality of life we have
come to expect as seasonal residents for over 50 years in the summer months!
Businesses will be forced to close as the ferry traffic is why they are there in the first place. With
no stores, I will not have access to fuel and food unless I travel to Nelson- quite unacceptable.
Businesses will disappear and multiple trips to town will become necessary. Families of these
businesses will find it necessary to relocate to other communities in order to find work. What is
now a cheery community relying on tourists throughout 6 months will shrink to a probable
ghost town. The only winners in relocating the ferry landing to queens bay will be the lavalin
group employees lining their pockets by ruining the lives of others.....a repeat performance by
this same group of slimy unethical individuals.
Certain businesses would be more resilient than others, of course, but all in all I would have less
access to amenities and there would be less employment opportunities close to the community.
Dining out - I don't think that we could support the restaurants without the tourist dollars
Local jobs will be lost. if the gas station has to close it will mean we would have to travel to
kokanee park marine for boat gas and for lawn mowers etc
Due to reduced viability with dramastically reduced ferry traffic, closure of and thus lack of
access to: restaurants, bakery, gift stores, and possibly the gas station. I use all of these
regularly. The Balfour terminal has organically grown due to the ferry, and provides a
wonderful tourist experience and ambiance for my vacation guests. It is a lovely place to hang
out at, and has become a small tourist site. Without this, I suspect we will have less tourists and

October 2016
Page | 35
visitors hanging around Balfour.

Essential grocery items could require a trip to Balfour or Kaslo if the store and Gill and Gift
closed. We would have no access to dinners out (Holly's or Dock &Duck. We would also be
without our meeting and coffee space.
Family cabin in Queen's Bay and we rely on the store, the shops at the landing for supplies and
evening walks for ice cream and such. Our boat and water toys use the gas station at the
terminal.
Fuel, groceries, restaurants, gift store, retail all will be affected.
Gasoline, groceries, shopping and coffee shop.
Gasoline, items we run out of, and trip to Nelson is one hour round trip, places to eat out
decreased and so affected it will become a depressed area like the Balfour Beach in , struggling
to survive without tourist and traffic dollars.
groceries, restaurants, gas
I use the services of the GIFT AND GILL, Old World Bakery and the Balfour store on a daily
bases and would miss these business if they were to close
I believe that none of the businesses except for the Balfour superette would survive. Business
owners, and business real estate owners will be effected. I believe it would take many years, if
not decades for a new business community to emerge at the proposed ferry location.
I own a cottage in Queens Bay. I have concerns regarding the quality of my drinking water
being being affected by moving the terminal there. From May until September, we make good
use of the services provided by the businesses near the Balfour terminal and would greatly miss
what this hub of the Balfour community has to offer.
i regularly access the gas station and the local convenience store. if they close, it would be a
great inconvenience
I think some businesses might have to close, others will have their hours reduced considerably.
I think the Balfour store will be fine either way but if the gas station closes then we are forced to
travel further for our gas. Our simple social outings will have to be planned to either kaslo or
nelson so we will have to drive further for these as well. My concern is for the owners of these
business. Their incomes may be devastated if the businesses close.
To question 7 property
values in Queens bay will reduce significantly and properties in balfour near but outside of the
described zone with be unchanged.
I would hate to lose the gas station, marina with gas bar, two restaurants, bakery, or
supermarket.
If any one of the business' were lost in Balfour I would be sad as each one offers a local
convenience to my lifestyle, as opposed to having to travel 30 minutes for the services.
If business close there will be no access to getting fuel, buying local goods, eating out, or any
social environment. A sense of community and belonging will no longer exist. the community of
Balfour will no exist and people will have to travel 35 km out of their way and back to get just
the services they need.
If businesses close at the Balfour terminal more than just the business proprietor will move
away and the Balfour population is small and fragile to economic impacts. I will potentially lose
many business services.
If you answered yes above, please outline what those concerns might be. (If you require
additional space, please add additional comments to question 22)
It is a 30 minute drive to a city, so the stores and restaurants in Balfour serve a need.
It is a local social hub at the restaurants at the ferry landing. there is nowhere else for
connecting in this community.
It is so enjoyable to walk through the forest, have a lovely coffee and breakfast/ lunch/ treat

October 2016
Page | 36
and even shop for very off beat clothing. the whole atmosphere of 'downtown Balfour' for
locals and especially ones guests, they love it and they shop !!!! Sitting at the dock and duck
again most likely for a meal at any given time of the day , having the ferry arrive adds to their
ambiance. Moving the ferry to Queens Bay makes no sense, something that already exists and
is totally functionable, a waste of tax payers monies and an ecological disaster to Queens Bay.
it would require a lenthy drive to access the same services in another community
Losing any of the businesses in Balfour would be a big loss to the adjacent community and to
some extent travelers using the ferry terminal as they often chat with locals enjoying the
amenities at the bakery and restaurants. Balfour is a thriving little hangout for locals enriching
the quality of life here as it is a place to meet and socialize. It is part of the fabric of the greater
Balfour community.
loss of nearby access to gasoline, bakery, convenience store
Loss of the cultural and economic centre of Balfour including the restaurants, bakery and
service station amenities as well as the seasonal clothiers and craft booths. Without these
businesses the former ferry landing site will be mostly empty hollowing out the centre of the
community. It is not clear what might replace the current site if closed as a terminal. Some
properties may revert to residential closing more access to the waterfront. A token park in lieu
offering access to the West Arm will not make up for the overall loss to the neighbourhood and
the rest of the community.
Many people use the bakery for fresh items daily. I also worry about the other stores shutting
down due to a decrease in customer volume.
many services and items won't be available to seniors
My family uses all the services at the Balfour Ferry Landing. That is the only gas station we use
as they keep their prices reasonable and do not raise the prices like they do in Nelson and other
places in high season. They keep them the same year round. We use the bakery frequently for
bread and other goods. We shop regularly at Balfour Superette. We shop occasionally at Blue
Sky Design and visit the Fresh Veg & Fruit stand. And when we can afford it we go out for
dinner at Dock n Duck otherwise its a quick burger or ice cream and Hollys Diner at Langs
Marina.
No gas for miles, no restaurant for miles, no store for miles. I am elderly and depend on the
businesses in Balfour as I do not make the 45km trip to Nelson often
No gas station between kokanee and kaslo. Closure of two of my favorite places -- the old
world bakery and dock and duck pub. Also loss of great fishing store gill and gift.
No gas station, no auto repair, no restaurants, no convenience store, no local bakery, no fruit
stand in season. Make no mistake these businesses are only there because of the ferry traffic.
All those businesses will die if the landing is moved and the village of Balfour will die with them.
Without the ferry there will be no reason for economic activity at that site. There is no reason
why anyone would develop an enterprise on that site.
No gas. No restaurant. No bakery....stupid!
Not good for Balfour business Severe weather at Queens bay
Open-Ended Response
Our overflow guests at the cottage in queens bay usually stay at the dock and duck. I get my
gas in Balfour. Will that service survive?
positive social opportunities at bakery, store, restaurant, post office
Potential closures of gas station, restaurants, bakery and grocery/liquor store.
Purchasing goods at the Balfour Superette. Buying gas at the Gas station. Eating out on the
occasion, shopping at Blue Sky Clothing which is a treat and a fun experience and buying a loaf
of bread when I run out at the bakery. If these businesses closed, I would have to travel to

October 2016
Page | 37
either Kokanee Store and gas station, go to Nelson or Kalso which are all far away.
Reduced traffic/people flow through the area would impact overall sales and likely lead to
potential closure of existing services in the area Restaurants would feel the greatest impact
without ferry traffic to support their businesses
Restaurant, Bakery and Gasoline purchases will be half hour drive
Seasonal residence owner in Queen's Bay. Regular user during spring/summer/fall of Balfour
services - grocery store, gas station, bakery, restaurants - concerned these businesses may be
forced to close (due to lower business volume) if terminal is relocated. In Q.B., concern is for the
major increase in traffic on a narrow, winding stretch of highway - this will affect the access
residents have to and from their property; also concerned regarding environmental impact on
the bay during the building of and subsequent operation of a ferry terminal located in the bay;
noise concerns with increased traffic and presence of ferries in the bay.
The ability to get gas and groceries with out having to go to Nelson or Kaslo. The bus station,
Restaurants and stores being centrally located to the main community in the area. The jobs that
will be be effected by the change. The environmental impact and adverse effects on the bay
that would occur due to construction. The extra cost to tax payers.
the convenience of stores and restaurants my end or choices will be fewer.
The gas station is the only service within 30 min.
the local businesses that are established around the ferry traffic will be severely negatively
impacted if the ferry is relocated, particular in a location that is being proposed.
The nearest gas station would be 16 km away which would directly affect my contracting
business as well. Also if the resteraunts close we would have no place to go for lunch or dinner.
And our local volenteer fire Dep't (of which I am a member) would have no local supply of our
rehabilitation food and drink, the next nearest place would be a 30-40 min drive to Nelson. And
the list goes on!
There could be a lack of fuel with the only other gas stations in Nelson or Kaslo.
we are 40 km from Nelson - gasoline, groceries, eating out will all be much further away
We are over 70 years old and not very mobile to go to Nelson several times a week.
We could loose the local businesses. It is convenient to have those services in Balfour. Nelson is
a long way away. We could loose a social hub where people gather. Local jobs could be
impacted, and business owners would suffer. Friends and neighbours may have to relocate,
and the energy and momentum of the community would be impacted in many unforeseeable
ways.
We depend on the grocery store, gas station, bakery and restaurants in Balfour. Otherwise we'd
have to drive and extra 20 miles to go to Nelson for these services.
We enjoy dinner out at two of the restaurants at the Balfour terminal and frequent the local
grocery store.
We frequent the bakery, the Blue Sky clothing outlet, the Superette, and sometimes one of the
places to eat.
We frequently use the services in Balfour (restaurants, gas station, etc.) and it would be a real
drag to have to drive quite a distance from Balfour.
We need the business that are in Balfour. If any of the clise it would impact our way of life
We regularly buy bread at the bakery, get gas at Gill and Gift, use Purolator services at Gill and
Gift, like going for supper at Duck and Dock, having lunch at Holly.s Diner..if those businesses
were gone, we would feel very isolated, the Heart of Balfour would be gone. It's part of the
charm of living here.
We support the bakery, restaurants,bar,grocery store regularly
We use the gas pumps regularly it's a long drive to fill up other wise for our cars, and boats.

October 2016
Page | 38
Not to mention no place for the tourists to fill up until Kokanne Marina or Kaslo. No space for
this at proposed Queens Bay terminal. We Consistently use the Superette. We buy most of our
milk, eggs, cheese ,all alcohol and many sundry items. Again I'ts a long drive to Kaslo or Balfour
if you are in the middle of a project and need something small. Or run out of a camping,
cooking ,plumbing ... the list is endless really. Between the superette and Gil and Gift you can
find most things you need. Bakery is also a staple- bread always, coffee most days. Having
company? dessert can be bought, good quality fresh made . Again it's a long inconvenient drive
to Nelson or Kaslo just to get bread. As well a wonderful place to get something while waiting
for the ferry for the tourists but also our family. Blue Sky always has in season clothing - did
you forget your swimsuit, forgot some shorts, want something beautiful to wear for a party?
Blue sky always has something for you or the tourist. Again a long drive to somewhere else. A
trip into town and back out. Twice the driving and fuel use. Seasonally Flexy's fruit stand has
been a god send when I want perishables fresh fruit and veggies, featuring locally grown
produce. It means I don't have to plan extra trips into town all summer. So convenient and
again will not be available at the proposed ferry landing. Basically Balfour saves me 3 or 4
trips to town a week. The restaurants provide a well option on those busy days when it's hard
to throw a meal together. I'm in Balfour buying something almost every day.
We very regularly go to the bakery. There are few places to go out to eat, and two of them are
at the ferry dock.
We will be 15 miles from a gas station if the Gas station closes and 25 miles from a grocery
store in Nelson if the Balfour store closes.
we will lose existing services and we might close our B&B business. The Golf course will suffer
greatly and also the Lodge Tourism in the area will suffer greatly because we will lose the
LONGEST FREE FERRY RIDE IN THE WORLD
Will miss the gas station, the restaurant, the bakery etc.
Would take away the community. Community Information gathering would be lost. We stop
for coffee and bakery often- we would loose the convenience.
Question 11 stated: If you answered yes above (question 10, if the Balfour ferry terminal
is relocated is there new economic activity that might take place at the site) please
describe this activity.
A government campground & park area.

A proper marina and a lakeside park
a sawmill or smelter would be nice
How else would people use an old ferry terminal with businesses surrounding it that support
the ferry traffic customers? I think the best use of the ferry terminal is to act as a terminal for
ferries.
I think economic development may not be feasible however the community may benefit from
park like set up
I would like to remain open minded that, all though the government is making a huge mistake
and creating enormous expense for tax payers relocating the Ferry Terminal, I would like to
think they will also budget for some kind of transformation of the existing Terminal. It could be
an interesting walking mall with public swimming, kiosks, picnic area, possible parking for the
big RV's that always struggle with places to go that they can park and manage. They need to

October 2016
Page | 39
remove the old loading ramp and fix the parking lot.
It would make a very nice public boat launch as it is centrally located at the junction of the
South, West & North arms of Kootenay lake and the parking lot would be great for boat trailer
parking. This may also save the businesses from having to shut down as the fishing tourists
would likely get there fuel and supplies locally and you are always cold and hungry when you
come off the lake!
Perhaps a park and recreational area.
public beach, park, town square, tourist info center create some form of destination
Rent newly built commercial waterfront space out and attract kayak rental, fishing tour,
outdoor experience companies... build seating areas, a skate park, a playground and attract a
few high quality food carts. pull together a marketing plan for the Village of Balfour and plan
events, promotions, community services around the area... my 2 cents for what it's worth.
The area around the Ferry landing would need a lot of remediation to create anything that
would be of benefit for the area. You could create green space but would it be useful?. The
beaches would take a long time to be developed and then there are so many wharves, boats,
and docks that it still would not make it a good place to swim.
The government may want to take advantage of very low property values to establish halfway
houses and addiction centres in the buildings abandoned due to the ferry move.
The recreation in the lake could not be duplicated in Balfour as Queens bay offers the most
pristine warm waters that make it unique to the area.
There is no money in the ferry budget to refurbish Balfour into anything. It's hard to picture it
as a park etc without the money to build it. Without the taxation base from the area businesses
how would it be paid for and maintained? It could be used for swimming if you don't have little
kids - the current is strong and the temperature cool in this area - it's not wide enough for
skiing etc - most boats already go to Queens Bay to tube, fish, ski, board etc. Boat launch
maybe?
Water side park, and perhaps making it a provincial park. market at weekends
Would make a great cemetery sight. Death of a community.
Question 13 stated: Can you please identify how the Queens Area contributes to your
quality of life?
My family, friends, neighbours and myself enjoy the beauty of Queen's Bay in many ways such
as swimming, walking, kayaking, and playing on the rocky shore. It provides opportunities to
see rare species of animals such as the blue tailed skink and great blue heron.
Queens Bay is the warmest swimming water in the lake. It is accessible to the public. It is a place
to walk, to view the lake, creates a sense of peace and timelessness. Changes to this area
would indeed change how I feel about the place I live. sitting by the fire on our property would
be inundated with noise and light pollution. Our quite rural property where we have lived for 40
years would be changed entirely. We would not be using the beach to swim and It would be a
loss of a place to walk and view the lake. This area is an area that tourists pull over to just look
at the lake in its pristine beauty.
A serene living environment, beautiful scenery and the proximity of Kootenay lake contribute to
my quality of life.
Access to swimming, access to public beach area, access to the water including boating and

October 2016
Page | 40
fishing. A sense of peace. A place for friends and family to gather, to be outside, to picnic.
Access to beautiful surroundings.
As a resident of Queens bay town site my partner and I and our dog regularly use the beach
and enjoy the waters of Queens bay. We utilize the bay for visiting family and friends as well as
ourselves. regularly participating in water sports, kayaking and use of other light water craft.
The unique environment of the bay offers us a chance to explore the shorelines learning about
the flora and fauna of the area. Some of which is unique to the bay. Being located so close and
in such a nice community helps to keep a sense of neighborly appreciation and awe of nature I
hope instill in my expected child and is something found in few communities today.
As I am a resident of the bay (Cliff Dweller) it is my home & playground. I swim, kayak, SCUBA
dive and boat in the bay, it is one of the main reasons I moved my family and business here.
Beauty, water quality, limited traffic
Drinking water supply, Swimming. Fishing. Kayaking.
Drinking water!! Beauty and peacefulness of the bay for boating, SUP, Kayaking and swimming.
Animal and plant life will be affected tremendously around the proposed location!
Easy, it's a pristine beach, hundreds of people from the greater area use it all summer long for
swimming and relaxing. Boaters come and go at the beach as well. It is an integral part of the
fabric of this community, it's loss as such would be deeply felt. Wildlife use the beach. It is a
great natural asset, enjoyed by many folks.
Enjoyment of swimming, boating, kayaking and overall peaceful quiet area without ferry traffic
For over 50 years it has been our home for the summer months and our three children have
grown up there with their cousins frolicking in the pristine bay. As busy professionals, my wife
and I have also counted on this area to recharge our batteries for 50 plus days each year. I had
hoped to retire there, but now am not so sure. How sad!
I and my family recreate at the proposed beach during the summer regularly. My husband
fishes int he Bay regularly...I enjoy the undeveloped bay for peace of mind
I frequent the beach daily in the summer and are down at the beach often all year.
I have grown up in Queens Bay my entire life. The clean, fresh water, calm currents and
tranquility have been massively influential to who I have become as a person. A ferry terminal in
Queens Bay would destroy my way of life.
I have made personal family use of the beach area since arriving here in 1974. I now have a
home based campground and am constantly referring my guests to Queen's Bay for beach
access.
I kayak and canoe there and enjoy the serenity of the natural environment.
I like the neighbourhood feel of the whole area. I love the peace and quiet here now for most of
the year. i get my drinking water from the bay.
I live in Queens Bay
I live in the Bay. My drinking water, beach, and boating. NO FERRIES IN THE BAY PERIOD.
I love that beach and use it regularly for kayak launching, swimming and going for walks. We
also get our drinking water from that area.
I purchased property in the Queens Bay town site due to the tranquil, rural lifestyle. Although
there is some highway noise, at the present level of traffic it is tolerable. The use of the
undisturbed lakeshore, local boating and the (relatively) warm water swimming beach are an
integral part of that lifestyle. The proposed terminal site would destroy a beach area that is
well-used by myself and other local residents, as well as many visitors from the greater region
and tourists.
I regularly swim with my family there. I walk my dogs and horses there. I spend all summer
enjoying boating, paddle boarding, campfires etc. I love the peace and beauty.

October 2016
Page | 41
I swim there, get my drinking water from the Bay and go for a walk along the rugged beach
down there
I walk, swim and kayak there regularly. I'm a birder too so this wetland habitat would be lost
forever. Cycling along that stretch would be very dangerous especially with big trucks coming
from the North down the steep hill from the town site further, in fact all the way from Toad
Rock is "downhill" and many trucks are traveling very fast.
It has been my main recreation area for more than 30 years... It is where my children played and
now where my grandchildren play. To even consider paving over pristine waterfront is
embarrassing and archaic.... And does not reflect my values and why i choose this area to be my
home.
It is a quiet serene place that we can get away from the hectic lifestyle of a city. Our families
have some place to come visit for their holidays. The water quality is so clean, we enjoy
swimming and boating.
It is an untouched and accessible waterfront that we use every summer for swimming...the
water is warmer there as there is very little current. Also fishing and kayaking, painting and
exploring.
it offers one of the best swimming, recreational and awe inspiring places on earth! Tranquility!!
It provides a welcoming natural area to enjoy the beauty of this area at all times of year.
Families gather to swim in this warm section of Kootenay Lake.
It provides beach access and recreational opportunities to warm water and the rest of the lake.
Unspoiled as it is, it contributes to the sense of place that makes Kootenay Lake the place that it
is and why we live here. Considering how much of the rest of the lake's shoreline is taken up
with transportation or development corridors it is a special place and adds to value of living
here. It is a location with First Nations and pioneer historical and cultural significance.
My cottage is there, but overall it has always been a place for friends and family to swim, paddle
and enjoy nature.
My family enjoys the water activities such as kayaking, swimming, boating, enjoying the view of
the lake. I have enjoyed the Bay for over 60 years as it is now and it is part of my life I feel it
would be criminal to industrialize such a beautiful spot.
My family has been there for 4 generations, it is my place of peace and holds an exceptionally
strong meaning in my life. To have the ferry relocate would not only be a complete waste of
tax-payers money (sounds like SNL Construction just wants a paycheck), it would impact so
many people negatively. No one local can even believe this is even a thought. People behind
desks in government need to realize this is such a terrible and devastating idea. Toll the ferry
and keep it where it is! Problem solved.
My family has owned a cabin in the bay since 1950. For years, we have been able to drink the
water from the bay and enjoy the tranquility it offers, watching the ferries make their daily
passages in and out of the West Arm of the lake. Building a terminal in Queens Bay will, in my
older brother's opinion, ruin it.
My Grandfather purchased Queens Bay property adjacent to the proposed new Terminal 75
years ago. The government has not even considered the amount of traffic that will be going
through Cabin Country. The secondary highway WILL need to be upgraded to manage this
traffic, and at what expense to all the cabin owners When this happens, it is my families very
stressful concern that they will expropriate the cabins to widen the highway.
My home and my cottage are located on the water side in the heart of Queens Bay. First we
were plagued with a motorcycle campground just up the hill at Toad Rock. That took away the
relatively calm, peaceful ambience of the neighbourhood, especially during some of the holiday
weekends during the summer. In spite of more than 4000 signatures, the highway police do

October 2016
Page | 42
nothing to enforce the noise bylaws from these souped up machines. Now you wish to add ALL
the ferry traffic to the mix as well. Not fair to those of us who have bought land and built
retirement homes or cottages and pay heavy taxes to live here on the waterfront in Queens Bay.
My house is located in the "Queen's bay cottages" The bay is my front yard and drinking water
source
My house is situated immediately above the proposed terminal. I have spent my whole adult
life working this property, improving it and paying it off. Right now I have a priceless view of
pristine Queens Bay and Kootenay Lake. I swim, boat and walk this shore on a regular basis. If
the terminal is moved I will be living at an industrial site. I will have traded pristine beauty, clean
air, clean water, and priceless silence with no ground lights for an industrial site with lights on
all the time, noise, ugliness and a polluted bay that will be no longer usable for swimming,
boating or any recreational pursuits.
Our cottage on Queens Bay has been a quiet get-away for our family for many years. We
would not like to see road & new parking lot construction disrupting the peace and usability of
the place.
Our family owns vacation property on the south-west shore of queens bay.
Our family uses the bay to boat, swim, kayak, hike and a ferry so close to all the cabins will
impact those who use the bay for these events and not to mention the pollution and erosion
and environmental impact with imposed construction.
Our quiet retreat from busy lives.
Outstanding beach and recreational area. Where we go to water ski, fish and enjoy the
summer. Kayak and paddle board Crown beach ideal for walking dog. Peaceful and serene.
Peace , solitude, lack of lights at night, use of a beautiful beach, very little traffic noise, this is
somewhat of a retirement community and a recreational area, ferry traffic would ruin this and
traffic congestion would be a major downside. It is ridiculous to even imagine a change.
Peace and Beauty. Warm water swimming. Rare on the west side of Kootenay Lake.
Peace n quiet, Beach access, no Street lights and noisy commuters
Property owner in Queens Bay
public access to lakefront, clean swimming area
Public beach is e of the warmest swimming areas. Water is unpolluted.
Queens B. is a rugged natural beach with rocks and boulders. Spawning habitat for fish. Wildlife:
18 species, 5 are red-listed, 11 are blue-listed and 2 are yellow-listed. Nesting ground for birds.
Vegetation: 6 are red- and 9 are blue-listed. 7 Native Nations have claim and title of this area.
There are 5 prehistoric burial sites and scattered artifacts within and around the proposed area.
- Balfour gets its drinking water from Queens Bay. It is a wonderful, pristine strip of land. People
like to go there, paint, relax, watch eagles soaring above and take pictures.
Queens Bay is a huge part of my life and my family and my extended family, etc. children that
have returned every year of their lives , because this is their happy place!!!!!!!!!! Engagements,
weddings, memorials, umpteen million birthday parties, enjoying the pristine waters, you can
drink from it. floating in the water, swimming, kayaking, boating, why would one even think of
changing this amazing place that has existed for soooooooooooo many years.
Queens Bay is the best place on earth.
Quiet, few waves, warm bay, wildlife, NATURAL, no pollution
recreation, fishing, swimming
recreation, visual and sensory pleasure, etc.
Recreational activities: I regularly kayak, swim and boat at QB. Natural habitat and
environment: enjoy watching eagles and ospreys catching fish; delighted to have seen herons,

October 2016
Page | 43
river otter, shore birds, and even rocky mountain caribou from the QB shore Fishing: my guests
enjoy fishing in QB and I am pleased to offer this as an alternative for them Tourism: a
wonderful place to host guests with the above options plus the ready access to the Balfour
restaurants and shops
Sacred place, peaceful, beach, shoreline, nice place to meditate, no noise pollution from our
property - the reason I moved here is for peace and quiet - a ferry relocation to Queens Bay
would completely destroy the reason why I moved to this area and would be absolutely
devastating forever. There is no way it can ever be an acceptable solution, EVER. It is not
negotiable, and never will be. Period.
Seasonal residence owner. Currently the bay is a very quiet area with limited boat and other
traffic on the water - perfect for a relaxing environment. I have spent summers at this property
for 60 years and enjoyed this peaceful, unspoiled area. Kootenay Lake and Queen's Bay in
particular has never become overused and overpopulated like the Shuswap and Okangan Lakes
areas have.
serenity, bird watching, fishing, walks, swimming, meditative time
swimming beaches are not readily available on Kootenay lake
Swimming fishing beauty
swims, walks on the beach, hearing loons, hanging out on the shoreline, natural
Take a look at Kootenay lake. An enormous portion, at least half, of the shoreline has been
compromised by transportation infrastructure in the form of mostly highways and railroad. Of
what remains, much of it is private property and inaccessible to the pubilc. Now what is left, of
the lake that you can drive to, is mostly cliffs with no shoreline to access. We have very few
stretches of shoreline like Queen's Bay, and none as well located, halfway between the
population centres as it is. The lake in the summer is the reason why we all live here. It is not an
obstacle that we are intent on getting around, it is the purpose of living in a place like the
Kootenays, and it simply can't be replaced.
The bay would be destroyed by pollutants which unlike Balfour has a much lower water
exchange rate. Drinking water ruined. All my recreational use would be ruined. Can't fish,ski,
Tube, Board, Kayak, SUP in a constant ferry wake and avoiding the ferry. Most boat use around
Balfour comes to Queens bay to swim, ski, board etc... The water is warmer and the space is
expansive. Most of these activities cannot be done at Balfour Colder water , faster current,
narrow space for boating, fishing, skiing etc. These activities cannot be done around Balfour
even if the ferry moves. These activities will be destroyed for all if the ferry moves to Queens
Bay. My entire use of the lake would be destroyed for a 10 min faster ferry ride!
The natural beauty, and quiet of the bay gives me a feeling of calm and relaxation. It is a place I
visit and walk year round. The bay is also an excellent place to canoe, kayak, and paddle board.
The swimming is exceptional for me and my family. It is the only beach between Kaslo and
Kokanee that is easy accessible, and the water is warmer than anywhere else on the lake. Many
friends come to visit just to swim in the warm, clean clear water. In the summer I swim every
day.
The pristine area of QB is one of the largest used recreational areas on all of Kootenay lake.
During favourable weather, the bay swells with boaters, swimmers, skiers, paddlers, fishermen,
sightseers, etc. Having spent summers in this bay for the past 60 years is testament to my
quality of life.
The queens bay area is one of the few untouched waterfront areas on Kootenay lake. My family,
friends and I find that the time spent on the beach, swimming and relaxing is soothing and
replenishing, especially after a hard day of work. The unique qualities of the bay( its warm
waters, open view, natural environment) helps me keep a calm state of mind, value my natural

October 2016
Page | 44
surroundings and builds community through a common cause of living, gathering and enjoying
our environment as it is.
The Queens Bay area is our piece of paradise where our cabin is located, and our entire family
reunites there every year. It is a beautiful place to unwind and enjoy the quiet lake, and wideopen spaces uninterrupted by ferry terminals.
The wild beach and the Quiet in the area. Also wild animal access to the lake.
Water sports, boating, swimming, clean water, quiet beaches.
We drink this water. Also fishing and swimming is enjoyed there. Also the wildlife there should
be considered
We frequent that area either in kayaks or boating.
We get our drinking water from Queens Bay and enjoy the natural beauty of the lake and
surrounding mountains for six months of the year. The increase in traffic will destroy the peace
and quiet that we currently enjoy. Also any disturbance like hauling in fill for the parking lot,
any dredging in the bay or fuel or other spills from the ferry will ruin the quality of the water as
the current is circular.
We have a cabin on the lake and live there for at least five ,on the of each year. Our access to
the golf course, swimming, boating, etc. Are completely dependent on our proximity to the
lake. We regularly host friends and family at the cabin. Our water is drawn directly from the
lake.
We have been going to the Queens Bay beach for over 40 years. It is a beautiful place for
community gatherings and for relaxing in a quiet, peaceful place. The children of our
community love to play and swim there all summer. It is a unique, treasured part of our life.
Many people come all the way from Nelson to enjoy this beach. Destroying it for the sake of
efficiency and economics will destroy a way of life that is precious and invaluable, not to
mention the environmental impact.
We have owned a family cottage in queens bay since 1983. We currently have an industrialized
site at Balfour which could be improved if required. We know the mitigating factors on ferry
operations in Balfour.
We live in Queens Bay and relocated here because of the unspoiled beauty, fresh air, peace and
quiet and clean drinking water which we pump from Queens Bay.
we live very near the proposed new ferry location and our quality of life will be severely
impacted by the increased traffic and noise associated with traffic from ferry. we boast that we
have the longest free ferry ride in the world, but that will no longer be true.
We love the beach, canoeing in the quiet Bay, there is a peace and beauty in Queens bay, the
clean water, the quietness ...our kids and grandkids love swimming in the warmest water on
Kootenay Lake in spring , summer and Fall....accessible public beach for lotsa friends.
We love to swim , picnic and watch the moon come up from this beach . It's a place for renewal
and enjoying the beauty of nature .
We paddle board and canoe up the shore. This would be lost. Tubing and water skiing. The
quality of water is very good for swimming in and drinking. This would be lost due to the
circling currents. Fishing. We fish from shore and also by boat. It's the warmest bay on the
lake.
We use it as tourists and homeowners, and prefer the current locations.
We use the public beach for swimming. It's where I send people who are visiting and or staying
at the local hotel to access the lake. The water is warmer in queens bay and it just pure clean
water!
We use the Queens Bay area in the spring, summer and fall mostly. We access the lake and
spend family time on the water. it's the only place that we can access the lake with our family

October 2016
Page | 45
and friends without pollution and a lot of water craft. its a great community gathering place.
We walk the beach regularly. We launch our kayaks from Queens Bay. We swim in the bay
regularly (weather permitting). We love the view and the quiet. We enjoy seeing the wildlife,
eagles, osprey, etc.
With a new beach area planned, cyclists enjoying that stretch of road, walkers enjoying that
area, much will be adversely affected.
Again, animal habitat and fish habitat as well as possible water quality issues and noise and air
quality issues.
4 species of fish population at risk: 2 red listed and 2 blue listed 18 species of wildlife at risk: 5
red listed, 11 blue listed , 2 yellow listed Archaeological sites, 5 historical burial sites and at
least 7 not resolved native claims!
accessible unspoiled shoreline, clean water, peace and quiet
Animal habitat, clean water. The favourite and most famous part of Kootenay Lake for
swimmers from all over. This is because it is the warmest part of the lake. The reason for that is
that the water in the bay doesn't flush quickly, it tends to circulate and stay in the bay. An
industrial site like a ferry terminal will quickly turn this bay into a cesspool.
Are you kidding me? Queens Bay has infinite environmental values. Spend 5 minutes in Queens
bay with your nose out of your electronics and you will see hundreds of thousands of taxa living
there. Dozens of bird species, dozens of fish species, and thousands of smaller organisms
(insects, small mammals, plants, trees etc) call Queens Bay home. I could write a 30 page essay
about the "environmental value" in Queens Bay.
As clearly demonstrated in the well- attended swim/plunge in the bay this past August, the bay
area is treasured as an unspoiled jewel in the crown that is the Kootenays. Please don't destroy
it!
As stated earlier, we have been able to drink the water directly from the lake for 65+ years. It
would devastating to have this water quality compromised with ferry traffic in this area of the
lake that does not readily flush itself out. Being able to kayak the QB shore to McKewans Point
and beyond has been and should remain a treasure for all. My wife often fishes in the area and
this activity would also be affected.
Clean drinking water, noise and air pollution, wildlife disturbance, destruction of pristine
lakefront.
Clean water and natural shorelines make cabin living desirable. Should the ferry terminal move,
we would be constantly aware of the natural water flow in the bay and would be extremely
concerned about the fumes and possible leakage into our water. Without the flow of water, as
it exists at the present terminal, we could be severely restricted in our water use, both
recreationally and as drinking and washing water.
Clean water that is used by residents for swimming, recreational use and residential water
systems; minimal noise pollution from vehicles, boats, ferries; unspoiled, non-commercially
developed beach and water frontage; fish population
Clean water, massive amount of fill (180,000 tons!) to create an artificial harbour
Clean water, quiet beaches.
Decrease in water quality (for lakeside homes, etc.). Light pollution from the parking lots.
Noise pollution. Significant decrease in air quality. Filling in and paving a large part of the lake
is going to put a ton of debris into the Queens Bay and impact fish, wildlife, etc. The beach will

October 2016
Page | 46
be gone, not only where the terminal/parking will be but adjacent for long stretches because
there will be too much noise, pollution, etc. The sanctuary aspect of this lovely place will be
utterly destroyed. Don't do it !
destruction of natural habitat for all wildlife; water pollution, noise pollution, visual pollution
Development in this area will increase traffic, it will increase noise pollution, it will affect the
water quality, which in turn will affect people's drinking water. It will affect the population of
fish and the habitat of the blue tailed skink that lives there.
Disruption of: Natural beach. Creek drainage Potential animal habitat.
drinking water for all Balfour and queens bay residents, one of few easily accessible beach front
within driving distance to Nelson to be enjoyed by Nelson residents...Im not sure about habitat,
but imagine dumping 95,000tons of fill will have serious impact on fish and birds
drinking water is drawn from the lake for the lakeshore residences. Every time they swab the
decks oil and diesel residues land in the lake, possible spills can occur while fueling the boat.
These will not be moved rapidly out of the slow moving Bay and will accumulate . They plan to
put a sewage treatment plant on site - leaks from this would damage drinking water. There just
is not enough area The tons of fill that will be required to create the landing will create
particulates in the water at least during the building phase and may have toxic residue that
could leach into the lake Birds, fish, and wildlife use the shore for drinking and would be
displaced. The blue listed Western Skink lives on the shore. There is a small marsh area that
would be filled . They would be paving a full half a kilometer of lake shore. The shoreline would
be irrevocably damaged.
Drinking water quality noise traffic safety
Drinking water. Fish and wildlife habitat. Pollution from diesel that would circle in the bay and
not be flushed. More wave erosion due to the ferry proximity.
Drinking water. Rare species such as western skink. Slope stability.
Dumping stuff into the lake to make a parking lot, road ways etc is just not acceptable, when
we owned property in the second bay we weren't allowed to put in a breakwater due to
environment impact, why would it be acceptable now especially the amount of fill that would
be required for the ferry.
Dumping the amount of fill required will change the lake environment considerably. Pollutants
will build up and settle poisoning the water and shoreline for drinking, swimming animal and
human use. Where will the loons, geese and ducks nest? What about the bald eagles nesting
area? -at Balfour? an industrial site? What about our drinking water? How about noise levels
and pollution along the hyw. What about noise abatement for humans and animals? The whole
area is a slide zone requiring further environmental impacts for the area. What if it slides with
people waiting for the ferry? Storms the landing will not be protected from storms. Queens
bay has large unpredictable storms often. There is a reason no one can keep a dock or pilings in
the lake they are wiped out every year. Ferry will be damaged and possibly leak fuel, fluids etc
into lake and our bay further polluting it and costing millions to fix.
Environmentally it will be a disaster. Contaminating drinking water. Loss of tourism. Loss of
spawning habitat for fish. The fish population is declining anyway. Loss of nesting habitat for
birds. 4 years of dump truck traffic, heavy machinery, mud, dirt and dust on HWY 31. Housing
prices will crash.
Erosion of the banks to increase highway. Fisheries.
Excavation in this area will destabilize the ground.
Fish habitat, fishing area in the bay, clean water, place for locals to swim & relax.
fish habitats from the creeks that will be impacted by the new ferry location. also the sandstone
beach will be filled in and I am not certain, but I believe these could have some type of

October 2016
Page | 47
geological significance.
Fish spawning, wildlife habitat both in and out of the water, currently zero pollution(air, water,
land, noise. light
foreshore development will impact migrating birds, fisheries, water quality of lake, wifi pollution
for orchard pollinators and make it impossible to return the cod stock in the area
Fresh drinking water for local households, fish habitat on a lake with an ongoing fish population
crisis, winter shoreline habitat for ungulate population, habitat for blue-tailed skink, meditative
and sense of solitude for humans, if developed it would represent a source for pollution
effecting the whole lake, particularly during its construction, and after that.
Glacier fed pristine waters, aquatic life, forestry will be hugely tampered with. Traffic will cause
sight, sound, and visual impacts negatively to those living in that area....and will cause foreseen
problems with tourists rushing to make a ferry departure. Roadways are not adequate to take
this extra traffic with its accelerated speeds. During the summer months with the huge incrase
in population in QB, causes huge concern re safety of extra traffic with pedestrian traffic.
habitat for blue tailed skink, burbot fishery, lakeshore for bird life, historical first nations use,
clean water in the bay
Highway 31 from the existing terminal to the proposed location is relatively narrow, has little or
no off-road parking. Increased ferry traffic without substantial road improvement swill result in
the are being dangerous for residents, pedestrians and cyclists.
I am concerned about the fish and water...
I recently spotted a blue tailed skink on the beach, which is an endangered species. The
proposed parking lot for the ferry will be covering wetlands which is a bird sanctuary, wildlife
access to water, as the cliffs are just beyond which limit the ability for wildlife top access the
lake. the fill expected to go into the lake will be devastating to the shoreline and fish habitat.
If you can't tell me that throwing tons of fill into the lake to make a parking lot isn't an absolute
environmental disaster , this question is ludicrous
I'm a birder and often go there on foot or kayak to watch the activity in the wetlands to the
north especially. Swimming will be "over" and kayaking too.
I'm concerned about the water quality, access to water, noise, traffic and speed along the
queens bay corridor.
industrial development in a pristine area
It is a wildlife refuge. The water quality will be damaged. It will greatly disturb a peaceful
community with the noise of so much traffic. Socioeconomically it would be disastrous. The
most beautiful and unique beach on the lake would be destroyed. This damage would be
irrepairable. Is this the legacy we want to give to our children and grandchildren?
It is one of the few remaining accessible public beaches for people of this area to swim and
enjoy the summer weather and sports. If you plan to fill this space with gravel and other types
of fill, and top it with pavement and run a large vessel back and forth to Kootenay Bay how can
you even begin to compare the impact on the environment and the lives of the folks who live
here.
Most of my environmental values have to do with clean drinking water. Why would anyone in
thier right mind want to dredge and fill in a kilometer of beach? Manage what there is!
Natural wildlife habitat: eagles, osprey, heron, river otter, ducks, and shore birds regularly seen
from the QB shore Fishing habitat: QB seems to be a vital part of the ecosystem, from the
insects landing on the surface providing food for fish, ducks and birds; and tons of small
minnows providing food up the food chain (see BC gov't literature on effects of shore
disturbance on the ecosystem!) Very concerned about potential for pollution for this pristine
shoreline for all who depend on QB for their water source and for recreation. A single incident

October 2016
Page | 48
can leave years of devastation. Because there is not a current such as at Balfour, this is a very
NB concern.
Noise pollution, light pollution at night a drastic increase of vehicle traffic on a already too busy
highway--especially during summer months. Water pollution from landfill dumped into the
water.
Our family cottage currently takes our drinking water from queens bay. Nothing in the
relocation impact study takes into consideration the impact of ferry operations upon public
drinking water intake !!
Peace and quiet.
Pollution of the water in the Bay, all the vehicles that will spill oil into the waters, in the Bay the
water doesn't flush them out, bringing in foreign fill will pollute the Bay, destroying the
wetlands, blue skink lives there, people get their drinking water from the Lake there. First
Nations artifacts are still found there. The slide area above will get disturbed, a huge concern.
Pure non-polluted water, noise pollution, shoreline destruction, wetlands.
Quality of water, permanent change to the beach and fish environment, and noise and air
pollution. The increased traffic would change our relative quiet and would also dramatically
increase the potential for accidents near the cabins and parking on the highway.
Queen's Bay is a clean, unspoiled area in close proximity to services. The water is crystal clear
with no sudden drop offs, making it a perfect place for fishing, and all water sports. I will
definitely question the quality of fish caught near a ferry terminal! I don't go fishing for food in
Balfour.
Queens Bay is known to have fresh water mussels which we understand are on the endangered
list.
Queens Bay North is a popular swimming area. This has become my biggest concern. It should
be preserved for family swimming as there are few as good, easily accessible beaches on the
lake. My drinking water could be affected.
Queens Bay, especially from the point is an eddy. Water is only changed out every 18 months. If
a ferry was there, the ecosystem could not handle the diesel spillage (inevitable) and effluent
seepage, not to mention oil spills from peoples vehicles and garbage etc. Everyone in Queens
Bay pulls water from the lake to drink. The impact there alone is reason not to build a terminal
there.
Quiet, few waves, warm bay, wildlife, NATURAL, no pollution
Relocating the ferry terminal to Queens Bay would destroy a pristine beach. The social and
environmental impacts are too great.
Since I moved here (2 years now) I have seen many rare and semi endangered wildlife including
the blue tailed skink. I think the ferry landing would only add stress to these animals.
The area has been maintained in a mostly natural condition. Water quality is clean, clear and
supports local and public activity and enjoyment
The drinking water. The blue tailed skink. Traffic congestion.
the fish the natural creek which feeds the lake near the proposed site. the bank erosion during
construction regarding trees, animals and again the fish.
The local ecosystems have existed for decades and disrupting them would be extremely
harmful.
The potential pollution from the fill and ferry docking there would have great impact on a bay
that doesnt circulate. Balfour gets its water supply. From the south end of the bay as well. Fuel
spills, car exhaust, people littering...
The unique flora and fauna found in the bay will be adversely affected. The increased traffic flow
will lead to environmental damage and the need for constant repair, as will the ferry terminal,

October 2016
Page | 49
which will the bring more big trucks through the area. The ferry will be rinsing it's decks into the
bay, which Balfour gets its drinking water from. That could cause health problems for the
animals and humans alike.
There are few places in British Columbia that you can park on the side of the road and walk with
your family down to enjoy a day at the beach in such a beautiful and CLEAN spot. There are
birds, elk, moose, fish, smaller creatures to enjoy and respect. Every day I give thanks for such a
beautiful spot. We need to preserve these few areas for future generations not destroy the
environment .
There are spawning fish at the base of Bridal Veil Creek on our property.
There is some very interesting wildlife in that area.....one being the sighting of the rare "Blue
Tailed Skink" along with others that have not yet been identified. There could be arrowheads
and artifacts from the Native Americans that roamed all over the lake. You can still see some
markings on the rocks along the shore line to verify. Queens Bay has a natural back eddie
...meaning the water current goes out and comes back, some days the same old log will rotate
around and around until some huge storm will take down the West Arm. I don't want to see or
smell anything that comes out of the ships docking in Queens Bay.
There is very little shoreline left on Kootenay lake that is an accessible beach area. There is very
little shoreline on Kootenay lake that is not already developed and occupied by either
pavement or railway. The shallow bay is habitat to many diverse and in some cases threatened
flora and fauna. Building a ferry terminal in queens bay would destroy the natural environment,
and lead to the loss of more pristine shoreline,only to befall another devastating act of
development.
This move would contaminate clean water and a pristine recreational area. The impact of filling
in the beach would affect the aqua life, interfere with wildlife access to the lake and further
endanger the blue tail skinxs, the fish habitat and other aqua life that call the bay their home
would dramatically be impacted. The move would also destabilize a very large area of a
unstable cliff that has been slufffing and on the move for years. I believe this move would
cause and environmental disaster.
Too many cars and people coming thruogh the area
Water and noise
Water flow through queens bay is protected by McEwen point -part of what makes this bay so
warm for recreational use. This same lower water-flow would be potentially disastrous with
ferry pollutants. Drinking water and I assume animal life could be affected. Basic principle of
destroying untouched nature to make a new industrial site is not in keeping with the values of
the area and BC in general. Winter storms would make queens bay a very unsafe moorage
point.
Water in Bay takes 1.5 years to re-circulate.. Relatively stagnant, and spills would be slow to
clear, damage the ecosystem that exists at this time. Water in the bay provides household
water to many homes.
water quality
Water quality (used by residents to drink) dramatically declining from fill, pollution from the
ferry and sewage treatment plant. Loss of waterfront for birds and animals.
Water quality as it is a domestic water source, water quality as it affects fish and wildlife habitat.
The destruction of a well used recreation area.
Water quality for domestic consumption and water-based recreation. Endangered species
(western skink), recovery of locally extirpated burbot. Air quality due to pollution from a
concentration of automotive emissions. Noise pollution from terminal operations and
automotive sources. The natural condition of the lakeshore

October 2016
Page | 50
Water quality for those that use the Lake for the drinking water.
Water quality good enough for Balfour drinking water now and for residents of the Bay.
Water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation, noise pollution.
Water quality, habitat for the blue-listed western skink, ungulate range in the wetlands, birds,
red-listed burbot (ling cod) and sturgeon. Considering how rare geography like Queen's Bay is
on Kootenay Lake, we need to seriously consider the impact of losing this very rare patch of
warmer, shallow water. What role does this water play in the life cycles of our lake's fishery?
Water quality. Wildlife. Noise pollution.
Water, all of the lake and the drinking water Fish, blue skink, birds, bears, deer, elk Building
and filing lake and construction of landing and docks will destroy the environment. Not only
directly Queens Bay, but all of lake and habitat and wetland and animals and they're habitat
we have a existing area that has been transformed into a industrial area of sorts where the
shoreline is not appreciated by tourists activities ie swimming etc, now the thought is to do the
same to another beach on Kootenay lake
wet land area at the north end , fish spawning in the for shore shallows
Wetland habitat along the shoreline will be destroyed. Western skinx populations along the
shoreline will be decimated. Pollution from the proposed parking and filling such a large area of
lake side will be detrimental to the water quality for fish as well as for the many people that
draw water from the lake.
Wildlife habitat for birds, deer, skinks, fish and many insects. Clean water that is used by many
residents. Untouched shoreline, in its natural state. There would be untold environmental
destruction if the beach was paved and infilled. I am concerned about the fill used, about
dredging or blasting for pilings or wharfs.

October 2016
Page | 51
AppendixD ResidentSurveySummaryResponses
(following page from Survey Monkey Report)

October 2016
Page | 52
Resident Survey Concerning Potential Changes to the Kootenay Lake Ferry Terminal
SurveyMonkey
Q1 Do you feel that vehicle congestion at

the Balfour Ferry terminal is adversely
impacting travel through the area?
Answered: 95
Skipped: 0
Yes, regularly
Yes, but only

periodically...
Not sure
No, have not

experienced ...
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Yes, regularly
0.00%
Yes, but only periodically (a few days a year)
36.84%
35
Not sure
2.11%
No, have not experienced any traffic congestion
61.05%
58
Total
95
1 / 22
SurveyMonkey
Q2 As a resident, do you use the services

provided by the businesses located
adjacent to the Balfour Ferry Terminial?
Answered: 95
Skipped: 0
Yes, regularly
Yes, sometimes
No, never
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Yes, regularly
81.05%
77
Yes, sometimes
18.95%
18
No, never
0.00%
Total
95
2 / 22
SurveyMonkey
Q3 Does the current activity at the Balfour

Ferry Terminal adversely impact your
quality of life (i.e., noise)?
Answered: 95
Skipped: 0
Yes
No
Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Yes
0.00%
No
98.95%
94
Not sure
1.05%
Total
95
3 / 22
Q4 If you are adversely impacted by the

current activity at the Balfour Ferry
Terminal,please describe why(If you require
additional space, please add additional
comments to question 22).
Answered: 3
Skipped: 92
4 / 22
SurveyMonkey
SurveyMonkey
Q5 Are you concerned that the Balfour

community and adjoining communities will
suffer economically if the Balfour Ferry
Terminal is relocated?
Answered: 92
Skipped: 3
Yes
No
Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Yes
97.83%
90
No
0.00%
Not sure
2.17%
Total
92
5 / 22
SurveyMonkey
Q6 What do you think will be the impact on

residential property value near the ferry
terminal (within one kilometre from existing
Balfour Ferry Terminalsite) if the terminal is
relocated?
Answered: 91
Skipped: 4
Property
values will...
Property
values will...
Property
values will...
Property
values will...
Property
values will...
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Property values will increase noticeably
1.10%
Property values will increase marginally
9.89%
Property values will remain relatively the same
48.35%
44
Property values will decrease marginally
10.99%
10
Property values will decrease noticeably
29.67%
27
Total
91
6 / 22
SurveyMonkey
Q7 What do you think will be the impact on

residential property values elsewhere in the
community (outside a kilometrefrom the
existing Balfour Ferry Terminal) if the
terminal is relocated?
Answered: 90
Skipped: 5
Property
values will...
Property
values will...
Property
values will...
Property
values will...
Property
values will...
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
0.00%
1.11%
37.78%
34
18.89%
17
42.22%
38
Total
90
7 / 22
SurveyMonkey
Q8 If businesses close at the Balfour Ferry

Terminal, do you have any concerns of the
potential impact on your access to services
or quality of life?
Answered: 92
Skipped: 3
Yes
No
Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Yes
86.96%
80
No
6.52%
Not sure
6.52%
Total
92
8 / 22
Q9 If you answered yes above, please

outline what those concerns might be. (If
you require additional space, please add
additional comments to question 22)
Answered: 73
Skipped: 22
9 / 22
SurveyMonkey
SurveyMonkey
Q10 If the Balfour Ferry Terminal is

relocated, do you see a new use of the
existing terminal area that might support
new economic development activity?
Answered: 92
Skipped: 3
Yes
No
Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Yes
10.87%
10
No
58.70%
54
Not sure
30.43%
28
Total
92
10 / 22
Q11 If you answered yes above,could you

pleasedescribe this activity? (If you require
additional space, please add additional
comments to question 22)
Answered: 16
Skipped: 79
11 / 22
SurveyMonkey
SurveyMonkey
Q12 Does the Queens Bay area, in its

current state, contribute to the overall
quality of life that you enjoy in the Balfour
area (i.e., in this context, quality of life
refers to your personal use or potential use
of the Queens Bay area)?
Answered: 91
Skipped: 4
Yes
No
Not Sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Yes
100.00%
No
0.00%
Not Sure
0.00%
Total
91
91
12 / 22
Q13 Can you please identify how the

Queens Bay area contributes to your quality
of life? (If more space is required, please
add additional comments to question 22)
Answered: 87
Skipped: 8
13 / 22
SurveyMonkey
SurveyMonkey
Q14 Please indicatehow these values will be

impacted by the location of the new ferry
terminal in theQueens Bay area.
Answered: 91
Skipped: 4
Noticeable
increase in...
Marginal
increase in...
No real change
to quality o...
Marginal
decrease in...
Noticeable
decrease in...
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Noticeable increase in quality of life values
3.30%
Marginal increase in quality of life values
0.00%
No real change to quality of life values
1.10%
Marginal decrease in quality of life values
2.20%
Noticeable decrease in quality of life values
93.41%
85
Total
91
14 / 22
SurveyMonkey
Q15 Do you see the Queens Bay area, in its

current state,as having important
environmental values that make you
concerned about development in this area?
Answered: 91
Skipped: 4
Yes
No
Not Sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Yes
98.90%
90
No
0.00%
Not Sure
1.10%
Total
91
15 / 22
Q16 Can you please identify the

environmental values in theQueens Bayarea
that you are concerned about? (If more
space is required, please add additional
comments to question 22)
Answered: 86
Skipped: 9
16 / 22
SurveyMonkey
SurveyMonkey
Q17 What do you think will be the impact

onproperty values inthe Queens Bay area if
the existing Balfour Ferry Terminal
isrelocated to Queens Bay North?
Answered: 90
Skipped: 5
Property
values will...
Property
values will...
Property
values will...
Property
values will...
Property
values will...
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
0.00%
1.11%
3.33%
14.44%
13
81.11%
73
Total
90
17 / 22
SurveyMonkey
Q18 Have you reviewed the results of the

technical feasibility study prepared by the
Ministry of Transportation?
Answered: 88
Skipped: 7
Yes
No
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Yes
86.36%
76
No
13.64%
12
Total
88
18 / 22
SurveyMonkey
Q19 If you have to travel an additional 3 km

to a new terminal site, will this be an
inconvenience to you?
Answered: 87
Skipped: 8
Yes
No
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Yes
40.23%
35
No
59.77%
52
Total
87
19 / 22
SurveyMonkey
Q20 Which location do you favourfor

theferry terminal?
Answered: 90
Skipped: 5
Balfour
Queens Bay
North
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Balfour
98.89%
89
Queens Bay North
1.11%
Total
90
20 / 22
SurveyMonkey
Q21 Where do you live, in relation to the

existing Balfour Ferry Terminal?
Answered: 89
Skipped: 6
Within one km
of the terminal
Between one
and 1.5 km f...
Between 1.5
and 3 km fro...
Between 3 and
5 km from th...
More than 5 km
from terminal
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Within one km of the terminal
7.87%
Between one and 1.5 km from the terminal
19.10%
17
Between 1.5 and 3 km from the terminal
20.22%
18
Between 3 and 5 km from the terminal
41.57%
37
More than 5 km from terminal
11.24%
10
Total
89
21 / 22
Q22 Please provide any additional

comments that you may have.
Answered: 53
Skipped: 42
22 / 22
SurveyMonkey

Balfour Final - November 15-2016

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Balfour Final - November 15-2016

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project:

November 14, 2016

Queens Bay Residents Association

Peak Solutions Consulting Inc.

Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project: Socio-economic Implications

Using a multiple accounts analysis framework.

Under the Base Case Scenario (current) conditions, Ferry Operations:

Peak Solutions Consulting Inc.

Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project: Socio-economic Implications

Net Change is estimated to be:

Economic Implications of Terminal Construction

Net Change is estimated to be:

Peak Solutions Consulting Inc.

Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project: Socio-economic Implications

Visitor and Local Ferry Terminal Business Activity

Net Change is outlined in ES-1 and highlights a decline of between 59 and 73

Table ES-1: Change in Balfour Ferry Terminal Business Direct Employment

Source: Peaks Solutions (2016b).

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS ACCOUNT

Under the Base Case Scenario (current) conditions residents identified:

Peak Solutions Consulting Inc.

Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project: Socio-economic Implications

Peak Solutions Consulting Inc.

Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project: Socio-economic Implications

Project Location ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Need and Definition ................................................................................................................................... 2

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC REPORT................................................................................ 3

More thorough examination of Unmitigated Socio-economic Effects of Project ............................ 3

Limitations of Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 3

MULTIPLE ACCOUNT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 4

2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT ..................................................................... 7

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS OF FERRY OPERATIONS..................................................... 7

Base Case Scenario ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Project Scenario ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

Net Change ................................................................................................................................................................ 10

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS FROM TERMINAL CONSTRUCTION EXPENDTIURE...............................10

Base Case Scenario .................................................................................................................................................. 11

Project Scenario ........................................................................................................................................................ 12

Net Change ................................................................................................................................................................ 12

VISITOR AND LOCAL FERRY TERMINAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY ....................................................................13

Base Case Scenario .................................................................................................................................................. 14

Project Scenario ........................................................................................................................................................ 15

Net Change ................................................................................................................................................................ 16

3 SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS ACCOUNT .......................................................................... 18

SOCIO-COMMUNITY IMPLICATIONS OF FERRY OPERATIONS ................................................................18

Peak Solutions Consulting Inc.

Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project: Socio-economic Implications

Base Case Scenario .................................................................................................................................................. 18

Project Scenario ........................................................................................................................................................ 18

Net Change ................................................................................................................................................................ 20

4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 24

MULTIPLE ACCOUNT SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................24

Balfour and Area Socio-Community Baseline ................................... 29

LABOUR FORCE ........................................................................................................................................................ 31

PRIVATE DWELLING COUNTS ............................................................................................................................. 32

Appendix C Detailed Survey Responses ..................................................................... 35

DETAILED RESPONSES TO QUESTION 9 ............................................................................................................35

Resident Survey Summary Responses................................................ 52

Peak Solutions Consulting Inc.

Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project: Socio-economic Implications

Peak Solutions Consulting Inc

Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project: Socio-economic Implications

Peak Solutions Consulting Inc

Balfour Ferry Terminal Relocation Project: Socio-economic Implications