2:------------· Brent Harley and Associates Inc. The ...€¦ · 2:-----· Brent Harley and Associates Inc. The Resort Plannjng Group BC E5243 D:C293 1999 c.3 Cayoosh Resort Feasibility

2:------------· Brent Harley and Associates Inc. The Resort Plannjng Group

BC E5243 D:C293 1999 c.3

Cayoosh Resort Feasibility Assessment

March 1, 1999

Prepared for: Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Project Committee Environmental Assessment Office 2- 836 Yates St. Victoria, BC V8W9Vl

201-1200 Alpha Lake Rd .. Whistler. B.C. Canada YON I B I• Phone (o04) 932-7002 • Fax (o04) 93R-IIol • [email protected]

nrlm~lllflliml~l~r~l,~llr 99-05936/

3 3298 00224 4912 Brent Harley and Associates Inc.

March 1, 1999

Mr. Raymond Crook Project Committee Chair Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Project Committee Envirorunental Assessment Office 2- 836 Yates St. Victoria, BC

The Resort Planning Group

Re: Refined Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Project Feasibility Assessment

Dear Mr. Crook:

As per your request, we have completed a review of the Cayoosh Resort Development Proposal submitted to the Environmental Assessment Office on November 7, 1996.

Our review commenced with a meeting and presentation by the Project Committee and a site visit on July 2, 1998. Subsequent to that date, the Evaluation Team methodically analyzed the Proponent's submission, testing a series of different development use and visitation scenarios. Based on meetings with the Project Committee in Victoria on July 27 and 31, 1998, we have made several refinements to respond to specific questions. Our overall conclusions remain that Cayoosh Resort, as proposed, has significant merit. Based on the information presented the project appears to be viable. With additional information and plan refinements, the Proponent should be encouraged to proceed.

The following report describes .our study process and conclusions.

In summary, there are eleven primary conclusions as follows:

1. The Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) of the proposed development ranges from 9,000 to 12,000 skiers per day.

2. We are confident that with refined planning, the terrain is capable of supporting approximately 12,000 skiers per day in a relatively well balanced fashion coinciding with the Proponents target market.

3. Corelating with the CCC, the number of acceptable Bed Units (BUs) ranges from 10,800 to 14,700.

4. We are confident that with detailed planning the site is capable of supporting up to 14,700 BUs coinciding with the range of proposed public, private and employee accommodation, integrated into the proposed development areas.

5. The proposed capital costs for all of the resort specific facilities appear to reflect current and realistic estimates.

201-1200 Alpha Lake Rd., Whistler, B.C. Canada VON IB 1 • Phone (604) 932-7002 • Fax (604) 938-1161 • [email protected]

6. The access road connecting the Resort to Duffey Lake Road is the most significant physical and capital cost constraint to the resort's development.

BHA

7. The access road is technically feasible, however, as recognized by the Proponent, the lower road construction will be difficult. The cost presented by the Proponent may be below actual construction cost.. Depending on the road standard and geotechnical stability requirements, costs could increase by as much as $10,000,000.00.

8. The cost of delivering sewage to the remote sewage disposal site at the junction of Melvin and Cayoosh Creeks has not been included. This cost could be in the order of $2,000,000.00 to $2,500,000.00. We recognize that it is the opinion of the Proponent's engineers that a suitable discharge site can be provided in the upper valley.

9. The review of the skier market in conjunction with the potential product that Cayoosh may offer, suggests that there should be sufficient support to achieve success through the first two phases of development, even if Garibaldi at Squamish comes on-line. However, it should be noted that if the resort was limited to the first two phases of its proposed growth, Cayoosh would fall short of its potential, in turn negatively impacting on the probability of long term success.

10. Subsequent to the first two phases of development, assuming that the physical potential of the site has been fully realized through well crafted design and development, further growth of the resort in terms of skier visits, will depend upon their ability to attract international destination clientele.

11. Although more detailed cash flow information is requested for the next level of Commercial Alpine Skiing Policy (CASP) submission, it appears that the resort can be economically viable providing that financial support or creative financing to pay for the access road is established.

Coinciding with these conclusions, we recommend that from the standpoint of project feasibility, the Proponent be offered the opportunity to proceed with the project. In order to facilitate the next step toward implementation and development, we recommend that the following refinements and additional information b~ provided.

1. Refine the Mountain Master Plan as per CASP, by phase, in an effort to: i) take into account all environmental impact considerations, as identified under the

Environmental Assessment (EA) process. ii) take into account the possible loss of terrain and lift locations due to goat habitat. iii) balance the downhill capacity of the skiing with the uphill capacity ofthe ski lifts

(the current plan appears to be over lifted and unbalanced).

2

BHA

iv) balance the distribution of the terrain development with the Proponent's skier skill class target market (the current plan offers significantly more expert skiing than required by the target market goals).

2. Develop a detailed Village and Residential Master Plan that coincides with the refined Mountain Master Plan.

3. Develop a detailed Summer Facilities Plan.

4. Locate the sewage treatment and sewage disposal field on the Site Plan and make comment about odor control.

5. Complete a geotechnical review of the proposed road construction to confirm the design requirements and the cost estimate.

6. In preparation ofthe mountain, village and residential plans for CASP approval, the proponent must consider the finding of the Environmental Assessment including mitigation plans and be sure that these requirements are appropriately incorporated into the Master Plans.

7. If and when an EA Certificate is issued, develop a detailed Financing Program for the access road (ie. arrangement with Transportation Financing Authority (TF A); creative funds generation such as a ski lift ticket surcharge; real estate development cost charges; etc.)

8. Taking into account all changes in the Master Plan and the resultant capital cost estimate refinements, complete a set of financial projections as per the CASP requirements that sequentially describe the resort's cashflow on an annual basis with a net present value calculation to verify the feasibility of the project.

I trust that this will be of assistance in your review process. If you have any questions, or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely, Brent Harley & Associates Inc.

e Harley B.E.S., BL.A., M.B.A. oent

3

-------------- Brent Harley and Associates Inc. The Resort Planning Group


March 1, 1999

Prepared for: Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Project Committee Environmental Assessment Office 2- 836 Yates St. Victoria, BC V8W9Vl

201-1200 Alpha Lake Rd .. Whistler, B.C. Canada YON IB I• Phone (604) 932-7002 • Fax (o04) 93S-1161 • [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

II. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 2 ILl Project Background and Documentation Review ................................................................ 2 II.2 Site Visit .............................................................................................................................. 2 II.3 Concept Analysis ................................................................................................................. 2 II.4 Engineering and Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 2 II.5 Market Issues and Financial Implications ............................................................................ 2 II.6 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................... 3

III. CONCEPT EVALUATION ................................................................................................ 4 III. I Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 III.2 Physical Analysis ................................................................................................................. 4

III.2.1 Site Visit ................................................................................................................ 4 III.2.2 Access .................................................................................................................... 4 III.2.3 Elevation ................................................................................................................ 4 III.2.4 Slopes ..................................................................................................................... 5 III.2.5 Climate and Snowpack .......................................................................................... 5 III.2.6 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 5 III.2.7 Avalanche .............................................................................................................. 6 III.2.8 Environmental Considerations ............................................................................... 6 III.2.9 Archaeology ........................................................................................................... 7 III.2.1 0 Summary ................................................................................................................ 7

III.3 Concept Analysis ................................................................................................................. 7 III. 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7 III.3.2 Ski Facility Layout. ................................................................................................ 8 III.3.3 Trail Classifications ............................................................................................... 9 III.3 .4 Terrain Capacity and Skill Class Distribution ..................................................... 10 III.3.5 Comfortable Carrying Capacity ........................................................................... 12 III.3.6 Base Village ......................................................................................................... 13 III.3.7 Overnight Accommodation .................................................................................. l5 III.3.8 Bed Unit Breakdown ............................................................................................ l5 III.3.9 Year Round Use ................................................................................................... 15 III.3.10 Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................... l6

IV. ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW .................................................. l7

V. MARKET ASSESSMENT AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ........................................... 28

Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Review March, 1999 5 Brent Harley and Associates Inc.

VI. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 51

LIST OF APPENDICES

1. Cayoosh Resort Trail Capacity Calculations .................................................................. A-1 2. Comfortable Carrying Capacity Calculations ............................................................... A-16 3. Calculation of Allowable Bed Units for a Destination Resort ...................................... A-21

i

. I Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Review March, 1999 6 Brent Harley and Associates Inc.

' I

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 19, 1998, Brent Harley and Associates Inc. (BHA) were retained by the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) to review the 1996 Development Proposal (and revisions) submitted by NGR Resort Consultants Inc. (the Proponent) for Cayoosh Resort, located at Melvin Creek, B.C.

The BHA Evaluation Team included key members of Brent Harley and Associates staff responsible for project management, site analysis, concept analysis, and input on market, financial and engineering considerations. In addition, Mr. Cam Anderson of C.J. Anderson Civil Engineers Inc. was retained to address the engineering and infrastructure review, and Mr. Brian Wills ofLynnpeaks Consulting Ltd. was retained to complete the marketing and financial review.

Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Review March, 1999 Brent Harley and Associates Inc.

II. METHODOLOGY

H.l Project Background and Documentation Review

All available information pertaining to the proposed Cayoosh Resort development was reviewed by the Evaluation Team. This was followed by a meeting and presentation by the Project Committee representatives and Proponent at the BHA office in Whistler on July 2nd, 1998. In attendance were Mr. Bill Irwin of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; Mr. Brent Harley, Ms. Melissa Laidlaw and Mr. Carson Harnm of Brent Harley and Associates; Mr. Cam Anderson ofC.J. Anderson Civil Engineers Inc.; and Mr. Brian Wills ofLynnpeaks Consulting Ltd. In addition, Mr. Ray Crook of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Mr. George McKay of the Ministry of Employment and Investment both participated in a conference call during the meeting. Mr. Al Raine ofNGR Resort Consultants Inc. joined the later part ofthe meeting to answer questions.

H.2 Site Visit

Following the meeting, Bill Irwin, Brent Harley, Melissa Laidlaw, Cam Anderson and Al Raine visited the site by helicopter for a first hand look at the study area.

11.3 Concept Analysis

Utilizing the provided topographic and delineated planimetric features of the proposed resort and study area, all aspects of the proposed development were analysed and compared. This included an evaluation of the acceptability of the proposed calculation of the Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) of the skiing; a comparison of the proposed development with the breakdown of the British Columbia skier market as well as the Proponent's target market; an evaluation of the base area I village space use requirements; an evaluation of the appropriate number and mix of bed units and; an assessment of the capital cost estimate. A direct comparison of these calculations was made with those of the Proponent. In addition, comment was made on environmental considerations and proposed summer use of the resort.

11.4 Engineering and Infrastructure

The proposed development was analysed in terms of road access, engineering and infrastructure requirements. The findings were compared with the Proponent's submission.

11.5 Market Issues and Financial Implications

The Proponent's market and financial information and assumptions were analysed, and obvious inconsistencies or inadequacies were identified.


11.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the various analyses, the following report describes the perceived viability and potential for success of Cayoosh Resort, with a list of prioritized recommendations.


III. CONCEPT EVALUATION

III.l Introduction

The concept analysis was completed utilizing all of the documentation submitted by the Proponent, augmented by the information gained during our meeting and site visit. Our review is initiated with a discussion of the physical analysis of the study area; followed by a comment on concept evaluation criteria; ending with the analysis of the proposed Cayoosh Resort development.

III.2. Physical Analysis

III.2.1 Site Visit

On July 2nd, 1998, Mr. AI Raine and select members of the evaluation team and Project Committee visited the site by helicopter. We landed on three high points and at two valley locations to view the site from different vantage points. Mr. Raine indicated where the lifts, valley development and access road would be located.

The site is extremely scenic, and has the potential to offer advanced, above tree line, powder skiing that is not available to the same extent at other resorts in British Columbia. The proposed skiing will radiate out from two village areas, enabling relatively easy circulation and 1 00% ski to/ski from accessible accommodation.

III.2.2 Access

The proposed access to the resort is via a 12 km road that will exit the Duffy Lake Road (Highway 99) approximately 225 km north of Vancouver; 1 05 km north of Whistler; 70 km northeast of Pemberton and; 50 km southwest of Lillooet. The access road will exit Highway 99 at the 1,000 metre elevation and climb 700 metres to the base villages of Cayoosh Resort at 1, 700 metres. It is physically possible to establish the road at Highway standards gradients, however, it will traverse steep slopes that are avalanche prone. The price of the road will prove to be significant in terms of the Resort's capital costs (see Section IV) and financial viability (see Section V).

III.2.3 Elevation

At 2,4 75 metres (8, 100 ft), the upper slope elevations at Cayoosh Resort will have the highest developed ski slopes in British Columbia. The proposed upper and lower villages will be at 1,700 metres and 1,550 metres respectively. This enables the creation of approximately 900 vertical metres of lift serviced ski terrain. Assuming that the snowpack at Cayoosh is reliable


throughout the ski season, this amount of skiing vertical would make Cayoosh one of the bigger resorts in B.C. As a comparison, Whistler and Blackcomb Mountains have vertical drops of 1,550 metres, however, the bottom third of each mountain are rain and weather affected at the beginning and end of each ski season, effectively reducing the usable vertical to approximately 900 metres.

We are in agreement with the Proponent's statement that Cayoosh Resort should offer fog free and dry interior snow conditions with significantly more sunshine hours than coastal areas as a result of its high elevation and location on the interior side of the coastal mountains. All of these features should prove to be valuable attributes of the resort.

111.2.4 Slopes

Based on the measurements of the topographic mapping and the Slope Analysis provided by the Proponent, it is readily apparent that the terrain is oriented towards the creation of a skiing product which caters to the advanced skier.

111.2.5 Climate and Snowpack

The study area's high elevation, on the edge of a coastal mountain rain shadow should prove to offer fog free, dry snow skiing conditions with significantly more sunshine hours than Whistler during the winter months.

In terms of snowpack, based on the information provided, the whole of the resort area should have reliable snow throughout the winter as a result of its high elevation and slope aspect. As a precaution, the proposed snowmaking to guarantee early and late season skiing is in line with national ski industry norms. The upper lake at the 2,225 metre elevation will be used as the water source.

As a safeguard against a bad snow season, the snowmaking concept should ultimately extend over any ski terrain that may have less than reliable snowpack. Such areas would be identified through practical experience on the site.

111.2.6 Vegetation

The alpine biogeoclimatic subzone ranges from approximately 1,950 metres to 2,350 metres and consists of rocky areas and alpine meadow. Below these elevations a mature sub-alpine forest comprises of alpine fir, engelmann spruce, lodgepole and whitebark pine, douglas fir and mountain hemlock. The ski lifts appear to be placed such that a variety of skiing opportunities exist, from high alpine open terrain, to sheltered tree skiing on poor visibility days.

Melvin Creek!Cayoosh Review March, 1999 5 Brent Harley and Associates Inc.

111.2. 7 Avalanche

The Avalanche Hazard Assessment prepared by Chris Stethem and Associates Ltd. appears to be very thorough. Except for the day skier surface parking associated with the upper village, the preliminary base area development is located outside of all avalanche affected areas. As indicated in their reports, it is recommended that further analysis be performed once more detailed base area planning is completed. ·

111.2.8 Environmental Considerations

An Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed Resort was completed by LGL Limited Environmental Research Association. Their study consists of a biophysical inventory of the Melvin Creek watershed, and an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed recreation development on the wildlife in the area with suggested methods to mitigate adverse impacts.

Detailed mitigating methods have been described for all potential impacts. In addition, it is recommended that further study be completed to assess in greater detail the impacts on the following:

• Their study indicates that there is potential for the proposed resort development to have significant impact on goats during the spring and summer periods. Additional studies should be completed during the planning stages to identify areas and periods of high sensitivity for goats and the precise timing of goat movements, especially spring movement away from winter ranges, and possible mitigating strategies evaluated.

Because it is indicated that forest species will be negatively affected by the loss of mature forests if the proposed resort is built, more detailed censuses of forest species should be completed prior to construction beginning.

A fisheries impact study completed by Arc Environmental Ltd. concluded that, based on the results of the preliminary overview there are no critical or limiting aquatic values associated with the Melvin Creek drainage that would restrict development activities.

The hydrology study completed by EBA Engineering Consultants concluded that Melvin Lake, augmented by Second Lake, are suitable as potable water sources in terms of quantity and quality, and; Upper Twin Lake has sufficient storage volume to meet snowmaking requirements.

It is important to note that there continues to be water quality issues that will need to be addressed as per the Environmental Assessment Project Report Specifications (Specs) Section D2.


111.2.9 Archaeology

An archaeological impact assessment was completed by Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd. They concluded that there were few historic sites relating to hunting and gathering. The one site of medium historic significance should be avoided for development or should this be impossible, a systematic data recovery program be initiated prior to the commencement of any land altering activities.

111.2.10 Summary

Assuming that all issues pertaining to environmental and archaeological impact can be resolved and mitigated, the physical analysis of the study area to support an alpine ski resort development appears to be very positive.

The resultant potential mix of high alpine open terrain, naturally gladed tree skiing and trail skiing offers a wide variety of skiing experiences not found elsewhere in B.C. Further, given various weather conditions that may impact on visibility, the diverse vegetative cover, and placement of the ski lifts will enable skiers to choose different areas of the mountain to ski.

111.3 Concept Analysis

111.3.1 Introduction

The concept analysis was conducted utilizing the April1998 Cayoosh Resort Feasibility Study report and a 1:10,000 scale plot of the June 1998 Conceptual Master Plan, with 5 metre contour intervals.

The Guidelines to Alpine Ski Area Development in British Columbia (the Guidelines) were utilized as the basis to evaluate the Proponent's submission. In addition, project specific considerations were taken into account. In particular, the Proponent has completed an in-depth and convincing review of the B.C. skier market which suggests that today's skier market has a greater percentage of advanced and expert skiers than the current breakdown indicated in the Guidelines. Utilizing this up to date information, we were able to make comparisons and delineate the implications.

Each trail was analysed individually to ensure that the trail classifications were consistent with the trail classifications in the Guidelines to Alpine Ski Development in B. C. (1996, III-4), using the steepest I 00 metre lineal section of trail as the indicator (taking into account the slope gradients at the beginning and end of this section for ease of grading and the width of the trail for ease of traversing steep sections).


Following the classification of the ski trails, a density value was placed on each trail to determine the total Downhill Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) of the proposed. Two values were used: the densities used by the Proponent; and the densities taken from the Guidelines (1996, III-10). The densities take into account all of the skiers on the mountain, including skiers on the trails, on the lifts, in the lift lines and in the on-mountain restaurants. The 'other' trails not taken into account by Proponent were included in the Downhill CCC calculations, but not the connector trails between terrain pods. The Downhill CCC calculations were then utilized to determine the capacity distribution of the proposed development by skier skill class. These were then compared to the Guidelines distribution and the Proponent's target market distribution, as indicated, in their application.

Utilizing the average vertical demand by skier skill class from the Guidelines (1996, III-12), in addition to the average vertical demand utilized by the Proponent, we determined the weighted vertical demand of the ski trails associated with each ski lift. From this, we calculated the uphill comfortable carrying capacity of the proposed development using our calculations for the vertical rise of each ski lift, and the Proponent's hours of operation, hourly capacity calculations, lift loading efficiencies and access reduction of each lift. The Uphill CCC values were compared to the Downhill CCC of the ski trails to determine the optimum number of skiers that can utilize the resort per day, while being guaranteed a pleasant recreational experience.

111.3.2 Ski Facility Layout

Generally, the proposed layout of the lift and trail system will offer a good variety of skiing experiences that should encourage visitors to come for return trips to the resort. Although the terrain is obviously of an advanced skiing nature, the layout caters to all skier classifications from beginner to expert. Overall, the layout is logical and efficient, however, we noted the following in our analysis of the ski terrain, lift design and trail design:

• The proposed skiway that enables ski trails 6A and 6B to be intermediate trails traverses very steep terrain and causes potentially dangerous intersections with ski trails 6C, 6D, 6E and 6F. These should be re-evaluated and avoided where possible.

Lift 9 is positioned with a mid-onload to offer glacier skiing during the spring and summer months. However, the July 2nd site visit revealed insufficient snow for skiing. In addition, the placement of Lift 9 is such that there is no escape route in the event of mechanical lift failure. The merits of this lift should be re-evaluated to verify the summer skiing viability through site specific snow studies. Further, an evacuation program should be formulated.

In Phase One of the mountain development, there is a weak connection between Lift 3


and the rest of the Phase One lifts: Although the intent to establish a diverse skiing product available for all weather conditions is valid, an effort to establish a tighter, more integrated Phase One layout is recommended.

111.3.3 Trail Classifications

Cayoosh Resort's ski trail distribution proposes seven skier skill classifications. To ensure consistencies with the Guidelines to Alpine Ski Development in B. C., we have converted the Proponent's trail classifications into six classifications as follows:

TABLE 1 Trail Classifications

Cayoosh Resort Equates Guidelines to Alpine Ski to: Development in B.C.

Skill Terrain Skill Terrain Classification Gradients Classification Gradients

Beginner 8- 15% Beginner 8-12%

Novice 15-25% Novice 12-25%

Low Int. 25-35% Low Int. 26-30%

Intermediate 30-40%

High Int. 35-45% Int. 31-40%

Advanced 45-60% Advanced Int. 41-50%

Expert 60+% Expert 50+%

In our analysis of the ski terrain, we noted that in some locations, the proposed ski trails at Cayoosh Resort have lower classification trails that are only accessed by higher classification trails. A low trail classification must remain consistent from the top of a lift to the bottom of a lift, and cannot suddenly change to a higher classification. In such cases, trails must take the higher classification.


III.3.4 Terrain Capacity and Skill Class Distribution

The Proponent's application indicates that, at buildout, the terrain capacity (Downhill CCC) of the development should be 12,400 skiers on a total area of 536.7 hectares, resulting in an average density of23.3 skiers per hectare (see Table 2).

TABLE2 Capacity Distribution Using Cayoosh Resort's Trail Classifications

Ability Level Skiable Downhill Distribution Cayoosh *BC Market Area CCC Target Distribution (Ha) Market

Distribution

Beginner 1.30 70 0.6% 3% 2-6% Novice 10.40 520 4.2% 10% 11-15% Low Intermediate 11.70 470 3.8% 10% 18-22% Intermediate 44.30 1,770 14.2% 20% High Intermediate 96.40 2,870 23.0% 20% 33-37% Advanced Intermediate 135.70 2,050 16.4% 20% 18-22% Expert 236.90 4,730 37.9% 17% 8-12% Totals 536.70 12,480 100% 100% 100% Average Density (skier/ha) 23.3

It must be noted that based on new research, Proponent's target market distribution is skewed beyond the range of the B.C. market distribution for intermediate and expert skier skill classes, and below for novice and low intermediate skier skill classes. The suggestion is that due to the distance that one would have to travel to arrive at Cayoosh Resort, advanced level skiers would be more willing to make the trip than novice and low intermediate skiers. In light of this, and combined with the rapid growth of snow boarding and shaped skis that encourage the use of steep terrain, we feel that the Proponent's argument has merit and is worthy of consideration in this evaluation.

However, when comparing the Proponent's resultant distribution to their target market, as illustrated, it is apparent that there is still an excess of expert skiers and insufficient terrain for beginner and novice skiers. The probability that Cayoosh's market will be made up of37.9% expert skiers is unlikely. As a result, there is a significant excess of expert skiers being accounted for in the Downhill CCC of the ski trails. If we accept the proposed target market as being achievable, then the more realistic number in terms of the capacity of skiing can be


approximated by normalizing the expert skier distribution to reflect the proposed target market of 17%. In doing so, the overall distribution shifts closer to the Proponent's proposed target market curve (see Table 3). This reduces the Downhill CCC to 9,350 skiers/day. As well, the resultant average density of24.5 skiers/day is closer to Proponent's optimum density of26.5 skiers/day. This means that the resort does not have to provide as much expert terrain as is proposed to meet the demands of their target market.

TABLE3 Capacity Distribution Using Cayoosh Resort's Trail Classifications Normalized

Ability Level Skiable Downhill Distribution Cayoosh *BC Market Area CCC Target Distribution (Ha) Market

Distribution

Beginner 1.30 70 0.6% 3% 2-6% Novice 10.40 520 5.6% 10% 11-15% Low Intermediate 11.70 470 5.0% 10% 18-22% Intermediate 44.30 1,770 19.0% 20% High Intermediate 96.40 2,870 30.7% 20% 33-37% Advanced Intermediate 135.70 2,050 22.0% 20% 18-22% Expert 79.30 1,586 17.0% 17% 8-12% Totals 379.10 9,336 100% 100% 100% Average Density (skier/ha) 24.6

Utilizing the trail classifications from the Guidelines, if we normalize the expert skier distribution to reflect Cayoosh Resort's target market of 17%, the overall distribution more closely reflects the proposed target market curve, with a slight excess of intermediate ski terrain. As such, the reduced Downhill CCC ranges between 8,600 skiers/day using densities from the Guidelines, up to 9,200 skiers/day using Proponent's densities (see Table 4). These Downhill CCC values are very close to Proponent's normalized Downhill CCC value of9,350 skiers/day as indicated in Table 3 above.


TABLE4 Capacity Distribution Using the Guideline's Trail Classifications Normalized

Normalized Normalized Normalize Normalized Cayoosh

Downhill Distribution Downhill Distribution Ability Level CCC using using CCC usin using

Target *BC Marke Marl•et Distribution

Guidelines Guidelines Cayoosh Cayoosh Distributio

Densities Densities Densities Densities

Beginner 72 1% 66 1% 3% 2-6%

Novice 468 5% 520 6% 10% 11- 15%

Low Intermediate 571 7% 652 7% 10% 18-22%

Intermediate 3,799 44% 4,558 50% 40% 33-37%

Advanced Intermediate 2,191 26% 1,878 20% 20% 18-22%

Expert 1,462 17% 1,524 17% 17% 8-12%

Totals 8,563 100% 9,199 100% 100% 100%

Average Density ( skiers/ha) 19.0 24.1

The Cayoosh Resort Feasibility Study states that the "resort concept is for a high quality mountain destination resort with low skier densities" (1998, 4 ). It should be noted that the density values utilized from the Guidelines represent densities accepted by the destination market (see Appendix A).

111.3.5 Comfortable Carrying Capacity

In their Uphill Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) calculation, the Proponent utilized vertical demand levels that are approximately one-third higher than the typical 'high' industry standards. This was based on research completed by their mountain planning consultants at Whistler/

Blackcomb. Because Cayoosh Resort is located approximately 1.5 hours from Whistler/ Blackcomb, it is anticipated that it will attract a similar visitor profile.

In our analysis ofthe Uphill CCC of the proposed development, we have utilized the Proponent's vertical demand levels as well as the 'high' industry standards for vertical demand levels from the Guidelines as indicated in Appendix A.

To calculate the Uphill CCC of the proposed development, we utilized our calculations for the vertical rise of each ski lift and the Proponent's calculations for the hourly capacity, lift loading efficiencies, hours of operation and access reduction of each lift (see Appendix B). Including the Proponent's proposed Uphill CCC, we produced six CCC scenarios utilizing the Guidelines and the Proponent's densities combined with the Guidelines and the Proponent's vertical demands (see Table 5). As indicated, the Uphill CCC of the proposed development ranges from 12,000 to 16,000 skiers/day.


TABLES Comfortable Carrying Capacity Comparison

Normalized Uphill CCC Uphill CCC Downhill Downhill (Cayoosh VTM (Guidelines

CCC CCC Demand) VTMDemand)

Cayoosh 1998 12,500 9,350 11,550 13,000

BHA1998 (Guidelines Densities) 10,000 8,600 11,800 15,600

BHA1998 (Cayoosh Densities) 13,400 9,200 12,800 17,000

Average 12,000 9,000 12,000 16,000

When comparing the Uphill CCC with the normalized Downhill CCC, it appears that the CCC ranges between 9,000 and 12,000 skiers/day. At a well balanced ski area, the Uphill CCC should be in balance with the Downhill CCC. We are confident that with refined planning, the terrain is capable of supporting approximately 12,000 skiers per day in a relatively well balanced fashion coinciding with the Proponent's target market.

III.3.6 Base Village

Two base villages are proposed at Cayoosh Resort, one at the 1,550 metre (5,100 ft) elevation, and another at 1,700 metres (5,500 ft). The upper village will feature tourist accommodation and resort attractions, and will have a commercial pedestrian oriented core, amenity spaces and underground parking. The smaller, lower village will consist of smaller inns, pensions and limited tourist commercial shops. Residential lands, including employee housing, are located adjacent to both villages. Day skier surface parking lots are located in both villages, with tourist overnight parking occurring underground. In total, the base area development will be built on 72 hectares ofland.

Based on our site visit and a review of the slope analysis it is evident that the flattest lands have been chosen for development. Although detailed design has not been completed, the base area development pods occurs on lands with slopes between 0% and 45%, with the lower density residential development lands occurring on the steepest slopes and the commercial core lands and parking occurring on the flattest slopes.


Except for the day skier surface parking in the Upper Village, all of the base lands development appears to avoid the avalanche sites indicated by Chris Stethem and Associates. The surface parking occurs near the toe of the run out zone for avalanche site B 1. Although this parking location is not preferred, it may be possible that structural control could be used to modify the runout characteristics of this particular avalanche site. Further investigation should be conducted by avalanche experts as per the Specs, Section C.2.

The proposed densities of the base area development are reasonable. At 79 units/hectare (32 units/acre), the density of the commercial core accommodation is consistent with that of Phase I of Whistler Village. At 34 units/hectare (14 units/acre) the density of the residential lands is primarily multi-family and some single family development.

A total of 14,011 m2 of skier service space has been proposed. Specifically related to the operation and management of the ski area, this space includes food service seating, kitchen, bar/lounge, washrooms, retail sales, administration, ticket sales, public lockers, equipment rental and repair, ski school, guest services, daycare, employee facilities, first aid, ski patrol and storage/mechanical. The allocation of the skier service space seems logical. The resultant 1.21 m2 of skier service space/skier reflects the following characteristics specific to Cayoosh Resort:

• The 100% ski to/ski from accommodation allows skiers easy access to their chalets/hotel rooms throughout the day. This somewhat reduces demands on restaurant and washroom space.

The central location of the village and the excellent snow conditions allow easy skier circulation in and out of the village throughout the day. This permits the village restaurants to double as skier services, thereby reducing the requirement for on-mountain restaurants.

These considerations result in a lower space I skier requirement than what might be needed at a destination resort without these characteristics.

Utilizing the CCC range of9,000 to 12,000 skiers, the total amount of skier service space ranges between 10,900 m2 and 14,500 m2

• Cayoosh Resorts proposed 14,011 m2 of skier service space is within this range.

Overall, the base area development seems logical and applicable to Cayoosh Resort, however, further detailed design will have to be presented in the next level of submissions.


111.3. 7 Overnight Accommodation

The Proponent has performed a detailed bed unit calculation for Cayoosh Resort that utilizes logical assumptions and results in a total of 14,186 bed units. Utilizing the CCC range of 9,000 to 12,000 skiers, and applying the Proponent's bed unit calculation assumptions, the result equates to a range of 11,000 to 14,700 bed units.

In addition, we have compared the Proponent's bed unit calculation with the Bed Unit Calculation Model from the Guidelines to Alpine Ski Area Development in BC (1996, V.2-1). Using this model, the results indicate that the allowable bed units range from 10,800 to 14,400 bed units (see Appendix C). This is marginally lower than the bed unit count calculated utilizing the Proponent's bed unit calculation assumptions.

111.3.8 Bed Unit Breakdown

Typically, a destination resort should have a bed unit ratio breakdown that approximates 40% to 60% public beds, 30% to 50% private beds, and 10% to 20% employee beds. Cayoosh Resort's proposed 20% employee beds is reasonable due to the distance of the Resort from the nearest towns of Pemberton (70 m) and Lillooet (50 km).

The Proponent has not provided a breakdown of the remaining public and private beds at the Resort. This information should be provided in the next level of CASP submissions.

111.3.9 Year Round Use

The Cayoosh application states that Cayoosh Resort is a mountain tourism project, with the winter attraction being snow sports and the summer attraction being the alpine scenery that supports sightseeing, hiking, walking, biking, as well as village sports such as tennis, golf and swimming. Although detailed planning has been completed for the winter use of skiing and snowboarding, there is no detailed information on the shoulder season and summer uses of the Resort.

A nine hole golf course in indicated in the plans. Although the golf course is located on a south aspect slope, it is located at a very high elevation (between 1,650 and 1,725 metres) and is crossed by ski trails. With snowmaking, the Proponent estimates that the ski season will operate between late October/early November to late May. This results in a very short season for golf, given the fact that the course will require considerable maintenance before it can open.

It should be noted that the exact length of the ski season may be impacted on by the goat kidding season. This will have to be researched further as per the Specs Section D3.


The high elevation of the Village ( 1, 700 m) allows for the creation of a unique high elevation alpine resort development in B.C. However, a full range of summer and shoulder season recreation programming will be necessary to draw sufficient tourists to fill the various accommodations.

III.3.10 Cost Estimates

A review ofthe resort facility capital cost estimates found that the majority of required components were listed and priced at values that we agree with. The notable exceptions are the access road; the sewage system; and the ski trail clearing, grading and revegetation. The access road appears to be underestimated and the sewage piping system has not been fully accounted for (see Section IV). The ski trail costs appear to be underestimated. The Proponent's consultant lists them as $6,000.00 per hectare. As a point of comparison Whistler/Blackcomb uses a minimum of $17,000.00 per hectare. The final figure will depend on site specific revenues for timber recovery.

These differences will have to be reevaluated in greater detail as the resultant values may play a significant role in the financial viability of the resort.


IV. ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW


CJ ANDERS.ON CIVIL. ENGINEERING INC.

To: Brent Harley, Brent Harley & Associates

cc:

From: Cam Anderson, P.Eng.

Date: August, 1998

2295 Mathers Avenue West Vancouver BC V7V 2H4 Tel:604-922-7503 Fax:604-922-3931 Email: [email protected]

Re: Engineering and Infrastructure Review - Cayoosh Resort, Mervin Creek, BC

This report reviews the information received from NGR Resort Consultants Inc. (NGR) regarding the proposed access road, water supply system, sewage treatment and disposal system, and power supply including the preliminary construction cost analysis.

The information originally received in the project binders was very preliminary and it was not possible to provide much in the way of comments on this material. Subsequent to the meeting on July 2nd with AI Raine ofNGR, CJ Anderson Civil Engineering Inc. (CJA) received the following additional updated information:

• NGR response to Environmental Assessment Comments dated April6, 1997, April23, 1997, May 8, 1997, and May 12, 1997;

• Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL) Road Access Comments dated July 22, 1997

• KWL 1 :2000 road plan outlining the proposed road alignment complete with switch backs, bridge crossings, drainage courses, and avalanche hazard zones, a road profile showing proposed road grades, and cross-sections at 20 metre intervals showing proposed schematic slope treatment. CJA also received an updated feasibility level road construction cost estimate.

• Slope analysis mapping prepared by McElhanney and Associates;

• EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. (EBA) Evaluation of Potential In-ground Secondary Effluent Disposal Areas dated July 29,1997;

lrifi'astructure Design and Inspection Engineers

• • o o o o o • o o o o o o o e o o o a o o o o o o o •

CAYOOSH RESORT

• EBA Hydrogeological Assessment dated March 1998;

• Section IV f) Resort Infrastructure and the Volume 2 responses ofthe Project Report Specifications prepared by Urban Systems, and

• Replacement binder Tables VI.l and VI.2 on pages VI -7 and VI -8 with current infrastructure cost information.

As is to be expected, the road access is one of the most critical construction items to the feasibility of the resort and detailed engineering has proceeded further on this item than for the water supply, sewage disposal, and electrical power supply items.

CJA has reviewed all ofthe above information and is of the opinion that sufficient engineering has generally been completed to date to show it is technically feasible to provide suitable road access, water supply, water distribution, sewage collection, sewage disposal, and electrical power supply for the resort.

We notice the documents are in a continual updating process as the project proceeds through the review process and some coordination is required, particularly with respect to updating the cost information to match the currently proposed infrastructure.

Our comments are as follows:

A. ROADS

ACCESS ROAD

CJA has reviewed the information received and has the following comments.

I concur with NGR's and KWL's assessment that approximately the first seven kilometers of the access road is very challenging.

It is challenging due to:

• the large elevation difference to be accommodated requiring steep road grades combined with switch backs;

• the high cliffs and associated rock talus slopes impact the horizontal alignment and will require significant rock cuts, suitable rock catchment ditches, talus slope overexcavation , slope stabilization or other geotechnical mitigation measures not only for road construction but for long term maintenance;

CJ ANDERSON CIVIL ENGINEERING INC. 2

CAYOOSH RESORT

• the requirement to provide suitable protection for the avalanche paths that the road must traverse; and

• the actual costs associated with road construction that will have a large impact on the feasibility of the resort.

While not all the details have been resolved, in my opinion, the information provided to date indicates the access road concept is generally designed to a reasonable standard and is technically possible. This is provided the Ministry of Transportation and Highways does not require an overall 80 km/hr design speed and allows sections ofroad with slopes of up to 12% to accommodate the various site constraints. In CJA's opinion the proposed road design concept is reasonable subject to resolution of outstanding items during the CASP stage of the process.

KWL has provided updated " Most Optimistic" preliminary cost estimates for road construction. CJA has reviewed the recent KWL cost estimates in relation to the design information provided and has the following comments:

• In CJA's opinion, the estimated percentage ofrock excavation versus soil excavation is low and the cross-sections in the lower section of the access road only show a minimal uphill ditch. Based on past experience, it is anticipated that the uphill ditch will need to be significantly wider and deeper to accommodate the potential for rock fall catchment;

• The volumes of cut and fill across the talus slope appear to only include minimal amounts of overexcavation, if any, and CJA anticipates more cut and fill including higher retaining walls will be required to meet anticipated geotechnical slope stability requirements;

• No allowance appears to have been made for any potential rock slope scaling and/or stabilization within the construction zone and above the rock talus slope area;

• While avalanche protection is indicated to be provided at Paths 1.5 and 1.8, it is not clear that the raised road across these sections will be sufficient protection and no separate allowance for avalanche protection has been included in the cost estimates;


CAYOOSH RESORT

• In CJA's opinion, the contingency allowance shown at 10% is quite low for a project of this complexity at this stage particularly if it includes all the engineering fees. CJA recommends a minimum allowance of 15% be included.

The KWL "most optimistic" cost estimate for the road construction is approximately $ 21.2M.

It may be possible to obtain construction efficiencies to obtain the KWL estimated prices due to the scale of the project. However, CJA is concerned that the construction efficiencies may not be available at this particular site to achieve the unit costs presented. CJA is also concerned that the actual extent of work required will increase beyond what is indicated in the estimates particularly with respect to:

• providing geotechnical improvements regarding road foundation and downslope stability requirements in the rock talus area; and

• providing rock slope stability in areas with high rock embankments including scaling, rock bolts, and/or netting.

In CJA's opinion, the access road is technically feasible, however as recognized by NGR's project team, road construction will be difficult. The costs presented by NGR may be below actual construction costs. Depending on the road standard and geotechnical requirements actual road construction costs could reasonably reach $30M to $40M including all engineering and contingencies. We understand that Ainsworth Lumber is currently constructing a part of the lower 4 kilometers of road that will cover some of the road construction cost.

With the Ainsworth contribution, the KWL estimate may be sufficient to complete the remaining road construction.

VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION

Traffic information presented in the April6, 1997 NGR response to the Ministry of Environment deals with average and peak daily Highway 99 traffic both north and south of the Cayoosh Resort access road. CJA generally agrees with the information provided, however, no information is provided on directional peak hour traffic patterns on the Cayoosh Road.

It is our understanding that NGR has proposed that 3 single lane bridges be installed, at least in the early stages of the project. Reviewing the suggested travel patterns it is CJA's opinion there could be some significant conflicts on the single lane bridges at certain peak hours that simply yield signs will not accommodated adequately.


CAYOOSH RESORT

At a meeting with NGR on January 7, 1999, it was agreed that single lane bridges are reasonable provided the peak hour traffic patterns are monitored and manual traffic management provided as required.

BRIDGES AND DRAINAGE CULVERTS

As stated above CJAA recommends NGR that the single lane bridge traffic be monitored during peak hours and manual traffic management be provided as required.

CJA recommends that NGR consider constructing 2lane bridges at the outset

We have had recent experience with relatively economical design/build steel girder 2 lane bridges complete with precast concrete panel abutments and a concrete deck at an estimated cost of approximately $350,000 each. This cost is conservative as it is for a span of approximately 32 metres and is as long or longer than the bridge lengths indicated on the plan drawing. These bridges have a typical design life of a minimum of25 years.

The drawings indicate there will be approximately 21 drainage crossings ofthe road.

The KWL estimate includes an allowance of approximately $1. 7M for bridges and drainage culverts. In our opinion, this budget is sufficient for three 2 lane bridges plus the culvert installations.

B. WATER

WATER SUPPLY & STORAGE

I generally concur with Urban Systems reports on the Melvin Lake and Second Lake supply capabilities and quality. They are high quality sources and have, or can be made to have, adequate supply volumes for the domestic, fire, and irrigation supply sources with the construction of a small dam on Melvin Lake.

However, I have the followin~ comments:

• Water conservation is important and CJA supports the desirable design usage rate of an average of 225 L/day for overnight visitors and resident employees and an average of 40 L/day for day visitors and non-resident employees. However, it is CJA's opinion that Urban System's original report did not clearly delineate how these numbers were obtained. Subsequent to our September 9111 report, Urban Systems provided suitable clarification in their memo to NGR dated October 7, 1998. CJA recommends that this clarification be added to the NGR report.


CAYOOSH RESORT

• No mention is made of any irrigation uses throughout the Village areas that will occur and are not associated with the golf course irrigation and that may become significant towards build out.

• The Urban Systems report.only talks about domestic water storage volumes. No mention is made of required fire storage volumes other than a brief comment that the system will be designed in accordance with the Fire Underwriter's Survey publication "Water Supply for Public Fire Protection" and that sprinklers will be provided for all buildings. CJA recommends that the clarification paragraph relating to fire storage volumes presented in Urban System's October 7, 1998 memo be added to the NGR report.

• No information has been provided that will allow CJA to check the required storage volume calculations, however, in CJA's opinion, the value of approximately 60,000 m3 of required additional storage and the resulting required approximately 1 metre high dam may be marginally low based on the comments noted above. It is CJA's opinion that it is technically feasible to provide the actual storage volume required and the details regarding the exact dam height requirement can be addressed further at the time of actual permitting with changes made then, if required;

• I disagree with the statement that all of the water diverted from Melvin Lake will be returned to either the Melvin Creek or Cayoosh Creek drainage systems. There will be some small percentage of consumptive uses that are not returned. There will only be a "no net loss" to the Melvin/Cayoosh systems if snow making is used which is supplied by the Haylmore drainage system;

• The unit rates presented in the Eco-sign project binder 1998 replacement page cost estimate Tables VI.1 and VI.2 still reflect 1991 KWL pricing and CJA estimates some are low by a minimum of 15% based on similar actual construction projects in Whistler. The cost estimates should be coordinated and updated to 1998 construction costs.

WATER TREATMENT

The water disinfection treatment as proposed for the resort as indicated in the project binders was for ultraviolet radiation. No secondary disinfection was indicated.

As noted in the subsequent Urban Systems reports, this method may be acceptable as an emerging technology for primary disinfection, but it does not provide the required secondary disinfection.


CAYOOSH RESORT

Urban Systems is now proposing to provide required primary and secondary disinfection. The actual methods have not yet been chosen, however, Urban Systems are recommending a system utilizing the Multiple Oxidants (MIOX) technology.

CJA supports this choice of technology.

The 1998 cost estimates provided in the project binder replacement tables don't reflect the currently proposed treatment methodology and still refer to the 1991 KWL cost estimates. The Eco-Sign Tables VI.1 and VI.2 cost estimates should be coordinated and updated to 1998 construction costs.

C. SEWER

SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT

CJA has reviewed the proposed sewage collection, treatment, and disposal methodology and is in general" agreement with the recommendations.

We have the following comments:

• CJA has the same comments on the estimated sewage flows as CJA did for the estimated domestic water demands in that the numbers presented may be somewhat low as they may not account for all uses.

• CJA generally supports the sewage collection, treatment, and disposal methodology proposed for the resort. This consists of: a conventional gravity sewage collection system; sewage treatment flow equalization basins; and a minimum of secondary mechanical-type sewage treatment complete with inground and/or snow making effluent disposal.

• The proposed method of in-ground disposal has now changed from the conventional tile field approach as outlined in the project binders to rapid infiltration via a series of basins. The cost estimates should be adjusted to reflect these changes.

• EBA Engineering has stated they found a potential technically suitable area for rapid infiltration in-ground disposal approximately 1.5 km east of the Upper Village in the resort area. CJA has viewed this site and agree that it may warrant further investigation.

However, this site is only approximately 200 to 300 metres west of the Lower Village area. In addition, the location of the proposed sewage treatment plant is not identified.


CAYOOSH RESORT

CJA is concerned about the potential for negative impacts due to odours on visitors arriving at the Village and to adjacent residential areas from the sewage facilites.

It is CJA's opinion that sewage facility sites may conflict with the adjacent residential land use proposed on the Master Plan, unless adequate odour control is installed.

CJA recommends the land use designation ofthe Master Plan's Lower Village area be reviewed in conjunction with the sewage treatment and disposal requirements.

• CJA recommends that all the proposed sewage treatment and disposal facilities be located on the Master Plan so that any potential land use conflicts can be resolved by NGR and others.

• As noted by EBA, Urban Systems, and NGR, tertiary treatment including phosphorus removal may be required in order to meet all the site constraints. The cost of any treatment beyond the secondary level has not been included in the cost estimates presented in the project binders.

• EBA has found an alternate sewage disposal site on the colluvial fan of Melvin Creek at the confluence with Cayoosh Creeks. This site would be less susceptible to odour control constraints.

It should be noted that the cost of constructing an approximately 10.5 km pipeline from the Village to this alt~rnate site has not been included in the cost estimates. CJA estimates that the cost of this effluent trunk sewer would cost in the order of a minimum of $2M to $2.5M. CJA recognizes that EBA and NGR still consider the disposal site of choice is in the upper valley and this lower site may not be required.

EBA's March 1998 hydrogeological report indicates that the fan slopes from approximately 20% at the apex to 10% near the toe with 3 terraces on the west side of the fan. While EBA has noted the regulatory requirement that the proposed basins not cause soil instability, their report is silent on soil stability resulting from the effluent application. Instead it outlines that rip-rap armour will need to be provided to protect the disposal area from debris flows and outflows of Melvin Creek.

The fully detailed investigations and resulting selection of the sewage treatment equipment including detailed design of the disposal area can be deferred until the


CAYOOSH RESORT

penmttmg process. However, due to the relatively steep fan slope, EBA should include a general statement at this time regarding their opinion on the general short term and long term geotechnical stability and mitigation measures required to the fan, if any, due to the application of the proposed effluent volumes.

D. STORM DRAINAGE

CJA concurs that there will not be any off site storm drainage systems required. Storm drainage infrastructure will be constructed as part of the Village and residential development.

DESIGN CRITERIA

CJA has reviewed Urban Systems proposed Stormwater and Drainage design criteria as outlined in March 1998 Resort Infrastructure document.

The information presented represents typical standards and requirements. CJA supports the proposed design criteria for all items including:

• preparation of a Drainage Master Plan;

• intercepting uphill drainage from above the development areas and re-directing it around the development

• major and minor system sizing and routing;

• Department of Fisheries and Oceans requirements including;

• leave areas;

• erosion and sediment control;

• in-stream work; and

• construction management.

E. ELECTRICALPOWERSUPPLY

CJA concurs with the KWL statements that connecting to the BC Hydro power grid may be onerous during the start up phases of the project as there will be insufficient usage and resulting revenue to recover the large capital expenditure over the required 4 year time frame.


CAYOOSH RESORT

Therefore, the proposed initial power supply system is for on-site power during the early stages of the resort using waste heat recovery to heat the public buildings. Subsequent to submittal of our original September 9th report, NGR advised that eh fuel for the power system will be either propane or LNG not diesel as outlined in the project binders.

The power generation facility has not been shown on the Master Plan and CJA recommends that this item be located and shown so that any land use conflicts can be resolved.

At a meeting with NGR on January 71h, 1999, NGR advised that the resort may not

switch to the BC Hydro supplied power due to the high cost of the BC Hydro connection changes.

F. CONCLUSIONS

It is CJA's opinion that all the information presented to date indicates that the required infrastructure to service the resort is technically feasible and the proposal should be allowed to proceed to the next level.

As is typically the case, there are details of the infrastructure which are not yet confirmed and/or finalized at this stage ofthe project. These details would normally be dealt with after preliminary approval of a project is received and during the actual permitting process. This approach is reasonable.

The cost estimates presented in the project binders are based on 1991 pricing and have not been updated to match the current proposed water and sewage treatment facilities and 1998 construction costs. CJA estimates the infrastructure cost estimates may be generally low by an estimated 15%. CJA has not seen any cost estimates for the more recently proposed Urban System infrastructure program.

It is CJA's opinion that the road construction costs presented may be low by approximately 30% or more. This item is critical to the proforma ofthe project and it is our recommendation that the geotechnical engineering constraints and mitigation measures required for the proposed KWL road access route design be fully investigated at the CASP stage of the approval process.


V. MARKET ASSESSMENT AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS


Executive Summary - Review of the Market Assessment and Financial Analysis

The following is a review of the market and financial analysis of the Cayoosh Resort Project Application submitted under the Environmental Assessment process.

The Cayoosh Resort Market Assessment submitted on April 1998 is a comprehensive market assessment. The analysis correctly identifies the potential markets for Cayoosh including:

1. Day skier visits in the local area

2. Permanent and weekend skiers living in Whistler

3. Whistler destination skiers

4. Destination skier visits at the Cayoosh Resort

The Cayoosh Resort will not be able to access the Vancouver day skier market due to the driving time of approximately 3-112 hours. The Cayoosh Resort will, however, be able to access the day skier market out of Whistler and destination skiers staying in Whistler.

The market analysis estimates that there will be demand for the Cayoosh Resort. However, the skier visit projections contained in the market analysis assume growth rates that are not realistic compared to the performance of resort areas in British Columbia. The skier visit projection contained in the Cayoosh Resort Market Assessment assumes 543,316 skier visits at the end often years or an average increase of 54,000 skier visits per year or an annual compound growth rate of 26%. A revised projection suggests the potential skier visits at Cayoosh Resort may range from between 325,000-395,000 skier visits at the end of the ten year period.

Factors to take into account in projecting skier visits.

1. Cayoosh will offer outstanding snow conditions.

2. Cayoosh has wide open above tree line skiing that is unique and not offered at the Whistler Resort to the same degree.

3. Cayoosh has approximately 54% more hours of sunshine and clear weather compared to Whistler.

4. Cayoosh is accessible to the major population centre of Vancouver and the Vancouver Airport and is within 1-112 hours driving distance of the Number one ski resort in North America.

The positive factors above suggest that Cayoosh will offer outstanding skiing particularly for the more advanced skier.

Lynnpeaks Consulting Ltd.

Cayoosh Resort should produce superior results to the Sun Peaks Resort in the first five years of development primarily due to the closeness of Cayoosh to the Whistler Resort. Cayoosh Resort will offer a more exciting skiing experience for the advanced and expert skiers compared to Sun Peaks.

The Cayoosh Resort will not compete in the same skier market as the proposed Brohm Ridge project. Brohm Ridge will access primarily the Vancouver rubber tire skier market while Cayoosh will access the cabin/condo market out of Whistler and the international destination market. The Cayoosh Resort and the Garibaldi at Squamish proposals need to be considered separately on their merits, as there is little or no overlap in the skier markets for these two resorts.

The Cayoosh resort will initially capture a portion of the market to Whistler potentially reducing skier visit levels at Whistler. However as the reputation of Cayoosh grows, the Cayoosh Resort will attract international destination skiers to both resorts thus creating a larger market for the Whistler Resort.·

The market analysis submitted by the proponent meets the terms and conditions as defined by the project specifications for the Environmental Assessment process. The EA process requires the project meet the Commercial Alpine Ski Policy "Formal Proposal Review" that states the formal proposal contain a formal market study. The deficiencies in the information provided are minor and can be easily addressed in the next phase of the approval process under the Commercial Alpine Ski Policy. The deficiencies include:

)> No significant discussion on the potential for summer and shoulder season business at the Cayoosh Resort.

)> The market analysis contains limited discussion on lift ticket pricing and how Cayoosh would fit into the competitive market mix.

The skier visit forecast as noted in the body of the report is overly optimistic but does not materially impact on the feasibility of the project. The proponent recognizes and accepts that the current skier visit forecast may be optimistic and this will be taken into account in future calculations.

The capital budget is consistent with current capital costs expended for ski operations in BC Mountain resorts. The Phase I capital costs are $31.8 million and the Phase II capital costs an additional $16.3 million. The capital budget presented in the application does not include any of the accommodation units or real estate development for the proposed resort.

The break-even financial analysis meets the minimum requirement for the Environmental Assessment process but provides limited insight into the detailed financial feasibility of the project will be required to submit detailed financial projections prior to approval of the Master Plan under the Commercial Alpine Ski Policy.

Lynnpeaks Consulting Ltd. 2

The following information was not supplied with the application and should be submitted prior to the approval of the Master Plan:

1. An income statement projection for the ten year projection period.

2. An estimate of revenues from the sale of real estate lands by the proponent.

3. A cash flow statement or statement of sources and uses of funds.

4. The financing structure or indication of the anticipated debt/equity balance.

5. Rates of return or the net present value of the proposed project.

The break-even calculations provided in the proponents application appear unrealistic given the current operating performance of BC ski areas. A new resort such as Cayoosh will incur higher operating costs in the first several years. The suggestion that the breakeven levels presented in the financial plan are not realistic does not suggest that the resort is not feasible but merely challenges the assumptions behind the break-even analysis.

To assess the financial feasibility of the Cayoosh Resort, potential risks to the investors should be identified and are presented as follows:

1. Cayoosh is an unproven ski area and would be the first ski area constructed in an untouched mountain valley in over 20 years.

2. There are high up front capital costs including power, roads, sewer and supporting structures.

3. The up front capital costs must be expended several years before significant cash flow is generated. ·

4. Market demand for Cayoosh is unproven and concerns exist due to the distance from major markets.

Prior to start of construction, the financial feasibility of Cayoosh Resort will be severely tested by both investors and lenders prior to the commitment of funding for this project.

The Cayoosh Resort at the conceptual level of the Environmental Assessment process is financially feasible recognizing the challenges and risks of a new ski resort. The Cayoosh Resort with an expected skier visit level of between 300,000 and 400,000 skier visits passes the test ofbeing an economically sustainable ski area.

A major impact on the financial feasibility of the Cayoosh Resort will be the revenues received from the sale of real estate development land. There is no information in the application on the potential for revenues from this source.

The Cayoosh Resort appears to be an economically sustainable venture based upon the information supplied in the application. The applicant has met the minimum requirements under the Environmental Assessment process to determine the financial


feasibility of the project. Detailed cashflows need to be submitted with the final project report.

The potential economic benefits to the Province of British Columbia as noted in the economic impact study exceed the potential returns to the proponent or to the investors. Assuming there are limited environmental costs to the project, the Province of British Columbia and its residents have the most to gain economically from a project of this nature compared to possible returns to the applicant and associated investors.

NGR Resorts Consultants Inc. has sufficient expertise in the development of ski areas to qualify as a proponent. The proof of committed financing and performance bonding of the construction process will occur prior to construction and provides adequate safeguards to the landowner.


Cayoosh Resort

Review of the Market Assessment and Financial Analysis

A. Introduction

The following is a review of the market and financial analysis of the Cayoosh Resort Project Application submitted under the Environmental Assessment process. There were three primary purposes to this review:

1. To identify if there were any areas in the application that were incomplete or inadequate relative to the requirements of the project application process.

2. Determine if the market analysis presented was consistent with current market trends and the competitive position of resorts in the market area.

3. To determine if the financial information presented was consistent with the current operating results of comparable resorts adjusted for time factors.

The review was to identify whether there were any obvious inconsistencies or "leaps of faith" in the application. A conclusion is presented on whether the information included in the application is sufficient on which to make a decision to proceed to the next step in the approval process.

The review is based upon:

1. The proponents initial application submitted in 1991 and subsequent updates.

2. The recent market analysis prepared by Lee and Associates in April1998.

3. The recent update of the financial analysis section by Ecosign Mountain Planners dated April1998.

4. Discussions with the proponent Mr. Al Raine.

5. Discussions with Brent Harley and Associates Inc.

6. Discussions with the Review Committee including Bill Irwin, George McKay and Ray Crook.


B. Review of the Market Assessment

1. Completeness of the Market Assessment

The Cayoosh Resort Market Assessment submitted in April 1998 is a comprehensive market assessment. The analysis contains a discussion on US ski markets, the BC ski industry, the Vancouver ski market, the market for the Whistler Resort and general ski and tourism trends. The report contains an estimate of the skier demand for the Cayoosh Resort.

The analysis correctly identifies the potential markets for Cayoosh including:

>- Day skier visits in the local area

> Permanent and weekend skiers living in Whistler

> Whistler destination skiers

> Destination skier visits at the Cayoosh Resort

The Cayoosh Resort will not be able to access the Vancouver day skier market due to the driving time of approximately 3-1/2 hours. The Cayoosh Resort will, however, be able to access the day skier market out of Whistler and destination skiers staying in Whistler. The Whistler market will produce an initial demand for the Cayoosh Resort as identified in the market analysis.

The market analysis does not contain certain information that would be of value in assessing the potential market for the Cayoosh Resort. These include:

a) No significant discussion on the potential for summer and shoulder season business at the Cayoosh Resort. One potential concern for the Cayoosh Resort is a lack of demand for shoulder season business for the accommodation units. Whistler has been particularly successful in maintaining high levels of visitor activity during the critical months of May, October and November that often result in low levels of occupancy for accommodation units.

The market assessment should address the potential market segments and visitor origins for the summer and shoulder seasons. The visitor volume projections should result in occupancy projections for the accommodation at the resort. The potential for summer/shoulder season visitors and resulting revenues and expenses were not taken into account in the break -even analysis in the financial section. The Cayoosh Resort contains extensive high alpine meadows that offer a potentially unique experience to the destination tourist not easily available at the Whistler Resort.


b) The market analysis contains limited discussion on lift ticket pricing and how Cayoosh would fit into the competitive market mix. We anticipate Cayoosh would initially have to be priced similar to the Okanagan ski areas such as Sun Peaks and if successful would move towards the price levels of Whistler and Blackcomb. The price assumptions used in the financial analysis section appear reasonable but further explanation would be useful.

2. Evaluation of the Market Conclusion

The market analysis estimates that there will be demand for the Cayoosh Resort. However, the skier visit projections contained in the market analysis assume growth rates that are not realistic compared to the performance of resort areas in British Columbia. The skier visit projection contained in the Cayoosh Resort Market Assessment assumes 543,316 skier visits at the end of ten years or an average increase of 54,000 skier visits per year or an annual compound growth rate of 26%. An increase of this magnitude appears to be unrealistic compared to the performance of other BC ski resorts.

The Whistler ski resort by comparison has increased approximately 70,000 skier visits per year over the last ten years at an average annual compound growth rate of 5%. By comparison, ski resorts in the Okanagan have increased an average of approximately 35,000 skier visits per year between the four Okanagan ski areas.

The Cayoosh Resort may reach the projected level of 185,937 skier visits at the end of the third year due to the strength of the potential market from the Whistler Resort. A likely range of skier visits at the end of three years would be 120,000-180,000 skier visits. The upper end of this range represents approximately 10% of the current 1.83 million skier visits at the Whistler Resort. Destination skiers at the Whistler Resort could ski at day at the Cayoosh Resort or several days depending upon the trip itinerary. Many cabin and condominium owners in Whistler would likely ski a portion of their winter skier days at the Cayoosh Resort due to the potential for improved weather and snow conditions at Cayoosh.

However, once the Cayoosh Resort reaches 180,000-200,000 skier visits, future potential increases will need to come from capturing the destination skier market. An increase on an annual basis of approximately 20,000-30,000 skier visits is a more reasonable approach than the 53,000 skier visits in the skier visit projection. This suggests the potential skier visits at Cayoosh Resort may range from between 325,000- 395,000 skier visits at the end of the ten year period. We recommend the proponent reconsider the skier visit forecast and utilize a revised forecast for future detailed financial projections and planning for the real estate development. Presented on Exhibit I is a graphical representation of a simple revised skier visit projection using the logic discussed above. A more detailed revision should be prepared based upon the detailed market assumptions by the proponent.


A revised skier visit forecast of between 300,000-400,000 skier visits at the end of ten years, however, does not jeopardize the financial feasibility or economic justification for the project. A further discussion of this issue will be contained in the financial analysis section of this report.

Exhibit I Revised Skier Visit projection

600,000

-+-- Original -I!!- Revised

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3. Comparison to Other Ski Resorts

In order to compare the projected skier visits of the Cayoosh Resort to other existing ski resorts we must first examine factors to take into account in projecting skier visits.

Positive factors

1. Cayoosh will offer outstanding snow conditions.

2. Cayoosh has wide open above tree line skiing that is unique and not offered at the Whistler Resort to the same degree.

3. Cayoosh has approximately 54% more hours of sunshine and clear weather compared to Whistler.


4. Cayoosh is accessible to the major population centre of Vancouver and the Vancouver Airport and is within 1-1/2 hours driving distance of the Number one ski resort in North America.

The positive factors above suggest that Cayoosh will offer outstanding skiing particularly for the more advanced skier.

Negative factors

1. Cayoosh Resort is 3-1/2 hours from Vancouver placing it outside of the day market.

2. Cayoosh Resort will be accessible through the Duffy Lake Road and an access road to the mountain that may encounter difficult driving conditions on certain days in the winter.

Comparison to Other BC Destination Resorts

Presented on Exhibit II are the estimated results for major BC Destination ski resorts for the 1997/98 winter season. Cayoosh will need to become one of the top ski resorts in BC to meet the skier visit projection.

Exhibit II Estimated Skier Visits for the 1997/98 Season

Sun Peaks Whistler/Blackcomb Big White Silver Star

Comparison to Sun Peaks

Skier Visits 163,000

1,830,000 462,000 191,000

Cayoosh can be compared to the performance of Sun Peaks that has been in development for approximately five years. The Cayoosh!Sun Peaks comparison is useful as they both are competing for the Vancouver skier and the Destination skier but at a distance from Vancouver. Sun Peaks is competing primarily in the destination market with a small local market out of Kamloops. Sun Peaks achieved a skier visit level of 163,000 for 1997/98 season and averaged approximately 130,000 skier visits for the previous three years.

Cayoosh Resort should produce superior results to the Sun Peaks Resort in the first five years of development primarily due to the closeness of Cayoosh to the Whistler Resort. Cayoosh Resort will offer a more exciting skiing experience for the advanced and expert skiers compared to Sun Peaks. Sun Peaks offers a quality ski


experience for the "bell curve skier". Cayoosh Resort has the potential to offer steep and deep powder snow skiing in open bowls that is not available at the other ski resorts of British Columbia.

Comparison to the Proposed Brohm Ridge Ski Resort (Garibaldi at Squamish)

The Cayoosh Resort will not compete in the same skier market as the proposed Brohm Ridge project for several reasons:

1. The Brohm Ridge Project is close to Vancouver and will compete strongly in the Vancouver day skier market.

2. The ski experience at Cayoosh Resort will be significantly different to Brohm Ridge due to the difference in weather conditions. Brohm Ridge has a mild climate with heavy snow compared to the high alpine dry snow conditions at the Cayoosh Resort.

3. Brohm Ridge does not have the destination skier appeal of Cayoosh and will obtain a small portion of the international destination skier markets.

The Cayoosh Resort and the Garibaldi at Squamish proposals need to be considered separately on their merits, as there is little or no overlap in the skier markets for these two resorts. However the two resorts will to a limited degree compete in the resort real estate market. The real estate product at the two resorts will likely be different however there may be a ripple effect combined with the real estate market at Whistler. The market assessment for Cayoosh suggests a large potential market for resort real estate, however the experience at Whistler demonstrates there are limits to the number units that can be absorbed in any year. At the present time excess supply and overpricing has slowed the real estate market at Whistler dramatically.

Comparison to the Whistler Resort

The Cayoosh Resort at full build out will be smaller than the Whistler Resort. The comfortable carrying capacity of Cayoosh at approximately 11,550 skiers per day is significantly less than the 27,000 skiers per day at Whistler. The maximum bed units at Cayoosh of 14,186 bed units is significantly lower than the current 46,000 bed units at Whistler. The two resorts will offer a very different resort experience to the destination market.

The Cayoosh resort will initially capture a portion of the market to Whistler potentially reducing skier visit levels at Whistler. However as the reputation of Cayoosh grows, the Cayoosh Resort will attract international destination skier~ to both resorts thus creating a larger market for the Whistler Resort. The two resorts


will likely enjoy a synergistic competitive positive and could share in joint marketing to long haul markets.

Effect of Changing Markets

Whistler has become an international destination ski resort as demonstrated by the hotel market origin data on Exhibit III. Cayoosh will participate in similar international destination markets.

Exhibit III Origin of Overnight Visitors to Whistler -1996/97

British Columbia Rest of Canada United States United Kingdom Germany Other Europe Japan Other international

Summer 1996 % 49.8 12.0 28.9 4.7 1.2

.9 1.9 .6

100.0

Winter 1996/97 % 31.2 12.1 25.9

9.8 1.8 .6

15.1 3.5

100.0

Over the last two seasons there has been a significant reduction in the number of Japanese visitors causing concern regarding the demand from international markets. However the drop in Japanese visits has been replaced by an large increase in visitors from the United Kingdom and Germany accompanied by an increase in U. S. visitors.

The future market mix for the mature Cayoosh resort is not possible to predict five to ten years from now. The market mix in the future may be significantly different from today due to changing global economies and currency markets. BC's market share is small compared to the size of these international markets. The growth of British Columbia's share in the international destination skier market will continue if resorts are developed that appeal to the international destination skier market. The volatility of the destination skier market represents a risk factor for Cayoosh. All other destination skier oriented resorts are subject to the same risk.

Lynnpeaks Consulting Ltd. II

5. Evaluation of the Market Assessment - Conclusions

The market analysis submitted by the proponent meets the terms and conditions as defined by the project specifications for the Environmental Assessment process. The EA process requires the project meet the Commercial Alpine Ski Policy "Formal Proposal Review" that states the formal proposal contain a formal market study. The deficiencies in the information provided are minor and can be easily addressed in the next phase of the approval process under the Commercial Alpine Ski Policy. The deficiencies include:

1. No significant discussion on the potential for summer and shoulder season business at the Cayoosh Resort.

2. The market analysis contains limited discussion on lift ticket pricing and how Cayoosh would fit into the competitive market mix.

The skier visit forecast as noted is overly optimistic but does not materially impact the feasibility of the project. The proponent recognizes and accepts that the current skier visit forecast may be optimistic and this will be taken into account in future calculations.


C. Financial Feasibility

1. Completeness of the Financial Feasibility Section

Capital Cost Estimate

The proponent has included a section in the application that contains a detailed capital budget and a break-even analysis.

The capital budget is consistent with current capital costs expended for ski operations in BC Mountain resorts. The Phase I capital costs are $31.8 million and the Phase II capital costs an additional $16.3 million. The financial plan compares the expected cost capacity ratio for the Cayoosh Resort of $7,194 per unit of skiing carrying capacity to the current cost per capacity ratio of $5,600 for Sun Peaks. The lower cost of Sun Peaks is being attributed to the existing road access and power service to the site plus a portion of the infrastructure was already obtained as part of the purchase.

The capital budget presented in the application does not include any of the accommodation units or real estate development for the proposed resort. However, included in the socioeconomic analysis in binder 2 of the application is an estimate of the total construction value of the Cayoosh Resort and estimates a total of $598 million for the ten year build up period.

Break-Even Analysis

A break-even analysis is presented in the financial plan section and includes estimates for revenue per skier visit and supporting margins for ski school, food and beverage, retail, rental, accommodations and miscellaneous categories.

The above financial analysis meets the minimum requirement for the Environmental Assessment process but provides limited insight into the detailed financial feasibility of the project. The proponent has met the initial requirement for a break-even calculation but has not provided detailed financial projections that are required prior to approval of the Master Plan. The following information was not supplied with the application.

1. An income statement projection for the ten year projection period.

2. An estimate of revenues from the sale of real estate lands by the proponent.

3. A cash flow statement or statement of sources and uses of funds.

4. The financing structure or indication of the anticipated debt/equity balance.


5. Rates of return or the net present value ofthe proposed project.

The previous five information requirements are not an absolute requirement at this step under the Environmental Assessment process as understood by the applicant. The financial schedules will be provided under the Commercial Alpine Ski Policy leading to the final approval of the project.

2. Evaluation of the Break-Even Analysis

Break-even calculations presented in the financial plan by the applicant provide the following results:

Option lA Option lB Option2A Option2B

(Skier Visits) (Skier Visits) (Skier Visits) (Skier Visits)

Cash Operating Break-Even 45,455 45,455 74,888 74,888

Operating Break-Even 133,478 131,005 202,843 200,468

Economic Break-Even 237,034 231,651 353,378 348,209

~ Cash Operating Break-Even occurs at 45,455 skier visits

~ Operating Break-Even point is reached at 133,478 skier visits, and

The definitions of the three levels ofbreak-even are:

a) Cash Operating Break-Even - the volume required to meet annual cash operating expenses except depreciation. Principal payback and interest are not operating expenses.

b) Operating Break-Even- the volume required to meet annual operating expenses plus depreciation.

c) Economic Break-Even- the volume required to meet all operating and capital expenses, including the cost of capital.

The break-even analysis assumes that 25% or $4.6 million of the projected total cost for the road of $19.4 million is supported by the ski area operations.


The proponent provided four scenarios for the break-even calculations:

Option 1A - Assumes 25% of the road costs and 10% of the infrastructure costs(water, sewer, electrical and natural gas) is covered by ski area operations. The daily skier carrying capacity is 4,300 skiers per day.

Option 1B - Assumes 25% of the road costs and none of the infrastructure costs(water, sewer, electrical and natural gas) is covered by ski area operations. The daily skier carrying capacity is 4,300 skiers per day.

Option 2A - Assumes 25% of the road costs and 1 0% of the infrastructure costs(water, sewer, electrical and natural gas) is covered by ski area operations. The daily skier carrying capacity is 7,330 skiers per day.

Option 2B - Assumes 25% of the road costs and none of the infrastructure costs(water, sewer, electrical and natural gas) is covered by ski area operations. The daily skier carrying capacity is 7,330 skiers per day.

The above break-even calculations provided in the proponents application appear unrealistic given the current operating performance of BC ski areas. Currently in British Columbia, ski resorts require a minimum of 75,000-90,000 skier visits to cover cash operating costs in ski resorts such as Mount Seymour, Red Mountain and Apex Mountain Resort. The cash operating break-even point of 45,455 skier visits in Option lA is unrealistic and likely not achievable. A new resort such as Cayoosh will incur higher operating costs in the first several years similar to those being incurred at Sun Peaks and the cash operating break-even level will likely be higher than suggested in the report. The concern regarding the break -even calculations does not change the overall conclusion of a positive feasibility for the project but does identify potential cashflow weaknesses in the first 3 years of operations that will only be resolved when the proponent submits a detailed cashflow.


A revised break-even analysis was prepared utilizing assumptions that reflect current conditions in BC ski resorts. The revised economic break-even calculation utilized the following assumptions:

1. Revenue Assumptions - The revenue assumptions were identical to those used in the proponent's application with a total revenue per skier visit of$41.08.

2. Fixed Expenses- An estimate of $1.2 million was used to cover general & administrative costs, property insurance and property taxes consistent with the 1996/97 CWSSA economic analysis.

3. Semi-Variable Expenses- An estimate of 32% of revenue was used for this category consistent with the 1996/97 CWSSA economic. analysis for BC ski areas. Semi-variable expenses include salaries and wages for ski lift, ticket sales, slope grooming, maintenance, ski patrol, and visitor services plus the balance of energy costs, supplies, etc. Our assumption of semi-variable costs relating directly to revenue does over state costs as skier visits rise but is more accurate than the formula used by the proponent that significantly understates the semi-variable expenses.

4. Variable Expenses - An assumption of 3% of revenue was used to cover the cost of liability insurance, sales tax and land use fees.

5. Marketing expenses - An assumption of 10% of revenue was used consistent with the proponent's application.

6. Depreciation- Costs were based upon 20 year straight line depreciation with a 15% salvage value. A 20 year time period was used compared to the 10 year period in the proponent's application due to the longer life expectancy of the resort assets and in particular the lift systems.

7. Cost of Capital- A 13% cost of capital was used based upon a weighted average calculation of 60% equity with a 15% rate of return and 40% debt at an 8% interest rate. The proponent's equity rate of 10% is not realistic given the high risks for a ski area investor.

All other assumptions used in the revised break-even analysis are consistent with the proponent's calculations. The results of the revised economic. break -even analysis suggest the following results:

>- Cash Operating Break-Even occurs at 73,000 skier visits.

>- Operating Break-Even occurs at 118,000 skier visits.

>- Economic Break-Even occurs at 320,000 skier visits.


The results of the revised economic break-even for Phase I are graphically represented on Exhibit III.

Exhibit III Results of the revised Break-Even Analysis

$30,000,000

$25,000,000 --Revenue --tr-Fixed """'*"- Snowmaking """'*""-Semi-Variable

$20,000,000 --+--Variable -!-Market

~ Ul 0 0

Q) $15,000,000 ;:::l

t:: Q) ;> Q)

~

$10,000,000

$5,000,000

$-70,950 141,900 212,850 283,800 354,750 425,700 496,650 567,600 638,550 709,500

The results of the revised economic break-even analysis suggest the Cayoosh resort is financially feasible using the simplistic approach of a break-even model. The revised break-even model suggests several important observations:

1. Revenues from real estate sales will be required to provide cashflow to meet the demands of lenders and investors to support the financing of ski operations. A detailed income analysis and cashflow analysis will be required to confirm this observation.

2. Phase 2 will be required to meet the skier visits levels necessary to achieve economic break-even.

3. A major challenge for this resort will be to obtain financing due to the high initial capital costs and the lack of cashflows available to support debt financing in the initial years of the project.


A detailed financial feasibility calculation using projected income statements and sources and uses of cash should be requested of the proponent prior to final approval of the project under the CASP process.

The suggestion that the break -even levels presented in the financial plan are not realistic does not suggest that the resort is not feasible but merely challenges the assumptions behind the break-even analysis. The proponent's application defines a feasible ski resort as achieving a skier visit level between the operating break-even and the economic break-even. This suggests a feasible resort will produce an operating profit but may not produce a satisfactory return to investors and lenders. The same test of feasibility was applied in this report to the proponent's application.

3. Evaluation of the Financial Feasibility of the Project.

Financial Risks for the Cayoosh Resort

To assess the financial feasibility of the Cayoosh Resort, potential risks to the investors should be identified and are presented as follows.

The business risks include:

1. Cayoosh is an unproven ski area and would be the first ski area constructed in an untouched mountain valley in over 20 years.

2. There are high up front capital costs including power, roads, sewer and supporting structures.

3. The up front capital costs must be expended several years before significant cash flow is generated.

4. Market demand for Cayoosh is unproven and concerns exist due to the distance from major markets.

The financial characteristics of Cayoosh include:

1. This is a long-term major capital investment with cash flow returns occurring during the later phases of the project.

2. Cash flow returns occur over a long-term period.

3. A major commitment of equity is required as major lending institutions view ski resorts cautiously and likely will commit no more than 50% or less of the total project cost.

Prior to start of construction, the financial feasibility of Cayoosh Resort will be severely tested by both investors and lenders prior to the commitment of funding for this project.


Financial History of BC Ski Resorts

The Environmental Assessment process needs to be concerned with the financial feasibility and economic sustainability of the project over along period of time. Virtually every ski area in British Columbia with the exception of Whistler Mountain Ski Corporation has incurred severe financial difficulties during the lifetime of the ski area. Successful resorts including Big White and Grouse Mountain have been placed into receivership and Blackcomb Mountain experienced severe financial difficulties during the early years of the mountain. The useful life expectancy of a modem ski lift is 15-20 years and upgrades and modifications can extend the life to 30-40 years.

The financial feasibility has to be put into the context of the financial challenges in developing a new ski area.

Two levels of financial feasibility can be defined:

1. Financial feasibility based upon an acceptable rate of return and level of risk for the equity holders and lenders to the project. This could be termed the "Bankers" level of financial feasibility. There is insufficient information contained in the application to evaluate the Cayoosh Resort at this level of financial feasibility.

A significant number of BC ski areas would struggle to pass the "Bankers" feasibility test. The Economic Analysis for the 1996/97 Season for BC ski areas reports an operating profit on gross fixed assets on 9.6% and a profit on equity of8.9%.

2. The economic sustainability of ski resorts in British Columbia can be defined by whether the resort continues to grow and develop in spite of changes of ownership and reaches a level that it can operate successfully and produce positive financial results. Resorts with skier visit levels below 100,000 skier visits would not necessarily meet this criteria of economic sustainability. Resorts in this category, risk having obsolete equipment that could result in the eventual tear down and end of downhill skiing at these locations. There are several ski resorts in British Columbia that at the present time would fit this category. Resorts with skier visit levels below 100,000 skier visits play an important role as feeder areas to larger resorts and provide winter recreation to BC residents. Often the smaller ski resorts continue because of strong local community support and government support.

The Cayoosh Resort at the conceptual level of the Environmental Assessment process is financially feasible recognizing the challenges and risks of a new ski resort. The Cayoosh Resort with an expected skier visit level of between 300,000 and 400,000 skier visits passes the second test of being an economically sustainable ski area. However, due to the financial challenges and cash flow demands of a new


resort, the Cayoosh Resort may or may not pass the first test of "Bankers" financial feasibility.

A major impact on the financial feasibility of the Cayoosh Resort will be the revenues received from the sale of real estate development land. There is no information in the application on the potential for revenues from this source. However, the Cayoosh lands would generate dollars per buildable sq. foot of between $20-$40 or more based upon the current sales in Whistler and the Okanagan ski resorts. Assuming an average unit size of 600 sq. feet and average unit sales of 200 per year, this translates into approximately $2.4 to $4.8 million of revenue per year to the ski area. The expectation of this level of revenue must be tempered by the risk and cycles within the real estate industry and reduced by the costs associated with providing land to developers.

Based upon the above analysis and the financial plan presented, suggests that the Cayoosh Resort will be financially feasible based upon a total capital cost of $47.2 million. The break-even analysis does not account for potential revenues from the sale of real estate. However, the resort would likely produce insufficient cash flow given the risk in real estate revenues and associated costs to provide adequate cash flow for the funding of 100% ofthe expected road costs. More detailed calculations need to be performed to confirm this observation. Confirmation of this observation would require a detailed sources and uses of cash statement plus an estimate of the revenue from real estate sales.

4. Evaluation of the Financial Feasibility - Conclusions

The Cayoosh Resort appears to be an economically sustainable venture based upon the information supplied in the application. Detailed financial feasibility calculations and information should be requested as part of the Commercial Alpine Ski Policy process prior to construction of the project.

The applicant has met the minimum requirements under the Environmental Assessment to determine financial feasibility of the project. Confirmation of the road costs and the financing plan for the road are an essential components of financial feasibility of this projc;ct. The proponent has assumed that it will support 25% of the current road costs from the operation of the ski resort. Included in this report is a revised estimate for the construction costs of the road and this should be incorporated in any discussion on the economic feasibility of the project.

The major concern of the Environmental Assessment process should be to ensure that the project is economically sustainable over a long period of time and secondly that the proponent has the financial capability to see through the construction phase and complete the resort. Further discussion on financial capability and financial requirements is included in the next section of this report.


The potential economic benefits to the Province of British Columbia of a successful destination ski area are large and are detailed in the socioeconomic report in binder 2 of the application. The economic benefits listed below are based upon the skier visit projection of 543,000 skier visits at the end of ten years that may be optimistic as discussed in the market assessment section. Applying a more conservative approach of approximately 395,000 skier visits by the end of year 10 would proportionality reduce the benefits below by approximately 30%. The economic benefits would still remain substantial after this adjustment. A few of the highlights include:

)> Generates an estimated $1.1 Billion balance of payment effects over the first 10 years of the project.

)> Creates 4,056 person-years of direct, indirect and induced employment annually by year 10 of the project.

)> Generates $1.7 Billion in destination skier related expenditures over the first 10 years of the project.

)> Creates 6,437 man-years of direct, indirect and induced construction related employment.

)> Produces in excess of $543 million in construction and operating payroll income( after-tax) over the 10 year build out period.

The potential economic benefits to the Province of British Columbia as noted in the economic impact study exceed the potential returns to the proponent or to the investors.

Assuming there are limited environmental costs to the project, the Province of British Columbia and its residents have the. most to gain economically from a project of this nature compared to possible returns to the applicant and associated investors. This point of view ignores any environmental impacts or other potential land use conflicts that may need to be taken into account to assess the overall desirability of the project.


D. Financial Capability of the Proponent

NGR Resort Consultants Inc. (NGR) represent the proponent, a company wholly owned by Nancy Greene and Al Raine. At the present time NGR is the applicant and no other major investors are involved in supporting the proposal.

AI Raine has an outstanding reputation in the development of ski resorts in British Columbia and made a major contribution to the success of the Whistler Resort. AI Raine has been a successful real estate developer in ski resorts and created the Nancy Greene Lodge in Whistler and the Cahilty Lodge at Sun Peaks. At the present time the financial capability of the proponent is based upon his experience in ski resorts in British Columbia and his personal financial resources.

The Cayoosh Resort is a proposal for a ski area in an unproven area for downhill skiing. At the present time it would not be feasible to arrange financing for the project before obtaining project approval under the Environmental Assessment process. A requirement to provide proof of financing at this time would result in failure of the project. A level of government commitment and support from the approval process needs to be provided to obtain equity and lender commitments.

Contained in the Interim Agreement for the Cayoosh Resort in Appendix E is a timetable that outlines when the approval of financing will occur prior to construction. The Interim Agreement ensures the proponent provides proof of financing prior to the start of construction. The proponent is allowed three years after the signing of the Master Development Agreement to obtain financing for the ski development

Ski resorts in British Columbia have changed significantly since the early development years that occurred in the 1970s. No major new ski resort has been constructed in British Columbia in an untouched mountain area for at least 20 years. The majority of successful ski areas today, including Sun Peaks, Whistler and Big White all started as small capacity ski areas that grew and expanded over time. Initial investment in these ski areas was relatively small compared to the major infrastructure and approval process that is required today. The expectation that the proponent should provide proof of funding at the project application stage is not realistic.

N GR Resorts Consultants Inc. has sufficient expertise in the development of ski areas to qualify as a proponent. The proof of committed financing and performance bonding of the construction process should occur prior to construction and provides adequate safeguards to the landowner.

Financial Capability of the Proponent - Conclusion

NGR Resorts Consultants Inc. have demonstrated sufficient expertise and knowledge and the ability to finance significant projects in ski resorts that they should be qualified to proceed forward in the Environmental Assessment process.


V. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the submission by N GR Resort Consultants Inc. it is the opinion of Brent Harley and Associates Inc. that with refinements, the conceptual plans to develop Cayoosh Resort appear to be logistically and economically viable. In summary, there are eleven primary conclusions as follows:

1. The Comfortable Carrying Capacity (CCC) of the proposed development ranges from 9,000 to 12,000 skiers per day.

2. We are confident that with refined planning, the terrain is capable of supporting approximately 12,000 skiers per day in a relatively well balanced fashion coinciding with the Proponent's target market.

3. Corelating with the CCC, the number of acceptable Bed Units (BUs) ranges from 10,800 to 14,700.

4. We are confident that with detailed planning the site is capable of supporting up to 14,700 BUs coinciding with the range of proposed public, private and employee accommodation, integrated into the proposed development areas.

5. The proposed capital costs for all of the resort specific facilities appear to reflect current and realistic estimates.

6. The access road connecting the Resort to Duffey Lake Road is the most significant physical and capital cost constraint to the resort's development.

7. The access road is technically feasible, however, as recognized by the Proponent, the lower road construction will be difficult. The cost presented by the Proponent may be below actual construction cost. Depending on the road standard and geotechnical stability requirements, costs could increase by as much as $10,000,000.00.

8. The cost of delivering sewage to the remote sewage disposal site at the junction of Melvin and Cayoosh Creeks has not been included. This cost could be in the order of $2,000,000.00 to $2,500,000.00. We recognize that it is the opinion of the Proponent's engineers that a suitable discharge site can be provided in the upper valley.

9. The review ofthe skier market in conjunction with the potential product that Cayoosh may offer, suggests that there should be sufficient support to achieve success through the first two phases of development, even if Garibaldi at Squamish comes on-line. However, it should be noted that if the resort was limited to the first two phases of its proposed growth, Cayoosh would fall short of its potential, in tum negatively impacting on the

Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Review August, 1998 51 Brent Harley and Associates, Inc.

probability of long term success.

10. Subsequent to the first two phases of development, assuming that the physical potential of the site has been fully realized through well crafted design and development, further growth of the resort, in terms of skier visits, will depend upon the ability to attract international destination clientele.

11. Although more detailed cash flow information is requested for the next level of Commercial Alpine Skiing Policy (CASP) submission, it appears that the resort can be economically viable providing that financial support or creative financing to pay for the access road is established.

Coinciding with these conclusions, we recommend that from the standpoint of project feasibility, the Proponent be offered the opportunity to proceed with the project. In order to facilitate the next step toward implementation and development, we recommend that the following refinements and additional information be provided.

1. Refine the Mountain Master Plan as per CASP, by phase, in an effort to: i) take into account all environmental impact considerations, as identified under the

Environmental Assessment (EA) process ii) take into account the possible loss of terrain and lift locations due to goat habitat. iii) balance the downhill capacity of the skiing with the uphill capacity of the ski lifts

(the current plan appears to be over lifted and unbalanced). iv) balance the distribution of the terrain development with the Proponent's skier skill

class target market (the current plan offers significantly more expert skiing than required by the target market goals).

2. Develop a detailed Village and Residential Master Plan that coincides with the refined Mountain Master Plan.

3. Develop a detailed Summer Facilities Plan.

4. Locate the sewage treatment and sewage disposal field on the Site Plan and make comment about odor control.

5. Complete a geotechnical review of the proposed road construction to confirm the design requirements and the cost estimate.

6. In preparation of the mountain, village and residential plans for CASP approval, the proponent must consider the finding of the Environmental Assessment including mitigation plans and be sure that these requirements are appropriately incorporated into the Master Plans.


7. If and when an EA Certificate is issued, develop a detailed Financing Program for the access road (ie. arrangement with Transportation Financing Authority (TFA); creative funds generation such as a ski lift ticket surcharge; real estate development cost charges; etc.)

8. Taking into account all changes in the Master Plan and the resultant capital cost estimate refinements, complete a set of financial projections as per the CASP requirements that sequentially describe the resort's cashflow on an annual basis with a net present value calculation to verify the feasibility of the project.


APPENDIX A Cayoosh Resort Trail Capacity Calculations

Melvin Creek/Cayoosh Review August, 1998 A-1 Brent Harley and Associates Inc.


LIFTO Proposed Trail Specifications

Run Top Bottom Vertical Horiz. Slope Average Ave. Max. Ability

Number Elev. Elev. Drop Length Length Width Area Grade Grade Level

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (Ha) (%) (%) Comments OA 1,720 1,693 27 375 376 35 1.32 7 7 Beginner

0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR 0 0 0.00 ERR

Totals 376 1.32

Run Ave. Max. Vertical Slope Average Beginner Novice Low Int. Int. Adv. Int. Expert

Number Grade Grade Drop Length Width Area Open Open Open Open Open Glade Open Glade Ski Trail

(%) (%) (m) (m) (m) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) Capacity OA 7 7 27 376 35 1.32 1.32

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

TOTAL SKIABLE AREA 1.32 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

USING BHA DENSITIES SKIER DENSITY I HECTARE 55 45 35 25 17.5 9 10 1\IAX. SKIERS ON SLOPE BY SKILL RATING 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 72

% OF MAX. SKIERS 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

BHA AVERAGE DAILY VERTICAL 750 1,500 2,250 3,000 5,500 5,500 7,500 7,500

BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DAY) 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750

CAYOOSH AVERAGE DAILY VERTICAL 940 2,120 2,825 5,085 5,935 5,935 8,475 8,475

CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DAY) 940 0 0 0 0 0 0 940

USING CAYOOSH DENSITIES SKIER DENSITY I HECTARE 50 50 40 30 15 7.5 20 10

MAX. SKIERS ON SLOPE BY SKILL RATING 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66

% OF MAX. SKIERS 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DA Y) 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DAY) 940 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 940

Produced by: Brent Harley & Associates Inc., 22-July-98


LIFT 1 Proposed Trail Specifications

Run Top Bottom Vertical Jloriz. Slope Average Ave. Max. Ability


{m) {m) {m) {m) {m) {m) (Ha) {%) {%) Comments

lA 2,070 1,720 350 1,200 1,250 62 7.75 29 42 Int

lB 2,070 1,875 195 400 445 49 2.18 49 45 Int

lC 1,950 \,780 \70 500 528 47 2.48 34 40 In!

lD 2,070 1,693 377 1,450 1,498 45 6.74 26 40 Low Int.

lE 1,920 1,735 185 500 533 50 2.67 37 45 Int.

lF 2,025 1,825 200 600 632 47 2.97 33 55 Adv. Int.

lG 2,070 1,720 350 1,400 1,443 44 6.35 25 40 Int.

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

Totals 6,330 3l.l4

Run Ave. Max. Vertical Slope Average Beginner Novice Low In! Int. Adv. Int. Expert


{%) {%) {m) {m) {m) (Ha) (Ha) {Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) {Ha) Capacity

lA 29 42 350 1,250 62 7.75 7.75

lB 49 45 195 445 49 2.18 2.18

lC 34 40 170 528 47 2.48 2.48

lD 26 40 377 1,498 45 6.74 6.74

lE 37 45 185 533 so 2.67 2.67

lF 33 55 200 632 47 2.97 2.97

lG 25 40 350 1,443 44 6.35 6.35

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00


USING BHA DENSITIES

SKIER DENSITY I HECTARE 55 45 35 25 17.5 9 10

MAX. SKIERS ON SLOPE BY SKILL RATING 0 0 236 536 52 0 0 824

% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 29% 65% 6% 0% 0% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 0 645 1,951 347 0 0 0 2,943


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND {MIDAY) 0 0 809 3,307 375 0 4,491

USING CA YOOSH DENSITIES

SKIER DENSITY I HECTARE 50 50 40 30 IS 7.5 20 10


% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 28% 67% 5% 0% Oo/o 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DAY) 0 634 2,015 256 0 0 0 2,905

CA YOOSH AVERAGE DAILY VERTICAL 940 2,120 2,825 5,085 5,935 5,935 8,475 8,475

CA YOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 796 3,415 276 0 0 0 4,488



LIFf2 Proposed Trail Specifications



(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (Ha) (%) (%) Comments

2A 2,175 1,870 305 975 1,022 51 5.21 31 75 Expert

2B 2,245 2,133 112 400 415 72 2.99 28 37 Int. (depends on 2C)

2C 2,335 1,843 492 1,700 1,770 39 6.90 29 45 Int.

2D 2,335 2,085 250 550 604 50 3.02 45 45 Adv.Int.

2E 2,060 1,940 120 325 346 53 1.84 37 40 Int.

2F 2,205 1,925 280 700 754 88 6.63 40 58 Expert

2G 2,165 1,960 205 500 540 136 7.35 41 57 Adv.Int.

2H 1,940 1,875 65 200 210 53 1.11 33 52 Adv. Int.

2I 1,970 1,850 120 400 418 74 3.09 30 60 Expert

2J 2,335 1,843 492 1,550 1,626 55 8.94 32 50 Int.

2K 2,300 2,175 125 450 467 38 1.77 28 50 Adv.Int.

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

Totals 8,173 48.87

Run Ave. Max. Vertical Slope Average Beginner Novice Lowint Int. Adv. Int. Expert


(%) (%) (m) (m) (m) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) Capacity

2A 31 75 305 1,022 51 5.21 5.21

2B 28 37 112 415 72 2.99 2.99

2C 29 45 492 1,770 39 6.90 6.90

2D 45 45 250 604 50 3.02 3.02

2E 37 40 120 346 53 1.84 1.84

2F 40 58 280 754 88 6.63 6.63

2G 41 57 205 540 136 7.35 7.35

2H 33 52 65 210 53 1.11 1.11

2I 30 60 120 418 74 3.09 3.09

2J 32 50 492 1,626 55 8.94 8.94

2K 28 50 125 467 38 1.77 1.77

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00


USING BHA DENSITIES

SKIER DENSITY I HECTARE 55 45 35 25 17.5 10


% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0'/o 58% 26% 0% 17% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 0 1,726 1,421 0 1,247 0 4,394


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 2,926 1,533 0 1,409 0 5,868


SKIER DENSITY I HECTARE 50 50 40 30 15 7.5 20 10

MAX. SKIERS ON SLOPE BY SKILL RATING 0 0 0 620 199 299 0 1,118

% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 55% 18% 0% 27% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 0 0 1,665 979 0 2,004 0 4,647

CA YOOSH AVERAGE DAILY VERTICAL 940 2,120 2,825 5,085 5,935 5,935 8,475 8.475

CA YOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DA Y) 0 0 0 2,821 1,056 0 2,265 0 6,142



LIFI'J Proposed Trail Specifications




3A 2.070 1,750 320 600 680 63 4.28 53 65 Expert

3B 1,892 1,665 227 505 554 36 1.99 45 80 Expert

3C 1,810 1,635 175 475 506 30 1.52 37 75 Expert

3D 2,100 1,650 450 1,400 1,471 61 8.97 32 45 Int.

3E 1,950 1,930 20 115 117 35 0.41 17 20 Int. (depends on 3D)

3F 2.090 1,973 117 350 369 60 2.21 33 45 Int.

3G 2,100 1,882 218 800 829 63 5.22 27 43 Int.

3H 1,875 1,582 293 720 777 41 3.19 41 65 Expert

31 1,865 1,605 260 580 636 41 2.61 45 65 Expert

3J 1,850 1,680 170 300 345 56 1.93 57 75 Expert

3K 1,650 1,582 68 450 455 24 1.09 15 35 Int.

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

Totals 6,738 33.43

Run Ave. Max. Vertical Slope Average Beginner Novice Low Int Int. Adv. Int. Expert



3A 53 65 320 680 63 4.28 4.28

3B 45 80 227 554 36 1.99 1.99

3C 37 75 175 506 30 1.52 1.52

3D 32 45 450 1,471 61 8.97 8.97

3E 17 20 20 117 35 0.41 0.41

3F 33 45 117 369 60 2.21 2.21

3G 27 43 218 829 63 5.22 5.22

3H 41 65 293 777 41 3.19 3.19

3I 45 65 260 636 41 2.61 2.61

3J 57 75 170 345 56 1.93 1.93

3K 15 35 68 455 24 1.09 1.09

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00


USING BHA DENSITIES



% OF MA.X. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 74% 0% 0% 26% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 0 2,228 0 0 1,931 0 4,158


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 3,776 0 2,182 5,958

USING CAYOOSH DENSITIES



% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 63% 0% 0% 37% 0% 100"/o


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 0 1,901 0 2,746 4,648


CA YOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 0 3,223 0 0 3,103 0 6,326



LIFT4 Proposed Trail Specifications


Number Elev. Elev. Drop Length Length Width AreS Grade Grade Level


4A 2,460 1,825 635 1,850 1,956 100 19.56 34 so Int.

4B 2,150 1,740 410 880 971 107 10.39 47 so Advlnt

4C 2,360 1,730 630 1,445 1,576 102 16.08 44 52 Adv. Int

4D 2,400 1,705 695 1,565 \,7\2 \59 27.23 44 60 Expert

4E 2,460 1,700 760 1,640 1,808 97 17.53 46 70 Expert

4F 2,440 1,725 715 1,470 1,635 120 19.62 49 80 Expert

4Ga 2,450 1,765 685 1,900 2,020 41 8.28 36 65 Expert

4Gb 1,765 1,680 85 685 690 41 2.83 12 IS Int. (depends on 12F)

4H 1,990 1,780 210 375 430 61 2.62 56 60 Expert (depends on 4G)

41 1,880 1,800 80 185 202 40 0.81 43 so Expert (depends on 4H)

4J 1,755 1,660 95 925 930 26 2.42 10 10 Int. (depends on !G)

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

Totals 13,929 127.36

Run Ave. Max. Vertical Slope Average Beginner Novice Lowlnt Int. Adv.Int. Expert



4A 34 so 635 1,956 100 19.56 19.56

4B 47 so 410 971 107 10.39 10.39

4C 44 52 630 1,576 102 16.08 16.08

4D 44 60 695 1,712 159 27.23 27.23

4E 46 70 760 1,808 97 17.53 17.53

4F 49 80 715 1,635 120 19.62 19.62

4Ga 36 65 685 2,020 41 8.28 8.28

4Gb 12 IS 85 690 41 2.83 2.83

4H 56 60 210 430 61 2.62 2.62

41 43 50 80 202 40 0.81 0.81

4J 10 10 95 930 26 2.42 2.42

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00


USING BHA DENSITIES

SKIER DENSITY I HECTARE 55 45 35 25 17.S 9 10

MAX. SIQERS ON SLOPE BY SKILL RATING 0 0 620 463 0 761 0 1,844

% OF 1\:IAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 34% 2S% 0% 41% 0% 100%

BHA AVERAGE DAILY VERTICAL 7SO I,SOO 2,2SO 3,000 s,soo s,soo 7,SOO 7,SOO

BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DAY) 0 0 1,009 1,381 3,094 0 S,484

CAYOOSH AVERAGE DAILY VERTICAL 940 2,120 2,825 5,08S S,93S S,93S 8,47S 8,47S

CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 0 1,710 1,491 0 3,496 0 6,697


SKIER DENSITY I HECTARE so so 40 30 IS 7.S 20 10

MAX. SKIERS ON SLOPE BY SKILL RATING 0 744 397 0 1,S22 0 2,663

% OF li:IAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 28% IS% 0% 57% 0% 100%


BRA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DAY) 0 0 838 820 0 4,286 0 5,944


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEJIIAND (M/DA Y) 0 0 0 1,421 885 0 4,843 0 7,149







SA 2,462 2,227 235 770 805 120 9.66 31 45 Int.

SB 2,310 2,227 83 485 492 85 4.18 17 25 Int. (depends on SA)

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 D 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

Totals 1,297 13.84



(%) (%) (m) (m) (m) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Hn) (Ha) (Ha) Capacity

SA 31 45 235 805 120 9.66 9.66

SB 17 25 83 492 85 4.18 4.18

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00


USING BRA DENSITIES


MAX. SKIERS ON SLOPE BY SKILL RATING 0 346 0 0 0 346

% OF MAX. SKIERS Oo/o 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0"/o 0% 100"/o


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 3,000


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 0 0 5,085 0 0 0 0 5,085



MAX. SKIERS ON SLOPE BY SKILL RATING 0 0 415 0 0 0 415

% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 3,000


CA YOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) o· 0 0 5,085 0 0 0 5,085



LIFT6 Proposed Trail Specifications




6A 1,870 1,810 60 315 321 27 0.87 19 35 Int. (accessed by catroad)

6B 1,920 1,785 135 405 427 40 1.71 33 30 Int. (depends on 6B)

6C 2,117 1,765 352 735 815 98 7.99 48 65 Expert

6D 2,105 1,760 345 650 736 62 4.56 53 60 Expert

6E 2,055 1,860 195 265 329 84 2.76 74 70 Expert

6F 2,050 1,750 300 455 545 48 2.62 66 75 Expert

6G 2,040 1,715 325 470 571 44 2.51 69 70 Expert

6H 2,117 1,693 424 2,440 2,477 27 6.69 17 35 Low Int.

6I 2,117 1,965 !52 480 503 46 2.32 32 55 Adv. Int.

6J 1,955 1,750 205 565 601 30 1.80 36 60 Expert

6K 1,870 1,790 80 380 388 30 1.16 21 25 Low Int. (depends on 6H)

6L 0 0 0.00 ERR (unable to locate 6L)

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

Totals 7,713 34.99

Run Ave. Max. Vertical Slope Average Beginner Novice Low Int Int. Adv. Int. Expert



6A 19 35 60 321 27 0.87 0.87

6B 33 30 135 427 40 1.71 1.71

6C 48 65 352 815 98 7.99 7.99

6D 53 60 345 736 62 4.56 4.56

6E 74 70 !95 329 84 2.76 2.76

6F 66 75 300 545 48 2.62 2.62

6G 69 70 325 571 44 2.51 2.51

6H 17 35 424 2,477 27 6.69 6.69

6I 32 55 152 503 46 2.32 2.32

6J 36 60 205 601 30 1.80 1.80

6K 21 25 80 388 30 1.16 1.16

6L ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00


USING BHA DENSITIES



% OF MAX. SKIERS 00/o 00/o 46% 11% 7% 0% 37% 0% 1000/o

BHA AVERAGE DAILY VERTICAL 750 1,500 2,250 3,000 5,500 5,500 7,500 7.500

BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 1,027 321 370 0 2,771 0 4,489


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 1,289 543 399 0 3,131 0 5,363




% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 36% 9% 4% 0% 51% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (1\'1/DAY) 0 811 266 219 0 3,831 0 5,128


CA YOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 0 1,019 451 237 0 4,329 6,036






(m) (m) (m) (m) (m} (m} (Ha) (%) (%) Comments

7A 1,911 1,765 146 775 789 28 2.21 19 30 Novice

7B 1,975 1,933 42 100 108 47 0.51 42 42 Int.

7C 1,865 1,735 130 825 835 33 2.76 16 25 Novice

7D 1,845 1,745 100 335 350 49 1.71 30 45 Low Int.

7E 1,911 1,693 218 1,415 1,432 38 5.44' IS 30 Novice

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

Totals 3,514 12.63

Run Ave. Max. Vertical Slope Average Beginner Novice Low Int Int. Adv.Int. Expert


(%) (%} (m) (m) (m) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) Capacity

Gl 19 30 146 789 28 2.21 2.21

GZ 42 42 42 108 47 0.51 0.51

G3 16 25 130 835 33 2.76 2.76

G4 30 45 100 350 49 1.71 1.71

GS IS 30 218 1,432 38 5.44 5.44

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00


USING BHA DENSITIES



% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 87% II% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 1,298 249 71 0 0 0 1,618


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 1,835 313 120 0 0 0 0 2,268



MAX. SKIERS ON SLOPE BY SKILL RATING 0 520 69 IS 0 0 604

% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 86% II% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 1,292 255 76 0 0 0 1,623

CAYOOSH AVERAGE DAILY VERTICAL 940· 2,120 2,825 5,085 5,935 5,935 8,475 8,475

CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DAY) 0 1,826 320 129 0 0 0 0 2,275







SA 2,350 1,835 515 1,300 1,398 87 12.17 40 65 Expert

8B 2,285 1,850 435 950 1,045 65 6.79 46 65 Expert

sc 2,285 1,812 473 1,275 1,360 107 14.55 37 55 Advlnt

SD 1,925 1,820 !OS 225 248 62 1.54 47 60 Expert

SE 2,060 1,812 248 570 622 56 3.48 44 60 Expert

SF 2,260 2,030 230 665 704 101 7.11 35 55 Advlnt

SG 2,350 1,895 455 2,!00 2,149 33 7.09 22 45 Jnt.

A 2,125 1,900 225 745 778 70 5.45 30 55 Adv.lnt

B 2,220 1,815 405 1,540 1,592 70 11.15 26 55 Adv.lnt

c 2,170 1,870 300 1,005 1,049 70 7.34 30 so Adv.lnt

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

Totals 10,945 76.66

Run Ave. Max. Vertical Slope Average Beginner Novice Lowlnt Int. Adv. Int. Expert



SA 40 65 515 1,398 87 12.17 12.17

SB 46 65 435 1,045 65 6.79 6.79

sc 37 55 473 1,360 107 14.55 14.55

SD 47 60 105 248 62 !.54 1.54

SE 44 60 248 622 56 3.48 3.48

SF 35 55 230 704 101 7.11 7.11

SG 22 45 455 2,149 33 7.09 7.09

30 55 225 778 70 5.45 5.45

26 55 405 1,592 70 11.15 11.15

30 50 300 1,049 70 7.34 7.34

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00


USING BHA DENSITIES



% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 15% 66% 0% 20% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 0 0 438 3,612 0 1,480 0 5,530


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 742 3,898 0 1,673 0 6,312


SKIER DENSITY I HECTARE 50 50 40 30 IS 7.5 20 10

MAX. SKIERS ON SLOPE BY SKILL RATING 0 0 213 684 480 0 1,376

% OF MAX. SKIERS O'lo 0% 0% 15% SO% 0% 35% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDA Y) 0 0 0 464 2,733 0 2,613 0 5,810


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DAY) 0 0 0 786 2,949 0 2,953 0 6,689



LIFf 10 Proposed Trail Specifications




lOA 2,240 2,117 123 390 409 38 1.55 32 45 Int.

lOB 2,205 2,090 115 225 253 47 1.19 51 60 Expert

lOC 2,035 1,975 60 150 162 70 1.13 40 40 Int.

lOD 1,955 1,905 so 130 139 88 1.23 38 45 Int.

lOE 1,795 1,628 !67 360 397 38 1.51 46 55 Adv. Int.

lOF 1,790 1,628 162 350 386 44 1.70 46 60 Expert

lOG 2,060 1,765 295 950 995 56 5.57 31 50 Int.

lOH 2,050 1,815 235 725 762 so 3.81 32 40 Int.

101 1,650 1,628 22 325 326 30 0.98 7 7 Int. (depends on IOH, 3D)

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

Totals 3,828 18.66

Run Ave. Max. Vertical Slope Average Beginner Novice Lowlnt Int. Adv.lnt. Expert



lOA 32 45 123 409 38 1.55 1.55

lOB 51 60 115 253 47 !.19 1.19

lOC 40 40 60 162 70 1.13 1.13

lOD 38 45 50 139 88 1.23 1.23

lOE 46 55 167 397 38 1.51 1.51

lOF 46 60 162 386 44 1.70 1.70

lOG 31 50 295 995 56 5.57 5.57

lOH 32 40 235 762 50 3.81 3.81

101 7 7 22 326 30 0,98 0.98

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00


USING BHA DENSITIES



% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 87% 6% 0% 7% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DAY) 0 0 0 2,598 352 0 525 0 3,475


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y} 0 0 0 4,403 380 0 593 0 5,377




% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 84% 4% 0% II% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 2,526 245 0 851 0 3,622


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY} 0 0 4,282 264 0 962 0 5,508

Produced by: Brent Harley & Associates Inc., 22-.July-98



Run Top Bottom Verticnl Horiz. Slope Average Ave. Max. Ability



llA 2,375 1,960 415 1,315 1,379 54 7.45 32 55 Adv. Int.

llB 2,350 2,135 215 370 428 285 12.20 58 75 Expert

llC 2,385 1,838 547 1,340 1,447 103 14.91 41 55 Adv. Int.

llD 2,250 1,838 412 945 1,031 110 11.34 44 57 Expert

liE 2,220 1,860 360 1,010 1,072 235 25.20 36 60 Expert

llF 2,325 2,070 255 1,030 1,061 55 5.84 25 45 Int.

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR Connector

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

Totals 6,418 76.92




IIA 32 55 415 1,379 54 7.45 7.45

liB 58 75 215 428 285 12.20 12.20

IIC 41 55 547 1,447 103 14.91 14.91

llD 44 57 412 1,031 110 11.34 11.34

llE 36 60 360 1,072 235 25.20 25.20

IIF 25 45 255 1,061 55 5.84 5.84

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00


USING BHA DENSITIES



% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 14% 38% 0% 48% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DAY) 0 0 427 2,100 0 3,568 0 6,095


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MIDAY) 0 0 724 2,266 0 4,032 0 7,022



MAX. SKIERS ON SLOPE BY SKILL RATING 0 175 335 0 975 0 1,485

% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 12% 23% 0"/o 66% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 0 0 354 1,242 0 4,922 0 6,518


CA YOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (111/DAY) 0 0 599 1,340 5,562 0 7,502





Number Elcv. Elev. Drop Length Length Width Area Grade Grade Level


12A 1,785 1,615 170 650 672 40 2.69 26 45 Int.

12B 1,990 1,610 380 830 913 51 4.66 46 65 Expert

12C 2,020 1,563 457 1,305 1,383 48 6.64 35 60 Expert

12D 2,000 1,563 437 935 1,032 55 5.68 47 65 Expert

!2E 2,022 1,595 427 835 938 47 4.41 51 70 Expert

12F 2,022 1,765 257 1,060 1,091 22 2.40 24 50 Int.

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

0 0 0.00 ERR

Totals 6,028 26.46




12A 26 45 170 672 40 2.69 2.69

12B 46 65 380 913 51 4.66 4.66

12C 35 60 457 1,383 48 6.64 6.64

12D 47 65 437 1,032 55 5.68 5.68

12E 51 70 427 938 47 4.41 4.41

12F 24 50 257 1,091 22 2.40 2.40

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00

ERR 0 0 0 0 0.00


USING BHA DENSITIES



% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 37% 0% 0% 63% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 0 0 l,ll9 0 0 4,702 0 5,821


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 0 1,897 0 0 5,314 0 7,210



1\o!AX. SKIERS ON SLOPE BY SKILL RATING 0 0 0 153 0 0 428 0 580

% OF MAX. SKIERS 0% 0% 0% 26% 0% 0% 74% 0% 100%


BHA WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (M/DAY) 0 789 0 5,527 0 6,316


CAYOOSH WEIGHTED VERTICAL DEMAND (MID A Y) 0 0 0 1,338 0 6,246 7,583


APPENDIXB Comfortable Carrying Capacity Calculations



Capacity Distribution by Ability Level using Guidelines Densities

Ability Level Skiable

Area (Ha)

Downhill CCC using Guidelines Densities

Distribution using

Guidelines Densities

Area (Ha)

Capacity Distribution by Ability Level using CAYOOSH Densities

Ability Level Skiable Area (Ha)

Downhill CCC using Cayoosh Densities

Distribution using

Cayoosh Densities

Area (Ha)

Capacity Distribution using CAYOOSH Trail Classifications

Ability Level Skiable Area (Ha)

Downhill CCC

Distribution using

Cayoosh Densities

Area (Ha)


Cayoosh Target *BC Market Market Distribution

Distribution

Cayoosh Target *BC Market Market Distribution

Distribution

Cayoosh Target Market

*BC Market Distribution


Uphill Comfortable Carrying Capacity Calculation (using Guidelines densities and Weighted Vertical Demand)

Vertical Slope Cayoosh Loading Vertical Hours Cayoosh Actual Cayoosh Rise Length Hourly Efficiency VTM/Hr Demand of Access CCC 1998 CCC

Lift Proposed Lifts Phase (m) (m) Capacity (%) (000) (rnlday) Operation Reduction (skiers) (skiers) 0 Platter I 27 351 500 90% 14 750 7.0 0% 113 0 1 Det. Quad I 377 1,474 2,880 95% 1,086 2,943 7.0 30% 1,717 1,300 2 F1xed Quad I 492 1,503 2,400 80% 1,181 4,394 7.0 6% 1,415 1,210 3 Det. Quad I 518 1,625 2,400 95% 1,243 4,158 7.0 25% 1,491 980 4 Det. Quad II 800 2,089 2,200 95% 1,760 5,484 7.0 6% 2,006 1,490 5 T-Bar 11 235 738 1,200 95% 282 3,000 6.8 0% 607 390 6 F1xed Quad 11 424 995 2,400 80% I,OI8 4,489 7.0 18% 1,041 720 7 Fixed Quad 11 218 975 2,000 80% 436 1,618 7.0 31% 1,041 690 8 Fixed Q!!ad III 538 1,425 2,200 80% 1,184 5,530 7.0 0% 1,199 820 9 T-Bar IJJ 332 936 1,200 95% 398 3,739 7.0 0% 709 340

10 Fixed Quad lii 612 1,639 1,800 85% 1,102 3,475 7.0 0% 1,886 1,450 11 Fixed Quad IV 547 1,401 2,200 85% 1,203 6,095 6.5 0% 1,091 1,050 12 Fixed Double IV 459 1,082 1,200 90% 551 5,821 7.0 0% 596 500 13 F1xed Quad IV 445 1,076 2,150 80% 957 7,500 7.0 0% 714 610

Total 26,730 15,626 11,550

Uphill Comfortable Carrying Capacity Calculation (using Guidelines densities and CAYOOSHWeighted Vertical Demand)

Vertical Slope Cayoosh Loading Vertical Hours Cayoosh Actual Cayoosh Rise Length Hourly Efficiency VTM/Hr Demand of Access CCC 1998 CCC

Lift Proposed Lifts Phase (m) (m) Capacity (%) (000) (rnlday) Operation Reduction (skiers) (slders) 0 Platter I 27 351 500 90% 14 940 7.0 0% 90 0 1 Det. Quad I 377 1,474 2,880 95% 1,086 4,491 7.0 30% 1,125 1,300 2 F1xed Quad I 492 1,503 2,400 80% 1,181 5,868 7.0 6% 1,059 1,210 3 Det. Quad I 518 1,625 2,400 95% 1,243 5,958 7.0 25% 1,041 980 4 Det. Quad 11 800 2,089 2,200 95% 1,760 6,697 7.0 6% 1,643 1,490 5 T-Bar II 235 738 1,200 95% 282 5,085 6.8 0% 358 390 6 Fixed Quad II 424 995 2,400 80% 1,018 5,363 7.0 18% 871 720 7 Fixed Quad II 218 975 2,000 80% 436 2,268 7.0 31% 743 690 8 Fixed Quad III 538 1,425 2,200 80% 1,184 6,312 7.0 0% 1,050 820 9 T-Bar III 332 936 1,200 95% 398 5,336 7.0 0% 496 340 10 Fixed Quad III 612 1,639 1,800 85% 1,102 5,377 7.0 0% 1,219 1,450 11 Fixed Quad IV 547 1,401 2,200 85% 1,203 7,022 6.5 0% 947 1,050 12 Fixed Double IV 459 1,082 1,200 90% 551 7,210 7.0 0% 481 500 13 Fixed Quad IV 445 1,076 2,150 80% 957 8,475 7.0 0% 632 610

Total 26,730 11,757 11,550



Uphill Comfortable Carrying Capacity Calculation (using CAYOOSH densities and Guidelines Weighted Vertical Demand)

Vertical Slope Cayoosh Loading Vertical Hours Cayoosh Actual Cayoosh Rise Length Hourly Efficiency VTM!Hr Demand of Access CCC 1998 CCC

Lift Proposed Lifts Phase (m) (m) Capacity (%) (000) (m/day) Operation Reduction (skiers) (skiers)

0 Platter I 27 351 500 90% 14 750 7.0 0% 114 0

1 Det. Quad I 377 1,474 2,880 95% 1,086 2,905 7.0 30% 2,486 1,300

2 Fixed Quad I 492 1,503 2,400 80% 1,181 4,647 7.0 6% 1,424 1,210

3 Det. Quad I 518 1,625 2,400 95% 1,243 4,648 7.0 25% 1,780 980

4 Det. Quad II 800 2,089 2,200 95% 1,760 5,944 7.0 6% 1,970 1,490

5 T-Bar II 235 738 1,200 95% 282 3,000 6.8 0% 608 390

6 Fixed Quad II 424 995 2,400 80% 1,018 5,128 7.0 18% 1,112 720

7 Fixed Quad II 218 975 2,000 80% 436 1,623 7.0 31% 1,505 690

8 Fixed Quad III 538 1,425 2,200 80% 1,184 5,810 7.0 0% 1,142 820

9 T-Bar III 332 936 1,200 95% 398 3,577 7.0 0% 742 340

10 Fixed Quad III 612 1,639 1,800 85% 1,102 3,622 7.0 0% 1,811 1,450

11 Fixed Quad IV 547 1,401 2,200 85% 1,203 6,518 6.5 0% 1,021 1,050

12 Fixed Double IV 459 1,082 1,200 90% 551 6,316 7.0 0% 550 500

13 Fixed Quad IV 445 1,076 2,150 80% 957 7,500 7.0 0% 715 610

Total 16,980 11,550

Uphill Comfortable Carrying Capacity Calculation (using CAYOOSH densities and CAYOOSH Weighted Vertical Demand)


Lift Proposed Lifts Phase (m) (m) Capacity (%) (000) (rnlday) Operation Reduction (skiers) (skiers) 0 Platter I 27 351 500 90% 14 940 7.0 0% 91 0 1 Det. Quad I 377 1,474 2,880 95% 1,086 4,488 7.0 30% 1,610 1,300 2 Fixed Quad I 492 1,503 2,400 80% 1,181 6,142 7.0 6% 1,078 1,210 3 Det. Quad I 518 1,625 2,400 95% 1,243 6,326 7.0 25% 1,308 980 4 Det. Quad ll 800 2,089 2,200 95% 1,760 7,149 7.0 6% 1,638 1,490 5 T-Bar ll 235 738 1,200 95% 282 5,085 6.8 0% 359 390 6 Fixed Quad II 424 995 2,400 80% 1,018 6,036 7.0 18% 945 720 7 Fixed Quad ll 218 975 2,000 80% 436 2,275 7.0 31% 1,074 690 8 Fixed Quad lli 538 1,425 2,200 80% 1,184 6,689 7.0 0% 992 820 9 T-Bar lli 332 936 1,200 95% 398 5,281 7.0 0% 503 340 10 Fixed Quad III 612 1,639 1,800 85% 1,102 5,508 7.0 0% 1,191 1,450 11 Fixed Quad IV 547 1,401 2,200 85% 1,203 7,502 6.5 0% 887 1,050 12 Fixed Double IV 459 1,082 1,200 90% 551 7,583 7.0 0% 459 500 13 Fixed Quad IV 445 1,076 2,150 80% 957 8,475 7.0 0% 633 610

Total 12,767 11,550

Produced by: .Brent Harley & Associates Inc., 22-July-98


Uphill Comfortable Carrying Capacity Calculation (using CAYOOSH calculations and Guidelines Weighted Vertical Demand)


Lift Proposed Lifts Phase (m) (m) Capacity (%) (000) (m/day) Operation Reduction (skiers) (skiers)

0 Platter I 27 351 500 90% 14 0 7.0 0% 0 0

I Det. Quad I 377 1,498 2,880 95% 1,086 3,909 7.0 30% 1,848 1,300

2 Fixed Quad I 492 1,484 2,400 80% 1,181 5,219 7.0 6% 1,268 1,210

3 Det. Quad I 518 1,587 2,400 95% 1,243 6,416 7.0 25% 1,289 980

4 Det. Quad II 800 2,089 2,200 95% 1,760 7,368 7.0 6% 1,589 1,490

5 T-Bar II 235 738 1,200 95% 282 4,599 6.8 0% 397 390

6 Fixed Quad II 424 995 2,400 80% 1,018 6,462 7.0 18% 883 720

7 Fixed Quad II 218 975 2,000 80% 436 2,427 7.0 31% 1,007 690

8 Fixed Quad III 538 1,425 2,200 80% 1,184 7,870 7.0 0% 843 820

9 T-Bar III 232 597 . 1,200 95% 278 5,278 7.0 0% 352 340

10 Fixed Quad III 612 1,639 1,800 85% 1,102 4,528 7.0 0% 1,449 1,450

11 Fixed Quad IV 532 1,368 2,200 85% 1,170 6,672 6.5 0% 970 1,050

12 Fixed Double IV 459 1,082 1,200 90% 551 7,006 7.0 0% 496 500

13 Fixed Quad IV 445 1,076 2,150 80% 957 8,475 7.0 0% 633 610

Total 26,730 13,024 11,550

Produced by: Brent Harley & Associates Inc., 2_2-July-98

APPENDIXC Calculation of Allowable Bed Units for a Destination Resort



Calculation of Allowable Bed Units for a Destination Resort

BHA 198 CAYOOSH Normalized BHA 1998 1998 Uphill Downhill Uphill

Factor CCC CCC CCC Comments

A 1 3 3 Based on target market

B 2 2 2

Ca 6 6 6 3.5 hrs to Vancouver

Cb 2 2 2

D 5 5 5

E 1 1 1

F 2 2 2 Based on potential experience

G 4 4 4

H 4 4 4

I 4 4 4

J 1 1 1

K 4 4 4

Total 36 38 38

% ofCCC 110% 120% 120%

CCC 11,550 9,000 12,000

Allowable Bed Units 12,705 10,800 14,400


Documents

2:------------· Brent Harley and Associates Inc. The ...€¦ · 2:-----· Brent Harley and Associates Inc. The Resort Plannjng Group BC E5243 D:C293 1999 c.3 Cayoosh Resort Feasibility