Jumbo Glacier Development

8/7/2019 Jumbo Glacier Development

1/8

The proposed Jumbo GlacierResort (JGR) has hadwidespread opposition

since its initial stages in 1989.Over 6,000 residents have regis-tered their opposition. Yet thismassive ski development is back,and it will surely be approvedunless Kootenay residents raisean outcry.

The site of the developmentis the remote Jumbo Valley,above Argenta in the WestKootenays and west of Inver-mere in the East Kootenays. This25-year development plan is aproject of Oberto Oberti onbehalf of Glacier Resorts Ltd.,and its worth approximately$1/2 billion.

It would have hotels, con-dos, townhouses, chalets, lodges,bed and breakfasts, parking lotsand staff housingin total 6,252bed units. Ultimate plans for expansion are for7,000 beds. When completed it would accom-modate 737,000 people a year. The proposalincludes two gondolas, an aerial tram, and 20 to25 lifts.

The bed capacity alone would accommodatethe combined populations of Edgewood (160), Fauquier (219), Burton (167), Nakusp(1,698), Argenta and Johnsons Landing (200),Meadow Creek (300), Kaslo (1,032), NewDenver (538), Silverton (222), Slocan (336),Winlaw (273), and Salmo (1,120), for a total to

6,265 beds.The developers say thats small compared to

the huge Whistler ski resort. But when it firststarted out in 1976, Whistler had a populationof only 590 people. Now it has maximum bedcapacity for 52,000 people! The initial capacityof the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort meansnothing in an industry that is notorious for con-tinual expansions. This also makes it totallyirrelevant that the developers have cut backhere and there, dropping this or that parking lot,ski lift or scrap of land in their proposal. It canall be added once the resort has been built.

Is it an accident that a report by consultants

to Mr. Oberti on the Jumbo Glacier Resort proj-ect was recently released at almost the sametime Trail MLA Sandy Santori became the new

Minister of State for ResortDevelopment? Santoris specificmandate will be to focus on

resort development and expan-sion in the Kootenays. Hisappointment raises concernsthat the environmental assess-ment process is nothing morethan a sham and the Liberalgovernment is set to approve theproject.

The Jumbo Valley hasclearcuts and logging roads, butthe resort would sit about fiveor ten kilometres from the Pur-cell Wilderness Conservancy. Itis well known in science thatgrizzly bears and other largewild animals cannot surviveconfined to a single park. They

need to travel widely to findmates and adequate food, andthey need seclusion to do that.

Left as it is, the Jumbo Val-ley is a bear travel corridor pro-

viding relative seclusion. But a town with hun-dreds of thousands of people a year will spelldisaster to the grizzlies and to the backcountryvalues of the whole area.

JUMBO DISASTERFOR THE KOOTENAYS

GarthLenz

J U M B O W I L D N E W S

THE PROPOSED JUMBO GLACIER RESORTWOULD PUT A TOWN TWO THIRDS THE SIZE OF NELSON

in the centre of the last large area of undeveloped wild-land habitat in southeastern BC. Scientists say that thedirect and indirect effects of the resort could eventually

wipe out the local grizzly bear population and affect thegrizzly population all over the southern Purcell Moun-tains. Many recreationists and small tourism businessesuse the nearby Purcell Wilderness Conservancy and othersurrounding wilderness areas. But if the Jumbo Valley isturned over to private interests, it will begin to consumethe wilderness and wildlife values. Crown land will be soldfor subdivisions and the cost to the taxpayers of expensiveroad construction, improvements and maintenance, ava-lanche control along the road, and fighting any wildlandfires that threaten the resort is not yet available and in

part cannot be known beforehand.

The deadline for letters is April 12,2004. There will be only ONE pub-lic meeting in the West Kootenayson March 11 in Nelson at the Pres-tige Inn from 3 to 8 pm. See the

back page for further details.


2/82 J U M B O W I L D N E W S

H

ow can you put thousands of people in highquality grizzly bear habitat, with their vehi-

cles and parking lots, their sewage andsewage treatment plant, their houses and hotelsand restaurants, without driving away or killinggrizzly bears? Answer: by mitigation. (Mitigation- to make less severe.)

With mitigation measures, the developersconsultants say that the resort, the subdivision,the parking lots, etc., will have no net impact onthe grizzly bear population. This word, mitiga-tion is used to shrug off all possible impacts of

the project. Pages and pages of technical reportssubmitted by the developers to the Environmental

Assessment process all come to the conclusionthat this massive development will do no signifi-cant environmental damage.

For grizzly bears, the resort will use bear-smart practices such as careful garbage disposal .And grizzly bear habitat elsewhere could beenhanced by managing access. Would this meanclosing access traditionally used by noncommer-cial recreationists so that 737,000 people a yearcan visit Jumbo? Whatever closures they wouldundertake, the effect would be miniscule com-

pared to bringing hundreds of thousands of peopleinto the area.

Proponents of the project argue that theresort itself will only cover 200-250 acres. That istotally meaningless. The intensity of the develop-ment on that 200 or so acres will cause most griz-zlies to avoid the area by a wide margin. The thou-sands of people who live or visit there will alsoradiate out over a broad geographic area. Bearsthat cant or dont avoid people will get killed.

Experience shows that, over the long term,development in Banff National Park has grown

MichaelWheatley

WHITEWASH ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The collective professional opinion of the Grizzly Bear Sci-entific Committee is that the proposed Jumbo Creek devel-opment, if approved, will adversely affect the regional pop-ulation of grizzly bears in the South Purcells. The size andnature of the development will result eventually in the lossof bears locally and will diminish the viability of the region-al population of grizzly bears.

Based on the information that we have examined andour understanding of bear biology and management, theScientific Committee questions whether traditionalapproaches to mitigation will successfully alleviate the neg-ative effects of human activities ... there are no examples inNorth America where grizzly bears have coexisted success-fully with large human development over the long term.

Aalton Harestad, R.P. Bio.Co-chair, BC governments Grizzly Bear Scientific

Advisory Committee


3/8J U M B O W I L D N E W S 3

JUMBO DEVELOPMENT = DEATH TO THE GRIZZLIES

and the grizzly bears are dwin-dling. Yet Banff National Parkis protected under the NationalPark Act and exerts some sem-blence of control over Banffdevelopment. The Jumbo Glac-ier Resort will be aprivate com-

mercial enterprise, dedicated to

the profit margin, initiated inan era of rampant de-regula-tion of industry.

Nothing else is quite likethis Jumbo proposal. The majorski towns of Banff andWhistler are built in valley bot-tom areas away from primebackcountry grizzly habitat.But Jumbo will be built in sub-alpine grizzly habitat.

The municipality ofWhistler has had some recentsuccess in living more coopera-tively with black bears; butmost grizzly bears were already

gone when Whistler was built.And they are far less compatible with people thanblack bears. People would not tolerate mothergrizzlies with young, as they can be far more dan-gerous than black bears. So, no matter how goodthe proposed management for Jumbo might be,enough grizzlies will get into trouble and be killedor relocated as problem grizzlies that this aloneposes a major populationthreat.

The claims of the propo-nents that impacts to grizzlybears will be monitored areequally ridiculous. Monitoringis part of a pat formula thatindustries use to placate publicconcerns so they can obtain

their permits from the govern-ment. But if the monitoringshows bears are in trouble, arethe resort owners going to dis-mantle their half-billion dollardevelopments and leave thearea?

The Jumbo Environmen-tal Impact Report also does notaddress the increase in bear-human conflicts that will comefrom a flood of recreationistsnot associated with the resortthat will follow the improve-ments of the road to JumboValley. This will include heavy motorized recre-ation and heli-tourism with new commercial

tenures.

GOVERNMENTS GRIZZLY BEAR SCIENCEPANEL SAYS RESORT THREATENS LOCALAND REGIONAL GRIZZLY POPULATIONS

The BC governments own 12-member sci-entific panel has said that the proposed JumboGlacier Resort will adversely affect the regionalpopulation of grizzly bears in the South Purcells... There are no examples where grizzly bearshave coexisted successfully with large humandevelopment over the long term. But the gov-ernment is ignoring these scientists, as well asgovernment biologists and managers who opposethe project.

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY STUDYPREDICTS GRIZZLY BEAR DEATHS

AND POPULATION DECLINEThe Valhalla Wilderness Society funded atwo-year study by a well-known independentconservation biologist, Dr. Brian Horejsi. Thestudy report, entitled "The Purcell MountainGrizzly Bear: Cumulative Effects and the Pro-posed Jumbo Glacier Development was releasedin 2000. The report states:

"If the massive ski development goes aheadin the Jumbo Creek valley, a provincially signifi-cant grizzly bear population in the Purcell Moun-tain range can be expected to decline. So large isthe town site that would be built in the middle ofprime grizzly habitat that any proposed mitigationmeasures to offset impacts will be virtually mean-ingless."

This report shows that the proposed private

Jumbo town site and ski develop-ment would be in the heart of oneof BC's two most secure southerngrizzly bear ecosystems and wouldborder on the region's largestroadless protected habitat: thePurcell Wilderness Conservancy.It also indicates that the Jumbo

Creek valley and surroundingareas (4,074 km2) are inherentlyhigh productivity grizzly bearhabitat and constitute part of acritical travel corridor in the Pur-cell ecosystem.

The Purcell Conservancy (adja-cent to the Jumbo watershed)would be too small to support aviable grizzly population when itis cut off and isolated from themore northern grizzlies by the

Jumbo development. Grizzliesroam over vast areas outside theconservancy. They need to do soin order to survive long term.

In 1999, a joint government/developer study by AXYS Environmental Con-sulting collected hair samples from grizzly rub-bing trees. DNA analysis showed that there areabout 45 grizzlies in the Central Purcell Moun-tains. This confirms that the Jumbo watershedand surrounding region is significant grizzly bearhabitat.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTSEXCESSIVE

Dr. Horesjis Jumbo report docu-ments a tier of cumulative impactsthat will occur over time. Existinglogging roads and clearcuts havealready stripped away much pro-ductive low elevation habitat and

have fragmented every watershedexcept those in the PurcellWilderness Conservancy and thenorth fork of Horse Thief Creek.

Logging to clear ski runs and todevelop real estate and access willdestroy bear habitat, includingdens. Improved roads will increasehunting, which may already bekilling more bears than the popu-lation can sustain. Roads are alsobarriers to movement since bearsoften avoid them; those that don'tcan be killed by vehicles.

Bears will be displaced by increased human useof the area, noise, and off-road vehicles. Garbage

and food odours will attract bears and lead theminto conflicts with people. The development itselfwill bring thousands of people into bear countryand sharply increase the risk of lethal encounters,leading to the death of bears that are considered arisk to human life. There will also be a greater riskof forest fires that, in the context of cumulativeeffects, will change the way bears use the area.

A sudden concentration of people often leadsto a large decline in bear numbers in a short peri-od. Dr. Horejsi concludes that the Jumbo devel-opment will raise bear mortality by 500% to1,100%. He writes that the bear population inand around the proposed Jumbo development isinternationally significant, and the development"would threaten the viability and imperil thefuture of the grizzly bear population."

Dr. Brian Horesji: ... any proposedmitigation measures to offset impacts

will be virtually meaningless."


4/8

WHO PAYS FOR ROAD ACCESS AND HOW MUCH?

According to the Jumbo Project Report:There are no estimates available for the cost ofnew and upgraded roads to serve the Jumbo Glac-ier Resort. The plan includes:

NEW ROADS:

Panorama to Mineral King MineMineral King Mine to the resort

UPGRADED ROADS:

Toby Creek RoadJumbo Creek Road

Upgrading will include new bridge construction,realignment to avoid avalanche hazard, widening,paving, and maintenance. The Ministry of Trans-portation and Highways says the upgrading is sole-

ly to serve the resort. By law, MOTH mustupgrade, operate and maintain the Jumbo CreekRoad if the subdivision is permitted. MOTH says:

There are about 50 avalanche paths along the Jumbo Creek forest road of which five areunavoidable, crossing both the road and the creek.It would be most difficult to provide safe and sus-tainable access along this route in winter.

Ministry of Transportation and Highways,Oct. 17, 1995.

According to the development corporation:

In the case of the Jumbo Glacier project, the pro-ponent intends to seek private land status for someproject components, including residential compo-nents. Thus, it will be necessary, by law, for theentire access road to have formal public highwaystatus at that point in the phasing of resort devel-

opment when sub-division of privateland commences.

Pheidias Project Man-agement Corporation

Jumbo GlacierResort Project

Report, Dec. 2003

According to thereport, the develop-ers will negotiate acost-sharing agree-ment with theMOTH. But onlyafter the develop-ment permit has

been granted. Untilthen, the taxpayersand the Environ-mental Review pro-cess are simply: inthe dark.

HAS THE HIGHWAY THROUGHJUMBO PASS BEEN DROPPED?

At one time the Ministry of Highways did a feasi-bility study for a road that would go through

Jumbo Pass and connect Calgary and Nelson.However, MOTH estimated the road cost at morethan $200 million, and there was a public outcryagainst the road. In 1995, MOTH recommendedagainst constructing the Jumbo Pass Highway.

The Jumbo Glacier Resort proposal and Mas-ter Plan are based on the assumption that the

Jumbo Pass highway will not be built. However, inthe past there have been some radical reversals inthe positions of the BC government, so Kootenayresidents should be vigilant.

We have many examples of what kind ofchanges urban sprawl and huge population growthbring; we can see what has happened to theOkanagan Valley. The Kootenays are at a cross-roads; we can keep our quality of life and highquality environment or see rapid growth and

changes.

CONCERN ABOUT INTERFACE FIRES

CLEARCUTS MAY

ACCELERATE WILDFIRES

The clearcuts in the Jumbo Valley will not elim-inate the wildfire hazard. In fact, studies andexperience indicate that clearcut and roadedareas sometimes accelerate and intensify fires.This is because logging leaves behind fine fuels.

In addition, as regeneration occurs, tightlyspaced young trees are highly flammable.

The resort plan includes commendableefforts to use fire-safe construction and prac-tices on and around the resort, and thisdoubtlessly will be done. And it may be truethat avalanche tracks would provide some natu-ral firebreaks. But the danger is that a fire onCrown land might grow big enough to breechthe avalanche chutes and fireguards protectingthe resort.

There is only one access road in a narrowvalley to get emergency response teams in andto evacuate the resort. If a fire blocks the road,that could be very dangerous. The Ministry of

Forests has warned that helicopters may notalways be available and, at any rate, would haveonly limited capacity to evacuate people.

Provincial firefighters will be responsiblefor protecting the resort and its occupants fromCrown land fires, and this area will become avery high priority for firefighting.

As explained in the 2001 report of BCsAuditor General, interface development forcesthe Ministry of Forests to suppress fires. Butthe longer they do that, the more the fuel will

build up. Sooner or later, when a drought comesalong, a fire could grow so intense so fast that itis impossible to suppress it.

The summer of 2003 demonstrated thateveryone in the province shares one pool of fire-fighters, equipment and funding. If we go aboutcreating new communities out in the wildlands,those resources will be stretched thinner. Evenif we have good fire preparedness, a lot is up tonature how many fires is she going to throwus at one time and where will they be? Howmany communities will be threatened?

This is why the Auditor Generals reporthas identified the expansion of developmentinto the forest as one of the chief factors in theincrease of interface fire risk in BC. Restric-tions on where building can take place are rec-ognized as one way to curb the spread of theseproblems. The Auditors report recommendsthat communities obtain detailed hazard/riskstudies before permitting new development. Butwhat about projects permitted by the provincialgovernment?

A DETAILED, INDEPENDENT HAZARDAND RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE ENTIRE

JUMBO VALLEY SHOULD BE COMPLETEDBEFORE THE GOVERNMENT APPROVESTHE RESORT.

In addition, in making a decision on theJumbo Resort, the government should considerits potential impact on provincial firefightingresources and all British Columbians who fundthose resources with their tax dollars, and whoneed them in time of fire emergency.

MINISTRY OF FORESTS WARNS:JUMBO VALLEY HAS POTENTIAL

FOR RAPID FIRE SPREAD ONLY

ONE ACCESS ROAD

The Ministry of Forests has advised theproject committee that the proposed Jumbo

Glacier project lies within an area of thesouthern Purcell Mountains which is subjectto a significant risk of wildfire in a typicalfire season. The topography of the areawhich surrounds the project site is suffi-ciently steep and timbered that it creates thepotential for rapid fire spread, and also offersthe prospect of difficult emergency accessand fire control in the event of a wildfireoutbreak Predominantly southerly windswould be expected to affect the project areassurroundings during high fire hazard times,and, in the event of wildfire occurrence,could create significant fire control difficul-ties.

Thus, the Jumbo Glacier project rep-resents a significant wildland/urban inter-face Moreover, the resort is located atthe upper end of a narrow valley, with onlyone access road, which raises issues withrespect to access and egress during a poten-tial wildfire.

Jumbo Glacier ResortProject Report, C-18

Typical ski resort in Switzerland. Jumbo valley could look like this in the future. Zan Mautnier

4 J U M B O W I L D N E W S



MELTING GLACIERS, SALT, WATER AND PEOPLE

Above: The Purcell Wilderness Conservancy is only about 5-10 kilometres from the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort. Its wilderness and wildlife are in

jeapordy if Jumbo is built.

A United Nations report has warned ski resorts around the world that glaciersare melting rapidly due to global warming. Lower elevation ski resorts will gobankrupt, which will increase the pressure on high elevation glaciers inextremely sensitive alpine areas such as in Jumbo Valley.

Right: Appropriately called 'Lords of the High Country,' mountain goats are found only in high alpine areas of the Pacific Northwest. They lead a veryfragile existence. The steep, rugged terrain of Jumbo Pass has afforded thesemajestic animals protection from predators and human disturbance, untilnow. Increased activity, thousands of people, gondolas, lifts, traffic, bombingof avalanches and helicopters in the alpine will cause negative impacts on goathabitat and populations, which are very vulnerable.

ARTIFICIAL SNOW AND SALTMost ski hills in BC use huge amounts of salt tocondition their ski runs, and many use artificialsnow. The salt contaminates water coming off theglaciers. Making artificial snow uses huge amountsof water, drawing down water levels for drinkingand fish. With BCs glaciers melting rapidly, watercoming off of glaciers is a precious resource thatshould not be polluted or disrupted in its flow pat-terns.

The Jumbo Resort will be different, we aretold. They wouldnt think of using salt on theirslopes. They point out that salt and artificial snoware used by lower elevation ski hills that haveproblems with warm weather and insufficientsnow. The Jumbo ski areas are significantly high-

er in elevation, with plenty of snow.But this does not take into account the warn-

ings in the United Nations report: CLIMATECHANGE AND WINTER SPORTS: ENVIRON-MENTAL AND ECONOMIC THREATS. Globalwarming will make it far more expensive to run aski operation, whether an area receives too littlesnow or heavy freak storms that require shuttingdown for avalanches. According to the UN report,the potential annual costs of climate change inSwitzerland have been estimated at US $1.5 to 2.1billion by the year 2050.

At the same time, global warming will reducethe length of the ski season and the number ofskiers, reducing the profits of the resort. Skiersare having to go higher and higher to find goodsnow. Jumbo Resort plans to have summer skiing.We know that the southern Interior of BC justhad the warmest 10 years on record. Summer ski-

ing can lead to salt use.The developers already acknowledge they will

use salt on race days. How many race dayswill there be, and what kind of use will concen-trate at Jumbo Glacier as other resorts increasing-ly lose their snow?

It is estimated that the required amount ofartificial snow will increase between 36-144% bythe 2020s, and by 48-187% in 2050s. Snowmak-ing is extremely expensive.

Once the resort is built, the owners canchange the operations of their business as needed,and the government that has brought us deregula-tion of the logging and mining industries will issuewhatever permits are needed.

EXPLOSIVESGlobal warming will also cause increased risk

of avalanches, and the costs associated with that.The Jumbo Master Plan states that avalanchesalong the road will be controlled with explosivesand helicopter bombing. Who knows how wildlife,in particular the mountain goats and denningbears, will survive with this kind of noise anddestruction taking place for a large part of thetime?

PEOPLE, HYDROLOGYAND SLOPES

One impact cannot be denied, so much has itbeen proven everywhere. Using the excuse ofovercrowded facilities, ski resorts pressure gov-ernment for expansions, and the expansions thenspread the environmental damage and bring

greater crowds of people who soon clamour forstill more expansions.

Just the sheer number of people in the areadoes heavy ecological damage. Even if their sewagecan be safely handled, it requires much groundand water disruption to do so. Heavy use alsodestroys vegetation and compacts the ground,which loses its ability to absorb water runoff.This causes high peak flows in spring, erosion,landslides and floods. The developers say there areno reports of damage at other ski hills around theprovince, but a very different story comes fromEurope.

The UN says global warming will increasethe melting of permafrost and make many moun-tain areas vulnerable to landslides. Ski lift equip-ment and buildings in permafrost soil becomeunstable. Stabilizing them is expensive.

MELP, in regulating existing ski hill opera-tions throughout BC, has encountered a vari-ety of water quality problems. Sediment gen-eration is a typical concern, caused by ski runclearing, road construction and residentialdevelopment, and is sometimes seriousenough to require enforcement action.Sewage treatment may be neglected, andeffluent quality has been known to violatepermit requirements and/or the federal Fish-eries Act.

Environmental Assessment OfficeJune 1998



Wolverines, like grizzly bears, depend on seclusion and wilder-ness. By swamping the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy with

people and noise, we would be replacing something rare andunique with comething common.

The Purcell Wilderness Conservancy is one ofthe largest, wildest protected areas in theSouthern Interior. Local residents demandedstronger protection for the conservancy than forBC parks. As a result, today the conservancy hasno roads at all. The access roads dont even reachthe boundary.

When BC Parks conducted a survey for the1988 master plan process, of the 600 respondentsand 250 people interviewed, 82% wanted to main-tain the level of protection. 82% wanted a contin-uation of the ban on air access.

It is well recognized that parks need bufferzones outside their boundaries. In these zones,there can be economic activities or development,but only of a low-impact nature compatible withparks. Tourism has long been thought to be betterin this respect than logging.

However, huge developments set up just out-side park boundaries can be far more damagingthan logging. They can essentially co-opt a parkfor the use of the private operators clients. Whilepark managers carefully manage access to maintain

the wilderness of remote park areas, commercialoperators can simply set up a lodge near the parkboundary, use photographs or descriptions of thepark in their advertising to bring mass numbers ofpeople, improve or build road access to their lodge,and thus swamp with tourists a fragile parkwilderness that society spent many years trying topreserve in a wild state.

By bringing hundreds of thousands of peopleto the boundary of a park, developers can create,almost overnight, a huge public demand for con-cessionswithin a park. But its an artificially cre-ated demand, as artificial as the snow created bymost BC ski resorts; and it is propelled by unnat-ural growth that is entirely predictable whenmega-buck, high-impact tourism development

comes along.

In such ways, it is possible for wealthy for-eign investors to simply overwhelm the desires andefforts of local or regional residents. It is possiblefor a massive resort outside park boundaries tosiphon a park dry of the values for which it was

created whether that means attracting its griz-zly bears into a fatal relationship with humangarbage, or swamping its wilderness areas withtourists seeking entertainment, or pressuring formotorized access in a park that was deliberatelycreated to keep machines out.

THE PURCELL WILDERNESS CONSERVANCY:WILDERNESS AND WILDLIFE AT RISK

SINIXT NATIONOPPOSES JUMBO

On February 5, 1997, Marilyn James, Appointed Spokesperson forthe Sinixt Nation, wrote to Mr. RayCrook, Environmental AssessmentProject Review, opposing the devel-opment of the Jumbo Pass Mega SkiDevelopment. In her letter Ms. Jamesstates, Alpine ecosystems are veryfragile and avalanche areas are impor-tant to the bears survival and thismega project needs to be halted.

The Sinixt Nation opposesmega developments in the backcoun-try. A development of this size spellsdisaster for the grizzly bears in thearea. These bears will be wiped outby placing a city in the alpine. Thisis a critical habitat for the Purcellgrizzly population. The Jumbo areamust stay a pristine wilderness areafor the survival of the grizzly bear.The grizzly bear must take priorityto any development. The BC gov-ernment should not be approvingthese mega ski developments inthese critical habitat areas.

If the grizzly is protected, thenall biodiversity is protected. TheSinixt Nation opposes Jumbo SkiDevelopment and any other large

mega projects in the alpine thatimpact bears who share Sinixt tradi-tional territory.

On September 20th, 1995, the Ktu-naxa Tribal Council presented a dec-laration in Nelson to the governmentreview committee, signed by theChiefs of the Columbia Lake, Tobac-co Plains, St. Marys and LowerKootenay Bands. It said (in part):

The Ktunaxa people areadamantly opposed to the proposeddevelopment of the Jumbo Creek

drainage.... If the Jumbo Creekdrainage is at all to be considered forremoval from "Crown Land" status,prior consideration shall be given tothe Ktunaxa people for first refusal... The Ktunaxa values that existthere now far outweigh monetaryvalue. Treaty issues and Aboriginalrights must be dealt with first beforeany large tracts of pristine land are tobe considered for further develop-ment, but the Jumbo Creek areashould never be considered for anydevelopment.

...The decision to not developthe Jumbo Creek Valley is the onlydecision that the Ktunaxa people will

accept.The position of the Ktunaxa at thepresent stage is as yet unknown.

KTUNAXA CHIEFSOPPOSE JUMBO

Garth Lenz

SACRIFICING THAT WHICH IS UNIQUEFOR THAT WHICH IS COMMON

In 1992 the Alberta Natural Resources Conser-vation Board turned down most of a proposal forthe Three Sisters mega-ski resort outside oftown, along the Bow River. Many Canmore res-idents had said they came to live in the areabecause of the nearby environmental quality ofthe area. They wanted to slow the rampantgrowth stimulated by wealthy investors exploit-ing natural landscapes to make their fortunes.

Dr. Thomas Power, Professor and Chair,

Economics Department, University of Montana:Most resort towns and recreational meccas inNorth America represent industrial gradetourism, that is, a large-scale, high-volumeindustry that inundates communities and almostreplaces them. But tourism does not have to takeplace on this scale or in this manner. There is an

alternative type of tourism that protects what isunique in an area by limiting and dispersing theimpact of visitors.

One can expect that recreation/tourism marketswill change substantially over the next ten years... The proposed destination resort with itsupscale or luxury hotel, golf courses, recre-ation and shopping facilities follows the patternof tourist development already established atBanff-Lake Louise ... The fastest-growing part ofthe market is in adventure recreation, eco-

tourism, and cultural tourism ... Tourist facilitiesthat undermine that which is unique about anarea may well be destroying their own market.What the Three Sisters developers proposed wasto commit a large part of a relatively scarceresource, the Bow Corridor landscape, to rela-tively common recreational activities that couldbe pursued elsewhere in Alberta.

If a community adopts a helpless beggars-cantbe-choosers attitude and passively accepts anyand all tourist proposals, tourism may well some-day consume it. But if the community cherishesits amenities and has the confidence to protectthem, it can lay the foundation for local entre-preneurs to develop compatible, dispersed touristbusinesses that help vitalize the local economy.



Support the West Kootenay Coalition for Jumbo WildEnvironmental groups are working on both sides of the Purcells

SEND YOUR TAX CREDITABLE DONATION TO:

VALHALLA WILDERNESS SOCIETYBox 329

New Denver, B.C. V0G 1S0Phone: 250 358-2333 ([email protected])

All donations are tax creditable, charitable tax # 119260883 RR

Please keep me informed ______________________________________________________

I would like to make a donation of ______________________________________________

Name: _____________________________________________ Telephone: _______________

Address:______________________________________________________________________

E-mail: _________________________________ Fax: ________________________________

VISA #: __________________________MASTERCARD #: ___________________________

Exp. date: ________________ Signature: ___________________________________________

Donations will go to the West Kootenay Coalition for Jumbo Wild.

Provincial Support:

Applied Ecological Stewardship Council

of B.C.; Canadian Alpine Club; Canadian

Parks and Wilderness Society; Grant

MacKewan Mountaineers; Western Canada

Wilderness Committee; Yellowstone to

Yukon Conservation Initiative

Websites: www.wildcanada.net has a form

letter with all government email addresses;www.JUMBOWILD.COM;

http://www.kootan.org/jumbo.html

Special thanks to Rowena Eloise, Inger

Kronseth, Marilyn Burgoon, Suzy Hamil-

ton, Brian Horejsi, Matt Lowe, John Alton,

Glada McIntyre, Tom Prior, Eric Schin-

dler, Edith and Zan Mautnier.

Production

Stage One: Austin Greengrass, Cliff Wof-

fenden, Joshua McKenty and Colleen

McCrory.

Stage Two: Colleen McCrory, Madeleine

McCarthy, Craig Pettitt, Anne Sherrod,

Wayne McCrory, Erica Mallam, Anne

Champaign. Special thanks to Walter Wells

for contributing expert photographic assis-

tance.

Printed by Capitol News, Kelowna, BC.

Valhalla Wilderness Society. All rightsreserved.

FUNDING IS DESPERATELY NEEDED

TO FIGHT THIS PROJECT

Argenta Ad Hoc Committee for WildJumbo; Blewett Conservation Society;Discovery CanadaOutdoor Adventures,Inc.; Eco-Society; Friends of GlacierCreek; Friends of Jumbo Pass and MonicaMeadows; Friends of the Purcell Wilder-ness Conservancy; Friends of White Griz-zlyGoat Range Park; Grizzly Project;Kaslo Environmental Society; Pro Terra;Purcell Alliance for Wilderness; Sinixt

Nation; West Kootenay Mountaineering

Club; West Kootenay Naturalists; WestKootenay Watershed Congress; ValhallaWilderness Society.

Contact Numbers

W. Kootenay Coalition for Jumbo WildGen. Delivery, Argenta, BC V0G 1B0Account #481176,Kootenay Savings Credit UnionKaslo, BCPhone: 250-366-4422

Ecocentre#6 373 Baker Street,Box 717Nelson, BC V1L 4H6Phone: 250-354-1909

Inger KronsethOur Jumbo Coordinator19-250 Russell Rd.Victoria, BC V9A 3X2Phone: [email protected]

Jumbo Creek Conservation Society250-342-7503

The West Kootenay Coalition for Jumbo Wild

WHO ARE THE DIRECTORS

OF GLACIER RESORTS LTD.?

OBERTO OBERTI both a Director & Presi-dent of Glacier Resorts Ltd. President of Phei-dias Project Management Corp., which is doingthe overall design and liaison with approvingauthorities, owner: Oberto Oberti Inc., Architec-ture & Urban Design

KUNI YAMAMOTO both a Director &Secretary Developer and major shareholder inTusar Properties Inc. International ClientGroup and real estate consultant

MARTHA BRUECKET real estate manager

DAVID TSCHANZ Owner of CrystalMountain Resort near Kelowna, former mayorof Lenzerheinde, one of the top-ten resorts inthe Swiss Alps

KARL ERNST President and owner ofMueller Lifts Ltd.

LEONARDO LENTI Professor of Law,University of Turin, Italy. Well-known guideand mountaineer in the Alps.

ARNOLD ARMSTRONG President andCEO: International Cetec Investments Inc.

DR. ALAN ARTIBISE Dean, College ofUrban & Public Affairs, University of NewOrleans



DO WE WANT TO PROTECT THE PURCELL GRIZZLIESOR SUPPORT A ROAD TO EXTINCTION ?

YOU ONLY HAVE 2 MONTHS AND 2 MEETINGS FOR PUBLIC INPUT

YOUR ATTENTION IS URGENTLY NEEDED NOW !

WRITE YOUR LETTER TO SAVEJUMBO AND THE GRIZZLIES

STATE YOUR OPPOSITION

IMPORTANT DATES

FEB. 12, 2004 PUBLIC INPUT BEGINS

MARCH 10, 2004 OPEN HOUSE (Government & Proponent)

3 - 8 p.m. Best Western, Invermere

MARCH 11, 2004 OPEN HOUSE (Government & Proponent)

3 - 8 p.m. Prestige Inn, Nelson

APRIL 12, 2004 PUBLIC INPUT CLOSES

SEPTEMBER DECISION BY CABINET ON JUMBO

Environmental Assessment OfficeJumbo Project Director, Martyn Glassman

Box 9426, Stn. Prov. Govt.Victoria, BC V8W 9V1Email: [email protected]

Premier Gordon CampbellParliament BuildingsVictoria, BC V8V 1X4Email: [email protected]

Blair Suffredine, Chair of the Tourism CommitteeParliament BuildingsVictoria, BC V8V 1X4Email: [email protected]

Sandy Santori (West Kootenay)Minister of State for Resort Development

Parliament BuildingsVictoria, BC V8V 1X4Email: [email protected]

Write a letter or two or three

Get all your neighbours and friends to write letters.

Send emails.

Phone your MLA & relevant ministers.

It's free via 1-800-663-7867.

WayneMcCrory

WayneMcCrory

NOTICE: This government is notorious for setting uppublic input and then ignoring it because their politicaldecision has long before been made. Dont let this publicinput be another such farce. Send your letters to the news-papers as well as government. Dont be misled by the win-dow-dressing of public consultation. Insist on real publichearings with publication of public input. Democracy canwork only if enough people speak out with the determina-tion that their rights will be recognized. Jumbo Valley ispublic land that must be managed for the public trust.

Other ministers: George Abbott, Minister of Sustainable ResourceManagement ([email protected]); Bill Barisoff, Minister ofWater, Land and Air Protection ([email protected]); John

Les, Minister of Small Business and Economic Development([email protected])

BC may contain as much as 20-25% ofthe grizzly population of North Amer-ica. These animals speak to us of areasfar from the beaten path; of room to

wander; of the Earth as it was created.They are living symbols of wildness.And they need wildness to survive.

The tourist of today is like arefugee from urban areas, coming toCanada and the Kootenays to see whatis unique. They are thrilled just by thefact that BC has grizzly bears. To paveover, develop and commercialize BCswild backcountry and parks, is to turnthem into something that is commonalmost everywhere.

If you prize seeing grizzly beartracks in BCs wildlands, wake up!Wildlife biologists say the grizzlies are

on the trail to extinction. If you wantto do something about it, please join usin opposing this project with all thefervour of your love for wild things.

Jumbo Glacier Development

Documents

Transcript of Jumbo Glacier Development