fact vs fiction response to jumbowild

7/30/2019 Fact vs Fiction response to JumboWild

1/6

he Jumbo Creek Conservation Societ s Pam hlet:

he Jumbo Creek Conservation

Society continues to undertake apropaganda campaign aimed at

isrepresenting the Jumbo GlacierResort project.

In general terms, the pamphlet mis-represents (1) the size, nature andocation of the resort, and (2) therue state of the Jumbo Creek valley

in order to raise public fears and un-

founded concerns about the JumboGlacier Resort proposal.

For example, not a single picture inhe pamphlet shows the actual loca-

tion or valley where the resort is pro-posed. Despite 29 instances of theword Jumbo in the pamphlet, theJumbo Creek Conservation Societyseditorial does not once refer to theproject by its proper name: JumboGlacier Resort an important dis-t nct on w c re ers to geograp y rather than size. Following thirteenyears of public discussion on theproject, with volumes of informa-tion readily available, this cannot bea simple question of misunderstand-ing. It can only be read as a not-so-transparent and continued effort to

misinform the public.

e pamp ets ma nicture, taken fromJumbo Pass, shows

he east side of up-er Jumbo Creek

valley, includingMount Karnak andJumbo Mountain. Itdoes not show theJumbo Creek valley,

or where the resort will actually be located (centered in an aban-doned sawmill site) and the extensive logging normally visible inthe valley.

Actual pictures ofhe Jumbo Creek

valley show exten-ive logging andrior use. he resort

will be located in an

abandoned sawmillite and will cover

110 hectares at fulluild out.

For further project information please visit www.jumboglacierresort.com


2/6

he Jumbo Creek valley is neveractually shown in the pamphlet. If it

were, extensive logging would be seen.According to Ministry of Forests map-

ping, nearly 50% (about 45,700 ha)of the forest cover in the valleyis classied as Newly Logged or

Young Forest. he valley is notpristine and is not threatened bythe resort proposal.

. he project is called Jumbo Re-sort Development because of itslarge size.

. The Jumbo Valley Threatened by the

umbo Resort Development proposal

he project is called Jumbo GlacierResort, named after a prominent geo-graphic feature in the area. At 5,500tourist beds and 110 hectares in size, theproject will be smaller than Panorama atbuildout and most existing resorts of itstype in British Columbia. o put thingsin perspective, Panorama is approvedor 7,084 beds over 336 ha, and Whistler

is 52,500 beds over 12,950 ha.

3. Located 55 kilometers west of Inver-

mere, BC, the Jumbo Valley is a spectacular

isplay of mountains...

he valley begins 36 kms froInvermere near the Mineral KingMine. he abandoned sawmill site,

and proposed resort base (notshown in thepamphlet) is atthe top end ofthe valley andis 55 kms fromInvermere.

he Mineral King Mine tail ings at the entrance to the Jumbo Creek Valley. The Ministry of Energy

nd Mines ordered the removal of barium sulfate from the tailings in the 1990s as it began wash-

ing into Toby Creek.

. It is where locals and international

isitors alike can still nd solitude, wilder-

ness, wildlife and adventure.

It is rare to be able to reach the sawmillsite without encountering other privatecars, campers, horse trailers, loggingtrucks, water trucks and/or grading

machines in the summer months. Inwinter, the road is kept open all the wayto the parking lot at the Mineral KingMine in order to facilitate heli-skiing.Conveniently located at the entrance

o the Jumbo Creekvalley, the parking lotis also a starting outpoint for snowmo-bilers. he activity isso popular that the

orest District hasresorted to the fairly

dramatic action of prohibiting snow-mobiling from the upper portions of

Jumbo Creek in order to avoid conictwith heli-skiers.

he valley has been subjected to signi-cant industrial and recreational impact,nevertheless, as in many areas in BC,black bears, moose, elk and deer are still

seen in the area. Many of these animalsare often seen even in the town centersof Radium and Banff. he possibilityof seeing bears (even reclusive grizzlies)from the ski lifts at Lake Louise, for ex-ample, has become a tourist attraction.Bears and deer are seen in the backyardsof homes in North and West Vancou-

ver, cities with a combined populationapproaching 200,000 people. heseplaces, like the Jumbo Creek valley, arenot a wildlife refuge.

acFiction acFiction


3/6

. Covering an area of 5000 hectares the

umbo Resort proposal would transform the

umbo Valley and surrounding backcoun-

try into an exclusive playground for wealthy

customers.

The resort will cover approximately110 hectares centered on an abandonedsawmill site. Jumbo is the geographicname of the mountain and its associated

glacier, not of the resort size. JumboResort is deceptive wordplay. This is atruth that has been known to the authorsof the pamphlet for over a decade.

The proposed Controlled RecreationArea in which the ski runs will be locat-ed (not the resort) will have a boundaryincluding (not covering) approximately,900 hectares. his is a limit to the ski-

able area. It is not an area for develop-

ment and will have no impact on thosewishing to hike, ski tour or otherwise usethe area.

It is well known that the enjoyment ofglaciers and skiing in the area is currentlythe exclusive domain of wealthy heli-ski

ustomers, or on exceedingly rareoccasions, expensively equippedand well-trained mountaineeringxpeditions. Jumbo Mountain and

its associated glaciers in winteran only be skied by helicop-er at a cost of over 600 a day.

Conversely, this proposal wouldrovide affordable access to the

average skier -- at about one tenththe current cost, or 50 a day (which,like at Kicking Horse Mountain Resort,

will be discounted for locals, and will becloser to 30 a day). he intent of theProponent has always been to open up

access to high alpine glaciers to the aver-age Canadian.

. This four season resort and real estate

development will choke the Jumbo valley

with as many as 10,000 people in a vil-

lage of subdivisions, hotels, restaurants and

shopping malls

No shopping malls have ever been pro-posed. The resort is planned for 5,500tourist beds, roughly the equivalent oftwo times the Banff Springs hotel, in a

low-rise conguration.

. Gondolas and skilifts will criss-cross

the surrounding pristine glaciers and moun-

tain peaks

he exact opposite is in the plans.here will be no criss-crossing of

lifts. Because of the size of the moun-tains and glaciers it is possible witha minimum of lifts to give access toentire mountains. he project has been

designed from the outset to have thelowest density of lifts and skiers in BC,relative to the skiable terrain.

acFiction acFiction

he abandoned sawm ll s te, and the proposed

esort locat on n the upper Jumbo Creek valley as

seen n m d-autumn. Th s locat on s never shown n

he Jumbo Creek Conservation Societys literature.

he Jumbo Creek valley s not prst ne. It has seen a century of almost cont nuos ndustr al use.


4/6

acFiction acFiction

. The Jumbo Valley lies adjacent

to the largest wilderness area in southern

B.C., the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy.

This area is renowned for its exceptional

wilderness, wildlife and connectivity values.The Jumbo Resort proposal will result in

permanent loss of wilderness and wildlife

from this internationally important ar ea.

It will also sever critical wildlife movement

corridors between the Purcell Wilderness

Conservancy and surrounding water-

sheds.

he Jumbo Valley is not adjacent to theConservancy. Leona Creek is. he clos-est approach to the PWC border frothe Jumbo Valley is 10 km over moun-

tain peaks and glaciers. he main routeto and from the PWC is through obyCreek. A mine, operating until 1991, issituated at the entrance to the JumboCreek valley at its conuence with obyCreek. Jumbo Valley is not renownedfor its exceptional wilderness, on thecontrary, it is well known as an area ofmining and forestry activity. he Com-mission on Resources and the Environ-ment (CORE) did not see t to consider

it for protected status. Nor did it opt foran expansion of the Conservancy to-

wards the Jumbo Creek valley. The PWCwas instead expanded in the oppositedirection. Wildlife movement from thePurcell Wilderness Conservancy doesnot occur through the Leona Creekdrainage but through the Toby Creek

Hamill Creek corridor. ConnectivityNorth South is primarily west of Jumbo

Creek in the Glacier Creek drainage andbeyond.

8. The Jumbo Valley is currently home

to a healthy grizzly bear population. It pro-

vides excellent breeding and denning areas

for this threatened species.

he Jumbo Valley is not home to a griz-zly bear population in its lower reaches.Studies have reported that grizzly bearsdo not go near roads and populated ar-

eas, which means most of lower JumboCreek and the Jumbo Pass area. Whilesome of the upper sections of the valley,below the glaciers, would have suitablehabitat, as do most of the valleys of theregion, the only credible studies done todate indicate very clearly that the Jumbo

Valley area is one of the least accessedreas by grizzly bears. Almost 50%

of the valley has been clearcut, and thevalley was subjected to a devastating re

in the 1970s. he valley has had an ac-tive road supporting logging, a sawmilland mining for almost a century. JumboCreek valleys history is in direct contrastto that of the valleys in the Purcell Wil-derness Conservancy. he PWCs exis-tence is due in part to the fact that it sawlittle of the industry that took place in

Jumbo Creek. Its 200,000 ha. representthe largest roadless area in southern BC.

. The Jumbo Resort proposal may

produce up to 1.7 million litres per day

of liquid waste, in addition to salt and

fertilizers required for road and glacier

maintenance

he project will utilize approximately0.5 million litres per day at full buildout, which will be processed by a stateof the art tertiary treatment plant. heProject Committee, in addition to theProponent, has publicly conrmed thatthe project will not involve salt andertilizer for glacier maintenance.

No recreational ski resort uses salt andertilizers to create ice on ski runs. On

the contrary, the attraction of mountainresorts is created by the availability of

powder snow. Regarding the road, therewill be no downstream impact becauseof road salt, both because the road isexpected to be initially a gravel winterroad and because when it will be paved

the amount of salt that the Ministry ofransportation may use will be limited

and will be absorbed by the ground inthe immediate proximity of the roaddrainage system.


5/6

acFiction acFiction1. The Jumbo Resort proposal will place

nother serious burden on already stressed

ocal services and utilities such as regional

andlls, hospitals and health servicing,

olicing, safety and re protection.

A mountain resort such as the oneproposed is essentially self-containedand does not rely on local services andutilities, which in any event, are located

too far from the resort to be utilized.The region, in fact, has been crying outor increased investment and associated

tax revenues in order to support exist-ing services and to attract and maintainstaff.

2. Guest transportation to the Jumbo

esort may require a eet of 30 50

buses to service the potential daily ights

to the Fairmont airport.

None of this is even remotely withinrange of foreseeable market expecta-tions. No scheduled or charter ights toFairmont airport are counted on for the

project.

. A two lane paved highway will be re-

uired to handle the estimated 2700 vehicles

er day.

No such estimates are being providedor this project and the number is gross-

ly unrealistic 2700 vehicles/day is nearthe trafc on Highway 93 during thesummer season. he estimated numberof vehicles to Jumbo Glacier Resort, atull build out, after some twenty years,

will be in the range of 900 to 1,200 ve-

hicles per day.4. Ministry of Transportation gures

uggest that road construction costs could

reach 70 million dollars.

No estimates of this kind have beenprovided by the Ministry of Transporta-tion. The estimate quoted by Sno En-gineering from the Ministry of Trans-portation, was for a range of 25 milliondollars for a new 80km/h road design.

his option has not been proposed. heproposal is for improvements to the ex-isting roads and ultimately, for a 50km/

h design, similar to the Kicking HorseMountain Resort road, for an ultimate

. Avalanche control and maintenance

osts could exceed 500,000 annually.

The gure of $500,000 is absurdlybeyond any current avalanche control

costs. The recognized study submittedon May 18, 1997 by Peter Schaerer andquoted in the Project Specications in1998 as a reference document outlines acost in the range of 15,000 per year forthe Jumbo Creek road. his informa-tion has been in the public domain forsix years. Future avalanche control froPanorama to the Jumbo Creek sawmillsite (the proposed resort base) is cur-rently estimated by Peter Schaerer to be

25,000 per year in todays dollars.

target cost of $200,000 per kilometerfor a total of about $7 million.

6. Will these costs be passed on to the

people of BC as a hidden subsidy to the

eveloper?

No. he developer will denitely paymore than it will get back, as it is atcomparable B.C. mountain resorts andthese costs cited by the pamphlethave little basis in fact. However, if theB.C. Government were to invest in theregion, as it has done at Whistler andelsewhere, why should East Kootenay

residents oppose equal investment intheir region?


6/6

. The Jumbo Valley and surrounding

area has been used for generations as a place

to recreate, to nd solitude and adventure.

Its natural beauty and location offer an

exceptional alpine experience.

he prime use of the valley for gen-erations was mining, as evidenced notonly by the exploration activity of thepast, but by the Mineral King Mine atits base, followed by logging, evidencednot only by the results of the clear cuts,the debris, but also by the remains ofthe sawmill in upper Jumbo Creek. hequestion of solitude, already discussedabove, is relative at best, consideringthat the Jumbo Creek valley is one ofthe most used and frequented valleysin the area. Finally, and perhaps mostimportant, from the point of view ofalpine experience, the simple truthis that the overwhelming majority of

local residents and visitors, because

of the obvious dangers and costsinvolved, have never been to or even

been near the top of Glacier Dome,

and especially Jumbo, Commander

or Farnham Glaciers. If one were toconduct a quick poll of local residentsasking if they have been to Disneylandor a Mexican resort, or if theyve hadthe experience of standing at the top ofsome of the 3,000 meter high glaciers intheir own backyard, the results would bedisheartening.

acFiction acFiction. Jumbos Future??? -- Zermatt

Train Shuttle Parking his is not a picture of Zermatt, but apicture of the main train station parkinglot in sch, Switzerland, where it is pos-sible catch a train to Zermatt. he town

of Zermatt has been lauded worldwideor its progressive stance on motorized

vehicles, which are banned. his picture,underhandedly, seems to link massivenumbers of cars with Zermatt. Whathas it got to do with the Jumbo GlacierResort project? Certainly that is not theparking view that is proposed for theproject. On the contrary, the project de-sign has always been that of minimizingthe exposure to automobile trafc in the

valley and in the resort.

. The Jumbo Resort will turn a

ackcountry wilderness into an exclusive

playground for paying customers by limit-

ing public access and activities over a vast

area

Firstly, the current situation is that par-ticularly in winter, only t, paying cus-tomers, via helicopter, have a reasonablechance of entering the study area, par-ticularly the high alpine such as Jumbo,Commander and Farnham Glaciers, andthey pay more than ten times the rate ofa normal lift ticket. Secondly, the nearby

ski touring destinations, such as JumboPass, are nowhere near free. hey

will nevertheless be untouched by thisproposal. he costs associated with theequipment (including the snowmobilescommonly used to access the valley) andspecialized training required to accessthese areas in winter far outstrip the costof a lift ticket and bus pass. he simpleact of the matter is that high alpine

glaciers in Canada remain the exclusiveplayground of heliskiers and small num-

bers of highly experienced, extremelyt, and well equipped mountaineers.Contrast this reality with the image of aretiree being able to experience a 3,000m. high glacier for the rst time in his

or her life, from the comfort and safetyof a gondola at the cost of a reasonablelift ticket.

fact vs fiction response to jumbowild

Documents