jumbo glacier resort traditional use study meeting notes with ktunaxa

7/30/2019 Jumbo Glacier Resort Traditional Use Study Meeting Notes with Ktunaxa

1/3


2/3

glaciers in question. OO will forward copy of his 1994 report and copy of a letter to Stephanie Stevens, not

published by the Valley Echo that was reviewed by Dr. Maxwell and is an update on the subject. The

Project Committee of the EA Office decided in the Project Specifications that glacier retraction and

disappearance is not an issue for the project.

5. MK asked about the visibility of the project. OO explained that the project would not be visible fromJumbo Pass and from most of the hiking locations, because of the geography. Fo example, the sawmill site

for the proposed project is hidden from Jumbo Pass by a mountain shoulder to the left of the line of sight

from the Pass into Jumbo Creek. The only locations from where the resort would be visible would be from

the top of Redtop Mountain and perhaps of Bastille Mountain, basically where there is a direct line of sight

from the south. The lifts and the arrival stations would not be visible from kilometers away, as one would

be if not using the resort facilities.

6. The next question was salt on the glaciers. OO reported that the use of salt or chemicals does not occur inski areas for tourists and the Proponent had already given assurance that this was not going to be done by

Jumbo Glacier Resort. Also, salt or chemicals used at ski racing camps or ski races is minimal and has not

been reported in any location as having had negative environmental impacts. Ski race organizers and ski

training camps organizers in any event would be separate entities from the Proponent and would be

handling their permitting conditions directly and independently with the B.C. Government. OO noted that

information from Blackomb and Mount Hood has indicated that the training activities there for some

fifteen years have not had any discernible impacts.

7. Mike Keefer asked what would be OOs position if the TUS found that the Jumbo area is a special place would he recommend abandoning the project? OO responded that this would be a very difficult question to

resolve and that it would open up a whole series of other questions from the investors, such as why was

this not communicated at the beginning of the process rather than at the end. The project started thirteen

years ago and followed invitations of five different B.C. Governments to proceed with the application as

well as utilizing all available information to fit into Government policies. These are policies, which invite

investors to the Province in particular sectors and geographic regions, and the project direction has been

confirmed to the investors over thirteen years by all B.C governments.

8. MK asked whether the First Nations were ever consulted before. OO noted that he had personally beenintroduced to the Shuswaps in 1990 and had spoken to chief Paul Sam and others since then. The question

moved on to whether the Columbia Band had been consulted. OO noted that the consulting group for the

project had made at least one presentation to the Columbia Band in 1995 or 96. Thomas Mansonconfirmed. Following another question OO confirmed that he and the other consultants had made

presentations also to the KKTC and that the response had been rather negative. MK asked why did we not

stop the project then. OO responded that not all people among First Nations were negative and that

particularly the Shuswaps, who are the closest Band, had been supportive. OO explained that it appeared

that the KKTC was responding to misinformation about the project and that the evaluations were based on

the misinformation. It did not seem reasonable to stop a project on objections based on misinformation.

9. MK and others asked how people were misinformed. OO mentioned that there were rumors and mythsabout many aspects of the project, including its location relative to mountains and industry needs, its size,

which was claimed to be too big, market choice, type and demand, whereby it was incorrectly thought that

there were too many ski resorts, summer and glacier skiing as if they had negative impact on the glaciers,

etc. Also the environmental information did not seem to be shared despite a great deal of work. OO

thought that the Proponent group could make the case that the project would be good for the region, and

especially for the First Nations, but the opportunity to make the case had not properly materialized, despite

on going efforts.

10. Jim Beare (JB) expressed a concern about affordability. Grant Costello (GC) explained that the projectwould be a considerable improvement relative to the cost of access by bus and helicopter, as it is currently

the case and that it is expected that the project would be very near the current costs of other resorts such as

Panorama, which are much more affordable than heli-skiing. GC noted that access limited to heli-skiers is

definitely in the less affordable category.


3/3

11. MK asked clarifications on project size, WC asked the number of people the project is designed for. OOexplained that the resort project as presented in 1995 was less than a tenth of Whistler (including

Blackcomb), but that it has even been downsized relative to the 1995 proposal, with a CRA that is about

half size, less lift capacity and a resort of less than 6,500 beds including employee housing. OO explained

the basic numbers of skiers per day at build out in the range of 2,200/2,800 by memory, but offered to send

the precise information by e-mail.

OO thanked those attending the meeting for a useful exchange but had to excuse himself to go to Panorama for

a 7:30 appointment, and suggested to meeting to review the progress of the work to come. MK offered to look

at the timetable and to inform OO of the progress, even if he was not sure yet of a completion date.

Oberto Oberti Grant Costello

jumbo glacier resort traditional use study meeting notes with ktunaxa

Documents