pheidias project management corporation1660 – 1188 west georgia street, vancouver, british columbia v6e 4a2 canada t: 604-662-8833 f: 604-662-7958www.pheidias.ca info@pheidias.ca

D

A

X

C

B

c

Foglie di fotto

g

QVARTO

e

CORINTHIOXLVIII

b

G.fioreCimatioAbacoCauliculoFoglie minoriFoglie di mezo

d

a

f

CB

C.groffezza dela colonna di fopra.

October 14, 2003

Mr. Martyn GlassmanProject Assessment DirectorEnvironmental Assessment OfficeMinistry of Finance & Corporate RelationsPO Box 9426 Stn. Prov. Gov’t2836 Yates StreetVictoria, BC. V8W 9V1

Re: Jumbo Creek Conservation Society Pamphlet

Dear Mr. Glassman:

Enclosed in the following pages is a copy of a glossy pamphlet circulated by the Jumbo CreekConservation Society, which we picked up for the first time at the Columbia First Nation’s officesduring the meeting of September 24. We have included some detailed commentary andobservations for your consideration. A shorter version for wider public distribution is also beingprepared.

The Jumbo Creek Conservation Society is continuing an overt effort of misrepresenting ourproject. Particularly characteristic of this effort is the simple fact that not a single picture in thepamphlet shows the actual location or valley where the resort is proposed. It is alsodisconcerting that despite 29 instances of the word “Jumbo” in the pamphlet, the Jumbo CreekConservation Society’s editorial does not once refer to the project by its proper geographicname: Jumbo Glacier Resort – an important distinction. Following thirteen years of publicdiscussion on the project, with volumes of information readily available, this cannot be a simplequestion of misunderstanding. It can only be read as a not-so-transparent and continued effortto misinform. A review of the litany of incorrect and untrue statements, statistics and images,which are outlined below, demonstrate a clear effort of disseminating misinformation.

2

Page One Commentary

1. The main picture of the brochure is a picture ofthe east side of upper Jumbo Valley, showing MountKarnak and Jumbo Mountain and taken from JumboPass. A picture taken from this vantage point andelevation conceals almost the entire Jumbo Creekvalley – especially the sawmill site (where theproposed resort will be located) and the extensivelogging normally visible in the valley.

The purpose of the photograph is to show abeautiful wilderness in the rough proximity of theproposed resort location, without actually showingits true location. Its principal aim is to convincethose who have not followed the project that pristineand beautiful wilderness will be destroyed – which is a basic untruth.

As an aside, the photo from Jumbo Pass does show, however, that the resort will not be visiblefrom the pass and will therefore not provide a visual disturbance to those wishing to use it infuture years.

The actual resort location, centered near an abandoned sawmill site in the upper Jumbo Creekvalley, can be seen in the following pictures:

3

Pictures taken from a helicopter roughly a few hundred meters above Jumbo Pass in both summer and winter show areal view of the upper Jumbo Creek valley – a reality that the pamphlet’s pictures hide.

4

The proposed resort location is centered on an abandoned sawmill site in the upper Jumbo Creek valley, shown insummer (above) and early winter (below). This actual location is not depicted anywhere in the Jumbo Creek

Conservation Society’s pamphlet.

5

2. The heading “The Jumbo Valley Threatened by the Jumbo Resort Development proposal” ismisleading not only in its content, but also by the fact that the Jumbo Creek valley is neveractually depicted in the pamphlet, and in the misuse of the name of the project. The Proponenthas taken care to always refer the name “Jumbo” to the geographic features of the area (i.e.Jumbo Glacier, Jumbo Mountain and Jumbo Creek) not to the resort, which is designed to be aparticularly small destination resort. The equivocations about the project size and location havebeen a constant form of harassment in this project, and following thirteen years of publicdialogue, can only be construed as willful misinformation, as opposed to simplemisunderstanding.

3. The caption indicating that the Jumbo Valley is located 55kilometres west of Invermere is incorrect. 55 kilometers is thedistance of the sawmill site (not shown anywhere in thepamphlet), which is almost at the top end of the valley. TheJumbo Creek valley actually begins at about 36 kilometers from Invermere. The lower portion ofthe valley, which is also not shown in the pamphlet, has not only been subject to extensivelogging and mining, but also to a major fire, with consequences still visible. The overhead view(below) of the lower Jumbo Creek valley shows the significant areas of new logging quiteclearly.

Overhead views of the lower Jumbo Creek valley show the significant areas of new logging quite clearly. According toMinistry of Forests mapping, nearly 50% (about 45,700 ha) of the forest cover in the Jumbo Creek Valley is classified

as Newly Logged or Young Forest.

6

4. The statement that “The Jumbo valley forms a critical wildlife corridor and buffer zone for thePurcell Wilderness Conservancy, the largest roadless area in southern B.C.” is speculative andmisleading. A mine, operating until 1991, is located at the entrance to the Jumbo Creek valleywhere it connects to Toby Creek, the main route to and from the Purcell Conservancy in thisregion. The Jumbo Creek valley has also had some of the most active logging in the regionsince the 1930’s. Its road is one of the most accessed and best kept in the region. At the upperend of the valley, sawdust piles and clumps of abandoned logs and stumps witness the activityof sawmill operations and of the more recent logging. It is misleading to state “It is home to thegreat grizzly, the majestic mountain goat and the elusive wolverine”, as if this were a pristinecenter for wildlife refuge. It is a simple fact that the valley is not pristine wilderness and that ithas been used industrially for over 100 years.

The Mineral King Mine tailings at the entrance to the Jumbo Creek Valley. The Ministry of Energy and Mines orderedthe removal of barium sulfate from the tailings in the 1990s as it began washing into Toby Creek.

7

Debris in and around Jumbo Creek in the upper portions of the Jumbo Creek valley.

5. The statement “It is where locals and international visitors alike can still find solitude,wilderness, wildlife and adventure,” is yet another falsehood. Solitude is not easily foundbecause of the valley’s remarkably easy access. It is rare that one can go to the sawmill site insummer without seeing other vehicles. Private cars, campers, horse trailers, logging trucks,water trucks, and grading machines, are allpresent in the summer months. In fact, the roadup Toby Creek to the Mineral King Mine is keptopen even in winter, in order to facilitate heli-skiing, which makes use of the mine as astaging area and parking lot. That parking lot,conveniently located at the entrance to theJumbo Creek valley, is also a starting out pointfor the significant number of snowmobilers whoenjoy riding in the region. The activity is sopopular, that the Forest District has had to resortto the fairly dramatic action of prohibitingsnowmobiling from the upper portions of theJumbo Creek valley in order to avoid conflictwith heli-skiers.

According to Ministry of Forests mapping, nearly 50% (about 45,700 ha) of the forest cover inthe Jumbo Creek Valley is classified as Newly Logged or Young Forest. Despite the significantchange in the landscape, roads, industrial activity, hunting and recreational activity in the valley,

8

black bears, moose, elk and deer are seen in the area. In fact, as is well known, many of theseanimals are seen even in the town centers of Radium and Banff. The possibility of seeing bears(even reclusive grizzlies) from the ski lifts at Lake Louise, for example, has become a touristattraction. Bears and deer are seen in the backyards of homes in North and West Vancouver,cities with a combined population approaching 200,000 people. The possibility of coexistencewith humans and human activity, as has been seen in the Jumbo Creek valley, Radium andelsewhere is well founded and well documented.

Adventure in the project area, for both locals and international visitors, can be experienced,particularly in winter, by means of helicopter or by serious, well-equipped ski touring ormountaineering expeditions. Suffice it to say, that for the vast majority of Canadians, these arenot financially viable options. A simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of local residentsand visitors alike have never seen the tops of the 3000+ meter glaciers (such as Jumbo,Commander and Farnham) in their own backyard. The vast majority of locals and internationaltravelers are not equipped nor prepared to hike to mountaintops and overnight in mountaincamps. A principal consideration is the danger posed by high alpine environments, and it is forthis reason that the few “adventurers” who currently experience this environment chose to do sofrom the safety of helicopters.

Forest coverage overview for the Jumbo Creek valley; nearly 50% (about 45,700 ha) of the forest cover is classifiedas Newly Logged or Young Forest. Source: Ministry of Forests

9

6. The listed details of the project are false and purposely misleading in order to incite fear:“covering an area of 5000 hectares the Jumbo Resort proposal would transform the JumboValley and surrounding backcountry into an exclusive playground for wealthy customers.”

Jumbo Glacier Resort will cover approximately 110 hectares centered on an abandonedsawmill. The Jumbo Glacier Resort proposal has always been conceived as a small resort at thefoot of a mountain. Jumbo is the geographic name of the mountain and its associated glacier,not of the resort size. “Jumbo Resort” is deceptive wordplay with no basis in fact. This is a truththat has been known to the authors of the pamphlet for over a decade.

The proposed Controlled Recreation Area in which the ski runs will be located (not the resort)will have a boundary including (not covering) approximately 5,900 hectares. This is a limit to theskiable area. It is not an area for development and will have no impact on those wishing to hike,ski tour or otherwise use the area. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

It is well known that the enjoyment of glaciers and skiing in the area is currently the exclusivedomain of wealthy heli-ski customers.1 The well-known intention of the Proponent is to open upaccess to high alpine glaciers to the average Canadian. The pamphlet’s statement is a completereversal of truth.

7. “This four season resort and real estate development will choke the jumbo valley with asmany as 10,000 people in a village of subdivisions, hotels, restaurant and shopping malls.” Noshopping malls have ever been proposed. The resort is planned for 5,500 tourist beds, roughlythe equivalent of two times the Banff Springs hotel, in a low-rise configuration. And unlike ahotel, a resort of this type has never seen 100% occupancy of its bed base at one time. Thepamphlet’s authors are doubtlessly aware of these facts.

8. “Gondolas and skilifts will criss-cross the surrounding pristine glaciers and mountain peaks”.In fact, the opposite is in the plans. There will be no “criss-crossing” of lifts. Because of the sizeof the mountains and glaciers it is possible with a minimum of lifts to give access to entiremountains. The project has been designed from the outset to have the lowest density of lifts andskiers in B.C., relative to the skiable terrain.

1 The Jumbo valley in winter is currently an exclusive playground, because the area can only be skied by helicopterat a cost of over $600 a day. The contrary is the case regarding the proposal, which is to make affordable to theaverage skier to access some of the heli-ski terrain by means of lifts, at about one tenth the current cost, or $50 a day(which, like at Kicking Horse Mountain Resort, will be discounted for the locals, and will be closer to $30 a day).

10

Page Two Commentary

9. Page Two of the pamphlet features:

a) a repeat picture taken from Jumbo Pass showing the peaks ofKarnak and Jumbo mountains across the unseen Jumbo Creek valleywhere the resort base will be situated in the midst of an abandonedsawmill site (the picture is taken from the same viewpoint as the mainpicture on Page One, cropped differently);

b) a picture of grizzly bears that could have been takenanywhere, and

c) a picture of a creek situated in a low-elevation temperate rain forest(not Jumbo Creek). Again, not a single picture of the actual resortlocation is shown, and the picture of the creek is particularly misplacedgiven the realities of the region.

10. The section on Wildlife:

“The Jumbo Valley is currently home to a healthy grizzly bear population. It provides excellentbreeding and denning areas for this threatened species”. Another misleading statement thatyears of research have failed to prove supportable. The Jumbo Valley is not home to a grizzlybear population in its lower reaches. Studies have reported that grizzly bears do not go nearroads and populated areas, which means most of lower Jumbo Creek and the Jumbo Passarea. While some of the upper sections of the valley, below the glaciers, would have suitable

11

habitat, as do most of the valleys of the region, the only credible studies done to date indicatevery clearly that the Jumbo Valley area is one of the least accessed areas by grizzly bears.

The Horejsi sentence quoted in this section does not make any reference to the response byEnkon Environmental, whose biologists have studied and reviewed the available informationregarding this valley for twelve years. Incidentally, Dr. Brian Horejsi is also on record as sayingthat roads constitute one of the largest threats and impediments to grizzly bears2. The JumboCreek valley has had an active road supporting logging, a sawmill and mining, for almost acentury.

11. The section on Water:

“The Jumbo Resort proposal may produce up to 1.7 million litres per day of liquid waste, inaddition to salt and fertilizers required for road and glacier maintenance.” Besides the continuedunderhanded use of “Jumbo Resort”, this sentence is untrue in all points.

In fact, the project is expected to utilize approximately 0.5 million litres per day at full build out(more than twenty years after project start), which will be processed by a state of the art tertiarytreatment plant. The Project Committee, in addition to the Proponent, has publicly confirmed(and this information has been available for a number of years) that the project will not involve“salt and fertilizer” for “glacier maintenance” as stated by the Jumbo Creek ConservationSociety. No recreational ski resort uses salt and fertilizers to create ice on ski runs. On thecontrary, the attraction of mountain resorts is created by the availability of powder snow.Regarding the road, there will be no downstream impact because of road salt, both because theroad is expected to be initially a gravel winter road and because when it will be paved theamount of salt that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways may use will be limited and willbe absorbed by the ground in the immediate proximity of the road drainage system.

12. The Section on Wilderness:

“The Jumbo Valley lies adjacent to the largest wilderness area in southern B.C., the PurcellWilderness Conservancy. This area is renowned for its exceptional wilderness, wildlife andconnectivity values. The Jumbo Resort proposal will result in permanent loss of wilderness andwildlife from this internationally important area. It will also sever critical wildlife movementcorridors between the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy and surrounding watersheds.”

The Jumbo Valley is in fact not adjacent to the Conservancy, Leona Creek is. TheConservancy’s closest border is 10 kilometers away from the Jumbo Glacier Resort study area,across mountain peaks and glaciers.

Jumbo Valley is not renowned for its exceptional wilderness, on the contrary, it is well known asan area of mining and forestry activity. The Commission on Resources and the Environment, asignificant land review survey, which involved a debate and public review process that lastedtwo years, did not see fit to consider it for protected status. Nor did it opt for an expansion of theConservancy towards the Jumbo Creek valley. The Conservancy was instead expanded in theopposite direction. Wildlife movement from the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy does not occurthrough the Leona Creek drainage but through the Toby Creek – Hamill Creek corridor.Connectivity North South is primarily west of Jumbo Creek in the Glacier Creek drainage andbeyond. Finally the pamphlet does not say that the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, unlike theNational Parks nearby, is a conservancy that is open to hunting in its entire area.

2 New Scientist, “Tread Softly,” February 2001

12

Page Three Commentary

13. Section on Feasibility:

“Feasibility Assessment of the Jumbo Glacier Resort Proposal”3 quotations: these editedsections mislead the public to believe that the assessment was negative and do not explain theresponse of the Proponent nor any additional available information, which clearly makes theproject feasible in more than one scenario. The report by Sno Engineering excerpted in thepamphlet also happens to confirm that the proposed project will be the best ski area in NorthAmerica, but this is not mentioned to the public.

14. Subsection on Infrastructure and Services:

“The Jumbo Resort proposal will place another serious burden on already stressed localservices and utilities such as regional landfills, hospitals and health servicing, policing, safetyand fire protection.” A falsehood; a mountain resort such as the one proposed is essentially selfcontained and does not rely on local services and utilities, which in any event are located too farfrom the resort to be utilized.

“Guest transportation to the Jumbo Resort may require a fleet of 30 – 50 buses to service thepotential daily flights to the Fairmont airport.” This is pure fantasy. None of this is even remotelywithin range of foreseeable market expectations. No scheduled or charter flights to Fairmontairport are counted on for the project.

“A two lane paved highway will be required to handle the estimated 2700 vehicles per day.” Nosuch estimates are being provided for this project and the number is grossly unrealistic – 2700vehicles/day is near the traffic on Highway 93 during the summer season. The estimatednumber of vehicles to Jumbo Glacier Resort, at full build out, after some twenty years, will be inthe range of 900 to 1,200 vehicles per day.

15. Subsection on Road Construction and Maintenance:

“Ministry of Transportation figures suggest that road construction costs could reach 70 milliondollars.” A falsehood. No estimates of this kind have been provided by the Ministry ofTransportation. The estimate quoted by Sno Engineering from the Ministry of Transportation,was for a range of 25 million dollars for a new 80km/h road design. This option has not beenproposed for this project. The proposal is for improvements to the existing roads and ultimately,for a 50km/h design, similar in type and cost to the Kicking Horse Mountain Resort road, for anultimate target cost of $200,000 per kilometer.

“Avalanche control and maintenance costs could exceed $500,000 annually.” The figure of$500,000 for avalanche control and maintenance cost is totally unfounded and untrue. It isabsurdly beyond any current avalanche control costs. The recognized study submitted on May18, 1997 by Peter Schaerer and quoted in the Project Specifications in 1998 as a referencedocument outlines a cost in the range of $15,000 per year for the Jumbo Creek road. Thisinformation has been in the public domain for six years. Future avalanche control fromPanorama to the Jumbo Creek sawmill site (the proposed resort base) is currently estimated byPeter Schaerer to be $25,000 per year in today’s dollars.

“Will these costs will be passed on to the people of B.C. as a hidden subsidy to the developer?”No. The developer will definitely pay more than it will get back, as it is at comparable B.C.

3 This is the only sentence where the pamphlet cites the project’s name correctly. It is the title of a published report.

13

mountain resorts and “these costs” cited by the pamphlet have little basis in fact. However, if theB.C. Government were to invest in the region, as it has done at Whistler and elsewhere, whyshould East Kootenay residents oppose equal investment in their region?

16. Particularly phony is the picture entitled “Jumbo’sFuture???”. This is not a picture of Zermatt, but apicture of the train station parking lot in Täsch,Switzerland, where it is possible catch a train toZermatt, and is the closest approach to Zermatt that ispossible by car. One can also arrive directly by trainfrom Geneva, Zurich, or just about any other town inSwitzerland. The town of Zermatt has been laudedworldwide for its progressive stance on motorizedvehicles, which are banned. This picture,underhandedly, seems to link massive numbers of carswith Zermatt. What has it got to do with the JumboGlacier Resort project? Certainly that is not the parkingview that is proposed for the project. On the contrary,the project design has always been that of minimizingthe exposure to automobile traffic in the valley and inthe resort.

So what are the motivations behind this picture? First, Zermatt is possibly the premier ski resortin the European Alps, its vertical drop in the summer months is larger than that of most B.C. skiresorts in winter. Because of its glaciers, vertical drop and wonderful vistas, Jumbo GlacierResort’s ski terrain has been compared to that of the best of the Alps, and sometimes as a miniversion of Zermatt. It would seem that the Jumbo Creek Conservation Society is attempting tolink Jumbo Glacier Resort’s ski terrain to a parking lot in Täsch, Switzerland. This is a non-segue and not genuine to say the least. Second, early concepts (since abandoned) for theproject included a shuttle bus service to the resort base in the upper Jumbo Creek valley, with aparking area near the Mineral King Mine at the bottom of the valley. Its intent was to helpminimize automobile traffic in the valley. Local residents who held (unfounded) fears that theywould not be able to continue using the Jumbo Creek valley with the same frequency as beforeopposed this option, and it was therefore removed. The Jumbo Creek Conservation Society’schoice of picture caption: “Zermatt Train Shuttle” seems to directly allude to this pastcontroversy, which, irrespective of the apparent contradictory stance of a conservation society’sopposition to the reduction of automobile access to the valley, seems to be placed for thepurpose of inciting local fears, even though the shuttle bus option with parking at the MineralKing Mine has been removed from the proposal. This is a fact that has been publicly known,especially by those who follow the project, for a number of years. It all adds up to a consistentpattern of intentional misinformation.

Page four Commentary

17. The false notion of exclusivity seen on Page Two is repeated in the statement “The JumboResort will turn a backcountry wilderness into an exclusive playground for paying customers bylimiting public access and activities over a vast area.” Firstly, the current situation is thatparticularly in winter, only paying customers, via helicopter, have a reasonable chance ofentering the study area, especially the high alpine glaciers, and they pay more than ten times

14

the rate of a normal lift ticket, so the opposite of the above statement is actually true. Secondly,the nearby ski touring destinations, such as Jumbo Pass, are nowhere near “free”. The costsassociated with the equipment (including the snowmobiles commonly used to access the upperparts of the valley) and specialized training required to access these areas in winter far outstripthe cost of a lift ticket and bus pass.

According to the Invermere Forest District, the true situation is as follows: in order to access theJumbo Pass cabin in winter, most skiers snowmobile from the parking lot, at the end of the TobyCreek road, to the trailhead. That road is ploughed by B.C. Highways for the heli-ski companyand is accessible by car. It is a full day (and 21.5 kms) to ski the unploughed Jumbo Creek road,then trail, and reach the cabin.

The Jumbo Pass cabin sits at an elevation of 2,350meters (7,710 feet) and was newly constructed inSeptember 1997 by the Columbia Valley Hut Society,with Forest Renewal BC funding. The eight personcapacity cabin replaced a 30-year-old hut, which haddeteriorated and become unsafe. Reservations arerequired.

“The facility sits on the ridge, along the Purcell divide,about 0.5 km north of the actual pass. Quality hiking,scrambling (Bastille Mountain.) and ski touring isavailable, but not too extensively, in this small alpinelocale. Superb views are extensive and include Karnakand Jumbo Mountains (NNE) and Cauldron/Horseshoeglaciers (SW). The outhouse even sports a picturewindow! A nearby tarn, immediately east, is thedrinking water source.”4

The overwhelming majority of Canadians do not havethe skill, training, physical capability, equipment and budget to undertake such expeditions. TheProponent is not aware of anyone who has recently successfully accessed the top of Jumbo orCommander Glaciers without expensive mechanized assistance (i.e. helicopter). Theexperience of these locations remains the exclusive domain of the privileged few.

A quick survey of the Alpine Club of Canada’s mountain adventures also gives a clear indicationthat high alpine mountaineering is neither easy nor free and does not allow the possibility forlarge segments of society, including children, the elderly and even the moderately disabled, toexperience the vast and spectacular high alpine terrain in our own backyard.

As a comparative example to the calibre of experience that would be available at Jumbo GlacierResort, in 2003, the Alpine Club of Canada offered a ski camp tour in the Mt. Waddington area(which incidentally was one of the areas originally assessed for this proposal – see 2.1.4above). The 9 day camp cost $3295 + GST per person (it included some helicopter transport),and was limited to 9 participants who “must have a very good level of fitness and beintermediate or advanced skiers with experience in glacier travel and winter camping”5 Some ofthe mandatory equipment that was listed for the trip included:

4 Invermere Forest District website, “Jumbo Pass Cabin”,www.for.gov.bc.ca/nelson/district/invermer/Recreation/Recreation%20Huts/Jumbo_pass_cabin.htm5 www.alpineclubofcanada.com/activities/winter.html

Ski touring in Jumbo Pass with a view ofRedtop Mountain. The resort is located afew kilometres to the left of this picture.The resort, and the entire Upper JumboCreek Valley, is not visible fromJumbo Pass.

Image Source: Invermere Forest District

15

Glacier Gear:

• Climbing harness – either sit- or full-body style

• Crampons (pref. mountaineering-style, w/ anti-snow-collecting sole plates)

• Ice axe - approximately 70 cm. (27”) length, with wrist loop

• Climbing helmet

• Two locking carabiners - at least one Münter (pear shape)

• Two non-locking carabiners

• One 3-meter (120”) webbing sling

• One Prusik cord - 5 metres (6 yards) long, 6 or 7 mm diameter

• One Prusik cord- 1.5 metres (60”) long, 6 or 7 mm diameter

• Ski Equipment:

• Mountain skis (AT, telemark, or split-snowboard system)

• Ski boots

• Poles (probe type poles are good but not essential)

• Skins (full width, properly fitted to skis, and well glued)

• Ski crampons – fit and tested on bindings and width of skis

• Avalanche transceiver (457 kHz) with spare batteries

• Snow shovel

• Avalanche probe (if you have one)

• Skin wax (e.g. Glop Stopper)

• Repair kit - extra parts and tools that are specific to your gear

• Ski tie strap

Other tours offered by the Alpine Club of Canada in 2003 included a Campbell Icefields PowderWeek (8 days - $1495), the Fairy Meadow Ski Extravaganza (8 days - $1750), Hallam Peak SkiCamps (8 days - $1625), and the Wapta Traverse (7 days - $1250), all requiring a high level offitness, good downhill skiing ability and an extensive list of equipment.

Clearly, ski touring/mountaineering is not free, nor is it accessible to the majority of Canadians.This is especially true when compared to the Jumbo Glacier Resort proposal, which would makeit possible for a retiree to experience high alpine glaciers for the first time in her life from thesafety and comfort of an enclosed gondola at the cost of a competitively priced lift ticket.

Finally, we do not understand how a ski area would become so exclusive that anyone may notbe able to enter. The proposal has no such limitations and free access will remain unimpededas required by Government policy and as it is in all mountain ski areas of B.C.

18. “The Jumbo Valley and surrounding area has been used for generations as a place torecreate, to find solitude and adventure. Its natural beauty and location offer an exceptionalalpine experience.” This is another misleading statement, because the Jumbo Valley evenderives its name, according to some local sources, from mineral exploration interests that calledJumbo Mountain “Jumbo”, not for the size of the mountain but for the amount of minerals to befound. The prime use of the valley for generations was mining, as evidenced not only by theexploration activity of the past, but by the Mineral King Mine at its base, followed by logging,evidenced not only by the results of the clear cuts, the debris, but also by the remains of the

16

sawmill in upper Jumbo Creek. The question of solitude, already discussed above, is relative atbest, considering that the Jumbo Creek valley is one of the most used and frequented valleys inthe area, and the fact that there are people who can even find solitude in the midst of large andcrowded cities. Finally, and perhaps most important, from the point of view of “alpineexperience”, the simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of local residents and visitors,because of the obvious dangers and costs involved, have never been to or even been near thetop of Glacier Dome, and especially Jumbo, Commander or Farnham Glaciers. If one were toconduct a quick poll of local residents asking if they have been to Disneyland or a Mexicanresort, or if they’ve had the experience of standing at the top of some of the 3,000 meter highglaciers in their own backyard, the results would be disheartening.

19. The photographs on Page 4 depict:

a) a picture of the members of the Society at the Jumbo Pass hut(this hut and trail that is reportedly used by hundreds of hikers issupposedly in the center of the threatened wildlife corridor –something that should appear contradictory to an unbiasedobserver);

b) a picture of Jumbo Mountain taken near Jumbo Pass and notshowing the Jumbo Creek valley where the resort would be basedin an abandoned sawmill site, and

c) a picture from Farnham Creek showing Commander Glacier; thisview would be subjected to no impact according to the project’sdesign and visual impact analysis.

17

Summary

Beginning with the equivocations on the project name and ending with its selection ofphotographs, it is to our considerable amazement that almost the entire contents of the JumboCreek Conservation Society’s latest pamphlet can be shown through a point-by-point analysis tobe a misrepresentation, exaggeration, phony information, or a basic untruth about the JumboGlacier Resort project. It is clear that an effort to spread misinformation regarding this projectcontinues.

Conclusion

This pamphlet makes a mockery of the two and a half year’s process spent by your Officeproducing the Project Specifications and related documents. It is a prime example of thedisinformation campaign that has been going on about this project without any visible effort tocleanse the public process by Government staff (in fact, we have reason to believe from our1996 investigations that some of the disinformation originated from Government staff). For theB.C. Government to invite investment according to the CASP policy and then subject theirprojects proposals to this kind of on-going circus, is something that looks like an investors’ trap.Obviously, with the kind of information outlined above pushed into the public realm without anyauthoritative rebuttal, it is impossible for the Proponents’ consultants to make meaningfulpresentations.

Prior to another round of public meetings it will be necessary for Government staff to clear theair of these misrepresentations for the public process not to become a local hanging partyagain. It is our reasonable expectation that your Office would feel the moral imperative to take aleading position in this effort of clarification, using all the means at its disposal to make sure thatthe true information regarding this project is known by the public, and not obfuscated by anti-development propaganda funded at least in part with tax deductions and government grantdollars that do little but generate losses to the tax paying public. As a minimum, we wouldexpect that this response be prominently posted on your web site. We would be pleased tocontinue assisting you in any way we can in rebutting misrepresentations and clarifyingconfusions about the project.

With kind regards,

Pheidias Project Management CorporationPer: Oberto Oberti, MAIBC

cc: Joan HeskethAlan CalderRoger Tailleur

18

Jumbo Creek Conservation Society pamphlet: Page 1

19

Jumbo Creek Conservation Society pamphlet: Page 2

20

Jumbo Creek Conservation Society pamphlet: Page 3

21

Jumbo Creek Conservation Society pamphlet: Page 4