FDA in the News

"Jumbo study: mixed results"

Text By Dave Lazzarino - Invermere Valley Echo

Published: November 03, 2009 1:00 PM

The 98-page study was administered by the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA), a non-profit public company set up to “advance and improve western democracy” according to its website. The FDA surveyed groups such as the Alpine Club of Canada, the School of Skiing and Snowboarding at Panorama, Toby Creek Adventures and Wildsight as well as individuals including local politicians and environmentalists to find out the long-term effects of development in the Jumbo Pass area.

In general, the results were encouraging for developers. “The Jumbo Glacier Resort will have a 77 per cent overall positive impact on quality of life in the Jumbo Creek Valley and surrounding drainages,” read the report’s summary.

“However,” it continues, “pre-resort recreationalists face a 19 per cent overall negative impact from the Jumbo Resort on their quality of life in the Jumbo Creek Valley and surrounding drainages. The percentage of this negative impact will likely worsen due to unavoidable road and trail closures to help offset grizzly bear decline.” The full report also points to a 1998 study by the Environmental Assessment Office of grizzly bear populations that showed, of 33 bears identified in the Central Purcells, only two were from the Jumbo area. It also says, however, that quality of life sometimes does not follow the same trends as sustainability.

It reads: “A project can be sustainable, while at the same time, harmful to quality of life.”

The report goes on to say, though, that the long-term negative impact on those pre-resort recreationalists will decrease to zero.

As for the effect on towns, the results are negative. “The city of Invermere and surrounding areas face a 20 per cent overall negative impact from the Jumbo Resort on their quality of life,” it reads. “This impact may worsen as Invermere, due to increased resort-related crime, congestion, and pollution, becomes a less attractive recreational destination.”

In the study summary, Stephen Garvey, administrator for the survey, gave a more scathing criticism to the provincial government’s management of the case. “It is shameful of the B.C. government bureaucrats, particularly from the B.C. Ministries of Environment and Tourism to sidestep the issues of this proposed resort, by basically calling for road and trail closures, which gives priority to the resort at the expense of all the other users,” wrote Garvey. He added: “In a world of increasing environmental harm, the B.C. Liberal government, despite its rhetorical claim of adherence to sustainability, is only adding to the harm.”

When asked about the study, developer Grant Costello initially cited earlier studies. “Jumbo Glacier Resort went through a nine and a half year environmental review which concluded, in the words of the executive director, Joan Hesketh, ‘the project is in the broad public interest.’ My emphasis on broad,” he said.

After closer inspection, Costello commented on a few of the issues raised. “The grizzly bear population decline, if confirmed, would be preceding the ski resort project, not be caused by it and would be certainly mitigated most effectively by a local hunting moratorium rather than by a ski resort moratorium,” he said.

As for the effect on Invermere, Costello commented, “That ‘thousands of recreationalists will destroy the quality of life’ is a myth created by those who want to close the doors to newcomers and tourists, because the evidence of the resorts nearby is clearly that the thousands of recreationalists have not destroyed the quality of life. In fact, some of them support and appreciate Gerry’s Gelati of the mayor of Invermere, and many other quality establishments of the Columbia Valley. Panorama cannot be accused of having destroyed the quality of life of any parts of the Columbia Valley or of the Toby Creek drainage.”

Finally, Costello felt that some of the harsher statements in the study summary. “The FDA is a one-sided group intent on attacking a process and to prevent its fair conclusion for partisan reasons,” he said. “The irony is that the process was mostly done and carried out at the request of this kind of group and by the current opposition.”

Comments:

In response to the article, “Jumbo study: mixed results” (November 3, 2009), the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) finds, unfortunately, some of Mr. Costello’s comments slanderous and false.

First, despite Mr. Costello’s assertions to the contrary, the FDA is strictly an independent, non-partisan organization with no ties to any political party. And the FDA has no affiliation or association with any organization for or against the Jumbo Glacier Resort. The FDA’s Jumbo Quality of Life Assessment was done with utmost objectivity and impartiality.

Second, Mr. Costello’s reference to the nine and half year environmental review, ignores the fact that in all that time, not a single quality of life assessment was performed.

Third, Mr. Costello’s comment that hunting can be eliminated from the Jumbo Creek Valley to offset Grizzly bear decline, supports the FDA’s conclusion that the Resort will have detrimental impacts on other user groups. The public should note how quick Mr. Costello disregarded other user groups. Moreover, his comments are consistent with the BC government’s view that roads and trails in the Jumbo Creek Valley and surrounding drainages can be closed to help offset the environmental impact of the Resort, while disregarding the interests of other user groups. The message is that this Resort, as the FDA concluded, would take over the Jumbo Creek Valley and surrounding drainages to the detriment of other user groups.

Fourth, Mr. Costello is confused to assume that the elimination of the limited grizzly bear hunting in the Jumbo Creek Valley and surrounding drainages can offset the significant impact of the Resort on grizzly bear decline.

Fifth, contrary to Mr. Costello’s assertions, the Jumbo Quality of Life Assessment never said that thousands of Jumbo recreationalists would “destroy” the quality of life in the Invermere area. Rather, the Jumbo Assessment said that the Jumbo Resort would have an overall negative impact on the quality of life in the Invermere area. The quality of life in the Invermere area would diminish. It would not be destroyed. (This conclusion is supported in part by survey responses by Norm MacDonald, MLA Columbia River-Relevestoke, and City of Invermere Councilors, Spring Hawes and Bob Campsall.)

Sixth, the FDA cannot comment on the quality of life impact of the Panorama Resort on the City of Invermere. However, the FDA does know through its research that the Panorama Resort has impacted local wildlife by pressuring wildlife (i.e. moose, elk etc.) from the area, and ended recreational activities such as hunting and trapping in the Panorama area.

Finally, Joan Hesketh’s comment that the Jumbo project is in the broad public interest is a subjective statement. What the FDA does know is that the Jumbo Resort will have significant negative quality of life impacts on Pre-Resort recreationalist and the surrounding population centers.

Stephen Garvey
FDA Executive Director and Jumbo Assessment Administrator