Environmental Assessment of the Garibaldi at Squamish Project
This is a scenario where the British-Columbia Snowmobile Federation requested a review recommendations from the Environmental Assessment of the Garibaldi at Squamish Ski Resort Proposal with regards to Whistler’s criticism in order to re-evaluate their own position on the project.
Memo: Project Report
In regards to the Garibaldi to Squamish (GtS) project, a map of the proposed project area was drawn by request of the British Columbia Snowmobile Federation (BCSF) in an attempt to evaluate 1) the conditions expressed by the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) report released in 2010, as well as 2) the Resort Municipality of Whistler’s (RMW) opposition of June 2015 regarding the reliability of skiing below 555m elevation with the objective of recommending whether or not there is sufficient evidence to continue opposing the GtS project. This report does not address the concerns of the RMW in regards to the economic viability and impact on the tourism industry in the areas of Whistler, Squamish or Vancouver.
The EAO’s 2010 report stated that the GtS project lacked information on the potential effects on vegetation as well as fish and wildlife habitats. To address this concern, the following areas were identified on the map:
- Old Growth Forest
- Endangered or Threatened Ecosystems
- Fishery Habitat
- Mule Deer and Mountain Goat Winter Habitat
Additionally, to address the RMW’s opposition, the map delineates the area with the GtS project’s bounds that fall below an elevation of 600m above mean sea level.
The datasets used for mapping the Old Growth Forest, Endangered or Threatened Ecosystems, and the Mule Deer and Mountain Goat Winter Habitat were obtained from the DataBC Catalogue.
The Endangered or Threatened Ecosystems are divided further as: 1. Falsebox
- Salal
- Cladina
- Kinnikinnick
- Flat Moss
- Cat’s-tail Moss
The Fishery Habitat zone was produced by creating a buffer zone of 50m on each side of rivers above 600m elevation, and 100m for the rivers below 600m elevation.
Area calculations were done to get a perspective of the proportions of sensitive areas with regards to the total proposed project area:
Individually, the sensitive areas consist of:
Old Growth Forest: Mule Deer & Mtn Goat: Endangered or Threatened Ecosystems: Sensitive Fish Area:
<0.1% 7.9% 24.8% 26.3%
Combined, and taking into account overlapping areas, the total sensitive area was calculated to represent 52.7% of the proposed project area. Similar calculations were done to find that 32% of the total project area is less than 600m elevation above mean sea level where the majority of the sensitive areas falls into.
Two of the greater environmental concerns with respect to the GtS proposed area are 1) the fishery habitat which is quite extensive throughout with 26.3% of the total area. Additionally, snowmelt and runoff within the watershed should be considered. 2) The endangered or threatened ecosystems account for 24.8% of the total area and fall mostly below the 600m elevation delineation which is where most of the village and infrastructure will be established.
Mitigation of the water runoff from the infrastructure into the fishery habitat can be done by a properly designed drainage and sewer system that takes into account the present watershed and directs any infrastructure drainage away from creeks and rivers. Additionally, establishing a seasonal baseline of fish population and water chemistry over at least 3 years prior construction, as well an ongoing monitoring program would provide adequate data to measure the environmental impact of the project.
Protection of endangered or threatened ecosystems can be mitigated by incorporating the species into the landscape arrangements throughout the resort. Building interpretation trails with public education about the species creates an attraction for the tourists. Relocation of the endangered species and integration into the landscape design can an option when there is no other suitable location for certain infrastructure.
It is the opinion of this author that the conditions raised in the EAO report can easily be addressed and resolved by the GtS project and that the RMW’s opposition based on terrain elevation does not stand as a significant argument since 2/3 of the proposed area is above 600m and can be considered reliable for skiing.
Discussion
When working on environmental project, there is often (if not always) two sides with opposing values such as one pushing for progress and infrastructure and the other focused on preserving and remediation. Either side can hire firms offering consultation services on projects, and it can be difficult to remain impartial when a consulting firm tries to sell a product or service to its client. For example, creating a map that shows sensitive areas to a project is important but may not make a client happy if they notice that it creates issues with their plans. However, consulting firms are hired because they are meant to offer evaluations from a non-bias position, but one should always remember that it is hard to be impartial to the person that provides you business. As far as individual values, they should be left at home when doing with GIS work. One should try to be as objective as possible, and if the client or employers values are not in line with the employee the work, then the employee should be allowed to refuse his or her involvement. An interesting way to address this issue is blind work, where the people working on the material are not privy to the identity of the client or the scope of the project. Disconnected collaboration can sometimes be useful if ethical bias is strong.
Some good honest questions should be asked before starting any project, such as: What is this project about? Do I feel strongly about this issue? Will this affect my work? What is my client/employer expecting of me? Will I be ashamed or proud of being associated with this project? These personal questions are important when embarking on any projects in any industry. Projects are like relationships: some are meaningful, some are meaningless, some are detrimental, and some will be all three at different stages of the progression. How we feel about what we do does affect the quality and integrity of our work, and it is necessary to be honest with ourselves first so that we can be honest with our work.
In regards to the memo written as part of the exercise above, the information in the report and the map created adhered to strict instructions on what was required to be represented. While the map and the report are not themselves bias to any side, they are requested by the snowmobile association and fulfill their requirements and their bias without overprinting the deliverables with personal values. In this case, the request from the snowmobile association was specific with clear instructions on the requested deliverable; however, a client with vague and unspecific goals may be subject to personal interpretation by the firm or any employee associated with the project.
(Note: This map was completed by a student as a learning exercise during a GIS course (GEOB 270) at the University of British-Columbia)