Submission
Map
Land Use within Proposed Project Boundary
Memo
Garibaldi at Squamish is a new year-round mountain resort proposed to be developed on Brohm Ridge. The project is expected to create thousands of new jobs and provide a variety of activities and accommodations for its users. Construction is expected to take 20 years. The project was approved a year ago under 40 conditions. As a natural resource planner, my role in the project is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to oppose the project given the recommendations by the Environmental Assessment and the criticism from Whistler, or if these issues can be accounted for throughout the development of the project.
First, I gathered my data to use for my analysis. The data I gathered included land use data, such as old growth forest areas and river locations, as well as topographic data on elevation and the project boundary. The data I gathered included areas beyond the project boundary, so I removed the data outside the project boundary to make it easier to work with the data for the purposes of this project. Once this was done, I was ready to do my analysis.
There are many aspects to consider in my analysis. The first is snowfall. In Whister’s letter opposing the project, they said that any area with an elevation below 555m would not get enough snow, so I divided the project area at the 555m elevation line. Next, I looked at different land areas that need protecting, including old growth forest, mule deer and mountain goat winter habitat, red-listed species habitat, and fish bearing streams or fish habitat/riparian areas around streams. For the old growth forest and ungulate winter range, I did not have to do anything with the data because I am just looking at those areas within the project boundary. For the red-listed species habitat, I used data on ecosystems to separate out the ecosystems that commonly have red-listed species, according to Environmental Resource Management Ltd. For fish habitat, I used data about the streams to create a protected area around them. Given that streams above 555m are less likely to be fish bearing, those streams only have a protected area of 50m around the stream, and streams below 555m have a protected area of 100m around the stream. Once I had all these areas, I combined them all together to show all the areas that are protected. As I collected information on each of these different areas, I calculated what percentage of the proposed project area they take up.
My calculations show that 30% of the proposed project area is below 555m. 7% of the proposed project area is old growth forest. 8% of the proposed project area is Mule Deer and Mountain Goat winter habitat. 25% of the proposed project area includes red-listed species of six different species: Falsebox, Salal, Cladina, Kinnikinnick, Flat Moss, and Cat’s-tail Moss. 25% of the proposed project area includes fish bearing streams or fish habitat/riparian areas around streams. The total percentage of the proposed project area that is protected area is 52%.
Red-listed species habitat and fish habitat have the largest proportion of the proposed project area, and therefore I believe they are most at risk in this project. Although most of the red-listed species habitat is below 555m and therefore would not necessarily be at risk from ski runs, other development could still happen in that area, like commercial development, which would also be damaging to the ecosystem. Fish habitat takes up a significant proportion of the project area both above and below 555m. Also because they are streams and not habitat patches, they spread out more and would be much harder to avoid when building the resort. To mitigate the effects, the project developers have to be extremely conscientious about where things are built and where ski runs go. While it may be possible to build the resort in such a way, it seems inefficient given that they would have to avoid more than half of the proposed area if they were to avoid destruction of any protected habitat, and it seems inevitable that some protected areas would get destroyed in the process.
I believe that there is sufficient evidence to oppose the project. Given that more than half of the proposed project area is protected, it does not seem possible for the project to be carried out in a way that is not destructive to any of these areas. Furthermore, 30% of the proposed area may not even be viable for skiing. Additionally, construction is expected to take 20 years, in which time the effects of climate change are unpredictable and perhaps even more than 30% will not be skiable, and furthermore species habitat’s may have moved farther up in elevation due to the warming, meaning that more red-listed species habitat could end up being within the project area.
Response
Personally, I do not believe the project should go through. I believe projects should be required to avoid such significant levels of environmental destruction. However, in my memo I opposed the project because more than half of the proposed area was protected. Had the proportion been less than half, I would not have necessarily come to the same conclusion, however I personally would still be opposed if a significant proportion of the area was protected (i.e. around 25%).
Accomplishment Statement
I analyzed the proposed area for the new Garibaldi at Squamish project to show which areas within the proposed area are protected areas. Following the seven stages of data visualization – acquire, parse, filter, mine, represent, refine, and interact – I created a map of the protected areas and wrote a memo advising that, based on my analysis, the project should not be carried out (see above).