ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF GARIBALDI AT SQUAMISH SKI RESORT PROPOSAL

Memo to Northland Properties and Aquilini Investment Group of Vancouver-

Re: Garibaldi at Squamish Ski Resort Proposal:

Northland Properties and Aquilini Investment Group of Vancouver engaged my services as a natural resource planner to evaluate the necessary changes to the proposed Garibaldi at Squamish Ski Resort project before the the project can progress. The BC Environmental Assessment Office concluded in 2010 that the project required additional environmental considerations and strategies to prevent detrimental impacts on vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat. The Resort Municipality of Whistler suggested that skiing may not be viable in the area due to elevation limitations. Through my analysis of the proposed project I have assessed these criticisms and made recommendations for the necessary features of the project to be changed to address these concerns.

Methodology

• Acquired the following data from DataBC surrounding the proposed project area:
  • Range of Ungulates (mule deer and mountain goats) during the winter.
  • Management areas for old growth forests.
  • Boundary of the proposed project.
  • Data surrounding red-listed species in the area (Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping data).
  • Elevation data (Digital Elevation Model).
  • Garibaldi park boundaries data.
  • 20 m elevation contours.
  • Roads.
  • Rivers.

• Filtered data:
  • Narrowed the scope of analysis by focusing on relevant data from above within the proposed project boundary.

• Extracted information from data:
  • Identified red-listed species within project area.
    • Flat Moss, Falsebox, Salal, Kinnikinnick, Cat’s-tail Moss and Cladina.

• • Calculated the following areas:
    • Regions below elevation of 600 m (31.78 % of total project area).
    • Old growth management areas (6.78% of total project area).
    • Range of mule deer (4.24 % of total project area).
    • Range of mountain goats (3.65 % of total project area).
    • Area of red-listed species in project area (24.83 % of total project area).
    • Proposed project area which will fall within fish bearing streams, or within fish habitat/riparian areas around streams (15.84 % of total project area).

• • Conducted analysis to determine percentage of total project area which will directly impact old growth forest, ungulate habitat, red-listed ecosystems and fish (47.75 % of total project area).

• • Created map of project area and potential environmental impacts and limitations of project proposal (see map).

From this analysis I have determined the following:

• The project area does not fall within Garibaldi park boundaries.

• Road access to the resort is sufficient, as judged by the quantity of existing roads within the project area.

• The project area contains a significant amount of area below 600 m. Nearly a third (31.78 %) of the project area is below 600 m elevation.

• Nearly half of the project area will have direct impacts on substantial areas of vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat. Specifically, 47.75 % of the total project area will have direct impacts on old growth forest management areas, mule deer and mountain goat habitat, red-listed plant species and fish habitat.
  • There are two key potential environmental impacts from the proposed project:

1. Project area which directly impacts red-listed species (24.83 % of total project area)
2. Project area which directly impacts fish bearing streams, fish habitat/riparian areas around streams (15.84 % of total project area)

Recommendations

The substantial project area below 600 m elevation is an important concern for the viability of this ski resort. Additionally, the potential impact on red-listed species is of significant concern. However, much of the area of red-listed species falls in the area below 600 m (as shown by the map). Thus, the project may avoid environmental impacts and limitations from low elevations by reducing the project area to those areas outside of the areas of red-listed species as well as areas below 600 m elevation.

Additionally, the project could focus its construction on areas already supported by existing road infrastructure. This focus could constrain environmental impacts on fish habitat and riparian areas to existing developed areas while limiting further environmental impacts outside of the road networks. The project could also limit ski lift infrastructure to those areas outside of old growth management areas and ungulate winter ranges. The key ski resort infrastructure (eg lodges, ski lifts) could be focused in areas with little potential for environmental impacts (ie in the center of the area off of the existing road in fig. 1).

 

Fig. 1

The resort could support skiing accessed via hiking, ski-touring and snowshoeing (as well as other less environmentally intensive activities) in old growth management areas. This key focus of infrastructure could limit the environmental impacts of the resort on vegetation, wildlife and fish habitat.

Sincerely,

Sashka Warner

Natural Resource Planning, Inc.

 

 

Discussion: When working on environmental projects, you sometimes become involved in proposals that you do not ethically believe in. Do you personally think the project should be allowed to continue? Does this differ from what you wrote in your memo?

Personally, I do not think that this project should be allowed to continue. The substantial impact upon red-listed species as well as on a swath of vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat would result in significant environmental degradation. Moreover, almost a third of the project area falls below an elevation deemed necessary for consistent snow precipitation. The criticisms from the Whistler resort cannot be taken as purely objective because of the economic motivation for reducing competition. However, the fact is that the project will causes significant harm to the environment. Furthermore, this harm is difficult to resolve due to the fact that the area will most likely not receive enough snow to justify such an ecologically-detrimental undertaking. This position differs from what I wrote in the memo, although I believe a majority of concerns could be eliminated with my above recommendations for promoting lesser-impact activities and removing the project area overlapping with red-listed species and below 600 m of elevation.