For the fifth and final lab of the course, the objective was to perform an environmental impact assessment of the proposed Garibaldi at Squamish year-round mountain resort on Brohm Ridge after producing a map showing different areas within the project boundaries.
The learning objectives were as follows:
- Learn how to independently acquire spatial datasets online;
- Parse and filter data based on your analytical objectives;
- Evaluate and use different spatial analysis tools, based on your objectives;
- Further develop cartographic and written communication skills by producing a map and short memo summarizing your results for a non-technical audience.
Background:
The Garibaldi at Squamish project is the proposed development a year-round destination mountain resort on Brohm Ridge, which is located 15 kilometers north of Squamish on Highway 99. An application for a Project Proposal Certificate under the Environmental Assessment was submitted by the proponents of the project, Northland Properties and the Aquilini Investment Group of Vancouver, in 1997. A series of addendums were made because the project proposal lacked information on the potential effects on wildlife habitat and vegetation. As of January 2016, the project has been tentatively approved, on 40 specific conditions. Garibaldi at Squamish includes 124 ski trails and 21 lifts, as well as resort accommodation and commercial developments. It is estimated to take 20 years to build, and is expected to provide 900 construction jobs and a further 2,500 jobs for its operation.
In May and June of 2015, a two-month-long community consultation was held, during which a 14-page letter opposing the development was submitted by the Resort Municipality of Whistler. In this document, economic and environmental concern was voiced because climatological considerations rule out reliable skiing at elevations lower than 555 meters of vertical. This value is probably higher now, estimated at 600m.
Scenario:
As part of the lab analysis, I was given a scenario in which I was a natural resource planner, retained by the project proponents. My task was therefor to evaluate the criticisms and concerns brought to light by the Resort Municipality of Whistler, and make recommendations as to what should be prioritized in order to proceed with the proposal. To do so, I created two maps and a memo.
Maps:
The first map shows the project boundary and all of the areas within it that will negatively effect the development of the ski resort. These include riparian areas, ungulate winter range, old growth management areas, red listed ecosystems, and areas below 600 meters of elevation.
For the second map, I created a 3D hill shade of the project area, and draped rivers, ungulate winter range, and old growth management areas over the raster layer.
These maps provide a visualization of the various components of the proposed project area, and how they might be affected by the development of a year-round mountain resort.
Memo:
Introduction
As a natural resource planner, I have been retained by the BC Snowmobile Federation to examine various assessments and concerns regarding the proposed Garibaldi at Squamish project: a year-‐round destination mountain resort on Brohm Ridge, located between Vancouver and Whistler. The plans for this project include 124 ski trails and 21 ski lifts, as well as resort accommodation, commercial developments, and the expansion of infrastructure required to facilitate this project.
The BC Snowmobile Federation was initially opposed to this project, however, I have been tasked with the examination of the recommendations made by the Environmental Assessment, as well as Whistler’s criticisms, in order to evaluate for the BC Snowmobile Federation if they should continue to oppose the project, or if their concerns can ultimately be worked in to the project. The recommendations made by the Environmental Assessment, after a series of rigorous data collection and analysis, were that a series of measures should be taken to prevent and reduce any significant environmental, social, economic, health and heritage effects, should the proposed project come to reality. The main criticism coming from Whistler is regarding reliable snow-‐cover: climatological considerations rule out reliable skiing on the lower end of 600 meters elevation.
Discussion
In order to provide a recommendation for the BC Snowmobile Federation, it was necessary to acquire, manipulate, and visualize the digital data that was relevant to this project. These steps included acquiring the data from DataBC as well as G:Drive; parsing the data by creating a geodatabase, organizing and renaming the data; filtering the data by clipping the various raster and vector layers to the project boundary; and mining the data to calculate specific areas, merge areas, and create buffers. Taking these steps provided a basis for the necessary calculations and interpretations, with which building a representation of the data through maps and this memo outlining the objectives, methods, results and recommendations was possible.
The results show that an area equal to 32% of the project area is under 600 meters of elevation, which was one of the main criticisms coming from Whistler as the snow below this elevation is not suitable for skiing. Furthermore, the sum of areas of old growth forest, ungulate winter range, red-‐listed ecosystems, and fish habitats amounts to 65% of the proposed project area.
Both of these facts raise concern regarding the development of this resort. One of the main environmental concerns to point out is the risk and negative impacts that habitat degradation and fragmentation through developments in this area pose to the health and biodiversity of ecosystems, some of which are already at risk. This risk would be best addressed through avoiding development altogether, but could ultimately be mitigated through careful protection of these areas, the creation of buffer zones, careful monitoring of the health and biodiversity of ecosystems, and attempts to fragment and degrade the area as little as possible.
Another environmental concern is the fact that a third of the proposed project area is at elevations that are not suitable for skiing due to unreliable snow-‐cover, and that with continued climate change and global warming, this elevation is likely to increase further. Developing in this area is therefore a bit of an economic risk, as it is difficult to know the precise conditions in the future and how long they will continue to be suitable for. One solution to this problem could be snow making at the otherwise unsuitable elevations – elevations below 600m, and then having these elevations open to skiing. Another solution could be to restrict skiing at elevations below 600m where the snow is unreliable and likely insufficient, and then build chairlifts to elevations past 600 meters where the snow is better. However, this requires cost-‐benefit analyses to investigate which scenario is ideal. Building chairlifts to areas of higher than 600m elevation could be the better option, as many of the red-‐listed ecosystems and other vulnerable areas lie below 600m of elevation. By keeping development out of this area, the ecosystems, rivers, etc. could be better protected. There are already many roads in the area at all levels of elevation, the network of which would be expanded to facilitate the proposed project.
Conclusion
After careful consideration of the proposed project, other key influencers, and the data gathered and presented, I would advise the BC Snowmobile Federation to continue opposition to the proposed Garibaldi at Squamish project. With significant areas of poor-‐quality ski terrain, measures would have to be taken to either create snow or create pathways to areas of sufficient snow. The latter would require even more development, some of which would be in remote areas. It is not precisely known how much climate change will continue to impact snow conditions in the future, and building a resort in areas that already are seeing insufficiencies of snow is at risk of economic impacts in the future. Furthermore, a significant percentage of the proposed project area features areas of red-‐listed ecosystems, ungulate winter ranges, rivers and riparian vegetation, and old growth forest that would be at risk of considerable damage from habitat degradation or fragmentation. As a natural resource planner, I advise against this project for the main two following reasons: first, the snow at elevations under 600m (which makes up 32% of the project area) is not even suitable for skiing and would require significant development at elevations above that, or snow-‐making; and secondly, to preserve biodiversity and the health of ecosystems in the area, as well as prevent potential losses in the future due to the increased effects of climate change.
Personal opinion:
In my personal opinion, this project should not be allowed to go through. Although I understand that such a ski resort could be beneficial in terms of tourism, economy, provide jobs, promote BC’s reputation as home to world-class ski resorts, etc., I believe that the risks associated with this project’s development are too high. Furthermore, while the economy and tourism could benefit from this new ski resort, what would happen when climate change further influences climatological patterns and snow fall is insufficient even above 600 meters of elevation? Is the solution then a “command-and-control” approach to nature, artificially making snow perhaps or building lifts to areas above 600 meters of elevation? Either way, drastic measures are being taken.
Many of the points I made in the policy memo as a natural resource planner hold true for my own personal opinion. Just by creating this map and examining it for the analysis portion of this lab, it seems clear to me that too much is at stake: the protected areas make up a significant portion of the proposed project area, and the viability of skiable terrain is not ideal currently, and can only be expected to get worse due to anthropogenic climate change. There are already a generous sampling of world class ski resorts in BC, and I strongly believe that the Brohm Ridge area should remain free of development, and that focus should be placed on maintaining ecosystems at all levels in the area, rather than threatening them with development.