In the matter of the

Environmental Assessment Act

S.B.C. 2002, c. 43
(Act)
and

In the matter of an
Application
for an
Environmental Assessment Certificate
(Application)
by

Garibaldi at Squamish Inc.

(Proponent)
for the

Garibaldi at Squamish Resort Project

(Project)

Reasons for Ministers Decision

On January 26, 2016 pursuant to Section 17(3)(c) of the Act, we, the Minister of
Environment and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
(Ministers), issued an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the Project. This document
sets out the reasons for that decision.

Reasons for Ministers Decision

Garibaldi at Squamish Resort Project

page 1 of 8

NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE DECISION

Section 17(3) of the Act sets out the parameters for our decision. We considered the
Environmental Assessment Offices (EAO) assessment and recommendations, including
whether the Province had met its duty to consult and, as appropriate, accommodate
Squamish Nation with respect to potential impacts of the Project on Squamish Nation
Aboriginal Interests.1 We considered other matters we thought relevant to the public interest
in making our decision on the Proponents Application for an Environmental Assessment
(EA) Certificate.
1
1.1

MINISTERS CONSIDERATIONS
EAOs Assessment

EAO, with advice from an advisory Working Group, reviewed both the Application and
Supplemental Application and described its findings in detail in the 2010 Assessment
Report and the 2015 Technical Report; the key findings are described in the 2015
Assessment Report. Throughout the EA process, EAO worked closely with provincial
ministries and agencies, Squamish Nation and local governments to identify issues and
seek ways to address these issues, including the EA Certificate conditions which were
proposed to us.
EAO advised us that it was satisfied that the EA Certificate conditions and Project design
would prevent or reduce potential environmental, heritage or health impacts of the Project
such that no significant adverse effects are expected. We concur with this view. EAO also
advised us that there was a potential for significant adverse effects related to increased
traffic on Highway 99 and that there was significant uncertainty on the potential for
significant adverse effects on a number of social and economic valued components related
to the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW) and the District of Squamish (DOS). In light
of this uncertainty, EAO was unable to make certain conclusions. We will discuss our views
on potential transportation and socio-economic effects below.
EAO advised that it was satisfied that the Crowns duty to appropriately consult and
accommodate Squamish Nation had been discharged for the Project. It is notable that
Squamish Nation provided EAO with a letter stating that they had been appropriately
consulted and accommodated. We concur with this view.
We understand the Project did not trigger a federal EA.

Asserted or established Aboriginal rights including title.

Reasons for Ministers Decision

Garibaldi at Squamish Resort Project

page 2 of 8

1.2 Recommendations of the Executive Director

Pursuant to the obligation conferred in Section 17(2) of the Act, EAOs Executive Director,
having considered the Assessment Report and proposed conditions and design
requirements, recommended that an EA Certificate be issued for the Project.
1.3 Key Considerations
EAO examined whether the Project would have adverse environmental, economic, social,
heritage and health effects to a wide range of valued components. EAO identified a number
of residual effects to valued components that are expected after the implementation of
mitigation and whether these residual effects would be significant. If the Project was found
to have a residual effect, EAO then examined the potential cumulative effects to that valued
component. The complete assessment is in EAOs 2010 Assessment Report, 2015
Technical Report and 2015 Assessment Report, which we considered. Below is a summary
of our key considerations.
Context for the Decision
Prior to elaborating on some of the main factors we considered in our making our decision,
we wish to clarify the nature and scope of the decision we have made. The EA Certificate
decision is just the first in a series of decisions necessary for the Project to proceed. As
noted above, the issuance of an EA Certificate is made pursuant to our statutory authority
under the Act, and while our decision enables a range of other authorizations to be
considered by decision makers under other provincial statutes, we wish to make it explicitly
clear that the statutory decision we have made does not in any way presume how these
other independent statutory decision makers might approach or decide on those
subsequent authorizations.
Resort Master Planning
We are aware that the Project must undergo a comprehensive Master Plan process led by
the Mountain Resorts Branch (MRB) of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural
Resource Operations (FLNR). The Project cannot proceed to construction without approval
from the MRB. We are confident this process will further consider the environmental, social,
economic, heritage and health effects of the Project as well as the technical and financial
feasibility of the Project. We also understand that, should the Project not have the
geotechnical, climatic or other parameters necessary to provide a viable ski resort product
as proposed in the Master Plan and as required by the All Seasons Resort Policy, the
Project would either not be approved or the Proponent would be asked to revise the
proposal to be consistent with the Policy. And also, if following a review by internal and/or
external experts in ski resort economics, the MRB is of the opinion that the Project does not
have the financial and market viability that is being proposed, the Project would not be
approved by the MRB or the Proponent would be asked to revise the proposal.

Reasons for Ministers Decision

Garibaldi at Squamish Resort Project

page 3 of 8

We have also read a letter from the MRB to EAO where they state that MRB requires
Agreement in Principle on the size and design of the Project from whichever local
government (DOS or Squamish Lillooet Regional District (SLRD)) intends to acquire
jurisdiction over it. MRB has advised the Proponent that it will not accept a Master Plan for
review that does not have local government support.
We understand that, should changes to the approved Project be proposed, an amendment
to the EA Certificate will be required.
Local Government Decision Making
We are aware that the Project must reside either within the boundaries of the
DOS via a boundary expansion or remain within the SLRD. Should a DOS boundary
expansion be initiated, the electors of DOS will have an opportunity to reject such
expansion. If the boundary expansion is approved by electors, DOS would have significant
input into the final design of the Project, including aspects such as fire, police and school
services, taxes, settlement layout and design including use areas, residential densities, and
transportation infrastructure through the Official Community Plan (OCP), zoning and other
applicable bylaws.
Should the Project remain within the SLRD, the SLRD would have similar input into the final
design of the Project including aspects such as fire, police and school services, taxes,
settlement layout and design including use areas, residential densities, and transportation
infrastructure through the Official Community Plan (OCP), zoning and other applicable
bylaws.
We also understand that the SLRD has a Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) bylaw in place
which guides local government OCPs and bylaws in regards to future growth in the SLRD.
We recognize that the Project is currently inconsistent with the RGS and the DOSs OCP.
The inconsistency relates to both the size of the Project and its location in an area not
zoned for settlement.
We also note that an amendment to the RGS would require unanimous agreement from all
member municipalities and adjacent regional districts, including the RMOW. If one or more
of the SLRD member municipalities and adjacent regional districts choose not to accept the
amendment, dispute resolution provisions of the Local Government Act would then apply.

Reasons for Ministers Decision

Garibaldi at Squamish Resort Project

page 4 of 8

We have read that both the DOS and SLRD have indicated that they have a number of
outstanding questions regarding the Project and do not support the current design of the
Project. We note that the Project must go through a number of statutory local government
processes and that these local governments will have a continuing role in reviewing the
Project beyond the issuance of an EA Certificate. We recognize these local government
authorities and observe that local governments will have significant influence on both the
size and design of the Project through their statutory decisions whether the Project
proceeds through the DOS or SLRD. Through the Agreement-in Principle required for
acceptance of a Master Plan by MRB, RGS amendment, boundary expansion decisions,
OCPs, bylaws and other mechanisms, local governments will have a significant decision
making role and influence with respect to the Project.
Groundwater
We are aware that one of the significant changes to the Project since 2010 was the shift
from using surface water from the Brohm River to using groundwater from the Paradise
Valley Aquifer. As a result of this change, the Supplemental EA considered the Projects
potential for new impacts on both groundwater quantity and quality.
We recognize the significant concerns that residents in the Paradise Valley had to the new
proposal as well as the importance of groundwater to those who live in the vicinity of the
Projects production well, particularly in the summer. We have read, with interest, the efforts
of the Paradise Valley Community Association to work collaboratively with both EAO and
the Proponent.
We note a number of EA conditions have been developed to address groundwater
concerns, including limitations on water withdrawal in the summer season, additional
groundwater research and the requirement of online access to groundwater withdrawal
rates to improve transparency. We have agreed to EA conditions to replace any wells
potentially affected by the Project as well as facilitating a potential new location for the
production well. With these efforts, we are satisfied that the Project would not have
significant adverse residual effects on groundwater.
Socio-Economic Effects
We note that, early in the Supplemental Application process, EAO became aware that
some of the Proponents existing socio-economic assessment documents had not
contemplated the potential impacts of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, upgrades
to Highway 99 and the 2008 global economic recession. We are supportive of EAOs efforts
to ensure that EA information is comprehensive and current.

Reasons for Ministers Decision

Garibaldi at Squamish Resort Project

page 5 of 8

We are aware that, during the review of the Supplemental Application, EAO heard a
number of concerns from the public and local governments (DOS, SLRD and RMOW)
related to the potential for socio-economic effects. In addition, we are aware of the specific
concerns expressed by RMOW (a member of the working group) relating to how the Project
could affect the long term viability of the community of Whistler, including businesses,
residents and investors.
We note that EAO carefully considered all viewpoints and the EA was informed by a third
party review of visitation and comments from reviewers. EAO found potential residual
effects related to housing costs, rental accommodation, local government spending on
services and reduced viability of RMOW. We have read that EAO also found that the
conclusions reached by the Proponent regarding potential socio-economic effects from the
Project were mostly speculative and had a high degree of uncertainty. In particular, EAO
notes that there is little evidence to support the concept of the cluster effect2 and notes that
it is highly likely instead that winter ski visitors would be taken from RMOW and North
Shore mountains with the potential to significantly affect visitation rates and overnight stays,
particularly in Whistler.
We also note that, given the uncertainty associated with the effects of the Project and the
speculative nature of many of the assumptions, EAO was unable to make a final conclusion
on the potential for significant adverse effects on the potential socio-economic effects of the
Project. EAO has also informed us that there were no viable EA Certificate conditions or
mitigations which were within the ability of the Proponent to undertake that could effectively
mitigate these effects.
With this as background, we agree with EAOs Assessment Report which notes that further
assessment or additional information would not necessarily provide greater certainty on
socio-economic effects. We agree that tourism projects are different than many natural
resource projects which we regularly consider, as many success factors are beyond control
of the Proponent.

cluster effect refers to a concept where the addition of new attractions draws increased visitors who wish to visit
multiple venues.

Reasons for Ministers Decision

Garibaldi at Squamish Resort Project

page 6 of 8

Having considered these factors, which are set out in EAOs Technical Report and
Assessment Report, we agree with the view that issues related to viability and feasibility are
more appropriately addressed through the MRBs Master Planning process and the local
government decision making processes described above. These processes have the
potential to significantly change the nature and scope of the Project and to prevent final
approval. We acknowledge that uncertainty regarding viability and feasibility remains a key
concern for local governments and some members of the public. However, we are
confident that these subsequent processes will also address many of the issues raised
during the EA which are outside the scope of the assessment, such as local government
infrastructure and services, financial viability and feasibility, climate change,
accommodation and housing, and local government revenues.
Traffic
We are aware that the Supplementary EA for the Project included an updated
transportation effects assessment due to the significant upgrades to Highway 99 completed
since the original EA. The review was completed as the Project has the potential to both
exceed the existing highway capacity during certain peak time periods and to increase the
frequency of collisions along Highway 99.
We recognize that EAO found that the Project is likely to increase congestion through
Squamish and areas of urban Whistler, as well as areas between Squamish and
Vancouver, most notably the single lane area through Britannia Beach as well as increase
the frequency of collisions. We also acknowledge that increased travel times associated
with these effects could create a negative perception for tourism visitation in the area.
Having considered this, we note, in the absence of any new highway infrastructure and
over the long term, due to anticipated growth in the Sea to Sky corridor, collisions and
congestion would increase regardless of the Project proceeding.
EAO has informed us that the Proponent made a number of assumptions related to future
infrastructure upgrades along Highway 99 (e.g. double-laning the area through Britannia
Beach) and included these as mitigations in their Supplemental Application. We agree with
EAOs findings that the Province of British Columbia is responsible for the maintenance,
design and improvements to Highway 99 and that the Proponent cannot rely upon a
provincial agency to fund mitigation of residual effects for the Project.
We also agree with EAOs findings that, by the time of full build out of the Project in 25
years, the areas identified by the Proponent for upgrading to four lanes to ease congestion
may have been completed. We note that because there are no specific plans in place for
this work and these mitigation measures are not within the control of the Proponent, there is
a low level of certainty regarding the potential for future effects.

Reasons for Ministers Decision

Garibaldi at Squamish Resort Project

page 7 of 8

In light of the anticipated growth in the Sea to Sky Corridor which is likely to occur
regardless of this Project proceeding and recognizing that the Government of British
Columbia has the responsibility to manage transportation infrastructure throughout the
Province, we accept the uncertainty identified by EAO.
Squamish Nation Consultation
EAO consulted deeply with the Squamish Nation during the EA. EAO considered potential
adverse effects of the Project on Squamish Nation Aboriginal Interests and, as appropriate,
made recommendations to mitigate or accommodate those effects. Many of EAOs legally
binding conditions were informed by EAOs consultation with, and consideration of
comments from the Squamish Nation. Many of the conditions require the Proponent to
satisfy a number of concerns directly with Squamish Nation, particularly in the development
and implementation of management and monitoring plans which address Squamish Nation
traditional uses and traditional knowledge.
EAO will continue to work with permitting agencies and local governments to support the
effective implementation of EA Certificate conditions and ensure that subsequent permitting
and other initiatives are informed by the consultation with the Squamish Nation that has
already occurred.
We are satisfied that the Province has fulfilled its obligations for consultation and
accommodation with the Squamish Nation and note they provided EAO with a letter saying
that the requirement to consult and accommodate had been met by EAO.
Public Consultation
We are aware that many issues were raised by the public through the submitted public
comments during the original pre-Application and Application Review, as well as the
Supplemental Application Review and that these comments, and the Proponents
responses, were considered and discussed further during the EA. We note that key issues
raised by the public helped the Proponent modify the design of the Project and informed
EAOs assessment of Garibaldi at Squamish and the development of EAOs EA Certificate
conditions. For instance, in response to public comments received on the Supplemental
Application Information Requirements, the Proponent removed all golf courses from the
Project as well as all residential development from areas around Cat and Brohm Lakes,
important recreational areas to residents of Squamish. We note that the EA Certificate
conditions relating to groundwater restrictions were developed in collaboration with the
Paradise Valley Community Association.

Reasons for Ministers Decision

Garibaldi at Squamish Resort Project

page 8 of 8

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

We are aware that the Project may have significant potential economic benefits. We note
that the Proponent advises that the capital costs for the ski area infrastructure, services
infrastructure and other amenities are approximately $870 million over the construction
period and estimated construction costs for the Project at full build-out are approximately
$3.5 billion.
The Proponent has stated that the Project would provide an estimated 1,917 full time
equivalent construction jobs during the 20 year construction period of accommodation, ski
lifts and associated facilities. Further, the Project would provide an estimated 4,029 full time
equivalent service jobs over a 20 year period
3

CONCLUSION

After consideration of EAOs assessment findings, the proposed Project design and
recommended conditions of the proposed EA Certificate, the Recommendations of the
Executive Director, and having regard to our responsibilities under the Act, we have issued
an EA Certificate for the Project. The EA Certificate includes enforceable conditions and
specifies the Project design parameters. These give us confidence to conclude, within the
scope of our statutory decision authority, and with regard to the reasons set out in this
document, that the Project will be constructed, operated and decommissioned in a way that
no significant adverse effects within the context of EAO's consideration are likely to occur.

_____________________________

_____________________________

Honourable Mary Polak

Minister of Environment

Honourable Steve Thompson

Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural
Resource Operations

Signed this 26th day of January, 2016