A ski resort expansion in an ecologically sensitive valley in southwest Alberta is on hold after a judge tossed out a provincial decision to not require a full-scale environmental study of the development.

Castle Mountain Resort has temporarily suspended all work on the project until the Alberta government decides its next move, says Andrew Rusynyk, the resort’s director of marketing and development.

The court ruling, resulting from a judicial review sought by a conservation group in 2002, literally stopped the builders in their tracks.

A new sewage system for the resort’s planned housing development has already been installed and is operational, Rusynyk said in an interview. “We have lots that are prepared . . . the four builders are ready to break ground.”

The resort, located in the West Castle Valley next to the West Castle Wetland Ecological Reserve, wants to add 125 housing units – including townhouse condominiums and a small hotel – to the 100 units it already has, Rusynyk said.

But those plans hit a roadblock earlier this month after Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Colleen Kenny quashed an Alberta Environment director’s decision to not require a comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the ski resort expansion.

Kenny ruled that the director failed to follow Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act in making her final decision.

The director’s decision “that an EIA is not required without further information to satisfy the concerns expressed by her, concerns that are based on the policies and objectives set out in the (legislation), is clearly irrational,” the judge wrote.

Conservation groups have been lobbying for more than 40 years to have more than 1,000 square kilometres of the Castle region, immediately north of Waterton Lakes National Park, protected by legislation and made off-limits to industrial and commercial development.

The Castle-Crown Wilder-ness Coalition, based in Pincher Creek, had asked the court to order Alberta Environment to require an EIA of Castle Mountain Resort’s expansion.

But Judge Kenny decided instead to send the matter back to the same department director for a new decision – one that abides by the provincial legislation.

Jeffrey Emmett, executive director of the Castle-Crown coalition, said the conservation group is satisfied with the ruling. “We are opposed to any development at the ski hill. We feel it’s too big already.”

Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor supported the decision to not require an EIA, based on the director’s conclusion that other governmental review and approval processes could address any potential environmental impacts of the ski resort expansion.

Val Mellesmoen, a spokeswoman for Taylor, said the department will likely decide within 30 days whether to appeal the judge’s ruling or review the director’s decision in light of information raised during the judicial review. “We currently still stand behind the director’s original decision and obviously the minister supported that. But that’s not to say this isn’t worth re-examining.”

Emmett of the Castle-Crown coalition said the judge’s ruling makes it clear that “the government did not follow its own legislation and rules properly.”

Kenny’s ruling states that Alberta Environment’s director was “mistaken” in concluding that her concerns about the development could be addressed by other governmental review processes. “The only vehicle that can address the overall environmental impacts is an EIA,” the judge wrote.

Provincial legislation requires that an EIA be done for any new proposed tourism facility adjacent to an ecological reserve that will attract more than 250,000 visitors a year.

Castle Mountain Resort estimates its expanded facilities will fall short of that, and will draw about 100,000 skiers every winter and a maximum of 50,000 visitors during the summer.

“Our development is very minor in comparison to such (ski resorts) as Fernie (B.C.) or Big White (near Kelowna, B.C.) or Sunshine-Lake Louise,” Rusynyk said.

The West Castle Valley is an ecologically sensitive area, he acknowledged. But he noted that Castle Mountain Resort’s expansion plans took into account a previous EIA that had been done in the early 1990s for a much larger resort proposal in the valley that never went ahead.

“We’re basically just reusing lands within the footprint of our base area,” Rusynyk said. “We’re not expanding up the valley.”

Judge Kenny’s ruling states that Castle Mountain Resort’s current expansion plans include 15 single-family units, 92 multi-family units, a hostel and an overnight lodge. In addition, the resort would add 28 hectares to the ski terrain, another chairlift, 200 more parking spaces, “and a significant increase in water use and solid-waste production.”

“To suggest that such changes would have no bearing on environmental issues in the region is naïve at best,” Kenny wrote.

The West Castle Valley is a crucial watershed in southern Alberta, a vital corridor linking wildlife populations in Alberta, B.C. and Montana, and home to many rare plant species, said Joe Obad, conservation director, southwest Alberta for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

The judge’s ruling means “we have a second chance to do things correctly before this important valley in a beautiful wilderness is squandered,” Obad said.