On the edge of summer, as the green canopy deepens across Whistler’s valley, council members turned their attention to the trees—and everything they represent.
“Trees make our community beautiful, providing an exceptional setting for tourism and recreation, which are fundamental to our local economy,” said environmental coordinator Tina Symko, addressing council on May 27. “Each tree in Whistler plays part of a vital role, environmentally, socially and economically.”
With unanimous support, Whistler council has endorsed two major updates to its environmental legislation: the Environmental Protection Bylaw No. 2426, 2025 and the newly created Tree Protection Bylaw No. 2435, 2025. Together, the bylaws seek to halt a trend of lot-clearing in residential neighbourhoods, protect sensitive riparian areas, regulate the spread of invasive species, and modernize enforcement to reflect current climate and ecological realities.
Tree bylaw takes aim at unchecked clearing
The newly proposed Tree Protection Bylaw replaces previous tree-cutting rules embedded within the broader environmental bylaw. Staff said that limited scope—only regulating trees with covenants or those near Highway 99—left many properties with no protections at all.
“We are seeing excessive cutting, including full-lot clearing in Whistler, particularly in our residential neighbourhoods,” said Symko. “Over-cutting results in negative impacts to privacy and community character, as well as loss of shade, habitat, soil stability and other important benefits.”
To address those gaps, the new bylaw introduces a Tree Density Minimum (TDM)—a zoning-based formula that sets the minimum number of trees per property. A typical 557-square-metre residential lot would require four trees. Permits will now be required if property owners want to cut:
- A significant tree (defined as a covenanted tree, large tree over 60 cm in diameter, old tree over 250 years, or a known wildlife tree);
- Any tree within 30 metres of a stream or wetland;
- Trees that would bring the property below its TDM.
The bylaw also introduces replacement tree requirements. If a significant tree is removed, property owners must plant up to three new trees for each one lost. Native deciduous trees are preferred and count double toward replacement totals due to their fire-resilient qualities.
The permit fees, currently $125 under the old bylaw, will increase to $250 for up to 10 trees, and $400 for more than 10.
Council embraces strong penalties
To prevent violations, fines can now reach up to $50,000 per offence, with each illegally cut tree treated as a separate infraction. Ongoing violations, like failure to replant required trees, can incur daily fines until resolved.
Councillor Cathy Jewett asked how those penalties would be enforced.
Symko clarified: “In the tree bylaw scenario, that would be, for example, if you had replacement tree requirements, the deadline has passed, you haven’t replaced the trees … We can [issue] fines on a daily basis for things like that.”
While the rules are tighter, Symko emphasized the new permitting system will be more user-friendly, and enforcement authority will rest with the manager of climate and environment, not higher-level managers, improving turnaround time.
“If I can do the math, anybody can,” she said, referring to the TDM calculation. “Requirements, I think, are much more simpler and streamlined.”
Environmental bylaw tackles waterways, spills, and invasive species
The Environmental Protection Bylaw No. 2426, 2025 replaces the 2012 version with updated language, expanded protections, and clarified jurisdiction. It prohibits pollution or obstruction of streams and stormwater drainage systems—including runoff from hot tubs or chlorinated pools, which are now considered polluting substances.
New requirements include:
- Immediate containment and cleanup of spills;
- Mandatory spill reporting within 24 hours;
- Restoration of any obstructions to natural water flow.
“Streams are one of Whistler’s most important natural assets,” said Symko. “They’re recognized as either very high or high priority habitat in our Priority Habitat Framework.”
The bylaw also cracks down on invasive species, expanding the definition beyond plants to include contaminated soils and transported materials. It now prohibits the sale or distribution of invasives and mandates proper treatment and disposal under the RMOW’s solid waste bylaw.
Asked how the municipality plans to address invasive species still being sold locally, Symko said enforcement will now back up existing outreach work: “I think it’s really important that we start to sort of back groups like [Sea to Sky Invasive Species Council] up with stuff that we definitely know is critical to our climate resilience.”
Riparian protections fill mapping gaps
The environmental bylaw also fills a critical gap in riparian area protection. Whistler’s Development Permit Areas (DPAs) already regulate riparian zones under the Official Community Plan (OCP), but some creeks and wetlands were left unmapped.
Because the municipality cannot legally create bylaws for general “riparian protection,” the revised language now focuses on regulating works that cause pollution or obstruction to streams—a jurisdiction Whistler holds.
This gives staff the authority to require assessments from a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) and refuse permits if stream flow would be affected.
FireSmart and ecological values discussed
Fire safety was a key theme throughout council’s discussion. Symko assured councillors FireSmart guidance is deeply integrated into both bylaws.
“We’ve worked very closely with our FireSmart team to ensure that the tree density minimum ratios work for what FireSmart is recommending for properties,” she said. “This bylaw is kind of as balanced as it gets.”
Deciduous trees are favoured in part because of their fire-resistant qualities. The bylaw also prohibits planting conifers too close to homes or other conifer trees—a reflection of wildfire risk reduction best practices.
Jewett asked whether culturally modified trees or historic logging stumps were considered for protection.
“We did not include them under this bylaw,” said Symko. “But it’s always an option to include that in the future.”
Moving forward
Council also discussed how to educate property owners on how to navigate the new rules.
“How do you imagine this being executed … is there a how-to guide?” Coun. Ralph Forsyth asked.
Symko confirmed: “That’s definitely what we envision with any regulatory changes.”
Councillors expressed strong support for the changes, noting the need for better environmental management and tools that support both climate and community values.
“I've imagined at times, what would this valley look like if these trees were gone,” said Coun. Arthur De Jong. “The ecological impacts and the actual economic impacts are profound.”
With council's approval, the bylaws will return for proper consideration at an upcoming meeting.
