In this lab, as a natural resource planner regarding the Garibaldi at Squamish project, I produced a map and a short memo summarizing my results by acquiring spatial datasets online, parsing and filtering data, using different spatial analysis tools, and evaluating the feasibility of building this ski resort.
Lab Background
The Garibaldi at Squamish project is a proposed year-round destination mountain resort on Brohm Ridge, 15 km north of Squamish on Highway 99. It is 80 km north of Vancouver and 45 km south of Whistler (Fig. 1). The project has recently (January 2016) been approved tentatively, with 40 conditions and includes 124 ski trails and 21 lifts, plus resort accommodation and commercial developments. It estimates that it would provide 900 construction jobs to build the project and 2500 jobs during operation – and will take 20 years to build. There are many articles and news reports on this proposed project (tying into google Garibaldi at Squamish).
The project proponents (Northland Properties and Aquilini Investment Group of Vancouver) initially submitted an application for a Project Approval Certificate under the Environmental Assessment Act in 1997. Following a series of addendums, the BC Environmental Assessment Office released its report in 2010, stating that the project lacked information on the potential effects on vegetation and fish and wildlife habitat, and recommended a series of measures to prevent or reduce any significant environmental, social, economic, heritage and health effects. In April 2015, the project proponents filed a supplemental application that they claimed addressed these issues.
During the subsequent two month-long community consultation process in May and June 2015, the Resort Municipality of Whistler submitted a 14–page letter opposing the project. In addition to its concerns over the economic viability and impact of the project, Whistler cited a 1974 report stating that “climatological considerations rule out reliable skiing on the lower 555m of vertical.” Given evidence of climate change over the last 40 years since this report, this value is probably higher in 2016, estimate 600m.
Here are the two maps I created:
lab5map (areas that negatively affect the proposed ski resort)
hillshade (3D hill shade of the project area including river, ungulate and old growth layers)
Memo
The Garibaldi at Squamish project (ski resort) is currently under Environmental Assessment review to assess its potential environmental and economic impacts. As a natural resource planner, my task is to determine the feasibility of building this ski resort and make recommendations to the proponents’ proposal. In order to do so, I analyzed related spatial data and evaluated the raised issues by producing and interpreting a map that includes the influencing features.
The steps I took to analyze the data are as follow:
1. obtaindatafromDataBCwebsiteandtheG:Drive:
data layers: Ungulate Winter Range, Old Growth Management Areas, Project Boundary, Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping, Digital Elevation Model, Park Boundaries, River, Roads, and 20m Contours.
- categorizethedataIjustacquiredtokeepitorganizedandreadyforlateruse
- (sinceallthelayersextendbeyondtheprojectboundary)clipboththevectorandraster layers to the project boundary
- calculations:1) find out if there is enough snow (percentage of the proposed project area is lower than 600m?):
isolate the parts of the DEM that are below and above 600m using reclassify method; convert the new raster to a polygon;
calculate the area of the new polygon as a percentage of the total project area.
2) calculate the are of old growth forest as a percentage of the total area
3) calculate the percentage of the Mule Deer and Mountain Goat winter habitat 4) calculate the percentage of the red-listed species:
build a multi-field query to select the polygons that have bioclimatic units and site series listed in the given Table;
merge polygons; name them in the comment field for quicker identification
save all six red-listed species in a new layer and name it “red-listed”;
5) calculate the percentage of the proposed project area that fall within fish habitat:
use the spatial join to assign to all the rivers a value of below or above 600m;
create a buffer of varying widths: 50m for higher elevation and 100m for lower elevation;
calculate the buffer as a percentage of the total area.
5. create a map to include the above features, displaying areas that negatively affect the proposed ski resort;
create a 3D hill shade of the project area including river, ungulate and old growth layer. The results I got are as follow:
old growth forest percentage: 6.786%
ungulate habitat percentage: 7.892%
red-listed ecosystems percentage: 24.827%
fish habitat percentage: 15.847%
combined percentage: 55.352%
area below 600m: 17392902.57026
area below 600m percentage: 31.787%
The general results of my analysis suggest that the more than half of the area (55.352% of the total project area) would be subject to negative environmental impacts. In my opinion, there are various environmental concerns needed to be addressed in order for the project to move forward. The two greatest environmental concerns are potential destruction on vegetation
and forest, as well as reduction in wilderness areas, which include wildlife and fish habitat. All of them are essential parts of the ecosystem, providing economic, social, recreational benefits. Furthermore, the construction will lead to increased energy outputs.
I recommend my clients should prioritize considerations to prevent or reduce significant environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects to the project area, so that environmental, cultural and spiritual values are protected for later generations in the sacred mountain. To mitigate the possible adverse impacts, maintaining an appropriate buffer is necessary between the proposed development and protected areas. Although large areas of buffer would take up much of the area available for project development, a huge number of jobs and profits will be created once the project takes place, which is beneficial to the local people and environment. In conclusion, as long as the construction remains in the safe area, the project should be good to go.