November 2015

Lab 5 GEOB 270

GEOB 270 Leave a comment

Lab5

Report Memorandum

The proposed project is the construction of a ski resort in the Garabaldi Squamish region of British Columbia Canada. The proposed area is demarcated in the finished map (ProjectBoundary). My involvement in the project was to take the data available in regards to protected areas in the project area and show how much of the project area falls under protected status. Be it old growth forest, riparian buffers, ungulate winter ranges or red-listed species habitat.

During the analysis the data was collected from provincial databases which showed the areas protected for the entire province.

-Data was checked for map projections and all data was projected in the same manner.
-All data was clipped to the project area (so only areas within the project area shown)

-Elevation was divided between upper and lower elevations (below 555m)
-Streams and rivers were buffered by provincial standards for riparian areas. 50m for upper elevations and 100m for lower elevations.
-Red listed plant species habitats were selected and shown on the map.
-All protected areas were combined to show total protected area.
-All lower elevations were displayed using a crosshatched overlay on the map.
-Total areas for each protected area were calculated as a percent of total project area, both individually and combined.

In general I found 6.79% of area is protected old growth forest, 7.89% ungulate winter range, 24.8% red-listed species, and 30.13% riparian buffers. In total 55.4% of the project area is protected. Of the total project area 30.13% is below 555m in elevation.

In my opinion the two greatest environmental concerns are the riparian buffer zones and the red-listed species habitat. To mitigate impacts to these areas I would suggest building the resort on the upper elevations where red-listed species are not as prevalent and the riparian zones are fewer. Also using pre-existing road networks as much as possible during construction of the resort and during its operation could help mitigate the impacts as well.

I personally feel that this project should not go ahead with construction. I believe that since protected areas make up more than fifty percent of the project area any construction would have too large of an environmental impact.  In the memo I wrote did not recommend that the project should go ahead or not. I only wrote what could be done to potentially mitigate any impacts. I believe however that this project should not go ahead.

GEOG 310 Assignment 3 Governance

GEOG 310 Leave a comment

Waste Water Governance

The topic being discussed in this assignment is the dumping of untreated sewage into the ocean off the coast of the Greater Victoria region in British Columbia, Canada. Currently municipal wastewater undergoes solely primary sewage treatment, screens that remove solids 6 mm or larger in size before being discharged offshore without any other treatment.  Currently those who have the power to make decisions regarding wastewater treatment in the region are municipal governments. The municipalities that make up the Capital Region and the residents who vote them to power are those who can determine the future of wastewater treatment in the region.

When we look at the state of regulations regarding water in general and waste water treatment specifically there are many different layers of regulation and responsibility. Firstly on an international/global level there are no current binding treaties or resolutions of which Canada is a party to. The sole international agreements are between Canada and the U.S.A. and relate to international waters and rivers that flow into the United States. The International Rivers Improvement Act and the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. Neither of these acts deal directly with waste water discharge. (Government of Canada, n.d.) (Government of Canada, n.d.)

On a federal level there is also very little government regulation. The only law regarding water quality is the Canada Water Act (Government of Canada, n.d.), this act is solely a binding agreement between Canadian Provinces and the federal government. Water is considered “owned” by provinces and is regulated by provinces directly. The federal government may make recommendations on water standards and quality but it is up to the provincial governments to act upon these recommendations at their discretion.

The bulk of regulation around waters in Canada is determined by provincial governments. In British Columbia waste water is regulated through The Municipal Wastewater Regulation. (Government of British Columbia, n.d.) This document sets out the general guidelines that all municipalities must follow in regards to the treatment and discharge of municipal waste water. The large majority of regulations deal with the discharge of effluent in ground areas. In our case study we are looking at effluent discharge into a marine environment, or water discharge. The regulations in this instance are quite different. The requirements for discharge depend on many factors. To mention a few, volume of discharge, type of discharge, length of discharge pipe, fecal coliform levels, location of discharge pipe, and the dilution zone, among many others. All these various factors must be taken into account by a municipality when discharging effluent into a marine environment. However within these boundaries the municipality (municipalities) have leeway in methods of discharge and treatment. Future acts and regulations may change the landscape of water treatment in British Columbia such as the Water Sustainability Act which comes into effect in early 2016. (Goverment of British Columbia, n.d.)

The municipalities in question have the final authority to make decisions regarding waste water discharge within the boundaries of provincial regulations. At the moment the problem seems to be that there is no consensus on whether or not Victoria’s treatment system (or lack thereof) false within regulations or not. As mentioned in previous assignments there are many who believe that current treatment methods are adequate, ie wastewater is sufficiently diluted etc. Others believe this to not be the case and that secondary and potentially tertiary treatment methods need to be implemented.

In regards to cultural conventions the norm has been to discharge the waste directly to the marine environment as has been happening for the past century. This action however has led to conflict and ill will with neighbouring Washington State. This is due to the fact that the state shares waters of the San Juan Islands which are quite near geographically to Victoria and its sewage outflow pipes. There have been arguments made (as explored in previous posts) that effluent may be contaminating waters in Washington State. This conflict has led to international pressure on Victoria to change its waste water treatment plan.

When looking at governmental policies in regards to wastewater management we can see two distinct levels of regulation. Provincial and Municipal. The regulations are available online in their entirety (as cited in this assignment) and are quite accessible. However the language present can be difficult to understand to the lay person. This can limit the accessibility of the information and its understanding. In regards to the case of Victoria the issue of governance are quite murky. As mentioned earlier there is much debate around the state of treatment and whether or not it falls within provincial regulations. Since this confusion and debate exists it is difficult to determine accountability and participation to a concrete extent in regards to Victoria’s waste water treatment standards. I believe that there is a lack of good governance in regards to this case. This is due to a large amount of confusion and lack of clear regulations.

When looking at the sum of regulations and governance in regards to Canadas waste water standards on all levels, federal, provincial, and municipal, there seems to be a lack of governance framework. There is very little federal oversight and standards on a federal level are lacking. This places the large amount of power in provincial hands, with different provinces having different policies. When dealing with water which is a fluid system, water flows across national, provincial, and municipal boundaries, a higher level of governance seems necessary. A clarification and standardization of practices and regulations at a federal level, in consultation with other neighbouring nations (United States in particular) would go a long way in clarifying the subject of waste water management. By creating a clear regulatory environment the wicked problem of Victoria’s waste water could be simplified and potentially solved.

Bibliography

Goverment of British Columbia. (n.d.). Water Sustainability Act. Retrieved from Goverment of Bristish Columbia: http://engage.gov.bc.ca/watersustainabilityact/

Government of British Columbia. (n.d.). Municipal Wastewater Regulation. Retrieved from British Columbia: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management/sewage/municipal-wastewater-regulation

Government of Canada. (n.d.). Canada Water Act. Retrieved from Justice Laws: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-11/index.html

Government of Canada. (n.d.). International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. Retrieved from Justice Laws: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-17/index.html

Government of Canada. (n.d.). International River Improvements Act. Retrieved from Justice Laws: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-20/index.html

 

GEOB 270 Lab 4

GEOB 270 Leave a comment

dataclass

Q8.  Different classification methods portray the same data differently as shown by the above maps. All these maps were made using the exact same data but using different classification methods. As a real estate agent I would use natural breaks because it clusters similarly priced areas in to classes. So all areas of similar housing costs are colored similar giving clients a good idea of housing costs at a glance. As a journalist I would use standard deviation because it clearly shows how far off the mean housing costs differ across Vancouver or Montreal. There are ethical implications yes, because by using different classification methods you can present the data in a manner which benefits the goals you are trying to achieve. Whatever that goal may be.

affordability

Affordability in this case describes the cost of a dwelling unit (median) normalized to the median income. So it shows how much income per census tract versus how much each dwelling unit costs. This is a better measure of affordability than housing cost alone because it shows how much income can be spent on housing per census tract.

The housing affordability categories are Severely Unaffordable, Seriously Unaffordable, Moderately Unaffordable, and Affordable. These classifications were produced by The NYU Urban Expansion Program which is a think tank and urban action center of the Stern School of Business at the New York University. I would call this group trustworthy because they are an academic group whose goals are to aid municipalities and urban areas in planning for their future urban expansion. I would say that affordability is a useful tool in determining livability but not the only one by far. It plays a role but other factors such as safety, healthcare, education, proximity to work and leisure etc play larger roles I would argue in determining livability of a location.