Accomplishment Statement
Developed the ability to parse and filter data. Effectively acquired and manipulate the visuals of a digitizing data by filtering and mining data in order to successfully represent an appealing and useful model for analysis.
The project proposed was a year round destination resort on Brohm Ridge near Whistler. It will include 124 ski trails and 21 lifts and will take about 20 years to build the entire project. Because there has been concerns about the environmental impacts of this project, my job as a natural resource planner, is to investigate whether or not the concerns reflected by BC Environmental Assessment office and the Resort Municipality of Whistler are significant issue. I also need to evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence to either oppose or accept the project with the concerns being addressed if the project can be accepted.
First, I acquired data from the Canadian government’s database in order to investigate about the endangered species and the trees that are under protection in that area. Then I also gathered relevant data for the analysis, which includes information on roads, railways, rivers, lakes, topographic contours, etc. I made sure to name my files correctly, so that I, or the people looking at my map, won’t be confused about. After that I filtered the data so that only the information within the boundaries of the area where the project is held at are visible on the map. Finally, after putting all the information onto a single map, I am able to analyze the data and find out where are the areas in within the project boundary that are under the elevation of 600m, which is Whistler’s concern of safety for skiing. I also checked the percentage of areas that winter animals dwell in and the area of protected trees within the project boundary, which could potentially be significant numbers to reject the project. Fish habitat in the rivers are also of our concern for its part of the ecosystem that may be impacted by the project, so it is something I had to calculate the percentage of existence within the project area as well.
My general results for each potential factors that will be impacted by the project is as follows:
Old growth forest within the project boundary: 6.78%
Ungulated habitat within the project boundary: 7.89%
Endangered species within the project boundary: 24.8%
Fish habitat within the project boundary: 26.3%
Area below the 600m vertical within the project boundary: 31.78%
In my opinion, the two greatest environmental concern would be fish habitat and the endangered species that will be impacted in the ecosystem. The percentage of endangered species that will be effected is significant when they are contemplated as habitat that are on the edge of extinction. If people do not protect their existence, there will be a shift in the food chain, which will have an impact on humans. Fish habitat will especially cause a direct influence on humans as well because of the food chain and humans eat fish. Plus, it has the highest percentage of inclusion within the project boundary. Hence, it will be a major concern on human health and wildlife habitat. Although the area below the 600m vertical has the greatest percentage out of the five aspects that are considered, it is not a significant number because it means that about 68% of the area considered for the project will be safe and available for people to ski on, which is enough resource for the resort to function. They only need to make sure that the 31.78% of the area which are under the 600m vertical needs to be fenced off or put to use in other means than skiing.
So are the concerns addressed significant enough to reject the project? As an environmentalist, I would definitely oppose the project because I would be biased towards the involvement of endangered species in this project and that consideration would be weighted the most in my decision. As a city developer, I would definitely go forwards with the project because the potential factors are all under 50% of significance and there are over 50% of the land that can be used for the function of skiing, which is the main purpose of the resort. Hence, this place can be a major attraction and make profits for the city and for capitalists. As a natural resource planner though, I cannot be biased with any of the resources. I have to look at the numbers and the numbers do tell me that that all the resources that will be impacted are under 50%. In fact, protected trees and ungulated winter habitats are both under 10% each. Are these significant percentages considering the amount protected trees there should be and if less than 10% of the ungulated winter habitats were impacted, would there be significant changes on the environment? I would need more environmental knowledge/background in order to make this decision, but for the sake of make a final decision for this project, I will consider leaning towards agreeing with the environmentalist and putting a halt on this project.