Below is a mock memo for an environmental assessment of the proposed Garibaldi at Squamish Project. Ethically, I do not agree with this project. However, in a professional environment you have to set aside personal feelings and just deal with the facts. By doing proper analysis you can ensure that any project, no matter if you agree with it or not, moves ahead in the most environmentally sound way possible.
Click here to see attached map.
To: Northland Properties and Aquilini Investment Group of Vancouver
From: Jessica Hak Hepburn, Natural Resource Planner
Date: March 21, 2016
Subject: Environmental Assessment of Garibaldi at Squamish Project
Attached is a map of the Garibaldi at Squamish project area with areas highlighted of where not to build the year round ski resort. The purpose of this memo is to recommend the priorities you should take in order to proceed with this project.
Looking at the map, you can see I’ve included old growth management areas, ungulate winter ranges, red-listed species and streams that include fish habitat/riparian zones as areas to avoid development.
Here is how I analyzed the data:
- I first acquired the above noted data from DataBC.
- I then focused on the area within the proposed project boundary by clipping all the data to its borders.
- I reclassified the project boundary area into two categories distinguishing where the area is lower and above 600m of vertical showing where to focus building to ensure year round snow.
- Being an environmental assessment, I was only interested in areas that would be sensitive to development, so I filtered the data to the above noted categories. For the red-listed species, I filtered out only the red-listed species to be represented as defined by Environmental Resource Management Ltd. (2015). I added buffer zones to streams in order to preserve fish habitat (50m for above 600m of vertical and 100m for below 600m of vertical).
After completing these steps, I could then analyze the area. These are my results:
- About 32% of the proposed project area is below 600m.
- About 7% of the proposed project area has old growth forest.
- About 8% of the project area has Mule Deer and Mountain Goat winter habitat (ungulate winter range)
- About 25% of the total area represents red-listed species.
- About 26% of the proposed project area falls within fish bearing streams or fish habitat/riparian areas around streams.
- In total, about 53% of the project area falls in the sum of these protected areas.
In my opinion, the two greatest concerns to project development are the fish habitat/riparian zones and red-listed species that fall within the proposed project area. For the latter, the majority of red-listed species fall below the 600m of vertical mark not suitable for development. However to ensure their survival, efforts should be made to only use existing road infrastructure. The same can be said to help mitigate stress on fish habitat/riparian zones. Another way to moderate stress on fish habitat areas is to plant tree zone buffers to alleviate any increased sediment transport and help the upkeep of water quality.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Jessica Hak Hepburn
Natural Resource Planner
University of British Columbia