Lab 5

For Lab 5 I successfully created a map and used it for an environmental impact assessment to determine the feasibility of a proposed project, and in doing so learned that many factors and stakeholders come into play when considering environmental projects. I made this map showing all the protected areas and the snowline for the Garibaldi at Squamish ski resort project. I also wrote a memo to the British Columbia Snowmobile Federation, who opposes the project, from the point of view of a natural resource planner, and I let them know that I believe there is sufficient evidence to continue to oppose the project because there are simply too many environmental concerns. 

MEMO: To BCSF

After careful examination of the Environmental Impact assessment and the criticisms presented by the Municipality of Whistler, it is clear that the Garibaldi at Squamish proposed ski resort is not an environmentally feasible project. More than half of the proposed project area falls within protected areas, including old growth areas, ungulate habitat, red-listed species, and riparian areas. On top of that, nearly a third of the project area may not receive enough snow for skiing, due to its elevation. As a natural resource planner, I am confident that this is sufficient evidence for the BCSF to continue to oppose the project. Here are the simplified steps I took to analyze the data:

Acquired the data from DataBC (Old Growth areas, Ungulate habitats, Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping, Elevation, Rivers, Roads, Project boundary)

Clipped the layers (Old Growth areas, Ungulate habitats etc) to the project boundary

Reclassified the elevation layer so I could easily tell how much area would receive enough snow for skiing (the area above 555m elevation)

Searched the Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping layer to find any red-listed species,

identified six: Flatmoss, Falsebox, Salal, Kinnikinnick, Cat’s-tail Moss, Cladina. These areas account for almost a quarter of the total project area.

Put a 50m buffer around streams at altitudes above 555m, and a 100m buffer around streams at lower altitudes. Clipped the buffered area to the project boundary, calculated the area, found that more than a quarter of the project area falls within fish habitats / riparian areas around streams

Combined all the different protected areas to create one whole protected area, and calculated this area to find that 53% of the project area falls within protected areas

Results:

Ungulates: 8% of the project area falls within ungulate areas

Old Growth: 7% of the project area contains old growth forests

Red-listed ecosystems: 25% of the project area affects red-listed ecosystems

Fish habitat: 26% of the project area affects fish and their habitats

Area below 555m: 30% of the project area falls below 555m of elevation

The two greatest environmental concerns would be for the red-listed ecosystems, and the riparian areas, whose habitats are most encroached upon with this proposed project. The red-listed species areas take up most of the area below 555m of elevation; it would be very difficult to construct anything in this area without disturbing them. Likewise with the fish habitats, which are found all throughout the project area. In conclusion, there is sufficient evidence to continue to oppose this project, and indeed I think it would be in the best interest of the environment to oppose this project.