Hypothetical Memo:
The Garibaldi at Squamish project aims to erect a mountain resort that would cater to the public as a year-round recreation and leisure facility. The project is estimated to take about 20 years to build on a controversial site due to the area’s undisturbed natural state and beauty. It has taken almost 20 years for the project to finally get environmental approval. As a natural resource planner, this has been a very interesting story to follow and take part in the decision making. Through this assessment I have further considered the project through GIS analysis.
The data from this analysis was obtained from DataBC, a very credible source.
I used the data to analyze the project area in terms of certain endangered (red-listed) species along with the snowline of 555m which determines areas of consistent and reliable skiing snow. Interestingly, the area below 555m (29.92% of the project area), where there may not be enough snow, is similar to that of the area where the red-listed species exist (24.83% of the project area). This means that skiing would most likely not occur over the areas where the species exist. This being said, the area may be used for other purposes and the project would most likely still have a negative effect on those species. The snowline contour was made with the digital elevation model (DEM) of the land. The file was raster but converted to a vector polygon to make analysis possible. The red-listed species data was isolated from a larger file and the areas that these species inhabit were added up. The percentages were taken from the area of the project boundary polygon.
The ungulate habitat area was extracted from the UWR layer and represents 7.89% of the project area. Old growth forest data was obtained with the OGMA layer and occupy 6.78% of the total project area. The TRIM_trivr layer was used to obtain information about the fisheries. A buffer was used to create polygons as opposed to lines and therefore making it possible to calculate the area of the fish ecosystems which is 26.02%. This means that 52.62% of the project area falls on protected areas.
Because the majority of the project area lies on environmentally protected areas, I still stand by my previous stance to oppose the project. No matter how the areas in question are protected, the natural resources and other organisms will be affected by development or any kind within the project boundary. There are no ways to avoid this fact, only precautions that can be made to lessen the negative effects the project would have on the proposed project environment. Since the project has already been approved, my biggest worries are that the biodiversity of the protected areas will go down, therefore further endangering the red-listed species and also the effect that the vast amount of tourism will have on the project’s land, negatively affecting the existing environment and wildlife. The most that can be done to prevent damaging the eco-systems is for the park to enforce strict rules for everyone to follow that will aid the protection of the species and ecosystems. For example, strict no-littering rules can be put in place and they can fence off the protected areas. The park can help by actively taking care of the land including smart waste removal and helping to maintain the wildlife.
Note:
Because of the reasons stated in my memo, I would still oppose the project. No matter what happens, any development and change to the land will affect the existing wildlife and habitats within the project boundary and most likely the areas surrounding the project boundary. This is an issue especially for the endangered species as their fundamental niches will be diminished and so will their realized niches therefore giving them less options as to where they can survive and endangering the biodiversity and the species further. Not only will the development of the area will affect the species, but the sudden influx of tourists which will further damage the ecosystems and throw them off balance.