Fraser Basin Sustainability Report Highlights Heading for City Council

Monday, March 30, 2009 04:00 AM

Prinice George, ( top brown line) has worst levels of PM2.5, but report says things are getting better

Prince George, B.C. – Air quality in Prince George is getting better, but it remains the worst when it comes to PM2.5 among the nine communities monitored for PM 2.5 emissions.

That is one of the findings in the latest Fraser Basin Council Sustainability Snapshot report which will be presented to Prince George City Council this evening. It includes much of the material included in the more in depth report on the Upper Fraser Region released last November.

Prince George is the largest community in the Upper Fraser region, and here are the highlights for the region:

Air Quality

Prince George had the highest (worst) concentrations of Particulate Matter2.5 (PM2.5) from 2001 to 2007 and the highest (worst) annual average Air Quality Health Index rating from 2000 to 2006 among monitored locations in the Fraser Basin, but recorded improvements in Ground Level Ozone (GLO) and PM2.5 concentrations from 2004 to 2007.

Biodiversity

In 2008, the Upper Fraser region had the largest land area designated as Protected Areas (1.15 million ha or 14.4% of the region) compared to other Fraser Basin regions.

Health

In 2006, the region recorded the lowest proportion (4.9%) of low-weight babies in the Fraser Basin but had the highest Age Standardized Mortality Rate for cancer (21.5).

Housing

In 2006, the region had more affordable housing than other regions in the Fraser Basin and the lowest proportion (12.5%) of owner-households spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs.

Forests & Forestry

In 2005, three of four communities in the Fraser Basin identified as being most vulnerable to the mountain pine beetle infestation were in the Upper Fraser region (Cheslatta, Burns Lake and Vanderhoof).

Water Quality & Quantity

In 2004, per capita flows from municipal wastewater treatment systems were highest in the Upper Fraser region (816 litres per capita). In 2004, about 83% of municipal populations in the region were connected to municipal wastewater treatment systems. Most of these (89%) were served by the tertiary treatment system in Prince George (representing

74% of the municipal populations of the region).

During the 2004–2006 period, river Water Quality Index ratings were Excellent for one site and Good for two sites in the region. These were the best ratings of eight sites in the Fraser Basin.

Solid Waste Disposal

Of the eight Fraser Basin regional districts, the Bulkley-Nechako and Fraser-Fort George Regional Districts recorded the largest decreases in total solid waste going to landfills between 1996 and 2006: 25% and 12%, respectively.

However, both regional districts have recorded increases since 2002.

Agricultural & Food

There has been a net gain in the area designated as Agricultural Land Reserve in the Fraser Basin since 1974; however, there have been declines in four of five regions of the Fraser Basin and in the area classified as prime agricultural land.

Consumption & Waste

Ninety-nine percent of British Columbians who responded to a national survey in 2006 claimed they recycled;hallenges. however, rates of solid waste disposal increased in the Fraser Basin by 18% between 1996 and 2006. BC households practise environmental activities at high rates compared with those in other Canadian provinces; but Canadian consumers ranked second worse compared with 13 other countries.

Economy, Income & Employment

Between 2000 and 2006, increases were recorded in the employment rate (3%), individual disposable income (16%) and gross domestic product per capita (12%); however, average household income declined (3%).

Energy & Climate Change

Between 2000 and 2006, total energy consumption increased by 1.6%; however, decreases were recorded for consumption per capita (5%) and per unit of real GDP (15%). While total and per capita greenhouse gas emissions were at a 15-year high in 2004, total emissions decreased by 5% between 2004 and 2006.

These examples illustrate that progress is being made on some fronts and that much more is needed to advance the state of sustainability.

The full 94 page report can be accessed here.

The report offers a wide range of suggestions for businesses and individuals to make improvements in each category.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 04:00 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Eagleone on March 30 2009 6:42 AM

Clearly provincial priority should be to creating a viable heavy industrial park outside of the city air shed... as a requirement to expand industry and jobs in the PG region.

The bit on air quality and health (cancer) says it all. Clearly our air shed is maxed out for heavy industry... any success at the airport will further limit potential growth in other heavy industry... and clearly any future economic growth for this region will most likely be heavy industry related. So our available industrial park options that would limit further impact on the cities air shed would be? I think it should be out Fraser Flats/Salmon Valley way as part of a new ring road bi-pass for industrial traffic.... Time will tell.

Posted by: gus on March 30 2009 6:42 AM

The PM2.5 levels are, in part, weather dependent. The graphs would make more sense if they were related to weather conditions over the years.

Posted by: Eagleone on March 30 2009 6:48 AM

If we can afford $180 million with out blinking as an afterthought for a service road up north... so that foreigners can extract our resources for export to enrich the politicians down south... then surely the place that built this province and is home to large portions of the northern population could be deserving of a fraction of that cost to put in an air shed sensitive industrial park for PG. Basically this region has paid for it 50 times over in taxes over the years, so why was it never a priority? First thing I would do is find new provincial Crown planners.

Posted by: gus on March 30 2009 6:49 AM

Somehow we have lost the PM10 information in these reports. It has a much longer period of monitoring. I recall that there was a drop in that about a decade or so ago, then it came back up and is likely down again over the past few years as is reflected by the PM2.5 graph.

The annual air quality reports used to combine the air quality readings with weather observations.

Posted by: Eagleone on March 30 2009 6:50 AM

Gus I don't think so much weather as geographical (eg the bowl), but obviously both effect the other.

Posted by: gus on March 30 2009 6:53 AM

"Between 2000 and 2006, total energy consumption increased by 1.6%; however, decreases were recorded for consumption per capita (5%)"

And this happens how? I would think that an increase in consumption while there is a per capita decrease would indicate a population growth. I do not recall the census of 2001 and 2006 showing such an increase.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on March 30 2009 7:49 AM

"..the Fraser Basin but had the highest Age Standardized Mortality Rate for cancer (21.5)..."

I wonder how the Clean Air Cohorts are going to blame rectal cancer on the air quality? A funny picture does come to mind though!