Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno
So I guess kind of like how Deltaport and the Ferry Terminal would never be expanded because of its proximity to Tsawwassen FN?
|
The DP4 planners are already walking on eggshells
because of the Tsawwassen FN band, and that's a project that
won't set reconciliation back fifty years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno
There's no evidence for that except an inference from a vague statement.
Also, back in the 2000s (when this report was made), the big eco-fuel rave was biofuels.
Then it turned out Biofuels (even algae and cellulose) were impractical, and renewable electricity prices plummeted.
If so, then they're NOT considering the effects of electric airplanes.
Sure- then let's consider what would happen if we let a small passageway for water through and infilled the rest of McDonald Slough. We would get most of the land, and let water through for the banks. We could create new artificial riparian areas on the shores of the smaller channel (opening up the entire channel probably isn't smart anyways, and it's not planned.)
Win-win?
So it DOES actually have some important and beneficial purposes- flood control and navigation.
|
Well, is there any reason to suspect the North, South and Foreshore are too short for those types of planes? Because if they are, so is your Extra Long South runway.
That's... really not how
mudflats work.
The kind of habitat they have in mind pretty much requires the whole thing; imagine a beach at low tide.
I don't see how any of that link applies. Scour means water erosion, and that's for reduced dredging costs, not flood prevention; the first North Arm breach is too far north to offset that, and the second is blocked by marshland; that leaves the third at the causeway, which isn't planned to use up a lot of flow. As mentioned, the logs have been moved at the FNs' request, so that motive is gone too.
And I wasn't aware the breaches were going to be a canal; almost all river traffic will likely still use the main North Arm.