BURRARD INLET SHORELINE CHANGE – BASELINE ASSESSMENT

BURRARD INLET 

SHORELINE CHANGE – 

BASELINE ASSESSMENT 

FINAL REPORT 

Prepared for: 

Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program 

501-5945 Kathleen Avenue 

Burnaby, BC 

V5H 4J7e 

Prepared by: 

Stantec 

4370 Dominion Street, Suite 500 

Burnaby, BC 

V5G 4L7 

Tel: (604) 436-3014 Fax: (604) 436-3752 

Project No.: 

1056983 

December 2009

Flat/Estuary 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BURRARD INLET SHORELINE CHANGE – BASELINE ASSESSMENT 

Final Report 

Executive Summary 

The Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program (BIEAP) is an inter-governmental partnership that 

coordinates environmental management of Burrard Inlet. In 2002, the Consolidated Environmental 

Management Plan was created to facilitate continued sustainability, enhancement and protection of 

the Inlet. The success of this program can be assessed using indicators that assess whether current 

practices are adequate in protecting Burrard Inlet or whether they should be modified. 

The present document was prepared to develop indicators that can be used to measure status and 

trends in marine habitat and shoreline areas over time and the effects of development within Burrard 

Inlet. The resulting information can be used to monitor future development in Burrard Inlet. 

The study area included Burrard Inlet east of a line between Ambleside Park in West Vancouver and 

Kitsilano Beach in Vancouver. It did not include much of the areas where development is less likely 

to occur, including most of Indian Arm and the Outer Harbour. The naming conventions used by 

BIEAP to denote basins of Burrard Inlet were followed: results were described for the Inlet as a 

whole and for False Creek, eastern Outer Harbour, Inner Harbour, Central Harbour, Port Moody 

Basin and southern Indian Arm. 

Six habitat types were defined to assess and quantify existing marine habitat in Burrard Inlet. Habitat 

types were defined based on consultation with members of BIEAP’s Plan Implementation 

Committee, GIS datasets and studies from Burrard Inlet, and professional expertise and knowledge 

of the area. The selected types are tidal flats/ estuaries, beach, natural rocky intertidal, river/stream 

inputs, purpose built high value and purpose built low value. The intentional use of these classifications 

is to identify general habitat quality and type available to marine organisms in Burrard Inlet. Riparian 

habitat (areas with trees and shrubs at the high water mark and extending at least five metres inland) 

was also considered since it has significant effects on associated intertidal habitats. 

The assessment focused mainly on linear (metre) amounts of shoreline in each habitat type, as this 

is the most applicable measurement for much of Burrard Inlet. However, areal calculations (hectare) 

were made where appropriate. Linear calculations were provided for natural rocky intertidal, riparian, 

purpose built high value, and purpose built low value for the entire Inlet study area, as well as for 

each basin. Area calculations were made for tidal flats/estuaries, beaches, wharfs and piers. 

Port Moody Arm, Indian Arm South and Central Harbour basins have the greatest proportion and 

amount of both natural habitat and purpose built high value habitat. These areas are especially 

important for the many species that rely on high quality habitat, including resident and migrating 

birds, juvenile salmon and invertebrates that use tidal flats and estuaries. Basins with the highest 

amount of purpose built high value and low value habitat are False Creek and the Inner Harbour. 

The information from this study will be useful in developing recommendations for evaluating 

proposed developments within any area of the Inlet, in particular Port Moody Arm and Central 

Harbour, and for habitat restoration and compensation programs in the areas such as False Creek 

and Inner Harbour, which currently contain a proportionally large amount of low value habitat to 

many species. 

December 2009 

Project No. 1056983 

i


Final Report 

Glossary 

GLOSSARY 

Anthropogenic – effects, processes, objects, or materials derived from human activities, as 

opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influences 

Backshore – the upper part of the active beach above the normal reach of the high water, but 

affected by large waves occurring during a high tide 

Basin – geographic designation of harbours and areas of Burrard Inlet 

Bedrock – a layer of solid, unweathered rock along the shoreline 

BIEAP – Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program (BIEAP), an inter-governmental partnership 

established to coordinate environmental management of Burrard Inlet 

Biodiversity – the richness of life forms within a given ecosystem, region or the entire planet; often 

used as a measure of the health of biological systems 

Ecosystem – a natural unit consisting of all plants, animals and micro-organisms in an area 

functioning together with all the non-living physical factors of the environment 

Estuary – the wide part of the river where its current meets the ocean tides and fresh and salt water mix 

Foreshore – the part of a shore between high water and low water; includes the backshore exposed 

at maximum ebb spring tides 

Habitat – the place or environment where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows, 

which provides food, water, shelter and space 

Intertidal – the zone of influence from the tide; a component of the foreshore, includes the part of a 

shore between the high tide mark and the low tide mark 

Riprap – a permanent, erosion-resistant foundation or wall of large, loose, angular stone with 

granular underlining. Usually erected in water or on shorelines or soft ground as a foundation 

Riparian – typically refers to habitat along streams, rivers and lakes; in the marine context, it refers 

to shoreline areas with overhanging trees and/or shrubs 

Substrate – sediment, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder or bedrock in the bottom of a water body 

Subtidal – below the low tide line; submerged virtually continuously 

Tidal flat – coastal wetlands formed when mud is deposited by tides or rivers; nearly flat area 

covered and uncovered by the alternating tides 

ii 

December 2009 

Project No. 1056983

TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Final Report 

Table of Contents 

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Background and Project Objectives............................................................... 1 

1.2 Site Description.............................................................................................. 1 

1.3 Data Sources ................................................................................................. 1 

1.3.1 Shoreline Classification Study ........................................................ 1 

1.3.2 Historical Analysis of Shoreline Change ......................................... 2 

1.3.3 Habitat Inventory/Land Use Classification ...................................... 2 

1.3.4 Field Verification and Ground-Truthing (2009)................................ 2 

1.4 Geographic Coverage and Boundaries ......................................................... 3 

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION.............................................................................. 4 

2.1 Shoreline Changes over Time (1930s vs. 2005) ........................................... 5 

3 METHODS FOR GENERATING THE SHORELINE INDICATOR............................ 6 

3.1 Habitat Classifications ................................................................................... 6 

3.1.1 Intertidal Habitat.............................................................................. 6 

3.1.2 Riparian Habitat .............................................................................. 8 

3.2 Calculating Habitat Quantity and Quality ....................................................... 8 

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................. 9 

4.1 Linear Shoreline Habitat ................................................................................ 9 

4.2 Area of Tidal Flats, Estuaries and Beaches................................................. 11 

4.3 Area of Wharfs and Piers............................................................................. 12 

4.4 Linear Extent of Riparian Habitat................................................................. 12 

4.5 Invasive Species.......................................................................................... 14 

4.6 Spawning Fish ............................................................................................. 14 

4.7 Waterbirds ................................................................................................... 15 

5 TRACKING SHORELINE CHANGE OVER TIME .................................................. 15 

6 SUMMARY AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 15 

7 CAVEATS, UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS ............................................... 16 

8 CLOSURE............................................................................................................... 17 

9 REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 19 

December 2009 


iii


Final Report 

Table of Contents 

List of Tables 

Table 1: Boundaries of and Uses in the Six Basins of Burrard Inlet......................................... 4 

Table 2: Length (m) and Area (Ha) of Burrard Inlet Shoreline in the 1930s and 2005............. 6 

Table 3: Working Habitat Types for Shoreline Classification in Burrard Inlet........................... 6 

Table 4: Linear Distance of Shoreline Habitat Type in Burrard Inlet ........................................ 9 

Table 5: Area Calculations (Ha) of Tidal flats/Estuary and Beach in Burrard Inlet................. 11 

Table 6: Area of Intertidal Habitat Occupied by Wharfs and Piers in Burrard Inlet ................ 12 

List of Figures 

Figure 9: Linear Distance (m) of each Habitat Type in Burrard Inlet ......................................... 10 

Figure 10: Linear Distance (m) of each Habitat Type in Burrard Inlet (Percent of Total 

Area) ......................................................................................................................... 10 

Figure 11: Linear Distance (m) of Riparian Habitat in Burrard Inlet (Percent of Total 

Area) ......................................................................................................................... 13 

Figure 12: Linear Distance (m) of Riparian in Burrard Inlet ....................................................... 13 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A ....................................................................................................................Figures 1-8 

iv 

December 2009 

Project No. 1056983

1 INTRODUCTION 


Final Report 

Section 1: Introduction 

1.1 Background and Project Objectives 

The Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program (BIEAP) is an inter-governmental partnership that 

coordinates environmental management of Burrard Inlet. In 2002, BIEAP approved the Consolidated 

Environmental Management Plan for Burrard Inlet (CEMP, BIEAP 2002), a document that contains a 

series of goals aimed at improving management of the Inlet through monitoring, habitat protection 

and enhancement. In 2008, the Burrard Inlet Environmental Indicators Report was released to help 

guide planning for future development in Burrard Inlet by providing information on seven indicators. 

The following report was produced to provide baseline information on an eighth indicator that 

measures the status of marine habitat and shoreline in Burrard Inlet. 

1.2 Site Description 

Burrard Inlet is a productive marine and terrestrial ecosystem. It is unique from other inlets in British 

Columbia in the lack of a sill at its mouth and the relatively shallow slope of adjacent shoreline. 

Burrard Inlet includes over 11,000 ha of water and seabed, 190 km of shoreline and a drainage 

basin of 98,000 ha. The mean tidal range within the inlet is 3.3 m. The main freshwater inputs are 

from the Seymour River (monthly mean discharges of 3.8 to 24.9 m 3 ) and the Capilano River (5.7 to 

42.8 m 3 ) (Nijman 1990). The deepest waters contain salinity of 29 to 30 ppt, while surface salinity 

can vary from 20 to 25 ppt during the winter runoff, dropping down to less than 20 ppt during the 

summer due to runoff from the Fraser River (Nijman 1990). Surface water temperatures vary 

seasonally, from 5ºC in the winter to 20ºC in the summer. 

1.3 Data Sources 

Four primary data sources were referred to for completion of this report: 

Shoreline Classification (M.Sc. thesis by Dana Haggarty) 

Historical analysis of shoreline change over time by Integrated Mapping Technologies (I MT) 

using aerial photographs from the 1930s and 2005 

Habitat inventory/land use classification (Caslys Consulting 2009) 

BIEAP 2009 field verification and ground-truthing. 

1.3.1 Shoreline Classification Study 

Haggarty (2001) examined fish habitat in terms of substrate type and shoreline in Burrard Inlet. 

Substrate was chosen because it is a strong indicator of habitat type and is often strongly correlated 

with physical properties such as exposure and slope. From a management perspective, substrate is 

also considered a useful parameter because it can be mapped, is relatively stable and is often 

December 2009 


1


Final Report 


altered by human activity. Indian Arm was not included in Haggarty’s study because of the physical 

differences between it and Burrard Inlet. 

Results indicated that almost 45% of the shoreline in Burrard Inlet has been altered; the Inner 

Harbour is the most altered basin with almost 80% alteration. Numerous species of fish were 

reported to use Burrard Inlet over a variety of substrates, varying by habitat type. For example, 

juvenile chum and chinook were found in greater abundances in the outer basins of the Inlet than the 

inner basins and more commonly occurred over bedrock, boulders and cobbles than mud and sand. 

1.3.2 Historical Analysis of Shoreline Change 

The historical analysis of the Burrard Inlet shoreline conducted by IMT (2009) assessed shoreline 

change over time using aerial photographs from the 1930s and 2005. The aim of the project was to 

calculate approximate habitat loss over time based on changes in the high water mark from the 

1930s and 2005. The resulting calculations showed an overall loss of 52.85 km of natural shoreline 

and a loss of 363 ha of the inlet area. Over the entire inlet, altered shoreline increased by 37.09 km 

between the 1930s and 2005, with 5.42 km of that classified as permanently altered. Further details 

on this study are provided in Section 2. 

1.3.3 Habitat Inventory/Land Use Classification 

Caslys (2009) created a summary report of Burrard Inlet, including all of Indian Arm, using air photobased 

land cover mapping. Major features of the inlet were digitized using an automated aerial photo 

interpretation program. Overall, this analysis produced satisfactory results for the upland areas (up to 

250 m from the high water mark), but less useful results for the intertidal zone. 

Results showed the north and south portions of Indian Arm contain almost all the coniferous forest in 

the Inlet and the north portion contains over half the intertidal vegetation in the Inlet. Overall findings 

are as follows: 

2 

The highest percentage of land cover was coniferous forest (>14%), followed by both 

deciduous forests and impervious substrates 

Nearly half of all riprap shoreline in Burrard Inlet occurs along the City of Vancouver 

foreshore 

Almost 90% of impervious surfaces are found along the foreshores of the City of North 

Vancouver, the District of North Vancouver, Port Moody and Vancouver 

Over 85% of all wharfs and piers are located in the City of North Vancouver, the District of 

North Vancouver and Vancouver. 

1.3.4 Field Verification and Ground-Truthing (2009) 

In 2009, a significant portion of the intertidal zone and shoreline was surveyed in a field verification 

and ground-truthing study (Lamagna and Walker 2009). The project classified over 7 million square 

metres of substrate, thus producing an excellent source of localized detail on substrate types 

December 2009 

Project No. 1056983

Retaining wall 


Final Report 


throughout Burrard Inlet. The study concluded that almost 65% of the shoreline is structured and 

35% is unstructured, with nearly half of the unstructured area consisting of sand. 

Natural, short term influences 

on shoreline morphology 

include erosion by waves and 

the deposition and movement 

of sediments. To prevent this 

natural erosion, a structured 

shoreline, consisting of riprap 

and retaining walls, have been 

built along much of the 

shoreline. This type of shoreline 

significantly alters natural 

habitat, particularly fish habitat, 

Riprap 

if installed below the high tide 

line. Riprap tends to be less restrictive than retaining walls, as it provides some fish habitat. Of the 

142,056 m of shoreline surveyed, 91,651 m (65%) is structured with riprap and retaining walls. The 

unstructured shoreline includes natural shoreline and altered but unstructured shoreline. Most of the 

unstructured shoreline occurs in the southern portion of Indian Arm; Central Harbour has the most 

riprap and both False Creek and Inner Harbour have the most retaining walls with the least 

unstructured shoreline. Stonework and concrete retaining walls tend to be used in residential areas 

and riprap is used more frequently in commercial and industrial areas. 

Overall, the survey recorded a high diversity of wildlife along the shoreline of Burrard Inlet. The field 

verification survey found invasive terrestrial plant species along some shorelines. The most 

frequently reported were blackberry (Rubus spp.) and English ivy (Hedera helix, which grow along 

most of the shoreline, while knotweed (Polygonum japonica) and saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina 

patens) made up about 1% of the total area inventoried. 

Information from the field verification and ground-truthing report was critical for classifying shoreline 

for the present study. However, due to the broader focus of the present study it mainly relied on the 

higher level information provided. For more detailed information on shoreline classification, refer to 

the field verification and ground-truthing report (Lamagna and Walker 2009). 

1.4 Geographic Coverage and Boundaries 

Shoreline conditions in all six basins in Burrard Inlet were assessed for this project, but the focus 

was on areas that have been most heavily altered by industrial, residential, commercial and 

recreational uses or are likely to be altered in the near future. The basin boundaries are identified in 

Appendix A, Figure 1, and described in Table 1. Naming conventions and boundaries are those 

defined by BIEAP. 

December 2009 


3


Final Report 

Section 2: Background Information 

Table 1: Boundaries of and Uses in the Six Basins of Burrard Inlet 

Basin Boundaries Uses 

Port Moody Arm East of Admiralty Point Mix of residential, park land, industrial and 

commercial (marina) 

Indian Arm (south) Southern boundary is narrowing at 

mouth of Indian Arm 

Central Harbour Western boundary at Second 

Narrows; eastern boundary at 

Admiralty Point 

Inner Harbour Western boundary at First Narrows; 

eastern boundary at Second Narrows 

False Creek Western boundary at Burrard Street 

Bridge 

Outer Harbour 

(east) 

4 

First Narrows west to Ambleside Park 

on the north shore and Burrard Street 

Bridge west to Kitsilano Beach on the 

south shore. 

December 2009 


Low density residential and some commercial 

Parkland (Belcarra, Maplewood Mudflats, 

Barnet Marine Park, Cates) with some industrial 

Industrial with some parkland (Stanley Park) 

Primarily high density residential and 

commercial, with high density of marinas 

Primarily park land (Stanley Park, Ambleside, 

Kitsilano Beach) with some high density 

residential. 

The northern part of Indian Arm was excluded because it remains in a relatively natural state and is 

experiencing relatively limited development in comparison with the rest of the Inlet. Only the eastern 

portion of the Outer Harbour is included because this is where most of the development has occurred 

and may occur in the future. 

2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

Shoreline substrate composition in Burrard Inlet in general is mostly sand. Composition ranges from 

mostly boulder with little bedrock (False Creek) to mostly bedrock and fine gravel with little cobble 

(southern portion of Indian Arm) to mostly fine and course gravel (Port Moody Arm and Central 

Harbour (Lamagna and Walker 2009). Port Moody Arm contains the most mud substrate while the 

Outer Harbour contains the most sand. 

Lamagna and Walker (2009) reported the following for Burrard Inlet 

There is over one million square metres of intertidal vegetation, most of which occurs in the 

Inner Harbour, with the lowest amounts in Port Moody Arm 

False Creek and Inner Harbour contain the greatest percent per total shoreline of retaining 

walls and least amount of unstructured shoreline 

Central Harbour contains the greatest percent per total shoreline of riprap 

Indian Arm (southern portion) contains the greatest percent per total shoreline of 

unstructured shoreline


Final Report 

Section 2: Background Information 

Port Moody Arm has the greatest percent per total shoreline of overhanging vegetation while 

False Creek has none. 

Port Moody Arm and Central Harbour have the greatest percent per total shoreline of 

erosion, while False Creek and the Inner Harbour have much less. 

The Burrard Inlet Air Photo-Based Land Cover Mapping Summary Report (Casyls 2009) reported the 

six basins in Burrard Inlet, including all of Indian Arm. Findings were generally similar to Lamagna 

and Walker (2009), although the studies reported on somewhat different aspects: 

Over half of the riprap occurs in the Inner Harbour, 

The majority of gravel substrate and nearly half of all sand substrate occurs in the Central 

Harbour 

Over 72% of all coniferous forest occurs in Indian Arm 

The majority of overhanging wharfs and piers are in the Inner Harbour 

88% of False Creek, the Inner Harbour, the Central Harbour and the Port Moody Basin 

contain impervious surfaces (Caslys Consulting Ltd. 2009). 

There are 19 recreational beaches throughout Burrard Inlet, 13 in the Outer Harbour, 4 in Indian 

Arm, one each in the Inner Harbour, Central Harbour and Port Moody Arm and none in False Creek. 

2.1 Shoreline Changes over Time (1930s vs. 2005) 

Integrated Mapping Technologies (IMT) calculated change in shoreline over time by creating digital 

ortho-imageries of 1930s and 2005 aerial photos of Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm and then overlaying 

these photos to calculate change between these years (Appendix A, Figure 2). The 1930’s photos 

were of poor quality and resolution, making them difficult to interpret accurately. 

This study classified shoreline into three categories: 

Natural: shoreline considered to be in its original condition and not altered by development 

Altered: shoreline that has been changed by development 

Permanently altered: shoreline that has been irreversibly altered, such as large piers and 

concrete sea walls 

The applicability of these classifications has since been questioned because ‘permanent altered’ is 

relative to time scale. As a result, findings presented below combine ‘altered’ and ‘permanently 

altered’ into a single classification ‘total altered’. 

This analysis indicates that the total area of Burrard Inlet has decreased by 363 ha since the 1930s. 

This is a result of dredging (55 ha) and filling (419 ha) activities. As may be expected, there was an 

overall decrease in natural habitat and an increase in altered habitat. There was an overall loss of 

spatial area in the Inlet due to fill. 

December 2009 


5


Final Report 

Section 3: Methods for Generating the Shoreline Indicator 

Table 2: Length (m) and Area (Ha) of Burrard Inlet Shoreline in the 1930s and 2005 

Shoreline Type 1930s 2005 Change 

Natural (m) 149,426 96,576 – 52,850 

Total altered (m) 56,148 93,238 + 37,090 

Inlet Area (Ha) 6,980 6,617 – 363 

3 METHODS FOR GENERATING THE SHORELINE 

INDICATOR 

3.1 Habitat Classifications 

To assess and quantify the existing marine shoreline habitat present in Burrard Inlet, six intertidal 

and two riparian classifications or habitat types were identified based on consultation with members 

of BIEAP’s Plan Implementation Committee, review of GIS datasets and studies from Burrard Inlet, 

and professional expertise and knowledge of the area. 

3.1.1 Intertidal Habitat 

The intertidal zone is the area of shoreline exposed to air at low tide and underwater at high tide. 

This zone includes a variety of habitats from rocky intertidal to sandy beaches and tidal flats. For this 

study, six habitat types were used to classify the intertidal shoreline (Table 3). These classifications 

consider natural shoreline to be an area that is unaltered from its original state by anthropogenic 

activities. In contrast, purpose built shoreline is considered to be any shoreline that has been altered 

by humans for industrial or recreational purposes, including areas of restored shoreline. 

Table 3: Working Habitat Types for Shoreline Classification in Burrard Inlet 

Working 

Habitat Types 

Natural Rocky 

Intertidal 1 

6 

Description Details 

Bedrock 

Boulder/Cobble 

Extensive areas of bedrock exist throughout Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm. 

Rocky intertidal areas are characterized by high biodiversity and zonation 

vertically along a gradient of tidal exposure (Niesen 1997). 

Boulder and cobble provide lower diversity of intertidal species than 

bedrock areas, but provide habitat heterogeneity and structure useable for 

a wide variety of fish and invertebrates. Burrard Inlet has various locations 

with ‘naturalized’ rocky intertidal habitat indistinguishable from natural 

rocky intertidal. For this reason, areas that may have been altered, but are 

now ‘naturalized’ are included in this category. 

December 2009 

Project No. 1056983

Working 

Habitat Types 

Tidal flats and 

Estuaries 

River/Stream 

Inputs 

Purpose Built 

High Value 

Purpose Built 

Low Value 


Estuaries 

Tidal flats 

River/Stream 

Inputs 

Riprap 

Wharfs/Piers 

Retaining Wall 


Final Report 


Estuaries are key feeding habitat for migrating birds and provide staging 

and rearing areas for salmon and a variety of ecological functions for 

many types of species. The estuary at the head of Port Moody serves this 

important ecological role and is identified as an area of high sensitivity. 

Sand/tidal flats are characterized as expansive areas exposed at low 

tides, containing softer substrate than beaches (Appendix A, Figure 3). 

These areas are used for foraging by marine seabirds and shorebirds, 

and are a key resource to migrating species. A variety of fish (e.g. Starry 

flounder), bivalves and other invertebrates use this type of habitat. 

Bivalves have served as a Food, Traditional or Ceremonial fisheries for 

First Nations groups, although shellfish harvesting has been closed for 

several decades. The Maplewood Conservation Area is an example of 

this habitat type and has been identified as an area of high sensitivity. 

The areas at the low water line and extending into the shallow subtidal 

area provide ideal conditions for eelgrass communities, widely 

acknowledged as key rearing habitat for many species of fish and 

invertebrates, including juvenile salmon and Dungeness crabs. 

There are a number of freshwater inputs into Burrard Inlet from rivers and 

streams, which create unique conditions where fresh and saltwater mix. 

Several streams provide spawning habitat for salmonids. The stream and 

river mouths provide staging areas for salmonids (juveniles moving to 

saltwater and adults migrating upstream to spawn). Capilano, Seymour 

and Indian rivers and Lynn Creek are major salmon-bearing streams. 

Riprap is boulder-size substrate and is likely the most common type of 

alteration in non-industrial areas (Appendix A, Figure 4). The structural 

heterogeneity provided by riprap can provide habitat once it is recolonized 

by marine macrophytes and invertebrates. 

Piles, wharfs and piers have been installed for industrial and recreational 

purposes throughout Burrard Inlet. These structures can provide substrate 

for certain species, however they generally shade out intertidal areas, 

reducing marine macrophyte coverage and diversity. Piles associated with 

wharfs and piers can serve similar ecological function to vertical retaining 

walls. Concrete and wooden piles can be colonized by some sessile 

invertebrates; however the historical use of creosote-covered piles 

reduces the quality of this habitat and introduces a contaminant into the 

marine environment. 

Retaining walls can be built of stone, concrete or sheet metal and are 

generally considered the lowest quality habitat along altered shorelines 

(Appendix A, Figure 5). Vertical walls greatly reduce the areal extent of 

intertidal habitat. Concrete walls can be colonized to a certain extent by 

sessile invertebrates (e.g. barnacles, mussels, tube worms), while sheet 

metal walls are of limited value to fish and invertebrates. 

December 2009 


7


Final Report 


Working 

Habitat Types 

Beach 1 

8 


Sand/Shell 

Beach 

NOTE: includes natural and naturalized areas 

3.1.2 Riparian Habitat 

Natural beaches are composed of coarser substrate (i.e. sand, gravel, 

shell) than tidal flats. Due to their unstable and variable nature, beaches 

are associated with a lower diversity of invertebrate species than other 

natural habitat types. Exposed and sheltered beaches are distinct habitats 

and may support different species (Niesen 1997). Like tidal flats, they may 

host a variety of bivalve species which historically provided Food, 

Traditional or Ceremonial fisheries for First Nations groups. The shallow 

subtidal areas of beaches can provide eelgrass habitat, increasing the 

potential value of these areas to fish and invertebrate species. 

Recreational beaches have been created throughout Burrard Inlet and 

surrounding areas. These beaches can be colonized by native species 

and provide similar ecological functions to natural beaches. 

For the purposes of this study, riparian habitat includes all trees and shrubs immediately adjacent to 

the high water mark, with a minimum inland extent of 5 m. Marine riparian habitat contributes to 

biodiversity, erosion protection and some structural habitat features. The presence of marine riparian 

vegetation can increase the diversity and abundance of arthropods contributing food to the high 

intertidal zone, causing cascading effects through the food chain (Romanuk and Levings 2003). 

Erosion of backshore environments can decrease water quality by suspending sediment in the water 

column. If the backshore environment has been contaminated, erosion can lead to the mobilization 

of contaminants into the water column. 

The amount of marine riparian habitat varies widely throughout Burrard Inlet. The majority of Indian 

Arm has well-established coniferous vegetation in the backshore; however, the rest of Burrard Inlet is 

largely devoid of vegetation, with only a few areas where deciduous-dominated backshores persist. 

3.2 Calculating Habitat Quantity and Quality 

Tidal Flat 

December 2009 


Amounts of shoreline in the various habitat 

classifications were calculated using GIS data 

and aerial photographs provided by BIEAP, 

information from the 2009 field verification study 

(Lamagna and Walker 2009) and personal 

knowledge. Aerial photographs were taken in 

2005 at low water mark. Due to the linear nature 

of much of the riparian and shoreline habitat in 

Burrard Inlet, estimates of habitat quality and 

quantity could not be calculated as area for all 

basins. As a result, habitat types were quantified 

linearly and, where possible, by area. Habitats


Final Report 

Section 4: Results and Discussion 

measured by area include tidal flats/estuaries, beaches, wharfs and piers. The area of shoreline 

habitat covered by industrial and commercial wharfs and piers that overhang the water column was 

obtained from Port Metro Vancouver or calculated by multiplying the length of shoreline by an 

assumed depth of 5 m. The area of intertidal habitat occupied by marinas and private wharfs and 

piers was calculated by multiplying an assumed shoreline coverage of 2 m per wharf or pier by the 

intertidal coverage of 3.3 m (mean tidal height for the Inlet). 

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

4.1 Linear Shoreline Habitat 

The amount of linear shoreline within the various habitat types is shown in Table 4 and Figures 9 and 

10 for the Burrard Inlet study area as a whole and for individual basins. See Appendix A, Figures 3-8, 

for detailed results. For the entire study area, roughly one third of the shoreline is unaltered and twothirds 

is purpose-built. High value purpose-built habitat is the largest category (52% of the total 

shoreline), followed by purpose built low value and riparian habitat (16% and 17% respectively). 

Natural rocky intertidal, tidal flats/estuaries and beaches comprise 13%, 11% and 7% of the 

shoreline, respectively. 

Table 4: Linear Distance of Shoreline Habitat Type in Burrard Inlet 

Habitat Type 

Natural and Naturalized (m) Purpose Built (m) 

Basin 

Beach 

Natural 

Rocky 

Intertidal 

Riparian 1 

Tidal 

Flats/ 

Estuaries 

Total 

Natural 

and 

Naturalized 

Purpose 

Built High 

Value 

Purpose 

Built Low 

Value 

Total 

Purpose 

Built 

False Creek 0 0 0 0 0 6,160 4,215 10,375 

Outer 

Harbour 

Inner 

Harbour 

Central 

Harbour 

Port Moody 

Basin 

Indian Arm 

South 

4,258 0 0 0 4,258 7,392 252 7,644 

2,879 989 0 0 3,868 23,212 14,295 37,507 

5 4,735 6,820 6,461 11,201 13,406 2,182 15,588 

1,159 2,845 5,667 7,719 11,723 7,448 0 7,448 

796 7,605 7,192 0 8,401 8,460 0 8,460 

Total 

NOTE: 

9,097 16,174 19,679 14,180 3,9451 66,077 20,944 87,021 

1 

Riparian habitat overlaps with other natural and naturalized habitat. For this reason it is not included as an independent 

parameter in the calculation of total linear area of shoreline. Riparian length (m) is not included in the calculation of ‘Total 

Natural and Naturalized’ calculation. 

December 2009 


9


Final Report 


Figure 9: Linear Distance (m) of each Habitat Type in Burrard Inlet 

Figure 10: Linear Distance (m) of each Habitat Type in Burrard Inlet (Percent of Total Area) 

10 

December 2009 

Project No. 1056983


Final Report 


The majority of unaltered habitat occurs in the Port Moody Arm (11,723 m) and the Central Harbour 

(11,201 m) followed closely by southern Indian Arm (8,401 m). Most of the unaltered habitat consists 

of tidal flats/estuaries, followed by natural rocky intertidal and beach. 

Retaining wall 

Purpose built habitat is most abundant in the Inner Harbour (37,507 m), which includes both high 

value (riprap) and low value (retaining wall) habitat and a small amount of natural rocky intertidal and 

beach habitat. False Creek, although small in total area, contains only purpose built low value and 

high value habitat (10,375 m). 

4.2 Area of Tidal Flats, Estuaries and Beaches 

The amount of intertidal area was calculated for tidal flat/estuary and beach categories (Table 5), in 

addition to estimates for shoreline length (Table 4). 

Table 5: Area Calculations (Ha) of Tidal flats/Estuary and Beach in Burrard Inlet 

Basin Tidal Flats/Estuary Beach 

False Creek 0 0 

Outer Harbour 14 8.3 

Inner Harbour 0 9.1 

Central Harbour 123 0 

Port Moody Basin 124 3.6 

Indian Arm South 0 1.5 

Total 261 22.5 

Tidal flats and estuarine habitats are extremely important areas within the Inlet. Estuaries provide 

important habitat for many animals, in particular migrating birds and juvenile marine fish species. 

Because an estuary is subject to both marine (tides, waves and saline water) and riverine (fresh 

water and sediment) influences, it is a highly diverse habitat with high biodiversity and productivity. 

Estuaries are considered endangered ecosystems, largely because they are attractive locations for 

marinas, homes and tourist developments. The tidal flat/estuary in Port Moody Arm is the largest 

unaltered area in the Inlet (124 ha), followed by the Central Harbour tidal flat/estuary at Maplewood 

Flats (123 ha), although this area also includes purpose built high value habitat (riprap). The Outer 

Harbour contains 14 ha of tidal flat/estuary (Capilano River estuary), although this area was altered. 

Aerial photos taken prior to 1927 show the Capilano River with several outlets to the east and west 

of First Narrows. During the 1930s, the discharge was restricted to the western side, likely for 

construction of the Lions Gate Bridge. Despite this, the Capilano estuary is considered valuable and 

sensitive habitat. 

Beaches cover 22.5 ha in Burrard Inlet, primarily in the Inner Harbour and Outer Harbour and, to a 

lesser extent in Port Moody Arm and Indian Arm (Table 5). As noted in Table 3, beaches are 

December 2009 


11


Final Report 


associated with a lower diversity of invertebrate species than other natural habitat types due to their 

unstable nature. Like tidal flats, beaches may host a variety of bivalve species and the shallow 

subtidal areas can provide eelgrass habitat, increasing the potential value of these areas to fish and 

invertebrate species. 

4.3 Area of Wharfs and Piers 

A total of 4,894 m 2 of intertidal habitat is covered by wharfs and piers (Table 6). The majority of 

industrial and commercial wharfs, piers and large marinas occur in the Inner Harbour and Central 

Harbour, where they are a common part of the altered shoreline. Southern Indian Arm contains 

primarily privately owned wharfs and piers. 

Table 6: Area of Intertidal Habitat Occupied by Wharfs and Piers in Burrard Inlet 

Basin Number of Wharfs and Piers Habitat Covered (m 2 ) 

False Creek 18 119 

Outer Harbour 29 15,093 (includes overhang) 

Inner Harbour 111 1,878 (includes overhang) 

Central Harbour 119 785 

Port Moody Basin 91 601 

Indian Arm South 200 1,320 

Total 568 19,796 

NOTE: open water habitat lost as a result of structures that extend beyond the intertidal zone was not considered 

4.4 Linear Extent of Riparian Habitat 

Three of the six basins in Burrard Inlet contain riparian areas totalling approximately 20,000 m 2 , 

accounting for just under 20% of the shoreline of the whole Inlet. Over 40% of the shoreline in 

southern Indian Arm and Port Moody Basin contains riparian habitat, compared to 30% in the Central 

Harbour (Figures 11 and 12). 

12 

December 2009 

Project No. 1056983


Final Report 


Figure 11: Linear Distance (m) of Riparian Habitat in Burrard Inlet (Percent of Total Area) 

Figure 12: Linear Distance (m) of Riparian in Burrard Inlet 

December 2009 


13


Final Report 


4.5 Invasive Species 

There are invasive non-native species in both the marine and terrestrial environments of Burrard 

Inlet. Some, such as Manila clam (Tapes philippinarum) and varnish clam (Nuttallia obscurata), were 

introduced accidentally through ship ballast water, pleasure boat traffic and ocean currents. Others, 

such as the Japanese oyster (Crassostrea gigas), were intentionally introduced to promote shellfish 

production (Jacques Whitford AXYS 2008). Some species were introduced so long ago that they are 

well established and would be extremely difficult to eliminate. It is possible that a strategic elimination 

program would be successful for the more recent introductions. These non-native species tend to 

outcompete native species. 

Two invasive marine plant species identified as threats within Burrard Inlet include English cord grass 

(Spartina anglica) and salt marsh cord grass (Spartina alterniflora) (JWA 2008). English cordgrass 

has been recorded at Deltaport, but has not been reported within the Inlet. Salt marsh cordgrass, 

however, is known to occur in Maplewood Conservation Area and was transplanted to Port Moody 

Arm, likely during a habitat compensation program associated with construction of a terminal. 

Terrestrial invasive plants identified include blackberry (Rubus spp.) and English ivy (Hedera helix) 

which grow along much of the shoreline, and lesser occurrences of knotweed (Polygonum japonica) 

and salt meadow cord grass (Spartina patens). 

4.6 Spawning Fish 

All species of Pacific salmon, including chum (Oncorhynchus keta), chinook (O. tshawytscha), pink 

(O. gorbuscha), coho (O. kisutch), sockeye (O. nerka), steelhead (O. mykiss) and cutthroat trout (O. 

clarki), utilize nearshore habitat of the Burrard Inlet extensively from spring through fall (Naito and 

Hwang 2000). Adult salmon have been observed to return to at least 17 streams in Burrard Inlet 

(Haggary 2001). In Burrard Inlet, juvenile chinook and chum were observed using larger substrates 

such as bedrock, boulders and cobble, as opposed to sand or mud, although some juvenile salmon 

were also found around riprap, small wharfs and piers, indicating use of some anthropogenically 

altered habitat (Haggarty 2001). However, Jennings et al (1999) observed that, although riprap 

increases structural integrity and, consequently, fish biomass and diversity, when the shoreline is 

uniformly one habitat type, species diversity is decreased. 

In addition to salmon, 75 other species of fish are known to use Burrard Inlet (Renyard 1988; 

Hanrahan 1994). Commercially important species include herring (Clupea harengus pallasi), 

anchovy (Engaulis mordax mordax), and lingcod (Ophiodon elongates), in addition to various 

species of sole and rockfish (Renyard 1988). Surf smelt, or sand lance (Hypomesus pretiosus 

pretiosus), an important recreational fishery (Levy 1985), are known to spawn on beaches in the 

Outer Harbour, including Ambleside and likely Stanley Park, as well as Cates Park in the Central 

Harbour. Historically herring spawned in False Creek, however, they have not been reported in 

recent years likely due to poor water quality and the loss of habitat. 

14 

December 2009 

Project No. 1056983

4.7 Waterbirds 


Final Report 

Section 5: Tracking Shoreline Change Over Time 

Numerous species of birds make use of the diverse habitat in the Burrard Inlet. Five year-round 

residents that were used as indicator species in the Burrard Inlet Environmental Indicators report 

(JWA 2008) were Double-crested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus), Pelagic Cormorants 

(Phalacrocorax pelagicus), Black Oystercatchers (Haematopus bachmani), Glaucous-winged Gulls 

(Larus glaucescens) and Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias). Populations of all these species were 

considered to be significantly increasing in Burrard Inlet, with the exception of Glaucous-winged Gull. 

The Maplewood Conservation Area is an important wildlife sanctuary located east of the Seymour 

River in North Vancouver. This area encompasses a variety of wildlife habitats, including tidal flat, 

saltmarsh and upland habitat. In addition to resident species, Burrard Inlet on the Pacific Flyway and 

is used by tens of thousands of migratory birds each year. 

There are three known Great Blue Heron nesting sites in the Burrard Inlet watershed: Stanley Park, 

Burnaby Mountain and Capilano River (Nelitz et al. 2006). Outside of the data from the Conservation 

Data Centre (CDC) regarding the Great Blue Heron, there is little known about most other bird 

species at risk in the Inlet (Nelitz et al. 2006). Rarely occurring breeding birds in the Inlet include 

Pigeon Guillemonts (Cepphus columba), Black Turnstones (Arenaria melanocephala) and Green 

Herons (Butorides virescens) (Nelitz et al. 2006). Barrow’s Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) does 

not breed in the area, but it is known to occur in the Outer Harbour, in locations such as Brockton 

Point in Stanley Park, where it has been observed feeding on mussels (Internet site, 2009). 

5 TRACKING SHORELINE CHANGE OVER TIME 

The shoreline of Burrard Inlet changed considerably during development of the harbour facilities and 

communities, as shown by the differences between maps from the 1930s and present. However, 

much of this change occurred during a time when the regulatory approval process was very different 

from today. Any proposals to alter shoreline habitat, either intertidal or foreshore (riparian), are 

reviewed by BIEAP and must meet the requirements of the Fisheries Act, the Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada policy of No Net Loss of Fish Habitat (DFO 1986) and BIEAP’s Consolidated Environmental 

Management Plan (2002). Any developments that would result in loss of fish habitat must be 

authorized and compensated for. This includes activities under the jurisdiction of Port Metro 

Vancouver and municipalities, as well as private landowners who might wish to alter the foreshore or 

intertidal areas. As a result, there would be few predicted changes in the baseline levels discussed in 

this report. However, given the valuable ecosystem functions provided by shoreline habitat, it is 

important to track amounts of habitat in the various categories over time. 

6 SUMMARY AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 

Indian Arm South, Central Harbour and Port Moody Arm have the highest linear amount of natural 

and naturalized shoreline habitat in the Inlet. In addition, they contain the largest area of tidal 

December 2009 


15


Final Report 

Section 7: Caveats, Uncertainties and Limitations 

flats/estuaries, which are extremely important and sensitive habitat. Substantial losses of habitat in 

these basins could have implications for the rest of the Inlet, including migrating birds. The Inner 

Harbour and Central Harbour contain the highest linear amount of purpose built high value habitat 

and the Inner Harbour contains the highest linear amount of purpose built low value habitat. 

However, in terms of proportion, the small False Creek basin has 100% purpose built shoreline. 

In the event that information provided in this report is used to identify areas for habitat compensation, 

it is recommended that site selection focus on areas with the greatest potential value for important 

marine organisms, including migrating salmon, sand lance and waterfowl. One such area is the 

Central Harbour, which is on the path for juvenile salmon migrating through to the ocean. The high 

proportion of purpose built low value habitat along the southern shore of this basin provides few 

places for juvenile salmon to forage or take cover. As a result, attempts to make this shoreline more 

hospitable could help to increase juvenile salmon survival. In contrast, restoration priorities would be 

lower for False Creek, given the lack of remaining natural habitat, relatively poor water quality, and 

absence of salmon bearing creeks flowing into the basin. 

7 CAVEATS, UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS 

Several uncertainties and limitations were encountered during this study. Firstly, due to the broad 

scale view of the map, area in hectares could be calculated only for large landscape features such 

as tidal flats, estuaries and some beaches. Some habitat types, such as natural rocky intertidal, 

could only be calculated using a linear measurement. 

Some areas contained more than one habitat type. For example, the mouth of the Capilano River is 

a tidal flat and estuary, but it has also been altered. Some tidal flats and rocky shorelines have riprap 

or seawall (retaining wall) along the backshore to stabilize the shoreline. The sea wall around 

Stanley Park is purpose built low value habitat, but the intertidal area in front of the wall is natural 

shoreline, including rocky intertidal zones. In these situations the area was classified according to 

whichever habitat is the most abundant. 

Riparian areas were difficult to 

assess accurately. As much data 

as possible was extracted from 

the background reports and 

additional information was 

gained from Google Earth 

searches for some locations. 

However, the amount of riparian 

area was likely underestimated, 

given the image resolution was 

Retaining wall not high enough to accurately 

assess vegetation within 5 m of 

the high water mark for some areas. Although the estimates for larger stream and river inputs was 

16 

December 2009 

Project No. 1056983


Final Report 

Section 8: Closure 

accurate, difficulties were encountered calculating amounts of shoreline attributable to inputs from 

the many small streams that enter Burrard Inlet. 

8 CLOSURE 

Stantec prepared this report for the sole benefit of the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program 

and associated committee members for the purpose of providing baseline information on an indicator 

of marine habitat and shoreline status in Burrard Inlet. The report may not be relied upon by any 

other person or entity, other than for its intended purposes, without the express written consent of 

Stantec and BIEAP. Any use of this report by a third party, or any reliance on decisions made based 

upon it, are the responsibility of such third parties. 

The information provided in this report was compiled from existing documents and data provided by 

the BIEAP and the personal knowledge of Stantec staff. The recommendations presented in this 

report represent the best professional judgment available at the time of preparation. Stantec 

reserves the right to modify the contents of this report, in whole or in part, to reflect any new 

information that becomes available. If any conditions become apparent that differ significantly from 

our understanding of conditions as presented in this report, we request that we be notified 

immediately to reassess the conclusions provided herein. 

If you have any questions or concerns about this report, please do not hesitate to contact the 

undersigned. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 

December 2009 


Reviewed by: 

Original signed by: Original signed by: 

Michelle Marcotte, M.Sc., R.P.Bio. Karen Munro M.Sc., R.P.Bio. 

Marine Biologist Senior Aquatic Scientist 

Original signed by: 

Sandra Webster, Ph.D., R.P.Bio 

Project Manager, 

Environmental Management Group 

MM/SW/KM/mp 

Appendix A Figures 1-8 

17


Final Report 

Section 8: Closure 

MM/SW/KM/mp 

[File Ref: P:\_CMiC Projects\1056000_to_1057000\1056983 - BIEAP Habitat Trends - Measuring Shoreline Change over time in Burrard 

Inlet\Technical Document\CONTROL Final Marine Shoreline Indictors Report_Nov 27.docx] 

18 

December 2009 

Project No. 1056983

9 REFERENCES 


Final Report 

Section 9: References 

Caslys Consulting Ltd. 2009. Burrard Inlet Air Photo-Based Land Cover Mapping Summary Report. 

Report prepared for the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Plan. Burnaby, BC by Caslys 

Consulting Ltd. Saanichton, BC. March 2009. 29 pp. 

Burrrd Inlet Environmental Management Plan, 2002. Consolidated Environmental Management Plan. 

Haggarty, D.R. 2001. An evaluation of fish habitat in Burrard Inlet, British Columbia. MSc Thesis, 

Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia. 161 pp 

Internet Site, Barrow’s Goldeneye, Vancouver. Accessed November 10, 2009. 

http://10000birds.com/barrows-goldeneyes-vancouver.htm 

Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd. 2008. Burrard Inlet Environmental Indicators Report: Public 

Consultation Document. Report prepared for Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program, 

Burnaby BC by Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd. Burnaby, BC. February 2008. 47 pp. 

Jennings, M.J., Bozek, M.A., Hatzenbeler, G.R., Emmons, E.E. and Staggs, M.D. 1999. Cumulative 

effects of incremental shoreline habitat modification on fish assemblages in North temperate 

lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19, 18-27. 

Lamagna, S. and Walker, J. 2009. BIEAP Habitat Inventory Field Verification Project. A report 

submitted to the Habitat Working Group for the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program. 

47 pp. 

Nelitz, M., C. Murray, and K. Pawley. 2006. Developing Environmental Indicators for a State of 

Environment Report of Burrard Inlet. Final Report prepared for Burrard Inlet Environmental 

Action Program, Burnaby, B.C., Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC. 61 

pp. 

Niesen, T.M. 1997. Beachcomber’s Guide to Marine Life of the Pacific Northwest. Houston, Texas: 

Gulf Publishing. 

Nijman, R. A. 1990. Coquitlam-Pitt River area, Burrard Inlet water quality assessment and objectives. 

Ministry of Environment, Canada. Water Management Division. 

(http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/objectives/burrard/burrard.html#figure1) 

Norse, E. (ed.) 1993. Global Marine Biological Diversity. 383 pp. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

Romanuk, T.N., and C.D. Levings. 2003. Associations between arthropods and the supralittoral 

ecotone: dependence of aquatic and terrestrial taxa on riparian vegetation. Environmental 

Entomology 32:1343-1353. 

Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J. And Melillo, J.M. 1997. Human domination of the 

Earth’s ecosystems. Science 227: 494-499. 

December 2009 


19


Final Report 

Appendix A – Figures 1-8 

APPENDIX A 

Figures 1-8

Source: 

Outer Harbour 

False Creek 

Stantec 

4370 Dominion Street 

Burnaby, British Columbia 

V5G 4L7 

Tel. (604) 436 3014 

Fax. (604) 436 3752 

Inner Harbour Central Harbour 

BIEAP 

Project Boundaries and Geographic Extent 

Burrard Inlet Shoreline 

Indian Arm South 

Port Moody Basin 

PROJECTION 

DRAWN BY 

UTM - ZONE 10 SS 

DATUM CHECKED BY 

NAD 83 

DATE 

Geographic Extent 

0 0.5 

Kilometers 

1 1.5 2 

1:60,000 

FIGURE NO. 

09-Nov-09 1 

R:\2009Fiscal\1056983_BurrardInlet_BIEAP\GIS\MXD

Source: 

Stantec 



V5G 4L7 

Tel. (604) 436 3014 

Fax. (604) 436 3752 

BIEAP 

Historical Change in Shoreline 

1930 versus 2005 

(Provided by IMT, 2009) 


PROJECTION 

DRAWN BY 



NAD 83 

DATE 

1930 Shoreline 

2005 Shoreline 

0 0.5 

Kilometers 

1 1.5 2 

1:60,000 

FIGURE NO. 

09-Nov-09 2 


Source: 

Beach 

Outer Harbour 

Purpose Built High Value 

Purpose Built Low Value 

Beach 


Meters 

0 100 200 300 

1:10,000 

Stantec 



V5G 4L7 

Tel. (604) 436 3014 

Fax. (604) 436 3752 

BIEAP 

False Creek 

False Creek 


KEY PLAN 

1:200,000 

PROJECTION 

DRAWN BY 



NAD 83 

DATE 

FIGURE NO. 

09-Nov-09 3 


Source: 

Beach 



Natural Rocky Intertidal 

River / Stream Inputs 

Tidal Flats and Estuaries 

Beach 


Meters 

0 200 400 600 

1:15,000 

Stantec 



V5G 4L7 

Tel. (604) 436 3014 

Fax. (604) 436 3752 

KEY PLAN 

1:200,000 

BIEAP 

Outer Harbour 


Outer Harbour 

PROJECTION 

DRAWN BY 



NAD 83 

DATE 

FIGURE NO. 

09-Nov-09 4 


Source: 

Beach 






Beach 


Meters 

0 250 500 750 

1:25,000 

Stantec 



V5G 4L7 

Tel. (604) 436 3014 

Fax. (604) 436 3752 

BIEAP 

Inner Harbour 

Inner Harbour 


KEY PLAN 

1:25,000 

PROJECTION 

DRAWN BY 



NAD 83 

DATE 

FIGURE NO. 

09-Nov-09 5 


Source: 

Beach 






Riparian 


Beach 


Meters 

0 250 500 750 

1:25,000 

Stantec 



V5G 4L7 

Tel. (604) 436 3014 

Fax. (604) 436 3752 

KEY PLAN 

1:200,000 

BIEAP 

Central Harbour 

Central Harbour 


PROJECTION 

DRAWN BY 



NAD 83 

DATE 

FIGURE NO. 

09-Nov-09 6 


Source: 

Beach 






Riparian 


Beach 


Meters 

0 200 400 600 

1:18,000 

Stantec 



V5G 4L7 

Tel. (604) 436 3014 

Fax. (604) 436 3752 

BIEAP 




KEY PLAN 

1:200,000 

PROJECTION 

DRAWN BY 



NAD 83 

DATE 

FIGURE NO. 

09-Nov-09 7 


Source: 

Stantec 



V5G 4L7 

Tel. (604) 436 3014 

Fax. (604) 436 3752 


BIEAP 



KEY PLAN 

1:200,000 

PROJECTION 

DRAWN BY 



NAD 83 

DATE 

Beach 



Riparian 


Beach 


Meters 

0 200 400 600 

1:16,000 

FIGURE NO. 

09-Nov-09 8

BURRARD INLET SHORELINE CHANGE – BASELINE ASSESSMENT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?