green shores case study - stewardship centre for...

GREEN SHORES Case Study

Overview of Key Ecological Factors and GREEN SHORES

Development Opportunities in the Squamish Estuary

March 2007

This report has been prepared by the GREEN SHORES Technical Working Group and Lehna Malmkvist of Swell Environmental Consulting. The report provides an overview of shore management issues for the project area and also suggests options for shore protection and shore structures illustrative of a GREEN SHORES design approach. Further assessment or detailed engineering is required before implementing any design concept. The material in this report reflects the best judgment of the GREEN SHORES Technical Working Group in light of the information available to us at the time of preparing this report. Conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on an analysis of the available information and professional judgment, which is subject to a degree of scientific uncertainty and an element of risk, and therefore cannot be taken as absolute fact. Any use which a third party, other than the parties mentioned above, makes of this report, or any reliance on, or decisions made based on it are the responsibility of such third parties. Francesca Knight of the District of Squamish and Edith Tobe of the Squamish River Watershed Society facilitated site visits by the Technical Working Group and provided valuable background information on development plans for the Squamish estuary industrial lands. The District of Squamish provided seed funding for this case example. A list of all GREEN SHORES project funders is given on the back cover of this report.

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES & FUNCTIONS ............................................................................... 3

2.1 Ecological Features......................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Ecological Functions....................................................................................................... 4

3.0 GREEN SHORES DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................. 9 3.1 Shoreline Walkway......................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Marina/Cruise Ship Terminal ....................................................................................... 12 3.3 Nexen Beach ................................................................................................................. 16 3.4 Stormwater Management .............................................................................................. 20 3.5 Opening of Mamquam Blind Channel.......................................................................... 22 3.6 Eelgrass Restoration...................................................................................................... 22

4.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS................................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX 1: Photo locations (showing existing condition) ........................................................25 APPENDIX 2: Draft GREEN SHORES Credit Summary ..................................................................37

List of Figures Figure 1. Existing ecological features and functions .................................................................6 Figure 2. Existing riparian vegetation status..............................................................................7 Figure 3. Frequency and direction of winds at Squamish..........................................................8 Figure 4. Example of a shoreline walkway of low ecological value .......................................10 Figure 5. Example of a cantilevered shore walkway ...............................................................11 Figure 6. Example of a pile walkway ......................................................................................11 Figure 7. Existing embankment and walkway in Squamish ....................................................12 Figure 8. Concept for a formal walkway combined with artificial tidepools ..........................14 Figure 9. Concept for formal walkway combined with stormwater ........................................14 Figure 10. Concept for intertidal habitat benches combined with a seawall .............................15 Figure 11. Concept for improved habitat complexity on riprap point .......................................15 Figure 12. Typical beach habitat cross section in the Strait of Georgia ....................................16 Figure 13. Seahurst Park, City of Burien, Washington State, 2004...........................................17 Figure 14. Seahurst Park, City of Burien, Washington State, 2005...........................................17 Figure 15. Concept for artificial tide pools combined with beach features ...............................18 Figure 16. Walkway combined with slope stability and riparian vegetation.............................18 Figure 17. Formal walkway combined with increased intertidal habitat ...................................19 Figure 18. Formal walkway with recreational facilities and water access.................................19 Figure 19. Example of a typical constructed wetland concept...................................................20 Figure 20. A typical constructed wetland used for stormwater management ............................21 Figure 21. A raingarden concept for stormwater management..................................................21

SQUAMISH ESTUARY - GREEN SHORES OVERVIEW REPORT MARCH 2007

THE GREEN SHORES PROJECT 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Squamish Estuary is composed of two key areas; the western portion which is protected within conservation areas, and the eastern portion which has been subject to historical industrial development. Over the past fifteen years the industrial facilities have been removed from the eastern portion and remediation of site contamination is partially completed. Re-development of this former industrial land to mixed commercial and residential use is planned by the District of Squamish. Working within a sustainable framework, the District plans to develop the site with minimal ecological impact. The GREEN SHORES project is designed to encourage sustainable use of coastal ecosystems through planning and design which recognizes the ecological features and functions of coastal systems. The conceptual vision for GREEN SHORES is a voluntary rating assessment system for shore developments, similar to LEED Green Building certification. In addition GREEN SHORES is providing support for the development of sample bylaw and zoning language to assist local and regional governments to enshrine the key principles of GREEN SHORES in land use regulations. The GREEN SHORES project is conducting specific case studies, including the Squamish re-development area, that showcase alternatives to conventional coastal shore development. The guiding principles for GREEN SHORES are:

1. Preserve the integrity or connectivity of coastal processes. 2. Maintain or enhance habitat diversity and function. 3. Minimize or reduce pollutants to the marine environment. 4. Reduce cumulative impacts to the coastal environment.

This first phase of the Squamish GREEN SHORES case study examines the lands owned by the Squamish Oceanfront Development Corporation (Figure 1), which are intended for development under the guidance of the District of Squamish Official Community Plan. The objective of this process is to identify key ecological features and functions of the estuary, with specific reference to the former industrial lands area, and provide recommendations on how these features and functions may be maintained and enhanced as part of the development process1. This overview uses results from the design charettes facilitated by the UBC Design Centre for Sustainability (e.g. Downtown Squamish Concept Plan) to identify key planning features such as walkways and berthing facilities. A full list of reference documents is included in Appendix 1. In addition two site visits to the area were made; one by the GREEN SHORES Technical Team in April 2005 and a second by Swell Environmental Consulting in May 2006.

1 Some of the upland and seabed areas of this site have been contaminated by historic industrial use, with particular concern for mercury contamination from the former chloralkali plant. This overview assumes that an approved contaminant risk assessment process and remediation plan will be carried out prior to development of these lands and, therefore, current levels of contamination have not been considered.

MARCH 2007 SQUAMISH ESTUARY - GREEN SHORES OVERVIEW REPORT

2 THE GREEN SHORES PROJECT



2.0 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES & FUNCTIONS In spite of its industrial heritage, the Squamish Oceanfront Development site provides a diverse range of riparian, intertidal and subtidal habitats. Although many of these habitats are degraded as a result of industrial activity, the restoration opportunities are considerable. Figures 1 and 2 show the existing ecological features and functions described below and Appendix 2 contains photographs of the site, illustrating these ecological characteristics. 2.1 Ecological Features 1. Tidal Channels Two tidal channels (Mamquam Blind Channel and Cattermole Slough) form the majority of shoreline of the Squamish Oceanfront Development site. Cattermole Slough is almost entirely intertidal (drying on extreme low tides) and has limited freshwater input except from a number of controlled flow drainage channels from the western portion of the estuary. Mamquam Blind Channel has a considerable subtidal area, with mid-channel depths of approximately 3m relative to chart datum. There is an extensive mudflat at the southeastern entrance of Mamquam Blind Channel that has been used historically for log storage. Direct freshwater input to the channel is also limited, with the Stewamus River (about halfway along the eastern side of the channel) being the main freshwater source. Both channels likely receive indirect freshwater input from the Squamish River via the estuary. These channels have historically been used as log booming areas, and benthic habitats have been disturbed both by wood debris deposition (subtidal areas) and grounding of logs (intertidal areas). The channels provide habitat for a variety of wildlife including shorebirds and waterfowl, fish (particularly salmonids) and benthic invertebrates, although there is little data available on benthic invertebrate abundance and species diversity. Historically (in the 1960s) and more recently (1990s) herring spawning has been documented at the entrance to Mamquam Blind Channel. All five commercial species of Pacific salmon (chinook, coho, pink chum and sockeye) as well as steelhead spawn in the Squamish/Cheakamus River system. These runs are significant both in terms of numbers of fish and provincial significance of the runs, particularly for steelhead, chinook and coho. Juvenile chinook spend several months in estuarine habitats after migrating from the river and pink, chum and coho remain close to shore (within 10s of metres in the case of pink and chum) as they move seaward, relying heavily on nearshore habitats for foraging and cover. This underlies the importance of maintaining and enhancing productive nearshore habitats as well as habitat diversity and complexity in the Squamish area. Habitat components within and adjacent these channels include: Riparian vegetation (Figure 2) at the top of channel embankments including a dense young tree and shrub community (red alder, common snowberry, salmonberry, thimbleberry, red elderberry and vine maple) along Cattermole Slough and beach grasses, beach pea, sweet gale, and Oregon grape along Mamquam Blind Channel.



Marsh benches along the edges of the channels, particularly the extensive bench on the west side of Cattermole Slough. These marsh areas are dominated by brackish water species (requiring both fresh and salt water input) and include a dominant sedge community as well as rushes and reeds (Figure 1). Eelgrass within Mamquam Blind Channel, although the existing eelgrass cover is sparse and patchy but there is potential for restoration of eelgrass beds by transplanting both within the channel and possibly to Cattermole Slough (Figure 1).

2. Nexen Beach Nexen Beach is located immediately northwest of the proposed marina/cruise ship terminal on the Howe Sound shore of the Squamish Oceanfront Development Lands. This is a sandy beach exposed to inflow winds from Howe Sound. The backshore is formed of moderately dense beach logs, some beach grasses and a fringe of riparian vegetation (see above), as well as several invasive species such as Scotch broom, Himalayan blackberry and Japanese knotweed. The beach provides habitat for shorebirds and invertebrates, and appears to be suitable habitat for beach spawning forage fish such as sandlance or surf smelt. The beach is considered a valued recreational component of the proposed development (Figure 1). 3. Existing man-made structures (piers, dolphins, docks) The existing piers, piles and docks provide cover and substrate for epiphytic plants and invertebrates. These structures and the associated plant community are used as spawning substrate by herring spawn (Figure 1), however observations indicate that there is a high mortality of herring eggs possibly due to contaminants such as creosoted piles. Designs can be applied to these structures to add complexity or additional substrate for plant kelp communities enhancing their value as fish habitat. 2.2 Ecological Functions 1. Across Shore Connectivity - Riparian to Subtidal Zone Within an estuary there are important connectivity attributes from the backshore to the subtidal zone. Riparian vegetation provides important organic input to intertidal areas, increasing the abundance of benthic invertebrates, which in turn are used by juvenile fish. Riparian vegetation provides important perching habitat for birds such as kingfisher that forage in shallow nearshore areas. Intertidal areas are important foraging and movement corridors for wildlife such as deer. Vertical seawalls and steep riprap slopes tend to interrupt this connectivity and reduce habitat value. In addition, intertidal areas, which dry daily, provide critical foraging areas for shorebirds including species like heron, ospreys and bald eagles. Loss of intertidal area, particularly mud and sandflats reduces foraging opportunities for these species. 2. Alongshore connections (corridors) Natural sediment transport, as well as wildlife movement can be impeded or impacted by structures (piers, groynes, breakwaters) which affect alongshore connectivity. This is particularly important in intertidal areas with a high degree of sediment transport. Consideration of alongshore linear corridors and the processes or functions these corridors support are a key component of the Green Shore planning approach. As public walkways and viewpoints are



important components of the Squamish Oceanfront Development proposal, design of these features will be critical to meet the goal of maintaining and enhancing shore values and function. 3. Riparian vegetation Riparian vegetation provides important organic input to intertidal areas, contributing to juvenile fish rearing capability as well as providing habitat for perching birds and cover and complexity for a diversity of wildlife species. Riparian vegetation also provides bank stability and acts as a windbreak. Maintaining and enhancing the existing riparian features of the development will be one of the most important (and easily achievable) elements of a GREEN SHORES design for the site. Figure 2 summarizes the existing riparian vegetation conditions on the site. 4. Sediment Transport Processes The primary source of sediment to the estuary is from the Squamish/Cheakamus River system which provides a supply of fine grained sand and gravel sized material to the Squamish Estuary foreshore. Over time sediment input to the eastern portion of the estuary has likely been reduced due to dyking and entrainment of the Squamish River mainstem for flood control. Sediment processes within the development site have also been altered to some extent both by shoreline hardening, which fixes or arrests across-shore sediment processes and possibly closing of the connection between Cattermole Slough and the Mamquam Blind Channel. The upper portions of Cattermole Slough and Manquam Blind Channel are reasonably protected from wave action and erosion in these areas could be due to oversteepening of the embankment from dredging, historic boat wake wash, and/or surface runoff coupled with reduction in embankment vegetation. Hardening of the channel embankments with rip rap or other large materials for erosion control (as was done at the head of Cattermole Slough, west side, - see Figure 4) is not warranted and more suitable, functional designs (see Section 3.0) can be used in these areas. In contrast, the Howe Sound shoreline is subject to southwesterly inflow winds and waves, particularly during the summer (see Figure 3). Nexen Beach is therefore more exposed than other areas of the site and, although erosion does not appear to be an issue on this beach, the development design needs to recognize the dynamic nature of the sediment processes at this site.



Figure 1. Existing ecological features and functions and potential shoreline land use.



Figure 2. Existing riparian vegetation status.



Figure 3. Frequency and direction of winds at Squamish, 1986-2001; Left January-December. Right June, July, August. (http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/sry/p2/air_quality/sea_sky_airshed_03.pdf)

.



3.0 GREEN SHORES DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES The existing condition of the riparian, intertidal and subtidal environments at the Squamish Oceanfront Development site provides many opportunities to incorporate GREEN SHORES principles (Section 1.0) into the development process. Ecological features and functions that can be conserved or enhanced using a GREEN SHORES design approach include:

1. Riparian vegetation 2. Nexen Beach, particularly backshore features 3. Marsh terraces 4. Marine subtidal features, including eelgrass and rocky kelp communities

Enhancing and highlighting these features and functions will impart an important stewardship context to the development project linking those that live in the area to estuary processes and values, leading to a “Living in the Estuary” development/stewardship theme. The following sections illustrate development design opportunities that meet Green Shore principles while also addressing the expressed development features and objectives of the Oceanfront Development plan. These sections provide conceptual rather than detailed design, which will vary with the exact location of the specific feature. 3.1 Shoreline Walkway Public shoreline walkways (Figure 1) are proposed for much of the development and will be a valuable amenity for residents and visitors in the area. Dedicated public space, including shore walkways are an excellent way to enable Green Shore design, as linear (alongshore) design is not constrained by the diversity of needs or desires of private property owners. Walkway design concepts should consider the following elements:

a. Softer approaches using natural embankments, riparian vegetation and marsh terracing rather than harder designs such as rip rap embankments, which are not required in most areas to protect upland areas from erosion (Figure 4 illustrates a hard shore design, Figures 5 and 6 present improved concepts, additional options are shown in Sections 3.2 and 3.3).

b. Set targets for conservation and enhancement of riparian vegetation and marsh terraces and incorporate them into the walkway design (see Figure 2 for site locations). The draft GREEN SHORES rating credits (Appendix 3) require a riparian vegetation zone (5m wide) over 25% of the shore length for brown field re-developments and an optional credit is given if 50% or more of the shore length is dedicated riparian zone. Although walkways can be incorporated into the riparian zone, they should be set several meters (2-5) from the top of bank in areas with riparian vegetation. Figure 7 shows the existing condition of a riparian embankment and walkway in the Squamish estuary and an example of a restored riparian zone walkway in the Campbell River estuary. Viewpoints and shore access points can be incorporated into the walkway at strategic locations. This vegetation will also provide a wind break for pedestrians, while maintaining bank stability and providing bird and wildlife habitat.



c. Consider pile or cantilevered sections of walkway over intertidal areas in locations where marsh vegetation will not be shaded. This is an excellent way to enable intertidal viewing and conserve areas of riparian vegetation (Figure 6). Grating can be used in walkways to allow light to penetrate to the vegetation below.

d. Assess the need for appropriate flood protection within the development area. The development area is protected from river flooding by the existing system of dykes in the Squamish River estuary. While flood protection remains an important design consideration, because of existing protective structures, it may not be necessary to build walkways to the same flood design specifications as the existing dyke system. It may be equally important to consider design specifications from the perspective of tsunami protection.

Figure 4. Example of a shoreline walkway of low ecological value. The riprap has reduced

habitat complexity and productivity in both intertidal and backshore areas.



Figure 5. Example of a cantilevered shore walkway that conserves riparian vegetation and rocky intertidal values; an appropriate design for areas with no active alongshore sediment transport or dense intertidal vegetation subject to shading (Westsong Walkway, Victoria Harbour).

Figure 6. Example of a pile walkway across the intertidal zone that conserves riparian and intertidal habitat values and provides harbour viewscapes (Westsong Walkway, Victoria Harbour).



Figure 7. Top Existing embankment and walkway in Squamish estuary where appropriate restoration design could result in a public walkway with a riparian zone setback and marsh terrace designed to both stabilize the embankment and enhance biological productivity. Bottom Example of a restored riparian zone with walkway in the Campbell River Estuary 3.2 Marina/Cruise Ship Terminal A marina and/or cruise ship terminal is planned for the southern end of the development site. Much of the shoreline in this area is heavily modified with low ecological value. In addition to the hardened shoreline and lack of riparian vegetation, some of the existing shipping facilities are constructed of creosote wood piles. Local fisheries groups have suggested that the low survival of the herring spawn in this area may be due to creosote contaminants in the spawning substrate. The southeastern shore area (Appendix 1- Photos 5-7) is a shallow sloped beach with beach grasses and some potential for development of riparian vegetation and marsh terraces. Re-development design in this area should also focus on subtidal habitat values, with particular emphasis on enhancing herring spawning habitat and herring spawning success. This should include:



a. Researching specific locations and spawning substrates for herring in this area; herring spawn on a wide variety of intertidal and subtidal algal species as well as eelgrass, but often appear to prefer a specific vegetation type in certain locations.

b. Based on the results of this research consider incorporating intertidal or subtidal rock reef (boulder, cobble) or other structures to encourage bladed kelp or red algae growth and/or eelgrass transplants to this area.

c. Initiate a program to replace creosote piles with more durable and less contaminating steel or concrete piles.

In addition attention should be give to the possible impacts of night illumination in this area on wildlife and birds. The GREEN SHORES draft rating system (Appendix 3) includes an optional credit for appropriate shore lighting. Strategies include: • Use lighting only if and where necessary • Plant or improve vegetation buffers between the light source and the shoreline to screen light

from the shoreline. • angle outdoor lights downwards and away from shorelines, and replace fixtures that scatter

light in all directions • ensure lights are switched on only when needed, and use motion detector lights set on the

shortest time setting • avoid using decorative lighting that is visible from shorelines, and re-position direct lighting

away from shorelines • Shield the light source with materials such as aluminium flashing • Replace lights on poles with low profile, low-level lamps so that the light source and

reflected light are not visible from the beach Figures 8, 9, 10 and 11 present some concepts that have been developed for the Puget Sound area to provide additional habitat features and complexity to engineering structures, if such hardened shoreline cannot be avoided.



Figure 8. Concept for a formal walkway combined with artificial tidepools and water access (by artist Stephanie Bower for People for Puget Sound).

Figure 9. Concept for formal walkway combined with stormwater management raingardens and intertidal habitat (by artist Stephanie Bower for People for Puget Sound).



Figure 10. Concept for intertidal habitat benches combined with a seawall (by artist Stephanie Bower for People for Puget Sound).

Figure 11. Concept for improved habitat complexity on riprap point (by artist Stephanie Bower for People for Puget Sound).



3.3 Nexen Beach Nexen Beach is an anticipated recreational amenity for the re-developed site. The beach location on the southwest portion of the site is still in need of contaminant remediation. It will be important to incorporate restoration planning into the remediation effort in order to ensure that the remediated conditions allow for the desired restoration features. From a GREEN SHORES perspective important restoration opportunities include:

a. Providing adequate building setback in recognition that the beach area is dynamic and will change with episodic storm events and extreme tides. Avoid shoreline hardening in this area.

b. A vegetated riparian buffer between the beach and any public walkway. Beach amenities (picnic area, etc.) could be set behind the riparian vegetation, providing a windbreak.

c. Incorporation of beach grass plantings into the upper (log line) beach area. Figure 12 illustrates the elements of an ecologically functioning beach. Figure 13 shows a failing beach stabilization structure and Figure 14 is a photograph of the same beach following removal of the wall and restoration using beach nourishment methods. Concepts for various softer approaches to designing recreational amenities and functional beach habitat are shown in Figures 15 -18.

Figure 12. Typical beach habitat cross section in the Strait of Georgia.



Figure 13. Seahurst Park, City of Burien, Washington State, 2004, prior to removal of failing gabion seawall.

Figure 14. Seahurst Park, City of Burien, Washington State, 2005, following removal of failing gabion seawall. (Seahurst Park photos from handout adapted from Mumford and Shipman, Puget Sound Beaches and Nearshore Ecology, Field Trip for Restore America’s Estuaries Conference, September 14, 2004).



Figure 15. Concept for artificial tide pools combined with beach features (by artist Stephanie Bower for People for Puget Sound). .

Figure 16. Walkway combined with slope stability and riparian vegetation (by artist Stephanie Bower for People for Puget Sound).



Figure 17. Formal walkway combined with increased intertidal habitat, riparian vegetation and water access (by artist Stephanie Bower for People for Puget Sound).

Figure 18. Formal walkway with recreational facilities and water access combined with beach habitat (by artist Stephanie Bower for People for Puget Sound).



3.4 Stormwater Management The location of this development in an estuarine environment provides opportunities for innovative stormwater management, particularly the use of constructed wetlands. The concept plan for the site proposes to use bioswales, rain gardens and infiltration areas for stormwater management. However, given the dense nature of the development, additional area may be required for detention and treatment. An existing constructed wetland at the north end of the site, remaining after the site remediation, provides this opportunity while creating a buffer to the marine riparian area and a larger bird and wildlife habitat area. It may also provide recreation amenities including wildlife viewing. Figure 19 illustrates the concept of a typical constructed stormwater wetland. Figure 20 is a photograph of a typical stormwater wetland, taking runoff from a large area. Figure 21 is a conceptual design for a rain garden in an urban setting.

Figure 19. Example of a typical constructed wetland concept used for stormwater management.



Figure 20. A typical constructed wetland used for stormwater management.

Figure 21. A raingarden concept for stormwater management in a more formal, urban context (by artist Stephanie Bower for People for Puget Sound).



3.5 Opening of Mamquam Blind Channel In the development planning process a desire has been expressed to connect the Mamquam Blind Channel to the Cattermole Slough. The benefits and risks associated with this option should be assessed by qualified professionals. Important considerations include:

a. Any changes to the salinity/temperature regimes in both channels b. Delineation of the area that would benefit from enhanced tidal flushing c. Implications for planned restoration initiatives such as eelgrass restoration

3.6 Eelgrass Restoration With re-development of the site and the cessation of the log booming and sorting activities, there is an opportunity to restore eelgrass beds in Cattermole Slough and Mamquam Blind Channel. Eel grass beds have high biological productivity and provide important nursery habitat for salmonids, crab and other marine organisms. Pilot area transplants should continue to be conducted and monitored to assess the feasibility of eelgrass transplants in these areas.



4.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

1. Squamish Estuary Management Plan, October 1999, produced by ??? 2. Downtown Squamish Concept Plan, October 18, 2005, produced by UBC Design Centre for

Sustainability 3. Squamish Oceanfront Development, Public Information Session Public Information Session,

February 28, 2006 (http://squamishoceanfront.com/documents/2006%20Feb%2028%20-%20Public%20Info%20Session.pdf)

4. Squamish Oceanfront Development Open House Consultation— Discussion Guide, October 12, 2005 (http://squamishoceanfront.com/documents/12%20Oct%202005%20Discussion%20Guide.pdf)

5. District of Squamish Official Community Plan -Draft, October 11, 2005 6. Conservation Priorities in the Squamish River Estuary, February 11, 2004, produced by

Ascaphus Consulting (for Squamish Estuary Conservation Society) 7. Effect of Fish Habitat Restoration on Plant Communities in the Squamish River Estuary,

November 2, 2004, produced by Nick Page, Raincoast Applied Ecology (for Squamish River Watershed Society)



APPENDIX 1

PHOTO LOCATIONS (showing existing condition)



1. Beach along Mamquam Blind Channel with path, riparian vegetation and beach with some

bank stability reinforcing structures, provides long shore sediment transport, habitat corridor

2. Beach along Mamquam Blind Channel.



7. Riprap shoreline and path with some riparian vegetation, hardened shoreline provides limited

habitat opportunities and interrupts natural sediment transport processes and habitat corridors. Subtidal area and wharf provides substrate for herring spawn.

8. Riprap shoreline between wharves.



9. Riprap shoreline between wharves.

10. Riprap reinforced point adjacent to Nexen beach.



11. Nexen Beach (east), cleared riparian vegetation interrupts habitat corridors and may

destabilize slopes through wave action.

12. Nexen Beach provides habitat for shorebirds and invertebrate, sediment transport to maintain

the beach is critical.



13. Path adjacent to Nexen Beach, moderate riparian vegetation provides increased slope

stability and habitat attributes.

14. Nexen Beach (west) with riparian zone and shoreline features.



15. Marsh bench (Carex sp.) and riparian zone with trees and shrubs along Cattermole Channel

provides excellent bank stability and habitat values.

16. Riparian zone (red alder and native shrubs) with path provides recreational amenities with

habitat values and slope stability.



APPENDIX 2

DRAFT GREEN SHORES CREDIT SUMMARY



GREEN SHORE CREDIT SUMMARY GREEN SHORE Credits are grouped into six general categories. Most of the categories include a required credit and one or more optional credits. A development must meet all required credits and a number of optional credits to achieve GREEN SHORES certification The credit categories and associated credits are summarized below:

A. Siting and Built Environment Credit 1. Siting and Built Environment 1 Required Credit Credit 2. Brown Field Site Re-Development 1 Optional Credit Credit 3. Re-Development of Man-made Shores 1 Optional Credit Credit 4 Public Access 1 Optional? Credit

B. Habitat/Species Interactions Credit 1. Designated Sensitive Habitat and Imperilled Species 1 Required Credit Credit 2. Habitat Restoration 1 Optional Credit Credit 3. Riparian Zone – Conservation/Restoration 1 Required Credit Credit 4. Riparian Zone Enhance Conservation/Restoration 1 Optional Credit Credit 5. Shore Lighting 1 Optional Credit

C. Coastal Processes Credit 1. Conservation of Sediment Transport Processes 1 Required Credit Credit 2. Restoration of Sediment Transport Processes 1 Optional Credit

D. Construction Credit 1. Environmental Management Plan 1 Required Credit Credit 2. Reuse of local Materials 1 Optional Credit

E. Stormwater and Septic Credit 1 Compliance with local/regional regulations 1 Required Credit Credit 2 Innovative Stormwater management Practices (LID) 1 Optional Credit

F. Project Planning and Design Credit 1. Integrated Design 1 Required Credit Credit 2 Design Innovation 1 Optional Credit Credit 3 Outreach and Public Education 1 Optional Credit 7 Required Credits 11 Optional Credits

THE GREEN SHORES PARTNERS Technical Team Brian Emmett – Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. John Harper – Coastal and Oceans Resources Inc. John Readshaw – Sandwell Engineering Inc. Martine Desbois – MD and Associates Harriet Rueggeberg – Lanarc Consultants Gretchen Harlow – Canadian Wildlife Service Funding Partners Bridge Coastal Restoration Program Real Estate Foundation of BC Habitat Conservation Trust Fund Ducks Unlimited Department of Fisheries and Oceans Comox/Strathcona Regional District Sunshine Coast Regional District District of Squamish

www.stewardshipcentre.bc.ca

green shores case study - stewardship centre for...

Documents