Burrard Inlet Environmental Indicators Report - the BIEAP and ...

Burrard Inlet Environmental Indicators Report 

Public Consultation Document 

February 8, 2008 

Prepared for: 

By: 

Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd.

Public Input 

Public input is important to the BIEAP and its partner agencies. For further information about 

public consultation opportunities surrounding this document, or to order any of our 

publications, please contact us at: 

Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program (BIEAP) 

501-5945 Kathleen Avenue, 

Burnaby, BC 

V5H 4J7 

Tel: 604-775-5756 

Fax: 604-775-5198 

e-mail: mail@bieapfremp.org 

Visit our website at www.bieapfremp.org 

“A thriving port and urban community co-existing within a healthy environment” 

BIEAP’s overall vision for Burrard Inlet 

Citation: 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.

Burrard Inlet Environmental Indicators Report February 2008 

Acknowledgements 

The Plan Implementation Committee of BIEAP has guided development of the environmental 

indicators approach over several years. Core members of the Committee are: 

Ken Ashley, Metro Vancouver 

Juergen Baumann, Vancouver Port Authority 

Ken Bennett, District of North Vancouver 

Darrell Desjardin (chair), Vancouver Port Authority 

Robyn McLean, Environment Canada 

Brent Moore, BC Ministry of Environment 

Brian Naito, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

BIEAP program staff include: 

Michelle Gaudry 

Daria Hasselmann 

Anna Mathewson 

Many people and agencies assisted the Committee by providing data, reviewing reports, 

providing guidance on indicator development, and in several cases developing the indicators. 

These include the following: 

BC Ministry of Environment 

Chris Dalley 

Liz Freyman 

Diane Sutherland 

Les Swain 

Cindy Walsh 

Bird Studies Canada 

Peter Davidson 

Caslys Consulting Ltd. 

Ann Blyth 

City of Port Moody 

Julie Pavey 

City of Vancouver 

Don Brynildson 

Andrew Ling 

David Desrochers 

Environment Canada 

Greg Ambrozic 

Wendy Avis 

Rob Butler 

John Elliott 

Andrew Green 

Deanna Lee 

Gevan Mattu 

John Pasternak 

Bill Taylor 

Cecilia Wong 

Metro Vancouver 

Nimet Alibhai 

Jim Armstrong 

Stan Bertold 

Dianna Colnett 

Terry Hoff 

Derek Jennejohn 

Andrew Marr 

Roger Quan 

Ken Reid 

Shelina Sidi 

John Swalby 

Albert van Roodselaar 

Post Consumer Pharmaceutical 

Stewardship Association 

Ginette Vanasse 

UBC Co-op Program 

Heather Brekke 

Vancouver Port Authority 

Christine Rigby 

Westcam Consulting Services 

Mike Preston 

Yarnell & Associates 

Patrick Yarnell 

ESSA Technologies Ltd. evaluated potential environmental indicators and prepared the 

baseline datasets for the Plan Implementation Committee. 

Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd. prepared this consultation document. 

Page | i


This page left blank intentionally


Table of Contents 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 

PART 1 – SETTING THE CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 3 

PART 2 – LINKS BETWEEN HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND BURRARD INLET STATUS........... 8 

PART 3 – THE INDICATORS.................................................................................................. 11 

1. Tree Canopy Cover ....................................................................................... 12 

2. Parks and Protected Areas.............................................................................. 1 

3. Waterbird Abundance.................................................................................... 20 

4. Air Quality...................................................................................................... 23 

5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................... 23 

6. Water and Sediment Quality.......................................................................... 23 

7. Recreational Water Quality, Fecal Coliforms................................................. 23 

PART 4 – REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 40 

PART 5 – GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................ 43 

List of Tables 

Table 1: Key Findings and Trends for Burrard Inlet Environmental Indicators.................... 2 

Table 2: BIEAP Partners and Communities Bordering Burrard Inlet................................... 3 

Table 3: Burrard Inlet Environmental Indicators .................................................................. 7 

Table 2-1: Management Area Classes ................................................................................. 18 

Table 2-2: Amount of Protected and Park Land in Burrard Inlet Watershed 

(total area and % of land in each management class) ........................................ 18 

Table 2-3: Proportion of Land in Management Classes for Each Burrard 

Inlet Catchment ................................................................................................... 19 

Table 5-1: Common Sources and Contributors of GHGs ..................................................... 28 

Table 7-1: Burrard Inlet Beach Locations ............................................................................. 36 

List of Maps 

Map 1: Basins and Catchments of the Burrard Inlet Watershed ....................................... 4 

Map 2: Ortho-Image of the Burrard Inlet Watershed ......................................................... 5 

Map 3: Developable vs. Undeveloped Areas for the Burrard Inlet Catchments .............. 13 

Map 4: Location of Management Area Classes and RCAs in the Burrard Inlet............... 17 

Page | ii


List of Charts 

Chart 1-1: Current Land Cover across the Entire Burrard Inlet Watershed ..........................14 

Chart 1-2: Current Land Cover in Developable Areas of Burrard Inlet..................................14 

Chart 3-1: Waterbird Abundance in Burrard Inlet Since 1975...............................................21 

Chart 4-1: Smog Forming Pollutants in the Canadian Portion of the Lower Fraser 

Valley, 2005 .........................................................................................................25 

Chart 4-2: Total Smog Forming Pollutants (SFPs) in the Lower Fraser Valley 

(Canadian and United States Sources) ...............................................................25 

Chart 5-1: Total Annual Emissions of GHGs Within the Burrard Inlet Airshed 

(marine and land sources, including vehicles) .....................................................29 

Chart 6-1: Copper Concentrations in Burrard Inlet Sediment (1985 to 2005).......................32 

Chart 6-2: PCB Concentration in Burrard Inlet Sediment (1985 to 2004) .............................33 

Chart 7-1: Number of Days Burrard Inlet Beaches were Closed for Swimming 

(2002 to 2006)......................................................................................................37 

Chart 7-2: Fecal Coliform Data for Deep Cove (2002 to 2006).............................................37 

Chart 7-3: Fecal Coliform Data for Old Orchard Park (2002 to 2006)...................................38 

Chart 7-4: Fecal Coliform Data for Sunset Beach (2002 to 2006) ........................................38 

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Examples of Contaminant Pathways in the Burrard Inlet and Strait of 

Georgia Ecosystems............................................................................................10 

Figure 5-1: Past and Future CO2 Levels in the Atmosphere ..................................................27 

Page | iii


Executive Summary 

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

that coordinates environmental management of Burrard Inlet. In 2002, BIEAP prepared a 

Consolidated Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to facilitate continued sustainability of 

the Inlet. Effectiveness of the CEMP can be assessed by following trends in indicators over 

time. These indicators will suggest whether current environmental management practices are 

successful in protecting Burrard Inlet or whether they should be refined. 

This consultation document was prepared to provide current information about certain 

environmental indicators and to help guide planning for future development in the Burrard Inlet 

watershed. The report also describes ways in which the environment is being or can be 

protected by regulatory agencies, other decision-makers and the public. 

Seven environmental indicators have been selected from a list of potential candidates 

suggested by the many monitoring programs conducted over the past two decades. These 

were chosen because their existing data sets and on-going monitoring programs are 

sufficiently robust to reliably reflect the effects of human activities on Burrard Inlet air and 

water quality 1 , and to demonstrate the consequences of land development on ecosystem 

health. The selected indicators are tree canopy cover, parks and protected areas, waterbird 

abundance, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, water and sediment quality (albeit only as 

reflected in copper and PCB levels), and recreational use and fecal coliform bacteria. For each 

indicator, four key questions are discussed in this document: 

• What actions can governments, agencies, industries and the public take to maintain or 

improve the condition of this indicator? Why look at this indicator? 

• How are data gathered and benchmarks established to evaluate the indicator? 

• What are the results and trends? 

• What actions can governments, agencies, industries and the public take to maintain or 

improve the condition of this indicator? 

Table 1 provides a summary of the key findings and trends. Collectively, the indicators 

describe an ecosystem in fairly good condition, with improved sediment and air quality. 

However, there continue to be challenges associated with human activities: 

• Tree canopy cover needed to provide a wide range of economic and ecosystem 

benefits is under continuous pressure from development 

• The occasional accidental release of contaminants and the ongoing release of 

contaminants from storm water are still of concern 

• Contaminant concentrations in killer whales and other animals remain a serious issue 

in the Strait of Georgia because of persistence of some old compounds and the 

emergence of new compounds and sources 

• Greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase with a growing population. 

The indicator data used in this report provide a baseline for comparison over time. They will 

help show whether the environmental management practices described in the CEMP are 

fulfilling BIEAP’s mandate and goals to protect the ecological functioning of Burrard Inlet while 

encouraging sustainable development, or whether adjustments to the Plan are needed. 

1 

However, their scope of coverage of environmental issues is at present not sufficient for a “State of the 

Environment” report. 

Page | 1


BIEAP remains committed to translating information into action. As our understanding of the 

connections between a healthy environment, society and economy deepens, we learn about 

the many actions that individuals, communities, businesses and corporations can take to 

maintain the health of Burrard Inlet. 

Table 1: Key Findings and Trends for Burrard Inlet Environmental Indicators 

Indicator Current Status 

1. Tree Canopy 

Cover 

2. Parks and 

Protected 

Areas 

3. Waterbird 

Abundance 

The urban tree canopy provides economically valuable environmental services such as 

improving air quality, purifying water and helping manage stormwater. It is assessed for 

developable and undeveloped areas of the watershed 2 based on 2002 satellite imagery. Tree 

canopy cover is 42% in the developable areas (ranging from 26% in the English Bay and Inner 

Harbour catchments to 84% in the Indian Arm catchment) and 96% in the higher elevation 

undeveloped areas. The 42% value for tree cover in the developable area is high compared to 

many cities in Canada and the United States (25% to 40%), indicating that communities in the 

Inlet currently do a better than average job at protecting their urban forests. However, the 26% 

cover in some areas indicates the need to continue to protect urban forests through planning. 

In developable areas 2 , 59% of the land is urban and suburban and 41% has some form 

of protection (wildlife reserve, regional or municipal park, green belt, golf course). 

Considering the entire watershed, 19% is urban and suburban land and 81% has some 

type of protection. These percentages are unlikely to change over time, as the land uses 

are designated, but habitat quality may decrease recreational uses increases. 

Populations of four species of resident waterbirds (Double-crested Cormorant, Pelagic 

Cormorant, Black Oystercatcher) have been stable or increased since the mid 1990s. 

Glaucous-winged Gull populations have declined since 1975. Gulls are very sensitive to 

predation by the Bald Eagle, and their decreased abundance may reflect movement out 

of the Inlet as they adapt to the increasing danger posed by eagles. Results for waterbird 

populations indicate stable and favourable environmental conditions in the Inlet to date. 

4. Air Quality Air quality in the Burrard Inlet airshed is currently acceptable most of the time, and has 

improved notably over the past 20 years. Levels of “Criteria Air Contaminants” generally 

are below Metro Vancouver management targets. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide 

and sulphur dioxide levels have declined since the 1980s. Particulate matter (PM10) and 

ozone levels have been more stable. There are not enough data yet for PM2.5 to establish 

a time trend. Emissions of smog-forming pollutants have declined steadily since 1985. 

5. Greenhouse 

Gas 

Emissions 

6. Water and 

Sediment 

Quality 

(copper and 

PCB levels) 

7. Recreational 

Use and 

Fecal 

Coliform 

Bacteria 

Greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) have increased steadily 

since 1990 and are projected to increase along with population growth. The rate of increase has 

slowed since 1990 (from 19% increase between 1990 and 1995 to 7% increase between 2000 

and 2005). Emissions are projected to increase by 4% per five-year period to 2025. 

Copper levels in water are variable; although 20% of samples collected since 1985 

exceeded the provincial water quality guideline for copper, no trend over time is 

apparent. Copper levels in sediment have declined since 1985, although two locations 

(Outer Harbour North, Inner Harbour) still exceeded Burrard Inlet sediment quality 

guidelines in 2005. In the 1980s, PCB levels in sediment were well above Burrard Inlet 

guidelines at most sites; however, levels have decreased markedly at most sites. Four of 

six samples collected in 2004 were below objectives but two sites (False Creek and Inner 

Harbour) remained above objectives. The trend of improved levels of copper and PCB in 

sediment over time is related to reduced discharges of these contaminants. 

Water quality at 15 of the 19 Burrard Inlet beaches is excellent for swimming, with no closures 

for elevated coliform levels over the past five years. Four beaches (Deep Cove and Cates Park 

in North Vancouver, Barnet Marine Park and Old Orchard Park in Port Moody) had periodic 

closures in 2002, 2005 and 2006, in part related to the lower amount of tidal flushing in these 

areas. Fecal coliforms are present at other beaches but not at, levels high enough to trigger 

beach closures. Shellfish harvesting has been prohibited in Burrard Inlet since the 1970’s. 

There have been no closures for secondary contact recreation (boating, kayaking, windsurfing). 

2 

The boundary for developable vs. undeveloped land is set at 320 m elevation to the west of Lynn Creek (in 

North Vancouver) and 200 m to the east. 

Page | 2


PART 1 – Setting the Context 

Overview of BIEAP and the Region 

The Burrard Inlet Environmental Action 

Program (BIEAP) was established in 

1991 to provide a management 

framework to protect and improve the 

environmental quality of Burrard Inlet’s 

ecosystem. BIEAP brings together the 

agencies responsible for setting and 

enforcing environmental legislation and 

policy with those responsible for land and 

water management to coordinate 

planning and operational decision-making 

False Creek and surrounding area 

to ensure a sustainable future for Burrard Inlet. BIEAP provides environmental assessments of 

development projects within Burrard Inlet, with partners using a consensus-based approach to 

finding ‘made in the Inlet’ environmental management solutions. Partners and communities 

bordering the Inlet are listed in Table 2. 

Table 2: BIEAP Partners and Communities Bordering Burrard Inlet 

The BIEAP Partners Communities Bordering Burrard Inlet 

BC Ministry of Environment 

Environment Canada 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Transport Canada 

Metro Vancouver 

Vancouver Port Authority 

Village of Anmore 

Village of Belcarra 

City of Burnaby 

City of North Vancouver 

District of North Vancouver 

City of Port Moody 

City of Vancouver 

District of West Vancouver 

Geographically, BIEAP jurisdiction includes the marine foreshore and tidal waters east of a line 

between Point Atkinson and Point Grey, including False Creek, Port Moody Arm and Indian 

Arm. It also includes upland areas that drain into the Inlet because activities on the land 

influence conditions in the water. All or portions of eight municipalities bordering the Inlet form 

the Burrard Inlet watershed. Map 1 shows the basins (water areas) and catchments (land 

areas) of the Burrard Inlet watershed: 

• six basins – Outer Harbour, Inner Harbour, Central Harbour, False Creek, Port Moody 

Arm and Indian Arm and 

• four catchments – English Bay, Inner Harbour, Indian Arm and Port Moody Arm. 

Burrard Inlet 

Burrard Inlet is in the traditional territories of many Coast Salish peoples, including the Tsleil- 

Waututh, Squamish and Musqueam First Nations. Over the last 150 years, the inlet has seen 

much change. With European settlement, it became the active port of a burgeoning west coast 

timber industry and the industrial centre of the province. In recent years, the Inlet has become 

the centre of a highly urbanized city-region and the Port of Vancouver now serves the 

increasing needs of international trade. 

Page | 3


Map 1: Basins and Catchments of the Burrard Inlet Watershed 

Adapted from BIEAP 

The mountains of the North Shore and the waters of Burrard Inlet give Vancouver its 

reputation as one of the most scenic cities in the world. Over 650,000 people live in the 

watershed and they, along with visitors and the remaining 1.4 million lower mainland residents, 

enjoy the many recreational opportunities the Inlet provides. Characterized by a temperate 

marine climate, the Burrard Inlet ecosystem includes rugged mountain peaks, magnificent old 

growth forests and fjords rich with terrestrial and aquatic life. Its forested slopes provide habitat 

for deer, bears, cougars and many small animals and birds and its shorelines, intertidal areas, 

mudflats and salt marshes support many species of marine organisms. The Pacific Flyway 

transects the inlet, attracting tens of thousands of migratory birds each year. An aerial view 

(Map 2) shows the variety of natural and developed landscapes of the watershed. 

Page | 4


Map 2: Ortho-Image of the Burrard Inlet Watershed 

Source: Metro Vancouver 

Page | 5


Consolidated Environmental Management Plan 

Environmental management of such a rich area requires balancing many priorities of the 

human population while ensuring clean air, water and habitat for both humans and wildlife. In 

addition to the effects of current and future land use, legacies from historic activities have left 

their imprint. These include accumulations of contaminants such as heavy metals or organic 

compounds (e.g., petroleum products, poly-chlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]), loss of stream and 

shoreline habitat, and closure of shellfish harvesting due to fecal coliform levels. 

BIEAP’s Consolidated Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) was approved in 2002 and 

provides a framework for improving the environmental quality of Burrard Inlet. The four main 

goals of the CEMP are to: 

• Improve water quality in Burrard Inlet 

• Minimize the effects of contaminated soils and sediments on human and ecological 

health 

• Maintain and enhance productive fish and wildlife habitat and the natural biodiversity of 

Burrard Inlet 

• Encourage human and economic development activities that enhance the 

environmental quality of Burrard Inlet 

The Plan consolidates all the environmental 

management systems employed by the BIEAP 

partners to protect Burrard Inlet. The CEMP will 

help ensure that environmental values are 

integrated with economic and social considerations 

for the Inlet. It establishes a common basis for 

reviewing development proposals and recommends 

facilitation, research and information sharing to 

improve and enhance the Inlet’s ecosystem over 

time. A Plan Implementation Committee was 

established in 2003 to help implement the CEMP 

and monitor its performance. 

State of the Burrard Inlet Environment 

One of the key commitments of the CEMP is to 

prepare a State of Environment report for Burrard 

Inlet. In 2004, BIEAP began researching potential 

indicators that could be used to describe the status and trends in the Inlet to policy makers, 

planners and the general public. Many datasets and 19 distinct indicators were evaluated for 

their ability to ‘tell the story’ of Burrard Inlet accurately (reliable dataset, ability to provide 

science-based statements on the state of the Inlet) and help the public understand the 

interconnected nature of the ecosystem. Although there are a lot of data, they did not always 

allow for conclusive, science-based statements to be made. BIEAP settled on seven key 

indicators that, taken together, help describe the complex relationship between human actions 

and environmental conditions in Burrard Inlet. These indicators will be monitored over time to 

assess performance of the CEMP and contribute information to a State of Environment report. 

Page | 6


Indicators Used to Monitor the CEMP 

The CEMP uses a risk management approach; it has identified priority ecosystem risks and 

issues and selected indicators to monitor the risks. Table 3 lists the indicators used, which fall 

into two types: 

• those that quantify ecosystem assets, such as the water’s ability to supply nutrients to 

fish and birds, and the tree canopy’s ability to purify air 

• those that assess the impacts of human activities on air and water. 

Table 3: Burrard Inlet Environmental Indicators 

Indicator 

Type 

Quantifies 

ecosystem 

assets 

Describes 

impacts of 

human 

activities 

Indicator Relevance 

1. Tree Canopy Cover A measure of current levels of land development; 

recognizes the importance of forested land in purifying water 

and air, storing carbon and managing stormwater runoff 

2. Parks and Protected 

Areas 

A measure of the amount of land protected for wildlife 

habitat and for recreational use 

3. Waterbird Abundance An indicator of general ecosystem condition, as bird 

abundance depends on amounts of available habitat and 

food, and is affected by levels of contaminants in the area 

4. Air Quality Related to vehicle, vessel, residential and industrial 

emissions; has socio-economic implications (human health, 

smog) and environmental implications (acid rain) 

5. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

6. Water and Sediment 

Quality (copper and 

PCB levels) 

7. Recreational Use and 

Fecal Coliform Bacteria 

Related to amounts of fossil fuels burned and to global 

climate change 

Related to discharges to water from point sources (permitted 

outfalls) and non-point sources (stormwater, road runoff, 

contaminated sites, air deposition) and affects the health of 

aquatic organisms 

Related to fecal contamination (human and animal waste) in 

the water; affects recreational uses such as swimming, 

boating and harvesting of shellfish 

Because the high elevation forested mountain terrain will not be developed, indicators of land 

use are evaluated in terms of the lower elevation land where development has taken place or 

will occur. The highest elevation where development can be planned is 320 m in West 

Vancouver and in North Vancouver west of Lynn Creek and 200 m in areas to the east of Lynn 

Creek. Results are also discussed for the higher elevation areas because these areas 

contribute significantly to watershed functioning. 

Page | 7


Part 2 – Links Between Human Activities and Burrard Inlet Status 

Before discussing the indicators in detail, it is useful to look at the types of human activities 

that affect the state of Burrard Inlet, in terms of availability of wildlife habitat, introduced 

invasive species, and sources of contaminants and their effects on birds, fish and mammals in 

the Inlet. This information adds context about historic and current activities and illustrates the 

interconnectedness of the ecosystem. 

Habitat and shoreline change over time 

Stanley Park Seawalk 

The 190 km of shoreline and 11,300 hectares of water 

and seabed of Burrard Inlet are biologically diverse 

ecosystems that provide habitat for many species of 

fish and shellfish. Changes to these habitats can have 

significant consequences, and can occur as a result of 

natural processes as well as human activities. The 

Burrard Environmental Review Committee (BERC), a 

BIEAP subcommittee of agencies with project 

environmental review mandates, began reviewing 

project proposals in Burrard Inlet in 1991. BERC 

objectives are to ensure that projects are designed and 

located to minimize or avoid significant habitat impacts 

and to promote habitat development. 

Significant changes in Burrard Inlet have taken place 

since the start of European settlement, and have resulted 

in substantial declines in some habitat types (e.g., salt 

marsh and tidal flats). However, the BERC project review 

process helps ensure that further human-induced habitat 

changes over time are neutral or positive. 

Invasive marine species 

Invasive species have massive potential for 

ecological and economic impacts on existing 

species and habitat. Most invasive marine 

species found in Burrard Inlet were accidentally 

introduced through ship ballast water, pleasure 

boat traffic and ocean currents (e.g., Manila and 

varnish clams), although some (Japanese oyster) 

were intentionally imported to increase shellfish 

production. 

Introduced species pose a risk to the environment 

by taking over habitat used by native species. 

Two categories of invasive marine species can be 

considered: those that were introduced decades 

ago and are now well established (making it 

difficult to eliminate them) and those that have 

been recently introduced (where a program to 

eliminate them may still be successful). 

Currently the risks from invasive marine plants 

are considered relatively low; however, the 

status of these organisms should be reviewed 

periodically. The Vancouver Port Authority is 

reducing the risk of ongoing introduction of 

invasive marine species by requiring exchange 

of ship ballast water at mid-ocean to prevent 

introduction of Asian Pacific species to the 

west coast. 

Recent introductions and threats 

English cord grass (Spartina anglica), identified 

at Roberts Bank and Boundary Bay in Delta in 

2003, but not yet in Burrard Inlet; this plant has 

an aggressive growth pattern and high potential 

for damage. 

Salt marsh cord grass (Spartina patens), found at 

the western boundary of Maplewood 

Conservation Area; has spread to Port Moody 

Arm and possibly to other areas. 

Page | 8


Contaminants 

There are many sources of contaminants in Burrard Inlet: combined sewer overflows, 

wastewater treatment plant discharges and non-point sources such as stormwater runoff and 

atmospheric deposition, seepage from contaminated sites and spills or accidental releases of 

oils and other compounds. Some compounds (e.g., PCBs, PBDEs) persist in the sediment, are 

taken up by worms and shellfish and, because they tend to be stored in fatty tissue, become 

highly concentrated in predators such as whales and fish-eating birds. Contaminants can also 

be passed on to humans, where they can lead to disease. Figure 1 describes some pathways 

of contaminants in Burrard Inlet, from source to effects on organisms in the Burrard Inlet 

ecosystem and beyond. 

Other Potential Indicators for a Burrard Inlet State of Environment Report 

The Plan Implementation Committee is considering additional indicators to monitor the state of 

environment in Burrard Inlet. As additional information becomes available, some of the 

following topics may provide useful monitoring tools: 

• species at risk 

• mussel health 

• total and effective impervious (impermeable) area 

• health of benthic invertebrate communities in streams 

• marine mammal abundance or levels of contaminants in tissue 

• Industrial permits (numbers, discharge loadings, characteristics) 

• stormwater monitoring data for streams 

• water quality assessment using the Canadian Water Quality Index for a full suite of 

monitored parameters 

• trends in air quality health index, CCME sediment quality index and new soil quality index 

Including these indicators would give a wider breadth to our understanding of ecosystem 

health in Burrard Inlet. Additional trends would enable decision makers to assess with 

increased certainty the ecosystem risks of development activities and the benefits of toxin 

reduction efforts. Over time, these indicators would offer a robust picture of how human 

populations are having an impact on the local ecosystem. 

Page | 9




Figure 1: Examples of Contaminant Pathways in the Burrard Inlet and Strait of Georgia Ecosystems 

Contaminated sites 

The provincial Ministry of Environment maintains a database with reports 

on sites that are or may be contaminated. A contaminated site in B.C. is 

defined as an area of land in which the soil or underlying groundwater or 

sediment contains a hazardous substance in an amount or concentration 

that exceeds provincial environmental quality standards. The standards 

vary according to land use and closeness to a waterway. 

Sites may be contaminated because of previous commercial or industrial 

activity that deposited or spilled contaminants into surrounding land. 

Examples include gas stations, wood treatment operations, abandoned 

underground oil tanks, rail and port facilities and dry-cleaning shops. 

Sites may contain metals (e.g., lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury), 

petroleum hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene and polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons from gasoline and other sources) and other organic 

compounds (polychlorinated biphenyls from electrical equipment, 

chlorophenols in wood preservatives). 

Professional environmental site assessors conduct a formal process for 

investigating and cleaning up a contaminated site to an appropriate 

standard. Although contaminated sites may not be a visible hazard, it is 

important to remediate them to prevent contamination from leaching into 

the groundwater and further afield. 

Contaminants from Combined Sewer Overflows, stormwater, 

wastewater treatment plants, and industrial discharges 

Please see Indicator 6. 

Spills in Burrard Inlet 

Sources of coliforms in waterways 

Please see Indicator 7. 

Contaminants sometimes enter Burrard Inlet through accidental spills. Most spills are shorebased 

and small, although spills from vessels and unidentified sources also occur. The larger 

spills (e.g., release of canola oil during loading of a vessel in 1999; release of crude oil from a 

rupture of the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline in 2007) occur infrequently and are relatively easy to 

trace. Small spills can be difficult to trace and may not be recorded or cleaned up, but are a 

chronic source of contaminants to the inlet. 

Hydrocarbons (bunker, gasoline and diesel fuel, canola oil) are the most commonly reported 

compounds spilled. The resulting oil sheen is highly visible and can have immediate negative 

effects on wildlife and plant life (e.g., oiled birds, which may die from exposure), as well as longer 

term effects of the contaminants. Other types of spills can be more difficult to detect. 

There is a coordinated oil spill response plan for Burrard Inlet. The Port Authority and 

Environment Canada organize an emergency response when a spill is reported. For oil spills, 

Burrard Clean Operations deploys equipment to contain and remove the oil. Given the amount of 

industry, rail and port activity in the inner harbour, this is the area with the highest number of 

spills reported. Many companies have minimized spill risk by developing management plans, 

building containment facilities and training staff in spill response. 

Burrard Inlet Ecosystem 

Indicators 

1. Tree Canopy Cover 

2. Parks and Protected Areas 

3. Waterbird Abundance 

4. Air Quality 

5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

6. Water and Sediment Quality 

7. Recreational Use and Fecal 

Coliform Bacteria 

Contaminants in birds 

There are many causes of fluctuations or declines in bird numbers, such as 

loss of overwintering or breeding habitat, increases in predation, or changes in 

food supply. However, many species of birds take up contaminants along with 

food in their diet, which can have an impact on bird health and populations. 

Levels of organic contaminants have been studied in several waterbird 

species in British Columbia over the past 25 years, although not specifically in 

Burrard Inlet. These studies, many by Environment Canada scientists, have 

looked at relationships between industrial discharges, contaminant levels in 

sediment and prey organisms (fish, shellfish), and health of bird populations 

(Elliot et al. 2001, 2001a, 2005, 2007; Harris et al. 2003, 2005, 2007). 

Levels of dioxins, furans, PCBs and organochlorine pesticides have declined 

in eggs of herons, cormorants and osprey over the study period, while levels 

of PBDEs have increased. Reported biological effects include deformities in 

chicks, thin egg shells and altered physiology and biochemistry. 

Levels of butyltin (anti-fouling agent in marine paints) and some other metals 

were significantly higher in livers of surf scoters that overwinter in Vancouver 

harbour than in scoters from an undisturbed area on Vancouver Island, and 

levels increased over the winter (Harris et al., 2007). The study also measured 

a decrease in body condition with increase in butyltin levels, suggesting a link 

between bird health and extent of industrialization in their winter habitat as 

they prepare to migrate to breeding habitat. 

These trends reflect improved environmental management (e.g., changes in 

pulp mill bleaching processes, restrictions on use of PCBs, tributyl tin, wood 

preservatives, anti-sapstain compounds and several pesticides) for legacy 

contaminants and introduction of new contaminants of concern (e.g., PBDEs). 

However, results also show the persistence of many legacy compounds in the 

environment, decades after their use has been eliminated, and their longrange 

transport and deposition from the air. 

Flame retardants (PBDEs) in marine mammals 

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been used as fire-retardants 

since the 1970s. In 2006 the Ministers of Environment and Health recommended 

that PBDEs be added to the List of Toxic Substances in the Canadian 

Environmental Protection Act 1999. It was concluded that PBDEs are entering 

the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or 

may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its 

biological diversity. 

PBDEs are present in many consumer products, including electronics, plastics, 

upholstery, carpets and textiles. Although PBDEs are not produced in Canada, 

they are imported in consumer products and for use in manufacturing. PBDEs 

are released to the environment when products are made or disposed of. Like 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), PBDEs degrade very slowly and are 

transported widely by winds and currents, even into pristine areas. They settle in 

the sediment and enter the food chain through benthic organisms, making their 

way up to marine mammals through fish such as salmon and herring. PBDEs are 

toxic to humans and other animals, are easily stored in fatty tissue and 

biomagnify and bioaccumulate in the food chain. Elevated levels of PBDEs have 

been measured in resident killer whales in the Strait of Georgia (Ross 2006). 

Page | 10


Part 3 – The Indicators 



3. Waterbird Abundance 


5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 


7. Recreational Use and Fecal Coliform Bacteria 

Page | 11





Why look at tree canopy cover? 

Natural vegetation, measured as tree canopy, provides 

many ecosystem and economic benefits. Tree canopy is 

particularly valuable in an urban environment, where 

development tends to replace natural vegetation with paved 

surfaces. Land use in the Burrard Inlet watershed includes 

urban and residential areas at lower elevations and forested 

mountain terrain at higher elevations. 

Measuring tree canopy over time in the developable area 

will track how well the region balances population growth 

and development with ecosystem health. A decrease in tree 

cover could be a trigger for policy makers to increase 

Benefits of trees 

Treed areas and a healthy tree canopy 

provide many benefits to urban, residential 

and undeveloped areas, such as: 

• removing air pollutants 

• providing shade 

• providing natural rainwater 

management 

• taking up carbon dioxide 

• evapotranspiration of up to 1/3 of 

rainfall 

• recharging groundwater and increasing 

summer stream flows 

• providing wildlife habitat and 

maintaining biodiversity 

When tree cover is reduced during 

development, these functions can be 

reduced. Communities replace lost natural 

services with infrastructure, such as 

stormwater conveyance and treatment 

systems, and pay for long-term health and 

economic issues related to air quality and 

other contaminants. 

Lions Gate Bridge and North Shore 

Mountains 

protection of tree canopy in the approval processes for land development. 

Current status: Tree canopy cover is currently 42% of the entire developable watershed, and ranges 

from approximately 26% in English Bay and Inner Harbour catchments to 84% in Indian Arm catchment. 

Using tree canopy an indicator 

The amount of tree canopy provides an indicator of 

how land is used today and can be used to monitor 

changes in the future. To describe the indicator, the 

Burrard Inlet watershed has been divided into two 

categories (undeveloped and developable land) and 

four catchments (English Bay, Indian Arm, Inner 

Harbour and Port Moody Arm) as shown in Map 3. 

Undeveloped land is defined as higher elevation areas 

that will remain mostly forested. Developable land 

includes lower elevation land that contains or has the 

potential to become urban and residential areas. 3 

The Burrard Inlet watershed has a total area of 

98,235 ha, with 76% of land in the undeveloped area 

and 24% in the developable area. The undeveloped 

area will remain forested, given the mountain terrain 

and political boundaries; however, development will 

continue in the lower elevation developable area. 

Monitoring tree canopy cover in the developable 

area keeps the focus on lands most likely to change. 

The indicator was calculated by combining satellite 

and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data for 

Burrard Inlet with a software model called CITYgreen to assess the quality and amount of forest in 

the Inlet. Map 2 (the aerial photograph in Section 1) provides an overview of land use in Burrard 

Inlet. Information on conditions such as rainfall, soil type, land use, zoning and elevation is 

included. The model gives a measurement of tree canopy cover over the entire inlet, and allows a 

breakdown of land cover type in the developable area. 

3 The boundary between developable and undeveloped land is shown in Map 3 – 320 m elevation to the west of 

Lynn Creek (in North Vancouver) and 200 m to the east of Lynn Creek, consistent with Official Community Plans. 

This line places drinking water reservoirs and protected areas within the undeveloped area. 

Page | 12


Map 3: Developable vs. Undeveloped Areas for the Burrard Inlet Catchments 

Results and Trends 

Charts 1-1 and 1-2 illustrate types of land cover for the Burrard Inlet watershed as a whole and 

for developed versus undeveloped areas within the watershed, as measured in 2002 satellite 

imagery. This indicator will measure tree canopy in the developable area over time to assess 

how well communities balance their development plans with environmental and sustainability 

considerations. 

Page | 13


Chart 1-1: Current Land Cover across the Entire Burrard Inlet Watershed 

area (hectares) 

area (hectares) 

90,000 

80,000 

70,000 

60,000 

50,000 

40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

Trees Open space 

& shrub 

Trees Open space 

& shrub 

Water Urban Impervious 

surfaces 

Water Urban Impervious 

surfaces 

Considering the entire 

watershed (Chart 1-2), tree 

canopy, open space and 

shrubs cover 88% of the 

land, reflecting the fact that 

76% of land lies in the 

forested upper lands. 

In the undeveloped watershed, 

96% of land is 

covered with trees and 3% 

with shrubs and grassy 

areas. The remaining 1% 

consists of water and 

impervious cover (roads). 

Chart 1-2: Current Land Cover in Developable Areas of Burrard Inlet 

12,000 

In the developable area 

(Chart 1-2), land is 

10,000 

classified as 42% trees, 

8,000 

11% open 

shrubs, 4% 

space 

water, 

and 

12% 

6,000 

impervious and 31% 

urbanized (commercial, 

4,000 

residential). A total of 53% 

2,000 

of developable land is 

currently covered by trees, 

0 

shrubs and open space. 

Inner Harbour, 55% in Port Moody Arm and 84% in Indian Arm. 

Values for tree canopy in 

individual catchments are 

26% in English Bay, 26% in 

Tree canopy in the developable area will likely decline as the population continues to increase 

and land continues to be developed. 

How does Burrard Inlet compare to existing targets and other localities? 

Comparing tree canopy data for the Burrard Inlet watershed to other regions can be useful. 

However, it is important to recognize the exceptional environmental setting of Burrard Inlet and 

BIEAP’s goals of preserving the unique biodiversity and enhancing the environmental quality 

of our region when setting a target. Targets for tree canopy in urban areas range from 25 to 

40%, depending on population density, location and regional context. Examples from other 

jurisdictions include: 

• the CITYGreen model, with a suggested target of 50% for suburban residential (low 

density), 25% for urban residential (high density) and 15% for a central business area. 

• Toronto, Ontario, with a tree canopy target of 30% to 40% by 2020, and a current tree 

canopy of 17% 

• Portland, Oregon, with 25% tree canopy cover and a goal of increasing this value. 

Page | 14


Tree cover in Burrard Inlet watershed is higher than for many other cities, with 42% canopy in 

the developable area and 11% shrubs and open space. This benchmark reflects the forested 

mountain slopes on the Inlet’s north shore, and should be protected as population growth 

continues. The lower tree canopy cover of 26% in developable areas of English Bay and Inner 

Harbour catchments indicates the loss of trees that tend to accompany urban growth. 

Economic benefits of tree cover 

Trees provide natural stormwater management, air purifying and climate control functions, 

assets that help municipalities balance their infrastructure costs. The CITYgreen model can 

generate information about the monetary value of ecosystem services provided by the tree 

canopy (Caslys 2006), as has been done by Metro Vancouver for its regional biodiversity 

assessment (AXYS 2006). Although assigning economic value to ecosystem services can 

divert attention from the non-monetary benefits, it does provide powerful information to 

decision-makers who manage infrastructure budgets. 

Based on the CITYgreen model, maintaining the current level of tree canopy in the 13,800 ha 

of developable area in Burrard Inlet will provide many economic savings, including: 

• $44M per year in tax dollars that would otherwise be spent on stormwater infrastructure over 

the next twenty years (based on a comparison of the current condition vs. 0% tree canopy 

and $3,200 per hectare per year) 

• $6M per year for pollution removal (air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, 

ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter; water pollutants such as nitrogen, 

phosphorus, suspended solids, metals, organic matter) 

• $1.2M for carbon storage and sequestration (carbon credits for preservation of existing trees 

equal to 89 tons per hectare) 

• additional savings in health care costs related to improved air quality. 

Further information about the current status of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and 

water quality, and related issues in the Burrard Inlet watershed is provided in Indicators 4, 5 

and 6, respectively. 

What can we do to maintain or improve tree canopy cover? 

Changing our thinking to value trees as a public utility will be helpful during municipal 

budgeting and planning processes. Other options include: 

• establishing a tree canopy goal as part of municipal development and maintenance projects 

• creating a formal process for measuring tree cover and recording data in the region’s GIS system 

• adopting policies, regulations and incentives to increase and protect the green infrastructure 

and to promote natural infiltration of rainwater 

• supporting installation of green roofs by providing incentives, development guidelines and 

education 

• planting an appropriate mix of trees and other vegetation, along with adequate soil depths, in 

residential gardens 

For more information… 

• CITYgreen model: www.americanforests.org/resources/urbanforests/analysis.php 

• Green Roofs: www.greenroofs.org/, www.toronto.ca/greenroofs/index.htm, 

www.inhabit.com/2006/08/01/chicago-green-roof-program/ 

• Tree Canopy Policy: www.fundersnetwork.org/usr_doc/Urban_Forests_FINAL.pdf 

Page | 15



Why look at parks and protected areas? 

The parks and protected areas indicator helps 

describe the overall health status of the Burrard Inlet 

ecosystem. These areas include provincial, regional 

and municipal parks, protected drinking water 

watersheds and areas such as the Lower Seymour 

Conservation Reserve. The parks and protected 

areas in Burrard Inlet are managed to conserve fish 

and wildlife habitat, and to preserve natural and built 

environments for public use. 

Parks allow a range of recreational activities, 

Capilano Reservoir, Capilano River Regional Park 

including medium and high impact activities such 

as field sports, mountain biking and skiing, as well as lower impact hiking activities. Balanced 

land use programming is important to ensure recreational activities do not have a negative effect 

on habitat. 

Current status: For the watershed as a whole, 66% of the land has some measure of protection, 

and a further 15% is in high elevation areas outside of the Metro Vancouver classification system, 

leaving 19% designated as residential and urban areas. Most of the protected land is in the 

undeveloped portion of the watershed (only 3% is residential or urban). The amount of protected 

land in the developable area is 41% and varies for individual catchments. 

Using parks and protected areas as an indicator 

Parks and protected areas fall into three management classes, 

defined by Metro Vancouver, and Rockfish Conservation Areas, 

defined by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. These categories are 

described in Table 2-1, along with examples for each category. 

The indicator was developed by calculating the proportion of land in 

each management class for the four main catchments in Burrard 

Inlet for both developable and undeveloped areas (Map 4). The 

developable area (below the 320 m elevation to the west of Lynn 

Creek in North Vancouver, and 200 m to the east of Lynn Creek) 

includes suburban, 

urban and some 

protected areas. 

The undeveloped 

area at the higher 

Black Bear 

Protected areas conserve 

or manage habitat 

required for: 

• endangered, threatened, 

sensitive or vulnerable 

species 

• a critical life-cycle phase 

of a species, e.g., 

spawning, rearing, 

nesting, or winter feeding 

• migration routes or other 

movement corridors 

• areas of very high 

productivity or species 

richness 

• recreational uses 

elevations includes land in Classes 1 through 3 and 

small amounts of land used for park facilities and 

forestry. 

Page | 16


Map 4: Location of Management Area Classes and RCAs in the Burrard Inlet 

Modified from ESSA (2007) 

Page | 17


Table 2-1: Management Area Classes 

Class Description Examples 

1 Lands with the 

highest degree 

of protection 

2 Lands that are 

protected due 

to their park or 

land use 

designation 

3 Forest reserve 

areas 

4 Rockfish 

Conservation 

Areas (RCAs) 

Protected watersheds 

Provincial wildlife management areas, 

parks, and ecological reserves 

Existing and pending federal wildlife 

preserves 

Crown lands secured for environmental 

management 

Metro Vancouver regional parks 

Areas more heavily affected by human 

disturbance than Class 1 

May not have long-term protection 

Specific port recreation designated areas 

Municipal parks, reserves 

Nature reserves 

Conservation areas 

Greenbelts 

Golf courses 

Areas where urban expansion is unlikely 

to occur 

Urban forest, provincial forest 

Timber supply areas 

Crown land 

Areas designed to alleviate further 

declines in rockfish population in Coastal 

BC (inshore rockfish are protected from 

mortality associated with recreational and 

commercial fisheries. 

Thwaytes Landing Regional Reserve 

Indian Arm Provincial Park 

Mount Seymour Provincial Park 

Belcarra Regional Park 

Capilano River Regional Park 

Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve 

Pacific Spirit Regional Park 

Vancouver: 

Stanley Park 

Devonian Harbour 

Park 

Coal Harbour Park 

C.R.A.B. Park 

New Brighton Park 

Burnaby: 

Montrose Park 

Barnet Marine Park 

Port Moody: 

Rocky Point Park 

Inlet Park 

Old Orchard Park 

Shoreline Park 

Tidal Park 

North Vancouver: 

Maplewood 

Conservation Area 

Cates Park 

Upper Indian Arm catchment 

Upper Port Moody Arm catchment 

UBC research forest 

Berry Point 

Twin Islands 

Crocker Island 


The amount of land in various management classes is listed in Table 2-2. 

Table 2-2: Amount of Protected and Park Land in Burrard Inlet Watershed 

(total area and % of land in each management class) 

Management Class Total Watershed Developable Area Undeveloped Area 

Total area 983 km 2 

– 273 km 2 – 710 km 2 – 

Class 1 515 km 2 52% 

62 km 2 23% 453 km 2 64% 

Class 2 57 km 2 6% 39 km 2 14% 18 km 2 3% 

Class 3 76 km 2 8% 10 km 2 4% 65 km 2 9% 

Unclassified (beyond Metro 

Vancouver boundary) 

149 km 2 15% 1 km 2 0% 149 km 2 21% 

No Class (urban and suburban) 186 km 2 19% 161 km 2 59% 25 km 2 3% 

Catchment area (km 2 ): English Bay = 308, Inner Harbour = 311, Indian Arm = 329, Port Moody Arm = 35 

Considering the entire watershed, 66% of the land has park or protected status (total of 

Classes 1 through 3). A further 15% of the land lies in remote areas of the watershed 

(unclassified land outside of Metro Vancouver boundaries). 

Page | 18


Considering only the developable areas, 51% of the land has park or protected status. The amount 

varies among the catchment areas, as shown in Table 2-3. The total for Classes 1 through 3 is 

27% for Port Moody Arm, 32% for English Bay, 36% for Inner Harbour catchment and 78% for 

Indian Arm. 

Table 2-3: Proportion of Land in Management Classes for Each Burrard Inlet Catchment 

Management Class English Inner Indian Arm Port Moody 

Bay Harbour 

Arm 

Class 1 23% 18% 42% 2% 

Class 2 9% 18% 15% 25% 

Class 3 0% 0% 21% 0% 

Unclassified (outside Metro Vancouver) 0% 0% 1% 0% 

No class (residential and urban areas) 68% 65% 22% 73% 

In the undeveloped areas, 76% of the land is in Classes 1 through 3 and 21% is in remote areas 

beyond the Metro Vancouver boundary. With a high proportion of protected land and mountain terrain 

that restricts extensive development, the undeveloped area is likely to remain in its current state. 

These data provide a baseline for monitoring changes in amounts of parks and protected areas as 

development pressures increase. It does not assess the quality of habitat preserved, or the amount 

of wildlife inhabiting the protected area. Although there is no dedicated habitat quality monitoring 

program for the watershed, it can be assumed that land in Class 1 provides the most benefits for 

wildlife because these forests are largely intact, with restrictions to human use and development, 

and topographic limitations to human access. These limitations protect natural ecosystems, and 

the benefits of Class 1 protected areas can be seen in the outcomes of other indicators, such as 

tree canopy, air quality and water quality. 

What more can we do to maintain protected areas? 

Government policy, public awareness and certification programs for park management all play a 

role in enhancing the natural environment and preserving parks and protected areas. 

• Governments can designate land use within the management classes, ensuring that highly 

valued recreational opportunities do not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding 

sensitive ecosystems 

• Limiting intensive recreational activities such as mountain biking and ATVs to designated 

areas will help ensure the quality of protected land is maintained 

• Pesticide use in parks, golf courses and residential areas can be limited or eliminated to 

protect the natural environment and human health. This can be encouraged through by-laws, 

parks management plans, demonstration gardens, or the Audubon Sanctuary Protection 

Program (an international education and certification initiative that helps golf courses 

preserve the environment) 

• Park users are encouraged to explore protected areas respectfully and enjoy the recreational 

opportunities. This means treading lightly with activities that do not damage the forest, being 

mindful of wildlife and leaving no waste. 


• http://www.audubonintl.org/programs/acss/golf.htm 

• http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/legacy.html 

• http://www.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/recfish/Restricted_Areas/RCAs/booklet/RCA_booklet_2007.pdf 

Page | 19


3. Waterbird Abundance 4 

Why look at waterbird abundance? 

Waterbirds are an indicator of Burrard Inlet health due to 

their sensitivity to pollutants, human disturbance and 

dependence on a rich, functioning ecosystem. Their 

abundance reflects the cumulative influences of human 

activities, as well as other ecosystem processes, such as 

predation from other species. Waterbirds require 

sufficient habitat for nesting, clean air and water, and 

ample food resources, including fish, shellfish, and 

invertebrates. Their position in the food web makes them 

vulnerable to bioaccumulation of toxic compounds from 

the environment. Human activities can remove valuable 

habitat or release contaminants into the environment, 

which can have a negative impact on bird populations. 

Great Blue Heron 

Current status: Abundance of four resident waterbirds (Black Oystercatchers, Double-crested 

Cormorants, Pelagic Cormorants and Great Blue Herons) has remained stable or increased over 

time. Numbers of Glaucous-winged Gulls have decreased over time. Linking bird declines to any 

one cause is challenging. For example, one hypothesis for the decline of Glaucous-winged Gulls in 

the inlet is that they have moved to other breeding sites to gain safety from predation by increasing 

populations of Bald Eagles. 

Black Oystercatcher 

Black Oystercatchers are a lesser 

known resident species in Burrard 

Inlet. They live along the Pacific 

coast from Baja through to the 

Aleutian Islands. They eat 

mussels, limpets, and other marine 

invertebrates, using their long, thin 

orange bills to pry their prey from 

hard surfaces. These birds mate 

for life, nesting along rocky 

shorelines just above the high tide 

line. Both parents alternate 

incubating the eggs and feeding 

chicks until they leave the nest 

only a few days after hatching. 

4 Photo credits: Heron: Kiyoshi Takahashi, all others: Tom Middleton 

Using waterbird abundance as an indicator 

This indicator tracks abundance of five species that are yearround 

residents of Burrard Inlet: Double-crested Cormorants, 

Pelagic Cormorants, Black Oystercatchers, Glaucous-winged 

Gulls and Great Blue Herons. Although many other species 

use Burrard Inlet during winter, breeding or migration periods, 

changes in abundance of year-round residents are more likely 

to reflect local changes than are birds that spend much of the 

year elsewhere. 

Two sources of data were used to examine Burrard Inlet bird 

populations: Audubon Society Christmas Bird Counts (1975 to 

2006) and Bird Studies Canada Coastal Waterbird Surveys 

(1999 to 2004). 

Volunteer birdwatchers conduct these surveys. The Christmas 

Bird Count is a one-day count conducted within a 24 km 

diameter circle, mid December through mid January. Coastal 

Waterbird Surveys are conducted on the second Sunday of 

the month from September through April. Survey results are 

viewed with some caution, due to the nature of data collection 

and because the more frequent Coastal Waterbird Surveys 

have only occurred since 1999. 

Monitoring bird populations provides an early warning system 

for changes in health of the Burrard Inlet ecosystem. If there 

Page | 20


are changes in the abundance of these species over time, researchers can use a science-based 

approach to determine the underlying cause. By comparing trends here to other areas in the 

Georgia Basin or to global trends, researchers can determine if local, regional or global factors are 

affecting the populations. Levels of organic contaminants such as dioxins, furans, polychlorinated 

biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers have been studied in eggs of several species of 

birds in British Columbia (herons, osprey, pelagic and double crested cormorants, bald eagles and 

petrels). Some of these studies, discussed in Part 2, show linkages between contaminant levels in 

sediment, fish tissue (prey items) and bird eggs, and with improved environmental management 

practices, although effects at the population level are not always evident. 


Chart 3-1 shows the considerable variation in bird abundance from year to year and the 

importance of looking for longer term trends and links to contaminants and habitat availability. 

Chart 3-1: Waterbird Abundance in Burrard Inlet Since 1975 

Bird abundance per observer effort 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

1.6 

1.4 

1.2 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

Christmas Bird Counts 

0.0 

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

Black Oystercatcher 

Double-crested Cormorant 

Glaucous-winged Gull 

Great Blue Heron 

Pelagic Cormorant 

Year 

SOURCE: Bird Studies Canada; Audubon Christmas Bird Count Data 

Glaucous-winged Gull populations in Burrard Inlet have decreased 

significantly since 1975. Abundance elsewhere in the Georgia Basin 

remains stable (Badzinski et al. 2005). Gulls are very sensitive to 

predation by the Bald Eagle, and their decreased abundance may reflect 

movement of gulls out of the Inlet as they adapt to the increasing danger 

posed by eagles. 

Bird Abundance 

Coastal Waterbird Survey 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

1999 2001 2003 

Glaucous-winged Gull 

Page | 21


Pelagic Cormorant and Double-crested 

Cormorant populations have increased in Burrard 

Inlet and in the Georgia Basin in recent years 

(1999 – 2004). A study by Chatwin et al. (2002) 

showed that numbers of Pelagic Cormorants 

nesting in the Georgia Basin have declined by 

almost 50% between 1987 and 2000. Despite 

possible earlier declines elsewhere, these birds, 

which feed by diving for fish, appear to be thriving 

in Burrard Inlet. Many cormorants vacated former 

nesting cliffs in favour of bridges in Burrard Inlet. 

Double-crested Cormorant 

Great Blue Heron numbers have been stable in Burrard Inlet over much of the past 30 years, 

and their numbers have been increasing significantly in the Georgia Basin as a whole 

(Badzinski et al. 2005). 

Black Oystercatcher populations increased significantly in Burrard Inlet between 1999 and 

2004, while their numbers have increased slightly in other areas of the Georgia Basin over the 

same time period. This suggests Burrard Inlet provides especially good living space for this 

disturbance-sensitive species. 

What can we do to maintain bird populations in Burrard Inlet? 

Pelagic Cormorant 

Protecting bird habitat is essential to their continued health. Local, provincial and federal 

governments provide frameworks for maintaining habitat: 

• The Burrard Environmental Review Committee (BERC), comprised of regulatory 

agencies, reviews applications for development that may affect shoreline and other 

habitat. 

• Governments and industry have programs in place to reduce the amounts of 

contaminants entering the marine environment through stormwater and combined 

sewer-stormwater outfalls, permitted industrial discharges and accidental releases. 

These continue to be refined. 

• The Maplewood Conservation Area, in North Vancouver east of the Seymour River, 

was established in 1992 with agreement from the Vancouver Port Authority, 

Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and District of North Vancouver. 

This conservation area and wildlife sanctuary provides valuable mudflat, saltmarsh and 

upland habitat for many species. The Wild Bird Trust operates the wildlife sanctuary 

and provides educational opportunities for the public. 

Residents and visitors can support these efforts by learning about how individual actions affect 

the health of Burrard Inlet and by reducing discharges from their properties and local streets 

into storm drains (see Indicator 6). 

Page | 22





Why look at air quality? 

Air quality and air emissions have direct and indirect 

effects on the environment, regional economy and 

human health. Improved air quality increases the socioeconomic 

well-being of Canadians, reducing illness and 

associated health care costs and improving productivity 

of industry while decreasing health care costs. 

Current Status: Air quality in the Burrard Inlet airshed 

has improved notably over the past 20 years and is 

currently acceptable most of the time, although it may 

occasionally be of concern for vulnerable members of 

the population. 

Effects of poor air quality 

on humans 

Short- and long-term exposure 

to air pollutants is harmful to 

human health, depending on 

how much and how long people 

are exposed. Asthma, 

bronchitis and exacerbation of 

pre-existing conditions such as 

diabetes and heart problems 

have been clearly linked with 

air pollution. In Canada, 

thousands of premature deaths 

per year, as well as increased 

rates of medical treatment and 

hospitalization are associated 

with poor air quality. Pregnant 

women, children and the elderly 

are especially at risk. 

The increased health care 

costs and missed time from 

work or school affect the 

economy. Other socioeconomic 

costs include lost 

tourism dollars associated with 

degraded visibility related to 

smog, and environmental 

damage related to acid rain, 

which may affect water and soil 

chemistry, and abundance and 

condition of vegetation. 

Vancouver skyline 

Air quality as an indicator 

Air quality in the Burrard Inlet area can be assessed by 

measuring the quality of the ambient air and by assessing the 

amounts of contaminants emitted into the air from local sources. 

This indicator looks at both ambient air quality and emissions, as 

information about emissions is useful in determining causes of 

declining or improving air quality and developing approaches for 

reducing emissions. Emissions come from both human (e.g., 

burning of fossil fuels in transportation and heating of buildings, 

emissions from industries) and natural (e.g., dust from wind 

erosion, ash from forest fires) activities. In addition, air 

contaminants transported from outside the Burrard Inlet area 

can affect local air quality. 

Several air pollutants are defined as Criteria Air Contaminants 

(CACs, see sidebar on the following page) as they affect 

human health and contribute to smog, acid rain and reduced 

visibility. For example, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) 

is of particular concern for health and visibility effects, 

whereas SOx and NOx contribute to acid rain and visibility 

degradation, as well as to the subsequent formation of 

particulate matter in the atmosphere. 

Air quality information was provided by Metro Vancouver, which 

manages the Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Monitoring 

Network. CAC levels are recorded continuously and reported as 

hourly or longer averages. There are nine monitoring stations 

located within the Burrard Inlet area, five of which were used for 

this indicator. These stations (Kitsilano in Vancouver, 

Kensington Park in Burnaby, Second Narrows and Mahon Park 

in North Vancouver and Rocky Point Park in Port Moody) were 

selected because they provide the most complete time series for CACs and best represent ambient 

conditions in the area. For each station, data were calculated over three time periods (annual 

average, annual maximum 24-hour and annual maximum 1-hour) to reflect short-term and longterm 

conditions. Data are generally available for the period from 1981 to 2006, although there is 

some variation in terms of when stations began operation and when particulate monitoring data 

Page | 23


became available. Results were compared to Metro 

Vancouver objectives for CACs and to federal Canada- 

Wide Standards for ozone and fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5). Data can also be presented as an air quality 

index, which uses a scale of 0 (good) to >100 (very poor), 

derived from the individual pollutant driving the index, or 

the recently developed Air Quality Health Index based on 

multiple pollutants. 

Emissions data for all sources were drawn from the 2005 

Metro Vancouver Emissions Inventory, considering 

contributions from the Lower Fraser Valley airshed, which 

includes Metro Vancouver, the southeast portion of the 

Fraser Valley Regional District and Whatcom County in the 

State of Washington. The emissions inventory also includes 

forecasts of 2005 emissions to the year 2030, based on 

projected population growth, economic trends and other 

available data, and backcasts to 1990, to allow equitable 

Criteria Air Contaminants 

(CACs) 

CACs are contaminants that affect 

human health and contribute to air 

pollution problems such as smog, 

acid rain and reduced visibility. 

CO – carbon monoxide 

NOx – nitrogen oxides 

SOx – sulphur oxides 

VOCs – volatile organic compounds 

O3 – ground-level ozone 

PM10 – particulate matter 

(< 10 micron size) 

PM2.5 – fine particulate matter 

(< 2.5 micron) 

NH3 – ammonia 

comparison of emission trends. Results for all these sources are presented as total annual 

emissions of individual pollutants and collectively as smog forming pollutants or SFPs, the sum of 

NOx, PM2.5, SOx, VOCs, and NH3. 


Ambient Air Quality 

For the five stations assessed for the Burrard Inlet area, concentrations of CO, NOx, O3, PM10, 

PM2.5 and SOx have been below the Metro Vancouver and federal management objectives and 

standards all or nearly all the time since at least the early 1990s. This indicates that air quality in 

the Burrard Inlet area is good most of the time and fair or poor for brief periods. In general, the 

levels of NOx and SOx monitored in the Burrard Inlet area are higher than other areas in the Lower 

Fraser Valley. 

Regionally, levels of CO, NOx and SOx have decreased since 1981, while levels of ozone and 

PM10 appear to have remained stable or increased. Since the early 1990s, ozone levels have 

generally met the Metro Vancouver objective and the numerical target within the Canada-Wide 

Standard (4 th highest annually, averaged over 3 years), but have been between the federal 

acceptable and desirable objectives (annual maximum 1-hour level). Ozone levels are influenced 

by global as well as local sources, so some variability may be related to an increase in background 

levels. PM2.5 is included in the PM10 data, but has been measured separately since 2003, and 

there is not enough data to identify a trend at this time (GVRD and FVRD 2005a, GVRD and FVRD 

2005b and GVRD and FVRD 2006). 

Air Emissions 

Emissions of SFPs for 2005, broken down by source sector, are shown in Charts 4-1 and 4-2. 

Emissions from some sources are expected to increase, while emissions from others are expected 

to decrease. Due to increasing demand for international trade there is a potential for port-related 

emissions, including those from ocean going vessels (OGVs), to increase over time. However, the 

industry is working to reduce those emissions wherever possible. Results of Metro Vancouver’s 

emissions inventory and trend analysis will be available in 2008 from their website at 

www.metrovancouver.org. 

On the whole, there are fewer emissions of SFP’s now than a generation ago. For example, 

Canada’s Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations and various engine emissions standards apply to rail, 

marine, onroad and offroad engines, and have reduced emissions from these sources. 

Page | 24


Chart 4-1: Smog Forming Pollutants in the Canadian Portion of the Lower Fraser Valley, 2005 

Ocean Going 

Marine Vessels 

5% 

Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles 

4% 

Light-Duty 

Vehicles 

20% 

Natural 

Sources 

10% 

Total = 152,000 tonnes 

[NOx, VOC, SOx, PM 2.5 , NH 3 ] 

SOURCE: Metro Vancouver, 2008 

Other Marine 

Vessels 

3% 

All Other 

Sources 

23% 

Non-Road 

Engines 

16% 

Solvent 

Evaporation 

13% 

Heating 

5% 

Petroleum 

Refining 

1% 

Chart 4-2: Total Smog Forming Pollutants (SFPs) in the Lower Fraser Valley 

(Canadian and United States Sources) 

Smog - Forming Pollutants (kilotonnes / yr) 

2005 Smog Forming Pollutants Emissions 

205,000 tonnes 

All Other Sources 

25% 

400 

300 

200 

100 

- 

Non-Road 

12% 

Marine 

7% 

Light-Duty Vehicles 

17% 

Agricultural 

10% 

Natural Sources 

18% 

Solvent Evaporation 

11% 

Point Sources 

Area Sources 

Light-Duty Vehicles 

Other Mobile Sources 

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

Page | 25


Land sources of air 

contaminants 

• Point sources – large industrial 

facilities or utilities operating 

under an air discharge permit 

• Area sources – light industrial, 

residential, commercial and 

institutional sources not normally 

operating under an air discharge 

permit 

• Mobile sources – passenger 

cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, 

aircraft, railways, construction 

• lawn and garden equipment 

Marine sources of air 

contaminants 

• ocean-going vessels 

• harbour vessels 

• ferries 

• fishing vessels 

• recreational vessels 

• tank venting 

What can we do to improve air quality? 

To preserve good air quality we must manage the effects of a 

growing population and international trade on health, the 

environment and the economy. Industry, governments, 

regulatory agencies and other stakeholders are responding 

with programs to reduce emissions and improve air quality. 

Because motor vehicles are the largest source of air 

emissions, several programs have been developed that target 

reductions in vehicle emissions. The reduction of marine 

vessel emissions is also important for the Burrard Inlet area. 

For example, the International Maritime Organization is 

considering stricter international regulations to reduce NOx, 

SOx and PM emissions from ships. 

Quality of our air depends on emissions, meteorology and 

chemistry. Emissions are a function of technology, fuel quality, 

operational efficiency and the number and magnitude of 

sources. In many cases, reducing SFP emissions can also 

reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although the issue 

is complex, there are some clear and intelligent choices to be 

made by both industry and members of the public. These 

include cleaner fuels, more efficient technologies, more 

efficient operations and changes in behaviour. 

Local and regional initiatives such as airshed planning, anti-idling and air quality by-laws, open burning 

restrictions, HOV lanes and transit upgrades are having a positive effect on air emissions. In 2007, 

Metro Vancouver initiated a study for the Burrard Inlet area to assess air quality issues at a more 

localized scale. The study will integrate emission inventory, air quality monitoring and modeling data to 

characterize emission sources and air quality impacts in Burrard Inlet. Federal and provincial initiatives 

also contribute to air emission reductions. 

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) is working to reduce emissions of CACs and GHGs by 

developing a data baseline, improving operational efficiency, making technological innovations and 

supporting regulatory change as a part of their Air Action Program. Examples of emission reduction 

initiatives by the VFPA, terminal operators and other industries include: 

• Differentiated Harbour Dues to encourage and recognize vessels that reduce emissions 

• use of alternative fuels including biodiesel, hydrogen and lower sulphur diesel 

• idle reduction programs and technologies 

• container truck license system that phases out older, dirtier trucks and includes, idling and 

education requirements 

• truck reservations, extended gate hours and rail co-production 

• collaborative efforts to reduce emissions such as the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy 

• green buildings 

• employee programs to increase awareness and facilitate sustainable commuting 


• http://www.ec.gc.ca/cleanair-airpur/Home-WS8C3F7D55-1_En.htm 

• http://www.portvancouver.com/the_port/air_quality/ 

• http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/air/out-ext/air_quality_e.html 

• http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/airquality/index.html and/or http://www.metrovancouver.org 

Page | 26


• 5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Why measure greenhouse gas emissions? 

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions change the 

composition of the earth’s atmosphere and 

contribute to global climate change. In simple terms, 

GHGs prevent infrared heat from escaping into the 

atmosphere and reflect this heat back onto the 

surface of the planet, altering the Earth’s energy 

budget. The natural process of heat leaving the 

atmosphere has been altered through human 

activities, which are increasing GHG emissions, 

primarily through burning of fossil fuels. Increased Traffic on Highway 1 

GHG emissions have also been linked to changes in air temperature and moisture, 

ecosystem-level processes, desertification and sea-level rise. 

Current status: GHG emissions in Burrard Inlet have increased steadily since 1990 and are 

projected to increase along with population growth. 

Greenhouse gases as an indicator 

GHGs occur naturally in the atmosphere and are also released as a result of human activities. 

GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and water vapour 

(H2O). Figure 5-1 shows the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the late 1800s, 

and the dramatic increase over the past 40 years. Although climate change is a global issue, 

reducing local emissions will help reduce global impacts. It is important to note that our climate 

will continue to change even if large local and global reductions are made. Preparing for 

climactic changes by adapting our region for inevitable change will enhance the resiliency of 

the Burrard Inlet over time. 

Figure 5-1: Past and Future CO2 Levels in the Atmosphere 

Source: International Panel on Climate Change 2001 

Page | 27


Human sources of CO2, CH4 and N2O include activities 

such as burning of fossil fuels, deforestation for agriculture 

and urban development, and increased use of nitrogencontaining 

fertilizers (Table 5-1). Natural sources include 

decomposing natural materials and methane from animals. 

Table 5-1: Common Sources and Contributors of GHGs 

GHGs and their sources (EC, 2007) Contributors to GHG 

CO2 is emitted during fossil-fuel combustion and 

industrial processes such as cement production; 

deforestation removes important carbon sinks 

CH4 is emitted during livestock cultivation, biomass 

burning, natural gas delivery, landfill use and coal 

mining 

N2O is emitted as a result of use of nitrogenous 

fertilizers and combustion of fossil fuels and wood 

Did you know… 

A vehicle releases 2.3 kg of CO2 per litre of gasoline or 2.7 kg of 

CO2 per litre of diesel fuel. 

Even low emission vehicles can 

emit N2O in the exhaust. 

Point Sources – large industrial facilities or utilities 

operating under an air discharge permit 

Area Sources – light industrial, residential, 

commercial and institutional sources not normally 

operating under an air discharge permit 

Mobile Sources – passenger cars, trucks, buses, 

motorcycles, aircraft, marine vessels, railways, 

construction and lawn and garden equipment 

Emission inventory data for the Burrard Inlet were obtained from the Metro Vancouver Air 

Quality Policy and Management division (GVRD and FVRD 2003a; 2003b). These reports 

include a variety of air emissions data, including GHGs. The amount of GHGs emitted in each 

municipality (or portion within in the Burrard Inlet watershed) was determined using the 2000 

database and estimated for point, area and mobile sources. Estimates for 1985 to 1995 were 

backcast using historic data and estimates for 2005 were forecast using population growth 

rates. These estimates are based on data available at the time of study, and provide a rough 

estimate of GHG measurements. Accurate data for ocean going vessels are not available at 

this time, but will be calculated for future reports. 


Quantities of GHG emissions in the Burrard Inlet watershed are increasing over time, with 

steady increase in CO2 and low, relatively constant CH4 and N2O emissions (Chart 5-1). The 

rate of increase has slowed since 1990 (from 19% increase between 1990 and 1995 to 7% 

increase between 2000 and 2005), and is projected to be 4% per five-year period to 2025. The 

increase in GHG emissions is related to increased local use of fossil fuel associated with 

increased motor vehicle traffic, urban and commercial development and marine traffic. These 

activities will continue to increase with increased population growth and associated 

development in Burrard Inlet and as the Vancouver port responds to increasing levels of 

international trade. 

Targets for reduction of GHG emissions are being discussed at various levels of government. 

The Kyoto Protocol is an international protocol signed by Canada and many other nations as a 

commitment to reduce GHGs to 6% below 1990 emissions by 2008 to 2012. The trend shown 

in Chart 5-1 indicates the importance of setting realistic goals for reduction in GHG emissions. 

Page | 28


Chart 5-1: Total Annual Emissions of GHGs Within the Burrard Inlet Airshed 

(marine and land sources, including vehicles) 

GHG emissions, CO2 equivalents 

(million tonnes/year) 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

1990 1995 2000 2005 

SOURCE: ESSA (2006) 

NOTES: Emissions of CH4 and N2O are calculated as CO2 equivalents. CH4 has 21 times more global warming 

potential than CO2 while N2O has 310 times more global warming potential 

Data from 2005 (dotted bar) represent a forecast based on 2000 data. 

What can we do to reduce GHG emissions? 

Government and industry-sponsored programs to reduce GHG emissions are important 

locally, nationally and globally. In many cases, a reduction in GHG emissions is linked with 

improvements in air quality (see Indicator 4). Integrated public transit infrastructure and smart 

urban design will reduce congestion and link people to workplaces and other destinations. 

Energy-wise community planning and the adoption of efficient building practices will improve 

energy efficiency and conservation. 

Examples of local programs to cap and reduce emissions in the Burrard Inlet watershed include: 

• municipal anti-idling by-laws, energy and GHG emissions planning, community planning 

• all Burrard Inlet municipalities are participants in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ 

Partners for Climate Protection program, which aims to reduce GHG emissions 

• City of North Vancouver initiatives (community energy and greenhouse gas emissions 

planning, a Local Action Plan, establishing corporate and community reduction targets) 

• City of Port Moody initiatives (corporate energy and GHG emissions planning and 

establishment of corporate and community reduction targets) 

• Metro Vancouver improvements to public transit and land use planning 

• support for alternative fuels and energy technologies, energy efficiency and 

conservation initiatives, green buildings 

• Vancouver Port Authority’s Integrated Air Emissions Reduction Program, with 

development of a data baseline, improving operational efficiency, technological 

innovation and supporting regulatory change 

• education and awareness programs 

N2O 

CH4 

CO2 

Page | 29


Individuals can do their part by taking positive actions to save energy and reduce 

emissions of GHGs: 

• improve energy efficiency at home (space heating, appliances, household 

• 

management) 

reduce fuel use for transportation (plan trips efficiently, use alternative transportation) 

and vacations 

Provincial and national programs include: 

• the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program, a national initiative founded by the 

Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the International Committee on Local 

Environmental Issues. The goal of the PCP Program is to support municipal 

governments in their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which addresses the 

larger issues of the greenhouse effect, global climate change, and its implications to 

the world's inhabitants. 

• an announcement in 2007 by the Province of British Columbia to challenge 

municipalities to be carbon neutral by 2012, which was signed by 62 municipalities in 

September 2007. 

International cooperation for GHG reduction is essential. Climate change is a global and local 

issue; our global climate is affected by local actions, and the effects of global climate change 

are evident in local regions. This year, the International Panel on Climate Change concluded 

that anthropogenic activities are directly linked to climate change. 

Industry and governments are becoming involved in carbon trading partnerships and global 

reforestation and many international initiatives have begun to address the political challenges 

of reducing global GHG emission levels. The Kyoto Protocol has raised awareness and set 

strong targets for nations to pursue, although not all countries, including Canada, will meet 

their targets. While local pollution reduction programs and mitigation/adaptation strategies play 

a role in rebalancing the energy budget, international cooperation, such as the post-Kyoto 

framework currently being developed, is necessary to ensure all nations are contributing to 

reducing GHG production. 

Page | 30



Why look at water and sediment quality? 

Water and sediment quality reflect the state of the aquatic 

environment and the effects of activities on land, water and 

air. Good quality water is linked to the health of all living 

organisms, including humans. 

Contaminants such as metals, nutrients, pesticides, 

hydrocarbons and chlorinated organic compounds enter 

Burrard Inlet from many sources, including combined 

sewer overflows, wastewater treatment plant discharges 

and non-point sources such as stormwater runoff and 

Intertidal area, north shore of Burrard Inlet 

atmospheric deposition. 

These contaminants can be dissolved, attach to particles that float on the water surface and/or 

settle in sediment on the ocean floor. Contaminants that settle on the sediment can either become 

covered over time by further sedimentation, resuspended in the water column, or move into the 

food chain as they are consumed by bottom feeders. 

Current status: Levels of copper and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in sediment have declined 

since 1985, although levels remain above provincial sediment quality objectives to protect marine 

life (100 mg/kg copper, 0.03 mg/kg PCBs) in areas such as the Inner Harbour and False Creek. 

Copper levels in water are above guidelines (0.003 mg/L) in 20% of samples collected over the 

past 20 years, but there are no clear trends over time or space. 

Copper in the environment 

Copper occurs naturally in water, 

and is also introduced through 

many human activities. The most 

common sources of copper for 

Burrard Inlet are wastewater 

treatment plant effluents, combined 

sewer overflows, stormwater runoff 

and industrial discharges. 

Copper is an essential element for 

many plants and animals, but in 

high concentrations it is toxic for 

humans and aquatic organisms, 

including crustaceans, cyprinids, 

salmonids, worms and algae. 

Young fish are particularly sensitive, 

as elevated copper levels can 

interfere with ion transport (affecting 

gill activity) and can reduce the 

ability of coho salmon smolts to 

adapt to seawater. 

Water and sediment quality as an indicator 

There has been considerable monitoring of metals and 

organic compounds in water and sediment of Burrard Inlet 

over the past 35 years by Metro Vancouver, Environment 

Canada and the BC Ministry of Environment (Goyette and 

Boyd 1989; Boyd et al. 1998; Paine 2004; McPherson et 

al. 2005, 2005a, 2006; Ministry of Environment 2007). 

Results are compared to provincial guidelines for 

protection of marine life. BIEAP selected copper and 

PCBs as indicators of water and sediment quality 

because they have been identified as persistent concerns 

over the years. Levels of some other contaminants also 

exceed guidelines occasionally. Other assessment 

approaches, such as the Canadian Water Quality Index, 

may be considered in the future. 

Historic monitoring programs have differed in terms of 

sampling locations, frequency and parameters measured, 

making it a challenge to develop an accurate monitoring 

baseline. However, Metro Vancouver has developed an 

ambient monitoring program to consistently monitor 

sediment and water quality at seven locations across the 

Inlet (Nautilus 2006). Data for this BIEAP indicator have been summarized to be consistent with the 

Metro Vancouver sampling design, to help address these historic differences. Provincial objectives 

for Burrard Inlet (Nijman and Swain 1990) were used. The sediment objective for PCB is being 

reviewed and may be lowered to provide greater protection for organisms at higher trophic levels. 

Page | 31



Copper and PCB levels are the selected 

indicators; however, many other contaminants 

also enter Burrard Inlet, where they may have a 

negative effect on marine life. Water and 

sediment are also monitored for pH (acidity or 

alkalinity), dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, 

turbidity, other metals (arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc) 

bacteria (total coliforms, enterococci), chlorineproduced 

oxidants, cyanide, ammonia, 

hydrogen sulphide, phenol, chlorophenol, 

styrene, tributyl tin, 1,2-dichloroethane and 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). 

Copper concentrations in water 

Between 1985 and 2005, 86 samples were 

collected from several sites in Burrard Inlet. 

Copper levels ranged from 0.0001 mg/L to 0.012 

mg/L, with 17 samples (20%) exceeding the water 

quality guideline maximum of 0.003 mg/L. Data 

were examined for change over time, but no 

statistically significant trends were apparent. 

Samples from the Central Harbour had the lowest 

number of exceedances. These results highlight 

the difficulties associated with sampling water, 

which can easily miss transient events. In such 

cases, copper levels in sediment can provide 

more reliable indications of changes over time. 

Copper concentration in sediment (mg/kg) 

Copper in the surface microlayer 

The surface microlalyer, the 50 to 100 micron 

thin boundary between water and air is 

ecologically important. This is the area where 

complex transport processes occur between 

the ocean and atmosphere and where larval 

forms of many fish and invertebrates live. The 

surface microlayer has been shown to contain 

contaminants at levels many times higher than 

in the water column, which may have an 

impact on marine life stages that inhabit this 

layer. 

In 2000, the Ministry of Environment collected 

surface microlayer samples at six locations in 

Burrard Inlet (Moore and Freyman 2001). 

Copper levels exceeded water quality 

guidelines, and were 3 to 30 times higher than 

in the underlying water. Levels were greatest 

in the Inner Harbour and Port Moody Arm. This 

suggests contamination in areas immediately 

surrounding point sources, or in embayed 

areas adjacent to developed lands, which can 

supply atmospheric deposition and runoff. 

Based on this limited sampling, it is not 

expected that significant microlayer 

contamination extends over large areas of 

Georgia Strait; however, further monitoring is 

required to characterize the environmental 

significance of microlayer contamination. 

Chart 6-1: Copper Concentrations in Burrard Inlet Sediment (1985 to 2005) 

400 

350 

Central Harbour 

False Creek East 

Inner Harbour 

Copper concentrations in 

sediment have decreased 

consistently between 1989 and 

300 

250 

Outer Harbour North 

Outer Harbour South 

Port Moody Arm 

Sediment quality objective 

2005 as shown in Chart 6-1, 

although levels still exceed 

guidelines (108 mg/kg, probable 

200 

effects level) at the Outer Harbour 

North and Inner Harbour locations. 

150 

Levels higher than this guideline 

100 

put sediment-dwelling organisms 

at risk for toxic effects. Historically, 

50 

levels were highest within the 

0 

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 

Inner Harbour and lowest in Outer 

Harbour South. The amount of 

copper in surface sediments is 

decreasing, in part due to decreased levels from permitted effluents, combined sewer overflows 

and industrial sources and in part because Metro Vancouver has added buffering to the drinking 

water (less acidic drinking water results in less leaching of copper from older household pipes). 

Page | 32


PCB concentrations in sediment 

Historically, PCBs were used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors and other 

electrical equipment. Production and import to Canada stopped in 1977. However, this stable 

substance entered the air, water and soil, and can still be released from hazardous waste sites, 

improper disposal of equipment containing PCBs and incinerators. PCBs persist for a very long 

time. They adhere to particles and settle in the bottom sediments. Small organisms and fish that 

feed on organic particles and sediments also take up the PCBs. Larger organisms consume the 

smaller ones. The resulting biomagnification of PCBs along the food chain can result in extremely 

high levels and toxicity in larger marine mammals such as seals and whales. Effects on mammals 

include disruption of endocrine, reproductive and immune systems and presence of physical 

deformities. Although concentrations in sediment are relatively low compared to copper, PCBs are 

more toxic than copper, as a result of their direct effects on organisms and their biomagnification. 

Between 1985 and 2004, 30 sediment samples were collected from locations in Burrard Inlet. 

Results are shown in Chart 6-2. PCB levels exceeded the Burrard Inlet sediment quality objective 

(0.03 mg/kg) in 50% of the samples, and decreased over time at most locations. Not all sites were 

sampled in each year, making temporal trends difficult to assess. Maximum values of up to 0.42 

mg/kg were reported in 1985 and 1986, but most values have been below 0.15 mg/kg. In 2004, 

PCB levels remained above guidelines in two of the six samples collected (False Creek East and 

the Inner Harbour). The proposed lowering of PCB sediment objectives (to protect marine 

mammals) could result in a re-evaluation of this indicator. 

Chart 6-2: PCB Concentration in Burrard Inlet Sediment (1985 to 2004) 

PCB concentration (mg/kg) 

0.45 

0.40 

0.35 

0.30 

0.25 

0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.00 

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 

year 

Central Harbour 

False Creek East 

Indian Arm 

Inner Harbour 

Outer Harbour North 

Outer Harbour South 

Port Moody Arm 

PCB guideline, Burrard Inlet 

What can be done to protect water and sediment quality? 

Government agencies, alone and through BIEAP, conduct several initiatives to protect Burrard Inlet: 

• monitoring of ambient water and sediment quality and point-source discharges 

• Integrated Stormwater Management Planning for all watersheds in Metro Vancouver, to be 

completed by 2012. This will help identify contaminant sources, stormwater treatment options 

and Best Management Practices to reduce levels of contaminants 

• the Metro Vancouver program to separate combined sanitary and stormwater sewers 

(CSOs), which should result in improved water quality in Burrard Inlet over time (water pipes 

are a common source of copper, and CSOs discharge a variety of contaminants untreated 

into Burrard Inlet) 

• Metro Vancouver plans to upgrade the Lions Gate plant to secondary treatment; the original 

timeline of 2030 is being reviewed at the request of the regulatory agencies. Because 

Page | 33


wastewater treatment plants cannot remove 100% of the copper, the Lions Gate Wastewater 

Treatment Plant is an ongoing source of copper to Burrard Inlet 

• ongoing identification and remediation of contaminated sites, which will help reduce amounts 

of contaminants that enter Burrard Inlet 

• ongoing improvements in spill containment and treatment technology 

Residents can play an important role in reducing non-point sources of contaminants to roadways, 

the storm drain system, local streams and Burrard Inlet: 

• by ensuring they properly use or eliminate use of moss and algae killing products (pesticides, 

treated roof shingles), which may contain copper 

• by avoiding release of common household contaminants (runoff from roads and gardens, 

draining of hot tubs and pools, improper disposal of household products) 

Links with other water and sediment quality issues 

Separation of 

Combined Sewer 

Overflows (CSOs) 

Areas of Vancouver and 

Burnaby are served by a 

CSO system. CSOs 

discharge a combination of 

stormwater and domestic 

waste to the wastewater 

treatment plant under dry 

and low rainfall conditions. 

However, they discharge 

waste untreated to Burrard 

Inlet when the sewer 

capacity is exceeded 

during heavy rainstorms. 

Metro Vancouver is 

committed to reducing 

CSO discharges into 

Burrard Inlet. At present, a 

comprehensive automatic 

sampling program is 

underway to assess the 

volume of overflows and 

determine concentrations 

and loading of pollutants in 

order to prioritize CSO 

separation activities. 

Surfactant Reduction 

Program 

Surfactants are used to make 

detergents and other personal 

care products more effective 

cleaners. However, they have 

been shown to be a cause of fish 

mortalities in some of the 

regularly scheduled effluent 

toxicity tests at the Lions Gate 

Wastewater Treatment Plant. 

High levels of surfactants can 

impair gill function of fish, 

resulting in mortalities. 

To reduce toxicity of the 

wastewater, Metro Vancouver 

developed a Surfactant 

Reduction Program to inform 

and educate Lower Mainland 

residents about using less 

detergent. With the soft tap water 

in the Lower Mainland, much 

less detergent is needed than in 

areas of hard water (the 

amounts listed on the packages). 

Reducing the amount of 

detergent used will save 

residents money, prolong 

appliance and clothing lifetime, 

and reduce the negative 

environmental effects of 

surfactants in Burrard Inlet. 

For more information: 

www.gvrd.bc.ca/sewerage/reside 

ntial_sources.htm 

Pharmaceutical Return Program 

Pharmaceuticals, personal care products 

and cleansers enter the wastewater stream 

when people shower, take medication or 

clean their house. Many of these compounds 

are not removed at the wastewater treatment 

plant, so are discharged to the environment. 

Specialized chemical analysis has indicated 

the presence of over one hundred organic 

compounds, and their degradation products, 

in receiving waters across North America 

(Kolpin et al. 2002). It is difficult to measure 

the effects of low levels of so many 

compounds on marine organisms; however, 

disruption of reproductive systems of fish 

and other organisms has been well 

documented (United States Geological 

Survey 2007). 

Providing alternatives for disposal of leftover 

medications so people do not dispose of 

them in the garbage or the toilet is one way 

to address this situation. BC Ministry of 

Environment developed the Environmental 

Protection Division Medications Return 

Program, and has tracked amounts of 

medications returned to pharmacies since 

1998. Amounts returned have increased 

annually, which may be attributable to 

increased general awareness, increased 

pharmaceutical use among the population, 

and/or increased awareness of the return 

program resulting from targeted awareness 

raising campaigns. 

For more information: 

www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/ips/meds/ind 

ex.html 

Page | 34


7. Recreational Water Quality, Fecal Coliforms 

Why look at fecal coliform bacteria? 

Fecal coliform bacteria are one indicator of water 

quality, as they reflect the presence of human or 

animal waste in a waterway. Fecal coliforms live in the 

lower intestines of warm-blooded animals and are 

excreted in feces. These bacteria are used as an 

indicator for the potential presence of pathogenic 

organisms associated with fecal material that may 

cause gastrointestinal illnesses. 

The presence of fecal coliforms affects recreational 

uses (swimming, boating) and harvesting of shellfish 

English Bay, mouth of Capilano River 

in Burrard Inlet by raising the risks of exposure to 

disease in humans using the water. 

Current Status: Primary contact recreation (swimming) is excellent at 15 of the 19 beaches in 

Burrard Inlet, with no closures over the past five years. There have been occasional closures at 

beaches in the eastern part of the Inlet, where tidal flushing is lower than in other areas. Shellfish 

harvesting has been prohibited in Burrard Inlet for several decades. There have been no closures 

of secondary contact recreation (boating, kayaking, windsurfing) in Burrard Inlet. 

Common sources of 

coliforms in waterways 

• fecal waste from pets, 

mammals and birds 

• agricultural and garden runoff 

when manure is used or 

stored 

• combined storm sewer 

overflows 

• leaks in the sewage collection 

system 

• ineffective disinfection of 

wastewater treatment plant 

effluent 

• improperly maintained septic 

tanks 

• release of raw sewage from 

boat holding tanks (many 

marinas provide pumping 

facilities) 

Fecal coliforms as an indicator 

Recreational use 

Metro Vancouver monitors swimming beaches weekly from 

May through September for numbers of fecal coliforms. 

Samples are taken less frequently during the rest of the year. 

The entire list of monitored beaches is provided in Table 7-1. 

This report focuses on several well-used beaches: Ambleside, 

Third Beach, Locarno Beach, Wreck Beach Acadia, Old 

Orchard Park, Belcarra Park and Cates Park. 

Coliform numbers are compared with provincial water 

quality criteria for primary contact recreational use and other 

uses. When levels exceed the criteria, the relevant health 

authority (Vancouver Coastal Health or Fraser Health) 

closes the beach to protect human health and requires the 

beach owner (e.g., a municipality) to post clear warning 

signs without delay at the affected beach. The signage is 

left in place until coliform levels are below the guideline. The 

number of days that beaches are closed for swimming and 

other recreation uses is an indicator of water quality and 

associated fecal coliform contamination. 

The provincial criteria for bacteria in water are: 

• for swimming (primary contact), fecal coliforms less than or equal to 200 bacteria per 100 mL, 

E. coli less than or equal to 77 per 100 mL and enterococci less than or equal to 20 per 100 

mL (all as geometric means from weekly sampling over a five-week period). 

• for boating (secondary contact) and crustacean harvesting, E. coli less than or equal to 385 

per 100 mL and enterococci less than or equal to 100 per 100 mL (all as medians); there are 

no criteria for fecal coliforms. 

Page | 35


Table 7-1: Burrard Inlet Beach Locations 

Area Location Beach closures since 2002 

Outer Harbour 

Dundarave 

Ambleside 

Third Beach 

Second Beach 

English Bay Beach 

Sunset Beach 

Kitsilano Beach 

Jericho Beach 

Locarno Beach 

Point Grey Beach (Spanish Banks) 

Wreck Beach – Foreshore East 

Wreck Beach – Acadia 

Wreck Beach – Trail 4 

Inner Harbour Brockton Point 2002 

Central Harbour Barnet Marine Park 2005, 2006 

Indian Arm 

Cates Park 

2005 

Deep Cove 

2002, 2005, 2006 

Bedwell Bay Belcarra – Picnic Area 

No 

Sasamat Lake – White Pine Beach 

No 

Port Moody Arm Old Orchard Park 2006 

False Creek No beaches Not applicable 

Shellfish harvesting 

Clams, oysters and mussels are filter feeders, and take up bacteria and contaminants, along with 

nutrients from the water. As a result, humans could become ill from eating contaminated shellfish 

and there are stringent coliform guidelines for harvesting shellfish (14 bacteria per 100 mL, 

median). First Nations, recreational and commercial harvesting of shellfish was an important 

activity in Burrard Inlet in the past. However, the Inlet was closed to shellfish harvesting after 

Environment Canada conducted coliform and water quality surveys in the 1970s. Currently the Inlet 

is unclassified and, therefore, closed to harvest. This has affected First Nations and recreational 

users of this resource. Shellfish also play an important ecosystem function: they are food for many 

other species; their filter feeding improves water clarity; and they remove organic matter from the 

water that would otherwise lead to low oxygen levels. 


Beach closures 

Results are presented for 2002 to 2006, the most recent five-year monitoring period. Primary 

contact recreational water quality throughout Burrard Inlet was excellent in 2003 and 2004, with no 

beach closures to protect swimmers from potential contact with disease-causing bacteria. There 

were several closures in 2002, 2005 and 2006, but at only a few beaches (Chart 7-1). The total 

number of beach-closure days ranged from 0 (2003 and 2004) to 73 days (2005). Overall, the 

percentage of time each year that Burrard Inlet beaches were deemed acceptable for swimming 

ranged from 98% to 100% during the bathing season. 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Page | 36


Chart 7-1: Number of Days Burrard Inlet Beaches were Closed for Swimming (2002 to 2006) 

80 

When they occur, beach closures 

typically last one to seven days; 

70 

however, areas such as Deep 

60 

Cove and Barnet Marine Park 

50 

Old Orchard Park 

Barnet Marine Park 

have been closed for up to 33 days 

in some years. When closures 

40 

Brockton occur, Metro Vancouver staff take 

30 

Cates Park extra water samples and work with 

20 

Deep Cove 

the local government to try to 

determine the cause. Potential 

10 

causes such as pleasure craft, 

0 

rainfall, sanitary sewer cross- 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

connections, aging infrastructure, 

poorly maintained septic fields, 

waste from pets and geese and tidal flushing rates are considered possible sources, but it is often 

difficult to identify a specific cause. Beaches with persistent problems tend to be in areas that 

receive poor tidal flushing. 

Beach closure days 

Fecal coliform data 

The fecal coliform data used to determine beach closure status are useful in showing underlying 

trends. The data can be used to identify areas and times when the beaches remain open, but 

where there may be concerns about upward trends in fecal contamination. The following figures 

summarize fecal coliform data (30-day geometric mean) for two affected beaches (Deep Cove in 

North Vancouver and Old Orchard Park in Port Moody Arm) and one unaffected beach (Sunset 

Beach in Vancouver), expanding on information provided in Chart 7-1. 

Chart 7-2: Fecal Coliform Data for Deep Cove (2002 to 2006) 

Geometric Mean - Fecal Coliform Bacteria/100 mL 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Deep Cove 

Guideline 

0 

2-May 17-May 1-Jun 16-Jun 1-Jul 16-Jul 31-Jul 15-Aug 30-Aug 14-Sep 29-Sep 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Deep Cove (Chart 7-2) had closures in 2002 (33 days in June), 2005 (30 days in July) and 

2006 (3 days in June), and no closures in 2003 or 2004. 

Page | 37


Old Orchard Park (Chart 7-3) has been monitored since 2004. There were two closures of 

four days each in 2006. Levels have been elevated at various times in 2004 and 2006, but did 

not exceed the guideline. 

Chart 7-3: Fecal Coliform Data for Old Orchard Park (2002 to 2006) 


600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Old Orchard Park 

Guideline 

0 

3-May 18-May 2-Jun 17-Jun 2-Jul 17-Jul 1-Aug 16-Aug 31-Aug 15-Sep 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Sunset Beach (Chart 7-4), in the West End of Vancouver, has had no beach closures between 

2002 and 2006, although levels have been elevated in mid-summer in several years. 

Chart 7-4: Fecal Coliform Data for Sunset Beach (2002 to 2006) 


600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

Receiving Water Bacteriological Quality - Sunset Beach 

Guideline 

0 

1-May 16-May 31-May 15-Jun 30-Jun 15-Jul 30-Jul 14-Aug 29-Aug 13-Sep 28-Sep 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Page | 38


What can we do to protect recreational use of the Inlet? 

Liquid wastes, including stormwater, untreated 

sanitary waste and wastewater treatment plant 

effluent, contain fecal bacteria, along with many other 

contaminants, which can accumulate in Burrard Inlet 

and have a negative effect on marine life. 

All levels of government take the issue of fecal 

contamination seriously: 

• when persistent elevated coliform counts are 

reported, potential causes are investigated 

• municipalities work to identify potential 

cross-connections between the sanitary and 

storm sewers 

Metro Vancouver suggests the 

following ways of safe pet waste 

disposal: 

• Flush it into the municipal wastewater 

system 

• Compost it in a separate location and 

use it for flower beds 

• Burry it with a carbon source (wood 

chips or ash) away from food 

• Bag it and place it in a park bin 

www.gvrd.bc.ca/recycling-andgarbage/dog-waste.htm 

• Metro Vancouver plans to separate the combined sanitary-storm sewers and to 

upgrade the Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant, as described in Indicator 6. 

Enterococci monitoring protocols 

Many agencies (BC Ministry of 

Environment, US Environmental 

Protection Agency, World Health 

Organization) recommend the use of 

Enterococci, rather than fecal coliforms 

as a human health indicator in marine 

waters. Enterococci offer several 

advantages over fecal coliforms in the 

marine environment: 

• their numbers are more strongly 

correlated to incidents of 

gastrointestinal symptoms 

• they are more resistant to sewage 

treatment, including chlorination 

• they survive longer in water and 

sediment 

The revised primary contact guidelines 

for Enterococci are 35/100 mL 

(logarithmic mean of at least 5 samples) 

and 70/100L (maximum for one sample), 

with a minimum of one sample per week 

recommended. Secondary contact 

recreational guidelines for Enterococci 

have been proposed for False Creek by 

the Ministry of Environment. 

• Municipalities and Metro Vancouver have 

long-term budgets for replacement of aging 

infrastructure. Aging storm and sanitary sewer 

pipes become leaky, so that water enters 

(infiltrates) the pipes and wastewater exits 

(exfiltrates) into surrounding land and water. 

The same processes occur on a small scale 

for individual property owners. 

Residents can help reduce the potential for fecal 

contamination by in several ways: 

• collecting their dog waste and disposing of it 

as suggested by municipal authorities 

• maintaining septic fields properly (e.g., in rural 

areas of Indian Arm) 

• taking care not to leave waste when 

spreading manure on garden areas 

• reporting breaks in the sewage lines to your 

municipality (identifiable by odour and sight) 

Boaters should use holding tanks and pump out 

sewage at marinas rather than emptying tanks into the 

sea. Although older boats often lack holding tanks, the 

number of such boats is decreasing over time. 

Page | 39


PART 4 – References 

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2006.Assessment of Regional Biodiversity and Development of a 

Spatial Framework for Biodiversity Conservation in the Greater Vancouver Region. Prepared for 

the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Burnaby, BC. 137 pp. 

Badzinski, S.S., R.J. Cannings, T.S. & J. Komaromi. 2005. British Columbia Coastal Waterbird Survey: 

An Evaluation of Survey Power and Species Trends after Five Years of Monitoring. 

BC Ministry of Environment. 2007. Water Quality Data. 

wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/sry/p2/eq/wat_qual_data/index.html#burrard 

Boyd, J., J. Baumann, K. Hutton, S. Bertold and B. Moore. 1998. Sediment quality in Burrard Inlet using 

various chemical and biological benchmarks. November 1998. Prepared for Burrard Inlet 

Environmental Action Program by BIEAP Environmental Quality Objectives and Monitoring 

Action Team. 87 pp. + appendices. 

Brekke, H. 2006. Review of upland issues in Burrard Inlet: a background report to assist in developing 

indicators for Burrard Inlet. Prepared for Vancouver Port Authority, BIEAP Plan Implementation 

Committee. 

Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Plan. 2002. Consolidated Environmental Management Plan for 

Burrard Inlet. 

Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Plan. 2006. Consolidated Environmental Management Plan for 

Burrard Inlet. Plan Implementation Tracking Report 2006. 

Caslys Consulting Ltd. 2006. BIEAP CITYgreen Analysis Results, Summary Report. Prepared for the 

Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program, Burnaby, BC. 24 pp. 

Chamber of Shipping. 2007. Emissions data for vessels using the Port of Vancouver. www.chamber-ofshipping.com 

Chatwin, T.A., M.H. Mather, T.D. Giesbrecht. 2002. Changes in Pelagic and Double-crested Cormorant 

nesting populations in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist 83:109- 

117. 

Elliott, J.E., M.L. Harris, L.K. Wilson, P.E. Whitehead, R.J. Norstrom. 2001. Monitoring temporal and 

spatial trends in polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in eggs 

of Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) on the coast of British Columbia, Canada, 1983-1998, 

Ambio 30: 416-428. 

Elliott, J.E., Wilson, L.K., Henny, C.J., Trudeau, S.F., Leighton, F.A., Kennedy, S.W., Cheng, K.M. 

2001a. Assessment of biological effects of chlorinated hydrocarbons in osprey chicks: 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20: 866-879. 

Elliott, J.E., Wilson, L.K., and Wakeford, B. 2005. Polybrominated diphenyl ether trends in eggs of 

marine and freshwater birds from British Columbia, Canada, 1979-2002. Environmental science 

& technology 39: 5584-5591. 2005. 

Elliott, J.E., M.L. Harris, L.K. Wilson, B.D. Smith, S.P. Batchelor and J. Maguire. 2007. Butyltins, trace 

metals and morphological variables in surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) wintering on the south 

coast of British Columbia, Canada. Environmental Pollution 149: 14 -124 

Environment Canada. 2007. Information on greenhouse gas sources and sinks. 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/about/gases_e.cfm 

Page | 40


ESSA 2007. Burrard Inlet Indicators Development – Indicator Data Collection and Analysis. Prepared by 

ESSA Technologies Ltd. for the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program, Burnaby, B.C. 

Government of Canada. 2006. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers Regulations. 

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2006/20061216/html/regle3-e.html 

Goyette, D. and J. Boyd. 1989. Distribution and Environmental Impact of Selected Benthic 

Contaminants in Vancouver Harbour, British Columbia, 1985 to 1987. Environment Canada, 

Conservation and Protection, Environmental Protection, Pacific and Yukon Region. 

Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD). 2003b. 2000 

Emission Inventory for the Canadian Portion of the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed: Detailed 

Listing of Results and Methodology. 

Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD). 2005a. Lower 

Fraser Valley Ambient Air Quality Report 2004. 

Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD). 2005b. Lower 

Fraser Valley Air Quality Monitoring Network: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Report Technical 

Appendix Air Quality Data 2004. 

Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD). 2006. Lower 

Fraser Valley Ambient Air Quality Report 2005. Available at: www.gvrd.bc.ca/air/pdfs/ 

AmbientAirQualityReport2005.pdf 

Harris, M. L.; Wilson, L. K.; Norstrom, R. J.; Elliott, J. E. 2003. Egg Concentrations of Polychlorinated 

Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans in Double-Crested (Phalacrocorax auritus) and Pelagic 

(P. pelagicus) Cormorants from the Strait of Georgia, Canada, 1973-1998. Environ. Sci. 

Technol. 37: 822-831. 

Harris, M. L.; Wilson, L. K.; Elliott, J. E. 2005. An Assessment of PCBs and OC Pesticides in Eggs of 

Double-crested (Phalacrocorax auritus) and Pelagic (P. pelagicus) Cormorants from the West 

Coast of Canada, 1970 to 2002Ecotoxicology 14: 607-625. 

Harris, M.L., L.K. Wilson, S.F. Trudeau and J.E. Elliott. 2007. Vitamin A and contaminant 

concentrations in surf scoters (Melanitta perspicillata) wintering on the Pacific coast of British 

Columbia, Canada. Science of the Total Environment (in press) 

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Past and future CO2 atmospheric concentrations. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.21.jpg 

Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997: Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78, 197- 

208. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/041.htm 

Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber and H.T. Buxton. 2002. 

Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 

1999-2000. Environmental Science & Technology 36: 1202-1211. 

Levelton Engineering Ltd (Levelton). 2002. Marine vessel air emissions in the lower Fraser Valley for the 

year 2000. Prepared for Greater Vancouver Regional District, Policy and Planning Department, 

Burnaby, BC and Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region, North Vancouver, B.C. 

Prepared by Levelton Engineering Ltd., Richmond, BC. 

Levelton Engineering Ltd (Levelton). 2003. Backcast and forecast of year 2000 Lower Fraser Valley 

Marine Vessel Emissions. Prepared for Greater Vancouver Regional District, Policy and 

Planning Department, Burnaby, B.C. and Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region, 

North Vancouver, B.C. Prepared by Levelton Engineering Ltd., Richmond, BC. 

Page | 41


McPherson, C.A., P.M. Chapman, M.K. Lee, M.L. Fanning, J. Olson and F. Chen. 2005a. Lions Gate 

Outfall, 2003 Sediment Effects Survey. Final Draft Report. Prepared for the Greater Vancouver 

Regional District (GVRD), Burnaby, BC by EVS Environment Consultants, North Vancouver, 

BC. 100 pp. + appendices. 

McPherson, C.A., P.M. Chapman, S.J. McKinnon, M.L. Fanning, B.J. Burd, J. Olson, F. Chen and 

G. Brooks. 2005. Lions Gate Outfall, 2004 Sediment Effects Survey. Final Draft Report. 

Prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Burnaby, BC by EVS 

Environment Consultants Ltd., North Vancouver, BC. 210 pp. + appendices. 

McPherson, C.A., P.M. Chapman, S.J. McKinnon, M.L. Fanning, B.J. Burd, J. Olson, F. Chen and 

G. Brooks. 2006. Lions Gate Outfall, 2005 Sediment Effects Survey. Draft Report. Prepared for 

the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Burnaby, BC by EVS Environment 

Consultants Ltd., North Vancouver, BC. 212 pp. + appendices. 

Metro Vancouver. 2008. 2005 Lower Fraser Valley Air Emissions Inventory and Forecast and Backcast 

Moore, B., and E. Freyman. 2001. A preliminary survey of surface microlayer contaminants in Burrard 

Inlet, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Puget Sound Research 2001. 

Nautilus Environmental. 2006. Ambient Monitoring Program for Burrard Inlet. Final Report submitted to 

Greater Vancouver Regional District, Burnaby, BC. 

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 BC by ESSA Technologies Ltd, Vancouver, BC 

Nijman, B. and L.G. Swain. 1990. Coquitlam-Pitt River Area: Burrard Inlet Water Quality Assessment 

and Objectives. Water Management Branch, Ministry of Environment. Victoria, BC. 

Paine, M.D. 2004. Environmental Significance of Sediment Quality and Tissue Residue Monitoring Data 

for the GVRD Iona and Lions Gate Outfall Study Areas. Draft Report. Prepared for Greater 

Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), Burnaby, B.C. by Paine, Ledge and Associates (PLA), 

North Vancouver, BC. 31 pp. + tables and figures. December 2003. [Appendix B, Cautions, 

Warnings and Triggers document] 

Ross, P. 2006. Fireproof killer whales (Orcinus orca): flame-retardant chemicals and the conservation 

imperative in the charismatic icon of British Columbia, Canada. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63: 

224-234 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm 

United States Geological Survey 2007. Endocrine disruption. 

http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc/endocrine_disruption.html 

Page | 42


PART 5 – Glossary 

Ambient air pollution – outdoor air pollution 

within a region 

Airshed – geographical area associated with a 

given air supply and air supply in a given region 

Anthropogenic – effects, processes, objects, or 

materials derived from human activities, as 

opposed to those occurring in natural 

environments without human influences 

Atmospheric deposition – refers to the 

movement of pollutants from the air to the land or 

water surface through rain and snow, falling 

particles, and absorption from the gas phase to 

the water. 

Basin – a region drained by a single river 

system, i.e., Fraser Basin 

BERC – the Burrard Environmental Review 

Committee, a coordinated project review body 

that operates under BIEAP 

BIEAP – Burrard Inlet Environmental Action 

Program (BIEAP), an inter-governmental 

partnership established to coordinate the 

environmental management of Burrard Inlet 

Benthic organism – the organisms living on or 

very near, the bottom of the ocean, sea, river, or 

lake; an important food source for fish 

Biodiversity – the variation of life forms within a 

given ecosystem, region or the entire planet; 

often used as a measure of the health of 

biological systems. 

Biomagnification – the increase in concentration 

of a substance, such as the pesticide DDT, from 

one link in a food chain to another 

Bioaccumulation – uptake of a toxic substance 

by an organism at a rate greater than its loss 

(excretion or metabolisms) 

Buffering – the ability to moderate the effect of 

addition of acidic or alkaline substances 

Catchment – an area of land where water from 

rain or snow melt drains downhill into a body of 

water; also includes the streams and rivers that 

convey the water (watershed) 

Carbon sink – the natural ability of trees, other 

plants and the soil to soak up carbon dioxide and 

temporarily store the carbon in wood, roots, 

leaves and the soil 

CITYgreen – software used to calculate the 

environmental and economic benefits of tree 

cover in a region 

Coliform – bacteria abundant in the feces of 

warm-blooded animals, and also in water, soil 

and on vegetation; Eschericia coli and fecal 

coliform bacteria are commonly used as 

indicators of fecal (sanitary waste) contamination 

in water and their presence may indicate the 

presence of pathogenic organisms of fecal origin 

CSO – combined sewer overflow, a system 

where sanitary and stormwater waste flow in the 

same pipe to the wastewater treatment plant; 

during heavy rainfall, increased flows can result 

in discharge of untreated sewage and stormwater 

through an overflow pipe into a river or the 

marine environment 

CACs – Criteria Air Contaminants (ground-level 

ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, 

sulphur oxides, volatile organic compounds, 

particulate matter (


GHG – Greenhouse Gases; emissions that cause 

the greenhouse effect 

Exfiltrate – loss of wastewater from a sanitary 

system as the result of seepage into the 

surrounding soil 

Habitat – the place or environment where a plant 

or animal naturally or normally lives and grows, 

which provides food, water, shelter and space 

IMO – International Maritime Organization, a 

United Nations agency responsible for improving 

marine safety and preventing pollution from ships 

Impermeable – a surface that does not allow 

water to pass through, e.g., pavement, concrete 

Infiltrate – the downward movement of water 

through soil; also the movement of water into a 

wastewater pipe 

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 

Mobile source pollution – a source of pollution 

that is not fixed in space, such as the exhaust 

from a car, or boat 

Non-point source – a source of pollution that is 

not concentrated in one specific area, such as 

stormwater collected from a neighbourhood 

OGV – Ocean going vessel, a size classification 

of ships 

PBDE – Polybrominated diphenyl ethers; PBDEs 

are flame retardants that have been used in a 

wide array of household products, including 

fabrics, furniture, and electronics 

PCB – Polychlorinated biphenyl; PCBs are 

persistent organic pollutants that were 

manufactured as cooling and insulating fluids for 

industrial transformers and capacitors, and 

electronic components. PCB production was 

banned in the 1970s due to the high toxicity. 

PCP – Partners for Climate Protection; program 

run by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities 

for municipalities to measure and reduce carbon 

emissions 

Pathogen – a biological agent that causes 

disease or illness to its host 

Permeable – capable of passing water or other 

materials through 

PM10 – Particulate Matter of 10 micrometre 

diameter or less. Larger particles are generally 

filtered in the nose and throat and do not cause 

problems, though small particulate matter can 

settle in the bronchi and lungs and cause health 

problems, including asthma, lung cancer, 

cardiovascular issues, and premature death. 

PM2.5 – particulate matter of less than 2.5 

micrometres in diameter. See PM10 for a 

description of associated health effects. 

Point source – a source of pollution that comes 

from a localized area, such as a smoke stack or 

an industrial discharge pipe 

Sanitary sewers – sewers that carry sanitary 

(human) liquid waste 

Secondary treatment – a level of sewage 

treatment that is designed to substantially 

degrade the biological content of the sewage 

derived from human waste, food waste, soaps 

and detergent 

Short sea shipping – the movement of freight 

along coasts and inland waterways 

SFP – Smog Forming Pollutants 

Sub-Basin – a smaller division of a catchment or 

basin 

Substrate – sediment, sand, gravel, cobble, 

boulder or bedrock in the bottom of a water body 

Subtidal – below the low tide line; submerged 

virtually continuously 

Surfactant – wetting agent that lowers the 

surface tension of a liquid, allowing easier 

spreading 

Tree canopy – area taken up by canopy of a 

tree; can be a measure of the area under leafy 

cover in a region, to quantify green space 

Toxicity – degree to which a compound 

produces illness or damage to an exposed 

organism 

Turbidity – cloudiness or haziness of a fluid 

caused by individual suspended solids that are 

generally invisible to the eye 

Waterbird – all birds that live in or around water; 

includes seabirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, etc. 

Watershed – region of land whose water drains 

into a particular watercourse 

Page | 44

Burrard Inlet Environmental Indicators Report - the BIEAP and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?