burrard inlet environmental action program - the BIEAP and FREMP ...

Latest Revision - June 5, 1996 

BURRARD INLET ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAM 

SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 

A number of agencies having jurisdiction over, or an interest in, the management of Burrard Inlet 

including its seabed and associated foreshore have agreed to act together within the Burrard Inlet 

Environmental Action Program (BIEAP) to make collective management decisions with respect 

to Burrard Inlet. These agencies include the Vancouver Port Corporation (VPC), the Department 

of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Environment Canada (DOE), BC Environment (BCE) and the 

Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). 

In regard to developments potentially affecting the waterfront, BIEAP input is provided through 

the coordinated project review process of the Burrard Environmental Review Committee 

(BERC), which involves those agencies with mandates or legislation of an environmental nature. 

BERC includes representatives from VPC, BCE, DOE and DFO Habitat and Coast Guard 

divisions. 

In reviewing projects as members of BERC, the resource agencies have consistently applied the 

following guiding principles with respect to shoreline development in Burrard Inlet: 

1. The shoreline, foreshore, and nearshore areas of Burrard Inlet are important habitat for fish 

and wildlife. Development activities involving these areas, including filling, dredging, and 

shoreline alteration, may have significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources. 

Filling is of particular concern as it involves loss of shoreline, seabed, and water body living 

space. 

2. It is recognized that certain facilities or operations necessary for shipping, berthing, and 

associated activities, are essential components of the federal, provincial, and local municipal 

economies. Accordingly, works involving significant impact to Burrard Inlet, including 

limited placement of fill into Burrard Inlet waters, may be considered if it can be 

demonstrated that they are necessary to support facilities or operations that are functionally 

connected to these port-related activities. In these instances, filling will be considered if it 

can be demonstrated that best efforts have been made to minimize the adverse environmental 

impacts associated with the filling through all reasonable measures including consideration of 

alternate location and alternate design, reduction of fill area to the greatest extent possible, 

and providing appropriate compensation for losses of fish and wildlife habitat. 

3. For developments or activities not functionally connected to port-related activities such as 

berthing, shipping, etc., filling of marine waters is generally not deemed essential from a 

public perspective and is discouraged. In these instances, proponents are urged to consider 

modifications to the design and /or location of their proposed facilities to mitigate 

environmental impacts by minimizing or eliminating the need for fill. However, from time to 

time projects do arise which are not port related but for which it can be demonstrated that fill 

is necessary from a functional or engineering standpoint, and best efforts have been made to 

minimize both the fill and the associated adverse environmental impacts. In such cases, 

limited filling of portions of Burrard Inlet may be considered, if the fill is to be accompanied 

by the excavation ('cut') of upland to create a replacement body of water, equivalent to that 

lost to filling, i.e., a cut and fill balance.

BIEAP - Shoreline Development Guidelines 

Page 2 of 4 

These guiding principles should be considered by all parties proposing to undertake projects 

which may involve works within or adjacent to the waters and foreshore of Burrard Inlet. It is 

important to identify, at the earliest stage possible, port and non-port related activities associated 

with the project and to determine the locations, functional interrelationships, and areal extent of 

each, as they relate to any proposed filling of Burrard Inlet. The amount of shoreline alteration 

or new water coverage to which consideration will be given by the BERC member agencies will 

depend on the ability of the proponent to design in accordance with the guiding principles stated 

above. 

BIEAP member agencies remain available for further discussion of these principles and their 

implications to the location and technical design of any proposed development. However to 

assist proponents with their consideration of these principles with respect to conceptual designs, 

the following guidelines are presented: 

• Fill should only be considered for specific elements of a project that can be demonstrated 

to be functionally connected to port-related facilities or operations. Fill may also be 

considered where necessary to ensure appropriate habitat compensation. For other 

aspects of a project, proponents should consider upland located, pile supported or floating 

structures wherever possible. 

• Fill proposed for aspects of the project not functionally port-related, if allowed, will likely 

be subject to the creation of a replacement body of water through excavation of an 

equivalent area of upland, i.e., a cut and fill balance must be maintained in relation to the 

water body. 

• In keeping with the foregoing point, alternatives to filling should be considered for public 

open spaces, including park or public walkway features. In this regard, municipalities may 

have significant requirements for park and public open space in connection with shoreline 

developments. Any fill for these purposes, if allowed, will likely be subject to an 

equivalent excavation of upland to ensure a cut and fill balance. 

• There should not be any reduction in the overall length of the shoreline. Where fill is 

proposed, it should be designed such that there will be a significant increase in the 

shoreline length in order to compensate for loss of sea bed and water column associated 

with the filling. 

• New shoreline should be designed to provide optimum conditions for colonization by local 

marine organisms and the establishment and growth of healthy and diverse marine 

communities. To this end, consideration should be given to factors such as slope stability 

and grade, suitability of materials to support marine growth, exposure to sunlight and 

shading, tidal elevation. 

• Shoreline created as compensation for lost habitat should be designed for maximum 

production and habitat value. Features and areas designed specifically as optimum habitat 

Latest Revision - June 5, 1996


Page 3 of 4 

should be incorporated into the shoreline wherever possible. Features should include 

gentle slopes (minimum 2:1 horizontal:vertical) faced with suitable materials, and benches 

or berms incorporated into the shoreline at appropriate tidal elevations. Alternative 

designs which may offer creative solutions to incorporating habitat features into the 

shoreline should be pursued. Solid vertical faces (i.e. caissons, bulkheads, etc.) will not be 

suitable for habitat compensation. 

• Proposals for dredging should take into account existing habitat values and adverse 

impacts that might result from proposed dredging. 

Once the guiding principles have been applied to project design, consideration can be given to 

site specific measures and design details that will further mitigate impacts on habitat, and, where 

applicable, appropriate measures to compensate for habitat losses. To allow for productive 

discussion of these and related matters, and to enable BERC to properly assess the potential 

environmental impacts of a proposed development on a given site, it will be necessary for 

proponents to carry out detailed investigations, including field surveys, of current biological and 

physical features of development sites. The level of detail required will depend to a significant 

degree upon the scale and complexity of the project and the extent of pre-existing knowledge of 

the project area from an environmental standpoint. Nonetheless, this information should be 

provided to BERC in advance of discussion of detailed project design. 

Biophysical surveys should be conducted by individuals suitably qualified in aquatic biology 

with a good understanding of marine biology and ecology, and demonstrated local experience in 

surveys of this kind. Knowledge of local fish and wildlife resources and their habitat 

requirements, and the concerns of BERC member agencies is essential. When planning and 

conducting biophysical surveys, seasonal variation in community composition should be taken 

into account, and consideration should be given to conducting field surveys during periods of 

maximum production and diversity. Documentation of local biophysical features, including the 

findings of field surveys should include maps or drawings of sufficient detail and in an 

appropriate scale to allow comparison with drawings of proposed shoreline alterations or inwater 

works, including dredging. 

The preceding comments focus primarily on concerns relating to fish habitat. Criteria relating to 

other concerns will also need to be addressed, including but not restricted to: 

• The impact of the project on migratory bird populations specifically those which currently 

use the site or which utilize areas adjacent to the site. 

• The impact of the project on habitat associated with significant adjacent shoreline features 

such as marshes, stream estuaries, riparian vegetation, cobble beaches, recreational areas, 

etc. For example, how will the existing hydrology and water quality of these areas be 

affected? 

• The potential of the project to involve disturbance of contaminated soils or sediments on or 

adjacent to the Burrard Inlet shoreline (including areas of dredging), and consideration of 

options to appropriately manage these materials. 



Page 4 of 4 

• The potential of the project to adversely affect water quality in Burrard Inlet through 

ground water, surface runoff, or effluent during both construction and operational phases. 

If development impacts cannot be fully mitigated with respect to fish and wildlife issues, habitat 

compensation may be required. In the event that the final design involves the harmful alteration 

of fish habitat, proponents will be required to obtain an authorization under Section 35(2) of the 

Fisheries Act. Prior to any authorization being issued by DFO, the proponents will be required 

to sign a Habitat Compensation Agreement with DFO. This agreement will be in legal contract 

form and will identify in detail all aspects of the project pertaining to habitat management 

including details on compensation to be provided, monitoring obligations of the proponent, and 

maintenance and remediation obligations. It should be apparent from the above discussion that 

project approvals are greatly simplified by the avoidance of impacts upon productive habitat 

through appropriate project design and location. 

New federal legislation in the form of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) 

may alter the obligations of the resource agencies as they pertain to the environmental review of 

the proposed developments. The specifics of each development, and how they apply to federal 

agencies, may trigger a formal review under CEAA. For example, since Section 35(2) of the 

Fisheries Act is on the CEAA "law list", if an authorization under this section is required, a 

CEAA review would be automatically triggered. Similarly, paragraph 5.(i)(a) of the Navigable 

Waters Protection Act is on the CEAA law list. Accordingly, a proposal to build a structure 

over, under, or into Burrard Inlet would trigger a CEAA review if there was potential for the 

structure to present significant interference with the right of public navigation. 

In the case of major projects giving rise to significant public interest, BERC will also wish to be 

satisfied that appropriate public consultation occurs, although it will not be responsible for this 

aspect of the process.

burrard inlet environmental action program - the BIEAP and FREMP ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?