• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

West Vancouver: Toward a Holistic Approach for Soft Shorelines Anthony Steele The University of British Columbia May 9th, 2016 Report prepared at the request of the West Vancouver Shoreline Preservation Society, in partial fulfilment of Geography 429: Research in Historical Geography, for Dr. David Brownstein. 1 Abstract The global mean sea level has been rising steadily since accurate records began to be kept in the late 19th­century, and recent data provided by satellite technology suggests that this trend is accelerating rapidly. Historically, popular coastal management strategies have been mitigation based, and sought to reflect wave­action with hard shorelines composed mostly of impervious, concrete surfaces. Fortunately, ​ ​ agreement has since been reached surrounding the erosion­enhancing effects that obstructive barriers can have, forcing managers to rethink their once­standard approach. Efforts are underway at present in the District of West Vancouver to ameliorate their heavily degraded shore and finally create a sustainable waterfront for their community. Soft shorelines attempt to resolve erosive processes by instead mimicking the self­balancing natural environment. They promise to resolve ecological issues associated with intensive coastal development, and eliminate future threats from sea­level rise. If West Vancouver hopes to achieve their long­held goal of an environmentally sound amenity for generations to enjoy, managers must evaluate the local history of land use, planning policy, and coastal morphology when implementing soft shorelines. Understanding the the past will always be the best way possible to avoid repeating mistakes. A lesson of commonality can be learned from mistakes whose evidence remains clearly visible upon the shore, and remains a testament to the well­intended yet misguided aspirations of this residential community. This will be necessary for change to take hold in a meaningful way. 2 Introduction The District of West Vancouver is a residential suburb which has over 30 kilometers of shoreline to its name. The area has undergone a unique evolution with development focused mostly in large private plots along the highly sensitive waterfront. As the population rose over the past century, individual efforts to protect expensive property from wave driven erosion have lead to worsening problems along this communal strip of land. Such intense, fragmented growth has damaged the overall stability and productivity of the coast and created a need for major re­naturalization efforts— currently taking place under the Shoreline Protection Plan.1 In order to achieve a truly sustainable shoreline, managers must adopt a holistic approach that encompasses not only the needs of residents, ecosystems, and physical processes, but one which considers local history as well. Soft shorelines require a nuanced approach ​ involving all that is known from the past,2 allowing for a temporal understanding of ​ processes specific to West Vancouver so that remediation can be applied most ​ appropriately. Without a cohesive strategy for managing such a complex environment, the shore will remain in a state of perpetual misuse, its health in decline. Ecological Commons in West Vancouver The majority of research into the effects of sea­level rise thus far has sought to ​ predict maximum tidal height to ensure that the shore is built­up high enough to protect 1 West Vancouver Shoreline Preservation Society website. Ambleside ­ Dundarave Long Term Shoreline ​ Planning Framework, 2005. Published by The Corporation of the District of West Vancouver. 2 Switzer, A.D., Yu, F., Gouramanis, C., Soria, J.L.A. and Pham, D.T., 2014. Integrating different records to assess coastal hazards at multicentury timescales. Journal of Coastal Research , (70), p.723­729. 3 assets from inundation.3 In West Vancouver this has taken place in the form of sea­walls, groynes and wave­breaks in front of valuable infrastructure. Unfortunately, the dynamics of fluid processes do not accommodate for hard lines in their profile, which unbalance the coastal sediment budget and can actually increase rates of erosion in areas surrounding the protected zone.4 Mark Fiege has come up with a term that ​ perfectly encapsulates the issue of shoreline management: ecological commons. He argues that it is not only social and economic pressures which influence the creation of space, but also ecological relationships.5 Where these fluid relationships overlap invisible, man­made boundaries, such divisions must be dispatched with to allow for mutual stewardship. This concept in exasperated in West Vancouver where many residents have crowded close to the shore, vying for a private piece of paradise. Once­invisible property lines were fortified and extended seaward with timber and masonry, drawing deeper lines in the sand and presenting a real obstacle to both waves and cohesion between stakeholders. These individual acts of shoreline armoring caused sections of the coast to compete for stability rather than working together, and obscured the overall goals of the community. Following Fiege, progress must take place on a common ground, free from the burden of ownership, and devoid of unnatural constraints. 3 Picketts, I.M., Werner, A.T., Murdock, T.Q., Curry, J., Déry, S.J. and Dyer, D., 2012. Planning for ​ climate change adaptation: lessons learned from a community­based workshop. Environmental Science & ​ Policy, 17, pp.82­93. ​ ​ ​ 4 Twu, S.W. and Liao, W.M., 1999. Effects of seawall slopes on scour depth.Journal of coastal ​ ​ research, pp.985­990. ​ 5 Fiege, M., 2003. Private property and the ecological commons in the American West. Everyday ​ ​ America: Cultural Landscape Studies after JB Jackson. University of California Press, Berkeley, ​ pp.219­231. 4 Literature Review Puget Sound, Washington, USA There is a significant lack of available secondary sources concerning West Vancouver, however, case studies conducted in similar environments have shed an enormous amount of light on the possibilities for softening hard shorelines in urban areas, and will provide needed insight for planners. Puget Sound, for example, is ​ ​ located just south of Vancouver, experiences similar oceanic processes, and has followed a near­parallel progression of coastal development over the past century. One key difference in the case of Puget Sound is the existence of significant industrial activity along the water, as well as large portions of privately­held foreshore rights.6 This has lead to the establishment of The Puget Sound Partnership in 2005, an advisory panel which acts in cooperation with hundreds of interest groups to inform shoreline management decisions throughout the region.7 The Partnership recommended a new management structure which would bring­together representatives from different levels of governance to collaborate on complex coastal issues and included continued input from experts in the field (Figure 1). Combining knowledgeable scientific input with over a century of significant national coastal surveys it has sought 6 Morley, S.A., Toft, J.D. and Hanson, K.M., 2012. Ecological effects of shoreline armoring on intertidal ​ habitats of a Puget Sound urban estuary. Estuaries and coasts, 35(3), pp.774­784. ​ ​ ​ ​ 7 Puget Sound Partnership Website (http://www.psp.wa.gov/puget­sound­partnership.php). Last accessed 2016­05­09 5 to unite the goals of the State and everyone living there, and will be vital to their success in achieving coastal longevity.8 Figure 1 : Puget Sound Partnership Original Proposed Governance Structure9 One major question that managers must continue to ask themselves in such a case is: how will they encourage landowners to initiate the shoreline restoration process on their own property? Opportunities are often taken during private construction projects, with specific guidelines in place regarding the form of future infrastructure which include the removal of existing violations.10 Still, a lack of incentive for coastal residents and industries to address these issues for the benefit of others has slowed progress significantly and created a discontinuous system of remedies as they evolve on a case­to­case basis, dependant on private interest and economic risk. 8 Aldous, Don. 2007. Governance for Integrated Coastal Ocean Management (ICOM) Planning for the Minas Basin, Bay of Fundy, Canada. Masters in Marine Management Project. Unpublished MA thesis, ​ ​ Dalhousie University. Pp. 59­60 (http://ccns.chebucto.org/Aldous_MMM.pdf) 9 Aldous, Don. 2007. Governance for Integrated Coast.(pp. 60) 10 Lipsky, R.S. and Ryan, C.M., 2011. Nearshore restoration in Puget sound: understanding stakeholder ​ values and potential coalitions. Coastal Management, 39(6), pp.577­597. ​ ​ ​ ​ 6 The Great Lakes, Ontario, Canada Looking farther afield but rather within Canada, the Great Lakes district has experienced development to an even greater extent than British Columbia, and their attempts to rectify past mistakes can provide insight for planners anywhere. While lakes are under a very different sediment regime than oceans, the seasonal rise and fall of water levels may serve as an indicator for the impacts of sea­level rise upon communities. Beginning around 1985 a serious drive was made to control flooding and storm damage which plagued the extensive shoreline.11 Provincial policy was established mandating a comprehensive coastal management plan which included a project mapping of the entire basin for 100­year flood boundaries and the creation of a centralized agency

Load more

  23

Copy Link