UBC Undergraduate Research

Increasing Riparian Habitat and Ecosystem Function in Lost Lagoon through Shoreline Restoration Bull, Megan; Faulkner, Luke; Liu, Majella; Newman, Elli; Tang, Yang 2020

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52966-Bull_M_et_al_ENVR_400_Increasing_2020.pdf [ 1.57MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52966-1.0389955.json
JSON-LD: 52966-1.0389955-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52966-1.0389955-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52966-1.0389955-rdf.json
Turtle: 52966-1.0389955-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52966-1.0389955-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52966-1.0389955-source.json
Full Text
52966-1.0389955-fulltext.txt
Citation
52966-1.0389955.ris

Full Text

     University of British Columbia ENVR 400 Increasing Riparian Habitat and Ecosystem Function in Lost Lagoon through Shoreline Restoration Team #5 – Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration Megan Bull Luke Faulkner Majella Liu Elli Newman Yang Tang   Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration i  Executive Summary Lost Lagoon is a shallow, brackish body of water located in Stanley Park, Vancouver and is visited by many park-goers each day due to its proximity to downtown Vancouver. Originally a coastal saltmarsh, Lost Lagoon was isolated into a freshwater impoundment by the construction of the Stanley Park Causeway in 1916. Due to its unnatural formation and periodic inflow of saltwater, Lost Lagoon has remained a low-productivity ecosystem, primarily occupied by invasive vegetation, fish, and herptile species. Additionally, the area is currently plagued by a variety of ecological issues including excessive sediment infilling and high quantities of contaminated runoff. The objective of this document is to propose a detailed restoration plan for Lost Lagoon which would involve deconstructing a portion of the ‘concrete beach’ located in the South-West section of Lost Lagoon and undertaking native planting. The restoration plan would create a more natural shoreline with a sustainable riparian habitat while still enabling community members and visitors to interact positively with the area. A methodology for this project was developed based on several restoration frameworks from the literature. As part of this process the current social, economic and ecological values in Lost Lagoon were identified. Also, a stakeholder consultation process was undertaken to ensure that as many points of view as possible are taken into consideration. Site monitoring was undertaken, and water quality data was collected to determine both the site and water conditions and used to guide plant selection and restoration strategy. Together with the restoration frameworks from the literature, data collection and analysis, as well as stakeholder values and opinions a restoration plan was developed. This plan was crafted to meet the following goals:  • Increase native shoreline planting • Improve water quality • Increase habitat for flora and fauna  • Reduce undesirable human-shoreline interactions This restoration proposal was developed in collaboration with and for the Stanley Park Ecology Society and is intended to be presented to the Vancouver Park Board for consideration. Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration ii   Figure 1. Map of Lost Lagoon with proposed restoration stages. The restoration plan was separated into three proposed stages (as seen in Figure 1) which may be implemented in concert or singly, as funding and other resources allow: • Stage 1: Breakdown the concrete beach into rock-like rubble and plant the new shoreline with native rushes. This rubble will create microhabitats for native fauna and a more natural exchange between land and water. Estimated cost: $30,060  • Stage 2: Installation of floating islands, a new restoration concept, that has been shown to improve water quality and increase biodiversity. Estimated cost: $1,200-$3,700  • Stage 3: Construction of a raised boardwalk and viewing platform. The raised boardwalk will protect planting from visitors to the area and the viewing platform will provide access to the water and views of the North Shore Mountains, a popular concern extracted from the stakeholder consultations. Estimated cost: $75,650  Implementing one or all of these restoration stages would help increase ecosystem health and function while ensuring that park-goers continue to enjoy and interact positively with the ecosystem.     Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration iii  Author Bios Megan Bull Megan’s area of concentration is Ecology and Conservation. She has a working knowledge of aquatic systems from a variety of academic courses and a range of field skills from positions with the Nature Trust of BC and the Arcese laboratory in the Faculty of Forestry. She also has an academic background in finance and business management. Luke Faulkner Luke’s area of concentration is Ecology and Conservation. He has a working knowledge of landscape design and planting techniques and is enrolled in a course on restoration ecology. Luke has basic GIS skills and is proficient in technical drawing and graphic design. He also has a previous degree in mechanical engineering. Majella Liu Majella’s area of concentration is Land, Air and Water. She specializes in oceanographic chemistry, so she has oceanographic knowledge from different academic courses. She has experience in oceanography research, especially plankton. She also has field experience on water sampling in English Bay, collecting and analyzing data from the ocean. Elli Newman Elli’s area of concentration is Land, Air and Water. She has effective knowledge about environmental chemistry including aquatic chemistry. This topic includes knowledge that will be useful for this project such as on water quality conditions like pH, salinity, pollutant interactions, etc. She also has experience with sampling and conducting environmental assessments in the field. Yang Tang Yang’s area of concentration is Ecology and Conservation. He has effective knowledge about aquatic ecosystems and field experience sampling, collecting data, and analyzing data from lakes. Possible assets include knowledge on algae and freshwater ecosystems. He is also a communications and administrative assistant for the Institute of Resource, Environment, and Sustainability. Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration  iv  Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Site Description ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Motivation ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Background/Context .................................................................................................................................... 3 History of Lost Lagoon .............................................................................................................................. 3 Current Conditions and Threats to Lost Lagoon ...................................................................................... 3 Projected Future Conditions and Threats to Lost Lagoon ....................................................................... 4 Data Collection and Methodology ............................................................................................................... 5 Restoration Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Restoration Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Stakeholders and Results ......................................................................................................................... 7 Restoration Strategy and Project Work Plan .......................................................................................... 8 Stage 1: Concrete Breakdown and Planting .......................................................................................... 8 Stage 2: Floating Island Installation .................................................................................................... 10 Stage 3: Boardwalk and Viewing Platform Construction .................................................................... 12 Monitoring and Maintenance ................................................................................................................ 14 Consideration of Permits and Regulations ............................................................................................ 14 Additional Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 15 Final Stakeholder Review & Recommendations ................................................................................... 15 Expected Outcomes of the Restoration................................................................................................. 15 Conclusions and Future Considerations .................................................................................................... 17 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... 17 References .................................................................................................................................................. 18 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................... A Appendix A: Data Collected and Methodology ....................................................................................... A Appendix B: Stakeholder Questionnaires ............................................................................................... B Appendix C: Plant Selection ..................................................................................................................... C Appendix D: Detailed Budget ................................................................................................................... D  Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration  1  Introduction Site Description Lost Lagoon is a 16.6-hectare brackish water lake located in Stanley Park, Vancouver, west of the Stanley Park Causeway and Coal Harbour (Figure 2). It is located on the unceded territory of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwxw̱ú7mesh (Squamish) Nation, and səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nation. Stanley Park is under the jurisdiction of the Vancouver Park Board (VPB). Stanley Park Ecology Society (SPES) has a Joint Operating Agreement with the VPB and plays a leadership role in stewardship of Lost Lagoon's ecology. Formerly a coastal saltmarsh attached to Coal Harbour, Lost Lagoon is now an isolated water body, threatened by a variety of factors including saltwater incursion, nutrient overloading and algal blooms, heavy metal contamination, invasive species and other human stressors[1,2]. Lost Lagoon has limited natural shoreline and its concrete borders prevent ecological exchange between the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and limit habitat for native species[3].  Lost Lagoon is popular with park-goers, many of whom visit the lake regularly to walk, jog, bird watch or appreciate nature. As such, a wide variety of stakeholders must be considered when creating management plans for Lost Lagoon.    Figure 2. Map of Lost Lagoon in Stanley Park, Vancouver, B.C. Retrieved from MacKinnon, 2018. Motivation The motivation for this restoration plan is to improve current abiotic and biotic conditions in Lost Lagoon. The restoration plan will increase the riparian habitat in Lost Lagoon, reduce invasive species presence and increase native biodiversity in the area. An improvement in water quality will also help to facilitate native species repopulation and increase ecosystem function in the area. The restoration plan will ultimately serve to improve human interactions with the ecosystem. Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 2  Objectives The objective of the proposed restoration is to replace the concrete shoreline in the South-West section of Lost Lagoon (hereafter referred to as the ‘concrete beach’; Figure 3) with a more natural shoreline, featuring native vegetation. This restoration would increase ecosystem health and function without reducing recreational benefits of the area. This restoration plan is separated into three stages, which may be implemented in concert or singly, subject to approval by the Vancouver Park Board, and depending on funding available. Separate designs and budgets have been outlined for each stage in this document.  Restoration Stages: 1. Destruction of concrete beach and planting of native shoreline species a. West half of the concrete beach area b. East half of the concrete beach area 2. Construction of floating islands, featuring native vegetation, on Lost Lagoon’s surface 3. Construction of a raised boardwalk with viewing platform  Figure 3. Concrete beach south of Lost Lagoon and the area of concern for this project. Wikipedia Commons (2017). Lost Lagoon Stanley Park Vancouver. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lost_Lagoon.jpg    Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 3  Background/Context History of Lost Lagoon Lost Lagoon was originally a fully functioning coastal saltmarsh that provided refuge for many marine species such as marine fish, shorebirds, waterfowl, crustaceans, and invertebrates. In 1916, 2.2 km of causeway was constructed adjacent to the water body and upgraded considerably until 1962[1]. The construction of the causeway cut Lost Lagoon off from Coal Harbour, severely altering its physical and biological processes[1,4].  Lost Lagoon initially remained a saline water body after the construction of the causeway, due to pipes which connected it to Coal Harbour. However, these were deactivated in 1923 in an attempt to convert Lost Lagoon to a freshwater lake[1]. The natural freshwater supply (mostly small, ephemeral streams) was deemed insufficient and a pipe was installed to feed treated municipal freshwater into the impoundment via a fountain[5]. To allow water outflow and prevent ocean water inflow, a one-way valve was installed at the east end of the impoundment. Despite these measures, saltwater incursions from Coal Harbour continue to take place and Lost Lagoon remains a brackish lake[1]. Since 2015, the municipal freshwater source has been shut off, which will likely increase salinity further in the future. Current Conditions and Threats to Lost Lagoon Due to the proximity of Lost Lagoon to the central business district of Vancouver, the area is subjected to many anthropogenic stressors.  The lake receives high quantities of contaminated runoff from the causeway containing heavy metals, particularly cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc[2]. These metals are toxic and have a detrimental influence upon the wetlands and aquatic organisms living there[6]. The runoff also contains high levels of nutrients, which results in eutrophication (nutrient overload), algal blooms, low oxygen conditions and populations of bacteria such as E. coli (Escherichia coli)[7]. The runoff also results in high levels of sediment infilling[2]. The lake area supports a detrimental and partially unknown community of invasive and non-native species[1]. Many of the terrestrial plant species at Lost Lagoon are introduced or invasive species, including yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), amongst others[1]. A population of invasive carp (Cyprinus carpio) has established and became dominant in the lake due to their ability to tolerate the low-oxygen conditions of the water[8].  Though there are very few known native fish and reptile species in the lake, many resident and transient bird species occupy the impoundment throughout the year[2]. Since the construction of a pedestrian trail in 1938, Lost Lagoon has been recognized as a wild bird sanctuary[1,9]. Lastly, Lost Lagoon is negatively impacted by inappropriate use of its shorelines for bird feeding and unauthorized camping/squatting.  Lost Lagoon remains an unhealthy lake with few native vascular plants, which would benefit from restoration activities. The proposed restoration addresses many of the threats outlined above. Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 4  Projected Future Conditions and Threats to Lost Lagoon One of the primary future threats to Lost Lagoon is climate change. Climate change models predict that Vancouver will experience warmer temperatures and less winter precipitation in the coming decades[10], which will increase the temperature and salinity of Lost Lagoon. These conditions will exacerbate eutrophication and stratification of the lake, further encouraging toxic algal blooms, low oxygen conditions, and bacterial populations[2]. Furthermore, sea level rises of 1m are predicted for Vancouver by 2100[10]. The resulting flooding from Coal Harbour could inundate Lost Lagoon, converting it to a saline tidal system once more.   Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 5  Data Collection and Methodology The methodology in designing this restoration plan integrated several restoration frameworks from the literature[11,12,13] (Figure 4).   Figure 4. Flowchart of methodology used to design the proposed restoration of Lost Lagoon’s concrete beach area, adapted from Hobbs & Norton (1996)[11], Pastorok et al. (1997)[12], and Failings et al. (2013)[13]. Green represents stages which have been carried out in the creation of this restoration proposal, yellow represents future steps. Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 6  First, the purpose of the restoration was defined (see Objectives section above). Next, the goals of the restoration were explicitly defined, and metrics were set for determining the success of the restoration in meeting these goals upon its implementation.  The abiotic and biotic conditions of Lost Lagoon were determined through an analysis of historical and current water quality data, reports/literature and expert consultations (see Appendix A). A variety of stakeholders were consulted to give insight into the social factors at play and ascertain the values and priorities of stakeholders with respect to the proposed restoration (see Stakeholders and Results, below). The abiotic, biotic, and social factors identified were integrated into a conceptual model of the system. This model was used to set specific restoration goals and metrics for evaluating the success of the restoration once implemented (see Restoration Goals).  Three restoration stages were put forth and literature research and expert consultation was conducted to identify and decide between possible restoration methods and plant species.  All plant recommended plant species are native to the area, already occur in Stanley Park, can be obtained locally, and are suitable for the biotic and abiotic conditions of Lost Lagoon (Appendix C). A detailed design plan was devised and revised based on input from SPES and a second stakeholder consultation (see Restoration Strategy). Lastly, a monitoring protocol was designed to monitor the success of the restoration over time (see Monitoring and Maintenance).    Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 7  Restoration Plan Restoration Goals The purpose of the proposed restoration is to:  • Increase the density of native shoreline plants. • Improve water quality in Lost Lagoon (decrease heavy metal concentration and increase nutrient uptake by plants). • Increase habitat and food resources for native fauna. • Limit undesirable human-shoreline interactions (bird feeding and unauthorized camping). Stakeholders and Results In order to ensure that the restoration plan aptly incorporates the priorities and concerns of Lost Lagoon visitors, 6 people were asked to be stakeholders to inform this project: • Vancouver Parks Board representative • Frequent SPES volunteer • Host at the Stanley Park Nature House • 2 frequent Lost Lagoon visitors • Pooh Corner Daycare representative (facility is directly beside Lost Lagoon) The stakeholders involved represent a diverse range of people who interact with Lost Lagoon in different ways and capacities. Stakeholders were able to inform this restoration project by responding to questionnaires (refer to Appendix B). Feedback is summarized in Figure 5, below:   Figure 5. Map of Lost Lagoon that includes common suggestions from the stakeholder feedback questionnaire and how this feedback is incorporated into the restoration plan. Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 8  Restoration Strategy and Project Work Plan The proposed restoration strategy is summarized in Figure 6, below.    Figure 6. Map of Lost Lagoon with proposed restoration stages. Stage 1: Concrete Breakdown and Planting a) West half of the concrete beach b) East half of the concrete beach Goal Break down concrete beach into rock-like rubble and plant shoreline with native rushes. Motivation By breaking down the concrete material into a rocky shoreline, microhabitats will be created for native fauna (such as fish and invertebrates) and a more natural exchange between lake and shore will be allowed[14,15,16]. Re-using the concrete will reduce restoration costs by avoiding the cost of concrete removal. The native plants will provide food resources for birds and other wildlife and potentially improve water quality. Workplan • Silt fence will be installed in the lake surrounding the area of work to contain any sediments released during work. Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 9  • An excavator with a hydraulic breaker will be used to breakdown the concrete beach into rubble of no greater than 1 meter in length or width. • Native planting will be undertaken in and around the newly created shoreline (Table 1). Personnel External concrete company (extraction), SPES and volunteers (planting), VPB (plant supply). Planting Design Schoenoplectus acutus (hard-stemmed bulrush), Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (soft-stemmed bulrush), and Equisetum arvense (common horsetail) will be planted in equal amounts along the shoreline-water interface at 0.5m intervals (Table 1; Appendix C, Table C1). Table 1. Selected species for planting in Restoration Stage 1. Species Photo Microhabitat Salinity tolerance Water level fluctuation tolerance Other information Schoenoplectus acutus (hard-stemmed bulrush)  Shallow waters or wet soils Tolerant of brackish conditions Tolerant of floods and fluctuating water levels  References: [17,18] Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (soft-stemmed bulrush)  Shallow water or wet soils High salt tolerance Tolerant of floods and fluctuating water levels Fast-growing, able to compete with Typha latifolia (cattail) References: [19,20,21] Equisetum arvense  (common horsetail)  Shallow waters or wet soils Moderate salt tolerance Tolerant of long-term flooding Aggressive growth, competitive; tolerant of a variety of soils; tolerant of low oxygen conditions References: [22,23]  Estimated Cost (Appendix D) • Concrete breakdown: $25,000 (based on estimate from Christensen Excavating) • Planting: $560 (based on Nat’s Nursery prices) Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 10  Stage 2: Floating Island Installation Goal Construct floating islands and place them in the lake (Figure 7).  Figure 7. Simplified illustration of floating islands that will be implemented.  Figure 8. BioHaven® matrix floating island mat. Floating Islands West. (n.d.). BioHaven Floating Circle Islands. Retrieved from: https://floatingislandswest.com/floating-islands-circle-pond-ecosystem/ Motivation Floating islands are an emerging technology that has been proven to improve water quality[24,25,26] and increase biodiversity of water environments[27]. Floating islands are floating mats that house plants. The plants serve as a medium with which the water quality will be improved (Figure 7). The roots of the plants grow in the water column and serve to remove pollutants through nutrient and metal uptake, biofilm development, and other natural processes[26]. Through the filtering process, the plants provide oxygen in the water column beneath the floating island[26]. The purification of water by the floating islands creates habitats for fish and other aquatic animals[25]. In implementing floating islands, the water quality and native vegetation in Lost Lagoon will improve. Additionally, the floating islands can serve as platforms for birds to rest on and provide valuable feed through insects. Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 11  Workplan • Purchase of floating island structure and accessories (Figure 8) from Floating Islands West, a California based company that manufactures BioHaven® Floating Mats. • The floating mats will be assembled on site. • Assembly will involve placing plants and soil into the floating mats. • Once the assembly is complete, chains will be installed onto the floating islands and tied to weights (concrete or similar) which will serve to anchor the floating island in place to ensure minimal drifting. Personnel SPES and volunteers (island assembly and planting), VPB (plant supply). Planting Design Scirpus microcarpus (small-flowered bulrush), Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass), Schoenoplectus acutus (hard-stemmed bulrush), and Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (soft-stemmed bulrush) will be planted in equal amounts on the floating islands (Table 2; Appendix C, Table C1). Table 2. Selected species for planting in Restoration Stage 2. Species Photo Microhabitat Salinity tolerance Water level fluctuation tolerance Other information Scirpus microcarpus (small-flowered bulrush)  Standing water or wet soils Moderate salt tolerance Tolerant of fluctuating water levels Good for erosion control References: [28,29,30] Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass)  Standing water or wet soils Moderate salt tolerance Tolerant of long-term flooding Good for erosion control; buffers against wave action; provides cover for nesting birds References: [31,32] Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (soft-stemmed bulrush)  Shallow waters or wet soils High salt tolerance Tolerant of floods and fluctuating water levels  References: [19,20,21,24] Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 12  Schoenoplectus acutus (hardstem bulrush)  Shallow water or wet soils Tolerant of brackish conditions Tolerant of floods and fluctuating water levels  References: [17,18,24]  Estimated Cost (Appendix D) The cost of the floating islands will depend on the number of floating islands purchased.  • Floating islands: $280-$700 per island (depends on desired size; based on Floating Islands West prices) • Planting: $150 per island (based on University of Amherst documents, Home Depot, and Canadian Tire prices) • Soil or peat cost: $50 per island (based on Nat’s Nursery prices) Stage 3: Boardwalk and Viewing Platform Construction Goal Construct a raised boardwalk to replace the walking path on the western half of the “concrete beach” area (see figure below for reference) with viewing platform to allow access to shoreline. Plant native shrubs up-slope of the boardwalk (see Figure 9 for an example).   Figure 9. Examples of A) a raised boardwalk and B) a viewing platform. A) Alpsdake (2016). Boardwalk of Nakaikemi Wetland. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nakaikemi_Wetland_(boardwalk).jpg B) Hunt, A. (2013). Wetland viewing platform. Retrieved from https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3597181 Motivation A raised boardwalk will protect plantings from foot traffic and create more space for native plants. The raised boardwalk will also discourage cyclists, while still allowing pedestrian access. The boardwalk will be Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 13  wide enough to accommodate strollers and wheelchairs and will have ramps and curbs for safety. The viewing platform will ensure that park-goers still have access to the shoreline and views of the lake and will have benches installed.  Workplan • A survey will be undertaken to identify the exact location of the intended boardwalk and foundation locations. • The existing pathway will be dug up and removed and/or transformed into suitable planting habitat. • A concrete will be poured into formers to create the foundations of the boardwalk. • Decking material will be constructed onto the foundations and will include a viewpoint. • Native planting will be undertaken underneath and on the uphill (southern) side of the boardwalk. Personnel External surveyor (boardwalk boundary definition), SPES and volunteers (path removal, planting and decking installation), VPB (plant supply). Planting Design A 2m wide area upslope of the boardwalk will be planted with Polystichum munitum (Western sword fern) (40%), Symporicarpos (snowberry) (30%) and Mahonia nervosa (dull Oregon grape) (30%). These species should be planted with 2m spacing and pruned occasionally to avoid obscuring lake views or creating thickets where unauthorized camping may occur (Table 3; Appendix C, Table C2). Table 3. Selected species for planting in Restoration Stage 3. Species Photo Moisture requirements Soil requirements Light requirements Other information Rosa nutkana nutkana (Nootka rose)  Moist but well-drained soils Prefers high nutrient soils but tolerates a wide range of parent materials. Moderately tolerant of saline soils. Tolerant of both sun and shade, but with greater growth in open areas. Fast-growing, well-suited to disturbed areas and rehabilitation projects. Reference: [33] Symphoricarpos spp. (snowberry)  Grows well in well-drained areas or moist areas with high light availability Tolerates a wide variety of soils, from sand to clay Tolerates a wide range of sunlight receipt Occurs in a wide range of habitats; establishes quickly Reference: [34] Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 14  Mahonia nervosa (dull Oregon grape)  Moist or well-drained areas Grows well on a wide variety of soils, including somewhat saline soils Tolerates sunny or shaded locations Occurs in a wide range of habitats Reference: [35]  Estimated Cost (Appendix D) • Boardwalk: $75,000 (based on consultation with professional construction foreman) • Planting: $450 (based on Nat’s Nursery prices) Please refer to Appendix D for a more comprehensive outline of the restoration budget. Monitoring and Maintenance Monitoring of any restoration project, once completed, is imperative to evaluate the success of the restoration in meeting its goals and allow for adaptive management[12,13]. We recommend that SPES undertake the following monitoring measures:  • Conduct yearly quantitative analyses, tracking native vegetation cover on the shoreline using a randomized quadrat method to ensure that the density of native shoreline plants increases. • Continue their yearly monitoring of Lost Lagoon water quality and occasionally monitor nutrient levels and heavy metal concentrations when possible in order to confirm that water quality is improving. • Perform wildlife counts in the area to determine whether an increase in food resources and habitat has been successful in supporting native fauna. • Monitor undesirable human-shoreline interactions (e.g. bird feeding) to ensure that these behaviors decrease. Consideration of Permits and Regulations Relevant wetland permits and regulations which may potentially be required for implementing this restoration are:  • First Nation Consultation:  o To discuss interest, traditional ecological knowledge and culturally/archeologically sensitive areas.  o Contact: Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations • BC One Call:  o To locate buried infrastructure and facilities to ensure location is suitable for earthworks.  o Contact: BC One Call • Official Community Plan Permits:  o To ensure development aligns with community plan.  o Contact: Vancouver City Council and Vancouver Park Board • Bird Breeding Window:  o Ensure construction will not negatively affect bird species during breeding season.  o Contact: Birds Canada Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 15  Additional Recommendations Shoreline plants which are likely to experience flooding should be planted during the fall when water levels are lowest so that they are given an opportunity to establish unsubmerged.  Any woody debris or felled trees, such as the Weeping Willows, in the Lost Lagoon area should be placed within the lake itself, serving as resting spots for the native bird habitat.  Final Stakeholder Review & Recommendations After being presented with a summary of the final restoration plan, stakeholders choosing to participate in a second consultation agreed that priorities and concerns established in the initial round of consultation had been addressed and they were broadly satisfied with the proposed restoration plan. However, based on the comments of stakeholders, we recommend that the following points be researched and addressed by SPES before commencing restoration work:  • Any accessibility issues associated with the creation of the boardwalk in Stage 3 • Full approval of the plan from the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations (required by the Stanley Park Comprehensive Plan) • Security of the floating islands – some stakeholders mentioned a concern about loose objects floating out of the lake Expected Outcomes of the Restoration The restoration plan that has been outlined in this proposal is expected to improve current biotic, abiotic, and social factors in Lost Lagoon (Figure 10). Transforming the concrete beach into a rocky shoreline would create space for native vascular plants, microhabitats for native fauna[14], and improve ecological exchange between the water and shoreline[3]. Transformation of the shoreline into a rocky substrate would also help to deter undesired shoreline activity, such as bird feeding. The vascular plant species planted on the shoreline would provide further shelter for native fauna, as well as shelter and nesting resources[16]. These plants are also expected to improve water quality through the increased uptake of nutrients, provision of oxygen, and removal of heavy metals and other pollutants[26]. Pre-established native plants, particularly fast-growing, competitive species such as Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani and Equisetum arvense help prevent the colonization of the shoreline by invasive plant species[19,23].  The floating islands would provide further habitat for birds and improve water quality in the same way as the shoreline plantings[26]. A boardwalk would protect shoreline plants and habitats from foot traffic, increase shoreline access through the viewing platform, and help limit cyclist traffic. Improvements to the ecological health of the concrete beach shoreline would give park-goers greater opportunities for interacting with nature, while a more natural aesthetic would support the ‘green oasis’ image of Stanley Park.  Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 16    Figure 10. Expected positive outcomes of the proposed restoration on the abiotic, biotic and social conditions of Lost Lagoon.   Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 17  Conclusions and Future Considerations Lost Lagoon has been highly altered from its natural state as a coastal saltmarsh and therefore faces a variety of threats which will likely be maintained or exacerbated if they are not addressed in the future. In its current state as a brackish water lake, Lost Lagoon is chiefly threatened by increased salinity, low dissolved oxygen, nutrient overloading, heavy metal contamination and biotic invasion. Expert consultation, scientific literature and analysis of water quality suggest that Lost Lagoon has low ecosystem health and function which could be improved through restoration. The consultations conducted with local stakeholders revealed a wide range of stakeholder concerns and priorities, highlighting the importance of incorporating community dialogue and feedback into restoration initiatives. Stakeholder priorities identified thus far include maintaining the ability of park-goers to access the shoreline and lake views, maintaining bench space, minimizing cyclist traffic and improving water quality.  The three stages of the proposed restoration plan – breakdown of a section of the concrete beach into rocks,  planting of native species, construction of floating islands and installation of a boardwalk – will improve the state of Lost Lagoon by increasing space for native plant species, creating microhabitat for native fauna, improving water quality through nutrient uptake and maintain or improving positive human-ecosystem interaction, while working within the constraints of a brackish water, low-oxygen system. Implementation and careful monitoring of this restoration could serve as basis for future improvements to the ecology of Lost Lagoon.  Acknowledgements Thank you to Ariane Comeau (community partner), Dr. Tara Ivanochko (project advisor), Donnah MacKinnon (Lost Lagoon expert), Daniel Stewart (cattail expert), Christensen Excavating (concrete expert), Khris Liang (BSc student), and the stakeholders for their integral contributions to this project. An additional thank you to SPES and the Lipsen lab for providing water quality monitoring equipment.   Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 18  References [1] Worcester, R. (2010). State of the Park Report for the Ecological Integrity of Stanley Park (SOPEI). Summary Report. Stanley Park Ecological Society Retrieved from: http://stanleyparkecology.ca/SOPEI-Summary-Report_lg.pdf [2] MacKinnon, D. E. (2018). A restoration strategy to avert the projected ecological risks of Lost Lagoon in Stanley Park, British Columbia. [3] Wensink, S. M., & Tiegs, S. D. (2016). Shoreline hardening alters freshwater shoreline ecosystems. Freshwater Science, 35(3), 764–777. https://doi.org/10.1086/687279 [4] Van Loon-Steensma, J. M., & Vellinga, P. (2013). Trade-offs between biodiversity and flood protection services of coastal salt marshes. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3-4), 320-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.007 [5] Vancouver Park Board. (2011). Stanley Park Ecological Action Plan. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. Retrieved from: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Stanley-Park-Ecological-Action-Plan.pdf [6] Borrego, J., Morales, J.A., Torre, M.L., & Grande, J.A. (2002). Geochemical characteristics of heavy metal pollution in surface sediments of the Tinto and Odiel river estuary. Environmental Geology, 41, 785-961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-001-0445-3  [7] Schiewer, U. (1998). 30 years’ eutrophication in shallow brackish waters — lessons to be learned. Eutrophication in Planktonic Ecosystems: Food Web Dynamics and Elemental Cycling, 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1493-8_5 [8] Malekpouri, P., Peyghan, R., Mahboobi-Soofiani, N., & Mohammadian, B. (2016). Metabolic capacities of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) following combined exposures to copper and environmental hypoxia. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 127, 1-11. https://doi.org/10/1016/j.ecoenv.2016.01.004 [9] Ministry of Environment Fish Inventory Data Queries (FIDQ). (2017). Government of British Columbia. Retrieved from: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fish/fidq [10] City of Vancouver. (2012). Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. pp.1-54. Retrieved from: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Vancouver-Climate-Change-Adaptation-Strategy-2012-11-07.pdf  [11] Hobbs, R. J., & Norton, D. A. (1996). Towards a Conceptual Framework for Restoration Ecology. Restoration Ecology, 4(2), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1996.tb00112.x [12] Pastorok, R. A., MacDonald, A., Sampson, J. R., Pace Wilber, Yozzo, D. J., & Titre, J. P. (1997). An ecological decision framework for environmental restoration projects. Ecological Engineering,9(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(97)00036-0 [13] Failing, L., Gregory, R., & Higgins, P. (2013). Science, Uncertainty, and Values in Ecological Restoration: A Case Study in Structured Decision-Making and Adaptive Management. Restoration Ecology, 21(4), 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2012.00919.x Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 19  [14] Schmude, K. L., Jennings, M. J., Otis, K. J., & Piette, R. R. (1998). Effects of Habitat Complexity on Macroinvertebrate Colonization of Artificial Substrates in North Temperate Lakes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 17(1), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468052 [15] Peterson, M., Comyns, B., Hendon, J., Bond, P., & Duff, G. (2000). Habitat use by early life-history stages of fishes and crustaceans along a changing estuarine landscape: Differences between natural and altered shoreline sites. Wetlands Ecology and Management; Dordrecht, 8(2–3), 209–219. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1023/A:1008452805584 [16] Romanuk, T. N., & Levings, C. D. (2003). Associations Between Arthropods and the Supralittoral Ecotone: Dependence of Aquatic and Terrestrial Taxa on Riparian Vegetation. Environmental Entomology, 32(6), 1343–1353. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-32.6.1343 [17] Tuxen, K., Schile, L., Stralberg, D., Siegel, S., Parker, T., Vasey, M., Callaway, J., & Kelly, M. (2011). Mapping changes in tidal wetland vegetation composition and pattern across a salinity gradient using high spatial resolution imagery. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 19(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-010-9207-x [18] Sloey, T. M., Howard, R. J., & Hester, M. W. (2016). Response of Schoenoplectus acutus and Schoenoplectus californicus at Different Life-History Stages to Hydrologic Regime. Wetlands, 36(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-015-0713-8 [19] Svengsouk, L. J., & Mitsch, W. J. (2001). Dynamics of Mixtures of Typha latifolia and Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani in Nutrient-enrichment Wetland Experiments. The American Midland Naturalist, 145(2), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2001)145[0309:DOMOTL]2.0.CO;2 [20] Fitzgerald, E. J., Caffrey, J. M., Nesaratnam, S. T., & McLoughlin, P. (2003). Copper and lead concentrations in salt marsh plants on the Suir Estuary, Ireland. Environmental Pollution, 123(1), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(02)00366-4 [21] Deegan, B., Harrington, T. J., & Dundon, P. (2005). Effects of salinity and inundation regime on growth and distribution of Schoenoplectus triqueter. Aquatic Botany, 81(3), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2004.11.006 [22] Warrence, N. J., Bauder, D. J. W., Warreace, N. J., Universitv-Bozeman, M. S., & Mt, B. (2001). Salinity, sodicity and flooding tolerance of selected plant species of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation.  [23] Husby, C. (2013). Biology and Functional Ecology of Equisetum with Emphasis on the Giant Horsetails. The Botanical Review, 79(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-012-9113-4 [24] Chang, N. B., Islam, K., Marimon, Z., & Wanielista, M. P. (2012). Assessing biological and chemical signatures related to nutrient removal by floating islands in stormwater mesocosm. Chemosphere, 88(6), 736–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.04.030 Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration 20  [25] Chang, Y. H., Ku, C. R., & Yeh, N. (2014). Solar powered artificial floating island for landscape ecology and water quality improvement. Ecological Engineering, 69, 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.03.015 [26] Yeh, N., Yeh, P., & Chang, Y. H. (2015). Artificial floating islands for environmental improvement. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, 616–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.090 [27] Lu, H. L., Ku, C. R., & Chang, Y. H. (2015). Water quality improvement with artificial floating island. Ecological Engineering, 74, 371–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.11.013 [28] Chang, N.-B., Islam, K., Marimon, Z., & Wanielista, M. P. (2012). Assessing biological and chemical signatures related to nutrient removal by floating islands in stormwater mesocosm. Chemosphere, 88(6), 736–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.04.030  [29] Turnbull, L. C., & Bridgham, S. D. (2015). Do two graminoids, the invasive Phalaris arundinacea and the native Scirpus microcarpus, have similar ecosystem effects in a wetland? Soil Science Society of America Journal, 79(3), 957-967. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2014.08.0335 [30] Taylor, K. M. (2017). Competitive interactions and rhizome reproductive capacity of an invasive plant, garden loosestrife (Lysimachia vulgaris L.) (Order No. 10688209). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2015962240). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/2015962240?accountid=14656  [31] Atkinson, R. B., & Cairns, J. (2001). Plant decomposition and litter accumulation in depressional wetlands: Functional performance of two wetland age classes that were created via excavation. Wetlands, 21(3), 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2001)021[0354:pdalai]2.0.co;2  [32] Kao, J. T., Titus, J. E., & Zhu, W. X. (2003). Differential nitrogen and phosphorus retention by five wetland plant species. Wetlands, 23(4), 979–987. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2003)023[0979:dnaprb]2.0.co;2  [33] Reed, W. (1993). Rosa nutkana. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory website: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/rosnut/all.html [34] McCarty, M. K. (1967). Control of Western Snowberry in Nebraska. Weeds, 15(2), 130–133. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/4041182 [35] Tirmenstein, D.A. (1990). Mahonia nervosa Retrieved from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory website: file:///Users/shannonbull/Zotero/storage/PBVDKN78/all.html  Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration  A  Appendices Appendix A: Data Collected and Methodology Water Quality In order to further determine the state of Lost Lagoon and guide the selection of species recommended for planting, an analysis of the water quality of Lost Lagoon was undertaken. Data was integrated from three sources:  1) Historical water quality data collected by SPES biweekly from 2016-2018 and during the summer months of 2019, including the following parameters:  • Water temperature  • Salinity • pH • Dissolved oxygen  • Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)  2) Current water quality data collected during a site visit in December 2019, to validate the outcomes of the historical data analysis and determine the turbidity (concentration of suspended matter) of the water. 3) Heavy metal and nutrient concentrations obtained from MacKinnon (2018)[A1] and collected in 2017. Current and historical temperature, salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen and ORP were measured with a YSI probe at four locations around the perimeter of Lost Lagoon. Turbidity was measured with a Secchi disk. Heavy metal and nutrient concentrations were measured at a variety of locations around and near Lost Lagoon and analyzed in a laboratory setting[A1].  Species Information To guide restoration plans, inventories of the flora and fauna of the Lost Lagoon area, both native and invasive, from MacKinnon[A1] and the State of the Park Report for Ecological Integrity[A2] were reviewed. Further information on invasive plant species and the relative threats they pose was obtained from Jeannine Johnstone, Stewardship Coordinator for SPES. Cattails (Typha latifolia) are a dominant native species in Lost Lagoon, so Daniel Stewart, a plant ecologist and cattail expert, was consulted for further information on their ecological role in this system.        Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration A  Results Water Quality (Figure A1)  Figure A1. Water quality parameters for Lost Lagoon gathered by volunteers from 2016-2019; A) Water temperature, B) Salinity, C) Dissolved Oxygen, D) pH, E) Oxidation-Reduction Potential. Thick lines denote the median (the middle value of the observed range), boxes denote the 1st to 3rd quartiles (50% of observations fall within this range), whiskers denote the upper and lower 25% of the data with dots showing extreme or unusual observations. The temperature range of Lost Lagoon is 1C-30C (note that temperature values in 2019 are high because measurements were taken only during the summer months). The water is brackish, with salinity increasing in 2019, perhaps because measurements were not taken during the rainy winter months.  Dissolved oxygen content is low but relatively consistent. DO and pH values for 2019 have been omitted due to unreliable measurements resulting from instrument error. ORP values have remained constant over time, further suggesting that oxygen levels are stable and there have been no significant changes in pollutant level. Two extremely low ORP values were omitted from 2018 (-930 and -525 mV), since they likely reflect human or instrument error.   Water temperatures in Lost Lagoon range from 1.1°C – 29.5°C across all seasons. Salinity ranges from 0 – 1.95 parts per thousand (ppt), confirming that Lost Lagoon should be considered a brackish lake – freshwater is defined as having a salinity less than 0.5 ppt, while brackish water ranges from 0.5 ppt to 35 ppt[A3]. Salinity is highest in the fall, likely due to the evaporation and minimal precipitation which occurs through the summer months.  Salinity increased in 2019 (Figure A1), likely due to the cessation of municipal freshwater inputs. Monthly average dissolved oxygen levels ranged from 8.43 mg/L – 11.2 mg/L; this level of dissolved oxygen will allow large fish, especially those adapted to low oxygen conditions, to survive while smaller fish would likely perish[A4]. The monthly average pH of Lost Lagoon is between 6.6 Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration A  and 8.2, a relatively normal range for brackish water. ORP for Lost Lagoon was highly constant over time, with average values of 100 – 200 mV, suggesting that pollutant levels have remained consistent over time.  MacKinnon[A1] shows that total nitrogen and phosphate levels in Lost Lagoon were present in high amounts, though not high enough concentrations to be lethal to aquatic life. Total nitrogen and phosphorous levels had increased from 2015 to 2017. These high nutrient levels encourage prolific algal growth and the subsequent die-off and composition of the phytoplankton contributes to the low oxygen content of the water. MacKinnon[A1] found cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc to be present in Lost Lagoon, though the biofiltration wetlands installed in 2001 were successful in capturing 50% of heavy metals before they entered the lake. Of these metals, only copper (202.5 mg/kg) exceeded the designated Canadian Probable Effects Level, which indicates the threshold beyond which heavy metal concentrations will affect aquatic life[A5].  These results suggest that high salinity, low dissolved oxygen and potentially heavy metal concentrations, particularly copper, are likely limiting factors for aquatic life in Lost Lagoon. Salinity will likely increase as climate change advances and municipal freshwater sources remain shut, while dissolved oxygen will continue to be depressed by continual addition of nutrients from runoff and consequent algal growth. Heavy metals will likely continue to accumulate as a result of runoff from the nearby causeway. As such, all plant species planted in Lost Lagoon should be adapted to these conditions as much as possible, particularly high salinity. Species Information The concrete beach area of Lost Lagoon is largely dominated by non-native species, both floral and faunal. On the shoreline, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) overgrows native species and is actively managed by SPES and the EcoStewards volunteers.  Several areas of shoreline have been cleared of blackberry and planted with a variety of rush and sedge species in recent years, with good success thus far. This stretch of shoreline also features several large willow trees, which are in declining health.  Western yellow pond-lily (Nuphar polysepala) and yellow-flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), both non-native species, grow prolifically in the lake itself. The latter is of particular concern, being highly invasive and competitive[A6].  Yellow flag iris is, however, not currently present along the concrete beach shoreline. Native cattail (Typha latifolia) grows in large stands on the northern side of the lake. Cattail has an aggressive growth form, spreading via rhizomes and seeds, and is therefore a potential competitor for yellow flag iris. However, it can become dominant itself, particularly when it hybridizes with the non-native form (T. angustifolia). Since the presence of T. angustifolia in Lost Lagoon is so far undetermined, T. latifolia is not recommended for restoration planting (D. Stewart, personal communication).  The major form of fauna in Lost Lagoon is bird species, both migratory, resident and transient and including a variety of species of concern, though a large portion of these are non-native (e.g. Canada Goose, Branta canadensis) [A1]. Mammals and herptile species are rarer in Lost Lagoon, though a variety do occur[A2]. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) are the dominant fish species in Lost Lagoon, though a population of native threespined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) are thought to persist[A1].     Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration A  References:  [A1] MacKinnon, D. E. (2018). A restoration strategy to avert the projected ecological risks of Lost Lagoon in Stanley Park, British Columbia. [A2] Worcester, R. (2010). State of the Park Report for the Ecological Integrity of Stanley Park (SOPEI). Summary Report. Stanley Park Ecological Society Retrieved from: http://stanleyparkecology.ca/SOPEI-Summary-Report_lg.pdf [A3] US Department of Commerce, N. O. and A. A. (n.d.). NOAA’s National Ocean Service Education: Estuaries. Retrieved from https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/estuaries01_whatis.html [A4] Environment and Natural Resources Canada (n.d.). Dissolved Oxygen (DO). Retrieved from https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/enr/files/dissolved_oxygen.pdf [A5] Water Protection and Sustainability. (2017). Working Water Quality Guidelines: Aquatic Life, Wildlife and Agriculture. Ministry of Environment.  [A6] Gaskin, J. F., Pokorny, M. L., & Mangold, J. M. (2016). An unusual case of seed dispersal in an invasive aquatic; yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus). Biological Invasions, 18(7), 2067–2075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1151-0 Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration  B  Appendix B: Stakeholder Questionnaires Questionnaire 1 (November-December 2019):  Provided background and context for the project. 1. In what capacity do you use Lost Lagoon (i.e. how often, what do you do there, etc.)?  2. How long have you been visiting Lost Lagoon and have there been any changes to the area you have noticed over that time-span?  3. Are you familiar with the concrete beach (see photo below for reference) on the south side of the lake? And, if so, do you use this space and for what types of activities?  4. Do you have any concerns about the current state of Lost Lagoon (i.e. in regards to public access, the ecological well-being of the area, etc.)?  5. What would be some positive, meaningful outcomes of this restoration project? Specifically in regards to public use and access (i.e. benches, more space on the walking path, etc.).  6. Is there anything that you hope will be a priority for our team and SPES while designing our restoration plan for Lost Lagoon?  Questionnaire 2 (February-March 2020): Provided background, context, summary of questionnaire 1 results, and a summary of the restoration plan.  1. Do you think that the restoration plan aptly addresses the need for a more natural shoreline while maintaining the usability/accessibility of the area?  2. Without considering the budget, which of these stages do you support? Do you have any comments about any specific stage?  3. Do you have any concerns about the restoration plan? Is there anything you believe that we forgot/didn’t consider?  4. Do you feel that we have taken your concerns from round 1 into account? If not, please explain what we could do to better accommodate your concerns.Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration  C  Appendix C: Plant Selection The plants species included in the Restoration Strategy were selected based on the following criteria:  1. Native to the Pacific Northwest. 2. Already existing in Stanley Park (i.e. included in the Stanley Park Ecology Society ‘Life List’). 3. Available for purchase through Nat’s Nursery. 4. For shoreline and aquatic plants (Restoration Stages 1 and 2), species must be tolerant to the salinity levels of Lost Lagoon and capable of withstanding long-term flooding (according to scientific literature). Tolerance of low oxygen conditions and potential ability to compete with invasive species was also considered an advantage.  5. For terrestrial plants (Restoration Stage 3), species must be considered hardy, capable of tolerating a wide range of habitat conditions, particularly in regards to soil and moisture Candidate species were determined through consultation of the SPES Life List and recommendations from SPES based on previous successful restoration plantings. Each potential species was then cross-referenced with the catalogue from Nat’s Nursery. A literature review was then conducted for remaining candidates to determine their preferred habitat, growth patterns and tolerances. Species with appropriate ecology were then incorporated into planting designs (Table C1, Table C2).  Spacing recommendations for planting were based on previous restoration planting plans for Lost Lagoon and a desire to maintain lake views and an open landscape.  Table C1. Aquatic plant species to be planted in Restoration Stages 1 and 2. Species Photo Microhabitat Salinity tolerance Water level fluctuation tolerance Other information Stage 1 (Concrete Breakdown) Species Schoenoplectus acutus (hard-stemmed bulrush)  Shallow waters or wet soils Tolerant of brackish conditions Tolerant of floods and fluctuating water levels  References: [C1,C2] Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (soft-stemmed bulrush)  Shallow water or wet soils High salt tolerance Tolerant of floods and fluctuating water levels Fast-growing, able to compete with Typha latifolia (cattail) References: [C3,C4,C5] Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration C  Equsetum arvense  (common horsetail)  Shallow waters or wet soils Moderate salt tolerance Tolerant of long-term flooding Aggressive growth, competitive; tolerant of a variety of soils; tolerant of low oxygen conditions References: [C6,C7] Stage 2 (Floating Islands) Species Scirpus microcarpus (small-flowered bulrush)  Standing water or wet soils Moderate salt tolerance Tolerant of fluctuating water levels Good for erosion control References: [C8,C9,C10] Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass)  Standing water or wet soils Moderate salt tolerance Tolerant of long-term flooding Good for erosion control; buffers against wave action; provides cover for nesting birds References: [C11,C12] Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani (soft-stemmed bulrush)  Shallow water or wet soils High salt tolerance Tolerant of floods and fluctuating water levels  References: [C3,C4,C5,C8] Schoenoplectus acutus (hardstem bulrush)  Shallow water or wet soils Tolerant of brackish conditions Tolerant of floods and fluctuating water levels  References: [C1,C2,C8]   Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration C  Table C2. Terrestrial plant species to be planted in Restoration Stage 3. Species Photo Moisture requirements Soil requirements Light requirements Other information Stage 3 (Boardwalk) Species Rosa nutkana nutkana (Nootka rose)  Moist but well-drained soils Prefers high nutrient soils but tolerates a wide range of parent materials; Moderately tolerant of saline soils Tolerant of both sun and shade, but with greater growth in open areas Fast-growing, well-suited to disturbed areas and rehabilitation projects. References: [C13] Symphoricarpos spp. (snowberry)  Grows well in well-drained areas or moist areas with high light availability Tolerates a wide variety of soils, from sand to clay Tolerates a wide range of sunlight receipt Occurs in a wide range of habitats; establishes quickly References: [C14] Mahonia nervosa (dull Oregon grape)  Moist or well-drained areas Grows well on a wide variety of soils, including somewhat saline soils Tolerates sunny or shaded locations Occurs in a wide range of habitats References: [C15] References:  [C1] Tuxen, K., Schile, L., Stralberg, D., Siegel, S., Parker, T., Vasey, M., Callaway, J., & Kelly, M. (2011). Mapping changes in tidal wetland vegetation composition and pattern across a salinity gradient using high spatial resolution imagery. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 19(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-010-9207-x [C2] Sloey, T. M., Howard, R. J., & Hester, M. W. (2016). Response of Schoenoplectus acutus and Schoenoplectus californicus at Different Life-History Stages to Hydrologic Regime. Wetlands, 36(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-015-0713-8 [C3] Svengsouk, L. J., & Mitsch, W. J. (2001). Dynamics of Mixtures of Typha latifolia and Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani in Nutrient-enrichment Wetland Experiments. The American Midland Naturalist, 145(2), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2001)145[0309:DOMOTL]2.0.CO;2 Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration C  [C4] Fitzgerald, E. J., Caffrey, J. M., Nesaratnam, S. T., & McLoughlin, P. (2003). Copper and lead concentrations in salt marsh plants on the Suir Estuary, Ireland. Environmental Pollution, 123(1), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(02)00366-4 [C5] Deegan, B., Harrington, T. J., & Dundon, P. (2005). Effects of salinity and inundation regime on growth and distribution of Schoenoplectus triqueter. Aquatic Botany, 81(3), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2004.11.006 [C6] Warrence, N. J., Bauder, D. J. W., Warreace, N. J., Universitv-Bozeman, M.-S., & Mt, B. (2001). Salinity, sodicity and flooding tolerance of selected plant species of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. [C7] Husby, C. (2013). Biology and Functional Ecology of Equisetum with Emphasis on the Giant Horsetails. The Botanical Review, 79(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-012-9113-4 [C8] Chang, N. B., Islam, K., Marimon, Z., & Wanielista, M. P. (2012). Assessing biological and chemical signatures related to nutrient removal by floating islands in stormwater mesocosm. Chemosphere, 88(6), 736–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.04.030  [C9] Turnbull, L. C., & Bridgham, S. D. (2015). Do two graminoids, the invasive Phalaris arundinacea and the native Scirpus microcarpus, have similar ecosystem effects in a wetland? Soil Science Society of America Journal, 79(3), 957-967. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2014.08.0335  [C10] Taylor, K. M. (2017). Competitive interactions and rhizome reproductive capacity of an invasive plant, garden loosestrife (Lysimachia vulgaris L.) (Order No. 10688209). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2015962240). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/2015962240?accountid=14656  [C11] Atkinson, R. B., & Cairns, J. (2001). Plant decomposition and litter accumulation in depressional wetlands: Functional performance of two wetland age classes that were created via excavation. Wetlands, 21(3), 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2001)021[0354:pdalai]2.0.co;2  [C12] Kao, J. T., Titus, J. E., & Zhu, W.-X. (2003). Differential nitrogen and phosphorus retention by five wetland plant species. Wetlands, 23(4), 979–987. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2003)023[0979:dnaprb]2.0.co;2  [C13] Reed, W. (1993). Rosa nutkana. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory website: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/rosnut/all.html [C14] McCarty, M. K. (1967). Control of Western Snowberry in Nebraska. Weeds, 15(2), 130–133. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/4041182 Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration C  [C15] Tirmenstein, D.A. (1990). Mahonia nervosa Retrieved from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory website: file:///Users/shannonbull/Zotero/storage/PBVDKN78/all.html Photo References:  Schoenoplectus acutus: Oldenettel, J. (2007). Hardstem bulrush at Stephen’s Park. Retrived from https://www.flickr.com/photos/jroldenettel/1527128096  Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani: Fischer, C. (2009). Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SchoenoplectusTabernaemontani.jpg  Equisetum arvense:  Hodnett, R. (2018). Field Horsetail. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Field_Horsetail_(Equisetum_arvense)_-_Kitchener,_Ontario.jpg Scirpus microcarpus:  Morefield, J. (2016). Bulrush, Scirpus microcarpus. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/127605180@N04/40184289600 Scirpus cyperinus:  Krzysztof Ziarnek, K. (2016). Scirpus cyperinus. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scirpus_cyperinus_kz2.jpg Rosa nutkana nutkana:  brewbooks (2015). Nootka rose. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/brewbooks/18084854809 Symphoricarpos:  Zell, H. (2009). Symphoricarpos albus. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Symphoricarpos_albus_001.JPG Mahonia nervosa:  Erin (2008). Oregon-grape (Mahonia nervosa). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/lance_mountain/2865825238 Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration  D  Appendix D: Detailed Budget Table D1. Budget for Restoration Stage 1a – concrete breakdown and planting of west half of concrete beach.  Item Sub-item # Units*Cost per Unit Cost Basis for Cost Estimation Concrete Breakdown   $12,500 Christensen Excavating Planting Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 65 * $1.25 (plug) $81.25 Estimated from Nat’s Nursery prices Schoenoplectus acutus 65 * $1.25 (plug) $81.25 Equisetum arvense 65 * $1.25 (plug) $81.25 Total   $12,743.75  Table D2. Budget for Restoration Stage 1b - concrete Breakdown and planting of east half of concrete beach. Item Sub-item # Units*Cost per Unit Cost Basis for Cost Estimation Concrete Breakdown   $12,500 Christensen Excavating Planting Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 85 * $1.25 (plug) $106.25 Estimated from Nat’s Nursery prices Schoenoplectus acutus 85 * $1.25 (plug) $106.25 Equisetum arvense 85 * $1.25 (plug) $106.25 Total   $12,818.75  Table D3. Budget for Restoration Stage 2 - Floating Island Installation Item Sub-item # Units*Cost per Unit Cost Basis for Cost Estimation BioHaven Floating Mats* 3 foot diameter 5 * $280 $1,400.00 Floating Islands West 4 foot diameter 5 * $455 $2,275.00 5 foot diameter 5 * $700 $3,500.00 Soil & Planting Media Field soil $0.50-1.10/ft3 $50.00 Estimated from University of Amherst documents, Home Depot, and Canadian Tire Planting Scirpus microcarpus 30 * $1.25 (plug) $37.50 Estimated from Nat’s Nursery Scirpus cyperinus 30 * $1.25 (plug) $37.50 Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani 30 * $1.25 (plug) $37.50 Schoenoplectus acutus 30 * $1.25 (plug) $37.50 Total With 3 foot diameter floating islands  $1,600.00  Lost Lagoon Shoreline Restoration D  With 4 foot diameter floating islands  $2,475.00 With 5 foot diameter floating islands  $3,700.00 *Cost breakdown assumes at least 5 floating islands are purchased.  Table D4. Budget for Restoration Stage 3 - Boardwalk and Viewing Platform Construction. Item Sub-item # Units*Cost per Unit Cost Basis for Cost Estimation Boardwalk Excavation 5 days * $1,000/day $5,000 Consultation with professional carpenter/ construction foreman Concrete 30m3 * $250/m3 $7,500 Other materials (concrete forms, posts, joists, pressure-treated lumber, galvanized screws/nails)  $23,200 Labour  $25,000 Builder’s fee  $9,000 Miscellaneous expenses  $6,000 Planting Polystichum munitum 30 * $4.15 (plug) $166.50 Estimated from Nat’s Nursery Symphoricarpos spp. 30 * $4.15 (plug) $124.50 Mahonia nervosa 30 * $5.45 (plug) $163.50 Total   $75,654.50   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52966.1-0389955/manifest

Comment

Related Items