Introduction

False Creek is an urban body of saltwater in Vancouver, Canada’s 3rd largest city. As an inlet of the Salish Sea, False Creek wraps its way around downtown Vancouver and other notable neighbourhoods such as Kitsilano and Mount Pleasant. Infrastructure and human activity have heavily shaped the waterway into what it is today, including the construction of three major bridges. Despite being in the heart of a major urban centre, False Creek still exists as a functional ecosystem, but has sustained many transformations. False Creek has had a changing ecology since before the first European structures were constructed in Gastown. The inlet was originally a canal and mudflat with trees stretching to the water’s edge, used for shellfish farming and the site of Sen̓áḵw, a small Squamish village. Throughout its subsequent colonization and industrialization, the Creek became heavily polluted and the abiotic environment changed drastically. Since the 1970s, False Creek has been slowly restoring itself. City officials have discussed accelerating the revitalization with intentional actions for decades, and now more than ever is it seriously considered as parts of the shoreline undergo redevelopment.

However, the ecological history of False Creek has never been compiled into a single comprehensive source. This report serves to provide a complete understanding of the ecology of False Creek, ranging from its original, largely unmodified state prior to the 1890s and through its industrialization. This report summarizes the visual biodiversity observations from the 2022 False Creek Bioblitz, providing a snapshot of the current ecology in False Creek. Lastly, this report includes recommendations on how to boost the Creek’s biodiversity and species abundance based on specific weaknesses in its current environment. Vancouver has a public reputation of being surrounded by nature and eco-friendly, pursuing titles such as the world’s “greenest city”. While False Creek was once a public health hazard (and in some locations, still is), it provides a unique opportunity to push Vancouver’s eco-image further, and to have a fully-functioning ecosystem with visible trophic interactions on the shores of downtown.

Historical Overview of False Creek

False Creek once existed at the boundary of several distinct ecosystems. The inlet was surrounded on three sides by dense coniferous forest. Several large freshwater streams coursed through the forest before emptying into False Creek. Finally, False Creek was directly connected on its western side to the Salish Sea. False Creek’s ecosystem wasinfluenced by all three surrounding habitats. Traditionally, False Creek’s historic ecosystem was described simply as a slough or a mudflat.

However, the generalization of the Creek into broad, monolithic ecosystem types reduces the variability present from location to location within the inlet itself. While efforts have been made in the past to understand the historical ecology of False Creek prior to its industrialization and degradation after the 1880s, these efforts often generalize the inlet into a single well-defined ecosystem type. Such simplifications present False Creek without the small-scale spatial variability it actually had. In a novel understanding of False Creek’s historical ecology, this report identifies west-east ecological distinctions within the Creek itself. We analyzed of historical documents regarding commercial catch along with written accounts and biographies of both Indigenous people and European settlers in the area. Through comparison of species distributions to their respective preferred habitats and tolerances (specifically in regard to euryhalinity or stenohalinity), we have reconstructed the historical ecosystem. We found that the western and eastern halves likely differed in their consistency of salinity over the course of a day (one tidal cycle), forming a gradient spanning from China Creek to English Bay.

The western half of False Creek (defined as the area extending west from today’s Cambie Street Bridge) was likely a mix between an estuarine ecosystem and the neritic (surface layer of open water) ecosystem of English Bay. The most commonly caught species of fish in this area were Pacific herring (Culpea pallasii), smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), and flatfish (Pleuronectiformes spp.), all of which are associated with pelagic or estuarine ecosystems for their adult lives. Musqueam, T’sleil Waututh, and Squamish people farmed and harvested shellfish on a large intertidal sandbar where present-day Granville island sits. These included Olympia oyster (Ostrea conchaphila), butter clams (Saxiodomus gigantea), littleneck clams (Protothaca staminea), as well as various mussels, urchins, and limpets (Maracle, n.d.; Morin & Evans, 2022). Similar to the fish assemblage of western False Creek, many of these shellfish are tolerant of estuarine waters. However, the shellfish often still avoid living directly in freshwater (Couch & Hassler, 1989; Cowles, n.d.). This species composition hints that the western half of False Creek likely had consistently higher salinity throughout the daily tidal cycle, similar to the waters of English Bay and surrounding areas. While a number of true creeks flowed into this part of the inlet, the effect the freshwater input had on diluting the salinity was likely low in comparison to the eastern half. The combination of a relatively deep seafloor compared to the eastern half, and the close proximity to the wide mouth into English Bay likely caused sufficient mixing and flushing of the water column to reduce potential changes in salinity. This kept the waters similar biologically and abiotically to that of English Bay.

Western False Creek

Map 1 - Shoreline and characteristics of False Creek prior to the 1880s. Adapted from Taft et al. (2021) and Brauer (2007).

The eastern half of False Creek’s historic range (roughly from today’s Cambie Street Bridge to Clark Street) was primarily a large tidal mudflat. Photographs reveal the shore was lined with reeds, likely with much of the upper intertidal zone being a salt marsh (Brauer, 2007; Taft et al., 2021). As opposed to the shellfish of the western sandbars, the tidal mudflat was known for having an exceptionally high abundance of crabs (Brauer, 2007; Macdonald, 1992; Morin & Evans, 2022). This matches other nearby salt marshes—Boundary Bay, which has mudflats, reeds along the upper shore, also has historically abundant crab populations (Morin & Evans, 2022). When the tide was high, the marsh would flood with salty water. This was facilitated by the opening of a channel connecting eastern False Creek to inner Burrard Inlet only at high tide (Brauer, 2007; Taft et al., 2021). Salt water would flow in, allowing for euryhaline species to reside. However, at low tide the salinity of the Creek likely dropped dramatically. Much of the area was entirely exposed atlow tide, leaving the main input of water to be the numerous true creeks that emptied into the basin. The largest of which, China Creek, had a total length of 16 kilometres and large catchment area, causing a high volume of freshwater to carve through the False Creek Flats at low tide (Brauer, 2007). In winter, the easternmost area of False Creek was allegedly fresh enough to freeze, which settlers used for skating (Alexander, 1998). While present along the entire length of False Creek, there were notably high reports of salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) in the eastern half (Alexander, 1998; Brauer, 2007; Coastal Adaptation: False Creek, 2021; Morin & Evans, 2022). As euryhaline species, both salmon and sturgeon are tolerant to large shifts in salinity. In contrast, the smelt and herring that were so common near English Bay were less likely to be found on the False Creek Flats, possibly unable to endure the fluctuating estuarine environment. Historic False Creek’s two ecosystems were defined by the consistency of their salinity; while the west had consistent salinity somewhere between estuarine and pelagic, the east switched twice a day between a large brackish bay and a mudflat incised with freshwater creeks. The effects of this can still be seen today—the mural in China Creek park depicts a river swollen with salmon. This was a real sight exactly at the location of the mural, driven by salmon’s tolerance for variable salinity.

As with all ecosystem boundaries, the border between the two halves was not strongly defined. While the west had consistent salinity and the east varied over the day, the dividing line cannot be drawn accurately, and likely was a gradient spanning much of False Creek.

Eastern False Creek

Pre-industrialized shoreline of False Creek Flats, looking northeast. City of Vancouver Archives Item : SGN 1115 - [Shoreline area of False Creek]

How to Further Our Understanding of False Creek’s Historical Ecology

The direct evidence of False Creek’s historical ecology only communicates one side of the ecosystem. As a relatively young city with rapid industrialization, the direct record keeping of species abundance was spotty and unreliable. Primary sources, like fishery reports, only provide insight on the presence of commercial species. This heavily skews the data towards favouring economic species like salmon or herring, and away from the support species in the Creek. What records were kept only measured the abundance in observational terms (swarms, hordes, etc) or in fishery catch weight. Precise records only began to be recorded after the industrialization of Vancouver, at which point the ecology of False Creek had already rapidly changed and species had been effectively extirpated. Written Indigenous sources are also greatly outweighed by settler accounts, focusing the available information disproportionately on what the European settlers saw appropriate to record.

Furthering the understanding of False Creek's historical ecology can be achieved by studying local reference ecosystems that share similarities with False Creek but have not experienced heavy industrialization. For instance, several bays on the nearby Gambier Island exhibit similarities to False Creek’s abiotic environment and may host species assemblages akin to False Creek’s prior state. Simenstad et al. (1979) provides generalized trophic webs for nearby ecosystems, encompassing both support species and commercial species, offering a more holistic view of the ecosystem. While not utilizing primary sources, these approaches can still yield valuable insights into the historic ecology of False Creek. More importantly, directly consulting Indigenous sources could provide additional information on the history of the inlet. As this study was confined to a literature review, future work involving collaboration with Indigenous communities and sources will likely uncover aspects that were overlooked here.

Industrialization

Almost immediately after the arrival of European settlers, dynamite fishing and other destructive fishing practices decimated stocks of Pacific herring, surf smelt, and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in Burrard Inlet and English bay (Morin et al., 2023; Morin & Evans, 2022). Overfishing caused the decline of each fishery in the inlet until the effort outweighed the financial gain for the fishers. In 1881, an estimated 75,000 kg of herring were harvestedat a single floating oilery over the course of the year, where the fish were processed into oil. By 1886, only 450 kg of herring were harvested per year, a reduction to 0.6% of the catch five years earlier (Morin et al., 2023).

The rapid growth of Vancouver as a city saw dramatic changes in False Creek’s abiotic environment. The pursuit of development and industry drove European settlers to start businesses on the valuable waterfront (Coastal Adaptation: False Creek, 2021). Log storage, sawmills, shipbuilding, small ports, slaughterhouses, and canneries developed on the shores of False Creek, displacing the productive nearshore ecosystem (Cummings, 2016; Kassam, 2018; Nijman & Swain, 1990). The Squamish village of Sen̓áḵw, which had been permanently occupied since the early 1800s and an important harvest spot since long before, was designated by the settlers as Indian Reserve No. 6, consisting of a trivial 80 acres. Indigenous people were forcibly removed from their homes and made to live on reserves (Maracle, n.d.; Wilcox, n.d.). Aldermen complained in municipal meetings that the False Creek Flats were “a nuisance to the public” and “no use to anyone” (Hennessy, n.d.).

In 1913, the sandy bottom of the Creek was dredged to fill in the nearby swampland directly east of Kitsilano beach, where modern day Creelman street runs (Biodiversity Strategy, 2016). Just two years later, when the municipality dredged the Creek again, 3.3 million cubic metres of material were scraped out of the western end of the inlet and used to completely infill False Creek Flats to allow for the construction of the railyard (Taft et al., 2021). The access to a rail terminus bolstered further industrial development along the Creek (Kassam, 2018). In 1913, the settlers forced the inhabitants of Sen̓áḵw into a barge and abandoned them in the middle of English Bay with no way to propel themselves. Once adrift, the settlers burned the entirety of Sen̓áḵw to the ground. A nearby tugboat owner rescued the barge, pulling it to a T’sleil Waututh reserve on the north side of English Bay (Maracle, n.d.; Wilcox, n.d.). The area where the village used to be was quickly industrialized, and the Indigenous connection to False Creek deliberately erased.

The Burying of China Creek. City of Vancouver Archives Item : AM54-S4-: Str P270.05 [Sewer Construction at China Creek]

The tidal connection to inner Burrard Inlet was shortly lost as private landowners filled in their property, and sediment continued to be dredged out of the basin to allow for ever more ships. Substrates like cobble and sand, which provide diverse three-dimensional habitat for marine organisms, were removed in favour of silt and mud, which are easier to anchor ships in. The shoreline was hardened into building foundations and commercial seawalls (Cummings, 2016). The deep ravines that the various creeks had carved towards the basin became unofficial garbage dumps by the rapidly growing population (Alexander, 1998; Brauer, 2007). Throughout the early 20th century, the city chose to cover up the streams with concrete pipes, connecting many of them to the same system as the sewage pipe. It is estimated that 96 km of Vancouver’s 105 km of streams were buried in this time, entirely eliminating any ecosystem that used the streams (Biodiversity Strategy, 2016; Brauer, 2007). This was the end of the iconic salmon runs in developed Vancouver.

1972 view of the Eastern basin. City of Vancouver Archives Item COV-S597-F1-: 2019- 102.22. [Aerial View of False Creek]

In 1913, Vancouver decided that the various industries along False Creek’s waterfront polluted the inlet heavily through discharges and runoff, resulting in toxic levels of heavy metals, including cadmium, zinc, nickel, mercury, copper, iron, and lead (Sutherland & Phippen, 2006). In total, the Creek had shrunk to 20-25% of its former size, while the steep and barren seawall have shrunk the intertidal area by a factor of 1,000 (Taft et al., 2021). Any sign of a natural shoreline along False Creek was entirely lost. The basin had become a lethally polluted “civic horror” (Alexander, 1998), with suggestions to fill it in entirely. The heavy metals settled in the sediments, remaining largely undisturbed to this day. In the event of heavy rainfall, the combined sewer-outflows (CSOs) pumped sewage directly into False Creek (An et al., 2015; Sutherland & Phippen, 2006).

In the 1970s, the city began to redevelop False Creek. Instead of being the industrial heartland of the city, earnest plans were put forward to convert the adjacent lands to residential, recreational, and commercial sectors. The first part of False Creek to show this land-use change was Granville Island, which shortly opened its first commercial outlets amidst the heavy industrial buildings (Nijman & Swain, 1990). The cessation of most noxious emissions improved the abysmal air quality in the region (Alexander, 1998). Developments for Expo ‘86 continued this trend, prioritizing commercial-residential-recreational neighbourhoods along the northern shore in their post-fair redevelopment process (Nijman & Swain, 1990). Active industrial pollution slowly ground to a halt as the area redefined itself, and for the first time, earnest plans were put forward to improve the quality of the soil and sediments in the Creek (Cummings, 2016). The construction of BC Place and Science World in the 1980s grounded False Creek as a destination for both Vancouverites and tourists. In an ironic twist, the first attempt to improve False Creek’s ecosystem came through further dredging. The contaminated sediments were scraped off the seafloor and removed (Cummings, 2016; Thompson & Paton, 1978). However, other areas, notably the eastern basin by Science World, remain polluted to this day, despite minimal new inputs of pollutants.

1970s view of the southern shore of False Creek. City of Vancouver Archives Item : CVA 800-1545. [False Creek]

In 2001, after decades of extensive legal action, Vancouver returned an 11.7 acre portion of Indian Reserve No. 6 to the Squamish Nation. While only 15% of the 1912 size and meagre in comparison to their pre-industrialization territory, the physical return of land marks an important milestone in the decolonization of False Creek (Wilcox, n.d.).

Map 2 - Shoreline and characteristics of modern False Creek. Adapted from Taft et al. (2021)

The pollutants in False Creek are still present, despite industrial action being heavily reduced. One challenge limiting the removal of the persistent pollutants is the shape of the inlet itself. The narrow walls and shallow bottom mean that tidal flushing is weak (Sutherland & Phippen, 2006). It is likely that tidal currents greater than 1 m/s would be necessary to properly mix and flush the water in the inlet, which is likely much higher than what is currently achieved. Furthermore, in the summer the stagnant water can heavily stratify both chemically and thermally, especially in the eastern basin (An et al., 2015; Cummings, 2016).

Figure 1 - Temperature (left) and salinity (right) depth profiles for East False Creek. There are strong differences in water temperature and salinity with depth. The upper layer is warmer and less saline, with a clear thermocline and halocline at 3m depth. This shows that there is very little vertical mixing in False Creek. From Cummings (2016).

The stagnant water allows for the breeding of E. coli, primarily due to the aforementioned CSOs, as well as potential due to sewage leaks, pleasure crafts, and marinas (An et al., 2015). It may also be contributing to the pervasiveness of the polluted sediments, but more research is required in this area.

Figure 2 - Map of False Creek showing major features related to water quality. From Kassam (2018).

There are large gaps in knowledge regarding False Creek’s pollution. For example, the effects of 6PPD-Quinone on fish, specifically salmon, are being heavily studied across the west coast. The “tire-wear toxin” enters the waterways due to road runoff, where it is deposited by friction with car tires. 6PPD-Q causes the premature deaths of 40%-90% of juvenile salmon near roadways (Lo et al., 2023). It is known to also be fatal to other fish species, including trout and sturgeon. Roughly 165,000 people visit Granville island by car each year, and Granville bridge supports up to 65,000 motor vehicles per day (Granville Bridge Connector: Phase 1 Open House Information Displays, 2019; Granville Island 2040: Transportation Strategy, 2018). However, the concentration of 6PPD-Q in False Creek has yet to be officially studied. Similarly, there are gaps in knowledge surrounding the presence or abundance of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and many other types of pollutants. Even the shape of the inlet is under debate; many sources (including municipal reports) ascribe the poor mixing to an underwater sill on the seafloor. Reports as recent as 2016 claim that the sill is under the Cambie Street Bridge, reducing the mean depth from 5m to 3m, and it is the primary cause of the lack of circulation between the two major basins of False Creek (Cummings, 2016). However, other sources (including bathymetric surveys) assert that the area under Cambie Street bridge is actually the deepest part of the creek, reaching depths of 10m or greater. The False Creek Friends Society measured the depth with an on-board depth sounder in May 2024 and confirmed it as roughly 10 metres deep, with no sign of a sill anywhere near the bridge. 

The claims about the sill can all be traced through a chain of references back to a sediment survey conducted by the Environmental Protection Service in 1983 for the development of BC Place and Expo ‘86 (Assessment of Contaminated Sediment Disposal Within East Basin of False Creek, 1983). While in this case harmless, the large gaps in knowledge and misinformation present around False Creek’s abiotic environment renders accurate assessment of its condition difficult.

Pollution Knowledge Gaps

2022 False Creek Bioblitz

False Creek is in a significantly better state today than it was 50 years ago. There have been several small-scale measures to improve the ecosystem, such as the construction of Habitat Island and the removal of some contaminated sediments, but the majority of the restoration within the Creek has been passive. The ecosystem that is currently there is fundamentally different from the ecosystem prior to the 1880s—not only is the area of the Creek smaller by a factor of 4-5 and the intertidal area effectively removed, but the conditions of the water are significantly different too (Taft et al., 2021). While the eastern end likely used to fluctuate between the salinity of English Bay and that of freshwater, it is now consistently higher in salinity than English Bay. This heavily impacts what species can exist in these urban waters—but in ways that, until recently, we didn’t understand. 

The 2022 False Creek Bioblitz was an initiative led by the Hakai Institute, in partnership with the False Creek Friends Society and the City of Vancouver, that sought to confirm the presence and abundance of hundreds of species in the False Creek area. Furthermore, it intended to increase community awareness of these unique public waters and foster conversation regarding its conservation. There were two primary ways in which the biological data of the bioblitz was collected. The majority of the 2,919 observations were inputted through iNaturalist. Much of this data was opportunistic (collected by citizens using iNaturalist in the study area from April to September 2022). 

All iNaturalist observations are publicly accessible here: https://inaturalist.ca/projects/false-creek-bioblitz-2022

Map 3 - Study area of the 2022 False Creek BioBlitz. The study area encapsulates the historic range of False Creek. From iNaturalist

The second source of data was collected by taxonomic experts who were invited to participate in a short-term high-intensity survey between September 2-7, 2022. These intensive surveys used a number of different observation methods (see below). These observations were also unique in that they included the collection of tissue samples for genetic confirmation of species identity. Where possible, these observations were also added to iNaturalist. Methods employed during this survey include:

  • Light traps at Heritage Harbour and Heather Civic Marina.

  • Sampling of the intertidal area.

  • Bird survey involving walking the entirety of False Creek’s shoreline.

  • Insect survey at Vanier Park, resulting in reporting two species newly introduced to British Columbia.

  • Zooplankton tows and other oceanographic data.

  • Sediment grab surveys targeting benthic marine invertebrates.

  • Underwater videography from ROVs or baited traps.

  • Settlement plates that had been previously deployed to be colonized for 60 days.

2,919 individuals were observed in False Creek from April to September 2022.

Figure 3 – Frequency of observations per category for the 2022 False Creek Bioblitz. 2,919 observations were made in total.

The greatest proportion of these observations were marine invertebrates, likely due to the sediment and zooplankton surveys targeting this group. They constituted 34% of the observations, to a total of 988 individual marine invertebrates recorded. 318 of these observations came from iNaturalist, being primarily larger and more noticeable species that live in the water directly (Metacarcinus magister, Pisaster ochraceus, etc.), as opposed to buried in the sediment.

Figure 4 - Marine invertebrate species observed 10 or more times. This figure only includes individuals classified to the species taxonomic rank

Black Mussel observation by iNaturalist user k_henderson

The most commonly observed species of marine invertebrate are the blue mussels, (Mytilus spp.), which are a group of indistinguishable shellfish native to the West Coast. 

Graphing the marine invertebrate observations highlights the biodiversity present in the Creek. Compared to other species groups, marine invertebrates have relatively evenly distributed observation frequencies. Many species were observed a small amount of times. Despite marine invertebrates being observed frequently than birds in the bioblitz, the highest observed species of marine invertebrates was counted fewer times than that of the birds. Similar to a species accumulation curve, this shows that there is high biodiversity in the marine invertebrates community—as more invertebrates were observed, unique species kept being discovered. 

The most commonly observed species were generally shellfish or crabs. Arthropods, bryozoans, and gastropods were less commonly sighted, but still prevalent in the Creek. 

Map 4 - Marine invertebrate observations in the 2022 False Creek BioBlitz. Observations are clustered along the shore of English bay, and also near Habitat Island

Most of the marine invertebrates observed through sediment grabs and zooplankton tows (about ⅔) could not be classified to the species level. Each organism was classified to the finest taxonomic rank possible by the researchers. 

Figure 5 - Marine invertebrate phyla observed 10 or more times. This figure includes all marine invertebrate observations.

Grouping the marine invertebrate observations by phylum reveals more information about the composition of False Creek’s ecosystem. Annelids, which are rarely classified to the species level, made up over a third of all marine invertebrate observations. Annelids are segmented worms, including the commonly found earthworm. In False Creek, annelids are usually marine worms living in the benthic sediments. Cnidarians, the phylum of jellyfish and corals, were observed over a dozen times in False Creek.

The third most commonly sighted category, the birds, were primarily observed through iNaturalist and eBird. As with the marine invertebrates, their abundance in the dataset can be partially explained by specialized efforts to observe that category. A thorough one-day survey of birds was carried out by two teams, who walked the entire length of False Creek, recording visually-identifiable birds along the way. In total there were 579 observations of birds in and around False Creek, totalling 20% of the observations. 

Yellow Shore Crab observation by iNaturalist user maggyspence22

Figure 6 - Bird species observed 10 or more times

While there were fewer total birds sighted than marine invertebrates, more species of birds were observed a total of 10 or more times. 

Two conclusions can be drawn from this: 

  • Birds are easier to classify to the species level than marine invertebrates

  • We have a thorough understanding of the bird species composition of False Creek; the more individuals observed, the more it fills out already-observed species, instead of adding new species to the dataset (as was the case with marine invertebrates).

Birds of various trophic levels were observed, ranging from primary consumer to apex predator. 71 total species were sighted. The most commonly recorded birds are large, relatively slow moving species like herons or geese. This is likely because they are easiest for a pedestrian with a smartphone to identify from a distance, and may not be entirely representative of the true species distribution of birds in False Creek. 

Double-crested Cormorant observation by iNaturalist user Naturenickpics

Map 5 - Bird observations in the 2022 False Creek BioBlitz

Plants were the second most observed category of biota, rivalling marine invertebrates with 924 observations for 32% of the dataset. These were collected entirely through iNaturalist by citizen scientists. However, iNaturalist is unreliable for plant identification, making it near impossible to give statistics on these species beyond the kingdom of “plantae” without introducing significant error and bias, to a level even unreached by any other group.

However, of the species-level identifications, the most commonly observed species was Bittersweet Nightshade. This is a surprising result—Bittersweet Nightshade is a semi-toxic invasive weed (Bittersweet Nightshade Identification and Control, n.d.). While it is undoubtedly present along the inlet, its high position in the dataset may be due to various sources of bias:

  • It is possible iNaturalist is unusually good at identifying this plant down to the species level, increasing apparent observations compared to other species.

  • iNaturalist contributors may have been more likely to scan this weed compared to species which they can identify by memory, even if other species are more common.

Bioblitz participant observation by iNaturalist user k_henderson

Pacific Harbour Seal observation by iNaturalist user joshsilberg

There were only 37 observations of mammals, but they include harbour seals, river otters, racoons, coyotes, and a single Homo sapiens, exemplifying the top of the trophic pyramid in this unique body of water.

Map 6 – Total observations from the 2022 False Creek BioBlitz.

It is worth noting that although the shoreline and water of False Creek is clearly defined in the observation points, not every observation is on the inlet. This is because the study area encapsulates the historic range of False Creek at high tide, which stretched far beyond its current borders and included the Classical Chinese Garden, Strathcona park, and the China Creek Parks. Each of these locations appear as hotspots of plant observations on the east side of the map. Conversely, there are clumps of marine invertebrate sightings on the west side of False Creek, hugging the opening of English Bay. In these areas, the intertidal zone is primarily large cobblestones on top of smaller substrate like gravel and sand. This rocky substrate allows for a productive and biodiverse ecosystem of marine invertebrates under the rocks, as opposed to the uniform sand beaches or constant silty substrate bottoms. Additionally, hard substrate like cobblestones benefit algal growth like sea lettuce. This is evident in the clump of algae observations near Vanier park, where cobblestones line the intertidal area.

Invasivity

iNaturalist uses local data to automatically assign each observation as “native” or “introduced”

Figure 7 - ten most frequently observed introduced species in the 2022 False Creek BioBlitz

Figure 8 - ten most frequently observed native species in the 2022 False Creek BioBlitz

The sorting of each observation into “native” or “introduced” is a feature of the iNaturalist observations. As a result, these do not represent species observed in the zooplankton tows or sediment grabs. As a result, it may be underrepresenting introduced or native marine invertebrate species. 

In total, 401 of the 1,175 iNaturalist observations were introduced species, representing 34% of all individuals spotted. The remaining 774 species are native to the Vancouver area. The vast majority of introduced species detected in the Bioblitz were plants, including well-known species such as Himalayan Blackberry, St. John’s Wort, and the Bleeding Heart lookalike, Herb-Robert. 

The remaining introduced species are primarily shellfish or arthropods (Pacific Oysters, European Honey Bees, Ladybugs), with the only introduced mammals being the European Rabbit and Eastern Grey Squirrel.

In contrast, the majority of the bird species spotted were native to Vancouver. There were no introduced species of fungi observed in the BioBlitz. Conversely, there were no native species of reptiles observed, either. No amphibians, either introduced or native, were observed in the BioBlitz.

Figure 9 - Amount of native and introduced species per category. Of each pair of bars, the left represents the number of native species and the right represents the number of introduced species.

False Creek is home to several species at risk in British Columbia. The most frequently observed in the bioblitz was the Pacific great blue heron (Ardea herodias fannini), a subspecies of the continental great blue heron. This bird faces challenges in finding adequate forage areas in nearshore habitats due to anthropogenic habitat changes, and has been classified as 'Special Concern'. The threatened Pacific Spiny Dogfish (Squalus suckleyi) was also noted. As False Creek’s only shark species, the Spiny Dogfish acts as a high-level predator feeding on smaller fish. Although they are not commonly targeted by anglers, the sharks often bite baited hooks and may become incidental catches.

Conservation Status

North Pacific Spiny Dogfish observation by iNaturalist user fernando_lessa

The Olympia oyster (Ostrea lurida), once abundant on the west coast, is another species of special concern due to extensive overharvesting. Olympia oysters are ecosystem engineers, creating new habitat substrate with their shells. Additionally, these oysters are crucial for water filtration (Couch & Hassler, 1989).

Observations also include several vulnerable waterfowl species such as the Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) and the eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis). These sightings indicate that vulnerable populations exist in Vancouver's urban waters. Whether False Creek serves as a refuge amidst broader population declines or contributes to these declines remains unclear.

‘Rewilding’ and Future of the Creek’s Ecology

False Creek is now a unique and valuable public amenity. Attractions like Granville island are a major draw of tourists to Vancouver, which generates roughly $285 million yearly in sales (Granville Island 2040: Transportation Strategy, 2018). Residents enjoy its many recreational opportunities, including the bike paths and parks. However, its ecological future has been uncertain from the moment Vancouver was colonized. Despite its positive changes in biodiversity, abundance, and public health since the 1970s, the Creek still barely resembles its pre-industrial self. Several organizations, including the False Creek Friends Society and city officials, have suggested deliberate action to ‘restore’ the environment. Furthermore, as Vancouver redevelops the remnants of industry and ageing buildings around this urban waterway into parks and recreational spaces, some have argued that its ecological health is more important than ever—a functioning, productive ecosystem with trophic interactions would cement Vancouver’s green image (especially if it becomes the first National Urban Marine Park on the continent). 

A ‘restored’ False Creek is a tempting idea for city officials, but it presents challenges. Foremost, False Creek could not be restored to its historical state without wholly redeveloping a large section of the city—an impossibility for the coming decades. The historical ecosystem relied on a heavy freshwater input and a large intertidal area. Today, False Creek has neither of those things—instead acting as a saline and consistent amenity to the people who live and work around it. This isn’t to say that the ecosystem cannot be uplifted and boosted, but it must be augmented in a way that builds upon this changed ecosystem. 

What we instead propose is ‘rewilding’ towards a novel ecosystem in False Creek. This would mean deliberately constructing a trophically robust and functional ecosystem on the base of what is currently there. This novel rewilding wouldn’t be possible without the knowledge base provided by the 2022 False Creek Bioblitz. False Creek currently has the potential to be the functional, living ecosystem that proponents of an urban national park imagine, but it is being held back in some way. By mapping the observations of the bioblitz onto an idealized False Creek trophic web, it may become evident which trophic levels and species groups are limiting the ecosystem due to their low abundance.

False Creek has the potential to match several different Strait of Georgia nearshore-ecosystem trophic webs. These webs fundamentally differ from each other by the substrate type. As the lower levels of the trophic pyramid depend on the benthic and intertidal substrate, a change in material has drastic effects on the upper-level species composition. Matching False Creek to the correct substrate type will determine which local trophic web has the highest possibility of existing within the Creek. 

The underwater videography of False Creek taken during the bioblitz by Dr. Joseph Valencic reveals that the most productive areas of the inlet are composed of exposed gravel and large cobblestones (Valencic, 2022). In contrast, the areas with cemented riprap or silty sediment exhibit notably less biodiversity. This difference arises because marine life, such as algae and filter feeders, requires a hard, three-dimensional substrate to attach to. Neither bare silt nor cemented rip-rap provide desirable substrate for anchoring by marine organisms. While silt is generally too soft to be anchored on to, the smoothness of the cement seawall effectively makes it a flat plane, also making anchoring difficult. Consequently, the substrate type with the highest potential for supporting a robust ecosystem in False Creek is the exposed gravel-cobble shallow sublittoral zone, as described in Simenstad et al. (1979).

Oyster reef near the now closed Edgewater Casino. From Valencic (2022).

Algae growing on the cobblestones of the English Bay breakwater. From Valencic (2022).

We compared expected species with actual observations from the bioblitz, using the exposed gravel-cobble shallow sublittoral food web and the littoral cobble food web as bases.

Figure 10 - Simplified False Creek trophic web with the 2022 BioBlitz observations mapped onto trophic levels. Adapted from Simenstad et al. (1979)

The upper intermediate trophic levels (generally small fish that act as secondary consumers) are missing from or limited in the ecosystem. While this does reflect the actual species composition of False Creek, it can also be partially explained by the methods of the bioblitz—compared to other species groups, it was difficult to observe the fish species assemblages. Furthermore, both the highest trophic level (marine mammals and seabirds) and the primary consumers/detritivores (zooplankton and small marine invertebrates) had extensive specialized efforts to record them. Mapping presence onto a food web can give the appearance of a healthy community, when in reality marine invertebrates were targeted more than other species groups. Despite that specialized effort and recording of 988 individuals, many of the lower trophic level species were only observed a small number of times. The detritivore/primary consumer community may be diverse but sparse.

It seems likely that the False Creek ecosystem is likely limited by suitable substrate (a “bottom-up” factor), rather than excessive predation (a “top-down” factor). While the bioblitz did observe some direct predation on the forage fish assemblage, it is unlikely the low frequency of fish sightings can be attributed entirely to that. There simply aren’t enough predators to have such a large impact, nor is there significant overfishing by people. 

In the nearshore cobble-gravel ecosystem, the energy basis of the ecosystem is detritus, which is converted from macroalgae growing on larger rocks and cobblestones (Simenstad et al., 1979). Wave action and currents cause the algae to be crushed into smaller pieces by gravel. Once pieces of detritus have been made small enough, zooplankton are able to consume them, forming the base for higher trophic levels like forage fish, predatory fish, and apex predators such as waterfowl or marine mammals (Simenstad et al., 1979). The overall lack of many fish sightings, paired with the diverse but generally infrequent sightings of zooplankton groups hints that the major limiting factor in the ecosystem likely lies with detritus production and upward energy transfer. 

While it may seem odd for the food-chain to have no direct link between the primary consumer and primary producer, this is the case for the majority of nearshore ecosystems in the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound. Only the neritic (surface layer of open water) food web relies primarily on a direct linkage between primary producers (phytoplankton) and primary consumers (zooplankton) instead of diverting through the detritus pool.

The principal source of detritus in the nearshore ecosystem is, as shown by (Simenstad et al., 1979), macrophytic algae. However, these types of ecosystems generally “[do] not support extensive macroalgal communities”, referring to the kelp forests of other parts of BC. The algae in this ecosystem is primarily akin to sea lettuce, growing in small to medium clumps on hard substrate like cobblestones. This is evidently missing from False Creek in the quantities required. While some areas, like the cobble breakwater near English Bay or the rocky shore in Charleson park, are highly productive and promote the growth of macroalgae, the majority of False Creek is barren of any significant macroalgae production. Swaths of the sandy-silt seafloor are empty of visible life—and especially of macroalgae.

Silty bottom covering much of the eastern end of False Creek. From Valencic (2022).

The lack of suitable substrate for primary production bottlenecks the flow of energy through the trophic pyramid from the very beginning. Detritivores and zooplankton that are preyed upon by fish are limited by the shortage of available detritus. The detritivore population is likely too low to sustain a significant predatory fish population, leading to the missing trophic level shown in the food web. Additionally, the streams leading into historic False Creek may have once been large inputs of detritus. As leaves and other organic materials fall into the creeks, they would have been deposited and eventually broken down in False Creek. Burying the streams has removed this source of biomass.

As for other branches of the trophic web like filter feeders, other limitations may be present as well. There is a functional oyster reef in the eastern basin near the now-closed Edgewater Casino. Its growth may be limited by the lack of circulation. The weak tidal currents and the shape of the inlet could prevent pelagic zooplankton from reaching the bivalves. The use of bivalves to filter out the fecal contamination and E. coli in the eastern basin has been proposed as a solution to some of the pollution in False Creek (Beck et al., 2011; Kassam, 2018). However, if their growth is already limited by a lack of circulation, then the oyster reef may not be able to filter water at the necessary scale. 

The shoreline modifications in False Creek are likely affecting the current ecosystem. The entirety of modern False Creek’s shoreline is modified. This includes hard, cemented seawalls, riprap, artificial beaches, and overwater structures such as docks and marinas. In a natural inlet, the littoral area is of importance to the ecosystem—not only is it where juvenile fish mature before venturing into deeper waters, but the shallow waters allow for high rates of photosynthesis and primary productivity (Nearshore Habitat: How Bank Armoring & Overwater Structures Shape the Health of Pacific Salmon & Steelhead, 2012; Nightingale & Simenstad, 2001). The marinas hugging the shore of False Creek, as well as the hundreds of boats moored at any time, cast shade upon the shallow littoral and sublittoral waters. Not only does this reduce light available for photosynthesis, and later, detritus production, but it may impact juvenile fish behaviour as well. Darkly shaded areas may affect the timing of juvenile fish migration and also drive them into deeper waters during the day, increasing the risk of predation (Nearshore Habitat: How Bank Armoring & Overwater Structures Shape the Health of Pacific Salmon & Steelhead, 2012; Nightingale & Simenstad, 2001). Furthermore, by physically occupying space in shallow waters, these structures may displace young fish into deeper waters where they face higher risks (Nightingale & Simenstad, 2001). Although the return of spawning herring to False Creek has been celebrated in recent years, the presence of toxic creosote-coated pilings on which they lay their eggs causes 95% of the eggs to fail to hatch when without intervention (“Pacific Herring Recovery Project - Fishermen’s Wharf,” n.d.).

The seawall may be having additional effects on juvenile fish. The Vancouver seawall is usually at a steep gradient, which reduces available intertidal area. Furthermore, hard bulkheads contribute to erosion of softer sands nearby, leaving behind only larger rocks and hardpan. While not the most productive for macroalgae, shallow sands are crucial for forage fish spawning (Nearshore Habitat: How Bank Armoring & Overwater Structures Shape the Health of Pacific Salmon & Steelhead, 2012). 

The factors that limit False Creek’s ecosystem are extensive and diverse. While there undoubtably many stressors on the inlet, substrate limitation, poor circulation, light limitation, pollution, and the lack of intertidal area are likely to be among the most impactful.

Why should we rewild False Creek, and what can be done?

False Creek is vital to modern Vancouver, even more so than when it was the industrial heart of the growing city. Deliberate action to rewild and rejuvenate the ecosystem offers an unparalleled opportunity to enhance biodiversity and improve water quality. By restoring the natural habitat, we can create a thriving ecosystem that supports a diverse array of native plant and animal species, including species at risk such as the Olympia oyster and Pacific great blue heron. This transformation would not only enhance the environmental health of the area but also provide valuable benefits to the community. These include education opportunities, community engagement, and increased recreation opportunities unique to Vancouver. Most importantly, reconciliation with the local Indigenous nations cannot be done without healing the land as well. Restoring False Creek would not undo the immense harm done to the Musqueam, Squamish, and T’sleil Waututh people, but it would provide an avenue towards reconciliation, especially if the restoration is done in tandem with the nations. There are several ways to further develop False Creek into a place for people to live and enjoy while simultaneously targeting the most likely ecological stressors in the inlet. 

False Creek is foremost limited by its substrate type. Currently, much of the inlet is deep silt, which while good for ship anchoring, heavily restricts the growth of some aquatic life such as primary producers like marine plants or macroalgae, or filter feeders like the Olympia oyster. The biodiverse areas that are currently in the Creek are disconnected and secluded. The addition of harder, three-dimensional substrates like cobblestones or suitable man-made structures along the silty bottom and shores of the inlet will likely boost the growth of foundational species over time (Nightingale & Simenstad, 2001; Simenstad et al., 1979). While adding harder substrate may physically take habitat away from benthic species that thrive in the soft mud, the bottom-up increase in biomass of the ecosystem benefits all species in the long run. Furthermore, a larger oyster reef has potential to filter out the fecal contamination and E. coli from the eastern end of False Creek, returning it to swimmable condition for the first time in over 100 years (Beck et al., 2011). 

Substrate replacement

Substrate composition is a balance. While more hard substrates are needed in the deeper waters, softening parts of the shoreline into sand or mud with interspersed cobblestones would be beneficial as well. In general, False Creek needs more hard substrates where it is currently soft, and softer substrates where it is currently hard. As the Vancouver seawall undergoes renovations and repairs, consideration of placing it either further back from the intertidal zone or replacing sections with a boardwalk should be seriously considered. Both have the potential to naturalize the shoreline and soften the gradient, increasing the horizontal intertidal area. The placement of larger boulders slightly offshore may trap sand and gravel, counteracting the erosion currently caused by the seawall. Habitat Island is a strong example of a softened shoreline that has become a new location of interest for both people and nature (Biodiversity Strategy, 2016). Additionally, sand and small gravel is crucial for herring and Pacific sand lance spawning (Nearshore Habitat: How Bank Armoring & Overwater Structures Shape the Health of Pacific Salmon & Steelhead, 2012; Nightingale & Simenstad, 2001). 

Shore naturalization

Figure 11 - potential alternatives to the current seawall that consider both human and non-human needs. From Coastal Adaptation (2021).

To further increase the productivity of the intertidal area and allow it to become a nursery for juvenile fishes, reducing the light limitation would likely be beneficial. While removal of marinas is likely out of the question, there are several modifications that they can make to reduce their shadow’s footprint. Wrapping any wooden pilings in reflective material can help reduce the amount of light they absorb, instead reflecting it back into the water around them (this may also increase herring hatch out rate without needing specialized net panels) (Nightingale & Simenstad, 2001). Furthermore, replacing parts of the marina dock with glass blocks or other transparent materials will help transmit light down into the sublittoral area, while also providing an interesting experience for pedestrians. Finally, installing lights on the bottom of the marina dock or docked ships can address light limitation, but this may cause further behavioural changes. For example, dock lights are known to attract the piscivorous Pacific spiny dogfish (Nightingale & Simenstad, 2001). 

Reducing nearshore shade

To help decrease stratification in the eastern basin of False Creek, laying a pipe or a similar method that can drive water from English Bay into the basin may be helpful. Increasing the circulation may facilitate the flow of phytoplankton to filter feeders and reduce the concentration of E. coli and stagnant fecal contamination. Interestingly, this is the most “restorative” action that can be taken, as a pipe bringing water into the eastern basin of False Creek from deeper areas would emulate the historic tidal connection to Inner Burrard inlet. 

Increasing water circulation

While the most biologically detrimental pollutants in False Creek are still unknown, attempts to generally limit pollution into the inlet would likely benefit both the ecosystem and the people who interact with it. Even with the separation of CSOs, stormwater runoff may bypass treatment facilities and carry pollutants into the Creek (LaRue, 2003). Pollutants include road runoff, remaining industrial waste, vessel discharge, and contaminant loading from engine operations and bottom paint sloughing. Contaminants in the food web may also be affecting the reproductive viability of animals, jeopardizing the longevity of restored animal populations (Nightingale & Simenstad, 2001). 

Replacing parts of the substrate in False Creek has the highest potential to rejuvenate the ecosystem. This approach will likely see the best results for lower cost or effort than other strategies. However, none of these approaches are a single fix-all. False Creek faces unique stressors from the problems each of these approaches address, and only through a combined effort will False Creek see any meaningful or sustained change. 

Limiting pollution

Conclusion

False Creek has a long history of human interaction and deliberate change. The Indigenous nations of the Musqueam, Squamish, and the T’sleil Waututh farmed and harvested food from its waters for countless generations, but large-scale, irreversible change came when European settlers industrialized the Creek beyond recognition. Over the last 50 years, False Creek has slowly moved away from its industrial past, becoming more friendly to both human and non-human inhabitants. The 2022 False Creek BioBlitz revealed that, although it no longer resembles its original state, False Creek remains a diverse ecosystem. It stands out as a unique ecological system, both in its current state and its potential for transformation. By implementing rewilding practices and enhancing biodiversity in keeping with the vision of Indigenous nations, False Creek could evolve into a fully functional, vibrant ecosystem. This transformation would not only enrich the local environment and people, aid in the effort of reconciliation of colonial action over the last two centuries, but also serve as a global model for marine urban ecological restoration.

Yet, False Creek still requires further research. Significant gaps remain in understanding its pollutants, species assemblage, and even its bathymetry. Restoration efforts are often under-monitored, with plants prioritized when monitoring does occur (Contos et al., 2021). Tracking the success of these efforts is essential, as seen with the ongoing herring restorations.

Indigenous involvement in False Creek’s restoration is paramount. If neglected, this is just yet another environmental change by non-Indigenous groups without the traditional caretaker’s consent, similar to the Creek’s degradation in the first place. If Vancouver restores the inlet to a better state, False Creek's transformation from a "civic horror" into the shimmering centerpiece of Vancouver will be an extraordinary comeback story—one that is already unfolding.

Data Accessibility

The iNaturalist observations from the False Creek Bioblitz can be accessed here: https://inaturalist.ca/projects/false-creek-bioblitz-2022

The full species list and other public data from the False Creek Bioblitz are accessible here: https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.13336770

Acknowledgements

This report was helped greatly by considerable assistance from a number of individuals and groups. The False Creek Friends Society, and especially friends Zaida Schneider and David Grigg, provided not just the original idea but encouragement and support throughout its conceptualization. Special thanks to Zaida for clearing up the confusion around the Cambie Street sill with his depth sounder. Matt Lemay and Colleen Kellogg of the Hakai Institute provided the means to transform this report from pure ecological speculation into an actual report, with new data to present, and also edited early drafts. Finally, I would like to thank the members of the CHANS lab and CoSphere at the University of British Columbia, and in particular Clare Price, Maia O’Donnell, and Kai Chan. Kai was the primary supervisor and shaped much of this report, and Clare and Maia both volunteered several hours to find missing sources, construct ideas, and provide direction without which this report would certainly be worse. Thank you all.

Originally published as “The Ecology of False Creek”, under the supervision of Professor Kai Chan.

Bibliography

Alexander, D. (1998). False Creek—Past, Present, and Future: An Anthology.

An, A., Hsu, D., Chen, E., Chen, J., & Sondergeld, O. (2015). Seasonal, spatial and source variation of E. coli counts in False Creek, British Columbia (ENVR 400: Community Project in Environmental Science). University of British Columbia.

Assessment of Contaminated Sediment Disposal Within East Basin of False Creek. (1983). Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada.

Beck, M. W., Brumbaugh, R. D., Airoldi, L., Carranza, A., Coen, L. D., Crawford, C., Defeo, O., Edgar, G. J., Hancock, B., Kay, M. C., Lenihan, H. S., Luckenbach, M. W., Toropova, C. L., Zhang, G., & Guo, X. (2011). Oyster Reefs at Risk and Recommendations for Conservation, Restoration, and Management. BioScience, 61(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.5

Biodiversity Strategy. (2016). Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation.

Bittersweet nightshade identification and control. (n.d.). King County. https://kingcounty.gov/en/legacy/services/environment/animals-and-plants/noxious-weeds/weed-identification/bittersweet-nightshade

Brauer, C. (2007). False Creek’s Watershed: Then and Now. http://www.falsecreekwatershed.org/uploads/2/0/5/0/20500086/falsecreek_swatershedfinal.pdf

Coastal Adaptation: False Creek. (2021). City of Vancouver.

Contos, P., Wood, J., Murphy, N., & Gibb, H. (2021). Rewilding with Invertebrates and Microbes to Restore Ecosystems: Present Trends and Future Directions. Ecology and Evolution, 11, 7187–7200. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7597

Couch, D., & Hassler, T. (1989). Olympia Oyster—Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Northwest). Biological Report, 82(11).

Cowles, D. (n.d.). Saxidomus gigantea Deshayes 1839. In Invertebrates of the Salish Sea. Rosario Beach Marine Laboratory. Retrieved August 1, 2024, from https://inverts.wallawalla.edu/Mollusca/Bivalvia/Veneroida/Veneridae/Saxidomus_gigantea.html

Cummings, C. (2016, October 11). 2016 Water Quality in False Creek—For Policy Makers. City of Vancouver.

Granville Bridge Connector: Phase 1 Open House Information Displays. (2019). City of Vancouver. https://vancouver.ca/granvilleconnector

Granville Island 2040: Transportation Strategy. (2018). Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. https://granvilleisland2040.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/G2418-001_Transportation-Doc_ENGLISH.pdf

Hennessy, R. (n.d.). City of Vancouver Archives Series 31 Volume 7 pages 465-473. Transcribimus.

Kassam, N. (2018). False Creek Water Quality Improvement Initiative: Mobile Pump-out Service and Update. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation.

LaRue, A. S. M. (2003). Waterworks! Managing Water on the False Creek Mudflats. University of British Columbia.

Lo, B., Marlatt, V., Liao, X., Reger, S., Gallilee, C., Ross, A., & Brown, T. (2023). Acute Toxicity of 6PPD-Quinone to Early Life Stage Juvenile Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Salmon. Environmental Toxicoogy and Chemistry, 42(4), 815–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5568

Macdonald, B. (1992). Vancouver: A Visual History. Talonbooks.

Maracle, L. (n.d.). Goodbye Snauq.

Morin, J., & Evans, A. B. (2022). Historical Ecology in Burrard Inlet: Summary of Historic, Oral History, Ethnographic, and Traditional Use Information. Fisheries Centre Research Report, 30(2), 64.

Morin, J., Evans, A. B., & Efford, M. (2023). The Rise of Vancouver and the Collapse of Forage Fish: A Story of Urbanization and the Destruction of an Aquatic Ecosystem on the Salish Sea (1885–1920 CE). Human Ecology, 51(2), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-023-00398-w

Nearshore Habitat: How Bank Armoring & Overwater Structures Shape the Health of Pacific Salmon & Steelhead. (2012). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/nearshore_habitat.pdf

Nightingale, B., & Simenstad, C. (2001). Overwater structures: Marine Issues. University of Washington.

Nijman, R., & Swain, L. (1990). Coquitlam-Pitt River Area Burrard Inlet Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Water Management Water Quality Branch.

Pacific Herring Recovery Project—Fishermen’s Wharf. (n.d.). False Creek Harbour Authority. https://falsecreek.com/news-events/

Simenstad, C., Miller, B., Nyblade, C., Thornburgh, K., & Bledsoe, L. (1979). Food web relations of northern Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca: A synthesis of the available knowledge (Marine Ecosystems Analysis Puget Sound Project). Fisheries Research Institue, University of Washington.

Sutherland, D., & Phippen, B. (2006). Assessment of Bateriological Indicators in False Creek: With Recommendations for Bateriological Water Quality Objectives for Recreational Uses (Environmental Quality). Ministry of Environment: Lower Mainland Region.

Taft, S., Oldford, G., Lilley, P., Oetterich, S. B., Morin, J., George, M., & Christensen, V. (2021). Reconstructing the pre-contact shoreline of Burrard Inlet (British Columbia, Canada) to quantify cumulative intertidal and subtidal area change from 1792 to 2020. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 30(1), 48.

Thompson, J., & Paton, D. (1978). Heavy Metals in Benthic Organisms from Point Grey Dumpsite—Vancouver, BC - A Preliminary Report. UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT. Pacific Marine Science Report, 78(11).

Valencic, J. (Director). (2022, September 15). U/W Drift Video Comparisons of 5 False Creek Locations [Video recording]. questtek. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvZEL2km7qM&t=320s

Wilcox, L. (n.d.). Sen̓áḵw – The Story of the Festival Site. https://bardonthebeach.org/history-of-senakw/