RESILIENT COASTS FOR SALMON SPOTLIGHT COMMUNITIES
Comox Valley
The area of focus for this spotlight report is the unceded Traditional Territory of the K’ómoks First Nation, colonially known as Comox Valley, on central eastern Vancouver Island. Specifically, This report covers the area within the administrative boundaries of the Comox Valley Regional District whose shoreline stretches 102km.
The K’ómoks Nation is an amalgamation of several formerly distinct tribes, including the Sathloot, Sasitla, Ieeksen, Xa’xe, and Pentlatch, each with its own history and cultural connections. Collectively, these tribes have been the “care takers of the ‘land of plenty’ since time immemorial” (K’ómoks First Nation 2021).
Key Findings
Shoreline Modifications
Man-made structures like seawalls and riprap, often built to protect shoreline infrastructure, can actually exacerbate erosion by redirecting wave energy to nearby areas. These modifications also remove key intertidal habitats and food sources essential for the growth and survival of juvenile salmon and forage fish. By stripping away the natural complexity of coastal ecosystems, shoreline modifications reduce their capacity to support biodiversity and adapt to rising sea levels.
Extent of shoreline modification
As of 2024, approximately 48.3km of the Comox Valley shoreline is modified, while 51.6km remains natural. This indicates that roughly 48 % of the community’s shoreline is classified as modified – Figure 1.
Figure 1. Coastal modifications (shown in blue) with the extent of data collection outlined by red dashes.
Most common shoreline modification types
The most common modification types were riprap (36%), other (35%), and seawalls/bulkheads (14%) – see Figure 2. Explore the comments in the features on the interactive map to learn more about the modification features marked ‘other’.
Figure 2. The percentage of modified shoreline by modification type.
Most common materials used in shoreline modifications
The type of material most utilized for shoreline modification was rock (37.3), undefined (18.8%), and concrete (18.6%) – see Table 1. The unknown/undefined categories indicate that the recorder was not able to determine the material that was used, due to issues with image clarity or obstruction, or in cases when a mix of materials were used. For feature materials deemed ‘undefined’ the recorded typically noted some details about the potential material in the comments section of that feature.
Table 1. The percentage of modifications, based on the type of material used in the modifications.
| Material | Percentage of Modifications |
| rock | 37.3% |
| undefined (see comments) | 18.8% |
| concrete | 18.6% |
| unknown | 15.9% |
| wood | 6.4% |
| masonry | 1.4% |
| metal | 1.2% |
| creosote/treated wood | 0.4% |
Overwater Structures
Overwater structures, like docks and piers, cast heavy shade that degrades nearshore habitat. Juvenile salmon avoid these shaded areas, which alters their natural foraging and migration patterns by forcing them into deeper waters. There, they expend more energy and face greater predation risk. The reduced light also limits the growth of essential habitats like eelgrass and algae, along with the diverse communities they support.
Number of overwater structures total and by type
The total number of overwater structures in the Comox Valley Regional District is 49, consisting primarily of individual or groupings of creosote pilings (16), residential/private docks (14), piers/boardwalks or wharfs (7), and marinas (3 large, 4 small) – see Figure 3.
Figure 3. The extent of overwater structures within (INSERT community).
Log Accumulation
While logs are a natural part of coastal ecosystems, the escape of modified logs from log booms is leading to excessive accumulation. These logs can scour beaches, altering sediment composition and smothering nearshore vegetation. Unlike natural logs, modified logs are stripped of root balls and branches, making them unstable and prone to rolling across critical habitats that juvenile salmon and forage fish rely on for growth, food, and shelter.
For the results below, about 30% (30km) of the shoreline was not digitized for log accumulation either due to lack of shoreline imagery or it being First Nation reserve land.
Extent of log accumulation
Of the total shoreline, 30% or 31.1km of the shoreline had a moderate to extreme accumulation (20-100% beach coverage) of logs. The majority (40% or 41.4 km) of the shoreline though was categorized as having a low accumulation of logs (<20%) see Table 2 and Figure __x_. It should be noted that the moderate log accumulation category also represents a significant coverage of logs – whereby 20-49% log coverage on a given beach could negatively impact shoreline habitat.
Table 2. The length of shoreline (in percentage and metres) by category of log accumulation.
| Log Accumulation | Percentage of Shoreline | Metres |
| Extreme (>89%) | 1 | 1,205 |
| High (50 to 89%) | 12 | 12,658 |
| Moderate (20 to 49%) | 17 | 17,253 |
| Low/None (<20%) | 40 | 41,386 |
| Unknown | 30 | 30,224 |
Mobility of logs
In terms of log mobility, the majority (56% or 57886m) of the shoreline had both anchored and mobile logs, and another 10% (10611m) had mobile logs.
To access and download the Resilient Coasts for Salmon layers for the Comox Valley Regional District, click here. <– CHANGE LINK
