UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A classification system for coastal zone management as applied to the Capital Regional District, British… Hardy, Ruth Ellen 1980

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A6_7 H37.pdf [ 10.91MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0076793.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0076793-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0076793-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0076793-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0076793-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0076793-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0076793-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0076793-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0076793.ris

Full Text

A CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AS APPLIED TO THE CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT, BRITISH COLUMBIA by RUTH ELLEN HARDY B.Sc. (Agr.), The Uni v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Resource Management Science ( I n s t i t u t e of Animal Resource Ecology ) ( School of Community and Regional Planning ) ( Department of S o i l Science ) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF January , © Ruth E l l e n BRITISH COLUMBIA 1980 Hardy, 1980 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t n f So'A S c i e n c e The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V6T 1W5 DE-6 B P 75-51 1 E - i i -ABSTRACT Issues re l a t e d to resource a l l o c a t i o n and ecosystem management are becoming of increasing concern to Regional D i s t r i c t s i n the coastal zone of south western B r i t i s h Columbia. An approach to land use planning and management of the coastal zone i s developed i n response to t h i s concern. It combines a landscape analysis with c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the coastal zone into management categories. Management guidelines within which l o c a l communities can plan f o r growth and protect and maintain the coastal e c o l o g i c a l resources are developed. The approach i s simple and adaptable to various s i t u a t i o n s and types of a v a i l a b l e information. The approach i s developed through a l i t e r a t u r e review of coastal zone management programs and landscape analyses, and then applied i n a case study of the Saanich Peninsula. The approach evaluates homogeneous bi o p h y s i c a l mapping units f o r t h e i r attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y to p a r t i c u l a r uses. The homogeneous units are determined by a resource c l a s s i f i c a t i o n which divides the coastal zone into Regions, then D i s t r i c t s , Sections and f i n a l l y Types at the most de t a i l e d l e v e l . At the Section l e v e l two major p a r a l l e l subzones are delineated - upland and shore. The attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y evaluations, which are s p e c i f i c to a subzone, are calculated through a mathematical l i n e a r combination method which sums weighted ratings of relevant b i o p h y s i c a l features and processes. The concepts of the d i f f e r e n t management categories follow from the attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y evaluations. Units with high - i i i -attractiveness for use, and low v u l n e r a b i l i t y to the use, are assigned to a management category which encourages high i n t e n s i t y uses ( i . e . i n d u s t r i a l and commercial use). At the other extreme, areas with high v u l n e r a b i l i t y ( i . e . high values and low tolerance to use) are assigned to a category which r e s t r i c t s most uses. The case study i n the Saanich Peninsula, B r i t i s h Columbia, demonstrates the u t i l i t y of the approach. Areas of potential for growth and environmental value are e f f e c t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d . Models were kept simple to minimize biases r e s u l t i n g from interdependent factors. The approach analyzes the supply of natural resources, and suggests management p o l i c i e s . Used i n conjunction with demand analyses and public p a r t i c i p a t i o n processes i t i s a valuable t o o l for resolving resource a l l o c a t i o n issues i n the coastal zone. - i v -TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ^ ± ± TABLE OF CONTENTS i v LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x i CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION ]_ CHAPTER TWO. REVIEW OF COASTAL ZONE PROGRAMS AND LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 5 I. MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 6 1. C r i t e r i a for Evaluating Programs 6 2. Evaluation of Approaches 7 a. Upgrading present zoning and regulations 7 b. Management of selected e c o l o g i c a l areas 9 c. Uniformly applied guidelines for a c t i v i t i e s 10 d. Guidelines f o r a c t i v i t i e s within management un i t s 14 e. Conclusions 16 3. Refining the Management Unit Concept 16 a. Defining a management unit 16 b. Compatible uses 22 i ) C r i t i c a l areas 22 i i ) Water dependent uses 26 4. Conclusions 26 - v -I I . LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 28 1. C r i t e r i a for Evaluating Landscape Analysis Methods 28 2. Evaluation Terminology 29 3. Landscape Analysis Methods 33 4. Summary 43 CHAPTER THREE. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS METHOD AND RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION 44 I. OVERVIEW AND FLOWCHART 44 II . RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION 44 I I I . EVALUATION METHOD 55 CHAPTER FOUR. MANAGEMENT UNITS. 59 I. RATIONALE FOR SELECTING THE UNITS 59 II . MANAGEMENT UNITS 67 1. C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Areas 67 2. Conservancy 69 3. Resource Harvesting 72 4. Rural 75 5. Developable with Limitations 78 6. Developable - Noh-Industrial 82 7. Developable - I n d u s t r i a l and Port . . . . 85 CHAPTER FIVE. CASE STUDY: DESCRIPTION AND MODEL CONSTRUCTION 89 I. CASE STUDY AREA 89 1. Selection of the Area 89 2. Description 91 I I . SELECTION OF MODELS 95 - v i -l l i . ATTRACTIVENESS MODELS 97 1. Upland Development 97 2. Shore Zone Development 100 3. Hazards 104 4. Resource Harvesting 106 IV. ECOLOGICAL VULNERABILITY 112 1. Introduction 112 2. E c o l o g i c a l Value 116 a. S t r u c t u r a l defense 117 b. P r o d u c t i v i t y 117 c. L i v i n g space 118 3. Tolerance to Use 122 a. Outdoor recreation 123 b. R e s i d e n t i a l use 127 c. Shore zone a c t i v i t i e s 127 V. SUMMARY 130 CHAPTER SIX. CASE STUDY: SUMMARY OF MODEL RESULTS AND CLASSIFICATION INTO MANAGEMENT UNITS 132 I. INTRODUCTION 132 I I . SUMMARY OF MODEL RESULTS 132 I I I . GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY AREA 138 CHAPTER SEVEN. DISCUSSION 160 I. SUMMARY OF APPROACH 160 II . DISCUSSION OF THE APPROACH 161 - v i i -I I I . APPLICATION 165 IV. FUTURE STUDY 167 V. CONCLUSION 168 REFERENCES ' 170 APPENDICES 180 1. Representative Planning Process 180 2. Designation of Homogeneous Units to Management C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 181 A. Upland Zone 181 B. Shore Zone 185 3. Legends 191 a. Data L i s t 191 b. Legends 192 Table 1. Land S u i t a b i l i t y for W i l d l i f e . . .195 Table 2. Legend for Recreation Features. . 197 - v i i i -LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Comparison of Management Approaches 17 2.2 Two Examples of C r i t i c a l Area D e f i n i t i o n s 24 2.3 Water Dependent Uses 27 3.1 Resource C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Coastal Zone 52 4.1 Attractiveness and V u l n e r a b i l i t y of Management Units 61 4.2 Summary of Some of the Perf.ormance Guidelines f o r the Management Units 66 5.1 Upland Development Attractiveness Reference Table 99 5.2 Shore Zone Development Attractiveness Reference Table 103 5.3 Hazards Reference Table 105 5.4 Habitat of Some P o t e n t i a l Commercial Marine Products 108 5.5 Resource Harvesting (Oysters) Attractiveness Reference Table I l l 5.6 E c o l o g i c a l Values of Habitats 114 5.7 Shore Zone E c o l o g i c a l Value Reference Table 120 5.8 Upland E c o l o g i c a l Value Reference Table 121 5.9 Tolerance to Outdoor Recreation: Upland Zone . . . . 125 5.10 Tolerance to Outdoor Recreation: Shore Zone. . . . . 126 5.11 Tolerance to Use: R e s i d e n t i a l 128 5.12 Tolerance to Uses: from Shapiro and Assoc. 129 5.13 Tolerance to Use: Shore Zone A c t i v i t i e s 131 - i x -6.1 Upland Zone Inventory Table 142 6.2 Summary Table f o r Upland Zone Units 144 6.3 Shore Zone Inventory Table 145 6.4 Summary Table f o r Shore Zone Units 148 6.5 Upland Development Ca l c u l a t i o n Table 150 6.6 Shore Zone Development Calc u l a t i o n Table 151 6.7 Shore Zone Hazards Ca l c u l a t i o n Table 152 6.8 Resource Harvesting C a l c u l a t i o n Table 153 6.9 Shore Zone E c o l o g i c a l Value C a l c u l a t i o n Table 154 6.10 Upland Zone E c o l o g i c a l Value C a l c u l a t i o n Table 155 6.11 Tolerance to Use: Upland Recreation Ca l c u l a t i o n Table 156 6.12 Tolerance to Use: Shore Zone Recreation C a l c u l a t i o n Table 157 6.13 Tolerance to Use: Re s i d e n t i a l C a l c u l a t i o n Table. 158 6.14 Tolerance to Use: Shore Zone A c t i v i t i e s C a l c u l a t i o n Table 159 - x -LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 S i m p l i f i c a t i o n of LESA Tables 39 2.2 The IMGRID Planning Process 42 3.1 Landscape Analysis Flowchart 45 3.2 Marine-Shore Zones and Boundaries 49 3.3 Format f o r Landscape Analysis Tables 56 5.1 Location of Study Area 90 6.1 Homogeneous Units i n Case Study Area 133 6.2 Management C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Homogeneous Units 134 6.3 Modified Resource C l a s s i f i c a t i o n for the Case Study 135 - x i -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S F i r s t , I would l i k e to thank the C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Department, i n p a r t i c u l a r Sharon Donnelly, f o r the f r e e l y given time and information. Dr. A l Chambers was of invaluable assistance i n e d i t i n g and organizing my thesis. Comments from Marg de Grace and Robert Hobson were also greatly appreciated. Credit for typing and d r a f t i n g go to S y l v i a Chan and Richard Kolodziej r e s p e c t i v e l y . My greatest thanks and appreciation go to Dr. Les Lavkulich, my advisor, for h i s continuous help, advice and f a i t h i n me throughout my course work and writing my t h e s i s . F i n a l l y , my thanks are extended to my parents, friends, professors and members of my committee f or t h e i r advice, assistance, moral support and encouragement. - 1 -CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. Growing demands for coastal resources, and public concern for the e c o l o g i c a l , v i s u a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l values of the undeveloped shore-l i n e give r i s e to c o n f l i c t s over a l l o c a t i o n of the resources. Several development proposals have brought these c o n f l i c t s to the foreground i n the C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t (CRD). Conservationists and developers have clashed over proposals for new and expanded marinas ( i . e . Tshehum Harbour). Marinas i n e v i t a b l y disrupt shoreline processes (currents, sediment transport r a t e s ) , disrupt waterfowl habitat, reduce water q u a l i t y and smother productive aquatic habitats. On the other hand, marina proponents are responding to demands for boat access to the aquatic environment. Another clash centred on shoreline high density r e s i d e n t i a l development i n Todd I n l e t . Demands for r e s i d e n t i a l growth c o n f l i c t e d with community desires for continued access to scenic natural habitats. Other problems are not immediately obvious to the pub l i c . Water qu a l i t y gradually d e t e r i o r i a t e s from septic tank seepage f i e l d s , waste disposal o u t l e t s , modifications of stream bank vegetation and f e r t i l i z a t i o n and erosion i n a g r i c u l t u r a l areas. The r e s u l t i s degradation and loss of f i s h spawning grounds and habitat. The public i s f i n a l l y n o t i f i e d of the problem by signs which r e s t r i c t water contact sports for health reasons, or r e s t r i c t i o n s on s h e l l f i s h i n g . Common c o n f l i c t s . o v e r shore use emerge from review of these issues i n the CRD and elsewhere (see Schade, 1979; Mu n i c i p a l i t y of Surrey, 1978). They include conservation/recreation, r e c r e a t i o n a l boating/beach - 2 -recreation, water recreation/aquatic resources harvesting and f o r e s t r y (harvesting, transportation, storing, processing)/conservation and recreation. Their theme i s the d i f f i c u l t y i n r e c o n c i l i n g "use" of the l i m i t e d coastal zone with preservation. This i s true even i n conservancy areas, as indicated by Schade (1979), which often have the multiple goals of preservation and maximum public use and enjoyment. Preservation i s achieved only when i t i s the p r i o r i t y goal and e c o l o g i c a l systems are consciously and a c t i v e l y managed. Stated simply, the problems are i n meeting demand with supply of resources, although past land use trends, previous investment commitments, and lack of knowledge about the supply of resources also contribute to the present demands for use. The CRD has recognized that a consistent preventative management program i s required, rather than dealing with issues one by one. A t o t a l program has not been developed, however, an extensive inventory i s i n progress. The intent .of t h i s t hesis i s to develop a component of a planning and management approach which can be u t i l i z e d by the CRD and other coastal Regional D i s t r i c t s . I t focuses on the supply components of the problems by evaluating the behaviour, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and responses to use of coastal ecosystems. The author p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the inventory stage, from May to August 1978. Data c o l l e c t e d during t h i s time has been used for the thesis, however the rest of the work has been done independently of the CRD. - 3 -The approach must meet several requirements. F i r s t , i t must be within the context of a planning process" which incorporates public values and demands. A representative three phase process i s presented i n Appendix 1. Secondly, i t must protect/maintain v i a b l e coastal ecosystems as well as allow for growth and development i n the shore zone. It should be applicable to the Regional D i s t r i c t l e v e l of planning. It should also be s u f f i c i e n t l y f l e x i b l e and adaptible to cope with varying problems between d i s t r i c t s . In order to develop the the s i s , the following steps were c a r r i e d out: i ) a review of d i f f e r e n t approaches to coastal zone management, and recommendations for the southern Vancouver Island s i t u a t i o n , i i ) a review of landscape analysis methods, i i i ) development of the management approach and i t s guidelines, iv) s e l e c t i o n of a case study area, v) a p p l i c a t i o n and discussion of the method i n the case study area, and v i ) discussion and conclusion. The Model Land Development Code of the American Law I n s t i t u t e (1975, p.141) describes a l o c a l land development plan as a "statement ( i n words, maps, i l l u s t r a t i o n s or other media of communication) setting forth}.' i t s objectives, p o l i c i e s and standards to guide public and private development of land within i t s planning j u r i s d i c t i o n . . . " . The United States Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (1972, Section 302(g)) describes a management program s i m i l a r l y : '"Management program' includes, but i s not l i m i t e d to, a com-prehensive statement i n words, maps, i l l u s t r a t i o n s , or other media of communication, prepared and adopted by the state i n accordance with the provisions of t h i s t i t l e , s e t t ing f o r t h objectives, p o l i c i e s , and standards to guide public and p r i v a t e uses of lands and waters i n the coastal zone." - 4 -Although the sections are l i s t e d consecutively, the i n i t i a l approach selected i n section i ) was l a t e r revised by the experience of the case study. I t may be revised again through public p a r t i c i p a t i o n although the basic format w i l l remain. Several coastal zone management approaches taken i n the United States are reviewed. Some programs were started i n the l a t e 1960's, but many were ins t i g a t e d by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. L i t e r a t u r e on landscape analysis covers a s i m i l a r period, from the l a t e 1960's onward. While the coastal zone planning determines an administrative structure and approach for protecting and managing the e n t i r e c o a s t l i n e or c r i t i c a l components ( i . e . ports, wetlands), landscape analysis provides supportive evaluations of land/water areas. Both the management approaches and landscape analysis methods are evaluated and adapted to s u i t the s i t u a t i o n i n the CRD. - 5 -CHAPTER TWO. REVIEW OF COASTAL ZONE PROGRAMS AND LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS. A coastal zone management program concerned with the supply of natural resources may be considered i n three stages: inventory of bi o p h y s i c a l and land use data, evaluation of data, and u t i l i z a t i o n of the evaluation i n a planning approach (see H i l l s , 1970, p.44). The f i r s t two stages together constitute landscape a n a l y s i s . The kinds of evaluations made i n these stages must r e f l e c t the needs of the planning approach, as must the inventory stage c o l l e c t information s u f f i c i e n t to make the evaluations. The evaluation stage rates land/water areas for a s p e c i f i e d purpose. A wide range of ratings have been made, for example c a p a b i l i t y , s u i t a b i l i t y , f e a s i b i l i t y , carrying capacity, attractiveness, s e n s i t i v i t y , and v u l n e r a b i l i t y f o r or to d i f f e r e n t uses. The rated areas can be delineated e x p l i c i t l y , through a procedure of mapping and c l a s s i f y i n g i n d i v i d u a l resources and aggregating them to form homogeneous biophysical u n i t s . However, the steps of i d e n t i f y i n g homogeneous regions and determining ratings can also be done simultaneously (Hopkins, 1977, p.388). The l a s t stage incorporates the evaluations into a management program. I t may, for example, aggregate the homogeneous units into groups which can be managed s i m i l a r l y f o r a p a r t i c u l a r purpose. The entire process consists of c l a s s i f y i n g i n d i v i d u a l resources, usually defining aggregated biophysical homogeneous u n i t s , evaluating, and reaggregating the units into s i m i l a r groups for the management program. - 6 -I. MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 1. C r i t e r i a f o r Evaluating Programs Coastal zone management programs i n the United States, where much of the experience l i e s , tend to be a complex overlay of the h i s t o r i c a l development of environmental laws, increasing State power i n land use planning (Bosselman, 1972; Ditton et_ a l . , 1972, p.72; Council of State Governments, 1975) plus the requirements of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Although the United States experience i s not d i r e c t l y transferable to Canada, because l e g i s l a t i v e frameworks are d i f f e r e n t , i t can be used to i l l u s t r a t e four p o t e n t i a l general approaches. They are: a. upgrading present zoning and regulations, b. developing guidelines for a c t i v i t i e s i n e c o l o g i c a l l y important areas, leaving the res t of the shore l i n e with only i t s present regulations, c. developing guidelines or standards for a c t i v i t i e s which apply to the e n t i r e shoreline and d. developing guidelines or standards for a c t i v i t i e s within management areas (subdividing the en t i r e coastal zone). Each approach i s evaluated according to the c r i t e r i a below, which follow from the program requirements mentioned i n Chapter 1: * 1) I t must be safe f a i l and preventative i n terms of protecting valuable ecosystems. I t should, Safe f a i l : even i f the approach f a i l s i n some respects, the f a i l u r e s are small or i n s i g n i f i c a n t enough that the approach can be modified before much more damage i s done. On the other hand, f a i l safe approaches t h e o r e t i c a l l y do not f a i l , but i f they do there i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of extensive irreparable damage. - 7 -i . consider the "systems" component, or r e l a t i o n s h i p s between areas, of ecosystems, i i . deal with uncertainties i n cause/effect r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n natural systems (resource supply), i i i . deal with uncertainties i n p o t e n t i a l human a c t i v i t i e s (resource demands), i v . consider cumulative impacts. 2) Opposition to the management program should be minimized by optimizing freedom of choice of l o c a t i o n to shore zone users. I f choice i s r e s t r i c t e d , users should be guided to another le s s r e s t r i c t e d l o c a t i o n . Not enough time has elapsed to evaluate many of the American approaches for t h e i r effectiveness i n protecting coastal ecosystems at the same time as accommodating growth. Therefore, although the approaches can be evaluated by the above c r i t e r i a , there i s l i t t l e experience to back up the evaluations. 2. Evaluation of Approaches a. Upgrading Present Zoning and Regulations This approach assumes that the present upland zoning and regulations can be expanded to cope with the coastal zone problems. No coastal zone i s delineated f o r s p e c i f i c consideration. - 8 -The approach f a i l s to recognize that shore zone natural systems and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are unique, s i g n i f i c a n t , and not comparable to upland processes. Estuarine habitats are among the highest primary producers, comparable to t r o p i c a l and subtropical broadleaf f o r e s t s , springs, c o r a l reefs and some a l l u v i a l p l a i n communities (Odum , 1971, pp. 51-52). Some deeper water f i s h e r i e s benefit from outwelling of nutrients and organic d e t r i t u s from estuarine areas, seaweed or seagrass beds, a l g a l mats and s a l t marshes (Odum, 1971, pp. 360-361). T i d a l processes are obviously unique to the coastal zone. The shoreline sediment transport processes play a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the construction design of t i d a l area development, and erosion c o n t r o l programs. F a i l i n g to recognize these systems, the approach can neither deal with uncertainties i n the systems behaviour nor cumulative impacts. Opposition to the approach i s v a r i a b l e , depending on the type of controls already present. However, an adequate l o c a t i o n a l guide to users i s not provided, because demands for shore zone developments t r a d i t i o n a l l y and i n the future exceed demands for inland areas (Russell and Kneese , 1973), and many uses cannot locate anywhere but the shore zone. Obvious examples include ports, aquaculture, marinas, and beach recreation. General land use planning w i l l not focus on these uses and t h e i r impacts. Even recognition of a s p e c i f i c aquatic zone within a coastal program may not be s u f f i c i e n t . For example, several of the counties i n Washington State have zoned water areas as "Aquatic", however t h i s general category proved to be inadequate to cope with the d i v e r s i t y of coastal uses and ecosystems (Shapiro and Assoc., 1977, p . l ) , and further more detai l e d management guidelines were devised. - 9 -Despite accusations of jumping on a coastal zone bandwagon when many land use approaches are applicable (Russell and Kneese, 1973, p.50), the s p e c i f i c management of the coastal zone i s supported through example of the number and v a r i e t y of programs which have been i n i t i a t e d i n the United States. For example, the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines (1978) separates Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shores and Beaches, and Dunes from other land use Goals (where Goal a c t u a l l y r e f e r s to a method of managing). Morgan (1978, p.86) also concludes that a s p e c i f i c c o a s t a l zone management program i s necessary i n the B.C. s i t u a t i o n . Although a case has j u s t been made for separate management p o l i c i e s f o r the coastal zone, i t i s not meant to preclude integration of the p o l i c i e s into a comprehensive plan f or managing a l l land and water resources. b. Management of Selected E c o l o g i c a l Areas One of the i n i t i a l responses to the f a i l u r e of general land use plans was to manage selected parts of the coastal zone. An example of t h i s approach i s the Maine Protection of Coastal Wetlands Act 1971 (Heikoff, 1977, p.48). Wetlands are selected as having p a r t i c u l a r value, and a c t i v i t i e s within them are controlled" while the r e s t of the shoreline i s unregulated. * Control of the a c t i v i t i e s i s through development standards or regulations. The t r a d i t i o n a l approach regulates s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s and technologies - these i n e f f e c t are recommendations on how a development should proceed. Another approach, performance standards, focuses instead on c o n t r o l l i n g the impacts of development. Technology i s not regulated. For example, - 10 -The approach f a l l s i n that i t does not recognize the "system" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of shoreline processes, and the inte r a c t i o n s between s i t e s . There i s the p o t e n t i a l for problems within the designated areas from outside a c t i v i t i e s . Also, i t assumes that there i s an inventory data base av a i l a b l e , and s u f f i c i e n t knowledge of ecosystem behaviour to recognize s i g n i f i c a n t components. These information gaps can cause s i g n i f i c a n t areas to be ignored i n the program. Cumulative impacts can be considered within the managed areas, depending upon the regulations, however there i s no consideration of them outside the areas. Although r e s t r i c t i o n s on s i t e locations and construction technologies are minimal, no l o c a t i o n guide indicates the better s i t e s for p a r t i c u l a r kinds of development. In other words, the approach i s biased towards conservationist philosophies, because some ecosystems are protected while no allowance i s made for future developments. A l l land outside the designated areas i s i m p l i c i t l y assumed equally s u i t a b l e . c. Uniformly Applied Guidelines for A c t i v i t i e s Another response to f a i l u r e of general land use plans was to manage shore zone a c t i v i t i e s . The approach assumes that environmental q u a l i t y can be maintained through uniform a p p l i c a t i o n of the regulations. the f i r s t approach would state that holding ponds f or surface runoff during construction are required, whereas the second would state that sedimentation loads during construction s h a l l not exceed the natural maximum stream loads of that p a r t i c u l a r time of year. Of the two approaches, performance standards appear to have the most advantages because they allow for v a r i a b i l i t y i n the land, i n t e r a c t i o n s between s i t e s , and use of innovative techniques by developers (Thurow et a l . , 1975, p.4). I t i s therefore assumed that the a c t i v i t y regulations are performance standards f o r t h i s and the following a l t e r n a t i v e s . - 11 -A simple example i s the Maine S i t e L o c a t i o n of Development Law 1969, which r e q u i r e s State approval of the l o c a t i o n of any development over 20 acres (8 ha) or w i t h s t r u c t u r e s greater than 60,000 square f e e t (5575 square meters) ( H e i k o f f , 1977, p.44). Combinations of t h i s and the f o l l o w i n g approach have been a p p l i e d . The two examples below i l l u s t r a t e the d i f f e r e n c e s . The f i r s t example i s the Rhode I s l a n d Program ( H e i k o f f , 1977, pp. 89-142). The boundary of the seaward s i d e of the managed zone i s d i s t i n c t , extending to the l i m i t of the State's j u r i s d i c t i o n , and the e n t i r e aquatic area i s r e g u l a t e d . However, no i n l a n d boundary i s d e f i n e d . Instead, r e g u l a t i o n i s concerned only w i t h s p e c i f i e d p u b l i c and p r i v a t e a c t i v i t i e s which may have an impact on the c o a s t a l environment, and w i t h s p e c i f i e d land f e a t u r e s . Shoreline., p r o t e c t i o n f a c i l i t i e s , n a t u r a l g e o l o g i c f e a t u r e s above mean high water that are being shaped and modified by t i d a l waters (beaches, b l u f f s , c l i f f s , and sand s p i t s ) , s a l t marshes, power generating and d e s a l i n i z a t i o n p l a n t s , chemical and petroleum p r o c e s s i n g , t r a n s f e r or storage, minerals e x t r a c t i o n , sewage treatment and d i s p o s a l s o l i d waste d i s p o s a l f a c i l i t i e s and some p o l l u t i o n sources are regulated ( H e i k o f f , 1977, p.131). Small s c a l e developments and incremental changes on the landward s i d e are not considered. The r a t i o n a l e f o r the approach was to avoid the o p p o s i t i o n to the t a k i n g i s s u e - r e s t r i c t i n g use without economic compensation to land owners who l o s e - a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e zoning. The theme of the approach i s to manage a c t i v i t i e s r a t h e r than areas of the c o a s t a l zone. A proposal by Shapiro and A s s o c i a t e s (1977) combines managing a c t i v i t i e s and areas. Washington State planners had concluded that the Master Programs i n c o u n t i e s , i n i t i a t e d by the Washington Shoreline - 12 -Management Act (1971), did not adequately regulate the aquatic area. The State act concentrated management on upland rather than aquatic areas by designating a minimum of four "environments" - Urban, Rural, Conservancy, and Natural. These categories were often supplemented by the counties with two others, one a category of i n t e n s i t y between r u r a l and urban usually c a l l e d suburban or r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l , and one c a l l e d aquatic. I t was the management within the aquatic environments than was weak. Shapiro and Assoc. therefore proposed 1) uniform guidelines for a c t i v i t i e s within the aquatic environment and 2) guidelines for the use of the upland environments. The f i r s t considers a l l the uses which may occur i n the aquatic environment. For each use i t l i s t s a d e f i n i t i o n , associated uses, use c o n f l i c t s , impacts and s i g n i f i c a n t concerns, l e g a l and administrative processes, and guidelines. The a c t i v i t i e s are not grouped and directed to p a r t i c u l a r areas within the aquatic zone. On the other hand, the upland are i s divided into zones. Groups of a c t i v i t i e s for each zone are described, along with associated uses, use c o n f l i c t s , impacts and s i g n i f i c a n t concerns and guidelines. The intent of the upland zones i s to consider the impacts and r e l a t i o n s h i p s of upland uses on the aquatic environment. Uniform a c t i v i t y regulations are not safe f a i l on several accounts. They are an improvement over previous approaches, however, because the e n t i r e shoreline ; i s regulated, and s p e c i f i c shore zone a c t i v i t i e s can be regulated. - 13 -The systems considerations are p a r t i a l l y handled. For example, standards may require that construction on h i l l s i d e s i s c o n t r o l l e d to minimize the impact of sedimentation i n downstream water q u a l i t y . The weakness here l i e s i n the d i f f i c u l t y of defining s u f f i c i e n t l y c l e a r and d e t a i l e d standards. P r e d i c t i n g impacts of development becomes a necessity, but the cause/effect r e l a t i o n s h i p s may not be c l e a r l y understood. In the absence of absolutely known r e l a t i o n s h i p s i t may be more e f f e c t i v e to use the fourth approach which designates areas as s u i t a b l e or unsuitable to an a c t i v i t y . This at l e a s t provides a l o c a t i o n guide for users which w i l l d i r e c t them away from the most s e n s i t i v e areas. A further weakness i n a c t i v i t y regulations i s that a l i s t of a c t i v i t i e s i s required, and any l i s t i n e v i t a b l y becomes outdated or i r r e l e v e n t as demands for land uses and technologies change. A complete l i s t i s often not even attempted. Shapiro and Assoc. (1977) l i m i t t h e i r l i s t to water dependent a c t i v i t i e s i n the aquatic zone, and Rhode Island only s p e c i f i e d larger scale developments for regulation, leaving the small ones unregulated. The Grays Harbour Study (Wilfert, 1971) proposes guidelines for both a c t i v i t i e s and natural habitat areas. A l i s t i s not s u f f i c i e n t or comprehensive i n i t s e l f . If the l i s t cannot be complete, the cumulative impacts of unregulated developments are ignored. Evaluation of the projects on a project by project basis also ignores cumulative impacts. Consideration of the carrying capacity of the land/water systems w i l l a l l e v i a t e t h i s A general d e f i n i t i o n of carrying capacity i s the amount of use the environment can sustain without s i g n i f i c a n t a l t e r a t i o n . - 14 -objection. For example, development would be allowed u n t i l the carrying capacity was reached (see Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , 1977). Several problems s t i l l a r i s e . F i r s t , the actual ecosystem carrying capacity, however defined, may be unknown. Second, the capacity varies between areas. Third, there i s no incentive to con t r o l development impacts u n t i l the carrying capacity i s approached or reached, r e s u l t i n g i n i n e f f e c i e n t use of the land unless some other procedure i s introduced, such as bargaining for shares (Dales, 1968, pp. 77-100). Opposition to the controls on a c t i v i t i e s w i l l depend on the number of a c t i v i t i e s c o n t r o l l e d and the d e t a i l s of the regulations. Regardless of the degree of c o n t r o l , the approach i s negative, i n that a c t i v i t i e s are always r e s t r i c t e d , while no p o s i t i v e guide to acceptable locations i s provided. ^ d. Guidelines f o r A c t i v i t i e s within Management Units This approach subdivides the ent i r e c o a s t a l zone into d i f f e r e n t management un i t s , each with a purpose, c r i t e r i a , and a set of guidelines for a c t i v i t i e s . High density uses are encouraged i n some un i t s , while r e s t r i c t e d i n others. The Washington State example, with i t s d i f f e r e n t environments, has already been mentioned. The management unit approach has the p o t e n t i a l to be more safe f a i l than the previous approach. Systems considerations can be handled by guidelines within management units which r e f e r to impacts i n adjacent u n i t s . For example, an a c t i v i t y can be r e s t r i c t e d i f i t impacts a valuable ecosystem i n an adjacent u n i t . - 15 -Uncertainties about ecosystem behaviour can be handled more e f f e c t i v e l y than the selected areas approach, simply because no sections of shoreline are ignored. Even i f inte r a c t i o n s are unknown, i t i s possible to i d e n t i f y r e l a t i v e l y more s e n s i t i v e systems, and manage them accordingly. Uncertainties about future demands for shoreline use and technology are also accommodated. A l i s t of a c t i v i t i e s (or demands) i s not required, because any a c t i v i t y which does not conform to the purpose of a management unit i s r e s t r i c t e d . Carrying capacity can be u t i l i z e d more e f f i c i e n t l y with management units than uniform a c t i v i t y regulations. Assuming that r e l a t i v e carrying capacities f o r d i f f e r e n t areas are known, uses can be directed to areas of high capacity and away from those of low capacity. D i r e c t i n g uses i n t h i s way also lessens the chance of inadvertently exceeding capacity by the cumulative impacts of small a c t i v i t i e s . Cumulative impacts are more e f f e c t i v e l y handled i n th i s approach, f o r the above reason, and because no a c t i v i t y i s unregulated. They are s t i l l not completely regulated unless guidelines within the units r e f e r to c a p a c i t i e s . D i f f i c u l t i e s i n defining c a p a c i t i e s are the main deterrent to using the concept (see Section II.2. f o r further discussion). Public response to the r e s t r i c t i o n s of t h i s approach w i l l be v a r i a b l e . I t s advantages are that no use i s prohibited from a unit i f i t conforms to the objectives and guidelines, and the approach i s p o s i t i v e . Choice of l o c a t i o n and therefore degree of r e s t r i c t i o n s for a use i s l e f t to the user. A guide to acceptable locations i s provided, rather than simply r e s t r i c t i n g uses. - 16 -e. Conclusions Of the four management approaches, guidelines within management un i t s best meets the c r i t e r i a (see Table 2.1). Neither upgrading the present systems nor managing selected e c o l o g i c a l areas adequately deal with the systems nature of shoreline processes, and the uncertainties i n the behaviour of systems and human demands. The l a s t two approaches, uniform guidelines and guidelines within management uni t s , vary i n t h e i r focus on supply and demand. Uniform guidelines f o r a c t i v i t i e s necessitate knowledge of future demands for shore uses i n order to be safe f a i l . On the other hand, the management unit approach concentrates on supply of resources by defining the units on present land c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A l l present and future a c t i v i t i e s are covered i n the guidelines for the unit, although some guidelines may need expansion or updating with time. The management unit approach also covers the uncertainties i n ecosystems and human behaviour more e f f e c t i v e l y , accepting that uncertainties exist from both the supply and demand viewpoints. This approach of managing areas of r e l a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t i e s separately i s selected f o r further refinement and use i n the case study area. 3. Refining the Management Unit Concept a. Defining the Management Unit The management un i t approach subdivides a narrow band of land and water p a r a l l e l to the shoreline, into d i f f e r e n t u n i t s . The Table 2.1 Comparison of Management Approaches. Cr i t e r i a / A l t e r n a t i v e s Upgrading Present System Management of Selected Areas Uniformly Guidelines within Applied Guidelines Management Units S a f e - f a i l i ) systems i i ) uncertainty (natural) i i i ) uncertainty (human) iv) cumulative impacts 2. i ) Minimize Opposition i i ) Locational Guide X X ? X Variable X X X X Only i n selected areas Minimal X Partly Partly Most X y Partly Moderate - 18 -decision to focus on supply of resources influences the c r i t e r i a f o r the u n i t s and t h e i r boundaries. The landward boundary has been defined i n several ways i n the United States, f o r example (Armstrong, et a l . , 1974, Chapter 3): i ) A r b i t r a r y choices - inland to the nearest road - an a r b i t r a r y distance from mean high t i d e based on the strength of conservation versus development lobbies. i i ) P o l i t i c a l / j u r i s d i c t i o n a l boundaries - a l l shore zone counties. i i i ) Natural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s boundaries - b i o p h y s i c a l u n i t s - to drainage basin source. iv) Combination of natural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and an a r b i t r a r y width - 500 feet or i n c l u s i v e of a 200 foot buffer zone around coastal wetlands, whichever i s greatest. v) "inland as f a r as necessary to con t r o l the uses of which have a d i r e c t and s i g n i f i c a n t impact on coas t a l waters" (U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act Rules and Regulations, § 923.11(1)). While boundaries based on natural features take ecosystem processes into account more r e a d i l y than p o l i t i c a l or a r b i t r a r y l i n e s , the administration becomes awkward i f a unit extends over several p o l i t i c a l boundaries, or i f - 19 -property owners located equal distances from the shoreline are not treated equally. A compromise between biophysical and a r b i t r a r y boundaries (as i n (iv) above) w i l l handle the ecosystem c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , j u r i s d i c t i o n a l problems, and p a r t i a l l y handle unequal treatment of property owners i f i t i s assumed that Regional D i s t r i c t s w i l l serve as mediators i n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l problems. The seaward boundary can be defined along s i m i l a r l i n e s , however lack of knowledge on ecosystems, and fewer aquatic p o l i t i c a l boundaries (no breaks s i m i l a r to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ) have usually lead to a r b i t r a r y or State p o l i t i c a l boundaries. For example, many States regulate to a 3 mile l i m i t . A uniform depth l i n e has also been considered. Burns (197 6, p.3) concludes that the 10 m depth "appears to be a large enough portion of t i d a l land to give an approrpiate perspective on the nature of the nearshore s u b t i d a l habitat community" for the Western Community i n the CRD. A f l e x i b l e compromise between a r b i t r a r y and biophysical boundaries i s selected f o r the CRD. The coas t a l zone w i l l extend inland from the high t i d e l i n e either 500m (1,645 f t ) or, i f greater, to a distance from coastal wetlands (see Habitat Legend for complete d e f i n i t i o n s of wetlands - intergrade zone areas are wetlands) s u f f i c i e n t to control development which impacts the water q u a l i t y of the wetlands, or to a distance s u f f i c i e n t to maintain habitat required for co a s t a l zone w i l d l i f e . The seaward boundary w i l l be 10.9 m (6 fathom l i n e on marine charts), or s u f f i c i e n t to include known s i g n i f i c a n t habitats. - 20 -C r i t e r i a f o r the management units can be based on resource supply, resource demand or a combination of the two. Supply r e f e r s to the inherent c a p a b i l i t y , l i m i t a t i o n s , and/or s e n s i t i v i t i e s of the land/water ecosystems f o r or to a p a r t i c u l a r use ( S t e i n i t z , 1970; Hopkins, 1978). A st r a i g h t supply c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme would delineate boundaries on the basis of natural resources features and the behaviour of the ecosystems. The use of the unit would be determined by i t s c a p a b i l i t i e s . I t s advantage i s that natural c a p a b i l i t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s remain r e l a t i v e l y constant over time. In changing environments - for example, estuaries, where channels change constantly - the rates and types of change can be predicted. However, supply information i s not s u f f i c i e n t by i t s e l f . The best use for a s i t e i s also determined by society's preferences and economic f a c t o r s . On the other hand, a demand scheme would i n i t i a l l y determine the types of uses which were expected f o r an area, evaluate the area for the uses, and then c l a s s i f y the land. P o l i t i c a l or economic f a c t o r s , such as municipality boundaries and zoning, would determine unit boundaries. Land use and ownership are a r e f l e c t i o n of the present and past demands, whereas future predictions require study, and contain many uncer t a i n t i e s . These uncertainties with respect to changes over time, mentioned i n the uniform a c t i v i t i e s regulation approach, are a d i s -advantage to demand c r i t e r i a . But, i t i s increasing demands for the shore zone that are causing many of the management problems, so demand cannot be t o t a l l y ignored. - 21 -In p r a c t i c e , many schemes are a combination of supply and demand, as i n the North Carolina case (N. Caroline Coastal Resources Commission, 1975, p.40). A " T r a n s i t i o n " category i s designed for future growth. The l o c a t i o n and amount of area a l l o c a t e d to the category depend upon the r e s u l t s of a demand study, the preferred density of people, and the physical constraints of the land. The recommended approach i s a combination which heavily weights supply. Supply i s determined through a resource inventory and evaluation of the land. Demand i s based only on the present land use. Supply c r i t e r i a are emphasized because demand can be r e f i n e d at a l a t e r date when more d e t a i l e d planning i s being done, and research on demands i s a v a i l a b l e to the planning process. Also, as mentioned previously, an approach not dependent on a l i s t of demanded a c t i v i t i e s can cope with a v a r i e t y of future demands. Boundaries of management units are thus bi o p h y s i c a l , as compared to the combination of biophysical and a r b i t r a r y for defining the e n t i r e coastal zone. The Oregon (1978, p.24) d e f i n i t i o n of a management unit applies: " d i s c r e t e geographic area, defined by b i o p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and features, within which p a r t i c u l a r uses and a c t i v i t i e s are promoted, encouraged, protected or enhanced, and others are discouraged, r e s t r i c t e d or prohibited." The scale of mapping for the coastal zone should be d e t a i l e d enough to i d e n t i f y l e g a l l o t s , so that owners are aware of t h e i r - 22 -c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . In p r a c t i c e the scale w i l l be determined by the a v a i l a b l e information. A combination of biophysical boundaries at 1:25,000, supported by l e g a l base maps of 1:4800 (l':400') i s one approach to common discrepancies i n scale between land use and bi o p h y s i c a l information. b. Compatible Uses Uses within a management unit must be compatible. They are incompatible i f they compete for the same resource, negatively impact a resource needed by another, or are deemed so by society. The r e s u l t of putting incompatible uses together i s c o n f l i c t . P o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s can be reduced by geographically separating the uses and assigning p r i o r i t y uses for a u n i t . Two concepts used i n the United States are useful i n determining p r i o r i t i e s - c r i t i c a l areas and water dependence. i . C r i t i c a l Areas A general d e f i n i t i o n of a c r i t i c a l area i s an area of more than l o c a l i n t e r e s t . The concern i n i d e n t i f y i n g them i s the doubt that l o c a l governments w i l l adequately recognize regional or p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r e s t s i n t h e i r planning. This has been a very r e a l concern i n the United States, and i s the main reason for the increasing r o l e of State - 23 -governments i n l o c a l land use planning (Bosselman, 1972; American Law I n s t i t u t e , 1975, p.285). The concern i s expressed i n both the Model Land Development Code (American Law I n s t i t u t e , 1975) and the Coastal Zone Management Act (Rules and Regulations § 920.13 adopted under § 305 of the Act)(see Table 2.2 for d e f i n i t i o n s ) . They generally include areas which are of importance for t h e i r natural resources, or the present or p o t e n t i a l use f o r large scale public f a c i l i t i e s . The Coastal Zone Management I n s t i t u t e (Armstrong, et a l . , 1974, p.51) sets out basic c r i t e r i a as (1) areas with s i g n i f i c a n t natural values, among these phys i c a l or scenic, (2) t r a n s i t i o n a l areas where either r e s t o r a t i o n or further development i s c a l l e d f o r , or i n t e n s i v e l y developed areas where other modifications may be necessary, and (3) areas which are threatened for various reasons or are already scarce. C r i t i c a l areas are therefore important from two perspectives: to i d e n t i f y and preserve natural habitats, and to i d e n t i f y and a l l o c a t e areas s u i t a b l e , required or already used for public f a c i l i t i e s and large scale development. The concept of c r i t i c a l areas (also c a l l e d areas of p a r t i c u l a r concern) i s a valuable t o o l for i d e n t i f y i n g the p r i o r i t y use of two management un i t s . The f i r s t would protect/preserve c r i t i c a l b i o l o g i c areas (numbers 1, 2, 7 and 8 i n the U.S. Act i n Table 2.2), while the second would focus on providing for high i n t e n s i t y uses such as r e g i o n a l p u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s and large scale development (numbers 4, 5 and 6 as above). 24 -Table 2.2 Two Examples of C r i t i c a l Area D e f i n i t i o n s . American Law I n s t i t u t e , 1975, p. 296-297 (3) An Area of C r i t i c a l State Concern may be designated only f or (a) an area s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected by, or having a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t upon, an e x i s t i n g or proposed major public f a c i l i t y or other area of major public investment; (b) an area containing or having a s i g n i f i c a n t impact upon h i s t o r i c a l , n a t u r a l or environmental resources of regional or statewide importance; (c) a proposed s i t e of a new community designated i n a State Land Development Plan, together with a reasonable amount of surrounding land; or (d) any land within the j u r i s d i c t i o n of a l o c a l government that, at any time more than (3 years) a f t e r the e f f e c t i v e date of t h i s Code, has no development ordinance i n e f f e c t . (4) A "major public f a c i l i t y " means any publicly-owned f a c i l i t y of regional s i g n i f i c a n c e but does not include (a) any public f a c i l i t y operated by a l o c a l government, or an agency created by i t , p r i m a r i l y f o r the benefit of the residents of that l o c a l government; (b) any street or highway except an interchange between a l i m i t e d access highway and a frontage access street or highway; (c) any a i r p o r t that i s not to be used for instrument landings; or (d) any educational i n s t i t u t i o n serving p r i m a r i l y the residents of a l o c a l community. - 25 -Table 2.2 (Cont'd) Coastal Zone Management Act, Rules and Regulations, Nov. 29, 1973 (1) Areas of unique, scarce, f r a g i l e , or vulnerable natural habitat, p h y s i c a l feature, h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e ; c u l t u r a l value, and scenic importance; (2) Areas of high natural p r o d u c t i v i t y or e s s e n t i a l habitat f o r l i v i n g resources, including f i s h , w i l d l i f e , and the various trophic l e v e l s i n the food web c r i t i c a l to t h e i r well-being; (3) Areas of substantial r e c r e a t i o n a l value and/or opportunity; (4) Areas where developments and f a c i l i t i e s are dependent upon the u t i l i z a t i o n of, or access to, coastal waters; (5) Areas of unique geologic or topographic s i g n i f i c a n c e to i n d u s t r i a l or commercial development; (6) Areas of urban concentration where shoreline u t i l i z a t i o n and water uses are highly competitive; (7) Areas of s i g n i f i c a n t hazard i f developed, due to storms, s l i d e s , floods, erosion, settlement, etc.; and (8) Areas needed to protect, maintain or replenish coastal lands or resources, such areas including coastal flood p l a i n s , aquifer recharge areas, sand dunes, c o r a l and other reefs, beaches, offshore sand deposits, and mangrove stands. - 26 -i i . Water Dependent Uses Dependence on a shoreline l o c a t i o n can be economic, to gain cost saving or revenue d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g advantages not associated with land rents or costs, or phys i c a l , as i n navigation. Three terms have been used (see discussion, Shapiro and Assoc., 1977, pp. 16-20): water dependence, water rel a t e d and water oriented. They r e f e r , r e s p e c t i v e l y , to a physical need, an economic dependence, and a broad term for both economic and physical dependence. A l i s t of water dependent uses as outlined by Shapiro and Assoc. i s presented i n Table 2.3. The purpose i n defining the uses i s to reduce the competition for the shoreline by moving or d i r e c t i n g a l l those uses which are not dependent inland, to ease the s t r a i n on both the natural v i s u a l and ec o l o g i c a l resources. P r i o r i t y to water dependent uses i s given by subjecting independent uses to severer r e s t r i c t i o n s and setback c r i t e r i a . 4. Conclusions Issues i n the co a s t a l zone revolve around demands for a l i m i t e d supply of resources. Greater u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n knowledge of demand than supply c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s lead to the s e l e c t i o n of a management unit approach, with a supply o r i e n t a t i o n . Demand features can be introduced at a more det a i l e d stage l a t e r i n the planning process. The area included i n the management program - the coastal zone - i s defined by a combination of resource c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a r b i t r a r y l i n e s . The management units within - 27 -Table 2.3 Water Dependent Uses (Shapiro and Assoc., 1977, p.16). 1. Marine Commercial Uses a. Terminal and transfer f a c i l i t i e s for transport of passengers or goods over water. b. Moorage, f u e l i n g and s e r v i c i n g of commercial vessels. c. Industries which receive or ship goods or materials by water as an e s s e n t i a l part of t h e i r operation. d. Marine construction, dismantling and r e p a i r . 2. Marine Recreation a. Pleasure boat moorage and marinas, including f u e l i n g and s e r v i c i n g f a c i l i t i e s . b. Boat launch and haul-out f a c i l i t i e s . 3. Shoreline Recreation a. Parks b. B i c y c l e and walking t r a i l s c. Beaches d. Viewpoints 4. Aquaculture 5. Intakes and O u t f a l l s 6. On-site Marine and Limnological Research and Education 7. F l o a t i n g Home Moorages 8. Shoreline Protective Structures such as, but not l i m i t e d to, bulkheads and f i x e d or f l o a t i n g breakwaters. - 28 -the coastal zone, separated of the basis of resource c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , are selected for two purposes: to separate incompatible uses and to provide protection and management for c r i t i c a l areas. The supply o r i e n t a t i o n necessitates an analysis and evaluation of the natural resources. Landscape analysis provides a method. Incorporating i t s evaluations as c r i t e r i a f o r the management units neatly l i n k s resource considerations into the approach. Despite an o r i e n t a t i o n towards supply, demands can be considered i n d i r e c t l y - demand from a resource supply viewpoint. Discussion of c r i t i c a l areas introduced two perspectives, which r e l a t e to supply and demand. The f i r s t i s that of the ecosystem where the concern i s the extent and type of a l t e r a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from a use. The demand perspective i s that of the developer who i s interested only i n those resource factors which influence the type and cost of development. These two perspectives of supply and demand should be addressed by the evaluations i n the landscape a n a l y s i s . I I . LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS 1. C r i t e r i a for Evaluating Landscape Analysis Methods Landscape analysis produces evaluations of land/water areas. Numerous methods and evaluations are a v a i l a b l e , however, f o r the purposes of t h i s study the selected method must meet the following c r i t e r i a : - 29 -i) provide unambiguous information on the developer and ecosystem viewpoints f o r defining the management units, i i ) r e l a t i v e l y simple and easy to understand by planners, decision-makers, and the public, i i i ) minimal number of subjective decisions, with a l l decisions open to scrutiny, iv) can be c a r r i e d out by Regional D i s t r i c t Personnel, v) can be based on information already a v a i l a b l e , and complexity of the analysis w i l l not exceed the r e l i a b i l i t y of the data, v i ) require no more time than j u s t i f i e d by the re g i o n a l l e v e l of government, v i i ) p ossible to update as more information becomes a v a i l a b l e , or people' s att i t u d e s and land uses change, v i i i ) systematic, repeatable, supportable evaluations. Regional D i s t r i c t personnel should be able to apply the method within a reasonable cost and time period, and explain and j u s t i f y the evaluations to the decision-makers and the p u b l i c . 2. Evaluation Terminology Terminology f o r evaluations, or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , tends to be ambiguous and confusing. Several terms are reviewed i n order to select unambiguous evaluations which r e f l e c t e c o l o g i c a l and development viewpoints. - 30 -Ca p a b i l i t y looks at the p o t e n t i a l for b i o l o g i c a l production, and the fa c t o r s l i m i t i n g production; s u i t a b i l i t y considers the present condition of the land and the amount of e f f o r t required to bring i t to i t s p o t e n t i a l ; and f e a s i b i l i t y considers the r e l a t i v e advantage among s i t e s , i n economic terms, of achieving the p o t e n t i a l ( H i l l , Love and Lacate, 1970, pp.48-50). The evaluations progressively rate r e l a t i v e l y constant e c o l o g i c a l features, then land use features, and f i n a l l y economics, a l l to be used to recommend a land use. The c a p a b i l i t y r a t i n g by i t s e l f i s of minimal use for land use planning, i n that i t only considers resource features. S u i t a b i l i t y , which adds on land condition features, i s of more use. However, the term s u i t a b i l i t y has been used to cover two separate inte r p r e t a t i o n s - the environmental s e n s i t i v i t y of the s i t e , and i t s economic s u i t a b i l i t y for a use. For example, i n a report for Delaware (Tourbier, 1976; pp. 9-12) s u i t a b i l i t y i s based on a f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , or analysis of the s i t e requirements of a use, and impact a n a l y s i s . In terms of environmental planning i t s use can therefore become confusing - i s a s i t e s u i t a b l e f o r a use even i f the environmental impact of that use i s high? F e a s i b i l i t y ratings are dependent upon the economic climate of the day. For long term planning, they tend to be too v a r i a b l e . Also, a f e a s i b i l i t y study i s usually project oriented, and requires more d e t a i l e d study than i s envisioned by a regional l e v e l of planning. There are therefore some ambiguities or problems i n using each of these terms f or coa s t a l zone management. Carrying capacity has a h i s t o r y of use i n recreation planning, but has recently been expanded to r e f e r to human systems as well as the - 31 -ecosystems of concern i n outdoor recreation (Chubb and Ashton, 1969; Godschalk et a l . , 1974; Jaakson et a l . , 1976; Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , 1977). I t r e f e r s to the number of user-unit use-periods that can be sustained by a system without d e t e r i o r a t i n g or over extending the system. The "system" can be natural or human; the use can be for any outdoor a c t i v i t y or s o c i a l f a c i l i t y ( i . e . h o s p i t a l s ) . The degree of d e t e r i o r a t i o n can be measured from phy s i c a l i n d i c a t o r s ( i . e . water quality) or from human perceptions ( i . e . an acceptable density of user as perceived by the users). Carrying capacity can thus be b i o p h y s i c a l , perceptual or i n s t i t u t i o n a l . Problems with carrying capacity are i t s subjectiveness and d i f f i c u l t y i n measurement. The acceptable amount of change or d e t e r i o r a t i o n s that defines the capacity i s a s o c i a l judgement; as society's values change, so w i l l the capacity. The a b i l i t y to measure the types of capacity v a r i e s . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , the b i o p h y s i c a l carrying capacity for a p a r t i c u l a r use can be defined by r e l a t i n g change i n a b i o p h y s i c a l index to the amount of use. P r a c t i c a l l y , the information i s not always a v a i l a b l e . I t may be possible to suggest which ecosystems can be most e a s i l y impacted, but not the degree of impact within the ecosystem. The perceptual carrying capacity can be measured through user surveys. If the assumption i s made that perceptual capacity i s exceeded before bio p h y s i c a l - as can often be the case for extensive forms of r e c r e a t i o n such as wilderness hiking and non-motorized boating - i t may use as a substitute value for managing the b i o p h y s i c a l resource, as well as a means - 32 -of meeting the desires of the r e c r e a t i o n i s t s . Measurement of i n s t i t u t i o n a l carrying capacity has focused on the f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y of the government to provide services (Godschalk et al_., 1974, p.28). An extensive amount of time and research must be spent to specify any of the c a p a c i t i e s . Attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y evaluations follow from work done at Harvard (Sinton, 1973), from Tourbier (1976) and Murray (1971). Tourbier termed the concepts f u n c t i o n a l analysis and c a p a b i l i t y analysis , whereas s u i t a b i l i t y was a combination of the two. Sinton and Murray used the attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y terminology. Attractiveness i s a measure of the economic and intangible values of a s i t e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r use, based on b i o p h y s i c a l and/or land use c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which serve as l o c a t i o n c r i t e r i a to a user or developer. On the other hand, v u l n e r a b i l i t y i s a r a t i n g of the extent to which the ecosystem of a s i t e may be impacted/altered by a p a r t i c u l a r use. A l t e r a t i o n of a valuable ecosystem ( i . e . for p r o d u c t i v i t y or as habitat) has a more s i g n i f i c a n t impact, thus valuable ecosystems are vulnerable, regardless of t h e i r tolerance to use. These two evaluations are unambiguous, because the economic concerns of the user (attractiveness) are separated from the e c o l o g i c a l concerns ( v u l n e r a b i l i t y ) . At the same time they provide information on the perspectives of the developer and the ecosystem. I t i s possible to make r e l a t i v e evaluations of either term more ob j e c t i v e l y than for carrying capacity, although the concepts are r e l a t e d . - 33 An ecosystem i s vulnerable i f i t has a low biophysical carrying capacity. V u l n e r a b i l i t y does not require a numerical evaluation of the capacity, which i t i s not usually possible to measure, but rates the s i t e s for t h e i r p o t e n t i a l impacts from use. The perceptual and i n s t i t u t i o n a l c a p a c i t i e s can be used as c r i t e r i a f o r a t t r a c t i v e n e s s . Their viewpoint i s human rather than environmental. An area i s a t t r a c t i v e i f i t s perceptual and/or i n s t i t u t i o n a l carrying c a p a c i t i e s are high. Perceptual c a p a c i t i e s , although usually applied i n a r e c r e a t i o n a l sense, can also be applied to other types of uses. For example, the perceptual carrying capacity of an area for r e s i d e n t i a l use may vary with i t s a b i l i t y to conceal houses from each other ( v i s u a l absorptive c a p a c i t y ) . I n s t i t u t i o n a l capacity can be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the economic costs of development, i f , for example, more development requires a new water supply system or new s o c i a l service f a c i l i t i e s . The cost may not bear d i r e c t l y on the developer, but on responsible government agencies as w e l l . Attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y evaluations are recommended for t h i s study because they are unambiguous, provide the information needed to define the management u n i t s , and r e l a t i v e evaluations can be made with a minimal amount of data. An attempt i s made to incorporate factors a f f e c t i n g carrying capacity into the evaluations. 3. Landscape Analysis Methods Landscape an a l y s i s encompasses a broad range of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n - 34 -and complexity i n analysis techniques. Some analyses determine c a p a b i l i t y for one or several uses; others determine attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y and then develop and evaluate an e n t i r e land use plan. Computers are i n t e g r a l to some of the approaches. This section concentrates on evaluating the various techniques for t h e i r p o t e n t i a l use by Regional D i s t r i c t s , according to the c r i t e r i a l i s t e d previously. Several general methods are described f i r s t and then the most promising one i s investigated i n more d e t a i l . Analysis methods encounter both q u a l i t a t i v e and quantitative information. The quantitative information i s not n e c e s s a r i l y l i n e a r or continuous. The values which are being considered are not n e c e s s a r i l y economic or market values, but intangible. Relationships between data sets are often unknown, therefore independence of the v a r i a b l e s i s not established. Hopkins (1977, p.392) presents a good example of dependence: "...an example would be adding the amenity for r e s i d e n t i a l use of an e x i s t i n g tree canopy, and substracting the cost of a r t i f i c i a l drainage required because of s o i l conditions. I n s t a l l a t i o n of the a r t i f i c i a l drainage and the r e s u l t i n g change i n water table would eliminatethe vegetation canopy. Therefore there i s interdependence among the f a c t o r s : the value of the vegetation type depends on the s o i l type." D i f f e r e n t methods deal with the information i n a number of ways, such as assuming independence or assigning numerical ratings to d e s c r i p t i v e features. - 35 -Hopkins (1977) separates four general methods: gestalt, mathematical combination, identification of regions and logical combination. The methods diff e r in their subjectiveness, and identification (or not) of homogeneous regions. The gestalt method' avoids delineating homogeneous regions, by delineating regions of similar problems or values (rather than characteristics) on the basis of judgement. Components of the regions are not measured. Rather, the su i t a b i l i t i e s (or other evaluations) are verbally described without considering the individual components. The evaluations are not easily j u s t i f i e d , or repeatable between regions. Several methods of mathematical combination of factor maps (i.e. s o i l , slope, land use) also avoid explicitly delineating aggregated homogeneous regions. Ordinal combination starts with a set of factor maps, rates the types within each factor for a land use, and then overlays the factor maps for each land use. The total rating is the sum of the ratings for the types of each factor. Overlaying different shades of grey is an alternative to numerical values. This method assumes factor independence, and that.ratings for different factors are on a similar ordinal scale and therefore can be summed. Linear combination methods follow essentially the same steps, but they attempt to put a l l factors on a similar scale. This can be done by weighting the factors, transferring them a l l to a zero to one scale, allocating proportions of a total potential evaluation score to different factors, or comparing a l l ratings to one scale such as dollars. The method s t i l l assumes factor independence. - 36 -Nonlinear combination methods can correct for i n t e r -dependence of v a r i a b l e s . Rather than summing ratings for each type (or weighted ratings) the f i n a l value i s calculated v i a a nonlinear equation. This value i s often p r e d i c t i v e , such as p o t e n t i a l runoff generation, rather than a s u i t a b i l i t y for a use. The l a s t two approaches discussed by Hopkins, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of regions, and l o g i c a l combination (rules of combination and h i e r a r c h i c a l combination) b u i l d upon each other. Both s t a r t by e x p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f y i n g homogeneous regions, but the f i r s t then rates each unit i n t u i t i v e l y while the second sets up r u l e s f or evaluating the u n i t s . The mathematical combination methods can also be used to evaluate the regions. E x p l i c i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of homogeneous regions has the benefit of avoiding some problems of interdependent v a r i a b l e s - a region can be homogeneous regardless of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between i t s d i f f e r e n t uniform c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The l o g i c a l combination methods- are more systematic. They can ta account of known dependencies i n the way the r u l e s are devised. Rules can be expressed through verbal l o g i c as well as, or instead of, quantitative expressions. They can also apply through an h i e r a r c h i c a l system, where combinations of strongly interdependent factors are considered f i r s t , and then successively i n combination with in c r e a s i n g l y independent factors The rules take advantage of s i t u a t i o n s where v a r i a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s are known, and therefore avoid assumptions of independence and assignation of numerical values to inta n g i b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A l l of the methods mentioned - g e s t a l t , mathematical combination, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of regions and l o g i c a l combination - are s t a t i c analyses which concentrate on resource supply ( S t e i n i t z , 1970). Changes over time - 37 -are not considered. Landscape analysis can also be approached from a dynamic viewpoint through the u t i l i z a t i o n of simulation models, which p r e d i c t answers to "what i f " types of questions. They generally require extensive information on i n t e r a c t i o n s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s and feedbacks between f a c t o r s and man's a c t i v i t i e s . Lack of information, despite the p o t e n t i a l usefulness as a t o o l for p r e d i c t i o n and l i n k i n g resource supply models with other economic and s o c i a l models, has r e s t r i c t e d t h e i r use to date. Operationally they are useful i n a learning s i t u a t i o n f o r i d e n t i f y i n g general trends, data gaps, and serving as a focus for experts i n d i f f e r e n t areas to cooperate and communicate. Hopkins (1977, p.397) concludes that f or most studies the best approach i s " l i n e a r and nonlinear combination methods as a f i r s t stage followed by r u l e s of combination". Reviewing the c r i t e r i a f o r methods indicates that t h i s approach i s also most sui t a b l e to the case study area. Gestalt i s too subjective. Mathematical combination i s i n s u f f i c i e n t i n i t s e l f because of compounding biases with dependent f a c t o r s . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of regions i s good i n that d e f i n i n g homogeneous regions separates s t a t i c inventory data from evaluations. This eases revamping evaluations at a l a t e r date, however, i n t u i t i v e evaluations are too subjective. Rules of combination used alone w i l l not take advantage of known r e l a t i o n s h i p s between fa c t o r s , but can account for dependency problems. F i n a l l y , there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t data for simulation models. Combining a resource c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme to i d e n t i f y homogeneous regions with mathematical combination and rules of combination selects a t t r a c t i v e features i n the - 38 -methods while avoiding some p i t f a l l s . The resultant evaluations are adequate for the regional l e v e l , repeatable, systematic and supportable by a v a i l a b l e data. Several v a r i a t i o n s of mathematical combinations have been applied (Amir, 1976; Spencer, 1972; Lyle and von Wodtke, 1974; Sinton, 1973 and 1972). They d i f f e r i n t h e i r complexity, number of weights and computer usage. The approach used by Amir, c a l l e d LESA (Local Environmental S e n s i t i v i t y Analysis) was simple, easy to understand, did not make u n j u s t i f i e d assumptions about weighting v a r i a b l e s , and could be adapted for manual or computer use i f desired. I t forms the basis for the method used i n the case study, and thus i s described i n further d e t a i l . I t was developed to assess environmental s e n s i t i v i t y of a s i t e to a project. The tables and maps, once assembled for a region, can be used to assess any project within the region. At the same time, LESA can be used as a preventative strategy for environmental impacts through i t s input to land use planning p o l i c y at an early stage. Two types of information are i n i t i a l l y c o l l e c t e d and mapped -the present land use and ownership, and vulnerable natural resources. The vulnerable resources are determined by "the needs of various state a u t h o r i t i e s interested i n natural resource protection, conservation and management" (Amir, 1976; p.231), and include featuers such as unique vegetation and w i l d l i f e , aquifers, depth to water table, s o i l types, etc. These two maps are o v e r l a i d to produce a homogeneous units map. The contents of each unit are recorded i n a Resource Inventory Table (Table 2.1a) . - 39 -Figure 2.1 S i m p l i f i c a t i o n of LESA Tables. a) Resource Inventory Table. Land Unit —— Number 1 2, Re s ou r c e ^ ~ ~ — — 1 Resource Type and V u l n e r a b i l i t y of the Type 2 b) Matrix of Land Use P o t e n t i a l Impacts. ' • — L a n d Use Resource Resource Type"—» Weight 1 2 1 l a lb l c 2 2a V u l n e r a b i l i t y on 1 to 9 scale c) Summary Table, f o r a s p e c i f i e d land use i n each land u n i t . —______Land Use Resource Resource Type 1 2 1 l a lb Impact on Resource Summary of Impacts i n Land Unit - 40 -The next stages evaluate the s i n g l e and aggregated impacts of a land use on a resource and a s i t e through two more t a b l e s . In the f i r s t t a b l e (Table 2.1b) a s u b j e c t i v e r e l a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of the types of each resource i s presented. The values are based on the type and amount of damage expected to occur from a given land use on the resource type. The maximum and minimum p o t e n t i a l of the impact of a land use (on x a x i s of t a b l e ) on a land u n i t and on a n a t u r a l resource (on the y a x i s of table) are c a l c u l a t e d . The range i s d i v i d e d i n t o Low, Medium and High r a t i n g s . These r a t i n g s are a l s o i n d i c a t e d i n the Resource Inventory Table. The second t a b l e (Table 2.1c) summarizes the p o t e n t i a l impacts of a land use. Resources and t h e i r types are l i s t e d i n the f i r s t column and land u n i t s are arrayed across the f i r s t row. The r e l e v a n t boxes are f i l l e d i n using the Resource Inventory Table and the Reference Table f o r the eva l u a t i o n s of v u l n e r a b i l i t y . The process can be a p p l i e d to the t o t a l r e g i o n , or i t can be a p p l i e d only to those u n i t s a f f e c t e d by a proposal. I n summary, the method c l a s s i f i e s a r e g i o n i n t o homogeneous u n i t s based on resources and present land use, produces a reference t a b l e which r a t e s the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of each resource to expected land uses, and then provides a summary t a b l e to be f i l l e d i n f o r each land use. The r a t i n g s i n the Reference Table are s u b j e c t i v e ( h o p e f u l l y reviewed by experts) and r e l a t i v e ( o r d i n a l ) . T o t a l impacts are c a l c u l a t e d by summing weighted e v a l u a t i o n s . Independence of the v a r i a b l e s i s assumed. The r e s u l t i s t h e r e f o r e a crude estimate of the degree of impact, which can be used to recommend f u r t h e r impact a n a l y s i s of a proposal or to compare p o t e n t i a l impacts of d i f f e r e n t uses between s i t e s f o r input.: to land use planning s t r a t e g i e s . - 41 -Although t h i s method was used to predict impacts, i t can be applied to evaluate attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y . The flow chart used by Amir (Pers. Comm.) (Figure 2.2) for evaluating land use plans on the basis of t h e i r a t t r a c t i v e n e s s and v u l n e r a b i l i t y (calculated using IMGRID (Sinton, 1977)) can f a c i l i t a t e t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n . The flowchart begins by i d e n t i f y i n g community values and goals, and the amount and type of land uses to be located (demand). Factors important for assessing the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of ecosystems are determined. Locational c r i t e r i a f o r each of the land uses are determined. A data l i s t which f u l f i l l s the information need of the model c r i t e r i a i s drawn up, c o l l e c t e d , and data i s inputted to the computer. A land use plan i s then designed, a l l o c a t i n g s u f f i c i e n t areas to land uses to s a t i s f y the community goals. The models, plus f u n c t i o n a l considerations and s o c i a l values are used to design the plan. The plan i s then inputted to the computer and evaluated with respect to the models. The outputs are evaluations, i n map and table formats, of the t o t a l attractiveness of the plan, a t t r a c t i v e -ness of the locations of each use, and the impacts of the uses on each environmental system. If the goals for attractiveness and impact prevention are not met, the plan can be adjusted and re-evaluated. If r e l o c a t i n g the land uses cannot meet the i n i t i a l goals, the options (as indicated by feedback loops i n Figure 2.2) are to change the models, change the amount or type of land uses to be located, or change the o r i g i n a l l y set values and goals. During the feedback processes, the tradeoffs i n environmental q u a l i t y and economic s u i t a b i l i t y of s i t e s are open to view; each a l t e r a t i o n requires an e x p l i c i t d e c i s i o n . Figure 2.2 The IMGRID Planning Process. Start Change Demands "Reprogram" Values/Goals Demands/Land Use Region/Site Change Si t e Systems "Engineer" ~ Land Use Program Data A c q u i s i t i o n Locational " a t t r a c t i v e n e s s " C r i t e r i a OUTSIDE COMPUTER INSIDE COMPUTER Data Bank Attractiveness Models I Evaluation System Environmental Economic Social " V u l n e r a b i l i t y " C r i t e r i a K1 N Y V u l n e r a b i l i t y Models Decision C r i t e r i a Change Value "''Educate" Design Plan Project Optimize-Improve Plan Change Plan "Redesign" " Evaluations — t V Y Stop - 43 -The advantage of t h i s flowchart i s that data requirements are determined by the need of the attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y models. Excessive, useless data i s not c o l l e c t e d . It also provides feedback mechanisms to correct and improve the plan. In t h i s study, the management units d i c t a t e the uses for the land use program. For example, high i n t e n s i t y development i s the general use of one category. If public p a r t i c i p a t i o n indicates d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the r e s u l t s of the management c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , the models, management unit c r i t e r i a and the management units themselves can be expanded, deleted or modified. 4. Summary In summary, the recommended landscape analysis r e s u l t s i n two evaluations: attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y . They evaluate homogeneous mapping u n i t s , defined by a resource c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system. The evaluation technique i s an amalgamation of a l i n e a r mathematical combination method s i m i l a r to LESA, and rules of combination where l i n e a r combination f a i l s . - 44 -CHAPTER THREE. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS METHOD AND RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION I. OVERVIEW & FLOWCHART The landscape analysis method incorporates rules of combination with mathematical combination. The l i n e a r combination method i s derived from LESA (Amir, 1976). Rules of combination are applied to correct for problems of dependent factors i n the l i n e a r approach. A flowchart for the analysis process presents the major steps (Figure 3.1): development of attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y models, inventory, resource c l a s s i f i c a t i o n into homogeneous units, and evaluation of the units. The models are selected to f u l f i l l the needs of the c r i t e r i a for the management un i t s . Rough models determine an i n i t i a l data l i s t ; both the models and l i s t are revised by the a v a i l a b l e data. A resource c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s devised and also modified to f i t the a v a i l a b l e data. Homogeneous units are mapped, and the data for each unit summarized i n an Inventory Table. The evaluations are made using the Inventory Table plus two other tables, described i n more d e t a i l i n Section III of t h i s Chapter. The l a s t step i n the flowchart assigns the homogeneous units to management categories, using the evaluations and land use data. These i n i t i a l designations are then inputted to the planning process for review and modification. I I . RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION C l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems are devised for a purpose. They give names to objects, transmit information about the objects, and allow - 45 -Figure 3.1 Landscape Analysis Flowchart. Develop Resource C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Develop Management C l a s s i f i c a t i o n System I Select Attractiveness and V u l n e r a b i l i t y Models Develop Models (REFERENCE TABLES) I Data L i s t I Data Inventory I C l a s s i f y Homogeneous Units (INVENTORY TABLE) i Evaluate Units (CALCULATION TABLES) I Assign Homogeneous Units to Management Categories - 46 -g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s to be made about those objects (Witmer, 1978, p.663). In t h i s study, the " o b j e c t " i s the land/water area of the c o a s t a l zone, and the purpose i s to d i v i d e the areas i n t o homogeneous u n i t s which can be t i e d to eva l u a t i o n s f o r d i f f e r e n t uses and s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to environmental impacts. The system should i n c o r p o r a t e both b i o p h y s i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the models and la n d use in f o r m a t i o n f o r the management u n i t s . I t should a l s o be f l e x i b l e , because data i s not always a v a i l a b l e , and capable of being expanded i f more d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n i s req u i r e d . The more informat i o n that can be provided by a simple format, the b e t t e r . Land c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n has been based on three approaches (see Mabbut, 1968; M i t c h e l l , 1973), each w i t h t h e i r advantages and disadvantages f o r p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s . Genetic approaches, which r e l y on causal environmental f a c t o r s as c r i t e r i a , do not r e s u l t i n small enough areas f o r la n d use e v a l u a t i o n s , but do provide a broad overview of a region and the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between components. The landscape approach does not i n i t i a l l y i s o l a t e i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a r e g i o n , but d e l i n e a t e s areas of s i m i l a r appearances through v i s u a l means such as a e r i a l photographs, and l a t e r measures c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s deemed important f o r t h a t study. I t s premise i s that the v i s u a l f e a t u r e s r e f l e c t the cause/ e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s which formed the landscape. A l o o s e l y defined landscape u n i t a i d s i n r a p i d reconnaissance survey of l a r g e areas, but as i n the genetic approach the r e s u l t a n t u n i t s are o f t e n too general f o r land use planning. The t h i r d approach, parametric, i s more s u i t e d to d e t a i l e d planning and a n a l y s i s of in f o r m a t i o n and computerization. Mabbut (1968, p.21) defines the approach "as the d i v i s i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of land on - 47 -the basis of selected a t t r i b u t e values", and gives the example of a hypsometric map. Its disadvantages are that i t requires extensive sampling, and the choice of a t t r i b u t e s i s s p e c i f i c to one purpose - i t cannot ne c e s s a r i l y be used f o r other purposes at a l a t e r date. I f a t t r i b u t e s change with time new surveys are required. A l i m i t e d choice of a t t r i b u t e s may also f a i l to indi c a t e e c o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between areas. In pra c t i c e , many c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems are a combination of the three approaches, r e l y i n g on genetic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n at a generalized l e v e l and a more parametric approach at lower l e v e l s . The landscape and parametric approaches can r e s u l t i n homogeneous units r i g h t from the s t a r t , as do biophysical or e c o l o g i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems (e.g. Lacate, 1969). However, given that resource information i s often dispersed and unaggregated for any p a r t i c u l a r area, and that i t i s sometimes desirable to include other information, there are at least two other approaches to i d e n t i f y i n g homogeneous regions - factor combination and c l u s t e r a n a l ysis. In factor combination, factor maps (single resource maps) are overlaid to produce a composite map where each unit i s described by i t s factor types. As mentioned previously, each unit thus defined can be evaluated i n t u i t i v e l y or on the basis of experience. In e f f e c t , the approach simply systematizes the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of regions i n the ges t a l t method. Cluster analysis i s a s t a t i s t i c a l method of se l e c t i n g s i m i l a r regions through a series of comparisons (see Webster, 1977, p.160-161; Sokal, 1974; Schreier and Lavkulich, 1977, 1978). The i n d i v i d u a l regions - 48 -can be defined by the factor combination approach above, or by a g r i d system, where the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for each g r i d c e l l follow from overlaying the g r i d on each factor map. Similar g r i d c e l l s or s i m i l a r regions are i d e n t i f i e d . I t was decided to use an h i e r a r c h i c a l system based on genetic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n at the higher l e v e l s and parametric ones at lower l e v e l s . The advantage of the genetic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s i n i d e n t i f y i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s between areas. The mapping unit l i n e s are not l i k e l y to change as more information becomes a v a i l a b l e . Also more information can be extracted from genetic units i f new models u t i l i z e d i f f e r e n t factors as c r i t e r i a , which minimizes the p o t e n t i a l need for new inventories i n the future. The parametric data can be used to r e f i n e the larger genetic units for s p e c i f i c purposes. The process i s one of overlaying the s i n g l e resource maps i n a factor combination approach which avoids having to use computers and t h e i r associated time, money and personnel. The system was developed and modified as the models were constructed and data c o l l e c t e d . The i n i t i a l plan was to separate the coastal zone into three smaller zones of (1) nearshore, (2) foreshore ( t i d a l ) , and (3) backshore, upshore and upland (see Figure 3.2). Each of these zones would then be subdivided by a s e r i e s of d i v i s i o n s based on b i o p h y s i c a l c r i t e r i a . However, problems arose i n using the separation of t i d a l from backshore. Geohydraulic processes a f f e c t a small band of both the foreshore and backshore zones. Other information, such as for w i l d l i f e and recreation, r e f e r s to a s i m i l a r band. Secondly, land uses often require adjacent components i n both the foreshore and backshore areas, and would thus require two models. FIGURE 3.2 MARINE-SHORE ZONE AND BOUNDARIES (BAUER, 1976, R44.) AQUATIC SHORE PROCESS CORRIDOR GEOHYDRAULIC GEOPNEUMATIC SYSTEMS A Q U A T I C F R I N G E SURGE ZONE TERRESTIAL FRINGE T E R R E S I - T R I A L O F F S H O R E N E A R S H O R E F O R E S H O R E B A C K S H O R E U P S H O R E UPLAND »->-CO UJ oc o STORM TIDE (100 YEARS) UPSHORE ' 'COASTLINE UPLAND 100 YEAR RECESSION 3 HIGHEST-TIDE ol GD < Z o 12 Q CO cc z> -5 MHHW I MHW fQRDINARY' HIGH TIDE) 100 YEAR R E C E -SSION (EROSION SHORE) n^ju. I*I - i_r - "" ~ " ' — BERM OR FOREDUNE 12 MILE C A N A D I A N C R O W N F O R E S H O R E C O A S T L I N E INLAND S E A (ACCRETION S H O R E ) ' U P L A N D S ' - 50 -The s o l u t i o n to the f i r s t problem was to define a band, c a l l e d the shore zone, which included the foreshore, backshore and integrade habitats (see Habitat legend i n appendix for d e f i n i t i o n of intergrade), extending inland to the top of a b l u f f , the edge of the backshore, or the edge of the intergrade habitat, whichever was greatest. Each time a b i o p h y s i c a l factor i n any one of the foreshore, backshore or intergrade units changed, a new homogeneous unit was defined. In areas where the shoreline changed r a p i d l y - f o r example a row of small pocket beaches interspersed with bedrock - complex units were defined. An inference from t h i s s o l u t i o n i s that i f any component of the unit i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s e n s i t i v e , the whole unit w i l l be assigned based on that component. The j u s t i f i c a t i o n , at the regional l e v e l , i s that the band i s operating as a system, and changing one section, i . e . foreshore, i s l i k e l y to change another, i s backshore. A l o c a l l e v e l of planning can consider the components i n more d e t a i l . The second problem was also p a r t i a l l y solved by defining a shore zone which included backshore and foreshore. Models' for uses such as ports, which require both foreshore and upshore areas, did not have to have two parts. They could focus a l l t h e i r c r i t e r i a on the shore zone. Any c r i t e r i a r e l a t e d to inland or offshore areas would r e f e r to immediately adjacent areas. For example, i f there are navigation hazards i n the offshore area, they w i l l a f f e c t the r a t i n g of the shoreline area. Because the models are developed i n t h i s fashion, they w i l l be applicable to either shore zone or upland homogeneous un i t s , but not both^as indicated i n the reference tables. - 51 -The f i n a l system f i r s t divided the coastal zone into the upland and shore zones, and then subdivided following the h i e r a r c h i c a l system l a i d out i n Table 3.1. The r e s u l t i s homogeneous biophysical units which are based on several d i f f e r e n t genetic and parametric c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems. Commonly used factor c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems were u t i l i z e d where possible. Land use data i s associated with each of the resource units. Four categories are defined i n the system, comparable to the l e v e l s of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i n the hierarchy devised by Welsh (1978) for land/water c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . The higher two categories, Region and D i s t r i c t , r e f e r to the e n t i r e coastal zone, while the lower two, Section and Type,are applicable within each subzone. The scale, c r i t e r i a f o r subdivision, and references used to set up the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are included i n Table 3.1. The Section and Type categories are the most s i g n i f i c a n t for t h i s study, where Region and D i s t r i c t are constant. Therefore, for the Region category, the d i v i s i o n s based on process are presented, but the macro-climatic d i v i s i o n s are l e f t open to choice. Koppen's system, or Krajina's biogeoclimatic zones are two p o s s i b i l i t i e s (Koppen 1936; Krajina, 1965) • The a v a i l a b i l i t y of information influenced the decision to associate land use information with b i o p h y s i c a l l y defined homogeneous u n i t s . Most resource information i s at scale of 1:25,000 or larger, whereas the land use ( l o t s i z e s , land use, land value, zoning) i s a v a i l a b l e on base maps of 1":A00'. The resource data cannot j u s t i f i a b l y be blown up to the same scale as the land use, because i t i s not accurate to that scale, and - 52 -Table 3.1 Resource C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Coastal Zone. REGION Scale: Sources:+ C r i t e r i a : greater than 1:1,000,000 V a l e t i n 1970, i n Bloom 1978 Process Macroclimate ( i . e . Koppen,1936; Krajina, 1965) Advanced Shore Line a) emerged b) prograded Retreated Shore Line a) submerged b) retrograded Equilibrium DISTRICT Scale: Sources: C r i t e r i a : 1:500,000 to 1:250,000 Spencer, 1972 Bloom, 1978 Morphology Smooth a) C l i f f s i ) platform below lowest t i d e s i i ) plunging b) No C l i f f s i ) platform below lowest t i d e s i i ) no platform Indented a) Bold* i ) f i o r d s i i ) r i a s (folding perpendicular to coast) i i i ) Dalmation (folding p a r a l l e l to coast) b) Embayed i ) embayments** i i ) bays** i i i ) lagoons** - 53 -Table 3.1 (Cont'd) SECTION AND TYPE A. Upland Zone (landward from the shore zone boundary) Scale: 1:50,000 to 1:20,000 Sources: Spencer, 1972 E.L.U.C. Secret a r i a t , 1976 U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Service, 1977 C r i t e r i a : Terrain S o i l s Habitat (plant communities) W i l d l i f e (only i f based on above mapping u n i t s ; otherwise associate the information with above units rather than de f i n i n g more units by overlaying the map) It i s suggested that the t e r r a i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n follow the E.L.U.C. Secretariat (1976) system and s o i l s the Canada S o i l Survey Committee (1978) system. S o i l s e r i e s would be approximately equal to Type. Plant communities should follow the best system a v a i l a b l e f o r the area. There i s considerable f l e x i b i l i t y i n the approach. The purpose i s to have a unit from which various i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , f o r example, s u i t a b i l i t y for septic tanks, can be made. B. Shore Zone (From the upper part of a b l u f f , or the inland boundary of the Intergrade Habitat (whichever i s greatest) to 10m below datum) Scale: 1:50,000 to 1:20,000 Sources: Spencer, 1972 E.L.U.C. Sec r e t a r i a t , 1976 Bloom, 1978 N.W. Environmental Consultants, 1976 U.S. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Service, 1977 C r i t e r i a : Shoreline Processes Wave Energy Terrain and/or Habitat There are other p o t e n t i a l c r i t e r i a which can also be used, i f a v a i l a b l e : 1. C i r c u l a t i o n a) s t r a t i f i e d b) n o n - s t r a t i f i e d c) entrainment - 54 -Table 3.1 (Cont'd) 2. S a l i n i t y (Venice System, Reid and Wood, 1976) (ppt) a) hyperhaline > 40 b) euhaline 40-30 c) mixohaline (40) 30-0.5 - mixoeuhaline >30 but < adjacent euhaline sea - mixopolyhaline 30-18 - mixomesohaline 18-5 - mixooligohaline 5-0.5 d) limnetic (fresh) <0.5 3. Water Temperature 4. Water Depth 5. Erosion/Sedimentation Rates + Sources are those used to set up the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , not data sources. * From Bloom, 1978, p.470. St r u c t u r a l control has formed d i s t i n c t i v e complex shore l i n e s . ** D e f i n i t i o n from Clark, 1977, pp. 126-127. - 55 -could r e s u l t i n erroneous assumptions. On the other hand, the land use cannot be reduced to 1:25,000. The compromise of mapping at 1:25,000, and then i n d i c a t i n g associated socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the Inventory Table by r e f e r r i n g to the 1":400' maps appeared most su i t a b l e . It was i n l i n e with the boundary d e f i n i t i o n s for the coastal zone (see Chapter 2, Section 1.3) and the data base s i t u a t i o n i s probably s i m i l a r for many Regional D i s t r i c t s . A v a i l a b l e information i n a p a r t i c u l a r area can a l t e r the number of c r i t e r i a used to separate units. For example, information on a l l the c r i t e r i a i n the subtidal zone may not be a v a i l a b l e , necessitating the use of fewer c r i t e r i a to define the u n i t s . I I I . EVALUATION METHOD The procedure for the evaluation follows the flowchart i n Figure 3.1. The models are selected, data i s c o l l e c t e d , homogeneous units are mapped and then evaluated using the tables described below. Each attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y model consists of two tables - Reference and C a l c u l a t i o n . The Reference Table (Figure 3.3b) l i s t s the resource factors relevant to the model, rates each factor type on a 1 to 5 scale, and weights the factors r e l a t i v e to each other. The weights are based on the known importance of the factor from other studies, the opinion of experts, the r e l i a b i l i t y of the data, and the opinion of the analyst. The p o t e n t i a l maximum and minimum values for the model are calculated, and the range i s subdivided into d e s c r i p t i v e ratings of high, - 56 -Figure 3.3 Format for Landscape Analysis Tables, a) Inventory Table. Homogeneous Unit Factors for Models and C r i t e r i a f o r Management Units ( i . e . s o i l texture) 1 2 Factor Types ( i . e . clay) 1 1 I i 1 b) Reference Tables (one per model). Factor Factor Weight Value of Factor Types 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 Factor Types Maximum value = £ J (max. value x factor weight) factors Minimum value = (min. value x factor weight) factors c) C a l c u l a t i o n Tables (one per model). Homogeneous Factor T o t a l Rating** Unit 1 Value* 1 2 3 Type Value Value x Weight * T o tal Value = YL ( i n d i v i d u a l values x weights) factors ** Rating i s based on the d i v i s i o n of the difference between maximum and minimum values into 5 equal or nearly equal groups, which are ratings of High (H), Moderately High (MH), Moderate (M), Moderately Low (ML) and Low (L). - 57 -moderately high, moderate, moderately low and low. The c a l c u l a t i o n Table (Figure 3.3c) provides a format f o r e v a l u a t i n g the homogeneous u n i t s . I t i s a matrix of homogeneous u n i t s i n the f i r s t column and f a c t o r s i n the f i r s t row. Values of the f a c t o r types are f i l l e d i n from the Reference Table. The a t t r a c t i v e n e s s or v u l n e r a b i l i t y i s the sum of the weighted f a c t o r types, converted to the d e s c r i p t i v e r a t i n g . The data f o r the models i s summarized i n an Inventory Table (Figure 3.3a). I t l i s t s the homogeneous u n i t s from the resource c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n the f i r s t column, and the f a c t o r s f o r the models and the land use inf o r m a t i o n i n the f i r s t row. Two types of v u l n e r a b i l i t y models are developed - e c o l o g i c a l v a l u e , and to l e r a n c e to use. Both r e f l e c t the ecosystem as opposed to developer viewpoints, and p r e v i o u s l y they have been evaluated together (Murray et a l . , 1977; Amir, Pers. Comm.). However, no attempt i s made to combine the two types f o r a f i n a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y r a t i n g i n t h i s study, because both present i n f o r m a t i o n that i s important by i t s e l f . E c o l o g i c a l value and to l e r a n c e to use are explained more f u l l y i n the chapter presenting the models f o r the case study. The c r i t e r i a i n the models are r e s t r i c t e d to b i o p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , which i s d i f f e r e n t from LESA and IMGRID, f o r two reasons. F i r s t l y , i n t r o d u c t i o n of socio-economic f a c t o r s a l s o introduces value judgements. The fewer the value judgements, the more a p p l i c a b l e and unbiased i s the model. Since socio-economic f a c t o r s cannot be omitted from c o n s i d e r a t i o n , they are used as c r i t e r i a f o r the management u n i t s i n s t e a d , where they are more open to purview by the p u b l i c and d e c i s i o n -makers . - 58 -The second reason is the problem of independence of factors. The socio-economic factors, such as land use, are often related to the biophysical factors, and including both gives unknown weights to the dependent factors. Simplifying the models by reducing the number of factors in turn reduces the potential biases which result from dependent factors. Known cases of dependent factors are handled by a "rule of combination". This type of weighted evaluation system obviously s t i l l has problems. The factors are not necessarily independent, and the weights and ratings given to factors and factor types respectively are s t i l l p artially judgemental. Increasing knowledge may decrease, but not eliminate, the subjectiveness. However, the method has several good points. First, i t is simple and easy to understand. Second, i t can take advantage of knowledge which exists in the way in which the weights are set. If precise knowledge f a i l s , an estimate of relative attractiveness or vulnerability can s t i l l be calculated. As more knowledge is obtained the models can be refined. The method does not purport to be suited to detailed, site specific analysis, but can provide evaluations which are useful at the regional level. - 59 -CHAPTER FOUR. MANAGEMENT UNITS I. RATIONALE FOR SELECTING THE UNITS Because a management unit system i n e v i t a b l y r e f l e c t s value judgements, the r a t i o n a l e behind the units and t h e i r guidelines i s e x p l i c i t l y stated, so that planners, p o l i t i c a n s and the public are aware of these judgements. Before proceeding, several terms used i n the guidelines require explanation. Development i s an a c t i v i t y which removes the present land cover, and disrupts the s o i l surface (or substrate or bottom sediments under the water) for the purposes of constructing any bu i l d i n g , transportation route, or shoreline defense measure, leaving a greater percentage of surface area covered than before. High density development implies a large percentage of the surface i s covered by construction, pavement or unnatural materials. Density, as used for recreation, r e f e r s to the number of r e c r e a t i o n i s t s per area. High density r e c r e a t i o n a l use includes f a c i l i t i e s such as swimming pool and tennis courts; moderate density includes playing f i e l d s and outdoor re c r e a t i o n with supportive f a c i l i t i e s and access; and low density i s outdoor recreation with minimal f a c i l i t i e s , access and numbers of people. High density r e s i d e n t i a l r e f e r s to multiple unit dwelling (apartments, townhouses, etc.) of greater than about 10 units per 0.4 ha (1 acre); low density i s less than 1 unit per 0.4 ha (1 acre). .An. a c t i o n " i n t e r f e r e s " - with an area i f i t changes pr o d u c t i v i t y , species d i v e r s i t y , or species behavioural patterns. An area i s "enhanced" i f i t s natural p r o d u c t i v i t y i s - 60 -increased e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y without s i g n i f i c a n t l y decreasing species d i v e r s i t y or i f d i v e r s i t y i s decreased i n one area i t i s complementarily increased i n another area. The importance of a t t r a c t i v e n e s s versus v u l n e r a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a v a r i e s among the management u n i t s . The C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Areas u n i t focuses on areas of high e c o l o g i c a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y , and t h e r e f o r e w i l l i n c l u d e the most v u l n e r a b l e areas of each of the resource systems. The Developable and Developable w i t h L i m i t a t i o n s u n i t s focus more on the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s f o r d i f f e r e n t types of development, such as r e s i d e n t i a l , p o r t , i n d u s t r i a l and commercial. The Resource Harvesting u n i t tends to inc l u d e both moderately s e n s i t i v e areas and areas a t t r a c t i v e f o r h a r v e s t i n g , because p r o d u c t i v i t y i s important i n both r a t i n g s . The Conservancy u n i t i n c l u d e s areas a t t r a c t i v e to f o r e s t r y and low d e n s i t y r e c r e a t i o n , as w e l l as areas which c o n t a i n g e o l o g i c hazards. The upland and shore zone Developable w i t h L i m i t a t i o n s c a t e g o r i e s acquire by d e f a u l t any areas which do not f i t other u n i t s . The m a t r i x i n Table 4.1 i l l u s t r a t e s the t r a d e o f f s between a t t r a c t i v e n e s s and v u l n e r a b i l i t y i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system. The matrix i s s i m p l i f i e d by r e f e r r i n g only to undeveloped areas, and only one use, "development". Areas i n d i c a t e d as p o s s i b l e development u n i t s do not n e c e s s a r i l y have to be a l l o c a t e d to a developable c l a s s , however areas designated as c r i t i c a l cannot be a l l o c a t e d to any other use. The management u n i t s were constructed by the f o l l o w i n g g u i d e l i n e s and p h i l o s o p h i e s : - 61 -Table 4.1 Attractiveness and V u l n e r a b i l i t y Trade-offs of the Management Units. V u l n e r a b i l i t y Very High High Moderate Low 4-1 fi cu fi High CR C R R DWL D elopme and Zo Moderate CR C R DWL D DWL or Dev i H PH !=> Low CR C R C DWL R 4-1 veness 0) fi High CR C RH DWL RH D tracti ore Zo Moderate CR C RH DWL RH D DWL 4-1 < C/3 Low CR C RH RH C DWL Legend: C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Area CR Conservancy C Resource Harvesting RH Rural R Developable with Limitations DWL Developable D - 62 -i ) The management units are a framework within which l o c a l areas are expected to do complementary s i t e planning, i i ) An o v e r a l l philosophy of maintaining natural shoreline processes and maintaining or improving water qu a l i t y and w i l d l i f e habitat i s expressed by the s t r i c t e s t constraints on a c t i v i t i e s and waste disposal i n valuable, s e n s i t i v e e c o l o g i c a l areas. Minimum constraints are i n a t t r a c t i v e areas for development where e c o l o g i c a l value and s e n s i t i v i t y are low. i i i ) C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l areas are always protected. However, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of areas with high attractiveness for develop-ment depends on the v u l n e r a b i l i t y , therefore high attractiveness does not always mean development. The maximum l e v e l of development, given the v u l n e r a b i l i t y , i s permitted. iv) Sustained y i e l d p o l i c i e s for aquaculture, f o r e s t r y , and f i s h i n g . v) No archeological s i t e s should be disturbed without the permission of the B.C. Archeological Si t e s Advisory Board, v i ) Guidelines are based on performance standards as opposed to s p e c i f i c references to uses and technologies. If data for the performance standards i s not a v a i l a b l e , i n s t i t u t e a monitoring program on a t r i a l smaller scale project, v i i ) P ublic access to the shoreline i s f a c i l i t a t e d within the constraints of the e c o l o g i c a l tolerance to use. - 63 -v i i i ) The uses within a unit are dependent upon - the attractiveness for the use - the e c o l o g i c a l value and tolerance to use - present use, or future committed uses - the c o m p a t i b i l i t y of the uses (see ix):'.. ix) Incompatible uses are separated by - encouraging : i n f i l l i n g i n areas of s i m i l a r a c t i v i t y - s e t t i n g p r i o r i t y uses for each u n i t . Demands for p r i o r i t y uses must be met before other uses can proceed - ensuring that new uses are compatible with present uses. Note that a l l of the possible uses of a management unit may not be compatible, and w i l l therefore require separation within the unit i n a d e t a i l e d development or management program. Examples include separating long term moorage, transient moorage and t o u r i s t f a c i l i t i e s , or r e s t r i c t i n g r e c r e a t i o n a l and commercial power boats from public beaches, x) Public education programs should be i n s t i t u t e d to inform the public of the e c o l o g i c a l systems and t h e i r values, and the r a t i o n a l e and methods for managing them. The following guidelines should be applied when a l l o c a t i n g homogeneous units to management u n i t s : i ) Homogeneous units may meet the c r i t e r i a for more than one management u n i t . Thus, the f i n a l a l l o c a t i o n should be based on the supply/demand for d i f f e r e n t uses within the l o c a l areas, the values of the p u b l i c , and the p r i o r i t i e s given to c r i t i c a l e c o l o g i c a l areas and port areas of larger than l o c a l i n t e r e s t . - 64 -i i ) C r i t e r i a which automatically a l l o c a t e the homogeneous unit to a management unit should be reviewed f i r s t , including land use ( i s unit i n A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve?) v u l n e r a b i l i t y (high to C r i t i c a l Areas) and hazards (severe to Conservancy). i i i ) Similar management units should be all o c a t e d within a d r i f t sector, to minimize downcoast impacts on uses with d i f f e r e n t water q u a l i t y requirements. iv) The s i z e of the homogeneous unit should not be a consideration except i n the case of port development, where the unit must be large enough to be economically v i a b l e . C r i t i c a l areas may be small (less than 0.5 ha), whereas the Upland Development with L i m i t a t i o n u n i t s , which are a c a t c h a l l , may be many time larger, v) Homogeneous units can be separated into d i f f e r e n t management units on the basis of t h e i r present land use, i f i t i s necessary to manage important e c o l o g i c a l areas. v i ) The upland and aquatic zoning should be coordinated. For example, ensure that p r i o r i t y a c t i v i t i e s i n upland zones w i l l not impact adjacent c r i t i c a l e c o l o g i c a l areas, v i i ) Related uses ( i . e . logging and log processing) and uses of d i f f e r e n t d e n s i t i e s should be integrated between management units through transportation systems, while c o n f l i c t i n g uses and units should be separated by buffer zones. - 65 -v i i i ) Conservancy units should be used as buffers f or C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Areas, and Conservancy and Rural u n i t s used as buffers between r e s i d e n t i a l and i n d u s t r i a l or commercial areas. The major performance guidelines are presented i n two sets, always guidelines 1 and 2 for each un i t . The f i r s t simply l i s t s the performance c r i t e r i a . The second l i s t s the maximum percentages of land and water that can be disturbed or covered, and i s intended as a backup to the f i r s t set. For example, i f i t i s not possible to demonstrate that the standards i n the f i r s t set are f u l l y met (due to lack of data or knowledge) the second set provide more concrete guidelines which can be followed i n l i e u of the f i r s t . Thus, the percentage figures are not presented as absolutes but can be adjusted i f i t can be demonstrated that the f i r s t guideline i s s t i l l met. Table 4.2 presents the percentage and water q u a l i t y guidelines. It should be emphasized that an attempt was made to u t i l i z e performance guidelines, and not to r e f e r to s p e c i f i c uses. However, some guidelines for p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s are included when 1) the a c t i v i t i e s are already present i n many areas or 2) the guidelines can o f f e r suggestions for preventing known impacts of the a c t i v i t y or expand on guidelines 1 and 2 discussed above. In most management units a l l a c t i v i t i e s are permitted i f they can demonstrate that guidelines 1 and 2 are adherred to, and the demands for p r i o r i t y uses have been met f i r s t . The management categories are defined and described beginning with the one of most e c o l o g i c a l value. Each category i s described according Table 4.2 Summary of Some of the Performance Guidelines for the Management Units. UPLAND ZONE SHORE ZONE Management Unit Maximum X of Land Disturbed* Maximum Z of Land Covered Disruption of Stream Characteristics Allowed Maximum X of Water Surface Covered Maximum X of Substrate Disturbed Maximum X of Foreshore and Backshore Disturbed Water Quality Changes Allowed C r i t i c a l Ecological Area 5 3 None, or Reha b i l i t a t i o n 0 0 0 None, unless productivity Increases and d i v e r s i t y Increases or stays constant. Conservancy 15 10 As above 5 5 10 As above. Resource Harvesting (RH) NA NA NA 80 for RH (20 for other uses) AO for RH (15 for other uses) 30 for RH (15 for other uses) Must meet s h e l l f i s h requirements. Rural 90 15 See Guidelines NA NA NA NA Developable with Limitations 70 35 See Guidelines 25 10 15 Must meet standards for water contact sports and s h e l l f i s h l n g . Developable -Non-Industrial 100 75 See Guidelines 70 50 100 Po l l u t i o n Control Board standards. Developable -Ind u s t r i a l & Port 100 90 See Guidelines 70 50 100 As above. Disturbed means the removal of vegetation and/or the mixing, lose, burial or disruption of the s o i l or substrate. - 6 7 -to the template of purpose, d e s c r i p t i o n and uses, c r i t e r i a , and p o l i c y guidelines. The c r i t e r i a are separated into upland and shore zones for those units i n both zones. Examples of other systems used as references are l i s t e d at the end of the chapter. Purpose. To preserve e c o l o g i c a l systems which are extremely valuable and/or s e n s i t i v e to man's a c t i v i t i e s . D e scription and Uses. C r i t i c a l areas are v i t a l components of the coastal system because of t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y , t h e i r r o l e i n a l i f e c y c l e , or t h e i r r o l e i n protection of inland areas from erosion or inundation. They are generally undeveloped, although disturbed areas with p o t e n t i a l f or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n can be included. Uses are severely l i m i t e d , with exceptions of educational, s c i e n t i f i c research and very low density r e c r e a t i o n a l uses. C r i t e r i a . 1. Undeveloped areas of high e c o l o g i c a l value or low tolerance for II. MANAGEMENT UNITS 1. C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Areas r e c r e a t i o n a l use. 2. Altered areas of past high e c o l o g i c a l value, or low tolerance to recreation, with p o t e n t i a l for r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . 3. S i g n i f i c a n t , undisturbed archeological s i t e s . 4. Designated w i l d l i f e reserves and sanctuaries with low to moderately low tolerance to r e c r e a t i o n a l use ( i f tolerance i s - 68 -greater, they can be placed i n the Conservancy u n i t ) . P o l i c y Guidelines. A l l a c t i v i t i e s must follow guidelines 1 and 2, however the figures i n guideline 2 may be adjusted (maximum of 5%) i f guideline 1 i s met. 1. A c t i v i t i e s must demonstrate that they either enhance or do not i n t e r f e r e with: i ) c r i t i c a l e c o l o g i c a l habitat, including waterfowl migration routes and breeding areas, seal haulouts and feeding areas, preservation of scarce/unique habitat or f l o r a and fauna, and f i s h spawning areas and migration routes, i i ) the v i s u a l q u a l i t i e s of the natural environment, i i i ) n a t ural drainage patterns including stream flow and sedimentation c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , iv) water q u a l i t i e s of a l l fresh and s a l t water bodies. 2. A c t i v i t i e s must not: disturb more than 5% of upland; cover more than 3% of the upland with impermeable materials; or disturb or cover any part of the shore zone. If these l i m i t s have already been exceeded, the present a c t i v i t i e s are allowed to continue but not to expand unless they conform to guideline 1. The figures apply to the t o t a l area of the management unit and i n d i v i d u a l proposals. 3. P r i o r i t y uses i n the shore zone are low density water dependent uses, including observation and nature i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n widely spaced nodes, s c i e n t i f i c research and monitoring of natural - 69 -habitats. For example, non-powered boats are permitted but r e s t r i c t e d to s p e c i f i c areas i n seasons which are not di s r u p t i v e to w i l d l i f e . 4. C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Areas should be posted with unobstrusive signs which inform the public of the area's e c o l o g i c a l value, and d i r e c t a c t i v i t i e s to more sui t a b l e management u n i t s . 5. Archeological s i t e s cannot be disturbed unless for research approved by the B.C. Archeological Si t e s Advisory Board. 2. Conservancy (Upland and Aquatic Zones) Purpose. To provide for uses which do not s i g n i f i c a n t l y or permanently a l t e r the natural environment or interrupt natural processes, and to control development i n areas of moderately high e c o l o g i c a l value and/or s e n s i t i v i t y . Description and Uses. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n includes undeveloped areas which are a t t r a c t i v e to f o r e s t r y • and low density recreation, are unattractive to development due to engineering properties or hazards, or are s i g n i f i c a n t but not c r i t i c a l e c o l o g i c a l areas. The major uses would be outdoor recreation (hiking, camping, f i s h i n g , boating with small or non-motorized boats) and w i l d l i f e management. C r i t e r i a . 1. Undeveloped or r e c r e a t i o n a l areas with predominantly natural land cover, moderate to high e c o l o g i c a l value, moderate to high tolerance for recreation, and low to moderate tolerance for r e s i d e n t i a l use. - 70 -2. Undisturbed archeological s i t e s of le s s s e n s i t i v i t y or importance than f o r C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Areas. 3. S i g n i f i c a n t Recreation Areas (Class I, i n Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973) i f not i n C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Areas. 4. Good to Excellent c a p a b i l i t y for f o r e s t r y i f the land use i s undeveloped, or present land use i s f o r e s t r y . 5. Areas which are adjacent to s e n s i t i v e e c o l o g i c a l areas, and almost meeting 1. above. 6. Regional, p r o v i n c i a l and natio n a l parks, and w i l d l i f e reserves and sanctuaries i f not i n C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Area. 7. Areas with severe hazards, i f not already developed. P o l i c y Guidelines. A l l a c t i v i t i e s must follow guidelines 1 and 2, however, the figures i n guideline 2 may be adjusted (maximum 5%) i f 1 i s s t i l l met. 1. A c t i v i t i e s must demonstrate that they i ) do not increase natural hazards, i i ) either enhance or do not i n t e r f e r e with c r i t i c a l ecologic areas, resource harvesting areas, water q u a l i t y and streamflow and sedimentation c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i i i ) do not a l t e r shoreline processes ( i . e . erosion and sedimentation rates of change), and flushing rates, iv) do not s i g n i f i c a n t l y or permanently a l t e r the v i s u a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l values of the management u n i t s . - 71 -A c t i v i t i e s must not: disturb more than 15% of the upland; cover more than 10% of the upland with impermeable material; cover more than 5% of water area; disturb more than 5% of water substrate; or disturb more than 10% of the foreshore and backshore. If these l i m i t s have already been exceeded, the present a c t i v i t i e s are allowed to continue but not to expand unless they conform to guideline 1. The fig u r e s apply to the t o t a l area of the management uni t , and each i n d i v i d u a l development proposal. The p r i o r i t y uses are low density r e c r e a t i o n and w i l d l i f e management. Uses i n the shore zone must be water dependent. W i l d l i f e and recr e a t i o n management guidelines: i ) Designate s p e c i f i c areas f o r hunting, t f a i l b i k i n g (upland s i t e s only), w i l d l i f e and nature i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , camping and p i c n i c k i n g , i i ) Provide r e c r e a t i o n a l f o c a l points with nearby parking, launching pads f or small boats, change house f a c i l i t i e s , i i i ) On the nature i n t e r p r e t a t i o n areas, provide t r a i l s , b l i n d s , viewing platforms, i n t e r p r e t i v e displays and signs, and modest nature houses which are s t a r t i n g points for guided tours. Control access to these areas by st r a t e g i c l o c a t i o n of parking l o t s , and advertizing signs, iv) Enhance w i l d l i f e areas, for example plant f i e l d crops for waterfowl, or manage the vegetation for ungulates. - 72 -5. Residential use guidelines: i ) R e s i d e n t i a l uses should only be encouraged i n areas which already have some r e s i d e n t i a l use, and are not i n designated park or w i l d l i f e reserves, i i ) Public access to the beach should be provided and posted, i i i ) Recreational demands must be met before r e s i d e n t i a l demands, iv) Services are not provided, or i f already present, improved, including sewage, water and roads, v) V i s u a l impacts should be minimized by mountaining nature vegetation and a setback of 13m (49.2 f t ) from the shore zone, v i ) No p r i v a t e p i e r s , docks or other boat docking and storage f a c i l i t i e s , or shoreline defense measures, should be allowed, v i i ) No development i s permitted i n high or moderately high natural hazard areas, including f loodplains and unstable c l i f f s . 3. Resource Harvesting (Aquatic Zone) Purpose. To manage and maintain the p r o d u c t i v i t y of t i d a l and subtidal areas which are used f o r , or have p o t e n t i a l use f o r , harvesting wild and cultured seaweeds, f i s h and s h e l l f i s h . D escription and Uses. The unit includes areas which are presently u t i l i z e d for s h e l l f i s h harvesting ( i . e . oyster or geoducks), have p o t e n t i a l for production because of t h e i r a t t r a c t i v e b iophysical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for aquaculture, or have a high natural p r o d u c t i v i t y of commercial species. The focus i s on commercial production, although some r e c r e a t i o n a l harvesting may occur. - 73 -C r i t e r i a . 1. Any section of the homogeneous unit i s presently harvested or c u l t i v a t e d for marine resources. 2. Areas with moderately high to high attractiveness f or production, not i n an area of high e c o l o g i c a l or low tolerance to shore zone a c t i v i t i e s , with low to moderate navigation hazards, and u n r e s t r i c t e d by e i t h e r P a c i f i c S h e l l f i s h Regulations in c l u d i n g any area "within 400 feet of any wharf" (Contaminated Areas, Schedule I, P a c i f i c S h e l l f i s h Regulations) or the Navigable Waters Act. (Note that t h i s implies distance from i n d u s t r i a l areas and marinas.) P o l i c y Guidelines. A l l a c t i v i t i e s must follow guidelines 1 and 2, however, the figures i n guideline 2 may be adjusted (up to 10%) i f guideline 1 i s met. 1. A l l a c t i v i t i e s must demonstrate that they i ) are not deleterious to the production or harvesting of s h e l l f i s h and other marine products, i i ) e i t h e r enhance or do not i n t e r f e r e with downcoast c r i t i c a l e c o l o g i c a l areas, i i i ) do not deteriorate water q u a l i t y such that s h e l l f i s h i n g water standards are not met, iv) minimize impacts on shoreline processes. 2. Resource harvesting a c t i v i t i e s must not: cover more than 80% of the water surface; disturb more than 40% of the bottom sediments or more than 30% of the foreshore and backshore i n any year; or permanently disturb more than 15% of the substratum and backshore and foreshore. Other a c t i v i t i e s must not a l t e r more than 20, 15 and 15% of the water surface, water substrate and - 74 -foreshore and backshore r e s p e c t i v e l y . The figures apply to the t o t a l area of the management unit and to i n d i v i d u a l proposals. If the figures have already been exceeded, the present a c t i v i t i e s are allowed to continue but not to expand unless they conform to guideline 1. The figures apply to the t o t a l management unit and i n d i v i d u a l development proposals. 3. The p r i o r i t y uses are water dependent resource harvesting a c t i v i t i e s , followed by r e c r e a t i o n a l use. 4. Recreation guidelines: i ) Post r e c r e a t i o n a l and commercial harvesting areas c l e a r l y , d i r e c t i n g r e c r e a t i o n i s t s away from commercial areas, i i ) R e s t r i c t r e c r e a t i o n a l boating i n commercial areas. The degree and type of r e s t r i c t i o n s depend on the type of commercial a c t i v i t y . 5. Resource harvesting guidelines: i ) sustained y i e l d practices for native products, i i ) adjustment of water additives ( i . e . f e r t i l i z e r ) depending upon the fl u s h i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s of the unit (lower amounts i f f l u s h i n g i s poor), i i i ) c o n t r o l of waste dis p o s a l from processing areas and the ef f e c t s of a l t e r i n g bottom consistency to ensure that downcoast units are not impacted either v i s u a l l y or e c o l o g i c a l l y , iv) open p i l e construction and f l o a t i n g pens are encouraged, i n order to minimize impacts on shoreline processes, - 75 -v) techniques which minimize the d i s r u p t i o n of bottom sediments are encouraged, v i ) harvesting techniques should not i r r e v e r s i b l y a l t e r the natural habitat, or render the habitat unusuable for resource harvesting for more than 2 years. 4. Rural (Upland Zone) Purpose. To maintain the v i a b i l i t y of a g r i c u l t u r a l areas by protecting q u a l i t y farm land. Description and Uses. A l l lands i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve, plus other lands required for f u n c t i o n a l purposes to maintain the v i a b i l i t y of farming areas, are included. Farm units with a s i n g l e family dwelling, outbuildings, and f i e l d s are the predominant use. Other uses are low density r e s i d e n t i a l , hobby farms, and forms of r e c r e a t i o n which do not require f a c i l i t i e s which i r r e v e r s i b l y a l t e r the land. C r i t e r i a . 1. Land i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve ( a g r i c u l t u r a l land c a p a b i l i t y of at least 4). 2. Presently used for a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes or taxed as a g r i c u l t u r a l . Note: Lands placed i n the ALR on the basis of t h e i r drained c a p a b i l i t y r a t i n g , and which are valuable for w i l d l i f e , w i l l be put i n the conservation or c r i t i c a l areas management u n i t s . The uses i n these units are permitted uses of a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n the Land Commission Act. P o l i c y Guidelines. A l l a c t i v i t i e s must follow guidelines 1 and 2, however, the figures i n guideline 2 may be adjusted (maximum of 5%) i f guideline 1 i s met. A l l a c t i v i t i e s must demonstrate that they i ) do not i r r e v e r s i b l y a l t e r the a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y of the u n i t , according to the p o l i c i e s of the B.C. Land Commission, i i ) do not c o n f l i c t with or object to a g r i c u l t u r a l use, i i i ) either enhance or do not i n t e r f e r e with c r i t i c a l e c o l o g i c a l areas, iv) either enhance or do not a l t e r streams used by salmonids (leaving vegetated stream bank buffer zones which are s u f f i c i e n t to prevent more erosion than that which occurs n a t u r a l l y i s one option), v) either enhance or do not a l t e r ground water and runoff q u a l i t y . A g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s must not: disturb more than 90% of the land or cover more than 15% with impermeable materials. Other a c t i v i t i e s are subject to the same guidelines as for conservancy management units - 15% disturbed and 10% covered with impermeable materials. The figures apply to the t o t a l management unit and i n d i v i d u a l development proposals. The p r i o r i t y uses are the production and harvesting of a g r i c u l t u r a l goods. A g r i c u l t u r a l guidelines: i ) P r a c t i c e s o i l conservation measures to l i m i t erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation, - 77 -i i ) Maintain small natural ponds or swamps i n the stream systems to absorb excessive runoff from cleared land, or otherwise manage runoff through changing land contours, drainage, or i r r i g a t i o n ponds to prevent excessive runoff, i i i ) S o i l a dditives should be con t r o l l e d to prevent water contamination which would influence f i s h populations, or degrade water such that s h e l l f i s h harvesting and water contact sports would be r e s t r i c t e d , iv) A g r i c u l t u r a l use i s not encouraged i n backshore zones even i f they are i n the Land Reserve, due to t h e i r importance for w i l d l i f e and shoreline protection, t h e i r r a r i t y i n the coast l i n e , t h e i r value f o r outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a l uses and t h e i r p o t e n t i a l f o r water p o l l u t i o n from f e r t i l i z e r s and p e s t i c i d e s i n flood tides or storms. A p o t e n t i a l use for already cleared backshore areas i s crop production for waterfowl. Hunting would be prohibited i n these areas. When l o c a t i n g the crops care should be taken that birds do not cross hunting areas to get to the f i e l d s and that l o c a t i o n of the f i e l d s does not encourage feeding on commercial crops. Where a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y continues crops which require minimum drainage, f e r t i l i z a t i o n and pes t i c i d e s should be encouraged, and further drainage r e s t r i c t e d . Grazing may be more acceptable than cropping. - 78 -5. Developable With Limitations (Upland and Shore Zones) Purpose. To provide for medium i n t e n s i t y development, predominantly for sin g l e family dwellings, and/or to serve as a buffer zone between high density and low density areas. Description and Uses. The area contains some natural l i m i t a t i o n s to development, i s usually at least p a r t i a l l y developed already, and i s moderately vulnerable. It i s a mixed use management uni t , including medium to low density r e s i d e n t i a l (less than 4 dwellings per 0.40 ha (1 acre), or up to 2.0 ha (5 acres) l o t s ) , some hobby farming and rec r e a t i o n . C r i t e r i a . Upland Zone: 1. Undeveloped or low to medium density r e s i d e n t i a l areas with moderate to high attractiveness for upland development, moderate to low e c o l o g i c a l value, moderate to high tolerance f o r recreation and r e s i d e n t i a l use, no severe hazards, preferably with sewage and water services present or planned. 2. Areas with community service f a c i l i t i e s such as h o s p i t a l s , urban parks ( i . e . playing f i e l d s ) and schools. Shore Zone: 1. Units with moderate to high attractiveness f o r aquatic development, moderate to low e c o l o g i c a l value, moderately high to high tolerance for shore zone a c t i v i t i e s , low to moderate geomorphic and navigation hazards, which are adjacent to upland Developable with Limitations u n i t s . - 79 -2. Present use i s r e l a t e d to upland development, including i ) p r i v a t e wharfs, p i e r s , shoreline defence measures, etc. i i ) marinas i n areas of low to moderate attractiveness for development, or high e c o l o g i c a l values or low to moderately low tolerances for re c r e a t i o n and shore zone a c t i v i t i e s . P o l i c y Guidelines. A l l a c t i v i t i e s must follow guidelines 1 and 2, however the figures i n guideline 2 may be adjusted (maximum of 10%) i f guideline 1 i s met. 1. A l l proposed a c t i v i t i e s must demonstrate that they: i ) either enhance or do not i n t e r f e r e with c r i t i c a l e c o l o g i c a l and resource harvesting areas and streams u t i l i z e d by salmonids, i i ) do not reduce water q u a l i t y below the standards for s h e l l f i s h i n g and water contact sports, i i i ) do not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r shoreline processes and flushing rates. 2. A l l a c t i v i t i e s must not: disturb more than 70% of the upland; cover more than 35% of the upland with impermeable material; cover more than 25% of the water surface; disturb more than 10% of the water substrate; or disturb more than 15% of the backshore and foreshore. If these f i g u r e s have already been exceeded, the present a c t i v i t i e s are allowed to continue but not to expand. The figures apply to the t o t a l management unit and i n d i v i d u a l development proposals. - 80 -3. P r i o r i t y uses i n the shore are water dependent. On the upland zone the p r i o r i t y uses are low to moderate density r e s i d e n t i a l areas (including c l u s t e r housing), low to moderate density r e c r e a t i o n , and other lower density uses. 4. Vegetated buffer zones along streams and natural ponds or swamps i n the stream systems should be maintained to prevent erosion over and above natural l e v e l s and to absorb excessive runoff from cleared areas. 5. In areas of hazard from eroding c l i f f s , buildings should be set back a distance which ensures t h e i r safety for approximately 100 years, based on the average erosion rates, and g u l l y i n g , slumping and piping i n the c l i f f . In the absence of such information the following recommendations apply: 30m set back from top edge of c l i f f , no construction between or within g u l l i e s , e s p e c i a l l y i f g u l l i e s are frequent, regular and obviously growing, do not change drainage and s o i l water holding capacity between the c l i f f edge and the b u i l d i n g , - do not remove trees or dump waste over the c l i f f . 6. Moderate density r e c r e a t i o n guidelines: i) Provide adequate access and parking i n a manner which minimizes disturbance to r e s i d e n t i a l areas, i i ) Provide f a c i l i t i e s for shoreline a c t i v i t i e s , including washrooms, change rooms, concession stands, l i f e g u a r d s , and small boat launching areas (away from water contact s p o r t s ) , - 81 -i i i ) s i t e s should be hardened to increase ph y s i c a l carrying capacity where needed, iv) d i r e c t i o n s to beach f a c i l i t i e s and parking should be posted i n obvious locations, v) hunting should be r e s t r i c t e d , f o r safety reasons, v i ) community launching pads should be provided. R e s i d e n t i a l guidelines: i) expansion and i n f i l l i n g of high density areas i s permitted only i f approved by a community involvement process and the development does not i n t e r f e r e with r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , i i ) private docks and si n g l e point moorages close to shore are permitted outside of water contact r e c r e a t i o n a l beaches, and i f v i s u a l impacts are minimized. Floating docks are preferred to p i l e docks, and uncovered moorages preferred to covered, i i i ) p u b l i c access to the shoreline should be provided and posted, iv) sewage services should be provided. Marina guidelines: i ) expansion i s not encouraged, and must meet community approval, i i ) the guidelines for marinas under the Developable - Non-I n d u s t r i a l management unit apply, i i i ) dredging should be r e s t r i c t e d to present channels and channel depths, i n seasons which cause minimal harm to aquatic l i f e . - 82 -6. Developable - Non-Industrial (Upland and Shore Zones) Purpose. To provide for high density n o n - i n d u s t r i a l uses which are not nece s s a r i l y water dependent, but may gain by proximity to the shoreline, and for marina and marina associated a c t i v i t i e s . D e scription and Uses. The ph y s i c a l c r i t e r i a f o r the upland zone are s i m i l a r to those f o r the I n d u s t r i a l unit (high attractiveness for development and low v u l n e r a b i l i t y ) , and s i m i l a r but les s stringent on the aquatic side. Uses include commercial, high density r e s i d e n t i a l , hotels/ motels, marinas and marina associated a c t i v i t i e s . C r i t e r i a . Upland Zone: 1. Areas with moderately high to high attractiveness f o r development, low to moderate e c o l o g i c a l value, moderately high to high tolerance to r e s i d e n t i a l use, low geomorphic hazards, and sewage and water f a c i l i t i e s existant or planned. 2. Present land use i s for marinas, multiple dwelling r e s i d e n t i a l units, or commerce (hotels, motels, r e t a i l stores, t o u r i s t f a c i l i t i e s , entertainment). 3. Commercial sand and gravel deposits. Shore Zone: 1. Units with moderate to high attractiveness for aquatic development, low to moderate e c o l o g i c a l value, moderate to high tolerance for shore zone a c t i v i t i e s , low navigation hazards, which are adjacent to upland Non-industrial u n i t s . - 83 -2. Units with marinas, marina associated a c t i v i t i e s , and commercial development. If the attractiveness for development i s moderate or lower, assign marinas to Developable with Li m i t a t i o n s . P o l i c y Guidelines. A l l a c t i v i t i e s must follow guidelines 1 and 2, however the figures i n guideline 2 may be adjusted (maximum of 10%) i f guideline 1 i s met. 1. A l l proposed a c t i v i t i e s must demonstrate that they i ) either enhance or do not i n t e r f e r e with adjacent or nearby c r i t i c a l e c o l o g i c a l ; resource harvesting, r e c r e a t i o n a l and conservancy areas, including impacts on water q u a l i t y and shoreline~ processes, i i ) are u t i l i z i n g construction and maintenance techniques which minimize s i l t a t i o n , excessive runoff (for example re-vegetate stream banks) and disturbance of bottom sediments and shoreline processes, i i i ) have provided p h y s i c a l and v i s u a l public access to the shoreline. 2. A l l a c t i v i t i e s must not: cover more than 75% of the upland with impermeable materials; cover more than 70% of the water surface; or disturb more than 50% of the bottom sediments. If these fi g u r e s have already been exceeded, the present a c t i v i t i e s are allowed to continue but not to expand unless they conform to guideline 1. The f i g u r e s apply to the t o t a l management unit and i n d i v i d u a l development proposals. - 84 -3. P r i o r i t y uses are commercial water dependent uses, marinas and marina associated uses i n the shore zone and high density r e s i d e n t i a l commercial and t o u r i s t f a c i l i t i e s ( i . e . hotels) i n the upland zone. Water independent uses are allowed i n the shore zone only i f they conform to the s t i p u l a t i o n s of guideline 3 i n the Developable - I n d u s t r i a l management u n i t . 4. Adequate access and parking f o r commercial areas must be provided i n a manner which does not c o n f l i c t with r e s i d e n t i a l areas. Adequate d i r e c t i o n s to t o u r i s t f a c i l i t i e s should be posted; 5. R e s i d e n t i a l guidelines: i ) i n f i l l i n g , rather than expansion into new areas, i s encouraged, i i ) urban shoreline parks with walkways, benches and p i c n i c areas and p r i v a t e and public open areas between buildings and the shoreline are encouraged. 6. Marina guidelines: i ) marinas are encouraged to locate i n t h i s management u n i t , i i ) upland storage of boats i s encouraged , i i i ) shading of aquatic and foreshore habitats, and interference with water c i r c u l a t i o n and sediment transport should be minimized , iv) pump out f a c i l i t i e s should be provided, and are mandatory for liveaboards, v) no parking l o t s should be constructed over water or by i n f i l l i n g , - 85 -v i ) dredging should be permitted only i f there i s a known approved f i l l s i t e . F i l l i n g shore zone areas i s not permitted unless there i s no a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e , or the f i l l i n g i s for shoreline defense, v i i ) channels for power boat access should be designated i n areas distant from water contact sportsK In a l l other areas 'boatsishould be r e s t r i c t e d from a zone within 60 m of the t i d e l i n e , v i i i ) f u e l i n g f a c i l i t i e s should be located within easy access of the moorage s i t e s , however not so close as to be a safety hazard, ix) government subsidies ( i . e . from Small Craft Harbours) for marinas should be directed to t h i s management u n i t . 7. Developable - I n d u s t r i a l and Port (Upland and Shore Zones) Purpose. To provide for intense development for water dependent industry and ports of r e g i o n a l , p r o v i n c i a l and national i n t e r e s t and value. Description and Uses. This management unit i s a l l o c a t e d to areas of low v u l n e r a b i l i t y and high attractiveness for development, or areas i n which the natural environment has been i r r e v e r s i b l y changed by i n d u s t r i a l and port development. A l l i n d u s t r i a l uses which can demonstrate water dependence are permitted (see Table 2.2 for a l i s t of dependent uses). - 86 -C r i t e r i a . Upland Zone: 1 . Units with moderately high to high attractiveness for upland development, low to moderately low e c o l o g i c a l value, no severe or moderate hazards, which have good transportation linkages, sewage, other waste d i s p o s a l services, and water either present or planned, and are not immediately adjacent to a C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Area. 2 . Present use i s i n d u s t r i a l or port r e l a t e d . Shore Zone: 1 . Units of high to moderately high attractiveness for port development, low to moderately low e c o l o g i c a l value, moderately high to high tolerance to shore zone a c t i v i t i e s , which are adjacent to upland Developable u n i t s , and are not u t i l i z e d for aquaculture or r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes. 2 . Present use i s for port purposes, including navigation channels. P o l i c y Guidelines. A l l a c t i v i t i e s must follow guidelines 1 and 2 , however the figures i n guideline 2 may be adjusted (maximum of 10%) i f guideline 1 i s met. 1 . A l l proposed a c t i v i t i e s must demonstrate that they i ) either enhance or do not i n t e r f e r e with adjacent or nearby c r i t i c a l e c o l o g i c a l , resource harvesting, r e c r e a t i o n a l and conservancy areas, including impacts on water qu a l i t y and shoreline processes, i i ) are u t i l i z i n g construction and maintenance techniques which minimize s i l t a t i o n , excessive runoff, and disturbance of bottom sediments and shoreline processes, - 87 -i i i ) have provided at l e a s t v i s u a l public access to the shoreline. A l l a c t i v i t i e s must not: cover more than 90% of the upland with impermeable materials; cover more than 70% of the water surface; or disturb more than 30% of the bottom sediments. If these figures have already been exceeded, the present a c t i v i t i e s are allowed to continue but not to expand unless guideline 1 i s met. The figures apply to the t o t a l management uni t and i n d i v i d u a l development proposals. The p r i o r i t y uses i n the shore zone are water dependent industries and port f a c i l i t i e s . Non-dependent uses are allowed i f : i ) f i r m i n t e r e s t for a use of p r o v i n c i a l or nation a l importance has been expressed and documented by a development plan or f e a s i b i l i t y study, i i ) the use does not i r r e v e r s i b l y commit a s i t e which i s one of the best a v a i l a b l e for foreseeable water dependent uses, i i i ) no a l t e r n a t i v e upland s i t e s are a v a i l a b l e . I r r e v e r s i b l e means i t cannot be converted to maritime dependent uses, the structures are permanent and hard to remove, water or land access to future maritime uses i s precluded, or lease s t i p u l a t i o n s do not allow conversion. The p r i o r i t y uses i n the upland zone are water oriented and water independent uses which are rel a t e d to i n d u s t r i a l or port a c t i v i t i e s . - 88 -4. Large ship turning areas, commercial f i s h i n g boat areas, f l o a t plane landing areas and log boom storage and transportation areas should be designated and separated. 5. New development should be located i n already developed but unde r u t i l i z e d areas, or downcoast of already developed areas. 6. Expansion of marinas already within the unit i s not encouraged due to p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s between r e c r e a t i o n a l c r a f t and large ships. Examples of Other Guidelines: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1978 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1978 Schade, 1979 State of Washington, 1972 Eekman, 1975 Skagit County Planning Dept., 1976 Surrey Planning Dept., 1978 W i l f e r t , 1971 - 89 -CHAPTER FIVE. CASE STUDY: DESCRIPTION AND MODEL CONSTRUCTION I. THE CASE STUDY AREA 1. Selection of the Area A case study i n the Saanich Peninsula, i n the C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t (CRD) on Vancouver Island, i s used to demonstrate the method (see Figure 1.1 for l o c a t i o n map). The models and guidelines which are developed w i l l be s p e c i f i c to t h i s area, but the method and i t s concepts are intended to be widely applicable. Several c r i t e r i a were used to s e l e c t the Saanich Peninsula f or the case study. F i r s t , the analysis i s s u i t a b l e for areas which are undeveloped or p a r t i a l l y developed. Completely urban areas whose natural environments have been d r a s t i c a l l y a l t e r e d require a d i f f e r e n t scale and type of planning, such as open space programs. The Saanich area contains a mixture of r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, r u r a l and a g r i c u l t u r a l land uses as well as some natural habitats and undeveloped r e c r e a t i o n a l and aquacultural resources. Use c o n f l i c t s are i n e v i t a b l e given t h i s mix, necessitating a means of a l l o c a t i n g resources between users. Secondly, some information on the natural resources and land uses was c o l l a t e d i n summer, 1978, by the CRD. This information w i l l be supplemented over the next year by the Resource Analysis Branch of the B.C. Mini s t r y of Environment, and the I n s t i t u t e of Oceanography at P a t r i c i a Bay. F i n a l l y , the CRD has i n i t i a t e d a coastal management program i n response to a lack of information and Figure 5.1 Location of Study Area. - 91 -management guidelines for several shoreline development proposals. The analysis and guidelines r e s u l t i n g from the thesis can therefore be of use to the Regional D i s t r i c t and i t s constituent m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Implementation of the guidelines would provide a test of t h e i r e f f e c t i v e -ness . 2. Description The following paragraphs b r i e f l y describe the case study area i n terms of climate, geomorphology, s o i l s , vegetation, shoreline processes, t i d e s , w i l d l i f e and land use. Climate. The influence of the rainshadow from the Olympic and l o c a l mountains r e s u l t s i n a cool Mediterranean climate, characterized by summer drought. The Sidney a i r p o r t , to the immediate SW of the study area i n the centre of the Peninsula, reports yearly averages of 81.05 cm (31.91 in) r a i n , 45.46 cm (17.9 in) snow, 85.65 cm (33.72 in) p r e c i p i t a t i o n , and 2064 hours of sunshine. For the study area, p r e c i p i t a t i o n ranges from 76.2 to 91.4 cm (30 to 36+ i n ) , p o t e n t i a l runoff from 53.3 to 68.6 cm (21 to 27+ i n ) , and the water d e f i c i t from 30.5 to 33.0 cm (12 to 13 i n ) . P r e c i p i t a t i o n and runoff increase to the NW, while the water d e f i c i t increases to the SE. The climate c a p a b i l i t y f o r a g r i c u l t u r e i s 2A (lb^G), which indicates a f r o s t free period of greater than 150 days, 3000 to 3500 growing degree days (the l i m i t i n g factor) and the need for supplemental water. (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, p.6-21). - 92 -Geomorphology and S o i l s . The Saanich Peninsula i s part of the Georgia Depression of the Coastal Trough physiographic region (Holland, 1964). The study area consists of lowlands with unconsolidated s u r f i c i a l deposits i n the south, and sedimentary bedrock outcrops at higher elevations i n the north ( i . e . Horth H i l l , the b l u f f s along the shore, and Curteis P o i n t ) . The oldest s u r f i c i a l materials i n the Peninsula are i n t e r g l a c i a l sands (not evident i n the study area) which were deposited and then eroded by r i v e r s before the l a s t g l a c i a t i o n . This most recent g l a c i a t i o n deposited a mantel of t i l l over the bedrock and remaining sands. After the g l a c i e r s retreated, much of the area was inundated by s a l t water, leaving a range of marine deposits consisting of reworked t i l l below 85 m elevation. Finer textured materials were deposited i n the lowland, while coarser materials were l e f t on the h i l l s and i n old beaches. Subsequent rebounding of the land raised the deposits to t h e i r present elevation above sea l e v e l (Day, Farstad and L a i r d , 1959). Therefore the h i l l s i n the northern section and Curties Point are covered by the t i l l s at higher elevations and veneers of reworked t i l l over compact t i l l and bedrock i n the lower areas. The corresponding s o i l s are Dashford and Langford (Brown Podzol and Black s o i l groups respectively) and simply rock outcrops. The remaining part of the study area i s covered by marine materials of varying texture, depth and drainage. These include poorly drained sandy clay loam Tolmie s o i l s (Dark Grey Gleysol) over t i l l ; deep, well drained, clay Saanichton s o i l s (Acid Dark Brown Forest); and deep poorly drained clay loam Cowichan s o i l s (Dark Grey Gleysol) (Day, Farstad and L a i r d , 1959). Vegetation. Vegetation i s c l a s s i f i e d into three zones: t e r r e s t r i a l , intergrade, and aquatic (Burns, 1976; CRD unpublished). The intergrade - 93 -zone i s the t r a n s i t i o n between the aquatic and t e r r e s t r i a l . I t consists of a l l backshore areas, including f r e s h and s a l t marshes adjacent to the shoreline, dunes, s p i t s , tombolas , etc. The t e r r e s t r i a l and intergrade zones are c l a s s i f i e d as Coastal Douglas F i r , dry subzone (Krajina, 1965). The major native plant communities (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, pp.63-75) i n the northern section are Salal-Oregon Grape, with Swordfern i n seepage s i t e s , and Arbutus-Douglas F i r i n the d r i e r shallow to bedrock areas. In the southern section, i n the poorer drained marine s o i l s , the predominant community i s Swordfern-Salal, with some Salal-Oregon Grape and Arbutus-Douglas F i r i n the better drained s i t e s and Swordfern i n wetter or seepage s i t e s . The major trees are Gary Oak, Arbutus, Douglas F i r , Grand F i r , Western Red Cedar, Western Hemlock, Red Alder and Black Cottonwood, progressing from dry shallow s o i l s through to wet p e r i o d i c a l l y inundated (at least i n the past) v a l l e y bottoms. The study area does not contain any of the unique Gary Oak communities. (See Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973 and McMinn et a l . , 1976 for more complete descriptions.) The aquatic f l o r a and fauna depend upon the type of substrate and the t i d a l l e v e l . Burns (1976) separates three major habitats: rock shores, sand and gravel shores, and mud or muddy sand beaches. Algae ( i . e . kelp), inhabitat rocky or bouldery submerged areas; eelgrass lower i n t e r t i d a l and upper s u b t i d a l sandy areas. Upper i n t e r t i d a l sand and gravel areas tend to be low i n both f l o r a and fauna, whereas the i n t e r t i d a l f i n e r textured areas are low i n f l o r a but abound i n benthic organisms. - 94 -Shoreline Processes and Tides. The study area does not contain any major d r i f t sectors (longshore sediment transfer zones). It contains predominantly rocky shores interspersed with Class II and III pocket beaches (beaches backed by banks or c l i f f s , with minimal and no backshore respectively)(Bauer, 1977). The banks behind the pocket beaches are generally low (less than 5 m). In f a c t , the rocky b l u f f s above the wave cut beaches i n northern section are higher than the banks behind the pocket beaches.in most of the low l y i n g areas. The natural shoreline has been a l t e r e d by development ("intrusions" i n Bauer's terminology (1977)) i n Tsehum Harbour, Sidney, Swartz Bay and parts of Roberts Bay and Canoe Cove. The highest wave energies, which are s t i l l only medium as described by Bauer (1977), are i n Sidney and the northern end of the peninsula. Energies are very low i n parts of Tsehum Harbour. Tides are of the mixed d i u r n a l type, with two unmatched o s c i l l a t i o n s d a i l y . Lowest tides at night during the winter and during the day i n the summer present a wide range of temperature f l u c t u a t i o n i n the t i d a l areas (Burns, 1976, p. 10, 11). T i d a l f l u c t u a t i o n s range from 1.74 m to 2.83 m (5.7 to 9.3 f t ) at V i c t o r i a ; they are probably si m i l a r or l e s s i n the study area (Burns, 1976, p.10). W i l d l i f e . Land s u i t a b i l i t i e s f o r w i l d l i f e , on a scale of 1 to 5, range from 4 i n developed areas around Sidney to 2 i n the backshore and i n t e r t i d a l habitats i n Tsehum Harbour (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973). Many habitats are lim i t e d by urban development (symbol "D" i n the r a t i n g ) , - 95 -poor d i s t r i b u t i o n or i n t e r s p e r s i o n of habitat components (GI), or exposed bedrock and shallow s o i l s (R). The en t i r e subtidal zone i s GI c l a s s i f i e d as 3M , important for migrating waterfowl. S p e c i f i c areas are s i g n i f i c a n t f o r s h e l l f i s h i n g , herring spawning, seal haulouts, and shore b i r d migration or overwintering (CRD, unpub.) Land Use. Most of the area has been logged. The marine s o i l s to the south, which have the highest c a p a b i l i t y for a g r i c u l t u r e , are s t i l l used for a g r i c u l t u r e on the west side of Highway 17, however most of the east side i s developed for the r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial d i s t r i c t s of the Township of Sidney. The northern sections of the study area contain low density r e s i d e n t i a l areas, second growth timber, and the Swartz Bay f e r r y terminal. Marinas are located at Sidney, and i n Tsehum Harbour, A l l Bay, and Canoe Cove. E x i s t i n g parks are located at the south end of Blue Heron Basin i n Tsehum Harbour, Horth H i l l , and a small one i n A l l Bay. Several smaller urban parks are also present. Parks are proposed for the shoreline to the west of Swartz Bay, an area behind (SW) of the f e r r y terminal, the SE shore of Blue Heron Basin and an upland area west of Horth H i l l (N. Saanich, 1977). Tsehum Harbour and Roberts Bay are part of a Federal Migratory Bird Sanctuary. Much of the foreshore area adjacent to Sidney i s reserved for recreation. I I . SELECTION OF MODELS The resource manager i s faced with organizing a m u l t i p l i c i t y of information for the coastal zone. The r a t i o n a l e behind the s e l e c t i o n of models was the organization of t h i s information into interpretations - 96 -which would aid i n defining the management un i t s , but not make u n j u s t i f i e d or unsupportable assumptions about user resource requirements or resource v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s . By themselves the evaluations (or models) are of minimal value, however used i n conjunction with the other c r i t e r i a they are a valuable t o o l . Consideration of the management units, the regional scale of the study and the a v a i l a b l e data, lead to the s e l e c t i o n and development of the models l i s t e d below: Attractiveness: Upland Development Shore Zone Development Hazards Resource Harvesting ( s h e l l f i s h ) V u l n e r a b i l i t y : E c o l o g i c a l Value Tolerance to Use: Low density recreation Low density r e s i d e n t i a l Shore Zone a c t i v i t i e s Using the procedure described i n Chapter 3, a reference table for each model i s developed. More information on shoreline processes (erosion/deposition rates, f l u s h i n g times) and water q u a l i t y would enable better interpretations of the value and s e n s i t i v i t i e s of the shore zone systems. Information on p r o d u c t i v i t y and carrying c a p a c i t i e s i s weak for the whole coa s t a l zone. While more research through l i t e r a t u r e reviews and f i e l d work i s recommended, the int e r p r e t a t i o n s herein must be l i m i t e d by the lack of knowledge. - 97 -I I I . ATTRACTIVENESS MODELS Attractiveness models, by d e f i n i t i o n , consider the costs of l o c a t i n g at a s i t e . Numerous factors influence the f i n a l l o c a t i o n decision, but only the biophysical features and processes are considered here. Other factors are included i n the c r i t e r i a f o r the management units, such as the presence of c o n f l i c t i n g and complimenting land uses, and s o c i a l and l e g a l r e s t r i c t i o n s on usage. 1. Upland Development (Table 5.1) Introduction. The purpose of t h i s model i s to evaluate the l i m i t a t i o n s to development posed by the natural features of the land. D e f i n i t i o n . Upland development i s any form of land development which includes most of the following a c t i v i t i e s : vegetation or other land cover removal, excavation, construction and maintenance of buildings and transportation f a c i l i t i e s (roads, parking l o t s , etc.) and construction and maintenance of cultured vegetation (lawns, gardens, e t c . ) . Comments and C r i t e r i a . Whereas hazards impose severe r e s t r a i n t s on development, other biophysical a t t r i b u t e s serve to constrain or l i m i t development by the costs imposed to overcome them. The constraints include foundation support, slope, s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to ponding and flooding, surface erosion p o t e n t i a l , s u i t a b i l i t y of the s o i l as road subgrade, and ease of excavation. They are generated from s o i l and t e r r a i n information on texture, slope, drainage and vegetation cover. Not a l l of these i n t e r -pretations were a v a i l a b l e for the study area. - 98 -The " s o i l s t a b i l i t y to depths of 6 feet (1.97 m) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, p.100-101) i s used to assess the attractiveness of an area as b u i l d i n g foundation. I t i s based on shrink swell p o t e n t i a l , bearing capacity, s o i l drainage, slope, presence of g u l l i e s , compressibility, water table l e v e l and depth to bedrock. The r a t i n g only applies to the surface 6 f t (1.97 m) of s o i l , which i s i n s u f f i c i e n t f or larger b u i l d i n g s , although i t s t i l l indicates the general a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the area as a foundation provided the underlying material i s s i m i l a r . Detailed on-site studies must determine the f i n a l r a t i n g . Although slope i s a component of the s o i l s t a b i l i t y r a t i n g , i t i s included separately because of i t s importance for access f o r shoreline commercial and i n d u s t r i a l uses. I t r e f e r s to the slope of the land immediately adjacent to the shore zone. Complex slopes pose more constraints than simple slopes. The ponding and flooding s u s c e p t i b i l i t y r a t i n g selects those areas which either f l o o d seasonally due to high runoff rates, or i n which impervious to semi-pervious substratums r e s u l t i n perched water tables (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, pp.101-102). Areas with high surface erosion p o t e n t i a l (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, p.110) incur development costs because they require measures to prevent excessive erosion during construction, d i f f e r e n t construction methods, and higher maintenance costs ( i . e . c l e a r i n g d r a i n t i l e s ) . Numerous other f a c t o r s , most of them socio-economic, play a r o l e i n l o c a t i n g development. These include the present land use, land Table 5.1 Upland Development Attractiveness Reference Table. Rating Factor Weight 1 2 3 4 5 S o i l S t a b i l i t y to 6 feet (1.97m) 2 Poor - F a i r - Good Slope (%) 1 > 15 5-15 complex* 5-15 0-5 complex 0-5 S u s c e p t i b i l i t y to Ponding and Flooding 2 High - Moderate - S l i g h t Surface Erosion S u s c e p t i b i l i t y 1 High - Moderate - S l i g h t * Complex indicates that there are s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n slope within an o v e r a l l average slope. Maximum Value: 30 Minimum Value: 6 Rating Value H 26-30 MH 21-25 M 16-20 ML 11-15 L 6-10 - 100 -cover, access to transportation l i n k s , geologic hazards, v i s u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and s u i t a b i l i t y for septic tanks. They are not included i n t h i s model but l e f t instead to the c r i t e r i a for the management units, because "development" i s a broad term. C r i t e r i a important for r e s i d e n t i a l development are not n e c e s s a r i l y applicable for port r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , even though the foundation c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are important for both. For example the r a t i n g for septic tanks i s of importance for the low and medium density r e s i d e n t i a l uses; high density uses are assumed to have sewage treatment f a c i l i t i e s . S i m i l a r l y , v i s u a l q u a l i t y can be a c r i t e r i o n for r e s i d e n t i a l units but i s not usually considered for port development. 2. Shore Zone Development (Table 5.2) Introduction. The concepts of t h i s model are s i m i l a r to those of Upland Development. I t evaluates the l i m i t a t i o n s to development (conversely the attractiveness) posed by natural features and processes. D e f i n i t i o n . The types of a c t i v i t i e s follow from the d e f i n i t i o n for water dependent industries given e a r l i e r . They include: a c t i v i t i e s designed to deepen navigation channels ( i . e . dredging) and protect moorage areas; waste disposal; the actual movement of vessels into and out of the port; and boat moorage, launching and repair a c t i v i t i e s . Comments and C r i t e r i a . The focus of the model i s port development. The attractiveness of an area for ships of a l l sizes i s evaluated, but because the c r i t e r i a for larger ships are much more stringent, a "high" rating i s - 101 -necessary for attractiveness f o r large ships (greater than 12.2 m (40 f t ) ) whereas moderate i s adequate for most pleasure c r a f t and therefore marinas. Of major importance are 1) the factors a f f e c t i n g v e s s e l access to land, such as deep water channels, width or slope of the i n t e r t i d a l zone, and navigation hazards from rocks and r e s t r i c t e d entrances, 2) protection of the vessels once moored, and 3) land access to the water. Greatest protection (least wave energy) i s afforded i n p a r t i a l l y enclosed areas which do not face the p r e v a i l i n g winds or storm d i r e c t i o n . Land access depends upon the upshore slope or the c l i f f height, whichever i s applicable. The degree and type of shoreline geohydraulic processes also play an important r o l e . In the long term, the d r i v i n g forces of waves and currents move bottom sediments by erosion i n one section of shoreline (usually Class I I I beaches), long shore transport (usually Class I I ) , and then deposition i n another section (usually Class I ) . In the shorter term, the beach p r o f i l e changes seasonally, as the varying strength of storms move sediments shoreward, or erode the p r o f i l e (Leet and Judson, 1971, p. 366). Wave energy, or degree of protection, indicates the degree to which storms w i l l be able to s h i f t the beach sediments. With respect to port construction, a minimal amount of sediment transport along or perpendicular to the shore i s de s i r a b l e . Any construction i s l i k e l y to a l t e r the processes, r e s u l t i n g i n unwanted sedimentation and erosion which incur dredging or bulkheading costs. Therefore i t seems that l o c a t i o n i n stable shorelines either out of a transportation system - 102 -( d r i f t sector) e n t i r e l y , or i n a longshore transport area u t i l i z i n g techniques which minimize the impact to the system w i l l also minimize costs. Information on sediment transport rates i s not a v a i l a b l e , but the beach c l a s s i f i c a t i o n indicates erosion, deposition and transport areas within d r i f t sectors. Outside of the d r i f t sector, Class I and II beaches are preferred because of t h e i r low foreshore slopes and greater backshore areas. Intrusions, which are human development i n the shore zone, are given a high r a t i n g f o r s o c i a l reasons - they are already being used. The above geohydraulic factors should be considered concurrently with the engineering c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the bottom sediments. Stable sediments with a high bearing capacity are needed for the construction of wharves, p i e r s , etc. There are two layers of sediments to consider. The surface layer i s changing seasonally, often moving along shore, and mixed through b i o l o g i c a c t i v i t i e s . The underlying material i s usually firmer, more stable and may be comparable to the adjacent upland s u b s o i l s . Unfortunately information on these properties i s l i m i t e d . At the present time i n t e r t i d a l habitat, which i s based on the texture of the surface layer, i s the only information a v a i l a b l e , and serves as a surrogate to more d e t a i l e d engineering studies for the i n t e r t i d a l zone. No information for the subtidal area (except depth) i s a v a i l a b l e . The " s o i l s t a b i l i t y to 6 f t (1.97 m)" i n t e r p r e t a t i o n applies to the backshore areas. Table 5.2 Shore Zone Development Attractiveness Reference Table. Factor Rating Weight 1 2 3 A 5 Deep Water: Distance from MHHT to 10.9 m (6 fathoms) below MLLT 3 > 200m 200-151 m 150-101 m 100-50 m < 50 m Navigation Hazard 3 High — Moderate Low Wave Energy 2 High - Moderate Moderately Low Low Beach C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 1 In D r i f t £ Class 111,1 ector < Class II — * Out of Rock, Class III D r i f t Sector Class II Class I, Intrusions Habitat, or 1 Mud, Marsh Rock,Muddy sand.Ter-r e s t i a l f ringe Rock(wave cut).Cobble Kelp Clean sand, Mixed f i n e Eelgrass Mixed coarse Substrate S t a b i l i t y / S o i l S t a b i l i t y to 6 f t (1.97 m)* 1 Low - Moderate High C l i f f Height (m) or Upshore Slope (%) 2 > AO > 30 A0-30 15-30 29-15 9-15 14-5 5-9 < 5 < 5 * Habitat was used i n the case study. Maximum Value: 60 Minimum Value: 12 Rating Value H 53-60 MH 43-52 M 33-42 ML 23-32 L 12-22 - 104 -3. Hazards (Table 5.3) Introduction. This model i s t e c h n i c a l l y not an attractiveness model. It could have been a component of other models,, i n which case p a r t i c u l a r hazards could have been masked or confounded. When analyzed separately and used as a c r i t e r i o n i n the management units hazards are pointed.out d i r e c t l y . D e f i n i t i o n . T e r r a i n or geomorphic hazards are "na t u r a l l y occurring or man-made conditions or processes that present a r i s k or p o t e n t i a l danger to l i f e and property" (Maynard, unpublished, p.39). Comments and C r i t e r i a . Serious hazards can occur n a t u r a l l y , or they can r e s u l t from man's a c t i v i t i e s magnifying less serious hazards. Hazards include mass movement (e.g. slope s t a b i l i t y problems, ground subsidence, avalanching), erosion, flooding, siesmic and volcanic a c t i v i t y , and tsunami. In the Saanich area the slumping associated with erosion along shoreline c l i f f s , and flooding during storm tides are of concern i n the shore zone. Erosion and flooding should be considered i n the upland zone. Information on c l i f f s t a b i l i t y can be extracted from Bauer's (1976) shoreline c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and the t e r r a i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (Resource Analysis Unit, 1976). Generally, Class III beaches, which abut an eroding unconsolidated c l i f f , pose the most serious hazard. Hazards are greater on higher c l i f f s . Flooding i s of importance i n the backshore habitats, such as marshes and dunes. In the t i d a l habitats the flooding rating i s obviously not applicable. Table 5.3 Hazards Reference Table. Rating Factor Weight 1 2 3 4 5 Beach C l a s s i f i c a t i o n i 1 Class III - Class II Intrusions Class I, Rock C l i f f Height (m) 1 > 40 40-30 29-15 14-5 < 5; no c l i f f Flooding (Habitat) — High: Salt marsh Moderately High: Fresh marsh Moderate: T e r r e s t r i a l fringe Low: Other C l i f f S t a b i l i t y : Flooding: Maximum Value: 10 Minimum Value: 2 Maximum Value: 5 Minimum Value: 1 Rating S t a b i l i t y Value Flooding Value H 2 1 MH 3-4 2 M 5-6 3 ML 7-8 4 L 9-10 5 - 106 -The two shore zone hazards ( c l i f f s t a b i l i t y and flooding) were evaluated separately, and the f i n a l r a t i n g was the highest of the two. This was necessary because the hazards cannot occur concurrently, and r a t i n g them together would have resulted i n a moderate r a t i n g for most u n i t s . For example, a high flooding hazard i n a Class I beach would also have a high s t a b i l i t y (no c l i f f ) , and the o v e r a l l r a t i n g would be moderate rather than high i f the two were summed. Review of the case study area showed that neither mass movement or flooding posed a r i s k or danger to l i f e i n the upland zone, therefore, no upland hazards are evaluated. There are no major streams, and consequently no f l o o d p l a i n s . Stream mouths and eroding stream banks are mapped as intergrade habitat, and therefore included i n the shore zone u n i t s . Erosion p o t e n t i a l , and s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to ponding and flooding, as rated by Stanley-Jones and Benson (1973) are viewed as l i m i t a t i o n s rather than r e s t r a i n t s to development for t h i s area, and are included i n the upland development model. 4. Resource Harvesting (Table 5.5) Introduction. The purpose of t h i s model i s to i d e n t i f y areas of p o t e n t i a l for resource harvesting. The coastal zone waters of B r i t i s h Columbia have the c a p a b i l i t y to grow numerous organisms (or resources) u s e f u l to man for food or chemical extracts. Among them are oysters, mussels, clams, geoducks, crabs, several seaweeds, abalone and shrimp. Most harvesting to-date has - 107 -been of natural stocks, the prime exception being oysters. Harvesting natural stocks of geoducks i s receiving growing i n t e r e s t , and the p o t e n t i a l for commercial production of natural and c u l t i v a t e d species i s considered i n a Westwater report ( F r a l i c k and Tillapaugh, i n press). Management of the coastal zone should take cognizance of the p o t e n t i a l of these products for commercial and r e c r e a t i o n a l use by maintaining or protecting the p r o d u c t i v i t y of areas with high p o t e n t i a l . This i s the r a t i o n a l behind the Resource Harvesting management u n i t . Managers should be aware of the p o t e n t i a l values of these areas before decisions a f f e c t i n g t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y are taken. A summary of the habitats of some of the p o t e n t i a l commercial products i s presented i n Table 5.4. The importance of a wide v a r i e t y of habitats can be seen. There i s a d i v i s i o n between organisms growing i n rocky (seaweeds, mussels, abalone) versus unconsolidated substrates (oysters, clams, shrimps) and i n d i f f e r e n t t i d a l zones. Since only one type of organism can be evaluated at a-time, the attractiveness model focuses on oysters, because of t h e i r h i s t o r y of aquaculture i n B.C. and the larger extent of knowledge about t h e i r c u l t i v a t i o n . Also, there i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of applying oyster harvesting techniques to other s h e l l f i s h such as mussels. D e f i n i t i o n . Oyster harvesting consists of the a c t i v i t i e s of s p a t f a l l c o l l e c t i o n , c u l t i v a t i o n of seed to a s i z e large enough f o r bottom or o f f -bottom culture, maintenance of oysters while they grow, and c o l l e c t i o n and processing of the mature oysters. Seed can be c o l l e c t e d from natural - 108 -Table 5.4 Habitat of Some Potential Commercial Products. Product T i d a l Zone Bottom Characteristics CLAMS Geoduck Panope generosa Subtidal 30'-60' b i t . * Compact sand, and sand mud mixtures Horse clams Tresus n u t t a l l l Tresus capax Mid i n t e r t i d a l to 30' b i t . Sand; sand gravel, and sh e l l s mixed Butter clams Saxidonus giganteous lower 1/3 of i n t e r t i d a l , but go to 30' b i t . Sand; gravel; porous sand, shells and small gravel Littleneck Protothaca staminea above mid-intertidal to 40' b i t . Firm gravelly Manila Venerupis laponica mid i n t e r t i d a l Protected mud-gravel Razor Si l i q u a patula mid i n t e r t i d a l to 60' b i t . Sand SEAWEEDS Kelp Nereocystis luetkeana Macrocystis i n t e g r i f o l i a upper subtidal to 20* b i t . Solid substrate (rocky) Laminaria sp. supper subtidal Rocks Iridaea cordata lower i n t e r t i d a l to upper subtidal Rocks Rhodymenia upper subtidal Rocks Porphyra high i n t e r t i d a l to subtidal Broad range MUSSELS Mytilus edulis Mytilus californianus upper i n t e r t i d a l (5'-12') Rocky and gravelly AB ALONE Ha l i o t l s kamtschatkana low i n t e r t i d a l to 30' With kelp beds OYSTERS Grassostrea gigas (Japanese) Ostrea lu r i d a (native) i n t e r t i d a l 5'-8' naturally 2'-5' commercially Kirm gravel sand and mud mixtures Source: F r a l i c k and Tillapough, i n press. * b i t - below mean low tid e - 109 -s p a t f a l l areas i n B.C. waters, or purchased from Japan or Washington State (Ward Unpublished, 1979, p.10). Seed oysters are often c u l t i v a t e d i n the upper i n t e r t i d a l area, as the wetting and drying cycles tend to harden the soft e a s i l y broken seed s h e l l s (Humphries and Humphries, 1978). Bottom culture u t i l i z e s natural (rare) or seeded beds i n the i n t e r t i d a l zone, whereas off-bottom culture suspends various types of trays from r a f t s or long nylon rope l i n e s In the s u b t i d a l area. Comments and C r i t e r i a . Models f or evaluating areas for oyster culture have been developed by Smith (1977) and Ward (Unpublished). They form the basis of the following discussion. The f i n a l model i s very simple, and excludes many of the fa c t o r s because the data was either unavailable or of i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l . Evaluative c r i t e r i a are bio p h y s i c a l factors which a f f e c t the s u r v i v a l and growth of the oysters and the economic s of production. Growth and s u r v i v a l are dependent upon water temperature, s a l i n i t y , t i d a l l e v e l , wave action, substrate consistency, t i d a l flow, predation, competition and water q u a l i t y . Of these, t i d a l l e v e l , wave acti o n and substrate consistency are considered the most important for bottom cu l t u r e (Ward, Unpublished) and wave action f o r off-bottom culture. Growth i s dependent upon regular food supply, which i s influenced by t i d a l f l u s h i n g , and t i d a l l e v e l . Wave action r e s u l t s i n s h e l l breakage, and can also l i m i t growth by s t i r r i n g up bottom sediments and burying the oysters. Breakage i s often most severe i n rocky areas, whereas sedimentation i s a greater problem i n muddy and muddy sand substrates. Predation from s t a r f i s h , oyster d r i l l s and boring sponges and competition from mussels, barnacles, and shrimps also l i m i t growth and s u r v i v a l . - 110 -More d i r e c t measures of growth are the actual harvesting figures and a condition index. Ideal ground should produce 8 to 12 tons (8.1 to 12.2 tonnes) per acre (0.41 ha) per year, and off-bottom cu l t u r e approximately 10 times t h i s amount (Smith, 1977, p.8). However, figures on p r o d u c t i v i t y are r a r e l y a v a i l a b l e u n t i l harvesting has been i n operation at a s i t e f o r several years. The condition index, a measure of the meat condition and f a t content (Smith, 1977, p.6), i s highly dependent on food supply as regulated by t i d a l flow. Measurements are not standardized to account for seasonal and age v a r i a t i o n s , so are not recommended as a c r i t e r i o n (Ward, Unpublished). Water qu a l i t y problems are an added cost of production as well as an influence on growth. S h e l l f i s h grown i n contaminated areas ( P a c i f i c S h e l l f i s h Regulations 1977 and Amendments 1978) can be sold only i f they go through a fourteen day depuration ( p u r i f i c a t i o n ) procedure (Kay, pers.comm. 1979). The c r i t e r i a f o r defining contaminated areas are measured coliform counts, and estimated p o t e n t i a l impacts of septic tanks or other p o l l u t i o n sources. Water q u a l i t y i s an absolute c r i t e r i o n i n that a l l other factors are i r r e l e v e n t i f the area i s contaminated, so contamination i s included as a c r i t e r i o n for the Resource Harvesting management unit rather than i n the attractiveness model. Commercial harvesting requires a minimal area of harvesting ground. The a v a i l a b l e area can be estimated by the width of the zone from MHHT to 10.9 m (6 fathoms). The wider the zone, the more area a v a i l a b l e . Note that f o r bottom culture the 0.6 to 1.6 m (2 to 5 f t ) zone i n the i n t e r t i d a l area i s most a t t r a c t i v e , although t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s not made i n the model. Table 5.5 Resource Harvesting (oysters) Attractiveness Reference Table. Rating Factor Weight 1 2 3 4 5 Substrate (Habitat) 2 Marsh, Rock Kelp, Cobbles Mud, Rock (wave cut) Muddy sand, Clean sand, Eelgrass Mixed coarse Mixed fi n e Exposure (Wave Energy) 3 High; exposure to seasonal and pre-v a i l i n g winds Moderately High Moderate Moderately Low Low, protected Width of MHHT to 6 fathoms (10.9 m) 1 < 50m 50-100m — > 100m Maximum Value: 30 Minimum Value: 7 Rating Value H 26-30 MH 21-25 M 16-20 ML 11-15 L 7-10 - 112 -The number of c r i t e r i o n i n t h i s study are l i m i t e d , by a v a i l a b l e information, to substrate, wave energy and the width of the growing area. Further discussion on relevent c r i t e r i a can be obtained from Smith, 1977, Quayle, 1969 and 1971, Smith and Quayle, 1976, Humphries, 1976, Humphries and Humphries, 1978, Spence 1972 and Ward, unpublished. IV. ECOLOGICAL VULNERABILITY 1. Introduction The v u l n e r a b i l i t y evaluation asks two questions: i s the resource valuable to the functioning of coastal ecosystems, and, how e a s i l y can the resource be changed by man's a c t i v i t i e s ? Quantifying answers to these questions i s a d i f f i c u l t task. Information on s p e c i f i c ecosystems i s lacking, and knowledge of reactions to interference i s more scarce. The models developed herein make f i r s t assumptions about r e l a t i v e value and tolerance based on descriptions given i n legends f o r the habitats. An ecosystem i s "valuable" i f i t i s an area of high p r o d u c t i v i t y , necessary f o r any part of a l i f e c y c l e , unique, or scarce. An ecosystem i s " t o l e r a n t " i f i t has a high p h y s i c a l carrying capacity for an a c t i v i t y . The capacity i s high i f the a c t i v i t y does not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r the species d i v e r s i t y , species numbers, prod u c t i v i t y , or i f the time to return to i t s o r i g i n a l condition a f t e r disturbance i s r e l a t i v e l y short. Tolerance (or capacity) i s relevant only with respect to an action,therefore the two v u l n e r a b i l i t y components are analyzed and presented separately. - 113 -C r i t i c a l areas, as discussed i n Chapter 2, are vulnerable. Clark (1977, pp.134-135) separates areas of c r i t i c a l environmental concern, i n which human a c t i v i t i e s must be c o n t r o l l e d though not necess a r i l y prohibited, from v i t a l areas, i n which most a c t i v i t i e s are prohibited. Clark's d e f i n i t i o n of c r i t i c a l areas which r e l a t e to the functioning of c o a s t a l ecosystems embraces: "(1) a l l drainage ways throughout coastal watersheds, (2) a l l f l o o d p l a i n s and beachfronts, and (3) a l l estuarine water areas, extending from the s a l t front (the 0.5 ppt. l i n e ) seaward into ocean waters to the extent that estuarine influences p r e v a i l . " (1977, p.138) In other words most of the c o a s t a l zone which was defined e a r l i e r i s c r i t i c a l . Three types of v i t a l areas are defined within the c r i t i c a l areas. V i t a l habitat areas provide l i v i n g space, whereas v i t a l p r o d u c t i v i t y areas supply nutrients to the system and v i t a l s t r u c t u r a l areas p h y s i c a l l y protect the ecosystem. In t o t a l , v i t a l areas include c o r a l r e e f s , kelp beds, s h e l l f i s h beds, grass beds, lower and upper wetlands, breeding areas, nursery areas, wintering areas, migration pathways, t i d e f l a t s and sand dunes. These concepts of v i t a l areas are the basis for the e c o l o g i c a l value model. The ratings for p r o d u c t i v i t y , s c a r c i t y and tolerance to use, which are summarized i n Table 5.6, were drawn from descriptions and comments i n the following sources. The habitat map and legends are from a CRD land cover map (Unpublished). The map i s based on the natural land cover map i n Stanley-Jones and Benson (1973), i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of other information, Table 5.6 Habitat E c o l o g i c a l Values of Habitats. P r o d u c t i v i t y Tolerance to Use Scarcity/Uniqueness COASTAL FRINGE Gary Oak (0) Poor* Gary Oak - Arbutus Poor-Fair T r a n s i t i o n (0-A-A-O) Arbutus-Douglas F i r (A) F a i r Arbutus-Lodgepole Pine- F a i r Douglas F i r (Ap) Sabal-Lichen (L) Poor (higher elevations) Salal-Oregon Grape (S) Good-Excellent Swordfern-Salal (P-S) Swordfern (seepage sites)CP) Black Cottonwood-Crabapple-Willow (C) Good-Excellent Excellent E x c e l l e n t Moderate Low-Moderate Low Low-Moderate Low High - but d i f f i c u l t to traverse Moderate-High Moderate Moderate Unique & scarce Require protection i n remaining s i t e s Moderate. A t t r a c t i v e Wildflowers Becoming scarce None Reduced by logging are a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s as above Much reduced by a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s 3 3 Poor < 50 f t /ac/yr (3.5 m /ha/y^) F a i r 51-90 " (3.6 - 6.3 m ^ha/yr) Good 91-150 " (6.3 - 10.| m /ha/yr) Excellent > 150 " ( > 10.5 m /ha/yr) ** Most comments re f e r to r e c r e a t i o n a l use, and assume t r a i l management. Table 5.6 (Cont'd) Habitat Productivity Tolerance to Use Scarcity/Uniqueness SUBTIDAL & INTERTIDAL S o l i d Rock (R) Moderate High (except to bu r i a l ) Low Unconsolidated, Beach M a t e r i a l with Gravel: Mixed coarse (MC) Low i n i n t e r t i d a l Cobble (C) Low i n i n t e r t i d a l Mixed Fine (MF) Moderate Unconsolidated, without Gravel: Clean Sand (S) Muddy Sand (MS) Mud (M) Eelgrass.Beds _ . Algae Beds (kelp) INTERGRADE Salt Marsh (SM) Fresh Marsh (FM) T e r r e s t r i a l Fringe (TF) Moderate High High (2-5X R or S) High (supports other areas) High (supports other areas) Very High Very High High Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate to Low (Require l i g h t ) Moderate to Low Low Low Low Moderate to Low Moderate to Low Moderate to Low High to Moderate High High Moderate Moderate High High (rare plants) Moderate - 116 -and f i e l d checking. The t r a n s i t i o n , t i d a l , and subtidal areas are mapped according to a habitat c l a s s i f i c a t i o n devised by Burns (1976), the Washington State Department of Ecology (1978) and Shapiro and Assoc. (1976). 2. E c o l o g i c a l Value (Tables 5.7 and 5.8) Using the concepts of Clark (1977) f o r v i t a l areas, i t i s necessary to determine which areas are productive, serve as shoreline s t r u c t u r a l defenses, or are u t i l i z e d b y - w i l d l i f e . The presence of these three determinants for value creates a problem with the landscape analysis method. Each determinant by i t s e l f i s s u f f i c i e n t for an homogeneous unit to be v i t a l . However, because the method sums the values of the d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s , a unit with importance for a l l three determinants would receive a higher value than one which i s important for only one. The l a t t e r unit may receive only a moderate r a t i n g and thus be ignored completely. Inspection of the d i f f e r e n t habitat values indicated that t h i s was not a problem for the shore zone, because the values usually overlapped. For example, a s a l t marsh i s highly productive, scarce, and a s t r u c t u r a l defense. This was not true i n the upland zone, where pr o d u c t i v i t y and uniqueness values did not overlap. This was resolved by evaluating p r o d u c t i v i t y and w i l d l i f e s u i t a b i l i t y separately from uniqueness, and assigning the highest value of the two to the u n i t . Another problem, which was resolved s i m i l a r l y , occurred i n the evaluations for the shore zone units. The value of the i n t e r t i d a l habitat - 117 -(subtidal habitat information was not available) did not necessarily r e f l e c t the value of the adjacent s u b t i d a l areas as indicated by w i l d l i f e use (which was a v a i l a b l e ) . Thus a p o t e n t i a l l y high value for w i l d l i f e i n the subtidal zone could be hidden by low values i n the i n t e r t i d a l . The s o l u t i o n was to evaluate the i n t e r t i d a l and su b t i d a l areas separately, and use the highest of the two for a f i n a l adjusted r a t i n g . a) S t r u c t u r a l Defense Aggrading shorelines serve as s t r u c t u r a l defense. These include the beach berms, sand dunes and some of the s a l t marshes (other marshes associated with estuaries do not necessarily serve as defense), which are indicated by the habitat c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . b) P roductivity P r o d u c t i v i t y was b r i e f l y reviewed i n Table 5.6. Generally the shore zone i s more productive than the upland zone (Odum, 1971), therefore a "high" f o r the shore zone i s greater than for the upland zone. Aquatic zone pr o d u c t i v i t y and d i v e r s i t y usually increase as the s t a b i l i t y of sediments increases (coarse textures are less t a b l e ) , either i n protected areas or at the lower t i d a l and subtidal zones. S p e c i f i c measurements of gross primary production are not r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e for each habitat type, however eelgrass and kelp beds appear to be exceptionally high (Clark, 1977, pp.646, 703). They also serve as a d e t r i t u s source for other components of the aquatic zone, and as feeding and hiding habitat. Biomass of muddy areas has been estimated as 2 to 5 times that of rock or sand areas (Burns, 1976, p.30). Muddy areas serve as both a l i v i n g place and a source of food, whereas unstable rocky and sandy shores r a r e l y serve - 118 -as a l i v i n g space and feeding i s usually by f i l t e r i n g material from overlying waters. Generally high subtidal zones i n stable, f i r m substrate, and a l g a l and grass beds have the highest p r o d u c t i v i t y . P r o d u c t i v i t y measurements for the landward habitats are generalized from f o r e s t p r o d u c t i v i t i e s (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, p.85), rather than from t o t a l p r o d u c t i v i t y measurements. Wetter habitats, excluding organic s o i l s , were assumed more productive. No values on intergrade pro d u c t i v i t y were a v a i l a b l e , other than comments i n Clark (1977) re t h e i r importance as a d e t r i t a l source and v i t a l p r o d u c t i v i t y area, c) L i v i n g Space Habitat important for l i v i n g space i s summed by the W i l d l i f e S u i t a b i l i t y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and recreation features for w i l d l i f e observation (symbol "W") and unique and a t t r a c t i v e vegetation ("E") i n Stanley-Jones and Benson (1973, pp.125, 163). A high s u i t a b i l i t y implies either a large number or a large v a r i e t y of w i l d l i f e f o r a given habitat. The comments below indi c a t e more s p e c i f i c a l l y some of the w i l d l i f e i n the study area, and the habitats they u t i l i z e , as a backdrop to the s u i t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s . A l l habitats are u t i l i z e d i n some fashion or another, however, their value as c r i t i c a l l i v i n g space v a r i e s . Mammals u t i l i z i n g the shore zone include deer, raccoon, mink, otter and seals (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973; Burns, 1976). Raccoons, mink and otter tend to hunt along the t i d a l zone for food, and r e t i r e to the adjacent intergrade or t e r r e s t r i a l f r i n g e habitats to eat, and b u i l d t h e i r dens. Seals u t i l i z e several areas as haulouts, and f i s h for s h e l l f i s h and f i s h i n the adjacent areas. - 119 -Shore birds are an important resource for viewing, photography, and hunting i n the study area. They are a mobile natural resource, which depends on d i f f e r e n t habitats for d i f f e r e n t purposes during d i f f e r e n t seasons. They need r e s t i n g , cover, feeding and nesting areas. The value of one habitat can be l i m i t e d by the absence of an accessary habitat. Shore zone birds include waterfowl (e.g. dabbling ducks, diving ducks, geese), marsh and shore birds (e.g. black oyster catchers, sandpipers, plovers, loons, grebes, avocets, phalaropes, Great Blue Heron), g u l l s , and r a p t o r i a l birds (e.g. bald eagles, falcons, hawks, owls). Each of these groups u t i l i z e s varying areas of the shore zone. The important habitats can be determined through s i t i n g s and analysis of food and food sources. S i t i n g s i n d i c a t e that major uses of the study area are as a r e s t i n g and feeding stop for the P a c i f i c flyway migration route and an overwintering area. Information from other shore zone areas indicates the general types of habitats for food and r e s t i n g . Schade (1979) summarized the present knowledge of the feeding habitats of some overwintering and migrating waterfowl and shorebirds i n the Boundary Bay area. Dabbling ducks were found to feed mostly i n upland a g r i c u l t u r a l and marsh areas, whereas diving ducks concentrate t h e i r feeding on the i n t e r t i d a l and s u b t i d a l areas. Black Brant feed almost e n t i r e l y on sea l e t t u c e and eelgrass (Einarsen, 1975) from subtidal zones. Shorebirds most l i k e l y feed i n the "marshes and upper, perhaps middle, i n t e r t i d a l zone" (Schade, 1979, p.55). Observation of the Great Blue Heron suggests that they u t i l i z e Table 5.7 Shore Zone E c o l o g i c a l Value Reference Table. Factor Habitat: Productivity Weight Mixed coarse,) Cobble Clean . Sand, Rock Rating Mixed fi n e Muddy sand, Mud,Terres-t i a l fringe, Eelgrass & Algae beds Salt marsh Fresh marsh Habitat: Scarcity/ Uniqueness Habitat: Structural Defense W i l d l i f e S u i t a b i l i t y Rock Mixed coarse, Cobble, Mixed fine Eelgrass & Algae beds Clean sand Muddy sand, Mud Salt marsh, Fresh marsh, T e r r e s t r i a l fringe Others Fresh marsh, T e r r e s t r i a l fringe S a l t marsh Recreation Features Others X (clams, crabs) W ( w i l d l i f e ) E (unique & a t t r a c t i v e vegetation) Adjacent W i l d l i f e Populations None known Fishing areas S h e l l f i s h areas Bird Seal haulouts Backshore & Foreshore Adjacent Area Minimum Value: Maximum Value: 8 40 1 5 Rating Value Adjacent Value H 34-40 5 MH 27-33 4 M 20-26 3 ML 14-19 2 L »_ 8-13 1 Table 5.8 Upland E c o l o g i c a l Value Reference Table, Factor Weight Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Habitat*: P r o d u c t i v i t y 1 L 0-A,A-0 A,Ap P-S.S C,P L i v i n g Space: W i l d l i f e S u i t a b i l i t y 1 1 2 3 4 5 Known W i l d l i f e Populations - none knoi an - omit Habitat*: Uniqueness/ Scar c i t y - S C,P-S A,P,AP O-A.A-0 0 Pro d u c t i v i t y Uniqueness Maximum Value: Minimum Value: 10 2 5 1 Rating Productivity Value Uniqueness Value H 10 5 MH 8-9 4 M 6-7 3 ML 4-5 2 L 2-3 1 * See Table 4.6 for explanation for abbreviations - 122 -the a g r i c u l t u r a l lands, s a l t marsh, upper and perhaps middle i n t e r t i d a l areas, and t i d a l pools. Gulls w i l l generally u t i l i z e mudflats, i n t e r t i d a l zones, sewage o u t f a l l s , garbage dumps and stream estuaries ( B e l l and Kallman, 1976a; 1976b). Rapters, i n the Fraser d e l t a and Nanaimo estuary, are dependent on open and semi-open undeveloped upland areas, a g r i c u l t u r a l land, foreshore marshes and i n t e r t i d a l mudflats ( B e l l and Kallman, 1976b; Hoos and Packman, 1974). Luckhurst and Blower ( i n Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973) present a species l i s t of birds s i t e d i n several habitats i n the Saanich Peninsula which can be referred to for further information. I t can be seen that shorebirds u t i l i z e a wide v a r i e t y of habitats. The most important appear to be the su b t i d a l , t i d a l f l a t s and marshes. Rock, and coarse textured aquatic habitats are not used as frequently. T i d a l and su b t i d a l habitats u t i l i z e d by several marine organisms are discussed i n the introduction to the Resource Harvesting attractiveness model. Again, i t can be seen that a l l sections of the aquatic zone are used, but some are of more value. 3. E c o l o g i c a l Tolerance to Use Three d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s were selected as representative of d i f f e r e n t degrees of use: low density recreation, low density r e s i d e n t i a l development (upland only) and shore zone a c t i v i t i e s . Recreation i s used to represent an interference through human presence, rather than physical disturbance of land and vegetation. R e s i d e n t i a l development, on the other hand, involves both a phys i c a l disturbance of a portion of the s i t e , and continuous human presence. Shore zone a c t i v i t i e s represent a s i m i l a r degree of disturbance, but from dredging, sedimentation or trampling i n - 123 -the shore zone. No tolerance to t o t a l disturbance was evaluated, because a l l environments are equally s e n s i t i v e to permanent removal. At a very general l e v e l , the. ratings are an impact analysis of p o t e n t i a l d i r e c t changes i n the natural environment, a) Outdoor Recreation (Tables 5.9 and 5.10) D e f i n i t i o n . Outdoor recreation i s an a c t i v i t y v o l u n t a r i l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n f o r the purposes of r e l a x a t i o n and pleasure during l e i s u r e time i n the outdoors. It includes swimming, sunbathing, gathering and c o l l e c t i n g (draftwood, s h e l l s , rocks, e t c . ) , walking, photography, w i l d l i f e viewing, paddling, unorganized games and non-motorized boating. Comments and C r i t e r i a . The focus of the model i s on outdoor recreation which does not require any f a c i l i t i e s . However, were f a c i l i t i e s desired, such as change houses, campsites, etc., the same r e l a t i v e ratings would apply. The model i s based on 1) the method for r e c r e a t i o n a l carrying capacity i n Block and Hignett (1976), 2) the " i n t e n s i t y of use" ratings i n the Recreation Features Map i n Stanley-Jones and Benson (1973, p.163), 3) comments i n legends for the habitat and 4) the assumption that areas of known bird/mammal populations are more susceptible to impact. There i s a model for both the upland and shore zones. Block and Hignett's (1976) carrying capacity method selects and rates factors on s o i l and vegetation, including s o i l texture, rockiness, depth, drainage, and topography, and vegetation density and s e n s i t i v i t y (time to regenerate i f trampled or destroyed). S o i l s with f i n e or grav e l l y textures, much bedrock exposure, shallow to an impervious horizon, - 124 -very poor or very good drainage, surface organic layers, and steep, g u l l y i n g , f a i l i n g or avalanching slopes have a low carrying capacity. Texture, depth, drainage and slope are included i n the model. Gullying and f a i l i n g slopes are considered on the hazards model, so are excluded here. Vegetation i n which the percentage of crown cover of the shrub layer i s low has a low capacity, however t h i s factor i s omitted i n favour of the general comments i n the habitat legends -(see Table 5.6). The i n t e n s i t y of use ratings i n d i c a t e areas where intensive, moderate, and extensive r e c r e a t i o n are suited, based on biophysical properties. Intensive uses include organized camping and cottaging, whereas extensive use c l o s e l y f i t s the d e f i n i t i o n given above for t h i s model. They were only applied to areas adjacent to the shoreline, so are only i n the shore zone model. Comments on carrying capacity i n descriptions for habitats, and i n the various legends were also u t i l i z e d . In the upland zone the comments tend to be a more subjective evaluation of the same factors l i s t e d f o r the carrying capacity r a t i n g above. They are included only because of the i r evaluations of vegetation s e n s i t i v i t y , but given a low weighting. In the shore zone the comments are a major source of information. Aquatic habitats with vegetation are considered more s e n s i t i v e than those without. Generally the upland and aquatic habitats are more tolerant than the intergrade ones. Another factor which i s important i n the shore zone i s the s e n s i t i v i t y of eroding c l i f f s to increased erosion through trampling. The higher the c l i f f , the more s e n s i t i v e i t i s considered. Table 5.9 Tolerance to Use: Outdoor Recreation ln Upland Rating Factor Weight X 2 3 4 5 Texture 3 silt,sand,sandy clay,clay & si l t y clay, plus their gravelly classes clay loam.sllty clay loam,sandy clay loam,silt loam,plus their gravelly classes loam,gravelly loam,sandy loam,gravelly sandy loam Bedrock/Depth of Soil 2 > 50% of surface/ < 50 cm 25-50% of surface/ 0.5-1.0 m — < 25% of surf-aced 1.0 m Hydrologic Significance* 3 5,8 1.2 3 4,6a 6b or Drainage 3 Poorly & Very Poorly Drained — Imperfectly & Rapidly Drained Moderately Well Drained Well Drained Slope (%) (Classification System) 2 >60 (5) 30-60 (4) 15-30 (3) 5-15 (2) 0-5 (1) Surface Organic Layer*' 2 >40 cm - 15-40 cm - > 15 cm Native Plant Community* 1 A,Fresh water wetlands A-O.L, Ap C,0 P S.P-S Wildlife Suitability 1 1 2 3 4 5 * Drainage is preferred to Hydrologic Significance. ** Omitted for case study area. May be significant in adjacent areas. + See Table 4.6 for expansion of symbols. Maximum Value: 60 Minimum Value: 12 Value Revised Rating Value H 52-60 49-60 MH 42-51 40-48 M 32-41 33-39 ML 22-31 24-32 L 12-21 12-23 Table 5.10 Tolerance to Use: Shore Zone Recreation. Rating Factor Weight 1 2 3 4 5 Habitat 2 Marsh,Terres-t r i a l f r i n g e Mixed coarse, Cobble,Eel-grass & Algae beds Mud, Muddy sand Clean sand, Mixed f i n e Rock C l i f f Height/Upshore Slope •2 > 40 m/ > 60% 40-30m/ 60-30% 29-15m/ 29-15% 14-15m/ 14-5% < 5m/ < 5% Intensity of Use* 1 W M N - K,U,Z W i l d l i f e Populations** 1 Spawning areas,Seal haulouts Birds S h e l l f i s h , F i s h None * Intensity of Use ratings on the Recreation Features map were not a v a i l a b l e for every unit. "U" (harbours), "Z" (man-made), and "W" ( w i l d l i f e ) were the features i n these cases. ** If two populations are present, subtract one from the lowest r a t i n g . For example, for f i s h and b i r d s the value i s 1. Rating Value H 26-30 MH 21-25 M 16-20 ML 11-15 L 6-10 Maximum Value: 30 Minimum Value: 5 - 127 -b) R e s i d e n t i a l Use (Upland Zone)(Table 5.11) D e f i n i t i o n . This model considers r e s i d e n t i a l uses of less than 6 dwellings per 0.41 ha (1 ac), without septic tanks, and with the l o t s less than 50% covered by impermeable material, and l e s s than 75% of the area disturbed during construction. Comments and C r i t e r i a . The model adds to the tolerance to r e c r e a t i o n a l use r a t i n g . It assumes that the r e l a t i v e impacts between habitats are the same, but that the impacts on water q u a l i t y are of greater importance because more land area i s disturbed. Note that the model views tolerance from the ecosystem's point of view. The perceptions of the residents towards the number of dwellings which are most desirable from a s o c i a l and aesthetic point of view are not included. The ratings from the recreation model indi c a t e the r e l a t i v e impacts on d i f f e r e n t habitats. Impacts (or l i k e l i h o o d of impacting) on stream, underground and ocean water q u a l i t y are estimated by considering surface erosion p o t e n t i a l , s u i t a b i l i t y to septic tanks and s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to ponding and flooding (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973). c) Shore Zone A c t i v i t i e s - Habitat Elimination (Table 5.13) D e f i n i t i o n . An a c t i v i t y , rather than a use, was selected because i t i s a component of several uses. Habitat elimination i s the elimination of the vegetation and the surface sediments by any means, including dredging and f i l l i n g . Comments and C r i t e r i a . The tolerance of a t i d a l or s u b t i d a l habitat i s very dependent on the a c t i v i t y , as i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 5.12. For example, s a l t marshes have a high tolerance to nutrient input, but a very low Table 5.11 Tolerance to Use: R e s i d e n t i a l . Factor Weight Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Tolerance to Recreation to •u Low Moderately Low Moderate Moderately High High Surface Erosion P o t e n t i a l [Jeig: High - Moderate - S l i g h t Limitations f o r Septic Tanks Severe - Moderate - S l i g h t S u s c e p t i b i l i t y to Ponding and Flooding Equ, High - Moderate - S l i g h t Maximum Value: 20 Minimum Value: 4 Rating Value H 18-20 MH 15-17 M 12-14 ML 9-11 L 4-8 Table 5.12 Tolerance to Uses, from Shapiro and Assoc. (1977, pp. - Use or Action Habitat Nutrients Erosion Elimination Accretion & Deposition Rock High Moderate High Low to B u r i a l Mixed Coarse Moderate Moderate c Mixed Fine c -—• o 4-1 00 Low Moderate tion itio Clean Sand C C CU - H C cn Moderate Moderate posi epos Muddy Sand . cu p —• • P . r-t cu m Q Low Moderate CU 13 T3 T J 3 - H Mud Low Moderate O a r H rd U o Eelgrass Moderate Moderate Very Low 4-1 O 4-1 00 & Algae Moderate Moderate Low • H O Salt Marsh High Moderate Very Low -- 130 -tolerance to elimination. The table also points out that the rate of disturbance i s very important. Tolerance i s greater for slow than f a s t rates. Most importantly, the generality of the table points out that more research i s required on the responses of t i d a l habitats to various actions. For example, what rate of deposition can an eelgrass bed sustain? This model also u t i l i z e s the tolerance to recreation r a t i n g , plus wave energy l e v e l , and tolerance to elimination (from Table 5.12). Other data which would be of value i s unavailable, f o r example, flushing and erosion/accretion rates. V. SUMMARY The case study area was b r i e f l y summarized i n terms of i t s biophysical c h a r a c t e r i t i c s and land use. Attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y models were developed. V u l n e r a b i l i t y was considered i n two components - e c o l o g i c a l value and tolerance to use - either of which make a unit vulnerable. Although directed to the study area, the discussion of important factors i n each model i s generally applicable i n south western B r i t i s h Columbia. Table 5.13 Tolerance to Use: Shore Zone A c t i v i t i e s . Factor Weight Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Tolerance to Recreation 2 Low Moderately Low Moderate Moderately High High Habitat: Elimination 2 Eelgrass, Salt marsh Algae Mixed coarse, Mixed f i n e Clean sand Muddy sand Mud Rock Wave Energy- 1 Low Moderately Low Moderate Moderately High High Rating Value Maximum Value: 25 H 22-25 Minimum Value: 5 MH 18-21 M 14-17 ML 10-13 L 5-9 - 132 -CHAPTER SIX. CASE STUDY: SUMMARY OF MODEL RESULTS AND CLASSIFICATION INTO MANAGEMENT UNITS I. INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the r e s u l t s of the analysis of the case study area. The attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y models are summarized, and the general c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and management suggestions for the study area are discussed. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 are maps of the homogeneous units, and t h e i r suggested management c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e s p e c t i v e l y . The resource c l a s s i f i c a t i o n from Table 3.1 was modified for the study area, as shown i n Figure 6.3. The management c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of each homogeneous uni t i s discussed i n Appendix 1. Tables 6.1 through 6.4 are the Inventory Tables and summaries of the model r e s u l t s for the upland and shore zone homogeneous un i t s . The C a l c u l a t i o n Tables are presented i n Tables 6.5 to 6.14. I I . SUMMARY OF MODEL RESULTS (Tables 6.2 and 6.4) Upland Development. Four of the upland units (2,11,12,13) received a high attractiveness r a t i n g f o r development. Many of the units i n the north were r e s t r i c t e d by slope and depth to bedrock. The units around Sidney, most of which are already developed, are redeemed only because t h e i r slopes are low - they have poor s u i t a b i l i t y as a foundation, and are susceptible to ponding and surface erosion. - 133 -SHORE ZONE SWARTZ BAY B.C. FERRY TERMINAL S A A N I C H P E N I N S U L A 10 KM L E G E N D COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY (500 M. Inland to 103 M. dapth) UNIT BOUNDARIES MEAN LOW TIDE (MLT) KELP SHALLOW AREAS (uwolly rock) ROCK e FATHOMS (10.9 M.) FIG 6.1. HOMOGENEOUS UNITS IN  CASE STUDY AREA • UPLAND ZONE UNITS NUMBERED I TO 25B • SHORE ZONE UNITS NUMBERED I TO 38 - 134 -0 KM SWARTZ BAY B.C. FERRY TERMINAL L E G E N D COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY (500 M Inland to 10.9 M depth) MEAN LOW WATER ROCK CRITICAL ECOLOGICAL AREA CONSERVANCY DEVELOPABLE WITH LIMITATIONS DEVELOPABLE NON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPABLE INDUSTRIAL 8 PORT FIG 6.2. MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF HOMOGENEOUS UNITS ARMSTRONG POINT 6 FATHOMS (IOSM) gure 6.3 Modified Resource C l a s s i f i c a t i o n for the Case Study (see Appendix 3 for Legends). SECTION Energy a) high b) moderately high c) moderate d) moderately low e) low Process a) rock i ) i i ) b) pocket beach i ) i i ) i i i ) c) d r i f t sector i ) i i ) i i i ) Habitat a) intergrade i i i i i i b) t i d a l and s u b t i d a l i i i i i i i v v v i v i i v i i i i x TYPE wave cut bench no bench Class I Class II Class I I I Feed Source - r i v e r - b l u f f (Class III) Driftway (Class I I , III) Accretion Terminal - s p i t - point - b a r r i e r - dune - submarine canyon - other t e r r e s t r i a l fringe fresh marsh s a l t marsh rock mixed coarse mixed fin e cobble sand muddy sand mud eelgrass* kelp* * can be used i n conjunction with any of the habitat types. - 136 -Shore Zone Development. Only one u n i t , at the f e r r y terminal, was highly a t t r a c t i v e for port development. Several adjacent units received a moderately high r a t i n g , as did the area at the end of Beacon Ave. i n Sidney. Areas i n the north were r e s t r i c t e d by steep upshores slopes, whereas areas i n Tsehum Harbour were r e s t r i c t e d by shallow waters and navigation hazards. Hazards - Shore Zone. Hazards i n the study area tend to be low. The predominantly rocky shoreline has few habitats subject to storm flooding, and although many of the beaches are Class I I I t h e i r erosion p o t e n t i a l i s low because the banks are low. There are no major estuaries, and consequently no f l o o d p l a i n s . Resource Harvesting. Many of the shore zone units showed considerable p o t e n t i a l f o r resource harvesting. There were no units with low p o t e n t i a l , because the wave energy f a c t o r did not exceed moderate. Unfortunately, very l i t t l e of the area can be used for s h e l l f i s h i n g because of r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed under the P a c i f i c S h e l l f i s h Regulations (1977). The units which are not contaminated (29 to 38) have moderate or moderately low ratings due to moderate wave energies, rock habitats, and l i t t l e i n t e r t i d a l area. E c o l o g i c a l Value - Shore Zone. Areas of high e c o l o g i c a l value occur i n Roberts Bay, Blue Heron Basin, and Tsehum Harbour, because of t h e i r high p r o d u c t i v i t i e s and/or use by waterfowl, f o r herring spawning, or as a seal haulout. The northern units tend to have low to moderate value, r e f l e c t i n g greater energies and rockier habitats. E c o l o g i c a l Value - Upland Zone. E c o l o g i c a l values i n the upland were predominantly moderate. There are no units of high w i l d l i f e s u i t a b i l i t y , - 137 -nor of high s c a r c i t y or uniqueness. W i l d l i f e s u i t a b i l i t i e s were low i n the southern developed part of the study area, leading to the lowest values for the p r o d u c t i v i t y / w i l d l i f e combination r a t i n g . The most valuable units (moderately high) were 3, due to high p r o d u c t i v i t y and w i l d l i f e s u i t a b i l i t y , and 14a and 14b, adjacent to Tsehum Harbour, an aquatic zone of high value. Tolerance to Use: Upland Recreation. This evaluation exemplifies a s i t u a t i o n where the o v e r a l l range i n values i s f a i r l y low because problems i n one fa c t o r are compensated for by other factors or, there i s some inter-dependence of f a c t o r s . Thus, some of the moderate ratings are li m i t e d by drainage ( i n the southern section) and others by depth to bedrock. Most of the area i s tolerant to r e c r e a t i o n a l use, as indicated by no low or moderately low values. Although the tolerance i s f a i r l y uniform on a regional basis, i t i s us e f u l to r e v i s e the evaluation scale to point out l o c a l d i f f e r e n c e s . This can be done by decreasing the range of values for the most common evaluation, moderate i n t h i s case. Doing t h i s points out that units 1, 3 and 5 have the highest tolerances, while unit 12 has the lowest. The northern units tend to have higher c a p a c i t i e s than the southern, which are lim i t e d by drainage and texture. Tolerance to Use - Shore Zone Recreation. The range i n tolerance f o r shore zone recreation i s greater than for the upland areas, although there are s t i l l no low tolerance areas. The range i s r e s t r i c t e d because there were no "k'"s, i n d i c a t i n g s u i t a b i l i t y f o r high i n t e n s i t y use, and s e n s i t i v e habitats are backed by low slopes, which are r e l a t i v e l y i n s e n s i t i v e . The moderately low ratings included the marshes, the seal - 138 -haulout spots, and areas of waterfowl and s h e l l f i s h populations. The higher ratings were usually on rocky shores, with no w i l d l i f e usage. Tolerance to Use - R e s i d e n t i a l . The e n t i r e study area has a f a i r l y low tolerance to r e s i d e n t i a l use. Limitations for septic tanks are severe i n the north due to shallowness to bedrock, whereas around Sidney the f i n e textured s o i l s have low p e r c o l a t i o n rates. This would indicate that sewage treatment f a c i l i t i e s are a necessity for a l l but very low density r e s i d e n t i a l areas. The other major problem i s the high s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to ponding and flooding for the southern u n i t s . The combination of septic tank and ponding l i m i t a t i o n s leads to a low r a t i n g for the most developed part of the area - Sidney. Maintenance of water q u a l i t y appears to require c a r e f u l consideration for the e n t i r e study area. Tolerance to Use - Shore Zone A c t i v i t i e s . The highest tolerances to use are i n the rocky areas (units 32, 36, 38 and 28). High tolerances are l i m i t e d because there are no areas of high wave energy, which increase f l u s h i n g and therefore tolerance. Areas of low tolerance occur where wave energy i s low, and habitats are marshy or mud (units 18a, 18b and 7b). The low tolerance areas also correspond to the high e c o l o g i c a l value areas. I I I . GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY AREA The study area consists of several general areas of s i m i l a r management unit c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . - 139 -The f i r s t , the northern part of the Peninsula east to the f e r r y terminal, i s c l a s s i f i e d f o r Conservancy and Developable with Limi t a t i o n s . The higher attractiveness for development i n the shore zone units are r e s t r i c t e d by the adjacent low attractivenessses i n the upland u n i t s . Only low density r e s i d e n t i a l development i s suitable i n the upland areas due to the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of the s o i l and surface water to p o l l u t i o n from septic tanks. The second section includes the f e r r y terminal area (upland units 7a, 9c, l c and shore zone units 26, 27). I t and the section near Beacon Ave. i n Sidney, are the only ones c l a s s i f i e d as Developable, or suggested for marina development. The next section, from Swartz Head to Curteis Point, i s more suited to r e s i d e n t i a l development (Developable with Limitations) than the northern section. The major concerns are the protection of the seal haulout area, and p r o v i s i o n of water and sewage services to the r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r to the marina. The present marina should not be permitted to expand without some assurance of water q u a l i t y protection, and should be r e s t r i c t e d to shore zone unit 24 and upland unit 9a. The next section includes Tsehum Harbour and i t s adjacent land u n i t s . Most of the area i s of high ecologic value, and low tolerance to use. However, i t i s also a t t r a c t i v e for resource harvesting, and much of the area has already been impacted by marina development despite being a Federal Migratory Bi r d Sanctuary. Those areas already developed were c l a s s i f i e d as Developable with Limitations, i n which the guidelines r e s t r i c t expansion of marinas. The undeveloped parts were c l a s s i f i e d as Conservancy or C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Areas. Resource Harvesting i s presently r e s t r i c t e d - 140 -by water q u a l i t y problems. But, given some improvement i n water q u a l i t y as sewage services are provided to adjacent areas, some p o t e n t i a l e x i s t s , which could be exploited so f a r as i t does not i n t e r f e r e with the c r i t i c a l areas. The remaining parts of the study area (upland units 18b to 25; shore zone units 1 to 8) are mainly developed for r e s i d e n t i a l or commercial uses. Their present use determined t h e i r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as Developable with Limitations, despite t h e i r low attractiveness f or development. Shore units 7a and 7b are of some e c o l o g i c a l value, and therefore c l a s s i f i e d as Conservancy and C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l management units r e s p e c t i v e l y . No further development should be permitted i n 7b, and 7a should be managed fo r outdoor r e c r e a t i o n purposes excluding power boats. Upshore unit 25b, and shore zone u n i t 1 are c l a s s i f i e d as Developable - Non-Industrial because of t h e i r a t tractiveness f or development, lack of high e c o l o g i c a l value, and present uses. Following through the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the case study homogeneous units i t can be seen that the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s not unambiguous; many decisions on the f i n a l land uses remain for the l o c a l government and community. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n provides a f i r s t cut examination of the appropriate uses for the co a s t a l zone based on the attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y ( e c o l o g i c a l value and tolerance to use) of the biophysical u n i t s . Present land uses play an important r o l e i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y f o r areas l i k e Saanich which have been p a r t i a l l y developed for a long time. - 141 -An attempt was made to exclude the zoning from the c r i t e r i a ; zoning should follow from, or be corrected by, the a n a l y s i s . The exceptions were areas where several c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s were t e c h n i c a l l y possible, and the zoning indicated community des i r e s . Examples are the proposed parks i n Tsehum Harbour and along the northern shore l i n e . Functional r e l a t i o n s h i p s , as well as the attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y ratings, were also considered when assigning u n i t s . For example, some shore u n i t s i n the northern section were moderately a t t r a c t i v e for development, but because they were backed by upland units with r e s i d e n t i a l use, and Developable with Limitations or Conservancy c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , they are not recommended for a Developable c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . I t has probably been noted that the author has made value judgements on the behalf of the community when a l l o c a t i n g the biophysical units to management u n i t s , and i n the comments associated with each u n i t . No excuses are made, because the a l l o c a t i o n and comments can only be regarded as suggestions, to be inputted to a planning process. The planning process should add another set of information: the demand for d i f f e r e n t uses. Discrepancies between the supply, as indicated by the analysis, and demand w i l l point out the necessary tradeoffs between the e c o l o g i c a l and development values. Some tradeoffs have already occurred, witnessed by the marinas i n the vulnerable Tsehum Harbour area. The attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y r e s u l t s give a reasonably unbiased guide to the values which should be considered by the deci s i o n makers and the p u b l i c . Zi - O rr . P P 0 0 T-J CT +» P m P cr P Homocjeneovt Units, UplanJ Zone, o p o P 5 p M tr M er tr UT en cn o p en cn cn Terrain Type • s f e fi-« - g_ p « - - s e O 0 J t s r o »» Texture. i SU-ul a-Si** m m - -- B to - & i 5 Up larval Slope - - o § - - e f 6 s -e t i Depth to Bfcdrock SP -n C M T7 CM -n V TT C M n CX TT TT T l TT TT -n TT Tt Tt boil Stabi'lrty to C P cn C P CP CP 3 3 3 3 3 3 C P 3 3 3 Surface Erosion Suscepribility - - - or-p P 6 ^ P 0 ~ P «~ p 6 ^ «-> 6~> r» tr. - tr u- <r-cr Hvjclro\o2\c Signif'cance. C P C P f» r» 3 r* 3 r- 3 3 3 3 3 en 3 3 Ponding ^  Flood 113 Susceptibi/i't^  CP If cf «/> cn i/> C P CO i/> CP C P cn V Ul CP u> ct> m o» U l C P cn LiWtatioria -for Septic T«r»r\S > > > > o> CP C P > > > > TD > TJ > C P CO cn Native. Plant Comtnunitres C Habit all CP CM C M CM CH CM CH ui I M CM CM CM Ul WtldVife Sun'tabili^ S • • -a -kl = = = - /-» £ c m c rT AgriculturoA Capability 1 I 1 1 1 J 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Acjricultunxl (.and Rtsemes IP TT T) .ff> iT> P F> JT> £> ff> Tl Forest CapabiliTy JO ( 1-1' o z _z 0 ' 3 a O D -o £> M 0 ( M 0 r 1 • M CP hvl a 0 ( M RecrealiofN Ftat ures & tt a P SiOjCvif icancc z. 3 "t\cftn L a r : t r c >laf\n id he. IdLj Vjoier SuppV-j ; v i e e * wis - i « 2 1 1 1 oli 6rvd- C e o i l ! 4— 1 1 1 1 1 1 Treo.Vmt.ot wo UC If us »\v. p —> c r» 30 r C «• — *s J? ;» F xr r o- s F Sites •3 O -< » ' s i 14 n o 3 I l» 7 5 o-II 5"S —o: s t. 2 <* H C a p. c * s-£ 2 - 0 ? * 3 I*-P_ 0 » »• 3 » S' to ^) (D CP p. 3 O p-e. S -o" •0 (• , o--US-£ l 3 P -K • 0 T3 P D-3 . 5 ' g _ = ?i 5 ° P . O . i— p S-IP <• OD 6^  "TJ__ P 3 IN o 3 < O ct l CO t» t» >• -o 3 5? re L D t» 3 O -IP zi\ -ro ro N N O 3 eft o cr 00 p 5 ? 5 cr p 4oo>»jenco«t Units, Upland Zone N ro N hi r o ro tr Kl c r to ro r o Tcvroin Tvjpe. = • * * - * n o J I Is-e - - - - 6 KJ, i ro h r-> i iJ. ro i % Cx rt - S P-I 1 P-p-n r» -o s 0-g-S 1 t>-e « i t <• t> it-(• •o <• -o »-i» « ?-t» •« •o •v •a -0 •o -D -n VP -0 IV -n v»--o S ro 3 ro 3 ro 3 r » 3 N 3 (v 3 ro 3 3 r* 3 N 3 r* 3 r-> to in CO Sarface Ero&iorv iu»c«.pt»bilitij cn f \ w OA <r, cn <r> P «A o \ Ul P P «P P cn Hvjdrolocyc Sio,nHico.i\ce 3 ro J r» 3 r» 3 r* I 7N> 3 r> 3 r» 3 3 3 r> 3 r» 3 r* - E r- »o r» Pondine^i F l o o d i n g SusceptibiVHi) to s-CM CP CP on i? CP f (/> K» J= c/» j ; Urnittttl<m» W Septic TcxrxVcS -o 1 IP TJ > > in </> > -o l)> •o (/> -o V» i «/> IP c/> tn u» Vla-tivePVcxtN-t C o m m u n i t i e s CHote'i-to.^  <* ro" N> • f (X r o N = - = = = * p u AoJricuH«.ro.\ CapobVlrtvj \ / 1 1 ' ' 1 i 3. 1 S3 fl 1 / • A<jricuVtu.ral Lcw\d Reserves P P & y r « P P Forest «o OO a V eft CO oO "•0 JD CO y> JO "o z o •o o "•o O 3 'x Recreation FeoAoires N H w % N M H H RecTtatior> P r « » « % i f I z o UocteX SappVxj 1 \ I Bion- If 3> Stv>cxcje Treo."tmex\"t \ r c 0-tr i * ArcheoVotyc o o 1 C P . » t» i f < 1 6. t 1 o> (p. e-f» f. t I* 5 J * 6. i 3 I' <* II H P. *" H H s 11 • p.p ! r - C-o - o • ft. r » -% r n - e v i -- 144 -Table 6.2 Summary Table for Upland Units. Unit Upland Development Ecological Value Tolerance: Recreation Tolerj Residei la M M H ML lb M M H ML lc M M H ML 2 B M M M 3 M MH H ML 4 M M MH ML 5 M MH H ML 6 M M MH ML 7a M M MH ML 7b M M MH ML 8 M M M M 9a M M MH M 9b M M MH M 9c M M MH M 10 M M M M 11 H M M M 12 E M ML M 13 H M M M 14a ML MH M ML 14b ML MH MH ML 15 ML M MH L 16 ML M MH ML 17 M M MH ML 18a ML MH M L 18b ML M M L 18c ML M M L 19 ML M MH L 20 ML M M L 21 ML M ' M L 22 ML M M L 23 ML M M L 24 ML M M L 25a ML ML M L 25b ML ML M L Abbreviations: H High MH Moderately High M Moderate ML Moderately Low L Low - 145 --o c ro -a fl-o-or 4) i) C/7 r 2 s-O -H C a) > c I) c o N <D o cn u J _ J cQ r -V o «* £ er J O C ; > Sjort ^ 1 B 3 •5 o i II it 1 o "S 3 t 8 1 <> w 0 u d 0 • » - 0 c r> M £ 3 Ss« S3 C p 1 V s «) 3 «9 O O -8 f i i ii 6 C Z6 I \ - 3 3 f 3& -6 0 0 ! -d - 0 «l 0 . 0 ~$ I •rs c 3 i ? a-0 ii rt I cr 1 a •i % 5 3: r s: i. •c •c s: X X X ou\M . ON -» <— tt fct H H H H H H M M H ^ ( V / z i f z ar i ZZ 1 s: < : 3 : 3 X -< s: ciT < -y. f - ? 5 < - . j ; 0 o '.5 6 I.r i i = = = 1 *!" S f 1 .? 1 r c 4 tt \\i lt\ B li-lt fs '5* a: 3 d -3 -C O m CO ro <r> ar rj i? • o O \o o — • 0 o o m — • o a 2 O </» ^ / I 0 0 « t i l — 1 0 0 ' O s «-< As 8 0 0 51 s 0 0 r>J O £ £ 6 s ->»« £ ~~/ £ 0 s-0 <o -< ^ 2 £ -4 Zi 1 £ -v 0 c-T «• 6 •s/ i tO ol CO £*- A* <*' £ I* jf ./» 0< tfl £ r ol CO 0<f, of £ £. vjoM^cnxy.wO .** c H oc" M H 1* >» C H H K H r SZ r r _i s: _i _l —1 -1 _/ _1 _i _i _ J 04 rr> d r>- pi- 1 0 -3 - In 0 - 0 - 146 -n o o ul o-<j o * > It 11 •3 ° l T°-ifyl 1 1« . <0 *• I b 6 a. . - 0 0 0 > 3 -s a-0 -3 5 .1 a) s 3 -3 » > 1 "3 0 -a 1 1 1 0 -f S w V ? I 1 i •j 1 I 3 » 1 1 1 O I "5 1 •s 0 •3 1 n «l O 0 5 1 J CX 0 W 3 P 0-0 0 % 00 i -A O O 3 •x -x. i =c -J £ CUON^OlXySSH Cui —^ « — :pij M H M H H w M « W £ < 3 ?I -< i - t «J cO i CD 2 ? z (0 1 1 1 2 2 Is I C 0 V 0 ** K al «l H 1. 1 1 0 1 1 a CPof II a • 1 1 1 \ I 1 *M r> in in ro 0 0 <-i O O 0 0 <N A-O 0 N A. O 0 8 / •^ • 2 S3 . O S3 0 0 <x r> 0 0 0 >n N/ 0 VI 0 Yl O >n V a 0 VI - V 0 VI V 0 yi ~~/ r»-V V> i 4 i m e >/ «* 0 pn 4 8 s O 1 10 U 0 * « g u f 3 VI 0 0 0 s « £ o l r rf ar rf. u." r i ^ c *4 &,% a* f t j I / Si* 3 0 c ttr M rf a rf. Ct a rf & 3 Pt 3 = 3 oc riSjreua voow -1 > > _l _/ c -J _/ c _l r J : s: X. £ £ s: £ au.o£ *»oug A J J to 2^  0 | 0 3 " CN r«-W <lr- O to to to 10 - tn -Table 6.4 - 148 -Summary Table for Shore Zone Cult6 . Resource Ecological Tolerance: Tolerance: Harvesting Value Recreation Shore Activities 1 MH L M M M M 2 M L M M MH MH 3 M M M M MH M 4 M ML M M MH M 5 M ML M M ML M 6 M ML ML M MH MH 7a M ML M MH M M 7b M H M H ML L 8 MH L M L MH MH 9 M L H H ML ML 10 M M MH H ML ML 11 M L MH MH ML M 12 M M H H M ML 13 M ML H H M M 14 M L MH MH M M 15 ML M MH B ML L 16a ML M H H ML ML 16b ML M H H ML ML 17a, b ML ML H MH M ML 18a ,c ML M MH H ML ML 18b ML H MH H ML L 19 ML L H H ML ML 20 ML ML H MH M ML 21 ML ML MH H ML ML 22 M L M M MH M 23 ML L MH M MH MH 24 ML L MH M H MH 25 L L M H ML M 26 MH L M MH M 27 H L M MH MH MH 28 MH L ML ML MH MH 29 MH L M ML MH M 30 MH ML M ML MH 31 MH ML M M M M 32 M L ML ML H H 33 M M L M M 34 M L ML ML MH M 35 ML L M ML MH M 36 MH L ML M MH MH 37 MH ML M M ML ML 38 MH L ML M MH MH Abbreviations: H High MH Moderately High M Moderate ML Moderately Low L Low Dnit Shore Zone Development - 149 -Tables 6.5 to 6.14 C a l c u l a t i o n Tables. Legend for Ratings: Rating Abbreviation High H Moderately High MH Moderate M Moderately Low ML Low L Legends and descriptions for a l l the resources factors are included i n Appendix 3. - 150 -- 1 5 1 -Table 6.6 Shore Zone Development Calculation Table. Unit No. Distance to 10.9m MHHT On) (3)* Navigation Hazard (3)* Wave Energy (2)* Beach C l a s s i f i c a t i o n (1)* Habitat (1) C l i f f Height/ Jpshore Slope (2)* Value Rating 1 100-150 3 9 L 5 15 M 3 6 Int. 5 S 4 <5m 5 10 49 MH 2 100-150 3 9 M 3 9 M 3 6 R.Int. 3 S.Rw 3 <5m 5 10 41 M 3 100-150 3 9 M 3 9 M 3 6 I l l 3 S 4 6m 4 8 39 M 4 50-100 4 12 H 1 3 M 3 6 II 4 R,S 3 <5% 5 10 38 M 5 50-100 4 12 H 1 3 M 3 6 II 4 S 4 <5m 5 10 39 M 6 <50 5 15 H 1 3 M 3 6 II 4 R,S 3 <5m 5 10 41 M 7a 50-150 3 9 M 3 9 ML 4 8 III,Int. 4 M 1 <5m 5 10 41 M 7b 50-150 3 9 M 3 9 ML 4 8 I 5 SM.FM 1 <5m 5 10 42 M 8 <50 5 15 M 3 9 L 5 10 R 3 R 2 15-30% 2 4 43 MH 9 150-200 2 6 M 3 9 L 5 10 Int. 5 M.MS 1 <5m 5 10 41 M 10 150-200 2 6 M 3 9 L 5 10 I l l 3 M 1 <5m 5 10 39 M 11 150-200 2 6 M 3 9 L 5 10 R 3 R 2 <15% 3 6 36 M 12 >200 1 3 M 3 9 L 5 10 III 3 S 4 <5m 5 10 39 M 13 >200 1 3 M 3 9 L 5 10 II 4 S,R 3 <5m 5 10 39 M 14 >200 1 3 M 3 9 L 5 10 R 3 R 4 9-15% 3 6 35 M 15 >200 1 3 H 1 3 L 5 10 III 3 SM 1 <5m 5 10 30 ML 16a,b >200 1 3 H 1 3 L 5 10 III 3 M,MF 1 <5m 5 10 30 ML 17a,b >200 1 3 H 1 3 L 5 10 II,R 3 MF.R 4 <6m 4 8 31 ML 18a, c >200 1 3 H 1 3 VL 5 10 III,Int. 4 M 1 <5m 5 10 31 ML 18b >200 1 3 H 1 3 VL 5 10 I l l 3 SM 1 <5m 5 10 30 ML 19 >200 1 3 H 1 3 L 5 10 Int. 5 MF 4 5-9% 4 8 33 ML 20 >200 1 3 H 1 3 L 5 10 III.R 3 MF,R 3 <5m 5 10 32 . ML 21 >200 1 3 H 1 3 ML 4 8 II,R 3 MF.R 3 <5m 5 10 30 ML 22 <50 5 15 M-n 2 6 ML 4 8 R 3 S 2 15-307. 2 4 38 M 23 150-200 2 6 H 1 3 ML 4 8 R 3 R,MF 2 15-30% 1 2 24 ML 24 >200 1 3 M 3 9 ML 4 8 Int. 5 MF.R 3 5-20% 3 6 34 ML 25 >200 1 3 H 1 3 ML 4 8 R.III 3 Rw.MC 2 15-60% 1 2 20 L 26 <50 5 15 L 5 15 M 3 6 Rw.III 3 Mc „ - J T . R V 4 5-20% 3 6 49 MH 27 <50 5 15 L 5 15 M 3 6 Int. 5 MC/R,Rv 4 5-9% 4 8 53 H 28 <50 5 15 L 5 15 M 3 6 Rw 3 Rv,MC/R 2 30-60% 1 2 43 MH 29 <50 5 15 L 5 15 M 3 6 Rw.II 3 »•? 4 30-50% 1 2 45 MH 30 <50 5 15 L 5 15 M 3 6 II 4 S 4 15-40% 1 2 46 MH 31 <50 5 15 L 5 15 M 3 6 II 4 S MC Rw'Rw 4 15-40% 1 2 46 MH 32 <50 5 15 M 3 9 M 3 6 Rw 3 Rw 3 9-15% 3 6 42 M 33 50-100 4 12 M 3 9 M 3 6 III 3 MC 5 30-60% 1 2 37 M 34 <50 5 15 M 3 9 M 3 6 Rw 3 Rw 3 30-60% 1 2 36 M 35 100-150 3 9 H 1 3 M 3 6 Rw.III . 3 Rw.MC.K 3 30-60% 1 2 26 ML 36 <50 5 15 L 5 15 M 3 6 R 3 Rw 3 30-60% 1 2 44 MH 37 <50 5 15 L 5 15 M 3 6 II,III 4 MC 3 30-60% 1 2 47 MH 38 <50 5 15 L 5 15 M 3 6 R 3 Rw 3 t 30-60% 1 2 44 MH Refer to Appendix 3 for Legends. Weight - 1 5 2 -Table 6.7 Shore Zone Hazards Calculation Table. Unit No. Beach Class (D* i f i c a t i o n C l i f f Height (D* Value Rating Habitat (1)* Rating ; Fi n a l Rating 1 Int. 4 <5m 5 9 L S 5 L L 2 R.Int. 5 <5m 5 10 L S,Rw 5 L L 3 I l l 1 6m 4 5 M S 5 L M 4 II 3 — 5 8 ML R,S 5 L ML 5 II 3 <5m 5 8 ML S 5 L ML 6 II 3 <5m 5 8 ML R.S/R 5 L ML 7a III,Int. 3 <5m 5 8 ML M 5 L ML -7b I 5 <5m 5 10 L SM.FM 1 H H 8 R 5 — 5 10 L R 5 L L 9 Int. 4 — 5 9 L M,MS 5 L L 10 I l l 1 <5m 5 6 M M 5 L M 11 R 5 — 5 10 L R 5 L L 12 III 1 <5m 5 6 M S 5 . L M 13 II 3 <5m 5 8 ML S,R 5 L ML 14 R 5 — 5 10 L R 5 L L 15 III 1 <5m 5 6 M MS 5 L M 16a, b III 1 <5m 5 6 M M,MF 5 L M 17a, b II,R 3 <6m 4 7 ML MF,R 5 L ML 18a, c III,Int. 1 <5m 5 6 M M 5 L M 18b I l l 1 <5m 5 5 M SM 1 H H 19 Int. 4 — 5 9 L MF 5 L L 20 III.R 3 <5m 5 8 ML MF,R 5 L ML 21 III.R 3 <5m 5 B ML MF,R 5 L ML 22 R 5 — 5 10 L R 5 L L 23 R 5 — 5 10 L R,MF 5 L L 24 Int. 4 — 5 9 L MF,R 5 L L 25 R.Int. 4 — 5 9 L Rw.MC 5 L L 26 Rw.III 4 — 5 9 L MC/R,Rw 5 L L 27 Int. 4 — 5 9 L MC/R,Rw 5 L L 28 Rw 5 — 5 10 L Rw,MC/R 5 L L 29 Rw.II 4 — 5 9 L S.MC/R 5 L L 30 II 3 — 5 8 ML S 5 L ML 31 II 3 — 5 8 ML S/R.MC/R 5 L ML 32 Rw 5 — 5 10 L Rw 5 L L 33 III 1 — 5 6 M MC 5 L M 34 Rw 5 — 5 10 L Rw 5 L L 35 Rw.III 4 — 5 9 L Rw.MC.K 5 L L 36 Rw 5 — 5 10 L Rw 5 L L 37 II.III 3 — 5 8 ML MC 5 L ML 38 Rw 5 5 10 .L Rw 5 L L Refer to Appendix 3 for Legends. * Weight - 153 -T a b l e 6 . 8 R e s o u r c e H a r v e s t i n g C a l c u l a t i o n T a b l e . U n i t N o . S u b s t r a t e ( 2 ) * ( H a b i t a t ) W a v e E n e r g y ( 3 ) * D i s t a n c e , t o 1 0 . 9 m ( t MHHT V a l u e R a t i n g 1 S 3 6 M 3 9 1 0 0 - 1 5 0 5 2 0 ' M 2 S . R u 3 6 M 3 9 1 0 0 - 1 5 0 5 2 0 M 3 S 3 6 M 3 9 1 0 0 - 1 5 0 5 2 0 M 4 R , S 2 4 M 3 9 5 0 - 1 0 0 3 1 6 M 5 S 3 6 M 3 9 5 0 - 1 0 0 3 1 8 M 6 «•! 2 4 M 3 9 < 5 0 2 1 5 ML 7 a M 2 4 ML 4 1 2 5 0 - 1 5 0 3 1 9 M 7 b S M . F M 1 2 ML 4 1 2 5 0 - 1 5 0 3 17 M a R 1 2 L 5 1 5 < 5 0 2 19 M 9 M . M S 3 6 L 5 1 5 1 5 0 - 2 0 0 5 2 6 H 1 0 M 2 4 L 5 1 5 1 5 0 - 2 0 0 5 24 MH 1 1 R 1 2 L 5 1 5 1 5 0 - 2 0 0 5 2 2 MH 12 S 3 6 L 5 1 5 > 2 0 0 5 2 6 H 13 S . R 3 6 L 5 1 5 > 2 0 0 5 2 6 H 14 R 1 2 L 5 1 5 > 2 0 0 5 2 2 MH 1 5 SM 1 2 L 5 1 5 > 2 0 0 5 2 2 MH 1 6 a , b M , M F 3 6 L 5 1 5 > 2 0 0 5 2 6 H ' 1 7 a , b M F , R 4 8 L 5 1 5 > 2 0 0 5 2 8 H 1 8 a , c M 2 4 V L 5 1 5 > 2 0 0 5 2 4 MH 1 8 b SM 1 2 V L 5 1 5 > 2 0 0 5 2 2 MH 19 MF 5 1 0 L 5 1 5 > 2 0 0 5 3 0 H 2 0 M F , R 4 8 L 5 1 5 > 2 0 0 5 2 8 H 2 1 M F , R 4 8 ML 4 1 2 > 2 0 0 5 2 5 MH 2 2 R . K 1 2 ML 4 1 2 5 0 - 2 0 0 2 1 6 M 23 R . M F 3 6 ML 4 12 1 5 0 - 2 0 0 5 2 3 MH 24 M F , R 4 8 ML 4 1 2 > 2 0 0 5 2 5 MH 2 5 R v . M C 3 6 ML 4 1 2 < 5 0 2 2 0 M 2 6 ! & o R w , — S ^ ' R w 3 6 M 3 9 < 5 0 2 17 M 27 2 8 3 2 6 4 M M 3 3 9 9 < 5 0 < 5 0 2 2 17 1 5 M ML 2 9 3 6 M 3 9 < 5 0 2 17 M 3 0 S 3 6 M 3 9 < 5 0 2 17 M 3 1 S / R w , M C / R w 3 6 M 3 9 < 5 0 2 17 M 3 2 Rw 2 4 M 3 9 < 5 0 2 1 5 ML 3 3 MC 4 8 M 3 9 5 0 - 1 0 0 3 2 0 M 34 Rw 2 4 M 3 9 < 5 0 2 1 5 ML 3 5 R w . M C . K 2 4 M 3 9 1 0 0 - 1 5 0 5 1 8 M 3 6 Rw 2 4 M 3 9 < 5 0 2 1 5 ML 37 MC 4 8 M 3 9 < 5 0 2 1 2 M 3 8 Rw 2 4 M 3 9 < 5 0 2 1 5 ML R e f e r t o A p p e n d i x 3 f o r L e g e n d s . * W e i g h t ' - . 1 5 4 -Table 6.9 Shore Zone Ecological Value Calculation Table. • I F i n a l Unit No. Habitat Productivit> (3)* [structural Defense (D* Scarcity/ Unique-ness (D* Recreation Features (D* W i l d l i f e S u i t a b i l i t y (2)* Value Rating Adjacent W i l d l i Populations (D* fe Rating Adjusted Rating 1 S 2 6 1 4 1 3 3 6 18 ML S h e l l f i s h 3 M M 2 S,Rw 2 6 1 3 1 3 3 6 17 ML Sh e l l f i s h 3 M M 3 S 2 6 l 4 w 5 3 3 6 22 M S h e l l f i s h 3 M M 4 R,S 2 6 1 2 1 3 3 6 16 ML Sh e l l f i s h 3 M M 5 S 2 6 l 4 1 3 3 6 18 ML Sh e l l f i s h 3 M M 6 R.S/R 2 6 1 1 1 3 3 6 15 ML S h e l l f i s h 3 M M 7a M 4 12 l 4 w 5 3 3 6 28 MH Birds 4 MH MH 7b SM,FM 5 15 5 5 w 5 3 3 6 36 H Birds 4 MH H 8 R 2 6 1 1 1 4 2 4 13 L None 1 L L 9 M,MS 4 12 1 4 1 2 4 8 26 M Spawning 5 H H 10 M 4 12 1 4 w 5 2 4 8 30 MH Spawning 5 H H 11 12 13 14 15 R S S,R R SM 2 2 2 2 5 6 6 6 6 15 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 3 1 5 w w 1 5 5 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 17 24 23 17 34 ML M M ML H Birds /Birds \Spawning (Birds (.Spawning Birds fBirds (.Clams 4 5 5 4 5 MH H H MH H MH H H MH H 16a,b M,MF 4 12 1 4 w-x 5 2 4 8 30 MH fBirds IClams 5 H H 17a,b 18a,c MF,R M 3 4 9 12 1 1 2 4 w 1 5 2 2 4 4 8 8 21 30 M MH Birds /Birds (Claras fBirds IClams 4 5 MH H MH H 18b SM 5 15 5 5 w 5 2 4 8 38 H 5 H H 19 MF 3 9 1 2 1 2 4 8 21 M /Birds \Clams 5 H H 20 MF,R 3 9 1 2 1 2 4 8 21 M Birds 4 MH MH 21 MF,R 3 9 1 2 1 2 4 3 21 M fBirds ISeals 5 H H 22 R,MF,K 3 9 1 3 1 2 4 8 22 M None 1 L M 23 - R,MF 3 .9 1. 1. 1 2 -4 8 -24. v-- t.M -None 1 L M -24 MF,R 3 9 1 2 1 2 4 R 21 M None 1. L M 25 fi 1 2 D-W 5 3 3 6 20 M Seals 5 H H 26 MC/R.Rw 1 3 1 2 D-W 5 3 3 6 17 ML Birds 4 MH MH 27 MC/R,Rw 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 6 13 L Birds 4 MH MH 28 Rw,MC/R 2 6 1 1 1 3 3 6 15 ML None 1 L ML 29 S.MC/R 2 6 1 3 1 3 3 6 17 ML None 1 L ML 30 S 2 6 1 4 1 3 3 6 18 ML None 1 L ML 31 S/Rw,MC/Rw 3 9 1 4 1 3 3 6 21 M None 1 L M 32 Rw 2 6 1 1 1 3 3 6 15 ML None 1 L ML 33 MC 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 6 13 L None 1 L L 34 Rw 2 6 1 1 1 3 3 6 15 ML None 1 L ML 35 Rw.MC.K 2 6 1 4 1 3 3 6 18 ML None 1 L ML 36 Rw 2 6 1 1 1 3 3 6 15 ML S h e l l f i s h 3 M M 37 MC 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 6 13 L S h e l l f i s h 3 M M 38 Rw 2 6 1 1 1 3 3 6 15 ML S h e l l f i s h 3 M M Refer to Appendix 3 for Legends. * Weight T a b l e 6 . 1 0 U p l a n d Z o n e E c o l o g i c a l V a l u e C a l c u l a t i o n T a b l e . U n i t N o . H a b i t a t P r o d u c t i v i t y (D* W i l d l i f e S u i t a b i l i t y (D* V a l u e R a t i n g H a b i t a t : U n i q u e n e s s / S c a r c i t y <D* R a t i n g F i n a l R a t i n g l a , b , c S 4 3 3 7 M S 1 L M 2 A 3 3 3 6 M A 3 M M 3 P 5 3 3 8 MH P 3 M MH 4 A 3 3 3 6 M A 3 M M 5 P 5 3 3 8 MH P 3 M MH 6 A 3 3 3 6 M A 3 M M 7 a , b A 3 3 3 6 M A 3 M M 8 A 3 3 3 6 M A 3 M M 9 a , b , c S 4 3 3 7 M S 1 L M 1 0 A 3 3 3 6 M A 3 M M 1 1 A 3 3 3 6 M A 3 M M 12 A 3 2 / 3 4 7 M A 3 M M 1 3 A 3 3 3 6 M A 3 M - M 1 4 a , b S 4 2 4 8 MH S 1 L MH 1 5 S 4 3 3 7 M S 1 L M 1 6 S 4 3 3 7 M S 1 L M 17 P - S 4 3 3 7 M P - S 2 ML M 1 8 a P - S 4 2 4 8 MH P - S 2 ML MH 1 8 b , c P - S 4 4 2 6 M P - S 2 ML M 1 9 A 3 2 4 . 7 M A 3 M M 2 0 S 4 4 / 2 2 6 M S 1 L M 2 1 s 4 4 2 6 M S 1 L M 2 2 A 3 4 2 5 ML A" 3 ' H" ~Tf 2 3 A 3 4 2 5 ML A 3 M M 24 P 5 5 1 6 M P 3 M M 2 5 a , b P - S 4 5 / 4 1 5 ML P - S 2 ML ML R e f e r t o A p p e n d i x 3 f o r L e g e n d s . * W e i g h t T a b l e 6 . 1 1 T o l e r a n c e t o U s e : U p l a n d R e c r e a t i o n C a l c u l a t i o n T a b l e . U n i t N o T e x t u r e ( 3 ) * X B e d r o c k / D e p t h ( 2 ) * H y d r o l o g i c S i g n i f i c a n c e ( 3 ) * T o p o g r a p h y ( 2 ) * P l a n t C o m m u n i t y (D* W i l d l i f e S u i t a b i l i t y ( 1 ) * V a l u e R a t i n g R e v i s e d R a t i n g l a . b . c c o a r s e 5 1 5 <40% 3 6 6 b 5 1 5 3 3 6 s 5 3 3 5 0 MH H 2 c o a r s e 5 1 5 < 1 0 c m 1 2 1 2 6 3 3 6 A 1 3 3 3 3 M M 3 c o a r s e 5 1 5 <403l 3 6 6b 5 1 5 3 3 6 P 4 3 3 4 9 MH H 4 c o a r s e 5 1 5 < 4 0 Z 3 6 6b 5 1 5 3 3 6 A 1 3 3 4 6 MH MH 5 c o a r s e 5 1 5 < 4 0 I 3 6 6 b 5 1 5 3 3 6 P 4 3 3 4 9 MH H 6 c o a r s e 5 1 5 < 4 0 Z 3 6 6 b 5 1 5 2 4 8 A 1 3 3 4 8 MH MH 7 a , b c o a r s e 5 1 5 < 4 0 2 3 6 6 b 5 1 5 2 4 8 A 1 3 3 4 8 MH MH 8 c l a y 1 3 > l m 5 1 0 6 a 4 1 2 2 4 8 A 1 3 3 37 M M 9 a , b , c c l a y 1 3 > l m 5 1 0 6 a 4 1 2 2 4 8 s 5 3 3 4 1 M MH 1 0 c l a y 1 3 > l m 5 1 0 6 a 4 1 2 3 3 6 A 1 3 3 3 5 M M 11 c o a r s e 5 1 5 < 1 0 c m 1 2 1 2 6 3 3 6 A 1 3 3 3 3 M M 12 c o a r s e 5 1 5 < 1 0 c m 1 2 1 2 6 3 3 6 A 1 2 / 3 2 3 2 M M L 1 3 c o a r s e 5 1 5 < 1 0 c m 1 2 1 2 6 2 4 8 A 1 3 3 3 5 M M 1 4 a 1 4 b c l a y c l a y l o a m c l a y c l a y l o a m 2 2 6 6 > l m > l m 5 1 0 1 0 5 5 1 1 3 3 2 1 4 5 8 1 5 s S 5 5 2 2 2 2 34 4 1 M M M MH 1 5 c l a y 1 3 > l m 1 0 6 a 4 1 2 2 4 8 S 5 3 3 4 1 M MH 1 6 c l a y 1 3 > l m 1 0 6 a 4 1 2 2 4 8 S 5 3 3 4 1 M MH 17 c l a y 1 3 > l m 1 0 6 a 4 1 2 1 5 1 0 P - S 5 3 3 4 3 MH MH 1 8 a 1 8 b c l a y c l a v l o a m c l a y c l a y l o a m 2 2 6 6 > l m > l m 1 0 1 0 5 5 1 1 3 3 1 1 5 5 1 0 1 0 P - S P - S 5 5 . 2 4 4 2 3 8 3 6 M M M M 1 9 2 0 2 1 c l a y c l a y l o a m c l a y l o a m c l a y l o a m 2 2 2 6 6 6 > l m > l m > l m 1 0 1 0 1 0 6 a 5 5 4 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 A S S 1 5 5 2 4 / 2 4 2 4 4 4 1 3 8 3 8 M M M MH M M 2 2 c l a y c l a v l o a m 2 6 > l m 1 0 5 1 3 1 5 1 0 A 1 4 4 34 M M 2 3 c l a V c l a y l o a m 2 6 > l m 1 0 5 1 3 1 5 1 0 A 1 4 4 3 4 M M 2 4 c l a y c l a y l o a m 2 6 > l m 1 0 5 1 3 1 5 1 0 P 4 5 5 3 8 M M 2 5 a , b c l a y c l a y l o a m 2 6 > l m 1 0 5 1 3 1 5 1 0 P - S 5 5 / 4 • 5 3 9 M M R e f e r t o A p p e n d i x 3 f o r L e g e n d s . * W e i g h t -157-Table 6.12 Tolerance to Use: Shore Zone Recreation Calculation Table. Unit No. Habitat C l i f f Height/Slope Intensity of Use W i l d l i f e Populations Value Rating (2)* ( D * ( D * (2)* 1 S 4 6 <5m 5 N 3 S h e l l f i s h 3 6 20 ,M 2 S.Rw 4 8 <5m 5 N 3 S h e l l f i s h 3 6 22 MH 3 s 4 8 6m 4 N 3 S h e l l f i s h 3 6 21 MH A R,S 5 10 <5% 5 N 3 S h e l l f i s h 3 6 2A MH 5 S 4 8 <5m 5 N 3 S h e l l f i s h 3 6 22 MH 6 5 10 <5m 5 N 3 S h e l l f i s h 3 6 2A MH 7a M 3 6 <5m 5 N 3 Birds 2 4 17 M 7b SM.FM 1 2 <5m 5 N 3 Birds 2 4 1A ML 8 R 5 10 15-30% 3 M 2 None 5 10 25 MH 9 M,MS 3 6 <5m 5 M 2 Spawning 1 2 15 ML 10 M 3 6 <5m 5 W 1 Spawning 1 2 1A ML 11 R 5 10 15% 4 M 2 Birds 2 4 20 M 12 S 4 8 <5tn 5 W 1 /Birds \Spawning 1 2 16 M 13 S,R 4 8 <5m 5 W 1 / B i r d s \Spawning 1 2 16 M 14 R 5 10 9-15% 4 M 2 Birds 2 4 20 M 15 SM 1 2 <5m 5 M 2 (Birds I S h e l l f i s h fBirds I S h e l l f i s h 1 2 11 ML 16a,b M,MF 3 6 <5m • 5 M 2 1 2 15 ML 17a,b MF,R 3 6 <6m 4 M 2 Birds 2 4 16 . M 18a, c M 3 6 <5m 5 W 1 / B i r d s "iShellf ish f B i r d s I S h e l l f i s h 1 2 1A ML 18b SM 1 2 <5m 5 N 3 1 2 12 ML .19.. MF -3 .6 5^9%. 4. M. 2. f B i r d s tShelTf isTT •1. 2_ 14.. . ... ML. 20 MF,R 3 6 <5m 5 M 2 Birds 2 4 17 M 21 MF,R 3 6 <5m 5 M ?. ("Birds L S e a l s 1 2 15 ML 22 R.Kelp 3 6 15-30% 3 M 2 None 5 10 21 MH 23 R,MF 4 8 15-30% 3 M 2 None 5 10 23 MH 24 MF,R 4 8 5-20% 3 U 5 None 5 10 26 H 25 Rw,MC 5 10 30-60% 1 M 2 Seals 1 2 15 ML 26 MC „ I T ' 5 10 5-20% 3 M 2 Birds 2 4 19 M 27 MC ) R w 5 10 5-9% 4 Z 5 Birds 2 A 23 MH 28 R"'~R 5 10 30-60% 1 N 3 None 5 10 2A MH 29 S.MC/R 4 8 30-50% 2 N 3 None 5 10 23 MH 30 S 4 8 15-A0% 2 K 3 None 5 10 23 MH 31 S/R.MC/R 2 4 15-40% 2 N 3 None 5 10 19 M 32 Rw 5 10 9-15% 4 N 3 None 5 10 27 H 33 MC 2 4 30-60% 2 N 3 None 5 10 19 M 34 Rw 5 10 30-60% 2 N 3 None 5 10 25 MH 35 Rw,MC,K 3 6 30-60% 2 N,M 3 None 5 10 21 MH 36 Rw 5 10 30-60% 2 N 3 S h e l l f i s h 3 6 21 MH 37 MC 2 4 30-60% 2 N 3 S h e l l f i s h 3 6 15 ML 38 Rw 5 10 30-60% 2 N 3 S h e l l f i s h 3 6 21 MH Refer to Appendix 3 for Legends. * Weight T a b l e 6 . 1 3 T o l e r a n c e t o U s e : R e s i d e n t i a l C a l c u l a t i o n T a b l e . U n i t N o . T o l e r a n c e t o ( 1 ) R e c r e a t i o n ^ * S u r f a c e ( 1 ) E r o s i o n * L i m i t a t i o n s S e p t i c T a n k s ( D * P o n d i n g 6, ( 1 ) F l o o d i n g * V a l u e R a t i n g l a , b , c MH 4 M l 3 S 5 1 M l 3 1 1 ML 2 M 3 S 5 S I 1 S 5 1 4 M 3 M i l 4 M l 3 S 5 1 M l 3 1 1 M L 4 MH 4 M l 3 S 5 1 M l 3 1 1 ML 5 MH 4 M l 3 S 5 1 M l 3 1 1 M L 6 MH 4 M l 3 S 5 1 M l 3 11 M L 7 a , b MH 4 M l 3 S 4 1 M l 3 11 M L 8 M 3 S 5 S 4 1 M2 3 1 2 M 9 a , b , c M 3 S 5 S 4 1 M2 3 1 2 M 1 0 M 3 S 5 S4 1 M2 3 1 2 M 11 M 3 S 5 S I 1 S 5 1 4 M 1 2 M 3 S 5 S I 1 S 5 14 M 1 3 M 3 S 5 S I 1 s 5 14 M 1 4 a M 3 S 5 S 4 1 H2 1 1 0 M L 1 4 b M 3 S 5 S 4 1 H2 1 1 0 ML 1 5 M 3 H I 1 S 4 1 M2 3 8 L 1 6 M 3 M2 3 S 4 1 M2 3 1 0 M L 17 MH 4 M2 3 S 4 1 M2 3 1 1 M L 1 8 a , b , c M 3 M2 3 S 4 1 H2 1 8 L 1 9 M 3 M2 3 S 4 1 H2 1 8 L 2 0 M 3 M2 3 S 4 1 H 2 1 8 _ _ I. 2 1 M 3 M2 3 S I 1 H2 . 1 8 L 2 2 M 3 M2 3 S 4 1 H 2 1 8 L 2 3 M 3 M2 3 S I 1 H 2 1 8 L 2 4 M 3 M2 3 S 4 1 H 2 1 8 L 2 5 a , b M 3 M2 3 S4 1 H2 1 8 L R e f e r t o A p p e n d i x 3 f o r L e g e n d s . * W e i g h t + U n r e v i s e d r a t i n g ( s e e T a b l e 6 . 1 1 ) -159-Table 6.14 Tolerance to Use: Shore Zone A c t i v i t i e s Calculation Table. Unit No. Tolerance (2)* to Rec n. Habitat (2)* Wave Energy (D* 1 M 3 6 S 3 6 M 3 2 MH 4 8 S.Rw 4 8 M 3 3 MH 4 8 S 3 6 M 3 4 MH 4 8 R.S 5 10 M 3 5 MH 4 8 S 3 6 M 3 6 MH 4 8 5 10 M 3 7a M 3 6 M 3 6 ML 2 7b ML 2 4 SM.FM 1 2 ML 2 8 MH 4 8 R 5 10 L 1 9 ML 2 4 M,MS 3 6 L 1 10 ML 2 4 M 3 6 L 1 11 M 3 6 R 5 10 L 1 12 M 3 6 - S 3 6 L 1 13 M 3 6 S,R 4 8 L 1 14 M 3 6 R 5 10 L 1 15 ML 2 • 4 SM 1 2 L 1 16a,b ML 2 4 M,MF 3 6 L 1 17a,b M 3 / 6 MF,R 3 6 L 1 18a,c ML 2 4 M 3 6 VL 0 18b ML 2 4 SM 1 2 VL 0 1 Q ML ? 4 m 3 . 6 L . 1 1 3 20 M 3 6 MF,R 3 6 L 1 21 ML 2 4 MF.R 3 6 ML 1 22 MH 4 8 R,MF,K 3 6 ML 1 23 MH 4 8 R,MF 5 10 ML 1 24 H 5 10 MF,R 4 8 ML 1 25 ML 2 4 Rw.MC 5 10 ML 1 26 M 3 6 R ' 4 8 M 3 27 MH 4 8 MC/R,Rw 4 8 M 3 28 MH 4 8 i' R 5 10 M 3 29 MH 4 8 3 6 M 3 tn MH 4 8 S 3 6 M 3 31 M 3 6 S/R.MC/R 3 6 M 3 32 H 5 10 Rw 5 10 M 3 33 , M 3 6 MC 3 6 M 3 34 MH 4 8 Rw 3 6 M 3 35 MH 4 8 Rw.MC.K 3 6 M 3 36 MH 4 8 Rw 5 10 M 3 37 ML 2 4 MC 3 6 M 3 38 MH 4 8 Rw 5 10 M 3 Value 15 19 17 16 17 21 14 8 19 11 11 17 13 15 17 7 11 13 10 6 — I l -l s 11 15 19 19 15 17 19 21 17 17 15 23 15 17 17 21 13 21 Refer to Appendix 3 for Legends. * Weight - 160 -CHAPTER SEVEN. DISCUSSION. I. SUMMARY OF APPROACH The development of a regional coastal, land use planning approach was guided by a l i t e r a t u r e review of coastal zone management programs and landscape analyses. A major conclusion was that an e f f e c t i v e s a f e - f a i l approach must s t a r t by analyzing the supply of natural coastal resources..The recommendations below follow from the supply o r i e n t a t i o n : 1. The e n t i r e c o a s t a l zone should be c l a s s i f i e d into management units, with associated c r i t e r i a and guidelines, within which p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s are encouraged or discouraged. 2. The c r i t e r i a f o r the management units should be based on biop h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , land use fa c t o r s , and fu n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the uses i n the d i f f e r e n t u n i t s . 3. A landscape analysis approach should evaluate the biophysical features and processes for two purposes; attractiveness to a s p e c i f i c use, and v u l n e r a b i l i t y to the use. Tradeoffs between attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y form the concepts of the d i f f e r e n t management un i t s . 4. V u l n e r a b i l i t y consists of two parts - e c o l o g i c a l value and tolerance to d i f f e r e n t uses - which should be considered separately. 5. A l i n e a r combination technique, with some rules of combination, should be u t i l i z e d f o r the landscape a n a l y s i s . The technique sums the weighted values of relevant f a c t o r s , and divides the p o t e n t i a l range of summed values into high, moderately high, moderate, moderately low and low evaluations. - 161 -6. The evaluation should be t i e d to homogeneous biophysical land and water units which have land use factors associated with them. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the co a s t a l zone should extend from approximately 500 m inland to the 10.9 m (6 fathoms) depth below datum and be divided into upland and shore zones, where shore includes from 10.9 m up to and including backshore and intergrade habitats. The boundary should be s u f f i c i e n t l y f l e x i b l e to include a l l areas the uses of which a f f e c t or are affected by the shore zone. The management c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , the resource c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and the landscape a n a l y s i s method were tested i n a section of the Saanich Peninsula, i n south western B r i t i s h Columbia. The case study served as a p r a c t i c a l s t a r t i n g point f or developing the attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y models, as well as to h i g h l i g h t the problems and advantages of the analysis method, and the p o t e n t i a l uses of the o v e r a l l land use planning approach. I I . DISCUSSION OF THE APPROACH The approach, taken as a whole, can f u l f i l l a need for resource analysis and management guidelines for the co a s t a l zone. The l e v e l of analysis of the l i n e a r combinations technique was s u f f i c i e n t to i d e n t i f y s i g n i f i c a n t e c o l o g i c a l areas and areas with p o t e n t i a l for d i f f e r e n t uses i n the case study area. The method i s d i r e c t , simple, and models can be expanded or updated as more information becomes a v a i l a b l e . - 162 -There are both problems and advantages to the method which should be recognized: i ) The f i r s t problem i s the question of value judgements, made on behalf of the community by the analyst. An important assumption made by the analyst i s that the Regional D i s t r i c t and communities place a value on economic growth^ the management of e c o l o g i c a l systems, and the constraints they place upon each other. However, the attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y models i d e n t i f y areas which are important from both perspectives: areas which are p o t e n t i a l l y developable for economic reasons, as well as those which are s i g n i f i c a n t for e c o l o g i c a l reasons. Also, the f i n a l management c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the homogeneous un i t s i s based on the attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y information, the demand for resources, and the tradeoffs the community i s w i l l i n g to make between economic and e c o l o g i c a l values. Although the assumption i s important, i t i s acknowledged that t h i s phase i s a n a l y t i c a l and that the decisions w i l l u l t i m a t e l y r e s t with the p o l i t i c i a n s and community leaders. It i s also acknowledged that the attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y models are not i n themselves free of judgements. Value judgements are not a problem that can be avoided; they should, however, be e x p l i c i t . Concensus between planners, analysts, and c i t i z e n s can be achieved when value judgements are c l e a r l y recognized. However, omitting - 1 6 3 -land use f a c t o r s reduces the number of value judgements and review by experts can correct or improve the assumptions on the behaviour of ecosystems and processes, i i ) A second set of problems follow from the s e l e c t i o n of a l i n e a r combination method for the landscape a n a l y s i s . The dependence of factors i s not known, nor i s the r e l a t i v e importance of the f a c t o r s , as r e f l e c t e d i n the weighting scheme. Also, the method cannot account for the s i t u a t i o n i n which one overriding factor determines the r a t i n g regardless of the other f a c t o r s . These v a r i a b l e s , working together, can either hide or exaggerate the values of a homogeneous u n i t . These problems can be minimized i n several ways. F i r s t , have experts review the models to comment on known dependencies. This w i l l aid i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the model r e s u l t s . Rules of combination can be developed i n cases where dependence -is known. Secondly, resort to a r u l e of combination i f one overriding factor i s known. T h i r d l y , keep the mddels as simple as possible to reduce the chance of dependency. Use f a c t u a l information, rather than int e r p r e t a t i o n s of f a c t s , wherever possible. An i l l u s t r a t i o n of the type of problem which may be encountered i s the hazards model. Two types of hazards were considered: f a i l u r e of shoreline c l i f f s and flooding. Because v u l n e r a b i l i t y to flooding i s a function of c l i f f - 164 -height these hazards are not independent. The sol u t i o n , i n t h i s case, was to rate hazards from f a i l u r e and flooding separately, and then se l e c t the'highest hazard of the two f o r the f i n a l r a t i n g . Local planning guidelines would depend on which hazard was present. Here again, the problems cannot be t o t a l l y avoided. The important point i s that the analyst must be aware of the p o t e n t i a l biases i n the a n a l y s i s , and account for them wherever they are known, i i i ) There are several advantages associated with a simple method. F i r s t l y , i t can be understood and reviewed by planners, p o l i t i c i a n s and c i t i z e n s . Secondly, i t minimizes the number of i m p l i c i t value judgements. T h i r d l y , i t can be c a r r i e d out by personnel within a Regional D i s t r i c t . There i s no dependence on computers or computer personnel, although future computerization of the method i s possible, iv) Another advantage to the method i s that models can be adapted to f i t the a v a i l a b l e data. The discussion preceding each model indicates the relevant f a c t o r s ; the s p e c i f i c data used can be selected from the a v a i l a b l e sources. The models can be improved and expanded at a l a t e r date when data inventories are completed, and the management program i s being r e f i n e d for the l o c a l l e v e l . Most importantly, the models can roughly point out areas of - 165 -importance even i f data i s incomplete, suggest areas for further study, and i d e n t i f y data gaps. Another factor that became evident during the course of the thesis was the d i f f i c u l t y of developing guidelines without reference to s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s , as was recommended when the management unit approach was selected. In f a c t , a c t i v i t i e s are considered both i n the models and the guidelines. The a c t i v i t i e s or uses i n the models were purposefully defined broadly f o r t h i s reason. S p e c i f i c uses were mentioned i n the guidelines, because some uses which are already present cause known problems. F a i l u r e to in d i c a t e ways of a l l e v i a t i n g these problems was considered an important omission, therefore the guidelines present general performance c r i t e r i a which apply to a l l uses as w e l l as guidelines for s p e c i f i c uses. This factor points out that the d i v i s i o n s between the management approaches discussed i n Chapter 2 can be considered somewhat a r b i t r a r y . This does not negate the conclusion that management should focus on resource supply, but emphasizes that regulation of uses may also be required, and that the 'best' approach may be a combination or overlay designed to f i t the p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . I I I . APPLICATION The attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y models can be u t i l i z e d i n several ways: i) to i d e n t i f y the 'best' s i t e s f o r a given land use i n demand, - 166 -i i ) to i d e n t i f y the p o t e n t i a l of an area for a p a r t i c u l a r use, regardless of the demand for the use, i i i ) to i d e n t i f y areas most susceptible to environment impact, which therefore should be avoided for c e r t a i n projects, iv) preliminary survey to l i m i t the number of s i t e s included i n an environmental impact study, v) be u t i l i z e d at the l o c a l l e v e l , by expanding the models, mapping homogeneous units i n greater d e t a i l , or building new models for s p e c i f i c uses. The resource c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme, with i t s genetic basis and h i e r a r c h i c a l structure, was designed so that the mapping unit boundaries need not be modified i f more models were desired, but could be subdivided i f more d e t a i l were required. On the other hand, the management u n i t s : i ) provide a guide within which l o c a l planning can proceed, while s t i l l conforming to the Regional D i s t r i c t goals by following the guidelines, i i ) can point out p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s between the present development trends and the goals for e c o l o g i c a l management, and suggest zoning modifications. The method i s perhaps the most useful i n areas which are minimally developed, because of the overriding r o l e played by present land use i n a l l o c a t i n g the homogeneous un i t s . For example, many units i n the study areas were unattractive and/or s e n s i t i v e to r e s i d e n t i a l use. Because r e s i d e n t i a l use already existed, they were all o c a t e d to Developable - 167 -with L i m i t a t i o n s , rather than to Conservancy. Location of marinas i n valuable e c o l o g i c a l areas i s another example. Employing the approach before development could prevent these s i t u a t i o n s , both by d i r e c t i n g the uses to s u i t a b l e areas and r e s t r i c t i n g the uses i n unsuitable areas. IV. FUTURE STUDY There are numerous areas i n which the approach i n t h i s study can be expanded. As mentioned previously, more de t a i l e d models can be developed for l o c a l area planning. The models and management units developed herein were directed to the case study area, therefore other models may be needed i n d i f f e r e n t areas. Forestry i s not a land use i n the study area, therefore guidelines for f o r e s t r y and f o r e s t r y related uses ( i . e . log booming) are required for other coastal areas i n which fo r e s t r y i s a major use. No models were directed towards assessing valuable natural e c o l o g i c a l areas for salmonids i n streams, or the p o t e n t i a l for salmon enhancement projects, because there were no major streams i n the case study area. The models and management units would also require refinement for large estuarine areas, which would be c l a s s i f i e d as C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Areas with the models herein. Further thought should be given to i d e n t i f y i n g areas of high s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to a i r p o l l u t i o n , as well as areas which were once of e c o l o g i c a l value, have been severely altered by man's use, but have p o t e n t i a l f or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n or improvement. For example, much of Tsehum Harbour would have p o t e n t i a l for resource harvesting, i f i t were not for the poor water q u a l i t y and consequent r e s t r i c t i o n s on s h e l l f i s h i n g . Enhancement of the Harbour and surrounding lands for waterfowl i s another option. - 168 -The f i n a l , most obvious, need for further study i s for inventory and research. Information gaps include: subsurface materials, water qu a l i t y , the rates of shoreline processes, t i d a l f l u s h i n g rates, ecosystem p r o d u c t i v i t i e s and in t e r a c t i o n s , and the impact of man's a c t i v i t i e s on processes and systems. Some of the inventory data i s presently being c o l l e c t e d f o r the study area by several agencies i n conjunction with the CRD (Donnelly, per. comm.). The next steps i n the planning process are to achieve concensus on the approach from the public and government agencies, to implement a regional plan, and f i n a l l y to r e f i n e and apply the management unit concepts and guidelines at the l o c a l planning l e v e l . In summary, following the process w i l l r e s u l t i n a land use plan, based heavily on resource supply, which w i l l both provide d i r e c t i o n for future development and manage the coastal ecosystems. V. CONCLUSION The thesis develops and applies, i n a case study, an approach for managing the coastal zone. The importance of resource supply for a s a f e - f a i l approach i s stressed. Supply i s analyzed by the attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y models of a landscape a n a l y s i s . The evaluations are u t i l i z e d as c r i t e r i a for management units which encourage or discourage d i f f e r e n t uses through management guidelines. In the case study the method e f f e c t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d areas of concern from environmental (or conservationist) and development oriented viewpoints, based on biophysical features and processes. The management un i t s , which consider biophysical and land use f a c t o r s , and t h e i r guidelines are an advisory a id to - 169 -d e c i s i o n makers f o r accommodating both view p o i n t s . - 170 -REFERENCES American Law I n s t i t u t e . 1975. A model land development code: proposed o f f i c i a l d r a f t , complete text and commentary. Executive O f f i c e , P h i l a d e l p h i a . 524pp. Amir, Shaul. 1976. Local environmental s e n s i t i v i t y analysis (LESA): a program to improve the preparation of environmental impact statements. Landscape Planning 2:229-241. Armstrong, J . , H. B i s e l l , R. Davenport, J. Goodman, and M. Hershman. 1974. Coastal zone management: the process of program development. Coastal Zone Management I n s t i t u t e . Sandwich. 176pp. Barton, Aschman Associates Ltd. 1973. Frameworks for .state and regional land use and environmental planning. AIP Confir - i n 73. Paper No. 119. 17pp. Bauer, Wolfe. 1976. Shore-resource inventory and analysis. Pages 1-48 i n C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t , Marine shore resource inventory and a n a l y s i s : Western Community component. C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t , V i c t o r i a , B.C. Bauer, Wolfe. 1977. Vancouver Island South East coast shore resources. C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t , V i c t o r i a , B.C. B e l l , L.M. and R.J. Kallman. 1976a. The Cowichan-Chemainus River Estuaries - status of environmental knowledge to 1975. Can. Dept. Env. Special Estuary Series No. 4. 328pp. . 1976b. The Nanaimo River Estuary status of environmental knowledge to 1976. Can. Dept. Env. Special Estuary Series No. 5. 298pp. Ben, D.R. and A. McLean. 1976. Lower Mainland natural areas inventory. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t , Vancouver, B.C. 18pp. Block, John and V a l e r i e Hignett. 1976. Recreation c a p a b i l i t y inventory. Resource Analysis Unit, Environment and Land Use Committee Secre t a r i a t . 82pp. Bloom, A.L. 1978. Geomorphology: A systematic analysis of l a t e Cenozoic landforms. P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , N.J. 510pp. - 171 -Bosselman, Fred and David C a l l i e s . 1972. The quiet r e v o l u t i o n i n land use c o n t r o l . Council on Environmental Quality. Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. P r i n t . Off. 327pp. Burns, T. 1976. A d e s c r i p t i o n of the Western Community coastal system: i t s basic biology and management suggestions. Pages 1-43 ixi C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t , Marine shore resource inventory and a n a l y s i s . Western Community component. C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t , V i c t o r i a , B.C. Canadian F i s h e r i e s Management Agencies. 1978. F i s h habitat i n shore zones. Can. Council of Res. and Env. M i n i s t e r s , Shore Management Symp., Oct. 4-5, 1978, V i c t o r i a , B.C. Canada Land Inventory. 1969. Land c a p a b i l i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f o r outdoor recreation. Dept. Reg. Econ. Exp. Rep. No. 6. Ottawa. 18pp. Canada Land Inventory. 1972. S o i l c a p a b i l i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n for a g r i c u l t u r e . Lands Directorate, Env. Can., Rep. No. 2. Information Canada, 16pp. Canada S o i l Survey Committee, Subcommittee on S o i l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 1978. The Canadian system of s o i l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Can. Dept. Agric. Publ. 1646, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa. 164pp. Ca p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t . 1975. O f f i c i a l regional plan, V i c t o r i a Metropolitan area. Cap. Reg. D i s t . , V i c t o r i a , B.C. 25pp. . Coastal Zone A t l a s . Unpublished. V i c t o r i a , B.C. 1976. Coastal Study Terms of Reference. Unpublished. V i c t o r i a , B.C. 1977. Coastal management: the marine shorelands of the C a p i t a l Region. Cap. Reg. Dist. Plan.Dept. 12pp. Chubb, Michael, and Peter Ashton. 1969. Park and re c r e a t i o n standards research: the creation of environmental q u a l i t y controls for recreation. Nat. Recr. and Park Ass. Tech. Rep. No. 5. 76pp plus appendices. Clark, J.R. 1977. Coastal ecosystem management: a te c h n i c a l manual for the conservation of coastal zone resources. Wiley, New York. 928pp. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Dept. of Environmental Quality, D i v i s i o n of Wetlands. 1978. A guide to the Coastal Wetlands Regulations of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (G.L. 131, s.40). (Funded by Off. of Coastal Zone Mgt, N.O.A.A., U.S. Dept. of Comm.) 158pp. - 172 -Council of State Governments. 1975. Land:state a l t e r n a t i v e s for planning and management: a task force report. Council of State Governments, Lexington, Ky. 100pp. Dales, J.H. 1968. P o l l u t i o n property and p r i c e s . Univ. of Toronto Press, pp.77-100. Day, J.H., L. Farstad, and D.G. L a i r d . 1959. S o i l survey of S.E. Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands, B r i t i s h Columbia. Can. Dept. of Agric. Res. Br., B.C. S o i l Survey Rep. No. 6. D i s t r i c t of North Saanich. 1977. O f f i c i a l community plan, By-law 247. D i s t r i c t of North Saanich, B.C. 67pp. Ditton, R.B., J.L. Seymour and G.C. Swanson. 1977. Coastal resources management beyond bureaucracy and the market. Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass. 196pp. Eekman, G.C.D. 1975. Foreshore categorization and zoning within the coastal zone. Preliminary. Unpublished. Islands Trust, V i c t o r i a , B.C. 7pp. E i s , S., D. C r a i g d a l l i e and E. Oswald. 1976. Western Community: a landscape analysis for urban development. Pac. For. Res. Cen., Can. For. Ser., Fish, and Env. Can. 47pp. Environment and Land Use Committee Se c r e t a r i a t . 1976. T e r r a i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system. V i c t o r i a , B.C. 56pp. Fi s h e r i e s Act. R.S.C. 1970. c.F-14. As amended by R.S.C., 1970, c.17 (1st suppl.). Statutes of Canada 1974-75 c.48, 1976-77 c.35. F r a l i c k , J.E. and D.L. Tillapaugh. Westwater Information Report No. 3. In press. Fraser River Estuary Study Steering Committee. 1978. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l and l e g i s l a t i v e frameworks. Fraser River Estuary Study, j o i n t l y i n i t i a t e d by governments of B.C. and Can. (prepared by M.W. Dunn, Lands Directorate, Env. Mgt. Ser., Fish.and Env. Can.) V i c t o r i a , B.C. 40pp. Godschalk, D.R., F.H. Parker and T.R. Knoche. 1974. Carrying capacity: a basis for c o a s t a l planning? Univ. of N. C. Dept. of C i t y and Reg. Plan., Chapel H i l l . 146pp. plus appendices. Heikoff, J.M. 1977. Coastal resources management i n s t i t u t i o n s and programs. Ann Arbor Science Publisher Inc. 287pp. H i l l s , G.A., D.V. Love and D.S. Lacate. 1970. Developing a better environment: e c o l o g i c a l land use planning i n Ontario. Ont. Econ. Council. 175pp. - 173 -H i l l s , G.A. 1961. The e c o l o g i c a l basis for land-use planning. Ont. Dept. of Lands and For. Res. Br. Res. Rep. No. 6. 204pp. Holland, S.S. 1976. Landforms of B r i t i s h Columbia: a physiographic o u t l i n e . B.C. Dept. of Mines and Petroleum Resources, B u l l . 48. 138pp. Hoos, L.M. and G.A. Packman. 1974. The Fraser River Estuary: status of knowledge to 1974. Can. Dept. of Env. Special Estuary Series No. 1. 518pp. Hopkins, L.D. 1977. Methods for generating land s u i t a b i l i t y maps: a comparative evaluation. J . Am. Inst. Plan. 43(4): 386-400. Humphries, M. 1976. The production and marketing of tray-cultured r a f t oysters i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Can. Dept. of Env. and B.C. Dept. of Recr. and Travel Industry. F i s h . Ser. Br. Tech. Rep. Series No. 90. 60pp. Humphries, M. and A. Humphries. 1978. Studies to improve the p r o d u c t i v i t y of tray-cultured oysters i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Fish, and Marine Ser. Industry Rep. No. 103. 41pp. Jaakson, Reiner, M. Des Buszynski and D. Botting. 1976. Carrying capacity and lake recreation planning. Town Planning Review Quarterly 47(4): 359-373. Johnston, D.M., A.P. Pross and I. McDougall. 1975. Coastal zone: framework for management i n A t l a n t i c Canada. Inst, of Public A f f a i r s , Dalhousie Univ., Halifax, Canada. 199pp. Koppen, W.P. see E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n s of climate c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n B l a i r , T.A. 1942. Climatology, general and r e g i o n a l . P r e n t i c - H a l l Inc., New York. pp.123-126 or In C r u t c h f i e l d , H.J. 1960. General climatology. P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , N.J. pp.168-170. Krajina, V.J. and R.C. Brooke. 1969/1970. Ecology of Western North America. Dept. of Botany, Univ. of B.C., Vancouver, B.C. Vo l . 2, No. 1, 2. 349pp. Krajina, V.J. 1973b. Biogeoclimatic zones of B r i t i s h Columbia. Dept. of Lands, For., and Water Res., B.C. (map). Lacate, D.S. 1969. Guidelines f o r biophysical land c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Can. For. Ser., Dept. of F i s h , and For. Publ. No. 1264. Ottawa. 61pp. Langford, R.W. and Ted Burns. 1977. Lake and stream inventory of the C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t . Prepared by Aqua Science Consulting, pp. 51-54. - 174 -Leet, L.D. and S. Judson. 1971. Physical geology, 4th ed. Prentice-H a l l Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , N.J. 687pp. Lime, D.W. 1977. P r i n c i p l e s of recreation carrying capacity Pages 122-134 i n Proc. South. States Recr. Res. Applications Workshop. S.E. For. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-9, A s h e v i l l e , N.C. Ly l e , J . and M. von Wodtke. 1974. An information system for environmental planning. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 40(6): 394-413. Mabbut, J.A. 1968. Review of concepts of land c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Pages 11-28 jLn G.A. Stewart, ed., Land evaluation. MacMillan Co. of A u s t r a l i a . South Melbourne, V i c t o r i a . Maynard, D. Unpublished. Resource Analysis Branch, B.C. Dept. of Env. 1979. McHarg, Ian. 1971. Design with nature. Doubleday/Natural History Press. Doubleday and Co. Inc., Garden C i t y , N.Y. 198pp. McMinn, R.G., S. E i s , H.E. Hirvonen, E.T. Oswald and J.P. Senyk. 1976. Pac. For. Res. Cen., Can. For. Ser., Dept. of Env. (unnumbered pages). Meyer, P.A. and M.C. Harrison. 1976. Marina p o l i c y i n the t i d a l area of the P a c i f i c coast. Small Craft Harbours Branch, Pac. Reg., Env. Can. M i t c h e l l , C o l i n . 1973. T e r r a i n Evaluation. Longman Group Ltd., London., G.B. 221pp. Morgan, W.B. 1978. A l t e r n a t i v e approaches to P a c i f i c coastal zone management. Dept. of Geog. Discussion Paper No. 5, Simon Fraser Univ. (Honours Geography Essay). 97pp. Murray, T., P. Rogers, D. Sinton, C. S t e i n i t z , R. Toth and D. Way. 1971. Honey H i l l : a systems analysis for planning the multiple use of co n t r o l l e d water areas. U.S. Army Eng. Inst, f o r Water Res. IWR Rep. 71-9. U.S. Dept. of Comm. N.T.I.S. (AD 736 343). Spring-f i e l d , Va. North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. 197 5. State Guidelines for l o c a l planning i n the coastal area under the Coastal Area Management Act, 1974. Raleigh, N. Carolina (NTIS-PB-263-024). Northwest Environmental Consultants.1976. Proposed d e f i n i t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system for Washington's coastal zone wetlands. Prepared for State of Wash., Dept. of E c o l . , Contract No. 76-048. 80pp. - 175 -1977. Aquatic lands d e f i n i t i o n study. Prepared for State of Wash., Dept. of E c o l . Contract 77-054. 39pp. Odum, Eugene P. 1974. Fundamentals of ecology, 3rd ed. W.B. Saunders Co., Toronto, Canada. 574pp. Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. 1978. Statewide planning goals and guidelines. Oregon Dept. of Land Cons, and Devel., Salem, Oregon. 24pp. (newspaper format). P a c i f i c S h e l l f i s h Regulations. 1977. P.C. 1977-2397. and amendments. Can. Gazette Part I I , 111(18). Port P h i l l i p Authority. 1977. Port P h i l l i p coastal study. Env. Protection Authority, Min. f o r Conservation, Melbourne, 1 A u s t r a l i a , pp.iv-v. Quayle, D.B. 1969. P a c i f i c oyster c u l t u r e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. B i o l . Sta., Nanaimo, B.C. F i s h . Res. Bd. of Can. B u l l . 169. 192pp. . 1971. P a c i f i c oyster r a f t culture i n B r i t i s h Columbia. B i o l . Sta., Nanaimo, B.C. F i s h . Res. Bd. of Can. B u l l . 178. 34pp. Reid, G.K. and R.D. Wood. 1976. Ecology of inland waters and estuaries, 2nd ed. D. Van Nostrand Co., N.Y., N.Y. 485pp. Rus s e l l , C.S. and A.V. Kneese. 1973. E s t a b l i s h i n g the s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n i c a l and economic basis f o r coastal zone management. Coastal Zone Management J. 1(1):.47-63. Schade, Frieda. 1979. Planning f o r conservacy areas: re c r e a t i o n i n estuarine b i r d habitat. Masters thes i s , SCARP, Univ. of B.C. Schreier, H. and L.M. Lavkulich. 1977. A t e r r a i n a n a l y s i s scheme for off-road t r a f f i c a b i l i t y assessments. Defense Research Establishment, Ottawa, Can. 48pp. . 1978. A numerical approach to measure t e r r a i n analogs for off-road t r a f f i c a b i l i t y assessment. Defense Research Establishment, Ottawa, Can. 40pp. Skagit County Planning Department. 1976. Skagit County Shoreline Management master program. Washington. Shapiro and Associates Inc. 1977. Manual f o r management of the coastal aquatic area. Prepared for State of Wash., Dept. of E c o l . , Contract No. 77-079. 131pp. plus appendices. - 176 -Sinton, D.F. 1973. I.M.G.R.I.D. - a system for manipulating information i n a g r i d c e l l data f i l e ; Version 2. Harvard Graduate School of Design. 1977. The user's guide to I.M.G.R.I.D.: an information manipulation system for g r i d c e l l data structures. Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Design, Harvard Univ., 2 sections. Smith, D.W. 1977. Manual for assessment of oyster growing areas. B.C. Marine Res. Br., F i s h . Management Rep. No. 5. Smith, D.W. and D.B. Quayle. 1976. A guide to oyster-farming. B.C. Marine Res. Br., Dept. of Recr. and Travel Industry. B.C. Queens P r i n t e r , 54pp. Spencer, J.F. 1972. A technique for resource c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and c a p a b i l i t y analysis i n c o a s t a l zone management. Masters the s i s , SCARP. Univ. of B.C. Sokal, R.R. 1974. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n : purposes, p r i n c i p l e s , progress, prospects. Science 185(4157): 1115-1123. Stanley-Jones, C.V. and W.A.Benson , eds. ' 1973. An inventory of land resources and resource p o t e n t i a l s i n the C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t : a report to the C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t . B.C. Land Inventory, Pac. For. Res. Cen., Can. For. Ser., and S o i l Survey Section, Can. Dept. of Agric. 186pp. State of Washington, Department of Ecology. 1972. Shoreline Management Act of 1971: f i n a l guidelines. Olympia, Washington. 20pp. S t e i n i t z , C a r l . 1970. Landscape resource a n a l y s i s . The state of the a r t . Landscape Architecture 60(2): 101-105. S t e i n i t z , C , Timothy Murray, David Sinton and Douglas Way. 1969. A comparative evaluation of resource analysis methods. Contract to U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers. Grad. School of Design, Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Harvard Univ. 382pp. Surrey Planning Department. 1978. Ocean shorezone study: f i n a l report. 124pp. Szczawinski, A.F. and A.S. Harrison. 1973. F l o r a of the Saanich Peninsula. B.C. Prov. Mus. Occ. Paper No. 16. Queens P r i n t e r , V i c t o r i a , B.C. 114pp. Thurlow, Charles, William Toner and Duncan Er l e y . 1975. Performance controls f or s e n s i t i v e lands: a p r a c t i c a l guide for l o c a l administration. Am. Soc. of Plan. O f f i c i a l s . Plan rAdvis. Ser. Rep. Nos. 307 and 308. 156pp. - 177 -Tourbier, Joachim. 1973. Water resources as a basis for comprehensive planning and development of the C h r i s t i n a Basin study. F i n a l Rep. prepared for Off. of Water Res. Research, U.S. Dept. of Int., Water Res. Cen., Univ. of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. 199pp. Tourbier, Joachim (Project D i r e c t o r ) . 1976. The coastal zone of Delaware: a method for the a l l o c a t i o n of land and water uses. Cen. for E c o l . Res. i n Plan, and Design. Univ. of Penn. 24pp. Urban Land I n s t i t u t e . 1977. Carrying capacity as a planning t o o l . Environmental Comment, Urban Land I n s t i t u t e (Dec. 1977). Ward, D.V. 1978a. Draf t . P o l i c i e s for development of the B r i t i s h Columbia oyster industry: analyses based on a computer simulation model. Westwater Research Centre, pp.9-13, 41-43. Ward, D.V. 1978b. Draf t . Oyster ecology and culture i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Westwater Research Centre. Section VI. United States Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. P.L. 92-583. Amendments. 1976 P.L. 94-370. Rules and Regulations. ;Nov. 1973. Federal Register 38(229). Notice of F i n a l Rule Making. Jan. 1975. Federal Register 40(6). Part 1. United States Department of Commerce. 1976. State of C a l i f o r n i a coastal management program and revised d r a f t environmental impact statement. O f f i c e of Coastal Zone Management, N.O.A.A. 144pp. plus appendices. United States Department of Commerce. 1978. Massachusetts coastal zone management program - 1978. F i n a l environmental impact statement. O f f i c e of Coastal Zone Management, N.O.A.A. 439pp. United States F i s h and W i l d l i f e Service. 1977. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States (an operational d r a f t ) . U.S. Dept. of Int. (J.H. Sather, ed.) 100pp. Webster, R. 1977. Quantitative and numerical methods i n s o i l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and survey. Clarendon Press, Oxford, G.B. 269pp. Welch, D.M. 1978. Land/water c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Lands Directorate, Env. Can. Ottawa, E c o l o g i c a l Land C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Series No. 5. 54pp. W i l f e r t , G.L. 1971. Research report on shoreline management guidelines. Battelle-Northwest Laboratories of B a t t e l l e Memorial Inst, for Grays Harbour Regional Planning Commission, Aberdeen, Washington. 3 chapters. - 178 -Willamette V a l l e y Steering Committee. 1971. The Willamette Valley environmental protection and development plan an environmental coordination process: Program Design. Oregon. 82pp. Witmer, R.E. 1978. U.S. Geological Survey land-use and land-cover c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system. J . of For. 76(10) :661-666. - 179 -PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Amir, Shaul. 1978. Planning course, SCARP, Univ. of B.C. Donnelly, S. Telephone. May 1979. Capi t a l Regional D i s t r i c t . Fox, I.K. 1979. Planning course, SCARP, Univ. of B.C. Kay, B.H. Head, Microbiology Laboratory, Marine Programs, Environmental Protection, F i s h e r i e s and Environment Canada. Le t t e r , A p r i l 24, 1979, re s h e l l f i s h i n g closures. - 180 -Appendix 1. Representative Planning Process for the Coastal Zone (by author). PHASE I. THE PROBLEM. Purpose: To develop perceptions of the need for management. 1. Identify issues, problems and i n t e r e s t groups, 2. Use 1. above to i d e n t i f y a tentative l i s t of shorezone uses i n demand. PHASE I I . PRELIMINARY STUDIES. Purpose: To review l i t e r a t u r e . To suggest an approach, and achieve general concensus from the public and government on the approach. 1. L i t e r a t u r e review of coastal land use planning approaches. 2. Information c o l l e c t i o n . 3. Outline of proposed management units (to be developed i t e r a t i v e l y ) . 4. Landscape analysis method. 5. Case study to te s t concepts of management units. 6. Tentative a l l o c a t i o n to management units i n the study area, and development of c r i t e r i a and guideli n e s . 7. Concensus f or approach from public and agencies, perhaps through workshops (feedback). PHASE I I I . REFINEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF APPROACH. Purpose: To c l a s s i f y the rest of the Regional D i s t r i c t . To elaborate on management units for l o c a l areas. On-going evaluation of development proposals. To elaborate the management system: 1. Data c o l l e c t i o n and analysis for d e t a i l e d studies. 2. Develop a l t e r n a t i v e plans. 3. Estimate consequences of plans (using landscape analysis developed i n Phase II and other impact methods). 4. Evaluate consequences. 5. Decision. 6. Feedback. References: Fox, personal communication; Willamette V a l l e y Steering Committee, 1971; Barton Aschman Associates Ltd., 1973. - 181 -Appendix 2. Designation of Homogeneous Units to Management C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . A) Upland Zone Unit 1. Unit 1 i s divided into three on the basis of i t s present land use. l a i s p a r a l l e l to the shoreline , inland to Lands End Road, and about h a l f developed with r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). l b i s above Lands End Road, i n undeveloped land. l c includes the B.C. Ferry Terminal, at the east end of the u n i t . Unit l a . Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : Present land use. Comments: Although i n a management unit which allows medium density r e s i d e n t i a l use, the density should be further r e s t r i c t e d because of the moderately low tolerances to r e s i d e n t i a l use, and high p o t e n t i a l for water q u a l i t y degradation. Unit l b . Conservancy C r i t e r i a : Undeveloped, H tolerance to r e c r e a t i o n a l use; ML tolerance to r e s i d e n t i a l use. Unit l c . Developable - I n d u s t r i a l and Port C r i t e r i a : Present land use. Comments: The adjacent shore unit i s assigned to an equivalent management u n i t . Unit 2. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : H attractiveness f o r development; M e c o l o g i c a l value; undeveloped; no water or sewage f a c i l i t i e s . Comments: I t i s assigned to Conservancy despite the high attractiveness f o r development, because the e c o l o g i c a l value i s not low, i t i s undeveloped, and no u t i l i t i e s are provided. Unit 3. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : MH e c o l o g i c a l value; undeveloped; H tolerance to recreation; ML tolerance to r e s i d e n t i a l use. Unit 4. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : M e c o l o g i c a l value; r e s i d e n t i a l and undeveloped land uses; M attractiveness for development; MH tolerance to recreation; ML tolerance to r e s i d e n t i a l use; water services planned. Unit 5. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : MH e c o l o g i c a l value; natural land cover; M attractiveness for development; ML tolerance to r e s i d e n t i a l use. Comments: The unit could also have been assigned to Developable with Limitations with units l a and 4, however i t s e c o l o g i c a l value i s higher, and i t i s not very a t t r a c t i v e to r e s i d e n t i a l use. - 182 -Unit 6. Developable with Limitations and Rural ( i n A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve) C r i t e r i a : M e c o l o g i c a l value; r e s i d e n t i a l land use with some natural cover; MH tolerance to recreation; ML tolerance to r e s i d e n t i a l use; a section of ALR land; water services being upgraded. Comments: The land i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserve i s assigned to the Rural management u n i t . The rest i s assigned to Developable with Limitations, s i m i l a r l y to units l a and 4. Unit 7. Unit 7 i s divided into 2, on the basis of land use. 7a i s adjacent to the northern shoreline, and i s a mixture of r e s i d e n t i a l and boat docking/launching f a c i l i t i e s . 7b i s predominantly r e s i d e n t i a l . Unit 7a. Developable with L i m i t a t i o n s . C r i t e r i a : Land use; M attractiveness f o r development;. M e c o l o g i c a l value; MH and ML tolerances to r e c r e a t i o n a l and r e s i d e n t i a l uses re s p e c t i v e l y ; upgrading water supply; no sewage f a c i l i t i e s . Comments: P o t e n t i a l for marinas i f u t i l i t i e s are i n s t a l l e d , because the adjacent shore unit has a MH attractiveness for development. Unit 7b. C r i t e r i a : Comments: Developable with L i m i t a t i o n s . R e s i d e n t i a l land use; the re s t as for 7a. Both 7a and 7b are classed i n the same management u n i t , however 7b should probably be r e s t r i c t e d to low density r e s i d e n t i a l use and managed s i m i l a r l y to l a , 4 and 6. The shore units adjacent to 7b are not a t t r a c t i v e f o r marinas. Units 8,9.Developable with L i m i t a t i o n s . C r i t e r i a : Marina land use; M attractiveness f o r development; M e c o l o g i c a l value; M and MH tolerance to recr e a t i o n r e s p e c t i v e l y ; M tolerances to r e s i d e n t i a l use. Comments: Assigned to Developable with Limitations which r e s t r i c t s marina development, rather than to Development - Non-Industrial, because the attractiveness f o r development was only moderate, no sewage f a c i l i t i e s are planned, and the surrounding area i s low to medium density r e s i d e n t i a l . The adjacent shore zone unit (24) has a MH attractiveness f o r development. Unit 9b. Developable with Lim i t a t i o n s . C r i t e r i a : R e s i d e n t i a l and undeveloped land uses; M e c o l o g i c a l value; M attractiveness f o r development; MH and M tolerances to recreation and r e s i d e n t i a l uses res p e c t i v e l y ; moderate rec r e a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n c e . Comments: More suited to r e s i d e n t i a l development than the previous units ( l a , 4, 6). Unit 9c. Included with l c , because of use for the f e r r y terminal. - 183 -Unit 10. Developable with L i m i t a t i o n s . C r i t e r i a : M e c o l o g i c a l value; M attractiveness f o r development; M tolerance to re c r e a t i o n and r e s i d e n t i a l use; undeveloped and r e s i d e n t i a l land uses. Units 11,12. Developable with Lim i t a t i o n s . C r i t e r i a : H attractiveness f o r development; M e c o l o g i c a l value; M tolerances to use (except 12 - ML for rec r e a t i o n ) ; undeveloped and r e s i d e n t i a l uses; upgrading water services. Comments: The unit was not assigned to a Developable management unit because i t s tolerance to r e s i d e n t i a l use was only moderate. Of the Developable with Limitations u n i t s , so f a r , t h i s one i s most suited to medium density r e s i d e n t i a l use. The adjacent shore zone units (23,22) are not a t t r a c t i v e for development. Unit 13. Developable with Limitations or Conservancy C r i t e r i a : H attractiveness f o r development; M e c o l o g i c a l value and tolerances to use; undeveloped; no water or sewage service. Comments: The unit could be assigned to a Developable management u n i t , however, the tolerance to use i s only moderate, and i t i s not adjacent to the shore. I t also meets the c r i t e r i a for the Conservancy u n i t , however because areas of high attractiveness f o r development are l i m i t e d , i t may be more appropriate to assign i t to medium to high density r e s i d e n t i a l use. Water and sewage services would be required i f t h i s was done. Unit 14a. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : ML attractiveness f o r development; MH e c o l o g i c a l value; M and ML tolerance to re c r e a t i o n and r e s i d e n t i a l uses r e s p e c t i v e l y ; present use f o r marinas. Comments: The moderately high e c o l o g i c a l value r e s t r i c t s i t s s u i t a b i l i t y f o r marinas. Unit 14b. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : ML attractiveness f o r development; MH e c o l o g i c a l value; MH tolerance to recreation: ML tolerance to r e s i d e n t i a l use; H recr e a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n c e ; adjacent to s e n s i t i v e shore zone ec o l o g i c a l ares; r e s i d e n t i a l , park and undeveloped land uses. Comments for 14a and b: Marina development has occurred i n an area of MH and H e c o l o g i c a l value and s e n s i t i v i t y on both the aquatic and upland areas. The area outside of the marinas should be c l a s s i f i e d as Conservancy, and the marinas as Developable with Limitations. The present marinas should be allowed to remain but not to expand, and water and waste dis p o s a l f a c i l i t i e s to the marinas should be improved to prevent further water q u a l i t y d e t e r i o r a t i o n . For further comments see the discussion on adjacent shore zone u n i t s . - 184 -Units 15,16. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : ML attractiveness for development; M e c o l o g i c a l value; MH tolerance to recreation; ML tolerance to r e s i d e n t i a l use; undeveloped park, some r e s i d e n t i a l , and some a g r i c u l t u r a l uses. Unit 17. Conservancy or Developable with Limitations to the east of Highway 17; Rural to the west of the Highway. C r i t e r i a : M attractiveness for development; M e c o l o g i c a l value; MH and ML tolerance to r e c r e a t i o n and r e s i d e n t i a l uses res p e c t i v e l y ; park and r e s i d e n t i a l to east, a g r i c u l t u r a l to west of Highway 17; water and sewage planned. Unit 18. Because t h i s unit covers a large part of the southern section of the study area, and contains several d i f f e r e n t uses, i t was subdivided into sections 18a (undeveloped), 18b (marinas) and 18c ( r e s i d e n t i a l and marinas). Unit 18a. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : ML attractiveness for development; MH e c o l o g i c a l value; M and L tolerances to r e c r e a t i o n and r e s i d e n t i a l use r e s p e c t i v e l y ; undeveloped, proposed park; adjacent to shore zone c r i t i c a l area. Unit 18b. Developable with Li m i t a t i o n s C r i t e r i a : As for 18b, but land use i s for marina f a c i l i t i e s . Unit 18c. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : ML attractiveness for development; M e c o l o g i c a l value; M tolerance to recreation; L tolerance to r e s i d e n t i a l use; water and sewage services; r e s i d e n t i a l land use and marinas. Comments: The major portion of the unit i s r e s i d e n t i a l , with the exceptions of the marinas i n Blue Heron Basin and around the old Rest Haven Ho s p i t a l . These areas were c l a s s i f i e d a f t e r consideration of the adjacent shore zone u n i t s ' attractiveness and v u l n e r a b i l i t y . The major part of the unit i s c l a s s i f i e d as Developable with Limitations because of i t s present r e s i d e n t i a l use. Areas with the marinas, adjacent to.shore zone units 16a, 12, 10 and 9, were al s o classed as Developable with Limitations rather than Developable, because the shore units were Developable with Limitations or Conservancy ( i n areas of high v u l n e r a b i l i t y ) . Management of the shore units requires a t t e n t i o n to water qu a l i t y , therefore the upland u n i t s should also be c a r e f u l l y managed and the development of commercial marinas r e s t r i c t e d as i s done i n the Developable with Limitations category. Rural to west of Highway 17; Conservancy to east. ML attractiveness for development; M e c o l o g i c a l value; MH and L tolerances to r e c r e a t i o n and r e s i d e n t i a l uses r e s p e c t i v e l y ; undeveloped and a g r i c u l t u r a l uses (some land i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve). Unit 19. C r i t e r i a : - 185 -Units 20 to 23 (Armstrong P o i n t ) . Developable with Lim i t a t i o n s . C r i t e r i a : ML attractiveness for development; M e c o l o g i c a l value; M and L tolerances to r e c r e a t i o n and r e s i d e n t i a l uses res p e c t i v e l y ; r e s i d e n t i a l land use except for marinas on the northeast shore l i n e ; water and sewage services. Comments: The present land use dictated the choice of Developable with Limitations. The section with marinas i s not assigned to a Developable management unit due to the e c o l o g i c a l values of the adjacent shore zone unit 9. Unit 24. Developable with L i m i t a t i o n s . C r i t e r i a : ML attractiveness for development; M e c o l o g i c a l value; M and L tolerances to r e c r e a t i o n and r e s i d e n t i a l uses r e s p e c t i v e l y ; r e s i d e n t i a l and urban parkland use; water and sewage f a c i l i t i e s . Unit 25. Subdivided on the basis of land use into 25a to the north and 25b to the south. Unit 25a. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : ML attractiveness for development; ML e c o l o g i c a l value; M and L tolerances to r e c r e a t i o n and r e s i d e n t i a l use r e s p e c t i v e l y ; r e s i d e n t i a l use; water and sewage services. Unit 25b. Developable - Non-Industrial C r i t e r i a : As above except for commercial usage, marinas, a government wharf, and some marine r e p a i r f a c i l i t i e s . B) Shore Zone Unit 1. Development - Non-Industrial C r i t e r i a : MH and M attractiveness for development and resource harvesting respectively; L navigation hazards; M e c o l o g i c a l value; s h e l l -f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; M tolerances to r e c r e a t i o n and shore zone a c t i v i t i e s ; contains marinas and t h e i r f a c i l i t i e s ; adjacent to an upland Developable unit (unit 25a). Unit 2. Developable - Non-Industrial C r i t e r i a : M and L attractiveness for development and aquaculture res p e c t i v e l y ; M navigation hazard; M e c o l o g i c a l value; MH tolerances to use; commercial foreshore lease; adjacent to an upland Developable u n i t . Comments: C l a s s i f i e d on the basis of i t s present use. Unit 3. Conservancy or Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : M attractiveness for development; M e c o l o g i c a l value; MH and M tolerances to r e c r e a t i o n and shore zone a c t i v i t i e s r espectively; r e c r e a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n c e moderate; undeveloped. Comments: Conservancy i s recommended because of the "W" r e c r e a t i o n feature for w i l d l i f e viewing. - 186 -Units 4,5. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : M attractiveness f o r development and aquaculture; H navigation hazards; M e c o l o g i c a l value; MH and M tolerance to recreation and r e s i d e n t i a l use re s p e c i t v e l y ; sewage o u t f a l l (used??) and some shore defense structures; adjacent to Developable with Limitations on the upland side. Unit 6. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : M and ML attractiveness for development and aquaculture res p e c t i v e l y ; M e c o l o g i c a l value; MH tolerances to use; undeveloped; adjacent to Developable with Lim i t a t i o n s . Unit 7a. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : M attractiveness for development and resource harvesting; MH ec o l o g i c a l value; M tolerance to use; some shore defense works; adjacent to area of high e c o l o g i c a l value, and adjacent to upland Developable with Lim i t a t i o n s . Unit 7b. C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Area C r i t e r i a : M attractiveness f o r development and resource harvesting; H ec o l o g i c a l value; ML and L tolerances to recr e a t i o n and shore zone a c t i v i t i e s r e s p e c t i v e l y ; H hazards (flooding). Unit 8. Developable with Lim i t a t i o n s . C r i t e r i a : MH attractiveness for development and M for resource harvesting; L hazards and e c o l o g i c a l value; MH tolerances to use. Unit 9. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r a : M and H attractiveness f o r development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; L hazards; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; H e c o l o g i c a l value; ML tolerances to use; extensive use for r e c r e a t i o n a l boating f a c i l i t i e s . Comments: Although the present use i s 'development' further expansion of marina f a c i l i t i e s i n an area of high e c o l o g i c a l value and moderately low tolerance i s not encouraged. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of water quality i n unit ,9 to the r e s t of Tsehum Harbour and i t s c r i t i c a l areas i s unknown, i n d i c a t i n g that c a r e f u l water q u a l i t y control and monitoring i s necessary. Unit 10. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : M and MH attractiveness f o r development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; H e c o l o g i c a l value; ML tolerances to use; adjacent to an urban park; recreation lease on the foreshore. Comments: Present use excludes C r i t i c a l Area c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Unit 11. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : M and MH attractiveness for development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; MH e c o l o g i c a l value; M tolerances to use; several small foreshore leases for boat houses and launching areas. - 187 -Unit 12. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : M attractiveness for development and H for resource harvesting; H ecologic value; M and ML tolerances to use; foreshore lease for a marina. Comments: Here, as with u n i t s 9, 17, and 19, the present use i s not appropriate given the high e c o l o g i c a l values and lower tolerances to use. The Developable management unit i s not applicable, nor i s the Conservancy because of the present use. The a l t e r n a t i v e i s Developable with Limitations, with s t r i c t controls for maintaining or improving water q u a l i t y , and r e s t r i c t i n g marina expansion. Unit 13. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : M and H attractiveness f o r development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; H e c o l o g i c a l value (herring spawning); M tolerances to use; r e s i d e n t i a l upshore use, and p r i v a t e boating f a c i l i t i e s ; high recreation s i g n i f i c a n c e . Unit 14. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : M and MH attractiveness f o r development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; MH e c o l o g i c a l value (waterfowl migration route); M tolerances to use; undeveloped; high r e c r e a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n c e . Unit 15. C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Area C r i t e r i a : ML and MH attractiveness f o r development and resource harvesting; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; H e c o l o g i c a l value; ML and L tolerances to r e c r e a t i o n and shore zone a c t i v i t i e s r e s p e c t i v e l y ; undeveloped; high r e c r e a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n c e . Comments: The e c o l o g i c a l value of the unit i s threatened by adjacent marinas and t h e i r a c t i v i t y l e v e l s and wastes. Unit 16. Conservancy (16b) and Developable with Limitations (16a) C r i t e r i a : ML and H attractiveness f o r development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; H e c o l o g i c a l value; ML tolerances to re c r e a t i o n and shore zone uses; undeveloped and a foreshore lease to a yacht club; high r e c r e a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n c e . Comments: The unit was subdivided because of the marina usage i n section 16a. Resource harvesting i s r e s t r i c t e d by water q u a l i t y problems i n t h i s u n i t , as i n adjacent u n i t s . Assigning units to conservancy does not preclude t h e i r p o t e n t i a l use for aquaculture i f water q u a l i t y i s improved. Unit 17. Conservancy (17a) and Developable with Limitations (17b) C r i t e r i a : ML and H attractiveness for development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; MH e c o l o g i c a l value; M and ML tolerance to recr e a t i o n and shore zone uses res p e c t i v e l y ; foreshore leases for marinas i n the northern section and undeveloped i n the r e s t ; high r e c r e a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n c e . Comments: Suggest that the section with marina use be c l a s s i f i e d as Developable with Lim i t a t i o n s , and the re s t as Conservancy to be managed i n conjunction with 16b and 15. - 188 -Unit 18a and 18c. C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Area (18a) and Conservancy (18c) C r i t e r i a : ML and MH attractiveness f o r development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; H e c o l o g i c a l value (waterfowl, clams); ML and L tolerances to r e c r a t i o n and shore zone use resp e c t i v e l y ; proposed park i n undeveloped 18a, and highway boulevard i n 18c; high r e c r e a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n c e . Unit 18b. C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Area C r i t e r i a : ML and MH attractiveness for development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; H hazards; H e c o l o g i c a l -value;>ML and L tolerances to recr e a t i o n and shore zone uses resp e c t i v e l y ; undeveloped; upland unit i s Conservancy; high r e c r e a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n c e . Comments: Suggest that unit 18 be managed f o r recr e a t i o n and conservation, with 18a and 18b i n the C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Area and 18c i n the Conservancy management un i t s . Unit 19. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : ML and H attractiveness for development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; MH e c o l o g i c a l value; ML tolerances to re c r e a t i o n and shore uses; foreshore leases for marinas. Comments: Manage s i m i l a r l y to u n i t 17b; r e s t r a i n expansion because of surrounding high e c o l o g i c a l values. Unit 20. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : ML and MH attractiveness f o r development and resource harvesting; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; MH e c o l o g i c a l value; ML tolerances to use; undeveloped foreshore; Developable with Limitations c l a s s i f i c a t i o n on upland side; channel between 20 and 17b u t i l i z e d by r e c r e a t i o n a l boats; high r e c r e a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n c e . Unit 21. C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Area C r i t e r i a : ML and MH attractiveness for development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; H e c o l o g i c a l value (seal haulout area); ML tolerances to use; undeveloped. Unit 22. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : M attractiveness for development and resource harvesting; M ec o l o g i c a l value; MH and M tolerance to re c r e a t i o n and shore zone use re s p e c t i v e l y ; undeveloped; upland c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Developable with Lim i t a t i o n s . Developable with Limitations ML and MH attractiveness to development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s ; M e c o l o g i c a l value; MH tolerances to use; pri v a t e wharves i n foreshore. Unit 24. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : ML and MH attractiveness for development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s ; M e c o l o g i c a l value; H and MH tolerance to recr e a t i o n and shore uses; foreshore lease f o r marinas; upland c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Developable with Li m i t a t i o n s . Unit 23. C r i t e r i a : - 189 -Comments: Suggest that marinas be kept within unit 24, leaving 23 and 25 for private f a c i l i t i e s only. See comments for upland unit 9a. Unit 25. C r i t i c a l E c o l o g i c a l Area and Conservancy C r i t e r i a : L and M attractiveness f o r development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; s h e l l f i s h i n g r e s t r i c t e d ; H e c o l o g i c a l value (seal haulout); ML and M tolerance to recr e a t i o n and shore uses re s p e c t i v e l y ; mainly undeveloped. Comments: The unit should be managed to .protect the seal haulouts i n the southern part, possibly by c l a s s i f y i n g the haulout as C r i t i c a l and the surrounding area as Conservancy. Unit 26. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : MH and M attractiveness f o r development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; L hazards; MH e c o l o g i c a l value; M tolerances to use; Upland c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Developable with Limitations; foreshore leases for breakwater and docks. Comments: Although the unit does not t e c h n i c a l l y meet the c r i t e r i a for Development - Non-Industrial, because of the moderately high e c o l o g i c a l value, i t should be considered as having p o t e n t i a l for development because of i t s present use, proximity to development (the f e r r y terminal) and MH attractiveness for development. Unit 27. Developable - I n d u s t r i a l and Port C r i t e r i a : H attractiveness for development; L navigation hazards; MH eco l o g i c a l value; MH tolerances to uses; f e r r y terminal; upland c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Developable. Conservancy Units 28,29. C r i t e r i a : MH attractiveness f o r development; ML e c o l o g i c a l value; MH and M tolerance to recr e a t i o n and shore zone uses; undeveloped; upland c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Developable with Limitations; part of proposal for shoreline park. Comments: Development i s a c t u a l l y more r e s t r i c t e d than indicated by attractiveness r a t i n g because of steep rock slopes severely r e s t r i c t i n g land access to the shoreline. I t was c l a s s i f i e d as Conservancy on the basis of the park proposal and i t s present undeveloped status. Units 30, 31. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : MH attractiveness f o r development and resource harvesting r e s p e c t i v e l y ; ML and M e c o l o g i c a l value; M tolerances to use; undeveloped; part of a park propsal; "B" (beach) rec r e a t i o n feature. See comments for 28, 29. Units 32,33,34,35,36. Conservancy C r i t e r i a : Mainly M attractiveness for development (MH for 36; ML for 35); M to ML attractiveness for resource harvesting; L to M e c o l o g i c a l value; M to H tolerances to use; part of park proposal, except for west ha l f of 36; occasional private wharf; upland c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of Developable with Limitations for low density housing and Conservancy. - 1 9 0 -Units 37,38. Developable with Limitations C r i t e r i a : MH attractiveness for development; M e c o l o g i c a l value; ML tolerances f o r use i n unit 37 and MH i n 38; occasional private wharf; upland units c l a s s i f i e d Developable with Limi t a t i o n s . - 191 -Appendix 3 LEGENDS. a) Data L i s t Upland Zone-1 • Shore Zone 1. S u r f i c i a l Materials 1. Wave Energy 2. Texture 2. Beach C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 3. Upland Slope 3. Habitat 4. Depth to Bedrock 4. C l i f f Height/Upshore Slope 5. S o i l S t a b i l i t y to 6 f t (1.97 m) 5. Distance from MHHT to 6 fa(10.9 6. Surface Erosion S u s c e p t i b i l i t y 6. W i l d l i f e S u i t a b i l i t y 7. Hydrologic S i g n i f i c a n c e 7. Known W i l d l i f e Populations 8. Ponding and Flooding S u s c e p t i b i l i t y 8. Recreation Features 9. Limitations f o r Septic Tanks 9. Recreation Significance 10. Habitat (Native Plant Communities) 10. S h e l l f i s h R e s t r i c t i o n s 11. W i l d l i f e S u i t a b i l i t y 11. Navigation Hazards 12. A g r i c u l t u r e C a p a b i l i t y 12. Archeological Sites 13. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves 13. Restricted Navigation Areas 14. Forestry C a p a b i l i t y 14. Land Use 15. Recreation Features 15. Land Reserves 16. Recreation S i g n i f i c a n c e 16. 17. Archeological Sites 18. Water Supply 19. Sewage Treatment 20. Land Use - 192 -Legends  Upland Factors 1. S u r f i c i a l M a t e r i a l s . 1:50,000 (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, pp.91-121) Clay (2) Deep (greater than 6 f t (2 m)) f i n e to medium textured marine materials (clays and clay loams). Clay (2b) Greater than 4 f t (1.6 m) of marine clay over gr a v e l l y sandy loam t i l l . T i l l (5) Coarse textured g l a c i a l t i l l associated with shale (greater than 40% rock) Rock (10a) Sedimentary rock outcrops with pockets (less than 30%) of coarse textured g l a c i a l t i l l . 2. Texture. See descriptions f o r 1. above. 3. Upland Slope. 1:50,000 (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, p. 185) The slope r e f e r s to the area immediately adjacent to the shore zone. The range of slope i n complex areas i s shown in brackets on the Inventory table. F l a t to Gently R o l l i n g (1) 0-5% Gently Sloping (2) 5-15% Moderately Steep (3) 15-30% Steep (4) 30-60% Very Steep (5) 60+% 4. Depth to Bedrock. See d e s c r i p t i o n f or 1. above. 5. S o i l S t a b i l i t y at Depths to 6 f t (1.97 m) . 1:50,000 (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973. pp.112-113) Good (Gl) Shallow s o i l s overlying l o c a l bedrock. F a i r (Fl) Deep, semi-pervious g l a c i a l t i l l , minor bedrock i n c l u s i o n s . F a i r (F3) Dominantly marine materials. Poor (PI) Marine s i l t s and clays, scattered organic areas. - 193 -Surface Erosion P o t e n t i a l . 1:50,000 (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, pp.110-111) S l i g h t (S) Moderate (Ml) Numerous shallow g u l l i e s and sheet erosion Moderate (M2) Revert to HI i f poorly managed High (HI) Large losses can be expected. Hydrologic S i g n i f i c a n c e of Landform Units. 1:50,000 (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973. pp. 26-27) Steeplands Depressional clays Upland clays Upland t i l l s (1) Rock at or near surface; steep, high r e l i e f ; storm runoff source. (5) Marine clays; poorly drained; impermeable; surface runoff and seepage storage. (6a)Marine clays; generally impermeable; contribute runoff and seepage to depressions. (6b)Coarse t i l l s ; more permeable than 6a; contribute runoff and seepage to depressions and to ground water where they o v e r l i e sands and gravels. S u s c e p t i b i l i t y to Ponding and Flooding. 1:50,000 (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973. pp. 114-115) S l i g h t (S) Not affected by surface ponding or stream flood waters. Moderate (Ml)Upland complexes of swales and low r e l i e f k n o l l s . Swales fo s t e r temporary marshy depressions. Moderate (M2)Seasonal high water table for short periods. High (H2)Perched water table near or at surface for extended periods. Limitations for Septic Tanks (Subsurface Septic Tank Absorption F i e l d s ) 1:50,000. (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, pp. 116-117) Severe Severe Severe (SI) Slope > 15%; depth to bedrock < 4 f t (1.3 m) or poor f i l t e r i n g p o t e n t i a l . (54) Low p e r c o l a t i o n rates; seasonal water tables within 2 f t (0.7 m) of the surface. (55) Limited f i l t e r i n g area; depth to semi-pervious or impervious substratum < 3 f t (1 m); minor occurrence of hard rock. 10. Habitat (Native Plant Communities). 1:50,000 (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, pp. 70-71) - 194 -A l l of the native plant communities are i n the Coastal Fringe Zone, with the exceptions of C and M, which are i n the Intergrade Zone when they are adjacent to the shoreline. See Shore Zone fa c t o r s f or d e f i n i t i o n s of Coastal Fringe and Intergrade. 0 Garry oak on dry rocky h i l l t o p s or on deeper s o i l s following s e l e c t i v e removal of other trees. 0-A Garry oak - arbutus t r a n s i t i o n . A-0 Arbutus - Garry oak t r a n s i t i o n . A Arbutus - Douglas-fir on steep rocky slopes at lower elevations. Ap Arbutus - Lodgepole pine - Douglas-fir on h i l l t o p s and steep slopes at higher elevations. S S a l a l - Oregon grape on well drained g l a c i a l s o i l s on slopes and on l e v e l coarse textured s o i l s . P-S Swordfern - s a l a l on s i t e s with seepage which may be absent i n summer. P Swordfern on s i t e s with permanent seepage. C Black cottonwood - crab apple - willow on s i t e s which flood i n winter. M Skunk cabbage - peat moss swamps. 11. W i l d l i f e S u i t a b i l i t y . 1:50,000 (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, pp. 122-128) High s u i t a b i l i t y indicates a very large number or v a r i e t y of w i l d l i f e species. See Table 1 for the legend. 12. A g r i c u l t u r e C a p a b i l i t y . 1:50,000 (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, pp. 118-119, using Canada Land Inventory methodology (1965)) Figures i n brackets are improved r a t i n g s . Subclasses were mapped but are not included here. Class 1. No s i g n i f i c a n t l i m i t a t i o n s . Class 2. Moderate l i m i t a t i o n s . Class 3. Moderately severe l i m i t a t i o n s . Class 4. Severe l i m i t a t i o n s . Class 5. Very severe l i m i t a t i o n s . Class 6. Only perennial forage crops; no f e a s i b l e improvements. Class 7. No c a p a b i l i t y . - 195 -Table 1. Land S u i t a b i l i t y f o r W i l d l i f e (modified from Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, p.124) S u i t a b i l i t y Class Description 1 (Very high) These lands contain habitat suitable for a very high number and/or v a r i e t y of b i r d and mammal species. L i t t l e or no manipulation beyond e x i s t i n g use or management i s required to maintain the habitat. 2 (High) These lands contain habitat suitable for a high number and/or v a r i e t y of b i r d and mammal species. L i t t l e or no manipulation beyond ex i s t i n g p r a c t i c e s i s required to maintain the habitat. 3 (Moderate High) These lands contain habitat suitable for a moderate-high number and/or v a r i e t y of bi r d and mammal species. Or these lands would support a high number and/or v a r i e t y of w i l d l i f e but require a moderate outlay of expense or e f f o r t to meet t h i s p o t e n t i a l . 4 (Moderate Low) These lands contain habitat suitable for a moderate-low number and/or v a r i e t y of b i r d and mammal species. They would support a moderate-high v a r i e t y and/or abundance only with a major e f f o r t or expense. 5 (Low) These lands contain habitat suitable for a low number and/or v a r i e t y of bi r d and mammal species. They are mainly highly urbanized lands on which natural habitat i s absent or greatly fragmented. These lands either cannot be improved for w i l d l i f e , or can only be improved to support a moderate-low number and/or v a r i e t y of w i l d l i f e with major e f f o r t or expense. - 196 -13. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves. l':400' (From C a p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t ) " 14. Forestry C a p a b i l i t y . 1:50,000 (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, pp. 85-90) E Lands having an excellent c a p a b i l i t y f o r f o r e s t r y - p r o d u c t i v i t i e s greater than 150 cubic feet per acre per year (10.49 m^/ha/yr). G Land having a good c a p a b i l i t y for f o r e s t r y - p r o d u c t i v i t y between 90 and 150^cubic feet per acre per year (6.3 to 10.49 m /ha/yr). F Land having a f a i r c a p a b i l i t y for f o r e s t r y - p r o d u c t i v i t i e s w i l l u sually be from 51 tcj 90 cubic feet per acre per year (3.6 to 6.3 m /ha/yr) on the shallow s o i l s and somewhat higher on the deeper t i l l pockets. P Lands having a poor c a p a b i l i t y for f o r e s t r y - generally p r o d u c t i v i t i e s of no more than 50 cubic feet per acre per year (3.5 m^/ha/yr). 15. Recreation Features. 1:50,000 (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, pp. 161-168) See Table 2 for the legend. 16. Recreation S i g n i f i c a n c e 1:50,000 (Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, pp. 169-171) Class I (I) Very High. Equivalent to C.L.I. Recreation Sector Classes 1 and 2. Class II (II) High. Equivalent to C.L.I. Recreation Sector Classes 3 and 4. Class I I I (III) Moderate. Equivalent to C.L.I. Recreation Sector Classes 5 and 6. Class IV (IV) Low. C.L.I. Recreation Sector Class 7. 17. Archeological S i t e s . 1":400' (Capit a l Regional D i s t r i c t Coastal Zone A t l a s , Unpublished, based on information from the B.C. Archeological Advisory Board, 1978) 18,19.Water Supply and Sewage Treatment. (North Saanich, 1977, pp. 51-52). 20. Land Use. 1":400*. (Capital Regional D i s t r i c t Coastal Zone A t l a s , Unpublished). - 197 -Table 2. Legend for Recreation Features (Modified from Stanley-Jones and Benson, 1973, p.162). Intensity of Use K - Intensive Use Recreation - shoreland and streamside s i t e s where s o i l s , landforms and vegetation are well suited to intensive use re c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s such as organized camping and cottaging. N - Moderate Use Recreation - shoreland and streamside s i t e s with some c a p a b i l i t y for intensive use f a c i l i t i e s but with moderate l i m i t a t i o n s of slope, s o i l s or landform. M - Extensive Use Recreation - shoreland and streamside c o r r i d o r s suited to p i c n i c k i n g , viewing, exploration and photography but where more intensive r e c r e a t i o n or f a c i l i t i e s are not des i r a b l e . Beaches B - Beaches composed mostly of sand to f i n e gravels o f f e r i n g opportunities f o r sunbathing and swimming as well as beachcombing. G - Beaches composed of cobbles or i r r e g u l a r rocks and with good c a p a b i l i t y f or beachcombing, viewing and exploration; sunbathing and swimming opportunities l i m i t e d . Boating and Water A c t i v i t i e s U - Natural harbour and moorage p o t e n t i a l (and/or e x i s t i n g marina f a c i l i t y ) . X - Invertebrate area; clam and crab c o l l e c t i n g D - . Scuba diving area C u l t u r a l Features Z - Man-made feature A - Archeological s i t e B i o t i c Features W - . W i l d l i f e observation - 198 -Table 2 (Cont'd) Upland Features J - Rock and f o s s i l c o l l e c t i n g areas Q - Green Belts - areas of mostly natural landscapes such as fo r e s t s and s e r a i vegetation with good p o t e n t i a l for extensive forms of outdoor re c r e a t i o n such as hiking, r i d i n g and nature i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . P - Pastoral land - areas predominately of farmland; or closer to the urban centers playgrounds and vacant land. These are lands p a r t i a l l y a l t e r e d by human a c t i v i t y but o f f e r i n g p o t e n t i a l f or outdoor recreation. 8 - Urban Land - developed areas with l i t t l e or no p o t e n t i a l for outdoor recreation. - 199 -Shore Zone Factors 1. Wave Energy. 1:15,840 Taken from comments on shoreline c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n Bauer (1977). 2. Beach C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . 1:15,840 (Bauer, 1977; 1976, pp.28,33) Rock (R, Rw (wave cut)) Bedrock. Class I Beach (I) A c c r e t i o n a l or roll b a c k dry pocket beaches, the backshore of which i s only wetted under extreme t i d e and wave conditions. These beaches are usually the accretion terminals of thei r d r i f t sectors, and as such are components of points, s p i t s , tombolos, as well as the various b l u f f - o f f s e t , bay and marsh b a r r i e r berms and shoreforms. Class II Beach (II) Marginal erosion beaches, u s u a l l y at the foot of gravel-containing banks and b l u f f s that supply the upper foreshore with a f a i r l y heavy d r i f t berm, but without creating a stable and dry backshore zone above MHHW l e v e l . Class I I I Beach Instrusions (III) Erosional beaches under banks and b l u f f s that are generally low i n gravel and high i n clay, and where the b l u f f toe and upper foreshore i s wavecut below MHHW l e v e l with minimum beach material cover to protect the foreshore s h e l f . (Int.) Man-made changes of natural shoreline. 3. Habitat. 1:25,000 (Capital Regional D i s t r i c t Coastal Zone A t l a s , Unpublished) Compilation of information from various sources. I. Coastal Fringe Zone (upland zone). Continuous b e l t of land abutting the high t i d e l i n e , or the intergrade zone, reaching landward an a r b i t r a r y distance based on slope, vegetation and animal d i s t r i b u t i o n . - 200 -Intergrade Zone (Shore Zone). T r a n s i t i o n between Coastal Fringe and I n t e r t i d a l and T i d a l Zones, occasionally wetted by flooding, with ground water at or near the surface for much of the year. 1. Salt Marsh (SM). Lands wetted by s a l t water, at more or les s regular i n t e r v a l s and characterized by the Salacornia - D i s t i c h l i s vegetative community. Commonly on mud, muddy sand or sand substrates. 2. Fresh Marsh (FM). Lands i r r e g u l a r l y wetted by fresh water, usually adjacent to s a l t marshes, characterized by Carex - Scirpus vegetation community, with ground water at or near the surface for most of the year. Usually organic material overlying marine sediments. 3. T e r r e s t r i a l Fringe (TF). Lands occasionally wetted by flooding, with groundwater at or near the surface for much of the year. Subtidal and I n t e r t i d a l Zone (Shore Zone). Foreshore and adjacent marine waters below the highest t i d e l i n e to an a r b i t r a r y depth of 6 f a (10.9 m). The d e f i n i t i o n s below are from CRD (Unpublished) and Northwest Environmental Consultants (1977, p.44). 1. Rock (R,Rw (wavecut)). Bedrock. 2. Cobbles (C). Rounded and angular rock fragments, usually greater than 8 cm (3 i n ) , with almost no f i n e material. 3. Sand (S) or Clean Sand (CS). Sand includes material that i s smaller than about 1/4 inch (passes number 4 sieve) but i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c l e s can s t i l l be distinguished by the naked eye (sand i s retained on the number 200 sieve). 4. Mud (M). Mud includes s i l t and clay with various percentages of water; i n d i v i d u a l , p a r t i c l e s cannot be distinguished by the naked eye ( p a r t i c l e pass number 200 sie v e ) . 5. Mixed coarse (MC). A good representation of rocks, gravel and sand. - 201 -6. Mixed f i n e (MF). A good representation of gravel, sand and mud. 7. Eelgrass beds. Usually i n mud or muddy sand substrates, from 1 m above low water to 6 m depth. 8. Algae (Kelp) Beds. Rock or cobble substrates i n low i n t e r t i d a l and su b t i d a l zones. 4. C l i f f Height (m) or Upshore Slope (%). 1":400' topographic map and f i e l d observations. Both f a c t o r s cannot apply except in. the case of rock b l u f f s . 5. Distance from MHHT to 6 f a (10.9 m) 1:12,000 Sidney to Swartz Bay Marine Chart. 6. W i l d l i f e S u i t a b i l i t y . 1:50,000 See Upland f a c t o r s . 7. Known W i l d l i f e Populations. 1:25,000 (Ca p i t a l Regional D i s t r i c t Coastal Zone A t l a s , Unpublished) Compilation of several sources, i n which i n d i v i d u a l populations were noted and mapped. 8. Recreation Features. 1:50,000 See Upland f a c t o r s . 9. Recreation S i g n i f i c a n c e . 1:50,000 See Upland f a c t o r s . 10. S h e l l f i s h R e s t r i c t i o n s . ( P a c i f i c S h e l l f i s h Act, 1977) 11. Navigation Hazards. 1:25,000 Turnaround space fi g u r e s based on f e r r y sizes of 335 f t (102 m) to 457 f t (139 m) i n Swartz Bay (Telephone c a l l to B.C. Ferry Corporation) Low (L) Turnaround space greater than 150 m. Moderate (M) Turnaround space of 50 to 150 m. High (H) Turnaround space l e s s than 50 m and/or rocky i n t e r t i d a l zone. 12. Archeological S i t e s . 1":400' See Upland f a c t o r s . - 202 -13. Restricted Navigation Areas. 1:12,000 Sidney to Swartz Bay Marine Chart. 14,15.Land Use, Land Reserves. 1":400' (Capital Regional D i s t r i c t Coastal Zone A t l a s , Unpublished). 

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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0076793/manifest

Comment

Related Items