Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Planning for conservacy areas : recreation in estuarine bird habitat Schade, Frieda Marion 1979

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A6_7 S36.pdf [ 7.56MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094596.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094596-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094596-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094596-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094596-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094596-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094596-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094596-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094596.ris

Full Text

PLANNING FOR CONSERVACY AREAS:• RECREATION IN ESTUARINE BIRD HABITAT by FRIEDA MARION SCHADE B . S c , Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , 1972 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We ac c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1979 © F r i e d a Marion Schade, 1979 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the require-ments for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l -able for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his represen-t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. School of Community and Regional Planning The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada ABSTRACT T h i s t h e s i s analyses a problem t h a t i s common i n p l a n -ning f o r conservacy areas — the problem of the meeting du a l and c o n t r a d i c t o r y o b j e c t i v e s of p r e s e r v i n g n a t u r a l areas t h a t must a l s o be used f o r r e c r e a t i o n . Where one o b j e c t i v e excludes the other, a compromise must be reached. Prev i o u s experience i n North America has shown t h a t i t i s not easy to r e c o n c i l e the two f u n c t i o n s . A case study approach i s used i n the t h e s i s . The study area, Boundary Bay, i s an important waterfowl and shore-b i r d h a b i t a t . The Bay a l s o has the p o t e n t i a l to serve many r e c r e a t i o n a l needs c l o s e to an urban area, Greater Vancouver. The r o l e of Boundary Bay, i n c l u d i n g Mud and Semiahmoo Bays, and t h e i r shorelands i n the ecology o f w i l d l i f e s p e c i e s i s analysed u s i n g census and food c h a i n data. I nformation c o l l e c t e d f o r an i n v e n t o r y of r e g i o n a l r e c r e a t i o n suggests which r e c r e a t i o n needs might be s a t i s f i e d a t Boundary Bay. G u i d e l i n e s are developed f o r i n t e g r a t i o n of human a c t i v i t y and w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t , based on a n t i c i p a t e d r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the Bay. Data from f o u r p u b l i c meetings i n Surrey p o i n t s to the e x i s t e n c e of some concern on the p a r t o f Bay area r e s i d e n t s about the i m p l i c a t i o n s of conservacy use of the Bay. Sugges-t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n or r e s o l u t i o n of these c o n f l i c t s are made. The i s s u e s i n v o l v e d i n p l a n n i n g Boundary Bay are com-pl e x ones because of the number of i n t e r e s t s i n v o l v e d . There i s no " r i g h t " way of proceeding. Four s c e n a r i o s a re developed to i l l u s t r a t e a l t e r n a t i v e means of a p p l y i n g r e s o u r c e manage-ment g u i d e l i n e s and measures f o r r e s o l u t i o n o f c o n f l i c t s t o the study a r e a . Each a l t e r n a t i v e r e q u i r e s a d i f f e r e n t l e v e l and type o f management wit h d i f f e r e n t i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r long term r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of use wit h p r e s e r v a t i o n . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter ONE PROBLEM STATEMENT AND CASE STUDY 1 1.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 1.2 T h e s i s O b j e c t i v e s 3 1.3 The C o n t r a d i c t i o n of P r e s e r v a t i o n w i t h Use 4 1.4 Boundary Bay: The Case Study Area 5 TWO PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF CONSERVACY AREAS: 13 THE NORTH AMERICAN EXPERIENCE 2.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 13 2.2 I n v i o l a t e Conservacy Areas 13 2.3 R e c r e a t i o n Conservacies 15 2.4 Limited-Use Conservacies 19 2.5 Summary 22 2.6 The I m p l i c a t i o n s of the North American 23 Experience f o r the Study Area THREE BOUNDARY BAY: THE RECREATIONAL RESOURCE 25 3.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 25 3.2 B i o p h y s i c a l Resources and R e c r e a t i o n a l 26 P o t e n t i a l 3.3 Present R e c r e a t i o n a l Use 28 3.4 General Trends i n Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n 29 3.5 I m p l i c a t i o n s of Regional R e c r e a t i o n 30 Demands 3.6 Con c l u s i o n s 35 FOUR THE ROLE OF BOUNDARY BAY AS A WILDLIFE HABITAT 37 4.1 V a r i e t y of B i r d Species a t Boundary Bay 3 7 4.2 Boundary Bay: An Important H a b i t a t Com- 37 ponent of the F r a s e r E s t u a r y 4.3 The F r a s e r E s t u a r y : Importance t o the 42 P a c i f i c Flyway 4.4 Seasonal D i s t r i b u t i o n i n B i r d Use of 45 Boundary Bay 4.5 An A n a l y s i s of the E c o l o g i c a l Role of 47 Boundary Bay B i r d H a b i t a t 4.6 C o n c l u s i o n 57 Chapter v Page FIVE RECREATION IN ESTUARINE BIRD HABITAT: ITS 58 EFFECT AND THEIR MITIGATION 5.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 58 5.2 Food Chain D i s r u p t i o n 59 5.3 P a s s i v e Human Presence 60 5.4 A c t i v e Human Presence - Noise and Threats 64 5.5 Feeding W i l d l i f e 71 5.6 D i s r u p t i o n of N e s t i n g B i r d s 72 5.7 C o n c l u s i o n 74 SIX CONFLICTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRESERVATION OF THE 7 6 BIRD RESOURCE AT BOUNDARY BAY AND THEIR MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 6.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 76 6.2 The Surrey Meetings: Source of Information 76 about C o n f l i c t s 6.3 The A g r i c u l t u r a l C o n f l i c t 78 6.4 The Hunter-Anti-Hunter C o n f l i c t 83 SEVEN CONSERVACY ALTERNATIVES FOR BOUNDARY BAY 91 7.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 91 7.2 A l t e r n a t i v e One: C o n t i n u a t i o n of Present 93 Course 7.3 A l t e r n a t i v e Two: Moderate P r e s e r v a t i o n 103 7.4 A l t e r n a t i v e Three: Implementation of a 105 Three Zone System 7.5 A l t e r n a t i v e Four: Enhancement 109 7.6 C o n c l u s i o n 110 BIBLIOGRAPHY 113 APPENDICES 121 Appendix 1 Pr o p o s a l s f o r Conservacy Use 121 of Boundary Bay Appendix 2 Boundaries of Subregions 122 Appendix 3 Boundary Bay Species C h e c k l i s t 123 Appendix 4 The Waterfowl Census: What Does 125 i t T e l l Us? Appendix 5 Observations of B i r d s Feeding on 131 A g r i c u l t u r a l Lands Appendix 6 P a t t e r n Statements from Surrey 132 Pla n n i n g Department Appendix 7 Summary of P u b l i c D i s c u s s i o n on 135 the P a t t e r n Statements Pre-sented i n Appendix S i x v i LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS Page TABLES 4.1 Waterfowl Use of D i f f e r e n t H a b i t a t Areas on 40 the F r a s e r E s t u a r y / D e l t a 4.2 Waterfowl H a b i t a t Values f o r F r a s e r R i v e r 41 E s t u a r y U n i t s 7.1 A l t e r n a t i v e s f o r Conservacy use of Boundary Bay 94 7.2 L i k e l i h o o d o f R e c o n c i l i a t i o n of R e c r e a t i o n Use 99 With P r e s e r v a t i o n of W i l d l i f e H a b i t a t Accord-i n g to Four A l t e r n a t i v e S c e n a r i o s 7.3 P u b l i c Agencies t h a t Would Need t o be Involved 100 i n Implementation of Proposed A l t e r n a t i v e s FIGURES 3.1 Parkland Area S h o r t f a l l s and Surplus 31 4.1 The P a c i f i c Flyway 43 4.2 Boundary-Mud Bays: Average Monthly Waterfowl 46 Counts, 1966-1974 4.3 Feeding H a b i t a t s of Some Common B i r d Species 53 a t Boundary Bay MAPS 1.1 L o c a t i o n of Boundary Bay on the F r a s e r D e l t a 6 1.2 The Study Area 7 1.3 Land Use and Ownership on Boundary Bay 10 4.1 The F r a s e r E s t u a r y and Env i r o n s 39 4.2 B i o p h y s i c a l Zones of Boundary Bay 51 6.1 Designated Hunting and Non-Hunting Areas on 89 Boundary Bay 7.1 P l a c e Names on Boundary Bay 101 NOTE: Base Map, some g r a p h i c s c o u r t e s y of G.V.R.D., Parks Department. v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to my readers Tony Dorcey, Ken H a l l and B i l l Reese. Thanks to the G.V.R.D. Parks Department f o r encouragement, advic e and f o r base maps Rick Hankin, Bev Eve r s , V i o l e t F r a z e r . Thanks to B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n . Thanks to many people f o r help and encouragement i n s m a l l (but important) ways Donna McGee, Nancy P i l c h , Bev Tanchak, Brahm Weisman, Jim L e M a i s t r e , Barry Leach, and more r e c e n t l y , Barry F r a s e r . 1 CHAPTER ONE  Problem Statement and Case Study 1.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n An area t h a t has p o t e n t i a l f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n , c onserva-t i o n , r e c r e a t i o n or o t h e r amenity uses may be c a l l e d a conser-vacy area. A number of i n s t i t u t i o n a l d e s i g n a t i o n s f o r cons e r -v a c i e s e x i s t . These embrace the e n t i r e spectrum from complete p r e s e r v a t i o n o r non-use (an e c o l o g i c a l r e s e r v e o r w i l d l i f e sanctuary) t o i n t e n s i v e use f o r r e c r e a t i o n (a m u n i c i p a l park or an urban w a t e r f r o n t walkway). As the examples i n d i c a t e , the conservacy a r e a concept has two c o n n o t a t i o n s : p r e s e r v a t i o n , and use. These have c o n t r a d i c t o r y i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r p l a n n i n g and management. The p a s t r e c o r d i n North America demonstrates t h a t i t has not been easy t o r e c o n c i l e the two f u n c t i o n s . Over the decades between 1950 and 1970 demands f o r areas f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use have i n c r e a s e d remarkably and today the outdoor r e c r e a t i o n s e c t o r c o n t i n u e s to grow. Though new areas have been s e t a s i d e f o r r e c r e a t i o n , conservacy acreages i n North America have not i n c r e a s e d i n p r o p o r t i o n to t h e i r use ( F o r s t e r , 1973; K u s l e r , 1974). At the same time open space which once u n o f f i c i a l l y s erved a conservacy f u n c t i o n has d i s -appeared due to u r b a n i z a t i o n . These p r e s s u r e s argue s t r o n g l y f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use of a l l conservacy areas, even i n areas where e c o l o g i c a l v a l u e s a re a concern, the r a t i o n a l e b e i n g t h a t 2 g r e a t e r net s o c i a l b e n e f i t s may be obtained from mixing these "uses", than from areas where use i s r e s t r i c t e d . P l a n n i n g and management of conservacy areas has u n f o r -t u n a t e l y lagged behind e x t e n s i o n s of t h e i r use. In some areas p r e s s u r e s of people and outdoor a c t i v i t i e s have r e s u l t e d i n d e g r a d a t i o n of the very resource base t h a t had a t t r a c t e d such use. Small a c t i o n s l i k e dredging and dumping of dredge s p o i l i n n a t u r a l areas, or c l e a r i n g areas of n a t i v e v e g e t a t i o n to p l a n t g r a s s , have r e s u l t e d i n unconscious l o s s of conservacy v a l u e s . L a r g e r i n t r u s i o n s have caused s e r i o u s d i s r u p t i o n s of animal p o p u l a t i o n ecology, u n c o n t r o l l e d u r b a n i z a t i o n i n some conservacy areas, and l o s s of i n t e r e s t i n g landscape f e a t u r e s , again r e s u l t i n g i n d e g r a d a t i o n of conservacy v a l u e s . Designa-t i o n of areas as conservacy, t h e r e f o r e , has not n e c e s s a r i l y p r o v i d e d adequate p r o t e c t i o n of t h e i r n a t u r a l q u a l i t i e s . T h i s t h e s i s suggests how p l a n n i n g and management can r e c o n c i l e p r e s e r v a t i o n w i t h use of a conservacy area, u s i n g a case study i n the Greater Vancouver r e g i o n . The proposed con-servacy area, Boundary Bay, i s a huge e s t u a r i n e complex made up of t h r e e s m a l l e r , but contiguous embayments. The Bay supports s i z a b l e w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s , n o t a b l y waterfowl and s h o r e b i r d s . I t s beaches, warm water and v i s t a s make i t a popular r e c r e a t i o n a r ea. The w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s there are a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t r e c r e a t i o n a t t r a c t i o n . Boundary Bay has been c a l l e d the most ou t s t a n d i n g , undeveloped r e c r e a t i o n a l resource i n the Lower Mainland (K. Joy, B.C. Parks Branch, p e r s o n a l communication). 3 Although Boundary Bay's d e s i g n a t i o n as a conservacy area has not been o f f i c i a l l y d e cided, the i n t e n t expressed among proponents of a conservacy area t h e r e , i s t h a t the Bay should f u n c t i o n as a r e c r e a t i o n and c o n s e r v a t i o n area, w i t h p r e s e r v a -t i o n o f b i r d h a b i t a t as the major c o n s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e . The purpose of t h i s t h e s i s i s to develop some g u i d e l i n e s t h a t w i l l a i d i n management of a conservacy area i n Boundary Bay. The case study i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y c h a l l e n g i n g one f o r two reasons. F i r s t , the p r o x i m i t y of the Bay to an urban c e n t e r and the ex-pected heavy r e c r e a t i o n a l user p r e s s u r e t h a t r e s u l t s from t h i s p r o x i m i t y , w i l l make p r e s e r v a t i o n o f the va l u e of the Bay as b i r d h a b i t a t d i f f i c u l t . Second, u n c l e a r and o v e r - l a p p i n g i n s t i -t u t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s which e x i s t i n the c o a s t a l zone p r e s e n t d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r implementation of any management s t r a t e g y t h a t i s developed. The t h e s i s addresses both of these problems, although the emphasis i s on the former. 1.2 T h e s i s O b j e c t i v e s The o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s t h e s i s are: 1. To analyse the g e n e r a l problem of p l a n n i n g f o r use of conservacy areas: the problem of meeting the d u a l and con-t r a d i c t o r y purposes of p r e s e r v i n g n a t u r a l areas t h a t are a l s o used f o r r e c r e a t i o n . A l o c a l case study i s used: Boundary Bay, accommodation of r e c r e a t i o n i n e s t u a r i n e b i r d h a b i t a t . 2. To develop management g u i d e l i n e s f o r use of a con-servacy area i n Boundary Bay, and to i l l u s t r a t e the t r a d e o f f s 4 t h a t are made as d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f use are accommodated. 3. To o f f e r a comprehensive approach to p l a n n i n g and implementation of a management s t r a t e g y , and to suggest the r o l e to be p l a y e d by agencies with an a c t u a l or p o t e n t i a l i n t e r e s t i n the study area. 1.3 The C o n t r a d i c t i o n of P r e s e r v a t i o n with Use Conservacy areas o f t e n have the problem of s e r v i n g d u a l and c o n t r a d i c t o r y o b j e c t i v e s . Powers (1975) s t a t e s these ob-j e c t i v e s i n a g e n e r a l form: 1. M a i n t a i n and enhance (where p o s s i b l e ) b i o t i c p r o -d u c t i v i t y . 2. Preserve l a n d f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use. The f i r s t o b j e c t i v e i m p l i e s t h a t there w i l l be r e s t r i c t i o n s on use of the conservacy area, so t h a t i t s ecosystem w i l l remain i n t a c t . On the other hand i f r e c r e a t i o n a l needs are to be met, p r e s s u r e of people and outdoor a c t i v i t i e s which l e a d to d i s -turbance of the conservacy area, w i l l i n e v i t a b l y decrease i t s p r o d u c t i v i t y . These c o n t r a d i c t o r y g oals have appeared p e r s i s t e n t l y i n l e g i s l a t i o n which d e s i g n a t e s most conservacy a r e a s , i n the U.S. and Canada: N a t i o n a l Parks A c t (Canada/U.S.); Parks A c t (B.C.); Wilderness A c t (U.S.); Refuge R e c r e a t i o n a l A c t (U.S.); Marine P r o t e c t i o n , Research and S a n c t u a r i e s A c t (U.S.). The l e g i s l a t i o n c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t both use and p r e s e r v a t i o n of conservacy areas should take p l a c e , but does not n e c e s s a r i l y 5 s e t g u i d e l i n e s or p r i o r i t i e s where the two must be mixed. A t some p o i n t the c o s t of mixing ( d e c l i n i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y ) w i l l equal the i n c r e a s e i n user b e n e f i t s ( r e c r e a t i o n ) t h a t can be o b t a i n e d , and a compromise between the two w i l l have been reached. The next s e c t i o n i d e n t i f i e s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p r e s e r v a -t i o n and use w i t h i n the case study.area. 1.4 Boundary Bay: The Case Study Area Boundary Bay i s a huge e s t u a r i n e bay l o c a t e d on the southern, i n a c t i v e p o r t i o n of the F r a s e r d e l t a f r o n t , a p p r o x i -mately 15 m i l e s south of the c i t y of Vancouver (see Map 1.1). The Bay i t s e l f i s made up of three s m a l l e r embayments: Boundary Bay proper on the west; Mud Bay on the e a s t ; and Semiahmoo Bay on the south."'" The study area of the t h e s i s i n c l u d e s the three Bays to the U.S. border: i t extends i n l a n d .5 k i l o m e t e r (see Map 1.2). Such a d e f i n i t i o n of the c o a s t a l zone was used i n the r e c e n t F r a s e r R i v e r E s t u a r y Study (Government of Canada/ Pr o v i n c e of B.C., 1978). Land uses and human a c t i v i t i e s i n these areas w i l l i n f l u e n c e p l a n n i n g and management of a conser-vacy area i n the Bay, and may i n f a c t add to or d e t r a c t from the Bay's conservacy v a l u e s . "*"The 3 bays which are i n c l u d e d i n the study area are r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as Boundary Bay i n the t h e s i s . When one bay i n p a r t i c u l a r i s the s u b j e c t o f d i s c u s s i o n , i t i s r e -f e r r e d to by name; the s m a l l Boundary Bay u n i t i s c a l l e d Bound-ary Bay proper. 6 7 MAP 1.2 THE STUDY AREA 8 The study area forms a n a t u r a l u n i t of more than 90 square m i l e s . The e s t u a r i e s of th r e e r i v e r s — the Nicomekl, Se r p e n t i n e , and Campbell R i v e r s , the l a r g e s t , f l a t t e s t i n t e r -t i d a l area i n the p r o v i n c e , p a r t s of th r e e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s — Surrey, D e l t a , White Rock, and an i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundary are i n c l u d e d i n Boundary Bay. R e c r e a t i o n i s the predominant human use of Boundary Bay a t p r e s e n t . Boundary Bay's beaches are a t t r a c t i v e f o r water and beach r e c r e a t i o n . The shallowness o f the Bay l i m i t s b o a t i n g to s m a l l e r c r a f t , but a dredged channel a t the mouth of the Nicomekl R i v e r o f f e r s access f o r l a r g e r v e s s e l s to the deeper waters of Semiahmoo Bay and Georgia S t r a i t . Two marinas are l o c a t e d i n the Nicomekl e s t u a r y . The Boundary, Mud, and Semiahmoo Bay ecosystem supports r i c h and d i v e r s e communities. The th r e e r i v e r s d r a i n i n g i n t o the Bay support remnant p o p u l a t i o n s of c u t t h r o a t , s t e e l h e a d , and salmon ( S t r a i g h t , 1977). S h e l l f i s h and moll u s c s are p l e n t i f u l i n and on the bottom sediments of the Bay. U n t i l 1962 Boundary Bay proper and Mud Bay were the c e n t e r o f the B.C. o y s t e r grow-i n g i n d u s t r y . Poor water q u a l i t y has prevented h a r v e s t both commercially and r e c r e a t i o n a l l y s i n c e t h a t time (Torrence/ G.V.R.D., 1977). Much of the s h o r e l i n e of Boundary Bay proper and Mud Bay i s covered w i t h the low scrubby saltmarsh vegeta-t i o n ; i n c o n s t r a s t , much of Semiahmoo 1s c o a s t i s rocky. F a r -t h e r o f f s h o r e i n a l l three bays, e e l g r a s s beds, and h e r r i n g spawning areas are found. A colony of harbour s e a l s a l s o make 9 Boundary Bay t h e i r home, u s i n g the i n t e r t i d a l f l a t s of Mud Bay as a pupping area. Boundary Bay i s a m i g r a t i o n stopover and o v e r - w i n t e r i n g a r e a . f o r waterfowl and s h o r e b i r d s on the P a c i f i c Flyway, and may be c l a s s i f i e d as a conservacy area of n a t i o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e ( T a y l o r , 1970). B i r d s are the most v i s i b l e of the Bay's f l o r a and fauna, e s p e c i a l l y a t c e r t a i n seasons o f the year. Most of Boundary Bay's s h o r e l i n e remains undeveloped except f o r dyking. R e s i d e n t i a l areas e x i s t a t Boundary Bay, Beach Grove, C r e s c e n t Beach, Ocean Park and White Rock (see Map 1 . 3 ) . The Deas I s l a n d Thruway (Highway 99) and Ladner Trunk Road (Highway 10) t r a v e r s e the n o r t h e r n shores of Boundary Bay proper and Mud Bay. The B u r l i n g t o n Northern R a i l r o a d runs along the e a s t e r n edge of Mud Bay and conti n u e s south along Semiahmoo Bay to the U.S. Small areas are de s i g n a t e d as muni-c i p a l park i n White Rock (Semiahmoo Park) and D e l t a ( C e n t e n n i a l P a r k ) . There i s a l s o a smal l p r o v i n c i a l park i n the study area, Peace Arch Park; a t p r e s e n t i t has no s h o r e l i n e f r o n t a g e . Most of the remaining land surrounding the Bay i s a g r i c u l t u r a l , i n c l u d e d i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. On the n o r t h shore of the Bay i n D e l t a , the a g r i c u l t u r a l landscape i s i n t e r r u p t e d by Boundary Bay A i r p o r t , an abandoned World War I I f a c i l i t y t h a t may be r e h a b i l i t a t e d and reopened f o r s m a l l p l a n e s . A t o t a l of t e n s t u d i e s have been made t h a t recommend t h a t Boundary Bay be devoted to conservacy uses. These are l i s t e d i n Appendix 1. Pr o p o s a l s f o r conservacy use began i n 10 MAP 1.3 LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP ON BOUNDARY BAY 11 1968 (Swan Wooster, 1968) and have continued to the pr e s e n t (Surrey P l a n n i n g Dept., 1978; Warren/White Rock/G.V.R.D., 1978). Suggestions f o r conservacy use of the Bay, more g e n e r a l i n nature, have a l s o appeared r e g u l a r l y as noted i n Appendix 1. Proposed d e s i g n a t i o n s of the whole or p a r t of the Bay under conservacy use have i n c l u d e d m u n i c i p a l , r e g i o n a l , p r o v i n c i a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l park, e c o l o g i c a l r e s e r v e , w i l d l i f e management area, environmental r e s e r v e , and c o n s e r v a t i o n area (these l a s t two have no l e g a l s t a t u s ) . P r o p o s a l s made p r i o r to 19 77 were more i n the form of an expressed i n t e n t to pr e s e r v e the Bay as a conservacy area, but i n i t i a t e d some a c t i v e move i n t h a t d i r e c -t i o n . Lands purchased s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r conservacy uses i n c l u d e d g r e e n b e l t and w i l d l i f e management areas. Lands h e l d i n muni-c i p a l ownership were a l r e a d y devoted to conservacy uses a t t h a t time: C e n t e n n i a l Beach, White Rock s h o r e l i n e , B l a c k i e S p i t , Crescent Beach. Easements assured access to the shore i n some p l a c e s . Land tenure i s shown i n Map 1 . 3 . Recent a c t i o n s have g i v e n more substance to the i n t e n t to devote Boundary Bay to conservacy uses. In 1978 p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s a t the m u n i c i p a l - r e g i o n a l l e v e l i n t e n s i f i e d with the r e l e a s e of s e v e r a l s t u d i e s : Bauer (1977), G.V.R.D./Torrence (1977), Warren/White Rock/G.V.R.D. (1978), Surrey P l a n n i n g Dept. (1978). P u b l i c meetings have a l s o been h e l d r e g a r d i n g f u t u r e use of the Bay. The assumption t h a t f u t u r e uses of Boundary Bay w i l l be conservacy o r i e n t e d u n d e r l i e s the r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s t h e s i s . 12 The t h r u s t of r e c e n t p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s , which have the c l e a r -l y s t a t e d i n t e n t of making i t p o s s i b l e to pr e s e r v e the Bay f o r conservacy uses, j u s t i f y the u n d e r l y i n g assumption. The unusual number and v a r i e t y of res o u r c e s found a t Boundary Bay have i n s p i r e d the s u c c e s s i o n of p r o p o s a l s f o r a conservacy area t h e r e . The p r o p o s a l s , however, have been very g e n e r a l i n t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n of how the f i t of p r e s e r v a t i o n w i t h r e c r e a t i o n a l use c o u l d be achieved. 13 CHAPTER TWO Pl a n n i n g and Management of Conservacy Areas: The North American Experience 2.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n Experience i n p l a n n i n g and management of conservacy areas i n North America i s used here to decide how w e l l the ba-. lance between p r e s e r v a t i o n of n a t u r a l systems and r e c r e a t i o n a l use has been achieved. An examination o f the p a s t r e c o r d w i l l enable some i m p l i c a t i o n s to be made f o r the Boundary Bay case study. Strengths o f past approaches can be i d e n t i f i e d and a p p l i e d t o p l a n n i n g and management of the case study area; weak-nesses can be i d e n t i f i e d and used as a b a s i s f o r s t r e n g t h e n i n g the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . Today a b e w i l d e r i n g a r r a y o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l d e s i g n a t i o n s e x i s t f o r conservacy areas (wilderness areas, p r i m i t i v e areas, n a t i o n a l f o r e s t s , r e c r e a t i o n areas, parks, s a n c t u a r i e s , e t c . ) . An attempt i s made here to focus on those t h a t are most f a m i l i a r . These are u s u a l l y the most l o n g s t a n d i n g types of c o n s e r v a c i e s , hence have a d i s c e r n a b l e planning/management h i s t o r y . 2.2 I n v i o l a t e Conservacy Areas V a r i o u s d e s i g n a t i o n s e x i s t i n Canada and the U.S. to connote conservacy areas where l i t t l e use i s p e r m i t t e d . Some of these are w i l d e r n e s s areas, p r i m i t i v e areas, marine s a n c t u a r i e s . P e l i c a n I s l a n d Refuge i n F l o r i d a which, i n 1903, was pre s e r v e d 14 as the f i r s t U.S. w i l d l i f e r e fuge, i s one such area. V i s i t a -t i o n to the i s l a n d was t o t a l l y p r o h i b i t e d a t t h a t time. Today, however, s i m i l a r i s l a n d refuges are tending to open to v i s i t o r s under c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s . At one such i s l a n d v i s i t o r s were r e s t r i c t e d to c e r t a i n areas and seasons o f the year; hours of v i s i t a t i o n a l s o had be be s t r i c t l y c o n t r o l l e d to prevent i n t e r -r u p t i o n of the evening r o o s t i n g f l i g h t ( J a r v i s and Cram, 1971). In g e n e r a l i t i s very easy to c o n t r o l access to such refuges because of t h e i r i s o l a t i o n . In B r i t i s h Columbia the e c o l o g i c a l r e s e r v e i s the most i n v i o l a t e of conservacy areas. The E c o l o g i c a l Reserves A c t (c.16, 1971) has made i t p o s s i b l e to s e t a s i d e areas of Crown Land r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of d i s t i n c t i v e ecosystems f o r s c i e n t i f i c study. The process of s u c c e s s i o n of p l a n t and animal communi-t i e s i s allowed to proceed without human i n t e r f e r e n c e i n eco-l o g i c a l r e s e r v e s . As of 1976 there were 75 ec o r e s e r v e s i n B.C. ( F o s t e r , 1976). Because the e c o l o g i c a l r e s e r v e d e s i g n a t i o n i s a r e c e n t one, there i s no experience i n p l a n n i n g and managing e c o r e s e r v e s at t h i s time. Confusion seems t o e x i s t over what human uses might be allowed i n them. The E c o l o g i c a l Reserves A c t s p e c i f i e s t h a t any k i n d of use may be c o n t r o l l e d , r e s t r i c t e d o r p r o h i b i t e d i n the r e s e r v e , but does not s p e c i f y which uses, i f any, be s i d e s s c i e n t i f i c study, might be allowed. While the p u b l i c i s not encouraged to use the r e s e r v e , they are not f o r b i d d e n e n t r y . F o s t e r (1975) says t h a t most ecor e s e r v e s w i l l be ab l e to stand l i g h t r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y without compromising t h e i r n a t u r a l q u a l i t i e s . The p u b l i c may h i k e , climb, photograph p l a n t s and animals and enjoy a w i l d e r n e s s experience i n e c o r e s e r v e s ; hunt-i n g and f i s h i n g might be allowed, and camping c o u l d take p l a c e a t d e s i g n a t e d spots;, i f the r e s e r v e i s l a r g e . T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t the p r o v i n c e ' s m o s t - i n v i o l a t e conservacy areas w i l l " a c c o m -modate use. The type of management necessary to p r o t e c t the e c o r e s e r v e , while i t i s used has a p p a r e n t l y not been c o n s i -dered. With eco r e s e r v e s as a c c e s s i b l e as the U n i v e r s i t y Endow-ment Reserve i n Vancouver, i t i s hard to b e l i e v e t h a t no manage ment i s r e q u i r e d . These examples show the response t y p i c a l of " i n v i o l a t e " conservacy areas throughout North America; o n l y i n e x c e p t i o n a l cases has use been permanently and t o t a l l y excluded. With today's demand f o r r e c r e a t i o n , i t has been hard to j u s t i f y com-p l e t e p r e s e r v a t i o n or non-use of any conservacy a r e a . Consider a t i o n of what management might be necessary to assure t h a t the ecology of these areas can be maintained under use has not a l -ways been forthcoming. I f not c a r e f u l l y managed, th e r e i s a danger t h a t the very v a l u e s being p r e s e r v e d w i l l be l o s t . 2•3 R e c r e a t i o n C o n s e r v a c i e s The most f a m i l i a r conservacy areas i n North America are d e s i g n a t e d as parks. In t h i s d i s c u s s i o n parks are c o n s i d e r e d under two g e n e r a l types: 1. urban p a r k s - m u n i c i p a l and r e g i o n a l p a r k s. These 16 parks are l o c a t e d w i t h i n a m u n i c i p a l i t y or w i t h i n one hour's d r i v i n g d i s t a n c e of a p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r (G.V.R.D., 1978); 2. non-urban p a r k s - p r o v i n c i a l (state) parks and n a t i o n a l parks. These parks are u s u a l l y l a r g e r than urban parks, and are l o c a t e d o u t s i d e o f , though sometimes near, p o p u l a t i o n c e n t e r s . Non-urban parks are endowed wit h the m u l t i p l e g o a l s e t s t h a t are t y p i c a l of most conservacy areas. In B.C. the Parks Branch i s g i v e n a u t h o r i t y over: Crown r i g h t s i n Park areas, n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s w i t h i n Park areas, w i l d l i f e and h a b i t a t s i n parks and r e c r e a -t i o n areas; p r e s e r v a t i o n , development and use; r e g u l a -t i o n of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s u s i n g or e x p l o i t -i n g the Park. (B.C. Park A c t , c . 2 , s . 2 , 197 3) At the n a t i o n a l l e v e l the mandate r e c e i v e d by the U.S. and Canadian n a t i o n a l park agencies i s t h a t they: S h a l l promote and r e g u l a t e the use o f f e d e r a l areas known as parks . . . which purpose i s to conserve the scenery, the n a t i o n a l and h i s t o r i c o b j e c t s and the w i l d l i f e t h e r e i n and to p r o v i d e f o r the enjoyment of the same i n s a i d manner and by such means as w i l l l eave them unimpaired f o r the enjoyment of f u t u r e gener-a t i o n s . (U.S. N a t i o n a l Park A c t , 1916) The u n d e r l i n i n g i s my own and serves to i l l u s t r a t e the c o n t r a -d i c t i o n i n purpose. D e s p i t e having the d u a l o b j e c t i v e s of p r e s e r v a t i o n w i t h use; the i d e a s of nature p r e s e r v a t i o n have p l a y e d a r e l a t i v e l y minor r o l e w i t h i n the non-urban parks of both Canada and the U.S. (Nelson, 1973; F o r s t e r , 1973). H i s t o r i c a l l y u n r e g u l a t e d hunting of e l k i n the N a t i o n a l Parks of western Canada l e d to a s e r i o u s d e c l i n e i n t h e i r p o p u l a t i o n s , so much so i n f a c t , t h a t i t was c o n s i d e r e d necessary to r e i n t r o d u c e e l k from Yellowstone to Banff as e a r l y as 1917. By the 1940"s the e l k p o p u l a t i o n :had i n c r e a s e d 17 to p e s t p r o p o r t i o n s due to the absence of t h e i r n a t u r a l enemies, another r e s u l t of human a c t i v i t y . E l k p o p u l a t i o n c o n t r o l p r o -grams were i n s t a t e d i n both Banff and Jasper; these continue today as the ecology of the animals has been permanently d i s r u p t -ed (Nelson, 1973). The e f f e c t s of unmanaged human a c t i v i t y on park l a n d -scapes may be much more s u b t l e than noted above, y e t s t i l l l e a d to e c o l o g i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e , a d e c l i n e i n b i o t i c p r o d u c t i v i t y and l o s s of conservacy v a l u e s . In G a r i b a l d i P r o v i n c i a l Park a l p i n e meadows have eroded under l i g h t use by h i k e r s who must climb 3,000 f e e t and walk seven m i l e s to reach them (Edwards, 1966). In A s s i n i b o i n e P r o v i n c i a l Park, which i s even more i s o l a t e d than G a r i b a l d i , s i m i l a r e f f e c t s are t a k i n g p l a c e , and some t r a i l s are etched deeply i n t o the e a r t h . L i t t e r , another evidence of un-c o n t r o l l e d human a c t i v i t y , i s now a major problem i n n a t i o n a l and p r o v i n c i a l parks, even i n backcountry areas (Nelson, 1973). Park p l a n n i n g has o f t e n p r e c i p i t a t e d l o s s of ._ ... a t t r a c t i v e park f e a t u r e s . As r e c e n t l y as the 1960's park p l a n -ners i n Yoho> Banf f , Jasper and Kootenay Parks, a n t i c i p a t i n g r a p i d i n c r e a s e s i n auto t r a v e l to parks', developed p l a n s to i n -crease auto a c c e s s . Roads were c o n s t r u c t e d , some through un-touched v a l l e y s . S t u d i e s of f l o r a and fauna, environmental and c u l t u r a l f e a t u r e s were not done. The c o n s t r u c t i o n of a highway on the r e c e s s i o n a l morraine of the Athabasca g l a c i e r along the J a s p e r - B a n f f Highway i s a good example of the u n f o r t u n a t e l o s s of a s i g n i f i c a n t conservacy f e a t u r e . Such unmanaged i n c r e a s e s i n access gave no thought to the way i n c r e a s e s i n the 18 number of f a c i l i t i e s and i n c r e a s e d v i s i t a t i o n would change the n a t u r a l q u a l i t i e s of the parks (Nelson, 1973; F o s t e r , 1973). Although i t can be argued t h a t p r o v i n c i a l and n a t i o n a l parks are being managed and conserved, many of t h e i r v a l u e d r e s o u r c e s are not being e f f e c t i v e l y p r e s e r v e d i n the sense t h a t they w i l l be handed on to p o s t e r i t y 'unimpaired'. Problems of resource d e g r a d a t i o n and l o s s of conservacy v a l u e s have not been any l e s s severe i n urban park systems. In the Greater Vancouver area parks l i k e S t a n l e y Park and L i g h t -house Park are l a r g e enough to p r e s e r v e s i g n i f i c a n t n a t u r a l areas, y e t are l o c a t e d w i t h i n populous c e n t e r s , where p r e s s u r e s of r e c r e a t i o n a l use are heavy. Damage from overuse may be seen i n p i c n i c areas, on and o f f t r a i l s i n f o r e s t s and a t beaches where d e s t r u c t i o n of n a t i v e v e g e t a t i o n i s common. In some cases parks are being put to uses f o r which they were never i n -tended, e.g., o v e r n i g h t camping and t r a i l b i k i n g . T h i s puts an a d d i t i o n a l s t r a i n - on the.:park environmentL.. The vegetation, of n a t u r a l areas w i t h i n such parks, once destroyed, i s g r a d u a l l y r e p l a c e d by grass and ornamentals, an u n f o r t u n a t e occurrence i n parks l i k e S t a n l e y Park, where s i g n i f i c a n t stands of P a c i f i c C o a s t a l f o r e s t are being l o s t . The p o t e n t i a l r o l e of urban parks and open spaces as w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t w i t h i n c i t i e s has long been e s t a b l i s h e d (Lar-son, 1973). In the Vancouver area any park with l a k e s or ponds w i l l a t t r a c t waterfowl: S t a n l e y Park, J e r i c h o Park, Burnaby Lake Park, John Hendry Park. Yet these parks cannot be counted 19 upon to meet any p a r t i c u l a r habitat requirement because of th e i r predominant recreation function. Incidents of human and animal disturbance to w i l d l i f e , including aborted nesting, are common (Leach, 1974). With no thought given to the conservation function these parks could be serving, opportunities are being l o s t . Their p o t e n t i a l to serve a role i n preservation should not be ignored. In summary, designation of a natural area as park has not always been s u f f i c i e n t to ensure that the objectives of pre-servation and use would be met within that area. Park systems at the urban and p r o v i n c i a l / n a t i o n a l le v e l s have been primarily devoted to serving as recreation areas. Loss or disruption of the very features that made the area a t t r a c t i v e as a conservacy, including vegetation, w i l d l i f e or geological features, have often taken place. 2.4 Limited-Use Conservacies W i l d l i f e conservacies, refuges, sanctuaries, and manage-ment areas are a type of conservacy that i s devoted to preser-vation and enhancement of w i l d l i f e populations. Because of t h e i r predominant function i n preservation, close control of v i s i t o r a c t i v i t i e s within t h e i r boundaries has been necessary. The U.S. National: W i l d l i f e Refuge system i s used an an example of planning and management of t h i s type of limited use conser-vacy area. 20 The U.S. National W i l d l i f e Refuge system has been i n existence since 1903. The f i r s t w i l d l i f e refuges were set aside exclusively to protect w i l d l i f e species threatened with extinc-ti o n and no use was permitted. Gradually refuges were extended to include habitats of more common species whose populations were on the decline. For these refuges public hunting was authorized i n 1924 on "at least part" of the refuge area "when w i l d l i f e populations permitted." Later t h i s extended to 25 per-cent of the refuge area and then i n 1958 to 40 percent (Salyer and G i l l e t t , 1964). Though the establishment of the U.S. refuge system was based on the precept that w i l d l i f e on refuges was for "public use and enjoyment", i t was. not u n t i l 1962 i n the Refuge Recrea-t i o n a l Act, that the U.S. Congress gave permission to w i l d l i f e refuges to open up to forms of recreation i n addition to hunting. New recreational a c t i v i t i e s had to be compatible with the wild-l i f e preservation objectives of the refuges; the compatibility c r i t e r i o n was stated emphatically nine times i n the Act (Salyer and G i l l e t t , 1964). The a c t i v i t i e s and f a c i l i t i e s envisioned within the refuges were v i s i t o r centers, nature t r a i l s , f i s h i n g , and a continuation of hunting; only a few areas would permit swimming and boating. Camping was planned for fewer areas s t i l l . The trend over time, therefore, has been to accommodate more and more use on the refuges, but the extension from complete preser-vation to a use orie n t a t i o n has been done very cautiously. Canada does not have a n a t i o n a l w i l d l i f e conservacy system comparable t o t h a t of the U.S. Only r e c e n t l y have lands i n Canada been bought and r e s e r v e d f o r w i l d l i f e (Munro, 1964). Experience i n the U.S. refuges has shown how use can be compa-t i b l e w i t h p r e s e r v a t i o n ; areas such as the Creston V a l l e y W i l d -l i f e Management Area i n B.C. have b e n e f i t t e d from the U.S. ex-p e r i e n c e . The Cr e s t o n Management Area preserves.16,000.acres of shallow lands and marshes, which serve as a bree d i n g area and a s t a g i n g area f o r b i r d s on the P a c i f i c Flyway. A w i l d l i f e c e n t e r i s operated f o r v i s i t o r s . Birdwatching, h i k i n g , canoe-, i n g , p i c n i c k i n g , and camping are p r o v i d e d f o r i n de s i g n a t e d areas. Power boats are p r o h i b i t e d i n most of the Management Area to reduce d i s t u r b a n c e to b i r d s ; a n d to r e c r e a t i o n i s t s en-gaged i n q u i e t p u r s u i t s . Hunting i s p e r m i t t e d on a l l o f the ref u g e , except near c e n t e r s of o t h e r a c t i v i t y , d u r i n g the appro-p r i a t e season•(Creston V a l l e y W i l d l i f e Management A u t h o r i t y , 1974). The r e s e r v e was s e t a s i d e f o r "purposes of w i l d l i f e c o n s e r v a t i o n , management and development" but the management a u t h o r i t y c o u l d permit "such o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s and development . . . as are not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the purpose f o r which the area was e s t a b l i s h e d . " (Creston V a l l e y W i l d l i f e Management Area A c t , 1968, c . 1 4 , s . 8 . ) Though p u b l i c use of the area was ob-v i o u s l y a prime c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n i t s p l a n n i n g , the w i l d l i f e con-s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e c l e a r l y took precedence and a compatible mixed-use was achieved. 22 2.5 Summary Approaches to d e s i g n a t i o n and p l a n n i n g conservacy areas have opted f o r the b e n e f i t s of r e c r e a t i o n a l use. Pure p r e s e r -v a t i o n has been hard to j u s t i f y , and i n v i o l a t e conservacy areas have been the e x c e p t i o n r a t h e r than the r u l e . A review of the North American experience shows t h a t the type of conservacy d e s i g n a t i o n a n a t u r a l area r e c e i v e d a l -ready has important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r i t s p l a n n i n g and manage-ment. Parks, f o r example, are l e s s l i k e l y to be managed to r e c o n c i l e p r e s e r v a t i o n w i t h r e c r e a t i o n a l use, than w i l d l i f e c o n s e r v a c i e s . In each case, however, the s t a t e d g o a l s of the area i n c l u d e both f u n c t i o n s . The r o l e of parks i n p r e s e r v a t i o n of n a t u r a l areas has always been i n c i d e n t a l to t h e i r r o l e i n p r o v i s i o n of r e c r e a t i o n space. T h i s has r e s u l t e d i n degrada-t i o n , sometimes l o s s of e c o l o g i c a l v a l u e s i n parks a t a l l l e v e l s . A balance of use and p r e s e r v a t i o n has been achieved i n some conservacy areas through c a r e f u l p l a n n i n g and management. T h i s approach i s demonstrated i n the U.S. N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e Refuge system. In these areas the l e g i s l a t i v e mandate c l e a r l y s t a t e s t h a t the p r e s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e has p r i o r i t y . T h i s pro-v i d e s a g u i d e l i n e . ; f o r p l a n n e r s . Where use takes p l a c e , i t s extent has been c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d , but many d i f f e r e n t uses have been accommodated i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y . 23 2.6 The I m p l i c a t i o n s o f the North American Experience f o r the Study Area Past experience suggests t h a t d e s i g n a t i o n of Boundary Bay as a conservacy area i s not enough to enable the o b j e c t i v e s of p r e s e r v a t i o n and use to be r e c o n c i l e d . The demands f o r open space f o r r e c r e a t i o n near a c e n t e r l i k e Vancouver w i l l argue f o r r e c r e a t i o n to r e c e i v e p r i o r i t y and the importance of the p r e s e r v a t i o n f u n c t i o n of the conservacy area may tend to be :..v .. minimized. P l a n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s now ongoing i n the Bay suggest t h a t t h i s i s the case. Regional or m u n i c i p a l park d e s i g n a t i o n s are planned f o r three areas on the Bay: the White Rock s h o r e l i n e ; the C r e s c e n t Beach-Blackie S p i t area i n Surrey; and D e l t a ' s C e n t e n n i a l Beach w i t h expansion to i n c l u d e some p r o p e r t y n o r t h of the pr e s e n t beach. During w i n t e r 197 8 p u b l i c meetings r e -gardi n g Boundary Bay, the Surrey P l a n n i n g Dept. (1978) r a i s e d 52 i s s u e s , c a l l e d " p a t t e r n s " f o r p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n . Only f o u r of these d i s c u s s e d the importance of p r e s e r v a t i o n of e s t u a r i e s and w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t ; 48 p a t t e r n s d e a l t w i t h a range; of r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s and f a c i l i t i e s t h a t c o u l d be p r o v i d e d . During s i m i l a r meetings i n White Rock, p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n focused on w a t e r f r o n t r e c r e a t i o n , though the study t h a t was r e l e a s e d (Warren/White Rock/G.V.R.D. , 1978) recognized;;that the f o r e s h o r e contained some s e n s i t i v e and important h a b i t a t areas. S i m i l a r l y , p l a n s f o r the r e g i o n a l park i n D e l t a p l a c e p r i o r i t y on i n c r e a s -i n g the beach c a p a c i t y a t C e n t e n n i a l Park. A waterfowl park, planned f o r phase I I of park development (as one of two develop-24 ment concepts being considered) i s f a c i l i t y i n t e n s i v e . In t o t a l e l e v e n r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be accommodated i n the park, o n l y two of them w i l d l i f e o r i e n t e d . Areas o u t s i d e o f the p r o -posed parks, t h e i r r o l e i n p r e s e r v i n g w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t , and the means whereby a c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h i s r o l e might be ensured, are igno r e d . T h i s i s the i n e v i t a b l e r e s u l t of the l i m i t e d mandates of i n d i v i d u a l a gencies. The s i z e o f Boundary Bay and i t s c o a s t a l l o c a t i o n w i l l a l s o p r e s e n t problems to the p l a n n i n g and management of a con-servacy area t h e r e . These problems w i l l be i n s t i t u t i o n a l ones. The c o a s t a l area i t s e l f f a l l s under a number of j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n c l u d i n g t h r e e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , one r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t , and a l a r g e number of p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l agencies. The d i v i s i o n of i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s does not correspond c l o s e l y to the nature of the ecosystem t h a t i s to be managed. I t i s a l s o u n l i k e l y t h a t the whole Bay would be managed under one conservacy d e s i g n a t i o n by one agency. S e v e r a l d e s i g n a t i o n s f o r d i f f e r e n t p a r c e l s of land/water are more l i k e l y . The number of agencies i n v o l v e d u l t i m a t e l y may p r e s e n t as much of a b a r r i e r to management of a conservacy area i n the Bay as the a c t u a l resource management c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . The problem then has many dimensions. CHAPTER THREE Boundary Bay: The R e c r e a t i o n a l Resource 3 .1 I n t r o d u c t i o n The r e c r e a t i o n a l a t t r a c t i o n s of Boundary Bay f i r s t brought i t s conservacy value to the a t t e n t i o n of the p u b l i c , who expressed the wish to save the Bay from the t h r e a t of d e v e l -opment. The f i r s t p r o p o s a l f o r conservacy use of the Bay i n 1964 was, i n f a c t , the r e s u l t of t h i s i n t e n t . The p r o p o s a l ;for a " Recreation R i v i e r a " i r o n i c a l l y , would have r e s u l t e d i n a d r a s t i c a l t e r a t i o n of the ecosystem. T h i s was a s i n g l e - u s e predecessor to today's p l a n s , which f o r e s e e s use compatible w i t h p r e s e r v a t i o n . The b i o p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s of Boundary Bay are the b a s i s f o r i t s a t t r a c t i v e n e s s as a r e c r e a t i o n a r ea. A c t i v i t i e s s u i t e d to the Bay i n c l u d e : swimming, p i c n i c k i n g , beachcombing, f i s h i n g , b o a t i n g , walking, b i c y c l i n g , horseback r i d i n g , b i r d w a t c h i n g , and hunting. The Bay a l r e a d y s u s t a i n s heavy use f o r r e c r e a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y a t i t s beaches. An a n a l y s i s of p o p u l a t i o n growth, r e c r e a t i o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n and trends i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n shows t h a t more r e c r e a t i o n space i s needed w i t h i n the r e g i o n , e s p e c i a l l y f o r c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s . The o b j e c t i v e of Chapter Three i s to decide which r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s might be accommodated i n Boundary Bay. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l determine the type of t h r e a t r e c r e a t i o n a l use w i l l p r e s e n t to p r e s e r v a t i o n of b i r d 26 h a b i t a t . P l a n n i n g and management can then a n t i c i p a t e c e r t a i n impacts upon w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s . 3.2 B i o p h y s i c a l Resources and R e c r e a t i o n P o t e n t i a l Many of the b i o p h y s i c a l resources of Boundary, Mud, and Semiahmoo Bays have s i g n i f i c a n t r e c r e a t i o n a l p o t e n t i a l . Some have a l r e a d y been developed f o r use, y e t the c a p a b i l i t y e x i s t s to develop f u r t h e r i n a number of ways. The Canada Land Inventory r e c r e a t i o n c a p a b i l i t y maps show the e n t i r e s h o r e l i n e of Boundary Bay proper and Mud Bay as having a c l a s s 2 c a p a b i l i t y , i . e . , a h i g h c a p a b i l i t y to engender and s u s t a i n h i g h t o t a l annual use based on one or more a c t i v i -t i e s o f an i n t e n s i v e nature. S u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s emphasize the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r viewing wetland w i l d l i f e and f o r beachcombing. The wonderful v i s t a from the s h o r e l i n e i s s i n g l e d out. In Mud Bay access to the a n g l i n g waters of the Nicomekl and S e r p e n t i n e R i v e r s i s a l s o r a t e d important. F o r some reason the Ocean Park s h o r e l i n e and Semiahmoo Bay were not i n c l u d e d i n the i n v e n t o r y . Perhaps, the most o u t s t a n d i n g p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s of . Boundary Bay from the s t a n d p o i n t of r e c r e a t i o n a l p o t e n t i a l are the sandy beaches t h e r e . High q u a l i t y beaches e x i s t a t Centen-n i a l Beach, Beach Grove, B l a c k i e S p i t , and C r e s c e n t Beach. These beaches extend southward to White Rock and Semiahmoo Park. The beaches are n a t u r a l sandy beaches, though i n some cases due to human i n t r u s i o n on s h o r e l i n e sediment t r a n s p o r t , they must be a r t i f i c i a l l y maintained (Bauer, 1977). The waters o f f these beaches, warmed by the sun on the shallow t i d a l f l a t s , are ex-27 c e l l e n t f o r swimming and amongst the warmest c o a s t a l waters i n the p r o v i n c e . The deeper waters and channels of Boundary Bay proper and Semiahmoo Bay are good day c r u i s i n g spots f o r s a i l i n g and power c r a f t . The area o f f e r s easy access to the popular b o a t i n g waters of the G u l f and San Juan I s l a n d s and the S t r a i t of Georgia. The i n n e r waters of Boundary Bay proper and Mud Bay are too shallow to accommodate any but shallow d r a f t boats: s m a l l power c r a f t , canoes, kayaks, and rowboats. The abundant fauna of Boundary Bay can be c o n s i d e r e d a r e c r e a t i o n a l a t t r a c t i o n to be enjoyed through o b s e r v a t i o n , study, c o l l e c t i o n , or h a r v e s t . The i n t e r t i d a l i n v e r t e b r a t e s and the t i d a l i n f l u x of s h e l l s and d r i f t w o o d make the f o r e s h o r e s of the Bay a rewarding beachcombing area. Clams abound i n the t i d a l f l a t s , although a t p r e s e n t h a r v e s t i n g them i s p r o h i b i t e d due to water contamination. C e r t a i n spots along the shore are good f o r c r a b b i n g , c u t t h r o a t t r o u t , and smelt f i s h i n g . The s h o r e l i n e s a l t marshes and the s p a r s e l y vegetated t i d a l f l a t s w i t h t h e i r a l g a l mats and v i s i b l e evidence of i n v e r t e b r a t e h a b i t a t i o n are unusual and i n t e r e s t i n g . The b i r d l i f e of Boundary Bay, always one of the Bay's most prominent a t t r a c t i o n s , o f f e r s e x c e l l e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r e c r e a t i o n . Game ducks are p l e n t i f u l a t c e r -t a i n seasons of the year and the Bay i s the f o c a l p o i n t of the Brant Goose hunting season i n the r e g i o n . The v a r i e t y of b i r d l i f e , e s p e c i a l l y waterfowl and s h o r e b i r d s , i s enough to a t t r a c t numerous bi r d w a t c h e r s . L i k e h u n t i n g , t h i s i s a seasonal a c t i v i t y . 3.3 28 P r e s e n t R e c r e a t i o n a l Use The r e c r e a t i o n a l c a p a b i l i t i e s of Boundary Bay have been developed to the e x t e n t t h a t C e n t e n n i a l Beach, Cr e s c e n t Beach, B l a c k i e S p i t , arid the White Rock s h o r e l i n e are now used i n t e n -s i v e l y f o r beach r e c r e a t i o n . An estimated 24,000 to 31,000 people per day use Boundary Bay d u r i n g peak summer days (G.V.R. D. estimate based on data c o l l e c t e d by F a i r h u r s t , 1977). Peak days occur on approximately ten to f i f t e e n weekends each year. Beach use a t Boundary Bay amounts to about 50 p e r c e n t of the peak day swimming and beach a c t i v i t y f o r the F r a s e r R i v e r and E s t u a r y as a whole ( i n c l u d i n g Wreck Beach, but no o t h e r c i t y beach). Some beach use takes p l a c e year round. Boating f a c i l i t i e s are concentrated i n the C r e s c e n t Beach-Blackie S p i t area of Mud Bay, whexe there are two marinas a t the mouth of the Nicomekl R i v e r , a dry storage compound on the S p i t , and a summer f l o a t a r e a . A boat l a u n c h i n g ramp i s demarcated on the shore near the dry storage compound, but l a u n c h i n g can take p l a c e almost anywhere along the g e n t l y s l o p -i n g S p i t . Two to f o u r hundred people go b o a t i n g on Boundary Bay a t peak times; t h i s i s ten to t h i r t e e n p e r c e n t of the t o t a l b o a t i n g a c t i v i t y i n the F r a s e r R i v e r and e s t u a r y on such days (G.V.R.D. estimate based on data c o l l e c t e d by F a i r h u r s t , 1977). Overnight camping accommodation i s a v a i l a b l e on the shore of Boundary Bay a t f o u r p l a c e s , a l l p r i v a t e l y owned camp grounds. Camping areas c a t e r mostly to t o u r i s t s d u r i n g the summer months. The Bay i s a l s o amenable f o r d i s p e r s e d r e c r e a -29 t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s which r e q u i r e no s p e c i a l development of f a c i l i t i e s . The shores and f o r e s h o r e are s u i t e d to walking, as are the dykes. Horseback r i d e r s , o c c a s i o n a l c y c l i s t s and t r a i l b i k e r s a l s o use the Bay. No measurements have been made of d i s -persed r e c r e a t i o n a l use of Boundary Bay. i T h i s type of use takes p l a c e year round. A F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch survey estimated t h a t Bound-ary Bay s u s t a i n e d 17,568 hunter days d u r i n g the.1977 hunting season; t h i s amounted to t w e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t of the t o t a l game b i r d hunting days i n the r e g i o n . No esti m a t e s of bi r d w a t c h i n g a c t i v i t y a t Boundary Bay are a v a i l a b l e . 3.4 General Trends i n Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Upward trends i n p o p u l a t i o n growth, a v a i l a b i l i t y o f l e i s u r e time and m o b i l i t y have continued t o e x e r t a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on the demand f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s . P a r t i -c i p a t i o n i n outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . . has continued to grow and the range of a c t i v i t i e s to choose from has d i v e r s i f i e d . Of s i x t e e n r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s analysed by the G.V.R.D. (1978) onl y one, hunting, showed a c l e a r decrease i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n over the p a s t ten y e a r s . Four a c t i v i t i e s : snowmobiling, t r a i l b i k -i n g , f our wheel d r i v i n g , and kayaking werei„new t o the r e c r e a t i o n scene, having been v i r t u a l l y unheard of a t the time o f the f i r s t a n a l y s i s of r e g i o n a l r e c r e a t i o n i n 1966 (L.M.R.P.B., 1966). Other a c t i v i t i e s l i k e nature study, camping, and c r o s s country s k i i n g had widened c o n s i d e r a b l y i n scope and p u b l i c a p peal. 30 While recreation demands increased, i n the region as a whole park acreage increases were unable to keep pace with the need for recreation land. As measured by park standards, short-f a l l s i n parkland e x i s t i n municipal, regional and p r o v i n c i a l park acreages, and more lands designated for conservacy uses are needed throughout the region (G.V.R.D., 1978). Figure 3.1 shows municipal and regional park s h o r t f a l l s i n seven subareas of the region (G.V.R.D., 1978). Appendix 2 contains a boundary map of these subregions. 3.5 Implications of Regional Recreation Demands The G.V.R.D. (1978) study of regional recreation par-t i c i p a t i o n and supply of f a c i l i t i e s showed that there was a special need for opportunities for certain a c t i v i t i e s . Bound-ary Bay could play a role i n providing an area for the a c t i v i -t i e s that are discussed i n the next paragraphs. 3.5-1 Beach A c t i v i t i e s and Swimming Boundary Bay's beaches are one recreation asset for which there seems to be an u n f u l f i l l e d demand. More than half of the regional population goes to beaches to sunbathe, beach-comb, s t r o l l , p i c n i c , and„wade; 35-40 percent of the.-popula-tion swims (G.V.R.D., 1978). About one-third of a l l recrea-t i o n a l outings i n the region are to beaches (L.M.R.P.B., 1966). 31 20_ psj regional | | municipal -t-e-> z 0 5 . X o 3> *Note: Calculations to the year 2000 include land area for proposed Regional Parks but not for proposed Municipal Parks. 20J I9771 1991 NORTH SHORE HOWE SOUND 1977' 1991 BURRARD PEN. 197711991 NORTHEAST SECTOR 1977 ' 1991 1977' 1991 i977 r l99l 1977 ' 1991 SOUTH SHORE SURREY MAPLE RIDGE FRASER WHITE ROCK VALLEY SUB — REGIONS Figure 3.1 Parkland Area Shortfalls and Surplus 32 A c c o r d i n g to a beach standard developed f o r the Puget Sound area, Greater Vancouver would never be abl e to meet i t s long term beach needs with i t s n a t u r a l beaches (L.M.R.P.B., 1966). Every beach area, t h e r e f o r e , should be regarded as e s p e c i a l l y v a l u a b l e . Boundary Bay i s one of two areas where the water q u a l i t y i s s u i t a b l e f o r swimming (the other area i s B u r r a r d In-l e t ) . The e n t i r e s h o r e l i n e o f Boundary Bay proper and Semiahmoo Bay have beach p o t e n t i a l . D e s p i t e heavy use, a t p r e s e n t o n l y sm a l l areas a t C e n t e n n i a l Beach, C r e s c e n t Beach, and Semiahmoo Park are p r o t e c t e d w i t h a conservacy d e s i g n a t i o n . 3.5-2 Boating/Marinas Over the p a s t few years two s t u d i e s have been r e l e a s e d i n the r e g i o n d e t a i l i n g the need f o r a d d i t i o n a l p l e a s u r e boat moorage (Marine Trades A s s o c i a t i o n of B.C., 1974; Meyer, 1976). A G.V.R.D. (1978) survey concluded t h a t as of 1978 c o n s t r u c t i o n of new moorage, both here and i n the U.S. has enabled moorage supply to keep up w i t h p r o j e c t e d demands. A marina, then, i s not c o n s i d e r e d one of the conservacy uses f o r which t h e r e w i l l be an immediate demand i n Boundary Bay; t h i s p i c t u r e c o u l d change i n the near term ( f i v e to ten y e a r s ) . B o a t i n g , o f course, w i l l c o n tinue on the Bay r e g a r d l e s s of p r o v i s i o n of f u r t h e r marinas'.; 3.5-3 Game B i r d Hunting Crown land and f o r e s h o r e as w e l l as some p r i v a t e lands i n the r e g i o n a re open to hu n t i n g . Hunting p a r t i c i p a t i o n , r a t h e r than the supply o f areas on which to hunt, appears to be the f a c t o r l i m i t i n g the demand f o r hunting o p p o r t u n i t i e s . 33 The number of waterfowl hunters i n the r e g i o n has de-c l i n e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y over the p a s t ten y e a r s . Hunting l i c e n s e s a l e s may be used as an i n d i c a t o r o f t h i s d e c l i n e . In 1966 f o u r -teen people per thousand (or a t o t a l of 14,700 people) purchased l i c e n s e s to hunt m i g r a t o r y b i r d s i n the Lower Mainland (Russel and P a i s h , 1968). Ten years l a t e r o n l y f o u r people per thousand (a t o t a l o f 5,248 people) purchased s i m i l a r l i c e n s e s (B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, Unpublished Data, 1977) . Regio n a l l i c e n s e s a l e s show, furthermore, t h a t hunting p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the three m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a d j a c e n t to Boundary Bay (Surrey, D e l t a , White Rock) i s markedly above the r e g i o n a l average. Seven people per thousand i n these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s purchased the F r a s e r V a l l e y S p e c i a l Area L i c e n s e f o r the 1976-77 season. These f i g u r e s argue f o r a c o n t i n u a t i o n of hunting as one a c t i v i t y w i t h i n a conservacy area a t Boundary Bay. The d e c l i n e i n hunting . p a r t i c i p a t i o n . , however, may e v e n t u a l l y l e a d to a phasing out of the a c t i v i t y . 3.5-4 B i r d w a t c h i n g / W i l d l i f e O b s e r v a t i o n P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n bi r d w a t c h i n g i s harder to a s c e r t a i n than p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n hu n t i n g . For one t h i n g i t i s harder to d e f i n e a birdwatcher f o r the purposes of coun t i n g , because a v a r i e t y of people p a r t i c i p a t e w i t h v a r y i n g degrees of i n t e n s i t y . Are people who c a r r y b i n o c u l a r s c l a s s i f i e d as birdwatchers or only people who keep " l i f e l i s t s " ? What about the people who observe b i r d s c a s u a l l y on a s t r o l l through a park? Organized n a t u r a l i s t c l u b s i n the r e g i o n c o n t a i n c l o s e 34 to 2,000 members (G.V.R.D., 1978). Birdwatching o u t i n g s are a r e g u l a r pastime f o r these c l u b s . Environmental study programs i n community r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s and s c h o o l s reach about 37,000 people per year, the m a j o r i t y of these i n elementary s c h o o l s . Such programs i n c l u d e , but are not l i m i t e d t o , the study of b i r d s and b i r d w a t c h i n g . Organized p a r t i c i p a n t s are but a s m a l l p a r t of t o t a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n w i l d l i f e o b s e r v a t i o n . LeFevre (1974) i n d i c a t e d t h a t 54 p e r c e n t of the p o p u l a t i o n sampled randomly from the Van-couver telephone book (n=150) made ou t i n g s s p e c i f i c a l l y to ob-serve w i l d l i f e ; 78 p e r c e n t of these people d i d not belong to any n a t u r a l i s t o r g a n i z a t i o n . Attendance a t R e i f e l M i g r a t o r y B i r d Sanctuary g i v e s an i n d i c a t i o n of c a s u a l i n t e r e s t i n l o c a l w i l d -l i f e ; 84,000 people v i s i t e d R e i f e l i n 1976. The G.V.R.D. (1978) concluded on the b a s i s of f i v e s t u d i e s i n r e c r e a t i o n p a r t i c i p a -t i o n t h a t roughly 25-3 5 p e r c e n t of the r e g i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n was i n v o l v e d i n some type of nature study, i n t h i s r e g i o n mostly w i l d l i f e viewing, e s p e c i a l l y b i r d s . I t was f e l t t h a t the t r e n d i s towards i n c r e a s i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n these a c t i v i t i e s ; however, the d i v e r s i t y and d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of the a c t i v i t i e s makes t h i s d i f f i c u l t to s u b s t a n t i a t e e x a c t l y . Researchers i n the U.S. have f e l t t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n there has shown a s i m i l a r r a p i d i n c r e a s e (Hendee and P o t t e r , 1975; C a l l i s o n , 1973; Seater, 1975). These c o n c l u s i o n s have been based on i n c r e a s i n g memberships i n w i l d -l i f e o r nature c o n s e r v a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s (such as the Audubon Soc i e t y ) and on i n c r e a s i n g v i s i t a t i o n to w i l d l i f e r e f uges f o r a p p r e c i a t i v e , as opposed to hunting purposes. 35 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n nature study and b i r d w a t c h i n g , some of i t a f a i r l y c a s u a l l e v e l , argues s t r o n g l y f o r p r o v i s i o n of o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o c a r r y out t h i s pastime a t Boundary Bay, where b i r d p o p u l a t i o n s are so prominent. The t r e n d h i n t s t h a t these a c t i v i t i e s w i l l become even more important i n the f u t u r e . 3 . 6 C o n c l u s i o n s Examination of p r e s e n t use of Boundary Bay and a n t i c i -pated f u t u r e demands f o r i t s use i n d i c a t e t h a t swimming and beach a c t i v i t i e s w i l l a t t r a c t i n c r e a s i n g numbers of r e c r e a t i o n -i s t s to the Bay. Use of Boundary Bay beaches f o r swimming w i l l be e s p e c i a l l y important because of the s c a r c i t y of h i g h q u a l i t y swimming beaches i n the r e g i o n . H e a v i e s t beach use w i l l take p l a c e d u r i n g ten to f i f t e e n summer weekends. The b o a t i n g sea-son on the Bay extends from May to October. I t i s not known whether t h i s a c t i v i t y ? w i l l i n c r e a s e or stay the same; the an-swer depends i n p a r t on p r o v i s i o n of f u r t h e r f a c i l i t i e s f o r boaters here and elsewhere. Some b o a t i n g and beach use ( f o r walking, p i c n i c k i n g , beachcombing, etc.) w i l l c o n t i n u e year round. F a l l , w i n t e r and s p r i n g r e c r e a t i o n on Boundary Bay w i l l focus on w i l d l i f e , h u n ting of game b i r d s , and o b s e r v a t i o n of a l l s p e c i e s . The number of people w i s h i n g to observe w i l d l i f e on the Bay i s expected to i n c r e a s e i n years ahead, w h i l e the numbers of hunters w i l l continue to d e c l i n e . E v e n t u a l l y hunt-i n g may be phased out; however, f o r the p r e s e n t , r e s i d e n t s i n 36 the three municipalities fronting on the Bay show more enthu-siasm for hunting than average regional residents. This argues for a continuation of public hunting on the Bay. 37 CHAPTER FOUR  The Role of Boundary Bay as a W i l d l i f e H a b i t a t 4.1 V a r i e t y of B i r d Species a t Boundary Bay S i x t y - t h r e e s p e c i e s of e s t u a r i n e b i r d s found a t Bound-ary Bay have been catalogued from a v a r i e t y of sources. Appen-d i x 3 p r e s e n t s a s p e c i e s l i s t f o r the Bay. E i g h t s p e c i e s of d a b b l i n g ducks, s i x t e e n d i v i n g ducks, s i x loons and grebes, f i f t e e n s h o r e b i r d s , seven g u l l s , and one l a r g e wading b i r d are commonly seen t h e r e . Four waterfowl s p e c i e s : m a l l a r d , widgeon, p i n t a i l , and green-winged t e a l are f a r more abundant than other b i r d s . The g r e a t e r scaup, a d i v i n g duck, and s h o r e b i r d s , e s -p e c i a l l y the d u n l i n sandpiper, are a l s o very abundant. F i f t e e n s p e c i e s of r a p t o r s are known to v i s i t Boundary Bay. The Black Brant i s the o n l y goose seen r e g u l a r l y t h e r e . Two o t h e r s p e c i e s of goose found l o c a l l y are r a r e l y seen. A v a r i e t y of woodland and f i e l d b i r d s i n h a b i t the upland near Boundary Bay, and oc-c a s i o n a l l y forage along the dykes. S i x t y - f i v e of these p a s s e r -i n e s p e c i e s were catalogued by Leach (1972). 4.2 Boundary Bay: An Important H a b i t a t Component of the  F r a s e r E s t u a r y Boundary Bay i s one h a b i t a t component of the F r a s e r e s t u a r y complex of waterfowl and s h o r e b i r d h a b i t a t ; the other 38 two areas are Sturgeon and Roberts Banks (see Map 4 .1 ). A e r i a l censuses made over a p e r i o d of e i g h t years show t h a t Boundary Bay ( i n c l u d i n g Boundary Bay proper and Mud Bay, but e x c l u d i n g Semiahmoo Bay f o r which no counts were made) s u s t a i n e d the h i g h -e s t number of waterfowl of the three h a b i t a t areas (see Table 4.1) ( T a y l o r , 1974). Sverre (1974) c a l c u l a t e d a p r o p o r t i o n a l v a l u e f o r each component of h a b i t a t w i t h i n the e s t u a r y . He based t h i s on two f a c t o r s i n d i c a t i v e of the q u a l i t y of the h a b i t a t : waterfowl use (number of b i r d s seen per census day) and marsh area. A h a b i t a t v a l u e (Hv) was d e r i v e d by t a k i n g the r a t i o of marsh acreage (He) f o r each p a r t of the e s t u a r y to t o t a l e s t u a r y marsh acreage (Ht) and adding the r a t i o of b i r d use f o r each area (Uc) to the t o t a l e s t u a r y b i r d use (Ut); thus: Hv = He + Uc Ht Ut Boundary Bay, a c c o r d i n g to the Sverre a n a l y s i s , r e p r e -sented about 27 p e r c e n t of the t o t a l w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t value of the F r a s e r e s t u a r y (see Table 4 . 2 ) . Westham I s l a n d was the o n l y area whose va l u e exceeded t h a t of Boundary Bay. The I s -la n d c o n t a i n s R e i f e l M i g r a t o r y B i r d Sanctuary and A l a k s e n W i l d -l i f e Management Area; both lands have been managed f o r water-fowl use s i n c e the e a r l y s e v e n t i e s . The c o n c l u s i o n s drawn here are based on waterfowl use of the F r a s e r e s t u a r y as r e c o r d e d i n a e r i a l census counts and on areas -.of marsh found i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of the e s t u a r y . Since waterfowl are the most abundant s p e c i e s w i t h i n the h a b i t a t , MAP 4.1 THE FRASER- ESTUARY AND ENVIRONS S C A L E IN MILES 40 TABLE 4.1 Waterfowl Use of D i f f e r e n t H a b i t a t Areas on the F r a s e r . E s t u a r y / D e l t a T o t a l of Average Montly Waterfowl Counts 1966 to 1974 .Area,.of :F'raser. FALL* E s t u a r y / D e l t a Sept. to Dec. WINTER/SPRING* Jan. to A p r i l T o t a l ' Sturgeon Bank Roberts Bank Boundary and Mud Bay"*" 54,000 91,000 104,000 40,000 42,000 34 ,000 94,000 133,000 138 ,000 * Average number of waterfowl counted per a e r i a l census day. For census f l i g h t s between 1966 and 1974 ( T a y l o r , 1974) to the n e a r e s t thousand. 1 Does not i n c l u d e Semiahmoo Bay. 41 TABLE 4.2 Waterfowl H a b i t a t Values f o r F r a s e r R i v e r E s t u a r y U n i t s % of .Habitat R e l a t i v e Marsh Area Water fowl Value H a b i t a t E s t u a r y U n i t s (Acres) U s e 1 Index Value Iona - Sea I s l a n d s 360 46 ,295 0.20 10.0 L u l u I s l a n d 1,4942 47,567 0.48 24.0 Westham I s l a n d 1,4932 84,267 0.58 29.0 Brunswick 2 373 48,601 0.21 10.5 Boundary - Mud Bay 3 757 J 137,561 0.53 26.5 T o t a l 4 ,477 364,291 2.00 100.0 Source: T a y l o r (1974) ; Severre (Unpublished). ^"Season t o t a l of average monthly a e r i a l counts ; of ducks and geese, 1966 to 1974. Marsh acreage from Burgess (1970). Marsh acreage from Forbes (1972) . 42 i t can be argued t h a t waterfowl use i s a f a i r l y good i n d i c a t o r of h a b i t a t v a l u e ; however, more than f i f t y o ther b i r d . s p e c i e s are found on the Bay. The h a b i t a t requirements of these s p e c i e s might be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from those of waterfowl. Fur-thermore, f a c t o r s other than marsh area i n f l u e n c e the q u a l i t y of a h a b i t a t : a v a i l a b i l i t y of s u i t a b l e food, amount of d i s t u r -bance and o t h e r s . T h i s adds u n c e r t a i n t y to the c o n c l u s i o n s drawn here, and the h a b i t a t v a l u e of Boundary Bay should be regarded o n l y as a "best guess". W i t h i n the l i m i t s of the accuracy of the data used to make the c a l c u l a t i o n s , Boundary Bay and Westham I s l a n d probably have about the same h a b i t a t v a l u e . 4 . 3 The F r a s e r E s t u a r y : Importance to the P a c i f i c Flyway About two m i l l i o n b i r d s on the P a c i f i c Flyway pass through the F r a s e r d e l t a on t h e i r m i g r a t o r y journeys south from breeding grounds i n i n l a n d and n o r t h e r n B r i t i s h Columbia, A l a s k a , the Yukon, and n o r t h e a s t e r n R u s s i a (see F i g u r e 4 . 1 ) . One m i l l i o n of these b i r d s are d a b b l i n g ducks; t h i s makes up about 20 p e r c e n t of the Flyway d a b b l i n g duck p o p u l a t i o n (Bur-gess, 1 9 7 0 ) . Many migrants stop to feed and r e s t on the d e l t a and e s t u a r y . Appearing i n the f a l l , numbers b u i l d to a peak by November. Some b i r d s leave f o r w i n t e r i n g grounds i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s and Mexico. An estimated 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 ducks and 2 0 , 0 0 0 snow geese remain to overwinter l o c a l l y . T h i s r e p r e s e n t s a l -most fo u r p e r c e n t of the Flyway p o p u l a t i o n (Burgess, 1 9 7 0 ) , Figure 4.1 The Pacific Flyway 44 making the F r a s e r the l a r g e s t waterfowl w i n t e r i n g ground i n Canada. An a d d i t i o n a l one m i l l i o n s h o r e b i r d s spend the w i n t e r here ( T a y l o r , 1970). With the onset of mating season b i r d numbers d e c l i n e and by May most are gone. A few b i r d s remain a l l summer. Based on c r i t e r i a developed i n Europe ( S a e i j s and Bap-t i s t , 197 7) the F r a s e r e s t u a r y , i n c l u d i n g Boundary Bay, may be d e s c r i b e d as " I n t e r n a t i o n a l l y Important Wetlands". The e s t u a r y meets the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a f o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l import-ance : 1. P r o v i d e s an important s t a g i n g p o i n t on a main m i g r a t i o n r o u t e . 2. Holds more than two p e r c e n t of the estimated t o t a l flyway c a p a c i t y (during o v e r w i n t e r i n g p e r i o d s ) . In a d d i t i o n the e s t u a r y may meet the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a f o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l importance were s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e to make assessments: 1. Holds more than ten p e r c e n t of the estimated flyway p o p u l a t i o n of one or more s p e c i e s of waterfowl. 2. Regular use by one or more endangered s p e c i e s of waterfowl. (The Black Brant i s e x p e r i e n c i n g a dramatic popu-l a t i o n d e c l i n e i n the r e g i o n (Leach, unpublished, 1977), a l -though i t i s not y e t on the endangered l i s t . ) The i n f o r m a t i o n used to make assessments i n t h i s s e c t i o n r e p r e s e n t a b e s t guess of r e s e a r c h e r s i n the f i e l d . I t i s g e n e r a l l y agreed t h a t the a e r i a l counts underestimate b i r d 45 p o p u l a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y where those p o p u l a t i o n s are l a r g e (Bur-gess, 1970; Chandler and Denis, 1972). 4.4 Seasonal D i s t r i b u t i o n i n B i r d Use of Boundary Bay Boundary Bay shows the marked seasonal d i s t r i b u t i o n of use t h a t t y p i f i e s the F r a s e r e s t u a r y as a whole. F i g u r e 4.2 makes a g r a p h i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f average monthly waterfowl counts f o r Boundary Bay between 1966 and 1974 ( T a y l o r , 1974). The count excludes Semiahmoo Bay. Peak numbers of mi g r a t o r y waterfowl are found i n the Boundary Bay area i n November. The average peak number counted i s about 44,000"*", though numbers as hig h as 61,000 were r e p o r t e d i n November 1967 (B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, Unpublished Data). A f t e r the f a l l m i g r a t i o n wave p o p u l a t i o n s of b i r d s on Boundary Bay d e c l i n e r a p i d l y . By January o n l y w i n t e r r e s i d e n t s remain. The average number of waterfowl counted d u r i n g January and February i s 12,000 and 9,000 r e s p e c t i v e l y . P o p u l a t i o n s continue to d e c l i n e s l o w l y through the wint e r as r e s i d e n t s begin to move towards northern and i n t e r i o r breeding grounds. By A p r i l t here are onl y a few thousand (average of approximately 5,000) waterfowl on the Bay. There i s no s p r i n g m i g r a t i o n peak and i t appears t h a t a c o n t i n u a l turnover takes p l a c e i n b i r d p o p u l a t i o n s as new immigrants r e p l a c e d e p a r t i n g w i n t e r r e s i d e n t s . "'"Fish and W i l d l i f e census data r e c o r d s counts to the ne a r e s t one. For purposes of t h i s t h e s i s , census f i g u r e s have been rounded o f f to the n e a r e s t thousand to r e f l e c t more accu r -a t e l y the number of s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r e s i n the data. 46 Boundary-Mud Bays Average Monthly Waterfowl Counts 1966 1974 FIGURE 4.2 47 The months of May, June, J u l y and August are a de s e r t e d time of year f o r the waters of Boundary Bay. A few immature, s i c k , o r i n j u r e d b i r d s remain, but do not breed. Year round r e s i d e n t s , such as the Great Blue Heron, are a l s o p r e s e n t . Summer water-fowl census r e s u l t s show t h a t through J u l y and August o n l y a few hundred b i r d s are p r e s e n t ( T a y l o r , 1970; B.C. F i s h and W i l d -l i f e Branch, Unpublished Data). I t i s a t t h i s time, however, t h a t the e a r l y migrant s h o r e b i r d s and p i n t a i l ducks a r r i v e ( H a r r i s i n Leach, 1977; K a i s e r , 1978). The accuracy of census techniques on which these s t a -t i s t i c s are based i s l i m i t e d . For a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of c o l l e c t i o n of census data, i t s accuracy, and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n see Appendix 4. Waterfowl usage of the h a b i t a t alone, as r e p o r t e d by census r e s u l t s , i s not a t o t a l l y adequate i n d i c a t o r of seasonal p a t t e r n s of use of t h a t h a b i t a t . More than f i f t y other s p e c i e s of b i r d s use the Bay; t h e i r p o p u l a t i o n s i z e s and ti m i n g o f mig r a t i o n s are known only i n a very g e n e r a l way. 4.5 An A n a l y s i s of the E c o l o g i c a l Role of Boundary Bay B i r d H a b i t a t H a b i t a t i s d e f i n e d as an area of land and/or water t h a t p r o v i d e s the food, cover and o r space requirements of a s p e c i e s a t some time d u r i n g i t s l i f e c y c l e (D.R.E.E., Canada Land In-ventory, 1973). The numbers of waterfowl, s h o r e b i r d s , wading b i r d s , and other b i r d s t h a t are c o n s i s t e n t l y seen and counted 48 on Boundary, ;Mud, and Semiahmoo Bays show t h a t the area i s a h e a v i l y used h a b i t a t . S i t i n g s , however, do not e s t a b l i s h which h a b i t a t requirements the Bay meets, or which areas of the Bay are most important i n meeting h a b i t a t needs. T h i s s e c t i o n analyses the r o l e of Boundary Bay i n the ecology of the b i r d s found t h e r e . As noted e a r l i e r waterfowl are almost completely absent from the Bay d u r i n g the summer or n e s t i n g season, so the Bay has no f u n c t i o n i n r e p r o d u c t i o n . The heavy use of the Bay dur-i n g m i g r a t i o n and through the w i n t e r shows t h a t a t minimum the Bay i s an important stopover p o i n t . I t s r o l e i n p r o v i d i n g food f o r migrant and o v e r w i n t e r i n g b i r d s , however, has been c h a l -lenged ( T a y l o r , 1974; H a r r i s i n Leach, 1977). Observation' of l a r g e numbers of b i r d s on the a g r i c u l t u r a l lands surrounding the Bay suggest t h a t many b i r d s seek food on the shorelands. 4.5-1 Boundary Bay as a R e s t i n g Area f o r M i g r a t o r y B i r d s Boundary Bay f u n c t i o n s as a r e s t i n g area f o r b i r d s dur-i n g the m i g r a t o r y p e r i o d . The a v a i l a b i l i t y of u n d i s t u r b e d r e s t i n g area i s c r i t i c a l d u r i n g m i g r a t i o n because b i r d s are under energy s t r e s s . D i f f e r e n t areas w i t h i n Boundary Bay can-not be ranked as to t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance f o r r e s t i n g . Ob-s e r v a t i o n s made d u r i n g the census f l i g h t s i n d i c a t e t h a t the b i r d s t r ade up and down on Boundary, Mud, and Semiahmoo Bays depending on t i d e s and weather (B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, Unpublished Data). U s u a l l y the d a b b l i n g ducks gather around the t i d e l i n e where the water depth i s under one meter, about r i g h t f o r r e s t i n g and f e e d i n g . D i v i n g ducks p r e f e r water two to f i v e meters deep. They congregate on the Semiahmoo Bay s h o r e l i n e and i n deeper channels of Mud Bay i f the t i d e i s out. Dabbling ducks are r a r e l y seen i n deep water. When rough waters are caused by a storm the e n t i r e w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n of the three bays congregates i n Mud Bay. Heavy fog causes the b i r d s to s i t i n hugh r a f t s up to three m i l e s from shore (B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, Unpublished Data). 4.5-2 Feeding Ecology of Waterfowl and Other Species a t  Boundary Bay T h i s s e c t i o n summarizes what i s known about the r o l e of b i r d s i n the food c h a i n of the Boundary Bay ecosystem. T h i s r e q u i r e s an examination of the d i e t of each s p e c i e s and of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of major food items w i t h i n the ecosystem. Some o b s e r v a t i o n of behavior and d i s t r i b u t i o n of b i r d s w i t h i n the Bay and i t s surrounding lands c o n t r i b u t e to the d i s c u s s i o n . Since c o n c l u s i o n s are based on i n f o r m a t i o n from s e v e r a l sources, the method used t o a r r i v e a t c o n c l u s i o n s i s d e s c r i b e d . Procedure. Feeding h a b i t s of b i r d s are determined by analyses o f esophageal and g i z z a r d contents o f these b i r d s . From t h i s evidence major i n g e s t e d food items can be d i s c e r n e d . When expressed as a percentage of wet weight of the t o t a l amount of m a t e r i a l i n g e s t e d , the r e l a t i v e importance of a food source can be i n f e r r e d . S i nce b i r d d i e t s are known to vary a c c o r d i n g to the season of the year and a c c o r d i n g to types of food a v a i l a b l e i n 50 and near a gi v e n h a b i t a t area, i t i s important to analyse d i e t s of specimens taken from the s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n and d u r i n g the s p e c i f i c season f o r which i n f o r m a t i o n i s d e s i r e d . For t h i s reason l o c a l r e s e a r c h about the f a l l and win t e r d i e t s of water-fowl i s used here. Burgess (197 0) and Vermeer and Levings (1977) were the major sources of i n f o r m a t i o n s p e c i f i c t o the F r a s e r d e l t a . Supplementary data s p e c i f i c to Boundary Bay i s pr o v i d e d by Easthope and C l a r k (1978) , although t h e i r a n a l y s i s i s l e s s r i g o r o u s than the two former sources. Bent (1923, 1927, 1929) was used as a source of g e n e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r s p e c i e s about which no l o c a l data e x i s t e d . Once major food items were i d e n t i f i e d f o r each s p e c i e s , the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the items i n or around Boundary Bay was noted as a means of l i n k i n g the b i r d ' s f e e d i n g h a b i t s to the e s t u a r i n e o r a g r i c u l t u r a l ecosystems. K e l l e r h a l s and Murray (1969) , Forbes (1972) , Burgess (1970) , and Vermeer and Levings (1977) were used as sources of i n f o r m a t i o n about food item d i s -t r i b u t i o n . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f food items w i t h i n the ecosystem was d e s c r i b e d i n terms of one or more b i o p h y s i c a l zones t h a t e x i s t w i t h i n the study area. T h i s was p o s s i b l e because each zone has a d i a g n o s t i c f l o r a and fauna ( K e l l e r h a l s and Murray, 1969). The zones used a r e : s a l t marsh, upper, i n t e r m e d i a t e and lower t i d a l zones, s u b t i d a l zone, and a g r i c u l t u r a l lands (see Map 4.2). The f i r s t f i v e b i o p h y s i c a l zones are found seaward of the dykes and as t h e i r names suggest, are based on type of t i d a l 51 MAP 4.2 BIOPHYSICAL ZONES OF BOUNDARY BAY 52 i n f l u e n c e . The p e r i o d of exposure of each zone a t low t i d e serves as the b a s i s of i t s d e s c r i p t i o n . The saltmarsh i s the most landward zone, innundated o c c a s i o n a l l y by t i d a l a c t i o n . The upper, middle and lower i n t e r t i d a l zones are exposed a t ebb t i d e f o r p r o g e s s i v e l y l e s s and l e s s time each day. The sub-t i d a l zone remains almost always submerged. The s u b t i d a l zone and the s a l t marsh support f l o r a l and f a u n a l communities t h a t are very d i s t i n c t from those of the i n t e r t i d a l a reas. E e l g r a s s beds are found i n the s u b t i d a l zone. I n t e r t i d a l areas appear barren, but are i n h a b i t e d by a range of bottom l i v i n g , burrow-i n g or f r e e swimming i n v e r t e b r a t e s . Few r o o t e d p l a n t s are found i n t e r t i d a l l y ; p l a n t s t h a t are found have u s u a l l y been c a r r i e d i n by the t i d e . The s a l t marsh i s covered with scrubby v e g e t a t i o n . The a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s , which form the s i x t h biophy-s i c a l zone, are found shoreward of the dykes. There uses under a g r i c u l t u r e i n c l u d e forage crops, grass and p a s t u r e , c e r e a l s , hay, potatoes, and market gardens. In a d d i t i o n to crops a v a r i e t y of n a t i v e upland p l a n t s , ornamentals and weedy s p e c i e s are found on the a g r i c u l t u r a l lands (Leach, 1976; Easthope and C l a r k , 1978). The s i x b i o p h y s i c a l zones o f f e r d i s t i n c t f e e d i n g oppor-t u n i t i e s f o r w i l d l i f e . F i g u r e 4.3 p r e s e n t s a summary of con-c l u s i o n s reached i n the a n a l y s i s t h a t has j u s t been d e s c r i b e d . Feeding zones or h a b i t a t s . a r e expressed f o r each of f i f t e e n s p e c i e s , though i n d i v i d u a l food items do not appear i n the 53 Subtidal Zone Lower Intertidal Zone Middle Intertidal Zone Upper Intertidal Zone FEEDING ZffES Experimental evidence exists to substantiate that feeding takes place in this zone. Agricultural Lands Some evidence suggests that feeding takes place in this zone; considerable uncertainty exists. More information needed. FIGURE 4.3 FEEDING HABITATS OF SOME COMMON BIRD SPECIES AT BOUNDARY BAY 54 f i g u r e . The extent of f o r a g i n g t e r r i t o r y i s i n d i c a t e d when sp e c i e s range over more than one b i o p h y s i c a l zone. Areas of u n c e r t a i n t y are noted. 4.5-3 Feeding Ecology of Waterfowl and S h o r e b i r d s a t  Boundary Bay A n a l y s i s of a v a i l a b l e data on b i r d food h a b i t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t each s p e c i e s tends to forage i n a d i f f e r e n t p a r t of the e s t u a r i n e or a g r i c u l t u r a l h a b i t a t . Dabbling ducks feed mainly i n upland a g r i c u l t u r a l and marsh areas. These ducks are vege-t a r i a n , e a t i n g seeds from marsh p l a n t s such as rushes ( S c i r p u s sp.) and sedges (Carex s p . ) . D u c k s . c o l l e c t e d .for a n a l y s i s while f o r a g i n g on the a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d were found to have eaten few crops; weed seeds, p a r t i c u l a r l y smartweed (Polygonum spp.) were the o v e r a l l most f r e q u e n t l y i n g e s t e d food item i n m a l l a r d and p i n t a i l . B l a c k b e r r y , g r a s s , g r a i n , and a q u a t i c p l a n t seeds were eaten l e s s f r e q u e n t l y (Easthope and C l a r k , 1978). The widgeon appeared to be the most dependent on food items from a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s , e a t i n g t h e . v e g e t a t i v e p o r t i o n s of winter, rye (Lolium s p . ) , grass and c l o v e r (Burgess, 1970; Easthope and C l a r k , 1978). Market gardens, i f w e l l managed, p r o v i d e d l i t t l e food f o r the b i r d s because t h e r e were few weed seeds. Crops l e f t i n the f i e l d s , n o t a b l y p o t a t o , a t t r a c t some f e e d i n g b i r d s (Easthope and C l a r k , 197 8). B i r d behavior confirms these con-c l u s i o n s , f o r d a b b l i n g ducks have been observed to make two d a i l y f e e d i n g f l i g h t s to the a g r i c u l t u r a l l ands, one around dawn, the second, around dusk. Appendix 5 pr e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s 55 of s p e c i e s and r e l a t i v e numbers of b i r d s observed on the N i c o -mekl-Serpentine farmlands d u r i n g the peak m i g r a t i o n p e r i o d o f 1977. D i v i n g ducks tend to r e s t r i c t t h e i r f e e d i n g to the i n t e r t i d a l and s u b t i d a l zones as i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 4 .3 . T h e i r d i e t s c o n s i s t e d mainly of animal food i n c l u d i n g s n a i l s , b i v a l v e s , crustaceans (Vermeer and L e v i n g s , 1977). Each s p e c i e s feeds i n a d i f f e r e n t a r ea. The Oldsquaw, f o r example, feeds i n the deepest waters of the s u b t i d a l zone, w h i l e the Greater Scaup appears to be most dependent on i n t e r t i d a l food sources. Observed behavior confirms these r e s u l t s , f o r d i v i n g ducks seem to stay on the Bay to fee d . O c c a s i o n a l l y they are seen on the a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s , e s p e c i a l l y when ponding occurs i n the f i e l d s (Easthope and C l a r k , 1978) (see a l s o Appendix 5) . E i n a r s e n (1965) i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n of the Black Brant on the P a c i f i c Flyway i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s b i r d p e r s i s t e n t l y u t i l i z e d o n l y a few key food s p e c i e s over i t s e n t i r e range: sea l e t t u c e and e e l g r a s s . These d i e t a r y p r e f e r e n c e s p o i n t to a dependence on the s u b t i d a l zone f o r food, though food items may o f t e n be washed i n t o the upper i n t e r t i d a l zone with subse-quent f e e d i n g t h e r e . For s h o r e b i r d s no l o c a l data e x i s t s and a be s t guess of t h e i r f e e d i n g h a b i t a t based on Bent (1927, 1929) suggests t h a t these b i r d s feed i n marshes and upper, perhaps middle, i n t e r -t i d a l zones. Easthope and C l a r k (Unpublished Data, 1977) showed t h a t s h o r e b i r d s may be seen f e e d i n g on the a g r i c u l t u r a l lands 56 (see Appendix 5). O b s e r v a t i o n suggests t h a t wading b i r d s , namely the Great Blue Heron, are dependent on the a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s , s a l t marsh, upper and perhaps middle i n t e r t i d a l areas, and e s p e c i a l l y t i d a l p o o ls w i t h i n the i n t e r t i d a l areas f o r food. No l o c a l gut a nalyses e x i s t to s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s . The data analysed i s adequate enough to show t h a t a l l p a r t s of Boundary Bay, i n c l u d i n g the a g r i c u l t u r a l s horelands, appear to be used to some extent as f e e d i n g areas. Each s p e c i e s p r e f e r s to forage i n a d i f f e r e n t zone. 4.5-4 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Data The f e e d i n g ecology of b i r d s p e c i e s a t Boundary Bay can-not be d i s c u s s e d i n g r e a t d e t a i l because of the l i m i t e d data base. For most s p e c i e s no d i e t a r y i n f o r m a t i o n e x i s t s ; gut ana-l y s e s are a v a i l a b l e f o r o n l y e l e v e n out of s i x t y - t h r e e e s t u a r i n e b i r d s p e c i e s . Sample s i z e s , which, form the b a s i s f o r c o n c l u -s i o n s i n Vermeer and Levings (1977), and Easthope and C l a r k (1978) are not l a r g e enough to g i v e r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s . In each of these analyses few b i r d s were a c t u a l l y c o l l e c t e d a t Boundary Bay. U n c e r t a i n t y e x i s t s p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h regards to the importance of the s a l t marsh a t Boundary Bay i n p r o v i d i n g food f o r w i l d l i f e . The Boundary Bay marshes are more s a l i n e than p o r t i o n s of the F r a s e r e s t u a r y where most sampling took p l a c e . The unique f l o r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e s u l t i n g from hi g h e r s a l i n i -t i e s a t the Bay may cause some s p e c i e s to seek d i f f e r e n t food items w i t h i n the Bay than are sought elsewhere. T h i s i s i l l u s -57 t r a t e d by comparing food items i n g e s t e d by a s i n g l e s p e c i e s a t two d i f f e r e n t p l a c e s i n the e s t u a r y . Vermeer and Levings (1977) found t h a t Greater Scaup from Boundary Bay c o n t a i n e d 93 p e r c e n t s n a i l s (by wet weight), while s n a i l s r e p r e s e n t e d a r e l a t i v e l y minor item a t other p a r t s of the e s t u a r y . 4.6 C o n c l u s i o n ' The seasonal d i s t r i b u t i o n i n b i r d use of Boundary Bay means t h a t a n a t u r a l s e p a r a t i o n i n times of peak b i r d and human use takes p l a c e . T h i s enables many r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s to take p l a c e without d i r e c t d i s r u p t i o n to w i l d l i f e . To ensure p r e s e r v a t i o n of the d i v e r s i t y of w i l d l i f e t h a t e x i s t s w i t h i n the study area, r e s t i n g and f e e d i n g areas f o r a l l s p e c i e s need to be p r o t e c t e d . A l l p a r t s of the study area, the Bay and i t s a g r i c u l t u r a l shorelands seem to be used to some exten t f o r f e e d i n g and r e s t i n g . One r e c u r r i n g theme w i t h i n Chapter Four i s the uncer-t a i n t y w i t h which c o n c l u s i o n s are drawn. Comprehensive data on b i r d p o p u l a t i o n s and b i r d ecology i n the study area i s l a c k i n g . Future r e s e a r c h c o u l d be more meaningful i f i t i s o r i e n t e d t o -wards d e c i s i o n making. A more a c c u r a t e census technique i s needed. E c o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h should be d i r e c t e d a t a l l of the l o c a l w i l d l i f e s p e c i e s , not j u s t the f o u r most abundant s p e c i e s . Experiments should be s m a l l and s p e c i f i c so t h a t s p e c i f i c con-c l u s i o n s can be drawn. 58 CHAPTER FIVE R e c r e a t i o n i n E s t u a r i n e B i r d H a b i t a t : I t s E f f e c t and T h e i r M i t i g a t i o n 5.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n Swimming and beach a c t i v i t i e s , b o a t i n g , f i s h i n g , b i r d -watching, hunting, p l u s a v a r i e t y o f year-round d i s p e r s e d a c t i v i t i e s are the major r e c r e a t i o n a l pastimes t a k i n g p l a c e a t Boundary Bay. I t i s expected t h a t these a c t i v i t i e s w i l l con-t i n u e to be important; however, the mix may var y depending on the p r o g r e s s i o n o f trends i n r e c r e a t i o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n . P l a n -n i n g and management, too, may c o n t r o l t h i s mix to assure recon-c i l i a t i o n of use with h a b i t a t p r e s e r v a t i o n . The e f f e c t s of r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s on w i l d l i f e may r e s u l t from human presence i n the h a b i t a t . Seasonal s e p a r a t i o n of times o f peak human and b i r d a c t i v i t y does much to decrease the p o t e n t i a l f o r d i s t u r b a n c e . Some e f f e c t s of r e c r e a t i o n a l use of the Bay might c a r r y over from season to season due to human impact on the p l a n t s and animals t h a t serve as food sources f o r the b i r d s . I t i s not known how s e r i o u s a d i s r u p t i o n i s caused by pre s e n t l e v e l s of r e c r e a t i o n a l use of Boundary Bay, nor can the r e s u l t s of a g i v e n l e v e l of use be p r e d i c t e d i n advance. I n i -t i a l l y , d i s t u r b a n c e s may i n c r e a s e the s k i t t i s h n e s s of the b i r d s , r e s u l t i n g i n temporary abandonment of the h a b i t a t . Prolonged d i s t u r b a n c e may be manifested by a d e c l i n e i n b i r d numbers and/or v a r i e t y . Length of stopover on the Bay may be shortened as b i r d s seek more secure h a b i t a t areas. The a l t e r n a t e s i t e s t h a t would be chosen i n response to unacceptable l e v e l s of d i s t u r b a n c e a t Boundary Bay are not known, but there i s no guarantee t h a t these s i t e s would be l o c a l ones. T h i s chapter analyses the d i s r u p t i o n s caused by humans u s i n g b i r d h a b i t a t f o r r e c r e a t i o n . The e f f e c t s of human presence argue f o r c o n t r o l s of human a c t i v i t y i n the h a b i t a t . Some g u i d e l i n e s are developed w i t h t h i s i n mind. These are numbered and s e t a p a r t from the t e x t . Where d i s c u s s i o n l e a d s to r e p e t i -t i o n of a g u i d e l i n e , the repeated g u i d e l i n e i s marked (R). 5 . 2 Food Chain D i s r u p t i o n Human a c t i v i t i e s can a f f e c t waterfowl and s h o r e b i r d s through d e s t r u c t i o n of v e g e t a t i o n , i n v e r t e b r a t e communities i n the h a b i t a t area, i f b i r d s depend on these organisms f o r food or cover. S e v e r a l s t u d i e s , however, have been unable to r e l a t e d i s -turbance (as i n d i c a t e d by b r e e d i n g success) to changes i n food sources. T h i s leads to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t d i r e c t human d i s t u r -bance i s more important i n i t s e f f e c t on w i l d b i r d p o p u l a t i o n s ( R e i c h o l f , 1970 i n S a t c h e l l and Marren, 1976; J a r v i s and Cram, 1977). T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t summer r e c r e a t i o n i s t s a t Boundary Bay w i l l have a n e g l i g i b l e c a r r y over e f f e c t on waterfowl and shore-b i r d h a b i t a t , and t h a t c o n t r o l o f f a l l , w i n t e r and s p r i n g d i s -60 r u p t i o n s should be emphasized i n management. 5.3 P a s s i v e Human Presence P a s s i v e human presence i n bird. 1 h a b i t a t i s o f t e n enough to d i s t u r b the w i l d l i f e as the s i l h o u e t t e , s c e n t or movement of man causes a f r i g h t r e a c t i o n i n most s p e c i e s ( K e s t e l o o t , 1967). During the January 1979 c o l d s p e l l i n the Lower Mainland, win-t e r i n g ducks a t L o s t Lagoon i n S t a n l e y Park were very much "upset" by the presence of s k a t e r s i n t h e i r midst. Music p l a y e d f o r the enjoyment of s k a t e r s had to be banned, because i t was i n c r e a s i n g the b i r d s ' l e v e l of s t r e s s , s a i d S t a n l e y Park zoo c u r a t o r , LeSage ("Handouts 'the death of b i r d s ' i n Park", Van-couver Express, January 17, 1979). Reid (1967) suggests t h a t a c r i t i c a l d i s t a n c e of t o l e r -ance of human approach can be determined f o r each s p e c i e s ; t h i s d i s t a n c e v a r i e s from 50 to 200 meters i n the case of r e s t i n g waterfowl. S a t c h e l l and Marren (1976) i n d i c a t e d t h a t f o r wad-ing b i r d s the mean f l y away d i s t a n c e was 200 to 300 meters. A t k i n s o n - W i l l e s (1969) estimated t h a t a d i s t a n c e of 150 meters w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t to ensure t h a t most s p e c i e s are secure from d i s t u r b a n c e . (1) P r o v i d e t r a i l s and viewing areas f o r waterfowl and shore-b i r d s t h a t approach no c l o s e r than 150 meters to r e s t i n g and fe e d i n g areas. 61 Responses to human presence vary depending on s p e c i e s , s i t e and season, or stage i n the l i f e c y c l e of the b i r d s . C l o s e -ness to cover, v i s i b i l i t y , and even time of day w i l l a f f e c t b i r d responses to d i s t u r b a n c e . Expanses of water on which the b i r d s seek p r o t e c t i o n are thought t o . c r e a t e a f e e l i n g of i n a c c e s s i b i l -i t y f o r the b i r d s , and t h e i r r e a c t i o n to human presence under these circumstances may be l e s s extreme ( K e s t e l o o t , 1967). Where v i s i b i l i t y i s l i m i t e d and cover p l a n t s s c a r c e , f r i g h t r e a c t i o n s w i l l take p l a c e more r e a d i l y (Boudreau, 1968). Large f l o c k s o f b i r d s seem to respond more r e a d i l y to alarm than i s o l a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s (Boudreau, 1968). I f a person v i s i t i n g w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t i s accompanied by a dog, the l e v e l of p a n i c among the w i l d l i f e i n c r e a s e s ; however, a person on a horse or b i c y c l e , or i n a c a r causes l e s s d i s t u r b a n c e , probably because the t h r e a t e n i n g human s i l h o u e t t e i s not so obvious ( K e s t e l o o t , 1967). D a i l y d i s t u r b a n c e , even on a minor s c a l e i s more d i s -r u p t i v e than massive d i s t u r b a n c e two or three times a week ( A t k i n s o n - W i l l e s , 1969). (2) Encourage development of r e c r e a t i o n a l a t t r a c t i o n s and f a c i l i t i e s near important w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t areas r a t h e r than i n s i d e them. (3) C o n t r o l the number of v i s i t o r s to an area of w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t . 62 (4) D i s g u i s e human presence i n the h a b i t a t . a. P r o v i d e secluded o b s e r v a t i o n p o i n t s f o r d i s t a n t viewing with b i n o c u l a r s and s p o t t i n g scopes. b. P r o v i d e b l i n d s f o r c l o s e . v i e w i n g of . w i l d l i f e . Approaches to b l i n d s can be covered to f u r t h e r camoflage human a c t i v i t y . c. Require v i s i t o r s to keep pets on le a s h e s ; exclude pets from most areas completely. B i r d s are p a r t i c u l a r l y v u l n e r a b l e to d i s t u r b a n c e d u r i n g the n e s t i n g season ( i n c l u d i n g c o u r t s h i p and r e a r i n g periods) and d u r i n g the annual moult t h a t takes p l a c e a t the end of the summer. Human presence i n the h a b i t a t , which might otherwise go unnoticed can have d i s a s t r o u s consequences a t these times. N e s t i n g d i s t u r b a n c e s are d i s c u s s e d i n more d e t a i l i n a l a t e r s e c t i o n . They are not p r e s e n t l y r e l e v a n t to b i r d use of Bound-ary Bay because no b i r d s nest t h e r e . A few summer r e s i d e n t s do moult on the Bay, however. (5) A d d i t i o n a l v i s i t o r c o n t r o l s may be necessary d u r i n g moult-i n g and n e s t i n g p e r i o d s . V i s i t o r e d u c a t i o n i s one means of c o n t r o l l i n g v i s i t o r b ehavior which o f t e n does not r e c e i v e enough a t t e n t i o n . P r o v i d -i n g i n f o r m a t i o n and educa t i o n m a t e r i a l to v i s i t o r s to f r a g i l e areas can help to minimize the d i s r u p t i o n caused by these 63 v i s i t o r s . T o u r i s t s v i s i t i n g a b i r d n e s t i n g colony i n South A f r i c a d i s r u p t e d n e s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s of many b i r d s p e c i e s and i n h i b i t e d one s p e c i e s from l a n d i n g a t i t s normal r o o s t i n g a r ea. In most cases v i s i t o r s were not aware of the d i s t u r b a n c e caused by t h e i r presence ( J a r v i s and Cram, 1977). Information s i g n s were posted as p a r t of a v i s i t o r c o n t r o l program. S i m i l a r e f f o r t s were made i n one Dutch N a t i o n a l Park where r e h a b i l i t a -t i o n of an overused c o a s t a l ecosystem was underway. Informa-t i v e , n on-threatening s i g n s , p r i n t e d i n a popular g r a p h i c s t y l e were posted ( S a t c h e l l and Marren, 1976). In n e i t h e r case was the e f f e c t t h a t s i g n s and d i s p l a y s had on v i s i t o r behavior i n -v e s t i g a t e d . However, one can measure the a b i l i t y of a s i g n to communicate, and such i n f o r m a t i o n can be used to ensure the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h a t medium ( S k e t t e l , 1973). The same a p p l i e s to o t h e r communications media — guided walks, and t a l k s , f i l m s , s l i d e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and o t h e r s . These media can do t h e i r job o n l y i f employed c o r r e c t l y . Experience w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n and e d u c a t i o n programs i n conservacy areas i n d i c a t e s t h a t guided t a l k s , demonstrations and o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g f i r s t hand experience are most e f f e c t i v e i n i n c r e a s i n g v i s i t o r knowledge about n a t u r a l environment and i n changing t h e i r b e l i e f s and a t t i t u d e s , hence encouraging a p p r o p r i a t e behavior (Algar, 1976). (6) S i g n s , d i s p l a y s , guided walks and t a l k s should be used to inform v i s i t o r s to conservacy areas about the e f f e c t s of t h e i r 64 presence i n w i l d l i f e habitat, and to encourage s e l f - i n i t i a t e d control of disruptions. Where possible, v i s i t o r s should be given the opportunity to p a r t i c i p a t e i n first-hand educational experiences.. 5.4 Active Human Presence - Noise and Threats Noise, active movement, or actual threats to the safety of the birds, as might be expected, are more disturbing than passive human presence i n w i l d l i f e habitat. Again, v i s i t o r control can minimize disruption, but more stringent regulation i s necessary. 5.4-1 Hunting Hunting i s the t r a d i t i o n a l recreation a c t i v i t y that takes place i n b i r d habitat. The waterfowl hunter penetrates into marsh areas, open waters, and sometimes uplands, where he waits i n camoflage for game birds to come along. Hunters often are accompanied by dogs. Being hunted makes birds s k i t t i s h . It i s not only the human presence that frightens birds, but also the noise of gunshot. The disturbance extends to a l l birds i n the habitat, not just game birds. Heavy hunting pressure on migratory stop-over areas, such as Boundary Bay causes birds to resume the i r f l i g h t s south e a r l i e r than might otherwise be the case. Heavy hunting pressure i n the Greater Vancouver region has been im-65 p l i c a t e d i n the d e c l i n e o r disappearance of some s p e c i e s , such as the L e s s e r Canada goose, the White-fronted Goose, and the Black Brant (Leach, 197 7). The c l a i m t h a t hunting alone i s r e s p o n s i b l e , cannot be s u b s t a n t i a t e d , though i t probably was a f a c t o r . D e c l i n e or disappearance of b i r d s from a r e g i o n i s commonly c o n t r o l l e d by p r o v i d i n g refuge a r e a s . C r e a t i o n of re f u g e s , though i t removes some t e r r i t o r y from h u n t i n g , a c t u a l -l y improves hunting w i t h i n a r e g i o n by p r o v i d i n g r e l i e f from d i s t u r b a n c e (Jorgensen e t a l , 1964; Anderson and K o z l i c , 1964; Munroe, 1964). Often refuge h a b i t a t i s managed to produce food, i n c r e a s i n g the a t t r a c t i o n f o r b i r d s . The area around Westham I s l a n d i n the F r a s e r e s t u a r y , f o r example, s u s t a i n s more hunter-days than any oth e r spot of comparable s i z e i n the r e g i o n (B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, Unpublished Data, 1978) . Hunting i s good there because of the p r o x i m i t y of R e i f e l M i g r a t o r y B i r d Sanctuary. R e i f e l , though not a t o t a l sanctuary, does o f f e r r e l i e f from the d i s t u r b a n c e of hunting and p r o v i d e s food. There seems to be no r e s e a r c h aimed a t determining a s u i t a b l e or minimum s i z e f o r such refuge a r e a s . M o r z e r - B r u i j n s (1967, 1973) says t h a t o n e - t h i r d of the s h o r e l i n e i s the m i n i -mum p o r t i o n of a body of water t h a t should be s e t a s i d e as refuge. T h i s recommendation i s not based on experimental e v i -dence, but r a t h e r , i s more i n the form of a r u l e of thumb t h a t has been a p p l i e d s u c c e s s f u l l y i n Europe. 66 (7) Create refuge areas f o r waterfowl and s h o r e b i r d s where no hunting a c t i v i t y i s permited. (8) Approximately o n e - t h i r d of the s h o r e l i n e i s the minimum p o r t i o n of a body of water t h a t should be s e t a s i d e as r e f u g e . (9) Leave b u f f e r zones or c l o s e l y c o n t r o l l e d b e l t s around r e f u g e s , s i n c e the d i s t u r b a n c e caused by s h o o t i n g w i l l p e n e t r a t e the r e s e r v e d area. The hunting season i s a l r e a d y c l o s e l y r e g u l a t e d f o r w i l d l i f e management purposes. During the 1977-78 season ducks were hunted from October through January; and the Black Brant f o r ten days i n March. Having a s e t hunting season l i m i t s the percentage of the p o p u l a t i o n t h a t i s h a r v e s t e d , but not the d i s -r u p t i o n caused to w i l d l i f e . A t k i n s o n - W i l l e s (1969) says t h a t hunting should be r e g u l a t e d so t h a t i t does not cause a more than temporary d i s t u r b a n c e a t i n t e r v a l s . Shooting two or three times a week i s p r e f e r a b l e to c o n s t a n t s h o o t i n g by odd i n d i v i -d u a l s . In the U n i t e d S t a t e s the t r a d i t i o n a l h u n ting days are Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday of each week d u r i n g the hunting season. T h i s seeming r e s t r i c t i o n on hunting a c t u a l l y improves hunter success, again by h o l d i n g b i r d s longer i n the r e g i o n (Anderson and K o z l i k , 1964; Jorgensen e t a l , 1964; Munroe, 1964). (10) Shooting should take p l a c e two or three days a week d u r i n g the hunting season. 67 5.4-2 Boating The growing t r a f f i c of p l e a s u r e boats on many waters has caused an i n c r e a s i n g harassment of b i r d p o p u l a t i o n s . Motorboats wi t h or without water s k i i e r s , even q u i e t f i s h i n g and s a i l i n g c r a f t keep r e s t i n g and f e e d i n g f l o c k s on the move. The n o i s e , movement and tu r b u l e n c e c r e a t e d by boats are a g g r a v a t i n g to b i r d s , but the e f f e c t s vary w i t h the type of boat. The peak b o a t i n g season i s s t i l l i n progress i n Boundary Bay a t the time the f i r s t migrants a r r i v e i n l a t e summer. Since the l o c a l c l i m a t e i s so m i l d , some b o a t i n g continues a l l year, c a u s i n g a p o t e n t i a l d i s r u p t i o n to w i n t e r i n g w i l d l i f e . Boats d e s t r o y the i n a c c e s s i b i l i t y and s e c u r i t y t h a t water areas have f o r b i r d s . I n t e n s i v e b o a t i n g has almost com-p l e t e l y e l i m i n a t e d waterfowl use of the Ochlawha R i v e r and the St. Johns R i v e r i n F l o r i d a . Boats i n the Everglades have r e s t r i c t e d waterfowl a c t i v i t y t h e r e; s i m i l a r e f f e c t s have been r e p o r t e d on the Potomac e s t u a r y , Cheasapeake Bay (Day and Lynch, 1964), on the Great Lakes (Chandler and Denis, 1973), and i n B r i t a i n (Batten, 197 7). Commercial f i s h b o a t s cause d i s t u r b a n c e as w e l l as p l e a s u r e boats; the salmon f l e e t i n the lower Column b i a has been i m p l i c a t e d i n the d e c l i n e o f some migrants on the r i v e r , and the corres p o n d i n g i n c r e a s e of b i r d s on i n l a n d refuges has been noted (Day and Lynch, 1964). Canoes, kayaks, and row-boats may be as d i s r u p t i v e as motor c r a f t . Though they make l i t t l e n o i s e , they are able to pe n e t r a t e the shallow marsh areas f r e q u e n t l y used by w i l d l i f e . 68 Hume i n h i s o b s e r v a t i o n of Goldeneye r e a c t i o n to b o a t i n g on a B r i t i s h r e s e r v o i r remarked t h a t b i r d s l e f t the r e s e r v o i r a f t e r being s c a r e d by boats and o f t e n d i d not r e t u r n f o r a week. A f t e r e i g h t to nine years o f b o a t i n g on the r e s e r v o i r , they seemed to r e t u r n sooner, but t h e i r r e a c t i o n to boats d i d not appear to become l e s s s t r o n g w i t h e x p e r i e n c e . Batten (1977) s t u d i e d waterfowl r e a c t i o n to s a i l i n g on another B r i t i s h r e s e r -v o i r . Some waterfowl ( M a l l a r d , T u f t e d Duck, Pochard, Smew) sought refuge i n a shallow marshy area which e x i s t e d a t one end of the r e s e r v o i r immediately a t the onset o f s a i l i n g . T e a l , widgeon, goldeneye, i f p r e s e n t on the r e s e r v o i r p r i o r to s a i l i n g , d e s e r t e d the area completely. Though b i r d s continued to use the r e s e r v o i r a f t e r i t was opened to s a i l i n g , Batten concluded t h a t use (and s u c c e s s f u l breeding f o r some s p e c i e s ) , depended on the e x i s t e n c e of the l a r g e marshy p a r t of the r e s e r v o i r which r e -mained i n a c c e s s i b l e to boats. The areas served as a refuge f o r b i r d s ; i t had good v i s i b i l i t y and a reed cover. S t u d i e s of the e f f e c t s of b o a t i n g a c t i v i t y on b i r d s r e -i n f o r c e d the i d e a , mentioned e a r l i e r , t h a t c r i t i c a l l i m i t s o f t o l e r a n c e of human approach could.be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r each s p e c i e s . Hume (197 6) found t h a t Goldeneyes would not permit a boat to approach c l o s e r than 300 to 400 meters, 700 meters i f the boat was motoring. A m a l l a r d on the oth e r hand would a l l o w approach up to 100 meters. Terns, which were r e g u l a r v i s i t o r s to a second r e s e r v o i r , remained r e l a t i v e l y u n a f f e c t e d by b o a t i n g ; o f t e n they fe d u n d i s t u r b e d among dozens of s a i l i n g d i n g h i e s . Coots were a l s o r e l a t i v e l y u n d i s t u r b e d , a l l o w i n g boats to approach as c l o s e 69 as 50 meters before r e t r e a t i n g (Batten, 197 7). (11) Create refuge areas f o r waterfowl and s h o r e b i r d s where no human a c t v i t y i s p e r m i t t e d . (R) Leave b u f f e r zones or c l o s e l y c o n t r o l l e d b e l t s around re-:, f uges.: (12) Use v e g e t a t i o n screens, a r t i f i c i a l i s l a n d s and embayments to i n c r e a s e the s e c l u s i o n of r e f u g e s . (13) L i m i t types of boats p e r m i t t e d i n water areas, seasons of use and mooring areas w i t h zoning. a. P r o v i d e no f a c i l i t i e s f o r u n d e s i r a b l e types of boats. b. Create motorless zones on the water. Mark these w i t h a c h a i n of buoys. c. P l a c e speed r e s t r i c t i o n s on motor boats. d. P r o h i b i t l a n d i n g except a t r e c o g n i z e d moorings. e. Seasonal adjustment of user zones i s p o s s i b l e . S a i l -i n g , f o r example, would r e q u i r e l e s s area i n winter than i n summer. The impacts of heavy boat use are a p p a r e n t l y r e v e r s i b l e . Ninepipe N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e Refuge i n Montana, whose waters were c l o s e d to fishermen i n 1962, s u s t a i n e d a twofold i n c r e a s e i n v waterfowl use w i t h i n one year a f t e r c l o s u r e (Sa l y e r and G i l l e t t , 1964) . 70 (14) Experiment with the boundaries of user zones. Monitor the r e s u l t s a f t e r s e v e r a l seasons w i t h one s e t of boundaries. Develop a s e t of boundaries t h a t appears s a t i s f a c t o r y . 5.4-3 O f f Highway R e c r e a t i o n a l V e h i c l e s Use of t r a i l b i k e s , dune buggies and fourwheel d r i v e v e h i c l e s on beaches and i n t e r t i d a l areas c o u l d be expected to provoke r e a c t i o n s s i m i l a r to those caused by hunting and b o a t i n g . The same g u i d e l i n e s w i l l be a p p l i c a b l e w i t h one a d d i t i o n . (15) L i m i t l a n d v e h i c l e s to roads and p a r k i n g a r e a s . 5.4-4 The Phenomenon of H a b i t u a t i o n I f a f r i g h t r e a c t i o n , such as response to approach of a human form or a boat i s not r e i n f o r c e d by an a c t u a l a t t a c k of some k i n d , the b i r d s q u i c k l y l e a r n to i g n o r e i t . T h i s has be-come a problem i n c o n t r o l l i n g b i r d damage to f r u i t crops i n e a s t e r n Canada (Brown, 197 4) and i n d i s c o u r a g i n g b i r d a c t i v i t y around a i r p o r t s . For r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d out i n b i r d h a b i t a t the h a b i t u a t i o n phenomenon has p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s . B i r d s may l e a r n to accept h i g h e r l e v e l s of a c t i v i t y and ambient n o i s e i n t h e i r h a b i t a t s . C o l o n i z a t i o n of a b i r d r e s e r v e i n H o l l a n d l o c a t e d be-tween two roads, one d e s c r i b e d as "busy", suggests t h a t h a b i t u a -t i o n takes p l a c e under these circumstances. DeJong (1977) found t h a t the o v e r a l l h i g h d e n s i t i e s of b r e e d i n g s h o r e b i r d s ( r e f f , redshank, godwit, lapwing) suggested t h a t the d i s t u r b a n c e 71 f a c t o r was not very important i n i t s e f f e c t on ne s t numbers and d i s t r i b u t i o n . The b i r d s d i d , however, leav e a margin of 10 meters on each s i d e of the road, where n e s t i n g d e n s i t y was lower. The same study quoted c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s from a study by Veen (1973) which concluded t h a t the d i s t u r b i n g t r a f f i c i n f l u e n c e p e n e t r a t e d a b i r d f e e d i n g area as f a r as one and one - h a l f k i l o -meters. No f u r t h e r d e t a i l s were g i v e n . Hume (1976) l i k e w i s e found t h a t n e g l i g i b l e h a b i t u a t i o n had o c c u r r e d i n duck responses to b o a t i n g over a p e r i o d o f e i g h t to nine y e a r s . T h i s leads to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the h a b i t u a t i o n response e x i s t s , but i s not e a s i l y p r e d i c t a b l e . I t w i l l depend on the s p e c i e s , s i t e and nature of the d i s t u r b a n c e . (16) Try to take advantage of the h a b i t u a t i o n phenomenon by i n c r e a s i n g human use of b i r d h a b i t a t areas g r a d u a l l y . 5.5 Feeding W i l d l i f e B i r d f e e d i n g i s o f t e n a by-product of human presence i n the h a b i t a t . Large p o p u l a t i o n s of b i r d s are o f t e n found near t o u r i s t s i t e s . A f t e r they are f e d by people, they l o s e the i n -c e n t i v e to leave the s i t e and forage on t h e i r own. These animals become beggars c r e a t i n g a z o o l i k e atmosphere. Human food i s n e i t h e r n a t u r a l nor s u i t a b l e f o r w i l d b i r d s , and i t may have p h y s i o l o g i c a l consequences f o r the b i r d s ' systems ( K e s t e l o o t , 1968; LeSage, 1979). V i s t o r s t o the h a b i t a t can no longer en-joy the t h r i l l of o b s e r v i n g w i l d b i r d s i n t h e i r n a t u r a l s e t t i n g . 72 Feeding sometimes causes a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of "pest" s p e c i e s ; these may r e p l a c e the n a t i v e s p e c i e s i n the h a b i t a t . W i l d l i f e refuges sometimes feed b i r d s on a l a r g e r s c a l e by managing marshlands to produce s u i t a b l e food p l a n t s or by farming upland areas and l e a v i n g the crops f o r b i r d s . T h i s type of f e e d i n g allows b i r d s to m a i n t a i n t h e i r n a t u r a l h a b i t s , i n -c l u d i n g t h e i r f e a r of man, y e t supplements food a v a i l a b l e n a t u r -a l l y . Abundance of food holds b i r d s i n a m i g r a t o r y stopover area l o n g e r than might normally be the case. (17) Hand f e e d i n g of b i r d s should be d i s c o u r a g e d . (18) Feeding, i f i t i s done at a l l , should be done through i n t e n s i v e management of h a b i t a t - upland and marsh- f o r p r o d u c t i o n of s u i t a b l e food. D e s i g n a t i o n of f e e d i n g areas should take i n t o account the needs of d i f f e r e n t s p e c i e s . 5.6 D i s r u p t i o n of N e s t i n g B i r d s D i s r u p t i o n of n e s t i n g b i r d s i s a s p e c i a l case of human presence i n b i r d h a b i t a t ; as mentioned e a r l i e r a l l s p e c i e s are most s e n s i t i v e a t t h i s time. I f h a b i t a t enhancement f o r water-f o w l / s h o r e b i r d n e s t i n g takes p l a c e a t Boundary Bay, c o n t r o l of d i s r u p t i o n s to n e s t i n g b i r d s c o u l d become a concern. Such en-hancement i s a r e a l : p o s s i b i l i t y a t the Serpentine Fen W i l d l i f e Management Area o r a t the proposed r e g i o n a l park i n D e l t a (G.V.R.D./Torrence, 1977). C o u r t s h i p r i t u a l s and nest b u i l d i n g can be i n t e r r u p t e d , i n some cases aborted a l t o g e t h e r , i f humans-approach t o o c e l o s e l y . A f t e r eggs are l a i d human approach causes a d u l t s t o leav e n e s t s ; eggs may be a c c i d e n t l y smashed by the parent or taken by preda-t o r s . N e s t i n g m a t e r i a l may be s t o l e n by b i r d neighbours, who f r e q u e n t l y d i s l o d g e eggs from the n e s t s . Humans may cr u s h eggs, which are not e a s i l y v i s i b l e due to t h e i r p r o t e c t i v e c o l o r a t i o n . I f c h i c k s are a l r e a d y hatched, parent abandonment may cause c h i c k s to jump or f a l l out of the nest. These c h i c k s get l o s t and are a t t a c k e d by neighbours; e v e n t u a l l y they d i e . The e f -f e c t s of human a c t i v i t y vary with the s p e c i e s ; some show l i t t l e adverse r e a c t i o n or n e s t i n i n a c c e s s i b l e p l a c e s which are not s u b j e c t to d i s t u r b a n c e . Humans, i t should be p o i n t e d out are o f t e n completely unconscious of the e f f e c t s of t h e i r presence on the b i r d s . J a r v i s and Cram (1971) p r e s e n t a good example of the above e f f e c t s i n t h e i r study of v i s i t o r impact on n e s t i n g b i r d s a t B i r d I s l a n d , near Capetown, South A f r i c a . P i c n i c k e r s and fishermen were s i m i l a r l y i m p l i c a t e d i n the d e c l i n i n g numbers of l i t t l e t e r n s i n B r i t a i n and I r e l a n d . N e s t i n g on beaches . above the hig h t i d e l i n e , these b i r d s were s u b j e c t t o fr e q u e n t d i s r u p t i o n by the p u b l i c and even to vandalism (Norman and Saunders, 1969). S t u d i e s on geese and ducks i n S c o t l a n d showed t h a t t r a f f i c i n breeding areas caused aborted n e s t i n g . Egg l o s s i n breeding areas v i s i t e d t h r e e times per week was 100 per-cent, i n areas v i s i t e d once per week 6 0 pe r c e n t , i n u n d i s t u r b e d c o n t r o l areas, 10 per c e n t (Green, 1972). 74 Disrupted nesting of bald-headed eagles, red t a i l e d hawks and two Canada Geese due to human a c t i v i t y was reported recently near R e i f e l ("Nesting Birds Disrupted, Says Santuary Staff," Vancouver Province, A p r i l 19, 1978). The birds were disturbed by dog t r a i n i n g and testing on adjacent property about 200 meters away. Gun reports, dogs r e t r e i v i n g birds and a large group of dog fanciers with t h e i r vehicles a l l contributed to the disturbance. Experiences, such as those quoted here, have resulted i n v i s i t o r regulation becoming an accepted practice i n w i l d l i f e breeding areas. At R e i f e l Sanctuary the nesting ponds are closed to the public from mid-March to mid-June (B.C. Migratory Water-fowl Society, 1971). (19) R e s t r i c t v i s i t o r access to nesting areas using fences, hedges and dikes. (R) Provide information displays, signs, guided walks, and t a l k s , to increase v i s i t o r awareness of t h e i r e f f e c t s on wild-l i f e and of the need for t h e i r exclusion from c e r t a i n habitat areas. 5.7 Conclusion Habitat deterioration and subsequent loss of food sources due to recreational use of w i l d l i f e habitat w i l l not be a c r i t i c a l problem at Boundary Bay, and the disruption caused by human pre-sence-activity or passive- presents a more serious threat to con-tinued use of the habitat. Some of t h i s p o t e n t i a l disruption i s avoided because of a natural separation i n times of heavy recreational and w i l d l i f e use. To ensure preservation of the w i l d l i f e value of Boundary Bay, major disturbances due to human a c t i v i t i e s w i l l have to be controlled throughout most of the habitat. A series of guidelines has been developed aimed at minimizing the ef f e c t s of human presence during times when wild-l i f e i s dependent upon the habitat. About one-third of the . t o t a l habitat area should be reserved as undisturbed refuge. The guidelines themselves are s i t e oriented and can be applied i n a variety of ways to the study area. Chapter Seven presents some alternatives with d i f f e r i n g implications for long term re-c o n c i l i a t i o n of preservation and use. 76 CHAPTER SIX C o n f l i c t s A s s o c i a t e d with P r e s e r v a t i o n of the B i r d Resource a t  Boundary Bay and T h e i r Management I m p l i c a t i o n s 6.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n At a s e r i e s o f p u b l i c meetings h e l d i n Surrey d u r i n g w i n t e r 1978 some l o c a l and r e g i o n a l r e s i d e n t s expressed f e e l i n g s t h a t might l e a d to p r o t e s t a g a i n s t implementation of a conservacy i n Boundary Bay. These people c o u l d s u f f e r from l o s s e s or con-f l i c t s i n co n n e c t i o n w i t h such a conservacy area. F i r s t , hun-t e r s and birdwatchers w i l l a c t i v e l y compete f o r space i n which to pursue t h e i r b i r d - o r i e n t e d s p o r t s . T h i s i s a r e c r e a t i o n a l c o n f l i c t . The c o n f l i c t may i n c l u d e many other non-hunters i n a d d i t i o n to bir d w a t c h e r s . Second, members of the a g r i c u l t u r a l community b e l i e v e they stand to l o s e crops to waterfowl depreda-t i o n i f the w i l d l i f e o f Boundary Bay i s p r o t e c t e d or i n c r e a s e d . T h i s i s the a g r i c u l t u r a l c o n f l i c t . The t h r e a t of these c o n f l i c t s c o u l d i n f l u e n c e the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of a conservacy area i n Bound-ary Bay. T h i s chapter i n v e s t i g a t e s the ex t e n t and b a s i s of the c o n f l i c t s with the o b j e c t i v e of de v e l o p i n g s o l u t i o n s . 6.2 The Surrey Meetings: Source of Information about  C o n f l i c t s Four workshops were h e l d i n Surrey to d i s c u s s a wide range o f q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g to the Mud Bay s e c t i o n of the Bound-77 ary Bay s h o r e l i n e . Each workshop had a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t o r i e n t a t i o n : environment; a g r i c u l t u r e ; r e c r e a t i o n ; and Surrey r e s i d e n t . The meetings were open to the p u b l i c ; i n a d d i t i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of government agencies having j u r i s d i c t i o n or i n t e r e s t i n p l a n n i n g the Mud Bay area (Lands Branch, Dept. of A g r i c u l t u r e , F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s , etc.) and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of i n t e r e s t groups from throughout the r e g i o n ( F e d e r a t i o n of B.C. N a t u r a l i s t s , Mud Bay Dyking and Drainage Commission, S i e r r a Club, etc.) were i n v i t e d to a t t e n d the workshops. Each of the f o u r workshops was intended to i n v o l v e a d i f f e r e n t s e r i e s of groups/agencies and a d i f f e r e n t segment of the p o p u l a t i o n . A f i f t h workshop was h e l d as a summary. The format of the workshops was as f o l l o w s . The p a r t i -c i p a n t s broke up i n t o s m a l l groups of seven to ten people. Each group d i s c u s s e d the i s s u e s r a i s e d i n a s e r i e s of statements c a l l e d " P a t t e r n s " ; these " p a t t e r n s " had been d r a f t e d by the Sur-rey P l a n n i n g Dept. s p e c i f i c a l l y as a focus f o r p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n . There were a t o t a l of 52 p a t t e r n s to be d i s c u s s e d ; not a l l of these c o u l d be d i s c u s s e d i n the time a v a i l a b l e . The p a t t e r n s " E s t u a r i e s Preserved" and "Compatible A g r i c u l t u r e " ( l a t e r changed to " A g r i c u l t u r e Foremost") contained statements of d i r e c t r e l e -vance to t h i s chapter; the grbup responses to these statements p o i n t e d to the e x i s t e n c e of c o n f l i c t s . The p a t t e r n s are c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix 6. I p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the workshops to gather i n f o r -mation which would c o n t r i b u t e to t h i s t h e s i s . I chose to use the r e c o r d of group d i s c u s s i o n prepared by the Surrey P l a n n i n g Dept. as the b a s i s f o r the a n a l y s i s presented here. T h i s document i s 7 8 presented i n Appendix 7 . The two c o n f l i c t s i n q u e s t i o n w i l l be d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y . 6 . 3 The A g r i c u l t u r a l C o n f l i c t Management of h a b i t a t f o r waterfowl and s h o r e b i r d use might be i n h i b i t e d by the t h r e a t to crop damage t h a t might r e r s u i t from b i r d s f e e d i n g on the a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s . Losses have been r e p o r t e d i n the U.S.A. (U.S. N a t i o n a l Academy of Sc i e n c e , 1 9 7 0 ) , B r i t a i n (Kear, 1 9 7 0 ; Owen, 1 9 7 7 ) and Canada (Prach, 1 9 7 6 ) . 6 . 3 - 1 E x t e n t o f the Problem i n the Study Area I t has been e s t a b l i s h e d i n Chapter Four t h a t b i r d s , par-t i c u l a r l y d a b b l i n g ducks, depend on food sources i n the a g r i c u l -t u r a l lands which surround Boundary Bay. The a r r i v a l o f these migrants a f t e r h a r v e s t time i m p l i e s t h a t there i s l i t t l e poten-t i a l f o r crop damage l o c a l l y ; however, the b i r d s a l s o w i n t e r here, a d d i t i o n a l migrants pass through i n e a r l y s p r i n g . Com-p l a i n t s of b i r d damage to crops have been made by l o c a l farmers. References have appeared i n Leach ( 1 9 7 6 ) and i n Leach ("Protect Our Waterfowl - Don't Harvest i t , " Vancouver Sun, October 3 , 1 9 7 8 ) . During the Surrey workshops, o n l y one of th r e e a g r i c u l -t u r e groups r e p o r t e d t h a t crop damage by b i r d s c o u l d be a pro-blem. The remaining groups s t a t e d t h a t waterfowl hadn't done much damage i n the study area. Two of the three groups, however, suggested t h a t arrangements f o r compensation to farmers should be made i n case of damage. T h i s suggests t h a t the t h r e a t of 79 bird-:damage i s very r e a l i n the minds of some farmers. The ex-t e n t of a c t u a l damage, however, remains to be assessed. 6.3-2 • B a s i s of the Problem F i e l d f e e d i n g has been an e s t a b l i s h e d element of b i r d behavior f o r g e n e r a t i o n s . Geese and, to a l e s s e r e x t e n t , ducks, are known as the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c g r a z e r s . The c l e a r i n g and c u l -t i v a t i o n t h a t began wi t h white s e t t l e m e n t of North America may a c t u a l l y have i n c r e a s e d the a v a i l a b i l i t y of waterfowl food i n the uplands, hence i n c r e a s e d the i n c i d e n c e of f i e l d f e e d i n g . In the Klamath B a s i n of C a l i f o r n i a and Oregon i t has been shown t h a t upland f e e d i n g h a b i t s have developed i n response to the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a t t r a c t i v e food t h e r e ( G r i f f i t h , 1964) . Researchers have proposed t h a t b i r d s can cause r e d u c t i o n i n crop v a l u e s i n three ways: d e f o l i a t i o n , t r a m p l i n g and f e c a l contamination. Experiments i n the assessment of crop damage by b i r d s have not always been able to s u b s t a n t i a t e t h a t damage a c t u a l l y o c c u r s . I t has been charged t h a t i n the s p r i n g f e e d i n g waterfowl o f t e n uproots s e e d l i n g s and young p l a n t s not f i r m l y anchored i n the s o i l . U.S. s t u d i e s of geese g r a z i n g on wheat showed t h a t l e a f pruning on young c e r e a l p l a n t s i n the s p r i n g can a c t u a l l y improve y i e l d s ( G r i f f i t h , 1964). S i m i l a r e x p e r i -ments i n B r i t a i n found l i t t l e y i e l d d i f f e r e n c e i n grazed and un-grazed c e r e a l s . The same experiment showed t h a t t r a m p l i n g a l s o had l i t t l e e f f e c t (Kear, 1970). On the Canadian p r a i r i e s f i e l d f e e d i n g ducks eat r i p e k e r n e l s of g r a i n , c a u s i n g damage p a r t i c u -l a r l y d u r i n g h a r v e s t when the crop i s l y i n g i n swaths. Duck 80 t r a m p l i n g a t t h i s time causes a r e d u c t i o n i n grade (Paynter and Stephen, 1 9 6 4 ). F e c a l contamination of grass w i t h b i r d droppings can make grass u n a t t r a c t i v e to g r a z i n g animals as l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s showed (Kear and Rochard, 1 9 6 8 ) ' . Under f i e l d c o n d i t i o n s , they hypothesized, f e c e s may be u n s t a b l e and disappear q u i c k l y . The e f f e c t of b i r d f e e d i n g on farmland v a r i e s depending mainly on the type of land use and the time of year d u r i n g which f e e d i n g o c c u r s . Waterfowl f e e d i n g i n the s p r i n g on g r a z i n g lands may compete wi t h stock f o r " e a r l y b i t e " s p r i n g g r a s s . A r r i v a l of b i r d s a f t e r h a r v e s t time may have b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s as the b i r d s c l e a n up s p i l t g r a i n , weed seeds and tubers i n which p e s t s overwinter. Damage may take p l a c e when t u r n i p s and other r o o t crops are l e f t to overwinter i n f i e l d s (Kear, 1 9 7 0 ) . Dabbling ducks, other waterfowl and s h o r e b i r d s a c t i v e l y feed i n the study area d u r i n g the l a t e f a l l (the time o f h e a v i -e s t u s e ) , w i n t e r and e a r l y s p r i n g . Damage c o u l d take p l a c e i n the f o l l o w i n g ways. 1 . c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h g r a z i n g s t o c k s 2. f e c a l contamination of g r a z i n g lands 3. f e e d i n g on o v e r w i n t e r i n g r o o t crops i n market gardens 4 . damage to s e e d l i n g s i n s p r i n g . The exact type of damage t h a t has been claimed i s not known, but as Chapter Four has shown crops do not appear to be a major food source f o r most s p e c i e s found on Boundary Bay. I t may be t h a t r e p o r t s of damage have been exaggerated. 81 6.3-3 S o l u t i o n The s o l u t i o n t o t h i s problem would r e q u i r e f i r s t o f a l l t h a t more i n f o r m a t i o n be gathered. The q u e s t i o n s t h a t need to be answered are: 1. What type of damage do mi g r a t o r y b i r d s to to farm-lands i n the study area and d u r i n g what season of the year does damage take p l a c e ? 2. What annual d o l l a r f i g u r e can be c a l c u l a t e d to des-c r i b e l o s s e s ? 3. What percentage of t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n does t h i s f i g u r e r e p resent? 4. Do l o s s e s j u s t i f y i n i t i a t i o n of c o n t r o l measures, i f so, what measures? Losses of one p e r c e n t of t o t a l crop v a l u e i n A l b e r t a , Saskatche-wan, Manitoba, and O n t a r i o were c o n s i d e r e d enough to j u s t i f y con-t r o l and compensation (Prach, 1976). In a conservacy area m i g r a t o r y b i r d p o p u l a t i o n s might i n c r e a s e over t h e i r p r e s e n t l e v e l s , e s p e c i a l l y i f b i r d s are pro-t e c t e d by s a n c t u a r i e s and/or p r o v i d e d w i t h food; what might not be a problem a t p r e s e n t c o u l d become one. Should c o n t r o l of waterfowl f e e d i n g on croplands become necessary, t h e r e are a v a r i e t y of c o n t r o l s t h a t c o u l d be imple-mented. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of such s t r a t e g i e s might improve the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of a mixed-use conservacy d e s i g n a t i o n f o r Boundary Bay among those who c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y s u f f e r l o s s e s . S c a r i n g techniques ranging from scarecrows to a c e t y l e n e e x p l o s i v e s can be used to keep b i r d s out of f i e l d s . As d i s c u s s e d 82 i n Chapter F i v e , a h a b i t u a t i o n to the s c a r i n g d e v i c e might occu r . S c a r i n g would be most u s e f u l where damage i s l i k e l y to occur over a p e r i o d of time s h o r t enough t h a t h a b i t u a t i o n would not take p l a c e . Encouraging hunter use of farmland i s a second means of keeping b i r d s away from the f i e l d s . T h i s c o u l d be done i n con-j u n c t i o n w i t h e x i s t i n g F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch p o l i c y promoting a c l o s e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between landowner and hunter (B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, 1975, 1976). Farmers c o u l d open t h e i r lands to hunting c h a r g i n g a per annum r a t e , thereby supplementing t h e i r incomes. T h i s arrangement p r e s e n t l y e x i s t s among some l a n d -owners and hunting c l u b s i n the F r a s e r V a l l e y . The c l u b s " r e n t " the hunting r i g h t s to the p r o p e r t i e s on a per acre b a s i s (Leach, 1976). F u r t h e r d e t a i l s of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r c o o p e r a t i o n between landowners and hunters are o u t l i n e d i n P a i s h (1974) and A l b e r t a , F i s h and W i l d l i f e D i v i s i o n (1974). The s u s c e p t i b i l i t y of lands to damage by waterfowl can be reduced by v a r i o u s means. In the P r a i r i e : ; p r o v i n c e s , some farmers s h i f t e d t h e i r crop r o t a t i o n s from a s m a l l g r a i n to a grass-legume r o t a t i o n i n f i e l d s where s e r i o u s damage had o c c u r r e d . Crops u n a t t r a c t i v e to b i r d s , such as rape and f l a x , c o u l d a l s o be grown i n such f i e l d s (Paynter and Stephen, 1964) . S i m i l a r s o l u t i o n s c o u l d be developed around Boundary Bay depending on the type of damage s u s t a i n e d . V u l n e r a b l e or v a l u a b l e crops c o u l d be p l a n t e d near b u i l d i n g s or o t h e r d i s t u r b a n c e s to d i s c o u r a g e b i r d a c t i v i t y (Owen, 1977) . 83 A l t e r n a t e food sources p r o v i d e d f o r b i r d s would decrease crop d e p r e d a t i o n s . Farmers c o u l d be p a i d to c u l t i v a t e crops f o r b i r d s , or p a i d to leave some of t h e i r crops s t a n d i n g f o r b i r d use. Waste g r a i n c o u l d be l e f t f o r b i r d s i n f i e l d s where no harm c o u l d be done. Distu r b a n c e s c o u l d be employed to d i v e r t b i r d s from f i e l d s where they are causing damage to conservacy areas where food has been l e f t . Heavy f i e l d f e e d i n g might i n d i -c a t e a need f o r r e s e r v a t i o n of more upland h a b i t a t f o r conservacy use (Owen, 1977). Where p a r t i c u l a r l y s e r i o u s damage o c c u r s , crop insurance or compensation programs have been made a v a i l a b l e . Some pro-grams are a l r e a d y o p e r a t i n g i n Canada, but have been hampered by d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a c c u r a t e l y a s s e s s i n g damage (Prach, 1976; Owen, 1977) . 6.4 The Hunter-Anti-Hunter C o n f l i c t A d u a l o r i e n t a t i o n towards use and enjoyment of w i l d l i f e r e sources e x i s t s . Consumptive users of w i l d l i f e , the hunters, h a r v e s t the resource t h a t forms the f o c a l p o i n t of t h e i r s p o r t . A p p r e c i a t i v e o r non-consumption users of w i l d l i f e observe, i d e n t i f y , photograph, and feed w i l d l i f e , but do not h a r v e s t the r e s o u r c e . People engaged i n the two types of a c t i v i t i e s have been d e s c r i b e d i n s t r o n g l y c o n t r a s t i n g terms: h u n t e r / p r o t e c t i o n -i s t (Leonard, 1972); h u n t e r / c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t (Leach, Vancouver Sun, October 3, 1978); h u n t e r / n a t u r a l i s t ( H a l l i n Leach, 1977); h u n t e r / a n t i - h u n t e r ( V a l e n t i n e , Vancouver Sun, May 11, 1978). 84 The exact people i n v o l v e d i n the c o n f l i c t have been hard to d e s c r i b e : are n a t u r a l i s t s a subset of p r o t e c t i o n i s t s ? of a n t i -hunters? I have chosen to use the term a n t i - h u n t e r i n t h i s d i s -c u s s i o n because, as we s h a l l see, i t most adquately d e s c r i b e s the people who f a l l i n o p p o s i t i o n to hunters i n the c o n f l i c t . 6 . 4 - 1 E x t e n t of the C o n f l i c t D i s c u s s i o n d u r i n g the Surrey workshops i n d i c a t e d t h a t hunting i s the o b j e c t of disagreement among l o c a l and ' r e g i o n a l r e s i d e n t s . A l l f o u r t e e n groups of people p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the f o u r workshops d i s c u s s e d the " E s t u a r i e s Preserved" p a t t e r n , which c o n t a i n e d the f o l l o w i n g statement about hunting: "Hunting d i s t u r b s the northern and e a s t e r n edges of Mud Bay, where the v i t a l s a l t marsh p r o v i d e s f e e d i n g grounds f o r ducks and geese. T h i s a c t i v i t y should be e l i m i n a t e d . " Four groups e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d t h a t they agreed hunting should be p r o h i b i t e d i n the e s t u a r y ; f o u r o t h e r s made no o u t r i g h t statement r e g a r d i n g hunt-i n g , but i m p l i c i t l y supported i t s p r o h i b i t i o n by agreeing w i t h the p a t t e r n . On the other hand s i x groups e x p l i c i t l y d i s a g r e e d t h a t hunting should be e l i m i n a t e d . These group responses suggest t h a t hunting i s the sub-j e c t of c o n s i d e r a b l e disagreement. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s r e i n f o r c e d by the v o c i f e r o u s interchange of pro- and anti-rhunting sentiment t h a t was i n i t i a t e d as a r e s u l t of Barry Smallwoods a r t i c l e i n the Vancouver Sun, " S e t t i n g the Fox to Keep the Geese" (Page 6 , A p r i l 2 0 , 1978) . Since t h a t time one l e t t e r to the e d i t o r and three a r t i c l e s on the s u b j e c t have appeared i n the Sun; two 85 t i t l e s are c i t e d here as i l l u s t r a t i v e of the c o n f l i c t : "Pre-serve Our Waterfowl.- Don't Harvest I t " (Leach, Vancouver Sun, October 3, 1978); "The Hunters R i g h t - To Harvest a Resource" (Dixon, Vancouver Sun, October 24, 1978). I t i s not p o s s i b l e to determine — e i t h e r from the Sur-rey workshops or the Vancouver Sun a r t i c l e s — j u s t who o b j e c t s to hunting or what p r o p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n o b j e c t s . I t appears t h a t there i s an e q u a l l y v o c a l group of people who w i l l speak out i n favour of h u n t i n g . In these two groups l i e s the f o u n d a t i o n of a c o n f l i c t . 6.4-2 B a s i s of the C o n f l i c t An examination of the l i t e r a t u r e g i v e s f u r t h e r i n s i g h t . Two Canadian s t u d i e s have shown t h a t the m a j o r i t y of the popula-t i o n can be expected to express a p r e f e r e n c e f o r a p p r e c i a t i v e uses of w i l d l i f e r esources over consumptive uses. The r e s u l t s of a random survey of 3,000 r e s i d e n t s of Saskatchewan i n d i c a t e d t h a t 90 p e r c e n t of the p o p u l a t i o n p r e f e r r e d to observe t h e i r p r o v i n c e ' s b i r d l i f e , w h i l e o n l y 30 p e r c e n t p r e f e r r e d to hunt them ( U n i v e r s i t y of Saskatchewan, 1974). (Note t h i s does not i n d i c a t e a c t u a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a p p r e c i a t i v e or consumptive uses, but o n l y p r e f e r e n c e s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r o r i e n t a t i o n i n use of w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e , should p a r t i c i p a t i o n take p l a c e . ) A s m a l l e r survey (n=136) i n the Vancouver r e g i o n showed s i m i l a r r e s u l t s : - .17 p e r c e n t of the respondents p a r t i c i p a t e d i n con-sumptive use of w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e s , w h i l e 54 p e r c e n t p a r t i c i p a -t e d i n a p p r e c i a t i v e uses (LeFev-re, 1974) . Organized n a t u r a l i s t s 8 6 were found to be a t i n y m i n o r i t y of a l l the people who enjoy w i l d l i f e (LeFevre, 1 9 7 4 ) , as Edwards ( 1 9 6 9 ) and C a l l i s o n ( 1 9 7 3 ) c o n f i r m . The c o n f l i c t , t h e r e f o r e , i s g r e a t e r than one between hunters and n a t u r a l i s t s . The c o n f l i c t a p p a r e n t l y has i t s source i n a l a r g e number of people who f e e l n e g a t i v e towards hunting, few of whom are n a t u r a l i s t s ; these are the people t h a t I have termed the a n t i - h u n t e r s . W i l d l i f e p r o f e s s i o n a l s noted the appearance of a n t i -hunting sentiment i n the U.S. l i t e r a t u r e around 1 9 6 5 , but were unaware of i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e (Shaw, 1 9 7 4 ) . S e v e r a l U.S. s t u d i e s have shown t h a t a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of the p o p u l a t i o n disapproves of hunting (Hendee and P o t t e r , 1 9 7 5 ) . T h i r t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t of the p o p u l a t i o n surveyed i n one New J e r s e y survey expressed o p p o s i t i o n to the sportt.dn 1 9 7 2 ; f o r t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t disapproved i n 1 9 7 4 (Applegate, 1 9 7 3 > 1 9 7 5 ) . S t u d i e s of U.S. u n i v e r s i t y students found t h a t 7 5 percent expressed some a n t i - h u n t i n g sentiment and 1 9 p e r c e n t were t o t a l l y a g a i n s t s p o r t hunting (Shaw, 1 9 7 3 ) . In another study Shaw ( 1 9 7 4 ) found a n t i - h u n t i n g sentiment grounded i n negative a t t i t u d e s about the behavior of hunters, sympathy f o r the i n d i v i d u a l animals as v i c t i m s and a concern about the d i s r u p t i o n of nature's balance. The emotions generated from these c o n f l i c t s are some-times much more i n t e n s e than a simple d i f f e r e n c e i n outdoor p u r s u i t s would seem to warrant. Fundamental d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s towards the environment, towards p u b l i c l a n d manage-ment and even d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c i a l grouping may u n d e r l i e con-f l i c t s a c c e n t u a t i n g them and l e a d i n g to i n c r e a s e d p o l a r i z a t i o n . 87 Knopp and Tyger (1973) have shown t h a t a l l these d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t i n comparing c o n f l i c t i n g snowmobilers and c r o s s - c o u n t r y s k i i e r s i n Minnesota. Though no comparable data e x i s t s f o r hunters and a n t i - h u n t e r s , a n t i - h u n t i n g sentiment may be a r e -f l e c t i o n of the changing a t t i t u d e s of an i n c r e a s i n g l y urban p o p u l a t i o n . Hendee and P o t t e r (197 5) summarizing data from 33 U.S. s t u d i e s p o i n t out t h a t hunters come predominantly from r u r a l backgrounds and i n t h i s r e s p e c t are d i f f e r e n t from the average p o p u l a t i o n , which i s urban. 6.4-3 S o l u t i o n The e x i s t e n c e of a h u n t e r / a n t i - h u n t e r c o n f l i c t c o u l d i n f l u e n c e the r e c r e a t i o n a l uses t h a t are accommodated i n Bound-ary Bay, the amount of area devoted to hunting versus o t h e r uses, and human s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the d e s i g n a t i o n . In theory the c o n f l i c t c o u l d be minimized i f separate areas were desig.-nated f o r hunting and no hunting on the Boundary Bay marshes. In non-hunting areas a p p r e c i a t i v e users of w i l d l i f e and o t h e r non-hunting r e c r e a t i o n i s t s may engage i n t h e i r p r e f e r r e d a c t i v i -t i e s . Hunters w i l l r e q u i r e d e s i g n a t i o n of more e x t e n s i v e a r e a s , p a r t l y f o r s a f e t y reasons, p a r t l y because of the need to d i s -perse w i d e l y w i t h i n the h a b i t a t . E f f o r t s can a l s o be made to d i r e c t hunting p r e s s u r e to areas which r e q u i r e d i s p e r s i o n of t h e i r b i r d p o p u l a t i o n s . Two examples of such areas are farm-lands and a i r p o r t s . D e s i g n a t i o n of areas f o r hunting or no hunting should be based on the needs of the b i r d s as w e l l as on demands made by d i f f e r e n t r e c r e a t i o n i s t groups. 88 In a c t u a l f a c t s e p a r a t i o n of uses a l r e a d y e x i s t s , and a p o r t i o n of Boundary Bay's c o a s t a l area i s a l r e a d y c l o s e d to hunting (see Map 6 . 1 ) . In areas c l o s e d to hunting, however, there i s no p r o v i s i o n of o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r w i l d l i f e a p p r e c i a t i o n ( i . e . d e s i g n a t i o n of a r e a s / p r o v i s i o n of f a c i l i t i e s ) , o t h e r than as a b i - p r o d u c t of a c t i v i t i e s i n parks. U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e r e i s no government agency with a mandate to p r o v i d e such op p o r t u n i - . t i e s . At any r a t e many a n t i - h u n t e r s might remain u n a f f e c t e d by such p r o v i s i o n . The c o n f l i c t between hunters and a n t i - h u n t e r s u l t i m a t e l y may be c o n s i d e r e d a product of the changing times. The hunters - - t r a d i t i o n a l users (and p r o t e c t o r s ) of the w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e , now d e c l i n i n g i n numbers — t e n a c i o u s l y c l i n g to t h e i r t e r r i t o r y , w h i le an i n c r e a s i n g l y u r b a n i z e d p o p u l a t i o n — which n e i t h e r understands, nor sympathizes w i t h the t r a d i t i o n a l u s e r — p r e -f e r s to engage i n non-consumptive r e c r e a t i o n a l pastimes. A s p e c i a l element of t h i s urban p o p u l a t i o n , the n a t u r a l i s t , the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t , i s now moving i n to assume the r o l e of pro-t e c t o r of w i l d l i f e . Perhaps t h i s i s the type of p a i n f u l s o c i a l change t h a t o n l y time can r e s o l v e f u l l y . S e p a r a t i o n of uses can continue and r e s e a r c h can be con-ducted to monitor user s a t i s f a c t i o n with the conservacy area, s i n c e t h i s w i l l l e a d to more s i t e s p e c i f i c suggestions f o r r e -s o l u t i o n of complaints. Common ground between hunters and a n t i -hunters can be emphasized i n d e a l i n g w i t h the c o n f l i c t . Both have an i n t e r e s t i n s e e i n g t h a t w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t s and the spec-i e s dependent on them are p r e s e r v e d , though some a n t i - h u n t e r s MAP 6.1 DESIGNATED HUNTING AND NON-HUNTING AREAS ON BOUNDARY BAY 90 may f e e l more strongly i n t h i s respect than others. 91 CHAPTER SEVEN  Conservacy A l t e r n a t i v e s f o r Boundary Bay 7.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n The a p p l i c a t i o n of management g u i d e l i n e s developed i n Chapter F i v e and s o l u t i o n s to c o n f i c t s suggested i n Chapter S i x i s best done u s i n g an approach t h a t c o n s i d e r s the whole study area as one u n i t f o r management. In t h i s c o n t e x t human and w i l d l i f e needs, o u t l i n e d i n Chapters Three and Four can be met. The a p p l i c a t i o n of these g u i d e l i n e s i s not simple, however. There i s no s i n g l e path to a c h i e v i n g a balance of conservacy uses i n the study area, but r a t h e r , a v a r i e t y of a l t e r n a t i v e s e x i s t . A l t e r n a t i v e s may d i f f e r i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s : amount of land/water d e s i g n a t e d f o r d i f f e r e n t types of uses : degree of p r o t e c t i o n o f f e r e d by v a r i o u s d e s i g n a t i o n s : type of r e c r e a t i o n a l use made of d i f f e r e n t s i t e s w i t h i n the conservacy area : degree of management of the area : amount of c o o p e r a t i o n between p u b l i c agencies and i n d i v i d u a l s r e q u i r e d to implement a g i v e n manage-ment scheme. Major d i f f e r e n c e s i n outcome e x i s t between a l t e r n a t i v e s ; some are more l i k e l y than o t h e r s to r e s u l t i n a s u c c e s s f u l balance o f . p r e s e r v a t i o n w i t h use over the long term. 92 This Chapter presents four conservacy alternatives for Boundary Bay. These are described i n order of increasing em-phasis on preservation within the conservacy area. B r i e f l y , the alternatives are: Alternative One: Continuation of present course of action. Three parks are planned for the study area. Alternative Two: Moderate perservation. Present course of action amplified by p o l i c i e s for management of public lands i n the study area to benefit w i l d l i f e preservation. Alternative Three: Implementation of a three zone system i n the study area. Areas designated for intensive recreation, w i l d l i f e oriented recreation and undisturbed refuge. Adoption of broad p o l i c i e s to ensure that a l l future uses of the Bay w i l l be compatible with a conservacy area. Alternative Four: Enhancement. Management of public lands i n the study area for waterfowl uses; enhancement of two s i t e s to encourage breeding. Table 7.1 summarizes each a l t e r n a t i v e , including s i t e designa-tions for conservacy uses and management guidelines. Each a l -ternative i s assessed as to whether r e c o n c i l i a t i o n between pre-servation and recreational use of the study area i s l i k e l y to be maintained;over the long term (20 years). This assessment i s also discussed, as t h i s i s another factor that must influence the decision to seek any one of the four scenarios. Table 7.3 shows the agencies that would be required to p a r t i c i p a t e were any of the alternatives to be implemented. The three tables are referred to frequently i n the discussion. Map 7.1 i s presented for reference to readers who are not f a m i l i a r with place names on Boundary Bay. 93 The o b j e c t i v e o f Chapter Seven i s not to choose from among the a l t e r n a t i v e s , but to p r e s e n t the p o s s i b l e c h o i c e s and to d i s c u s s the i m p l i c a t i o n s of each c h o i c e so t h a t an informed d e c i s i o n can be made about the f u t u r e p r e s e r v a t i o n and use of Boundary Bay. 7.2 A l t e r n a t i v e One: C o n t i n u a t i o n of Present Course The a n a l y s i s of p l a n n i n g f o r conservacy areas i n North America, presented i n Chapter Two, concluded t h a t without c a r e -f u l p l a n n i n g and management, r e c o n c i l i a t i o n o f p r e s e r v a t i o n with use o f a conservacy area, e s p e c i a l l y one de s i g n a t e d as "park", would be u n l i k e l y , T h i s c o n c l u s i o n u n d e r l i e s t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r the p o i n t o f view taken i n t h i s t h e s i s , and i m p l i e s t h a t a con-t i n u a t i o n o f the p r e s e n t course of events would not r e s u l t i n achievement of the d e s i r e d end s t a t e . The i n t e n t i o n here i s not to belabour t h a t p o i n t , but to r e c a p i t u l a t e b r i e f l y i n l i g h t of the d i s c u s s i o n presented throughout the t h e s i s . T able 7.1 summarizes conservacy d e s i g n a t i o n s and manage-ment g u i d e l i n e s t h a t are expected i f the p r e s e n t course o f p l a n -ning a c t i v i t i e s f o r the study area was to reach implementation. A c c o r d i n g to A l t e r n a t i v e One arrangements f o r more e f f i c i e n t accommodation of summer r e c r e a t i o n i n the study area w i l l re-ei c e i v e p r i o r i t y . Such improvements to access and f a c i l i t i e s w i l l encourage i n c r e a s e d year round use of three proposed park s i t e s . W i l d l i f e areas are planned f o r two of these park s i t e s , but these would be developed a t a l a t e r date, a f t e r other f a c i l i t i e s are i n p l a c e . The waterfowl park planned f o r C e n t e n n i a l Beach TABLE 7.1 ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSERVACY USE OF BOUNDARY BAY Alternative Areas Designated for Conservacy Use Tyne of Designation Site Specific Management Guidelines General Management Guidelines ALTERNATIVE ONE Continuation of Present Course White Rock shoreline Crescent Beach and Blackie Spit Centennial Park* Park (regional or municipal) Park (regional or municipal) Regional park 1. Improvements to access and f a c i l i t i e s for summer recreation at three park sites receive p r io r i ty . •concessions, wash and changerooms, beach enhancement, picnic areas, parking lo t s , lifeguard services 2. Wildl i fe habitat areas planned for Blackie Spit and Centennial Park w i l l be developed as second phase of project; •landscaping and screening of lagoons and t r a i l s •Centennial Park waterfowl enhancement project- t ra i l and f a c i l i t y intensive accomodating 11 recreational ac t iv i t ies including group camping, group picnics , and a nature center. 1. Recreational use of Boundary Bay to increase as trend dictates. Z No major increases in access are planned at this time. 3. Hunting policy- a continuation of pre-sent hunting policy is forseen, hunting allowed every day during specified season. 4. Boating policy- no new f a c i l i t i e s are planned. 5. Trai l bikes and other off road vehicles are prohibited at Boundary Bay due to interference with other recreational activ-i t i e s and damage to vegetation and dunes. Ocean Park shoreline none 1. Improvements to access- minor improve-ments to two access t r a i l s . Greenbelt lands Greenbelt 1. Presently leased out for agricultural use, some parcels unused- no change in manaqement is planned. Serpentine Fen Wildl i fe Management Area 1. Site of Canada Goose raising project, provides some uDland refuge- no change in management planned. * Centennial Park development is based on the assumption that'Concept A'suqqested by Charles Torrence Ltd. (1977) is chosen for implementation. This concept contains the waterfowl park, and has received the most favorable response from ci t izens . Staff analysis has also shown this to be the most highly rated of two possible alternatives (Regional Parkland StatusReport (Draft), GVRD, 1978). TABLE 7.1 ( Continued ) ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSERVACY USE OF BOUNDARY BAY Al ternative Areas Designated for Conservacy Use Type of Designation Site Specific Management Guidelines General Management Guidelines ALTERNATIVE TWO Moderate Preservation White Rock shoreline Crescent Beach and Blackie Spit Centennial Park* Park (regional or municipal) Park (regional or municipal) Regional Park 1. Recreational access and f a c i l i t y impro-vements to be concentrated at three parks. 2. Wildl ife habitat areas planned for Blackie Spit and Centennial Park are developed simultaneously with improve-ments for summer recreation. •bl inds , viewing platforms, screened t r a i l s provided at wi ld l i f e areas. •present plans for Centennial Park waterfowl area downgraded to in -clude fewer f a c i l i t i e s and ac t iv i t i e s . 1. Trai l bike and other vehicular re^ str ict ions enforced on grounds of dis-turbance to wid l i fe . 2. Hunting policy • encourage hunting on farmlands • encourage, hunting where discourag-ing wi ld l i f e is desirable (eg, some farmlands, airport foreshore, i f airport should reopen). • l imi t hunting on foreshore to 2 or 3 days a week during hunting season. 3. Boating policy • no further moorage f a c i l i t i e s to be constructed in the study area • boat launching f a c i l i t i e s to be improved or provided at sites where w i l d l i f e preservation i s not a concern. 4. Seek cooperation of public agencies or individuals involved in any future development or use of the study area to benefit habitat preservation and pro-vision of recreational opportunities. Greenbelt lands on Mud Bay and Boundary Bay proper Greenbelt Greenbelt management- manage greenbelt lands to provide wi ld l i f e food. •pay farmers or reduce their rents in return for leaving crop or waste for bi rds •encourage farmers to le t birds feed undisturbed when i t is unlikely that they w i l l cause damage •encourage unmanaged strips fo be lef t where beneficial food plants and animals could grow • •io not improve drainage in these areas Serpentine Fen Wildl i fe Management Area Habitat enhancement- manage Serpentine Fen intensively to provide food for w i l d l i f e . TABLE 7.1 ( Continued ) ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSERVACY USE OF BOUNDARY BAY Al ternative Areas Designated for Type of Designation Site Specific Management Guidelines General Management Guidelines ALTERNATIVE THREE Implementation of a Three Zone System Recreation Zone White Rock Shoreline Crescent Beach and Blackie Spit beach areas Centennial Park beach area Park (municipal or regional) Park (municipal or regional) Regional Park 1. Improvements to access and recreational f a c i l i t i e s • provision of washrooms, changerooms, concessions, lifeguards, boat launches • zone hardened to accomodate intensive ac t iv i t ies of a l l kinds • highly modified environment 2. Advertise these beaches and their f a c i l i t i e s 3. Hunting restricted for safety reasons (as at present); hunting permitted off Centennial Beach 1. Implementation of a 3 zone system similar to that practiced in many protect-ed areas. • visitors channeled by their own reer reation preferences into areas that can be actively managed . • most popular ac t iv i t ies (those which generate the most user days) are directed to "hardened" areas 2. Marinas policy- no new marinas or ex-pansion of existing marinas on Boundary Bay. i Hunting policy-encourage hunting on farm-lands and greenbelt lands, where possible, to make up for loss of hunting opportunity due to creation of refuge. 4. Refuge policy- no access increases to the eastern shore of Mud Bay or to the Ocean Park shoreline should take place (other than minor improvements already planned). 5. Greenbelt management-to provide food for f ie ld feeding waterfowl, or perhaps lef t unmanged to encourage growth of im-portant food plants (This must be made compatible with #3 above). 6. Horseback riding , permitted on dykes only. 7. Trai l biking and other motorized recrea-tion are prohibited throughout the study area. Only provision of an alternate s i te for t r a i l bikes w i l l ensure adequate en-forcement. 8. Cooperation should be sought between government agencies and private sector involved in future use or development of the study area so that concessions in development can be made to benefit rec-reation and habitat preservation on the Bay. This w i l l ensure future uses com-patible with conservacy area on the Bay. Recreation-Wildlife Zone Blackie Spit backshore and lagoons, Nicomekl estuary Dunsmuir farm Campbell River estuary Serpentine Fen Centennial Park back-shore and lagoons Park (special arrange-ments needed to i n -clude foreshore) Greenbelt Park (special arrange-ments as above) Wildl i fe Management Area Regional park 1. Careful integration of human act ivi ty into wi ld l i f e habitat near recreation focal ooints (mentioned above). 2. Fac i l i t i es few, low profile or distinct-ly oriented towards wi ld l i f e viewing • t r a i l s , blinds, interpretive displays, viewing platforms, modest nature centers • guided interpretation possible • plans for Centennial Park wi ld l i f e area downgraded to include fewer ac t iv i t ies and f a c i l i t i e s 3. Access controlled-few or low profile signs, t r a i l s screened and carefully locat-ed, small parking lots • access from Recreation Zone unob-trusive 4. L i t t l e advertisement 5. No hunting in this zone 6. Power boating subject to speed res t r ic-tions TABLE 7.1 (Continued) ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSERVACY USE OF BOUNDARY BAY Alternative Areas Designated for Conservacy Use Type of Designation Site Specific Management Guidelines General Management Guidelines ALTERNATIVE THREE (Continued) Implementation of a Three Zone System Preservation Zone Eastern shore of Mud Bay including Serpen-tine Estuary North shore of Boundary Bay proper Kwomais Point to Ocean Park Various alternatives possible .Greenbelt .Ecological Reserve . 0-I-C Game Reserve .Wildl i fe Management Area Alternatives .0-I-C Game Reserve .Wild l i fe Management Area .Greenbelt Alternatives .0-I-C Reserve for the Use and Enjoy-ment of the Public .Wi ld l i fe Management Area 1. Human ac t iv i ty not permitted or closely control led • Refuge area- no ac t iv i ty permitted • Human act ivi ty restricted to widely spaced nodes • Hunting permitted in season • Access to shore, f a c i l i t i e s for wi ld l i f e viewing provided at foot of Oliver Road • Access to shore, f a c i l i t i e s for wi ld l i f e viewing provided at two points • Kwomais Point to Ocean Park regarded as refuge for diving ducks, although some use is permitted now, no further Incr-nses ancoura^ad • No lumtinn in this zone TABLE 7 .1 (Continued) ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSERVACY USE OF BOUNDARY BAY Alternative Areas Designated for Conservacy Use Type of Designation Site Specific Management Guidelines General Management Guidelines ALTERNATIVE FOUR Enhancement i irniite Kock shoreline Crescent Beach and Blackie Spit Centennial Park* " Park- municipal or regional Park- municipal or regional Regional Park 1. Recreation f a c i l i t i e s and access in -creased to accomodate heavy summer beach use and boating 1. Improvements to recreation f a c i l i t i e s and access to accomodate heavy summer recreation 2. Enhancement of small habitat areas in the two parks for waterfowl food and nesting • s tabi l izat ion of water levels to create favorable nesting areas • landscape modification to create impoundments • fresh water input to favor cul t iva-tion of fresh water marsh food item: • design areas to accomodate pressure of vis i tors to the habitat- use of dykes as t r a i l s , provision of view-ing platforms • restr ict ion of use of habitat areas during nesting season 3. Promotion of the two parks as year round wi ld l i f e attractions • provide interpretive services • provide walkways from beach act iv i ty points direct ly to wi ld l i f e viewing areas to encourage vis i ta t ion 1. Enhancement of small habitat areas on Boundary Bay for waterfowl use i n -cluding cult ivat ion of food plants and provision of favorable conditions for nesting 2. Hunting policy-would remain as i s , no further area restrict ions 3. Other recreational ac t iv i t ies would continue as previously except for t r a i l biking restr ic t ion • t r a i l biking would be restricted in w i l d l i f e areas; this res t r ic-tion would be enforced.: 4. Cost sharing or jo in t programs might be arranged between recreation and wi ld l i fe agencies to meet mutual objectives Serpentine Fen Greenbelt Lands Wildl i fe Management Area Greenbelt 1. Enhancement of these public lands to provide food for wi ld l i f e would be desirable TABLE 7.2 LIKLIHOOD OF RECONCILIATION OF RECREATIONAL USE WITH PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT ACCORDING TO FOUR ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS ALTERNATIVE Are serious disturbances control-led over most of the habitat? Are resting and feeding areas for a l l species protected over the long term? Is some undisturbed refuge provid-ed? CONCLUSION: Wil l preservation and use be reconciled over the long term? ONE NO. No arrangements made to con-t rol disturbances to w i l d l i f e . Present level of disturbance is . no serious. NO. Provisions for permanent habi-tat preservation favor dabbling ducks. Many areas s t i l l available for use of a l l species. NO. Some areas function as refuge during most of the year, but there is no guaranteed long term protec-t ion. UNLIKELY.If degree of use, hence disturbance, increases without con-trol and without exp l i c i t provis-ion of habitat and refuge for most species variety and numbers of wi ld l i f e w i l l decline. Rate and time of decline is uncertain. TWO YES. Immediate efforts made to-wards careful integration of peo-ple into w i l d l i f e habitat. Boating not controlled. NO. Habitat areas designated for w i l d l i f e use w i l l benefit mainly dabbling ducks. Areas available for use of other species remain un-protected. NO. Some l igh t ly used areas may function as refuge during most of the year, but long term protection not guaranteed. UNCERTAIN. Dabbling ducks are the major benficiaries under this scen-ario; many of their needs are met for the long term.Future of diving ducks, other birds.uncertain. Rate of increase in human use, as well as extent and types of use, w i l l determine future preservation. THREE YES. Disturbing ac t iv i t i e s confin-ed to specific areas and/or close-ly controlled. Existence of re-fuge and l i t t l e used areas helps minimize effects of any disturb-ance, as avoidance possible. YES. A variety of expansive habi-tat areas are reserved for wi ld l i fe resting and feeding on the Bay and uplands. YES. Approximately 1/3 of the shoreline is designated as refuge. Other areas where access is re-str icted to widely spaced nodes w i l l function as near refuge. YES. Habitat needs of most species met, disturbances controlled. Degree of long term protection for some areas w i l l depend on type of designation. FOUR NO. Disturbance to w i l d l i f e con-t ro l led only in enhanced areas. No other provisions. YES. But not for a l l species. Dab-, bling ducks benefit mainly. No e x p l i c i t provision for diving sucks, shorebirds. NO. Some areas l igh t ly used and function as refuge now; no pro-vision is made for control of use of these areas for the long term. UNCERTAIN. Preservation and use reconciled in two small w i l d l i f e habitat areas, in fact value to certain species increases be-cause of enhancement. Rate of i n -crease in use of extensive unpro-tected areas, and extent and type of use w i l l determine future pre-[ervation of w i l d l i f e . 100 TABLE 7.3 PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Public Agencies with Jurisdiction or Alternatives Interest in Boundary Bay Study Area 1 2 3 4 1. Surrey municipality 1 • e e 2. Delta municipality 8 • « e 3. White Rock municipality • S « c 4. G.V.R.D. e 8 e 5. Fish and Wildlife Branch • 1 0 6. Lands Management Branch 0 % 0 7. Dept. of Agriculture (Soil/ Drainage Br.) t 0 8. Dept. of Highways 0 .0 9. Canadian Wildlife Service 0 0 0 10. Fisheries and Marine Services 0 0 0 0 11. Dept. of Transport 0 0 12. Dept. of Public Works 0 13. Port of Vancouver (N.H.B.) 0 14. Dyking and Drainage Districts (3)* s t * quasi-public level of involvement • major 0 secondary/potential 101 MAP 7.1 PLACE NAMES ON BOUNDARY BAY 102 i s remarkably t r a i l and f a c i l i t y i n t e n s i v e ; both w i l d l i f e areas i n f a c t are extremely c l o s e to areas of i n t e n s e a c t i v i t y , and would p r o v i d e f o c a l p o i n t s t h a t would a t t r a c t a d d i t i o n a l v i s i -t o r s . R e c r e a t i o n a l use, under A l t e r n a t i v e One, w i l l be permit-ted to i n c r e a s e i n the study area as the trend d i c t a t e s . A con-t i n u a t i o n of hunting i s e n v i s i o n e d . Although no new f a c i l i t i e s f o r b o a t i n g are planned a t t h i s time, no p o l i c y s t a t e s t h a t b o a t i n g may be inc o m p a t i b l e i n some r e s p e c t s w i t h p r e s e r v a t i o n of the ecosystem. No attempt w i l l be made to c u r t a i l the a c t i -v i t i e s of r e c r e a t i o n i s t s w i t h one e x c e p t i o n : r e s t r i c t i o n s w i l l be imposed on use of t r a i l b i k e s and other o f f road v e h i c l e s , mainly because of i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h o t h e r r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i -t i e s . No f u r t h e r access to Boundary Bay i s planned, but no s p e c i f i c p o l i c y r e g a r d i n g f u t u r e access i s adopted. Table 7.2 assesses the l i k e l i h o o d of r e c o n c i l i n g p r e -s e r v a t i o n w i t h r e c r e a t i o n a l use based on th r e e c o n c l u s i o n s drawn i n Chapter Four. The assessment concludes t h a t i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t thfe :two w i l l be r e c o n c i l e d over the long term i f a c o n t i n u a t i o n of the p r e s e n t course of a c t i v i t y r e s u l t s i n a management scheme s i m i l a r to t h a t suggested i n A l t e r n a t i v e One. A park d e s i g n a t i o n f o r managed conservacy areas on the Bay assures t h a t r e c r e a t i o n a l use w i l l predominate. The p r o x i m i t y of w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t c o n t a i n e d i n parks to areas of f a i r l y heavy year round use w i l l make p r e s e r v a t i o n of the w i l d l i f e v a l u e s of these areas d i f f i c u l t . Only the l e a s t shy s p e c i e s o f water-fowl and s h o r e b i r d s w i l l t o l e r a t e f r e q u e n t presence of people 103 i n the habitat. Since no arrangements w i l l be made to protect habitat areas outside of parks (e.g., the north shore of Bound-ary Bay proper, Mud Bay, etc.) these are l i k e l y to be l o s t or degraded i n small ways without any attempt to c a p i t a l i z e upon th e i r w i l d l i f e conservacy values. An accurate prediction of the extent and timing of loss i n w i l d l i f e numbers and variety i s not possible. The advantages of Alternative One are that no land acqui-s i t i o n s are needed, other than those already planned; and the G.V.R.D. plus Surrey, Delta and White Rock municipalities could coordinate planning r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to implement th i s alterna-t i v e , as they are doing now (see Table 7.3). Additional agencies would not need to be drawn into the mainstream of planning. 7.3 A l t e r n a t i v e Two: Moderate Preservation Alternative Two i s described i n d e t a i l i n Table 7.1. This alternative accords development of w i l d l i f e areas at two park s i t e s a p r i o r i t y equal to that of providing recreation f a c i l i t i e s and access at the s i t e s . This w i l l ensure that i n t e -gration of human a c t i v i t y into the small habitat areas planned at the two parks w i l l take place before increases i n the l e v e l of disturbance i n t e r f e r e with w i l d l i f e use of that habitat. Other public lands on Boundary Bay are in t e n s i v e l y managed to provide food for w i l d l i f e under t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e . A reorienta-tion i n management practice i s therefore required for some lands. A variety of general p o l i c i e s are adopted to encourage behavior on the part of public agencies and i n d i v i d u a l s , that i s con-104 s i s t e n t with conservacy use of the Bay over the long term. The assessment presented i n Table 7.2 concludes t h a t these a c t i o n s MAY be s u f f i c i e n t to r e c o n c i l e p r e s e r v a t i o n and use w i t h i n the conservacy. R e s t r i c t i o n s o f r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i -t y may cause a decrease i n r e c r e a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s , but these r e s t r i c t i o n s are f a i r l y minor; hunting success may a c t u a l l y be i n c r e a s e d by such r e s t r i c t i o n s . I f the amount of h a b i t a t p r e -served and enhanced under t h i s s c e n a r i o w i l l s u s t a i n waterfowl and s h o r e b i r d p o p u l a t i o n s i n t o the f u t u r e , and i f t h i s h a b i t a t remains f a i r l y u n d i s t u r b e d over the long term, then a succes s -f u l balance w i l l have been achieved. Adequacy of p r o v i s i o n of h a b i t a t f o r d i v i n g duck p o p u l a t i o n s i s s u b j e c t to doubt, s i n c e no e x p l i c i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s made of t h e i r needs. A l t e r n a t i v e Two has the advantage t h a t no f u r t h e r a c q u i -s i t i o n o r t r a n s f e r o f land i s needed (other than t h a t a l r e a d y planned). The implementation of A l t e r n a t i v e Two, however, r e q u i r e s c o o r d i n a t i o n between a l a r g e r number of agencies than implementation of A l t e r n a t i v e One, as i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 7.3. These agencies would have to reach concensus r e g a r d i n g appro-p r i a t e uses f o r Boundary Bay, and make st a n d i n g commitments to t h i s e f f e c t . Although more agencies need to be i n v o l v e d i n pl a n n i n g the Bay under A l t e r n a t i v e Two, i t i s s t i l l w i t h i n the scope of G.V.R.D. i n t e r e s t to i n i t i a t e the c o o r d i n a t i o n . 105 7.4 A l t e r n a t i v e Three: Implementation of a Three Zone System Management g u i d e l i n e s t h a t would be a p p l i e d were a th r e e zone system to be implemented i n the study area are d e t a i l e d i n Table 7.1. The r a t i o n a l e u n d e r l y i n g A l t e r n a t i v e Three i s t h i s : v i s i t o r s can be channeled by t h e i r own r e c r e a t i o n p r e f e r e n c e s i n areas t h a t are most a c c e s s i b l e and t h a t can be a c t i v e l y managed. A c t i v i t i e s i n these areas may be d i s t u r b i n g t o w i l d -l i f e . As a r e s u l t the w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t f u n c t i o n of h e a v i l y used areas may be l o s t , however, adequate compensation i s made by a s s u r i n g t h a t l e s s d i s t u r b e d o r u n d i s t u r b e d areas are pro-t e c t e d . In the three zone system the name giv e n to each zone i m p l i e s i t s o v e r a l l r o l e i n the conservacy area and i t s degree of use: 1. r e c r e a t i o n zone 2. r e c r e a t i o n - w i l d l i f e zone 3. p r e s e r v a t i o n zone. In Boundary Bay t h i s d i v i s i o n i n t o zones i s f a c i l i t a t e d by the 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 o f the Bay, and by the p r e s e n t access s i t u a t i o n . Fjor example: - some areas are too shallow f o r b o a t i n g - some s u b s t r a t e s are too u n s t a b l e f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use - q u i t e e x t e n s i v e areas o f the c o a s t l i n e remain i n a c c e s s i b l e , or almost so. Systems s i m i l a r to the one suggested i n A l t e r n a t i v e Three are p r a c t i c e d i n many p r o t e c t e d areas which must accommo-106 date r e c r e a t i o n ( S a t c h e l l and Marren, 1 9 7 6 ) . Kennermerduinen N a t i o n a l Park i n H o l l a n d i s a 1 , 400 h e c t a r e c o a s t a l conservacy area l o c a t e d w i t h i n a 32 k i l o m e t e r r a d i u s of two m i l l i o n people. A zoning system was i n i t i a t e d t here i n o r der to r e c o n c i l e p r e -s e r v a t i o n of the ecosystem w i t h p r o v i s i o n of r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i -t i e s f o r a l a r g e number of v i s i t o r s . The r e s u l t s were s p e c t a -c u l a r . On peak days 95 p e r c e n t of the v i s i t o r s gathered i n the v i c i n i t y of the park entrances or on the beaches, u s i n g a t o t a l of about 13 p e r c e n t of the t o t a l area of the conservacy. V i s i -t o r s were r a r e l y aware t h a t t h e i r c h o i c e of l o c a t i o n had been s t r i c t l y l i m i t e d through c a r e f u l p l a n n i n g and s i t e d e s i g n . Under the scheme presented f o r the study area i n A l t e r -n a t i v e Three, the beach areas of three planned parks on Boundary Bay would l i e w i t h i n the r e c r e a t i o n zone. Here the environment c o u l d be h i g h l y m o d i f i e d to accommodate i n t e n s e r e c r e a t i o n ; u n l i m i t e d access, c o n c e n t r a t i o n of f a c i l i t i e s , l a r g e p a r k i n g l o t s would be p r o v i d e d . These areas would be h e a v i l y adver-t i s e d . C a r e f u l i n t e g r a t i o n of p a s s i v e and d i s p e r s e d r e c r e a t i o n would mark the r e c r e a t i o n - w i l d l i f e zone. Only moderate use would be a p p r o p r i a t e here. The p r e s e r v a t i o n zone, on the other hand would f u n c t i o n as refuge or near refuge f o r most w i l d l i f e s p e c i e s . For humans i t would p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s to Observe w i l d b i r d s i n t h e i r n a t i v e h a b i t a t s and some h u n t i n g . Some general'management p o l i c i e s would be adopted to assure c o m p a t i b i l i t y of a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n each zone and over the whole conservacy a r e a . 1 0 7 A l l r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s t h a t p r e s e n t l y take p l a c e on Boundary Bay are p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h i s s c e n a r i o ; o p p o r t u n i t i e s to c a r r y out most a c t i v i t i e s are improved. F a c i l i t i e s and t r a i l s are more adequate and. v a r i e d . A v a r i e t y of w i l d l i f e viewing o p p o r t u n i t i e s are to be p r o v i d e d , i n c l u d i n g the oppor-t u n i t y to l e a r n about r e g i o n a l w i l d l i f e a t any of t h r e e areas which p r o v i d e t r a i l s i d e d i s p l a y s or i n t e r p r e t i v e s e r v i c e s . These o p p o r t u n i t i e s do not e x i s t a t p r e s e n t . The q u a l i t y of hunting should i n c r e a s e due to adequate p r o v i s i o n f o r b i r d h a b i -t a t needs. Some might argue t h a t a d e c l i n e i n hunting w i l l . take p l a c e due to l o s s of area i n which to hunt; the t o t a l r e s u l t i s u n c e r t a i n . A l s o , i t i s not p o s s i b l e to p r e d i c t how the observed d e c l i n e i n hunting p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l a f f e c t use of Boundary Bay f o r the s p o r t . I t seems reasonable to assume t h a t the q u a l i t y of b o a t i n g w i l l be maintained i f t h i s a l t e r -n a t i v e i s implemented; r e s t r i c t i o n i n b o a t i n g are g e n e r a l l y minor or s e a s o n a l . T r a i l b i k i n g and o t h e r motorized v e h i c u l a r s p o r t s w i l l not be p e r m i t t e d , but would have been banned i n any case. Only p r o v i s i o n of an a l t e r n a t e s i t e f o r these a c t i v i t i e s w i l l ensure s u c c e s s f u l enforcement, however. C o n f l i c t s are thoroughly d e a l t w i t h i n A l t e r n a t i v e Three. Separate areas f o r hunting and b i r d w a t c h i n g are p r o v i d e d ; b i r d -watching areas d i d not e x i s t p r e v i o u s l y . Encouragement of hunt-i n g on farmlands and p r o v i s i o n of food f o r w i l d l i f e i n upland g r e e n b e l t areas, where b i r d f e e d i n g can do no harm, w i l l de-crease u n d e s i r e d f i e l d f e e d i n g of w i l d l i f e . 108 Table 7.3 concludes t h a t r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of p r e s e r v a t i o n and use w i l l be p o s s i b l e i f t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e can be implemented. Disturbances are c o n t r o l l e d , r e s t i n g and f e e d i n g areas p r o v i d e d f o r a l l s p e c i e s , and about o n e - t h i r d of the s h o r e l i n e i s form-a l l y p r o t e c t e d as refuge under one of s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e d e s i g n a -t i o n s . A l t e r n a t i v e Three, however, would be the most d i f f i c u l t s c e n a r i o to implement because of the complexity of i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements f o r p l a n n i n g i n the c o a s t a l zone. The adoption of such a broad management s t r a t e g y f o r the whole system, and the attendant a c q u i s i t i o n of lands, l e a s e s , easements f o r conservacy use of the Bay would r e q u i r e a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of a l a r g e number of p u b l i c agencies as shown i n T a b l e 7.3. A new manage-ment body of some type Ls<, needed. Some; a l t e r n a t i v e s are: - the Regional Resource Management Committee - a Management Committee wi t h r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a l l i n t e r e s t s - a permanent Task Force w i t h S e c r e t a r i a t . The r e c e n t F r a s e r E s t u a r y Study (Government of Canada/ P r o v i n c e of B.C., 1978) recommended t h a t a task f o r c e w i t h s e c r e t a r i a t e be e s t a b l i s h e d to manage the F r a s e r e s t u a r y as a whole; Boundary Bay c o u l d be d e f i n e d as a management subun i t of the E s t u a r y . How to achieve wide enough support to c r e a t e such an agency, and how to fund i t under p r e s e n t economic circumstances remains a problem. None of the a l t e r n a t i v e s suggested, i n f a c t , p r e s e n t an e a s i l y workable s o l u t i o n . 109 7.5 A l t e r n a t i v e Four: Enhancement Small w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t areas w i t h i n e x i s t i n g or p r o -posed parks are enhanced under A l t e r n a t i v e Four w i t h the o b j e c -t i v e of p r o v i d i n g food p l a n t s ' f o r waterfowl.and n e s t i n g s p o t s . Enhancement f o r n e s t i n g would ensure t h a t some b i r d s would be p r e s e n t on the Bay and v i s i b l e a l l year round. Enhanced areas c o u l d be designed to accommodate heavy user p r e s s u r e f o l l o w i n g the example of R e i f e l M i g r a t o r y B i r d Sanctuary. Nature and w i l d -l i f e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c o u l d be a major emphasis i n parks on Bound-ary Bay. Wide a d v e r t i s i n g would be p o s s i b l e . Use r e s t r i c t i o n s i n the h a b i t a t d u r i n g n e s t i n g season would cause a s m a l l l o s s i n r e c r e a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s a t a season of the.year when beaches a t t r a c t most people to the Bay anyway. A l t e r n a t i v e Four has the same advantages as f o l l o w i n g the p r e s e n t course of events: no f u r t h e r a c q u i s i t i o n of land; no f u r t h e r c o o p e r a t i o n between p u b l i c a gencies. The G.V.R.D. and three m u n i c i p a l i t i e s c o u l d manage the conservacy area under t h i s s c e n a r i o . Perhaps t e c h n i c a l i n p u t c o u l d be sought from the Canadian W i l d l i f e s e r v i c e and the B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, and the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o s t s h a r i n g or j o i n t programs with these agencies c o u l d be e x p l o r e d . T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e probably p r o v i d e s the most r e c r e a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s of any of the f o u r s c e n a r i o s , s i n c e no l o s s or r e -s t r i c t i o n of a c t i v i t y i s necessary. E d u c a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s from i n t e r p r e t a t i o n programs i n c r e a s e environmental awareness of park v i s i t o r s . A l t e r n a t i v e Four has the disadvantage t h a t i t 110 would be expensive; c r e a t i o n of an enhanced environment would r i s k d i s t u r b a n c e to n a t u r a l f l o r a of the Bay, and enhancement would b e n e f i t mainly waterfowl. Other w i l d l i f e s p e c i e s might disappear from the parks. Would p r e s e r v a t i o n be r e c o n c i l e d w i t h r e c r e a t i o n a l use i n the conservacy area p i c t u r e d under A l t e r n a t i v e Four? As i n A l t e r n a t i v e One enhancement of two s m a l l h a b i t a t areas cannot make up f o r expected e v e n t u a l l o s s or d e t e r i o r a t i o n of o t h e r h a b i t a t areas on Boundary Bay. I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t p r e s e n t numbers and v a r i e t y of w i l d l i f e would p e r s i s t i n the long term i f t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e were implemented. Enhancement would pro-v i d e few b e n e f i t s to d i v i n g ducks. C e r t a i n other s p e c i e s might not b e n e f i t — s h o r e b i r d s , Great Blue Heron. O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r conservacy uses of o t h e r areas on Boundary Bay would be l o s t i f t h i s s i n g l e minded, s i t e s p e c i f i c approach i s taken. 7.6 C o n c l u s i o n The p r e s e n t course of a c t i v i t y i n p l a n n i n g f o r Boundary Bay w i l l r e s u l t i n an attempt to r e c o n c i l e p r e s e r v a t i o n w i t h r e c r e a t i o n a l use on a s i t e s p e c i f i c b a s i s — a t t h r e e d i f f e r e n t s i t e s on the Bay. A more comprehensive approach i s needed i f a balance i s to be achieved over the whole ecosystem on a long term b a s i s . S e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e s have been presented to t h i s end. S u c c e s s f u l r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of p r e s e r v a t i o n and o t h e r uses w i t h i n a conservacy area r e q u i r e s t h a t almost a l l uses w i l l have I l l to accept r e s t r i c t i o n s so that :the disruption to w i l d l i f e caused by human a c t i v i t y can be minimized or at lea s t r e s t r i c t e d i n area. Even i n the most extreme cases these r e s t r i c t i o n s are not seriously inconvenient to re c r e a t i o n i s t s — speed r e s t r i c -tions for boaters i n some areas, creation of no shooting refuges (with an expected increase i n the qual i t y of hunting). In other cases they can be provided for subtly, through careful s i t e design, e.g. appropriate t r a i l l o c ation, use of vegetative buffers to screen human a c t i v i t y . Few r e s t r i c t i o n s w i l l i n fac t be necessary during the times of heaviest recreation pressure, the summer months, because the summer season corresponds to the time of lowest w i l d l i f e a c t i v i t y . The major uncertainty i n assessing the alternatives pre-sented concerns the extent of habitat area that must be reserved i n an e s s e n t i a l l y undisturbed state to ensure that the w i l d l i f e value of the Bay i s s u f f i c i e n t l y protected. In face of such uncertainty a conservative approach, such as that presented i n Alternative Three i s recommended. The rationale behind A l t e r -native Three i s that the w i l d l i f e values of certa i n s i t e s can be w i l l i n g l y reduced i f d e f i n i t e and immediate habitat provir: sions are made elsewhere i n the ecosystem. This alternative i s the one that i s most l i k e l y to r e s u l t i n maintenance of present numbers and d i v e r s i t y of w i l d l i f e species. Implementation of p o l i c i e s and guidelines that would r e s u l t i n r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of preservation and use of the study area i s seriously hampered by the number of public agencies that must be involved. Furthermore, the j u r i s d i c t i o n s of these 1 1 2 agencies are d i v i d e d so t h a t no one agency has the mandate to thoroughly p l a n or m a i n t a i n the i n t e g r i t y of the Boundary Bay ecosystem. Over the long term m o n i t o r i n g of boundary Bay should take p l a c e to see what changes occur. T h i s should i n c l u d e moni-t o r i n g r e c r e a t i o n a l use by season, a c t i v i t y , and s i t e , monitor-i n g f o r c o n f l i c t s t h a t might reduce the b e n e f i t s from manage-ment, and c o n t i n u i n g to monitor w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n l e v e l s and d i v e r s i t y . Inadquacy of techniques w i t h which to handle the l a t t e r , w i l l i n c r e a s e u n c e r t a i n t y about the e f f e c t s of r e c r e a -t i o n a l use on the ecosystem. More r e l i a b l e techniques must be sought. The case study presented i n t h i s t h e s i s i n many r e s p e c t s r e p r e s e n t s a t y p i c a l problem faced by planners today. P l a n n i n g and management of Boundary Bay r e q u i r e s t h a t many i n t e r e s t s be accommodated, although some of these i n t e r e s t s c o n f l i c t . I t r e q u i r e s t e c h n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s not a v a i l a b l e and a h i g h l e v e l of c o o p e r a t i o n between numerous p u b l i c a g e n c i e s . T h i s a l s o i s not e a s i l y achieved. Furthermore, there i s no one " r i g h t " way to proceed. Many management s t r a t e g i e s would r e s u l t i n some balance of p r e s e r v a t i o n of w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t and pro-v i s i o n f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use. In the f i n a l a n a l y s i s the human community must weigh,the b e n e f i t s of p r e s e r v i n g w i l d l i f e and the b e n e f i t s of p r o v i d i n g r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s , and de-c i d e which mixture i s l i k e l y to p r o v i d e the g r e a t e s t amount of b e n e f i t to the l a r g e s t number of people i n the long run. 113 BIBLIOGRAPHY A l b e r t a , F i s h and W i l d l i f e D i v i s i o n . W i l d l i f e management systems on p r i v a t e lands i n A l b e r t a . 197 4. A l g a r , D. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e media f o r e f f e c t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 1976. Anderson, J . and K o z l i c , F. " P r i v a t e duck c l u b s . " In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Bureau o f Sport F i s h -e r i e s and W i l d l i f e . 1964:519-26. Applegate, J.E. "Some f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a t t i t u d e s toward deer hunting i n New J e r s e y r e s i d e n t s . " Proceedings of  North American W i l d l i f e and N a t i o n a l Resources Conference. 38. .(1973). . " A t t i t u d e s toward deer hunting i n New J e r s e y : A second look." W i l d l i f e S o c i e t y B u l l e t i n 3 (1975):3-6. A t k i n s o n - W i l l e s , C. "Wildfowl and R e c r e a t i o n . A Balance of Requirements." " B r i t i s h Water Supply 11 (1969):5-15. Batten, L.A. " S a i l i n g on r e s e r v o i r s and i t s e f f e c t s on water b i r d s . " B i o l . Cons. 11 (1977):49. Bauer., W. Boundary Bay Shore Resource Overview. G.V.R.D. 1977. Benn, D. and McLean, A. Lower Mainland N a t u r a l Areas Inventory. Nature Conservancy of Canada. 1977. Bent, A.C. " L i f e H i s t o r i e s of: North. American W a t e r f o w l ' .. U.S. Museum B u l l e t i n 130 (1925). . L i f e H i s t o r i e s of North American S h o r e b i r d s . P a r t s I and I I . Dover P u b l i c a t i o n s , N.W. 1927, 1929. Boudreau, G.W. "Alarm sounds and responses of b i r d s and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n i n c o n t r o l l i n g problem s p e c i e s . " L i v i n g B i r d 7 (1968). :27-46. B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. Unpublished waterfowl census data, 1965, 1966, 1967. . F r a s e r V a l l e y S p e c i a l L i c e n s e Hunting Area. 1975. . F r a s e r V a l l e y S p e c i a l L i c e n s e Hunting Area. 1977. 114 B.C. Fish and W i l d l i f e Branch. Unpublished waterfowl census data. F a l l 1977. . Unpublished data. Sales of Fraser Valley Special Area Licenses during the 1976-77 Season. 1977. . Unpublished hunter survey data. 1978. B.C. Parks Branch. Boundary Bay Recreation Area Study. 1975. B.C. Migratory Waterfowl Society. G.C. R e i f e l Waterfowl Refuge, A Bird Sanctuary for A l l Seasons. B.C. Waterfowl Society Publication. 1971. Brown, R.G.B. "Experiments on the counting, behavior of waterfowl observers .." - J.Canadian-. W i l d l i f e . Service71 (1971) : 20 . . "Bird damage to f r u i t crops i n the Niagara Penninsula." Canadian W i l d l i f e Service Report 27 (1974). Brown, T.L. "N.Y. Landowners Attitudes Toward Recreation A c t i v i -t i e s . " Trans. North American W i l d l i f e and Natural Resources  Conference 39 (1974):173-79. Burgess, T.E. "Food and habitat of four Anatids wintering on the Fraser delta t i d a l marshes." M.Sc. Thesis, U.B.C. Dept. of Zoology. 1970. Ca l l i s o n , C. " W i l d l i f e management and i t s non-hunting c l i e n t e l e . " Washington W i l d l i f e 25 (1973):4-6. Church, I.R. and Rubin, D.S. An ecological review of our south-western shores. G.V.R.D. Planning Department. 1970. Clark, B. and Easthope, C. Serpentine-Nicomekl Waterfowl Study. October 1977-February 1978. B.C. Fi s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. 1978. . Unpublished data. W i l d l i f e feeding on Serpentine-Nicomekl farmlands. 1978. Creston Valley W i l d l i f e Management Authority. L i v i n g Marshes, (pamphlet). 1974. Day, A. and Lynch, R. "No place to hide." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fis h e r i e s and W i l d l i f e . 1964. DeJong, H. "Experiences with the man-made meadow bi r d reserve i n Kievitslanden i n Flevoland." B i o l . Cons. 12 (1977):13. 115 Denis, D.G. and Chandler, R.E. "Waterfowl use of the O n t a r i o s h o r e l i n e s of the southern Great Lakes d u r i n g m i g r a t i o n . " In Boyd, H. ed. Canadian W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e Report, S e r i e s No. 29 (1973) . D.R.E.E. 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 r e c r e a t i o n . Canada Land Inventory Report 6 (1969) . . Land c a p a b i l i t y f o r w i l d l i f e - w a t e r f o w l ' . Canada Land Inventory Report 92G. Vancouver (1973). Dixon, J . "The Hunters R i g h t to Harvest a Resource." The Van-couver Sun, October 24, 1978. Edwards, R.Y. I.U.C.N. P u b l i c a t i o n . New S e r i e s No. 8 (1966). . "The Nature of N a t u r a l i s t s . " O n t a r i o N a t u r a l i s t 7 (1969) . E i n a r s e n , A.S. Black Brant - Sea Goose of the P a c i f i c Coast. Seattle.:. Univeristy..of ..Washington P r e s s , 1965. Forbes, R.D. A f l o r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the F r a s e r R i v e r E s t u a r y , Boundary and Mud Bays. B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. 1972a. . A d d i t i o n a l catalogue to a f l o r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the F r a s e r R i v e r E s t u a r y , Boundary and Mud Bays. B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. 1972b. F o r s t e r , R. Pl a n n i n g f o r Man and N a t u r e , i n N a t i o n a l Parks. I.U.C.N. P u b l i c a t i o n s . New S e r i e s 26 (1973). F o s t e r , B. " E c o l o g i c a l Reserves - What are they?" B.C. W i l d l i f e  Review 7 (1975):4-7. . E c o l o g i c a l Reserves i n B.C. B.C. M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n -ment. Government of Canada/Province of B.C. F r a s e r . Es t u a r y Study. 1976. G.V.R.D. Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Review: R e g i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n Oppor-t u n i t i e s . 1978. , White Rock M u n i c i p a l i t y , and Warren, K. White Rock Foreshore Study. 1978. . Boundary Bay Development P l a n Study. 1972. Green, B.H. T r a f f i c i n P r o t e c t e d Areas. European Committee f o r Co n s e r v a t i o n of Nature and N a t u r a l Resources. C o u n c i l o f Europe. CE/NAT (72) 18. 1972. 116 G r i f f i t h , R. "Forage and Truck crops." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow.. U.S. Bureau of Sport F i s h e r i e s , and W i l d l i f e . 1964. H a r r i s , R.D. In Leach, B. ed.. The Need f o r C o n s e r v a t i o n and Management of the Wetlands of the F r a s e r E s t u a r y and D e l t a . Douglas C o l l e g e . I n s t i t u t e of Environmental S t u d i e s . I nformation B o o k l e t No. 28 (1977). Hendee, J.C. " A p p r e c i a t i v e v s . Consumptive Uses of W i l d l i f e Refuges." Trans. North American W i l d l i f e and N a t u r a l  Resources Conference 34 (1969):252-64. . "A m u l t i p l e s a t i s f a c t i o n approach to game management." W i l d l i f e S o c i e t y B u l l e t i n 2 (1974):104-13. , and P o t t e r , D. Hunters and Hunting: Management I m p l i -c a t i o n s of Research. U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . P a c i f i c North-west F o r e s t and Range Experimental S t a t i o n , 1975. ( R e p r i n t ) . Hume. U n t i t l e d . B r i t i s h B i r d s 69 (1976):178. J a r v i s , M. and Cram, D. " B i r d I s l a n d , Lamberts Bay, South A f r i c a : An attempt a t c o n s e r v a t i o n . " B i o l . Cons. 3 (1971):269-73. Jorgensen, S., S t e i n e r , J . and L a P o i n t e , D. "S t a t e Areas." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Bureau of Sport F i s h e r i e s and W i l d l i f e . 1964. K a i s e r , G. Wandering T a t t l e r . Winter, 1979. Kear, J . "The experimental assessment of goose damage to a g r i -c u l t u r a l c r ops." B i o l . Cons. 2 (1970):206. K e l l e r h a l s , P. and Murray, J.W. " T i d a l f l a t s a t Boundary Bay, F r a s e r R i v e r D e l t a , B.C." B u l l e t i n . Can. P e t r o l . Geol. 17 (1969):67-91. K e s t e l o o t , E. " P r e t u r b a t i o n s causees par l a presence humaine." I.U.C.N. Proceeding and Papers, No. 7 (1967). Knopp, T. and Tyger, J.D. "A study of c o n f l i c t i n r e c r e a t i o n a l l a n d use. Snowmobiling v s . s k i t o u r i n g . " J . L e i s . Res. 5 (1973):6-17. K u s l e r , J.A. P u b l i c / P r i v a t e Parks and Management of P r i v a t e Lands f o r Park P r o t e c t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin. I n s t i t u t e f o r Environmental S t u d i e s . Report 16. Madison, Wisconsin. 1974. 117 Larson, J.S. "Managing woodland and w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t i n and near c i t i e s . " In Trees and F o r e s t s i n an U r b a n i z i n g En-vironment. U n i v e r s i t y of Mass., E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e . 1973. Leach, B. A p r o p o s a l f o r the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the Mud Bay-Ser-p e n t i n e R i v e r environmental r e s e r v e . Douglas C o l l e g e . I n s t i t u t e of Environmental S t u d i e s . 1972a. . Waterfowl of the F r a s e r D e l t a . Douglas C o l l e g e . I n s t i t u t e of Environmental S t u d i e s . Information B o o k l e t 16 (1972b). . W i l d l i f e and A g r i c u l t u r e i n the F r a s e r V a l l e y . W i l d -l i f e f o r Tomorrow Conference. Douglas C o l l e g e . I n s t i t u t e f o r Environmental S t u d i e s . 1974. . Waterfowl H a b i t a t Management i n the Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y . Douglas C o l l e g e . I n s t i t u t e f o r Environmental S t u d i e s . Information Booklet 25 (1976). . An a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an e c o l o g i c a l r e s e r v e along the shore of Semiahmoo Bay, B.C. 1977. . L o s t Waterbirds of the Lower F r a s e r V a l l e y . (Unpub-l i s h e d D r a f t ) . 1977. . " P r o t e c t our Waterfowl - Don't Harvest i t . " The Van-couver Sun, October 3, 1978. LeFevre, A.G. "Non-consumptive r e c r e a t i o n a l use of w i l d l i f e : a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n of p r e f e r e n c e s . " M.A. T h e s i s . U.B.C. School of Community and Re g i o n a l P l a n n i n g . 1974. Leonard, J.W. "Hunter v s . p r o t e c t i o n i s t : can the w i l d l i f e manager serve both?" I n t e r n a t i o n a l : A s s o c i a t i o n of Game and  F i s h C o n s e r v a t i o n Commissioners. 1972. LeSage, L. "Handouts 'the death of b i r d s ' i n Park." Vancouver Express, January 17, 1979. Lower Mainland Regional P l a n n i n g Board. A R e g i o n a l Parks P l a n f o r the Lower Mainland Region. 1966. Marine Trades A s s o c i a t i o n of B.C. An overview of r e c r e a t i o n a l b o a t i n g by r e s i d e n t s of Metro Vancouver. Woods Gordon and Co. 1974. Meyer, P.A. 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. Canada. Dept. of Environment. P a c i f i c Region. 1976. 118 Morzer-Bruijns, M.F. "The influence of recreational a c t i v i t i e s on aquatic biocenoses." In Towards a New Relationship of  Man and Nature i n Temperate Lands. I.U.C.N. Publications. N.S. 7 (1967) :206-13. Munroe, D.A. "Survival of the species i n Canada." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisher-ies and W i l d l i f e . 1964. Nelson, J.G. "Canada's National Parks: Past, Present, Future." Reprinted from Can. Geog. J . March 1978. 1973. Norman, R.K. and Saunders, D.R. "Status of l i t t l e terns i n Great B r i t a i n and Ireland i n 1967." B r i t i s h Birds 62 (1969):4-13. Northcote, T.G. Biology of the Lower Fraser River: A Review. Westwater Research Center Technical Report 3 (1974). Owen, M. "The role of w i l d l i f e reguges on a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n lessening the c o n f l i c t between farmers and geese i n B r i -t a i n . " B i o l . Cons. 11 (1977):209. Parker, V.J. Our southwestern shores. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. 1968. Paynter, E. and Stephen, W. "Waterfowl i n the Canadian Bread-basket." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Bureau of Sport F i s h e r i e s and W i l d l i f e . 1964. Paish, H. and Associates. Policy and Action for Hunting i n the Lower Mainland. B.C. W i l d l i f e Federation. 1974. Powers, M. Regional Open Space Opportunities. P o l i c y Proposals for Conserving our Natural Assets. G.V.R.D. 1975. Prach, D.W. Federal-Provincial W i l d l i f e Conference Transactions. Canadian W i l d l i f e Service. Environment Canada. 1976. Reid, N. Public View of W i l d l i f e . I.U.C.N. Publications. New Series No. 9 (1967). Rochard, J.B. and Kear, J . "A t r a i l to investigate the reactions of sheep to goose droppings on grass." Wildfowl 19 (1968): 117-9. Russel, L. and Paish, H. Waterfowl populations and outdoor recreational opportunity on the Fraser delta foreshore. B.C. W i l d l i f e Federation. 1968. Saeijs, H. and Baptist, H. "Wetland c r i t e r i a and birds i n a changing delta." B i o l . Cons. 11 (1977):251. 119 S a l y e r , J . and G i l l e t t , F. " F e d e r a l Refuges." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Bureau of Sport F i s h e r i e s and W i l d l i f e . 1964. S a t c h e l l , J . and Marren, P.R. The e f f e c t s of r e c r e a t i o n on the ecology of n a t u r a l landscapes. C o u n c i l of Europe. European Committee f o r the Co n s e r v a t i o n of Nature and N a t u r a l Resources. Seater, S.R. " P u t t i n g w i l d l i f e i n the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . " E n v i r -onmental Comment 24 (1975):l-5. Shaw, D. "The Hunting Controversy: A t t i t u d e s and Arguments." Ph.D. T h e s i s . Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . 1973. Shaw, W. "Meanings of w i l d l i f e f o r Americans. Contemporary a t t i t u d e s and s o c i a l t r e n d s . " Trans. North American W i l d -l i f e and N a t u r a l Resources Conference 39 (1974):151-5. S k e t t e l , H. " E x h i b i t s : a r t form or e d u c a t i o n a l medium?" Museum  News. September 1973:33-41. S t r a i g h t , L. Lower Mainland and F r a s e r V a l l e y F i s h i n g Guide. 1977 . Surrey P l a n n i n g Department. Ocean Shorezone Study. 1978. Sverre, S.E. Assessment of the impact of the proposed Vancouver I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t expansion on b i r d s u s i n g the wetlands of the F r a s e r d e l t a . Canadian W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e . 1974. (Unpublished). T a y l o r , E.W. W i l d l i f e and r e c r e a t i o n i n Boundary Bay - a review of the w i l d l i f e and r e c r e a t i o n p o t e n t i a l of Boundary Bay, B.C. Canadian W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e Report. 1970. . Vancouver I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t Expansion P r o p o s a l and P o s s i b l e Impact on W i l d l i f e of the F r a s e r R i v e r E s t u a r y . Canadian W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e . 1974. Torrence, C. and A s s o c i a t e s . Boundary Bay. Re g i o n a l Park A l t e r -n a t i v e s . G.V.R.D. 1977. V a l e n t i n e , G. "Don't f i r e on the hunters, they're c o n s e r v a t i o n -i s t s , too." The Vancouver Sun, May 11, 197 8. Vermeer, K. and Le v i n g s , C. " P o p u l a t i o n s , biomass and food h a b i t s of ducks on the F r a s e r d e l t a i n t e r t i d a l a rea, B.C." Wildfowl 2 8 (1977):49-60. 120 U.S. National Academy of Science. Land Use and W i l d l i f e Resources. 1970. U.S. National Parks, Canadian National and H i s t o r i c Parks Branch. An inventory of the international park p o s s i b i l i t i e s : Point Roberts, Boundary Bay, San Juan and Gulf Island Archepelago. (Draft) Report to the International Point Roberts Board. 1973. University of Saskatchewan. I n s t i t u t e for Northern Studies. The Role of Birds i n the Recreational A c t i v i t i e s of Saskatche-wan. 1974. 121 APPENDIX ONE: Proposals for Conservacy Use of Boundary Bay 1968 - Swan Wooster. Proposal for a Recreation-Residential-Waterfowl Management Area on Boundary Bay. 1970 - Taylor, E. W. Wildlife and Recreation in Boundary Bay. Canadian Wildlife Service, Vancouver, British Columbia. 1972 - Douglas College, Institute of Environmental Studies. A Proposal for the Establishment and Development of the Mud Bay-Serpentine River Environmental Reserve. 1973 - Greater Vancouver Regional District. Boundary Bay Development Plan Study. - United States National Parks/Canadian National and Historic Parks Branch. An Inventory of Internaitonal Park Possibilities: Point Roberts, Boundary Bay, San Juan and Gulf Island Archepelago. Draft Report to the International Point Roberts Board. 1975 - British Columbia Parks Branch. Boundary Bay Recreation Area Study. 1977 - Greater Vancouver Regional District/Torrence Consultants Ltd. Boundary Bay Regional Park: A Development Plan Study. - Leach, B. An Application for an Ecological Reserve Along the Shore of Semiahmoo Bay, British Columbia. 1978 - Surrey Planning Department. Ocean Shorezone Study. Final Report. - White Rock/Greater Vancouver Regional District/Warren, K. White Rock Foreshore Study. Other publications which mention Boundary Bay's value as a conservacy area: 1. Parker, V. J . (1968) Our Southwestern Shores. 2. Church, I. and Ruben, D. (1970) An Ecological Review of Our Southwestern Shores. 3. Power, M./Greater Vancouver Regional District (1978) Regional Open Space Opportunities. 4. Benn, D. and McLean, A. (1977) Lower Mainland Natural Areas Inventory. Nature Conservacy of Canada. 5. Douglas College, Institute of Environmental Studies (1976) Waterfowl Habitat Management and Use in the Lower Fraser Valley. Booklet 25. 122 APPENDIX TWO: Boundaries of Subregions Shown in Figure 3.1 SUB - REGIONS 123 APPENDIX THREE: Boundary Bay Species Checklist Dabbling Ducks 1. Mallard 2. Common Widegeon 3. Pintail 4. Green-winged Teal 5. Blue-winged Teal 6. Cinnamon Teal 7. Gadwall 8. Ruddy Duck Shorebirds 1. Greater Yell owlegs 2. Lesser Yell owlegs 3. Least Sandpiper 4. Dunlin 5. Western Sandpiper 6. Black-bellied Plover 7. Semi-palmated Plover 8. Kill deer 9. Golden Plover 10. Common Snipe 11. Whimbrel 12. Spotted sandpiper 13. Short Billed Dowitcher 14. Sanderling 15. Wilson's Phalarope Diving Ducks 1. Greater Scaup 2. Lesser Scaup 3. Canvasback 4. Common Goldeneye 5. Canvasback 6. Barrow's Goldeneye 7. Buffiehead 8. Redhead 9. Oldsquaw 10. Harlequin Duck 11. White-winged Scoter 12. Surf Scoter 13. Common Scoter 14. Hooded Merganser 15. Common Merganser 16. Red-breasted Merganser Gulls 1. California Gull 2. Bonaparte's Gull 3. Thayer's Gull 4. Herring Gull 5. Ring-billed Gull 6. Mew Gull 7. Heerman's Gull 124 Wading Birds Raptors 1. Great Blue Heron 1. Barn Owl 2. Short-eared Owl Loons/Grebes 3. Screech Owl 1. Common Loon 4. Great Horned Owl 2. Red-throated Loon 5. Snowy Owl 3. Western Grebe 6. Sharp-shinned Hawk 4. Red-necked Grebe 7. Cooper's Hawk 5. Horned Grebe 8. Red-tailed Hawk 6. Pied-billed Grebe 9. Rough-legged Hawk 10. Marsh Hawk Other 11. Bald Eagle 1. Black Brant 12. Osprey 2. American Coot 13. Merlin (Pigeon Hawk) 3. Marbled Murrelet 14. Kestrel (Sparrow Hawk) 4. Common Murre 5. Pigeon Guillemot 6. Pelagic Cormorant 7. Double-crested Cormorant Sources Institute of Environmental Studies, Douglas College (1972). A Proposal  for the Establishment and Development of the Mud Bay-Serpentine River  Environmental Reserve. B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Aerial Census Data (Unpublished). Taylor, E.W. (1970). Wildlife and Recreation in Boundary Bay. Personal Observation. 125 APPENDIX FOUR: The Waterfowl Census: What Does it Tell Us? The Fraser estuary/Boundary Bay waterfowl census is carried out by the B. C. Fish and Wildlife Branch and the Canadian Wildlife Service. It is an aerial census, based on a standard technique for assessment of migratory bird populations. During a census flight the plane flies at an altitude of 100 to 150 feet along the foreshore or water area to be censused. A standard pre-determined route is followed. Upland areas are sometimes included in the census. The sampling transect is one-quarter mile wide. Two observers sit , one on either side of the plane, identifying species seen and estimat-ing their numbers onto a tape recorder. Landmarks are noted for orienta-tion; later the tapes are transcribed onto a data sheet. Flights are made at regular intervals and controlled so that tide conditions are similar, usually high. During peak migration periods census flights should ideally be made once a week. Locally, census flights have been made every two weeks from October to the end of December. One or two mid-winter inventory flights may be made during January or February, and bi-weekly flights recommence in March to catch the spring migration. There has been no standard pattern year to year in local collection of census data; some years no information is collected. The information gathered during census flights is subject to a number of limitations. Visibil ity from the aircraft, observer error and behavior of the birds themselves are sources of census inaccuracy. 126 Weather can have a large impact on vis ibi l i ty; conditions of glare and haze may result in inability of observers to identify birds. Unidentified individuals are listed as unclassified on tally sheets. Sometimes observers can make a guess as to classification - dabbling ducks or diving ducks. Even during days on which vis ibi l i ty is good, some birds may not be seen despite close location to the flight path. Small species can never be seen from the aircraft. Visibi l i ty limits observer ability to speciate large mixed flocks; a rough identification can be made, but rarer species present in small numbers may inadvertently be included with more common species. The census technique, therefore, has poor resolution and discriminates in favour of larger and more abundant birds. Gross numbers of birds can be estimated, but their relative abundance is subject to uncertainty. Census estimations are also subject to observer error. Compari-son of duplicate observations made in Boundary Bay and Mud Bay during the 1966-1967 cencus shows that there is an average difference of 25 percent between individual observers estimating the total numbers of birds seen (see Table 1). In comparison between estimated bird numbers and actual numbers recorded by photograph showed that the observer estimated an average of 83 percent of actual bird numbers, though individual estimations ranged from 52 percent to 115 percent (see Table 2). This compares closely with Chandler and Dennis (1972) who pointed out that 50 to 70 percent of actual bird numbers were recorded in census counts i f flocks approached or exceeded several hundred individuals. 127 TABLE 1 Comparison of visual estimates of numbers of Dabbling Ducks seen in one habitat area during several census flights. Observer 1 Observer 2 Difference Between Observations 1,163 1,492 . 22% 700 478 32% 636 865 26% ' 515 625 18% TABLE 2 Comparison of visual estimates of Snow Goose flocks with actual numbers present* Visual Estimates Actual Number* Percentage of Birds Estimated 130 250 52% 1,000 1,250 80% 500 700 71% 3,000 2,600 115% 2,500 2,619 95% *photograph estimates are assumed to represent actual numbers of birds present. Adapted from: B. C. Fish & Wildlife Branch Unpublished Waterfowl Census Data 1966-67 128 Census counts represent only an estimation of the bird numbers visible from the plane in the census area at the time of the census. Use of different habitat areas varies according to the tide, weather, time of day and disturbance from hunting or other human activity. At any time only a portion of the birds using a habitat area may actually be present in that area. Many species spend time feeding upland. Bird populations are never static. There is a constant turnover as individuals arrive and depart. This is especially significant during migration periods. Present census techniques do not take turnover into account, and the state of knowledge in this area is so poor that even a "best guess" at turnover rate would be difficult to substantiate. Actual populations are larger than the number counted from the aircraft; how much larger is not known. Rapid turnover could cause census flights to miss peak migration periods altogether. These waves pass through within a 48 hour period (Chandler and Dennis, 1972). Population turnover, incomplete vis ibi l i ty from aircraft and underestimation of large flocks by observers all err on the side of under-estimation. Census numbers may be regarded, therefore, as minimum figures or conservative estimates of bird populations. Over the years since the introduction of aerial censusing in the Lower Mainland, ability to identify species has improved and area coverage has become more thorough. Early censuses focused primarily on counting ducks and geese so that hunting seasons could be set. Only the shoreline and immediate foreshore areas frequented by these species were flown during census flights. For this reason open, unprotected waters preferred by sea ducks and diving ducks were not included in census flights. No data therefore exists about bird populations of Semiahmoo Bay or the deeper offshore areas of Boundary Bay, beyond a few references to rafts of birds sitting as much as two miles off shore. Because the census was considered a game management tool, i t focused exclusively on mallard, widgeon, pintail , green-winged teal, brant, snow and Canada geese. Inform ation about numbers and seasonal use of local habitat areas is most accur-ate for these species; other birds were noted almost incidentally. Today we have a broader perspective about the value of all species within our bird populations and improvements in the census have been made accordingly All species seen are recorded as accurately as possible, and all types of habitat are surveyed. Several transects are now flown across the open waters of Boundary Bay; the Semiahmoo shoreline is also included in flight Despite methodological inadequacies, the water bird censusing technique operates within the limits of present knowledge about migratory bird populations and within the budget restrictions of the agencies which carry out the census. We don't know much about bird population turnover, so no turnover factor can be incorporated into the census. Allocation of budget monies for population censusing is proportional to the return to wildlife agencies in terms of information gained. If the census budget was increased, other programs might suffer. The waterfowl census should be kept within proper perspective. The information collected is not accurate, but i t is the best information 130 we are able to collect at the present have on which to base decisions about bird populations. time, and the only information we management of waterfowl and shore-1 3 1 APPENDIX FIVE: OBSERVATIONS OF BIRDS FEEDING ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS Bird Visits to the Nicomekl-Serpentine Valley Agricultural Lands from October 3 0 to December 19, 1977 (Preliminary Results Only) Mallard lllllll 351 Widgeon 180 Pintail 688 Green winged teal |3 Shoveler 112 Goldeneye |7 Buffelhead > 28 Lesser Scaup u Ruddy duck .2 -Red-breasted merganser .1 Wood duck I20 Canada Goose I26 Great Blue Heron N Kill deer h Dunlin Coot f 9 Gull r - 298 • ^ " 700 Number of Birds Seen in Fields per Census Day N.B. Graph shows birds observed feeding Source: Fish and Wildlife Branch on farmlands. Caution must be used in Unpublished Data interpreting observations. Graph re- Waterfowl feeding on Nicomekl-fleets not only feeding habits, but Serpentine Farmlands also relative abundance of species. (Clark and Easthope, 1977) J Analysed by: F. Schade 132 APPENDIX SIX PATTERN STATEMENTS FROM SURREY PLANNING DEPT. 1. ESTUARIES PRESERVED 2. COMPATIBLE AGRICULTURE SOURCE: SURREY PLANNING DEPT. OCEAN SHOREZONE STUDY (DRAFT) 133 ESTUARIES ARE FULL OF L I F E , BUT THOSE CLOSE TO URBAN SETTLEMENTS ARE THREATENED BY MAN'S ACTIVITIES. E s t u a r i e s , b e i n g the p l a c e s where Che f r e s h waters meet the s e a , c o n t a i n a wide v a r i e t y of s p e c i e s of p l a n t s and a n i m a l s . Large p o p u l a t i o n s of a l l l e v e l s of the food c h a i n occur t o g e t h e r i n these n u t r i e n t - r i c h a r e a s . V a r i a t i o n s i n s a l t c o n t e n t and bottom c o m p o s i t i o n p r o v i d e a v a r i e t y of h a b i t a t s f o r b e n t h i c ( b o t t o m - l i v i n g ) i n v e r t e b r a t e s , marsh and b e n t h i c v e g e t a t i o n , m i g r a t o r y f r e s h water f i s h , d u c k s , shore b i r d s and o t h e r b i r d s , r e p t i l e s , amphibians, and mammals. In Mud Bay, e e l g r a s s beds are v i t a l f o r h e r r i n g r e a r i n g , clams and cr a b s abound, s e a l pups a r e born on the mud f l a t s , and thousands of m i g r a t o r y b i r d s use Mud Bay and the shorezone as a st o p o v e r and f o r w i n t e r i n g grounds. Man's a c t i v i t i e s have changed or e l i m i n a t e d e s t u a r y h a b i t a t s . In the 1890's, sea dykes were b u i l t around Mud Bay changing some of the sea marsh t o f a r m l a n d . In the e a r l y 1960's, e f f l u e n t i n the Nicomekl and S e r p e n t i n e R i v e r s contaminated the clams and crabs d e s t r o y i n g the f i s h e r y and o n l y r e c e n t l y were these s p e c i e s d e c l a r e d e d i b l e at some l o c a t i o n s . Dredging of n a v i g a t i o n channels s t i r s up the bottom. More b o a t e r s , swimmers, h u n t e r s , and h i k e r s a l l d e c r e a s e the space the s p e c i e s have a v a i l a b l e t o them. Human a c t i v i t i e s f r i g h t e n the w i l d l i f e and e x t e n s i v e a c t i v i t y w i l l d r i v e many .species away. In many c a s e s , the a l t e r n a t i v e h a b i t a t s do not e x i s t i n t h i s r e g i o n , o r they c o u l d not support w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s of the same s i z e , thus t h r e a t e n i n g the s u r v i v a l of those s p e c i e s . THEREFORE: 1) ESTUARIES, AND THE LAND BORDERING THEM, MUST BE SET ASIDE AS ENVIRON-MENTAL PRESERVES. 2) HUMAN ACTIVITY IN THE ESTUARIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO LOW IN-TENSITY RECREATION USES Sl'UI AS NATURE OBSERVATION, HIKINC/CYCLTNC/ RIDING/PICKNICKING, AND POSSIBLY FISHING. P8£-SE-rxVE-E s t u a r i e s P r e s e r v e d : A p p l i c a t i o n t o the Oc ean Shorezone - Mud Bay and B l a c k i e S p i t and i t s l a g o o n , up t o the l i m i t s of the sea dykes, s h o u l d be d e s i g n a t e d as an e c o l o g i c a l r e s e r v e . - The Nicomekl R i v e r mouth and chan n e l a r e used f o r b o a t i n g and. r e q u i r e e x t r a r e g u l a t i o n t o en-sure t h a t such a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n uses do not expand, to the de-t r i m e n t of the e s t u a r y . - Hunting d i s t u r b s the n o r t h e r n and e a s t e r n edges of Mud Bay where the v i t a l s a l t marsh-p r o v i d e s f e e d i n g ground f o r t h e ducks and geese. T h i s a c t i v i t y s hould be e l i m i n a t e d . 0.1 .1 10 Iv*. ESTUAKJ6S PF>E5Er^ VED SOME VWTfV. MteCPED Jo ctxe^ic rue B^TTET-N MIASM wow^ rierpep ft=> ^reA-TC TH& PATTC*ri 134 THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS ARE IMPORTANT FOR FOOD PRODUCTION, BUT SOMETIMES AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES CAN INTERFERE WITH OR DISRUPT THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES AND RECREATIONAL USE OF THE SHOREZONE. S o l i and topography su i t ab le for ag r i cu l t u r e are ln short fiuDoly ln Greater Vancouver and l n B . C . ln general . Agr icu l tu re i s an Important element ln the l o c a l economy and a g r i c u l t u r a l lands l n the lower Serpentine and Nicomekl basins should be preserved. The pract ices used should recognize po ten t i a l c o n f l i c t with the natural environment.. The ducks and geese using Mud Bay w i l l feed on some crops. Animal waste and f e r t i l i z e r s may enter the r i v e r s and ocean and s t imulate unnatural growth of algae or weeds. They may increase the p o s s i b i l i t y of poisoning ex i s t i ng aquatic l i f e . They a lso may increase the bac te r i a l content to a l e v e l at which the clams and crabs are inedib le and the beaches unusable. I r r i g a t i o n and c u l -t i v a t i o n pract ices could affect the amounts and flow of ground water and the degree of s o l i e ros ion. Publ ic access to the edges of the r i v e r s and Mud Bay i s frequently r e s t r i c t e d by farm operators. Thus, h i k i n g , sport f i s h i n g , nature observat ion, e tc . are l i m i t e d . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , new or expanding uses, such as housing or recrea t ion , could c o n f l i c t wi th e x i s t i n g farm operations and begin to l i m i t the i r s i z e , eg. i f housing i s b u i l t too near a feed l o t . Natura l vegeta t ion, su i t ab le for habitat purposes, eg. b lackber r i e s , should be used to keep separate the recrea t ion a c t i v i t y and the farming. THEREFORE: 1) PRESERVE ALL LAND SUITABLE FOR AGRICULTURE (SOIL CLASSES 1 TO 4) 2) CONTROL AGRICULTURAL PROCEDURES TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH NATURAL PROCESSES, . "... ' , - . ' . . 3) CREATE PUBLIC'ACCESS POINTS'TO ' THE SHORE AND ALONG THE RIVER BANKS AND SEA DYKES IN AGR1-. CULTURAL AREAS, BUT.PLANT -VEGETATION TO SEPARATE THE. ACTIVITIES. OTMPATI&LE- A^I^ULTUrxE .. hiBUt.EiEAcWI ACCESS •:(?•;.-.; Compatible Agr i cu l t u r e : Appl ica t ion to the Ocean Shorezone - Most of the po ten t ia l c o n f l i c t between agr i cu l tu re and wildfowl Is avoided because of the seasons. The migratory b i rds pass through in the spring and the autumn when crops are not i n the ground. Most of the lowlands are planted in forage crops for l i ve s tock . The stubble remaining in the crop-ped f i e l d s and the standing water from the winter ra ins are valuable to the thousands of b i rd s . - In the past, the Canada Geese have been in t e r f e r ing wi th some produce crops in r i v e r v a l l e y . Because of the proximity to the estuary, the lowlands i n the study area w i l l continue to be a t t r a c t i v e to waterfowl. To avoid such c o n f l i c t , the farm lands west of the King Ccurpe Highway should be used only for l ives tock and fodder crops. O.I .*> IOkr*\ 135 APPENDIX SEVEN SUMMARY OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THE PATTERN STATEMENTS PRESENTED IN APPENDIX SIX SOURCE: SUMMARY DOCUMENT PREPARED BY SURREY PLANNING DEPT. flARCH 1978 136 ENVIRONMENT WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 18, 1978 GROUP NUMBER ESTUARIES PRESERVED COMPATIBLE AGRICULTURE 1 Agreed i n p r i n c i p l e . Suggested that preserve boundary as proposed would be d i f f i c u l t to manage -should i n c l u d e r i v e r system up to dams. Dredging would be acceptable p r o v i d i n g e c o l o g i c a l aspects are considered i n d i s p o s a l of the s p o i l s . Preserve should e l i m i n a t e hunting w i t h i n i t s boundaries. P i c n i c k i n g and horse r i d i n g should be l i m i t e d to s p e c i a l l y designated areas. Agreed with p a t t e r n . Suggested GVRD or some other agency should handle areas of c o n f l i c t between landowners and r e c r e a t i o n a l users. Proposed change of wording i n s o l u t i o n number 2: change "avoid" to "minimize". P i l o t p r o j e c t should be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r monitoring p u b l i c use of dykes, with an agency to a r b i t r a t e c o n f l i c t s . 2 Strongly agreed with problem s t a t e -ment. Suggested that estuary pre-serve should cover a l l man's a c t i v i t i e s - not j u s t r e c r e a t i o n . Degree of human presence should be s t r i c t l y c o n t r o l l e d . There should be some type of estuary management body with a broader than l o c a l view-p o i n t . Shoreline areas outside preserve should be maintained to prevent degradation, which i s o f t e n used as an argument f o r development. Agreed with p u b l i c use of dykes, since p u b l i c funds are put i n t o them. Dykes could be important r e c r e a t i o n areas, fenced o f f from farms, and having p u b l i c access - not across farm-land. Recommended that appropriate uses f o r dykes should be designated and monitored. 3 & 4 Generally agreed with p a t t e r n . Suggested that type of reserve must be defined - i t should be r e s t r i c -t i v e to a l l human a c t i v i t y . Noted that hunting cannot be c l o s e d w i t h -out j u s t cause. Improvements should be considered to improve drainage on farmlands and reduce the e f f e c t s of a g r i c u l t u r a l runoff - p o s s i b l y by encouraging farmers to put i n gr a i n t i l e (funded by g r a n t s ? ) . Suggested improved c o n t r o l of c a t -t l e by fe n c i n g . C a l l e d f o r a f u l l review of Boundary Bay as a Pro-v i n c i a l Park - to be c a r r i e d out under p r o v i n c i a l grant of $25,000. Agreed with p a t t e r n . Suggested that there have been few j u s t i f i a b l e com-p l a i n t s about c o n f l i c t s between a g r i -c u l t u r e and waterfowl - no r e a l demonstrated damage has been done by geese. The main c o n f l i c t i s that of tre s s p a s s . Suggested that there i s no need to avoid p l a n t i n g vegetable crops, but g r a i n and corn should be avoided. A d e t a i l e d examination of v i a b l e crops i s needed. Increased numbers of l i v e -stock may lead to increased degrada-t i o n of Boundary Bay water q u a l i t y by a g r i c u l t u r a l r u n o f f . A g r i c u l t u r a l leases should contain c o n t r o l s r e q u i r -in g farmers to avoid c o n f l i c t with n a t u r a l processes. (Herbicide c o n t r o l s important.) Discourage farmers from overploughing, which i s a prime cause of farmland e r o s i o n . Encourage border p l a n t i n g s of n a t i v e p l a n t s along r i v e r courses and d i t c h e s . 137 ENVIRONMENT WORKSHOP, February 18, 1978, continued. GROUP NUMBER ESTUARIES PRESERVED COMPATIBLE AGRICULTURE 5 Agreed with p a t t e r n . Suggested that c y c l i n g adjacent to preserve be non-motorized, and that water s k i i n g and boat speeds be c o n t r o l l e d . Agreed with problem statement. Thought that more research/study i s needed to determine s u i t a b l e a g r i -c u l t u r a l procedures and c o n t r o l s -an example of t h i s has been done i n Oregon. P u b l i c access to dykes must respect concerns of farmers. 6 Agreed with problem statement. There should be no development i n the estuary, but farming should remain as i s . Further study i s required i n t o the types of low i n -t e n s i t y uses s u i t a b l e . Further study r e q u i r e d on the e f f e c t s of dredging. Suggested that only shallow d r a f t boats not r e q u i r i n g dredging, should use the r i v e r channels. Farmland and dykes should be open to r e s t r i c t e d - hunting to pr o t e c t crops. Disagreed with emphasis of p a t t e r n . A g r i c u l t u r e should have precedence on a g r i c u l t u r a l lands. A g r i c u l t u r a l procedures, c a p a b i l i t i e s , and range of crops should not be forced to s u f f e r f o r w i l d l i f e management. W i l d l i f e management should be conducted on publicly-owned lands (eg., foreshore and greenbelt areas - not p r i v a t e farms). Present hunting on p u b l i c lands tends to l i m i t the use of these areas by w i l d l i f e . P u b l i c access should only be provided f o r l i m i t e d a c t i v i t i e s and i n l i m i t e d areas. (Eg., fishermen but no t r a i l bikes; access only to dykes adjacent to p u b l i c lands, i . e . along east s i d e of Mud Bay.) Mud Bay Dyking D i s t r i c t does not agree with any p u b l i c access, and question the c a p a b i l i t y to manage such access. 138 AGRICULTURE WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 19, 1978 GROUP NUMBER ESTUARIES PRESERVED COMPATIBLE AGRICULTURE 1 Agree that they should be preserved: - implies low use. Degree of use has to be res o l v e d . Need good waste management upstream. D a i r y i n g i s the best use of the land and w i l l continue i n the f u t u r e . Surrey's by-law r e s t r i c t i n g feed l o t s to 100 head per oper a t i o n i s c o n f i s c a t o r y (1,000 - 2,000 head i s the lowest l i m i t ) . The Land Commission could o v e r r u l e t h i s by-law and may be w i l -l i n g to challenge i t i n court. The complications of the feed l o t by-law r e f l e c t the low l e v e l of under-standing i n Surrey of a g r i c u l t u r e and the i n f l u e n c e s or urban en-croachment, (a new p a t t e r n ? ) . 1) P r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l lands: - agree as long as a g r i c u l t u r e i s v i a b l e . 2) Con t r o l procedures: - no! Should preserve the f l e x i -b i l i t y of a g r i c u l t u r e - farmer should have the option of s h i f t i n g use - eg., to feed l o t operation. 3) Create p u b l i c access p o i n t s : - disagree - a g r i c u l t u r e must place c o n t r a i n t s on r e c r e a t i o n , not v i c e versa. Vegetated b u f f e r zones, e s p e c i a l l y b l a c k b e r r i e s , are very damaging to the dykes - grass i s s u i t a b l e . Geese don't seem to be such a problem now i n study area. I f b i r d populations are to be maintained, some arrangements must be made f o r compensation, or farmers must be paid to p l a n t some crops to feed them. Landowner should be able to s e l l shooting r i g h t s ; hunting access has the same problems as other access. 2 Agree to the p r o t e c t i o n of the estuary h a b i t a t , but there should be no e c o l o g i c a l reserve and no p r o h i b i t i o n of hunting. Disagree: - Suggest a whole new pattern be w r i t t e n f o r a g r i c u l t u r e which gives the proper p r i o r i t y f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l uses i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. There should be no r e s t r i c t i o n s on the types of farming. Not only the farmers, but the M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e f e e l t h a t there i s a r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y that w i t h i n 20 years t h i s land w i l l be used -f o r extensive market gardening. Much of the land which i s s u i t a b l e f o r market gardening i s w i t h i n Colebrook area. 3 There are three kinds of preserve ( e c o l o g i c a l reserves, park conser-v a c i e s , and map reserves ( l i t t l e weight)). The choice of the type of reserve can a f f e c t the amount of l i m i t a t i o n that can be put on use. The a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d are not r e -s t r i c t e d enough. Proper management of the estuary can a i d i n the com-p a t i b i l i t y . Can't change the hunt-ing system, besides geese have not done much damage. R e s t r i c t uses to h i k i n g , nature observation, and p o s s i b l y f i s h i n g . 139 RECREATION WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 25, 1978 GROUP NUMBER ESTUARIES PRESERVED 1 Inte r e s t e d i n preserving the important p a r t s of e s t u a r i e s . There are some areas where human a c t i v i t i e s could be increased f o r the low l e v e l a c t i v i t i e s such as those suggested i n the pa t t e r n . The e c o l o g i c a l reserve on B l a c k i e S p i t should be tempered. To l i m i t the amount of boating i n the r i v e r mouth there should be no expansion of marina and boating f a c i l i t i e s i n the r i v e r mouth. There was disagreement on whether new boat f a c i l i t i e s should be permitted as part of fu t u r e sub-d i v i s i o n s or developments. Hunting and trap-shooting should be elimin-ated because of the deb r i s and nuisance from the noise. 2 I t was agreed that estuary p r e s e r v a t i o n i s important. However, people want to be able to use n a t u r a l areas r a t h e r than be excluded from them. The degree of encroachment p e r m i s s i b l e must be decided. C e r t a i n types of boating w i t h i n or adjacent to the reserve could be acceptable. Some hunting should be allowed. I t was suggested that dredging w i t h i n c e r t a i n l i m i t s i s not environmentally d i s r u p t i v e , but that d i s p o s a l of the dredged m a t e r i a l can create problems. 3 Preserve boundaries as shown were agreed to with the exception of Bl a c k i e S p i t and the B u r l i n g t o n Northern underpass a t Highway 499, which were considered good b u f f e r areas capable of s u s t a i n i n g increased l e v e l s of human a c t i v i t y . E f f o r t should be made to provide more than minimal access. The area bordering the preserve should be a form of b u f f e r . RESIDENT WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 26, 1978 GROUP NUMBER ESTUARIES PRESERVED 1 Agreed that the estuary should be preserved. There should be no hunting. S a i l b o a t s are not a problem, but any increased use of powerboats should be avoided. 2 Agreed with estuary p r e s e r v a t i o n . Hunting should be phased out, and no expansion of boating f a c i l i t i e s should be allowed. Perhaps a r e s i d e n t park warden would be necessary. 3 Thought that the dredging was being pushed through without proper study. I t was suggested t h a t Wolf Bauer be consulted i n t h i s regard. Deposits of dredged m a t e r i a l should be contoured and turned i n t o a family r e c r e a -t i o n park. The main human a c t i v i t i e s should be away from the lagoon and other w i l d l i f e areas. Motorcycles should not be allowed, and gates should be i n s t a l l e d a t the entrance to the S p i t to c o n t r o l beach p a r t i e s . Hunting should be r e s t r i c t e d , i . e . , not near the S p i t or r e s i d e n t i a l or r e c r e a t i o n a l areas. 

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.831.1-0094596/manifest

Comment

Related Items