Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A technique for resource classification and capability analysis in coastal zone management Spencer, John F. 1972

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A6_7 S64.pdf [ 14.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101532.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101532-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101532-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101532-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101532-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101532-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101532-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101532-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101532.ris

Full Text

A TECHNIQUE FOR RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION AND CAPABILITY ANALYSIS IN COASTAL ZONE fW-OTEMT JOHN F, SPENCER B.A., University of Washington, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in the School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1972 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further.agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representative. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written per-mission." Department of Community and Regional Planning The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, B.C., Canada Date May 1, 1972 ABSTRACT The coastal zone consists of a narrow resource complex occurring at the interface between the sea and land. It not only serves as a transition zone between the marine and terrestrial environments but is also a unique environ-ment possessing qualities which emerge from the dynamic relationship between land and sea. Man has, throughout history, found the resources of this area to be highly desirable for a multiplicity of uses. Now, however, segments "of society are expressing considerable dissatisfaction with the way coastal resources have been allocated and abused over the past decades. The unres-trained exploitation of coastal resources has resulted in serious degradation and single purpose co-optation'of-resources resulting in the denial of bene-fit s from many coastal resources to different groups in society. Such conditions indicate the need to establish coastal zone management institutions which can respond to these problems by producing a mixture of goods relevant to the needs and desires of today's society while preventing future genera-tions from being despoiled of the use of coastal resources. In order to design effective management institutions and policies which can f u l f i l l this need, a careful and systematic analysis of coastal resources' inherent capabilities and limitations must be accomplished. This study postulates that, through the use of a methodology which integrates the evaluation of coastal resources and resource use capability with an evaluation of user resource requirements in an ecological framework, opportunities can be identified for allocated resources to various users in a way that will reduce the degradation of resources and use conflicts. i i . To conduct this study i t was necessary to develop a system for classify-?-. ing and evaluating coastal resources for different uses. The literature regarding coastal resource systems was examined to provide a basis for design-ing a cla s s i f i c a t i o n scheme. Additionally, three current resource evaluation techniques were studied -for procedures relevant to evaluating coastal resources for a variety of uses. The evaluation procedure used i n the study represents a synthesis of parts of these techniques. The technique was applied i n a case study to provide a foundation for evaluating i t s applica-b i l i t y to planning the use of coastal resources. The coast of Whatcom County, Washington, was selected as the case study area. The results of the study were evaluated i n a scenario comparing the existing resources-use situation and the county comprehensive plan i n the study area to the alternative pat-terns of resource use revealed by the capability analysis. The classification and evaluation of the coast of Whatcom. County demonstrated that the inherent capabilities and distribution of coastal resources provides an opportunity to design alternative patterns of use allocations. Analysis of user environmental impacts indicated that these patterns could be selected for their u t i l i t y i n reducing user conflicts and the degradation of coastal resources. In addition, the classification and evaluation of the Whatcom County coast illus t r a t e d that the technique could be useful for identifying and defining the nature of prospective resource use problems that w i l l affect the design of coastal management institutions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his deepest appreciation to Professors W. E. Rees and Brahm Weisman for their many com-ments and suggestions made during this study. Sincere thanks are due to Mr. Harry P. Fulton of the Whatcom County Planning Department for making available infor-mation necessary to complete this study. It is with a great deal of respect that my comments regarding the County's plan-ning program are made. Without the support and patience.of my wife, Terri, and the understanding of my daughter, Lorraine, i t would not have been possible to complete this thesis.. My greatest apprecia-tion is extended to both of them. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. .THE COASTAL ZONE: CONFLICTS IN RESOURCE USE 1 A Need For Planning . . 1 Defining the Coastal Zone 9 Study Premise and Hypothesis . . . . 12 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2. COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS AND RESOURCE ANALYSIS 16 Ecological Concepts . . . . . . . . . 16 Coastal Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . 21 Implications for Resource Analysis. . 44 3.. ANALYSIS OF RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL ZONE 47 Resource Analysis . . . . 47 A Classification and Evaluation Scheme for Coastal Resources,. . 56 4. THE BIOGEOPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS : . OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COAST . . . .... 72 Resource Inventory and Classification 72 Classification of the Whatcom County Coast" . . . . . . . . 101 Resource Capability Evaluations . . . 105 Discussion of Capability Ratings . . 121 5. THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MULTIPLE USE OF COASTAL ZONE RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . 125 Management Problems . . . . . . . . . 125 The Role of the Resource Classification and Evaluation Technique in Coastal Zone Management. 129 Alternative Use Allocations and the Whatcom County Comprehensive.Plan . . 132 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . 145 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 WORKS CONSULTED .156 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Estimated Amounts of Wastes Barged to Sea by the U.S. i n 1968 8 2. Environmental Impact Matrix 69 3. Resource Characteristics Limiting Uses . . . 70 4. Inventory Elements for Coastal Resource Analysis . . 73 5. Comparison of Characteristics of Coastal Western Hemlock Zone to Characteristics. of Whatcom County 75 6. Classification of the Coast of Whatcom County 106 7. Resource Use-Capability Ratings of Coastal Components for Oyster Raft Culture . . . . . 113 8. Resource Use-Capability Ratings of Coastal Components for Residential Use (Recreation Cottages and Permanent Homes) 116 9. Resource Use-Capability Ratings of Coastal. Components for Waterfront Industries . . . . 120 10. Resource Use-Capability Ratings of Coastal Components for Outdoor Recreation (Day Use and Overnight Camping F a c i l i t i e s ) . . . 122 11. Inter-Use Conflicts: Summary of Environ-. mental Impact Matrix . . . . . . . . 128 12. The Capability of Components Within the Coast of Whatcom County for Selected Uses 131 13. Comparison of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan to Resource Capability Analysis . . . . 137 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Transect of a Rocky Beach .. 23 2. Transect of a Sandy Beach . 24 3. Morphological Classification of Coastlines . 62 4. Temperature and Rainfall in the - Puget Sound Region 77 5. Surface VJind Patterns: S.E. Georgia Strait, Strait of Juan de Fuca . 78 6. Tide Graph 82 7.. Surface Current Patterns 83 8. Flood and Ebb Currents 84 9. Near shore Currents—Movement on Flood Tide . 85 10. Nearshore Currents—Movement on Ebb Tide . . 86 11. Diagram of Oyster Culture Raft . . . . . . . I l l LIST OF MAPS MAP . PAGE 1-. The Coast of Whatcom County . 74 2. Topography of Western Whatcom County . . . . 91 3. Slope Analysis 92 4. Bottom Sediment 97 5. Vegetation and Wildlife 99 6. Coastal Classification . . . . . 103 7. Capability for Selected Uses . 107 8. County Comprehensive Plan 134 9. Present Land Use 143 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS PLATES PAGE 1. CHUCKANUT BAY TO SANDY POINT 95 2. NEPTUNE BEACH TO BIRCH BAY 96 CHAPTER ONE: THE COASTAL ZONE: CONFLICTS.IN RESOURCE USE A NEED FOR PLANNING Man has had a long association with the sea, frequently colorful and always intimate. He has bui l t great c i t i e s where the land comes down to the s e a — c i t i e s dependent upon commerce borne by the sea. Estuaries and embayments, protected from ocean forces, have.provided convenient locations for building harbors with access to inland resources. The sea has been one of. the world's major sources of protein and i s now being considered for an even greater role i n supplying food for future world populations (Ehrlick, 1970). The variety of scenery and expanse of beaches found i n coastal areas has always been a source of inspiration to man, and hence are highly valued as a recreational resource. Now, however, the impact of man's use of the sea, most intense at the water's edge, has strained the coastal envir-onment to the l i m i t of endurance. The a b i l i t y of the natural system i n coastal areas to continue- to supply the resources desired by man i s i n doubt. The coastal zone receives the impact of nearly a l l land-use changes that occur i n coastal watersheds. Destruction and fouling of shellfisher-ies has resulted from increases i n pollution and sedimentation from land runoff, dredging, and land projects. The v i a b i l i t y of harbors for naviga-tion has been threatened by alterations i n the pattern of s i l t a t i o n caused by modifications in.river inflow and the construction of dikes, j e t t i e s , bulkheads, and causeways. The perdition of beaches has resulted from the combined effects of marine erosion and the loss of supplies of sediment 2 which replenish the material eroded. Supplies of sediment have been re-duced because of river diversions, the trapping of sediment in reservoirs and behind structures such as jetties and groins which obstruct the long-shore transport of beach material. These are only a few examples of some of the undesirable consequences of human action on coastal resources. Many other environmental consequences of man's actions are noted elsewhere (Sorenson, 1970; Cronin, 1967) and con-stitute an extensive l i s t of alterations in the coastal environment. A l l these examples point to the need to rationally plan man's activities in the coastal zone. Rational planning, based on sound knowledge of environ-mental systems in coastal areas is needed to maintain the u t i l i t y of these resources to present users and future generations. While the area referred to as the coastal zone cannot be precisely defined, i t is desirable to have some idea of what is meant by the term as it. i s used broadly in this paper. In general the coastal zone includes the area of sea and land adjacent to the triple interface of land, sea, and atmosphere. The zone encompasses the land where terrestrial "activities" are oriented to the marine environment and l i f e processes influenced by the sea and the water areas where marine activities and l i f e forms are significantly influenced by the resources of and activities on land (Schaefer, 1969). It has been noted that planning the coastal zone has emerged p r i -marily in those areas experiencing intense pressure from uses competing, for limited coastal resources (Sorenson, 1970). The growth of population in North America, most pronounced in urban areas along the coast, has 3 accentuated this pressure and the need for planning the use of coastal resources. In 1970, i t was estimated that 70% of the United States popu-lation lived within one hour's drive of the coast (including the Great Lakes) and that 33% lived in coastal counties which comprise only 15% of that nation's total land area. Within these same counties nearly a l l types of U.S. industry are represented with only a few exceptions (U.S.A. Department of the Interior, 1970). Moreover, new uses of the coastal zone such as offshore airports, o i l terminals, and nuclear power generating plants are forseeable in the near future. Such new uses w i l l present problems with which we have only limited or no experience at a l l , yet must be prepared to encounter. Canada's population has similarly displayed a propensity to locate in or near coastal areas. The author has estimated that in 1966 more than 62% of Canada's population.lived within thirty miles of the coast including the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway (Isodemographic Map of Canada, 1971). In most areas this is a distance of less than one hour's travel time by auto. Moreover, the growth in Canada's major industrial cities, located within this narrow thirty mile ban of. coastal zone, has created tremendous pressure to develop available open space for industrial, residen-t i a l and recreational f a c i l i t i e s . Out of the 13 incorporated cities in Canada over 100,000 population in 1966, eight are located in the coastal zone and have a metropolitan area population of 6.9 million or 1/3 of the total 1966 population of Canada (Dominion Bureau of.Statistics, 1966). A discussion of conflicting uses and resource degradation illustrates the need to utilize biogeophysical information in coastal zone planning. Nearly a l l the. users, of the coastal zone are dependent upon the unique 4 characteristics of coastal resources. Ironically, however, many use conflicts result from the adverse effects of certain resource uses on other resources equally responsible for attracting man to the coast. Many undesirable con-sequences are unforseen prior to human activities. Most disturbing, however, are the long run consequences forseen as undesirable but given inadequate attention to be eliminated. Failure to give adequate attention to the consequences of such activities as landfill projects in waterfront areas, and modifications .in river basin hydrology, pose a greater threat to the natural resources of the coastal zone than the dramatic effects of some isolated events such as o i l spills. • Mismanagement of inland watersheds, urban expansion onto flood plains, and construction of dams, dikes, jetties, bulkheads, and groins for protection against floods and wave action can have dangerously cumulative effects on the biophysical processes in the coastal zone. Dumping dredge spoils as land f i l l increases water turbidity, smothers bottom organisms and alters depths. Dam construction creates barriers to upstream spawning migrations of marine fish and alters water salinity gradients. Jetty and groin construction alters the local' movement of sand, changing beach ecology and upsetting sessile organisms (Salo, 1970). • Recreation appears to be one coastal activity that will generate intense demands on coastal resources in the near future. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (1962) estimated that during the post, war years the average annual increase in attendance at outdoor recreation areas was greatest at resource-based water oriented fa c i l i t i e s . . Moreover, the projections for the year 2000 are the largest for this same category. The Commission (1962) estimated that by the year 2000 there will be a 5 fortyfold increase in the demand for "resource-based recreation shoreland— essentially national seashore areas." Increases in pleasure boating w i l l also place additional pressure on shore areas for expanded or constructed new moorage f a c i l i t i e s . British Columbia has witnessed a nearly 100% increase in the number of foreign pleasure boats entering the Gulf Islands area alone between 1960 and 1970 (Department of National Revenue, 1970). In addition, boat ownership in British Columbia increased from approximately 20 boats per thousand population to more than M-0 between 1953 and 1966 and is projected to be about 55 per thousand population by 1985 (Lea, 1966). It is important to note that these recreation demands are for very specific types of land areas with special resource characteristics. Accordingly, Brooks (1961) pointed out that the satisfaction of recrea-tional demands invariably involves the availability of special land and water areas. However, the U.S. President's Commission on Marine Resources and Engineering Development (1968) stated that while "the sea and shore-line can provide unique and valuable opportunities for recreation, . . . Contamination or destruction of beach, marsh waterway, and shoreline, aggravates the- pressures (for recreation) by denying use of the sea and. shore to a growing population." (My parentheses) Special land or water areas are also requirements of most other coastal uses. Port fa c i l i t i e s are a prime example. Rapid technological changes in shipping methods and the large size of new vessels has increased the need for new deep water, port locations and to make major adjustments in docks, channels and on-land storage areas in existing ports. Nuclear power plants are also being located in coastal areas because of the avail-ability of large supplies of water for cooling purposes. Use of coastal 6 waters for cooling, however, is one of the activities most threatening to the maintenance of the natural biotic resource system in the coastal . zone COdum,. 1971). This threat is particularly evident when one considers the role of temperature as a limiting and controlling factor in ecosystems and the potential heat that may be discharged from nuclear power plants. "It is anticipated that, in the thermally less efficient nuclear, power plants. . .the discharge temperature will be in excess of 11°C above ambient, with an expected discharge by a single plant of fresh or salt water of up to 1,250,000 gallons per minute" (Sylva, 1969). Biologists note that temperature is one of the most important factors affecting l i f e CHedgpeth S Gonor, 1969). The introduction of large quan-tities of waste heat into coastal waters can be expected to affect, among other things, the physical properties of water, the rate of chemi- . cal reactions that take place in sea water, the metabolic rate of animals and thereby their tolerance to other environmental changes (U.S.A. Department of Interior, 1970). Strickland (1969) considered the effects of heat on ecological periodicity and the availability of food in marine ecosystems. . He postulates that in addition to.the direct effects of. heat on fish species, heat discharges into estuarine waters may also alter the reproductive cycle of > planktonic species. Delayed or premature produc-tion of plankton may result in lower survival rates of larval stages of fish because of inadequate supplies of the right type of food at c r i t i c a l stages of the l i f e cycle. •The fisheries industry is highly dependent upon the resources of the coastal zone. About 63% of the commercial catch on the Atlantic Coast is made up of species thought to be dependent on estuaries at some stage 7 of their l i f e cycles (McHugh, 1966). Seven out of ten of the most valu-able species in American fisheries spend a l l or an important part of their lives in estuaries (President's Commission, 1969). Yet i t is estuarine areas that are most likely to be f i l l e d for residential expan-sion and industrial and recreational uses. Estuarine areas are attrac-tive for land f i l l because they are often protected from the forces of the sea by natural barriers and they are typically shallow. The amount of shallow estuarine area that can be easily f i l l e d is extensive. Cain (.1967) estimated that out of the total area of the United States estua-rine waters nearly one third are less than six feet deep. Finally, the practice of disposing of waste products in. coastal waters is widespread (Table 1). The effects of waste disposal in the sea are not fully understood. However, a few cases indicate the potential damage to the environment that can ensue from this practice. Off the coast of California, some areas previously known to be lush with vege-tation, providing food and shelter for many species of fish, have been reported to be barren in places where garbage and other sewage have been dumped (Hedgepeth, 1970). A copper compound dumped into the North Sea in 1965 in an amount that would supposedly increase the presence of the substance in marine water by only one millionth of a gram per l i t e r resulted in large k i l l s of fish off the coast of Norway (Marx, 1967). The currents that were to dilute the copper substance, instead, concen-trated i t inshore in proportions deadly to the fish. Dumping of untreated wastes in the oceans not only alters the quality of the water for the growth of natural fauna and flora but obviously for man's,utility. Shell-fish in an estimated 1.2 million acres, or 8% of the U.S. shellfish TABLE 1: ESTIMATED AMOUNTS OF WASTES BARGED TO SEA BY THE U.S. IN 1968 WASTES Pacific Coast disposal Tons Atlantic Coast disposal Tons Gulf Coast disposal Tons Dredging spoils .'. .» Industrial wastes (chemicals, acids, caustics, cleaners, sludges, waste liquors,, oily wastes, etc.): Bulk. . . . . Containerized . q Garbage and trash . . . . . . . Miscellaneous (airplane parts, spoiled food, confiscated material, etc.) . Sewage, sludge . Construction and demolition debris TOTALS . 7,320,000 981,000 300 26,000 200 8,327,500 15,808,000' 3,011,000 2,200 4,477,000 574,000 23,872,000 15,300,000 690,000 6,000 15,996,000 1 Does not include outdated munitions. 2 Includes 200,000 tons of fly ash. 3 At San Diego dumping, of 4,700 tons of vessel garbage was discontinued in Nov. 1968. 4 Tonnage on wet basis. Assuming average 4.5% dry solids, this amounts to approximately 200,000 tons dry solids per year being barged to sea. SOURCE: U.S.A., President, 1970. 9 grounds have been declared unsafe for human consumption (U.S.A. President's Commission, 1970). Nektonic fishes are also affected by the use of marine waters for waste disposal. For example, some of the damaging effects of sulfite pulp-mill wastes have been discussed recently. Juvenile salmon migrating through harbors may be injured, phytoplankton activity may. be suppressed thereby decreasing available supplies of food, and the eggs of English Sole may be directly damaged by toxic material from sulfite pulp mills (Salo, 1970). In a study of Alberni Inlet, British Columbia, Harger and others (1971) concluded that dark pulp mill effluent operating as a "light trap" may be creating conditions of reduced food supplies for young salmon which use the estuary to feed and adapt to the salt water environment. The study group also noted the restricted development of sessile communities adjacent to the mill effluent outfall. Two possible causative relationships were theorized to account for this restricted development. In both theories, conditions of low food supply were-predicted to prevail in an estuary where "evolutionary forces can be expected to have programed a demand for nutrition." (Harger et a l . , 1971); DEFINING THE COASTAL ZONE Attempts to provide an operational definition of the coastal zone have emerged primarily from the need to resolve conflicts among alterna-tive or competitive uses. While most definitions implicitly recognize that the land-water-air interface of the coastal zone constitutes a network of ecological relationships, they tend to vary depending, upon the. nature of the problems being considered in a particular area at different times. The U.S. Congress has considered the coastal zone to be ".. . .land, waters 10 and waterbottoms near the coastline extending to the. . .territorial limits, including, but not limited to beaches, salt marshes, coastal and inter- : tidal areas, sounds, embayments, harbors, lagoons, inshore waters, rivers, and channels" (.U.S. Congress, 1971). Another congressional definition reflecting an awareness of marine influences inland, defines the zone as, ". . .lands, bays, estuaries, and waters within the territorial sea. . . and extending inland to the landward extent of maritime influences" (U.S. Congress, 1969). Providing ecological criteria for defining the coastal zone is d i f f i - . cult. The-basic ecosystems concept implies that management boundaries can not be drawn to encompass a l l the parameters effecting an ecosystem. Instead, i t emphasizes that ecosystems do not exist independently from one. another. There are transition areas'between contiguous communities inter-acting through physical' and biological processes over time and space. In order to provide a resource base for management decisions, geo-graphical units of land or water with sufficiently common characteristics are usually established. But these areas are "natural" only in the sense., that they display a recognizable association of resource attributes over . space. These areas cannot be assumed to exist independent of processes occuring in adjacent geographical areas. Any geographical area established for management purposes w i l l be subject to forces generated outside i t s borders. The implication of this for resource analysis has been pointed out by Stanley Cain (1966): v^Sflt-is suggested that i t be kept in mind that single-f . factor operation does not occur in biological nature, •" that: the environment apparently cannot be completely . .analyzed, and that diverse - an a l y t i c data, .'cannot - at •-• '-'.present be synthesized back again into anything l i k e -the natural whole'of the ecosystem. 11 The coastal area itself is a transition between two major environments, the land and the sea. In broad terms i t includes 1) that area of land directly affected by it s proximity to the sea and land which directly in-fluences the ecology of the adjacent marine waters; and, 2) that portion of the sea affected by it s proximity to the land. It is narrow and rather abrupt compared to the transition zones between other major world ecosystems. Many persons dealing with the problems of defining the zone for plan-ning are in agreement on its seaward boundary as the limit of the contin-ental shelf. The continental shelf has been defined by the Coast and Geo-detic Survey for legal and other purposes as the submarine area adjacent to the mainland to a depth of 200 meters (Shalowitz, 1964). It is a convenient physical structure that can be identified and used for establish-ing a seaward boundary to the coastal zone even though ocean forces effect-ing marine l i f e in the coastal zone derive from far beyond the area of the shelf. The 200 meter depth is acceptable since i t marks the average point where the bottom drops more rapidly to form the deep basins of the ocean (Odum, 1971),' Furthermore, its width affects the forces of ocean waves striking the shore and consequently the processes of beach erosion.and accretion (National Estuarine Pollution Study, 1970). Defining the inland extent of the zone presents a more difficult pro-blem. It has been defined as the limit of tidal influence (U.S.A. Depart-ment of the Interior, 1970), less objectively as the limit of immediate access" from land (Sorenson, 1970), and curiously as the limit of view from offshore waters whenever i t extends beyond two miles inland and adjusted to include other areas significant to coastal ecology (U.S. Bureau of Sports " Access to what is not defined. 12 Fisheries and Wildlife, 19701. Whether this last definition is adjusted for visual conditions is not evident. However the landward boundary is established, i t w i l l reflect a different "point of view." The use of different boundary criteria yields different geographical areas and thereby different combinations of biogeophysical factors to be considered as within the zone. As a result, wherever coastal zone boundaries are established they w i l l reflect some social and economic bias. Thus, no boundary should be interpreted to suggest that effective management can be accomplished without recognizing influences that derive from outside the zone. Given this understanding of the problems involved in delimiting and using ecological regions, the author has defined the coastal zone, for purpose of resource classification, in two phases: 1. COASTAL WATERS: From the seaward limit of the continental shelf, defined as the point of submerged land at a depth of 200 meters, to the line marked by the point of mean low water. 2. COASTAL LAND: Landward from the point of mean low water to the furthest extent of marine influences such as water salinity, climate, and marine salt air effecting vegetation growth and land and water use activities- dependent upon . coastal resources. STUDY PREMISE AND HYPOTHESIS Identifying existing use conflicts and the.impacts of man on the resource of the coastal zone is only a preliminary step in planning for its use. Rational planning must also attempt to anticipate future demands and-be prepared to allocate.uses without damaging the environment' and foreclosing options for future uses' (Wilkes, 1969). As stated by .'the 13 Commission on Marine Resources and Engineering Development (1970): The challenge before us is to find opportunities for multiple compatible uses of the shoreline and inshore waters, and to maintain options for future uses not foreclosed by degradation of the resource. This w i l l require identifying multiple compatible uses and also encouraging the development of effective mechanisms for making rational choice among incompatible uses. Implied in this statement is the need to understand the host relation-ship of the resource base to man's activities. The variety of natural conditions found in the land and water resources of the coastal zone provide opportunities for use. These resources have intrinsic capabil-ities and.limitations which contribute tc user's satisfaction. Angus Hills (1961), Ian McHarg (1969), and others have described how the. physiographic features and ecological processes form.the basis for deterrriining the land's use-capability. Capability, however, includes more than the ability of the land to supply resources. Capability also includes the ability of the resource to absorb the effects of use. Holling (1971) has defined this as the system's resilience. To define capability, then, one must understand the interaction between man .and the resource system in terms of system resilience. Human impact on resources feeds back through the ecosystem to alter the subsequent ability of the resources to satisfy human requirements. Consequently, the con-tinuous supply of opportunities for present uses and options for future uses can be threatened by resource management which f a i l s to consider this feedback process. Hypothesis Within this context of man's relationship to the environment, the 14 hypothesis for this study i s recognized as: Through a process which integrates the evaluation of biogeophysical characteristics of the resource base and an assessment of resource use-capability with an analysis of the resource requirements of specified users, opportunities may be identified for allocating land to various users in.a way that w i l l reduce environmental degradation and resource use conflicts. METHODOLOGY This study comprises three phases: Phase one i s the development of a coastal zone resource classification and capability rating system.. Phase two i s the application of this system to a selected case study area. Phase three i s the evaluation of the usefulness of the methodology i n terms of the stated hypothesis. Phase One To develop the classification and rating system the following process has been established. A. Review of Coastal Ecological Systems• An examination of. coastal ecological systems, i n general, w i l l aid i n select-ing those features of current resource analysis techniques salient to classifying coastal resources. An understanding of the functional role of various features of the coast w i l l provide the ecological framework for evaluating the resources and user impacts. B. Review of Resource Evaluation Techniques. . Current resource analysis techniques used i n land-use planning w i l l be examined. The way in which the methods inventory and describe land and water resources and evaluate them for . use w i l l be scrutinized. Quantitative methods for estab-lishing the resources use values w i l l also be considered. C. Synthesis of Evaluation Techniques. Within the ecological framework of the coastal system,' those features selected above w i l l be synthesized-Into a methodology•for - 'classifying, evaluating and rating coastal resources for-various uses..' 15 Phase Two In a case study, the technique w i l l be applied to establish capa-b i l i t y ratings, and a resource allocation system for the coastal land and water areas of Whatcom County, Washington. The following objectives have been established for conducting the case study: A. To demonstrate the integrated evaluation of resources, user requirements and use impacts in establishing resource capability ratings. B. To use capability ratings for allocating resources to potential uses. . C. To provide a framework for testing the applicability of an integrated resource evaluation technique in reducing adverse environmental impacts and. use con-f l i c t s in the coastal zone. Phase Three. An evaluation of the methodology, w i l l be conducted to ascertain i t s effectiveness in reducing adverse environmental impacts and use conflicts. This w i l l be accomplished in a scenario comparing the allocation of potential.uses assuming two different management policies. The f i r s t policy w i l l assume land to be allocated on the basis of the resource capability analysis described herein. The second one w i l l assume the policy of land assignment implied in the 1971 comprehensive plan developed for Whatcom County, Washington. CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS AND RESOURCE ANALYSIS Recent literature on resource analysis and classification techniques is replete with statements emphasizing the importance of utilizing eco-system concepts (Mabbutt, 1968; H i l l , 1970; McHarg, 1969). The ecosystem concept is seen as the framework for conducting systematic evaluations of resources as they relate to l i f e processes and productivity. Unfortunately, the difficulties in operationalizing the ecosystem concept in resource analysis have not been entirely overcome. Presently, information regarding the structure of ecological systems and an understanding of their function-al processes is not complete. Secondly, resource-management institutions are fragmented into single purpose agencies making i t d i f f i c u l t to imple-ment a holistic approach to natural resources management. To develop a resource analysis and classification technique for the coastal zone, i t is imperative to recognize principles of ecology as they relate to man's alteration of natural resource systems and the quality he desires in his environment. A review of ecological principles and their implications for resource management is given below to establish the basis for a study of two major coastal ecosystems: estuaries and the intertidal zone of the marine ecosystem. ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTS Odum (1971) defines ecology as "the study of the structure and func-tion of nature," and describes an ecosystem as: 17 any unit that includes a l l of the organisms in a given area.interacting with the physical envir-onment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined tropic structure, biotic diversity, and material cycles within the system. , . Within any ecosystem there are two major components'; abiotic and biotic components can be recognized. Abiotic substances make up the physical and chemical environment within which interactions between the biotic components take place. Biotic components of the ecosystem are the producer, consumer, and decomposer organisms. The producers are largely green plants which utilize light energy, carbon dioxide and mineral sub- . stances to manufacture their own food. Collectively they are referred to as autotrophs. The consumers are organisms that utilize energy rich organic material manufactured by autotrophs. Since consumers derive their energy from food manufactured by producers they are referred to as hetero-trophs. The decomposers, also heterotorphic organisms, are considered as one of the main constituents of the biotic world because of the role they play in the cycling of nutrients. Decomposers do, not ingest food as do the herbivore and carnivore consumers. Decomposers secrete enzymes onto dead organic matter which degrades the matter so that some of i t may be absorbed into the decomposer's body. Because this process of degration and digestion takes place external to the decomposer, certain nutrients and other compounds found in,dead plant and animal, material, remaining after bacterial and fungal decomposition, aremade available for reuse by producer and consumer organisms. 18 Nutrient Cycling In the cycling of nutrients, two circuits are recognized. The grazing c i r c u i t involves the consumption of l i v i n g plants or plant parts by heterotrophic organisms, mostly herbivores. The detritus c i r c u i t refers to the cycle which involves dead plant and animal material (detritus) and i t s decomposition by decomposer organisms. Together these two nutrient circu i t s form the major channels by which nutrient material i s cycled through an ecosystem. The cycling of nutrients involves both the biotic and physical-chemical constituents of the ecosystem i n what are called biogeochemical cycles. Biogeochemical cycles can be divided into too major groups, one i n which the atmosphere, acts as the major reservoir of elements as they exist i n a gaseous phase and the other i n which the lithosphere acts as the reservoir of elements (Kormondy, 1969). Minerals are.released from the lithosphere by the processes of.weathering and bacterial action to form the sedimentary cycle. Both types of cycles, atmospheric and sedimentary, are important i n marine ecosystems and must be considered i n evaluating the potential effects of a i r , land, and water pollution on coastal resour-ces. Moreover, i t i s important to recognize the role that the physical aspects of these cycles play i n marine ecosystems since marine systems tend to be dominated.by physical processes. Community Energetics . Community energetics i s the study of the flow of energy from one trophic level to another. Energy i n biological systems comes ultimately from' the sun. This radiant energy i s transformed into a chemical form i n 19 photosynthesis by green plants. Each trophic level of organisms beyond the producer plant level depends on the fixation of radiant energy in organic matter by green plants. At each transfer of energy from one trophic level to the next or between constituents of the same trophic level there is a progressive decrease in available energy because at each transfer of energy a large part of the energy is degraded into heat. Watt (1968) points out for resource management purposes, that the most efficient long term energy u t i l i t y occurs under natural conditions. Hence, modifications of an ecosystem which result in conditions other than prevail naturally cause a reduction in the utilization of energy. Therefore additional inputs of energy would be needed to maintain the level of production in an ecosystem modified to conditions which do not prevail naturally. The corollary of this for biotic resource management - is that the greatest productivity w i l l occur under those conditions which, most nearly resemble natural conditions. This concept is central to understanding one of the major resource management problems today; that i s , man's inability to divert optimum productivity occurring in\nature to his own vise without upsetting the natural order in an ecosystem and thereby reducing i t s productivity. The implications of this for determining resource capability are noted by Hills (1961). He states that: The biological productivity of an area is dependent not only upon the potential of the land to supply matter and energy to the biotic community which i t ' supports but also upon the ability.of the organisms . to utilize, this.energy. The importance of this principle for coastal zone planning is in establishing 20 the limits within which man may modify coastal resource systems without reducing the productivity of those resources for other users and future generations. The Concept of Habitat and Niche Habitat and niche are concepts useful in understanding relationships which exist between organisms and their environment. In the habitat approach (Odum, 1971), attention can be focused on specific geographical areas such as the coastal zone that one may wish to investigate for ecological purposes. Moreover, i t is a concept that can be readily adapted in resource management because i t adds a spatial dimension to the applica-tion of ecological principles. An organism's habitat is the aggregate of the biotic and abiotic characteristics of an organism's.environment. It is a concept of place in the sense that it.describes the environmental characteristics where an organism lives. An organism's niche,- however, is within the habitat and defines the functional role of the organism in the community. (The commu-nity being defined as.all of the organisms, collectively within the habitat.) Odum (1971) distinguishes between habitat and niche in the following analogy: It may be said that the habitat is the organism's "address" and the niche is its "profession", biologi-cally speaking. Information about an organism's, niche tells.us. about the organism's activi-ties, including .its nutrition and energy sources, metabolism and growth, effect on other organisms i t contacts, and the extent to which i t modifies or is capable of modifying operations in .the ecosystem (Odum, 1971). Use of the niche concept in resource analysis is helpful in understanding the 21 extent and significance of environmental modifications made by organisms. For example, organisms appearing to be economically insignificant in an ecosystem may make environmental modifications necessary for the survival of those specied deemed "valuable" in the market place. COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS The following discussion of coastal ecosystems is primarily con- . cerned with the estuarine habitat, and the intertidal zone of the marine habitat. The major emphasis of.this discussion is on the physical -pro-cesses affecting these habitats. Physical processes, are emphasized because of the important role they play in controlling the biological world and because of the nature of man's actions in the coastal zone. Physical aspects of estuarine and marine habitats determine .to a great extent patterns of community zonation and productivity. The nature of man's action in the coastal zone is primarily in changing the physical environ-ment . Thus, patterns of community.zonations provide a structure relevant to the analysis and classification of coastal resources for human use.. The Marine Habitat The sea can be classified into subzones or sub-habitats horizontally and vertically. The continental shelf is the principal physiographic, feature used to delimit horizontal subzones. The nearshore area of the continental shelf, often shown extending from the point of mean high tide to approximately where the continental slope begins, is called the neritic zone.. The intertidal zone, then, is.the shore area that lies in 22 the neritic zone between the highest line that the tide can reach in any one year and the yearly lowest line to which the tide receeds (Bauer, 1971). The area inland, beyond the intertidal zone, to the furthest extent where the forces of tide and extreme wave and wind energy cause erosion and accretion of the coast, is termed the supra-tidal zone or backshore, (Bird, 1968). The oceanic zone lies seaward beyond the continental shelf. Vertical zonation of the sea is also recognized. The major verti-cal zones are based on the penetration of light into sea water. The upper zone, where the penetration of light into the water makes photosynthesis possible, is the euphotic zone.. The euphotic zone is separated from a thicker aphotic zone below where no photosynthesis occurs by a compensation zone. The compensation zone is the area between the euphotic and aphotic zone where respiration of phytoplankton balances their photosynthetic activity resulting in no net productivity. Further subzonation of these vertical and horizontal zones is accom-plished by both physical and biological processes (Odum, 1971). Vertical subzonation in.the aphotic zone is recognized by the existence of two broad types of communities, the. benthic and the pelagic.. The benthic community includes a l l those organisms that live, on or in the bottom material respectively referred to as epifauna and infauna. The pelagic community includes a l l those free swiriming or floating organisms in the open water. A transect of a sandy and a rocky beach, shown on the following pagesas Figures 1 and 2, illustrates the horizontal subzonation of the neritic zone and backshore area that can be distinguished by the.dominance of certain species of plants and animals. Perhaps the most dominant factor influencing life- in intertidal zones 23 red algae or brown algae (Laminarians and i Fucoids) sea ane-mones (Aiptasia) | sea urchin (Arba- • cia) Corals 1 (Lepto'gorgia and J Oculina) « mussels i (Hytilus) J mixed I algae . oysters (Ostrea) green algae (Enteromorpha and Ulva) barnacles barnacles (Chthamalus. T e t r a c l i t a ) jperiwinkles j ( L i t t o r i n a ) I encrusted black I lichens (Myxophyceans) J isopods (Ligia) Sub-tidal Zone I n t e r t i d a l Zone Supra-tidal Zone FIGURE 1: TRANSECT OF A ROCKY BEACH LEGEND: Characteristic Biota of Beach Zones Source: Stephanson and Stephanson 1952 24 shorebirds Mean Hich Tide Mean Low Tide sand dollar sea pansy CRenilla) sand dollar (Mellita) burrowing shrimp (Ogyris) SUB-TIDAL ZONE mole !:crab'' (Emerita) beach clam (Donax) jghost crabs | (Ocypode) jbeach arophi-.pods (Talorchestia, | Orchestia) I ——bacteria- 1— diatoms unicellular algae STEEP BEACH FLAT BEACH INTERTIDAL ZOME ' I. SUPRA-TIDAL i • | ZONE TRANSECT OF' A •SANDY BEACH Legend: .Biota Characteristic of Beach Zones Source: Odum, 1971 Figure 2 25 is the periodic covering, and uncovering of plants and animals by tidal action. For this reason Reid (1967) has defined the intertidal zone as the zone of extremes. Life in this zone must be capable of tolerating extreme changes in salinity, temperature, moisture and in many instances. periodic disruptions in the structure and composition of the zonal material. Reid (1967) has classified intertidal communities into three groups according to the type of beach material extant in an area. These groups are sandy shore, rocky shore and muddy shore community types. In each group, the physical factors of wave action, tidal action, currents and geological material interact to, produce distinctively different environmental condi-tions for colonization by different plants and animals. Sandy Shores: Beach profiles provide one way to distinguish between different sandy shore communities. The profile of a beach is indicative of the physical processes operating in a coastal area. Profiles subsequently indicate the type and distribution of plants and animals, that may be found along a sandy shore. Kinne (1970) has noted that, in general, the slope, . of a beach can be associated with the particle, size of the beach material. Odum (1971) notes that, in general, benthic communities w i l l be found to replace one another from the shore to the edge of the continental shelf depending largely upon the type of bottom material. Thus, at a very general level, the factors important in shaping beach profiles .are. also useful in understanding the nature of the environment which affects the distribution of organisms in the intertidal zone. Waves and geological material are the major factors in the develop-ment of. beaches. The effect of wave action on the movement and deposition 26 of beach material varies depending upon the size of material. This results in different patterns of transport and deposition along the backshore and intertidal areas of the coast. The beach profile resulting from this process of transport and deposition w i l l subsequently modify the force of wave action, thus resulting in new patterns of transport and deposition. Beach formation, therefore, is. a dynamic process of the effect of wave action on transport and sedimentation being continuously modified by the profile of the beach. In the process of beach formation, sand particles are transported up the beach by breaking waves that wash, on to the beach in a diagonal direction and retreat in a direction vertical to the beach.. At the same: time, longshore currents are created in the submerged intertidal zone by the force of the diagonally approaching waves on intertidal currents. Beach material suspended by the. force of breaking waves is transported in one direction or another by the longshore current (Bird, 1968).. Longshore drifting.of material often results in the net transportation of beach material in one direction causing the loss of material in some areas and gains i n others. Natural or . a r t i f i c i a l structures in the intertidal zone may act' to trap the material transported by longshore currents. In. cases. where the longshore currents are diverted far from shore, the material is often lost to sediments in deep ocean canyons. Spits and barriers form along shorelines where the shoreline direction changes and the strength of longshore currents diminishes allowing sediments to be deposited. Spits typically curve landward and their outlines are shaped by wave action (Bird, 1968). Salt marshes often form on the landward 27 side of spits where sedimentation and stable surface conditions permit plant occupancy. River mouths and entrances to coastal bays are altered by the development of spits and barriers. Barriers develop i n i t i a l l y as spits, emerged bars or barrier islands offshore. With continuous sedimen-. tation the-barriers develop to eventually seal.off the mouth of inlets or bays. Both spits and bays alter the patterns of water circulation and deposition in embayed areas and river mouths. It is stated that, the profile of a beach at any one point in time w i l l be determined by the wave conditions during the preceding period (Bird, 1968). Severe storms w i l l erode or scour much material away from beaches due to force of the retreating waves. During calm weather, however, the waves w i l l constructively move material back on to the beach. This destructive and constructive action is called cut and f i l l and is evidenced by the presence of beach ridges or berms. Mew ridges are built up in front of those that survive storm conditions as sand is supplied to the beach in succeeding phases of calmer weather (Bird, 1968). In time, the more stable landward ridges are colonized by successional stages of vegetation. The vegetation stabilizes the ridges, protects them from erosion, and promotes the development of s o i l . The environmental variability found in the intertidal zone resulting from the action of tide and waves challenges plant and animal colonization. However, even in intertidal areas appearing to be barren of l i f e an abundance of l i f e in benthic communities beneath the surface is often present. In addition, a variety of pelagic organisms periodically migrate into this area to feed and find shelter. 28 Surface plants are conspicuously absent on the intertidal portion of sandy beaches. Unstable surface conditions of the beach prohibit succes-sful colonization by plants. On the other hand, organisms buried in the sand are abundant even though their variety is not as great as in the less physically variable submerged neritic areas. Some epifauna also inhabit the intertidal zone. Moving in and off shore with the tide epifauna feed on other animals and organic debris. There are some marine animals, not restricted to living in inter-tidal zones, that utilize the intertidal zone for feeding and breeding. These animals, including fish, birds, and mammals, add to the diversity of consumers which utilize the intertidal zone. As the tide rises and fa l l s these consumers alternate in ranging into the intertidal zone to feed. One can thus appreciate the high productivity of this area in considering that this feeding pattern results in a continuous harvest of the intertidal zone. Rocky Shores: On rocky shores a zonal pattern in the distribution of plants and animals is more evident than on muddy or sandy shores. The Stephansons (1952) delimited three major zones on rocky shores (Figure 1): 1) a dry supra-tidal zone characterized by periwinkles and dark blotches . on rocks caused by lichens and algae; 2) an "intertidal zone" (more narrowly defined than our definition) characterized by the abundance of barnacles; and, 3) a subtidal zone partially uncovered only during very low tides and characterized by seaweed (see also Odum, 1971). The upper beach zone is frequently very dry limiting inhabitants to species that can avoid being desiccated.- The "intertidal zone" is a narrow area between mean low tide 29 and mean high tide that experiences uninterrupted covering and uncovering by tidal action. One of the major characteristics of this zone is the occurrence of tidal pools which harbor separate communities that can be considered subzones within the intertidal zone. Reid (1967) notes that to survive in the intertidal zone organisms must: 1) "be equipped with strong hold fast structures or protective shells (or both)"; or, 2) "be able to seek shelter among other residents." The subtidal zone or seaweed zone delimited by the Stephansons is characterized by less stressful tidal influences but is subject to the forces of waves and currents which affect the distribution and kinds of organisms in this zone. Muddy Shores: Muddy shores occur where the forces of coastal currents and wave action are reduced allowing fine particles of s i l t to settle to the bottom. The result is an accumulation of mud on the shores of protected bays and mouths.of coastal streams and rivers. Since bays and mouths of rivers are estuarine they w i l l be considered in more detail in the section on estuarine habitats. However, some muddy shore areas do occur in coastal inlets and embayments where salinity is about the same as the adjacent sea. In these.areas, currents, wave action and salinity determine the kinds of plants and animals that inhabit the muddy intertidal shore. Few plants have adapted to living on muddy shores. Their growth is restricted by turbidity which reduces light penetration into the water and thereby inhibits photosynthesis. In addition, the lack of solid . structures to which algae may attach itself and siltation which smothers the plants effectively prevents much plant colonization of muddy shores. 30 In areas where there is a mixture of mud and sand, certain algae and eel-grass w i l l grow successfully. Since the distribution of sand and mud mixtures is usually uneven, the distribution of these plants w i l l be patchy (Reid, 1967). Muddy shores display zonal patterns similar to the vertical and hori-zontal zonation of sandy shores. Among the many kinds of epifauna on muddy shores one may find species of crab, hydroids, and gastropod mollusks.and shell-less gastropods (Green, 1968). The infauna of muddy intertidal zones are predominately pelecypods and other mollusks, worms, and crustaceans (.Green, 1968). The distribution of infauna is determined by the effects of various mixtures of s i l t and sand in bottom sediment and by the effects of the ebb and flow of the tide. While the lack of oxygen in the mud makes l i f e on muddy shores d i f f i c u l t , the abundance of food as organic detritus provides nutrition for a large number of detritus feeders (Reid, 1967). The Estuarine Habitat , Estuaries are a major environment in the system of coastal resources. Estuaries are a permanent habitat for many fish and shellfish and also pro-vide breeding, nursery, and feeding grounds for many, other elements of the fauna. As noted in Chapter one, more than 60% of the commercial fish catch on the Atlantic Coast consists of fish entirely or partially depen-dent upon estuaries. Odum (1971) notes the importance of estuaries to the productivity of coastal marine waters. In a process he calls "out-welling", estuarine nutrients flow into adjacent marine areas and contribute "to their high productivity. • ' 31 The most commonly used definition of an estuary is the one provided by Pritchard (1967): An estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water having a free connection with the open sea and within which the sea water is measurably diluted by fresh water derived from land drainage. The salinity of an estuary is usually considered to range from between 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt) and 5ppt at the fresh water entrance to near 35ppt at its mouth. The salinity of ocean water usually ranges between 35ppt to 40ppt. The types of estuaries that may be included under this broad definition are tremendous. The drowned river valley estuaries resulting from changes in the level of continental land masses or levels of the sea are probably the most typical. In the Pacific Northwest we are familiar with the glacier-gouged fjord type of estuary. Other types of estuaries include those formed by earthquakes such as the San Francisco Bay or more slowly by the gradual development of barrier beaches creating embayment or lagoon types of estuaries. Within each of these types of estuaries, forces of tidal action, waves, and currents act to make each estuary unique. Biogeophysical processes common to estuaries operate to produce a dynamic, variable, and highly stressful environment for. l i f e . These pro-cesses exert stresses very selective on the kinds of organisms that may inhabit an estuary, and determine to a great extent the abundance and d i s t r i -bution of organisms within the estuary. River current and the ebb and flow of the.tide..are the major forces creating complicated patterns of erosion, sedimentation, and water mixing in estuaries (Reid, 1961). The mixing, of salt and fresh water produces a chemical, environment unlike either freshwater 32 or marine•environments. The diurnal rise and f a l l of the tide produces highly variable salinity and moisture conditions throughout the estuarine habitat. Marine and Fresh Water Mixing: At any one point in an estuary the levels of salinity vary so greatly that relatively crude measures of salinity are adequate for most biological studies (Green, 1968). In most estuaries, gradients of salt content can be detected and shown as isohaline lines running across the estuary. These lines do not run straight across the estuary. Due to the coriolis force, the isohaline lines are further inland on one side of an estuary than on the other. In the northern hemisphere they are higher on the right hand side of the estuary when one faces upstream (Cronin, 1970). In addition, the ebb and flow of the tide carries the isohaline lines up and down the estuary. Four classes of estuaries, based on patterns of water circulation and salinity, have been outlined by Bowden (1967). Tidal current relative to. river flow is the basic force determining the type of water circulation in estuaries. In general, river water tends to flow seaward as a layer of fresh water on top of heavier salt water. The two' layers are separated by a rather distinct interface. Tidal currents, which produce turbulent mixing action, break down the interface and cause various mixing patterns of salt and fresh water. In a vertical column of estuarian water this tur-bulence may produce mixing in one part, or throughout the length of the column.of water. Shape and size of the estuary and the force of the earth's rotation also influence the mixing process of salt and fresh water in estuaries. . In the f i r s t type, a salt wedge estuary, salt water extends as a wedge 3 3 into the river basin or embayment with l i t t l e or no interruption in the salt and fresh water interface. If there were no friction between the salt and fresh'water, salt water would extend up the river to.the point where the river bottom is at sea level. However, a certain amount of friction does occur, forcing the upstream edge of the salt wedge.to slope downward. The second type of estuary is also characterized' by a two-layered flow of salt and fresh water but with entrainment of salt water occurring in the upper layer of fresh water. Salt water is moved upward and entrained in the upper layer by internal waves on the interface created by a strong river or surface layer flow. Water circulation of this type usually occurs in deep fiord type estuaries. In shallow estuaries, greater mixing of salt and fresh water.takes place to produce an. unstratified.estuary. While there w i l l be marked differences in the flow of water from top to bottom a marked salinity interface w i l l not occur. The salinity content usually grades continuously from the surface to the bottom. When the tidal current is very strong, mixing of salt and fresh water is intense, producing'the fourth class of estuary having no vertical salinity gradients. There s t i l l exists a salinity gradient inland and across the estuary due to the ebb and flow of the tide and the rotation of the earth. In shallow estuaries where the ratio of width to depth is relatively small the earth's rotation w i l l not affect the circulation of water. Extensive modification of these three basic patterns results from variations in the shape and size of individual estuaries. Such modifications are too numerous to l i s t and are outside.the scope of this study.' Hence, i t 34 is important to keep in mind that, in every estuary, conditions exist to produce unique variations in the mixing of salt and fresh water. Salinity patterns have a tremendous influence on the organisms using estuaries. The most noticeable influence of salinity gradients is on the distribution of sessile (fixed) and slow moving organisms. But, according to McHugh•(1967) salinity gradients and changes w i l l also directly and indirectly affect estuarine nekton. The distribution of oysters in estuaries illustrates the effect of salinity on one organism. Although the.oyster is extremely tolerant to salinity changes,"its distribution in an estuary is indirectly controlled by salinity. Upbay distribution is limited by the maximum flow of fresh river, water and downbay the oyster's distribution is limited by predators which exist only in high salinities. Patterns.of salinity and water mixing have important implications for resource management within estuaries and their fresh water tributaries.-Alterations in the flow of river, for example, can affect the intrusion of salt water, and with i t , predators of estuarine fauna. Cyclical varia-tions in fresh water flow.often regulate primary production in estuaries. Thus, alterations in annual flow cycles can affect the productivity of the entire estuarian system. Migratory populations such as juvenile salmon, dependent upon an abundant supply pf food available when they arrive in the estuary, can be seriously impaired i f productivity is delayed or reduced (Harger, 1971). Since patterns of salinity affect the rate of siltation in different parts of an estuary, changes in fresh water inflow can alter the bottom sediment patterns and upset conditions for benthic organisms. 35 Shape and Size of Estuaries: The shape and size of estuaries determines, to a great extent, modifications in patterns of water movement, fresh and salt water mixing, erosion, sedimentation, and the kinds and distribution of estuarine biota. The i n i t i a l forms of estuaries are modified by the processes of erosion, transport, and sedimentation. There is a constant input of sediment into an estuary from land runoff. Currents and wave action within the estuary erode material away from shores. Ocean currents erode peninsulas or headlands bordering estuaries and.deposit much of the. eroded material at the seaward end of the estuary (Pritchard, 1967). River sedi-ment tends to f i l l the estuary and build deltas into the sea. Green (1968) notes, however, that where the tidal range is great and ocean currents strong, the formation of deltas may. be prevented. Deposition of sediment material in an estuary w i l l occur at differ-ent rates in different places depending upon the patterns of salinity and growth of vegetation. The salts in sea water cause fine particles of suspended material to group, or flocculate, and settle more quickly. Along estuarine shores, deposition of material w i l l be encouraged by salt tolerant plants that.occupy and stabilize shore areas. Over long periods of success-ful plant occupancy and the deposition of material in shore areas, marsh lands w i l l form and gradually build, into the estuary (Reid, 1961). High tides and continous wave action w i l l erode the marsh and carry organic nutrients into, the estuary. In highly turbid estuaries marshes become a major source of organic material. Turbidity reduces light penetration in estuarine water and restricts photosynthesis by submerged or floating plant organisms. 36 Under natural conditions the processes of erosion and deposition w i l l reach a state of equilibrium. But, when embankments and sea walls are built, less wave and current energy is avilable to transport materials in suspension. The result is increased deposition of materials in the estuary, often creating conditions inimical to estuarine plant l i f e and benthic organisms. Gradations in the mixture of sand, s i l t , and clay material deposited in an estuary influences the distribution of benthic organisms. Odum (1971) notes that the infauna often respond sharply to grain size of the bottom. Filter feeding fauna predominate in and on sandy substrate, while deposit feeders are more common on si l t y or muddy substances. Alterations in.the pattern of deposition w i l l impose stressful demands on populations of these organisms to seek out areas with environmental conditions suitable for ther*:. existence. Thermal Properties: Reid (1961) has stated that, from a broad ecolo-gical point of view the thermal properties of water and the conditions associated with temperature are unequivocally the most important factors in nraintaining water as a l i f e support system. In estuaries, the temper- . ature regime is largely a function of depth together with the effects of stream inflow and tidal exchange. Stream water is typically cooler in winter and warmer in summer than the sea water and therefore creates temperature gradients that reverse seasonally along the length of an estuary. Deep estuaries w i l l maintain relatively constant bottom temperature with an intermediate range of temperature and salinity in a halocline layer of water between the surface low saline layer of water and the bottom salt 37 water layer. Shallow estuaries are susceptible to the warming and cooling effects of climatic conditions and to the thermal effects of pollution due to the thorough mixing processes'of water (Moore, 1958). Thus, they dis-play almost daily temperature variations. Kinne (1970) has listed three principal ways in which temperature affects living systems. First, temperature "determines the rate and mode of chemical reactions and hence-of biological processes;' second, i t affects the physical state of water as the basic life-support medium in estuaries, and third, i t modifies the basic properties of living matter." Consequently, the abundance, productivity and distribution of biota is influenced by gradations and variations in estuarine temperature. Kinne further notes that while variations in temperature are characteristic of estuaries the variability is constant. This provides a relatively permanent variability-in estuaries to which the biota are rather narrowly adapted. The major response mechanisms to pertubations in the constant variations of temperature are escape and acclimation (Kinne, 1970). The range of escape, however, is limited by organisms' mobility and tolerance to physical factors which vary throughout the estuary. Acclimation is a physiological process that takes place over time and is of only limited aid to organisms exposed . to abrupt changes in temperature. As McHugh (1967) has noted, sudden cold waves or influxes of heat in estuarine waters can immobilize or k i l l estua-rine. nekton at temperatures not normally lethal when.sufficient time is allowed for the nekton to acclimate. Thus, in terms of resource analysis, two important parameters of temperature to consider are the constancy of variation and the range of organisms' tolerance to different degrees of change in the pattern of'temperature variations. 38 Physiological responses of organisms and the dynamics of estuarine populations are not controlled by a single environmental factor such as temperature. Many factors operate in combination to support or modify the organisms' responses to changes in any one or a l l the physical factors in estuaries (Kinne, 1967). In resource analysis, therefore, an attempt should be made to account for the effects of a l l environmental factors on estuarine l i f e . Oxygen in Estuaries: Temperature and salinity variations play an important part in controlling the content of dissolved oxygen in estuarine water. The solubility of oxygen in water decreases as both temperature and salinity increase.. Concomitantly, i t takes less heat to raise the "temperature of a given volume of. salt water than i t does to raise the temperature of the same amount of.fresh water. Thus, one can visualize the gradations and fluctuations in dissolved oxygen content that occur in estuaries receiving fresh cool water from river discharges at one end and warm marine water from the ocean at the other end. ' Daily rates of photosynthesis and the rise and f a l l of the tide pro-duce diurnal patterns of dissolved oxygen content in estuaries. Areated ocean water,.containing near the maximum of dissolved oxygen, is carried into estuaries and mixed with fresh water by tidal action. The influence: of the mixing of fresh and marine water on the total content of dissolved oxygen in an estuary at any point in.time i s most meaningful when considered in relationship to the flushing time of individual estuaries. The flushing time is the time i t takes for an accumulated volume of fresh water, at a given instant, to.be removed from the estuary by river- flow and tidal action (Pritchard, 1967). In a large drowned valley estuary the flushing time may 39 be as long as a hundred tidal cycles, but only a couple of cycles in a small estuary (Green, 1968). In highly turbid estuaries, diurnal changes in oxygen produced by photosynthesis are not detectable. Suspended sediment from erosion or pollution can act as a "light trap" to restrict photosynthesis and the production of oxygen in the water (Harger,. 1971). When this occurs in estuaries, the content of dissolved oxygen w i l l depend largely on contri-butions from the inflow of fresh and marine water. Mixing of aereated marine water with fresh water w i l l depend upon many physical factors including river flow, tidal action, and the shape and size of the estuary. In areas receiving insufficient circulation of oxygen rich water substantial oxygen deficiencies may occur rendering the area uninhabitable to most fauna (McHugh, 1967). Structures in estuaries such as bulkheads, j etties and breakwaters that reduce the energy in current and wave action can be expected to restrict the circulation of aereated ocean water to various parts of.the estuary. On the other hand, these structures may promote increased rates of sedimentation thereby reducing turbidity and provide a greater area of clear surface water in which photosynthesis may take place. If, however, the rate of photosynthesis is not limited by turbidity and is encouraged by. an abundant supply of nutrients and favorable temperature conditions, large phytoplankton blooms may frequently occur. When these blooms die, oxygen used in decomposition depletes the supply of dissolved oxygen in the estuary to levels lethal to fish and other.marine fauna. 40 The Chemical Environment of Estuaries: The chemical composition,. quantitatively, of estuarine water results from the continuous mixing of seawater with land-sourced water. Odum (1971) states that the high pro-ductivity of estuaries is due to this continuous input of chemicals in nutrient rich waters. Accordingly, he describes the input process as an energy subsidizing one. Once in an estuary, inorganic substances may enter into any one of many complex estuarine phases of biogeochemical cycles. For example, chemicals may become physically.associated with s i l t s and microorganisms, react chemically with other elements and compounds or enter the biochemical process of estuarine biota (Cronin, .1970). 'Biogeochemical cycles, in estuaries, are dominated by physical pro-cesses (tide, river flow, temperature, basin shape). Man's effect on the environment results largely from his actions as an agent of physical change;-. Because of this, man's influence on estuarine processes, particularly the distribution and productivity of estuarine biota, is the consequence pf his. indirect impact on biogeochemical cycles. Additionally, since the estuary is the ultimate recipient of a l l changes along the contributory waterways, the effect of these changes on estuaries can be cumulative and multiplicative over time and space. As an example, increasing the organic waste load of a river can increase the biological oxygen demand(BOD) in estuarine waters. But, the effects of BOD are moderated by a process of flushing as the tide rises and f a l l s . Decreasing the inflow of river water, however, results in reduced flushing, increased residency time of organic matter and thereby accumulation of waste and increased BOD. Single actions such as.increasing organic waste loads or decreasing flushing action may be insignificant in themselves, but taken together, they can compound the ultimate consequences 41 with a. loss in overall estuarine u t i l i t y . Thus, in considering the effects of human activities on estuaries, resource managers must become fully aware and appreciative of biophysical process, especially the dynamic nature of these processes. Estuarine Biota: The effect of a l l these physical factors is to make estuaries nutrient rich, but highly stressful environments. Organisms that do inhabit or utilize the estuary must have special abilities to adapt to the variations that occur in the physical environment of estuaries. Kirine (1967) says that to exist under estuarine conditions organisms must be "euryplastic". They "must be able to endure extreme ranges and intensity fluctuations of environmental factors." Yet as Odum (1971) notes, even though this harsh environment results in low biota diversity, the estuarine environment is one of the most highly productive environments in the world. The only primary food producing organisms in estuaries, as on the rest . of the earth, are plants. Through photosynthesis plants use nutrients and carbon dioxide and water to manufacture organic material.. The major producers in most estuarine waters, in contrast to terrestrial environments, are small single celled plants, called phytoplankton. They are present in the estuaries in quantities of millions of organisms per l i t e r of water and their productivity continues through the entire year. Rooted, plants and plants attached to the bottom.by means of holdfast structures also play an important.role as producers in many estuaries. Gener-ally these plants are located in shallow water areas along the margins of estuaries. The submerged plants trap suspended sediments and nutrients, pro-vide protection to small nekton from predators, and release organic matter that becomes part of the detritus food chain. Rooted plants along the shores of estuaries and in estuarine marshes provide large quantities of organic material to the detritus food chain. The rooted plants in marsh areas trap sediments flowing through estuaries and thereby become nutrient reservoirs for the estuary. The marsh areas provide a rich habitat for many fish, shellfish, reptiles, birds and mammals CCronin, 1970). Zooplankton, in estuaries,include copepods, the larvae of almost a l l of the animals which live in estuaries plus those that utilize estuaries as nursery grounds, jellyfish, and other drifting species (Cronin, 1970). •• These organisms are secondary consumers that feed on phytoplankton or browse on large plants. Their abundance is greater in estuaries than in adjacent marine, waters, but displays highly variable seasonal cycles (Riley, 1967). The distributions of zooplankton have been noted to vary primarily with temperature and salinity gradients. Riley (1967) notes studies of the Delaware River Estuary where persistent changes in species composition along the length of the estuary were easily related to salinity gradations. In these studies the most abundant populations were found in the middle reach of the estuary between the 5 and 18 ppt. salinity • .•. levels. Salinity appears to be one of the major factors influencing the distribution and composition of benthic organisms in estuaries (Carriker, 1967). Minimum diversity is noted in the zones of steepest gradation between fresh and marine water.. Laterally, the benthos are distributed the entire . width of the estuary v/ith individual species found on different mixtures 43 of sand, s i l t , and clay sediments. For example, the oyster is found near the center of the estuary on firm sediment (Cronin, 1970). The distribu-tion of detritus feeders and f i l t e r feeders relative to bottom composition mentioned earlier is another example. Low salinity parts of many estuaries are regions of high value to fish. These regions receive fish eggs, larvae, and young from freshwater spawners-, semi-anadromous and anadromous fish, estuarine spawners and some ocean spawners (Cronin, 1970). The Croaker, for instance, spawns at the entrance of the estuary where young are transported upbay by the movement of deeper marine water to reach plankton rich, low saline water. Productivity of Estuaries: The balance that is achieved.between the biotic and abiotic components in estuaries results in a highly productive ecosystem. In summary, Odum (1971) gives three basic reasons for this high productivity. First, estuaries act as nutrient traps in which nutrients are constantly maintained in a rapid cycling process. Benthic organisms prevent nutrients from being lost to marine sediments and assist the entry of nutrients into estuarine nutrient cycles. Deep rooted plants, burrow-ing animals, and microbial action help to recover nutrients from deep estuarine sediments. Secondly, the producers in estuaries are varied to such, an extent that photosynthesis takes place continuously throughout the year. And, thirdly, the ebb and flow of the tide removes wastes and trans-ports nutrients so that organisms may utilize less energy in searching for food. The mixing action in estuaries brings food to- them. In essence, many important estuarine organisms live a relatively sessile or immobile exis-tence. 44 IMPLICATIONS FOR RESOURCE ANALYSIS Ecological principles pertaining to population dynamics, community energetics and coinmunity organization can be incorporated into three basic procedural considerations in the analysis of coastal resources. These three procedural considerations have been summarized by Foster (.1971) in the following way: 1. The relationship between components of the ecosystem must be determined in order to utilize the resources in such a manner as w i l l not disrupt those relationships. . 2. No change in a natural system is an isolated change, but rather has repercussions on a l l other constituents in the system. Therefore, i t is imperative to recognize the factors which influence any.specific system, and to maintain those factors above some minimum level beyond which the system stability i s adversely affected. 3. The natural state of any renewable resource complex at any point in time represents the optimal combination of biotic and abiotic constituents, providing the optimal allocation of energy within the system and minimizing, the • system instability. These three considerations are important to resource analysis since the natural characteristics of coastal resources are what make the living resources valuable to man. In other words, the primary u t i l i t y man finds in the living resources of the coastal zone is the product of the function-ing of the coastal ecosystems as they exist in a "natural" state. Since man modifies coastal ecosystems in attempts to crop or exploit both the natural biological and physical geological attributes of the coastal zone, the basic goal of resource management should be to retain the character-istics of the coastal resource system as near their natural state as possible. The authors of the 'National Estuarine Pollution Study (U.S.A. 45 Department of Interior, 1970) recognized this in the statement: The primary objective of technical management is to achieve the best possible.combination of uses to serve the needs of society while pro-tecting, preserving and enhancing the biophysical environment for the continuing benefit of present and future generations. The goal to retain the natural characteristics of coastal ecosystems as near their natural state as possible suggests that certain constraints w i l l have to be imposed on the way in which man may use coastal resources. Moreover., given.present technological capabilities, this goal may imply that the short run or present u t i l i t y of coastal resources may be reduced for potential users or limited to a select few users. Nevertheless, in order to maintain the continuous biological and economic productivity of coastal resources the limitations of the coastal ecosystem must be identic fied and incorporated into making decisions regarding the allocation of uses to coastal areas. Habitat Zonation The marine, estuarine and terrestrial habitats of the coastal zone and zonations within them, provide the spatial orientation necessary for conducting the above procedural considerations. The habitat approach faci-litates the application of ecological concepts in resource planning which must deal with finite units of space. Moreover, the use of habitats and habitat zonations in the classification and analysis, of coastal resources allows one to generalize the findings of the procedural considerations to other similar habitat areas. This is of practical significance to recon-naisance level resource studies and conceptual planning because i t allows 46 one to plan the development of large geographical units that ultimately affect the range of planning alternatives for specific sites. The processes within the coastal habitats from which limitations or constraints to man's activities in coastal areas may be derived are as follows: 1. The transport of nutrients and wastes by water driven by the forces of tide and gravity. 2. The transport of geological material by water driven by the forces of tide and gravity. 3. The processes of erosion, and deposition of geological material along beaches and in estuarine waters. 4. The mixing of nutrients, fresh and saline water and water of different temperatures in marine and estuarine areas. 5. The trapping of nutrients in estuarine marsh areas. 6. The productivity of organic matter in marsh areas and i t s introduction into estuarine waters. 7. The processes of nutrient "outselling" frcm productive estuarine areas to coastal marine waters. . 8. The processes of upwelling of nutrients from.the deep parts of the ocean to coastal and inland areas by water currents, fish, and birds. CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL ZONE RESOURCE ANALYSIS Analysis of resources to assess and display their capability to sup-port land and water uses usually involves three operations: 1) resource inventory and classification; 2) resource evaluation; and, 3) land clas-sification. Resource inventory and classification is the process of identi-fying resources and aereally subdividing the land into units possessing similar biogeophysical.attributes that.can be systematically evaluated for potential uses. Resource evaluation is the process of evaluating the resource classes to ascertain the capability of.the resources to support selected uses. Land classification is the process of aggregating and mapping- classes of resources with similar use capabilities into land classes which can be used in managing resources under various institutional arrange-ments . The distinction is made between resource inventory and classification and resource evaluation to facilitate an understanding of the processes involved in resource analysis, to provide f l e x i b i l i t y in incorporating improved forms of information into the analysis, and to maintain the resource classification as an information framework relatively immune to changes in the evaluation process. Christian (1957) notes that present knowledge of land use problems and what constitutes the best form of land use changes as more information is gained and as the economy changes. For this reason, he states that i t is desirable that.the resource classification 48 of a region be based on fundamental qualities of land and be independent ' of present knowledge of land uses. Resource inventory and classification, therefore, should be regarded as a separate operation within a framework of resource analysis. 'Hills (1961) makes the same observation in noting that since man's use of the land and its resources, changes continuously with changes in the condition of the economy, renewable resources must be classified according to the fundamental factors which affect biological productivity. Finally, i t is important to make the conceptual distinction between the three phases in resource analysis to provide a framework for operational!zing institutional and interdisciplinary arrangements that are necessary for carrying out a comprehensive program of resource analysis. Several techniques of resource analysis demonstrating significant variations in the three operational phases outlined above have influenced the author's approach to an analysis of coastal resources. Most applicable to this study are those techniques developed by McHarg (1969), Hills (1961 and 1970) and the Canada Land Inventory (Canada Department of Regional Economic Expansion, 1969). McHarg (1969) recognizes that "ecological determinism" is the basis for evaluating natural resources. In his approach, McHarg utilizes a personal understanding of nature as a process, in order to deternaine the best use for different resources. Similarly, Hills' (1961) approach to resource analysis has the underlying premise that land-use planning which optimizes the use of resources is based on an analysis of the biological productivity of the resources. Hills points out that in the context of man's changing economic and social condition, the biological productivity of resources is the most fundamental base for the management 49 of renewable resources. His work greatly influenced the format for the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) which i s a national program of resource analysis with the objective to.inventory and evaluate Canada's supply of land re-sources. The technique of resource analysis used i n the CLI i s based primarily on the identification of resource characteristics which li m i t the usefulness of resources for different economic a c t i v i t i e s . Thus, i t indicates broad levels of resource capability with subclasses indicating the type of limitation.. Resource.Inventory and.Classification H i l l s (1970) defines resource c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as a process of "fixing-to-begin" i n which the objective i s to systematically subdivide land and water resources of a given region into units suitable for describing and evaluating their potential productivity and for planning the development and management of the resources. Productivity i s defined by H i l l s as 1) physiographic production i n which earth products such as sand, gravel and water are mined; 2) biological production in.which biological products are cropped; 3) a r t i f a c t production i n which man-made things are produced through art, manufacturing and 'construction; and, 4) societal production, which results from changes in the social, i n t e l l e c t u a l , p o l i t i c a l and religious l i f e of a community. Since the relationships between each type of production and the biogeophysical attributes of the earth are complex and vary with changes in the mode of production, the approach and c r i t e r i a for subdividing or classifying resources must be ex p l i c i t , otherwise a resource c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 50 can be of l i t t l e value to the evaluation. Three approaches. to defining and classifying resource characteristics . on the basis of prescribed sets of principles are discussed below. The Genetic Approach: In the genetic approach, land is subdivided into natural regions on the basis of causal environmental factors, par-ticularly climate and geomorphology (Mabbutt, 1968). The approach is based on the concept that each part of the land surface is. the end product of an evolution governed by parent geological material, geomorphological processes, past and present climates, and time (Christian, 1957). Thus, users of the approach attempt to group resources according to the dominant environmental factors determining the association and distribution of •resources. Most attempts to establish coastal resource classes on the basis of genetic factors have not met with great.success (Bird, 1964). Advancements in theory regarding the genesis of. coastal landforms brought about by continuous research into the subject have tended to nullify the usefulness of most genetic classifications developed to date. Mabbutt (1968) notes that, in general, genetically determined resource classes or regions are. very large, have vaguely defined boundaries and limit resource analysis to making only broad and general statements about the environmental context within which resource attributes are found. In short, the breakdown of genetically determined regions can only be accomplished to a level of the genetic bond, which does not provide sufficiently small and discrete resource classes for.most evaluation purposes. . 51 On the other hand, the genetic approach cannot be discounted entirely. It is important to understand the way in which biogeophysical factors interact to produce resource characteristics important to man. In this context then, an understanding of the genesis of particular resource a t t r i -butes is valuable in evaluating resources for a variety of purposes. Thus, the premise that each part of the land surface is the end product of an evolution governed by parent geological material, geomorphological proces-ses , past and present climates and time is of practical significance to an approach to classification which relies heavily on interpreting the characteristics of resources from recognizable landscape components. The Landscape Approach: In the landscape approach, a geographical area is subdivided into a hierarchy of land units on the basis of the occur-rence of landscape components or component patterns recognized from empiri-cal investigations. Use of the approach.is based on the premise that the landscape reflects the underlying biological and physiological controls governing the association and distribution of resource attributes.•within' a region (.Christian, 1957). Through interpretation techniques, the land-scape components and patterns can be analyzed to identify resource, a t t r i -butes which can be generalized to other similar landscape components. The landscape approach is different from the genetic approach in that the concern is not with subdividing areas on the basis of genetic process which produce particular resource characteristics but with recognizing and differentiating between areas having different sets of associated resource attributes (Mabbutt, 1968). It i s , however, useful to understand the genesis of different landscape patterns in order; to interpret landscape 52 patterns to make predictions about their resource attributes. The Parametric Approach: As user requirements for resources are recognized as being more specific and c r i t i c a l in evaluating resources for different uses, the landscape approach often becomes too general and inaccurate to be useful (Mabbutt, 1968). Then i t is necessary to supple-ment the landscape approach with an approach based strictly on the direct measurement of resource, attributes relevant to the specific purpose of the evaluation. Mabbutt (1968) defines the parametric approach as the "divi-sion and classification of land on the basis of selected attribute values." Since these selected resource attributes are, in general, more closely defined for a specific purpose, the parametric approach represents a major shift away from the criteria outlined by Christian that the resource inventory and classification should be independent from the. present know-ledge of land uses. The major problems in utilizing the parametric approach are:in choosing resource attributes to be measured and in establishing the degree of internal differentiation to be made of attribute values. The attributes chosen for measurement in this approach, are relevant to the purpose of the evaluation. This could limit the usefulness of the inventory for other purposes and in the future. Since resource requirements for a particular type of use vary with time and between different, geographical situations i t is risky to assume the relevancy, in one location, of, attributes chosen by inference from other locations or to assume their relevancy at a. future point in time.. Moreover, since resource characteristics change because of the effects of biogeophysical processes and the influence of ran, i t is 53 unlikely that-any 'attribute value w i l l remain constant over the length of a 20-30 year planning period. The parametric approach to resource classification may be inappropriate for planning at levels more generalized than site planning. As Mabbutt (1968) notes, under the parametric approach the integrated, concept of land gives place to the expression of attributes in specific and limited terms selected for their significance for a proposed land use. This suggests a detail, of investigation and specificity not normally practicable in conceptual or reconnaisance levels of resource analysis. Since the parametric approach does give more reliable and precise data about resources i t can be expected to replace the genetic and landscape approaches in many "fine grained" planning situations. However, the para-metric approach is not suitable for general survey level resource classi-fication. Until ecological models become more readily available for plan-ning, use of the parametric approach in planning w i l l .have to be supplemented with a classification system that w i l l provide the ecological context for making resource evaluations. . Resource Evaluation . Resource evaluations generally aim to identify the best land areas for different land or resource uses-. The methods of evaluation are described by Steinitz (1970) as having increasing levels of complexity, specificity and usefulness in resource planning. His five methodological categories, in order of increasing complexity, are. listed below: ' (A) • Descriptive (B) Static, Single-factor analysis 54 (C) Static, Multi-factor analysis (D) Dynamic, Single-sector models CE) Dynamic, Multiple-sector models The descriptive methods are basically inventories of resources, des-cribed nominally with the.intent that there w i l l eventually be an evaluation of the resources for different uses. In the static single-factor analysis, land.areas are.evaluated for prospective uses on the basis of a single resource or resource characteristic. Static multi-factor analysis methods are more useful in that they consider a larger number of resources as variables in the analysis. The drawback of the static methods is that they do not consider changes in resources that occur naturally over time or because of the influence of man. However, the static methods do pro-vide a quick overview of resource capabilities and help to pinpoint areas requiring more detailed and intensive analysis. Dynamic types of. evaluation have basically the same objective as the static methods, namely to identify the best areas for different land or resource uses. But, in these methods a question suited, to computer.simula-tion is asked, such, as, "What happens i f a certain use of a resource is permitted to occur?" Within the context of this question, the dynamic methods attempt to predict the consequences of a use on the resource. Then, the alternative uses or courses of action can be measured and compared in a general planning model (Lowry, Ira, 1965). Steinitz (1970.) stresses that in evaluating resources i t is important that the distinction between "should" and "could" be made in interpreting the results for normative purposes. Hi l l s ' (1970) three types of evaluations,: capability, s u i t a b i l i t y and feasibility,- are useful for accomplishing this.. 55 Capability measures are used to indicate "the potential of an area to produce goods and services of various kinds under specified types and in-tensities of economic and technological controls" (Hills, 1970). Two c r i -teria used to establish capability measures are the level of production of a specific crop and secondly, the kinds and degrees of limitations which prevent a specific area from reaching the. maximum productivity established for the larger region. Use suitability ratings indicate "the relative ability of a specific area in its present condition to produce specific goods and services" (Hills, 1970). Thus, i t is a measure of the technological effort required to bring a specified site to a desired level of production. The third type of evaluation, use feasibility, is conducted to measure or indicate "the relative advantage of using a specific area of land for a specific type and intensity of use" (Hills, 1970). Land Classification Using ratings similar to Hi l l s ' resource capability, suitability, and feasibility measures, land should be classified according to the use or combination of uses that are best suited for the area under study. Hills (1970) accomplishes this in two phases of his. evaluation process—the recommended-use phase and the use-programming phase. Recommended uses are designated for land areas.on the basis of resource capability, suitability and feasibility ratings. Use-programming involves the timing, or phasing, of. resources'.'into different uses according to changes in social and economic factors^ which determine the'.demand for a resource use. 56 In the resource evaluation method developed by McHarg (1969), land classification for recommended uses is achieved through the synthesis of two evaluation processes. First the intrinsic values of resources for different uses are established on a scale of most suitable to least, suitable. These values are mapped on transparent material for each prospective use and then superimposed in order to show the area of occurr-ence of different resource values. Since the resources are valued for human use, this composite of maps shows areas of greatest and least social values. From an analysis of the compatibility of uses,, compatible and coexistent land uses for each area in the total study area are' mapped in compatible associations. Through a synthesis of the two maps, (the composite map and the map of compatible association land uses), a suita-b i l i t y map showing the maximum conjunction of coexisting compatible land uses that can be sustained by every area in the total study area is produced CBelknap and Furtado, 1967). . The programming of land uses is achieved in.McHarg's method in the matching of the land-use suitability maps (a measure of resource supply) with an economic evaluation of the nature, locational and spatial require-ments of.demand (Belknap and Furtado, 1967). A CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION SCHEME FOR COASTAL RESOURCES . Resource Inventory and Classification The resource classification used in this study combines the genetic, landscape and parametric approaches. On the basis of landscape patterns and selected user specific resource characteristics, a coastal area is 57 divided into a hierarchy of resource areas. An understanding of the genesis of the landscape features and specific resource characteristics enables interpretation of., landscape patterns in order to make predictions about their attributes and interrelations. A resource inventory and classification scheme can be of l i t t l e value to an evaluation of resources, for different uses i f the criteria for classification are vague and do not specify the bases for selecting and, classifying resources. Thus, an attempt has been made in the inventory and classification scheme to meet too criteria: 1. The classification must express those biogeophysical attributes relevant to the uses for which the evaluation is to be made. 2. The classification divisions must represent or express biological and geophysical inter-relationships that exist between geographically distinct areas because of: (a) the migratory nature of the biota of the sea, (b) the capacity of water to transport biotic and abiotic components, (c) the interpenetration of land by water pro-viding access between the sea and land to man and other organisms, and Cd) biogeochemical cycles. Coastal Belts One of the main purposes of this study is to provide a way to consider the biotic productivity of resources in planning. Because of this, coastal belts, based on the designation of coastal habitats, are established, as the f i r s t step in classifying coastal areas. Incorporating the concept of. habitats into the classification allows considerations to be made of the relationships between geophysical factors and the living biotic constituents 58 of coastal areas. Since a habitat is defined in terms of the bio-geophysical factors V7hich affect organisms, the concept aids in evaluating areas for their suitability for different types of biological productivity and in making limited predictions about the potential effects coastal changes w i l l have on biotic communities. The designation of three coastal belts is based on the delimitation of terrestrial, estuarine.and marine habitats. The coastal marine belt includes only the subtidal portion of the neritic zone as defined in. Chapter two. The estuary-shore belt includes the estuarine habitat and the inter-tidal and backshore portion df the neritic zone. The estuary-shore belt is composed of.terrestrial, estuarine and marine habitats because of the close biological and physiological relationship between the habitats in this area and also to provide a geographical].-/ unified area along the coast for the purposes of evaluation. The third belt is the terrestrial belt. Unfortunately, the inland boundary of.the terrestrial belt is the most arbi-trary boundary to establish within the coastal belts. There are no bio-geophysical parameters that are easily recognized and useful as criteria for precisely defining the terrestrial belt for a l l situations... To establish overriding criteria for defining the terrestrial belt, the definition given by Schaefer (1969) is most useful. Namely, the coastal terrestrial area should include those terrestrial activities that are oriented to the marine. environment and l i f e processes influenced by the sea. Schaefer stated that an area extending about 2 or 3 miles inland from the sea would satisfy this definition in most areas. Since this definition is based on terrestrial and marine activities, i t is helpful to consider coastal activities of man in the way that they affect 59 the-marine environment or are affected by marine processes. Schaefer pro-vides the following classification: . I. Direct uses of living resources a. Extractive use for food, and other marine products (i.e. commercial fisheries and aquaculture). b. Extractive use for recreation (sport fishing and hunting). c. Non-extractive uses; observation for recreation, observation for science and education. I I . Other uses of the coastal zone that importantly depend on the biota. a. Waste disposal-biodegradable wastes. b. Biological extraction of inorganic materials. III. Human activities that incidentally affect, or are affected by, the biota.. a. Uses of marginal lands : 1 . Solid waste, disposal and sanitary f i l l . 2 . Building sites 3. Airports . . 4 . Harbor construction 5. Modification of shoreline for recreation 6. Beach erosion and maintenance. b. Waste disposal-nonbiodegradable wastes. . . c. Ocean.shipping d. Other forms of transportation (pipelines, etc.) e. Power generation f. Ocean mining 1 . Hard minerals and construction materials 2 . Petroleum and natural gas . g. Shoreside recreation (picnicking, swimming, surfing, etc.) h. Communications i . Military.defense The Coastal Categories In addition to the coastal belts designated on the basis of major coastal habitats, i t is useful to divide the coast into a hierarchy of biogeophysical units on the basis of an exarnination of climate, geology, . landform, hydrology, soils, vegetation and wildlife. A classification based on a consideration of these factors aids in explaining the differences that 60 exist between and within coastal areas. In addition, the biogeophysical classification defines geographical units of associated resources which can be the focal point for management policies. To define biogeophysical classes of the coastal zone, a combination of genetic, landscape and parametric approaches are used. Each coastal class is defined primarily on the basis of climate, landscape patterns, discrete landscape features, and biogeophysical characteristics signifi-cant to the purpose of the evaluation. Broader resource aspects, such as landscape patterns are used to define the larger classes, while resource characteristics specific to the uses being evaluated are used to define the finest level of coastal class. The definition of each coastal class is given below with suggested criteria for establishing arid characterizing the class in a geographical area. The Coastal.Region: Coastal regions are defined as the occurrence of major coastal landforms in association with bioclimatic communities along the coast. McGill's .(1958) map of coastal landforms of the world, based in part on both genetic and descriptive factors., is an excellent guide to identifying different landforms in an area. McGill's map is used primarily at the coastal region level because he has modified i t to include nearly a l l landform features that can be observed empirically, such as delta coasts, fiord coasts, plain coasts and mountainous coasts. Krajina's (1965) delimitation of bioclimatic zones is used to identify climatic climax communities associated with regional landforms in the Pacific Northwest. The fiord-skerry coast of British Columbia and the . southern panhandle of Alaska, are f o r example associated primarily'with 61 Krajina's coastal western hemlock, bioclimatic zone. Other factors such as distinct differences in the width of the continental shelf, major world ocean currents, world climatic patterns, and tidal action can also be used to describe and differentiate coastal regions. The Coastal Subregion: The coastal subregion is at a level of generality comparable to Lacate's (1969) land district which he defines as an area of land characterized by a distinctive pattern of relief, geology, geomorphology and associated vegetation. The coastal subregion is a subdivision of the coastal region based on the separation of major physiographic and geologic patterns which characterize the region as a whole. For example, groups of common land-water forms are the basis for identifying the coastal subregions within a coastal region. However, because some distinct features extend over great distances by themselves, such as a smooth shoreline, not a l l coastal subregions need actually be groups of landform features. Given below is an outline of landforms that occur in groups or singly which can be used to characterize.coastal subregions within the.coastal region. Definitions and examples of these coastal features follow below. 1. Smooth C l i f f shoreline 2. Smooth shoreline without c l i f f s 3. Indented shoreline (inlets and embayments) a. Fiords b. Rias c. Embayments d. Lagoon coast . e. Fiord skerry coast The smooth and indented shorelines are shown in Figure 3. The genesis of cliffed coasts varies throughout the.world (McGill, 1959). In the 1. Smooth Shoreline Without Inlets 3. Smooth Shoreline with Small Embayments 4. Indented Shoreline Without Islands MORPHOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF COASTLINES Source: U.S.A. Department of Interior 1970. Figure 3, 63 Pacific Northwest we are familiar with the predominantly cliffed shores of Puget Sound and the c l i f f s of the British Columbia Fiord Skerry coast resulting from the drowning of glacier gouged valleys by the sea. A distinction between c l i f f s can be made on the basis of whether or not an intertidal platform exists at the base of the c l i f f . Cliffed coasts consisting of nonresistant geological material may be eroded largely by marine forces, although land run-off also contributes to the erosion process. As the land mass is abraded, a wedge of material is removed leaving a gently sloping intertidal platform of various shapes at the bottom of the steep c l i f f . The eroded material may accumulate on the platform as a beach or be washed along shore or out to sea. Cliffs composed of more resistant geological material resist erosion and.therefore do not form intertidal platforms. These c l i f f s are characterized as plungi c l i f f s CBird, 1968). Rias are branched inlets of partially submerged river valleys occur-ring in coastal lowlands. On the other.hand, fiords are inlets at the mouths.of glaciated valleys on steep' coasts. The valleys scoured out by ice action have been subsequently submerged by the sea as the ice melted. At the mouth of fiords there is usually a bottom formation called a s i l l which is a rocky feature or glacial moraine that extends across the mouth of the fiord as a shallow threshold. A fiord skerry coast is a fiord coast characterized by a series of offshore islands which affect ocean currents, and climatic conditions within the fiord. British Columbia's coast is an excellent example of this type of coast. Most fiords are fed by rivers which sometimes have large enough discharges to create estuarine conditions throughout.the fiord. . : 64 Kinne (1970) defines an embayment as a l l bcdies of water separated:, from the.open ocean by some physiographic feature but not possessing estuarine conditions. Two. criteria which help to define embayments are 1) i t receives a limited local land drainage; and, 2) the hydrographic characteristics and biota are dominated by oceanic regimes. The basis for distinguishing fiords from embayments is that a fiord is the product of glacial action and posseses a " s i l l " at it s entrance to the sea. Lagoons are embayed areas or inlets of the coast partially or completely enclosed by depositional .barriers. The basic characteristic of a lagoon is the existence of a fresh water zone at the point of river discharge or land drainage, a marine tidal zone near the entrance to the sea and a transition zone of moderately saline water between the fresh and salt water zones (Bird, 1968). The entrance to lagoons is maintained by river flow or tidal action. The size of the entrance is usually in a constant state of flux as tidal action and river flow increase and subside either encouraging deposition.of material at the entrance, or eroding material away from the entrance. The Coastal Component: The coastal component, is composed of the discrete land features and water properties within the coastal subregion. For example, an indented fiord type of coast could be subdivided geographi-cally oh the basis of each fiord or perhaps on the existence of distinctively different regions of water mixing and water properties. Thus, coastal components can be characterized on the basis of the occurrence of major morphologic features in association with distinct marine water properties and climate conditions identified empirically. The morphological features 65 which characterize a coastal component and differentiate areas within coastal subregions are given below: 1. Smooth c l i f f shoreline a. Cliffs with an inter-tidal' platform b. Cliffs with shore platform at about high tide c. Cliffs with a snore platform at low tide d. Plunging c l i f f s with no shore platform 2. Smooth shoreline a. Characterized by adjacent land features 1) Dune ridges and old stabilized backdunes 2) Coastal marsh 3) Beach composition 3., Indented.shoreline a. Fiords with intermittant coastal drainage b. Fiords v/ith continuous river in-flow c. Embayments without coastal drainage . d. Embayments with intermittant local coastal drainage e. Rias f. Lagoons with intermittant coastal drainage g. Lagoons with continuous river in-flow Coastal Sub-components: Each coastal component is composed, of physiographic sub-components that are recognizable.and measurable features of the coastal component. The sub-components which characterize the coastal component explain differences between and within coastal units that.affect the biological and artifact productivity of the coastal unit.' Some of the more common characterizing features of sub-components are listed below. Measurable or descriptive attributes are also indicated , which can be used to define the finest coastal categories—coastal phases. 1. Cliffs a. Mineral composition b. Degree of consolidation c. Slope d. Height 66 Beaches a. Profile of backshore area and foreshore area b. Material particle size within backshore and foreshore areas 1) Cobbles 2) Pebbles . 3) Granules 4) Very coarse sand 5) Coarse sand 6) Medium sand 7) Fine sand 8) Very fine sand. . • 9) S i l t 10) Clay (Bird, 1968 - Wentworth Scale) Spits: "Depositional features, built along the shore, usually ending in one or more landward hooks or recurves" (Bird, 1968). a. Shape 1) Recurved 2) Tombolos: spits linking an island to the mainland 3) Cuspate spits: occur at points of convergence of longshore drift thus building sediment from two directions and creating a triangular shaped spit pointed seaward b. Retrograding c. Prograding Barriers: Strips of narrow offshore land composed entirely of. beach sediment and having no dunes or associated marshes a. Beach material composition b. Retrograding c. Prograding. Salt marshes '• a. Channelized 1) Having one main channel 2) Having distributory channels b. Retrograding c. Prograding d. In.equilibrium Marine and estuarian water bodies a. Depth at high and low tides b. Bottom sediment composition 1) Gravel . 2) Sand 3) Mud • c. Mixing of salt and fresh water 1) Stratified. 2) Entrainment . 3) Partially mixed .4) Homogeneous d. •Salinity- Venice System (Reid, 1961) 1)- Hyper-saline—salinity greater than 40ppt .2). Euhaline—40ppt £ 30ppt ' 3) Mixohaline—30ppt to 20ppt 4) Mixopolyhaline—30ppt to' 18ppt 5) Mixo-oligohaline—:5ppt 'to . 5ppt 6) Limietic—.5ppt 3.' Other marine and estuarine water properties' that' display spatially differentiated values. The Coastal Phase: The definition of the coastal phase follows Hill s ' (1961) definition of the physiographic site phase. The coastal phase is determined on the basis of one or more physiographic factors relevant to the purpose of the evaluation. Thus, the coastal phase is established from a parametric approach to classification rather than from a landscape or genetic approach. The coastal phase represents a data category given a geographic reference. Because of i t s specificity, i t is given an ecological frame of reference by i t s position in the classi-fication scheme. Resource Evaluation Since the objective of this study is to evaluate the coastal zone of Whatcom County, Washington, as a resource complex for four specific uses— Residential'uses (recreation cottages and permanent homes), Waterfront Industrial Uses, Oyster Raft Culture and Public Outdoor Recreation Uses— the analysis.includes both the descriptive and static multi-factor methods of evaluation. The evaluation establishes capability.ratings for the different uses on the basis of biogeophysical factors which attract or limit the use of a resource. Attractive factors are those characteristics of climate, geology, landform, hydrology, soils, vegetation and wildlife 68 which are identified as important or beneficial for each of the uses. Limiting characteristics in each of the resource categories are those characteristics which are detrimental to the proposed uses or which cannot absorb the impact of the users' activities. An assessment is made of the potential impact the proposed uses may have on the resource system and thereby on other resource users. An environmental impact matrix (Table 2) is used to display the potential for adverse impacts to occur. The matrix was also constructed to aid in the analysis of conflicts associated with alternative patterns of resource use. . The matrix does not provide direct evidence of environmental impact within the study area or actually predict the occurrence of environmental impacts. It .only indicates the relative potential of adverse environmental impacts to occur and result in use conflicts by reference to situations of a similar char-acter and through an understanding of the coastal ecosystem as outlined in Chapter two. For additional information concerning these other situa-tions see Sorenson (1971), United States Department of Interior (1970), Harrison (1971), and Olson (1971). Table 3 indicates the relative value, ranging from excellent to poor, of the resource characteristics identified as important in evaluation of land and water for the selected uses. Using this table, i t is possible to assign a relative weight to each user resource requirement indicating the degree biogeophysical limitations affect specified uses. The result is an array of user specific resource values in each coastal component. To establish use-capability ratings for the coastal components the array of resource values for each use is consolidated into a value from one to six. The value of 1 indicates high resource use-capability and the value of 6 69 USES 0YSr CULr IH LTJ] RE RES: T: CD] CA] zN- W I] T^ER D^USr FRONT FRIES R 317 EC] FDOO] REAT ION NX\N^RESOURCE \SREQUIRE^]TS USES AND \ ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES \ Salinity Water Quality Water Temperature Water Mixing Protection from Waves Consistencv of Bottom Absence of predators Amount of Intertidal Area Depth for Rafts Access Beach Composition Vegetation Freshwater1  Quality > 53 • H > 6 Seawater.Quality Beach Access Protection from Waves 1 0 •H id o o u - p V/ater Depth 1 Water Access 1 Space Freshwater Quality Freshwater Quality Veeetation > •H r H (ti 8 H <D - H £ r H fti 0 0 1 Beach Composition Beach Access c_ £ OYSTER CULTURE i 1 Structures X X X x!>: Diking X X X X X X x| X Bottom Preparation X X X Waste Disposal X X X X RESIDENTIAL Structures X X X X X X X x Transportation Facilities X X X X X X X Clearing X X X X X X Irrigation X X X X X X • Groundwater Withdrawal X X X Drainage Improvements X X X X X X X Land Leveling X X X X i Bulkheading . X X X X X X X x i Diking X X X X X X Sewage Disposal X X I X X X WATERFRONT INDUSTRIES Structures X X X X X X X A \ 7 A Transportation Facilities X X X X X • X X X X y Clearing X X X X X X X X X X X X Water impoundments X X X X X X X 1 Groundwater withdrawal' X X X X X X Drainage X X X X X X X Leveling X X X X X X X X Bulkheading X X X!X X X X \? S\ X DiJcing X X X XiX X X X X X X Dredging X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XI Waste Disposal j X X X X X X X X X X X X j OUTDOOR RECREATION \ i Structures j ! X X X X X X X Camp Ground Facilities ! i X X X X X Clearing I 1X X X X X X X Waste Disposal ! x| X — X X X X X Transportation Facilities jX| X X X X X X X X X Water Withdrawals *! X X X X Table 2: Environmental Impact Matrix Key: "X" indicates that a possibility exists for uses and associated activities to have an adverse impact on the resource requirements of other uses. 70 IMPORTANT RESOURCE \ CHARACTERISTICS COASTAL \ RESOURCE \ USER \ REQUIREMENTS \^ CO j i—i o CO u w §1 m s • SLOPE SURFACE WATER CIRCULA-TION WATER QUALITY WIND WAVES EXPOSURE r soft I Gravelly [ 1 Slow Permeability 1 I • Poorlv Drained 1 Cobbles Shingle Sand D C D 1 cr. 7-12° o L + o L O rH + o O O O O CNJ 1 C D r H L O r H 1 co L O 1 o No Mixing Vigorous Mixing Toward Shore Away from Shore 1 Salinity (3 0ppt-:40ppt) 1 Salinity (5npt-3 uwt)- 1 Salinity00ppt-5ppt) Low Dissolved Oxygen 1 High Coliform Count o c J-1 p-0 O N O O '— 1 E-o o C D tM o o sr ••— 1 1 Sheltered •-H r H ..CU. CO " O South; West North | East. OYSTER CULTURE • i I - 1 ! I | \ Oyster Growth D B B C A C DID •  D A B B Bi Al DID D B A 1 1 Rafts ! A| B DID 1 ' A I Bottom Consistency D B B C j j r : W -! Predators •i I i i i -C A •A i | . _ Beach Area i ! !D!D CJA i . -il -Access I A B C D AjA A D - .... ._ |U RESIDENTIAL: i ! !- 1 i l —• Wind Shelter ! i ! i A Dil C.|C B B Sun Shelter — i : l I i " | A. D 1 A|A B B Vegetation Cover b D BjD D D B B A BI D Dl 1 i i . 1 - 1 ! Viewing • ! i I I I — i — • i 1 -1 Foundation and Drain. D B D| D 1 A B D •D| 1 1 r - • i il - i Freshwater " 1 i 1 t A 8 C Df \ I '! 1 i t D D A D | D A C !l i Beaches "T i C|A A-D Ai B DjDjD! B i A | A D| A Al B I IC B "i l 1 j Flood Protection i . I 1 • - i i 1 1 A Dil I Auto Access i • I i "II 1 Waste Disposal A D D D D Aj B D D D| A Dj B i i WATERFRONT INDUSTRIES: i ' ! i I i | Navigation F a c i l i t i e s i .A A A c •;1-Ai-B|D D i i 1 Building structures D D D A C D •Dj | ! | . " i l l I Waste Disposal DID ' IAI C D| D .Dj'A|.D A A A D|D A B 1 — 1 Auto access i i A C D D! ! 1 ! 1 OUTDOOR RECREATION: I ! 1 ! - •'1 I . 1 Campsites C C BID i i A B E! D| i !• ! .i i AjCII Recreation area c B BjD A A Al C| D Dl B | A 1 j 1 •B |B H | Auto access D|B n D| A B C|D| j • [ I | II I Freshwater i 1 I i ID D B C D A B l Protection from wind r 1' 1 i 1 1 1 A C Viewing M i l ! ! • . i i 1 . A A C C Beaches D B A D M i l Aj Ai A B| I 1 1 Table 3: DEGREES OF LIMITATION A-Slight limitation B-Moderate limitation C-Strong limitation D-Severe limitation RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS LIMITING USES Blank-No interdependence At mean lower low tide See references 1, 2, 52 71 indicates very poor resource capability with intermediate values indicating the relative degree of capability between these two values. 1 CHAPTER FOUR: THE BIOGEOPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COAST RESOURCE INVENTORY AND CLASSIFICATION Analysis of the biogeophysical characteristics in the study area follows the sequence outlined in Table 4. The outline is designed.to aid in considering the deterministic nature of geophysical and biological pro-cesses. Location of the Study Area As shown on Map 1, the Whatcom County coast occupies the northern por-tion of Washington's shoreline on the east side of Southeast Georgia Strait, between latitude 48° 40' and 49° 0' and longitude 122° 40' and 123° 5'. The study area f a l l s within a physiographic region described as the Puget-Willamette Trough (Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission (PNRB), 1970), a relatively f l a t lowland area lying between the Cascade and Olympic Mountain Ranges.. The length of the trough extends from the Fraser River on the north in British Columbia to the Klamath Mountains in southwestern Oregon. . The trough is separated into a northern and southern portion by the divide.between the Cowlitz and Chehalis River basins just south of the southern end of Puget Sound.. The northern section w i l l be referred to as the Puget Sound Lowland. Temperature and Rainfall As demonstrated in Table 5, the study area fal l s within the Pacific 73 Table 4: Inventory Elements For Coastal Resource Analysis Major Significant Major Inventory Significant Inventory Element Aspects Element Aspects I. Climate 1. Bioclimatic Zones IX. Marine Vegetation 2. Temperature 1. Eel Grasses 3. Precip itation 2. Shore Vege-4. Exposure to sun tation 5. Wind directions X. Wildlife Distri- 1. Salmon II. Freshwater 1. Flows bution, Numbers, 2. Herring Hydrology 2. Temperature and Productivity 3. Clams 3. Dissolved Oxygen 4. Oysters 4. Suspended Sediment 5. Oyster 5. Acquifers Drills 6. Acquifer Recharge 6. Waterfowl Areas XI. Land Use 1. Agriculture 7. Coliform Count 2. Rural non-8. Other Quality farm Meas. 3. Residential— III. Marine 1. Current patterns Recreation Hydrology 2. Depth Cottages 3. Sedimentation Permanent patterns Homes 4. Temperature 4. Recreation— 5. Salinity Intensive 6. Turbidity Extensive IV. Geology 1. Morphology . 5. Commercial 2. Topography Aquaculture 3. Slope 6. Industrial 4. Mineral Composition 7. Navigation V. Soils 1. Parent Material and other 2. Silts—Distribution Transportatior 3. Loams—Distribution 8. Shoreline 4. Sands—Distribution Structures— 5. Gravels—Distribution bulkheads, VI. Beach 1. Si l t and Mud dikes, jetties Material 2. Sand causeways, 3. Shingle docks, etc. 4. Cobbles XII. Ownership 1. Public 5. Boulders 2. Private VII. Marine 1. Mud 3. Large Private Bottom 2. Sand 3. Cobbles and Boulders /III. Vegetation 1. Climax Community .- 2. Typical Ground Cover 3. Agricultural Crops W h a t c o m T C o u n t y j '4 W A S H I N G T O N S T A T E \ G E O R G I A\ S T R A I T \ \ \ S E M I A H M O O B A Y B i r c h P o i n t \ T H E C O A S T OF W H A T C O M C O U N T Y L E G E N D : . S t u d y o r e a b o u n d a r y - • P o l i t i c a l b o u n d a r y — ' E x c l u d e d f r o m s t u d y ri@£i E d g e of w a t e r a r e a I '"^ 5iH S O U R C E ; S c a l e SJI i n c h = 1-mi le . W h a t c o m E n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t 1967 M A P I Zone Region Climax, Climate Type -—2— -— Annual Total Annual Total Number of Altitude Climatic Mean Mean monthly Precipitation Snowfall frost free Climax Annual Jan. July (inches) days Association Coastal Pacific Coast Western Meso-Hemlock thermal 41-49 24-41 55-64 70-262 5-295 150-250 0-30.00 Douglas f i r — Western Hemlock Study Pacific Coast Area2 Meso-thermal 50.2 37 62,8 35-75 9.7-18.2 170 average annual 0^ 3000 Douglas f i r - r -Western Hemlock Source: Source: TABLE 5: COMPARISON OF CHARACTERISTICS OF COASTAL WESTERN HEMLOCK ZONE TO CHARACTERISTICS OF WHATCOM COUNTY Karjina, 1965. . Phillips, 1966. 76 coastal mesothermal forest region as defined by Krajina (1965). The c l i -mate of the s"tudy area is greatly influenced by it s proximity to the Pacific Ocean. Most of the air masses which reach the area have their source regions over the Pacific Ocean. Air from these regions effectively moderates both the summer and winter climatic conditions in the study area (Phillips, 1966). A prevailing westerly and northwesterly flow of air into the region causes a dry season to begin in May and continue through the summer. Begin-ning in October, a prevailing southwesterly and westerly flow of air pro-duces a wet season that reaches a peak in mid-winter and decreases in. spring (Phillips, 1966). Most precipitation in the Puget Lowland fall s as rain. Annual precipitation in the study area ranges approximately from 35 to 50 . inches' over the lower elevations to 75 inches or more in the Cascade foot-h i l l s and to between 150 and 200 inches on the slopes of the Cascade Moun-tains. During the summer, afternoon temperatures in the Puget Lowland remain in the lower 70 o ,s F while in the winter the average afternoon temperature in the lowland ranges between 35° F and 45° F (Phillips, 1966). On the f o l -lowing, page, gradients of precipitation and temperature over the Puget Sound area are shown for different seasons.(Figure 4). 'Surface-Winds Wind.patterns influence greatly micro-climatic conditions and the strength and direction of waves that cause shoreline erosion and subsequent, transport of the eroded material. The seasonal patterns of surface winds that occur in the study area, (Figure 5.1 and 5.2), can be attributed to the circulation of air around a semi-permanent high pressure c e l l which dominates the eastern TFJ^ERATURE AMD RAINFALL The Puget Sound Region Legend: Study area IBSl Source: University .of Washington 19.53 Figure 4 LEGEND: 1. - Arrows indicate surface wind d i r e c t i o n o WJ-4.-U J T • T 4- - 0-9 10-2 0 > 20 2. Width or arrow indicates average speed: \__, > • i mph • 3. Length of arrow indicates frequency i n • % of t o t a l hourly observations; ° i ' i f • Study Area . ^ w J " Russell 1954 • • Fi.gure 5 79 Pacific Ocean (Russell, 1954). During the summer months this high pressure • cel l causes a prevailing northwesterly flow of air in the Puget Sound area and west of Vancouver Island. However, Russell (1954) notes that the surface winds show a sharp contrast to the general flow of air indicating the strong effects of topography. Thus, a contrast is noted between the flow of air over Puget Sound as far north as Bellingham Bay and the flow over Georgia Strait farther north. In the southern portion of the region the flow is predominantly from the south while over S.E. Georgia Strait, appro-ximately at the level of Boundary Bay, the winds are from the east. There is no doubt that this results from the deflection of wind to the east by the Fraser River valley. There i s , however, a net northerly movement of air in this area because of the considerable percentage of high velocity winds in a northerly direction. - Hydrology The potential supplies of freshwater for domestic and industrial con-sumption in the study area are large on an annual basis. . Unfortunately, the seasonal distribution is not favorable. During, the dry summer period the . runoff is very | low providing low quantities of water for industrial uses and irrigation CUSDA, 1953). Consequently, reservoir sites have been identi-fied and some small reservoirs constructed. The major river in the study area is the Nooksack. Numerous other tributaries'and streams flow through the area, including Dakota Creek, California 'Creek, Terrell Creek, the Lummi River and Chuchanut Creek. The natural'.'flow of the Nooksack has too peaks, one occurring in late f a l l with. 80 the advent of winter rains and the other higher peak in the spring because of'snow melt (PNRB, 1970). The average yield of wells in the study area ranges between 11 and 500 gallons per minute, with the higher yields occurring in the Nooksack basin and the Dakota and California Creek water-sheds.- Few of the wells are over 50 feet deep and some are capable of producing 1,000 gallons per minute. Areas of inadequate ground water supplies are Lummi Penninsula, Point Roberts, the Lake Terrell area and Birch Point. Most acquifers within about two miles of the shoreline produce water of low quality because of salt and dissolved iron contents (PNRBC, 1970). There are few reservoirs in the study area and no major reservoir on the Nooksack. Hence, its flow is nearly unregulated. The largest diversion of the Nooksack is by the Puget Sound Power and Light Company for their power plant on the north fork. This withdrawal is returned to the river. The city of • Bellingham is the next major water user withdrawing a maximum of 102 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the middle fork of the river for muni-cipal supply. None of this is returned to the middle fork. Approximately 25.cfs are diverted from the mainstream for the Mobile Oil refinery and Italco Muminum Corporation. Information concerning water use by the Atlantic Richfield Corporation refinery was not obtained. The tides in the study area are of the mixed type. Mixed tides are characterized by variations in the successive heights of low and high water. The tidal reference point for the study is at Point Migley. Tides at this station are calculated by the Coast and Geodetic Survey by adjusting for time and tidal amplitudes from the reference station at Port Townsend, Washington. At Point Migley, the mean, range of tide is 5.2 feet and the 81 diurnal range is 8.6 feet (Kincaid, et. a l . , 1954). Mean tidal range is the difference in height between mean high and mean low water. The diurnal tidal range is the difference in height between mean higher high and mean lower low water, as shown on Figure 6. Variations in the suc-cessive heights of: tides are affected by meteorological conditions. On-shore winds can build up tide levels while offshore winds lower them. Atmospheric pressure also alters the tidal height, a f a l l in pressure w i l l be accompanied by an increase in height and a rise in pressure with a depression of the tidal height. The tide affecting the S.E. Georgia Strait floods from the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Hence, the tidal current in the northern portion of the study area (Neptune Beach to Semiahmoo Bay) moves in a counter clockwise direction (Kincaid, 1954). It was noted in the study by Kincaid (1954) that the tidal current w i l l tend generally to move polluted water and debris in a northerly direction along the northern shoreline. Due to the'effects.of surface winds and bottom topography, the direction of water movement in any specific area w i l l vary from this norm. With concern increasing over the problems of municipal, and industrial waste disposals in S.E. Georgia Strait and the possibility pf o i l spills in the area,.several studies of nearshore current pattern have been con-ducted In the study area (Kincaid, 1954; Schwartz, 19.71). (See Figures 7, 8,9, 10) Two water mixing areas appear to exist in this area as a northern and southern regime. The boundary between the two regimes fluctu-ates with the tide but falls approximately as a curve drawn from the refinery pier at Neptune Beach to between-Mafia and Sucia Islands 82 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 Feet MHHW MLLW MLLW MHHW—34 NEAPS SPRING Figure 6: Tide Curves CThe change i n water level with Time) Key: MLLW - Mean of lower low water = the average of the lowest of the two daily low tides MHHW - Mean of higher high v/ater -. the average height of the highest of the.two daily high tides Neaps - Tide of minimum range (distance between two consecutive tides) for a semi-diurnal tide. Spring —•. Tide of maximum range for .semi-diurnal tide. FLOOD DIRECTION FROM DRIFT POLES AND SHIP'S DRlF T. A U G . - O C T . , 1 9 5 4 — COMPOSITE DIAGRAM x\vri%\ 3£ ACH AREA WHERE PILING CAp| ; OBIGlf<A^iN.6 FROM PIER CONSfRUCTION 1 WERE OBSERVED. , FLOOD AND EBB CURRENTS Cherry Point to Hale Pass Source: Kincaid, et. a l 1954 Figure 8 86 BIRCH BAY NEARSHORE CURRENT PATTERNS Movement on Ebb Tide LEGEND:: At surface — • • • — • • • —-> 16' depth > 25' depth —; > Source: Schv;artz 1971 Figure 10 87 (Kincaid, et. al.., 1954). Kincaid (1954) notes that the dominate feature of the northern regime is the large amount of freshwater from the Fraser River creating conditions for intense mixing. In the southern regime the mixing processes result., mainly from the convergence of channel flows. Thus, in the southern regime, surface temperature gradients are small and the salinity variations from top to bottom are reduced. In the northern regime the water properties are dominated by the effects of the Fraser River outflow. The influences of the Fraser varies seasonally but is particularly strong during the spring freshet.' It is at this time that the greatest fresh and salt water stratification, occurs while surface salinity concentration decreasesand dissolved oxygen increases. During peak flow periods the freshwater moves southward to the vicinity of Birch Bay and Cherry Point (Kincaid, et."-al., 1954). In general, most properties of the water mass reflect the existence of these two regimes with a.distinct interface between them. The properties of the marine water in the study area during the period August 23 to October 15 during which Kincaid (1954) conducted his i n i t i a l study are representative of the differences that exist in the two regimes. Salinity in the Point Roberts and Birch Bay area was about 28 parts per thousand (ppt) or less. In the Cherry Point and Neptune Beach vicinity the sur-face salinity ranged slightly higher, between 27 ppt and 30 ppt. In the Sandy Point, Hale Passage, and Village Point area the surface salinity ranged between 28 ppt and 30 ppt. Water temperature for the same period in the northern regime varied between 52° F to 55° F on the surface. In the southern regime the.surface temperature ranged from 48°. F to 52° F. 88 Dissolved oxygen values in the two regimes reflect the pattern of salinity and temperature. In the southern regime Kincaid (1954) recorded lower oxygen values than in the northern regime. Geology. The Puget Sound trough attained i t s present form toward the end of the tertiary glacial period. The northern portion was occupied several times by ice sheet glaciers during the Pleistocene epoch. As a result most of the topographic features which characterize this area are a direct result of glacial erosion and deposition (Easterbrook and Rahm, 1970). During the Quaternary period, four continental glacial masses are believed to have advanced and retreated into the Puget trough. These glaciers, being several thousand feet thick and having the power to scour, pulverize and transport large volumes of geologic material eroded the moun-tains on both sides of the trough and deposited the sediment in the trough (Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission, PNRBC, 1970). The glacial t i l l is thickest at the shoreline of the sound and thins to a rather thin layer over consolidated rocks in upland areas. In the PNRBC Study (.1970) i t is noted that the compact nature of the. deposits in upland areas, restricts infiltration and favors runoff. Hence, in. upland areas, ground water supplies are insufficient to support large yielding wells. Most acquifers can be found in areas of unconsolidated sediments of the Quaternary period. Large amounts of water are stored in the sand and gravel recessional outwash areas which occur in the lower areas adjacent to the t i l l covered uplands. 89 Existing as an anomaly to the north-south grain of the Puget trough is an east-west arm of the Cascade Mountains called Chuckanut formation which extends into the sound to the San Juan: group of Islands.: It affects the micro-climatic conditions in the southern portion of the study area by altering surface wind patterns and the general movement of air. Precipita-tion and water, runoff are notably higher in this area (USA Department of Agriculture, 1953). During the post glacial epoch the topography of the Puget Lowland has been modified by fluvial.and marine erosion and deposition. Rivers and streams depositing.large quantities of sediment in the relatively quiet waters of Puget Sound have built deltas of land seaward (Easterbrook and Rahm, 1966). Waves and currents impinging on the shoreline have eroded material away from the base of the bluffs and transported the material laterally along the shore or out to deeper areas of the sound. Concurrently the bluffs have been moved landward and an extensive system of narrow beaches', has been created. Within the study area, the Nooksack River has built two deltas into the Sound. Prior to the establishment of the present river course into Bellingham Bay,, the Nooksack River discharged water..and sediment into Luirmi Bay creating an extensive tide, flat area and liriking Lummi Penninsula to the mainland. For a period, the river alternated its course between Lummi Bay and Bellingham Bay. Now, i t empties primarily into Bellingham Bay where i t has developed a large delta which is exposed as a tidal f l a t at extreme low tide for approximately two miles into the Bay (Easterbrook and Rahm, 1966). ' . 90 Numerous spits and beaches composed of various grades of material exist in the study area. Material eroded from the bluff at Neptune Beach has, for example, been transported south by lateral currents and constructed a spit into Lummi Bay. The north shore.of Birch Bay is partly composed of a spit formed by material also transported and deposited in that, area by longshore drift. In Birch Bay the longshore drift moves in a northerly direction. Since the energy in the current dissipates from south to north the southern beaches of Birch Bay are composed of coarse material while . the northern beaches are made of finer material (Schwartz, 1971). Topography The study area is quite flat (Map 2) though bluffs ranging in height from 20 to 500 feet rim nearly the entire extent of Southeast Georgia-Strait CPNRBC, 1970). As shown on Map 3, the slope on the study area . rarely exceeds 20% with the exception of the Chuckanut formation. The shoreline bluffs are nearly vertical formations. There are few areas where these bluffs do not exist. The beaches at the base of these bluffs are relatively narrow or non-existent. Most of the beaches are composed of material eroded by marine action from the c l i f f s . Few beaches have a slope exceeding 5% (Schwartz, 1971). The topography of the bottom underlying marine water in the study area exerts a dominant influence on the nature of water circulation, and inixing. Examination of the bathymetry reveals two distinct physiographic regions. Extending west from the eastern shore of the Georgia Strait, the bottom grades gradually and continuously to about 50 fathoms. This . . BRITISH^ COLUMMIA WASHINGTON BOUNDARY BAY S EM IA HMO 0 BAY \ o G c9 G / -7 WESTERN. WHATCOM COUNTY TOPOGRAPHY CONTOUR INTERVAL 200 feet scale: 1:250,000 outside study area 1972 Source ; Ikes 1966 LAKES.-1 Lake Whatcom 2 Lake Samish 3 Lake Padden 4 Lake Terrell MAP 2 93 is shown as a line drawn approximately from Point Migley on Lummi Island to Point Roberts (See study area, Map 1). West of the line.the bottom becomes rugged with steep slopes occurring around the San Juan Islands (Kincaid, et. a l . , 1954). Soils and Beach Material The soil resources in the study area are a product of the forces of climate, topography, biological action and time acting on the geological material deposited, in the area by glacial and water action (Allard, 1971). The parent material consists of a variety of bedrock and unconsolidated sediments, compacted glacial materials, loose glacial outwash material, debris eroded from upland areas, and organic material found in lake bot-toms, shallow slackwater stream channels, and bays (PNRBC, 1970). The soil landscape of the northern portion of the Puget trough to which the study area belongs consists- of extensive ground moraine t i l l areas represented by the Alderwood, Whatcom, Squallum, and Bow soils CUniversify of Washington, 1968). These are generally loamy, sil t y or sandy clay t i l l compacted and weakly cemented. The Chuckanut formation consists of shallow weathered soils over sandstone. Land adjacent.to the confluence to streams and marine water areas is composed of s i l t and clay soil stratified with organic material. The composition of the beach material in the study area has resulted from large amounts of glacial gravels and erratic boulders, being washed down to the intertidal area by marine erosion. Longshore drift and wave action have subsequently sorted and transported the material throughout 94 the area. Few comprehensive studies have been completed which outline the composition of the beaches along Puget Sound and S.E. Georgia Strait. Consequently the information used in this study comes from the author's own cursory examination and Kincaid's (1954) study of the intertidal area of. the study area. There is a wide variety of beach compositions in the study area. In general, the beaches are composed of a coarse sand and gravel mixture ranging from sandy beaches to beaches composed entirely of large cobbles with medium to large glacial erratics interspersed throughout. To provide an idea of the type of beaches comprising the study area, a series of pictures keyed to place names are provided in Plates 1 and 2. Bottom sediment is an important oceanographic variable which influences the geology of the marine environment including the distribution and producti-vity of benthic flora and fauna and some pelagic forms. Sediment informa-tion can also be used to determine, the means of deposition, the source of the sediment, the water characteristics involved in the transport of the sediment CWaldichuck, 1953). The sediment information for this study, as shown on Map 4, was obtained from Kincaid (19.54) and from the Coast and Geodetic Survey Maps. The composition of the bottom is described as being mud, sand, gravel, boulders, or rocks. 1. Mud; very fine material (5.005 to 0.5 mm in diameter) 2. Sand; coarser material (.05 to 2 mm in diameter). 3. Gravel; coarse material (2 to 256 mm in diameter). 4. Boulders; material larger than cobbles, (greater than 256 mm in diameter) 5. Rocks; solid mass of rocks Intertidal Beach Between Mobile Oil Refinery and Italco Muminum Company Pier Intertidal Beach Between Cheery Point and Neptune Beach Pleasant Cove in Chuckanut Bay . The Beach at Hale Passage: Lurrmi Bay and Golf Course Bevels Beach at Sandy Point: Note opment on Estuary Shore Zone Refinery Pier in Background PLATE ONE: CHUCKANUT BAY TO SANDY POINT <9 1 X / V O G V / THE COAST OF WHATCOM COUNTY Bottom Sediment Mud R>o^  Plastic Muddy Sand l^T] Sandy Mud Pv^vl Sand Coarse Sand . EZI3 Gravel. . f v ^ i Plastic Mud .. RJ^FJ Source: Kincaid, et. a l 1954 Map 4 U.S.G.S. 1966 98 / • / Vegetation The most common forest vegetation community found i n the Puget Lowland i s the western hemlock community (University' of Washington/, 1968). In Krajina's (1965) bioclimatic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , this area belongs to the coastal western hemlock zone which occurs along the coast of B r i t i s h Columbia and the Washington coast along S.E. Georgia Strait. Coniferous species associated with the western hemlock.zone comprise a rather large l i s t , including Douglas F i r (PAcadotAuga menzZu-LL)Lodgepole Pine [PsLnuA contotita), Western White Pine (P-inLU, monticoZa), and Western Yew ( T a x a i btiev^oJLia) . Douglas F i r i s often the dominate species i n the dryer areas of this community (Washington, University of, 1968). The forest areas grow right to the edge of the bluffs overlooking the Strait of Georgia making shoreline areas quite uniform i n appearance except where man has cleared the forests. Grasscovered p r a i r i e - l i k e areas are found i n the. lowland where s o i l , and climatic conditions do not favor forest growth. The vegetation cover i n these areas consists mainly of grasses, interspersed with stands of Douglas F i r , Oregon White Oak (QueAco* gaAA.ya.na), Scotch Broom (CytiiuA scopcwvu] and other shrubs (PNRBC, 1970). Tidal marsh areas •(Map 5) are colonized predoniinantly by a. salt-grass: (SpaAtLna spp.) cover (PNRBC, 1970). Eel grass beds (Map 5) provide impor-tant habitats within the estuarine environment. They often support pupula-tions of algae and small fauna that provide food for grazing f i s h and other swimming organisms. The Marine Land Management Division of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources.has located eel grass beds i n the T H E C O A S T O F W H A T C O M C O U N T Y VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE MAP 5 Source: Department of N a t u r a l Resources, 1971 Scale: 1/2 inch - 1 m i l e 100 study .area as an important marine resource affecting decisions regarding the use of State owned marine land. Wildlife As shown on Map 5, various types of shellfish occur throughout the study area. Several species of clams are sufficiently abundant to be attractive for recreational shellfish digging most of the year. Areas on the north of .Lummi Island and the Lummi Penninsula are used for commercial shel l f i s h production (PNRBC, 1970). Commercial oyster growing areas are i n Bellingham Bay, Lummi Bay and Drayton Harbor. In Lummi Bay, the Lummi Indians have developed an aquaculture operation aimed at producing commercial quantities of oysters and salt water trout. Non-commercial areas of abundant oysters have been located by the State Department of Natural Resources. The main factors which lim i t s h e l l f i s h production i n the study area are poor water quality, adverse physical conditions, and predation. . Kincaid (1954) and the PNRBC Study (1970) reported that poor water quality i s one of the major problems for oyster growing i n the study area. . The Blaine area CSemiahmoo Bay and Drayton Harbor) possesses excellent seed oyster . beds, but,, because of pollution the oyster, cannot be fattened for market, from this area. Along the mainland, from Gooseberry Point to Birch Bay, Kincaid (1954) notes that the grinding action of upper beach material i s not conducive to benthic organisms., bammi Bay, open to southerly storms does not provide physical'Conditions particularly favorable to. fragile s h e l l f i s h production. 101 However, an extensive diking system constructed by the Lummi Indians has remedied this problem and made the area useful for oyster and fish culture. Shoreline development in Birch Bay, Lunmi Bay and Bellingham Bay has expro-priated shellfish producing tidelands though bulkhead construction and land f i l l operations. Oyster d r i l l colonies have also become established in several areas, making oyster production difficult. Oyster d r i l l populations are. located primarily in Drayton Harbor. Commercial and sport fishing for salmon and bottom fish occurs through-out the year. The principal salmon fisheries resource in this area is the Sockeye salmon run on the Fraser River (Kincaid, et. a l . , 1954). The Sockeye that migrate through United 'States' waters enrbute to the Fraser River pass the west coast of Lummi Island, travel past Birch Bay toward. Point Roberts and then head fox- the Fraser River (Kincaid, et. a l . , 1954). Natural salmon spawning streams in the study area include the Nooksack River, Squalicum Creek,. Chuckanut Creek, Terrell Creek, California Creek and Dakota Creek CUSDA, 1953). Chinook and pink salmon spawn only in the Nooksack while.nearly a l l the streams receive Chum and Coho Salmon. Searun trout are also found in these creeks and.the Nooksack during different times of the year. They constitute a popular sport fishery. CLASSIFICATION OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COAST There are no coastal regions or subregions.within the study area. The 'Whatcom'County- coast is contained within the Puget trough which is a sub-region of the Pacific Northwest Coastal region of the United States (U.S. ..Department of Interior, 1970). Numerous embaymerits or indentations and 102 the estuarine character of the water are two distinctive features of the coastal subregion. The subregion has been characterized as both one large estuary and as a series of small estuaries (U.S. Department of Interior, 1970). As shown in Map 6, the study area is divided into coastal components, coastal subcomponents, and coastal phases according to the classification outline in Chapter Three. The coastal phase class i s indicated within subcomponents of the estuary-shore belt on the basis of beach composition.. The coastal belts (marine, estuary-shore, and terrestrial) discussed in Chapter Three, have been delimited from analysis of the bathymetry, tides, topography, water quality and land use. Unfortunately, all.the criteria, established for delimiting the terrestrial belt could not be utilized. In particular, an area of vegetation displaying the effects of the marine environment could not be established. Hence, following Schaeffer (1969), the inland boundary of the terrestrial belt was set at two miles from the shoreline to include most land uses affected by the marine environment or having a direct impact on coastal resources. Interestingly, i t was noted in the. PNRBC study (1970) that many wells within two miles of the shoreline may encounter salinity problems when driven deeper than one hundred feet. The estuary-shore belt includes the area between the line of mean lower low tide and the line of mean high tide. Differentiation of the estuary-shore belt is accomplished by coastal subcomponent designations. The seaward boundary of the marine zone follows the line between the two distinct (east and west) bottom areas in S.E. Georgia Strait. As noted in the foregoing section on topography, the bottom west of the line is quite C°UNTV T H E C O A S T OF W H A T C O M C O U N T Y LEGEND '. Coastal belt boundary Estuaru, shore zone •Bmm%mM& Coastal components boundary, — Coastal subcomponents boundary, Coastal phase *98M&m®£. COASTAL CLASSIFICATION 1 9 7 2 MAP 6 .Scale 1/2 inch = 1 mile •, COASTAL C A T E G O R I E S : Component eg. 1— T Subcomponent eg. ° - i Phase eg. 1 — 5 Outside Sudif area 104 rugged while east of the line the bottom grades smoothly from the shore to about 50. fathoms. Difference in water properties and surface winds divide the marine belt into two coastal units. In the northern unit, water properties and surface winds are dominated by the effects of the Fraser River and Fraser Valley, respectively. In the southern unit, the water mixing and physical properties reflect the influence of the many channels which converge in the area. With seasonal variations, surface winds in the southern unit flow from the south while surface winds in the northern unit flow from the south and east CRussell, 1954). The estuary-shore and terrestrial belts are broken into nine components and thirty-six subcomponents largely on the basis of physiographic features. This provides a f i r s t level or coarse screen classification of the coast of Whatcom County. The ideal classification would incorporate a l l those biophysical attributes of resources which affect the productivity and distribution of organisms as discussed in Chapter Two. An analysis more detailed and comprehensive than could be carried out during this study would be needed to accomplish a truly ecosystematic classification of"the coast of Whatcom. County. The coastal components are characterized as being either embayed, exposed directly to the Strait or affected by the influence of barrier islands or barrier bars. Coastal subcomponents are: designated within the coastal components of the estuary-shore and terrestrial belts. The f o l -lowing physiographic factors were considered in delimiting coastal sub-components: 1) shoreline c l i f f s ; 2) spits; 3) tidal flats; 4) marshes; and, 105 5) upland topography. The subcomponents of the estuary-shore belt are characterized further by a beach phase indicating beach composition. Table 6 outlines the classification categories for the coast of Whatcom County. RESOURCE CAPABILITY EVALUATIONS In this section, each coastal component is rated for i t s ability to support four different representative types of resource uses. The ratings are based on an evaluation of the subcomponents' potential to supply the resources required by the prospective users and on the absence of conditions that would limit the users' ability to exploit resource or result in damage to the environment and the user. Oyster raft culture, residential (recre-ation cottages, and permanent homes), waterfront industry, and public outdoor recreation (organized camping and day use) types of uses have been selected to carry out the evaluation of the components. These uses have been chosen to represent the diversity of possible,coastal zone uses and are not considered as inclusive of a l l prospective coastal zone resource uses. The coastal component numbers and use capability ratings for each component are shown in Map 7. The capability ratings are shown only for the coastal components and represent the synthesis of the evaluation of marine, estuarine, and terrestrial resources which are divided into coastal subcomponents. In order to establish the capability value for the coastal' components, each of the subcomponents was examined separately in relation to the various relevant resource requirements. For example, the marine subcomponents were rated for waterfront industry docking fa c i l i t i e s while the upland 106 Table 6: CLASSIFICATION OF/THE COAST OF WHATCOM COUNTY Coastal Class Coastal Belt Distinguishing Symbol Feature Components I II Marine Marine Water Properties: surface currents, temperature, salinity. Surface Winds III Estuary-Shore £ Terrestrial Embayed Shoreline IV Estuary-Shore £ Terrestrial Exposed Shoreline V Estuary-Shore £ Terrestrial Barrier Protected Shoreline Subcomponents a. Estuary-Shore Cliffed Shoreline b Estuary-Shore Plain or Terraced Shoreline c Estuary-Shore Spits d Estuary-Shore Tidal Flats e Estuary-Shore Marsh f Terrestrial Upland slope predorninately greater than 10% Terrestrial Upland slope predominately less than 10%*' h Marine Depth less than 35.feet i Marine Depth greater than 35 feet Phases 1. Estuary-Shore No beach 2. Estuary-Shore Cobble beach. 3. • Estuary-Shore. Gravel beach . 4. Estuary-Shore Sandy beach :.• 5. Estuary-Shore Muddy beach B U >^USES /1 C 3-3»CAPABILI T Y D 2 RATING C OPPONENT NUMBER GEORGIA kSTR AIT BIRCH =dlHT {*y A 2 C3 D3 A U B 4 •1C3 D 2 POINT WHITEHQRN "^t • 3 A U B 2 C 1 D 1 \ \ * \ \ S A N D Y F J O I N T 4 A 1 B A C 3 D A A 4 - 7 B 3 / C 3 D 2 A 5 B 5 Q 3 D C 4 D A T H E C O A S T O F W H A T C O M C O U N T Y LEGEND: COASTAL BELT BOUNDARY COASTAL COMPONENT BOUNDARY COASTAL SU 8C0MP0NENT. BOUNDARY COASTAL PHASE BOUNDARY i-m vm®mx ESTUARY SHORE ZONE -^mtSxm. CAPAB IL ITY FOR S E L E C T E D USES 1972 MAP . 7 SCALE " » I m i l e COMPONENT NUMBERS «g-1 ~ 9 CAPABIL ITY C L A S S E S CI to 63 A. WATERFRONT INDUSTR IES 6. RESIDENTIAL C, OUTDOOR RECREATION D. OYSTER CULTURE 108 terrestrial subcomponents were rated for waterfront industry building sites. In the capability rating tables, each of the values represents the rating of subcomponents relevant to the given resource requirements. Where more than one subcomponent in a coastal component was relevant to one resource requirement, an average value was estimated by judging how strongly the characteristics of each subcomponent complemented or detracted from the overall quality of the coastal component. It is important to consider the capability rating for the whole in addition to the subcomponent parts. The coastal components are a practical size for carrying out assessments of the user Impacts on the interrelated resources and resource uses.. Hence, during the early stages of allocating uses to coastal areas, a broad perspective can be maintained to identify potential use conflicts. It is.recognized, also, that many conflicts occur well beyond the boundaries of coastal components. The components, for purposes of Identifying these conflicts, provide groups of resources that can be related, as a whole, to other components in terms of being either the source area of adverse environmental impacts causing resource use conflicts or the recipient of adverse impacts. Oyster Raft Culture Oyster culture in Puget Sound and S.E. Georgia Strait has been p r a c t i c e d since the last part of the 19th century. The earliest recorded oyster production in B.C. was in 1884 (Quayle, 1969). In Washington State the total oyster production is between 6 and 8 million, pounds of meat annually with..Puget Sound producing about 3 0 to 109 40 percent of the total. Yet, the f u l l potential of the Puget Sound and S.E. Georgia Strait has not been realized (Westley, 1971). Westley (1971) calculated that i f the demand for food in the world became great enough, approximately 187,408 total surface acres or about 28% of the surface area of Puget Sound could be brought into production. Cyster culture for commercial purposes is very demanding of the resource base. Although no single requirement, except depth for raft cultures, is very restrictive, taken as a group, the'resource require-ments severely limit the capability of areas to . support commercial oyster production. Additionally, not a l l resource requirements are understood well enough to provide a great deal of certainty in identifying those areas that w i l l satisfy the resource requirements for oyster raft culture. Quayle (1961) stated in several places that t r i a l and error is the only effective way to fully deterrrdne the capability of an area to support oyster production. Ten biogeophysical factors have been identified as important for evaluating the i n i t i a l capability of areas for oyster cul-ture. They are: 1. Salinity 2. Water temperature 3. Air temperature 4. Water exchange increasing the f e r t i l i t y 5. Protection from waves 6. Water depth for raft culture 7. Bottom conditions for holding primary seed for raft cultures and for maturing oysters 8. Protection from or absence of predators; oyster d r i l l , - starfish and crabs 9. Amount of intertidal area for seed beds 10. Backbeach slope for accessibility 110 The range of salinity in Puget Sound poses no great problem for oyster culture..; The principal species grown commercially in the Pacific Northwest, the Pacific Oyster [CfiaA&o<!>&ie.a g<igcu>), is very tolerant to salinity variations. It can. live in salinities up to 3 3 ppt and can remain in freshwater for up to eight hours without being damaged (Quayle, 1971).. Only those areas experiencing continuous freshwater conditions such as near the head of an estuary are likely to be unfit for oyster production. The Pacific Oyster may also tolerate, a fairly wide range of tempera-tures. The oyster is found in water between 40° F and 75° F and can with-stand freezing air temperature of 25° F when uncovered by the tide. Pro-ductivity is higher, the higher the water temperature within the range of tolerance. Ground suitable for oyster culture must* coincide with areas of suitable water conditions, have a firm-bottom, be at the desired tidal level, and be protected from waves. A firm bottom of fine gravel, sand and mud or any combination of these provides the best ground culture areas (Quayle, 1969). The area should also be free of silting. Grounds at a tidal level of 1 to 6 feet above mean lower low water provide the best production and harvesting conditions. .Since extreme waves w i l l move oysters along the bottom and. onto beach areas, additional labor w i l l be required to return the oysters to the beds in grounds not sufficiently protected from severe wave action. In raft culture operations, the usual practice is to hang strings up to. 40 feet long holding clusters of shells with oyster spat from rafts anchored in water deep enough to prevent the strings from dragging I l l bottom (Figure 11). Figure 11: Diagram of oyster culture raft (Quayle, 1971). The raft should be anchored in an area protected from waves exceeding 2 feet or raft damage may ensue destroying the oysters (Quayle, 1971). Since an oyster is a sessile, f i l t e r feeding organism, i t depends upon water circulation to transport i t s food and wastes. In oyster culture,' a fairly large exchange of water is required for high productivity. How-ever, too great an exchange can increase upwelling of cool water that slows an oyster's growth. In raft culture operations, depths of 15 to 20 feet have been recom-mended by Quayle (.1971) as the minimum at low tide. Westley (1971) con-siders 20 fathoms (12D feet) the maximum depth practicable for anchoring rafts. Each of the coastal components has been evaluated for oyster culture. A value of 1 to 4 indicating excellent to poor quality for each resource characteristic has been assigned to the coastal components as shown in 112 Table 7. In addition a relative weight has been assigned to each user resource requirement to incorporate the relative importance of each resource to the user into the evaluation. Each of the values indicating the quality of the resources in the component is multiplied by this, weighting factor. The relative weights also range in value from 1 to 4 indicating insignificant to significant importance and are based on the analysis of resource limitations shown in Table 3 of Chapter Three.. The considerations made to establish the relative weight of any one user resource required include: 1) the range of variation of any one lirrdting resource characteristic which the user can tolerate; and, 2) the capa-city of resources to absorb the impact of different uses. Given the weighting for the ten important characteristics for evaluating oyster culture, the range of values for the sum of. the. products in each component is from 25 to 102. These values are distributed among six resource capability classes shown below: Range of limitations Capability Rating for Cyster Culture 25-39 1. Very High ' 40-50 2. Moderately High 51-60 3. Moderate 61-70 4. Moderately Low 71-85 . 5. Low 86-102 6. Very Low Residential (Recreation Cottages and Permanent Homes). Development of land for homes along the Whatcom County coast is now a familiar sight. The magnificant view provided to Georgia Strait, the west and southwesterly facing shorelines and the expanse of beaches (although often inaccessible) are, attractive to developers and home . . 113 C O A S T A L C O M P O N E N T S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R E S O U R C E R E Q U I R E M E N T S RW* Salinity 3 X 2/ / 6 / 2/ /6 2/ / 6 2X A 3 / X 9 2/ X & Y r Water Temperature 2 X l / /2 3/ / 6 2X xr 3/ /6 2/ / X Air Temperature 2 / 4 2/ / 1 4 2/ 2 / XX 2/ A 2/ X4 Water Exchange 3 X 2/ /6 X X 1/ X 3 / 2 / Y6 X X Protection From Waves 3 X 7 /12 2/ /6 7 / 1 2 1/ X 3 1/ x 3 1/ x73 4 / A2 1 / / .Bottom consistency 2 / 3/ X / XI y / 8 2X x* 1/ X2 / X / Predators 2 3 / /6 / / X X 2 / 1/ x 2 1 / X2 1/ 1 / Amount of Intertidal Area 3 A. X 1/ X 3' */ /12 1/ 2/ X6 2 / xB Y A2 •2/1 A Depth for Rafts 4 /is X 1/ A / I J 3 / /12 2/ /8 / f 3/ /12 1/ X4 3 / A2 Access 1 U . 3 / /3 •1/ A 4 / A '/ X 2 X 1/ A, 4 / A X SUM OF P R O D U C T S 49 53 36 62 .43 41 53 • 61. 41 C A P A B I L I T Y C L A S S 2 .3 •1 ; 4 2 2 3 4 2 Table 7: RESOURCE USE-C^ABIUTY RATINGS. OF COASTAL COMPONENTS FOR OYSTER RAFT CULTURE Key: "RW - Relative Weight of Resource Characteristics •Quality rating of resource in component •Product of Relative weight times Quality of Resource ' - Range of Limitations ' . Capability Rating 25-39 • Very high' ' ' .40-50 . " Moderately high 51-60 . Moderate 61-70 Moderately Tow 71-85 Low 86-102 Very- low 114 purchasers. Unfortunately, in many situations such as this, the beauty of the area can obscure concern for the physical limitations to home developers. . . . With respect to characteristics that are important in evaluating land for home developments in the study area, the Canada Department of Forestry and Rural Development (1967) identified nine biogeophysical characteristics for the' recreation lodging sector of the Canada Land Inven-tory which are applicable.. They are: 1) shelter from wind; 2) exposure to sun; 3) capability.for vegetation cover; 4) outward aspect.for viewing; 5) soil material for foundation and drainage from septic tanks; 6) avail-ability of freshwater; 7) upland slope; 8) backbeach slope; and, 9) pro-tection from flooding. Beach composition has also been added by the author because of.its importance in determining the. capability of an area to support recreation activities.. Slope characteristics determine to a great extent the capability of a site to support different uses. In addition, slope is indicative of several s o i l characteristics that may be limiting to prospective uses. Foster C1971) points out that as slope increases, above 10% soil conditions for drainage, vegetation growth and foundation stability become less favorable. In terms of shoreline development there are two areas where slope is a c r i t i c a l concern; f i r s t , the slope of the immediate beach backland affects beach access and second, the slope of the upland site chosen for development affects a site's capability to support building foundations, to provide accessibility.by automobile, and provide drainage and vegetation. A slope of 25% or greater in the immediate beach backland can be considered to severely restrict beach access. Upland-slopes" of 15% 115 or less can be considered for most home site development (Canada, Departr-ment of Forestry, 1967). Good automobile access, however, is not provided on slopes exceeding 7% (Lynch, 1962). . The direction from which an area receives i t s sunlight is important to consider in site planning. Obviously, in the Northern Hemisphere those slopes which face the west and southwest w i l l receive the desirable after-noon sun while east, northeast and north facing slopes are less favorable in this respect (Lynch, 1962). The benefits of receiving sunlight must be considered in relationship to benefits derived from alternative scenery views and of course, weighted by the degree of slope (Lynch, 1962). The procedure for rating the coastal classes for recreation home developments follows the same procedure used in rating areas for oyster culture. Table 8 displays the values assigned to the areas for each important resource characteristic. Since there are ten biogeophysical factors considered and given the weighting assigned.to each resource factor, the possible range of the sum of products is from 29 to 117. These •values are grouped into six capability classes as follows: Range of Limitations Capability Rating for Recreation Home Sites . 29-40 1. Very high 41-52 2. Moderately high 53-65 3. Moderate 66-80 ' 4. Moderately low . 81-95 5. Low 96-117 6. Very low Waterfront Industries Navigation facilities•and waterfront industries in the study area are located largely in Eellingham. Bay.. Other navigation fa c i l i t i e s are located 116 COASTAL COMPONENTS 1 2 3 4 5 . 6 . 7 8 9 RESOURCE 'REQUIREMENTS RW* Beach Composition . 2 4 / / 8 2/ X 4 l / A 2 4 / / 8 3 / A 1/ X2 4 / X8 4X A X4 Shelter from Wind 2 X 2/ A 2/ / 4 3 / X6 2 / A 2/ / 4 X ^ 3 / X] Exposure to Sun 2 X ix 1/ / 2 1/ A. X lX X2 X X Vegetation Cover 2 X X2 / ly/ X 2 f / X i X X2 ' 2 / / 4 X X^ X iSoil Conditions 4 X 4 / /16 2X X8 */ A X HX X1? A x Freshwater Availability 3 X 1/ X 3 2X A X, X9 iX A A2 / f x Outward View 3 u 2/ / 6 X / X X 1/ X3 1/ A X3 X Upland Slope 4 2/ A 2/ A X / 1/ / 4 X .1/ A / X /1E x^- :-Beach Access. 3 . 2/ /6 3 / / 9 X 4 / X12 1/ A 1/ X3 X / / 4/ X Protection from.Floods 4 / 3/ X Y' t X 3 / /12 X / 4X /IS 1/ A X1E IX A X SUM OF PRODUCTS • 70 .52 51 58 62 43 59 81 66 CAPABILITY CLASS X 4 . 3 2 4 .3 2 3 .5 4 Table 8: RESOURCE USE ^ CAPABILITY RATINGS OF COASTAL COMPONENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL 'USE (RECREATION COTTAGES AND PERMANENT HOMES) • . Key: *RW Relative Weight of Resource Characteristics •Quality Rating of Resource in Component. •Product of Relative Weight Times Quality of Resource ,: /Range of Limitations Capability Rating . ..29-40 • 'XX41-52 53-65 66-80 81-95 96-117 1. • • Very high ' 2. Moderately high 3. Moderate 4 . Moderately low 5.. Low 6. Verv low 117 in Drayton Harbor, Birch Bay, Lummi Bay and Hale Passage,, and at three locations between Point Whitehorn and Sandy Point. These last three facilit i e s are private bulk terminals serving two o i l refineries and an alumina ore processing plant. Except for the three privately owned navigation facili t i e s and those in Bellingham Bay, a l l other fa c i l i t i e s are designed primarily to handle small boats. .Ferry terminal'facilities at Gooseberry Point serve Lummi, Island (PS S AW, 1970). No single set of navigation f a c i l i t y requirements are suitable for assessing potential sites for a l l types of waterfront industries. One of the distinguishing characteristics of modern water borne commerce is the variety of cargo and vessels in.use. Additionally technological innovations have been rapidly altering the physical requirements.of navigation f a c i l i t i e s . For example, in 1949, the largest tankers in use had a capacity of .approximately 30,000 deadweight tons and a draft, fully loaded, of about 32 feet. In 1967 the "supertanker," Idemitsu Maru, was launched which had a dead weight capacity of 210,000 tons and a draft of 58 feet -(Graves, 1968). Larger vessels have been launched since that time. Although the fa c i l i t i e s required to handle these tankers are relatively simple (Graves, 1968), the increase in draft has created problems in providing navigation channels deep enough to handle "super-tankers.". With the. shift to large bulk carriers, waterfront fa c i l i t i e s have had to be modified to accommodate larger ships with greater drafts and to provide fa c i l i t i e s and space.for the processing, and storage of bulk products. Because the cost of dredging navigation channels to depths greater than 45. feet is very high, naturally deep, water areas near shore 118 and near markets have come under consideration as alternatives to modify-ing existing port fa c i l i t i e s (Graves, 1968). In addition to deepwater (35 to 75 feet at'mean'lower low tide) other physical requirements for waterfront industries include: 1. Relatively calm water, 2. Sufficient area to accommodate a l l the processing f a c i l i t i e s , . 3. Soil characteristics that w i l l support foundations for heavy structures, provide good drainage, and be . excavable for installation of underground u t i l i t i e s , 4. Flat land within a 2% to 5% slope range, 5. Water circulation for diffusing waste products. Barber (1967) notes that soft soils should be avoided wherever possible. But, for industries requiring access to water transportation, avoiding soft soil conditions may be impossible.. In many cases, bulk storage fac i l i t i e s and processing plants do not need.to. be located directly at the shoreline. Material conveyance mechanisms can often be extended, within certain technical and economic limits, inland to suitable sites. But, this provides only a limited amount of fl e x i b i l i t y to avoid undesirable soil conditions. For the purposes of this study the six physiographic characteristics discussed in the preceding paragraphs have been used to rate the capability of the coastal units for heavy waterfront industry f a c i l i t i e s . The rating scheme is consistent with the scheme for rating oyster raft culture and residential home, sites. Given the relative weights for the six resource factors being analyzed, the range of possible sum of products is from 22 to 80. This range has been divided into six capability ratings in the following manner: 119 Range of imitations Capability Rating for Waterfront Industry 22-31 32-42 43-52 53-62 63-72 73-80 1. Very high 2. Moderately high 3. Moderate 4. Moderately low 5. Low 6. Very low Table 9 shows the,results of the resource evaluation and capability analysis for heavy waterfront industries." Public Outdoor Recreation (Day-use and Overnight Camping Facilities): Day-use and overnight camping fa c i l i t i e s in the study area are provided by the Washington State Parks and Recreation.Department at Larabee State Park near .Chuckanut Bay and at Birch Bay State Park. Both of these parks provide excellent day-use and- camping fa c i l i t i e s and are used" intensively throughout the.summer months, June to September. More-over, both parks are located in areas possessing extremely different physiographic features, thereby offering two distinctively different types of recreational experiences. Because there is a great variety of shoreline characteristics in the study, area, other areas offering the possibility of equally different types of recreational experiences are available. Despite the various types.of shoreline offering different recreational opportunities, there are certain user requirements that must be satisfied before an area, can be considered to have high, recreational capability. Nine essential biophysical requirements for organized camping fa c i l i t i e s were identified in the recreation sector of the Canada Land Inventory which are useful for'evaluation of the-Whatcom County coast (Canada Depart-ment of Regional Economic Expansion, 1969). These requirements are by no I 120 COASTAL COMPONENTS 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 •• RESOURCE REQUIRED ITS Protection from High Waves 1 l / /.I / 2/ /2 2 / /2 y /2 • 1 / A l/ X ^ 2/ /2 y Water Circulation 4 3 / /12 X / 1/ A / 4 / /16. / 1/ 3/ /12 X 3 / A2 X 4 ' Depth 3 4/ /12 / / 3/ / 9 4/' l / /12 /3 > 4/ 42 4 / /12 4 / A 2 1/ X A 2 Soil Bearing Capacity- 4 A X 4/ /16 2/ /12 / / »/ X 1 5 */ 3 / A 2 Slope 4. / A X V 2/ /8 2/ X 3 4 / XL6 Land Space 4 2/ /8 A X X 3 / A1 2X k 8 3 / A 2 4 / A6 4 / SUM OF PRODUCTS 53 3 5 54 29 61 45 57 67 • 65 CAPABILITY CLASS . 4 2 4 1 4 3 4 5 3 Table.9: RESOURCE USE-CAPABILITY RATINGS OF COASTAL COMPONENTS FOR WATERFRONT INDUSTRIES Key: "RW - Relative Weight of Resource Characteristics — — Q u a l i t y of Resources in Component Product of Relative Weight times Quality of Resources Range of Limitations 22-31 32-42 43-52 53-62 63-72 73-80 Capability Rating 1. Very high 2. Moderately high 3. Moderate 4. Moderately low 5. Low 6. Very low 121 means inclusive of a l l outdoor recreation biophysical requirements, nor are they absolute. They provide a general framework for accomplishing a general evaluation of an area's capability to provide public outdoor recreation benefits. Thus, they serve the purposes of this case study. The preferred biophysical requirements are: 1. Stable unconsolidated surface material for camp site construction. 2. Extensive area of low gradients or very frequent level, terraces for recreational activities and camp sites (2 to 5 percent). . 3. Slope conditions suitable for vehicle access (Less than 10%). . 4. Froximify to potable water. 5. Tree cover to provide wind and. sun shelter. 6.. Scenic outlook. . 7. Proximity to waterfront features having good bathing or other popular water-oriented recreational activities. 8. Accessibility for- boats. 9. Beach composition. Since there are nine requirements to be considered in evaluation of areas for recreation day-use and camping fa c i l i t i e s the range of total values is from 26 to 104. Table 10 shows the values assigned to the coastal com-ponents for each resource characteristic. Given below is the distribution of these values to the six capability ratings. . Range of IfLmitations Capability Rating for Public Day-Use and Camping. Facilities 26-38 39-50 51-63 64-76 77-90 91-104 1. Very high. 2. Moderately high 3. Moderate 4. ftoderately low 5. Low 6. Very low DISCUSSION OF CAPABILITY RATINGS • The capability ratings - established for each coastal component are based 122 C O A S T A L C O M P O N E N T S 1 2 3 4' 5 5 7 . 8 9 R E S O U R C E R E Q U I R E M E N T S RW* Surface Material 3 A X X y X A X X X Extensive Low Gradients . 3 3/ / 9 / 2 / /6 1 y X X / •3/ / / v 7 Xs Slope for Auto Access 2 X 2 / 1^/ l / X2 X X 4 y y 2X Potable Water Supply 4 1/ A. 1 y X 3X X12 3/ 2 y Xs 3X / 1 2 X Shelter 4 i / A 2 / 2 / X 2X /\ 2 / A 2/ Xs / 1/ x\ 1 / y Beach Access . 3 3 / A 3 X 1 / 4 / XL2 l / A / 1 / y 3 / X X 1/ y Access for Boats 2 3 / A X • / x 3 / y X X X / 2/ X4 Scenic Outlook 2 4 / 2 X i x A X X6 iX X2 A X x 7 ^ 1/ A 2 Beach Composition 3 /l2 X i y 3 X A 2 y X6 X X X 4 y X2 2 / y S U M O F P R O D U C T S . 60 57 33 60 43 40 61 6.6. 51. C A P A B I L I T Y C L A S S - • 3 3 1 .3 2 2 3 4 3 Table 10:' RESOURCE USE-CAPABILITY RATINGS OF COASTAL . COMPONENTS FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION (DAY USE AND OVERNIGHT CAMPING FACILITIES). Key: *RW - Relative Weight of Resource Characteristics -Quality of Resources in Component -Product of Relative Weight times Quality of Resources ! 123 on the biogeophysical characteristics of the Whatcom county coast. Because of this, uses are not recommended within each component. The capability ratings, by themselves, provide an insufficient basis on which to recom-mend land uses. The ratings do not distinguish between those land uses that "could" take place in a coastal component and those that "should" CSteinitz, 1970). The capability ratings indicate only the inherent poten-t i a l of an area to produce u t i l i t i e s to man. As such, the ratings provide answer to primarily two questions: 1) "What level of use and productivi-ty can-a coastal component be expected to.achieve given certain stated constraints?"; and, 2) "What are the biophysical conditions limiting the use of a coastal component?" There are many other factors that enter into determining the use of a coastal area... The degree to which a user's resource requirements may. be satisfied depends f i r s t on the inherent capability of the resource compo-nent to supply the resources as indicated by the capability rating and second on the degree to which the component may respond to the user's inputs designed to crop or exploit the natural productivity of the. resources. Consideration of the second factor is carried out in the suitability and feasibility types of analysis designed by Hills (1961). Suitability is defined by Hills as a measure of the effort required to bring a given area of land to the level of production which i t is capable under prevailing economic conditions. For example, the Sandy Point • subcomponent is exten-sively developed for private recreation homes. To bring i t into.use.for public recreation would require tremendous effort to remove homes or to purchase public access. Conversely, i t would require less effort to expand 124 the state park f a c i l i t i e s at Birch Bay for public recreation because of the existing f a c i l i t i e s . ' ' Through a consideration of the capability and suitability ratings of a coastal component, the feasibility of a component for different uses can be determined. Hills (1961) defines feasibility as the relative advantage of utilizing an area for a given use in terms of the inputs relative-to the outputs under existing or projected economic conditions. Given the demands projected for waterfront industrial sites and recreation home sites, most areas displaying comparative capability ratings for these uses may be expected to be feasible for development. The components can also be expected to come under competition for the different uses. Oyster culture, requiring very specific combinations of resource attributes and being in relatively lower economic demand, may not be, at the present time, a feasible development alternative. On the other hand, given the shortage of food .in the world (Ehrlick, 1971), development of coastal components of high oyster capability for alternative uses which change irreversibly the capability for oyster culture would be a myopic action. The final chapter to this study-explores the problem of reducing resource use.conflicts given the inherent•capability of the resources to support different uses. Potential resource use conflicts are identified through the use of an environmental impact matrix (Table 2) and through an examination of the.occurrence of comparatively, high capability ratings for different uses within each coastal component. The usefulness of the capability analysis in identifying areas of conflict and alternative pat-terms of allocation is discussed in a concluding scenario comparing the policies inrolied in t h e county-comprehensive plan with t h e alternatives generated through the capability analysis. CHAPTER FIVE: THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MULTIPLE USE OF COASTAL ZONE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS It was a recognition of the nature of the biophysical characteristics of the coastal resources and the diversity of groups demanding use of coastal resources which led to the hypothesis for this study: Through a process which integrates the evaluation of biogeophysical characteristics of the resource . . base and an assessment of resource use-capability with an analysis of the resource requirements of specified users, opportunities may be Identified for allocating land to various users in a way that w i l l reduce environmental degradation and resource .use conflicts. The underlying premise of this hypothesis, as noted in Chapter One, is that the ability of management institutions to respond to the goals of society to prevent environmental damage and use conflicts depends not only on the management body's legal authority, but also upon an appreciation of the social, economic and biophysical characteristics of the coastal zone. Subsequently, the synthesis of a resource classification and evaluation technique was accomplished to aid in developing an understanding of the technical nature of the resource use problems in the coastal zone. The usefulness of a coastal resource classification and evaluation technique for coastal zone management is in identifying opportunities to resolve resource use problems encountered in coastal zone.management. In general, problems to be confronted in managing coastal resources are of two 126 types: 1) conflicts resulting from the interference by one resource user in the exploitation of another resource by a second user; and, 2) competition for the same resources. This division of resource management problems may seem to be rather a r t i f i c i a l since each problem relates to the other. But, i t i s useful since different aspects of the social, economic, and biophysical characteristics of the coastal zone can be more easily related to these pro-blems than to a general problem stated broadly in terms of either social equity, economic efficiency or environmental integrity. Further, these problems are stated in terms that relate to the dissatisfaction which the public experiences in attempts to utilize coastal resources. Such dissatis-faction is manifest in the complaints regarding the lack of access to beaches, inadequate public f a c i l i t i e s for coastal recreation, too few areas preserved for future uses, and the damage done to resources because of unrestrained exploitation of their attributes. To respond to these types of problems in coastal zone management, one must understand their genesis and be aware of the various component parts of the problems. Each type of problem appears to stem from the limited supply of resources available to satisfy a large number of societal groups representing a diverse range of values and from the biophysical attributes of coastal resources attractive for a variety of uses. The range of values held by groups interested in using coastal resources is represented at one end of the spectrum by those groups exploiting specific resource opportunities and at the other end by those groups who derive vicarious enjoyment from knowing beautiful coastal, areas exist., while never actually using or even visiting them. Because the supply of resources in the coastal 127 zone is finite and quite limited relative to the potential demand for various uses (U.S.A. Department of Interior, 1970), the resources are likely to become the object of severe competition. In terms of achieving an equitable distribution of resources this competition is not always desirable. Coastal resources are highly interrelated through biophysical process. Thus, use damages to the environment can be widespread and pervasive. This results in a great propensity for the activities of one coastal resource use to conflict with the resource requirements of other users. As shown by Table 11, certain use combinations are particularly incompatible. In inter-preting the impacts for potential use conflicts the assumption has been made that conflicts result from user activities which either eliminate the natural resource due to resource extraction, destroy the u t i l i t y of the resource for other uses by reducing i t s natural quality or by preventing other users from obtaining access to the resources. The potential inter-use conflict of possible use combinations is characterized as either prohi-bitive, restrictive, or a nuisance conflict (U.S.A. Department of Interior, 1970). Prohibitive type land-uses are those which exclude other users from enjoyment of the resources because of major modifications to the coastal, resources, or the building of structures which impede access to the resour-ces. Inmost cases the prohibitive use impacts cause, permanent changes in the resources. Restrictive use impacts result from the adverse, impact of activities on coastal resources but do not, in a l l cases, exclude others from using the resources. Water pollution i s an example of a restrictive impact. The water can be used by others once i t is treated or allowed to 128 Table 11: I N T E R - U S E C O M F L I C T S : SUMMARY OF I T ^ I R O I ^ B I T A L IMPACT MATRIX Uses Creating Impacts . A. Waterfront Industries B. Residential Homes C. Oyster Raft Culture D. Public Recreation -±r-Uses Affected By Impacts • -H CO C CD -P U cn cu 3 3 H H rti •H CD W I CD O Pi K -H Pi & cn cVc3 o •H •H o m •H CD Key: Nuisance Conflict I I Restrictive Conflict I'" * ~J Prohibitive Conflict IgSsfeaa 129 cleanse it s e l f . A nuisance type of use conflict is the least severe of the three. It indicates inter-use conflicts resulting from use impacts which are unpleasant or uncomfortable for other resource users, but they are not intolerable. They can, however, require tremendous effort to overcome in order to create more pleasant conditions. The adverse effect of oyster raft cultures on the aesthetic quality of an embayment is con-sidered to be this type of conflict. THE ROLE OF THE RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION TECKNIOUE IN COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT While coastal resources offer multiple opportunities for use and thereby the potential for use conflicts, the resource attributes also pro-vide the opportunity to design many alternative patterns of use allocation . based on the inherent ability of resources.to support different uses. The allocation of uses to resources in space is only one possible manage-ment approach to producing a "desirable" distribution of benefits and costs resulting from the use of coastal resources. It i s , however, a fundamental approach, to the problem of resource management. As.noted by Craine (1971) each attribute of a complex • of. resources surrounding a body of water makes possible specific uses and benefits which represent the potential of the resources. Hence, the f i r s t step to be taken in managing the use of . resources is "a careful analysis of the resource attributes and the problems associated with their use" (Craine, 1970). It should also be noted that the allocation of uses is often the only management technique that can be applied to resolve resource use conflicts and achieve a distribution of resources 130 acceptable to the diverse groups interested in the consumption of coastal resources. This results most often from citizens' unwillingness to accept the risks and uncertainties associated with the effectiveness of other management tools, such as pollution control regulations. One prime example where citizens are often unwilling to accept a regulatory solution to conflicts is in locating nuclear power producing plants near population centers or popular recreation areas. A resource classification and evaluation process provides the basis for establishing alternative use allocation patterns within a management area. Map number 7 displays the possible alternative resource allocation patterns generated'from the resource classification and evaluation con-ducted in Chapter Four. For each coastal component of the study area the capability for each of the selected uses-has been indicated. Table 12 demonstrates several alternative resource allocation patterns using only the f i r s t , second and third best uses which could be evaluated for their suitability and feasibility. Each pattern of allocation reveals a particular combination of the component's possible multiple uses. Through an analysis of both the allocation patterns and user impacts on the resources, the relative poten-t i a l or risk of conflicts within the coastal components can be established. Since each capability class (e.g. 1-6) is intended to represent only the inherent ability of resources to support different uses, and therefore the relative use limitations of a resource, the next step is to estimate the . distributional consequences of each use allocation pattern in terms of 1) the nature and incidence of conflicts and, 2) the costs in resource Table 12: \ THE CAPABILITY OF COMPONENTS WITHIN THE COAST OF WHATCOM COUNTY FOR SELECTED USES COMPONENT USE CAPABILITIES Component" Number A B C D 1st Class 2nd Class 1st Class 3rd Class 2nd Class 3rd Class 1st Class 2nd Class 3rd Class 4 4 3 2 D C C D C D 2 2 3 3 3 A BCD A B C D A B C D 3 4 2 1 1 BCD CD B BCD 4 1 4 3 4 A A C C A C 5 . • 4 3 2 2 CD B BCD BCD 6 3 2 2 2 BCD A A B C D A B C D 7 4 3 3 3. BCD BCD BCD 8 5 5 4 4 9 5 4 3 2 .D c C D C D A - Industrial B - Residential C - Public Recreation D - Oyster Culture . Capability Ratings: 1 - High 2 - Moderately high 3 - Moderate 4 - Moderately low 5 - Low 6 - Very low See Map 7 132 limitations that a user would have to incur under different allocation patterns aimed at reducing use conflicts. Sorenson (1971) points out that given a capability analysis of resources to support different uses, use allocation patterns should be evaluated to determine the relative oppor-tunity costs incurred by individual users from not locating in other components of the study area. These types of cost estimates in terms of resource limitations should not be confused with the suitability and feasibility types of analysis. It i s not possible to conduct either of these analyses without an assess-ment of the existing resource use situation, the demand for resources, and the goals and objectives of the society concerned with the use of coastal resources. Special attention should be paid to the distributional consequences of alternative'allocation patterns in.a feasibility analysis to determine the relative advantage of each alternative in averting use conflicts. ALTERNATIVE USE ALLOCATIONS AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The o f f i c i a l policies of Whatcom County regarding the allocation of land-uses in the coastal area are.manifest in the comprehensive plan. Ostensibly, these policies are based on an analysis of the social, econo-mic ,. political and biophysical resource characteristics of the County and the goals and objectives of the citizens. It is apparent, however, that a careful analysis of the inherent use potential of the resources did . not form the basis of the County's comprehensive plan. Secondly, the County plan' does not deal v/ith a l l types of 'land uses in the County or 133 a l l prospective uses. Nor is the plan highly specific or rigid regarding the allocation of land-uses. It was designed to be a tool for guiding the. physical development of the county to attain the goals and objectives of the County residents. Thus, i t would be possible to modify the plan and incorporate into i t additional ways of accomplishing the stated goals and objectives. Two of the major objectives stated in the plan are particularly per-tinent to this study: 1) Conservation of resources; and, 2) Harmony of land utilization. With respect to the conservation of resources, the policies imply that the resources are to be used in a way that w i l l minimize resource damages resulting in short term benefits from their use. The second objective to.achieve "harmony of land utilization" is complemen-ted with policies that have specific relevancy to this study. They are: 1) maximum compatibility in the arrangement of uses; and 2) "recognition of the natural limitations and relative suitability of land for various uses." These and other related objectives form the basis of the. comprehensive plan for Whatcom County. Map number 8 shows the.portion of this plan within the study area. The coastal components are also shown to facilitate refer-ence between this map and the capability maps. Since the comprehensive plan does.not deal with oyster culture as a prospective coastal use nor does i t identify potential recreational areas . outside those areas already, dedicated to recreational uses,, the author has found i t necessary to consider alternative allocations of these uses based on the capability analysis. These alternatives are compared to the allocation LEGEND: S U BUR BAN . I NDUSTRIA L R E C R E A T I O N A L . RURAL SOURCE*. WHATCOM MM 3 COUNTY 1971 C O U N T Y COM P R E H E N S I V E P L A N MAP 8 SCALE: 1/2"= 1 MILE AGRIC'JLT URE MULTIPLE USE FORESTRY OUTSIDE STUDY AREA COASTAL COMPONENT BO'JKBApY EDGE OF WATER A R E A 135 of other uses in the comprehensive plan. Recreation activities were not dealt with in the comprehensive plan because of revisions being made to the County's recreation plan. . ' The most obvious characteristic of the comprehensive plan is the highly segregated nature of the use allocations. Second, the shoreline areas are assigned largely to. two uses—residential and industrial. While . this may be a realistic approach to solving problems of land-use conflicts when the nature of the conflict is prohibitive, i t is not apparent from the resource capability and environmental impact analysis that this is necessary or desirable in Whatcom County. Thus, i t i s questionable whe-ther this approach to allocating resource uses is compatible with the plan's objectives to seek a moderation between the extremes of concen-tration of uses and dispersion of uses and to seek "optimum long-range benefits" from resource use. Further, desires of diverse interests groups to obtain benefits from the use of coastal resources are likely to result in strong pressures for a multiple use of resources in the f u l l range of coastal components despite the present plan of use allocation. Hence, the capability and impact analysis are tools that can aid in making the choice of uses producing the least conflict and environmental degradation. Since the resolution of use impacts is based largely on the choice of alternative patterns of,allocation, i t stands to reason that the capability and impact analysis would provide considerable insight to the ramifications of carrying out the policies of the comprehensive plan. Given that the comprehensive plan has been developed on the basis of social and economic information, including an analysis of citizen goals 136 and objectives concerning the physical development of the County,- i t therefore represents the County's f i r s t choice pattern of use allocation. The capability and impact analysis w i l l provide the basis for :identifying . the range and relative rank of possible alternative patterns, while indi-cating the kinds of limitations and conflicts associated with potential multiple uses of resources.in each component given the allocation provided in the comprehensive plan. The capability of the components to support selected alternative uses and the potential for multiple uses in each component is demonstrated in Table'9. By refering to the capability analy-sis conducted in Chapter Four, the major biophysical limitations in each coastal component for each use can be ascertained. The environmental impact analysis provides the basis for estimating the potential conflict associated with the prospective multiple use allocations. Residential Uses CRecreation Cottages and Permanent Homes): In the comprehensive plan, residential,uses are the most predaninate uses allocated to the coastal zone. By superimposing the coastal compon-ents over the comprehensive plan (Map 8) one can see that residential uses have been allocated by the County to components 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,7, and 8. (See also Table 13) In each of these components the residential uses impinge on the estuary-shore zone. In component 5, the two major subcom-ponents dmonstrating a high capability for recreation uses are allocated residential uses by the comprehensive plan. (The Sandy Point subcomponent is already developed for residential uses while the northwest shore sub-component of components is in the process of being "sub-divided.") 137 Table 13: COMPARISON'OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE. PLAN TO RESOURCE CAPABILITY ANALYSIS-CAPABILITY ANALYSIS Component Comprehensive Number Plan A B C D 1 B, E* 4 4 3 2 2 B, E 2 3 .3 3 3 B, E 4 . . 2 1 1 4 A, c, E 1 4 • 3 4 5 E, F" 4 3 2 2 6 B, E 3 2. . 2 2 7 B, E, F 4 3 3 3 8 B, c, G* 5 ' 5 4 4 9 C 5 4 3 2 Key: A ~ Industrial B ^ Residential C - Public Recreation D - Oyster Culture E - Rural F - Agriculture G ~ Forestry sVThese uses were not selected for evaluation i n this study but are part of the comprehensive plan. Capability Ratings: 1 - High 2 - Moderately high 3 - Moderate .4 - Moderately low. 5 - Low 6 - Very low 138 Out of the seven coastal components allocated residential uses in the comprehensive plan, five of the. components demonstrate either a f i r s t , second, or third class capability for residential uses and components 3, 6, and 9 possess either f i r s t or second class capabilities for recreational uses. The five residential areas are capable of providing desirable aesthetic qualities for homes and present few biophysical limitations to overcome in the development of home sites. A l l other areas, exeept component nine, present severe limitations for residential uses and there-fore could require tremendous effort to: service with u t i l i t i e s to protect both the home owner and the natural resources from deleterious impacts. The problem in allocating residential uses to a l l the high capability com-ponents is revealed in considering the alternative uses for which each of the five components have equal or higher capability ratings. Since the distribution of residential uses constrains other uses of an area, par-ticularly for outdoor recreation, the county comprehensive plan provides few future opportunities for the public to utilize the recreational poten-t i a l of the Whatcom County coast. Thus, the County administration w i l l be confronted with the problem of making a choice between the presently planned residential uses of several areas and possible recreational uses when the recreation element is Included in the comprehensive plan. The cost of alternative uses, in terms of resource capability limitations and the range of alternatives for allocating recreational and residential uses, should be the major considerations in making this choice. It appears that the planned allocation of residential uses to component eight can;< rot be supported from.a biophysical resource capability view-point. Component eight received low capability ratings for a l l four types 139 of uses. Since our analysis included only.four uses out of a wide range of possible uses, i t i s evident that component eight should undergo analysis for a broader range of uses including extensive recreation, preservation and conservancy types of uses. Public Recreation Uses • While the entire coast has high capability to support various kinds of recreational uses, components 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are especially attrac-tive for organized outdoor recreation—an intensive kind of activity (Table 12). Each of these areas provides a number of desirable recreation amenities and few biophysical limitations. However,, each of these compon-ents i s also attractive for either oyster culture, waterfront industries or residential uses. Therefore, the use conflict potential for recreation is great. The answer to the problem of conflicts is indicated by examining the existing distribution of land-uses and alternative locations for recreation, industrial and residential uses. Possible multiple use areas include components 3 and 5 for oyster culture and residential uses, and component 6 for recreation and oyster culture. The multiple uses in these areas are possible as co-major land uses. Expansion of organized public recreation fa c i l i t i e s in component'three w i l l be a difficult planning problem because of the present land-use situation. But, because of the high recreation capability of this component an attempt should be made to mijiimize conflicting activities through f a c i l i t y design and regulatory measures. ,-• Recreational values in the other coastal components should also be given consideration for limited types'ox uses, e.g. view points—boat 140 launching. As noted previously, component eight represents a special pro-blem. Although i t did not receive a high rating for intensive recreation, this does not imply that the component i s incapable of supporting other types of recreation a c t i v i t i e s . Hence, component eight should be scrutinized for i t s capability to support extensive types of recreation a c t i v i t i e s . Oyster Raft Culture As pointed out i n the capability analysis for oyster culture i n Chapter Four, Puget Sound and Georgia Strait provide very desirable conditions for commercial oyster culture. Thus, there are many alternative locations for this use should i t come into great demand. However, by allowing shorelines to be developed for other uses, opportunities for oyster culture could be substantially reduced, especially i f the shoreline development a c t i v i t i e s are not regulated to protect i n t e r t i d a l areas from damage and i f the shore-line uses are prohibitive or highly rest r i c t i v e i n relationship to oyster culture. Degradation of views and conflict with navigation are two of the major problems associated with oyster r a f t culture operations. A l l areas except components four and eight are rated within the highest three capability classes for oyster r a f t culture operations. . The rating of components three, f i v e , - s i x , and nine i n the top two classes provides a wide range of opportunities to avoid conflicts with other uses i n the study area. Unfortunately, because of the ubiquitous distribution of residential uses i n the comprehensive plan, this w i l l be d i f f i c u l t to achieve i f that plan comes to fr u i t i o n . Component nine appears to provide the'best opportunity to provide for 141 future oyster raft culture operations. Moreover, it s designation as a recreation area in the comprehensive plan, is less likely to foreclose the option of oyster raft culture in the future. Waterfront Industries Nearly perfect agreement exists between the capability analysis and the County plan allocation of indus-trial uses to component four. This component has a high capability to support industrial activities and does not present great opportunities for the other uses analyzed in this study which could create conflict situations. Further, the alternative to com-ponent four, component six, is less desirable for industry since i t also offers development opportunities for recreation and oyster culture. Opportunities for other uses in component four are limited by several factors. Although the view of Georgia Strait from this component is magni-ficent, the topographic characteristics do not provide many occasions to view the Strait unless one is nearly at the edge of the bluffs overlooking the shore. Second, the beach area is extremely inaccessible throughout the component because of the steep shoreline c l i f f s . Further, the easily erodible character of these c l i f f s represents a safety limitation to most uses unable to avert the risk by constructing protective structures. Fin-ally,, at high tide, many of the beach areas are completely covered to the c l i f f edge making them undesirable for intensive types of recreation acti-vities. The major considerations in locating waterfront industry in this component or the County are: 1) the possibility of deleterious industrial 142 ijirpacts spilling over to other components and affecting the viability of those components for other uses; and, 2) the desirability of committing this area to an irreversible use when the question of allocating any part of Puget Sound to new waterfront industrial uses is largely unsettled, at this time. If the Puget Sound area becomes the trans-shipment center, for North,Slope o i l the impact of industrial and shipping fa c i l i t i e s development w i l l certainly require a tremendous coordination effort to prevent a hodge-podge development of industrial development in the. loca-tions most convenient to the industries. Present Land Use The present land use of Whatcom County's coast has resulted largely from the workings of the private market distorted by the influence of unrelated government policies (See Map 9). The value of considering the existing resource use situation in a resource classification and capability analysis is to observe how the private market allocation of resources realizes the capability of. resources to support alternative uses. • . There are few areas of coastal land outside the Lummi Indian reser-vation that are not experiencing residential and industrial development pressures. This is creating a situation of limiting opportunities for alternative uses of the coast in the future, particularly for oyster culture and public recreation.. The greatest contradiction to allocating coastal resources on the basis of their inherent capability is in component five—containing G E O R G I A \ S T R A I T \ B I R C H P O I N T v. T H E C O A S T O F W H A T C O M C O U N T Y L E G E N D : B U I L T U P A R E A S I N D U S T R I A L R U R A L P R O D U C T I V E W OODLOT -it • * L A N D U S E M A P 9 S C A L E : I,1? j 1 MILE S O U R C E : P A C I F I C N O R T H W E S T R I V E R B A S I N COMM) S S IO N 11966 R E C R E A T I O N P A R K S R E C R E A T I O N H 0 M E 5 O U T S I D E S T U D Y A R E A S T U D Y A R E A B O U N D A R Y . I N T E R S T A T E 5 • C O U N T Y R O A D S — — 144 Sandy Point, Lummi Bay and the Lummi River delta. Presently, the Sandy t Point and Northwest shore subcomponents in component five are devoted, to residential uses (recreational cottages and permanent homes). The Lummi River delta is in agricultural uses and Lummi Bay is being developed for oyster raft culture operations. The East shore subcomponent is in rural-nonfarm and some undeveloped recreational uses. The use conflict in this component exists largely between the residential uses and the emerging oyster culture operations. Additionally, the possibility of developing public recreation facil i t i e s in this component has been, for the most part, eliminated by residential developments... On the basis of the capability analyses i t would have been possible prior to the present development situation to accommodate oyster culture, public recreation and residential uses in component five.. The component is rated high for both recreation and oyster culture and moderate for residential uses. Within the component,, the Sandy Point and eastshore subcomponents have high capability to support recreation uses. The Northwest shore sub--component has moderate capability to support residential uses and the: Lummi River delta and adjacent estuary-shore subcomponents have high capability to support oyster culture operations. Use of each of these subcomponents on the basis of their highest capability would have niinimized use conflicts, in particular, allowing public recreational activities to take place, in the component. Use of the Northwest shore subcomponent for residential activities would not have prohibited the use of Sandy Point for recreation— i t s highest rated use.. Oyster culture operations would continue to create nuisance conditions to some aspects (e.g. viewing and boating) of recreation and residential activities. On the other hand, i t presents an educational 145 opportunity to observe a unique and interesting commercial operation.. In comparing the present resource use situation with the comprehen-sive plan i t appears that the County planning authorities have generously accommodated the•existing development interests in the coastal area. Exami-nation of the County plans for intensive and extensive recreation and aquaculture operations would be needed to confirm this. While i t is troublesome to note that many opportunities to provide a diversity of uses in the coastal area have been eliminated by a lack of planning and fore-sight in the past, i t is disturbing to note that present plans are unlikely to prevent, current uses from co-opting nearly a l l areas within the coastal zone to the exclusion of other socially beneficial uses. - ' • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study has provided indirect evidence that the use of a resource classification and capability analysis can be an aid to reducing damages to the environment and conflicts associated with the use of coastal re-sources. The identification of alternative patterns of resource use and the cost of those alternatives in terms of biophysical limitations pro-vides the bases for accomplishing these two objectives. Further, i t has been demonstrated that the resource base of Whatcom County creates a greater opportunity to achieve multiple uses of coastal resources than was evident in the comprehensive plan. This is a significant accomplish-ment of the capability analysis, given that coastal resource management must attempt to produce a mixture of goods for public consumption. It .: indicates that a broader range of interests could be included in the d i s t r i -bution of ..benefits from the use of coastal resources. 146 Broader applications of the classification and resource capability analysis have been indicated to the author from this study. In particular, by characterizing the nature of problems associated with alternative pat-terns of use, management institutions-will be better able to evaluate strategies for intervening in the process of converting coastal resources for human use. While alternative strategies of controlling the location of uses is represented by the alternative allocation patterns, other management strategies w i l l also be needed tp ensure that the limitations of coastal resources are included in private decisions to. engage in using coastal resources. If we accept Craine's (1971) proposition that the use of coastal resources should be viewed as a production function, then, by identifying limiting factors which prevent resources from being brought into desirable uses i t w i l l be possible to design ways of regulating indi-vidual behavior with respect to these limiting.factors. In other words, the, capability analysis, is a prerequisite to answering the question of the most desirable way to utilize resources to produce public goods that w i l l satisfy society's current preferences and values. In summary, the greatest contribution of this type of analysis to managing coastal resour-ces is in defining the nature of prospective use problems that w i l l affect the< use of different types of management strategies and the design of i n s t i -tutions capable of carrying out those strategies. The physiographic factors used in this study to establish the coastal categories provided a useful but limited foundation for carrying out ecological considerations of resource capability and user impacts. Future development of the classification scheme should concentrate.on incorporating, V 147 more f u l l y , the ecological concepts and detail discussed i n Chapter Two. This would require more accurate and complete information than was av a i l -able for this study, especially regarding physical oceanographic processes, marine and shore vegetation, beach forming processes, and w i l d l i f e d i s t r i -bution and productivity. In an attempt to acquaint one's self with the technical problems involved i n coastal resource management, the need to interpret the implications of highly technical and sc i e n t i f i c studies for planning became obvious. Hence,. an interdisciplinary approach to carrying out the classification and analysis of coastal resources i s recommended. The success of such an approach w i l l of course depend on the a b i l i t y of the generalist planner to coordinate research and special studies of coastal resources with emphasis placed on providing the overall framework for incorporating this information into the coastal zone management decision process.—-whether i t be controlled l o c a l l y , regionally, or nationally. In addition to information, required on the natural resources, i t i s con-cluded that successful application of the capability analysis w i l l require greater .knowledge regarding the resource requirements of prospective users and the values and preferences of the groups interested i n the use or preservation of the coastal zone. .; Within the limited resource context which this study was conducted, the practical application and usefulness of the resource classification and analysis was demonstrated. I t i s , however, important to note that while this kind of analysis can lead to the desired allocation of. resources at the local l e v e l , i t could result i n local decision-makers being misled into committing resources to uses for which there i s no demand or vice 148 versa. Consequently, i t is recommended that an approach integrating the analysis of resource characteristics with user resource requirements be carried out in a broader context inclusive of the total supply and demand of coastal resources. Consideration of the whole to which any specific resource belongs w i l l enable society to optimize the use of resources beyond that which could be accomplished from a local perspective. Finally, i t i s only within the broader context of resource use that a l l linkages between management institutions can be established in order to effectively unify the management of coastal resource uses for society's benefit. LITLTsATURE CITED 1. Alward, Susan Philips, 1971, The Employment of Soils Information In Land Use Decision, Unpublished Thesis', Dept. of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Washington, Seattle. 2. Anon. 1968, Soil and Land Use. Interpretations, prepared for Comprehensive Water Resources study of Puget Sound .and Adjacent Waters, Northwest River' Basins Commission.' 3.. . Barber, Byron, 1967, "Industrial Land Planning," Journal of the  Urban Planning and Development Division, Proceedings of the Society of C i v i l Engineers, Vol. '93 No. UP3, September. 4. Baur, Wolf, Marine Shorelines, Environmental Classification and Rating System, Unpublished Mimeo, no date. 5. Belknap, Raymond K. and Furtado, John G., 1968, "The Natural Land Unit As a Planning' Base," Landscape Architecture, Volume 58, No. 2. 6. Belknap, Raymond K. and-Furtado, John G., 1967, Three Approaches to Environmental Resource Analysis, Landscape Architecture Research Office, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, Sponsored by the Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 7. Bird, E.C.F., 196G, Coasts, The M.I.T. Press,. Cambride, Massachusetts. 8. Bird, E.C.F., 1964, Coastal Landforms, The'Australian National University, Canberra. ... 9. Brooks, Lloyd, 1961, The Forces Shaping Demand for Recreation-Space in Canada, Resources for Tomorrow Conference, Montreal, Vol. 2, Queens Printer, Ottawa, Canada. 10. Bowden, K.F., 1967, "Circulation and Diffusion" in -Estuaries', ed. by Lauff, George H., American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Pub. Number 83, Washington, D.C. 11. Cain, Stanley, 1966, "Biotope and Habitat" in Future Environments of North America, ed. by F. Fraser Darling and John D. Milton,' The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. 12. Canada, Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Canadian Forest Service, 1969, Guidelines for Bio-Physical Land Classification, Queens Printer, Ottawa. 1.50 13. Canada, Department of Forestry and Rural Development, 1966, The Canada Land Inventory, Prepared for ARDA, Queens Printer, Ottawa. 14. Canada, Department of National Revenue, 1970, Foreign Pleasure Boats Entering Canada, Personal Communication to Foster (1971) Mr. R.C. Steel, Canada Customs House, Victoria, B.C. 15. Canada, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, 1970, Canada Land Inventory; Objectives, Scope, Organization, Report No. 1, Queens Printer, Ottawa. 16. Canada, Department of Regional. Economic Expansion, 1969, The Canada Land Inventory; Soil Capability Classification for . Agriculture. Report No. 2, Queens Printer, Ottawa. 17. Canada, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1966, Census of Canada, D.B.S. 92-607, "Population; Incorporated Cities, Towns and Villages." 18. Carriker, M.R., 1967, "Ecology of Estuarine Benthic Invertebrates: Perspective" in Estuaries, ed. by Lauff,.George H., American Association For the Advancement of Science (AAAS), pub. 83, Washington, D.C. 19. Christian, C.S., 1957, "The Concept of Land Units and Land Systems" Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Science Congress, Vol. 20. 20. Church, Ian R., and Rubin, Daniel S., 1970, An Ecological Review . of Our Southwestern Shores, prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District Planning Department, Vancouver, B.C. 21. Craine, Lyle E., 1971, "Institutions for Managing Lakes and Bays" Natural Resources Journal. The University of Mew Mexico, School of Law, Vol. 11, Number 3. 22. Cronin, Eugene L., and Mansueti, Alice J., 1969, "The Biology.of the Estuary," in A Symposium on the Biological Significance . . of Estuaries, ed. by Douglas, Philpa and Stroud, Richard H. The Sports Fishing Institute, Washington, D.C. 23. Cronin, Eugene L., 1967, "The Role of Man in Estuaries" in Estuaries, ed. by Lauff, George H. (AAAS) Pub. 83, Washington, D.C. 24. Ehrlick, Paul R.. and Ehrlick, Anne H., 1970, Populat ion-Re source s - . Environment, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California. 25. Elton, Charles, 1942, Voles, Mice and Lemmings: Problems ;in Popu- lation Dynamics, Methuen, London. 151 26. Esterbrook, Don J. and Ruhm, David A.', 1970, Landforms of Washington, • Department of Geology, Western Washington State College, Bellingham. 27. Foster, Lawrence V., 1971, Natural Resource Capability and User Characteristics As an Integrated Basis for Outdoor Recreation Planning: A case study of Galiano Island School of Community and Regional Planning, University of B.C., Vancouver. 28. Graves, Clifford W., 1968, Ports, Maritime Commerce in the' San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop-ment Commission, San Francisco, California. 29. Green, J., 1968, The Biology'of Estuarine Animals, University of" London, Great Britain. 30. Hardin, Garret, 1969, "The Cybernetics of Competition: A Biologist's View of Society" in The Subversive Science, ed. by Shepard, P., and McKinley, D., Houghton-Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 31. Harger, J. Robin, e t . a l . , 1971, "An Experimental Investigation into Effects of Pulp M i l l Effluent on Structure of Biological Communities in Alberni Inlet, British Columbia," Mimeographed, Zoology Department,. University of B.C., Vancouver. 32. Harrison, Peter, 1971, The Application' of.Benefit-Cost Analysis to ' Proposed Land Use Change: •'The Guemes Island and Port Susan  (Kavak Point) Conflicts, Institute for Economic Research, Uni-versity of .Washington, Seattle. 33. Hedgepeth, J.W.,- 1970, "The Oceans: World Sump," Environment, Vol. 12. 34. Hedgepeth, J.W. and Gonor, Jefferson,-1969, "Aspects of the Potential. Effect of Thermal Alteration on Marine and Estuarine; Benthos" in Biological Aspects of Thermal Pollution, ed.'by Krenkel, Peter A., Parker, Frank L., Vanderbilt University Press, Portland, Oregon. 35. H i l l s , G.A., 1970, Developing a Better Environment, Ontario Economic. Council, Toronto, Ontario. 36. H i l l s , G.A., 1961, The Ecological Basis for Land-Use Planning, Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Research Branch, Research Report No. 46. ' 37. Holling, C.S.', 1971, "The Concept of Resilience in Regional Systems". The Inter-Institutional Policy Simulation Workshop, Serial No. 2/19, University of B.C., Vancouver. 152 51. McGill, John T., 1959, "Coastal Classification Maps: A Review," Papers of the Second Coastal Geography Conference,' Sponsored by the office of Naval Research and National Academy of Science, Richard J. Russell, Ed., Washington, D.C. 52. McHarg, Ian L., 1969, Design With Mature, Published by the American Museum of Natural History, by the. Falcon Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania... 53. . McHugh, J.L., 1967, "Estuarine Nekton," in Estuaries 'ed. by Lauff, George H., (AAAS), Pub. 83, Washington, D.C. 54. McHugh, J.L., 1966, "Management of Estuarine Fisheries" in A Symposium on Estuarine Fisheries, American Fisheries Society, Special Publication No. 3, Washington, D.C. 55. Moore, Hilary B., 1958, Marine Ecology, Wiley, New York. 56. Odum, Eugene P., 1971, Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd Ed., W.B. Saunders Company, Toronto, Canada. 57. Olson, A.A., 1971, "An Interdisciplinary Approach to Environmental., Land Use Impacts," State Planning Division, Office of Program •. Planning and Fiscal Management, Mimeo, Olympia, Washington. 58. Olson, Theodore and Burgen, Frederick,. 1967, Pollution and Marine Ecology; Proceedings Conference on the Status of Knowledge', Critical Research Needs and. Potential Facilities Relating to Ecology and Problems in the Marine Environment, Interscience Publication, New York. 59. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1962, Multiple Use of Land and Water Areas, Report No. 17, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 60. Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission,T970, Puget Sound and ' •'" Adjacent Waters, State of Washington, A Comprehensive Study of Water and Related Land Resources, Government Printing ' Office, Washington, D.C. 61. Phillips, Earl, 1966, Washington Climate, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, Washington State University, Pullman. 62. Pritchard, D.W., 1969, "Dispersion and Flushing of Pollutants in Estuaries", Journal of the Hydraulics- Division,. American Society of C i v i l Engineers, Vol. 95 (HY1) 153 63. Priichard, Donald W., 1967,. "What Is An Estuary: Physical Viewpoint" in Estuaries, Ed. by Lauff, George H., American Association for the Advancement of Science, Pub. 83, Washington, D.C. 64. Quayle, D.V., 1971, Pacific O/ster Raft Culture in British Columbia, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 178., Queens Printer, Ottawa. u 65. Reid, George K., 1967, Ecology of Intertidal Zones, Rand McNally and Company, Chicago. 66. Reid,. G.K., 1961, Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries, Reinholt Pub. Corp, New York. 67. Riley, Gordon A., 1967, "The plankton of Estuaries," in Estuaries, Ed. by Lauff, George H., AAAS, Pub. 83, Washington, D.C. 68. Russel, George Harris, 1954, The Surface Winds Over Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan De Fuca and Their Oceanographical Effects, Unpublished Thesis, University of Washington, Department of Oceanography, Seattle. 69. Salo, Erenest 0., and Quentin, J. Staber, 1970,. "The Effects of . Pollution on Estuaries of the Northwest Pacific Coast, in A Symposium on the Biological Significance of Estuaries, Sports Fishing Institute, Houston, Texas. 70. Schaefer, Milner B., 1969, "Conservation of Biological Resources" Ocean Engineering And Management'of the- Coastal Zone, Engineering-. . Extension- Service, University of California, Berkely, California. 71. Schwartz, M.L. et. a l . , 1971, A Preliminary Study of the Nearshore ' Currents in the Vicinity of Birch Bay and Cherry Point, Washington, Mimeo, Geology Department, Western Washington State College, Bellingham. 72. Shalowitz, Aaron L., 1964, Shore and Sea Boundaries, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Department of Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 73. Slobodkin, L.B., 1962, .Growth and Regulation of Animal Populations, Rinehart and Winston, Mew York. 74. Sorensen, Jens C, 1971, A Framework for Identification and Control of Resource Degradation and Conflict in the Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone, Published Masters Thesis, Department of Land- . scape. Architecture, University of California, Berkeley, California. 154 75. Stein, C.S., 1966, "Coastal Changes" in Future Environments of North America, Ed. by F. Fraser Darling and John P. Milton, Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y. 76. Steinitz, Carl, 1970, "Landscape Resource Analysis," .Landscape Architecture, January, 1970. 77. Steinitz, Carl, 1970, A General System For Environmental Resource Analysis, Steinitz Rogers Associates,. Inc.' A Report to-the-Public Land Law Review Commission, Distributed by National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,. Springfield, Va. 78. Stephenson, T.A. and Stephenson, Anne, 1949, The Universal Features of Zonation Between Tide-Marks on Rocky Coasts, Journal of Ecology, Volume 37. 79. Strietland, J.B., 1969, "Remarks on the Effects of Heated Discharges on Marine Zooplankton," in Biological Aspects of Thermal  Pollution, Ed. by Krenkel, Peter A., and Parker, Frank L., • Vanderbilt University Press, Portland, Oregon. 80. Sylva, Donald P., 1969, "Theoretical Considerations' of the Effects of Heated Effluent's - on Marine Fishes" in The Biological Aspects  o f Thermal Pollution, Ed. by Peter A. Krenkel and Frank L. Parker, Vanderbilt.University Press, Portland, Oregon. 81. United States Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, 1970, The National Estuary Study, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 82. U. S. A. Coast and Geodetic Survey, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1971, Navigation Chart #6380,' "Strait of Juan De Fuca to Georgia Strait," Washington, D.C. 83. U. S. A., Congress, 1971, H.R. 2493, A B i l l Concerning Coastal Zone Management 84. U. S. A., Congress, 1969, S. 582, A B i l l Concerning Coastal • Zone Management. 85. U. S. A., Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1953, Land and Water Resources Survey, Western Whatcom County, . Bellingham, Washington. 86. U. S. A., Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1969, "Soil Limitations for Septic Tank Filter Field," Whatcom County, Bellingham, Washington. 155 .87.. U.S.A., Department of the Interior, 1970, The National Estuarine  Pollution Studv, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 88. U.S.A., Geological Survey, 1966, Topographic Map Series, Denver, Colorado. 89. U.S. President, 1970, Marine Science Affairs—Selecting Priority Programs, Annual Report of the National Council on Marine Resources- and Engineering Development, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 90. U.S. President, 1968, Marine Science Affairs—A Year of Plans and Progress, ...Annual Report of • the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 91. Waldichuck, 1953, "Oceanography of the Strait of Georgia: III, Character of the Bottom," Fisheries Research Board of Canada,. Research Report No. 95. 92. Washington, State of, Department of Natural Resources, 1967, Air Photo Mosaics, Whatcom County, Olympia, Washington. . 93. Washington, State.of, Department of Natural Resources, 1972, Marine Land Inventory, "Wild Life and Vegetation", Unpublished, Olympia, Washington. 94. Washington, University of, College of Forest Resources, 1968, Working With Environmental Factors, Seattle, Washington. '• ' 95. Watt, K.E.F., 1968, Ecology and Resource Management, McGraw-Hill, New York. . 96. Washington, University of, 1953, 'Puget Sound and Approaches; a '""Literature Survey: Vol. I - geography, climatology, hydrology, University of Washington, Department of Oceanography. 97. Westley, Ronald E.,:1970,"The Oyster Producing Potential of Puget Sound," Proceedings, National Shellfisheries Association, Vol. 61, June. 98. Whatcom County Planning. Commission, 1970, Comprehensive Plan.for. Whatcom Count}/ Washington, Mimeo, Bellingham, Washington. 99. Wilkes, Daniel, 1969, "Consideration of Anticipatory Uses in Decisions on Coastal Development," San Diego Law Review, Volume 6. WORKS CONSULTED 1. Baker, W.M., 1961, Assessing and Allocating Renewable Resources' for . Recreation, Resources for Tomorrow Conference, Montreal, Vol. 2, Queens Printer, Ottawa, Canada. 2. Burton,. Ian, Kates, R.W., and Snead, R., 1969,.The Human Ecology of Coastal Flood Hazard in Megalopolis, University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 115, Chicago, Il l i n o i s . .3. Chapman, T.G.., 1969, "Land Evaluation: An International Symposium," Nature and Resources, Vol. 5, No. 1, March, UNESCO. 4. Cole,.LaMont C., 1970, "Playing Russian Roulette With Biogeochemical 'Cycles," in The Environmental Crisis,' Ed. by H. Helfrich, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. 5. Garretson, Albert, 1968, The Land-Sea-Interface of the Coastal Zone,  of the United States: Legal Problems Rising out, of Multiple Use  and Conflicts of Private and Public Rights and Interests, The"-President's Council on Marine Science, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. -Hart, William J., and Grahm, William W., 1967,. "How to- Rate and Rank Landscape," Landscape Architecture, 57 (2) 120-2. Ippen, Arthur T.,. 1966, Estuary and Coastline Hydro-dynamics, McGraw-H i l l Book Co., New York. King, Cuchlaine A.M., 1959, Beaches and Coasts, Edward Arnold LTO.., London, Great Britain. Kruegar, R.R., ed., 1963, Regional and Resource Planning in Canada, Holt, Rinehart and Winstrom of Canada, Ltd., Toronto. Litton, Burton R. Jr., 1968, Forest Landscape Description and - • • Inventories - A'Basis for Land Planning and Design, Pacific South VJest Forest and .Range Experimental Station, Berkeley . C alifornia. 11. McHarg, Ian L., 1965, "Plan for the Valleys," Landscape Architecture, 55 (2). 12. McHarg, Ian L., April, 1967), "Where should Highways Go?" Landscape Architecture, Vol. 57, Number 2. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 157 13. McHarg, Ian L., 1967, "An Ecological Method for Landscape Architecture," Landscape Architecture, 57 (2). 14. Ridd, M.K., 1965, Area Oriented Multiple Use Analysis, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Regional Office, Ogden, Utah. 15. Russell, Richard J., 1969, Glossary of Terms Used in Fluvial. Deltaic, and Coastal Morphology and Processes, Louisiana State University Studies, Coastal Studies Series Number 23, Baton Rouge. 16. . Teal, John, and Mildread, 1969, Life and Death of the Salt Marsh. Li t t l e , Brown, and Co., Boston. 17. Tepstra, Griet, 1968, Sea.Shore and Coasts:- Challenges in Shoreline Development and Conservation, Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. 18. Thompson, S.H., 1961, "What is Happening to Our Estuaries," Proceedings of the North American Wildlife Conference, Vol. 6. •19. Tully, J.P. and Dodimead, A.J., 1957, "Properties of the Water in the Strait of Georgia, B.C., and Influencing Factors," Journal Fish Resource Board of Canada. Vol. 14. 20. U. S., Department of the Army, Coastal Engineering Resources Cenler, 1966, Share Protection Planning and Design, Technical Report.No. 4, 3rd Ed., Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. . 21. U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Adirunistration, 1970, Environmental ' Factors in Coastal and Estuarine Waters,., Vol. I I , Coast of Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. . 22. Wennekens, M.P., 1959, Marine Environment and Macro-benthos of P.S., San Juan" Archipelago, Southern Georgia Strait, and Strait of  Juan de Fuca. PhD Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.. • 23. Wise, Harold F., and Associates, 1969, "Intergovernmental Relations . and the National Interests i n the.Coastal Zone of the U.S.", Presidents Council on Marine Science, Government Printing Office'. Washington, D.C, 24. Zenkovich, V.P., 1967, Processes of Coastal Development, Ed. by J.A. Steers, Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., London. 158 38. Isodemographic Map of Canada, 1971, University of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning, for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Canada, Distributed by Department of Energy Mines and Resources, Ottawa. 39. .Kincaid, T., VJennekens, M.P., and Sylveston, R.O., 1954, A Study • of Oceanographical and BJoHogical Characteristics of S.E. Georgia  Strait. Report to the General Petroleum Corp., Los Angeles, 142 p., Seattle, Washington. 40. Kinne, Otto, 1970, Marine Ecology, A Comprehensive Integrated Treatise . on Life in Ocean and Coastal Waters, Vol. I "Environmental Factors", Part 7, Wiley-Interscience, John,Wiley and Son, Toronto. 41. Kinne, Otto, 1967, "Physiology of Estuarine Organisms with Special . Reference to Salinity Temperature; General Aspects" in. Estuaries, ed. by Lauff, George H., (AAAS), Pub. 83, Washington, D.C. 42. Kormondy, E.J.; 1969, Concepts of Ecology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cl i f f s , N.J. 43. Krajina, Vladimer, 1965, Ecology of Western North America, Vol. 1, Department of Botany, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 44. Lack, David L., 1966, Population Studies of Birds, Clarendon Press, Oxford., 45. Lea, N.D. and Associates, 1966, Analysis of Recreational Boating in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Department of Public Works, Ottawa, Canada. Unpublished. 46. Lewis, Philip H. Jr.,.1964, "Quality Corridors for Wisconsin," I^dsoape Architecture. 54 (2). 47. Lowry, Ira, 1965, "A Short Course on Model Design" Journal of the American Institute of Planners,. Vol. 31, No. ,2, May. 48. Lynch, Kevin, 1962, Site- Planning, M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts., Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. 49. Mabbutt, J.A., 1968, "Review of Concepts.of Land Classification" in Land Evaluation, ed. by G.A. Stewart, Division of Land Research, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia, Macmillan of Australia. 50. Marx, Wesley, 1967, The Frail Ocean, Coward-McConn Inc., New York. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101532/manifest

Comment

Related Items