PLANNING FOR CONSERVACY AREAS:• RECREATION IN ESTUARINE BIRD HABITAT

by

FRIEDA MARION SCHADE B.Sc, Simon Fraser University, 1972

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT 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 April, 1979

© Frieda Marion Schade, 1979 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the require• ments for an advanced degree at the University of British

Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely avail•

able 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 represen•

tatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this

thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

School of Community and Regional Planning

The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada ABSTRACT

This thesis analyses a problem that is common in plan• ning for conservacy areas — the problem of the meeting dual and contradictory objectives of preserving natural areas that must also be used for recreation. Where one objective excludes the other, a compromise must be reached. Previous experience in North America has shown that it is not easy to reconcile the two functions.

A case study approach is used in the thesis. The study area, Boundary Bay, is an important waterfowl and shore- bird habitat. The Bay also has the potential to serve many recreational needs close to an urban area, Greater Vancouver.

The role of Boundary Bay, including Mud and Semiahmoo

Bays, and their shorelands in the ecology of wildlife species

is analysed using census and food chain data. Information collected for an inventory of regional recreation suggests which recreation needs might be satisfied at Boundary Bay.

Guidelines are developed for integration of human activity and wildlife habitat, based on anticipated recreational use of the

Bay. Data from four public meetings in Surrey points to the

existence of some concern on the part of Bay area residents

about the implications of conservacy use of the Bay. Sugges•

tions for further investigation or resolution of these conflicts

are made. The issues involved in planning Boundary Bay are com• plex ones because of the number of interests involved. There is no "right" way of proceeding. Four scenarios are developed to illustrate alternative means of applying resource manage• ment guidelines and measures for resolution of conflicts to the study area. Each alternative requires a different level and type of management with different implications for long term reconciliation of use with preservation. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Chapter

ONE PROBLEM STATEMENT AND CASE STUDY 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Thesis Objectives 3 1.3 The Contradiction of Preservation with Use 4 1.4 Boundary Bay: The Case Study Area 5

TWO PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF CONSERVACY AREAS: 13 THE NORTH AMERICAN EXPERIENCE 2.1 Introduction 13 2.2 Inviolate Conservacy Areas 13 2.3 Recreation Conservacies 15 2.4 Limited-Use Conservacies 19 2.5 Summary 22 2.6 The Implications of the North American 23 Experience for the Study Area

THREE BOUNDARY BAY: THE RECREATIONAL RESOURCE 25 3.1 Introduction 25 3.2 Biophysical Resources and Recreational 26 Potential 3.3 Present Recreational Use 28 3.4 General Trends in Outdoor Recreation 29 3.5 Implications of Regional Recreation 30 Demands 3.6 Conclusions 35

FOUR THE ROLE OF BOUNDARY BAY AS A WILDLIFE HABITAT 37 4.1 Variety of Bird Species at Boundary Bay 3 7 4.2 Boundary Bay: An Important Habitat Com- 37 ponent of the Fraser Estuary 4.3 The Fraser Estuary: Importance to the 42 Pacific Flyway 4.4 Seasonal Distribution in Bird Use of 45 Boundary Bay 4.5 An Analysis of the Ecological Role of 47 Boundary Bay Bird Habitat 4.6 Conclusion 57 v

Chapter Page

FIVE RECREATION IN ESTUARINE BIRD HABITAT: ITS 58 EFFECT AND THEIR MITIGATION 5.1 Introduction 58 5.2 Food Chain Disruption 59 5.3 Passive Human Presence 60 5.4 Active Human Presence - Noise and Threats 64 5.5 Feeding Wildlife 71 5.6 Disruption of Nesting Birds 72 5.7 Conclusion 74

SIX CONFLICTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRESERVATION OF THE 7 6 BIRD RESOURCE AT BOUNDARY BAY AND THEIR MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Introduction 76 6.2 The Surrey Meetings: Source of Information 76 about Conflicts 6.3 The Agricultural Conflict 78 6.4 The Hunter-Anti-Hunter Conflict 83

SEVEN CONSERVACY ALTERNATIVES FOR BOUNDARY BAY 91 7.1 Introduction 91 7.2 Alternative One: Continuation of Present 93 Course 7.3 Alternative Two: Moderate Preservation 103 7.4 Alternative Three: Implementation of a 105 Three Zone System 7.5 Alternative Four: Enhancement 109 7.6 Conclusion 110

BIBLIOGRAPHY 113

APPENDICES 121 Appendix 1 Proposals for Conservacy Use 121 of Boundary Bay Appendix 2 Boundaries of Subregions 122 Appendix 3 Boundary Bay Species Checklist 123 Appendix 4 The Waterfowl Census: What Does 125 it Tell Us? Appendix 5 Observations of Birds Feeding on 131 Agricultural Lands Appendix 6 Pattern Statements from Surrey 132 Planning Department Appendix 7 Summary of Public Discussion on 135 the Pattern Statements Pre• sented in Appendix Six vi

LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

TABLES

4.1 Waterfowl Use of Different Habitat Areas on 40 the Fraser Estuary/Delta 4.2 Waterfowl Habitat Values for Fraser River 41 Estuary Units 7.1 Alternatives for Conservacy use of Boundary Bay 94 7.2 Likelihood of Reconciliation of Recreation Use 99 With Preservation of Wildlife Habitat Accord• ing to Four Alternative Scenarios 7.3 Public Agencies that Would Need to be Involved 100 in Implementation of Proposed Alternatives

FIGURES 3.1 Parkland Area Shortfalls and Surplus 31 4.1 The Pacific Flyway 43 4.2 Boundary-Mud Bays: Average Monthly Waterfowl 46 Counts, 1966-1974 4.3 Feeding Habitats of Some Common Bird Species 53 at Boundary Bay

MAPS 1.1 Location of Boundary Bay on the Fraser Delta 6 1.2 The Study Area 7 1.3 Land Use and Ownership on Boundary Bay 10 4.1 The Fraser Estuary and Environs 39 4.2 Biophysical Zones of Boundary Bay 51 6.1 Designated Hunting and Non-Hunting Areas on 89 Boundary Bay 7.1 Place Names on Boundary Bay 101

NOTE: Base Map, some graphics courtesy of G.V.R.D., Parks Department. vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to my readers

Tony Dorcey, Ken Hall and Bill Reese.

Thanks to the G.V.R.D. Parks Department for encouragement,

advice and for base maps

Rick Hankin, Bev Evers, Violet Frazer.

Thanks to B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch for their cooperation.

Thanks to many people for help and encouragement in small (but

important) ways

Donna McGee, Nancy Pilch, Bev Tanchak, Brahm Weisman,

Jim LeMaistre, Barry Leach, and more recently, Barry

Fraser. 1

CHAPTER ONE

Problem Statement and Case Study

1.1 Introduction

An area that has potential for preservation, conserva•

tion, recreation or other amenity uses may be called a conser-

vacy area. A number of institutional designations for conser- vacies exist. These embrace the entire spectrum from complete preservation or non-use (an ecological reserve or wildlife

sanctuary) to intensive use for recreation (a municipal park or an urban waterfront walkway). As the examples indicate, the

conservacy area concept has two connotations: preservation,

and use. These have contradictory implications for planning and management. The past record in North America demonstrates

that it has not been easy to reconcile the two functions.

Over the decades between 1950 and 1970 demands for areas for recreational use have increased remarkably and today the outdoor recreation sector continues to grow. Though new areas have been set aside for recreation, conservacy acreages in North America have not increased in proportion to their use

(Forster, 1973; Kusler, 1974). At the same time open space which once unofficially served a conservacy function has dis• appeared due to urbanization. These pressures argue strongly for recreational use of all conservacy areas, even in areas where ecological values are a concern, the rationale being that 2 greater net social benefits may be obtained from mixing these

"uses", than from areas where use is restricted.

Planning and management of conservacy areas has unfor• tunately lagged behind extensions of their use. In some areas pressures of people and outdoor activities have resulted in degradation of the very resource base that had attracted such use. Small actions like dredging and dumping of dredge spoil in natural areas, or clearing areas of native vegetation to plant grass, have resulted in unconscious loss of conservacy values. Larger intrusions have caused serious disruptions of animal population ecology, uncontrolled urbanization in some conservacy areas, and loss of interesting landscape features, again resulting in degradation of conservacy values. Designa• tion of areas as conservacy, therefore, has not necessarily provided adequate protection of their natural qualities.

This thesis suggests how planning and management can reconcile preservation with use of a conservacy area, using a case study in the Greater Vancouver region. The proposed con• servacy area, Boundary Bay, is a huge estuarine complex made up of three smaller, but contiguous embayments. The Bay supports sizable wildlife populations, notably waterfowl and shorebirds.

Its beaches, warm water and vistas make it a popular recreation area. The wildlife populations there are also a significant recreation attraction. Boundary Bay has been called the most outstanding, undeveloped recreational resource in the Lower

Mainland (K. Joy, B.C. Parks Branch, personal communication). 3

Although Boundary Bay's designation as a conservacy area has not been officially decided, the intent expressed among proponents of a conservacy area there, is that the Bay should function as a recreation and conservation area, with preserva• tion of bird habitat as the major conservation objective. The purpose of this thesis is to develop some guidelines that will aid in management of a conservacy area in Boundary Bay. The case study is a particularly challenging one for two reasons.

First, the proximity of the Bay to an urban center and the ex• pected heavy recreational user pressure that results from this proximity, will make preservation of the value of the Bay as bird habitat difficult. Second, unclear and over-lapping insti• tutional jurisdictions which exist in the coastal zone present difficulties for implementation of any management strategy that is developed. The thesis addresses both of these problems, although the emphasis is on the former.

1.2 Thesis Objectives

The objectives of this thesis are:

1. To analyse the general problem of planning for use of conservacy areas: the problem of meeting the dual and con• tradictory purposes of preserving natural areas that are also used for recreation. A local case study is used: Boundary Bay, accommodation of recreation in estuarine bird habitat.

2. To develop management guidelines for use of a con• servacy area in Boundary Bay, and to illustrate the tradeoffs 4 that are made as different levels of use are accommodated.

3. To offer a comprehensive approach to planning and implementation of a management strategy, and to suggest the role to be played by agencies with an actual or potential interest in the study area.

1.3 The Contradiction of Preservation with Use

Conservacy areas often have the problem of serving dual and contradictory objectives. Powers (1975) states these ob• jectives in a general form:

1. Maintain and enhance (where possible) biotic pro• ductivity .

2. Preserve land for recreational use.

The first objective implies that there will be restrictions on use of the conservacy area, so that its ecosystem will remain intact. On the other hand if recreational needs are to be met, pressure of people and outdoor activities which lead to dis• turbance of the conservacy area, will inevitably decrease its productivity.

These contradictory goals have appeared persistently in legislation which designates most conservacy areas,in the

U.S. and Canada: National Parks Act (Canada/U.S.); Parks Act

(B.C.); Wilderness Act (U.S.); Refuge Recreational Act (U.S.);

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (U.S.). The legislation clearly indicates that both use and preservation of conservacy areas should take place, but does not necessarily 5 set guidelines or priorities where the two must be mixed. At some point the cost of mixing (declining productivity) will equal the increase in user benefits (recreation) that can be obtained, and a compromise between the two will have been reached.

The next section identifies opportunities for preserva• tion and use within the case study.area.

1.4 Boundary Bay: The Case Study Area

Boundary Bay is a huge estuarine bay located on the southern, inactive portion of the Fraser delta front, approxi• mately 15 miles south of the city of Vancouver (see Map 1.1).

The Bay itself is made up of three smaller embayments: Boundary

Bay proper on the west; Mud Bay on the east; and Semiahmoo Bay on the south."'" The study area of the thesis includes the three

Bays to the U.S. border: it extends inland .5 kilometer (see

Map 1.2). Such a definition of the coastal zone was used in the recent Fraser River Estuary Study (Government of Canada/

Province of B.C., 1978). Land uses and human activities in these areas will influence planning and management of a conser• vacy area in the Bay, and may in fact add to or detract from the Bay's conservacy values.

"*"The 3 bays which are included in the study area are referred to collectively as Boundary Bay in the thesis. When one bay in particular is the subject of discussion, it is re• ferred to by name; the small Boundary Bay unit is called Bound• ary Bay proper. 6 7

MAP 1.2

THE STUDY AREA 8

The study area forms a natural unit of more than 90 square miles. The estuaries of three rivers — the Nicomekl,

Serpentine, and Campbell Rivers, the largest, flattest inter- tidal area in the province, parts of three municipalities —

Surrey, Delta, White Rock, and an international boundary are included in Boundary Bay.

Recreation is the predominant human use of Boundary Bay at present. Boundary Bay's beaches are attractive for water and beach recreation. The shallowness of the Bay limits boating to smaller craft, but a dredged channel at the mouth of the

Nicomekl River offers access for larger vessels to the deeper waters of Semiahmoo Bay and Georgia Strait. Two marinas are located in the Nicomekl estuary.

The Boundary, Mud, and Semiahmoo Bay ecosystem supports rich and diverse communities. The three rivers draining into the Bay support remnant populations of cutthroat, steelhead, and salmon (Straight, 1977). Shellfish and molluscs are plentiful in and on the bottom sediments of the Bay. Until 1962 Boundary

Bay proper and Mud Bay were the center of the B.C. oyster grow• ing industry. Poor water quality has prevented harvest both commercially and recreationally since that time (Torrence/

G.V.R.D., 1977). Much of the shoreline of Boundary Bay proper and Mud Bay is covered with the low scrubby saltmarsh vegeta• tion; in constrast, much of Semiahmoo1s coast is rocky. Far• ther offshore in all three bays, eelgrass beds, and herring spawning areas are found. A colony of harbour seals also make 9

Boundary Bay their home, using the intertidal flats of Mud Bay as a pupping area. Boundary Bay is a migration stopover and over-wintering area.for waterfowl and shorebirds on the Pacific

Flyway, and may be classified as a conservacy area of national and international significance (Taylor, 1970). Birds are the most visible of the Bay's flora and fauna, especially at certain seasons of the year.

Most of Boundary Bay's shoreline remains undeveloped except for dyking. Residential areas exist at Boundary Bay,

Beach Grove, Crescent Beach, Ocean Park and White Rock (see Map

1.3). The Deas Island Thruway (Highway 99) and Ladner Trunk

Road (Highway 10) traverse the northern shores of Boundary Bay proper and Mud Bay. The Burlington Northern Railroad runs along the eastern edge of Mud Bay and continues south along

Semiahmoo Bay to the U.S. Small areas are designated as muni• cipal park in White Rock (Semiahmoo Park) and Delta (Centennial

Park). There is also a small provincial park in the study area,

Peace Arch Park; at present it has no shoreline frontage. Most of the remaining land surrounding the Bay is agricultural, included in the Agricultural Land Reserve. On the north shore of the Bay in Delta, the agricultural landscape is interrupted by Boundary Bay Airport, an abandoned World War II facility that may be rehabilitated and reopened for small planes.

A total of ten studies have been made that recommend that Boundary Bay be devoted to conservacy uses. These are listed in Appendix 1. Proposals for conservacy use began in 10

MAP 1.3

LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP ON BOUNDARY BAY 11

1968 (Swan Wooster, 1968) and have continued to the present

(Surrey Planning Dept., 1978; Warren/White Rock/G.V.R.D., 1978).

Suggestions for conservacy use of the Bay, more general in nature, have also appeared regularly as noted in Appendix 1.

Proposed designations of the whole or part of the Bay under conservacy use have included municipal, regional, provincial and international park, ecological reserve, wildlife management area, environmental reserve, and conservation area (these last two have no legal status). Proposals made prior to 19 77 were more in the form of an expressed intent to preserve the Bay as a conservacy area, but initiated some active move in that direc• tion. Lands purchased specifically for conservacy uses included greenbelt and wildlife management areas. Lands held in muni• cipal ownership were already devoted to conservacy uses at that time: Centennial Beach, White Rock shoreline, Blackie Spit,

Crescent Beach. Easements assured access to the shore in some places. Land tenure is shown in Map 1.3.

Recent actions have given more substance to the intent to devote Boundary Bay to conservacy uses. In 1978 planning activities at the municipal-regional level intensified with the release of several studies: Bauer (1977), G.V.R.D./Torrence

(1977), Warren/White Rock/G.V.R.D. (1978), Surrey Planning

Dept. (1978). Public meetings have also been held regarding future use of the Bay.

The assumption that future uses of Boundary Bay will be conservacy oriented underlies the rationale for this thesis. 12

The thrust of recent planning activities, which have the clear•

ly stated intent of making it possible to preserve the Bay for

conservacy uses, justify the underlying assumption.

The unusual number and variety of resources found at

Boundary Bay have inspired the succession of proposals for a

conservacy area there. The proposals, however, have been very

general in their description of how the fit of preservation with recreational use could be achieved. 13

CHAPTER TWO

Planning and Management of Conservacy Areas: The North American

Experience

2.1 Introduction

Experience in planning and management of conservacy areas in North America is used here to decide how well the ba-.

lance between preservation of natural systems and recreational use has been achieved. An examination of the past record will enable some implications to be made for the Boundary Bay case

study. Strengths of past approaches can be identified and

applied to planning and management of the case study area; weak• nesses can be identified and used as a basis for strengthening

the planning process.

Today a bewildering array of institutional designations

exist for conservacy areas (wilderness areas, primitive areas,

national forests, recreation areas, parks, sanctuaries, etc.).

An attempt is made here to focus on those that are most familiar.

These are usually the most longstanding types of conservacies,

hence have a discernable planning/management history.

2.2 Inviolate Conservacy Areas

Various designations exist in Canada and the U.S. to

connote conservacy areas where little use is permitted. Some of

these are wilderness areas, primitive areas, marine sanctuaries.

Pelican Island Refuge in Florida which, in 1903, was preserved 14 as the first U.S. wildlife refuge, is one such area. Visita• tion to the island was totally prohibited at that time. Today, however, similar island refuges are tending to open to visitors under certain restrictions. At one such island visitors were restricted to certain areas and seasons of the year; hours of visitation also had be be strictly controlled to prevent inter• ruption of the evening roosting flight (Jarvis and Cram, 1971).

In general it is very easy to control access to such refuges because of their isolation.

In British Columbia the ecological reserve is the most inviolate of conservacy areas. The Ecological Reserves Act

(c.16, 1971) has made it possible to set aside areas of Crown

Land representative of distinctive ecosystems for scientific study. The process of succession of plant and animal communi• ties is allowed to proceed without human interference in eco• logical reserves. As of 1976 there were 75 ecoreserves in

B.C. (Foster, 1976).

Because the ecological reserve designation is a recent one, there is no experience in planning and managing ecoreserves at this time. Confusion seems to exist over what human uses might be allowed in them. The Ecological Reserves Act specifies that any kind of use may be controlled, restricted or prohibited in the reserve, but does not specify which uses, if any, besides scientific study, might be allowed. While the public is not encouraged to use the reserve, they are not forbidden entry.

Foster (1975) says that most ecoreserves will be able to stand light recreational activity without compromising their natural

qualities. The public may hike, climb, photograph plants and

animals and enjoy a wilderness experience in ecoreserves; hunt•

ing and fishing might be allowed, and camping could take place

at designated spots;, if the reserve is large. This implies

that the province's most-inviolate conservacy areas will"accom• modate use. The type of management necessary to protect

the ecoreserve, while it is used has apparently not been consi•

dered. With ecoreserves as accessible as the University Endow• ment Reserve in Vancouver, it is hard to believe that no manage ment is required.

These examples show the response typical of "inviolate"

conservacy areas throughout North America; only in exceptional

cases has use been permanently and totally excluded. With

today's demand for recreation, it has been hard to justify com•

plete preservation or non-use of any conservacy area. Consider

ation of what management might be necessary to assure that the

ecology of these areas can be maintained under use has not al•

ways been forthcoming. If not carefully managed, there is a

danger that the very values being preserved will be lost.

2•3 Recreation Conservacies

The most familiar conservacy areas in North America are

designated as parks. In this discussion parks are considered

under two general types:

1. urban parks-municipal and regional parks. These 16

parks are located within a municipality or within one hour's

driving distance of a population center (G.V.R.D., 1978);

2. non-urban parks-provincial (state) parks and national

parks. These parks are usually larger than urban parks, and are

located outside of, though sometimes near, population centers.

Non-urban parks are endowed with the multiple goal sets

that are typical of most conservacy areas. In B.C. the Parks

Branch is given authority over:

Crown rights in Park areas, natural resources within Park areas, wildlife and habitats in parks and recrea• tion areas; preservation, development and use; regula• tion of public and private individuals using or exploit• ing the Park. (B.C. Park Act, c.2, s.2, 197 3)

At the national level the mandate received by the U.S. and

Canadian national park agencies is that they:

Shall promote and regulate the use of federal areas known as parks . . . which purpose is to conserve the scenery, the national and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in said manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future gener• ations. (U.S. National Park Act, 1916)

The underlining is my own and serves to illustrate the contra•

diction in purpose.

Despite having the dual objectives of preservation with

use; the ideas of nature preservation have played a relatively

minor role within the non-urban parks of both Canada and the U.S.

(Nelson, 1973; Forster, 1973). Historically unregulated hunting

of elk in the National Parks of western Canada led to a serious

decline in their populations, so much so in fact, that it was

considered necessary to reintroduce elk from Yellowstone to Banff

as early as 1917. By the 1940"s the elk population :had increased 17 to pest proportions due to the absence of their natural enemies, another result of human activity. Elk population control pro• grams were instated in both Banff and Jasper; these continue today as the ecology of the animals has been permanently disrupt• ed (Nelson, 1973).

The effects of unmanaged human activity on park land• scapes may be much more subtle than noted above, yet still lead to ecological disturbance, a decline in biotic productivity and loss of conservacy values. In Garibaldi Provincial Park alpine meadows have eroded under light use by hikers who must climb

3,000 feet and walk seven miles to reach them (Edwards, 1966).

In Assiniboine Provincial Park, which is even more isolated than

Garibaldi, similar effects are taking place, and some trails are etched deeply into the earth. Litter, another evidence of un• controlled human activity, is now a major problem in national and provincial parks, even in backcountry areas (Nelson, 1973).

Park planning has often precipitated loss of .._ ... attractive park features. As recently as the 1960's park plan• ners in Yoho> Banff, Jasper and Kootenay Parks, anticipating rapid increases in auto travel to parks', developed plans to in• crease auto access. Roads were constructed, some through un• touched valleys. Studies of flora and fauna, environmental and cultural features were not done. The construction of a highway on the recessional morraine of the Athabasca glacier along the

Jasper-Banff Highway is a good example of the unfortunate loss of a significant conservacy feature. Such unmanaged increases in access gave no thought to the way increases in the 18

number of facilities and increased visitation would change the

natural qualities of the parks (Nelson, 1973; Foster, 1973).

Although it can be argued that provincial and national parks

are being managed and conserved, many of their valued resources

are not being effectively preserved in the sense that they will

be handed on to posterity 'unimpaired'.

Problems of resource degradation and loss of conservacy

values have not been any less severe in urban park systems.

In the Greater Vancouver area parks like Stanley Park and Light•

house Park are large enough to preserve significant natural

areas, yet are located within populous centers, where pressures

of recreational use are heavy. Damage from overuse may be seen

in picnic areas, on and off trails in forests and at beaches

where destruction of native vegetation is common. In some

cases parks are being put to uses for which they were never in•

tended, e.g., overnight camping and trail biking. This puts an

additional strain- on the.:park environmentL.. The vegetation, of

natural areas within such parks, once destroyed, is gradually

replaced by grass and ornamentals, an unfortunate occurrence in

parks like Stanley Park, where significant stands of Pacific

Coastal forest are being lost.

The potential role of urban parks and open spaces as

wildlife habitat within cities has long been established (Lar•

son, 1973). In the Vancouver area any park with lakes or ponds

will attract waterfowl: Stanley Park, Jericho Park, Burnaby

Lake Park, John Hendry Park. Yet these parks cannot be counted 19 upon to meet any particular habitat requirement because of their predominant recreation function. Incidents of human and animal disturbance to wildlife, including aborted nesting, are common (Leach, 1974). With no thought given to the conservation function these parks could be serving, opportunities are being lost. Their potential to serve a role in preservation should not be ignored.

In summary, designation of a natural area as park has not always been sufficient to ensure that the objectives of pre• servation and use would be met within that area. Park systems at the urban and provincial/national levels have been primarily devoted to serving as recreation areas. Loss or disruption of the very features that made the area attractive as a conservacy, including vegetation, wildlife or geological features, have often taken place.

2.4 Limited-Use Conservacies

Wildlife conservacies, refuges, sanctuaries, and manage• ment areas are a type of conservacy that is devoted to preser• vation and enhancement of wildlife populations. Because of their predominant function in preservation, close control of visitor activities within their boundaries has been necessary.

The U.S. National: Wildlife Refuge system is used an an example of planning and management of this type of limited use conser• vacy area. 20

The U.S. National Wildlife Refuge system has been in existence since 1903. The first wildlife refuges were set aside exclusively to protect wildlife species threatened with extinc• tion and no use was permitted. Gradually refuges were extended to include habitats of more common species whose populations were on the decline. For these refuges public hunting was authorized in 1924 on "at least part" of the refuge area "when wildlife populations permitted." Later this extended to 25 per• cent of the refuge area and then in 1958 to 40 percent (Salyer and Gillett, 1964).

Though the establishment of the U.S. refuge system was based on the precept that wildlife on refuges was for "public use and enjoyment", it was. not until 1962 in the Refuge Recrea•

tional Act, that the U.S. Congress gave permission to wildlife refuges to open up to forms of recreation in addition to hunting.

New recreational activities had to be compatible with the wild•

life preservation objectives of the refuges; the compatibility criterion was stated emphatically nine times in the Act (Salyer and Gillett, 1964). The activities and facilities envisioned within the refuges were visitor centers, nature trails, fishing,

and a continuation of hunting; only a few areas would permit

swimming and boating. Camping was planned for fewer areas still.

The trend over time, therefore, has been to accommodate more and more use on the refuges, but the extension from complete preser• vation to a use orientation has been done very cautiously. Canada does not have a national wildlife conservacy system comparable to that of the U.S. Only recently have lands in Canada been bought and reserved for wildlife (Munro, 1964).

Experience in the U.S. refuges has shown how use can be compa• tible with preservation; areas such as the Creston Valley Wild• life Management Area in B.C. have benefitted from the U.S. ex• perience. The Creston Management Area preserves.16,000.acres of shallow lands and marshes, which serve as a breeding area and a staging area for birds on the Pacific Flyway. A wildlife center is operated for visitors. Birdwatching, hiking, canoe-, ing, picnicking, and camping are provided for in designated areas. Power boats are prohibited in most of the Management

Area to reduce disturbance to birds;and to recreationists en• gaged in quiet pursuits. Hunting is permitted on all of the refuge, except near centers of other activity, during the appro• priate season•(Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority,

1974). The reserve was set aside for "purposes of wildlife conservation, management and development" but the management authority could permit "such other activities and development

. . . as are not inconsistent with the purpose for which the area was established." (Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area

Act, 1968, c.14, s.8.) Though public use of the area was ob• viously a prime consideration in its planning, the wildlife con• servation objective clearly took precedence and a compatible mixed-use was achieved. 22

2.5 Summary

Approaches to designation and planning conservacy areas have opted for the benefits of recreational use. Pure preser• vation has been hard to justify, and inviolate conservacy areas have been the exception rather than the rule.

A review of the North American experience shows that the type of conservacy designation a natural area received al• ready has important implications for its planning and manage• ment. Parks, for example, are less likely to be managed to reconcile preservation with recreational use, than wildlife conservacies. In each case, however, the stated goals of the area include both functions. The role of parks in preservation of natural areas has always been incidental to their role in provision of recreation space. This has resulted in degrada• tion, sometimes loss of ecological values in parks at all levels.

A balance of use and preservation has been achieved in some conservacy areas through careful planning and management.

This approach is demonstrated in the U.S. National Wildlife

Refuge system. In these areas the legislative mandate clearly states that the preservation objective has priority. This pro• vides a guideline.;for planners. Where use takes place, its extent has been carefully controlled, but many different uses have been accommodated in close proximity. 23

2.6 The Implications of the North American Experience for the Study Area

Past experience suggests that designation of Boundary

Bay as a conservacy area is not enough to enable the objectives of preservation and use to be reconciled. The demands for open space for recreation near a center like Vancouver will argue for recreation to receive priority and the importance of the preservation function of the conservacy area may tend to be :..v .. minimized.

Planning activities now ongoing in the Bay suggest that this is the case. Regional or municipal park designations are planned for three areas on the Bay: the White Rock shoreline; the Crescent Beach-Blackie Spit area in Surrey; and Delta's

Centennial Beach with expansion to include some property north of the present beach. During winter 197 8 public meetings re• garding Boundary Bay, the Surrey Planning Dept. (1978) raised

52 issues, called "patterns" for public discussion. Only four of these discussed the importance of preservation of estuaries and wildlife habitat; 48 patterns dealt with a range; of recreation activities and facilities that could be provided.

During similar meetings in White Rock, public discussion focused on waterfront recreation, though the study that was released

(Warren/White Rock/G.V.R.D. , 1978) recognized;;that the foreshore contained some sensitive and important habitat areas. Similarly, plans for the regional park in Delta place priority on increas• ing the beach capacity at Centennial Park. A waterfowl park, planned for phase II of park development (as one of two develop- 24 ment concepts being considered) is facility intensive. In total eleven recreational activities will be accommodated in the park, only two of them wildlife oriented. Areas outside of the pro• posed parks, their role in preserving wildlife habitat, and the means whereby a continuation of this role might be ensured, are ignored. This is the inevitable result of the limited mandates of individual agencies.

The size of Boundary Bay and its coastal location will also present problems to the planning and management of a con• servacy area there. These problems will be institutional ones.

The coastal area itself falls under a number of jurisdictions including three municipalities, one regional district, and a large number of provincial and federal agencies. The division of institutional responsibilities does not correspond closely to the nature of the ecosystem that is to be managed. It is also unlikely that the whole Bay would be managed under one conservacy designation by one agency. Several designations for different parcels of land/water are more likely. The number of agencies involved ultimately may present as much of a barrier to management of a conservacy area in the Bay as the actual resource management considerations. The problem then has many dimensions. CHAPTER THREE

Boundary Bay: The Recreational Resource

3 .1 Introduction

The recreational attractions of Boundary Bay first brought its conservacy value to the attention of the public, who expressed the wish to save the Bay from the threat of devel• opment. The first proposal for conservacy use of the Bay in

1964 was, in fact, the result of this intent. The proposal ;for a "Recreation Riviera" ironically, would have resulted in a drastic alteration of the ecosystem. This was a single-use predecessor to today's plans, which foresees use compatible with preservation.

The biophysical features of Boundary Bay are the basis for its attractiveness as a recreation area. Activities suited to the Bay include: swimming, picnicking, beachcombing, fishing, boating, walking, bicycling, horseback riding, birdwatching, and hunting. The Bay already sustains heavy use for recreation, particularly at its beaches. An analysis of population growth, recreation participation and trends in participation shows that more recreation space is needed within the region, especially for certain activities. The objective of Chapter Three is to decide which recreational activities might be accommodated in

Boundary Bay. This information will determine the type of threat recreational use will present to preservation of bird 26 habitat. Planning and management can then anticipate certain impacts upon wildlife populations.

3.2 Biophysical Resources and Recreation Potential

Many of the biophysical resources of Boundary, Mud, and

Semiahmoo Bays have significant recreational potential. Some

have already been developed for use, yet the capability exists

to develop further in a number of ways.

The Canada Land Inventory recreation capability maps

show the entire shoreline of Boundary Bay proper and Mud Bay as

having a class 2 capability, i.e., a high capability to engender

and sustain high total annual use based on one or more activi•

ties of an intensive nature. Subclassifications emphasize the

opportunity for viewing wetland wildlife and for beachcombing.

The wonderful vista from the shoreline is singled out. In Mud

Bay access to the angling waters of the Nicomekl and Serpentine

Rivers is also rated important. For some reason the Ocean Park

shoreline and Semiahmoo Bay were not included in the inventory.

Perhaps, the most outstanding physical features of .

Boundary Bay from the standpoint of recreational potential are

the sandy beaches there. High quality beaches exist at Centen•

nial Beach, Beach Grove, Blackie Spit, and Crescent Beach.

These beaches extend southward to White Rock and Semiahmoo Park.

The beaches are natural sandy beaches, though in some cases due

to human intrusion on shoreline sediment transport, they must be

artificially maintained (Bauer, 1977). The waters off these

beaches, warmed by the sun on the shallow tidal flats, are ex- 27 cellent for swimming and amongst the warmest coastal waters in the province.

The deeper waters and channels of Boundary Bay proper and Semiahmoo Bay are good day cruising spots for sailing and power craft. The area offers easy access to the popular boating waters of the Gulf and San Juan Islands and the Strait of

Georgia. The inner waters of Boundary Bay proper and Mud Bay are too shallow to accommodate any but shallow draft boats: small power craft, canoes, kayaks, and rowboats.

The abundant fauna of Boundary Bay can be considered a recreational attraction to be enjoyed through observation, study, collection, or harvest. The intertidal invertebrates and the tidal influx of shells and driftwood make the foreshores of the

Bay a rewarding beachcombing area. Clams abound in the tidal flats, although at present harvesting them is prohibited due to water contamination. Certain spots along the shore are good for crabbing, cutthroat trout, and smelt fishing. The shoreline salt marshes and the sparsely vegetated tidal flats with their algal mats and visible evidence of invertebrate habitation are unusual and interesting. The bird life of Boundary Bay, always one of the Bay's most prominent attractions, offers excellent opportunities for recreation. Game ducks are plentiful at cer• tain seasons of the year and the Bay is the focal point of the

Brant Goose hunting season in the region. The variety of bird life, especially waterfowl and shorebirds, is enough to attract numerous birdwatchers. Like hunting, this is a seasonal activity. 28

3.3 Present Recreational Use

The recreational capabilities of Boundary Bay have been developed to the extent that Centennial Beach, Crescent Beach,

Blackie Spit, arid the White Rock shoreline are now used inten•

sively for beach recreation. An estimated 24,000 to 31,000 people per day use Boundary Bay during peak summer days (G.V.R.

D. estimate based on data collected by Fairhurst, 1977). Peak days occur on approximately ten to fifteen weekends each year.

Beach use at Boundary Bay amounts to about 50 percent of the peak day swimming and beach activity for the Fraser River and

Estuary as a whole (including Wreck Beach, but no other city beach). Some beach use takes place year round.

Boating facilities are concentrated in the Crescent

Beach-Blackie Spit area of Mud Bay, whexe there are two marinas at the mouth of the Nicomekl River, a dry storage compound on

the Spit, and a summer float area. A boat launching ramp is demarcated on the shore near the dry storage compound, but

launching can take place almost anywhere along the gently slop•

ing Spit. Two to four hundred people go boating on Boundary

Bay at peak times; this is ten to thirteen percent of the total boating activity in the Fraser River and estuary on such days

(G.V.R.D. estimate based on data collected by Fairhurst, 1977).

Overnight camping accommodation is available on the

shore of Boundary Bay at four places, all privately owned camp

grounds. Camping areas cater mostly to tourists during the

summer months. The Bay is also amenable for dispersed recrea- 29 tional activities which require no special development of facilities. The shores and foreshore are suited to walking, as are the dykes. Horseback riders, occasional cyclists and trail bikers also use the Bay. No measurements have been made of dis• persed recreational use of Boundary Bay. iThis type of use takes place year round.

A Fish and Wildlife Branch survey estimated that Bound• ary Bay sustained 17,568 hunter days during the.1977 hunting season; this amounted to twenty-five percent of the total game bird hunting days in the region. No estimates of birdwatching activity at Boundary Bay are available.

3.4 General Trends in Outdoor Recreation

Upward trends in population growth, availability of leisure time and mobility have continued to exert a positive influence on the demand for recreational opportunities. Parti• cipation in outdoor recreation activities.. has continued to grow and the range of activities to choose from has diversified. Of sixteen recreational activities analysed by the G.V.R.D. (1978) only one, hunting, showed a clear decrease in participation over the past ten years. Four activities: snowmobiling, trail bik• ing, four wheel driving, and kayaking werei„new to the recreation scene, having been virtually unheard of at the time of the first analysis of regional recreation in 1966 (L.M.R.P.B., 1966).

Other activities like nature study, camping, and cross country

skiing had widened considerably in scope and public appeal. 30

While recreation demands increased, in the region as a whole park acreage increases were unable to keep pace with the need for recreation land. As measured by park standards, short• falls in parkland exist in municipal, regional and provincial park acreages, and more lands designated for conservacy uses are needed throughout the region (G.V.R.D., 1978). Figure 3.1 shows municipal and regional park shortfalls in seven subareas of the region (G.V.R.D., 1978). Appendix 2 contains a boundary map of these subregions.

3.5 Implications of Regional Recreation Demands

The G.V.R.D. (1978) study of regional recreation par• ticipation and supply of facilities showed that there was a special need for opportunities for certain activities. Bound• ary Bay could play a role in providing an area for the activi• ties that are discussed in the next paragraphs.

3.5-1 Beach Activities and Swimming

Boundary Bay's beaches are one recreation asset for which there seems to be an unfulfilled demand. More than half of the regional population goes to beaches to sunbathe, beach- comb, stroll, picnic, and„wade; 35-40 percent of the.-popula- tion swims (G.V.R.D., 1978). About one-third of all recrea• tional outings in the region are to beaches (L.M.R.P.B., 1966). 31

20_ psj regional

| | municipal

-t-e-

> z 05.

X o 3> *Note: Calculations to the year 2000 include land area for proposed Regional Parks but not for proposed Municipal Parks.

20J I9771 1991 1977' 1991 197711991 1977 ' 1991 1977' 1991 i977rl99l 1977 ' 1991 NORTH SHORE BURRARD NORTHEAST SOUTH SHORE SURREY MAPLE RIDGE FRASER HOWE SOUND PEN. SECTOR WHITE ROCK VALLEY

SUB — REGIONS

Figure 3.1

Parkland Area Shortfalls and Surplus 32

According to a beach standard developed for the Puget

Sound area, Greater Vancouver would never be able to meet its long term beach needs with its natural beaches (L.M.R.P.B., 1966).

Every beach area, therefore, should be regarded as especially valuable. Boundary Bay is one of two areas where the water quality is suitable for swimming (the other area is Burrard In• let) . The entire shoreline of Boundary Bay proper and Semiahmoo

Bay have beach potential. Despite heavy use, at present only small areas at Centennial Beach, Crescent Beach, and Semiahmoo

Park are protected with a conservacy designation.

3.5-2 Boating/Marinas

Over the past few years two studies have been released in the region detailing the need for additional pleasure boat moorage (Marine Trades Association of B.C., 1974; Meyer, 1976).

A G.V.R.D. (1978) survey concluded that as of 1978 construction of new moorage, both here and in the U.S. has enabled moorage supply to keep up with projected demands. A marina, then, is not considered one of the conservacy uses for which there will be an immediate demand in Boundary Bay; this picture could change in the near term (five to ten years). Boating, of course, will continue on the Bay regardless of provision of further marinas'.;

3.5-3 Game Bird Hunting

Crown land and foreshore as well as some private lands in the region are open to hunting. Hunting participation, rather than the supply of areas on which to hunt, appears to be the factor limiting the demand for hunting opportunities. 33

The number of waterfowl hunters in the region has de• clined substantially over the past ten years. Hunting license sales may be used as an indicator of this decline. In 1966 four• teen people per thousand (or a total of 14,700 people) purchased licenses to hunt migratory birds in the Lower Mainland (Russel and Paish, 1968). Ten years later only four people per thousand

(a total of 5,248 people) purchased similar licenses (B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Unpublished Data, 1977) . Regional license sales show, furthermore, that hunting participation in the three municipalities adjacent to Boundary Bay (Surrey, Delta, White

Rock) is markedly above the regional average. Seven people per thousand in these municipalities purchased the Fraser Valley

Special Area License for the 1976-77 season. These figures argue for a continuation of hunting as one activity within a conservacy area at Boundary Bay. The decline in hunting . participation., however, may eventually lead to a phasing out of the activity.

3.5-4 Birdwatching/Wildlife Observation

Participation in birdwatching is harder to ascertain than participation in hunting. For one thing it is harder to define a birdwatcher for the purposes of counting, because a variety of people participate with varying degrees of intensity.

Are people who carry binoculars classified as birdwatchers or only people who keep "life lists"? What about the people who observe birds casually on a stroll through a park?

Organized naturalist clubs in the region contain close 34 to 2,000 members (G.V.R.D., 1978). Birdwatching outings are a regular pastime for these clubs. Environmental study programs in community recreation centers and schools reach about 37,000 people per year, the majority of these in elementary schools.

Such programs include, but are not limited to, the study of birds and birdwatching.

Organized participants are but a small part of total participation in wildlife observation. LeFevre (1974) indicated that 54 percent of the population sampled randomly from the Van• couver telephone book (n=150) made outings specifically to ob• serve wildlife; 78 percent of these people did not belong to any naturalist organization. Attendance at Reifel Migratory Bird

Sanctuary gives an indication of casual interest in local wild• life; 84,000 people visited Reifel in 1976. The G.V.R.D. (1978) concluded on the basis of five studies in recreation participa• tion that roughly 25-3 5 percent of the regional population was involved in some type of nature study, in this region mostly wildlife viewing, especially birds. It was felt that the trend is towards increasing participation in these activities; however, the diversity and diversification of the activities makes this difficult to substantiate exactly. Researchers in the U.S. have felt that participation there has shown a similar rapid increase

(Hendee and Potter, 1975; Callison, 1973; Seater, 1975). These conclusions have been based on increasing memberships in wild• life or nature conservation organizations (such as the Audubon

Society) and on increasing visitation to wildlife refuges for appreciative, as opposed to hunting purposes. 35

Participation in nature study and birdwatching, some of it a fairly casual level, argues strongly for provision of opportunities to carry out this pastime at Boundary Bay, where bird populations are so prominent. The trend hints that these activities will become even more important in the future.

3.6 Conclusions

Examination of present use of Boundary Bay and antici• pated future demands for its use indicate that swimming and beach activities will attract increasing numbers of recreation- ists to the Bay. Use of Boundary Bay beaches for swimming will be especially important because of the scarcity of high quality swimming beaches in the region. Heaviest beach use will take place during ten to fifteen summer weekends. The boating sea• son on the Bay extends from May to October. It is not known whether this activity?will increase or stay the same; the an• swer depends in part on provision of further facilities for boaters here and elsewhere. Some boating and beach use (for walking, picnicking, beachcombing, etc.) will continue year round. Fall, winter and spring recreation on Boundary Bay will focus on wildlife, hunting of game birds, and observation of all species. The number of people wishing to observe wildlife on the Bay is expected to increase in years ahead, while the numbers of hunters will continue to decline. Eventually hunt• ing may be phased out; however, for the present, residents in 36 the three municipalities fronting on the Bay show more enthu• siasm for hunting than average regional residents. This argues for a continuation of public hunting on the Bay. 37

CHAPTER FOUR

The Role of Boundary Bay as a Wildlife Habitat

4.1 Variety of Bird Species at Boundary Bay

Sixty-three species of estuarine birds found at Bound• ary Bay have been catalogued from a variety of sources. Appen• dix 3 presents a species list for the Bay. Eight species of dabbling ducks, sixteen diving ducks, six loons and grebes, fifteen shorebirds, seven gulls, and one large wading bird are commonly seen there. Four waterfowl species: mallard, widgeon, pintail, and green-winged teal are far more abundant than other birds. The greater scaup, a diving duck, and shorebirds, es• pecially the dunlin sandpiper, are also very abundant. Fifteen species of raptors are known to visit Boundary Bay. The Black

Brant is the only goose seen regularly there. Two other species of goose found locally are rarely seen. A variety of woodland and field birds inhabit the upland near Boundary Bay, and oc• casionally forage along the dykes. Sixty-five of these passer• ine species were catalogued by Leach (1972).

4.2 Boundary Bay: An Important Habitat Component of the

Fraser Estuary

Boundary Bay is one habitat component of the Fraser estuary complex of waterfowl and shorebird habitat; the other 38 two areas are Sturgeon and Roberts Banks (see Map 4.1). Aerial censuses made over a period of eight years show that Boundary

Bay (including Boundary Bay proper and Mud Bay, but excluding

Semiahmoo Bay for which no counts were made) sustained the high• est number of waterfowl of the three habitat areas (see Table

4.1) (Taylor, 1974).

Sverre (1974) calculated a proportional value for each component of habitat within the estuary. He based this on two factors indicative of the quality of the habitat: waterfowl use (number of birds seen per census day) and marsh area. A habitat value (Hv) was derived by taking the ratio of marsh acreage (He) for each part of the estuary to total estuary marsh acreage (Ht) and adding the ratio of bird use for each area (Uc) to the total estuary bird use (Ut); thus:

Hv = He + Uc Ht Ut

Boundary Bay, according to the Sverre analysis, repre• sented about 27 percent of the total wildlife habitat value of the Fraser estuary (see Table 4.2). Westham Island was the only area whose value exceeded that of Boundary Bay. The Is• land contains Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary and Alaksen Wild• life Management Area; both lands have been managed for water• fowl use since the early seventies.

The conclusions drawn here are based on waterfowl use of the Fraser estuary as recorded in aerial census counts and on areas -.of marsh found in different parts of the estuary.

Since waterfowl are the most abundant species within the habitat, MAP 4.1

THE FRASER- ESTUARY AND ENVIRONS

SCALE IN MILES 40

TABLE 4.1

Waterfowl Use of Different Habitat Areas

on the Fraser.Estuary/Delta

Total of Average Montly Waterfowl Counts 1966 to 1974 .Area,.of :F'raser. FALL* WINTER/SPRING* Estuary/Delta Sept. to Dec. Jan. to April Total'

Sturgeon Bank 54,000 40,000 94,000

Roberts Bank 91,000 42,000 133,000

Boundary and 104,000 34 ,000 138 ,000 Mud Bay"*"

* Average number of waterfowl counted per aerial census day. For census flights between 1966 and 1974 (Taylor, 1974) to the nearest thousand.

1 Does not include Semiahmoo Bay. 41

TABLE 4.2

Waterfowl Habitat Values for

Fraser River Estuary Units

% of .Habitat Relative Marsh Area Water fowl Value Habitat Estuary Units (Acres) Use1 Index Value

Iona - Sea Islands 360 46 ,295 0.20 10.0

Lulu Island 1,4942 47,567 0.48 24.0

Westham Island 1,4932 84,267 0.58 29.0 2 Brunswick 48,601 0.21 10.5 373 3 Boundary - Mud Bay J 137,561 0.53 26.5 757

Total 4 ,477 364,291 2.00 100.0

Source: Taylor (1974) ; Severre (Unpublished).

^"Season total of average monthly aerial counts; of ducks and geese, 1966 to 1974.

Marsh acreage from Burgess (1970).

Marsh acreage from Forbes (1972) . 42 it can be argued that waterfowl use is a fairly good indicator of habitat value; however, more than fifty other bird.species are found on the Bay. The habitat requirements of these species might be quite different from those of waterfowl. Fur• thermore, factors other than marsh area influence the quality of a habitat: availability of suitable food, amount of distur• bance and others. This adds uncertainty to the conclusions drawn here, and the habitat value of Boundary Bay should be regarded only as a "best guess". Within the limits of the accuracy of the data used to make the calculations, Boundary

Bay and Westham Island probably have about the same habitat value.

4.3 The Fraser Estuary: Importance to the Pacific Flyway

About two million birds on the Pacific Flyway pass through the Fraser delta on their migratory journeys south from breeding grounds in inland and northern British Columbia,

Alaska, the Yukon, and northeastern Russia (see Figure 4.1).

One million of these birds are dabbling ducks; this makes up about 20 percent of the Flyway dabbling duck population (Bur• gess, 1970). Many migrants stop to feed and rest on the delta and estuary. Appearing in the fall, numbers build to a peak by November. Some birds leave for wintering grounds in the

United States and Mexico. An estimated 200,000 ducks and 20,000 snow geese remain to overwinter locally. This represents al• most four percent of the Flyway population (Burgess, 1970), Figure 4.1 The Pacific Flyway 44 making the Fraser the largest waterfowl wintering ground in

Canada. An additional one million shorebirds spend the winter here (Taylor, 1970). With the onset of mating season bird numbers decline and by May most are gone. A few birds remain all summer.

Based on criteria developed in Europe (Saeijs and Bap• tist, 197 7) the Fraser estuary, including Boundary Bay, may be described as "Internationally Important Wetlands". The estuary meets the following criteria for international import• ance :

1. Provides an important staging point on a main migration route.

2. Holds more than two percent of the estimated total flyway capacity (during overwintering periods).

In addition the estuary may meet the following criteria for international importance were sufficient information available to make assessments:

1. Holds more than ten percent of the estimated flyway population of one or more species of waterfowl.

2. Regular use by one or more endangered species of waterfowl. (The Black Brant is experiencing a dramatic popu• lation decline in the region (Leach, unpublished, 1977), al• though it is not yet on the endangered list.)

The information used to make assessments in this section represent a best guess of researchers in the field. It is generally agreed that the aerial counts underestimate bird 45 populations, especially where those populations are large (Bur• gess, 1970; Chandler and Denis, 1972).

4.4 Seasonal Distribution in Bird Use of Boundary Bay

Boundary Bay shows the marked seasonal distribution of use that typifies the Fraser estuary as a whole. Figure 4.2 makes a graphic representation of average monthly waterfowl counts for Boundary Bay between 1966 and 1974 (Taylor, 1974).

The count excludes Semiahmoo Bay.

Peak numbers of migratory waterfowl are found in the

Boundary Bay area in November. The average peak number counted is about 44,000"*", though numbers as high as 61,000 were reported in November 1967 (B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Unpublished

Data). After the fall migration wave populations of birds on

Boundary Bay decline rapidly. By January only winter residents remain. The average number of waterfowl counted during January and February is 12,000 and 9,000 respectively. Populations continue to decline slowly through the winter as residents begin to move towards northern and interior breeding grounds.

By April there are only a few thousand (average of approximately

5,000) waterfowl on the Bay. There is no spring migration peak and it appears that a continual turnover takes place in bird populations as new immigrants replace departing winter residents.

"'"Fish and Wildlife census data records counts to the nearest one. For purposes of this thesis, census figures have been rounded off to the nearest thousand to reflect more accur• ately the number of significant figures in the data. 46

Boundary-Mud Bays Average Monthly Waterfowl Counts 1966 1974

FIGURE 4.2 47

The months of May, June, July and August are a deserted time of year for the waters of Boundary Bay. A few immature, sick, or injured birds remain, but do not breed. Year round residents, such as the Great Blue Heron, are also present. Summer water• fowl census results show that through July and August only a few hundred birds are present (Taylor, 1970; B.C. Fish and Wild• life Branch, Unpublished Data). It is at this time, however, that the early migrant shorebirds and pintail ducks arrive

(Harris in Leach, 1977; Kaiser, 1978).

The accuracy of census techniques on which these sta• tistics are based is limited. For a more detailed discussion of collection of census data, its accuracy, and interpretation see Appendix 4.

Waterfowl usage of the habitat alone, as reported by census results, is not a totally adequate indicator of seasonal patterns of use of that habitat. More than fifty other species of birds use the Bay; their population sizes and timing of migrations are known only in a very general way.

4.5 An Analysis of the Ecological Role of Boundary Bay

Bird Habitat

Habitat is defined as an area of land and/or water that provides the food, cover and or space requirements of a species at some time during its life cycle (D.R.E.E., Canada Land In• ventory, 1973). The numbers of waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other birds that are consistently seen and counted 48

on Boundary,;Mud, and Semiahmoo Bays show that the area is a heavily used habitat. Sitings, however, do not establish which habitat requirements the Bay meets, or which areas of the Bay are most important in meeting habitat needs. This section analyses the role of Boundary Bay in the ecology of the birds found there.

As noted earlier waterfowl are almost completely absent from the Bay during the summer or nesting season, so the Bay has no function in reproduction. The heavy use of the Bay dur• ing migration and through the winter shows that at minimum the

Bay is an important stopover point. Its role in providing food for migrant and overwintering birds, however, has been chal• lenged (Taylor, 1974; Harris in Leach, 1977). Observation' of large numbers of birds on the agricultural lands surrounding the Bay suggest that many birds seek food on the shorelands.

4.5-1 Boundary Bay as a Resting Area for Migratory Birds

Boundary Bay functions as a resting area for birds dur• ing the migratory period. The availability of undisturbed resting area is critical during migration because birds are under energy stress. Different areas within Boundary Bay can• not be ranked as to their relative importance for resting. Ob• servations made during the census flights indicate that the birds trade up and down on Boundary, Mud, and Semiahmoo Bays depending on tides and weather (B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch,

Unpublished Data). Usually the dabbling ducks gather around the tide line where the water depth is under one meter, about right for resting and feeding. Diving ducks prefer water two to five meters deep. They congregate on the Semiahmoo

Bay shoreline and in deeper channels of Mud Bay if the tide is out. Dabbling ducks are rarely seen in deep water. When rough waters are caused by a storm the entire wildlife population of the three bays congregates in Mud Bay. Heavy fog causes the birds to sit in hugh rafts up to three miles from shore (B.C.

Fish and Wildlife Branch, Unpublished Data).

4.5-2 Feeding Ecology of Waterfowl and Other Species at Boundary Bay

This section summarizes what is known about the role of birds in the food chain of the Boundary Bay ecosystem. This requires an examination of the diet of each species and of the distribution of major food items within the ecosystem. Some observation of behavior and distribution of birds within the

Bay and its surrounding lands contribute to the discussion.

Since conclusions are based on information from several sources,

the method used to arrive at conclusions is described.

Procedure. Feeding habits of birds are determined by analyses of esophageal and gizzard contents of these birds.

From this evidence major ingested food items can be discerned.

When expressed as a percentage of wet weight of the total amount of material ingested, the relative importance of a food source

can be inferred.

Since bird diets are known to vary according to the

season of the year and according to types of food available in 50 and near a given habitat area, it is important to analyse diets of specimens taken from the specific location and during the specific season for which information is desired. For this reason local research about the fall and winter diets of water• fowl is used here. Burgess (197 0) and Vermeer and Levings

(1977) were the major sources of information specific to the

Fraser delta. Supplementary data specific to Boundary Bay is provided by Easthope and Clark (1978) , although their analysis is less rigorous than the two former sources. Bent (1923, 1927,

1929) was used as a source of general information for species about which no local data existed.

Once major food items were identified for each species, the distribution of the items in or around Boundary Bay was noted as a means of linking the bird's feeding habits to the estuarine or agricultural ecosystems. Kellerhals and Murray

(1969) , Forbes (1972) , Burgess (1970) , and Vermeer and Levings

(1977) were used as sources of information about food item dis• tribution.

Distribution of food items within the ecosystem was described in terms of one or more biophysical zones that exist within the study area. This was possible because each zone has a diagnostic flora and fauna (Kellerhals and Murray, 1969).

The zones used are: salt marsh, upper, intermediate and lower tidal zones, subtidal zone, and agricultural lands (see Map

4.2). The first five biophysical zones are found seaward of the dykes and as their names suggest, are based on type of tidal 51

MAP 4.2

BIOPHYSICAL ZONES OF BOUNDARY BAY 52 influence. The period of exposure of each zone at low tide serves as the basis of its description. The saltmarsh is the most landward zone, innundated occasionally by tidal action.

The upper, middle and lower intertidal zones are exposed at ebb tide for progessively less and less time each day. The sub- tidal zone remains almost always submerged. The subtidal zone and the salt marsh support floral and faunal communities that are very distinct from those of the intertidal areas. Eelgrass beds are found in the subtidal zone. Intertidal areas appear barren, but are inhabited by a range of bottom living, burrow• ing or free swimming invertebrates. Few rooted plants are found intertidally; plants that are found have usually been carried in by the tide. The salt marsh is covered with scrubby vegetation.

The agricultural lands, which form the sixth biophy• sical zone, are found shoreward of the dykes. There uses under agriculture include forage crops, grass and pasture, cereals, hay, potatoes, and market gardens. In addition to crops a variety of native upland plants, ornamentals and weedy species are found on the agricultural lands (Leach, 1976; Easthope and

Clark, 1978).

The six biophysical zones offer distinct feeding oppor• tunities for wildlife. Figure 4.3 presents a summary of con• clusions reached in the analysis that has just been described.

Feeding zones or habitats.are expressed for each of fifteen species, though individual food items do not appear in the 53

Subtidal Zone Lower Intertidal Zone Middle Intertidal Zone Upper Intertidal Zone Agricultural Lands

FEEDING ZffES Experimental evidence exists to substantiate Some evidence suggests that that feeding takes place in this zone. feeding takes place in this zone; considerable uncertainty exists. More information needed.

FIGURE 4.3

FEEDING HABITATS OF SOME COMMON BIRD SPECIES

AT BOUNDARY BAY 54 figure. The extent of foraging territory is indicated when species range over more than one biophysical zone. Areas of uncertainty are noted.

4.5-3 Feeding Ecology of Waterfowl and Shorebirds at Boundary Bay

Analysis of available data on bird food habits indicates that each species tends to forage in a different part of the estuarine or agricultural habitat. Dabbling ducks feed mainly in upland agricultural and marsh areas. These ducks are vege• tarian, eating seeds from marsh plants such as rushes (Scirpus sp.) and sedges (Carex sp.). Ducks.collected .for analysis while foraging on the agricultural land were found to have eaten few crops; weed seeds, particularly smartweed (Polygonum spp.) were the overall most frequently ingested food item in mallard and pintail. Blackberry, grass, grain, and aquatic plant seeds were eaten less frequently (Easthope and Clark, 1978). The widgeon appeared to be the most dependent on food items from agricultural lands, eating the.vegetative portions of winter, rye (Lolium sp.), grass and clover (Burgess, 1970; Easthope and

Clark, 1978). Market gardens, if well managed, provided little food for the birds because there were few weed seeds. Crops left in the fields, notably potato, attract some feeding birds

(Easthope and Clark, 197 8). Bird behavior confirms these con• clusions, for dabbling ducks have been observed to make two daily feeding flights to the agricultural lands, one around dawn, the second, around dusk. Appendix 5 presents an analysis 55 of species and relative numbers of birds observed on the Nico- mekl-Serpentine farmlands during the peak migration period of

1977.

Diving ducks tend to restrict their feeding to the intertidal and subtidal zones as illustrated in Figure 4.3.

Their diets consisted mainly of animal food including snails, bivalves, crustaceans (Vermeer and Levings, 1977). Each species feeds in a different area. The Oldsquaw, for example, feeds in the deepest waters of the subtidal zone, while the Greater

Scaup appears to be most dependent on intertidal food sources.

Observed behavior confirms these results, for diving ducks seem to stay on the Bay to feed. Occasionally they are seen on the agricultural lands, especially when ponding occurs in the fields (Easthope and Clark, 1978) (see also Appendix 5).

Einarsen (1965) in his discussion of the Black Brant on the Pacific Flyway indicated that this bird persistently utilized only a few key food species over its entire range: sea lettuce and eelgrass. These dietary preferences point to a dependence on the subtidal zone for food, though food items may often be washed into the upper intertidal zone with subse• quent feeding there.

For shorebirds no local data exists and a best guess of their feeding habitat based on Bent (1927, 1929) suggests that these birds feed in marshes and upper, perhaps middle, inter• tidal zones. Easthope and Clark (Unpublished Data, 1977) showed that shorebirds may be seen feeding on the agricultural lands 56

(see Appendix 5). Observation suggests that wading birds, namely the Great Blue Heron, are dependent on the agricultural lands, salt marsh, upper and perhaps middle intertidal areas, and especially tidal pools within the intertidal areas for food.

No local gut analyses exist to substantiate this.

The data analysed is adequate enough to show that all parts of Boundary Bay, including the agricultural shorelands, appear to be used to some extent as feeding areas. Each species prefers to forage in a different zone.

4.5-4 Limitations of the Data

The feeding ecology of bird species at Boundary Bay can• not be discussed in great detail because of the limited data base. For most species no dietary information exists; gut ana• lyses are available for only eleven out of sixty-three estuarine bird species. Sample sizes, which, form the basis for conclu• sions in Vermeer and Levings (1977), and Easthope and Clark

(1978) are not large enough to give reliable results. In each of these analyses few birds were actually collected at Boundary

Bay.

Uncertainty exists particularly with regards to the importance of the salt marsh at Boundary Bay in providing food for wildlife. The Boundary Bay marshes are more saline than portions of the Fraser estuary where most sampling took place.

The unique floral characteristics resulting from higher salini• ties at the Bay may cause some species to seek different food items within the Bay than are sought elsewhere. This is illus- 57 trated by comparing food items ingested by a single species at two different places in the estuary. Vermeer and Levings (1977) found that Greater Scaup from Boundary Bay contained 93 percent snails (by wet weight), while snails represented a relatively minor item at other parts of the estuary.

4.6 Conclusion '

The seasonal distribution in bird use of Boundary Bay means that a natural separation in times of peak bird and human use takes place. This enables many recreational activities to take place without direct disruption to wildlife.

To ensure preservation of the diversity of wildlife that exists within the study area, resting and feeding areas for all species need to be protected. All parts of the study area, the Bay and its agricultural shorelands seem to be used to some extent for feeding and resting.

One recurring theme within Chapter Four is the uncer• tainty with which conclusions are drawn. Comprehensive data on bird populations and bird ecology in the study area is lacking.

Future research could be more meaningful if it is oriented to• wards decision making. A more accurate census technique is needed. Ecological research should be directed at all of the local wildlife species, not just the four most abundant species.

Experiments should be small and specific so that specific con• clusions can be drawn. 58

CHAPTER FIVE

Recreation in Estuarine Bird Habitat: Its Effect and Their

Mitigation

5.1 Introduction

Swimming and beach activities, boating, fishing, bird- watching, hunting, plus a variety of year-round dispersed activities are the major recreational pastimes taking place at

Boundary Bay. It is expected that these activities will con• tinue to be important; however, the mix may vary depending on the progression of trends in recreation participation. Plan• ning and management, too, may control this mix to assure recon• ciliation of use with habitat preservation.

The effects of recreational activities on wildlife may result from human presence in the habitat. Seasonal separation of times of peak human and bird activity does much to decrease the potential for disturbance. Some effects of recreational use of the Bay might carry over from season to season due to human impact on the plants and animals that serve as food sources for the birds.

It is not known how serious a disruption is caused by present levels of recreational use of Boundary Bay, nor can the results of a given level of use be predicted in advance. Ini• tially, disturbances may increase the skittishness of the birds, resulting in temporary abandonment of the habitat. Prolonged disturbance may be manifested by a decline in bird numbers and/or variety. Length of stopover on the Bay may be shortened as birds seek more secure habitat areas. The alternate sites that would be chosen in response to unacceptable levels of disturbance at

Boundary Bay are not known, but there is no guarantee that these sites would be local ones.

This chapter analyses the disruptions caused by humans using bird habitat for recreation. The effects of human presence argue for controls of human activity in the habitat. Some guidelines are developed with this in mind. These are numbered and set apart from the text. Where discussion leads to repeti• tion of a guideline, the repeated guideline is marked (R).

5 . 2 Food Chain Disruption

Human activities can affect waterfowl and shorebirds through destruction of vegetation, invertebrate communities in the habitat area, if birds depend on these organisms for food or cover. Several studies, however, have been unable to relate dis• turbance (as indicated by breeding success) to changes in food sources. This leads to the conclusion that direct human distur• bance is more important in its effect on wild bird populations

(Reicholf, 1970 in Satchell and Marren, 1976; Jarvis and Cram,

1977). This implies that summer recreationists at Boundary Bay will have a negligible carry over effect on waterfowl and shore- bird habitat, and that control of fall, winter and spring dis- 60 ruptions should be emphasized in management.

5.3 Passive Human Presence

Passive human presence in bird.1 habitat is often enough to disturb the wildlife as the silhouette, scent or movement of man causes a fright reaction in most species (Kesteloot, 1967).

During the January 1979 cold spell in the Lower Mainland, win• tering ducks at Lost Lagoon in Stanley Park were very much

"upset" by the presence of skaters in their midst. Music played for the enjoyment of skaters had to be banned, because it was increasing the birds' level of stress, said Stanley Park zoo curator, LeSage ("Handouts 'the death of birds' in Park", Van• couver Express, January 17, 1979).

Reid (1967) suggests that a critical distance of toler• ance of human approach can be determined for each species; this distance varies from 50 to 200 meters in the case of resting waterfowl. Satchell and Marren (1976) indicated that for wad• ing birds the mean fly away distance was 200 to 300 meters.

Atkinson-Willes (1969) estimated that a distance of 150 meters will be sufficient to ensure that most species are secure from disturbance.

(1) Provide trails and viewing areas for waterfowl and shore- birds that approach no closer than 150 meters to resting and

feeding areas. 61

Responses to human presence vary depending on species, site and season, or stage in the life cycle of the birds. Close• ness to cover, visibility, and even time of day will affect bird responses to disturbance. Expanses of water on which the birds seek protection are thought to.create a feeling of inaccessibil• ity for the birds, and their reaction to human presence under these circumstances may be less extreme (Kesteloot, 1967).

Where visibility is limited and cover plants scarce, fright reactions will take place more readily (Boudreau, 1968). Large flocks of birds seem to respond more readily to alarm than isolated individuals (Boudreau, 1968). If a person visiting wildlife habitat is accompanied by a dog, the level of panic among the wildlife increases; however, a person on a horse or bicycle, or in a car causes less disturbance, probably because the threatening human silhouette is not so obvious (Kesteloot,

1967). Daily disturbance, even on a minor scale is more dis• ruptive than massive disturbance two or three times a week

(Atkinson-Willes, 1969).

(2) Encourage development of recreational attractions and facilities near important wildlife habitat areas rather than inside them.

(3) Control the number of visitors to an area of wildlife habitat. 62

(4) Disguise human presence in the habitat.

a. Provide secluded observation points for distant

viewing with binoculars and spotting scopes.

b. Provide blinds for close.viewing of .wildlife.

Approaches to blinds can be covered to further camoflage

human activity.

c. Require visitors to keep pets on leashes; exclude

pets from most areas completely.

Birds are particularly vulnerable to disturbance during the nesting season (including courtship and rearing periods) and during the annual moult that takes place at the end of the summer. Human presence in the habitat, which might otherwise go unnoticed can have disastrous consequences at these times.

Nesting disturbances are discussed in more detail in a later section. They are not presently relevant to bird use of Bound• ary Bay because no birds nest there. A few summer residents do moult on the Bay, however.

(5) Additional visitor controls may be necessary during moult• ing and nesting periods.

Visitor education is one means of controlling visitor behavior which often does not receive enough attention. Provid• ing information and education material to visitors to fragile areas can help to minimize the disruption caused by these 63 visitors. Tourists visiting a bird nesting colony in South

Africa disrupted nesting activities of many bird species and inhibited one species from landing at its normal roosting area.

In most cases visitors were not aware of the disturbance caused by their presence (Jarvis and Cram, 1977). Information signs were posted as part of a visitor control program. Similar efforts were made in one Dutch National Park where rehabilita• tion of an overused coastal ecosystem was underway. Informa• tive, non-threatening signs, printed in a popular graphic style were posted (Satchell and Marren, 1976). In neither case was the effect that signs and displays had on visitor behavior in• vestigated. However, one can measure the ability of a sign to communicate, and such information can be used to ensure the effectiveness of that medium (Skettel, 1973). The same applies to other communications media — guided walks, and talks, films, slide presentations and others. These media can do their job only if employed correctly. Experience with information and education programs in conservacy areas indicates that guided talks, demonstrations and other activities involving first hand experience are most effective in increasing visitor knowledge about natural environment and in changing their beliefs and attitudes, hence encouraging appropriate behavior (Algar, 1976).

(6) Signs, displays, guided walks and talks should be used to inform visitors to conservacy areas about the effects of their 64 presence in wildlife habitat, and to encourage self-initiated control of disruptions. Where possible, visitors should be given the opportunity to participate in first-hand educational experiences..

5.4 Active Human Presence - Noise and Threats

Noise, active movement, or actual threats to the safety of the birds, as might be expected, are more disturbing than passive human presence in wildlife habitat. Again, visitor control can minimize disruption, but more stringent regulation is necessary.

5.4-1 Hunting

Hunting is the traditional recreation activity that takes place in bird habitat. The waterfowl hunter penetrates into marsh areas, open waters, and sometimes uplands, where he waits in camoflage for game birds to come along. Hunters often are accompanied by dogs.

Being hunted makes birds skittish. It is not only the human presence that frightens birds, but also the noise of gunshot. The disturbance extends to all birds in the habitat, not just game birds. Heavy hunting pressure on migratory stop• over areas, such as Boundary Bay causes birds to resume their flights south earlier than might otherwise be the case. Heavy hunting pressure in the Greater Vancouver region has been im- 65

plicated in the decline or disappearance of some species, such

as the Lesser Canada goose, the White-fronted Goose, and the

Black Brant (Leach, 197 7). The claim that hunting alone is

responsible, cannot be substantiated, though it probably was a

factor.

Decline or disappearance of birds from a region is commonly controlled by providing refuge areas. Creation of refuges, though it removes some territory from hunting, actual•

ly improves hunting within a region by providing relief from disturbance (Jorgensen et al, 1964; Anderson and Kozlic, 1964;

Munroe, 1964). Often refuge habitat is managed to produce food,

increasing the attraction for birds. The area around Westham

Island in the Fraser estuary, for example, sustains more hunter- days than any other spot of comparable size in the region (B.C.

Fish and Wildlife Branch, Unpublished Data, 1978) . Hunting is

good there because of the proximity of Reifel Migratory Bird

Sanctuary. Reifel, though not a total sanctuary, does offer

relief from the disturbance of hunting and provides food.

There seems to be no research aimed at determining a

suitable or minimum size for such refuge areas. Morzer-Bruijns

(1967, 1973) says that one-third of the shoreline is the mini• mum portion of a body of water that should be set aside as

refuge. This recommendation is not based on experimental evi• dence, but rather, is more in the form of a rule of thumb that has been applied successfully in Europe. 66

(7) Create refuge areas for waterfowl and shorebirds where no hunting activity is permited.

(8) Approximately one-third of the shoreline is the minimum portion of a body of water that should be set aside as refuge.

(9) Leave buffer zones or closely controlled belts around refuges, since the disturbance caused by shooting will penetrate the reserved area.

The hunting season is already closely regulated for wildlife management purposes. During the 1977-78 season ducks were hunted from October through January; and the Black Brant for ten days in March. Having a set hunting season limits the percentage of the population that is harvested, but not the dis• ruption caused to wildlife. Atkinson-Willes (1969) says that hunting should be regulated so that it does not cause a more than temporary disturbance at intervals. Shooting two or three times a week is preferable to constant shooting by odd indivi• duals. In the United States the traditional hunting days are

Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday of each week during the hunting season. This seeming restriction on hunting actually improves hunter success, again by holding birds longer in the region

(Anderson and Kozlik, 1964; Jorgensen et al, 1964; Munroe, 1964).

(10) Shooting should take place two or three days a week during the hunting season. 67

5.4-2 Boating

The growing traffic of pleasure boats on many waters has caused an increasing harassment of bird populations. Motorboats with or without water skiiers, even quiet fishing and sailing craft keep resting and feeding flocks on the move. The noise, movement and turbulence created by boats are aggravating to birds, but the effects vary with the type of boat. The peak boating season is still in progress in Boundary Bay at the time the first migrants arrive in late summer. Since the local climate is so mild, some boating continues all year, causing a potential disruption to wintering wildlife.

Boats destroy the inaccessibility and security that water areas have for birds. Intensive boating has almost com• pletely eliminated waterfowl use of the Ochlawha River and the

St. Johns River in Florida. Boats in the Everglades have restricted waterfowl activity there; similar effects have been reported on the Potomac estuary, Cheasapeake Bay (Day and Lynch,

1964), on the Great Lakes (Chandler and Denis, 1973), and in

Britain (Batten, 197 7). Commercial fishboats cause disturbance as well as pleasure boats; the salmon fleet in the lower Column bia has been implicated in the decline of some migrants on the river, and the corresponding increase of birds on inland refuges has been noted (Day and Lynch, 1964). Canoes, kayaks, and row- boats may be as disruptive as motor craft. Though they make little noise, they are able to penetrate the shallow marsh areas frequently used by wildlife. 68

Hume in his observation of Goldeneye reaction to boating on a British reservoir remarked that birds left the reservoir after being scared by boats and often did not return for a week.

After eight to nine years of boating on the reservoir, they seemed to return sooner, but their reaction to boats did not appear to become less strong with experience. Batten (1977) studied waterfowl reaction to sailing on another British reser• voir. Some waterfowl (Mallard, Tufted Duck, Pochard, Smew) sought refuge in a shallow marshy area which existed at one end of the reservoir immediately at the onset of sailing. Teal, widgeon, goldeneye, if present on the reservoir prior to sailing, deserted the area completely. Though birds continued to use the reservoir after it was opened to sailing, Batten concluded that use (and successful breeding for some species), depended on the existence of the large marshy part of the reservoir which re• mained inaccessible to boats. The areas served as a refuge for birds; it had good visibility and a reed cover.

Studies of the effects of boating activity on birds re• inforced the idea, mentioned earlier, that critical limits of tolerance of human approach could.be established for each species.

Hume (197 6) found that Goldeneyes would not permit a boat to approach closer than 300 to 400 meters, 700 meters if the boat was motoring. A mallard on the other hand would allow approach up to 100 meters. Terns, which were regular visitors to a second reservoir, remained relatively unaffected by boating; often they fed undisturbed among dozens of sailing dinghies. Coots were also relatively undisturbed, allowing boats to approach as close 69 as 50 meters before retreating (Batten, 197 7).

(11) Create refuge areas for waterfowl and shorebirds where no human actvity is permitted.

(R) Leave buffer zones or closely controlled belts around re-:, f uges.:

(12) Use vegetation screens, artificial islands and embayments to increase the seclusion of refuges.

(13) Limit types of boats permitted in water areas, seasons of use and mooring areas with zoning.

a. Provide no facilities for undesirable types of boats.

b. Create motorless zones on the water. Mark these with

a chain of buoys.

c. Place speed restrictions on motor boats.

d. Prohibit landing except at recognized moorings.

e. Seasonal adjustment of user zones is possible. Sail•

ing, for example, would require less area in winter than

in summer.

The impacts of heavy boat use are apparently reversible.

Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuge in Montana, whose waters were closed to fishermen in 1962, sustained a twofold increase in v waterfowl use within one year after closure (Salyer and Gillett,

1964) . 70

(14) Experiment with the boundaries of user zones. Monitor the results after several seasons with one set of boundaries.

Develop a set of boundaries that appears satisfactory.

5.4-3 Off Highway Recreational Vehicles

Use of trail bikes, dune buggies and fourwheel drive vehicles on beaches and intertidal areas could be expected to provoke reactions similar to those caused by hunting and boating.

The same guidelines will be applicable with one addition.

(15) Limit land vehicles to roads and parking areas.

5.4-4 The Phenomenon of Habituation

If a fright reaction, such as response to approach of a human form or a boat is not reinforced by an actual attack of some kind, the birds quickly learn to ignore it. This has be• come a problem in controlling bird damage to fruit crops in eastern Canada (Brown, 197 4) and in discouraging bird activity around airports. For recreation activities carried out in bird habitat the habituation phenomenon has positive aspects. Birds may learn to accept higher levels of activity and ambient noise in their habitats.

Colonization of a bird reserve in Holland located be• tween two roads, one described as "busy", suggests that habitua• tion takes place under these circumstances. DeJong (1977) found that the overall high densities of breeding shorebirds (reff, redshank, godwit, lapwing) suggested that the disturbance 71

factor was not very important in its effect on nest numbers and distribution. The birds did, however, leave a margin of 10 meters on each side of the road, where nesting density was lower.

The same study quoted conflicting results from a study by Veen

(1973) which concluded that the disturbing traffic influence

penetrated a bird feeding area as far as one and one-half kilo• meters. No further details were given. Hume (1976) likewise

found that negligible habituation had occurred in duck responses

to boating over a period of eight to nine years. This leads to

the conclusion that the habituation response exists, but is not

easily predictable. It will depend on the species, site and

nature of the disturbance.

(16) Try to take advantage of the habituation phenomenon by

increasing human use of bird habitat areas gradually.

5.5 Feeding Wildlife

Bird feeding is often a by-product of human presence in

the habitat. Large populations of birds are often found near

tourist sites. After they are fed by people, they lose the in•

centive to leave the site and forage on their own. These animals

become beggars creating a zoolike atmosphere. Human food is

neither natural nor suitable for wild birds, and it may have

physiological consequences for the birds' systems (Kesteloot,

1968; LeSage, 1979). Vistors to the habitat can no longer en•

joy the thrill of observing wild birds in their natural setting. 72

Feeding sometimes causes a proliferation of "pest" species; these may replace the native species in the habitat.

Wildlife refuges sometimes feed birds on a larger scale by managing marshlands to produce suitable food plants or by

farming upland areas and leaving the crops for birds. This type of feeding allows birds to maintain their natural habits, in•

cluding their fear of man, yet supplements food available natur•

ally. Abundance of food holds birds in a migratory stopover

area longer than might normally be the case.

(17) Hand feeding of birds should be discouraged.

(18) Feeding, if it is done at all, should be done through

intensive management of habitat- upland and marsh- for production

of suitable food. Designation of feeding areas should take into

account the needs of different species.

5.6 Disruption of Nesting Birds

Disruption of nesting birds is a special case of human

presence in bird habitat; as mentioned earlier all species are

most sensitive at this time. If habitat enhancement for water-

fowl/shorebird nesting takes place at Boundary Bay, control of

disruptions to nesting birds could become a concern. Such en•

hancement is a real: possibility at the Serpentine Fen Wildlife

Management Area or at the proposed regional park in Delta

(G.V.R.D./Torrence, 1977). Courtship rituals and nest building can be interrupted,

in some cases aborted altogether, if humans-approach toocelosely.

After eggs are laid human approach causes adults to leave nests;

eggs may be accidently smashed by the parent or taken by preda•

tors. Nesting material may be stolen by bird neighbours, who

frequently dislodge eggs from the nests. Humans may crush eggs, which are not easily visible due to their protective coloration.

If chicks are already hatched, parent abandonment may cause

chicks to jump or fall out of the nest. These chicks get lost

and are attacked by neighbours; eventually they die. The ef•

fects of human activity vary with the species; some show little

adverse reaction or nest in inaccessible places which are not

subject to disturbance. Humans, it should be pointed out are often completely unconscious of the effects of their presence on the birds. Jarvis and Cram (1971) present a good example of

the above effects in their study of visitor impact on nesting

birds at Bird Island, near Capetown, South Africa. Picnickers

and fishermen were similarly implicated in the declining numbers

of little terns in Britain and Ireland. Nesting on beaches .

above the high tide line, these birds were subject to frequent

disruption by the public and even to vandalism (Norman and

Saunders, 1969). Studies on geese and ducks in Scotland showed

that traffic in breeding areas caused aborted nesting. Egg

loss in breeding areas visited three times per week was 100 per•

cent, in areas visited once per week 6 0 percent, in undisturbed

control areas, 10 percent (Green, 1972). 74

Disrupted nesting of bald-headed eagles, red tailed hawks and two Canada Geese due to human activity was reported recently near Reifel ("Nesting Birds Disrupted, Says Santuary

Staff," Vancouver Province, April 19, 1978). The birds were disturbed by dog training and testing on adjacent property about

200 meters away. Gun reports, dogs retreiving birds and a large group of dog fanciers with their vehicles all contributed to the disturbance.

Experiences, such as those quoted here, have resulted in visitor regulation becoming an accepted practice in wildlife breeding areas. At Reifel Sanctuary the nesting ponds are closed to the public from mid-March to mid-June (B.C. Migratory Water• fowl Society, 1971).

(19) Restrict visitor access to nesting areas using fences, hedges and dikes.

(R) Provide information displays, signs, guided walks, and talks, to increase visitor awareness of their effects on wild• life and of the need for their exclusion from certain habitat areas.

5.7 Conclusion

Habitat deterioration and subsequent loss of food sources due to recreational use of wildlife habitat will not be a critical problem at Boundary Bay, and the disruption caused by human pre• sence-activity or passive- presents a more serious threat to con- tinued use of the habitat. Some of this potential disruption is avoided because of a natural separation in times of heavy recreational and wildlife use. To ensure preservation of the wildlife value of Boundary Bay, major disturbances due to human activities will have to be controlled throughout most of the habitat. A series of guidelines has been developed aimed at minimizing the effects of human presence during times when wild•

life is dependent upon the habitat. About one-third of the .

total habitat area should be reserved as undisturbed refuge.

The guidelines themselves are site oriented and can be applied

in a variety of ways to the study area. Chapter Seven presents

some alternatives with differing implications for long term re• conciliation of preservation and use. 76

CHAPTER SIX

Conflicts Associated with Preservation of the Bird Resource at

Boundary Bay and Their Management Implications

6.1 Introduction

At a series of public meetings held in Surrey during winter 1978 some local and regional residents expressed feelings that might lead to protest against implementation of a conservacy in Boundary Bay. These people could suffer from losses or con• flicts in connection with such a conservacy area. First, hun• ters and birdwatchers will actively compete for space in which to pursue their bird-oriented sports. This is a recreational conflict. The conflict may include many other non-hunters in addition to birdwatchers. Second, members of the agricultural community believe they stand to lose crops to waterfowl depreda• tion if the wildlife of Boundary Bay is protected or increased.

This is the agricultural conflict. The threat of these conflicts could influence the acceptability of a conservacy area in Bound• ary Bay. This chapter investigates the extent and basis of the conflicts with the objective of developing solutions.

6.2 The Surrey Meetings: Source of Information about Conflicts

Four workshops were held in Surrey to discuss a wide range of questions relating to the Mud Bay section of the Bound- 77

ary Bay shoreline. Each workshop had a slightly different

orientation: environment; agriculture; recreation; and Surrey

resident. The meetings were open to the public; in addition

representatives of government agencies having jurisdiction or

interest in planning the Mud Bay area (Lands Branch, Dept. of

Agriculture, Federal Fisheries, etc.) and representatives of

interest groups from throughout the region (Federation of B.C.

Naturalists, Mud Bay Dyking and Drainage Commission, Sierra

Club, etc.) were invited to attend the workshops. Each of the

four workshops was intended to involve a different series of

groups/agencies and a different segment of the population. A

fifth workshop was held as a summary.

The format of the workshops was as follows. The parti•

cipants broke up into small groups of seven to ten people. Each

group discussed the issues raised in a series of statements

called "Patterns"; these "patterns" had been drafted by the Sur•

rey Planning Dept. specifically as a focus for public discussion.

There were a total of 52 patterns to be discussed; not all

of these could be discussed in the time available. The patterns

"Estuaries Preserved" and "Compatible Agriculture" (later changed

to "Agriculture Foremost") contained statements of direct rele•

vance to this chapter; the grbup responses to these statements

pointed to the existence of conflicts. The patterns are contained

in Appendix 6. I participated in the workshops to gather infor•

mation which would contribute to this thesis. I chose to use the

record of group discussion prepared by the Surrey Planning Dept.

as the basis for the analysis presented here. This document is 78 presented in Appendix 7. The two conflicts in question will be discussed separately.

6.3 The Agricultural Conflict

Management of habitat for waterfowl and shorebird use might be inhibited by the threat to crop damage that might rer suit from birds feeding on the agricultural lands. Losses have been reported in the U.S.A. (U.S. National Academy of Science,

1970), Britain (Kear, 1970; Owen, 1977) and Canada (Prach, 1976).

6.3-1 Extent of the Problem in the Study Area

It has been established in Chapter Four that birds, par• ticularly dabbling ducks, depend on food sources in the agricul• tural lands which surround Boundary Bay. The arrival of these migrants after harvest time implies that there is little poten• tial for crop damage locally; however, the birds also winter here, additional migrants pass through in early spring. Com• plaints of bird damage to crops have been made by local farmers.

References have appeared in Leach (1976) and in Leach ("Protect

Our Waterfowl - Don't Harvest it," Vancouver Sun, October 3,

1978).

During the Surrey workshops, only one of three agricul• ture groups reported that crop damage by birds could be a pro• blem. The remaining groups stated that waterfowl hadn't done much damage in the study area. Two of the three groups, however, suggested that arrangements for compensation to farmers should be made in case of damage. This suggests that the threat of 79 bird-:damage is very real in the minds of some farmers. The ex• tent of actual damage, however, remains to be assessed.

6.3-2 • Basis of the Problem

Field feeding has been an established element of bird behavior for generations. Geese and, to a lesser extent, ducks, are known as the characteristic grazers. The clearing and cul• tivation that began with white settlement of North America may actually have increased the availability of waterfowl food in the uplands, hence increased the incidence of field feeding.

In the Klamath Basin of California and Oregon it has been shown that upland feeding habits have developed in response to the availability of attractive food there (Griffith, 1964) .

Researchers have proposed that birds can cause reduction in crop values in three ways: defoliation, trampling and fecal contamination. Experiments in the assessment of crop damage by birds have not always been able to substantiate that damage actually occurs. It has been charged that in the spring feeding waterfowl often uproots seedlings and young plants not firmly anchored in the soil. U.S. studies of geese grazing on wheat showed that leaf pruning on young cereal plants in the spring can actually improve yields (Griffith, 1964). Similar experi• ments in Britain found little yield difference in grazed and un- grazed cereals. The same experiment showed that trampling also had little effect (Kear, 1970). On the Canadian prairies field

feeding ducks eat ripe kernels of grain, causing damage particu•

larly during harvest when the crop is lying in swaths. Duck 80

trampling at this time causes a reduction in grade (Paynter and

Stephen, 1964). Fecal contamination of grass with bird droppings

can make grass unattractive to grazing animals as laboratory

tests showed (Kear and Rochard, 1968)'. Under field conditions,

they hypothesized, feces may be unstable and disappear quickly.

The effect of bird feeding on farmland varies depending mainly on the type of land use and the time of year during which

feeding occurs. Waterfowl feeding in the spring on grazing lands may compete with stock for "early bite" spring grass. Arrival

of birds after harvest time may have beneficial effects as the

birds clean up spilt grain, weed seeds and tubers in which pests

overwinter. Damage may take place when turnips and other root

crops are left to overwinter in fields (Kear, 1970).

Dabbling ducks, other waterfowl and shorebirds actively

feed in the study area during the late fall (the time of heavi•

est use), winter and early spring. Damage could take place in

the following ways.

1. competition with grazing stocks

2. fecal contamination of grazing lands

3. feeding on overwintering root crops in market

gardens

4. damage to seedlings in spring.

The exact type of damage that has been claimed is not known, but

as Chapter Four has shown crops do not appear to be a major food

source for most species found on Boundary Bay. It may be that

reports of damage have been exaggerated. 81

6.3-3 Solution

The solution to this problem would require first of all that more information be gathered. The questions that need to be answered are:

1. What type of damage do migratory birds to to farm• lands in the study area and during what season of the year does damage take place?

2. What annual dollar figure can be calculated to des• cribe losses?

3. What percentage of total production does this figure represent?

4. Do losses justify initiation of control measures, if so, what measures?

Losses of one percent of total crop value in Alberta, Saskatche• wan, Manitoba, and Ontario were considered enough to justify con• trol and compensation (Prach, 1976).

In a conservacy area migratory bird populations might increase over their present levels, especially if birds are pro• tected by sanctuaries and/or provided with food; what might not be a problem at present could become one.

Should control of waterfowl feeding on croplands become necessary, there are a variety of controls that could be imple• mented. The availability of such strategies might improve the acceptability of a mixed-use conservacy designation for Boundary

Bay among those who could potentially suffer losses.

Scaring techniques ranging from scarecrows to acetylene explosives can be used to keep birds out of fields. As discussed 82 in Chapter Five, a habituation to the scaring device might occur.

Scaring would be most useful where damage is likely to occur over a period of time short enough that habituation would not take place.

Encouraging hunter use of farmland is a second means of keeping birds away from the fields. This could be done in con•

junction with existing Fish and Wildlife Branch policy promoting a closer relationship between landowner and hunter (B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch, 1975, 1976). Farmers could open their lands

to hunting charging a per annum rate, thereby supplementing their incomes. This arrangement presently exists among some land• owners and hunting clubs in the Fraser Valley. The clubs "rent" the hunting rights to the properties on a per acre basis (Leach,

1976). Further details of the possibilities for cooperation between landowners and hunters are outlined in Paish (1974) and Alberta, Fish and Wildlife Division (1974).

The susceptibility of lands to damage by waterfowl can be reduced by various means. In the Prairie:;provinces, some farmers shifted their crop rotations from a small grain to a grass-legume rotation in fields where serious damage had occurred.

Crops unattractive to birds, such as rape and flax, could also be grown in such fields (Paynter and Stephen, 1964) . Similar solutions could be developed around Boundary Bay depending on the type of damage sustained. Vulnerable or valuable crops could be planted near buildings or other disturbances to discourage bird activity (Owen, 1977) . 83

Alternate food sources provided for birds would decrease crop depredations. Farmers could be paid to cultivate crops for birds, or paid to leave some of their crops standing for bird use. Waste grain could be left for birds in fields where no harm could be done. Disturbances could be employed to divert birds from fields where they are causing damage to conservacy areas where food has been left. Heavy field feeding might indi• cate a need for reservation of more upland habitat for conservacy use (Owen, 1977).

Where particularly serious damage occurs, crop insurance or compensation programs have been made available. Some pro• grams are already operating in Canada, but have been hampered by difficulties in accurately assessing damage (Prach, 1976; Owen,

1977) .

6.4 The Hunter-Anti-Hunter Conflict

A dual orientation towards use and enjoyment of wildlife resources exists. Consumptive users of wildlife, the hunters, harvest the resource that forms the focal point of their sport.

Appreciative or non-consumption users of wildlife observe, identify, photograph, and feed wildlife, but do not harvest the resource. People engaged in the two types of activities have been described in strongly contrasting terms: hunter/protection• ist (Leonard, 1972); hunter/conservationist (Leach, Vancouver

Sun, October 3, 1978); hunter/naturalist (Hall in Leach, 1977); hunter/anti-hunter (Valentine, Vancouver Sun, May 11, 1978). 84

The exact people involved in the conflict have been hard to describe: are naturalists a subset of protectionists? of anti- hunters? I have chosen to use the term anti-hunter in this dis• cussion because, as we shall see, it most adquately describes

the people who fall in opposition to hunters in the conflict.

6.4-1 Extent of the Conflict

Discussion during the Surrey workshops indicated that hunting is the object of disagreement among local and 'regional

residents. All fourteen groups of people participating in the

four workshops discussed the "Estuaries Preserved" pattern, which contained the following statement about hunting: "Hunting disturbs the northern and eastern edges of Mud Bay, where the vital salt marsh provides feeding grounds for ducks and geese.

This activity should be eliminated." Four groups explicitly

stated that they agreed hunting should be prohibited in the

estuary; four others made no outright statement regarding hunt•

ing, but implicitly supported its prohibition by agreeing with

the pattern. On the other hand six groups explicitly disagreed

that hunting should be eliminated.

These group responses suggest that hunting is the sub•

ject of considerable disagreement. This conclusion is reinforced

by the vociferous interchange of pro- and anti-rhunting sentiment

that was initiated as a result of Barry Smallwoods article in

the Vancouver Sun, "Setting the Fox to Keep the Geese" (Page 6,

April 20, 1978) . Since that time one letter to the editor and

three articles on the subject have appeared in the Sun; two 85 titles are cited here as illustrative of the conflict: "Pre• serve Our Waterfowl.- Don't Harvest It" (Leach, Vancouver Sun,

October 3, 1978); "The Hunters Right - To Harvest a Resource"

(Dixon, Vancouver Sun, October 24, 1978).

It is not possible to determine — either from the Sur• rey workshops or the Vancouver Sun articles — just who objects to hunting or what proportion of the population objects. It appears that there is an equally vocal group of people who will speak out in favour of hunting. In these two groups lies the foundation of a conflict.

6.4-2 Basis of the Conflict

An examination of the literature gives further insight.

Two Canadian studies have shown that the majority of the popula• tion can be expected to express a preference for appreciative uses of wildlife resources over consumptive uses. The results of a random survey of 3,000 residents of Saskatchewan indicated that 90 percent of the population preferred to observe their province's bird life, while only 30 percent preferred to hunt them (University of Saskatchewan, 1974). (Note this does not indicate actual participation in appreciative or consumptive uses, but only preferences for a particular orientation in use of wildlife resource, should participation take place.) A smaller survey (n=136) in the Vancouver region showed similar results: - .17 percent of the respondents participated in con• sumptive use of wildlife resources, while 54 percent participa• ted in appreciative uses (LeFev-re, 1974) . Organized naturalists 86 were found to be a tiny minority of all the people who enjoy wildlife (LeFevre, 1974), as Edwards (1969) and Callison (1973) confirm. The conflict, therefore, is greater than one between hunters and naturalists. The conflict apparently has its source in a large number of people who feel negative towards hunting, few of whom are naturalists; these are the people that

I have termed the anti-hunters.

Wildlife professionals noted the appearance of anti- hunting sentiment in the U.S. literature around 19 65, but were unaware of its significance (Shaw, 1974). Several U.S. studies have shown that a large proportion of the population disapproves of hunting (Hendee and Potter, 1975). Thirty-eight percent of the population surveyed in one New Jersey survey expressed opposition to the sportt.dn 1972; forty-three percent disapproved in 1974 (Applegate, 1973> 1975). Studies of U.S. university students found that 75 percent expressed some anti-hunting sentiment and 19 percent were totally against sport hunting

(Shaw, 1973). In another study Shaw (1974) found anti-hunting sentiment grounded in negative attitudes about the behavior of hunters, sympathy for the individual animals as victims and a concern about the disruption of nature's balance.

The emotions generated from these conflicts are some• times much more intense than a simple difference in outdoor pursuits would seem to warrant. Fundamental differences in attitudes towards the environment, towards public land manage• ment and even differences in social grouping may underlie con• flicts accentuating them and leading to increased polarization. 87

Knopp and Tyger (1973) have shown that all these differences exist in comparing conflicting snowmobilers and cross-country skiiers in Minnesota. Though no comparable data exists for hunters and anti-hunters, anti-hunting sentiment may be a re• flection of the changing attitudes of an increasingly urban population. Hendee and Potter (197 5) summarizing data from

33 U.S. studies point out that hunters come predominantly from rural backgrounds and in this respect are different from the average population, which is urban.

6.4-3 Solution

The existence of a hunter/anti-hunter conflict could influence the recreational uses that are accommodated in Bound• ary Bay, the amount of area devoted to hunting versus other uses, and human satisfaction with the designation. In theory the conflict could be minimized if separate areas were desig.- nated for hunting and no hunting on the Boundary Bay marshes.

In non-hunting areas appreciative users of wildlife and other non-hunting recreationists may engage in their preferred activi• ties. Hunters will require designation of more extensive areas, partly for safety reasons, partly because of the need to dis• perse widely within the habitat. Efforts can also be made to direct hunting pressure to areas which require dispersion of their bird populations. Two examples of such areas are farm• lands and airports. Designation of areas for hunting or no hunting should be based on the needs of the birds as well as on demands made by different recreationist groups. 88

In actual fact separation of uses already exists, and a portion of Boundary Bay's coastal area is already closed to hunting (see Map 6.1). In areas closed to hunting, however, there is no provision of opportunities for wildlife appreciation

(i.e. designation of areas/provision of facilities), other than as a bi-product of activities in parks. Unfortunately there is no government agency with a mandate to provide such opportuni-. ties. At any rate many anti-hunters might remain unaffected by such provision.

The conflict between hunters and anti-hunters ultimately may be considered a product of the changing times. The hunters

--traditional users (and protectors) of the wildlife resource, now declining in numbers — tenaciously cling to their territory, while an increasingly urbanized population — which neither understands, nor sympathizes with the traditional user — pre• fers to engage in non-consumptive recreational pastimes. A special element of this urban population, the naturalist, the environmentalist, is now moving in to assume the role of pro• tector of wildlife. Perhaps this is the type of painful social change that only time can resolve fully.

Separation of uses can continue and research can be con• ducted to monitor user satisfaction with the conservacy area, since this will lead to more site specific suggestions for re• solution of complaints. Common ground between hunters and anti- hunters can be emphasized in dealing with the conflict. Both have an interest in seeing that wildlife habitats and the spec• ies dependent on them are preserved, though some anti-hunters MAP 6.1

DESIGNATED HUNTING AND NON-HUNTING AREAS

ON BOUNDARY BAY 90 may feel more strongly in this respect than others. 91

CHAPTER SEVEN

Conservacy Alternatives for Boundary Bay

7.1 Introduction

The application of management guidelines developed in

Chapter Five and solutions to conficts suggested in Chapter Six is best done using an approach that considers the whole study area as one unit for management. In this context human and wildlife needs, outlined in Chapters Three and Four can be met.

The application of these guidelines is not simple, however.

There is no single path to achieving a balance of conservacy uses in the study area, but rather, a variety of alternatives exist. Alternatives may differ in several respects:

amount of land/water designated for different types

of uses

: degree of protection offered by various designations

: type of recreational use made of different sites

within the conservacy area

: degree of management of the area

: amount of cooperation between public agencies and

individuals required to implement a given manage•

ment scheme.

Major differences in outcome exist between alternatives; some are more likely than others to result in a successful balance of.preservation with use over the long term. 92

This Chapter presents four conservacy alternatives for

Boundary Bay. These are described in order of increasing em• phasis on preservation within the conservacy area. Briefly, the alternatives are:

Alternative One: Continuation of present course of action. Three parks are planned for the study area.

Alternative Two: Moderate perservation. Present course of action amplified by policies for management of public lands in the study area to benefit wildlife preservation.

Alternative Three: Implementation of a three zone system in the study area. Areas designated for intensive recreation, wildlife oriented recreation and undisturbed refuge. Adoption of broad policies to ensure that all future uses of the Bay will be compatible with a conservacy area.

Alternative Four: Enhancement. Management of public lands in the study area for waterfowl uses; enhancement of two sites to encourage breeding.

Table 7.1 summarizes each alternative, including site designa• tions for conservacy uses and management guidelines. Each al• ternative is assessed as to whether reconciliation between pre• servation and recreational use of the study area is likely to be maintained;over the long term (20 years). This assessment is also discussed, as this is another factor that must influence the decision to seek any one of the four scenarios. Table 7.3 shows the agencies that would be required to participate were any of the alternatives to be implemented. The three tables are referred to frequently in the discussion. Map 7.1 is presented for reference to readers who are not familiar with place names on Boundary Bay. 93

The objective of Chapter Seven is not to choose from among the alternatives, but to present the possible choices and to discuss the implications of each choice so that an informed decision can be made about the future preservation and use of

Boundary Bay.

7.2 Alternative One: Continuation of Present Course

The analysis of planning for conservacy areas in North

America, presented in Chapter Two, concluded that without care• ful planning and management, reconciliation of preservation with use of a conservacy area, especially one designated as "park", would be unlikely, This conclusion underliesthe rationale for the point of view taken in this thesis, and implies that a con• tinuation of the present course of events would not result in achievement of the desired end state. The intention here is not to belabour that point, but to recapitulate briefly in light of the discussion presented throughout the thesis.

Table 7.1 summarizes conservacy designations and manage• ment guidelines that are expected if the present course of plan• ning activities for the study area was to reach implementation.

According to Alternative One arrangements for more efficient accommodation of summer recreation in the study area will re-ei ceive priority. Such improvements to access and facilities will encourage increased year round use of three proposed park sites.

Wildlife areas are planned for two of these park sites, but these would be developed at a later date, after other facilities are in place. The waterfowl park planned for Centennial Beach TABLE 7.1 ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSERVACY USE OF BOUNDARY BAY

Alternative Areas Designated for Tyne of Designation Site Specific Management Guidelines General Management Guidelines Conservacy Use

White Rock shoreline Park (regional or 1. Improvements to access and facilities 1. Recreational use of Boundary Bay to municipal) for summer recreation at three park sites increase as trend dictates. receive priority. Crescent Beach and Park (regional or •concessions, wash and changerooms, Z No major increases in access are planned Blackie Spit municipal) beach enhancement, picnic areas, at this time. parking lots, lifeguard services Centennial Park* Regional park 3. Hunting policy- a continuation of pre• 2. Wildlife habitat areas planned for sent hunting policy is forseen, hunting Blackie Spit and Centennial Park will be allowed every day during specified season. developed as second phase of project; •landscaping and screening of lagoons 4. Boating policy- no new facilities are and trails planned. ALTERNATIVE •Centennial Park waterfowl enhancement ONE project-trail and facility intensive 5. Trail bikes and other off road vehicles accomodating 11 recreational activities are prohibited at Boundary Bay due to Continuation including group camping, group picnics, interference with other recreational activ• of and a nature center. ities and damage to vegetation and dunes. Present Course Ocean Park shoreline none 1. Improvements to access- minor improve• ments to two access trails.

Greenbelt lands Greenbelt 1. Presently leased out for agricultural use, some parcels unused- no change in manaqement is planned.

Serpentine Fen Wildlife Management 1. Site of Canada Goose raising project, Area provides some uDland refuge- no change in management planned.

* Centennial Park development is based on the assumption that'Concept A'suqqested by Charles Torrence Ltd. (1977) is chosen for implementation. This concept contains the waterfowl park, and has received the most favorable response from citizens. Staff analysis has also shown this to be the most highly rated of two possible alternatives (Regional Parkland StatusReport (Draft), GVRD, 1978). TABLE 7.1 ( Continued )

ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSERVACY USE OF BOUNDARY BAY

Al ternative Areas Designated for Type of Designation Site Specific Management Guidelines General Management Guidelines Conservacy Use

White Rock shoreline Park (regional or 1. Recreational access and facility impro• 1. Trail bike and other vehicular re^ municipal) vements to be concentrated at three parks. strictions enforced on grounds of dis• turbance to widlife. Crescent Beach and Park (regional or 2. Wildlife habitat areas planned for Blackie Spit municipal) Blackie Spit and Centennial Park are 2. Hunting policy developed simultaneously with improve• Centennial Park* Regional Park ments for summer recreation. • encourage hunting on farmlands •blinds, viewing platforms, screened • encourage, hunting where discourag• trails provided at wildlife areas. ing wildlife is desirable (eg, ALTERNATIVE •present plans for Centennial Park some farmlands, airport foreshore, TWO waterfowl area downgraded to in• if airport should reopen). clude fewer facilities and activities. • limit hunting on foreshore to 2 or Moderate 3 days a week during hunting season. Preservation Greenbelt lands on Greenbelt Greenbelt management- manage greenbelt Mud Bay and Boundary lands to provide wildlife food. 3. Boating policy Bay proper •pay farmers or reduce their rents in return for leaving crop or waste for • no further moorage facilities to bi rds be constructed in the study area •encourage farmers to let birds feed • boat launching facilities to be undisturbed when it is unlikely that improved or provided at sites they will cause damage where wildlife preservation is not •encourage unmanaged strips fo be left a concern. where beneficial food plants and animals could grow 4. Seek cooperation of public agencies or • •io not improve drainage in these areas individuals involved in any future development or use of the study area to Serpentine Fen Wildlife Management Habitat enhancement- manage Serpentine Fen benefit habitat preservation and pro• Area intensively to provide food for wildlife. vision of recreational opportunities. TABLE 7.1 ( Continued )

ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSERVACY USE OF BOUNDARY BAY

Al ternative Areas Designated for Type of Designation Site Specific Management Guidelines General Management Guidelines

Recreation Zone 1. Implementation of a 3 zone system similar to that practiced in many protect• White Rock Shoreline Park (municipal or 1. Improvements to access and recreational ed areas. regional) facilities • visitors channeled by their own reer • provision of washrooms, changerooms, reation preferences into areas that Crescent Beach and Park (municipal or concessions, lifeguards, boat can be actively managed Blackie Spit regional) launches .• most popular activities (those which beach areas • zone hardened to accomodate intensive generate the most user days) are activities of all kinds directed to "hardened" areas Centennial Park Regional Park • highly modified environment 2. Marinas policy- no new marinas or ex• beach area 2. Advertise these beaches and their pansion of existing marinas on Boundary facilities Bay. 3. Hunting restricted for safety reasons i Hunting policy-encourage hunting on farm• (as at present); hunting permitted off lands and greenbelt lands, where possible, ALTERNATIVE Centennial Beach to make up for loss of hunting opportunity THREE due to creation of refuge. Recreation-Wildlife 4. Refuge policy- no access increases to Implementation Zone the eastern shore of Mud Bay or to the of a Ocean Park shoreline should take place Three Zone Blackie Spit backshore Park (special arrange• 1. Careful integration of human activity (other than minor improvements already System and lagoons, Nicomekl ments needed to in• into wildlife habitat near recreation planned). estuary clude foreshore) focal ooints (mentioned above). 5. Greenbelt management-to provide food 2. Facilities few, low profile or distinct• for field feeding waterfowl, or perhaps Dunsmuir farm Greenbelt ly oriented towards wildlife viewing left unmanged to encourage growth of im• • trails, blinds, interpretive displays, portant food plants (This must be made Campbell River estuary Park (special arrange• viewing platforms, modest nature compatible with #3 above). ments as above) centers 6. Horseback riding , permitted on dykes • guided interpretation possible only. Serpentine Fen Wildlife Management • plans for Centennial Park wildlife 7. Trail biking and other motorized recrea• Area area downgraded to include fewer tion are prohibited throughout the study activities and facilities area. Only provision of an alternate site Centennial Park back- Regional park 3. Access controlled-few or low profile for trail bikes will ensure adequate en• shore and lagoons signs, trails screened and carefully locat• forcement. ed, small parking lots 8. Cooperation should be sought between • access from Recreation Zone unob• government agencies and private sector trusive involved in future use or development of 4. Little advertisement the study area so that concessions in 5. No hunting in this zone development can be made to benefit rec• 6. Power boating subject to speed restric• reation and habitat preservation on the tions Bay. This will ensure future uses com• patible with conservacy area on the Bay. TABLE 7.1 (Continued)

ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSERVACY USE OF BOUNDARY BAY

Alternative Areas Designated for Type of Designation Site Specific Management Guidelines General Management Guidelines Conservacy Use

Preservation Zone 1. Human activity not permitted or closely control led Eastern shore of Mud Various alternatives • Refuge area- no activity permitted Bay including Serpen• possible tine Estuary .Greenbelt .Ecological Reserve . 0-I-C Game Reserve .Wildlife Management Area North shore of Boundary Alternatives • Human activity restricted to widely ALTERNATIVE Bay proper .0-I-C Game Reserve spaced nodes THREE .Wildlife Management • Hunting permitted in season (Continued) Area • Access to shore, facilities for Implementation .Greenbelt wildlife viewing provided at foot of a of Oliver Road Three Zone System Kwomais Point to Alternatives • Access to shore, facilities for Ocean Park .0-I-C Reserve for wildlife viewing provided at two the Use and Enjoy• points ment of the Public • Kwomais Point to Ocean Park regarded .Wildlife Management as refuge for diving ducks, although Area some use is permitted now, no further Incr-nses ancoura^ad • No lumtinn in this zone TABLE 7.1 (Continued)

ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSERVACY USE OF BOUNDARY BAY

Alternative Areas Designated for Type of Designation Site Specific Management Guidelines General Management Guidelines Conservacy Use irniite Kock shoreline " Park- municipal or 1. Recreation facilities and access in• 1. Enhancement of small habitat areas regional creased to accomodate heavy summer beach on Boundary Bay for waterfowl use in• use and boating cluding cultivation of food plants and provision of favorable conditions Crescent Beach and Park- municipal or 1. Improvements to recreation facilities for nesting Blackie Spit regional and access to accomodate heavy summer recreation 2. Hunting policy-would remain as is, no further area restrictions Centennial Park* Regional Park 2. Enhancement of small habitat areas in the two parks for waterfowl food and 3. Other recreational activities would nesting continue as previously except for • stabilization of water levels to trail biking restriction create favorable nesting areas • trail biking would be restricted • landscape modification to create in wildlife areas; this restric• impoundments tion would be enforced.: • fresh water input to favor cultiva• ALTERNATIVE tion of fresh water marsh food item: 4. Cost sharing or joint programs might FOUR • design areas to accomodate pressure be arranged between recreation and of visitors to the habitat- use of wildlife agencies to meet mutual Enhancement dykes as trails, provision of view• objectives ing platforms • restriction of use of habitat areas during nesting season 3. Promotion of the two parks as year i round wildlife attractions • provide interpretive services • provide walkways from beach activity points directly to wildlife viewing areas to encourage visitation

1. Enhancement of these public lands to Serpentine Fen Wildlife Management provide food for wildlife would be Area desirable Greenbelt Lands Greenbelt TABLE 7.2 LIKLIHOOD OF RECONCILIATION OF RECREATIONAL USE WITH PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT ACCORDING TO FOUR ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS

Are serious disturbances control• Are resting and feeding areas for Is some undisturbed refuge provid• CONCLUSION: Will preservation and ALTERNATIVE led over most of the habitat? all species protected over the ed? use be reconciled over the long long term? term?

NO. No arrangements made to con• NO. Provisions for permanent habi• NO. Some areas function as refuge UNLIKELY.If degree of use, hence trol disturbances to wildlife. tat preservation favor dabbling during most of the year, but there disturbance, increases without con• ONE Present level of disturbance is . ducks. Many areas still available is no guaranteed long term protec• trol and without explicit provis• no serious. for use of all species. tion. ion of habitat and refuge for most species variety and numbers of wildlife will decline. Rate and time of decline is uncertain. YES. Immediate efforts made to• NO. Habitat areas designated for NO. Some lightly used areas may UNCERTAIN. Dabbling ducks are the wards careful integration of peo• wildlife use will benefit mainly function as refuge during most of major benficiaries under this scen• ple into wildlife habitat. dabbling ducks. Areas available for the year, but long term protection ario; many of their needs are met TWO Boating not controlled. use of other species remain un• not guaranteed. for the long term.Future of diving protected. ducks, other birds.uncertain. Rate of increase in human use, as well as extent and types of use, will determine future preservation.

YES. Disturbing activities confin• YES. A variety of expansive habi• YES. Approximately 1/3 of the YES. Habitat needs of most species ed to specific areas and/or close• tat areas are reserved for wildlife shoreline is designated as refuge. met, disturbances controlled. THREE ly controlled. Existence of re• resting and feeding on the Bay and Other areas where access is re• Degree of long term protection for fuge and little used areas helps uplands. stricted to widely spaced nodes some areas will depend on type of minimize effects of any disturb• will function as near refuge. designation. ance, as avoidance possible.

NO. Disturbance to wildlife con• YES. But not for all species. Dab-, NO. Some areas lightly used and UNCERTAIN. Preservation and use trolled only in enhanced areas. bling ducks benefit mainly. No function as refuge now; no pro• reconciled in two small wildlife No other provisions. explicit provision for diving vision is made for control of use habitat areas, in fact value to sucks, shorebirds. of these areas for the long term. certain species increases be• FOUR cause of enhancement. Rate of in• crease in use of extensive unpro• tected areas, and extent and type of use will determine future pre- [ervation of wildlife. 100

TABLE 7.3 PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

Public Agencies with Jurisdiction or Alternatives Interest in Boundary Bay Study Area 1 2 3 4

1. Surrey municipality 1 • e e 2. Delta municipality 8 • « e 3. White Rock municipality • S « c 4. G.V.R.D. e 8 e 5. Fish and Wildlife Branch • 1 0

6. Lands Management Branch 0 % 0 7. Dept. of Agriculture (Soil/ Drainage Br.) t 0 8. Dept. of Highways 0 .0 9. Canadian Wildlife Service 0 0 0 10. Fisheries and Marine Services 0 0 0 0 11. Dept. of Transport 0 0 12. Dept. of Public Works 0 13. Port of Vancouver (N.H.B.) 0 14. Dyking and Drainage Districts (3)* s t

level of involvement • major 0 secondary/potential * quasi-public 101

MAP 7.1

PLACE NAMES ON BOUNDARY BAY 102 is remarkably trail and facility intensive; both wildlife areas in fact are extremely close to areas of intense activity, and would provide focal points that would attract additional visi• tors .

Recreational use, under Alternative One, will be permit• ted to increase in the study area as the trend dictates. A con• tinuation of hunting is envisioned. Although no new facilities for boating are planned at this time, no policy states that boating may be incompatible in some respects with preservation of the ecosystem. No attempt will be made to curtail the acti• vities of recreationists with one exception: restrictions will be imposed on use of trail bikes and other off road vehicles, mainly because of interference with other recreational activi• ties. No further access to Boundary Bay is planned, but no specific policy regarding future access is adopted.

Table 7.2 assesses the likelihood of reconciling pre• servation with recreational use based on three conclusions drawn in Chapter Four. The assessment concludes that it is unlikely that thfe :two will be reconciled over the long term if a continuation of the present course of activity results in a management scheme similar to that suggested in Alternative One.

A park designation for managed conservacy areas on the Bay assures that recreational use will predominate. The proximity of wildlife habitat contained in parks to areas of fairly heavy year round use will make preservation of the wildlife values of these areas difficult. Only the least shy species of water• fowl and shorebirds will tolerate frequent presence of people 103 in the habitat. Since no arrangements will be made to protect habitat areas outside of parks (e.g., the north shore of Bound• ary Bay proper, Mud Bay, etc.) these are likely to be lost or degraded in small ways without any attempt to capitalize upon their wildlife conservacy values. An accurate prediction of the extent and timing of loss in wildlife numbers and variety is not possible.

The advantages of Alternative One are that no land acqui• sitions are needed, other than those already planned; and the

G.V.R.D. plus Surrey, Delta and White Rock municipalities could coordinate planning responsibilities to implement this alterna• tive, as they are doing now (see Table 7.3). Additional agencies would not need to be drawn into the mainstream of planning.

7.3 Alternative Two: Moderate Preservation

Alternative Two is described in detail in Table 7.1.

This alternative accords development of wildlife areas at two park sites a priority equal to that of providing recreation facilities and access at the sites. This will ensure that inte• gration of human activity into the small habitat areas planned at the two parks will take place before increases in the level of disturbance interfere with wildlife use of that habitat.

Other public lands on Boundary Bay are intensively managed to provide food for wildlife under this alternative. A reorienta• tion in management practice is therefore required for some lands.

A variety of general policies are adopted to encourage behavior on the part of public agencies and individuals, that is con- 104

sistent with conservacy use of the Bay over the long term.

The assessment presented in Table 7.2 concludes that

these actions MAY be sufficient to reconcile preservation and use within the conservacy. Restrictions of recreational activi•

ty may cause a decrease in recreational benefits, but these

restrictions are fairly minor; hunting success may actually be

increased by such restrictions. If the amount of habitat pre•

served and enhanced under this scenario will sustain waterfowl and shorebird populations into the future, and if this habitat

remains fairly undisturbed over the long term, then a success•

ful balance will have been achieved. Adequacy of provision of habitat for diving duck populations is subject to doubt, since no explicit consideration is made of their needs.

Alternative Two has the advantage that no further acqui•

sition or transfer of land is needed (other than that already planned). The implementation of Alternative Two, however,

requires coordination between a larger number of agencies than

implementation of Alternative One, as illustrated in Table 7.3.

These agencies would have to reach concensus regarding appro• priate uses for Boundary Bay, and make standing commitments to

this effect. Although more agencies need to be involved in

planning the Bay under Alternative Two, it is still within the

scope of G.V.R.D. interest to initiate the coordination. 105

7.4 Alternative Three: Implementation of a Three Zone System

Management guidelines that would be applied were a three zone system to be implemented in the study area are detailed in

Table 7.1. The rationale underlying Alternative Three is this: visitors can be channeled by their own recreation preferences in areas that are most accessible and that can be actively managed. Activities in these areas may be disturbing to wild• life. As a result the wildlife habitat function of heavily used areas may be lost, however, adequate compensation is made by assuring that less disturbed or undisturbed areas are pro• tected.

In the three zone system the name given to each zone implies its overall role in the conservacy area and its degree of use:

1. recreation zone

2. recreation-wildlife zone

3. preservation zone.

In Boundary Bay this division into zones is facilitated by the biophysical characteristics of the Bay, and by the present access situation. Fjor example:

- some areas are too shallow for boating

- some substrates are too unstable for recreational use

- quite extensive areas of the coastline remain

inaccessible, or almost so.

Systems similar to the one suggested in Alternative

Three are practiced in many protected areas which must accommo- 106 date recreation (Satchell and Marren, 1976). Kennermerduinen

National Park in Holland is a 1,400 hectare coastal conservacy

area located within a 32 kilometer radius of two million people.

A zoning system was initiated there in order to reconcile pre•

servation of the ecosystem with provision of recreation facili•

ties for a large number of visitors. The results were specta•

cular. On peak days 95 percent of the visitors gathered in the vicinity of the park entrances or on the beaches, using a total of about 13 percent of the total area of the conservacy. Visi•

tors were rarely aware that their choice of location had been

strictly limited through careful planning and site design.

Under the scheme presented for the study area in Alter•

native Three, the beach areas of three planned parks on Boundary

Bay would lie within the recreation zone. Here the environment

could be highly modified to accommodate intense recreation;

unlimited access, concentration of facilities, large parking

lots would be provided. These areas would be heavily adver•

tised.

Careful integration of passive and dispersed recreation

would mark the recreation-wildlife zone. Only moderate use

would be appropriate here. The preservation zone, on the other

hand would function as refuge or near refuge for most wildlife

species. For humans it would provide opportunities to Observe

wild birds in their native habitats and some hunting.

Some general'management policies would be adopted to

assure compatibility of activities within each zone and over

the whole conservacy area. 107

All recreational activities that presently take place on Boundary Bay are provided for in this scenario; opportunities

to carry out most activities are improved. Facilities and

trails are more adequate and. varied. A variety of wildlife viewing opportunities are to be provided, including the oppor•

tunity to learn about regional wildlife at any of three areas which provide trailside displays or interpretive services.

These opportunities do not exist at present. The quality of

hunting should increase due to adequate provision for bird habi•

tat needs. Some might argue that a decline in hunting will .

take place due to loss of area in which to hunt; the total

result is uncertain. Also, it is not possible to predict how

the observed decline in hunting participation will affect use

of Boundary Bay for the sport. It seems reasonable to assume

that the quality of boating will be maintained if this alter•

native is implemented; restriction in boating are generally

minor or seasonal. Trail biking and other motorized vehicular

sports will not be permitted, but would have been banned in any

case. Only provision of an alternate site for these activities

will ensure successful enforcement, however.

Conflicts are thoroughly dealt with in Alternative Three.

Separate areas for hunting and birdwatching are provided; bird•

watching areas did not exist previously. Encouragement of hunt•

ing on farmlands and provision of food for wildlife in upland

greenbelt areas, where bird feeding can do no harm, will de•

crease undesired field feeding of wildlife. 108

Table 7.3 concludes that reconciliation of preservation and use will be possible if this alternative can be implemented.

Disturbances are controlled, resting and feeding areas provided for all species, and about one-third of the shoreline is form• ally protected as refuge under one of several possible designa• tions .

Alternative Three, however, would be the most difficult scenario to implement because of the complexity of institutional arrangements for planning in the coastal zone. The adoption of such a broad management strategy for the whole system, and the attendant acquisition of lands, leases, easements for conservacy use of the Bay would require active participation of a large number of public agencies as shown in Table 7.3. A new manage• ment body of some type Ls<, needed. Some; alternatives are:

- the Regional Resource Management Committee

- a Management Committee with representation of all

interests

- a permanent Task Force with Secretariat.

The recent Fraser Estuary Study (Government of Canada/ Province of B.C., 1978) recommended that a task force with secretariate be established to manage the Fraser estuary as a whole; Boundary

Bay could be defined as a management subunit of the Estuary.

How to achieve wide enough support to create such an agency, and how to fund it under present economic circumstances remains a problem. None of the alternatives suggested, in fact, present an easily workable solution. 109

7.5 Alternative Four: Enhancement

Small wildlife habitat areas within existing or pro• posed parks are enhanced under Alternative Four with the objec• tive of providing food plants'for waterfowl.and nesting spots.

Enhancement for nesting would ensure that some birds would be present on the Bay and visible all year round. Enhanced areas could be designed to accommodate heavy user pressure following the example of Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary. Nature and wild• life interpretation could be a major emphasis in parks on Bound• ary Bay. Wide advertising would be possible. Use restrictions in the habitat during nesting season would cause a small loss in recreational benefits at a season of the.year when beaches attract most people to the Bay anyway.

Alternative Four has the same advantages as following the present course of events: no further acquisition of land; no further cooperation between public agencies. The G.V.R.D. and three municipalities could manage the conservacy area under this scenario. Perhaps technical input could be sought from the Canadian Wildlife service and the B.C. Fish and Wildlife

Branch, and the possibility of cost sharing or joint programs with these agencies could be explored.

This alternative probably provides the most recreational benefits of any of the four scenarios, since no loss or re• striction of activity is necessary. Educational benefits from interpretation programs increase environmental awareness of park visitors. Alternative Four has the disadvantage that it 110 would be expensive; creation of an enhanced environment would risk disturbance to natural flora of the Bay, and enhancement would benefit mainly waterfowl. Other wildlife species might disappear from the parks.

Would preservation be reconciled with recreational use in the conservacy area pictured under Alternative Four? As in

Alternative One enhancement of two small habitat areas cannot make up for expected eventual loss or deterioration of other habitat areas on Boundary Bay. It is unlikely that present numbers and variety of wildlife would persist in the long term if this alternative were implemented. Enhancement would pro• vide few benefits to diving ducks. Certain other species might not benefit — shorebirds, Great Blue Heron. Opportunities for conservacy uses of other areas on Boundary Bay would be lost if this single minded, site specific approach is taken.

7.6 Conclusion

The present course of activity in planning for Boundary

Bay will result in an attempt to reconcile preservation with recreational use on a site specific basis — at three different sites on the Bay. A more comprehensive approach is needed if a balance is to be achieved over the whole ecosystem on a long term basis. Several alternatives have been presented to this end.

Successful reconciliation of preservation and other uses within a conservacy area requires that almost all uses will have Ill to accept restrictions so that :the disruption to wildlife caused by human activity can be minimized or at least restricted in area. Even in the most extreme cases these restrictions are not seriously inconvenient to recreationists — speed restric• tions for boaters in some areas, creation of no shooting refuges

(with an expected increase in the quality of hunting). In other cases they can be provided for subtly, through careful site design, e.g. appropriate trail location, use of vegetative buffers to screen human activity. Few restrictions will in fact be necessary during the times of heaviest recreation pressure, the summer months, because the summer season corresponds to the time of lowest wildlife activity.

The major uncertainty in assessing the alternatives pre• sented concerns the extent of habitat area that must be reserved in an essentially undisturbed state to ensure that the wildlife value of the Bay is sufficiently protected. In face of such uncertainty a conservative approach, such as that presented in

Alternative Three is recommended. The rationale behind Alter• native Three is that the wildlife values of certain sites can be willingly reduced if definite and immediate habitat provir: sions are made elsewhere in the ecosystem. This alternative is the one that is most likely to result in maintenance of present numbers and diversity of wildlife species.

Implementation of policies and guidelines that would result in reconciliation of preservation and use of the study area is seriously hampered by the number of public agencies that must be involved. Furthermore, the jurisdictions of these 112 agencies are divided so that no one agency has the mandate to thoroughly plan or maintain the integrity of the Boundary Bay ecosystem.

Over the long term monitoring of boundary Bay should take place to see what changes occur. This should include moni• toring recreational use by season, activity, and site, monitor• ing for conflicts that might reduce the benefits from manage• ment, and continuing to monitor wildlife population levels and diversity. Inadquacy of techniques with which to handle the latter, will increase uncertainty about the effects of recrea• tional use on the ecosystem. More reliable techniques must be sought.

The case study presented in this thesis in many respects represents a typical problem faced by planners today. Planning and management of Boundary Bay requires that many interests be accommodated, although some of these interests conflict. It requires technical information that is not available and a high level of cooperation between numerous public agencies. This also is not easily achieved. Furthermore, there is no one

"right" way to proceed. Many management strategies would result in some balance of preservation of wildlife habitat and pro• vision for recreational use. In the final analysis the human community must weigh,the benefits of preserving wildlife and the benefits of providing recreational opportunities, and de• cide which mixture is likely to provide the greatest amount of benefit to the largest number of people in the long run. 113

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alberta, Fish and Wildlife Division. Wildlife management systems on private lands in Alberta. 197 4.

Algar, D. The determination of appropriate media for effective interpretation. 1976.

Anderson, J. and Kozlic, F. "Private duck clubs." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fish• eries and Wildlife. 1964:519-26.

Applegate, J.E. "Some factors associated with attitudes toward deer hunting in New Jersey residents." Proceedings of North American Wildlife and National Resources Conference. 38. .(1973).

. "Attitudes toward deer hunting in New Jersey: A second look." Wildlife Society Bulletin 3 (1975):3-6.

Atkinson-Willes, C. "Wildfowl and Recreation. A Balance of Requirements." "British Water Supply 11 (1969):5-15.

Batten, L.A. "Sailing on reservoirs and its effects on water birds." Biol. Cons. 11 (1977):49.

Bauer., W. Boundary Bay Shore Resource Overview. G.V.R.D. 1977.

Benn, D. and McLean, A. Lower Mainland Natural Areas Inventory. Nature Conservancy of Canada. 1977.

Bent, A.C. "Life Histories of: North. American Waterfowl' .. U.S. Museum Bulletin 130 (1925).

. Life Histories of North American Shorebirds. Parts I and II. Dover Publications, N.W. 1927, 1929.

Boudreau, G.W. "Alarm sounds and responses of birds and their application in controlling problem species." Living Bird 7 (1968). :27-46.

B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Unpublished waterfowl census data, 1965, 1966, 1967.

. Fraser Valley Special License Hunting Area. 1975.

. Fraser Valley Special License Hunting Area. 1977. 114

B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Unpublished waterfowl census data. Fall 1977.

. Unpublished data. Sales of Fraser Valley Special

Area Licenses during the 1976-77 Season. 1977.

. Unpublished hunter survey data. 1978.

B.C. Parks Branch. Boundary Bay Recreation Area Study. 1975. B.C. Migratory Waterfowl Society. G.C. Reifel Waterfowl Refuge, A Bird Sanctuary for All Seasons. B.C. Waterfowl Society Publication. 1971.

Brown, R.G.B. "Experiments on the counting, behavior of waterfowl observers .." - J.Canadian-. Wildlife. Service71 (1971) : 20 .

. "Bird damage to fruit crops in the Niagara Penninsula." Canadian Wildlife Service Report 27 (1974).

Brown, T.L. "N.Y. Landowners Attitudes Toward Recreation Activi• ties." Trans. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 39 (1974):173-79.

Burgess, T.E. "Food and habitat of four Anatids wintering on the Fraser delta tidal marshes." M.Sc. Thesis, U.B.C. Dept. of Zoology. 1970.

Callison, C. "Wildlife management and its non-hunting clientele." Washington Wildlife 25 (1973):4-6.

Church, I.R. and Rubin, D.S. An ecological review of our south• western shores. G.V.R.D. Planning Department. 1970.

Clark, B. and Easthope, C. Serpentine-Nicomekl Waterfowl Study. October 1977-February 1978. B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch. 1978.

. Unpublished data. Wildlife feeding on Serpentine- Nicomekl farmlands. 1978.

Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority. Living Marshes, (pamphlet). 1974.

Day, A. and Lynch, R. "No place to hide." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1964.

DeJong, H. "Experiences with the man-made meadow bird reserve in Kievitslanden in Flevoland." Biol. Cons. 12 (1977):13. 115

Denis, D.G. and Chandler, R.E. "Waterfowl use of the Ontario shorelines of the southern Great Lakes during migration." In Boyd, H. ed. Canadian Wildlife Service Report, Series No. 29 (1973) .

D.R.E.E. Land capability classification for outdoor recreation. Canada Land Inventory Report 6 (1969) .

. Land capability for wildlife-waterfowl'. Canada Land Inventory Report 92G. Vancouver (1973).

Dixon, J. "The Hunters Right to Harvest a Resource." The Van• couver Sun, October 24, 1978.

Edwards, R.Y. I.U.C.N. Publication. New Series No. 8 (1966).

. "The Nature of Naturalists." Ontario Naturalist 7 (1969) .

Einarsen, A.S. Black Brant - Sea Goose of the Pacific Coast. Seattle.:. Univeristy..of ..Washington Press, 1965.

Forbes, R.D. A floral description of the Fraser River Estuary, Boundary and Mud Bays. B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch. 1972a.

. Additional catalogue to a floral description of the Fraser River Estuary, Boundary and Mud Bays. B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch. 1972b.

Forster, R. Planning for Man and Nature,in National Parks. I.U.C.N. Publications. New Series 26 (1973).

Foster, B. "Ecological Reserves - What are they?" B.C. Wildlife Review 7 (1975):4-7.

. Ecological Reserves in B.C. B.C. Ministry of Environ• ment. Government of Canada/Province of B.C. Fraser . Estuary Study. 1976.

G.V.R.D. Outdoor Recreation Review: Regional Recreation Oppor• tunities. 1978.

, White Rock Municipality, and Warren, K. White Rock Foreshore Study. 1978.

. Boundary Bay Development Plan Study. 1972.

Green, B.H. Traffic in Protected Areas. European Committee for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Council of Europe. CE/NAT (72) 18. 1972. 116

Griffith, R. "Forage and Truck crops." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow.. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries, and Wildlife. 1964.

Harris, R.D. In Leach, B. ed.. The Need for Conservation and Management of the Wetlands of the Fraser Estuary and Delta. Douglas College. Institute of Environmental Studies. Information Booklet No. 28 (1977).

Hendee, J.C. "Appreciative vs. Consumptive Uses of Wildlife Refuges." Trans. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 34 (1969):252-64.

. "A multiple satisfaction approach to game management." Wildlife Society Bulletin 2 (1974):104-13.

, and Potter, D. Hunters and Hunting: Management Impli• cations of Research. U.S. Forest Service. Pacific North• west Forest and Range Experimental Station, 1975. (Reprint).

Hume. Untitled. British Birds 69 (1976):178.

Jarvis, M. and Cram, D. "Bird Island, Lamberts Bay, South Africa: An attempt at conservation." Biol. Cons. 3 (1971):269-73.

Jorgensen, S., Steiner, J. and LaPointe, D. "State Areas." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1964.

Kaiser, G. Wandering Tattler. Winter, 1979.

Kear, J. "The experimental assessment of goose damage to agri• cultural crops." Biol. Cons. 2 (1970):206.

Kellerhals, P. and Murray, J.W. "Tidal flats at Boundary Bay, Fraser River Delta, B.C." Bulletin. Can. Petrol. Geol. 17 (1969):67-91.

Kesteloot, E. "Preturbations causees par la presence humaine." I.U.C.N. Proceeding and Papers, No. 7 (1967).

Knopp, T. and Tyger, J.D. "A study of conflict in recreational land use. Snowmobiling vs. ski touring." J. Leis. Res. 5 (1973):6-17.

Kusler, J.A. Public/Private Parks and Management of Private Lands for Park Protection. University of Wisconsin. Institute for Environmental Studies. Report 16. Madison, Wisconsin. 1974. 117

Larson, J.S. "Managing woodland and wildlife habitat in and near cities." In Trees and Forests in an Urbanizing En• vironment. University of Mass., Extension Service. 1973.

Leach, B. A proposal for the establishment of the Mud Bay-Ser• pentine River environmental reserve. Douglas College. Institute of Environmental Studies. 1972a.

. Waterfowl of the Fraser Delta. Douglas College. Institute of Environmental Studies. Information Booklet 16 (1972b).

. Wildlife and Agriculture in the Fraser Valley. Wild• life for Tomorrow Conference. Douglas College. Institute for Environmental Studies. 1974.

. Waterfowl Habitat Management in the Lower Fraser Valley. Douglas College. Institute for Environmental Studies. Information Booklet 25 (1976).

. An application for an ecological reserve along the shore of Semiahmoo Bay, B.C. 1977.

. Lost Waterbirds of the Lower Fraser Valley. (Unpub• lished Draft). 1977.

. "Protect our Waterfowl - Don't Harvest it." The Van• couver Sun, October 3, 1978.

LeFevre, A.G. "Non-consumptive recreational use of wildlife: a preliminary investigation of preferences." M.A. Thesis. U.B.C. School of Community and Regional Planning. 1974.

Leonard, J.W. "Hunter vs. protectionist: can the wildlife manager serve both?" International:Association of Game and Fish Conservation Commissioners. 1972.

LeSage, L. "Handouts 'the death of birds' in Park." Vancouver Express, January 17, 1979.

Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. A Regional Parks Plan for the Lower Mainland Region. 1966.

Marine Trades Association of B.C. An overview of recreational boating by residents of Metro Vancouver. Woods Gordon and Co. 1974.

Meyer, P.A. Marina Policy in the Tidal Area of the Pacific Coast. Canada. Dept. of Environment. Pacific Region. 1976. 118

Morzer-Bruijns, M.F. "The influence of recreational activities on aquatic biocenoses." In Towards a New Relationship of Man and Nature in Temperate Lands. I.U.C.N. Publications. N.S. 7 (1967) :206-13.

Munroe, D.A. "Survival of the species in Canada." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisher• ies and Wildlife. 1964.

Nelson, J.G. "Canada's National Parks: Past, Present, Future." Reprinted from Can. Geog. J. March 1978. 1973.

Norman, R.K. and Saunders, D.R. "Status of little terns in Great Britain and Ireland in 1967." British Birds 62 (1969):4-13.

Northcote, T.G. Biology of the Lower Fraser River: A Review. Westwater Research Center Technical Report 3 (1974).

Owen, M. "The role of wildlife reguges on agricultural land in lessening the conflict between farmers and geese in Bri• tain." Biol. Cons. 11 (1977):209.

Parker, V.J. Our southwestern shores. Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. 1968.

Paynter, E. and Stephen, W. "Waterfowl in the Canadian Bread• basket." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1964.

Paish, H. and Associates. Policy and Action for Hunting in the Lower Mainland. B.C. Wildlife Federation. 1974.

Powers, M. Regional Open Space Opportunities. Policy Proposals for Conserving our Natural Assets. G.V.R.D. 1975.

Prach, D.W. Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference Transactions. Canadian Wildlife Service. Environment Canada. 1976.

Reid, N. Public View of Wildlife. I.U.C.N. Publications. New Series No. 9 (1967).

Rochard, J.B. and Kear, J. "A trail to investigate the reactions of sheep to goose droppings on grass." Wildfowl 19 (1968): 117-9.

Russel, L. and Paish, H. Waterfowl populations and outdoor recreational opportunity on the Fraser delta foreshore. B.C. Wildlife Federation. 1968.

Saeijs, H. and Baptist, H. "Wetland criteria and birds in a changing delta." Biol. Cons. 11 (1977):251. 119

Salyer, J. and Gillett, F. "Federal Refuges." In Linduska, J.P. ed. Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1964.

Satchell, J. and Marren, P.R. The effects of recreation on the ecology of natural landscapes. Council of Europe. European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Seater, S.R. "Putting wildlife in the planning process." Envir• onmental Comment 24 (1975):l-5.

Shaw, D. "The Hunting Controversy: Attitudes and Arguments." Ph.D. Thesis. Colorado State University. 1973.

Shaw, W. "Meanings of wildlife for Americans. Contemporary attitudes and social trends." Trans. North American Wild• life and Natural Resources Conference 39 (1974):151-5.

Skettel, H. "Exhibits: art form or educational medium?" Museum News. September 1973:33-41.

Straight, L. Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley Fishing Guide. 1977 .

Surrey Planning Department. Ocean Shorezone Study. 1978.

Sverre, S.E. Assessment of the impact of the proposed Vancouver International Airport expansion on birds using the wetlands of the Fraser delta. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1974. (Unpublished).

Taylor, E.W. Wildlife and recreation in Boundary Bay - a review of the wildlife and recreation potential of Boundary Bay, B.C. Canadian Wildlife Service Report. 1970.

. Vancouver International Airport Expansion Proposal and Possible Impact on Wildlife of the Fraser River Estuary. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1974.

Torrence, C. and Associates. Boundary Bay. Regional Park Alter• natives. G.V.R.D. 1977.

Valentine, G. "Don't fire on the hunters, they're conservation• ists, too." The Vancouver Sun, May 11, 197 8.

Vermeer, K. and Levings, C. "Populations, biomass and food habits of ducks on the Fraser delta intertidal area, B.C." Wildfowl 2 8 (1977):49-60. 120

U.S. National Academy of Science. Land Use and Wildlife Resources. 1970.

U.S. National Parks, Canadian National and Historic Parks Branch. An inventory of the international park possibilities: Point Roberts, Boundary Bay, San Juan and Gulf Island Archepelago. (Draft) Report to the International Point Roberts Board. 1973.

University of Saskatchewan. Institute for Northern Studies. The Role of Birds in the Recreational Activities of Saskatche• wan. 1974. 121

APPENDIX ONE: Proposals for Conservacy Use of Boundary Bay

1968 - Swan Wooster. Proposal for a Recreation-Residential-Waterfowl Management Area on Boundary Bay.

1970 - Taylor, E. W. Wildlife and Recreation in Boundary Bay. Canadian Wildlife Service, Vancouver, British Columbia.

1972 - Douglas College, Institute of Environmental Studies. A Proposal for the Establishment and Development of the Mud Bay-Serpentine River Environmental Reserve.

1973 - Greater Vancouver Regional District. Boundary Bay Development Plan Study.

- United States National Parks/Canadian National and Historic Parks Branch. An Inventory of Internaitonal Park Possibilities: Point Roberts, Boundary Bay, San Juan and Gulf Island Archepelago. Draft Report to the International Point Roberts Board.

1975 - British Columbia Parks Branch. Boundary Bay Recreation Area Study.

1977 - Greater Vancouver Regional District/Torrence Consultants Ltd. Boundary Bay Regional Park: A Development Plan Study.

- Leach, B. An Application for an Ecological Reserve Along the Shore of Semiahmoo Bay, British Columbia.

1978 - Surrey Planning Department. Ocean Shorezone Study. Final Report.

- White Rock/Greater Vancouver Regional District/Warren, K. White Rock Foreshore Study.

Other publications which mention Boundary Bay's value as a conservacy area:

1. Parker, V. J. (1968) Our Southwestern Shores. 2. Church, I. and Ruben, D. (1970) An Ecological Review of Our Southwestern Shores. 3. Power, M./Greater Vancouver Regional District (1978) Regional Open Space Opportunities. 4. Benn, D. and McLean, A. (1977) Lower Mainland Natural Areas Inventory. Nature Conservacy of Canada. 5. Douglas College, Institute of Environmental Studies (1976) Waterfowl Habitat Management and Use in the Lower Fraser Valley. Booklet 25. 122

APPENDIX TWO: Boundaries of Subregions Shown in Figure 3.1

SUB - REGIONS 123

APPENDIX THREE: Boundary Bay Species Checklist

Dabbling Ducks Diving Ducks 1. Mallard 1. Greater Scaup 2. Common Widegeon 2. Lesser Scaup 3. Pintail 3. Canvasback 4. Green-winged Teal 4. Common Goldeneye 5. Blue-winged Teal 5. Canvasback 6. Cinnamon Teal 6. Barrow's Goldeneye 7. Gadwall 7. Buffiehead 8. Ruddy Duck 8. Redhead 9. Oldsquaw Shorebirds 10. Harlequin Duck 1. Greater Yell owlegs 11. White-winged Scoter 2. Lesser Yell owlegs 12. Surf Scoter 3. Least Sandpiper 13. Common Scoter 4. Dunlin 14. Hooded Merganser 5. Western Sandpiper 15. Common Merganser 6. Black-bellied Plover 16. Red-breasted Merganser 7. Semi-palmated Plover 8. Kill deer Gulls 9. Golden Plover 1. California Gull 10. Common Snipe 2. Bonaparte's Gull 11. Whimbrel 3. Thayer's Gull 12. Spotted sandpiper 4. Herring Gull 13. Short Billed Dowitcher 5. Ring-billed Gull 14. Sanderling 6. Mew Gull 15. Wilson's Phalarope 7. Heerman's Gull 124

Wading Birds Raptors 1. Great Blue Heron 1. Barn Owl 2. Short-eared Owl Loons/Grebes 3. Screech Owl 1. Common Loon 4. Great Horned Owl 2. Red-throated Loon 5. Snowy Owl 3. Western Grebe 6. Sharp-shinned Hawk 4. Red-necked Grebe 7. Cooper's Hawk 5. Horned Grebe 8. Red-tailed Hawk 6. Pied-billed Grebe 9. Rough-legged Hawk 10. Marsh Hawk Other 11. Bald Eagle 1. Black Brant 12. Osprey 2. American Coot 13. Merlin (Pigeon Hawk) 3. Marbled Murrelet 14. Kestrel (Sparrow Hawk) 4. Common Murre 5. Pigeon Guillemot 6. Pelagic Cormorant 7. Double-crested Cormorant

Sources

Institute of Environmental Studies, Douglas College (1972). A Proposal for the Establishment and Development of the Mud Bay-Serpentine River Environmental Reserve.

B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Aerial Census Data (Unpublished).

Taylor, E.W. (1970). Wildlife and Recreation in Boundary Bay.

Personal Observation. 125

APPENDIX FOUR: The Waterfowl Census: What Does it Tell Us?

The Fraser estuary/Boundary Bay waterfowl census is carried out by the B. C. Fish and Wildlife Branch and the Canadian Wildlife Service.

It is an aerial census, based on a standard technique for assessment of migratory bird populations.

During a census flight the plane flies at an altitude of 100 to

150 feet along the foreshore or water area to be censused. A standard pre-determined route is followed. Upland areas are sometimes included in the census. The sampling transect is one-quarter mile wide. Two observers sit, one on either side of the plane, identifying species seen and estimat• ing their numbers onto a tape recorder. Landmarks are noted for orienta• tion; later the tapes are transcribed onto a data sheet.

Flights are made at regular intervals and controlled so that tide conditions are similar, usually high. During peak migration periods census flights should ideally be made once a week. Locally, census flights have been made every two weeks from October to the end of December. One or two mid-winter inventory flights may be made during January or February, and bi-weekly flights recommence in March to catch the spring migration.

There has been no standard pattern year to year in local collection of census data; some years no information is collected.

The information gathered during census flights is subject to a number of limitations. Visibility from the aircraft, observer error and behavior of the birds themselves are sources of census inaccuracy. 126

Weather can have a large impact on visibility; conditions of glare and haze may result in inability of observers to identify birds.

Unidentified individuals are listed as unclassified on tally sheets.

Sometimes observers can make a guess as to classification - dabbling ducks or diving ducks. Even during days on which visibility is good, some birds may not be seen despite close location to the flight path.

Small species can never be seen from the aircraft. Visibility limits observer ability to speciate large mixed flocks; a rough identification can be made, but rarer species present in small numbers may inadvertently be included with more common species. The census technique, therefore, has poor resolution and discriminates in favour of larger and more abundant birds. Gross numbers of birds can be estimated, but their relative abundance is subject to uncertainty.

Census estimations are also subject to observer error. Compari• son of duplicate observations made in Boundary Bay and Mud Bay during the

1966-1967 cencus shows that there is an average difference of 25 percent between individual observers estimating the total numbers of birds seen

(see Table 1). In comparison between estimated bird numbers and actual numbers recorded by photograph showed that the observer estimated an average of 83 percent of actual bird numbers, though individual estimations ranged

from 52 percent to 115 percent (see Table 2). This compares closely with

Chandler and Dennis (1972) who pointed out that 50 to 70 percent of actual

bird numbers were recorded in census counts if flocks approached or exceeded

several hundred individuals. 127

TABLE 1

Comparison of visual estimates of numbers of Dabbling Ducks seen in one habitat area during several census flights.

Observer 1 Observer 2 Difference Between Observations

1,163 1,492 . 22% 700 478 32% 636 865 26% ' 515 625 18%

TABLE 2

Comparison of visual estimates of Snow Goose flocks with actual numbers present*

Visual Estimates Actual Number* Percentage of Birds Estimated

130 250 52% 1,000 1,250 80% 500 700 71% 3,000 2,600 115% 2,500 2,619 95%

*photograph estimates are assumed to represent actual numbers of birds present.

Adapted from: B. C. Fish & Wildlife Branch Unpublished Waterfowl Census Data 1966-67 128

Census counts represent only an estimation of the bird numbers visible from the plane in the census area at the time of the census. Use of different habitat areas varies according to the tide, weather, time of day and disturbance from hunting or other human activity. At any time only a portion of the birds using a habitat area may actually be present in that area. Many species spend time feeding upland.

Bird populations are never static. There is a constant turnover as individuals arrive and depart. This is especially significant during migration periods. Present census techniques do not take turnover into account, and the state of knowledge in this area is so poor that even a

"best guess" at turnover rate would be difficult to substantiate. Actual populations are larger than the number counted from the aircraft; how much larger is not known. Rapid turnover could cause census flights to miss peak migration periods altogether. These waves pass through within a 48 hour period (Chandler and Dennis, 1972).

Population turnover, incomplete visibility from aircraft and underestimation of large flocks by observers all err on the side of under• estimation. Census numbers may be regarded, therefore, as minimum figures or conservative estimates of bird populations.

Over the years since the introduction of aerial censusing in the

Lower Mainland, ability to identify species has improved and area coverage

has become more thorough. Early censuses focused primarily on counting ducks and geese so that hunting seasons could be set. Only the shoreline and immediate foreshore areas frequented by these species were flown during census flights. For this reason open, unprotected waters preferred by sea ducks and diving ducks were not included in census flights. No data therefore exists about bird populations of Semiahmoo Bay or the deeper offshore areas of Boundary Bay, beyond a few references to rafts of birds sitting as much as two miles off shore. Because the census was considered a game management tool, it focused exclusively on mallard, widgeon, pintail, green-winged teal, brant, snow and Canada geese. Inform ation about numbers and seasonal use of local habitat areas is most accur• ate for these species; other birds were noted almost incidentally. Today we have a broader perspective about the value of all species within our bird populations and improvements in the census have been made accordingly

All species seen are recorded as accurately as possible, and all types of habitat are surveyed. Several transects are now flown across the open waters of Boundary Bay; the Semiahmoo shoreline is also included in flight

Despite methodological inadequacies, the water bird censusing technique operates within the limits of present knowledge about migratory bird populations and within the budget restrictions of the agencies which carry out the census. We don't know much about bird population turnover,

so no turnover factor can be incorporated into the census. Allocation of

budget monies for population censusing is proportional to the return to wildlife agencies in terms of information gained. If the census budget was increased, other programs might suffer.

The waterfowl census should be kept within proper perspective.

The information collected is not accurate, but it is the best information 130 we are able to collect at the present time, and the only information we

have on which to base decisions about management of waterfowl and shore-

bird populations. 131

APPENDIX FIVE: OBSERVATIONS OF BIRDS FEEDING ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS Bird Visits to the Nicomekl-Serpentine Valley Agricultural Lands from October 30 to December 19, 1977 (Preliminary Results Only)

Mallard lllllll 351

Widgeon 180

Pintail 688

Green winged teal |3

Shoveler 112

Goldeneye |7

Buffelhead > 28

Lesser Scaup u

.2 Ruddy duck -

Red-breasted merganser .1

20 Wood duck I

26 Canada Goose I

Great Blue Heron N

Kill deer h

Dunlin

Coot f 9

r 298 Gull -

• ^ " 700 Number of Birds Seen in Fields per Census Day N.B. Graph shows birds observed feeding Source: Fish and Wildlife Branch on farmlands. Caution must be used in Unpublished Data interpreting observations. Graph re- Waterfowl feeding on Nicomekl- fleets not only feeding habits, but Serpentine Farmlands also relative abundance of species. (Clark and Easthope, 1977) J Analysed by: F. Schade 132

APPENDIX SIX

PATTERN STATEMENTS FROM SURREY PLANNING DEPT.

1. ESTUARIES PRESERVED

2. COMPATIBLE AGRICULTURE

SOURCE:

SURREY PLANNING DEPT.

OCEAN SHOREZONE STUDY (DRAFT) 133

ESTUARIES ARE FULL OF LIFE, BUT THOSE CLOSE TO URBAN SETTLEMENTS ARE THREATENED BY MAN'S ACTIVITIES.

Estuaries, being the places where Che fresh waters meet the sea, contain a wide variety of species of plants and animals. Large populations of all levels of the food chain P8£-SE-rxVE- occur together in these nutrient-rich areas. Variations in salt content and bottom composition provide a variety of habitats for benthic (bottom-living) invertebrates, marsh and benthic vegetation, migratory fresh water fish, ducks, shore birds and other birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. In Mud Bay, eel grass beds are vital for herring rearing, clams and crabs abound, seal pups are born on the mud flats, and thousands of migratory birds use Mud Bay and the shorezone as a stopover and for wintering grounds.

Man's activities have changed or eliminated estuary habitats. In the 1890's, sea dykes were built around Mud Bay changing some of the sea marsh to farmland. In the early 1960's, effluent in the Nicomekl and Serpentine Rivers contaminated the clams and crabs destroying the fishery and only recently were these species declared edible at some locations. Dredging of navigation channels stirs up the bottom. More boaters, swimmers, hunters, and hikers all decrease the space the species have available to them. Human activities frighten the wildlife and extensive activity will drive many .species away. In many cases, the alternative habitats do not exist in this region, or they could not support wildlife populations of the same size, thus threatening the survival of those species. THEREFORE: 1) ESTUARIES, AND THE LAND BORDERING THEM, MUST BE SET ASIDE AS ENVIRON• MENTAL PRESERVES.

2) HUMAN ACTIVITY IN THE ESTUARIES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO LOW IN• TENSITY RECREATION USES Sl'UI AS NATURE OBSERVATION, HIKINC/CYCLTNC/ RIDING/PICKNICKING, AND POSSIBLY FISHING.

Estuaries Preserved:

Application to the Oc ean Shorezone

- Mud Bay and Blackie Spit and its lagoon, up to the limits of the sea dykes, should be designated as an ecological reserve.

- The Nicomekl River mouth and channel are used for boating and. require extra regulation to en• sure that such active recreation uses do not expand, to the de• triment of the estuary.

- Hunting disturbs the northern and eastern edges of Mud Bay where the vital salt marsh- provides feeding ground for the ducks and geese. This activity should be eliminated.

ESTUAKJ6S PF>E5Er^VED

SOME VWTfV. MteCPED Jo ctxe^ic rue B^TTET-N MIASM wow^ rierpep ft=> ^reA-TC TH& PATTC*ri 0.1 .1 10 Iv*. 134

THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS ARE IMPORTANT FOR FOOD PRODUCTION, THEREFORE: 1) PRESERVE ALL LAND SUITABLE FOR BUT SOMETIMES AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES CAN INTERFERE WITH OR AGRICULTURE (SOIL CLASSES 1 TO 4) DISRUPT THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES AND RECREATIONAL USE OF THE SHOREZONE. 2) CONTROL AGRICULTURAL PROCEDURES TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH NATURAL Soli and topography suitable for agriculture are ln PROCESSES, . "... ',-.'.. short fiuDoly ln Greater Vancouver and ln B.C. ln general. Agriculture is an Important element ln the local economy and 3) CREATE PUBLIC'ACCESS POINTS'TO agricultural lands ln the lower Serpentine and Nicomekl basins ' THE SHORE AND ALONG THE RIVER should be preserved. BANKS AND SEA DYKES IN AGR1- . CULTURAL AREAS, BUT.PLANT - The practices used should recognize potential conflict VEGETATION TO SEPARATE THE. with the natural environment.. The ducks and geese using Mud ACTIVITIES. Bay will feed on some crops. Animal waste and fertilizers may enter the rivers and ocean and stimulate unnatural growth of algae or weeds. They may increase the possibility of poisoning existing aquatic life. They also may increase the bacterial content to a level at which the clams and crabs are inedible and the beaches unusable. Irrigation and cul• tivation practices could affect the amounts and flow of ground water and the degree of soli erosion.

Public access to the edges of the rivers and Mud Bay is frequently restricted by farm operators. Thus, hiking, sport fishing, nature observation, etc. are limited. Alternatively, new or expanding uses, such as housing or recreation, could conflict with existing farm operations and begin to limit their size, eg. if housing is built too near a feed lot. Natural vegetation, suitable for habitat purposes, eg. blackberries, should be used to keep separate the recreation activity and the farming.

.. hiBUt.EiEAcWI ACCESS •:(?•;.-.;

Compatible Agriculture:

Application to the Ocean Shorezone

- Most of the potential conflict between agriculture and wildfowl Is avoided because of the seasons. The migratory birds pass through in the spring and the autumn when crops are not in the ground. Most of the lowlands are planted in forage crops for livestock. The stubble remaining in the crop• ped fields and the standing water from the winter rains are valuable to the thousands of birds.

- In the past, the Canada Geese have been interfering with some produce crops in river valley. Because of the proximity to the estuary, the lowlands in the study area will continue to be attractive to waterfowl. To avoid such conflict, OTMPATI&LE- A^I^ULTUrxE the farm lands west of the King Ccurpe Highway should be used only for livestock and fodder crops.

O.I .*> IOkr*\ 135

APPENDIX SEVEN

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THE

PATTERN STATEMENTS PRESENTED IN APPENDIX SIX

SOURCE:

SUMMARY DOCUMENT

PREPARED BY

SURREY PLANNING DEPT. flARCH 1978 136

ENVIRONMENT WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 18, 1978

GROUP NUMBER ESTUARIES PRESERVED COMPATIBLE AGRICULTURE

1 Agreed in principle. Suggested Agreed with pattern. Suggested GVRD that preserve boundary as proposed or some other agency should handle would be difficult to manage - areas of conflict between landowners should include river system up to and recreational users. Proposed dams. Dredging would be acceptable change of wording in solution number providing ecological aspects are 2: change "avoid" to "minimize". considered in disposal of the spoils. Pilot project should be established Preserve should eliminate hunting for monitoring public use of dykes, within its boundaries. Picnicking with an agency to arbitrate conflicts. and horse riding should be limited to specially designated areas.

2 Strongly agreed with problem state• Agreed with public use of dykes, ment. Suggested that estuary pre• since public funds are put into them. serve should cover all man's Dykes could be important recreation activities - not just recreation. areas, fenced off from farms, and Degree of human presence should be having public access - not across farm• strictly controlled. There should land. Recommended that appropriate be some type of estuary management uses for dykes should be designated body with a broader than local view• and monitored. point. Shoreline areas outside preserve should be maintained to prevent degradation, which is often used as an argument for development.

3 Generally agreed with pattern. Agreed with pattern. Suggested that Suggested that type of reserve must there have been few justifiable com• & be defined - it should be restric• plaints about conflicts between agri• 4 tive to all human activity. Noted culture and waterfowl - no real that hunting cannot be closed with• demonstrated damage has been done by out just cause. Improvements should geese. The main conflict is that of be considered to improve drainage tresspass. Suggested that there is no on farmlands and reduce the effects need to avoid planting vegetable crops, of agricultural runoff - possibly but grain and corn should be avoided. by encouraging farmers to put in A detailed examination of viable crops grain tile (funded by grants?). is needed. Increased numbers of live• Suggested improved control of cat• stock may lead to increased degrada• tle by fencing. Called for a full tion of Boundary Bay water quality by review of Boundary Bay as a Pro• agricultural runoff. Agricultural vincial Park - to be carried out leases should contain controls requir• under provincial grant of $25,000. ing farmers to avoid conflict with natural processes. (Herbicide controls important.) Discourage farmers from overploughing, which is a prime cause of farmland erosion. Encourage border plantings of native plants along river courses and ditches. 137

ENVIRONMENT WORKSHOP, February 18, 1978, continued.

GROUP NUMBER ESTUARIES PRESERVED COMPATIBLE AGRICULTURE

5 Agreed with pattern. Agreed with problem statement. Suggested that cycling adjacent Thought that more research/study is to preserve be non-motorized, needed to determine suitable agri• and that water skiing and boat cultural procedures and controls - speeds be controlled. an example of this has been done in Oregon. Public access to dykes must respect concerns of farmers.

6 Agreed with problem statement. Disagreed with emphasis of pattern. There should be no development in Agriculture should have precedence the estuary, but farming should on agricultural lands. Agricultural remain as is. Further study is procedures, capabilities, and range of required into the types of low in• crops should not be forced to suffer tensity uses suitable. Further for wildlife management. Wildlife study required on the effects of management should be conducted on dredging. Suggested that only publicly-owned lands (eg., foreshore shallow draft boats not requiring and greenbelt areas - not private dredging, should use the river farms). Present hunting on public channels. Farmland and dykes should lands tends to limit the use of these be open to restricted - hunting to areas by wildlife. Public access protect crops. should only be provided for limited activities and in limited areas. (Eg., fishermen but no trail bikes; access only to dykes adjacent to public lands, i.e. along east side of Mud Bay.) Mud Bay Dyking District does not agree with any public access, and question the capability to manage such access. 138

AGRICULTURE WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 19, 1978

GROUP NUMBER ESTUARIES PRESERVED COMPATIBLE AGRICULTURE

1 Agree that they should be preserved: 1) Preservation of agricultural lands: - implies low use. Degree of use - agree as long as agriculture is has to be resolved. Need good waste viable. management upstream. Dairying is 2) Control procedures: the best use of the land and will - no! Should preserve the flexi• continue in the future. Surrey's bility of agriculture - farmer by-law restricting feed lots to 100 should have the option of shifting head per operation is confiscatory use - eg., to feed lot operation. (1,000 - 2,000 head is the lowest 3) Create public access points: limit). The Land Commission could - disagree - agriculture must place overrule this by-law and may be wil• contraints on recreation, not vice ling to challenge it in court. The versa. complications of the feed lot by• Vegetated buffer zones, especially law reflect the low level of under• blackberries, are very damaging to the standing in Surrey of agriculture dykes - grass is suitable. Geese don't and the influences or urban en• seem to be such a problem now in study croachment, (a new pattern?). area. If bird populations are to be maintained, some arrangements must be made for compensation, or farmers must be paid to plant some crops to feed them. Landowner should be able to sell shooting rights; hunting access has the same problems as other access.

2 Agree to the protection of the Disagree: - Suggest a whole new pattern estuary habitat, but there should be written for agriculture which gives be no ecological reserve and no the proper priority for agricultural prohibition of hunting. uses in the Agricultural Land Reserve. There should be no restrictions on the types of farming. Not only the farmers, but the Ministry of Agriculture feel that there is a real possibility that within 20 years this land will be used - for extensive market gardening. Much of the land which is suitable for market gardening is within Colebrook area.

3 There are three kinds of preserve (ecological reserves, park conser• vacies, and map reserves (little weight)). The choice of the type of reserve can affect the amount of limitation that can be put on use. The activities listed are not re• stricted enough. Proper management of the estuary can aid in the com• patibility. Can't change the hunt• ing system, besides geese have not done much damage. Restrict uses to hiking, nature observation, and possibly fishing. 139

RECREATION WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 25, 1978

GROUP NUMBER ESTUARIES PRESERVED

1 Interested in preserving the important parts of estuaries. There are some areas where human activities could be increased for the low level activities such as those suggested in the pattern. The ecological reserve on Blackie Spit should be tempered. To limit the amount of boating in the river mouth there should be no expansion of marina and boating facilities in the river mouth. There was disagreement on whether new boat facilities should be permitted as part of future sub• divisions or developments. Hunting and trap-shooting should be elimin• ated because of the debris and nuisance from the noise.

2 It was agreed that estuary preservation is important. However, people want to be able to use natural areas rather than be excluded from them. The degree of encroachment permissible must be decided. Certain types of boating within or adjacent to the reserve could be acceptable. Some hunting should be allowed. It was suggested that dredging within certain limits is not environmentally disruptive, but that disposal of the dredged material can create problems.

3 Preserve boundaries as shown were agreed to with the exception of Blackie Spit and the Burlington Northern underpass at Highway 499, which were considered good buffer areas capable of sustaining increased levels of human activity. Effort should be made to provide more than minimal access. The area bordering the preserve should be a form of buffer.

RESIDENT WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 26, 1978

GROUP NUMBER ESTUARIES PRESERVED

1 Agreed that the estuary should be preserved. There should be no hunting. Sailboats are not a problem, but any increased use of powerboats should be avoided.

2 Agreed with estuary preservation. Hunting should be phased out, and no expansion of boating facilities should be allowed. Perhaps a resident park warden would be necessary.

3 Thought that the dredging was being pushed through without proper study. It was suggested that Wolf Bauer be consulted in this regard. Deposits of dredged material should be contoured and turned into a family recrea• tion park. The main human activities should be away from the lagoon and other wildlife areas. Motorcycles should not be allowed, and gates should be installed at the entrance to the Spit to control beach parties. Hunting should be restricted, i.e., not near the Spit or residential or recreational areas.