Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A lake classification system : a tool for lake planning in the Thompson-Nicola regional district, British… Chess, Joan 1979

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A8 C44.pdf [ 4.16MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094685.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094685-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094685-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094685-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094685-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094685-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094685-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094685-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094685.ris

Full Text

A LAKE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: A TOOL FOR LAKE PLANNING IN THE THOMPSON—NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT, BRITISH COLUMBIA by JOAN CHESS B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER DF ARTS i n THE FACULTY DF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL DF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING Ule accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY DF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1979 © J o a n Thelma Chess, 1979 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Graduate Studies The University of British Columbia 2075 Uesbraok Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date May IB, 1979 ABSTRACT The goals of the thesis are: 1) to develop a lake classification system for use in planning for regional patterns of lake development; i t is presented as one element within a framework for the analysis and allocation of the lake resource to various demands, focusing upon recreational use; 2) to i l l u s t r a t e the application of the lake classification system,to a selection of lakes in the Thompson-Nicola Regional D i s t r i c t , British Columbia (TNRD, B.C.). For the purposes of the thesis, lake system planning is defined as that process of systematic analyses and allocation of the lake resource to various competing demands, on a regional scale. One potentially useful step in lake system planning is the application of a lake classification system. The resource method was organized around three parts: 1) a review and critique of existing lake planning methods, focusing upon those taking a regional approach and using a classification scheme; 2) the descriptive elements of the lake resource important to plan-ning; and 3) the demands for the lake resource in the study region. B.C.'s south-central area has hundreds of lakes, some of which are being used for irrigation, salmon rearing habitat, transportation, sewage disposal, domestic supply, tourism, and/or recreation. Some of these uses are increasing annually, creating greater pressures upon the lake resource. Further, the resource i t s e l f is a complex system consisting of many interacting, interdependent elements. Thus two factors indicate the need for lake planning and management; i i 1 ) the limited supply of the resource and i t s complex nature; and 2) the demands to use lakes for a variety of purposes, some of uihich compete and conflict with each other. A lake planning framework can help to achieve a balance between the supply of and the demand for lakes, by manipulating either the supply or the demand, or both. The development of a complete lake system planning process is beyond the scope of this thesis. Therefore i t focuses on a c l a s s i f i -cation system as a potentially useful tool within the lake planning process. The proposed classification scheme consists of the following C X Q S 3 6 S • I. Wilderness Lakes, II. Natural Environment Lakes. III. General Use Lakes and Subclass-Developed Lakes, IV. Development Lakes and Subclass-Intensive Use Lakes, and V. Special Case Lakes. The objective, definition, c r i t e r i a , standards, and recommended management guidelines are presented for each class. Finally, some lakes in the TNRD are used to illustrate the application of the lake c l a s s i f i -cation system. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS . iv LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i CHAPTER ONE: LAKE SYSTEM PLANNING 1 THESIS OBJECTIVE 1 THE RESOURCE 2 THE RATIONALE 5 THE STUDY AREA 7 CHAPTER TWO: THE USE OF THE CARRYING CAPACITY CONCEPT IN LAKE SYSTEM PLANNING 10 INTRODUCTION 10 Biophysical and Perceptual Carrying Capacity ......... 12 BIOPHYSICAL CARRYING CAPACITY 13 CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA 15 CLI Recreation Capability Ratings 15 Surface Area and Mean Depth 16 Chlorophyll a 16 Secchi Disk and Total Dissolved Solids 17 Ontario Water Quality Index 19 Faecal Coliform Count 19 Slope and Soils e.... 19 Biophysical Carrying Capacity Standards 23 PERCEPTUAL CARRYING CAPACITY 2<+ Perceptual Carrying Capacity Standards 2k The Factors Involved 26 Intended Lake Use Within the Classification Scheme.. 26 Lake Activities and User Preferences • 26 The Range of Lake Surface Areas 27 Standards Used Elsewhere in Canada & the United States 27 i v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page CONCLUSION 28 CHAPTER THREE: THE LAKE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 30 INTRODUCTION 30 CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA 3U Access 3k Present Land and Water Use • 35 Perimeter Development and Ownership • 36 Natural Features 37 Visual Resources 38 RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 39 LAKE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 39 I. Wilderness Lakes • 39 II. Natural Environment Lakes kl III. General Use Lakes k2 IV. Development Lakes • k6 V. Special Case Lakes kl CHAPTER FOUR: THE CASE STUDY LAKES ~ AN APPLICATION OF THE LAKE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM kB INTRODUCTION kB STUMP LAKE 51 GLIMPSE LAKE 53 NICOLA LAKE 55 PENNASK LAKE , 57 HARMON LAKE 59 CONCLUSIONS 61 APPENDICES 62 APPENDIX. A - Annual Resident Angler Licence Purchases .... 62 - Annual Non Resident Angler Licence Purchases. 63 BIBLIOGRAPHY 6k v LIST DF TABLES & FIGURES Page Table 1 - Maximum Permissable Average Summer Chlorophyll a Concentrations .............................. IS 2 - Water quality Index - Score Tables 20 3 - Soil Suitability for Subsurface Disposal of Septic Tank Effluent 22 Figure.1 - The Lake System Planning Process 2 Map 1 - The Thompson-Nicola Regional Di s t r i c t , British Columbia 8 2 - Case Study Lakes *»9 3 - General Route of the Caquihalla Highway 50 k - Stump Lake - Land Status 511 5 - Glimpse Lake - Land Status 53 6 - Nicola Lake - Land Status 55 7 - Pennask Lake - Land Status 57 6 - Harmon Lake - Land Status 59 u U l J- ' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A special thank-you is extended to Dr. William Rees for his time, effort, and helpful criticisms; to Professor Irving Fox, the second reader; and to Dr. Alan Chambers, the external examiner. The information and help received from the following people is very much appreciated: Herb Virdi, Brian Franklin, Allison Dalgleish, and Wayne Erickson -Thompson-Nicola Regional District Planning Department; John Cartwright - Fish and Wildlife Branch, Kamloops; Don Holmes - Pollution Control Branch, Kamloops; Barry Cox snd Russ Hughes - Forest Service Recreation Section, Kamloops; Doug Snider - Land Management Branch, Kamloops; Peter Jordan - Working Committee, Water Resources Planning, Nicola Valley Watershed Study; Kent Watson - Remote Sensing, Faculty of Forestry, U.B.C. William Shaw - Red Deer Regional Planning Commission; Norman Gordon - Land Use Coordination Branch, Ontario. 1 CHAPTER ONE: LAKE SYSTEM PLANNING THESIS OBJECTIVE The goals of this thesis are: 1) to develop a lake classification system for use in planning for regional patterns of lake development; i t is presented as one element within a framework for the analysis and allocation of the lake resource to various demands, focusing upon recreational use; 2) to ill u s t r a t e the application of the lake classification system, to a selection of lakes in the Thompson-Nicola Regional Di s t r i c t , British Columbia (TNRD, B.C.). These broad goals lead to the following objectives: 1) to investigate the use of biophysical carrying capacity in lake classification; 2) to investigate the use of perceptual carrying capacity in lake classification; and 3 ) attempt to separate potentially conflicting lake and shoreline uses by delineating appropriate uses for each lake class. For the purpose of this thesis lake system planning i s defined as that process of systematic analyses and allocation of the lake resource to various competing demands on a regional scale. One step in lake system planning might be the application of a lake classification system. The relationship of lake classification to lake system planning is illustrated in Figure 1. An agency might adopt the policy to plan and manage lakes in a systematic manner, on a regional basis. A lake classification system is one planning tool to help implement that policy. Classification of lakes i s only one step in the lake planning process. 2 Figure 1: The Lake System Planning Process vx, Regional Lake ' Inventory Preliminary -&iasslf:ication of Lakes Regional and P r o v i n c i a l Demand P r o f i l e for the Region's Lakes V Estimate the Supply of Lakes Required to Meet Demands ( i . e . which classes and the number of each class) R e c l a s s i f y Lakes According to Demand and Supply Assign Demand to the Appropriate Lakes Monitor Resource Quality and Demand S a t i s f a c t i o n THE RESOURCE P h y s i c a l l y , a lake i s a complex aquatic system, con s i s t i n g of many i n t e r a c t i n g , interdependent f a c t o r s such as: water, nu t r i e n t s , dissolved minerals, oxygen, sunlight, plant and animal l i f e , temperature, thermal s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , depth, and t u r b i d i t y . The concept "lake" becomes more complex when the shoreline and backshore elements are included. The shoreline i s the land-water interface and contributes a d d i t i o n a l factors such as s o i l s , slope, drainage, and other forms of plant and animal l i f e which l i v e i n the land-water i n t e r f a c e . This i n t e r f a c e may be a beach, marsh, swamp, bank or c l i f f . The t h i r d contributing element i s the surrounding land, known as the backshore. I t adds a l l the interdependent factors of t e r r e s t r i a l ecosystems. A l l three elements - the water, the shoreline, and the backshore - together create the lake ecosystem. For 3 the purposes of this thesis, a lake planning unit is defined as the lake ecosystem consisting of the lake water, the shoreline, and the backshore of 500 meters (m) measured from the shoreline, unless a greater distance is otherwise stipulated* Whenever the word "lake" is used in this thesis, i t refers to this lake planning unit unless otherwise indicated* One characteristic of lakes important to planning is the trophic status* Trophic status refers to a lake's productivity; i.e. the rate at which the lake ecosystem produces biomass. Lakes are referred to as being oligotrophia mesotrophic, or eutrophic: 1) "Oligotrophic Lakes - Those poorly provided uiith the basic nutrients required for plant and animal production." (Ontario Land Uae Coordination Branch 1977, p. 56). 2) "Mesotrophic Lake - One that is intermediate in f e r t i l i t y ; neither notably high nor notably low in i t s total productivity. Intermediate between oligotrophic and eutrophic." (Ibid). 3) "Eutrophic - Waters containing advanced nutrient enrichment and characterized by a high rate of organic production." (Ibid). Eutrophication i s , The process of becoming increasingly enriched in nutrients. It refers to the entire complex of changes which accompanies increasing nutrient enrichment." (Ibid). It eventually occurs in a l l lakes as they naturally grow old. Lakes gradually f i l l in during geological time, becoming smaller, un t i l they are replaced by te r r e s t r i a l plant communities. Human activity can and does increase the rate of this process when domestic and industrial wastes are dumped into the water. As well as increased productivity, eutrophication is characterized by, .structural simplification of biotic components, and a reduction in the abi l i t y of the metabolism of the organisms to adapt growth responses to imposed changes (reduced stability) (Idetzel 1975, p. <•). A change in st a b i l i t y , due to cultural nutrient loading, may cause such events as the collapse of sport and commercial fisheries; deteriorating water quality unfit for domestic consumption and recreational use. By the very act of using a lake, society can unintentionally render a lake unuseable in the long-run. Therefore lake use needs to be planned and managed so that people can continue to enjoy the benefits and amenities of lakes. Two other characteristics of lakes important to planning, are their tangible and intangible values. Tangible values are those values which can be measured by the economic market. Some examples of lake's tangible values are: - the market price of crops irrigated with lake water; - the market price of commercial f i s h catches; and - the money paid by municipal residents for their domestic water supply. Intangible values are those values which cannot be measured by the economic market. Some examples of a lake's intangible values are: - the cool r e l i e f of swimming on a hot summer day; - the view provided from a canoe in the middle of the lake; - as wildlife habitat. These latter values can generally be referred to as aesthetics and i n -clude such qualities as scenery, quiet, and solitude. The natural surroundings provide the greatly needed alternative to the urban envir-onment. It is these aesthetic qualities which many people seek and value so highly. Thus lake planning and management can help to retain both the tangible and intangible values of lakes. 5 Finally, thE concept of carrying capacity applies to the lake resource* Carrying capacity is a useful planning and management tool* The reader is directed to Chapter Two, in which this concept is discussed in detail* The characteristics of the lake resource discussed above, i.e. their trophic status, the process of eutrophication, the tangible and intangible values and carrying capacity, indicate the need for lake planning and management. Some means or framework i s required to analyze this valuable resource and then to allocate i t to a variety of uses. Creating such a framework is the goal of this thesis. THE RATIONALE Having identified the need for a lake planning framework, a crucial question remains to be answered. Why bother? Why should such a framework be developed for making decisions about lakes? The f i r s t factor i s the limited supply of lakes. The supply is limited not only in the actual number, but also by their individual su i t a b i l i t y for use, access, ownership, and in some cases by over-use which renders them unuseable. The second factor is the demands to use lakes for a variety of purposes: irrigation, salmon rearing habitat, transportation, sewage disposal, domestic supply, tourism, and recreation. Demands are increasing annually for some lakes, for example cottage develop-ment. Further, some uses conflict with each other as they compete for the water surface and/or shore. Not a l l lake uses can be satisfied, nor should they be accommodated, at one lake. Demands should be allocated among the lakes most suitable for the various uses or a c t i v i t i e s . A balance must be found between the supply of lakes and the demands placed upon them, i f the resource base is to continue to be 6 available and i f people are to continue to receive the benefits resulting from lake use* Further the uses themselves must be balanced relative to each other, so that no single use or uses come to exclude other legitimate uses. Achieving a balance is important in maintaining biophysical and aesthetic attributes of lakes, which are the very reasons why people are attracted to and use lakes. A lake planning framework can help to work toward achieving the balance between the supply of and the demand for lakes, by manipulating either the supply or the demand, or both. A third factor to be considered in the demand for lakes is their common property nature. Lakes are a public resource* (Even in the case where a l l the surrounding land is privately owned, the water is owned by the Crown). Because of this non-individualistic lake ownership, some users often feel no personal obligation to help maintain resource quality, nor do they perceive their actions as contributing to the total, potent-i a l l y negative, impact. As a result, these negative, incremental actions can lead to an unattractive lake for everyone, in spite of regulations and management to maintain resource quality. Thus a framework which takes into account the variety of uses and users, can attempt to deal with the common property nature of lakes. Finally, there is the matter of the regional approach in the planning framework. The advantages of taking a regional approach - i.e. considering the lakes within a region as a system - are that: 1) a more comprehensive view can better allocate the total supply of the lake resource; 2 ) there is greater f l e x i b i l i t y in balancing demand and supply; 3 ) i t is more efficient uith regard to staff effort, time, and money, in that similar lake-by-lake, individual studies are not repeated. 7 THE STUDY AREA The Thompson-Nicola Regional District (TNRD) is located in south central B r i t i s h Columbia (BC) (see MAP 1). It features great biophysical diversity, exemplified by the fact that i t includes five of the eight biogeoclimatic zones of BC. (Krajina 1965). The diversity of landscapes ranges from the low-lying semi-arid parkland with Ponderosa Pine, bunch-grass, and sagebrush; to montane forests of Douglas Fir and Englemann Spruce; to the cool continental climate of the Cariboo Parkland; to the humid, interior wet-belt with Western Hemlock and Red Cedar. As part of these diverse landscapes, one finds a myriad of lakes, streams, and rivers. The major river systems are the North Thompson, the Thompson, and the Fraser. Other resources include forests, minerals, wildlife, and agri-cultural land. This rich supply of resources, of which lakes are just one, must indeed be well-managed in order to sustain the present and potential benefits for the people of this region and the province. The population of the TNRD i s over 100,000, of which 56,311 (1976) reside in Kamloops, the major urban centre (BC Regional Index 1978). The region's population is relatively young compared to other regions; 68% are less than 35 years old. The forest industry i s the largest component of the regional economic base and the main employer. Other components are mining, agriculture, government, tourism-recreation, transportation, and secondary manufacturing. The region is provided with excellent access, being traversed by the Trans-Canada, Yellowhead, and #5 Highways; the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways; and serviced by a major airline (Pacific Western). The region as a whole has grown rapidly over the past decade. As the urban focal point of the region, Kamloops has important service, economic, administrative, and educational functions. It too 8 M A P 1 THE THOMPSON - N I C O L A R E G I O N A L D I S T R I C T . 9 i s undergoing tremendous growth in i t s population, actual area, and economy. Linen proposed major resource projects within Kamloops' sphere of influence become a reality, further rapid advancement can be expected, although the Kamloops economy has matured to the point where continued, steady, internally-generated growth is virtually assured. (BC —• Regional Index 1978, p. 231,). The combination of rapid economic growth, an increasing, young and active population with an average family income of $9,000 to 10,000 annually, and excellent access for visitors to the region, have placed many pressures upon the scenic landscapes and abundant natural resources. "There is every indication that the pressure on the resource base from industry, transportation, and population demands w i l l continue to grow." (B.C. 1976, p. 90). In short, the region's rapid development has been and continues to be accompanied by "...a significant volume of environ-mental and land use issues and conflicts. (B.C. 1976, p. 13). The region's lakes are an excellent i l l u s t r a t i o n Df such issues and conflicts, as they are the target of an increasing number of users and uses. The following chapters attempt to establish a means of dealing with the issue of the lake resource, i t s environmental quality and use. 10 CHAPTER TWO: THE USE OF THE CARRYING CAPACITY CONCEPT IN LAKE SYSTEM PLANNING INTRODUCTION The objective of this chapter i s to specify the rationale for selecting the carrying capacity standards used in the proposed lake classification system* The concept of carrying capacity continues to be useful in outdoor recreation planning. Carrying capacity is defined as, ...the number of user-unit use*..that the recreation site can provide in an average year without permanent biological or physical deterioration of the site's a b i l i t y to support recreation or appreciable impairment of the recreational experience (Chubb and Ashton 1969, p. 59). It is a measure of the number of units per area; for example hikers per mile, campsites per acre, or boats per acre of surface water. The concept of carrying capacity was i n i t i a l l y applied to terrestrial recreation resources and was later applied to aquatic recreation resources, i . e . lakes. A review of the recreation resource and lake planning literature indicates a consensus as to why this con-cept is used as a planning and management tool (Wager 196<t, Chubb & Ashton 1969, Lime & Stankey 1971, Jaakson 1970, Jaakson et a l 1976, Red Deer Regional Planning Commission 1976). Lakes, like most recreation resources, are f i n i t e and essentially non-renewable. Further they are common property ( i . e . public) resource and should continue to provide a variety of outdoor recreation opportunities. Lake planning and manage-ment can help to preserve those lake characteristics which attract people i n i t i a l l y , using carrying capacity as a means of estimating appropriate levels of use and development. Many types of carrying capacities have been defined, along with proposed methods of measurement. A selection of types from one l i s t includes aesthetic, biotic, spatial, environmental, f a c i l i t y , ecological, and psychological (Verburg 197*0. Despite the variety of terms and definitions, three over-riding factors are involved in determining carrying capacity: 1) the biophysical characteristics of the resource, 2) the demands and impacts of the resource user, and 3) management intervention to balance 1) and 2) respectively (Uerburg 197*0. In short, there is continuous interaction among the resource, i t s users, and management. Natural resources have certain biophysical characteristics which make them suitable for and able to sustain various types and amounts of recreational use. For example, a deep, cold lake of several hundred acres in a forested setting is more capable of supporting sport fishing, camping, and cottaging than a shallow, warm lake of 50 acres set in a semi-arid grassland. At the same time, the users or recreat-ionists hold different expectations about their impending experience. As well, they have different perceptions about the recreation resource at the time that they are using i t . These differences are due to a variety of factors such as past experiences, education, personality, and socio-economic background. For example, suppose two canoeists go to the large, cold lake seeking wilderness travel, quiet, and solitude. While they are canoeing, a large power boat zips by at high speed. The power-boaters, with their noise and speed, infringe upon the canoeists' solitude and wilderness experience. On the other hand, those in the power boat set out f u l l y expecting and wanting to meet other people and 12 do not mind encountering the canoeists. Both groups have different expectations and perceptions of appropriate lake use. Resource management agencies may intervene between the resource and i t s users. Management objectives establish the type of recreation-al opportunities to be provided. The objectives may be determined through a combination of: an evaluation of the resources, expressed public opinion, rates of use, or perhaps p o l i t i c a l pressure. The manage-ment agency is caught between the limited supply of the recreation resource and the demands of recreationists, and must somehow achieve a balance between the two. To further the previous example, the two unsatisfied canoeists with the support of their 'Wilderness Protection Society', may successfully petition the resource agency to prohibit the use of boat motors on that lake. Biophysical and Perceptual Carrying Capacity The definition of carrying capacity given on page 9 can be divided into i t s components: 1) the biophysical and 2) the psychological or perceptual capacities. Although the two components are inter-related, they deal with different aspects of capacity making i t easier to deal with them separately. This writer agrees with Verburg (197*») that perhaps i t is the wrong approach to expect a single, definitive answer or figure as has been the tendency in the past: Perhaps i t would be much more productive i f we established at least two capacity guidelines for each area; one related to the biophysical capacity of the site; one related to the psychological or social capacity of the s i t e . Then, i f in light of management objectives, neither capacity guideline is completely satisfactory, a compromise can be attempted. Otherwise, one or the other guideline is chosen and the d i f f i c u l t task of melding two different units or concepts is avoided, (p. 57). 13 The following definitions are used in this paper: 1) Biophysical carrying capacity is the number of user units that a lake can accommodate in one year without permanent biological or physical deterioration of the lake. 2) Perceptual carrying capacity is the number of user units that a lake can accommodate without appreciable impairment of the recreational experience judged by the recreationist at the time of participation. Although any one lake has both types of capacity, the two w i l l not usually be the same number of units per area, for a particular lake. Further, an agency cannot manage one lake simultaneously for both capacity levels. Therefore the management agency must make trade-offs between the two capacity standards, or give priority to one over the other standard, for each lake. If one considers the great biophysical variety among lakes, i t is obvious that lakes or types of lakes w i l l have not only different biophysical capacities but also different perceptual capacities. Thus the carrying capacities proposed in this paper vary with the classes in the classification scheme, with the under-standing that management must either make the necessary trade-offa or give priority to one standard, as discussed above. BIOPHYSICAL CARRYING CAPACITY Biophysical parameters are used to indicate the biophysical carrying capacity because they can be measured f a i r l y objectively. How-ever the actual choice of one particular figure to be a standard is subjective. There are no 'proven' standards; for example the discrepancy between European and North American preferences for recreational water quality. The parameters used here are not converted to an acres-per-unit figure because any conversion standards are quite ar b i t r a r i l y chosen, and further complicate the matter of measuring, choosing, and managing capacity* The capacity standards proposed below are a combination of established capacity ratings (Canada Land Inventory, CLI), actual physical characteristics, and water quality standards. The biophysical carrying capacity standards are stated in a qualitative manner for Classes I and II, and are specified for Classes III and IU. No standards are presented for Class U, Special Case Lakes because of the unique conditions which i t is expected to accommodate* These lakes require individual analysis and therefore, no capacity standards can be established beforehand. With regards to Class I, Wilderness Lakes, there are a few agencies through which use might be regulated, for example the Lands Branch, the Parks Branch, and the TNRD through i t s parks function. How-ever these types of lakes are scattered throughout the region, usually without special designation as a park or reserve* Until Wilderness lake areas are given some special status, i t appears that i t would be adminis-tratively d i f f i c u l t to control the number of users. It is hoped that the limited access to and f a c i l i t i e s at Wilderness Lakes w i l l discourage heavy use, thereby maintaining natural conditions. However the agencies with lake related responsibilities should monitor these lakes in order to determine i f present use is causing negative impacts. The resulting information can then be used to establish appropriate capacity standards and means of implementation. A similar explanation of the carrying capacity standards is offered for Class II, Natural Environment Lakes: i.e. the administrative d i f f i c u l t i e s , lack of special designation, and the need to monitor use in order to establish appropriate standards. Although these lakes do have motorized access, the f a c i l i t i e s are limited, again to discourage heavy use and to maintain natural conditions! 15 In regards to Class III and IV, there are several existing administrative structures through which development can be controlled. The TNRD is responsible, among other things, for processing rezoning applications within unincorporated areas. A land owner must apply for a rezoning in order to change the land use or to subdivide private property, in this case to create cottage lots. The TNRD can give or withhold their approval in accordance with the proposed classification scheme. The B.C. Lands Branch also controls lakeshore development by issuing Special Use Permits, which allows the lesee to build a cottage on the lake-side lot leased from the Crown. For those lakes which might have unacceptable faecal coliform counts, the B.C. Ministry of Health has the authority to prohibit continued public use until the water quality improves. Finally, the B.C. Parks Branch and the Forest Service Recreation Division, are the major agencies which provide public recreation f a c i l i t i e s . The location, size, type, and maintenance of f a c i l i t i e s are the c r i t i c a l factors in controlling public use. CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA CLI Recreation Capability Ratings The CLI Recreation Capability ratings are an existing system which maps the carrying capacity of land and water for recreation. It is based upon a scale of 1 to 7 , with 1 indicating the highest carrying capacity for intensive a c t i v i t i e s . Although the CLI system is limited because i t lacks detail, i t can indicate those areas best able to sustain intensive use and for which further, site specific investigations would be worthwhile. The CLI ratings then, act as a f i r s t level screening to determine recreation capability. Because the ratings refer to intensive use, i t i s not used within Class I and II but only for Class III and IV. 16 Class III, General Use Lakes, are characterized by a rating of 3 and U because there is no intention to provide intensive development of public f a c i l i t i e s nor cottaging. The objective is to provide mostly public recreation and limited cottaging, in a natural and rural landscape. The objective of Development Lakes, Class IV, is to provide opportunities for public recreation and cottaging at greater densities, allowing the development of more urban-like f a c i l i t i e s . Therefore high capability ratings are required, 1, 2, and 3. Surface Area and Mean Depth The specific surface area and mean depth c r i t e r i a are taken from Ableson (1978). The author does not discuss why he includes them, however the principle for using them is simple enough. Larger, deeper lakes not only have greater surface area and shoreline length to accommodate more users, the volume of water is greater thus decreasing the concentration of the nutrients from waste disposal entering the lake. (Dilution w i l l occur only to a point beyond which the excess nutrients cause a change in the lake's trophic status). The actual figures, 6D and 100 hectares (ha.) and 5 meters (m.), appear to be arbitrarily chosen as no j u s t i f i -cation i s offered by the author.* This shortcoming is recognized yet some indicator of size and depth is needed for the reasons given above. Chlorophyll _a The chlorophyll a measures are adapted from Ableson (1978), who in turn has used the work of Dillon (1975). (See Table 1). The amount 1ln a letter to the TNRD, dated Sept. 20, 1978, Abelson states that, "The minimum size c r i t e r i a of 150 and 250 acres were based in part on size c r i t e r i a adopted by other government agencies in Canada and the U.S. Ultimately however, the Lakeshore Committee was forced to rely on value judgements which were referenced to the c r i t i c a l nature of many of the small land locked lakes in our region." 17 of chlorophyll a_ indicates a lake's productivity or trophic status* Phosphorus, usually the limiting nutrient for productivity, is added to a lake mostly from the sewage effluent from cottages and public f a c i l i t i e s . This situation can lead to an eutrophic state* •••the term eutrophication is synonymous with increased growth rates of the biota of lakes, and that the rate increasing productivity i s accelerated over that rate that would have occurred in the absence of pertubations of the system, (Wetzel 1975, p. 2k3)a The greater the chlorophyll a measure, the more eutrophic the lake. The more the lake is eutrophic, the less suitable i t is.for cold water sport fisheries and body contact a c t i v i t i e s . Also abundant algae blooms and rooted aquatic plants are less aesthetically pleasing visually and they tend to become tangled with swimmers and in boat motor propellers. Because General Use Lakes are less developed, less phosphorus and other nutrients w i l l be a r t i f i c i a l l y added. Therefore a higher chlorophyll a measure is i n i t i a l l y acceptable. More development and hence added nutrients are expected for Development Lakes. Thus a lower chlorophyll a measure is required i n i t i a l l y . Secchi Disk and Total Dissolved Solids Secchi disk is a measure of water transparency. The greater the depth of transparency, the less the algae concentrations and/or suspended solids. It is another means of indicating lake productivity because there is a negative correlation between the depth of light penetration and chlorophyll a. Total dissolved solids (TD5) is an additional measure of productivity. "Productivity is higher in areas where the dissolved solids concentration in the water is higher" (Ontario Land Use Coordination Branch 1977, p. 5*0. These parameters and the range of standards provided are used for the same reasons just discussed for the chlorophyll a measure. 18 TABLE 1 MAXIMUM PERMISSABLE AVERAGE SUMMER CHLOROPHYLL a CONCENTRATIONS * -1 -3 - . : LEVEL 1 2 mg in. ; for lakes to be used primarily for body contact uiater recreation; where i t i s desirable to maintain hypolimnetic concentrations of oxygen in excess of 5 mg L in order to preserve cold water fisheries; the lake w i l l be extremely clear with a mean Secchi disc v i s i b i l i t y greater than 5M; the lake w i l l be generally unproductive* LEVEL 2 5 mg m~3; for lakes to be used primarily for body contact water recreation; where preservation of cold water f i s h -eries i s not imperative; lake w i l l be moderately product-ive; mean Secchi disc v i s i b i l i t y of 2-5m. LEVEL 3 10 mg m~^ ; for lakes where body contact water recreation is of lesser importance; cold water fisheries d i f f i c u l t to maintain^hypolimnetic oxygen depletion common (less than 5 mg L~ ); Secchi disc v i s i b i l i t y less than 2m; possibility of winter k i l l of fish in shallow lakes; developing algae and rooted aquatic problems* LEVEL t+ 25 mg m""''; for lakes where body contact water recreation is of minor importance; unsuitable for cold water fisher-ies; hypolimnetic oxygen depletion l i k e l y to commence in summer; considerable danger of winter k i l l of fi s h , except in deep lakes; extensive algae blooms and rooted aquatics. * Modified from Dillon Source: Ableson 1978 19 Ontario Water Quality Index The water quality index i s a rating system devised by the Lake Planning Unit, Land Use Coordination Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. It is based upon the aggregate of six water quality parameters: 1) mean depth, 2) chlorophyll a, 3) secchi disk depth, W) oxygen (0^) distribution (midsummer), 5) morpho-edaphic index (the ratio of TDS to the mean depth), and 6) iron/phosphorus ratio in the hypolimnion under anaerobic conditions. There are score tables for each parameter. (See Table 2). The water quality index rating of 1 - oligotrophic to 7 - eutrophic, i s based upon the total aggregate score. The higher the score, the higher the rating: i.e. tending toward an eutrophic state. Thus Development Lakes require a score of 3 or less because more nutrients w i l l potentially be added. General Use (lakes require a score of 6 or less because fewer nutrients w i l l potentially be added than for Development Lakes. Faecal Coliform Count In Classes III and IV, the B.C. Ministry of Health standards for faecal coliform counts are included to ensure public health. For Classes I and II the density of use i s intended to be much lower. Thus problems of public health are not expected. However, should the volume of use ever reach such levels so as to cause concern, the public health conditions should be investigated and standards applied. Slope and Sails Septic fields are the traditional means of domestic sewage disposal for cottages, resorts, and campgrounds. (The following discus-sion also applies to outhouses which have the same requirements for soils 2D TABLE 2 WATER QUALITY INDEX - SCQRE TABLES MEAN DEPTH OXYGEN DISTRIBUTION CHLOROPHYLL A Distribution Secret Distribution Score Distribution Score 0 - .9 metres 10 Clinograde & anaerobic 10 14.1 + ug/l 10 1 - 1.9 metres 8 conditions 9.1 - 14 7 2 - 3.9 metres 6 Metalimnetic maximum 8 4.1 - -9 4 4 - 7.9 metres 4 & hypolimnion depletion 2.1 - 4 2 8 - 14,9 metres 2 Metalimnetic maximum 6 0 - 2 0 15+ metres 0 Clinograde 4 Orthograde 0 SECCHI DISC READING M0RPH0-EDAPHIC INDEX IR0N-PHOSPHOROUS RATIO (mg/l iron/ mg/1 phosphorous) Distribution Score Distribution Score Distribution Score Q - .9 metres 10 10+ 10 30+ 0 1 - 1.9 metres 8 6 - 9.9 8 25 - 39.9 2 2 - 2.9 metres 6 4 - 5.9 7 20 - 24.9 4 3 - 3.9 metres 4 2 - 3.9 . 6 15 - 19.9 6 4 - it.9 metres 3 1 - 1.9 5 10 - 14.9 8 5 - 6.9 metres 2 .5 - .9 2 0 - 9.9 10 7+ metres 0 Less than .5 0 Total Score ^ iiiJatefuQualityf^s? User days/ User days/ User days/ Index acre/year * hectare/year km /year 0 - 3 1 Qligotrophic 1 2 2D0 4 - 8 2 3 6 800 9-13 3 5 11 1,200 14 - 19 4 Me80trophic 10 25 2,500 20 - 27 5 15 38 3,800 28 - 39 6 20 50 5,000 40 - 60 7 Eutrophic 30 75 7,500 These figures are not intended to convey precise s c i e n t i f i c a l l y supported intervals, but are assigned as "safe" figures. Their origins represent the collective opinions of many people engaged in water management and research. These values w i l l be subject to constant review as the "state of the art" advances. Source: Ontario Land Use Coordination Branch 1977. 21 suitable For nutrient removal). Septic fields are usually located in soils which have high water transport a b i l i t i e s ; i . e . more parous and coarser relative to other s o i l s . However, "...the better a septic tank drain f i e l d system operates as a wastewater disposal system, the poorer i t operates as a means of protecting lakes or groundwater systems from nutrient enrichment." (Ableson 1978, p. 13). Nutrient removal i s a function of the particle size distribution in s o i l s , the fixation of phosphorous and ammonia, and nitrate uptake by plants in s o i l with a high capillary potential, which "... implies that the medium and fine-textured soi l s should be more satisfactory than coarse sandy s o i l . . . " for nutrient removal (Ableson 1978, p. 12). (See Table 3). Steep slopes allow the subsurface waste water to be transported to a lake faster than shallower slopes. The waste water drainage w i l l be faster yet i f the steep slope is a layer of impervious s o i l or bedrock. In addition to water pollution considerations, steep slopes are less suitable as development sites. The degree of erosion increases as cutbanks are made to create level cottage sites, driveways, and roads. The subsequent erosion can then ruin f i s h feeding and spawning grounds through s i l t a t i o n . As well, aesthetic values can be reduced as the sil t a t i o n decreases water c l a r i t y . 22 TABLE 3 SOIL SUITABILITY FUR SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL OF SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT 1 1 • SUITABILITY CLASS Site Factor 1 2 3 Depth (ft.) to Bedrock > G k-S <*• Depth (ft.) to an Impermeable Layer ~> 6 k-6 « • Depth (ft.) to Water Table >6 <t-6 <k Slope (%) 0-5 Single; 0-2 Multiple 5-15 Single; 2-9 Multiple 15 Single; 9 Multiple Distance (ft.) to Water Well or Surface Water > 200 50-200 <50 Flooding Hazard None Very Slight Moderate or High Seepage None Very Slight Moderate or High Soi l Drainage' Moderately well Imperfectly; Well Poorly; Rapidly Percolation Rate (min/in) 10-25 25-30 3-10 >30 <3 Soil Structure Granular; Sub-angular blacky Blocky; Columnar; Prismatic; Platy Single-grained; Massive Soil Texture S i l t loam; Clay loam; Sandy loam; Fine sand; Clay Loamy sand; Coarse sand; S i l t ; Clay \ Gravel; Any texture with high water table Stoniness (% by volume) <20 20-50 > 50 Source: Ableson 1978 23 Biophysical Carrying Capacity Standards I . Wilderness Lakes The amount of use per year which does not negatively alter the natural conditions. II . Natural Environment Lakes The amount of use per year which does not negatively alter the natural conditions. III. General Use Lakes -The lake has an area greater than 60 ha. and a mean depth greater than 5m.i -The shoreline has the CLI Recreation Capability ratings 3 and 4. -One of the following water quality standards: - mean summer chlorophyll a - less than 10 milligrams per cubic meter (mgm~^), - secchi disk - greater than 2m., - TDS - less than 200 parts per million (ppm.), - Ontario water quality index rating - 6 or less. -The faecal coliform counts conform to the health safety standards of the B.C. Ministry of Health. -The lakeshofe does not have predominantly steep slopes nor so i l s which are unsuitable for nutrient removal. IV. Development Lakes -The lake has an area greater than 100 ha. and a mean depth greater than 5m. -The shoreline has CLI Recreation Capability ratings 1, 2, and 3. -One of the following water quality standards: _^ - mean summer chlorophyll a - less than 5 mgm" , - secchi disk - greater than 2mff - TDS - less than 150 ppm., - Ontario water quality index - 3 or less. -The faecal coliform counts conform to the health safety standards of the B.C. Ministry of Health. -The lakeshore does not have predominantly steep slopes nor soil s unsuitable for nutrient removal. 24 PERCEPTUAL CARRYING CAPACITY Virtually no lake planning study to date includes a separate perceptual carrying capacity standard. This factor is usually discussed but then no attempt is made to distinguish i t from the biophysical capa-city standards (for example. Red Deer Regional Planning Commission 1976, Jaakson et al 1976, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Land Use Coordination Branch 1977). One study does include a "crowding potential" but no explanation is given for the figures (Ableson 1978). This lack of separate perceptual standards may be explained by: 1) management's failure to recognize i t s role of balancing the bio-physical and perceptual factors; and/or 2) the d i f f i c u l t and subjective nature of measuring perception and then selecting a standards? The most common method of measuring perception, a questionnaire survey by interview or by mail, is subject to a number of limitations as a research method (Babbie 1973). However some measure of user preference should be included to reflect the users' perceptions of the lake resource and i t s acceptable level and/or types of use. Perceptual Carrying Capacity Standards Recognizing the d i f f i c u l t i e s referred to earlier, an attempt is made to establish some perceptual carrying capacity standards. These standards are as follows: Wilderness Lakes 2 There is more than 8 ha. of water surface per unit. Natural Environment Lakes There is more than 8 ha. of water surface per unit. 2 A unit is defined as an individual, group, or family; however the mean unit size is 4 persons (TNRD Lake User Survey 1978). 25 I I I * General Use Lakes There i s more than k ha. of water s u r f a c e per u n i t * IV/* Development Lakes There i s more than 2 ha. of water s u r f a c e per u n i t . The standards are based upon: 1) intended lake use and o b j e c t i v e w i t h i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme, 2) a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the study region regarding lake a c t i v i t i e s and user preferences, 3) a range of lake s u r f a c e areas, k) standards used elsewhere i n Canada and the U.S., and 5) the w r i t e r ' s personal judgement. In regards to the perceptual standards f o r Classes I and I I , the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n determination and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , are s i m i l a r to those f o r these c l a s s e s ' b i o p h y s i c a l c a p a c i t y standards. Monitoring the perc e p t i o n of use can help to a l l e v i a t e these d i f f i c u l t i e s . With the r e s u l t i n g data, more appropriate standards and means of imple-mentation can be b e t t e r determined* There are s e v e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s through which the number of u s e r - u n i t s may be e s t a b l i s h e d and c o n t r o l l e d , f o r General Use and Development Lakes. The number of u n i t s p o t e n t i a l l y using a la k e can be c a l c u l a t e d by adding together the number of cottage l o t s , p u b l i c campsites and p i c n i c s i t e s , S p e c i a l Use Permit l o t s , and p r i v a t e f i s h i n g camps' cabins and campsites. This i n f o r m a t i o n can be obtained from the TNRD, the B.C. Assessment A u t h o r i t y l i s t s , B.C. Parks Branch, B.C. Forest Service Recreation D i v i s i o n , Lands Branch f i l e s , and t o u r i s t accommodation guide books. 26 The Factors Involved Intended Lake Use Within the Classification Scheme The perceptual capacity standards proposed vary with the intended use or theme of each lake class. Providing a range of standards, with one standard provided for each lake class, allows more f l e x i b i l i t y In balancing the supply of and demand for lakes. People w i l l choose'a lake according to their a c t i v i t i e s , desired f a c i l i t i e s , and preferred density of use. Ideally those preferring a less occupied lake would choose, far example, a Natural Environment or General Use Lake rather than a Develop-ment Lake, where people can expect to find a greater density of use. Lake Activities and User Preferences The overall results of the TNRD Lake User Survey, 1978, show that most people are attracted to the lakes for fishing (80%) and for the peace and quiet (72%). Very few indicated power boating and water skiing as attractive (9% and 1% respectively). Further these latter two activities have the greatest negative impact upon the most popular act-i v i t i e s , are the noisiest, and require the most space on a lake (Lake User Survey, TNRD 1978 and Jaakson 1970). It appears that fishermen w i l l accept and tolerate other people fishing but not those power boating nor water skiing. The average number of boats per unit is one, usually a small fishing boat with limited horsepower motors. Thus less lake surface per unit is required in consideration of both safety and perceptions of crowding. The TNRD survey results did not indicate any correlation between the size of a particular lake and perception of volume of use at that lake. It is assumed that the larger the lake the less the perception of crowding or of a high use level. This lack of correlation may be due 27 to many f a c t o r s : 1) the design and actual wording of the questionnaire, 2) the subconscious influence of the interviewer, 3 ) the s i z e and shape of the lake, k) the uses and a c t i v i t i e s occurring at the time of the interview or answering the mailed questionnaire, and 5 ) the d i f f e r e n t tolerance l e v e l s between public lake users and cottage owners. The Range of Lake Surface Areas For Classes III and IV, i t i s i n t u i t i v e l y reasonable that smaller, i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e s s developed lakes should have more surface area per unit than l a r g e r , i n t e n t i o n a l l y more developed lakes. General Use Lakes, being smaller than Development Lakes, have l e s s surface area with which to absorb users. Thus there i s a larger r a t i o of surface area per u n i t , 4 ha. Development Lakes, being l a r g e r , can absorb more use and thus has a smaller r a t i o of lake surface per unit, 2 ha. Although there i s no surface area s i z e s p e c i f i e d f o r Classes I and I I , the l a r g e s t r a t i o of area per unit, B ha., i s provided f o r the Wilderness and Natural Environment Lakes, so that those seeking to experience the outdoors are not subjected to an environment dominated by human a c t i v i t y , mechanized equipment, or other trappings of modern, Canadian s o c i e t y . Standards Used Elsewhere i n Canada and the United States There i s great v a r i a t i o n among standards used i n other studies. Also these standards e s t a b l i s h both biophysical and perceptual capacities i n one number. Despite the lack of j u s t i f i c a t i o n , the standards l i s t e d below r e f l e c t the appropriate amounts of use, i n the professional judgement of others. 28 - Threinen & Schneberger 196k (Wisconsin) - 10 acres/boat - Regional District of Okanagan-Smilkameen 1972 (B.C.) - 2.5 acres/use unit. - North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study Group, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1972 - 1/3 to 9 acres/boat. - Red Deer Regional Planning Commission 1976 (Alberta) - 10 acres/boat. - Jaakson et al 1976 (Saskatchewan) - 20 acres/boat for motarboat cruising and water skiing, 10 acres/boat for fishing, and 8 acres/boat for canoe-ing, kayaking, and sa i l i n g . - Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 1977 - 10 acres/boat. - Ableson 1978 (B.C.) - 5 acres/dwelling. Not only are the above standards f a i r l y arbitrary, most of them apply only one standard to a l l the lakes under consideration. There i s not a range of suitable standards: i.e. there is not an appropriate standard applied to each type of lake according to the biophysical differences among lakes, or types of lakes, and the variety of activities taking place. CONCLUSION An important assumption i s made by this writer that perceptual carrying capacity i s usually exceeded before the biophysical carrying capacity. It is passible then, that the perceptual standards can determine the limit to development rather than the biophysical standards, assuming that management intervention ensures that l i m i t . Although the perceptual standards are based upon some s t a t i s t i c a l results, they use previous studies and personal judgement. These standards are subjective, which i s the major criticism of the previously cited studies. Therefore i t is recognized that the use of the perceptual standards, to limit development, may not be the most sound criterion upon which to base such a decision. However i t i s better to implement some type of criterion and then test i t , rather than having no criterion at a l l . Only through further research can such capacity standards be improved and ju s t i f i e d . One f i n a l point must be made. Any and a l l carrying capacity standards are cultural value judgements. It is society's belief that a certain environmental quality or capacity standard is acceptable or not, which ultimately determines a lake's su i t a b i l i t y and capability for recreation or other uses. CHAPTER THREE: THE LAKE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION Webster's Neu Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines a 'system* as, 11 a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole; Id. a group of devices or a r t i f i c i a l objects or an organization forming a network especially for distributing something or serving a common purpose; 3b. a manner of classifying, symbolizing or schematizing. 'Classification' i s defined as, ...2a. a systematic arrangement in groups or categories accord-ing to established c r i t e r i a . These terms are fundamental to the concept of lake system planning. The group of lakes is a system managed as a network to serve a common purpose; i.e. to provide the opportunity for a variety of lake uses, especially recreation, and to maintain the lake ecosystems. The individual lakes can be systematically assigned through a classification scheme, to use categories or classes according to established c r i t e r i a and according to the demand profile. In order for the lake classes to work as a system, the type and extent of the user demand must be known so that the managing agency can best allocate the resource to these demands. By establishing a role or theme for each class, incompatible uses are separated and the most suitable lakes are allocated to sustain particular uses. A wider range of classes and levels of development provide greater f l e x i b i l i t y and greater probability, than at present, 31 that demands mill be satisfied* As well, the lakes' ecosystem integrity is assured because in theory the lakes mill be subject to only those uses which they are inherently capable of sustaining. Ideally such a system w i l l foster optimal lake use. One influence upon the regional lake system concept i s Rees (1978), who points out: ...the overall goal of lake system planning is to optimize the social value inherent in a system of lakes, by distributing the demand for various lake-' oriented recreational activities among the lakes according to their inherent capabilities. ...planning the development of a number of lakes as a system, to take advantage of their individual potentials w i l l result in greater net benefits to society. Environ-mental damage is minimized while a f u l l e r range of recreational demands is satisfied (pp. 2 & 3). Rees (1978) suggests classification c r i t e r i a based upon aesthetic attributes, biophysical characteristics, and socio-economic factors. His recommended classes are Special Use, Wilderness Recreation, General Outdoor Recreation, and Intensive Use Lakes. Other earlier studies have adopted a similar perspective. Work carried out by the Red Deer Regional Planning Commission (RDRPC), Alberta (1976), is helpful in illustrating the regional point of view in lake management. Their philosophy states that, Lakes are a public resource and consequently should be planned and managed for the total public good as part of a regional (or provincial) open space and recreationsarea system... (p. 7). As well, the RDRPC recognizes the inter-relationship among lakes in form-ing the regional system: "...policies and management plans need to be developed for a l l lakes so that the uses of one lake or type of lake w i l l complement the uses of other lakes" (Ibid. p. 7). This complementary relationship leads to the recognition that each lake has a function or role within the system. Although no two lakes are identical, they can 32 be grouped together according to homogeneous characteristics, upon which their roles are based. The RORPC uses three classes - Development, Scenic, and Wilderness; the Scenic and Development classes are further refined by distinguishing a Provincial, Regional, or Local status of importance. The classes are defined according to Canada Land Inventory (CLI) rating for waterfowl, ungulates, sport f i s h , recreation; and exist-ing development. Although the RDRPC establishes a regional perspective and class-ifi c a t i o n system i t does not make use of water quality c r i t e r i a in classification. Water quality is crucial in determining a lake's suit-ability and capability for different uses. Indeed Albeson (1978) proposes lakeshore development guidelines based on water quality variables related to relative lake productivity. His purpose i s , ...to preserve and enhance water quality in recreational lakes while at the same time providing management policies consistent with existing and future use ... they represent a development policy based primarily upon lake trophic status, (p. 1). The lake classes established by Ableson are Natural Environment, C r i t i c a l , Restricted Recreational Development, and General Development. These classes are based upon the following c r i t e r i a : crowding potential (the ratio of lake surface to length of shoreline); existing development; natural physical characteristics; water quality and ecological c l a s s i -fication; and fish and wildlife values. Ableson's contribution is his use of such water quality c r i t e r i a as average summer chlorophyll a_ values and soils suitable for nutrient removal. In the present study, the water quality standards established by the Ontario Land Use Coordin-ation Branch (1977) are al90 used. However, i t should be noted that both Ableson and Ontario have used the work of Dillon (1975) and there-33 1 fore their water quality standards are similar* The classification schemes cited above use similar classes, for similar reasons* As well, they have several classification factors in common, which may be grouped under present development, biophysical characteristics (fish and wildlife values), and water quality. In the case of the Thompson-Nicola region, more detailed c r i t e r i a for c l a s s i f i -cation are required because of conditions particular to the study area and the Thompson-Nicola region in general. These conditions include the great biogeoclimatic diversity within the relatively small region; the large number of lakes; the dominance of resource based industries (ranch-ing, logging, mining) and their abundant access roads; the continual urban pressures upon some lakes (for example Paul, Knouff-Sullivan, Nicola); 2 and the occurrence of 35% to 46% of the total provincial angling effort. Such factors strongly influence such planning considerations as access, volume of use, user perception of the activities and uses, lake and shore use other than recreation, the range of present recreation a c t i v i t i e s , and the visual resources* liiith more diverse c r i t e r i a , a wider range and more refined classes of lakes than suggested in previous studies, have fa. been devised in the following classification scheme* The classification c r i t e r i a w i l l be discussed individually before presenting the c l a s s i f i -cation system and recommended management guidelines. *Mr. N. Gordon, Head, Lake Planning Unit, Ontario, stated in conversation with the writer that their water quality standards"are. more st r i c t that Dillon's in that Ontario's allowed less shoreline develop-ment for a particular water quality (Dec* 21, 1978, Toronto). 2 B.C. Fish and Wildlife, Kamloops office staff believe that the figures may be as high as 46%, although s t a t i s t i c s support the figure of 35%. 3*t CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA The relative importance of c r i t e r i a vary among the classes depending upon a particular class' objective and role. The standards are based upon the fallowing c r i t e r i a : access, present land and water uses, ownership and perimeter development, water quality, natural feat-ures ( i . e . biophysical characteristics), and perceptual carrying cap-acity. The biophysical and perceptual carrying capacity standards are discussed in detail in Chapter Two, and therefore they are not included in this discussion. In any set of guidelines, c r i t e r i a are intended to describe the ideal state, not r e a l i t y . Therefore i t is recognized that not a l l the lakes w i l l meet a l l the c r i t e r i a for any single class. For example, a lake's present perimeter development may exceed the 30% standard for General Use Lakes by only a few percentiles, yet the lake meets a l l the other c r i t e r i a . In these circumstances exceptions to individual class c r i t e r i a are allowed so that the overall lake system planning objectives can be mare closely achieved. In short, trade-offs must be made between excepting certain class c r i t e r i a and attempting to f u l f i l l the user demands within the region. Access Access is probably one of the most important factors in control-ling the demand far a particular lake. Most people choose destinations to which i t is convenient to drive. Access to Wilderness Lakes is limited to non-motorized means in order to maintain the wilderness character: i.e. "...uncultivated, uninhabited, and essentially undisturbed by human activity" (Webster's Dictionary 1977). D i f f i c u l t access tends to discourage use, thereby helping to preserve the lakes' natural features. 3 5 Limited motorized access is allowed to Natural Environment Lakes so that more people, for example the aged, the handicapped, and families with small children, have the opportunity to enjoy the features more easily. For the remaining classes motorized access is assumed. Within the Re-commended Management Guidelines for General Use and Development Lakes, the location and type of road (improved gravel or hardsurface) are i n -cluded as a further means of influencing realized use. Present Land and Water Use Present land and water use shape the role of the lakes. Obviously there can be no present land nor water use, for industrial, commercial, or agricultural purposes, of Wilderness Lakes because i t is contrary to that class' objective. A lake may be classified as Wilderness i f there is a pattern of wilderness recreation use, despite the lack of important, unique, or representative natural features. The requirements of l i t t l e or no industrial and agricultural use are similar for Natural Environment Lakes, although some existing uses are compatible with i t s abjective, such as a few cottages or a fishing camp (a commercial-recreation use). Also, a lake may be classified a Natural Environment i f there is a pattern of law-key recreation use in s t i l l natural surroundings, despite the lack of important, or representative features. Reference to the Agricultural Land Reserve ( A 1 2 R ) , water licenses, and agricultural sources of nutrient input, for Natural Environment, General Use, and Development Lakes, are made in recognition that the use of lakes for agricultural purposes is legitimate. Often a lake is the only adequate water source for a ranch and upon which the rancher's livelihood depends. However there are other legitimate uses as well, 36 which roust be managed and balanced to maintain the lake resource upon which they a l l depend. Finally, the rural landscape has great appeal to people who live in urban areas. Perimeter Development and Ownership The actual percentage and density of perimeter development is the major influence upon a lake's environmental quality and use. The type of ownership is not as crucial as the actual presence of the development. The ownership of development may take several forms, for example: 1) a Provincial Park campground - Crown land; 2) a commercial fishing camp on Crown leased land; 3) cottages on privately owned (fee simple) land; 4) cottages on Federal Indian Reserve land and leased from an Indian Band. The point i s that the development i s present or may be in the future, under a variety of forms of tenure. The amount of perimeter development should be limited according to a lake's biophysical characteristics, user preferences, and the overall planning objectives. Of course ownership is an important factor influencing demand and lake use. A variety of land tenure forms among the Crown and individ-( uals allows a mix of private and public access to a lake and therefore a variety of opportunities for use. For planning purposes however, the development of Crown land is easier to control than the development of private land. Additionally, Crown ownership is a means of maintaining management jurisdiction over the natural resources by provincial agencies, gaining the benefits of their expertise and furthering the public good. The perimeter development criterion and the perceptual carrying capacity criterion reinforce each other by limiting the amount of 37 development to that criterion which i s reached f i r s t , i.e. the maximum % perimeter development allowed or the number of acres of lake surface per unit* The water quality standards are also reinforced by limiting the amount of development which would potentially add nutrients to the lake and by retaining a portion of the perimeter in a natural state* Natural Features Natural features are obvious c r i t e r i a because they are the elements which attract people, which determine the lakes' suitability for use, and which determine their capability to sustain uses* The CLI, BC Fish and Wildlife, and Ducks Unlimited ratings are used to determine areas of high ungulate and waterfowl value, in order to preserve import-ant wild l i f e habitat. Also by designating these wildlife areas in which development i s prohibited, the wildlife are protected from potential harassment by domestic pets owned by cottagers, campers, and other lake users. These areas also indicate opportunities for viewing wi l d l i f e , an educational and aesthetic consideration. The BC Fish and Wildlife fishery ratings indicate lakes which have high value for public sport fishing, spawning, and rearing. The outstanding or typical vegetation, scenery, or geological features are included in the present c l a s s i f i c a -tion, in consideration of education, aesthetics, and preservation for research purposes. A l l the foregoing are the primary c r i t e r i a for the Wilderness and Natural Environment classes because these lakes are defined by their important, unique, or representative natural features, the preservation of which is the classes' objective. In the remaining classes, natural features receive less emphasis as definitive factors but they are considered within the management guidelines. In the General Use and Development classes, s o i l s , slope, 3 8 and drainage are used to indicate areas most suitable for development. The overall objective i s s t i l l to maintain natural, non-urban surround-ings because people v i s i t lakes to experience and enjoy the natural surroundings. Visual Resources People generally are most sensitive in environmental matters, to that which they see (with the possible exception of that which they might hear or smell). Further i t is assumed that people generally consider clearcut lagging and open-pit or strip mining as unpleasant sights, especially when they are participating in outdoor recreation and want natural surroundings. The ten year old clearcut is stipulated in the Natural Environ-ment, General Use, and Development Lakes classes, because within that time the early successional, vegetative species w i l l be well established. If natural re-vegetation has not begun in three to five years, the BC Forest Service (BCFS) or the forest company concerned, w i l l plant seed-lings in the cut area. 3 (Of course there are variations in regeneration time depending upon the species, the biogeoclimatic zone, and the logging methods used). Although only deciduous species, not climax coniferous species, w i l l have had time to grow in ten years, the area w i l l appear green to the casual observer and therefore acceptable. Allowing one-fourth of the lake perimeter to be a ten to twenty-five year old clearcut is based upon the same reasoning, but the vegetation w i l l have had even more time to grow toward maturity and thus w i l l look even more natural. The 100 m. buffer zone is stipulated in the same three classes mentioned above, because i t is BCFS policy to leave up to five chains ^Registered Professional Forester (Personal Communication 1979). 39 (330 f t . or approximately 100 m.) of forest undisturbed around a FS Recreation Site; a Use, Relaxation, and Enjoyment of the Public (UREP) site; or a Special Use Permit s i t e . If there are no recreational sites, 25% of the lake perimeter may be logged every 25 years right to the shoreline. This policy furthers the stipulation, in the three classes named, that a ten to twenty-five year old clearcut may be present within 25% of the buffer zone. RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES Only a brief word is necessary regarding the management guide-lines as they are self-explanatory. These guidelines are suggested in order to ensure that: 1) the lakes retain their designated roles and continue to serve the classes' particular objectives, and 2) to help maintain the integrity of the lakes' ecosystems. Finally, the guidelines are intended to promote resource agency coordin-ation in achieving 1) and 2) above. LAKE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES Wilderness Lakes Objectives- To conserve lake environments in their natural state and secondly to provide the opportunity for wilderness recreation, i.e. non-mechanized camping and travel, nature appreciation, peace and solitude. Definition: Those lakes and the surrounding four km. with important, unique, aesthetic and/or spiritual features worthy of con-servation in their uncultivated, uninhabited, and undeveloped state; and those lakes which are not capable of sustaining intensive development because of their particular biophysical characteristics; to which access is non-motorized. Criteria and Standards Access - By hiking, horseback, or other non-motorized means only, within the four km buffer zone, measured from the lakeshore. BCFS Recreation Section, Kamloops (Personal Communication 1979). Ownership and Perimeter Development - 100% Croun ownership• - No development of any kind ( i . e . cottages, farms, resorts, etc.). Present Land and Water Use - No commercial, industrial, nor agricultural use, public or private. - An existing pattern of wilderness recreation (optional). Natural Features - One of: - important, unique, aesthetic and/or spiritual features; - CLI or Ducks Unlimited Waterfowl Capability ratings 1, 2, or 3; - CLI Ungulate Capability ratings 1, 2, or 3; -; BC Fish and Wildlife Ungulate Capability ratings good or high. Visual Resource - An untouched natural condition; no extractive or developmental use has altered the natural viewscape. Carrying Capacity - Biophysical: The amount of use per year which does not negatively alter the natural conditions. - Perceptual: There is more than B ha. of water surface per unit. Recommended Management Access - Allow non-motorized access only through the k km. buffer zone, to the lake. Ownership and Perimeter Development - No alienations nor leases granted; remains 100% Crown land. - No development of any kind, except for the primitive campsites. Present Land and Water Use - Prohibit any future commercial, industrial, or agricultural use, public or private, except for the establishment of primitive campsite f a c i l i t i e s . - Prohibit the use of boat motors or any other mechanized equipment. - Provide primitive campsite f a c i l i t i e s ( i . e . outhouses and fireboxes) in suitable locations. Outhouses must be 90 m. to 150 m. from the shoreline, according to the soil's ability to remove nutrients. Natural Features - Maintain indigenous fi s h stocks where possible, in cooperation with the BC Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Management Plan. - Conserve the natural features in their undeveloped state. Visual Resource - Maintain the natural viewscape. Carrying Capacity - Biophysical: Manage the lakes so as to maintain the natural water quality and Dther features as much as possible. - Perceptual: If users express concern about the density of use, attempt some means to regulate the number of users. I I . Natural Environment Lakes Objective: To provide opportunities for the public, to participate in dispersed outdoor recreation activities within natural surroundings. Definition: Those lakes with important, or representative features worthy of conservation in their natural state; and those lakes which are not capable of sustaining intensive develop-ment because of their particular biophysical characteristics. Criteria and Standards Access - By motorized means. Ownership and Perimeter Development - Cottage and fishing camp lots, whether owned or leased, together . occupy up to 15% of the lake perimeter; the remaining 85% is undeveloped and preferably Crown land. Present Land and Water Use - No commercial, industrial, or agricultural use, except for limited cottaging, fishing camps, and/or basic public f a c i l i t i e s . - An existing pattern of low-key recreational use within natural sur-roundings (optional). v - Ihe allowable portion of land for development ( i . e . up to the 15%) shall not be part of the ALR. Natural Features - One of: - Important, or representative natural features; - CLI or Ducks Unlimited Waterfowl Capability ratings 1, 2, or 3. - BC Fish and Wildlife Ungulate Capability ratings good or high. - Fisheries values for spawning and rearing habitat, and for sport fishing. - Future or further development not compatible with BC Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Management Plan. Visual Resource - If present, logging clearcuts less than ten years old are not within 100 m. of the lake or the visual horizon, whichever is less; those clearcuts ten to 25 years old do not constitute mare than 25% of the area within the 100 m. zone. - If present, open pit or strip mining operations are not within 100 m. of the lake or the visual horizon, whichever is less. Carrying Capacity - Biophysical: The amount of use per year which does not negatively alter the natural conditions. - Perceptual: There i s more than 8 ha. of water surface per unit. 4 2 I I . Recommended Management Access - Roads parallel to the shore shall be constructed a distance away from the lakeshore. - Access to the lake-shore shall be restricted to specified development sites. Ownership and Perimeter Development - Allow no development or subdivision beyond the 15% perimeter develop-ment l i m i t . Present Land and Water Use - Rustic commercial fishing camps are compatible with this class objective. - Provide basic public f a c i l i t i e s ( i . e . parking, outhouses, and f i r e -boxes) and locate them so that they w i l l not threaten the v i a b i l i t y of existing commercial fishing camps. Outhouses must be 90 m. to 150 m. back from the shoreline, according to the s o i l s ' a b i l i t y to remove nutrients. - In cooperation with the pertinent agencies, ban the use of boat motors or establish boat motor size or type (electric) restrictions, appropr-• iate for the lake's size and use. Natural Features - Water Licenses shall not change existing water levels so as to negatively effect the aquatic or shoreline habitat, or access to the water. - Exclude boat use from the waterfowl nesting and molting areas. Visual Resource - Request logging and mining operations to leave a buffer zone around the lake of at least 100 ra. or the visual horizon, whichever is less. Carrying Capacity - Biophysical: Manage the lakes so as to maintain the natural water quality and other features, as much as possible. - Perceptual: If users express concern about the density of use, attempt to regulate the number of users. III. General Use Lakes Objectives: To provide opportunities for moderately intensive public outdoor recreation such as fishing camps, and private cottaging and to retain to the extent possible the natural lake environment. Definition: Those lakes in a predominantly natural and rural landscape, used for recreational and agricultural purposes. Developed Subclass - Definition: Those lakes which have equalled or exceeded the carrying capacity standards for General Use Lakes and meet the other c r i t e r i a . 43 Criteria and Standards Access - By motorized means. Ownership and Perimeter Development - Private cottage and fishing camp lots, whether owned or leased, occupy up to 30% of the lake perimeter, so long as the carrying capacity standards are not exceeded. The remaining 70% is undev-eloped and preferably Crown land. Present Land and Water Use - The maximum portion of land for development ( i . e . up to the 30%) shall not be part of the ALR. Natural Features - Not crucial to the identification of lakes for this class. Visual Resources - If present, logging clearcuts leas than ten years old are not within 100 m. of the lakeshore or the visual horizon, whichever i s less; those clearcuts ten to 25 years old do not constitute more than 25% of the areaswithin the 100 m. zone. - If present, open pit or strip mining operations are not within 100 m. of the lakeshore or the visual horizon, whichever i s less. Carrying Capacity Biophysical: - The lake has an area greater than 60 ha. and a mean depth greater than 5 ip. - The shoreline has CLI Recreation Capability ratings 3 and/or 4. - One of the following water quality standards: - mean summer chlorophyll a Ireiess than 10 mgm" ; - secchi disk - greater than 2m.; - TDS - less than 200 ppm.; - Ontario water quality index rating - 6 or less. - The faecal coliform counts conform to the health safety standards of the BC Ministry of Health. - The lakeshore does not have predominantly steep slopes nor soil s which are unsuitable for nutrient removal. Perceptual - There i s more than 4 ha. of water surface per unit. III. Recommended Management Access - Roads parallel to the shore shall be constructed a distance away from the lakeshore. - Improved gravel roads are appropriate. - Access to the shore shall be restricted to specified development sites. Ownership and Perimeter Development - Permit subdivision and perimeter development up to the maximum 30% or to the density of use of 4 ha. of water surface per unit, whichever is reached f i r s t . Present Land and Water Use - Provide public day-use and overnight f a c i l i t i e s ( i . e . parking, out-houses, tables, fireboxes, campsites) and locate them so that they w i l l not threaten the v i a b i l i t y of existing commercial fishing camps. - Encourage cluster designs for new cottage developments, leaving the shoreline for the owners' common use. - Development shall not be permitted on: - steep slopes, - poorly drained soils,, - shoreline with extensive rooted, emergent aquatic vegetation, - soils not suitable for nutrient removal. - A l l septic tank disposal fields and outhouses must be 90 m. to 150 m. back from the shoreline, according to the s o i l s ' a b i l i t y to remove nutrients. Natural Features - Vegetation removal for development purposes should be minimized. - Locate subdivisions and development away from ungulate and waterfowl habitat. - Avoid f i l l i n g in any portion of the shoreline and marshy areas. Visual Resources - Request lagging and mining operations to leave a 100 m. buffer zone or the visual horizon intact, whichever is less. - Locate cottages and other structures so that they are inconspicuous when viewed from the lake. Carrying Capacity - 0a not permit the density of use to exceed the ha. of water surface per unit standard, even i f there is less than 30% perimeter development. - Nutrient input from agricultural sources shall be minimized. - Maintain the water quality so that the standards are not exceeded. Developed Subclass - Allow no further development or subdivision. - Apply a l l the above management guidelines. IV. Development Lakes Objective: To provide opportunities for intensive use and development, while maintaining environmental quality standards in consider-ation of aesthetic, safety, and health aspects. Definition: Those lakes intensively used for cottaging, recreational, residential, commercial and agricultural purposes. Criteria and Standards Access - By motorized means. Ownership and Perimeter Development - Development may occupy up to 35% of the perimeter for lakes less than 800 ha., and 50% of the perimeter for lakes greater than 800 ha., so long as the carrying capacity standard, 2 ha. of surface water per unit, i s not exceeded. The remaining 65% and 50% respectively, is undeveloped and preferably Crown land. 45 Present Land and Water Use - The maximum portion of land for development ( i . e . up to 35% and 50%) shall not be part of the ALR. Natural Features - Not crucial to the identification of lakes for this class. Visual Resources - If present, logging clearcuts less than ten years old are not within 100 m. of the lake or the visual horizon, whichever is less; those clearcuts ten to 25 years old do not constitute more than 25% of the area within the 100 m. zone. - If present, open pit or strip mining operations are not within 100 m. of the lake or the visual horizon, whichever is less. Carrying Capacity Biophysical - The lake has an area greater than 100 ha. and a mean depth greater than 5m. - The shoreline has CLI Recreation Capability ratings 1, 2, and/or 3. - One of the following water quality standards:_ 3 - mean summer chlorophyll a - less than 5 mgm ; - secchi disk - greater than 2 m.; - TDS - less than 150 ppm.; - Ontario water quality index - 3 or less. - The faecal coliform counts conform to the health safety standards of the BC Ministry of Health. - The lakeshore does not have predominantly steep slopes nor soi l s unsuitable for nutrient removal. Perceptual - There is more than 2 ha. of water surface per unit. IV. Recommended Management Access - Roads parallel to the shore shall be constructed a distance away from the lakeshore. - Improved gravel road and hardsurface roads are appropriate. - Access to the shore shall be restricted to specified development sites. Ownership and Perimeter Development - Permit subdivision and perimeter development up to the maximum 35% and 50% for lakes less than and greater than 800 ha. respectively, or to the density of use of 2 ha. of water surface per unit user, whichever is reached f i r s t . Present Land and Water Use - Provide public day-use and overnight f a c i l i t i e s ( i . e . parking, outhouses, tables, fireboxes, camp-sites, sani-stations, and boat launches), and locate them so that they w i l l not threaten the v i a b i l i t y of existing fishing camps. - Septic tank disposal fields and outhouses must be 90 m. to 150 m. back from the shoreline, according to the s o i l s ' ability to remove nutrients. - Development shall not be permitted on: - steep slopes, - poorly drained s a i l s , - shoreline with extensive emergent aquatic vegetation, - soils not suitable for nutrient removal. - Encourage cluster designs for new cottage developments, leaving the shoreline for the owners' common use. - Attempt to separate competing uses by time or spatial regulations, to decrease the potential conflict among power boaters, waterskiers, fishermen, swimmers, manual boaters, or agricultural users. Natural Features - Vegetation removal for development purposes should be minimized. - Locate a l l development away from ungulate and waterfowl habitat. - Avoid f i l l i n g in any portion of the shoreline and marshy areas. Visual Resources - Request logging and mining operations to leave a 100 m. buffer zone or the visual horizon intact, whichever is less. - Locate cottages and other structures so that they are inconspicuous when viewed from the lake. Carrying Capacity - Do not permit the density of use to exceed 2 ha. of water surface per unit, even i f there is less than 35% and 50% perimeter development for lakes less than and greater than 800 ha. respectively. - Nutrient input from agricultural sources shall be minimized. - Maintain the water quality so that the standards are not exceeded. In some cases development pressures may continue to increase within a region despite existing development. In order to deal with these continual pressures, i t may be preferable to allow an excessive amount of development at some Development Lakes whose environmental quality has already been compromised. As a result, the development demands are not satisfied at less developed or undeveloped lakes, thus pro-tecting their higher environmental values. A cognizant trade-off is made between exceeding the Development Lakes class carrying cap-acity standards and retaining the environmental values elsewhere. The Subclass Intensive Use Lakes is provided to deal with these cases. Subclass: Intensive Use Lakes Objective: To accommodate further demands for development including non-recreational, at already developed lakes in order to protect higher environmental values at other less developed lakes. Definition: Those lakes which have exceeded the normal Development Lakes carrying capacity standards, yet for which further develop-ment may be appropriate in the context of the lake system planning objectives. Criteria and Standards - A l l the Criteria and Standards for the Development Lakes apply, except for the carrying capacity standards. 4 7 Recommended Management - A l l the management guidelines for the Development Lakes apply, except those concerning carrying capacity. - Implement corrective measures to improve deteriorating mater quality and to alleviate problems associated with unacceptable types and densities of use and conflicting uses. V. Special Case Lakes Objective: To allow for individual management plans to be established for those lakes in a 'one-of±a-kind' situation. Definition: Those lakes which do not meet any of the other classes' c r i t e r i a ; or are essentially single-purpose; or are characterized by unique biophysical, land or water use, or ownership conditions; which warrant special consideration, for example, a lake within an Ecological Reserve, or a lake bordering a municipality (Kamloops Lake). Criteria and Standards - As required for each case. Recommended Management - As required for each case. 48 CHAPTER FOUR: THE CASE STUDY LAKES— AN APPLICATION OF THE LAKE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM INTRODUCTION This chapter illustrates the application of the lake c l a s s i f i ^ cation system, not the complete lake system planning process. Some lakes have been chosen to il l u s t r a t e the application of the Lake Classification System. These lakes are within the Nicola sub-region of the TNRD (see Map 2). The largest town in the area is Merritt, with a population of 9,290 (B.C. Regional Index 1978). The area's economy is based upon forestry, mining, and agriculture. Some large ranches are found in this sub-region, as i t contains prime grazing land. There are several large Indian Reserves as well. The area i s well known for i t s excellent f i s h -ing and large selection of lakes. The town of Merritt advertises, "A lake a day as long as you stay," as part of their tourist promotion efforts. The lakes were chosen on the basis of the fallowing factors: 1) the future impact upon the area of the Coquihalla Highway (see Map 3); 2) previous studies of the area and available data; 3) interesting land and water use and ownership aspects; 4) suggestions of the TNRD Planning Department staff; 5) located within one of the province's ?...most significant areas for fresh water sport fishing" (Youds 1977, p. 55). See also Appendix A). The lakes are described in the fallowing pages in order from north to south: they are Stump, Glimpse, Nicola, Pennask, and Harmon Lakes. Any blanks on the following data charts indicate that the particular data is not available. Therefore these lakes are tentatively classified and should be reassessed as the data becomes available. us M A P 2 CASE STUDY LAKES 50 M A P 3-- G E N E R A L R O U T E of - t h G C O Q U I H A L L A HIGHWAY K a m l o o p s 51/ f STUMP LAKE AREA. 772 ha. MEAN DEPTH: 11.7 m. UArA.BX.Li IT I ruvixHij-o r u n CLI 'BC F i s h & W i l d l i f e Ducks Unlimited Recreation 3, 4, 5 ; Waterfowl 5 (3) Ungulates lOW WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS s Chlorophyll a Secchi Disk TDS 1200 ppm. Faecal Coliform Ont. Water Quality - Index Rating COMMENTS s _ • - The land i s a l l privately owned among two ranches and some lots. - Most of the land i s within the ALR. - There is an excellent beach on the south east side which is heavily used. However i t is not a designated Parks or Forest Service site and is unmahaged. It has been rated a Problem Area (Neilson 1976). - According-^} Youds' study (1977) it has potential for organized campingand picnicking, and pleasure boating opportunities are excellent. - There is high potential for cabin development according to the Thompson-Okanagan Region Fisheries Management Plan (BC Fish and Wildlife). The lake is stocked. CLASSIFICATIONS GENERAL USE ...._/ ... This class was chosen because of the CLI Recreation Capability ratings, the present agricultural land use, and the judgements presented by the Youds' study (1977) and the Fisheries Management Plan. However the TDS count indicates declining water quality. The water level has been dropping for the past ten years and the lake has internal drainage. Any development, therefore, requires careful management and monitoring of the water quality, and must also respect the ALR. cn o c aj n m z VO 0 3 Private Land Leased Land Forest Reserve Indian Reserve Park-Recreation Reserve Vacant Crown Land , t ' -HPg *«iiitfp.fe>;:. r..... '. ' , MAP 4 - S T U M P L A K E 1 L A N D STATUS S c a l e 2 = 1 mi . 3.1 cm = 1 km 53' GLIMPSE LAKE AREA* 9£* ha.. MEAN DEPTHi Recreation Waterfowl Ungulates CLI ;' BC Fish & Wildlife Ducks Unlimited • . 5 ' / loui 6 WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS s Chlorophyll a Secchi Disk 5 m. TDS 217 ppm. Faecal Collform Ont. Water Quality Index Rating COMMENTSs - \ - There are 60 private cottage lots, one fishing camp, a BCFS Recreation site, two Park Reserves, and vacant Crown land. - The land i s a l l within the ALR except for a portion on the north west • • side. - ' ' i i ; ' ' • •' - About ZQ%^f the perimeter is developed. - There i s a small dam at the lake's outlet, controlled by a local rancher. ..^-j? It has potential for organized camping and picnicking but there is no significant [potential beyond present use; i t i s at capacity for angling (Youds 1977). - There i s no potential for further cabin development (Thompson-Okanagan , Region Fisheries Management Plan). The lake i s a number 1 stocking priority with Fish and Wildlife. CLASSIFICATION* GENERAL USE - DEVELOPED SUBCLASS Although the lake does not-meet a l l the biophysical capacity c r i t e r i a , i t does meet the other c r i t e r i a . The class' definition and objective suits the lake and i t s present uses, the Developed Subclassification is supported by the Fisheries Management Plan and the Youds' study (1977). 5U M A P 5 - G L I M P S E L A K E L A N D S T A T U S S c a l e 2 " = 1-mi 3.1cm = f k m N SDURCE: BIRD 1978 55 , j- NICOLA LAKE AREA: 6144 ha. I MEAN DEPTH: 23 m. CAPABILITY 1 RATINGS FOR; CLI BC F i s h & W i l d l i f e Ducks Unlimited Recreation Waterfowl Ungulates 3, 4 6, (4) high, good 4 -impt.limited to specific sites WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS s Chlorophyll a Secchi Disk TDS Faecal Coliform i 3.4 mpn pel Ont. Water Quality 100 ml. - Index Rating COMMENTS s - There is a mixture of private lots (72), Indian Reserve, and Crown land, Monck Provincial Park. - The land along the southeast and west end shore are in the ALR. - Highway #5 P a r a l l e l s the eastern shore for i t s total length. - Salmon spawn in the Nicola River and rear in the lake. The lake i s not s t o c k e d . There-is^potential for organized camping and picnicking, and opportun-it i e s for pleasure boating are excellent (Youds 1977). - The north west side has an unofficial recreation site which i s heavily used. - Youds (1977) notes that there is limited site potential and the lake is developed to near capacity. - There is much subdivision potential and further development is com-patible with the Fisheries Management Plan. CLASSIFICATIONS DEVELOPMENT LAKE- - " •' This class was chosen because of the existing land and water uses, and because development is compatible with the Fisheries' Management Plan. However Youds' (1977) opinion to the contrary should be con-sidered as future development is contemplated. Although there is no water quality data, such a huge deep lake should be suitable for and capable of sustaining intensive use. The salmon rearing habitat and the ungulate range along the west shore need to be protected. cn o cz n m za o H* VO CD MAP 6 - NICOLA L A K E L A N D STATUS S c a l e 5" = 6 mi. 1-2 cm = 1 km •A-57 PENNASK LAKE AREAJ 950 ha. || • \ MEAN DEPTHt. 6.8 m. r u Y l l l N l r O r u n CLI .' "BC F i s h & W i l d l i f e Ducks U n l i m i t e d R e c r e a t i o n 3,; u Waterfowl 6 ' Ungulates high, good WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS s C h l o r o p h y l l a 3/^g/l S e c c h i D i s k 3.7 m. TDS 27 ppm. F a e c a l C o l i f o r m Ont. Water Q u a l i t y k - Index R a t i n g %. COMMENTS ? - Moat of the surrounding land is privately owned, by the Pennask Lake Company, a private fishing club which has a lodge by the lake. The remaining land i s the Pennask Lake Recreation Area (604 acres), Crown land. ;\ \ - The lake is'a v i t a l source of trout eggs for the Fish and Wildlife stocking • p r o g r a m , providing k0% of the province's needs. The lake , r. is not stocked and only f l y fishing is allowed. - Opportunities for pleasure boating are rated as f a i r , however i t would be incompatible with the fisheries conservation program (Youds 1977). : - Further development i s not compatible with the Fisheries Management Plan, which also notes the lake's outstanding aesthetic values. CLASSIFICATION: SPECIAL CASE. This class was chosen primarily because of the provincially important trout egg supply and secondly because of the high aesthetic values and ungulate capability rating. This classification is supported by the Youds' study (1977) and by the Fisheries Management Plan. 58 59 HARMON LAKE AREA* 32 ha. MEAN DEPTH: 8.6 m. CAPABILITY RATINGS FOR) CLI BC F i s h & W i l d l i f e Ducks Unlimited Recreation • ' i • Waterfowl 4, 5 k .Ungulates low WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS.: Chlorophyll a 2.5 jug/1 Secchi Disk 4.3 m. TDS 216 ppm. Faecal Coliform Ont. Water Quality 5 • Index Rating t COMMENTS: - Most of the surrounding land is a Park Reserve and additional portions are Crown leases. - There i s a BCF5 Recreation s i t e . - There i s potential for organized camping and picnicking in the vicinity, and major potentials beyond present use for angling, A.T.V. zoning, and cross-country skiing (Youds 1977). ' - Another study has rated the lake as a Potential Area (Neilaon 1976). - Further private or commercial development is not' compatible with the Fisheries Management Plan, which rates public use of the lake as a high value. A fishery rehabilitation program was carried out last f a l l (1978) and w i l l be stocked in the future. CLASSIFICATION: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT This class was chosen because of the present pattern of low-key, public recreational use, and because of the judgement of the Fisheries Manage-ment Plan. Further this lake's small size is a major constraint to even moderately intensive use and development, contrary to the suggest-ions of Youds (1977) and Neilson (1976). 60 61 CONCLUSIONS The usefulness and practicality of the lake classification system mil l be shown as i t is implemented. The next question, and perhaps the most d i f f i c u l t to answer i s , implementation by whom? The complexity of the lake resource and the variety of demands require a comprehensive, regional approach. Thus an administrative structure is needed which represents a l l the provincial resource agencies and the Regional D i s t r i c t . One means of implementing lake system planning, and the assoc-iated lake classification system, is through the TNRD Planning Depart-ment with advice from their Technical Planning Committee (TPC). The TPC consists of the regional staff representatives of most provincial agencies, including natural resource management units. This local committee could also act with the advice and coordination on policy matters of the Thompson-Okanagan Region Resource Management Committee, which has essentially the same membership at a higher level. In this way, the relevant resource agencies could contribute to the lake system planning process at two levels of regional hierarchy. Furthermore, not only would the resource agencies contribute to the Regional District's planning process, but the resource agencies would receive and exchange information about each other's management plans involving lakes. Thus the TPC would have an important role in coordinating management plans for the region's lakes. Implementation however, leads to the tangled issue of overlapping resource management jurisdictions and often con-f l i c t i n g agency objectives. This issue is a thesis topic in i t s e l f and is best l e f t to future research. 6 2 APPENDIX A ANNUAL RESIDENT ANGLER LICENCE PURCHASES (PERCENT CHANGE FROM 1963 BASE) X CHANGE 120-B.C. Total Total of Kamloops, Merritt & Princeton 100-80-60-40-20-« / / / / / / YEAR 1 1 1 1 1 1— 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 Note: Figure for 1963 represents purchases during calendar year. All subsequent figures represent purchases between April 1st of the year indicated and March 31st of the year following. Source: B. C. Fish & Wildlife Branch SOURCE: Neilson 1976 63 APPENDIX A ANNUAL NON RESIDENT ANGLER LICENCE PURCHASES (PERCENT CHANGE FROM 1963 BASE) 1 2 0 . X CHANGE B .C . TotBl / Total of Kamloops, Merritt & Princeton / 100-1 / t / / / 8 0 -6 0 -4 0 -/ I / / I -I 1 I I 2 0 - ! I l I 0 • \ s / YEAR 20 1 1 r 1 r r 1 9 6 3 1 9 6 5 1 9 6 7 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 1 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 5 Note> Figure for 1963 represents purchases during the calendar year. All subsequent' figures represent purchases between April 1st of the year indicated and March 31st of the year following. Source: B .C . Fist) & Wildlife Branch SOURCE: NeilBon 1976 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ableson, D.H.G. Proposed Guidelines for Control of Development of  Lakeshore Property. B.C. Pollution Control Branch, North Region, 1978. Ableson, D.H.G. Letter to the TNRD (W. Erickson) Re: the Proposed Guidelines for Control of Lakeshore Property. September 20, 1978. Alberta Land Use Forum. The Use of Our Lakes and Lake Shorelands. Edmonton: Technical Committee on Lakes and Lake Shorelands, Department of Environment. 1974. Babbie, E.R. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, California: Wads-uorth Publishing Company, Inc. 1973. British Columbia. British Columbia Facts and Sta t i s t i c s . Victoria: Ministry of Economic Development. 1977. British Columbia Regional Index. Victoria: Ministry of Economic Development. 1978. . Central Report '76. Victoria: Ministry of Economic Development. 1976. . Land Management Branch Planning Strategy. Victoria: Ministry of Environment. January 1978. Cartiuright, J . Lake Development and Access. Kamloops: Fish and Wildlife Branch, Thompson-Dkanagan Region. Feb. 1978. Chubb, M. and P. Ashton. Park and Recreation Standards Research: The Creation of Environmental Quality Controls. Recreation Research and Planning Unit, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, Technical Report #5. 1969. Dillon, P.J. and F.H. Rigler. "A Simple Method for Predicting the Capacity of a Lake for Development Based on Lake Trophic Status," Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Vol. 32, No. 9, Sept. 1975. Ducks Unlimited, Canada. "Waterfowl Habitat in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District.9 Kamloops: Ducks Unlimited, 1978. 65 Edmonton Regional Planning Commission. Lake and Lake Shoreland Study: A Regional Perspective. Edmonton: ERPG. 1974. Eikos Planning and Environmental Design Group. The TNRD, Today and  Tomorrow - Some Proposals for a Regional Plan. Vancouver: Eikos. June 1978. Environment Canada. Canada Land Inventory: Objectives, Scope and  Organization. Report #1. Ottawa: Ministry of Regional Economic Expansion. 1978. Geological Survey of Canada. Topography maps 92 1/1, 2, 8 and 92 H/15 and 16, 1:50,000. Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources. 1968. Jaakson, R. "Planning for the Capacity of Lakes to Accommodate Water-Oriented Recreation," PLAN, Vol. 10, No. 3. 1970. Oaakson, R., Buszynski, M.D. and D. Botting. "Carrying Capacity and Lake Recreation Planning," Town Planning Review Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 4. 1976. Krajina, V.J. (ed.). Biogeoclimatic Zones and Biogeoceonoses of British Columbia: Ecology of Western North America. Vancouver: Department of Botany, UBC. 1965. Lime, D.W.. and G.H. Stankey. "Carrying Capacity: Maintaining Outdoor Recreation Quality," Forest Recreation Symposium Proceedings. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. 1971. Neilson, 3.F.A. Regional Recreation Policy Plan Development. (M.A. Planning Thesis). Vancouver: School of Community and Regional Planning, UBC. 1977. Neilson, F., Gall, M. and D. Macey. The Thompson Plateau Regional Recreation Study. Victoria: Provincial Parks Branch. 1976. Odum, E.P. Fundamentals of Ecology, Third Edition. Toronto: W.B. Saunders Co. 1971. Okanagan-Similkameen Regional D i s t r i c t . "Policy Memorandum Re: Resort Cottage Developments." Penticton, B.C.: 0SRD. 1972. Ontario Land Use Coordination Branch. Interim Lake Planning Guidelines. Toronto: Ministry of Natural Resources. 1977. Red Deer Regional Planning Commission. Regional Lake Perspective: Inventory and Policy Directions. Red Deer, Alberta: Regional Planning and Research Section, RDRPC. 1976. Rees. W*E. The Thompson-Nicola Regional Plan Study: Notes on Lake  System Planning. Vancouver: Eikos. 1978. 66 Riley, R.A., Director, Land Use Coordination Branch, tint*, Letter to M. Rosen, Urban Programme Planners, Vancouver, February 1, 1979; copy sent to J. Chess. Rutner, F. Fundamentals of Limnology, Third Edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1963. Seigfreid, A. Lake Capacity Literature Survey and Review. Edmonton: Department of Environment. 1973. Thompson-Nicola Regional Di s t r i c t . Lake Study 1978 (Draft). Kamloops, B.C.1: TNRD, Planning Department. January 1978. __i . Lake Study (Draft). Kamloops, B.C.: TNRD, Planning Department. September 1978. . Lake User Survey;(Draft). Kamloops, B.C.: TNRD, Planning Department. September 1978. Threinen, C.U). "An Analysis of Space Demands for Water and Shore," Proceedings of the 29th Annual Wildlife and Natural Resources  Conference. Wisconsin: Wisconsin Conservation Department. 1964. Verburg, K. The Carrying Capacity of Recreational Lands: A Review. Winnipeg: Planning, Prairie Regional Office, Parka Canada. 1974. Wagar, J.A. "The Carrying Capacity of Wildlands for Recreation," Foreat Science Monograph. Society of American Foresters. 1964. Wetzel, R.B. Limnology. Toronto: W.B. Saunders Co. 1975. Youds, J.K. Coquihalla Highway Proposal: Recreation Impact Assessment. Victoria: Provincial Parks Branch, Oct. 1977. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094685/manifest

Comment

Related Items