LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES - CivicWeb...1.0 INTRODUCTION The Thompson Nicola Regional District initiated the preparation of the Development Lakeshore Guidelines in response to

Adopted June 24, 2004

Amended February 7, 2013

LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES

Lakeshore Development Guidelines

Page (i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

2.0 LAKES CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM .................................................................................... 2

3.0 LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES INTENT ......................................................... 4

3.1 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ....................................................................................................... 4

3.3 AREA OF INFLUENCE ........................................................................................................ 6

4.0 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES ............................................................................................ 7

4.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 7

4.1.1 Background .................................................................................................... 7

4.1.2 Site Development Policies .............................................................................. 11

4.1.3 Site Development Guidelines.......................................................................... 13

4.2 PUBLIC ACCESS ............................................................................................................ 19

4.2.1 Background .................................................................................................. 19

4.2.2 Public Access Policies .................................................................................... 19

4.3 HAZARD PROTECTION .................................................................................................... 20

4.3.1 Background .................................................................................................. 20

4.3.2 Hazard Protection Policies .............................................................................. 20

4.3.3 Hazard Protection Guidelines ......................................................................... 21

4.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................................................... 22

4.4.1 Background .................................................................................................. 22

4.4.2 Infrastructure Policies.................................................................................... 23

4.4.3 Infrastructure Guidelines ............................................................................... 23


Page (ii)

4.5 LAND USE ................................................................................................................... 25

4.5.1 Background .................................................................................................. 25

4.5.2 Land Use Policies .......................................................................................... 26

4.6 EDUCATION ................................................................................................................. 26

4.6.1 Background .................................................................................................. 26

4.6.2 Education Policies ......................................................................................... 27

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................................... 28

5.1 ZONING ..................................................................................................................... 28

5.2 COVENANTS ................................................................................................................ 28

5.3 CO-OPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES ............................................................................. 29

5.4 EDUCATION ................................................................................................................. 29

6.0 DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS ............................................................................ 30

6.1 STEP 1 ...................................................................................................................... 30

6.2 STEP 2 ...................................................................................................................... 30

6.3 STEP 3 ...................................................................................................................... 30

6.4 STEP 4 ...................................................................................................................... 31

6.5 STEP 5 ...................................................................................................................... 31

7.0 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 32

APPENDICES Appendix A References

Appendix B Lakes Classification

Appendix C Lakes Classification Methodology

Appendix D Lake Index


Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Thompson Nicola Regional District initiated the preparation of the Lakeshore Development

Guidelines in response to current and anticipated increase of lakeside residential and commercial

development. The lakeside area is recognized as both an extremely valuable asset and a highly

sensitive zone requiring careful development and ongoing management. The lakeside is also an

area encompassing multiple interests which have been considered including forestry, agriculture,

tourism, First Nations, various government agencies, the land development industry, community

associations, environmental organizations and other interest groups.

In association with 1991 Lake Study Policy Statement and Zoning Bylaw No. 940, the Lakeshore

Development Guidelines are intended to improve the TNRD’s ability to handle the growing

development pressure on TNRD lakes.

With regards to the relationship between associated documents, the existing Lakes Study Policy Statement determines lakes that are suitable for development and how much development is

permitted. The Lakeshore Development Guidelines sets out acceptable standards and approvals

criteria for new development while the TNRD Zoning Bylaw No. 940 establishes permitted uses

and mandatory development characteristics. These three documents are the tools to provide

sound stewardship of the lake resource in the Thompson Nicola Regional District.

The contents of the Lakeshore Development Guidelines are based largely in response to issues

identified through public consultation, and input from government agencies, interest groups,

TNRD staff and board members. The assistance of agencies, organizations and individuals was

invaluable.

The topic of lakeside development attracts a great deal of attention and heated debate as to how

lakes should be managed. The fundamental premise of the Lakeshore Development Guidelines is

that lakeside development, if done in the right location, if it meets high development standards,

and if the property is carefully managed over time can provide new recreational development

opportunities that meet environmental quality goals. To achieve this, the guidelines have been

prepared with the intent of focussing on the most critical factors for development based on the

issues assessment and the cumulative experience of other agencies and organizations who are

providing successful leadership in managing development at the lake edge.


Page 2

2.0 LAKES CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Lakes within the TNRD have been classified based on the 1991 Lakes Study Policy Statement and

have been designated under one or more of the following categories:

• Wilderness Lakes - those lakes with no development, and generally no motorized access

although rudimentary access may exist; however, there is an absence of near shore

logging.

• Natural Environment Lakes - those lakes with negligible development, limited near

shore logging and access; significant sportfish values, waterfowl and ungulate capabilities;

• General Use Lakes - those lakes that are generally used for public recreation, with some

private development;

• Development Lakes - those lakes that can withstand a variety of uses including

extensive public recreation and private development;

• Critical Lakes - those lakes which are at a critical point in their evolution and should have

no further development;

• Special Case Lakes - those lakes that require special management guidelines.

Background information pertinent to these classifications is provided in Appendix B – (Lake

Classifications) and Appendix C (Lake Classification Methodology) as outlined in the 1991 Lakes Study Policy Statement. An index of lakes is provided in Appendix D (Lake Index).

As part of the 1991 Lakes Study Policy Statement, each lake was assigned a “carrying capacity"

(see Appendix C). The capacity ratios and allowable percentage of shoreline development are

indicated in the following chart.


Page 3

Lake Classification* Allowable Capacity Ratios per Hectare of Water

Surface

Allowable Percentage of Shoreline Development

General Use Lakes .50 units/ha Up to 20% of perimeter

General Use - Developed Lake Subclass No further development No further development

Development Lakes .67 units/ha Up to 35% of perimeter for lakes less than 800 ha; 50% for lakes over 800 ha

Development Lakes -Developed Subclass No further development No further development

Natural Environment Lakes .25 units/ha Up to 5% of perimeter

Critical Lakes No further development No further development

Wilderness Lakes No further development No further development

Special Case Lakes Lake Management Plan required

Lake Management Plan required

* Lake Classifications are defined in greater detail in Appendix B and C

This document provides guidelines for development within one (1) kilometre of the lakeshore and

provides information on the TNRD’s Lake Classification System. It is important to note that

classifications on lakes will likely change over time. As development occurs on the lakeshore,

lake classifications may require amendment in accordance with the level of development on the

lake. When re-classifications are proposed, the proponent will be responsible for preparation of a

lake impact assessment and classification recommendations recognizing that final determination

of classification rests with the Board of Directors of the TNRD.


Page 4

3.0 LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES INTENT

3.1 Purpose

The purpose for the Lakeshore Development Guidelines is to ensure lake resources in the TNRD

will be available for the use and enjoyment of future generations. This will be achieved through

high quality development that preserves the integrity of shoreland and maintains the

environmental attributes of lakes.

The guidelines have been prepared with the recognition that each lake and development site is

different and “no one size fits all”. The guidelines should therefore be viewed as a baseline of

standards that to a degree are considered flexible providing development proponents can

demonstrate that policy objectives will be achieved. In particular, qualified professionals

engaged in larger scale multiple lot developments may propose guideline alternatives or

variations providing that acceptable development standards are achieved to the satisfaction of

the TNRD. The guidelines are not intended to conflict with existing provincial or federal policy

regulations and where this may occur the guidelines shall be superseded.

3.2 Guiding Principles

1. Protect the Environmental Quality of Lakes

The TNRD recognizes the environmental importance of our lakes and will seek ways to

protect the riparian, visual/scenic and water quality values.

2. Retain Access to Resources

Resource extraction is an integral part of the BC economy and development sites shall be

carefully selected to protect access to forest, agricultural, mineral and recreation resources.

3. Promote a Collaborative Approach

The TNRD is committed to an appropriate and balanced level of development that will

benefit all stakeholders including the development community, lake users, agencies, and

First Nations. The intent of the process is to work together towards solutions.


Page 5

4. Develop and Implement Clear and Appropriate Regulations

By creating policies and guidelines that are easy to understand, the TNRD will avoid

confusion and misunderstandings that can negatively impact our lakes.

5. Protect Lake Users and Development from Hazardous Conditions Steep slopes, unstable soils, wildfires and floods can threaten development, impact the

environment and compromise safety. Measures will be implemented to minimize exposure

to hazardous conditions.

6. Preserve Cultural and Heritage Values

Cultural and heritage values are an important part of our history. Development sites will

be managed to avoid areas of archaeological and cultural significance.

7. Maintain and Where Possible Enhance Public Access

Lakes are a public resource; and public access will be maintained and enhanced where

possible.

8. Promote Sustainable Lake Management Practices Through Stewardship and Awareness Programs

Understanding the importance of our lake resource and ways to preserve lakes from

detrimental development impacts will be important to the ongoing stewardship of this

valuable resource. The TNRD will promote awareness about shoreline friendly practices

and lake preservation.

9. Ensure Consistency With Other Planning Documents

The Lakeshore Development Guidelines shall be consistent with other higher level or

compatible planning documents wherever practical (i.e., Ministry of Forests Lakeshore

Harvesting Plans, Land and Resource Management Plans, etc.).


Page 6

10. Encourage Economic Development and Diversification

High quality lakeside development represents economic growth opportunities for the TNRD

including construction, employment, tourism, and trade for existing businesses and service

centres.

3.3 Area of Influence

The Lakeshore Development Guidelines shall apply to all lakeside area within one (1) kilometre

from the lake shoreline.


Page 7

4.0 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

4.1 Site Development

4.1.1 Background

Wildlife Habitat

Wildlife habitat can be degraded by existing and future shoreland development. Contributing

factors to shoreline sensitivity include:

• Intensive Use by Wildlife – 80% of all wildlife in BC utilizes shoreline areas sometime

during their life. Shorelines support many kinds of wildlife, including species at risk; 60%

of BC’s land based vertebrates-at-risk use shoreline areas for all or part of their habitat

needs (Living by Water). A United States Forest Service study found that there can be as

much as 500% greater species diversity in the shoreline area than in adjoining uplands

(Shoreland Restoration, University of Wisconsin).

• Shoreland Uniqueness – Shoreland areas provide a unique ecological zone that is required

for certain plant and animal species. Many species depend on shoreland habitat for

breeding, foraging, hunting, fishing, and other essential uses.

Fish Habitat

Fish habitat can be severely impacted by existing and future shoreland development that alters

natural conditions along and within the water’s edge. Shallower areas around the shoreline are

very important for fish particularly species at risk because this is where many of them obtain

their food, lay their eggs and spend their first weeks of life. Smaller lakes are particularly

sensitive fish habitat as a small disturbance in the balance of a small lake can have a huge

impact on its whole ecosystem. Potential fish habitat problems generally pertain to two major

factors:

• Vegetation Removal or Alteration – Food supply and water temperature are directly

affected by the removal of natural vegetation.

• Loss of Water Quality – New and existing development can result in an increase in surface

runoff, sedimentation, erosion, and the leaking of sewage effluent and toxic chemicals.


Page 8

Wetlands

The protection of wetland areas surrounding lakes and within the lake watersheds is critical to

both fish and wildlife habitat as well as to improving the quality of water flowing into lakes.

Wetland areas can be negatively impacted by new development including draining or filling,

altering drainage patterns and encroaching on wetland edges.

Erosion and Sedimentation

Excessive sedimentation in lakes and streams can reduce or destroy aesthetic and practical

values for recreation, wildlife and fish habitat and water supply. Existing and future development

can be a major source of erosion and sedimentation problems. Fundamental considerations in

erosion and sediment control include:

• Retain Vegetation – Protect and maintain existing shoreland vegetation. Effective

vegetation management is a major deterrent to soil erosion because it shields the soil from

raindrop impact and decreases flow velocity by increasing flow friction. Root systems

increase soil porosity thereby permitting greater water infiltration and reinforcing soil mass.

• Careful Site Planning – Careful site planning which preserves the natural vegetation

wherever possible, limits clearing and grading to the minimum necessary to accommodate

construction and re-establishes good cover following grading is the most effective method

of controlling erosion and sedimentation.

• Runoff Management – Site development grading including roads and parking areas can be

designed to divert runoff to vegetated areas capable of holding runoff versus more direct

discharge to the lake. Runoff should also be diverted away from denuded areas.

• Construction Management – Limiting the exposure time of unprotected graded areas and

revegetating disturbed areas as quickly as possible can help mitigate potential erosion and

sedimentation.


Page 9

Scenic Values

Visual impressions of the lake and surrounding landscape have a major impact on resident and

public user experience as well as property values. Although aesthetic values differ from person

to person and preferences will vary the retainment of the natural landscape, character is of

benefit to everyone. Visual considerations for existing and future development include:

• Critical Zones – The two most sensitive and critical visual landscape lines to be protected

are the tree line/horizon line and the shoreline.

• Viewshed Conflicts – The lake viewshed is significantly impacted by various land uses

including logging, mining, utility corridors and road construction which occur beyond the

shoreland management area.

• Existing Vegetation – The visual absorption capability of a lake in terms of development

impact is largely determined by the character of existing vegetation. Lakes with minimal

shoreland tree cover are especially sensitive to development.

Source: Living By Water


Page 10

Vegetation

Loss of vegetation due to development is inevitable. However, it is possible to reduce and

minimize the amount of tree and understorey removal for the benefit of developers, home buyers

and the general public. Vegetation retention is one of the most effective methods for

maintaining the environmental integrity of the shoreland resource. The value of vegetation

retention includes:

• Soil Stabilization – Roots hold soil and help stabilize slopes.

• Water Quality – Vegetation helps protect water quality by filtering out nutrients and

pesticides that could otherwise reach a lake or stream.

• Microclimate – Trees provide shade and help moderate weather extremes such as strong

winds and hot sun.

• Buffers – Visual and audio buffers are provided by the retention of natural areas.

Source: Living By Water


Page 11

4.1.2 Site Development Policies

.1 Shorelines shall be maintained in a predominantly natural state with tree cover and ground

vegetation as development occurs.

.2 Where new development sites lack existing tree cover and understorey, a development

plan including landscaping of the shoreland shall be required that promotes native and low

water consumptive plant varieties.

.3 Development shall retain and conserve natural features including wetlands, rock outcrops,

waterfalls, streams, islands, and other features contributing to the natural character of the

site and surrounding area.

.4 Development shall minimize site disturbance during construction including the

consideration of erosion and sediment control needs.

.5 Development shall be designed at a level of density and site coverage compatible with the

physical capabilities of the shoreland and water body.

.6 The location of new shoreland subdivisions shall be assessed on the basis of site suitability,

environment, and socio-economic impacts in the context of the entire lake.

.7 Site selection and development shall consider the impacts and compatibility with existing

and future land use and resource activities.

.8 Infill development will be encouraged as an extension of existing development where

feasible.


Page 12

.9 Linear waterfront development (consisting of individual dwellings situated along the

shoreline) and back lot development (consisting of individual dwellings within the lakeshore

designation without water frontage) are both considered acceptable residential

development forms.

.10 Cluster designs shall be encouraged and density bonusing may be considered in

conjunction with higher servicing standards and site conservation initiatives where

applicable. Servicing standards and the relationship to minimum parcel size are addressed

in Section 4.4.

.11 Private roads accessing shoreland lots are to be designed with aesthetic considerations in

mind including minimal tree removal, unobtrusive cuts and fills, alignments that follow

contours, and other design elements resulting in road construction that is well suited to the

landscape and maintains visual qualities.

.12 Nutrient input from outside sources (i.e. resource use, sewage disposal, erosion and

sedimentation, etc.) shall be recognized as a contributing factor to lake water quality and

collaborative initiatives to minimize non-point pollution shall be pursued.

Cluster Layout

Conventional Layout


Page 13

.13 The development proponent shall submit all plans and drawings necessary to accurately

represent the extent of site changes including but not limited to building locations, roads

and parking, site servicing, grading and vegetation removal. The TNRD may request

supplementary drawings and reports as needed to determine development impacts.

.14 Subdivision and recreational community designs shall incorporate best management

practices as identified in:

a) Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat

b) Province of BC, Stewardship Bylaws “A Guideline for Local Government” and Stream Stewardship A Guide for Planners and Developers

c) Living By Water Project, On The Living Edge – Your Handbook for Waterfront Living

d) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards, 1142 – Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting and 1144 – Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire.

.15 Wildfire management shall be considered at the planning stage for lakeside subdivisions

including escape plans, fuel management, water supply and hydrant systems.

.16 Wildlife movement corridors and sensitive habitat areas shall be identified and

accommodated at the planning stage of lakeside subdivisions.

.17 A storm drainage management plan shall be prepared for lakeside subdivisions and

potentially include detention ponds, cut-off ditches and the establishment of new wetland

areas.

4.1.3 Site Development Guidelines

Sitework

.1 Minimize paved and other hard surface areas and use permeable paving materials that

allow for precipitation to filter into the ground.

.2 Use shrubs or water bars to redirect site drainage to avoid direct and rapid flow of surface

drainage to the lake.


Page 14

.3 All road or path stream crossings should be at right angles to the stream.

.4 Surface drainage should be managed so as to avoid direct discharge into the lake and to

maximize stormwater detention.

.5 Avoid the use of retaining walls at the water’s edge and introduce more natural treatment

including rocks and plantings set into a stable slope (2:1 maximum).

.6 Avoid creation of an artificial sand beach.

.7 Avoid dredging or filling when constructing a dock, deck or other shoreline structures.

.8 Avoid development in areas susceptible to erodable soils, and steep slopes.

.9 Environmentally sensitive areas within a subdivision or recreation community shall be

recognized to protect environmental values. These may include portions of wildlife habitat,

semi-enclosed marsh or shallow water bodies draining into or from the lake, steep slopes,

old growth forest areas adjacent to significant fish habitat, lands prone to flooding and

lands designated for recreation or conservation.

.10 Areas designated as environmentally sensitive shall remain undeveloped and undisturbed

which prohibits grading, excavating, filling and/or construction of roadways, driveways,

parking areas or structures.

.11 Development should not be considered for any island less than 2 hectares (5 acres) due to

concerns of environmental impacts.

.12 Road layout shall be aligned to conform to natural grades as much as possible.

.13 A 15 m minimum setback should be required from natural boundary on all streams.

Streamside buffer areas shall remain in a natural condition and to provide protection and

food source for fish and wildlife. Natural drainage courses shall be preserved as close as

possible to their natural location and appearance.

.14 Site works development shall not be permitted on slopes in excess of 20% unless a

geotechnical review confirms suitability. Slopes shall be measured over a horizontal

distance inland of 45 m/150 ft. from the shoreline.


Page 15

.15 Topsoil removed during construction should be conserved for use on areas requiring

vegetation or landscaping.

.16 Construct and continuously maintain sediment ponds, silt fences, filtration facilities, run-off

diversions, and other works as required, to protect creeks, watercourses and lakes from

siltation.

.17 Inspect silt fences during and immediately after prolonged rainfall. If undercutting is

observed immediately repair fence.

.18 Existing agricultural land use may require that fencing, cattle guards, and other measures

be included in site development to mitigate potential land use conflicts.

Vegetation

.1 Carefully prune or limb trees and shrubs instead of removing them to open up views to the

water.

.2 Leave a 30 m waterside setback from a lake (measured from the natural boundary) along

the shoreline where natural vegetation is retained.

.3 Within the front yard/waterside setback the natural landscape shall be retained except for

30% of the lot frontage which may be cleared to create unobstructed lake views and

access. Where trees and understorey have been removed, native landscape materials

should be introduced and allowed to re-establish so as to create a contiguous buffer.

.4 Use temporary fencing or flagging around trees and natural areas to avoid construction

damage.

.5 To retain trees adjacent to construction avoid any excavation or digging within 3 m of the

base of the tree.

.6 Remove aquatic plants only where they seriously interfere with recreational use of water

and then clear only the smallest possible area.

.7 For steep slopes greater than 20%, existing vegetation should be substantially retained on

all slope faces.


Page 16

.8 Hazard trees (trees which are leaning or in danger of falling) should be pruned or removed

where necessary from the property.

.9 Exposed slopes caused by site grading should be reseeded as soon as possible.

.10 Maximize the retention of mature trees.

.11 When selecting plant material to be introduced to the site, preference should be given to

native species which are drought tolerant. In addition, consideration should be given to

fire resistance.

Critical Dimensions

1. Lakeside buffer - building setback 30 m (100’ min)

2. Lakeside buffer clearing width 30% max of frontage

3. Lakeside frontage – variable depending on zoning


Page 17

1 ha. Lot – Illustrative Plan (N t t S l )


Page 18

Buildings

.1 Residences and accessory structures should be set back at least 30 m from high water

mark.

.2 Building height should be measured from the average finished ground level of the profile of

the building facing the lake to the highest point of the roof. Maximum height shall be 2

storeys for residential and 3 storeys for commercial development.

.3 Minimize the structure profile facing the water.

.4 Select building materials that are natural or have a natural appearance that blends into the

surroundings. Material selection should also consider combustibility as a wildfire

precaution.

.5 Avoid excessive shoreline structures that are visible from the lake to minimize visual clutter

of the shoreland.

.6 Locate accessory structures behind the main building and or existing vegetation to screen

views of the structure from the water.

.7 On steeply sloping sites (+20%) the proposed building shall step down the hillside.


Page 19

.8 Parking areas should not be visible from the lake.

.9 To maintain a balance of natural and built form, the maximum cumulative width of

shoreline structures, including all docks, storage sheds, decks and gazebo’s and

boathouses should be no more than 25% of the lot’s water frontage.

.10 The height of shoreland buildings should be appropriate to the lake setting including

background setting, slope, tree cover and buffer. High visual impact development will

generally not be permitted.

4.2 Public Access

4.2.1 Background

Lakes within the TNRD are a public resource for the benefit and enjoyment of recreationists,

residents and tourists. However, development should not jeopardize public access to lakes.

Potential conflicts pertaining to the introduction of new development can be avoided at the

planning stage by considering existing recreation uses both on land and in the water.

4.2.2 Public Access Policies

.1 Development design shall consider all existing public land and water based recreation

activities such that new development will minimize impact on existing activities.

.2 Development shall generally be accessed by a public road which is maintained year round.

However, where public road access is not available, the developer will be responsible for

road construction and maintenance either seasonally or on a year round basis.

.3 Subdivisions shall be designed to incorporate public trails and walkways near the lake

edge, but in a manner that will have a low environmental impact on riparian vegetation

and the waterbody.

.4 Public use of resort facilities, particularly recreational and docking facilities, is encouraged.

.5 Shared docking facilities and common waterfront access areas shall be encouraged.


Page 20

.6 Non-waterfront residential subdivisions shall provide access to the water and opportunities

for communal boat moorage.

4.3 Hazard Protection

4.3.1 Background

Within the TNRD there are many areas in the vicinity of lakes where development could be

contemplated. These lands are, in many cases, subject to conditions which could be hazardous

to development and could result in damage to property and people. Examples of these hazards

include:

• Steep Slopes - These are generally considered for slopes in excess of 20%.

• Unstable Soils - Soil composition, presence of groundwater and other factors can cause

soils to be unstable. This situation is often compounded by steep slopes.

• Avalanche Zones/Debris Fans - Many areas of the TNRD are subject to snow avalanches

and debris torrents (soil, rock and plant material carried down a contained path).

• Floodplain and High Water Areas - Inundation by water is a concern along many of the

region’s stream and lakes.

• Wildfires – The interface between buildings and forested areas poses potentially hazardous

situations.

There is considerable opportunity to minimize the risks associated with these hazards when

planning for new development. Additional guidelines related to hazard protection, including

wildfire management, are provided in sections pertaining to Site Development.

4.3.2 Hazard Protection Policies

.1 Development in lakeside areas will respect and be safeguarded from potentially hazardous

conditions.


Page 21

4.3.3 Hazard Protection Guidelines

.1 Proposed development within steep slope areas (i.e. greater than 20%), unstable soils,

avalanche zones or similar hazards will require review by an appropriately qualified

professional engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering. If the proposed

development is feasible pending implementation of remedial measures recommended by

the professional engineer, these measures will be required as a condition of development

approval.

.2 Development within areas of flood hazard or susceptible to erosion must comply with the

provisions of TNRD Zoning Bylaw No. 940 and regulations and guidelines established by

the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

.3 Development within or adjacent to forested areas will require consultation with the Ministry

of Forests prior to approval.

.4 Wildfire standards are to be included in rural subdivision design where appropriate and

may require integration of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards: 1142 –

Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting and 1144 – Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire.

.5 Where the risk of fire is significant, the TNRD may require the registration of restrictive

covenants on land titles to specify the installation and maintenance of wildfire safety

measures. The covenant will also save harmless the TNRD in the event of property or

adjacent resource damage.


Page 22

4.4 Infrastructure

4.4.1 Background

The term ‘infrastructure’ refers to three key types of services provided to lakeshore development:

• Sewage collection, treatment and disposal

• Water supply, treatment and distribution

• Stormwater collection and disposal

Sewage collection, treatment and disposal is a critical issue associated with lakeshore

development. Sewage contains both nutrients (such as phosphorous and nitrogen) and disease-

causing micro-organisms (bacteria, viruses and parasites) which have considerable potential to

impact water quality and human health. For example, enhanced levels of phosphorous in a

water body can stimulate the growth of plant materials which demand higher levels of oxygen for

photosynthesis and decay. This can limit the amount of dissolved oxygen available for fish and

other aquatic life. Human health can also be impacted by micro-organisms from sewage effluent

being discharged either directly to a water body or indirectly to ground which may interact with

surface and ground water supplies.

There are many variables which influence the degree to which sewage management may be a

concern to lakeshore development. The nature of the receiving environment – either soil

conditions in the case of on-site septic systems, or water chemistry and other biological factors in

the case of lake disposal – is a key variable. The concentration, type and density of development

is another important consideration. The quality of design and construction of the sewage

management system can also influence its effectiveness, as does attention paid to maintenance

(such as regular pumping of septic tanks). This latter consideration is dealt with extensively by

various provincial statutes and guidelines, including the BC Municipal Sewer Regulations and

Health Act – Sewage Regulations. Water supply, treatment and disposal are important health considerations. Water is supplied to

lakeshore developments from two principal sources – directly from the lake, or from

groundwater. In the case of lake sources, there has been increasing concern about the quality of

surface waters in BC and elsewhere in recent years. This has led to the recent introduction of

the Drinking Water Protection Act and attendant regulations, which have tightened controls on


Page 23

the treatment of water and maintenance of water utilities supplying multiple users. Groundwater

sources are less regulated, yet can experience quality issues from either natural phenomena (ie.

high levels of iron) or human impacts (ie. contamination by adjacent in-ground septic treatment

and disposal systems).

Stormwater management has generally received less attention in the semi-arid interior of BC due

to the lower frequency of rainfall events in comparison to other areas of the province. The

Thompson Nicola region does, however, experience storm run-off due to rainfall (including

intense events which occur periodically), snowmelt, or other causes. This run-off can carry a

variety of organic (such as sediment, leaf litter, animal wastes, etc.) as well as inorganic (such as

oil and other petroleum products from vehicle and machinery use) into water bodies, thus

altering water quality. Limited regulation exists in this area, although the issue of both quality

and quantity of stormwater run-off is of increasing interest to both provincial and federal

environmental agencies.

4.4.2 Infrastructure Policies

.1 All new development shall be served by appropriately designed, constructed and

maintained sewer, water and stormwater systems.

.2 All new development will be encouraged to work with relevant agencies to review, approve

and ensure on-going management of sewer, water and stormwater systems.

4.4.3 Infrastructure Guidelines

Sewer Systems

.1 On-site septic treatment and disposal systems must be approved by the Interior Health

Authority under the Health Act - Sewage Regulations.

.2 The minimum setback of a septic field from any waterbody shall be 100 metres. If a

property owner wishes to install a septic field with a setback of less than 100 metres from

a waterbody, the property owner must engage an appropriately qualified engineer or

geoscientist to review the proposed siting of the septic field to ensure that there will be no

detrimental impacts on adjacent waterbodies. Any remedial measures recommended by

the engineer or geoscientist must be implemented by the property owner at their expense.


Page 24

.3 The minimum parcel size for a single-family subdivision of property adjacent to the

lakeshore and utilizing individual on-site sewage treatment and disposal facilities shall be 1

hectare. If a property owner wishes to subdivide a parcel of land less than 1 hectare in

size adjacent to the lakeshore and service that parcel with an on-site sewage treatment

and disposal system, the property owner must engage the services of an appropriately

qualified engineer or geoscientist. The absolute minimum parcel size when approved by a

qualified professional is 0.40 hectares (1 acre). The qualified professional must ensure that

the desired parcel of land will accommodate the on-site system in perpetuity without

negatively impacting adjacent land or water. Where parcel sizes of less than 1 hectare are

proposed for development, a community sewer system is encouraged.

.4 The minimum parcel size for an existing resort property adjacent to the lakeshore and

utilizing individual on-site sewage treatment and disposal facilities shall be 1 hectare. If a

property owner wishes to subdivide a parcel of land less than 1 hectare in size adjacent to

the lakeshore and service that parcel with an on-site sewage treatment and disposal

system, the property owner must engage the services of an appropriately qualified

engineer or geoscientist. The absolute minimum parcel size when approved by a qualified

professional is 0.20 hectares (1/2 acre). The qualified professional must ensure that the

desired parcel of land will accommodate the on-site system in perpetuity without negatively

impacting adjacent land or water. Where parcel sizes of less than 1 hectare are proposed

for development, a community sewer system is encouraged.

.5 Where developments include community water and sewer systems, parcel sizes less than

0.40 hectares (1 acre) may be acceptable depending on site specific

conditions/environmental capability of the site to accommodate higher densities.

.6 Community sewer systems are encouraged in order to minimize cumulative effects of

individual septic systems.

.7 Depending upon scale, sewer systems must be approved by the Interior Health Authority

under the Health Act – Sewage Regulations or the Ministry of Water, Land and Air

Protection under the Waste Management Act - Municipal Sewer Regulations.

.8 Proper on-going maintenance of septic systems is strongly encouraged. Property owners

should consult the maintenance standards provided by the Interior Health Authority, as

well as the publication On The Living Edge – Your Handbook for Waterfront Living by the

Living by Water Project available through the TNRD.


Page 25

Water Systems

.1 All new development must prove the availability of a sustainable potable water supply

which meets the criteria set by the appropriate authorities.

.2 Developments comprising two (2) or more parcels should be served by community water

systems. These systems must be approved by the Interior Health Authority, and shall

conform to the Drinking Water Protection Act.

.3 The provision of water for fire fighting purposes is encouraged. The National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) 1142 – Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting identifies minimum standards to assist rural and suburban fire departments in

developing sufficient water supplies.

Stormwater Management Systems

.1 Stormwater management plans are to be prepared for all new development to deal with

the cumulative impacts of run-off. The stormwater plan will ensure run-off resulting from

new development is minimized and retained on-site wherever possible.

.2 When relevant, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and/or Department of

Fisheries and Oceans shall be contacted and their advice and approval incorporated into

the development and/or stormwater management plan(s).

4.5 Land Use

4.5.1 Background

Existing and future land uses surrounding lakes can potentially impact lake oriented

development. Examples of land or resource use that a development proponent may need to be

aware of include:

• Heritage Sites - Cultural and historic sites contribute to the character and interest of the

lake resource and in the case of First Nations may include areas of spiritual significance.

• Agriculture - Agricultural activities within the lake watershed may impact surface water and

use fertilizers and pesticide use, tillage, livestock practices irrigation and drainage can

affect water quality and quantity. Livestock production practices including riparian grazing,


Page 26

confined feeding operations, and manure management can also affect water quality.

Irrigation may impact water levels. In addition, to environmental impacts, grazing leases

often allow cattle to occupy lakeside property which may result in conflicts between

residents and ranchers.

• Forestry - Forestry activities in the watershed can adversely impact water quality and

aesthetics.

• Utilities - Utility transmission corridors within the lake viewshed can severely diminish visual

quality.

• Recreation – Recreational activities such as snowmobiling, hiking, biking and water sports

occur around lakes.

Development proponents should familiarize themselves with land tenure in the vicinity of their

project.

4.5.2 Land Use Policies

.1 Development in lakeside areas will recognize the need to accommodate and co-exist with

multiple use of lands surrounding lakes. Development plans shall be compatible with

existing uses and make necessary provisions for buffering, fencing, screening, scale, open

space, setback and other measures that can maximize compatibility with development.

.2 Archaeological and cultural resources shall be protected through the development process

such that any historically significant buildings, structures, features or areas identified shall

be preserved.

4.6 Education

4.6.1 Background

Existing and future owners of lakeside property have an important role to play in managing the

TNRD lake resource. A stewardship attitude adopted by parcel owners can complement

regulatory controls in the following ways:

• Data Collection/Monitoring – Lakeside property owners can assist lake management efforts

by providing environmental quality data as well as monitoring shoreland alterations not


Page 27

conforming with guidelines. Lake associations

representing property owners and lake users should be

encouraged to form and play an active role in monitoring

lake resource value indicators including wildlife, fish,

water quality, user conflicts and shoreline alterations.

• Environmental Management – An understanding of the

environmental impacts of living in the shoreland area can

affect how residents manage their property. The Living Edge – Your Handbook for Waterfront Living, prepared by

the Living by Water Project, provides an excellent

reference for environmentally responsible property

owners.

4.6.2 Education Policies

.1 Citizen participation in retaining or improving lake

resource values shall be encouraged individually or

through the formation of lake associations.

.2 Integration of the On The Living Edge – Your Handbook for Waterfront Living, Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat, and

the direction provided in the Stewardship Bylaw “A Guideline for Local Government” shall be integrated

into all lakeshore planning, public awareness and

development initiatives.

.3 Lake associations wanting to have motorboat

restrictions applied (i.e., speed, motor type), establish

sensitive wildlife habitat areas, or undertake other

lake management initiatives shall be provided with

process information to guide association efforts.


Page 28

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION

The TNRD will implement the policies and guidelines through a number of mechanisms. Key

tools include:

• Zoning

• Covenants

• Co-operation with Other Agencies

• Education

Additional details on each of these implementation tools are provided below.

5.1 Zoning

Zones are set out in the TNRD’s Zoning Bylaw No. 940 which apply to lakeshore areas. These

zones specify use, density, siting, building setbacks, provision of approved water and sewer

systems and so forth with respect to lakeshore development. In cases where new lakeshore

development is proposed in areas not already zoned for lakeshore development, the proponent

will be required to rezone the property in question and may be required to justify lake

classification and environmental impact before development can occur.

5.2 Covenants

The guidelines set out in the previous section of this document deal with a number of issues

which are beyond the scope of zoning regulations. These include, for example, site work

regulations such as hard surfacing approaches and materials, vegetation management techniques

(tree retention and pruning), and specific building design and orientation details (building

materials, minimizing exposure of long blank walls to lake). These guidelines could be

implemented through covenants which are negotiated between the TNRD and the developer at

the time of rezoning (if this step in the development process is necessary), and appended to

property titles prior to reconsideration and adoption of the enabling zoning amendment bylaw or

at the time of subdivision.


Page 29

5.3 Co-operation with Other Agencies

Inherent in the lakeshore development process is extensive co-operation with other public

agencies. Key examples of these agencies, and specific areas of required co-operation, are set

out below.

• BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection – work in or about a stream or waterbody;

approval of larger-scale community sewer and water systems

• Land and Water BC – water licensing; approval of foreshore works below the natural

boundary

• Interior Health Authority – approval of water and smaller-scale community sewer systems

(including on-site septic systems)

• BC Ministry of Transportation – subdivision approval and public road access

• Ministry of Forests – lakeshore harvesting guidelines and forest service road access and

perimeter cattle fencing.

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada – work within 30 m of a waterbody that contains fish (such

as salmon) that move between salt and fresh water

The TNRD will work with these and other agencies throughout the development process,

including during rezoning, subdivision and building permit activities. These agencies will assist

the TNRD in implementing the various guidelines set out in the previous section.

5.4 Education

Education of property owners in lakeshore areas is critical so that development projects are

properly designed, constructed and maintained. Other sections of this document (see Section

4.6), as well as additional reference materials (such as the publication On The Living Edge – Your Handbook for Waterfront Living), provide additional detail on this topic.


Page 30

6.0 DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS

The following outlines the steps required for lakeshore development:

6.1 Step 1

• If you are now considering residential or cottage development the lake should be over 60

hectares. Lakes less than 16 hectares should not be considered for any form of intensive

development unless supported by a detailed environmental impact assessment funded by

the applicant. All new development shall be required to provide a user unit and perimeter

shoreline analysis supporting the proposed development plan.

• Locate the lake(s) in which you have an interest in the Lake Classification Index, in

Appendices B and D.

• If the lake is classified and approved by the Regional District, proceed to Step 2.

• If the lake is unclassified, proceed to Step 3.

6.2 Step 2

• Review current lake classification.

• Verify that the classification is current and for the amount of shoreline development

existing on the lake. This will tell you if new development is permitted.

• Proceed to Step 4.

6.3 Step 3

• Confirm with the Regional District that the lake is still unclassified.

• If the lake is still unclassified, notify the Regional District that you intend to seek

classification.

• The Regional District will seek assistance from Federal and Provincial agencies in its efforts

to classify the lake.


Page 31

• The Regional District may require you to hire a qualified consultant (at your own cost) in

order to substantiate request for classification.

• Once a classification has been given, review the sections relevant to that classification and

proceed to Step 4.

6.4 Step 4

• Check Regional District Official Community Plans, Zoning Bylaws, Land Use Contract,

Agricultural Land Reserve status, other special planning policies, studies and any other

provincial land use objectives such as relevant Land and Resource Management Plans

(LRMPs) that may affect the land in which you have an interest.

• Submit applications for subdivision approval with Ministry of Transportation.

• Submit applications(s) for Official Community Plan, Zoning or Land Use contract

amendments to the Regional District.

• Submit applications(s) for Development Permit and Building Permit to the Regional District.

6.5 Step 5

• Check with relevant ministries and authorities to determine whether they require

notification of works, permits or have jurisdictional interests (i.e., Ministry of Water, Lands

and Air Protection, Land and Water BC, Interior Health Authority, Fisheries and Oceans

Canada, Ministry of Forests).

• Once provincial approvals have been addressed, follow the TNRD Lakeshore Development

Guidelines for developing your property.

• Consult with Living by Water and the On The Living Edge – Your Handbook for Waterfront Living for suggested techniques on sustainable lakeshore development.


Page 32

7.0 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. I have an existing resort. Can I subdivide and develop residential property?

Answer: Please refer to TNRD Zoning Bylaw No. 940 and consult with TNRD staff.

2. How do I obtain information related to cattle grazing beside the lake?

Answer: Contact the Ministry of Agriculture.

3. How can I find out about water licensing?

Answer: Contact Land and Water British Colimbia’s (LWBC) water licensing department.

4. I want to put an addition on my cottage. Do I need approvals from the TNRD?

Answer: Building additions require a permit from the TNRD Building Department.

5. I am considering purchasing some undeveloped lakefront property. What should I do to

make sure I can develop the property the way I want to?

Answer: To avoid surprises review the Lakeside Development Guidelines and meet with TNRD representatives to have questions answered and discuss your preliminary ideas and plans for development.

6. Where do I obtain information regarding the sale and development of Crown land?

Answer: Land and Water British Columbia (LWBC) is only making lands available on lakes designated for additional development by the TNRD Lake Classification System. Contact LWBC for further information.

7. Who do I contact regarding the use of motorized watercraft on lakes?

Answer: The Federal Department of Transport is responsible for boating restriction on lakes. Lake Associations or other groups representing the majority interests of lake property owners can make application to Transport Canada.


Page 33

8. Who is in charge of lake water quality?

Answer: Lake water quality is the responsibility of the BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, however other provincial ministries including Ministry of Forests and Land and Water BC, as well as the TNRD have an important role to play in ensuring that lakeside development and land uses in the watershed do not adversely impact water quality.

9. Who do I contact regarding forestry harvesting in my area?

Answer: Contact the Ministry of Forests for information on the Forest Management Plan in your area.

10. I think our lake has enough development, but according to the TNRD lake classification

more development is allowable. What can I do about it?

Answer: Lake Associations or individuals can present their case and request that the TNRD revise the classification of their lake.

11. If you buy a lakefront property, can you retain an existing small cottage and build a new

residence?

Answer: TNRD zoning may allow construction of additional units or may require rezoning. You are advised to refer to the TNRD Zoning Bylaw No. 940.

12. I’m building a new cottage on the lake. How many trees can I cut down?

Answer: Lakeside Development Guidelines stress the retention of vegetation balanced with wildfire prevention measures. You are allowed to clear an area for construction purposes including buildings, parking areas, walkways, septic fields and small yards. In addition, tree removal is permitted to open up waterfront views by way of selective thinning and/or a view corridor that clears no more than 30% of the total lake frontage.


Page 34

13. How can I acquire a lake front property that will be released from Crown land?

Answer: Refer to Land and Water British Columbia (LWBC)’s website for listings.

14. Is the TNRD going to allow development on all lakes throughout the District?

Answer: No. Only lakes that are classified as suitable for development shall be considered. Check TNRD Lake Classifications.

15. Who should I contact at the TNRD about issues at our lake?

Answer: Dan Wallace in the TNRD Development Services Department is the designated staff person addressing lakeside development approvals and issues.

16. Are the Lakeshore Development Guidelines applicable only to new development?

Answer: No. The Lakeshore Development Guidelines also provide information related to

stewardship practices as promoted by the Living by Water Project’s publication On The Living Edge – Your Handbook for Waterfront Living. Lakeshore residents are encouraged

to refer to this handbook.

17. Can I have a two family dwelling on a residential lakeshore lot?

Answer: Yes, provided appropriate zoning is in place. Check the TNRD Zoning Bylaw No. 940 to confirm.

18. Who can I contact regarding alteration of the foreshore (i.e. removing vegetation,

importing sand to create a beach)?

Answer: Contact Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

19. How many accessory buildings can I have on my property?

Answer: Accessory buildings are permitted in all zones related to lakeshore development. Please refer to TNRD Zoning Bylaw No. 940.


Page 35

APPENDIX A

References


0459.0016.01

APPENDIX A - REFERENCES

• Department of Fisheries and Oceans/Province of BC. Land Development Guidelines for the

Protection of Aquatic Habitat, 1992.

• Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat, Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, BC, Ministry of Land, Water and Air Protection, 1993.

• Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Landscape Buffering Specifications, 1993.

• Minnesota Shoreland Management Resource Guide, 2001.

• National Fire Protection Association, 1142 – Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural

Fire Fighting, 2001.

• National Fire Protection Association, 1144 – Standard for Protection of Life and Property from

Wildfire, 2002.

• Peninsula Lake Plan, Bracebridge, Ontario, French Planning Services, 2001. • Province of BC, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Stewardship Bylaws: A Guide for

Planners and Developers, 1993.

• Province of BC, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Stewardship Bylaws: A Guide for Local

Government, 1997.

• Shoreland Best Management Practices, University of Minnesota, 2001.

• Sustainable Lakes Planning Workbook, Minnesota Lakes Association and University of Minnesota, 2000.

• The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, Official Plan, 2001. • The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, Comprehensive Zoning, 2002.

• The Federation of British Columbia Naturalists, Sarah Kipp and Clive Callaway, On the Living Edge: Your Handbook for Waterfront Living, 2002.


APPENDIX B

Lakes Classification


APPENDIX B – LAKES CLASSIFICATION

LAKES CLASSIFICATION (based on 1991 Lakes Study Policy Statement)

WILDERNESS LAKES

Definition The primary objective of this category is to identify those lakes worthy of conservation in their natural un-

developed state. The secondary objective is to provide the opportunity for wilderness camping, travel,

peace, solitude and nature appreciation.

Criteria Required

1. There is no development or commercial use of either the water or the shoreline, and there is no

appreciable disturbance by logging or industrial activity near the lake.

2. Access is by hiking, horseback or non-motorized vehicular means.

and one of the following:

3. (a) The lake or its shoreline contains important, unique, or representative natural features (e.g.

wildlife habitat, rearing and spawning grounds for fish, vegetation, geological features), having

dominant Canada Land Inventory (C.L.I.) or Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (Fish and

Wildlife Branch) ratings of good or high for ungulates, or C.L.I. or Ducks Unlimited waterfowl

capability of 1, 2 or 3.

(b) The lake has existing patterns of recreational use.

Exceptions

In certain cases, some lakes may fail to meet these criteria, yet can be included as Wilderness Lakes.

The intent here is to provide the opportunity for a wilderness-type recreational experience relatively close

to urban centres. These lakes shall be designated within the Wilderness Lakes category. Criteria (2)

must still apply. Criteria (1) may be relaxed to include lakes with a surrounding area which is more dev-

eloped. Criteria (3) may be waived.


Lakes

Andy Antler Bequith Blackwell Dagger *

Day Frankie Hiahkwah * Hoopatatkwa * Hoover *

John George Mollimarn * Monticola Pocket Stein

Stoney Tsikwustum Tsintsunko * Twin Willowgrouse *

* These lakes are in the Bonaparte Moratorium Area, and may be reclassified once decisions are

made regarding their future use.

These lakes, in the vicinity of Merritt, have been selected as candidates for Wilderness Lakes; their

classification should be determined individually in consultation with affected provincial regulatory

agencies if development is proposed:

Boulder Jackson LeRoy (East) Skunk Farr LeRoy (West) Little Douglas Walker Flat LeRoy (Middle) Mellin Wasley Management Guidelines

1. Allow no further development or commercial use, notwithstanding the development of primitive

campsite facilities.


NATURAL ENVIRONMENT LAKES

Definition

Natural Environment Lakes are characterized by important scenic, waterfowl, wildlife, vegetation,

fisheries or other values worthy of conservation, and have motorized access. Their accessibility also

provides quality recreational opportunities within a natural setting.

Criteria Required

1. Less than 5% of the surrounding shoreline has been subdivided for cottaging lots.

2. There is motorized access to the lake.

3. The lake or shoreline within 400 metres has one of the following:

• C.L.I. or Ducks Unlimited (Canada) Waterfowl Capability of 1, 2, or 3.

• C.L.I. Ungulate Capability ratings of 1 or 2, or Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks

(Fish and Wildlife Branch) rating of high.

• C.L.I. Ungulate Capability ratings of 3, or Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fish

and Wildlife Branch rating of good, plus C.L.I. Waterfowl Capability ratings of 3 on a

portion of the shoreline.

• high fisheries values for spawning, rearing and sportfishing; or, has been evaluated that

further development would not be compatible with the Fisheries Management Plan of

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (Fish and Wildlife Branch).

• outstanding or typical vegetation, scenery or geological features.

• an existing use for environmental education purposes.

• provides important wildlife habitat for species at risk.

Lakes

Akehurst Sportfish Values

Alberta Wildlife Habitat for Endangered Populations Alleyne Sportfish Values

Aylmer Sportfish Values


Badger Sportfish Values

Bare Sportfish Values

Big O.K. Sportfish Values

Blue Sportfish Values

Blue Earth Sportfish Values

Cahility Sportfish Values

Campbell High Waterfowl Capability

Caverhill Sportfish Values

Chapperon High Waterfowl Capability

Chataway Sportfish Values

Chum Good Waterfowl Capability

Community Sportfish Values

Cunningham Waterfowl and Ungulate Capability

Dairy Sportfish Values

Deer Sportfish Values

Devick Sportfish Values

Dixon Sportfish Values

Dominic Sportfish Values

Duffy Sportfish Values

Edith Sportfish Values

Face Sportfish Values

Fatox Sportfish Values

Friendly Sportfish Values

Goose Environmental Education Use

Gordon Sportfish Values

Gorman Sportfish Values

Grizzly Sportfish Values

Gypsum Sportfish Values

Hammer Sportfish Values

Harbour Sportfish Values

Harmon Sportfish Values


Harper Sportfish Values

Hatheume Sportfish Values

Hihium Sportfish Values

Index Excellent Waterfowl Capability

Jim High Fisheries Values

Johnson Good Ungulate Capability,

Good Waterfowl Capability and

Sportfish Values

Kentucky Sportfish Values

Lac du Bois High Waterfowl Capability

Latremouille Sportfish Values

Little McGillivray Sportfish Values

Little White High Waterfowl Capability

Loch Lomond Good Waterfowl Capability

Lodgepole Environmental Education Use

Lolo Sportfish Values

Long High Waterfowl Capability

Long Island Sportfish Values

Lundbom Sportfish Values

Lupin Sportfish Values

Lynn Sportfish Values

Machete High Ungulate Capability

Mamit Good Ungulate Capability and

Good Waterfowl Capability

McConnell Sportfish Values

McCorvie Sportfish Values

McGillivray Sportfish Values

McGlashan Sportfish Values

McQueen Environmental Education Use


Meadow Good Waterfowl Capability

Minnie High Waterfowl Capability

Moira Sportfish Values


Morrisey Sportfish Values

Mud High Ungulate Capability

Neveu High Ungulate Capability

Nolan Sportfish Values

Pass Sportfish Values

Pattinson High Ungulate Capability

Pemberton Sportfish Values

Pennask High Ungulate Capability,

Sportfish Values,

Trout Egg Brood Lake

Pennie High Ungulate Capability

Peter Hope Sportfish Values

Pillar Sportfish Values

Powder Sportfish Values

Roche Sportfish Values

Rock Island Sportfish Values

Roscoe Sportfish Values

Rush Good Waterfowl Capability

Sabiston Sportfish Values

Saskum Sportfish Values

Saul Sportfish Values

Shea Sportfish Values

Silence High Ungulate Capability

Sock Sportfish Values

Spooney Sportfish Values

Star Sportfish Values

Stukemaptem Sportfish Values

Surrey Sportfish Values

Sussex Sportfish Values

Taweel Sportfish Values

Thuya Sportfish Values

Tintlhontan Sportfish Values

Tommy High Ungulate Capability and

High Waterfowl Capability


Trapp Good Ungulate Capability and


Trurans Good Waterfowl Capability

Tumtum Sportfish Values

Tyner Sportfish Values

Upper Harbour Sportfish Values

Venables High Waterfowl Capability

Warren Sportfish Values

Wentworth Sportfish Values

Windy Sportfish Values

Woods Sportfish Values

Two unnamed lakes adjacent to Lac du Bois have special significance because they provide unique

examples of a magnesium sulphate lake and a sodium carbonate bicarbonate sulphate lake and their

representative invertebrate fauna.

Management Guidelines:

1. Where there is no existing subdivision or development, or where the only existing development is a

fishing camp, Ministry of Forests recreation site or park: allow no further subdivision or

development. Redevelopment of existing uses that do not significantly increase the percentage of

shoreline developed, nor the intensity of development by the user unit ratio may be permitted,

provided that the proposal meets all other criteria.

2. Where there are existing cottage lots, further subdivision and development up to a maximum of

5 % of the shoreline or 0.25 units/hectare of water surface, whichever is reached first, may be

allowed. Perimeter development shall be determined in accordance with the method described in

the 1991 Lakes Study Policy Statement.


GENERAL USE LAKES

Definition

Those lakes primarily used for public recreation with some cottaging, in a predominantly natural and rural

landscape. Conservation of the natural environment is also an important objective.

Criteria Required

1. The lake or shoreline has a dominant C.L.I. Recreation Capabillity rating of 3 and 4, an area

greater than 60 hectares and a mean depth of greater than 5 metres.

2. Private cottaging lots, whether owned or leased, may constitute less than 20% of the perimeter,

providing that there is still greater than 0.5 units/hectare of water surface. (Lakes where

development has exceeded these standards may be included in this category, under the

Developed subclass.)

On lakes with subdivided or partly subdivided shoreline, the allowable portion of developable

private lands (up to 20%) shall lie outside of the Provincial Agricultural Land Reserve (A.L.R.). In

this category it is understood that a Provincial Agricultural Land Commission decision to permit

subdivision within the A.L.R. will result in a re-evaluation of the subject lake, where A.L.R. status

was used in the classifying criteria.

3. The following water quality criteria must be met, based on midsummer values of whichever

measurements are available:

• mean summer chlorophyll a is less than 7 milligrams per cubic metre (mgm3);

• secchi disk readings are greater than 3 metres;

• water quality is potable as determined by Ministry of Health

4. The lakeshore has adequate area that is not dominated by steep slopes or soils which are

unsuitable for nutrient removal from sewage effluent.

Lakes

Adams Douglas North Barriere

Hyas Missezula Snohoosh

Pimainus Sharpe Tranquille

Stump Tin Cup


Management Guidelines

1. Allow subdivision and development up to the allowable level: 20% perimeter development or 0.5

units/hectare of water surface, whichever is reached first.

General Use Lakes: Developed Lake Subclass

Those lakes which have exceeded the standards specified for this category, having over 20% perimeter

development or less 0.50 units/hectare of water surface.

Allow no further subdivision or development except where the subdivision or development is in

conformity with existing zoning regulations, provided that the proposal does not significantly increase the

percentage of shoreline developed nor the intensity of development on the lake, as determined by the

user unit ratio, and that the proposal meets all other criteria.

Lakes

Glimpse Hallamore Paska Eagan


DEVELOPMENT LAKES

Definition

Those lakes capable of supporting a high level of mixed uses - i.e. cottaging, outdoor recreation and

agriculture. Conservation of the natural environment is also an important objective.

Criteria Required

1. The lake or shoreline has a dominant C.L.I. Recreation Capability rating of 1, 2 and 3, and the

lake has an area greater than 100 hectares and a mean depth greater than 5 metres.

2. Private cottaging lots, whether owned or leased, may constitute less than 35% of the perimeter

of the lake on lakes under 800 hectares and 50% of the perimeter on lakes over 800 hectares,

providing that there is still over 0.67 units per hectare of water surface. (Lakes on which

development has exceeded these standards may be included in this category under the

Developed subclass.)

3. The following water quality criteria must be met, based on the maximum of whichever

measurements are available:

• mean summer chlorophyll a is less than 5 milligrams per cubic metre (mgm3);

• secchi disk readings are greater than 3 metres;

• water quality is potable as determined by the Ministry of Health, Environmental Health

Protection. Where Total Dissolved Solids (T.D.S.) is the only water quality parameter

available, it may be used, but only with caution and at a general level. T.D.S. should be

less than 250 ppm. The difficulty of using Total Dissolved Solids is that it measures the

inorganic dissolved solids as well as the organic dissolved solids.

4. The lakeshore does not consist of steep slopes or soils which are unsuitable for nutrient removal

from sewage effluent.

5. On lakes with unsubdivided or partly subdivided shorelines the allowable portion of developable

private lands (up to 35%) shall lie outside of the Provincial Agricultural Land Reserve (A.L.R.). In

this category it is understood that a Provincial Agricultural Land Commission decision to permit

subdivision within the A.L.R. will result in a re-evaluation of the subject lake, where A.L.R. status

was used as the classifying criteria.


Lakes

Allan Little Shuswap Birch Mayson Bonaparte Montana Dunn Niskonlith Gustafson Paradise Lac des Roches Young


1. Allow subdivision and development up to the allowable level - 35% perimeter development on

lakes under 800 hectares and 50% perimeter development on lakes over 800 hectares, or to 0.67

units/hectares of water surface, whichever is reached first.

Development Lakes: Developed Subclass

Those lakes which have exceeded the standards specified for this category, having over 35% perimeter

development if it is a lake under 800 hectares or having over 50% perimeter development if it is a lake

over 800 hectares, or having less than 0.67 units/hectare of water surface.

Allow no further subdivision or development except where the subdivision or development is in

conformity with existing zoning regulations provided that the proposal does not significantly increase the

percentage of shoreline developed nor the intensity of development on the lake, as determined by the

user unit ratio, and that the proposal meets all other criteria.

Lakes

Big Bar East Barriere Heffley * Lac Le Jeune Paul Sullivan (Knouff) *

* See Section 1.3, page 10; Extract from Kamloops North Official Community Plan.


CRITICAL LAKES

Definition

Those lakes which are not suitable for further development because of their natural or cultural eutrophic

status (characterized by severe algae blooms, extensive rooted aquatics, rapidly deteriorating water

quality and potential winter fish kill); their small size or shallow depth; potential health safety problems;

strongly perceived feelings of overcrowding expressed by the lake or shoreline users; or inadequate lake

surface for the number of users.

Criteria Required

(One or a combination of the following):

1. One of the following water quality measurements:

• chlorophyll a readings of over 7 milligrams per cubic metre (mgm3);

• a secchi disk reading of less than 3 metres;

• water samples and observations by Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,

Environmental Protection Division, have determined a eutrophic status.

(Where Total Dissolved Solids (T.D.S.) is the only water quality parameter available,

and those T.D.S. measurements exceed about 250 ppm, then that lake may be

tentatively classified in this category. Consultation should occur with other agencies

and the lakes should be reconsidered when more information becomes available.)

2. Size under 60 hectares, or mean depth of less than 5 metres.

3. The shoreline and adjacent area consists of steep slopes, soils which are unsuitable for nutrient

removal or poorly drained soils.

4. Water quality, as measured by faecal coliform counts fails to meet Ministry of Health standards.

5. A widespread perception of overcrowding is expressed by lake users.

6. The percentage perimeter development significantly exceeds the following:


• 50% on lakes over 800 hectares;

• 35% on lakes between 100 hectares and 800 hectares;

• 20% on lakes between 60 hectares and 100 hectares.

7. The user unit per hectare of water surface ratio is less than 1 unit/hectare on lakes less than 100

hectares in size and 2 units/hectare on lakes over 100 hectares in size.

Lakes

Badger Water Quality

Barnes Water Quality

Black Water Quality

Bleeker Water Quality

Bowers Water Quality

Campbell Water Quality

Chapperon Water Quality

Chuwhels Water Quality

Community Water Quality

Corbett Water Quality

Courtney Water Quality

Dairy Water Quality

Douglas Water Quality

Duffy Water Quality

Durand Water Quality

Dutch Water Quality

Edith Water Quality

Eleanor Water Quality

Frisken Water Quality

Genier Water Quality

Green Water Quality


Hatheume Water Quality

Horseshoe Water Quality

Isobel Water Quality

Jacko Water Quality

John Frank Water Quality

Lac du Bois Water Quality

Leighton Water Quality

Le Joie Water Quality

Little Big Bar Over Carrying Capacity

Little Dairy Water Quality

Lodgepole Water Quality

Loon Water Quality

Mamit Water Quality

Marquart Water Quality

McGlashan Water Quality

McQueen Water Quality

Minnie Water Quality

Monte Water Quality

Napier Water Quality

Ned Roberts Water Quality

Nicola Water Quality

Pass Water Quality

Pat Water Quality

Pinantan Water Quality and

Over Carrying Capacity

Pressy Small Size

Red Water Quality

Rose Water Quality


Ross Moore Water Quality

Sabiston Water Quality

Salmon Water Quality

Shumway Water Quality

Six Mile Water Quality

Stake Water Quality

Stoney Water Quality

Trapp Water Quality

Tulip Water Quality

Tunkwa Water Quality

Venables Water Quality

Walloper Water Quality

Wasley Water Quality


1. Lakes in the Critical classification should be subject to no further residential subdivision or

development of shoreland to prevent the acceleration of deteriorating water quality or to avoid

further development or overcrowding of surface water.

2. Further development or residential subdivision which is in conformity with existing land use

regulations may be considered wherein no additional nutrient input is allowed into the lake.


SPECIAL CASE LAKES

Special case lakes have significant features; their present or proposed uses will require special planning,

preferably a Lake Management Plan, before further development is considered. Lakes may be placed in this category for one or more of several reasons, including irrigation use; Ducks Unlimited project sites; native cultural sites; Coquihalla corridor proximity and potential for recreational use; and, heritage trails in the vicinity.

Irrigation or Agricultural Use

Allan Badger Barnes Beaverdam Big O.K. Bog* Botanie Brouseau

Calling Campbell Chapperon Chum Community Corbett Cultus Dairy Devic Dominic Duffy Dum Eagan** Edith

Frogmoore Gallagher Genier Glimpse Gordon Gustafson Hatheume Heffley Hyas Jacko Johnson Lac Du Bois Lolo Loon Machete**

Mamit Marquart Martin Meadows McConnell McCorvie* McLean McQueen

Meadow** Minnie Monte Mowich Napier Neilson

Nicola Niskonlith Paradise Pasulko Paul Pennask Pennie Peter Hope Pillar Pimainus Red Roche Rossmoore Rush Salmon** Saul

Shumway Six Mile

Skmana

Snohoosh Spooney Stake Star Sullivan (Knouff)

Surrey Sussex Thuya Tranquille Trapp Trurans Tunkwa Upper Loon Venables Walloper Wentworth White* Willard

* no storage dam constructed, although water storage license issued (as of previous study date) ** storage dam constructed but without issuance of water license (as of previous study date)


Ducks Unlimited Sites

Batstone (near Missezula Lake)

Beaverdam

Beaverhouse (near Tunkwa Lake)

Curry (Robbins Range)

Davis (near Aspen Grove)

Freshwater (near Beaverdam Lake)

Horseshoe (near Roche Lake)

Hutchinson (Fly Creek drainage)

Index (near Chapperon Lake)

Isobel (near Rayleigh)

John Frank (near Roche Lake)

Kane (near Merritt)

Ketchan (near Missezula Lake)

Lac du Bois

Little Big Bear Magnesia

Marsden

McQueen (near Rayleigh)

Moutray

Rall's (Carabine Creek)

Red

Rush (near Chapperon Lake)

Rush (near Clinton)

Sparks

Stephens (near Monte Lake)

Trurans (near Clinton)

Valenzuela

White

Native Cultural Sites

Adams Azure Clearwater Courtney Crescent Crown Douglas

Dunn Dutch Face Hihium Jacko Kamloops

Lady King Little Shuswap Loon

Lundbom

Mamit Napier

North Barriere

Pillar Reservoir Roche

Stinking

Young

Coquihalla Corridor

Alleyne Corbett Courtney Harmon

Kentucky Leighton Lundbom McConnell

Paradise Pennask

Peter Hope

Roche

Stake

Sunset Tunkwa

Walloper


Lakes with Heritage Trails In The Vicinity*

Courtney Kamloops Loch Lomond Loon Hihium Latremouille Long Stump

* This list is subject to further expansion as additional lakes may be added.


APPENDIX C

Lake Classification Methodology


APPENDIX C – LAKE CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY

The TNRD Lakes Classification System is based upon the TNRD Lake Study Policy Statement

prepared in 1991. The following section is extracted directly from the 1991 Lake Study Policy

Statement and outlines the methodology used to determine the Lake Classification System.

METHODOLOGY for 1991 Lakes Classification System

Design of Original Study

The concept of the original Lake Study was developed in the mid-1970s, the result of the

perceived need for direction in management of lakeside development to maintain a diversity of

lakes for recreation, settlement and commercial use.

The Lake Study began in mid May of 1978 with a meeting of the Lake Study Steering Committee.

This committee had representatives from various agencies, including B.C. Fish and Wildlife

Branch, B.C. Forest Service Recreation Division, B.C. Pollution Control Branch, B.C. Lands

Management Branch, South Central Health Unit and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. At the first

meeting it was decided that an inventory of the information available be assembled as a

preliminary step to the study. The previously mentioned agencies were consulted as well as the

B.C. Water Rights Branch, B.C. Parks Branch and Ducks Unlimited (Canada).

Under consideration were 220 lakes selected by the Planning Department of the Thompson-

Nicola Regional District. These were generally lakes over 16 hectares in area, but the list

included some smaller lakes and excluded some larger lakes. The initial inventory was conducted

with the intent of choosing several lakes for which there was good information available for more

detailed study. Information was gathered on land status, Canada Land Inventory ratings and

biophysical characteristics of the basic list of lakes. This process revealed that much information

was available on a number of lakes within the Regional District. Lake studies from other areas of

the Province were also reviewed.

Initially, the study was to be directed at only a few lakes to provide a baseline against which the

merits of development proposals might be measured. This approach was abandoned in June

1978 in favour of two new studies - a Lake User questionnaire and a Lake Classification system -

which appeared to have more practical application.


The Lake User Survey was the first priority due to the time required for calculations and

interpretations. The survey consisted of four segments; the Public Lake User Survey, the Cottage

Owner Survey, the Resort Owner Survey and Resort Patron Survey. The Public Lake User Survey

was undertaken first, on Canada Day, July 1, and work on all segments proceeded through 1978.

Also in 1978, data gathering, interpretations and discussions resulted in the formulation of a

preliminary Lake Classification System. The lake classification process was refined during the

summer. In September the Lake Classification System was presented and discussed at a

combined meeting of the Steering Committee and the Technical Planning Committee. At a

second meeting the classification of specific lakes commenced. Steering Committee members

and various agencies were invited to send in their submissions on the classification of various

lakes.

Original Criteria Used

In designating General Use and Development Lakes, criteria for water quality and suitability for

development were derived primarily from Proposed Guidelines for Control of Development of

Lakeshore Property (Ableson, 1978), from the Ontario Lake Planning Guidelines (Ontario, 1977),

and from personal communications with B.C. Fish and Wildlife staff. The standards from Ableson

have their origins in the worldwide lake eutrophication studies which took place as part of the

International Biological Program. These studies indicated that the sensitivity of a lake to

eutrophication is dependent upon its level of productivity. Mean summer chlorophyll a content is

the most accurate measure of the productivity of a lake, which in turn reflects the nutrient

content of the lake. This approach was particularly useful in selecting an initial listing of Critical

Lakes - those which are in advanced stages of eutrophication. This listing has been considerably

expanded as a result of sampling information provided by Environmental Protection Branch of

B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

The use of Canada Land Inventory (C.L.I.) Capabilities in the study is modelled after the Red

Deer Regional Planning Commission's Regional Lake Perspective (RDRPC, 1976). Sport fish

capability was not available for the Thompson-Nicola Regional District so the recommendations of

the Lake Development and Access section of the Fisheries Management Plan, (Cartwright, 1978)

were used. Ducks Unlimited (Canada) has made more detailed surveys of some areas for

Waterfowl Capability, so their capability ratings were also utilized. Because C.L.I. ratings tend to

be generalized over extensive areas there has been frequent consultation with B.C. Fish and

Wildlife Branch for more local, refined information in the interior. The classification system


attempts to avoid placing recreational subdivisions on lakes with high (i.e. 1, 2 or 3) C.L.I. ratings

for ungulates or waterfowl. Where it is judged that extensive development may degrade a sport

fishery there are similar restrictions.

Carrying capacity standards (allowable percentage perimeter development and hectares per user

unit) have been influenced by those of Ableson (1978) and those which have been adopted by

the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District. However, these have been modified as a result of

data compiled in the Lake Study and the Lake User Survey.

The allowable hectares (acres) of water surface per user unit ratio is used specifically as a

measure against lake surface crowding and to help maintain a quality recreational experience for

the lake surface users. The need for such a ratio has been demonstrated by the results of the

Lake User Survey, which showed that a high percentage of interfering activities was perceived by

lake users. For these reasons a "user unit" has been established as a flexible guideline for each

classification of lake.

Each use, (each cottage lot whether vacant or developed, campsite, picnic site, Forestry Service

recreation site, Special Use Permit, fishing camp cabin or fishing camp campsite) within one-half

kilometre of the lake is assigned a "user unit" value of one. (Where the number of campsites or

picnic sites is difficult to determine, such as in Forest Service recreation sites, the number of

parking spaces or the average level of summer use shall be used.) The surface area of the lake

is then divided by the number of "user units" to determine the "user unit ratio" (see Ableson,

1978, for details of calculations).

The allowable percentage perimeter development standard is intended to ensure a relatively

natural visual landscape for lake users. It has been assumed from the results of the Lake User

Survey that lake users highly value the natural surroundings as a major element of the lake's

environment. At the public hearings held in early 1977, the desire to leave a moderate to large

(50-80%) portion of the lakeshore in its natural state was commonly expressed. A survey

conducted at four lakes (Tunkwa, Leighton, Stake and McConnell) within the Regional District by

the Recreation Section of B.C. Forest Service (Lake User Study, 1978) revealed that the natural

landscape of the lakes and their surroundings was the second major attraction (next to fishing)

of those interviewed. The use of the allowable percentage perimeter development standard will

serve to accommodate public access, ensure that lakes will never reach the state of having the

total shoreline under intensive development, and reinforce the safeguards for the lake ecosystem

noted by Ableson.


The following criteria are used in measuring shoreline or perimeter development: all private and

Crown lease lots and Special Use permits to 8 hectares in size are measured by actual lake

frontage or 90 metres per lot (whichever is less); commercial, industrial, parks, campsites and

Forest Service recreation sites are measured by actual lake frontage; and lots greater than 8

hectares, vacant Crown land and land held under grazing lease, licence or permit are not counted

as development. Both the "user unit ratio" and the "percentage perimeter development" should

be used in determining whether or not additional development may be permitted on a lake.

Results of the Lake User questionnaire pointed out a wish for a conservative approach to setting

limits on shoreline development. Lake users had an underlying wish to retain, insofar as

possible, the appearance of a natural shoreline environment. The recommendation of a 100

metre buffer zone in which no logging may occur was derived following an examination of a

number of other studies. The Red Deer Regional Lake Perspective (1976) calls for a 1.6

kilometre buffer zone. The Lake User questionnaire showed a concern by lake users about the

effect of possible logging upon viewing areas. Initially, it was judged that a minimum buffer zone

of 100 metres would ensure that a relatively natural visual landscape would remain after logging.

Requiring a minimum buffer zone of 100 metres ensures a relatively natural visual landscape for

lake users. The 100 metre buffer zone, within which no logging is recommended, would also

help safeguard the lake against the effects of erosion, fluctuation in water levels, pollution with

wood debris, nutrient loading, and siltation of eggs or the micro-organisms which support rearing

fish. The buffer zone will also maintain nesting hole sites for tree or snag nesting ducks and

other birds, and provide a shelterbelt for wintering ungulates.

Current Update

There is now (1991) no rigid policy on logging in the vicinity of lakes, rather this is decided,

within each Timber Supply Area, on a lake-by-lake basis by a consultative committee

representing a broad range of agency and public interests. For those lakes which have not been

classified for Visual Quality Objectives (see Ministry of Forests "Lakeshore Harvesting Guidelines",

1991), a 200 metre flexible "leave strip" buffer zone around lakes has been informally agreed

upon until appropriate classifications have been collectively determined in order to preserve

values associated with unclassified lakes and their riparian zone.


For the relatively few lakes which have been classified for Visual Quality Objectives, more

appropriate lakeshore logging guidelines are recognized. This system has allowed for placement

of several lakes in the Wilderness Lakes category.

In addition to those lakes recognized as water storage sites and classed as Special Case Lakes in

the 1984 study, three new sources have expanded that listing. Ducks Unlimited has provided a

listing of those lakes which support waterfowl enhancement projects. Parks Branch of the

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has identified the lakes which are foreseen to have an

exceptionally high recreation demand as a result of completion of the Coquihalla Highway. The

Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Tourism and Minister Responsible for Culture has provided

access to mapping of lakes with known native cultural sites.

Unfortunately, the Lake Classification Committee has been inoperative since 1984, so no further

formal classifications have been made in the General Use and Development lakes categories.

However, recommendations pertaining to subdivision development have been obtained from

agencies on request.

The overall approach in the 1991 update relied on the following information gathering processes:

• Regional District staff interview for operational level feedback;

• discussion with major government and non-government agencies;

• an inter-agency ad hoc meeting to share information;

• request to twenty-three regional districts concerning other related policy statements, nine

of which responded that they had developed some form of policy guidelines;

• a press release and media interviews resulted in some public input; letters and other

materials submitted were reviewed.

A special emphasis was placed on lakes opened up for easier access by the Coquihalla Highways.

A special technical review was undertaken by sub-consultant Ira Withler (biologist and zoologist),

and a recreational use overview was carried out by sub-consultant Debbie Clarke of Forecon

Consulting. Particular emphasis was placed on lake carrying capacities.


Neither budget nor timeframe was available for public hearings or for questionnaires. However,

this does not preclude the need for special hearings on particular lake shoreland development

proposals which may arise from time to time.


APPENDIX D

Lake Index


APPENDIX D – INDEX

LAKES OVER 16 HECTARES

General Instructions: This listing contains lakes over 16 hectares in the Thompson-Nicola

Regional District. It also includes some unsurveyed lakes, marked with *, which may be under 16

hectares. If the lake in which you are interested is not listed here, it may be under 16 hectares.

Lakes marked "Unclassified" (U) had not had their status determined by an interagency

committee, as of date of study completion. Lakes given more than one classification are subject

to the guidelines of the dominant classification, shown in bold; however, the guidelines of other

classifications may also be applied.

KEY: WILDERNESS LAKES W

WILDERNESS LAKES CANDIDATE (W) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT LAKES NE

GENERAL USE LAKES GU

GENERAL USE LAKES (DEVELOPED SUBCLASS) GU(D) DEVELOPMENT LAKES D

DEVELOPMENT LAKES (DEVELOPED SUBCLASS) D(D) CRITICAL LAKES C

SPECIAL CASE LAKES SC

UNCLASSIFIED U ELECTORAL AREA EA

LAKE CLASSIF. EA LAKE CLASSIF. EA

Adams GU,SC O/P Adler U O

Akehurst NE O

Alberta NE E Allan D,SC O

Alleyne NE,SC N Andy W L

Antler W I

Aylmer NE P Azure SC A

Badger C,NE,SC P Batstone* SC N

Bare NE O Barnes C,SC I

Beauregard U O

Beaverdam SC E Beaverhouse* SC L

Big Bar D(D) E Big O.K. NE,SC I

Birch D O

Black C O Blackwell W L

Bleeker C L Blue NE I


KEY:

WILDERNESS LAKES W


GENERAL USE LAKES GU GENERAL USE LAKES (DEVELOPED SUBCLASS) GU(D)

DEVELOPMENT LAKES D





Blue Earth NE I

Bog SC J Bonaparte D O/E

Boss U N

Botanie SC I Boulder* (W) M

Boyer U J Brouseau SC I

Cahility NE O

Calling SC I Campbell C,NE,SC L

Caverhill NE O

Chapperon C,NE,SC M Chataway NE I

Chum NE,SC L Clearwater SC A

Community C,NE,SC O

Corbett C,SC N Courtney C,SC N

Cultus SC I Cunningham NE E

Curry SC L

Dagger W O Dairy C,NE,SC J

Davis SC N Deadman U J

Deer NE O

Devick NE,SC P Dixon NE O

Dominic NE,SC J

Dot U M Douglas C,GU,SC M

Duffy C,NE,SC J Dum SC O

Dunn D,SC O Dunsapie U O

Dutch C,SC A

Eagan GU(D),SC E East Barriere D(D) O

Edith C,NE,SC J Ejdee U A

Elbow U J

Eleanor C B Ellen U M

Ernest U L

Face NE,SC J Farr* (W) I

Fatox NE J Flat* (W) L

Forest U O

Friendly NE O Frisken C L


KEY:

WILDERNESS LAKES W



DEVELOPMENT LAKES D




LAKE CLASSIF. EA LAKE CLASSIF. EA Frogmoore SC M

Gallagher SC I Gannett U O

Genier C,SC O

Gisborne U J Glimpse GU(D),SC M

Goose NE J Gordon NE,SC I

Gorman NE O

Green C E Grizzly NE A

Gustafson D,SC E

Gypsum NE M Haggan U L

Hallamore GU (D) A Hammer NE E

Harbour NE O

Harmon NE,SC N Harper NE L

Hatheume C,NE,SC M Heffley D(D),SC P

Hiahkwah W O

Hihium NE,SC I Hoopatatkwa W O

Hoover W O Hutchinson SC E

Hyas GU,SC P

Index NE,SC M Isobel C,SC J

Jim NE E

Jacko C,SC J Jackson* (W) M

John George W I

John Frank C,SC L Johnson NE,SC O

Kamloops SC J

Kane SC N Kelly U E

Kentucky NE,SC N Ketchan* SC M

Kwoiek U I

Lac des Roches D O Lac du Bois C,NE,SC J

Lac Le Jeune D(D) J

Latremouille NE,SC O Leighton C,SC J

LeRoy (West)* (W) M LeRoy (Mid)* (W) M

LeRoy (East)* (W) M

Little Big Bar C,SC E


KEY:

WILDERNESS LAKES W



DEVELOPMENT LAKES D




LAKE CLASSIF. EA LAKE CLASSIF. EA Little Douglas* (W) M

Little McGillivray NE P Little Shuswap D,SC P

Little White NE E

Loch Lomond NE,SC E Lodgepole C,NE J

Lolo NE,SC A Long NE,SC J

Long Island NE O

Loon C,SC E Louis U P

Lundbom NE,SC N

Lupin NE O Lynn NE O

Machete NE,SC E Magnesia SC E

Mamit C,NE,SC M

Marquart C,SC N Martin Meadow SC O

Mayson D O McConnell NE,SC J

McCormic U B

McCorvie NE,SC A McGillivray NE P

McGlashan C,NE L

McLean SC I

McQueen C,NE,SC J Meadow NE,SC E

Mellin (W) M

Millar U L Minnie C,NE,SC M

Missezula GU M Moira NE A

Mollimarn W O

Momich W O Montana D E

Monte C,SC L

Monticola W O Moose U A

Morrisey NE P Mowich SC J

Mud NE B

Murray U N Napier C,SC L

Neilson SC E Neveu NE M

Nicola C,SC M

Niskonlith D,SC P Nolan NE E

Nomans U O


KEY:

WILDERNESS LAKES W



DEVELOPMENT LAKES D




LAKE CLASSIF. EA LAKE CLASSIF. EA North Barriere GU,SC O

Paradise D,SC M Paska GU(D) J

Pass C,NE J

Pasulko SC I Patrick U O

Pattinson NE M Paul D(D),SC P

Pemberton NE P

Pennask NE,SC M Pennie NE,SC I

Peter Hope NE,SC M

Phinetta U O Pillar NE,SC L

Pimainus GU,SC I Pinantan C P

Powder NE O

Pressy C E Rat U M

Red C,SC J Reflector U A

Reservoir SC M

Roche NE,SC L Rock Island NE O

Roscoe NE I Ross Moore C,SC J

Rouse U M

Rush NE,SC M Sabiston C,NE J

Salmon C,SC M

Saskum NE O Saul NE,SC J

Scot U E Scott U O

Sharpe GU E

Shea NE N Shelley U O

Shumway C,SC L

Silence NE A Six Mile C,SC J

Skmana SC P Skookum U J

Skunk* (W) M

Snohoosh GU,SC J Sock NE A

Spectacle U E Spooney NE,SC O

South Barriere U O

Stake C,SC J Star NE,SC A

Stein W I Stephens SC L


KEY:

WILDERNESS LAKES W



DEVELOPMENT LAKES D





Stinking SC I Stukemaptem NE O

Stump GU,SC M Sullivan(Knouff) D(D),SC P

Surprise U A

Surrey NE,SC M Sussex NE,SC M

Tahla U N Taweel NE O

Thalia U N

Thuya NE,SC O Tin Cup GU E

Tintlhontan NE O

Tommy NE M Tortoise U O

Tranquille GU,SC J Trapp C,NE,SC L

Trurans NE,SC E

Tsikwustum W O

Tsintsunko W O Tumtum NE B

Tunkwa C,SC J Tyner NE M

Upper Harbour NE O

Upper Loon SC E Venables C,NE,SC I

Vidette U J Walker* (W) M

Walloper C,SC J

Warren NE P Wasley C,(W) M

Wentworth NE,SC O

White SC E Willard SC I

Willowgrouse W O Windy NE O

Woods NE L

Young D,SC E