| Abstract/Description or Keywords |
Fraser Lake occurs within Electoral Area “D” of the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako (RDBN). The Village of Fraser Lake occurs along the southern shoreline towards the west end of the lake. Both the Nadleh Whut’en and Stellat’en First Nations occur along the Fraser Lake foreshore, with main communities situated around the Nautley River and Stellako River, respectively. The lake shoreline occurs within the Sub-Boreal Spruce biogeoclimatic zone. Fraser Lake has a surface area around 5.4 hectares, mean depth of 13.4 m, maximum depth of 30.5 m and volume of approximately 725,287,400 m3 (RBDN 2009, Jacklin 2004). Fraser Lake provides habitat for a diversity of fish and wildlife species, which makes it attractive for fishing and outdoor recreational pursuits, as well as a priority for resource managers. The fish species of particular management concern within Fraser Lake is the Nechako white sturgeon; both juveniles and adults of this species utilize the lake for overwintering and rearing/feeding. Fraser Lake in its entirety has subsequently been identified as providing critical habitat to the Nechako white sturgeon (Pers. Comm. Mark Potyrala (DFO) 2012). As development pressures are increasing within the region, resource managers recognize the need to maintain and protect water quality and identify and protect environmentally sensitive areas along the lakeshore (RDBN 2009). Currently, lake management projects in the province of BC adhere to the following three-step process: 1. Foreshore Inventory and Mapping (FIM) – FIM is a broad scale inventory process that attempts to define and describe the shoreline of our large and small lake systems. 2. Aquatic Habitat Index or Ecological Sensitivity Index (AHI) – The AHI utilizes data collected during the FIM, field reviews, and other data sources (e.g., Land and Data Warehouse, previously published works, etc.) to develop and rank the sensitivity of the shoreline using an index. 3. Development of Shoreline Management Guidance Documents - Guidance documents are the final step in the process. By implementing this work into a guidance document, in conjunction with existing lake and watershed information, it will facilitate informed decision making and prioritization of management issues and key areas of concern. This report presents Step 1 for Fraser Lake. FIM results for this project provides valuable information regarding features, habitats, and other information for the shoreline of Fraser Lake. A summary of the data collected indicates the following: • The total length of shoreline along Fraser Lake is 70.9 km. Of this length, disturbed shoreline accounts for 19.5 km, while the remaining 51.4 km, or 72%, were described as natural. • Rural properties were the primary land use around the shoreline, representing 33% of the shore length. Approximately 85% of the shore length of rural land parcels remain in a relatively natural state. However, these large, privately-owned parcels represent areas of potential future build-out from development pressures including subdivision and subsequent anthropogenic impacts. Natural crown lands were the next most common land use, accounting for over 23% of the shore length. Natural areas remained in primarily a natural state, with only 2.4% of the shore length disturbed. • The most predominant shore types observed around Fraser Lake were rocky shores and wetland shore types. Each represented approximately 30% of the total shore length. Rocky shore areas were 73% natural, while wetland areas remained over 80%natural. • There is approximately 25.2 km of shoreline that has aquatic vegetation, which represents approximately 36% of the total shoreline length. Most of the vegetation observed was emergent (e.g., sedges, bulrushes), which occurred along 35% of the shoreline or 24.5 km. • Docks were the most commonly observed type of shoreline modification and occurred within both rural and single family residential areas. There were a total of 115 docks counted during the assessment, which equates to an overall density of 1.6 docks per km in Fraser Lake. • Approximately 11 km or 15% of the shoreline was described as having no impact, while 24.6 km, or 35% of the shore length exhibited less than 10% impact. Approximately 34% (24.1 km) of Fraser Lake exhibited a high level of impact where greater than 40% of the shoreline was disturbed. Moderate impacts (10-40%) were documented along 11.3 km of shore length, or 16%. The inventories and analysis completed as part of this study should complement existing efforts to effectively manage and protect important aquatic resources along Fraser Lake. Information collected with the FIM should be integrated with existing initiatives, such as the RDBN Shoreland Development Strategy and RDBN and Village of Fraser Lake Official Community Plan documents. Recommendations have been presented that are intended to aid foreshore protection, guide future data management, and identify future biophysical inventory works. The findings of the FIM indicate that the foreshore areas of Fraser Lake have been impacted by our current land use practices. The current trend of reliance on best management practices and voluntary compliance with the regulations and guidance documents are not resulting in the required protection of important fish and wildlife habitats along the shoreline. Active construction that was not in compliance with best management practices was observed during the surveys. It was readily apparent that neighbors tended to mimic each other’s activities. Finally, there was a significant number of shoreline modifications that encroached onto crown land (i.e., below the high water level) and several instances of land owners without foreshore constructing or modifying sections of foreshore to their liking. Given this, all agencies and stakeholders need to work with the public on better communication and education to ensure that everyone is aware of the habitats present and their values. Recommendations for public awareness and education are presented to facilitate public involvement and compliance in the protection of foreshore areas. The combination of education and cooperative enforcement will help reduce the continued losses of habitat along the shoreline and help improve attitudes regarding foreshore protection. |
