Backgrounder ~ Bay of Quinte Fish Habitat Management Plan Bay of

Transcription

Backgrounder ~
Bay of Quinte Fish Habitat Management Plan
Bay ofQuinte Remedial Action Plan
January 2005
Prepared by: Mike Ewaschuk
, . Edited by: Sarah Crabbe
Backgrounder - Bay of Quinte Fish Habitat Management Plan
-Tablt;lCl(Conterits
I
1_0
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
Fish Habitat .....................................................................................................................1
Effects of Shoreline Activities on Fish Habitat ................................................................2
Fish Habitat Management Plan Purpose ........................................................................2
2.0
Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................................3
2.1
Goals ...............................................................................................................................3
2.2
RAP De-listing Targets ................................................................................................... .4
2.3
Indicators .........................................................................................................................4
2.4
Guidelines .......................................................................................................................5
3.0
Fish Habitat and Fish Communities in the Bay of Quinte .............................................................. 6
3.1
Environmental Setting .....................................................................................................6
3.2
Environmental changes through time .............................................................................. 6
3.2.1
Pre-Settlement (pre 1920's) ........................................... 6
3.2.2
Eutrophication (1930-1978) ......................................... 7
3.2.3
Phosphorous Control (1978 -1994) .............................. 8
3.2.4
1994 - Present ............................................................... 8
3.3
Fish Community - changes through time ........................................................................8
3.4
Habitat Impacts - Historical and Ongoing ..................................................................... 11
3.4.1
Unmanageable Impacts ................................................ 12
3.4.2
Manageable Impacts .................................................... 17
4.0
Socia-Economics ...........................................................................................................................24
4.1
Commercial Fishing Industry .........................................................................................24
4.2
Recreational Sport Fishery ............................................................................................27
4.3
Bait Harvesters ..............................................................................................................31
4.4
Tyendinaga Mohawks ...................................................................................................31
5.0
Habitat Management in the Bay of Quinte ...................................................................................33
5.1
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) ...........................................................................33
5.1.1
Legislation ..................................................................... 33
5.1.2
Enforcement ................................................................. 34
5.1.3
Scientific Research ....................................................... 34
5.1.4
Regulatory Process ...................................................... 35
5.1.5
Summary ...................................................................... 42
5.2
Environment Canada (DOE) ........................................................................................ .45
5.2.1
Legislation ..................................................................... 45
5.2.2
Enforcement ................................................................. 48
5.3
Parks Canada ................................................................................................................49
5.4
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) .............................................................. 50
5.4.1
Legislation ..................................................................... 50
5.4.2
Enforcement ................................................................. 50
5.4.3
5.4.4
Summary ...................................................................... 55
5.5
Ontario Ministry olthe Environment (MOE) ..................................................................57
5.5.1
Legislation ..................................................................... 57
5.5.2
Enforcement ................................................................. 57
5.5.3
5.6
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) .........................................................58
5.6.1
Legislation ..................................................................... 59
5.6.2
Enforcement ................................................................. 59
5.7
Conservation Authorities (CA's) ....................................................................................59
5.7.1
Legislation ..................................................................... 60
5.7.2
Enforcement ................................................................. 60
6.0
Concerns - Fish Habitat Managernent Agencies .........................................................................65
6.1
DFO ...............................................................................................................................65
1.1
1.2
1.3
f' .
January 2005
Table of Contents
I
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
6.1.5
6.1.6
6.1.7
January 2005
Protection ...................................................................... 65
Scientific Research ....................................................... 65
Public Consultation ....................................................... 66
Public Information and Education ................................. 66
Cooperative Action ....................................................... 66
Habitat Improvement .................................................... 67
Habitat Monitoring ........................................................ 67
6.2
Conservation Authorities ...............................................................................................67
6.2.1
Legislation ..................................................................... 67
6.2.2
Management ................................................................. 68
6.2.3
Cases ............................................................................ 69
Land Use Planning ....................................................... 71
6.2.4
6.3
MNR ..............................................................................................................................73
6.4
MOE ..............................................................................................................................74
7.0 Concerns - Resource Users .........................................................................................................76
7.1
Commercial Fisherman .................................................................................................76
7.2
Anglers, stakeholders and other recreational users ......................................................76
7.3
Bait Harvesters ..............................................................................................................78
7.4
Tyendinaga Mohawks ...................................................................................................78
Marine Contractors ........................................................................................................79
7.5
8.0 References ....................................................................................................................................80
Table of Contents
ii
January 2005
List()lFigure~ .
I
Figure 1. Person employment years associated with the commercial fishery in the Bay of Quinte,
calculated for the years 1970, 1980, and from 1993 to 2001 ............................................... 24
Figure 2. The top three fish species landed for the Bay of Quinte commercial fishing industry for
1970, 1980, and from 1993 - 2001, based on percent of total harvest (Ibs) ........................ 25
Figure 3. Total harvest and landed value (adjusted to 00' values) of commercial fish in the Bay of
Quinte for 1970, '80 and '93 to '01 ........................................................................................ 25
Figure 4. Total sales impact (measure of total economic value) of the Bay of Quinte commercial
fishery in 1980 and from 1993 to 2001 ................................................................................. 26
Figure 5. The top-three species in terms of percentage of the total landed harvest value for the
Bay of Quinte commercial fishing industry in 1970, 1980 and from 1993 to 2001 ............... 27
Figure 6. The top-three valued species (dollar/lbs.) per year for the Bay of Quinte commercial
fishery for the years 1970, 1980, and from 1993 to 2001 ..................................................... 27
Figure 7. Annual angler expenditures in the Bay of Quinte based on angling effort surveys and
assuming daily (4.4 hours) expenditures of $25.00, from 1982 to 2001 .............................. 29
Figure 8. Spear fishing effort for walleye in the Napanee and Moira Rivers for 1994 to 1999 ..... 32
Figure 9. Spring spear fishing harvest of walleye by the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte between
1994 and 1999 ...................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 10. Decision framework for the determination and authorization of HADD of fish habitat 39
Figure 11. DFO review process .................................................................................................... 43
Figure 12. Permits issued for physical aquatic macrophyte removal in the Bay of Quinte from
2000 to 2002 ......................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 13. MNR review process ................................................................................................... 56
Figure 14. Interagency Review Process by Conservation Authorities in the Quinte region ......... 62
lisfofTables
Table 1. General Bay of Quinte fish community history from prior to the 1950's to 2002 ............... 9
Table 2. Fish species historically and currently present in the Bay of Quinte ................................. 9
Table 3. List of fish species recorded passing through the Dunnville fishway on the Grand River,
Ontario .................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 4. Population trends (in thousands) of counties and municipalities surrounding the Bay of
Quinte .................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 5. A list of shoreline and riparian use around the Bay of Quinte ........................................ 20
Table 6. Angling effort, measured in angler rod-hours, for Bay of Quinte fisherman from 1982 to
2001 ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 7. Summary count of Bay of Quinte businesses and facilities at least partially dependent
on the recreational fishery, for the years 1990, 2000 and 2003 ........................................... 30
Table 8. The number of entrants in Bay of Quinte fishing tournaments from 1990 to 2003 ........ 30
Table 9. A list of work permits issued under the Public Lands Act for townships surrounding the
Bay of Quinte from 2000 to 2002 .......................................................................................... 52
Table 10. List of aquatic herbicide permits issued by MOE for the years 2001 and 2002 in the
Bay of Quinte ........................................................................................................................ 58
Appendices
Appendix I
List of Acronyms
Appendix II
Summary of All Fish Habitat Issues
Table of Contents
iii
January 2005
I
In 1985 the govemments of Canada and the United States of America designated the
Bay of Quinte as one of 43 'Areas of Concem' (AOC) around the Great Lakes basin,
where beneficial water uses were impaired (e.g. loss of fish habitat, degradation of fish
and wildlife populations, etc.). The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1987)
represented a commitment on behalf of the Canadian and U.S. govemments to restore
the impaired beneficial water uses in these degraded ecosystems. Remedial Action
Plans (RAP) were mandated for each AOC, to define problems and develop action plans
to resolve them.
The Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan (BQRAP) began in 1986 with a
federal/provincial Coordinating Committee to oversee the RAP development. A Public
Advisory Committee was also established in 1988 to manage public involvement in the
RAP. The ten impaired beneficial water uses (IBU's) for the Bay of Quinte were outlined
in the BQRAP Stage II document, Time to Act (BQRAP 1993). One of the impaired
beneficial water uses was the alteration, fragmentation, and loss of fish habitat. It was
recommended in the Stage II document that a comprehensive management plan be
developed for littoral zone and wetland rehabilitation and protection.
The purpose of the Backgrounder document is to provide the information necessary for
the preparation of the Fish Habitat Management Plan (e.g. it will act as a spring board for
the Plan). This document collates Bay of Quinte information regarding what we have
(current state of fish habitat), what it means (socio-economics), how it is managed
(agency roles and responsibilities), and what the problems are (concems of agencies
and stakeholders, and historical habitat impacts).
Review of the Backgrounder
document is intended to stimulate ideas to improve habitat protection and restore
degraded habitat in support of de-listing criteria (see "Goals and Objectives" section).
Ideas will be used to draft a Fish Habitat Plan. Implementation of the Plan should help
achieve de-listing criteria for impaired beneficial use (lBU) #14, the loss of fish habitat.
1.1
Fish Habitat
The Fisheries Act defines fish habitat as: "spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food
supply, and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry
out their life processes". Fish habitat consists of those physical, chemical and biological
attributes of the environment (e.g., substrate type and structure, aquatic macrophytes,
water depth, water velocity, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, riparian vegetation,
etc.) which are required by fish to carry out their life processes (e.g., spawning, nursery,
rearing, feeding, over-wintering, migration).
Virtually all Bay of Quinte fish species will utilize nearshore habitat to fulfill at least one
life stage requirement. Unfortunately, it is this zone that is most threatened by
development projects that take place in and near the water. The nearshore zone may
be defined as the area extending from the high water mark to the bottom of the photic
zone, which is the depth to which light penetrates the water-column (not a universally
accepted definition). This zone ranges from approximately two meters in the upper Bay,
down to about eight m~t~rs around Conway in the lower Bay. The penetration of light to
the benthos within this zone allows for the growth of aquatic macrophytes and
periphyton. Within this zone a wide variety of physical, chemical and biological
characteristics exist. Wave-washed gravel and cobble are important to some species
Section 1: Introduction
1
January 2005
while beds of emergent or submerged aquatic plants are important to other species.
Some habitats are primarily dry and only available to fish during periods of high water.
These temporary habitats can be critically important for fishes and need to be managed
with this in mind.
(Adapted from SSRAP 1993)
1.2
Effects of Shoreline Activities on Fish Habitat
The nearshore zone in the Bay of Quinte and its tributaries provides habitat for valuable
sport and commercial fishes like walleye, small mouth and largemouth bass, yellow
perch, sunfish, northern pike and black crappie. Maintaining nearshore habitat in a
natural, dynamic state ensures that there are a variety of habitats to support the needs
of the Bay's diverse fish community.
With increased development along the shoreline and tributaries of the Bay of Quinte
comes an increased threat to nearshore fish habitat. For example, shoreline
development and marine construction can smother or bury eggs or permanently alter
water movement and substrate, reducing or eliminating the productive capacity of the
shoreline. When habitats are altered or eliminated, the capacity of the Bay of Quinte to
sustain a balanced and naturally reproducing fish community is reduced. The loss or
alteration of habitat during any life stages could contribute to adverse changes in the fish
community.
C'·
!
The lands adjacent to the nearshore areas (riparian habitat) are also highly important to
fish. Riparian habitat is dry most of the year, yet is recognized as being highly important
to protecting fish habitat. Natural vegetation within this area stabilizes the shoreline,
purifies water, and contributes to fish food and cover. Trees, and shrubs, provide shade
and eventually fall into the water, providing excellent habitat. It is difficult for people to
understand that altering their shoreline and removing the associated upland vegetation
is harming the Bay of Quinte. However, when one considers the number of people living
along the water's edge and how important nearshore and riparian zones are, the
cumulative impacts become more apparent.
(Adapted from SSRAP 1993)
1.3
/
Fish Habitat Management Plan Purpose
/The purpose of the Fish Habitat Plan is to develop initiatives to eventually de-list the Bay
Lpf Quinte as an Area of Concern for IBU #14, the loss of fish habitat. In addition to the
QIOSS of fiHSh bhat bitat, degradatitontof fis~ POPulllations hrtads allso. been idlenftifietdhaslBaUn IBUh.iln
umte. a I at managemen s rategles WI suppo
e- ISt mg goa s or IS
, W Ie
focusing on de-listing goals for the loss of fish habitat. The BQRAP goals and targets for
achieving the de-listing criteria are listed in section 2.0.
"
'\
The Fish Habitat Management Plan will cover the area from the western limit of the Bay
" west of Trenton, to Hwy. 21 near Sandhurst (across from Glenora) in the east. The Plan
will develop implementation strategies that not only fulfill de-listing criteria, but support
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) policy, Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP's),
and Ontario Ministry c. of Natural Resources (MNR) Fish Community Objectives.
Implementation strategies identified in the Plan will restore lost and degraded fish
habitat, and address the concerns of the public, in support of the de-listing targets .
. /
Section 1: Introduction
2
C;'<,
January 2005
2.0 .• G()lIls~nd()l>jectilles'··
The main goals for the Fish Habitat Management Plan include maintaining and restoring
fish habitat and fish communities in the Bay of Quinte. RAP de-listing targets for these
impaired beneficial water uses will be used as measures of success. Indicators further
detail how achievement of goals may be measured. The goals, targets, indicators and
guidelines collectively provide the framework around which implementation ideas for the
Plan will be developed.
2.1
Goals
1. Achieve an overall Net Gain of productive capacity of fish habitats through
conservation of current productive capacity and restoration and enhancement of
damaged fish habitats. Habitat should be of sufficient quality and quantity to support the
healthy production and distribution of fishes (aquatic ecosystem indicators) in and
adjacent to the Bay of Quinte.
The achievement of Net Gain is guided by the DFO's 1986 Policy for the Management of
Fish Habitat, which is summarized below:
•
Conservation - The guiding principle for the conservation of fish habitat is to
achieve No Net Loss (NNL) of productive capacity. NNL is not a statutory
requirement to be met at all costs and circumstances. The principle considers the
type of habitat in question to avoid losses of habitat or habitat components that
can limit the production of the fisheries resources. Professional judgment and
common sense applied in an informed, cooperative environment by personnel
experienced in habitat management, combined with supportive research, will
achieve no net loss of productive capacity in the majority of cases.
•
Restoration - Restoring fish habitats will complement the conservation goal to
contribute to the achievement of net gain in productive capacity. This goal
requires the continuing support of scientific research to discover and test new
methods for restoring the productive capacity of fish habitats.
•
Enhancement - The productive capacity of habitats may be increased by
manipulating naturally occurring chemical, physical, and biological factors, and
creating, or providing access to, new spawning, rearing and food producing
areas. The objective of habitat enhancement is to generate economic and social
benefits, and to assist in achieving a net gain of habitat. This goal requires the
continuing support of scientific research to discover and test new methods for
increasing the productive capacity of fish habitats. Enhancement should only be
considered after conservation and restoration options have been adequately
explored.
The above goal is supported by agency goals for DFO (1986 Policy), RAP, LaMP, MNR
and for the Species at Risk Act, should Act information become available.
2. Fish communities should be healthy, diverse, self-sustaining, exist in dynamic
equilibrium, and anthropogenic impacts should be minimized.
This goal combines RAP and LaMP goals and ,Objectives.
Section 2: Goals and Objectives
3
I
2.2
January 2005
RAP De-listing Targets
The following are RAP de-listing targets that support the goals listed above:
1. To the greatest extent possible, protect, rehabilitate and restore fish habitat in the Bay
of Quinte (related to IBU #14).
2. Encourage municipal, broad public and sectoral support! advocacy for the Fish Habitat
Management Plan recommendations (related to IBU #14).
3. Demonstrate that key fish species - including walleye, bass and pike - are present in
numbers consistent with a stable, diverse and healthy aquatic ecosystem (related to IBU
#3).
4. Demonstrate that key indicator species for upland and coastal wetlands are present
and in sufficient numbers to be self-sustaining (related to IBU #3).
2.3
Indicators
Indicators will be used to measure the achievement of de-listing targets and goals.
Indicators that goals and targets are being met include:
1. Presence of key fish species in numbers consistent with an unimpaired ecosystem
(BQRAP 2003).
2. A diverse array of prey fish populations should be sufficient to support healthy,
productive populations of predator fishes (Lake Ontario LaMP 2002).
3. Self-sustaining and balanced numbers of walleye, bass and pike, with no one species
dominating (BQRAP 2003).
4. Presence of key fish species in coastal and upland wetlands, and in significant
numbers to be self-sustaining (BQRAP 2003).
5. Monitor achievements of MNR's Fish Community Objectives (Stewart et al. 1999):
•
•
•
Expansion of walleye and yellow perch populations into favourable habitats
Maintain bass and sunfish populations at levels attractive to anglers
Maintain catches of walleye and yellow perch in assessments and in recreational
and commercial fisheries
• Recovery of lake sturgeon populations
**Habitat management will support the above initiatives, but the success of habitat
management should not be measured by fisheries inventories alone, as there are many
variables that influence fish populations in addition to habitat suitability.
6. Develop community-based education, awareness and stewardship programs to inform
the public of fish habitat issues, and foster support for habitat protection and restoration
(BQRAP 2003; Lake Ontario LaMP 2002).
7. Develop and implement a communications plan. Findings of monitoring programs will
be reported annually (BQRAP 2003).
4
2.4
January 2005
Guidelines
The following guidelines are intended for future implementation strategies.
•
•
•
•
•
Protect and restore riparian habitat along the Bay and its tributaries to the
greatest extent possible.
Protect unique and productive fish habitat to the greatest extent possible.
Restore lost or degraded fish habitat to the greatest extent possible.
Limit artificial habitat enhancement to where it is necessary to offset irreversible
damage after relocation, redesign or mitigation options have been implemented.
In these situations, enhancement should aim to increase productive capacity by
manipulating naturally occurring chemical, biological and physical factors, and
creating or providing access to new spawning, rearing and food producing areas.
Integrate species at risk recovery strategies, action plans and management plans
into the Fish Habitat Management Plan, as information becomes available.
S
January 2005
3.0 Fish. Hal:lifat and FishCOlTIlTlullities iJltlle Bay of Quillte
Fish habitat and fish communities have undergone large-scale change over the last
several decades. These changes have generally corresponded to different levels of
phosphorus in the water column which has dictated the type of fish community present.
Less dramatic change has occurred through on-going alteration of fish habitat through
both large-scale projects (Zwick's Island landfill over a coastal wetland) and small-scale
projects (by individual property owners). The cumulative changes in habitat due to the
above projects have resulted in substantial alteration of the Bay's nearshore fish habitat.
3.1
Environmental Setting
The Bay of Quinte is a 'Z' shaped bay on the northeastern shore of eastern Lake
Ontario. The Bay is approximately 100km long and covers an area of about 254km 2 , and
consists of three smaller bays: the upper, middle and lower bays. The Bay of Quinte is
connected to Lake Ontario by the Upper and Lower Gaps on either side of Amhurst
Island, but is largely separated from the Lake by Prince Edward County and Amherst
)sland.
.
The upper Bay, extending from Trenton to Deseronto, is relatively shallow and rarely
"~exceeds 5 meters in depth. The Bay of Quinte flushes from the west (where it is closed
off from Lake Ontario) to the east (where it opens into the Lake). Flushing of the upper
Bay occurs from the inflow of the Trent, Moira, Salmon, and Napanee Rivers, with the
bulk of the inflow from the Trent River. The upper Bay receives no flushing from
oligotrophic Lake Ontario water, and is thus strongly influenced by anthropomorphic
nutrient inflows (e.g. fertilizer runoff, sewage treatment plant outflows) from communities
upstream on the tributaries. The upper Bay waters warm more quickly than the middle
and lower Bays, and usually exceed 20'C in summer.
The middle Bay runs approximately north - south from Deseronto to Glenora and
includes Hay Bay, a shallow expanse draining the Wilton Creek watershed. At an
average depth of 5.2 meters, the middle Bay is deeper than the upper Bay. A.narrow,
8km stretch in the middle Bay is known as Long Reach, the bottom of which connects
with Hay Bay. Backflows from Lake Ontario provide low nutrient waters to the middle
Bay, which provides mixing and dilution of the waters in the middle Bay. Distinct
thermoclines frequently develop in the middle Bay but gradual warming of bottom waters
homogenizes water temperatures in most years. Surface temperatures peak in midAugust, which is later than peak temperatures in the upper Bay.
The lower Bay extends northeast from Glenora to Amherstview. Relative to the other two
bays, it is much deeper with maximum depths greater than 55 meters. Maximum water
temperatures are always less than, and occur later than, the upper and middle Bays.
3.2
3.2.1
Environmental changes through time
Pre-Settlement (pre 1920's)
"In 1615, when Samuel de Champlain explored the Bay of Quinteand Trent River, he
saw an ecosystem in its natural state with seemingly boundless forests and bountiful
supplies of fish, waterfowl and wildlife. The Bay of Quinte ecosystem that Champlain
saw was probably not much different from the one that aboriginal peoples, including the
Section 3: Fish Habitat and Fish Communities in the Bay of Quinte
6
January 2005
Hurons, Senecas, Mississaugas and Mohawks, had been a part of for centuries. Artifacts
unearthed from the Quinte area tell of nomadic peoples pre-dating Champlain's journey
by 5,000 years. No evidence has been found of physical damage to the bay's ecosystem
caused by these original inhabitants. This new world ecosystem would survive
unchanged for most of the next two hundred years following Champlain's first visit.
European settlement of the Quinte area began in the 1780's. These settlers brought with
them an old world culture and economy founded on agriculture and industry, and the
process of re-shaping the ecosystem began immediately. Early in the 1800's the Atlantic
salmon became the first aquatic casualty. With access to many streams and rivers
flowing into the bay and Lake Ontario blocked by dams, the once massive Atlantic
salmon spawning migrations ceased to occur; the species soon disappeared. Since
then, the Bay of Quinte has experienced an almost continuous process of change and
instability."
(BQRAP 1993)
Summary of significant habitat changes
•
•
•
•
•
•
Clearing of forests along shorelines and within the watershed leads to nutrient
enrichment and increased erosion.
River mouths dammed for power blocking fish migration routes, leading to the
disappearance of Atlantic salmon.
Natural flushing of the Bay is altered through the construction of The Trent Canal
and major saw mill operations at Deseronto, Belleville and Trenton.
Construction of Murray Canal disrupts flow regime of the Upper Bay.
Bridge across the Bay of Quinte at Belleville disrupts flow between western and
eastern shores of the upper Bay of Quinte.
Wetlands drained for agriculture resulting in loss of fish and wildlife habitats.
3.2.2 Eutrophication (1930 -1978)
Land clearing and loss of wetlands contributed to increased runoff and associated
phosphorus reaching the Bay. In the 1930's, commercial fisherman first began
complaining of filamentous algae clogging their nets. In the 1950's, Eurasian milfoil and
white perch invaded the Bay. The changing trophic status of the Bay in combination with
biological invaders contributed to the virtual elimination of valuable sport and commercial
fish species, during this time period.
In the last 40 years, dramatic ecosystem changes in the Bay of Quinte have been
associated with 3 phosphorus levels. Prior to 1978, phosphorus inputs were high as
there were no controls on loadings from sewage treatment plants. The aquatic
ecosystem was hyper-eutrophic, characterized by high algal densities, low water clarity,
little aquatic vegetation and frequent anoxic benthos from rotting algae. The fish
community was dominated by white perch with only remnant populations of lake
whitefish, lake herring, walleye and northern pike.
Summary of Significant habitat changes
•
•
Construction orSt Lawrence Seaway eliminates natural water level fluctuations
leading to the loss of coastal wetland diversity (cattail domination), resulting in
decreases in the productive capacity of fish habitat.
12,008 ha of wetland lost, within 3.2km of the shoreline.
7
Backgrounder - Bay of Quinte Fish Habitat Management Ptan
•
•
•
•
January 2005
Shoreline in the upper Bay permanently reshaped and nearshore habitat
destroyed.
Wild rice disappeared (due to lack of water level fluctuations, associated with
maintenance of artificial water levels).
Exotic Eurasian milfoil dominates submerged vegetation.
Bay approaches hyper-eutrophic state.
3.2.3 Phosphorous Control (1978 -1994)
From 1979 to 1995, phosphorus control measures lead to decreases in algal densities.
Zooplankton biomass increases were also noted during this time period. Turbidity was
moderate and aquatic vegetation densities were still low. Walleye became abundant, but
other sport fishes remained in low numbers.
3.2.4 1994 - Present
From 1995 to 2003, phosphorus inputs have remained low as defined by BQRAP
objectives. Zebra mussels colonized the Bay in 1994 leading to increased water clarity,
which resulted in a resurgence of aquatic macrophyte growth. Mussel filtration of
desirable phytoplankton species has reduced the food available to zooplankton and
consequently the fish that feed on zooplankton. Phytoplankton biomass has not changed
significantly but the community structure has been impacted by zebra mussels. The
phytoplankton species Microcystis is grazed less efficiently by zooplankton, allowing it to
reach nuisance levels that cause "blooms".
Historical land changes have resulted in the deterioration of fish habitat associated with
excessive phosphorus reaching the water. The physical alteration of habitat by
shoreline development activities has only recently warranted the attention of fish habitat
managers. The Fisheries Act and the implementation of a Fish Habitat Management
Plan will help conserve, restore and enhance fish habitat for the continued benefit of Bay
of Quinte communities.
Summary of significant habitat changes
•
•
•
•
3.3
Zebra mussel filtration increase water clarity.
Submergent aquatic macrophytes increase in density and distribution.
Zebra mussels reduce the quality of spawning shoals.
Zebra mussels physically alter some areas of rocky habitat to a covering of finer
substrates with submergent vegetation.
Fish Community - changes through time
Fish communities in the Bay of Quinte fish communities have undergone dramatic
changes over time, which generally correspond to different phosphorus levels.
Phosphorus levels cause indirect changes to fisheries by influencing plant growth. Prior
to the 1950's, the Bay of Quinte was a mesotrophic system with a fish community
dominated by lake herring, lake whitefish, walleye, yellow perch and northern pike
(Hurley 1986). Various centrarchids, ictalurids and osmerids were also well represented
locally.
The 'pre-phosphorus control' fish community of 1977 was characterized by high numbers
of small fish with relatively short life spans and high reproductive potentials. By the late
8
January 2005
1970's phosphorus levels were reduced, leading to more fish community changes.
Walleye returned to the Bay and predated heavily on small fishes. A winter-kill of white
perch led to a strong year-class of walleye. The fish community of the next several years
was characterized by abundant walleye with high growth rates. Abnormally cold water
temperatures and continued stocking of lake trout may have caused declines in prey
numbers that lead to decline in condition and eventual population declines in walleye
(Casselman et al. 1999). Continued phosphorus control and zebra mussel invasion in
1994, changed the Bay to a mesotrophic system with already declining numbers of
walleye and increases in Centrarchids (Table 1). Climate change and exotic species
invasions may result in further changes to the Bay of Quinte fish community in the future.
Table 1. General Bay of Quinte fish community history from prior to the 1950's to 2002.
Date
<1950
Trophic
Status
Mesotrophic
<1977
Hypereutrophic
19781995
19952002
Eutrophic to
Mesotrophic
Mesotrophic
Dominant Fish Community and Trends
lake herring to lake whitefish, walleye, yellow perch, northern pike,
white perch i (exotic)
white perch j, small, stunted fish with short Iifespans j, species
listed from before 1950 1 (remnant sport fish populations only)
walleye i, white perch to smallmouth bass i then 1
walleye to small mouth bass t. yellow perch
round goby (exotic) t, Centrarchids t
t then to whitefish to
Table 2 provides a summary of fish species historically and currently found in the Bay of
Quinte. This list was compiled from contemporary and historical information presented
in Hurley (1986) and from recent Lake Ontario Management Unit (LOMU) Annual reports
(1997,1999,2001,2002 and 2003). Table 2 is not intended to provide a list of aI/ fish
species present in the Bay of Quinte, but rather to provide a general idea of what
species and families have historically and presently been found in the Bay. It should be
noted that the sampling gears for the data presented in Hurley (1986) are unknown and
sampling programs conducted by LOMU are not designed to capture all fish species
present in the Bay of Quinte.
Table 2. Fish species historically and currently present in the Bay of Quinte
Name
Scientific Name
Ic,a,rps & Minnows -
9
January 2005
Scientific
Ii
I"C'ul~'" I~
-
Cottidae
- Gasterosteidae
- Catostomidae
10
January 2005
- Percichthyidae
and
Grey cells indicate species that were historically recorded (as cited in Hurley 1986), but were not captured
during Hurley's research (Hurley 1986).
Bold indicates species that are now extinct in Lake Ontario (Crossman and Van Meter 1979, as cited in
Hurley 1986)
Native populations of Atlantic salmon were extirpated from Lake Ontario and the Bay of Quinte in the late
18008. Atlantic salmon populations are currently being stocked in an effort to restore Atlantic salmon to
Lake Ontario and its tributaries.
n
A star
indicates fish species that are currently listed as at risk in the Bay of Quinte (compiled from Global
rank, provincial rank, COSEWIC status, MNR status)
An understanding of fish habitat requirements is required in order to protect and restore
fish habitat for a target species or for a group of species (e.g. forage fish, bait fish). It is
important to have an understanding of the five key habitat types (as defined by the
Fisheries Act) for species to complete their life cycle (e.g. spawning, nursery, rearing,
food supply and migration). Information regarding habitat preferences of the species
listed above can be found in Scott and Crossman 1973, Lane et al. 1996a, Lane et al.
1996b. and Lane et al. 1996c. Information regarding species habitat requirements can
also be found on the 'The Ontario Freshwater Fishes Life History Database' website
(http://www.afs-soc.org/fishdb/home.htm).
3.4
Habitat Impacts - Historical and Ongoing
The following headings under section 3.4 will highlight major habitat impacts. Impacts
will be identified as to whether they are manageable or unmanageable, and within these
categories, whether the impact is on-going or not.
11
Backgrounde, - Bay of Quinte Fish Habitat Management Plan
3.4.1
3.4.1.1
January 2005
Unmanageable Impacts
Climate Change
Future fish habitat conditions will depend in part on how climate actually changes in the
future. Effects will be on-going and there may be management options available to
address some changes associated with climate change. This section will highlight some
of the possible changes that may take place in the Bay of Quinte. Obviously, the manner
in which climate change in this region will unfold is unknown and thus the changes on
fish habitat are uncertain.
Climatic change and water levels can produce changes in wetland surface area,
biomass and diversity, as well as fish recruitment and growth (Hudon 2003). Additional
climate changes may include increasing amounts of lake effect snowfall (Great Lakes
Radio Consortium 2003), which may improve spawning and nursery conditions for
springtime river-spawning species (due to greater amounts of spring runoff). A change
in the seasonality of precipitation away from the normal could harm plants or animals
whose life cycles require certain amounts of water at specific times of the year
(Environment Canada 2000).
Greater productivity through the summer due to warmer water, combined with lower
tributary discharge due to less precipitation, may produce anoxic conditions more
frequently in late winter in the upper Bay. However, increased lake effect snow via
warmer lake temperatures, and warmer winter temperatures in general, may induce
frequent snow-melts and little ice cover which would reduce the chance of anoxic
conditions developing. If climate change affects lake levels, runoff from tributaries, and
ice thickness, processes such as erosion rates along shorelines may change, this may
affect fish habitat.
Dramatic increases in water temperatures have the potential to return the Bay to a
hyper-eutrophic state similar to pre-remediation conditions. Global warming is predicted
by some models to increase water temperatures by 3-4 °c in the Bay. It is estimated that
such an increase in temperature would cause a positive reflux of phosphorus from the
Bay's sediments that would approximately double total phosphorus concentrations. Such
an increase in phosphorus could be expected to return the Bay to a state of hypereutrophy, with reduced water clarity and distribution of submergent plant communities
(Nicholls 1999).
Generally, increases in summer water temperatures are expected to increase year-class
strengths of warm-water fish species like small mouth bass. Casselman (2002) correlated
July-August water temperatures in the Bay of Quinte with year-class strengths of
representative warm-water, cool-water and cold-water fish species, to help predict the
impact on global warming on year-class strengths. A 3°C increase above the average
July-August water temperatures has been correlated to an approximate 15-fold increase
in small mouth bass year-class strength for the Bay of Quinte. Increases in temperatures
exhibit a more complex relationship with the year-class strengths of northern pike. Slight
increases in July-August water temperatures (0.1 rc) lead to slight increases in pike
year-class strengths. Increases above 0.1 rc, as well as decreases in July-August
water temperatures below the average, exhibit a negative relationship with year-class
strengths (Casselman 2002). Perhaps the amount of snow and the rate of spring snowmelt would exhibit a relationship with year-class strengths of pike, as they spawn on
floodplains of creeks and rivers. Climate change may influence these factors that may
affect the suitability of pike spawning habitat.
12
January 2005
Late summer water levels, mid-summer water temperatures, duration of ice cover
through the previous winter have been linked to northern pike year-class strengths
(Smith et al. 2003). Climate change would likely influence all of these dynamic fish
habitat features. Water level, in particular, dictates the inter-annual supply of habitat for
pike and the intra-annual risk of catastrophic mortality due to stranding of flooding during
critical life stages (Minns et al. 2003).
Alteration of water levels and macrophyte abundance due to climate change may affect
suitability of habitat for walleye in the Bay of Quinte (Chu et al. 2003). Suitable optical
habitat appears to be limiting to Bay of Quinte fishes. The upper Bay's walleye suitability
is particularly sensitive to changes in water levels and macrophyte coverage, and has
been declining steadily since the invasion of the zebra mussel.
Environmental perturbations may increase as a result of climate change. Widespread
changes to the Bay's fish community, including the beginning of declines in walleye
populations in the mid-90's, has been linked to such perturbations (Casselman et al.
1999).
Examples of on-going and completed research studying the effects of climate changes
on fish and their habitat include:
•
•
•
Managing St. Lawrence River Discharge in Times of Climatic Uncertainty: How
Water Quantity Impacts Wildlife, Recreation and Economy - Relevant to Quinte
because St.Lawrence River discharge influences Lake Ontario water levels.
Effects of Climatic and Hydrological Variability on Recruitment of Northern Pike in
the Upper St.Lawrence River and Lake Ontario.
Effects of Temperature, Global Extremes, and Climate Change on year-Class
Production of Warm-water, Cool-water, and Coldwater Fishes in the Great Lakes
Basin (Casselman 2002).
3.4.1.2 Invasive Species
Zebra Mussels
Zebra mussels first colonized the Bay in 1994. They are well established throughout the
Bay and have produced on-going and unmanageable habitat changes. Their extensive
distribution and abundance has lead to clearer water as a result of their filter-feeding
habits. The increase in water clarity has lead to the resurgence of aquatic macrophytes
in the Bay, which have increased in both abundance and distribution. This change in
habitat has caused a shift in the fish community. In general, habitat in the upper and
parts of the middle Bay has become more suitable to maneuverable fishes like those
from the Centrarchidae family, ambush predators like pike and muskellunge, and small
fishes. Habitat for roaming, light sensitive predators like walleye is now less than ideal in
the Upper Bay. There is still abundant deeper, open-water habitat for walleye in the
middle and lower Bays.
Beyond the changes in habitat discussed above, zebra mussels can also physically alter
rock substrate. Dense colonies of zebra mussels can completely cover rock and allow
finer sediments to settle between them, potentially making the habitat less suitable for
rock-spawning fishes. Ov.er time, submergent aquatic plants may begin colonizing the
fine substrate deposits among the zebra mussels. The sharp edges of the zebra mussel
shells are also a deterrent to potential spawning fish, as they can cause abrasions and
lacerations.
13
January 2005
Shallow nearshore rock habitat may be less susceptible to longer-term habitat changes
due to zebra mussel colonization. Low water levels and thick ice formation can rid
several feet of nearshore habitat of zebra mussels, potentially benefiting nearshore
spring-spawners that spawn over rock.
Round Goby
The round goby is fast becoming a key member of the Bay of Quinte nearshore fish
community (Taraborelli and Schaner 2002). Gobies feed heavily on zebra mussels; in
the western basin of Lake Erie they are capable of removing approximately one third of
the annual zebra mussel production (T. Johnson, Lake Erie Management Unit, MNR,
pers. comm.). Therefore there may be potential for gobies to reduce some of the
physical alterations of habitat caused by zebra mussels.
Zebra mussels represent a potential energy sink in the Bay of Quinte foodweb (Dermott
2003). The round goby may represent a new energy pathway up to piscivores. Lake St.
Clair small mouth bass and muskellunge fisheries have exploded following the invasion
of the round goby (following zebra mussel invasion). Gobies are believed to be
responsible, in part, for the positive growth of these fisheries however there is not yet
any science to substantiate this hypothesis (T. Johnson, Lake Erie Management Unit,
MNR, pers. comm.).
3.4.1.3
Migratory Barriers
Migratory barriers exist on all major Bay of Quinte tributaries (the Trent, Moira, Salmon
and Napanee Rivers) close to where they discharge into the Bay of Quinte. Diverse
riverine habitats provide many species of fish with suitable spawning, nursery, rearing
and adult habitat. Migrations of fishes in and out of rivers from the Bay may increase the
production of fishes within the Bay simply by increasing the amount of spawning, nursery
and rearing habitat available to these fishes. If spawning or nursery habitat is limiting,
then lack of access to rivers may limit populations of certain fish species in the Bay.
Disruption of migratory access and degrading habitat are believed to have lead to the
extirpation of the Atlantic salmon from Lake Ontario.
Migratory barriers are both manageable and unmanageable, depending on the tributary
in question. Barriers have undoubtedly disrupted normal fish migrations between the Bay
and its tributaries. The effects of this disruption on the productive capacity of the Bay are
uncertain.
Trent River
The Trent River waterway is unmanageable in terms of allowing normal fish migrations,
due to the nature of the numerous locks throughout the system. Flow manipulation via
the Trent-Severn waterway lock system is on-going, yet the effects on habitat and
fisheries are unknown. Manipulating flows to potentially benefit fishes in the Bay of
Quinte may not be possible under the Trent-Severn waterway mandate to protect lives
and property, and to allow boat movement through the system.
The Grand River in southern Ontario flows into Lake Erie at Port Maitland. The size of
the river and the fact that is discharges into a Great Lake is comparable to the Trent
River that flows into the Bay of Quinte which connects to Lake Ontario. A fishway was
installed in Dunville along the Grand River to facilitate the movement of fishes between
the River and Lake Erie. A list of fish species passing through the fishway indicates the
14
January 2005
types of species that may be expected to make migrations between the Bay and the
Trent River (Table 3). Refinements have since been made to the fishway to allow
weaker-swimming species to move through, so the fishes listed may not capture every
species that may migrate between the Grand River and Lake Erie.
Table 3. List of fish species recorded passing through the Dunnville fishway on the Grand River,
Ontario (Tom McDougall, Lake Erie Management Unit, pers. comm.).
Common Name
sea lamprey
10nQnose Qar
alewife
qizzard shad
rainbow trout
brown trout
northern pike
mooneye
sucker family
quillback
white sucker
northern hog sucker
silver red horse
golden redhorse
shorthead redhorse
greater redhorse
river red horse
red horse sp.
common carp
bullhead catfishes
brown bullhead
channel catfish
white perch
white bass
rock bass
bluegill
small mouth bass
larQemouth bass
bass sp.
white crappie
black crappie
walleye
freshwater drum
Scientific Name
Petromyzon marinus
Lepisosteus osseus
Alosa pseudoharenqus
Dorosoma cef)edianum
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salmo trulta
Esox lucius
Hiodon te'f}isus
Catostomidae
Carpiodes cyprinus
Catostomus commersoni
Hypentelium nigricans
Moxostoma anisurum
Moxostoma eryfhrurum
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Moxostoma valenciennesi
Moxostoma carinatum
Moxostoma sp.
Cyprinus carpio
Ictaluridae
Ameiurus nebulosus
Ictalurus punctatus
Morone americana
Marone chrysops
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieui
Micropterus salmoides
Micropterus Sf).
Pomoxis annularis
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Stizostedion vitreum
Aplodinotus !J(unniens
While the list provides no indication of the effects that these migrations may have on
productive capacity, it is evident that a significant natural process has been disrupted
and can potentially be restored. The effects of restoring migratory access, on productive
capacity and fish community dynamics of upstream and downstream habitats, is worthy
of further investigation. Restoring migratory fish access through the Trent River is not
feasible due to the massive cost that would be associated with installing fishways
through multiple locks, put is feasible on smaller rivers and creeks.
15
January 2005
3.4.1.4 Zwick's Island
Zwick's Island is a permanent large-scale loss of approximately 12.6 hectares of coastal
wetland habitat that has taken place at the mouth of the Moira River. The habitat was
filled with toxic materials to form parkland and marinas. The effects of the fill are ongoing because of toxins leaching into the Bay from the site. Commercial fisherman
indicated that the habitat was highly productive for both fish and wildlife. Reclamation of
this lost habitat is not possible due to the cost and the potential impacts of disturbing the
toxic fill materials. The lost habitat was a unique coastal wetland associated with a river
mouth and is irreplaceable. The next best option for replacing this lost habitat may be to
restore a degraded coastal wetland to offset some of the lost productive capacity.
3.4.1.5
Murray Canal
The Murray canal is a permanent, unmanageable, on-going disruption to fish habitat.
The canal was constructed prior to the 1930's with the purpose to connect the extreme
west end of the upper Bay of Quinte with Presquille Bay on Lake Ontario. The canal may
alter the natural hydrology of the Bay by allowing water to either leave or enter the Bay
from Lake Ontario. This may affect thermal regimes, erosion and deposition rates,
macrophyte colonization, ice formation and possibly other processes. Anecdotal reports
suggest that walleye use the canal to enter the Bay of Quinte from Lake Ontario in the
fall.
3.4.1.6
Highway 62 Bridge
The Highway 62 bridge is a permanent, unmanageable and on-going alteration of fish
habitat. The construction of the Highway 62 bridge caused significant habitat change
locally and possibly throughout the upper Bay. Rock piles were placed in the Bay which
effectively narrowed the area that water could freely pass between the east and west
sides of the upper Bay, likely changing hydrology. Anecdotally, it has been reported that
habitat was altered around the bridge by the creation of under water shoals and the
excavation of deep trenches. The effects of these alterations on overall productive
capacity of the local habitat are unknown, although they appear to have increased local
fish densities. For example, the alterations have attracted a mix of fish species and the
area remains a popular fishing location for walleye and small mouth bass in particular.
3.4.1.7
Causeways to Big and Sawguin Islands
The causeways represent a permanent, unmanageable, on-going alteration of coastal
wetland habitat. Both causeways have had similar effects on habitat but at different
scales. The causeway to Big Island may have decreased water flows between the island
and the mainland of Prince Edward County. According to local commercial fisherman,
the habitat has been negatively affected by the installation of the causeways. Prior to the
construction of the Big Island causeway, the fish habitat between the island and the
mainland was marsh with deep 8-12 foot undercut channels between stands of cattails
and other aquatic plants. The channels were highly productive for catfish, pike other
warm-water species. After completion of the causeway, the channels filled in with silt and
cattails now cover the entire area from the island to the mainland. Periods of high-water
can cause stands of emergent plants to die-off (Quinlan and Mulamootil 1987). These
die-offs are necessary'forinaintaining coastal marshes in an early successional state.
Manipulation of Lake Ontario water levels has decreased natural water level fluctuations
and may have contributed to the proliferation of cattails in the Big Island/Muscote Bay
16
Sackgruunder - Say of Quinte Fish Habitat Management Plan
January 2005
area. The effects of Lake Ontario water level manipulation will be discussed in Section
3.4.2.5, the manageable habitat impacts section.
The causeway to Sawguin Island has had similar effects on local habitat. After the
installation of the causeway, the fish habitat filled in with silt and is currently dense cattail
marsh where it was formerly open water undercut channels through cattails and other
aquatic macrophytes.
3.4.2
3.4.2.1
Manageable Impacts
Increased Abundance of Aquatic Macrophytes
Aquatic macrophytes may be removed and are therefore manageable, yet they are so
widespread that realistically they are unmanageable. Macrophyte abundance and
distribution is dynamic and therefore impacts! effects associated with exotic! native
species of plants is on-going. Aquatic macrophyte distribution and abundance has
increased in the Bay of Quinte due to increases in water clarity. Remedial actions
associated with decreasing phosphorus inputs, but mainly the filtering activities of zebra
mussels, are responsible for the increased water clarity.
"Key to the Bay of Quinte's recovery is a return of macrophytes. They will assist in
reducing the feedback of phosphorus from the sediments, and provide habitat for the
algal grazers and white perch predators (BQRAP 1990)." These habitat changes have
indeed occurred and may be restoring a more balanced fish community in the Bay of
Quinte. However, excessive macrophyte coverage in the upper Bay may reduce the
suitability of habitat for a roaming, more open-water type predator like walleye, which is
by far the most desired fish species in the area.
Among the factors of importance to fish habitat are the species composition of both
plants and fish in the waterbody in question. Exotic (non-native) plant species such as
Eurasian water milfoil tend to crowd out native species and may provide less diverse and
productive habitat than does a mixture of native species (Keast 1984; Smith and Barko
1996). Dense cover provided by milfoil allows high survival rates of young fish, which
may be a result of reduced foraging efficiency of predators (due to the high density of
cover) (Lillie and Budd 1992; Engel 1995). The net ecological effect of Eurasian watermilfoil can lead to declines in growth and vigor for warm-water fisheries (Madsen et al.
1995). Plans to remove macrophytes need to consider the plant species present and
possibly focus on the removal of exotics only, as a general guideline. However, the
acceptability of removing plants depends on their ecological value and the effects of
removal, not whether they are native or exotic.
Aquatic macrophytes are manageable through either mechanical harvest or by herbicide
application. Anyon-going management plans for removing macrophytes should be
coupled with scientific designs to assess the impacts on fish communities.
3.4.2.2
Awareness and Attitudes regarding Fish Habitat
The general lack of public knowledge regarding how any activities impact fish habitat is a
manageable and on-going issue. What we do on land is reflective of conditions in the
water. Therefore anyone residing, working or visiting the Bay area has the potential to
affect fish habitat! water quality.
People working in and around water can harm fish habitat by not following regulations or
best management practices. Unwise practices like leaving exposed soil near the water,
Section 3: Fish Habitat and Fish Communities in the Say of Quinte
17
January 2005
can allow sediments and other pollutants to enter the water, causing impacts to fishes
and their habitat.
Realtors and lawyers have the potential to negatively impact fish habitat indirectly by
encouraging shoreline property owners to clear riparian vegetation to increase property
values. It is likely that realtor and lawyers do not under stand the consequences of these
actions. Erosion problems may result, pollutants are more likely to reach the water, and
that the vegetation that provides food and cover for aquatic life will be lost.
Shoreline property owners have great potential to impact habitat through faulty septic
systems, fertilizer application, riparian vegetation removal, installation of shoreline
structures, boat traffic, fuel spills and many more. It is likely that shoreline property
owners are not aware of the consequences of their actions.
Municipal road workers have the potential to directly impact habitat or create situations
where deleterious substances may enter drainage systems and thus affect fish habitat.
Municipal staff may enforce property standards by-laws which encourage landowners to
maintain well-groomed lawns, including those along shorelines. Shoreline residents may
be unaware that natural vegetation along shorelines contributes to good fish habitat and
water quality.
People living in more upland locations away from the Bay of Quinte also have the
potential to impact fish habitat. Harmful soil particles from exposed gardens and shortcut lawns can make their way to storm sewers which lead to fish habitat. Fertilizers,
pesticides, oil, gas, washer fluid, antifreeze, can all make their way down driveways, into
the sewer system and into the Bay of Quinte. Some areas have storm water
management facilities that improve water quality before it is discharged into surface
waters. Other areas have no such facilities or are drained by ditches instead of sewer
systems. Ditches tend to be maintained like lawns.
3.4.2.3
Loss and alteration of nearshore fish habitat and riparian vegetation
Increased community growth may increase development in prime real-estate areas like
shorelines. Development along shorelines and in the water has great potential to impact
fish habitat and riparian vegetation. Most fish species in the Bay of Quinte rely on
nearshore habitat to fulfill various lifestages. Population projections may give an
indication of the potential for future shoreline development around the Bay.
The Bay of Quinte is surrounded by three counties: Hastings County covers the north
shoreline of the upper Bay, Lennox and Addington County covers the east side of the
middle bay, and Prince Edward County covers the entire southern shoreline of the Bay.
Hastings County has the greatest population and the greatest projected population
growth of approximately 15 percent from 2001 to 2020. Lennox and Addington County
has about one third the population of Hastings County and the projected growth is for
approximately a ten percent increase from 2001 to 2020. Prince Edward county has a
population of about one quarter that of Hastings county, with a projected increase of
approximately 15 percent from 2001 to 2020 (Table 4).
18
January 2005
Table 4. Population trends (in thousands) of counties and municipalities surrounding the Bay of
Quinte.
Projections
Past Trends
Region
Counties
Hastings
Lennox and
Addinqton
Prince Edward
Total
1986
1996
1999
2001
2006
2011
2016
2021
109.3
123.4
124.1
125.9
129.9
136.4
138.2
142.3
34.3
22.4
166
40.3
25.7
189.4
40.5
26
190.6
39.5
24.9
190.3
41.6
27.7
199.2
49.8
25.4
211.6
43.5
29.2
210.9
44.5
30
216.8
Municipalities
41.7
41.4
Quinte West
Belleville
46.0
46.2
Mohawk
Oeseronto
1.9
1.8
1.8
Greater Napanee 15.0
15.1
Prince Edward
County
22.4
25.0
24.9
Total
129.7
129.2
..
Past trends from Statistics Canada (Population and Dwelling Counts) and proJeclions from the Ontaflo
Ministry of Finance (Population Projections, 1999-2028), July 2000.
A dash (-) indicates that data is unavailable.
Nearshore Habitat
Nearshore fish habitat alterations are an on-going and manageable issue in the Bay of
Quinte. The regulatory process (outlined in Section 5 of this document) focuses on
managing the physical alteration of fish habitat for in-water work. Nearshore and
deepwater habitats of the Bay of Quinte have been physically altered, fragmented andlor
lost (BQRAP 1990). Comparisons of historical and recent aerial photographs show
dramatic shoreline changes, particularly around Trenton and Belleville.
In a survey completed in the early 1990's, erosion control structures and agricultural
practices accounted for 20.1 km's of shoreline in the Bay, not including shoreline east of
Glenora (Table 5). This figure does not include shoreline structures like docks, or
boathouses.
The cumulative impacts of nearshore alterations on productive capacity of fish habitats
are unknown. Individual shoreline projects are managed to achieve no net loss but there
needs to be a measure of the overall effects of small individual losses or gains
associated with each project.
The nature of the project determines its effects on fish habitat. The Fisheries Act has
provided legislative backbone for more rigorous habitat protection. Projects that occurred
without restrictions under the Fisheries Act are likely to have produced greater habitat
impacts. Projects like shorewalls are generally prohibited now but were a common
method of controlling ~rosion prior to the Fisheries Act being implemented. Installation of
artificial structures in or near the water may interfere with dynamic shoreline processes.
Water movement, erosion, deposition, water temperature, substrate, and water depth
may be affected by structures that interfere with dynamic shoreline processes.
19
January 2005
Table 5. A list of shoreline and riparian use around the Bay of Quinte (MNR 1993).
Shoreline Use
erosion control
agriculture
cattle access
Total (km)
Riparian Use
paved
mowed lawn
developed aQricultural land
pasture
campQrounds (2)
orchards (3)
resorts (4)
trailer park (3)
boat launches (209)
Total (ha)
Shoreline
(kml
Len~th
20.1
10.0
1.7
31.8
Riparian Area
(ha)
12.6
1050.0
600.0
320.0
87.8
1.6
2.9
2.2
2077.1
Riparian Vegetation
The loss of natural riparian vegetation is a manageable and on-going issue in the Bay of
Quinte area. Currently there is no legislation protecting this valuable resource but these
areas may be managed by developing effective by-laws or education campaigns in the
future.
Natural riparian habitat performs many functions that contribute to healthy and
productive fish habitat. The trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation take up nutrients
and toxins that may otherwise reach the water. They also provide shade and directly
contribute to habitat as woody materials fall into the water. Dead plant material provides
habitat and food for invertebrates that fish feed on. The plants reduce erosion rates and
thereby reduce water turbidity. Loss of these functions may lead to reductions in the
productive capacity of fish habitat.
The function of natural riparian habitat is impaired or lost as these areas are converted to
other uses. There are many ways in which riparian habitat may be impacted or removed.
The rpain threat to riparian habitat comes from shoreline property owners removing
vegetation for aesthetic purposes (Table 5). In addition, most people are unaware that
fish will use habitats that are seasonally flooded and the removal of vegetation from
these habitats may be detrimental to fishes like northern pike.
3.4.2.4 Flow Regime on the Trent River
Flow regimes through the Trent River system have been altered by several locks
intended to allow boat passage from Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay and maintain specific
water levels in Trent River lakes. Flow regimes are manageable but their impacts on Bay
of Quinte fish habitat are·not. The Trent River is the major tributary of the Bay of Quinte,
contributing greater volumes of water to the Bay at any given time, than all other major
tributaries combined. Specific effects of altering normal flow regimes on the Bay's fish
habitat are unknown.
20
January 2005
The upper Bay of Quinte is shallow and productive which makes it somewhat prone to
winter-kill. Winter-kill is caused when dissolved oxygen in the water becomes depleted
due to the biological oxygen demand for decomposition of organic matter. The Trent
River carries dissolved oxygen into the Bay under the ice and therefore may have the
potential to reduce anoxic conditions. If low-flows occur on the Trent in late winter as a
result of a lack of precipitation, lack of snow melt, low water conditions in the watershed
or flow management, the capability of the River to reduce the probability of winter-kill
may be reduced.
3.4.2.5
Fluctuating Water Levels
Fluctuating water levels in Lake Ontario is both a manageable and unmanageable fish
habitat impact, as control measures cannot fully regulate water levels. Effects of lake
level manipulation are on-going. The alteration of coastal wetlands to cattail dominated
wetlands is believed to be caused by water level manipulation. This is a manageable
and on-going fish habitat issue in the Bay of Quinte and throughout Lake Ontario.
Water levels are regulated in Lake Ontario, mainly to maintain minimum flows through
the St. Lawrence River for shipping traffic. The result of these water level manipulations
was a reduction in both extreme high and low water levels and alteration of the timing of
the normal seasonal changes (Wilcox et al. 2004). Changes in water levels alter wetland
surface area, biomass and diversity, as well as the recruitment and growth of fishes
(Hudon 2003). Freshwater coastal marshes are dynamic systems whose characteristics
are largely determined by water depth, both spatially and temporally (Quinlan and
Mulamoottil 1987). Periods of high water levels are believed to be necessary for
maintaining coastal marshes in a highly productive early successional state. In the
absence of these perturbations, emergent plants colonize and take over, which may
reduce the habitat supply and diversity available to fishes.
Some coastal marshes in Quinte have been transformed into dense stands of cattails, of
little value to fish. Channels have been dug through the cattail monocultures in Sawguin
Creek and along the St. Lawrence River, in attempts to re-create coastal marsh
conditions reflective of normal lake level fluctuations. Effects monitoring took place for
the work in the Sawguin Creek area resulting in the sampling of several fish species from
the enhanced habitat.
In addition to impacting coastal marshes, changes in water levels influence the quality
and quantity of habitat available to fishes. Late summer water levels have been linked to
northern pike year-class strengths (Smith et al. 2003). Inter-annual habitat supply for
pike, and intra-annual risk of catastrophic mortality due to stranding or flooding during
critical life stages, are controlled by changes in water levels (Minns et al. 2003).
Presumably, changes in the Bay of Quinte's upland tributary water levels would have a
similar effect on pike ascending creeks and rivers to spawn in floodplains.
Modeling of walleye habitat supply indicates that suitability of habitat in the upper Bay is
particularly sensitive to water levels and macrophyte changes (Chu et al. 2003). Overall
fish habitat volume within the Bay is determined by water levels.
An individual shoreline resident has indicated that erosion has been increasing in areas
normally underwater, in recent years, due to low water levels. Marine contractors have
indicated that shoreline stabilization work must go below the high-water mark to properly
address erosion problems.
21
January 2005
The international Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River study being conducted through
the International Joint Commission (IJC), is utilizing "performance indicators" to
determine which water management plans will be best for the environment. Performance
indicators include representatives of fish, birds and waterfowl, herptiles, muskrats and
aquatic plants and rare plant and animal species (IJC 2003). Specific to fishes,
performance indicators will include: young of the year production based on area and
quality of spawning and nursery habitat for fish, inciuding northern pike, yellow perch,
largemouth bass, and small mouth bass. Growth rates of young of the year fishes will
also be evaluated. Abundance of northern pike will also be evaluated. With respect to
habitat, wetlands will be evaluated in Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River for
abundance and diversity and percent of wetland area dominated by cattails.
3.4.2.6 Migratory Barriers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dead Creek Marsh
Marysville Creek
Moira River
Salmon River
Napanee River
Platts Creek
Culverts on small tributaries
Management options exist for the migratory barriers listed above. Impacts associated
with the barriers vary depending on the nature of the tributary. Larger rivers like the
Moira, Salmon and Napanee can sustain fish populations upstream of the barriers and
thus the impacts of the barriers on productive capacity on the Bay of Quinte are
unknown. For drainage areas that cannot support fish populations throughout the year
(i.e. lack of over-wintering habitat), restoring migratory access may allow seasonal fish
use to areas where there is currently little to none. This may increase the productive
capacity of fish habitat for these locations, and thus for the Bay of Quinte.
Shallow water habitats in marshes and small creeks may have limited over-wintering
habitat for fishes. These systems may be sufficient as spawning, nursery and rearing
habitat but fishes may be required to migrate out in order to survive the winter. Blocking
migratory access to these habitats may prevent downstream migrations, killing fishes
within the system over winter. The barriers may also prevent spawning runs of fishes
that would re-colonize the habitat, leaving these areas permanently devoid of fish.
Shallow water habitats thermally isolated from the Bay of Quinte may heat up more
quickly in spring, depending on a variety of factors. A study on fish production found that
managed wetlands unaffected by St. Lawrence River fluctuations had a high diversity of
fishes and large concentrations of young-of the-year fishes, indicating high productivity
(Glemet 2003). These habitats heat up rapidly in spring which may attract fishes as they
are able to spawn earlier. This would provide a longer growing season for their offspring
in optimal habitat (relatively rich food supply, shelter from large waves and shallow
dense plants that provide protection from predators).
Many fish species use rivers, creeks and their associated wetlands as spawning,
nursery, and adult habitat. Barriers disrupt historic migratory patterns and deny access to
these valuable habitatscfor fishes in the Bay of Quinte. Without access to these upstream
habitats, Quinte fishes may be forced to utilize sub-optimal habitat to fulfill lifestage
requirements. The differences in productive capacity of fish habitat below and above
22
January 2005
migratory barriers versus that of systems with unrestricted migratory access, is worth
investigating.
Culverts or other devices may result in migratory barriers to fishes on smaller drainage
systems. Dead Creek marsh at the west end of the upper Bay is affected by a perched
culvert, which does allow fish access in high water. If water levels are low, fishes like
northern pike, yellow perch and golden shiners are prevented from entering the marsh to
spawn. If water levels drop after these fishes gain access to the marsh, they may
become stranded in the shallow marsh which is unsuitable habitat for many adult fishes
through the summer.
Marysville Creek fish access is blocked by a barrier intended to create waterfowl habitat
upstream. The impoundment was the first ever Ducks Unlimited project in Canada and
complete ownership of the project has been turned over to the Tyendinaga Mohawks of
the Bay of Quinte. The creek flows through the Tyendinaga reserve and individuals from
the community have reported that the creek was inhabited by lots of fishes prior to the
installation of the barrier, which is no longer the case. MNR Peterborough have
developed a more complete list of Quinte barriers, mapped using GIS.
The Moira River has five migratory barriers from the Bay to Highway 401. Hydro-electric
power generation will likely take place at some of these barriers through Belleville and
the resulting in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD) of
fish habitat will have to be compensated. Installing a fishway and coupling the
undertaking with extensive fish community monitoring may provide some insight to the
effects of migratory barriers (on rivers) on productive capacity (for the Bay or any
receiving waterbody and also for the river itself).
The Shannonville and Milltown dams prevent fish migration on the Salmon River. The
Shannonville dam has been designed to prevent the upstream migration of sea lamprey.
Allowing fish to by-pass both these barriers would provide access to a considerable
amount of upstream riverine habitat. There has been concern expressed by DFO staff
that the Salmon River is prone to flash floods and very low flows that may prevent fish
from moving out of the system in unfavourable conditions.
The first barrier on the Napanee River is located in the town of Napanee. There are no
other barriers within the vicinity and thus allowing fish to migrate past this first barrier
would open access to a relatively larger section of river than the Salmon or Moira Rivers.
23
January 2005
The following section outlines the importance of fish habitaU fisheries to the Bay of
Quinte community. Different fish species and habitat are important to different resourceuser groups. Each section provides an indication of what species are important to each
group. Fish habitat concerns from individuals within these groups are listed in Section
7.0.
There are many direct and indirect economic benefits to Bay of Quinte communities
related to the fisheries resource. Fish habitat is indirectly tied to these benefits as it
supports the fish communities. Protecting, restoring and enhancing fish habitat will
provide societal benefits that come from having healthy fish communities.
Fish habitat management may be directed by future Fish Community Objectives (Stewart
et al. 1999) that account for the importance of various fish species to all stakeholders.
Fishes and the habitat in which they live are intricately connected and thus managing
them cooperatively may help habitat plans support fisheries goals.
4.1
Commercial Fishing Industry
The commercial fishing industry in the Bay of Quinte provides revenue to the fisherman
themselves as well as to the businesses associated with maintaining equipment and
other operational necessities. Commercial fishing also provides a source of employment
for many people (Figure 1). It is difficult to determine precise benefits to the commercial
fishing industry that are directly related to habitat. The following section will provide a
summary of the socio-economic benefits related to the actual fish harvested.
Figure 1. Person employment years associated with the commercial fishery in the Bay of Quinte,
calculated for the years 1970, 1980, and from 1993 to 2001. Adapted from Lake Ontario
Management Unit Annual Reports.
~ 30~-----------------------------------------,
~
~
iii
E
25
20
i;' 15
Q.
~ 10
I:
o
.,~
0..
5
o
Year
Calculations were made using the assumption that 44.6 person years employment are generated for every 1
million dollars of production,.in .1994 values (Legg 1996).
Precise estimates of commercial catches coming strictly from the Bay of Quinte are
difficult to make because of the migratory nature of species like walleye, whitefish and
lake trout. Walleye and whitefish caught in eastern Lake Ontario use the Bay for
Section 4: Socia-Economics
24
January 2005
spawning and other life stages. The harvest and value estimates made in this report will
refer to catches from quota zones 1-3 (Big Bay area) and 1-4 (Conway area). See Lake
Ontario Management Unit's annual reports for quota zone locations.
The species representing the majority of the harvest over time are reflective of the large
historical ecosystem changes that have occurred in the Bay. Poor habitat may increase
harvest weights of less desirable species like carp and white perch (Figure 2). Economic
"multipliers" are used to convert the landed values of fish harvest (Figure 3) into a 'total
sales impact' (Figure 4), which is a measure of the total value of all goods and services
sold to sustain commercial fishing activity (Legg 1996).
Figure 2. The top three fish species landed for the Bay of Quinte commercial fishing industry for
1970,1980, and from 1993 - 2001, based on percent of total harvest (lbs). Adapted from Lake
Ontario Management Unit Annual Reports.
45,----------------------------------------------------,
40
---------------------------------------------------------mWhite perch
i
~
"19
III Garp
30
o Yellow perch
25
o Bullhead
20
;l
C 15
o American eel
~
mSunfishes
E!I
10·· ,
Lake whitefish
5
o
1970
1980
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
Figure 3. Total harvest and landed value (adjusted to 00' values) of commercial fish in the Bay of
Quinte for 1970, '80 and '93 to '01. Adapted from Lake Ontario Management Unit Annual
Reports.
1,200,000 f-----------------r=~===~===;]
III Total Harvest (Ibs.)
1,000,000
I!iI Total
800,000
- - - - - - - -- - - - - -
. - - - - - - - - - - _. - - - - - - - - - -
Landed Value
(adjusted
to 00' CPI)
- - ' - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _---.l
1994
1998
600,000
400,000
200,000
o
'1970
1980
1993
1995
1996
1997
1999
2000
2001
Year
*No conversion data was available for 1970 and therefore the landed value could not be converted to 00'
values.
Section 4: Socio-Economics
25
January 2005
Figure 4. Total sales impact (measure of total economic value) of the Bay of Quinte commercial
fishery in 1980 and from 1993 to 2001. Adapted from Lake Ontario Management Unit Annual
Reports.
1600000 r-----------;::=======;]
1400000
§: 1200000
~ 1000000
~ 800000·
.!
600000
~ 400000
200000
o
1980 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
Prior to the 1940's, the most important species to the commercial fishing industry were:
lake herring, lake whitefish, walleye, northern pike, yellow perch, white perch (invasive),
bullheads and catfish, Arnerican eel, carp, and sunfish (Michael Michalski Associates
1987). Increasingly eutrophic conditions beginning around the 1940's altered fish habitat.
Water clarity decreased as did submergent plant abundance resulting in fish community
changes. There was a shift in commercial harvest to less valued species of smaller size,
reflective of the degraded fish community. As habitat changed, catches began to be
dominated by yellow perch, white perch (invasive), bullheads and catfish, sunfish,
American eel, and carp (invasive).
In 1970, prior to phosphorus control, white perch and carp (both invasive and of low
commercial value) were the most abundantly harvested fish in the Bay in terms of
biomass (Figure 2). By 1980, phosphorus control had begun and the fish cornrnunity
began to change once again. By 1993, catches were dominated by lake whitefish,
followed by brown bullhead and yellow perch (Figure 2). These 3 species have
dominated commercial catches until '01, when sunfish replaced whitefish as the third
most abundant species. Declines in lake whitefish and increasing numbers of sunfish
may be attributed to affects of zebra rnussel invasion in 1995 (Figure 5).
Habitat conditions greatly influence the abundance of specific fish species. Therefore
habitat management plans should consider the value of specific species to the
commercial fishing industry. The figures included in this section provide a measure of the
importance of different fish species from the perspective of greatest abundance
(harvest), greatest total value, and greatest price per pound (Figures 5 and 6
respectively). A comparison of Figures 5 and 6 gives an indication of the relative
contributions of various species to the commercial industry. Changes in harvest of
different species are in part reflective of habitat change related to various levels of
phosphorus in the water column.
26
January 2005
Figure 5. The top-three species in terms of percentage of the total landed harvest value for the
Bay of Quinte commercial fishing industry in 1970,1980 and from 1993 to 2001. Adapted from
Lake Ontario Management Unit Annual Reports.
60r------------------------------------------------,
mW'hit;'p~
EI Carp
o Yellow Perch
o Bullhead
o American eel
mWhitefish
1m Sunfishes
1970
1980
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
Figure 6. The top-three valued species (dollarllbs.) per year for the Bay of Quinte commercial
fishery for the years 1970, 1980, and from 1993 to 2001. Adapted from Lake Ontario
Management Unit Annual Reports.
3
"
2.5
j
~
"C
C
g
"
~
;g
2
,-
---
r-
1.5
1
0.5
o
-
n
nl .
1970
1-
1980
-_.
1993
-
.
I
;1994
1995
----_.
eYeliow Perch
-
-
C-
·
·
o
·
-
,-
•
1996
1997
-
r-
.-
L
-
1m American eel
. r- ,,•
., .
o Lake Whitefish
o Walleye
o Black crappie
o Sturgeon
l
~
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
Recent ecosystem change should continue to provide good conditions for valuable
species like yellow perch and black crappie. Sunfishes should also benefit from currently
abundant aquatic macrophytes and increasing water temperatures (associated with
global warming trends).
4.2
Recreational Sport Fishery
Walleye have been the focus of the Say's recreational fishery through the 1980's to the
present. They are by far the most targeted fish species for both the winter ice-fishery and
the summer open-water fishery (Table 6). The Say's recreational fishery provides local
economic benefit through tourism and other businesses that provide anglers with
equipment, supplies an.d .. accommodations for example. The walleye fishery is
economically important and materialized following increases in walleye numbers in the
early 80's. Changes in habitat have favoured conditions for basses and sunfishes, which
have received greater angler effort in recent years.
Section 4: Socio-Economics
27
January 2005
Table 6. Angling effort, measured in angler rod-hours, for Bay of Quinte fisherman from 1982 to
2001. Adapted from Lake Ontario Management Unit Annual Reports 1982 to 2001.
Angler Rod Hours
Walleye
Yellow Perch
Largemout
h bass
Open
Open water
Ice
Open water
Year water
1982 382306 95033
1983 1984 497952 127303 1985 442717 1986 554213 170737 1987 669202 1988 497079 194112 1989 482947 207691 1990 350588 195589 1991 652149 203188 1992 577381 388469 1993 635713 96
16109
1994 681058 355858 1995 532548 321510 1996 630270 459344 1997 508221 264315 1998 443104 148178 1999 374128 140363 14,161
8282
2000 296841 139047 8178
17598
2001 222052 77074
25906
118326
A dash (-) indicates that the Informalion IS not available.
Smallmou
th bass
Northern
pike
Panfish
Open
water
Open
water
Open
water
-
5989
-
4522
6460
12356
-
-
-
-
-
-
12014
336
-
-
-
-
7174
37911
40429
1,521
565
21968
The economic impact of the recreational fishery may be measured in part by surveys of
angler effort, which estimate the total angler-hours of fishing. The 1995 Recreational
Fishing Survey conducted by DFO estimated that the average angler spends $25 (1995
dollars) per day of fishing. This estimate has been used to estimate the direct angler
expenditures per year, in this report (Figure 7). Direct expenditures include travel costs,
food, rentals and fishing supplies. They do not include investments to angling such as
equipment for boating and fishing. It is important to note that the calculated expenditures
in Figure 7 were derived from 1995 estimates of angler expenditures using 1995 dollars.
In a paper by Martin (1985) direct angler expenditures were measured directly by survey
and calculated average resident expenditures as $29.36/day and average visiting angler
expenditures as $45.45/day, presumably in 1985 currency. Figure 7, did not consider the
differences in expenditures between visiting and resident anglers, had a much lower
estimate of daily angler expenditures, and therefore likely underestimates true angler
expenditures associated with the recreational fishery. The total expenditures (direct and
investment) associated with the Bay's recreational fishery do not measure the
satisfaction derived by anglers (social benefits) and therefore should not be used as an
absolute measure of true value.
Comparatively, Trushinski (1986) made detailed estimates of angler expenditures in
1984 that resulted in much greater totals than those reported in Figure 7. Trushinski
estimated that 4 million dollars was spent by anglers using rental accommodations
between May and October, and 4.8 to 6.0 million (8.0 to 10.1, adjusted to 2002 dollars)
28
January 2005
in direct expenditures were made by open-water anglers in 1984. Ice-fishing anglers
contributed an additional 0.9 to 1.1 million (1.6 to 1.8, adjusted to 2002 dollars) in direct
expenditures during the 1984-5 season. In 94', during the peak of the walleye
recreational fishery total expenditures (direct and invested) attributed to walleye angling
were estimated to be 11.9 million (non-adjusted) (Mathers 2000). In 2000, total walleye
angler expenditures were estimated at 4.9 million.
Figure 7. Annual angler expenditures in the Bay of Quinte based on angling effort surveys and
assuming daily (4.4 hours) expenditures of $25.00, from 1982 to 2001. Adapted from Lake
Ontario Management Unit Annual Reports.
7
S 6
,
'"
.;
'"
'"
"'-
.
-:".c
~
5
~
~
4
c:
0X
W
3
~
•
.!!! 2
C>
c:
«
'ti
~
C
0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
000 000 0
000 000 0 000 0
~
~
Year
Angler effort in the Bay of Quinte has declined significantly from 1997 to 2002, which
corresponds to decreases in direct angler expenditures (Figure 7). Decreases in angler
effort beginning in 97', correspond to decreases in walleye populations, which began
approximately in 95'. Climatic events and intensive rehabilitative stocking of lake trout
combined to reduce preyfish abundance in the early '90's. Large fish species like
walleye began to loose condition and decreased in abundance (Casselman et al. 1999).
In addition to walleye angling, excellent angling opportunities also exist in the Bay of
Quinte for numerous other species. Increased aquatic macrophyte distributions have
particularly favoured Centrarchidae species (basses and sunfishes). Anecdotal angler
information suggests that the Bay has turned into an incredible largernouth bass fishery.
Angler effort for largemouth bass and other species has increased in recent years to
take advantage of these developing angling opportunities (Table 6).
Angler effort does not distinguish between local and visiting anglers and therefore does
not capture the true irnpact of recent reductions in angling-related tourism. Visiting
anglers are very impohant to businesses and make approximately 33% more direct
expenditures per day than resident anglers (Martin 1985). There are many Bay of Quinte
businesses that are influenced by the recreational fishery, such as: resorts, lodges, bed
and breakfasts, private campgrounds, bait and tackle stores, charter boat
29
January 2005
operators/guides, marinas, ice-hut operators and boat rentals/maintenance (Table 7).
Resort operators have indicated anecdotally that their business has decreased by
approximately 50-70% after the year 2000.
Table 7. Summary count of Bay of Quinte businesses and facilities at least partially dependent
on the recreational fishery, for the years 1990, 2000 and 2003.
Year
Service
Private campgrounds
Resorts, Cottages, Bed & Breakfasts, Farm Vacations
Public parks, Conservation areas, boat launches
Marinas
Bait and Tackle Shops
Charter boat operators/guides
Ice Hut Operators
2000
7
32
na
20
15
11
2
1990
7
32
24
22
2
9
-
2003
7
40
na
16
17
12
11
A dash (-) indicates that the Information IS not available.
Research effort for given years is variable and therefore may underestimate the true total
number of services on the Bay.
Fishing tournaments also create economic activity in the Bay area. A total of
approximately seven tournaments are held annually by various organizations, with
entrants ranging from about a dozen to several thousand (Table 8). Tournaments
generally target walleye, with some tournaments having prizes for pike, while newer
tournaments focus on bass. The largest tournament through the 90's was held by the
Napanee Rod and Gun Club, attracting up to 7000 entrants per event. This tournament
was not held in '02, nor will it be held in '03, due to the financial uncertainty associated
with declining numbers of entrants. Generally, the number of entrants per tournament
has declined since the mid 90's when walleye populations had decreased dramatically.
Table 8. The number of entrants in Bay of Quinte fishing tournaments from 1990 to 2003.
Number of Entrantsl Year
Entry Fee
Tournament
Kiwanis Service
Club
Napanee Rod & Gun
Club
Deseronto Yacht
Club
Ice
Bass
Deseronto Fireman
Bass Tour Classic
($)
15-25
1990 1993
40005200
19941996
40005200
60007000
19971999
40005200
20002001
40005200
4500
5
5
800
50
800
50
800
50
20/team
-
-
-
3000
250500
low
14
teams
-
10002000
10002000
-
-
none
none
5
-
565/ team
(Div. A)
·205/ team
(iJiv: B)
Quinte Bassmasters 25
2001
2003
3000
3600
none
250500
none
-
tbd
none
12
teams
tbd
-
none
tbd
-
41
-
tbd
none
12
25
tbd
A dash (-) Indicates that the Informallon IS not available, none -- no tournament, tbd - to be determined.
30
January 2005
The information provided in this section is intended to provide a measure of the socioeconomic importance of various fish species to the Bay of Quinte recreational fisherman
and associated businesses. Walleye is still the most important and desired species from
a recreational fishery perspective. Bass, panfish, pike, and yellow perch have received
greater angling effort from 1999 to 2001.
4.3
Bait Harvesters
Bait harvesters represent another group whose livelihoods are in part dependent on fish
habitat in the Bay of Quinte. Harvesters generally do not take fishes from the Bay itself
but harvest in shallower marshes and creeks that connect to the Bay, where large
congregations occur. Maintaining these connections between the Bay and its tributaries
may be important in maintaining baitfish productivity for the Bay of Quinte proper.
The bait industry contributes 60 million to the Ontario economy. The industry is in part
represented by the Bait Association of Ontario (BAO). The Association has 250
members and works with the MNR to promote and protect the resource. More
specifically, they provide resource knowledge through training and education, conduct
fisheries inventories, work with the MNR to manage the resource, promote the industry
and represent the concerns of their members. The Association also works on legislation
and enforcement issues.
Local bait harvesters have provided locations irnportant to the production of bait fishes.
These individuals also provided ideas regarding maintaining and enhancing baitfish
habitat in the Bay of Quinte (Section 7.3).
4.4
Tyendinaga Mohawks
fc : . i '
l'
( c,··-
Walleye are the most important fish species to the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. They
are harvested from spawning grounds by spear-fishing. Spear-fishing occurs below
migratory barriers on the Moira, Salmon, and Napanee Rivers. Rock shoals from east of
Belleville through the Telegraph Narrows and down through Long Reach also provide
spearing opportunities for walleye, Northern pike are speared in creeks during the spring
also. Walleye harvest also takes place in the spring and fall via gillnetting in open-waters
of the Bay.
Harvest from the Moira and Napanee Rivers has generally increased between 1994 and
1999 (LOMU 1999). Spear fishing effort increased between 1994 and 1998, and
decreased in 1999. Low water levels in 1999 may have contributed to the high harvest
levels. and comparably low fishing effort (Figures 8 and 9). The figures below give an
indication of the value of the walleye fishery to the Tyendinaga Mohawks.
31
January 2005
Figure 8. Spear fishing effort for walleye in the Napanee and Moira Rivers for 1994 to 1999
(MNR 1999).
1000
900
800
",s"
~
0
700
600
IiiIMoira
1::
,g
500
:c'"
c:
400
u::
300
w
..
lEI Napanee
200
100
0
1994
1997
1996
1995
1998
1999
Year
Figure 9. Spring spear fishing harvest of walleye by the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte between
1994 and 1999 (MNR 1999).
14000~------------------------------------------,
12000
."
$ 10000
.~
.c:
j
n;
~
8000
II1II Moira
lEI Napanee
6000
o
~
~
4000
--------------------
E
:s
z
2000
o
1994
1995
1997
1996
Year
32
1998
1999
January 2005
5.0.··Hatiitat rYI!ln~g~rnenfil1.tni1Bay.ofQlIil1te·;
The management and protection of fish habitat and water quality in the Bay of Quinte
region is an interagency effort and requires cooperation and communication between
various agencies. These agencies include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
~'
.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
Environment Canada (DOE)
Parks Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF)
Conservation Authorities (CA's)
The Fish Habitat Compliance Protocol - 2004 Interim Measures details interagency
activities in the protection of fish habitat and associated water quality (see Section 5.1.2
for a description of the Protocol). The Compliance Protocol summarizes the roles and
responsibilities of the various agencies having enforcement and compliance interests in
the protection of fish habitat and water quality in Ontario. The intent of the Compliance
Protocol is to clarify interagency activities in the protection of fish habitat and water
quality. The Protocol Detailing the Fish Habitat Referral Process in Ontario - August
2000 describes the responsibilities of the above agencies in protection fish habitat in
Ontario.
5.1
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (OFO)
,J ')(
Under the authority of the Fisheries Act DFO is the lead agency for the conservation and
protection of fish and fish habitat supporting Canadian fisheries. Specific responsibilities
in relation to the management and protection of fish habitat appear in Section 35 of the
Act. This section, as well as the accompanying 1986 Policy for the Management of Fish
Habitat, provides the legislative and policy statements for fish habitat management.
DFO's long-term policy objective is the achievement of an overall Net Gain of the
productive capacity of fish habitats.
5.1.1
Legislation
The primary national legislation for the protection of fish habitat and water quality is the
federal Fisheries Act. Section 35(1) of the Act states that 'no person shall carry on any
work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish
habitat', (HADD). Provisions within the Act include orders to restore impacted fish
habitat. Only the Minister or his delegated authority may authorize the HADD of fish
habitat.
Other legislation enforced by DFO that is important to the conservation and protection of
fish and fish habitat include:
•
•
Sections of the Fisheries Act that ensure free passage of fish around obstructions
(dams, culverts, etc) and over obstacles, and requires screens be placed on
water intakes (5.20, 21,22,26, 27, 29, 30 and 32).
Sections of the Navigable Waters Protection Act that prohibit the substantial
interference to the public right of navigation (s.5, 6, 6, 10, 10).
Section 5: Habitat Management in the Bay of Quinte
33
•
January 2005
DFO is responsible for the protection and recovery of aquatic species at risk in
support of the Species at Risk Act (described in section 5.2.1 of this report).
5.1.2 Enforcement
As stated above under Section 5.0, the Fish Habitat Compliance Protocol - 2004 Interim
Measures summarize the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies having
enforcement and compliance interests in the protection of fish habitat and water quality
in Ontario.
Fishery officers, and fishery guardians (s.5) and inspectors (s.38) can enforce provisions
of the Fisheries Act. The assigned individuals may conduct search, seizure and arrest
under s.49.1, but may not enter a private dwelling without a search warrant (s.38(3)).
Inspections may be carried out without a warrant and are intended to verify compliance
with the Fisheries Act. If necessary, further enforcement powers may be obtained under
the Criminal Code. An inspection can turn into an investigation if the assigned DFO
habitat biologist has made it clear to the fishery officer that there has been a violation
under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act.
Persons committing or about to commit a Fisheries Act offence may be arrested without
warning (s.50). Articles such as vehicles, vessels, fish or other items related to the
offence may be seized if believed that they were obtained by, or used in, the cornmission
of the offence (s.51). No person shall obstruct, hinder or make false or misleading
statements to a fishery officer, a fishery guardian or an inspector who is carrying out
duties under the Act (s.61, 62). Every person who is in the place which is being
inspected must provide all reasonable assistance (s.38(10), 49(1.2)). In discharging
their duties, fishery officers and guardians and persons that accompany them can cross
private property without committing trespass (s.52).
If a violation of the Fisheries Act has occurred, the courts are empowered by the Act
(s.79) to order site restoration or fines that are donated to a local organization. The
preference is for the offender to voluntarily restore the habitat through advice and
direction. A "Voluntary Remediation" document is currently being drafted by DFO, which
will outline the process by which biologists and enforcement officers negotiate for
voluntary restoration when they discover that an unauthorized HADD has taken place. If
this occurs, charges are generally not laid, but the option remains and charges will be
laid if the habitat is not restored. If the courts become involved and find the defendant
guilty of a FiSheries Act violation, the prosecution will generally ask for a restoration
order or creative sentencing. Through creative sentencing, a fine can be donated to a
local organization such as a local outdoor club.
5.1.3 Scientific Research
Research conducted by DFO strives increases our knowledge and understanding of the
interactions between fish and their habitat. Information from on-going research helps
make science-based decisions for the management of fish habitat. Some examples of
completed and on-going research include:
Specific to the Bay of Quinte
•
•
Development ofa'fish habitat classification model for littoral areas of the Bay of
Quinte, a Great Lakes Area of Concern.
Ecopath Project - An ecosystem modeling approach that can be used to assess
environmental effects and fisheries managernent policies on fisheries
34
•
•
January 2005
populations. It uses information relevant to assessment of beneficial uses such
as biomass and production of key biological components in the Bay, from
microbes to fish.
Impacts of light, temperature and water levels on walleye habitat supply in the
Bay of Quinte, 1972 to 2001.
Comparison of fish biomass at inshore and offshore areas of Big Bay during
2001.
General to the Great Lakes
•
•
•
•
•
Defensible methods of assessing fish habitat: lacustrine habitats in the Great
Lakes basin - conceptual basis and approach using a Habitat Suitability Matrix
method.
Lake Ontario! St. Lawrence Water Regulation Study - Recent research for this
on-going study looked at developing a plan and detailing the fish indicator
assessment framework and its integration across the complete area of study from
Lake Ontario down through the St. Lawrence River. A pike population model is in
development. Wetland temperatures and larval fish community research
investigates the relationship between different wetland types, temperatures, fishhatch dates and growth rates.
Modelling water level fluctuation impacts on fish habitat using GIS.
Modelling impacts of water level fluctuations on populations of northern pike in
Lake Ontario.
Larval fish use of Lake Ontario wetlands: Implications of water levels and
temperature changes.
It is important to note that these are just some examples of the research that pertains to
fish habitat management in the Great Lakes and the Bay of Quinte and is not intended to
be an exhaustive list.
•
Other sources of scientific information supporting fish habitat management in the
Bay of Quinte come from national! provincial interagency research initiatives and
local agencies such as the Lake Ontario Management Unit (MNR) and DOE. For
example, Project Quinte is a mUlti-agency research project to compare
limnological features of the Bay of Quinte before and after phosphorus control.
5.1.4 Regulatory Process
5.1.4.1
Overview
Two documents that aid DFO habitat managers in the conservation and protection of fish
habitat include the:
•
•
1998 Habitat Conservation and Protection Guidelines; and
1998 Decision Framework for the Determination and Authorization of Harmful
Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of Fish Habitat.
The purpose of the Conservation and Protection Guidelines is to guide DFO staff in
administering the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act. It outlines a standard approach
to habitat conservation and protection through application of the No Net Loss (NNL)
Guiding Principle contained in the 1986 Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat. The
Guidelines are intended to assist DFO staff in applying the Policy to projects that could
affect fish habitat productive capacity in a fair, consistent and productive manner. The
Decision Framework document describes a decision framework for determining if HADD
35
January 2005
of fish habitat is likely to occur as a result of a project proposal, and whether an
authorization under Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act should be issued.
In the Bay of Quinte region, CA's are the first point of contact in the fish habitat referral
process. DFO has signed Level 2 Agreements with the three CA's in the Bay of Quinte
watershed (Lower Trent Conservation, Quinte Conservation and Cataraqui Conservation
Authority) to undertake the review of project proposals under Section 35 of the Fisheries
Act. Under these Agreements, Bay of Quinte CA's can negotiate project redesign,
relocation and mitigation to avoid a HADD, but do not have the authority to determine if
an unavoidable HADD associated with a project is acceptable or not.
In the instances where a project HADD can be mitigated a Letter of Advice (LOA) is
issued and no Section 35(2) is required. In the cases where a project HADD cannot be
avoided, projects are referred to DFO for the determination and authorization of a HADD
offish habitat. For more information on the CA process, please see Section 5.7.
A project with an unavoidable HADD may still be authorized if the HADD is justified,
appropriate information to support the need for the works is available and acceptable
habitat compensation is possible. However, if the proponent does not wish to follow the
suggestions of the DFO biologist concerning the proposed project and potential HADD,
the HADD will not be authorized and the project will not take place.
The MNR supports the habitat referral process by administering work permits under the
Public Lands Act and the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, providing fisheries
information to CA's and DFO, and is responsible for timing restrictions for in-water work.
5.1.4.2
Process
When a proposal for a project in the Bay of Quinte watershed is referred to DFO, DFO
staff assess the potential impacts of the project on fish habitat productive capacity in
order to determine whether it will result in a HADD. A HADD of fish habitat is defined as
any change in fish habitat that reduces its capacity to support one or more life processes
of fish. Productive capacity is the measure of the capability of a habitat to produce fish
and! or food organisms in natural or restored conditions. In cases where it is determined
that the project will negatively impact on fish habitat productive capacity, DFO staff will
assess the effectiveness of any mitigative measures proposed by the proponent to
prevent HADD, as well as the effectiveness of proposed habitat compensation measures
in situations where residual impacts lead to HADD.
The linkages between the biophysical attributes of fish habitat which support the life
processes of fish and productive capacity can be very difficult to quantify, particularly in
the context of individual project reviews. As a result, in their review of projects, habitat
managers will normally base their decisions about HADD on whether the predicted
impacts, or changes, to those biophysical habitat attributes will reduce the habitat's
capacity to support one or more life processes of fish, rather than on a quantitative
assessment of potential impacts on productive capacity (Le., on the production of fish).
Implicit in their decisions, however, is the notion that where a HADD occurs, a reduction
in habitat productive capacity would also be anticipated.
Assessing the severity of impacts of a project on fish habitat and making a HADD
determination are the ,most important steps in the process of achieving NNL. Habitat
managers must determine whether or not the potentially affected habitat directly or
indirectly supports - or has the potential to support - commercial, recreational or
subsistence fisheries. Although it is not necessary that a fishery be active, there should
36
January 2005
be a reasonable expectation for a potential fishery. When determining the severity of
potential impacts of projects on fish and fish habitat, the factors that DFO takes into
consideration include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the potential for the project to affect fish, fish habitat and! or people's use of fish
as well as the nature of the effect (e.g. physical disturbance, temperature
change, flow alteration, etc.);
the presence or abundance of a fish species which is actively, or has the
potential to be, harvested in a subsistence, commercial and!or recreational
fishery;
whether the species (or fish population) at risk is considered as vulnerable in the
context of the proposed project;
the productive capacity of the habitat and! or the degree to which it supports an
important lifecycle process; the availability and anticipated effectiveness of
mitigation and! or habitat compensation measures;
proportion of the habitat with a similar production capacity and contribution to the
fish stock which may be affected;
the habitat's resilience to damage and the amount of time it would need to
recover; and,
all other factors DFO staff deem important to consider on a project specific basis.
If there is doubt as to the potential impact of a project or if sufficient information is
unavailable to ascertain if a HADD will occur, reviewers will adopt a precautionary
approach and conclude that a HADD is likely to result.
Since the specific characteristics of both the impacted habitat and the project differ from
project to project, the determination of HADD is highly site and project-specific. It is not
merely a question of what is done, but more importantly how it is done, and when and
where. It is not so much the type of project as much as the type of habitat that is to be
impacted that is the most important factor in assessing the potential impact on habitat
from a project. For example, a culvert installation may not necessarily result in a HADD,
but any culvert installation on top of brook trout spawning habitat is very likely to result in
a HADD. The site-specific environmental differences that occur between projects of the
same type can lead, on superficial observation, to a conclusion of inconSistency in
approach where none exists.
Types of projects to likely result in a HADD are those that cause any degree of
alteration, disruption or destruction such that adverse effects to habitat attributes are
likely to occur, and this would be expected to reduce the habitat's capacity to support
one or more life processes of fish. This may include, but is not necessarily limited to, the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
any filling of existing habitat regardless of the purpose, such as encroachments
of roads or bridges, piers for bridges or causeways, construction of dikes or
breakwaters, marinas;
substrate removal!alteration such as dredging, in-stream gravel mining, channel
maintenance, marine construction, culverts;
channel diversions;
prevention or re.striction of access to habitat, including ephemeral habitats, such
as from dams, dikes, culverts;
change in the hydrology, hydraulics or geomorphology of a water course
including constrictions from culverts and water withdrawal where the remaining
flow may be below that required for successful utilization of the habitat; and
37
•
January 2005
habitat conversion, or any activity or set of activities such as, water control dams
and reservoir creation, which cause a shift in the habitat suitability to favour a
different type of fish community.
When there is a project of these types, or when a project results in one or more of these
consequences, a conclusion that a HADD is likely to result would usually be reached.
The potential for cumulative impacts to fish habitat from a large number of individually
"insignificant" projects is a difficult issue faced by fish habitat managers. Although the
guiding principle of the Habitat Policy's Conservation Goal is to ensure the "No Net Loss"
of fish habitat productive capacity on a project-by-project basis, it is understood that
these "insignificant" project-level impacts may be more significant (i.e., cumulative) if
viewed from a different perspective (e.g., a watershed versus site-specific).
In general, cumulative effects are best addressed through the development of habitat or
integrated resource management plans based on fish community or fisheries
management objectives. The Habitat Policy encourages and promotes the development
and implementation of such plans, as well as the need for habitat decision making to be
undertaken in the context of such plans.
Tools that can facilitate the fish habitat assessment, and determination of whether or not
a HADD is likely to result, include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
training in fish habitat assessment;
consolidation and communication of the current understanding of the links
between various bio-physical attributes of habitat and the production of fish;
habitat resource inventories;
formal checklists of project and bio-physical information required and factors to
be considered in making a determination of HADD;
scientific studies on the quantitative impacts of development which may involve
existing knowledge and new knowledge from experimental manipulation and
post-project monitoring;
scientific models to evaluate impacts, links to habitat and productive capacity;
evaluation of the potential effectiveness of mitigation strategies;
on-site environmental inspection and co-ordination;
regional/watershed management plans which establish the expected threshold(s)
of development consistent with avoiding cumulative effects;
fisheries or habitat management plans;
assessment of the potential cumulative effects of common small-scale projects;
evaluation of the potential effectiveness of compensation strategies;
project follow-up and monitoring, especially to determine the effectiveness of
compensation actions; and
a clear understanding by proponents of the decision process.
DFO has been and is continuing to develop the above tools to ensure that fish habitat
issues can be identified and addressed in a consistent, timely and effective manner. In
some cases, these tools are being developed in co-operation with provincial and
territorial counterparts and other federal departments, as well as municipal governments,
industry and specific proponents and other stakeholder groups.
,.
Figure 10 presents a flowchart outlining the process leading to a HADD determination. It
should be noted that this definition of HADD applies when determining if, or whether, any
of the three conditions (i.e., harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction) identified in
38
January 2005
subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act, are likely to result from a project. These conditions
do differ, and are differentiated essentially by the severity of impacts and their duration,
as follows:
•
•
•
harmful alteration - any change to fish habitat that indefinitely reduces its capacity
to support one or more life processes of fish but does not completely eliminate
the habitat;
disruption - any change to fish habitat occurring for a limited period which
reduces its capacity to support one or more life processes of fish; and
destruction - any permanent change of fish habitat which completely eliminates
its capacity to support one or more life processes of fish.
Figure 10. Decision framework for the determination and authorization of HADD of fish habitat.
Adapted from the 1998 Decision Framework for the Determination and Authorization of Harmful
Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of Fish Habitat.
1. Is fish habitat present?
rNa ......
Subsection 35(2)
Authorization not required
I
Yes
..j.
2. Could the proposed
project cause HADD of fish
habitat?
'-No......
Subsection 35(2)
Authorization not required
I
Yes
..j.
3. Can the impacts be fully
r-No-+
mitigated?
Subsection 35(2)
Authorization not required.
LOA specifying mitigation
I
Yes
..j.
4. Should the HADD be
authorized?
r-No-+
Subsection 35(2) not
issued
I
Yes
..j.
5. Can the HADD be
compensated?
Subsection 35(2) not
issued
I
Yes
..j.
Subsection 35(2)
Authorization issued, once
compensation is specified
39
5.1.4.3
January 2005
Options for Habitat Protection
A series of management options may be considered for habitat conservation and
protection if it appears that a project will alter current habitat productive capacity; these
include:
•
•
•
•
•
project relocation
project redesign
mitigation
habitat compensation
artificial propagation
These management options are presented from the most to the least preferred. If these
options prove not to be feasible from a technical perspective, then it may be necessary
to inform the proponent that the project as presented in the application would have
unacceptable impacts on fish habitat.
Relocation
Project relocation is the management option normally preferred by DFO, especially if the
project represents a substantial risk to critical habitats, the habitat's productive capacity
is high, or the habitat is particularly important to critical life stages of a fish species. An
example of a project where relocation might be required would be moving a bridge
downstream to protect a spawning ground.
Redesign
If relocation is impossible, the next option is to redesign the project. This option is
applied when a project represents a risk to critical or important habitats such as those
with high productive capacity or those critical to certain life stages of a fish species.
Redesign of the project is the main negotiation stage with the proponent. Managers
should make every effort during the redesign negotiations of every project, to achieve a
Net Gain in the productive capacity of fish habitat. Redesign measures might include
building an open concept pier rather than an infilled structure.
Mitigation
If project relocation and redesign are not feasible, or when they do not fully eliminate
impacts on fish habitat, mitigative measures will be implemented during project planning,
design, construction and! or operation, mostly when critical or important habitat are
threatened. Under DFO's Habitat Policy, mitigation is defined as "action taken during
the planning, design, construction and operation of works and undertakings to alleviate
potential adverse effects on the productive capacity of fish habitats". Under the
Subsection 35(2) Directive, the term mitigation is also meant to include measures which
are undertaken to maintain habitat or to prevent residual damage to habitat at the project
site or that occurs as a direct result of the project.
It is the responsibility of the proponent to prepare mitigation plans, although DFO and
CA's may provide advice. It is important to note that mitigation measures are
environment and resource specific, and may vary from region to region. The most
commonly applied mitigation measures include:
•
defining timing windows for work in streams, estuaries, etc. to minimize
interference with fish migration and spawning;
40
•
•
•
•
•
•
January 2005
re-arranging or compressing the work schedule to finish the job sooner;
selecting the least harmful equipment! materials! construction methods;
ensuring fish passage around obstructions during and after construction;
ensuring minimum instream flow rates during construction of works necessitating
obstruction of flows;
implementing measures to control siltation at construction sites; or
a combination of such measures.
Habitat Compensation
Habitat compensation is an option when residual impacts of projects on habitat
productive capacity are deemed harmful after relocation, redesign or mitigation options
have been implemented. Habitat compensation is not recommended as an option for
loss of critical habitats and should only be considered where compensation for the loss
of critical habitats is achievable, and is not an option for loss of habitat productively due
to deleterious substance(s) deposition.
Habitat compensation generally involves
replacing the productive capacity of habitat which has suffered a HADD with newly
created habitat or improving the productive capacity of some other natural habitat.
Habitat compensation measures must be selected on a case by case basis. Among the
options contemplated for achieving NNL, the following list of options, listed in order of
preference from an ecological perspective, are most commonly used:
•
•
•
•
create similar habitat at or near the development site within the same ecological
unit;
create similar habitat in a different ecological unit that supports the same stock or
species;
increase the productive capacity of existing habitat at or near the development
site and within the same ecological unit;
increase the productive capacity of existing habitat for a different stock or a
different species of fish either on or off site.
It is important to understand that habitat compensation does not include financial means
for compensating for tangible economic losses but deals only with actions intended to
maintain the net production potential of fish habitat. It should also be noted that
compensation is not an option for projected habitat damage as a result of the
introduction into fisheries waters of a deleterious substance. As per Subsection 36(3), or
the subsequent regulations under Subsection 36(5) of the Fisheries Act, these deposits
are to be controlled at their source. Issues involving silt should either be dealt with in
terms. of a HADD, when considering physical impacts such as smothering of spawning
areas or otherwise, under the provisions of Subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, which
prohibit the introduction and deposit of a deleterious substance to fisheries waters.
On-site compensation is an option where site rehabilitation can be successfully
undertaken. Compensation can also take place off-site and is normally the only option
when there are long-term impacts or habitat destruction. On-site compensation is
preferable to off-site compensation. It is often difficult to predict the success of
compensation measures. Since the relationship between the quantity and quality of fish
habitat and fish production is not well understood, project reviewers are often concerned
that compensation measures may not completely offset a HADD of fish habitat resulting
from a project development. If a habitat manager is making decisions about the
adequacy of the proposed fish habitat compensation measures when detailed
quantitative analysis is not available, then the manager should seek to achieve
41
January 2005
compensation which is at least equivalent with respect to the quantity and quality of
habitat impacted by the project. The goal of NNL of productive capacity is thus applied
not as a rigid quantitative rule, but as a guiding principle.
Given the uncertainty of compensation measures to replace productive capacity, it is
assumed there is a greater likelihood of achieving NNL by maintaining, to the greatest
extent possible, the existing integrity, structure, and function of the attributes of fish
habitat which sustain a fish's life processes. Consequently, with respect to
compensation, the replacement of the impacted habitat with similar habitat as close as
possible to the impacted area is most preferred.
In order to issue an authorization it is necessary to have in place a separate legallybinding habitat compensation agreement or, when deemed preferable by Habitat
Managers to achieve NNL, a habitat compensation agreement built into the
authorization. The separate habitat compensation agreement must clearly specify the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
type of project;
type, location and extent of habitat to be affected and compensated for;
type, location and extent of compensatory habitat;
form of compensation;
start and completion dates for the work;
results to be achieved;
follow-up and monitoring required;
how success will be evaluated;
the measures to be taken if success is not achieved;
nature of financial security required;
the proponent's liability;
mailing address of both parties; and,
method for effecting notices.
Artificial Propagation
Artificial propagation involves replacing in part or in whole the natural productive capacity
of fish habitat with artificial production, and is not a viable solution in most cases where
natural habitat could be lost. This option should be considered only in rare cases where
the Minister determines that this course of action is in the public interest. Examples of
rare cases where this option may be considered include: temporarily maintaining a fish
population while completing habitat compensation work aimed at recovering natural
productive capacity.
5.1.5
Summary
If it is determined during review by a CA that a potential HADD associated with a project
can be avoided through relocation, redesign or mitigation, a Section 35(2) authorization
is not required. Rather, a LOA is issued to the proponent and the project can proceed.
See section 5.7 for more details on the CA review process.
However, if a HADD cannot be avoided, but is determined to be acceptable by a DFO
representative and carl be· compensated, a Section 35(2) authorization will be issued.
Prior to issuing an authorization, however, an environmental assessment is required
under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. For an authorization to be issued,
the conclusion of the Assessment must be that after taking into account all mitigation
42
January 2005
measures, the adverse environmental effects are not significant, or, if they are
significant, they are justifiable in the circumstances.
Where project information regarding fish and habitat impacts and their acceptability is
unknown, and adequate compensation is not feasible or not understood, then the project
would normally be referred to a mediator or public review as prescribed by the
Environmental Assessment Act. DFO would not issue an authorization until a decision
was made pursuant to the completion of the assessment process, that either impacts to
fish habitat were justifiable in the circumstances.
For a graphical summary of the habitat referral process, please see Figure 11.
Figure 11. DFO review process.
Project forwarded to DFO if a project cannot
be modified or relocated to mitigate impacts!
avoid HADD of fish habitat
Is HADD acceptable?
Proponent develops draft
compensation plan in
consultation with CA
Draft information provided by
CA to DFO and MNR
Advice provided to CA by DFO
I
Authorization issued upon
completion of CEAA review
I
DFO advises CA and
proponent
I
MNR and CA permits issued
where required
I
DFO advises CA and
proponent
...
...
t
I.
I
MNR permit applied for
I
DFO initiates GEM review
I
CA provides compensation
plan to DFO for decision
I
'-------1I
I
Compensation plan signed by
DFO, CA and proponent
43
5.1.5.1
January 2005
Audit
DFO has an obligation to see that compliance monitoring and effectiveness evaluation
are undertaken for projects where Authorizations have been issued. It is not possible to
completely predict the changes to fish habitats that might occur as a result of proposed
actions, and therefore the effects of the project should be monitored during, and for a
prescribed period after, development. Proponents may be required by DFO to undertake
follow-up monitoring studies on the effectiveness of habitat mitigation and compensation
prescriptions.
DFO will use the results of these studies as a basis for discussion with proponents
regarding the possible need for improvements in mitigation and compensation
measures. DFO will identify the possible need for follow-up corrective actions by
proponents.
Supporting Documentationl Working Agreements
5.1.5.2
DFO utilize supporting documentation that helps managers make relatively standard
decisions. On-going research improves habitat management as more information about
fish-use of habitat, habitat restoration, and environmental effects on habitat, allows for
greater understanding of how to achieve No Net Loss of productive capacity. Existing
supporting documentation include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fish Habitat Compliance Protocol - 2004 Interim Measures (2004)
Working Around Water? Fact Sheets (2003)
Introduction to Habitat Management HM001 (2001)
Defensible Methods of Assessing Fish Habitat: Lacustrine Habitats in the Great
Lakes Basin - Conceptual Basis and Approach Using a Habitat Suitability Matrix
Method (2001)
Permits for Aquatic Plant Control Applicant Information Guide (MNR 2001)
A Protocol Detailing the Fish Habitat Referral Process in Ontario (2000)
Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (1986)
Decision Framework for the Determination and Authorization of Harmful
Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of Fish Habitat (1998)
Habitat Conservation and Protection Guidelines (1998, 2nd addition)
Provincial Guidelines for Aquatic Plant Control (1994)
Internal documents - Ideas on how to help mitigate project impacts
Practitioner's Guide to Habitat Compensation
DFO - MNR - MTO protocols for highway construction, culverts and bridges
CEM Guide: Applying the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for the Fish
Habitat Management Program.
DFO personnel maintain records of all discussions, actions and decisions regarding the
application of NNL in the review of proponents' project proposals. The purpose is to:
•
•
•
•
provide a standardized record of decisions relating to referrals against which the
performance of proponents can be monitored as a project proceeds;
provide a summary of the condition of the habitat before and after development;
help DFO to evaluate its success in meeting the NNL guiding principle and the
net gain objectiVe;'
provide the information necessary to revise and improve the Habitat
Conservation and Protection Guidelines;
44
•
•
January 2005
provide a summary of the information necessary to revise, improve and audit the
effectiveness of mitigation and compensation techniques; and
provide a source of information for senior managers in the event of an appeal by
proponents.
The national Habitat Referral Tracking System is now in place. This software initiative,
which electronically documents habitat management decisions and the results of those
decisions, is used to progressively improve the habitat management program. In
addition, DFO is committed to reporting annually to the federal government, details of
fish habitat management activities for the Ontario/Great Lakes area.
CA's provide monthly project summary reports to their respective management
biologists. This allows the DFO staff to discriminate the types of projects they need to be
involved with, as well as maintain strong communication between agencies, to more
efficiently manage fish habitat.
5.2
Environment Canada (DOE)
DOE has ultimate responsibility for enforcement of the pollution prevention provisions of
the Fisheries Act (involving the release of deleterious substances under section 36(3)).
Under the Act, DOE is the lead enforcement agency for the pollution prevention
provisions for federal lands and federally regulated industries (e.g. federal departments,
airports, crown corporations, Indian reservations). For most other cases (e.g. nonfederal lands or non-federally regulated industries), DOE refers potential occurrences to
the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), unless the potential occurrence involves
sediment as the deleterious substance, in which case the referral goes to DFO. Should
the MOE not respond to the referral, DOE will take action as it is responsible for the
administration of the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. DOE is also
involved in developing recovery strategies for species at risk under the Species at Risk
Act.
5.2.1
•
•
Legislation
Environment Canada enforces Pollution Prevention Sections of the Fisheries Act,
generally on federal lands. Section 36(3) prohibits everyone (with some
exceptions) from depositing deleterious substances into waters frequented by
fish.
The Department of the Environment is responsible for developing recovery
strategies in support of the Species at Risk Act.
.
Species at Risk Act
5.2.1.1
iJ
r ..liV 1\ '(
The purposes of the Species at Risk Act (s.(6)) are to prevent Canadian indigenous
species, subspecies, and distinct populations from becoming extirpated or extinct, to
provide for the recovery of extirpated, endangered or threatened species, and
encourage the management of other species to prevent them from becoming
endangered or threatened. For a list of fish species that are listed as at risk in the Bay of
Quinte, please see Section 3.3, Table 2.
Sections and subsecti0ns of the Act applicable to the Fish Habitat Management Plan are
listed below.
•
5.8-10: Administration of the Act
45
•
•
e
•
•
•
f:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
January 2005
5.11-13: Stewardship
12. (1): A competent minister may, after consultation with every other competent
minister, and with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Councilor
any of its members if he or she considers it appropriate to do so, enter into an
agreement with any governrnent in Canada, organization or person to provide for
the conservation of a wildlife species that is not a species at risk.
12. (2): The agreement may provide for the taking of conservation measures and
any other measures consistent with the purposes of this Act, including rneasures
with respect to:
(a) monitoring the status of the species;
(b) developing and irnplernenting education and public awareness prograrns;
(c) protecting the species' habitat; and
(d) preventing the species from becorning a species at risk
5.27-31 - List of wildlife species at risk
28. (1) Any person who considers that there is an imminent threat to the survival
of a wildlife species may apply to COSEWIC for an assessrnent of the threat for
the purpose of having the species listed on an emergency basis under
subsection 29(1) as an endangered species.
5.32-36 - Measure to protect listed wildlife species
32. (1) No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a
wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or
a threatened species.
32. (2) No person shall possess, collect, bUY, sell or trade an individual of a
wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or
a threatened species, or any part or derivative of such an individual.
33. No person shall damage or destroy the residence of one or more
individuals of a wildlife species that is listed as an endangered species or a
threatened species, or that is listed as an extirpated species if a recovery
strategy has recommended the reintroduction of the species into the wild in
Canada.
36. (1) If a wildlife species that is not listed has been classified as an endangered
species or a threatened species by a provincial or territorial minister, no person
shall
(a) kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of that species that is on
federal lands in the province or territory;
(b) possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of that species that is on
federal lands in the province or territory, or any part or derivative of such an
individual; or
(c) damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals of that species
that is on federal lands in the province or territory.
5.47-55 - Action Plan
s. 56-64 - Protection of Critical Habitat.
56. The competent minister may, after consultation with the Canadian
Endangered Species Conservation Council and any person whom he or she
considers appropriate, establish codes of practice, national standards or
guidelines with respect to the protection of critical habitat.
58. (1) Subject to this section, no person shall destroy any part of the critical
habitat of any listed endangered species or of any listed threatened species -- or
46
•
•
•
•
o
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
January 2005
of any listed extirpated species if a recovery strategy has recommended the
reintroduction of the species into the wild in Canada - if
(a) the critical habitat is on federal land, in the exclusive economic zone of
Canada or on the continental shelf of Canada;
(b) the listed species is an aquatic species
60. (1) If a wildlife species has been classified as an endangered species or a
threatened species by a provincial or territorial minister, no person shall destroy
any part of the habitat of that species that the provincial or territorial minister has
identified as essential to the survival or recovery of the species and that is on
federal lands in the province or territory.
61. (1) No person shall destroy any part of the critical habitat of a listed
endangered species or a listed threatened species that is in a province or
territory and that is not part of federal lands.
62. A competent minister may enter into an agreement with any government in
Canada, organization or person to acquire any lands or interests in land for the
purpose of protecting the critical habitat of any species at risk.
64. (1) The Minister may, in accordance with the regulations, provide fair and
reasonable compensation to any person for losses suffered as a result of any
extraordinary impact of the application of
(a) section 58, 60 or 61; or
(b) an emergency order in respect of habitat identified in the emergency order
that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a wildlife species.
s. 65-72 - Management of Species of Special Concern
65. If a wildlife species is listed as a species of special concern, the competent
minister must prepare a management plan for the species and its habitat. The
plan must include measures for the conservation of the species that the
competent minister considers appropriate and it may apply with respect to more
than one wildlife species.
67. The competent minister may adopt a multi-species or an ecosystem
approach when preparing the management plan if he or she considers it
appropriate to do so.
s. 79 - Project Review
79. (1) Every person who is required by or under an Act of Parliament to ensure
that an assessment of the environmental effects of a project is conducted must,
without delay, notify the competent minister or ministers in writing of the project if
it is likely to affect a listed wildlife species or its critical habitat.
79. (2) The person must identify the adverse effects of the project on the listed
wildlife species and its critical habitat and, if the project is carried out, must
ensure that measures are taken to avoid or lessen those effects and to monitor
them. The measures must be taken in a way that is consistent with any
applicable recovery strategy and action plans.
s. 80-82 - Emergency Orders
80. (1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the competent
minister, make an emergency order to provide for the protection of a listed wildlife
species.
80. (4) The emergen,cy order may
(a) in the case :in aquatic species,
(i) identify habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of the species in
the area to which the emergency order relates, and
of
47
•
January 2005
(ii) include provisions requiring the doing of things that protect the species and
that habitat and provisions prohibiting activities that may adversely affect the
species and that habitat;
5.2.2 Enforcement
•
•
5.2.2.1
Enforcement of subsection 36(3) is complaint driven and conducted by
Department of Environment enforcement officers.
Violations of section 36(3) carry a maximum penalty of not more than $300,000
and lor 6 months imprisonment for summary convictions. For indictable offences,
maximum penalties include not more than $1 million andlor 3 years
imprisonment.
Species at Risk Act Enforcement
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
s. 85 - Enforcement Officers
85. (1) A competent minister may designate any person or person of a class of
persons to act as enforcement officers for the purposes of this Act.
85. (4) For the purposes of this Act, enforcement officers have all the powers of a
peace officer, but the competent minister may specify limits on those powers
when designating any person or person of a class of persons to act as
enforcement officers.
s. 86 Inspections
86. (1) For the purpose of ensuring compliance with any provision of this Act, the
regulations or an emergency order, an enforcement officer may, subject to
subsection (3), at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place in which the
enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, there is any thing to which
the provision applies or any document relating to its administration, and the
enforcement officer may
(a) open or cause to be opened any container that the enforcement officer
believes, on reasonable grounds, contains that thing or document;
(b) inspect the thing and take samples free of charge;
(c) require any person to produce the document for inspection or copying, in
whole or in part; and
(d) seize any thing by means of or in relation to which the enforcement officer
believes, on reasonable grounds, the provision has been contravened or that the
enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, will provide evidence of a
contravention.
86. (3) The enforcement officer may not enter a dwelling-place except with the
consent of the occupant or person in charge of the dwelling-place or under the
authority of a warrant.
s. 87-89 - Disposition of Things Seized
s. 90-92 - Assistance to Enforcement Officers
90. An enforcement officer may, while carrying out powers, duties or functions
under this Act, enter on and pass through or over private property without being
liable for trespass or without the owner of the property having the right to object
to that use of the property.
91. The owner cor'the person in charge of a place entered by an enforcement
officer under section 86, and every person found in the place, must
(a) give the enforcement officer all reasonable assistance to enable the
enforcement officer to carry out duties and functions under this Act; and
48
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
o
•
o
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
5.3
January 2005
(b) provide the enforcement officer with any information in relation to the
administration of this Act, the regulations or an emergency order that the
enforcement officer may reasonably require.
92. While an enforcement officer is exercising powers or carrying out duties or
functions under this Act, no person shall
(a) knowingly make any false or misleading statement, either orally or in writing,
to the enforcement officer; or
(b) otherwise obstruct or hinder the enforcement officer.
s. 93-96 - Investigations
s. 97-107 - Offences and Punishment
97. (1) Every person who contravenes sUbsection 32(1) or (2), section 33,
subsection 36(1), 58(1), 60(1) or 61(1) or section 91 or 92 or any prescribed
provision of a regulation or an emergency order, or who fails to comply with an
alternative measures agreement the person has entered into under this Act,
(a) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable
(i) in the case of a corporation, other than a non-profit corporation, to a fine of not
more than $300,000,
(ii) in the case of a non-profit corporation, to a fine of not more than $50,000, and
(iii) in the case of any other person, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to
imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both; or
(b) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable
(i) in the case of a corporation, other than a non-profit corporation, to a fine of not
more than $1,000,000,
(ii) in the case of a non-profit corporation, to a fine of not more than $250,000,
and
(iii) in the case of any other person, to a fine of not more than $250,000 or to
imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both.
97. (3) If a person is convicted of an offence a subsequent time, the amount of
the fine for the subsequent offence may, despite subsection (1), be double the
amount set out in that subsection.
97. (4) A person who commits or continues an offence on more than one day is
liable to be convicted for a separate offence for each day on which the offence is
committed or continued.
s. 125 - Fees and charges.
Parks Canada
Parks Canada manages National Parks, National Marine Conservation Areas, National
Historic Sites, and National Historic Canals (e.g. the Trent-Severn Waterway). Parks
Canada has a legislated mandate to protect these representative areas for all time. This
protection mandate is strengthened through the Historic Canals Regulations and, in
particular, the National Parks Act which states that protecting ecological integrity will take
precedence in acquiring, managing and administering heritage places and programs. In
addition to being Peace Officers, Park Wardens are appointed special constables and
Fishery Officers, which gives them the authority to apply the Contravention Regulations
and to enforce the Fisheries Act and other mandate-related federal and provincial
statues on lands and waters administered by Parks Canada.
49
5.4
January 2005
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
The MNR is the provincial agency responsible for the protection and management of
Ontario's natural resources, including the management of fisheries. The MNR has
primary administration and enforcement responsibilities for the Lakes and Rivers
Improvement Act, the Public Lands Act, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and the
Aggregate Resources Act.
The MNR supports the referral process by screening and referring work permit
applications under the Public Lands Act (PLA) and the Lakes and Rivers Improvement
Act (LRIA). In addition, MNR issues timing restrictions for in-water work and provides
fisheries information to CA's and DFO. The MNR, rather than CA's, review Ontario
Ministry of Transportation (MTO) proposals, activities under the Crown Forest
Sustainability Act (CFSA) and Community Fisheries and Wildlife Involvement Program
(CFWIP) proposals under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. MNR Conservation Officers
are appointed as Fishery Officers under the Fisheries Act and in the course of
responding to complaints related to provincial legislation may provide compliance
support! actions relating to fish habitat provisions of the Act.
5.4.1
Legislation
The MNR is responsible for enforcing:
•
•
•
o
•
Under sections 14 and 27 of the PLA, the MNR is responsible for regulating
activity and deposit of material on public lands, which include land under water,
crown lands and shorelands.
Ontario Regulation 453/96 of the PLA, requires a work permit to carry out work
on crown land and shore lands, which applies to general dredging and filling
activities.
Sections 14, 16, 28, 36, 38 of the LRIA, Ontario Regulation 454/96, require that
MNR approve the construction of dams (culvert, diversion, causeway, pond, etc.)
on lakes and rivers. This legislation applies to both private and Crown land.
Sections 34 and Ontario Regulation 244/97 the Aggregate Resources Act require
a permit be issued from the MNR for the excavation of aggregate from land under
water.
Sections 42 and 43 of the CFSA require that all forest operations being carried
out on Crown Land are in compliance.
5.4.2 Enforcement
•
•
•
•
The maximum penalties for violations include; not more than $300,000 and/or 6
months imprisonment. For an indictable offence, not more than $1 million and/or
3 years imprisonment. These penalties apply to sections 20, 21, 22, 30, 32 and
s.36(3) of the Fisheries Act.
The maximum penalty for violation of section 14 and 27 of the Public Lands Act,
is not more than $5000 plus provision for rehabilitation order.
The maximum penalty for violation of Ontario Regulation 453/96 of the Public
Lands Act, is a $5,000 fine and/or a rehabilitation order and/or a stop work order.
Violation of sections 14 and 16 of the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act,
Ontario Regulation 456/96, carries a maximum penalty of not more than $10,000
plus Ministerial orders to repair or remove the dam (culvert, diversion, causeway,
pond, etc.).
50
•
•
January 2005
Violation of sections 34 to 46 of the Aggregate Resources Act, carries a
maximum penalty of $30,000 for each day that the offence continues and/or a
compliance order.
Enforcement duties are carried out by Conservation Officers.
The fish habitat referral process usually begins with a proponent visit or phone call to a
local CA office. The CA will provide the proponent with the MNR work permit application
if specifics of the project require approval under MNR mandate. The MNR only begins
the review process if the application has been approved through the CAl DFO review
phase, as projects may change through negotiations through the CAl DFO consultations.
The MNR reviews the application under the PLA and LRIA for threats to natural
resources. This mandate essentially covers the littoral zone from the high-water mark
down into the lake, river or stream. Water crossing applications are reviewed by MNR
engineers.
Applications for minor dredging or shoreline stabilizations will not be visited by MNR staff
but CA's will provide project details and include pictures to the MNR. Regulation 334 of
the PLA outlines how and when applications can be denied. Site visits generally take
place when applicants request work to be done outside the timing window (intended to
protect developing fish embryos). If the application does not contradict the regulations
outlined in the PLA, a work permit will be issued and the proposed work may proceed. A
total of 22 work permits were issued under the Public Lands Act in 2000, 25 in 2001, and
23 in 2002 Table 9).
51
January 2005
Table 9. A list of work permits issued under the Public Lands Act for townships surrounding the Bay of Quinte from 2000 to 2002.
information concerning Murray Township is missing.
Year
2000
Activity
Beach creation
Boat ramp:
Breakwall
Channel creation
Concrete repair
Crib renovation
Deck! dock
Dock! breakwall
Dredging
Township
North Fredericksburq
Ameliasburq
Number
of
Permits
1
2
Township
Sophiasburq
Sophiasburq
Ameliasburg
Adolphustown
2002
2001
1
1
1
Dredqingl breakwall
Erosion control
Ameliasburq
Fillinq
Gabion removal
Gabionwall
Loq crib wall
Pieri dock
Protection
Repair pier
Repair seawall
AmeliasburQ
1
Ameliasburq
1
Ameliasburq
Thurlow
Ameliasburg
Sophiasburg
4
Number
of
Permits
2
AmeliasburQ
2
Ameliasburg
Adolphustown
Sidney
6
1
1
1
Ameliasburg
Adolphustown
3
Ameliasburg
Ameliasburg
Sophiasburq
1
2
1
Ameliasburg
2
North Fredericksburg
Sophiasburq
Ameliasburg
Ameliasburg
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
52
Township
Number
of
Permits
Sophiasburq
Ameliasburq
1
Richmond
1
1
Note:
.~,
January 2005
Year
.
Activity
Replace cribs
Shore lands filling
2000
Number
of
Permits
Township
2002
2001
Township
Number
of
Permits
,
Stabilization
.
Replace gabion
Remove concrete!
riprap
Repair retaining wall
TOTAL
--------
Ameliasburg
South FredericksburQ
......
---
Sidney
Ameliasburg
Sidney
2
3
1
Adolphustown
Ameliasburg
Sophiasburg
1
1
2
2
Sidney
Stream crossing
Shorewall
Township
Number
of
Permits
----
Ameliasburg
1
Ameliasburg
Adolphustown
Sidney
Sidney
2
3
1
1
3
1
I
25
22
----
53
23
I
5.4.3.1
January 2005
Timing Restrictions
The timing window for work in and around water in the Bay of Quinte is from July 1 to
September 15. Applications requesting to do work outside this window potentially
threaten fish eggs. Fall-spawned whitefish eggs are threatened by work after September
15. Spring and summer-spawned species like walleye, bass and yellow perch are
threatened by work occurring before July 1.
It is important to note that these are guidelines only. Each project is reviewed on a case
by case basis so that site and climatic factors may play a role in the decision-making
process.
Application for minor projects (i.e. fixing a dock) outside of the timing window may be
approved by MNR if it will not impact deposited fish eggs.
5.4.3.2
Aquatic Macrophytes
Regulations in the PLA outline the guidelines for aquatic macrophyte removal
management under the MNR mandate. MNR manages the mechanical removal of
macrophytes while MOE manages the use of herbicides for the removal of aquatic
macrophytes in Ontario. The process for approval may begin with the local CA as the
first point of contact. The application is forwarded to DFO if the removal may result in a
HADD of fish habitat. If MNR receives a similar application directly, where the PLA does
not apply, they will still advise the proponent that they need to get CA or DFO approval
to go ahead with the removal.
If the application is applicable to the PLA, it is reviewed by MNR with respect to potential
effects on the natural environment (disruption of natural shoreline processes). If project
specifics contradict the best management practice outlined in the "Permits for Aquatic
Plant Control Applicant Information Guide (MNR 2001)", they may result in a HADD of
fish habitat and are thus forwarded to DFO for further review. Best management
practices for aquatic plant control include; properly identifying fish habitat, the timing of
the activity and the size and configuration of treated areas. G.enerally the removal of
aquatic plants should be kept to the minimum amount necessary to facilitate recreational
needs. The number of combined mechanical harvest and dredging permits has declined
between the years 2000 and 2002 (Figure 12).
54
January 2005
Figure 12. Permits issued for physical aquatic macrophyte removal in the Bay of Quinte from
2000 to 2002.
6r-----------------------~~~~~
!III*Dredging
5
I!lI Mechanical
harvest
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'_--""""-"::=-__
JI
4
3
2
o
2000
2001
2002
*Dredging is presumed to remove aquatic macrophytes.
5.4.3.3
Approval
If any given project is approved, a work permit is issued which describes everything
about the work to be done. The timing restriction is issued as a condition under the work
permit. If the work does not involve a threat to fisheries than the timing restriction does
not apply. Applications can be denied if they pose a threat to fish and wildlife, but not
specifically to fish habitat. However, any application that affects crown land has the
potential to cause a HADD of fish habitat and will be reviewed by the local CA (under
their level II agreement around the Bay of Quinte) and/or DFO.
5.4.3.4
Compliance Audits
Compliance audits analyze the project from the MNR mandate but obvious impacts to
fish habitat can be noted and forwarded to DFO for possible inspection and
investigation. An inspection can turn into an investigation if it is concluded during an
inspection that the work is in violation of applicable legislation under the MNR mandate.
Investigations through the MNR are conducted by Conservation Officers.
5.4.4 Summary
•
•
•
•
Proponent fills out MNR work permit application form
MNR only reviews application after CAl DFO review because plans may change
through CAl DFO review and comment
Review under the PLA (Regulation 334 outlines criteria for denying applications),
LRIA
Application may be denied if it violates the above legislation
OR
•
•
Project does not violate the above legislation ....., reviewed under the timing
restriction
Project timing is not in violation of the restrictions....., Approved
OR
55
January 2005
•
•
•
Project timing is outside the approved timing window
Project reviewed for potential impacts to deposited fish eggs
Project approved if there is no threat to fish eggs
•
Project postponed until appropriate timing window to protect developing fish eggs
OR
For a diagrammatic summary of the project review process, please see Figure 13.
Figure 13. MNR review process
MNR
Will fish habitat be
altered?
MNR work permit
required?
No
Is project in CA with DFO
Authority?
~
Is project in CA with DFO
Authority?
1
I
CTJ
MNR work permit
required?
No
Yes
Proceed, advise
proponent to obtain CA
permit if applicable
--1
+
+
No
y
I
Issue permit, advise
proponent to contact CA
for permit if applicable
Yes
MNR proceeds with
review and fOlwards
See CA referral process
(Fig. 14) If not completed
project to DFO If
applicable
See CA referral process,
(Fig. 14) if not completed
t
+
Proponent receives DFO
LOA, or Section 35(2)
Authorization, or Letter of
Proponent receives CA &
DFO approvals
Denial
t
•
MNR Work Pennit Issued
56
Proponent proceeds with
work
5.5
January 2005
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
The MOE is the provincial agency responsible for enforcing the Ontario Water
Resources Act (OWRA), the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Nutrient
Management Act (NMA). The MOE utilizes pollution prevention measures of the
Fisheries Act (e.g. s.36(3». The OWRA prohibits discharges that may impair the quality
of any waters. The EPA prohibits discharges of anything that causes or is likely to cause
an adverse effect on the environment. The NMA provides for the management of
nutrients applied to agricultural lands. The MOE also manages aquatic herbicide use in
Ontario.
5.5.1
•
•
•
•
Legislation
The MOE is responsible for enforcing section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, which
prohibits the deposit of deleterious substance into waters frequented by fish. The
enforcement of this section of the legislation by MOE is generally limited to
occurrences where the pollutant is chemical in nature.
Section 30(1) of the OWRA, prohibits discharge of substance that may impair
water quality. Section 34 of the Act, requires a permit of taking of more than
50,000 liters per day from any watercourse.
Sections 91, 92, and 93 of the Environmental Protection Act require industries to
report spills.
The removal of aquatic macrophytes, through use of herbicide application,
requires a permit and license through the MOE under the Pesticides Act, and
regulation 914.
5.5.2 Enforcement
•
•
•
•
Violation of section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act carries a maximum penalty of no
more than $300,000 for a summary conviction and/or 6 months imprisonment
and not more than $ 1 million and/or 3 years imprisonment for an indictable
offence. Complaints from the public about people applying a substance into the
water are forwarded to the local MOE District office for appropriate investigation
and action.
Violation of section 30( 1) of the Ontario Waters Resources Act, carries a
maximum penalty of not more than $10,000 for summary conviction and not more
than $2 million per day and 6 months in prison for an indictable offence. Violation
of section 34 under this Act carries a maximum penalty of not more than $10,000
for a summary conviction and not more than $2 million per day and 6 months in
prison for an indictable offence. Section 108 includes greater penalties for
violations by a corporation, and for subsequent offences.
Violation of sections 91, 92, and 93 of the Environmental Protection Act carries a
maximum penalty of not more than $10,000 for a summary conviction and not
more than $2 million per day and 6 months in prison for an indictable offence.
Section 108 includes greater penalties for violations by a corporation, and for
subsequent offences. Spills may be reported to the Spills Action Center.
Failure to compJy with the terms and conditions of the permit for the application of
aquatic herbicide use may result in a charge under the Pesticides Act, and
Regulation 914.
57
•
January 2005
Enforcement of legislation that is the responsibility of MOE is carried out by MOE
district environmental officers.
The MOE is involved in the fish habitat management process by regulating the use of
aquatic herbicides in the Bay of Quinte. The process typically begins with a phone call
from a proponent. The proponent is made aware of the possible alternative control
measures and the importance of maintaining aquatic vegetation and is encouraged not
to use aquatic herbicides wherever possible. Where the proponent requests it, an
application for a permit is sent out and is to be filled out and returned by the proponent.
Review of the permit application follows guidelines set-out by the "Ontario Guidelines for
Aquatic Plant Control" (DFO and MNR 1994). Applications that follow the guidelines set
forth in this document do not require review by DFO as they should not cause a HADD of
fish habitat. Larger applications (Le. marinas, or greater than 15x30 m square for a
single cottage) or those that do not follow the pre-set guidelines are forwarded to DFO
for review.
Site visits are conducted by MOE Regional Pesticides Specialists, particularly for new
applications. Plants are identified at the site to determine the appropriateness off the
herbicide for the job. The label requirements found on the herbicide container are
restrictive and specific. Site visits confirm that permit application is consistent with any of
the label requirements and use restrictions.
"Special consideration should also be given to habitat types provided by plant species
believed to be in limited supply in the waterbody in question. For example, wetland areas
should be identified and their value as fish habitat documented." (DFO and MNR 1994).
Timing restrictions governed by MN R must be followed for the use of aquatic herbicides,
as a condition of the permit. Restrictions are in place for any work overseen by MNR that
occurs outside of July 1 to September 15. The herbicide permit is very specific regarding
what the proponent is allowed to purchase, permitted use, how and when to use, safety
measures and storage requirements. All terms and conditions are included within the
permit. Permits issued for the use of aquatic herbicides in the Bay of Quinte has
decreased from the year 2000 to 2001 (Table 10).
Table 10. List of aquatic herbicide permits issued by MOE for the years 2001 and 2002 in the
Bay of Quinte.
Permit Type
Year
2001
2002
5.6
Number of
permits
issued
33
22
Amount of
product used
(Ll
347.1
212.4
Marine!
resorts
8
6
Private
property
25 (47 sites)
16 (27 sitesl
Area Treated
Total (hal
17.3
11.2
Marina
(hal
14.9
10.2
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF)
OMAF works closely with farmers and other agencies to enhance protection of aquatic
environments. Several Best Management Practices have been developed to assist
farmers in the protection of fish habitat and water quality. The OMAF has legislative
58
January 2005
responsibilities for protection of the natural environment within the Drainage Act and the
Nutrient Management Act.
5.6.1
Legislation
The Drainage Act is administered provincially by OMAF. This Act is a legislative tool that
allows landowners to petition their local municipality to resolve their drainage problems.
The local municipality administers the legislative process used to develop a 'drainage
works', also known as a 'municipal drain', and assesses the project costs to the
landowners in the drainage system's watershed. The process defined in the Drainage
Act ensures public involvement through various meetings and appeal opportunities.
The purpose of the Nutrient Management Act is to provide for the management of
materials containing nutrients in a way that will enhance protection of the natural
environment and provide a sustainable future of agricultural operations and rural
development. OMAF works closely with farmers in the development and approval of
nutrient management strategies and plans, offering training and education to help
farmers continue to operate environmentally responsible agricultural operations.
5.6.2 Enforcement
Under the Drainage Act, the local municipality is legally responsible for the future
management once a municipal drain is constructed. These responsibilities include
maintenance, repair or improvements to the drainage works as well as enforcement of
penalties for certain infractions against the municipal drain.
The Nutrient Management Act is provincially enforced by the MOE.
5.7
Conservation Authorities (CA's)
CA's in the Quinte region (Lower Trent Conservation, Quinte Conservation and
Cataraqui Conservation Authority) are empowered by the Conservation Authorities Act to
undertake programs to further the conservation, restoration, development and
management of natural resources on a watershed basis. CA's are community based
conservation organizations which provide comprehensive technical, planning,
educational and recreational services. The Conservation Authorities Act allows for
regulations that pertain to the use of water, prohibit or require permission to interfere in
any way with the existing channel of a watercourse or wetland and prohibit or require
permission to undertake development (construction, structural alteration, grading, filling)
in areas where the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution, or the
conservation of lands may be affected. CA's play an important supporting role by
referring potential occurrences to primary agency(ies).
As stated in section 5.1.4, CA's in the Bay of Quinte region are the first point of contact
in the fish habitat referral process. DFO has signed Level 2 Agreements with Lower
Trent Conservation, Quinte Conservation and Cataraqui Conservation Authority; these
agreements allow the CA's to undertake the review of project proposals under Section
35 of the Fisheries Act. The CA's can negotiate project redesign, relocation and
mitigation to avoid a HADD, but do not have the authority to determine if a HADD
associated with a proj,l;lc(is acceptable or not. Projects are referred to DFO for the
determination and authorization of a HADD of fish habitat. For a review of project
redesign, relocation and mitigation processes, please see Section 5.1.4.3, Options for
Habitat Protection.
59
5.7.1
January 2005
Legislation
CA's regulate construction in a floodplain and the placing of fill within defined lands, as
well as any physical altering of the channel of any water course including lakes. Defined
lands typically include all lands below a line 15 meters above the flood line, but may vary
depending on the characteristics of the site.
CA's are also involved in land-use planning for upland sites and riparian areas adjacent
to watercourses. Planning applications that pertain to natural hazards, water quality and
quantity, natural heritage, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, wetlands and the
Fisheries Act, are reviewed by CA's.
5.7.1.1
In-water and Floodplain work
•
•
•
•
5.7.1.2
Fisheries Act, Section 35 review under a Level II agreement with DFO for CA's in
the Quinte region.
Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act requires written permission to:
change or interfere with watercourses/wetlands; and
undertake development in areas where the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic
beaches, pollution, or the conservation of lands may be affected by the
development (principally through valley systems).
Land Use Planning
Regulations made pursuant to the Ontario Planning Act, require municipalities to
circulate planning applications to the CA's for review and comment. A memorandum of
understanding between the Province and Conservation Ontario delegates lead
responsibility to the CA's for commenting on planning matters related to natural hazards
such as flooding and erosion. Under agreement with their member municipalities, CA's
also comment on matters relating to natural heritage and water quality and quantity.
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), issued under Section 3 of the Ontario Planning
Act, outlines the approach that approval authorities (such as municipalities) and
commenting agencies (such as CA's), use to make their recommendations and
decisions. The policies focus on the key provincial interests related to land use planning
and development. The Conservation Authorities also develop implementation policies
that are consistent with the PPS.
Fill, Construction, and Alteration to Waterways Regulations, made pursuant to Section
28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, allow CA's to regulate site alteration activities. At
this time, the Fill and Construction components of the Regulations do not apply in certain
areas around the Bay of Quinte. The Alteration to Waterways component of the
Regulations applies along most watercourses draining to the Bay.
5.7.2 Enforcement
5.7.2.1
In-water and Floodplain work
CA's can lay charges for violation of their regulations, with fines of up to $10,000 and 3
months imprisonment. Under new generic regulations authorized personnel may enter a
property if it is their opinion that environmental harm has occurred, will occur, or is
occurring. Charges can be laid for any construction or fill placement in regulated areas,
or for any alterations to a watercourse with no prior approval.
60
January 2005
CA staff will fill out an occurrence report when there has been a violation under their
regulations. If the violation takes place within the regulated area below the fill-line, the
CA can lay charges. The offence must be discussed with the chairman, general manager
of the CA and legal council before proceeding with charges. If the offence pertains to fish
habitat, the occurrence report is forwarded to DFO and MNR.
When a CA receives a project file from either the proponent or another agency (e.g.
MNR), the CA will either:
•
•
•
Perform a site visit and provide verbal advice on the types of projects that mayor
may not be approved and discuss mitigative measures for projects that have a
higher probability of being approved. Notes and pictures are taken at the time of
this site visit. Procedures for filling out application forms for all applicable
agencies are explained, to make the permit (CA work permit, LOA, HADD
authorization, Public Lands Act work permit, etc) and approval process a onewindow approach from the perspective of the proponent.
The CA may advise the proponent that they do not require a permit or
authorization for certain projects like the construction of a floating or rolling dock.
Alternatively the CA may require the proponent to acquire a permit to ensure they
are following best management practices even for simple projects.
The CA may advise the proponent that the application will likely not be approved
if the proposed project is for the construction of a dam, on-line pond, or for a new
concrete retaining wall. Repairs for existing concrete walls are considered.
If the proponent requires a permit, the application is filled out and sent back to the CA
with all required information (plans, specification, pictures, descriptions, etc).
It should be noted that there are no specific CA policies regarding the approval or refusal
of applications for docks, dams, ponds (on-line, off-line, by-pass), retaining walls, or
stream channelization. There will be opportunity to revise CA policy when the province
declares that the new generic regulations for CA's will be implemented.
Projects that involve work in water and floodplains are reviewed by CA's for impacts
under section 35(1) of the Federal Fisheries Act. Project details reviewed include:
•
•
•
Location - i.e.) cold-water, warm-water, etc.
Detrimental potential of project
Site Visit - photos, substrate conditions, other relevant fish habitat assessment
information
AgenCies that must be involved in the review process are determined by way of a series
of triggers:
•
•
•
If the project is to occupy over 15 m2 of shore lands (below the high water mark),
is for shoreline stabilization, dredging or filling (Public Lands Act) and/or the
project is to construct or alter a dam, is to construct a water crossing draining an
area greater than five square kilometers, is to channelize a river or stream, is to
enclose or cover a length of river or stream for greater than twenty meters in
length, is to install a cable or pipeline into the bed of a river (Lakes and Rivers
Improvement Act) --> forwarded to MNR
If the project poses a navigational concern --> forwarded to the Canadian Coast
Guard
If the project could potentially cause the HADD of fish habitat and the proponent
does not wish to use the modification or relocation suggestions of the CA that
61
•
January 2005
would mitigate the potential impacts of the HADD or any work below the highwater mark -> forwarded to the DFO.
If the project will require a planning application that may be contrary to CA
regulations or the Provincial Policy Statement of the Planning Act -> discussed
with the CA planner.
For a summary of the review process conducted by CA's in the Quinte Region, see
Figure
CA's provide monthly reports summarizing projects screened under Section 35
of the Fisheries Act to their respective DFO management biologist.
II.
Figure 14. Interagency Review Process by Conservation Authorities in the Quinte region.
CA with Level
Agreement
2
FOIwarded to appropriate
agencies
Fish habitat is present and may
be altered, disrupted or
destroyed
Project proceeds with
modifications No Fisheries Act
Proponent proceeds with work
Note: the referral process outlines the generic referral process for fish habitat review in Ontario for CA's with
Level 2 Agreements with DFO. The process is superceded in cases where MNR and the CA currently work
under existing agreements (e.g. MTO) or where other local agreements! working arrangements have been
arranged between MNR and the CA.
Under Level II Agreement with DFO, a project is deemed:
•
•
Acceptable- No adverse fish habitat impacts. Letter of advice (LOA) issued to
proponent that the project may proceed following the mitigative terms and
conditions in the letter. The LOA outlines the project and required mitigation
measures to avoid the harmful alteration disruption or destruction of fish habitat
and that they may be charged under the federal Fisheries Act if they fail to do so.
General timing restrictions prescribed by the MNR are included as a condition in
the LOA.
Unacceptable:- Tile project will cause a HADD and cannot by mitigated or
relocated, or the proponent does not agree to mitigative measures. The project is
then forward to DFO for further review under their authorization process
Under CA Regulations, a project is deemed:
62
•
•
January 2005
Acceptable (under CA Regulations) - The project will not cause environmental
impact or other unacceptable consequences as defined in CA regulations,
through terms and conditions of the permit.
Unacceptable (under CA Regulations) - A hearing involving the applicant, the
CA and a governing body, must take place if a CA does not wish to issue a
permit. If the CA declines to issue a permit, or if the permit is issued subject to
conditions that are unacceptable to the applicant, then they can appeal to the
Ontario Mining and Lands Commissioner.
Land Use planning
5.7.2.2
As CA's are commenting agencies, no legal enforcement power exists for adhering to
CA land-use planning recommendations for lands that are not covered by the CA
regulations. Under the Planning Act, approval authorities are required to "have regard to"
provincial policies, including those pertaining to environmental issues.
Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning applications (proposed development andl or change in land use) are
forwarded to CA from an approval authority by one of the following protocols:
All planning applications are circulated; OR
Applications sent to the CA are screened. An agreement between the CA and an
Approval Authority determines the types of applications forwarded. Some of the
screening criteria include applications for land-use changes in the following
areas:
steep slopes
near water
near wetlands
within the regulatory floodplain or a fill line
within an Environmental Protection zone
Review under PPS, Municipal and CA policy and federal Fisheries Act (Level II
Agreement)
The application is reviewed with regards to how it relates to the PPS, applicable
municipal Official Plan(s), and CA policy for natural hazards, natural heritage (including
fish habitat), and water quality and quantity.
Upland activities such as forestry, agriculture, and urbanization, which occur adjacent to
a waterbody, can result in a HADD. Although factors such as the area of land impacted,
and the proximity to fish habitat are important considerations when determining if a
HADD is likely to occur, habitat managers must assess impacts in the context of the
nature and extent of the habitat to be impacted and make their decisions accordingly
(DeCision Framework 1998)
•
CA makes recommendations to either: (1) approve the application, often with
conditions to mitigate environmental impacts, or (2) substantially revise or deny
the application.
For applications where the land parcel includes or is adjacent to fish habitat,
recommendations vary. depending on the circumstances. It is generally recommended
that buildings and structures not be built in a 30-metre setback from the shoreline. CA
staff recommend leaving vegetation in a natural state within the setback area along the
shoreline.
63
•
January 2005
Final decision regarding the CA recommendations rests with the approval
authority.
The overall recommendation from a CA may be as follows:
•
The application is supported - A planning application that does not conflict with
municipal or CA policy under the Provincial Policy Statement is approved;
• The application is not supported by the CA - The application contradicts
municipal or CA policy under the Provincial Policy Statement. For example, a
proponent wishes to reduce the shoreline setback for a new cottage from 30 m to
7 m where there is a suitable building location outside of the 30 m setback - This
contradicts CA policy and therefore the CA will not support this application. The
final decision regarding the approval or refusal of the application rests with the
approval authority.
It is important to note that any person, including the CA, can appeal a municipal decision
to the Ontario Municipal Soard (OMS).
64
January 2005
I
6,Q· ·Co!1C~r!1$",.f'islJ·HabitatMa!1ag~lTIent·AgencieS:··
6,1
DFO
The following list reflects issues expressed by DFO representatives and work that has
been done to support the Fish Habitat Management Plan,
6,1,1
Protection
Habitat Classification and Angler Data
Fish habitat has been classified into categories of importance based on scientifically
defensible methods. Additional habitat information has been gathered from local fish
habitat experts so management decisions may eventually be aided by a combination of
scientific and observatory fish habitat data within the Bay.
Broader Context
All agencies involved in the management of fish habitat should be aware of what one
another are doing in order to help support each other's mandates, for the benefit of fish
habitat.
Measuring No Net Loss policy and Net Gain objective
There is no program to measure if habitat management efforts are achieving NNL and
Net Gain. A model is in development that will be used by management biologists to help
them measure and therefore manage for their Net Gain objective. The first step in the
evaluation is to measure losses and gains in surface area of habitat. The next step is to
measure the five elements of fish habitat as defined under the Fisheries Act. The
measured elements are scored based on their habitat contributions for various fishes.
The model then determines the relative contributions of surface area and habitat quality,
resulting in a final measure of gain or loss and the type of habitat that was achieved for
different fishes. The results are however presumptuous without compliance or effects
(biological) monitoring. The five elements of fish habitat as defined under the Fisheries
Act are used as criteria in the model because they have a greater chance of being
defended in a court of law than additional elements not defined by the Act.
De-listing
Currently there are no guidelines of how to manage projects to fulfill RAP de-listing
criteria.
lJo ~~ i\~ecl
q\-v.&~
? .
Habitat mapping and updating
4rP~O
UN Y'l\CMA t~.
There needs to be improved methods developed for inventoryin! N. 'b0CJ 10 tLJ
classifying fish habitats, and practical methods for regularly updating thl NrJL-. 'lo t"
\"
~~1 h J)'JJ I
6.1.2 Scientific Research
\'l.iQ
I)
I
Habitat knowledge
q;. ~wpr
O>N(t;~
Management will benefit from improved understanding between habitat features, life
history requirements, cfish· diversity, abundance, production, explOitation and other
stresses. Improved knowledge of the interactions of these components may be used to
identify factors which limit the production of various species, as well as habitat features
that support them. Many indigenous fish species have little SCientifically documented
Section 6: Concerns - Fish Habitat Management Agencies
65
January 2005
habitat requirements that would assist managers in preventing development impacts. A
comprehensive study is needed to determine the seasonal habitat-use by fishes.
Restoration
More research is required to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat enhancement and
restoration, projects and techniques.
6.1.3 Public Consultation
Completed consultation
Representatives from governrnent agencies, local fish habitat stakeholders and the
general public have been consulted regarding their fish habitat concerns, reported in this
document. Consulted government agencies included; Lake-wide Management Plans,
Ministry of the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Lower Trent, Quinte and
Cataraqui Region Conservation Authorities, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
Environment Canada and the Lake Ontario Management Unit. Local interest groups
consulted include the Lower Trent Valley Fish and Gun Club, Belleville and District Fish
and Game Club, Quinte Bassmasters, Friends of Massassauga Point, Napanee Rod and
Gun Club, Deseronto Yacht Club and the Quinte Rowing Club. Input from the general
public was encouraged through radio interviews, press releases, fact sheet distribution,
phone calls, meetings and visits. Other stakeholders were actively pursued for input
including: Tyendinaga Mohawks, commercial fisherman, professional bass fisherman,
long-time recreational fisherman, bait harvesters, local resort operators, professional
guides, marine contractors and bait and tackle store operators. Information packages
were distributed to every shoreline property owner around the Bay of Quinte and up the
major tributaries. The information included a Fish Habitat Plan fact sheet, Working
Around Water fact sheet, Healthy Waterfront Living fact sheet and a cover letter
encouraging good stewardship practices.
6.1.4 Public Information and Education
I
Public awareness
There is a lack of public awareness about fish habitat around the Bay of Quinte and a
lack of initiatives geared towards on-going education, and stewardship around the Bay of
Quinte.
6.1.5 Cooperative Action
Enforcement
Enforcement of habitat violations (compliance of LOA's, illegal activities, patrols etc ... )
appears weak. One reason may be a lack of officers to do the required work.
Compliance monitoring
Inadequate compliance monitoring takes place to ensure that recommendations detailed
in LOA's have been adequately followed. Cooperative actions could be developed to
help address this outstanding issue.
Effectiveness monitoring
Very little effectiveness monitoring takes place to determine if the project has fulfilled its
habitat objectives of achieving no net loss or net gain. Cooperative action is necessary
to evaluate project effectiveness from a habitat! fisheries perspective.
66
January 2005
Creative sentencing
When there has been a violation of section 35 of the Fisheries Act, and the judge finds
the defendant guilty, the prosecution may ask for creative sentencing like additional
habitat restoration or fines that go towards education and awareness programs.
Currently there is no approved list of potential rehabilitation or restoration sites or
education/ stewardship programs that could be used to help with creative sentencing in
court.
6.1.6 Habitat Improvement
Restoration projects
There is currently no approved list of restoration projects designed to help the Bay of
Quinte de-list as an Area of Concern, fulfill HADD compensation requirements or
violations of the Fisheries Act, aChieve fish community objectives for Lake Ontario and
support the public's demands. Knowledge of habitat features that limit fish production
would be useful in designing projects that would effectively achieve habitat goals.
Forage fishes
There is apparently a lack of small forage fishes in the Bay of Quinte. Yet there is no
plan to influence habitat changes which could favour increased production of forage fish.
Historical disruptionl destruction
There is a lack of knowledge of what the effects of historical habitat destruction,
disruption or alteration have had on the Bay's fisheries. Habitat disruptions that may be
remediated through restoration and thus warrant further investigation include:
•
•
•
Migratory barriers to upland fish habitat
Conversion of open-water coastal marshes to cattail dominated systems via Lake
Ontario water level manipulation and causeways (altering water movement)
Excessive submergent plant densities associated with exotic species
6.1.7 Habitat Monitoring
Ecosystem monitoring
There is no means of monitoring the entire Bay of Quinte fish habitat and the fish using
it.
6.2
Conservation Authorities
Sections 6.2.1 - 6.2.3 reflect concerns of Fish Habitat Biologist Representatives at CA's.
6.2.1
Legislation
Boathouses
A zoning by-law was enacted by a township prohibiting the construction of boathouses.
Under the Planning Act, boathouses are considered structures and therefore are
restricted from being built within a setback. Therefore, this particular by-law deals with
upland structures but lT1<lY not restrict the development of boathouses on the water,
which is over Crown land.
67
January 2005
Decks and docks - Riparian vegetation
Township zoning by-laws may permit decks or docks to extend along the shoreline for
long distances provided there are no adverse affects on fish habitat. There are
detrimental impacts associated with the removal of shoreline vegetation such as possible
erosion problems, loss of organic matter entering the water, loss of insect fish food
entering the water, loss of cover for fish, etc. Riparian vegetation is widely accepted as
contributing to the health of nearshore fish habitat, yet the Fisheries Act has little
precedence, set to protect it.
,. .
i
HADD - Activities vs Structures
The development of a marina may be proposed in an area that is not necessarily critical
or important fish habitat and approved because all docks will be floating structures.
Therefore no MNR work permit is necessary (require a land-use agreement) and DFO
will likely issue a LOA as there are no adverse effects from the structure itself. There are
however impacts to habitat associated with boating activities that cannot be resolved, as
the Fisheries Act does not acknowledge activities related to the use of structure in the
section 35(1) review.
6.2.2 Management
Using Legislation Effectively
Some projects may harm fish habitat by falling through the cracks of existing legislation.
Some township by-laws may not compliment fish habitat management goals. Some
projects can slide through the loop-holes between fish habitat legislation and township
by-laws to create small, yet cumulative impacts. If all legislation is used collectively, most
projects should not result in harmful impacts to fish habitat.
Floating Docks
The construction of floating or roll-out docks do not require a permit in Prince Edward
County. There are no size restrictions for these structures. Docks longer than 50 feet
may however be a navigational concern and therefore a coast guard issue. The TrentSevern Waterway has width restrictions for docks of six feet or less to minimize littoral
zone shading. There is also minimum required distance of twelve feet between adjacent
docks.
Floodplain Mapping
Lack of floodplain mapping for North Marysburgh, parts of Sophiasburg, Picton and parts
of Hallowell create problems for fulfilling CA regulations. There may still be work required
by respective CA's to ensure that all required information is available.
Discouraged structures
Dams, on-line ponds, solid structures, dredging and new concrete retaining walls are
discouraged. Repairs to existing structures are considered.
DFO - CA Communication
It is up to the discretion of the CA staff (fish habitat biologist representative) whether or
not a proposed project may result in a HADD, which would then require DFO's
involvement. Many willJe.sult in at least a small HADD of fish habitat directly or through
future activities that will be associated with the project. CA's and DFO need to determine
the scale and scope of projects that DFO should be contacted about. Contacting DFO
about every project will require a lot of time and defeats the purpose of sharing the work
68
January 2005
load between agencies. Alternatively, not involving DFO, in order to save time in the
review process creates potential for the HADD of fish habitat to occur.
Shoreline monitoring
There is no means of measuring the amount of shoreline alteration that occurs over time
other than looking at air photos. Videos of the Bay of Quinte shoreline were taken in the
early 90's. Bay of Quinte RAP owns copies of the videos.
Culvert Approval Checklist
Most new culverts are HADD's. Processing these applications is time-consuming. An
approval checklist may help speed the process by not involving other agencies.
Incentives for Shoreline Naturalization
There should be incentives, such as tax breaks, for residents that leave shorelines
natural.
6.2.3
Cases
Breakwall - Works conducted without permit
In this case, the proponent built a breakwall below the high-water mark and planned to
back-fill the area that he'd lost over time. The offender claimed to have lost 10-20 feet of
shoreline. Shoreline property owners are commonly concerned about loosing property to
the water, giving them motivation to build a wall to protect against erosion. The CA, MNR
and DFO collaborated to decide who would take the lead in laying charges.
"Tidying-up" the Shoreline
In this case, the proponent placed beach sand through the marshy shoreline to get out to
the water's edge and removed wetland vegetation. DFO and CA officials instructed them
to leave the area to naturally re-vegetate and permitted a dock extending over and
above the wetland vegetation. The offender stated that the work was performed to "tidyup" the shoreline and create beach access. A desire to "tidy-up" the shoreline is a
common theme among shoreline residents.
First-time Shoreline Residents
Many shoreline property owners are people who move from the city to retire. Their
perception of the ideal property is a house by the water with a lawn cut down to the
water's edge and a nice clear view of the water. After removing the riparian vegetation,
the resulting erosion causes the need to protect the remaining property. In one instance,
property owners stated that they wanted to remove all the shoreline vegetation so that
they could have a nice view of the water and watch fish feeding at the surface. The CA
staff advised the property owners that removing the vegetation would lead to erosion
and costly preventative measures, and that the fish they were observing were feeding on
insects falling from the trees along the shoreline. The landowners were interested and
cooperative and decided to leave some vegetation rather than stripping the entire
shoreline.
Dredging
Quinte CA receives Il)any dredging applications. Dredging is usually a requirement
where a man-made structure like a groyne or boat slip is causing sediment deposition. In
these cases, dredging must be an on-going activity to maintain the desired use of the
site. Dredging causes negative fish habitat disturbance, but impacts can be mitigated
through implementation of timing restrictions and other measures.
69
January 2005
Boat Ramps
A growing number of shoreline property owners want their own private boat ramps even
with nearby access to public facilities. The boat ramps average 20-30 feet wide so there
is great potential to loose riparian vegetation and disrupt natural shoreline processes.
Substrate disturbance occurs as the boat trailer enters the water.
In-land Boat Slips
In-land boat slips are created by digging back in-land from the shoreline to create a
pocket of water for boat dockage. These undertakings may be permitted because they
are not in violation of CA fill regulations and do not destroy fish habitat but create it. The
problem with in-land boat slips is that they require a lot of dredging. Proponents argue
that the slips provide fish and amphibian habitat. However, on-going dredging creates
habitat impacts.
The slips can be designed so that not as much sediment deposition occurs, thereby
reducing the frequency of required dredges. In these cases, the in-land boat slip may be
preferable to other structures necessary to reduce wave energy such as groynes.
Use of Concrete
Concrete is stable in water, but the freeze-thaw cycle causes cracks that breakdown
concrete at the upland and water interface. Its use will generally not be approved. Other
shoreline stabilization methods are available that require less replacement. In addition,
concrete structures provide little to no fish habitat. Wet cement is considered a
deleterious substance. Forms must be water-tight to prevent release into the
environment.
Gabion Baskets
Gabion baskets are not effective in a marine environment. Their lifespan is limited due to
shifting and movement of the basket caused by wave and ice action. They often fail due
to improper construction or use for an inappropriate site. Other alternatives are available
that are more effective and durable. They may only be useful if incased in an open steel
frame using large rocks to provide some fish habitat or food production. Smaller rocks
provide little interstitial space and thus act like a fill rather than providing fish habitat.
Gabion baskets will generally not be approved.
I
Work without Permits
Occasionally, work will be performed without acquisition of the required permits. Such
activities may be taking place as a result of:
•
•
•
•
ignorance of the legal requirements for work around water
lack of fear of the penalties
fear of application being denied
impatience from waiting for the application to be processed
Riparian vegetation removal- Brook trout stream
A development for a subdivision was proposed along a brook trout stream close to the
Bay of Quinte. As part of the approval of the development, there were to be different
zones of permitted uses (i.e. no vegetation removal) outlined in the site plan agreement.
Lawyers were responsible for going through the stipulations in the deed with the new
property owners. Shortly after people moved into the homes, all the vegetation in the
area was removed. Recently, someone was charged and convicted under the Fisheries
Act for removing vegetation along a brook trout stream. This ruling may not be applicable
70
January 2005
to the Bay of Quinte shoreline because in the case of a small, cold-water stream, the
vegetation that falls into the water is the primary food source sustaining aquatic life. It
would be difficult to argue the importance of riparian vegetation to this degree for the
Bay of Quinte.
Targeted Education
Impacts to fish habitat often come about from a general lack of knowledge regarding the
consequences of actions around water. Education programs tend to preach to the
converted, without reaching less environmentally conscious people. A forum needs to be
discovered that would teach those with less of an interest in fish habitat and water
quality issues about good stewardship practices.
Following Terms and Conditions
In this case, a large project was scheduled that involved input from the local CA, MNR,
and DFO. The work was to proceed under the terms and conditions agreed to between
the contractor and the regulatory agencies. No agencies were at the site when the actual
construction was taking place. CA staff decided to go out and discovered that the
contractor was not following the terms and conditions outlined for the project.
Construction was halted and terms of agreement were renegotiated.
Roads Work
Education is needed for road crews that work along water courses. There needs to be
some consideration of the harmful impacts to fish habitat and water quality that may
occur from sediment or chemical runoff into water courses.
Work Without Permits
A Quinte resident reported that a shoreline resident annually removes all wood and
debris from a large area of nearshore waters without having a permit. Rooted vegetation
or submerged/embedded logs should not be removed from water without appropriate
approval.
6.2.4
i:
Land Use Planning
The following is a list of concerns regarding fish habitat issues from a planning
perspective.
Inconsistency - Planning Applications received by a CA
There is inconsistency between Approval Authorities as far as what planning applications
are sent to the local CA's for review. Some Approval Authorities send all applications
while others screen applications. This is a problem when applications that pose an
environmental concern are not circulated for CA review. In addition, there is less
opportunity for environmental education of landowners without CA review, comment and
recommendations. However, there are applications that do not require and
environmental review.
Approval Authorities over-ruling recommendations
Occasionally an Approval Authority approves an application under the Planning Act
which is contrary to agency recommendations and that has the potential to impact fish
habitat. For example, proponents often wish to build closer to a waterbody than what is
recommended by a CA.
71
January 2005
The CA then sends a letter to the Approval Authority explaining that they will not support
the application for the reduced setback because it is contrary to their policy. The final
decision rests with the Approval Authority.
If the Approval Authority approves the application, the proponent may wish to remove
the riparian or wetland vegetation in the future. If this occurs, fisheries officers may react
if there is a HAOO, but it may be too small an issue to deal with in court. The cumulative
effects of similar actions may begin to affect the waterbody and associated fish habitat.
Setbacks - riparian vegetation
Some municipalities have by-laws that require 30-meter setbacks from watercourses,
where no structures are permitted. There are no by-laws that prohibit or restrict the
removal of vegetation within the setback. Natural riparian vegetation is accepted as
contributing to good water quality and fish habitat but there is little legislative strength to
protect it.
CA's generally recommend leaving vegetation in a natural state, some distance from the
shoreline. This is just a recommendation and is not enforceable through CA policy.
There is generally nothing in by-laws or Official Municipal Plans that protect riparian
vegetation. Proponents are advised that removing riparian vegetation will cause erosion
problems.
Property Standards By-law
Many municipalities have property standards by-laws which require residents to maintain
their property in a prescribed manner, including removing weeds from your property.
Residents in a local Bay of Quinte community, including shoreline property owners, were
encouraged to tidy their property in accordance with the property standards by-law. The
residents of the community were completely unaware of the benefits of shoreline
vegetation, when spoken to about its importance.
In Etobicoke, a resident decided to allow the vegetation in his ditch go natural to slow
water movement and reduce erosion. Neighbors complained and the municipality
ordered the removal of the vegetation, citing applicable by-laws. The resident hired a
lawyer who found that the by-laws did not apply and they won the case. There are
extensive areas of ditches that drain into Bay of Quinte that may benefit receiving waters
if left natural.
Education
Many people have a vested interest in fish habitat (for the production of fishes) and
everyone has a vested interest in water quality. However, there is widespread lack of
knowledge among the community regarding how to protect water quality and fish habitat
(i.e. maintaining natural vegetation along shorelines). Increasing awareness of such
issues may motivate more people to make positive changes. Municipal staff may take
CA letters and recommendations about buffers more seriously if they understood how
important they are.
Source Water Protection
The idea behind source water protection is to reduce the reliance on end-of-the-pipe
water treatment, by protecting water at points along the water cycle. This may be
accomplished by protecting groundwater recharge and discharge areas, wetlands, and
surface waters. Natural riparian vegetation may be used as a means of protecting
surface waters from contamination, which obviously could have implications for the Bay
72
January 2005
of Quinte. Lower Trent Conservation is involved in a pilot project to rank areas within a
given watershed based on their potential to impact the environment.
Nutrient Management Act
Section 7 of the Nutrient Management Act includes provisions that restrict the access of
farm animals from watercourses, which would benefit physical fish habitat and water
quality in the Bay of Quinte and its tributaries.
Mitigation Recommendations
There are no general guidelines to help develop mitigation recommendations for
development projects (including near the water). There are no direct enforcement
policies to support CA mitigation recommendations to municipalities. However, there are
other enforcement avenues such as provisions of the Fisheries Act and the Public Lands
Act.
Violation of CA regulation
In this case, a proponent filled in part of a wetland. The CA charged the individual under
their regulations. A justice-of-the-peace overturned the charges based on the individual
clairning that he was ignorant of the required CA perrnit and had obtained all the other
applicable permits.
Minor Variance
A common problem from a planning perspective is the frequent application for a minor
variance to reduce the existing setback in order to develop closer to the water. Some
municipalities are looking to have the setbacks reduced to facilitate the demands of
shoreline property owners.
i
!
Additional comments
• Environmental Protection zones and setbacks are good with respect to by-laws.
Scientific evidence suggests that setbacks should be greater but would not gain
the support of the municipalities or public due to the significant increase in area
that it would represent.
• Stable slope policies are difficult to uphold when other homes already exist within
the area. It is recognized that setback requirements can change over time - what
was permitted in the past would not receive approval today. A geotech study
would be required prior to comment to support any proposal to develop on a
slope of questionable stability. Without the supporting geotech study the
applicant would be denied.
• Setbacks of 30m and suggested wetland buffers of 120m is difficult for people to
accept
6.3
MNR
The following list reflects fish habitat issues expressed by MNR representatives and
about legislation under their mandate.
Habitat mapping
There is little available information on fish-use on the Bay of Quinte to help make
decisions regarding timing restrictions.
73
January 2005
Consistency
There is a lack of consistency regarding management work, within and between
agencies.
Compliance
It would be useful to conduct compliance audits for all projects.
Mandates
Staff do not look specifically at fish habitat impacts during site inspections but can report
them.
Macrophyte removal
Proponents are advised that they need CA or DFO approval for the removal of aquatic
macrophytes greater or less than 100m2, to ensure fish habitat issues are adequately
addressed during the work.
Education
Occasionally, work takes place without permits due to a lack of knowledge of what the
law requires and why a permit is even necessary. Some work may take place without
permits for fear that the application will be denied. This problem seems to be getting
better.
Prosecution
Prosecuting offenders sends a strong message to others not to do the same.
De-listing
De-listing the Bay of Quinte as an AOC for the loss of fish habitat (IBU #14) is the main
purpose for developing a Fish Habitat Plan. MNR would like to work cooperatively to
develop fish habitat goals that compliment fisheries goals and de-listing criteria for the
degradation of fish populations (IBU #3).
Forage Fishes
There seems to be a lack of small forage fishes in the Bay of Quinte and no strategy to
address it.
6.4
MOE
MOE manages the removal of aquatic macrophytes through the use of herbicides. The
following suggestions pertain to this role in habitat management and habitat protection in
general.
Education
All proponents are encouraged not to use aquatic chemicals and herbicides and are
educated about the importance of maintaining aquatic vegetation as fish habitat.
Enforcement/Education
Enforcement of violations to the Pesticides Act, and Regulation 914, is conducted by
environmental officers out of the district offices. When a possible violation is reported, it
is sometimes difficult to'get to the site in time to take water samples before the chemical
becomes diluted and is undetectable.
74
January 2005
Herbicide-use training
Permits for use of aquatic herbicides may be issued to untrained/unlicensed users (i.e.
cottage owners).
Habitat mapping
Mapping of important fish habitat locations may help protect specific areas from
herbicide application.
75
January 2005
Concerns of resource-users were gathered from phone calls, meetings, emails and
question and answer periods following presentations. Generally, people were asked
what they would do to maintain or improve fish habitat conditions in the Bay of Quinte.
7.1
Commercial Fisherman
The following suggestions, comments or concerns are the opinions of individual
commercial fisherman:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7.2
Sewage Treatment Plants are over capacity.
Lots of toxins remain in the Bay's sediments.
Pollution has lead to declines in fish production.
Polluted water full of garbage runs into the Bay from behind the Cold Storage
warehouse in Trenton. It appears to be stormwater runoff and fouls commercial
nets to the point that they can no longer be set there.
The causeways to Big Island and Sawguin Islands have drastically reduced water
movement, which has negatively impacted habitat, leading to declines in
commercial catches and fish production. The formerly open water channels have
silted-in and become thick stands of cattails.
Efforts should be made to maintain habitat in as natural a state as possible.
Tough liver-like slime fouls nets in November. The fouled nets inhibit commercial
catches. This has happened in the past but has gotten worse in recent years.
Establish the entire Bay of Quinte as a walleye spawning sanctuary.
Efforts should be made to maintain higher water levels in the fall as fish get
stranded in the swamps.
Improve water quality.
Fish reproduction has declined dramatically in the Bay. Other aquatic life like
leeches, snapping turtles, salamanders and muskrats have all declined in
numbers.
Lack of spring runoff is a concern.
Prior to the 70's most of the catch came from creek mouths and it wasn't even
necessary to fish in spring. The drop-of has been continual since then.
Everyone must be involved if habitat (and water quality) is truly going to be
protected. A huge education campaign is necessary.
There needs to be a buffer left between the land and water around the Bay
Create rock shoals.
Zwick's island marsh was incredibly productive for fish and wildlife.
Get rid of pesticides and pollution.
Cormorants are killing shoreline vegetation and fouling fish habitat.
Anglers, stakeholders and other recreational users
The following suggestions, comments or concerns are the opinions of individual
recreational fisherman,., professional tournament fisherman, professional guides, resort
operators and other individuals with concerns in regards to fish habitat:
•
Sewage Treatment Plants overflow, spilling raw sewage from Trenton, Belleville,
Deseronto and the Canadian Forces Base (CFB) in Trenton, into the Bay.
Section 7: Concerns - Resource Users
76
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
;:0
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
January 2005
Is the pipe that extends from the Bakelite plant into the water, discharging
anything?
Stormwater runoff from just west of the Belleville bridge by Zwick's island is a
water quality concern.
Untreated stormwater runoff from the CFB airbase is a water quality concern.
Untreated stormwater runoff discharging at Montrose Rd. is a water quality
concern.
Do not remove aquatic vegetation but instead encourage the use of propeller
weed guards to improve boat movement.
Leave things natural so that they can change naturally over time.
Cutting weeds often encourages them to grow back thicker.
Improve! restore spawning habitat on the major Rivers by adding rock and
washing away sediments in low water conditions on the: Trent, Moira, Salmon
and Napanee.
Concerns that the Plan will create unwanted sanctuaries or reserves.
A shoreline resident used dynamite in the water to gather stone and create a
breakwall.
Aquatic vegetation interferes with swimming opportunities in July and August at
resorts, costing resort operator's business.
Emphasis should be on habitat protection rather than improving.
Improve migratory access on streams for warm-water species.
Continue to monitor water quality.
Save wetlands and creeks.
Protect shorelines.
Restrict concrete docks using only rip rap but still not excessively.
What are the effects of the dust depositing on the water from the cement plant by
Picton? Is it toxic to people! fish? A very green slime occurs adjacent to the
cement plant. Piles of foamy substance floats over the Bay from the plant.
Have a garbage removal! clean-up day to remove tires from the water that
dislodge from docks in particular.
Thin the aquatic vegetation.
Use underwater video to monitor shoreline development projects and how fish
respond to them. The video could also record where fish are using particular
habitat and for what lifestage! purpose.
Lots of bass spawning nests were observed last year by Massassauga Point but
not this year, presumably because of low water.
A shoreline resident annually removes all wood and any other debris from the
water by their property without any authorization.
Protect the shorelines. There needs to be greater restrictions on restructuring
and more restrictions in place.
The fish habitat that was created by armoured stone on the shores of Belleville
was a waste of time.
Plant trees along the shoreline and possibly fell some trees and cable them to the
shoreline to enhance bass habitat.
Address farm runoff problems.
Enhance bass Itabitilt using sunken Christmas trees or artificial Berkeley "habitat
enhancers".
Clear aquatic vegetation for sprint racing east of the Moira River through July and
August.
77
o
•
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7.3
January 2005
Install a temporary floating barge during the summer to reduce wave influences
on rowing races.
Do something to reduce algal blooms east of the Moira River.
The culvert that connects Dead Creek marsh to the Bay should be fixed to allow
fish access. The culvert becomes perched in low water so that fish are able to get
in when water is high, but can't get out when water levels drop. The culvert
becomes plugged with cattails. A wind-up slough could be used to prevent cattail
build-up and control water levels.
Low water levels cause boats to stir up lots of sediment.
Install fishways on the Moira to allow walleye to spawn at more locations
upstream.
Water levels are dropping too fast in late summer/early fall and hurting fish
habitat.
The city of Belleville has scraped away grass and soil to reduce the build up of
sediments along roads. The work was done in the fall, leaving exposed soil along
the roads over the winter.
Educate people, especially kids, about the importance of fish habitat protection.
Enforce habitat offenders more vigorously.
Tag large bass caught in tournaments to see where they are using habitat and
what areas are most important.
Work with the local land stewardship councils to help enhance shorelines.
Repair/replace septic tanks on old cottages.
No one should be allowed to cut weeds on shore.
Bait Harvesters
The following opinions, comments and suggestions are those of individual bait
harvesters working around the Bay of Quinte.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7.4
Improve water quality in the Bay and its tributaries.
Get rid of pesticide and pollution.
Improve habitat on the smaller tributaries such as: Potter's Creek, the creek just
east of Bayside and Makatewis Island, the creek that runs by the CFB airbase
and the creek by Foster's Fishing Center.
Marinas around Trenton and Belleville have high densities of shiners.
Re-establish fish access on small creeks where culverts or other obstructions are
responsible for blocking fish access.
Restore and protect marshes as they produce not only baitfish but frogs, turtles,
and other aquatic life.
Water level fluctuations hurt fish during spawning season.
Use big culverts or bridges to allow normal water and fish movement under road
crossings.
Tyendinaga Mohawks
The following suggestions, comments or concerns are the opinions of individual Bay of
Quinte Mohawks and in no way represent the opinions of the Bay of Quinte Mohawks as
a whole:
•
Keep habitat natural.
78
•
•
•
7.5
January 2005
Enforce the Fisheries Act on those who destroy fish habitat on the Mohawk
territory.
Allow fish migratory access on the Salmon River by adjusting the existing sea
lamprey barrier.
Allow migratory access on Marysville Creek by pulling the boards that create the
impoundment on March 1,( to allow the upstream access of fishes and to flush
sediments.
Marine Contractors
The following suggestions, comments or concerns are the opinions of individual marine
contractors:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o
e
•
•
•
•
Create mounds of rock-rubble to enhance fish habitat while undertaking dredging
operations.
Cantilever docks provide the least impact on fish habitat.
Most work should occur in winter during low-water conditions as opposed to
within the 2-month timing window at the end of summer. Clients do not like
contractors working on their property through the summer, when they would like
to be enjoying their waterfront.
Backlogs in the approval process occur when permits go through MNR.
Permits need to be approved more quickly due to the very narrow timing window.
Property owners unaware of the timing restrictions get upset with contractors.
They need to be educated regarding why the timing restrictions are there.
Realtors often encourage landowners to remove shoreline vegetation to increase
their property value. Lawyers, realtors and landowners need to be educated
about the value of shoreline vegetation.
There should be incentive for leaving natural shoreline vegetation.
Lower Trent Conservation requires a planting bed with trees and shrubs be put in
while other CA's do not.
CA's only approve work above the highwater mark. Proper shoreline stabilization
needs to go below the highwater mark to properly address the erosion problem.
CA's should be more accessible prior to application for work for serious projects.
Compromises between CA and contractors should be made on-site.
Concrete resists ice-damage well.
Concrete and limestone could be used to create habitat and make it last.
Wood requires replacement.
Should be more leeway to dig in back from the shoreline.
The permit process should be streamlined with one agency doing all the work.
Enhance fish habitat by placing uprooted trees from construction sites into the
water.
Section 7: Concems - Resource Users
79
January 2005
I
Aggregate Resources Act ( R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8 )
BQRAP (Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan). 1990. Environmental setting and problem
definition. Stage 1 Report. Ontario, Canada. Prepared by the BQRAP Coordinating
Committee.
BQRAP (Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan). 1993. Time to act. Stage 2 Report.
Ontario, Canada. Prepared by the BQRAP Coordinating Committee.
BQRAP (Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan). 2003. Bay of Quinte RAP Monitoring and
Delisting Strategy IBU Assessment Statements. Bay of Quinte RAP Restoration
Council, Belleville, Ontario. Prepared by Murray German Consulting and Fred Stride
Environmental.
Canada National Parks Act (2000, c.32)
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ( 1992 c. 37 )
Casselman, J.M. 2002. Effects of temperature, global extremes, and climate change on
year-class production of warmwater, coolwater, and coldwater fishes in the Great
Lakes basin. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symposium. 32: 39-60.
Casselman, J.M., Scott, KA, Brown, D.M., and C.J. Robinson. 1999. Changes in
relative abundance, variability, and stability of fish assemblages of Eastern Lake
Ontario and the Bay of Quinte - the value of long-term community sampling. Aquat.
Ecosy. Health and Manag. 2: 255-269.
Chu, C., Minns, C.K., Moore, J.E., and E.S. Millard. (2003 August). Impacts of light,
temperature and water levels on walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) habitat supply in the
Bay of Quinte, 1972 to 2001. SO-20-10. American Fisheries Society Symposium on
the Impact of Water Quantity on Fish Dynamics in the Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence
River Ecosystem. Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Conservation Authorities Act ( R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27 )
Criminal Code ( R.S. 1985, c. C-46 )
Crown Forest Sustainability Act (S.O. 1994, C.25)
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2001. Introduction to habitat management
HM001. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2000. A Protocol Detailing the Fish Habitat
Referral Process in Ontario. Ottawa, Ontario.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1998. Habitat Conservation and Protection
Guidelines - Developed from the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (1986).
Communications Directorate Fisheries and Oceans Canada. DFO/5859.
Section 8: References
80
January 2005
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1998. Decision Framework for the Determination
and Authorization of Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of Fish Habitat.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1998. Habitat Conservation and Protection
Guidelines. Developed from the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (1986).
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1986. Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat.
Ottawa, Ontario.
DFO and MNR (Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources). 1994. Ontario Guidelines for Aquatic Plant Control. Can. Manuscr. Rep.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2236: 25 p.
Dermott, R. 2003. Benthic fauna in Quinte: 2001. Monitoring Report #12, Project Quinte
Annual Report 2001. Bay of Quinte RAP Restoration Council/Project Quinte, Ontario.
Drainage Act (R.R.O. 1990, R.274)
Engel, S. 1995. Eurasian water milfoil as a fishery management tool. Fisheries 20(3):2027.
Environment Canada. "Wetlands". Environment Canada website, The nature of water,
Water
and
climate.
2000.
Accessed
February
2004.
www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/nature/clim/ewetlan.htm
Environmental Protection Act ( R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19 )
Fisheries Act ( R.S. 1985, c. F-14 )
Glemet, H., Tardif, D., Brodeur, P., and M. Mingelbier. (2003 August). Biochemical and
Classical Indices for Evaluating Yellow Perch Growth in Habitat Exposed to
Fluctuating Water Level. American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Quebec City,
PQ, Canada, 2003; American Fisheries Society; Abstract SO-20-04.
Government of United States of America and Government of Canada. "Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Accessed
Feb. 2004. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glwga/1978/index.html
Great Lakes Radio Consortium. 2003. Lake Effect Snow Tied to Global Warming?
Prepared by Richard Annal. http://www.glrc.orgltranscrip\.php3?story id=2107
Hurley, DA 1986. Fish populations of the bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario, Before and After
Phosphorus Control. In C.K. Minns, D.A. Hurley, and K.H. Nicholls [ed.]. Project
Quinte: point-source phosphorus control and ecosystem response in the Bay of
Quinte, Lake Ontario. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 86: 224-236.
Hudon, C. Managing St. Lawrence River discharge in times of climatic uncertainty: How
water quantity impacts wildlife, recreation and economy. American Fisheries Society
81
Annual Meeting, Quebec City,
Abstract SO-20-01.
January 2005
PQ, Canada, 2003; American Fisheries Society;
IJC (International Joint Commission). 2003. Ripple Effects, Volume 6. Lake Ontario-St.
Lawrence River Study.
Keast, A. 1984. The introduced aquatic macrophyte, Myriophyllum spicatum, as habitat
for fish and their macroinvertebrate prey. Can. J. Zool. 62:1289-1303.
Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act ( R.S.O. 1990, c. L.3 )
Lake Ontario LaMP Biennial Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002.
Accessed Feb. 2004. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakeontl
Lane, JA, C.B. Port! and C.K. Minns. 1996a. Nursery habitat characteristics of Great
Lakes Fishes. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No.
2338,42p.
Lane, JA, C.B. Port! and C.K. Minns. 1996b. Adult habitat requirements of Great Lakes
fishes. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2358, v +
43p.
Lane, JA, C.B. Portt and C.K. Minns. 1996c. Spawning habitat requirements of Great
Lakes Fishes. Can. Manuscript Rpt. of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2368, v +
48p.
Legg, D. 1996. The economic impact of commercial fishing in Ontario. Social and
Economic Research and Analysis Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Lillie, RA, and J. Budd. 1992. Habitat architecture of Myriophyllum spicatum L. as an
index to habitat quality for fish and macroinvertebrates. Journal of Freshwater
Ecology 7(2):113-125.
1
/
Madsen, J.D., R.M. Smart, G.O. Dick, and DR Honnell. 1995. The influence of an exotic
submersed aquatic plant, Myriophyllum spicatum, on water quality, vegetation, and
fish populations of Kirk Pond, Oregon. Proceedings: 29th Annual Meeting, Aquatic
Plant Control Research Program. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station.
Martin, L.R.G. 1985. Economic impact analysis of a sport fishery on Lake Ontario: An
appraisal of method. University of Waterloo, School of Urban and Regional Planning,
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Mathers, A. 2000. Economic benefits of Bay of Quinte walleye fisheries. Lake Ontario
Management Unit. Unpublished.
Michael Michalski Associates. 1987. Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan Progress
Report. Prepared for Bay of Quinte Remeidal Action Plan Coordinating Committee.
107pp.
82
January 2005
Minns, C.K., Chu, C, Doka, S.E., and C.N. Bakelaar. (2003 August). Modelling Impacts
of Water Level Fluctuations on Populations of Northern Pike in Lake Ontario and the
St. Lawrence River. SO-20-09. American Fisheries Society Symposium on the
Impact of Water Quantity on Fish Dynamics in the Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River
Ecosystem. Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
MNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2001. Permits for aquatic plant control
applicant information guide. 54 p.
MNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 1971, 1981, 1994-2002. Lake Ontario Fish
Communities and Fisheries: 1970, 1980, 1993-2001 Annual Report of the Lake
Ontario Management Unit. Picton, Ontario, Canada.
MNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 1993. Bay of Quinte Nearshore Habitat
Inventory, GIS database.
Navigable Waters Protection Act ( R.S. 1985, c. N-22 )
Nicholls, K.H. 1999. Effects of temperature and other factors on summer phosphorus in
the inner Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario: implications for climate warming. J. Great
Lakes Res. 25(2): 250-262.
Nutrient Management Act, 2002 (S.O. 2002. c.4)
Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2000. Ontario population projections, 1999-2028, Ontario
and its 49 regional municipalities, counties and districts.
Ontario Water Resources Act ( R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.40 )
Pesticides Act ( R.S.O. 1990, c. P.11)
Planning Act ( R.S.O. 1990, c.P .13 )
Public Lands Act ( R.S.O. 1990, c. P.43 )
Quinlan, C. and G. Mulamoottil. 1987. The effects of water level fluctuations on three
lake Ontario shoreline marshes. Can. Water Res. Journ. 12 (1): 64-77.
SSRAP (Severn Sound Remedial Action Plan). 1993. An interim fish habitat
Prepared by the Severn Sound
management plan. Severn Sound, Ontario.
Remedial Action Team and the Severn Sound Community.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada.
Research Board of Canada Bulletin 184.
Fisheries
Smith, C.G., and J.W. Barko. 1996. Evaluation of a Myriophyllum spicatum decline in
reservoirs of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. Technical Report A-96-6, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
83
January 2005
Smith, B.M., Farrell, J.M., and S.J. Smith. Demographics and population dynamics of St.
Lawrence River northern pike. American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, Quebec
City, PQ, Canada, 2003; American Fisheries Society; Abstract SO-20-06.
Species at Risk Act ( 2002, c. 29 )
Statistics Canada. "Population and dwelling counts". Community Profiles, Census.
Accessed February 2003.
Stewart, T.J., R.E., Lange, S.D. Orsatti, C.P. Schneider, A. Mathers, M.E. Daniels. 1999.
Fish-community objectives for Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub.
99-1.56 p.
Taraborelli, A.C., and T. Schaner. 2002. Diet of Round Goby in the Bay of Quinte, Lake
Ontario. 4 p. Part III. Special Studies. In Lake Ontario Fish Communities and
Fisheries: 2001 Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit. Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources, Picton, Ontario, Canada.
Trushinski, B.J. 1986. An economic impact assessment of angler rental accommodation
in the Bay of Quinte region. University of Waterloo, School of Urban and Regional
Planning, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Wilcox, DA, Patterson, N., and J. Ingram. "Effects of Lake Ontario water-level
regulation on wetlands". USGS Science for a Changing World, Great Lakes Science
2004.
Center,
Wetland
Ecology.
Accessed
February
11,
http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/main.php?content=research wetland current ontario&title=Wetlan
dsO&menu-research NeE wetland
84
Appendix!
List ofAcronyms
,. .
.
List of Acronyms
AOC
Area of Concern. These are severely degraded areas within the Great Lakes Basin,
and are defined by the US - Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreernent as
geographic areas that fail to rneet the general or specific objectives of the
agreernent where such a failure has caused or is likely to cause irnpaired beneficial
use of the area's ability to support aquatic life.
BAO
Bait Association of Ontario.
BQRAP
Bay of Quinte Rernedial Action Plan. Remedial Action Plans identify specific
problems in severely degraded Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOC) and describe
methods for correcting them.
CA
Conservation Authority. Ontario has 36 Conservation Authorities that are
community-based environmental organizations dedicated to conserving, restoring,
developing and managing natural resources on a watershed basis.
CFSA
Canadian Forest Sustainability Act. The purposes of this Act are to provide for the
sustainability of Crown forests and, in accordance with that objective, to manage
Crown forests to meet social, economic and environmental needs of present and
future generations.
CFWIP
Community Fisheries and Wildlife Involvement Program. CFWIP provides the
opportunity for the public to participate in hands-on fish and wildlife management
and conservation activities by developing volunteer projects that will improve fish
and wildlife in the province, and improve opportunities for outdoor recreation. MNR
will provide financial help, expertise, equipment and materials for approved CFWIP
projects.
DFO
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the lead federal
government department responsible for developing and implementing policies and
programs in support of Canada's economic, ecological and scientific interests in
oceans and inland waters.
DOE
Environment Canada. Environment Canada's mandate is to preserve and enhance
the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality; conserve
Canada's renewable resources; conserve and protect Canada's water resources;
carry out meteorology; enforce the rules made by the Canada - United States
International Joint Commission relating to boundary waters; and coordinate
environmental policies and programs for the federal government.
HADD
Harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat
GIS
Geographical Information System.
IBU
Impaired Beneficial Use of water. An impaired beneficial use means a change in the
chemical, physical or biological integrity of the Great Lakes system sufficient to
cause any of the 14 IBU's outlined by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
IJC
International Joint Commission. The IJC is an independent binational organization
established to help prevent and resolve disputes relating to the use and quality of
boundary w~tersand to advise Canada and the United States on related questions.
LOA
Letter of Advice. The Letter of Advice is the document sent after a project is
; .
t ..
Appendix I
I
!
List of Acronyms
reviewed, confirming that the project will not cause a HADD.
LOMU
Lake Ontario Management Unit, a branch of the MNR.
LaMP
Lakewide Management Plans. LaMPs are intended to identify critical pollutants that
affect beneficial uses of the lakes and to present strategies, recommendations and
policy options to restore those beneficial uses. LaMPs for lakes Erie, Michigan,
Ontario and Superior have been developed with guidance from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada.
MNR
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The ministry is committed to protecting and
managing the province's natural resources, or its "natural capital", and making the
interest from that capital available for individuals, communities and economies that
depend on it.
MOE
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The MOE works to protect, restore and
enhance the natural environment through tough legislation and enforcement,
innovative programs and initiatives, strong partnerships, and public engagement.
The ministry works to provide all Ontarians with safe and clean air, land and water.
MTO
Ministry of Transportation. The MTO supports the Ontario government's efforts and
commitment to continue to make Ontario an inclusive and accessible province,
where people of all abilities have a chance to fully participate and achieve their
potential.
NNL
No Net Loss. The NNL principle is fundamental to habitat conservation. Under this
principle, DFO strives to balance unavoidable habitat losses with habitat
replacement on a project by project basis so that further reductions to Canada's
fisheries resources due to habitat loss or damage may be prevented.
OMAF
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The purpose of OMAF is to improve the
quality of life for all Ontarians through excellence in agri-food and rural research,
education, laboratory and risk management programs.
RAP
Remedial Action Plan. RAP's identify specific problems in severely degraded Great
Lakes Areas of Concern and describe methods for correcting them.
Appendix I
ii
Appendix II
Summary ofFish Habitat Issues and Concerns in the Bay of
Quinte Region
" .
'
Summary of Fish Habitat Issues and Concerns in the Bay of Quinte Region
AI.1
Agency Concerns
Department of Fisheries and Oceans - Concerns
• Awareness of other agency's mandates to help protect habitat
• No measurement of overall management's achievement of NNL or Net Gain
• No project guidelines list of restoration projects to fulfill de-listing criteria
• No trading of gains and losses to help achieve NNL
• Improve methods for habitat inventorying, mapping, classifying and updating
• Improve understanding between habitat, lifestage requirements, production,
exploitations and other stresses
-,' Improve understanding of restoration effectiveness
-yO
Lack of public awareness regarding fish habitat
• Lack of on-going education and stewardship
• Compliance monitoring is inadequate
• Effectiveness monitoring is inadequate
• Lack of initiatives to be used for creative sentencing for habitat violations
• Lack of small forage fishes in the Bay
• Effects of historical and on-going habitat impacts on productive capacity
unknown
• Lack of habitat monitoring throughout the Bay
Conservation Authority - Concerns
• Upland boathouses and associated disturbance to riparian vegetation
• Property standards by-law -;>• Nearshore disturbances associated with decks and docks built parallel to shore
--">. Lack of ability to protect riparian vegetation
• Work without permits may take place via ignorance, impatience or nonwillingness to alter project design
• People wishing to "tidy-up" (remove vegetation) shorelines
• Perceptions of how shoreline property should look like
• Frequent dredging, in-land boat-slip and boat ramp applications
• Lack of enforcement for site-plan agreements (i.e. leave riparian vegetation)
• CA - DFO communication (i.e. determining which projects DFO are involved
with)
• Lack of long-term shoreline monitoring due to funding issues
• Public awareness of the consequences of their actions on fish habitat/water
quality
• Lack of guidelines for approving culvert applications
• Inter-municipal inconsistency in planning applications forwarded to CA
• No environmental education without CA application review
• Municipalities over-ruling CA recommendations
• No by-laws or provisions in bylaws (provided under the Municipal Act) to protect
vegetation in set-back areas
• Lack of awareness regarding the importance of riparian vegetation
• No guidelines fgr developing specific criteria for mitigation measures pertaining to
planning recommendations
• Continual demand to develop closer and closer to the water
Appendix II
i
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources - Concerns
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of fish-use/habitat mapping to guide timing restriction management
Lack of consistency between and amongst agencies
Compliance audits should be performed for all projects
Work without permits may take place via ignorance, impatience or fear of
application denial
De-listing criteria for loss of fish habitat and degradation of fish populations
should be re-developed collaboratively
Lack of small forage fishes in the Bay
Ontario Ministry of the Environment - Concerns
•
•
•
Enforcement of violations is difficult because chemicals degrade quickly
Permits for herbicide use may be issued to untrained/unlicensed users
There is a need for more education of property owners about possible alternative
control measures and the importance of maintaining aquatic vegetation
AI.2 Resource User Concerns
Commercial Fisherman - Concerns
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
f..
Water quality impaired by inadequate Sewage Treatment Plants, toxic
sediments, untreated stormwater runoff, pesticides, pollution
Riparian vegetation should not be removed
Create rock shoals to enhance habitat
Cormorants killing shoreline vegetation and fouling waters
Everyone needs to be educated about fish habitat/water quality to properly
protect it
Production of fishes from creeks has declined since the 70's
Reproduction of fish and aquatic life has declined dramatically
Fish get stranded in swamps in the fall due to low water levels
Tough liver-like slime fouls nets in fall
Causeways to Big and Sawguin Island have dramatically impacted habitat
Recreational Sport Fishery - Concerns
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Water quality impaired by inadequate Sewage Treatment Plants, toxic
sediments, untreated stormwater runoff, farm runoff, algal blooms east of the
Moira, leaky septic tanks and the Picton cement plant
Aquatic vegetation should be left uncut
Aquatic vegetation interferes with sprint racing and swimming opportunities
through July and August
Aquatic vegetation needs to be thinned
Leave things to change naturally over time and preserve wetlands and creeks
Improve spawning habitat on major Rivers
Do not create sanctuaries or reserves
Protect shoreline vegetation and restructuring with greater restrictions
Plant trees along shorelines with help of local stewardship councils
Emphasis shouJd be on habitat protection not improvement
Improve migratory access on creeks and rivers
Monitor habitat using underwater cameras
Low water prevents bass from using spawning habitat
Appendix II
ii
•
•
•
•
A temporary barge would reduce wave influence on rowing races
Boat movement in low water disturbs a lot of sediment
Enforce violations more vigorously
Tag large bass to determine the most important habitat areas.
Bait Harvesters - Concerns
• Improve water quality in the Bay and its tributaries
• Marinas have high shiner densities
• Re-establish fish access and water movement to creeks and marshes, using big
culverts or bridges
• Restore and protect marshes important to all aquatic life
• Water levels hurt fish during spawning season.
Tyendinaga Mohawk - Concerns
• Keep habitat natural
• Enforce habitat violations
• Restore migratory access on the Salmon River and Marysville Creek
Marine Contractors - Concerns
• Enhance fish habitat with rock-rubble mounds and placing logs in-water
• Work should occur in low-water winter conditions to avoid impacting fish
• Riparian vegetation removed through lack of education, encouragement by
realtors and lack of incentive for protection
• Permit process needs to be quicker and more streamlined
• Work must take place below highwater mark to properly stabilize the shoreline
• Should be allowed to dig back in from shoreline
AI.3 Unmanageable Habitat Impacts
Climate change
Potential effects:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Changes in thermal regimes
Change in temporal and spatial thermal habitat suitability
Changes in fish community structure
Changes in year class strengths for different species
Changes in amount of phosphorus reflux from sediments
Changes in distributions of aquatic macrophytes
Changes in dissolved oxygen levels
Changes in precipitation patterns and tributary flows
Changes in water levels
Changes in habitat volume
Changes in ice thickness
Changes in dynamic shoreline processes
Zebra mussels
Potential effects:
•
•
Allows sediment deposition over rock substrate allowing submergent plants to
grow - makes habitat less suitable for some species
Reduce the suitability of rock shoals as spawning habitat
Appendix II
iii
•
•
•
Increases water clarity leading to increased aquatic macrophyte abundance
Decreases habitat suitability for macro-invertebrates (fills interstitial spaces)
Re-directs energy transfer to the benthos and represents a potential "energy
sink"
Migratory barriers - Trent River
Potential effects:
•
•
•
•
•
Disrupts normal migratory patterns of fishes
Loss of prime spawning, nursery, rearing and adult fish habitat available to Bay
of Quinte fishes
Decreases or losses of species dependent on having access to large rivers
Disruption of normal sediment transport and flow regimes
Alteration of thermal regimes
Zwick's Island
Potential effects:
•
•
•
Loss of productive capacity through direct loss of unique and productive habitat
Water quality impairments
Disruption of dynamic habitat processes at the river mouth (i.e. sediment
transport)
Murray Canal
Potential effects:
•
•
•
•
Loss of some liltoral zone habitat through the dredging and construction of the
canal
Alteration of Bay's hydrology, causing unknown habitat changes
Changes in thermal regimes
May provide a new migratory route for walleye
Hwy. 62 bridge
Potential effects:
•
•
•
•
•
Change in hydrology
Local increases in fish densities
Creation of locally diverse habitat
Unknown changes in productive capacity
Changes to migratory pathways in the Bay (i.e. disruption of shoreline
migrations)
Degradation of coastal wetlands/causeways to Big and Sawguin Islands
Potential effects:
•
•
•
Loss of productive capacity via direct and indirect loss of unique and productive
habitat
Altered hydrology between Big Island and Prince Edward County
Loss of aquatic plant diversity
Appendix II
iv
AI.4 Manageable Habitat Impacts
Increased Abundance of Aquatic macrophytes
Potential effects:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Changes in habitat favour maneuverable fishes sunfishes (Centrarchidae
species). small fishes (in general). and explosive predators like pike and musky
(Esocidae species)
Reduces predation on forage fishes
Provides new habitat for some species and reduces suitability for others
Nearshore submergent plant communities dissipate wave energy and therefore
may reduce shoreline erosion
Exotic species like Eurasian milfoil may grow to densities unsuitable for many
fish species
Reduces phosphorus feedback from sediments
Provides shade for aquatic life
Reduces boating and swimming opportunities
Awareness and attitudes regarding fish habitat
Potential effects:
•
•
•
•
Continual loss of natural riparian vegetation
Continual impacts from contaminants entering the water through sewers. ditches
and activities that occur near the water
Impacts from in-water work without required permits
Lack of appreciation creates little incentive for restoration
Loss and alteration of nearshore fish habitat
Potential effects:
•
•
•
•
•
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
in nearshore thermal regimes
in erosion and deposition rates and locations
in depths
in physical habitat
in substrate
Loss and alteration of riparian habitat
Potential effects:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Higher nearshore water temperature fluctuations due to lack of shade
Reduced nearshore cover for fish and invertebrates
Increased potential for excess nutrients and toxins to reach the water
Increased erosion and subsequent demand to stabilize the shoreline
Increased turbidity
Decreases in water quality
Loss of seasonal fish habitat (i.e. pike spawning areas)
Flow regime on the Trent River
Potential effects:
•
•
Decreased spring freshet discharge
Altered summer and fall flows
Appendix II
v
•
•
Altered sediment transport
Unknown changes in thermal regimes in the Bay
Fluctuating water levels (loss of extreme levels) • Loss of coastal wetlands
Potential effects:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Changes in erosion and deposition rates and locations
Loss of highly productive coastal wetlands
Loss of aquatic plant community diversity
Loss of habitat diversity
Low water levels decreases habitat volume, and increase disruption of sediments
by boats
Alters walleye habitat suitability
Migratory Barriers - Rivers, Creeks, Marshes
Potential effects:
•
•
•
•
•
Disruption of normal migration patterns
Loss of prime spawning, nursery, rearing and adult fish habitat available to Bay
of Quinte fishes
Reduced production of baitfishes
Altered energy pathways between the Bay and its tributaries
Disruption of fish community structure upstream of barriers and in the Bay of
Quinte
Appendix II
vi

Backgrounder ~ Bay of Quinte Fish Habitat Management Plan Bay of

Transcription

Similar documents

Uchee Creek

Brochure - Habitat for Zoomanity A Life Science Webquest

2016 Hollywood Build Fact Sheet

The truth about… The truth about… habitats

“GOUYAVE FISH FRY – BEST FISH IN GRENADA, MAYBE THE

Mancelona Bass Festival, Inc.

Supplemental Public Correspondence

UN Day Invitation here

Luminere Collection

Salish Sucker Recovery and Management