This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Proposed boat launch on the Trent-Severn Waterway, Ontario—Follow-up petition on protecting fish habitat

Petition

30 November 2002

The Commissioner of the Environment
and Sustainable Development
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6

Dear Commissioner.

The response to my petition #51, 2002, by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, did not address any of the concerns put forward in my petition. Their response simply re-stated the parameters of the agreement between Fisheries & Oceans and Trent-Severn, and listed some previous correspondence. All that information was already well known to the petitioner.

The response by the Minister of Canadian Heritage was even more elusive. In effect the response stated that there was no case to answer since the previous application, which they had approved, had expired. I, as a citizen, was asking them to look at the situation, and make a ruling. In effect I was asking for a prohibition against construction. This, to my mind, is a perfectly valid request. A request to ban an action has equal status with a request to permit an action, and requires the same evaluation process.

The concept that certain actions may only be banned after an application has been made to do them, is absurd. We are surrounded by laws which ban certain actions; no smoking in restaurants, no littering the highways, no discharging firearms in public places - and so on, where no application to do these things is ever considered. There is nothing to stop either Ministry in my petition from being pro-active, and advising the City of Kawartha Lakes that no constructing will be permitted at this site. Indeed the letter from Trent-Severn, August 3, 2000, did make such a statement.

It distresses me enormously that those people who wish to destroy the environment often have the attentive, and sympathetic, ear of bureaucracy. Those people who strive to preserve our ecological heritage are often ignored. It seems that we, the people, have some very expensive watch dogs, such as Fisheries and Oceans, and Heritage Canada, who for some inexplicable reason bite the owners and not the criminals.

For these reasons I am submitting another petition, which is phrased in blunter terms, and less conciliatory in tone.

[Original signed by Peter Weygang]

Peter Weygang

PETITION REGARDING A PROPOSED BOAT RAMP

To the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage:

This petition is based upon the subject matter contained in Petition 51, 2002, and Petition 49, 2002. Please refer to those documents, and references, for any details you may require.

The following facts are beyond dispute:

1. The stream which will be directly effected by the construction of a boat ramp, and by an access road to that boat ramp, is a spawning stream for suckers.

2. The boat ramp would lead directly into a part of the lake which is a spawning ground for fish of the Centrachidae family (Bluegill, Sunfish, Rock Bass, Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass.)

3. The shallow, weed filled, area of the lake, which surrounds the proposed boat ramp site, is a very important breeding area for carp.

4. The area in (3) is immediately adjacent to a substantial wetland region, which lies to the south.

5. In late summer the area in (3) is completely surrounded by a large bed of wild rice. Boats have great difficulty in going through this vegetation, and must travel northwards close to shore, in front of several homes, before gaining access to navigable water.

6. It is accepted that clear cutting to the banks of streams destroys the ecosystem. {Fish, wading birds, frogs, raptors, beavers, mink, etc.}

7. Clear cutting to a stream bank, or removal of other vegetation, promotes surface erosion of the surrounding areas, and a sharp increase in silt and pollutants of all kinds that are carried, by the stream, into the lake.

8. With reference to (6) and (7) above it is the policy of the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans to establish tree retention levels, approaching 100%, in 20m-30m buffer zones around streams.

Note: In 1998/99 the former Emily Township raised no objection to the clear cutting to the banks of this stream along Kings Wharf Road, west of highway 17. I sense that this had a negative impact on the stream ecology in the lower reaches. In November 2000, Emily Township applied for permission to further destroy this habitat which, ultimately, led to this petition.

9. The response to my petition #51, 2002, by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, did not address any of the concerns put forward in my petition. The response simply re-stated the parameters of agreement between Fisheries and Oceans and Trent-Severn, and listed some previous correspondence. All that information was already well known to the petitioner.

The reluctance of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to answer my concerns leads me to presume that my concerns were well founded, namely:

10. That the evaluation of the site carried out by Trent-Severn in January 2001 was invalid. Moreover, any attempt to evaluate a biological environment in midwinter clearly demonstrates a total lack of understanding of ecosystems, and how they differ in Winter to Summer.

11. Further to (10) above, I deduce that the Trent-Severn staff are not trained in the biological sciences to the same level as the biologist employed by Fisheries and Oceans. Nor, I presume, is there an in-service program provided for them by Fisheries and Oceans, which guarantees that Trent-Severn staff carry out their delegated responsibilities to the same level as if they were performed by qualified fisheries officers.

12. I also deduce that there is no mandated process by which Trent-Severn officials are directly supervised, by Fisheries and Oceans officers, when Trent-Severn is carrying out delegated responsibilities on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans.

13. Further to (12) above it appears likely that Trent-Severn made a decision which would not, under normal procedures, be approved by Fisheries and Oceans. However, the inter-departmental agreement commits Fisheries and Oceans to a course of action which they would otherwise consider to be ecologically inappropriate. In other words I maintain that the evaluation by Trent-Severn, in winter, was a major error; but one which, if reversed, would badly strain inter-ministerial relations.

14. At no time has the City of Kawartha Lakes been officially informed that clear cutting vegetation to the stream banks is not permitted, and that a 20m-30m buffer zone is required to protect the stream ecology.

In view of the above points my petition requires clear and directly pertinent responses to the following questions.

1. Does the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans normally carry out evaluations of ecological habitats, which include fish species, in mid winter?

2. Does a mid winter evaluation of ecological habitats, which include fish species, provide full and sufficient data to qualify as an impact study, regarding a major alteration of the habitat?

3. Are the staff at Trent-Severn trained to a level of competency, in matters related to fish habitats, which is identical to that of the biologists with Fisheries and Oceans?

4. Was, or is, any officer of Fisheries and Oceans appointed to supervise the actions of Trent-Severn which occur as part of the inter ministerial agreement ?

5. Was Fisheries and Oceans asked by Trent-Severn to evaluate the site of the proposed boat ramp? Or was Fisheries and Ocean only aware of a problem when I personally contacted them?

6. Has Fisheries and Oceans, or Trent-Severn, officially advised the City of Kawartha Lakes of their obligation to protect stream environments, and of the required 20m-30m buffer zone?

   Note: The City of Kawartha Lakes has a requirement for a buffer zone along the lake shore. I am mystified why they cannot see that a similar regulation is required for streams, and other water courses.

7. Explain, with supporting hard data, why the decision made by Trent-Severn on August 3, 2000, was reversed five months later, on February 2, 2001, following the mid winter site evaluation on Jan 2, 2001.

   Note 1. The original decision was that "The Trent-Severn Waterway would not be agreeable to the construction of a boat ramp on the bed of the lake at this location.

   Note 2. The reason for the reversal, offered by Trent-Severn, is simply unacceptable. "The explanation I offer is that the application {from Emily Township to build the boat ramp} was not envisaged at the time the {no boat ramp permitted} response to (name withheld) was provided".

I hereby petition the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to be proactive in this matter, and to issue such memoranda to the City of Kawartha Lakes, and other interested parties, which will:

1. Prohibit construction of a boat ramp and access road at this location.

2. Require that the existing buffer zone of trees and vegetation be preserved as a matter of sound ecological management.

[Original signed by Peter Weygang]

Peter Weygang
5 Lakeview Crescent
Bobcaygeon, Ontario
K1A 1A0

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

April 10, 2003

Mr. Peter Weygang
5 Lakeview Crescent
Ottawa, Ontario
K0M 1A0

Dear Mr. Weygang:

Thank you for sharing your concerns about a proposed boat ramp on Pigeon Lake in a follow-up (second) Environmental Petition #51(b) (dated December, 2002) which was forwarded to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) on December 23, 2002, by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Your inquiries relate to the agreement between the Trent-Severn Waterway (TSW), Parks Canada and DFO entitled "Worksharing of Initial Review Determinations, Mitigation Requirements, and Compensation Planning in Ontario for the Purpose of Section 35 of the Fisheries Act" (Agreement). Attached you will find a copy of this Agreement for your information*.

In your petition, you asked me to address several questions related to a boat launch proposal on Pigeon Lake by the City of Kawartha Lakes. In addition, you asked that I issue memoranda to the City of Kawartha Lakes and other interested parties, which will prohibit the construction of a boat ramp and access road at this location, and require that the existing buffer zone of trees and vegetation be preserved as a matter of sound ecological management. Further to my response dated September 5, 2002, to your Environmental Petition #51 dated April 24, 2002, I offer the following in response to your most recent questions and requests.

As you are aware, DFO was not asked to review the initial proposed boat launch project pursuant to Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. The matter was reported to this department as part of reporting requirements under the Agreement. When DFO became aware of your objections, the designated biologist visited the site. Staff from both departments have since met on several occasions to discuss details of the proposals; among others, a meeting took place on January 27, 2003, to review the most recent proposal from the City of Kawartha Lakes that will not include any cutting of riparian vegetation along the stream.

Site evaluations for proposals are carried out throughout the year in all seasons, including winter. The information collected during site visits is rarely the only information used in making decisions. The site assessment in this case was based on several site visits, knowledge of the area from the evaluation of other projects, and habitat data from other resource agencies. It is important to emphasize that winter evaluations coupled with other relevant information collected in any season can provide sufficient data to identify the potential impacts associated with works and undertakings in and around water.

A very important part of the Agreement is the assignment of a DFO biologist to work with TSW. In keeping with the Agreement, TSW staff regularly meet with the designated DFO biologist to discuss proposal reviews. To further strengthen the relationship, the designated DFO biologist works in the TSW office on a part time basis.

The TSW has a professional biologist on staff who has completed several workshops and training sessions, hosted by DFO, dealing specifically with reviewing proposals for impacts to fish habitat pursuant to Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. The level of training the staff at TSW has received meets the requirements of the Agreement.

Finally, DFO has determined that, if the proposed boat launch is constructed, employing suitable mitigation and best management practices, the proposed work or undertaking was not likely to result in a contravention of Subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act. In light of this determination, no regulatory action is required from DFO under the Fisheries Act.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention.

Yours truly,

[Original signed by Robert G. Thibault, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Robert G. Thibault

*[not available]

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Parks Canada Agency

April 29, 2003

Peter Weygang, M.A., M.Ed.
Rural Route 2
5 Lakeview Crescent
Bobcaygeon, Ontario
K0M 1A0

Dear Mr. Weygang:

Ms. Johanne Gélinas, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, has forwarded to me copies of your correspondence, which I received December 30, 2002, and of your supporting documentation, which form Environmental petition #51B under section 22 of the Auditor General Act, requesting that proposed construction of a public boat-launch ramp on Pigeon Lake, Trent-Severn Waterway, be prohibited.

In my correspondence to you of September 18, 2002, I indicated that Parks Canada has an agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to conduct the initial review of proposals for in-water and shoreline work on the Trent-Severn Waterway. I also indicated that, should an application be received for a public boat-launch ramp, its appropriateness and potential environmental impacts would be reviewed by Parks Canada under the terms of this agreement. All requests for development are considered on a case-by-case basis in keeping with existing legislation, policy and plans, and in consultation with appropriate federal, provincial and municipal stakeholders.

On November 21, 2002, the City of Kawartha Lakes submitted an application to construct a boat launch at Pigeon Lake, which Parks Canada approved on January 31, 2003, subject to several conditions. A copy of these conditions is enclosed. This decision was taken after consultations with DFO and the Kawartha Fisheries Association, which fully support Parks Canada's decision to permit the project. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources also supports the decision and is providing funding to support the construction of the ramp.

While it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the issues you raise regarding DFO policy, I am pleased to respond to several of your comments with respect to the potential environmental impacts of the project and the qualifications of Parks Canada officials to assess these impacts.

The stream along the northerly limit of the existing municipal road will not be affected by the construction. The work will take place along the already disturbed southerly portion of the municipal-road allowance. The existing buffer of mature trees and shrubs along the stream will not be removed, but some overhanging branches on the area south of the road will be pruned.

With respect to the lake, the project does not involve removal of shoreline trees or shrubs. One condition for approval of the project is that aquatic vegetation, natural woody material or boulders located within the footprint of the launch, below the high-water mark, be relocated to a similar depth adjacent to the work site. A small area of cattails in the water may be relocated to adjacent sites where possible. This is an effective mitigation measure to ensure continued breeding grounds for area carp.

The project will include the placement of clean rock and gravel over an area extending 5 metres out in the lake by 3.5 metres along the shoreline fronting the southerly portion of the road allowance. The placement of stone in this location, in the opinion of DFO and Parks Canada, will improve habitat variety for Centrarchidae.

In regard to the quality of the environmental impact assessment carried out by a biologist working for Parks Canada, in addition to training under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the biologist completed several workshops and training sessions hosted by DFO dealing specifically with reviewing proposals for impacts on fish and fish habitat pursuant to section 35 of the Fisheries Act. This level of training fully meets the requirements of the agreement between Parks Canada and DFO.

DFO officials do not supervise Parks Canada staff. However, under the terms of the agreement, an electronic copy of reports on all proposed and approved projects is exchanged on a monthly basis. These reports are reviewed by a DFO biologist for consistency with DFO decisions. Parks Canada officials meet regularly with the designated biologist to discuss proposed projects and several of these meetings have involved discussions on the boat launch project.

The initial environmental impact assessment of the project was based on the site visit in January 2001 and on a review of aerial photos taken in the spring and fall of that year. In addition, the assessment included provincial Ministry of Natural Resources information concerning wetland evaluation, Trent-Severn Waterway wetland information, fishery information collected by the Kawartha Fisheries Association while under contract to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Trent-Severn Waterway, as well as a knowledge of the Waterway and sensitive habitats. Parks Canada officials also visited the site again in spring and summer 2002.

As a result of this assessment and consultations with DFO officials and representatives of other organizations, Parks Canada officials concluded that the project would not result in the harmful alteration of the habitat and, consequently, approved the work.

I trust that this information addresses your concerns about the potential environmental impacts of this project.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Sheila Copps

Enclosure

TRENT-SEVERN WATERWAY APPLICATION REVIEW

Conditions

Conditions—Launch Ramp (Gravel/Rubble)

The Trent-Severn Waterway retains the right to require that proposed or on-going work be altered or ceased immediately, should work be considered detrimental in any way to fisheries resources.

The applicant and/or contractor shall not allow any deleterious substance as defined in the Canada Fisheries Act (such as silt), caused by the work, to enter or re-enter the waterbody.

No in-water work shall be permitted between March 31^st and July 1^st (March 15^th for Scugog and Rice Lakes and the Trent River)

Sediment and erosion control measures shall be implemented during the shoreline work to prevent entry of sediment into the water. All disturbed areas shall be stabilized upon completion of the work.

If the work is taking place in the water, a silt curtain or other appropriate measures shall be implemented around the in-water work site to ensure sedimentation control. If the work is occurring while there is no water at the site, the ice will be considered sediment control. However, any material deposited on the ice must be removed each day during the work period.

The launch ramp shall be constructed as shown on Drawing No. 01 King's Wharf Road—Proposed Boat Launch, submitted with the application.

The upland banks of the launch ramp shall be excavated to a 3:1 slope. This area shall be stabilized to prevent erosion of sediments into the water. The northern and southern slopes shall also be planted with native shrubs (dogwoods, willows, alder etc).

Lakebed sediments shall be removed from an area 3.5 metres in width and extending 5 metres out into the lake. Within this same area 50 mm stone shall be placed to a depth of 300mm on a geo-web base.

All dredged and excavated materials shall be deposited a minimum distance of 15 metres upland from the high water mark and stabilized to prevent erosion.

Only clean imported rock (gravel, rubble) shall be placed on the lakebed. There shall be no placement of concrete or other solid material on the lakebed.

Any aquatic vegetation, natural woody material or boulders located within the footprint of the launch, below the high water mark, should be relocated to a similar depth adjacent to the work site.

Disturbance to aquatic and riparian vegetation shall be restricted to the area shown on the drawing submitted with the application.

All activities, including maintenance procedures, shall be controlled to prevent the entry of petroleum products, debris, rubble, concrete or other deleterious substances into the water. Vehicular refuelling and maintenance should be conducted away from the water.