The Rural Voice, 1995-07, Page 23maintenance issue, he says. "We
didn't look at it close enough nor did
anyone talk to us hard enough to
know it was a destruction issue."
Still, he says, his staff couldn't turn a
blind eye once it found out what was
involved. Under the law, the
Fisheries Act, being federal
legislation, supersedes the Drainage
Act, (provincial legislation) and even
if the machinery is already working
on the site, work can be stopped.
The Wingham office reviews
about 300 applications for
drains or drain renovations
each year and only one or two ever
become a problem. But across the
entire province drains are a regular
source of tension and dispute says
Ken Kelly of Paisley, who as second
vice-president of the Ontario
Federation of Agriculture was
personally involved in five or six
cases in the last year or so.
Many farmers can't understand
how the Fisheries Act should have
jurisdiction over a man-made
drainage ditch some of which have
been in use for a century, Kelly says
Yet just about every drain that
connects eventually to a river comes
under Fisheries Act jurisdiction and
MNR is, Bennett says, the "eyes and
ears" of the federal Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). Bennett
points out that despite the fact
farmers may think these ditches are
man-made, most were dug out
natural water channels that existed
when western Ontario was still dense
bushland. When the land was cleared
and farmers began to intensify
operations by draining land, they
deepened these channels to help the
water get off the land more quickly.
Through drainage, he says, Ontario
lost 90 per cent of the wetlands that
once purified water and provided fish
habitat. Pointing to a map of the
region Bennett says there is a huge
amount of water in the drains and
these are an important part of the
watercourse.
McBride admits that after looking
at the Warwick drain more closely,
he did see a couple of minnows in the
40 metres. Kelly says that farmers
find it hard to understand that not
only do a few minnows constitute
fish habitat, but the definition under
the Fisheries Act includes much
more. For instance, the definition of
MNR's Ron Bennett shows a map
detailing the wetlands of his region.
There doesn't have to be a conflict
between good drains and good fish
habitat, he says.
fish: "includes parts of fish, shellfish,
crustaceans, marine animals, any
parts of shellfish, crustaceans or
marine mammals, and the eggs,
sperm, spawn, larvae, spat and
juvenile stages of fish, shellfish,
crustaceans and marine animals".
Fish habitat includes not just places
where fish live but: "spawning
grounds and nursery, rearing, food
supply and migration areas on which
fish depend directly or indirectly for
their life processes". It means that a
riverlet that might dry up in the
height of summer might still be an
important place for the fish
population as a spawning ground,
Bennett says. Pike and bass spend
only a few days in their spawning
area but "for that period the stream is
very critical to that species".
Fish habitat also includes
vegetation that may promote
production of foodstocks for fish
(smallmouth bass feed on crayfish),
even cover that protects fish from
predators.
Bennett says that good drains and
good fish habitat don't have to be
mutually exclusive. MNR works with
farmers, engineers and municipalities
to design drains that may actually
improve performance and habitat.
For instance, he says, a stream that
has had cattle in it over the years may
have broken down banks and be very
wide and very shallow. From the
point of view of fish habitat, the slow
moving water is not good. The sun
has more opportunity to heat up the
water and high water temperatures
mean less oxygen and is detrimental
particularly to game fish.
If the stream is made narrower
and deeper it can take the same
amount of water but move it faster.
Faster moving water means sediment
doesn't drop out. This is good for the
drain because less sediment means it
doesn't have to be cleaned out often.
'It's good for the fish because the
rushing water exposes the gravel in
the riverbed, rather than covering it
with more sediment, creating
excellent spawning grounds.
McBride agrees that a new sense
of awareness has been planted, not
just with landowners but engineers.
"Until 10 years ago we as drainage
engineers probably ignored fish
habitat in drains."
In general, Bennett says, after
farmers are made aware of the
importance of fish habitat, they're
willing, even eager, to look at ways
to make drains more hospitable to
fish. And as they talk to people they
begin to take simple steps like
fencing livestock out of the water.
When they learn the effect one cattle
beast that urinates in the water can
have for hundreds of thousands of
gallons of water they usually begin to
understand and take action.
Bennett gets angry, however,
with those farmers who just
don't have any use for the
Fisheries Act and will do anything to
circumvent it, even expecting MNR
officials to turn a blind eye on the
proceedings. Any development that
is detrimental to habitat, and that
•includes farming, is prohibited under
the Fisheries Act. Destruction of fish
habitat can only be authorized by the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Brian Tobin. Still, where a drain is
being changed and habitat is being
endangered, compromises have been
negotiated. With MNR as go-
between, the Minister has agreed that
a drain can be cleaned out if new or
improved fish habitat is created,
sometimes not even in the same
place. Generally, Kelly says, the
Ministry's rule of thumb is that two
JULY 1995 19