FISH have halted Donald Killeen's efforts to stop his property from sliding into the Red River. Those same fish could cost you money next.
The federal government's mandate to protect fish habitat could add thousands of dollars to the cost of any waterfront project, from building a dock to shoring up the riverbank.
Killeen surveys the collapsing riverbank on his South Drive property.
"We just don't know how to respond to these bureaucrats," Killeen said. "Meanwhile we are losing valuable property."
Killeen could be paying another $3,000 for his share in a neighbourhood project that already has a budget in the tens of thousands of dollars. He and his neighbours in the project are frustrated by rules that pit their rights to protect their property against the rights of fish to feed and spawn.
And it appears to be happening now because of increased staff at the Manitoba office of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans -- the DFO. Four DFO employees used to cover Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Now Manitoba alone has 27 employees.
Killeen's engineer, Clark Hryhoruk, of Eng-Tech Consulting Limited, said he noticed the change about a year and half to two years ago. He said the department "staffed up" and executed the authority they always had.
"A lot of people don't quite realize it could add substantial cost to various projects," Hryhoruk said.
He said projects that were planned two years ago and are only going ahead now have incurred added costs because of the DFO requirements. Killeen and his neighbours hired Hryhoruk to halt riverbank erosion along their properties on South Drive. Killeen has lost nine metres of his backyard in recent years.
Killeen was told by DFO that the limestone they were planning to put down on the river bank cuts off vegetation that attracts certain species of fish.
"The fish might not be able to eat or lay their eggs," said Killeen.
DFO expects project proponents to enhance fish habitat elsewhere on the river if they destroy an area. Those policies are outlined in a massive document called the Fish Management Policy (available on the Internet at www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/home e.htm).
"The cost of mitigating any anticipated damages, and for implementing compensation measures and facilities designed to avoid losses of fish habitat and reductions in the supply of fish, will be the responsibility of proponents," one section of the policy states.
The City of Winnipeg is familiar with DFO rules. While homeowners may be encountering them for the first time, the city has had to comply for years. Bob McDonald, Winnipeg's public works spokesman, said every project the city does near rivers has to have DFO's stamp of approval.
The $68-million Provencher Bridge project couldn't go ahead without a permit from fisheries, said McDonald.
"Overall they're looking for the project having no negative effect on fish habitat. We satisfied that."
The additional cost to the Provencher project was $150,000. That money went to environmental assessments, monitoring aquatic species -- before and after construction -- and re-establishing riverbank vegetation, McDonald said.
The DFO regulations have created headaches for Hryhoruk. He had to hire a biologist for $3,000 to complete an environmental assessment of the South Drive project.
Those costs will be passed on to the people who pay him, he said. That could be anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 per riverbank project. He said that can be crushing when the minimum cost for a lot of riverbank erosion work is $50,000.
Kathy Fisher, DFO district manager for the Winnipeg area, said the department has a mandate to protect fish habitat.
"No impact at the end of the day -- that's our goal," Fisher said.
DFO examines waterfront projects and looks for alternatives to activities that might damage fish habitat. The department can ask people or companies to plant riverbank vegetation, install screens on intake pipes and ensure the free flow of fish in the river.
But DFO looks for ways to make riverbank projects safe for habitat without costing money. If someone is putting in a new dock, the DFO suggests unobtrusive floating docks rather than putting down piles or a concrete platform, Fisher said. The regulations aren't there to obstruct work on the water.
"We recognize the need to protect riverbanks," she said.
If a project destroys habitat, then the project must rehabilitate some other part of the water eco-system. An environmental assessment of the project -- completed by the person doing the work -- is reviewed by DFO. The two sides have to agree on what work will have to be done before DFO gives its approval.
"They're never charged money, we don't deal in any money at all," Fisher said.
But Hryhoruk said DFO approval means the project has to spend more money to comply with DFO regulations.
Hryhoruk said that some companies would do the work without checking with DFO or getting approval. But major riverbank work is hard to do secretly.
"You can't hide 200 semis rolling down the street."
And the DFO can take people to court if they don't comply with the regulations.
So Killeen will be stuck with the extra costs. What they are and how bad they are he won't know until the DFO reviews his latest application.
Killeen just knows the fish have added to his erosion problem for one more year. Limestone has to be placed while the water level is low, just after the ice break up and before the water levels rise.
"The project has been stopped dead," Killeen said. "We've missed the window of opportunity to get the work in."
paul.mckie@freepress.mb.ca
PREVIOUS
