Download The Demise of American Eel in the Upper St. Lawrence River, Lake

American Fisheries Society Symposium 78:149–188, 2015
© 2015 by the American Fisheries Society
The Demise of American Eel in the Upper
St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario, Ottawa River
and Associated Watersheds: Implications of
Regional Cumulative Effects in Ontario
Rob MacGregor*
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (retired)
RR #1, Box 8455, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 6X2, Canada
Tim Haxton
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
300 Water Street - 4th Floor South, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 8M5, Canada
Lorne Greig
ESSA Technologies Ltd.
77 Angelica Ave., Richmond Hill, Ontario L4S 2C9, Canada
John M. Casselman
Queens University
Biosciences Complex, 116 Barrie Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada
John M. Dettmers
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
2100 Commonwealth Boulevard, Ste 100, Ann Arbor, Michigan 4810, USA
William A. Allen
Heritage One
9 First Avenue, Burk’s Falls, Ontario P0A 1C0, Canada
David G. Oliver
Skylark Information Systems Ltd.
3444 Rexway Drive, Burlington, Ontario L7N 2L6, Canada
Larry McDermott
Shabot Obadjiwan First Nation-Ambassador and Plenty Canada
266 Plenty Lane, RR #3, Lanark, Ontario K0G 1K0, Canada
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
149
150
MacGregor et al.
Abstract.—American Eel mortality has increased substantially over the
past century due largely to significant cumulative effects of fishing
and fish passage through hydro-electric turbines across their range.
Nowhere has this been more pronounced than in waters of the St.
Lawrence River, Lake Ontario, Ottawa River and associated watersheds. We illustrate this by examining the cumulative effects of hydroelectric facilities on eels migrating downstream through the Mississippi
River and Ottawa River, and outline further impacts eels encounter en
route to spawn in the Sargasso Sea. The probability of a mature female
eel surviving its emigration through the Mississippi and Ottawa River to
the upper St. Lawrence River is estimated to be as low as 2.8% due to
turbine mortalities alone (2.8–40%). Mortality risk increases as the eel
attempts to run the gauntlet of fisheries in the lower St. Lawrence River
and the probability of out-migration survival is estimated to be as low
as 1.4%. Some mortalities could be mitigated through improved application of existing laws, development of policy requiring consideration
of cumulative effects and improved integration among program areas responsible for sustainable management of fisheries, biodiversity,
dams and hydro-electric facilities. We recommend changes to policy,
procedures and internal organizational structures provided with clear
directions, and call for increased accommodation of Aboriginal perspectives.
Introduction
The American Eel Anguilla rostrata,
which was formerly abundant and widely
distributed across eastern North America
has declined dramatically in some regions,
particularly at the extremity of their range
in the upper St. Lawrence River and Lake
Ontario (USLR-LO) (Casselman 2003), Ottawa River and associated inland watersheds
(MacGregor et al. 2009). The species is listed
as endangered under Ontario’s Endangered
Species Act (Ontario Government 2007).
The Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) recently
upgraded its recommended national designation from Special Concern to Threatened
across Canada (COSEWIC 2012). The status
of American Eel within the authority of the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASFMC) has recent been declared depleted (ASFMC 2012). The national status of
the species under the U. S. Endangered Spe-
cies Act is currently under review (USFWS
2012a) based on a 90-d finding that American
Eel may merit protection under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2012b, 2012c).
This unique species is composed of one
single spawning stock, with a contingent
life history strategy that in the past has been
highly successful in a variety of habitats
across North America (Helfman et al. 1987;
Daverat et al. 2006; Secor 2010). However,
its panmictic, migratory nature has left the
species exposed to mounting anthropogenic
impacts that continue to accumulate across a
wide geographic range. The effects are most
dramatic in the USLR-LO and associated watersheds (including the Ottawa River), where
an especially important segment of the species continues to persist near the extremity of
its historic range, albeit at rapidly declining
abundance levels (Casselman 2003; MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) and
exhibiting pronounced range contractions
(MacGregor et al. 2009, 2010, 2011).
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
Eels in the USLR-LO appear to comprise a distinct segment of the North American population; when mature, eels from the
USLR-LO and associated watersheds are
comprised exclusively of large old females
exhibiting high fecundity (Casselman 2003;
COSEWIC 2006; Tremblay 2009; Bernatchez et al. 2011). Observed declines of this
important subpopulation of the North American eel population may have far-reaching
implications for the fecundity of the species,
its resilience to future environmental perturbations and anthropogenic mortality, and its
ability to re-inhabit the St. Lawrence River
and watersheds of Lake Ontario and the Ottawa River (Casselman 2003; Verreault and
Dumont 2003; MacGregor et al. 2009, 2010;
Venturelli et al. 2010; Bernatchez et al. 2011).
This segment of the population of American
Eel is comprised of reproductively valuable
individuals (all large females, the most fecund
in the species’ range), meriting strong protection and recovery actions. At former levels of
abundance, eels naturally produced in these
waters must have contributed substantially to
species-level fecundity and spawner output
(Casselman 2003; COSEWIC 2006; Tremblay 2009; CSAS 2011).
Eels have been important in these waters
for centuries. A Jesuit Relation of 1634 noted
that the important eel fisheries near Quebec
City on the St. Lawrence River were supplied
to a large extent by eels produced upstream in
present-day Ontario and New York (i.e., Lake
Ontario and other important watersheds such
as the Ottawa River, in Canada, and Oneida
River in the United States):
“It is wonderful how many of these fish
are found in this great river, in the months
of September and October, and this immediately in front of the settlement of
our French…”
“It is thought that this great abundance
is supplied by some lakes in the country
151
farther north, which, discharging their
waters here, makes us a present of this
manna that nourishes us…” (Thwaites
1896–1901: 6: 311).
These observations were confirmed almost four centuries later by Verreault and
Dumont (2003) when they estimated that eels
produced in the USLR-LO and associated
watersheds still accounted for some 67% of
the catch in the large Quebec silver eel fishery. The proportion has remained high but is
declining (Verreault and Dumont 2003) as
the abundance of eels in these waters has collapsed (Casselman 2003; MacGregor et al.
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011).
Moreover, the apparently large numbers
of downstream migrating eels each autumn
from the St. Lawrence River (en route to the
Sargasso Sea) supported what had once been
described as the most productive eel fishery
in the world (New York Times 1880), having long and important cultural, natural heritage and economic values in eastern Canada
(MacGregor et al. 2009). Some of the weir
fisheries for eels in Quebec had been in the
same family at the same location for 150
years.
Descriptions of population-level trends
in American Eel across North America have
noted its historically wide distribution, high
abundance and importance of the species to
Indigenous peoples and early European settlers in eastern North America (Casselman
2003; Prosper and Paulette 2003; MacGregor
et al. 2009; McDermott and Wilson 2010;
Denny et al. 2012). Together with possible
shifts in oceanic conditions (Freidland et al.
2007; Bonhommeau et al. 2008; Casselman,
unpublished data), cumulative anthropogenic
effects arising from the loss of formerly accessible habitat and mortalities due to fishing
and hydro-electric turbines contributed to a
99.6% decline in recruitment to the USLRLO and associated watersheds (e.g., Ottawa
River) (Casselman 2003; Verreault et al.
152
MacGregor et al.
2003; MacGregor et al. 2009). Since the onset of the silver eel decline preceded the major decline in recruitment in the mid-1980s,
it appears that the decline in spawning stock
size was not due to poor recruitment. Rather,
it was due to large-scale mortality factors associated with high exploitation in upstream
Lake Ontario and to construction of hydropower dams in the late 1950s (de Lafontaine
et al. 2009a).
Eels from the USLR-LO (the last stronghold for the species in Ontario) collapsed by
the mid-1980s (Casselman 2003; MacGregor
et al. 2008, 2009), some 30 years after the
construction of the large Moses-Saunders
hydro-electric facility across the St. Lawrence River. However, significant declines
associated with hydro-electric facilities
began at a much earlier time in inland watersheds of Ontario where the duration of
impact has been much longer, often accumulating over a century (MacGregor et al.
2010, 2011). The effects of lost production
of large females from inland watersheds are
cause for concern (McCleave 2001; Hitt et
al. 2012). Lost production of females in the
USLR-LO subpopulation include losses from
Lake Ontario, Ottawa River, Oswego/Oneida
Lake and Trent/Kawartha Lakes systems.
The effects of these losses would have been
cumulative on the population-level spawning
biomass, and given the paucity of data concerning eels, would have taken considerable
time to become noticeable (MacGregor et al.
2008, 2009). It was not until recruitment and
adult production from Lake Ontario plummeted that serious and widespread concerns
were expressed by nonaboriginal communities (GLFC 2002; Dekker et al. 2003; Smith
2004; Hoag 2007; Lees 2008; Prosek 2010).
The material, sustenance, medicinal and
spiritual importance of American Eel to indigenous peoples has been well documented
(Prosper 2001; Prosper and Paulette 2002;
Casselman 2003; MacGregor et al. 2009;
McDermott and Wilson 2010; Denny et al.
2012). Losses of species such as American
Eel not only represent significant lost ecological, biodiversity, natural heritage and
economic benefits due to cumulative effects.
They also threaten Aboriginal rights (Tollefson and Wipond 1998) and reflect lack of
respect for Ginawaydaganuk: a principle of
Algonquin law that acknowledges the web
of life or the interconnectedness of all things
(McDermott and Wilson 2010).
In September 2009, a large American
Eel (1.1 m) was captured during routine assessment netting in Mississippi Lake, on the
Mississippi River, a tributary of the Ottawa
River (Figure 1). The Ottawa River watershed is large, encompassing a drainage area
of 146,000 km2, representing about 12% of
the St. Lawrence drainage area, including
hundreds of lakes in Ontario and Québec. An
estimated 3,700 km2 of suitable habitat was
present within this system before extensive
dam construction throughout the watershed
(Verreault et al. 2004). While eels were once
abundant and important in the Ottawa River
watershed they now are rarely captured above
the few first main stem barriers (MacGregor
et al. 2009, 2010, 2011; Casselman and Marcogliese 2010). Eels in the Mississippi River
have been nearly extirpated (MacGregor et
al. 2009, 2010, 2011; Casselman and Marcogliese 2010). Finding this large, apparently
old female in the Mississippi River sub-watershed was remarkable and indicates that
small numbers of eels continue to find ways to
pass upstream of several dams. Large, old female fish like this eel convey disproportionate
reproductive value to a population (Palumbi
2004; Berkeley et al. 2004a, b; Venturelli et
al. 2010). However, in order for this female
eel to contribute to the population and spawn,
she would have to survive passage through
six hydro-electric generating stations and the
silver eel fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
en route to the Sargasso Sea to spawn.
The plummeting eel abundance in the
USLR-LO and Ottawa River systems caused
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
Ontario to close all commercial and sport
fisheries in the province in 2004 and 2005
respectively (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009;
ECO 2010). For the same reason, Quebec is
proceeding with buy-outs of their tidal weir
fisheries to reduce silver eel mortality. Nevertheless, the risk of mortality as eels emigrate from the Ottawa River and USLR-LO
continues to be high, especially when they
encounter hydro-electric facilities (Verreault
and Dumont 2003; MacGregor et al. 2009).
As eels migrate downstream to spawn, they
frequently have few options but to pass
through turbines at hydro-electric facilities
and are thus subjected to cumulative turbine mortality (McCleave 2001; Verreault
153
and Dumont 2003; MacGregor et al. 2009,
2010). Many factors affect mortality imposed
on eels and other fishes at hydro-electric facilities, including turbine type (Coutant and
Whitney 2000), flow (Behrmann-Godel and
Eckmann 2002; Boubee et al. 2001; Jansen
et al. 2007; McCleave 2001), year (Jansen et
al. 2007; Winter et al. 2007), eel size (McCleave 2001), and previous turbine injuries
(McCleave 2001). Although American Eels
generally drift with the current, their movement is positively related to flow (Gosset et
al. 2005), being attracted to the dominant
flow field (Brown et al. 2009). When encountering a hydro-electric facility, eels may
pass through turbines or hesitate, alter down-
Figure 1. This large female eel held by Emily Verhoek was captured in September 2009 Mississippi
Lake, Mississippi sub-watershed of the Ottawa River. Finding eels in the Mississippi watershed is a rare
event these days. Photo credit: Eric Robertson, OMNR.
154
MacGregor et al.
stream migration behavior, and seek alternative routes (Behrmann-Godel and Eckmann
2002; Gosset et al. 2005; Jansen et al. 2007;
Brown et al. 2009), for example passing over
sluice gates (Jansen et al. 2007).
Our objective is to describe the major
cumulative anthropogenic effects that have
impacted American Eels over the past century
and examine the potential impacts of cumulative effects on the species if they are not
adequately addressed. We illustrate this by
modeling the survival prospects of the single
large female eel recently found in Mississippi
Lake to reach the St. Lawrence River, as she
attempts to undertake the first leg of her 5,500
km spawning run to the Sargasso Sea. We
next consider the American Eel decline within
the Ontario segment of its range, a segment
where only large, highly fecund females are
produced. The current status of American Eel
in the Great Lakes region is examined in the
context of cumulative anthropogenic effects
and gaps in policy and approvals processes.
Finally, we look at factors leading to the decline, and make recommendations to avoid
similar circumstances in the future.
Case Study:
Estimating the Survival of an
American Eel Migrating Over
a Series of Dams
We examine the probability that the eel
caught in Mississippi Lake (Figure 1) could
survive passage through the six hydro-generating stations on the Mississippi and Ottawa
Rivers (Figure 2) before reaching the St.
Lawrence River. The St. Lawrence River is
considered the end-point as there are no more
structural barriers between the Carillon Generating Station and Sargasso Sea.
Figure 2. Location of generating stations (G.S.) along the Mississippi River and Ottawa River. Box
within inserted map depicts location of the Ottawa River within Canada.
155
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
The approach involves modeling cumulative survival (derived by first estimating cumulative mortality). An eel migrating downstream and encountering a hydro-electric
facility generally has two alternate routes: to
proceed with the main flows (generally passing through the turbines) or to pass over the
sluice gates, especially during high flows.
Therefore, in the absence of specific data on
flow diversion rates at the dams, we treat 0.5
as the probability of passage through the turbines. However, for the majority of the year,
water is not spilled at most dams, so depending on timing of migration, this percentage
can vary (e.g., eels encountering a dam that
passes most of the water through turbines and
spills only during freshets may in fact have
a 95% chance of passing through the turbines and only a 5% chance of passing over
the sluice gates). Likewise, turbine-induced
mortality can vary depending on turbine design and timing of migration (Larnier 2001).
Turbine mortality has been estimated for the
facilities on the St. Lawrence River to be
between 16 and 26.5% (McCleave 2001),
whereas turbine mortality for some smaller
facilities has been estimated to be between
16 and 25% one year, and 25 and 34% in another (Winter et al. 2007). Turbine mortality
for even smaller utilities (with smaller faster
spinning turbines) could approach 100%
because of the small size of the turbine, distance between blades, and speed of the turbine (Haro et al. 2000). We incorporated into
the analysis the variability in turbine mortality based on different design and overall size
of each facility.
To examine the probability that an eel
from Mississippi Lake would survive downstream passage, we used a Monte Carlo model, using the variation in route selection and
turbine mortality to examine the probability
that an eel from Mississippi Lake would survive downstream passage. While migrating
to the main stem of the St. Lawrence River,
the eel would encounter six hydro-electric facilities: Appleton Generating Station (G.S.),
Almonte G.S., Galetta G.S., Chats G.S.,
Chaudière Falls, and Carillon Dam (Figure 2,
Table 1).
Monte Carlo Models
Route selection was treated as a Bernoulli distribution. For small generating stations
or those with constant water spillage, route
selection was set at 50% as the diffuse prior
with 5% variation in selection throughout
subsequent analyses. We ran an alternate scenario where route selection was 70% turbines
and 30% sluice gates to accommodate the
drier years. For large facilities such as Chats
Table 1. Characteristics of generating stations traveling along the Mississippi River and Ottawa River
from Mississippi Lake to the confluence of the Ottawa River with the St. Lawrence River.
Generating Station
Year built
# generating Dam unitsheight (m)
Turbine type
Appleton G.S.1995 3Kaplan
Almonte G.S.
1890
2
9.4
Kaplan
Galetta G.S.
Early 1990s
4
Francis (2),
Vertical (2)
Chats G.S.
1932
8
15.2
Vertical propeller
Chaudière Falls*
1880s
9.8
Carillon G.S.19641416.8Kaplan
*at least four separate plants exist at this site.
156
MacGregor et al.
and Carillon, most water is passed through
the turbines, with the exception of a short period during the spring freshet. For these, route
selection was set at 95% for the turbines and
5% for the by-pass sluices.
Mortality for the larger dams was randomly selected from a uniform distribution between 16 and 26.5%, whereas for the
smaller dams, mortality was randomly selected from a uniform distribution between
15 and 40% and between 75 and 95% for a
second scenario on the Mississippi Dams.
For the final run, mortality was randomly selected from a uniform distribution between
75 and 95% for Chaudière Falls.
The probability that the eel would be
killed at any given station was determined
by multiplying the chance of selecting the
turbine route by the turbine mortality. To determine cumulative mortality, station specific
survival rates (survival rate = 1- station specific mortality rate) were multiplied for each
subsequent dam. In total, we ran five scenarios using different levels of turbine mortality
and route selection. The Monte Carlo was run
for 1000 iterations randomly selecting from
the aforementioned probability density functions using a macro set up in Excel. Results
were presented as probability of survival and
determined for each dam sequentially down
the river. The 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles from
the Monte Carlo runs provided the 95% confidence intervals.
Case Study Findings
Based on modeling results, there is low
probability that this specific American Eel or
any large Mississippi Lake eel would survive
migration through the six generating stations
to the St. Lawrence River (Figure 3). At the
very best, using the mortality estimates found
in literature for the size and type of dams,
survival was estimated at approximately
40% (Figure 3). However, the probability of
survival could be as low as 2.8% (1.4–4.5%
95% CIs; Figure 3e). The various mortality
rates and route selections had an effect on
cumulative survival (Figure 3). It is evident
from our analysis that the effects of turbine
mortality are cumulative along the Mississippi and Ottawa Rivers causing significant
reduction in overall probability of survival.
Overall Impact of Cumulative
Effects
American Eels use a broad diversity of
habitats during their growth period (Helfman
et al. 1987). They occur naturally in perhaps
the broadest diversity of habitats of any fish
species in the world (Helfman et al. 1987;
Moriarty 1987). This plasticity in habitat
use patterns is a strategy that allows eels to
inhabit a wide variety of ecosystems at the
scale of the species’ geographic range, conveying a remarkable “bet-hedging” strategy
to the species (Daverat et al. 2006). Unfortunately, cumulative anthropogenic impacts
(dams, turbine mortality, commercial fishing,
climate change, contaminants etc.) in freshwater have severely impacted their historical
freshwater distribution and abundance and
distribution in North America (Castonguay
et al. 1994; MacGregor et al. 2009, 2010,
2011).
The situation faced by the American
Eel recently found in Mississippi Lake illustrates the foregoing. This eel (Figure 1)
is very large, likely old and female (only females have ever been found from naturally
recruiting eels in the USLR-LO watershed).
Mississippi Lake is within the Ottawa River
watershed where there are 50 hydroelectric
facilities (Quebec and Ontario combined)
each with no specific provisions for passage
of eels, or any other fish species. The Carillon, Chaudière, and Chats facilities sequentially are the three hydro-electric facilities
established in the most downstream reaches
of the main stem of the Ottawa River. All
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
157
Figure 3. Theoretical cumulative survival of the American Eel sampled in Mississippi Lake traversing
the generating stations to the Sargasso Sea based on several scenarios (a) Scenario 1 (all with +/- 5%
passage through turbines): Carillon – mortality 16 – 26.5%; 95% passage through turbines Chaudiere
– mortality 15 – 40%, 50% passage through turbine ;Chats GS – mortality 16 – 26.5%; 50% passage
through turbines; Galetta, Almonte, Appleton – mortality 15 – 40%, 50% passage through turbines; (b)
Carillon – mortality 16 – 26.5% ; 95% passage through turbines; Chaudière – mortality 15 – 40%, 50%
passage through turbine; Chats GS – mortality 16 – 26.5%; 50% passage through turbines; Galetta,
Almonte, Appleton – mortality 15 – 40%, 70% passage through turbines; (c) Carillon – mortality 16 –
26.5% ; 95% passage through turbines Chaudière – mortality 15 – 40%, 50% passage through turbine;
Chats GS – mortality 16 – 26.5%; 50% passage through turbines; Galetta, Almonte, Appleton – mortality 75 – 95%, 50% passage through turbines; (d) Carillon – mortality 16 – 26.5% ; 95% passage through
turbines Chaudière – mortality 15 – 40%, 50% passage through turbine; Chats GS – mortality 16 –
26.5%; 50% passage through turbines; Galetta, Almonte, Appleton – mortality 75 – 95%, 70% passage
through turbines (e) Carillon – mortality 16 – 26.5% ; 95% passage through turbines Chaudière – mortality 75 – 95%, 50% passage through turbine; Chats GS – mortality 16 – 26.5%; 50% passage through
turbines; Galetta, Almonte, Appleton – mortality 75 – 95%, 70% passage through turbines. Dotted lines
represent 95% confidence intervals.
158
MacGregor et al.
eels attempting to enter the middle to upper
reaches of the Ottawa River as juveniles or
to exit to the St. Lawrence R., must traverse
these structures. When the eel from Mississippi Lake eventually embarks on her spawning migration to the Sargasso Sea, she must
eventually traverse these structures again.
We knew from previous work that these facilities kill eels (Community Stewardship
Council of Lanark County 2010; MacGregor
et al. 2010), and our modeling estimated that
these facilities cumulatively cause an estimated 60–97.2% mortality on eels exiting
the watershed from areas upstream. Including the hydro-electric facilities on the Mississippi River that the eel would encounter
during her downstream spawning migration,
we estimated that she would have a 2.8–40%
probability of survival of making it to the St.
Lawrence River. As a large eel, her probability of survival would likely be in the lower
part of that range. Eels in the USLR-LO and
Ottawa River have a strong tendency to be
quite large by the time they silver. These
large eels are much more vulnerable to turbine mortality (often approaching 100%
mortality) than small eels for which turbine
mortality is much lower (Haro et al. 2000;
McCleave 2001); what is more disconcerting
is that they are all females. The high reproductive value of large, old female fish is well
known and described (Palumbi 2004; Berkeley et al. 2004a, 2004b). The disproportionate
removal of large reproductively valuable females from a population is of special concern
as it can erode the reproductive rate, thereby
contributing to a reduction in a population’s
resilience to both environmental variability and anthropogenic mortality (Field et al.
2008; Venturelli et al. 2010).
We are mindful that no upstream passage
has been provided for eels (or any other species) at dams and waterpower facilities on
the Ottawa River watershed since the early
1900s when construction of several main
stem hydro-electric facilities began, and that
this situation has continued to severely impede the access by eels to most of this system
for many decades. While some eels manage
somehow to get past the first three barriers
on the main stem of the Ottawa River, the
number of eels moving above these barriers
in the current regime of low recruitment to
the USLR-LO and associated watersheds is
very low compared to the era before these
hydro-electric facilities were constructed
(MacGregor et al. 2010, 2011). However, as
large, old females, those that do manage to
survive to maturity can be highly valuable
reproductively. The large female from Mississippi Lake is one such example (Figure 1).
In terms of downstream passage, based
on our estimates under current conditions, it
is doubtful that many of the large silver eels
would survive to escape the Ottawa River
watershed due to the cumulative turbine mortalities alone (Figure 2). If an eel were able to
survive the trip down the Mississippi River
and Ottawa River and exit to the upper St.
Lawrence River, she would then need to escape the silver eel commercial fisheries in
the lower St. Lawrence River (estuary and
gulf). By applying the mortality estimate of
Caron et al. (2003) for the estuarine commercial fishery, we estimate the probability
the Mississippi Lake eel surviving to leave
the St. Lawrence River system would be as
low as 1.4% (0.7–2.4; 95% CI) and as high
as 31% (24–37 ; 95% CI). Neither the lowest
or highest estimates appear sustainable (e.g.,
the European Union recently set a target escapement for European silver eel at 40%; EU
2007). In addition, predators such as porbeagle sharks Lamna nasus and beluga whales
Delphinapterus leucus consume eels in the
estuary and gulf, further affecting their survival (Hodson et al. 1994; MacGregor et al.
2009; Be´guer-Pon et al. 2012; DFO 2012).
Indeed, the evidence suggests that predation
may represent a significant source of mortality in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Be´guer-Pon
et al. 2012).
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
159
Figure 4. Historic (pre-1980), post-1980 and current (post-2000) distribution of the American Eel in
Ontario. Note that the current distribution includes Lake Ontario, St. Lawrence River, Ottawa River
and tributaries to these waters (adapted from MacGregor et al. 2010 and Allen 2010).
Construction of hydro-electric facilities
on the main stem of the Ottawa River began
in the late 1800s and ended in the 1960s with
the completion of Carillon, the most downstream facility on the watershed (Haxton and
Chubbuck 2002). Substantial contraction of
the American Eel’s inland Ontario range has
occurred since dam construction began (Figure 3). Female eels tend to be more common
in upstream areas of low density (Krueger and
Oliveira 1999; Oliveira and McCleave 2000;
Schmidt et al. 2009). The importance of upstream tributary habitat to female production
and population fecundity of American Eel has
been described by Hitt et al. (2012). Unfortunately, access to upstream tributaries in the
USLR-LO and Ottawa River watersheds has
been severely limited by insuperable hydroelectric barriers and other dams, restricting
or eliminating access to a significant amount
of widely diverse habitats in Ontario. Consequently, production of Ontario’s large females
has been severely reduced. For example, it has
been estimated that before the hydro-electric
facilities were constructed, the Ottawa River
watershed would have been capable of producing 255,000 silver eels/year (Verreault et
al. 2004). Based on our calculations it is clear
that production and escapement from this watershed since construction of hydro-electric
facilities has been very poor from all but the
lowest reaches of the river (Figure 3) due to
limited access by recruits and turbine mortalities. In addition, a small commercial fishery
persists in the Quebec waters of the Ottawa
River that can occasionally harvest eels. Ontario has set the quotas for eels to zero in the
Ottawa River and elsewhere.
Within the USLR-LO and Ottawa Rivers
system, many tributaries have been impacted
160
MacGregor et al.
by at least one, and often a series of hydroelectric facilities and other dams; none of
these structures have any provisions for safe
upstream passage, except Beauharnois and
Moses Saunders Generating Stations on the
St. Lawrence River (MacGregor et al. 2009,
2010, 2011). Downstream passage remains
impaired at all facilities. For instance, there
are 50 hydro-electric facilities on the Ottawa
River watershed, none provide fishways and
there has been no effort to mitigate turbine
mortalities during downstream migration
(Verreault et al. 2004; MacGregor et al. 2010,
2011). The Pettawawa River is possibly the
only tributary on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River that is currently free of hydroelectric facilities; but two new facilities have
been proposed on this tributary, and more are
proposed in Ontario on other Ottawa River
tributaries. There are some 14 hydroelectric
facilities within the Trent River-Kawartha
lakes watershed, and more such facilities are
proposed on this system as well. There are at
least 90 hydro-electric facilities within the
historic range of eels in Ontario and 30 within
the current, significantly contracted range of
the species since 2000 (Figure 5; MacGregor
et al. 2010; 2011). In addition, most watersheds have been impacted by many more barriers that do not contain turbines (Figure 6).
However, all barriers on the main stem of the
Ottawa the St. Lawrence Rivers are hydroelectric facilities that both impede access and
impart turbine mortalities; they are the only
Figure 5. Hydroelectric facilities within Ontario range of American Eel. Not all hydroelectric dams
are distinctly visible because the scale of the map is about 1:2,800,000. At this scale (see the scale bar
on the map), hydroelectric dams as far as one kilometer from each other (for example) may not be
distinct by eye, despite the fact that the white triangular symbol has been chosen to best show the
hydroelectric dams at this scale (there are 90 hydro-electric facilities within the historical range but
not all appear due to overlapping points).
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
161
Figure 6. Location of dams, barriers and other water control structures in Ontario eel habitats.
man-made barriers on the main stems of these
two watersheds. These rivers provide the two
main migratory routes into and out of Ontario’s wide diversity of freshwater habitats.
Escapement of eels from the USLR-LO
and Ottawa River watersheds remains seriously compromised by the Moses-Saunders
and Beauharnois hydro-electric facilities on
the Upper St. Lawrence River in Ontario and
Quebec respectively, where a cumulative
turbine mortality of 44% has been estimated
(Normandeau Associates Inc. and Skalski.
1998; Desrochers 1995; Verreault and Dumont 2003). Additional decreased or lost
production and high mortality of eels from
inland watersheds of Ontario and New York
associated with hydro-electric facilities (such
as our estimates for the Ottawa River), when
added to the substantial cumulative turbine
mortalities of Moses-Saunders and Beauharnois facilities are most disconcerting (Mac-
Gregor et al. 2009). For instance, commercial
eel harvests in the Oswego-Oneida system of
New York regularly used to approach 100
metric tons, but now due to the construction
of dams, eels in these waters are exceedingly
rare (Adams and Hankinson 1928; Henke
1993). This lost production occurred well
upstream of the Moses-Saunders G.S., further reducing the biomass of spawning females from the USLR-LO segment of the eel
population. Lost production from many other
watersheds associated with Lake Ontario has
been previously described (MacGregor et al.
2009; 2010).
In addition, important commercial eel
fisheries operated in Ontario waters of Lake
Ontario for a century. Harvests peaked in
the late 1970s at an unprecedented 282
metric tons (Casselman 1997) and in many
years commercial eel harvests represented
more than 50% of the landed value of the
162
MacGregor et al.
entire Lake Ontario commercial harvest for
all species (MacGregor et al. 2009). Furthermore, substantial commercial eel fisheries have operated in estuarine waters of
the lower St. Lawrence River for more than
a century (Casselman 2003), and in recent
times recorded harvests peaked in the 1970s
to the early 1980s at more than 600 metric tons (an estimated 340,000 silver eels)
(COSEWIC 2006; Verreault et al. 2004).
Catches declined precipitously as eels continued to disappear from the St. Lawrence
River, Lake Ontario, Ottawa River and
other associated inland watersheds of Ontario and New York (Caron et al. 2003; Verreault and Dumont 2003; de Lafontaine et
al. 2009b).
Cumulative mortality due to turbines
and commercial fishing as eels attempted to
emigrate from Lake Ontario and leave the
St. Lawrence River was conservatively estimated by Verreault and Dumont (2003) to be
53% in the mid-1980s; and turbine mortality
accounted for three-quarters of this loss (Verreault and Dumont 2003).
As eels in the USLR-LO and Ottawa
River are all large females, cumulative mortality has significantly diminished the substantial contribution of the highly fecund,
silver eels formerly arising from these waters
(Verreault and Dumont 2003; COSEWIC
2006; MacGregor et al. 2009; CSAS 2011)
with implications for the sustainability of total anthropogenic mortality and subsequent
recruitment (de Lafontaine et al. 2009a,b;
Venturelli et al. 2010). Long-lived species
like eels tend to be particularly vulnerable to
excessive mortalities and rapid stock collapse
(Musik 1999), after which recovery may take
decades. Concerns about eel sustainability
continue to mount when one considers that
the St. Lawrence River basin, which constitutes about 19% of American Eel freshwater
habitat, contains some 8,411 dams (Verreault
et al. 2004). It is estimated that these dams
block access to 12,140 km of eel habitat in
the St. Lawrence River watershed (Verreault
et al. 2004). There are 5,260 dams in Quebec
watersheds alone that drain into the St. Lawrence River.
Pronounced range contraction of American Eel in Ontario watersheds (such as the
Ottawa River) has been underway for nearly
a century (Figure 4; MacGregor et al. 2009,
2010, 2011). Cumulative lost production due
to dams and substantial anthropogenic mortalities due to fishing and turbines in these
watersheds has focused entirely on the largest females of the species, a hallmark of the
USLR-LO and associated watersheds. The
cumulative impact of mortality due to hydroelectric dams and recruitment overfishing is
viewed by de Lafontaine et al. (2009a) as the
most probable cause of the decline in USLRLO eels until the mid-1980s. It is suggested
that the gradual decrease in eel spawning
biomass resulted in recruitment failure after
1986, which subsequently amplified the reduction of the eel population left to migrate
downstream (de Lafontaine et al. 2009a).
Moreover, evidence appears to be mounting that the unique phenotypic attributes of
eels colonizing the upper St. Lawrence River
basin may be genetically distinct (from a
functional standpoint) from those colonizing the Maritimes Region for example, and
as such could be irreplaceable (Bernatchez et
al. 2011). There is strong rationale for strong
protection and substantial reduction of anthropogenic mortality of eels in these waters.
Recognition of this concern led Fisheries and
Ocean Canada (DFO 2004), together with
Quebec and Ontario, to announce their intention to reduce anthropogenic mortality by
50% (CEWG 2009).
Environmental Effects on
Recruitment
Environmental effects on recruitment
of fishes are well known (e.g., Christie and
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
Regier 1973; Richards et al. 1996) but the effects are far from predictable (Myers 1998).
In the case of American Eel, cyclic or more
permanent climate-driven effects on ocean
currents or on hatching and survival could
potentially affect larval drift and abundance
patterns, inducing fluctuations in recruitment
levels to continental waters (Bonhommeau et
al. 2008; Friedland et al. 2007). Less favorable environmental conditions could further
exacerbate the declining sustainability of
the species. It is therefore important to sufficiently mitigate anthropogenic mortalities
to ensure adequate escapement of quality
spawners, especially those that convey high
reproductive value, such as individuals from
the USLR-LO, Ottawa River and associated
watersheds. This will help the species to exhibit resilience to periods of less favorable
environmental conditions (Verreault et al.
2003; MacGregor et al. 2009; Venturelli et al.
2010).
Under favorable environmental conditions, strong recruitment events for many fish
species can occur at modest adult stock sizes.
For example, Lake Erie Walleye Sander vitreus collapsed due to very high commercial
fishing mortality in the late 1960s–1970s
(Hatch et al. 1987). After a period of multilateral closed fishing, beginning in 1970,
mature female Walleye biomass accumulated and in 1977 a record year-class was produced; this year-class was managed carefully
to ensure its contribution to recovery (Hatch
et al. 1987). The species is now rehabilitated
in Lake Erie and supports one of the largest
freshwater commercial fisheries in the world.
In the case of American Eel, it appears
that a strong year-class was last produced
in the mid-1970s (Casselman, unpublished
data). Notwithstanding the low current recruitment of eels, young eels are still found
more frequently below hydro-electric facilities in Ontario (Casselman and Marcogliese
2010). Very recently, recruitment to Ontario
and New York waters has been increasing
163
somewhat as evidenced by the numbers of
eels ascending the ladders at Moses-Sunders
G.S. (MacGregor et al. 2010, 2011). This
positive recruitment trend reinforces the need
to set the scene for recovery by taking advantage of these new recruits, protecting and enhancing the production and survival of these
females, while enhancing access to, and use
of a wide diversity of habitats. Increasing the
diversity of habitats available, and improving
the survival of Ontario’s large females will
very likely enhance resilience (Daverat et al.
2006; Field et al. 2008; Secor 2010; Venturelli
et al. 2010). Reducing anthropogenic sources
of mortality on adult eels to build the spawning stock and increase escapement will be essential to enable their enhanced contribution
to future recruitment. Further, strategic mitigation of anthropogenic effects during this
period of slowly building recruitment should
build and diversify the stock, enabling it to
take advantage of promising environmental conditions when they are present, while
facilitating resilience through less favorable
periods.
While there is some thought that changes
in oceanic conditions may influence American Eel recruitment (Friedland et al. 2007;
Bonhommeau et al. 2008), they are poorly
understood and unconfirmed; further research is required but there appears to be a
climate signal (J. Casselman, unpublished
data). Nevertheless, when correlations with
the environment have held up over time for
some species, this does not mean that spawning biomass is not important as well. Even
if an environmental variable is found to be
important, it does not mean it is key to the
management of the population; the emphasis
on the search for environmental correlations
may have led to neglect of other important
processes such as the relationship between
spawner abundance and recruitment (Myers 1998). Management policies and objectives should be seeking higher spawning
abundances than has previously been as-
164
MacGregor et al.
sumed necessary based on recruitment data
collected during adult stock declines associated with fishery development (Walters and
Kitchell 2001).
While they are important to understand,
potential environmental effects on recruitment should not be used as an excuse for inaction; rather, if recruitment is declining, regardless of the cause, this should underscore
the need to mitigate other known anthropogenic impacts (such as mortalities due to turbines and fisheries), particularly those that
impact the survival of the spawning stock
and overall resilience. Both abiotic and biotic factors need to be studied (Myers 1998).
There is a need to begin strategic implementation of mitigation options soon; there is
an opportunity to capitalize on the recently
observed positive recruitment trends (albeit
still very small). Moreover, under current approvals processes, it often takes many years
to negotiate, set conditions and implement
mitigation at hydro-electric facilities. Given
the precarious status of eels in this system,
beginning the process of strategic mitigation
now is important to take advantage of recent
and possibly future increases in recruitment.
Understanding the Decline
and Opportunities for
Recovery
Anthropogenic effects on the single
spawning stock of eels have accumulated
over the past century. In the case of our featured large, apparently old female from the
Mississippi Lake (Figure 1), she seems to
have a poor chance of reaching the St. Lawrence River, much less exiting to the ocean.
There were many more like her in the past,
as the Ottawa River once provided access to
hundreds of remote streams, rivers, ponds,
and lakes where eels quietly resided, maturing as large, old females before emigrating;
there are numerous accounts or photos of
very large eels captured in the far interior waters of Ontario (Reading Eagle 1902; Ville de
Temiscaming 1996; Mandrak and Crossman
2003; MacGregor et al. 2010; K. Coleman,
OMNR retired, personal communication; S.
Ross, Pikwàkanagàn First Nation, personal
communication).
Cumulative effects on the entire North
American segment of the eel population (lost
access to habitat, mortalities due to fishing
and turbines, commercial fisheries etc.) have
been most severe on the freshwater contingent, affecting status, distribution, and abundance of American Eel (Figure 7); this is
cause for concern over the resilience of the
species to future anthropogenic impact (McCleave and Edeline 2009; Secor 2010). It is
also important to determine if there will soon
be a risk that spawning and larval production reach such low levels that depensation
effects occur (Walters and Kitchell 2001;
Dekker 2008; MacGregor et al. 2009), further complicating recovery. However, as evidenced by the Lake Erie walleye example,
recovery remains feasible if mortality is reduced, particularly if the spawning stock is
rebuilt.
It has been shown that for many longlived fish species, fisheries management
agencies need to recognize the reproductive value of Big, Old, Fat, Fecund Female
Fish (BOFFF) (Palumbi 2004; Berkeley et
al. 2004a, b; Field et al. 2008; Venturelli et
al. 2010). American Eel in the USLR-LO,
Ottawa River system, being all females, the
largest, oldest, and most fecund in the species
range (Casselman 2003; COSEWIC 2006),
are a poignant example. Protection and enhanced production/survival of these, reproductively valuable female eels is critically
important to sustainable management of the
panmictic American Eel. An important strategy to restore and sustainably manage eels in
the upper St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario,
and Ottawa River watersheds should be to
mitigate the selective removal of large eels,
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
165
Figure 7. Hypothetical cumulative effects vortex influencing the status, distribution and abundance
of American Eel. Other factors such as human-induced ecosystem change and contaminants could be
added if the effects are proven, having the effect of speeding up the vortex.
and to enhance their production and resilience. Mitigation of anthropogenic mortality
(e.g., by reducing mortality due to turbines
and silver eel fisheries, which disproportionately kill big females) appears especially important to recovery. This is likely to improve
the opportunity for increased recruitment, enhancing resilience to environmental stochasticity (Lipcius and Stockhausen 2002; MacGregor et al. 2009; Venturelli et al. 2010),
while better enabling eels to take advantage
of unpredictable favorable environmental
conditions. Improved access to a diverse ar-
ray of tributary habitats would convey similar opportunities for recovery (Machut et al.
2007; Secor 2010; MacGregor et al. 2011;
Hitt et al. 2012).
Continued lack of mitigation of anthropogenic effects could see the downward spiral
in the USLR/LO subpopulation approach extirpation (Figure 7); an important phenotype
that could be difficult to replace if lost (Bernatchez et al. 2011). Eel population decline
may become especially pronounced and rapid if additional unmitigated sources of mortality on large females are approved within
166
MacGregor et al.
the eel’s range (e.g., hydro-electric facilities
and silver eel fisheries). In fact, mortality of
silver eels due to fishing in the St. Lawrence
River appears already unsustainable (Verreault et al. 2003; de Lafontaine et al. 2009a,
2009b) (recall that 75% of the anthropogenic mortality on eels from Lake Ontario has
been estimated to come from turbines in the
St. Lawrence River; Verreault and Dumont
2003). The recent small but steady increases
in recruitment are opportunities to speed up
recovery, especially if access is provided to
more diverse habitat and turbine mortalities
are reduced.
How Did We Get Here?
MacGregor et al. (2008) described the
governance challenges in managing American Eel across 25 jurisdictions, each considering eels only from their own parochial perspectives without adequate consideration of
the spawning stock of the species as a whole.
In addition, more than 15,000 barriers have
been constructed on the watersheds where
diadromous fish species, including American
Eel, were abundant (Busch et al. 1998; Lary
et al. 1998; MacGregor et al. 2009). Many
watersheds now host a series of structures
that impede access by diadromous fishes
important habitat, and induce serious downstream mortality. Both commercial fisheries
and construction of dams have been ongoing
for more than a century in the freshwater habitats of the species (MacGregor et al. 2009).
Each dam, and each fishery, was established
in isolation, with little consideration of accumulating effects at the watershed or species level. Similarly, over time, commercial
harvests were allowed to increase as markets
for eels expanded (MacGregor et al. 2008,
2009). There were few if any effective harvest controls on the eel fisheries, and no considerations of range-wide, cumulative implications of the harvests on the spawning stock
(MacGregor et al. 2008). Until very recently,
there was little to no interest in doing so despite early concerns raised in a symposium
convened in 1980 to discuss the issues we are
faced with today (Loftus 1982; MacGregor et
al. 2008, 2009).
Allen (2008) noted that circumstances
such as those of the eel can drive a shift in
power away from hydroelectric dams that
generate billions of dollars’ worth of energy
without adequate provision of safe, adequate
fish passage, toward a day when fish will be
valued sufficiently to require facilities to participate in fish passage strategies so that species can survive and recover to more natural
levels. In 2010, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) called for Ontario to
use Ontario’s Lake and Rivers Improvement
Act (LRIA) to require all new dams to facilitate natural passage by installing fish ladders
or other similar structures (ECO 2010). In
addition, the Commissioner called for all existing dams to be retrofitted with fish ladders
or other similar structures to facilitate safe
and natural eel migration along the course
of all Ontario’s streams and rivers, through
LRIA approvals for improvements or repair
to dams (ECO 2010).
Where cumulative effects legislation
and policies exist, they are ineffectively implemented (Duinker and Greig 2006). Greig
(2008) argues that an important determinant of this failure is a focus on mechanistic
analysis of local-scale cumulative effects,
rather than an integrative assessment of the
total stresses acting on the population. Allen (2008) observes that the greatest barrier
to protecting the eel is the intransigence,
spin and lack of coordination within the
corporate and government world in facing
the reality of the eel’s plight. In addition,
provincial agency approval processes often
do not require consideration of cumulative
effects, although there are some guidance
documents alluding to the need to consider
them for Ontario government projects (e.g.
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
OMNR 2003). There is an Ontario policy
stating that an ecosystem approach will be
applied (OMNR 2009). A 2008 Divisional
court ruling seems to require the Ontario
government to consider cumulative effects
(Ecojustice 2008), but to date we are not
aware of any formal procedures to enshrine
cumulative effects assessment in government policy relating to project approvals.
If there is no requirement to consider cumulative effects in approval processes, past
experience suggests that we cannot expect
them to be considered at all, much less appropriately. In light of these circumstances,
the probability appears high that more water
power facilities and other sources of mortality could again be approved without the
appropriate mitigation safeguards, further
exacerbating the effects of existing anthropogenic impacts. By not effectively considering cumulative effects, it appears that
some approval processes themselves are
a major threat to survival and recovery of
American Eel and other migratory fish species at risk, as much as the specific cumulative effects themselves.
Jurisdictions managing commercial
eel fisheries did not consider the accumulated mortalities and lost production due to
other factors such as turbines and barriers,
although it is clear that the question was being raised by as early as 1980 (Loftus 1982).
Similarly, agencies responsible for approvals and setting operational conditions for
waterpower projects and large dams did not
consider their additive effects or address
the on-going commercial fishing mortalities. Most agencies are siloed among program areas often with differing objectives
and priorities. It can be difficult to ensure
that all program objectives are effectively
integrated and coordinated. There is a need
to ensure much stronger and more effective
integration and coordination among programs; holistic comprehensive approaches
seem long overdue in Ontario.
167
Legislation: Difficulties in Application
In the course of determining how we got
here, we attempted to ascertain if the collapse
of American Eel could have been mitigated
in Ontario. This analysis is not intended in
any way to lay blame—we are simply examining how the situation occurred so we can
make recommendations to avoid similar situations in the future. As early as 1980 eel experts from around the world were convened
because of sustainability concerns over
American Eel in Lake Ontario (Loftus 1982).
Strong concerns from the scientific community were again raised in the early 2000s
(GLFC 2002; Dekker et al. 2003). While
there appear to have been sufficient legislative tools to require attempts to at least mitigate harmful effects on American Eel in Ontario (e.g., Canada’s Fisheries Act; Ontario’s
Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act; Ottawa
River Powers Act; Ontario Fishery Regulations; Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Act etc.), little was done at that time. In the
early 2000s, some steps were taken to control
the eel harvests by the Lake Ontario commercial fishery (MacGregor et al. 2009), but little
was attempted or required of hydro-electric
companies to address known serious turbine
mortalities. An eel ladder had been installed
on the Saunders Generating Station in 1974,
but the objectives of the ladder appeared to
be as much to deal with the nuisance factors
and operational difficulties that eels accumulating below the dam were causing, as they
were to address conservation needs. Little
else was done at this or other facilities over
the next two decades to directly attempt mitigation or implement offsetting measures for
the significant turbine mortalities that were
so highly evident at the Moses-Saunders generating station (Loftus 1982; Verreault and
Dumont 2003; Lees 2008).
Ontario closed commercial fishing for
eels in 2004 due to rapidly declining abundance in Lake Ontario (MacGregor et al.
168
MacGregor et al.
2009) and shortly afterwards COSSARO
(Committee on the Status of Species at Risk
in Ontario) and the Ontario government announced that American Eel in Ontario was
officially considered endangered. It was only
after these actions that an agreement was
struck in 2006 (in partnership with DFO,
OMNR and OPG) to undertake pilot approaches to mitigate or offset turbine mortalities at Saunders. But there have been few to
no requirements yet on any other watershed
in Ontario to attempt mitigation of either eel
mortality or upstream passage obstructions,
despite an accumulation of effects over the
past century (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009).
It seems to have taken the promulgation
of Ontario’s new Endangered Species Act
(ESA) in 2007 and the listing of American
Eel to get the attention of regulators regarding the serious issue of turbine mortalities
and access problems associated with waterpower facilities.
The lack of adequate, safe fish passage
at waterpower facilities is an example of
policy and legislation implementation dilemmas. While issues such as turbine mortality
may not have been considered to be an issue
for eels when these facilities were first constructed, it has been clearly recognized to be
a problem since the late 1970s to early 1980s
(Kolenosky 1976; Loftus 1982; Verreault
and Dumont 2003). Strong implementation
of existing and new legislation is required
if the objectives of biodiversity, recovery of
species at risk and sustainability are to be
achieved in aquatic ecosystems. In Canada,
however, decisions relating to the provision
of fish passage have not been based strictly
on legislation. Rather, given the unusually
wide discretionary powers of the ministers
under the Fisheries Act and LRIA, these decisions seem to have been based somehow on
evaluation of societal values. However, it is
not clear how this evaluation was undertaken
in the past, nor if/how society was consulted
in this regard.
Negotiations are now underway in Ontario with a few power companies to undertake
mitigation on other watersheds in response to
the Endangered Species Act and Regulation
242/08 (Ontario Government 2007, 2008),
but the results have been mixed and often
charged with intense push back, especially
light of in the recent climate created by Ontario’s pursuit of renewable energy (a commendable goal if implemented with care).
However, it is important to note that the
promulgation of the ESA 2007 was not necessary to require mitigation attempts as the legal tools to do so have been available for the
better part of a century. Full mitigation of all
issues relating to access and turbine mortality
may not be achievable in the near-term, but
as eels in USLR-LO, Ottawa River and associated watersheds Ontario convey special
reproductive value to the species, it is important to conserve as many individuals as possible, while acknowledging there will continue
to be some mortality. As an interim measure,
the trap and transfer approach (McCarthy et
al. 2008; OWA 2010) certainly seems worthwhile in smaller systems; and OPG has established a good foundation in its well-designed
experiments at Saunders Generating Station
(Stanley and Pope 2010). However, trap and
transfer should not be viewed as the final solution. Certainly upstream passage can easily
be more easily achieved.
Ontario and DFO appear to be in the
early stages of finding/requiring mitigation
solutions for fish passage at hydro-electric
facilities in the province. In stark contrast,
major attempts to find solutions to fish passage issues continue to be implemented in
the United States (U.S.), often in response to
requirements of the U.S. Endangered Species
Act or the license renewal processes of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (e.g.,
PFBC 2007; FCRPS 2008; PRRT 2009; USFWS 2009) over a much longer period.
While there are numerous sections of
Canada’s Fisheries Act and at least one section
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
in Ontario’s Lake and Rivers Improvement
Act (LRIA) available to require fish passage,
a problem in some regions of Canada appears
to be strongly related to lack of policy direction to implement the existing legal tools,
leaving authorities exposed to political pressures and internal criticism (Collares-Pereira
and Cowx 2004). Some of the decisions relating to management and approvals of hydroelectric projects and commercial fisheries
can have significant, ongoing and sustained
negative impact at a landscape or species
level (especially in the context of cumulative
effects) if regulators remain unprepared or
unable to consider cumulative effects and/or
require attempts to mitigate effects.
It is clear that some of the problems encountered were unforeseen when hydro-electric facilities were first contemplated for watersheds such as the Ottawa River. Indeed, the
life cycle of American Eel for instance was
not fully understood until Schmidt published
his findings in 1922 (Schmidt 1922) (about
the time that many of the hydro-electric facilities were first contemplated for construction on the Ottawa River), and the terms cumulative effects, biodiversity and ecosystem
sustainability had not yet been coined.
However, there is strong evidence that
fish passage was at least contemplated very
early for at least one facility on the Ottawa
River, as evidenced by a federal permit issued
to one of the earliest facilities (ca. 1932); the
permit suggested that fish passage should be
provided to the satisfaction of the Minister of
Marine and Fisheries—yet one has never been
built. Moreover, Canada’s Fisheries Act has
always had provisions for ensuring fish passage. Beginning with the effects of mill dams
and other smaller structures, fish passage has
been viewed as important since confederation, requiring intervening legislation. One
can only speculate on the reasons why fish
passage was not provided at the aforementioned facility (despite the permit language),
or at the numerous other facilities construct-
169
ed on the Ottawa River and other watersheds
in Ontario despite clear tools and mandates to
enable fish passage within Canada’s Fisheries
Act, LRIA (Ontario Government 2009a), and
even in the un-repealed Ottawa River Powers Act of 1943 (Ontario Government 2010),
which is another example that clearly demonstrates an understanding of the need for fish
passage on the Ottawa River.
Nevertheless, cumulative ongoing harm
to diadromous fish, associated with unmitigated hydro-electric facilities and lack of
adequate fish passage, has been known to
occur for many decades. Yet only one hydroelectric facility (the Saunders Generating
Station on the St. Lawrence River) of some
90 within the historic range of eels provides
a fishway in Ontario. Furthermore, commercial eel fisheries continued the in face of the
known mortalities imposed by hydroelectric
facilities. As effects were not addressed, the
cumulative mortalities became unsustainable
in Ontario and Quebec, and many lucrative
eel fisheries eventually declined or failed.
In an attempt to rectify the situation, earliest
government actions were to first reduce, then
close or buy out fisheries (MacGregor et al.
2008, 2009, 2010; 2011). But unmitigated
hydro-electric power generation continued
in most waters of Ontario. With the closure
of the eel fisheries in Ontario, hydro-electric
power generation can now be viewed as the
largest known anthropogenic source of eel
mortality in the province (MacGregor et al.
2010, 2011; Pratt and Mathers 2011), jeopardizing survival and recovery of the species in
the province (MacGregor et al. 2010, 2011).
Equally odd is that authorizations under
Section 32 of the Fisheries Act to kill fish
by means other than fishing (which trigger
the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act (CEAA)) must be requested by the proponents of the activity. The Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) appears unable
to require proponents to have authorizations.
If the proponents do not request authoriza-
170
MacGregor et al.
tion, then they are not subject to the federal
cumulative effects screening under CEAA.
DFO has the option of pursuing enforcement
action if a facility holds no authorization
and continues to kill fish, but that is not the
preferred solution and has never occurred in
Ontario.
Until recently, Ontario legal powers to require fish passage rested largely in the Lakes
and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA), but
again the powers are discretionary, requiring
Minister’s orders. The province also seemed
to passively defer fish passage decisions to
DFO and the Fisheries Act, and if DFO did
not require fish passage, then certainly Ontario did not. The issue in reality is moot as
until recently, DFO appears to have had no
history of requiring fish ladders at hydroelectric facilities in Ontario. However, this
position likely did not absolve the province
from their legal mandate and responsibility
under the LRIA if DFO did not act. Nevertheless, Ontario only once applied the LRIA
for fish passage at hydroelectric facilities (at
the Saunders Generating Station on the St.
Lawrence River). In this instance the LRIA
was used largely to document/operationalize a negotiated agreement between Ontario
Hydro and OMNR. DFO, on the other hand,
indicated that because fisheries management
was delegated to the province, the department required Ontario’s fisheries management objectives for fish passage before it
would act to require passage. As these objectives were rarely completed and approved
with sufficient specificity for passage at the
watershed level, the issue of ensuring ecological sustainability of hydro-electric facilities,
especially when it involved fish passage, apparently fell between the cracks. Overlapping
provincial and federal legislation, with mandates to provide safe, adequate fish passage
has been a jurisdictional quagmire that has
apparently contributed to inaction on this and
other issues for decades. Protocols between
DFO and Ontario are now in place which
are helpful for other matters, but they have
not yet adequately addressed fish passage. It
is doubtful that an effective protocol can be
established without clearer agency direction.
With the implementation of Ontario’s
new Endangered Species Act (ESA 2007),
the absence of fish passage was seen as a
threat jeopardizing survival and recovery of
species such as American Eel (MacGregor et
al. 2010, 2011). If recovery of this and possibly other fish species at risk is to be successful, Ontario will need to consider judicious
use of the LRIA to require fish passage as the
ESA 2007 cannot be relied upon to require
fish passage at existing facilities. Otherwise
the province may be forced to rely on federal
legislation and agencies to implement the
provincial ESA, creating an inefficient process riddled with opportunities for inaction.
Regardless, the LRIA, Fisheries Act, provincial Environmental Assessment Act, ESA,
the federal Species at Risk Act and CEAA
processes will need to be highly coordinated
to avoid creating conflicting decisions.
Past practices seem to have been to ignore relevant federal and provincial legislation pertaining to fish passage in Ontario, essentially meaning that neither have any real
clout. To be clear, it is the nonapplication of
the Acts that weakens them, and the whole
situation appears to be viewed by proponents
as a manageable risk. Voluntary approaches
most frequently have been sought. Based on
the few permanent fishways, it appears there
has been little will to require fish passage at
hydro-electric facilities, at least not in Ontario. With only one fishway on more than 90
hydro-electric facilities in Ontario within the
eel’s historical range it is evident there has
not been much interest in ensuring fish passage at Ontario’s hydro-electric facilities, despite ongoing cumulative effects. However,
the recent promulgation of Ontario’s ESA
and Regulation 224/08 may provide an opportunity to re-think past approaches. Much
time has passed since the last wave of facili-
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
ties was built, and the effects of existing facilities appears to have been long forgotten in
some instances, leading to shifting baselines
(MacGregor et al. 2009). Efforts are underway to correct this situation in the face of recent court decisions and species at risk legislation, but it is extremely challenging. There
can be considerable push back (MacGregor
et al. 2008), including unwillingness to recognize or address the significant cumulative
effects that have occurred.
We suggest that most of the legal tools
have been available to require attempts to
mitigate anthropogenic effects, but their application has been less than desirable. The
big gap appears to be in policy: both in application of legislation and in requirements
to consider and address cumulative effects.
Could the collapse of eels in Ontario have
been prevented? Likely, had the cumulative
effects been recognized and had mitigation
been attempted earlier in important waters
across the North American range. However,
with eels having declined in interest and priority (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009), and because of the long life-span and complex lifecycle of eels, it would have been difficult to
detect a decline until it was very pronounced.
In view of the shifting baselines that clearly
have occurred with time (MacGregor et al.
2008; 2009), the decline was likely not noticed by most until it was well underway.
Nevertheless, harvests could have been
more carefully managed earlier when the declines were first noticed, and techniques such
as eel ladders, trap and transfer programs, turbine shutdowns at night and other approaches
etc. could have been required at existing facilities, while recognizing that there may be
site-specific challenges (NYPA 2009; OWA
2010). Such actions would have helped eels
to see their way through less favorable conditions such as fluctuations in ocean currents;
but are likely unrealistic given strong push
back, discretionary legislation, lack of effective endangered species legislation at the
171
time, and political realities of the day. Clearer
direction, policy and procedures regarding
the implementation of legislation, and stronger cumulative effects policy and procedures
both provincially and federally would seem
to have been required. Mitigation needs to
be required and implemented (often through
adaptive management) to find solutions; but
often no form of mitigation was required at
the beginning of projects. The lack of requirements to attempt effective mitigation at the
beginning of the project makes it extremely
difficult to require mitigation at a later date,
and provides no incentive to invest in finding
solutions.
Given the high reproductive value of individual eels from the USLR-LO, it is very
likely that lack of mitigation of anthropogenic mortality and impediments to access
were a strong contributing factor to the collapse. Mitigation at a number of locations,
however imperfect, would have helped delay,
moderate, or prevent the decline entirely. Involvement of Indigenous peoples, accommodation of their perspectives and integration
traditional ecological knowledge in resource
planning, (including the environmental assessment and monitoring process) are further
ways to address the continuing limitations
associated with past and current EIAs (Sallenave 1994; Stevenson 1996).
As noted earlier, the circumstances of
American Eel in Ontario appear to have
fallen between the legislative cracks. While
there have been adequate tools to address the
situation, the discretionary powers of both
the Federal and Provincial ministers are extraordinary and the applicable legislation
cannot be described as prescriptive (Hutchings and Rangeley 2011). Eels in Ontario are
not the only example of things going badly
wrong for fish under existing legislation. For
example, given that the unprecedented decline of Atlantic Cod Gadhus morhua took
place under the auspices of the Fisheries Act,
it appears to be “a suboptimal legislative tool
172
MacGregor et al.
for fish population recovery and rebuilding
purposes,” largely due to the extraordinary
discretionary powers of the minister (Hutchings and Rangeley 2011).
We suggest that the same can be said of
the LRIA, at least when it comes to requiring fish passage, and ensuring the “management, perpetuation and use of the fish, wildlife and other natural resources dependent on
the lakes and rivers” (a key purpose of the
Act). Again it is the discretionary power of
the minister and lack of policy direction relating to resource issues other than strictly
water management that appears to be the key
problem.
Similar to Atlantic Cod, American Eel
have declined by more than 95% in Ontario
despite seemingly appropriate legislative
tools to prevent it. This is further evidence
that either the legislative and management
tools to conserve fish are suboptimal, or their
use has been suboptimal because they are not
sufficiently prescriptive, and there are large
gaps in policy relating to their application.
There appear to be negligible political costs
associated with government decisions that
threaten the health of fish stocks and species
(Hutchings and Rangeley 2011), whereas the
counter pressures from vested interests can be
extreme, including arguments relating to regional economics and jobs, renewable versus
coal-fired generation, and the price of energy.
Ostensibly this can lead to compromises that
in the end emerge to be unsustainable, and in
the long run can cause serious damage to other valuable renewable resources (e.g., fisheries) if the collateral effects are not mitigated.
This raises the question of how well the general public has been informed and consulted
on these issues, if the government is making
decisions based on societal need as well as
science. The circumstances of American Eel
in Ontario are clear illustrations; eventually
all Ontario fisheries were closed for eels,
largely as a result of cumulative mortalities
While the science, resources and priorities to
detect declining abundance in species such
as eels were limited in the earlier decades,
concerns over mortalities due to fishing and
turbines were raised as early as 1980 (Loftus 1982). Conflicting opinions, panmixia,
finger-pointing and potential costs of mitigation appear to be the most likely reasons for
limited action until 2004, when the extremely
valuable eel fisheries were closed in Ontario.
The implications of the recent major revisions to Canada’s Fisheries Act (Canada
2012) are unclear and troubling, as are the
proposed changes to the Species at Risk Act.
The Fisheries Act is now even more discretionary which is very disconcerting. Moreover, it is not clear that species such as American Eel will even continue to be protected
in Ontario under that Act, because eel fisheries are now closed in Ontario, and therefore
would not be considered to be a fish that is
“part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or that support such a fishery” as the new Act requires (Canada 2012).
There would seem to be no provision for fish
that have had their fisheries closed for conservation reasons. The Regulation process
under the Act may attempt to further refine
this; however, currently the species is not
protected under the Species at Risk Act either
because the COSEWIC recommended designation of Threatened has not been approved
by government, and it may take years to do
so, if ever. Thankfully, the species remains
protected under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act.
A Resonance of Perspectives
As steps are hopefully taken to mitigate
cumulative effects on American Eel across
whole watersheds, the long held but often
ignored Indigenous principle of Ginawaydaganuk is gaining attention because it resonates with statements about interconnectedness and cooperative aspects in watershed
management planning (e.g., OMNR 2010).
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
Ginawaydaganuk, the Algonquin law of interconnectedness which is documented in the
Welcoming and Sharing Wampum Belt carried by Algonquin First Nations, outlines responsibilities to each other and to the earth.
It requires consideration of the cumulative
effects of actions on the entire web of life,
a consideration which reflects the Algonquin
definition of sustainability, notions of reconciliation and respect jointly of human rights
and environmental protection (Wilson 2008;
McDermott and Wilson 2010). Meanwhile
public awareness of cumulative effects is increasing. The Environmental Commissioner
of Ontario documented one case where a
public appeal to a proposed development
used an argument that the development was
inconsistent with the Ministry of Environment’s Statement of Environmental Values,
including principles to adopt an ecosystem
approach to environmental protection and
resource management, and to consider the
cumulative effects on the environment (ECO
2010)
Looking Back, Looking
Forward: Addressing
Cumulative Effects on Eels
Looking back over the past century,
American Eel in Ontario have been impacted
substantially by cumulative effects throughout this period (MacGregor et al. 2009).
Some of these effects are mortality and lost
or compromised habitat. Other effects include a widespread lack of data, policy gaps,
and changing perceptions/attitudes. More
specifically, theses effects consist of shifting baselines (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009),
inconsistent and ineffective governance
(MacGregor et al. 2008), lost production
(especially of females), anthropogenic mortalities due to turbines and fishing, selective
substantial mortality on large, old females,
and changing environmental conditions, all
173
of which have accumulated on the single
spawning stock (Verreault and Dumont
2003; MacGregor et al. 2009, 2010). Unless environmental impact assessment (EIA)
policies and processes are developed or improved, including developing or improving
cumulative effects assessment processes, the
risk of repeating and exacerbating past mistakes remains high.
Anthropogenic effects have mounted
over the last century or more and, given the
rapid human growth projections for Ontario
(Ontario Government 2010), are not expected to subside anytime soon. Hence, recovery
of American Eel in the USLR-LO will not be
a short-term process (MacGregor et al. 2010,
2011); it will be a complex process involving a range of actions, both within and hopefully beyond Ontario’s borders. But actions
in Ontario alone can be effective (MacGregor
et al. 2010, 2011). In response to the decline
in the USLR-LO watersheds, some conservation actions recently have been implemented
(e.g., Ontario closed all commercial and sport
fishing for eels in 2004), more conservation
actions are underway (Ontario Power Generation and Quebec Hydro each have fiveyear action plans aimed at offsetting effects
of mortalities in the short term: OMNR 2008;
MNRF 2009), recovery planning under Ontario’s ESA is in the final stages (MacGregor
et al. 2010, 2011). Agencies now are working
closely with Indigenous peoples and stakeholders to develop and implement strategic
actions for regional and national recovery
of the species (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009,
2010, 2011; CSAS 2011; Chaput and Cairns
2011; Fenske et al. 2011).
Looking forward, however, with the recent push for more sources of renewable
energy in jurisdictions like Ontario, the pressures to build more hydro-electric facilities
are mounting rapidly (often on the same watersheds where existing facilities still need
mitigation). For instance, with the recent
push for more sources of renewable energy
174
MacGregor et al.
in the province of Ontario, at least 15 new
hydro-electric facilities currently are proposed within the historical range of American Eel, and more proposals are likely (MacGregor et al. 2010, 2011). While few if any of
these facilities appear to be in the main stem
rivers, and are relatively small in comparison
to Saunders G. S. and those on the main stem
of the Ottawa River, turbines on smaller facilities tend to be spin faster and impart higher mortality rates, and they can further contribute to the cumulative impacts on eels in a
watershed. To put balance into the approvals
process, the Environmental Commissioner of
Ontario openly has expressed the expectation
that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
will give full and due consideration to cumulative effects when rendering decisions on renewable energy projects (ECO 2010).
The circumstances of American Eel in
the USLR-LO and associated watersheds is a
strong illustration of regional cumulative effects having much broader impact at the species level (Verreault and Dumont 2003; de
Lafontaine 2009a, 2009b; MacGregor et al.
2009, 2010, 2011). Together with shifts in the
environment, regional cumulative effects of
lost production due to barriers and mortalities
due to fishing and turbines act synergistically
to impact species at local, regional and binational/global scales (Figure 7). There are likely other, less substantiated factors involved
as well. For instance, contaminants such as
PCBs are thought to have once had an effect
on eel recruitment in Lake Ontario (Castonguay et al. 1994; Byer et al. 2009, 2010) and
PCBs in eels may have been directly linked
to PCB contamination in Beluga whales that
consume migrating adult eels (Hickie et. al
2000). However, since 1982 PCBs and mirex have declined by 58% and 63% respectively (Hodson et al. 2011) and levels are
below threshold now (Byer et al. 2009). In
addition, the role of ecosystem change (Mills
et al. 2003) and high levels of thiaminase in
Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus (a principal
forage species in Lake Ontario) need further
consideration in the species’ recovery in Lake
Ontario. Thiaminase appears to have played a
role in inhibiting recovery of other fish species in Lake Ontario (Honeyfield et al. 2012);
however, it is unlikely to prevent recovery in
waters where alewife are not dominant, as is
the case in most interior waters of Ontario,
within the historical range eels, but excluding
Lake Ontario (e.g., Ottawa River). Moreover,
there is little evidence that recovery of other
fish species such as Lake Sturgeon is being
impeded by contaminant stress in the Ottawa
River (Haxton and Findlay 2008).
Clearly, those involved in fisheries management and environmental impact assessment need direction to take a much broader,
ecosystem approach during the allocations
and approvals process, considering the full
life cycle of the species in question, ecosystem effects, and the potential for impacts
well beyond the boundaries/mandates of the
particular program or jurisdiction. Localized
site-by-site evaluations of project proposals are not appropriate, and management of
regional fisheries needs to consider broader
habitat, ecosystem and species-level impacts
across jurisdictions.
As the recent Divisional Court ruling in
Ontario (Lafarge Decision) seems to require
the province to take an ecosystem approach
and consider cumulative effects in permitting
and other approvals processes (Ecojustice
2008; Ontario Superior Court 2008), appropriate changes to approvals processes that
effectively address cumulative effects seem
timely. Such long overdue processes would
be consistent with Canada’s (Environment
Canada 1995) and Ontario’s Biodiversity
Strategies (Ontario Government 2005) and
would demonstrate that Canada and Ontario
are serious about the intent of their species at
risk legislation (Canada 2002; Ontario Government 2007). Clearly, species at risk legislation cannot do the job of protecting and restoring species on its own, if other conflicting
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
policies and processes remain. Species at risk
legislation needs to be supported by other approvals processes and policies.
The recent push for more renewable energy (e.g., recent implementation of Ontario’s Green Energy Act, Ontario Government
2009b) has encouraged and led to many more
proposals for new and upgraded hydro-electric facilities in Ontario’s watersheds. As in
the past, when previous waterpower facilities
were installed, there is once again a rush to
move the approvals along quickly, and calls
for cumulative effects assessment appear to
be unwelcome by some attempting to encourage such investments. We can very well
imagine the conflicting situation that government staff are faced with when attempting to
implement Ontario’s new Endangered Species Act and Biodiversity Strategy, while at
the same time experiencing pressure and a
sense of urgency in implementing the Green
Energy Act and associated policies.
Given the long-term impacts of waterpower facilities, it is worth taking the time to
develop and implement effective mitigation;
as we are still living with the cumulative repercussions from existing facilities some 100
years later. Duinker (1994) and Duinker and
Greig (2006) concluded that cumulative effects assessment is merely EIA done right;
that most VECs are integrators, and therefore
that environmental assessments should also
be integrative. Duinker (1994) further concluded:
“CEA presents a great opportunity to rebalance EIA with a healthy dose of analytical work, rather than get caught up in
the procedural and bureaucratic trappings
of EIA processes. To be successful, EIA
certainly needs a workable integration of
science and politics (Lee 1993), but politics without proper science is what characterizes much EIA today, and we are not
learning much about how developments
really affect environments.”
175
The circumstances of American Eel illustrate some consequences of failing to adequately consider and address cumulative
effects. Sufficient measures must be in place
this time to ensure mitigation of the collateral
ecological effects, with full consideration of
the cumulative effects of existing and projected additional installations (Greig et al. 2006).
Recent corrective management efforts need
to persist and be strengthened along the continuum to ensure ecological and biodiversity
issues are addressed and incorporated with
power production. Existing impacts will need
to be corrected and new ones effectively mitigated if the province of Ontario is steadfast in
its commitment to biodiversity and species at
risk. Ontario can ill-afford to continue simply
trading-off ecological and biodiversity benefits for power production, with no attempt to
mitigate. It is not a trade-off that is required,
but rather implementation of truly environmentally sustainable hydro-power.
Some might argue that EIA assesses socioeconomic factors as well as environmental and somehow tips the balance; however,
the approaches used in making these tradeoff determinations are rarely transparent.
As we have shown, these are decisions that
can have long-lasting impacts, their effects
accumulating over more than a century. If
trade-offs of such major consequence are to
be considered, the trade-off options need to
be transparently and honestly communicated
for broad internal and external consultation.
But simple trade-offs of VECs for other values should not often be necessary, and should
certainly never occur without first establishing effective mitigation procedures. Holistic
approaches need to be adopted to maintain
and/or restore all benefits on a sustainable
basis; trading one benefit entirely for another
is rarely necessary, overly simplistic and inappropriate. Such decisions will need to pay
closer attention to, and respect the Ginawaydaganuk principle. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has set the expectation
176
MacGregor et al.
clearly, saying that the true measure of success is not whether a recovery strategy has
been developed or the government has said
what actions it will take, but rather, whether a
species is on the right path to being de-listed
(ECO 2010).
Like the unprecedented reductions in
Atlantic Cod, American Eel in Ontario face
a similarly uncertain future. Reductions of
these magnitudes represent uncharted territory for scientists and, as Hutchings and
Reynolds (2004) warned: “failure to take the
conservation biology of marine fishes seriously will ensure that other depleted species
remain ecological and numerical shadows in
the ecosystems where they once dominated”.
Summary
The decline of American Eel should serve
as an example of what can happen when Regional Environmental Assessments or Regional Environmental Effects Frameworks are
not established or considered. Nevertheless,
the cumulative effects on American Eel can
be reversed by developing strategic recovery
and mitigation plans with focused, coordinated implementation across regional and watershed scales by all jurisdictions involved. Nowhere will this be more important than in the
USLR-LO and associated watersheds such as
the Ottawa River. Because of the panmictic,
highly migratory nature of the American Eel,
recovery objectives and approaches should
be coordinated across jurisdictions. However, because of the high reproductive value
of the phenotype native to Ontario, Quebec,
and New York, effective conservation actions
by a single jurisdiction in these waters can at
least in part restore the ecological, cultural,
natural heritage and economic values at local,
regional, national, and international scales
(Figure 7). We recommend acting locally, and
globally to effectively manage this and other
diadromous species.
It is very important to understand that
approvals of projects such as hydro-electric
facilities are critical decisions that can lead
to more than a century of significant damage
to native biodiversity, accumulating across a
broad geographic range if approved without
determining and implementing appropriate
mitigation. The aggregated investments in,
and annual revenues derived from hydroelectric projects have been massive over the
past century, and will continue into the foreseeable future. The benefits of waterpower
are clear, but waterpower and aquatic species
are not necessarily mutually exclusive with
the right investments in mitigation. However,
the effects of waterpower can be devastating if not developed by considering and addressing the full range of long-term impacts
(MacGregor and Greig 2012). A new wave
of these facilities seems to be on the way as
governments seek more sources of renewable
energy. This is a noble goal; but at the same
time, the quest for renewable energy must
not eliminate key biodiversity and ecosystem functions and values. Waterpower is not
the only renewable resource involved; other
highly valuable, renewable resources, including fisheries can be severely impacted as a result of the effects of waterpower, especially if
the effects are not mitigated. The commercial
and sport fisheries of Ontario contribute some
2.75 billion dollars annually to Ontario (DFO
2012), so they are worth protecting. Mitigation of effects on such valuable resources is
both necessary and feasible for existing and
new facilities; it makes good economic sense
to maximize the benefits from all valued resources, rather than simply trading one benefit off for another.
The needs for mitigation are most efficiently and effectively addressed early in the
project design and approvals processes to ensure that appropriate operational and structural requirements are considered and addressed
at the project planning stage. Thus, more proactive and comprehensive analyses of cumu-
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
lative and individual effects are required early
in the approvals process to ensure effective
mitigation. Governments now have the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and make
better informed decisions about the cumulative effects of dams, fisheries and hydro-electric facilities. We certainly encourage them to
act wisely to protect and enhance biodiversity
by conserving and restoring iconic fish species such as the American Eel, Lake Sturgeon
Acipenser fulvescens, Atlantic Salmon Salmo
salar and other migratory fishes, while ensuring sustainable energy production for their
citizens. This will mean ensuring ecological
sustainability of activities; not simple tradeoffs of valued ecosystem components (VECs)
for other values.
The circumstances of American Eel
might be summed up as one of those particularly wicked problems (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009) largely arising from past gaps
in governance, policy and procedure. However, things are changing; more and more
emphasis is being placed on the protection
and restoration of biodiversity. The recent
promulgation of Ontario’s new Biodiversity
Strategy (Ontario Government 2005) and
Species at Risk Act (ESA 2007) are important examples germane to this paper. Moreover, the Environmental Commissioner of
Ontario issued a statement calling for the
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to
be a champion for Ontario’s biodiversity,
and to insist that it must have all the necessary legal and policy tools as well as the
internal capacity, expertise and clout (ECO
2010). The message is clear: appropriate
choices and long-term commitments need
to be made to ensure effective mitigation
of cumulative effects. Simple trade-offs of
VECs are no longer appropriate if broader
biodiversity, ecological, cultural, and societal benefits are to be protected while at the
same enjoying the benefits derived from waterpower—as we have shown in the case of
eels in the Ottawa River and St. Lawrence
177
River, the accumulated effects can be on going and severe. Governments need to be vigilant and aware of unfortunate surprises that
may arise, particularly from exponential or
discontinuous cumulative effects1 (Sonntag
et al. 1987). In the case of American Eel, we
may already be experiencing these effects; it
certainly merits further consideration.
Development effects may seem minor
in isolation, but as we have shown, cumulatively they can amount to significant, perhaps irreversible damage to biodiversity and
species at risk. It is indeed interesting that
the COP10 biodiversity conference in Japan
recently reached agreement on a new protocol, which includes strategic plans to reduce biodiversity loss by 2020, and adopted
a decision to declare 2011–2020 as the U.N.
Decade of Biodiversity (Japan Times 2010).
Significant effort will be required and will
involve effectively addressing cumulative
effects at regional scales. Cumulative effects
such as those we have noted are growing rapidly at global scales, with mounting implications for global biodiversity and ecosystem
sustainability. The following excerpt from
American Fisheries Society Policy #5 recognizes the global scale of cumulative effects
on fisheries:
World-wide declines in fish abundance
have been documented for species which
have been historically of major economic
and social significance. Time trends reExponential or Amplifying Effects—Incremental
additions are made to an apparently limitless storage
(e.g., global atmosphere). Unlike the previous
category, each addition has a larger effect than the one
preceding it so that the effect gradually becomes more
detectable.
Discontinuous Effects—In the case of
discontinuous effects, incremental additions have
no obvious consequences until a threshold (in static
representations or a stability boundary (in dynamic
representations) is crossed; then variables begin to
change rapidly and/or move into a distinctly different
regime of behavior
1
178
MacGregor et al.
sulting from multiple effects on salmon
populations have resulted in declines
over much of the globe. Pollution and
physical side effects, such as mineral extraction and power plants, can have an
overall negative effect on fisheries productivity. Such effects are of international concern. (AFS 2011).
Development and implementation of
strong cumulative effects analyses should be
priorities for all jurisdictions. Such analysis
is especially useful when restoring or conserving biodiversity is a priority and mandate. While there is nothing preventing their
consideration, past experiences demonstrate
that cumulative effects will be poorly handled, if considered at all, unless cumulative
effects analyses are clearly and strongly embedded as requirements in all approvals processes. Those processes should be developed
without contravening processes that allow
exceptions. This may seem onerous, but the
types of impacts we are attempting to avoid
are particularly devastating to species and
biodiversity in general.
Finally, while Endangered Species legislation can be effective, we hope that environmental and fisheries agencies do not wait
until a species is listed before taking effective conservation actions when needed. First,
a species must be demonstrated to be at risk
of extinction before it can be listed; a difficult process, often confounded by scientific
debate and charged with intense push back
that can take years. For example, COSEWIC first recommended that American Eel
in Canada be listed federally as a species of
Special Concern in 2006 , and 5 years later
(May 2012) upgraded its recommended designation to Threatened (COSEWIC 2006,
2012), yet as of September 2012, no decision
has been made by the federal government to
formally list the species. In fact, the federal
government in Canada has yet to afford marine fishes of commercial interest the recov-
ery and rebuilding frameworks available in
the federal Species at Risk Act (Hutchings
and Rangeley 2011). Thus, by the time the
species is listed and protected under the legislation (if ever) the ability for a species to
recover from its severely depleted state can
be significantly diminished and represent a
poorly understood set of circumstances for
fisheries scientists (Hutchings and Reynolds
2004). Instead, we strongly urge that existing tools be effectively used in a timely fashion (including the precautionary principle) to
prevent the species from declining to species
at risk status in the first place. Recognizing
the difficulties at times, we agree with Hutchings and Reynolds (2004): long-term conservation benefits to fish and fisheries need to be
placed ahead of short-term political expediency.
Recommendations
1. Develop and incorporate a strong
cumulative effects assessment process
into all approvals processes. The assessment should consider existing and potential cumulative effects on a scope consistent with the needs of the species.
2. Set watershed level escapement targets;
develop watershed based implementation plans to achieve targets.
3. Mortality rate reference points should be
developed to assess in the long term the
sustainable level of mortality, and in the
short term the levels of mortality must
not preclude the rebuilding objective of
American Eel abundance over its range
(Chaput and Cairns 2011; CSAS 2011;
Fenske et al. 2011).
4. Involve Indigenous peoples and
accommodate their perspectives and
traditional ecological knowledge in re-
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
source planning, and in the environmental assessment and monitoring process.
5. Take a strong ecosystem approach in all
EIAs.
6. Develop Regional Environmental Effects
Frameworks; for highly migratory or
panmictic species; incorporate inter-provincial and binational status into cumulative effects assessments.
7. Provide clear policy direction on
implementation of legislation regarding
fish passage and other habitat issues.
8. Provide clear direction to staff engaged
in EIAs, ensuring they understand they
have strong support to implement legislation and EIAs in accordance with an
ecosystem approach, biodiversity strategies, species at risk legislation, and to
consider cumulative effects.
9. Agencies should ensure effective
integration and coordination of direction
to staff among program areas, and direction should be consistent across jurisdictions in Ontario. Effective cross-program
EIAs and cumulative effects assessment
must be enabled. For instance, direction
to staff occupied with renewable energy
projects, waterpower and EIA policy and
procedure should be clearly integrated
with direction to staff charged with protection and recovery of biodiversity, species at risk, and ecosystem sustainability
of activities.
10. Continue pollution abatement programs
and efforts to restore native forage in
Lake Ontario.
Ginawaydaganuk: everything is connected.
179
Acknowledgments
We thank Patrice LeBlanc, Department
of Fisheries and Oceans, for his invitation
and support to participate in the IAIA Symposium. We also thank the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for financially supporting
the costs of color printing in this manuscript.
The views in this manuscript are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect official
position of the associated agencies or organizations.
References
Adams, C. C., and T. L. Hankinson. 1928. The
ecology and economics of Oneida Lake fish.
Roosevelt Wildlife Annals 1:1–548.
Allen, W. A. 2008. American eel: driving a shift
in power. Presentation at the A. D. Lattornell Conservation Sympoium. November
20, 2008. Nottatwasaga Inn, Alliston, Ontario. Available: http://www.docstoc.com/
docs/32725280/The-American-eel-Drivinga-Shift-in-Power (October 2012).
Allen, W. A. 2010. Archaeology to the rescue of
species at risk, Arch Notes 15(6): 5–14, November-December 2010, Ontario Archaeological Society, Toronto.
AFS (American Fisheries Society). 2011. AFS
Policy Statement #5: Cumulative Effects of
Small Modifications to Habitat. Available:
http://fisheries.org/docs/policy_statements/
policy_5f.pdf (September 2012).
ASFMC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2012. ASMFC Stock Assessment
Overview: American Eel. Available: http://
www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/eel/annualreports/stockAssmts/AmericanEelStockAssessmentOverview_May2012.pdf (October 2012).
Behrmann-Godel, J., and Eckmann, R. A. 2002.
A preliminary telemetry study of the migration of silver European eel (Anquilla anguilla
L.) in the River Model, Germany. Ecology of
Freshwater Fish 12:196–202.
Be´guer-Pon, M., J. Benchetrit, M. Castonguay, K.
Aarestrup, S. E. Campana, M. J. W. Stokes-
180
MacGregor et al.
bury and J. J. Dodson. 2012. Shark predation on migrating adult American Eels in
the Gulf of At. Lawrence. PLoS ONE 7(10):
e46830. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046830.
Available: http://www.plosone.org/article/
info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0046830 (October 2012).
Berkeley, S. A., C. Chapman, and S. M. Sogard. 2004a. Maternal age as a determinant
of larval growth and survival in a marine
fish, Sebastes melanops. Ecology 85:1258–
1264.
Berkeley, S. A., M. A. Hixon, R. J. Larson, and
M. S. Love. 2004b. Fisheries sustainability
via protection of age structure and spatial
distribution of fish populations. Fisheries
29:23–32.
Bernatchez, L., C. Cote, and M. Castonguay.
2011. Genetic structure of the American Eel
with emphasis on the St. Lawrence River basin. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann
Arbor, Michigan. Available: http://www.glfc.
org/research/reports/Bernatchez_2011.htm
(September 2012).
Bonhommeau, S., E. Chassot, B. Planque, E. Rivot, A.H. Knap, and O. Le Pape. 2008. Impact
of climate change on eel populations of the
Northern Hemisphere. Marine Ecology Progress Series 373:71–80.
Boubee, J. A., Mitchell, C. P., Chisnall, B. L.,
West, D. W., Bowman, E. J., and Haro, A.
2001. Factors regulating the downstream migration of mature eels (Anguilla spp.) at Aniwhenua Dam, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand.
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35:121–134.
Byer, J. D., Alaee, M., Brown, R. S., Backus, S.,
Keir, M., Pacepavicius, G., Lebeuf, M., Casselman, J., Kennedy, S., Hodson, P. V. 2009.
Dioxin concentrations in American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) captured in Eastern Canada.
Organohalogen Compounds 71, 352–356
(Proceedings, Dioxin 2009, 29th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants. Beijing, China, Aug 23–28,
2009).
Byer, J. D., M. Alaee, R.S. Brown, M. Lebeuf,
S. Backus, M. Keir, J. Casselman, and P. V.
Hodson. 2010. Dioxin related contaminants
in Lake Ontario American Eel: a likely cause
for their decline? Organohalogen Compounds 72:1213–1216.
Brown, L., A. Haro and T. Castro-Santos. 2009.
Three-dimensional movement of silverphase American Eels in the forebay of a small
hydroelectric facility. Pages 277–291 in J. M.
Casselman and D. K. Cairns, editors. Eels at
the edge: science, status, and conservation
concerns. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 58, Bethesda, Maryland
Busch, W. D. N., S. J. Lary, C. M. Castilione,
and R. P. McDonald. 1998. Distribution and
availability of Atlantic coast freshwater habitats for American Eel (Anguilla rostrata).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Administrative Report 98–2, Amherst, New York.
Canada. 2002. Species at Risk Act. Available:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/S/S15.3.pdf (August 2012).
Canada. 2012. Parliament of Canada: Bill C-38.
Available: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5524772
(October 2012).
Caron, F., G. Verreault and E. Richard. 2003. Estimation of the population size, exploitation
rate and escapement of silver-phase American Eels in the St. Lawrence watershed. Pages 235–242 in D. A. Dixon, editor. Biology,
management, and protection of catadromous
eels. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 33, Bethesda, Maryland.
Casselman, J. M. 2003. Dynamics of resources of
the American Eel, Anguilla rostrata: declining abundance in the 1990s. Pages 255–274
in K. Aida, K. Ksukamoto, and K. Yamauchi,
editors. Eel biology. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo.
Casselman, J. M., L. A. Marcogliese, T. Stewart,
and P. V. Hodson. 1997. Status of the upper
St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario American Eel stock—1996. Pages 106–120 in R.
H. Peterson, editor. The American eel in eastern Canada: stock status and management
strategies. Proceedings of the Eel Workshop,
January 13–14, 1997, Quebec City, Quebec.
Canadian Technical Reports of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences, No. 2196.
Casselman, J. M., and L. A. Marcogliese. 2010.
Abundance and distribution of American
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
Eels (Anguilla rostrata) and other fish in the
lower Mississippi and Ottawa Rivers, 2009,
as determined by quantitative electrofishing.
Conducted for Ontario Species at Risk Stewardship Fund. February 2010.
Castonguay, M., P. V. Hodson, C. M. Couillard,
M. J. Eckersley, J. D. Dutil, and G. Verreault.
1994. Why is recruitment of the American
Eel, Anguilla rostrata, declining in the St
Lawrence River and Gulf? Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:479–
488.
CEWG (Canadian Eel Working Group). 2009.
American Eel Management Plan, Draft: February 26, 2009. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
and Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de
la Faune du Québec.
Chaput, G., and D. Cairns. 2011. Mortality reference points for the American Eel and an
application for evaluating cumulative impacts of anthropogenic activities. Canadain Science Advisoy Secretariat, Research
Document 2011/053. Fisheries and Oceans
Canada. Available: http://www.dfo-mpo.
gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocsDocRech/2011/2011_053-eng.html (August
2012).
Christie, W. J., and H. A. Regier. 1973. Temperature as a major factor influences reproductive
success of fish—two examples. Rapports et
process-verbaux des reunions/Conseil permanent international pour l’exploration de la
mer 164:208–218.
Collares-Pereira, M. J., and I. G. Cowx. 2004.
The role of catchment scale environmental
management in freshwater fish conservation.
Fisheries Management and Ecology 11:303–
312.
COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and
status report on the American Eel Anguilla
rostrata in Canada. Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa.
x + 71 pp. Available: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.
gc.ca/Collection/CW69-14-458-2006E.pdf
(October 2012).
COSEWIC. 2012a. Habitat matters for Canadian
wildlife species. COSEWIC Press Release,
May 2012. Available : http://www.cosewic.
181
gc.ca/rpts/sct7_3_19_e.pdf (October 2012).
COSEWIC. 2012b. American Eel. Available : http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/
searchdetail_e.cfm?id=891&StartRow=1&b
oxStatus=All&boxTaxonomic =All&locatio
n=All&change=All&board=All&commonN
ame=american%20eel&scienceName=&retu
rnFlag=0&Page=1 (October 2012).
Coutant, C. C. and Whitney, R. R. 2000. Fish behavior in relation to passage through hydropower turbines: a review. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 129:351–380.
CSAS (Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat).
2011. Status Of American Eel and Progress
on Achieving Management Goals; Canadian
Science Advisory SecretariatScience Advisory Report 2010/062; Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, National Capital Region. Available:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/publications/sar-as/2010/2010_062_e.pdf (September 2012).
Daverat, F., K. E. Limburg, I. Thibault, J. C.
Shiao, J. J. Dodson, F. Caron, W. N. Tzeng, Y.
Iizuka, and H. Wickström. 2006. Phenotypic
plasticity of habitat use by three temperate
eel species, Anguilla anguilla, A. japonica
and A. rostrata. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 308:231–241.
Dekker, W., J. M. Casselman, D. K. Cairns, K.
Tsukamoto, D. Jellyman, H. Lickers. 2003.
Worldwide decline of eel resources necessitates immediate action: Québec declaration
of concern. Fisheries 28(12):28–30.
Dekker, W. 2008. Coming to grips with the eel
stock slip-sliding away. Pages 3330–355 in
M. G. Schechter, W. W. Taylor, and N. J.
Leonard editors. International governance of
fisheries ecosystems: learning from the past,
finding solutions for the future. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
de Lafontaine, Y., P. Gagnon, and B. Côté. 2009a.
Abundance and individual size of American
Eel (Anguilla rostrata) in the St. Lawrence
River over the past four decades. Hydrobiologia 647:185–198.
de Lafontaine, Y., M. Lagace´, F. Gingras, D. Labonte´, F. Marchand & E. Lacroix, 2009b.
Decline of the American Eel in the St. Lawrence River: effects of local hydroclimatic
182
MacGregor et al.
conditions on CPUE indices. Pages 207–228
in J. M. Casselman and D. K. Cairns, editors,
Eels at the Edge: Science, Status, and Conservation Concerns. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 58, Bethesda, Maryland.
Denny, S., A. Denny, and P. Tyson. 2012. Kataq.
Mi’kmaq ecological knowledge: Bras d’Or
lakes eels. Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources, Eskasoni, Nova Scotia.
Desrochers, D. 1995. Suivi de la migration de
l’anguille d’Amerique (Anguilla rostrata) au
complexe Beauharnois, 1994. Rapport prepare par Milieu & Associes inc. Pour la vicepresidence Environnement, Hydro-Québec,
Montréal, Québec.
DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2012. Survey of recreational fishing in
Canada: 2010. Economic Analysis and Statistics, Strategic Policy, Resource Management, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Ottawa,
Ontario K1A 0E6 ©Her Majesty the Queen
in Right of Canada, 2012. ISBN 978–1-100–
54196-9. Available: http://www.dfo-mpo.
gc.ca/stats/rec/can/2010/RECFISH2010_
ENG.pdf (Octorber 2012).
DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2012. Recovery Strategy for the beluga
whale (Delphinapterus leucas) St. Lawrence
estuary population in Canada. Species at
Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. Available:
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/
files/plans/rs_st_laur_beluga_0312_e.pdf
(October 2012).
Duinker, P. N. 1994. Cumulative Effects Assessment: what’s the big deal? Pages 11–24 in A.
Kennedy, editor. Cumulative effects assessment in Canada: from concept to practice.
Alberta Society of Professional Biologists,
Alberta, Canada.
Duinker, P. N., and L. A. Greig. 2006. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment
in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. In Environmental Management
37:(2)153–161. Springer Science.
Ecojustice. 2008. Lafarge decision from the Ontario Divisional Court. Available: http://
www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/media-re-
lease-files/lafarge.decision.2008.06.18.pdf/
view (August 2012).
Environment Canada. 1995. Canadian biodiversity strategy: Canada`s response to the
convention on biological diversity 1995.
Minister of Supply and Services Canada
1995. Available: http://www.biodivcanada.
ca/560ED58E-0A7A-43D8–8754-C7DD12761EFA/CBS_e.pdf (August 2012).
Environmental Commissioner Ontario (ECO).
2010. Redefining Conservation, Annual Report 2009/2010. Toronto. Available: http://
www.eco.on.ca/eng/ (August 2012).
EU (European Union). 2007. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1100/2007 of 18 September
2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European Eel. Official
Journal of the European Union, 22.9.2007,
L 248/17. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/l_248/
l_24820070922en00170023.pdf
(August
2012).
Fenske, K., M. J. Wilberg, D. H. Secor and M.
C. Fabrizio. 2011. An age- and sex-structured assessment model for Amercian Eels
(Anguilla rostrata) in the Potomac River,
Maryland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 68:1024–1037.
Field, J, C. L. Moloney, L. du Buisson, A. Jarre,
T. Stroemme, M. R. Lipinski andP. Kainge.
2008. Exploring the BOFFFF hypothesis using a model of Southern African deepwater
hake (Merluccius paradoxus). Pages 17–26 in
K. Tsukamoto, T. Kawamura, T. Takeuchi, T.
D. Beard, Jr. and M. J. Kaiser, editors. Fisheries for Global Welfare and Environment, 5th
World Fisheries Congress 2008.
Friedland, K. D., M. J. Miller, and B. Knights. 2007.
Oceanic changes in the Sargasso Sea and declines in recruitment of the European eel. ICES
Journal of Marine Science 64:519–530.
FCRPS (Federal Columbia River Power System)
2008. Federal Columbia River Power System
biological opinion; NOAA Executive Summary. Available: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/
Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-Snake-Basin/upload/Final-ExSum.pdf (August 2012).
GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 2002.
Position statement on American eel. Avail-
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
able: www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/eelposition.
htm (August 2012).
Gosset, C., Travade, F., Durif, C., Rives, J., and
Elie, P. 2005. Test of two types of bypass for
downstream migration of eels at a small hydroelectric plant. River Research and Applications 21:1095–1105.
Greig, L. 2008. Refocusing Cumulative Effects
Analyses. Presentation at the IAIA conference
on cumulative effects. Available: http://www.
iaia.org/iaia08calgary/documents/Greig_Refocusing%20CEA.pdf (August 2012).
Greig, L., I. J. Parnell, and D. R. Marmorek.
2006. Developing an action plan for American Eels in the St. Lawrence River—Lake
Ontario Region: Decision analysis. Prepared
by ESSA Technologies Ltd., Richmond Hill,
Ontario, for Hydro-Québec, Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Power Generation,
and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, on behalf of the Passage and Associated Habitat
Subcommittee of the Canadian Eel Working
Group.
Haro, A. J., W. Richkus, K. Whalen, A. Hoar, W.
D. Busch, S. Lary, T. Bush, and D. Dixon.
2000. Population decline of the American
Eel: implications for research and management. Fisheries 25(9):7–16.
Hatch, R. W., S. J. Nepszy, K. M. Muth and C.
T. Baker. 1987 Dynamics of the recovery of
the western Lake Erie Walleye (Stizostedion
vitreum vitreum) stock. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44(Supplement 2):15–22.
Haxton, T. and D. Chubbuck. 2002. Review of
the historical and existing natural environment and resource uses on the Ottawa River.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Science and Information Branch, Southcentral
Science and Information Section Technical
Report #119, North Bay, Ontario.
Haxton, T., and C. S. Findlay. 2008. Variation in
Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) abundance and growth among river reaches in a
large regulated river. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65(4):645–657.
Helfman, G. S., D. E. Facey, L. S. Hales, Jr., and
E. L Bozeman, Jr. 1987. Reproductive ecolo-
183
gy of the American Eel. Pages 42–56 in M. J.
Dadswell, R. L. Klauda, C. M. Moffitt, R. L.
Saunders, R. A. Rulifson, and J. E. Cooper,
editors. Common strategies of anadromous
and catadromous fishes. American Fisheries
Society, Symposium 1, Bethesda, Maryland.
Hickie, B. E., M. C. S. Kingsley, P. V. Hodson, D.
C.G. Muir, P. Béland, and D. Mackay. 2000.
A modelling-based perspective on the past,
present, and future polychlorinated biphenyl
contamination of the St. Lawrence beluga
whale (Delphinapterus leucas) population.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 57(Suppl. 1):101–112.
Hitt, N. P., S. Eyler and John E. B. Wofford. 2012.
Dam removal increases American Eel abundance in distant headwater streams, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 141:5,
1171–1179. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.10
80/00028487.2012.675918 (October 2012).
Hoag, H. 2007. A slippery slope. The Globe and
Mail, March 31:2007.
Henke, J. 1993. Tales of Oneida Lake. North
County Books, Utica, New York.
Hodson, P. V., M. Castonguay, C. M. Couillard,
C. Desjardins, E. Pelletier, and R. McLeod.
1994. Spatial and temporal variations in
chemical contamination of American Eels
(Anguilla rostrata) captured in the estuary of
the St. Lawrence River. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:464-478.
Hodson, P. V., M. Castonguay, C. M. Couillard,
C. Desjardins, E. Pelletier, and R. McLeod.
2011. Spatial and temporal variations in
chemical contamination of American Eels,
Anguilla rostrata, captured in the estuary of
the St, Lawrence River. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51(2):464478.
Honeyfield, D. C., M. E. Daniels, L.R. Brown,
M.T. Arts, M.G. Walsh, and S. B. Brown.
2012. Survey of four essential nutrients and
thiaminase activity in five Lake Ontario prey
fish species. Journal of Great Lakes Research
38(1):11–17.
Hutchings, J. A., and J. D. Reynolds. 2004. Marine fish population collapses: Consequences
for recovery and extinction risk. Bioscience:
54(4):297–309.
184
MacGregor et al.
Hutchings, J. A., and R. W. Rangeley. 2011.2011.
Correlates of recovery for Canadian Atlantic
Cod (Gadus morhua). Canadian Journal of
Zoology 89:386–400.
Kolenosky, D. P. 1976. Eel mortality resulting
from Robert H. Saunders St. Lawrence Generating Station. Lake Ontario Fisheries Assessment Unit. Technical Report. Richmond
Hill, Ontario, Canada.
Jansen, H. M., Winter, H. V., Bruijs, M. C. M.,
and Polman, H. J. 2007. Just go with the
flow? Route selection and mortality during
downstream migration of silver eels in relation to river discharge. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64:1437–1443.
Japan Times. 2010. COP10 signs off on protocol.
Pact reached on biodiversity, genetic assets.
Available: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgibin/nn20101031a1.html (August 2012).
Jentoft, S., and R. Chuenpagdee. 2009. Fisheries
and coastal governance as a wicked problem.
Marine Policy 33(2009):553–560.
Krueger, W. H., and K. Oliveira. 1999. Evidence
for environmental sex determination in the
American Eel, Anguilla rostrata Environmental Biology of Fishes 53:381–389.
Larnier M. 2001. Environmental issues, dams
and fish migration. Dams, fish and fisheries:
Opportunities, challenges and conflict resolution. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 419:
45–90. Available: http://oa.imft.fr/2028/1/
Larinier_2001_Environnement.pdf (October
2012).
Lary, S. J., W-D Busch, C. M. Castigione, and
R. MacDonald. 1998. Distribution and
availability of Atlantic coast freshwater
habitats for American Eel (Anguilla rostrata). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Draft
Administrative Report 98–02, Washington,
D.C.
Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Lees, D. 2008. Eels on wheels. The Walrus. December 2008:42–57.
Lipcius, R. N., and William, T. 2002. Stockhausen. 2002. Concurrent decline of the spawning stock, recruitment, larval abundance, and
size of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus in
Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 226:45–61.
Loftus, K. H., editor. 1982. Proceedings of the
1980 North American Eel Conference. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fisheries Branch, Ontario Fish Technical Series No.
4, Toronto.
MacGregor, R. B., A. Mathers, P. Thompson, J.
M. Casselman, J. M. Dettmers, S. LaPan, T.
C. Pratt and W.A. Allen. 2008. Declines of
American Eel in North America: Complexities associated with bi-national management.
Pages 357–381 in M. G. Schechter, W. W.
Taylor, and N. J. Leonard, editors. International governance of fisheries ecosystems:
learning from the past, finding solutions
for the future. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
MacGregor, R. B., J. M. Casselman, W. A. Allen,
T. Haxton, J. M. Dettmers, Alastair Mathers,
Steve LaPan, Thomas C. Pratt, P. Thompson,
M. Stanfield, L. Marcogliese, J.-D. Dutil.
2009. Natural heritage, anthropogenic impacts and bio-political issues related to the
status and sustainable management of American eel: A retrospective analysis and management perspective at the population level.
Pages 713–739 in A. J. Haro, K. L. Smith, R.
A. Rulifson, C. M. Moffitt, R. J. Klauda, M.
J. Dadswell, R. A. Cunjak, J. E. Cooper, K.
L. Beal, and T. S. Avery, editors. 2009. Challenges for diadromous fishes in a dynamic
global environment. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 69, Bethesda, Maryland.
MacGregor, R., J. Casselman, L. Greig, W. A.
Allen, L. McDermott, and T. Haxton. 2010.
DRAFT Recovery Strategy for the American
Eel (Anguilla rostrata) in Ontario. Ontario
Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario.
MacGregor, R., L. Greig, J. M. Dettmers, W. A.
Allen, T. Haxton, J. M. Casselman and L.
McDermott. 2011. American Eel in Ontario:
Past and Present Abundance, Principles, Approaches, Biological Feasibility and Importance of Recovery; Version5.1. Available:
http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/AmericanEelinOntario.pdf (August 2012).
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
MacGregor, R., and L. Greig. 2012. Effects of
dams and waterpower on fish species and Ontario’s aquatic biodiversity. Presentation at the
National Fish and Wildlife Congress, May 27–
31, 2012, Ottawa, Ontario. Available: http://
nfwcc.com/presentations/presentations/111_
Robert_MacGregor.pdf (October 2012).
Machut, L. S., K. E. Limburg, R. E. Schmidt, and
D. Dittman. 2007. Anthropogenic impacts on
American eel demographics in Hudson River
tributaries, New York. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 136:1699–1713.
Mandrak, N. E., and E. J. Crossman. 2003. Fishes
of Algonquin Provincial Park, Friends of Algonquin Park, Whitney, Ontario.
McCarthy, T.K., P. Frankiewicz, P. Cullen, M.
Blaskowski, W. O’Connor, and D. Doherty.
2008. Long-term effects of hydropower installations and associated river regulation
on River Shannon populations: mitigation
and management. Hydrobiolgia 609:109–
124.
McCleave, J. D. 2001. Simulation of the impacts
of dams and fishing weirs on reproductive
potential of silver-phase American Eels in
the Kennebec River basin, Maine. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management
21:592–605.
McCleave, J. D., and E. Edeline. 2009. Diadromy
as a conditional strategy: patterns and drivers of eel movements in continental habitats.
2009. Pages 97–119 in A. J. Haro, K. L. Smith,
R. A. Rulifson, C. M. Moffitt, R. J. Klauda,
M. J. Dadswell, R. Cunjak, J. E. Cooper, K. L.
Beal, and T. S. Avery editors. Challenges for
diadromous fishes in a dynamic global environment. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 69, Bethesda, Maryland.
McDermott, L., and P. Wilson. 2010. Ginawaydaganuk: Algonquin law on access and benefit
sharing. Policy Matters 17:205211.
Mills, E. L., J. M. Casselman, R. Dermott, J.
D. Fitzsimmons, G. Gal, K. T. Holek. J. A.
Hoyle. O. E. Johannsson, B. F. Lantry, J. C.
Makarewicz, E. S. Millard, I. F. Munawar,
M. Munawar, R. O’Gorman, R. W. Owens,
L. G. Rudstram, T. Schaner, and T. J. Stewart.
2003. Lake Ontario: food web dynamics in a
changing ecosystem (1970–2000). Canadian
185
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
60:471–490.
MNRF (Ministère des Ressources naturelles et
de la Faune). 2009. Une nouvelle mesure
pour assurer le renouvellement de l’anguille
d’Amerique. Communique de press, le 17
mars 2009. Cabinet du ministre delegue aux
Ressources naturelles et a la Faune.
Moriarty, C. 1987. Factors influencing recruitment
of the Atlantic species of Anguillid Eels. Pages
483–491 in M. J. Dadswell, C. M. Moffit, R.
L. Saunders, R. A. Rulifson, and J. E. Cooper
editors. Common strategies of anadromous
and catadromous fishes, American Fisheries
Society Symposium 1, Maryland.
Musick, J. A. 1999. 1999. Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals. Pages
1–10 in J. A. Musick, editor. Life in the slow
lane: ecology and conservation of long-lived
marine animals. American Fisheries Society,
Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland.
Myers, R. A. 1998. When do environment-recruitment correlations work? Reviews in Fish
Biology and Fisheries 8:285–305.
New York Times, The. 1880. Catching Canadian
eel: the fisheries of the St. Lawrence River.
The New York Times, October 18, 1880.
Normandeau Associates Inc. and J. R. Skalski.
1998. Draft final report. Estimation of survival of American Eel after passage through a
turbine at the St. Lawrence-FDR power project. Prepared for New York Power Authority,
White Plains, New York
NYPA. 2009. Review of technologies for guiding,
capturing, holding, transporting, and monitoring outmigrating eels. New York Power
Authority, New York.
Oliveira, K., and J. D. McCleave. 2000. Variation in population and life history traits of
the American Eel, Anguilla rostrata, in four
rivers in Maine Environmental Biology of
Fishes 59:141–151.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources).
2003. A Class Environmental Assessment
for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects. 80p. Available:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/
groups/lr/@mnr/@lueps/documents/document/245471.pdf (October 2012).
186
MacGregor et al.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources).
2008. Partners Support Action Plan to Bring
Back American Eel: Native Species Important Part Of Great Lakes Ecosystem. News
release June 20, 2008. Available: http://
www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Newsroom/LatestNews/246778.html
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources)
2009. Statement of Environmental Values;
Ministry of Natural Resources. Available:
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/content/sev.jsp?pageName=sevList&sub
PageName=10002 (October 2012).
OMNR. 2010. Watershed Management and
Planning. Available: http://www.mnr.gov.
on.ca/en/Business/Water/2ColumnSubPage/
STEL02_163404.html (October 2012).
Ontario Government. 2005. Protecting what
sustains us: Ontario`s biodiversity strategy.
Available:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@biodiversity/documents/document/mnr_e000066.pdf
(August 2012).
Ontario Government. 2007. Endangered Species
Act 2007. Toronto. http://www.ontla.on.ca/
web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=
1498&detailPage=bills_detail_the_bill (August 2012).
Ontario Government. 2008. Ontario Regulation
242/08 made under the Endangered Species
Act. Available: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/
html/source/regs/english/2008/elaws_src_
regs_r08242_e.htm (August 2012).
Ontario Government. 2009a. Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. http://www.e-laws.
gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_
statutes_90l03_e.htm (August 2012).
Ontario Government. 2009b. Green Energy Act. Available: http://www.e-laws.
gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_
statutes_09g12_e.htm (August 2012).
Ontario Government. 2010. Table of unconsolidated and urepealed public statutes Available:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/
tables/publicstatutes/elaws_t_pu_st_tpbsunrep.htm (August 2012).
Ontario Superior Court. 2008. Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, Divisional Court, Lederman, Swinton and Low JJ. Between Lafarge
Canada and Ontario Review Tribunal. Court
File No. 451/07. Date 20080618.
OWA. 2010. Best Management Practices Guide for
American eel and Waterpower in Ontario. Ontario Waterpower Association, Peterborough.
Palumbi, S. 2004. Why mothers matter. Nature
(London) 430 (August 5 2004): 621–622.
PFBC (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission).
2007. Migratory fish restoration and passage
on the Susquehanna River. Available: http://
www.fish.state.pa.us/pafish/shad/migratory_
fish.pdf (August 2012).
Pratt, T. C., and A. Mathers. 2011. 2010 Update on
the status of American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) in Ontario. Canadian Science Advisory
Secretariat. Research Document 2011/050,
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Central and Arctic Region. 18 p. Available:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2011/2011_050eng.pdf (August 2012).
Prosek, J. 2010. Mystery travellers : eels. National Geographic September 2010:122–137.
Available:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.
com/2010/09/eels/prosek-text
(August
2012).
Prosper, K. 2001. The Mi’Kmaq and Kat (American eel). Antigonish: a preliminary report of
research results, phase 1. Social Research for
Sustainable Fisheries,SSRF Research Report
#4 in collaboration with thePaq’tnkek Fish
and Wildlife Society, Antigonish, Nova Scotia. Available: www.stfx.ca/research/SRSF/
researchreports1/FinalReports/Report4.pdf
(August 2012).
Prosper, K., and M. J. Paulette. 2002. The
Mi’Kmaq relationship with Kat. Fact Sheet
7. Social Research for Sustainable Fisheries in collaboration with the Paq’tnkek Fish
and Wildlife Society, Antigonish, Nova Scotia. Available: http://faculty.msvu.ca/srsf/
ResearchReports/FactSheets/Factsheet7.pdf
(August 2012).
PRRT (Penobscot River Restoration Trust). 2009.
Project details. Available: http://www.penobscotriver.org/ (August 2012).
Reading Eagle. 1902. Mysteries about eels: enormous numbers in a turbine wheel—sudden
disappearance. July 19:4.
Cumulative Effects on American Eel
Richards, A. F. Fogarty, S. Clark, D. Schick, P.
Diodati and B. O. Gorman. 1996. Relative
influence of reproductive capacity and temperature on recruitment of Pandulus borealis
in the Gulf of Maine. ICES CM 1996 K:13.
Sallenave, J. 1994. Giving traditional knowledge
its rightful place in environmental impact
assessment. Northern Perspectives 22(1):
16–19 . Available: http://www.carc.org/pubs/
v22no1/know.htm
Schmidt, J. 1922. The breeding places of the
eel. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London B: Biological Sciences
211:179–208.
Schmidt, R. E, C. M. O’Reilly, and D. Miller.
2009. Observations of American Eels using an upland passage facility and effects of
passage on the population structure. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management
29:715–720.
Secor, D. H. 2010. Is otolith science tansformative? New views on fish migration. Environmental Biology of Fishes 89(3–4):209–220.
Smith, C. 2004. Lake Ontario’s eels disappearing.
Toronto Star, Saturday, February 7, 2004.
Available: http://www.cameronsmith.ca/content/view/441/2.
Sonntag, N. C., R. R. Everitt, L. P. Rattie, and D.
L. Colnett, C. P. Wolf, J . C . Truett, A. H. J.
Dorcey, and C. S. Holling. 1987. Cumulative
effects assessment: a context for further research and development. Minister of Supply
and Services Canada 1987.
Stanley, D. and G. Pope. 2010. Research into trap
and transport as a potential mitigation using
traditional fisheries methods, 2009. OPG Action Plan for Offsetting Turbine Mortality
of American Eel at the R.H. Saunders Generating Station (2006–2011) and OMNR/
OPG Saunders ESA Agreement Monitoring
Requirements Part D. OPG Hydro Business,
Environment Division, Niagara-on-the-Lake,
Ontario. Final Draft. February 2010.
Stevenson, M. G. 1996. Indigenous knowledge in
environmental assessment. Arctic 49(3):276–
291.
Thwaites, R. G. 1896–1901. The Jesuit relations and allied documents: travels and explorations of the Jesuit missionaries in New
187
France, 1610–1791. 73 Volumes. Burrows
Bros., Cleveland, Ohio.
Tollefson, C. and K. Wipond. 1998. Cumulative
environmental impacts and aboriginal rights.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
18: 371–390.
Tremblay, V. 2009. Reproductive strategy of female American Eels among five subpopulations in the St. Lawrence River watershed.
Pages 85–102 in J. M. Casselman and D.
K. Cairns editors. Eels at the edge: science,
status, and conservation concerns. American
Fisheries Society, Symposium 58, Bethesda,
Maryland.
USFWS 2009. Fish Enhancement, Mitigation and
Research Fund Fact Sheet. Available: http://
www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/info/cdreports/
FEMRFfactsheet.pdf (August 2012).
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a.
The American Eel: Considering endangered
species act protection. Available: http://www.
fws.gov/northeast/newsroom/eels.html (October 2012).
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012b.
American Eel May Warrant Protection
Under the Endangered Species Act. USFWS Press Release, September 28, 2012.
Available:
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/
news/2011/092811.html (October 2012).
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012c.
Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list the
American eel as threatened. Federal Register
76:189 (29 September 2011):60431–60444.
Venturelli, P. A., C. A. Murphy, B. J. Shuter, T. A.
Johnston, P. J. Van Coeverden de Grot, P. T.
Boag, J. M. Casselman, R. Montgomerie,M.
D. Wiegland, and W. C. Leggett. 2010. Maternal influences on population dynamics:
evidence from an exploited freshwater fish.
Ecology 91(7):2003–2012.
Verreault, G., and P. Dumont. 2003. An estimation of American Eel escapement from the
upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario
in 1996 and 1997. Pages 243–251 in D. A.
Dixon, editor. biology, management, and
protection of catadromous eels. American
Fisheries Society, Symposium 33, Bethesda,
Maryland.
188
MacGregor et al.
Verreault, G., P. Pettigrew, R. Tardif, and G. Pouliot. 2003. The exploitation of the Migrating
Silver American Eel in the St. Lawrence River Estuary, Québec, Canada. Pages 225–234
in D. A. Dixon editors. Biology, management, and protection of catadromous eels.
American Fisheries Society, Symposium 33,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Verreault, G., P. Dumont and Y. Mailhot. 2004.
Habitat losses and anthropogenic barriers
as a cause of population decline for American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) in the St. Lawrence watershed, Canada. International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea. CM
Document 2004/S:04, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available: www.ices.dk/products/
CMdocs/2004/S/S0404.pdf (August 2012).
Ville de Temiscaming. 1996. Temsicaming 1921–
1996. Available: http://www.temiscaming.
net/town-hall (August 2012).
Walters, C., and J. F. Kitchell. 2001. Cultivation/
depensation effects on juvenile survival and
recruitment: implications for the theory of
fishing. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 58:39–50 (2001).
Wilson, P. 2008. Interconnections: the Symbiosis of Human Rights and Environmental
Protection—An Argument for First Nations
Environmental Governance. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, University of Ottawa, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
LL.M. degree in Law. Available: http://www.
collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/
vol2/002/NR59488.PDF (October 2012).
Winter, H. V., Jansen, H. M., and Breukelaar, A.
W. 2007. Silver eel mortality during downstream migration in the River Meuese, from a
population perspective. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64:1444–1449.