The Demise of American Eel in the Upper St

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 hydro- electric 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 cies Act is currently under review (USFWS 2012a) based on a 90-d finding that American The American Eel Anguilla rostrata, Eel may merit protection under the Endan- which was formerly abundant and widely gered Species Act (USFWS 2012b, 2012c). distributed across eastern North America This unique species is composed of one has declined dramatically in some regions, single spawning stock, with a contingent particularly at the extremity of their range life history strategy that in the past has been in the upper St. Lawrence River and Lake highly successful in a variety of habitats Ontario (USLR-LO) (Casselman 2003), Ot- across North America (Helfman et al. 1987; tawa River and associated inland watersheds Daverat et al. 2006; Secor 2010). However, (MacGregor et al. 2009). The species is listed its panmictic, migratory nature has left the as endangered under Ontario’s Endangered species exposed to mounting anthropogenic Species Act (Ontario Government 2007). impacts that continue to accumulate across a The Committee on the Status of Endangered wide geographic range. The effects are most Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) recently dramatic in the USLR-LO and associated wa- upgraded its recommended national desig- tersheds (including the Ottawa River), where nation from Special Concern to Threatened an especially important segment of the spe- across Canada (COSEWIC 2012). The status cies continues to persist near the extremity of of American Eel within the authority of the its historic range, albeit at rapidly declining Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commis- abundance levels (Casselman 2003; Mac- sion (ASFMC) has recent been declared de- Gregor et al. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) and pleted (ASFMC 2012). The national status of exhibiting pronounced range contractions the species under the U. S. Endangered Spe- (MacGregor et al. 2009, 2010, 2011). Cumulative Effects on American Eel 151 Eels in the USLR-LO appear to com- farther north, which, discharging their prise a distinct segment of the North Ameri- waters here, makes us a present of this can population; when mature, eels from the manna that nourishes us…” (Thwaites USLR-LO and associated watersheds are 1896–1901: 6: 311). comprised exclusively of large old females exhibiting high fecundity (Casselman 2003; These observations were confirmed -al COSEWIC 2006; Tremblay 2009; Bernat- most four centuries later by Verreault and chez et al. 2011). Observed declines of this Dumont (2003) when they estimated that eels important subpopulation of the North Ameri- produced in the USLR-LO and associated can eel population may have far-reaching watersheds still accounted for some 67% of implications for the fecundity of the species, the catch in the large Quebec silver eel fish- its resilience to future environmental pertur- ery. The proportion has remained high but is bations and anthropogenic mortality, and its declining (Verreault and Dumont 2003) as ability to re-inhabit the St. Lawrence River the abundance of eels in these waters has col- and watersheds of Lake Ontario and the Ot- lapsed (Casselman 2003; MacGregor et al. tawa River (Casselman 2003; Verreault and 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011). Dumont 2003; MacGregor et al. 2009, 2010; Moreover, the apparently large numbers Venturelli et al. 2010; Bernatchez et al. 2011). of downstream migrating eels each autumn This segment of the population of American from the St. Lawrence River (en route to the Eel is comprised of reproductively valuable Sargasso Sea) supported what had once been individuals (all large females, the most fecund described as the most productive eel fishery in the species’ range), meriting strong protec- in the world (New York Times 1880), hav- tion and recovery actions. At former levels of ing long and important cultural, natural heri- abundance, eels naturally produced in these tage and economic values in eastern Canada waters must have contributed substantially to (MacGregor et al. 2009). Some of the weir species-level fecundity and spawner output fisheries for eels in Quebec had been in the (Casselman 2003; COSEWIC 2006; Trem- same family at the same location for 150 blay 2009; CSAS 2011). years. Eels have been important in these waters Descriptions of population-level trends for centuries. A Jesuit Relation of 1634 noted in American Eel across North America have that the important eel fisheries near Quebec noted its historically wide distribution, high City on the St. Lawrence River were supplied abundance and importance of the species to to a large extent by eels produced upstream in Indigenous peoples and early European set- present-day Ontario and New York (i.e., Lake tlers in eastern North America (Casselman Ontario and other important watersheds such 2003; Prosper and Paulette 2003; MacGregor as the Ottawa River, in Canada, and Oneida et al. 2009; McDermott and Wilson 2010; River in the United States): Denny et al. 2012). Together with possible shifts in oceanic conditions (Freidland et al. “It is wonderful how many of these fish 2007; Bonhommeau et al. 2008; Casselman, are found in this great river, in the months unpublished data), cumulative anthropogenic of September and October, and this im- effects arising from the loss of formerly ac- mediately in front of the settlement of cessible habitat and mortalities due to fishing our French…” and hydro-electric turbines contributed to a 99.6% decline in recruitment to the USLR- “It is thought that this great abundance LO and associated watersheds (e.g., Ottawa is supplied by some lakes in the country River) (Casselman 2003; Verreault et al. 152 MacGregor et al. 2003; MacGregor et al. 2009). Since the on- 2012). Losses of species such as American set of the silver eel decline preceded the ma- Eel not only represent significant lost -eco jor decline in recruitment in the mid-1980s, logical, biodiversity, natural heritage and it appears that the decline in spawning stock economic benefits due to cumulative effects. size was not due to poor recruitment. Rather, They also threaten Aboriginal rights (Tollef- it was due to large-scale mortality factors as- son and Wipond 1998) and reflect lack of sociated with high exploitation in upstream respect for Ginawaydaganuk: a principle of Lake Ontario and to construction of hydro- Algonquin law that acknowledges the web power dams in the late 1950s (de Lafontaine of life or the interconnectedness of all things et al. 2009a). (McDermott and Wilson 2010). Eels from the USLR-LO (the last strong- In September 2009, a large American hold for the species in Ontario) collapsed by Eel (1.1 m) was captured during routine as- the mid-1980s (Casselman 2003; MacGregor sessment netting in Mississippi Lake, on the et al. 2008, 2009), some 30 years after the Mississippi River, a tributary of the Ottawa construction of the large Moses-Saunders River (Figure 1). The Ottawa River water- hydro-electric facility across the St. Law- shed is large, encompassing a drainage area rence River. However, significant declines of 146,000 km2, representing about 12% of associated with hydro-electric facilities the St. Lawrence drainage area, including began at a much earlier time in inland wa- hundreds of lakes in Ontario and Québec. An tersheds of Ontario where the duration of estimated 3,700 km2 of suitable habitat was impact has been much longer, often accu- present within this system before extensive mulating over a century (MacGregor et al. dam construction throughout the watershed 2010, 2011). The effects of lost production (Verreault et al. 2004). While eels were once of large females from inland watersheds are abundant and important in the Ottawa River cause for concern (McCleave 2001; Hitt et watershed they now are rarely captured above al. 2012). Lost production of females in the the few first main stem barriers (MacGregor USLR-LO subpopulation include losses from et al. 2009, 2010, 2011; Casselman and Mar- Lake Ontario, Ottawa River, Oswego/Oneida cogliese 2010). Eels in the Mississippi River Lake and Trent/Kawartha Lakes systems. have been nearly extirpated (MacGregor et The effects of these losses would have been al. 2009, 2010, 2011; Casselman and Marco- cumulative on the population-level spawning gliese 2010). Finding this large, apparently biomass, and given the paucity of data con- old female in the Mississippi River sub-wa- cerning eels, would have taken considerable tershed was remarkable and indicates that time to become noticeable (MacGregor et al. small numbers of eels continue to find ways to 2008, 2009). It was not until recruitment and pass upstream of several dams. Large, old fe- adult production from Lake Ontario plum- male fish like this eel convey disproportionate meted that serious and widespread concerns reproductive value to a population (Palumbi were expressed by nonaboriginal communi- 2004; Berkeley et al. 2004a, b; Venturelli et ties (GLFC 2002; Dekker et al. 2003; Smith al. 2010). However, in order for this female 2004; Hoag 2007; Lees 2008; Prosek 2010). eel to contribute to the population and spawn, The material, sustenance, medicinal and she would have to survive passage through spiritual importance of American Eel to in- six hydro-electric generating stations and the digenous peoples has been well documented silver eel fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, (Prosper 2001; Prosper and Paulette 2002; en route to the Sargasso Sea to spawn. Casselman 2003; MacGregor et al. 2009; The plummeting eel abundance in the McDermott and Wilson 2010; Denny et al. USLR-LO and Ottawa River systems caused Cumulative Effects on American Eel 153 Ontario to close all commercial and sport and Dumont 2003; MacGregor et al. 2009, fisheries in the province in 2004 and 2005 2010). Many factors affect mortality imposed respectively (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009; on eels and other fishes at hydro-electric fa- ECO 2010). For the same reason, Quebec is cilities, including turbine type (Coutant and proceeding with buy-outs of their tidal weir Whitney 2000), flow (Behrmann-Godel and fisheries to reduce silver eel mortality. Nev- Eckmann 2002; Boubee et al. 2001; Jansen ertheless, the risk of mortality as eels emi- et al. 2007; McCleave 2001), year (Jansen et grate from the Ottawa River and USLR-LO al. 2007; Winter et al. 2007), eel size (Mc- continues to be high, especially when they Cleave 2001), and previous turbine injuries encounter hydro-electric facilities (Verreault (McCleave 2001). Although American Eels and Dumont 2003; MacGregor et al. 2009). generally drift with the current, their move- As eels migrate downstream to spawn, they ment is positively related to flow (Gosset et frequently have few options but to pass al. 2005), being attracted to the dominant through turbines at hydro-electric facilities flow field (Brown et al. 2009). - Whenen and are thus subjected to cumulative tur- countering a hydro-electric facility, eels may bine mortality (McCleave 2001; Verreault 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 alterna- context of cumulative anthropogenic effects tive routes (Behrmann-Godel and Eckmann and gaps in policy and approvals processes. 2002; Gosset et al. 2005; Jansen et al. 2007; Finally, we look at factors leading to the de- Brown et al. 2009), for example passing over cline, and make recommendations to avoid sluice gates (Jansen et al. 2007). similar circumstances in the future. Our objective is to describe the major cumulative anthropogenic effects that have Case Study: impacted American Eels over the past century and examine the potential impacts of cumu- Estimating the Survival of an lative effects on the species if they are not American Eel Migrating Over adequately addressed. We illustrate this by a Series of Dams modeling the survival prospects of the single large female eel recently found in Mississippi We examine the probability that the eel Lake to reach the St. Lawrence River, as she caught in Mississippi Lake (Figure 1) could attempts to undertake the first leg of her 5,500 survive passage through the six hydro-gener- km spawning run to the Sargasso Sea. We ating stations on the Mississippi and Ottawa next consider the American Eel decline within Rivers (Figure 2) before reaching the St. the Ontario segment of its range, a segment Lawrence River. The St. Lawrence River is where only large, highly fecund females are considered the end-point as there are no more produced. The current status of American Eel structural barriers between the Carillon Gen- in the Great Lakes region is examined in the erating 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. Cumulative Effects on American Eel 155 The approach involves modeling cumu- because of the small size of the turbine, dis- lative survival (derived by first estimating cu- tance between blades, and speed of the tur- mulative mortality). An eel migrating down- bine (Haro et al. 2000). We incorporated into stream and encountering a hydro-electric the analysis the variability in turbine mortal- facility generally has two alternate routes: to ity based on different design and overall size proceed with the main flows (generally pass- of each facility. ing through the turbines) or to pass over the To examine the probability that an eel sluice gates, especially during high flows. from Mississippi Lake would survive down- Therefore, in the absence of specific data on stream passage, we used a Monte Carlo mod- flow diversion rates at the dams, we treat 0.5 el, using the variation in route selection and as the probability of passage through the tur- turbine mortality to examine the probability bines. However, for the majority of the year, that an eel from Mississippi Lake would sur- water is not spilled at most dams, so depend- vive downstream passage. While migrating ing on timing of migration, this percentage to the main stem of the St. Lawrence River, can vary (e.g., eels encountering a dam that the eel would encounter six hydro-electric fa- passes most of the water through turbines and cilities: Appleton Generating Station (G.S.), spills only during freshets may in fact have Almonte G.S., Galetta G.S., Chats G.S., a 95% chance of passing through the tur- Chaudière Falls, and Carillon Dam (Figure 2, bines and only a 5% chance of passing over Table 1). the sluice gates). Likewise, turbine-induced mortality can vary depending on turbine de- Monte Carlo Models sign and timing of migration (Larnier 2001). Turbine mortality has been estimated for the Route selection was treated as a Bernoul- facilities on the St. Lawrence River to be li distribution. For small generating stations between 16 and 26.5% (McCleave 2001), or those with constant water spillage, route whereas turbine mortality for some smaller selection was set at 50% as the diffuse prior facilities has been estimated to be between with 5% variation in selection throughout 16 and 25% one year, and 25 and 34% in an- subsequent analyses. We ran an alternate sce- other (Winter et al. 2007). Turbine mortality nario where route selection was 70% turbines for even smaller utilities (with smaller faster and 30% sluice gates to accommodate the spinning turbines) could approach 100% 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 Turbine type units height (m)

Appleton G.S. 1995 3 Kaplan 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. 1964 14 16.8 Kaplan *at least four separate plants exist at this site. 156 MacGregor et al. and Carillon, most water is passed through 95% CIs; Figure 3e). The various mortality the turbines, with the exception of a short pe- rates and route selections had an effect on riod during the spring freshet. For these, route cumulative survival (Figure 3). It is evident selection was set at 95% for the turbines and from our analysis that the effects of turbine 5% for the by-pass sluices. mortality are cumulative along the Missis- Mortality for the larger dams was ran- sippi and Ottawa Rivers causing significant domly selected from a uniform distribu- reduction in overall probability of survival. tion between 16 and 26.5%, whereas for the smaller dams, mortality was randomly se- Overall Impact of Cumulative lected from a uniform distribution between 15 and 40% and between 75 and 95% for a Effects second scenario on the Mississippi Dams. For the final run, mortality was randomly se- American Eels use a broad diversity of lected from a uniform distribution between habitats during their growth period (Helfman 75 and 95% for Chaudière Falls. et al. 1987). They occur naturally in perhaps The probability that the eel would be the broadest diversity of habitats of any fish killed at any given station was determined species in the world (Helfman et al. 1987; by multiplying the chance of selecting the Moriarty 1987). This plasticity in habitat turbine route by the turbine mortality. To de- use patterns is a strategy that allows eels to termine cumulative mortality, station specific inhabit a wide variety of ecosystems at the survival rates (survival rate = 1- station spe- scale of the species’ geographic range, con- cific mortality rate) were multiplied for each veying a remarkable “bet-hedging” strategy subsequent dam. In total, we ran five scenar- to the species (Daverat et al. 2006). Unfor- ios using different levels of turbine mortality tunately, cumulative anthropogenic impacts and route selection. The Monte Carlo was run (dams, turbine mortality, commercial fishing, for 1000 iterations randomly selecting from climate change, contaminants etc.) in fresh- the aforementioned probability density func- water have severely impacted their historical tions using a macro set up in Excel. Results freshwater distribution and abundance and were presented as probability of survival and distribution in North America (Castonguay determined for each dam sequentially down et al. 1994; MacGregor et al. 2009, 2010, the river. The 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles from 2011). the Monte Carlo runs provided the 95% con- The situation faced by the American fidence intervals. Eel recently found in Mississippi Lake il- lustrates the foregoing. This eel (Figure 1) is very large, likely old and female (only fe- Case Study Findings males have ever been found from naturally recruiting eels in the USLR-LO watershed). Based on modeling results, there is low Mississippi Lake is within the Ottawa River probability that this specific American Eel or watershed where there are 50 hydroelectric any large Mississippi Lake eel would survive facilities (Quebec and Ontario combined) migration through the six generating stations each with no specific provisions for passage to the St. Lawrence River (Figure 3). At the of eels, or any other fish species. The Caril- very best, using the mortality estimates found lon, Chaudière, and Chats facilities sequen- in literature for the size and type of dams, tially are the three hydro-electric facilities survival was estimated at approximately established in the most downstream reaches 40% (Figure 3). However, the probability of of the main stem of the Ottawa River. All survival could be as low as 2.8% (1.4–4.5% 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 this situation has continued to severely im- reaches of the Ottawa River as juveniles or pede the access by eels to most of this system to exit to the St. Lawrence R., must traverse for many decades. While some eels manage these structures. When the eel from Missis- somehow to get past the first three barriers sippi Lake eventually embarks on her spawn- on the main stem of the Ottawa River, the ing migration to the Sargasso Sea, she must number of eels moving above these barriers eventually traverse these structures again. in the current regime of low recruitment to We knew from previous work that these fa- the USLR-LO and associated watersheds is cilities kill eels (Community Stewardship very low compared to the era before these Council of Lanark County 2010; MacGregor hydro-electric facilities were constructed et al. 2010), and our modeling estimated that (MacGregor et al. 2010, 2011). However, as these facilities cumulatively cause an esti- large, old females, those that do manage to mated 60–97.2% mortality on eels exiting survive to maturity can be highly valuable the watershed from areas upstream. Includ- reproductively. The large female from Mis- ing the hydro-electric facilities on the Mis- sissippi Lake is one such example (Figure 1). sissippi River that the eel would encounter In terms of downstream passage, based during her downstream spawning migration, on our estimates under current conditions, it we estimated that she would have a 2.8–40% is doubtful that many of the large silver eels probability of survival of making it to the St. would survive to escape the Ottawa River Lawrence River. As a large eel, her probabil- watershed due to the cumulative turbine mor- ity of survival would likely be in the lower talities alone (Figure 2). If an eel were able to part of that range. Eels in the USLR-LO and survive the trip down the Mississippi River Ottawa River have a strong tendency to be and Ottawa River and exit to the upper St. quite large by the time they silver. These Lawrence River, she would then need to es- large eels are much more vulnerable to tur- cape the silver eel commercial fisheries in bine mortality (often approaching 100% the lower St. Lawrence River (estuary and mortality) than small eels for which turbine gulf). By applying the mortality estimate of mortality is much lower (Haro et al. 2000; Caron et al. (2003) for the estuarine com- McCleave 2001); what is more disconcerting mercial fishery, we estimate the probability is that they are all females. The high repro- the Mississippi Lake eel surviving to leave ductive value of large, old female fish is well the St. Lawrence River system would be as known and described (Palumbi 2004; Berke- low as 1.4% (0.7–2.4; 95% CI) and as high ley et al. 2004a, 2004b). The disproportionate as 31% (24–37 ; 95% CI). Neither the lowest removal of large reproductively valuable fe- or highest estimates appear sustainable (e.g., males from a population is of special concern the European Union recently set a target es- as it can erode the reproductive rate, thereby capement for European silver eel at 40%; EU contributing to a reduction in a population’s 2007). In addition, predators such as porbea- resilience to both environmental variabil- gle sharks Lamna nasus and beluga whales ity and anthropogenic mortality (Field et al. Delphinapterus leucus consume eels in the 2008; Venturelli et al. 2010). estuary and gulf, further affecting their sur- We are mindful that no upstream passage vival (Hodson et al. 1994; MacGregor et al. has been provided for eels (or any other spe- 2009; Be´guer-Pon et al. 2012; DFO 2012). cies) at dams and waterpower facilities on Indeed, the evidence suggests that predation the Ottawa River watershed since the early may represent a significant source of mortal- 1900s when construction of several main ity in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Be´guer-Pon stem hydro-electric facilities began, and that 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 of widely diverse habitats in Ontario. Conse- on the main stem of the Ottawa River began quently, production of Ontario’s large females in the late 1800s and ended in the 1960s with has been severely reduced. For example, it has the completion of Carillon, the most down- been estimated that before the hydro-electric stream facility on the watershed (Haxton and facilities were constructed, the Ottawa River Chubbuck 2002). Substantial contraction of watershed would have been capable of pro- the American Eel’s inland Ontario range has ducing 255,000 silver eels/year (Verreault et occurred since dam construction began (Fig- al. 2004). Based on our calculations it is clear ure 3). Female eels tend to be more common that production and escapement from this wa- in upstream areas of low density (Krueger and tershed since construction of hydro-electric Oliveira 1999; Oliveira and McCleave 2000; facilities has been very poor from all but the Schmidt et al. 2009). The importance of up- lowest reaches of the river (Figure 3) due to stream tributary habitat to female production limited access by recruits and turbine mortali- and population fecundity of American Eel has ties. In addition, a small commercial fishery been described by Hitt et al. (2012). Unfor- persists in the Quebec waters of the Ottawa tunately, access to upstream tributaries in the River that can occasionally harvest eels. On- USLR-LO and Ottawa River watersheds has tario has set the quotas for eels to zero in the been severely limited by insuperable hydro- Ottawa River and elsewhere. electric barriers and other dams, restricting Within the USLR-LO and Ottawa Rivers or eliminating access to a significant amount system, many tributaries have been impacted 160 MacGregor et al. by at least one, and often a series of hydro- been proposed on this tributary, and more are electric facilities and other dams; none of proposed in Ontario on other Ottawa River these structures have any provisions for safe tributaries. There are some 14 hydroelectric upstream passage, except Beauharnois and facilities within the Trent River-Kawartha Moses Saunders Generating Stations on the lakes watershed, and more such facilities are St. Lawrence River (MacGregor et al. 2009, proposed on this system as well. There are at 2010, 2011). Downstream passage remains least 90 hydro-electric facilities within the impaired at all facilities. For instance, there historic range of eels in Ontario and 30 within are 50 hydro-electric facilities on the Ottawa the current, significantly contracted range of River watershed, none provide fishways and the species since 2000 (Figure 5; MacGregor there has been no effort to mitigate turbine et al. 2010; 2011). In addition, most water- mortalities during downstream migration sheds have been impacted by many more bar- (Verreault et al. 2004; MacGregor et al. 2010, riers that do not contain turbines (Figure 6). 2011). The Pettawawa River is possibly the However, all barriers on the main stem of the only tributary on the Ontario side of the Ot- Ottawa the St. Lawrence Rivers are hydro- tawa River that is currently free of hydro- electric facilities that both impede access and electric facilities; but two new facilities have 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 Gregor et al. 2009). For instance, commercial two watersheds. These rivers provide the two eel harvests in the Oswego-Oneida system of main migratory routes into and out of Ontar- New York regularly used to approach 100 io’s wide diversity of freshwater habitats. metric tons, but now due to the construction Escapement of eels from the USLR-LO of dams, eels in these waters are exceedingly and Ottawa River watersheds remains seri- rare (Adams and Hankinson 1928; Henke ously compromised by the Moses-Saunders 1993). This lost production occurred well and Beauharnois hydro-electric facilities on upstream of the Moses-Saunders G.S., fur- the Upper St. Lawrence River in Ontario and ther reducing the biomass of spawning fe- Quebec respectively, where a cumulative males from the USLR-LO segment of the eel turbine mortality of 44% has been estimated population. Lost production from many other (Normandeau Associates Inc. and Skalski. watersheds associated with Lake Ontario has 1998; Desrochers 1995; Verreault and Du- been previously described (MacGregor et al. mont 2003). Additional decreased or lost 2009; 2010). production and high mortality of eels from In addition, important commercial eel inland watersheds of Ontario and New York fisheries operated in Ontario waters of Lake associated with hydro-electric facilities (such Ontario for a century. Harvests peaked in as our estimates for the Ottawa River), when the late 1970s at an unprecedented 282 added to the substantial cumulative turbine metric tons (Casselman 1997) and in many mortalities of Moses-Saunders and Beauhar- years commercial eel harvests represented nois facilities are most disconcerting (Mac- more than 50% of the landed value of the 162 MacGregor et al. entire Lake Ontario commercial harvest for the St. Lawrence River watershed (Verreault all species (MacGregor et al. 2009). Fur- et al. 2004). There are 5,260 dams in Quebec thermore, substantial commercial eel fish- watersheds alone that drain into the St. Law- eries have operated in estuarine waters of rence River. the lower St. Lawrence River for more than Pronounced range contraction of Ameri- a century (Casselman 2003), and in recent can Eel in Ontario watersheds (such as the times recorded harvests peaked in the 1970s Ottawa River) has been underway for nearly to the early 1980s at more than 600 met- a century (Figure 4; MacGregor et al. 2009, ric tons (an estimated 340,000 silver eels) 2010, 2011). Cumulative lost production due (COSEWIC 2006; Verreault et al. 2004). to dams and substantial anthropogenic mor- Catches declined precipitously as eels con- talities due to fishing and turbines in these tinued to disappear from the St. Lawrence watersheds has focused entirely on the larg- River, Lake Ontario, Ottawa River and est females of the species, a hallmark of the other associated inland watersheds of On- USLR-LO and associated watersheds. The tario and New York (Caron et al. 2003; Ver- cumulative impact of mortality due to hydro- reault and Dumont 2003; de Lafontaine et electric dams and recruitment overfishing is al. 2009b). viewed by de Lafontaine et al. (2009a) as the Cumulative mortality due to turbines most probable cause of the decline in USLR- and commercial fishing as eels attempted to LO eels until the mid-1980s. It is suggested emigrate from Lake Ontario and leave the that the gradual decrease in eel spawning St. Lawrence River was conservatively esti- biomass resulted in recruitment failure after mated by Verreault and Dumont (2003) to be 1986, which subsequently amplified the - re 53% in the mid-1980s; and turbine mortality duction of the eel population left to migrate accounted for three-quarters of this loss (Ver- downstream (de Lafontaine et al. 2009a). reault and Dumont 2003). Moreover, evidence appears to be mount- As eels in the USLR-LO and Ottawa ing that the unique phenotypic attributes of River are all large females, cumulative mor- eels colonizing the upper St. Lawrence River tality has significantly diminished the sub- basin may be genetically distinct (from a stantial contribution of the highly fecund, functional standpoint) from those coloniz- silver eels formerly arising from these waters ing the Maritimes Region for example, and (Verreault and Dumont 2003; COSEWIC as such could be irreplaceable (Bernatchez et 2006; MacGregor et al. 2009; CSAS 2011) al. 2011). There is strong rationale for strong with implications for the sustainability of to- protection and substantial reduction of an- tal anthropogenic mortality and subsequent thropogenic mortality of eels in these waters. recruitment (de Lafontaine et al. 2009a,b; Recognition of this concern led Fisheries and Venturelli et al. 2010). Long-lived species Ocean Canada (DFO 2004), together with like eels tend to be particularly vulnerable to Quebec and Ontario, to announce their in- excessive mortalities and rapid stock collapse tention to reduce anthropogenic mortality by (Musik 1999), after which recovery may take 50% (CEWG 2009). decades. Concerns about eel sustainability continue to mount when one considers that Environmental Effects on the St. Lawrence River basin, which consti- tutes about 19% of American Eel freshwater Recruitment habitat, contains some 8,411 dams (Verreault et al. 2004). It is estimated that these dams Environmental effects on recruitment block access to 12,140 km of eel habitat in of fishes are well known (e.g., Christie and Cumulative Effects on American Eel 163 Regier 1973; Richards et al. 1996) but the ef- somewhat as evidenced by the numbers of fects are far from predictable (Myers 1998). eels ascending the ladders at Moses-Sunders In the case of American Eel, cyclic or more G.S. (MacGregor et al. 2010, 2011). This permanent climate-driven effects on ocean positive recruitment trend reinforces the need currents or on hatching and survival could to set the scene for recovery by taking advan- potentially affect larval drift and abundance tage of these new recruits, protecting and en- patterns, inducing fluctuations in recruitment hancing the production and survival of these levels to continental waters (Bonhommeau et females, while enhancing access to, and use al. 2008; Friedland et al. 2007). Less favor- of a wide diversity of habitats. Increasing the able environmental conditions could further diversity of habitats available, and improving exacerbate the declining sustainability of the survival of Ontario’s large females will the species. It is therefore important to suf- very likely enhance resilience (Daverat et al. ficiently mitigate anthropogenic mortalities 2006; Field et al. 2008; Secor 2010; Venturelli to ensure adequate escapement of quality et al. 2010). Reducing anthropogenic sources spawners, especially those that convey high of mortality on adult eels to build the spawn- reproductive value, such as individuals from ing stock and increase escapement will be es- the USLR-LO, Ottawa River and associated sential to enable their enhanced contribution watersheds. This will help the species to ex- to future recruitment. Further, strategic miti- hibit resilience to periods of less favorable gation of anthropogenic effects during this environmental conditions (Verreault et al. period of slowly building recruitment should 2003; MacGregor et al. 2009; Venturelli et al. build and diversify the stock, enabling it to 2010). take advantage of promising environmen- Under favorable environmental condi- tal conditions when they are present, while tions, strong recruitment events for many fish facilitating resilience through less favorable species can occur at modest adult stock sizes. periods. For example, Lake Erie Walleye Sander vit- While there is some thought that changes reus collapsed due to very high commercial in oceanic conditions may influence Ameri- fishing mortality in the late 1960s–1970s can Eel recruitment (Friedland et al. 2007; (Hatch et al. 1987). After a period of mul- Bonhommeau et al. 2008), they are poorly tilateral closed fishing, beginning in 1970, understood and unconfirmed; further - re mature female Walleye biomass accumulat- search is required but there appears to be a ed and in 1977 a record year-class was pro- climate signal (J. Casselman, unpublished duced; this year-class was managed carefully data). Nevertheless, when correlations with to ensure its contribution to recovery (Hatch the environment have held up over time for et al. 1987). The species is now rehabilitated some species, this does not mean that spawn- in Lake Erie and supports one of the largest ing biomass is not important as well. Even freshwater commercial fisheries in the world. if an environmental variable is found to be In the case of American Eel, it appears important, it does not mean it is key to the that a strong year-class was last produced management of the population; the emphasis in the mid-1970s (Casselman, unpublished on the search for environmental correlations data). Notwithstanding the low current re- may have led to neglect of other important cruitment of eels, young eels are still found processes such as the relationship between more frequently below hydro-electric facili- spawner abundance and recruitment (My- ties in Ontario (Casselman and Marcogliese ers 1998). Management policies and objec- 2010). Very recently, recruitment to Ontario tives should be seeking higher spawning and New York waters has been increasing abundances than has previously been as- 164 MacGregor et al. sumed necessary based on recruitment data very large eels captured in the far interior wa- collected during adult stock declines associ- ters of Ontario (Reading Eagle 1902; Ville de ated with fishery development (Walters and Temiscaming 1996; Mandrak and Crossman Kitchell 2001). 2003; MacGregor et al. 2010; K. Coleman, While they are important to understand, OMNR retired, personal communication; S. potential environmental effects on recruit- Ross, Pikwàkanagàn First Nation, personal ment should not be used as an excuse for in- communication). action; rather, if recruitment is declining, re- Cumulative effects on the entire North gardless of the cause, this should underscore American segment of the eel population (lost the need to mitigate other known anthropo- access to habitat, mortalities due to fishing genic impacts (such as mortalities due to tur- and turbines, commercial fisheries etc.) have bines and fisheries), particularly those that been most severe on the freshwater contin- impact the survival of the spawning stock gent, affecting status, distribution, and abun- and overall resilience. Both abiotic and bi- dance of American Eel (Figure 7); this is otic factors need to be studied (Myers 1998). cause for concern over the resilience of the There is a need to begin strategic implemen- species to future anthropogenic impact (Mc- tation of mitigation options soon; there is Cleave and Edeline 2009; Secor 2010). It is an opportunity to capitalize on the recently also important to determine if there will soon observed positive recruitment trends (albeit be a risk that spawning and larval produc- still very small). Moreover, under current ap- tion reach such low levels that depensation provals processes, it often takes many years effects occur (Walters and Kitchell 2001; to negotiate, set conditions and implement Dekker 2008; MacGregor et al. 2009), fur- mitigation at hydro-electric facilities. Given ther complicating recovery. However, as evi- the precarious status of eels in this system, denced by the Lake Erie walleye example, beginning the process of strategic mitigation recovery remains feasible if mortality is re- now is important to take advantage of recent duced, particularly if the spawning stock is and possibly future increases in recruitment. rebuilt. It has been shown that for many long- Understanding the Decline lived fish species, fisheries management agencies need to recognize the reproduc- and Opportunities for tive value of Big, Old, Fat, Fecund Female Recovery Fish (BOFFF) (Palumbi 2004; Berkeley et al. 2004a, b; Field et al. 2008; Venturelli et Anthropogenic effects on the single al. 2010). American Eel in the USLR-LO, spawning stock of eels have accumulated Ottawa River system, being all females, the over the past century. In the case of our fea- largest, oldest, and most fecund in the species tured large, apparently old female from the range (Casselman 2003; COSEWIC 2006), Mississippi Lake (Figure 1), she seems to are a poignant example. Protection and en- have a poor chance of reaching the St. Law- hanced production/survival of these, repro- rence River, much less exiting to the ocean. ductively valuable female eels is critically There were many more like her in the past, important to sustainable management of the as the Ottawa River once provided access to panmictic American Eel. An important strat- hundreds of remote streams, rivers, ponds, egy to restore and sustainably manage eels in and lakes where eels quietly resided, matur- the upper St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario, ing as large, old females before emigrating; and Ottawa River watersheds should be to there are numerous accounts or photos of 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 resil- ray of tributary habitats would convey simi- ience. Mitigation of anthropogenic mortality lar opportunities for recovery (Machut et al. (e.g., by reducing mortality due to turbines 2007; Secor 2010; MacGregor et al. 2011; and silver eel fisheries, which disproportion- Hitt et al. 2012). ately kill big females) appears especially im- Continued lack of mitigation of anthropo- portant to recovery. This is likely to improve genic effects could see the downward spiral the opportunity for increased recruitment, en- in the USLR/LO subpopulation approach ex- hancing resilience to environmental stochas- tirpation (Figure 7); an important phenotype ticity (Lipcius and Stockhausen 2002; Mac- that could be difficult to replace if lost (Ber- Gregor et al. 2009; Venturelli et al. 2010), natchez et al. 2011). Eel population decline while better enabling eels to take advantage may become especially pronounced and rap- of unpredictable favorable environmental id if additional unmitigated sources of mor- conditions. Improved access to a diverse ar- tality on large females are approved within 166 MacGregor et al. the eel’s range (e.g., hydro-electric facilities (MacGregor et al. 2008). Until very recently, and silver eel fisheries). In fact, mortality of there was little to no interest in doing so de- silver eels due to fishing in the St. Lawrence spite early concerns raised in a symposium River appears already unsustainable (Ver- convened in 1980 to discuss the issues we are reault et al. 2003; de Lafontaine et al. 2009a, faced with today (Loftus 1982; MacGregor et 2009b) (recall that 75% of the anthropogen- al. 2008, 2009). ic mortality on eels from Lake Ontario has Allen (2008) noted that circumstances been estimated to come from turbines in the such as those of the eel can drive a shift in St. Lawrence River; Verreault and Dumont power away from hydroelectric dams that 2003). The recent small but steady increases generate billions of dollars’ worth of energy in recruitment are opportunities to speed up without adequate provision of safe, adequate recovery, especially if access is provided to fish passage, toward a day when fish will be more diverse habitat and turbine mortalities valued sufficiently to require facilities to par- are reduced. ticipate in fish passage strategies so that species can survive and recover to more natural How Did We Get Here? levels. In 2010, the Environmental Commis- sioner of Ontario (ECO) called for Ontario to MacGregor et al. (2008) described the use Ontario’s Lake and Rivers Improvement governance challenges in managing Ameri- Act (LRIA) to require all new dams to facili- can Eel across 25 jurisdictions, each consid- tate natural passage by installing fish ladders ering eels only from their own parochial per- or other similar structures (ECO 2010). In spectives without adequate consideration of addition, the Commissioner called for all ex- the spawning stock of the species as a whole. isting dams to be retrofitted with fish ladders In addition, more than 15,000 barriers have or other similar structures to facilitate safe been constructed on the watersheds where and natural eel migration along the course diadromous fish species, including American of all Ontario’s streams and rivers, through Eel, were abundant (Busch et al. 1998; Lary LRIA approvals for improvements or repair et al. 1998; MacGregor et al. 2009). Many to dams (ECO 2010). watersheds now host a series of structures Where cumulative effects legislation that impede access by diadromous fishes and policies exist, they are ineffectively im- important habitat, and induce serious down- plemented (Duinker and Greig 2006). Greig stream mortality. Both commercial fisheries (2008) argues that an important determi- and construction of dams have been ongoing nant of this failure is a focus on mechanistic for more than a century in the freshwater hab- analysis of local-scale cumulative effects, itats of the species (MacGregor et al. 2009). rather than an integrative assessment of the Each dam, and each fishery, was established total stresses acting on the population. Al- in isolation, with little consideration of ac- len (2008) observes that the greatest barrier cumulating effects at the watershed or spe- to protecting the eel is the intransigence, cies level. Similarly, over time, commercial spin and lack of coordination within the harvests were allowed to increase as markets corporate and government world in facing for eels expanded (MacGregor et al. 2008, the reality of the eel’s plight. In addition, 2009). There were few if any effective har- provincial agency approval processes often vest controls on the eel fisheries, and no con- do not require consideration of cumulative siderations of range-wide, cumulative impli- effects, although there are some guidance cations of the harvests on the spawning stock documents alluding to the need to consider them for Ontario government projects (e.g. Cumulative Effects on American Eel 167 OMNR 2003). There is an Ontario policy Legislation: Difficulties in Application stating that an ecosystem approach will be applied (OMNR 2009). A 2008 Divisional In the course of determining how we got court ruling seems to require the Ontario here, we attempted to ascertain if the collapse government to consider cumulative effects of American Eel could have been mitigated (Ecojustice 2008), but to date we are not in Ontario. This analysis is not intended in aware of any formal procedures to enshrine any way to lay blame—we are simply exam- cumulative effects assessment in govern- ining how the situation occurred so we can ment policy relating to project approvals. make recommendations to avoid similar situ- If there is no requirement to consider cu- ations in the future. As early as 1980 eel ex- mulative effects in approval processes, past perts from around the world were convened experience suggests that we cannot expect because of sustainability concerns over them to be considered at all, much less ap- American Eel in Lake Ontario (Loftus 1982). propriately. In light of these circumstances, Strong concerns from the scientific com- the probability appears high that more water munity were again raised in the early 2000s power facilities and other sources of mor- (GLFC 2002; Dekker et al. 2003). While tality could again be approved without the there appear to have been sufficient legisla- appropriate mitigation safeguards, further tive tools to require attempts to at least miti- exacerbating the effects of existing anthro- gate harmful effects on American Eel in On- pogenic impacts. By not effectively con- tario (e.g., Canada’s Fisheries Act; Ontario’s sidering cumulative effects, it appears that Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act; Ottawa some approval processes themselves are River Powers Act; Ontario Fishery Regula- a major threat to survival and recovery of tions; Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation American Eel and other migratory fish spe- Act etc.), little was done at that time. In the cies at risk, as much as the specific cumula- early 2000s, some steps were taken to control tive effects themselves. the eel harvests by the Lake Ontario commer- Jurisdictions managing commercial cial fishery (MacGregor et al. 2009), but little eel fisheries did not consider the accumu- was attempted or required of hydro-electric lated mortalities and lost production due to companies to address known serious turbine other factors such as turbines and barriers, mortalities. An eel ladder had been installed although it is clear that the question was be- on the Saunders Generating Station in 1974, ing raised by as early as 1980 (Loftus 1982). but the objectives of the ladder appeared to Similarly, agencies responsible for approv- be as much to deal with the nuisance factors als and setting operational conditions for and operational difficulties that eels accumu- waterpower projects and large dams did not lating below the dam were causing, as they consider their additive effects or address were to address conservation needs. Little the on-going commercial fishing mortali- else was done at this or other facilities over ties. Most agencies are siloed among pro- the next two decades to directly attempt miti- gram areas often with differing objectives gation or implement offsetting measures for and priorities. It can be difficult to ensure the significant turbine mortalities that were that all program objectives are effectively so highly evident at the Moses-Saunders gen- integrated and coordinated. There is a need erating station (Loftus 1982; Verreault and to ensure much stronger and more effective Dumont 2003; Lees 2008). integration and coordination among pro- Ontario closed commercial fishing for grams; holistic comprehensive approaches eels in 2004 due to rapidly declining abun- seem long overdue in Ontario. dance in Lake Ontario (MacGregor et al. 168 MacGregor et al. 2009) and shortly afterwards COSSARO Negotiations are now underway in Ontar- (Committee on the Status of Species at Risk io with a few power companies to undertake in Ontario) and the Ontario government an- mitigation on other watersheds in response to nounced that American Eel in Ontario was the Endangered Species Act and Regulation officially considered endangered. It was only 242/08 (Ontario Government 2007, 2008), after these actions that an agreement was but the results have been mixed and often struck in 2006 (in partnership with DFO, charged with intense push back, especially OMNR and OPG) to undertake pilot ap- light of in the recent climate created by On- proaches to mitigate or offset turbine mortal- tario’s pursuit of renewable energy (a com- ities at Saunders. But there have been few to mendable goal if implemented with care). no requirements yet on any other watershed However, it is important to note that the in Ontario to attempt mitigation of either eel promulgation of the ESA 2007 was not neces- mortality or upstream passage obstructions, sary to require mitigation attempts as the le- despite an accumulation of effects over the gal tools to do so have been available for the past century (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009). better part of a century. Full mitigation of all It seems to have taken the promulgation issues relating to access and turbine mortality of Ontario’s new Endangered Species Act may not be achievable in the near-term, but (ESA) in 2007 and the listing of American as eels in USLR-LO, Ottawa River and as- Eel to get the attention of regulators regard- sociated watersheds Ontario convey special ing the serious issue of turbine mortalities reproductive value to the species, it is impor- and access problems associated with water- tant to conserve as many individuals as possi- power facilities. ble, while acknowledging there will continue The lack of adequate, safe fish passage to be some mortality. As an interim measure, at waterpower facilities is an example of the trap and transfer approach (McCarthy et policy and legislation implementation dilem- al. 2008; OWA 2010) certainly seems worth- mas. While issues such as turbine mortality while in smaller systems; and OPG has estab- may not have been considered to be an issue lished a good foundation in its well-designed for eels when these facilities were first con- experiments at Saunders Generating Station structed, it has been clearly recognized to be (Stanley and Pope 2010). However, trap and a problem since the late 1970s to early 1980s transfer should not be viewed as the final so- (Kolenosky 1976; Loftus 1982; Verreault lution. Certainly upstream passage can easily and Dumont 2003). Strong implementation be more easily achieved. of existing and new legislation is required Ontario and DFO appear to be in the if the objectives of biodiversity, recovery of early stages of finding/requiring mitigation species at risk and sustainability are to be solutions for fish passage at hydro-electric achieved in aquatic ecosystems. In Canada, facilities in the province. In stark contrast, however, decisions relating to the provision major attempts to find solutions to fish pas- of fish passage have not been based strictly sage issues continue to be implemented in on legislation. Rather, given the unusually the United States (U.S.), often in response to wide discretionary powers of the ministers requirements of the U.S. Endangered Species under the Fisheries Act and LRIA, these de- Act or the license renewal processes of Fed- cisions seem to have been based somehow on eral Energy Regulatory Commission (e.g., evaluation of societal values. However, it is PFBC 2007; FCRPS 2008; PRRT 2009; US- not clear how this evaluation was undertaken FWS 2009) over a much longer period. in the past, nor if/how society was consulted While there are numerous sections of in this regard. Canada’s Fisheries Act and at least one section Cumulative Effects on American Eel 169 in Ontario’s Lake and Rivers Improvement ed on the Ottawa River and other watersheds Act (LRIA) available to require fish passage, in Ontario despite clear tools and mandates to a problem in some regions of Canada appears enable fish passage within Canada’s Fisheries to be strongly related to lack of policy direc- Act, LRIA (Ontario Government 2009a), and tion to implement the existing legal tools, even in the un-repealed Ottawa River Pow- leaving authorities exposed to political pres- ers Act of 1943 (Ontario Government 2010), sures and internal criticism (Collares-Pereira which is another example that clearly demon- and Cowx 2004). Some of the decisions relat- strates an understanding of the need for fish ing to management and approvals of hydro- passage on the Ottawa River. electric projects and commercial fisheries Nevertheless, cumulative ongoing harm can have significant, ongoing and sustained to diadromous fish, associated with unmiti- negative impact at a landscape or species gated hydro-electric facilities and lack of level (especially in the context of cumulative adequate fish passage, has been known to effects) if regulators remain unprepared or occur for many decades. Yet only one hydro- unable to consider cumulative effects and/or electric facility (the Saunders Generating require attempts to mitigate effects. Station on the St. Lawrence River) of some It is clear that some of the problems en- 90 within the historic range of eels provides countered were unforeseen when hydro-elec- a fishway in Ontario. Furthermore, commer- tric facilities were first contemplated for wa- cial eel fisheries continued the in face of the tersheds such as the Ottawa River. Indeed, the known mortalities imposed by hydroelectric life cycle of American Eel for instance was facilities. As effects were not addressed, the not fully understood until Schmidt published cumulative mortalities became unsustainable his findings in 1922 (Schmidt 1922) (about in Ontario and Quebec, and many lucrative the time that many of the hydro-electric fa- eel fisheries eventually declined or failed. cilities were first contemplated for construc- In an attempt to rectify the situation, earliest tion on the Ottawa River), and the terms cu- government actions were to first reduce, then mulative effects, biodiversity and ecosystem close or buy out fisheries (MacGregor et al. sustainability had not yet been coined. 2008, 2009, 2010; 2011). But unmitigated However, there is strong evidence that hydro-electric power generation continued fish passage was at least contemplated very in most waters of Ontario. With the closure early for at least one facility on the Ottawa of the eel fisheries in Ontario, hydro-electric River, as evidenced by a federal permit issued power generation can now be viewed as the to one of the earliest facilities (ca. 1932); the largest known anthropogenic source of eel permit suggested that fish passage should be mortality in the province (MacGregor et al. provided to the satisfaction of the Minister of 2010, 2011; Pratt and Mathers 2011), jeopar- Marine and Fisheries—yet one has never been dizing survival and recovery of the species in built. Moreover, Canada’s Fisheries Act has the province (MacGregor et al. 2010, 2011). always had provisions for ensuring fish pas- Equally odd is that authorizations under sage. Beginning with the effects of mill dams Section 32 of the Fisheries Act to kill fish and other smaller structures, fish passage has by means other than fishing (which trigger been viewed as important since confedera- the Canadian Environmental Assessment tion, requiring intervening legislation. One Act (CEAA)) must be requested by the pro- can only speculate on the reasons why fish ponents of the activity. The Department of passage was not provided at the aforemen- Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) appears unable tioned facility (despite the permit language), to require proponents to have authorizations. or at the numerous other facilities construct- If the proponents do not request authoriza- 170 MacGregor et al. tion, then they are not subject to the federal are helpful for other matters, but they have cumulative effects screening under CEAA. not yet adequately addressed fish passage. It DFO has the option of pursuing enforcement is doubtful that an effective protocol can be action if a facility holds no authorization established without clearer agency direction. and continues to kill fish, but that is not the With the implementation of Ontario’s preferred solution and has never occurred in new Endangered Species Act (ESA 2007), Ontario. the absence of fish passage was seen as a Until recently, Ontario legal powers to re- threat jeopardizing survival and recovery of quire fish passage rested largely in the Lakes species such as American Eel (MacGregor et and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA), but al. 2010, 2011). If recovery of this and possi- again the powers are discretionary, requiring bly other fish species at risk is to be success- Minister’s orders. The province also seemed ful, Ontario will need to consider judicious to passively defer fish passage decisions to use of the LRIA to require fish passage as the DFO and the Fisheries Act, and if DFO did ESA 2007 cannot be relied upon to require not require fish passage, then certainly- On fish passage at existing facilities. Otherwise tario did not. The issue in reality is moot as the province may be forced to rely on federal until recently, DFO appears to have had no legislation and agencies to implement the history of requiring fish ladders at hydro- provincial ESA, creating an inefficient pro- electric facilities in Ontario. However, this cess riddled with opportunities for inaction. position likely did not absolve the province Regardless, the LRIA, Fisheries Act, provin- from their legal mandate and responsibility cial Environmental Assessment Act, ESA, under the LRIA if DFO did not act. Never- the federal Species at Risk Act and CEAA theless, Ontario only once applied the LRIA processes will need to be highly coordinated for fish passage at hydroelectric facilities (at to avoid creating conflicting decisions. the Saunders Generating Station on the St. Past practices seem to have been to ig- Lawrence River). In this instance the LRIA nore relevant federal and provincial legisla- was used largely to document/operational- tion pertaining to fish passage in Ontario, es- ize a negotiated agreement between Ontario sentially meaning that neither have any real Hydro and OMNR. DFO, on the other hand, clout. To be clear, it is the nonapplication of indicated that because fisheries management the Acts that weakens them, and the whole was delegated to the province, the depart- situation appears to be viewed by proponents ment required Ontario’s fisheries manage- as a manageable risk. Voluntary approaches ment objectives for fish passage before it most frequently have been sought. Based on would act to require passage. As these objec- the few permanent fishways, it appears there tives were rarely completed and approved has been little will to require fish passage at with sufficient specificity for passage at the hydro-electric facilities, at least not in On- watershed level, the issue of ensuring ecolog- tario. With only one fishway on more than 90 ical sustainability of hydro-electric facilities, hydro-electric facilities in Ontario within the especially when it involved fish passage, ap- eel’s historical range it is evident there has parently fell between the cracks. Overlapping not been much interest in ensuring fish pas- provincial and federal legislation, with man- sage at Ontario’s hydro-electric facilities, de- dates to provide safe, adequate fish passage spite ongoing cumulative effects. However, has been a jurisdictional quagmire that has the recent promulgation of Ontario’s ESA apparently contributed to inaction on this and and Regulation 224/08 may provide an op- other issues for decades. Protocols between portunity to re-think past approaches. Much DFO and Ontario are now in place which time has passed since the last wave of facili- Cumulative Effects on American Eel 171 ties was built, and the effects of existing fa- time, and political realities of the day. Clearer cilities appears to have been long forgotten in direction, policy and procedures regarding some instances, leading to shifting baselines the implementation of legislation, and stron- (MacGregor et al. 2009). Efforts are under- ger cumulative effects policy and procedures way to correct this situation in the face of re- both provincially and federally would seem cent court decisions and species at risk legis- to have been required. Mitigation needs to lation, but it is extremely challenging. There be required and implemented (often through can be considerable push back (MacGregor adaptive management) to find solutions; but et al. 2008), including unwillingness to rec- often no form of mitigation was required at ognize or address the significant cumulative the beginning of projects. The lack of require- effects that have occurred. ments to attempt effective mitigation at the We suggest that most of the legal tools beginning of the project makes it extremely have been available to require attempts to difficult to require mitigation at a later date, mitigate anthropogenic effects, but their ap- and provides no incentive to invest in finding plication has been less than desirable. The solutions. big gap appears to be in policy: both in ap- Given the high reproductive value of in- plication of legislation and in requirements dividual eels from the USLR-LO, it is very to consider and address cumulative effects. likely that lack of mitigation of anthropo- Could the collapse of eels in Ontario have genic mortality and impediments to access been prevented? Likely, had the cumulative were a strong contributing factor to the col- effects been recognized and had mitigation lapse. Mitigation at a number of locations, been attempted earlier in important waters however imperfect, would have helped delay, across the North American range. However, moderate, or prevent the decline entirely. In- with eels having declined in interest and pri- volvement of Indigenous peoples, accommo- ority (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009), and be- dation of their perspectives and integration cause of the long life-span and complex life- traditional ecological knowledge in resource cycle of eels, it would have been difficult to planning, (including the environmental as- detect a decline until it was very pronounced. sessment and monitoring process) are further In view of the shifting baselines that clearly ways to address the continuing limitations have occurred with time (MacGregor et al. associated with past and current EIAs (Sal- 2008; 2009), the decline was likely not no- lenave 1994; Stevenson 1996). ticed by most until it was well underway. As noted earlier, the circumstances of Nevertheless, harvests could have been American Eel in Ontario appear to have more carefully managed earlier when the de- fallen between the legislative cracks. While clines were first noticed, and techniques such there have been adequate tools to address the as eel ladders, trap and transfer programs, tur- situation, the discretionary powers of both bine shutdowns at night and other approaches the Federal and Provincial ministers are ex- etc. could have been required at existing fa- traordinary and the applicable legislation cilities, while recognizing that there may be cannot be described as prescriptive (Hutch- site-specific challenges (NYPA 2009; OWA ings and Rangeley 2011). Eels in Ontario are 2010). Such actions would have helped eels not the only example of things going badly to see their way through less favorable condi- wrong for fish under existing legislation. For tions such as fluctuations in ocean currents; example, given that the unprecedented de- but are likely unrealistic given strong push cline of Atlantic Cod Gadhus morhua took back, discretionary legislation, lack of ef- place under the auspices of the Fisheries Act, fective endangered species legislation at the it appears to be “a suboptimal legislative tool 172 MacGregor et al. for fish population recovery and rebuilding detect declining abundance in species such purposes,” largely due to the extraordinary as eels were limited in the earlier decades, discretionary powers of the minister (Hutch- concerns over mortalities due to fishing and ings and Rangeley 2011). turbines were raised as early as 1980 (Lof- We suggest that the same can be said of tus 1982). Conflicting opinions, panmixia, the LRIA, at least when it comes to requir- finger-pointing and potential costs of mitiga- ing fish passage, and ensuring the “manage- tion appear to be the most likely reasons for ment, perpetuation and use of the fish, wild- limited action until 2004, when the extremely life and other natural resources dependent on valuable eel fisheries were closed in Ontario. the lakes and rivers” (a key purpose of the The implications of the recent major re- Act). Again it is the discretionary power of visions to Canada’s Fisheries Act (Canada the minister and lack of policy direction re- 2012) are unclear and troubling, as are the lating to resource issues other than strictly proposed changes to the Species at Risk Act. water management that appears to be the key The Fisheries Act is now even more discre- problem. tionary which is very disconcerting. More- Similar to Atlantic Cod, American Eel over, it is not clear that species such as Amer- have declined by more than 95% in Ontario ican Eel will even continue to be protected despite seemingly appropriate legislative in Ontario under that Act, because eel fisher- tools to prevent it. This is further evidence ies are now closed in Ontario, and therefore that either the legislative and management would not be considered to be a fish that is tools to conserve fish are suboptimal, or their “part of a commercial, recreational or Ab- use has been suboptimal because they are not original fishery, or that support such a fish- sufficiently prescriptive, and there are large ery” as the new Act requires (Canada 2012). gaps in policy relating to their application. There would seem to be no provision for fish There appear to be negligible political costs that have had their fisheries closed for con- associated with government decisions that servation reasons. The Regulation process threaten the health of fish stocks and species under the Act may attempt to further refine (Hutchings and Rangeley 2011), whereas the this; however, currently the species is not counter pressures from vested interests can be protected under the Species at Risk Act either extreme, including arguments relating to re- because the COSEWIC recommended desig- gional economics and jobs, renewable versus nation of Threatened has not been approved coal-fired generation, and the price of energy. by government, and it may take years to do Ostensibly this can lead to compromises that so, if ever. Thankfully, the species remains in the end emerge to be unsustainable, and in protected under Ontario’s Endangered Spe- the long run can cause serious damage to oth- cies Act. er valuable renewable resources (e.g., fisheries) if the collateral effects are not mitigated. A Resonance of Perspectives This raises the question of how well the general public has been informed and consulted As steps are hopefully taken to mitigate on these issues, if the government is making cumulative effects on American Eel across decisions based on societal need as well as whole watersheds, the long held but often science. The circumstances of American Eel ignored Indigenous principle of Ginaway- in Ontario are clear illustrations; eventually daganuk is gaining attention because it reso- all Ontario fisheries were closed for eels, nates with statements about interconnected- largely as a result of cumulative mortalities ness and cooperative aspects in watershed While the science, resources and priorities to management planning (e.g., OMNR 2010). Cumulative Effects on American Eel 173 Ginawaydaganuk, the Algonquin law of in- of which have accumulated on the single terconnectedness which is documented in the spawning stock (Verreault and Dumont Welcoming and Sharing Wampum Belt car- 2003; MacGregor et al. 2009, 2010). Un- ried by Algonquin First Nations, outlines re- less environmental impact assessment (EIA) sponsibilities to each other and to the earth. policies and processes are developed or im- It requires consideration of the cumulative proved, including developing or improving effects of actions on the entire web of life, cumulative effects assessment processes, the a consideration which reflects the Algonquin risk of repeating and exacerbating past mis- definition of sustainability, notions of recon- takes remains high. ciliation and respect jointly of human rights Anthropogenic effects have mounted and environmental protection (Wilson 2008; over the last century or more and, given the McDermott and Wilson 2010). Meanwhile rapid human growth projections for Ontario public awareness of cumulative effects is in- (Ontario Government 2010), are not expect- creasing. The Environmental Commissioner ed to subside anytime soon. Hence, recovery of Ontario documented one case where a of American Eel in the USLR-LO will not be public appeal to a proposed development a short-term process (MacGregor et al. 2010, used an argument that the development was 2011); it will be a complex process involv- inconsistent with the Ministry of Environ- ing a range of actions, both within and hope- ment’s Statement of Environmental Values, fully beyond Ontario’s borders. But actions including principles to adopt an ecosystem in Ontario alone can be effective (MacGregor approach to environmental protection and et al. 2010, 2011). In response to the decline resource management, and to consider the in the USLR-LO watersheds, some conserva- cumulative effects on the environment (ECO tion actions recently have been implemented 2010) (e.g., Ontario closed all commercial and sport fishing for eels in 2004), more conservation Looking Back, Looking actions are underway (Ontario Power Gen- eration and Quebec Hydro each have five- Forward: Addressing year action plans aimed at offsetting effects Cumulative Effects on Eels of mortalities in the short term: OMNR 2008; MNRF 2009), recovery planning under On- Looking back over the past century, tario’s ESA is in the final stages (MacGregor American Eel in Ontario have been impacted et al. 2010, 2011). Agencies now are working substantially by cumulative effects through- closely with Indigenous peoples and stake- out this period (MacGregor et al. 2009). holders to develop and implement strategic Some of these effects are mortality and lost actions for regional and national recovery or compromised habitat. Other effects in- of the species (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009, clude a widespread lack of data, policy gaps, 2010, 2011; CSAS 2011; Chaput and Cairns and changing perceptions/attitudes. More 2011; Fenske et al. 2011). specifically, theses effects consist of shift- Looking forward, however, with the re- ing baselines (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009), cent push for more sources of renewable inconsistent and ineffective governance energy in jurisdictions like Ontario, the pres- (MacGregor et al. 2008), lost production sures to build more hydro-electric facilities (especially of females), anthropogenic mor- are mounting rapidly (often on the same wa- talities due to turbines and fishing, selective tersheds where existing facilities still need substantial mortality on large, old females, mitigation). For instance, with the recent and changing environmental conditions, all push for more sources of renewable energy 174 MacGregor et al. in the province of Ontario, at least 15 new forage species in Lake Ontario) need further hydro-electric facilities currently are pro- consideration in the species’ recovery in Lake posed within the historical range of Ameri- Ontario. Thiaminase appears to have played a can Eel, and more proposals are likely (Mac- role in inhibiting recovery of other fish spe- Gregor et al. 2010, 2011). While few if any of cies in Lake Ontario (Honeyfield et al. 2012); these facilities appear to be in the main stem however, it is unlikely to prevent recovery in rivers, and are relatively small in comparison waters where alewife are not dominant, as is to Saunders G. S. and those on the main stem the case in most interior waters of Ontario, of the Ottawa River, turbines on smaller fa- within the historical range eels, but excluding cilities tend to be spin faster and impart high- Lake Ontario (e.g., Ottawa River). Moreover, er mortality rates, and they can further con- there is little evidence that recovery of other tribute to the cumulative impacts on eels in a fish species such as Lake Sturgeon is being watershed. To put balance into the approvals impeded by contaminant stress in the Ottawa process, the Environmental Commissioner of River (Haxton and Findlay 2008). Ontario openly has expressed the expectation Clearly, those involved in fisheries man- that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment agement and environmental impact assess- will give full and due consideration to cumu- ment need direction to take a much broader, lative effects when rendering decisions on re- ecosystem approach during the allocations newable energy projects (ECO 2010). and approvals process, considering the full The circumstances of American Eel in life cycle of the species in question, eco- the USLR-LO and associated watersheds is a system effects, and the potential for impacts strong illustration of regional cumulative ef- well beyond the boundaries/mandates of the fects having much broader impact at the spe- particular program or jurisdiction. Localized cies level (Verreault and Dumont 2003; de site-by-site evaluations of project propos- Lafontaine 2009a, 2009b; MacGregor et al. als are not appropriate, and management of 2009, 2010, 2011). Together with shifts in the regional fisheries needs to consider broader environment, regional cumulative effects of habitat, ecosystem and species-level impacts lost production due to barriers and mortalities across jurisdictions. due to fishing and turbines act synergistically As the recent Divisional Court ruling in to impact species at local, regional and bina- Ontario (Lafarge Decision) seems to require tional/global scales (Figure 7). There are like- the province to take an ecosystem approach ly other, less substantiated factors involved and consider cumulative effects in permitting as well. For instance, contaminants such as and other approvals processes (Ecojustice PCBs are thought to have once had an effect 2008; Ontario Superior Court 2008), appro- on eel recruitment in Lake Ontario (Caston- priate changes to approvals processes that guay et al. 1994; Byer et al. 2009, 2010) and effectively address cumulative effects seem PCBs in eels may have been directly linked timely. Such long overdue processes would to PCB contamination in Beluga whales that be consistent with Canada’s (Environment consume migrating adult eels (Hickie et. al Canada 1995) and Ontario’s Biodiversity 2000). However, since 1982 PCBs and mi- Strategies (Ontario Government 2005) and rex have declined by 58% and 63% respec- would demonstrate that Canada and Ontario tively (Hodson et al. 2011) and levels are are serious about the intent of their species at below threshold now (Byer et al. 2009). In risk legislation (Canada 2002; Ontario Gov- addition, the role of ecosystem change (Mills ernment 2007). Clearly, species at risk legis- et al. 2003) and high levels of thiaminase in lation cannot do the job of protecting and re- Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus (a principal storing species on its own, if other conflicting Cumulative Effects on American Eel 175 policies and processes remain. Species at risk The circumstances of American Eel il- legislation needs to be supported by other ap- lustrate some consequences of failing to ad- provals processes and policies. equately consider and address cumulative The recent push for more renewable en- effects. Sufficient measures must be in place ergy (e.g., recent implementation of Ontar- this time to ensure mitigation of the collateral io’s Green Energy Act, Ontario Government ecological effects, with full consideration of 2009b) has encouraged and led to many more the cumulative effects of existing and project- proposals for new and upgraded hydro-elec- ed additional installations (Greig et al. 2006). tric facilities in Ontario’s watersheds. As in Recent corrective management efforts need the past, when previous waterpower facilities to persist and be strengthened along the con- were installed, there is once again a rush to tinuum to ensure ecological and biodiversity move the approvals along quickly, and calls issues are addressed and incorporated with for cumulative effects assessment appear to power production. Existing impacts will need be unwelcome by some attempting to en- to be corrected and new ones effectively miti- courage such investments. We can very well gated if the province of Ontario is steadfast in imagine the conflicting situation that govern- its commitment to biodiversity and species at ment staff are faced with when attempting to risk. Ontario can ill-afford to continue simply implement Ontario’s new Endangered Spe- trading-off ecological and biodiversity ben- cies Act and Biodiversity Strategy, while at efits for power production, with no attempt to the same time experiencing pressure and a mitigate. It is not a trade-off that is required, sense of urgency in implementing the Green but rather implementation of truly environ- Energy Act and associated policies. mentally sustainable hydro-power. Given the long-term impacts of water- Some might argue that EIA assesses so- power facilities, it is worth taking the time to cioeconomic factors as well as environmen- develop and implement effective mitigation; tal and somehow tips the balance; however, as we are still living with the cumulative re- the approaches used in making these trade- percussions from existing facilities some 100 off determinations are rarely transparent. years later. Duinker (1994) and Duinker and As we have shown, these are decisions that Greig (2006) concluded that cumulative ef- can have long-lasting impacts, their effects fects assessment is merely EIA done right; accumulating over more than a century. If that most VECs are integrators, and therefore trade-offs of such major consequence are to that environmental assessments should also be considered, the trade-off options need to be integrative. Duinker (1994) further con- be transparently and honestly communicated cluded: for broad internal and external consultation. But simple trade-offs of VECs for other val- “CEA presents a great opportunity to re- ues should not often be necessary, and should balance EIA with a healthy dose of ana- certainly never occur without first establish- lytical work, rather than get caught up in ing effective mitigation procedures. Holistic the procedural and bureaucratic trappings approaches need to be adopted to maintain of EIA processes. To be successful, EIA and/or restore all benefits on a sustainable certainly needs a workable integration of basis; trading one benefit entirely for another science and politics (Lee 1993), but poli- is rarely necessary, overly simplistic and in- tics without proper science is what char- appropriate. Such decisions will need to pay acterizes much EIA today, and we are not closer attention to, and respect the Ginaway- learning much about how developments daganuk principle. The Environmental Com- really affect environments.” missioner of Ontario has set the expectation 176 MacGregor et al. clearly, saying that the true measure of suc- It is very important to understand that cess is not whether a recovery strategy has approvals of projects such as hydro-electric been developed or the government has said facilities are critical decisions that can lead what actions it will take, but rather, whether a to more than a century of significant damage species is on the right path to being de-listed to native biodiversity, accumulating across a (ECO 2010). broad geographic range if approved without Like the unprecedented reductions in determining and implementing appropriate Atlantic Cod, American Eel in Ontario face mitigation. The aggregated investments in, a similarly uncertain future. Reductions of and annual revenues derived from hydro- these magnitudes represent uncharted ter- electric projects have been massive over the ritory for scientists and, as Hutchings and past century, and will continue into the fore- Reynolds (2004) warned: “failure to take the seeable future. The benefits of waterpower conservation biology of marine fishes seri- are clear, but waterpower and aquatic species ously will ensure that other depleted species are not necessarily mutually exclusive with remain ecological and numerical shadows in the right investments in mitigation. However, the ecosystems where they once dominated”. the effects of waterpower can be devastating if not developed by considering and ad- Summary dressing the full range of long-term impacts (MacGregor and Greig 2012). A new wave The decline of American Eel should serve of these facilities seems to be on the way as as an example of what can happen when Re- governments seek more sources of renewable gional Environmental Assessments or Re- energy. This is a noble goal; but at the same gional Environmental Effects Frameworks are time, the quest for renewable energy must not established or considered. Nevertheless, not eliminate key biodiversity and ecosys- the cumulative effects on American Eel can tem functions and values. Waterpower is not be reversed by developing strategic recovery the only renewable resource involved; other and mitigation plans with focused, coordinat- highly valuable, renewable resources, includ- ed implementation across regional and water- ing fisheries can be severely impacted as a re- shed scales by all jurisdictions involved. No- sult of the effects of waterpower, especially if where will this be more important than in the the effects are not mitigated. The commercial USLR-LO and associated watersheds such as and sport fisheries of Ontario contribute some the Ottawa River. Because of the panmictic, 2.75 billion dollars annually to Ontario (DFO highly migratory nature of the American Eel, 2012), so they are worth protecting. Mitiga- recovery objectives and approaches should tion of effects on such valuable resources is be coordinated across jurisdictions. How- both necessary and feasible for existing and ever, because of the high reproductive value new facilities; it makes good economic sense of the phenotype native to Ontario, Quebec, to maximize the benefits from all valued re- and New York, effective conservation actions sources, rather than simply trading one ben- by a single jurisdiction in these waters can at efit off for another. least in part restore the ecological, cultural, The needs for mitigation are most effi- natural heritage and economic values at local, ciently and effectively addressed early in the regional, national, and international scales project design and approvals processes to en- (Figure 7). We recommend acting locally, and sure that appropriate operational and structur- globally to effectively manage this and other al requirements are considered and addressed diadromous species. at the project planning stage. Thus, more pro- active and comprehensive analyses of cumu- Cumulative Effects on American Eel 177 lative and individual effects are required early River, the accumulated effects can be on go- in the approvals process to ensure effective ing and severe. Governments need to be vig- mitigation. Governments now have the oppor- ilant and aware of unfortunate surprises that tunity to learn from past mistakes and make may arise, particularly from exponential or better informed decisions about the cumula- discontinuous cumulative effects1 (Sonntag tive effects of dams, fisheries and hydro-elec- et al. 1987). In the case of American Eel, we tric facilities. We certainly encourage them to may already be experiencing these effects; it act wisely to protect and enhance biodiversity certainly merits further consideration. by conserving and restoring iconic fish spe- Development effects may seem minor cies such as the American Eel, Lake Sturgeon in isolation, but as we have shown, cumu- Acipenser fulvescens, Atlantic Salmon Salmo latively they can amount to significant, per- salar and other migratory fishes, while ensur- haps irreversible damage to biodiversity and ing sustainable energy production for their species at risk. It is indeed interesting that citizens. This will mean ensuring ecological the COP10 biodiversity conference in Japan sustainability of activities; not simple trade- recently reached agreement on a new pro- offs of valued ecosystem components (VECs) tocol, which includes strategic plans to re- for other values. duce biodiversity loss by 2020, and adopted The circumstances of American Eel a decision to declare 2011–2020 as the U.N. might be summed up as one of those partic- Decade of Biodiversity (Japan Times 2010). ularly wicked problems (Jentoft and Chuen- Significant effort will be required and will pagdee 2009) largely arising from past gaps involve effectively addressing cumulative in governance, policy and procedure. How- effects at regional scales. Cumulative effects ever, things are changing; more and more such as those we have noted are growing rap- emphasis is being placed on the protection idly at global scales, with mounting implica- and restoration of biodiversity. The recent tions for global biodiversity and ecosystem promulgation of Ontario’s new Biodiversity sustainability. The following excerpt from Strategy (Ontario Government 2005) and American Fisheries Society Policy #5 recog- Species at Risk Act (ESA 2007) are impor- nizes the global scale of cumulative effects tant examples germane to this paper. More- on fisheries: over, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario issued a statement calling for the World-wide declines in fish abundance Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to have been documented for species which be a champion for Ontario’s biodiversity, have been historically of major economic and to insist that it must have all the nec- and social significance. Time trends re- essary legal and policy tools as well as the internal capacity, expertise and clout (ECO 1 Exponential or Amplifying Effects—Incremental 2010). The message is clear: appropriate additions are made to an apparently limitless storage choices and long-term commitments need (e.g., global atmosphere). Unlike the previous category, each addition has a larger effect than the one to be made to ensure effective mitigation preceding it so that the effect gradually becomes more of cumulative effects. Simple trade-offs of detectable. VECs are no longer appropriate if broader Discontinuous Effects—In the case of biodiversity, ecological, cultural, and soci- discontinuous effects, incremental additions have etal benefits are to be protected while at the no obvious consequences until a threshold (in static representations or a stability boundary (in dynamic same enjoying the benefits derived from wa- representations) is crossed; then variables begin to terpower—as we have shown in the case of change rapidly and/or move into a distinctly different eels in the Ottawa River and St. Lawrence regime of behavior 178 MacGregor et al. sulting from multiple effects on salmon ery and rebuilding frameworks available in populations have resulted in declines the federal Species at Risk Act (Hutchings over much of the globe. Pollution and and Rangeley 2011). Thus, by the time the physical side effects, such as mineral ex- species is listed and protected under the leg- traction and power plants, can have an islation (if ever) the ability for a species to overall negative effect on fisheries pro- recover from its severely depleted state can ductivity. Such effects are of internation- be significantly diminished and represent a al concern. (AFS 2011). poorly understood set of circumstances for fisheries scientists (Hutchings and Reynolds Development and implementation of 2004). Instead, we strongly urge that exist- strong cumulative effects analyses should be ing tools be effectively used in a timely fash- priorities for all jurisdictions. Such analysis ion (including the precautionary principle) to is especially useful when restoring or con- prevent the species from declining to species serving biodiversity is a priority and man- at risk status in the first place. Recognizing date. While there is nothing preventing their the difficulties at times, we agree with Hutch- consideration, past experiences demonstrate ings and Reynolds (2004): long-term conser- that cumulative effects will be poorly han- vation benefits to fish and fisheries need to be dled, if considered at all, unless cumulative placed ahead of short-term political expedi- effects analyses are clearly and strongly em- ency. bedded as requirements in all approvals processes. Those processes should be developed Recommendations without contravening processes that allow exceptions. This may seem onerous, but the 1. Develop and incorporate a strong types of impacts we are attempting to avoid cumulative effects assessment process are particularly devastating to species and into all approvals processes. The assess- biodiversity in general. ment should consider existing and poten- Finally, while Endangered Species leg- tial cumulative effects on a scope consis- islation can be effective, we hope that envi- tent with the needs of the species. ronmental and fisheries agencies do not wait until a species is listed before taking effec- 2. Set watershed level escapement targets; tive conservation actions when needed. First, develop watershed based implementa- a species must be demonstrated to be at risk tion plans to achieve targets. of extinction before it can be listed; a difficult process, often confounded by scientific 3. Mortality rate reference points should be debate and charged with intense push back developed to assess in the long term the that can take years. For example, COSE- sustainable level of mortality, and in the WIC first recommended that American Eel short term the levels of mortality must in Canada be listed federally as a species of not preclude the rebuilding objective of Special Concern in 2006 , and 5 years later American Eel abundance over its range (May 2012) upgraded its recommended des- (Chaput and Cairns 2011; CSAS 2011; ignation to Threatened (COSEWIC 2006, Fenske et al. 2011). 2012), yet as of September 2012, no decision has been made by the federal government to 4. Involve Indigenous peoples and formally list the species. In fact, the federal accommodate their perspectives and government in Canada has yet to afford ma- traditional ecological knowledge in re- rine fishes of commercial interest the recov- Cumulative Effects on American Eel 179 source planning, and in the environmen- Acknowledgments tal assessment and monitoring process. We thank Patrice LeBlanc, Department 5. Take a strong ecosystem approach in all of Fisheries and Oceans, for his invitation EIAs. and support to participate in the IAIA Sym- posium. We also thank the Great Lakes Fish- 6. Develop Regional Environmental Effects ery Commission for financially supporting Frameworks; for highly migratory or the costs of color printing in this manuscript. panmictic species; incorporate inter-pro- The views in this manuscript are those of the vincial and binational status into cumula- authors and do not necessarily reflect official tive effects assessments. position of the associated agencies or orga- nizations. 7. Provide clear policy direction on implementation of legislation regarding References fish passage and other habitat issues. Adams, C. C., and T. L. Hankinson. 1928. The 8. Provide clear direction to staff engaged ecology and economics of Oneida Lake fish. in EIAs, ensuring they understand they Roosevelt Wildlife Annals 1:1–548. have strong support to implement legis- Allen, W. A. 2008. American eel: driving a shift lation and EIAs in accordance with an in power. Presentation at the A. D. Lattor- ecosystem approach, biodiversity strat- nell Conservation Sympoium. November egies, species at risk legislation, and to 20, 2008. Nottatwasaga Inn, Alliston, On- consider cumulative effects. tario. Available: http://www.docstoc.com/ docs/32725280/The-American-eel-Driving- a-Shift-in-Power (October 2012). 9. Agencies should ensure effective Allen, W. A. 2010. Archaeology to the rescue of integration and coordination of direction species at risk, Arch Notes 15(6): 5–14, No- to staff among program areas, and direc- vember-December 2010, Ontario Archaeo- tion should be consistent across jurisdic- logical Society, Toronto. tions in Ontario. Effective cross-program AFS (American Fisheries Society). 2011. AFS EIAs and cumulative effects assessment Policy Statement #5: Cumulative Effects of must be enabled. For instance, direction Small Modifications to Habitat. Available: to staff occupied with renewable energy http://fisheries.org/docs/policy_statements/ projects, waterpower and EIA policy and policy_5f.pdf (September 2012). procedure should be clearly integrated ASFMC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Com- with direction to staff charged with pro- mission). 2012. ASMFC Stock Assessment tection and recovery of biodiversity, spe- Overview: American Eel. Available: http:// www.asmfc.org/speciesDocuments/eel/an- cies at risk, and ecosystem sustainability nualreports/stockAssmts/AmericanEelStock- of activities. AssessmentOverview_May2012.pdf (Octo- ber 2012). 10. Continue pollution abatement programs Behrmann-Godel, J., and Eckmann, R. A. 2002. and efforts to restore native forage in A preliminary telemetry study of the migra- Lake Ontario. tion of silver European eel (Anquilla anguilla L.) in the River Model, Germany. Ecology of Ginawaydaganuk: everything is connected. 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 preda- in Lake Ontario American Eel: a likely cause tion on migrating adult American Eels in for their decline? Organohalogen Com- the Gulf of At. Lawrence. PLoS ONE 7(10): pounds 72:1213–1216. e46830. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046830. Brown, L., A. Haro and T. Castro-Santos. 2009. Available: http://www.plosone.org/article/ Three-dimensional movement of silver- info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0046830 (Oc- phase American Eels in the forebay of a small tober 2012). hydroelectric facility. Pages 277–291 in J. M. Berkeley, S. A., C. Chapman, and S. M. Sog- Casselman and D. K. Cairns, editors. Eels at ard. 2004a. Maternal age as a determinant the edge: science, status, and conservation of larval growth and survival in a marine concerns. American Fisheries Society, Sym- fish, Sebastes melanops. Ecology 85:1258– posium 58, Bethesda, Maryland 1264. Busch, W. D. N., S. J. Lary, C. M. Castilione, Berkeley, S. A., M. A. Hixon, R. J. Larson, and and R. P. McDonald. 1998. Distribution and M. S. Love. 2004b. Fisheries sustainability availability of Atlantic coast freshwater habi- via protection of age structure and spatial tats for American Eel (Anguilla rostrata). distribution of fish populations. Fisheries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Administra- 29:23–32. tive Report 98–2, Amherst, New York. Bernatchez, L., C. Cote, and M. Castonguay. Canada. 2002. Species at Risk Act. Available: 2011. Genetic structure of the American Eel http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/S/S- with emphasis on the St. Lawrence River ba- 15.3.pdf (August 2012). sin. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Canada. 2012. Parliament of Canada: Bill C-38. Arbor, Michigan. Available: http://www.glfc. Available: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePub- org/research/reports/Bernatchez_2011.htm lications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5524772 (September 2012). (October 2012). Bonhommeau, S., E. Chassot, B. Planque, E. Riv- Caron, F., G. Verreault and E. Richard. 2003. Es- ot, A.H. Knap, and O. Le Pape. 2008. Impact timation of the population size, exploitation of climate change on eel populations of the rate and escapement of silver-phase Ameri- Northern Hemisphere. Marine Ecology Prog- can Eels in the St. Lawrence watershed. Pag- ress Series 373:71–80. es 235–242 in D. A. Dixon, editor. Biology, Boubee, J. A., Mitchell, C. P., Chisnall, B. L., management, and protection of catadromous West, D. W., Bowman, E. J., and Haro, A. eels. American Fisheries Society, Sympo- 2001. Factors regulating the downstream mi- sium 33, Bethesda, Maryland. gration of mature eels (Anguilla spp.) at Ani- Casselman, J. M. 2003. Dynamics of resources of whenua Dam, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. the American Eel, Anguilla rostrata: declin- New Zealand Journal of Marine and Fresh- ing abundance in the 1990s. Pages 255–274 water Research 35:121–134. in K. Aida, K. Ksukamoto, and K. Yamauchi, Byer, J. D., Alaee, M., Brown, R. S., Backus, S., editors. Eel biology. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo. Keir, M., Pacepavicius, G., Lebeuf, M., Cas- Casselman, J. M., L. A. Marcogliese, T. Stewart, selman, J., Kennedy, S., Hodson, P. V. 2009. and P. V. Hodson. 1997. Status of the upper Dioxin concentrations in American Eel (An- St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario Ameri- guilla rostrata) captured in Eastern Canada. can Eel stock—1996. Pages 106–120 in R. Organohalogen Compounds 71, 352–356 H. Peterson, editor. The American eel in east- (Proceedings, Dioxin 2009, 29th Internation- ern Canada: stock status and management al Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Or- strategies. Proceedings of the Eel Workshop, ganic Pollutants. Beijing, China, Aug 23–28, January 13–14, 1997, Quebec City, Quebec. 2009). Canadian Technical Reports of Fisheries and Byer, J. D., M. Alaee, R.S. Brown, M. Lebeuf, Aquatic Sciences, No. 2196. S. Backus, M. Keir, J. Casselman, and P. V. Casselman, J. M., and L. A. Marcogliese. 2010. Hodson. 2010. Dioxin related contaminants Abundance and distribution of American Cumulative Effects on American Eel 181 Eels (Anguilla rostrata) and other fish in the gc.ca/rpts/sct7_3_19_e.pdf (October 2012). lower Mississippi and Ottawa Rivers, 2009, COSEWIC. 2012b. American Eel. Avail- as determined by quantitative electrofishing. able : http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/ Conducted for Ontario Species at Risk Stew- searchdetail_e.cfm?id=891&StartRow=1&b ardship Fund. February 2010. oxStatus=All&boxTaxonomic =All&locatio Castonguay, M., P. V. Hodson, C. M. Couillard, n=All&change=All&board=All&commonN M. J. Eckersley, J. D. Dutil, and G. Verreault. ame=american%20eel&scienceName=&retu 1994. Why is recruitment of the American rnFlag=0&Page=1 (October 2012). Eel, Anguilla rostrata, declining in the St Coutant, C. C. and Whitney, R. R. 2000. Fish be- Lawrence River and Gulf? Canadian Journal havior in relation to passage through hydro- of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:479– power turbines: a review. Transactions of the 488. American Fisheries Society 129:351–380. CEWG (Canadian Eel Working Group). 2009. CSAS (Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat). American Eel Management Plan, Draft: Feb- 2011. Status Of American Eel and Progress ruary 26, 2009. Fisheries and Oceans Cana- on Achieving Management Goals; Canadian da, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Science Advisory SecretariatScience Advi- and Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de sory Report 2010/062; Fisheries and Oceans la Faune du Québec. Canada, National Capital Region. Available: Chaput, G., and D. Cairns. 2011. Mortality ref- http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/CSAS/Csas/pub- erence points for the American Eel and an lications/sar-as/2010/2010_062_e.pdf (Sep- application for evaluating cumulative im- tember 2012). pacts of anthropogenic activities. Cana- Daverat, F., K. E. Limburg, I. Thibault, J. C. dain Science Advisoy Secretariat, Research Shiao, J. J. Dodson, F. Caron, W. N. Tzeng, Y. Document 2011/053. Fisheries and Oceans Iizuka, and H. Wickström. 2006. Phenotypic Canada. Available: http://www.dfo-mpo. plasticity of habitat use by three temperate gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs- eel species, Anguilla anguilla, A. japonica DocRech/2011/2011_053-eng.html (August and A. rostrata. Marine Ecology Progress 2012). Series 308:231–241. Christie, W. J., and H. A. Regier. 1973. Tempera- Dekker, W., J. M. Casselman, D. K. Cairns, K. ture as a major factor influences reproductive Tsukamoto, D. Jellyman, H. Lickers. 2003. success of fish—two examples. Rapports et Worldwide decline of eel resources necessi- process-verbaux des reunions/Conseil per- tates immediate action: Québec declaration manent international pour l’exploration de la of concern. Fisheries 28(12):28–30. mer 164:208–218. Dekker, W. 2008. Coming to grips with the eel Collares-Pereira, M. J., and I. G. Cowx. 2004. stock slip-sliding away. Pages 3330–355 in The role of catchment scale environmental M. G. Schechter, W. W. Taylor, and N. J. management in freshwater fish conservation. Leonard editors. International governance of Fisheries Management and Ecology 11:303– fisheries ecosystems: learning from the past, 312. finding solutions for the future. American COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. status report on the American Eel Anguilla de Lafontaine, Y., P. Gagnon, and B. Côté. 2009a. rostrata in Canada. Committee on the Status Abundance and individual size of American of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. Eel (Anguilla rostrata) in the St. Lawrence x + 71 pp. Available: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc. River over the past four decades. Hydrobio- gc.ca/Collection/CW69-14-458-2006E.pdf logia 647:185–198. (October 2012). de Lafontaine, Y., M. Lagace´, F. Gingras, D. La- COSEWIC. 2012a. Habitat matters for Canadian bonte´, F. Marchand & E. Lacroix, 2009b. wildlife species. COSEWIC Press Release, Decline of the American Eel in the St. Law- May 2012. Available : http://www.cosewic. rence River: effects of local hydroclimatic 182 MacGregor et al. conditions on CPUE indices. Pages 207–228 lease-files/lafarge.decision.2008.06.18.pdf/ in J. M. Casselman and D. K. Cairns, editors, view (August 2012). Eels at the Edge: Science, Status, and Con- Environment Canada. 1995. Canadian biodi- servation Concerns. American Fisheries So- versity strategy: Canada`s response to the ciety, Symposium 58, Bethesda, Maryland. convention on biological diversity 1995. Denny, S., A. Denny, and P. Tyson. 2012. Kataq. Minister of Supply and Services Canada Mi’kmaq ecological knowledge: Bras d’Or 1995. Available: http://www.biodivcanada. lakes eels. Unama’ki Institute of Natural Re- ca/560ED58E-0A7A-43D8–8754-C7D- sources, Eskasoni, Nova Scotia. D12761EFA/CBS_e.pdf (August 2012). Desrochers, D. 1995. Suivi de la migration de Environmental Commissioner Ontario (ECO). l’anguille d’Amerique (Anguilla rostrata) au 2010. Redefining Conservation, Annual Re- complexe Beauharnois, 1994. Rapport pre- port 2009/2010. Toronto. Available: http:// pare par Milieu & Associes inc. Pour la vice- www.eco.on.ca/eng/ (August 2012). presidence Environnement, Hydro-Québec, EU (European Union). 2007. Council Regula- Montréal, Québec. tion (EC) No. 1100/2007 of 18 September DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Can- 2007 establishing measures for the recov- ada). 2012. Survey of recreational fishing in ery of the stock of European Eel. Official Canada: 2010. Economic Analysis and Sta- Journal of the European Union, 22.9.2007, tistics, Strategic Policy, Resource Manage- L 248/17. Available: http://eur-lex.europa. ment, Ecosystems and Fisheries Manage- eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/l_248/ ment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Ottawa, l_24820070922en00170023.pdf (August Ontario K1A 0E6 ©Her Majesty the Queen 2012). in Right of Canada, 2012. ISBN 978–1-100– Fenske, K., M. J. Wilberg, D. H. Secor and M. 54196-9. Available: http://www.dfo-mpo. C. Fabrizio. 2011. An age- and sex-struc- gc.ca/stats/rec/can/2010/RECFISH2010_ tured assessment model for Amercian Eels ENG.pdf (Octorber 2012). (Anguilla rostrata) in the Potomac River, DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Can- Maryland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and ada). 2012. Recovery Strategy for the beluga Aquatic Sciences 68:1024–1037. whale (Delphinapterus leucas) St. Lawrence Field, J, C. L. Moloney, L. du Buisson, A. Jarre, estuary population in Canada. Species at T. Stroemme, M. R. Lipinski andP. Kainge. Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisher- 2008. Exploring the BOFFFF hypothesis us- ies and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. Available: ing a model of Southern African deepwater http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/ hake (Merluccius paradoxus). Pages 17–26 in files/plans/rs_st_laur_beluga_0312_e.pdf K. Tsukamoto, T. Kawamura, T. Takeuchi, T. (October 2012). D. Beard, Jr. and M. J. Kaiser, editors. Fisher- Duinker, P. N. 1994. Cumulative Effects Assess- ies for Global Welfare and Environment, 5th ment: what’s the big deal? Pages 11–24 in A. World Fisheries Congress 2008. Kennedy, editor. Cumulative effects assess- Friedland, K. D., M. J. Miller, and B. Knights. 2007. ment in Canada: from concept to practice. Oceanic changes in the Sargasso Sea and de- Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, clines in recruitment of the European eel. ICES Alberta, Canada. Journal of Marine Science 64:519–530. Duinker, P. N., and L. A. Greig. 2006. The im- FCRPS (Federal Columbia River Power System) potence of cumulative effects assessment 2008. Federal Columbia River Power System in Canada: ailments and ideas for rede- biological opinion; NOAA Executive Sum- ployment. In Environmental Management mary. Available: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ 37:(2)153–161. Springer Science. Salmon-Hydropower/Columbia-Snake-Ba- Ecojustice. 2008. Lafarge decision from the On- sin/upload/Final-ExSum.pdf (August 2012). tario Divisional Court. Available: http:// GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 2002. www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/media-re- Position statement on American eel. Avail- Cumulative Effects on American Eel 183 able: www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/eelposition. gy of the American Eel. Pages 42–56 in M. J. htm (August 2012). Dadswell, R. L. Klauda, C. M. Moffitt, R. L. Gosset, C., Travade, F., Durif, C., Rives, J., and Saunders, R. A. Rulifson, and J. E. Cooper, Elie, P. 2005. Test of two types of bypass for editors. Common strategies of anadromous downstream migration of eels at a small hy- and catadromous fishes. American Fisheries droelectric plant. River Research and Appli- Society, Symposium 1, Bethesda, Maryland. cations 21:1095–1105. Hickie, B. E., M. C. S. Kingsley, P. V. Hodson, D. Greig, L. 2008. Refocusing Cumulative Effects C.G. Muir, P. Béland, and D. Mackay. 2000. Analyses. Presentation at the IAIA conference A modelling-based perspective on the past, on cumulative effects. Available: http://www. present, and future polychlorinated biphenyl iaia.org/iaia08calgary/documents/Greig_Re- contamination of the St. Lawrence beluga focusing%20CEA.pdf (August 2012). whale (Delphinapterus leucas) population. Greig, L., I. J. Parnell, and D. R. Marmorek. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 2006. Developing an action plan for Ameri- Sciences 57(Suppl. 1):101–112. can Eels in the St. Lawrence River—Lake Hitt, N. P., S. Eyler and John E. B. Wofford. 2012. Ontario Region: Decision analysis. Prepared Dam removal increases American Eel abun- by ESSA Technologies Ltd., Richmond Hill, dance in distant headwater streams, Transac- Ontario, for Hydro-Québec, Fisheries and tions of the American Fisheries Society, 141:5, Oceans Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natu- 1171–1179. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.10 ral Resources, Ontario Power Generation, 80/00028487.2012.675918 (October 2012). and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, on be- Hoag, H. 2007. A slippery slope. The Globe and half of the Passage and Associated Habitat Mail, March 31:2007. Subcommittee of the Canadian Eel Working Henke, J. 1993. Tales of Oneida Lake. North Group. County Books, Utica, New York. Haro, A. J., W. Richkus, K. Whalen, A. Hoar, W. Hodson, P. V., M. Castonguay, C. M. Couillard, D. Busch, S. Lary, T. Bush, and D. Dixon. C. Desjardins, E. Pelletier, and R. McLeod. 2000. Population decline of the American 1994. Spatial and temporal variations in Eel: implications for research and manage- chemical contamination of American Eels ment. Fisheries 25(9):7–16. (Anguilla rostrata) captured in the estuary of Hatch, R. W., S. J. Nepszy, K. M. Muth and C. the St. Lawrence River. Canadian Journal of T. Baker. 1987 Dynamics of the recovery of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:464-478. the western Lake Erie Walleye (Stizostedion Hodson, P. V., M. Castonguay, C. M. Couillard, vitreum vitreum) stock. Canadian Journal of C. Desjardins, E. Pelletier, and R. McLeod. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44(Supple- 2011. Spatial and temporal variations in ment 2):15–22. chemical contamination of American Eels, Haxton, T. and D. Chubbuck. 2002. Review of Anguilla rostrata, captured in the estuary of the historical and existing natural environ- the St, Lawrence River. Canadian Journal of ment and resource uses on the Ottawa River. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51(2):464- Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sci- 478. ence and Information Branch, Southcentral Honeyfield, D. C., M. E. Daniels, L.R. Brown, Science and Information Section Technical M.T. Arts, M.G. Walsh, and S. B. Brown. Report #119, North Bay, Ontario. 2012. Survey of four essential nutrients and Haxton, T., and C. S. Findlay. 2008. Variation in thiaminase activity in five Lake Ontario prey Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) abun- fish species. Journal of Great Lakes Research dance and growth among river reaches in a 38(1):11–17. large regulated river. Canadian Journal of Fish- Hutchings, J. A., and J. D. Reynolds. 2004. Ma- eries and Aquatic Sciences 65(4):645–657. rine fish population collapses: Consequences Helfman, G. S., D. E. Facey, L. S. Hales, Jr., and for recovery and extinction risk. Bioscience: E. L Bozeman, Jr. 1987. Reproductive ecolo- 54(4):297–309. 184 MacGregor et al. Hutchings, J. A., and R. W. Rangeley. 2011.2011. Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Correlates of recovery for Canadian Atlantic Series 226:45–61. Cod (Gadus morhua). Canadian Journal of Loftus, K. H., editor. 1982. Proceedings of the Zoology 89:386–400. 1980 North American Eel Conference. On- Kolenosky, D. P. 1976. Eel mortality resulting tario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fisher- from Robert H. Saunders St. Lawrence Gen- ies Branch, Ontario Fish Technical Series No. erating Station. Lake Ontario Fisheries As- 4, Toronto. sessment Unit. Technical Report. Richmond MacGregor, R. B., A. Mathers, P. Thompson, J. Hill, Ontario, Canada. M. Casselman, J. M. Dettmers, S. LaPan, T. Jansen, H. M., Winter, H. V., Bruijs, M. C. M., C. Pratt and W.A. Allen. 2008. Declines of and Polman, H. J. 2007. Just go with the American Eel in North America: Complexi- flow? Route selection and mortality during ties associated with bi-national management. downstream migration of silver eels in rela- Pages 357–381 in M. G. Schechter, W. W. tion to river discharge. ICES Journal of Ma- Taylor, and N. J. Leonard, editors. Interna- rine Science 64:1437–1443. tional governance of fisheries ecosystems: Japan Times. 2010. COP10 signs off on protocol. learning from the past, finding solutions Pact reached on biodiversity, genetic assets. for the future. American Fisheries Society, Available: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi- Bethesda, Maryland. bin/nn20101031a1.html (August 2012). MacGregor, R. B., J. M. Casselman, W. A. Allen, Jentoft, S., and R. Chuenpagdee. 2009. Fisheries T. Haxton, J. M. Dettmers, Alastair Mathers, and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Steve LaPan, Thomas C. Pratt, P. Thompson, Marine Policy 33(2009):553–560. M. Stanfield, L. Marcogliese, J.-D. Dutil. Krueger, W. H., and K. Oliveira. 1999. Evidence 2009. Natural heritage, anthropogenic im- for environmental sex determination in the pacts and bio-political issues related to the American Eel, Anguilla rostrata Environ- status and sustainable management of Amer- mental Biology of Fishes 53:381–389. ican eel: A retrospective analysis and man- Larnier M. 2001. Environmental issues, dams agement perspective at the population level. and fish migration. Dams, fish and fisheries: Pages 713–739 in A. J. Haro, K. L. Smith, R. Opportunities, challenges and conflict reso- A. Rulifson, C. M. Moffitt, R. J. Klauda, M. lution. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 419: J. Dadswell, R. A. Cunjak, J. E. Cooper, K. 45–90. Available: http://oa.imft.fr/2028/1/ L. Beal, and T. S. Avery, editors. 2009. Chal- Larinier_2001_Environnement.pdf (October lenges for diadromous fishes in a dynamic 2012). global environment. American Fisheries So- Lary, S. J., W-D Busch, C. M. Castigione, and ciety, Symposium 69, Bethesda, Maryland. R. MacDonald. 1998. Distribution and MacGregor, R., J. Casselman, L. Greig, W. A. availability of Atlantic coast freshwater Allen, L. McDermott, and T. Haxton. 2010. habitats for American Eel (Anguilla rostra- DRAFT Recovery Strategy for the American ta). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Draft Eel (Anguilla rostrata) in Ontario. Ontario Administrative Report 98–02, Washington, Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for On- D.C. tario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peter- Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: inte- borough, Ontario. grating science and politics for the environ- MacGregor, R., L. Greig, J. M. Dettmers, W. A. ment. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Allen, T. Haxton, J. M. Casselman and L. Lees, D. 2008. Eels on wheels. The Walrus. De- McDermott. 2011. American Eel in Ontario: cember 2008:42–57. Past and Present Abundance, Principles, Ap- Lipcius, R. N., and William, T. 2002. Stockhau- proaches, Biological Feasibility and Impor- sen. 2002. Concurrent decline of the spawn- tance of Recovery; Version5.1. Available: ing stock, recruitment, larval abundance, and http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/America- size of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus in nEelinOntario.pdf (August 2012). Cumulative Effects on American Eel 185 MacGregor, R., and L. Greig. 2012. Effects of Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences dams and waterpower on fish species and On- 60:471–490. tario’s aquatic biodiversity. Presentation at the MNRF (Ministère des Ressources naturelles et National Fish and Wildlife Congress, May 27– de la Faune). 2009. Une nouvelle mesure 31, 2012, Ottawa, Ontario. Available: http:// pour assurer le renouvellement de l’anguille nfwcc.com/presentations/presentations/111_ d’Amerique. Communique de press, le 17 Robert_MacGregor.pdf (October 2012). mars 2009. Cabinet du ministre delegue aux Machut, L. S., K. E. Limburg, R. E. Schmidt, and Ressources naturelles et a la Faune. D. Dittman. 2007. Anthropogenic impacts on Moriarty, C. 1987. Factors influencing recruitment American eel demographics in Hudson River of the Atlantic species of Anguillid Eels. Pages tributaries, New York. Transactions of the 483–491 in M. J. Dadswell, C. M. Moffit, R. American Fisheries Society 136:1699–1713. L. Saunders, R. A. Rulifson, and J. E. Cooper Mandrak, N. E., and E. J. Crossman. 2003. Fishes editors. Common strategies of anadromous of Algonquin Provincial Park, Friends of Al- and catadromous fishes, American Fisheries gonquin Park, Whitney, Ontario. Society Symposium 1, Maryland. McCarthy, T.K., P. Frankiewicz, P. Cullen, M. Musick, J. A. 1999. 1999. Ecology and conser- Blaskowski, W. O’Connor, and D. Doherty. vation of long-lived marine animals. Pages 2008. Long-term effects of hydropower in- 1–10 in J. A. Musick, editor. Life in the slow stallations and associated river regulation lane: ecology and conservation of long-lived on River Shannon populations: mitigation marine animals. American Fisheries Society, and management. Hydrobiolgia 609:109– Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland. 124. Myers, R. A. 1998. When do environment-re- McCleave, J. D. 2001. Simulation of the impacts cruitment correlations work? Reviews in Fish of dams and fishing weirs on reproductive Biology and Fisheries 8:285–305. potential of silver-phase American Eels in New York Times, The. 1880. Catching Canadian the Kennebec River basin, Maine. North eel: the fisheries of the St. Lawrence River. American Journal of Fisheries Management The New York Times, October 18, 1880. 21:592–605. Normandeau Associates Inc. and J. R. Skalski. McCleave, J. D., and E. Edeline. 2009. Diadromy 1998. Draft final report. Estimation of - sur as a conditional strategy: patterns and driv- vival of American Eel after passage through a ers of eel movements in continental habitats. turbine at the St. Lawrence-FDR power proj- 2009. Pages 97–119 in A. J. Haro, K. L. Smith, ect. Prepared for New York Power Authority, R. A. Rulifson, C. M. Moffitt, R. J. Klauda, White Plains, New York M. J. Dadswell, R. Cunjak, J. E. Cooper, K. L. NYPA. 2009. Review of technologies for guiding, Beal, and T. S. Avery editors. Challenges for capturing, holding, transporting, and moni- diadromous fishes in a dynamic global envi- toring outmigrating eels. New York Power ronment. American Fisheries Society, Sympo- Authority, New York. sium 69, Bethesda, Maryland. Oliveira, K., and J. D. McCleave. 2000. Varia- McDermott, L., and P. Wilson. 2010. Ginawayda- tion in population and life history traits of ganuk: Algonquin law on access and benefit the American Eel, Anguilla rostrata, in four sharing. Policy Matters 17:205211. rivers in Maine Environmental Biology of Mills, E. L., J. M. Casselman, R. Dermott, J. Fishes 59:141–151. D. Fitzsimmons, G. Gal, K. T. Holek. J. A. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). Hoyle. O. E. Johannsson, B. F. Lantry, J. C. 2003. A Class Environmental Assessment Makarewicz, E. S. Millard, I. F. Munawar, for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facil- M. Munawar, R. O’Gorman, R. W. Owens, ity Development Projects. 80p. Available: L. G. Rudstram, T. Schaner, and T. J. Stewart. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/ 2003. Lake Ontario: food web dynamics in a groups/lr/@mnr/@lueps/documents/docu- changing ecosystem (1970–2000). Canadian ment/245471.pdf (October 2012). 186 MacGregor et al. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). Canada and Ontario Review Tribunal. Court 2008. Partners Support Action Plan to Bring File No. 451/07. Date 20080618. Back American Eel: Native Species Impor- OWA. 2010. Best Management Practices Guide for tant Part Of Great Lakes Ecosystem. News American eel and Waterpower in Ontario. On- release June 20, 2008. Available: http:// tario Waterpower Association, Peterborough. www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Newsroom/Latest- Palumbi, S. 2004. Why mothers matter. Nature News/246778.html (London) 430 (August 5 2004): 621–622. OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) PFBC (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission). 2009. Statement of Environmental Values; 2007. Migratory fish restoration and passage Ministry of Natural Resources. Available: on the Susquehanna River. Available: http:// http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-Exter- www.fish.state.pa.us/pafish/shad/migratory_ nal/content/sev.jsp?pageName=sevList&sub fish.pdf (August 2012). PageName=10002 (October 2012). Pratt, T. C., and A. Mathers. 2011. 2010 Update on OMNR. 2010. Watershed Management and the status of American Eel (Anguilla rostra- Planning. Available: http://www.mnr.gov. ta) in Ontario. Canadian Science Advisory on.ca/en/Business/Water/2ColumnSubPage/ Secretariat. Research Document 2011/050, STEL02_163404.html (October 2012). Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ontario Government. 2005. Protecting what Central and Arctic Region. 18 p. Available: sustains us: Ontario`s biodiversity strategy. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Csas-sccs/pub- Available: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/std- lications/resdocs-docrech/2011/2011_050- prodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@biodiver- eng.pdf (August 2012). sity/documents/document/mnr_e000066.pdf Prosek, J. 2010. Mystery travellers : eels. Na- (August 2012). tional Geographic September 2010:122–137. Ontario Government. 2007. Endangered Species Available: http://ngm.nationalgeographic. Act 2007. Toronto. http://www.ontla.on.ca/ com/2010/09/eels/prosek-text (August web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID= 2012). 1498&detailPage=bills_detail_the_bill (Au- Prosper, K. 2001. The Mi’Kmaq and Kat (Ameri- gust 2012). can eel). Antigonish: a preliminary report of Ontario Government. 2008. Ontario Regulation research results, phase 1. Social Research for 242/08 made under the Endangered Species Sustainable Fisheries,SSRF Research Report Act. Available: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ #4 in collaboration with thePaq’tnkek Fish html/source/regs/english/2008/elaws_src_ and Wildlife Society, Antigonish, Nova Sco- regs_r08242_e.htm (August 2012). tia. Available: www.stfx.ca/research/SRSF/ Ontario Government. 2009a. Lakes and Riv- researchreports1/FinalReports/Report4.pdf ers Improvement Act. http://www.e-laws. (August 2012). gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_ Prosper, K., and M. J. Paulette. 2002. The statutes_90l03_e.htm (August 2012). Mi’Kmaq relationship with Kat. Fact Sheet Ontario Government. 2009b. Green En- 7. Social Research for Sustainable Fisher- ergy Act. Available: http://www.e-laws. ies in collaboration with the Paq’tnkek Fish gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_ and Wildlife Society, Antigonish, Nova Sco- statutes_09g12_e.htm (August 2012). tia. Available: http://faculty.msvu.ca/srsf/ Ontario Government. 2010. Table of unconsoli- ResearchReports/FactSheets/Factsheet7.pdf dated and urepealed public statutes Avail- (August 2012). able: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/ PRRT (Penobscot River Restoration Trust). 2009. tables/publicstatutes/elaws_t_pu_st_tpbsun- Project details. Available: http://www.penob- rep.htm (August 2012). scotriver.org/ (August 2012). Ontario Superior Court. 2008. Ontario Superior Reading Eagle. 1902. Mysteries about eels: enor- Court of Justice, Divisional Court, Leder- mous numbers in a turbine wheel—sudden man, Swinton and Low JJ. Between Lafarge disappearance. July 19:4. Cumulative Effects on American Eel 187 Richards, A. F. Fogarty, S. Clark, D. Schick, P. France, 1610–1791. 73 Volumes. Burrows Diodati and B. O. Gorman. 1996. Relative Bros., Cleveland, Ohio. influence of reproductive capacity and tem- Tollefson, C. and K. Wipond. 1998. Cumulative perature on recruitment of Pandulus borealis environmental impacts and aboriginal rights. in the Gulf of Maine. ICES CM 1996 K:13. Environmental Impact Assessment Review Sallenave, J. 1994. Giving traditional knowledge 18: 371–390. its rightful place in environmental impact Tremblay, V. 2009. Reproductive strategy of fe- assessment. Northern Perspectives 22(1): male American Eels among five subpopula- 16–19 . Available: http://www.carc.org/pubs/ tions in the St. Lawrence River watershed. v22no1/know.htm Pages 85–102 in J. M. Casselman and D. Schmidt, J. 1922. The breeding places of the K. Cairns editors. Eels at the edge: science, eel. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal status, and conservation concerns. American Society of London B: Biological Sciences Fisheries Society, Symposium 58, Bethesda, 211:179–208. Maryland. Schmidt, R. E, C. M. O’Reilly, and D. Miller. USFWS 2009. Fish Enhancement, Mitigation and 2009. Observations of American Eels us- Research Fund Fact Sheet. Available: http:// ing an upland passage facility and effects of www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/info/cdreports/ passage on the population structure. North FEMRFfactsheet.pdf (August 2012). American Journal of Fisheries Management USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. 29:715–720. The American Eel: Considering endangered Secor, D. H. 2010. Is otolith science tansforma- species act protection. Available: http://www. tive? New views on fish migration. Environ- fws.gov/northeast/newsroom/eels.html (Oc- mental Biology of Fishes 89(3–4):209–220. tober 2012). Smith, C. 2004. Lake Ontario’s eels disappearing. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012b. Toronto Star, Saturday, February 7, 2004. American Eel May Warrant Protection Available: http://www.cameronsmith.ca/con- Under the Endangered Species Act. US- tent/view/441/2. FWS Press Release, September 28, 2012. Sonntag, N. C., R. R. Everitt, L. P. Rattie, and D. Available: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ L. Colnett, C. P. Wolf, J . C . Truett, A. H. J. news/2011/092811.html (October 2012). Dorcey, and C. S. Holling. 1987. Cumulative USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012c. effects assessment: a context for further re- Endangered and threatened wildlife and search and development. Minister of Supply plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list the and Services Canada 1987. American eel as threatened. Federal Register Stanley, D. and G. Pope. 2010. Research into trap 76:189 (29 September 2011):60431–60444. and transport as a potential mitigation using Venturelli, P. A., C. A. Murphy, B. J. Shuter, T. A. traditional fisheries methods, 2009. OPG Ac- Johnston, P. J. Van Coeverden de Grot, P. T. tion Plan for Offsetting Turbine Mortality Boag, J. M. Casselman, R. Montgomerie,M. of American Eel at the R.H. Saunders Gen- D. Wiegland, and W. C. Leggett. 2010. Ma- erating Station (2006–2011) and OMNR/ ternal influences on population dynamics: OPG Saunders ESA Agreement Monitoring evidence from an exploited freshwater fish. Requirements Part D. OPG Hydro Business, Ecology 91(7):2003–2012. Environment Division, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Verreault, G., and P. Dumont. 2003. An estima- Ontario. Final Draft. February 2010. tion of American Eel escapement from the Stevenson, M. G. 1996. Indigenous knowledge in upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario environmental assessment. Arctic 49(3):276– in 1996 and 1997. Pages 243–251 in D. A. 291. Dixon, editor. biology, management, and Thwaites, R. G. 1896–1901. The Jesuit rela- protection of catadromous eels. American tions and allied documents: travels and ex- Fisheries Society, Symposium 33, Bethesda, plorations of the Jesuit missionaries in New Maryland. 188 MacGregor et al. Verreault, G., P. Pettigrew, R. Tardif, and G. Pou- Walters, C., and J. F. Kitchell. 2001. Cultivation/ liot. 2003. The exploitation of the Migrating depensation effects on juvenile survival and Silver American Eel in the St. Lawrence Riv- recruitment: implications for the theory of er Estuary, Québec, Canada. Pages 225–234 fishing. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and in D. A. Dixon editors. Biology, manage- Aquatic Sciences 58:39–50 (2001). ment, and protection of catadromous eels. Wilson, P. 2008. Interconnections: the Sym- American Fisheries Society, Symposium 33, biosis of Human Rights and Environmental Bethesda, Maryland. Protection—An Argument for First Nations Verreault, G., P. Dumont and Y. Mailhot. 2004. Environmental Governance. Thesis submit- Habitat losses and anthropogenic barriers ted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoc- as a cause of population decline for Ameri- toral Studies, University of Ottawa, in par- can Eel (Anguilla rostrata) in the St. Law- tial fulfillment of the requirements for the rence watershed, Canada. International LL.M. degree in Law. Available: http://www. Council for the Exploration of the Sea. CM collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/ Document 2004/S:04, Copenhagen, Den- vol2/002/NR59488.PDF (October 2012). mark. Available: www.ices.dk/products/ Winter, H. V., Jansen, H. M., and Breukelaar, A. CMdocs/2004/S/S0404.pdf (August 2012). W. 2007. Silver eel mortality during down- Ville de Temiscaming. 1996. Temsicaming 1921– stream migration in the River Meuese, from a 1996. Available: http://www.temiscaming. population perspective. ICES Journal of Ma- net/town-hall (August 2012). rine Science 64:1444–1449.