American eel in Ontario - Great Lakes Fishery Commission

American Eel in Ontario: Past and Present Abundance,
Principles, Approaches, Biological Feasibility and
Importance of Recovery. Version 5.1; February 2, 2011
Rob MacGregor, Lorne Greig, John M. Dettmers, William A. Allen, Tim Haxton, John M.
Casselman and Larry McDermott
(After King 1866)
Western science joins with Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge.
Photo credit: W.A. Allen
An American Eel Caught in Lac Marsac (White Lake),
tributary to Lake Timiskaming, 1942
1
Spearing Eels in Eel Bay. Howard Pyle, Scribner's Monthly,1878
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the strong dedicated commitments and
contributions to this document by the other members of the American Eel Recovery
Team: Anne Bendig- Chair (OMNR); Alastair Mathers (OMNR); Amy Boyko (DFO);
Anne Yagi (OMNR); Brad Steinberg (OMNR); Cam McCauley (OMNR); Jeff Beaver (
Plenty Canada, Lanark); Rebecca Geauvreau (OMNR); Kevin Reid (Ontario
Commercial Fisheries Association); Kirby Punt (OMNR); Marie-Andree Carriere
(OMNR); Sarah Nugent (OMNR); Stuart Niven (DFO); Thomas Hoggarth (DFO); Tom
Pratt (DFO); Jason Borwick (OMNR); Krista Coppaway (Curve Lake First Nation and
Plenty Canada); Henry Lickers (Akwesasne First Nation).
Five of us, MacGregor, Greig, Dettmers, Casselman and Haxton extend special thanks
to our colleagues McDermott and Allen who served tirelessly as members of the
recovery team, including the writing of the draft recovery strategy, without compensation
for their efforts. Allen also carried out and financially supported important Archaeological
and other research that has benefited both the recovery strategy itself and this
supplementary effort.
This document was produced with no government funding or priority attached to it. It
was produced solely through the special voluntary contributions of personal time and
funding by several government and non-government members of the Recovery Team.
The views in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
official position of the associated agencies or organizations, nor those of other members
of the Recovery Team.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ i
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
Demise of American Eel in Ontario ................................................................................. 1
Policy Framework and Guiding Principles for Development and Implementation of the
American Eel Recovery Strategy in Ontario ................................................................ 4
SPECIES BIOLOGY........................................................................................................ 6
Size, age and growth ................................................................................................... 7
DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE AND POPULATION TRENDS ...................................... 9
Distribution ................................................................................................................... 9
Ottawa River and Lakes Nipissing and Temagami Watersheds ............................ 11
Trent River-Kawartha Lake .................................................................................... 16
Lake Simcoe .......................................................................................................... 17
Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River .................................................... 18
Range Contraction ..................................................................................................... 19
Abundance and Population Trends............................................................................ 20
ANTHROPOGENIC MORTALITY AND LOST ACCESS TO HABITAT......................... 25
RECOVERY ACTIONS UNDERWAY ........................................................................... 32
BIOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY OF EEL RECOVERY IN ONTARIO .................................. 35
RECOVERY .................................................................................................................. 38
Recovery Imperative .................................................................................................. 38
Approach to Recovery ............................................................................................... 43
Watershed-based Implementation Plans ................................................................... 48
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 50
APPENDICES
List of Figures
Figure 1: Mean length and age of American eel recruits ascending Saunders GS eel
ladder on the St. Lawrence River. Error bars represent standard deviation. (A.
Mathers, OMNR, personal communication)........................................................ 8
Figure 2: American eel traditional range in Ontario. Traditional range of American eel in
Ontario shows in purple, including all of Lake Ontario and the Ontario portion of
the Lake Ontario Watershed and the Ontario portion of the Lake Timiskaming
Watershed. ....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3: Relative abundance (depicted as catch-per-unit-effort [CUE] - the number of
eels caught per night of trap netting) of American Eel based on a standard
index trapnetting program in Ottawa River reaches from 1997-2004. Reaches
are ordered from the first barrier at Carillon (Lac Dollard des Ormeaux) up to
the reach immediately downstream from Lake Timiskaming. Error bars
represents the standard error (MacGregor et al. 2009). ................................... 16
Figure 4: Relative abundance of American Eel (catch-per-unit-effort - number of eels
caught per night of trap netting) in four lakes tributary to the Ottawa River and in
Charleston Lake, on the Gananoque River tributary of the St. Lawrence River,
ii
1961 to 2000. No fish-passage facilities exist at any dam. Data exist only for the
years indicated. ................................................................................................ 21
Figure 5: Relative abundance (depicted as catch-per-unit-effort [CUE] - the number of
eels caught per night of trap netting) of American Eel in six lakes tributary to
Lake Ontario in Peterborough District 1956-2007. ........................................... 21
Figure 6: Total number of eels ascending the eel ladder(s) at the Moses-Saunders
Dam, Cornwall, Ontario for 1974-2008. No counts are available for 1996. ...... 23
Figure 7: Decline in American Eel Observed by Electrofishing in Eastern Lake Ontario
(from Casselman and Marcogleise 2008). ........................................................ 24
Figure 8: Total number of eels ascending the western eel ladder on Beauharnois
Generating Station, St. Lawrence River, Province of Quebec (1994-2008). .... 24
Figure 9: Number of dams constructed on the Ottawa River watershed or Trent River,
1880s to 1970s. (From MacGregor et al., 2009.).............................................. 29
iii
INTRODUCTION
This document, which is not an official Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR)
publication, provides additional background and perspectives that supplement the Draft
Recovery Strategy for American Eel in Ontario (MacGregor et. al. 2010, the RS). Some
sections of this document also support understanding the approach recommended in
the strategy. Consequently, it is intended that this document be read in conjunction with
the draft recovery strategy, and not as a standalone document. It contains biological,
archaeological, technical, policy and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK)
information that we considered very important to the development of the strategy, but
could not be included in the formal document (the RS) 1. In addition, this document
introduces further relevant information from recent research or publications that we
became aware of after the draft recovery strategy was completed. It is for these reasons
that we decided to create this document.
This document should prove to be very useful during implementation of the strategy; it
may be updated at irregular intervals as new information becomes available.
Version 5.1 corrects some typographic errors and clarifies some points on pages 36, 40,
43-44 and 47 of version 5.0.
Demise of American Eel in Ontario
Now reduced to mere relict reflections of former abundance and distribution within
Ontario, the American Eel has been extirpated from many parts of its Ontario range and
is in serious decline where the species still exists (Casselman 2003; MacGregor et al.
2008, 2009, 2010). The urgency for strategic and effective recovery actions within
Ontario is highlighted by the decline and near-extirpation of eels within former provincial
strongholds of the species in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, where
abundance has declined by more than 90%, and in large portions of other watersheds
1
The RS template and deadlines understandably changed several times
1
where eels now rarely occur or have been virtually extirpated (e.g. Trent River /
Kawartha Lakes watershed, Ottawa River watershed).
Population declines appear to have been underway in most watersheds by the turn of
the twentieth century, long before adequate fish community records were kept
(MacGregor et al. 2009). Given their long life span in Ontario waters, the lack of
understanding of the eel life cycle in the early 20th century, the lack of assessment
records, the little interest in eels shown by nature conservationists, and shifts in values
by non-Aboriginal peoples to other species such as walleye and trout, eels slipped away
virtually unnoticed by Western cultures (Dekker 2008; MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009).
This invisible collapse led to a shifting baseline in perspectives of former abundance
and distribution of eels within Ontario (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009), particularly within
non-Aboriginal communities. Recent research, including the use of ATK, has enabled us
to piece together just how phenomenally widespread, abundant and important this
species was within Ontario, and how extensive the decline has been (MacGregor et al.
2010).
The virtual collapse of Ontario’s eels spans numerous decades and appears associated
with substantial cumulative anthropogenic effects (Verreault and Dumont 2003;
MacGregor et al. 2009; MacGregor et al. in review). These effects include mortalities at
hydro-electric turbines encountered during their downstream spawning migration, from
mortalities due to heavy fishing, and from lost access to habitat due to the construction
of thousands of dams that impede upstream migration of young eels recruiting to
freshwater habitats (Reid and Meisenheimer 2001; Verreault and Dumont 2003;
MacGregor et al. 2009; MacGregor et al. 2010; MacGregor et al. in review). While
oceanic effects may play a role in reduced recruitment (Castonguay et al. 1994; Reid
and Meisenheimer 2001; Friedland et al. 2007; Bonhommeau et al. 2008), they also
highlight the need to substantially reduce mortality and other anthropogenic effects to
improve resilience, stability and sustainability of the species in the face of future
uncertainties such as climate change (Bonhommeau et al. 2008; MacGregor et al.
2009).
2
It is notable that this decline to near province-wide extirpation has occurred despite
federal and provincial authorities to mitigate the decline. Some of these authorities
include provisions in both Canada’s Fisheries Act (Canada Department of Justice 1985)
and Ontario’s Lakes and Rivers Improvements Act 1990 (Ontario Government 1990).
The lack of conservation actions by federal and provincial governments can be
explained by early unfamiliarity with the lifecycle of American Eel (Schmidt 1922),
complications in governance associated with the lifecycle of the species, the shifting
baseline and perspectives of modern non-Aboriginal societies, and by complexities
associated with competing values of waterpower producers, fisheries and biodiversity
conservation (MacGregor et al 2008; 2009; MacGregor et al. in review).
As noted in a letter from Chief Kirby Whiteduck, Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn
(Appendix 1A), eels were a highly important food source for the Algonquin people, and
were an important element of their economic, cultural and social way of life. Algonquins
are very supportive of efforts to rehabilitate American Eel in its historic range (Appendix
1). Collective efforts among government, stakeholders and Aboriginal people to recover
this species will not only aid in the restoration of lost ecological services, and restore
lost biodiversity, cultural and natural heritage values, but they will be a significant
milestone in recovering and strengthening relationships among our cultures (Appendix
1B).
Finally, it is important to note that the demise of American Eel in Ontario, and its root
causes, is strongly indicative of major declines/near extirpations of many other
important migratory fish species throughout North America (Goode 2006; Lackey et al.
2006). A particularly relevant and notorious example is the extirpation of Atlantic
Salmon in Lake Ontario and its associated watersheds, and the significant decline of the
species elsewhere in North America (Goode 2006). The circumstances of American Eel
should be viewed as symptomatic of the challenges faced by many diadromous fish
species in Ontario and throughout North America; cumulative effects at the species
level should not be overlooked (MacGregor et al. 2009).
3
Policy Framework and Guiding Principles for Development and
Implementation of the American Eel Recovery Strategy in Ontario
Having considered the foregoing, the following principles were adopted to guide the
development and implementation of the draft Recovery Strategy:
•
The ultimate goal is the long-term sustainability of American Eel in Ontario
throughout its historic range 2.
•
Coordinated science, management and conservation across the numerous
jurisdictions responsible for management of American Eel in North America.
•
A commitment to integrate western science, ATK, and community knowledge,
consistent with the principle of Two Eyed Seeing, into the Recovery Strategy planning
and implementation.
•
Reversibility of the trend in recent years toward loss of access to habitat for
American Eel, with the goal of rebuilding and achieving net gains in habitat.
•
Reversibility of the trend of declining abundance of American Eel throughout
Ontario, with the goal of increasing the abundance throughout the native Ontario range.
•
Integrated management: agencies and organizations responsible for American
eel conservation and management will work in active partnership to ensure that
management objectives are met.
•
Recognition of the importance of American Eel recovery to the inherent value of
the natural environment in Ontario, and to ensuring a healthful environment in the
province in accordance with Ontario’s Statement of Environmental Values (OMNR
2009).
•
Recognition that the people of Ontario have as a common goal the protection,
conservation and restoration of the natural environment for the benefit of present and
future generations (OMNR 2009).
2
This is consistent with the strategic directions of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR)
including its mission of ecological sustainability –“ the ministry’s mission is to manage our natural
resources in an ecologically sustainable way to ensure they are available for the enjoyment and use of
future generations”. The ministry is committed to the conservation of biodiversity and the use of natural
resources in a sustainable manner. (OMNR 2005a,b).
4
•
Ecosystem management 3: development of management actions which take into
account the watershed or coastal zone management area.
•
Management actions designed to reduce cumulative effects / impacts on eels to
levels that are consistent with the recovery goals and consistent with long term
resilience and sustainability of the local and global eel population.
•
Management actions based on the best available information; in particular,
targets for escapement and recruitment will be sought to guide management.
•
Application of the precautionary principle (Ontario Government 2007): In
preparing a strategy under subsection (1), the persons who are preparing the strategy
shall consider the principle that, where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of
biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for
postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat. 2007, c. 6, s. 11 (3).
•
Local action within an overall framework of actions to implement the Strategy
tailored to the specific threats operating in different parts of the range.
•
Ensuring the strategy reflects the values, needs and priorities of all stakeholders
and Aboriginal people and addresses the concept of regional fairness.
•
Ensuring involvement by Aboriginal people in development and implementation
of the Strategy.
As American Eel recovery is of bi-national interest in the St. Lawrence River and Lake
Ontario, the recovery team also ensured the strategy was consistent with bi-national
management frameworks, including the Lake Ontario Biodiversity Strategy (developed
under the auspices of the Lakewide Management Plan for Lake Ontario) which, among
other issues, identifies the impacts of dams on the fish communities of Lake Ontario
(including American Eel) and the need to mitigate their impact. The strategy further calls
for the partner agencies to implement restoration plans for the American Eel (LaMP
2009).
3
This is consistent with and respects Ginawaydaganuc: a principle of Algonquin law that acknowledges
the web of life or the interconnectedness of all things, as recently published by McDermott and Wilson
(2010).
5
As the future unfolds with growing anthropogenic effects, Ginawaydaganuc4 (a principle
of Algonquin law that acknowledges the web of life and the interconnectedness of all
things) serves as a reminder of the possible far reaching effects of cumulative impacts
(McDermott and Wilson 2010; MacGregor et al. in review; Appendix 1B).
Implementing the American Eel Recovery Strategy could be an important example of
consistency with the recent COP10 access and benefit sharing agreement struck in
Japan; among other items the agreement included strategic plans to reduce biodiversity
loss by 2020, and adopted a decision to declare the next decade (2011 – 2020) as the
U.N. Decade of Biodiversity (CBD 2010; Japan Times 2010).
SPECIES BIOLOGY
Virtually all mature American Eels in Ontario waters are large, usually old and highly
fecund females (each producing many millions of eggs). Prior to their provincial decline
these eels were an extremely important segment of the entire species, contributing a
substantial proportion of the overall fecundity and reproductive output of the species
(Casselman 2003; COSEWIC 2006). For this reason, Ontario has held an especially
significant segment of the North American eel population. It not only supported many
historic fisheries in Ontario and Quebec, but also contributed substantially to the global
population.
The American Eel was an important part of the aquatic diversity in accessible Ontario
waters and an important indicator of ecosystem health. Historically abundant, eels were
an integral part of the fish communities in many Ontario waters and, as predators, no
doubt added stability by checking invasive species.
4
It should be noted that Ginawaydaganuc is an Algonquin word roughly translated in English to mean the web of life.
Customary law associated with the knowledge of Ginowaydaganuc recognizes that the most sacred of responsibilities
to the source of all life (including ours) is to respect all of life from our mental, physical, emotional and spiritual bodies.
This means that for the ancient American Eel, we must actively protect this species by engaging it from our hearts
and minds, physically and spiritually, to make the truly balanced decisions necessary for ecosystem integrity.
Balancing only economic and environmental priorities from an intellectual perspective is one of the root causes of the
destruction of Mother Earth’s capacity to support all life, including our own.
6
Eels were a highly valued fish for Aboriginal peoples and early European settlers, thus
forming a strong component of Ontario’s cultural and natural heritage. The commercial
eel fisheries have been economically important in Ontario, most recently from the 1970s
to the 1990s when markets and prices increased substantially, but eel numbers
declined dramatically thereafter to the point that commercial fisheries were closed in
2004. The species was formally listed in 2008 as endangered under Ontario’s new
Endangered Species Act (MacGregor et al. 2008,2009).
Size, age and growth
Eels in Ontario waters generally are large, reaching a maximum length of approximately
1.3 metres and, in rare cases, an age of 42 years (J. Casselman, unpublished data). In
the 1960s, mean age of maturing emigrating eels in the upper St. Lawrence River was
19.7 ± 1.1 years (mean ± 95% CI), and the fish were uniformly large, 915 ± 24 mm and
1,902 ± 166 g (Casselman 2003). Individuals migrating from the St. Lawrence River are,
on average, appreciably larger (840-1,000 mm) than those leaving the Gulf of St.
Lawrence and the Atlantic regions (650-700 mm).
Size and age of immigrating eels reaching the eel ladder in the upper St. Lawrence
River have increased over time. The few eels that ascended the Moses-Saunders eel
ladder in the 1990s were much larger and older (493 ± 17 mm, 11.9 ± 1.1 yr) than
typical recruits in the 1970s to 1980s (363 ± 15 mm, 5.6 ± 0.1 yr) and more recently,
from 2003 to 2007 (412 ± 8 mm, 8.4 ± 0.3 yr) (Casselman 2008). The mean age of eels
ascending the ladder has varied between six and twelve years (A. Mathers, OMNR,
personal communication; Figure 1).
7
600
20
length
age
16
400
12
300
8
Age (yrs)
Length (mm)
500
200
4
100
0
0
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
Figure 1: Mean length and age of American eel recruits ascending Saunders GS eel ladder on
the St. Lawrence River. Error bars represent standard deviation. (A. Mathers,
OMNR, personal communication).
It is interesting that Vladykov (1970) noted a considerable number of very small eels
(104-123mm) were concentrated in the Ottawa River below Chats Falls Generating
Station. As far as we know, this is the only time that eels this small have ever been
documented this far up in the USLR-LO and associated watersheds, until the stocking
program commenced in 2006. But just because it has not been documented does not
mean it was uncommon in other years.
Eels harvested in the upper St. Lawrence River-Lake Ontario were significantly larger
than those harvested in the Atlantic coastal provinces and states (for specific data, see
Table 1, Casselman 2003). Biological characteristics of eels vary considerably over their
range. Size, age, and growth provided here are for females because eels reaching
Ontario waters have been exclusively females; sex determination appears to be
influenced by density, with low density producing disproportionately more females. Sex
ratios vary widely with geographic location. Males are more common in the Nova
Scotia-Bay of Fundy region; studies have shown around 7% males in the St. John River
(Bay of Fundy) and 55% males in the East River (Nova Scotia). Densities observed in
Ontario, even in historic times, would have not been high enough to produce males
(J.M. Casselman, unpubl. data).
8
Eel growth rate is slow and production is generally low compared with other fish
species, with a production-to-biomass ratio in Ontario waters of approximately 0.21 (J.
Casselman, unpublished data).
DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE AND POPULATION TRENDS
Eel Fisherman, Muskrat River, tributary to the Ottawa R,
(caption and sketch from Logan’s journal, Sept. 22, 1845)
(Smith and Dyck 2007:112).
Distribution
Early in the development of the draft recovery strategy, it became apparent that the
Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database for American Eel in Ontario was
inaccurate as a reflection of current or past distribution, and did not provide sufficient
detail. Consequently, the recovery team undertook a mapping exercise to examine
range contraction of eels in Ontario. As a result, the mapping exercise identified the
range for three time periods: post-2000, 1980-2000, and the historic ranges of eels in
the province including areas where eel were present well before modern times. The
mapping exercise used a combination of ATK, local community knowledge,
archaeological data (Allen, 2010) and recorded captures via netting. The results of the
mapping are depicted in the summary map (Figure 4 of the draft Recovery Strategy;
MacGregor et al. 2010) and in some of the maps generated at the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources District level shown here in Appendices 3- 7. Much of this material
forms the basis for numerous other mapping exercises undertaken in the development
9
of the Recovery Strategy. These maps represent our most up-to-date information on eel
distribution within Ontario but will be subject change as more is learned.
Archaeological data which was cited from an unpublished source in the draft Recovery
Strategy subsequently has been published (Allen 2010). This publication extended the
archaeological research on the historical distribution of eels and included the
development of an updated map of that historical distribution. The publication also
reports on Allen’s field visits along the height of land between the Ottawa and Georgian
Bay watersheds from Lake Temagami in the north to Lake Simcoe in the south. The
mapping identifies areas of potential cross over points where eels may have been able
to traverse between watersheds and may explain the routes taken by eels which have
been documented west of the height of land. The mapping of potential crossover points
matches the mapping and photographs in Appendix 8. The map appears in Arch Notes
(Allen, 2010) and is reproduced here.
Figure 2: Traditional range of American Eel in Ontario shows in purple. The edge of the Ottawa
River Watershed is a black line. Portions of apparent additional range show in lighter purple for
areas where eels have been reported in published reports. Eels, which are capable of wiggling
out of water, could access areas west of the Ottawa and Lake Ontario Watersheds only by
crossing certain marshy locations at the height of land. Seven potential crossover locations are
shown by red crosses. Archaeological sites and their eel abundance, calculated as Minimum
Number of Individuals – MNI, are in yellow and olive respectively.
10
Allen (2010) makes the case for including archaeological evidence in the design of
recovery strategies for other species.
It has been recognized for many centuries that the important eel fisheries in the lower
St. Lawrence River benefited to a great degree from eels migrating from what today
would be called Ontario waters. For instance, in a Jesuit Relation of 1634 (Thwaites
1896-1901), the following was written regarding the eel fisheries in the St. Lawrence
River in Quebec and their source from more distant northern waters:
It is wonderful how many of these fish are found in this great river, in the months
of September and October, and this immediately in front of the settlement of our
French…
It is thought that this great abundance is supplied by some lakes in the country
farther north, which, discharging their waters here, makes us a present of this
manna that nourishes us …
In more recent times, Elder Commanda noted that his ancestors and others have talked
about eels creating great silver pathways in the rivers during migration times
(Commanda 2008, written communication). Western scientific analyses confirm that
silver eels in the 1980s from Ontario formed some 67% of the lower St. Lawrence River
silver eel fisheries prior to their collapse (Verreault and Dumont 2003). However, since
the major declines of eels in Ontario in the late 1980s, this proportion has declined and
the once highly important silver eel fisheries in Quebec waters of the St. Lawrence River
have declined in a similar fashion (MacGregor et al. 2008), despite market prices well
above the long-term mean in the 1970s-2000s (MacGregor et al. 2009). Many historic
fisheries in Quebec have been closed or bought out as a direct result of concerns
related to turbine mortalities induced by hydro-electric generating stations, and the
overall collapse of the stock.
Ottawa River and Lakes Nipissing and Temagami Watersheds
A wealth of information appears to be available regarding distribution, use and
abundance of eels in the Ottawa River watershed and surrounding waters within the
11
traditional knowledge of Aboriginal people. The understanding that Aboriginal
languages have words meaning eel (e.g. Pimizi; Algonquin Anishinaabemowin) and the
fact that such words appear on surviving maps can provide valuable clues to eel
researchers. For example, Pim-missi Pk. (MacDonald 1985) was an aboriginal name
for a place near Quinze Rapids where the Ottawa River enters Lake Timiskaming, and
Pimisi Bay survives on 21st century maps of the Mattawa River below Lake Talon. Both
locations provide important clues concerning early pre-dam eel distribution, information
that had been lost or forgotten.
American Eel were once widespread in various watersheds of Ontario, ranging from
Niagara Falls and the Niagara River in the west, to the subwatersheds of Algonquin
Park (Sherriff 1831; Martin and Fry 1973; Mandrak and Crossman 2003), and Lakes
Timiskaming and Temagami and surrounding waters of the upper Ottawa River
watershed (Purvis 1887; Barlow 1899, 1907; Livermore 1914, 1915; New Liskeard
Speaker 1928, Appendix 3E; Ville de Témiscaming 1996, Appendix 2B). The use and
importance of fish, including eel, in the Ottawa River is well documented (MacGregor et
al. 2009; Appendix 1A,B); the watershed supported local commercial eel fisheries until
the decline of eels and closure of provincial eel fisheries in 2004- 2005 (MacGregor et
al. 2009). The use of fish, including eel, from the Ottawa River is aptly illustrated in the
following quote from Reverend P. Alexis (Alexis1897)
La pêche et al chasse lui sont d’un grand secours pour romper la monotonie de
son ordinaire, A sa pereptéuelle soupe aux pois, à ses cr êpes, à ses omlettes et
grillades de groslard il ajoute quellques toutres et quelques perdix, ou les jours
de maigre, quelques poisons pris au lac voisin, tel que truites, anguilles, carpes,
brochets, maskinongés, perches, barbottes et barbues.
Eels were once common in the Timiskaming area of the upper Ottawa and surrounding
waters (Barlow 1907). Early references mentioning eels in Lake Timiskaming
(lacTémiscamingue) include the following:
Dans le lac Témiscamingue, et surtout dans les petits lacs à l'intérieur, le
poisson abonde. M. Z. Dumais, richejorfèvre de Mattawa, qui exploite avec profit
une grande ferme qu'il vient de se faire dans le canton Duhamel avait fait, il y a
12
deux ans, un contrat avec une vieille sauvagesse qui s'engageait à lui fournir tout
le poisson dont il avait besoin pour ses hommes pendant l'été, et chaque
semaiéne la vieille lui apportait de l'anguille, de la truite, du brochet, du doré, etc.
pour lequel elle recevait 3 cents la livre. On y trouve aussi l'éturgeon et le
poisson blanc. Tel est le pays que nous [avons commencé à coloniser. (Société
de Colonisation du Lac Témiscamingue, 1988).
N.D. Cette partie du lac abonde en excellents poissins: tels qu’éturgeons,
poisons blancs,anguilles, brochets, hareng, d’eau douce que les sauvages
appellant O’KE8IS. Je ne vois pas de différences entre ce hareng dt celui de la
mer, pour la qualité du moins. {Charles-Alfred-Marie Paradis}.
While commercial fishing on Lake Timiskaming was closed in 1931, interviews carried
out in November 2010 with 96 year-old former commercial fishermen Dave McLaren
and 80 year-old Ron Bartlett (who helped in his family’s large commercial fishery on the
lake), reveal that eels were sufficiently abundant to harvest commercially. Markets for
Timiskaming eels were found in Montreal and New York. Large eels were sometimes
caught in nets, but both told stories of targeting eels at night by campfire with a bamboo
pole and a heavy green line tied to a ball of red yarn soaked in worms – no hook was
required because the “eel’s teeth point towards the back of the mouth and when she
grabbed the yarn the eel could not untangle and dislodge itself”. Upon further
investigation, it turns out that variations of this practise have been long standing
techniques used to fish for eels in various countries throughout the world (Prosek
2010b; Fort 2003). In the British Isles the technique has been variously termed
sniggling, naring, clotting or rayballing (Fort 2003).
Eels were kept in floating live boxes until shipping time when they were packed with ice
in 100 lb. boxes and shipped to the market by train. Apparently, it was rare to fill more
than 1 box in week. The point was made that unless you targeted eels, you would never
know they were in the lake. Apparently, eels began to disappear from the lake once the
water control dam at the outflow of Lake Timiskaming was repaired in the 1930s.
Eels now appear to be extirpated in much of Algonquin Park (Martin and Fry 1973;
Mandrak and Crossman 2003) and entirely in the watersheds of Lakes Timiskaming,
Temagami and Nipissing, as no occurrences have been verified in 40 – 50 years or
13
more. However, this needs to be substantiated with focussed assessment because eels
are not overly vulnerable to many types of assessment gear.
Further evidence of widespread distribution in the upper Ottawa River comes from
numerous reports of eels actually traversing the height of land between the Ottawa
River and French river watersheds and from the documented occurrence of eel in Lake
Temagami (Barlow 1907). Skip Ross, an Algonquin elder, spent 1946 living on the land
at Lake Temagami and served as a guide from 1949 to 1952. He reported there were
eels in the lake during his time there (S. Ross, personal communication), some being
slightly larger in circumference than a man’s wrist. An interview with a long-time
resident familiar with the Lake Nosbonsing and Mattawa River areas in North Bay
District revealed that eels were caught in Lake Nosbonsing between 1938 and 1943,
and that eels used to be caught in the log chutes at Talon Chutes prior to the
construction of Talon Dam; he also recalls that Pimisi Bay used to be a good place to
catch eels (R. Geauvreau, OMNR, personal communication; Appendix 3D). In even
more recent times an American Eel was recorded in 1969 at Sturgeon Falls, the most
likely route of mature eels exiting Lake Temagami (Young 1970). The report further
noted that “eels are known to ascend the Ottawa and then the Mattawa River system”
and the report further suggested that:
Trout Lake, which lies only a few miles from Lake Nipissing is part of this latter
system. Since eels can travel overland, passing through low grassy areas, this is
a probably the origin of this eel in Lake Nipissing. (Young 1970)
In the upper Mattawa River watershed it appears that eels could have entered Lake
Nipissing from the Ottawa River watershed by first entering Trout Lake and then
traversing marshy lowland areas connecting Trout Lake to Lake Nipissing in the La
Vase portage area (Allen 2010; Appendix 8A; Option 1). Trout Lake is at the
headwaters of the Mattawa River (Appendix 3). Two other potential eel crossover
points are evident in the Wasi River Watershed, which a local First Nations Elder
reported as a source of eels (Allen 2010; Larry McDermott, Plenty Canada, personal
communication). The first potential crossover is in marshy land draining to both
14
Depot Creek (which flows northeastward) to Lake Nosbonsing and the Mattawa River
via Kaibuskong River or it could also flow westward to Wasi Lake, Wasi River and Lake
Nipissing (Appendix 8A; Option 3). The second is a marsh at Astorville at the west end
of Lake Nosbonsing where a creek drains westward to the Wasi River and Lake
Nipissing (Allen 2010; Appendix 8A; Option 3). A fourth potential eel crossover point is
in marshy land at the headwaters of the South River which flows to Lake Nipissing
(Allen 2010; Appendix 8A; Option 4). This marsh drains to both the Nipissing River
tributary of the Petawawa River (Ottawa Watershed) and also to Winifred Lake,
Algonquin Park and on down the South River to Lake Nipissing (French River
Watershed). Land beside these lowland areas was used by Aboriginal peoples as
canoe portages and snowshoe routes between the two watersheds. ATK confirms
significant harvests of eels by Aboriginal people in these connecting waters. Elders of
the Nipissing Reserve speak of harvesting eels in Lake Nipissing some 50 years ago.
Eels have not been observed in the main stem of the Ottawa River watershed above
Des Joachims hydro-electric facility at Rolphton for many years, and are considered
extirpated within the Ottawa River watershed upstream of this facility (OMNR 2008a; K.
Punt, OMNR, personal communication). An interview with a long-time resident and
angler in the village of Mattawa revealed he caught eels below Otto Holden dam until
the early 1960s (B. Miller, Mattawa Ontario, personal communication). He told a story of
a local, well-known minister catching an eel there and becoming very frightened when
the eel wrapped itself around his arm as he attempted to unhook it. As noted previously,
eels now are considered relatively rare and declining in the middle and lower reaches of
the Ottawa River (Figure 3).
American Eel was once abundant and used by Aboriginals and early European settlers
throughout numerous tributaries of the Ottawa River in MNRs Pembroke District,
including the Madawaska River (one likely route of access to Algonquin Park), Muskrat
River (including Muskrat Lake) and the Bonnechere River (Appendix 4A ). In addition,
ATK and local community knowledge tell us that eels were once abundant in Golden
Lake and Round Lake on the Bonnechere River (near the Algonquin Park boundary),
15
and in Calabogie Lake, on the Madawaska River. Ministry netting projects in the late
1940s still produced some eels in Round Lake (Appendix 4B) but by 1970 it was
reported that eels had not been seen in Round Lake for many years (Appendix 4C).
Figure 3: Relative abundance (depicted as catch-per-unit-effort [CUE] - the number of eels
caught per night of trap netting) of American Eel based on a standard index
trapnetting program in Ottawa River reaches from 1997-2004. Reaches are ordered
from the first barrier at Carillon (Lac Dollard des Ormeaux) up to the reach
immediately downstream from Lake Timiskaming. Error bars represents the
standard error (MacGregor et al. 2009).
Trent River-Kawartha Lakes
Commercial harvests of eels in the Trent River/Kawartha Lakes watershed during the
late 1880s indicate high abundance of eels in these waters; for instance, eel harvests in
these waters ranged from 2.1-11.4 t. annually between 1885 and 1900. There are
numerous historical accounts of high eel abundance in these waters in the 1800s
(MacGregor et al. 2009), but the species has been rarely reported since the
16
construction of numerous barriers and hydro-electric facilities on the Trent and
Otonabee rivers beginning in the late 1800s. Eels have been virtually extirpated from
this watershed for some time above the first barrier on the Trent River, although one
carcass was found in 2008 in the trash racks of an OPG hydro-electric facility on the
lower Trent River (Appendix 6B), having been killed by turbines upstream of this station,
indicating there are still a few eels in the watershed. ATK confirms their presence as far
up-river as Campellford (J. Beaver, Alderville First Nation, personal communication,
2009) in the late 1980s. The last eel was reported from the Kawarthas (Rice Lake) in
Kawartha Lakes assessment gear in the mid-1980s.
Lake Simcoe
While eels have been caught in Lake Simcoe from time to time, until recently, they were
last recorded in the late 1900s. Eels generally have not been considered to be native to
the lake. Rather, their presence in the lake was considered to have been facilitated by
the development of the Trent-Severn waterway. However, recent field checks in the
Balsam Lake area, ATK and archaeological evidence suggest that eels may have been
native to Lake Simcoe. Similar to Lake Nipissing, it appears that there were at least two
low-lying marshy areas bordering the Talbot River tributary to Lake Simcoe where eels
could easily have crossed watershed boundaries (namely at Corson Marsh and Grass
Creek Marsh; Appendix 8. B). Balsam Lake is mentioned in an ATK story published in
1914 (George 1914). There are several pre-contact archaeological villages in the
Balsam Lake area but potential associations with eels have not been studied. A very
large eel was caught in Balsam Lake in the 1970s (K. Coleman, OMNR, personal
communication). Eel remains have been found in small numbers in archaeological
context at Lake Simcoe (Allen 2010; Appendix 5).
In October, 2010 an eel was caught in Lake Simcoe by the Lake Simcoe Fisheries
Assessment Unit and verified by the Royal Ontario Museum (J. Larose, personal
communication). This eel possibly was the result of the eel stocking program underway
since 2006 in the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario and the Bay of Quinte as the
numbers of stocked eels far out-weighs the number of natural recruits to Lake Ontario.
17
There is a remote possibility that it was accidentally released when emptying an
anglers’ bait bucket – but this seems unlikely. Whatever its origin, if the eel made the
trip using a waterway (i.e., it was not accidentally transferred), it likely made the trip to
Lake Simcoe via the Trent-Severn waterway. To accomplish this it would have
traversed 14 waterpower facilities and 41 locks, each providing substantial barriers to
migration. It will need to make a similar migration downstream as a silver eel en route to
the Sargasso Sea.
An American Eel caught in Lake Simcoe, October 2010. Possibly from
stocked eels in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario (Appendix 11)
Several other eels were caught in Lake Simcoe in the mid-1990s but there was no
stocking program at that time; thus, these eels would have been from natural
recruitment to Ontario, despite the possibility that they might have been inadvertently
transferred into Lake Simcoe by anglers.
Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River
Lake Ontario and the Upper St. Lawrence River remained the last provincial stronghold
for American Eel into the late 1980s. Their steep decline in these waters since the mid1980s has been well documented and publicized (Casselman 2003; Smith 2004; Hoag
2007; MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009, 2010; Lees 2008; Prosek 2010c). This has created
considerable concern not only within the province but nationally, bi-nationally and
among Aboriginal peoples, who see the disappearance of a long and valued
association. Indeed, the collapse of eel populations in Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River precipitated the first major calls for bi-national action (GLFC 2002;
Dekker et al. 2003). All eel fisheries were closed in Ontario in 2004 and 2005, as
declines continued with no sign of imminent improvement (MacGregor et al. 2009).
18
Currently, the Ontario waters of Lake St. Francis on the St. Lawrence River (below
Moses-Saunders hydro-electric facility on the St. Lawrence River) appear to be the only
remaining area in Ontario where eels remain at modest levels of abundance. Wild eels
in the remainder of the provincial watersheds are nearing extirpation.
Range Contraction
Range contraction has been substantial; eels now are absent in significant portions of
their former provincial range in inland waters (e.g. North Bay District) and they now are
relatively rare in the lower Ottawa River and its tributaries (Appendices 3-4), the upper
St. Lawrence River - Lake Ontario and associated tributary waters, and the TrentKawartha Lakes system (MacGregor et al. 2008; 2009). Eels are secretive, elusive,
most active at night, are not very vulnerable to many gear types in standard fisheries
assessment programs, and some appear to be virtual “Houdini’s” in their ability to
disperse (albeit often only a few can find the way around barriers). However unlikely it
may seem, eels may still be present in some waters well upstream of numerous barriers
at very low abundance without being detected. There is a need to verify that they
indeed have been extirpated in waters such as the upper Ottawa River and Trent
River/Kawartha Lakes, Lakes Timiskaming, Temagami and Nipissing watersheds.
Specialized gear will be required, but it may not be expensive nor does it need to be
lethal. It is very important to recognize that the NHIC data base is not accurate in
reflecting current or historical distribution of American Eel in Ontario. In addition, there is
some interesting information concerning American Eel presence in the upper Great
Lakes (including Lake Superior) within the Global Biodiversity Information Facility
(2011). These records require more investigation, but for now they should be
considered to be beyond the native range of eels, resulting from range expansions by
stocking and/or canal systems (MacGregor et al. 2010).
19
Abundance and Population Trends
ATK tells us that American Eel once were extremely abundant throughout all tributaries
to Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, including the Ottawa and Trent River
watersheds, and early records reveal high abundance of eels in inland watersheds of
Ontario sufficient to support local commercial fisheries (MacGregor et al. 2009). For
instance, Quebec commercial eel harvests from the Ottawa River ranged from 3.4 -15.0
t annually between 1930 and 1937 (Dymond 1939). Commercial harvest records for the
North Bay District waters of the Ottawa River show thousands of pounds of eels
harvested during the period 1924-1938, peaking at 4,027 kg in 1932 (OMNR 1984).
While waterpower development in tributary watersheds began about 1907 at stations
such as Galetta on the Mississippi watershed, the development of water power facilities
spanning the entire main stem of the Ottawa River began in the middle reach in 1932,
with the commissioning of Chats Falls Generating Station. By the late 1940s,
commercial harvests of eels in North Bay District waters of the Ottawa River had
declined to less than 200 kg annually (OMNR 1984). Likewise, abundance indicators for
eels declined in subwatersheds and lakes tributary to the Ottawa River (Figure 4).
Inland waters such Trent-Otanabee-Kawartha Lakes systems supported commercial
harvests into the late 1800s (MacGregor et al. 2009), but eels have been relatively rare
since the 1920s-30s, coinciding with the construction of hydro-electric facilities and
other structures related to the Trent-Severn Waterway on the Trent-Ontanabee
watershed (for instance, Sills Island, Sidney and Frankford GS were constructed on the
Trent River in 1900, 1911 and 1913 respectively). Substantial numbers of eels were
recorded regularly in lake assessment trap net catches from the 1950s to 1970s in
inland lakes associated with the Moira, Salmon, Napanee and Cataraqui River
watersheds, all tributary to eastern Lake Ontario within Peterborough District (Figure 5);
however, eel abundance has declined substantially in these waters, to the point where
20
only the occasional remnant eel has been caught in these programs (e.g. single
individuals from Stoco and Thirteen Island Lakes).
Figure 4: Relative abundance of American Eel (catch-per-unit-effort - number of eels caught
per night of trap netting) in four lakes tributary to the Ottawa River and in Charleston
Lake, on the Gananoque River tributary of the St. Lawrence River, 1961 to 2000. No
fish-passage facilities exist at any dam. Data exist only for the years indicated.
Figure 5: Relative abundance (depicted as catch-per-unit-effort [CUE] - the number of eels
caught per night of trap netting) of American Eel in six lakes tributary to Lake Ontario
in Peterborough District 1956-2007.
Note: No fish-passage facilities exist at any dam on the associated tributaries.
21
More recently, recruitment to the upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario has
declined substantially, with very little sign of a shift away from this downward trend
(MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009).
Total annual passage of eels migrating up the ladder at Saunders dam on the St.
Lawrence River represents the longest-term data set on American eel recruitment
(Castonguay et al. 1994; Casselman et al. 1997; Casselman 2003). This ladder was
installed in 1974. After a peak in 1982-1983, ladder counts dropped sharply and fell to
record low levels in the late 1990s. The few eels that ascended the ladder in the 1990s
were much larger and older than typical recruits before the decline (Casselman 2003).
The number of juvenile eels climbing the eel ladder has declined from more than one
million per year in the early 1980s to fewer than 4,000 annually in the late 1990s and
early 2000s (fewer than 60 eels per day). The index increased in 2005, with a mean
summer peak of 227 eels per day. Over the past 20 years (approximately one
generation time for the St. Lawrence River-Lake Ontario component), recruitment at the
eel ladder has fallen by three orders of magnitude (Casselman 2003) to approximately
0.2% of its level in the early 1980s (Figure 6); similarly, older ager classes have
declined precipitously as recruitment collapsed (Figure 7). Although recruitment has
increased slightly in recent years, it still remains at minimal levels (J. Casselman,
personal observation; Figure 6). A new eel ladder was installed on the New York side of
the Moses-Saunders dam and the numbers of eels ascending that ladder are also
reflected in Figure 6.
Beginning in 2002, two eel ladders became operational on Hydro Quebec’s
Beauharnois generating station on the St. Lawrence R., some 80 km downstream of the
Moses – Saunders facility. The number of eels ascending the Beauharnois ladders has
increased steadily in recent years, reaching a peak of almost 88,000 at the western
ladder in 2008. Beginning with temporary ladders in 1994, the annual number of eels
ascending the western Beauharnois eel ladder is shown in Figure 8.
22
Accounts from the mid-1600s record an Onondaga fisherman of the St. Lawrence
Iroquois spearing as many as 1,000 eels in a single night (Thwaites 1896-1901), and
there are many historical and archaeological references to the large abundance of eels
in the St. Lawrence River and its tributaries. Indeed, prior to the turn of the 20th century,
the St. Lawrence River watershed was considered by some to support the most
productive American eel fisheries in the world (The New York Times 1880). Eels in
these fisheries would have been produced in significant quantities in Lake Ontario, the
Upper St. Lawrence River, Lake St. Francis and many inland tributaries of these
systems (including the Ottawa River and Trent/Kawartha Lakes tributaries). More
recent estimates suggest that eels in many freshwater systems accounted for more than
50% of the total fish biomass in many freshwater systems (Smith and Saunders 1955;
Ogden 1970; Lary et al. 1998) including the near shore waters of Lake Ontario and the
upper St. Lawrence River (Casselman 2003).
1,400,000
40,000
1,200,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
800,000
2008
2005
2002
600,000
1999
-
1996
Total number of eels
1,000,000
400,000
Moses
Saunders
200,000
2007
2004
2001
1998
1995
1992
1989
1986
1983
1980
1977
1974
-
Figure 6: Total number of eels ascending the eel ladder(s) at the Moses-Saunders Dam,
Cornwall, Ontario for 1974-2008. No counts are available for 1996.
23
100
Trawling
Electrofishing
1.5
75
1.0
50
0.5
25
0.0
0
Electrofishing CUE ( #/hr)
Trawling CUE (#/trawl)
2.0
1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007
Figure 7: Decline in American Eel Observed by Electrofishing in Eastern Lake Ontario (from
Casselman and Marcogleise 2008).
Figure 8: Total number of eels ascending the western eel ladder on Beauharnois Generating
Station, St. Lawrence River, Province of Quebec (1994-2008).
Note: counts from 1994 – 2002 represent the number of eels climbing a temporary
ladder, then captured in nets and transported above Beauharnois.
24
While range contraction of eels within Ontario was well underway by the mid-20th
century, eels remained one of the top three species in commercial value in Lake Ontario
and the upper St. Lawrence River in the late 1970s and early 1980s, at times
representing more than 50% of the landed value of total commercial harvests from
these waters (MacGregor et al. 2009). However, in the past two decades, recruitment to
Lake Ontario (the last provincial stronghold for eels) has declined by 99% and
abundance of large eels in these waters has collapsed likewise (Figure 7).
ANTHROPOGENIC MORTALITY AND LOST ACCESS TO HABITAT
While there have been occasional concerns by fishermen over apparent die-offs of eels
in the St. Lawrence River (Dutil et al. 1997), and a large oil-spill occurred in 1976 on the
St. Lawrence (Save the River 2006), Dutil et al. (1997) found the health of the American
Eel in the St. Lawrence was not severely impaired and observed that mortalities in Lake
St. Francis might be due to the upstream hydro-electric facility. Among the most
frequently cited factors to explain the declines in American Eel are migratory barriers
causing lost access to habitat for upstream migrants (thereby also leading to reduced
production), turbine mortality of downstream migrants, fishing at all continental life
stages and possible deterioration in the quality of fresh-water habitats (Castonguay et
al. 1994; Haro et al. 2000; Verreault et al. 2004; MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009). Studies
at Queen’s University are currently examining the role contaminants may play in the eel
decline (Science Daily 2007).
Reduced survival of maturing eels in their seaward migration has been associated with
passage through hydroelectric turbines (Desroches 1995; Normandeau Associates and
Skalski 1998; McCleave 2001; Verreault and Dumont 2003; MacGregor et al. in review),
fisheries (Castonguay et al. 1994; Verreault and Dumont 2003), and with obstructions
that produce free falls of more than 13 m (Larinier and Travade 1999). Although
mortality due to fishing was extremely high in Ontario in the late 1970s through the mid80s (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009), fishing for eels has been closed in Ontario since
2004 and is no longer a source of anthropogenic mortality. Lost access to productive
fresh waters may lead to reduced production of large female eels and reduced
25
population-level fecundity with implications to subsequent recruitment (MacGregor et al.
2009).
The construction of dams and hydroelectric facilities has grown significantly in Ontario
over the past century (Figure 9; Appendices 3-7; Appendix 9), and eels have been
shown to be deterred partially by dams >2m (Machut et al. 2007). These dams were
constructed to meet several objectives including power production, logging, flood control
and navigation. For example, Moses-Saunders Dam on the St. Lawrence was built to
accommodate navigation on the St. Lawrence Seaway as well as generate power and
serve to mitigate water level fluctuations at Montreal. The dams on the Trent River
were constructed for sawmills, then for navigation, power production and water control.
While the dams associated with these types of structures have been problematic by
impeding passage for many migratory fish species (e.g. American Eel, American Shad,
Lake Sturgeon, Atlantic Salmon), the addition of turbines has added major cumulative
mortalities to large downstream migrants such as American Eel, particularly where
several such structures exist in series on a watershed (Verreault and Dumont 2003;
MacGregor et al. 2009; MacGregor et al. in review).
Of some 87 hydro-electric facilities within the apparent historic range of American Eel in
Ontario (MacGregor et al. 2010), only one hydro-electric facility (Saunders in the St.
Lawrence R.) directly provides for eel passage. The lack of fish passage at these
facilities may have led to substantial cumulative loss in access to formerly productive
maturing habitat for eels and reduced production of Ontario’s large, highly fecund
females. Range contraction is clearly documented within the Ottawa River watershed
(e.g. Appendices 4, 5) where 50 hydro-electric facilities have been in place for 50-100
years (Appendix 9).
Mortality of eels due to commercial fishing was very high in Ontario and across the
North American range in the 1970s-80s (Casselman 2003; MacGregor et al. 2008,
2009). As the provincial stock of eels continued to decline, all Ontario fisheries were
closed in 2004-2005. Mortality due to turbines at hydro-electric facilities has continued
essentially unmitigated on the St. Lawrence River and other associated watersheds
26
within the province. Because the onset of the silver eel decline in the USLR-LO
preceded the major decline in recruitment in the mid-1980s, it appears the decline in
spawning stock size was not due to poor recruitment. Instead, large-scale mortality
factors associated with high exploitation in upstream Lake Ontario and construction of
hydropower dams in the late 1950s appear more directly linked to the silver eel decline
in the St. Lawrence River (de Lafontaine 2009). Cumulative mortality of eels passing
through a series of hydro-electric facilities on smaller watersheds can be very high, at
times approaching 100%. For instance, Dönni et al. (2001: in ICES 2003) estimated an
average annual mortality of 92.7% for European eel in the River Rhine for a succession
of 12 hydro-electric facilities. Turbine mortality accounts for three quarters of the
anthropogenic mortality of silver eels attempting to emigrate downstream from Lake
Ontario (Verreault and Dumont 2003). MacGregor et al. (in review) estimated that eels
attempting to traverse 6 hydro-electric facilities had a probability of survival ranging from
as low as 2.8% to 40% during their downstream run to the St. Lawrence River from
Mississippi Lake (in the Ottawa River watershed).
The fact that all eels in the USLR-LO system are female and that turbine mortality
selectively kills large females is of major concern. Large old female fish have very high
reproductive value (Palumbi 2004; Berkley et al. 2004a,b; Field et al. 2008); removal of
reproductively valuable individuals erodes the rate of reproduction and contributes to a
reduction in a population’s resilience to both environmental variability and
anthropogenic mortality (Berkeley et al. 2004a,b; Anderson et al. 2008; Venturelli et al.
2010). Given that all mature Ontario eels are large, old females, mortality experienced
by outmigrating fish is a major obstacle to overcome when considering the eventual
success of the province’s recovery strategy or Canada’s national management plan for
American Eels. Failure to address this issue could have far reaching consequences well
beyond provincial or national boundaries.
The problem of eel mortality in waterwheels and turbines has been ongoing for more
than a century in Ottawa River and its tributaries (Burnett 2007; Reading Eagle 1902).
Until recently, there appeared to be little effort to mitigate mortality from these sources.
One early attempt in Ontario was suddenly deemed unnecessary after the pilot work
27
had been installed at a hydro-electric facility on the Mississippi River (A. Bendig,
OMNR, personal communication), but no one seems to know why. Watersheds in
Ontario such as the Trent and Ottawa Rivers support a large number of hydro-electric
facilities that kill eels and other species (Figure 9; Appendices 5, 6A, 9(A9-6B),11;
Community Stewardship Council of Lanark 2009; MacGregor et al.2009), and
cumulative mortality rates can be expected to be very high on these systems
(MacGregor et al. in review).
The establishment of the two large hydroelectric facilities on the St. Lawrence River
(Beauharnois and Moses-Saunders) from the 1930s to the late 1950s has had a
substantial ongoing impact on eels. While both facilities now have two eel ladders that
enable upstream passage of young recruiting eels, there has been no attempt until very
recently to address safer downstream passage of Ontario’s highly fecund female
segment of the species. The substantial mortalities are well known and a matter of
considerable concern, leading Ontario Hydro to hire contractors to routinely pick up and
dispose of wagon- and truck-loads of carcasses (H. Lickers, Akwesasne First Nations,
personal communication; Verreault and Dumont 2003; Lees 2008). Efforts now are
underway in Ontario and Quebec to implement action plans to temporarily mitigate or
offset these mortalities at both facilities. Cumulatively, mortality rates of silver eels
passing through Moses-Saunders and Beauharnois generating facilities amount to
>40% during their downstream spawning migration. Cumulative mortality due to
turbines and commercial fishing as eels attempted to emigrate from Lake Ontario and
leave the St. Lawrence River was conservatively estimated to be 53% (Verreault and
Dumont 2003).
28
50
No. dams
40
30
20
10
0
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
Year
Figure 9: Number of dams constructed on the Ottawa River watershed or Trent River, 1880s to
1970s. (From MacGregor et al., 2009.)
(open bar – Ottawa River; solid bar – Trent River, and cumulative number of
dams, solid line – Ottawa River; dotted line – Trent River).
Growth in the number of hydroelectric facilities seemingly levelled off for a few decades
in the late 1900s, but Ontario’s recent need and desire for more sources of renewable
energy has led to some 15 proposed new hydroelectric facilities within the eel’s range in
Ontario, and some 13 proposals for major upgrades to existing facilities. More proposals
are expected pending the market and price conditions for sources of renewable energy.
There is a strong risk of exacerbating current impacts if new facilities do not provide for
safe, adequate passage.
The effects of eel habitat loss due to dams in Ontario’s watersheds also quite likely
reduced production of large fecund females from provincial waters, and to lost
ecological, economic, social, cultural and natural heritage benefits within the
watersheds where the species has disappeared or declined to near extirpation. For
instance, in 2007 eels fetched $7.65/kg, making them one of the most valuable species
29
in Canada’s commercial freshwater fishery (EC 2007). The decline of eels in Ontario
has impacted economic performance of Ontario’s commercial fisheries on the St.
Lawrence River and Lake Ontario where eel landings once represented more than 50%
of the total landed value (all species) from these waters.
The only remaining water body within the province where eel abundance appears to be
easily measured is within Lake St. Francis, immediately downstream of the MosesSaunders Generating Station, where eels seem to be accumulating. Eels also appear to
congregate below Carillon Dam (the first in a long series of facilities on the Ottawa
River) (Casselman and Marcogleise 2010a,b). Immediately upstream of Moses-Sanders
is Lake Ontario, supporting the highest and most dense human population in Canada.
These waters have been subject to decades of pollution, chemical contamination and
exotic species invasions. With significant growth projected in this region of Ontario,
exacerbated anthropogenic impacts on these waters appear highly probable with likely
negative consequences for the aquatic communities. Protection and recovery of eels
within less impacted waters such as the middle and upper Ottawa River watershed, in
addition to undertaking recovery in Lake Ontario, is a good means of ensuring quality
and resilience of the provincial eel stock to future anthropogenic impacts – promoting
diversification of the habitat used by eels instils resilience against future impacts
(MacGregor et al. 2009, 2010). Managing for recovery of the freshwater life cycle across
a large diversity of habitats - rivers, streams, marshes, ponds, lakes, etc. - minimizes
risks due to future environmental changes (Secor 2010). Freshwater eels exhibit great
longevities that could span periods of poor oceanic conditions (Cairns et al. 2009; Secor
2010), serving as a reproductive reservoir for the entire population.
The Ontario recovery strategy for American Eel recognizes the need to restore eels in a
diversity of habitats to ensure long-term resilience of the species. Focusing
conservation and restoration efforts on only the most productive habitats is ill-advised
and a flawed management strategy (Kraus and Secor 2005; MacGregor et al. 2009;
Secor 2010); recovery in a variety habitats across small, medium and large rivers and
watersheds is important in restoring resilience to environmental perturbations and
spreading the risk of extirpation (Goode 2006).
30
Diversity of life history tactics in fish populations is increasingly recognized as having
the effect of offsetting environmental stochasticity and contributing to long-term
persistence (Secor 2007). Particular contingents can be differentially vulnerable to
exploitation, habitat degradation, and climate change (Secor 1999; Secor 2007). For
this reason, constituent patterns of life cycle diversity within populations should be
regarded as a “portfolio,” or a collection of life cycles, which hedges against future
environmental uncertainty through mechanisms that permit life cycle diversity to persist
generation after generation (Secor and Kerr 2009). In the case of eels, one can
visualize two contingents: 1) those that spend their entire life in marine environments,
and 2) those that are catadromous, spending a significant part of their life in freshwater
environments (MacGregor et al. 2009). Some may argue that marine-resident eels are
sufficient to prevent the extinction of the species. Such speculation would be hazardous
and risk-prone (McCleave and Edeline 2009). Further losses of freshwater eels may
have serious demographic impacts because freshwater eels, by silvering at a larger size
than sea eels, have higher fecundity (McCleave and Edeline 2009). Freshwater eels,
especially those maturing in the USLR-LO, Ottawa River, and other associated
watersheds in Ontario are all long-lived females that typify the second contingent above.
Managing for recovery of the freshwater life cycle throughout the historic range in
Ontario, which incorporates a wide diversity of habitats, introduces resilience by
promoting varying outcomes, hedging against future environmental change (Secor
2010). This approach is central to the recovery strategy for Ontario (MacGregor et al.
2010).
Although not evaluated, loss of wetland habitat due to altered flows and levels within
Lake Ontario and other managed watersheds, or other activities, may have negatively
affected eel production. While habitat use by eels appears to be extremely diverse,
there may be critical requirements that have not been considered. For example, eels
ball up and become inactive in the mud in winter (Fort 2003; Prosek 2010a,b). These
wintering grounds may be quite specific and need to be located and evaluated in
Ontario waters where eels are still present, as well as determining their former preferred
31
habitats in areas where they are now excluded . Similarly, early timber harvesting
practices (e.g., mill dams and log chutes), including deforestation of riparian areas,
likely contributed to early declines in Ontario. Fortunately, however, if upstream
passage is facilitated, an abundance of good, productive habitat for eel growth remains.
Opportunely, many of these habitats are protected within parks and should remain
intact; others are in more remote areas where habitat remains relatively undamaged –
particularly in the middle and upper reaches of the Ottawa River where it can be
protected.
RECOVERY ACTIONS UNDERWAY
Ontario has been attempting to manage eels on a sustainable basis for several
decades, beginning with the introduction of quotas in the 1980s, and thereafter reducing
commercial eel quotas several times (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009). However, given the
more recent precipitous decline, Ontario set commercial eel quotas to zero in 2004 and
closed sport fishing for eels in 2005 (MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009). A five-year action
plan was established and implemented at Saunders Generating Station in 2006 (OMNR
2008b, following a Decision Analysis exercise in 2005 (Greig et al. 2006)). The intent of
the action plan is to mitigate and/or offset turbine mortalities and recruitment declines in
Lake Ontario. The action plan consists of stocking glass eels into the USLR-LO, and a
pilot trap and transport program to move large yellow eels downstream of Beauharnois
GS (Appendix 11).To date, recovery actions currently underway in Ontario have been
focused on efforts to a) reduce mortality of large yellow eels in the USLR-LO, b)
increase the recruitment of eels to Lake Ontario, and c) reduce the mortality of eels
during their downstream migration in the St. Lawrence River. Most of these efforts for
the moment are experimental. Similarly, an action plan was developed for Quebec
Hydro at their Beauharnois Generating Station on the St. Lawrence River to mitigate or
offset turbine mortalities, largely through a program of commercial eel license buy-backs
(MNRF 2009).
The focus of Ontario’s draft recovery strategy is to significantly enhance escapement of
mature eels from the province. Additional measures will be required to ensure recovery
32
of eels within other Ontario watersheds (e.g. Trent and Ottawa rivers), which were once
areas of substantial importance to eels in Ontario, providing a diverse range of habitats.
As of May, 2009 Quebec, Ontario and the DFO were nearing completion of the National
Management Plan for eels. Ontario’s ESA prohibits killing American Eel, and
waterpower facilities that kill or harm eels within the province have until June 30, 2011
to develop Agreements under OREG 224/08 (Ontario Government 2008) to remain in
compliance with Ontario’s Endangered Species Act. Ontario, Quebec, DFO, NYDEC,
USFWS and the GLFC have developed a draft framework for eel recovery in the
important upper St. Lawrence River/Lake Ontario segment of the eel range. Ontario,
Quebec, DFO, USFWS, ASMFC and NMFS are nearing completion of a formal MOU to
develop coordinated management and science approaches for eel conservation across
the North American range.
In the United States, there is much activity to restore passage for migratory fish species
(including eels) to the inland waters of many U.S. states. For instance, a full migratory
fish passage plan has been developed and is now well into implementation for the
Susquehanna River in Maryland (PFBC 2007). Upstream eel passage on the Oswego
River, New York (a tributary of Lake Ontario where eels once were highly abundant but
disappeared due to hydro-electric installations) now has been required as a condition of
re-licensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for Brookfield Power at its
Varik waterpower facility. One-inch trash rack overlays are required on all three
Brookfield facilities in the Oswego River to deter large fish from entering turbine intakes
(Elmer and Murphy 2007).
Where effort has been applied, some success has been achieved in reducing
downstream mortality (e.g. Boubée et al 2001; Watene and Boubée 2005). One
example is the installation of a grid on the water intake at a small hydro dam on the
Rimouski River, Québec, which has reduced mortalities (G. Verreault, Quebec MNRF,
personal communication). The trap and transfer program initiated by OPG has shown
some promising results, but further evaluation is required to examine its biological
33
effectiveness and the feasibility of full scale implementation. Stocking efforts by OPG
into the USLR-LO have shown good survival and stocked glass eels have distributed
widely, but early indications are that some males have been produced. This is
somewhat disturbing as the hallmark of Ontario eels is that they have all been large
females.
Conservation stocking of glass eels into the St. Lawrence system was first undertaken
by Quebec in 2001. Ontario began stocking glass eels into the USLR-LO system in
2006; efforts have intensified pending price and availability. Numbers stocked annually
by Ontario (OPG) are as follows:
American eel stocking in Canadian waters of the upper St. Lawrence River and eastern Lake
Ontario
Year
Number
Weight (kg)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
144,300
450,000
2,001,561
1,303,000
150,000
4,048,861
100
90
375
299
30
894
Funding and support for stocking has been provided by Ontario Power Generation,
Quebec Hydro and provincial governments. Effectiveness monitoring of the stocking
programs has shown that stocking has some promise as a means of maintaining the
presence of eels, but stocking has never been considered to be a desirable long-term
recovery measure (Greig et al. 2006), especially given the recent discovery of some
males arising from stocked fish, and the tendency of some stocked eels to silver early
and emigrate from the USLR-LO at small size (Verreault et al. 2010). This is not typical
of the native USLR-LO phenotype emigrating from Ontario, comprised exclusively of
large old females. These recent findings are cause for concern and caution until the
ramifications of stocking is fully understood.
Recovery actions undertaken in other jurisdictions within Canada include:
34
•
Fisheries in the St. Lawrence have been reduced substantially in recent years by
licence retirement.
o Buy-outs of many yellow eel and tidal weir fisheries in Quebec to reduce
anthropogenic mortality, increase escapement and attempt to offset
effects of turbine mortality.
•
The Richelieu River fishery was closed in Quebec 2000.
•
Changes to fishery regulations and quotas in the Maritimes.
•
Stocking eels into the Richelieu River since 2005.
BIOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY OF EEL RECOVERY IN ONTARIO
There is no evidence that recovery of American Eel is not biologically feasible in
Ontario, but it will come as no surprise that it will take some effort after a century of
cumulative effects due to dams and mortality caused by hydro-electric turbines and
(until 2004) fishing. In fact, recovery of American Eel in the waters of Ontario is
quite feasible, given that national and bi-national conservation efforts now are
underway (MacGregor et al. 2009). In addition, much of the eel’s former range in
Ontario still contains excellent productive habitat, often protected in parks.
Technologies exist to mitigate passage at dams and waterpower facilities, and new
methods will be developed if provision of safe, adequate passage is required by
government. While recovery efforts have been relatively minimal in Canada and
Ontario until recently, numerous efforts now are underway in other jurisdictions to
mitigate passage issues for eels and other migratory fish species. These efforts will
hopefully achieve a better balance between important waterpower operations and
impacts on fish, aquatic communities, and on habitat (there is a need to reconsider
trade-offs that were made in the past now that recovery of biodiversity and species
is a provincial priority). Examples include restoration of passage and habitat on the
Susquehanna River (PFBC 2007); Gulf of Maine (GMCME 2007), Penobscot River
(PRRT 2009) and the Oswego River systems (Elmer and Murphy 2007) (Appendix
10). Similar efforts are underway in Europe for the European eel where the
35
European Water Framework Directive requires the undisturbed migration for fish in
European river systems (Brujis et al. 2003; Maarten et al. 2009).
In a recent evaluation of potential eel recovery in the Mississippi River, Ontario,
Oblak (2009) notes “the potential for repopulating the river through removing [or
mitigating] barriers for upstream and downstream migration is high. The fact that
there are still eels at the far reaches of its range at a time when populations in other
parts of the region have plummeted indicates that as global populations rebound
through effective large scale management responses such as those outlined in the
American Eel Management Draft Plan (Canadian Eel Working Group 2007) there is
a likelihood that increasingly over time eels will return to the Mississippi River
system, assuming the system is accessible”.
In addition, increased recruitment in recent years (Figures 6,8), possibly explained
in part by current management actions which commenced in the early 2000s
throughout the range, as well as slight changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation
Index (Casselman, unpublished data), provide important signs for optimism if
conservation and recovery measures continue to be implemented. Recent slight
increases in abundance in the Maritime region of Canada are a sign of improved
recruitment but should not be considered as an opportunity to increase harvest.
Instead, this increase should be interpreted as a positive sign of recovery,
reinforcing the conservation need for this species. These eels should be protected
to increase escapement and subsequent recruitment elsewhere.
Extremely strong year classes (e.g. the 1975 year-class, Casselman unpublished
information) demonstrate that recruitment to Ontario waters can increase
dramatically and unexpectedly, although the reasons for this are not well
understood. It is important to note that recruitment is increasing slightly at
Saunders, but much more significantly at Beauharnois (Figures 6, 8). Improved
recruitment at Beauharnois in recent years is a strong sign that recruitment is
increasing in the Ottawa River, whose confluence with the St. Lawrence River is
36
downstream of Beauharnois. These improvements in recruitment, however modest,
reinforce that new actions to enhance access to habitat, increase production and
reduce mortality in Ontario will be timely and effective.
Recent actions to stock eels by Ontario and Quebec were undertaken to enhance
production above barriers in waters where access to habitat has been lost. At a
minimum, it seems likely that stocking will prevent complete extirpation of eels in
these waters. Stocking efforts in Ontario show heartening signs of good survival and
growth of stocked eels; these eels may encourage society to remain interested in
restoring the species to Ontario waters. Complete loss of the species in Ontario
waters may lead Ontarians to forget entirely about the species and its past
importance to the province. The pros and cons of stocking still need to be clearly
thought through given the recent discovery of a few males in stocked eels and the
observed early emigration at a much smaller size (Verreault et al. 2010). Given
these results, and the unknown genetic consequences (L. Bernatchez, University of
Laval, personal communication), we recommend caution when considering
stocking; stocking should only be considered experimental and only carried out on
the St. Lawrence R. and Lake Ontario until the end of the current action
plan/agreement in 2012, when a thorough evaluation should be undertaken with
strong public input. OPG has funded a well designed experiment to determine the
success of the stocking program and the recovery team looks forward to the results.
There is concern that the swim bladder parasite, Anguillicolla crassus, now exists in
American Eel in many coastal waters, and well designed protocols have been
established in cooperation with OPG to screen glass eels for the parasite and
numerous diseases prior to stocking in Ontario waters. However, the presence of
the parasite in coastal eels should not impede the rationale for conservation and
recovery efforts for the species. In fact, enabling access to freshwater through such
provisions as eel ladders, dam removal and stocking of parasite-free eels can have
the effect of lowering infestation rates (Schmidt et al. 2009). Infestation rates are
37
lower for inland American Eel (Machut and Lindburg 2008) probably because
transmission from secondary hosts is reduced (Schmidt et al. 2009).
Coordinated actions across the species range now are being encouraged to
undertake protection, conservation and recovery of American Eel (MacGregor et al.
2008, 2009). Ontario has led the way in providing the necessary legislation to
facilitate recovery (Ontario Government 2007) and, with the assistance of Ontario
Aboriginals, the Ontario Commercial Fisheries’ Association, and the Ontario
Federation of Anglers and Hunters, continues to encourage appropriate
conservation measures in other jurisdictions.
Through formal mechanisms such as the federal Species at Risk Act, the
associated national management plan for American Eel, Ontario’s Endangered
Species Act and the development of Ontario’s Recovery Strategy, the provinces
and federal government have been working steadily together to set the scene for
American Eel conservation and recovery in Canadian waters (DFO 2004, 2007).
RECOVERY
Recovery Imperative
The historical importance of this species to the various cultures and economies of North
America has been described by MacGregor et al. (2009). Relationships between
Indigenous peoples and American Eel extend back thousands of years in Ontario
(Appendix 1; MacGregor et al. 2009; Allen 2010), and eels were extremely important to
early European settlers of the province and elsewhere in North America (MacGregor et
al. 2009; Prosek 2010a). In fact, until their collapse, eels were especially valuable to
commercial fish harvesters of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, forming more
than 50% of the landed value of these fisheries in Ontario. In short, the species links
tightly to the biodiversity, socio-economic, cultural and natural heritage values of Ontario
(MacGregor et al. 2008, 2009).
38
All American Eel conform to a panmictic life history strategy (Avise et al. 1986; Wirth
and Bernatchez 2003; L. Bernatchez, Université Laval, personal communication
2010). Because eels range throughout some 25 jurisdictions in North America,
coordinated efforts across the species’ range are required to improve the status of
the species both globally and within Ontario (MacGregor et al. 2008). Such efforts
are now underway at the national and bi-national levels (MacGregor et al. 2008).
The importance of eels from the upper St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario and
associated watersheds such as the Ottawa River, and their species-level fecundity
has been documented (COSEWIC 2006; Tremblay 2009). Moreover, Ontario’s eels
form part of a unique phenotype in the Upper St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario
(USLR-LO) and associated watersheds that may have some genetic underpinning.
Although not yet clear, this phenotyope 5 may be difficult if not impossible to replace
(L. Bernatchez, Université Laval, personal communication; MacGregor et al. 2010).
Given the important reproductive value conveyed by this phenotype (COSEWIC
2006; Berkley et al. 2004a,b; Palumbi 2004; Field et al. 2006; Venturelli et al. 2010;
MacGregor et al. in review), vigorous action by Ontario to restore the province’s
portion of the global population should be extremely beneficial locally, nationally,
and internationally.
A model developed to examine the cumulative effects of anthropogenic mortality on
eels in Ontario found that fishing and turbine mortality were significant factors
affecting eels. Eel abundance was also sensitive to the effects of habitat exclusion
by dams (Reid and Meisenheimer 2001). The modeling exercise further suggested
that the provision of high efficiency upstream passage facilities and mitigation of
downstream passage at hydro-electric facilities could confer substantial benefits to
egg production from Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River eels (Reid and
Meisenheimer 2001). Ontario took a major conservation step in 2004-2005 by
closing all eel fisheries in the province. However, except at Saunders where an
experimental trap and transfer approach is being evaluated, mortalities due to
5
Comprised exclusively of large, old, highly fecund females when mature – the most fecund in the species
range
39
turbines in Ontario remain un-mitigated. Consequently, hydro-electric facilities are
now the dominant source of anthropogenic mortality in the province. Given the high
cumulative rate of turbine mortality (Verreault and Dumont 2003; MacGregor et al.
in review), strategic mitigation of effects of these facilities is recommended to be an
important focus of the recovery strategy (MacGregor et al. 2010).
The combined, unmitigated effects of habitat loss due to barriers and cumulative
turbine mortalities across Ontario are ongoing significant threats that need to be
addressed strategically within the implementation of the recovery strategy
(MacGregor et al. in review; MacGregor et al. 2010). Successful implementation of
the strategy will require effective execution of legislation, including the LRIA,
Fisheries Act and ESA. With the closure of Ontario’s commercial eel fisheries, it
appears that these two threats are the most important factors jeopardizing resilience
to environmental change, survival and recovery of the American Eel in Ontario’s
watersheds, and within the province as a whole (MacGregor et al. 2010). Ineffective
application of legislation has also been shown to be a significant threat to recovery
(MacGregor et al. in review; MacGregor et al. 2010). Addressing these threats will
take determination and time, but we recommend that strategic, site-specific
mitigation be developed and implemented soon if Ontario is to prevent further
declines, possibly to virtual extinction. The WIPs should help guide this process.
Because of the importance of Ontario eels to the species as a whole, and
considering the importance of eels to the biodiversity, ecological, cultural,
socioeconomic and natural heritage values of Ontario, it is recommended that the
province implement effective, strategic measures to increase eel production, by
increasing available habitat and escapement of mature eels. However, numerous
threats and sources of mortality across their range impart significant cumulative
effects on the spawning stock (Castonguay et al. 1994; Verreault and Dumont 2003;
MacGregor et al. 2009; 2010). Consequently, at the same time, Ontario will need to
work cooperatively with other jurisdictions to ensure effective recovery within the
province.
40
In a U.S. National Academy of Sciences report on Atlantic salmon in Maine (NRC
2004) it was recommended that a focus be placed on large rivers for Atlantic
salmon restoration, emphasizing an urgent need for “…a program of dam removal
[or mitigation] , with a priority on those dams whose removal would make the
greatest amount of ….habitat available.” Goode (2006) suggested this is “not only
good advice for salmon but for all the native migratory species in the Gulf whose
populations today are just a fraction of historic levels”.
This approach is consistent with that considered for American Eel recovery in
Ontario where large rivers such as the Ottawa and St. Lawrence River watersheds
need to be priorities for recovery 6. Here, a wide variety of good eel habitat remains
available above large dams and hydro–electric facilities, often protected in
perpetuity in parks such as Algonquin Park. In addition, restoration of lost
ecological services provided by eels at former abundance levels would be much
appreciated in both systems.
The imperative for recovery for any species imperilled by our actions lies with our
obligation to sustain the living beings that share our planet and which sustain us. The
inherent value and recovery of the species is fundamental to the spirit and intent of
Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy (OMNR 2005a), Ontario’s Statement of Environmental
Values (SEVs) (OMNR 2009) and Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (Ontario
Government 2007) under which the recovery strategy (MacGregor et al. 2010) has been
prepared. Eels are endangered provincially because they have declined to precariously
low abundance; all eels of this special phenotype. appear to be important as they
convey important reproductive value (Berkley et al. 2004a,b; Palumbi 2004; Field et al.
2006; Venturelli et al. 2010). Consequently, the draft recovery strategy recommends
that they be allowed to disperse widely in the province’s diverse array of habitats, to
6
The Draft American Eel recovery strategy does not recommend removal of any hydro-electric facilities,
but does recommend mitigation to provide safe upstream and downstream passage.
41
grow and mature naturally to bring resilience back into Ontario’s stock (MacGregor et al.
2010).
Because dispersal of young eels from the Sargasso Sea appears to be driven by
large pulses of young eels (Casselman 2003), recovery of abundance and
distribution within Ontario will depend significantly on improved production of
recruits from the Sargasso Sea, which in turn is driven by the number of mature
eels that return to spawn. Consequently, recovery of the aforementioned
reproductively valuable phenotype found in USLR-LO (and associated watersheds
like the Ottawa River) will be imperative.
Both Canada and the European Union have recognized that, while shifts in ocean
currents may influence annual recruitment to continental waters, recruitment will be
dependent on the biomass of spawners, and there is a clear need to improve
production and escapement of spawners (Brujis et al. 2009; EU 2007; DFO 2004,
2007). Both Canada and the European Union recognize that strong reductions in
mortality and improved production of spawners (e.g. by increased access to habitat)
will be required, regardless of environmental influences on recruitment. Improved
production and escapement of large spawners typical of Ontario waters is especially
important given their reproductive value. For this reason, and because American
Eel is semelparous (only spawn once), special protection should be afforded to
seaward migrating silver eels (L. Velez Espino, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
personal. communication; MacGregor et al. in review; MacGregor et al. 2010;
COSEWIC 2006).
The initial efforts undertaken through the OPG action plan to mitigate the effects of
Saunders on eels are laudable in their examination of several pilot approaches to
mitigation; much useful information has been generated as a result of these efforts.
Mitigation efforts (including adaptive management) are required elsewhere as well;
not only to assure the waterpower industry of compliance with the Fisheries Act and
Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, but also to ensure provincial recovery of the
42
species, and to introduce resilience in the stock by diversifying the habitats
available. Waiting for the perfect solution to be developed somewhere else seems
inappropriate given the importance of the Ontario stock, the extent of the decline,
and the urgency of the situation. Moreover, site specific solutions involving adaptive
management will often be required.
In a letter to DFO regarding COSEWIC listing of eels, Elder Commanda says, “I
hope we will all come together to advocate the protection of Mother Earth and all
her creatures” (Commanda 2007a, written communication). Not long afterwards,
Elder Commanda sent a message to a 2007 meeting of fisheries officials from
Ontario, Quebec, and Canada convened in Pembroke, Ontario to discuss American
Eel conservation in the Ottawa River. In his message, Elder Commanda expressed
his belief that the meeting was very important, and that he wanted fisheries officials
to “understand why I am so concerned with the plight of the American eel” (W.
Commanda 2007b, written communication).
Approach to Recovery
The recommended approach to restoring connectivity in Ontario’s watersheds is similar
to approaches being pursued elsewhere for rebuilding stocks of migratory fishes, for
example in the Gulf of Maine and State of New York (Goode 2006, Elmer and Murphy
2007;see also Appendix 13). As many proposed new facilities and proposals for
upgrades, retrofits and improvements are before OMNR now for approvals, we
recommend that approvals processes pay close attention and implement key elements
of the draft recovery strategy, or risk exacerbating the current situation. This will be very
important when issuing LRIA and ESA permits approving such works, and especially
important in the development of waterpower agreements. Otherwise there is a
significant risk of repeating past mistakes and seriously impeding recovery, or
accelerating the path to complete extirpation in many watersheds/provincially. As we
have seen, hydro-electric facilities have a very long life-span, with the effects
accumulating across a century or more if unmitigated. The decisions made in the next
43
few months (before June 30, 2011 when waterpower agreements must be in place to
avoid contraventions of the ESA) will be critical and long-lasting.
The focus of the recovery strategy (MacGregor et al. 2010), is two-fold: 1) initial efforts
to protect and recover American eel throughout its present (post-2000) Ontario range;
and 2) a watershed-based strategically planned and phased approach to restoring
American Eel throughout its native historic range (as indicated by historical information
and ATK) in Ontario. Now that mortality due to commercial fishing has ended in
Ontario, the recovery strategy recommends that the cornerstone of recovery should be
reducing the threat imposed by man-made barriers and hydro-electric facilities by: (a)
strategically improving access to current and historic habitats in order to increase
production of eels (resulting in enhanced diversification and resilience), and (b)
implementing measures to substantially reduce mortality during downstream migration
at hydro-electric generating stations and thereby increasing escapement of eels
migrating downstream to spawn. Consequently, these measures form the primary thrust
of the strategy. This is consistent with the view expressed by the Environment
Commissioner of Ontario, “The ECO believes that MNR should require, through
approvals issued under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA), that all new
dams facilitate natural passage of fish by installing fish ladders or other similar
structures. In addition, MNR should require all existing dams to be retrofitted with fish
ladders or other similar structures to facilitate safe and natural migration along the
course of all Ontario’s streams and rivers, through LRIA approvals for improvement or
repair to dams.” ECO (2010). Full implementation of the approach to recovery, as
recommended in the Recovery Strategy, would span the next century or more
(MacGregor et al. 2010). The recommended strategy also includes measures to protect
eel habitat from other anthropogenic stressors.
The geographic scope of initial efforts to protect and recover American Eel throughout
its present (post-2000) range includes the St. Lawrence River/Lake Ontario system at
the Saunders GS and barriers in the lower reaches of the Ottawa River watershed, up
to but not including Des Joachims generating facility at Rolphton. Hydro-electric
44
facilities for which improved upstream/downstream passage would be necessary in the
initial phase of implementing the recovery strategy in the Ottawa River watershed
include: Carillon, Chaudière Falls, Chats Falls, and Chenaux on main stem of the
Ottawa River, and at the first three facilities on tributaries to this area of the Ottawa
River (e.g. South Nation River; Mississippi River; Bonnechere River; Petawawa River).
However, the Recovery Strategy also recommends an opportunistic approach within
areas where eels and other ESA listed species are currently thought to be extirpated.
For proposed new facilities, or proposed upgrades to existing facilities within the
historical range, we recommend that surveys be required prior to the issuance of all
Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act permits (including permits at the site release stage)
to: (a) confirm presence or absence of eels and other species, (b) determine potential
impacts and (c) evaluate opportunities for mitigation of effects on recovery of eels and
other species. It is our opinion that funding these surveys should be the responsibility of
the proponents, but they may be able to apply to government programs for assistance.
It is understood that government agencies have limited resources and funding to carry
out such surveys internally.
Downstream passage of eels will need to be facilitated soon within the current range of
eels in order to ensure recovery of this important phenotype and to ensure compliance
with the ESA and Fisheries Act. Recognizing that downstream passage will be more
problematic than upstream, and that some mortality will be inevitable, the key will be to
strategically and carefully undertake the appropriate research to find downstream
passage solutions. Tailrace surveys of eel mortalities are an inexpensive means of
determining at a coarse level when peak downstream migration occurs (Community
Stewardship Council of Lanark County, 2009). More focussed research can then be
carried out to fine tune this kind of information to help develop mitigation solutions at the
site-specific or reach levels.
There is much guidance to determine best bets for mitigation in the recent guidelines
and overviews by OWA (2010) and NYPA (2009), but these documents should not be
45
treated as the only solutions. More techniques will come with further, well studied
attempts to mitigate passage on smaller watersheds than the St. Lawrence River. The
key will be to patiently and continuously make progress through long-term, research and
adaptive management approaches.
Much can be learned from the remaining eels within the current distribution regarding
timing of migration, how some are able to find their way around barriers, preferred
habitats etc. Moreover, eels are still being killed in these waters by hydro-electric
facilities (Appendices 5A and 6B; Community Stewardship Council of Lanark 2009) and
there is a strong need to start some form of mitigation to protect these eels, beginning
with the necessary studies to determine the options. Furthermore, actions to mitigate
impacts on American Eel within the current range are necessary to achieve compliance
with requirements of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act and waterpower agreements.
Watershed-based Implementation Plans (WIPs), as recommended in the strategy and
discussed below, will guide the recovery efforts in watersheds within the current range
and over time throughout the historic range. The importance of the WIPs to strategic
recovery of eels cannot be over-emphasized.
For example, once increased access is provided and utilized by eels within their current
range in the Ottawa River, then implementation of enhanced passage to and from upper
Ottawa River/Lake Timiskaming waters could begin if the WIP for the watershed
determines it to be appropriate; implementation will depend both on the phasing
identified within these plans and on opportunities as they arise. This consideration
would occur within the watershed-based planning process outlined below.
Mitigation work at existing facilities on tributaries to Lake Ontario upstream of Saunders
(such as the Trent River, Gananoque and Niagara area waters), while important, could
begin at a later time once recovery actions have proven somewhat effective in
downstream waters, or as opportunities arise through retrofit or improvement
applications. However, provisions for passage should be designed and incorporated in
46
the construction specifications for all new facilities (or existing facilities applying for
upgrades, retrofits or other improvements) within the historical range of eels. We
recommend that these specifications be incorporated as legal conditions of any new
permits issuing approvals for retrofits or improvements; timing of implementation of
these conditions to be determined by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
It is expected that the overall approach to recovery will follow a general pattern of
moving from downstream to upstream reaches of watershed. This downstreamupstream approach is recommended for all key watersheds identified within the
recovery strategy, regardless of their location. Actual implementation of passage for
eels at facilities in upstream reaches, where eels are presently proven to be extirpated,
could be implemented either during initial construction, or at a later time when access is
provided at downstream sites. But, as noted elsewhere, we also recommend a
simultaneously opportunistic approach: i.e., we recommend that requirements for
mitigation of passage issues be considered and negotiated during the approvals
processes for any upgrade, retrofit or improvement of existing dams and hydro-electric
facilities anywhere within the historical range of eels. As a minimum, for waters where
eels are proven to be extirpated, we recommend that design specifications for upstream
and downstream passage should be incorporated as legal conditions of any new permit
issued for existing facilities. Timing of implementation of these conditions should be
determined by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The WIPs will help guide this
process.
To be clear and re-iterate, for waters where eels currently exist, it is imperative that
works to begin safe upstream and downstream passage begin now; upstream and
downstream passage should be negotiated as part of all waterpower agreements, and
be a formally noted as legal conditions of all LRIA and Fisheries Act
permits/authorizations in such waters.
Given the importance of the phenotype in Ontario, and the significant reproductive value
of each individual, the authors see no rationale to categorize eels or their habitats within
47
key watersheds or reaches that currently are in low abundance as somehow less
important to recovery. Eels in Ontario are listed as endangered because they are at low
abundance. In addition, the recovery strategy does not identify a need to introduce eels
to non-native waters, although where eels have been introduced or have penetrated
beyond their native range (e.g. Lake Erie and the upper Great Lakes) there have been
few if any known problems.
Given the lengthy timelines associated with approvals and construction processes, early
implementation of the strategy outlined above will be critical to take advantage of future
recruitment pulses when they occur (they can occur unpredictably and suddenly),
enabling access by recruits to additional habitat. Finally, WIPs need to be developed
very soon (within 1-2 years) to enable integration of the Agreement processes for
waterpower facilities under the ESA 2007 (Section 11, OReg 224/08) with
implementation of the strategy. In the meantime, it is important to collect further
scientific information, particularly in the key watersheds identified in the Recovery
Strategy, on: timing of upstream and downstream migrations, verification of presence
or absence of residual eels in various reaches, preferred seasonal habitats etc.
Watershed-based Implementation Plans
It is important not to confuse the recommended WIPs with the strategy itself. Ultimately
eel recovery in Ontario will be a societal choice on each watershed, but the public need
to clearly understand what the choices are. WIPs should be developed through detailed
analyses of the challenges and opportunities for eel recovery in each of the key
watersheds identified in the recovery plan (i.e. development of the plans will build and
expand upon existing research, analyses and experience (e.g. Reid and Meisenheimer
2001, Greig et al. 2005 and 2006, NYPA relicensing studies 2009, EPRI 1999, Goode
2006, Elmer and Murphy 2007, see also Appendix 8).They are intended to be carried
out with strong public consultation. It is during this process that knowledge of the current
science can be transferred and the choices can be outlined and considered in detail.
Within these plans, public discussions can take place concerning where in a watershed
48
to allow or restrict access. For instance, in some circumstances eels may prey on or
compete with brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis (O’Connor 1971). The two species have
co-existed naturally for thousands of years in Ontario watersheds; nevertheless, it will
be important to thoroughly discuss the potential re-introduction of eels to some waters
given the time that has passed since the species has been present. The watershed
implementation plans will be an opportunity to discuss such issues. Well designed
television documentaries provide another opportunity for public education.
In the normal progress of implementing the strategy at the watershed level, provision of
passage would begin in the lower reaches of a watershed, where some eels persist.
However, as discussed above, given the long time period that normally passes before
upgrades/modifications are proposed at a facility (often many decades), where project
review opportunities arise and the need for passage at a site has been identified as
strategic within a WIP, it will be important to ensure passage at these sites in the
approvals process for new or existing facilities regardless of location within a watershed.
In addition, it is essential that passage be provided at the first three or four potentially
impeding structures of a watershed or associated sub-watersheds, regardless of
documented current presence or abundance levels of eels..
In developing the Watershed-based Implementation Plans, a decision analysis and
adaptive management approach is recommended, that will:
•
strengthen the information needed for planning and decision making, and
•
develop the short and long term methods and designs needed to
strategically but effectively facilitate passage and minimize migration
mortality.
In view of the relatively long residency of natural recruiting American Eel before
outmigration (10 years or more), passage can be provided into areas with favourable
habitats within the historic range prior to implementation of provisions for downstream
passage, provided efforts are made to implement downstream passage within that time
frame. With time, careful study and commitment, better mitigation techniques will be
49
found. In the meantime, the strategy recommends careful, strategic expansion of the
range of eels, essentially learning as we proceed through adaptive management.
Given the strong migratory tendencies of eels, by implementing mitigation for upstream
passage at some barriers it will not be difficult to return some eels to many lakes or
reaches where they have been extirpated or severely reduced. There is little doubt that
restoration to former levels of abundance may not be possible or practical in all areas of
the province, given the extent of hydro-electric facilities on some watersheds, but it is
possible to make substantial improvements. We recommend that WIPs establish
reasonable objectives and targets for recruitment and escapement to help guide the
process, recognizing that recruitment of eels will be dependent to some extent on eel
abundance and recruitment elsewhere, environmental conditions and mortality, and also
have a tendency to fluctuate. The objectives and targets should be developed as a
reference to measure progress against, not to determine success or failure of the
recovery plan. There is a strong need for ongoing monitoring, particularly in the key
watersheds.
As with many species that are near extirpation, it will take time and commitment through
partnerships to achieve meaningful results. Expectations at the watershed level should
always keep the goal statement of the recovery strategy in the front of their mind – it
has a 150 year time horizon. Nevertheless, considerable progress towards recovery is
possible in the near term with strategic, dedicated commitment at the watershed scale.
REFERENCES
Alexis, P. 1897. Histoire de la Province Ecclesiastique d’Ottawa et de la Colonisation
dans la valle de L’Ottawa. Bureau du Ministre de l’Agriculture, Imprimatur, Ottawa,
die 17 a Junii, 1897 J. Thomas Archpus Ottawiensis. Available:
http://www.archive.org/stream/cihm_03592#page/287/mode/2up/search/anguille
Allen, W.A. 2010. Archaeology to the rescue of species at risk, Arch Notes 15(6): 5-14,
November-December 2010, Ontario Archaeological Society, Toronto.
50
Allen, W.A. 2009. Mazinaw Rock: An Open Letter to the Ontario Geographic Names
Board by Bill Allen, Burk's Falls, Ontario, March, 2005. In Ottawa Archaeologist 37:2,
pp. 6-9, June, 2009. Ottawa Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Ottawa.
Anderson, C. N. K., C.-h. Hsieh, S. A. Sandin, R. Hewitt, A. Hollowed, J. Beddington, R.
M. May, and G. Sugihara. 2008. Why fishing magnifies fluctuations in fish
abundance. Nature 452:835–839.
Avise, J.C., G.S. Helfman, N.C. Saunders, and L.A. Hales.1986. Mitochondrial DNA
differentiation in North Atlantic eels: Population genetic consequences of an unusual
life history pattern. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 83:4350-4354.
Barlow, A.E. 1899. A Report On The Geology And Natural Resources Of The Area
Included By The Nipissing And Timiskaming Map-Sheets: Comprising Portions Of
The district of Nipissing, Ontario, and of the county of Pontiac, Quebec. Geological
Survey of Canada. S.E. Dawson, Printer to the Queen’s most excellent majesty,
Ottawa. No. 672.
Barlow, A.E. 1907. Second Ed. Of A Report On The Geology And Natural Resources Of
The Area Included By The Nipissing And Timiskaming Map-Sheets: Comprising
Portions Of The district of Nipissing, Ontario, and of the county of Pontiac, Quebec.
Nabu Press, Feb. 2010. ISBN-13: 978-1145486157. 324 pp.
Berkeley, S. A., C. Chapman, and S. M. Sogard. 2004a. Maternal age as a determinant
of larval growth and survival in a marine fish, Sebastes melanops. Ecology 85:12581264.
Berkeley, S. A., M. A. Hixon, R. J. Larson, and M. S. Love. 2004b. Fisheries
sustainability via protection of age structure and spatial distribution of fish
populations. Fisheries 29:23–32
Bonhommeau, S., E. Chassot, B. Planque, E. Rivot, A.H. Knap, and O. Le Pape. 2008.
Impact of climate change on eel populations of the Northern Hemisphere. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 373:71–80.
Boubée, J.A., C.P. Mitchell, B.L. Chisnall, D.W. West, E.J. Bowman, and A. Haro. 2001.
Factors regulating the downstream migration of mature eels (Anguilla spp) at
Aniwhenua Dam, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and
Freshwater Research 35:121-134. Available:
www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/publish/Journals/nzjmfr/2001/9.aspx
Boyle, D. 1891. Notes. In Fourth Annual Report of the Canadian Institute, (Session of
1890-91) being an Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario.
Warwick, Toronto.
51
Brujis, M.C.M., H. Polman, G. van Aeressen, R.H. Hadderingh, H.V. Winter, C.
Deerenberg, H.M. Jansen, U, Schwevers, B. Adam, U. Dumont and N. Kessels.
2003. Management of silver eel: Human impact on downstream migrating eel in the
river Meuse. Final Report Contract Q5RS-2000-31141. KEMA. Nederland BV.
Netherlands. 106 pages. Available:
www.floecksmuehle.com/img/37576f7ae765c65b.pd
Brujis, M.C.M., R.H. Hadderingh, U. Schwevers, B. Adam, U. Dumont and H.V. Winter.
2009. Managing human impact on downstream migrating European eel in the River
Meuse. Pages 381- 390 in J.M. Casselman and D.K. Cairns, editors. Eels at the
edge : science, status and conservation concerns. American Fisheries Society,
Symposium 58, Bethesda, Maryland.
Burnett, A. 2007. William (Bill) James Bridgeman—the last miller of Wakefield. Gatineau
Valley Historical Society, Gatineau Valley Historical Society Newsletter 2007:04,
Chelsea, Québec.
Cairns DK, D.H. Secor, W.E. Morrison, and D.A. Hallet (2009) Salinity-linked growth in
anguillid eels and the paradox of temperate-zone anadromy. J Fish Biol 74:2094–
2114
Canada Department of Justice. 1985. Fisheries Act (R.S., 1985, c. F-14). Available:
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/F-14///en
Casselman, J.M., L.A. Marcogliese and P.V. Hodson. 1997. Recruitment index for the
upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario eel stock: a re-examination of eel
passage at the R.H. Saunders hydroelectric generating station at Cornwall, Ontario,
1974-1995. Pp. 161-169, in R.H. Peterson (ed.). The American eel in eastern
Canada: Stock status and management strategies. Canadian Technical Report of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2196.
Casselman, J.M. 2003. Dynamics of resources of the American eel, Anguilla rostrata:
declining abundance in the 1990s: Chapter 18. Pp. 255-274, in K. Aida, K.
Tsukamoto, and K. Yamauchi (eds.). Eel Biology. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo.
Casselman, J.M. 2008. Otolith age interpretations of juvenile American eels ascending
the R.H. Saunders Eel Ladder, Moses-Saunders Generating Station, upper St.
Lawrence River, 2003-2007. Conducted by AFishESci Inc. for Ontario Power
Generation through the Species at Risk Stewardship Program. 13 p. + 5
Casselman, J.M., and L.A. Marcogliese. 2008. Eel abundance in the upper St.
Lawrence River and eastern Lake Ontario—quantitative electrofishing index, 2008.
Conducted by AFishESci Inc. for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
52
Casselman, J.M., and L.A. Marcogliese. 2010a. Abundance and distribution of
American eels (Anguilla rostrata) and other fish in the lower Mississippi and Ottawa
Rivers, 2009, as determined by quantitative electrofishing. Conducted for Ontario
Species at Risk Stewardship Fund. February 2010. 55 p. + 3 appendices (504 p.)
Casselman, J.M., and L.A. Marcogliese. 2010b. Abundance and distribution of
American eels (Anguilla rostrata) and other fish in the Ontario waters of the Upper
St. Lawrence River and Charleston Lake, Gananoque River system, 2009, as
determined by quantitative electrofishing. Conducted for Ontario Species at Risk
Stewardship Fund. March 2010. 41 pages + 4 appendices (total 247 pages).
Castonguay, M., P.V. Hodson, C.M. Couillard, M.J. Eckersley, J.D. Dutil, and G.
Verreault. 1994. Why is recruitment of the American Eel, Anguilla rostrata, declining
in the St. Lawrence River and Gulf? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 51:479-488.
CBD (Convention on Biodiversity). 2000. Sustaining Life on Earth: How the Convention
on Biological Diversity Promotes Nature and Human Well-Being. Traditional
Knowledge, pg. 15. Secretariat, Convention on Biodiversity, Montreal, Canada.
Available: http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-sustain-en.pdf
CBD (Convention on Biodiversity). 2010. COP 10 Decision x/2. Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011-2020. Available: http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268
Commanda, W. 2007a. Correspondence from William Commanda, Algonquin Elder to
Pooi-Leng Wong, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, March 31, 2007.
www.icenetwork.ca/about_us/gwcvictoria%20island/othergwcdomtar08 (February
2009).
Commanda, W. 2007b. Written message from W. Commanda to an Ottawa River
meeting of fisheries officials discussing American eel conservation in the Ottawa
River. On file with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Plenty Canada.
Commanda, W. 2008. Manoshkadosh the American eel. Written statement by Elder W.
Commanda concerning the American eel on file with the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources and Plenty Canada.
Community Stewardship Council of Lanark County. 2009. American Eel-Hydro dam
tailwaters monitoring project: assessment of mortalities on the Ottawa and
Mississippi Rivers
COSEWIC. 2006. Assessment and status report on the American eel Anguilla rostrata
in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x +
71 pp. Available: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CW69-14-458-2006E.pdf
53
Dekker W., J.M. Casselman, D.K. Cairns, K. Tsukamoto, D. Jellyman, and H. Lickers.
2003. Worldwide decline of eel resources necessitates immediate action: Québec
declaration of concern. Fisheries 28:28-30.
Dekker, W. 2008. Coming to grips with the eel stock slip-sliding away. Pp. 3330-355, in
M.G. Schechter, W.W. Taylor, and N.J. Leonard (eds.). International governance of
fisheries ecosystems: learning from the past, finding solutions for the
future.American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
de Lafontaine, Y., M. Lagace´, F. Gingras, D. Labonte´, F. Marchand & E. Lacroix,
2009. Decline of the American eel in the St. Lawrence River: effects of local
hydroclimatic conditions on CPUE indices. In Casselman, J. M. & D. K. Cairns (eds),
Eels at the Edge: Science, Status, and Conservation Concerns. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 58: 207–228.
Desroches, D. 1995. Suivi de la migration de l’anguille d’Amerique (Anguilla rostrata) au
complexe Beauharnois, 1994. Rapport prepare par Milieu & Associes inc. Pour la
vice-presidence Environnement, Hydro-Québec, Montréal, Quebec.
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2004. Fisheries and Oceans Canada news
release September 17, 2004, DFO and provinces release American eel
management strategy. Available: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npresscommunique/2004/hq-ac79-eng.htm. (July 2008)
DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2007.American eel management plan. Available:
www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/fish_man/consultations/eel-anguille_e.htm. (July 2008).
Dönni, W., K-J. Maier, and H. Vicentini. 2001. Bestandsentwicklung des Aals (Anguilla
anguilla) im Hochrhein. Mitteilung Zur Fischeri, BUWAL, Bern, Germany. du Creux,
F. 1664.
Dutil, L, D. Belanger and C.M. Couillard. 1997. A telephone survey of eel fishermen
regarding external lesions and mortalities of American eels (Anguilla rostrata) from
Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River basin, Canada. Preventative Veterinary
Medicine 31(1-2):33-49.
Dymond, J.R. 1939. The Fishes of the Ottawa region. Contributions of the Royal Ontario
Museum of Zoology 15, Toronto,Ontario
Elmer, J.D., and S.P. Murphy. 2007. Improving fish habitat in the Oswego River. Hydro
Review, September 2007:16-21.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1999. American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
scoping study: a literature and data review of life history, stock status, population
dynamics, and hydroelectric impacts. Report TR-111873, Palo Alto, California
54
EC (Environment Canada). 2007. The American Eel of the St. Lawrence: A species in
decline for the past 40 years. Available:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=EEB1B2FF-1
ECO (Environmental Commissioner Ontario). 2010. Redefining Conservation, Annual
Report 2009/2010. Toronto. Available: http://www.eco.on.ca/eng/
EU (European Union). 2007. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1100/2007 of 18 September
2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel. Official
Journal of the European Union, 22.9.2007, L 248/17. Available: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/l_248/l_24820070922en00170023.pdf
Field, J, C. L. Moloney, L. du Buisson, A. Jarre, T. Stroemme, M. R. Lipinski and P.
Kainge. 2008. Exploring the BOFFFF hypothesis using a model of Southern African
deepwater hake (Merluccius paradoxus). Pages 17–26 in K. Tsukamoto, T.
Kawamura, T. Takeuchi, T. D. Beard, Jr. and M. J. Kaiser, eds. Fisheries for Global
Welfare and Environment, 5th World Fisheries Congress 2008.
Fort, T. 2003. The Book of Eels. HarperCollins Publishers. London. 348 p.
Friedland, K. D., M. J. Miller, and B. Knights. 2007. Oceanic changes in the Sargasso
Sea and declines in recruitment of the European eel. ICES Journal of Marine
Science 64:519–530.
George, J. (Washaghezik), 1914. Monsters. Certain Ojibwa Myths by Col. Geo. E.
Laidlaw. In 26th Annual Archaeological Report Ontario Being an Appendix to the
Report of the Minister of Education Ontario. King’s Printer. Printed by Order of the
Legislative Assembly, Toronto, Ontario.
Global Biodiversity Information Facility. 2011. Available:
http://data.gbif.org/welcome.htm
GMCME (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment). 2007. American Eels:
Restoring a Vanishing Resource in the Gulf of Maine. Available:
www.gulfofmaine.org 12 pp.
Goode, A. 2006. The plight and outlook for migratory fish in the Gulf of Maine. Journal
of Contemporary Water Research and Education 14:23-28.
Available:http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/134/5.pdf
GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 2002. Position statement on American eel.
Available: www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/eelposition.htm (March 2007)
Greig, L., D. Marmorek, J.D. Meisner, and M. Davis. 2005. Downstream Passage of
American eel in the St. Lawrence River: State of Science Workshop Report.
Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd., for the Passage and Associated Habitat
Subcommittee of the Canadian Eel Working Group. 47 pages.
55
Greig, L., I.J. Parnell, and D.R. Marmorek. 2006. Developing an action plan forAmerican
eels in the St. Lawrence River – Lake Ontario Region: Decision analysis. Prepared
by ESSA Technologies Ltd., Richmond Hill, Ontario, for Hydro-Québec, Fisheries
and Oceans Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Power
Generation, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, on behalf of the Passage and
Associated Habitat Subcommittee of the Canadian Eel Working Group. 155 pp.
Haro, A.J., W. Richkus, K. Whalen, A. Hoar, W.D. Busch, S. Lary, T. Bush, and D.
Dixon. 2000. Population decline of the American eel: implications for research and
management. Fisheries 25(9):7-16.
Hoag, H. 2007. A slippery slope. The Globe and Mail, March 31:2007
ICES (International Council for Exploration of the Sea). Report of the ICES/EIFAC
Working Group on Eels. International Council for Exploration of the Sea, ICES CM
2003/ACFN:06, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Japan Times. 2010. COP10 signs off on protocol. Pact reached on biodiversity, genetic
assets. Available: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20101031a1.html
King, W.R. 1866. The Sportsman and Naturalist in Canada. Hurst and Blackett,
Publishers, London. Pp. 250-252. Available:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=hkcDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=eel+
spearing+lake+st.+francis+king&source=bl&ots=k_XwmRguQq&sig=sjGyWti4aQZB
SHvAY6MJQScSF54&hl=en&ei=DjfmTIvHGMO8nAe5xfSrDQ&sa=X&oi=book_resul
t&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kraus, R. T., and D. H. Secor. 2005. Application of the nursery-role hypothesis to a
marine fish. Marine Ecology Progress Series 291:301–305.
Lackey, R.T., D. H. Lach, and S. L. Duncan, editors. 2006. Salmon 2100: the future of
wild Pacific salmon. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
LaMP. 2009. The Beautiful Lake: A binational biodiversity strategy for Lake Ontario.
Prepared by the Lake Ontario Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Working Group In
cooperation with the U.S. – Canada Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan. April
2009 (Updated July 2009)
Larinier, M. and F. Travade, 1999. La dévalaison des migrateurs: problèmes et
dispositifs. Bulletin Français de Pisciculture. Vol. 353/354: 181-210
56
Lary, S.J., W-D Busch, C.M. Castigione and R. MacDonald. 1998. Distribution and
availability of Atlantic Coast freshwater habitats for American eel (Anguilla rostrata).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Draft Administrative Report: 98-02
Lees, D. 2008. Eels on wheels. The Walrus. December 2008:42-57.
Livermore, R. 1914. Methods and Plant Employed in Pumping 400,000,000 Gallons of
Water and Mud to Drain Kerr Lake, Cobalt, Ont.. Engineering and Contracting 42:
140-143. Available:
http://www.archive.org/stream/engineeringcontr42chicuoft#page/140/mode/2up
Livermore, R. 1915. Draining Kerr Lake, Cobalt, Ont. Transactions of the American
Institute of Mining Engineers XLIX: 328-342.
Maarten C. M. Bruijs, R. H. Hadderingh, U. Schwevers, B. Adam, U. Dumont, and H. V.
Winter. 2009. Managing Human Impact on Downstream Migrating European Eel in
the River Meuse. Pages 381-390 in J.M. Casselman and D.K. Cairns, editors. Eels
at the edge : science, status and conservation concerns. American Fisheries
Society, Symposium 58, Bethesda, Maryland.
MacDonald, C.K. 1985. Historical Map of Temagami (Te-mee-ay-gaming) showing
traditional routes of travel, campsites and geographical names of the indigenous
Anishinawbeg before 1900, Ontario Geographic Names Board, Peterborough,
Ontario.
MacGregor, R.B., A. Mathers, P. Thompson, J.M. Casselman, J.M. Dettmers, S. LaPan,
T.C. Pratt, and W.A. Allen. 2008. Declines of American eel in North America:
Complexities associated with bi-national management. Pp. 357-381, in M.G.
Schechter, W.W. Taylor, and N.J. Leonard (eds.). International governance of
fisheries ecosystems: learning from the past, finding solutions for the future.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
MacGregor, R.B., J.M. Casselman, W.A. Allen, T. Haxton, J.M. Dettmers, A. Mathers,
S. LaPan, T.C. Pratt, P. Thompson, M. Stanfield, L. Marcogliese, and J.-D. Dutil.
2009. Natural heritage, anthropogenic impacts and bio-political issues related to the
status and sustainable management of American eel: A retrospective analysis and
management perspective at the population level. Pp. 713-739, in Haro, A.J., K.L.
Smith, R.A. Rulifson, C.M. Moffitt, R.J. Klauda, M.J. Dadswell, R.A. Cunjak, J.E.
Cooper, K.L. Beal, and T.S. Avery (eds.). 2009. Challenges for Diadromous Fishes
in a Dynamic Global Environment. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 69,
Bethesda, Maryland.
MacGregor, R., J. Casselman, L. Greig, W. A. Allen, L. McDermott, and T. Haxton.
2010. DRAFT Recovery Strategy for the American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) in Ontario.
Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. vii+ 78 pp.
57
MacGregor, R.B., T. Haxton, J. Casselman, L. Greig, W.A. Allen, and L. McDermott (in
review). The Demise of American eel in Ontario and New York: Species-level
Implications of Regional Cumulative Effects. American Fisheries Society Special
Symposium.
Machut, L., K.E. Limburg, R.E. Schmidt, and D. Dittman. 2007. Anthropogenic impacts
on American Eel demographics in Hudson River tributaries, New York. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 136:1699–1713, 2007
Machut, L.S., and K.E. Lindburg. 2008. Anglocolla crassus infection in Anguilla rostrata
from small tributaries of the Hudson River, New York, USA. Diseases of Aquatic
Organisms 79: 37-45.
Mandrak, N.E. and E.J. Crossman. 2003. Fishes of Algonquin Provincial Park, Friends
of Algonquin Park, Whitney, Ontario.
Martin, N.V. and F.E.J. Fry. 1973. Lake Opeongo: The ecology of the fish community
and of man’s effects on it. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Technical Report No.
24. Available: http://www.glfc.org/pubs/TechReports/Tr24.pdf
McCleave, J.D. 2001. Simulation of the impact of dams fishing weirs on the reproductive
potential of silver-phase American eels in the Kennebec River basin. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 21:592-605.
McCleave, J.D. and E. Edeline. 2009. Diadromy as a conditional strategy: patterns and
drivers of eel movements in continental habitats. 2009. Pp. 97-119, in A.J. Haro, K.L.
Smith, R.A. Rulifson, C.M. Moffitt, R.J. Klauda, M.J. Dadswell, R. Cunjak, J.E.
Cooper, K.L. Beal, and T.S. Avery (eds.). Challenges for diadromous fishes in
adynamic global environment. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 69,
Bethesda, Maryland.
McDermott, L, and P. Wilson. 2010. Ginawaydaganuk: Algonquin law on access and
benefit sharing. Policy Matters 17: 205211.
MNRF (Ministère des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune). 2009. Une nouvelle
mesure pour assurer le renouvellement de l’anguille d’Amerique. Communique de
press, le 17 mars 2009. Cabinet du ministre delegue aux Ressources naturelles et a
la Faune.
NRC (National Research Council of the National Academies). 2004. Atlantic salmon in
Maine. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
New Liskeard Speaker. 1928. Temiskaming fishermen have successful season.
Vol.:23(35): 1. October 25, 1928.
58
NYPA (New York Power Authority). 2009. Review of technologies for guiding, capturing,
holding, transporting and monitoring outmigrating eels. A report prepared for the
New York Power Authority by Versar Inc.. 384 pages.
New York Times, The. 1880. Catching Canadian eel: the fisheries of the St. Lawrence
River. The New York Times, October 18.
Normandeau Associates Inc. and J.R. Skalski. 1998. Draft final report. Estimation of
survival of American eel after passage through a turbine at the St. Lawrence-FDR
power project. Prepared for New York Power Authority, White Plains, New York
Oblak, J.A. 2009. Passage of the American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) in the Mississippi
River, Ontario: Feasibility and Recommendations, Mississippi Valley Conservation
Authority, Lanark, Ontario, Canada 66p.
O’Connor, J.F. 1971. Ecology of Brook Trout, American Smelt and American Eel in two
lakes in the Matamek River system, Quebec. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Waterloo,
Ontario. 80 pp + appendices.
Ogden, J.C. 1970. Relative abundance, food habits, and age of the American eel,
Anguilla rostrata (LeSueur), in certain New Jersey streams. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 99:54-59.
Ontario Government. 1990. Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. Available:
http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90l03_e.htm
Ontario Government. 2007. Endangered Species Act 2007. Toronto.
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=1498&detailPage=bills_detail_the_bi
ll
Ontario Government. 2008. O. Reg. 242/08. To establish new regulatory provisions
under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 to allow certain activities to continue.
Available: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080242_e.htm
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 1984. Commercial fish production
historic records, Northern Inland Waters 1924-1982. Written correspondence from
K.J. Chambers to the Regional Directors North Central Region, Northern Region and
Northeastern Region, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2005a. Protecting What Sustains Us:
Ontario`s biodiversity strategy. Available:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@biodiversity/documents/document/mnr_
e000066.pdf
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource). 2005b. Our Sustainable Future. ISBN : 07794-7520-8 Available :
59
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@about/documents/doc
ument/mnr_e000002.pdf
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2008a. Fisheries Management in
Renfrew County: A State of the Resource Report and a Focussed Review of
Fisheries Issues. January 2008. 100 pp.
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). 2008b. PARTNERS SUPPORT
ACTION PLAN TO BRING BACK AMERICAN EEL: Native Species Important Part
Of Great Lakes Ecosystem. News release June 20, 2008. Available:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Newsroom/LatestNews/246778.html
OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) 2009. Statement of Environmental
Values; Ministry of Natural Resources. Available: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEBExternal/content/sev.jsp?pageName=sevList&subPageName=10002
OWA (Ontario Waterpower Association). 2010. Best Management Practises: Guide for
American Eel and Waterpower in Ontario. 120 pages.
Palumbi, S. 2004. Why mothers matter. Nature 430 (August 5 2004): 621-622
PFBC (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission). 2007. Migratory fish restoration and
passage on the Susquehanna River. Available:
http://www.fish.state.pa.us/pafish/shad/migratory_fish.pdf
PRRT (Penobscot River Restoration Trust). 2009. Project details.
Available:http://www.penobscotriver.org/
Prosek, J. 2010a. Give thanks…for the eel? The New York Times. November 24, 2010.
Prosek, J. 2010b. Eels: an exploration, from New Zealand to the Sargasso, of the
world’s most mysterious fish. HarperCollins Publishers, New York, N.Y. 287 p.
Prosek, J. 2010c. Mystery Travelers. Eels. National Geographic, September 2010, Vol.
218(2):122-139.
Purvis, F. 1887. Field Notes of Subdivision Survey of the Township of Hilliard. Field
Note Book 1300. Available: Crown Surveys Office, Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, Peterborough.
Reading Eagle. 1902. Mysteries About Eels: enormous numbers in a turbine wheel –
sudden disappearance. July 19:4.
Reid, K.B. and P. Meisenheimer. 2001. The decline of American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
in the Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence Ecosystem: A modelling approach to identification
of data gaps and research priorities. Report Prepared for lake Ontario Technical
60
Committee by Beak International Incorporated, ref.: 21852.10. Available:
http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/eel.pdf
Save the River (2006). The Devastating 1976 NEPCO 140 Oil Spill. Fact Sheet.
Available: http://www.savetheriver.org/docs/76_NEPCO_spill_fact_sheet.pdf
Schmidt, R.E, C.M. O’Reilly and D. Miller. 2009. Observations of American Eels using
an upland passage facility and effects of passage on the population structure. N.
American Journal of Fisheries Management 29: 715-720.
Schmidt, J. 1922. The breeding places of the eel. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society. London B. Biological Sciences 211:179-208.
Science Daily. 2007. Scientist On Quest For Disappearing Eel Science Daily (Dec. 27,
2007). Available: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071221173633.htm
Secor, D.H. 1999. Specifying divergent migrations in the concept of stock: the
contingent hypothesis. Fisheries Research 43:13-34.
Secor, D.H. 2007. The year-class phenomenon and the storage effect in marine fishes.
Journal of Sea Research 57:91-103.
Secor, D. H. and L. A. Kerr. 2009. Lexicon of life cycle diversity in diadromous and other
fishes. Pp. 537-556, in A.J. Haro, K.L. Smith, R.A. Rulifson, C.M. Moffitt, R.J.
Klauda, M.J. Dadswell, R.A. Cunjak, J.E. Cooper, K.L. Beal, and T.S. Avery (eds).
Challenges for diadromous fishes in a dynamic global environment. American
Fisheries Society, Symposium 69, Bethesda, Maryland.
Secor, D. H. 2010. Is otolith science transformative? New views on fish migration.
Environmental Biology of Fishes. DOI.1007/s1064-010-9683-0.
Sherriff, Alexander. 1831. Topographical notices of the country lying between the mouth
of Rideau and Penetanguishene, on Lake Huron, by Alexander Sherriff, Esquire. In
Transactions of the Literary and Historical Society of Quebec, Volume 2, pp. 243309, Quebec.
Smith, C. 2004. Lake Ontario’s eels disappearing. Toronto Star, Saturday, February 7,
2004. Available: http://www.cameronsmith.ca/content/view/441/2
Smith, M.W., and J.W. Saunders. 1955. The American eel in certain fresh waters of the
Maritime provinces of Canada. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada12(2):238-269.
Smith, C.H. and I. Dyck. 2007. William Logan``s 1845 survey of the Upper Ottawa
Valley. Edited and Introduced by C.H. Smith and I. Dyck. Mercury Series History
Paper 54, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineua, Quebec. Logan Journal.
61
Société de Colonisation du Lac Témiscamingue. 1888. Colonisation du Lac
Temiscamingue et du Lac Kippewa. Ministére de l'Agriculture Canada a
Ottawa.1888. Available:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=n0hKRtuLRIsC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=l%27ang
uille+temiscamingue&source=bl&ots=3MDYlfbn0C&sig=hUisA24nveh9t8iRgzYkqDsLeM&hl=en&ei=3nqTOeRD5TonQf_05DyDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB
gQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thwaites, R.G. 1896 – 1901. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. 73 Volumes.
Burrows Bros., Cleveland, Ohio.
Tremblay, V. 2009. Reproductive strategy of female American eels among five
subpopulations in the St. Lawrence River Watershed. Pages 85-102 in J.M.
Casselman and D.K. Cairns, editors. Eels at the edge : science, status and
conservation concerns. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 58, Bethesda,
Maryland.
Venturelli, P. A., C A. Murphy, B. J. Shuter, T. A. Johnston, P. J. Van Coeverden de
Grot, P. T. Boag, J. M. Casselman, R. Montgomerie,M. D. Wiegland and W. C.
Leggett. 2010. Maternal influences on population dynamics: evidence from an
exploited freshwater fish. Ecology 91(7): 2003-2012.
Verreault, G. and P. Dumont. 2003. An estimation of American eel escapement from the
upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario in 1996 and 1997. Pp. 243-251, in D. A.
Dixon (ed.). Biology, management and protection of catadromous eels. American
Fisheries Society, Symposium 33, Bethesda, Maryland.
Verreault, G., P. Dumont, and Y. Mailhot. 2004. Habitat losses and anthropogenic
barriers as a cause of population decline for American eel (Anguilla rostrata) in the
St. Lawrence watershed, Canada. International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea. CM Document 2004/S:04, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Available:www.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/2004/S/S0404.pdf
Verreault, G., P. Dumont, J. Dussureault and R. Tardif. 2010. First record of migrating
silver American eels (Anguilla rostrata) in the St. Lawrence estuary originating from
a stocking program. J. of Great Lakes Research 36 (2010): 794–797
Ville de Temiscaming. 1996. Temsicaming 1921-1996, page 262. 432 pp. ISBN 29804206-0-3. Available: http://www.temiscaming.net/town-hall ; Available:
http://www.temiscaming.net/langues/fr/chapitre9.pdf
Vladykov, V. D. 1970. Progress Reports Nos. 1 to 5 of the American Eel (Anguilla
rostrata) Studies in Canada. Industrial Development Branch, Fisheries Service,
Department of Fisheries and Forestry, April 1970.
62
Watene, E.M. and J.A.T. Boubée. 2005. Selective opening of hydroelectric dam spillway
gates for downstream migrant eels in New Zealand. Fisheries Management and
Ecology 12(1):69-75.
Wirth, T. and L. Bernatchez. 2003. Decline of North Atlantic eels: a fatal synergy?
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 270:681688.
Young, J.K. 1970. Lake Nipissing-Temagami Fisheries Management Unit Report on the
fish populations of Lake Nipissing: the growth, distributions and habits, (a preliminary
report). Available at the Ministry of Natural Resources office in North Bay, Ontario.
63
APPENDIX 1. SOME ABORIGINAL PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICAN
EEL RECOVERY IN ONTARIO.
A. LETTER FROM CHIEF KIRBY WHITEDUCK
64
B. EXCERPTS OF A LETTER FROM LARRY MCDERMOTT, SHABOT
OBAADJIWAN FIRST NATION, ALGONQUINS OF ONTARIO
Ontario American Eel (Pimizi) Recovery Strategy
Comments May 27, 2009
Introduction
These comments come as a result of the Ontario Recovery Strategy meeting held in
Peterborough Ontario on May 7, 2009 to develop the draft American Eel Recovery
Strategy under the ESA 2007 process designed to identify the most effective strategic
path to achieve recovery of this species.
In the spirit and requirement of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, I was asked to serve
on the core provincial writing team for this effort. I have been pleased to serve so. I am
an Aboriginal representative who has invested a great deal of time into the process and
who carries the responsibility of bringing forward the many Aboriginal voices who have
invested their time, knowledge and, more importantly, their wisdom into a process that
they are not always sure will be respective of their point of view. We know the sharing of
Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK/Way of Knowing) with Western science in a
society that knows little about Aboriginal culture (despite centuries of sharing the land)
will be difficult. However, this ORS process has been largely open to Aboriginal points
of view and significant efforts have been made to understand deeper cultural roots that
are the basis of our ATK/Way of Knowing.
Algonquin Elder William Commanda the recent recipient of the Officer of the Order of
Canada has best expressed the fundamental view of Algonquin First Nations and
perhaps others with respect to the American Eel. He said recently “saving this fish is
linked with saving the indigenous voice.” If the goal is to stamp our voice out then failure
to honour the needs of the American Eel will accomplish just that.
Groundhogs or Eagles
Are we looking down our narrow burrows of self-interest or are we looking from the view
of the eagle to see that Ginawaydaganuc – we are all connected and what we do to
others we do to ourselves.
The Ontario ESA, and more specifically this ORS process for the American Eel, fits
within our commitments to the world through Canada’s signature as a party to the
Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). In 2010 the UN has declared that the world will share
in celebrating the UN Year of Biodiversity. It is also a year of accountability in which
nations will report their progress in reversing the alarming trend to bankrupt the only
bank that really matters, the biosphere.
65
In 1992, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro governments signed the binding
convention recognizing that poverty, human rights and biodiversity were linked. This
year in the CBD publication Sustaining Life On Earth, Klaus Topfler, Executive Director
of the United Nations Environment Program, said, “In the 21st century, we will stand or
fall on our ability to collectively eradicate poverty, guarantee human rights and ensure
an environmentally sustainable future. Freedom from want, freedom from fear and
sustaining our future are all part of the same equation.”
Hamdallah Zedan, Executive Secretary of the CBD, in the same publication had this
reminder for the world: “Biological diversity is the resource upon which families,
communities, nations and future generations depend. It is the link between organisms,
binding each into an interdependent community or ecosystem in which all living
creatures have their place and role. It is the very web of life.
A major cause of this erosion [in biodiversity] is that individuals, communities and
nations take the resource for granted. There is an assumption, based on thousands of
years of development, that living resources and biological diversity are limitless. Despite
isolated instances of where communities, even civilizations, have ignored this
responsibility and suffered dramatically as a result, for most of us the idea that we might
be reaching the limits of its endurance is beyond our comprehension.”
Recently, it was reported (Globe and Mail May 23, 2009) that the Right Whale after
decades of non-harvest, and failure to increase in population mysteriously has produced
significant numbers of offspring. In the same paper (May 26, 2009) in a report titled Bad
news, and good news, in our emptying oceans the subtitle summarized a report by
an international team of 2,000 researchers from 80 countries. The subtitle read “Global
study finds dramatic drops in marine life over the centuries, but it also find hope that
some depleted populations can recover.” Their unprecedented study concluded after
researching nearly 900 years of information that the world’s oceans support only 10% of
the marine life there once was.
Dr. Lotze, who holds a Canada Research Chair in marine renewable resources was
quoted in the report to say “In the past, some combination of reduced or banned
exploitation, pollution controls or habitat protection, especially of breeding colonies and
feeding grounds, propelled recovery.”
It is clear from both of these reports that when the scientific and political will is present
then good management can bring about positive change for species such as the
American Eel. There is no question in the minds of the many Aboriginal people who
participated in the many interviews associated with the ATK/Way of Knowing report by
Plenty Canada that recovery is not only possible, it is essential. The only factor that will
retard the recovery of the American Eel is the failure to listen to our voice and to place
material wealth and consumption ahead of protecting biodiversity a direct contradiction
to our commitment to the world through Canada’s signature on the Convention for
Biodiversity in 1992. Interestingly, Canada will be hosting the winter Olympics at that
time and further attention will be placed on our roll in serving global goals.
66
ORS Goals (See the Aboriginal Peoples’ American Eel Resolution, November 22-24,
2008)
1. Upstream and downstream passage are critical to the American Eel recovery and any
effort to procrastinate the reversal of habitat destruction must be rejected. Ontario
should look at efforts such as the Gulf of Maine, which is proactively working with many
partners to reverse habitat impacts on the American Eel and other fish species. This
effort takes a positive approach to both upstream and downstream passage and resists
efforts to find excuses not to address these two fundamental requirements for species
recovery. See Resolution #’s 3, 4, 5 and 7
2. Low abundance levels do not mean we do nothing. In fact, ladders and by-pass must
be designed and incorporated into the river systems where few eels do exist to reverse
the diminished opportunities for peak eel recruitment cycles. See Resolution #’s
1,2,3,4,5 and 7
3. The range of the American Eel in Ontario is known to Aboriginal peoples and it is
greater than the present map associated with the ORS indicates. The present map will
have to be revised to reflect this knowledge. See Resolution #7
4. All retrofitting of dams must immediately reverse the over 140 years of failure to
address fish passage in the watersheds of Ontario by putting the habitat needs of the
American Eel (and other fish) first especially over anthropogenic objectives. See
Resolution #’s 2,3,4,5 and 7
5. First Nation fishing rights, affirmed under the Marshall Supreme Court decision are
being infringed upon by the low number of eels. Our right to a modest income from the
eel populations whose decline has been caused by modifications to the environment
both locally and globally must be reinstated via the replenishment of these populations.
See Resolution #’s 2,3,4,5,6,and 7
6. Through Two Eyed Seeing we need to research, find innovative solutions to the
challenging recovery issues of the American Eel and develop greater public awareness
of the need to protect our biodiversity. See Resolution #7
7. The fourth intermediate goal “Restore access by American Eels to all immediate
tributaries” should explicitly identify and include the Ottawa River Watershed and as
many of its tributaries as possible by 2050. The date 2050 is too slow even for an
intermediate goal but our assumption is that we are committed to exceeding the goals
we have set in the ORS.
8. The American Eel has been referred to as the great integrator. Because it is
panmictic, and because of the fecundity of females from Ontario watersheds, Ontario
American Eels have contributed to the strength of the species and supported the
indigenous relationship with them, through out its range since time immemorial. As a
67
result, Ontario watersheds have and continue to play a key role in linking the Americas,
indeed the hemisphere, in a relationship with this great species.
9. The goals discussed on May 7, 2009 were already a compromise for many of us
serving on the ORS team and were far less ambitious than we heard from the Aboriginal
community in Ontario. So, the proposal by OPG biologists to further delay recovery
efforts and reduce the Ontario watersheds where habitat issues are addressed is
unacceptable.
ATK or Way of Knowing
The process of establishing a respectful way of sharing science from western,
Aboriginal and community sources as identified in the ESA 2007 will take more effort
than has been the case in the 2008-2009 ORS process. However, the Team Leader
and ORS Writers have demonstrated exceptional progress over the standard norm with
respect to “looking out of the box” as have others. ...
The [Elders] hope was that the promise and commitments of the 1701 Friendship and
Sharing Wampum belt carried by Elder and Doctor William Commanda would again be
honoured. ... The Act prescribed that science now also included Aboriginal and
Community knowledge. Perhaps it is not clear that it must include Aboriginal Ways of
Knowing. This requires a cross-cultural investment first in understanding the
fundamental underpinnings of each other’s culture and second great care in integrating
the knowledge in a cross-cultural way, not only in an exclusively western way. A primary
example is the Anishnabe watershed perspective, which recognizes the importance of
the American Eel in terms of its relationships not only to other aquatic species but also
to terrestrial species including humans. Regional fairness and Two Eyed Seeing
knowledge demands the need to develop eel recovery in all watersheds of historic
American eel distribution. When scientists ignore the need to restore resilience in the
species by advocating that Ontario abandon the need to manage human impacts in a
way that also safeguards the eel's vital contribution to balanced watershed ecosystems,
those scientists rationalize/ accelerate the erosion of biodiversity at “a perilous rate” as
the Executive Secretary of the CBD said recently. Further they subject their credibility
as professionals and their birthright as sacred beings co-created to honour cultural
interdependence, benefiting from the grand resources of the land and accepting
responsibility for protecting the life givers in our ecosystems above all else, irrespective
of the demands for economic gluttony.
It is fact that Ontario has been victim of over a century of negative cumulative effects by
waterpower interests whose failure to ensure fish passage has ensured virtually no
attempt to mitigate the decline of Ontario’s eels. The values underlying such inaction
are not acceptable and can no longer be tolerated. Strong recovery actions are needed
now before the American eel disappears entirely from Ontario. The importance of eel
recovery in every regional watershed to enhance the resilience of American Eel and
aquatic ecosystems to future impacts, to the principles of biodiversity and to the cultural
and natural heritage values of Ontario’s citizens must not be compromised. Any further
68
discussions about American eel recovery and related watershed planning and fisheries
management should identify principles of engagement.
The honest and sincere question about the “collection” of ATK is probably best
explained by telling a story. During the ATK Working Group of OMNR, George
Duckworth of OMNR was told emphatically that using the term ATK was in fact abusive.
The reason was that in order to understand Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge one must
take the time to learn Way of Knowing or the deeper cultural context for the knowledge.
The reason for this is that knowledge embedded in culture provides a deeper
understanding than knowledge extracted from that culture without the cultural
framework. In fact, much worse than that, knowledge disrespectfully taken and used
can be very harmful, completely misunderstood and cause harm even though it is
shared in good faith.
We should have taken more time to share our cultural roots. I think we should have had
a meeting that was run in part or in whole by the Aboriginal representatives. Elder
Commanda explained this past weekend how important the talking stick or eagle feather
is in helping a group of people maintain a high level of respect for each person’s special
gifts and voice. He pointed to the Parliament buildings and indicated that Members
there have much to learn about respecting one another.
The cross-cultural component of the ORS must be given more care if we are to achieve
the vision (and the efficacy) expressed in the Act. I hope this can be expressed in our
ORS.
I have tried to share some of the thoughts of the many First Nations people who have
shared with me but I can only begin to reflect their love for Mother Earth and their many
creative and wonderful ideas for restoring the sacred relationship with the American Eel
and the sacred balance with all of the life givers of Mother Earth.
Finally, let me say, I sincerely hope we continue to work together and I truly wish for a
better world for all of our children and those yet unborn.
Chi Meegwetch
Larry (Oomsee) McDermot
69
Appendix 2. Ontario archaeological sites yielding eel remains
Map A: Locations of sites
Note: American eel remains have been identified at a sample of archaeological sites in alkaline
soils in the southern part of historic eel range. In the northern part of Ontario’s historic American
Eel range, fish bones do not preserve in the acidic soils of the Canadian Shield. The first map
illustrates locations where such remains have been identified in a sample of sites to date. The
sites shown indicate known sites registered by archaeologists only and do not include ancient
fish bone middens studied by fisheries biologists who do not hold an archaeology licence. Most
archaeological sites in Ontario are not subject to faunal analyses so most Ontario
archaeological sites have no data about whether or not eels were present. The site on the
Ottawa River is within Quebec, but close to the provincial border. Some circles represent two
sites that are so close together that only one circle is used to indicate American eel presence in
the immediate area. Data for site locations is provided by W. A. Allen, Heritage One based on
the database of the Ontario Ministry of Culture (Allen 2010).
70
Map B) Minimum number of individual (MNI) eels at each site
Note: Olive coloured circles show the Minimum Number of Individual eels (MNI) at each site.
Most sites have fewer than 5 eels, often only one eel, including sites that may be outside
historic American eel range, as in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. In such cases the eel may have
been transported to the site by human agency. Sites on the St. Lawrence River (MNI of 56 and
38) and Ottawa River (MNI of 520 and 68) have evidence of being eel harvesting and/or
processing sites for transport of the eels elsewhere (Allen 2010).
It has not been possible to consolidate all archaeological information in the development of this
recovery strategy, and there remain archaeological leads that should be followed up (Allen
2010). Archaeological evidence can include more than eel bones. For example, closer
examination is required of the pipe fragment with the serpentine shape and fin-like element
excavated near Balsam Lake and reported to the Ontario legislature in 1891 (Boyle 1891).
Some pictograph site images which have been called “winged serpents” in archaeological
literature need to be reassessed in light of new understandings of the reverence that aboriginal
people held for eels (Allen 2010). One such site that requires such analysis is Archaeological
Site BfGh-5 (Mazinaw) (Allen 2009), a site in traditional eel habitat in Ontario’s upper Mississippi
watershed.
71
Appendix 3. North Bay District
A. Photo of American Eel caught in 1942 in Lac Marsac (White Lake), a tributary
lake of Lake Timiskaming
(Source: Ville de Temiscaming 1996)
72
B. Location of Dams in North Bay District Watersheds.
73
74
North Bay District watersheds and barriers
75
Lake Temagami, Sturgeon River and French river barriers
76
C. Historical eel distribution in North Bay District (apparent = light purple;
confirmed = dark purple).
77
D. Log slide at Talon Chutes prior to construction of Talon dam (1915)
78
E. New Liskeard Speaker article indicating commercial eel harvests from Lake
Timiskaming; October 25, 1928
79
Appendix 4. Pembroke District American Eel Information
Eel caught in NSCIN netting, Lac Des Chats, 1998.
Eel carcass found downstream of Cheneax GS, 2007
Photos of eel studies underway in Pembroke District
First eel caught in Pembroke eel studies, 2008
One of 4 eel caught for study in Lac des Chat 2009
80
Area Biologist Kirby Punt makes incision on eel to
implant transmitter May 2010
Arnprior F&G Club members Stewart
McLaughlin and Eric Smith measure length of
a eel May 2010
Sewing up eel after transmitter implant 2010
Area Biologist Tania Baker finds it very trying holding onto a slippery eel
during telemetry study May 2009
81
Ottawa River Eel Team 2010 from left to right Kirby Punt, Eric
Smith, Stewart McLaughlin, Graham McMillan and front Tim
Courtney
A. American Eel Current and Historical Records in Pembroke District/Algonquin
Park
NOTE: This map, based on fisheries data and interviews documenting local community
knowledge, shows that since 2000 eels have been present well upstream on the Ottawa River
and on the Petawawa River inside Algonquin Park. In the 1990’s, an eel was reported at Cedar
Lake well upstream on the Petawawa River in Algonquin Park. The pre-1980 historical data on
the map is further supported by a publication by Mandrak and Crossman featuring a photograph
of a large eel that had been caught in Algonquin Park in the 1930’s and the mapping of 8
locations in Algonquin Park where eels had been caught in decades past, mostly in the upper
Petawawa Watershed but also in the Bonnechere and Madawaska Watersheds (Mandrak and
Crossman, 2003). The Mandrak and Crossman map was a snapshot in time and assumed
extirpation of American eel from Algonquin Park. However, this map (Nov. 29, 2010) of eel
presence in later periods shows that caution needs to be exercised in this interpretation.
82
B. Netting results from Round Lake (1945-1948)
83
C. Round Lake – Lake Survey Report
84
D. Location of Dams and Barriers in Pembroke District
85
Appendix 5. Eel Distribution and location of hydro-electric facilities and
dams in Kemptville District Watersheds.
A. Recent photographs of eels found in Kemptville District
A rare occurrence these days, an eel captured in Mississippi Lake, Sept. 2009
Photos of eel carcasses encountered during the Ottawa River, 2009 tailrace survey
(Community Stewardship Council of Lanark County 2009).
86
87
5B. Location of eels, hydro-electric facilities and watercontrol structures in
Kemptville District
88
89
90
91
Appendix 6: Peterborough and Bancroft Districts
Appendix 6 A. Occurrences of eels in Peterborough and Bancroft Districts
92
Appendix 6 B. Eel evidently killed by turbines on Trent River, upstream of Sydney
Generating Station (August 2008).
93
Appendix 6 C. Location of Dams in Peterborough District
Moira River Watershed
94
95
96
Appendix 7. Location of Recent Eel Observations in Aurora and
Guelph/Niagara Districts – Niagara Watersheds
A) Aurora
97
B) Guelph/Niagara District
98
Appendix 8. Potential eel crossover points spanning the height of land
between watersheds
A. Potential Eel Crossover Points: Ottawa River to Lake Nipissing
Option #1: Trout Lake to LaVase Creek – LaVase Portage Route
99
Above: North Bay, Ontario. Note Dugas Bay, Trout Lake (Ottawa River Watershed) and
series of ponds along La Vase Creek (Lake Nipissing Watershed).
Below: Pond on La Vase Portage between Trout Lake and La Vase Creek
100
Option #2: Lake Nosbonsing to Wasi River Watershed
A marsh at the west end of Lake Nosbonsing (Ottawa Watershed) at Astorville leads
westward directly to a marsh drained by a stream which flows to the Wasi River (Lake
Nipissing Watershed). The Wasi River is reported through ATK as a river of historic eel
distribution. Above is a map of the trench along which the two marshes are formed.
Below an aerial photograph shows the marsh and Lake Nosbonsing shoreline.
101
Option #3: Depot Creek (Ottawa River Watershed) to Wasi Lake (Lake Nipissing
Watershed)
.
The marsh bordering Depot Creek immediately east of Wasi Lake extends to the height
of land such that the west side of the marsh drains to Wasi Lake
102
Option #4: Nipissing River (Ottawa River Watershed) to South River (Lake Nipissing
Watershed) at Togo Lake, Algonquin Park
Above: The marsh bordering the Nipissing River (Ottawa River Watershed) extends to
the shoreline of Togo Lake at the headwaters of the South River (Lake Nipissing
Waterhsed), providing easy access for any eel in the Nipissing River to cross over to the
South River.
Below: Marsh-lined upper Nipissing River near Togo Lake during late April high water.
103
B. Potential Eel Crossover Points: Balsam Lake (Upper Trent River Watershed) to
Talbot River (Lake Simcoe Watershed)
Option #1: Corson Marsh between Balsam Lake (Trent/Lake Ontario Watershed) to
Talbot River (Lake Simcoe Watershed)
The Talbot River (Lake Simcoe Watershed) just upstream from Raven Lake is bounded
on the east by Corson Marsh, whose east side drains south to a creek flowing to
Balsam Lake (Trent River Watershed). The marsh draining in two directions at high
water makes an easy crossover point for eels in Balsam Lake which is known traditional
eel habitat. Below is a photograph taken from the Corson Bridge looking upstream on
the Talbot River toward Corson Marsh. A major archaeological village site is nearby.
104
Option #2: Grass Creek Marsh (Trent/Lake Ontario Watershed) to Talbot River (Lake
Simcoe Watershed) at Mitchell Lake
Continuous wetland lies between Grass Creek (Balsam Lake Watershed in upper Trent
River Watershed) and Talbot River (Lake Simcoe/Severn River Watershed). In modern
times, part of the wetland has been flooded immediately east of Kirkfield Liftlock at the
height of land between the Trent and Severn Waterways. Even before canal
construction the marshy land provided a potential eel crossover point. In spring the
woodlands and fields near Grass Creek are flooded as the photograph below shows.
105
Appendix 9. Aerial view of the obstacles faced by American eels displaying
catadromous behaviour in the Ottawa River watershed. Note: No formal
provisions for fish passage are provided at any structure
Ottawa River
Figure A9-1 – Carillon Generating Station is the first barrier on the Ottawa River.
Constructed in 1964, it separates Lac des Deux Montagnes and Lac Dollards des
Ormeaux. A boat lift on the eastern side represents the only potential passage
American eel may have around this dam. However, there are very few lockages per day
and they only occur in daylight hours when eels are less active.
106
Figure A9-2. Chaudière Falls represents a series of hydro facilities and a ring control
dam between the cities of Ottawa and Hull. The first hydro facility was constructed on
site in the 1880s. Some stations are currently being retrofitted to improve efficiencies.
There is no apparent passage for fish.
Figure A9-3. Chats Generating Station was constructed in 1932 and shared between
Ontario Power Generation and Quebec Hydro. Despite a Navigable Waters Protection
Act permit (1929) that indicated fish passage would be provided in accordance with
Department of Marine and Fisheries requirements, no fish passage has been provided.
107
Figure A9-4. The Mississippi Snye, located on the east side of Chats Generating
Station, is being examined as a potential means for some limited upstream passage for
American eels around the barrier.
Figure A9-5. A small log dam is present at the top end of the Mississippi Snye.
108
Figure A9-6a. Chenaux Generating Station, constructed in 1948, is a significant barrier
to eel immigration up the Ottawa River (although eels are infrequently found upstream
of Chenaux GS).
Figure A9-6b. Large eel evidently killed by turbines, found below Chenaux GS in 2008.
109
Figure A9-7. Bryson Generating Station was constructed in 1925 along Culbute Channel. Eels
were still able to migrate along the main channel of the Ottawa River on the eastern side.
Figure A9-8. Rolphton Generating Station is a large facility constructed in 1948.
110
Figure A9-9. Otto Holden Generating Station began operation in 1952.
Figure A9-10. Timiskaming water control dam. Planning for hydro-electric facility.
111
Figure A9-11. Chantier Rapids Generating Station at Qinze Rapids – the first in a series
of hydro-electric facilities on the Ottawa River, upstream of Lake Timiskaming.
112
Mississippi River
Figure A-9-12. Galetta Generating Station represents the first dam upstream from the Ottawa
River on the Mississippi River.
Figure A9-13. Almonte Generating Station was being retrofitted at the time of flight.
113
Figure A9-14. Appleton Generating Station and control structure. This facility was
designed to include eel passage, however, it was never made operational.
Figure A9-15. Control structure at Carleton Place.
114
Figure A9-16. High Falls Generating Station.
Figure A9-17. A small control dam exists on the outflow of Crotch Lake.
115
Madawaska River
Figure A9-18. The Arnprior weir is the first barrier upstream from the Ottawa River on
the Madawaska River. It was constructed to help control erosion effects from the
Arnprior Generating Station.
Figure A9-19. Arnprior Generating Station was constructed in 1976 forming Madawaska
Lake. There are no passages for American eel on this dam.
116
Figure A9-20. Stewartville Generating Station is the third dam along the Madawaska
River.
Figure A9-21. Calabogie Generation Station is located on the outflow of Calabogie
Lake.
117
Figure A9-22. A small sluice gate exists on the North Channel (outlet of Calabogie
Lake) and is used to pass water during peak flows.
Figure A9-23. Barrett Chute is located on the inflow to Calabogie Lake and controls
water levels in Black Donald/Centenniel Lakes.
118
Appendix 10. Examples of watershed approaches to passage restoration for
American eel and other migratory fish species.
A. Gulf of Maine
119
120
B. Susquehanna River
121
122
123
C. Penobscot River
Restoring the Penobscot
Unprecedented project to restore balance between power generation and environment on
Penobscot River balancing the environment, economy and quality of life in Maine's largest
watershed.
Old Town, Maine - Today, on the banks of the Penobscot River, PPL Corporation, conservation
groups, the Penobscot Indian Nation, the State of Maine, and the U.S. Department of Interior,
announced an agreement aimed at restoring sea-run fish to the Penobscot River, while giving
PPL Corporation the opportunity to maintain more than 90% of its current hydropower
generation.
The Penobscot River
The Penobscot River Restoration Project will significantly improve access to over 500 miles of
river habitat, allowing for the recovery of native species of sea-run fish. It will also strengthen
the river's ecological connection to the ocean, helping feed fisheries and wildlife in the river and
the Gulf of Maine.
A new or existing not-for-profit corporation, to be agreed upon by parties to the agreement will
purchase the Veazie, Great Works, and Howland dams for approximately $25 million between
2007 and 2010. Under this unprecedented and innovative project:
124
1. PPL Corporation receives the option to increase generation at six existing dams, which would
result in more than 90% of the current energy generation being maintained;
2. The not-for-profit corporation will receive the option to purchase and subsequently remove the
two lowermost dams on the Penobscot: Veazie and Great Works;
3. The not-for-profit corporation will also, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pursue a
state-of-the-art fish bypass around the Howland dam that will, if found feasible, maintain the
impoundment;
4. PPL Corporation will improve fish passage at four additional dams.
"We've united for the purpose of restoring the Penobscot River for the people, fish and wildlife
of Maine," said Laura Rose Day, spokesperson for the conservation organizations. "By
redesigning how the river is used to generate power, the Penobscot River Restoration Project will
improve access to more than 500 miles of habitat for sea-run fish, improve water quality, boost
wildlife, and create new opportunities in communities along New England's second largest
river."
"This is a groundbreaking agreement, balancing our obligation to our shareowners and our
energy customers with our strong commitment to the environment," said Dennis Murphy, PPL's
Vice President and CEO-Eastern Fossil and Hydro. "It's truly a win-win situation for PPL, for the
Penobscot Indian Nation, for people and businesses that will benefit from a restored fish run, and
for the environment."
Ecological Benefits
The Penobscot is Maine's largest river, draining 8,570 square
miles, about one-third of the state. For thousands of years, sea-run
fish migrations defined this river. Populations of many of these
fish, such as Atlantic salmon, sturgeon, shad, alewives, blueback
herring, and striped bass, are at or near all-time lows.
The project will provide an essential ingredient for the successful
restoration of Atlantic salmon and ten other species of native searun fish in the Penobscot--the ability to reach their spawning
habitat. "This agreement is the single-most significant step that we
can take to restore Atlantic salmon because it would significantly
improve adult salmon's ability to reach vast quantities of
productive spawning and rearing habitat," said Joan Trial, Acting
Executive Director, Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission. "This
project will improve access to hundreds of miles of river and
dozens of lakes and ponds that historically provided habitat for
shad, alewife, blueback herring and American eel," said Clem Fay, Fisheries Manager for the
Penobscot Indian Nation. This project will also restore unimpeded access to 100% of the historic
habitat for striped bass, rainbow smelt, tomcod, and Atlantic and endangered shortnose sturgeon.
Restoration of sea-run fish will provide abundant new food sources to both the river and sea. The
project will have other tremendous benefits to the environment, creating improved water quality,
125
new feeding opportunities for aquatic birds and mammals, restored nutrient cycling, and native
habitats, which will support diverse species, including aquatic insects, mussels, amphibians,
turtles and fish.
Benefits to Culture and Tradition
The project holds the potential to help revitalize time honored fishing traditions and cultures that
for generations have connected people to the river.
"Maine's Penobscot River watershed has been the homeland for the Penobscot Indian Nation for
more than 10,000 years," said Chief Barry Dana. "This agreement will restore our ability to
obtain our sustenance, culture, and identity from the river that bears our name."
For more than 100 years, the Penobscot Indian Nation has been unable to exercise its tribal
fishing rights because the river is virtually devoid of native sea-run fish above Veazie Dam.
The abundant salmon runs of the past also supported generations of salmon anglers. The river is
home to the nation's first salmon club and once was known for its tradition of sending the first
salmon caught each year to the U.S. President. President George Bush in 1992 was the last
President to participate in this tradition which was suspended due to declining wild Atlantic
salmon populations. Over time, a restored river could contribute to the revitalization of social,
recreational, and business opportunities along the Penobscot.
126
Benefits to Community and Economic Development
Water quality in the Penobscot River has greatly improved during the last 30 years due to the
reduction in industrial pollution required by the Clean Water Act. Communities across Maine
already have turned toward these cleaner waters, revitalizing their riverfronts. The return of the
Penobscot sea-run fishery and free-flowing river sections will provide opportunities to realize the
river's full potential. Many new and improved recreational opportunities on the Penobscot -including canoeing, kayaking, fishing, river festivals, and wildlife watching -- could bring an
influx of recreational enthusiasts and their dollars. Shad festivals, for example, generate
substantial revenue each spring in river communities along the Susquehanna River in
Connecticut and the Hudson River in New York.
The Governor has assigned the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD)
to take the lead in pulling together a team of representatives from towns in the project area and
economic development organizations. The team will help design a program aimed at assisting
local communities in taking advantage of economic opportunities created by the project. An
effort will be made to secure $3-5 million to increase local economic development capabilities,
build a regional economic development collaborative, and fund river-related economic
development activities.
Power Generation Benefits
The conservation groups and Penobscot Indian Nation will support PPL Corporation's
opportunity to increase generation at several sites, part of the overall improved balancing of
energy, fisheries and wildlife. This will allow the company to focus on efficient energy
production at its remaining generation sites. The company also will gain a predictable way to
meet its fish passage obligations on the Penobscot River with the potential for no significant loss
of power production. PPL Corporation expects to maintain current staffing levels in Maine.
127
Signatories to the Penobscot River Restoration Project are: PPL Corporation, Penobscot Indian
Nation, Atlantic Salmon Federation, American Rivers, Natural Resources Council of Maine,
Trout Unlimited, the State of Maine, and the U.S. Department of Interior Bureaus of Fish and
Wildlife, Indian Affairs, and the National Park Service. Maine Audubon joined the project after
the signing of the initial agreement.
More information about the Penobscot River Restoration Project can be found on our website at
www.penobscotriver.org .
128
Appendix 11: Lake Ontario Management Unit / Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Action
Plan, Saunders Generation Station; Lake Ontario-Upper St. Lawrence River
Moses-Saunders Generating Station, St. Lawrence River
American Eel carcasses found downstream of Saunders Generating Station in 2009.
Stocking glass eels in the
St. Lawrence R. and Lake
Ontario
Effectiveness Monitoring of Eel Stocking
Trap and transfer program and
Lake Ontario
129
FACT SHEET
ONTARIO POWER GENERATION ACTION PLAN
FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE AMERICAN EEL(*)
IN LAKE ONTARIO/UPPER ST. LAWRENCE RIVER 2006 TO 2011
The key components of the Ontario Power Generation Action Plan include
trapping and transporting mature eels, stocking of young eels, and monitoring
the effectiveness of these measures.
Transporting Mature Eels Around Generating Stations
- Ontario Power Generation, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
and Fisheries and Oceans Canada are conducting studies to see if
mature eels can be captured in Lake Ontario and the upper
St. Lawrence River and trucked downstream to the lower St. Lawrence.
- The federal government's contribution to this initiative has been and
will continue to be primarily in the form of its scientific research
capacity and collaboration with the various parties. Some of the work
currently underway includes the compilation of fish habitat
inventories to understand the current status and condition of eel
habitat within its historical range.
- Transporting the eels allows them to avoid hydroelectric generating
stations on the St. Lawrence.
- In 2008 and 2009, commercial fishermen captured live, large eels
(over 1.1 kilograms (2.5 pounds)) using traditional fishing gear.
The eels were collected, measured and tagged by the Ministry of
Natural Resources.
- Ontario Power Generation trucked the eels downstream to Quebec where
they were released into Lac St Pierre (near Trois Rivières) and
Lac St. Louis (just upstream from Montreal) with the assistance of
the Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec.
- Ontario Power Generation is studying how the eels are affected by the
capture and transport process, and determining if they subsequently
undertake a spawning migration out of the St. Lawrence River back to
the Atlantic Ocean.
Stocking Young Eels into the Upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario
- In addition to the above program, Ontario Power Generation is
acquiring young eels, known as "glass" eels, in the Maritimes and
stocking them into the upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario in
the hope that this will accelerate the recovery of the American eel
in Ontario. About 3.9 million glass eels have been stocked into the
upper St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario since 2006.
130
- The glass eels are collected by commercial fishers in the Maritimes
as they migrate from the ocean into the estuaries of Maritime rivers
in the spring.
- The glass eels are extensively tested for pathogens and parasites at
the Atlantic Veterinary College in Prince Edward Island before being
authorized for shipment by truck to Ontario.
- The glass eels are being released into several areas in the
St. Lawrence River and eastern Lake Ontario with good habitat for
young eels.
- Ontario Power Generation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the
Ministry of Natural Resources will be monitoring the success of the
stocking to confirm that the glass eels survive and grow.
------------(*) American eel is not related to the species commonly referred to in
Ontario as lamprey eel.
For further information: Ivan Langrish, Minister's Office, (416)
314-2212; Media Desk, Communications Services Branch, (416) 314-2106; Media
Relations, Ontario Power Generation, 1-877-592-4008 or (416) 592-4008
131