December 11, 2017…

December 11, 2017

  Fiona McGuiness

 Senior Policy Advisor

 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

 Policy Division

 Species Conservation Policy Branch

 Species at Risk Recovery Section

 300 Water Street

 Peterborough, Ontario

 K9J 8M5

  Dear Ms. McGuiness,

  Re: EBR 013-1476 - Development of the government response statement for American Eel under the Endangered Species Act, 2007

  The Canadian Wildlife Federation (CWF) would like to thank the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) for their diligent work toward issuing the draft Government Response Statement (GRS) for American Eel (Anguilla rostrata).  The status of this once ubiquitous and now endangered species in Ontario has become critical, and we are pleased to see progress toward implementing vital recovery actions. The proposed GRS contains many excellent planning, monitoring, and research activities; however, we are deeply concerned by the lack of clear requirements for immediate mitigation, and the lack of a quantitative recovery goal.  With the number of elvers migrating upstream through the Saunders ladder dropping to 77 in 2017 from over 1,000,000 in the early 1980s, it is clear that strong and immediate action is required to prevent the extirpation of this species from Ontario.

  Action 7:

 Action 7 is among the most important actions in the GRS. Given that actions to reduce mortality can and should be implemented immediately, it is unclear why this is not listed among the 6 ‘immediate actions”.  Line 370 indicates that this action will not be implemented until 2020 at the earliest. This is a major issue given significant delays to date in implementing recovery actions for this species, and the proposed Passage Implementation Planning (PIP) process may be delayed beyond 2020. Given that cost-effective means are currently available to mitigate out-migration mortality, it is unreasonable to further delay implementation.

  This action also lacks an unambiguous quantitative threshold to guide proponents.  Without this, the action could be plausibly addressed for a facility by transporting a single eel downstream.

  Recommendation #1: Include Action 7 among the immediate actions listed in the GRS.

  Recommendation #2: Reword the first sentence under Action 7 to read: “Take immediate steps to reduce mortality of out-migrating American Eel by 25% relative to 2007 rates at all facilities where more than 5 eels have been observed upstream in the past decade.”

  It would be reasonable to later revise the quantitative elements of recommendation #2 via the PIP process; however, interim quantitative requirements must be stated explicitly, immediately.

  Action 8:

 One of the most important actions identified in the 2013 Ontario American Eel Recovery Strategy was “Beginning immediately and using the habitat range in 2000 as the baseline, increase American Eel access to habitat by 10 percent every five years, consistent with the draft National Management Plan for American Eel (CEWG 2009)” (Table 1, p. 53).  As per Action 7, Line 370 indicates that Action 8 will not be implemented until 2020 at the earliest.  Implementing upstream passage then requires assessment and planning.  If these steps do not begin until at least 2020, it could more than five years before any additional upstream passage is provided.  Though we appreciate that upstream passage must be provided strategically to avoid creating ecological sinks, Action 8 falls too far short of the Recovery Strategy’s recommendations.  As per Action 7, quantitative requirements must be included in the GRS to ensure that both proponents and the MNRF understand what constitutes reasonable steps to reduce the adverse effects of facilities on upstream passage.

  Also absent from the GRS is the concept that eel passage decisions made today should be based on projected reductions in downstream mortality 10-20 years from now – the average residency time of American Eel in Ontario.  This applies both to immediate requirements for passage, and for how actions 2 and 4 are implemented.  This consideration in the chronology of actions should be clearly stated in the GRS. For instance, lines 297 to 301 should refer to existing and potential downstream passage.

  Informed decisions can be made today about upstream passage – otherwise, ladders at Moses-Saunders and Beauharnois should not be operating. Clearly, certain areas such as the upper Mississippi River carry risks of high downstream turbine mortality and require further analysis and planning before additional upstream passage is provided. Conversely, passage could be provided in other locations such as the Carillon Generating Station without producing greater turbine mortality risks than those currently viewed as acceptable in Lake Ontario. The GRS should resolve the dichotomy between the current provision of passage past two barriers into Lake Ontario but not past one barrier on the Ottawa River.  The Carillon Generating Station is partially located in Ontario (as evidenced by MNRF permit KV-N-17 for the refurbishment of the Carillon spillway), and as such is subject to Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA).  This spillway currently has adverse effects on this endangered species in Ontario by blocking upstream migration; therefore, it is unclear why Hydro Quebec has not implemented a mitigation plan to reduce these adverse effects.  Action 8 ambiguously refers to passage in the Ottawa River by stating “provide improved upstream access (e.g., installation of ladders, upstream transfer) for eels to above the Chaudière Falls hydro-electric dam in the Ottawa River drainage”.  This should be revised to explicitly refer to the Carillon Generating Station.

  Recommendation #3: Include Action 8 among the immediate actions listed in the GRS.

  Recommendation #4: Append Action 8 to include: “Require upstream passage by 2019 at all barriers in Ontario where passage would result in >50% cumulative survival.  Complete planning and design for upstream passage at all barriers where passage would result in >33% cumulative survival by 2020, and provide upstream passage at these barriers by 2020 pending outcomes of the PIP process.

  Recommendation #5: Append Action 8 to include: Immediate reductions in out-migrating eel mortality required under Action 7 will be accounted for when calculating cumulative survival.

  Recommendation #6: Revise Action 8 to read “…for eels above the Carillon Generating Station in the Ottawa River drainage and…”

    Recovery Goal:

 The recovery goal focuses on a measurable and achievable metric, and one that is vital to the recovery of the species in Ontario- a reduction in the proportion of eels killed. However, similar to Action 7, it lacks specificity.  The extent to which the proportion must be reduced within 25 years should be specified.  Lines 258 to 263 and Action 3 seem to indicate that a specific goal will be identified by 2020 via actions 1-6. If so this should be stated explicitly.

  Recommendation #7: Reword Action 3 to read: “…necessary. Revise the recovery goal to include a quantitative target for proportional escapement by 2020.”

  Habitat Regulation and Amount

 In several instances, the GRS inappropriately refers to the amount of accessible habitat in Ontario relative to current eel abundance (lines 110, 233, 276).  The role of habitat quantity and density dependence on eel fitness is largely unknown.  If eels seek upstream habitats for reasons other than density dependence (i.e., natural selection or genetic predetermination), there may be fitness consequences to preventing upstream passage. Line 350 more appropriately refers to “access to upstream habitat suitable for growth and maturation.”

  Given that the role of habitat amount in regulating growth and maturation in Ontario is unknown, this is not a reasonable rationale for failing to develop a habitat regulation for the species.  As indicated in the GRS, eels are habitat generalists and there is no evidence to suggest that there is a lack of critical habitat for eels in Ontario.  Likewise, there is no evidence that physical habitat destruction or alteration is a significant threat to this species, though see comments in the Recovery Strategy regarding microhabitats and overwintering habitats.  The CWF could support the decision to not develop a habitat regulation, as long as it is clear in the GRS that this does not affect requirements for access to habitat.

  Recommendation #8: Revise lines 110, 233, and 276 to remove references to the availability of habitat or habitat amount in Ontario as known limiting factors for growth and maturation.

  Recommendation #9: Specify after line 378 that the decision to not develop a habitat regulation will not affect requirements for access to habitat.

  Action 9

 The GRS specifically refers to MNRF’s role in implementing and enforcing the ESA under action 9. Unfortunately, the GRS only suggests that the MNRF will continue their current approach.  Given the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s 2017 report, and CWF’s previous conversations with MNRF staff, the current approach does include enforcing conditions found in authorizations under the ESA. As noted by the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, this effectively entails the abandonment of species at risk such as American Eel.

  Recommendation #10: Remove “Continue” from Action 9

  Recommendation #11: Commit under Action 9 to reviewing hydropower mitigation plans for American Eel, and requiring revisions or revoking exemptions when proponents fail to take reasonable steps to reduce the adverse effects of hydropower facilities on the species.

   Increasing Recovery Efforts

 There is no mention of thresholds of abundance for existing indices under which mitigation requirements would increase.  How does the province plan to adapt based on the knowledge that only 77 American Eel passed the Saunders ladder in 2017?  What if equally low numbers are observed in 2018? Similarly, what if escapement from Lake Ontario or the Ottawa River dropped to 1000 or 0?

  Recommendation #12: Include the following under Action 7: if escapement from Lake Ontario or the Ottawa River falls below 1000 individuals for two subsequent years, double the requirement for out-migration mortality reductions to 50%.

  Recommendation #11: Include the following under Action 8: if recruitment to Lake Ontario via the Saunders ladder falls below 1000 for two subsequent years, require improvements in upstream passage to this watershed.

  Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration

 The Canadian Eel Science Working Group and the 2009 draft ON-QC-NY-DFO management plan represented some of the best opportunities for collaborating with other jurisdictions.  Unfortunately, the working group is no longer meeting, and the management plan has not yet been ratified. The GRS should explicitly address Ontario’s role in reinstating them.

  There is no mention of the lower St. Lawrence commercial eel fisheries, which continue to harvest eels that leave Ontario.  This is a significant threat to a population at 1% of its historic abundance, and the province should commit to opposing this harvest via the GRS.

  Recommendation #12: Under Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration, commit to working with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to reinstate the Canadian Eel Science Working Group.

  Recommendation #13: Under Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration, commit to working with partner governments to ratify the 2009 draft American Eel management plan.

  Recommendation #14: Under Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration, explicitly oppose the harvest of silver American Eels in the lower St. Lawrence River.

  Indices of Recruitment and Escapement

 The CWF supports GRS Action 3 to develop indices of recruitment and escapement, and recommends developing both for the Ottawa River and the St. Lawrence River in Ontario. Existing ladder counts at the Beauharnois Generating Station and the R. H. Saunders Generating Station provide valuable indices of recruitment for the St. Lawrence River. They should be further improved by assessing attraction efficiency- the proportion of eels approaching each ladder that enter it.  The proportion of eels passing each facility by means other than ladders (e.g., via shipping canals) should also be quantified. No index of recruitment is available for the Ottawa River, yet such indices provide a vital baseline for assessing the effectiveness of recovery actions.

  Escapement from Lake Ontario has been estimated; however, an annual estimate is not readily available to the public. The CWF has developed an estimate of escapement for the Ottawa River; however, it is data-poor and uncertainty is high. Models of escapement should be developed via a public and peer-reviewed process for both Lake Ontario and the Ottawa River.  Standardized tailwater surveys for eel carcasses could provide an estimate of escapement, once calibrated to estimate the proportion of eels killed and the proportion of carcasses recovered at each facility.

  Recommendation #15: Establish standard indices of recruitment and escapement for both the Ottawa and St. Lawrence Rivers.

  Passage Implementation Planning

 The CWF generally supports the process outlined in the immediate GRS actions for gathering and analyzing data, and collaboratively developing PIPs over the next three years.  As stated above, this is dependent upon revisions to the GRS to include clear and quantitative requirements for immediate upstream passage and out-migration mortality mitigation. Though we are optimistic about the PIP process, we acknowledge that a truly collaborative process will require that hydropower proponents voluntarily share information that they have generally kept private to date.  This includes current mitigation plans and monitoring results, and facility renovation schedules.  We also support an adaptive management approach to implementation of the PIP; however, it will be difficult to properly apply adaptive management if PIP progress is only reviewed every 10 years.

  Recommendation #16: Change Action 5 to every 5 years.

  Recommendation #17:  The MNRF should commit within the GRS to request mitigation plans and monitoring reports from proponents whose facilities adversely affect American Eel, and to sharing these with stakeholders involved in the PIP process.

  Summary

 Though the draft GRS identifies a number of planning and research activities that will greatly inform future recovery efforts for American Eel in Ontario, it falls short of requiring clear and immediate actions that will aid in the species’ recovery.  The Ontario population of American Eel continues its precipitous decline, in large part because of delays in the ESA process and resultant limited or delayed mitigation by hydropower proponents. Declines in American Eel recruitment were considered drastic in 1994 (Castonguay et al. 1994. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:479-488), yet mitigation of the adverse effects of hydropower facilities on this species has been minimal to date. More than two decades of inaction have taken their toll. Though there are clear benefits to investing in further research and collaborative planning efforts, mitigation efforts must increase significantly and immediately to halt the ongoing freefall of Ontario American Eel populations towards extirpation.

  Nicolas Lapointe

 Senior Conservation Biologist – Freshwater Ecology

 Canadian Wildlife Federation

[Original Comment ID: 211526]