My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7859
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7859
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:31 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 6:51:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7859
Author
United States Congress, O. o. T. A.
Title
Fish Passage Technologies, Protection at Hydropower Facilities.
USFW Year
1995.
USFW - Doc Type
Washington, D.C.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
178
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Executive <br />Summary and <br />Policy Directions <br />he focus of this report is technologies <br />for fish passage around hydropower <br />generation facilities and protection <br />against entrainment and turbine mortal- <br />ity. Emphasis is given to Federal Energy Regula- <br />tory Commission (FERC)-licensed hydropower <br />projects where fish protection is a subject of con- <br />troversy and congressional interest due to .the <br />Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Electric Con- <br />sumers Protection Act (ECPA). Thus institu- <br />tional issues related to FERC-relicensing aze also <br />discussed. (Major points of controversy are high- <br />lighted in box 1-1.) Federal hydropower projects, <br />especially in the Columbia River Basin, and irri- <br />gation water diversions in the Pacific Northwest <br />and California are included to the extent that they <br />provide information on fish passage technologies <br />(see table I-1). Many of the technologies dis- <br />cussed aze applicable to other types of dams and <br />water diversions. In fact, there are many more <br />obstructions to fish passage that are not covered <br />by FERC-licensing requirements, than are <br />(approximately 76,000 dams versus 1,825 <br />FERC-licensed facilities) (70). <br />Fish passage is considered necessazy where a <br />dam sepazates a target species from needed habi- <br />tat. Fish are generally unable to pass upstream of <br />1 <br />a hydropower dam unless some fish passage <br />facility is present. Downstream passage facilities <br />may not always be necessary if the fish can <br />safely pass through turbines, spillways, or sluice- <br />ways, though there is significant debate about the <br />adequacy of these latter two passage methods.l <br />Decisions about the need for fish protection <br />measures at dams are often based on the per- <br />ceived or measured impacts on one or more spe- <br />cies at the site (242). Fish populations may be <br />adversely affected by hydropower facilities and <br />many other activities and facilities (e.g., multiple <br />use, flood control, and water supply dams; land <br />use practices like grazing and forestry; and facil- <br />ities like coal-fired power plants that cause acid <br />rain). Migrations and other important fish move- <br />ments can be blocked or delayed. The quantity, <br />quality, and accessibility of up- and downstream <br />fish habitat, which can play an important role in <br />population sustainability, can be affected. Fish <br />that pass through power generating turbines can <br />be injured or killed. Increased predation on <br />migratory fishes has also been indirectly linked <br />to hydropower dams (e.g., due to migration <br />delays, fish being concentrated in one place, or <br />increased habitat for predatory species). Habitat <br />~ Spillways are used to pass water over a dam. Sluiceways are used to pass debris, ice, logs, etc. <br />I ~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.