7859 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 ~ Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities This study was initiated because of significant controversy about technical issues related to fish pas- sage and the relicensing of a large number of hydropower facilities, beginning in 1993 and continuing through 2010. Major controversial issues that are discussed in this study are listed below: Qiscussed In Chapters 1-4: ~i ^ Do riverine fish need passage? (chapter 2) ~ ^ Do riverine fish need protection from entrainment? (chapter 2) ^ Is experimentation with alternative behavioral technologies warranted? (chapters 1 and 4) Iiscussed in Chapter 5: ^ Is FERC's balancing of developmental and nondevelopmental values adequate? ^ How should the baseline goal for mitigation be defined? ^ How timely is the licensing process? ^ How well are license reopeners implemented? ', ^ Should dams be decommissioned and/or removed? ONice of Technology Assessment, 1995. Downstream passage Status Stakeholder views Effectiveness technique Resource agencies Hydro industry TRANSPORTATION Bargin~ Conventional Mixed Accepted Good Trucking Conventional Mixed Accepted Good SCREENS (low-velocity) STS I Conventional Mixed Contentious Good Vertica'I traveling Conventional Accepted Accepted Good Rotatiri,g drum Conventional Accepted Accepted Good SCREENS (high-velocity) Eicher~screen Experimental Mixed Mixed Very Good MIS Experimental Mixed Mixed Very Good ALTEFlNATIVE BEHAVIORAL DEVICES Acoustics (sound) Experimental Hopeful Hopeful Unknown Surface collector Experimental Hopeful Hopeful Unknown OTHE~t METHODS Turbine passage Conventional Contentious Accepted Fair Spilling Experimental Contentious Accepted Good NOTE: Many of the downstream passage technologies and devices discussed in this report are being experimented with in the Columbia River Basin. F r further discussion of these, see chapter 4. For further discussion of the Columbia River Basin, see appendix A. SOURC~: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.