7859 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 ~ Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities This controversy over whether riverine fish need safe passage relates to whether or not movement to habitats blocked by a dam have adverse impacts on the population. Although the paradigm is beginning to change, the predomi- nant thinking has been that riverine fishes have restricted movements. This may be true at some sites, but the generalization may in part be an artifact of the movement studies that have been done. Recent research has identified major dif- ferences in fish movements among different spe- cies of riverine fish and there are some studies that document different movements of the same species in different watersheds. The need for mit- igation to provide passage for riverine fishes is most likely site- and species-specific and should be tied to the specific habitat needs for target fish populations in a given river reach. Tho controversy over whether riverine fish need protection from entrainment is lazgely unre- lated tlo issues about passage requirements (see chapter 2). The controversy centers on the lack of information on the impact of entrainment on the overall fish population. Population impact stud- ies would be exceedingly complex, time consum- ing anti costly, and are rarely, if ever, done (146). The hydropower industry and resource agencies take vjery different positions about the need for entrainment protection, given the lack of good site-specific information. Industry generally says that entrainment protection is not necessazy for riverine fish. Resource agencies consider entrain- ment achronic loss of fish that requires mitiga- tion, or at least compensation. As a result of this controversy, entrainment and turbine mortality studied are frequently done. These studies also have limitations. Tho National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), referred to throughout this report as fed- eral resource agencies, have the authority to pre- scribe it mandatory fish passage mitigation under section 18 of the Federal Power Act, as amended (FPA),~ These agencies, along with their state counterparts, may also make additional recom- mendations to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by hydropower develop- ment under section 10(j) of the FPA. The deci- sion to include section 10(j) recommendations in a hydropower license order rests with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC is required to balance developmental and nondevel- opmental values of hydropower development in the licensing process. This requires an evaluation of the need for (i.e., benefits) and costs of recom- mended mitigation compared to the benefits of the hydropower project; such evaluations have many limitations. Apart from the controversies about the need for fish passage and protection, there are issues about the technologies (boxes 1-3 and 1-4). For upstream technologies, the issues relate to proper design, operation and maintenance,- understand- ing fish behavior, and the need to develop tech- nologies for additional species (see chapter 3). These upstream technology issues are not partic- ularlycontroversial. For downstream technologies, the primary controversy is the value of investing time and money in alternative behavioral technologies, especially for conditions where conventional methods with high levels of effectiveness are possible. This issue is highly controversial and complex (see chapter 4). It is not readily explained without an understanding of the tech- nologies for fish passage and the different posi- tions of key stakeholders, including: ^ resource agencies with responsibilities for pro- tection of fish species, many of which aze in serious decline; ^ hydropower operators with the mission of pro- viding arenewable form of electricity without the emissions and adverse environmental effects associated with alternative generation methods; many operators aze seriously con- cerned about their viability in anticipated deregulated markets; and ^ developers of new technologies who are con- vinced they have viable approaches to fish passage and protection that will cost much less than conventional methods. Resource agencies take the position that con- ventional downstream passage technologies should be installed because the al±ernative meth-