Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities September 1995 OTA-ENV-641 GPO stock #052-003-01450-5 Recommended Citation: Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities, OTA-ENV-641 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1995). Foreword he House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries requested that the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) examine the role of fish passage and protection technologies in addressing the adverse effects of hydropower development on TNorth American fish populations. After the elimination of the requesting commit- tee, the report was continued on behalf of the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans. Hydropower development may adversely affect fish by blocking or impeding biologi- cally significant movements, and altering the quantity, quality, and accessibility of neces- sary habitat. Fish moving downstream that pass through hydropower turbines can be injured or killed, and the inability of fish to pass upstream of hydropower projects prohibits them from reaching spawning grounds. Hydropower licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may include requirements for owners/operators to imple- ment fish passage technologies or other measures to protect, enhance, or mitigate damages to fish and wildlife, as identified by the federal resource agencies. Although FERC is directed to balance developmental and nondevelopmental values in licensing decisions, many contend that balancing has been inadequate. Thus, fish passage and protection has become a major controversy between the hydropower industry and resource agencies. This report describes technologies for fish passage, and those for protection against tur- bine entrainment and mortality, with an emphasis on FERC-licensed hydropower projects. OTA identifies three areas for policy improvements. First, to establish and maintain sus- tainable fisheries, goals for protection and restoration of fish resources need to be clarified and strengthened through policy shifts and additional research. Secondly, increased coordi- nation is needed among fishway design engineers, fisheries biologists, and hydropower operators, especially during the design and construction phases of fish passage and protec- tion technologies, to improve efficiency. Finally, new initiatives with strong science and evaluation components are needed to advance fish passage technologies, especially for safe downstream passage. OTA sincerely appreciates the contributions of the advisory panel, workshop partici- pants, contractors, and reviewers. We are especially grateful for the time and effort donated by the federal and state resource agencies and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The information and assistance provided by all of these individuals was invaluable. ROGER C. HERDMAN Director iii Advisory Panel Don Kash, Chair George Eicher Dale Kelley John T. Hazel Sr. & Ruth D. President Executive Director Hazel Chair of Pubic Policy Eicher Associates, Inc. Alaska Trollers Association The Institute of Public Policy Portland, OR Juneau, AK George Mason University Fairfax, VA Christopher Estes Jack Mattice Statewide Instream Flow Senior Project Manager Paul Bisulca Coordinator Electric Power Research Assistant to the Governor Alaska Department of Fish and Institute Environmental Affairs Game Palo Alto, CA Penobscot Indian Nation Anchorage, AK Oxford, ME C. Paul Ruggles John Hall Fisheries and Environmental Tom Bowes National Marine Fisheries Consultant Director of Hydro Operations Western Shore, Nova Scotia, Consumers Power Service (retired) Canada Cadillac, MI Vienna, VA Jerry Sabattis Paul Brouha Mona Janopaul Program Coordinator Executive Director Conservation Counsel Hydro-Licensing American Fisheries Society Trout Unlimited Niagara Mohawk Power Falls Church, VA Arlington, VA Corporation Glenn Cada Chris Katopodis Syracuse, NY Aquatic Ecologist Habitat Management Engineer Ted Strong Oak Ridge National Freshwater Institute Director Laboratory Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Oak Ridge, TN InterTribal Fish Commission Portland, OR Julie Keil Tom Carlson Director, Hydro Licensing Lead Scientist Portland General Electric Pacific Northwest Laboratory Company Richland, WA Portland, OR iv Ned Taft Gary Whelan Ron Wilson Program Manager FERC Project Coordinator Attorney Environmental Services Michigan Department of Columbia, MO Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. Natural Resources Holden, MA Lansing, MI v Workshop Participants Ken Bates Larry Leasner William Sarbello Department of Fish and Department of Natural Department of Environmental Wildlife Resources Conservation Olympia, WA Annapolis, MD Albany, NY Ron Brockman Charles Liston Price Smith U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Department of Game and Sacramento, CA Denver, CO Inland Fisheries Ashland, VA Christopher Estes Estyn Mead Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tom Squiers Anchorage, AK Arlington, VA Department of Marine Resources James Fossum Duane Neitzel Augusta, ME U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Batelle Northwest Green Bay, WI Richland, WA Tom Thuemler Department of Natural Roger Guinee John Nestler Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Marinette, WI Sacramento, CA Vicksburg, MS Stephen Waste Alex Haro Dan Odenweller National Marine Fisheries National Biological Service Service Turner’s Falls, MA Department of Fish and Game Sacramento, CA Silver Spring, MD Darryl Hayes Gary Whelan Department of Water Rock Peters Department of Natural Resources U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Resources Sacramento, CA Portland, OR Lansing, MI Alex Hoar Ben Rizzo Marcin Whitman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Survey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Hadley, MA Newton Corner, MA Service Santa Rosa, CA Robert Krska David Robinson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Fort Snelling, MN Denver, CO vi Project Staff Clyde Behney Elise Holland Kimberly Holmlund Assistant Director Analyst Administrative Secretary Robert Niblock Rebecca I. Erickson1 Sharon Knarvik2 Program Director Research Analyst Administrative Secretary Environment Program Susan J. Wunder Babette Polzer3 Patricia Durana Contract Editor Contractor Project Director ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Joan G. Harn Kathleen Beil 1 Until August 1995. Assistant Project Director Office Administrator 2 Until February 1995. 3 From June 1995. Matthew Draud Nellie M. Hammond Analyst Administrative Secretary vii Contents 1 Executive Summary and Policy Directions 1 Controversies 3 Policy Directions 7 Summary of Fish Passage Technologies 9 Conclusions 20 2 Fish Passage and Entrainment Protection 25 Part 1: Issues and Controversies 25 Part 2: Study Methods 45 3 Upstream Fish Passage Technologies: How Well Do They Work? 53 Upstream Fish Passage Design 53 Effective Fishway Design 63 Why Fishways Fail 65 Conclusions 67 4 Downstream Fish Passage Technologies: How Well Do They Work? 69 Design of Conventional Structural Measures 70 Other Methods for Providing Downstream Passage 76 Evolving Downstream Passage Technologies 82 Alternative Behavioral Guidance Devices 87 Perspectives on Technologies 93 Conclusions 94 5 The Federal Role in Fish Passage at Hydropower Facilities 97 Licensing of Nonfederal Hydropower Plants 98 Mitigation Costs and Benefits 108 Research and Development: Federal Involvement 112 Conclusions 117 ix Appendix A: Overview of Fish Passage and Protection Technologies in the Columbia River Basin 121 Abstract 121 Introduction 122 Overview of Columbia River Basin Fish Passage Research: Past to Present 125 References 130 Appendix B: Experimental Guidance Devices: NMFS Position Statements 135 Experimental Fish Guidance Devices: Position Statement of National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region January 1995 135 Experimental Fish Guidance Devices: Position Statement of National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region January 1994 138 References for Northwest and Southwest Regions Position Statements 141 Appendix C: Suggested Reading 143 References 153 x Executive Summary and Policy Directions 1 he focus of this report is technologies a hydropower dam unless some fish passage for fish passage around hydropower facility is present. Downstream passage facilities generation facilities and protection may not always be necessary if the fish can T against entrainment and turbine mortal- safely pass through turbines, spillways, or sluice- ity. Emphasis is given to Federal Energy Regula- ways, though there is significant debate about the tory Commission (FERC)-licensed hydropower adequacy of these latter two passage methods. 1 projects where fish protection is a subject of con- Decisions about the need for fish protection troversy and congressional interest due to the measures at dams are often based on the per- Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Electric Con- ceived or measured impacts on one or more spe- sumers Protection Act (ECPA). Thus institu- cies at the site (242). Fish populations may be tional issues related to FERC-relicensing are also adversely affected by hydropower faci lities and discussed. (Major points of controversy are high- many other activities and facilities (e.g., mul tiple lighted in box 1-1.) Federal hydropower projects, use, flood control, and water supply dams; land especially in the Columbia River Basin, and irri- use practices like grazing and forestry; and facil- gation water diversions in the Pacific Northwest and California are included to the extent that they ities like coal-fired