Advertisement

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 153–167 | Cite as

A fish-eye view of riverine hydropower systems: the current understanding of the biological response to turbine passage

  • Brenda M. Pracheil
  • C. R. DeRolph
  • M. P. Schramm
  • M. S. Bevelhimer
Reviews

Abstract

One-way connectivity maintained by fish passing through hydropower turbines in fragmented rivers can be important to population dynamics, but can also introduce a new and significant source of mortality. Sources of mortality during turbine passage can come from several sources including blade strike, shear forces, cavitation, or pressure decreases and parsing the contributions of these individual forces is important for advancing and deploying turbines that minimize these impacts to fishes. We used a national hydropower database and conducted a systematic review of the literature to accomplish three goals: (1) report on the spatial distribution of turbine types and generation capacities in the USA, (2) determine fish mortality rates among turbine types and fish species and (3) examine relationships between physical forces similar to those encountered during fish turbine passage and fish injury and mortality. We found that while Francis turbines generate 56 % of all US hydropower and have the highest associated fish mortality of any turbine type, these turbines are proportionally understudied compared to less-common and less injury-associated Kaplan turbines, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. While juvenile salmonid species in actual or simulated Kaplan turbine conditions were the most commonly studied, the highest mortality rates were reported from percid fishes passing through Francis turbines. Future studies should focus on understanding which species are most at-risk to turbine passage injury and mortality and, subsequently, increasing the diversity of taxonomy and turbine types in evaluations of turbine injury and mortality.

Keywords

Turbine mortality Barotrauma Hydropower River Fish Fish passage 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Alison Colotelo and Ryan McManamay for comments on this manuscript. This study was funded by the US Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office, Wind and Water Power Technologies Program through Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the DOE under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect those of their employers.

Supplementary material

11160_2015_9416_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (199 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 199 kb)

References

  1. Brown RS, Carlson TJ, Gingerich AJ, Stephenson JR, Pflugrath BD, Welch AE, Langeslay MJ, Ahmann ML, Johnson RL, Skalski JR, Seaburg AG, Townsend RL (2012a) Quantifying mortal injury of juvenile Chinook salmon exposed to simulated hydro-turbine passage. T Am Fish Soc 141:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown RS, Pflugrath BD, Colotelo AH, Brauner CJ, Carlson TJ, Deng ZD, Seaburg AG (2012b) Pathways of barotrauma in juvenile salmonids exposed to simulated hydroturbine passage: Boyle’s law vs Henry’s law. Fish Res 121:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown RS, Colotelo AH, Pflugrath BD, Boys CA, Baumgartner LJ, Deng ZD, Silva LGM, Brauner CJ, Mallen-Cooper M, Phonekhampeng O, Thorncraft G, Singhanouvong D (2014) Understanding barotrauma in fish passing hydro structures: a global strategy for sustainable development of water resources. Fisheries 39:108–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Čada GF (2001) The development of advanced hydroelectric turbines to improve fish passage survival. Fisheries 26:14–23Google Scholar
  5. Čada G, Loar J, Garrison L, Fisher R Jr, Neitzel D (2006) Efforts to reduce mortality to hydroelectric turbine-passed fish: locating and quantifying damaging shear stresses. Environ Manage 37:898–906CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) (2013) Guidelines for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management version 4.2. Environmental evidence: http://devtestsite.co.uk/cee/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Review-guidelines-version-4.2-final.pdf
  7. Colotelo AH, Jones BW, Harnish RA, McMichael GA, Ham KD, Deng ZD, Squeochs GM, Brown RS, Weiland MA, Ploskey GR, Li X, Fu T (2013) Passage distribution and federal Columbia River power system survival for steelhead kelts tagged above and at Lower Granite Dam. PNNL-22101 http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/Files/Comprehensive%20Evaluation/Colotelo-etal_2013_-%20Kelt-Passage-Distribution-Survival_PNWD-22101.Pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2015
  8. Coutant CC, Whitney RR (2000) Fish behavior in relation to passage through hydropower turbines: a review. Trans Am Fish Soc 129:351–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deng Z, Guensch GR, McKinstry CA, Mueller RP, Dauble DD, Richmond MC (2005) Evaluation of fish-injury mechanisms during exposure to turbulent shear flow. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:1513–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deng Z, Carlson TJ, Richmond MC (2007) Six-degree-of-freedom sensor fish design and instrumentation. Sensors 7:3399–3415CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Deng Z, Mueller RP, Richmond MC, Johnson GE (2010) Injury and mortality of juvenile salmon entrained in a submerged jet entering still water. N Am J Fish Manage 30:623–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duncan JP, Carlson TJ (2011) Characterization of fish passage conditions through a Francis turbine, spillway, and regulating outlet at detroit dam, oregon, using sensor fish, 2009. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, RichlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferguson JW, Ploskey GR, Leonardsson K, Zabel RW, Lundqvist H (2008) Combining turbine blade-strike and life cycle models to assess mitigation strategies for fish passing dams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:1568–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garrison LA, Fisher Jr., RK, Sale MJ, Cada GF (2002) Application of biological design criteria and computational fluid dynamics to investigate fish survival in Kaplan turbines. In: Proceedings of HydroVisionGoogle Scholar
  15. GeoSense (2011) Report on fish entrainment and mortality at Mason Dam, OR. Technical Report for Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 12686)Google Scholar
  16. Hogan TW, Cada GF, Amaral SV (2014) The status of environmentally enhanced hydropower turbines. Fisheries 39:164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jager HI (2006) Chutes and ladders and other games we play with rivers. I. Simulated effects of upstream passage on white sturgeon. Can J Aquat Sci 63:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jager HI, Chandler JA, Lepla KB, Van Winkle W (2001) A theoretical study of river fragmentation by dams and its effects on white sturgeon populations. Environ Biol Fish 60:347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jager HI, Elrod B, Samu N, McManamay RA, Smith BT (2013) ESA Protection for the American Eel: Implications for US Hydropower (No. ORNL/TM-2013/361). Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)Google Scholar
  20. Kao S, McManamay RA, Stewart KM, Samu NM, Hadjerioua B, DeNeale ST, Yeasmin D, Pasha MFK, Oubeidillah AA, Smith BT (2014) New stream-reach development: a comprehensive assessment of hydropower energy potential in the United States. GPO DOE/EE-1063, Wind and Water Power Program, Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Neitzel DA, Dauble DD, Čada GF, Richmond MC, Guensch GR, Mueller RP, Abernethy CS, Amidan B (2004) Survival estimates for juvenile fish subjected to a laboratory-generated shear environment. Trans Am Fish Soc 133:447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Normandeau Associates, Inc. and Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C. (2012) Estimation of survival of adult American shad passed through Francis and Kaplan turbines. Study for Conowingo Hydroelectric Project Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing. FERC project number 405. August 2012Google Scholar
  23. Pracheil BM, Pegg MA, Powell LA, Mestl GE (2012) Swimways: protecting paddlefish through movement-centered management. Fisheries 37:449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pracheil BM, Mestl GE, Pegg MA (2014) Movement through dams facilitates population connectivity in a large river. Riv Res Appl. doi: 10.1002/rra.2751 Google Scholar
  25. Reidy Liermann CA, Nilsson C, Robertson J, Ng RY (2012) Implications of dam obstruction for global freshwater fish diversity. BioSci 62:539–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richmond MC, Deng Z, McKinstry CA, Mueller RP, Carlson TJ, Dauble DD (2009) Response relationships between juvenile salmon and an autonomous sensor in turbulent flow. Fish Res 97:134–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Richmond MC, Serkowski JA, Ebner LL, Sick M, Brown RS, Carlson TJ (2014) Quantifying barotrauma risk to juvenile fish during hydro-turbine passage. Fish Res 154:152–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Trumbo BA, Ahmann ML, Renholds JF, Brown RS, Colotelo AH, Deng ZD (2014) Improving hydroturbine pressures to enhance salmon passage survival and recovery. Rev Fish Biol Fish 24:955–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tsvetkov VI, Pavlov DS, Nezdoliy VK (1972) Changes of hydrostatic pressure lethal to young of some freshwater fish. J Ichthyol 12:307–318Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences DivisionOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations