Advertisement

A temporal perspective to dam management: influence of dam life and threshold fishery conditions on the energy-fish tradeoff

  • Cuihong Song
  • Weiwei MoEmail author
Original Paper
  • 120 Downloads

Abstract

While hydroelectric dams play a significant role in meeting the increasing energy demand worldwide, they pose a significant risk to riverine biodiversity and food security for millions of people that mainly depend upon floodplain fisheries. Dam structures could affect fish populations both directly and indirectly through loss of accessible spawning and rearing habitat, degradation of habitat quality (e.g., changes in temperature and discharge), and/or turbine injuries. However, our understandings of the impacts of dam life span and the initial fishery conditions on restoration time and hence the dynamic hydropower (energy)-fish (food) nexus remain limited. In this study, we explored the temporal energy-food tradeoffs associated with a hydroelectric dam located in the Penobscot River basin of the United States. We investigated the influence of dam life span, upstream passage rate, and downstream habitat area on the energy-food tradeoffs using a system dynamics model. Our results show that around 90% of fish biomass loss happen within 5 years of dam construction. Thereafter, fish decline slowly stabilizes and approaches the lowest value at around the 20th year after dam construction. Fish restoration period is highly sensitive even to a short period of blockage. The biomass of alewife spawners need 18 years to recover with only 1-year of blockage to the upstream critical habitats. Hydropower generation and loss of fish biomass present a two-segment linear relationship under changes in dam life span. When the dam life span is less than 5 years, generating 1 GWh energy cause around 0.04 million kg loss of fish biomass; otherwise, the loss of fish biomass is 0.02 million kg. The loss of fish biomass could be significantly decreased with minimal energy loss through increasing upstream passage rate and/or the size of downstream habitat area.

Keywords

System dynamics modeling Energy-fish nexus Hydroelectric dam construction and removal Diadromous fish restoration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the National Science Foundation’s support via the Research Infrastructure Improvement Award (NSF #IIA-1539071). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Supplementary material

477_2019_1726_MOESM1_ESM.docx (85 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 84 kb)

References

  1. Adeva Bustos A, Hedger RD, Fjeldstad H-P, Alfredsen K, Sundt H, Barton DN (2017) Modeling the effects of alternative mitigation measures on Atlantic salmon production in a regulated river. Water Resour Econ 17:32–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2017.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amaral S, Fay C, Hecker G, Perkins N (2012) Atlantic salmon survival estimates at mainstem hydroelectric projects on the Penobscot River (phase 3 final report)Google Scholar
  3. ASMFC (2009) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herringGoogle Scholar
  4. Barber BL, Gibson AJ, O’Malley AJ, Zydlewski J (2018) Does what goes up also come down? Using a recruitment model to balance alewife nutrient import and export. Mar Coast Fish 10(2):236–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartle A (2002) Hydropower potential and development activities. Energy Policy 30(14):1231–1239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00084-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beasley CA, Hightower JE (2000) Effects of a low-head dam on the distribution and characteristics of spawning habitat used by striped bass and American shad. Trans Am Fish Soc 129(6):1316–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckerman A, Benton TG, Ranta E, Kaitala V, Lundberg P (2002) Population dynamic consequences of delayed life-history effects. Trends Ecol Evol 17(6):263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bosona TG, Gebresenbet G (2010) Modeling hydropower plant system to improve its reservoir operation. Int J Water Resour Environ Eng 2(4):87–94Google Scholar
  9. Bunt CM, Castro-Santos T, Haro A (2012) Performance of fish passage structures at upstream barriers to migration. River Res Appl 28(4):457–478.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1565 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burroughs BA, Hayes DB, Klomp KD, Hansen JF, Mistak J (2010) The effects of the Stronach Dam removal on fish in the Pine River, Manistee County, Michigan. Trans Am Fish Soc 139(5):1595–1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen J, Shi H, Sivakumar B, Peart MR (2016) Population, water, food, energy and dams. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 56:18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheng X, Shuai C-m, Wang J, Li W-j, Shuai J, Liu Y (2018) Building a sustainable development model for China’s poverty-stricken reservoir regions based on system dynamics. J Clean Prod 176:535–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dalton CM, Ellis D, Post DM (2009) The impact of double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) predation on anadromous alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) in south-central Connecticut, USA. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66(2):177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EIA (2018) U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-923, “Power plant operations report” and predecessor forms. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/Maine/. Accessed 24 June 2019
  15. Einum S, Fleming IA (2000) Selection against late emergence and small offspring in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Evolution 54(2):628–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eyler SM, Welsh SA, Smith DR, Rockey MM (2016) Downstream passage and impact of turbine shutdowns on survival of silver American eels at five hydroelectric dams on the Shenandoah River. Trans Am Fish Soc 145(5):964–976.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2016.1176954 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, St. Croix International Waterway Commission, Atlantic Salmon Federation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1981-2016) St. Croix Milltown trap Alewife data, 35 annual reports from 1981–2016Google Scholar
  18. Ford A (2000) Modeling the environment: an introduction to system dynamics models of environmental systems. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Forrester JW (1997) Industrial dynamics. J Oper Res Soc 48(10):1037–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gardner C, Coghlan SM Jr, Zydlewski J (2012) Distribution and abundance of anadromous sea lamprey spawners in a fragmented stream: current status and potential range expansion following barrier removal. Northeast Nat 19(1):99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardner C, Coghlan SM Jr, Zydlewski J, Saunders R (2013) Distribution and abundance of stream fishes in relation to barriers: implications for monitoring stream recovery after barrier removal. River Res Appl 29(1):65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gehrke P, Gilligan D, Barwick M (2002) Changes in fish communities of the Shoalhaven River 20 years after construction of Tallowa Dam, Australia. River Res Appl 18(3):265–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibson AJF (2004) Dynamics and management of anadromous alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) populations. Dalhousie University, HalifaxGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson AJF, Myers RA (2003) A meta-analysis of the habitat carrying capacity and maximum reproductive rate of anadromous alewife in eastern North America. In: American Fisheries Society symposium, pp 211–221Google Scholar
  25. Goode A (2006) The plight and outlook for migratory fish in the Gulf of Maine. J Contemp Water Res Educ 134(1):23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grumbine RE, Xu J (2011) Mekong hydropower development. Science 332(6026):178–179.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hadjerioua B, Wei Y, Kao S-C (2012) An assessment of energy potential at non-powered dams in the United States. Prepared for the US Department of Energy, Wind and Water Power Program Budget Activity Number ED 19 (07):04Google Scholar
  28. Hall CJ, Jordaan A, Frisk MG (2011) The historic influence of dams on diadromous fish habitat with a focus on river herring and hydrologic longitudinal connectivity. Landscape Ecol 26(1):95–107.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9539-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Havey KA (1961) Restoration of anadromous alewives at Long Pond, Maine. Trans Am Fish Soc 90(3):281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ho M, Lall U, Allaire M, Devineni N, Kwon HH, Pal I, Raff D, Wegner D (2017) The future role of dams in the United States of America. Water Resour Res 53(2):982–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ICEM (2009) MRC SEA of hydropower on the Mekong mainstream. Mekong River Commission, Vientiane, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson EL, Clabough TS, Peery CA, Bennett DH, Bjornn TC, Caudill CC, Richmond MC (2007) Estimating adult Chinook salmon exposure to dissolved gas supersaturation downstream of hydroelectric dams using telemetry and hydrodynamic models. River Res Appl 23(9):963–978.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Katopodis C, Williams JG (2012) The development of fish passage research in a historical context. Ecol Eng 48:8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuby MJ, Fagan WF, ReVelle CS, Graf WL (2005) A multiobjective optimization model for dam removal: an example trading off salmon passage with hydropower and water storage in the Willamette basin. Adv Water Resour 28(8):845–855.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2004.12.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Larinier M (2000) Dams and fish migration. World Commission on Dams, Toulouse, FranceGoogle Scholar
  36. Lichter J, Caron H, Pasakarnis TS, Rodgers SL, Squiers TS Jr, Todd CS (2006) The ecological collapse and partial recovery of a freshwater tidal ecosystem. Northeast Nat 13:153–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Limburg KE, Waldman JR (2009) Dramatic declines in north Atlantic diadromous fishes. Bioscience 59(11):955–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lundqvist H, Rivinoja P, Leonardsson K, McKinnell S (2008) Upstream passage problems for wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in a regulated river and its effect on the population. Hydrobiologia 602(1):111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Madani K (2011) Hydropower licensing and climate change: insights from cooperative game theory. Adv Water Resour 34(2):174–183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2010.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MaineDMR (2017) Maine Department of Marine Resources, Maine Stream Habitat Viewer. https://webapps2.cgis-solutions.com/MaineStreamViewer/. Accessed 24 June 2019
  41. MaineDMR (2018) Maine Department of Marine Resources, Historical maine fisheries landings data. https://www.maine.gov/dmr/commercial-fishing/landings/documents/alewife.table.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2019
  42. Maynard GA, Kinnison M, Zydlewski JD (2017) Size selection from fishways and potential evolutionary responses in a threatened Atlantic salmon population. River Res Appl 33(7):1004–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McClenachan L, Lovell S, Keaveney C (2015) Social benefits of restoring historical ecosystems and fisheries: alewives in Maine. Ecol Soc 20(2):31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Messieh SN (1977) Population structure and biology of alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (A. aestivalis) in the Saint John River, New Brunswick. Environ Biol Fish 2(3):195–210.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00005990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moring J, Marancik J, Griffiths F (1995) Changes in stocking strategies for Atlantic salmon restoration and rehabilitation in Maine, 1871–1993. In: American Fisheries Society symposiumGoogle Scholar
  46. Mousseau TA, Fox CW (1998) The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13(10):403–407.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01472-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Noonan MJ, Grant JWA, Jackson CD (2012) A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency. Fish Fish 13(4):450–464.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00445.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. NRCM (2019) Natural Resources Council of Maine, Penobscot River Restoration Project. https://www.nrcm.org/projects/waters/penobscot-river-restoration-project/. Accessed 24 June 2019
  49. Null SE, Medellín-Azuara J, Escriva-Bou A, Lent M, Lund JR (2014) Optimizing the dammed: water supply losses and fish habitat gains from dam removal in California. J Environ Manage 136:121–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Opperman J, Royte J, Banks J, Rose Day L, Apse C (2011) The Penobscot River, Maine, USA: a basin-scale approach to balancing power generation and ecosystem restoration. Ecol Soc 16(3):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pelletier D, Claudet J, Ferraris J, Benedetti-Cecchi L, Garcìa-Charton JA (2008) Models and indicators for assessing conservation and fisheries-related effects of marine protected areas. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65(4):765–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Piffady J, Parent É, Souchon Y (2013) A hierarchical generalized linear model with variable selection: studying the response of a representative fish assemblage for large European rivers in a multi-pressure context. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 27(7):1719–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Poff NL, Olden JD (2017) Can dams be designed for sustainability? Science 358(6368):1252–1253.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq1422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Power H (2015) A guide for developers and investors. International Finance Corporation World Bank Group, Washington, pp 43–51Google Scholar
  55. Quinn TJ, Collie JS (2005) Sustainability in single-species population models. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 360(1453):147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Quinn TJ, Deriso RB (1999) Quantitative fish dynamics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  57. Rodríguez JP, Beard TD Jr, Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Cork SJ, Agard J, Dobson AP, Peterson GD (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 11(1):28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roy SG, Uchida E, de Souza SP, Blachly B, Fox E, Gardner K, Gold AJ, Jansujwicz J, Klein S, McGreavy B (2018) A multiscale approach to balance trade-offs among dam infrastructure, river restoration, and cost. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(47):12069–12074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schaller HA, Petrosky CE, Tinus ES (2013) Evaluating river management during seaward migration to recover Columbia River stream-type Chinook salmon considering the variation in marine conditions. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 71(2):259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schmitt C (2017) Connecting rivers in the Penobscot Watershed. Maine Sea Grant Publications, Orono, p 129Google Scholar
  61. Sharifi A, Kalin L, Tajrishy M (2013) System dynamics approach for hydropower generation assessment in developing watersheds: case study of Karkheh River Basin, Iran. J Hydrol Eng 18(8):1007–1017.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Silva AT, Lucas MC, Castro-Santos T, Katopodis C, Baumgartner LJ, Thiem JD, Aarestrup K, Pompeu PS, O’Brien GC, Braun DC (2018) The future of fish passage science, engineering, and practice. Fish Fish 19(2):340–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Singh VK, Singal SK (2017) Operation of hydro power plants—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 69:610–619.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Song C, Gardner KH, Klein SJW, Souza SP, Mo W (2018) Cradle-to-grave greenhouse gas emissions from dams in the United States of America. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 90:945–956.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Song C, Omalley A, Roy SG, Barber BL, Zydlewski J, Mo W (2019) Managing dams for energy and fish tradeoffs: what does a win-win solution take? Sci Total Environ 669(15):833–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sterman JD (1984) Appropriate summary statistics for evaluating the historical fit of system dynamics models. Dynamica 10(2):51–66Google Scholar
  67. Stich DS, Zydlewski GB, Kocik JF, Zydlewski JD (2015) Linking behavior, physiology, and survival of Atlantic salmon smolts during estuary migration. Mar Coast Fish 7(1):68–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stich DS, Sheehan TF, Zydlewski JD (2018) A dam passage performance standard model for American shad. Can J Fish Aquat Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2018-0008 Google Scholar
  69. Thorncraft G, Harris JH (2000) Fish passage and fishways in New South Wales—a status report. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater EcologyGoogle Scholar
  70. Tonra CM, Sager-Fradkin K, Morley SA, Duda JJ, Marra PP (2015) The rapid return of marine-derived nutrients to a freshwater food web following dam removal. Biol Cons 192:130–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Trancart T, Acou A, De Oliveira E, Feunteun E (2013) Forecasting animal migration using SARIMAX: an efficient means of reducing silver eel mortality caused by turbines. Endanger Species Res 21(2):181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Unami K, Yangyuoru M, Alam AHMB (2012) Rationalization of building micro-dams equipped with fish passages in West African savannas. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 26(1):115–126.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-010-0451-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ventana (2002) Vensim® 5 user’s guideGoogle Scholar
  74. Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA, Liermann CR (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467(7315):555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Watene E, Boubée J (2005) Selective opening of hydroelectric dam spillway gates for downstream migrant eels in New Zealand. Fish Manage Ecol 12(1):69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. WCD (2000) World Commission on Dams, dams and development: a new framework for decision-makingGoogle Scholar
  77. Wild TB, Reed PM, Loucks DP, Mallen-Cooper M, Jensen ED (2018) Balancing hydropower development and ecological impacts in the Mekong: tradeoffs for Sambor Mega Dam. J Water Resour Plan Manag 145(2):05018019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Winemiller KO, McIntyre PB, Castello L, Fluet-Chouinard E, Giarrizzo T, Nam S, Baird IG, Darwall W, Lujan NK, Harrison I, Stiassny MLJ, Silvano RAM, Fitzgerald DB, Pelicice FM, Agostinho AA, Gomes LC, Albert JS, Baran E, Petrere M, Zarfl C, Mulligan M, Sullivan JP, Arantes CC, Sousa LM, Koning AA, Hoeinghaus DJ, Sabaj M, Lundberg JG, Armbruster J, Thieme ML, Petry P, Zuanon J, Vilara GT, Snoeks J, Ou C, Rainboth W, Pavanelli CS, Akama A, Av Soesbergen, Sáenz L (2016) Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science 351(6269):128–129.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac7082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zarfl C, Lumsdon AE, Berlekamp J, Tydecks L, Tockner K (2015) A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquat Sci 77(1):161–170.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhao Q, Liu S, Deng L, Dong S, Yang J, Wang C (2012) The effects of dam construction and precipitation variability on hydrologic alteration in the Lancang River Basin of southwest China. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 26(7):993–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ziv G, Baran E, Nam S, Rodriguez-Iturbe I, Levin SA (2012) Trading-off fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(15):5609–5614.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201423109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations