Predicting environmental mitigation requirements for hydropower projects through the integration of biophysical and socio-political geographies

Abstract

Uncertainty about environmental mitigation needs at existing and proposed hydropower projects makes it difficult for stakeholders to minimize environmental impacts. Hydropower developers and operators desire tools to better anticipate mitigation requirements, while natural resource managers and regulators need tools to evaluate different mitigation scenarios and order effective mitigation. Here we sought to examine the feasibility of using a suite of multi-faceted explanatory variables within a spatially explicit modeling framework to fit predictive models for future environmental mitigation requirements at hydropower projects across the conterminous U.S. Using a database comprised of mitigation requirements from more than 300 hydropower project licenses, we were able to successfully fit models for nearly 50 types of environmental mitigation and to apply the predictive models to a set of more than 500 non-powered dams identified as having hydropower potential. The results demonstrate that mitigation requirements are functions of a range of factors, from biophysical to socio-political. Project developers can use these models to inform cost projections and design considerations, while regulators can use the models to more quickly identify likely environmental issues and potential solutions, hopefully resulting in more timely and more effective decisions on environmental mitigation.

Hydropower impacts on reservoir fish populations are modified by environmental variation

“…We found that hydropower operations can have various and somewhat unexpected impacts on reservoir fish populations, as illustrated by the positive and interacting effects of WLR magnitude on brown trout biomass and density. Therefore, when designing management policies to meet the future demands for renewable energy, biogeographic, climatic, socio-political and other relevant gradients should be considered to appropriately balance energy generation needs and goals for minimizing environmental impacts and social conflicts (DeRolph et al, 2016). As noted here, one of the complicating factors for hydropower management and policymaking is the dynamic nature of the causal interactions between drivers of hydropower operations and ecosystem impacts.…”

An Assessment of Hydropower Environmental Mitigation Costs

“…<1 MW and >1300 MW, relicenses, and PSH), and utilizing more extensive environmental mitigation categories. Additionally, our study complements the Schramm et al (2016) and Derolph et al (2016) studies by evaluating the economics of environmental mitigation.…”

“…Their findings suggest that the majority of FERC mitigation requirements are related to either hydrologic flows or recreation, and that hydropower plants with the highest number of mitigation measures are found in the Pacific Northwest. These authors then conducted a complementary study (Derolph et al, 2016) and developed predictive models for identifying potential environmental mitigation requirements at proposed hydropower sites using this previously collected data. The models utilize a wide variety of site-specific input variables, from biological and hydrologic conditions to recreational uses, to predict potential mitigation requirements for a potential hydropower site.…”

“…The models utilize a wide variety of site-specific input variables, from biological and hydrologic conditions to recreational uses, to predict potential mitigation requirements for a potential hydropower site. The studies by Schramm et al (2016) and Derolph et al (2016) did not collect or discuss the economics of environmental mitigation measures for the licensed or relicensed projects.…”

“…The study described in this report builds on the Schramm et al (2016), Derolph et al (2016) and Hall et al (2003) by extending the licensing years to 2018 (the former two used data prior to 2015; the latter used data prior to 2000), covering more project types (i.e. <1 MW and >1300 MW, relicenses, and PSH), and utilizing more extensive environmental mitigation categories.…”