Avalos, J. Chris

Heisey, Paul G.

Mathur, Dilip

English

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

University of Massachusetts AmherstScholarWorks@UMass AmherstInternational Conference on Engineering andEcohydrology for Fish PassageInternational Conference on Engineering andEcohydrology for Fish Passage 2016Jun 21st, 5:00 PM - 5:15 PMEels I: European Eel Passage Survival and Injurythrough Three Propeller Type Turbines in FranceJ. Chris AvalosNormandeau AssociatesPaul G. HeiseyNormandeau AssociatesDilip MathurNormandeau AssociatesFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conferenceThis Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Fish Passage Community at UMass Amherst at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage by an authorized administrator ofScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact scholarworks@library.umass.edu.Avalos, J. Chris; Heisey, Paul G.; and Mathur, Dilip, "Eels I: European Eel Passage Survival and Injury through Three Propeller TypeTurbines in France" (2016). International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage. 13.https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference/2016/June21/13European Eel Passage Survival and Injury Through Three Propeller Type Turbines in FranceJ. Chris Avalos*, Paul G. Heisey, and Dilip MathurNormandeau Associates/Drumore, PAJanuary 2015NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSCONTENTS• Describe how the HI-Z tag recapture technique was utilized on adult European eels to assess their condition after turbine passage.• Present survival/injury rate of adult eels passing hydro power stationsin France with vertical and horizontal (bulb) turbines.• Assess effect of the number of turbine blades on condition of passed eels.NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSMap of FranceSite Study: Rhine River 2009201010 Hydropower Plants:≈ 120 km or about 100 river miles• 4 in the “Grand Canal d’Alsace”• 4 with inlet canal• 2 without inlet canalNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSBeaucaire Site Study: Rhone River 2010King Renee’s CastleNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSMETHODSTag Attachment  Equipment- Cannula Needle with HI-Z and Radio TagsCannulaCable TieRadio TagHI-Z TagsNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSPositioning Eel in Restraining Tagging TubeNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSTag attachment with Cannula Needle and Cable TieNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSAttached HI-Z TagsNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSHi-Z Tag Activation Just Prior to ReleaseNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSReleasing Tagged EelRadio TagNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSEel Release Tank and HosesNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSRelease Pipe Configuration-Vertical Kaplan TurbinePositioned so eels projected pathshould be near:•Shallow=Hub•Mid=Mid•Tip=DeepNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSRelease Pipe Conjunction – Bulb Horizontal TurbineNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSBuoyed EelsNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSEel RecaptureNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSRecaptured Eel•Tags removed, except Floy Tag •Examined for Injuries•Transported to Holding PoolsFloy TagNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSCharacteristics of Propeller Tested TurbinesKaplan Conventional Kaplan Bulb Kaplan ConventionalNumber of Blades                      4                                       4                                       5RPM                                             88                                    94                                     94Runner Diameter (m)               6.7                                   6.2                                   6.2Operating Head (m)                  15                                     14                                  14.5Output (mw)                              45                                      35                                 ~ 45NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSStudy Conditions4 Blade Kaplan 4 Blade Bulb 5 Blade KaplanProjected Passage Hub/Mid Blade/Tip              Mid Blade/Tip              Hub/Mid Blade/TipLocations  Length Range (cm.)                    60 – 90                                57 – 104                            62 – 100Mean Length (cm.)                         70                                          69                                     75Number of Treatment                      281                                        275                                     300Fish ReleasedPhysical Recapture                          96%                                       96%                                    98%Rate*Number of Controls                          71                                          50                                   55ReleasedRecapture rate                               96%                                     100%                                  100%* Tags only recaptured on most of remaining fish (assigned dead).RESULTSDirect Survival (48 h)4 Blade Kaplan 4 Blade Bulb 5 Blade KaplanRange                 88.1 – 93.6%*            91.4 – 93.7%*                76.0 – 81.8%*Mean                       92.4%                           92.3%                              78.6%90% CI± 3.6%                            2.6%                                 3.9%Highest Survival               Hub (Shallow)        Tip (Deep)                  Hub (Shallow) Lowest Survival               Mid                               Mid Mid* Individual estimates not significantly different P>0.10.NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSMalady – Free RatesFree of Visible Injuries and Loss of Equilibrium4 Blade Kaplan 4 Blade Bulb 5 Blade KaplanNumber Examined                     270                               263                               294                  Malady - Free                   88.3 – 95.6*                90.7 – 92.3*                69.1 – 75.0*                  RangeMean                                 92.6%                          91.6%                           72.5%                    90% CI± 5.2%                            2.8%                             4.3%                          Best Location                   Hub (Shallow)                   Mid                           Tip (Deep)                     Worst Location                            Tip                                Tip Mid                           *Individual estimates not significantly different P>0.10.NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSPrimary Injury Types4 Blade Kaplan - Bruised, Scraped Body 6%;  Severed or Nearly Severed 5%;   Internal/Broken Backbone 2%4 Blade Bulb - Bruised Body 6%; Hemorrhaged gills 2%;   Severed or Nearly Severed 1%    5 Blade Kaplan - Severed or nearly Severed 14%; Bruised, Scraped Body 11%;    Internal/Broken Backbone 6%NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSTypical Severance InjuryNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSBroken Backbone – Attributed to PinchingNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSCrushed Head – Direct StrikeNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSBody Bruising Near TailNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSBody Bruising  - Mid BodyNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSSevere LacerationNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSSUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS•The HI-Z Tag recapture technique provided high recapture rates and precision. •Direct survival and injury estimates attributed to turbine passage attained withrelatively few specimens.•Turbine passage survival at three different projects ranged from 78.6 to 92.4%.•Malady-free ranged from 72.5 to 92.6%.•The number of blades affected survival/injury rates, the lower the number of blades the higher the survival and lower the injury rates.•Four bladed turbines were the most benign.•The role of shape and thickness of the leading edge of the turbine blades on eel survival and injury needs to be further evaluated.• Direct survival and injury estimates for the present study at Wilder, Bellows Falls, and Vernon indicate that the eels fared better passing through the larger and slower speed Francis turbines than through the Kaplan (propeller type) turbines. • Higher survival through these Kaplan turbines is  consistent with other direct survival/injury studies• Survival relative to other Francis turbines has not been conducted (other than the similar FirstLight study conducted in 2015, not yet filed) so comparisons of this turbine type are not available at this time. • Emigrating eels should incur high survival and few injuries passing the two larger Francis Units 9 and 10.  • Turbine passage should also be relatively high for eels passing the smaller Francis Units 1-4.  • Kaplan Units 5-8 effects on eel passage survival and severity of injuries appears to be partially dependent upon discharge rates with better passage conditions at lower discharges.  Turbine Comparison ExampleNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS2006 6 Bladed Turbine 2008 5 Bladed TurbineLeading edgevery narrowLeading edge not asnarrowNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSSize and Thickness of Leading and Trailing Edge of Turbine BladeThe thinner and sharper an object is the greater the chance that it can cut somethingthat contacts.• Twelve studies indicate survival is related to number of blades, diameter, and rotation rate.• Francis Units have generally higher survival than propeller units.Future StudiesNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSNORMANDEAU ASSOCIATESENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSQuestions and or Comments

Eels I: European Eel Passage Survival and Injury through Three Propeller Type Turbines in France

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2039&context=fishpassage_conference

Eels I: European Eel Passage Survival and Injury through Three Propeller Type Turbines in France

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst