Gisen, David

Heneka, Patrick

Schütz, Cornelia

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 PMFish Passage Studies III: Fish-Size-Based Criteriafor Assessing Attraction FlowDavid GisenFederal Waterways Engineering and Research InstitutePatrick HenekaFederal Waterways Engineering and Research InstituteCornelia SchützFederal Waterways Engineering and Research InstituteFollow 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.Gisen, David; Heneka, Patrick; and Schütz, Cornelia, "Fish Passage Studies III: Fish-Size-Based Criteria for Assessing Attraction Flow"(2016). International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage. 23.https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference/2016/June21/2321 June 2016David GISENPatrick HENEKACornelia SCHÜTZFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flowFish Passage Conference 2016, Amherst, MAwww.baw.de| Optimize attraction flow rate- „Fight for liters“ Hydraulic tailrace models Develop criteria framework- Transparency- ComparabilityUpstream fish passage: GermanyFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 2Fishway main entranceLauffen physical modelEddersheim numerical modelwww.baw.de|Quantitative evaluationFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 3www.baw.de|1. Existence of Migration Corridor2. Velocity barriers3. Corridor dimensions4. Back flow @ shore5. Still water @ entranceCriteriaFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 4www.baw.de| 2 hydraulic scenarios- River flow & stage (fixed)- Entrance geometry (fixed)- Attraction flow (2 options)Evaluation matrixFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 5Q_attr (m³/s) 1.0 1.7Q_attr (cfs) (35.3) (60.0)TL (m) 0.40 0.15 0.40 0.151 Corridor existence2 L(barrier)3a Min width3b Min heigth4 Back flow @ shore5 Still water @ entrance 2 different TL (total length)- Multi-species design (~40)Adjacent turbine flow: 33.3 m³/s (1,180 cfs)SuitableUnknownNot Suitable+o-www.baw.de| Color = swimming speedData classificationFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 6Data source: DWA (2014)Norheotactical reactionwww.baw.de|Example applicationFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 7www.baw.de|#1: Continuous migration corridorFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 8www.baw.de| Entrance pool → Tailrace > 0.2 m/s (Positive rheotaxis)#1: Continuous migration corridorFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 9(65 ft)Depth = 5.64 m (18.5 ft)#1: Corridor existenceYes No www.baw.de| Desktop suitable estimation#2: Velocity barriersFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 10 L(prolonged) – L(barrier) > 10 TL 18.0 – 3.0 = 15.0 m > 4.0 m  L(prlgd) = [ 5 TL/s    – v(water) ] * t L(prlgd) = [ 2.0 m/s – 1.1 m/s  ] * 20s = 18m#2: L(prlgd) − L(barrier)> 10 TL +0 ̶ 10 TL o< 0 -www.baw.de|#3a + b: Corridor dimensionsFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 11www.baw.de|#3a + b: Corridor dimensionsFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 12www.baw.de| Min height > 2.5 H(fish)? 1.06 m > 0.375 m #3a + b: Corridor dimensionsFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 13#3b: Min heigth> 2.5 H(fish) +2.5–2 H(fish) o< 2 H(fish) - Min width > 9 W(fish)? 0.70 m > 0.81 m#3a: Min width> 9 W(Fish) +9–3 W(Fish) o< 3 W(Fish) -0.70www.baw.de| Assumption: Orientation along structure (shore) “Sensory distance” ~1.5 − 2.0 TL (Gao et al., 2016; Goodwin et al., 2006) Mean back flow width < 1.5 TL ~3.0 m          < 0.6 m#4: Back flow @ shoreFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 14#4b: Still-water @ shore< 1.5 TL +1.5–4 TL o> 4 TL -www.baw.de| Off-shore migrants:- “Hydraulic dead end” Still water area length < 3.0 m 1.10 m < 3.0 m #5: Still-water @ entranceFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 15#4b: Still-water @ entrance< 3 m +3–10 m  o> 10 m -www.baw.de|Final matrixFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 16Q_attr (m³/s) 1.0 1.7Q_attr (cfs) (35.3) (60.0)TL (m) 0.40 0.15 0.40 0.151 Corridor existence    2 L(barrier) + + + o3a Min width o + o +3b Min heigth + + + +4 Back flow @ shore - - + +5 Still water @ entrance + + + +Sum +2 +3 +4 +4Likely…SuitableUnknownNot Suitable+o-+5 +8 Expert decision (cost-benefit)www.baw.de|Advantages & LimitationsFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 17www.baw.de| Simple- Requirements OK for planners- Omits e.g. temperature Transparent- Highlights pros & cons- Focus discussion Outlook- Velocity barrier- Specific fish investigations- Include knowledgeAdvantages & LimitationsFish-size-based criteria for assessing attraction flow     |     David GISENPage 18Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau76187 Karlsruhe, Germanywww.baw.deThank you!david.gisen@baw.deReferences DWA, 2014. Merkblatt DWA-M 509: Fischaufstiegsanlagen und fischpassierbare Bauwerke -Gestaltung, Bemessung, Qualitätssicherung. DWA-Regelwerk, Hennef. Gao, Z., Andersson, H.I., Dai, H., Jiang, F., Zhao, L., 2016. A new Eulerian–Lagrangian agent method to model fish paths in a vertical slot fishway. Ecological Engineering 88, 217–225. Gisen, D.C., Weichert, R.B., Nestler, J.M.: Optimizing attraction flow for upstream fish passage at a hydropower dam employing 3D Detached-Eddy Simulation. Manuscript submitted for publication. Goodwin, R.A., Nestler, J.M., Anderson, J.J., Weber, L.J., Loucks, D.P., 2006. Forecasting 3-D fish movement behavior using a Eulerian–Lagrangian–agent method (ELAM). Ecological Modelling 192 (1-2), 197–223.

Fish Passage Studies III: Fish-Size-Based Criteria for Assessing Attraction Flow

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2057&context=fishpassage_conference

Fish Passage Studies III: Fish-Size-Based Criteria for Assessing Attraction Flow

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst