Baumgartner, Lee

Boys, Craig

Habit, Evelyn

Jones, Matthew

Link, Oscar

O\u27Connor, Justin

Stuart, Ivor

Wilkes, Martin

English

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

University of Massachusetts AmherstScholarWorks@UMass AmherstInternational Conference on Engineering andEcohydrology for Fish PassageInternational Conference on Engineering andEcohydrology for Fish Passage 2017Jun 19th, 11:10 AM - 11:30 AMFishway design in the temperate S. HemisphereMartin WilkesCoventry UniversityEvelyn HabitUniversidad de ConcepciónOscar LinkUniversidad de ConcepciónLee BaumgartnerCharles Sturt UniversityCraig BoysNSW Dept. Primary Industries/Charles Sturt UniversitySee next page for additional authorsFollow 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.Wilkes, Martin; Habit, Evelyn; Link, Oscar; Baumgartner, Lee; Boys, Craig; O'Connor, Justin; Jones, Matthew; and Stuart, Ivor,"Fishway design in the temperate S. Hemisphere" (2017). International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage. 16.https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference/2017/June19/16Presenter InformationMartin Wilkes, Evelyn Habit, Oscar Link, Lee Baumgartner, Craig Boys, Justin O'Connor, Matthew Jones, andIvor StuartThis event is available at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference/2017/June19/16Fishway design in the temperate S. Hemisphere Fish Passage 2017, Corvallis, OrgeonMartin Wilkes (Coventry U.)Evelyn Habit & Oscar Link (U. Concepción); Luiz Silva (UFSJ)Angus Webb (U. Melbourne); Lee Baumgartner (Charles Sturt U.)Craig Boys (NSW Dept. Primary Industries/Charles Sturt U.);Justin O’Connor, Matthew Jones & Ivor Stuart (Arthur Rylah Institute) Knowledge Exchange for Efficient Passage of Fish in the Southern Hemisphere (KEEPFISH)Martin Wilkes (Coventry U.); Kim Aarestrup & Niels Jepsen (DTU-Aqua); Bernd Ettmer (HSM); Paul Franklin & Cindy Baker (NIWA); Evelyn Habit & Oscar Link (U. Concepción); Paul Kemp (U. Southampton); Paulo Pompeu (UFLA); Luiz Silva (UFSJ); Angus Webb (U. Melbourne)This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 690857.Fish passage in the Southern Hemisphere Network (FISH-Net)Outline• Global trends in fishway effectiveness• The (neglected) temperate Southern Hemisphere• A new approach to fishway design criteria:• Upstream fishway design for “migratory” species• Mortality during downstream passage• Applications to hydropower planning, design and monitoringGlobal trends in fishway effectivenessGlobal trends in fishway effectivenessFrom Kemp (2016) River Res. Appl.Global trends in fishway effectivenessThe temperate Southern HemisphereFish fauna Geotria australisGalaxias maculatus“Non-sport” fish <150 mm(Link & Habit, 2015)Chilean freshwater speciesAdapted from Link & Habit (2015) Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 14 (1) 9-21.Wilkes et al. (in prep.) Hydropower pressureZarfl et al. (2015) Aquat. Sci. 77 (1) 161-170.Weirs and culvertsRapid hydropower development in ChileSource: Prof. O Link, U. ConcepciónFishways as mitigation0 1 2 3 4 0 200 400 600 Max. swimming speed (m/s) Body length at upstream migra on (mm) NoAt”Non-sport” fishNon-sport fish,Mitchell (1989)Atlantic salmon,Colavecchia et al. (1998)A new approach to fishway design criteriaDesign criteria• Approach:• Systematic evidence review (Eco Evidence)Design criteria• Approach:• Systematic evidence review (Eco Evidence)• Expert elicitation workshopsMortality of downstream migrant fish due to shear-related injuries and barotrauma at hydropower plants Fishway design criteria for non-sport species  26 September 2016, University of Melbourne Design criteria• Approach:• Systematic evidence review (Eco Evidence)• Expert elicitation workshops• Bayesian NetworksMortality of downstream migrant fish due to shear-related injuries and barotrauma at hydropower plants Fishway design criteria for non-sport species  26 September 2016, University of Melbourne • Attraction efficiency (%)• Entrance efficiency (%)• Passage efficiency (%)Fishway effectivenessDefinitionsKemp & O’Hanley (2010)• Attraction efficiency (%)• Entrance efficiency (%)• Passage efficiency (%)• Guidance efficiency (%)• Turbine entrainment(% mortality)- Pressure- Fluid shear- Blade strike!Fishway effectivenessDefinitionsSystematic evidence review Wilkes et al. (in revision) Rev.Fish Biology and FisheriesWilkes et al. (in revision) Rev.Fish Biology and FisheriesSystematic evidence reviewEntrance & attractionPassage Downstream movementWilkes et al. (in revision) Rev.Fish Biology and FisheriesSystematic evidence reviewEntrance & attractionPassage Downstream movementVelocityBafflesDrop height     Screen designWilkes et al. (in revision) Rev.Fish Biology and FisheriesSystematic evidence reviewEntrance & attractionPassage Downstream movementEnergy dissipationEntrance locationTurbine, bypass designFishway lengthAttraction flowSystematic evidence review• Key findings:• Not enough empirical evidence• Attraction of fish and downstream movement neglected• Incomplete monitoring data and insufficient reporting• Need to combine little evidence with expert knowledge and numerical modellingBayesian networks: Upstream passageL=Distance of entrance fromBarrierBayesian networks: Upstream passageW=slot widthV=pool volumeh=head lossBayesian networks: Downstream passagePressureBayesian networks: Downstream passageBlade strikeUpstream fishway designFishway effectiveness0 to 0.050.05 to 0.10.1 to 0.150.15 to 0.20.2 to 0.250.25 to 0.30.3 to 0.350.35 to 0.40.4 to 0.450.45 to 0.50.5 to 0.550.55 to 0.60.6 to 0.650.65 to 0.70.7 to 0.750.75 to 0.80.8 to 0.850.85 to 0.90.9 to 0.950.95 to 134.319.414.210.37.535.273.612.331.470.830.430.22.088.0330.01.002 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +0.125 ± 0.11Entrance efficiency0 to 0.050.05 to 0.10.1 to 0.150.15 to 0.20.2 to 0.250.25 to 0.30.3 to 0.350.35 to 0.40.4 to 0.450.45 to 0.50.5 to 0.550.55 to 0.60.6 to 0.650.65 to 0.70.7 to 0.750.75 to 0.80.8 to 0.850.85 to 0.90.9 to 0.950.95 to 10.361.171.982.713.283.784.114.304.404.444.504.775.266.077.268.9710.510.88.572.720.63 ± 0.24Head loss at entranceLow 20 to 100 mmHigh 150 to 230 mm50.050.0Passage efficiency0 to 0.050.05 to 0.10.1 to 0.150.15 to 0.20.2 to 0.250.25 to 0.30.3 to 0.350.35 to 0.40.4 to 0.450.45 to 0.50.5 to 0.550.55 to 0.60.6 to 0.650.65 to 0.70.7 to 0.750.75 to 0.80.8 to 0.850.85 to 0.90.9 to 0.950.95 to 14.772.712.823.153.584.084.645.225.816.396.907.347.687.887.897.576.453.881.15.0930.515 ± 0.24Distance from u/s limit (m) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1009.099.099.099.099.099.099.099.099.099.099.0950 ± 32Attraction flow (%) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.011 ± 5.7Attraction efficiency0 to 0.050.05 to 0.10.1 to 0.150.15 to 0.20.2 to 0.250.25 to 0.30.3 to 0.350.35 to 0.40.4 to 0.450.45 to 0.50.5 to 0.550.55 to 0.60.6 to 0.650.65 to 0.70.7 to 0.750.75 to 0.80.8 to 0.850.85 to 0.90.9 to 0.950.95 to 17.905.215.606.106.637.097.437.647.667.467.026.365.494.473.382.311.370.660.21.0280.378 ± 0.22Maximum velocity (m/s)1.2 1.8Fishway discharge (cumecs)0.021 0.126Energy dissipation (W/m3)0 246.4Pool dimensionsSmallMediumLarge33.333.333.3Head loss (mm)Low 60 to 90Medium 100 to 130High 130 to 20033.333.333.3Fishway typeVertical slotRock ramp50.050.0Slot or gap width (mm) 50 100 150 25025.025.025.025.0138 ± 74Number of pools510152025303540455010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.027.5 ± 14Upstream fishway designPassage efficiency0 to 0.050.05 to 0.10.1 to 0.150.15 to 0.20.2 to 0.250.25 to 0.30.3 to 0.350.35 to 0.40.4 to 0.450.45 to 0.50.5 to 0.550.55 to 0.60.6 to 0.650.65 to 0.74.772.712.823.153.584.084.645.225.816.396.907.347.687.88Attraction flow (%) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.011 ± 5.7Maximum velocity (m/s)1.2 1.8Fishway discharge (cumecs)0.021 0.126Energy dissipation (W/m3)0 246.4Pool dimensionsSmallMediumLarge33.333.333.3Head loss (mm)Low 60 to 90Medium 100 to 130High 130 to 20033.333.333.3Slot or gap width (mm) 50 100 150 25025.025.025.025.0138 ± 74Number of pools5101510.010.010.0Upstream fishway design criteriaWilkes et al. (in prep.)Mortality during downstream passageShear mortality0 to 0.050.05 to 0.10.1 to 0.150.15 to 0.20.2 to 0.250.25 to 0.30.3 to 0.350.35 to 0.40.4 to 0.450.45 to 0.50.5 to 0.550.55 to 0.60.6 to 0.650.65 to 0.70.7 to 0.750.75 to 0.80.8 to 0.850.85 to 0.90.9 to 0.950.95 to 144.312.48.706.715.404.423.673.042.522.071.691.371.080.840.630.460.320.200.12.0490.155 ± 0.18Max. strain rate (cm/s/cm) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 100010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.010.0550 ± 290Barotrauma mortality0 to 0.050.05 to 0.10.1 to 0.150.15 to 0.20.2 to 0.250.25 to 0.30.3 to 0.350.35 to 0.40.4 to 0.450.45 to 0.50.5 to 0.550.55 to 0.60.6 to 0.650.65 to 0.70.7 to 0.750.75 to 0.80.8 to 0.850.85 to 0.90.9 to 0.950.95 to 129.26.133.613.383.664.275.096.036.997.697.465.954.012.691.831.150.600.24.057.0060.294 ± 0.24Blade strike mortality0 to 0.050.05 to 0.10.1 to 0.150.15 to 0.20.2 to 0.250.25 to 0.30.3 to 0.350.35 to 0.40.4 to 0.450.45 to 0.50.5 to 0.550.55 to 0.60.6 to 0.650.65 to 0.70.7 to 0.750.75 to 0.80.8 to 0.850.85 to 0.90.9 to 0.950.95 to 153.122.710.85.192.761.691.140.780.540.380.290.250.190.12.053.014.002 0 + 0 + 0 +0.0799 ± 0.094Design/actual dischage0.30.40.50.60.70.80.911.11.21.31.48.338.338.338.338.338.338.338.338.338.338.338.330.85 ± 0.35Turbine designFrancis F04Francis F05Francis F09Francis F12Kaplan K02Kaplan K03Kaplan K0414.314.314.314.314.314.314.3Acclimation depth (m) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 109.099.099.099.099.099.099.099.099.099.099.095 ± 3.2Swim bladder morphologyNonePhysoclistousPhysostomous33.333.333.3Acclimation / nadir pressure 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.111.16 ± 2.6Fish body length (mm) 50 100 15033.333.333.3100 ± 41Mortality during downstream passageWilkes et al. (in prep.)Bayesian networks• Key findings:• N. Hemisphere criteria an order of magnitude too high• Attraction flow, turbine design and pressure most sensitive design parameters• Solutions could be near 0% or near 100% effective, depending on design• Local extinction, decline in fisheries and ecosystem services expected without sensitive planning and designApplications to hydropower planning, design and monitoringApplications• Predict impact of barrier for planning and EIA• Design fishways for any target species or group• Set targets for fish screens and bypasses• Trade-offs between cost, hydraulic & biological performance• Prior probabilities for basic fish passage research  Sincerely yours, World Fish Migration DaSupport WFMD 2018!

Fishway design in the temperate S. Hemisphere

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2165&amp;context=fishpassage_conference

Fishway design in the temperate S. Hemisphere

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst