Chanseau, Matthieu

Courret, Dominique

Groux, François

Therrien, Jean

Tétard,, Stephane

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, 11:50 AM - 12:15 PMShad Upstream Migration: Fishway Design andEfficiencyFrançois GrouxWSP CanadaJean TherrienWSP CanadaMatthieu ChanseauAgence Français pour la biodiversitéDominique CourretAgence Français pour la biodiversitéStephane Tétard,EDf FranceFollow 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.Groux, François; Therrien, Jean; Chanseau, Matthieu; Courret, Dominique; and Tétard,, Stephane, "Shad Upstream Migration:Fishway Design and Efficiency" (2017). International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage. 18.https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference/2017/June19/18Shad Upstream Migration : Fishway Design and EfficiencyFrançois Groux, WSP Canada – francois.groux@wsp.comJean Therrien, WSP Canada – jean.therrien@wsp.comMatthieu Chanseau, Agence Français pour la biodiversité – matthieu.chanseau@afbiodiversite.frDominique Courret , Agence Français pour la biodiversité – dominique.courret@imft.frStephane Tétard, EDF France - stephane.tetard@edf.frINTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING AND ECOHYDROLOGY FOR FISH PASSAGEJUNE 19-21, 2017  - OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY CORVALLIS, OREGON (USA)Contexte Objectives • In Europe, Allis shad (Alosa alosa) is in a vulnerableposition throughout its distribution area.• Upstream shad passage through obstacles is a veryimportant issue for the management andrestoration of the Allis shad populations in Europe.• There is more significant information regarding theimpact of dams on shad, its behaviour nearobstacles and in fishways in North America than inEurope.• It is generally accepted that the American shadAlosa sapidissima is a close relative of theEuropean shad. Their behaviour and biologicalcharacteristics are similar.Cabot station fishwayTurners Falls - ConnecticutContexte Objectives• As part of a LIFE+ European program, WSP workedwith EDF and ONEMA to summarize theexperience gained in France, Europe and the U.S. soas to update the design criteria currently used forthe sizing of European shad fishways.• The final report includes :Ø Information on swimming abilities and migrationpatternsØ Fish count results and conclusions about periods,temperatures and flows during migrationØ A sum-up of numerous monitoring studies in Europeand in the U.S. and conclusions about the maindifficulties encountered by shadØ Recommendations to design fishways for shad• The report is available on the European projectwebsite : http://lifealose2015.com/fr/life-alose/What we did• A large-scale literature review• Sum-up and analysis of various data from:Ø Fish count resultsØ Radio or Acoustic TelemetryØ Radio-Frequency Identification Technology (RFID)• Sites visits on the U.S. (East Coast):Ø Susquehanna RiverØ Connecticut RiverØ Merrimack RiverSwimmingabilities and migration patterns• Shad cannot jump• Maximum velocities ranging from 3.5 to 5 m/s• Shad travel in schools• Active upstream migration occurs mainly during theday• Shad seem to be highly sensitive to light variations• Shad swim in the water column, but not directly underthe surface• Shad seem to seek out regular /laminar flow and avoidheavy turbulence vortex areas and white water• The shad exploratory behaviour downstream of theobstacles is less developed than the ones of otherspecies such as salmon• Most of the migration happens:Ø In May (mid-April to the end of June)Ø Over a period of around 40 daysØ In water temperatures between 13 to 21°CSwimming abilities and migration patternsExisting FishwaysEfficiencyDEFINITIONS• Remote attraction => the ability of fish to enter the area influenced by the flows from the fishway, near the entrance(s). • Close attraction => the ability of fish within the fishway’s area of influence to enter the fishway. Ø The total attraction of the fishwayencompasses the remote and close attraction. • Passability => the ability of fish to pass through the entire fishway after entering. The overall efficiency of the fishway, resulting from these three elements.Existing FishwaysEfficiencyFINDING THE ENTRANCES AND ENTERING THE FISHWAYS • The first difficulty for fish is to arrive near the fishwayentrances:• The remote attraction varies between 50 and 90%.• The second difficulty for fish is to enter the fishways.Having fish come close to the entrance is not enough.There is no site where all the fish that came near thefishway entrances actually entered them.• The close attraction ranges from 31 to 81%.• Ultimately, the overall attraction, which encompasses theremote and close attractions, varies depending on the site,from 15-20% to approximately 70%. The median is 53%,independently of the development and the type offishway.Turners Falls Spillway fishway entrancesExisting FishwaysEfficiencyPROGRESSION INSIDE THE FISHWAYS • Passage through the upstream migration fishways,generally varies between 20 % and 80 %.• For lifts, it is often greater than 50 % and reaches amaximum of about 70%.• For pool and weir fishways, it varies considerablydepending on their type and characteristics. Lowervalues are observed in Ice Harbor fishways,originally designed for salmon. However, more than80% of fish overcome the vertical slot fishway atGate House (Connecticut River).Modified Ice Harbor FishwaySpillway – Turners Falls• An overall efficiency of 75% is exceptional, 50% isexcellent, and 10-20% is unfortunately far toocommon (Larinier, Travade).• A global efficiency lower or equal to 50% wasobserved in the vast majority of sites visited in theUnited States in 2015 (median: 26%; 1st quartile: 13%;3rd quartile: 48%).• Cumulated impacts caused by various structuresconstructed on a same migratory axis could rapidlybecome significant and make the management andrestoration of populations difficult.• However, it seems possible to further improve theefficiency of passage systems by being moreambitious when it comes to certain design criteriaExisting FishwaysEfficiencyCONCLUSIONSModified Ice Harbor FishwayVernon – ConnecticutSuggestions to design fishways for shadIMPROVEATTRACTIONØ Use significant flows corresponding to a minimumof 3% to 5% of the concurrent flow.Ø Ensure good attraction of entrances up to flows ofabout twice the mean annual discharge ofwatercourses.Ø Promote large sized entrances : minimum widthand depth should be of 2 m and 1.5 m respectivelyØ Maintain drops of 0.20 to 0.25 m at the entrancewith streaming flows=> flows per entrance should be of 5 to 6 m3/s§ For small rivers, dimensions should be reduced(1×0.7/0.8 m => flow of about 1.5 m3/s)Fish lift entrancesHoltwood - SusquehannaSuggestions to design fishways for shadIMPROVEATTRACTIONØ Install fishways in areas expected to be explored byshad.Ø Multiply entrances while making sure they arelocated in calm areas.§ Should be studied when the obstacle is larger than 20 m§ Necessary most of the time for obstacles larger than 100 mØ For hydroelectric stations, where possible,implement rules of prioritization with the aim offinding a compromise to attract fish near entranceswithout degrading their attractivity.East fish lift entrances  Conowingo - SusquehannaSuggestions to design fishways for shadIMPROVEPASSABILITYØ Selection of the type of fishway :§ Avoid baffle fishways and Borland-type locks§ Consider lift when head drop exceeds 8-10 mØ Passage areas must be free flowing (avoid orifice),located along the banks, and available on all thewater column depth (depth passage areas).Ø Maximum drops of around 0.20 to 0.25 m,streaming flows (avoid plunging flows).Ø Energy in the pools must be less than 150 W/cm.Ø Volume of pools : minimum of 10 to 15 L per shad.Cabot pools and weirsfishway - Connectivut RiverSuggestions to design fishways for shadIMPROVEPASSABILITYØ For fish lifts:§ Water volumes in holding pool and lifting tankcorrespond to at least 30 L and 10-15 L per fish,respectively.§ The upstream migration cycle must be short,about 15 min during the main migration period,but less than 30 min at all times.§ Having passage areas of 0.3 to 0.4 m wide andestablishing a very gradual narrowing of thefunnel towards upstream.Fish lift entrance–ConnowingoDam  Susquehanna RiverSuggestions to design fishways for shadIMPROVEPASSABILITYFor pool and weir fishways and lifts, special attentionmust be paid to:Ø injection of attraction flow. It is recommended todivide flows in several points of the fishway to improvethe attraction by upstream flow.Ø limit the number of entrances (3 to 4) connected toone gallery or one fishway.Ø make sure there is no marked change in direction.The installation of deflectors or guiding walls (whichdirect flows and guide fish) must be systematicallyassessed.Turning pool – Below Falls  Connectivut RiverMerci ! – Thanks !Special thanks to :• A. Haro and S. Amaral who accompanied us at many sites and provided us with numerous documents. • C. Freese and D. Pugh for the information provided during and after the visits. • all the people who were kind enough to receive or accompany us during the visits: R. Bleistine, S. Gottardy, J. Griffin, K. Long, J. Lucas, M. Martinek, S. Medford, C. Mooney, R. Moyer, R. Murray, J. Ragonese, C. Simmons, J. Tryninewski, R. Wagner and M. Walsh. • all those who provided us with documents, contacts and information: C. Caudill, J. Caumartin, D. Dixon and T. Castro-Santos. • F. Travade and M. Larinier who offered their help and all their expertise throughout this projectMain Biological Characteristics of the European (Alosa alosa) and theAmerican Shad (Alosa sapidissima), according to Beaudoin & al. (2014),Greene & al. (2009), Limburg & al. (2003), Baglinière & Elie (2000), MacKenzie& al. (1985).Main difficulties encountered by shadFISH COUNTSDATAShad Transfer Rates between two dams of the Dordogne River, France. Shad Transfer Rate between the Various Dams on the Susquehanna, Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers, U.S. East Coast. Main difficulties encountered by shadTELEMETRYDATASummary of the Various Studies Carried out Using the Radio Telemetry in Order to Define the Behavior of Shad and the Impacts of Dams. Main difficulties encountered by shadRFIDDATASummary of the Various Studies Carried out Using the RFID Technology in Order to Define the Behaviour of Shad near the Fishways. Main difficulties encountered by shadFINDING THE ENTRANCES AND ENTERING THE FISHWAYS What can explain a poor attraction efficiency?Ø Insufficient number of fishways on a site (dam VS spillway)Ø Insufficient flows in fishwaysØ Badly positioned or unattractive entrancesü Location of entrances ü Hydraulic conditions near the entrancesü Dimensions of the entrancesTuilière Dam an stationDordogneMain difficulties encountered by shadPROGRESSION INSIDE THE FISHWAYS What can explain this high variation in passabilityefficiency?Ø in the downstream sections of the fishways, problemsin moving forward through the collector galleries andtraveling through the injection zones of the attractionflowsØ further upstream, difficulties linked to internalhydraulic conditions and to the fishway lengthØ at various levels of the fishways, problems related tothe presence of steep turnsØ for lifts, problems linked to the entrance and stayinglong enough in the holding pool.Cabot station fishwayTurners Falls - ConnecticutMain difficulties encountered by shadAVAILABLE DATA USED TO ASSESS EFFICIENCYTo assess the fishway’s efficiency at each of these 3 steps,we need monitoring• Fish counts :Ø cannot be used to determine the effectiveness of thefishway, nor the blocking time…Ø But fish counts can allow a transfer rate calculationbetween two dams. This transfer rate corresponds to theminimum efficiency of the fishway• Radio or Acoustic Telemetry:Ø helps for the precise study of fish behaviour around dams,near and in the fishwaysØ the biases related to the capture and marking of fish canbe significant.• Radio-Frequency Identification Technology (RFID):Ø cannot determine the behaviour of fish around damsØ provides information in addition to the telemetric dataobtained at fishways : number/% of fish entering thefishways, duration of passage, …

Shad Upstream Migration: Fishway Design and Efficiency

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2168&amp;context=fishpassage_conference

Shad Upstream Migration: Fishway Design and Efficiency

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst