Bammatter, Lukas

Mettler, Rolf

Peter, Armin

Schölzel, Nils

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 21st, 3:10 PM - 3:30 PMEvaluation of the effectiveness of upstream fishpassage facilities in the Rhine River assessed by aPIT-tagging studyArmin PeterPeter FishConsultingLukas BammatterLucerne University of Applied Science and Arts, Engineering & ArchitectureRolf MettlerFederal Office for the Environment FOENNils SchölzelPeter FishConsultingFollow 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.Peter, Armin; Bammatter, Lukas; Mettler, Rolf; and Schölzel, Nils, "Evaluation of the effectiveness of upstream fish passage facilities inthe Rhine River assessed by a PIT-tagging study" (2017). International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage. 6.https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference/2017/June21/6Evaluation of the effectiveness of upstream fish passagefacilities in the Rhine River assessed by a PIT-tagging studyArmin Peter1, Lukas Bammatter2, Rolf Mettler3, Nils Schölzel11Peter FishConsulting, Hagmattstr. 7, 4600 Olten/Switzerlandwww.fishconsulting.ch, e-mail: apeter@fishconsulting.ch2Lucerne University of Applied Science and Arts, Engineering & Architecture, Horw3Federal Office for the Environment FOEN, Bern/SwitzerlandInternational Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish PassageOregon State University, Corvallis OR – June 21, 2017 1Hydropower and fish in Switzerland• hydropower plays an important role in energy productionin Switzerland (about 55-60 %) • Swiss rivers are highly affected by fragmentation• 35 % the hydropower plants areequipped with fish ladders (almost all of the big ones)• increasing trend in constructing big nature-like fishways• new important topic:downstream migration at hydropower plantsSwiss water protection Law  (latest revision 2012)- obligation to restore rivers- restore connectivity for fishes till 2030• Cantons have to plan and enact re-establishment of fish migration• all hydropower plants have to be remediated until 2030• operators are fully compensated (fund, financed by electricity consumers)• the monitoring costs are also compensatedHydropower plant Rheinfelden – aim of the preliminary study• To gain experience in conducting a main PIT-tag study and taggingof different fish species• Evaluation of the use of different entrance location of fish ladders • of the passage efficiency• Measuring of the time needed for the passage• Checking for additional problemsApril – December 20165Hydropower plant Rheinfelden (discharge capacity: 1500m3/s, installed capacity 100 MWOverview: entrance locations and sites of antennas at hydropower plant Rheinfeldennature-like fishwaysmall enctrance(D UG kl)vertical-Slotpass(CH V-Slot)rough channelbypass(D RG)trapping deviceNature-like fishwaybig entrance(D UG gr)Hydropower plant Augst8.5 km downstream of RheinfeldenMethods• Half-Duplex (HDX) Technology, 134.2 kHz• 12 mm and 23 mm tags• Single/Multi-antenna Reader• Antenna: self-made constructions(different characteristics depending on the site)Noise problems:power line noiseBiological methodsTagging• fishes TL 90-160 mm tagged with 12 mm tags• > 160 mm tagged with 23 mm tags• Anesthesia: with clove oil, stage 4-5 (Summerfelt et al. 1990)• Incision with scalpel, ventral into the body cavityTagged fishtotal 2‘042 19 speciesfishes were released500 m downstream ofthe nature-like fishwayspecies number SiteRhf D Rhf CH Augst Rhf Ow Wyhleneel 5 0 0 5 0 0chub 332 231 6 12 82 1trout 11 5 1 5 0 0barbel 1019 356 262 401 0 0bream 9 7 0 1 0 1perch 101 98 0 3 0 0Prussian carp 1 1 0 0 0 0bullhead 1 1 0 0 0 0gudgeon 10 10 0 0 0 0dace 46 45 0 1 0 0pike 1 0 1 0 0 0carp 3 2 1 0 0 0bleak 267 226 2 39 0 0nase 26 23 1 2 0 0rainbow trout 3 1 0 2 0 0roach 140 60 0 79 1 0tench 5 4 0 1 0 0spirlin 58 53 5 0 0 0catfish 4 4 0 0 0 0total 2042 1127 279 551 83 2Tagging effort• Very high• Collecting the fish – transportation – tagging – releasing• Problems with the lack of target species for the main study:eel, bream, trout, nase, spirlin (compulsary species)1519Ascent of fishes – overview20species N tagged N detecteddetectionin %N sucessfullpassagesuccessfulpassage in %chub 332 124 37.3 71 21.4barbel 1019 371 36.5 333 32.7perch 101 29 28.4 21 20.8dace 46 11 23.9 9 19.6bleak 267 106 39.7 95 35.6roach 140 47 33.6 40 28.5spirlin 58 10 17.2 7 12.1all species 2042 641 31.4 584 25.8Detected and sucessful upstream migrationWhich enctrance location do the fish use ?Length frequency histogramTime of ascent in minutes / daysspecies lengthfishladdermean minimum median maximum Nchub >160mm CH V-Slot 276 69 145 753 13barbel >160mm CH V-Slot 135 18 53 1.8 241bleak ≤160mm CH V-Slot 599 46 521 1.7 17chub >160mm D RG 450 35 128 2.0 9barbel >160mm D RG 3791 15 26 88 35chub >160mm D UG kl 34476 0.9 6.1 114 9bleak ≤160mm D UG kl 937 172 446.5 2.6 1024Passage efficiency of different species at threedifferent  entrancesReturn of fishes – function of the trapping deviceVertical-Slot pass CH• 41.2 % of the ascended barbel migrate downstreamprobability of capture  p = 58.8 %• p all species = 64 %Nature-like fishway D• p all species = 15 %• chub = 18.4 %• barbel = 5.2 %Injuries of fishes0 no injuries1 light injuries: body areas with missing scales, light injuries of fins etc., little abrasions2 clear injuries: clear loss of scales, clear injuries of fins, clear abrasions3 severe injuries: marked abrasions, sign of strong pressure on fish body, massive injuries of fins, open wounds, hematomaInjuries of fishespercentclasses of injuriesConclusion and recommendation1of 3Operation of the equipment• additional antennas should be installeduse marker tags• data managementtime-consuming  - statistical methods and biological interpretationFish tagging• without problems – however big tagging effortmany interesting species were underrepresented• should be adapted to the migration peaks• adapt the target species to the existing species pool• reduce transportation of fishesConclusion and recommendation 2 of 3Time needed for ascending: short, especially for barbelsbut longer in the nature-like fishway: barbel and roachPassage efficiency• very good for the vertical-slot pass (barbel, roach and spirlin) andgood for the rough channel bypass (dace and chub)• nature-like bypass: very good for bleak and good for perchConclusion and recommendation 3 of 3Trapping device has to be improved• fishes should not be able to escape from the trapping device(use proper equipment at the entrance)• use it only for a short time (disruption of the ascent) Reduce the injuries of fishes• trapping devices are a problem: only 35 % of fishes had no injuries (hydropower plant Augst)installed trapping device: possibilities for improvementThank you33barbel 571 mm, tagged on 28.6.2016 in Augst ID 0164993600

Evaluation of the effectiveness of upstream fish passage facilities in the Rhine River assessed by a PIT-tagging study

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2146&amp;context=fishpassage_conference

Evaluation of the effectiveness of upstream fish passage facilities in the Rhine River assessed by a PIT-tagging study

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst