Matthieu CHANSEAU, Michel LARINIERAssociation Migrateurs Garonne-Dordogne (MIGADO)ONEMA-GHAAPPEFish passage facilities, fish pass efficiency and monitoring techniques

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAREGULATIONS

A french law adopted in 1984 requires that any hydro plant must include facilities to guarantee free passage (upstream and downstream) for migratory species

at existing plants in rivers classified as necessary for 'migratory fish' at new or relicenced plants in all rivers (even those not classified as migratory rivers)an obligation to ensure upstream and downstream passage

Species considered in the french law

8 diadromous fish : salmon, sea trout, lamprey (2), shads (2), sturgeon, eel3 riverine fish : trout, grayling and pike

European Water Framework Directive : concept of ecological continuity

the passage of all species has to be taken into account in a more determined way

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAAN OVERVIEW OF DAMS IN THE DORDOGNE BASIN

Fish pass facilities

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMA

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMADENIL FISH PASS

Selective for small species Can tolerate only moderate variations in upstream water level Easier and cheeper than others FP Discharge generally less than 1 m3/s Small river

A Denill fish pass on a Dordogne tributary

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAPOOL FISH PASS

Most frequently used type of FP in France and in the Dordogne basin

Several types for all species ifDrop from 15 cm to 35 cmDissipated power 100-200 W/m3Pool hydrodynamic All rivers All species

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAEx. : Bergerac pool fish pass (Dordogne river)

Discharge between 2 and 6 m3/sUpstream level variation : 2 mAttraction flow up to 5 m3/s

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAEx. : Mauzac pool fish pass (Dordogne river)

Discharge : 1 m3/sUpstream level variation : 1 mAttraction flow up to 5 m3/s

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAEx. : Iffezheim pool fish pass (Rhine river)

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAFISH LIFTS

Generally used in 8 m and higher dams Very large numbers of fish Some problems with small species ; not adapted to eel Small overall dimensions Low sensitivity to upstream water level variations

But

High operating costs Low efficiency for small fish because fine screens (< 3 cm) require for maintenance

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAEx. : Tuilieres fish lift (Dordogne river)

Discharge : 1 m3/sAttraction flow up to 5 m3/sCost : 1.3 M

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAEx. : Golfech fish lift (Garonne river)

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAFISH LOCKS

No more considered to be an option in France

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMANATURAL FISH PASS

Large diversity of types : from rough ramps to bypass channels All species Low slope moderate heigh

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMACarennac rough ramp (Dordogne river)

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAEEL FISH PASS

First pass built 15 years ago Nylon brushes installed on PVC plates Recent experiments to test other more robust and less expensive substrates Very low discharge and important slope (up to 45 and more)

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMATuilieres eel fish pass (Dordogne river)- 1997

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMATITLE : Fish passage facilitiesMauzac eel fish pass (Dordogne river) - 2007

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMATITLE : Fish passage facilitiesGolfech eel fish pass (Garonne river) - 2008

DOWNSTREAM DEVICES

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMA

About 2 000 hydropower plants in France (40 in Dordogne basin)

One of the most important problem : turbine mortality

Experimental studies in the 90 for salmon and since 2000 for eel

More complicated problems

Actually, no real satisfactory solution for large dams

PrinciplesPhysical barriers which exclude fish from the turbine intakesBehavioural barriers which guide, attrack or repell fish System which ensure downstream passage without damage

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMA

100%50%20%10% For eel : mortality x 4/5

2-5%

Power houseDamTurbine mortalityTurbined flowFlood gates flowTurbine Mortality : empirical formulas - M% = f(turbine characteristics, fish length) Probability to pass by the turbines or by the dam - Ratio turbine flow / river flow- Configuration of the intake canal and dam- Migratory fish behaviour

Ex. on the Dordogne basin for salmon smoltMean mortality of 20%One obstacle (Tuilieres) is responsible for 70% of mortality

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMABY-PASS COMBINED TO COVENTIONAL TRASHRACKS

Surface by-pass for salmon smolt Surface and bottom by-pass for eel

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMABEHAVIOURAL BARRIERS

Sound and electricity

Low efficiency (0-15%)

Light

Improve efficiency for smolt

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMABEHAVIOURAL BARRIERS

Surface guide walls for salmon smolts)

Only one device in the World(Connecticut river) 75%

But in 2009, another one in Tuilieres on Dordogne river !

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMADOWNSTREAM PASSAGE

Trapping and transport

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMASTOPPING POWER STATION AND OPENING GATES

High energetic cost

Good knowledge of migration timing

Goog knowledge of fish behaviour

first experimentation in Tuilieres in 2009 (eel)

FISH PASS EFFICIENCY

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAFISH PASS EFFICIENCY

Need of efficiency is variable and depends onthe species (ex. : for cyprinids, avoid isolation of the populations) the location of obstaclesthe numbers of obstacles

Efficiency difficult to determinePercentage of passage (%)Delays (hours, days)Number of fishNumber of speciesHydraulic conditions

Efficiency depends on LocationDischarge / AttractivityHydraulic conditionsMaintenance

For salmon, the whole population on spawning ground

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAFISH PASS LOCATION

Ex. Mauzac (Dordogne river)

50% to 70% for salmon

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMADISCHARGE / ATTRACTIVITY

Generally between 2 and 10% of concurent flowFish pass entrance in a not disturbed area

Ex. Mauzac (Dordogne river)

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAHYDRAULIC CONDITIONS

Current speed 2.5 m/s for large species1.5 m/s for small species

Drop : between 0.2 and 0.5 m

Dissipated power : 100 W/m3 up to 300 W/m3

Minimal depth between 0.2 and 0.4 m

For large fishFor all fish

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAMAINTENANCE

One of the main problem on french fish passes

Natural fish passes are less sensitive

Ex. on Dordogne tributaries (summer 2007)

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAFINALLY

For salmon : up to 100% without delay

For shad : between 50% and 75%

For eel : ???

For lamprey : > 75% ?

For others species : ???

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMADOWNSTREAM DEVICES EFFICIENCY

Location of by-pass

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMADOWNSTREAM DEVICES EFFICIENCY

Flow between 2% to 10% of the turbine discharge

Low current velocity (< 0.8 m/s)

Local hydraulic conditions (for ex. no upwelling)

Bypass efficiency

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAFINALLY

Efficiency for smolts between 55% and 90%

Efficiency for eel between 20% and 60%

For others species : ???

MONITORING TECHNIQUES

TrappingAutomatic resistivity counterVideo controlTelemetryTIRIS tag

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMATRAPPING

Fish species recognitionBiological characteristicsBut risks of injury (death) or stressHigh manpower requirementNo continuous real-time data

(with or without mark/recapture operations)

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAAUTOMATIC RESISTIVITY COUNTER

Low cost

But no fish recognition

Only 3 sizes

Tuilieres counter (Dordogne river)

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAVIDEO CONTROL

Fish species recognition

Continuous real-time data

But not all biological characteristics

Problem with turbidity

Special counting system

Graph1

10

19

9

82

85

332

95

296

526

195

481

1055

1023

1417

184

306

122

Atlantic salmon

Feuil1

1989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007

Alose778949436053194535704625927824587254423742846563308487515082840000230003010615975

Lamproie111136135090966934368441929232913422343679820509311000330003870021052

17841003093997971175741053

Saumon10199828533295296526195481105510231417184306122

714208335

49218.9166666667

54400

Feuil1

Nbre aloses

Feuil2

Nbre lamproies

Feuil3

Nombre de saumons

Tuilires

Mauzac

Nombre lamproies

Nombre aloses

Tuilires

Mauzac

Nombre saumons

Atlantic salmon

Graph1

0

0

3

9

71

146

260

310

242

266

386

628

526

603

1134

560

Silurus glanis

Feuil1

1993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008

0039711462603102422663866285266031134560

Feuil1

Silurus glanis

Feuil2

Feuil3

Comparison of shad passages at Tuilieres and Mauzac video stationsShad passages and water discharge at Mauzac station

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMATELEMETRY

Expensive technique (equipment and manpower)

But very precise informations aboutFish behaviourDelays

The best technique to understand the problems and to find adapted solutions

Atlantic salmon (Mauzac Dordogne river)Year 2008

0 / 5 upstreamDelay up to 3 months All fish received at the new fish pass entrance0 fish received at the old fish pass entranceGood location of the new entranceBut low attractivity

Graph3

15

3

3

10

0

TOTAL min

Totalit

passage19992000min2000max2001TOTAL minTOTAL max

vanne Fond45961519

Clapet015237

Dversoir000333

Turbines11491114

Barrage10131352828

Perdue-abandonne02291111

Marques152626347575

Tot suivies152424256464

passage19992000min2000max2001TOTAL minTOTAL max

vanne Fond27%19%35%18%20%25%

Clapet0%4%19%6%4%9%

Dversoir0%0%0%9%4%4%

Turbines7%4%15%26%15%19%

Barrage67%50%50%15%37%37%

Perdue-abandonne0%8%8%26%15%15%

Marques100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%

passage19992000min2000max2001TOTAL minTOTAL max

vanne Fond27%21%38%24%23%30%

Clapet0%4%21%8%5%11%

Dversoir0%0%0%12%5%5%

Turbines7%4%17%36%17%22%

Barrage67%54%54%20%44%44%

Tot suivies100%100%100%100%100%100%

Calcul / total marqu

Calcul / Total suivi

PassUsine

passage19992000min2000max2001min2001maxTOTAL minTOTAL max

vanne FondBottom Bypass459661519

ClapetSurface Bypass0132235

DversoirSpillwaw0003333

TurbinesTurbines113891013

Passe poissonsFishway0000101

TOTAL5111120203636

passage19992000min2000max2001 min2001maxTOTAL minTOTAL max

vanne Fond80%45%82%30%30%42%53%

Clapet0%9%27%10%10%8%14%

Dversoir0%0%0%15%15%8%8%

Turbines20%9%27%40%45%28%36%

Passe poissons0%0%0%0%5%0%3%

TOTAL100%100%100%100%100%100%100%

PassUsine

0

0

0

0

0

TOTAL min

PassExuTurb

0

0

0

0

0

G UsineMin

passage19992000min2000max2001TOTAL minTOTAL max

vanne Fond45961519

Clapet015237

Turbines11491114

TOTAL51111173333

passage19992000min2000max2001TOTAL minTOTAL max

vanne Fond80%45%82%35%45%58%

Clapet0%9%45%12%9%21%

Turbines20%9%36%53%33%42%

TOTAL100%100%100%100%100%100%

Min

Max

Graph2

15

3

3

10

0

TOTAL min

Feuil4

19

5

3

13

1

TOTAL max

MBD000DAB3D.xls

zone pass

1999200020001Sur 3 ans

Nb%Nb%Nb%Nb%

Marques15263475

VannePass direct427%5 919 35 %618%15 1920 25 %

Dval canal0000

Total427%5 919 35 %618%15 1920 25 %

ClapetPass direct01 54 19 %26%3 74 9 %

Dval canal0000

Total01 54 19 %26%3 74 9 %

TurbinesPass direct01 44 15 %721%8 1111 15 %

Dval canal17%026%34%

Total17%1 44 15 %927%11 1415 19%

DversoirPass direct0013%11%

Dval canal0026%23%

Total0039%34%

Barrage1067%1350%515%2837%

Perdues, mortes ou abandonnes028%926%1115%

199920002001Sur 3 ans

Nb%Nb%Nb%Nb%

Marques15263475

Vanne de fond427%5 919 35 %618%15 1920 25 %

Clapet01 54 19 %26%3 74 9 %

Turbines17%1 44 15 %927%11 1415 19%

Dversoir0039%34%

Barrage1067%1350%515%2837%

Perdues ou abandonnes028%926%1115%

&CRcap zones de passage

Feuil2

Feuil3

Feuil4

Feuil5

SEA LAMPREYGolfech (Garonne river)Year 200721 sea lamprey just below Golfech2 pass upstream19 come into fish lift and 17 go out !

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMATIRIS and PIT TAG

Relatively Low cost

Individual informations

Passive mark : small reception area

SHAD and LAMPREY (Mauzac 2005)

75% of fish use the new fish pass entrance

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMAIN CONCLUSION

Progress in technology as a result of in situ experiments and assessment of existing structures

A multi-disciplinary approach, calling on both engineers and biologists, is necessary

Residual impact of dams on diadromous species is significant, even with efficient fish passage facilities.

The best way to restore longitudinal continuity : remove dams where possible

M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIERMIGADO / ONEMATHE BEST SOLUTION FOR FISH

NO DAM !