University of Massachusetts - AmherstScholarWorks@UMass AmherstInternational Conference on Engineering andEcohydrology for Fish Passage

International Conference on Engineering andEcohydrology for Fish Passage 2012

Jun 7th, 10:30 AM - 10:50 AM

Session B7 - The Lower Susquehanna River: 3 FishLifts & 3 Fish Passage ResultsJoshua TryninewskiPennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Bureau of Fisheries, jtryninews@pa.gov

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference

This is brought to you for free and open access by the The Fish Passage Community at UMass Amherst at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has beenaccepted 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.

Tryninewski, Joshua, "Session B7 - The Lower Susquehanna River: 3 Fish Lifts & 3 Fish Passage Results" (2012). InternationalConference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage. 2.http://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference/2012/June7/2

The Lower Susquehanna River: Three Fish Lifts – Three Fish Passage Results

Joshua D. Tryninewski & Michael L. Hendricks

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

Mission: To protect, conserve, and enhance the Commonwealth’s aquatic

resources and provide fishing and boating opportunities.

Fish Passage 2012

University of Massachusetts Amherst

Overview

Project Locations

Technical Fishways

Annual Monitoring

Passage Studies

Summary

Project Locations

Source: Normandeau Associates, Inc.

Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C.

Technical Fishways

Conowingo East Fish Lift (RM 10):

USFWS design, 1991-1996 as trap, fish

passage since 1997

750,000 shad capacity w/ expansion

capabilities to 1.5 million

3 entrances w/ velocities of 2-6fps

900cfs attraction flow

1 lift/hr minimum, “fast fish” large numbers

of fish in fishway & crowder channel

ROR dam w/ spill at 85,000cfs

Photo: PFBC file

Photo: PFBC file

Technical Fishways

Holtwood Fish Lift (RM 24):

USFWS design, operational since 1997

2.7 million shad capacity

3 entrances w/ velocities of 5-6fps

800cfs attraction flow

Tailrace & spillway lifts, 10min cycle

ROR dam w/ spill at 31,500cfs

Project redevelopment – fish passage

performance measures incorporated in

amended license

Photo: PFBC file

Photo: PFBC file

Photo: TornadoAlleyHoops.com

Technical Fishways

Safe Harbor Fish Lift (RM 31):

USFWS design, operational since 1997

2.5 million shad capacity

3 entrances w/ velocities of 5-6fps

1,000cfs attraction flow

Tailrace lift, 10min cycle

ROR facility w/ spill at 110,000cfs

Photo: Microsoft Corp

Photo: PFBC file

Annual Monitoring

Fish Passage Counts:

Holtwood avg. 31% of

Conowingo

Safe Harbor avg. 72%

of Holtwood

York Haven avg. 10%

of Safe Harbor

5% since 2005

On average, 2% of

shad over Conowingo

pass the fourth dam0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

175,000

200,000

Annual American shad Passage at Susquehanna River Dams, 1997-2011

Conowingo

Holtwood

Safe Harbor

York Haven

Source: Normandeau Associates, Inc. & PFBC

Annual Monitoring

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

4/3

4/7

4/11

4/15

4/19

4/23

4/27

5/1

5/5

5/9

5/13

5/17

5/21

5/25

5/29

6/2

6/6

6/10

6/14

Ave

rage %

Cum

ula

tive

Tota

l

Average Cumulative Total American shad Passage by Date at Lower Susquehanna River Dams, 1999-2010

Conowingo

Holtwood

Safe Harbor

York Haven

Source: PFBC

Fish Passage Counts:

Runs peak early May

Time to pass Holtwood

increases run progresses

Up to 11 days on avg.

Safe Harbor passes

shad w/in 1-3d

Up to 20d for passage

of all four dams

Annual Monitoring

Timely Passage:

Safe Harbor passes shad w/in

1-3 days of passing Holtwood

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

# A

meri

can

Sha

d

American shad Passage at Holtwood & Safe Harbor Fish Lifts, 1999

Holtwood

Safe Harbor

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

# A

meri

can

shad

American shad Passage at Holtwood & Safe Harbor Fish Lifts, 2004

Holtwood

Safe Harbor

Annual Monitoring

Apparent Efficiency:

Higher flows decrease

passage efficiency

Holtwood efficiency shows

steeper decline w/ increasing

flows than Safe Harbor

Safe Harbor more consistent

at wider range of flows

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10,000 25,000 40,000 55,000 70,000 85,000

% P

ass

age

Mean May Flow (cfs)

Apparent passage efficiency at Holtwood & Safe Harbor Dams vs. mean May flow (cfs), 1997-2010

Holtwood

Safe Harbor

Source: PFBCPhoto: TornadoAlleyHoops.com

Passage Studies

2001 Holtwood Fish Passage Study (radio-telemetry)

Fishway attraction effectiveness 63%

Fish passage efficiency 34%

53% (46/86) shad that entered fishway passed, 47% exited w/o passing

Fish Passage

Efficiency

Passage Shad

Fishway Attraction 46 (34% of TR Shad)

Effectiveness /

Fish Lift Shad

86 (63% of TR Shad)

/ \

Found in Non-Passage Shad

Holtwood Tailrace 40 (47% of FL Shad)

136 (67% of released) - Non-Fish Lift Shad

/ 50 (37% of TR Shad)

Total Conowingo

Reservoir

204 Passed w/in 1h

\ Found upstream 1 (<1%)

Not Found in (not Holtwood) /

Holtwood Tailrace - 48 (24% of released) Passed Downstream _ Passed w/in 8h

68 (33% of released) 17 (8% of released) 4 (2%)

\ / \

Never found upstream Passed up to 18d

20 (10% of released) 12 (6%)

\

Never detected again

(Spill, Dead)

3 (1% of released)Source: Normandeau Associates, Inc.

Passage Studies

„01 HW telemetry cont.

Travel time from Conowingo to

Holtwood averaged 2d

136 shad enter tailrace

114 found in corner adjacent to

fishway entrance

63 made >5 forays into corner

Tailrace residency averaged 5d

for shad that passed

86 shad entered fishway

46 passed w/ 3 or fewer forays Photo: PFBC file

Holtwood Redevelopment (ongoing)

Fish passage performance measures component amended license Pass on average 80% shad that pass Conowingo

Pass >50% of shad within 7d of passing Conowingo (PIT tag monitoring)

Downstream passage survival: 95% YOY shad, 80% adult shad, 70% Am. eels

Elimination of blind corner, relocation of crowder – ensure all fish entering pass

Photo: PA DEPPhoto: PA DEP

Passage Studies

2010 Conowingo Fish Passage Effectiveness (radio-telemetry)

Fishway attraction effectiveness reported as 73%

Fish passage efficiency reported as 45%

62% (40/65) shad entering fishway passed, 38% exited w/o passing

Fish Passage

Effectiveness

Shad Remain

Upstream >48hr

Fish Passage 39 (43.8% TR Shad)

Efficiency /

Passage Shad

Fishway Attraction 40 (45% of TR Shad)

Effectiveness / \

EFL Shad Shad Drop Back

65 (73% of TR Shad) w/in 48hr

/ \ 1 (1% TR Shad)

TR Shad Non-Passage Shad

89 (59% of Released) 25 (28% of TR Shad) Drop Back

/ \ > 48hr after passage

Total Shad Released Non-EFL Shad 23 (57.5% of Passage Shad)

Below Conowingo 24 (27% of TR Shad) 15 Alive & 8 Dead

N=151

\

Non-TR Shad

62 (41% of Released)

Source: Normandeau Associates, Inc.

Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C.

Passage Studies

2010 Conowingo Fish Passage Effectiveness cont.

Source: Normandeau Associates, Inc. & Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C.

Behavior in Tailrace:

Orient to dominant flow

Shad tend to congregate

below Francis units, avoiding

mixed-flow Kaplan units

Behavior in Fishway:

29 shad pass on 1st foray

11 shad made 19 forays

before passing

25 shad made 42 forays w/o

passing

Summary

Passage Efficiencies:

Conowingo = 45% (telemetry)

Holtwood = 34% (telemetry), 31% (fishway counts)

Safe Harbor = 71% (fishway counts)

Passage Issues:

Not enough shad locating fishway entrances - (competing flows, generation scheme, confusion)

Shad must enter fishway & pass w/o delay or turning back

Fish passage efficiency remains the number one issue preventing shad restoration on the Susquehanna River

Photo: Microsoft Corp

Photo: Microsoft Corp

Acknowledgments

Exelon Generation Company, LLC

PPL Holtwood, LLC

Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation

Normandeau Associates, Inc.

Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, PC