Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Matthieu CHANSEAU, Michel LARINIER Association Migrateurs Garonne-Dordogne (MIGADO) ONEMA-GHAAPPE Fish passage facilities, fish pass efficiency and monitoring.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Matthieu CHANSEAU, Michel LARINIER Association Migrateurs Garonne-Dordogne (MIGADO) ONEMA-GHAAPPE Fish passage facilities, fish pass efficiency and monitoring."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 Matthieu CHANSEAU, Michel LARINIER Association Migrateurs Garonne-Dordogne (MIGADO) ONEMA-GHAAPPE Fish passage facilities, fish pass efficiency and monitoring techniques

3 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA REGULATIONS  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, eel 3 « 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

4 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA AN OVERVIEW OF DAMS IN THE DORDOGNE BASIN

5 Fish pass facilities M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA

6 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA DENIL 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

7 A Denill fish pass on a Dordogne tributary

8 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA POOL FISH PASS  Most frequently used type of FP in France and in the Dordogne basin  Several types for all species if  Drop from 15 cm to 35 cm  Dissipated power W/m3  Pool hydrodynamic  All rivers  All species

9 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA Ex. : Bergerac pool fish pass (Dordogne river) Discharge between 2 and 6 m 3 /s Upstream level variation : 2 m Attraction flow up to 5 m 3 /s

10 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA Ex. : Mauzac pool fish pass (Dordogne river) Discharge : 1 m 3 /s Upstream level variation : 1 m Attraction flow up to 5 m 3 /s

11 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA Ex. : Iffezheim pool fish pass (Rhine river)

12 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA FISH 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

13 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA Ex. : Tuilieres fish lift (Dordogne river) Discharge : 1 m 3 /s Attraction flow up to 5 m 3 /s Cost : 1.3 M€

14 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA Ex. : Golfech fish lift (Garonne river)

15 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA FISH LOCKS  No more considered to be an option in France

16 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA « NATURAL » FISH PASS  Large diversity of types : from rough ramps to bypass channels  All species  Low slope  moderate heigh

17 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA Carennac rough ramp (Dordogne river)

18 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA EEL 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)

19 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA Tuilieres eel fish pass (Dordogne river) 

20 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA TITLE : Fish passage facilities Mauzac eel fish pass (Dordogne river)

21 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA TITLE : Fish passage facilities Golfech eel fish pass (Garonne river)

22 DOWNSTREAM DEVICES

23 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA  About 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  Principles  Physical barriers which exclude fish from the turbine intakes  Behavioural barriers which guide, attrack or repell fish  System which ensure downstream passage without damage

24 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA 100% 50% 20% 10% For eel : mortality x 4/5 2-5%

25 Power house Dam Turbine mortality Turbined flow Flood gates flow Turbine 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

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

27 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA BY-PASS COMBINED TO COVENTIONAL TRASHRACKS  Surface by-pass for salmon smolt  Surface and bottom by-pass for eel

28 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA BEHAVIOURAL BARRIERS  Sound and electricity  Low efficiency (0-15%)  Light  Improve efficiency for smolt

29 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA BEHAVIOURAL 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 !

30

31

32

33 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA DOWNSTREAM PASSAGE Trapping and transport

34 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA STOPPING 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)

35 FISH PASS EFFICIENCY

36 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA FISH PASS EFFICIENCY  Need of efficiency is variable and depends on  the species (ex. : for cyprinids, avoid isolation of the populations)  the location of obstacles  the numbers of obstacles  Efficiency difficult to determine  Percentage of passage (%)  Delays (hours, days)  Number of fish  Number of species  Hydraulic conditions  Efficiency depends on  Location  Discharge / Attractivity  Hydraulic conditions  Maintenance For salmon, the whole population on spawning ground

37 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA FISH PASS LOCATION 4 entrances

38 Ex. Mauzac (Dordogne river)

39  50% to 70% for salmon

40 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA DISCHARGE / ATTRACTIVITY  Generally between 2 and 10% of concurent flow  Fish pass entrance in a not disturbed area Ex. Mauzac (Dordogne river)

41 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS  Current speed  2.5 m/s for large species  1.5 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 fish For all fish

42 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA MAINTENANCE  One of the main problem on french fish passes  Natural fish passes are less sensitive Ex. on Dordogne tributaries (summer 2007)

43 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA FINALLY  For salmon : up to 100% without delay  For shad : between 50% and 75%  For eel : ???  For lamprey : > 75% ?  For others species : ???

44 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA DOWNSTREAM DEVICES EFFICIENCY  Location of by-pass

45 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA DOWNSTREAM 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)

46 BPD : 0.6 m3/s 6m upstream trashrack BPD : 0.8 m3/s 1.5 m upstream trashrack BPD : 1.8 m3/s 1.5 m upstream trashrack upwelling removal by deflector Bypass efficiency

47 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA FINALLY  Efficiency for smolts between 55% and 90%  Efficiency for eel between 20% and 60%  For others species : ???

48 MONITORING TECHNIQUES Trapping Automatic resistivity counter Video control Telemetry TIRIS tag

49 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA TRAPPING  Fish species recognition  Biological characteristics  But risks of injury (death) or stress  High manpower requirement  No continuous real-time data (with or without mark/recapture operations)

50

51

52 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA AUTOMATIC RESISTIVITY COUNTER  Low cost  But no fish recognition  Only 3 sizes Tuilieres counter (Dordogne river)

53 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA VIDEO CONTROL  Fish species recognition  Continuous real-time data  But not all biological characteristics  Problem with turbidity

54 Special counting system

55

56 Comparison of shad passages at Tuilieres and Mauzac video stations Shad passages and water discharge at Mauzac station

57 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA TELEMETRY  Expensive technique (equipment and manpower)  But very precise informations about  Fish behaviour  Delays…  The best technique to understand the problems and to find adapted solutions

58

59 Atlantic salmon (Mauzac – Dordogne river) Year / 5 upstream Delay up to 3 months All fish received at the new fish pass entrance 0 fish received at the old fish pass entrance  Good location of the new entrance  But low attractivity

60 TrapPool DE Power plant Inlet canal Discharge Canal canal de fuite 010 m BR OCOC EC T DC FC T1 T3 RB Sb FP Bb

61 SEA LAMPREY Golfech (Garonne river) Year sea lamprey just below Golfech 2 pass upstream 19 come into fish lift and 17 go out !

62 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA TIRIS 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

63 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA IN 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

64 M. CHANSEAU et M. LARINIER MIGADO / ONEMA THE BEST SOLUTION FOR FISH NO DAM !


Download ppt "Matthieu CHANSEAU, Michel LARINIER Association Migrateurs Garonne-Dordogne (MIGADO) ONEMA-GHAAPPE Fish passage facilities, fish pass efficiency and monitoring."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google