ML070170215

VYNPS - SEIS Web Reference - Downstream Migration and Passage Technologies for Diadromous Fishes in the Us and New Zealand

ML070170215
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	06/30/2003
From:	Boubee J, Haro A National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand, US Dept of Interior, Geological Survey (USGS)
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
jmm7
References
Download: ML070170215 (9)

Text

Downstream Migration and Passage Technologies for Diadromous Fishes in the United States and New Zealand: Tales From Two Hemispheres Jacques Boubée1 & Alex Haro2 1National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, P.O Box 11-115, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Email: j.boubee@niwa.co.nz 2 S. O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory, U. S. Geological Survey, Box 796 Turners Falls, MA 01376, USA. Email: alex_haro@usgs.gov ABSTRACT Several types of protection systems for downstream migrants are available; some have In this presentation we review aspects of the been field-tested and are about to be downstream migration of eels and other implemented in New Zealand. These include:

diadromous species in the United States and New screens, barrier nets, lights, sound, electric fields, Zealand. Examples of how protective measures louvers, spills, and bypass flows. Our experience have been implemented in both countries are shows that a thorough knowledge of migration provided, and performance of structures and timing, diurnal cycles and migration pathways operational protocols are discussed.

can lead to effective measures being implemented.

Dam construction on the Connecticut River, USA began in the 1800s, and resulted in the reduction of distribution of most diadromous species, with INTRODUCTION some populations exterminated. Restoration of In this presentation we review aspects of upstream passage began in the 1970s, and downstream migration of eels and other downstream passage provisions were first diadromous species in the United States and New installed on lower mainstem dams in the 1980s. Zealand. Although this is not a comprehensive Initial target species for downstream passage review, either taxonomically or geographically, were Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and American we hope to demonstrate that many shad (Alosa sapidissima). Surface bypasses have commonalities in downstream passage problems been installed on five of the lower mainstem exist among our respective habitats, and that dams. Structure details, efficiency of the system much may be applicable to Australian species and cost of each are discussed. Other species and the Murray Darling Basin.

under consideration for downstream passage by US agencies now include: American eel (Anguilla rostrata), sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), and We focus primarily on how passage problems shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). have been historically addressed in an applied (although not always successful) manner.

Examples of how protective measures have been Similarly, in New Zealand, water managers have implemented in both countries are provided, and become increasingly concerned with the performance of structures and operational downstream passage of non-salmonids and in protocols are discussed. For a more extensive particular eels (Anguilla. australis and A. review of intake protection technology please diefenbachii). As turbine mortality increases with refer to EPRI (1986 & 2001).

size, long fish such as eels are highly susceptible.

A lack of knowledge of migration timing, migration triggers and migration pathways make development of protective measures for the less know species difficult. Furthermore, some species are so small when migrating that they can easily pass through narrow-spaced screens making even this option unsuitable, although turbine mortality for them is probably low.

24 D O W N S T R E A M M O V E M E N T O F F I S H I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N - C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 3

Case study - The Connecticut moving downstream in spring (April to May) while shad juveniles migrate downstream in River autumn (September to October).

Although passage provisions were implemented The Connecticut River, in the Northeastern primarily for juveniles it is important to note United States, is 660 km long and has a that adults of both species commonly migrate catchment area of 28,500 km2 (Figure 1). downstream after spawning, and also present Damming, which began in the 1800s, had a different passage problems due to their larger major effect on the distribution of diadromous size (500-900 mm FL for salmon and 350-500 fishes and extirpated several species. Restoration mm FL for shad) and different timing of and provision for upstream passage did not migration (late autumn/winter for adult salmon begin in earnest until the late 1970s. Restoration and late spring for shad).

of upstream passage led to the development and construction of downstream passage structures On the mainstem of the Connecticut River there during the 1980s (Moffitt et al. 1983). are five major dams where extensive downstream passage facilities have been constructed: Wilder, Bellows Falls, Vernon, Initial target species for downstream passage Turners Falls, and Holyoke Dams (Figure 1).

were Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), primarily in Downstream passage technologies installed at the smolt stage, and juveniles of the American these dams were considered, at the time of shad (Alosa sapidissima), an anadromous clupeid. implementation, state-of-the-art designs that Juveniles of both species are relatively small, had been developed for juvenile salmonids, (130-250 mm FL for salmon and 70-120 mm FL primarily in the Western USA and Canada.

for shad), and form schools that are primarily Facilities installed at the lowermost four dams surface-oriented. Timing of the migrations of the are summarised in Table 1 and described in two species is different, with salmon smolts more detail below.

Figure 1.

Location of the five lowermost dams on the Connecticut River, Northeastern USA.

D O W N S T R E A M M O V E M E N T O F F I S H I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N - C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 3 25

Bellows Falls Dam provision is made for downstream migrants by Bellows Falls Dam, at river kilometre 280, is the simply diverting flow through an existing furthest dam upstream from the ocean with a opening, (usually a debris or ice sluice).

major downstream bypass facility (although other dams further upstream have some minor downstream passage facilities, i.e. mandated There is a 3 m high surface concrete wall in the sluice spill without guidance structures). At this open forebay of the Vernon Dam to guide fish site, up to 283 m3/s of river flow is passed towards the bypass. Although this guide wall is through an excavated power canal to the downstream of a floating log boom, large powerhouse and about 7.1 m3/s (c. 2.5% of the amounts of debris still accumulate at the maximum station flow) is diverted to a relatively narrow bypass entrance, and this has downstream bypass sluice positioned at the end necessitated the installation of a trash rack with of a concrete diversion wall (Figure 2). 300 mm spacing at the bypass entrance. The total cost of the Vernon facilities was about US$2 M. Bypass efficiency for smolts at this site The concrete diversion wall extends across the c. is estimated at approximately 80%.

12 m deep forebay to a depth of 3.5 m. Fish are diverted into an existing 4.5 m wide trash sluice (without trash screen) equipped with a modified concrete channel exit, where they free-fall into the tailrace. Total cost of this facility was about US$3.5 M. Bypass efficiency for smolts through this facility, as estimated by radio telemetry, is about 80%, but has not been evaluated for other species.

Figure 3. Site plan, Vernon Dam, Connecticut River, Vermont, USA.

Turners Falls Dam Turners Falls Dam, at river kilometre 198, diverts a maximum of 354 m3/s of water through a 4.5 km long canal to a powerhouse;

c. 8 m3/s of this flow (about 2% of maximum station flow) is diverted to a surface trash sluice Figure 2. Site plan, Bellows Falls Dam, Connecticut River, (Figure 4). Because of the relatively high water Vermont, USA. velocities in the canal and forebay, diversion walls as installed at the upstream dams were considered too technically difficult to construct Vernon Dam at this site. As an alternative, bar spacing in the The next dam downstream is Vernon Dam, at upper four metres of the 10 m deep trash rack river kilometre 229. This facility passes a was reduced from 100 mm to 25 mm with maximum of 269 m3/s through the powerhouse plastic inserts in an effort to reduce entrainment and about 10 m3/s (c. 3.7% of maximum station of surface migrants. The bypass entrance itself flow) is by-passed through an existing was also modified with a bell-shaped insert, rectangular pipe to the tailrace (Figure 3). This which causes water to accelerate gradually and type of bypass is fairly typical of most smoothes the transition of flow from the forebay northeastern dams without a power canal where to the trash sluice (Haro et al. 1998). Bypass flow 26 D O W N S T R E A M M O V E M E N T O F F I S H I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N - C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 3

from the sluice is diverted to the tailrace directly, estimated at c. 80% for smolts but is unknown for without a free fall. The cost of these other species. However, as both guidance modifications was about US$1.5 M. Efficiency of structures are susceptible to fouling by trash, the bypass is about 80% for salmon smolts, but efficiency is probably often lower. Performance of less than 3% for catadromous eels. the protection system is also expected to depend on forebay levels and canal flow.

Figure 5. Site plan, Turners Falls Dam, Connecticut River, Massachusetts, USA.

Figure 4. Site plan, Turners Falls Dam, Connecticut River, Massachusetts, USA. Downstream passage for other species Holyoke Dam Several other fishes are now being considered by The lowermost extant dam on the Connecticut US resource agencies as target species for River, Holyoke Dam supplies one in-line downstream passage. These include:

powerhouse and several smaller stations and mills via an extensive series of canals. The in-line

• American eel (Anguilla rostrata), a catadromous hydro station has a capacity of 238 m3/s. species that migrates downstream as adults Downstream migrant fish are diverted either to (500-1000 mm TL) and is experiencing the spillway through a modified surface bascule declines in their populations throughout their gate or are diverted out of the canal by a louver range.

array and bypass pipe.

• Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum),

which undergoes extensive upstream and downstream migrations as juveniles and adults The upper three metres of the intakes to the (250-1700 mm TL) during their long lifetimes, main powerhouse at Holyoke Dam are covered and listed as endangered by State and Federal with a solid overlay to guide migrants to the agencies.

bascule gate and trash sluice; the bascule gate entrance has been modified with uniform

• Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) an acceleration weir. Migrants entering the canal anadromous species considered less important (170 m3/s max. flow) are guided by the louver as a resource, but with very little known about array, which has steel vanes with 100 mm their migrations and potential impacts of spacing extending down to the full 7 m depth of hydroelectric operation, particularly on the canal. At the downstream end of the array, emigration and survival of juveniles migrants are guided into a 1 m diameter steel (200-230 mm TL).

pipe, which opens into the tailrace via a concrete channel. Total costs were US$50 K for the It is likely that other species of diadromous and bascule gate modifications and US$10 M for the potamodromous (or wholly riverine) fishes will louver array and bypass pipe. Bypass efficiency is be added to this list in the future.

D O W N S T R E A M M O V E M E N T O F F I S H I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N - C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 3 27

Turbine mortality barrier should be considered. In most instances this means road transport or barging.

When passing through turbines fish are Cost of screening is highly variable and depends subjected to pressure changes, cavitation, shear on the size of the installation and local stresses, and mechanical strike (Coutant & conditions, but typically small intakes Whitney 2000). The effect of pressure change, (0.2-1.5 m3/s) are expected to be in the order of according to these authors, is most severe on US$ 100-200 K per m3/s. Larger intakes can be larval fish but in our view this effect needs more relatively more expensive to install; for example study. Hydraulic shear and cavitation affects the cost of screening at the Rocky Reach Dam, primarily medium size fish, while mechanical Columbia (170 m3/s) was approximately strike is most likely with longer or larger fish. US$85 M, while for the McKenzie River Dam Because of the wide type and size of power (70 m3/s) the cost was about US$12 M.

plants installed, and also because of the flexible way each one can be operated, measured mortality rates have been highly variable. For What has been shown to be effective for one example, measured mortality rates of eels along species and life stage may not, however, the East Coast of North America have varied necessarily work for another, and we between 20-100% for Kaplan turbines and recommend careful investigations before systems 6-76% for Francis. In general, small and higher are implemented. Eels, for example, are adept at speed turbines do the most damage, and an indication of the loss expected can be derived negotiating small spaces, and easily pass through from the formula provided by Larinier & Travade narrow-spaced screens that have been shown to (2002) that relates mortality rate to fish length, be effective for large salmonids. High water and turbine characteristics. velocities exacerbate both impingement and entrainment with bar spacing as small as 20 mm, allowing smaller migrant eels to pass through, but impinging and suffocating any Intake protection devices retained by the screens. Some efforts have been made to minimise this problem by reducing both through-screen velocities and screen spacing.

Mechanical barriers For example at La Pulpe Power Station on the Rimouski River in Quebec, vertically inclined Screens screens with a spacing of 10 mm were Intake screens are, without doubt, the most successfully tested and implemented (Therrien, effective and reliable means of protecting in press). Although such screens effectively intakes, and criteria for their design and excluded most migrants, they are often plagued operation are available in many US states (e.g. by other problems such as clogging with debris look for FERC/WD in the Hydro Program page and formation of frazil ice. Installation of a of the NOAA website compressed air cleaning system alleviated some http://www.nwr.noaa.gov). Traditionally, of these problems, but the design remains intake screens have tended to be rotating drums impractical for large intakes.

but these are expensive to install and operate.

More recently, both in the US and New Zealand, angled flat screens have become more Barrier nets popular, with multiple labyrinths installed Barrier nets can be an effective means of where large flows are involved (e.g. a screen excluding fish, and are cheap to install (e.g.

facility has been proposed for a site on the NZ$10-15 K to exclude migrant eels from a Waitaki River in the South Island of New 54.7 m3/s average flow intake). Maintenance Zealand where 340 m3/s are to be diverted by and running cost are, however, very high and in seven labyrinth-style screens each 35 m long effect the system can only be used where there and 5 m deep, angled at 9o to the flow, and is little, if any, drift material present. This system with 5mm bar spacing. At the end of each set of has been installed in combination with a trap screens or labyrinths a bypass channel returns and transfer operation to protect downstream deflected fish back to the river, but where there migrant eels in New Zealand, where the net is are other power plants downstream, some only deployed in autumn when more than 40 means of safely transferring the fish past the last mm of rain has fallen in the catchment, and 28 D O W N S T R E A M M O V E M E N T O F F I S H I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N - C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 3

only when the amount of aquatic plant drift is intakes (e.g. Sand et al. 1999). Although eels low (Boubée et al. 2001). display a negative response to such sounds, the response occurs when fish are within only a few meters of the sound source, again limiting the Behavioural barriers effectiveness of sound as a deterrent at large-scale sites. Generally, the system appears to be Behavioural barriers use the avoidance response effective in lakes and estuaries but has often of fish to external stimuli as a means of failed in high velocity zones, noisy sites, or in protecting intakes. The most common of these deep waters.

are lights, electric fields, sound and a combination of these, often in combination with bubble curtains. Electric fields Electric fields have been shown to be useful on Lights small schemes for upstream migrants and have been used successfully to protect small intakes.

Because some fish species migrate primarily at There is, as yet, no conclusive evidence that they night and are photonegative (i.e. they avoid work for downstream migrants.

lights at night), arrays of surface and underwater lights (and in particular strobe lights) have been promoted as an a means of excluding eels and Louvers other fish from intakes (e.g., Hadderingh et al.

1992). However, this method has an appreciable In some ways louver systems can be considered effect only when water velocities are very low a behavioural system as they largely rely on the and water clarity is exceptional, and even under visual avoidance response of fish to a barrier.

these conditions guidance is not 100% effective. Guidance efficiencies of up to 90% have been In turbid water (and because eels migrate reported with salmonid fry, but the system has downstream mainly during floods water is not been fully tested with other species. Large invariably turbid), the intensity of light declines spacing between the vanes is a possibility if a rapidly and the system becomes ineffective. lower protection level is acceptable (e.g. 60%

Furthermore, some fish species are attracted to exclusion for 250 mm spacing).

light, and this is often used as a means of attracting some downstream migrants, notably salmonids, to bypasses. Therefore, installation of Diversions light barriers can compound the problem of entrainment, and in our experience can also Spills increase predation. As with all behavioural Other approaches to protection of downstream systems, fish tend to habituate to artificial migrants have advocated employing controlled illumination, and light barriers can become spill as a methodology, especially for those ineffectual if fish remain in the illuminated area species (like eels) that emigrate during high flow for some time. Although the cost of installation events. The methodology requires no outlay of is, in comparison to screens, relatively cheap capital but cost can be high due to loss of water (e.g. NZ$25 K for material in a trial for one of that could potentially be used for generation.

the four 9 m3/s intakes at the Huntly Power Simulations of "programmed" spill events for station, Waikato R. New Zealand), the cost of passage of eels dependent on river flow has maintaining the lights free of algae, keeping shown the potential for reducing turbine cables and lines free of debris, and ensuring the mortality by as much as 50%, with minimal loss system remains water tight can make the system of generation (Haro et al., in press).

impractical.

While it is logical to assume that migrants passed Sound via spill will not be subjected to risks of turbine passage, the risks of injury, disorientation, or Fish react to sound, and there are various subsequent predation due to spill passage may in systems on the market, including some that some situations be equally as great. This is an combine light, air bubbles and sound (e.g. Fish area that deserves additional investigation, for Guidance Systems Ltd). Some investigators have fishes of both large and small sizes.

experimented with intense, low frequency sound, as low as 10 Hertz, to repel eels from D O W N S T R E A M M O V E M E N T O F F I S H I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N - C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 3 29

Trials at Patea Power Station in New Zealand Locating the intakes (cigar shaped cylinders which has an 80 m high dam indicated that covered in 1 mm slot wedge wire) away from opening one of the three spillway gates by about these migration zones ensured these small 70 mm resulted in very little damage to migrant migrants remained protected. Also, large eels (Boubée & Watene 2001) and was effective numbers of larval fish migrate downstream in for eels if well timed and intake shut off or the Waikato in autumn and mainly at night.

reduced. Studies have indicated that greatest densities of larvae occur at the surface and along the river bottom. Since larvae cannot be effectively Bypass flows screened out, positioning the intake in mid water in the middle of a deep channel would Although bypass flows of about 2-5% of the minimise entrainment. Further reduction in total flows are often advocated (e.g. Odeh & entrainment could also be achieved by Orvis 1998), smaller flows can be just as minimising abstraction at the peak of the effective for some species. The critical factor in migration which occurs in autumn and at night.

determining the efficiency of a bypass is its position, and judicious placement of deflecting wall and screens has often increased efficiency considerably. Locating the most effective position for a bypass is best done by means of acoustic or Conclusions radio telemetry, but as our understanding of the behaviour of individual species improves it is expected that modelling will be able to define Although there are a multitude of intake potential aggregation points. protection devices available, most downstream passage devices to date have been designed primarily for juvenile salmonids, or adapted At Wairere Falls Power Station in the North from salmonid designs. Protection for other Island of New Zealand, simply providing two species or life stages may require development of adjacent 100 mm diameter apertures between entirely new or more radical technologies. Our the two main intake screens (cost of about experience shows that to design an effective NZ$5 K) has permitted the safe passage of close intake protection system, a thorough knowledge to 10% of tagged migrant eels released in the of the species of interest is essential. Information head race. It is expected that the addition of needed includes:

other better-positioned and slightly larger bypasses, preferably combined with effective

• Migration patterns (seasonal and diurnal protection measures at the intake, will virtually activity),

eliminate existing migrant eel impingement and entrainment problems at this site.

• Migration triggers,

• Depth of migration,

• Migration pathways,

• Behavioural response to the barrier (e.g.

Location and design of searching behaviour),

• Behavioural response to the potential intakes protection device (e.g. to light, sound, screens, flow etc.)

When constructing new intakes it may be possible to position the structure in areas that are relatively free of migrant fish. Operating the Monitoring facilities and a monitoring plan must intake at times when there are few fish be part of the protection measures implemented, migrating is another possibility. Such measures not only to determine the effectiveness of the are particularly important when the species or protective measure but also to obtain an life stage of concern cannot be effectively indication of the success of modifications that screened out. For example in the lower Waikato invariably need to be made. A maintenance plan River in the North Island of New Zealand, must also be devised. Finally, but not least, a upstream migrating juveniles were found to use thorough literature review and expert advice low velocity zones along the littoral and river should be sought so as not to repeat mistakes bed, rather than the main river channel. made elsewhere.

30 D O W N S T R E A M M O V E M E N T O F F I S H I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N - C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 3

References on mortality of American eels. In: Dixon D. ed.

Boubée, J.A., Mitchell, C.P., Chisnall, B.L., West, Biology, Management, and Protection of Catadromous D.W., Bowman, E.J., & Haro, A. 2001. Factors Eels. AFS publications, Bethesda, Maryland.

regulating the downstream migration of mature eels (Anguilla spp.) at Aniwhenua Dam, bay of Plenty, New Zealand: New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Larinier, M., & Travade, F. 2002. Downstream Research 35:121-134. migration: Problems and facilities. Bulletin Français de la Pche et de la Pisciculture 364 suppl.: 181-207.

Boubée, J., & Watene, E. 2001. Selective spillway gate openings as a mean of providing downstream eel Moffitt, C. M., Kynard, B., & Rideout, S.G. 1983. Fish passage at hydro-electric dams. Poster presented at passage facilities and anadromous fish restoration in the Advances in Eel Biology Symposium. the Connecticut River Basin. Fisheries 7(6): 2-11.

28-30 September 2001, University of Tokyo, Japan.

Odeh, M., & Orvis, C. 1998. Downstream fish passage Boubée, J., Chisnall, B., Haro, A., Roper, D., Watene, design considerations and developments at E., & Williams, E. (in press). Enhancement and hydroelectric projects in the North-east USA. In management of eel fisheries affected by hydroelectric Jungwirth, M.; Schmuth, S.; Weiss, S. (Eds), Fish dams in New Zealand. In: Dixon D. ed. Biology, Migration and Bypasses. Fishing News Books.

Management, and Protection of Catadromous Eels. 267-280.

AFS publications, Bethesda, Maryland.

Sand, O., Enger, P.S., Karlsen, H.E., Kneudsen, F., &

Coutant, C. C., & Whitney, R. R. 2000. Fish behavior Kvernstuen, T. 2000. Avoidance responses to in relation to passage through hydropower turbines: A infrasound in downstream migrating European silver review. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society eels, Anguilla anguilla. Environmental Biology of Fishes 129: 351-380. 57: 327-336.

EPRI 1986. Assessment of downstream migrant fish Therrien, J. (in press). Efficiency of a downstream protection technologies for hydroelectric application. migration device for eels at a small hydropower plant Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Project and study of the elver and silver eel migration in Report AP-4711, Palo Alto, California. Rimouski River In: Dixon D. ed. Biology, Management, and Protection of Catadromous Eels.

AFS publications, Bethesda, Maryland.

EPRI 2001. Behavioral technologies for fish guidance.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Project Report 1006198, Palo Alto, California.

Hadderingh, R.H., Van Der Stoep, J.W., & Hagraken, J.M. 1992. Deflecting eels from water inlets of power stations with lights. Irish Fisheries Investigations 36: 37-41.

Haro, A., Odeh, M., Noreika, J., & Castro-Santos, T.

1998. Evaluation of uniform acceleration weir for downstream bypass entrances. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127: 118-127.

Haro, A., Castro-Santos, T., Whalen, K.,

Wippelhauser, G., & McLaughlin, L. (in press)

Simulated effects of hydroelectric project regulation D O W N S T R E A M M O V E M E N T O F F I S H I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N - C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 3 31

D O W N S T R E A M M O V E M E N T O F F I S H I N T H E M U R R AY- D A R L I N G B A S I N - C A N B E R R A W O R K S H O P, J U N E 2 0 0 3 Table 1. Downstream fish protection measures installed on the four lowermost hydro dams of the Connecticut River, USA.

Location Type Inland Plant Guidance system Bypass Efficiency Cost of distance capacity volume (%) ($US) plant (km) (m 3/s) (m3/s)

Bellows Falls Dam Canal 280 283 3.5m high concrete wall at surface of 12m 7.1 Smolts 80 3.5M deep canal Vernon Dam In line 229 269 3 m high concrete wall at surface of forebay 10 Smolts 80 2M Turners Falls Dam Canal 198 354 Bar spacing reduced from 100 to 25mm in 8 Smolts 80 1.5M upper 4m of 10m high screens Eels <3 Holyoke dam In line 138 238 Solid overlay in upper 3m of screen 18 Smolts 80 50k canal 170 Louver, 100mm spacing full 7m depth 4 10M 32