fish passage effectiveness its not just counting fish studies on the deerfield river john ragonese,...

Fish Passage Fish Passage EffectivenessEffectiveness

It’s Not Just Counting FishIt’s Not Just Counting FishStudies on the Deerfield RiverStudies on the Deerfield River

John Ragonese, FERC License Mgr. USGen New England John Ragonese, FERC License Mgr. USGen New England Inc.Inc.

FERC Fish Passage Workshop 11-13-03FERC Fish Passage Workshop 11-13-03

Fish Passage Fish Passage RequirementsRequirements

Deerfield River ProjectDeerfield River Project No. 4, No. 3, No.2 DevelopmentsNo. 4, No. 3, No.2 Developments Settlement Agreement 12-05-94Settlement Agreement 12-05-94 License issued 04-04-97License issued 04-04-97

DS Passage within 2 yearsDS Passage within 2 years DS Passage 4/1-6/15 & 9/15 – 11/15DS Passage 4/1-6/15 & 9/15 – 11/15 Upstream Passage at No.2 based upon Upstream Passage at No.2 based upon

returnsreturns

Downstream Passage Downstream Passage DevicesDevices

Order Approving plans 8-21-98Order Approving plans 8-21-98 Began operating 4-1-99Began operating 4-1-99 No. 4 DamNo. 4 Dam

New surface collection device, migrant New surface collection device, migrant pipe, plunge pool and flumepipe, plunge pool and flume

No. 3 Dam No. 3 Dam Modified sluice gate to bypassModified sluice gate to bypass

No. 2 Dam No. 2 Dam New surface gate and flume to dam New surface gate and flume to dam

base base

Greenfield

Old Deerfield

ShelburneFalls

Buckland I-91

N

DRP No. 4

DRP No. 2

Miles

0 2

Bear River

South River

DRP No. 3

Gardners Falls Dam

Schneck Brook

Rt. 2

Deerfield River

Turners Falls Dam

Connecticut River

23

1

4

5

6

78

9

1011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

Turners Falls

Bardwell Ferry

Bridge

Bardwell FerryMonitor Station

Deerfield River Project Developments, study area, downstream monitor stations, Gardners Falls Project, and approximate river mile locations.

Lower Deerfield RiverLower Deerfield River

Deerfield No. 4 Deerfield No. 4 DevelopmentDevelopment

Deerfield River Project No. 4 Development layout and radio telemetry monitor locations.

Rt. 2

N

Deerfield River

Forebay

DRP No. 4Powerhouse

Intake

MonitoredMonitoredAreaArea

20000

ft

DRP No. 4Dam Fishway

MonitoredMonitoredAreaArea

Deerfield No. 4 FishwayDeerfield No. 4 Fishway



500

Nft

0

Bridge St.

DRP No.3 Dam

Intake Canal

DEERFIELD

RIVERMonitoredAreas

DRP No.3 Powerhouse

Fishway



N

Mile

0 1

Gardners FallsProject

Dam

Powerhouse

DRP No. 2

MonitoredArea

MonitoredArea

Fishway

1 2 3

MonitoredArea

Evaluation ApproachEvaluation Approach

Iterative Iterative ……but not by choicebut not by choice

Used Radio Tagging to measureUsed Radio Tagging to measure … … and then some (to solve and determine and then some (to solve and determine

improvement options)improvement options)

Believe we are close to Believe we are close to succeeding…succeeding…

Radio tagging metricsRadio tagging metrics

% Effectiveness% EffectivenessFishway effectiveness is a measure of how well the Fishway effectiveness is a measure of how well the

fishway attracts emigrating smolts.fishway attracts emigrating smolts.

E = F/A, E = F/A, wherewhere

E = Effectiveness of the fishway; F = the number of E = Effectiveness of the fishway; F = the number of tagged smolts that used the fishway; A = those tagged tagged smolts that used the fishway; A = those tagged smolts available in the project vicinity just upstream smolts available in the project vicinity just upstream (i.e., the total of the number of fish passed through the (i.e., the total of the number of fish passed through the fishway, turbines and those fish detected near the fishway, turbines and those fish detected near the fishway but that did not pass by any route).fishway but that did not pass by any route).

Radio tagging metricsRadio tagging metrics

% Safe Passage% Safe PassageSafe Passage through each route was calculated as:Safe Passage through each route was calculated as:

S = s/P, S = s/P, wherewhereS = safe passage between monitoring locations; s = the S = safe passage between monitoring locations; s = the

number of smolts that is passed via a particular route number of smolts that is passed via a particular route and were detected at downstream monitor locations or and were detected at downstream monitor locations or manually located downstream; and P = the total number manually located downstream; and P = the total number of tagged smolts that used each available route at a of tagged smolts that used each available route at a particular development. particular development.

Could only be estimated in a general manner since tagged Could only be estimated in a general manner since tagged smolts were not recaptured for examination after passage.smolts were not recaptured for examination after passage.

Tagged fish were monitored for presence at points well Tagged fish were monitored for presence at points well downstream of each dam. downstream of each dam.

Length of river reach between the dam and the downstream Length of river reach between the dam and the downstream monitor needs to be considered as to the effect predation monitor needs to be considered as to the effect predation could have on the results. could have on the results.

Studies and Modifications Studies and Modifications ChronologyChronology

19991999 Completed Construction of FacilitiesCompleted Construction of Facilities 1999 Radiotag telemetry ( all 3 dams)1999 Radiotag telemetry ( all 3 dams) Radiotagging ResultsRadiotagging Results

No.4 - 59% Effective; Safe passage 85%No.4 - 59% Effective; Safe passage 85% No. 3 – 78% Effective; Safe passage 96%No. 3 – 78% Effective; Safe passage 96% No. 2 – 20% Effective; Safe Passage 55%No. 2 – 20% Effective; Safe Passage 55%


2000 Modifications2000 Modifications No. 4 - 1” Bar Racks installed in front of No. 4 - 1” Bar Racks installed in front of

bulkheadbulkhead No. 4 and No. 3 - Log boom relocated No. 4 and No. 3 - Log boom relocated No. 2 - Flow Inducer installed, minimum No. 2 - Flow Inducer installed, minimum

flow unit switched to unit nearest flow unit switched to unit nearest fishwayfishway

No. 2 - Flume Support Struts reduced to No. 2 - Flume Support Struts reduced to minimal number, log boom removedminimal number, log boom removed


2000 Evaluations2000 Evaluations Flow Inducer CFD modelingFlow Inducer CFD modeling

Floy-tag visual observation at No. 2Floy-tag visual observation at No. 2

Radiotag telemetry (all 3 dams)Radiotag telemetry (all 3 dams)


2000 Evaluations2000 Evaluations Flow Inducer Results Flow Inducer Results

Surface flows fields were modified and directedSurface flows fields were modified and directed Insufficient depth above intakes restricted depth Insufficient depth above intakes restricted depth

of affected surface flow inducing fieldof affected surface flow inducing field At 33%+ station load intake velocities At 33%+ station load intake velocities

dominated flow fields and velocitiesdominated flow fields and velocities Radio tagging ResultsRadio tagging Results



2001 Modifications2001 ModificationsNoneNone

2001 Evaluations2001 EvaluationsExtensive CFD modeling of flows approaching Extensive CFD modeling of flows approaching

all 3 dams; follow-up modeling Spring 2002all 3 dams; follow-up modeling Spring 2002 Tested at single unit and 3-unit operationTested at single unit and 3-unit operation No. 2 tested at higher 10 foot pondNo. 2 tested at higher 10 foot pond CFD modeling not performed for higher spill or CFD modeling not performed for higher spill or

inflatable dam configuration and passing spill over inflatable dam configuration and passing spill over crestcrest

Deerfield No. 2 flow Deerfield No. 2 flow evaluationevaluation19971997

CFD Flow Evaluation CFD Flow Evaluation 2001-2001-20022002

CFD Flow EvaluationCFD Flow EvaluationConclusionsConclusions

Flow vectors approaching intakes Flow vectors approaching intakes are not affected by presence of are not affected by presence of bypass option unless immediately bypass option unless immediately in front of bypass.in front of bypass.

Velocities too high for fish to Velocities too high for fish to overcome when in the field in front overcome when in the field in front of intake racks.of intake racks.

Studies and Modifications Studies and Modifications (cont.)(cont.)

2002 Modifications2002 Modifications Altered Operation to increase flows through Altered Operation to increase flows through

fishways; reducing generation from 6p-7a fishways; reducing generation from 6p-7a No. 4 - Moved deep trash boom away from No. 4 - Moved deep trash boom away from

fishgatefishgate No. 3 Modified trashracks; removed No. 3 Modified trashracks; removed

trashboomtrashboom No. 2 Increased depth of pond 6’No. 2 Increased depth of pond 6’ No. 2 Increased flow through fishgateNo. 2 Increased flow through fishgate No. 2 Sluice gate option studiedNo. 2 Sluice gate option studied


2002 Evaluations2002 Evaluations Radiotag telemetry (all 3 dams); Radiotag telemetry (all 3 dams);

operations scenarios evaluatedoperations scenarios evaluated No. 3 Underwater camera No. 3 Underwater camera

assessment to determine stream-assessment to determine stream-reared migration timing reared migration timing

2002 Fall PIT Tagging upstream 2002 Fall PIT Tagging upstream tributaries for Spring 2003 tributaries for Spring 2003 evaluationevaluation


2002 Evaluations Results2002 Evaluations Results No. 3 Underwater camera assessmentNo. 3 Underwater camera assessment

Poor visibility at night (infrared); good during dayPoor visibility at night (infrared); good during day 28 smolts identified over 2880 continuous hours28 smolts identified over 2880 continuous hours Seasonality – temperature 8-12 C; 5/10-5/20; high Seasonality – temperature 8-12 C; 5/10-5/20; high

natural runoffnatural runoff Radiotag telemetryRadiotag telemetry


Sluice Gate more effective than fishwaySluice Gate more effective than fishway High flows affected study; impairing analysis of results High flows affected study; impairing analysis of results

between various operating scenarios between various operating scenarios

Two Atlantic salmon smolts using the DRP No. 3 bypass during observed peak of the run. Notice smolts are using the bypass approximately mid-stream.

Salmon smolts

Debris

No. 3 Underwater Camera No. 3 Underwater Camera Assessment (2002)Assessment (2002)

Time-lapse video recording, set to record at 5 frames/second

No. 3 Underwater Camera No. 3 Underwater Camera Assessment (2002)Assessment (2002)

Marked hatchery smolt (left) and unmarked wild salmon (right) using the DRP No. 3 bypass during spring 2002.

Streamer tag used to mark additional hatchery smolts

Wild smolt


2003 Modifications2003 Modifications No. 4 Trash boom redesigned and installed 1’ depth No. 4 Trash boom redesigned and installed 1’ depth

(vs. 5’ previously)(vs. 5’ previously) No. 4 operated to maintain 2’-3’ drop into collectorNo. 4 operated to maintain 2’-3’ drop into collector

No. 3 Trash rack modified – bar spacing 1’ & 2’ No. 3 Trash rack modified – bar spacing 1’ & 2’ No. 2 Alternative passageway (sluice gate) studied No. 2 Alternative passageway (sluice gate) studied

2003 Evaluations2003 Evaluations Repeated Operational Scenarios/Radiotagging Repeated Operational Scenarios/Radiotagging

studystudy No. 4 Pit tag monitoringNo. 4 Pit tag monitoring


2003 – Repeated Operational 2003 – Repeated Operational Scenarios/Radiotagging studyScenarios/Radiotagging study

No. 4 - PIT-tag monitoring No. 4 - PIT-tag monitoring


2003 Evaluations Results2003 Evaluations Results Radiotag telemetryRadiotag telemetry

No.4 - 57% Effective; Safe passage 93%No.4 - 57% Effective; Safe passage 93% No. 3 – 73% Effective; Safe passage 90%No. 3 – 73% Effective; Safe passage 90% No. 2 – No. 2 –

– Fishway 32% Effective; Safe Passage 90%Fishway 32% Effective; Safe Passage 90%– Sluice gate 81% Effective; Safe Passage 97%Sluice gate 81% Effective; Safe Passage 97%– Combined/overall – 60% Effective; Safe passage 81%Combined/overall – 60% Effective; Safe passage 81%

No. 4 Maintaining drop into collector restricted flow No. 4 Maintaining drop into collector restricted flow to about 60% of maximum capacityto about 60% of maximum capacity

No.2 Sluice Gate clearly more effective than No.2 Sluice Gate clearly more effective than fishwayfishway

Some high flow, but did not skew results Some high flow, but did not skew results


2003 Evaluations Results2003 Evaluations ResultsPIT Tag MonitoringPIT Tag Monitoring

Limited number of fish found, Limited number of fish found, shocked and tagged in previous Fallshocked and tagged in previous Fall

May have been lateMay have been late No Pit tagged fish hit monitorNo Pit tagged fish hit monitor

Summary of Radiotagged Summary of Radiotagged ResultsResults

Summary of Radiotagged Summary of Radiotagged ResultsResults

Passage preference for evening/ early morning Passage preference for evening/ early morning hourshours

Site specific issuesSite specific issues Flow vectors and velocities toward intake significantFlow vectors and velocities toward intake significant Racks spacing variable has not been significantRacks spacing variable has not been significant

Flow ratios significant Flow ratios significant Overall Safe passage should be equally Overall Safe passage should be equally

considered as meeting passage objectiveconsidered as meeting passage objective Operational changes can affect passage Operational changes can affect passage

effectiveness; seasonal specificity and time of effectiveness; seasonal specificity and time of day can reduce the cost day can reduce the cost

fish passage effectiveness its not just counting fish studies on the deerfield river john ragonese,...

Documents

safe passage safe passage

lower deerfield river

deerfield river turners

upstream passage

effective safe passage

dam connecticut river

fish passage effectiveness

powerhouse fishway slide