Facilitate downstream migration
Contents
- 1 Facilitate downstream migration
- 1.1 General description
- 1.2 Applicability
- 1.3 Expected effect of measure on (including literature citations):
- 1.4 Temporal and spatial response
- 1.5 Pressures that can be addressed by this measure
- 1.6 Cost-efficiency
- 1.7 Case studies where this measure has been applied
- 1.8 Useful references
- 1.9 Other relevant information
Facilitate downstream migration
04. Longitudinal connectivity improvement
General description
A series of barriers and obstacles along the river continuum reduce the survival of downstream migrating fishes. A fish population can only survive, if a distinct percentage of the downstream migrating abundance survives.
Also, fish can get lost migrating downstream in rivers with numerous water intakes that delay them to their spawning or growing grounds. Also, these water intakes may lead them to dangerous channels, pipelines or turbines where injuries and mortalities are caused.
Therefore, the design and construction of a system to guide fishes in their way down through barriers, dams, and to avoid bypasses and water intakes is a measure to mitigate these impacts. These, guiding systems include deflectors, screens and electro-barriers that incentivize fish to go in the right channel, and avoid taking the dangerous ones. Main types are (Miranda, 2001): • Downstream fish passage • Spill flows: high flows when reservoir is full that transport fish over the dam • Screening devices: ‘Eicher’, ‘Louver’, ‘Johnson’, static, rotatory, boubles,.. • Behavior-based guidance: by light (Strobe), underwater sounds • Electro-barriers
Applicability
In view of the widely divergent conditions can be found in different dams, reservoirs and river typesobtaining at hydropower plants, no “all sizes fits all” bypass solution can be applied. So far, physical barriers that are designed with a specific flow velocity and flow angle in mind and with fish-friendly intake bar spacing in conjunction with an appropriate bypass have proven to be most effective where the hydromorphological and biological characteristics make them a suitable solution.
Many barriers that are currently under development select only certain species owing to the excessive flow velocities involved and the fact that various species exhibit widely divergent behaviors.
Hence, fish safeguards and bypasses should be built, according to existing studies demonstrating their abilities to meet future requirements and having the specific species characteristics, specific local conditions, specific management goals and a specific watercourse firmly in mind.
For surface water with water discharge < 20 m3/s the maximum screen bar distance should not exceed for adult potamodromus fish species 20 mm, for catadromus fish species (e.g. eel) 15 mm and for anadromus fish species (e.g. smolt of salmon and trout) 10 mm.
One way to improve downstream migration is by selecting or designing fish-friendly turbines. (see measure 4.6).
Expected effect of measure on (including literature citations):
- HYMO (general and specified per HYMO element)
No change
- physico-chemical parameters
No change
- Biota (general and specified per Biological quality elements)
BQE Fish Macroinvertebrates Macrophytes Phytoplankton Effect ++ O o o
Macroinvertebrates: No change Fish: migrant species Macrophytes: No change Phytoplankton: No change
Temporal and spatial response
Pressures that can be addressed by this measure
Cost-efficiency
Case studies where this measure has been applied
- Fish ramp Friedrichsgüte
- Fish ramp Baumannsbrücke
- Klein Wall
- Maxsee
- Emån - Emsfors
- Meander fish ramp Erpe BB
- Fish ramp Erpe BB
- Fish ramp Erpe Berlin
- Mörrumsån - Hemsjö
- Töss
- Inchewan Burn Bed Restoration
- Roermond – Restoring migration possibilities for 8 Annex II species in the Roer (LIFE06 NAT/NL/000078)
