WASSER

BER LIN 2006

Internationale Fachrnesse
und Kongress

( Durchgngigkeit von Gew i ssern

fr die a quatische Fauna
free Passage for Aquatic Fauna
in Rivers and other Water Bodies
April 2006

Internationales DWA-Symposium
zur Wasserwirtschaft
International DWA Symposium
on Water Resources Management
3.- 7. April 2006

Deutsche Vereinigung fr Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser und Abfall e.V.

German Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste

Durchgngigkeit von Gewssern fr die aquatische Fauna

Free Passage for Aquatic Fauna in Rivers and other Water Bodies
Die Deutsche Vereinigung fr Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser und Abfall e.V., DWA, ist in Deutschland
Sprecher fr aile bergreifenden Wasserfragen und setzt sich intensiv fr die Entwicklung einer sicheren
und nachhaltigen Wasserwirtschaft ein. Als politisch und wirtschaftlich unabhngige Organisation arbeitet
sie fachlich auf den Gebieten Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser, Abfall und Bodenschutz.
In Europa ist die DWA die mitgliederstrkste Vereinigung auf diesem Gebiet und nimmt durch ihre fachliche
Kompetenz bezglich Normung, Beruflicher Bildung und Information der Offentlichkeit eine besondere
Stellung ein. Die rund 14.000 Mitglieder reprsentieren die Fachleute und Fhrungskrfte aus Kommunen,
Hochschulen, Ingenieurbros, Behrden und Unternehmen.
Der Schwerpunkt ihrer Ttigkeiten liegt auf der Erarbeitung und -Aktualisierung eines einheitlichen
technischen Regelwerkes sowie der Mitarbeit bei der Aufstellung fachspezifischer Normen auf nationaler
und internationaler Ebene. Hierzu geh&ren nicht nur die technisch-wissenschaftlichen Themen, sondern
auch die wirtschaftlichen und rechtlichen Belange des Umwelt- und Gewsserschutzes.

The DWA - German Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste - is in Germany spokesman for all
comprehensive water queries and is intensively committed to the development and distribution of a secure
and sustainable water supply . It works as a politically an ecnomically independent organisation
professionally in the fields of water management , sewage , waste and soit protection.
DWA is in Europe the association with the largest number of members within this field and therefore takes
up a special position . This is because it provides professional competence regarding standardisation,
professional training and information towards the public . Approximately 14.000 members represent the
experts and executives from communes , universities , engineering offices, authorities and enterprises.
The main emphasis of its activities is on the acquirement and update of a uniform technical set of rules and
standards -as well as the cooperation on the list of technical norms on a national and international level. In
this connection not only are the technical scientific topics involved , but also the economic and legal
interests of the environment and water pollution forms a part.

Impressum / Imprint
Herausgeber und Vertrieb
Publishing and Distributions:
DWA Deutsche Vereinigung fr
Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser und Abfall e. V.
Theodor-Heuss-Allee 17
53773 Hennef, Deutschland/Germany
Tel.: +49 2242 872-0
Fax: +49 2242 872-100
E-Mail: kundenzentrum@dwa.de
Internet: www.dwa.de

Satz/Set:
DWA
Druck/ Print:
Bonner Universitats Buchdruckerei
ISBN:
I S B N-10: 3-939057-19-3
ISBN-13: 978-3-939057-19-2
Gedruckt auf 100 % Recyclingpapier.
Printed on 100% recycled paper.

DWA Deutsche Vereinigung fr Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser und Abfall e. V., Hennef 2006
DWA German Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste, Hennef 2006

Alle Rechte, insbesondere die der bersetzung in andere Sprachen, vorbehalten. Kein Teil dieser Verffentlichung darf ohne
schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages in irgendeiner Form - durch Fotokopie, Mikrofilm oder irgendein anderes Verfahren reproduziert oder in eine von Maschinen, insbesondere Datenverarbeitungsmaschinen, verwendbare Sprache bertragen werden.
All rights, in particular those of translation into other langUages, are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any
form - by photocopy, microfilm or any other process - or transferred into a language usable in machines, in particular data processing
machines, without the written approval of the publisher.

April

2006

DWA

Durchgngigkeit von Gewssern fr die aquatische Fauna

Free Passage for Aquatic Fauna in Rivers and other Water Bodies

French experience in upstream migration facilities

Erfahrungen mit Fischaufstiegsanlagen aus Frankreich
Michel Larinier, Institut de Mcanique des Fluides, Toulouse, France
Franois Travade, Electricit de France - Etudes et Recherches,
Chatou CEDEX,France
Abstract
Many fish passes have been built to apply the 1984 legislation on freshwater fishing and management of
fish-breeding resources, with the target migrating species being above ail diadromous species. The article
first considers the way in which the swimming capacities of migratory species are taken into account when
designing fish passes. A review is then made of experience acquired with different types of fish pass: pool
fish passes, natural bypass channels, fish lifts and locks, specific passes for eels. The concept of efficiency
of fish passes will be illustrated with a few examples, with an emphasis on the attraction of fish passes and
the maintenance issues. The authors also discuss some of the techniques used for inspecting and
evaluating fish passes, namely video control stations and radio telemetry.
Keywords: upstream migration, fish pass, radio tracking, monitoring.

1 Introduction
The first plans for restoration or enhancement of diadromous fish species were undertaken between 1975 and
1980 and new legislation on freshwater fishing and management of fish-breeding resources was passed in
1984. This led to an intense fish pass construction programme, then a few years later to the awareness that
downstream migration had to be taken into account for hydroelectric plants. The European Water Framework
Directive confirmed the increasing awareness of the importance of ecological continuity for ail species in rivers
and streams. This paper only deais with upstream migration since the downstream aspect is being dealt with
by a twin paper written by the same authors (for presentation in this saine Symposium). This paper deais with
the experience acquired, particularly over the last ten years, in other words since the Vienna Symposium on
Fish Migration and Fish bypass Channels held in September 1996 (Larinier, 1998 ; Travade et al., 1998). The
breakthroughs made are due mostly to monitoring of existing fish passes. Some points, in particular the
criteria used for designing passing facilities will only be dealt with very briefly in what follows, given that they
are very similar to or even identical to those used in Germany (DVWK, 2002 ; Larinier et al., 2002) and that
they are being covered by specific papers during this Symposium.

2 Regulations
Most of the fish pass facilities were built to apply the law of 1984. This Iaw (Environnent Code, Article
L 432-6) requires that ail obstructions in rivers or parts thereof, in the list specified by decree, must include
facilities to guarantee the passage of migratory fish. The owner of the obstruction is obliged to ensure the
operation and maintenance of these facilities. Existing obstructions are required to conform to the
provisions of this Article within five years following publication of the Ilst of migratory species by river basin
or sub-basin, as specified by the responsible Minister, without compensation.
At new obstructions, or during the relicensing of existing hydropower facilities, the authorities may require
that fish passes be built, even on rivers which are not classified in terms of the law as `migratory'. Thus fish
passes can be built for resident species on ail new or. relicensed obstructions.
In our opinion, the very important part of the regulations is that not only are operators obliged to provide the
means (by building a fish pass) but they are also under the obligation to ensure results, in other words that

50

April2006

DWA

Durchgngigkeit von Gew ssern fr die aquatische Fauna

Free Passage for Aquatic Fauna in Rivers and other Water Bodies
the fish passes built must be efficient. This obligation to achieve a result was a major element in the
progress made in this field. It was also the reason why a significant fish monitoring programme was set up
to assess the efficiency of fish passes.

3 Migrating species and obstacles

In keeping with regulatory obligations, fish passes were initially designed for a limited number of target
species: diadromous salmon species (Salmo salar), sea-run brown trout (Salmo trutta), sea lamprey
(Petromyzon marinus), allis shad (Alosa alosa) and. European eel (Anguilla anguilla). The only riverine
species considered as 'migratory species' in the law are brown trout (Salmo trutta), Northern pike (Esox
lucius) and European grayling (Thymallus tymallus).
Since the promulgation of the European Framework Water Directive, an effort is being made to take into
account all species in a more determined way, but difficulties have been encountered for some rivers in that
this means significantly modifying design criteria and usual technical choices.
No complete inventory of fish passes has yet been made but more than 700 fish passes have been either
improved or built over the last twenty years. Most of these facilities are on the Atlantic coastline, small coastal
rivers in Normandy and Brittany, or on the river basins of the Loire, the Dordogne, the Garonne and Pyrenean
rivers and these concem all diadromous species, as well as trout for the upper part of the basins. In the
Rhne basin, which has no migrating salmonids, fish passes have been built for shad and lamprey on the
lower part of the basin and for trout on the upstream part. During renovation, or rebuilding of navigation
structures on the Seine and its main tributaries (the Oise, Marne and Yonne rivers), a significant fish pass
construction programme was undertaken a few years ago, with a view to catering for all riverine species.
The sizes of the rivers on which fish passes have been built vary from streams with a flow of a few hundred
Ils to our major rivers (Garonne, Loire, Seine, Rhone, Rhine) whose annual flow discharges are somewhere
between 300 and 1900 m3/s.
The types of obstacles vary greatly: old mill weirs, hydroelectric plants, navigation dams, dams for tourism,
stabilisation weirs, intake weirs for thermal power plants...
Most of the obstacles have been equipped with fish passes while some old and low weirs have been
removed. Three dams, 6 m to 15 m high (Maisons-Rouge on the Vienne, Saint-Etienne-du-Vigan on the
Allier and Kernansquillec on the Leguer) were decommissioned when their concessions or authorisations to
use the hydroelectric power expired.

4 Swimming capacities and fish passes

The design criteria for fish passes are closely related to the migratory behaviour and swimming capacities
of the target species. There is a great deal of literature on this field, most of which comes from experiments
undertaken with controlled environments while some, but not very many, corne from observations in natural
environments.
The main difficulty consists in transforming the data on swimming capacities - with all of the uncertainty
and dispersion involved - into criteria for the passability of an obstacle or into acceptable flow velocities for
a fish pass.
It is practically impossible to limit the maximum flow velocities at values much lower than 1.30-1.50 m/s which
corresponds to the burst speed of small species. This means that the small species must either avoid
maximum velocity zones by using wakes behind obstacles or bottom roughness. In any event, the small
species have to find resting areas which must be very close to each other whereas larger species will be able
to cover several tens of metres in the same flow conditions without any difficulty.
Moreover, when the spatio-temporal variations in flow velocities are great (for very turbulent flows or eddies
for instance), more energy will be needed for the fish to move a certain distance than that required to cover
the same distance in a more regular flow with parallel stream lines having the same velocity and this can be

DWA

April

2006

51

Durchgngigkeit von Gewssern fr die aquatische Fauna

Free Passage for Aquatic Fauna in Rivers and other Water Bodies
particuiarly critical in circumstances in which the maximum velocities of the flow cornes close to the burst
speed of the fish. This is what has been observed in Denil fish passes for small fish: even though the flow
velocities are not that great, the fish find it somewhat difficult to progress becaus of the three-dimensional
flow patterns.
Until fairly recently, there was no way of measuring this turbulence. A good indicator of the level of agitation
and aeration in basins, but a very empirical method, is volumetric dissipated power (Larinier, 1983, 1990).
The use of this criterion for designing pool fish passes has now become widespread. This volumetric
dissipated power is identical to the 'unit stream power' used in fluvial geomorphology and river mechanics,
which is a good indicator of the capacity of flow to transport sediment (Yang, 1984 ; 1996). The values of
the dissipated power may vary from a few watts/m3 in the lower part of the watercourse to values of the
order of 500 watts/m3 locally in the upper trout zone.
The effect of turbulence on fish behaviour was recently investigated in particular with the development of
technology such as Acoustic Doppler Velocimetry, which can be used both in laboratories and in situ (Odeh
et al., 2000 and Hotchkiss, 2002). While it is obvious that turbulence is an important factor, no experimental
investigations have yet clearly determined the most significant parameters to be taken into account and a
fortiori the threshold values or critical values for these parameters. The turbulent kinetic energy (TKE)
seems to be the 'most suitable parameter for quantifying the extent of fluctuations to which an aquatic
organism is subjected as it natura*lly integrates the three components of instantaneous velocity.
Experiments are underway in France to characterise flow in fish passes (vertical slot and natural-like fish
passes) with -respect to turbulence.

5 Fish passes
5.1 Pool fish passes and pre-barrages
The most frequently used type of fish pass in France is the pool fish pass. The difference in level between
two successive pools, which is a function of the migrating species, is most often between 20 and 30 cm.
Such differences allow most species to pass. When the target species are smaller then the difference in
level can be reduced (to 15 cm for instance for Zingel Asper, percid [GOMES et al., 2005]). The volume of
the pools is determined from the maximum volumetric dissipated power which the fish can tolerate, of the
order of 100 to more than 200 watts/m3 depending on target species. For salmonid passes , a volumetric
dissipated power of the order of 200 watts/m3 is recommended for passes with many pools. Much greater
values may be taken for a limited number of pools (more than 300 watts/m3). For shad and cyprinid passes,
lower values are recommended (less than 150 watts/m3). In Australia (Malien Cooper, personal
communication, 2003), recommended even lower values (50-100 watts/m3) for very small species of a few
cm in length.
The length of the pools can vary from less than 1.50 m for a pass designed for a low flow discharge to more
than 5 m for a salmon pass designed for a flow discharge of more than 1 m3/s.
Vertical slot fish passes have the great advantage of operating correctly without any regulating device - by
tolerating significant variations in upstream and downstream water levels - and of allowing fish to pass from
the bottom up to the surface of the pool. Experience has shown that when a pool pass has been correctly
designed (in terms of drops, level of turbulence and flow pattern in the pools), it is net very selective and
can be crossed by most species likely to want to do se.
The main problem for some species is the significant time spent in very large pools : small species tend to
'get'lost' and to remain trapped in large recirculation eddies. A good solution is to reduce the size of pools,
if possible, or to find ways of reducing the size of these recirculation eddies.
A study of vertical slot fish passes is underway to characterise flow in terms of speed, turbulence, flow
patterns and to see which devices may be used in pools to help guide small species. It is already clear that
the introduction of rough obstacles on the bottom helps small species to pass through but this only helps
benthic species.
It is difficult to optimise the design of a fish pass by taking into account the requirements or rather the
preferences of ail species: for the large species, it would be becter to limit the number of drops by adopting

52

April

2006

DWA

Durchgngigkeit von Gewssern fr die aquatische Fauna

Free Passage for Aquatic Fau na in Rivers and other Water Bodies
fairly wide fish passages and pools with maximum flow velocities of the order of 2.2 m/s to 2.50 m/s which
are still within the range of sustained speeds for fish. For the smaller species it would be preferable to
reduce both drops and volumetric dissipated power as much as possible and especially the widths of fish
passages as well as the sizes of pools.
Several hundred pool fish passes have been built over the last twenty years in France. The cost of the structure
is above all determined by the flow discharge of the structure and the drop to be passed. The cost may vary
from less than 20 K (fora small fish pass on a low dam) to more than 1,500 K (fora multispecies pass on a
large river), for an average of 120 K per metre of head drop and m3/s of flow. Exceptionally the cost may
amount to 9 million as for the large fish passes recently built on the Rhine.
Pre-barrages are often an efficient and inexpensive solution to enable fish to clear fairly low obstacles..
They are made of several walls or weirs creating, downstream of the obstacle, large pools which break up
the drop to be cleared (drops of 0.40 m to 0.60 m). The configuration of the weirs and drops between pools
depends on the target species: for saimonids, plunging flow is acceptable and the walls between pools can
be vertical whereas for most other species it is better to progressively dissipate energy and reduce
velocities on rough ramps to enable the fish to moue through by swimming. The average cost is 70 K per
metre of head drop and m3/s of flow.

Figure 1: Vertical siot fish pass ( Seine river)

Figure 2 : Pre-barrage with roughened

ramp (Loire river)

5.2 Denil fish passes

Denil fish passes are relatively selective and are only used for species which have sufficient swimming
speed and endurance. They are used for large fish and in particular salmon, sea trout and marine lamprey
for which this type of pass seems to be very efficient, much more than a pool fish pass.
Denil fish passes are particularly suitable for small watercourses in which the flow necessary for the fish
pass is only a few hundreds of Ils. More than a hundred passes of this type have been installed over the
last fifteen years, mainly in rivers on the Brittany and Normandy toast. The average cost is 50 K, for an
average of 75 K per metre of head drop and m3/s of flow.
They are not very widespread at the moment to the extent that the idea is to cater for most species, in
particular small species with reduced swimming capacities.

5.3 Locks and lifts

A few fish locks were built in France in the years from 1960-1975. With a few rare exceptions, they never
performed entirely satisfactorily, most often due to a far from optimal design (e.g. holding pool too small and
turbulent, poor gate operation, inadequate attraction). The principal limit to this kind of facility is that it is

DWA

April

2006

53

Durchg ngigkeit von Gewssern fr die aquatische Fauna

Free Passage for Aquatic Fauna in Rivers . and other Water Bodies
difficuit, if not impossible, to optimise its operating cycle when several species with very different behaviour
are concerned. At the current time, the installation of fish locks is no longer envisaged and mechanical lifts
are generally preferred.
On the other hand, on some watercourses, the operation of navigation locks has been modified to facilitate
fish passage, for instance on the Rhne over the last ten years for shad. To attract the fish into the lock, the
filling sluices are opened while the downstream gates are open which creates a significant attraction flow
(of the order of 60 m3/s at the Beaucaire lock and 80 m3/s at the Avignon lock), corresponding to 2.5-5% of
maximum turbine flow (respectively 2400 m3/s and 1600 m3/s). The efficiency of this device, which was
evaluated by radio-telemetry over three years, is about 40% for a relatively limited number of lock operation
cycles (of the order of 100-150 specific lock operation cycles during the migration period) (Roche & Brosse,
2005). However, this operation is not compatible with river transport (boats) and the number of 'fish cycles'
cannot be increased. In the case of the Rhone, the use of locks appears to be a worthwhile alternative to
the building of specific fish passes on condition that there will be no significant increase in navigation.
In mechanical lifts, th fish are directly trapped in a tank. At regular intervals, this tank is spilled out
upstream. An auxiliary flow, which is used to attract fish and incite them to enter the tank, is injected
upstream of the trap. Installation of lifts is only practicl for drops greater than 7 to 8 metres. The cost of a
lift, independently of the drop height, depends on the amount of civil engineering necessary for integrating it
.into the structure and the cost of the attraction device. For structures which require relatively litt ^e civil
engineering, the costs are about 200 to 300 K. On major watercourses, the cost may amount to 3.5 M
(e.g. the Golfech fish lift on the Garonne river).
The main disadvantage of fish lifts lies in the higher cost of operation and maintenance. Furthermore, their
efficiency for small species (e.g. young eels) is generally low because sufficiently fine screens cannot be
used for operational reasons. Fish lifts have some moving parts which may lead to damage and a few fish
mortalities which may be reduced but are difficult to avoid.

Figure 3 : Fish lift at Pouts dam (Allier )

Figure 4: Tuilires fish lift (Dordogne)

5.4 Fish ramps and natural bypass channels

Some rock weirs extending over the whole width of a watercourse are used as fish passes for diadromous
species, with the ramps slopes being limited to 10% and the drops to 1.50 m. In this case, the acceptable
flow discharges per metre of width (from 0.2 to 1.5 m3/s/m) depend on the species. Most of these were
originally designed as stabilising weirs whose.slope has been deliberately reduced to make them easier to
pass through.

54

April

2006

DWA

Durchgng. igkeit von Gewssern fr die aquatische Fauna

Free Passage for Aquatic Fauna in Rivers and other Water Bodies
Natural bypass channels are particularly suitable if the fish pass has to be installed near a dam which
cannot be changed structurally and when there is sufficient space in the bank. The siope for this typ of
structure generally varies from 2% to 5%, depending on the target species. The major disadvantage of this
type of device. is its overall dimension and the difficulty of taking into account significant variations in the
upstream level. The energy is generally dissipated by rows of blocks or weirs crating a series of drops bf
variable height (from 15 to 30 cm). The design critria (in terms of drops and dissipated power) are.very
similar to those for pool fish passes. It is better to leave a margin for the acceptable maximum drops, given
the difficulty of obtaining precise values during construction. If the level of upstream water varies
significantly, a regulatory section has to be installed upstream and the most efficient system generally
recommended is a section of a vertical slot, pool fish pass.

Figure 5: Natural bypass channels on the Gave de Pau river and on a Rhne tributary
(Bras des Armniers)

The limit conditions for opration of ramps are, in our opinion, not very well defined. Tests were performed
two years ago to specify the hydraulic conditions (in terms of velocity and turbulence characteristics of
flows) depending on the arrangement of the blocks and their concentration and particularly in terms of the
two basic parameters: the specific flow discharge and the slope. An example is the statistical evolution of
velocity as well as the turbulent kinetic energy measured in areas of low velocities, which are supposed to
be rest areas, depending on the slope in a ramp made of regularly arranged rocks (Chorda et al., 2004
Gomes et al., 2005). Tests on fish behaviour are carried out at the same time in a fluvarium.

6 EeI passes
Eel migrations have only relatively recently been taken into account in France and the first fish passes
adapted for this species were only built about ten years ago. The first passes used consisted exclusively of
brushes installed on a PVC substrate, brushes with diffrent characteristics depending on the size and
stage of development of the eel. Experiments were conducted between 2000 and 2002 to test more robust
substrates which were less expensive, consisting of prefabricated moulded concrete slabs with conically
shaped blocks of different diameters and layout. The advantage of this substrate over conventional brushes
is that it can be installed for significant widths on sloping faces of weirs. Tests were conducted at an
exprimental site consisting of channels with variable slopes installed in the Arzal dams on the Vilaine and
the Tuilires dam on the Dordogne to test the effect of flow discharge, siope and the size and arrangement
of the blocks. They focused on elver and young eels of a maximum size of 30 to 40 cm (Voegtle & Larinier,
2000). The optimum substrate consisted of conical blocks with diameters of approximately 3-4 cm, laterally
spaced at intervals 2 times their diameter and disposed in quincunx.
A counting system based on the adaptation of an existing resistivity counter has been developed. It
consists of 4 counting tubes installed in parallel upstream of the fish pass at the level of the outlet trap. The
efficiency of the counting device which has been tested for a few years turned out to be significantly high
greater than 95% for small eels varying from 13 cm to more than 40 cm. The counter is capable of
discriminating between about ten diffrent eel size classes.

DWA

April

2006

55

Durchgngigkeit von Gewssern fr die aquatische Fauna

Free Passage for Aquatic Fauna in Rivers and other Water Bodies
1000

180

800

150
.120

HI

90
w 400

60

I-

200
30
0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07

0
0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07

Slope

Slope

Figure 6 : Box and Whisker plots of measured mean velocity V and TKE ( measured in resting
areas where V<30 cm/s ) in a roughened ramp.

Efficiency
The legal obligation of owners to achieve a result for the free circulation of fish has Ied to the need to
specify the concept of efficiency for fish passes, and this is often difficult both to define and even more so to
demonstrate. Efficiency is expressed both in terms of percentage of the migrating population reaching the
base of an obstacle, then clearing this obstacle and delay in migration, in other words, the time that the
population or part of the population takes to pass through the obstacle. Simply counting the fish upstream
of the fish pass is only an indication of the degree of efficiency of the pass if we do not know the size of the
population downstream of the pass and likely to move upstream.
The level of efficiency to be achieved for a given site has to be defined in terms of the desired biological
objectives. It depends on the species, the number and the location of the obstacle on the migration route.
For salmon, on an obstruction located downstream from spawning areas, the whole of the migrating
population should be able to pass through.If, moreover, this watercourse is equipped with many obstacles it
will be necessary to minimise delays to migration caused by these obstacles so that the migrating fish arrive at
the spawning areas in time. If on the other hand, the fish pass is located further upstream of the watercourse,
in the middle of the spawning area, then there will be less need for efficiency.
For salmon, an efficiency of 95% to 100% can be obtained on recent well-designed fish passes with delays
of a few hours to a few days (Chanseau et al., 1999 ).

Figure 7: EeI pass on the Durance river

dam

56

April

Figure 8 : Resistivity eel counter at Tuilires

2006

DWA

1
Durchgngigkeit von Gewssern fr die aquatische Fauna
Free Passage for Aquatic Fauna in Rivers and other Water Bodies
As an example, the radio-tracking study undertaken on the Gave de Pau from 1995 to 1998 to evaluate the
passability of about thirty obstacles ta the upstream migration of fish showed that:
16 structures allowed all of the migrating fish to pass through without significant delays,
10 were more serious obstacles to migration in terms of delays or blocking part of the population,
and especially that five structures, of which several were located on the downstream part of the
migration route and of older design, were major obstacles. One of them only allowed 35% (Baigt) of the
migrating fish to pass through.
It has been estimated that only 13% of salmon reach the first spawning zones.. We may reasonably hope
that this percentage could increase to 80% over the next few years by improving the passability of
downstream obstacles, which is now being done.
On hydroelectric facilities fish passes have generally been built (unless the site precluded this) near the power
plant, whereas in the past they were most often built at some distance away, on the dam, where except for highflow periods, the only flow was the ecological one. This enabled a significant increase in efficiency.
It is difficult to obtain very high rates of efficiency on large rivers in particular due to the lack of attractiveness
of facilities related to the limited number of entrances: - experience at Golfech (Garonne) and Mauzac
(Dordogne) (with turbined flows of about 400-600 m3/s) showed that a single fish entrance and a single fish
pass on a very wide structure or plant can only have a limited efficiency. This is why a second fish pass
entrance was recently built at Mauzac at the power plant to significantly increase the efficiency. It was not
possible to get.financing for collecting galleries above the turbines for the first large structures built between
1985 and 1990 in France. This has now become possible since fish monitoring has shown that it is necessary:
on the fish pass installed in 1997 at the Carbonne hydroelectric plant (with a turbine flow of 170 m3/s), three
entrances were installed above the draft tubes of the turbines whereas at the Golfech plant (with a turbine flow
of 600 m3/s), ten years earlier, only one entrance could be installed - even though three had been initially
considered during the studies.
The efficiency of any given facility varies according to the migrating species considered. It is generally lower
for shad and lamprey than it is for salmonids: while figures of 80% or more have been achieved for
salmonids, efficiency is at best only about 50% for shad and lamprey.
Efficiency problems are due not only to a lack of attraction of fish passes (wrong location, number of
entrances and/or insufficient flow discharge), but also to a lack of maintenance of the facilities. Lack of
maintenance of facilities is a recurring problem in France, that is why the Adour-Garonne Water Agency
recently introduced a system of bonuses to incite owners to correctly maintain structures.
The obligation on owners to achieve a resuit varies according to the type of watercourse. Local authorities
are generally much more demnding for a watercourse in which there are diadromous species than for a
watercourse in which there are only riverine species. Local authorities may decide that the fish facility is not
sufficiently efficient and oblige the owners to introduce any modifications which may be necessary. The
local authority generally has to prove that the device is not functioning either through a specific study (ratiotelemetry, counting) or simply through expertise done by the Conseil Suprieur de la Pche.

Figure 9 : Collecting galleries at Chatellerault (Vienne) and Carbonne (Garonne ) powerplants

DWA

April

2006

57

Durchgngigkeit von Gewssern fr die aquatische Fauna

Free Passage for A quatic Fauna in Rivers and other Water Bodies
8 Fish monitoring techniques and techniques for evaluating fish passes
Fish pass structures need to be monitored after being commissioned to ensure that they are efficient; this
monitoring further increases our knowledge of migrating fish populations and their migrations.
Video monitoring
Visual counting is widely practiced in France. It involves passing the fish in front of immersed vertical
window and has the advantage of enabling most species to be identified without handling them. The video
surveillance technique and image analysis for tracking migrators have been developed over the last ten
years (Cattoen et al., 1999) and now allows for continuous counting throughout the year with limited
personnel. Images with fish in them are digitised and stored on a hard disk. Suitable software is used to
analyse the computer files and to generate spreadsheets.
The first control stations were more or less imposed on owners of structures about twenty years ago, often
with difficulty, to facilitate evaluation of the fish facilities. The first inspection window was installed in France
in 1985 at the Bergerac dam and was only 40 cm wide, the second was installed the following year on the
upstream dam and was 1.50 m wide. Thre are now about twenty permanent video counting stations using
this technique in France along the main migration routes (Allier, Dordogne, Garonne, Vilaine, Gave de Pau,
Aulne, Touques, Vire...).
By tacit agreement, the French electricity board pays for the operation and the maintenance of monitoring
stations on its dams, long enough to demonstrate their efficiency. Once the efficiency has been
demonstrated, if the usefulness of the monitoring station is justified, then its management and maintenance
are taken over by organisations which are responsible for restoration or enhancement of. diadromous fish
species programmes.

Radio tracking
The radio tracking technique turned out to be very useful for overall evaluation of the efficiency of fish
passes and the accumulated impact of different obstacles on a migration route. It has made it possible to
evaluate efficiency in terms of percentage of passage and delays to migration. Among other advantages, it
has enabled scientists to suggest improvements in the operation of fish passes based on objective
observations of the behaviour of migrating fish, which may be a determining element when negotiating with
the owner of the dam (Chanseau & Larinier, 2000).
100

BAIGTS (efficiency 35,3%) 100 -

SAPSO (efficiency 74%)

80
m
o 60i..
E
0n 40

20

LU

0 _A_- -f-, - -

1 day 3 days 1 week 2 weeks 3 weeks > 1 month 1 day 3 days 1 week 2 weeks 3 weeks > 1 month
Migration delay

Migration delay

C
o

E
M

1 day 3 days 1 week 2 weeks 3 weeks > 1 month

Migration delay

Figure 10: Fish passes efficiency and migration delays at four dam on the Gave de Pau river.

58

April

2006

DWA

Durchgngigkeit von Gewssern fr die aquatische Fauna

Free Passage for Aquatic Fauna in Rivers and other Water Bodies
An example is the efficiency obtained through radio-tracking on 4 fish passes located on the Gave de Pau
in the South-West of France. The Artix and Biron fish passes are recent structures. The Sapso and Baigts
fish passes are older structures. These results helped us convinced the authorities to require that the
owners of these two last structures build new and more efficient fish passes, (Chanseau et ai., 1999)
At Baigts, the decision was taken to build a new lift at the only possible location at the site, i.e. on the left
bank opposite the hydroelectric plant. At first, only the lower part of the lift was built and evaluated. The
efficiency of the device was increased by 30-40% to 87%, the median delay in migration caused by the
obstacle was reduced from 53 days to 9 days. This improvement was related in particular to the increase in
flow discharge at the entrance to the lift from 1 m3/s to 10 m3/s (which should be compared to the average
flow discharges of the river and the turbine flow discharge at the, existing plant, approximately 90 m3/s). A
special turbine was installed near the lift entrance to dissipate the energy of the attraction flow required for
correct operation of the lift (Larinier et al., 2005).

9 Conclusion
At the current time, fish pass techniques are relatively well known, in other words we know both the
possibilities but also the limits of fish passes. As knowledge of the migratory behaviour of different.species
increases, it has become clear that it is difficult if not impossible to devise a compromise facility which
meets the requirements of all species. This is why it is better, when the dam is no longer needed, to remove
it and re-establish the longitudinal continuity of a watercourse and thus improve the quality of the habitat.
We still often underestimate or do not sufficiently take into account, in particular during the design phase,
maintenance problems for fish passes: a lot of effort is still required in France in this respect.
Another aspect is the accumulated impact of obstacles even those fitted with `efficient' fish passes. It
appears to be difficult and not very conclusive to restore diadromous species into a watercourse with too
many obstacles.
Finally, it should be remembered that progress in the design of fish passes both for upstream and downstream
migration have mostly resulted from in situ experiments and the evaluation of operation of existing structures in
relation to the behaviour of migrating species. The best way of achieving these programmes remains field
studies and a multi-disciplinary approach calling on both engineers and biologists.

10 References
Cattoen, M., Larinier M. & Thomas N., 1999. Systme et logiciels pour la surveillance des passes
poissons. Bull. Fr. Pche et Piscic., 353/354, 263-277.
Chanseau M., Croze O., Larinier M., 1999. Impact des amnagements sur la migration anadrome du
saumon atlantique (Salmo salar L.) sur le Gave de Pau (France). Bull. Fr. Pche et Piscic.,
353/354, 211-237.
Chanseau M., Larinier M., 2000. The behaviour of returning adult atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the
vicinity of a hydroelectric plant on the Pau river (France) as determined by radio telemetry. In
Proceedings of the Third Conference on Fish Telemetry in Europe, Norwich (UK), 20 - 25 juin 1999.
257-264.
Chorda J., Larinier M., Thinus Z., 2004. A flume study of steep-slope flows above large-scale roughness
elements and their application to fish passes In the fifth international symposium on Ecohydraulics.
Aquatic Habitats : Analysis & Restoration. Madrid 2004, 948 - 952.
DVWK, 2002. Fish passes - design, dimensions and monitoring. FAO, 118 p.
Gomes P., Vighetti S., Larinier M., 2004. Etude pour la conception de passes poissons adaptes
l'Apron. Rapport GHAAPPE RA05.05, 45 p.
Hotchkiss RH., 2002. Turbulence investigation and reproduction for assisting downstream migrating
juvenile salmonids. Washington State University. Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering Albrook Hydraulics Laboratory. Report DOE/BP-00004633-1, 124 p.

DWA

April

2006

59

Durchgngigkeit von Gewssern fr die aquatische Fauna

Free Passage for Aquatic Fauna in Rivers and other Water Bodies
Larinier M., 1983. Guide pour la conception des dispositifs de franchissement des barrages par les
poissons migrateurs. Bu!!. Fr. Pche et Piscic., Special Edition, 39 p.
Larinier M., 1990. Experience in fish passage in France : Fish pass design criteria and downstream
migration problems. In Proceedings of the International. Symposium on Fishways 90. Gifu, Japan.
pp.65-74.
Larinier M., 1998. Upstream and downstream fish passage experience in France. In M. Jungwirth, S.
Schmutz & S. Weiss (Eds). Fish migration and fish bypasses, Fishing News Book, 127-145.
Larinier M., Travade F., Poecher J.P., 2002. Fishways: biological basis, design criteria and monitoring. Bull.
Fr. Pche et Piscic., 364 suppl., 208 p.
Larinier M., Chanseau M., Bau F., Croze 0., 2003. The use of radio telemetry for optimising fish pass
design. in MT. Spedicato, G. Lembo, G. Marmulla (Eds), Aquatic Telemetry : advances and
applications Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Fish Telemetry held in Europe. Ustica, Italy, 913 June.
Odeh M, Noreika JF., Haro A., Maynard A., Castro-Santos T., Cada GF., 2002; Evaluation of the effects of
turbulence on the behavior of migratory fish. US Department of Energy Bonneville Power
Administration Division of Fish and Wildlife. Report DOE/BP-00000022-1, 46 p.
Roche P., Brosse L., 2005. Etude par radiopistage de la migration de l'Alose dans le Rhne aval. Rapport
intermdiaire n 2, 56 p.
Travade F., Larinier M., Boyer-Bernard S., Dartiguelongue J., 1998. Performance of four fish pass
installation recently built on two rivers in south-west France. In M. Jungwirth, S. Schmutz & S.
Weiss (Eds), Fish migration and fish bypasses, Fishing News Book, 146-170.
Voegtle B., Larinier M., 2000. Etude sur les capacits de franchissement des civelles et anguillettes. Site
hydrolectrique de Tuilires sur la Dordogne (24). Barrage estuarien d'Arzal sur la Vilaine (56).
Rapport GHAAPPE RAOO.05, 69 p.+ annexes.
Yang CT, 1984. Unit Stream power Equation for Gravel, J. Hyd. Div. ASCE, 110 (HY 12) :1783-1798..
Yang CT., 1996. Sediment Transport: Theory and Practice. McGraw-Hill, New York.

60

April

2006

DWA