- Email: [email protected]
Physical and ecological evaluation of a fish-friendly surface spillway
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Engineering journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng
Research Paper
Physical and ecological evaluation of a fish-friendly surface spillway ⁎
MARK
J.P. Duncan, Z.D. Deng , J.L. Arnold, T. Fu, B.A. Trumbo, T.J. Carlson, D. Zhou Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Energy & Environment Directorate, Richland, WA, 99352, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Spillway Surface spillway Fish passage Sensor fish Removable spillway weir Remediation Hydroelectric dam
Spillway passage is one of the commonly accepted dam passage alternatives for downstream-migrating salmonids and other species. Fish passing in spill near the water surface may have improved chances of survival over fish that pass deeper in the water column near spillway structures. In this study, an autonomous sensor device (Sensor Fish) was deployed in 2005 to evaluate fish passage conditions through the Removable Spillway Weir (RSW) at Ice Harbor Dam on the Snake River in south-central Washington State. The Sensor Fish deployment was undertaken concurrently with a separate live fish injury and survival study. Conditions at the RSW–Spillway Chute Transition and Deflector region were found to be potentially detrimental to fish. As a result, the spillway slope and deflector radius were modified, and the efficacy of the modifications was evaluated in 2015 using Sensor Fish and a concurrent live fish study. The frequency of severe acceleration events (acceleration ≥ 95 G) during passage decreased significantly (from 51% to 35%; p-value = 0.049), and collisions with structures decreased from 47% to 27% (p-value = 0.015). Pressures observed in the Spillway–Deflector region and pressure rates of change decreased as well. Overall, the modifications resulted in hydraulic conditions that contributed to improved fish passage conditions and increased fish survival.
1. Introduction Spillway passage has been identified as a preferred dam passage route for downstream-migrating salmonids and other species (Katopodis and Williams, 2012; Calles et al., 2012) because other routes such as turbines can lead to increased injuries. While regarded as the most benign migration route, large spill discharges have been observed to generate supersaturated levels of dissolved gases downstream of dams (Schilt 2007; Huang et al., 2016). In fish, high levels of dissolved gas may cause gas bubble disease (Lutz 1995; Backman and Evans, 2002), reduce swimming performance (Sciewe 1974), affect spawning behaviors (Geist et al., 2013), and increase susceptibility to pathogens (Weiland et al., 1999). Strategies to enhance passage times, reduce injury and/or mortality, manage dissolved gas levels, and optimize water use for fish passage have resulted in spillway modifications that have included the addition of deflectors, baffle blocks, walls, and weirs that discharge spill from the upper part of the water column rather than through a submerged gate opening. In 2001, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in support of their Environmental Operating Principles installed the first Removable Spillway Weir (RSW) at Lower Granite Dam (Fig. 1). The RSW (Fig. 2) was designed to improve fish passage conditions by passing fish near the water surface. The RSW is hinged so it can be lowered when not required or raised by computer-controlled ballast tanks when needed.
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (Z.D. Deng).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.10.012 Received 4 June 2017; Received in revised form 13 October 2017; Accepted 18 October 2017 0925-8574/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
In 2002 and 2003, Plumb et al. (2003, 2004) evaluated survival and behavior of radio-tagged juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead relative to the performance of the RSW. The proportion of fish that passed Lower Granite Dam via spill ranged from 56 to 69% in 2002 (Plumb et al., 2003) and 58–69% in 2003 (Plumb et al., 2004), and residence and passage times decreased when the RSW was in operation. Passage effectiveness ratios (fish passage probability to proportion of total water volume passed through the RSW) were 6.47–7.19 to 1 per percent of RSW discharge in 2002 (Plumb et al., 2003) and 8.3–9.9 to1 per percent of RSW discharge in 2003 (Plumb et al., 2004). Considered effective for fish passage and with the potential to reduce spill discharge and dissolved gas levels (USACE, 2009), RSWs were installed at Ice Harbor Dam and Lower Monumental Dam, in 2005 and 2008, respectively (Fig. 1). The original spillways at Ice Harbor Dam are configured with a more vertical slope than other dams on the Snake River. On these spillways, spill flow intercepts the flow deflector at a 55° angle, which is 10 ° steeper than that at Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite Dams. This spillway design may contribute to directing deeppassing fish onto or closer to the spillway flow deflector (Fig. 2; Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006). Vertical distributions, as determined from hydroacoustic evaluations conducted in 2005 (Moursund et al., 2007) and 2006 (Ham et al., 2007), indicated that at least 11% of spring migrants and 25% of summer migrants entered the
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
Fig. 1. Ice Harbor Dam, Washington.
standards, including in 2005 (Axel et al., 2007a), 2006 (Axel et al., 2007b), 2007 (Axel et al., 2008), and 2009 (Axel et al., 2010). In 2005, we deployed an autonomous sensor device (Sensor Fish) to evaluate the forces fish encountered during passage at Ice Harbor Dam. At the same time, a live fish study was conducted where yearling Chinook salmon were directly released into the RSW passage route to evaluate direct injuries resulting from passage through the RSW (Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006). Results revealed high injury rates and low estimates of survival for study specimens. Comparisons between direct injury studies at other dams and hydraulic
RSW near the ogee surface (Fig. 3) and may have passed through a potential high injury zone close to the spillway surface at the transition of the spillway chute to the spill deflector (Ham et al., 2007; Moursund et al., 2007). Other studies of passage and survival have included the use of radio-telemetry. Paired-release radio-telemetry survival estimates for juvenile steelhead and subyearling Chinook salmon passing through the RSW have been above the Biological Opinion (BiOp; NOAA Fisheries, 2008) performance standards for dam passage; however, the majority of these estimates (four out of five) for overall dam survival of yearling Chinook salmon have been below BiOp performance
108
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
2. Methods 2.1. Study site Ice Harbor Dam is the first dam on the Snake River upstream from its confluence with the Columbia River in south-central Washington State (Fig. 1). The dam is 860.3 m long and 30.5 m tall, and comprises six turbine units, a 10-bay spillway, a navigation lock, two fish ladders, and an earth-fill section. The spillway stilling basin is 180.0 m wide and 51.2 m long (parallel to the spill discharge flow). It is bound downstream by a continuous 3.66 m-tall endsill approximately 51.8 m downstream of the spillbays. Concrete baffle blocks measuring approximately 2.44 m tall and 3.05 m wide are installed approximately 12.8 m toward the spillbays from the endsill. The spillway has a crest elevation of 119.2 m msl, and each spillbay is equipped with a 16.2 mhigh, 15.2 m-wide tainter gate that seals the spillbay shut at 118.4 m msl (Fig. 2). The maximum normal forebay water elevation is 134 m msl. Spillbay 2 was modified in 2015 to decrease the slope of the ogee and increase the radius of the deflector. The angle of the spillway chute was decreased to 42 ° from 55 ° and the deflector was extended and its turning radius was increased from 4.57 to 9.14 m (Fig. 3).
2.2. Sensor fish device
Fig. 2. Relative Positions of RSW Regions of Interest: 1. RSW Chute; 2. RSW-Spillway Chute transition; 3. Spillway Chute; 4. Spillway-Deflector; 5. Deflector Wake.
A Sensor Fish is powered by a rechargeable battery, and is 24.5 mm in diameter and 89.9 mm in length (Fig. 4; Deng et al., 2014). It contains three-transducers including a three-axis gyroscope, three-axis accelerometers, a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, a three-axis magnetometer, a radio-frequency transmitter, a recovery module, and a communication module. The components are configured so the center of gravity is very close to the geometric center of the Sensor Fish. Its mass is approximately 42.1 g, and it is neutrally buoyant in fresh water at deployment, with its size and density similar to those of a yearling salmon smolt. A low-power microcontroller collects data from the sensors and stores up to 5 min of data on internal non-volatile flash memory at a sampling frequency of 2048 Hz. The recovery module allows the Sensor Fish to become positively buoyant, bringing the unit to the water surface for recovery after a pre-programmed time. The Sensor Fish also contains onboard light emitting diodes that flash after the completion of data acquisition, allowing for visual detection in lowlight conditions. All sensors–the pressure sensor, accelerometers, threeaxis gyroscope, magnetometer, and temperature sensor–were calibrated and evaluated individually prior to field use.
analysis using computational fluid dynamics models, physical hydraulic models, and Sensor Fish data collected during the evaluation led to the conclusion that the slope of the spillway chute and the angle of the transition between the chute and deflector were the likely causes. As a result, the USACE determined that structural modifications to decrease the slope of the ogee and increase the radius of the transition from the spillway chute to deflector would be necessary. These modifications were completed in late March 2015. In 2015, another assessment was conducted to evaluate the hydraulic conditions that fish may encounter during passage over the RSW (located in Spillbay 2) after the ogee chute and deflector were modified. Results of the 2015 assessment were compared with the results from the 2005 assessment, focusing on the effectiveness of the spillway modifications for improving fish passage.
Fig. 3. Cross-Section of Ice Harbor Dam Spillbay 2 Ogee and Deflector Modifications. The red line and the green line represent the spillway profiles in 2005 and 2015, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
109
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
Fig. 4. Sensor Fish Device: (a) CAD drawing and (b) Photograph.
Table 1 Dam Operations and Sensor Fish Releases for the RSW Evaluations in 2015 and 2005. Year
2005 2015
Treatment
1 2 3 4
SF Releases
26 23 41 45
Spillbay 3
Open Closed Closed Closed
Spillbay 4
Closed Open Open Closed
RSW spill (m3/ s)
240.7 240.7 240.7 240.7
Average total spill (m3/ s)
611.6 586.2 1178.0 413.4
Average total project discharge (m3/s)
1735.8 1834.9 1466.8 1364.9
Average elevation (m) Forebay
Tailwater
133.7 133.7 133.4 133.3
104.3 104.5 104.1 104.1
Head (m)
29.4 29.2 29.3 29.2
Fig. 5. Two Typical Sensor Fish Pressure and Acceleration Measurements for Passage over the RSW, with Passage Regions of Interest Identified: 1. RSW Chute; 2. RSW-Spillway Chute transition; 3. Spillway Chute; 4. Spillway-Deflector; 5. Deflector Wake. (a) a passage without severe event. (b) a passage with a severe event.
110
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
4 9 6 0 20 10 62 30 47 27 27 27 4 4 4 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 18 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 22 33 24 20 22
31 13 22 5 9 7
Shear (%) Collision (%) Collision (%) Shear (%) Collision (%) Shear (%) Collision (%)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1
Shear (%)
Discernable features in pressure time histories permitted the acquired Sensor Fish data to be divided into segments corresponding to specific regions of RSW passage from the induction system to the exit into the stilling basin. For each Sensor Fish data set, events of interest such as rapid pressure changes, collisions, shear, and severe turbulence, were identified and the time of occurrence, location by region, and severity of events were recorded. Regions of interest for passage over the RSW included the RSW Chute (the steel chute portion of the RSW); the RSW–Spillway Chute Transition (the transition from the RSW Chute to the existing concrete spillway); the Spillway Chute (the existing concrete spillway structure); the Spillway–Deflector region (the transition from the spillway chute to the face of the deflector and the deflector face), and the Deflector Wake (the region from the end of the deflector approximately 200 milliseconds downstream, incorporating the region where risk of exposure to shear is higher) (Fig. 2). Typical pressure and acceleration magnitude time histories obtained from Sensor Fish following passage over the RSW with the designated regions of interest are illustrated in Fig. 5. To qualify as a severe event, a high-amplitude acceleration impulse must have a peak value equal to or greater than 95 g. The threshold of 95 g was selected based on laboratory tests where both juvenile Chinook salmon and Sensor Fish were exposed to shear flows and at this value there was a nearly 100% probability of minor injury (Richmond et al., 2009; Deng et al., 2007). The classification of shear and collision events was also based on laboratory tests when Sensor Fish were subjected to collisions with various structures and shear flows (Deng et al., 2007). When 70% of the absolute value of the maximum amplitude (0.7|a|) of a severe event lasts less than 0.0075 s, it is classified as a collision; when 70% of the absolute value of the maximum amplitude of the event is longer than 0.0075 s, it is classified as shear. Pressure and rotational velocity measurements are then used for validation of the
2015
1 2 1 and 2 Combined 3 4 3 and 4 Combined 2005
62 39 51 27 42 35
Collision (%) Collision (%)
Shear (%)
RSW–Spillway Chute Transition RSW Chute
Sensor Fish releases were made from an induction system located on the spillway deck. A 10.2-cm flex hose connected the induction system into a 15.2-cm diameter steel pipe mounted to the RSW structure. The pipe was configured to deploy the sensors into the spill flow immediately upstream of the crest of the RSW, exiting at approximately 130 m msl, which is 0.46 m above the RSW crest. To facilitate recovery, Sensor Fish were equipped with a micro-radio transmitter (ATS, Isanti, Minnesota) and two HI-Z balloon tags (Normandeau Associates, Inc., Bedford, New Hampshire) identical to those used during live fish testing (Heisey et al., 1992). Balloon tags contain non-toxic chemicals that produce a gas when water is added. The gas inflates the balloon and buoys the unit to the surface. A directional radio receiver antenna was used to locate the radio transmitters. Following deployment, Sensor Fish were recovered by boat crews in the tailrace and transported to staff on the deck for data downloading to a computer, memory resetting, and attaching new balloons. The refitted Sensor Fish then were redeployed. In April 2005, a total of 49 Sensor Fish releases were made for baseline characterization with either Spillway 3 (Treatment 1) or Spillway 4 open (Treatment 2). The total spill averaged 598.9 m3/s. In April 2015, a total of 96 Sensor Fish releases were made under two treatment conditions [(Table 1): 1178.0 m3/s (Treatment 3) and 413.4 m3/s total spill (Treatment 4)]. The latter was initiated in an effort to minimize fish being trapped in an eddy that was created between spill and powerhouse flow at the greater discharge. While the average total project discharge was greater during the 2005 evaluation, the flow through the RSW was 240.7 m3/s during both study years, and the forebay and tailwater elevations and the resultant head were comparable. Therefore, the results from the combined treatments in 2005 was comparable to those in 2015. 2.4. Data analysis and passage examples
Treatment
At least 1 Severe Event (%)
2.3. Sensor fish releases
Year
Table 2 Percentage of Sensor Fish that experienced severe events by region for each treatment.
Spillway Chute
Spillway–Deflector
Deflector Wake
Shear (%)
All Regions Combined
J.P. Duncan et al.
111
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
Table 3 P-Values for Sensor Fish Experiencing Severe Events by Region.
Treatments 1 and 2 Combined vs. Treatments 3 and 4 Combined Treatment 3 vs. Treatment 2 Treatment 3 vs. Treatment 4
RSW Chute
RSW–Spillway Chute Transition
Spillway Chute
Spillway–Deflector
Deflector Wake
All Regions Combined
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision or Shear
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.127
1.000
0.011
0.985
1.000
0.461
0.015
0.881
0.049
1.000 0.523
1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000
0.703 0.773
1.000 1.000
0.242 0.384
0.359 0.004
1.000 1.000
0.359 0.271
0.488 0.603
0.125 0.002
0.229 0.102
Bold indicates P-value < 0.05.
Treatment 3; however, 20% of the Sensor Fish experienced severe shear events during Treatment 4. Although the flow discharge through the RSW was the same for both Treatments 3 and 4 (240.7 m3/s) and the total project discharge was similar, the average total spill for Treatment 3 (1178.0 m3/s) was more than twice that of Treatment 4 (413.4 m3/s). Because severe shear events were only observed in the Spillway–Deflector and the Deflector–Wake regions where Sensor Fish enter the stilling basin, the difference between the observed numbers of shear events may be the result of different flow patterns of these two treatments in the vicinity of the Spillbay 2 deflector. The total and average numbers of severe events per Sensor Fish release observed in each passage region are shown in Table 5. Severe collisions were observed most frequently in the Spillway Chute region, with an average of 0.27 severe collisions per releasefor both spill treatments in 2015, which is fewer than the average number of collisions in 2005 (1.08 for Treatment 1 and 0.43 for Treatment 2). In the Spillway–Deflector region, the average number of severe collisions per release in 2015 was also fewer than those observed in 2005; however, the average number of severe shear events observed during Treatment 4 in 2015 (0.20) was more than that observed in 2005 (0 and 0.04 for Treatments 1 and 2, respectively). Combining all treatments by study year, both the number of severe collisions per release and the number severe events (collisions or shear events) per release were fewer in 2015 than those observed in 2005. The average number of severe event collisions per release declined from 1.10 in 2005–0.40 in 2015; and the average number of severe events (collisions or shear events) decreased from 1.16 in 2005–0.52 in 2015. However, the average number of severe shear events increased from 0.06 in 2005–0.13 in 2015.
classification because pressure and rotational velocity increase more dramatically during a collision event than during a shear event. More detailed information on the data analysis was reported by Deng et al. (2007). 3. Results and discussion To establish the effectiveness of the structural modifications to the spillway, data collected during the 2015 post-modification evaluation were compared with the results obtained during the 2005 baseline evaluation. 3.1. Severe events Severe events experienced during passage over the RSW resulted from collisions with dam structures or exposure to shear in the water flow. In 2005, 62% and 39% of the Sensor Fish experienced severe events for Treatment 1 and Treatment 2, respectively. The percentage of Sensor Fish experiencing severe events decreased after the spillway modifications, declining to 27% for Treatment 3 and 42% for Treatment 4 (Table 2). Combining treatment data by year, 35% and 51% of Sensor Fish experienced severe events in 2015 and 2005, respectively, representing a significant decrease after modifications were completed (pvalue = 0.049) (Table 3). Table 4 shows the percentage of most severe events in each passage region and for the total passage. The most severe events indicate which type of severe events (collisions or shear) had the maximum acceleration in each passage region. For example, for Treatments 1 and 2 combined in 2005, collision events were the most severe events in 92% of the releases and shear events were the most severe events in 8% of the releases. The 92% releases with collisions as the most severe events included 56% and 36% in Spillway Chute and Spillway–Deflector regions, respectively. The 8% releases with shear as most severe events included 4% in both Spillway–Deflector and Deflector Wake regions. Regardless of study year, the majority of the most severe events occurred after passage through the RSW when the Sensor Fish collided with the concrete surface of the spillway chute. However, a substantial number of shear events were observed in the Spillway–Deflector region during Treatment 4 in 2015 (32%). When combining treatments by study year, no significant difference was observed in the numbers of shear events before and after the spillway modifications were completed (10% in 2015 and 6% in 2005). However, there was a significant difference in the number of shear events when the two treatments in 2015 were compared (pvalue = 0.002). No Sensor Fish experienced severe shear events during
3.2. Pressure Areas of rapid pressure change are of interest to hydropower operators due to the effects of rapid decompression on fish, especially threatened and endangered species (Brown et al., 2012; Brown et al., 2014). Pressure changes observed during turbine passage are of specific concern, fish, including physostomous fish such as salmon, could be potentially injured or killed because they may not quickly release gas as the swim bladder expands during the rapid decompression (Brown et al., 2012). Pressure time histories for typical Sensor Fish releases over the RSW did not reveal pressure differentials that would contribute to injury. The spillway modifications that were implemented resulted in significantly lower pressures at the RSW–Spillway Chute Transition and Spillway–Deflector regions (Fig. 6), as well as reduced pressure rates of change during passage.
112
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
0 22 8 0 42 27 100 78 92 100 58 73 0 11 4 0 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 4 0 32 20 38 33 36 18 16 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 3
63 44 56 73 37 50
Collision (%) Shear (%) Collision (%)
0 0 0 0 5 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
The structural modifications made to the spillway slope and deflector radius resulted in improved passage conditions over the RSW, as evidenced by significantly fewer Sensor Fish severe collisions (27% in 2015 compared to 47% in 2005, p-value = 0.015). There also were fewer collisions per Sensor Fish release, averaging 0.52 in 2015 and 1.16 in 2005, a 64% decrease. The reduction in the average number of severe collisions clearly suggests that fish may have a lower likelihood of injury from collision with the spillway structure after the modifications than before the modifications. However, an increase in shear events was observed during low total spill, suggesting the effects of dam operations may need to be considered to optimize passage conditions for fish. In addition, the modifications resulted in reduced pressures during changes in directional flow at transition sites, which led to lower rates of pressure change in those regions. A strong correlation exists between Sensor Fish severe collisions and live fish malady and mortality estimates. Data indicate that the probability that a fish would be injured or killed during passage increases in proportion to the percentage of most severe collisions in the Spillway–Deflector region. Structural modifications made to the spillway slope and deflector radius resulted in significantly better
16 9 25 11 19 30 2015
1 2 1 and 2 Combined 3 4 3 and 4 Combined 2005
Collision (%)
Shear (%)
Spillway Chute RSW–Spillway Chute Transition RSW Chute
4. Conclusions
Treatment
At Least 1 Severe Event (Ns)
In 2005, a total of 716 live fish (averaging 143 mm in length) were released through the same injection systems as the Sensor Fish and under the same treatment conditions (Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006). Live fish results from the 2005 evaluation identified higher injury rates for fish exiting the RSW at deeper depths near the ogee of the spillway (Normandeau Associates Inc. and Skalski, 2006). A clear trend was observed between Sensor Fish data and live fish injury results, reported as the inverse of “clean fish,” with the probability that a fish would be injured during passage increasing proportionately with the number of severe collision and shear events observed during Sensor Fish releases (Fig. 7). In April 2015, 337 fish (average length 137 mm) were released through the same injection systems for the post-modification evaluation (Normandeau Associates Inc., 2015). That study provided survival and malady-free estimates for passage of yearling Chinook salmon through the modified spillway. The reciprocal of these estimates were used for comparison with Sensor Fish severe events and were reported as malady and mortality estimates. Table 6 summarizes live fish 48-h survival/mortality estimates and malady/malady-free estimates (without control corrections) for the studies conducted in 2005 and 2015 (Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006; Normandeau Associates Inc., 2015); Sensor Fish data for the combined treatments are also shown. The live fish malady-free estimate after the modifications was significantly higher (p-value < 0.01) than estimates from 2005 (98.2%, SE 0.7% in 2015 vs. 85.7%, SE 1.3% in 2005) (Normandeau Associates Inc., 2015). Sensor Fish collisions declined 20%, and all severe events (shear and collision) declined 16% following the Spillway 2 modifications. The average number of collisions observed per Sensor Fish release decreased approximately 64% from 1.10 to 0.40, while the average number of total shear and collision events decreased approximately 55% (from 1.16 to 0.52). Analysis of the most severe collision event per Sensor Fish release revealed a 19% decrease following the spillway modifications; shear events were observed to increase by the same percentage. A strong correlation exists between the percentage of the most severe collisions measured by Sensor Fish in the Spillway–Deflector region and live fish malady estimates (p-value = 0.0007, r = 0.9787), as well as with live fish mortality estimates (p-value = 0.0084, r = 0.9242 (Fig. 8))
0 0 0 0 0 0
Shear (%) Collision (%) Collision (%) Shear (%) Collision (%)
3.3. Comparison to live fish results
Year
Table 4 Percentage of Sensor Fish Releases and the Location of the Most Severe Event for Each Treatment.
Shear (%)
Spillway–Deflector
Deflector Wake
Shear (%)
All Regions Combined
J.P. Duncan et al.
113
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
Table 5 Average Severe Events per Sensor Fish Release in Each Passage Region. Year
2005
2015
Treatment
1 2 1 and 2 Combined 3 4 3 and 4 Combined
RSW Chute
RSW–Spillway Chute Transition
Spillway Chute
Spillway–Deflector
Deflector Wake
All Regions Combined
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision or Shear
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.08 0.43 0.78
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.31 0.35 0.33
0.00 0.04 0.02
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.04 0.04 0.04
1.38 0.78 1.10
0.04 0.09 0.06
1.42 0.87 1.16
0.00 0.02 0.01
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.07 0.00 0.03
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.27 0.27 0.27
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.05 0.11 0.08
0.00 0.20 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.04 0.02
0.39 0.40 0.40
0.00 0.24 0.13
0.39 0.64 0.52
hydraulic and fish passage conditions, which will reduce the risk of injury and mortality of downstream-migrating salmonids. Sensor Fish was proved to be an effective tool for better understanding of the physical conditions and identification of potential design improvements for the hydraulics structure. Overall, the findings of this study provide critical information for designs and evaluation of spillways or other passage alternatives that improve passage conditions for fish.
Acknowledgements This study was funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Walla District. The Sensor Fish and related evaluation tools were funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office. The study was conducted by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy. We greatly appreciate the assistance provided by numerous people from PNNL, Normandeau Associates Inc, and USACE.
Fig. 6. Sensor Fish Pressure Time Histories from Deep Releases at Ice Harbor Dam for the 2015 45 kcfs Total Spill Treatment and 2005 Spillbay 4 Open Treatment and Their 95% Confidence Intervals.
Fig. 7. Live Fish Survival and Clean Fish Estimates (data from Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006) versus Sensor Fish Severe Event Frequencies of Occurrence of the 2005 baseline assessment.
114
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
Table 6 Yearling Chinook Salmon Survival and Malady-Free Estimates by Treatment and Sensor Fish Data Parameters Combining All Passage Regions. Live fish data is from Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski (2006) and Normandeau Associates Inc. (2015). Year
Treatment
Sensor Fish − All Passage Regions Combined
Live Fish
All Severe Events
2005
2015
1 2 1 and 2 Combined 3 4 3 and 4 Combined
Average Number of Severe Events per Sensor Fish Release
Most Severe Events
48-h Survival (%)
48-h Mortality (%)
Malady–Free (%)
Malady (%)
Collision (%)
Shear (%)
Collision or Shear (%)
Collision
Shear
Collision and Shear
Collision (%)
Shear (%)
96.1 96.9 96.5
3.9 3.1 3.5
84.2 87.2 85.7
15.8 12.8 14.3
62 30 47
4 9 6
62 39 51
1.38 0.78 1.10
0.04 0.09 0.06
1.42 0.87 1.16
100 78 92
0 22 8
97.3 98.4 97.9
2.7 1.6 2.1
100 96.8 98.2
0 3.2 1.8
27 27 27
0 20 10
27 42 35
0.39 0.40 0.40
0.00 0.24 0.13
0.39 0.64 0.52
100 58 73
0 42 27
Fig. 8. (a) Yearling Chinook Malady Estimate (data from Normandeau Associates Inc., 2015), and (b) Mortality Estimate, Compared with Sensor Fish Most Severe Collisions Observed in the Spillway–Deflector Region.
D., Hou, H., 2014. Design and implementation of a new autonomous sensor fish to support advanced hydropower development. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85 (11), 115001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4900543. Geist, D.R., Linley, T.J., Cullinan, V.I., Deng, Z., 2013. The effects of total dissolved gas on chum salmon fry survival, growth, gas bubble disease, and seawater tolerance. North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 33 (1), 200–215. Ham, K.D., Titzler, P.S., Reese, S.P., Moursund, R.A., 2007. Hydroacoustic Evaluation of Fish Distributions at the Ice Harbor Removable Spillway Weir 2006. PNWD-3862, Battelle Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, Washington. Heisey, P.G., Mathur, D., Rineer, T., 1992. A reliable tag-recapture technique for estimating turbine passage survival: application to young-of-the-Year american shad (Alosa sapidissima). Can. J. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 49, 1826–1834. Huang, J., Li, R., Feng, J., Xu, W., Wang, L., 2016. Relationship investigation between the dissipation process of supersaturated total dissolved gas and wind effect. Ecol. Eng. 95, 430–437. Katopodis, C., Williams, J.G., 2012. The development of fish passage research in a historical context. Ecol. Eng. 48, 8–18. Lutz, D.S., 1995. Gas supersaturation and gas bubble trauma in fish downstream from a midwestern reservoir. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124, 423–436. Moursund, R.A., Ham, K.D., Titzler, P.S., 2007. Hydroacoustic Evaluation of Fish Passage at Ice Harbor Dam with a Removal Spillway Weir in 2005. PNWD-3711, Battelle Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, Washington. National Oceanic, Atmospheric Administration, 2008. (NOAA) Fisheries. Biological Opinion–Consultation on Remand for Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, 11 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin and ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit for Juvenile Fish Transportation Program. National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) -Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. Normandeau Associates Inc, Skalski, J.R., 2006. Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006. Comparative Direct Survival and Injury Rates of Juvenile Salmon Passing the New Removable Spillway Weir (RSW) and a Spillbay at Ice Harbor Dam, Snake River, Washington.Drumore, Pennsylvania, and Seattle, Washington. Normandeau Associates Inc, 2015. Direct Injury and Survival of Yearling Chinook Salmon Passing the Removable Spillway Weir Following Ogee and Deflector Modifications to Spillbay 2 at Ice Harbor Dam, Snake River. Normandeau Associates Inc.,
References Axel, G.A., Hockersmith, E.E., Ogden, D.A., Burke, B.J., Frick, K.E., Sandford, B.P., 2007a. Passage Behavior and Survival for Radio-tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon and Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam 2005. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. Axel, G.A., Hockersmith, E.E., Ogden, D.A., Burke, B.J., Frick, K.E., Sandford, B.P., Muir, W.D., 2007b. Passage Behavior and Survival of Radio-tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon and Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam 2006. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. Axel, E.E., Hockersmith, B.J., Frick, K.E., Sandford, B.P., Muir, W.D., 2008. Passage Behavior and Survival of Radio-tagged Yearling and Subyearling Chinook Salmon and Juvenile Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam 2007. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. Axel, G.A., Hockersmith, E.E., Burke, B.J., Frick, K.E., Sandford, B.P., Muir, W.D., Absolon, R.F., 2010. Passage Behavior and Survival of Radio-tagged Yearling and Subyearling Chinook Salmon and Juvenile Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam 2009. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. Backman, T.W.H., Evans, A.F., 2002. Gas bubble trauma incidence in adult salmonids in the columbia river basin. North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 22, 579–584. Brown, R.S., Pflugrath, B.D., Colotelo, A.H., Brauner, C.J., Carlson, T.J., Deng, Z.D., Seaburg, A.G., 2012. Pathways of barotrauma in juvenile salmonids exposed to simulated hydroturbine passage: boyle's law vs. Henry's law. Fish. Res. 121, 43–50. Brown, R.S., Colotelo, A.H.A., Pflugrath, B.D., Boys, C.A., Baumgartner, L.J., Deng, Z.D., et al., 2014. Understanding barotrauma in fish passing hydro structures: a global strategy for sustainable development of water resources. Fisheries 39, 108–122. Calles, O., Karlsson, S., Hebrand, M., Comoglio, C., 2012. Evaluating technical improvements for downstream migrating diadromous fish at a hydroelectric plant. Ecol. Eng. 48, 30–37. Deng, Z., Carlson, T.J., Duncan, J.P., Richmond, M.C., 2007. Six-Degree-of-Freedom sensor fish design and instrumentation. Sensors 7 (12), 3399–3415. Deng, Z.D., Lu, J., Myjak, M.J., Martinez, J.J., Tian, C., Morris, S.J., Carlson, T.J., Zhou,
115
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
turbulent flows. Fish. Res. 97 (1-2), 134–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres. 2009.01.011. Schilt, C.R., 2007. Developing fish passage and protection at hydropower dams. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104 (3), 295–325. Sciewe, M.H., 1974. Influence of dissolved atmospheric gas on swimming performance of juvenile Chinook salmon. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 103, 717–721. USACE, 2009. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Water Quality Plan for Total Dissolved Gas and Water Temperature in the Mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers. Northwestern Division, Portland, Oregon. Weiland, L.K., Mesa, M.G., Maule, A.G., 1999. Influence of infection with Renibacterium salmoninarum on susceptibility of juvenile spring Chinook salmon to gas bubble trauma. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 11, 123–129.
Washington.Drumore, Pennsylvania. Plumb, J.M., Braatz, A.C., Lucchesi, J.N., Fielding, S.D., Sprando, J.M., George, G.T., Adams, N.S., Rondorf, D.W., 2003. Behavior of Radio-tagged Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Steelhead and Performance of a Removable Spillway Weir at Lower Granite Dam. U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, Washington, 2002. Plumb, J.M., Braatz, A.C., Lucchesi, J.N., Fielding, S.D., Cochran, A.D., Nation, T.K., Sprando, J.M., Schei, J.L., Perry, R.W., Adams, N.S., Rondorf, D.W., 2004. Behavior and Survival of Radio-tagged Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Relative to the Performance of a Removable Spillway Weir at Lower Granite Dam. U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, Washington, 2003. Richmond, M.C., Deng, Z., McKinstry, C.A., Mueller, R.P., Carlson, T.J., Dauble, D.D., 2009. Response relationship between juvenile salmon and an autonomous sensor in
116
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Engineering journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng
Research Paper
Physical and ecological evaluation of a fish-friendly surface spillway ⁎
MARK
J.P. Duncan, Z.D. Deng , J.L. Arnold, T. Fu, B.A. Trumbo, T.J. Carlson, D. Zhou Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Energy & Environment Directorate, Richland, WA, 99352, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Spillway Surface spillway Fish passage Sensor fish Removable spillway weir Remediation Hydroelectric dam
Spillway passage is one of the commonly accepted dam passage alternatives for downstream-migrating salmonids and other species. Fish passing in spill near the water surface may have improved chances of survival over fish that pass deeper in the water column near spillway structures. In this study, an autonomous sensor device (Sensor Fish) was deployed in 2005 to evaluate fish passage conditions through the Removable Spillway Weir (RSW) at Ice Harbor Dam on the Snake River in south-central Washington State. The Sensor Fish deployment was undertaken concurrently with a separate live fish injury and survival study. Conditions at the RSW–Spillway Chute Transition and Deflector region were found to be potentially detrimental to fish. As a result, the spillway slope and deflector radius were modified, and the efficacy of the modifications was evaluated in 2015 using Sensor Fish and a concurrent live fish study. The frequency of severe acceleration events (acceleration ≥ 95 G) during passage decreased significantly (from 51% to 35%; p-value = 0.049), and collisions with structures decreased from 47% to 27% (p-value = 0.015). Pressures observed in the Spillway–Deflector region and pressure rates of change decreased as well. Overall, the modifications resulted in hydraulic conditions that contributed to improved fish passage conditions and increased fish survival.
1. Introduction Spillway passage has been identified as a preferred dam passage route for downstream-migrating salmonids and other species (Katopodis and Williams, 2012; Calles et al., 2012) because other routes such as turbines can lead to increased injuries. While regarded as the most benign migration route, large spill discharges have been observed to generate supersaturated levels of dissolved gases downstream of dams (Schilt 2007; Huang et al., 2016). In fish, high levels of dissolved gas may cause gas bubble disease (Lutz 1995; Backman and Evans, 2002), reduce swimming performance (Sciewe 1974), affect spawning behaviors (Geist et al., 2013), and increase susceptibility to pathogens (Weiland et al., 1999). Strategies to enhance passage times, reduce injury and/or mortality, manage dissolved gas levels, and optimize water use for fish passage have resulted in spillway modifications that have included the addition of deflectors, baffle blocks, walls, and weirs that discharge spill from the upper part of the water column rather than through a submerged gate opening. In 2001, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in support of their Environmental Operating Principles installed the first Removable Spillway Weir (RSW) at Lower Granite Dam (Fig. 1). The RSW (Fig. 2) was designed to improve fish passage conditions by passing fish near the water surface. The RSW is hinged so it can be lowered when not required or raised by computer-controlled ballast tanks when needed.
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (Z.D. Deng).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.10.012 Received 4 June 2017; Received in revised form 13 October 2017; Accepted 18 October 2017 0925-8574/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
In 2002 and 2003, Plumb et al. (2003, 2004) evaluated survival and behavior of radio-tagged juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead relative to the performance of the RSW. The proportion of fish that passed Lower Granite Dam via spill ranged from 56 to 69% in 2002 (Plumb et al., 2003) and 58–69% in 2003 (Plumb et al., 2004), and residence and passage times decreased when the RSW was in operation. Passage effectiveness ratios (fish passage probability to proportion of total water volume passed through the RSW) were 6.47–7.19 to 1 per percent of RSW discharge in 2002 (Plumb et al., 2003) and 8.3–9.9 to1 per percent of RSW discharge in 2003 (Plumb et al., 2004). Considered effective for fish passage and with the potential to reduce spill discharge and dissolved gas levels (USACE, 2009), RSWs were installed at Ice Harbor Dam and Lower Monumental Dam, in 2005 and 2008, respectively (Fig. 1). The original spillways at Ice Harbor Dam are configured with a more vertical slope than other dams on the Snake River. On these spillways, spill flow intercepts the flow deflector at a 55° angle, which is 10 ° steeper than that at Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite Dams. This spillway design may contribute to directing deeppassing fish onto or closer to the spillway flow deflector (Fig. 2; Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006). Vertical distributions, as determined from hydroacoustic evaluations conducted in 2005 (Moursund et al., 2007) and 2006 (Ham et al., 2007), indicated that at least 11% of spring migrants and 25% of summer migrants entered the
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
Fig. 1. Ice Harbor Dam, Washington.
standards, including in 2005 (Axel et al., 2007a), 2006 (Axel et al., 2007b), 2007 (Axel et al., 2008), and 2009 (Axel et al., 2010). In 2005, we deployed an autonomous sensor device (Sensor Fish) to evaluate the forces fish encountered during passage at Ice Harbor Dam. At the same time, a live fish study was conducted where yearling Chinook salmon were directly released into the RSW passage route to evaluate direct injuries resulting from passage through the RSW (Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006). Results revealed high injury rates and low estimates of survival for study specimens. Comparisons between direct injury studies at other dams and hydraulic
RSW near the ogee surface (Fig. 3) and may have passed through a potential high injury zone close to the spillway surface at the transition of the spillway chute to the spill deflector (Ham et al., 2007; Moursund et al., 2007). Other studies of passage and survival have included the use of radio-telemetry. Paired-release radio-telemetry survival estimates for juvenile steelhead and subyearling Chinook salmon passing through the RSW have been above the Biological Opinion (BiOp; NOAA Fisheries, 2008) performance standards for dam passage; however, the majority of these estimates (four out of five) for overall dam survival of yearling Chinook salmon have been below BiOp performance
108
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
2. Methods 2.1. Study site Ice Harbor Dam is the first dam on the Snake River upstream from its confluence with the Columbia River in south-central Washington State (Fig. 1). The dam is 860.3 m long and 30.5 m tall, and comprises six turbine units, a 10-bay spillway, a navigation lock, two fish ladders, and an earth-fill section. The spillway stilling basin is 180.0 m wide and 51.2 m long (parallel to the spill discharge flow). It is bound downstream by a continuous 3.66 m-tall endsill approximately 51.8 m downstream of the spillbays. Concrete baffle blocks measuring approximately 2.44 m tall and 3.05 m wide are installed approximately 12.8 m toward the spillbays from the endsill. The spillway has a crest elevation of 119.2 m msl, and each spillbay is equipped with a 16.2 mhigh, 15.2 m-wide tainter gate that seals the spillbay shut at 118.4 m msl (Fig. 2). The maximum normal forebay water elevation is 134 m msl. Spillbay 2 was modified in 2015 to decrease the slope of the ogee and increase the radius of the deflector. The angle of the spillway chute was decreased to 42 ° from 55 ° and the deflector was extended and its turning radius was increased from 4.57 to 9.14 m (Fig. 3).
2.2. Sensor fish device
Fig. 2. Relative Positions of RSW Regions of Interest: 1. RSW Chute; 2. RSW-Spillway Chute transition; 3. Spillway Chute; 4. Spillway-Deflector; 5. Deflector Wake.
A Sensor Fish is powered by a rechargeable battery, and is 24.5 mm in diameter and 89.9 mm in length (Fig. 4; Deng et al., 2014). It contains three-transducers including a three-axis gyroscope, three-axis accelerometers, a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, a three-axis magnetometer, a radio-frequency transmitter, a recovery module, and a communication module. The components are configured so the center of gravity is very close to the geometric center of the Sensor Fish. Its mass is approximately 42.1 g, and it is neutrally buoyant in fresh water at deployment, with its size and density similar to those of a yearling salmon smolt. A low-power microcontroller collects data from the sensors and stores up to 5 min of data on internal non-volatile flash memory at a sampling frequency of 2048 Hz. The recovery module allows the Sensor Fish to become positively buoyant, bringing the unit to the water surface for recovery after a pre-programmed time. The Sensor Fish also contains onboard light emitting diodes that flash after the completion of data acquisition, allowing for visual detection in lowlight conditions. All sensors–the pressure sensor, accelerometers, threeaxis gyroscope, magnetometer, and temperature sensor–were calibrated and evaluated individually prior to field use.
analysis using computational fluid dynamics models, physical hydraulic models, and Sensor Fish data collected during the evaluation led to the conclusion that the slope of the spillway chute and the angle of the transition between the chute and deflector were the likely causes. As a result, the USACE determined that structural modifications to decrease the slope of the ogee and increase the radius of the transition from the spillway chute to deflector would be necessary. These modifications were completed in late March 2015. In 2015, another assessment was conducted to evaluate the hydraulic conditions that fish may encounter during passage over the RSW (located in Spillbay 2) after the ogee chute and deflector were modified. Results of the 2015 assessment were compared with the results from the 2005 assessment, focusing on the effectiveness of the spillway modifications for improving fish passage.
Fig. 3. Cross-Section of Ice Harbor Dam Spillbay 2 Ogee and Deflector Modifications. The red line and the green line represent the spillway profiles in 2005 and 2015, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
109
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
Fig. 4. Sensor Fish Device: (a) CAD drawing and (b) Photograph.
Table 1 Dam Operations and Sensor Fish Releases for the RSW Evaluations in 2015 and 2005. Year
2005 2015
Treatment
1 2 3 4
SF Releases
26 23 41 45
Spillbay 3
Open Closed Closed Closed
Spillbay 4
Closed Open Open Closed
RSW spill (m3/ s)
240.7 240.7 240.7 240.7
Average total spill (m3/ s)
611.6 586.2 1178.0 413.4
Average total project discharge (m3/s)
1735.8 1834.9 1466.8 1364.9
Average elevation (m) Forebay
Tailwater
133.7 133.7 133.4 133.3
104.3 104.5 104.1 104.1
Head (m)
29.4 29.2 29.3 29.2
Fig. 5. Two Typical Sensor Fish Pressure and Acceleration Measurements for Passage over the RSW, with Passage Regions of Interest Identified: 1. RSW Chute; 2. RSW-Spillway Chute transition; 3. Spillway Chute; 4. Spillway-Deflector; 5. Deflector Wake. (a) a passage without severe event. (b) a passage with a severe event.
110
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
4 9 6 0 20 10 62 30 47 27 27 27 4 4 4 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 18 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 22 33 24 20 22
31 13 22 5 9 7
Shear (%) Collision (%) Collision (%) Shear (%) Collision (%) Shear (%) Collision (%)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1
Shear (%)
Discernable features in pressure time histories permitted the acquired Sensor Fish data to be divided into segments corresponding to specific regions of RSW passage from the induction system to the exit into the stilling basin. For each Sensor Fish data set, events of interest such as rapid pressure changes, collisions, shear, and severe turbulence, were identified and the time of occurrence, location by region, and severity of events were recorded. Regions of interest for passage over the RSW included the RSW Chute (the steel chute portion of the RSW); the RSW–Spillway Chute Transition (the transition from the RSW Chute to the existing concrete spillway); the Spillway Chute (the existing concrete spillway structure); the Spillway–Deflector region (the transition from the spillway chute to the face of the deflector and the deflector face), and the Deflector Wake (the region from the end of the deflector approximately 200 milliseconds downstream, incorporating the region where risk of exposure to shear is higher) (Fig. 2). Typical pressure and acceleration magnitude time histories obtained from Sensor Fish following passage over the RSW with the designated regions of interest are illustrated in Fig. 5. To qualify as a severe event, a high-amplitude acceleration impulse must have a peak value equal to or greater than 95 g. The threshold of 95 g was selected based on laboratory tests where both juvenile Chinook salmon and Sensor Fish were exposed to shear flows and at this value there was a nearly 100% probability of minor injury (Richmond et al., 2009; Deng et al., 2007). The classification of shear and collision events was also based on laboratory tests when Sensor Fish were subjected to collisions with various structures and shear flows (Deng et al., 2007). When 70% of the absolute value of the maximum amplitude (0.7|a|) of a severe event lasts less than 0.0075 s, it is classified as a collision; when 70% of the absolute value of the maximum amplitude of the event is longer than 0.0075 s, it is classified as shear. Pressure and rotational velocity measurements are then used for validation of the
2015
1 2 1 and 2 Combined 3 4 3 and 4 Combined 2005
62 39 51 27 42 35
Collision (%) Collision (%)
Shear (%)
RSW–Spillway Chute Transition RSW Chute
Sensor Fish releases were made from an induction system located on the spillway deck. A 10.2-cm flex hose connected the induction system into a 15.2-cm diameter steel pipe mounted to the RSW structure. The pipe was configured to deploy the sensors into the spill flow immediately upstream of the crest of the RSW, exiting at approximately 130 m msl, which is 0.46 m above the RSW crest. To facilitate recovery, Sensor Fish were equipped with a micro-radio transmitter (ATS, Isanti, Minnesota) and two HI-Z balloon tags (Normandeau Associates, Inc., Bedford, New Hampshire) identical to those used during live fish testing (Heisey et al., 1992). Balloon tags contain non-toxic chemicals that produce a gas when water is added. The gas inflates the balloon and buoys the unit to the surface. A directional radio receiver antenna was used to locate the radio transmitters. Following deployment, Sensor Fish were recovered by boat crews in the tailrace and transported to staff on the deck for data downloading to a computer, memory resetting, and attaching new balloons. The refitted Sensor Fish then were redeployed. In April 2005, a total of 49 Sensor Fish releases were made for baseline characterization with either Spillway 3 (Treatment 1) or Spillway 4 open (Treatment 2). The total spill averaged 598.9 m3/s. In April 2015, a total of 96 Sensor Fish releases were made under two treatment conditions [(Table 1): 1178.0 m3/s (Treatment 3) and 413.4 m3/s total spill (Treatment 4)]. The latter was initiated in an effort to minimize fish being trapped in an eddy that was created between spill and powerhouse flow at the greater discharge. While the average total project discharge was greater during the 2005 evaluation, the flow through the RSW was 240.7 m3/s during both study years, and the forebay and tailwater elevations and the resultant head were comparable. Therefore, the results from the combined treatments in 2005 was comparable to those in 2015. 2.4. Data analysis and passage examples
Treatment
At least 1 Severe Event (%)
2.3. Sensor fish releases
Year
Table 2 Percentage of Sensor Fish that experienced severe events by region for each treatment.
Spillway Chute
Spillway–Deflector
Deflector Wake
Shear (%)
All Regions Combined
J.P. Duncan et al.
111
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
Table 3 P-Values for Sensor Fish Experiencing Severe Events by Region.
Treatments 1 and 2 Combined vs. Treatments 3 and 4 Combined Treatment 3 vs. Treatment 2 Treatment 3 vs. Treatment 4
RSW Chute
RSW–Spillway Chute Transition
Spillway Chute
Spillway–Deflector
Deflector Wake
All Regions Combined
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision or Shear
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.127
1.000
0.011
0.985
1.000
0.461
0.015
0.881
0.049
1.000 0.523
1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000
0.703 0.773
1.000 1.000
0.242 0.384
0.359 0.004
1.000 1.000
0.359 0.271
0.488 0.603
0.125 0.002
0.229 0.102
Bold indicates P-value < 0.05.
Treatment 3; however, 20% of the Sensor Fish experienced severe shear events during Treatment 4. Although the flow discharge through the RSW was the same for both Treatments 3 and 4 (240.7 m3/s) and the total project discharge was similar, the average total spill for Treatment 3 (1178.0 m3/s) was more than twice that of Treatment 4 (413.4 m3/s). Because severe shear events were only observed in the Spillway–Deflector and the Deflector–Wake regions where Sensor Fish enter the stilling basin, the difference between the observed numbers of shear events may be the result of different flow patterns of these two treatments in the vicinity of the Spillbay 2 deflector. The total and average numbers of severe events per Sensor Fish release observed in each passage region are shown in Table 5. Severe collisions were observed most frequently in the Spillway Chute region, with an average of 0.27 severe collisions per releasefor both spill treatments in 2015, which is fewer than the average number of collisions in 2005 (1.08 for Treatment 1 and 0.43 for Treatment 2). In the Spillway–Deflector region, the average number of severe collisions per release in 2015 was also fewer than those observed in 2005; however, the average number of severe shear events observed during Treatment 4 in 2015 (0.20) was more than that observed in 2005 (0 and 0.04 for Treatments 1 and 2, respectively). Combining all treatments by study year, both the number of severe collisions per release and the number severe events (collisions or shear events) per release were fewer in 2015 than those observed in 2005. The average number of severe event collisions per release declined from 1.10 in 2005–0.40 in 2015; and the average number of severe events (collisions or shear events) decreased from 1.16 in 2005–0.52 in 2015. However, the average number of severe shear events increased from 0.06 in 2005–0.13 in 2015.
classification because pressure and rotational velocity increase more dramatically during a collision event than during a shear event. More detailed information on the data analysis was reported by Deng et al. (2007). 3. Results and discussion To establish the effectiveness of the structural modifications to the spillway, data collected during the 2015 post-modification evaluation were compared with the results obtained during the 2005 baseline evaluation. 3.1. Severe events Severe events experienced during passage over the RSW resulted from collisions with dam structures or exposure to shear in the water flow. In 2005, 62% and 39% of the Sensor Fish experienced severe events for Treatment 1 and Treatment 2, respectively. The percentage of Sensor Fish experiencing severe events decreased after the spillway modifications, declining to 27% for Treatment 3 and 42% for Treatment 4 (Table 2). Combining treatment data by year, 35% and 51% of Sensor Fish experienced severe events in 2015 and 2005, respectively, representing a significant decrease after modifications were completed (pvalue = 0.049) (Table 3). Table 4 shows the percentage of most severe events in each passage region and for the total passage. The most severe events indicate which type of severe events (collisions or shear) had the maximum acceleration in each passage region. For example, for Treatments 1 and 2 combined in 2005, collision events were the most severe events in 92% of the releases and shear events were the most severe events in 8% of the releases. The 92% releases with collisions as the most severe events included 56% and 36% in Spillway Chute and Spillway–Deflector regions, respectively. The 8% releases with shear as most severe events included 4% in both Spillway–Deflector and Deflector Wake regions. Regardless of study year, the majority of the most severe events occurred after passage through the RSW when the Sensor Fish collided with the concrete surface of the spillway chute. However, a substantial number of shear events were observed in the Spillway–Deflector region during Treatment 4 in 2015 (32%). When combining treatments by study year, no significant difference was observed in the numbers of shear events before and after the spillway modifications were completed (10% in 2015 and 6% in 2005). However, there was a significant difference in the number of shear events when the two treatments in 2015 were compared (pvalue = 0.002). No Sensor Fish experienced severe shear events during
3.2. Pressure Areas of rapid pressure change are of interest to hydropower operators due to the effects of rapid decompression on fish, especially threatened and endangered species (Brown et al., 2012; Brown et al., 2014). Pressure changes observed during turbine passage are of specific concern, fish, including physostomous fish such as salmon, could be potentially injured or killed because they may not quickly release gas as the swim bladder expands during the rapid decompression (Brown et al., 2012). Pressure time histories for typical Sensor Fish releases over the RSW did not reveal pressure differentials that would contribute to injury. The spillway modifications that were implemented resulted in significantly lower pressures at the RSW–Spillway Chute Transition and Spillway–Deflector regions (Fig. 6), as well as reduced pressure rates of change during passage.
112
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
0 22 8 0 42 27 100 78 92 100 58 73 0 11 4 0 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 4 0 32 20 38 33 36 18 16 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 3
63 44 56 73 37 50
Collision (%) Shear (%) Collision (%)
0 0 0 0 5 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
The structural modifications made to the spillway slope and deflector radius resulted in improved passage conditions over the RSW, as evidenced by significantly fewer Sensor Fish severe collisions (27% in 2015 compared to 47% in 2005, p-value = 0.015). There also were fewer collisions per Sensor Fish release, averaging 0.52 in 2015 and 1.16 in 2005, a 64% decrease. The reduction in the average number of severe collisions clearly suggests that fish may have a lower likelihood of injury from collision with the spillway structure after the modifications than before the modifications. However, an increase in shear events was observed during low total spill, suggesting the effects of dam operations may need to be considered to optimize passage conditions for fish. In addition, the modifications resulted in reduced pressures during changes in directional flow at transition sites, which led to lower rates of pressure change in those regions. A strong correlation exists between Sensor Fish severe collisions and live fish malady and mortality estimates. Data indicate that the probability that a fish would be injured or killed during passage increases in proportion to the percentage of most severe collisions in the Spillway–Deflector region. Structural modifications made to the spillway slope and deflector radius resulted in significantly better
16 9 25 11 19 30 2015
1 2 1 and 2 Combined 3 4 3 and 4 Combined 2005
Collision (%)
Shear (%)
Spillway Chute RSW–Spillway Chute Transition RSW Chute
4. Conclusions
Treatment
At Least 1 Severe Event (Ns)
In 2005, a total of 716 live fish (averaging 143 mm in length) were released through the same injection systems as the Sensor Fish and under the same treatment conditions (Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006). Live fish results from the 2005 evaluation identified higher injury rates for fish exiting the RSW at deeper depths near the ogee of the spillway (Normandeau Associates Inc. and Skalski, 2006). A clear trend was observed between Sensor Fish data and live fish injury results, reported as the inverse of “clean fish,” with the probability that a fish would be injured during passage increasing proportionately with the number of severe collision and shear events observed during Sensor Fish releases (Fig. 7). In April 2015, 337 fish (average length 137 mm) were released through the same injection systems for the post-modification evaluation (Normandeau Associates Inc., 2015). That study provided survival and malady-free estimates for passage of yearling Chinook salmon through the modified spillway. The reciprocal of these estimates were used for comparison with Sensor Fish severe events and were reported as malady and mortality estimates. Table 6 summarizes live fish 48-h survival/mortality estimates and malady/malady-free estimates (without control corrections) for the studies conducted in 2005 and 2015 (Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006; Normandeau Associates Inc., 2015); Sensor Fish data for the combined treatments are also shown. The live fish malady-free estimate after the modifications was significantly higher (p-value < 0.01) than estimates from 2005 (98.2%, SE 0.7% in 2015 vs. 85.7%, SE 1.3% in 2005) (Normandeau Associates Inc., 2015). Sensor Fish collisions declined 20%, and all severe events (shear and collision) declined 16% following the Spillway 2 modifications. The average number of collisions observed per Sensor Fish release decreased approximately 64% from 1.10 to 0.40, while the average number of total shear and collision events decreased approximately 55% (from 1.16 to 0.52). Analysis of the most severe collision event per Sensor Fish release revealed a 19% decrease following the spillway modifications; shear events were observed to increase by the same percentage. A strong correlation exists between the percentage of the most severe collisions measured by Sensor Fish in the Spillway–Deflector region and live fish malady estimates (p-value = 0.0007, r = 0.9787), as well as with live fish mortality estimates (p-value = 0.0084, r = 0.9242 (Fig. 8))
0 0 0 0 0 0
Shear (%) Collision (%) Collision (%) Shear (%) Collision (%)
3.3. Comparison to live fish results
Year
Table 4 Percentage of Sensor Fish Releases and the Location of the Most Severe Event for Each Treatment.
Shear (%)
Spillway–Deflector
Deflector Wake
Shear (%)
All Regions Combined
J.P. Duncan et al.
113
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
Table 5 Average Severe Events per Sensor Fish Release in Each Passage Region. Year
2005
2015
Treatment
1 2 1 and 2 Combined 3 4 3 and 4 Combined
RSW Chute
RSW–Spillway Chute Transition
Spillway Chute
Spillway–Deflector
Deflector Wake
All Regions Combined
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision
Shear
Collision or Shear
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.08 0.43 0.78
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.31 0.35 0.33
0.00 0.04 0.02
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.04 0.04 0.04
1.38 0.78 1.10
0.04 0.09 0.06
1.42 0.87 1.16
0.00 0.02 0.01
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.07 0.00 0.03
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.27 0.27 0.27
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.05 0.11 0.08
0.00 0.20 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.04 0.02
0.39 0.40 0.40
0.00 0.24 0.13
0.39 0.64 0.52
hydraulic and fish passage conditions, which will reduce the risk of injury and mortality of downstream-migrating salmonids. Sensor Fish was proved to be an effective tool for better understanding of the physical conditions and identification of potential design improvements for the hydraulics structure. Overall, the findings of this study provide critical information for designs and evaluation of spillways or other passage alternatives that improve passage conditions for fish.
Acknowledgements This study was funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Walla District. The Sensor Fish and related evaluation tools were funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office. The study was conducted by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy. We greatly appreciate the assistance provided by numerous people from PNNL, Normandeau Associates Inc, and USACE.
Fig. 6. Sensor Fish Pressure Time Histories from Deep Releases at Ice Harbor Dam for the 2015 45 kcfs Total Spill Treatment and 2005 Spillbay 4 Open Treatment and Their 95% Confidence Intervals.
Fig. 7. Live Fish Survival and Clean Fish Estimates (data from Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006) versus Sensor Fish Severe Event Frequencies of Occurrence of the 2005 baseline assessment.
114
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
Table 6 Yearling Chinook Salmon Survival and Malady-Free Estimates by Treatment and Sensor Fish Data Parameters Combining All Passage Regions. Live fish data is from Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski (2006) and Normandeau Associates Inc. (2015). Year
Treatment
Sensor Fish − All Passage Regions Combined
Live Fish
All Severe Events
2005
2015
1 2 1 and 2 Combined 3 4 3 and 4 Combined
Average Number of Severe Events per Sensor Fish Release
Most Severe Events
48-h Survival (%)
48-h Mortality (%)
Malady–Free (%)
Malady (%)
Collision (%)
Shear (%)
Collision or Shear (%)
Collision
Shear
Collision and Shear
Collision (%)
Shear (%)
96.1 96.9 96.5
3.9 3.1 3.5
84.2 87.2 85.7
15.8 12.8 14.3
62 30 47
4 9 6
62 39 51
1.38 0.78 1.10
0.04 0.09 0.06
1.42 0.87 1.16
100 78 92
0 22 8
97.3 98.4 97.9
2.7 1.6 2.1
100 96.8 98.2
0 3.2 1.8
27 27 27
0 20 10
27 42 35
0.39 0.40 0.40
0.00 0.24 0.13
0.39 0.64 0.52
100 58 73
0 42 27
Fig. 8. (a) Yearling Chinook Malady Estimate (data from Normandeau Associates Inc., 2015), and (b) Mortality Estimate, Compared with Sensor Fish Most Severe Collisions Observed in the Spillway–Deflector Region.
D., Hou, H., 2014. Design and implementation of a new autonomous sensor fish to support advanced hydropower development. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85 (11), 115001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4900543. Geist, D.R., Linley, T.J., Cullinan, V.I., Deng, Z., 2013. The effects of total dissolved gas on chum salmon fry survival, growth, gas bubble disease, and seawater tolerance. North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 33 (1), 200–215. Ham, K.D., Titzler, P.S., Reese, S.P., Moursund, R.A., 2007. Hydroacoustic Evaluation of Fish Distributions at the Ice Harbor Removable Spillway Weir 2006. PNWD-3862, Battelle Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, Washington. Heisey, P.G., Mathur, D., Rineer, T., 1992. A reliable tag-recapture technique for estimating turbine passage survival: application to young-of-the-Year american shad (Alosa sapidissima). Can. J. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 49, 1826–1834. Huang, J., Li, R., Feng, J., Xu, W., Wang, L., 2016. Relationship investigation between the dissipation process of supersaturated total dissolved gas and wind effect. Ecol. Eng. 95, 430–437. Katopodis, C., Williams, J.G., 2012. The development of fish passage research in a historical context. Ecol. Eng. 48, 8–18. Lutz, D.S., 1995. Gas supersaturation and gas bubble trauma in fish downstream from a midwestern reservoir. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124, 423–436. Moursund, R.A., Ham, K.D., Titzler, P.S., 2007. Hydroacoustic Evaluation of Fish Passage at Ice Harbor Dam with a Removal Spillway Weir in 2005. PNWD-3711, Battelle Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, Washington. National Oceanic, Atmospheric Administration, 2008. (NOAA) Fisheries. Biological Opinion–Consultation on Remand for Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System, 11 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin and ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit for Juvenile Fish Transportation Program. National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) -Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. Normandeau Associates Inc, Skalski, J.R., 2006. Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006. Comparative Direct Survival and Injury Rates of Juvenile Salmon Passing the New Removable Spillway Weir (RSW) and a Spillbay at Ice Harbor Dam, Snake River, Washington.Drumore, Pennsylvania, and Seattle, Washington. Normandeau Associates Inc, 2015. Direct Injury and Survival of Yearling Chinook Salmon Passing the Removable Spillway Weir Following Ogee and Deflector Modifications to Spillbay 2 at Ice Harbor Dam, Snake River. Normandeau Associates Inc.,
References Axel, G.A., Hockersmith, E.E., Ogden, D.A., Burke, B.J., Frick, K.E., Sandford, B.P., 2007a. Passage Behavior and Survival for Radio-tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon and Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam 2005. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. Axel, G.A., Hockersmith, E.E., Ogden, D.A., Burke, B.J., Frick, K.E., Sandford, B.P., Muir, W.D., 2007b. Passage Behavior and Survival of Radio-tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon and Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam 2006. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. Axel, E.E., Hockersmith, B.J., Frick, K.E., Sandford, B.P., Muir, W.D., 2008. Passage Behavior and Survival of Radio-tagged Yearling and Subyearling Chinook Salmon and Juvenile Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam 2007. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. Axel, G.A., Hockersmith, E.E., Burke, B.J., Frick, K.E., Sandford, B.P., Muir, W.D., Absolon, R.F., 2010. Passage Behavior and Survival of Radio-tagged Yearling and Subyearling Chinook Salmon and Juvenile Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam 2009. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. Backman, T.W.H., Evans, A.F., 2002. Gas bubble trauma incidence in adult salmonids in the columbia river basin. North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 22, 579–584. Brown, R.S., Pflugrath, B.D., Colotelo, A.H., Brauner, C.J., Carlson, T.J., Deng, Z.D., Seaburg, A.G., 2012. Pathways of barotrauma in juvenile salmonids exposed to simulated hydroturbine passage: boyle's law vs. Henry's law. Fish. Res. 121, 43–50. Brown, R.S., Colotelo, A.H.A., Pflugrath, B.D., Boys, C.A., Baumgartner, L.J., Deng, Z.D., et al., 2014. Understanding barotrauma in fish passing hydro structures: a global strategy for sustainable development of water resources. Fisheries 39, 108–122. Calles, O., Karlsson, S., Hebrand, M., Comoglio, C., 2012. Evaluating technical improvements for downstream migrating diadromous fish at a hydroelectric plant. Ecol. Eng. 48, 30–37. Deng, Z., Carlson, T.J., Duncan, J.P., Richmond, M.C., 2007. Six-Degree-of-Freedom sensor fish design and instrumentation. Sensors 7 (12), 3399–3415. Deng, Z.D., Lu, J., Myjak, M.J., Martinez, J.J., Tian, C., Morris, S.J., Carlson, T.J., Zhou,
115
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
J.P. Duncan et al.
turbulent flows. Fish. Res. 97 (1-2), 134–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres. 2009.01.011. Schilt, C.R., 2007. Developing fish passage and protection at hydropower dams. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104 (3), 295–325. Sciewe, M.H., 1974. Influence of dissolved atmospheric gas on swimming performance of juvenile Chinook salmon. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 103, 717–721. USACE, 2009. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Water Quality Plan for Total Dissolved Gas and Water Temperature in the Mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers. Northwestern Division, Portland, Oregon. Weiland, L.K., Mesa, M.G., Maule, A.G., 1999. Influence of infection with Renibacterium salmoninarum on susceptibility of juvenile spring Chinook salmon to gas bubble trauma. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 11, 123–129.
Washington.Drumore, Pennsylvania. Plumb, J.M., Braatz, A.C., Lucchesi, J.N., Fielding, S.D., Sprando, J.M., George, G.T., Adams, N.S., Rondorf, D.W., 2003. Behavior of Radio-tagged Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Steelhead and Performance of a Removable Spillway Weir at Lower Granite Dam. U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, Washington, 2002. Plumb, J.M., Braatz, A.C., Lucchesi, J.N., Fielding, S.D., Cochran, A.D., Nation, T.K., Sprando, J.M., Schei, J.L., Perry, R.W., Adams, N.S., Rondorf, D.W., 2004. Behavior and Survival of Radio-tagged Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Relative to the Performance of a Removable Spillway Weir at Lower Granite Dam. U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, Washington, 2003. Richmond, M.C., Deng, Z., McKinstry, C.A., Mueller, R.P., Carlson, T.J., Dauble, D.D., 2009. Response relationship between juvenile salmon and an autonomous sensor in
116