Fish Pass Design and Evaluation

Institute of Freshwater Ecology

R&D Report 5
D issem in ation S tatu s N ote for P erm anent R& D O utputs A nnex A

R & D P roject No. Z o if R elease D ate i t 1 7 i t s

Title: /7jA P c 1 0Uru!) .

The following permanent outputs* have been produced under this R&D project and the following
dissemination statuses have now been authorized.

Internal: Limited -Rr leaac/Released to Regions/Restricted2

External: Restricted/Re leaded-to Publie-Donaain2

Document Document Title Number Sent

Ref. No.

/) fi£f>0/2T 5 f r ttt ft A it AeSicru TIoaj .

//)

of- 72 S 7 A 7 E U £ K )'f.

Mc tes3 re la te d to diss<?t!iin^tion .

fo f tfC U lhsl &IA-/^CTA to

Cj0>^am ^U a / '

N am e: N am e:

P ro jec t L e a d e r P ro ject M an ag er fo r R & D C o n tra c to r

N am e: D ate: is /<r/f z .
om m issioner

To be read p rio r to filling in:

1. Ail docum ents shouia be accom panied by eith er an R & D D igcsi ox a m em o iu be ciiouicncu
w ith the d o cu m en t to explain w hat should presently b e done with it e.g. review ed by a
p a rtic u la r group, used for operatio n al purposes, etc.
2. D elete as ap p ro p ria te .
3. W rite any specific instructions here, e.g. advice on R egional distribution; instructions for
review a t F unction M anager C om m ittee Level, docum ent to b e re a d alongside N R A
in terp retiv e paper.

7
Fish Pass Design and Evaluation: Phase 1
P A Carling and J H Dobson

Research Contractor:
Institute of Freshwater Ecology
Windermere Laboratory
Far Sawrey
Ambleside
Cumbria LA22 OLP

National Rivers Authority

Rivers House
Waterside Drive
Aztec West
Almondsbury
Bristol BS12 4UD

R&D Report 5
Publisher
National Rivers Authority
Rivers House
Waterside Drive
Aztec West
Almondsbury
Bristol BSI2 4UD

Tel: 0454 624400

Fax: 0454 624409

© National Rivers Authority 1992

Fust published 1992

ISBN 1 873160 13 5

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior
permission of the National Rivers Authority.

Dissemination Status
Internal: Released to Regions
External: Restricted

Research Contractor
This document was produced under R&D Contract 304 by:

Institute of Freshwater Ecology

Windermere Laboratory
Far Sawiey
Ambleside
Cumbria LA22 OLP

Tel: 05394 42468

Fax: 05394 46914

NRA Project Leader

The NRA's Project Leader for R&D Contract 304 was:

Mr. Adrian Fewings - Southern Region

Design and Printing

This document was designed by: And printed by:

Institute of Freshwater Ecology GSB Associates Ltd

31 St Leonards Road
Eastbourne
East Sussex BN21 4SE

Additional copies
Additional copies of this document may be obtained from R & D Co-ordinator, NRA Southern Region. Price
on application.

R&D Report 5
R&D PROJECT 304 - FISH PASS DESIGN & EVALUATION

Statement o f Use

This document is intended to be used as a source o f detailed technical inform ation on the
major types o f fish passes. The use, design and perform ance characteristics o f the m ajor types
o f fish passes are reviewed. The review is based on an NRA survey and an extensive literature
review. In order to ensure the usefulness o f the document from both a theoretical and practical
point o f view the document is to be used by fisheries staff and engineers within the N RA for 6
to 7 months, after which a revised definitive document will be produced which will
incorporate appropriate amendments. Any comm ents/amendments that readers feel are
necessary should be noted down during the period o f use for possible inclusion after the 6 to 7
month period.

There are a number of points that the reader should take into account when using this
document for reference:

1. SI and Imperial units are used throughout the report. For construction purposes the
conversion table (appendix H) should be used for accurate conversion.

2. Figure 4.1, Schematic diagram o f pool and traverse fish pass with notched traverses, gives
a generalized diagram o f a small pool and traverse fish pass. G reat care m ust be exercised
in the selection o f the dimensions o f the pool and weir fish pass in relation to the range o f
the expected flow regimes. This is because there are a num ber o f cases where pool and weir
fish passes o f the smallest practicable dimensions possible have been built in rivers where
the flow regime is too great for the pass to work properly.

In order to ensure that the definitive document is a useful, practical guide for NRA staff
and others involved in the construction, design, choice, and use of fish passes it is
imperative that comments on this interim document are made and sent to the Project
Leader, Adrian Fewings, NRA Southern Region by January 31st 1994, the end of the
review period. Your cooperation is appreciated.

For the 6 to 7 month period this interim document is for use bv NRA staff only. No
copies should be made without the prior permission of David Jordan. Head of FRCN.
Bristol.

R&D Report 5
f

CONTENTS
Page

LIST OF TABLES iii

LIST OF FIGURES iv

FOREWORD 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

KEYWORDS 3

1. INTRODUCTION 5

1.1 Design criteria 5

1.2 Entrances and attraction 6
1.3 Summary 7

2. VERTICAL SLOT FISH PASSES 9

2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Hydraulics 9
2.3 Fish passage 9
2.4 Construction and maintenance 10
2.5 Summary 11

3. DENEL FISH PASSES 15

3.1 Introduction 15
3.2 Hydraulics 15
3.3 Recent design developments 16
3.4 Fish passage 16
3.5 Construction and maintenance 17
3.6 Summary 18

4. POOL AND WEIR FISH PASSES 23

4.1 Introduction 23
4.2 Hydraulics 23
4.3 Recent design developments 24
4.4 Fish passage 24
4.5 Construction and maintenance 25
4.6 Summary 26

R&D Report 5 i
 Page
5. OTHER TYPES OF FISH PASS 29

5.1 Locks and lifts 29

5.2 Spiral 30
5.3 Fishway gates 30
5.4 Eel passes 30
5JS Miscellaneous 32
5.6 Summary 32

6. SWIMMING PERFORMANCE 35

6.1 Introduction 35
6.2 Biological factors 35
6.3 Environmental factors 37
6.4 Physical factors 39
6.5 Eels and Alosa 40
6.6 Summaiy 41

7. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY 43

7.1 Summaiy 45

8. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS VIEWS 47

8.1 Factors relevant to capital cost 47

8.2 Factors relevant to maintenance cost 49

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51

10. RECOMMENDED PHASE II PROGRAMME 53

APPENDICES

A PERTINENT FISH PASS DATA 55

B VERTICAL SLOT FISH PASSES 67
C DENIL FISH PASSES 77
D POOL AND WEIR FISH PASSES 89
E OTHER TYPES OF FISH PASS 103
F SWIMMING PERFORMANCE 115
G QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY 135
H IMPERIAL - SI UNITS CONVERSION TABLE 171

R&D Report 5 ii
ABSTRACTS FROM FRENCH LANGUAGE PAPERS 175

REFERENCES 179

BIBLIOGRAPHY 187

LIST OF TABLES

TEXT
2.1 Number o f fish caught in Fish Pass traps 10
6.1 Estimated range of swimming speed for brook trout 35
6.2 Flow and depth of three flume designs 37
6.3 Cruising and burst speed ranges for good and bad swimmers 39
6.4 Swimming speeds for fish of importance in UK waters 41
7.1 Miscellaneous fish passes. Results of questionnaire survey 43

APPENDICES

A1 Data reduction and velocity combination for analyzing the

selection of the higher velocity channel by silver and
chinook salmon and steelhead trout using the momentum
difference between two attraction flows and their average
momentum 64
B .l Major vertical-slot fishways operating in British Columbia 69
B.2 Details of vertical slot fish passes taken from the published literature 76
C.l Details of Denil fish passes taken from the published literature 86
D .l Accepted design factors applied to pool, weir and port fish ladders 93
D.2 Dimension of eleven different designs of V-shaped pool fishway 97
D.3 Hydroelectric scheme fishpasses (New Zealand) 99
D.4 Details of pool and weir fish passes taken from the published literature 100
E.l Example of fish passages:Golfech fish elevator on Garonne(1987-1989) 108
E.2 Details of the major fish passes in the USSR 109
F.l Calculations of swimming speeds over ground for salmon during the
initial phase of up-stream migration 118
F.2 Adjusted mean and maximum velocities attained per burst from
ANCOVA analysis 120
F.3 Prolonged swimming performance of wild-reared juvenile coho salmon 121
F.4 Contaminant concentrations and exposure durations that cause
significant changes in swimming behaviour compared with exposures
that induce mortality in aquatic organisms 124
F.5 Swimming speeds for fish, identified as important in British waters,
taken from the published literature 130
F.6 Swimming speeds for non-British fish, taken from the published
literarure 133

R&D Report 5 iii

 Page

G .l Pool and weir fish passes. Results of questionnaire survey 141

G.2 Denil fish passes. Results of questionnaire survey 161

LIST OF FIGURES

TEXT

2.1 Single jet and double jet vertical slot fishways 13

3.1 A schematic o f the Denil fishway 20
3.2 Alaskan steepass module 21
3.3 Larmier pass 21
4.1 Schematic diagram of ‘pool and traverse* fish pass with notched traverses 27
5.1 Schematic o f a Borland fish lock 34
5.2 Aeroceanics fiberglass spiral fishway 34

APPENDICES

A .l Choice of higher velocities by upstream migrating salmon and

steelhead related to momentum level in the attraction flows as
defined by the momentum difference divided by the average
momentum in the two jets 65
A.2 Influence of the angle of the ramp on the efficiency, expressed as
a %9 of fish entry to the fish collector 66
B .l Vertical slot fishways 70
B.2 Vertical slot fishways - all designs 71
B.3 Circulation patterns - all designs 72
B.4 Rating curves for vertical slot fishways 73
B.5 Discharge for single slot fishway 74
B.6 Vertical slot fishway 75
C .l Discharge rating curve for standard Denil fishway 80
C.2 Rating curve for nonstandard Denil fishways 81
C.3 Denil fishways 82
C.4 Flow characteristics of two-level Denil fishways 83
C.5 Sea trout and trout passage of a small Denil fish pass in Normandy 84
C.6 Denil fishway 85
D .l Pool and weir fishways - definition sketches 91
D.2 Pool and weir fishways 92
D.3 Pool and weir fishway 95
D.4 Town Dam pool and chute fishway 96
D.5 Layout of the V-shaped pool fishway 96
D.6 Recommended geometry for new weir of pool fish ladder 98
E.1 The Tzymlyanskij fish lock on the Don River, USSR 105
E.2 A fish lift or elevator using the trapping and trucking principle 105
E.3 Poutes fish elevator 106

R&D Report 5 iv
E.4 Tuilieres fish elevator (1989) daily shad passages and water
temperature 1^7
E.5 The fishway gate 107
E.6 Pipe eel pass over the Patea Dam in New Zealand 110
E.7 Eel ladder at Moses-Saunders Power Dam 111
F.l Relation between maximum specific speeds and length for several 117
groups of fish.
F.2 Comparison of swimming performance among three stocks of brown
trout, Salvelinus fontinalis 119
F.3 Prolonged swimming speed and temperature 122
F.4 Swimming speed and ambient oxygen concentration 123
F.5 Effect of contaminants on swimming speed 126
F.6 Relative swimming speeds of adult fish 127
F.7 Relative swimming speeds of young fish 128
F.8 Relative swimming speeds of MacKenzie River fish 129

R&D Report 5 v
FOREWORD

Fish pass installation represents a significant capital cost to NRA fisheries budgets. In order
that this money is spent effectively, the most efficient and cost effective installation must be
selected. Cost savings can be made by reducing design selection time and by selecting
optimum designs for sites and target species. Information on basic design was summarized
in 1984, but in recent years a wider range of fish pass designs and variants has been
hydraulically tested using advanced computational techniques. However, the literature
concerning hydraulic performance and effective utilization by fish species is diverse, poorly
integrated and not available in summary form. A review of the literature from a UK
perspective is a precursor to preparing a Manual to aid in appropriate design selection.

The assistance of Mr. Ian Pettman (IFE) and Dr. Ian Winfield (IFE) in compiling and
reviewing this report is gratefully acknowledged. We also acknowledge Mr. Trevor Fumass
(IFE) for the redrafting of the figures and his advice on the production of the report.

Useful comment and detailed information on design costing and practical aspects of fish pass
construction were recieved from staff at Wallace Evans & Partners, Babtie, Shaw & Morton,
Mr. T. Woolnough of Fishway Engineering and Dr. M. Beach of MAFF.

R&D Report 5 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The focus of the report concerns recent literatuxe on the efficiency of a variety of fish passes.
The hydraulics, design and maintenance of major fish pass types are reviewed with reference
to ease of fish passage. Assent of weirs and passage through gates (with one exception) have
not been addressed: A schematic diagram displays the layout of each design and details are
summarized for each major type of pass both in the main text and in technical appendices.
It was concluded that the multiplicity of fish pass design variants have often been well tested
in theory and in the laboratory with respect to fish passage, but there is a dearth of follow-up
validation exercises following construction. In particular insufficient emphasis has been given
to developing methods to attract fish to fish pass entrances.

The swimming performance of a variety of fish relevant to the UK experience is reviewed

and summarized in tabular form. The literature is largely focused on the passage of salmonid
fishes, especially Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, brown trout Salmo trutta and rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss. Although a number of coarse fish have been investigated, the coverage
of this group is much more restricted with respect to both species and body size and there is
little information on juvenile life stages.

The results of a questionnaire to NRA regions concerning experience and future proposals for
fish passes are summarized, as are the views of a number of consultant engineers. Finally
research priorities are identified and recommendations are made for further monitoring of fish
pass performance.

KEYWORDS

Fish pass, pool and weir, Denil, vertical slot, swimming performance, eel passes.

R&D Report 5 3
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Design criteria

There is a large amount of literature documenting the successes and failures of fishpass
installations around the world. The effectiveness of passes varies with design, species and site
conditions. Passes for highly motivated salmonids are comonly thought to be successful, but
it must be stressed that there are few critical analyses to support this view for the general
design options available. Fish passes for other species and juvenile fish are more recent and
not as well documented (Katopodis,1991). A good review by Banks (1969) on the upstream
migration of salmonids covers the problems of flow at dams, diversions and fish passes; the
effects of temperature caused by impoundment and the conflicting need for light in order to
ascend obstructions with a preference for darkness or turbid water in unobstructed passage.

Larinier (1978) states that several factors will affect the choice and size of the pass:

• variation of upstream level during the migration season

• migratory species likely to use the pass
• the flow available for the pass
• the site available for the pass when there is an existing installation.

Orsbom (1987) gives four general elements of fish pass efficiency which are important to
their design:

• to optimise speed and success of fish passage to minimize delay, stress, damage and
fallback of fish
• minimize water use while achieving above, where there are competing water uses
• maximise the range of stream flow under which the fishway is operable by matching fish
pass operation to flows during the period of desired fish passage -
• minimize construction (and operation and maintenance) costs by using construction
methods and materials appropriate to the remoteness and geometric, hydrologic and
geologic characteristics of the site.

Boiten (1991) discusses fish pass design under three main headings -hydrology, biology and
water management demands. Boiten (1991) states that flow hydrographs and flow duration
curves can be used to determine the variation of discharges and water levels during the
hydrological year. Boiten (1991) also states that fish migration experts should provide
infonnation on which species of fish need the highest priority and which are of secondary
importance together with information on the expected migration period and the swimming and
leaping capabilities of intended species.

A checklist of pertinent fish pass data is given by Bell (1986) (Appendix A). Bell (1986)
states that a fish pass is recommended when the head difference is as low as 0.6 m, although
limited fish passage may be possible where the head is <2.4 m. Two papers by Larinier
(1987,1983) provide dimensioning criteria for various types of pass and basic principles which
can be used as a guide for planning fish passage facilities. The latter paper includes a list of
data required for the planning of such a facility.

R&D Report 5 5
1.2 Entrances and attraction

Poor entrance conditions have been identified as a common failing of unsuccessful fish
passes. Fish pass entrances have two aspects; the actual positioning of the entrance and the
attraction flow. (This has been mentioned in specific sections as being a problem but has not
been discussed in detail.) The entrance should be placed at the furthest upstream point that
the fish can reach. Camie (1989) states that far too many passes have been constructed where
the entrance is further downstream than the main flow of water passing over the weir into the
pool below. Migratory fish are reluctant to turn back to find a route upstream and
consequently they tend to congregate in the pool below the weir, ft is very much easier and
less expensive to build the entrance downstream where the construction can take place largely
in the dry. Bell (1986) states that fish normally approach fish passes at a limited range of
depths and ideally, attractive entrances should be placed at such depths. Most adult salmon
would be between the surface and 1.8 m, and most other fish up to a depth of 3.6 m at dams
and falls. Although these depths may vary depending on temperature, turbidity and oxygen
levels.

Barry and Kynard (1986) report on the attraction of American shad to a fish lift with a
tail race and spillway entrance. The spillway, which was situated near the base of the dam
passed 88% of the fish even though it operated for fewer days than the tailrace entrance
although it was ineffective when spillage over the dam was high. The tailrace entrance was
difficult to locate because of turbulence caused by the upwelling of discharge water from
power generation which created a large boil directly in front of the entrance. Trivellato and
Larinier (1987) used hydraulic models to study two fishpasses on the Loire and Dordogne
Rivers. Hie main purpose of these studies was to optimise the position of the entrance and
determine the discharge needed to provide adequate attraction to these sites.

Orsbom (1985) reports that a survey of current design practices and personal interviews led
to the fact that attraction velocity must be considered in the light of the following guidelines:

• the orientation of the jet should be towards the area where the fish tend to accumulate
(base of falls, downstream of spillway)
• the attraction velocity should be about 2.4 - 3.6 ms'1 which is a function of the size of
the fish pass attraction opening and the amount of attraction flow
• each site should be analysed according to its special geometric, flow and fisheries
characteristics.

Beyond that there is very little information available on design criteria for the velocity and
amount of the attraction velocity required to lure fish into a fish pass. The only set of
published data available was reported by Collins and Elling (1960) based on tests at the
Bonneville Fisheries - Engineering Laboratory. Parallel channel tests were conducted which
offered migrating fish a choice between two different velocities, which ranged from 0.9 - 3.96
ms"1. A statistical analysis of the data showed that only when the higher to lower velocities
were 3:1 or larger would a significant number of fish choose the higher velocity. Considering
that the strength and persistance of a jet used to attract fish is a function of its shape and the
momentum in the flow the results of Collins and Elling (1960) have been further analysed
(Orsbom,1985) and are presented in appendix A as Table A-l and Figure A.1, the latter
showing an equation for fish attraction factor. This factor represents the two important factors
in attraction flow:

R&D Report 5 6
 • the difference in the momentum of the two parallel jets and
• the level of jet intensity as defined by their average velocity squared

These studies are restricted to North American species.

Pavlov (1989) reports that the velocity of the attracting flow should not be greater than the
current threshold velocity of the fish, which is defined as the ’minimum current velocity
which leads to an orientation reaction against the current (values range from 1-30 cm/sec)’.
Increasing the attraction flow to 70 cm/sec resulted in an increase in Abramis brama and
Stizostedion lucioperca entering the Ust’Manych hydraulic pass. This velocity was slightly
less than the critical velocity of A. brama (80-115 cm/sec). When the velocity was reduced
to 15 cm/sec no fish were attracted. Usually the attracting velocity is taken as 0.6-0.8 of the
critical velocities e.g. 0.9-1.2 m/sec for Salmo salar and S. trutta. Attracting flow must be
carefully aligned and must be parallel to or at an angle not exceeding 30 degrees to the main
flow. The influence of the angle of the ramp on its efficiency is shown in appendix A as
Figure A.2. Mallen-Cooper and Harris (1991) report on a vertical slot fish pass that has the
water aligned at 45-90 degrees to the main flow, but there is no information given on its
effectiveness.

Larinier (1991) also confirms that the bad location of entrances or insufficient water discharge
is a problem at many fish passes. He recommends that 1-5% of the volume of the competing
flow is provided on major rivers. This criterion is the same as for North America. Problems
of entrances and attracting velocities are further discussed under the specific types of fish
pass.

Blocking and guiding devices can be used to increase the efficiency of attracting fish into the
pass and several methods are described by Pavlov (1989). Blocking devices can be either
mechanical (a screen or barrier) or electrical, neither of which are particularly successful. The
problem with the successful operation of electrical devices is in selecting the appropriate
potential difference, since this varies for different species and sizes. A threshold stimulus for
one fish could be critical for another. Electric screens are generally not successful in guidance
, as shocked fish are generally swept downstream but can be used as barriers to prevent
passage past the entrance. Various physical methods can be used for the guidance, large
stones, ditches, bottom rapids and ledges, all of which can provide conditions which are
attractive to migrating fish.

Poaching can be a problem at fish passes as fish tend to congregate and become easy targets.
In the pool and weir section it has been suggested that resting pools should be covered with
screens to deter poachers. Camie (1989) also suggests that the pass should be located near the
middle of the weir and that submerged orifice type passes should be considered as the fish
are not so visible.

13 Summary

There is a general concensus in the literature that close cooperation between water authorities,
hydrologists, fish migration experts and hydraulic design engineers is essential for the
installation of successful fish passes, and that the location and species involved are unique
in each case. Woolnough (1987) supports this close cooperation and says that preconceived

R&D Report 5 7
ideas should be avoided . His view is that fish passage in the future can be successfully
accomplished by demolition, Denils, fishway gates and fish locks. He also outlines design
criteria and the application for approval under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.
Schwalme, Mackay and Lindner (1985) report that substantial saving in construction costs can
be achieved by decreasing the length of the fish pass (thus increasing the slope and water
velocity) to the minimum that still allows efficient fish passage. They also found that fish
have preferences for certain types of fish pass and this may require several different designs
at the same site when the efficient passage of a variety of species must be accomplished. It
may be possible to exclude undesirable species from upstream areas by building fish passes
that exploit interspecies differences in fish pass preferences.

One of the most important aspects to the successful operation of a well designed fish pass is
the entrance. It should be placed at the furthest upstream point which the fish can reach and
in a position where the fish can find it. Bell (1986) suggests that it is located at a depth at
which the fish approach. Attraction to this entrance can be provided by additional flow, which
must not be greater than the swimming performance of the fish, and by guidance devices
which provide attractive conditions to the fish.

Further investigation is required into attraction and guidance which is poorly reported in the
literature, and into physical damage to fish during passage. Much has been written on
downstream guidance, mortality and damage but there appears to be little or no information
on upstream passage.

R&D Report 5 8
2. VERTICAL SLOT FISH PASSES

2.1 Introduction

A vertical slot fish pass consists o f a rectangular channel with a sloping floor that is divided
into a number of pools. Water flows down the channel from pool to pool through vertical
slots, which can be either single or twin (Figure 2.1). A water jet is formed at each slot and
energy is dissipated by jet mixing in each pool. Single jets do not dissipate energy as
efficiently as twin jets and therefore a proportionately larger pool area is required for
dissipating the energy. Orsbom (1987) states that vertical slot fish passes work well where
large fluctuations in river stage occur and the fish pass flows are unregulated.

2.2 Hydraulics

The hydraulic characteristics of vertical slot fish passes are discussed in three papers; Andrew
(1991), Katopodis (1991) and Rajaratnam, Van der Vinne and Katopodis (1986). Andrew
(1991) states that the approximate discharge of vertical slot fish passes can be calculated with
the formulae: Q=332W(D+h)ha5. Where Q is the discharge (m3/s), W the total slot width (m),
D the water depth on the downstream side of a baffle (m) and h the drop in water surface
from the downstream side of one baffle to the downstream side of the next (m). He also states
that the projection of the upstream nose on the centre baffles of both single and double jet
fishpasses is very important. These projections can be clearly seen in Figure 2.1. When the
jet is properly directed, there is a strong cross flow at the nose that controls the direction of
velocity of approach to the slot. With adequate cross velocity at the nose the jet is directed
into the pool and the flow remains stable, if not adequate it could create an unstable flow
condition that could disorient the fish and reduce migration speed. Full details of major
vertical slot fish passes in British Columbia are given in appendix B as Table B .l; for the
pool dimensions and slot widths given, a good stable flow pattern with adequate rest areas
is provided.

Eighteen designs of vertical slot fish passes were tested and reported by Katopodis (1991).
The results, given in appendix B as Figure B .l, show that dimensionless discharge varied
linearly with depth/width of flow. Rajaratnam, Van der Vinne and Katopodis (1986) present
the results of an experimental study on the hydraulics of vertical slot fish passes with seven
designs for slot and baffle placement (appendix B Figure B.2), in all designs the slot width
was 0305 m. Using these results a conceptual idea of uniform and non-uniform flow states
has been developed with a rating curve for each design in terms of the dimensionless flow
rate and the relative depth of flow (flow depth/slot width - appendix B Figures B 3 and B.4).
A graph showing discharge for a single slot fish pass against pool depth taken from Bell
(1986) is shown in appendix B as Figure B.5.

2.3 Fish passage

Andrew (1991) reports that some fish species accept vertical slot fish passes better than
others. A three baffled fish pass with 0.3 m slots, 2.44 m x 3.66 m pools and a water depth

R&D Report 5 9
o f 1.83 m was used by higher proportions of chinook salmon and steelhead trout (67% and
60%) than American shad (32%), striped bass (22%) and sturgeon (20%). The latter three
species also avoided weir fishways. Results of studies on model fish passes in Finland (Hooli,
1988) recommended that the fall height should be only half a fishes length, and that smaller
fish needed more time to rise. 1.5 minutes per basin for 20 cm trout, 15-60 seconds per basin
for 30 cm trout. At a vertical slot fish pass at Seton Dam, British Columbia (dimensional
details are given in appendix B as Table B .l) Oncorhynchus nerka spend an average of only
48 seconds per pool. One fish passed through 31 baffles in only 11 minutes, the slowest fish
required 45 minutes (87 sec per pool) (Andrew, 1991). Schwalme, Mackay and Lindner
(1985) report that Catostomus catostomus and C. commersoni showed a preference for vertical
slot over Denil. The results of their study on a vertical slot and two Denil fish passes (of
slopes 10% and 20%) built into a weir on the Lesser Slave River are given in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Numbers of fish caught in fish pass traps during monitoring period May 12 -
June 25 1984

Species Vertical slot 10% Denil 20% Denil

C. catostomus 174 16 7
C. commersoni 130 41 9

2.4 Construction and maintenance

Vertical slot fish passes are usually constructed of concrete, with the baffles usually poured
in place but precast baffles are becoming more common. The fish pass at Hells Gate, British
Columbia has required little maintenance and shows little sign of concrete erosion after 45
years (Andrew, 1991). In South-eastern Australia (Mallen-Cooper and Harris, 1991) the fish
pass channels were constructed using precast concrete culverts or in situ concrete. The baffles
were either precast in concrete or fibreglass or made o f fibre-reinforced cement sheet. The
initial fibreglass baffles were unsuccessful as they flexed under pressure, which loosened and
removed some mounting blocks.

Rytkonen and Hepojoki (1991a) report on a fish pass in Finland where the slots could be
easily modified to make it into an overflow type fish pass with, if necessary, bottom orifices.
A variable size and form of openings has an advantage when calibrating and adjusting the fish
pass in situ.

Mallen-Cooper and Harris (1991) report that where a fish pass is built as part of a new weir
the fish pass cost <4% of the total cost of the weir.

Bedload is normally swept through by normal water velocities but floating debris must be
removed annually. Trash racks and gratings are provided to exclude debris that could obstruct
the slots. The latest vertical slot fish pass to be built at Hells Gate is covered by a grating

R&D Report 5 10
0.10 m x 0.15 m which is sloping 18% toward the river (Andrew, 1991). This excludes debris
and enables stranded fish to slide back into the river.

Advantages of vertical slot fish passes arc that they provide a whole water column for ascent
of both bottom and surface travelling fishes and that they can operate over a wide range of
water levels. Hie ability to operate at low discharges means that they can conserve stored
water (Katopodis, 1991). Its design is less simple than the pool and weir fish pass, but its
advantage is that it is self regulating (Bell, 1986).

2.5 Summary

2.5.1 Velocities

0.2 - 1.5 ms'1.

Slot width ranges from 0.29 - 0.61m. A pool width of eight times slot width and a pool length
of ten times slot width give satisfactory results and minor variations can be made without
affecting performance.

2.5.2 Strengths

Operates over wide range of water levels.

Provides whole water column for ascent for both bottom and surface travelling fishes.

2.53 Weaknesses

Some species (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, O. mykiss, Catostomus catostomus and C.

commersoni) accept vertical slot fish passes better than other species (Alosa sapidissima,
Rossus saxatilis, Acipenser transmontanus and A. medirostris).
Debris can obstruct slots.

2.5.4 Costs

Unknown, but when built as part of new weir could be <4% of total cost of weir.

2.5.5 Working examples

There are two vertical slot fish passes in operation in the Northumbria region, at Hagg Bridge
and Escomb. The latter is a combination pool and weir/vertical slot and was constructed in
1991. No further information was supplied (See appendix G Table 7.2).

R&D Report 5 11
2.5.6 Unknowns

No information on effectiveness with British freshwater fish.

R&D Report 5 12
 Figure 2.1 Single and double jet vertical slot fishways
Source: Andrew, 1991

R&D Report 5 13
3. DENIL FISH PASSES

3.1 Introduction

The Denil fishpass utilises closely spaced vanes or baffles on the floors and/or sidewalls
of a sloping channel. These baffles which are set at an angle to the axis of the channel create
secondary helical currents which result in a continuous dissipation o f energy throughout the
fish pass length (Figure 3.1). They are widely used throughout Europe but their efficiency has
often been questioned and there are said to be limitations to their use by some migratory
species linked with baffle dimension and slope (Larinier, 1991).

Details of the historical development have been given by Beach (1984). The recommended
proportions given were based on the 1942 Report of the Committee on Fish Passes by the
Institution of Civil Engineers (1942), which said that a channel width of 0.91 m with baffles
set 0.60 m apart and sloping upstream at an angle of 45 degrees to the channel bed, the slope
of which should not exceed 1:4. Large resting pools (3 m long x 2 m wide x ,1.2 m deep)
should be provided at vertical intervals of 2 m. Through such a channel, of length 9 m and
gradient 1:5, the flow was measured as 0.6 m3 s'1, the mean water velocity 1.8 m s'1 and the
mean depth 0.91 m.

Details were also given of the drag and gravitational forces that were exerted on a fish during
passage through a Denil. The comment was made that very few data exist on the relationship
between flow and depth and it gives approximate equations for mean water velocity and flow.
Further details on drag are given in the section on swimming performance in this report

There are many versions of Denil fish pass, the majority however, are of the Alaskan
steeppass type with side baffles at an angle to the walls or the plain Denil with planar baffles
normal to the walls and at an angle to the floor (See Figure 3.2).

3.2 Hydraulics

Hydraulic characteristics of Denil fish passes are given in Katopodis and Rajaratnam (1983),
Katopodis (1991), Rajaratnam and Katopodis (1984) and Rajaratnam, Katopodis and Flint-
Petersen (1987). In the first of these, three designs are studied. The turbulent nature of the
flow in the fish passes is described and extensive velocity measurements are presented. A
semi-empirical method is developed for the design of Denil fish passes involving a fluid
friction coefficient In Rajaratnam and Katopodis (1984) the same authors develop rating
curves for the "standard" and "non-standard* Denil which could be useful in the design of
Denils over a range of slopes and discharges. Rating curves for the two types of Denil are
given in appendix C as Figures C.l and C.2. The hydraulics of six designs of Denil with
varying dimensions are reported by Katopodis (1991), appendix C Figure C.3. A standard
Denil as described by Rajaratnam and Katopodis (1984) has the following dimensions: B=0.56
m, b=0.36 m, and a=0.25 m, where B is the total width of the channel, b the free width
between the baffles and a the distance between the baffles. (Figure 3.1). Using this standard
Denil, if the depth to width ratio is less than one the flow has a uniform low velocity, when
this ratio increases to three this low velocity region disappears and fish will have passage
difficulties. For Denils with a ratio greater than three a modification is possible which will

R&D Report 5 15
lower the ratio (Rajaratnam, Katopodis and Flint-Petersen, 1987), as shown in appendix C
Figure C.4.

33 Recent design developments

The Alaskan steeppass was first developed in 1958 (Figure 32) and was mentioned in the
report by Beach (1984). It was produced in modular form, specifically for situations requiring
low onsite construction costs and an easy assembly. It was designed to be strong enough for
point support and to be corrosion resistant and maintenance free. The installation of an
Alaskan steeppass on the River Ouse in Sussex is given by Buckley (1989), she also lists
eight features of the pass which confirm its economy and versatility (Appendix C).

Larinier (1983) describes a type of Denil which has low baffles in the floor of the pass but
the sides are completely plain. The baffles are an unusual shape, Figure 3.3. A description of
the Larinier type pass on the River Derwent is given by Harpley (1989) which has been so
successful that at the time of writing two others were being planned. I^rinicr type passes in
Normandy are described by Banks (1988) and he states that the French favoured this design
in situations where the slope was between 1:10 and a maximum of 1:5. Steeper gradients
required an orthodox Denil or pool and weir structure. The disadvatage of Lariniers was an
inability to remain hydraulically efficient except within a fairly narrow range of upstream
head. Too much water would drown the baffles, and cause the flow to race down the channel.
Their advantages were cheapness in the right situations and a better capacity to cope with
floating rubbish than passes with side baffles. They will also accept canoes. Banks also
mentions the computer programmes used by the Conseil Superieur de la Peche which include
a graphics package for producing scale drawings.

Results of investigations by Orsbom (1985,1987) indicate that the expensive and sometimes
dangerous vanes on the floor and/or sidewalls of Denil and Alaskan steeppass fish passes may
not be necessary to pass fish up a chute type fish pass efficiently. In tests simple roughness
strips (3.8 cm x 3.8 cm) were attached every 15 cms to the floor of a 40 cm wide plywood
chute. 100% of the chum salmon negotiated a 25% slope of 2.4 m length. Benefits of the
simple roughened chute are given as: reduced air entrainment and turbulence, better attraction
flow, better debris passage, fish swim to pass, inexpensive, small flow (about 1/3 of slotted
fish pass), and ease of adding attraction flow with false floor conduit. Further laboratory tests
are being conducted to determine the best floor baffle system together with field tests using
several species of fish to determine performance curves for the design factors of slope,
dicharge depth, fish speed and limiting conditions. Although Orsbom (1987) states that baffles
can be injurious there appears to be no published literature which reports any damage to fish
caused by passage through a Denil pass.

3.4 Fish passage

It is generally agreed that the flow pattern is complex and that fish need continuous
swimming effort at their burst or higher levels of their prolonged speeds to navigate the entire
fish pass length. Larinier (1991) suggests that they are only really adapted to running water
species that possess sufficient capacities in terms of swimming speed and endurance. They
are not well adapted to small fish (<25-30 cm) or to certain species particularly pike and

R&D Report 5 16
 perch. Although AJosa alosa do use Denils, observations suggests that this species is not at
ease in negotiating the helical currents. In the same paper it is suggested that visual reference
is an important factor in ascending and so those designs which have lower velocities along
smooth walls (either floor or sides) should be used since these help to guide the fish.

Slope and length of the Denil can be used selectively to pass fish upstream while denying
access to selected species of unwanted salmonids (Schwalme, Mackay and Lindner (1985) and
Slatick and Basham (1985), Slatick and Basham (1985) found that American shad passed a
Denils of 7.9 m length with a slope of 23.3% and 24 m length and slope of 28.7% at
Bonneville, 11.9 m length and slope of 23.3% at McNary Dam, but only a few passed 15.2
m length and slope of 28.7% at Little Goose Dam and none passed 20.1 m length and slope
of 273% at Bonneville. Pacific lamprey however successfully passed through Denils of all
combinations of length and slope. Schwalme, MacKay and Lindner (1985) found that for ten
species observed to use two Denils of differing slope the 10% was used in preference to the
20% and that pike ascended the Denils in preference to the vertical slot fish pass alongside.
This paper also shows that even in the horizontal flume of the Denils, fish had higher water
velocities and greater distances of high velocity flow to swim through than in vertical slots.

Katopodis (1991) mentions investigations into Denils in 1990 at three sites in Canada. One
contains data about northern pike, another on the effectiveness of deterring sea lamprey and
the other on two differing slopes. Hie author has been contacted for the results of these
investigations with the reply that studies are still continuing and that the reports will not be
’available until late 1992.

3.5 Construction and maintenance

In contrast to other forms of fish pass the Denil must be kept completely free of debris as this
can alter the flow characteristics of the baffles. They require more maintenance and
supervision than the vertical slot or pool and weir versions. Buckley (1989) states that the
steep pass on the River Ouse has proven highly efficient in passing debris such that its
accumulation did not present problems.

Larinier (1991) suggests that Denils are particularly well adapted to old weirs with a sloping
back whose height is not more than 2 m. He lists among its advantages: strong attraction
flow, reduced construction costs and adaptation to moderate variations of upstream water
leveL

Mallen-Cooper and Harris (1991) report the results of an experimental Denil (unpublished
data) used in steep sections of an old pool and weir fish pass in Australia. A 4 m long model
of "standard" Denil fish pass with internal channel width of 325 mm was tested on a weir on
the Nepean River near Sydney. This weir had a slope of 1 in 5.5, the pool dividers were
removed and the model installed in the base at the same slope. In the trial 57-100% of
Australian bass (fork length 118-210 mm) ascended the fishway. The results of this cost
efficient remedy were encouraging.

Although several field assessments have demonstrated the utility of fish passes, more such
assessments are neeeded particularly for species other than salmon. A computer aided fishpass
^design process with the aim of integrating results from various studies and reducing them to

R&D Report 5 17
design criteria and schematic drawings for specific fish pass projects would be a worthwhile
endeavour (Katopodis, 1991).

3.6 Summary

3.6.1 Velocities

Conventional: 0.6 - 1.8 ms*1

Alaskan Steeppass: <1.0 ms'1
Dimensions: Overall width 0.5 - 1.0 m, clear width between baffles 0.36 - 0.53 m, angle of
baffles 3 0 -4 0 degrees, and distance between baffles 0.25 - 0.6 m.

3.6.2 Strengths

Strong attraction flow.

Well adapted to old weirs, <2m high, with sloping back.
Modular form for low construction costs.
Alaskan steeppass - suitable for all UK migratory fish, slopes of 1:3 found to be satisfactory,
preferred to pool and weir by several American species, uses very little water and can be
ascended at flows as low as 100 Is'1.
Larinier - suitable for gradients between 1:10 and 1:5, steeper gradients require orthodox
Denil or pool and weir, no side baffles so debris passes through.

3.6 3 Weaknesses

Turbulent flows - not well adapted to small fish (<25-30 cm) or certain species (pike, perch,
Alosa).
Larmiers not successful in all hydraulic conditions, high flows tend to drown baffles.
Must be kept free of debris as this can alter flow. No problems with debris accumulation
reported for Alaskan Steeppass installed on River Ouse. Debris problems eased by installing
shields or grills.

3.6.4 Costs

Modular Denil at 1990 prices = £15K for each 1 m increment in head.

3.6.5 Working examples

Details of 11 Denils were supplied as part of the Questionnaire Survey, these arc reported
in appendix G as Table G.2.
Information on two others was obtained through the literature search (Buckley, 1989 and
Harpley, 1989).

R&D Report 5 18
3.6.6 Unknowns

Use of Denils by small and British non-migratory fish. North American coarse fish reported
to use Denils - AcrocheUus alutaceus, Alosa sapidissima and Ptychocheilus oregonensis.
Effectiveness of 1:3 gradients.
Use of roughness strips rather than expensive baffles. Resin bound plywood used successfully
for baffles on River Cuckmere.

R&D Report 5 19
 Baffle Detail Longitudinal Section

Figure 3.1 A schematic of the Denil fishway

Source: Katopodis & Rajaratnaro, 1983

R&D Report 5 20
 Flow

Figure 3J2 Detail of Alaskan steepass module

Source: Buckley, 1989

Side
Elevation

L = 6a
P *=2.60a

Figure 33 The Larinier Pass

Source: Harpley, 1989

R&D Report 5 21
4. POOL AND WEIR FISH PASSES

4.1 Introduction

These were the earliest type of fish passes to be constructed and they consist of a series of
pools which are formed by a series of weirs. Water flows from the headwater side to the
tailwater region (Figure 4.1). Fish pass over the weirs by swimming over them using their
burst speed or as in the case of salmon and trout by jumping over them. They are still being
built, more than 150 have been built in France in the last ten years (Larmier, 1991). New fish
passes are being constructed either to the traditional design with notched overflow weirs or
with modifications which include the addition of orifices in the weir walls, v-shaped overfalls
and chutes.

Pool and weir fishpasses with notched overflow weirs were discussed by Beach (1984) and
the design requirements based on the 1942 Report of the Committee on Fish Passes
(Institution of Civil Engineers, 1942) and on subsequent experience gained by MAFF were
given as:

• the change in water level acrosss a traverse should not exceed 0.45 m
• pools should have minimum dimensions of 3 m long by 2 m wide by 1.2 m deep
• each traverse should be 0.3 m thick with the notch 0.6 m wide and at least 0.25 m deep
• the downstream edge of both the notch and the traverse should be curved so as to reduce
turbulence and provide an adherent nappe
• the pass entrance should be located easily by fish at all flows

An approximate flew of 0.13 m3 s'1 would be required to ensure the notch runs full, and the
0.45 m change in water level would result in a maximum velocity of 2.97 m s'1"

4.2 Hydraulics

The hydraulic characteristics of pool and weir fish passes are discussed in three papers,
Katopodis (1991), Rajaratnam, Katopodis and Mainali (1988 and 1989). The flow over weirs
can be either plunging or streaming, as shown in appendix D Figure D .l, and a criterion has
been established to predict the transition from plunging to surface streaming state
(Rajaratnam, Katopodis and Mainali, 1988). Transition state flow equations have been
developed (Rajaratnam, Katopodis and Mainali, 1989) to predict flow in pool-orifice and
pool-orifice-weir fish passes. The former version has orifices in the weir wall with a flow rate
such that there is no flow over the weirs and as such operates like a vertical slot pass or in
a submerged orifice mode depending on the flow conditions, the latter has a flow rate which
passes over the weirs as well as through the orifices. A summary of the results is presented
by Katopodis (1991) in appendix D as Figure D.2.

Larinier (1991) states that diversity makes it impossible to standardise dimensions of pools
but that there have been attempts to give a certain number of criteria based on swimming
capacities and behaviour of the species in question. The drop per pool in France varies from
0.15-0.6 m (Larinier, 1991) depending on the migratory species concerned; 0.3-0.6 m
(preferably 0.3-0.4) for Atlantic salmon and sea trout, 0.3-0.45 m (preferably 0.3 m) for brook

R&D Report 5 23
trout, 0.2-0.3 m for shad, 0.15-0.3 m for other species (cyprinids, percids....) depending on
species and length. The diversity of dimensions is illustrated in appendix D by Table D .l
which gives details of accepted design factors for 11 types of pool fish pass (Orsbom, 1985).
Dimensions and discharges for three pool sizes as reported by Bell (1986) are given in
appendix D as Figure D 3

43 Recent design developments

Various designs have been described in recent years for improving the basic pool and weir
fish pass (Bates 1991, Boiten 1991, Clay 1991 and Orsbom 1985). Bates (1991) reports on
a pool and chute version which has been developed to achieve a design that will operate
through a wide range o f stream flows without the need of an adjacent spillway for excess
flow. It is a cross between a pool and traverse at low flows and a roughened chute at high
flow. The weirs aze v-shaped with a horizontal weir at the apex of the v as shown in appendix
D Figure D.4. At low flows it performs as a pool and traverse with plunging flow, whereas
at high flow a high rate o f streaming flow passes down the centre of the fish pass while
plunging flow and good fish passage conditions arc maintained on the edges. He states that
comprehensive design criteria have not been developed due to the difficulty in describing
mixed plunging and streaming flow conditions within the fish pass. This may now have been
partly resolved (Rajaratnam, Katopodis and Mainali, 1989). This design is intended for
barriers where the total drop is up to 1.5 m and the high velocity streaming flow is expected
to be very attractive to the fish. Pool and chute fish passes have been constructed in at least
five situations in Washington State.

A pool type fish pass with v-shaped overfalls which is described by Boiten (1991) has been
constructed in the Netherlands, especially in small steep rivers for the migration of salmon
and trout. It consists of a series of pools, separated by overfalls at equal distance. These
overfalls are constructed of sheetpiling covered by a batten which forms the crest, appendix
D Figure D.5. The number of pools and overfalls depends on the head loss but the accepted
drop between adjacent pools is usually 0.2-0.3 m. The optimum design for a fishway
discharge of 2 m3/s is given and appendix D Table D.2 gives the dimensions of 11 different
designs all optimum for discharges ranging from 0.35 - 5.51 m3/s.

Orsbom (1985) reports on a pool and weir fish pass with baffles, which has been developed
based on the concept that fish can be stimulated to leap. Design criteria for this new
configuration are given by Orsbom (1985,1987) in appendix D Figure D.6. The perforated or
slotted baffles improve fish pass pool hydraulics by dissipating energy, directing flow,
providing resting zones and guiding fish.

4.4 Fish passage

Lonnebjerg (1991) reports that pool and orifice fish passes are negotiated by salmon, trout,
grayling, roach, perch and (seldom) pike and that the pool and weir are negotiated by salmon,
trout and roach. Neither type of fish pass has been used by whitefish. At a fish pass on the
John Day Dam, Columbia River (Monk, Weaver, Thompson and Ossiander, 1989) the passage
of American shad was restricted or completely blocked through some sections. Tests showed

R&D Report 5 24
that shad orientated toward surface flows, tending to reject submerged orifices as shallow as
2 m. In view of this the existing ladder was modified to provide overflows, and this proved
to be 80% effective and did not affect the passage of three salmonid species. This is
supported by Rideout, Thoipe and Cameron (1985) who report that shad prefer weir to orifice
passage.

The behaviour of Alosa alosa appears to be similar to the American shad in that they appear
more reluctant than salmonids to use pool fish passes (Larinier, 1991). Good passage for shad
can be obtained with a large pool size, minor turbulence level, streaming flow, side passage
and flow patterns presenting minor recirculation areas. This is further confirmed by Rideout,
Thoipe and Cameron (1985) who found that modifying an Ice Harbour style pass from
plunging to streaming flow greatly enhanced its efficiency. A total of 263 American shad
were passed in 1983, but 4 563 were passed in 1984 after changes had been made.

4.5 Construction and maintenance

At the Red Bluff Diversion Dam (Vogel, Marine and Smith, 1991) fish were frequently
observed within 15-2 m of the fish pass entrance but were not observed to move to the ladder.
Results of investigations also showed delay and blockage of adult Chinooks. Insufficient flow
and general configuration of the entrance were not thought to be sufficiently attractive to
upstream migrating salmon. Lonnebjeig (1991) reports that most of the old pool and weir type
fish passes in Denmark did not function satisfactorily probably because of the small rate of
flow and because the entrance was located too far downstream from the turmoil of the water
leaving the power house or spillway. During the last 15 years several fish passes have been
built at fish farms, with a flow of 0.100 m3/s - 0.800 m3/s with care being taken to locate the
entrance correctly, and most appear tc function satisfactorily.

Jowett (1987) reports that sediment will quickly accumulate in pools or areas of low velocity
if the pass is installed on a river or reservoir that has filled up with sediment. In New Zealand
vertical slot, Denil and Alaskan steeppass are commonly used to bypass river obstacles as
they have fewer problems with sediment accumulation than the pool type. A summary of pool
and weir fish passes in New Zealand with comments on their operation is given in appendix
D as Table D.3.

Martin (1984) suggests that screens should be put over resting pools to deter poachers. The
problem of poaching is further discussed in the introduction to this report.

Pool and weir fish passes are generally used at man-made structures where the head pool
levels can be closely regulated. Their operation is deficient mainly in its lack of capability
to operate under fluctuating operational pool levels unless a special regulating section is
provided at the upper, or discharge end of the fish pass (Bell, 1988).

R&D Report 5 25
4.6 Summary

4.6.1 Velocities

0.35 - 2.2 ms-1.

Velocities will vary with pool size and die drop between pools which ideally should be 3 m
long by 2 m wide by 1.2 m deep and not more than a 0.45 m drop respectively.

4.6.2 Strengths

Have been in use for many years, therefore tried and tested.
Can be modified to have notches, orifices, v-shaped weirs etc. to suit particular situations.
Used by salmon, trout, grayling, perch, roach.
Maintenance free.

4 .6 3 Weaknesses

Unable to operate under fluctuating water levels unless special regulating section is provided.
Shad reject submerged orifices, preferring overflow passage.
Difficulties in locating entrances that are too far downstream or with attraction flow which
can be negated by overflow from weir.
Requires major construction.

4.6.4 Costs

1990 prices - £20K for each 1 m increment in head.

4.6.5 Working examples

Details of 34 passes were supplied as part of the Questionnaire Survey, these are given in
appendix G as Table G .l.

4.6.6 Unknowns

Use of passes by small British coarse fish.

Use in Britain of simple structures like, log and plank sills, rather than major construtions (see
Section 5).

R&D Report 5 26
 Figure 4.1 Schematic diagram of pool and traverse fish pass with notched traverses
Source: Beach, 1984

R&D Report 5 27
5. OTHER TYPES OF FISH PASS

Pool and weir, vertical slot and Denil fish passes aze die most common ways of enabling fish
to overcome obstacles. There are, however, other fish passage devices in use throughout the
world These include, lodes, lifts, spirals, fishway gates and passes especially for eels.

5.1 Locks and lifts

Rather than a self-initiated, active movement, fish can be lifted passively by means of fish
locks and lifts. These systems are limited by their intermittent mode of operation and failure
of mechanical parts (Orsbom,1987). They are useful ways of passing a small run of fish over
a high dam and there are many variations of fish lock in use throughout Europe, Russia and
North America. The most common is the Borland type, with a sloping chamber, Figure 5.1.
Other types which are primarily vertical chambered, appendix E Figure E.l, and have been
used in the USSR where they have been fitted with "crowders". These have been added
because the locks are required to pass young as well as mature fish and as these do not have
the same urge to go upstream as salmon they have to be encouraged by being pushed in by
the crowder (Clay, 1991). A number of locks were constructed in France between 1960 and
1975 but with a few exceptions have not proved satisfactory (Larmier, 1991) and they are
now no longer considered as a viable fish passage device.

Fish lifts or elevators have also been developed in many countries. In North America the
trapping and trucking version, as shown in appendix E Figure EJ2, has mainly been used. A
very effective elevator is the Warner fishlift at Cariboo Dam on the Brunette River, British
Columbia (Orsbom, 1991). Over the past ten years fish elevators have been developed in
France and eight have been built, and are considered to be the most successful upstream fish
passage for shad (Larinier, 1991). There are two basic types depending on the size of the
migrating population, one designed for a few thousand, the other for several hundreds of
thousand individuals. In the former the fish arc directly trapped into a hopper with a v-shaped
entrance, which is raised with a relatively small quantity of water (0.2 m3 - 0.75 m3) until it
reaches the top of the dam, it then tips forward and empties its contents into the forebay,
appendix E Figure E.3. The height of the hopper should be 1.8-2.5 m for salmon. When the
migrant population is larger the fish are attracted into a large holding pool and a mechanical
crowder is used to force the fish to enter the hopper. The design o f these lifts is based directly
on the Holyoke fish elevator on the Connecticut River on the east coast of America, and two
are now in operation. On the Garonne at Golfech power station and the Dordogne at Tuiliere
power station. In 1989 the former passed about 66 000 shad with a maximum passage rate
of >4 500/day. Twenty six species were observed to use it, as shown in appendix E Table E .l.
The daily shad passage and water temperature at Tuiliere in 1989 is given in appendix E as
Figure E.4. Further information on the Golfech fish lift is given by Puyo and Venel (1987).

Barry and Kynard (1986) investigated the attraction of American shad to fish lifts at Holyoke
Dam. During high flows, fish were attracted to spillage over the dam, not the flow of the
tailrace. Tagged fish were delayed an average of 4.6 days when river flows were high.

Three hydraulic and two nw^hflnical fish lifts have been constructed in the USSR (Pavlov,
1989), and full details of these are presented in appendix E as Table E.2.

R&D Report 5 29
Jowett (1987) suggests the use of elevators for dams >30-35 m.

5.2 Spiral

Orsbom (1987) reports on a spiral fish pass developed in Canada, by the Aeroceanics Fish
Corporation. It is constructed of fibreglass-reinforced plastic with alternating vertical baffles
projecting 0.23 m into the channel, Figure 5.2. One of the main construction benefits of a
circular fish pass is that they are space and foundation efficient. A spiral fish pass has been
in operation at Loch Doon Dam (sec appendix G Table G.l No.44) since 1936. It is a round
tower about 12 m in height with a series of chambers rising spirally inside, which is entered
via a conventional pool and weir fish pass. There are 15 pools in the tower and to compensate
for variations in dam level, alternative chambers have float controlled sluice gates giving
direct access to the loch. In the four years, 1987-1990,840 5.4 - 6.4 kg salmon ascended this
fish pass. Hosono (1991) reports on the research, development and construction of a spiral
fish pass using pre-fabricated blocks. Unfortunately this paper is in Japanese.

5.3 Fishway gates

The Fishway gate (appendix E Figure E.5) as patented by Mr AX.Woolnough of Fishway

Engineering is a unique design of tilting gate which contains an integral fish pass. This fish
pass is a prefabricated unit which can be varied to suit individual requirements. Its main
advantages are:

• considerably lower capital cost than a conventional gate and separate pass
• requires simple, economic foundations
• can be fully automated or manually operated
• overshot blockage-free profile gives slow increase in discharge
• provides pass at natural congregation point
• can pass all species of migratory fish upstream
• can be ascended at very low flows
• utilizes hydrostatic pressure to assist in raising, therefore power requirements are low
• can be descended by canoe.

An expanded version of these advantages is given in Appendix E.

These fishway gates should not be confused with fishway gates as defined by the Japanese
which are strictly speaking adjustable pool and weir type passes.

5.4 Eel passes

Dahl (1991) reports that elvers are normally poor swimmers and may perform swimming only
in slow flowing and stagnant water. With increased water velocity they are forced down to
the bottom or along the bank where they can find the necessary support for continued
migration - more crawling than swimming. This crawling ability means that they are able to
make their way up the vertical wall of a weir, as the algal and mossy growth will usually

R&D Report 5 30
provide sufficient support. When they reach the top, however, they are invariably flushed or
swept back by the water flowing over the weir. If elvers are not helped by means of an eel
pass the area upstream of the barrier will gradually become devoid of eels.

A study of dam clearing by the European eel (Legault, 1988) in France observed that they can
only move up on small vertical areas of the walls and that only the smallest individuals, <100
mm long, move up on the walls to try to pass over them. It concludes that the fitting of eel
passes is a priority to protect this species.

In a guide to Danish weir owners, Dahl (1991), describes how to construct and establish eel
passes. These passes consist of a stuffing material, which is easily permeable by water, shaped
into a sausage held together by chicken wire and enclosed in a tube or wooden box. When
corrctly packed the stuffing material must be easily penetrable for small eels and also reduce
the water velocity so that they can wind their way through. The pass is mounted on the
downstream facing side of the barrier and must be supplied with water over its entire length
as small eels wil not be able to penetrate a dry eel pass. It must also reach right down to the
foot of the barrier as eels will be unable to locate the entrance if it is back from the. barrier.
Various materials can be used for the stuffing, but the most suitable organic material and the
one that is used most often in Denmark is heather. This, however, has several disadvantages
in that it must be renewed at the beginning of each season and requires considerable
maintenance as it is easily clogged up by sand, sludge and leaves. Dahl (1991) describes an
artificial material, made of nylon, called ENKAMAT (trade name) which has proved suitable
after being tested in the laboratory and the field. It requires less maintenance but must still
be inspected regularly. He describes in detail how eel passes can be attached to both new and
existing wooden and concrete weirs, and how they can be incorporated into existing pool and
weir and Denil fish passes.

Eel passes are being attached directly on to weirs in the Rivers Severn and Avon in an
attempt to halt the decline in eel numbers. They consist of a ramp, a resting pool and a
trough, on a slope of 1:1.3, lined with a rough woven plastic matting. Attraction to the pass
is provided by high pressure water pumped from the other side of the weir. It is estimated that
each pass will cost £6 000. These passes have been developed by studying the Danish (see
above) and the French (Antoine Legault’s fish pass catalogue) experiences in eel passes, and
from an on going National Rivers Authority project entitled Eel and elver stock assesment
(NRA Project No. 256). This project has as one of its objectives - to evaluate and recommend
elver pass designs appropriate to particular structures. Work is expected on a pass at
Stanchard pit near Tewkesbury in April 1992.

At the Patea Dam, New Zealand (68m) a simple, relatively inexpensive elver pass was
installed in 1984 after the completion of the dam (Jowett,1987). It consists of a 100 mm
diameter PVC pipe filled with two 12 mm diameter polypropylene blushes (similar to a bottle
brush) supplied with water from a header tank on the dam, appendix E Figure E.6. This pass
began operation in January 1985 and in that season was used by large numbers of elvers.
Usage was not monitored continuously but one spot check showed 150 elvers per hour
emerging from the top end of the pipe. The concept, originally Dutch, was first tried in New
Zealand on Lake Waikare in 1984 and there it operated successfully. At Patea the higher lift
and consequently longer time of travel caused some elver mortality which has been attributed
to daytime water temperatures of over 30 degrees C and the reduction in water quality caused
by the wastes from large numbers of elvers. Shading and an increase in the rate of water

R&D Report 5 31
supply have been suggested as a means of offsetting these problems. During its first year the
pass did not appear to be size selective but it did appear that shortfinned eels were able to use
it more successfully than longfinned eels.

The passage o f American eels has been studied at the Moses-Saunders Power Dam at
Cornwall, Ontario (Eckersley, 1982). This pass is a three sided wooden trough which criss­
crosses the face of the ice sluice eight and one half times in a vertical lift of 29.3 m, appendix
E Figure E.7, with level boxes at each end of traverse to provide resting areas. Angled
wooden baffles and synthetic vegetation fastened to the bottom of the trough control the water
velocity and provide substrate. The slope is 12 degrees with a total ladder length of 156 m.
A pumping system provides water from the headpond as well as an attractant current at the
base. The water depth is 1.5 cxn-5.0 cm with a velocity of 15.3 m/min. The paper details
modifications which have been made since its installation. The minimum time for an eel to
ascend the ladder has been estimated at 70 minutes.

5.5 Miscellaneous

Lonnebjerg (1991) describes stream channels which have been constructed in Denmark, to
bypass obstructions, during the last five years. These have a trapezoidal profile and a slope
of between 10 and 20 per thousand with the smallest slopes for channels with greatest flow
and depth. A pool fish pass at Holstebro was replaced in 1989 by a channel 655 m long
including six resting pools, slope 10 per thousand, total head 5 m with bottom width of 2.75
m. The bottom and banks are covered with stones (150-300 mm), with larger stones placed
every 2 m along the sides which cause further roughness and create local resting areas. The
entrance is situated where the water leaves the turbines, with a grating to prevent the fish
from swimming further upstream. The flow is regulated to 0.4 m3/sec from March to
September and increased to 1 m3/sec from October to February when whitefish migrate.

Bates (1991) reports on recent experiences in Washington State for cost efficient fish passage
for both adult and juvenile salmon. The structures described are intended for use on small
tributaries and are simple, low cost and require a minimum of maintenance. Full construction
and dimension details are given for log sills, plank sills, precast concrete fish passes,
laminated beam weirs and a pool and chute fish pass. These designs are variations on the
pool and weir system and the latter named is further described in the section on pool and weir
fish passes. The current cost (1991) of constructing a log sill is given as US$1600, and of the
75 built during the last eight years none have failed. Construction specifications for each of
the designs are available from the author.

5.6 Summary

5.6.1 Locks and lifts

Many variations of fish lock in use throughout world. The French no longer consider them
a viable device.

R&D Report 5 32
Fish lifts considered to be most successful uptie am passage for shad. Lifts used for dams >30-
35 m.

5.6.2 Spiral

Space and foundation efficient

Can be constructed using pie-fabricated blocks.
little data available. One in operation on Loch Doon Dam (appendix G Table G .l) since
1936.

5.6.3 Fishway gates

Economic option compared with a conventional water control gate and fish pass.
Advantages:
Considerably lower capital cost than a conventional gate and separate pass.
Requires simple, economic foundation.
Can be fully automated or manually operated.
Overshot blockage-free profile gives slow increase in discharge.
Provides pass at natural congregation point
Can pass all species of migratory fish upstream.
Can be ascended at very low flows.
Utilizes hydrostatic pressure to assist in raising, therefore power requirements are low.
Can be descended by canoe.

5.6.4 Others

Stream channels.
Log sills, plank sills and laminated beam weirs for use on small tributaries. Simple, low cost
and require minimum of maintenance.

5.6.5 Eels

Considerable amount of work done on eel passes in Denmark and France.

Passes often require considerable maintenance.
New eel passes being constructed on riveis in NRA Severn Trent region at cost of £6 000
Thought, by consultants, to be unnecessary to provide separate passage for eels. Better to use
artificial seaweed, polypropylene fibre, ’astroturf* or brushwood in notches of conventional
pool and weir structures.

5.6.6 Unknowns

Studies on spiral fish passes and fishway gates. British examples of stream channels and log
sills etc.

R&D Report 5 33
 Top Chamber

Sectional Elevation

Figure 5.1 Schematic of a Borland fish lock

Source: Clay, 1991

PlanView

Figure 5.2 Aeroceanics fiberglass spiral fishway

Source: Orsbom, 1987

R&D Report 5 34
6. SWIMMING PERFORMANCE

In the report by Beach (1984) empirical formulae were given for predicting the maximum
swimming speed by length of fish and water temperature and for the endurance of a fish
swimming at this maximum speed.

6.1 Introduction

There are three aspects to a fish's swimming speed; it can be cruising, sustained or burst and
is usually reported as cm s'1 or bl s*1 (body length). Cruising speeds can be maintained for
long periods (>200 minutes) without resulting in muscle fatigue and are employed for normal
migratory movement. Sustained speeds are of shorter duration (20 seconds - 200 minutes) and
end in fatigue, it is used for passage through difficult areas. Critical swimming speed is a
special category of sustained swimming and is defined as the maximum velocity a fish can
maintain for a precise time period. Burst speeds can be maintained only for short periods (<20
seconds) and one used for feeding or escape purposes. Sustained and cruising speeds are often
50 >70% and 10 - 20% respectively of burst speed (Beamish, 1978). These aspects in turn
depend upon biological and environmental factors. A review of the swimming speeds of fish
has been written by Blaxter (1969).

6J2 Biological factors

Biological constraints of size (length, weight and condition), sex and disease are reported in
several papers.

6.2.1. Size

Bames, Peters and Grant (1985) report that the swimming speed of fish varies with foxk
length by a factor of L°^ and that the maximum burst speed (SJ for fish of all sizes can be
estimated by the formula log St = k + (log L)0*3, where k is a constant- Using the foimula
sustained and burst speeds for various sized brook trout were calculated (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1 Estimated range of swimming speed for brook trout

FORK LENGTH SUSTAINED SPEED BURST SPEED

100mm 0.5 - 1.7 1.7 - 3.2 m s '

198mm 0.9 - 2.2 2 .2 -4 .4 m s'*
550mm 1.3 - 3.8 3.8 - 7.7 m s '

R&D Report 5 35
Winstone, Gee and Varallo (1985) related swimming speed to tail beat frequency and report
that the distance moved during each body wave is about 0.7 of the fish’s length. This
information is taken from the previous report on fish pass design by Beach (1984). Beamish
(1978) discusses the various swimming speeds together with their formulae and gives tables
o f cruising (21 species), burst (63 species), critical (26 species) and sustained (41 species)
swimming speeds for numerous species, including many important in UK waters. Cruising,
sustained and burst speeds for various species are also given by Bell (1986), although only
a few are found in UK waters (appendix F Figures F.6, F.7 and F.8). Webb (1975), appendix
F Figure F .l, shows the relationship between maximum speeds and length for several groups
of fish. Swimming speeds for Atlantic salmon which were observed with radio-tracking
ascending the Aberdeenshire Dee (Hawkins and Smith, 1986) are given in appendix F as
Table F .l.

The condition of a fish depends on its weight relative to its length (Beamish, 1978) and its
importance to swimming performance has been explored most thoroughly for salmonids.
Generally domestic stocks of trout not only grow faster than wild but are heavier for a given
length. The swimming performance of three stocks of brown trout are given in appendix E
as Figure F.2. The performance of wild stocks of brook trout, even those which have been
reared under hatchery conditions are consistently superior to domestic stocks of the same
species.

6.2.2. Genetics

The genetic differences between migratory species are further investigated in three papers,
Bematchez and Dodson (1987), Taylor and Foote (1991) and Taylor and McPhail (1984).
Taylor and McPhail (1984) propose that the difference in swimming performance between
coastal and interior coho salmon is adaptive and related to the differences in the energetic
demands of their migrations. Coastal salmon attained greater mean and maximum velocity
during burst swimming but interior species had four to five times greater swimming stamina.
The results of swimming speed measurements are shown in appendix F as Tables F.2 and F.3
(Coldwater River is the interior species). Two life history forms of Oncorhychus nerka, one
anadromous (sockeye) and one not (kokanec) were studied by Taylor & Foote (1991). They
found that the critical swimming velocity of six month old specimens of sockeye was 60.1
cm s'1 (8.3 bl s'1) and that of the kokanee was 53.3 cm s'1 (73 bl s*1). Hybrids of the two
.species had swimming performances similar to sockeye but with more variability. Both papers
relate differences to morphological variations. A fusiform body shape, long caudal region and
high vertebral count being associated with superior prolonged swimming performance and
characteristic of migratory rather than non-migratory individuals (Taylor and Foote, 1991).
Although Taylor and McPhail (1984) also relate body form to swimming performance they
state that causal relationships cannot be established from the data. Bematchez and Dodson
(1987) also propose that costly migrations act as strong selective agents for evolution of traits
that improve migratory success and investigated the hypothesis that anadromous fish behave
so as to minimize energy cost per unit distance of migration. They studied 15 species and
found that the energetic cost of migration varied only by a factor of five (1262-6463 kJ kg'1)
but that the length of migration varied by a factor of 36 (33 - 1193 km).

R&D Report 5 36
6.23 Stress

Stress response to migration has been studied by Congleton & Wagner (1988), who measured
the plasma cortisol concentration of migratory smolts of chinook salmon and steelhead trout
before and after passing through three flumes with different sized baffles. Characteristics of
the flumes are presented in the paper, the flows and depth in each type are given in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Flow and depth of three flume designs

SMALL BAFFLED LARGE BAFFLED CORRUGATED

FLOW 0.14 0.71 0.85 m’/s

AV.DEPTH 37 74 44 cm

slope = 3.4%

Flume design significantly affected post passage cortisol concentration in steelhead but not
in chinook. Steelhead smolts that passed through the corrugated flume had the lowest
concentrations. In daytime tests, cortisol concentrations were significantly lower in chinook
that passed through completely darkened flumes than those that passed through partly
darkened flumes. Concentrations did not, however, differ significantly in steelheads that
passed through partly or completely darkened flumes.

6.2.4 Infection

Beamish (1978) reports that there is no information on the influence of bacterial or viral
infection on swimming performance. However, Sprengel and Luchtenberg (1991), report on
a reduction of the maximum swimming speed of European smelt and eel infected by
endoparasites. The maximum swimming speed of non-infected smelt of 15 cm length was
found to be 0.49 m s'1. The presence of one nematode reduced average swimming speed by
14.7% to 0.42 m s'1. More than three nematodes reduced average speed by 32.2% to 033 m
s*1. Anguillicola crassus in the swim bladder of eel reduced swimming speed from 0.72 m s*1
in uninfected fish to 0.59 m s'1 in eel with more than ten nematodes.

63 Environmental factors

Environmental factors such as temperature, pH, oxygen and water quality can also affect
swimming performance and migratory success.

R&D Report 5 37
6.3.1 Temperature

Appendix F Figure F.3 shows how sustained swimming speed for seven species is affected
by temperature, although none of the species are important in UK waters. These speeds
typically increase with temperature to a maximum and thereafter declined. Temperature
appears to exert little influence on burst speed although information at this level is scarce
(Beamish, 1978). Winstone, Gee and Varallo (1985) report that an increase in temperature
increases maximum swimming speed though endurance decreases. Critical swimming speeds
at three different temperatures for Coregonus clupeaformis are reported by Bematchez &
Dodson (1985). At 5 degrees C - 63.0 cm s"1, at 12 degrees C - 75.0 cm s'1, and at 17 degrees
C - 67.4 cm s*1.

6 3.2 pH

Water pH between 6 and 9 had no measurable effect on the critical swimming speed of
Oncorhynchus mykiss (Salmo gairdneri) (Ye and Randall, 1991), it ranged from 3.5 - 4.0 bl
s'1. At pH 4, 5 and 10 the critical velocity was only 55, 67 and 61% respectively of that
recorded at pH 7. There was an increase in coughing and breathing frequency. Fatigue
occurred earlier and blood lactate levels increased to a higher level in fish swum to
exhaustion in acid or alkaline water, compared with fish in neutral water. The Arctic chair,
Salvelinus alpinus was exposed to five levels of acidity between pH 6 and 3.8 (Hunter and
Scherer, 1988). Swimming performance determined by critical swimming speeds was 67.5 cm
s'1 or 4.4 bl s'1 for untreated fish (pH 7.8). Performance declined shaxply below pH 4.5, and
at 3.8 it was reduced by 35% after seven days of exposure, so adverse pH extends acute and
chronic effects on swimming performance.

6.33 Oxygen

There appears to be a threshold oxygen concentration below which swimming performance

is reduced (Beamish, 1978). Atlantic salmon (23.4 cm) sustained speeds of 50 and 70 cm s 1
(2.1 and 3.0 bl s-1) for several hours until ambient oxygen was reduced to 4.0 and 4.8 mg
oxygen litre appendix F Figure F.4. The effect of dissolved oxygen on burst swimming
speed has not been measured, however, burst speed being dependent on anaerobic energy
sources may be expected to be largely independent of ambient oxygen except that between
swimming events the accumulated oxygen debt must be repaid before the next burst of
swimming can realise its full potential.

63.4 Pollution

Swimming performance has been identified as a potentially sensitive indictator of sublethal

stress in fish, Beamish (1978), Cripe, Goodman and Hansen (1984), Little and Finger (1990)
and Watenpaugh and Beitinger (1985), although almost all work has been performed with
North American species. Little and Finger (1990) have evaluated swimming behaviour as an
indicator of sublethal toxicosis in fish by reviewing pertinent toxicological literature and list
44 references. Concentrations and durations of exposure at which significant changes in both
locomotory behaviour and survival were reported, appendix F Table F.4. Based on this
information the average toxicant concentration that induced changes in swimming behaviour

R&D Report 5 38
 was <16% of the concentration that caused mortality. Watenpaugh and Beitinger (1985) report
on the time to exhaustion of Ictalurus punctatus exposed to sublethal concentrations of nitrite.
For control fish this was 40 minutes, however, after exposure to 0.5 mg NC^-N/L it decreased
to 20 minutes, and further decreased to nine minutes at 1.0 mg N 02-N/L. The swimming
stamina of Cyprinodon variegatus was 57% that of control fish when exposed to 0.0022 mg/1
of the pesticide EPN, but swimming performance was not affected by Guthion up to 0.0005
mg/1 (Cripe, Goodman and Hansen, 1984). Compared to other swimming behaviour variables
the physical capacity to swim against water flow tends to be affected at relatively high
toxicant concentrations and often presages mortality. Orientation to water flow, however, is
altered at sublethal concentrations (Little and Finger, 1990). Hie effects of pulpwood fibre,
fenitrothion and copper on the swimming performance of Pimephales promelas, Salvelinus
fontinalis and Salmo gairdneri (Oncorhynchus mykiss) respectively arc shown in appendix F
as Figure F.5.

Swimming performance and speeds of fish are dependent upon biological and environmental
factors as discussed above, but it would appear possible to generalise. Rytokonen and
Hepojoki (1991b) and Boiten (1991) have divided fish into two groups, good swimmers and
bad/common swimmers and arrived at the same results (Table 6.3).

Table 63 Cruising and burst speed ranges for good and bad swimmers

CRUISING SPEED BURST SPEED

Good swimmer? 1.0-1.5 2.0-2.5 m/s

Bad swimmers 0.5-1.0 1.04.5 m/s

6.4 Physical factors

Apart from actual swimming speeds the implications of profile drag, weight and buoyant
forces on energy and power requirements of fish swimming through fish passage structures
must be considered. Behlke (1988) discusses the forces affecting swimming fish, he considers
only the fish's weight, buoyant force and profile drag and ignores virtual mass, turbulent
buffeting and other effects. Equations are given for profile drag force, buoyant force,
propulsive force, power and energy requirements. Energy calculations which do not recognise
the difference between swimming and walking through a fish passage structure can
underestimate, by as much as almost two orders of magnitude, the energy delivery necessary
for a fish to get through the structure. Without a reasonable estimate of die design fish’s
absolute velocity as it moves through a passage facility, the energy necessary to be delivered
by the fish cannot be calculated.

Although high water velocities can prove difficult or even impossible for fish to overcome,
they are considered to be a major factor instigating the upstream movement of salmonids.
Many studies have shown flow to be one of the most important factors controlling upstream

R&D Report 5 39
migration. Studies suggest that if there is a minimum flow below which salmon and sea trout
are not stimulated it is likely to be in the region of 0.4ADF (average daily flow) (Winstone,
Gee and VaraUo, 1985).

6.5 Eels and Alosa sp

McGLeave (1980) reports that die swimming endurance of elvers, of average length 13. cm,
decreased logarithmically with increased swimming speed It was 3 minutes at 25 cm s’1 (3.5
bl s-1) and 0.7 minutes at 36 cm s"1 (5.0 bl s'1). In still water burst speeds were maintained
for 45m at 35 bl s'1, for 15m at 5.0 bl s l and <10m at 7J bl s'1 before fatigue. The impact
of tidal barrages and the dam clearing ability of Anguilla anguilla are described by Elie and
Rigaud (1987) and Legault (1988).

The migratory behaviour of Alosa alosa has been reported by Belaud and Dautrey (1985) and
Boisnean, Mennesson and Bagliniere (1985). The French experience of fish passes for Alosa
sp is described by Vialle (1987). Hie sea lamprey has also been identified as important in
British rivers and Beamish (1979) reports on its migration and spawning energetics.

Much has been written about the migration and swimming capabilities of salmonids. Most
studies have dealt with North American species though limited observations have been made
of Salmo salar and S. trutta. The actual mechanics and leaping behaviour have not been
discussed here but information is readily available if required. This review has been an
attempt to expand on the coverage of the Beach (1984) report and include details of other
species such as eels, shad and lamprey which have been identified as important species in
British freshwaters. The ability of fish to ascend specific fish passes is discussed in the
section on that type of fishpass.

R&D Report 5 40
6.6 Summary

Table 6.4 Swimming speeds for fish of importance in UK waters

SPECIES ENDURANCE SPEED BURST SPEED

cms1 bis1 cms'1 bis’1

Salmo salar 5 0 -1 0 0 2.1 - 4.0 300-600 5.8- 8.4
Salmo trutta 67 - 213 0.2 - 2.7 213 - 381 8.2- 10.5
Oncorhynchus mykiss 140 0.1 - 0.6 800 2.0- 17.5
Esox lucius 5 -2 1 0 0.8 - 12.7 300 - 450
Rutilus rutilus 450
Leuciscus leuciscus 170 9.2 110-240 11.0 - 13.2
Salvelinus alpinus 67 4.4
Anguilla anguilla 0.3 - 170 0.2 - 3.5 7.5
Petromyzon marinus 17-41 0.9 - 1.7
Perea fluvialis 145 12.6
Gymnocephalus cemua 133 12.7
Osmerus eperlanus 49
Abramis brama 5 - 13 0.1 - 0.3
Thymallus thymallus 90 330

Little or no information is available on the swimming speeds of several fishes of high UK

gngling importance including roach Rutilus rutilus, bream Abramis abranus, barbel Barbus
barbus, chub Leuciscus cephalus, and grayling Thymallus tkymallus. Similarly limited
information is available for the usually unwanted ruff Gymnocephalus cernua, which is
currently expanding in range in the UK.

R&D Report 5 41
7. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

In May 1991 a questionnaire of 19 questions was sent to the NRA regions in an attempt to
survey existing and proposed fish passes (Appendix G). Five regions; Anglian, Northumbria,
Severn Trent, Wessex and Yorkshire, have responded by returning completed questionnaires
and/or information on fish passes. The quality of the responses varies greatly. Tables G .l and
G.2 present the results for 45 fish passes of the pool and weir and Denil type respectively.
All tables, diagrams, plans and flow data referred to are held at the Institute of Freshwater
Ecology together with the completed questionnaires. A further 20 questionnaires have been
completed for fish passes but they contain a very limited amount of information (Table 7.1)

Table 7.1 Miscellaneous Fish passes. Results of questionnaire survey.

No Location Fish Species Type of Pass Additional

Information
47 Mill Weir, Salmon, sea trout, Boxes - extended
Framwellgate. brown trout and pool and weir
Northumbria. riverine coarse spp.
48 Swinhope Sea trout and Box ladder
Bum. brown trout.
Northumbria.
49 Riding Mill Salmon, sea trout, Box pass + by-pass Constructed
Weir. brown trout, dace when gates raised. 1979.
Northumbria. and chub.
50 Hexham Salmon, sea trout, 2 box passes
Bridge Weir. brown trout, dace 4 diagonal walls.
Northumbria. and chub.
51 Chollerfold Salmon, and sea Flumes cut in weir Constructed
Weir. trout. Box pass in N.bank. 1960?
Northumbria.
52 Derwent Salmon and sea Box pass.
Haugh Weir. trout
Northumbria.
53 Rutherford Salmon, sea trout, Crump dam - box Head loss 2m.
Bridge Weir. brown trout. pass. Dimensions of Concrete
Northumbria. box: 2m x 2m x construction.
0.5m deep
54 Wairins Hill Salmon, sea trout, Crump dam - box Constructed
Weir. brown trout. pass. Dimensions of 1989 in
Northumbria. box: 1.5m x 1.5m x concrete. Head
0.5m deep. loss 0.75m

cont.

R&D Report 5 43
No Location Fish Species Type of Pass Additional
infoimation
55 Middleton Salmon, sea trout, Crump Ham - control Head loss lm.
Weir. and brown trout gap.
Northumbria.
56 Brouen Weir. Salmon, sea trout Crump dam. Head loss lm.
Northumbria. and brown trout. Concrete
construction.
57 Featherstone. Salmon and sea Flume. Constructed
Northumbria. trout. 1970.
58 Haydon Salmon and sea Diagonal wall. Constructed
Bridge Weir. trout. 1975.
Northumbria.
59 Shittlehope Sea trout and Channel in sloping
Bum. brown trout. weir.
Northumbria.
60 Museum Salmon, sea trout, Flume.
Dam. brown trout and
Northumbria. coarse spp.
61 Hagg Bridge. Salmon, sea trout, Vertical slot Weii/bridge
Northumbria. and brown trout. footing.
62 Escomb. Salmon, sea trout, Vertical slot/pool. Head loss
Northumbria. brown trout and 0.5m.
coarse spp. Constructed
1991.
63 River Leven Salmon and sea No data. Contact Flow,
Barrage. trout. given for further temperature
Clyde RPB. information. and water
quality data
available.
64 Awe Barrage. Salmon and sea As above. As above.
Clyde RPB. trout.
65 Judas Gap. Coarse fish. Box. Pass installed
Anglian. many years
ago. Not used.
66 Loch Ken. Salmon and sea 6 barrage gates. 2 Head loss
Dumfries and trout 12-14 lb, July submerged chambers 1.219m.
Galloway - Sept between barrage gates Constructed
Region. with opening between 1930-35.
chambers.

R&D Report 5 44
7.1 Summary

7.1.1 Pool and weir passes

Head loss

Head loss ranged from 0.5 to 3 m, with the exception of the Loch Doon Dam in the
Strathclyde Region at just over 12 m.

Debris

No major problems reported even though only three passes have any means of excluding
debris. Most report only flood related problems and two specifically mention weed cuts.
Occasional checking and removal is necessary at m ost

Fish species

Migratory salmonids are reported at 27 of the installations, and coarse fish at seven. No
problems reported of any unwanted species.

Fish pass dimensions

Dimensions vary: Pool size from 1.5 m x l i m to 4.4 m : 3 m .

Pool depth from 0.33 m to 1.4 m.
Drop between pools from 0.18 m to 0.68 m.

Some of the passes have notches or orifices.

Entrances

All are reported as being accessible at all times. The entrance was modified at Carreghofa
Weir (Severn Trent) in 1983 to reduce its height, and the entrance on two weirs in the
Wessex region (Ham and French) have adjustable boards. Problems of attraction flow and
entrance effectiveness are reported on four weirs in the Wessex region (Keynsham, Avon,
Twerton and Melksham).

Costs

Costs will depend upon the site. As most of the passes were constructed more than 15 years
ago the information given does not reflect current costs. Keynsham Weir (Wessex) cost £7OK
in 1987 (2 m head loss), Carreghofa Weir (Severn Trent) cost £30K in 1976 (2.9 m head loss)
and Castle Weir (Severn Trent) cost £60K in 1976 (2 m head loss).

R&D Report 5 45
7.1.2 Denil passes

H ead loss

Head loss ranges £rom 0.5 - 2.86 m.

D ebris

Two of the passes have some means of excluding debris, the Powick Weir (Severn Trent) has
a vertical grid which is to be replaced by a sloping grid in the near future. Five of the other
passes report problems which require periodic clearance.

Fish species

Migratory salmonids are reported at nine of the passes, and coarse fish at three. There appears
to be no need to discourage any species.

Fish pass dimensions

Three of the eleven passes are reported as being Alaskan steeppass with type A baffles. The
slopes are either 1:5 or 1:4 with various sized baffles and angles.

E ntrances

Entrances always accessible with no reported problems of attraction.

Costs

Costs for passes constructed in 1989-90 range from £12K for Washford River (Wessex) (head
loss 1.06 m) to £55K for Powick Weir (Severn Trent) (head loss 13 m).

7 .1 3 Miscellaneous fish passes

The details given for a further 20 passes, Table 7.1, aze too diverse and lacking in detail to
be further summarised.

R&D Report 5 46
8. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS VIEWS

The primary opinion extracted from interviews, was that fishpass selection and installation
is still very much an art. This is for five primary reasons, which arc not presented here in
order of priority.

1. Fishpass contracts are usually of low value to Consultants, involve potential financial
risk and may be an adjunct to a major construction. Consequently, few engineers have
specialized in fish pass design, and projects are seen very much as ‘one-off1
assignments.

2. Historical emphasis has been placed on the hydraulic performance of primary fish pass
structure in relation to theory and/or assumed fish requirements. Insufficient attention
has been given to matters such as; prioritizing fish species where a mixed population
of species exist; design and positioning of entrances to attract fish; critical attraction
discharges; detail of fish behaviour and tolerances.

3. Inadequate dialogue or understanding between fisheries scientists and contracting

engineers.

4. Inaccessibility of literature or lack of key summary guidelines.

5. Site specific requirements, ie. each project is constrained by local site configuration,
specific design requirements and cost limitations, so that standardisation has not been
obtainable.

Following from this assessment a large number of observations were made with respect to
cost. Some rules-of-thumb are available, but no prescriptions can be given because of point
(5) above. No views expressed by individual Consultants conflict with those given by others
but these views must necessarily be seen as personal opinions which are included here for
information, and as a basis for further evaluation.

8.1 Factors relevant to capital cost

Cost of a modular fish pass is usually less than 4% of the cost of obstructing structure.

Cost of a fish pass integral to a major engineered obstruction is usually less than 10% of the
total project costs associated with the primary structure.

Modular Denil at 1990 prices =£15K for each lm increment in head.

Pool & Weir at 1990 prices -£20K for each lm increment in head.

Construction of pass whilst other on-site engineering is current can reduce total cost of pass
by c. 20%.

Use of stainless steel in modular design doubles cost, but gives ‘limitless1design life.

R&D Repon 5 47
A percieved increase in requirement for estuarine fish passes in the UK will necessitate use
of stainless steel with cost implication.

Design life for Denil and pool & weir is ‘limitless* in principle but usefully seen as 40 years
because of technological advance in design.

Fish pass can be incorporated into gauging weir without affecting modular calibration. Model
test data available from Yorkshire Water.

For coarse fish reduce ‘salmonid’ Denil or pool & weir pass gradient to match swimming
speed.

Consider design at 1:3 slope as effectively used in New England, instead of 1:4 UK common
practice. This shortens structure and reduces areas of comers, producing large potential cost
saving.

Resin-bound plywood is adequate for baffles - as durable as metal; used successfully on the
River Cuckmere.

Eel passes are rarely worthwhile. Better to use artificial seaweed, polypropylene fibre,
‘astroturf or brushwood in notches of conventional pool & weir structures.

Cost-savings can be achieved in designs which force salmonids to jump. Although an

unpopular option in the UK, ‘jumping* is incorporated into successful French design.

Proportion of flow down pass need only be twice that down river per unit width. Has
implications for flow depth, energy gradient and velocity and consequently width, with cost
implication.

Fish lifts are mechanically complex, especially in a tidal environment and frequently fail.
Design life is typically 10 years, and should be avoided unless space limitations dictate
otherwise.

Spiral fish passes conserve space and can be built to modular design, but are not well tested.

Fishway gates are economic option compared with a conventional water control gate and fish
pass.

Tidewater obstructions may only delay fish for a short period. Consider if this is acceptable
before commissioning fish pass.

Avoid any designs which incorporate under-shot gates, as high pressure and velocity disables
fish, and survivors are heavily predated.

Consider direct and indirect cost of demolition of redundant obstructions instead of installing
fish pass.

R&D Report 5 48
8.2 Factors relevant to maintenance costs

Pool & weir is effectively maintenance free.

Denil requires debris clearance - reduced by installing shields and grills.

Debris shields are preferred to grills and mesh which collapse under ice pressure.

R&D Report 5 49
9. CONCLUSIONS AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The report by Beach (1984) represents the most accessible and well known collation of
information relevant to fish passage past man-made obstacles in the UK. The focus of the
Beach report is upon design criteria to enable fish to negotiate structures such as sluice gates
and weirs as well as fish passes. A good proportion of the report was devoted to flow control
and measurement structures and how different designs can effect fish passage. However,
considerable published research specifically concerned with innovative fish pass design and
fish swimming performance has appeared in the last decade.

There is sufficient information on the detailed physical design of major fish pass types and
variants to negate the need for detailed computer modelling of hydraulic design modifications.
However, simple simulation may prove useful to explore the effects on flow of instigating
cost-saving modifications such as steeper gradient passes.

The costs and design implications of fish pass construction are largely site specific, but there
is a need to produce example costings for given design variants.

The direct and indirect costs of removing derelict in-channel obstructions rather than
constructing a pass are often not considered seriously and need greater emphasis.

Although the multiplicity of fish pass design variations have often been well tested in theory
or in the laboratory with respect to the probable ease of fish passage, but there is a glaring
dearth of follow-up validation exercises following construction. A review of monitoring
techniques to assess quantitatively the effectiveness of fish passes, for upstream and
downstream migration of fish, is lacking.

Downstream migration and monitoring of fish passage has not been addressed in detail within
this Report. The questionnaires confirmed that downstream migration is not perceived as a
problem within the UK. There are few data to support this supposition and the stress and
physical damage implications of fish passage needs evaluating.

The importance of correct siting and nature of attraction flows has been neglected in the past.
These matters largely constrain fish usage and need further urgent consideration.

The literature provides a good coverage of swimming speeds and passage for the UK
salmonids, Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, brown trout Salmo trutta and rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss. Although a number of coarse fishes have been investigated, the
coverage of this group is much more restricted with respect to both species and body size.
In particular, the performance of juvenile fish is poorly researched and attention needs to be
given to non-salmonid species.

There is a substantial amount of French literature concerned with both fish pass design and
swimming performance covering species of UK interest - for example, Atlantic salmon, sea
trout, shad, lamprey and eels. Many of these papers have been listed with abstracts (see
French Language Papers) as well as being referenced within the main text. Increased
accessibility to this archive through translation, data abstraction and site visits with French
engineers and fisheries officers would be valuable.

R&D Report 5 51
There is a considerable body of American literature concerning the passage of fish through
culverts and modificialions of culvert design for fish passage. It might be appropriate to assess
this literature for UK application.

A closer liaison between fisheries experts and engineers might help prioritize species. This
could be addressed through the production of a fish pass design checklist prepared by a
biologist and engineer.

R&D Report 5 52
10. RECOMMENDED PHASE H PROGRAMME

The focus of Phase II is the preparation of a detailed selection and design Manual relevant
to UK needs. In conjunction with the Manual preparation the following should be considered-

Detailed design specifications of the primary modem fish passes appropriate to the UK
situation, together with information on ’standard’ variants to design should be collated.

Detailed costings for each design should be obtained, including consideration of the actual
cost of utilizing ’non-standard’ materials such as stainless steel and resin-bound plywood.

The cost and design implications of adopting French fish pass designs which involve fish
having to jump, should be evaluated.

The importance of correct siting and nature of attraction flows to encourage target species and
discourage unwanted species needs attention. Key matters are the strength of attraction flow,
angle of incident flow, the use of attractors (such as aeration, turbulent noise generation and
pheremones) and the detail of siting intakes in relation to flow regime, channel geometry and
guide vanes.

The design of shields and gratings (often added after the main design phase) to exclude debris
and minimize maintenance costs at the upstream ends of passes, needs greater emphasis, but
implications for fish attraction and cost need evaluation.

The implications of adopting design changes needs reviewing in respect of British MAFF
policy and potential changes in EC law and practice related to experience in continental
Europe.

A fish pass selection procedure inevitably will involve evaluation of a multiplicity of

information concerning fish species requirements, fish pass design variants, constrained by
cost and site details. The production of an expert system to aid in the design process should
be considered.

Much of the primary information on swimming ability is inaccessible to the non-biologist.

These data could usefully be incorporated in the Manual, in a more user-friendly fashion for
the UK engineer through the use of tables and graphics.

The literature on fish counters needs review and evaluation. Counters should be installed and
operated during critical periods on existing or proposed fish passes to evaluate performance
of designs.

A check-list of questions and potential problems for the fish pass design process should be
prepared by a biologist and a specialist consulting engineer. This would be incorporated in
the Manual as an aid to non-specialists.

Little or no information is available on the swimming abilities of several fishes of high UK

angling importance including roach Rutilus r utilus, bream Abramis brama, barbel Barbus
barbus, chub Leuciscus cephalus%and grayling Thymallus thymallus. Similarly only limited
information is available for the usually unwanted ruffe, Gymnoccphalus cernua, which is

R&D Report 5 53
currently expanding in range in the UK. Further information for these species, especially
concerning burst speed, could be obtained through laboratory experiments.

Review literature on stress and physical damage to migrants passing through fish passes.

Review American literature on culvert passes.

R&D Report 5 54
APPENDIX A - PERTINENT FISH PASS DATA: Figures, tables and additional
information

R&D Report 5 55
 PERTINENT FISH PASS DATA (BELL, 1986)

FISHWAY STRUCTURES AT DAMS AND NATURAL OBSTRUCTIONS

Fishways, fish passes and fish ladders are all terms used to describe methods of passing fish
upstream at dams and natural obstructions. With some types of configurations, limited fish
passage may be possible when the head is less than eight feet; however, fishways arc
recommended when there are head differences as low as two feet, as blocks may be formed
by insufficient water depth for swimming.

The size of the structures, their location and the flows through them, whether at natural or
man-made obstructions, should be based on the same criteria. As site conditions vary, special
consideration in design is almost always required.

Of many fishway patterns, the two most commonly used are the pool and weir type and the
vertical slot type.

The pool and weir fishway is the oldest of the designs and is generally used at man-made
structures where the head pool levels can be closely regulated. Its operation is deficient
mainly in its lack of capability to operate under fluctuating operational pool levels, unless a
special regulating setion is provided at the upper, or discharge, end of the fishway system.

The vertical slot fishway is in common use on the Pacific Coast It repeats a constant flow
pattern at all operating depths and is best adapted to conditions where head pool regulation
is not possible. Its design is less simple than the pool and weir fishway, but its advantage is
that it is self regulating.

The Denil fishway and its variations, such as the Alaska steep pass fishway, have been found
to have selected application as they must be carefully engineered for width and depth
relationships to provide the low velocity required in their design. They must be kept
completely free from debris, as this can alter the flow characteristics of the baffles. The
relationship of the baffle to the open area is critical and these systems require more
supervision than do the other two systems described. The customary slope in a Denil fishy/ay
is one to six, and an individual run is approximately 30 feet long. Resting pools between runs
are iequuired.

To aid the designer, a checklist of pertinent fishway data follows.

Fishway design data

Pool sizes and shapes. See Figures F,G, and H-A, H-B, and H-C (Bell, 1986).

Maximum flows in fishways (energy must be dissipated in each pool). Based on energy
dissipation of 4 foot pounds per second per cubic foot of water in pool, or maximum velocity
of 4 fps in Denil type.

Resting areas. Assumed to be velocities of 1 fps or less in pools, or 0.1 of normal swimming
speed. Denil requires special resting pools.

R&D Report 5 57
' Orifices (number and size). One or two per pool may be used.

Discharge volume through a vertical slot or per square foot of orifice. See Figure L (Bell,
1986).

Drop between pools. 12 inches, but should be tailored to requirements of species to be

passed, or slope for Denil type.

Average maximum velocities over weirs or through orifices. 8 fps maximum, or based on
drop per pool. Maximum o f 4 fps in Denil.

Entrance velocities. 4 to 8 fps.

W ater depth as a weir measurement over a pool weir. 6 inches minimum and 12 inches
maximum.

Transportation or directional flow velocities in flat areas or drowned-out areas of fishways.

1 to 2 fps.

Exit locations. See Figures AJB.CjD jM^*, and AA (Bell, 1986).

Travel time through fishway. Assume 2.5 to 4 minutes per pool, or 15 seconds in a Denil
swim section. Denil should provide equivalent time in resting pools.

Space for fish in pool. 0.2 cubic feet per pound of fish.

Space in trapping or holding area. 1.5 cubic foot per 5 pounds of fish.

Peaking of salmonid fish during passage. Assume 60% from daylight to 1 pm and 40% from
1 pm to darkness. Night passage may equal 3 to 5% of day’s total.

Entrance eddies. Recommended that cross velocity not exceed 2 fps at zero fishway
discharge. Less if small fish are to be passed.

Auxiliary water introduced into fishway for entrance attraction or transportation velocities.
'Velocities over diffusion area - 0.25 to 1.0 fps.

Grated opening. Usually 1/4 inch less than minimum fish head width of species to be passed,
with 50% of area assumed to pass flow.

Counting stations. Described in text.

Control section to match forebay regulations for pool type fishway. Described in text.

Collection system. Described in text.

Temporary fishways during construction. Described in text.

R&D Report 5 58
Source of auxiliary water supply. Gravity (with energy dissipators), pumps or special
turbines.

Fish locks and lifts. See Figures S and T (Bell,1986) and description in text.

If shad are involved, surface and wall side passageway must be provided. This species
generally rejects orifice openings at depths as low as six feet, and many become trapped in
square comers.

Sturgeon have not been passed successfully in pool type fishways, but lock passage is
possible.

Light and shadow patterns may determine the movement of various species in a fishway
system regardless of the velocity pattern.

Fish accumulate when pool hydraulic patterns are altered. If die design includes turn pools,
fish will accumulate at that point. In entrance bays and transportation channels, any break in
flow continuity must be avoided.

Square comers, particularly in turn pools, should be avoided as fish jump at the upwellings
so created.

At sites where bed load will be encountered, either the orifice or vertical slot baffle fishway
is recommended.

Trash racks may be required. If so, the opening must be adapted to the width of the largest
fish to be passed (usually 12 inches for large salmon). There is no evidence to indicate that
fish refuse to pass through trash racks at normal trash rack velocities (two feet per second or
less).

Fish jumping usually is avoided by the provision of adequate swimming depth, orifices or
slots. Jumping still may occur as the phenomenon is not fully understood, although it is
known to be triggered by shadow patterns or upwelling. See Figures BB and CC (Bell, 1986).
Protective fencing may be required to prevent the fish from leaving the fishway. In narrow
fishways a screened arch may be provided. Darkened fishways do not prevent movement of
fish and tunnel fishways may be used. These should not be pressure conduits and bead room
should be provided.

Hydraulic instability occurs between the upper range of plunging flow and the lower range
of shooting flow. Typical weir crests are shown on Figure J (Bell, 1986), with the shaped
weir crest the most stable. Bottom orifices are a stabilizing influence and must be of a size
capable of passing fish. The Ice Harbor weir (see Figure G, Bell, 1986) was developed to
provide pool stability in weir type fishways. Figure Y (Bell, 1986) shows hydraulic instability
forming.

Fixed weir and orifice type fishways have limited capability for adjusting to pool elevation
changes and can be either starved or drowned. There are a number of special pool regulating
sections in use, such as orifice controls or those that depend on the addition or subtraction
of pools by the use of telescopic or tilting weirs or stop logs. A regulating section has ben

R&D Report 5 59
- developed to accommodate rapid pool changes. Hydraulically satisfactory designs for
automatic control systems with vertical slot nonoverflow walls, bleed off and add-in diffusers,
auxiliary water supply, and movable -board underwater counting station and for revised
overflow weirs downstream have been developed by models. See Figure FF (Bell, 1986). This
section was prototype model tested and field constructed and operated. It was designed
specifically for the passage of shad, but also demonstrates excellent performance for salmon
passage.

A special control weir is needed if fish are to be trapped or held. This can be a V-trap
arrangement, a finger trap, or a jump-over weir. A V-trap works as does a tunnel in a fyke
net. A finger trap is shown on Figure J (Bell,1986), and one design for a jump-over weir is
shown on Figure K (Bell,1986). The finger trap and jump-over weir both require close water
regulation. The jump-over weir is particularly useful where fish are to be sorted or delivered
into an anaesthetizing tank where dilution must be held to a minimum. When using finger
traps, an escape area must be provided at both ends to prevent fish from being held against
the fingers and killed.

The movement o f the fish throughout the day is not uniform and it may be expected that
between daylight and 1 p jn . as much as 60 per cent of the day's run may pass, and between
1 p jn . and darkness, 40 per cent. Twenty per cent of a day's run has appeared in a single
hour. Night counts indicate low passage (3 to 5 per cent) and early daylight hours show good
passage.

Large fish (above 20 pounds) may hesitate to use shallow over-flow entrances.

Fishway capacity normally is not a design problem, as the hydraulic criteria usually control
design. (See list of pertinent fishway data).

Adult fish approaching the base of a dam or obstruction are usually within the top 12 feet,
with the most betwen the two and six foot depth levels. Fishway entrances should be
positioned to take advantage of this distribution. Horizontal or vertical orifices or weirs should
be adjustable to tail water changes. Methods of regulation include mechanically adjusted gates
or buoyant gates.

Orifices with darkened background are not entered by the fish as readily or those with die
■-backgrounds lighted (either naturally or artificially). The light source may be by penetration
through the water from either downstream or above the orifice with the latter, under the
natural conditions of daylight, producing better and longer entrance attraction.

Figures AJB,C and D (Bell, 1986) indicate the pattern o f spillway operations to maintain
effective condtions at a fishway entrance. In Figure A (Bell, 1986) all of the spillway gates
are in operation, giving a crowning effect in the center of the river, and using a high velocity
to guide the fish to the fishway entrances. As the flows in the river diminish and fewer open
spillway gates are required, the center gates are closed first This is shown on Figure B (Bell,
1986). As the flows diminish further, the gate closure is entended toward the ends of the
spillway, as shown on Figure C (Bell, 1986). The use of center gates only for minimum spills
results in attraction of fish to that area and generally this type of regulation should be
avoided.

R&D Report 5 60
Depending on the type of energy dissipator, a submerged or surface type jump may be
created. (See Figure E, Bell,1986). Fishway entrances are generally placed at or near the crest
of this jump at a predetermined flood flow level. The crest position moves upstream as flow
diminishes and side entrances are used to match the upstream position. Figure E (Bell,1986)
also shows the shortened training walls required. A leading velocity is created and picketed
leads or gate manipulation is utilzed to bring the fish to the bay adjacent to the fishway
structure and thence into the fishway proper.

As the operation of a multiunit powerhouse is not predictable as to time of operation of

specific units, a collection system may be provided which extends across the powerhouse,
generally with openings over each unit End entrances also should be provided. Typical
arrangements are shown on Figures Q,U, and V (Bell,1986). Usually each opening over the
turbines is supplied with 30 cubic feet of water per second or more. Uneven levels in the tail
race may require the use of cantilevcred leaf gates in the collection system for the control of
the water level.

Shore located entrances are preferred as the shore line provides a lead. Eddy control is
required. Fish are attracted to the discharges by both spillways and turbines, and move away
from these influences during darkness hours when they may seek velocities of one foot per
second or less for resting. The eady morning movement of the returning fish to the
Obstruction appears to produce die greatest activity in the fishway. Casual discharges at any
time may attract fish, and they may remain in the general vicinity for hours after the flow is
cut off. Intermittent spills can be used to attract fish to desired locations.

Flows from the fishway entrances may be augmented by auxiliary water introduced either into
an entrance bay or a collection system in which case an entrance discharge can be made up,
thus permitting continuation of the transportation flow. Figures 0,P and U (Bell, 1986) show
typical arrangements for bottom diffusers. Side diffusers may be used but it is more difficult
to provide uniform velocities through them, and they require special directional vanes.
Gratings over the diffuser are utilized to prevent the fish from entering the larger discharge
area, with subsequent delay in movement.

Transportation flows are required in flat runs, such as collection systems and drowned-out
portions of a fishway, because of rising tail water. Auxiliary water is introduced into the
drowned-out pools as shown in Figure E, section B-B (Bell, 1986). Designs have been
developed to supply or reduce the flows automatically as the tail water rises and falls.

Fishway exits are customarily placed well above any possible drawdown effect, or away from
strong currents. A slight positive downstream current for leading is advantageous. Under the
most favorable conditions some fish are still found to drop downstream through fishways or
turbines (perhaps up to 4 per cent of a day’s run). This wandering phenomenon is not
understood; however, drop backs may include fish that have moved above their home streams.

Barrier dams, specially constructed to divert fish to a fishway system, are now being used
under certain project conditions, as restricted spillway areas, widely fluctuating tail water
levels, economics, and at projects where collecting, sorting and hauling arc necessary. Figure
AA (Bell, 1986) shows a barrier connected with a fishway at a natural falls. Special hydraulic
conditions are created to lead the fish to the entrances. (See chapter "Artificial guidance of
fish”, Figures I and J, Bell, 1986).

R&D Report 5 61
'H igh dams have complicated the designs for fishways as fish have rejected fishway systems
that use surface flow and with the principal discharge of the river supplied from deep outlets.
"This phenomenon is not fully understood. Temperature and water quality (including taste and
odor) are considered to be principal factors.

Counting strations may be required. The most simple type counts fish over a weir. Fish may
be more readily seen against a white painted board. A Y-lead to an adjustable counting board
has been in general use; more recent advances in dersign use an underwater station at which
fish are directed to pass near a glass window. Back panel lighting may be provided in
addition to surface lighting. Television counting is possible at such stations, with the fish
activating the camera as they pass through a resistance tunnel. The presence of people at these
underwater stations appears to have no influence on the movement of fish and public view
windows are provided at some dams.

Counting stations may be located within the fishway system or at the outlet or exit end.
Because of the changing hydraulic patterns, fish tend to linger above a counting station area
and frequently move bade and forth. Counting stations at the exit end minimize this
movement White areas also appear to alarm fish, with some turning back before they have
completely crossed the painted area.

The closure of counting stations results in accumulation of fish below the stations. It is
recommended that an extra large pool be provided below any counting station. Most counting
stations provide for an adjustable distance between the fish and the observer to compensate
for water clarity where species identification in desired.

Many designs for counting stations are available.

There are no fish locks in operation on the Pacific Coast. Those that were constructed in the
past were operated in conjunction with fishways. All lock operations have been discontinued
in favor of fishway pasage. (See chapter "Locks and mechanical handling").

Figures O, P, S and T (Bell, 1986) show the general configuration of locks in relation to the
total fishway systems and a progression of developments. Figure P (Bell, 1986) shows a
paired set of locks with entrances at entrance bay level and with no holding pool. Figures OfS
and T (Bell, 1986) show fish locks located above the entrance bay level which provides a
short run of fishway to an entrance pool. The McNaiy Dam lock chamber shown on Figure
O (Bell, 1986) was used during construction for transporting fish by bucket into the lock
chamber, which demonstrated the fact that this system is capable of collecting and holding
fish. Present day entrance pools would have a crowder for which there are several designs,
such as a sweep moving along a track. In principle, they insure the movement of the fish out
of the entrance pool without a time delay.

Deep reservoirs in river areas cause problems to fish migration, both adults and juveniles,
through the slack waters. Temperature is a factor in migration and salmonid type fish will
leave a warmed surface to seek cooler depths. In many of the reservoirs south of the 45th
parallel and east of the m odifying coastal conditions, areas of low oxygen level have formed
below the thermocline. The environmental conditions, therefore, in such half lakes are such
that either the temperature or the oxygen level may inhibit the migration or residence of cold
water fish. The lack of leading velocities in reservoirs to fish that are accustomed to river

R&D Report 5 62
conditions has caused wandering, both up and downstream; in search of an exit from the
reservoir. This behavior pattern at this time is not understood, as certain of the salmonid
species accustomed to passing though lake areas continue to home without the apparent
problems of wandering demonstrated by the river-accustomed fish. Delay by wandering can
be fatal because of the energy utilization. (See pages 21 and 22 of chapter "Useful factors in
life history of most common species”, and pages 62 and 61 of chapter "Spawning Criteria”).
It is recommended that all factors pertaining to fish passage at high dams be completely
explored before considering any upstream passage system. Attempts to move downstream
migrants from reservoirs have not met with universal success. Floating surface type collectors
have been successful in two reservoirs. In one, a variable depth collector, as shown on Figure
L (Bell, 1986), has been successful in capturing migrants. Experiments indicate that fish will
pass under surface collectors when following their desired temperature gradient. Multilevel
or adjustable depth entrances make possible attraction at varying temperature levels. (See
chapters "Avoidance", "Artificial guidance of fish", "Temperature effects on fish” and
"Downstream migrants - movement o f’.)

Special downstream passage is not usually provided at low head dams (100 feet or less). (See
chapter "Passage of fish through turbines, spillways and conduits”).

Models may be used to predetermine many project conditions and to permit design alterations
to favor fish passage. (See Figures DD and EE, Bell, 1986). The location of the jump crest
for various river flows can be determined by models such as shown on Figure EE (Bell,
1986).

Nitrogen entrainment may occur under many spillway conditions. This factor requires special
consideration as the depth of water in the stilling basin is a major factor in concentrating
entrained nitrogen.

The same criteria should be applied in the design of temporary fishways that are used during
periods of construction as for permanent structures, although the structural materials used may
be less durable. In lieu of fishways, a diversion tunnel or open by-pass may be used to pass
fish, if suitable swimming velocities can be maintained. (See chapter "Swimming speeds of
adult and juvenile fish"). As construction procedures vary, each project must be evaluated as
to potential blocking conditions that may be created during construction. Temporary trapping
and hauling have been used as a means of passing fish during construction periods. Such
facilities should be designed in accordance with the criteria in the chapter "Locks and
mechanical handling”.

R&D Report 5 63
Table A.l Data reduction and velocity combinations for analyzing the selection of the higher velocity channel by silver and chinook
salmon and steelhead trout using the momentum difference between two attraction flows and their average momentum

Test condition Percent of choosing higher velocity Velocity combinations

Momentum Average Fish attrac­
Difference Momentum tion factor
VI (fife) v2 m Silver Chinook Steelhead (%) V I2 V22 (V l2-V22) [1/2(V1+V2)]2 V l2-V22
(%) (%) [1/2(V1+V2)]2
8.00 2.00 83 93 79 64.00 4.00 60.00 25.00 2.39
8.00* 4.00 86 68 59 64.00 16.00 48.00 36.00 1.33
8.00 6.00 46 45 52 64.00 36.00 28.00 49.00 0.57
6.00 2.00 83 87 73 36.00 4.00 32.00 16.00 2.00
6.00 4.00 68 62 64 36.00 16.00 20.00 25.00 0.80
4.00 2.00 100 73 67 16.00 4.00 12.00 9.00 1.33
Special tests:
12.89 2.69 •• 90 76 166.2 7.24 158.9 60.68 2.62

Source: Orsbom, 1985

R&D Report 5 64
 o 1 2 3 3.4 4

Fish Attraction Factor = V I 2- V 2 2

(FAF) [i/ 2(V 1+ V 2)P

Figure A.1 Choice of higher velocities by upstream m igrating salmon and steelhead
related to momentum level in the attraction flows as defined by the momentum
difference divided by the average momentum in the two jets.

Source: Osrbom, 1985

R&D Report 5 65
Figure AJ, Influence of the angle of the ram p on the efficiency, expressed as a %, of fish
entry to the fish collector.

Source: Pavlov, 1989

R&D Report 5 66
APPENDIX B - VERTICAL SLOT FISH PASSES: Figures and tables

R&D Report 5 67
Table B .l M ajor vertical-slot fishways operating in British Columbia

Location Pool Pool No. of Sloe Head/ Baffle

width length baffles width baffle height
(m) (m) (m) (m)

Doable jet
Hell’s Gate left bank low level 2.74 3.66 10 0.41 0.24 2.7
left bank main 6.10 5.49 7 0.61 0.18 12.2
left bank high level 2/74 3.05 13 038 0.20 5.6
left bank upper level 2.74 3.05 11 0.41 025 7.9
right bank main 6.10 5.49 9 0.61 0.27 1X2

Bridge River Rapids right bank upper 5.64 5.49 8 0.61 038 4.4
right bank lower 5.64 5.49 7 0.61 038 7.6
Single jet
Yale Rapids left bank upper 2.74 3.05 6 0.41 026 6.6
right bank upper 2.74 3.05 5 0.41 0.21 3.8
right bank lower 3.05 6.10 3 0.41 020 5.0
Great Central Lake Dam 2.44 3.05 18 0.41 030 2.6
Stamp River Falls high level 2.44 3.05 19 0.40 030 3.6
low level 2.44 3.05 37 0.40 030 3.6
Sproat River Falls 2.44 ■a m 15 C.4C 030 15
Seion Dam 2.44 3.05 32 0.41 0.21 2.4
Cowichan River low level 2.44 3.05 16 0.41 030 2.7
high level 2.44 3.05 8 0.41 030 2.7
Nitinat River 2.00 3.00 9 030 0.23 2.0
Kakweiken River long channel 2.44 335 20 030 030 2.6
short channel 2.44 335 8 030 030 2.6
Moricetown3ulkley River left bank 1.83 3.05 12 0.29 030 2.4
right bank 1.83 3.05 12 0.29 030 2.4
Meziadin River 2.44 3.05 33 0.41 030 13
Naden River lower 1.83 3.05 8 030 030 13
upper 1.83 3.05 8 030 030 13
Koksilah River 2.43 232 20 030 0.23 1.8
Embley River 1.83 2.44 17 030 024 2.4
Bonaparte River Falls 3.50 3.50 21 030 0.45 2.0
Nicola River Dam 3.00 3.00 8 030 030 23

Source: Andrew, 1991

R&D Report 5 69
Figure B .l V ertical slot fishways.

Source: Katopodis, 1991

c‘‘ ^ b '“&}
a|i:|+p
«„*=V2^/i
5 % < S .< 1 5 %

LAYOUT(pinview) DESIGN a P |
«-*4A
7 251 -302 j
<fl<yA<M2J
TTHH
1± - io P
17 | *27 | 0 1

r i. — i'*i-
11 | 3.71 | 0
7M
t * ~Hj _ — £f i
t * N<♦( M.II k.

SICK CONFIGURATION a COMMENTS

5 B c ttv U lO v «,-b. 167 <05Z 2.17 < y A < 1X29
6 3.77 •1.11 ll1 < y ^ i,< l(U I
2M -1.61 ia o < y <A < i s ^ s
S Beth,: U S u t t ^ i b , 146 0 \Si< y^x,< \2£2
9 EU4tv Ls-St^ IAS 0 \S l< y J b ,< \lM
10 Ba2-67b^ L&Xv «t«0L3l>, 1.4 0 2j0 < y«fc. < 12J7
11 B -«v;U 15*ve^a3b. I9 t 0 1.71 cy A .K lX l
12 L»15*V «tWLSb, 3.11 0 1 2 6 < y /j.< ll£ 3
13 B - 2 J v L - lS ^ v * & . 4.11 0 345 < yjb. < 1122
14 L*1A^ «7*2b. 3l 2) 0 107 < yjti, < 13JM

15 B«it^ L*10b^ «,"0Jfaj v&U, 1*9 0 3 J < y /i.< l2 X J

16 P—*h* LMOtv c/ift, J-59 0 349 < y > ,< 12X7

Notation
B width of fishway Q- dimensionless discharge for plunging flow
b. fish passage opening width Q , dimcnsionless discharge for tmnsional flow
D diameter of culvert S. slope of fishway bed
Ff dimension!ess fish speed t fish endurance time
F dimensionless water velocity L dimensionless fish endurance
g gravitational acceleration u fish speed
h hydraulic head V water velocity
/ fish length X fish swimming distance
L pool length, baffle spacing y. characteristic depth of flow
0 discharge through fishway *» height of baffle, weir, sill
Q. discharge through orifice a,p,riA,CJC coefficients
0 . discharge over weii~ K relative maximum fish swimming distance
Q. dimensionless fishway discharge V kinematic viscosity of water

R&D Report 5 70
Figures B.2 Vertical slot fishways - all designs

Source: Rajaratnam, Van der Vinne and Katopodis, 1986

rn r n
"T
___ H
Design 1 Desig

Design 3 Desig

J____________ i______ _________ i_____

Design 5 Desig

Design 7

R&D Report 5 71
Figures B.3 Circulation patterns - all designs.

Source: Rajaratnam, Van der Vinne and Katopodis, 1986

C 3>
J I J
n ... _ . ...'
Design 1 Design 2

------------- 1
5 2 _

Design 3 Design 4

r
o >
>\ -A

Design 5 Design 6
{towflowrate)

''
Design 7 Design 6
Ihigh Row rate)

R&D Report 5 72
Figure B.4 Rating curves for vertical slot fishways.

Source: Rajaratnam, Van der Vinne and Katopodis, 1986

Design No 3
□ 305B
O 308A
a 308B
o 316A
ci o 316B
"o
_Q X 316C
v 3 1 6D
o Regression

105B
205B
Denil Equation

l.o r b)

0.8 □ Design no 1
O Design no 2
A Design no 3
A
0.6 o Design no 4
o Design no 5
U x Design no 6

0.4 v Design no 7

0.2

□ Design no 1
0 Design no 2
O Design no 3
A Design no 4
O Design no 5
O # Design no 6
_Q V Design no 7
o Denil Equation

R&D Report 5 73
Figure B.5 Discharge for single slot fishway.

Source: Bell, 1986

Cd = 0 .7 5 , Slot 12" wide

D = Pool Depth (ft) ,
h = Head per Baffle (ft) For other conditions Q = _ _ -r=- Q 0
W = Slot Width (in) 0 75 12
Computed from Q = Cd (Dth) W_ >/2 gh
12

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.75
0.70

0.60

0.50

t
C.F.S.

Mft)
Discharge

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Pool Depth (D) in feet

R&D Report 5 74
Figure B.6 Vertical slot fishway.

Source: Bell, 1986

Flow

A Pool Length 6' 81 10'

B Pool Width 4* 6' 8'
C Water Depth (min) 2' 3* 3'
D Slot Width 0.5* 0.75* 1.0* * Sill Block
E Wing Baffle Length 9“ T-3 5/8" l'-3 5/8" in place
F Wing Baffle Distance 2' 3 '- l" 3'-7"
G Displacement of Baffle 4’ 5'-0 1/2" 5‘-0 1/2"

Discharge per foot of Depth

above Block in CFS 3.2 4.8 6.4

Drop per Pool 1' 1' r

R&D Report 5 75
Table B.2 Details of vertical slot passes taken from the published literature

Fish Pass Dimensions

Location Head Fish species/
Loss effectiveness Length Slope Slot Baffle Pools
width height
British Various 0.29- See See Table
Columbia Oncorhynchus - 0.61m Table B.l
B.l

Stamp River 11.3m 0.40m 3.6m 2.44m

Falls wide x
(low level) 3.05m
British long
Columbia
Kirkakka- 2m Typical of 30m 15cm Depth
kongas Finnish inland 75cm
Finland waters; white-
fish species,
perch, buxbot
& a few trout
Reminmaa Whitefish of 8- 1:12 7cm length
Finland 36cm length 86cm
used in study. width
65cm
Lesser Slave 0.31m
River
Canada

Aurajoki 5.5m 0.3m 3x3.5m1

River
Finland

South* 1.5- 1.0x1.5m

eastern 6.4m (Nepean
Australia River)
2x3m
(Murray
River)

Bell Fig B.6 Fig B.6

Flow Entrance Maintenance/ Comment Ref!
Construction

See Table B.l. All slot Andrew

widths with pool (1991)
dimensions given provide
good stable flow pattern
with adequate rest areas.
17 of 37 baffles in solid Andrew
rock tunnel Despite high (1991)
ascent & dark passage,
functions well with no
reported fish rejection.
0.3-1 ♦Sms*1 Model Scale 1:2. Height Hooli
diff. between basins (1988).
10cm.,

321s-1 Water depth 50cm. Model Hooli

Scale 1:4. (1988)

0.23-0.68ms*1 1.9m between baffles, Schwalme,

through slots channel width 2.3m, Mackay &
height slot 1.2m. Lindner
(1985)
0.5-0.7mVs Rytkonen
&
Hepojoki
(1991a)
Close to weir Trash racks Mallen*
wall, water of steel bars Cooper &
discharging from & grids to Harris
entrance aligned cover precast (1991)
45-90* to flow concrete or
of stream. fibreglass (see
text).
Fig B.6 See Fig B.6 Bell
(1986)
APPENDIX C - DENIL FISH PASSES: Figures, tables and additional
information

R&D Report 5 77
 Eight features of a Denil pass that confirm its economy and versatility
(Buckley, 1989)

A literature search confirmed the economy and versatility of the pass:

1. The pass is suitable for all U.IC migratory fish (Bachclier, 1968).

2. Runs up to 15 m showed no reduction in efficiency of passage (Slatick, 1975), (Slatick

and Basham, 1985). Lengths of 60 m had proved satisfactory with sockeye salmon
(Blackett, 1987). The apparent limits of the continous type of ladder have been calculated
in terms of the fish’s power requirements and total energy expenditure. (Ziemer and
Behlke, 1966).

3. Slopes of 1:3 have been found satisfactory. Successful ascents of 1:2 have been
observed (Slatick, unpublished) though at these gradients erratic surging and surface
depression along the centre line were observed. (Ziemer, 1962).

4. Water velocities in the pass are below 1 ms'1. Water energy is 10% that of an unbaffled
trough (Ziemer, 1962).

5. The pass was preferred to a pool and traverse by several American species (Fulton et al,
1953, Slatick, 1975), though it utilised 40-50% moic water.

6. A substantial number of fish are passed per unit time. Maximum rates of 11 fish/minute
have been recorded (Slatick, 1975). Individual fish of up to 20 kg can utilise the passes
(Farr, 1983).

7. The pass uses very little water and can be ascended at flows as low as 100 1 s'1.

8. The issuing water draws fish without hesitation (Ziemer, 1962), though the turbulent
circular flow patterns caused by the vanes were not as good as the high velocity water
stream from a vertical slot pass. Entrance extensions improved attraction (Blackett, 1986).

R&D Report 5 79
 <N
»o
_Q
0 O
CO

d /b

Figure C.1 D ischarge rating curve for standard Denil fishway.

Source: Rajaratnam and Katopodis, 1984

R&D Report 5 80
 • 43B B/b = 2.0 o /b = 0.91
■ 43A 2.0 0.91
a 43D 2.0 0.91

16 -
B/b «= 1.58; o /b = 0 .72

(Rajorotnom & Katopodis, 1983)

*o
CN
_Q
o o
co

53A B/b = 2 .0 o /b = 1 . 8 2
1.82
2 .58
2 .5 8

Figure CJ2 Rating curve for nonstandard Denil fishways.

Source: Rajaratnam and Katopodis, 1984

R&D Report 5 81
 Figure C 3 Denil fishways

Source: Katopodis, 1991

= = « tel
■Jgs.
5% < S. <31.5%

LAYOUT (plan, elevation) DESIGN CONFIGURATION a P COMMENTS

siHEEPPASS 1 B/b.=1.58, Ub,=0.715 0.97 1.55 0.1 <yjb.< 1.4
©w |.«- B -►

-t
s \r r

1 * ,A ,
PLAJ>J DENIL 2 B/b.=1.58, L/b.=0.715 0.94 2.0 0.5<y./b.<5.8
ow |.*- B-* 3 B/b.=2, L/b,=1.37 1.12 1.16 QJS<yJb, < 12
0*
4 B/b.=2,L/b,=0,9l 1.01 1.92 l<yjb,<5
i
5 B/b.=2, L/b.=1.82 135 157 13 <y«/b#<4.6
6 f B/b.=2, L/b.=2.58 1.61 1.43 0.8 < yjb, < 4.3

Notation

B width of fishway Q+ dimensionless discharge for plunging flow

b0 fish passage opening width Qt dimensionless discharge for transional flow
D diameter of culvert S0 slope of fishway bed
Ff dimensionless fish speed t fish endurance time
F dimensionless water velocity t* dimensionless fish endurance
g gravitational acceleration U fish speed
h hydraulic head V water velocity
/ fish length X fish swimming distance
L pool length, baffle spacing y0 characteristic depth of flow
Q discharge through fishway Zo height of baffle, weir, sill
Qo discharge through orifice oc,p,T|,X,CJC coefficients
Qwdischarge over weir £ relative maximum fish swimming distance
Q» dimensionless fishway discharge v kinematic viscosity of water____________

R&D Report 5 82
 a)
0.8 76853
Upper Denil o A
E
2 * A x = 5.4m
0 .4 □ x = 7.9m

_£ 0 cfi*

0.8 o o x = 6.6m
o
o
76853
lower Denil

1 2 3
u|m/s)

o 76F Series
a 7 6B Series
A 7 6 A Series

Figure C.4 Flow characteristics of two-level Denil fishways.

Source: Rajarainam ,Katopodi& and Flint-Peterson, 1987

R&D Report 5 83
 200 Sea Trout
160 N = 2145

120
80

40

_Q
E
2 80 -

60 Brook Trout
N = 332
40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Length (cm)

Figure C.5 Sea tro u t and trout passage of a small Denil fish pass in Normandy

Source: Larinier, 1991

R&D Report 5 84
 Fl<OVv

r poof,
°0o/W

/ g $£ *

. “* Os
2/
f';

„ C t o ' ”i" !" '

* * » •« *

^ cP ort 5
Table C.l Details of Denil fish passes taken from the published literature

Fish Pass Dimensions

Location Head Fish species/
Loss effectiveness Length Slope Channel Free Spacing
width width between
between baffles
baffles
Tange, 10m Negotiated by 8 1:5 0.30-
Denmark brown trout, lengths 0.31m
sea trout, 6.55m
rainbow trout,
grayling,
roach, perch,
white bream,
bream &
tench
Denmark
Type I 1:4- 0.56-
1:6 0.9m

Type n Sea trout 14m no 1:4 or 0.5- 0.38m

>0.9m length resting 1:5 0.7m
successfully pools
pass. Also
used by
brown trout
0.25m

France Results of range 0.6m trout

6mths from up to lm
trapping in 1:5 - for
small Denil 1:66 salmon &
(width 0.96m, sea trout
slope 1:5) in
Normandy see
Fig C5.
Bonneville Coho, Sec­ 24% 0.56m 0.36x0.56
Dam sockeye & tions m
USA pink salmon 3.1m
long
Flow Entrance Maintenance/ Comment Ref.
Construction

0.150mVs Electric fence to Orating & scum log 7 resting pools. Lonne-
prevent fish moving to prevent drifting Trapping between bjerg
further upstream twigs from clogging. 27.10.80 & 30.6.82 (1991)
than entrance - had Sand Sc small pieces resulted in 10,080
little or no effect of weed swept migrating fish being
Positioning of through. caught Of these
entrance to blame only 23 were sea
for few trout trout 11 species
altogether.
Hydraulic Types I & II constr­ Only a very few Lonne-
design ucted at many sites. whitefish and pike bjerg
under* Some made of pre­ use Denils in (1991)
taken fabricated elements Denmark. 2!ander
according made of impreg­ have never been
to nated pine Sc ply­ observed to do so.
Larinier wood. Others have
(1983). walls & bottom of
concrete Sc baffles
of wood. Last 10
years several
constructed of pre­
fabricated glass fibre
reinforced elements.
Larinier
(1991)

0.16mVs Aluminium Slatick

&
Basham
(1985)
 Table C.l continued

Fish Pass Dimensions

Location Head Fish species/
Loss effectiveness Length Slope Channel Free Spacing
width width between
between baffles
baffles
Frazer Lake, 10m Sockeye 60m 3 22%
Kodiak salmon resting
Island, pools
Alaska
60m no
resting
pools

Lesser Slave Of 10 species 10%

River observed to
Canada be using both
Denils - 10%
used more 20%
than 20%

Bell 1:6 3* 1.75’ T

R&D Report 5 87
 Flow Entrance Maintenance/ Comments Ref.
Construction

Salmon capable of Blackett

ascending continuous (1987)
fishpass without visible
fatigue or resting. No
overall conclusive
advantage for salmon
passage with or without
resting pools.
Average Schwalme,
0.76ms'1 Mackay &
(floor 0.42, Lindner
surface 2.2S) (1985)
Average
1.07ms'1
(floor 0.42,
surface 2.8S)
21 cfs See Fig C.6 Bell
(1986)

cfs - cubic feet per second

APPENDIX D - POOL AND WEIR FISH PASSES: Figures and tables

R&D Report 5 89
 Stream ing o r Shooting Flow

Figure D .l Pool and weir fishways - definition sketches.

Source: Rajaratnam, Katopodis and Mainali, 1988

R& D R eport 5 91
 Figure D.2 Pool and weir fishways.

Notation

B width of fishway Q+ dimensionless discharge for plunging flow

bo fish passage opening width Or dimensionless discharge for transional flow
D diameter of culvert So slope of fishway bed
dimensionless fish speed t fish endurance time
F dimensionless water velocity u dimensionless fish endurance
g gravitational acceleration
h hydraulic head
u fish speed
V water velocity
i fish length X fish swimming distance
L pool length, baffle spacing yc characteristic depth of flow
Q discharge through fishway Zo height of baffle, weir, sill
Qo discharge through orifice a,p,T],X,C»K coefficients
Qw discharge over weir relative maximum fish swimming distance
Q . dimensionless fishway discharge V kinematic viscosity of water

R&D Report 5 92
Table D.l Accepted design factors applied to pool, weir and port fish ladders

Designer or author Hp Q (ave) V (ave) dw Pool Wc Oh Ow Pool d (ft) Weir shape 0 Slope
(type) (ft) (cfc) (fps) (ft) space (ft) (feet) dimensions
L(ft) B(ft)_____________________________________
Menzies (1934) 1-2.5 5-6 Near sea 14-15 9-10 trapezoidal 90 1/6
(Type C) 6.5-8
Away
sea 5-6.5

Bonnyman (1958) 1.5 39 10 2.25 17 10 90 1/113

(TypeD) diameter

McCloud & Nemenyi 0.75 033 - 1.0 0.83 3 2.5 3 Rectangular 90-type A 1/4
(1939)\Type A&D) 0.50 41-type D

Committee on Fish 1.5 (max) 12 8(max) 0.75 10 6 4 Rectangular 90 1/6.7

Passes (1942) (Type C) (min)

Committee on Fish 2 (max) 24 1.5 1.5 10 90 1/5

Passes (1942) (Type D) length = 3-
4y

Decker (1946) (Type C 1 (max) 1.0 0.83 5-8 5-8 Opolletti 90-type A 1/5 to
&D) ’ 41-type D 1/8
Fischer (1964) 1-strong 4-8 4 ft3 From Rom 2 90 1/10
(General) swimmers fish pool pool (min)
0.6-0.75 space space coat
(pink,chum)

R&D Report 5 93
 Table D.l cont.

Designer or author Hp (ft) Q(ave) V(ave) dw(ft) Pool Wc Oh Ow Pool d(ft) Weir Shape 0 Slope
(cfc) (^s) space (ft) (feet) dimensions
Uft) B(ft)

= pool
Ziemer (General) 0.75-1 cross 3-8 05-1 4 ft5 1.0 0.83 10* 25x 3xHp 90 Slope
sectional 1 resting fish Up Hp
area
Sakowicz (1962) 13-1.6 35 9 (max) 2.6 1.6 1.6 16.4 9.8 2,6 1/10
(General) (salmon)

Rizzo (1969) (Type A)fc 1 4ft-lbs 3-8 1 14-18 10-18 65 Rectangular 90 1/10
sec ft5

Bell (1973)v (Type A) 1-salmon 4ft-lbs 2-8 fps 1- 0.2 ft3 B/2 15 1.25 8-20 6-20 6 Rectangular 90 Salmon
0.75-shad sec ft* salmon lb fish 1/10
03- Shad
trout 1/13

Notes: *Test fish from Iowa River (species: carp, shad, quillback, catfish,herring, perch, and buffalo fish)
k Ice Harbor Type
Hp » bead between pools, Q = flow, V = velocity, dw « depth over weir, Wc * weir crest length, Oh *=orifice height, Ow = orifice width, d «=pool depth, 0 «=orifice baffle
wall angle.

Source: Orsbom, 1985

R&D Report 5 94
Figure D 3 Pool and weir fishway.

Source: Bell, 1986

A Pool Length 6’ 8’ 10'

B Pool Width 4' 6' 8'
C W ater Depth 3’ 4' 6'
D Slot Width 0 .5' 0 .5 ' 0.5'
E Slot Depth 0 .5 ’ 0 .5 ’ 0.5*
F Baffle Height 2 .5 ’ 3 .5' 5.25

Water Depth in Notch 12" 12" 15"

Discharge in CFS Minimum 1.65 4 .0 4.0

Normal 5 .0 12.3 25.0
Maximum 24 .0 3 6 .0 4 8 .0

Drop per Pool r r r

R&D Report 5 95
 Figure D.4 Town Dam poo! and chute fishway.

Source: Bates, 1991

* Bank

Ah

------------------- L -----------------

Longitudinal Section

-H0.15H-
J.
0.15
Ip
T 0
17 ^
I•
T
I At i
Cross Section
'jzzzzzsm O verfall
Frontview

Figure D.5 Layout of the V-shaped pool fishway.

Source: Boiteo, 1991

R&D Report 5 96
Table D.2 Dimensions for eleven different designs of pool and weir fish passes with v-shaped overfalls

Design Row Dimensions optimum design (m) Non­ max.velocities (m/s)

Pool Pool Pool Pool Crest aerated
nr. (mVs) drop length width depth length nappe B2 Behind the Pool
(Qd) (dt) (L) (B) (P) (d) crest

1 0.35 0.125 3.75 5.00 0.20 0.075 1.65 1.74 0.53

2 0.56 0.15 4.50 6.00 0.24 0.090 1.98 1.91 0.58
3 0.82 0.175 5.25 7.00 0.28 0.105 2.31 2.06 0.63
4 1.14 0.200 6.00 8.00 0.32 0.120 2.64 2.21 0.67
5 1.54 0.225 6.75 9.00 0.36 0.135 2.97 2.34 0.71
6 2.00 0.25 7.50 10.00 0.40 0.150 3.30 2.47 0.75
7 2.54 0.275 8.25 11.0 0.44 0.165 3.63 2.59 0.78
8 3.15 0.30 9.00 12.00 0.43 0.180 3.96 2.70 0.82
9 3.85 0.325 9.75 13.00 0.52 0.195 4.29 2.81 0.85
10 4.64 0.35 10.50 14.00 0.56 0.210 4.62 2.92 0.88
11 5.51 0.375 11.25 15.00 0.60 0.225 4.95 3.02 0.92

Source: Boiten, 1991

R&D Report 5 97
 LC
Chamber (or unit) Length
Plan Normal View of Weir Plate
Weir Plane
Angles "N 1 Section B-B

(
R W = 6 .0 ' W W = 1 7 .0 '
R W = 9 .0 ' W W = 2 5 .5 '
°°r RW =10' W W = 2 8 .8 '

i ? T
/SW

i'li'lllh ! wi
Resting A r e a ! ] iiw p i?

f
AWSE = Drop in Floor
____ i ____________________
End Wall
Profile Section A-A

DP = Depth of Pool W C = Chamber Width

FB = Freeboard W W = Top Weir Width
LC = Chamber Length AWSE = Drop in Pool;
RW = Radius of Weir Change in Water Surface
SW = Standing Wave Elevation

Figure D.6 Recommended geometry for new weir of pool fish ladder.

Source: Orsbom, 1985

R& D Report 5 98
Table D 3 Hydroelectric scheme fish passes in New Zealand

River or scheme Construction Fishpass type Comments

date

Opuiaid 1978 Pool and weir 1.4 m rise in steps of 0 3 m; large step
(Tauranga) at exit could prevent passage depending
on flow conditions and weir plate
adjustment
Omanawa 1978 Pool sod w eir Similar to above
(Tauranga)
Parea R (Patea PS) 1984 Eel pass 100 mm PVC pipe fitted with
polypropylene brush allows elvers to
H im h over the 64 m dam; simple,
inexpensive with low water demand
Mangaimi R 1930 Pool and weir Poor design which would never operate
(Motiakawa PS) satisfactorily. 600 mm drop between
rather small pools; flows vary with
headwater level and are often
inadequate
Waiau R (Opunake 1923 Pool and weir 6 m of vertical lift, recently refurbished,
PS) may operate for some native fish; small
pool size
Branch R 1983 Weir and orifice 4 m of vertical lift; incorporates
sediment sharing facilities; small pool
creates excessive turbulence at
design flow
Arnold R (Arnold 1932 Weir and orifice Operated satisfactorily when first
PS) constructed but dosed in 1938 to
prevent upstream passage of eels
Waitald R (Waitalri 1934 Pool and weir 20 m vertical lift; too steep with
PS) inarii-qnaift entrance and attraction flows;
demolished in 1951
Aviemore 1967 Pool and w ar 3 m vertical lift; used successfully by
rainbow and brown trout and sockeye
galmnn
Waiaa R (Manapouri 1976 Boida orifice 4.7 m vertical lift; operates reasonably
Lake control) but some problems with entrance and
maintenance

Source: Jowett, 1987

R&D Report 5 99
Table D.4 Details of pool and weir fish passes taken from the published literature

Location Head Fish species/ Fish Pass Dimensions

Loss effectiveness
Pool Pool Drop Orifice Notches
size depth between
pools

1 w*
Norway 25 x Varies

■8
(general) 4m usually
>50cm
Martiselva 45m

Harpfossen 22m
River
Gudbrands-
dalslagen
1 Australia

| Mt Crosby 3.5m Sea mullet, 25m 400mm 250mm

| Bisbane bairamundi, wide x &
River lung fish, 15m 700mm
Australian long &
bass 25m
wide x
25m
long
Burnett 7.3m Sea mullet, Series of pools 250mm
River barramundi,
Barrage - lung fish
Bundaberg

Burnett 5.2m Top step 500m

River
Mundabena

Fitzroy 3.6m Sea mullet, 2.6m 500mm 150mm

River barramundi, longx
Barrage Australian 1.8m
bass wide
How Entrance Maintenance/ Comment Ref.
Construction

0.35 - 1.0 Concrete Most of the fish passes in Grande

mJ/s Norway are of this type. (1991)

500m long with 105 pools

56 pools

Range 0.9-1-2 Major problem with Velocities low enough for Barry
m/s entrance which can all likely users except (1991)
Max. 1,9 m/s experience a drop of possibly small mullet
around 500mm if (<50mm). Generally
tailwater below weir considered to operate
is low. successfully.

Made by Passes most sizes of Bany

insertion of mallet but barramundi do (1991)
concrete drop not appear to use it.
slabs in a Effective up to medium
channel. river overflows but in
flood conditions
turbulence near entrance
precludes fish from
entering.
Depth of step makes Barry
access almost impossible (1991)
during low to medium
flows. At high flows
drowned out and most
fish able to pass.
1.9-2.1 m/s When tide is within Bany
1/3 of low tide, (1991)
bottom end of fish
pass apron is too
high above river bed
for fish to gain
access.
Table D.4 continued.

Location Head Fish species/ Fish Pass Dimensions

Loss effectiveness
Pool Pool Drop Orifice Notches
size depth between
pools
Australia
cont.

ft
Burdelrin 7m 5m 15-
River long 25m

Red Bluff Chinook

Divcrson Dam salmon
Sacramento
River,
California
St. George 13.4m In 1983 used 43 305cm
Fish pass by 940 pools,
Magaguadavic Salmo salar 2 large
River, New resting *
Brunswick pools

Badush Dam 3 species of

Tigris River Barbus
Iraq

Columbia 3m Sub* 0.6m in

River, Ice length mexged central
Harbour x 4.8m 0.45m part of
Baffle wide square weir
Denmark 2 x 3m 0.7- 0.3 - 0.3-
1.0m 0.4m 05m
wide

Rcnmt 5 101
Flow Entrance Maintenance/ Comment Ref.
Construction

13-2.2 m/s Poor entrance No research on Barry

conditions with effectiveness. Local (1991)
overflow from weir opinion is that it is not
(425m wide) working effectively.
creating significant
distraction.
Entrance flow Difficulty in locating Vogel,
2.5mVs, auxiliary entrance Marine
attraction flow & Smith
7.1m3/s. Total (1991)
9.6m3/s
Reinforced Improvement needed for Martin
concrete. locating attraction water (1984)
Trash rack during high water
over exit periods.
hole, vertical
steel ban
20cm apart
Entrance velocity Concrete. 190m long - divided into Petkovic
>0.6m/s 3 sections. Modelling of &
fishpass resulted in Zdravko-
changes to original vic
design. (1991)
Recommended for large Clay
fish passes with large (1991)
runs of salmon & trout

Some built Lonneb-

traditionally jerg
with concrete, (1991)
others from
reinforced
concrete
embedded in
stones.
■
Table D.4 continued

Location Head Fish species/ Fish Pass Dimensions

Loss effectiveness
Pool Pool Drop Orifice Notches
size depth between
pools
France 2.5- 0.15- Mia
3.0m 0.6m width
long (see 0.3m
text) salmon,
0.45m
shad
Netherlands 3.75m- 0.2- 0.125-
11.25m 0.6m 0.375m
long x
5.0m-
15.0m
wide
TDdnmlank' 35m Salmon & sea 03m 0.4mJ
osld trout
Kentvanjold
River,
Norway
Aviemore 3m 500-1000 2.44m 1.8m 05m Each
Power brown trout A wide weir 2x
Station, rainbow trout 3.35m 0.46m
New Zealand use fish pass long square
annually orifices
- later
blocked
off
Branch river 4m 1.9m x 15m 03m
1.2m

102
Flow Entrance Maintenance/ Comment Ref.
Construction

Slope <7% - >25%. Larinier

Most common 10-12%. (1991)
No overflow submerged
orifices fish passes used.

0.35-5*51 Dimensions of optimum Boiten

m5/s design given in Table (1991)
D.2.

During salmon migration Rytkonen

velocities vaxy 2-23m/s. &
Hepojoki
(1991b)
Average Works even though Cost Further details on Jowett
0.9mVs discharge is l/130th $650,000 specific fish passes in (1987)
of power station (1983) New Zealand, see Table
discharge (Columbia D.3.
River - recommend
l/20th)

Designed for Pools do not adequately Jowett

lm5/s with dissipate energy - they (1987)
bypass are only about 25% of
size required
APPENDIX E - OTHER TYPES OF FISH PASS: Figures, tables and additonal
information

R&D Report 5 103

Figure E-l The Tzymlyanskij fish lock on the Don River, USSR.

Source: d ay , 1991

Figure E,2 A fish lift or elevator using the trapping and tracking principle.

Source: Qay, 1991

R&D Report 5 105

 Figure E.3 Poutes fish elevator.

Source: Larinier, 1991

R& D Report 5 106

 U
p
<L>
O
V_
<t>
CL
E

Day Number
Figure E*4 Tuilieres fish elevator (1589) daily shad passages and water temperature.

Source: Travade, 1991

T H E FISH W AY G A T E
Th e Fishway Gate is a unique design of tilting gate which contains
an integral fish pass. It permits upstream water levels to be
controlled while providing an easy ascent for migratory fish, all
within a single m echanism .
Th e main advantages are:
1. Considerably lower capital cost than a conventional gate and
separate pass.
2. Requires sim ple, economic foundations.
3. C a n be fully automated or manually operated.
4. Overshot blockage-free profile gives slow increase
in discharge.
5. Provides pass at natural congregation point.
6. C a n pass all species of migratory fish upstream.
7. C a n be ascended at very low flows.
8. Utilizes hydrostatic pressure to assist in raising, therefore
power requirements are low.
9. C a n be descended by canoe.

Figure E.5 The fishway gate.

R&D Report 5 107

Table E .l Example of fish passages:Golfech fish elevator on Garonne (1987-1989)

Common name Scientific name Number of fishes

1987 1988 1989

Migr. species
Atlantic salmon Salmo salar (1) 24 24 1

eel Anguilla anguilla 4 970 (u) 1 166 (u) 13 322 (u)

sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus 11 16 370

sea trout Salmo trutta trutta (2) 51 48 7

ghaH Alosa alosa 18 224 13 779 66 401

undet^almooids (1) or (2) 22 18 5

Fluviat. species
baxbel Barbus barbus 2 414 (u) 1 258 (u) 3 284

bleak Alburnus alburnus 217 (u) 18 787 1 003

bream Atalbramis brama 3 830 3 256 10 743

blenny Blennius fluviatilis 2 0 0

silver bream Blicca bjoerkna presence presence presence

caip Cyprinus carpio 9 32 20

ratfish Ictalurus melas 3 433 2 908 1 486

chub Leuciscus cephalus 6 3 50

goldfish Carassius auratus 1 6 presence

largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 13 9 7

mullet Mugil capito 0 1 583 404

perch Perea fluviatilis 7 1 4

pike Esox lucius 2 4 6

pike-perch Lucioperca lucioperca 90 572 250

roach R utilus rutilus presence presence presence

rudd Scardinus erythrophtalmus presence presence presence

sunfish Lepomis gibbosus 5 9 2

tench Tinea tinea 2 2 2

trout S.trutta fario, S.gairdneri 32 17 29

Source: Travade, 1991

R&D Report 5 108

Table E.2 Details of the major fish passes in the USSR

Volgograislriy Tsimlyanskiy Krasnodarskiy Saratovskiy Kocbetovsldy Fedoiovsldy

River impounded Volga Don Kuban’ Volga Don Kuban1

Construction begun 1961 1955 1975 1969 1969 1982

Type hydraulic fish hydraulic fish mechanical mechanical sluice fish­ sluice fish-pass
lock: lock fish-lift fish-lift pass

Hydraulic head(m) 23 20 13-17 13-17 1-3 1-4

Collection gallery:
length (m) SO 129 71 172 68 693
widlh(ra) 83 6 10 8 10 9
flow depth(m) 5.7-14.4 63-13.6 23-63 9-133 1.8-43 1.4-4.8

Attractive regime:
V ^m /sec) 0.8-1.2 0.8-1.0 0.6-1.4 0.8-l,4 0.6-2.0 0.8-1.8
cycle time(min) 120 120 90-240 30-180 15-180 120-240

Species passed:
Abramis spp. + + + +
Acipenser + + + + + +
giddenstadti + + + +
Acipenser
stellatus
Chalcalburnus + +
chalcoides
Clupea + + +
harengus
Cyprinus carpio + +
Coregonus
lavaretus + +
Huso huso
Siluris glanis +
Vimba vimba +
+ + +

Total number c. 1 million c. 200 000 c. 1 million c. 1 million c. 1 million c. 500 000
passed each yean
Number of c. 20 000 c. 2 500 c. 1 500
Acipenseridae:

Source: Pavlov, 1989

R&D Report 5 109

Figure E.6 Pipe eel pass over the Patea Dam in New Zealand.

Source: Clay, 1991

Bru&hlype: 1000x130 pot/star 020

Solmooid Industrie! Ltd, PO Box 546, Levin

Details of Pipe

R&D Report 5 110

THE FISHWAY GATE - ADVANTAGES

General

Much more economic than next alternative

Uses existing technology
Simple innovative design
Safe for river users

Economic

Capital
Simple form economic to design
Plain shape simple to fabricate
Can be fully factory assembled
Lends itself to modular construction
Requites low power supply
Simple economic foundations
High benefit/cost ratio

Running
Robust form resists impacts
Low poer consumption
Can be fully automated
Blockage free profile

Biological

Can pass selected species of migratory fish upstream

Safely passes adults downstream
Safely passes juveniles downstream
Almost impossible to poach
Presents pass at natural congregation point
Can be of any migrant capacity
Enhances anadromous fish stocks
Can be ascended at low flows
May be used to sort by species

Hydraulic

Slow increase in discharge - no hunting

No high velocity jets to cause cavitation
Utilizes hydrostatic pressure to raise
Will not vibrate or "drum"
Only requires low flows to operate

Aesthetics and Amenity

R&D Report 5 112

Can be descended by kayaks
Gate is below water
No obstrusive superstructure
Can be descended by drift boats
Can be descended by rafts

Applications .

Tidal barrage locks to minimise saline intrusion

Automatic level control at the upstream of large fish ladders
To release artificial "freshnetts" to encourage migration and improve fishing
Can sort by species in some cases, e.g. square fish, U S salmonids
Provides maximum water retention with minimal flow for fish passage
Seasonally variable retention levels
Can be used to pass logs
Can be used to pass ice
Can be adapted as hatchery intakes
With suitable controls, can give early warning of floods
Controls can be operated by solar power
Controls can "bridge" power cuts
Obviously such a versatile mechanism has many other uses.

Source: Mr A L Woolnough, Fishway Engineering

R&D Report 5 113

APPENDIX F - SWIMMING PERFORMANCE: Figures and tables

R&D Report 5 115

Figure F .l Relation between maximum specific speeds and length for several groups
of fish.

Length - cm

Figure F .l Relation between maximum specific speeds and length for several groups of
fish.

Source: Webb, 1975

R&D Report 5 117

‘T'able F .l Calculations of swimming speeds for Atlantic salmon during the initial
phase of up-stream migration.

Fish Fork length Swimming speeds Prevailing flow

(cm) km d'1 ms'1 bis'1 rate (mV1)
Park Woodend
C 72 21.30 0.27 0.34 124.85 104.36
D 69 19.08 0.22 0.32 40.14 31.45
14.53 0.17 0.24 43.85 35.09
29.81 0.35 0.50 22.04 25.01
E 75 20.74 0.24 0.32 24.04 24.66
25.10 0.29 0.39 26.03 28.68
25.07 0.29 0.39 29.42 37.64
G 56 21.49 0.25- 0.45 23.75 21.03
H 62 33.44 0.39 0.63 3135 24.09
22.13 0.26 0.42 31.01 22.93
I 58 36.98 0.43 0.74 32.16 26.15
J 65 25.17 0.29 0.45 48.27 31.50

Source: Hawkins, 1986

R&D Report 5 118

Figure F.2 Comparison of shimming performance among three stocks of brown
trout Salvelinus fontinalis.

Source: Beamish, 1978

Figure F.2 Comparison of swimming performance among three stocks of brown trout,
Salvelinus fontiiudis.

Source: Beamish, 1978

R&D Report 5 119

Table F.2 Adjusted mean and mximum velocities (cm s*1) attained per burst from
ANCOVA analysis.

Group Adjusted Adjusted

Mean SD N Mean SD
Wild
Cold water River 62.9* 6.07 30 102.3 13.87
Morrison Creek 71.8* 11.96 28 104.7 12.31
Wade Creek 74.1 7.28 30 104.7 11.18

Laboratory-reared
Cold water River 58.8 7.77 29 90.7 10.51
Morrison Creek 66.1 9.26 30 97.9 13.45
Wade Creek 66.1 5.03 30 102.1 16.15

Notes: a = slopes of standard length - velocity not equal between these groups (p<0.05)
Underlined mean values differ significantly from each other (ANCOVA, p<0.05)

Source: Taylor and McPhalL, 1984

R&D Report 5 120

Table F 3 Prolonged swimming performance of wild and laboratory-reared juvenile
coho salmon

Population Standard length (cm) Test E rem in) SD

Mean SD N velocity
(cms'1)
Wild-reared
Coldwater River 4.92 0.134 12 63.5 14.6
Wade Creek 5.07 0.122 11 343 283 9.1

Coldwater River 4.96 0.162 10 79.9 36.03

Morrison Creek 5.03 0.166 12 34.7 92 3.58

Wade Creek 5.13 0.143 12 29.4 3.82

Morrison Creek 5.06 0.198 12 35.4 9.9 4.73

Coldwater River 5.05 0.161 11 79.9 11.46

Morrison Creek 5.22 0.132 11 35.7 16.7 5.16

Wade Creek 5.08 0.218 11 35.5 33.4 736

Laboratory-reared
Coldwater River 5.17 0.202 10 105.9 10.4

Morrison Creek trU

D aa
AJ 0.170 1A1A 36.1 9.1 4.6

Coldwater River 538 0.208 10 80.5 103

Wade Creek 533 0.136 10 37.1 28.5 6.5

Wade Creek 5.18 0.114 10 28.8 10.1

Morrison Creek 5.11 0.127 11 36.1 8.9 5.1

Coldwater River 5.22 0.211 11 104.2 40.8

Wade Creek 537 0.221 9 36.7 92 3.8

Morrison Creek 538 0.208 11 37.5 16.6 52

Source: Taylor and McPhail, 1984

R&D Report 5 121

Figure F 3 Prolonged swimming speed and temperature.

Source: Beamish, 1978

Prolonged Swimming Speed, cm sec*

Temperature °C

R&D Report 5 122

Figure F.4 Swimming speed and ambient oxygen concentration.

Source: Beamish, 1978

Swimming Speed, cm sec'

75 r
0s8~ z< r-s0 ------ _Jo—o'
o 0*0 o
50 .o'
✓o
° Oncorhyncus kisutch

*o
25

40" - . . - ' " S ' 5"* * *

•7
*•
t Micropferus salmoides
20 !-•

Q _____________ 1_____________I____________ I_____________I_____________I_____________I__

0 8 16 24

Ambient Oxygen, mg litre*1

R&D Report 5 123

Table F.4 Contaminant concentrations and exposure durations that cause
significant changes in swimming behaviour compared with exposures
that induce mortality in aquatic organisms

Species Parameter Behaviour exposure le th al exposure

Contaminant and reference measured*
jj.g/1 Duration |ig/I Duration

Oncorhynchus kisutch
Fenitrothion (Bull and Mclnemey, FM,SC 480 2h 1 300 96 h
1974)
Kraft mill effluent (Howard 1975) SC 3.7-9.09& 18 h 18-45% 96 h
v/v v/v

Oncorhynchus mykiss
Caibaryl SC 1 000 96 h 1 950 96 h
A 1 000 96 h 1 950 96 h
Chlordane SC >20 96 h 42 96 h
A 2 96 h . 42 96 fa
DEF SC 5 96 h 660 96 h
A 50 96h 660 96 h
Pentacfaloropbenol SC >20 96 h 52 96 h
(Little et al, 1989 and Johnson and A 2 96 h 52 96 h
Finley, 1980)
Diquat R 500 24 h 90 000 24 h
Simaniw R 1 000 24 h 200 000 24 h
(Dodson and Mayfield, 1979)
Copper pH 6 (Waiwood and SC 10 96 h 40 96 h
Beamish, 1978)
TCDD (Mehiie et al, 1988) FM 0.000038 27 d 0.00176 21 d
A 0.000038 19 d 0.00176 21 d
Phencd (Smith and Bailey, 1988) FM 8 000 7 min 8900 96 h

Salvelinus fonsinalis
Fenitrothion (Peterson, 1974) SC 500 24 h 1 500 24 h
Malathion (Post and Leasure, 1974) SC 40 10 d 120 5d
Copper sulfate (Drummond, Spoor
and Olson, 1973) A 6-9 2 h 93 >161 d
Aluminum pH 5.6 (Cleveland et al
1989) AfM 142 30 d 142 30 d
SC 68 60 d 142 60 d

Carassius auratus
Parathion (Rand, 1977 and Johnson FM 330 24 h 1 830 96 h
and Finley, 1980)
DDT (Weis and Weis, 1974) FM 1 3d 30-100 96 h

Cyprinus carpio
Distillery effluent (Gill and Toor, A 20% v/v 24 h 17.6% 48 h
1975) v/v
DDT (Besch et al, 1977) R 50 3-4 h 57 48 h
cont:

R&D Report 5 124

Table F.4 cont.

Species Parameter Behaviour exposure Lethal exposure

Contaminant and reference measured*
jig/1 Duration jig/1 Duration

Pimephales promelas
TNT (Smock, Stooeburoer and FM A 460 96 h 2 580 96 h
Claifc, 1976)

Ptychocheilus lucius 96 h
SC 1 700 96 h 4200
Shale oil (Woodward, Little and
Smith, 1987)

Arius felis
Copper (Steele, 1983) FM 50 72 h >200 72 h

Lepomis macrochirus
Methyl parathion (Henry and FM 3 10*14 d 4 380 96 h
Atchison, 1984)
Cadmium A 100 3d 500 14 d
Chromium A 50 3d >24 000 14 d
Zinc (Ellgaard, Tusa and Malizia, A 100 3d >5 000 14 d
1978)
DDT (EUgaaid, Ochsner and Cox, A 0.008 8d 02-1.0 96 h
1977)
Fluorene (Finger et al, 198S) SC 1 000 30 d 1000 30 d
nA 1000 m a 1 000 30 d

Micropterus salmoides
Copper A 100 6h 960 48 h
Cadmium A 100 16 h 1500 48 h
Phenol A 1 000 5h 20400 48 h
Ammonia A 500 16 h 16 700 48 h
Cyanide (Morgan, 1979 and A 50 5h 100 48 h
Morgan, 1977)

Pseudopleuronectes
americanus 24 h
Polyoxyethylene monolaurate A 1 000 24 h >10 000
(Wildish, 1974)

Notes: * A, activity (frequency and duration); FM, foim (posture and pattern); SC, swimming capacity, R,
iheotaxis.

Source: Little and Finger, 1990

R&D Report 5 125

Figure F.5 Effect of contaminants on swimming speed.

Source: Beamish, 1978

Pimepholes promelas
80 x - - 6.0 mq 0 2 litre'1
N --- -------------------

40 2.5 mg 0 2 litre*1

15°C
Distance,

J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1

40

- . B Pulpwood fibre 2 1°C

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I
0 200 400

Fibre Concentration, mg litre*1

50 Salvelinus fontinafis
Swimming Speed, cm sec'1

40 -

30

0
0 0 .5 1.0 1.5

Fenitrothion, mg litre 1 Copper, mg litre'1

R&D Report 5 126

Figure F.6 Relative swimming speeds of adult fish.

Source: Bell, 1986

Relative Swimming Speeds of Adult Fish

Chinook
Coho
Sockeye
Steelhead (2' - 2 7 ")
Cutthroat
Brown Trout
Grayling
Whitefish
Shad
Herring (6" * 11")
Anchovy
Carp
Goldfish (4 " - 8 " )
Suckers
Cod (1.8')
Mackerel {13" - 15")
Plaice {2.4* - 10")
Mullet (9 .5 s)
Stickleback (4")
« — *■- Cruising Speed
Lamprey
Sustained Speed
Eel (2’)
Eel (3') • * • ■ Darting Speed

Eel (5')
Eel (8’)

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Velocity in Feet/Second

R&D Report 5 127

Figure F.7 Relative swimming speeds of young fish.

Source: Bell, 1986

Relative Swimming Speeds of Young Fish

Coho (2")
Coho (3.5")
Coho (4.75")
Sockeye (5")
Brook Trout (3 ” - 5"]
Grayling (2" - 4")
American Shad (1" - 3")
Herring larvae (0.4* - 8")
Striped Bass (0.5") m

Striped Bass (1") ■ ■ ■ «

Striped Bass (2")

Striped Bass (5")
Mullet (0.5" - 2.75")
G lass Eels (2")
m mm m Cruising Speed

Elvers (4" - ii mm ■ Sustained Speed

Spot (0 .5 " - 2 .7 5 ")

m m m m Darting Speed

Pinfish (0.5* - 2.75") m m ■

1
0 0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2 .5 3.0 3.5 4 .0 4 .5 5.0

Velocity in Feet/Second

R&D Report 5 128

Figure F.8 Relative swimming speeds of MacKenzie River fish.

Source: Bell, 1986

Relative Swimming Speeds

of Mackenzie River Fish

Arctic Char (14") —

Arctic Grayling (8" - 12")
Round Whitefish (12") —
Humpback Whitefish (2" - 4"} —
Humpback Whitefish {6" - 1.5'} -------
Broad Whitefish (1.5" - 3.5") -
Broad Whitefish (5* - 14") ----
Mountain Whitefish (12") —
inconnu (7" - 17")
Arctic Cisco {16.5") -----
Least Cisco (11.5") —
Goldeneye (9") ----
Trout Perch (3") —
Yellow Walleye (9" - 16"}
Longnose Sucker (4" - 16")
White Sucker (7s -16") --------
Chub (7" - 12")
Emerald Shiner (2.5") — — i Sustained Speed
Burbot (8" - 2 ’)
i i i
0 4 8 12 16 20

Velocity in Feet/Second

R&D Report 5 129

Table F.5. Swimming speeds for fish, identified as important in British waters,
taken from the published literature.

Swimming
Species Length Weight Temp.
Cruising Sustained

Salmo salar 44-69cmsec*1

* ft 50-70cm tt-ZScxnsec'1
ft ft 53-87cm 0-17cmsec'1
(O-O^sec1)
ft ft 54cmsec*1
It ft 35cm
ft ft
ft ft 75-85cm

ft ft
ft ft 15-20cm M4*C 70-lOOcmsec*1
(3-4 lsec*1)
« ft 23.4cm 110.3g 15*C 50-76cmsec‘I
(2.1-3.2 lsec'1)
ft ft 4.0 fps I2.0fps
C0.2-l.4bls*1)
2bls-‘

Salmo trutta 2.2fps 6.2 fps

ft ft Adult 0-3fcs 3-7fps

ft ft 13-37cm 10-15*C

ft ft
34cm 34.1g 92crmec‘I
(2.7 lsec'1)
M ft 30cm 3 bis*'

* «*
0.2-2.2 bis*'

2.2 £ps 6.2 fps

 lscc'1 - lengths per second fps - feet per second bisec1 - body lengins per second

Speeds
Comments Ref. Original data
Critical Burst

Beamish Carlin (1968)

(1978)
w
Malinin (1973)
H
Max. 104cmsec*‘ Stasko (1975)
(13 Isec'1)
n Letovaltseva (1967)
347cmsec'1 m Denfl (1909)
300cmsec‘! H Lavollee (1902)
429- n Denfl (1937)
fiOOcmsec*1
(5.8-8.4 Isec*1)
805 n Lane (1941)
Salinity 0-30% n Byrne et al. (1972)

0 2 3.8-5.0mg/l 91 Kutty & Saunders

(1973)
23.2fps Observed max. Orsbom Calderwood (1930)
2 6.5fps (1 9 8 5 )
Winstone
(1985)
12.7 fps Observed max. Orsbom
12.8$s (1985)
7*125fps Bell (1986)
137-305 Beamish Blaxter & Dickson
cmsec'1 (1978) (1959)
(8.2-10.5
lsec’1)
m Magnan (1929)

Winstone
(1985)
Winstone
(1985)
12.7fps River Tywi Orsbom
(1985)
 Tabic F.5 continued

Swimming
Species Length Weight Temp.
Cruising Sustained
Esox lucias

n n
16.5cm 210cmssc'>
(12.7 lsec’1)
n n
37.8cm 148cmsec'1
(3.9 Ises*1)
N ft
12-62cm 7-1800g ire
99 *
80cm OJ'C S^cmsec'1
(0.8-1.6 Isecf1)
Anguilla 69-96cm 55-72cmsec'1
anguilla (0.6-0.9 bee*1)
Mean
Rutilus rutilus
Salvelinus 353cm ire
alpinus
Leuciscus 10.0-21.4 14t
leuciscus cm

ft w ft »

» *
18.2cm 170cmsec'1
(9^ 1» j c ‘)
Petromyzon 14.5-39.0 5-100g 5*C 16.6-33.6
marinus cm cmsec'1
(0.9-1.2 lsec‘)
n n ft tt
10*C 16.8-34.7
cmsec1
(0.9-1.2 lsec'1)
n n M n
15‘C 24.2-41.3
cmsec'1
(1.1-1.7 lsec1)

i
Speeds
Comments Ref. Original data
Critical Burst
360-450 Beamish Stringham (1924)
ansec*1 (1978)
*
Gray (1953)

«
Magnan (1929)

ISMTcmsecr1 *
Jones et al (1974)
(0.8-1.6 lsec'1)
*
Max. 300cmsec'‘ Poddubny et al
(3.8 Isec*1) (1970)
ft
13-173ansec'‘ Tesch (1974)
(0.2-2.0 Isec*1)
Range
455ansec*‘ Lane (1941)
n
100.2ansec*1 Jones et al (1974)
(2.8 Isec*1)
m
110-240 Bainbridge (1960)
cmsec*1
(11.0-11.2)
lscc'1
M
46-90cmsec’‘ N

(4.2*4.4 lsec*1)
n
Gray (1953)

n
Endurance Beamish (1974)

ft

m M ft
Tabic F.5 continued

Swimming
Species Length Weight Temp.
Cruising Sustained
Perea fluviatile 11.5cm

Gymnocephalus 10.5cm
cemua
Osmexus 15cm Max speed 0.49ms'1
epedanus

Anguilla 32cm Max speed 0.72ms*1

anguilla

i
I

Speeds
Comments Ref. Original data
Critical Burst

MScmsec'1 Beamish Komarov (1971)

(12.6 Iscc’1) (1978)
nScmscc'1 •n m
(12.7 lsec*1)
Sprengel &
Luchtenberg
(1991)
m
 Table F.6 Swimming speeds for non-British fish, taken from the published literature

Swimming
Species Length Weight Temp.
Cruising Sustained
Oncoihynchus 3.4fps 10.8fps
tschawytscha
0. keta 1.6fps 5.2fp*
0. Jrisutch 3.4fps lO.tifps
0. goibuscha l.Sfps 5.6fps
0. nedca 3.2fps I0.2fps
Salmo cladd ZOfps 6Afps
0. mykiss 4.6fjps 13.7fps
Anguilla 55-80 17-20*C 0.2ms'1 0.34ms’1
australis (LCFmm)
» M Adult
Elver

Australian
elvers
Galaxias 52-73 17-20‘C 0.19ms-1 0.36ms'1
maculatus (LCFmm)
» m

» n

Retropinna 56-67 17-20*C 0.19ms‘l 0.27ms'1

rctropinna (LCFmm)
n n

Galaxias 44-55 17-20'C 0.19ms'1 0.29ms'1

fasciaru (LCFmm)
rt »

T?
IP i»r»r>rt ^
Speeds
Comments Ref. Original data
Critical Burst
22.4fps Orsbom
(1985)
10.6fps
213fps «

11.3fps m

20.64m •

133fps m

263$» m

037ms*1 Mitchell
(1989)
1.26ms'1 Max speed Jowett (1987) Strickland Sc
0.74ms'1 (2*5 mins) Mitchell (1983)
0.31ms'1
0.37ms*1
0.75ms'1 Mitchell
(1990)
0.47ms'1 Mitchell
(1989)
1.25ms*1 Max speed Jowett (1987) Strickland St
(2-5 mins) Mitchell (1983)
0.38ms'1
1.25ms'1 Mitchell
% (1990)
0.50ms1 Mitchell
(1989)
0.93ms'1 Max speed Jowett (1987) Strickland Sc
(2-5 mins) MitcheU (1983)
0.23ms’1
0.43ms'1 Mitchell
(1989)
Can climb Max speed Jowett (1987) Strickland Sc
past high (2-5 mins) Mitchell (1983)
velocity water. 0.34ms'1
Table F.6 continued

Swimming
Species Length Weight Temp.
Cruising Sustained

Galaxias 30-42 17-20’C 0.24ms‘! 0.28ms'1

cotidianus (LCFmm)
tl N

Mugil cephalus 85-96 17-20*C 0.15mtfl 0.19ms*1

(LCFmm)
* n

n *
 — — .................. H ..
Speeds
Comments Ref. Original data
Critical Burst

0.6ms*1 Mitchell
(1989)
1.03ms'1 Max speed Jowett (1987) Strickland &
(2-5 mins) Mitchell (1983)
0.29ms'1
0.25ms*1 Mitchell
(1989)
0.28ms*1 Max speed Jowett (1987) Strickland &
(2-5 mins) Mitchell (1983)
0.19ms*1
0.3ms*1 Mitchell
(1990)
APPENDIX G - QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: Questionnaire and

R&D Report 5 135

Questionnaire on potential barriers to migrating fish and the effectiveness o f fish
passes.

This questionnaire has been compiled with the aim of collating and evaluating
information on existing and proposed fish passes in the U.K. To make this study as
comprehensive as possible would you please give as many details as possible for each
question and attach extra sheets of data if necessary. Please answer al[ questions. If
there is no data available please answer to that effect.

Please use one form per obstruction.

BARRIER DATA

1. Location and nature of barrier, (e.g. dam, weir, diversion, intake, lock, tide gate).
For location please give NRA region or equivalent, river and site name.

2. Head loss at site (metres).

RIVER DATA

3. River flow and level frequency data (especially data for low flow years).

4. Water temperature statistics. Please indicate what data is available and give
minimum and maximum figures for each month.

R&D Report 5 137

5. W ater pH and any quality data available. Please give details.

6. Debris problems, (extent/timing of likely debris e.g. weed cuts, trees, gravel, ice,
leaves etc.)

7. Means of excluding debris. If gratings are used please give size of openings.

8. Fish species. List those species that are or were important with details of size,
numbers and time of year expected. Is there a need to discourage some species.
(e.g. coarse fish)?

FISHPASS DATA

9. Type of fishpass in operation. (e.g. pool-and-weir, denil, vertical slot, combination

or any other). Please be as specific as possible. Give constuction date and details
of any modifications.

10. W ater velocity and/or discharge through the fishpass. Please give minimum,
maximum and normal range, (m/s or m3/s).

R&D Report 5 138

11. Physical dimensions of fishpass. These will vary depending on type of fishpass
but should include some of the following. Length, width and depth of pools, drop
between pools, slope, number and size of baffles, width and number of slots,
number of pools.

12. Entrance and exit Means of attraction and its effectiveness, i.e. is the entrance
always accessible?

13. Transit time of fish through fishpass.

14. Effectiveness of fishpass. Please give details of any monitoring or studies

conducted into its use - published or unpublished.

15. Downstream movement of fish. Any provisions and if so how effective? Please
report any problems and/or solutions at water supply intakes.

16. Cost of fishpass construction (capital, maintenance and operational). Please give
actual figures or as % of total cost of barrier. Give date if not current costing.

R&D Report 5 139

17. Construction details.
(Materials/methods/configurations/durability/construction time). Please send copy
of blueprint plans if available.

18. Was any temporary provision made for fish passage during construction of
barrier? If yes please give details.

19. Please give any further details or comments that will contribute to this study.

Thank you for your cooperation.

R&D Report 5 140

Table G .l Pool and weir fish passes. Results of questionnaire survey
N/A = Hfltfl not available N/D = no data given (no response to questions)
No. Location Head Flow Data Temperature
Loss (degrees C)

1 Chippenham Weir 3m Detailed information for 1986- Data for 1986-91

Wessex 91 and 1975-76. See Flow Data supplied. See
1 Table A Min.2.
Max.21

2 Keynsham Weir 2m Detailed information for 1986- Data for 1986-91

Wessex 91 and 1975-76. See Flow Data supplied. See
2 Table B Min.1.
Max.20.

3 Albert Mill 1.8m Detailed information for 1986- Data for 1986-91
Wessex 91 and 1975-76. See Flow Data supplied. See
3 Table C Min.4.
Max. 19.

4 Seagry Weir 1.5m Detailed information for 1986- Data for 1986-91
Wessex 91 and 1975-76. See Flow Data supplied. See
4 Table D Min.3.
Max.19.
5 Avon Weir 1m Detailed information for 1986- Data for 1986-91
Wessex 91 and 1975-76. See Flow Data supplied. See
4 Table D Min.3.
Max.19.

6 Twerton Weir 2.5m Detailed information for 1986- Data for 1986-91
Wessex 91 and 1975-76. See Flow Data supplied. See
5 Table E Min.2.
Max.20.

7 Melksham Weir 3m Detailed information for 1986- Data for 1986-91

Wessex 91 and 1975-76. See Flow Data supplied. See
6 Table F Min.1.
Max.20.

R&D Report 5 141

 PH W ater Quality Debris Fish Species

Data for 1986-91 Extensive range of No obvious problems other No known migratory
supplied. See Table determinands than flood related branches. salmonids. Coarse fish and
A. Range 7- 9. available on Boom across radial gate to some brown trout. Eels seen to
Mean 7.96 computer archive. protect this. No other means move up.
of excluding debris.
Data for 1986-91 Extensive range of No obvious problems other Designed primarily for sea
supplied. See Table determinands than flood related branches trout Recently installed trap
B. Range 7-9.2. available on etc. Occasional pallets or catching chub up to 30cm,
Mean 7.93 computer archive. larger items. 2 vertical possibly associated with
support pillars for pass spawning movements.
spaced approx. 1m apart have
some effect.
Data for 1986-91 Extensive range of No obvious problems other Built in 1988 with a view to
supplied. See Table determinands than flood related branches sea trout rehabilitation. No
C. Range 7.4-9.0. available on etc. No means of excluding information on effectiveness.
Mean 7.96 computer archive. debris.

Data for 1986-91 Extensive range of No obvious problems other No known migratory
supplied. See Table determinands than flood related branches salmonids. Coarse fish and
D. Range 7.2-8.4. available on etc. No means of excluding some brown trout
Mean 7.91 computer archive. debris.
Data for 1986-91 Extensive range of No obvious problems other No known migratory
supplied. See Table determinands than flood related branches salmonids. Coarse fish and
D. Range 7.2-8.4. available on etc. No means of excluding some brown trout
Mean 7.91 computer archive. debris.

Data for 1986-91 Extensive range of In floods, large amount of Some evidence that sea trout
supplied. See Table determinands debris comes down river may use this part of the river.
E. Range 73-8.9. available on especially in autumn which Coarse fish and some trout
Mean 8.0 computer archive. accumulates behind floating present
boom. Grid on fishpass 1.5
inch spacings.with opening of
2 feet on upper portion of
grating.
Data for 1986-91 Extensive range of No obvious problems other No known migratory
supplied. See Table determinands than branches etc. in flood salmonids in this section of
F. Range 73-8.3 available on events. river. Some evidence of sea
Mean 7.94 computer archive. trout and occassional stray
salmon in lower river. Coarse
fish and some brown trout
present.

142
 Fish Pass Details
Flow Pool Size Pool Depth Drop No.Pools Additional Data
N/A 2.5mxl.5m N/D 0.33m 5 + holding See Diagram 1
pool

N/A 3mxl.5m 1.26m N/D 4 Width of traverse opening

0.6m. See Diagram 2

N/A 3mx? N/D N/D 3 Notch in weir

600mmx300mm. See Plan
3.

N/A 2mx2m 0.33m 0.18 - 4 See Diagram 4

2J>mx3m 0.30m
3mx3m

N/A 2mx2 m 0.75m 0.30m 2 See Diagram 5

2.5mx3m

N/A 3.0mxl.3m 1m 0.35m 5 See Diagram 6

N/A 1.5mxl.5ni lm 0.30m 4

143
 Entrance/Exit Maintenance/Construction Comments

Submerged piling directs flow to No known data on costs or See: How Data 1
an extent 45 degrees to form construction Table A
attraction zone in front of weir Diagram 1

Entrance always accessible, Construction cost approx. £70,000 See:Flow Data 2

attraction by angled entrance in 1987. No information available Table B
towards centre of weir. Probably on construction Diagram 2
not 100 % effective

Entrance always accessible. £2,000 paid for materials in 1988. See:Flow Data 3
Labour costs unknown-absorbed Table C
by mill refurbishment company. Plan 3
No information available on
construction.
Entrance always accessible. No known details of costs or See:Flow Data 4
Attraction appears spread across construction. Table D
river. Diagram 4

Entrance always accessible. Flow No known details of costs or See:Flow Data 4

through fish pass quite attractive construction. Table D
although radial gate will also Diagram 5
attract fish and at times will have
the major flow.
Outflow of water at 90 degrees to No details given of cost or See:Flow Data 6
radial gate. Entrance always construction. Table E
accessible. Major attraction from Diagram 5
overspill gate is at opposite side of
river.

Attracted by flow of weir. In times No known details except of See:Flow Data 6

of low flow and also with radial concrete construction. Table F
gate present effectiveness of pass
attraction could be low.

144
 Tabic G.l cont.
No. Location Head Flow Data Temperature
Loss (degrees C)

8 Pulteney Weir 13m Detailed information for 1986- Data for 1986-91
Wessex 91 and 1975-76. See Flow supplied. See
Data 8 Table E.
Min.2 . Max.20
10 Newbridge Sluice 03- Discharge frequency for River Monthly average
Wessex 13m Tone at Bishops Hull available figures 1985-90
depend for 1962-87. See Flow Data 10 Jan6.7 Jull7.0
ing on Feb7.1 Augl7.6
state of Mar7.9 Sep 14.2
tide Apr9.4 O c tll.l
M ayl2.6 Nov7.7
Junl6.4 Dec9.2
11 Fiiepool Weir 1.9m Same information as at As above
Wessex Newbridge Sluice. See Flow
Data 10

12 Ham Weir lm Same information as at As above

Wessex Newbridge Sluice. See Flow
Data 10

13 French Weir 1.8 m Same information as at As above

Wessex Newbridge Sluice. See Flow
Data 10

14 Great Weir 1.4m Mean monthly flows in cumecs 20 readings for

Wessex for 1990 Jan 28.8, Feb 61.11, 1990-91. See
Mar 34.96, Apr 20.3, Table H
May 1236, Jun 9.62, Jul 63,
Aug 5.3, Sept 5 3 , Oct 9.1,
Nov 7.7, Dec N/A
15 Salisbury Generating See Mean monthly flows in cumecs As above
Station Plan 15 1990 at East Mills Jan 17.96,
Wessex Feb 51.14, Mar 24.66, Apr
14.41, May 10.24, Jun 9.16, Jul
6.43, Aug 4.13, Sept 4.04, Oct
•
4.95, Nov 5.01, Dec 5.76

145
R&D Report 5
 PH W ater Quality Debris Fish Species

Data for 1986-91 Extensive range of No problems. No means of Pass may be used by sea trout
supplied. See Table determinands excluding debris. which occasionally get
E. Range 7.3-8.9. available on caught.
Mean 8.0 computer archive
N/D N/D Debris during winter months Salmon and sea trout. Judged
has often been removed to be effective as fish
upstream. The main problem regularly pass through this
can be that of 'cut weed* structure.
during Jul-Sept No means of
exclusion although pass
located at end of weir which
aids clearance.
N/D N/D Mainly trees and branches Salmon and trout. Wodc done
Oct-March. No means of during 1958-60 established
exclusion. that salmon do gain access
through pass. Subsequent
observations confiim this.

N/D N/D As above, but pass located Salmon and trout known to
adjacent to one bank. use this pass with success.

N/D N/D Mainly trees and branches Salmon and sea trout Aug-
Oct-March. No means of O ct Work undertaken in
exclusion. 1958-60 and subsequent
observation indicate that pass
is used successfully.
7-8 Class 1A No problems and no means of Installed for migratory
exclusion. salmonids, no need to
discourage any species. Fish
regularly observed ascending
pass.

7-8 Class 1A As above As above

146
 Fish Pass Details
Flow Pool Size Pool Depth Drop No. Pools Additional Data
N/A N/D 1m N/D 2 Weirs have 1m wide
traverses. See diagram
8

N/D 3.4mx2.24m 1,3m 0.2m-0.4m 4

depending
on tide

N/D 2mx2.5m 1.3m 0.38m can 5

be adjusted
by boards
to provide
less
turbulent
flows
N/D 4.4mx3.0m N/D 0.3m can 3
be adjusted
to provide
the least
turbulent
conditions
N/D 3mx2.4m 1.4m 0.5m 4 Opening to each pool
1.2mx0.45m for fish to
enter

unknown Full details given on Plan 14

unknown Full details given on Plan 15

147
 Entrance/Exit Maintenance/Construction Comments

Entrance is in centre of crescent No known details See: Flow data 8

shaped weir, attraction in centre Table E
o f white water. Diagram 8

Entrance always accessible No cost details known. See: Flow data 10

Constructed of 0.3m reinforced
concrete.

Entrance always accessible Cost £1,010 (1957). Modification Constructed June-Oct. 1957.
costs in 1968 not identified. Modified in 1968 to provide less
Constructed of 0.3m reinforced turbulent flow conditions.
concrete.

Entrance always accessible. No cost details available. Constructed 1968.

Adjustable boards. Constructed of 0.3m reinforced
concrete.

Entrance always accessible with Cost £1,010 (1957). Modification Constructed June-Oct. 1957 and
adjustable boards. costs not identified. Constructed modified in 1968 to provide less
of 0.3m reinforced concrete. turbulent flow.

Entrance always accessible. Constructed in 1978 see Plan 14 See:Plan 14

for construction details. Table H

Entrance always accessible. Constructed in 1981 see Plan 15 See:Plan 15

for construction details. Table H
 Tabic G.l cont.

No. Location Head Flow Data Temperature

Loss (degrees C)

16 Standlynch Weir See As for Salisbury Generating As above

Wessex Plan 16 Station - see above
17 Wild Weirs 0 .6 m As for Salisbury Generating As above
Wessex Station - see above
18 Bickton Mill 2.3m As for Salisbury Generating As above
Station - see above

19 Bickton Weir See As for Salisbury Generating As above

Wessex plan 19 Station - see above
28 Caneghofa Weir 2.9m Mean flow Gong term to 1988-89
Severn Trent 1989)=478mld Min-5
Dry weather flow=54mlcL Max-14
Minimum fiow =llm ld Mean-9
Detailed hydrometric records
available.

29 Castle Weir 2m 1988-89 1988-89

Severn Trent Mean flow=4048mld. Min-3
Dry weather flow=423mld. Max-20
Minimum flow=91mld. Mean-11
Detailed hydrometric records Detailed records
available. available.

30 Horstead Mill 1.5m Data available but not supplied. Data available
Anglian but not supplied.

32 Sunderland Road N/D N/D N/D

Bridge
Northumbria
(weir/bridge footing)
33 Witton Park N/D N/D N/D
Northumbria
(weir/ford)
34 Brownie S.T.W. N/D N/D N/D
Northumbria

149
R&D Report 5
 PH Water Quality Debris Fish Species

7-8 Class 1A As above As above

7-8 Class 1A or IB As above As above

7-8 Class 1A Prone to infrequent blockage As above

by weed and other debris
through summer months

7-8 Class 1A No problems and no means of As above

exclusion
1988-89 Data available on Occasional tree debris Salmon - approx. 500-1000pa
Min-6.8 BOD, TOC, SS, removal required. No means mostly Sept-Dee. Works well
Max-7.5 n h 3, TON, of exclusion since 1983 modification. Pass
Mean-7.2 conductivity, is only means of access to
hardness, important spawning tributary
phosphate, DO and which supports up to 2000
metals spawning salmon per year

1988-89 As above Occasional clear out of large Salmon - main runs April-
Min-6.5 floating debris required. No June and Sept-Nov. Mean
Max-8.4 mean of exclusion numbers:2500. Min: 1000,
Mean-7.3 Max:5000. Very effective
pass. Rod catches upstream
have increased from 15% to
50% of total R.Sevem salmon
catch. Electronic counter.
Comprehensive data available but not N/D Coarse fish and occasional
supplied sea trout. Effectiveness
unknown.
N/D N/D N/D Salmon, sea trout, brown trout
and coarse species.

N/D N/D N/D Salmon, sea trout, brown trout

and coarse species.

N/D N/D N/D Sea trout, brown trout.

150
 Fish Pass Details
Flow Pool Size Pool Depth Drop No. Pools Additional Data
Full details given on Plan 16

unknown Full details given on Plan 17 Tilting gates

unknown Full details given on Plan 18

unknown Full details given on Plan 19 Notched weirs

N/A Full details including modifications given on Plan 28

N/A Full details given on Plan 29 7

Data available N/D N/D N/D N/D

but not
supplied
N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D

NZD N/D N/D N/D N/D

N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D

151
 Entrance/Exit Maintenance/Construction Comments

Entrance always accessible. Constructed 1987 see Plan 16 for See:Plan 16

construction details. Table H
Entrance always accessible. No infoimation available on costs See:Plan 17
or construction.
Entrance always accessible. Constructed 1978, see Plan 18 for See:Plan 18
details. Replaced existing fish
pass - no indication as to why this
was necessary.
Entrance always accessible. Constructed 1987. For See: Plan 19
construction details see Plan 19.
Entrance modified in 1983 to Estimated cost £30,000 in 1976. Originally constructed 1976. 2
reduce height of entrance and Built in dry, adjacent to weir. additional pools/weirs added at
relocate it into main flow, Concrete structure. Construction downstream end in 1983,
downstream of the weir. Pass is time: approx. 2 months. See: Plan 29
always accessible but the river is
primarily a spawning tributary
with few salmon running before
autumn.
Fish readily find entrance. Construction cost £60,000 in See:Plan 29
1976. Maintenance cost £500 pa.
Sheet piles/concrete construction.
Construction time: approx. 3
months

Entrance always accessible. Constructed circa 1960-1965. No further information given but
Costs unknown. contact given for further details
(Dr J. Wordey).
N/D Constructed 1991.

N/D Constructed 1989.

N/D N/D

152
 Tabic G.l cont.

No. Location Head Flow Data Temperature

Loss (degrees C)

35 Washerley Bum N/D N/D N/D

Northumbria
36 Swinhope Bum N/D N/D N/D
Northumbria
37 Staindrop Mill Dam 2m N/D N/D
Northumbria
40 Tongland Dam 3.048m Average flow = 31.8 m3/s Daily water
Dumfries and Minimum flow = 3.9 m3/s temperature
Galloway Region Maximum flow = 308.0 m3/s available for
River flow controlled from four year period
barrage at Glenlochar. 1979-82. See
Table 10.

41 River Ayr Weir N/A Data available from Clyde RPB Monthly data
Clyde River gauging station - none supplied available for at
Purification Board least 20 years.
None supplied

42 Earlstoun Dam 2.134m Maximum river flow dependent N/A

Dumfries and on discharge from Carsfad
Galloway Region Power Station, fish pass release
from Carsfad, inflow from
Polharrow Bum and spillage
and needle valve losses from
Carsfad Dam.

43 Carsfad Dam 2.134m Maximum river flow to N/A

Dumfries and Carsfad dependent on discharge
Galloway Region from Kendoon Power Station,
inflow from Polmaddy Bum
and spillage and needle valve
losses from Ken & Deugh
Dams.

153
R&D Report 5
 PH Water Quality Debris Fish Species

N/D N/D N/D Sea trout, brown trout.

N/D N/D N/D Sea trout, brown trout.

N/D N/D N/D Sea trout, salmon and brown

trout
N/A N/A Branches and twigs Salmon 12-14 lb July-Sept A
occasionally block orifices. few sea trout No apparent
Regular checking and clearing need to discourage coarse
carried o ut In extreme cold fish.
weather conditions ice forms Salmon ut> Kelts down
but no significant problems 1986 1140 302
experienced. No means of 1987 2232 480
excluding debris. 1988 3030 831
1989 2985 1228
1990 1636 550
Monthly pH data Monthly water N/A Salmon and sea trout
available for at quality data
least 20 years. available for at
None supplied. least 20 years.
None supplied.
N/A N/A Occasional problems with Salmon 12-14 lb July-Sept.
branches and twigs blocking No numbers available. No
orifices. Regular checking and apparent need to discourage
clearing. In extreme cold ice coarse fish. Pass veiy
forms but no significant effective.
problems. No means of
excluding debris.

N/A N/A As above As above

154
 Fish Pass Details
Flow Pool Size Pool Depth Drop No. Pools Additional Data
N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D

N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D

N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D

2, 3« Total length fish pass =

Normal 16*x 10 ’ 4* 6 " 27 plus
0.37m3/s 3 resting 700*, gradient 1:10
Min-0.26m3/s pools
Max.0.63mVs 70* x 25*

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Normal 15*x 10* 2* 34 plus Total length 700’,

0.538m3/s 3 resting gradient 1:11
Min0310m3/s pools,
Max0.566m3/s largest
70'x30'

Normal 15* x 9" 2* 33 plus Total length 850*,

0.453m3/s 3 resting gradient 1:15
Min0396m3/s pools,
Max0-510m3/s largest
125*x30’

155
 Entrance/Exit Maintenance/Construction Comments

N/D Constructed 1988.

N/D N/D

N/D Concrete constructions.

3 intake/exits are provided Capital cost (1935) = £11,000. Originally designed in 1930/35 to
through dam (2 ’6 Hsquare) 8 . 1% of total dam cost. use submerged orifices. Although
difference in level between each Maintenance cost approx. £3,000 fish used the pass improvements
is 4* and reservoir provided for a (1991). Operational cost is £2,000 were made to it and it was
drawdown of 10'. To allow for (1991). Pools constructed using changed to overfall type.
this 10 * rise and fall automatic reinforced concrete. Class ’O’ on
electrical control gates have been base, class *M* on walls.
fitted to ensure accessibility at all
dam working levels.

N/A Constructed 1990. Further

information on pass construction
available from: Catrine Whisky
Bond, Catrine, Ayrshire.

2 exits/entrances through dam Constructed 1930/35 at capital

measuring 2 ?6" square. 7 foot rise cost of £8,500, at 12.3% of total
and fall - provided with automatic cost of dam. Maintenance cost
gates which ensure accessibility at approx. £3,000 (1991).
all times. Operational cost approx. £2,000
(1991). Pools constructed of
reinforced concrete. Class ’O’ on
base, class ’M* on walls.
As above. Constructed 1930/35 at capital
cost of £6,000, 5.4% of total cost
of dam. Other details as above.
 Table G.l cont.

No. Location Head How Data Temperature

Loss (degrees C)

44 Loch Doon Dam 12.192m Inflow from Loch Doon via Monthly
Strathclyde Region Galla & Eglin Lanes and from readings from
Gaxpel Bum also inflow from site below dam
indirect catchment of Deugh available but not
and Bow Bum. supplied.

45 Thwaite Mills 1. 1m N/D N/D

Yorkshire

46 England Mills N/D N/D N/D

Yorkshire

157

R&D Report 5
 PH W ater Quality Debris Fish Species

Monthly readings Monthly leadings No debris problems. In Salmon 12-14 lb

from site below from site below extreme cold ice forms but no Salmon up Kelts down
dam available but dam available but significant problems. No 1987 26 11
not supplied. not supplied means of excluding debris. 1988 261 130
1989 185 44
1990 368 74

N/D N/D N/D N/D

N/D N/D N/D N/D

158
 Fish Pass Details
Flow Pool Size Pool Depth Drop No. Pools Additional Data
Normal 14’ x 8 * 2’ Ladder 6 + Fish ladder below dam
0.453m7s 2 resting communicates with
Min0396m3/s pools. circular tower on
Max0-510m3/s Circular upstream side of dam.
tower 15. Every second pool in
tower has opening to
dam.
N/D 3m long 1.2m 0.38m 3 Notches 0.6m x 0.25m.
Full details given on
Plan 45.

N/D Full details given on Plan 46.

159
 Entrance/Exit Maintenance/Construction Comments

Entrance/exit 1*6" x 2*11". Hand Capital cost £6,000 (1936) 7.5% See Plan 44
operated control sluice operated of total dam cost. Maintenance
from top o f tower. Sluices give and operational costs - as above.
submerged access to ladder. Only Reinforced concrete.
one sluice opened at a time.

N/D N/D See Plan 45. See: Reports/Memos

45. Information extracted from
correspondence files. No
questionnaire was filled in.
N/D N/D See Plan 46. See: Reports/Memos
46. Information extracted from
correspondence files. No
questionnaire was filled in.

160
Table G.2 Denil fish passes. Results of questionnaire survey

N/A = data not available N/D = no data given (no response to questions)

No. Location Head Flow Data Temperature

Loss (degrees C)
9 Keynsham Park Weir 2m Detailed information for 1986- Data for 1986-91
Wessex 91 and 1975-76. See Flow Data supplied. See
3. Table C. Min.4.
Max 19.

20 Standlynch Mill See Mean monthly flows in cumecs 20 readings for

Wessex Plan 20 for 1990 at East Mills. 1990-91. See
Jan 17.958, Feb 51.141, Mar Table H.
24.660, Apr 14.41, May
10.243, Jun 9.167, Jul 6.434,
Aug 4.125, Sept 4.044, Oct
4.946, Nov 5.010, Dec 5.758.
21 Hum Weir lm Means monthly flows in Data supplied for
Wessex cumecs for 1990 at Hum 1990-91. Range
Court. Jan 3.418, Ffeb 7.982, 3-19. See Table L
Mar 2.142, Apr 1306, May
0.758, Jun 0.550, Jul 0.364,
Aug 0.337, Sept 0.347, Oct
0.654, Nov 0.773, Dec 1.026.
22 Longaller Weir 2 .86m Discharge frequency for River Monthly averages
Wessex Tone at Bishops Hull available for 1985-1990
for 1962-1987. See Flow Data Jan 6.7 Feb 7.1
10. Mar 7.9 Apr 9.4
May 12.6 Junl6.4
Jul 17.0 Augl7.6
Septl4.2 O c tll.l
Nov 7.7 Dec 9.2?
23 Washford River - 1.06m 3 year discharge frequency N/D
upstream pass (1985-87) River Washford at
Wessex Beggeam Huish. See Flow
Data 23.

24 Washford River - 1.7m As above. N/D

downstream pass
Wessex

R&D Report 5 161

 PH Water Quality Debris Fish Species

Data for 1986-91 Extensive range of No problems yet encountered. Installed for sea trout. No
supplied. See Table determinands No means of exclusion. data on size of any run. There
C. Range 7.4-9.0. available on is seasonal migration of roach
Mean 7.96 computer archive. from main river, not yet
known if they will use pass.

7 -8 Class 1A No problems. No means of Pass designed for migratory

exclusion. salmonids. No need to
discourage any species.

7 -8 DO, BOD and NH, N/D Weir is major obstruction to

See Table 9 data available. See dace (60-23mm) in autumn
Table 9. when large numbers enter
Moors River. Salmon and
migratory trout can ascend
weir without much difficulty.

N/D N/D Problem from Oct-Mar. Pass Salmon and sea trout -
located on inside of bend so numbers not yet known. Run
much debris excluded from Aug-Oct. Pass to be
entering pass. monitored in 1991 - fish have
been seen attempting to pass.

N/D N/D Problem during winter months Sea trout upstream migration.
- channel quite narrow & weir Very effective pass - many
located in centre of channel. fish electrofished upstream.
No means of excluding debris
- but cleared regularly.
N/D N/D Not as much a problem as Sea trout. Very effective.
upstream pass - see above.

162
B - total width of baffle Y * height of baffle b - clear width of baffle

Fish Pass Details

Flow No. baffles Size of baffles Slope Additional Data
Q 95% = 0.314 m3/s B = 910 mm For full details see Plan 9
Y = 920 mm
b = 530 znm
Angle = 45®

See Plan 20 14 B = 680 mm 1:5 For full details see Plan 20

Y = 1110 mm
b = 410 mm
Angle = 45°

0.76 mi/s B = 780 mm For full details see Plan 21

Y = 475 mm
b = 500 mm
Angle = 30®

Q 95% = 0.63 m3/s 15 B = 910 mm Length = 9 m . Discharges

b = 530 mm into concrete pool 3 m x
Angle = 45° 1.5 m with min. depth of
0.6 m between baffles 1.2 m. Full details see Plan
22

Variable 14 B = 570 mm 1 :5 Length 5.21 m

Y = 1070 mm Full details see Plan 23
b = 330 mm
Angle = 45®
0.38 m between baffles
Variable 23 As above 1:5 Length = 8 J> m
Full details see Plan 24

163
 Entrance/Exit Maintenance/Construction Comments

Entrance always accessible, Approx. cost £35,000 in 1990. See: Flow Data 3
angled to create attraction zone in Construction: river passed down Table C
white water to front of weir. through sluices. Weir left dry and Plan 9
sheet piling (cofferdam) placed in
river. Prefabricated Denfl brought
to site.
Entrance always accessible. Baffles of 12 mm glass reinforced Sec: Table H
plastic. No cost details but Plan 20
construction information on Plan
20. Constructed 1987.

Entrance will always be Cost estimated at £27,000. Due to Report entitled - Appraisal report
submerged and is located in the be constructed summer 1991. on improvements to facilitate the
centre of the structure. upstream migration of dace,
contains much information with
cost comparisons for other types
of solution to the problem. See:
Table I, Plan 21, Report.
Entrance open at all times. Installed in existing weir July See: Flow Data 10
Attraction by discharge from pool 1990 - cost £27,000. Steel Plan 22
across base of weir. galvanised prefabricated pass in
reinforced concrete channel.

Pass located in centre of weir and Constructed in 1989 - cost See: Flow Data 23
takes all flow for most of the £12,000. Steel galvanised in Plan 23
year. sections and erected on site.

As above. Constructed in 1989 - cost Sec: Flow Data 23

£13,000. Others details as above. Plan 24

164
 Tabic G.2 cont.

No. Location Head Flow Data Temperature

Loss (degrees C)
25 Powick Weir 1.3m Mean flow = 1114 mid 1988-89
Severn Trent Dry weather flow = 265 mid Min. 5
Min. flow = 70 mid Max. 18
Mean 11

26 Ashford Mill Weir 1.5m 1988-89 1988-89

Severn Trent Mean flow = 906 mid Min. 4
Dry weather flow = 145 mid Max. 16
Minimum flow = 48 mid Mean 10

27 Beeston 2.4m Low flow = 45 cumec 25 year mean

Severn Trent Flood flow = 1130 cumec 16.3
Measurements taken approx. 6
km downstream

38 Brouen Scar Weir N/D N/D N/D

Northumbria

39 Little Rubston 0.5m N/A N/A

Gauging Station
Yorkshire

R&D Report 5 165

 Entrance/Exit Maintenance/Construction Comments

Entrance adjacent to large sluice Constructed summer 1990 - cost

providing additional attraction £55,000. Prefabricated aluminium
flow. Entrance/exit always DenH pass in concrete supporting
accessible. walls in weir sluiceway.
Construction time, approx. 3
months.

Adjacent by-pass channel and mill Constructed winter 1989-90. Cost

sluice provide extra attraction £25,000. Maintenance costs not
flow. Pass currently operated on yet known but estimated at £500 I

Oct-Feb basis for main spawning pa. Prefabricated aluminium Denil

run. in concrete supporting walls in
old mill sluice channel.
Construction time - approx. 2
months.

Attraction by two ducts from top Constructed in Nov 1984 - cost See: Plan 27. Report entitled -
of pass plus main flow. Entrance £15,000. Reintroduction of salmon into the
always accessible. River Trent - a preliminary study
which details obstruction and
possible remedial action.
N/D Modular unit constructed in 1987.

Entrance always accessible Cost approx £3,000 for Denil unit See: Memo to Wessex area.
plus civil works for fitting. Pass
opened June 1991.

168
APPENDIX H - CONVERSION TABLE FOR IMPERIAL AND SI UNITS

R&D Report 5 169

THE METRIC SYSTEM
Linear Measure
1 inch = 25.400 millimetres 1 millimetre = 0.03937 inch
1 foot = 0.3048 metre 1 centimetre = 0.3937 inch
1 yard - 0.9144 metre 3.2808 feet
1 metre
={1.0936 yards
1 mile = 1.6093 kilometres 1 kilometre = 0,6214 mile

Square Measure
1 sq. inch 645.16 sq. mm. 1 sq. cm. = 0.1550 sq. in.
1 sq. foot 0.0929 sq. m. = / 10.7639 sq. ft.
1 sq. yard 0.8361 sq. m. 1 sq. m. 1 1.1960 sq. yds.
1 acre 0.4047 hectare 1 hectare = 2.4711 acres
1 sq. mile 259.00 hectares
1 hectare 10.000 m2. 1 km2 = 247.105 acres
Cubic Measurement
1 cubic inch 16.387 cubic cm. 1 cubic mm. 0.000061 cubic in.
1 cubic foot 0.0283 cubic m. 35.3147 cubic ft.
1 cubic yard 0.7646 cubic m. 1 cubic m. 1.308 cubic yds.

Measure of Capacity
1 pint 0.568 litre _ /1.7598 pints
1 litre
1 gallon 4.546 litres I 0.22 gallon

MISCELLANEOUS CONVERSION FACTORS AND CONSTANTS

Section Modulus
1 inch3 16.39 centimetres3
1 inch3per foot of wall 53.7 centimetres3per metre of wall
1.86 inch3 per foot of wall 100 centimetres3per metre of wall
Moment of Inertia
1 inch4 = 41.62 centimetres4
ll b(f) = 4.449 Newtons
1 pound per linear foot = 1.4881 kilogrammes per linear metre
1 pound per square foot = 4.883 kilogrammes per square metre
0.205 pounds per square foot = 1 kilogramme per square metre
1 ton (f) per linear foot = 32.69 kilonewtons per linear metre
1000 pound (f) per square foot = 47.882 kilonewtons per square metre
1 ton (f) per square inch = 15.444 Newtons per square millimetre
1 ton (f) per square foot - 107.25 kilonewtons per square metre
100 pound per cubic foot = 1602 kilogrammes per cubic metre
100 pound (f) per cubic foot = 15.7 kilonewtons per cubic metre
1 ton (f) foot Bending Moment = 10 kilonewton metres Bending Moment
per foot of wall per metre of wall
1 metre head of fresh water = 1 kilogramme per square centimetre
1 metre head of sea water - 1.025 kilogrammes per square centimetre
1 cubic metre of fresh water = 1000 kilogrammes
1 cubic metre of sea water = 1025 kilogrammes
1 radian = 57.3 degrees
Young’s Modulus, steel = 210 kN/mm2
100 microns = 01.mm = 0.004 inch

R&D Report 5 171

EQUIVALENTS OF METRES IN FEET

1 metre - 3-28084 feet

Metres •0 •1 •2 -3 -4 •5 •6 •7 •8 •9

0 •3281 •6562 •9843 1-3123 1*6404 1*9685 2*2966 2-6247 2-9528

1 3-2808 3-6089 3*9370 4-2651 4-5932 4*9213 5*2493 5-5774 5-9055 6*2336
2 6-5617 6-8898 7-2178 7-5459 7-8740 8*2021 8-5302 8-8583 9-1863 9*5144
3 9-8425 10-1706 10-4987 10-8268 11-1549 11-4829 11-8110 121391 12-4672 12-7953

4 131234 13-4514 13-7795 14-1076 14-4357 14-7638 15*0919 15-4199 15-7480 16*0761
5 16-4042 16-7323 17-0604 17-3884 17-7165 18-0446 18-3727 18-7008 190289 19*3570
6 19-6850 20-0131 20-3412 20-6693 20-9974 21*3255 21-6535 21-9816 22-3097 22-6378
7 22-9659 23-2940 23-6220 23-9501 24*2782 24-6063 24-9344 25-2625 25-5905 25*9186

8 26-2467 26-5748 26-9029 27-2310 27*5590 27-8871 28-2152 28-5433 28-8714 29*1995
9 29-5276 29-8556 30-1837 30-5118 30*8399 311680 31-4961 31-8241 32-1522 32*4803
10 32-8084 33-1365 33-4646 33-7926 34-1207 34-4488 34-7769 35-1050 35-4331 35-7611

EQUIVALENTS OF FEET IN METRES

1 foot —0-3048 o f a metre

Feet •0 •1 •2 •3 •4 •5 •6 •7 •8 •9

0 ■03048 •06096 ■09144 •12192 •15240 •18288 *21336 •24384 ■27432

1 *30480 •33528 •36576 ■39624 -42672 •45720 •48768 *51816 •54864 ■57912
2 ■60960 *64008 •67056 *70104 •73152 ■76200 •79248 *82296 •85344 •88392
3 •91440 •94488 *97536 1-00584 1-03632 1*06680 1*09728 1*12776 115824 1-18872

4 1-21920 1-24968 1-28016 1*31064 1-34112 1-37160 140208 1*43256 1-46304 1-49352
5 1-52400 1-55448 1-58496 1*61544 1*64592 1-67640 1*70688 1-73736 1-76784 1-79832
6 1-82880 1-85928 1-88976 1*92024 1-95072 1*98120 201168 2-04216 2*07264 2-10312
7 2-13360 2-16408 2 19456 2-22504 2-25552 2-28600 2-31648 2-34696 2-37744 2-40792

8 2-43840 2-46888 2*49936 2-52984 2-56032 2*59080 2-62128 2-65176 2-68224 2-71272
9 2-74320 2-77368 2*80416 2-83464 2-86512 2-89560 2-92608 2-95656 2-98704 3-01752
10 3-04800 3-07848 3*10896 3-13944 3*16992 3-20040 3-23088 3-26136 3-29184 3-32232

E ffective O ctober 1986.

R&D Report 5 172

i

173
R&D Report 5
FRENCH LANGUAGE PAPERS

1. Belaud, A. and Dautrey, R. et al (1985) Observations on the migration behaviour of

alewive (Alosa alosa L.) in the artificial canal of Golfech hydroelectric plant [F.e]., Annls
Limnol.. 21, No.2, 161-172.

For 4 consecutive years, daily fishing over a period of upstream migration of ale wives
{Alosa alosa L.) were performed on the site of Golfech: an hydroelectric plant on the
Garonne river. This paper presents observations on the migratory behaviour of this fish in
the artificial canal located between the plant and the confluence. The migration develops
in spring when the water temperature reaches approximately 16 degrees C and, above this
level, the maximal affluence of alewives corresponds with increasing temperature phases.
The relationship between water temperature and capture abundance is significant if one
considers the beginning of migration, then becomes inconsistent when the migration
reaches the maximum. Similar to the thermal factor, there are hydraulic characteristics
which influence the alewive migration (water flow through the different turbines,
downstream level...). The various fishing operations indicate that alewives explore
diumally upward and downward the artificial canal by passing on the bottom. Every night
or when the conditions are unfavourable they stay in deep water downstream in the river.
Compared with previous observations the actual results indicate a typical migratory
behaviour in an artificial canal.

2. Boisneau, P., Mennesson, C. and Bagliniere, J.L. (1985) Observations sur l'activite de
migration de la grande alose Alosa alosa L. en Loire (France) [F.e]# Hvdrobiologia. 128,
227-284.

We studied the migratory activity of shad {Alosa alosa Linne) in the middle part of the
Loire river, using stop net catches, in 1984. The migration started in the beginning of
April, instead of February, as more usual. The end of migration is not precisely known,
because ( f adverse hydrological conditions. During migration, the shad principally used
the channel with the highest current velocity. The migration was disturbed by the presence
of obstacles (weirs, dams of nuclear power stations). The daily and hourly activity of
migration was strongly correlated with variations in water temperature. Shads did not run
up at temperatures below 11 degrees C. The upstream limit of distribution was situated at
more than 500 km from the estuary.

3. Denoziere, P. (1987) Legal improvements aimed at facilitating the installations of

overpasses for fish. [F.e], La Houille Blanche. No.1/2, 149-153.

Currently, these improvements are essentially contained in the new fishing Law and
mainly in article 411 of the new Rural Code. This article requires the enforcement o f texts
which are not yet known. However, the important measures of article 411 ought to allow
many desirable improvements to be made including the restoration of overpasses in
previous works which were poorly maintained or even had no water supply. Nevertheless,
the related ways and means are uncertain because the content of the texts enforced are not
yet known, this being the only possible way to obtain information about the interpretation
of the Law in the light of the preparatory works. At the same time, a concession relating

R&D Report 5 175

to the authorisation procedures or concession of works in question ought to be sought.
Moreover, apart from the legislation on fishing, the Act of 15 July 1980 modifying that of
16 October 1919 and its applicable legal texts provide distinct possibilities for legal
improvements to the crossing of works to be obtained.

4. Elie, P. and Rigaud, C. (1987) The impact of tidal barrage on the migraiton of
amphihalins, a sub-family of salmon species, easily adaptable to fresh and salt w ater Le­
the case of eels and the Aizal barrage. [F.e], La Houille Blanche. No.1/2, 99-108.

The Arzal barrage suddenly changed the fluo-estuarian working system o f die Vilainc 14
years ago. The problems o f overpass especially affect adult eels and also young eels
during anadromous migration (increase fish catching, complete blockage of migration...),
as well as the sedentary phase sub-adult function during their trophic (or other)
movements. To increase the penetrability of the overpass or improve its crossing by young
eels, a diversity of solutions are proposed: some of these solutions do not require physical
development of the overpass but only require effective improvement (better management
of vavles and sluices); others offer the guarantee of a subsequent permanent pass for fish
likely to colonize the catchment area. Examples relating to this type of im provem ent are
quite common abroad but do not exist in France.

5. Gregoire, A. and Travade, F. (1987) EDF’s experience relating to fish ladders and
efficiency follow-up. [F.e], La Houille Blanche. No.1/2, 65-72.

Since 1982, and in accordance with the provisions of the EDF/Environment

Ministiy/Energy State Secretarial agreement, EDF contributed to the national effort made
to re-establish migrating fish populations, by providing measures intended to facilitate the
crossing of a certain number of dikes. Currently, many undertakings have been completed.
Amongst the main ones are those at Belleville in the Loire, at Bergerac in the Dordogne,
at Poutes in the Haut-Allier and the fish lift in the Garonne and whose downstream part is
currency in operation. Some research and follow-up activities concerning the effectiveness
of these works are also being carried out

6 . Larinier, M. (1987) Fishways: principles and design criteria. [F.c], La Houille Blanche.
No.1/2, 51-57.

The writer synthesizes knowledge basically used for constructing devices which enable
migrating fish to pass through basin catchments. He describes the dimensioning criteria
and utilisation conditions for various types of ladders (fish ladders in successive basins,
slow-motion passes, lifts and sluices). The emphasis is put on the significance of the
situation and attractiveness of these undertakings which must concern the level of
improvement and rivers.

7. Larinier, M (1983) Guide for planning passage facilities at dams for migratory fish.
[F.e], Bull.Fr.Peche Piscic. No.Special Issue, 39pp.

The basic principles which can be used as a guide for planning fish passage facilities at
dams or obstructions are outlined. Special reference is made to the attraction of fishway

R&D Report 5
176
 entrances. Information is presented concerning functional features and design parameters
for different types of fish facilities: pool passes, Denil fishways, fish locks and fish lifts. A
list of data required for planning fish facilities is included.

8 . Larinier, M. and Trivellato, D. (1987) Hydraulic model studies for Bergerac dam
fishway on the Dordogne river. [F.e], La Houille Blanche. N o.1/2,135-142.

A crossing device has been recently put into operation at the dam in Dordogne. This pass
for fish of the type with successive basins with lateral vertical opening, has been designed
to operate for fiowrates varying from 50 to more than 800m3/s. A study carried out on a
reduced model has made it possible to optimize the various characteristics of the
undertaking. Hie flow conditions upstream and downstream of the pass have been
specially considered. The study has also allowed for the required flow rates to be defined
with the device’s power to attract fish. The roundly shaped upstream head is intended to
reduce maintenance problems in standard operational conditions. An adaption has been
effected in the downstream part so that a trap and an observation tower can be installed.

9. Legault, A. (1988) The dam clearing of eel by climbing. Study in Sevre Niortaise. [Fx],
BuH.Fr.Peche Piscic. No308, 1-10.

A feature of the eel, Anguilla anguilla, anadromous migration is to crawl out of the water
to pass over obstructions. This behaviour was studied in the freshwater area, in the
downstream part of the Sevre-Niortaise watershed. On the dams where different sluices
type can be observed, eels can only move up on small vertical areas of the walls. This
crawling behaviour may be compared to a climbing one. Under these conditions, the
climbing is very selective: only the smallest individuals (< 100mm long) can move up on
the walls and try to pass over them. Very few of them succeed in clearing dam due to the
configuration of these structures. Thus, climbing observations are not necessarily related to
actual clearing of the dam. Other ways to clear dams seems to be few, so the limitation of
dams effects on the eels colonization of watershed area is essential. The fitting of eel
passes, which use climbing behaviour is a priority to protea this species.

10. Ombredane, D., Fontenelle, G., Ohresser, H. and Rochepeau, S. (1987) Dam
overpassing by migratory adult salmonids. An analysis of the leaping behaviour with die
view of a better management. [F.e], Bull.Fr.Peche Piscic. No.305, 67-80.

The leaping behaviour of migratory salmonids has been studied at two small dams (<2m)
on the River Blavet. A very small proportion (<9%) of the total activity leads the fish to
pass over the dams. For each gate, a successful jump can only be observed when a stong
' attractive current, a deep pool and an open gate are combined Even when the gates are
dosed, the water leaks lead up to 50% of unsuccessful attempts. A reduction of 25% was
obtained by plugging the leaks. The discussion of the results shows that a simple
management of these kinds of dams can improve their clearing by adult migratory
salmonids.

R&D Report 5 177

11. Puyo, C. and Venel, A. (1987) A scale model contributing to the engineering studies
o f the Golfech fish lift. [F.e], La Houille Blanche. No. 1/2, 81-87.

A 1/10 scale reduced model of the attraction basin with a fish lift at Golfech hydraulic
dam was built in 1984 at the Sogreah laboratory for the Equipment Management of EDF.
Despite the severe constraints imposed upon hydraulics by civil engineering, a complete
set of suitable devices have been built and which approximately dissipate the energy of the
waterfall, normally distribute the flow rates in the feeding basins, with flow rates
complying to the specifications sheet The proposed device is high-performance and does
not require any handling of adjustment devices apart from the valves at the right of the
outlets.

12. Roguet, M. and Larinier, M. (1987) Methodological and prospective aspects relating to
maintenence and restoration of migration channels. [F.e], La Houille Blanche. No.1/2, 143-
147.

In the first part the emphasis is placed on scientific and technical components relating to
the pass devices. The progress of the technique in this field, whether it is to assume
migration upstream or downstream, is first and foremost supplied by experiment and the
follow-up o f existing installations. The second part refers to more general problems posed
by the protection and restoration of stocks of migrating fish.

13. Trivellato, D. and Larinier, M. 1987) The use of hydraulic models to study fish
facilities on large rivers. In Restoration of salmon rivers, edited by M Thibault and R.
Billard, Jouy-en-Josas: INRA. 149-157.

Fish facilities at the Belleview weir on the Loire River, the Bergerac dam on die
Dordogne River, and the Golfech powerhouse on the Garonne River were optimized by
the use of hydraulic model studies at the "Institut de Mecanique des Fluides" at Toulouse.
In the first two fishways, flow conditions, ie . flow velocity, drop between pool and rate of
energy dissipation per unit of volume, were studied in relation to tailwater and headwater
fluctuations. The main purpose of these studies was to optimize the position of entrances
and determine the discharge needed to provide adequate attraction at these sites. The
modelling resulted in design changes that should improve fish passage.

14. Vialle, M. (1987) Ladders for alosa: CNR’s experience. [F.e], La Houille Blanche.
No.1/2, 59-64.

The spawning place of migrating fkfl* and of alosa in particular is the Rhone basin, 66km
from the sea in Le Gardon. To reach it the alosa must cross two major obstacles due to
the evelopment of the Villabregues waterfall by the Compagnie Nationale de Rhone, Le.
the shelf of Beaucaire and that of Gardon. To overcome these two obstacles, two fish
ladders have been built. One of them links the outlet to the old arm of the Rhone. It was
built in 1979. The tests and measurements have made it possible to take into account and
verify the hypotheses relating to speeds, turbulences and the attraction rate. In 1985, some
modifications were made to improve efficiency. An observation campaign planned in 1985
and intended to verify the working of this ladder had to be brought foward to the Spring
of 1986.

R&D Report 5 178

REFERENCES

Andrew, F J. (1991) The use of vertical-slot fishways in British Columbia, Canada. In

Proc.Int.Svmp.Fishways *90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan., 267-274. Gifu, Japan.:
Publications Committee Int.Symp .Fishways.

Banks, J.W. (1969) A review of the literature on the upstream migration of adult
salmonids., J.Fish Biol.. 1, 85-136.

Banks, J. (1988) A visit to fish passes in Normandy., Fish:the magazine of Instn Fisheries
Management. No.12, 23-24.

Bames, JL ., Peters, D.E. and Grant, J.W. A. (1985) Evaluation of a velocity-iclated fish
passage problem downstream of the Upper Salmon Hydroelectric Development,
Newfoundland, Can.Wat.Resour.J.. 10, N o.l, 1-12.

Barry, T. and Kynard, B. (1986) Attraction of adult American shad to fish lifts at Holyoke
Dam, Connecticut River., N.AmJ.fish.Mgmt.. 6 , 233-241.

Barry, W.M. (1991) Fishways for Queensland coastal streams:an urgent review. In
ProcInt.Synrp.Fishwavs *90. 8-10 October 1090, Gifu. Japan, 231-238. Gifu, Japan:
Publications Committee Int.SympJFishways.

Bates, K. (1991) Recent experience in cost efficient fish passage in Washington State. In
Proc .Int.1r>vmt>.Fishwavs *90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan., 335-341. Gifu, Japan.:
Publications Committee Int.Symp.Fishways.

Beach, M.H. (1984) Fish pass design - criteria for the design and approval of fish passes
and other structures to facilitate the passage of migratory fish in rivers. Lowestoft: MAFF
Direct.Fishiles.Technical Report No.78. 46p.

Beamish, F.W. H. (1979) Migration and spawning energetics of the anadromous sea
lamprey, Petromyzon marinus., Envir.Biol.Fish.. 4, N o.l, 3-7.

Beamish, F.W. H. (1978) Swimming capacity. In Fish physiology, edited by W.S.Hoar and
DJ.Randall, 101-187. London: Academic.

R&D Report 5 179

Behlke, C.E. (1988) Hydraulic effects on swimming fish in fish passage structures. In
Proc. 1988 National Conference on Hydraulic Engineering. 8-12 August 1988, Colorado
Springs, 1116*1121.

Belaud, A. and Dautrey, R. et al (1985) Observations on the migration behaviour of

ale wive (Alosa alosa L.) in the artificial canal of Golfech hydroelectric plant [F.e]., Annls
Limnol.. 21, No.2, 161-172.

Bell, M.C. (1986) Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria.
[Microfiche]. Portland, Oregon; Army Engineer Div.

Bematchez, L. and Dodson, JJ. (1985) Influence of temperature and current speed on the
swimming capacity of lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and Cisco (C. artedii),
CanJ.fish.aouat.Sci.. 42, 1522-1529.

Bematchez, L. and Dodson, JJ. (1987) Relationship between bioenergetics and behaviour
in anadromous fish migrations., CanJ.fish.aquat.Sci.. 44, 399-407.

Blackett, R.F. (1987) Development and performance of an Alaska steeppass fishway for
sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerkd)., CanJ.Fish.Aouat.Sci.. 44, 66-76.

Blaxter, J.H. S. (1969) Swimming speeds of fish. 69-100. FAO Fish. Rep. 62.

Boisneau, P., Mennesson, C. and Bagliniere, J.L. (1985) Observations sur Tactivite de
migratior de la grande alose Alosa alosa L. en Loire (France) [F.e], HvdrobiologiaL 128,
277-284.

Boiten, W. (1991) Hydraulic design of the pool-type fishway with v-shaped overfalls. In
Proc .Int.Svmp. Fishways *90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan., 483-490. Gifu, Japan.:
Publications Committee Int.SympJFishways.

Buckley, B it. (1989) The installation of an Alaskan steep fish pass on the River Ouse,
Sussex. In Water schemes:the safeguarding of fisheries. Proc. of Workshop, 6-8 April
1988, Univ.Lancaster, edited by J. Gregory, 51-55. Pitlochry: Atlantic Salmon Trust.

Camie, C.G. (1989) Tweed Caulds and fish passes., Salmon and Trout Magazine. No.238,
72-75.

R&D Report 5 180

Clay, C.H. (1991) Suggestions for future research on fishways and fish facilities. In
Proc.Int.Svmi).Fishways *90-. 8-10 October 1990., Gifu, Japan., 1-9. Gifu, Japan.:
Publications Committee of the Int.Symp.Fishways ’90.

Collins, GJB. and Elling, C H . (1960) Fishway research at the Fisheries Engineering
Research Laboratory. Bur.Commerical Fisheries, Circular 98.

Congleton, J.L. and Wagner, E J. (1988) Effects of light intensity on plasma cortisol
concentrations in migrating smolts of chinook salmon and steelhead held in tanks or
raceways and after pasage through experimental flumes, Trans Am.Fish.Soc.. 117,
385-393.

Cripe, G.M., Goodman, LJL and Hansen, D J . (1984) Effect of chronic exposure to EPN
and to guthion on the critical swimming speed and brain acetylcholinesterase activity of
Cyprinodon variegatus., Aauat.Toxicol.. 5, No.3, 255-266.

Dahl, J. (1991) Eel passes in Denmark, why and how, EIFAC Working Party on Eels. 20-
25 May 1991, Dublin, 12p.

Eckersley, M J. (1982) Operation of the eel ladder at the Moses-S aunders Generating
Station, Cornwall, 1974-1979. In N.Am.Eel Conf.. 5th Feb. 1980, Toronto, Canada, 4-7.

Elie, P. and Rigaud, C. (1987) The impact of tidal barrage on the migration of
amphihalins, a sub-family of salmon species, easily adaptable to fresh and salt water: Le.
the case of eels and the Arzal barrage. [F.e], La Houille Blanche. No.1/2, 99-108.

Grande, R. (1991) Fish ladders in Norway. In Proc.Int.SvmpFishwavs ’90. 8-10 October

1990, Gifu, Japan., 517*522. Gifu, Japan.: Publications Committee Int.Symp .Fishways.

Harpley, C. (1989) Modem developments in fish passes - the "Larinier" pass. In Water
schemes:thc safeguarding of fisheries. Proc. of Workshop. 6-8 April 1988, Univ.
Lancaster, edited by J. Gregory, 57-59. Pitlochry: Atlantic Salmon Trust.

Hawkins, A.D. and Smith, G.W. (1986) Radio-tracking observations on Atlantic salmon
ascending the Aberdeenshire Dee. In Scott.Fish.Res.Rep. No.36. Dept Ag.Fish. for
Scotland.

Hooli, J. (1988) Studies in the fishway models., Aqua Fennica. 18, No.2, 171-178.

R&D Report 5
Hosono, S. (1991) Research development and construction on spiral fishways. [J.e.]. In
Proc.Int.Svmp.Fishwavs ’90. 8*10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan., 451-456. Gifu, Japan.:
Publications Committee Int.Symp .Fishways.

Hunter, L A . and Scherer, E. (1988) Impaired swimming performance of acid-exposed

Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus L., Wat.Pollut.Res.J.Can.. 23, No.2, 301-307.

Institution of Civil Engineers (1942) Report of the committee on fish-passes. London:

Instn Civil Eng. 59p.

Jowett, I.G. (1987) Fish passage, control devices and spawning channels. In Aquatic
biology and hydroelectric power development in New Zealand, edited by P.R. Henriques,
138-155. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

Katapodis, C. and Rajaratnam, N. (1983) A review and laboratory study of the hydrauics
o f Denil fishways, Can.Tech.Rep.fish.aquat.Sci.. No. 1145, 189p.

Katopodis, C. (1991) Advancing the art of engineering fishways for upstream migrants. In
Proc.Int.Svmp.Fishwavs *90.. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan., 19*28. Gifu, Japan.:
Publications Committee Int.SympJ7ishways.

Larinier, M. (1991) Experience in fish passage in France: fish pass design criteria and
downstream migration problems. In Proc.Int.Svmp.Fishwavs *90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu,
Japan., 65-74. Gifu, Japan.: Publications Committee Int.Symp.Fishways.

Larinier, M. (1987) Fishways: principles and design criteria. [F.e], La Houille Blanche.
No.1/2, 51-57.

Larinier, M. (1983) Guide for planning passage facilities at dams for migratory fish. [F.e],
Bull.Fr.Peche Piscic. No.Special Issue, 39pp.

Larinier, M. (1978) A study of the fish-pass with flat baffles (Translation), Bull.Fr.Piscic..
No.271, 40-54.

Legault, A. (1988) The dam clearing of eel by climbing. Study in Sevre Niortaise. [F.e],
Bull.Fr.Peche Piscic. No.308, 1-10.

R&D Report 5 182

Little, E.E. and Finger, SJ2. (1990) Swimming behaviour as an indicator of sublethal
toxicity in fish., Envir.Toxicol.Chcm.. 9, N o.l, 13-19.

Lonnebjerg, N. (1991) Fishways in Denmark. In Proc.Int.Svmp .Fishways *90. 8-10

October 1990, Gifu, Japan., 253-259. Gifu, Japan,: Publications Committee
Int.Symp.Fishways.

Mallen-Cooper, M. and Hams, J. (1991) Fishways in mainland south-eastern Australia. In

Proc.Int.Svmp.Fishwavs *90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan, 221-229. Gifu, Japan:
Publications Committee Int.SympJishways.

Martin, JJ). (1984) Atlantic salmon and alewife passage through a pool and weir fishery
on the Magaguadavic River, New Brunswick, during 1983. S t Andrews, New Brunswick:
Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1776. 1Ip.

McCleave, JJD. (1980) Swimming performance of European eel CAnguilla anguilla (L.))
elvers., J.Fish Biol.. 16, 445-452.

Mitchell, C.P. (1991) Fish passes for New Zealand native freshwater fish. In
Proc.Int.Svmp.Fishwavs ’90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan, 239-244. Gifu, Japan:
Publications Committee Int.Symp.Fishways.

Mitchell, C.P. (1989) Swimming performances of some native freshwater fishes,

N.Z.J.Mar.Freshwat.Res.. 23, 181-187.

Monk, B., Weaver, Dn Thompson, C. and Ossiander, F. (1989) Effects of flow and weir
design on the passage behaviour of American shad and salmonids in an experimental fish
ladder., N.AmJ.Fish.Mgmt. 9, N o.l, 60-67.

Orsbom, J J 7. (1987) Fishways - historical assessment of design practices. In Common

Strategies of Anadromous and Catadromous Fishes. Proc.Int.Svmp.. 9-13 March 1986,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA., edited by M J. Dadswell and R J. et al Klauda, 122-130.
Bethesda, MD. USA: American Fisheries Society.

Orsbom, J.F. (1985) New concepts in fish ladder design. Part 1. Summary. Final Project
Report. [Microfiche]. Pullman: Washington State University.

Pavlov, D.S. (1989) Structures assissting the migrations of non-salmonid fish:USSR., FAQ
Fish.Tcch.Pap. No. 308. 97pp.

R&D Report 5 183

Petkovic, S. and Zdravkovic, B. (1991) Optimization o f the Badush Dam fish ladder by
use of hydraulic model. In Proc .Int.Svmp.Fish ways *90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan.,
457-462. Gifu, Japan.: Publications Committee Int.Symp.Fishways.

Puyo, C. and Venel, A. (1987) A scale model contributing to the engineering studies of
the Golfech fish lift. [F.e], La Houille Blanche. No.1/2, 81-87.

Rajaramam, N. and Katopodis, C. (1984) Hydraulics o f denil fishways, J.Hvdraul.Engng.

110, No.9, 1219-1233.

Rajaratnam, N., Katopodis, C. and Flint-Petersen, L. (1987) Hydraulics of two-level denil

fishway., J.Hvdraul.Engng. 113, No.5, 670-676.

Rajaratnam, N., Katopodis, C. and Mainali, A* (1988) Plunging and streaming flows in
pool and weir fishways., J.Hvdraul.Engng. 114, No.8, 939-944.

Rajaratnam, N., Katopodis, C. and Mainali, M. (1989) Pool-orifice and pool-orifice-weir

fishways., Can.J.Civ.Eng.. 16, No.5, 774-777.

Rajaratnam, N., Van der Vinne, G. and Katopodis, C. (1986) Hydraulics of vertical slot
fishways., J.Hvdraul.Engng. 112, No.10, 909-927.

Rideout, S.G., Thoipe, L.M. and Cameron, L.M. (1985) Passage of American shad in an
Ice Harbor style fish ladder after flow pattern modifications. In Proc.Svmp.Small
HydroT ower and Fisheries. 1-3 May 1985, Aurora, Colorado, edited by F.W.Olson,
R.G.White and RJLHamre, 251-256. American Fisheries Society.

Rytkonen, J. and Hepojoki, A. (1991a) The design and construction of fishways in the
north European river conditions. In Proc.Int.Svmp.Fishwavs *90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu,
Japan., 245-251. Gifu, Japan.: Publications Committee Int.Symp.Fishways.

Rytkonen, J. and Hepojoki, A. (1991b) Fishways as part of river rehabilitation works. In

Proc.Int.Svmp.Fish wavs *90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan., 327-334. Gifu, Japan.:
Publications Committee Int.Symp.Fishways.

Schwalme, K., Mackay, W.C. and Lindner, D. (1985) Suitability of vertical slot and Denil
fishways for passing north temperate, nonsalmonid fish., Can J.Fish.Aquat.Sci.. 42,
1815-1822.

R&D Report 5 184

Slatick, E. and Basham, L-R. (1985) The effect of Denil fishway length on passage of
some nonsalmonid fishes., Mar.Fish.Rev- 47, N o.l, 83-85.

Sprengel, G. and Luchtenbeig, H. (1991) Infection by endoparasites rcduces maximum

swimming speed of European smelt Osmerus eperlanus and the European eel Anguilla
anguilla., Dis.aQuat.Org.. 11, 31-35.

Taylor, EJJ. and Foote, C J. (1991) Critical swimming velocities of juvenile sockeye
salmon and kokanee, the anadromous and non-anadromous forms o f Oncorhynchus nerka
(Walbaum), J.Fish Biol.. 38, 407^19.

Taylor, EJJ. and McPhail, J.D. (1984) Variation in burst and prolonged swimming
performance among British Columbia populations of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus Jdsutch,
CanJ.Fish.Acwat.Sci.. 42, 2029-2033.

Trivellato, D. and Larinier, M. (1987) The use of hydraulic models to study fish facilities
on large rivers. [F.e]. In Restoration of salmon rivers., edited by M . Thibault and R.
Billard, 149-157. Jouy-en-Josas: INRA.

Vialle, M (1987) Ladders for alosa; CNR*s experience. [F.e], La Houflle Blanche. No.1/2,
59-64.

Virtanen, E. and Forsman, L. (1987) Physiological responses to continuous swimming in

wild salmon {Salmo salar L.) parr and smolt., Fish.Phvsiol.Biochem.. 4, No.3, 157-163.

Vogel, D A , Marine, ICR. and Smith, J.G. (1991) A summary of evaluations of upstream
and downstream anadromous salmonid passage at Red Bluff Diversion Dam on the
Sacramento River, California, U.S.A. In Proc.Int.Svmp.Fishwavs *90. 8-10 October 1990,
Gifu, Japan, 275-281. Gifu, Japan; Publications Committee Int.Symp.Fishways.

Watenpaugh, D.E. and Beitinger, T.L (1985) Swimming performance of channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus) after nitrite exposure, Bull.Envir.Contam.Toxicol.. 34, No.5, 754-760.

Webb, P.W. (1975) Hydrodynamics and energetics of fish propulsion. Ottawa: Bulletin of
the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 190.

Winstone, A J., Gee, A.S. and Varallo, P.V. (1985) The assessment of flow characteristics
at certain weirs in relation to the upstream movement of migratory salmonids., J.Fish
Biol.. 27, No.(Supplement A), 75-83.

R&D Report 5 185

Woolnough, A.L. (1987) Fish passes for the 21st centuiy. In Inst.Fish Management 18th
Annual study course. 21-24 September 1987, Cambridge, 99-104.

Ye, X. and Randall, D J. (1991) The effect of water pH on swimming performance in

rainbow trout {Salmo gairdneri, Richardson), Fish PhysiolJBiochem.. 9, N o.l, 15-21.

R&D Report 5 186

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaserade, R.G. and Orsbom, J J 7. (1986) New concepts in fishladder design. Part.2 Results
of laboratory and field research on new concepts in weir and pool fishways. [Microfiche].
Pullman, Washington: Washington State University. 173p.

Arnold, G.P., Webb, P.W. and Holford, B Ji. (1991) The role o f the pectoral fins in
station-holding of Atlantic salmon pair (Salmo salar L.), J.exp-Biol.. 156, 625-629.

Bachelier, R (1968) Les amenagements pour les poissons migrateurs, Bull.Tech.Informing

ServAgr.. 228, 323-338.

Bainbridge, R. (1960) Speed and stamina in three fish, J.Exp.Biol., 37, 129-153.

Beamish, F.W. H. (1970) Oxygen consumption of largemouth bass, Micropterus

salmoides, in relation to swimming speed and temperature., CanJ.Zool.. 48, 1221-1228.

Beamish, F.W. H. (1974) Swimming performance of adult sea lamprey, Petromyzon

marinus, in relation to weight and temperature., Trans.Am.Fish.Soc.. 103, 355-358.

Belford, D.A. and Gould, WJL (1989) An evaluation of trout passage through six highway
culverts in Montana., N.AmJ.Fish.Mgmt.. 9, No.4, 437-445.

Besch, W JL, Kemball, A., Meyer-Waarden, K. and Scharf, B. (1977) A biological

monitoring system employing iheotaxis of fish. In Biological monitoring of water and
effluent quality, edited by J.Caims, KX.Dickson and G.F.Westlake, 56-74. Philadelphia:
American Society for Testing and Materials.

Blaxter, J.H. S. and Dickson, W. (1959) Observations on swimming speeds o f fish,

J .Cons..Cons .Perm .Int .Exrlor.Mer. 24, 472-479.

Brett, J.R. (1964) The respiratory metabolism and swimming performance of young
sockeye salmon, J.Fish.Res.Board Can.. 21, 1183-1226.

Brett, J.R. (1965) The swimming energetics of salmon. Scientific American. 312, No.2,
80-85.

-R&D Report-5--------- ------------ — ------- 187----------------- —— - __ _ _.

‘ McKinnon, G.A. and Hnytka, F.N. (1985) Fish passage assessment of culverts constructed
to simulate stream conditions on Liard River tributaries. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Canadian
Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1255. 121p.

Mehrle, P.M. and Buckler, DU. et al (1988) Toxicity and bioconcentration of

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran in rainbow trout,
Envir.ToxicoI.Chem.. 7, 47-62.

Morgan, W.S. G. (1977) An electronic system to monitor the effects of changes in water
quality on fish opercular rhythms. In Biological monitoring and effluent quality, edited by
J.Caims, K.L.Dickson and G.F.Westlake, 38-55. Philadelphia: American Society for
Testing and Materials.

Morgan, W.S. G. (1979) Fish locomotor behavior patterns as a monitoring tool, J.Water
Pollut.Control Fed.. 51, 580-589.

Moriguchi, H. (1991) Fish way of Tone diversion weir and salmon, cheixy salmon, and
sweet fish. In Proc.Int.Svmp.Fishwavs *90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan, 385-390. Gifu,
Japan: Publications Committee Int.Symp.Fishways.

Nettles, D.C. and Gloss, S.P. (1987) Migration of landlocked Atlantic salmon smolts and
effectiveness of a fish bypass structure at a small-scale hydroelectric facility.,
N.AmJ.Fish.Mgmt. 7, No.4, 562-568.

NTIS (1988) Fishways: design and operation. January 1970 - July 1988. (Citations from
the NT S database)., NTIS. PB88-867023/GAR. 109pp.

Odgaard, A J., Cherian, M.P. and Elder, R A (1987) Fish diversion in hydropower intake.,
J.Hvdraul.Engng. 113, No.4, 505-519.

Olla, B.L., Bejda, A J. and Martin, A.D. (1974) Daily activity, movements, feeding and
seasonal occurrence in the tautog, Tautoga onitis, Fish.Bull.. 72, 27-35.

Ombredane, D., Fontenelle, G., Ohresser, H. and Rochepeau, S. (1987) Dam overpassing
by migratory adult salmonids. An analysis of the leaping behaviour with the view of a
better management. [F.e.], Bull.Fr.Peche Piscic.. No.305, 67-80.

R&D Report 5 194

Oseid, D. and Smith, L.L. (1972) Swimming endurance and resistance to copper and
malathion of bluegills treated by long-term exposure to sublethal levels of hydrogen
sulfide, Trans.Am.Fish.Soc.. 101, 620-625.

Otto, R.G. and Rice, J.O. (1974) Swimming speeds of yellow perch {Perea flavescens)
following an abrupt change in environmental temperature, JVFishJRes.Board Can.. 31,
1731-1734.

Parry, M L. (1990) The Severn Barrage - eight years on., Salmon and Trout Magazine.
No.239, 20-24.

Paulik, G J . and De Lacy, A*C. (1957) Swimming abilities of upstream migrant silver
salmon, sockeye salmon and steelhead trout at several water velocities. Univ.Washington,
TechJtep. No. 44. 40p.

Peterson, R.H. (1974) Influence of fenitrothion on swimming velocity of brook trout

, (Salvelinus fontinalis), J.Fish.Res Jo ard Can.. 31, 1757-1762.

Poddubny, A.G. (1967) Sonic tags and floats as a means of studying fish response to
natural environmental changes and to fishing gear. In FAQ Conf.Fish Behav.Relation
Fish.Tech.Tactics. Bergen, Norway, 1-8.

Poddubny, A.G., Malinin, LJC and Gaiduk, V.V. (1970) Experiment in telemetric
observations under ice of the behaviour of winter fish, Biologiya Unutrchnikh.Vod.. 6 ,
65-70.

Post, G. and Leasure, R.A. (1974) Sublethal effect of malathion to three salmonid species,
Bull.envir.Contam.Toxicol.. 12, 312-319.

Quiros, R. (1988) Structures to aid non-salmon fish species during migrations: Latin
America., Copcscal. Doc.Tec., no. 5, 50p.

Rajaratnam, J. and Katapodis, C. (1990) Hydraulics of culvert fishways HI: weir baffle
culvert fishways., CanJ.Civil Eng.. 17, No.4, 558-568.

Rajaratnam, N., Katopodis, C. and Lodewyk, S. (1988) Hydraulics of offset baffle culvert
fishways., Can.J.Civ.Eng.. 15, No.6 , 1043-1051.

R&D Report 5 195

Rajaratnam, N., Katopodis, C. and McQuitty, N. (1989) Hydraulic of culvert fishways II:
slotted-weir culvert fishways., Can.LCiv.Eng.. 16, No.3, 375-383.

Rajaratnam, N., Katopodis, C. and Fairbaim, M.A. (1990) Hydraulics of culvert fishways
V: Alberta fish-weirs and baffles.. Can J.Civ. Eng.. 17,1015-1021.

Rajaramam, N., Katopodis, C. and Solanki, S. (1989) New designs for vertical slot
fishways. Edmonton, Alberta: Dept.Civ.Eng Univ. Alberta. Technical Report WRE 89-1.

Rajaratnam, N., Katopodis, C. and Mainali, A. (1987) Pool and weir fishways. Edmonton,
Alberta: Dept. Civ .Eng Univ Alberta. Technical Report WRE 87-1.

Rand, G.M. (1977) The effect of exposure to a sub-acute concentration of parathion on the
general locomotor behavior of the goldfish. Bull .envir.Contam.Toxicol.. 18, 259-266.

Rao, GJvL M. (1968) Oxygen consumption of rainbow trout {Salmo gairdneri) in relation
to activity and salinity, CanJ.ZooI.. 46, 781-786.

Rimmer, D.M., Saunders, R.L. and Paim, U. (1985) Effects of temperature and season on
the position holding performance of juvenile Atlantic salmon {Salmo salar)., CanJ.Zool..
63, N o.l, 92-96.

Rogers, A. and Cane, A. (1979) Upstream passage of adult salmon through an unlit tunnel,
Fish.Mgmt. 10, No.2, 87-92.

Roguet, M and Larinier, M. (1987) Methodological and prospective aspects relating to the
maintenance and restoration of migration channels. [F.e], La Houille Blanche. No.1/2,
143-147.

Ruggles, C P . and Murray, D.G. (1983) A review of fish response to spillways. Halifax,
Nova Scotia: Dept.Fisheries and Oceans. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences No. 1172. 31p.

Sakowicz, S. and Zamecki, S. (1954) Pool passes - biological aspects in their construction.
(Translated from Polish), Rocz.Nauk Rol.. 69(D), 5-171.

Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (1975) London: HMSO. 43p.

R&D Report 5 jo 5
 -115. Shazkina, EJP. (1972) Active metabolism in Azov goby, Proc.AII-Union
Res.Inst.Mar.Fish.Oceanogr.. 85, 138-144.

Shustov, Y A and Shchurov, I.L. (1988) Quantitative estimation of stamina of wild and
hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon {Salmo salar L.), Aquaculture. 71, 81-87.

.Slatick, E. (1975) Laboratory evaluation of a Denil-type steeppass fishway with various

entrance and exit conditions for passage of adult salmonids and American shad, Mar.Fish
Rev.. 37, No.9, 17-26.

Slatick, E. Unpublished. U S DeptCommerce.

Smith, E.H. and Bailey, H.C. (1988) Development of a system for continuous
biomonitoring of a domestic water source for early warning of contaminants. In
Automated biomonitoring:living sensors as environmental monitors, edited by D.S.Gruber
and J.M.Diamond, 182-205. Chichester Ellis Horwood.

Smock, L A ., Stonebumer, D.L. and Clark, JJL (1976) The toxic effects of trinitrotoluene
(TNT) and its primary degradation products on two species of algae and the fathead
minnow, Wat.Res.. 10, 537-543.

Stasko, A 3 . (1975) Progress of migrating Atlantic salmon {Salmo salar) along an estuary
observed by ultrasonic tracking, J.Fish Biol.. 7, 329-338.

Stasko, A.3., Hoirall, R.M., Hasler, A.D. and Stasko, D. (1973) Coastal movements of
mature Fraser River pink salmon {Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) as revealed by ultrasonic
, tracking, J.Fish .Res .Board Can.. 30, 1309-1316.

Steele, C.W. (1983) Effects of exposure to sublethal copper on the locomotor behabior of
the sea catfish, Ariusfelis, Aquat.Toxicol.. 4, 83-93.

Steiner, H A (1991) Investigations at the fish lader from the River Drau into the
Kellerberger Loop. [G.e], Ost.Fisch.. 44, No.4, 87-100.

Stickland, R. and Mitchell, C. (1983) Report on the design efficiency of the Lake Taharoa
fish pass. Unpublished report Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Rotorua.

R&D Report 5 197

Stringham, E. (1924) The maximum swimming speed of freshwater fishes, Am.Nat.. 58,
156-161.

Stuart, T A (1962) The leaping behaviour of salmon and trout at falls and obstructions.
Edinburgh: HMSO. 46p.

Sustov, U A and Surov, IX . (1990) Seasonal changes in the stamina of young Atlantic
salmon {Salmo salar L.) under river conditions, Finnish Fisheries Research. 11, 1-5.

Tesch, F.W. (1974) Speed and direction of silver and yellow eels, Anguilla anguilla,
released and tracked in the open North Sea, Ber.Dtsh.Wiss.Komm.Meerseforsch.. 23,
181-197.

Thorson, T.B. (1971) Movement o f bull shades, Carcharhinus leucas between Caribbean
Sea and Lake Nicaragua demonstrated by tagging, Copeia. N o.2,336-338.

Travade, F. (1991) Monitoring techniques for fish passes recently used in France. In
ProcJnt.Svmp.Fishwavs *90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan., 119-126. Gifu, Japan.:
Publications Committee Int.SympJFishways.

Uchida, K. and Tsukamoto, K. (1991) Biological factors affecting upstream migration

through fishway in the Ayu. In Proc.Int.Svmp.Fishwavs *90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu,
Japan., 367-374. Gifu, Japan.: Publications Committee Int.Symp.Fishways.

Videler, J ... and Wardle, C.S. (1991) Fish swimming stride by stride: speed limits and
endurance, Rev.Fish Biol.Fish.. 1, 23-40.

Waiwood, K.G. and Beamish, F.W. H. (1978) The effects o f copper, pH, and hardness on
the critical swimming performance of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, Wat .Res.. 12,
611-619.

Wang, Y-P (1991) Design and application of fish passage and protection facilities in
China. In ProcInt.Svmp.Fishwavs *90.. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan., 53-63. Gifu,
Japan.: Publications Committee Int.Symp.Fishways.

Wardle, C.S. (1975) lim it of fish swimming speed. Nature. 255, No.5511, 725-727.

R&D Report 5 498

Watanabe, K., Itou, T. and Mammoto, J. (1991) Nibutani style fishway gate (swing-shoot
type). In Proc.Int.Svmp .Fishways *90. 8-10 October 1990, Gifu, Japan., 409-416. Gifu,
Japan.: Publications Committee Int.Symp.Fishway s.

Webb, P.W. (1991) Composition and mechanics of routine swimming of rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss., CanJ.Fish.Aquat.Sci.. 48, 583-590.

Webb, P.W. (1971) The swimming energetics of trout, n . Oxygen consumption and
swimming efficiency, J.Exp.Biol.. 55, 521-540.

Weis, P. and Weis, J.S. (1974) DDT causes changes in activity and schooling behavior in
goldfish, Envir.Res.. 7, 68-74.

Wildish, D J. (1974) Arrestant effect of polyoxyethylene esters on swimming in the winter

flounder, Wat.Res.. 8, 579-583.

Wohlschlag, D.E. (1964) Respiratory metabolism and ecological characteristics of some

fishes in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, Antarct.Res.Ser.. 1, 33-62.

Woodward, D J7., little, E.E. and Smith, LM . (1987) Toxicity of five shale oils to fish
and aquatic invertebrates, Arch.Envir.Contam.Toxicol.. 16, 239-246.

Yuen, H.S. H., Dizon, AJ2. and Uchiyama, J.H. (1974) Notes on the tracking of the
Pacific blue marlin, Makaira nigricans. In Proc.Int.Billfish Symp.. 9-12th August 1972,
Kaflua-Kf.oa, Hawaii, edited by R.S.Shomura and F.Williams, 265-268. Honolulu: NOAA.

Ziemer, G.L. (1962) Steeppass fishway development Information Leaflet Alaska

DeptFish.Game No. 12. 36p.

Ziemer, GJ^. and Behlke, C.E. (1966) Analysis of salmon capabilities in steep fish ladders.
In Piroc.2nd Annual Water Resources Conf.. 328-339.

R&D Report 5 199