1 / 15

Guy Verreault and Jean Therrien

Eel protection devices and operations at the Rimouski River Hydroelectric Powerplant: a Win/Win approach that works. Guy Verreault and Jean Therrien Ministère des Ressources naturelles, de la faune et des parcs du Québec Genivar Consultants. Introduction. Research / licensing process

kasia
Download Presentation

Guy Verreault and Jean Therrien

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Eel protection devices and operationsat the Rimouski River Hydroelectric Powerplant:a Win/Win approach that works Guy Verreault and Jean Therrien Ministère des Ressources naturelles, de la faune et des parcs du Québec Genivar Consultants

  2. Introduction • Research / licensing process • Dam and hydropower plant rebuilt in 1996-1997 • Eel migration surveys (upstream and downstream) since 1994 • Salmon and eel upstream and downstream facilities • Downstream device tested: bypass with light in 1997, and with screen in 1998 • Main task: eliminate turbine mortality without significant loss of electricity production

  3. Study area: Rimouski River River drainage: 1637 km2 Mean annual water flow: 30.8 m3/s Run-of-river 3.5 MW hydroelectric dam Located 6.5 km from estuary Maximum turbined flow: 26 m3/s Water intake velocity: 0.7 m/s

  4. STUDY AREA - DAM VICINITY

  5. Downstream device • In 1997, three components: a light barrier, a bypass, and a fine grid (1 cm) inclined screen (effectiveness evaluation) • Light device (90 W submersible mercury bulbs, 40 Lux at 2 m with 30˚angle) in the water intake • Bypass in the wall of spillway gate • Fine grid (1 cm) inclined screen behind lighting barrier • In 1998, two components: a bypass and a fine grid inclined screen.

  6. BYPASS PLAN VIEW

  7. The results

  8. Ligth avoidance device

  9. Efficiency of the light system in 1997: 0 to 12.5% • Unsufficient lighting on edges • Backup screen diverted all migrants

  10. Light avoidance behavior • Current velocity was not too fast (Taft, 1998) • Water flow in the bypass was correct (0.5 m3/s) • Problem lies in: • Dark coloring of the water • Low intensity of lighting • Behavioral barrier are not 100% effective with eel… (Hadderingh et al., 1992) and many other animals • Field experiments may differ with laboratory observations

  11. Experimental design: alternative diversion Efficiency: 100%

  12. Physical barrier tested the following year • Total efficiency when adequately installed • Minor adjustments required for total diversion • Great concern with leaf clogging • Physical barrier is effective in any water condition

  13. Clogging with leaves and debris was of great concern Air compressors

  14. Conclusion • High survival rates could be achieved with simple device at small hydrodams • Technical problems could be solved with imagination • No significant loss in electricity production when protection devices are installed and well operated • Moreover, strong involvement from dam operators is the main factor for a successful protection of downstream migrants

More Related