Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97108

DOI 10.1007/s10750-008-9398-9

EIFAC 2006: DAMS, WEIRS AND FISH

Fish passage experience at small-scale hydro-electric power

plants in France
Michel Larinier

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. and FAO 2008

Abstract There are more than 1,700 small-scale

hydro-electric power stations in France today, which
can be found on the majority of rivers with migratory
species in them. This article gives an overview of the
different types of fish facilities in use at these smallscale hydro plants. The relative advantages and
drawbacks of each type of fish pass are discussed,
with reference to the requirements of migratory
species and the site-specific constraints. Emphasis is
placed on the problems of attraction and maintenance. The article also mentions the various
techniques used to evaluate existing or recently
constructed fish passes. Experience in using bypass
facilities combined with trashracks for downstream
juvenile salmonids and eels are related. The author
points out the severe cumulative impact which may
occur due to the existence of several small-scale
hydro projects on the same river. He presents his
view on the priorities for research on fish passage
facilities, especially on fish friendly small-scale
hydropower intakes.

Guest editors: R. L. Welcomme & G. Marmulla

Hydropower, Flood Control and Water Abstraction:
Implications for Fish and Fisheries
M. Larinier (&)
CSP-CEMAGREF, Institut de Mecanique des Fluides de
Toulouse, Allee du Professeur Camille Soula, 31400
Toulouse, France
e-mail: larinier@imft.fr

Keywords Fishways
Downstream bypass

Small-scale hydropower plant
Upstream and
downstream migration

Small-scale hydropower plants in france

Hydropower is the second source of electric power
generation in France. It accounts for about 14% of the
countrys total electricity production, as compared to
76% for nuclear power and 10% for classical thermal
power. The total production of hydraulic power in a
normal year is 70 TWh.
In general, the technical term small-scale hydro
electricity encompasses all hydropower plants with a
production capacity of less than 10 MW. This is the
limit fixed by the International Union of Producers and
Distributors of Electrical Energy (UNIPEDE), which
distinguishes among small hydroelectric plants (2
10 MW), mini-plants (500 kW2 MW), micro-plants
(20500 kW) and pico-plants (\20 kW). This 10 MW
boundary between small and large-scale hydroelectric
plants is however somewhat arbitrary when considering
fish passage issues and mitigation measures.
There are approximately 1,700 small-scale hydropower plants with a production capacity lower than
10 MW in France today. They have a combined total
capacity of 1,800 MW and jointly produce an average
of approximately 7.5 TWh in a normal year, which
represents around 10% of the total hydroelectric

123

98

power production and only 1.5% of the countrys total

electricity production. Among these small-scale hydroplants, 75% have a production capacity of less than
1 MW each and produce less than 1/5 of the total for
small-scale hydropower production. 1,400 of these
installations are owned by independent producers, 200
by the French Electricity Board (EDF) and 100 by
large private companies.
Experts have estimated that a new capacity of
1,000 MW should be generated by small hydroelectricity by the year 2010 to meet the objective of the
European Renewable Energy Directive. According to
a recent study by ADEME, small-scale hydropower
has an overall estimated growth potential of 620 MW
corresponding to a production of around 4 TWh. This
includes the building of new plants (1/3) and the
upgrading of existing plants (2/3).
The introduction of this directive increased interest
in the development of new projects and in the
modernisation of existing installations. However,
existing environmental policy still creates serious
obstacles to the construction of new installations.
Small-scale hydropower stations can be found on
most French rivers throughout the country. The main
production regions are however located in mountainous and foothill areas, mainly in south-east and southwest France (the Midi-Pyrenees, Rhone-Alpes and
Provence-Cote dAzur regions) which account for
more than 60% of the total small hydroelectric power
production.
Most of the schemes are run-of-river schemes associated with relatively low dams: the amount of water
running through the power plant is determined by the
water flowing in the river. They range from high head
schemes (from more than 100 m high) in upland areas
that have a flow-through capacity of a few hundred litres
per second to low head schemes located in lowland areas
with a head of a few metres and flow-through capacities,
which may be greater than 100 m3 s-1. There may thus
be small-scale power installations on rivers which
support populations of diadromous fish species as well
as potamodromous and riverine species.

Fish passage legislation

The French Environment Code (Article L 432-6)
requires that any hydro scheme in watercourses or
parts thereof, in the list specified by decree, must

123

Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97108

include facilities to guarantee the passage of migratory fish. Existing obstructions must comply with the
provisions of this Article within 5 years following
publication of the list of migratory species by river
basin or sub-basin, as specified by the responsible
Minister, without compensation. The decrees establishing the list of species for each river were
published between January 1986 and December 1999.
The diadromous migratory species taken into
account by the law are salmon Salmo salar (L.),
sea-run brown trout Salmo trutta (L.), sea lamprey
Petromyzon marinus (L.), allis shad (Alosa alosa
(L.)), sturgeon (Acipencer sturio L.) and European
eel Anguilla Anguilla (L.). The only riverine species
considered to be migratory species are brown trout
Salmo trutta (L.), Northern pike Esox lucius (L.) and
European grayling Thymallus thymallus (L.).
For new hydroplants, or during relicensing of
existing hydropower facilities, fish passes may be
and are generallyrequired by the authorities, even
on rivers which have not been classified as migratory rivers by law, so that fish passes can be built for
riverine species on all new or relicensed obstructions.
Since the promulgation of the European Framework
Water Directive, a more determined effort is being
made to take into account all species in order to
restore the longitudinal connectivity in rivers.
The law stipulates that the owner of the obstruction
caused by any dam is obliged to ensure the operation
and maintenance of these facilities, i.e. is responsible
for providing effective facilities for fish passage.
The same law (Environment Code, Article L. 4325) requires that any hydro scheme to be constructed
on a watercourse must include facilities to guarantee
a minimum ecological flow in the river to ensure the
continued existence, passage and reproduction of the
species that populate the waters at the time when the
hydro plant is constructed. This minimum flow may
not be less than one tenth of the mean annual daily
discharge of the watercourse at the hydro scheme
(evaluated on the basis of a minimum of five
consecutive years of data), nor less than the total
flow immediately upstream of the installation, if the
latter is lower.
If necessary, facilities may also be required to
prevent fish from entering the intake and discharge
channels.
The law relating to the use of hydraulic energy
(October 1919), which was subject to several

Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97108

subsequent amendments (particularly in 1980), stipulated that nobody may dispose of hydraulic energy
without an authorisation (for a capacity lower than
4.5 MW) or a concession (for a capacity higher than
4.5 MW). The technical specifications for the concession or authorisation lay down several mitigation
measures for ensuring an environmental flow and the
free passage of fish. This law also introduced the
notion of reserved rivers where neither new permits
nor concessions can be granted. This classification
was at first limited to classified migratory rivers, but
was later extended to other rivers, with the aim of
protecting rivers which have not yet been affected by
hydro electric installations.

Upstream fish passage facilities

This part briefly describes the various types of
fishway usually found at small-scale hydroplants.
Denil fish passes
Two designs of baffle (or Denil) fish passes are
commonly used in France:

The plane baffle or standard Denil fish pass,

developed by White & Nemenyi (1942). The
width of the baffles usually varies from 0.60 m
for trout up to 1.00 m for salmon and sea trout.
These fish passes generally have slopes of
between 15 and 20%.
The super-active bottom-baffle fish pass (Larinier et al., 2002), in which herringbone-patterned
steel baffles are placed on the bottom while the
two sides of the channel are kept smooth. This
fish pass generally has slopes of between 10 and
16% and the height of the baffles varies from
0.08 m to a maximum of 0.20 m for large fish.
The width of such a design is not limited; several
unit-patterns can be juxtaposed according to the
size of the river and the design discharge.

Denil fish passes are relatively selective and are

only used for species which have sufficient swimming speed and endurance. They are used for large
rheophilic species and in particular salmon, sea trout
and marine lamprey, for which they appear to be
particularly effective. They tolerate only slight variations in the upstream water level.

99

Most Denil fish passes have been installed in small

coastal rivers in Normandy and Britanny and were
designed to accommodate sea-run brown trout and
salmon passage at low weirs while a few have also
been installed at small-scale hydropower facilities in
foothill areas to pass brown trout by means of baffles
with reduced dimensions (Larinier et al., 2002).
Pool fish passes
The pool-type fish pass is the most frequently used
fish pass at small-scale hydroplants. The discharge in
these passes, depending on the size of the river, can
vary from less than 0.1 m3 s-1 in small brooks or
mountain streams to more than 2 m3 s-1 in large
rivers (Larinier et al., 2002).
The drop per pool generally adopted is around
0.30 m for Atlantic salmon, sea-run brown trout and
brown trout, 0.200.30 m for shad, and between 0.15
and 0.30 m for other target-species, depending on the
species and their length. Pool volume is determined by
the criteria of dissipated power per unit pool volume.
The maximum values are 200250 watts m-3 for
salmonids, 150 watts m-3 for other species, namely
shad, cyprinids and in all cases for small pools. Pool
shape and dimensions are determined by a number of
factors including the pool volume, the flow pattern in
the pool, the species concerned and their size. The
length of pools can vary from 1.2 m for a small trout
fish pass designed for less than 0.1 m3 s-1, to more than
4.5 m for a fish pass designed for 1 m3 s-1, with a mean
length of 2.53.0 m for fish passes designed for 0.3
0.5 m3 s-1. Consequently, the slope of a pool fish pass
can vary greatly, from less than 7% to more than 25%,
with the most frequent values ranging from 10 to 12%.
The most commonly used pool-type fish pass at
small-scale hydroplants in France is the alternate
deep notch and submerged orifice fish pass (Larinier
et al., 2002). Such fish passes can accommodate
moderate upstream water level variations without the
need for installing any upstream flow-regulation
section.
Vertical slot fish passes have the great advantage
of operating correctly without any regulating
deviceby tolerating significant variations in
upstream and downstream water levelsand by
allowing fish to pass from the bottom up to the
surface of the pool. However, a fairly high flow
discharge is required in fish passes for large

123

100

migratory fish such as Atlantic salmon, while taking

the minimum size of the slot and the minimum depth
in the pool into account.
Experience has shown that when a pool pass has
been correctly designed (in terms of drops, level of
turbulence and flow pattern in the pools), it is not very
selective and can be crossed by most species present in
the river. The main problem for some small species can
be the significant time spent in very large pools: small
species tend to get lost and to remain trapped in
recirculation eddies, which occur in large pools. It is
already clear that the introduction of rough obstacles on
the bottom can help small benthic species to pass
through. For other small species, a solution may be to
reduce the size of pools where possible, or to find ways
of reducing the size of the recirculation eddies by
installing several obstacles in the pools. A study of
vertical slot fish passes is underway to characterise flow
in terms of speed, turbulence, flow patterns and to see
which devices may be used in pools to help guide small
species (Tarrade et al., 2006).
Pre-barrages
Pre-barrages are often an efficient and inexpensive
solution to enable fish to clear fairly low obstacles.
They are made of several walls or weirs downstream
of the obstacle, creating large pools which break up
the drop to be cleared (drops of 0.400.60 m). The
configuration of the weirs and drops among pools
depends on the target-species: for salmonids, a
plunging flow is acceptable and the walls among
pools can be vertical whereas for most other species it
is better to progressively dissipate energy and reduce
velocities on rough ramps to enable the fish to move
through by swimming. Pre-barrages are a very
common solution adopted for trout on low head
diversion dams in upland areas (Larinier et al., 2002).
Natural bypass channels
There are currently many fewer natural bypass
channels in France than pool or Denil fish passes at
small-scale hydroplants. This type of facility is
particularly suitable if the fish pass has to be installed
near a dam whose structure cannot be changed and
when there is sufficient space on the bank. The slope
for this type of structure generally varies from 2 to
5%, depending on the target species. The major

123

Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97108

disadvantage of this type of device is its overall

dimension and the difficulty of taking significant
variations in the upstream level into account. The
energy is generally dissipated by rows of blocks or
weirs creating a series of drops of variable height
(from 15 to 30 cm). The design criteria are very
similar to those for pool fish passes. If the level of
upstream water varies significantly, a control section
has to be installed upstream to limit the flow in the
facility and the most efficient system generally
recommended is a section of a vertical-slot fish pass
(Larinier et al., 2002).
Fish locks and fish elevators
Fish locks and fish lifts are only rarely used at smallscale hydroplants: the head at small-scale hydro dams
is generally limited, the operation of such facilities is
too sophisticated and their maintenance much more
cumbersome than that of a more conventional fish
pass.
Over the last 15 years a few fish locks were built
in France at small hydroplants with only 36 m head
differences where the space available was too limited
for installing a conventional fish pass. The whole
system, including the downstream holding pool, was
generally left open and is very similar to a navigation
lock. The principal limits to this kind of facility are
the discontinuous nature of its operation and the
difficulty of optimising its operating cycle when
several species with very different behaviour are to
be passed (Larinier et al., 2002).

Attraction flow and maintenance

The attraction of a fish pass, i.e. the fact that fish find the
entrance more or less rapidly depends on its location in
relation to the obstruction, particularly the location of its
entrance and the hydraulic conditions (flow discharges,
velocities and flow patterns) near these entrances. The
discharge through the fish passage facility must be
sufficient to compete with the flow in the river during
the migration period. It is difficult to give precise
criteria, but generally the flow passing through the fish
pass must be of the order of 25% of the competing
flow. The competing flow can be either the turbine
discharge, either the ecological flow or the spilling
discharge at the dam (Larinier et al., 2002).

Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97108

In the case of a small-scale hydroelectric plant,

where all the flow discharge passes through the
turbines, migrating fish will be attracted to the turbine
draft tubes. The entrance to the fishway must
therefore be adjacent to the powerhouse, preferably
in the riverbank.
Where the plant is located on a diversion canal, it
is often difficult to decide whether it is preferable to
install the fishway at the dam or at the powerhouse. A
careful study must be made of water flow regimes at
each location and of plant operation during the
migrating period. Fish can be attracted to the
continuous flow from power generation or else to
the dam in the case of frequent spills during the
migration period. At times of low flow, most of the
fish will be attracted to the turbines, while during
periods of higher flow, fish can congregate below the
dam. Should the diversion canal be very long, the fish
will be much more likely to become trapped in one of
the arms (tailrace or river) and have a limited chance
of rapidly finding a single fishway. Where possible, it
is thus better to provide two separate fishways, one at
the powerhouse, the second at the diversion dam.
Several small-scale hydro plants with long discharge
canals are now equipped with two fish passes in
South-West rivers supporting diadromous species.
It is not always possible to install a fishway at the
powerhouse, particularly on high head schemes
where the river flow is conducted to the turbine in a
very long pressurised conduit to the power house
sometimes several kilometres downstream. The
effective performance of a fish passage facility
situated at the diversion dam depends entirely, in
such cases, on a continuously significant and sufficient ecological flow being released in the bypassed
section of the river.
The use of electric repellent devices has been
envisaged as an alternative to the construction of a
second fishway at the power station for preventing
fish from entering the tailrace. A few electric screens
have been installed, but their efficiency was not
straightforward, and their installation has even been
considered more detrimental than useful on short
tailraces: some fish can pass through and remain
trapped between the screen and the turbines (Chanseau & Larinier, 2001). The repelling electric-field
screen must be associated with high local velocities
in the tailrace, which are not possible to maintain

101

during high and even medium flow at low-head,

small-scale powerplants.
Fish behaviour is not the only factor to take into
account when choosing or designing fish pass facilities. Exposure to floods, protection against debris,
maintenance and control problems are also important.
Adequate maintenance is vital to the successful
operation of a fish pass. Lack of maintenance of
facilities is a recurring problem in France, which is
why the Adour Garonne Basin Agency recently
introduced a system of bonuses to incite owners to
correctly maintain structures.
Sedimentation is a factor to be taken into account
when designing a pool fish pass in upland areas, where
the sediment transport in the river can be significant
during high flows. While the power dissipation in the
fish pass is generally sufficient to avoid the deposition
of sand, the filling of the fish pass with gravel can be
expected on rivers which transport gravel during floods.
The location of the fish pass must be carefully studied to
avoid high deposition areas. It is possible to install a
gravel trap upstream, and in all cases, the maintenance
access to the pass should be made easy. The depth of
pools has to be reduced to a minimum and their width
proportionally increased. Tests were performed on
hydraulic models for designing self-maintaining pool
fish passes for gravel rivers, but their use still remains
very limited.

Efficiency of fish passes

The legal obligation on owners to achieve a result for
the free circulation of fish has led to the need to
specify the concept of efficiency for fish passes,
which is not easy to defineit has, in fact, never been
properly and clearly defined in the regulationsand
even more so to demonstrate. Is a pass, which is
effective for a given species, one that allows the
passage of at least one individual, or of the total
population present below the obstruction, or of a
specified fraction of this population, or only of all
individuals that enter the facility? Should the time
taken to pass upstream from the obstruction also be
taken into account? The definition of efficiency may
be quite different for the same fish facility, depending
on the species considered. We could distinguish
effectiveness and efficiency:

123

102

Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97108

Effectiveness of a fish pass is a qualitative

concept, which consists in checking that the
pass is capable of letting all target species pass
through within the range of environmental
conditions observed during the migration
period.
The efficiency of a fish pass is a more
quantitative description of its performance. It
may be defined as the proportion of stock
present at the dam which then enters and
successfully moves through the fish pass in
what is considered to be an acceptable length of
time.
For salmon and other catadromous species, the
whole of the migrating population should be able to
pass through any obstruction located downstream
from spawning areas. If, moreover, this watercourse
is equipped with many obstacles it will be necessary
to minimise delays to migration caused by these
obstacles so that the migrating fish arrive at the
spawning areas in time. On the other hand, if the pass
is located further upstream of the river within the
spawning grounds, the requirements for percentage
and time taken may be less stringent given that the
fish may reproduce downstream and that the motivation to migrate may be variable. Whatever the case,
the fish pass must be sufficiently efficient so as not to

constitute a limiting factor for the long-term maintenance of migrating stock

The quantitative evaluation of efficiency of
upstream fish passage requires knowledge of the
number of fish available for passage as well as the
number that actually pass the dam. Mark-recapture
and radiotracking are valuable techniques for overall
evaluation of the efficiency of fish passes in terms of
percentage of passage and delays to migration and the
cumulative impact of different obstacles on a migration route (Chanseau et al., 1999). When there are
several obstructions close to each other on the same
river, a quantitative estimate of upstream passage
efficiency can be obtained more easily from fish
passage counts at the dam of interest and the next
lower dam. The efficiency is expressed as the
proportion of the passing fishing counted to the
number of fish available for passage (i.e. those that
were passed above the lower dam).
An example is the efficiency obtained through
radio-tracking on four fish passes located at smallscale hydroplants on the Gave de Pau (mean annual
discharge 90 m3 s-1) in the South-West of France
(Fig. 1). The Artix (turbine discharge 80 m3 s-1) and
Biron (turbine discharge 110 m3 s-1) power plants
are recent installations equipped, respectively, with a
vertical slot fish pass (design flow 0.7 m3 s-1,
auxiliary flow 2 m3 s-1) and a natural bypass channel

100

100

SAPSO (efficiency 74%)

80

% salmons

% salmons

BAIGTS (efficiency 35,3%)

60
40
20

80
60
40
20
0

0
1 day

3 days

1 week

2 weeks

1 day

3 weeks > 1 month

3 days

100

2 weeks

3 weeks > 1 month

100

BIRON (efficiency 100%)

80

ARTIX (efficiency 93,8%)

80

% salmons

% salmons

1 week

Migration delay

Migration delay

60
40
20

60
40
20

0
1 day

3 days

1 week

2 weeks

3 weeks > 1 month

0
1 day

3 days

Migration delay

Fig. 1 Fish passes efficiency and migration delays at four dam on the Gave de Pau river

123

1 week

2 weeks

Migration delay

3 weeks > 1 month

Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97108

(design flow 4 m3 s-1). The Sapso (turbine discharge

m3 s-1) and Baigts (turbine discharge 90 m3 s-1)
plants are much older installations equipped, respectively, with a Denil fish pass and a mixed pool-Denil
fish pass which location is far from optimum. The
poor results obtained by radiotracking at the two last
small-scale hydroplants convinced the authorities to
require the owners of these two last structures to
build new and more efficient fish passes.
Experience gained with radiotracking of salmon
showed that an efficiency of 95100% can be
obtained on recent well-designed fish passes with
delays of a few hours to a few days (Chanseau et al.,
1999).
The radio-tracking study undertaken on the Gave
de Pau from 1995 to 1998 to evaluate the passability
of about 30 obstructions (among which 20 smallscale hydroplants) for upstream migration showed
that:

16 structures allowed all of the migrating fish to

pass through without significant delays,
10 structures were more serious obstacles to
migration in terms of delays or blocking part of
the population, but were still acceptable,
5 structures, of which several were located on the
downstream part of the migration route and of
older design, were major obstacles.

It was estimated that only 13% of salmon reach

the first spawning zones. The current objective is to
increase this percentage to 80% by improving
existing facilities and building new ones on the
three most critical obstacles. A new fish lift was
recently built at the Baigts powerplant (Larinier
et al., 2005).
For riverine species the main biological objectives
of the fish pass are to ensure the longitudinal
connectivity of the river and avoid fragmentation of
the population. Since it is not generally possible to
ascertain the size of the downstream population and
the proportion of it willing to clear the obstruction,
the facility may be considered to be effective if it is
used by a certain number of individuals, in relation to
the population in place. Simply counting the fish
upstream of the fish pass by visual inspection,
trapping or video checks may provide an adequate
indication of the efficiency of the pass.
In practice, rigorous evaluation of fish passes
efficiency is only rarely performed, except for

103

diadromous species such as salmon and shad. Fish

passes are generally determined to be satisfactory by
regulatory agencies based on substantially less information, such as direct observation of fish passage,
and in most cases conformance with design criteria
and satisfactory maintenance.

Downstream migration
Downstream migration involves diadromous species:
juveniles of anadromous species, adults of catadromous species and certain anadromous species (repeat
spawners). In France, considering the high number of
installations on most rivers, hydroelectric powerplants are the principal issue to be dealt with to
ensure safe downstream migration of diadromous
species.
The downstream fish passage at hydroelectric
power dams for potamodromous and resident species
is generally considered less stringent: if they can
move downstream during their life cycle, this species
migrates over limited distances and are in most cases
concerned by a few installations. The need to provide
passage for mitigation must be considered speciesand site-specific.
Downstream passage over spillways or weirs is
rarely a problem in France for fish at small-scale
hydroplants where dams are generally of moderate
height. Provided that fish are able to fall safely on the
downstream side, with sufficient depth at the base of
the dam and no over-aggressive baffles, then spillways and weirs are usually considered to be the safest
way for fish to pass a dam.
Fish passing through hydraulic turbines are subject
to various forms of stress likely to cause high
mortality: probability of shocks from moving or
stationary parts of the turbine (guide vanes, vanes or
blades on the wheel), sudden acceleration or deceleration, very sudden variations in pressure and
cavitation.
Numerous experiments have been conducted in
various countries (USA, Canada, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany and France), mainly on juvenile
salmonids and less frequently on clupeids, eels and
other species, to determine the mortality rate due to
their passage through the main types of turbine (Bell,
1981; Monten, 1985; EPRI, 1987, 1992; Larinier &
Dartiguelongue, 1989; Holzner, 2000).

123

104

123

mortality rate (% at each plant)

(Gave dOloron)
6
5
4
3
2
1

Sorde

Auterrive

Masseys

Dognen

Saucde

Guerlain

Lgugnon

mortality rate (% at each plant)

(Saison)
20

16

12

Charitte de bas

Chraute

Gorre

Libarrenx

Maulon

Gotein

Trois Ville

0
Moulin Datto

The mortality rate in impulse type turbines (i.e.

Pelton turbines) used on high head schemes is very
high, if not total.
For juvenile salmonids, the mortality rate in
Francis and Kaplan turbines varies greatly, depending
on the properties of the wheel (diameter, speed of
rotation, etc.), their conditions of operation, the head,
and the species and size of the fish concerned. The
mortality rate varies from under 5% to over 90% in
Francis turbines. On average, it is lower in Kaplan
turbines, between 5% and approximately 20%. The
difference between the two types of turbine is due to
the fact that Francis turbines are generally installed
under higher heads. Damage through turbines
installed at small hydroplants is generally higher
than that at larger plants, because of the smaller size
and the higher rotation speed of the turbines involved.
Mortality rate in adult eels is generally higher than
that observed for juvenile salmonids, because of their
greater length. The mortality rate may be 35 times
higher than in juvenile salmonids (depending on the
length of the eel in question), reaching a minimum of
1020% in large low-head turbines, and more than
50% in the smaller turbines used in most small-scale
hydroelectric power plants (Monten, 1985; Larinier
& Dartiguelongue, 1989; Desrochers, 1995; Hadderingh & Bakker, 1998; Holzner, 2000).
Studies were carried out between 1999 and 2005 to
assess the cumulative impact of small-scale hydropower plants on the main salmon rivers with the
objective of identifying the most critical rivers on
which efficient downstream fish facilities should be
installed as a priority (Bosc & Larinier, 2000;
Anonymous, 2002, 2004; Pallo & Larinier 2002).
This was done using a simple model characterising
the downstream migration phenomenon at each site and
evaluating the respective probabilities of fish passing
through the spillway and the turbine, taking into
account the hydraulic regime of the river during the
period of downstream migration, the turbine discharge
flow, the site characteristics and the probabilities of
damage caused by transit through the turbines. This
probability of damage was predicted using relationships
among mortality rate, length of fish and turbine
characteristics (Larinier & Dartiguelongue, 1989; Larinier et al., 2002). Two examples of the results are
shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
Low mortality rates on the small-scale hydroplants
installed on the Gave dOloron are related to the large

Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97108

Fig. 2 Raw mortality rate figures (expressed in % of the fish

transiting through each installation) for juvenile salmon passing
through various installations on the Gave dOloron and Saison

turbines whose total capacity is much lower than the

river flow during migration. Higher mortalities rates
at some hydroplants on the Saison are related to
smaller turbines with a high rotation speed and/or a
high entrainment through the turbine.
The main problem is generally the cumulative
impact of a series of hydro-electric power plants
located on the same river. Considering passage at 10
20 plants, even with a high mean survival rate of 95%,
or even 98% at each plant, the cumulative mortality
rate will be, respectively, between 40 and 19% and 74
and 33%. These indiscriminate impacts of small-scale
hydroplants can threaten entire fish populations.
The cumulative mortality rate for salmon smolts
during their downstream migration was estimated in

Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97108

105

The impact must be still higher on for silver eel,

due to the higher probability of them being wounded
when passing through turbines. Similar studies such
as those carried out for salmon should be launched
soon to evaluate the cumulative impact of small-scale
hydroplants on the downstream migration of silver
eel, given that technical solutions in this case are
much less straightforward than for salmon.

mortality rate (% of total population)

(Gave dOloron)
6
5
4
3
2
1

Downstream fish passage facilities

Sorde

Auterrive

Masseys

Dognen

Saucde

Guerlain

Lgugnon

mortality rate (% of total population)

(Saison)
20

16

12

Charitte de bas

Chraute

Gorre

Libarrenx

Maulon

Gotein

Trois Ville

Moulin Datto

Fig. 3 Raw mortality rate figures (expressed in % of the

population migrating downstream) for juvenile salmon passing
through various installations on the Gave dOloron and Saison

several South-western rivers prior to the installation

of any specific downstream facilities. The mortality
rate, depending on the year, may vary significantly
according to the flow conditions during the migration
period (Anonymous, 2002, 2004; Bosc & Larinier,
2000; Pallo & Larinier 2002) (Table 1).

Downstream fish passage technology is much less

advanced than that for upstream fish passage facilities. This is due to the fact that efforts to re-establish
connectivity for migrating fish began with the
construction of upstream fish passage facilities and
that downstream migration issues were acknowledged and addressed much later. It is also because it
is much more difficult and complex to develop
effective facilities for downstream migration.
One solution to prevent fish from passing through
the turbines involves stopping them physically at
water intakes by means of bars or screens which must
have a sufficiently small spacing or mesh dimension
to physically prevent fish from passing. These
barriers have to guide fish towards a bypass, which
is done most effectively by placing them diagonally
to the flow, with the bypass in the downstream part of
the screen. Sufficient screening area must be provided
to create low flow velocities to avoid fish impingement and reduce hydraulic head losses. Uniform
velocities and eddy-free currents upstream of screens
must be provided to effectively guide fish towards the
bypass (Larinier & Travade, 1999).
In France most small-scale hydroplants were
constructed before the importance of downstream
migration facilities had been understood. Retrofitting
existing installations with fine screens acting as
physical barriers would require increasing the screen

Table 1 Estimation of cumulative mortality rates for juvenile salmon passing small-scale hydroplants on South-western rivers
Neste

Corre`ze

Veze`re

River

Gave de Pau

Gave dOloron

Saison

Salat

Basin

Adour

Adour

Adour

Garonne

Garonne

Dordogne

Dordogne

Number of small-scale hydroplants

20

23

10

Min/Mean/Max cumulative
mortality rate (%)

9/19/30

1/3/8

10/18/25

31/50/64

16/28/38

9/15/22

2/6/9

123

106

areas to reduce the approach velocities to such an

extent that it was considered unrealistic to do so.
Surface bypasses combined with existing conventional trashracks or angled bar racks with relatively
close spacing have become one of the most frequently prescribed fish protection systems for
juvenile salmonids at small hydroelectric power
plants in France. These structural guidance devices
act as physical barriers for larger fish (downstream
migrating adults) and behavioural barriers for juveniles. A research programme was undertaken to
assess the efficiency of such bypasses for juvenile
salmonids and to define the design criteria and
determine the limits to their use. The efficiency is
closely related to the fish length to spacing ratio and
to fish response to hydraulic conditions around the
front of the structure and at the bypass entrance. Tests
showed that under optimal conditions, efficiency
could reach 6085% (Larinier & Travade, 1999).
Flow discharge in the bypass has also proven critical.
The design criteria currently in France call for a mean
discharge of 5% of the turbine discharge and for
juvenile salmon a spacing between bars of 2.5 cm,
even if efficient results have been obtained with bar
spacing of up to 4 cm, but this must be combined
with optimum flow patterns at intake (Croze et al.,
1999).
External vapour mercury lights have been tested
on several sites to improve bypass efficiency. If weak
intermittent or permanent lights seem to exert
significant attraction on juveniles, the potential of
lights to improve bypass efficiency was clearly
demonstrated on only a few sites (e.g. Guilhot power
plant on the Arie`ge river and Poute`s dam on the
Allier river). All results indicate that the spacing of
the trashracks and hydrodynamic factors are the
predominant factors to be taken into account when
designing a downstream bypass (Larinier & Travade,
1999).
Several experiments were recently carried out in
France with acoustic and electrical barriers to divert
salmon smolts from a canal intake to a surface
bypass. The results were disappointing for both
devices, while the efficiency of the acoustic barrier
was practically nil (Gosset & Travade, 1999). The use
of behavioural barriers must be considered with
caution.
The problem of the downstream migration of eels
at hydroelectric power stations is critical in the light

123

Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97108

of their size and the high damage rate that can results
from turbine passage. No specific solution has been
implemented in France due to the relatively recent
awareness of eel migration. The results of recent
experiments showed that the behavioural repellent
effect of the trashrack is far less obvious than for
salmon, and that bypasses must be combined with
physical barriers with a maximum bar spacing close
to 2 cm (Gosset et al., 2005; Subra et al., 2005).
Experiments still have to be carried out to optimise
intakes and bypass design.
Stopping turbines during eel downstream migration peaks is a solution which has already been
considered, as is the capture of individuals upstream
of the obstacles. However, these solutions assume
that the period of downstream migration is sufficiently short and can be predicted with sufficient
accuracy, which does not appear to be the case for the
European eel.

Conclusion
This article gives an overview of experience gained
in fish passage at small-scale hydropower plants in
France.
Mitigation measures, such as environmental flows
and installation of upstream and downstream fish
facilities, made it possible to limit to some extent the
negative impacts of these small-scale hydropower
plants, or to make the impacts at least more tolerable.
The residual impacts of these obstacles are, however,
cumulative. Experience shows that every obstruction,
even if fitted with effective fish passage facilities,
creates at least some delay in migration. Clogging of
the fish pass with floating debris and insufficient
maintenance of the facilities, as well as the frequently
observed deficient ecological flow are additional
causes of delay in upstream migration or obstruction
to fish passage. The technology allowing for reasonably satisfactory downstream passage is now quite
well-developed for juvenile salmonids and can be
applied with some success; however, as regards other
species, e.g. eel, this technology is still inadequate. In
order to find efficient solutions for existing installations, it is obvious that a lot more intensive research
and development will be needed.
The main conclusion to be drawn from experience
gained in France, is that it is not good management

Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97108

practice to plan the construction of, or even envisage

keeping, more than a very limited number of smallscale hydropower stations on rivers, for which the
policy is to protect or restore the population of
migratory species.
Research and development is also urgently needed
with respect to the design of fish-friendly water
intakes at small-scale hydroplants, which have to take
both downstream migration (in particular for silver
eel) and maintenance problems into account. Efficient
solutions with no mortalities must be found for all
new small-scale hydroplants involving downstream
migration issues.
Several research and development programmes for
fish-friendly turbines are in progress, particularly in
France, for equipping plants with very small heads.
We hope that the development of such turbines will
not lead to a drastic multiplication of micro- and
pico-plants, which could reverse the actual tendency
to decommission small dams and weirs. One should
never lose sight of the limits to the effectiveness of
fish passage facilities. In addition to problems
relating to fish passage, the effect of small dams on
habitat must not be underestimated. The protection of
migratory species for a given dam must be studied in
a much wider context than the strict respect of fish
passage alone.

References
Anonymous, 2002. Simulation des mortalites induites par les
amenagements hydroelectriques lors de la migration de
devalaison des smolts de saumon atlantique. Propositions
damenagements. Le Gave dOloron et ses principaux
affluents. SIEEGHAAPPE Report TE 01.08.03/BV/a:
33 p.
Anonymous, 2004. Simulation des mortalites induites par les
amenagements hydroelectriques lors de la migration de
devalaison des smolts de saumon atlantique. Propositions
damenagements. Le Gave de Pau et le Neez. SIEE
GHAAPPE Report TE 03.04.03/BV/a: 52 p.
Bell, M. C., 1981. Updated compendium of the success of
passages of small fish through turbines. Fisheries Engineering Research Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon: 294 p.
Bosc, S. & M. Larinier, 2000. Definition dune strategie de
reouverture de la Garonne et de lArie`ge a` la devalaison
des salmonides grands migrateurs. Simulation des mortalites induites par les amenagements hydroelectriques
lors de la migration de devalaison. GHAAPPE Report
RA.00.01: 75 p.

107
Chanseau, M., O. Croze & M. Larinier, 1999. Impact des
amenagements sur la migration anadrome du saumon
atlantique (Salmo salar L.) sur le Gave de Pau (France).
Bulletin Francais de la Peche et de la Pisciculture 353/
354: 211237.
Chanseau, M. & M. Larinier, 2001. Etude de lefficacite de
lecran electrique de lamenagement hydroelectrique de
Peyrouse sur la Gave de Pau. GHAAPPE Report
RA.01.02: 13 p.
Croze, O., M. Chanseau, & M. Larinier, 1999. Efficacite dun
exutoire de devalaison pour smolts de saumon atlantique
et comportement des poissons au niveau de lamenagement hydroelectrique de Camon sur la Garonne. Bulletin
Francais de la Peche et de la Pisciculture 353/354:
121140.
Desrochers, D., 1995. Suivi de la migration de languille
dAmerique (Anguilla rostrata) au complexe Beauhamois,
1994. MILIEU & Associes Inc. pour le service Milieu
naturel, vice-presidence Environnement, Hydro-Quebec:
107 p.
EPRI, 1987. Turbine-related fish mortality: review and evaluation of studies. Research Project 2694-4, Final Report:
102 p.
EPRI, 1992. Fish Entrainment and Turbine Mortality Review
and Guidelines. Stone and Webster Eng. Corp., Boston,
Massachusetts: 225 p.
Gosset, C. & F. Travade, 1999. Etude de dispositifs daide a` la
migration de devalaison des salmonidae: barrie`res comportementales. Cybium 23 (Suppl 1): 4566.
Gosset, C., F. Travade, C. Durif, J. Rives & P. Elie, 2005. Test
of two types of bypass for downstream migration of eels at
a small hydroelectric power plant. River Research and
Applications 21, 10951105.
Hadderingh, R. H. & H. D. Bakker, 1998, Fish mortality due to
passage through hydroelectric power stations on the Meuse and Vecht rivers. In Jungwirth, M., S. Schmutz & S.
Weiss (eds), Fish Migration and Fish Bypasses. Fishing
News Books, Oxford: 315328.
Holzner, M., 2000. Untersuchungen uber die Schadigung von
Fischen bei der Passage des Kraftwerks Dettelbach.
Thesis Technische Univeritat Munchen: 335 p.
Larinier, M., M. Chanseau, F. Bau & O. Croze, 2005. The use
of radio telemetry for optimising fish pass design. In
Spedicato, M. T., G. Lembo & G. Marmulla (eds),
Aquatic Telemetry: Advances and Applications. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Fish Telemetry held
in Europe, Ustica, Italy, 913 June 2003. Rome, FAO/
COISPA: 5360.
Larinier, M. & J. Dartiguelongue, 1989. La circulation de
poissons migrateurs: le transit a` travers les turbines des
installations hydroelectriques. Bulletin Francais de la
Peche et de la Pisciculture Special Issue 312/313: 94.
Larinier, M. & F. Travade, 1999. The development and evaluation of downstream bypasses for juvenile salmonids at
small hydroelectric plants in France. In M. Odeh (ed.),
Fish Passage Technology. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland, USA: 2542.
Larinier, M., F. Travade & J. P. Porcher, 2002. Fishways:
biological basis, design criteria and monitoring. Bulletin
Francais de la Peche et de la Pisciculture 364: 208.

123

108
Monten, E., 1985. Fish and Turbines. Fish Injuries during
Passage through Power Station Turbines. Vattenfall,
Stockholm: 111 p.
Pallo, S. & M. Larinier, 2002. Definition dune strategie de
reouverture de la Dordogne et de ses affluents a` la
devalaison des salmonides grands migrateurs. GHAAPPE
Report RA.02.01: 60 p.
Subra, S., P. Gomes, S. Vighetti, P. Thellier, M. Larinier & F.
Travade, 2005. Etude de dispositifs de devalaison pour
languille argentee. Comportement de languille et test
dun dispositif de devalaison a` lusine hydroelectrique de

123

Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97108

Baigts de Bearn (Gave de Pau 64). EDF R&D GHAAPPE Report HP-76/05/025/A-RA.05.03: 89 p.
Tarrade, L., A. Texier, L. David, G. Pineau & M. Larinier,
2006. An experimental study of turbulent flow in vertical
slot fishways. Symposium on Hydropower, Flood Control
and Water Abstraction: Implications for Fish and Fisheries, Mondsee, Austria, June 2006: 1421.
White, C. M. & P. Nemenyi, 1942. Report on hydraulic
research on fish passes. In Institution of Civil Engineers
(eds), Report of the Committee on Fish Passes. Clowes
and Sons, London, Great Britain: 3261.