BADMOON:
First mistake, you start "displaying" what to do, before You do a good evaluation of your water sources.
Forget what you have mechanically, it may not be needed, DEFINE your water sources that by principle is the best power source since it can run continuously.
Do a GOOD and ACCURATE definition of your power source and it seems by your short "report" that you may have a lot of water.
Compensate 3 to 8 miles per hour ??.
What are You trying to do ??
Define what head you can have, also the water volume, due to regulations or what ever.
Then due a good survey and forget compensations, then how to bring the water to the turbine with pressure capturing.
Then the Turbine solution -- but stop inserting ideas to something that you do not know how to implement Yet.
Of all your writing of your message the only part that is partially relevant is the part above :
>>and be able to be removed in case of failure or damage.
The part below this phrase is just chaff obscuring what can be done and useless at the present time.
Be practical, inform carefully from data taken carefully, to get the proper suggestions based on carefully collected data -- If I need to respond to you, based on what you said, NO solution can be "glimpsed" at all.
As a case. I helped a fellow in the Southern Continent that had a 2 KW rudimentary hydro and by carefully eliminating the "chaff" that he was constantly inserting in his messages, I showed to him how " report properly, clearly and precisely" to attain 30 KW with the same water volume, by just doing a careful re-piping his water to the higher power Turbine and he needed every bit of power he could get, end up with two turbines, one low power 3 KW and the new one 30 KW.
Carefully describe and even photos where the intake can be done, present benefits and/or problems by choosing such site, give alternate sites with the same considerations -- that is the start.
Nando