Use of Radio Telemetry to Study Juvenile
Salmonids in the Columbia River Basin
- An Overview -
John Beeman
Western Fisheries Research Center
Columbia River Research Laboratory
Cook, Washington, USA
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
NPCC Fish Tagging Forum
October 11, 2012
Information Today
• A bit about the technology
– Apart from use in adult salmon
• Past use of RT with juv. salmonids
– General overview & specific examples
– Comparison with results from other methods
• Current use of RT
– Why is RT not used as much lately?
• Summary
A bit about the technology (1 of 4)
• First used in fish in1968
– Use expanded greatly in1980s
• Better electronics, more vendors
• Radio = ~30-300 MHz
– Efficient in air, much less so in water
• Ineffective in sea water (high conductivity)
• Small transmitter limited to ~ 10 m depth in FW1, 2
– Can be used to advantage (better fish locations)
– Range is frequency dependent, but there are tradeoffs
1 Keuchle
and Keuchle. 2012. Pages 91-138 in N.S. Adams, J.W. Beeman,
and J.H. Eiler, editors. Telemetry Techniques. AFS, Bethesda, Maryland.
2
Beeman et al. 1998. NAJFM 18:458-464
A bit about the technology (2 of 4)
• Differences from use in adult salmon
– Smaller fish = smaller tags
• No “safe” tag burden exists1
– Published guides range up to 10%,
but ≤ 5% is common (less is better)
• Smallest tag to date is ~ 0.2 g
– Still getting smaller
• Most studies use a ~95 mm min fish size
– Tag burden data does not seem to fit well for smaller fish
1Leidtke
and Rub. 2012. Pages 45-87 in N.S. Adams, J.W. Beeman,
and J.H. Eiler, editors. Telemetry Techniques. AFS, Bethesda, Maryland.
A bit about the technology (3 of 4)
• Tag life related to size and burst rate
– Life is finite (often used with PIT)
5s = 33 d
Data and photo from Lotek Wireless
A bit about the technology (4 of 4)
• Small tag = weak signal
– Wise to preserve the received signal
• Antenna selection, accounting for system losses
Evans and Stevenson. 2012. Pages 139-162 in N.S. Adams, J.W. Beeman,
and J.H. Eiler, editors. Telemetry Techniques. AFS, Bethesda, Maryland.
Past use in juv. salmonids (1 of 3)
• Why?
– Primarily evaluations of dam operations on passage and
survival and development of DS passage solutions
• Who (tag and detection)?
– Primarily USGS, NOAA Fisheries, Chelan PUD
• Some OSU
• What?
– Yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon, juvenile
steelhead, sockeye (coho?)
• When?
– 1990s-present
Juv. salmonids tagged by USGS in
Columbia River Basin
Increased use of
acoustic telemetry
50000
Passage and survival
Number
40000
30000
20000
Cougar
Dam
Behavior
10000
0
0
0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Year
Excludes Cowlitz R. and a few other locales
Locations of use in main stem
USGS
NOAA
Chelan PUD
Past use in juv. salmonids (2 of 3)
• Coordination among efforts
– Frequency and code use among studies
– Often use vendor-specific equipment
• USGS, Chelan PUD = one firm, NOAA built their own
• Coordination within efforts
– Within agency for multiple dams
• Data system
– Agency-specific (we send proofed data to COE)
• Geographical coverage
– Nearly all main stem dams in Columbia/Snake
Past use in juv. Salmonids (3 of 3)
• Best suited for:
– freshwater, low conductivity (<~ 600 μS)
– Turbulent waters, ice, mobile & fixed tracking
• By air only viable with RT
•
•
•
•
•
•
Life cycle tracking
Tag failure rates
CIs
Mortality due to tagging
Number of fish released
Tags “recovered”
Similar to acoustic telemetry
in suitable environments
Information from RT
• Most Corps management decisions about
dam operations leading to surface
passage were based at least partly on
data from RT (prior to ~ 2010)
– Approach, passage, egress
– Route-specific passage and survival
– 4 Snake R. dams, 4 lower Columbia R. dams
• 3D with acoustic telemetry used to refine
Equipment Costs
• Transmitters
– $150-315 (typical)
• Receivers
– $<1,000-2,500 (basic mobile tracking)
– $2000-11,000 (data logging, multiple inputs,…)
• Other equipment
– Antennas, cable, line amplifiers, etc.
• Generally trivial compared to receivers
– Survival deployment at CR dam may cost $10,000
» plus labor
Example 1: Little Goose Dam 2009
• Purpose: passage and survival with
spillway weir
• Total cost ~ 3 M (from tags to reporting)
– 7,288 tags
• Method: Multi-state mark-recapture model
– route-specific survival model
• Skalski et al. 2002
Little Goose Dam, 2009
• Metrics
– Survival
• Pool, forebay, route-specific, dam, concrete
• Single release, paired release
– Passage
• Route-specific probabilities
• Issue with entrainment in tailrace
– Travel times
• Release to forebay, there to dam,
dam through tailrace
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers photo
Data from GPS-equipped drogues
Forebay Array
~ 2 km
TSW
x
x
~ 500 m
x
Test Release Site
21 km upstream
x
x x
Control Release Site
x
3 arrays downstream
Egress array ~ 1.2 km from dam
Yagi aerial antenna
Trolley pipe for dipole
underwater antennas
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1224/
Comparison with other methods
N = 1,569
N = 3,447
Weiland et al., 2009
Counihan et al., 2006
Beeman et al., 2006
Example 2: Cougar Dam
• Purpose
– Route-specific passage and survival
• Total cost $130,000
– 300 tags
• Method
– Passage and survival based on multi-state
mark-recapture model
• Skalski et al. (2002) again
Corps of Engineers graphic and photo
Sites near the dam
Sites farther downstream
PIT
Radio
Oregon
Bridge
Cougar Dam
Leaburg Dam
McKenzie River
South Fork
Leaburg Hatchery
McKenzie Hatchery
Cougar Reservoir
N
Detection site along the McKenzie River
Current RT in juv. salmonids in CRB
• Primarily at Willamette Basin dams
– Fall Creek in fall 2012 (NOAA)
– Cougar in fall 2011 and 2012 (USGS)
• Dam passage and survival probabilities
• Study conditions advantage radio over acoustic
– turbulent tailrace areas,
shallow waters, etc.
Why less RT now?
• There are simply more choices today
– Worldwide, PIT and acoustic telemetry are
more developed today than before
• RT use in aquatic environment began in 1968
• Corps change to AT for BiOp check in
– Vast majority of regional telemetry use is
funded by COE
Evidence of a reduction in RT use worldwide (more tools now)
From Cooke and Thorstad. 2012. Is radio telemetry getting washed downstream? The
changing role of radio telemetry studies of freshwater fish relative to other tagging and
telemetry technology. Pages 349-369 in McKenzie and 5 other editors. Advances in fish
tagging and marking technology. AFS, Symposium 76, Bethesda, Maryland.
Summary
• Radio telemetry is a useful tool
– Has been the basis of many management decisions re:
dam operations and downstream passage development
– Historically used due to advantages over other methods
• More method choices now = less RT use
– Regional and world wide
• Still used when advantageous
– The same reasoning for its use all along
Adams, N. S., J. W. Beeman, and J. H. Eiler, editors. 2012. Telemetry techniques: A user
guide for fisheries research. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.