Yuba River Relicensing (P-2246)

YCWA Fish Behavior and Hydraulics

Study 7.11a – Radio Telemetry Study of Spring- and Fall-Run Chinook Migratory Behavior Downstream of Narrows 2 Powerhouse

Phase 1. Telemetry Desktop Assessment – September 23, 2013

Task: Compare acoustic and radio telemetry options for tracking fish behavior patterns as migrating adult Spring and Fall Chinook salmon (some possibly ESA listed) move from Daguerre Point Dam through the Narrows 2 pool. Provide estimation of most effective strategy to address stated study objectives from Study Plan 7.11a.

The Fish Behavior section of Study 7.11 addresses the need for more detailed information regarding the behavior of Chinook salmon migrating up the Yuba River to the Narrows 2 Powerhouse than was collected during a previous radio telemetry study (RMT, 2012). The current study objectives are outlined below and are followed by a comparison of various telemetry technologies and an evaluation of each as a potential tool for addressing the stated objectives.

Stated Study Objectives

1. Evaluate coarse scale behavioral trends of migrating adult Chinook between Daguerre Point Dam and the Narrows 2 Powerhouse including travel time and residence time. Regress quantitative data against measureable environmental variables including flow regime, depth, and seasonally variable temperature. Use qualitative data to describe general trends in behavior patterns.

2. If client determines that more precision is desired than afforded by previous observations, acquire fine-scale 2D (or 3D) positioning data using acoustic or radio telemetry sufficiently precise to spatially map behavior patterns of migrating Chinook in the vicinity of the Narrows 2 tailrace pool. Quantitative variables produced will include residence time, travel time, nearest approach calculation, zones of avoidance. Regress qualitative data against measureable environmental variables including flow regime, depth, and seasonally variable temperature.

Challenges to Successful Fish Tracking

Most technologies for tracking the movement of live fish in bodies of water involve the use of sound waves propagating through the water (or air) from a transmitter inside a fish to a receiver some distance away. Transmitters emit a coded ping at a specific rate and on a specific frequency, which the receiver array (listening only to that frequency) decodes and stores as a valid detection of that fish each time it ‘hears’ the fish ping. The detection range, or the maximum distance at which the receiver(s) can decode the transmitter, is a function of the power level of the transmitter, the sensitivity of the receiver, and the interference caused by the acoustic environment. There are several potential aspects of an aquatic environment that can cause interference, or otherwise attenuate or mutate a transmitter’s signal: entrained

September 23, 2013 Page 1 of 14

air which causes a non-uniform medium for sound propagation as well as excessive acoustic noise; presence of a thermocline which causes differential speed of sound within an array; presence of acoustically reflective surfaces which cause multi-path interference; and/or ambient noise interference at the same frequency as the coded transmission. As a general rule-of-thumb, the more powerful the transmitter and more sensitive the receiver, the more robust the system is to these disturbances. At the Narrows 2 Powerhouse facility and immediate area below Englebright Dam, environmental conditions that include periodic entrained air, shallow water, large stream-bed substrate, surface reflection, and ambient powerhouse noise pollution are expected.

In basic presence-absence telemetry, a series of successful detections by a receiver within a given time frame is considered evidence that the fish is present in the environment. Even in acoustically noisy environments, enough successful (non-sequential) detections may be recorded to provide definitive evidence of the fish’s presence even if the receiver does not record each ping. This type of telemetry creates a time-stamped binary dataset—at time x, fish either was (1) or was not (0) present in the array. These data can be used to calculate relative time-of-arrival (TOA, the first detection of a transmitter in an array), residence time (RT, the duration of transmitter detection within the detection range of the array), travel time (TT, time between detections at subsequent arrays), etc.

More advanced 2D and 3D acoustic telemetry systems are significantly more sensitive to environmental interference because they rely on simultaneous detections of a single ping by multiple receivers. In order to acoustically triangulate the location of a transmitter, the differential in TOA between receivers (measured in seconds, s) is multiplied by the speed of sound in water (m s-1) to get a distance measurement (meters, m). To triangulate a 2D position, at least three distance vectors (hence three simultaneous receiver detections) are required-- 3D positions require a minimum of four. When environmental factors such as entrained air or multipath prevent or distort simultaneous detections of a single ping on multiple receivers, the resulting position estimate may be imprecise, or impossible to resolve without excessive error.

Positioning in two dimensions using radio telemetry operates on generally the same principle, except that the relative distance from transmitter to receiver is measured by differential signal strength at TOA. Signal strength can be used as a proxy for distance and a triangulated position can be estimated. Environmental factors such as deep water that can attenuate the transmitter signal strength (especially if the effect is not uniform across receiving antennae) may result in imprecise (if any) position estimation. So far, this technique has been used on a very large scale to triangulate general movement of large animals in marine environments (Cooke et al., 2013) and is probably not precise enough for the environment of interest here.

The general robustness of available radio and acoustic telemetry technologies (described below) to environmental conditions and environmental interference are explored below and in Table 1. Generally, radio telemetry is more robust to entrained air, shallow water, and acoustically reflective surfaces, while acoustic telemetry is more suited to conditions of deep water and some ambient powerhouse noise, or where incognito deployments are desired (Cooke et al., 2013). However, it is often the case that the ambient noise environment and any potential interference on a given transmission frequency are not known until feasibility testing is performed.

September 23, 2013 Page 2 of 14

Table 1. Summary of the various technologies used for tracking animals in freshwater with a brief summary of strengths, limitations, and common applications in fish and wildlife tracking applications. After Table 1, Cooke et al., 2013.

Technology Summary of technology and techniques Strengths Limitations Applications

Acoustic telemetry; manual tracking

Uses a transducer to convert electrical energy to acoustic energy that is detected by an underwater hydrophone

Deep water (> 20 m) Hydrophone must be submerged in water Some applications in FW

Animals usually tracked by boat using bearings and triangulation

Ineffective in shallow or turbulent water Mostly for fish, some use with alligator, FW mammals and elasmobranch

Not suitable for transmitters with long pulse interval (time between pulses)

Interference from macrophytes and noise (for example, boats, entrained air)

Acoustic telemetry; fixed stations

As above Can be deployed as gates, grids, or arrays to monitor animal movements for long periods, including under ice

Generates large datasets Widespread use in FW

Autonomous or cabled hydrophones and associated loggers store time-stamped data when tagged animals enter reception zone.

multiple station can provide precise two or three-dimensional tracks of animals

Requires significant post-processing and analytical efforts (can be challenging to

recover data with some systems)

Mostly on fish, some use on mammals that move between marine and FW

environments

Some systems provide real-time data transmission

Interference from macrophytes and noise (for example, boats, entrained air)

Radio telemetry; manual tracking

Emit electromagnetic energy in the radio frequency range (usually in the VHF band between 30 and 300 MHz)

Shallow water (<10 m) Deep water (>15 m) Fish and other taxa, especially amphibious species (for example, basking turtles, amphibians, some

mammals)Signals detected by antennas (aerial or underwater) and a receiver (some have logging capability)

Low-conductivity (<500 μS/cm) High conductivity

Tracking can occur from boat, vehicle, air, foot

Relatively inexpensive Sensitive to localized interference

Functions in moving water and through ice as well as on land and in air

Antennas visible, thus can attract vandals Widespread use in FW

Radio telemetry; fixed stations

As above Suitable for long term deployments As above Widespread use in FW

Fixed stations with multiple antennas detect and log tags when in the vicinity of an antenna

Not possible to obtain precise two-dimensional positions (mostly presence

or absence in a given location)

Most often deployed in riverine systems to detect migration

Sensitive to localized interference

September 23, 2013 Page 3 of 14

Radio Telemetry Options

Radio telemetry works by the emission of electromagnetic energy in the radio frequency by the transmitter (VHF band between 30-300 MHz). This system has traditionally been effective for monitoring not only the movement of fish, but also terrestrial wildlife because the signal propagates through air as well as water. For fish tracking, radio telemetry is most effective in shallow water with low conductivity. High conductivity (> 500uS) can cause signal disturbance, while deep water (>15 m) attenuates the signal to the point where detection range is significantly diminished (Cooke et al, 2013) and deep-water habitat use by study fish may be underestimated (Freund et al., 2002). Generally, radio telemetry for fish allows collection of animal behavior data without introduction of data-loggers into the aquatic environment. Radio transmitters have good longevity and can be tracked easily over vast distances with mobile antennae. When deep water, high conductivity, or substantial noise interference are expected, opting for a transmitter with maximum signal power may help improve detection range (Peters et al., 2008).

In some cases, however, it is beneficial to restrict the detection range of the receiver in order to more accurately determine the position of transmitters. Since radio waves attenuate so rapidly in water, the loss of both transmitter signal strength and underwater antenna range corresponds to greater accuracy of positions, though more antennas may be required to cover a given study area (Beeman et al, 2004). Beeman et al (2004) found that detection range of a standard 150MHz transmitter on an underwater dipole antenna was between 4-7 meters. The use of a more powerful tag in the Narrows 2 assessment on adult Chinook behavior (no tag-burden concerns with adult salmon relative to smolts) may increase this range. An underwater array of antennas with smaller detection radii would allow for more fine-scale presence-absence mapping in the vicinity of the powerhouse structure, however, this technique would be a grid-analysis, not a 2D triangulation system.

Various vendors supply radio telemetry equipment, though there were no commercially produced underwater antennas found currently on the market. Beeman et al (2004) provide specifications on the construction of various types of underwater antennae and a review of their detection efficiency in a range test (Figure 1). Radio telemetry is well suited to mobile fish tracking and presence-absence surveys. Some researchers have used aerial radio telemetry for rough 2D telemetry (Cooke et al., 2004). Radio technologies suitable to address the study questions presented here are described below. It should be noted that groundwork needs to be done prior to the selection of equipment frequency to establish the conditions of the ambient noise floor--the background level of electromagnetic noise from the sun, electric power lines, generators, boats, etc., below which no transmitter signals could be differentiated from noise by the receiving antenna (Sisak and Lotimer, 1998).

September 23, 2013 Page 4 of 14

Figure 1. Cross sections of a standard (A) and armored (B) dipole antenna constructed from schedule 40 PVC, stainless bolds and fasteners, and dielectric-stripped Belden model 9311 coaxial cable (After Beeman et al, 2004, Figure 1).

Lotek Wireless

SRX-400-600 Radio Receiver + MCFT2 Coded transmitters

Designed for telemetry applications that involve autonomous data collection. Unit can store unique code data from up to 7 antennas (250k records). Built into a weather resistant/ waterproof case for protection. Requires external power source (10-18 VDC) or rechargeable batteries. Appropriate for presence absence studies, determining residence time, etc. Use of Yagi style directional antenna necessary for directional positioning (not

available from Lotek). Compatible with Lotek MCFT2 coded transmitters (up to 521 unique codes). Rapid

PRI, extended tag life allows long duration of tracking in long-lived or far-journeying species.

When used with a rapid antenna switching system (FAS-7), transmitter location relative to array antenna positions can be estimated using W30_CodeLog. Resolution of signal strength for computation of position is 0.25dB.

Data output includes: date-time, pulse rate, frequency, signal strength, antenna ID.

Advanced Telemetry Systems (ATS)

ATS- R2500CD Receiver-Data logger + F1820 Model esophageal implant transmitters.

Radio frequency receiver and data logger in one unit Detects coded ID tags One antenna port, PC USB connection. Antenna can be switched to up to 8 antennas.

Use of Yagi style directional antenna necessary for directional positioning (also available from ATS)

Rechargeable batteries for autonomous remote deployment (8 hours operation). External 10-18V DC power source required for longer term deployments.

Appropriate for presence absence/ passage studies, determining residence time and rough 2D positioning relative to array antennae.

Data output includes: date-time, pulse rate, frequency, signal strength, antenna ID.

Custom Underwater Fixed Telemetry Array

Dipole antenna, Armored dipole antenna, etc.

Antennae are made by stripping a section of coaxial cable of the dielectric and copper shielding to allow conduction of electricity. Various configurations are possible depending on deployment methodology and whether detection range is more desirable in horizontal or vertical direction (dipole has greater horizontal detection range while armored dipole has greater detection in the vertical plane) Beeman et al., 2003).

September 23, 2013 Page 5 of 14

Fixed array allows collection of quantitative data relative to residence time and travel time, and depending on the detection range, more precise estimates of position.

Most effective if deployed as a series of “check points” in a narrow, defined region. Antennae can communicate as switched antennas on commercial aerial tracking

systems (above).

Acoustic Telemetry Options

Acoustic telemetry is more suitable for fine-scale behavioral studies than radio telemetry. Autonomous data loggers deployed throughout the study area can collect fine-scale information on fish passage behavior. Acoustic tags generally have very short code lengths (e.g. JSATS is only 32 bits) which make their detection systems robust to signal fragmentation in some ranges of ambient noise. Acoustic receivers are often small and easy to deploy in autonomous locations, and will run independently on battery power for weeks to months. There are varying degrees of user-friendliness, user capacity to manipulate settings, ease of data download, and precision of telemetry capabilities. Below, various systems for two or three dimensional tracking of fish are compared based on detection range, logistical ease of deployment and servicing, robustness to noise interference, and estimated precision of position estimates. Acoustic telemetry options are described by vendor.

Lotek Wireless

MAP System, WHS 3150 + ALPS positioning software

Small code length makes MAP system robust in noisy environments (reduces partial signal) and high frequency may be robust to low frequency noise.

Autonomous (un-cabled) 2D telemetry and presence absence monitoring. Accuracy of 2D positioning depends on stability of array, but can be within feet. Available software, ALPS, allows user to estimate 2D positions and filter

presence/absence data Available pressure sensors in transmitters allow addition of z dimension (depth) to

2D positions. Field-based data extraction is possible via a wet RS422 cable Battery life is 50 – 150 d. depending on model. Lithium batteries can be changed

easily. Minimum tag size for 200 d. study with short PRI (5 s.) is 16 x 62 mm. (shorter PRI

is possible). Receivers can be used individually (with Bluetooth ™) as mobile tracking devices. Data management is user-friendly, with software built in to query and organize data.

JSATS System, WHS 4000 + ALPS positioning software

Cost efficient receivers are small, simple, and lightweight. Small code length makes JSATS system robust in noisy environments (reduces

partial signal). (high frequency may be robust to low frequency noise) Autonomous (un-cabled) 2D telemetry and presence absence monitoring

September 23, 2013 Page 6 of 14

Accuracy of 2D positioning depends on stability of array, but can be within feet. Available software, ALPS, allows user to estimate 2D positions and filter

presence/absence data Onboard SD memory card must be removed to extract data (not always practical in-

field) Battery life is 100 d. with two lithium batteries. Unit must be opened to change

batteries. Transmitters are designed for small fish. Maximum tag life achievable for decent

telemetry is 118 d at a PRI of 5 s. Receivers can be used individually (with Bluetooth ™) as mobile tracking devices.

MAP 600 System + ALPS positioning software

Robust in noisy environments due to short code length Cabled requires a minimum of 6 hydrophones to achieve 3D positioning. 2-3 Dimensional telemetry resolution is sub-meter. System requires a dedicated power source on land and constant interface with a

computer. Array is localized (maximum cable length is 600m) for telemetry. P-A monitoring

would require supplemental equipment located downstream.

Vemco Acoustic Monitoring

VR2 69 kHz + Vemco Vue software

Small, easy to deploy, affordable Long battery life (15 months) allows undisturbed deployment during extended

studies Bluetooth ™ capability makes wet data download possible in the field, though

receivers need to be retrieved to connect Bluetooth ™ reader-chip. Low frequency (69 kHz) may be robust to high frequency noise In-field firmware and software updates allow for the systems to be updated as new

versions are available from Vemco. Suitable for presence- absence surveys with long detection ranges relative to high

frequency/ short wavelength transmitter signals. Tag life is tailored to monitoring goals. PRI is generally long for monitoring.

Vemco Positioning System (VPS) with VR2- receivers

Positioning system and position resolution analysis are a ‘canned’ product/service provided by Vemco. Vemco array technicians participate in study design, receiver placement strategy, and all testing and field data analysis. User is responsible for the actual deployment, periodic data upload via Bluetooth ™ connection, and transfer of data to Vemco. Vemco assumes responsibility for data filtering, analysis, and

September 23, 2013 Page 7 of 14

visualization of study results based on the study objectives initially stipulated by the client (HDR-YCWA).

Positioning system provides meters-level accuracy for 2-D telemetry. Vemco estimates that 95% of all resolved positions are within a 15m circle of the actual position.

Array size is unlimited, though detection ranges must overlap to resolve positions. Synctags must be deployed in conjunction with each VR2 in areas where telemetry

is desired. There is no user control of data analysis or array detection parameters. There are

probably significant costs associated with out-sourcing positioning which may or may not be offset by efficiency of expert analysis.

Teknologic Engineering:

JSATS Acoustic Receiver 112. P-A model and Telemetry model.

High performance JSATS receiver with acoustic modem communication for remote communication and settings manipulation.

Can be outfitted with supplemental beacon tags and telemetry-ready clock for 2D and 3D telemetry monitoring with sub-meter accuracy.

No user software package available for telemetry. All 2D and 3D position estimation is contracted to Teknologic Engineering staff. Turn around time can be slow.

Large un-wieldy units require substantial anchors in flowing river environments. No in-field data upload. Micro SD chip must be removed from unit in electrical lab

to extract data. Unit is powered by 32 lithium-ion batteries for an operating duration of ~60 days. Operates with all manufactured JSATS tags on the market (ATS, Lotek). Detection range is up to 150m in acoustically quiet conditions. Units are expensive relative to competitors if only basic functionality is desired.

Hydro-acoustic Telemetry Incorporated (HTI Sonar) Systems

Model 290 Acoustic Receiver- Hydrophone System

The HTI acoustic telemetry system is designed specifically for fine-scale 3D mapping of fish behavior in a localized area.

Cabled (non-autonomous) system requires coaxial HTI manufactured data cable to all hydrophones that must be deployed underwater and anchored to fixed blocks.

System requires external dedicated power source with power draw dependent on the number of hydrophones operating in the array.

Array installation generally requires diver support for accurate installation and determination of survey grade GPS position measurements for all hydrophones.

Not efficient or effective for longitudinal monitoring (presence absence, travel time, etc.).

September 23, 2013 Page 8 of 14

Comparison of Technologies – Capability

Both radio- and acoustic-telemetry technologies have the capacity to address Objective 1, which is to evaluate coarse scale behavioral trends of migrating adult Chinook between Daguerre Point Dam and the Narrows 2 Powerhouse including travel time and residence time between and within certain areas. The length of the river beyond the negative effects of air entrainment and turbulence associated with the immediate tailrace of the Narrows 2 Powerhouse could be monitored effectively with either fixed radio telemetry stations or autonomous underwater acoustic telemetry stations (e.g. MAP System). Either technology could also function for mobile tracking, though radio telemetry tracking may be logistically easier and more appropriate if there is not sufficient depth throughout the reach for acoustic signal transmission. The acoustic system would be ineffective if there are insufficient deeper areas (>8-10 ft.) to deploy receivers, or if flow throughout the system is too swift for in-river infrastructure in which case it may only possible to deploy an aerial radio-telemetry array.

Objective 2, to acquire fine-scale 2D (or 3D) positioning data sufficiently precise to spatially map behavior patterns of migrating Chinook in the vicinity of the Narrows 2 tailrace pool, would most effectively be addressed using an acoustic system (e.g. MAP + ALPS positioning software) though this method would not include coverage of the turbulent whitewater (air-entrained water) immediately downstream of the facility. An acoustic array can resolve two dimensional positions to within a meter while directional radio telemetry can only provide a rough estimation of relative position within a fixed array. However, there is a strong likelihood that environmental variables (such as entrained air during bypass events) in the immediate tailrace of the Narrows 2 Powerhouse may hinder the function of such a system in a portion of the study area or during certain operating conditions. Thus, there exists a trade-off. Acoustic telemetry is more precise, if and when it works, while radio telemetry is imprecise but not as vulnerable to the expected environmental conditions, Table 2.

The section of river immediately downstream of the Narrows 2 Powerhouse runs through a gorge with steep sides and exposed bedrock. This topography would make the deployment of any cabled 3D telemetry system logistically difficult. Such a system would likely require extensive infrastructure, mounting structures, armored cables, long lengths of cable, etc. If 3D telemetry is not desired, however, this is not an obstacle to meeting the objectives.

September 23, 2013 Page 9 of 14

Table 2. Comparison of the ability of various technology systems to address objectives specified in study plan 7.11a. Quantifiable data variables are indicated as part of objectives 1 and 2. Model and vendor information are provided as examples.

System Vendor Model/ Unit (i.e.)Residence Time

Travel Time

Presence/ Absence

Mobile Tracking 2D 3D

Nearest approach

Zones of avoidance

Radio Lotek SRX DL + MCFT2 x x x xATS ATS R2500 + F1820 x x x xCustom Dipole _ Armored Dipole x x x x x (?)

Acoustic Lotek MAP WHS 3150 +ALPS x x x x x x x xJSATS WHS 4000 + ALPS x x x x x x x

Vemco VR2- 69 kHz + VUE x x x xVPS - hands off x x x x x x x

Teknologic AR 112 JSATS receiver x x x x x x x xHTI AR 290 + Mark Tags x x x x

Coarse-scale: Objective 1 Fine-scale: Objective 2

Therefore, the selection of a telemetry technique should depend first on the spatial resolution with regards to fish behavior in the reach directly downstream of the Narrows 2 facility, and second, on the physical and acoustic conditions of the environment which will dictate which technologies could even be applied in that area. For example, the ambient noise levels in the environment can negatively impact signal detection on acoustic transmitter frequencies, while high conductivity or localized radio interference may hinder transmission of radio transmitter signals. More detailed testing of the environment and assessment of the function of various telemetry options will be necessary to inform the decision, although many studies have successfully radio tracked fish in close proximity to large hydropower facilities (Moser et al., 2002, Keefer et al, 2004, and others). While the ambient noise floor at an active hydropower project is expected to be relatively high, these studies have utilized both aerial and underwater coaxial antennae successfully.

Ultimately, a detection efficiency and range test should be conducted in the Narrows 2 pool using at least one representative example of acoustic and radio technology and dummy transmitters at a time when conditions in the pool (total flow, powerhouse operations, etc.) are representative of the conditions expected during the study. Once detection range and efficiency are known, and test data is analyzed, the relative suitability of each telemetry type can be evaluated.

Comparison of technologies, field evaluations

Task: Determine which telemetry method, as outlined above, performs best in the study area with particular focus on the pool below the Narrows 2 bypass outflow. Since either system (radio or acoustic) is expected to work effectively on the longitudinal section of the river between DaGuerre Point Dam and the Narrows 2 Powerhouse, this testing will primarily focus on determining which system will provide the most reliable and accurate 2D mapping in the immediate tailrace of the Narrows 2 bypass.

The following information is provided as a hypothetical stepping point for Relicensing Participant review. It does not predetermine the actual technology that will be selected as a result of meeting, but offers up a

September 23, 2013 Page 10 of 14

potential pathway forward. If discussion from the meeting results in selecting an alternative to the three technologies discussed below, then that alternative will be selected.

Three systems have been proposed for testing at the Narrows 2 Powerhouse based on review. These systems were identified based on expectations that they are the most likely to work in the environment as well as the availability of equipment for testing. The proposed testing equipment will include:

Underwater radio antenna array for grid-based 2D tracking + coded transmitters Acoustic Lotek MAP system + coded MAP transmitters Acoustic Lotek JSATS system + coded JSATS transmitters

Testing of each system would occur in the tailrace pool of the Narrows 2 Powerhouse following careful analysis of bathymetry and identification of any surfaces that may cause excessive multipath, surface/ bottom reflectance, or other signal disturbance. Each system evaluation would involve several components including range testing in different areas of the pool (at different levels of bypass outflow if possible). Acoustic technology evaluations would also include testing of a simple 2x2 2D tracking array and associated tag-drags to determine accuracy of fish track mapping.

Radio Telemetry Testing:

There are currently no underwater radio antennas commercially available by manufacturers of radio telemetry equipment. Thus, all antennas that are to be used for this project must be fabricated by the researcher team. This allows for maximum customization of the antenna type to suit the study area but also requires very close attention to detail, proper measurements, and effective waterproofing to ensure a working system. The water in the Narrows 2 Powerhouse pool is not so deep that antenna detection strength limitations in the z plane will result in the loss of data from fish swimming in the upper part of the water column. Most of the reviewed underwater antennas effectively recorded transmitters up to 5m in depth. The xy plane will be of the greatest concern, and the more uniform a detection field that can be achieved, the more accurate the 2D grid positioning will be. Thus, based on the above review of the performance of underwater antenna, an armored loop-vee or an armored dipole antenna are the best options for field testing.

The pool below the Narrows 2 Powerhouse is expected to be quite turbulent, with hydraulics that may include entrained debris. For this reason, all underwater antennas will be armored for protection despite the fact that armoring of underwater radio antennas often causes a reduction in detection range. Antennae will be armored in PVC and poured with Epoxy (XXX for waterproofing) after Gingerich et al. (2012).

Acoustic Telemetry Testing:

Range testing

The detection range of JSATS and MAP receivers and transmitters would be evaluated using a standard “tag drag” procedure. Receivers would be deployed in the study area in locations both close to the powerhouse and further downstream. A weighted string with transmitters attached at different depths would be suspended below a buoy with an onboard handheld GPS unit logging a position every three seconds. The tag string would be moved throughout the environment in a zigzag pattern by a non-motorized boat (e.g. kayak). Following the drag, both the GPS unit and the receiver unit would be

September 23, 2013 Page 11 of 14

downloaded and time-synched. GPS positions at time, t, for which there is a positive detection on the receiver would be coded as a positive detection in ArcGIS. All points would be mapped, with positive detections a different color than non-detections. This technique shows clearly the detection range around the receiver and whether there are any blind spots. Additionally, as there are to be transmitters are various depths, the tag drag would reveal if the receiver is more or less effective with varying transmitter depth.

Fish Tracking:

In order to determine whether 2D mapping using acoustic telemetry would work in the turbulent and aerated area in the immediate tailrace of the Narrows 2 Powerhouse a test array would be deployed. This array would include three to four hydrophones positioned in a square as close to the substrate as possible, with omnidirectional hydrophones pointing toward the surface. A similar ‘tag drag’ would be performed with transmitters deployed on a string at different depths. This drag would include both stationary positions where the transmitters remain in position for approximately five minutes as well as moving transects in which the transmitters are moved from outside the array through the center of the array, and out the other side. A basic array design and tag drag pattern for an acoustic telemetry test array using either MAP or JSATS loggers is depicted in Figure 2.

September 23, 2013 Page 12 of 14

Figure 2. Diagram of testing pattern for acoustic telemetry.

In order to access whether it is possible to collect 2D tracks of transmitter movement through the array, a similar GIS exercise will be performed to map the positive detections for each test receiver against the known position of the tags as recorded by the GPS unit on the boat. For 2D tracks to be calculated, the detection range of the hydrophones must overlap over the entire array such that a transmitter is “heard” by at least three hydrophones. For this evaluation, if it is determined that detection ranges overlap, the Lotek ALPS positioning system will be used to attempt to solve the 2D position of the test transmitters. Any solved positions or entire fish tracks will be corroborated by the GPS data which includes the exact tag position. An error estimate will be calculated based on known vs. solved transmitter positions.

Ideally, testing would occur at a time when the bypass can be operated at a discharge rate similar to what will be expected over the duration of the study.

September 23, 2013 Page 13 of 14

References

Beeman JW, Grant C., Haner PV. 2004. Comparison of three underwater antennas for use in radio-telemetry. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24: 275-281.

Cooke SJ, Bunt CM, Shreer JF. 2004. Understanding fish behavior, distribution, and survival in thermal effluents using fixed telemetry arrays: a case study of smallmouth bass in a discharge canal during winter. Environmental Management 33(1): 140-150.

Cooke SJ, Midwood JD, Thiem JD, Klimlet P, Lucas MC, Thorstad EB, Eiler J, Holbrook C, Ebner BC. 2013. Tracking animals in freshwater with electronic tags: past, present, and future. Animal Biotelemetry 1: 5 available online at http://www.animalbiotelemetry.com/content/1/1/5.

Freund JG, Hartman KJ. 2002. Influence of depth on detection distance of low-frequency radio transmitters in the Ohio River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 1301-1305.

Keefer ML, Peery CA, Bjornn TC, Jepson MA, Stuehrenberg LC. 2004. Hydrosystem, dam, and reservoir passage rates of adult Chinook salmon and Steelhead in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133: 1413 – 1439.

Moser ML, Ocker PA, Stuehrenberg LC, Bjiornn TC. 2002. Passage efficiency of adult Pacific lamprey at hydropower dams on the lower Columbia River, USA. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131: 956-965.

Peters LM, Reinhardt UG, Pegg MA. 2008. Factors influencing radio wave transmission and reception: use of radio telemetry in large river systems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2(8): 301-307.

Sisak MM, Lotimer JS. 1998. Frequency choice for radio-telemetry: the HF vs. VHF conundrum. Hydrobiologia 371/372: 53-59.

September 23, 2013 Page 14 of 14