Radio Telemetry Studies of Adult Salmonids and Pacific Lamprey in the

Columbia BasinChris CaudillUniversity of Idaho

Fish Ecology Research LabDepartment of Fish and Wildlife Sciences

Moscow, Idaho caudill@uidaho.edu

http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/uiferl/Archives.htm

Radio Telemetry Studies of Adult Salmonids and Pacific Lamprey in the

Columbia Basin

Chris Peery, Ted Bjornn, Matt Keefer, Charles Boggs, Bill Daigle, Tami Clabough , Megan Heinrich, Mike Jepson, Steve Lee, George Naughton, Rudy Ringe, Ken Tolotti,

Lowell Struenberg, Mary Moser, Ben Ho, Brian McIlraith, Dan Joosten, Karen Johnson, Ryan Mann, Eric Johnson, Mark Morasch, Travis Dick, Rose Poulin Brian Burke, …

Talk outline

• Radio telemetry background: RT in the multi-scale toolbox

• Specific case studies– General approach– Adult salmonids– Adult Pacific lamprey

Spatial Scale of Investigation• Short scale/local (specific structures, behavior; 1-10 m spatial

scales)– Optical video– DIDSON Video– PIT evaluation (specific antennas)– Acoustic telemetry w/ 3D receiver array

• Meso-scale (fishways, habitat use, individual dams; 10m - km spatial scales)– Radio or Acoustic – (PIT)

• Large-scale evaluations (escapement, distribution, straying, etc. 10-1000s km)– Radio or Acoustic– (PIT)

Active Transmitting TagsHabitat Radio Telemetry Acoustic Telemetry

Shallow Excellent (km’s) Poor to Good (meters to 100s m)

Deep (>10 m) Poor Good (~ km)

Saline Poor Good

Turbulent Good Fair to Poor

Large Mainstem Rivers Poor to Excellent (Fish depth) Good to Excellent

Tailrace V. good Fair

Spillway V. good Fair to Poor (Entrained air)

Fishways Excellent “Poor”

Reservoirs Poor to Excellent (Fish depth) Good to Excellent

Tributaries Excellent Fair to Poor (Entrained air)

Factor Radio Telemetry Acoustic Telemetry

Tag life days to years days to years

Cost per tag $200-300 $200-300

External antenna Yes No

Tag effects

Corbett et al. 2012 NAJFM http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2012.700902

Tag effects• Corbett et al. (2012). Tagged spring Chinook salmon in upper Yakima River

(Roza Dam, Yakima rkm 208; Columbia rkm 745), held in raceways.

Willamette ValleyFall Creek (Columbia R. rkm 503)

Year Group # released # recovered

% recovered

%PSM

2008 PIT 195 32 29.0 9.4

2009 PIT 175 33 16.5 84.8Double 25 21 84.0 90.5

2010 PIT 125 62 31 41.9Double 75 54 72 63.0

2011 PIT 125 27 21.6 14.8Double 75 22 29.3 18.2Unmarked 128 24 18.8 33.3

Table 7. Final estimated fates of Chinook salmon that were PIT-tagged or double-tagged (PIT and radio-tagged) in Fall Creek, 2008-2011. Double-tagged fish were only included in the PIT-tagged numbers if the whole carcass was recovered, and not just the radio tag in 2008-2010. Double-tagged and radio-tagged fish were enumerated separately in 2011. From Naughton et al. 2012.

Columbia River tag effects

BO-TD TD-JD JD-MN MN-IH/PR IH-LM LM-GO GO-GR

Esc

apem

ent

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Spring-Summer Chinook

Fall Chinook

Steelhead

Esc1Esc2Esc3

Reach

Mainstem unaccounted for losses ~ 12% ~ upper limit

-unreported harvest-death (including tag effects)-tag failure / loss-does not account for

delayed effects in tribs

(Keefer et al. 2005)

Known tag loss ~2.2-4.0% (Keefer et al. 2004)

Travel rates similar between RT and unhandled PIT tagged adults (Matter and Sanford 2003).

Keefer et al. 2005

Radio Telemetry Summary• Medium to large spatial scales• Tracking individuals through acoustically noisy

environments (e.g., spillways, fishways)• Single receiver gates

• External antenna• Tag life ~ battery size ~ tag size ~ tag effect• Spatial resolution to ~ 10 m• Tag effects important in some systems, particularly

when tagging late in migration

Case Examples: Adult salmonids• General approach• Local scale questions

– Behavior– Evaluations of fishway improvements– Temperature effects– Spawning success in tributaries

• Reach scale questions– Run-timing– Conversion rates– Temperature effects– Post-project passage migration– Transport and straying

Telemetry Approaches

Bonneville Dam Chinook Salmon Tagging 2010

04/10 04/26 05/12 05/28 06/13 06/29Date

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

5

10

15

20Radio-tags Chinook Counted

Chino

oksa

lmon

radio

-tagg

ed

Chino

ok co

unt a

t Bon

nevil

le Da

m (t

hous

ands

)Spring Run Summer Run n = 153n = 447

Tagging early in run, in contrast to Corbett et al. 2012

Monitoring arrays

4 Lower Columbia dams

4 Lower Snake dams

Priest Rapids, Wanapum

Monitoring arrays

4 Lower Columbia dams

4 Lower Snake dams

Priest Rapids, Wanapum

Major tributaries

≥ 147 Receiver Sites / yrMobile Tracking

Multi-antenna rec’vs at dams

Single antenna rec’vs at other sites

Bonneville Dam Chinook Salmon Tagging

04/10 04/26 05/12 05/28 06/13 06/29Date

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

5

10

15

20Radio-tags Chinook Counted

Chino

oksa

lmon

radio

-tagg

ed

Chino

ok co

unt a

t Bon

nevil

le Da

m (t

hous

ands

)Spring Run Summer Run n = 153n = 447

Proportional tagging useful for expansions, sampling all stocks

Radio-tagged Adult Salmon & Steelhead Bonneville Dam

Spring Chinook

SummerChinook

FallChinook Steelhead Sockeye Total

1996 703 150 — 765 — 1,6181997 680 335 55 975 577 2,6221998 693 264 1,032 — — 1,9892000 801 331 1,117 1,160 — 3,4092001 899 366 992 1,151 — 3,4082002 913 304 1,066 1,273 — 3,5562003 806 378 666 642 — 2,4922004 356 201 606 300 — 1,4632005 — 143 605 — — 7482006 358 22 — — — 3802007 300 200 — — — 5002009 376 223 — — — 5992010 447 153 — — — 600Total 7,332 3,070 6,139 6,266 577 23,384

Bonneville Dam HD PIT Radio Total1997 — 197 1971998 — 255 2551999 — 350 3502000 — 298 2982001 — 201 2012002 — 398 3982005 841 — 8412006 2,000 — 2,0002007 757 — 7572008 609 595 1,2042009 368 596 9642010 13 312 325Total 4,588 1,503 6,091

Pacific Lamprey

Sample sizes driven by balance of precision needed for question(s), costs, and potential negative impacts on resource.

Data Management and Availability• Generates very large datasets (millions of records)• Data processing, filtering, and coding of behaviors

(SQL server, custom scripts)• Long term database stored at UI and NMFS• Challenging to convert to a (useful) open source

database– Code definitions and interpretations of detections– Interannual comparisons complicated by changes in

site locations, etc.– Most use of coded database by researchers

Local scale questions

• Do modifications negatively affect adult salmonid passage?– Dam structures– Dam operations (tailrace conditions, fishway

operations), or – Fishway improvements

Monitoring modifications and improvements (Local to Mesoscale)

Monitoring modifications and improvements for Pacific lamprey

LPSVariable width weir

Manipulated Spill at Bonneville Dam

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

2003

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

2000

Dis

char

ge (k

cfs)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

2002

BON PH2 LFS

Example Passage MetricsBefore-After-Control-Impact (BACI) Design

PASSAGE RATE/NUMBERS

1) Entrance Efficiency = the proportion of fish entering of those that approached (Entrances/approaches)

2) Exit Ratio = the proportion of fish exiting to the tailrace of those that entered (Exits/entrances)

PASS BEHAVIOR (DELAYS ~ energetic cost; sea lion predation)

3) Entrance Time = Time from first fishway approach to first entrance

4) Entrance to Base of Ladder = Passage time from first entrance to the transition pool

5) Extended passage time = Percentage of adults with passage time > 1 hour

Spring Chinook Salmon CI Entrance Metrics

Spring Chinook Range (2002-2007)Metric n Estimate n Estimate

1 Entrance efficiency 116 0.90 39-167

0.74-0.98

2 Exit ratio 104 0.00 29-139

0.00-0.38

3 Median approach to entry

85 42 min 20-138

5.6-46.0 min

4 Median entry to ladder 78 13 min 11-132

7.4-11.8 min

5 Approach-entry > 1 h 85 36% 20-138

13.9-25.8%

6 Entry-ladder > 1 h 78 1% 11-132

5.5-12.9%

0 50 100 150 200 2500

10

20

30

40

50

60

70M

edia

n Ca

scad

es Is

land

app

roac

h to

ent

ry ti

me

(min

)

2007

2009

2010

Median Bradford Island approach to entry time (min)

Cascades Island vs. Bradford IslandSpring Chinook

Conclusion: Short-term effect in year after installation, diminished in second year (“seasoning” effect?)

• What is the thermal experience of adults• How does temperature affect behavior?

– Behavioral thermoregulation at tributaries– At dams?

• Temperature and survival– Climate change?

• Temperature and energetics and prespawn mortality

Temperature effects: Individual to Population ScaleLinking environmental experience to movement

Temperature effects: Individual to Population ScaleLinking environmental experience to movement

• Steelhead body temperatures reflect extensive holding in cool-water tributaries with large diel fluctuations in temperature • Behavioral thermoregulation and flexible migration rate• Increased vulnerability to fisheries take in tributaries (High et al. 2006).

Summer Stratification and Ladder Temperatures

Dam

Tailrace Forebay

Fishway

Exit Temperature

Junction Pool Temperature

Seasonal Patterns of Δ TLower Granite Dam

2001

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

C)

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Forebay Temperature

Exit Pool - Junction Pool

Ladder Passage Time

column vs f1a1 column vs f1a1

LGr FPLT

Run and Category

SPCK 0 SPCK 1 SPCK 2 SUCK 0 SUCK 1 SUCK 2 FC 0 FC 1 FC 2 SH 0 SH 1 SH 2

Mea

n P

assa

ge T

ime

(hou

rs +

/- 95

% C

I)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

N = 537 82 16 55 83 37 88 30 7195 152 49

A B BA A BA A A

Different letters indicate contrast P < 0.025

A B B

Population Effects: Sockeye Salmon 1997

Tagging Date at Bonneville

0

20

40

60

80N

umbe

r of s

ocke

ye sa

lmon

1 June 15 June 1 July 15 July 1 Aug 15 Aug10

15

20

25

Tem

pera

ture

at B

onne

ville

(ºC)

Pfate<0.001Successful (n=388)

Unaccounted (n=100)

Late Entry

Early Entry

Willamette Valley PSM

Keefer et al. 2010

Environmental Factors

Energetic Status/Timing

Condition/Disease Status

PSMSite

> NF Dam

< Fara

day

< Rive

r Mill

> Ben

nett

< Ben

nett

Little

NF

> Leb

anon

> Lea

burg

< Lea

burg

> Fall

Creek MF

Mea

n pr

espa

wn

mor

talit

y (%

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Clackamas N. Santiam S. McKenzie MF WillametteSantiam

Adult salmonid reach-scale questions:

• Run-timing• Escapement rates• Post-project passage migration success• Delayed effects of transport on migration

success, behavior and straying

Chinook salmon migration timing and stock composition

Date at Bonneville Dam

3 Aug

13 A

ug

23 A

ug2 S

ep

12 S

ep

22 S

ep

30 S

ep2 O

ct

Per

cent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Hanford

MCB-BPH

Deschutes

Yakima

> Priest Rapids Dam

Snake

Date

1 Apr 20 Apr 10 May 30 May 19 Jun 9 Jul 29 Jul 18 Aug

Little SalmonSF Clearwater

Lolo CreekIcicle

TucannonUmatillaLochsa

NF ClearwaterSalmon

Clear CreekClearwater

John DayEntiatWind

Grande RondeYakima

Warm Springs H.Dworshak H.

L. White SalmonRingold H.

MF SalmonPelton Dam T.

DeschutesWhite Salmon

HoodUpper Salmon

KlickitatSF Salmon

ImnahaWenatchee

MethowWells Dam

SimilkameenOkanogan

SF ClearwaterSalmonLochsa

Grande RondeLittle SalmonClear Creek

NF ClearwaterClearwaterLolo CreekMF Salmon

Dworshak H.Imnaha

Upper SalmonSF Salmon

IcicleEntiat

WenatcheeMethow

Wells DamSimilkameen

Okanogan

Keefer et al. 2004 (NAJFM) Jepson et al. 2004 (NAJFM)

Back assignment of unmarked adults using final locations

Date at Bonneville Dam

Escapement data

BO-TD TD-JD JD-MN MN-IH/PR IH-LM LM-GO GO-GR

Esc

apem

ent

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Spring-Summer Chinook

Fall Chinook

Steelhead

Esc1Esc2Esc3

Reach

Fisheries in lower reservoirs

Increase for upstream Reaches

Esc1 uncorrected for fisheries take

Esc2 Fisheries take in tribs considered successful

Esc3 All fisheries take considered successful

Keefer et al. 2005

Across scales: Delayed effectsSpring Chinook at Bonneville Dam 2002

Caudill et al. 2007

Dam Passage Time & Fate

Dam Passage Time & Fate

Mechanism remain uninvestigated

Barging and straying

• Does barging juveniles affect adult behavior?

HOME

?

Juvenile migration “route” and adult migration

SpawningMarineGrowth

Sequential imprinting during juvenile outmigration

Adults use reverse sequence

Barge

In-river

Metrics

• Migration timing and rate• Route, especially fallback• Fate

– Successful (reached spawning trib)– Unaccounted– Fisheries returns (reward program)

• Known-source groups:– Stray?– Barged as juveniles or in-river outmigration?

Barging and straying

Homed Strayed Unknown Fell back Homed Strayed Unknown Fell back

Mea

n pe

rcen

t (%

+/-

1 SE

)

0

10

20

3060

70

80

90

100

In-riverBarged

A) Chinook Salmon B) Steelhead

*

*

*

*

*

* ***

Keefer et al. 2008 (EA)

Barging and straying

Stray location

Eagle

Cr.

Herman

Cr.

Wind R.

L. Wh. S

almon R

.

Wh. Salm

on R.

Klickit

at R.

Desch

utes R

.

John D

ay R

.

Umatilla

R.

Tucannon R

.

Upper Columbia

R.

Perc

ent (

%)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Perc

ent (

%)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

In-riverBarged

A) Chinook salmon

B) Steelhead

“Early right turn” suggestseffect of barging on the recallrate or timing of imprintedcues near tributary-mainstemconfluence

Stra

ys /

(Stra

ys +

Nat

ives

)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Donor population size (1,000s)

0 50 100 150 2000.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

0 50 100 150 200

Recipient population = 500 Recipient population = 1000

Recipient population = 5000 Recipient population = 10000

1% Stray

3%

5%

Figure 14. Examples of the proportions of adult strays that spawn with a local recipient population (strays/(strays+natives) as estimated using four recipient population sizes (four panels: 500, 1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 fish), a range of donor population size (0-200,000), and three donor stray rates: 1% (solid line), 3% (dotted line), and 5% (dashed line). Small recipient populations can be numerically dominated by strays when the donor population is large, even when stray rates are low. (Note: same as Figure 1). From Keefer and Caudill 2012.

Why it matters: Straying effects on small wild populations

Adult Pacific lamprey

• General passage behavior and patterns– Dam passage– Hydrosystem passage

• Local-scale evaluations– Identifying bottlenecks– Evaluating structural and operational modifications

• Tag effects• Cautionary note

Modifications for Pacific lamprey

Hour0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022 0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022 0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022 0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022 0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022 0

Diff

eren

ce (f

t)

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0Tr

eatm

ent

"Con

trol

"Jul 26Jul 23Jul 22 Jul 24 Jul 25

Treatment Treatment Control Treatment Control

Trea

tmen

t

Trea

tmen

t

Con

trol

Velo

city

DamBON TDA JDA MCN IHR PRD

Perc

ent p

ast (

%)

0

20

40

60

80

20052006200720082009

HDX only: from release

All radios: from release

DamBON TDA JDA MCN IHR PRD

Perc

ent p

ast (

%)

0

20

40

60

80

200720082009

Relatively consistentpatterns among years

Upstream escapement: among-year comparison

BON

TDA

JDA MCN

PRD

John Day RDeschutes R

Klickitat R

3%

Tributaries = 13%

IHD

31%

Main stem sites = 87%Reservoirs= 41%Tailrace and fishway= 46%

5%

2%

2%

1%

15%

15%14%

1%

Distribution: 185 radio-tagged lampreys that passed BONLast detections: 2009

Weight (g)

200-2

50

250-3

00

300-3

50

350-4

00

400-4

50

450-5

00

500-5

50

550-6

00

600-6

50

650-7

00>7

00

Perc

ent (

%)

0

20

40

60

80

100Double tagRadio onlyHD only

Escapement: Release to Bonneville exit (2009)

Weighted regressions

r2 = 0.47

r2 = 0.08

r2 = 0.54

Small nSmall n

Upstream escapement: size effects by tag type

Similar resultsin 2007-2008

Radio tag effectacross size classes

Radio tag effect depends

Tag effect depends on relative tag size

“Motivation” and interpreting results

• Current evidence suggests adult lamprey home at very coarse scales or not at all (use other cues for breeding site selection)

• Challenging to interpret “failed” passage attempts– Successful downstream spawning?

• Using multiple lines of inquiry (including multiple tag types)

How to prioritize improvements at a dam?

Keefer et al 2012

Or across all dams

Prioritization among dams:

Spatial Scale of Investigation• Short scale/local (specific structures, behavior; 1-10 m spatial

scales)– Optical video– DIDSON Video– PIT evaluation (specific antennas)– Acoustic telemetry w/ 3D receiver array

• Meso-scale (fishways, habitat use, individual dams; 10-1000 m spatial scales)– Radio or Acoustic – PIT

• Large-scale evaluations (escapement, distribution, straying, etc. 10-1000s km)– Radio or Acoustic– PIT

Telemetry tool box

• “…if you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”

Telemetry tool box

• “…if you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”

Selected ReferencesClose, D. A., M. S. Fitzpatrick, C. M. Lorion, H. W. Li and C. B. Schreck. 2003. Effects of intraperitoneally implanted radio transmitters on the swimming performance and physiology of Pacific lamprey. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23(4): 1184-1192.

Keefer, M. L., C. A. Peery, R. R. Ringe and I. C. Bjornn. 2004. Regurgitation rates of intragastric radio transmitters by adult Chinook salmon and steelhead during upstream migration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24(1): 47-54.

Matter, A. L. and B. P. Sandford. 2003. A comparison of migration rates of radio- and PIT-tagged adult Snake River chinook salmon through the Columbia River hydropower system. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 967-973.

Moser, M. L., D. A. Ogden and B. P. Sandford. 2007. Effects of surgically implanted transmitters on anguilliform fishes: lessons from lamprey. Journal of Fish Biology 71(6): 1847-1852.

Caudill, C. C., W. R. Daigle, M. L. Keefer, C. T. Boggs, M. A. Jepson, B. J. Burke, R. W. Zabel, T. C. Bjornn and C. A. Peery. 2007. Slow dam passage in adult Columbia River salmonids associated with unsuccessful migration: delayed negative effects of passage obstacles or condition-dependent mortality? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64(7): 979-995.

High, B., C. A. Peery and D. H. Bennett. 2006. Temporary staging of Columbia River summer steelhead in coolwater areas and its effect on migration rates. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135(2): 519-528.

Keefer, M. L., C. C. Caudill, C. A. Peery and S. R. Lee. 2008. Transporting Juvenile salmonids around dams impairs adult migration. Ecological Applications 18(8): 1888-1900.

Keefer, M. L., C. A. Peery, W. R. Daigle, M. A. Jepson, S. R. Lee, C. T. Boggs, K. R. Tolotti and B. J. Burke. 2005. Escapement, harvest, and unknown loss of radio-tagged adult salmonids in the Columbia River - Snake River hydrosystem. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62(4): 930-949.

Keefer, M. L., G. A. Taylor, D. F. Garletts, G. A. Gauthier, T. M. Pierce and C. C. Caudill. 2010. Prespawn mortality in adult spring Chinook salmon outplanted above barrier dams. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19(3): 361-372.

Naughton, G. P., C. C. Caudill, M. L. Keefer, T. C. Bjornn, L. C. Stuehrenberg and C. A. Peery. 2005. Late-season mortality during migration of radio-tagged adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the Columbia River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62(1): 30-47.