Coughlan, David J.

Degan, Donald

Gurshin, Christopher W.D.

Jacobson, Paul T.

Mueller, Anna-Maria

English

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

University of Massachusetts AmherstScholarWorks@UMass AmherstInternational Conference on Engineering andEcohydrology for Fish PassageInternational Conference on Engineering andEcohydrology for Fish Passage 2016Jun 22nd, 11:15 AM - 11:30 AMEels III: Assessment of Three Sonars to Evaluate theDownstream Migration of American Eels in the St.Lawrence RiverChristopher W.D. GurshinNormandeau AssociatesDavid J. CoughlanNormandeau AssociatesAnna-Maria MuellerAquacoustics, Inc.Donald DeganAquacoustics, Inc.Paul T. JacobsonElectric Power Research InstituteFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conferenceThis Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Fish Passage Community at UMass Amherst at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Engineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage by an authorized administrator ofScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact scholarworks@library.umass.edu.Gurshin, Christopher W.D.; Coughlan, David J.; Mueller, Anna-Maria; Degan, Donald; and Jacobson, Paul T., "Eels III: Assessment ofThree Sonars to Evaluate the Downstream Migration of American Eels in the St. Lawrence River" (2016). International Conference onEngineering and Ecohydrology for Fish Passage. 14.https://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference/2016/June22/14Assessment of Three Sonars to Evaluate the Downstream Migration of American Eels in the St. Lawrence RiverChristopher W.D. Gurshin, Ph.D.David J. CoughlanNormandeau Associates, Inc.Anna-Maria Mueller, Ph.D.Donald DeganAquacoustics, Inc.Paul T. Jacobson, Ph.D.Electric Power Research InstituteWednesday, 22 June 20162016 International Conference on River ConnectivityCampus Center 168C, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA USABACKGROUND• Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) facilitated the collaboratively funded Eel Passage Research Center (EPRC)• To provide effective downstream passage of out-migrating adult American eels at hydroelectric facilities on St. Lawrence R. • EPRC strategy: trap-and-transport eels downstream• Need a sampling technique to evaluate guidance systems and monitor abundance/distribution• What about sonar? This Study23OBJECTIVESSonar Mount System on Iroquois Dam Pier NoseAB CEK60ARISM3• Can sonar be used to:1. Estimate relative abundance of out-migrating eels, 2. Determine their distribution, and 3. Describe their approach behavior?• Test 3 Sonars– EK60: Simrad EK60 Split-beam Echosounder (120 kHz)– ARIS: Sound Metrics ARIS Explorer Multibeam Sonar (1100/1800 kHz)– M3: Mesotech M3 Multi-mode Multibeam Sonar  (500 kHz)MULTI-PHASE APPROACH• Phase 1 – Installation and testing multiple sampling configurations • Phase 2 – Sonar measurements of known number and size of live eels tethered to surface floats and released at known locations/depths. 1. Develop tether-and-release methods2. Test detectability at multiple ranges 3. Randomized, single-blind target classification test4. Test acoustic vs. batch release counts• Phase 3 – Continuous monitoring of “wild” out-migrating eels3 Phases of Sonar Evaluation4PHASE 1 – SUMMARY• Absorption loss too high at 1800 kHz• ARIS Spreader lens doubles sampling volume & eels still visible• Eel targets seen in M3 & ARIS at expected sampling coverage• Tracking > 20 m possible, but ID unlikely• Near-surface deployment too noisy• Near-bottom has blind zones & shadows• Motion artifact of long, fast moving targets can mimic “anguilliform” echo patternsOptimal System Design & Sampling Configurations5MOTION ARTIFACTExample of a 130-cm stick in ARIS movie6• Motion artifacts distorts image to resemble anguilliform “squiggle” that makes interpretation difficult – Alters echo shape over time• A long, fast moving, rigid object mimics the changing shape of an eel in typical anguilliform swimming motion– Leads to false positives• Factors:– Target speed within a single frame– Target orientation relative to the trajectory– Maximum range (affects cycle period, i.e. ping rate within a frame)MOTION ARTIFACT EXAMPLEPing & Echo Pattern Within Frame from Fast-moving Oblong Target7Image Credit: A.M. Mueller, AquacousticsPHASE 2: EXPERIMENTATION WITH TEST EELS• 30 eels• 70-91 cm TL• 1.3-2.4 kgDeveloped method to release live eels tethered with surface float8A BC D EFPHASE 2 : TARGET CLASSIFICATION TESTRandomized, Single-Blind Classification of ARIS Data9ARIS SettingTotal Valid Releases Eel FishEel LurePVCPipe Stick1. 48 beams, r = 2-18 m, -13° Tilt 13 5 2(1 perch lure, 1 pike)4 1 12. 96 beams, r = 2-12 m, -13° Tilt 15 6 3(2 perch lure, 1 pike)2 3 13. 48 beams, r = 10-36 m, -32° Tilt 9 5 0 1 2 1Perch Lure (23 cm)Eel Lure (97 cm)PVC Pipe (1 m)Northern Pike (65-67 cm)Sticks (80-130 cm)10MANUAL EEL CLASSIFICATION OF ARIS DATAEel IDConfidenceHIGHLOWVisual Inspection & Quality Score for Eel IdentificationScore ClassificationQ1 Highly confident eel ID Eel shape & anguilliform motionQ2 Reasonably confident eel ID; shape and/or anguilliform motion ambiguity Q3 Uncertain; ambiguity in shape/motionQ4 Reasonably confident non-eel IDQ5 Highly confident non-eel IDHow accurate is Q1-Q2 vs Q1-Q3?• Balancing Missed Detections vs False Positives• Classification Experiment with Known TargetsLOWHIGHNon-Eel IDConfidence78-cm EelEEL ID SCORE = Q176-cm live eel (ID 901) released at 6 m11EEL ID SCORE = Q3130-cm stick released at r=10 m1213EEL ID SCORE = Q51-m PVC PipeTRUE (+) FALSE (+)5 1100% 12%FALSE (-) TRUE (-)0 70% 88%TRUE (+) FALSE (+)1 020% 0%FALSE (-) TRUE (-)4 480% 100%TRUE (+) FALSE (+)5 183% 11%FALSE (-) TRUE (-)1 817% 89%CLASSIFICATION TEST: EEL (Q1-Q3) ERROR RATEConfusion Tables for Eel IDs Among Randomized Target Releases1478-cm Eel80-cm EelReceived “Ghost” Echo of Pier Nose 9From Previous PingBase of Pier Nose 9Setting 148 beams/ 2-18 m range-13° DownSetting 296 beams/2-12 m range-13° DownSetting 348 beams-32° DownQ1-Q3EEL IDQ4-Q5NON-EELIDEel IDConfidenceHIGHLOWLOWHIGHNon-Eel IDConfidenceScoreQ1Q2Q3Q4Q5TRUE EEL TRUE NON-EEL TRUE EEL TRUE NON-EEL TRUE EEL TRUE NON-EELINITIAL CLASSIFICATION SCHEME:  Q1+Q2+Q3= EEL, Q4-Q5, Missed = NOT EELCLASSIFICATION TEST: EEL (Q1-Q2) ERROR RATETRUE (+) FALSE (+)4 080% 0%FALSE (-) TRUE (-)1 820% 100%Confusion Tables for Eel IDs Among Randomized Target Releases15TRUE (+) FALSE (+)2 033% 0%FALSE (-) TRUE (-)4 967% 100%TRUE (+) FALSE (+)0 00% 0%FALSE (-) TRUE (-)5 4100% 100%Q1-Q2EELIDQ3-Q5NON-EELIDEel IDConfidenceHIGHLOWLOWHIGHNon-Eel IDConfidenceScoreQ1Q2Q3Q4Q5PREFERRED  CLASSIFICATION SCHEME:  Q1+Q2 = EEL, Q3-Q5, Missed = NOT EEL78-cm Eel80-cm EelReceived “Ghost” Echo of Pier Nose 9From Previous PingBase of Pier Nose 9Setting 148 beams/ 2-18 m range-13° DownSetting 296 beams/2-12 m range-13° DownSetting 348 beams-32° DownTRUE EEL TRUE NON-EEL TRUE EEL TRUE NON-EEL TRUE EEL TRUE NON-EELM3 EXAMPLE OF AN EEL83-cm Eel (ID 931) at 9 m on 18 Sep 2015 (~12:13)16EXAMPLE OF EK60 ECHOGRAMSMatched to known range and time17PHASE 2: RANGE TESTReleased live tethered eels into beams at 5 range intervals 185    10 15     25         40 mn= 11  6    6       11         7 eels EK60ARISNOTE: Eel TL = 70-89 cm, tether lengths = 3-7 m• 80-cm eel released at 5 m • Detected at 9 m in 3 sonarsM3PHASE 2: RANGE TEST SUMMARY• Targets were detected by all sonars at multiple ranges• ARIS sonar identified eels: – 30% at 5 m– 50% at 10 m• Accepting more uncertainty eels, 25% at 25 m were identified as eels• M3 and EK60 sonars detected targets, ID was only possible with the knowledge of the range and time of tethered eel release19PHASE 3: RESULTS OF SONAR MONITORING• No eels in 15-22 July 2015• 2 eels in 17-19 September1. ID Quality Score 1: 18Sep 2015 01:06 (after midnight)2. ID Quality Score 2: 18Sep 2015 04:16 (pre-dawn)• Estimated lengths of 95 cm & 64 cmContinuous Monitoring of Out-migrating Eels at Iroquois Dam20CONCLUSIONS• St. Lawrence River is challenging– 1.7 to 2 m/s flow– Orders of magnitude higher abundance of debris and fish– Potential impact of high false positive error• Motion artifacts decreases eel ID certainty, especially at increasing ranges• Important to classify targets conservatively to avoid false positives• 15-22 July: no eels• 17-19 September: 2 eels @ night• EK60 can detect eels, but eel ID difficult• ARIS can provide ID  at range < 18-20 m• M3 has merit for tracking behavior, but not IDSampling Limitations & Sonar Performance21ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS• Field staff• Ecological Specialties for I-beam fabrication• Hunt Underwater Specialties• Ontario Power Generation• New York Power Authority• EPRC Members• USFWS & NYSDEC• Simrad, Kongsberg, & Sound Metrics22EXAMPLE OF M3 AND ARIS AT >20 M RANGE(detected 21 m range)Released 79-cm eel with 4-m tether at nominal 25-m interval23EEL ID SCORE = Q280-cm live eel (ID 930) released at 7 m24EEL ID SCORE = Q41-m PVC Pipe released, motion artifact present25

Eels III: Assessment of Three Sonars to Evaluate the Downstream Migration of American Eels in the St. Lawrence River

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2048&context=fishpassage_conference

Eels III: Assessment of Three Sonars to Evaluate the Downstream Migration of American Eels in the St. Lawrence River

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst