kSIST FprEN 17233:2020

Water quality - Guidance for assessing the efficiency and related metrics of fish passage solutions using telemetry

This document provides guidance for assessing the efficiency and related metrics of fish passage solutions using telemetry methods that allow fish approaching an impediment to be monitored.
It provides recommendations and requirements for equipment, study design, data analysis and reporting. A selected literature with references in support of this standard is given in the Bibliography section.

Wasserbeschaffenheit - Anleitung zur Beurteilung der Wirksamkeit und zugehöriger Kennwerte von Fischaufstiegshilfen mittels Fernmessung

Dieses Dokument enthält Richtlinien zur Bewertung der Effizienz und zugehöriger Messwerte von Fischpässen unter Verwendung von Telemetrieverfahren, die das Monitoring von sich einem Hindernis nähernden Fischen ermöglichen.
Es enthält Empfehlungen und Anforderungen für Ausrüstung, Studienauslegung, Datenanalyse und Dokumentation. Im Abschnitt Literaturhinweise sind ausgewählte Veröffentlichungen mit Referenzen zur Unterstützung dieser Norm enthalten.

Recommandations pour l’évaluation par télémétrie de l’efficacité des dispositifs de franchissement piscicole et d'indicateurs associés

Le présent document spécifie des méthodes normalisées pour l'évaluation de l'efficacité des dispositifs de franchissement piscicole et d'indicateurs associés, en utilisant des techniques de télémétrie qui permettent de suivre individuellement des poissons à l'approche d'un obstacle.
Il couvre les études utilisant des poissons qui ont été marqués électroniquement au moyen de marques acoustiques, de transpondeurs passifs intégrés ou des marques radio pour fournir divers indicateurs d'efficacité de franchissement définis et comprend le franchissement en amont et en aval.
Il fournit des recommandations et exigences relatives aux équipements, à la conception des études, à l'analyse des données et à la production de rapports. Un choix de publications référencées est donné dans la Bibliographie afin d'étayer le contenu du présent document.

Kakovost vode - Navodilo za ocenjevanje učinkovitosti izvedb ribjih prehodov s telemetrijo in s tem povezane metrike?

Standards Content (sample)

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
01-marec-2018
[Not translated]

Water quality - Guidance for assessing the efficiency and related metrics of fish passage

solutions using telemetry
Wasserbeschaffenheit - Anleitung zur Beurteilung der Wirksamkeit und zugehöriger
Kennwerte von Fischaufstiegshilfen mittels Fernmessung

Recommandations pour l’évaluation par télémétrie de l’efficacité des dispositifs de

franchissement piscicole et d'indicateurs associés
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: prEN 17233
ICS:
13.060.99 Drugi standardi v zvezi s Other standards related to
kakovostjo vode water quality
oSIST prEN 17233:2018 en,fr,de

2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
DRAFT
EUROPEAN STANDARD
prEN 17233
NORME EUROPÉENNE
EUROPÄISCHE NORM
January 2018
ICS 13.060.99
English Version
Water quality - Guidance for assessing the efficiency and
related metrics of fish passage solutions using telemetry

Recommandations pour l'évaluation par télémétrie de Wasserbeschaffenheit - Anleitung zur Beurteilung der

l'efficacité des dispositifs de franchissement piscicole Wirksamkeit und zugehöriger Kennwerte von

et d'indicateurs associés Fischaufstiegshilfen mittels Fernmessung

This draft European Standard is submitted to CEN members for enquiry. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee

CEN/TC 230.

If this draft becomes a European Standard, CEN members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations

which stipulate the conditions for giving this European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration.

This draft European Standard was established by CEN in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other

language made by translation under the responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the CEN-CENELEC

Management Centre has the same status as the official versions.

CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,

Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,

Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,

Turkey and United Kingdom.

Recipients of this draft are invited to submit, with their comments, notification of any relevant patent rights of which they are

aware and to provide supporting documentation.

Warning : This document is not a European Standard. It is distributed for review and comments. It is subject to change without

notice and shall not be referred to as a European Standard.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels

© 2018 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. prEN 17233:2018 E

worldwide for CEN national Members.
---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
prEN 17233:2018 (E)
Contents Page

European foreword ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1 Scope .................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2 Normative references .................................................................................................................................... 6

3 Terms and definitions ................................................................................................................................... 6

4 Symbols and abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... 8

5 Principle and field of application .............................................................................................................. 8

6 Valid methods for assessing efficiency and related metrics ........................................................... 9

7 Equipment ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

7.1 Calibration and system checks ................................................................................................................... 9

7.1.1 Acoustic telemetry ....................................................................................................................................... 10

7.1.2 Radio telemetry ............................................................................................................................................ 10

7.1.3 PIT telemetry ................................................................................................................................................. 10

7.1.4 Multiple tagging scenarios ........................................................................................................................ 11

7.2 Experimental design ................................................................................................................................... 11

7.2.1 Pre-planning .................................................................................................................................................. 11

7.3 Sample size ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

7.4 Timing and duration of investigations ................................................................................................. 13

7.5 Baseline, control and reference investigations ................................................................................. 13

7.6 Receiver positions........................................................................................................................................ 14

7.6.1 Basic scenario ................................................................................................................................................ 14

7.7 Capture, tagging and release of fish ....................................................................................................... 17

7.7.1 Source fish....................................................................................................................................................... 17

7.7.2 Motivation ....................................................................................................................................................... 18

7.7.3 Capture of fish ............................................................................................................................................... 18

7.7.4 Handling and tagging of fish ..................................................................................................................... 19

7.7.5 Release of fish ................................................................................................................................................ 20

7.8 Data acquisition from additional equipment ..................................................................................... 20

7.8.1 Impediment information ........................................................................................................................... 20

7.8.2 FPS characteristics ....................................................................................................................................... 21

7.8.3 Fish species and assemblages .................................................................................................................. 21

7.8.4 Environmental parameters ...................................................................................................................... 21

8 Post processing and data analysis ......................................................................................................... 21

9 Quality control and quality assurance .................................................................................................. 22

9.1 Quality control .............................................................................................................................................. 22

9.2 Quality assurance ......................................................................................................................................... 22

10 Reporting ........................................................................................................................................................ 22

10.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................. 22

10.2 Introduction and objectives ..................................................................................................................... 23

10.3 Study site ......................................................................................................................................................... 23

10.4 Equipment and methods............................................................................................................................ 24

10.5 Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 25

10.6 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................... 25

---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
prEN 17233:2018 (E)

10.7 Conclusions/recommendations .............................................................................................................. 25

Annex A (informative) Valid monitoring methods .......................................................................................... 26

Annex B (informative) Complementary data provided by mobile tracking ........................................... 30

Annex C (informative) Estimates of sample size .............................................................................................. 31

Annex D (informative) Examples of receiver positions in telemetry studies ........................................ 35

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................. 46

---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
prEN 17233:2018 (E)
European foreword

This document (prEN 17233:2018) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 230 “Water

analysis”, the secretariat of which is held by DIN.
This document is currently submitted to the CEN Enquiry.
---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
prEN 17233:2018 (E)
Introduction
to Fish Pass Monitoring.

Fish passage solutions (FPS) are measures to help fish pass a cross-river obstacle or impediment in

upstream and/or downstream directions. The ideal solution – from a global-ecological perspective –

would be to re-establish natural river connectivity by decommissioning or removing the obstacle which

would at the same time eliminate or reduce any impounded section and allow unimpeded sediment

transport. In the last two decades or so, the number of constructed upstream FPS has increased

significantly at least in some parts of the world, and the range of proposed FPS designs has also

increased. However, despite careful control of FPS design both pre-and post-construction, the

performance of fish passage solutions need comprehensive field monitoring for the following reasons;

FPS designs globally rely on laboratory experiments that need validating in situ; the efficiency of

initially well-designed FPS may be modified by changes to the environment (e.g. discharge, river

morphology) and require improvement; and the efficiency for new target species or life stages that

were not considered during the initial design process may be necessary. In addition, the design and

implementation of downstream migration facilities is still lagging behind, with the associated evidence

gap in our knowledge of performance. Only systematic, reproducible monitoring studies assessing the

performance of fish passes will enable us to improve and develop current fish pass designs.

In general terms, fish pass monitoring is the activity of assessing by all appropriate means the degree of

success (or failure) of fish dealing with the conditions of an implemented fish passage solution.

Comprehensive fish pass monitoring serves several purposes. Firstly, it helps determine the

appropriateness of the chosen design of a FPS by providing data about the effectiveness (number of fish,

size classes and species passing the obstacle, sometimes related to spawning success upstream, or

species compositions and abundances of the river section down- and upstream of an impediment)

and/or the efficiency (proportion of fish passing the impediment in relation to the number of fish

actually trying to pass) for fish that have to cross the impediment. As a result, a documented well-

functioning solution can serve as an example for a solution in a similar river type with a similar fish

community; any reduction in performance should be carefully analysed, and the reasons for failures

identified and addressed through adjustments, i.e. by structural changes (e.g. modifications of the

design of [different parts] the pass) or by operational solutions (concerning the pass itself, e.g. by

optimizing the attraction to the entrance or by adapting the discharge through the pass; or concerning

turbine management). Secondly, technical information which is indispensable for the design

development or optimization of future fish passage solutions can be gathered along with the

observations of fish behaviour. Thirdly, provided that appropriate methods are used, fish pass

monitoring can support informed management of fish populations upstream or downstream of the

impediment, e.g. supporting EU eel regulations, EU Water Framework Directive or direct management

of freshwater fishery resources, and the general biodiversity in the river.

Frequently, however, due to non-standardized choice of monitoring methods and protocols adopted,

data from fish pass monitoring studies across Europe are not directly comparable. Fish trapping usually

works only in the upstream direction, is quite costly and does not provide information on the numbers

of fish that approach the impediment to pass. The same is true for other capture-independent methods

like video monitoring. However, methods such as acoustic or radio telemetry or PIT tags that enable

estimation of a percentage of fish that passed the obstacle in relation to the number of fish approaching

the obstacle to pass usually look only at a single species and fish of a particular size range (e.g. adults,

sub-adults), and are therefore unsuitable for small and young fish existing in the area of the FPS. A

comprehensive monitoring programme should ideally target the whole range of species and fish sizes

present, therefore requiring a multi-method approach.

As described above, different monitoring methods will provide different insights. There exist capture-

dependent methods (e.g. trapping; pooling in a counting basin; capture–mark-recapture [CMR];

monitoring based on tagging with transmitters or transponders [telemetry]) and capture-independent

---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
prEN 17233:2018 (E)

methods (e.g. visual observations [and counting] or by video recording; resistivity counter;

hydroacoustics). Detailed descriptions of these methods can be found in the relevant literature and are

not repeated here.

All aforementioned methods — with the exception of telemetry — provide data that benefit primarily

the assessment of the effectiveness of a FPS. If efficiency needs to be addressed, measures of the

proportion of fishes passing successfully, relative to those attempting, is crucial, together with evidence

concerning passage-related delay, mortality or other health impacts (Cooke and Hinch, 2013). For this

purpose, telemetry (acoustic, radio and PIT tagging techniques) have major advantages over the other

methods. In the following, only telemetric methodologies are addressed and standardized as efficiency

estimates are considered to be the best and most relevant metrics of FPS performance.

1 Scope

This document provides guidance for assessing the efficiency and related metrics of fish passage

solutions using telemetry methods that allow fish approaching an impediment to be monitored.

It provides recommendations and requirements for equipment, study design, data analysis and

reporting. A selected literature with references in support of this standard is given in the Bibliography

section.
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.

ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:

— IEC Electropedia: available at http://www.electropedia.org/
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at http://www.iso.org/obp

Not all definitions listed below are necessarily applicable to all studies. Only those which are relevant to

the aims and objectives of the study in question are required.
This standard defines efficiencies related to sampled fish as follows:
3.1
fish passage solution
FPS

any device, structure or mechanism which is designed or operated to facilitate the safe movement of

fish in an upstream and/or downstream direction past one or several impediments
3.2
FPS performance
overall capability of the FPS to meet its design objective

Note 1 to entry: The design objective will include objectives related to the target fish community, target species,

attraction and passage efficiencies and effectiveness.
3.3
available fish
number of tagged fish approaching the impediment
---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
prEN 17233:2018 (E)

Note 1 to entry: The approach distance will be site specific and fish are assumed to be motivated to pass.

3.4
overall FPS efficiency

percentage of available fish attempting to pass an impediment(s) that find, enter and successfully

negotiate, the FPS
Note 1 to entry: Encompasses attraction, entrance and passage efficiencies.
3.5
FPS attraction efficiency
percentage of available fish that are attracted to the FPS entrance
3.6
FPS entrance efficiency
percentage of fish attracted to the FPS entrance that subsequently enter
3.7
FPS passage efficiency
percentage of fish entering the FPS that successfully negotiate and exit the FPS
3.8
overall FPS passage time
time from first approach of fish to an impediment to exit from the FPS
3.9
FPS attraction time

time from first approach of fish to an impediment to arrival at the entrance area of the FPS

3.10
FPS entrance time
time from first arrival of fish at the FPS until first entrance
3.11
FPS passage time
time from first entrance of fish to FPS until exit
3.12
FPS effectiveness

assessment or count of the number and type of fish successfully negotiating the FPS in relation to the

fish community present
3.13
number of attempts

count of the number of times each tagged fish entered the FPS until successful negotiation and exit from

the FPS
3.14
fall-back

percentage of fish that move back downstream/upstream after ascending/descending an impediment

(whether by FPS or other route)
---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
prEN 17233:2018 (E)
3.15
impediment passage efficiency

proportion of fish attempting to pass an impediment that successfully negotiate it, by any route

3.16
overall impediment passage time

time from fish first approach to an impediment to successful passage, by any route

3.17
telemetry

use of electronic tags such as radio and acoustic transmitters, data storage tags, pop-up satellite

archival tags and PIT-tags to obtain information on free-ranging fish
4 Symbols and abbreviations

For the purposes of this document, the following symbols and abbreviations apply.

FPS Fish Passage Solution
PIT Passive Integrated Transponder
CART Combined Acoustic Radio Transmitters
CMR Capture Mark Recapture
CPUE Catch per Unit Effort
EMG Electromyogram
eDNA Environmental Deoxyribonucleic Acid
WFD Water Framework Directive
3R’s Replacement, Reduction and Refinement as per DIRECTIVE 2010/63/EU (European
Union, 2010):
Replacement — Methods which avoid or replace the use of animals.
Reduction — Methods which minimize the number of animals used per experiment.
Refinement — Methods which minimize suffering and improve animal welfare.
5 Principle and field of application

The purpose of a fish passage solution is to allow the free passage of relevant developmental stages of

endemic species. This enables fish to complete both diel and seasonal movements such as accessing

foraging, resting and reproductive habitats, and includes both upstream and downstream pathways.

Whilst the design of fish passage solutions for some species and life stages is well advanced (e.g. adult

migratory salmonids), the requirements of other species and for downstream migration are not fully

understood. FPS monitoring studies can provide several layers of information: For example,

appropriately sited fish counters (e.g. cameras, resistivity, multibeam sonar) and trapping can provide a

relatively simple demonstration of FPS use, however, despite these being non-invasive, these

approaches provide no estimates of the population attempting passage.

This standard covers studies using fish tagged with acoustic, passive integrated transponder and radio

tags to provide a variety of defined passage efficiency metrics and facilitate comparisons between fish

passage solutions. Guidance is provided on the selection of appropriate monitoring equipment, the

experimental design of FPS monitoring studies and data collection (Clause 7), data processing

---------------------- Page: 10 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
prEN 17233:2018 (E)

procedures (Clause 8), quality control and assurance (Clause 9), and presenting the results in a

standard reporting format (Clause 10) to provide essential fish passage efficiency and delay metrics.

Methods for monitoring other aspects of the performance of FPSs that are not covered and related to

the assessment of effectiveness by this standard include; trapping, video, acoustic cameras, direct

observation/online surveillance, catch — mark — recapture (CMR), physiological telemetry (e.g. EMG

(electromyogram), accelerometry and heart rate), eDNA (environmental Deoxyribonucleic Acid), Catch

Per Unit Effort (CPUE) and flume studies. See Lucas and Baras (2000) and Kemp and O’Hanley (2010)

for further information about these methods.
6 Valid methods for assessing efficiency and related metrics

Fish passage efficiency encompasses attraction, entrance into, and successful passage through, the FPS.

In order to evaluate the efficiency of FPSs, it is necessary to be able to identify individual fish that are

available to pass so that the success or failure of each fish is known. Individual detection is best

provided by telemetry.
Valid methods for assessing the efficiency of FPSs are:
— acoustic telemetry;
— radio telemetry;
— Combined Acoustic Radio Transmitters (CART);
— PIT telemetry;
— permutations of the above.
The suitability and limitations of these methods are summarized in Clause 7.
7 Equipment
7.1 General

In order to provide near-continuous detection performance and precise detection times, telemetric

determination of FPS performance is likely to involve the use of automated receiver systems and

antenna/hydrophone arrays. The choice of telemetry method and associated equipment is based on

many factors, including study objectives, environmental factors such as channel depth and width, target

fish species and size and sample size. Annex A (Table A.1) summarizes the suitability and limitations of

telemetry methods for assessing the efficiency of fish passes.
7.2 Calibration and system checks
7.2.1 General

Thorough calibration and tuning of the receiving equipment is crucial to ensure the collection of good

quality, accurate data. It is essential that the detection range of the receiving equipment is fully mapped

and understood. Regular system checks should be performed to take into account changing conditions

that can modify receiver detection ranges; for example temperature, entrained air and electromagnetic

fields. Data on tag failure rates should be obtained from the manufacturer or, better, tested for a subset

under experimental conditions; this enables one variable for tag loss during tracking to be quantified.

Similarly, careful quality controls need to be placed upon false positive records of tags, due to signal

processing errors and code collisions.
---------------------- Page: 11 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
prEN 17233:2018 (E)

Tagged fish should be scanned prior to release to confirm that the tags are functioning; this is true for

all telemetry tag types. The likely effects of code collisions, or cycle period between reception

frequencies (used in some radio applications) relative to antenna range, on tag detection probability

shall be considered and incorporated into experimental design. The percentage period during the study

for which the remote array was functioning effectively should be recorded; this is particularly

important for PIT stations since tag range is low, and in all but small streams, manual tracking to

determine the fate of PIT tagged fish is difficult (cf. radio, acoustic with battery-powered transmitters).

7.2.2 Acoustic telemetry

— A detailed detection efficiency test should be performed at the beginning of the study with test

tag(s) of the power output to be used and repeated where possible during the study. Detection

ratios of test tags within the hydrophone field should be recorded. Actual detection efficiency of

tagged fish should be back-calculated from known routes and reported.

— Reference acoustic-transmitters should be placed at several depths in known locations under

typical experimental conditions and the accuracy and precision of reported transmitter positions

calculated. It is a good idea to retain one or more reference transmitters (‘sentinel’ tags) for the

duration of the study.

— The detection range of each hydrophone should be determined under the range of experimental

conditions likely to be experienced.

— ‘Tag drags’ (moving a tag within the array) should be conducted to test the tracking capability of

the system.
7.2.3 Radio telemetry

— A detailed signal strength map around antennas should be generated at the beginning of the study

for the tags to be used. Logger data should be analysed and signal strengths from several loggers (if

present) used to create a signal strength map that enables the position of the fish to be pinpointed.

The same approach should be used where one receiver is multiplexing multiple antennas.

— Detection ratios of test tags within the antenna fields should be recorded. Actual detection

efficiency of tagged fish should be back-calculated from known routes and reported.

— Radio-transmitters should be placed at several depths in known locations during known periods of

time and the accuracy and precision of reported transmitter positions calculated.

— Reference transmitters can be used to compensate for variations in disturbance and the resulting

signal strength recorded. It is a good idea to retain one or more reference transmitters (‘sentinel’

tags) for the duration of the study.
7.2.4 PIT telemetry

— Because of the small range of PIT antennas, thorough testing with tags of the size and type to be

used is vital. Range and detection efficiency tests should be conducted over the possible extent of

experimental conditions for all tag orientations and for multiple as well as single tags (tag

proximity can block detection of other tags). This should include testing of tags passed at the same

speed for which fish passage through the detection field may be expected.

— Regular tests of antenna efficiency should be carried out by manual checks or by automated

sentinel (check) tags and recorded. Actual detection of tagged fish should be back-calculated from

known routes and reported.
---------------------- Page: 12 ----------------------
oSIST prEN 17233:2018
prEN 17233:2018 (E)
7.2.5 Multiple tagging scenarios

— To overcome limitations of individual telemetry methods fish could be tagged with multiple tags,

provided fish welfare is not compromised. For example, both acoustic and PIT tags could be used

for fish moving through a wide and deep river and a narrow and shall
...