PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION Minutes PIT Tag Steering Committee

PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION  Minutes PIT Tag Steering Committee
PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
205 SE Spokane Street, SUITE 100, Portland, OREGON 97202
PHONE (503) 595-3100 FAX (503) 595-3232
Minutes
PIT Tag Steering Committee
July 12, 2004
Attendees: Ann Setter (ODFW), Doug Marsh (NOAA Fisheries), Ed Buettner (IDFG), Charles Morrill
(WDFW), Carter Stein (PSMFC), Don Warf (PSMFC), Dave Marvin (PSMFC), John Tenney (PSMFC),
Sean Casey (Digital Angel), Jon Mueller (Digital Angel), Bill Kemp (Digital Angel), Zeke Mejia (Digital
Angel), \Sandy Downing (NOAA Fisheries), Earl Prentice (NOAA Fisheries), Dean Park (Biomark), Steve
Anglea (Biomark), Dennis Schwartz (USACE), Peter Lofy (BPA), Jamie Swan (BPA)
1. Update on TX1400SGL Tag Development and Production Schedule by
Digital Angel
Digital Angel (DA) provided a status update on development of an interim tag for optimizing performance
of the Bonneville Corner Collector High-Q flume system. Highlights follow:
•
DA announced that new tag components now ready larger antenna, larger glass
encapsulation vial, updated components
•
DA described the various trade offs in wire gauge: maximum size (35 and 36 microns) of
wire but still must fit within glass encapsulation This means the new tag is slightly larger
diameter up from 2.07 to 2.223 and industry standard Nominal length of current super tag
is 12.1 mm and wiring is 25 microns.
•
DA is building a process to assemble new tags. One million dies plus additional equipment
have been procured in expectation of large number of tags required (600 to 700 thousand
tags available by Sept ’04). Tag production is on schedule at current time.
•
Earl asked how DA is testing new tags
ƒ
Temp cycling
ƒ
Pressure testing
ƒ
Shake, vibration and shock
ƒ
Sealing/leakage
ƒ
Readability - tested in Spain and @ factory, again in Minneapolis,
ƒ
Reading range
ƒ
Tag size – length, diameter, weight
“To promote the conservation, development and management of Pacific coast
fishery resources through coordinated regional research, monitoring and utilization”
Minutes
Page 2
July 12, 2004 PTSC Meeting
•
DA addressed the schedule of testing. At initial start up, all tests are performed. But after
that, on some fixed time schedule. DA tests components of each lot purchased to assure
quality. Tag components go through many QA checks in manufacturing process
•
Testing is done, in part, to identify step where most fall out occurs. QA efforts are
concentrated here -- each machine in the process has some specified tolerances. Yields
from each machine in the process are checked. If results are out of expected tolerances or
specs, the machine is adjusted.
•
DA expects to be able to ship 92 to 95 % of tags manufactured.
•
DA discussed Ferrite for the tags. Issues include some variability in the ferrite parameters
including electrical parameters, length and diameter tolerances. DA mentioned that in
extruded tags permeability does vary because of compactness of materials. Again, new
materials, new processes…
•
DA said that the manufacturing target specification for tags is +/- 2 kHz -- within these
limits tag performance is essentially unchanged.
•
DA said that they are still making some super 12 tags but in smaller quantities. DA is not
manufacturing SGL tags for companion Animals. In addition, the Super 12 tag is still a
marketable product?
•
DA said they were testing TX1400ST and TX1400SGL tag at the full size mock-up
antenna in Minnesota their facility.
•
DA said that a pilot run of 150 tags would be delivered by the end of the week and a, test
run of 6,000 would be ready by the end of August. After that, then go with full production.
The final schedule is still to be worked out.
•
Sandy said that the tag qualification tests will need 50 of the 6 K tags for community
testing (Carter thinks this is low by one or two orders of magnitude).
•
How much will DA raise the bar for the new SGL versus the ST tags? DA says they’re not
sure – maybe 50, 75 100 %? DA will be working on this issue.
•
Zeke in answer to Ann’s questions: SGL tag with three types of ferrite -- take best two of
three for testing. A decision has not been made on best choice for ferrite. DA may be using
the same manufacturing technology as in super 12 tag for the “Final” tag as a more
consistent, better manufacturing process because of more automation. In addition, the ST
tags have a better QA process. Zeke is hoping for some measured improvement. He said
he would be very happy with 10 to 20 % improvement.
•
Tag is currently being tested at the DA Minneapolis facility. The tag does read in the
middle of the 16’ x 16’ antennae, in the dry. DA asked if anyone wanted to come out to
the facility to witness the final tests prior to going to the Bonneville High-Q Prototype
Test Facility.
PTSC_Jul_12_2004
Minutes
July 12, 2004 PTSC Meeting
2. Update on High-Q Efficiency Test Plan
•
Still goal of 60 % detection of PIT Tagged fish in the High-Q corner collector flume at
Bonneville
•
Dennis reported that the Corps and BPA are still finalizing the test schedule.
•
The Corps “One Page Summary” is completed. The study is intended to quantify detection
efficiencies. Dennis will send a copy of the “One Page Summary” to Carter.
•
Tags for the tests will be provided by BPA and are not to be included in High Q PIT tag
detection efficiency test proposal budgets.
•
The Corps would like to try one or two tag types. Kim & Dennis are leaning toward testing
only one tag – e.g. the best tag that comes out of the DA evaluation at the Bonneville
High-Q Prototype test facility. PTSC needs to weigh in.
•
There are still many questions about the High-Q detection efficiency tests. Where will
release of test fish occur? Who’s driving test – i.e., what is the test supposed to prove?
How many fish should be used, and when will that information be available?
•
The test process is funded through BPA but the proposal evaluation and selection will be
run through the COE process and not the NWPCC Fish & Wildlife Program process.
•
Due to interference on the PIT Tag by the Radio Tags, “double tagging” radio tags and
PIT tags will not be acceptable for the detection efficiency tests.
•
There was some observed damage to the walls in HI-Q Prototype antenna, but the working
assumption is that walls will hold up.
•
Pending tests at the Bonneville Corner Collector High-Q Prototype Test Facility, a Go/No
go decision will be made by August 15, 2004.
3. Additional Requirements for new tag deployment
Page 3
•
The new SGL tag is 2.23mm outside diameter compared with 2.07mm outside diameter
for the older “BE” or “ST” tags. Therefore, thin walled needles are required to inject the
SGL tags. The SGL tags are approximately 12.6mm long and are about 5% heavier than
the ST tags.
•
The community has an investment in NON-thin walled needles.Doug Marsh reported that
he has approximately 10K of the thick wall needles. ODFW reports having approximately
4K.
•
It is likely that the transition to the SGL tag type in not an ‘all or nothing’ proposition like
that which was required when the Basin switched tag and reader systems to the ISO based
standards in 2000. Rather, the introduction of the SGL tag type is more likely to be like the
transition from the BE tag types to the ST tag type. During this transition, there was (and
still is) a mix of tag types being delivered to, or used by, marking projects. Since an abrupt
PTSC_Jul_12_2004
Minutes
July 12, 2004 PTSC Meeting
change in tag types may not be likely, it is possible that these investments in thick walled
needles may be safe.
•
The PTSC will communicate required changes to the PTAGIS community as plans are
firmed. BPA asked that they be included in this communication.
•
The PTSC needs to update the PIT Tag Marking Procedures Manual to specify “Thin
Walled Needles”, and to suggest part numbers and manufacturers.
•
DA has distributed a new version of firmware for all readers in the Basin (FS1001,
FS1001A, FS2001F, FS2001F-ISO). This firmware is required in order to read SGL tags
that include an enhanced ‘compression’ algorithm. This Firmware fixes a side-effect
incorporated into the reader as testing was conducted for the new ISO systems in the late
1990’s. The SGL tags are readable by non DA readers.
•
PTSC members asked if the ST tag will still be available. Especially if the larger tag size
of the SGL precludes marking of smaller fish – epecially Chinook in headwater reaches of
higher elevation streams. DA seemed to indicate that they could meet the Basin needs.
4. Tag Qualification Tests -- Impacts on existing juvenile and adult
separation by code systems?
•
Sandy will send out the Tag Qualification proposal this week. This proposal details the
testing methodology to be used to “Qualify” the use of any new tag (including the SGL) in
the Basin.
5. PIT Tag Forecast Process
•
BPA staff complains that the paperwork required to transfer dollars for PIT Tag between
Fish and Wildlife PIT Tag Marking Projects into the Tag Purchase project code is to
burdensome. They are considering changes to the existing process that has been in place
for a dozen years.
•
BPA is having a critical meeting today to determine what they can / can not do. Peter Lofy
and Jamie Swan will advise Carter on Tues or Wednesday of this week.
•
The NWPCC is reviewing F&W 2005 program budget this week. BPA said that price
changes (even ball park) are critical to their budget process -- esp. SGL tags and preloaded
needles -- how much of an increase?
•
PTSC members did not agree that any change from the existing process would be good at
this time.
6. PTSC to decide on a site or installation priorities for PIT Detectors on
Adult Return Flumes from Fish and Debris Separators at dams
•
Page 4
PTSC decided via e-mail that the priority for installation of a PIT detector is at John Day
rather than Little Goose or Lower Granite Dam due to logistical difficulties and Basin
research requirements.
PTSC_Jul_12_2004
Minutes
July 12, 2004 PTSC Meeting
7. Proposal for Generation 2 PIT Tag Reader Field Tests at Production
Facilities -- PTSC to "Approve" Field Testing Plan
•
Due to lack of time PTSC did not conclude this discussion.
8. Follow Up on USFWS Biological Effects of Tag Encapsulation
Materials study
•
Due to lack of time PTSC did not conclude this discussion.
9. Proposed Switch Gate at McNary – PTSC to decide to tecommend
support from FPAC
•
10.
Due to lack of time PTSC did not conclude this discussion.
Progress on Pre-loaded syringes (See photo)
The following photo shows the status of this effort:
Page 5
PTSC_Jul_12_2004
Nbr
1
Agenda Item
Update on TX1400SGL Tag Development and Production
Schedule
Person
Zeke Mejia Digital
Angel
Reference
Email requestion
Tag Status;
Email Master
Contract mod for
New Part Number
2
Update on High-Q Efficiency Test Plan
Dennis Schwartz &
Kim Fodrea BPA /
Corps
See Item 4 in May
2004 PTSC Meeting
Minutes
3
Additional Requirmenets for new tag deployment:
Sean Casey Digital
Angel
Email of Tag
Diameter;
Thin Wall Syringes - Sean
Email of Software
Changes
New Reader Firmware - Sean
What else?
PTSC to discuss and plan how to inform "Community".
4
Tag Qualification Tests -- Impacts on existing juvenile and adult
separation by code systems?
Sandy Downing
NOAA Fisheries
PTSC to provide technical direction and to develop schedule and
resource plan for tag evaluation.
5
PIT Tag Forecast Process
Proposed SGL Tag
Evaluation Plan
SuperTag Evaluation
Comparison;
Carter Stein PSMFC
Minutes from BPA
PTAGIS Digital
Angel May 18, 2004
Meeting
Text Description of
BPA's proposed
changes
Exisiting and
Proposed Processes
6
PTSC to decide on a site or installation priorities for PIT
Detectors on Adult Return Flumes from Fish and Debris
Separators at dams
Carter Stein PSMFC
Proposed
Alternatives
7
Proposal for Generation 2 PIT Tag Reader Field Tests at
Production Facilities -- PTSC to "Approve" Field Testing Plan.
Jon Mueller Digital
Angel
Proposed Plan
8
Follow Up on USFWS Biological Effects of Tag Encapsulation
Tom Hoffman USFWS Email from Joe
Materials study
9
Zydlewski to Tom
Hoffman
Proposed Switch Gate at McNary -- PTSC to decide to
recommend support from FPAC.
Dave Marvin PSMFC
PTSC Meeting Agenda -- July 12, 2004
Proposal
MINUTES FROM MAY 18, 2004 MEETING WITH BPA COTRs
Re: NWPCC Project 199008001 - PIT Tag Distributions
Attendees:
PSMFC: Carter Stein, Renee Barrett;
Digital Angel (DA): Sean Casey;
BPA: Jamie Swan, Peter Lofy
1. The meeting was called to reconcile discrepancies in the 2003/2004 PIT Tag
Forecast numbers. The original forecast was based upon input from Fish and
Wildlife Program (FWP) sponsors, which PSMFC solicited. The forecasts were
then compiled into a spreadsheet by PSMFC. Subsequently, various FWP
projects were added, changed, or deleted, resulting in a change to the forecast as
budget amounts and contract renewals were approved by BPA.
2. Carter Stein outlined the Tag Forecast and Distribution system that has been in
place since 1998 (Reference the "2004 PIT Tag Specification Document"). The
key steps in the process are:
(a) The project sponsors’ forecast tag usage by FWP project;
(b) FWP projects are approved;
(c) FWP projects request tags via the PIT Tag Distribution Request Form
(PDRF).
The Tag Distribution and Inventory (TDI) process was implemented in 1998 and
provides a tight coupling of tagging and release data to tag deliveries. Based on
the TDI information, it is possible to determine tags in fish that are detected at
dams; however, no tagging and release information has been submitted to
PTAGIS. TDI can track various models or types of tags from multiple vendors to
multiple projects. BPA is very happy with the great job that PSMFC is doing with
TDI, and BPA technical personnel continue to recommend that this function
reside at PSMFC.
3. Jamie Swan explained it is very time consuming for BPA to make the various
internal accounting transactions tracking the movement of PIT tag funds, from a
project using PIT tags to the project which purchases PIT tags. She explained
there is an accounting system called “Supply Inventory Pool” at BPA that is set
up to make on-going purchases and could be used for this process. It would allow
BPA to purchase tags directly from DA, (and place them “in-inventory” without
attributing the cost to a specific project), rather than PSMFC purchasing tags from
DA as has been the case since approximately 1990.
Peter provided the following background:
Previously, this was not required to be tracked “by project” in BES (Bonneville
Enterprise System - BPA’s financial software/system). The main problem is that
the current system requires that payments for tags be attached to an individual
1
project at purchase when BPA pays an invoice (before the tags are distributed).
In the mean time, the actual number actually distributed may differ from the
number purchased “for the project”. If BPA Fish and Wildlife is allowed to use a
Supply Pool Method, the costs would not be attached to the project until the tags
are distributed, accurately reflecting costs at distribution. This will eliminate “redistribution” of costs within BES by Jamie now required each and every time the
forecast does not match the actual distribution.
4. Renee Barrett reported that the actual time it takes for PSMFC to issue the
purchase order and pay for tags is insignificant when compared to the forecasting,
receiving, and distributing process for PIT tags.
5. Tracking delivery of individual tags to specific FWP projects would still need to
be performed by the TDI system. Another interface would have to be established
between BPA and PSMFC to track BPA orders, DA deliveries to PSMFC, and
verification of DA invoices to BPA prior to payment for tags.
Jamie said BPA personnel may be required to physically inventory shipments
upon arrival. She will have to check on how this might be done when BPA is not
the shipping destination. It may be possible that BPA can verify delivery of
shipment over email correspondence.
6. Carter pointed out the key problem for this task is the "Approval" process.
PSMFC charges no overhead for tag purchases and the actual ordering process
takes only about 20 minutes. The PTAGIS project (199008000) has provided
resources for tag purchasing and distribution since 1990. Carter further suggested
that Columbia Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA), Northwest Power
Conservation Council (NWPCC), and BPA could approve the "Master Tag
Forecast" once per year (possibly the September NWPCC meeting). This would
minimize the amount of time that BPA spends issuing transactions described in
No.3, above.
The following was provided as additional information for these minutes by BPA:
Use of the Supply Inventory Pool, better tracking of the few projects that make up
the bulk of the volume and the ability to complete more frequent orders will assist
all parties in tracking “changes” to the 12-month tag use projection. Use of the
Supply Inventory Pool will reduce Jamie’s workload because she will not have to
designate project funding sources until the tags are shipped. More frequent
ordering will make it less likely BPA will “over order”. It would be nice if we
could get the Council, CBFWA and BPA to help in this process, but we also need
to look to the sponsors for feedback. They need to let us know as soon as they
know their needs change (either increases or decreases). How’s this instead of
your next 5 lines??
2
After reading through this again, I am feeling more comfortable that Carter sees
this as addressing #3 instead of it being “the solution to all of our problems”
ask for a certain number of tags but often they do not request the full amount
when tagging. We need to be careful in thinking that the above suggestion is
going to solve all of our concerns. We also need to be frugal with estimates
because if for some reason the tags are going to keep on being upgraded every
year or two we do not want to be stuck with a bunch of tags, Jamie)
7. Sean Casey reinforced the point that it is imperative for DA to know how many
tags to build four to six months before tags are required for marking fish. Digital
Angels major North American customers are Biomark, Inc., U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and BPA. The reason for the long lead time is the time required for raw
materials and necessary scheduling of production facilities to build the tag orders.
Because of the complexity of the manufacturing lead time schedules, it is
important to coordinate purchases in a strategic fashion. Generally, this means
fewer, larger orders placed at the right time.
Peter mentioned that last year when BPA “cancelled” about one-fifth of the
expected numbers of tags which was very disruptive (it caused a two million
dollar swing in Digital Angel financial accounting forecasts). Production had to
be “re-scheduled”. It would cause unacceptable disruption for Digital Angel if
this were to occur again. All parties agreed that we would work to prevent this in
the future.
Furthermore, with the advent of the new PIT tag required for use at the High Q
Corner Collector at Bonneville Dam, it would be advantageous to attempt to
phase out the Super Tag in time for introduction of the new Enhanced Glass tag.
BPA also points out that Digital Angel generally keeps 200,000 tags on hand for
“emergencies”. However, Sean indicated this will be less during transition from
one tag type to another, to facilitate transition as soon as would be feasible. Sean
acknowledged that biologists will want new tags when available, and that DA will
try to accommodate that (within reason, as PSMFC/DA inventory is drawn
down). New tags will not be distributed until the BPA-purchased inventory has
been exhausted.
Sean indicated that DA might find quarterly orders acceptable. However, he
mentioned that we had done this before, but the current process has settled on two
to three times per year. He reiterated the importance of monitoring the forecast for
the entire year.
3
8. The group agreed that it would be good to begin the PIT Tag Forecasting process
in July. The same general format will be used as in the past, with the addition of
requesting minimum and maximum number of tags required. Forecasts will be
mailed to FWP sponsors by July 12, then due back to PSMFC staff by August 9.
The forecasts will be compiled into a draft of the "Master Tag Forecast" by
August 16. The draft can be adjusted based upon CBFWA, NWPCC and BPA
input. The resulting Forecast would be ready for the approval by CBFWA,
NWPCC, and BPA. Jamie informed the group that John Rowan (BPA) has to
make the decision on whether to move in this direction and she would find out
within the next week or two.
BPA suggested that Project Sponsors be required to provide PSMFC an update
whenever a funding decision (or an indication that funding is likely to be denied
or approved). Additionally, any action that substantially affects the project’s
forecast should be relayed to PSMFC as soon as it is known
9. BPA will decide whether or not to modify the DA master contract to purchase
tags direct from DA or to continue to utilize PSMFC's TDI process. Carter
pointed out that changing the purchase point would imply changes in other parts
of the procurement, payment, and inventory / delivery process. These procedural
changes should be planned well in advance of any change, so that the new system
interfaces could be developed. Jamie agreed that if BPA decided to change the
process, BPA would commemorate the decision in writing and describe the
mechanism to be used to communicate purchases and receipt of tags. Carter
reiterated that any change in the status quo should be well planned out in order
not to break the existing TDI infrastructure.
10. Carter suggested that other than changing the forecast letter to request expected,
minimum and maximum tags, no additional changes be made in the existing
forecast, purchasing, or distribution process. The key is to change the “Approval”
process.
Minutes submitted by Carter Stein, PSMFC
May 26, 2004
BPA’s June 29th Comments incorporated July 6
crb
4
6/26/03
TDI_Process.vsd
Y:\doc\Misc_Stuff\Visio_Models\TDI\
Step 1: Forecast & Purchase
1. 11/1/03: PSMFC Prepares
Annual PIT Tag Forecast
Request.
Annual PIT Tag
Forecast Request
1
2. 11/4/03: Forecast Request
is sent to Project Sponsors.
3. 11/4-14/03: Project
Sponsors provide quarterly
PIT tag forecast on forecast
form.
2
4. 11/14/03: Project
Sponsors submit quarterly
PIT tag forecast to PSMFC.
NWPPC / BPA /
CBFWA Project
Sponsors
PSMFC
PTAGIS
Tag Distribution &
Inventory
Annual PIT Tag
Forecast (Frozen)
5
6
4
9
3
8
PIT Tag Forecast
Data
BPA
5. 11/15-20/03: PSMFC
prepares aggregate forecast.
7
6. 11/20/03: Aggregate
forecast is transmitted to
BPA
7. 11/20/03: BPA prepares
funding for all or part of
aggregated forecast.
Initial
Funding
Based
on
Forecast
Tag Suppliers
8. 12/1/03: BPA transmits
funding approval for tag
purchases.
Step 1: Forecast & Purchase
9. 12/1/03: PSMFC
purchases tags.
Step 2: Distribution
1. 30 days before tags
required: Project Sponsor, or
authorized agent, submits
online PDRF form.
NWPPC / BPA /
CBFWA Project
Sponsors
2. 30 days before tags
required: Project Sponsor
informs BPA of distribution
request and PDRF number.
1
PIT Tag
Distribution
Request Form
(PDRF)
2
E-mail to BPA
COTR
4.20 days before tags
required: BPA COTR
notifies [email protected]
that funds are available.
3
COTR
Approval
& Funds
Transfer
(Internal
BPA)
7
Tag
Shipment
6. 5 days before tags
required: PSMFC schedules
tags for shipment.
7.Tags are shipped .
5
4
3. 25 days before tags
required: BPA COTR
initiates BPA Internal
process to transfer project
funds to appropriate
accounts.
5. 15 days before tags
required: PSMFC Processes
PDRF.
PSMFC
PTAGIS
Tag Distribution &
Inventory
Step 2: Distribution
6
Existing
Process
1. Forecasts
A. Distribution
Request
Project Sponsors
B. Distribution Approval
Request
D. Tags
Purchasing
4. Purchase Order
5. Tags
Digital Angel Corp
Accts Payable
6. Invoice
9. Payment
2. Funding Request
Based upon Forecast
3. Contract / Modification
7. Invoice
Tag Inventory
Mgmt
Tag
Distribution
Mgmt
Bonneville Power
Administration
8. Payment
C. Distribution Request
Approved
PSMFC
Alternative 1
1. Same process as existing process, except that BPA Orders tags directly from
Digital Angel and takes physical receipt of tags.
Purchasing
Accts Payable
4. Purchase Order
Forecast
5. Tags
Digital Angel Corp
6. Invoice
Bonneville Power
Administration
9. Payment
Tag Inventory
Mgmt
Tags
Distribution Request
Approved
Tag
Distribution
Mgmt
Concerns:
1. Can BPA take physical receipt of tags and store
in inventory?
PSMFC
Distribution Approval Request
Distribution
Request
Project Sponsors
Tags
Forecast
Alternative 2
Features:
1. BPA Purchases tags directly from Digital Angel – Tags shipped directly to PSMFC.
2. BPA generates tag forecasts directly from Project Sponsors and COTRs
3. BPA prepares “Approved Tag List” and shares with PSMFC & PTSC
Tags / Shipping Memo
Purchase Order
Confirmation
E-Mail
Purchase Order
Digital Angel Corp
Copy Shipment
Memo
Invoice
Bonneville Power
Administration
Payment
Approved Tag
Distribution List
Concerns:
1. The number of Purchase Order should be no more than four per year in
order to minimize transaction overhead.
2. Minimize requirements of Shipment Verification Process –I.e., PSMFC
sends BPA confirmation of shipping memo for each shipment. Renee sends
Jamie e-mail: “Digital Angel Shipment S1xxxx Received. 100,000 tags.”
Shipment
Verification
E-Mail
Tag Inventory
Mgmt
Tag
Distribution
Mgmt
PSMFC
Forecast
3. BPA issues Tag Forecast Requests to Project Sponsor and manages PIT
Tag Forecast and Purchase.
4. Project Sponsors provide BPA with accurate PIT Tag Forecast
requirements.
5. BPA would coordinate purchases based on this forecast with PIT Tag
Steering Committee periodically (e.g., quarterly).
6. Fish and Wildlife Program Projects will loose flexibility to tag fish during
periods when contracting issues delay signed agreements.
7. Is it in the scope of the Department of Energy to manage the purchase and
distribution of PIT tags.
8. Can the problem of funding 199008001 from various FWP projects be
solved at a fiscal policy level rather than though existing process
mechanisms?
9. The “Approved Tag Distribution List” should be complete by the beginning
of the fiscal year. If not, then PDRF should be sent to BPA for Approval.
PIT Tag Distribution
Request Form (PDRF)
Project Sponsors
Tags
BPA Internal Process
FWP Funding
Approved
$’s for
FWP
Projects
(Less $s
identified
for PIT
Tags)
All $’s
approved
by
NWPCC
for FWP
Projects
Tagging
Project
1
Tagging
Project
2
199008001
Tagging
Project N
$2M
approved
by
NWPCC
for PIT
Tags
Tagging
Project
1
Tagging
Project
2
199008001
Tagging
Project N
Existing?
1. Requires $’s to be transferred from FWP Project # To
“Tag Bank” (199008001).
2. Can not do only one time per year, because every
FWP Project contract may not be executed (i.e., they
have different performance periods).
Better?
1. Requires change to BPA’s fiscal accounting?
2. How do we separate Tag costs from other project
costs?
3. Need a policy that FWP Project that don’t use PIT
Tags that were budgeted, forfeit or transfer to back to
“Tag Bank” for subsequent use by “Approved” projects.
This is the current de-facto ‘policy’.
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from mn-mail.digitalangelcorp.com
(host-65-126-81-85.digitalangelcorp.com [65.126.81.85])
by ldapcluster.psmfc.org
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002))
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for [email protected]
(ORCPT [email protected]); Fri, 09 Jul 2004 06:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by MN-MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
id <NYB6A3ZA>; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 08:42:13 -0500
Content-return: allowed
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 08:42:13 -0500
From: Sean Casey <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Status of McNary Adult PIT WA Ladder?
To: Sean Casey <[email protected]>,
"'Fodrea, Kimberly - KEWR-4'" <[email protected]>,
Zeke Mejia <[email protected]>
Cc: "'Van Leuven, Kristi - TLP-4'" <[email protected]>,
"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-type: text/plain
Zeke please provide a production schedule. I think we were at about 650,000
by the end of Sept., so this should fit well with fall marking. Please
correct me if this is not correct.
I have contacted Carter in the past to get forecasts. I believe Jamie is
the contact at the BPA if the procurement system changes.
Sean
-----Original Message----From: Sean Casey
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 8:16 AM
To: Sean Casey; 'Fodrea, Kimberly - KEWR-4'; Zeke Mejia
Cc: 'Van Leuven, Kristi - TLP-4'; '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Status of McNary Adult PIT WA Ladder?
Hi All,
In a conversation with Zeke, Digital Angel will be providing the TX1400SGL
only. This is in anticipation of a GO decision on the Hi-Q. The tag was
announced in March. Zeke has 1 million pieces, so there should be no problem
getting though the fall. Per our contract to provide all ISO PIT Tags to
the BPA, this tag does qualify and therefore is contractually correct.
Regardless of a Go-No Go, this is the tag that will be provided as we can
not inventory two sets of tags. Please contact Zeke with any test data
required. Obviously an amendment for the tag will have to proceed the first
order.
Should you wish to use the TX1400ST, please contact Zeke as to the
possibility of building/proving this tag and what the price will be.
As far as the tag procurement from Digital Angel, it is really late in the
game to implement effectively. Since I will be out of town, please contact
Zeke. Zeke, please reference the meeting minutes from the BPA/ PSMFC
meeting. Perhaps Carter can provide the latest minutes if there is
discussion on this mater. Peter Lofy and Jamie Swan are the BPA rep.s for
this activity.
I will be out on the river the next month, so contact Zeke regarding any of
the above issues.
Take care,
Sean
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from mn-mail.digitalangelcorp.com
(host-65-126-81-85.digitalangelcorp.com [65.126.81.85])
by ldapcluster.psmfc.org
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002))
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for [email protected]
(ORCPT [email protected]); Tue, 29 Jun 2004 06:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by MN-MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
id <NYB6AFMP>; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:19:50 -0500
Content-return: allowed
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:19:49 -0500
From: Sean Casey <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Conference call]
To: "Carter Stein ([email protected])" <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C45DDB.C1707E14"
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C45DDB.C1707E14
Content-Type: text/plain
Carter,
Here is the specification on the tag diameter. Folks will have to make sure
that their needle I.D. exceeds this number.
Take care,
Sean
REF: Concern of glass vial diameter al sealing.
It has been agreed with Elcan that they will test the finished transponders
to ensure that the specified max. outside diameter does not exceed 2.23 mm.
Zeke Mejia
Chief Technology Officer
Digital Angel Corporation
490 Villaume Avenue
South St. Paul, 55075-2443
Voice: 1-651-552-6323
Fax:
1-651-455-0413
[email protected]
www.DigitalAngelCorp.com
www.destronfearing.com
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from mn-mail.digitalangelcorp.com
(host-65-126-81-85.digitalangelcorp.com [65.126.81.85])
by ldapcluster.psmfc.org
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002))
with ESMTP id <[email protected]>; Wed,
30 Jun 2004 08:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by MN-MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
id <NYB6AGRM>; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:09:42 -0500
Content-return: allowed
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:09:36 -0500
From: Sean Casey <[email protected]>
Subject: Software changes
To: "Anthony Carson ([email protected])" <[email protected]>,
"Carter Stein ([email protected])" <[email protected]>,
"Darren Chase ([email protected])" <[email protected]>,
"Dave Marvin ([email protected])" <[email protected]>,
"Dean Park ([email protected])" <de[email protected]>,
"Don Warf ([email protected])" <[email protected]>,
"Earl Prentice ([email protected])" <[email protected]>,
"John Tenney ([email protected])" <[email protected]>,
"Kim Fodrea ([email protected])" <[email protected]>,
"Sandy Downing ([email protected])" <[email protected]>,
"Scott Livingston ([email protected])" <[email protected]>,
"Scott McCutcheon ([email protected])" <[email protected]>
Cc: Zeke Mejia <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C45EB4.414B1882"
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C45EB4.414B1882
Content-Type: text/plain
Hi All,
We have modified the software for the FS1001, FS1001A, FS2001-F, and
FS2001-ISO readers. The reason for this is that the previous decode
algorithm had an extra check for some of the unused bits based on a tag
containing all zeros that was used in the very first competition for the
juvenile reader and is not compatible with the compressed tags we will be
using this year.
This is not a valid condition. The change is 2 lines of
code in the same location of the algorithm, used on all readers, that are
not needed. There are no functionality or performance changes. This change
was also made the the Multiplexer code which is yet to be released.
The TX1400SGL- Interim Glass Tag IS compatible with ISO readers, and the
readers will still read all tags. It has been verified on the ISO pet
readers and with the latest code change.
Per the software change procedure, we have sent all the code versions to
PSMFC and Biomark for sign-off. The Hex software files maybe placed on
PSMFC and Biomark web sites with the VbFlash program to assist users in the
update.
Zeke will be sending samples to PSMFC and Biomark of the TX1400SGL tag for
the software checkout. Carter and Dean, could you please send Zeke the
address and contact person for the tag delivery?
FYI,
The new TX1400SGL tag codes begin with
Take care,
Sean
3D9.257xxxxxxx
Directed By Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Gen-2 Reader Prototype Field Testing
(Proposed Locations).
Version 1
09 July 2004
Prepared for: PIT-Tag Steering Committee
Prepared by: PTAGIS Project for PIT Tag Steering Committee
PTAGIS
PSMFC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
1.2
PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT .................................................................................................. 1
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 1
2.
PROJECT SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 1
3.
PREREQUISITS................................................................................................................... 1
4.
FIELD TESTING LOCATIONS......................................................................................... 1
4.1
4.2
4.3
TEST LOCATION # 1. MCNARY DAM. (MCJ), JUVENILE FISH FACILITY. ......................... 1
TEST LOCATION # 2. PROSSER, CHANDLER CANAL FACILITY, (PRJ). .............................. 2
TEST LOCATION # 3. BONNEVILLE DAM, (BO3) WASH. SHORE LADDER......................... 2
July 9, 2004
Page ii
PTAGIS
1.
PSMFC
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Purpose of Document
The purpose of this document is to define the most suitable location(s) to evaluate the Gen-2
prototype reader currently under development by Digital Angel Corp (DA).
1.2
References
1) Ref #1; Digital Angel Corp.
2) Ref #2; Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. PTAGIS
2.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Below are 3 proposed locations that would exercise the Gen-2 reader’s ability to adapt to
different antenna sizes/geometry, cable lengths, and the readers ability to “Auto Tune” therefore
exposing the reader to “Real World” conditions.
The schedule for these very preliminary field tests has not been determined. Per Digital Angel,
they could be ready to perform these tests anywhere between July 19th and August 15th, 2004.
The duration of these tests are expected to last not more than about 3 day’s per facility to
complete and it is unknown as of now whether or not DA will take full advantage of the
proposed test sites.
3.
PREREQUISITS
Prior to any field testing of the Gen-2 reader at any of the below production interrogation sites, it
will be required that the communications between DA’s Gen-2 reader and the PTAGIS prototype
data collection software be tested even though the preliminary field testing of the Gen-2 reader
does not include communications and data collection.
4.
FIELD TESTING LOCATIONS
4.1
Test Location # 1. McNary Dam. (MCJ), Juvenile Fish Facility.
Monitor Name: Full Flow Bypass. Coil I.D sequence for this monitor, 01,02,03,04
Advantages of choosing this location:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Full Flow Bypass pipe is 36 inches in diameter.
The average antenna cable length is ~ 35 ft. (This an average length compared to other
installations utilizing the FS-1001A reader).
During the summer months, the temperature at this location can swing from ~ 40-102
degrees Fahrenheit or above. Good burn-in for the G-2 reader.
High volumes of PIT-tagged juvenile fish and a low to moderate volume of adult fish.
Flow rate thru system ~ 6-8 ft per/s
Fish orientation passing thru the PIT-tag monitors should be at a relatively ideal for
optimal detection. (Not sure about this).
System is equipped with “Field Clamps” or “Concentrators” This practice of clamping
the RF field has proven to be effective in improving the detection efficiency where fish
grouping is an issue.
Close proximity to the PTAGIS [email protected] office
July 9, 2004
Page 1
PTAGIS
•
•
4.2
PSMFC
Detection efficiencies for the new reader would be easily determined due to the serial
monitor configuration.
Ability to perform “Stick Tag” due to flume accessibility.
Test Location # 2. Prosser, Chandler Canal Facility, (PRJ).
Monitor name: Sample room. Coil I.D sequence for this monitor, 51, and 52.
Advantages of choosing this location:
•
•
•
•
•
4.3
The Sample Room monitor pipe is 4 “ pipe
Antenna cable length is < 20 ft.
Would test the reader’s ability to compensate for very small in diameter antennas with
minimal spacing between the antenna and the shield box.
Close proximity to the PTAGIS [email protected] office.
Can perform “Stick Tag” tests due to flume accessibility.
Test Location # 3. Bonneville Dam, (BO3) Wash. Shore Ladder.
Ladder Location: Weir # 34. Coil I.D sequence for this weir 17, 18
Advantages of choosing this location:
•
•
•
Transceivers in weir 34 have antenna cable lengths are in excess of 70 ft and are greater
than or equal to any other antennas on the river system. Opportunity to test the G-2 reader
on a 24”x24”orifice antenna.
With the fall Chinook run coming in the late summer, the reader will be exposed to high
volumes of PIT-tag fish transiting the ladder.
Unable to perform “Stick Tag” tests. These antennas are submerged orifices.
July 9, 2004
Page 2
I was unsuccessful in getting PIT tag budget information on FWP Project
Proposals from CBFWA. Tom Iverson said that that information is best
gotten from BPA.
Do either of you see any pitfalls in implementing "Alternative 2"
discussed below?
Background:
Existing:
Procurement: In the existing process, PSMFC operates project 199008001
which is a tag purchase place holder. The attached PDF (PitExisting.PDF)
shows that PSMFC collates tag forecasts and generates a budget request
from BPA to procure tags for FWP PIT tagging projects, based upon that
forecast. PSMFC purchases PIT tags from the vendor and records the tags
in inventory using the Tag Distribution and Inventory System (TDI -this is a system component of the PTAGIS project 199008000). PSMFC does
not charge overhead on tag purchases.
Distribution: When FWP projects require tags, they submit at 3-part
paper form to PTAGIS, and at the same time, send e-mail to BPA COTR's to
approve that tag purchase. BPA sends approval for the FWP project
sponsor tag requests to PSMFC. PSMFC then distributes the tags in TDI.
Proposed (see Alternative 2):
Procurement: BPA is proposing to eliminate PSMFC's role in tag
procurement and to do that work in-house. See the attached PDF,
PitAlternative2.pdf. The new process eliminates the need for FWP
199008001. Instead, BPA issues a PIT tag forecast request to Project
Sponsors, and creates an "Approved Tag Distribution List" that will be
transmitted, periodically, to PSMFC. This list will be used to purchase
PIT tags from the vendor. However, the vendor would ship the tags to
PSMFC and the PTAGIS project would record the tag shippments in the
PTAGIS TDI inventory.
Distribution: Tag distribution would procede as in the existing process.
Except, since BPA has pre-approved projects on the "Approved Tag
Distribution List", there is no need for Project Sponsors to request
approval for tag distribution.
In this system it is much easier for BPA to control PIT tag purchases
and the usage of PIT tags by FWP projects.
Concerns:
1. As FWP programs are being cut, does BPA have staff resources to
perform any additional work required?
2. Is BPA sufficiently involved in the PIT Tagging projects to assure
that tags are available for marking projects?
3. How much additional effort is required to plan, implement and
transition to a new proposed purchase and distribution model?
4. See notes in associated PDF files.
PIT-TAG ENHANCEMENT STUDY
Preliminary Report
(Sanitized Version)
BPA Project 1983-319-00
New marking and Monitoring Techniques for Fish
Prepared by The Digital Angel Corp.
490 Villaume Ave.
So. St. Paul, MN 55075
Voice 800 328-0118
Fax 800 328-4565
Table of Contents
1.
2.
Introduction: .......................................................................................................... 3
Statement of Work Tasks status and findings: ..................................................... 3
1. The encapsulation: Different Bio-compatible plastics materials........................... 3
2. The Antenna Cores: Various alloys besides ferrite types. .................................... 3
3. The antenna wires and winding processes. ........................................................... 4
4. Sealing for the encapsulation with liquid compounds, Micro-flame, and laser. ..... 4
5. Performance tests with large antennas including optimization. ............................. 5
6. Reliability tests: Temperature, vibration, shock, pressure and leakage. ................. 5
3. Conclusions: ........................................................................................................... 6
4. Go Forward Plan: .................................................................................................. 7
1. Short Term: ......................................................................................................... 7
2. Long Term: .......................................................................................................... 7
Appendix A
Tag Encapsulation Material Search ................................................. 9
Appendix B
Preliminary PIT-TAG Encapsulation Material research report .... 10
Next Generation PIT Tag Requirements Document ................................................... 11
Appendix C
Antenna Core Material Sample List and datasheets ...................... 18
Appendix D
Ferrite and Silicon Die Tests ........................................................... 19
Appendix F
Laser Seal and Flame Sealing Comparison ................................... 26
1. Introduction:
This is a preliminary report on the PIT-TAG ENHANCEMENT STUDY meant to
provide information to help with the “GO, NO GO” decision for the PIT-TAG HIGH
FLOW project.
2. Statement of Work Tasks status and findings:
1. The encapsulation: Different Bio-compatible plastics materials.
The encapsulation materials will play an important part of the study as an
effective encapsulation technique will provide at the greatest space for the
electronic module assembly which is the limiting factor in the enhancement.
A materials search was performed for United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) Class
VI implantable material to identify different substances that might be suitable as
encapsulation material, see append A. UPS Class VI material was selected to
help insure fish bio-compatibly and acceptance in the Basin. This list was then
narrowed to three candidates, Encapsulation Material -1 (EM-1), Encapsulation
Material -2 (EM-2), and Encapsulation Material -3 (EM-3) based on requirements
from the PIT-Tag Requirements Document, see appendix B.
Low volume encapsulation techniques were then developed for the three materials
and approximately 350 Super 12 PIT-Tag assembles were encapsulated in each of
the three materials for bio-compatibility testing in fish and for environmental
testing.
In addition, glass vials that will fit in a 12 gage thin wall needle with an inside
diameter more then 20% larger then the vials used for the current Super Tag have
been developed. This will allow for a larger tag assembly with improved
performance over the current Super 12 tag.
See appendix B, Preliminary PIT-TAG Encapsulation Material research report.
2. The Antenna Cores: Various alloys besides ferrite types.
For the antenna cores we typically use ferrite materials, but the investigation will
also include different alloys with less Coercivity and greater permeability.
A Antenna Core Material search, based on frequency and permeability, was
performed to identify the most promising commercially available antenna core
material. Samples of the more promising materials were obtained for testing. See
appendix C for a list of tested samples.
Unfortunately, samples of the same dimensions (size) were not readily available
from the various venders for a direct performance comparison. However, a
review of the data sheets for each vender’s material was performed to initially
rank the materials. The data sheet for Antenna Core Material -1 (ACM-1)
indicated it was the most promising of the various materials. The next closest
material was Antenna Core Material -2 (ACM -2). Again, material samples of the
same dimensions could not be obtained for a head-to-head comparison of the
materials. However, a smaller size sample of the ACM-1 out performed the
ACM-2 in similarly wound tag virtually insuring it is the superior material.
The following “alloys” were investigated to determine there suitability as tag
antenna cores.
1.- Antenna Core Material -3
2.- Antenna Core Material -4
3.- Antenna Core Material -5
4.- Antenna Core Material -6
5.- Antenna Core Material -7
6.- Antenna Core Material -8
7.- Antenna Core Material -9 (ACM-9)
8.- Antenna Core Material -10
While the proprieties of these materials looked promising, difficulties in forming
ridged rods that could subsequently be wound as tag antennas made these
materials impractical for all but one material.
The single rod of ACM-9 produced some promising results however;
manufacturing problems have prevented testing to date.
3. The antenna wires and winding processes.
The antenna winding techniques also play an important part and this will be
studied in close correlation with the antenna cores.
Given a fixed tag assembly size and core material there is an optimal antenna core
size, wire gage, winding length & layers ratio for maximizing tag performance.
Initial tests were performed to determine how much influence these different
variables have on tag performance. These tests will be used as a guide for
producing performance curves for core size, wire gage and winding length &
layers. These curves will then be used to determine the overall optimal
combination of all variables for the different size options for both glass and
composite encapsulated tags.
Variations in core material configurations were also tested to determine the
viability of a novel antenna core material design.
In addition, tests of three currently available FDX-B silicon dies were performed
to determine the best performing chip.
See appendix D for test results.
4. Sealing for the encapsulation with liquid compounds, Micro-flame,
and laser.
The sealing of the PIT tag is also very important for the reliability. Different
methods will be tested including the use of laser sealing especially for glass
encapsulation.
The current sealing method is with an open flame. Laser sealing promises a more
controlled process with less heat absorption by the tag assembly allowing for a
larger tag assembly which will improve the tag performance.
Preliminary tests have been preformed with Laser sealing. See appendix F for a
comparison between the current flame sealing and laser sealing.
To date no suitable liquid compound for sealing tags has been identified.
Note: Photographs comparing the flame sealed and laser sealed tags were not
available as of the printing of this report.
5. Performance tests with large antennas including optimization.
The performance tests and optimization work will be done on large antennas of
various sizes under conditions that represent the real field conditions.
All testing to date had been performed on three antennas of size 3’x12’, 4’x5’,
and 6’x7’. Testing will be performed using the Full Scale High Flow antennas
located in Minnesota at the Digital Angel facility as development of that system
progresses.
6. Reliability tests: Temperature, vibration, shock, pressure and
leakage.
The final best performing prototypes will undergo all qualifying tests of the
present transponders which include extreme and medium temperature cycles,
vibration in X, Y, and Z axis, shock and pressure.
Environmental tests will be performed when the first run of “plastic” encapsulated
tags are available.
3. Conclusions:
Three commercially available USP class VI materials have been identified that are
potential candidates for encapsulating PIT Tags. Through proper encapsulation
techniques these materials should allow for a larger tag assembly over glass
encapsulation and produce better performing tags.
Glass vials have been developed that will fit in a 12 gage thin wall needle that have an
inside diameter more then 20% larger then the vials currently used for the Super 12 Tag.
This will allow for a larger tag assembly and will improved performance over the current
Super 12 tag.
Environmental tests will be performed on all tags as they become available.
The best commercially available Antenna Core Material has been determined to be
ACM-1. One of the “alloy” materials investigated still holds some promise as a better
performer.
Initial tests confirm there is an optimal antenna core size, wire gage, winding length &
layers ratio for maximizing tag performance that requires further investigation. In
addition, tests indicate that a novel antenna core material configuration only marginally
reduced the performance of a tag making a performance enhancing novel tag
configuration possible.
In initial tests with laser sealing proved to be a very controlled process which will reduce
the heat transferred to the tag assembly and reduce the end cap tolerance allowing for a
larger tag assembly which will improve tag performance.
4. Go Forward Plan:
1. Short Term:
The High Flow detection system to be located at Bonneville Dam will require an
improved tag by the 2004 tagging season. However, the development of a tag
encapsulated in a material other than glass and the promised performance
improvements is at least two years out.
As an interim solution we are proposing the development of an improved glass
encapsulated tag that would be available by August 2004 to improve the reading
efficiency of the High Flow system. A new glass vial has been developed that fits
in a standard 12 gage injection needle but allows for a tag assembly with a 20%
larger diameter. Using a laser to seal the glass vial will allow for a longer tag
assembly of approximately 0.5 mm. This increase in the tag assembly size in
combination with an improved silicon die, Antenna Core material and optimized
core size, wire gage, and winding length and layers ratio should result in a
substantially improved tag over the current Super 12 tag. Existing production
techniques would be employed to minimize the risk of meeting the schedule.
This schedule would require the tag optimization be completed by the end of the
year to allow the production personnel enough time to workout the mass
production process and equipment modifications necessary to meet the August
2004 schedule.
2. Long Term:
The development of a tag encapsulated in a material other than glass (composite
tag) is at least two years out and acceptance in the Basin my take additional time.
However, this tag configuration has the potential to greatly improve the
performance of any size tag by maximizing the tag assembly size. In addition,
further improvements in the glass encapsulated tag could be investigated that
would be too risky for the short term solution.
Fish bio-compatibly tests will start on the three UPS Class VI candidate materials
initially identified and will begin in November at the Abernathy Fish Hatchery
located in Washington State.
For the remainder of 2003 most efforts will be focused on the short term
improved glass tag to ensure tag availability for the 2004 tagging season. Once
the development phase is complete the production group will take over and the
development of the composite tag will continue.
Initially, rigorous environmental testing will be conducted on each of the
composite materials to ensure the tags are durable enough to replace the current
tag. Environmental testing will include temperature, pressure, shock and
vibration, chemical exposure, and UV exposure.
The low volume encapsulation techniques developed for the fish tests are very
labor intensive and are not suitable for mass production. The next phase of the
development will be to investigate mass production techniques for the candidate
materials that pass the environmental testing and develop cost effective mass
production techniques.
Once cost effective mass production techniques have been worked out for the
remaining candidate materials, producibilty, durability, and cost of the tag will be
evaluated and the best over all tag selected.
Appendix A

Tag Encapsulation Material Search
19 USP Class VI classified materials were identified as possible candidates
for encapsulating tags.
Appendix B

Preliminary PIT-TAG Encapsulation Material research
report
This report outlines the need and identifies many of the problems with
encapsulating a PIT-TAG. The report goes on to outline an approach to
solving this problem and makes preliminary recommendations for possible
materials and concludes with a number of possible fabrication processes to
be investigated. Much of this report is proprietary however, included in the
report is the Next Generation PIT Tag Requirements Document which is not
proprietary and is included in the following pages.
Next Generation PIT Tag
Requirements Document
Prepared by DIGITAL ANGEL COPRORATION
490 Villaume Ave.
So. St. Paul, MN 55075
Ph. 800-328-0118
Fax 800-328-4565
Index
1.
2.
General PIT Tag Requirements: ......................................................................... 13
Plastic Encapsulation Requirements ................................................................... 13
a. Fluid Permeability.......................................................................................... 13
b. Compatibility with Tag Assembly .................................................................. 13
c. Durability....................................................................................................... 14
d. Hardness/Flexural Strength ............................................................................ 14
e. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion .................................................................. 14
f. Biocompatibility ............................................................................................ 14
g. UV Tolerance ................................................................................................ 14
h. Chemical Environment Tolerance .................................................................. 14
i.
Sterilization Compatibility ............................................................................. 15
j.
Maximum Thickness ...................................................................................... 15
3. Glass Encapsulation Requirements..................................................................... 15
a. Dimensions .................................................................................................... 15
b. Sealing Compatibility .................................................................................... 15
c. Biocompatibility ............................................................................................ 15
d. Durability....................................................................................................... 15
e. Strength ......................................................................................................... 16
f. Tag Assembly Glue........................................................................................ 16
4. Tag Assembly .................................................................................................... 16
a. Complete Assembly ....................................................................................... 16
b. Antenna Core ................................................................................................. 16
c. Wire ............................................................................................................... 17
d. Die Bonding Glue .......................................................................................... 17
Appendix A ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Maximum Internal Tag Size Estimation ................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix B ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Antenna Wire Specification ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Bond Coat Specifications ......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Dimensions .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix C ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
EtO Sterilization Process Cycle Parameters ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix D ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Die Bonding Glue Specification............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. General PIT Tag Requirements:
Length
Diameter
Weight
Storage Temperature
Operational Temperature
Temperature Shock
Pressure
Vibration
Shock
Bump
Life
12.60mm Maximum
2.223mm Maximum, See Note 1
0.1 gram in air, See Note 2
-90° to 85° C
-20° to 70°C
TBD
4.37 to 2000 psia, See Note 3
Set to 90 for 30 Minuets, See Note 4
40g/11mS, 3 Shocks, See Note 5
60g/11mS 100 shocks/axis
See Note 5
7
years for Salmon
20
years for pets
100
years for humans
Note 1: Must pass through a thin wall 12 gage injection needle.
Note 2: Lighter is better but, must be negatively buoyant in freshwater.
Note 3: 4.37 psia is the pressure at 30,000 ft.
Note 4: Setting for FMC Syntron J-1, 60Hz, 50 watt vibration table.
Note 5: Shock and Bump tests in accordance with IEC 60068-2-27:87
along the axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tag.
2. Plastic Encapsulation Requirements
a. Fluid Permeability
The encapsulating material must keep the tag assembly from becoming
contaminated by the surrounding fluids for the life of the tag. The following
are pressure extremes and tag implant locations for Fish, Pets, and Humans:
Fish
10.1 to 2000 psia (10,000ft to 4500ft underwater)
Peritoneal (organ) cavity
Pets
8.3 to 17.5 psia (15,000ft to 6ft underwater)
Subcutaneous tissue around the neck
Humans
4.4 to 104 psia (30,000ft to 200ft underwater)
TBD
b. Compatibility with Tag Assembly
The encapsulation material must not aversely react with the various
components that makeup the tag assembly, principally the silicon die, ferrite
material, wire coil antenna, and various glues.
See section 4. Tag Assemble for details
c. Durability
The encapsulation material must be durable enough to survive routine
shipping, handling (TBD), and injection through a 12 gage injection needle
via a metal plunger.
Additional General Guidelines:
Must survive a 3ft fall onto concrete, any axis
Must survive bulk packaging and air and ground transportation
Must survive bulk vibration test, see General Tag Requirements
Note: Bulk packaging is 10,000 lose tags per bag
d. Hardness/Flexural Strength
The encapsulation material must be hard and strong enough to prevent almost
all flexing of the tag assembly in any direction under normal use (TBD) as this
could permanently damage the tag assembly. It is likely the ferrite material
will be brittle and easily cracked.
Pass/Fail Criteria
TBD
e. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
The coefficient of thermal expansion must be similar to that of the
components of the tag assembly (TBD) such that no damage to the tag
assembly, material separation, or cracking of the encapsulation material
occurs when the tag is subjected to temperature and pressure extremes.
f. Biocompatibility
Must be suitable for animal and human implantation
Preferably USP Class VI Compliant
g. UV Tolerance
Must be able to withstand exposure to direct sunlight for 60 days
h. Chemical Environment Tolerance
The encapsulation material must be able to withstand prolonged exposure to
the following environments:
Fish
Peritoneal (organ) Cavity Serum, see Note 1
Pets
Subcutaneous Tissue in Cats and Dogs (TBD)
Humans
Subcutaneous Implant (TBD)
Fresh and Salt (sea) water
Note 1: Fish peritoneal cavity serum is expected to be very similar to
mammalian serum with no large proteins and a PH value between 6.5 and
8.5.
The encapsulation material must be able to withstand limited exposure to the
following environments:
EtO (Ethylene Oxide) Gas Sterilization, see Appendix C
Alcohol Sterilization
Clove Oil (Eugenol, 4-allyl-2-methoxy-phenol) anesthetic
MS222 (3-aminobenzoic acid ethyl ester) anesthetic
Avian digestive track, see Note 2
Note 2: Tagged fish will be eaten by various bird species. The tag must
survive being passing through a bird’s digestive track and subsequently
expelled and covered by guano for an extended period of time.
i. Sterilization Compatibility
The encapsulation material must be able to withstand the following
sterilization processes:
EtO (Ethylene Oxide) Gas Sterilization, see Appendix C
Alcohol Sterilization
j. Maximum Thickness
Preferably not more than 0.2 mm
3. Glass Encapsulation Requirements
a. Dimensions
Outside Diameter
Inside Diameter
Sealed End Thickness
2.20 +/-0.01mm
1.85 +/-0.03mm
0.65 +/-0.05mm
b. Sealing Compatibility
The glass must be compatible with a sealing process that does not adversely
affect the tag assembly or assembly glue. Most notably would be the heat
transferred to the assembly and glue.
Laser or Gas Flame
c. Biocompatibility
Glass must be suitable for animal and human implantation
Preferably USP Class VI Compliant
d. Durability
The glass must be durable enough to survive routine shipping, handling
(TBD), and injection through a 12 gage injection needle via a metal plunger.
Additional General Guidelines:
Must survive a 3ft fall onto concrete, any axis
Must survive bulk packaging and air and ground transportation
Must survive bulk vibration test, see General Tag Requirements
Note: Bulk packaging is 10,000 lose tags per bag
e. Strength
The glass must be hard and strong enough to withstand breaking under normal
use (TBD).
Pass/Fail Criteria
TBD
f. Tag Assembly Glue
The glue is necessary to hold the tag assembly in place within the glass
capsule and to provide longitudinal support for the assembly itself. The glue
must not adversely react with any of the assembly components or produce
excessive gas once the tag is sealed.
Type
TBD
Viscosity
TBD
Min. Fill Percentage
70% Coverage of Assembly
Elasticity
TBD
Max. Curing Time
TBD
4. Tag Assembly
a. Complete Assembly
Maximum Size
Plastic Encapsulation Length
Diameter
Glass Encapsulation Length
Diameter
Note: See Appendix A
12.10mm
1.80mm
10.90mm
1.72mm
b. Antenna Core
Material
Metallized Pads
Iron (Fe2O3), Nickel (NiO), Zinc (ZnO)
based ferrite
Silver (Ag)
Size and Tolerances
Plastic Encapsulation Length
Diameter
Glass Encapsulation Length
Diameter
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Magnetic Properties of Material at 134.2 kHz
Initial Permeability (μi)
2500 - 4500
Flux Density
(B)
Residual Flux Density (Br)
Coercive Force
(Hc)
Loss Factor
(tan δ/μi)
Temperature Coefficient of μi
Curie Temperature (Tc)
Resistivity
(ρ)
Power Loss Density (P)
≈5000 gauss
1000-1300 gauss
≈4 A/m
3-4
0.5-1.0 %/°C
200° C
200 - 300 Ω cm
100-120 mW/cm3
@ 134.2 kHz–1000G-100° C
Metallization for Direct Die and Wire Bonding Required
c. Wire
Min. Sustainable Temperature (Insulation)
UL Class F Insulation
Gage and Tolerances
Min. Tensile Strength
Chemical Compatibility
Solubility per
Solderability
Mechanical Values
Insulation Material
Bonding Glue
155°C
TBD
TBD
NEMA MW1000, 3.51.1.1
NEMA MW1000, 3.13.1.1
NEMA MW1000, 3.4.1.1
Modified Polyurethane
Polyvinylbutyral
Note: See Appendix B for additional details
d. Silicon Die
Dimensions
1500 x 1100 x 21 μm
e. Die Bonding Glue
The die bonding glue must not adversely react with the tag assembly and must
be compatible with the assembly glue and/or the plastic encapsulating
material.
Glue
Loctite 3446 epoxy
Note: See appendix D for specification
Appendix C
Antenna Core Material Sample List and datasheets

5 Antenna Core Materials from 4 different vendors were identified as
suitable candidates.

Of the 5 materials one stood out as the best overall candidate based on the
material datasheets and testing.
Appendix D
Ferrite and Silicon Die Tests
Die Comparison Tests
Length and Diameter Ratio Tests
Wire Gage Test
Tag Assembly Test
Novel Antenna Core Material Configuration Test
Die Comparison Tests (6' x 7' Antenna, very sensitive system)
This test compares three currently available FDX-B dies for both turn on
sensitivity and noise immunity.
Read Range in inches with Matched L (.8 x 8 Antenna Core Material -1)
Raw Data
Die-1
Die-2
Die-3
No Noise
29.5
34.5
27.0
Mild Noise
19.5
22.0
23.0
High Noise
0.0
13.0
13.5
Results: Die-2 and Die-3 performed similarly but had different strengths. Die-3
performed best in “noisy” environments due to its high signal modulation but, did poorly
in a low noise environment because it requires a high H field density in order to turn.
Die-2 did well in the noisy environments and was best in low noise environments.
Conclusion: Die-2 and Die-3 perform similarly in a noisy environment but Die-2
performs much better in a low noise environment.
Length and Diameter Ratio Tests
The volume of Antenna Core Material in a tag has a direct effect on the
performance of the tag. However, permeability of an antenna core is affected by
the length to diameter ratio which has a direct effect on performance. The
permeability increases as the length to diameter ratio increases and so should the
performance of the tag. This test quantifies the effect of small changes in ferrite
volume and the length to diameter ratio on read range.
This test was performed on a 3’x12’ slot antenna.
Length:Diameter Ratio Tests
Raw Data
Die-2 w/ Ratio 1
Die-2 w/ Ratio 2
Die-2 w/ Ratio 3
Read Range
18.50
20.50
25.25
Note: The length of the Antenna Core Material is directly proportionally to it volume
since the diameter for each sample is the same.
Conclusion: Small variations in the length:diameter ratio of the antenna core have only
minor effects on read range with respect to the antenna core volume.
Wire Gage Test
The gage of the wire used to wrap an inductor as has a direct effect on the Q and
therefore the read range of a tag. This test quantifies the effect on read range of
two different wire diameters on a common Antenna Core.
This test was performed on the 6’x7’ foot antenna.
Antenna Wire Gage Test
* Both tags ST Core material
* All tests with the same die
* Q's & L's measured with in house SRS at 100kHz
Raw Data
ST Core Wire 1 Hi Q
ST Core Wire 2 Lo Q
RR
36.00
31.50
Conclusion: As predicted, the wire gage has a measurable effect on the performance of a
tag.
Tag Assembly Test
This test compares two tag assembles that will fit in a 12 x 2.2 mm glass tag vial
that have different gage wire and antenna core sizes.
Tag Assembly Test
Antenna Core Size VS Wire Gage
* Both tags ACM-1
* All tests with the same die
* Q's & L's measured with in house SRS at 100kHz
Raw Data
Config. 1 Hi Q
Config. 2 Lo Q
RR
37.00
30.00
Conclusion: There is an optimum balance between antenna core size and wire gage.
Novel Antenna Core Material Configuration Test
Novel Antenna Core Material Configuration
Tag/Ferrite
Standard
Mod 1
Mod 1 & 2
Q
31.70
31.40
30.60
Read Range
46.25
44.00
43.50
Inductance
4.50
4.35
4.43
Conclusion: This novel configuration of an antenna core should produce a high
performing tag.
Winding Length and Number of Layer Test
Test results are not available at this time.
Appendix F
Laser Seal and Flame Sealing Comparison
The photograph comparing laser sealed and flame sealed tags was not available as of the
printing of this report.
PIT-TAG ENHANCEMENT STUDY
Preliminary Report
(Sanitized Version)
BPA Project 1983-319-00
New marking and Monitoring Techniques for Fish
Prepared by The Digital Angel Corp.
490 Villaume Ave.
So. St. Paul, MN 55075
Voice 800 328-0118
Fax 800 328-4565
Table of Contents
1.
2.
Introduction: ............................................................................................................. 3
Statement of Work Tasks status and findings: ...................................................... 3
1. The encapsulation: Different Bio-compatible plastics materials. .......................... 3
2. The Antenna Cores: Various alloys besides ferrite types. ..................................... 3
3. The antenna wires and winding processes. ............................................................. 4
4. Sealing for the encapsulation with liquid compounds, Micro-flame, and laser...... 4
5. Performance tests with large antennas including optimization............................... 5
6. Reliability tests: Temperature, vibration, shock, pressure and leakage.................. 5
3. Conclusions:............................................................................................................... 6
4. Go Forward Plan: ..................................................................................................... 7
1. Short Term: ............................................................................................................. 7
2. Long Term: ............................................................................................................. 7
Appendix A
Tag Encapsulation Material Search................................................... 9
Appendix B
Preliminary PIT-TAG Encapsulation Material research report ... 10
Next Generation PIT Tag Requirements Document..................................................... 11
Appendix C
Antenna Core Material Sample List and datasheets ...................... 18
Appendix D
Ferrite and Silicon Die Tests............................................................. 19
Appendix F
Laser Seal and Flame Sealing Comparison .................................... 26
1. Introduction:
This is a preliminary report on the PIT-TAG ENHANCEMENT STUDY meant to
provide information to help with the “GO, NO GO” decision for the PIT-TAG HIGH
FLOW project.
2. Statement of Work Tasks status and findings:
1. The encapsulation: Different Bio-compatible plastics materials.
The encapsulation materials will play an important part of the study as an
effective encapsulation technique will provide at the greatest space for the
electronic module assembly which is the limiting factor in the enhancement.
A materials search was performed for United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) Class
VI implantable material to identify different substances that might be suitable as
encapsulation material, see append A. UPS Class VI material was selected to
help insure fish bio-compatibly and acceptance in the Basin. This list was then
narrowed to three candidates, Encapsulation Material -1 (EM-1), Encapsulation
Material -2 (EM-2), and Encapsulation Material -3 (EM-3) based on requirements
from the PIT-Tag Requirements Document, see appendix B.
Low volume encapsulation techniques were then developed for the three materials
and approximately 350 Super 12 PIT-Tag assembles were encapsulated in each of
the three materials for bio-compatibility testing in fish and for environmental
testing.
In addition, glass vials that will fit in a 12 gage thin wall needle with an inside
diameter more then 20% larger then the vials used for the current Super Tag have
been developed. This will allow for a larger tag assembly with improved
performance over the current Super 12 tag.
See appendix B, Preliminary PIT-TAG Encapsulation Material research report.
2. The Antenna Cores: Various alloys besides ferrite types.
For the antenna cores we typically use ferrite materials, but the investigation will
also include different alloys with less Coercivity and greater permeability.
A Antenna Core Material search, based on frequency and permeability, was
performed to identify the most promising commercially available antenna core
material. Samples of the more promising materials were obtained for testing. See
appendix C for a list of tested samples.
Unfortunately, samples of the same dimensions (size) were not readily available
from the various venders for a direct performance comparison. However, a
review of the data sheets for each vender’s material was performed to initially
rank the materials. The data sheet for Antenna Core Material -1 (ACM-1)
indicated it was the most promising of the various materials. The next closest
material was Antenna Core Material -2 (ACM -2). Again, material samples of the
same dimensions could not be obtained for a head-to-head comparison of the
materials. However, a smaller size sample of the ACM-1 out performed the
ACM-2 in similarly wound tag virtually insuring it is the superior material.
The following “alloys” were investigated to determine there suitability as tag
antenna cores.
1.- Antenna Core Material -3
2.- Antenna Core Material -4
3.- Antenna Core Material -5
4.- Antenna Core Material -6
5.- Antenna Core Material -7
6.- Antenna Core Material -8
7.- Antenna Core Material -9 (ACM-9)
8.- Antenna Core Material -10
While the proprieties of these materials looked promising, difficulties in forming
ridged rods that could subsequently be wound as tag antennas made these
materials impractical for all but one material.
The single rod of ACM-9 produced some promising results however;
manufacturing problems have prevented testing to date.
3. The antenna wires and winding processes.
The antenna winding techniques also play an important part and this will be
studied in close correlation with the antenna cores.
Given a fixed tag assembly size and core material there is an optimal antenna core
size, wire gage, winding length & layers ratio for maximizing tag performance.
Initial tests were performed to determine how much influence these different
variables have on tag performance. These tests will be used as a guide for
producing performance curves for core size, wire gage and winding length &
layers. These curves will then be used to determine the overall optimal
combination of all variables for the different size options for both glass and
composite encapsulated tags.
Variations in core material configurations were also tested to determine the
viability of a novel antenna core material design.
In addition, tests of three currently available FDX-B silicon dies were performed
to determine the best performing chip.
See appendix D for test results.
4. Sealing for the encapsulation with liquid compounds, Micro-flame,
and laser.
The sealing of the PIT tag is also very important for the reliability. Different
methods will be tested including the use of laser sealing especially for glass
encapsulation.
The current sealing method is with an open flame. Laser sealing promises a more
controlled process with less heat absorption by the tag assembly allowing for a
larger tag assembly which will improve the tag performance.
Preliminary tests have been preformed with Laser sealing. See appendix F for a
comparison between the current flame sealing and laser sealing.
To date no suitable liquid compound for sealing tags has been identified.
Note: Photographs comparing the flame sealed and laser sealed tags were not
available as of the printing of this report.
5. Performance tests with large antennas including optimization.
The performance tests and optimization work will be done on large antennas of
various sizes under conditions that represent the real field conditions.
All testing to date had been performed on three antennas of size 3’x12’, 4’x5’,
and 6’x7’. Testing will be performed using the Full Scale High Flow antennas
located in Minnesota at the Digital Angel facility as development of that system
progresses.
6. Reliability tests: Temperature, vibration, shock, pressure and
leakage.
The final best performing prototypes will undergo all qualifying tests of the
present transponders which include extreme and medium temperature cycles,
vibration in X, Y, and Z axis, shock and pressure.
Environmental tests will be performed when the first run of “plastic” encapsulated
tags are available.
3. Conclusions:
Three commercially available USP class VI materials have been identified that are
potential candidates for encapsulating PIT Tags. Through proper encapsulation
techniques these materials should allow for a larger tag assembly over glass
encapsulation and produce better performing tags.
Glass vials have been developed that will fit in a 12 gage thin wall needle that have an
inside diameter more then 20% larger then the vials currently used for the Super 12 Tag.
This will allow for a larger tag assembly and will improved performance over the current
Super 12 tag.
Environmental tests will be performed on all tags as they become available.
The best commercially available Antenna Core Material has been determined to be
ACM-1. One of the “alloy” materials investigated still holds some promise as a better
performer.
Initial tests confirm there is an optimal antenna core size, wire gage, winding length &
layers ratio for maximizing tag performance that requires further investigation. In
addition, tests indicate that a novel antenna core material configuration only marginally
reduced the performance of a tag making a performance enhancing novel tag
configuration possible.
In initial tests with laser sealing proved to be a very controlled process which will reduce
the heat transferred to the tag assembly and reduce the end cap tolerance allowing for a
larger tag assembly which will improve tag performance.
4. Go Forward Plan:
1. Short Term:
The High Flow detection system to be located at Bonneville Dam will require an
improved tag by the 2004 tagging season. However, the development of a tag
encapsulated in a material other than glass and the promised performance
improvements is at least two years out.
As an interim solution we are proposing the development of an improved glass
encapsulated tag that would be available by August 2004 to improve the reading
efficiency of the High Flow system. A new glass vial has been developed that fits
in a standard 12 gage injection needle but allows for a tag assembly with a 20%
larger diameter. Using a laser to seal the glass vial will allow for a longer tag
assembly of approximately 0.5 mm. This increase in the tag assembly size in
combination with an improved silicon die, Antenna Core material and optimized
core size, wire gage, and winding length and layers ratio should result in a
substantially improved tag over the current Super 12 tag. Existing production
techniques would be employed to minimize the risk of meeting the schedule.
This schedule would require the tag optimization be completed by the end of the
year to allow the production personnel enough time to workout the mass
production process and equipment modifications necessary to meet the August
2004 schedule.
2. Long Term:
The development of a tag encapsulated in a material other than glass (composite
tag) is at least two years out and acceptance in the Basin my take additional time.
However, this tag configuration has the potential to greatly improve the
performance of any size tag by maximizing the tag assembly size. In addition,
further improvements in the glass encapsulated tag could be investigated that
would be too risky for the short term solution.
Fish bio-compatibly tests will start on the three UPS Class VI candidate materials
initially identified and will begin in November at the Abernathy Fish Hatchery
located in Washington State.
For the remainder of 2003 most efforts will be focused on the short term
improved glass tag to ensure tag availability for the 2004 tagging season. Once
the development phase is complete the production group will take over and the
development of the composite tag will continue.
Initially, rigorous environmental testing will be conducted on each of the
composite materials to ensure the tags are durable enough to replace the current
tag. Environmental testing will include temperature, pressure, shock and
vibration, chemical exposure, and UV exposure.
The low volume encapsulation techniques developed for the fish tests are very
labor intensive and are not suitable for mass production. The next phase of the
development will be to investigate mass production techniques for the candidate
materials that pass the environmental testing and develop cost effective mass
production techniques.
Once cost effective mass production techniques have been worked out for the
remaining candidate materials, producibilty, durability, and cost of the tag will be
evaluated and the best over all tag selected.
Appendix A
•
Tag Encapsulation Material Search
19 USP Class VI classified materials were identified as possible candidates
for encapsulating tags.
Appendix B
•
Preliminary PIT-TAG Encapsulation Material research
report
This report outlines the need and identifies many of the problems with
encapsulating a PIT-TAG. The report goes on to outline an approach to
solving this problem and makes preliminary recommendations for possible
materials and concludes with a number of possible fabrication processes to
be investigated. Much of this report is proprietary however, included in the
report is the Next Generation PIT Tag Requirements Document which is not
proprietary and is included in the following pages.
Next Generation PIT Tag
Requirements Document
Prepared by DIGITAL ANGEL COPRORATION
490 Villaume Ave.
So. St. Paul, MN 55075
Ph. 800-328-0118
Fax 800-328-4565
Index
1.
2.
General PIT Tag Requirements: ........................................................................... 13
Plastic Encapsulation Requirements ..................................................................... 13
a. Fluid Permeability............................................................................................. 13
b. Compatibility with Tag Assembly .................................................................... 13
c. Durability .......................................................................................................... 14
d. Hardness/Flexural Strength............................................................................... 14
e. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion.................................................................... 14
f. Biocompatibility ............................................................................................... 14
g. UV Tolerance.................................................................................................... 14
h. Chemical Environment Tolerance .................................................................... 14
i. Sterilization Compatibility................................................................................ 15
j. Maximum Thickness......................................................................................... 15
3. Glass Encapsulation Requirements....................................................................... 15
a. Dimensions ....................................................................................................... 15
b. Sealing Compatibility ....................................................................................... 15
c. Biocompatibility ............................................................................................... 15
d. Durability .......................................................................................................... 15
e. Strength ............................................................................................................. 16
f. Tag Assembly Glue........................................................................................... 16
4. Tag Assembly ....................................................................................................... 16
a. Complete Assembly .......................................................................................... 16
b. Antenna Core .................................................................................................... 16
c. Wire................................................................................................................... 17
d. Die Bonding Glue ............................................................................................. 17
Appendix A....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Maximum Internal Tag Size Estimation ....................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix B ....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Antenna Wire Specification.......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Bond Coat Specifications...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Dimensions ................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix C ....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
EtO Sterilization Process Cycle Parameters ..............Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix D....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Die Bonding Glue Specification ................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. General PIT Tag Requirements:
Length
Diameter
Weight
Storage Temperature
Operational Temperature
Temperature Shock
Pressure
Vibration
Shock
Bump
Life
12.60mm Maximum
2.223mm Maximum, See Note 1
0.1 gram in air, See Note 2
-90° to 85° C
-20° to 70°C
TBD
4.37 to 2000 psia, See Note 3
Set to 90 for 30 Minuets, See Note 4
40g/11mS, 3 Shocks, See Note 5
60g/11mS 100 shocks/axis
See Note 5
7
years for Salmon
20
years for pets
100
years for humans
Note 1: Must pass through a thin wall 12 gage injection needle.
Note 2: Lighter is better but, must be negatively buoyant in freshwater.
Note 3: 4.37 psia is the pressure at 30,000 ft.
Note 4: Setting for FMC Syntron J-1, 60Hz, 50 watt vibration table.
Note 5: Shock and Bump tests in accordance with IEC 60068-2-27:87
along the axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tag.
2. Plastic Encapsulation Requirements
a. Fluid Permeability
The encapsulating material must keep the tag assembly from becoming
contaminated by the surrounding fluids for the life of the tag. The following
are pressure extremes and tag implant locations for Fish, Pets, and Humans:
Fish
10.1 to 2000 psia (10,000ft to 4500ft underwater)
Peritoneal (organ) cavity
Pets
8.3 to 17.5 psia (15,000ft to 6ft underwater)
Subcutaneous tissue around the neck
Humans
4.4 to 104 psia (30,000ft to 200ft underwater)
TBD
b. Compatibility with Tag Assembly
The encapsulation material must not aversely react with the various
components that makeup the tag assembly, principally the silicon die, ferrite
material, wire coil antenna, and various glues.
See section 4. Tag Assemble for details
c. Durability
The encapsulation material must be durable enough to survive routine
shipping, handling (TBD), and injection through a 12 gage injection needle
via a metal plunger.
Additional General Guidelines:
Must survive a 3ft fall onto concrete, any axis
Must survive bulk packaging and air and ground transportation
Must survive bulk vibration test, see General Tag Requirements
Note: Bulk packaging is 10,000 lose tags per bag
d. Hardness/Flexural Strength
The encapsulation material must be hard and strong enough to prevent almost
all flexing of the tag assembly in any direction under normal use (TBD) as this
could permanently damage the tag assembly. It is likely the ferrite material
will be brittle and easily cracked.
Pass/Fail Criteria
TBD
e. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
The coefficient of thermal expansion must be similar to that of the
components of the tag assembly (TBD) such that no damage to the tag
assembly, material separation, or cracking of the encapsulation material
occurs when the tag is subjected to temperature and pressure extremes.
f. Biocompatibility
Must be suitable for animal and human implantation
Preferably USP Class VI Compliant
g. UV Tolerance
Must be able to withstand exposure to direct sunlight for 60 days
h. Chemical Environment Tolerance
The encapsulation material must be able to withstand prolonged exposure to
the following environments:
Fish
Peritoneal (organ) Cavity Serum, see Note 1
Pets
Subcutaneous Tissue in Cats and Dogs (TBD)
Humans
Subcutaneous Implant (TBD)
Fresh and Salt (sea) water
Note 1: Fish peritoneal cavity serum is expected to be very similar to
mammalian serum with no large proteins and a PH value between 6.5 and
8.5.
The encapsulation material must be able to withstand limited exposure to the
following environments:
EtO (Ethylene Oxide) Gas Sterilization, see Appendix C
Alcohol Sterilization
Clove Oil (Eugenol, 4-allyl-2-methoxy-phenol) anesthetic
MS222 (3-aminobenzoic acid ethyl ester) anesthetic
Avian digestive track, see Note 2
Note 2: Tagged fish will be eaten by various bird species. The tag must
survive being passing through a bird’s digestive track and subsequently
expelled and covered by guano for an extended period of time.
i. Sterilization Compatibility
The encapsulation material must be able to withstand the following
sterilization processes:
EtO (Ethylene Oxide) Gas Sterilization, see Appendix C
Alcohol Sterilization
j. Maximum Thickness
Preferably not more than 0.2 mm
3. Glass Encapsulation Requirements
a. Dimensions
Outside Diameter
Inside Diameter
Sealed End Thickness
2.20 +/-0.01mm
1.85 +/-0.03mm
0.65 +/-0.05mm
b. Sealing Compatibility
The glass must be compatible with a sealing process that does not adversely
affect the tag assembly or assembly glue. Most notably would be the heat
transferred to the assembly and glue.
Laser or Gas Flame
c. Biocompatibility
Glass must be suitable for animal and human implantation
Preferably USP Class VI Compliant
d. Durability
The glass must be durable enough to survive routine shipping, handling
(TBD), and injection through a 12 gage injection needle via a metal plunger.
Additional General Guidelines:
Must survive a 3ft fall onto concrete, any axis
Must survive bulk packaging and air and ground transportation
Must survive bulk vibration test, see General Tag Requirements
Note: Bulk packaging is 10,000 lose tags per bag
e. Strength
The glass must be hard and strong enough to withstand breaking under normal
use (TBD).
Pass/Fail Criteria
TBD
f. Tag Assembly Glue
The glue is necessary to hold the tag assembly in place within the glass
capsule and to provide longitudinal support for the assembly itself. The glue
must not adversely react with any of the assembly components or produce
excessive gas once the tag is sealed.
Type
TBD
Viscosity
TBD
Min. Fill Percentage
70% Coverage of Assembly
Elasticity
TBD
Max. Curing Time
TBD
4. Tag Assembly
a. Complete Assembly
Maximum Size
Plastic Encapsulation Length
Diameter
Glass Encapsulation Length
Diameter
Note: See Appendix A
12.10mm
1.80mm
10.90mm
1.72mm
b. Antenna Core
Material
Metallized Pads
Iron (Fe2O3), Nickel (NiO), Zinc (ZnO)
based ferrite
Silver (Ag)
Size and Tolerances
Plastic Encapsulation Length
Diameter
Glass Encapsulation Length
Diameter
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Magnetic Properties of Material at 134.2 kHz
Initial Permeability (µi)
2500 - 4500
Flux Density
(B)
Residual Flux Density (Br)
Coercive Force
(Hc)
Loss Factor
(tan δ/µi)
Temperature Coefficient of µi
Curie Temperature (Tc)
Resistivity
(ρ)
Power Loss Density (P)
≈5000 gauss
1000-1300 gauss
≈4 A/m
3-4
0.5-1.0 %/°C
200° C
200 - 300 Ω cm
100-120 mW/cm3
@ 134.2 kHz–1000G-100° C
Metallization for Direct Die and Wire Bonding Required
c. Wire
Min. Sustainable Temperature (Insulation)
UL Class F Insulation
Gage and Tolerances
Min. Tensile Strength
Chemical Compatibility
Solubility per
Solderability
Mechanical Values
Insulation Material
Bonding Glue
155°C
TBD
TBD
NEMA MW1000, 3.51.1.1
NEMA MW1000, 3.13.1.1
NEMA MW1000, 3.4.1.1
Modified Polyurethane
Polyvinylbutyral
Note: See Appendix B for additional details
d. Silicon Die
Dimensions
1500 x 1100 x 21 µm
e. Die Bonding Glue
The die bonding glue must not adversely react with the tag assembly and must
be compatible with the assembly glue and/or the plastic encapsulating
material.
Glue
Loctite 3446 epoxy
Note: See appendix D for specification
Appendix C
Antenna Core Material Sample List and datasheets
•
5 Antenna Core Materials from 4 different vendors were identified as
suitable candidates.
•
Of the 5 materials one stood out as the best overall candidate based on the
material datasheets and testing.
Appendix D
Ferrite and Silicon Die Tests
Die Comparison Tests
Length and Diameter Ratio Tests
Wire Gage Test
Tag Assembly Test
Novel Antenna Core Material Configuration Test
Die Comparison Tests (6' x 7' Antenna, very sensitive system)
This test compares three currently available FDX-B dies for both turn on
sensitivity and noise immunity.
Read Range in inches with Matched L (.8 x 8 Antenna Core Material -1)
Raw Data
Die-1
Die-2
Die-3
No Noise
29.5
34.5
27.0
Mild Noise
19.5
22.0
23.0
High Noise
0.0
13.0
13.5
Results: Die-2 and Die-3 performed similarly but had different strengths. Die-3
performed best in “noisy” environments due to its high signal modulation but, did poorly
in a low noise environment because it requires a high H field density in order to turn.
Die-2 did well in the noisy environments and was best in low noise environments.
Conclusion: Die-2 and Die-3 perform similarly in a noisy environment but Die-2
performs much better in a low noise environment.
Length and Diameter Ratio Tests
The volume of Antenna Core Material in a tag has a direct effect on the
performance of the tag. However, permeability of an antenna core is affected by
the length to diameter ratio which has a direct effect on performance. The
permeability increases as the length to diameter ratio increases and so should the
performance of the tag. This test quantifies the effect of small changes in ferrite
volume and the length to diameter ratio on read range.
This test was performed on a 3’x12’ slot antenna.
Length:Diameter Ratio Tests
Raw Data
Die-2 w/ Ratio 1
Die-2 w/ Ratio 2
Die-2 w/ Ratio 3
Read Range
18.50
20.50
25.25
Note: The length of the Antenna Core Material is directly proportionally to it volume
since the diameter for each sample is the same.
Conclusion: Small variations in the length:diameter ratio of the antenna core have only
minor effects on read range with respect to the antenna core volume.
Wire Gage Test
The gage of the wire used to wrap an inductor as has a direct effect on the Q and
therefore the read range of a tag. This test quantifies the effect on read range of
two different wire diameters on a common Antenna Core.
This test was performed on the 6’x7’ foot antenna.
Antenna Wire Gage Test
* Both tags ST Core material
* All tests with the same die
* Q's & L's measured with in house SRS at 100kHz
Raw Data
ST Core Wire 1 Hi Q
ST Core Wire 2 Lo Q
RR
36.00
31.50
Conclusion: As predicted, the wire gage has a measurable effect on the performance of a
tag.
Tag Assembly Test
This test compares two tag assembles that will fit in a 12 x 2.2 mm glass tag vial
that have different gage wire and antenna core sizes.
Tag Assembly Test
Antenna Core Size VS Wire Gage
* Both tags ACM-1
* All tests with the same die
* Q's & L's measured with in house SRS at 100kHz
Raw Data
Config. 1 Hi Q
Config. 2 Lo Q
RR
37.00
30.00
Conclusion: There is an optimum balance between antenna core size and wire gage.
Novel Antenna Core Material Configuration Test
Novel Antenna Core Material Configuration
Tag/Ferrite
Standard
Mod 1
Mod 1 & 2
Q
31.70
31.40
30.60
Read Range
46.25
44.00
43.50
Inductance
4.50
4.35
4.43
Conclusion: This novel configuration of an antenna core should produce a high
performing tag.
Winding Length and Number of Layer Test
Test results are not available at this time.
Appendix F
Laser Seal and Flame Sealing Comparison
The photograph comparing laser sealed and flame sealed tags was not available as of the
printing of this report.
Directed By Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Proposed New Monitor Locations at Adult Separator Exits
Version 0.1
1 July 2004
Prepared for the:
PIT Tag Steering Committee
Prepared by:
PTAGIS Project
________________________
PTAGIS
Proposed New Monitor Locations
PSMFC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1
1.1
BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2
PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT ..................................................................................... 1
1.3
DOCUMENT REVISIONS ........................................................................................ 1
1.3.1
Original Draft, July 1, 2004 ........................................................................ 1
2.
PROJECT SUMMARY............................................................................................. 1
3.
LOWER GRANITE DAM ......................................................................................... 1
4.
LITTLE GOOSE DAM.............................................................................................. 2
5.
JOHN DAY DAM ..................................................................................................... 3
6.
RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 4
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Proposed locatmion of an adult exit monitor at Lower Granite JFF.................. 2
Figure 2: Proposed location of an adult exit monitor at Little Goose JFF ........................ 3
Figure 3: Proposed location of an adult exit monitor at John Day JFF ............................ 4
7/9/2004
Page ii
PTAGIS
1.
Proposed New Monitor Locations
PSMFC
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
In 2002 a new 4-coil monitor was installed on the 36” full flow pipe that feeds the
juvenile fish facility at McNary Dam. Later that year a comparison was made between
this new monitor and the existing monitors at the juvenile fish facility. The comparison
revealed that the juvenile fish facility monitors had slightly less total detections than the
full flow monitor.
It was then noted that one possible source of tagged-fish leakage could be at the
separator’s adult exit pipe. A temporary 2-coil monitor was then installed on this pipe
that confirmed the leakage. Earlier this year the temporary monitor was replaced with a
standard stationary monitor.
Since the leakage has been proven at McNary, it has been proposed that other facilities
should have this same pipe monitored.
1.2
Purpose of Document
The purpose of this document is to provide information about possible locations for a
new monitor leading from the separators at Lower Granite Juvenile, Little Goose
Juvenile or John Day Juvenile. PSMFC is currently budgeted for one new monitor.
1.3
Document Revisions
1.3.1
Original Draft, July 1, 2004
Version 0.1 is the original submittal of this document, prior to approval. The document
shall be reviewed, revised if necessary, and approved by the PTAGIS Program
Manager. Subsequent to its approval, the document version shall be denoted 1.0.
2.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The goals and objectives of this project are to choose a location, then install a new
separator adult exit pipe monitor at either Lower Granite, Little Goose or John Day
during the PTAGIS 2004 fiscal year.
3.
LOWER GRANITE DAM
The Lower Granite Dam juvenile fish facility has the same separator adult exit system
as Little Goose and McNary except that a 15” x 15” aluminum flume is used instead of a
PVC pipe. Because of this, the installation of a new monitor would have to wait until the
facility is down for the season.
The installation of the 2-coil monitor would consist of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fabricating a fiberglass 15” x 15” x 48” tube with flanges.
Fabricating an aluminum shield to fit the tube.
Cutting the existing flume and adding flanges.
Installing the fiberglass tube / shield assembly in the flume.
Installing a 30” x 30” x 8” electrical enclosure for the transceivers.
Wrapping the antennas and wiring into the existing electrical and communication
systems.
7/9/2004
Page 1
PTAGIS
•
•
Proposed New Monitor Locations
PSMFC
Adding modems to the High Speed Interface Panel.
Updating all PTAGIS web tools.
Figure 1: Proposed locatmion of an adult exit monitor at Lower Granite JFF
4.
LITTLE GOOSE DAM
The Little Goose Dam juvenile fish facility has the same separator adult exit system as
McNary, which uses PVC pipe. If chosen, the new monitor could be installed during the
season as no fish passage would be impacted.
The installation of the 2-coil monitor would consist of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fabricating an aluminum shield to fit around the pipe.
Installing the shield assembly onto the pipe.
Installing a 30” x 30” x 8” electrical enclosure for the transceivers.
Wrapping the antennas and wiring into the existing electrical and communication
systems.
Adding modems to the High Speed Interface Panel.
Updating all PTAGIS web tools.
7/9/2004
Page 2
PTAGIS
Proposed New Monitor Locations
PSMFC
Figure 2: Proposed location of an adult exit monitor at Little Goose JFF
5.
JOHN DAY DAM
The John Day Dam juvenile fish facility has a dry separator that should allow only adult
fish to be passed into the adult separator exit pipe. It also has a gate located just after
the separator on this pipe that is manually operated to divert adult fish to the adult fish
holding tank located in the lab. Sometimes (there is no system to actually determine
when), the fish are then hand scanned for PITtags. Locating a monitor on this pipe
would be redundant to the periodic lab hand scanning. If chosen, the new monitor could
be installed during the season as no fish passage would be impacted.
The installation of the 2-coil monitor would consist of:
•
•
•
•
Fabricating an aluminum shield to fit the PVC pipe.
Installing the shield assembly onto the PVC pipe.
Installing a 30” x 30” x 8” electrical enclosure for the transceivers.
Wrapping the antennas and wiring into the existing electrical and communication
System.
7/9/2004
Page 3
PTAGIS
•
Proposed New Monitor Locations
PSMFC
Updating all PTAGIS web tools.
Figure 3: Proposed location of an adult exit monitor at John Day JFF
6.
RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
Robert Wertheimer (Corps of Engineers, Portland District Fish Field Unit) and Bill Bosch
(Yakama Nation Fisheries Department) were contacted and solicited for their
recommendations and priorities for new PIT tag detector installations at Adult Return
Pipes. Messrs. Wertheimer and Bosch are involved with the two largest research
programs in the Columbia Basin involving detections of PIT-tagged adult salmon and
steelhead.
Mr. Wertheimer unambiguously chose the Adult Return Pipe at the Lower Granite JFF
(GRJ) as the top priority for a new detector, citing the large numbers of kelts that fall
back at this location. Mr. Wertheimer did not identify any alternative locations for adult
detector installations, even when informed that detectors could not be installed at Lower
Granite during the current juvenile fish passage season.
Mr. Bosch's study is focused on the survival of reconditioned steelhead kelts originating
from the Yakima River Basin. His priorities are for additional detection capabilities at
locations downstream of the Yakima River. He identified the Adult Return Pipes at
7/9/2004
Page 4
PTAGIS
Proposed New Monitor Locations
PSMFC
Bonneville Dam Powerhouse #2 (B2J) and John Day Dam (JDJ) as the preferred
locations for new PIT tag detectors.
7/9/2004
Page 5
Currently, a common
line is used at MCJ to
bypass “B”-side fish
back to the river
(through the River-1
Exit PIT tag monitor).
This occasionally
causes conflicts in the
routing of both PITtagged and non-tagged
fish. A second,
unused, line could be
used to put all PIT
tagged fish, destined for
bypass, directly into the
River-1 Exit line
downstream of the
barge-loading switch
gate.
Fish exiting the B-separator encounter a switch gate that can route them to the
raceways, or back towards the river, where they encounter this (static) gate that
routes them though a pipe that joins into the raceway exit manifold, and ultimately
are disposed either to a barge, or out through River-1 Exit. The bottom pipe from
the static switch gate is not used, but could be used to bypass directly to the river.
This is a close-up of the static gate.
This shows the routes of the two available pipes downstream of the static switch
gate as they loop around under the West Raceway banks at McNary.
The barge loading line is currently used. The direct bypass line is unused.
The direct bypass line passes through a dryer and necks down to 4 inches.
X-Mozilla-Status: 1001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from mn-mail.digitalangelcorp.com
(host-65-126-81-85.digitalangelcorp.com [65.126.81.85])
by ldapcluster.psmfc.org
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002))
id <[email protected]>
(original mail from [email protected]) for [email protected]
(ORCPT [email protected]); Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:37:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mn-mail.digitalangelcorp.com
(host-65-126-81-85.digitalangelcorp.com [65.126.81.85])
by ldapcluster.psmfc.org
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002))
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for [email protected];
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by MN-MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
id <GR3DSJ9G>; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:41:53 -0600
Content-return: allowed
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:41:53 -0600
From: Sean Casey <[email protected]>
Subject: Master Contract
To: "Kim Fodrea ([email protected])" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Carter Stein ([email protected])" <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_quf8uvfPTiKgA7nc7rTTBg)"
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--Boundary_(ID_quf8uvfPTiKgA7nc7rTTBg)
Content-type: text/plain
Good Morning Kim,
I hate to bother you with this, but it would be good if you could start the
process of changing the master contract to include the new tag. Information
is below:
Part #
Price
Description
TX1400SGL
134.2 kHz Interim Glass Improved Transponder
(9/1/04- 9/30/07)
(TX1411SGL
for 100/ Pkg.)
Note: This tag is improved for the Bonneville
Hi-Q Corner Collector (may only be
used for 1 year depending on future
tag development).
This is also what was recently sent to the ACOE- Walla Walla.
Sorry for the bad timing!
Take care,Sean
$2.25 Each.
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from salmo.psmfc.org (salmo.psmfc.org [199.170.103.6])
by ldapcluster.psmfc.org
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002))
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for [email protected]
(ORCPT [email protected]); Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from reedi.psmfc.org (reedi.psmfc.org [205.230.28.71])
by salmo.psmfc.org (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i69L6JSU009884
for
<@salmo.psmfc.org:[email protected]>; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fw0hub1.irm.r9.fws.gov
(fw0hub1.irm.r9.fws.gov [164.159.176.242]) by ldapcluster.psmfc.org
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002))
with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for [email protected]
(ORCPT [email protected]); Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:06:15 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: PIT Tag Steering Commmittee (PTSC) Conference Call -]
To: Carter Stein <[email protected]>
Cc: Schwartz Dennis E NWP <[email protected]>,
[email protected], Jon Mueller <[email protected]>,
"'Fodrea, Kimberly - KEWR-4'" <[email protected]>, ptagis <[email protected]>,
[email protected], sandy downing <[email protected]>,
'Sean Casey' <[email protected]>,
Zeke Mejia <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on FW0HUB1/FWS/DOI(Release 5.0.12 |February
13, 2003) at 07/09/2004 03:19:47 PM
Hello All!
I got a message from Joe stating that he has been working on the document
and expects it to be done shortly. I have not actually talked to him yet,
but he asked for people to please be patient. I hope that means it's
coming sooner than later. That's all I know for now. Please keep me
informed as to the topics of the conference call. Thanks!
Tom Hoffman
Fishery Biologist
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Columbia River Fisheries Program Office
1211 SE Cardinal Ct., Suite 100
Vancouver, WA 98683
360-604-2500
[email protected]
Northwestern Division- Corps of Engineers
ANADROMOUS FISH EVALUATION PROGRAM
RESEARCH SUMMARY
STUDY CODE: BPS-P-00-?
TITLE: B2 Corner Collector PIT Tag Antenna Efficiency Evaluation
FISH PROGRAM FEATURE: CRFMP-Bonneville-Powerhouse 2
BIOP MEASURE: 193 and numerous others related to measuring reach survival in the lower Columbia
The juvenile bypass systems at Bonneville currently have PIT detection, which is critical to reach survival
estimates and Biological Opinion performance measurements. However, with the Bonneville corner
collector operating, most of the fish that would have been detected in the bypass system are expected pass
via the corner collector. Therefore, having detection in the new Bonneville Corner Collector is critical to
reach survival estimates and measuring progress toward BiOp performance standards. A subcommittee of
the federal RME Hydro Work Group made recommendations regarding PIT sampling needs associated
with the B2CC. That body recommends that the PIT detection system being designed for the corner
collector be able to detect approximately 60% of the PIT tagged smolts passing through it. The rationale
for this recommendation follows.
With respect to smolt survival monitoring needs, the goal is to provide survival estimates with acceptable
precision. NMFS representatives and others on the committee have recommended that the standard error
(SE) of the estimate of MCN-BON survival for yearling chinook and steelhead should be near 0.05. We
considered combinations of detection probabilities needed at Bonneville Dam and at down-river sampling
sites (trawl and predaceous bird recoveries) to meet the 0.05 SE target. Dr. Smith conducted analyses that
guided the RM&E’s decision. Because we wanted to ensure the precision target had a high likelihood of
being met across a broad range of Bonneville operating conditions, we analyzed both a high- and a lowflow scenario. By focusing on the 0.05 SE target it appears that the goal would be met under most expected
conditions if about 60% of fish passing through the corner collector were detected.
BPA and the Corps have jointly developed a detection system for the Corner Collector with this 60%
detection efficiency goal. The system will be installed prior to the 2005 migration season. An evaluation is
needed in 2005 to determine whether the detection efficiency goal has been met.
Under the current PIT-tag MOA between BPA and USACE, BPA is the fiscally responsible party to fund
the electronics evaluation of the B2CC PIT tag detection system and has asked that this research proposal
be incorporated into the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division’s Anadromous Fish
Evaluation Program (AFEP) research planning for 2005 for the purpose of obtaining regional input to the
study design and review of proposals.
OBJECTIVES:
1. Evaluate and quantify the detection efficiency of the newly-installed PIT Detection System at the B2
Corner Collector. Research will be focused towards one or both of the following objectives:
a. Quantify detection of PIT tagged spring chinook yearlings passing through the corner collector*
using one or possibly two newly developed glass tag types.
b. Quantify detection of PIT tagged fall chinook subyearlings passing through the corner collector*
using one or possibly two** newly developed glass tag types.
*The intent is to determine how many of the PIT-tagged fish passing through the corner collector are
detected by the PIT-tag detection system. This research does not include the objective of quantifying
how many fish enter the corner collector. Corner collector passage efficiency is included under a
different research one-pager (See Study Code: SBE-P-00-7, Evaluations and Studies of Fish Passage
Efficiency at Bonneville Dam.)
**One or two types of tags will be evaluated. These tags will be provided to the researcher by BPA.
Proposals should clearly state the number of tags necessary for the evaluation.
SCHEDULE: 2005- 2006
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement