Evaluation of the PIT-Tag Detection Arrays in the

Priest Rapids Dam Adult Ladders

Steve Anglea, Anthony Carson – Biomark, Inc.

Eric Lauver – Grant County PUD

Objectives

• The overall goal of the project is to provide Grant County PUD with detection of upstream migrating anadromous salmonids at Priest Rapids Dam

– Detection efficiency specification of 95% with a Destron Technologies TX1400ST “supertag”

• Estimate detection efficiency of ladder arrays based on detection of salmonids from 1998-2002 migration years

Priest Rapids Dam

Priest Rapids Dam

Adult PIT Tag Detection

Adult Trap

Adult PIT Tag Detection• Two detection weirs in non-overflow segment of each ladder

– Left Ladder : Weirs 3 and 7– Right Ladder: Weirs 3 and 5– Two submerged orifices in each weir– Inside dimensions of antenna range: 22.5” x 45” to 24” x 55”

• Mounted to “video count box” at Weir 3 (Right Ladder) and Weir 7 (Left Ladder)

• Mounted to wall at other detection weirs

• Operational in spring 2003

Left Ladder Adult Trap

• Denil entrance in Weir 4 orifice

• Sample platform between Weirs 1 and 2

• Not scanned for PIT tags

• Fish returned to river at ladder exit

Video Count Box

• Weir 3 (Right) and Weir 7 (Left)

• Operational in 2005

Video Count Box Antenna

• 6” aluminum transition• 5’ 1” channel• Internal shield

Wall Mounted Antennas

Two Weir Detection Probability• Detection of run-of-river adult salmonids • Assumptions

– Fish detected traveling in an upstream direction– Fish continued traveling upstream after being detected at

downstream weir

• P7 = probability of detection at Weir 7:

• P3 = probability of detection at Weir 3:

– m = number detected at both weirs– n1 = number detected at Weir 7– n2 = number detected at Weir 3

• P = 1 – (1-p7)(1-p3)

7

2

mp

n

3

1

mp

n

Adult Salmonid Run-Timing

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1004

/1

4/1

5

4/2

9

5/1

3

5/2

7

6/1

0

6/2

4

7/8

7/2

2

8/5

8/1

9

9/2

9/1

6

9/3

0

10

/14

10

/28

11

/11

Date

Nu

mb

er o

f U

niq

ue

Det

ecti

on

s

Chinook Steelhead Coho Sockeye

Ladder Use

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Pas

sag

e E

ven

ts

Chinook Steelhead Coho Sockeye

Right Ladder

Left Ladder

Ladder Re-Ascension

Species Passage Events Re-Ascensions

Chinook 2,163 99 (4.6%)

(81% released at PRA)

Steelhead 43 0

Coho 244 5 (2%)

Sockeye 19 0

Detection Weir to Detection Weir Transit Time

Species Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Chinook 23 min 4.3 min 13 sec 14.25 hrs**

Steelhead 21.5 min 4.75 min 30 sec 10 hrs*

Coho 45.3 min 8 min 20 sec 13 hrs*

Sockeye 8 min 5 min 1.3 min 18.5 min

* Delay during trap operation

** Movement between Weir 7 and Weir 3, ~12 hr gap

Chinook Detection History

East/Left Ladder West/Right Ladder

Weir 7 292 Weir 5 254

Weir 3* 206 Weir 3* 17

Both Weirs

650 Both Weirs

784

P7 0.759 P5 0.979

P3 0.690 P3 0.755

PLEFT 0.925 PRIGHT 0.995

* Upstream weir

** Four fish with downstream detection histories in Right Ladder

Detection ProbabilitySpecies Left Ladder Right Ladder

Chinook 0.925 (1,148) 0.995 (1,055)95% CI (0.912, 0.937) (0.992, 0.997)

Steelhead 0.963 (33) 1.0 (24)95% CI (0.875, 0.994) NA

Coho 0.898 (155) 0.991 (114)95% CI (0.849, 0.937) (0.975, 0.998)

Sockeye 0.978 (11) 1.0 (8)95% CI (0.851, 0.999) NA

Left Ladder Detection Probability Incorporating Trap Operation

Species All Hours Trap Off Hours

Chinook 0.925 (1,148) 0.931 (1,053)

Steelhead 0.963 (33) 0.967 (29)

Coho 0.898 (155) 0.915 (128)

Sockeye 0.978 (11) 0.978 (11)

Trap EffectMean Number of Weir 7 Detections

Species Trap On Trap Off

Chinook 4.4 (80) 1.7 (788)*

Steelhead 3.5 (2) 1.2 (29)*

Coho 2.8 (21) 1.5 (101)*

* P < 0.03

Future Actions/Recommendations

• Shorten length of exciter cables for antennas mounted to video count boxes

• Re-evaluate detection efficiency with “supertags”• Compare estimates of transit time, re-ascension, DE,

trap delay,… to results from other locations • Require scanning of salmonids caught in trap for PIT

Tags