{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"Studies to evaluate the effectiveness of extended-length screens at Little Goose Dam, 1995","Authors":"","Publication date":"1996","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-16-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000024560"},"Pages":["SH153\n.L7G3\n1995\nStudies to evaluate\nthe effectiveness\nof extended-length screens\nat Little Goose Dam,\nCZES\n1995\nby\nCoastal Zone and\nMichael H. Gessel, Benjamin P. Sandford,\nEstuarine Studies\nand Douglas B. Dey\nDivision\nNorthwest Fisheries\nSeptember 1996\nScience Center\nNational Marine\nFisheries Service\nSeattle, Washington","STUDIES TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS\nOF EXTENDED-LENGTH SCREENS AT LITTLE GOOSE DAM, 1995\nby\nMichael H. Gessel\nBenjamin P. Sandford\nand\nDouglas B. Dey\nAnnual Report of Research\nFunded by\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers\nWalla Walla District\nDelivery Order E86920164\nand\nCoastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\n2725 Montlake Boulevard East\nSeattle, Washington 98112-2097\nSeptember 1996","ii\nCONTENTS\nPage\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY\niii\nINTRODUCTION\n1\nOBJECTIVE I: EVALUATE DESCALING WITH VBS I AND II, WITH AND\nWITHOUT THE INLET FLOW VANE\n3\nApproach\n3\nResults and Discussion\n5\nYearling Chinook Salmon\n5\nSteelhead\n7\nAdditional Observations\n7\nOBJECTIVE 2: ESTIMATE ORIFICE PASSAGE EFFICIENCY WITH AN ESBS,\nVBS I, AND INLET FLOW VANE\n8\n9\nApproach\nResults\n9\nCONCLUSIONS\n11\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n11\nREFERENCES\n12\nAPPENDIX TABLES\n13","iii\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nDescaling estimates were obtained for yearling chinook salmon and steelhead collected\nfrom slots in Turbine Units 4 and 5 at Little Goose Dam. Turbine Unit 4 (test unit) was\nequipped with prototype extended-length bar screens, inlet flow vanes, and two types of\nvertical barrier screens (VBS I and II); Turbine Unit 5 (control unit) was equipped with\nstandard-length submersible traveling screens and modified balanced-flow vertical barrier\nscreens. We also evaluated orifice passage efficiency for yearling chinook salmon in Slots A\nand B of Turbine Unit 4. In summary, we determined:\nWith the inlet flow vane in place, there was no significant difference in\n1)\ndescaling for yearling chinook salmon or steelhead between VBS I and II or\nbetween either of these VBSs and the control slot.\nDescaling of yearling chinook salmon was significantly lower with the inlet\n2)\nflow vane than without it (1.9 VS. 5.5%), but steelhead descaling was not\nsignificantly different (1.7 VS. 1.3%).\nOrifice passage efficiency for yearling chinook salmon averaged over 90% in\n3)\nthe two slots tested (20-hour tests).","INTRODUCTION\nIn 1993, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers (COE) initiated studies at Little Goose Dam to evaluate the effectiveness of\nextended-length submersible traveling screens and bar screens (ESTSs and ESBSs) (Fig. 1).\nFish guidance efficiency (FGE) and descaling tests were conducted to compare the\nperformance of extended-length screens to that of standard-length submersible traveling\nscreens (STSs) that are currently an integral part of juvenile fish bypass systems at\nhydroelectric dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers.\nThe results of prototype extended-length screen tests at Little Goose Dam during the\nspring outmigrations of 1993 and 1994 indicated that FGEs of 80 and 90% were attainable\nfor yearling chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (O. mykiss),\nrespectively, with no increase in descaling (Gessel et al. 1994, 1995). Of the guidance\nscreens evaluated, the ESBS with a 25% perforated plate porosity performed the best in\nterms of FGE and descaling.\nExtended-length screens divert approximately twice the flow into the gatewell as an\nSTS. This increase can create turbulent flows within the slot and areas of high flow through\nthe vertical barrier screen (VBS) (Fig 1). Model studies conducted at the COE's Waterways\nExperiment Station (WES) have indicated that a VBS with variable porosity perforated plate\non the downstream side would provide even flows through its entire surface area.\nPreliminary tests with these new VBS designs were conducted at McNary Dam in 1994\n(McComas et al. 1995).","2\nGatewell\nJuvenile fish\nGatewell orifice\nbypass channel\n12\" diameter\nOperating gate\n(raised position)\nFlow\nVertical barrier\nII\nscreen\nInlet flow\nvane\n12\"\nBeam\nextension\nExtended-length\nbar screen\nFigure 1. Cross section of a turbine intake showing the extended-length bar screen, inlet\nflow vane, and VBS II at Little Goose Dam, 1995.\nOperating gates were removed during the tests conducted in\nunit 4.","3\nDuring the late summer of 1994, additional model studies were conducted at WES to\ndetermine the best VBS design for Little Goose Dam. These studies indicated two VBS\ndesigns should be considered and the addition of an inlet flow vane to the ESBS (Fig. 1).\nThe 1995 study at Little Goose Dam was designed to test these structures by monitoring fish\ncondition during the juvenile salmonid outmigration.\nSpecific research objectives for 1995 were:\nEvaluate descaling with VBS I and II, with and without the inlet flow vane.\n1)\nEstimate orifice passage efficiency with an ESBS, VBS I, and inlet flow vane.\n2)\nOBJECTIVE 1: EVALUATE DESCALING WITH VBS I AND II, WITH AND\nWITHOUT THE INLET FLOW VANE\nApproach\nExtended-length bar screens were tested in Slots A and B of Turbine Unit 4. An\nESBS was also placed Slot 4C to maintain uniform flows within the test unit. An STS and a\nmodified balanced-flow vertical barrier screen were used in Slot 5B as a control for descaling\nmonitoring. Placement of test screens was as follows:\nPerforated plate\nTurbine\nScreen\nporosity (%)\nunit/slot\ntype\nESBS\n25\n4A\n25\n4B\nESBS\nESTS\n25\n4C\n48\nSTS\n5B","4\nWater flows into Turbine Unit 4 were maintained at approximately 18,300 cfs. This\ncorresponded to a screen-approach velocity of around 2.5 fps with turbine power loads of\nabout 135 MW.\nThe test slots in Turbine Unit 4 contained the new types of VBSs that had been\ndesigned for use with extended-length guiding devices. Vertical barrier screen I was placed\nin Slot 4A, and VBS II in Slot 4B. Both VBSs consisted of eight panels with each panel\napproximately 10 feet in height. The porosity of all panels of VBS I was 20%. For VBS II,\nthe porosity (from top to bottom) was 20, 20, 25, 25, 20, 20, 25, and 25%. An inlet flow\nvane (Fig. 1) was used on an alternate-day basis in each of the test slots.\nThe STS in Slot 5B was operated at the standard elevation, and screen angle was 55°\nthroughout the tests. The ESBSs in Slots 4A and 4B were lowered 1 foot and also set at the\n55° angle. In Slots 4A and 4B, a 1-foot beam extension was mounted to the concrete beam\nseparating the upstream and downstream gate slots SO that the gap between the screen and the\nconcrete beam was the same for both the ESBS and the STS. All operating gates were either\nfully raised or removed.\nAll juvenile salmonids collected from the gatewells were examined for fish condition\nusing standard Fish Transportation Oversight Team descaling criteria (Ceballos et al. 1992).\nAt approximately 1600 and 2200 h each test day, a dip basket was used for a clean-out dip\nand to collect fish for descaling examination, respectively. Descaling data were collected\nthroughout the field season from 19 April to 6 June.\nMean descaling percentages for yearling chinook salmon and steelhead were\nstatistically analyzed with a randomized block, two-factor ANOVA and a comparison of the\nmeans. First, we compared the two VBS designs, tested with and without the inlet flow vane","5\nearly in the outmigration (20 April-8 May), with a randomized block two-factor ANOVA\nwhere each 2-day period was considered a block. Second, we compared the three slots for\nall days when the inlet flow vanes were used in Slots 4A and 4B. Significance was\nestablished at a = 0.05.\nResults and Discussion\nAppendix Table 1 contains summaries of daily collection totals for wild and hatchery\nyearling chinook salmon and steelhead. Daily yearly chinook salmon and steelhead\ncollections for the descaling tests are listed in Appendix Table 2 and the incidental catch of\njuvenile sockeye salmon and lamprey during descaling tests is summarized in Appendix\nTable 3. Figure 2 shows the daily descaling data for yearling chinook salmon and steelhead\nin the test slots.\nYearling Chinook Salmon\nThere was no significant interaction between VBS and inlet flow vane (F = 0.64;\ndf = 1, 21; P = 0.4340) and no significant difference in descaling between VBS I and\nVBS II (F = 1.08; df = 1, 21; P = 0.3100), but descaling was significantly lower\n(F =16.60;\ndf = 1, 21; P = 0.0010) with the inlet flow vane (1.9 versus 5.5%). With the inlet flow\nvane, descaling was not significantly different (F = 1.30; df = 2, 36; P = 0.2845) among\nVBS I, VBS II, and the control slot (2.8, 2.7, and 2.1%, respectively).","6\nYearling Chinook Salmon\nPercent Descaled\n14\nSlot 4A Slot 4B\n12\n10\n8\n6\n4\n2\n0\n16\n18\n22\n24\n26\n31\n19\n21\n23\n25\n27\n29\n1\n3\n8\n10\n12\nApril\nMay\nSteelhead\nPercent Descaled\n10\nSlot 4A\nSlot 4B\n8\n6\n4\n2\n0\n22\n24\n26\n31\n29\n1\n3\n8\n10\n12\n16\n18\n19\n21\n23\n25\n27\nMay\nApril\nFigure 2. Daily descaling data for yearling chinook salmon and steelhead from the test\nslots at Little Goose Dam, 1995.","7\nSteelhead\nThere was no significant interaction between the VBS and inlet flow vane (F = 0.04;\ndf = 1, 20; P = 0.8500), no significant difference in descaling between VBS I and VBS II\n(F<0.001; df = 1, 20; P = 0.9870), and no significant difference (F = 0.45; df = 1, 20;\nP = 0.05110) with or without the inlet flow vane (1.7 versus 1.3%). With the inlet flow\nvane, descaling was not significantly different (F = 1.27; df = 2, 30; P = 0.9870) between\nVBS I, VBS II, and the control slot (3.7, 4.8, and 3.6%, respectively).\nAdditional Observations\nA portion of the COE's 1995 extended-length screen evaluation at Little Goose Dam\nwas directed toward the use of hydroacoustics to estimate FGE. In conjunction with this\nresearch, NMFS agreed to provide counts of the fish that were diverted into the gatewells.\nThese data were not to be used to estimate FGE, but to indicate the veracity of the\nhydroacoustic estimates. We scheduled this gatewell dipping in Slot 4B, and intended to dip\nonly during the early portion of the outmigration SO fewer fish would be handled.\nWe closed both orifices in Slot 4B and collected fish from 2200 h on 22 April until\n1600 h on 23 April. On 23 April, injured and dead smolts were observed at the surface in\nthe test slot, and we eventually collected 576 yearling chinook salmon and 49 steelhead\nmortalities. All of the fish that were removed from the slot were held in fish tanks with\nflowing water for about 8 hours. Those that subsequently died were included in our\nmortality total and the remainder (estimated to be an additional 300-400 fish) were released.\nOur mortality total also included fish that were collected at the juvenile bypass facility during\nthe late evening hours of 23 April and the early morning hours of 24 April.","8\nIt appears that flow conditions within the test slot may adversely affect some of the\nsmolts if they are unable to exit through the orifices volitionally. The exact nature of the\nadverse effects is not known, but we feel the probable cause is the increased flow into and\nthroughout the slot. The increased flow, coupled with the lack of an exit point (the orifices\nwere closed) may have eventually tired the fish to the degree that they began to make contact\nwith the VBS and became severely descaled.\nIt is important to note that both orifices were closed only for test purposes. Under\nnormal operating procedures, one orifice in each slot will always be open. The installation\nof extended-length screens at both Little Goose and Lower Granite Dams dictates that\nparticular attention be directed toward ensuring an orifice is always open and clear of debris\nin each slot.\nOBJECTIVE 2: ESTIMATE ORIFICE PASSAGE EFFICIENCY WITH AN\nESBS, VBS I, AND INLET FLOW VANE\nOrifice passage efficiency (OPE) is an estimate of the percentage of migrants that\nenter a slot and exit through an orifice during a selected time frame (usually about 24 hours).\nThese tests were originally scheduled for Little Goose Dam, but were moved to Lower\nGranite Dam for the 1995 spring outmigration because the juvenile fish bypass channel there\nis large enough to accommodate an orifice trap. Although OPE results at Lower Granite\nwere quite high ( > 90%) for both yearling chinook salmon and steelhead, these tests were\nonly conducted with VBS II. Because we had the opportunity at Little Goose Dam to\nevaluate OPE with VBS I, we conducted a short series of tests near the end of the spring\noutmigration. Fish numbers were lower at this time and we were still collecting descaling\ninformation, so no additional fish were handled.","9\nApproach\nApproximately 70-100 hatchery yearling chinook salmon were selected for release\ninto each of the test slots (4A and 4B) for each OPE test. A partial clip of either the upper\nor lower lobe of the caudal fin was used to identify the marked fish (alternating each day).\nThe fish were dipped from gate slots, marked, and held until release at 2000 h each night.\nThe fish were released from a cylinder mounted to a metal framework. 1 This allowed us to\nmake each release at the same depth and same location in the two slots (15 m in depth and 2\nm from the north end of the gate slot). The next day (1600 h), the slots were dipped and the\ncatch examined for marked fish that had failed to exit through the orifice.\nResults\nWe made a total of 11 releases for OPE estimates (6 in Slot 4A and 5 in Slot 4B)\nfrom 1 to 6 June. A total of 660 of 666 marked fish (99.1% OPE) exited Slot 4A, and 403\nof 428 marked fish (94.2% OPE) exited Slot 4B during the test period. Individual OPE tests\nare listed in Table 1.\n1\nSame release cyclinder that was used for OPE tests at Lower Granite Dam during spring\n1995.\nOPE tests were conducted near the upper end of the maximum\noperating pool.","10\nTable 1. Orifice passage efficiency results for yearling chinook\nsalmon at Little Goose Dam, 1995.\nSlot 4B\nSlot 4A\nNumber released OPE (%)\nNumber released\nOPE (%)\nDate\n1 June\n105\n100.0\n82.4\n100.0\n85\n2 June\n81\n94.0\n96.0\n100\n3 June\n100\n97.2\n4 June\n100\n99.0\n71\n100.0\n92\n95.7\n5 June\n100\n98.8\n80\n100.0\n6 June\n80\n428\nTotals\n666\n94.2\n99.1\nAverage","11\nCONCLUSIONS\n1. Yearling chinook salmon descaling was significantly lower with the inlet flow vane than\nwithout it (1.9 versus 5.5%).\n2. Yearling chinook salmon descaling was not significantly different among the control slot\nand test slots with either vertical barrier screen I or II and the inlet flow vane (2.1, 2.8,\nand 2.7%, respectively).\n3. Steelhead descaling was not significantly different with or without the inlet flow vane (1.7\nversus 1.3%).\n4. Steelhead descaling was not significantly different among the control slot and test slots\nwith either vertical barrier screen I or II and the inlet flow vane (3.6, 3.7, and 4.8%,\nrespectively).\n5. Orifice passage efficiency for yearling chinook salmon averaged over 90% with extended-\nlength bar screens, VBS I and II, and inlet flow vanes.\n6. The operation of turbine units equipped with extended-length screens requires that an\norifice always be open in each slot to ensure the timely and volitional exit of fish.\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nWe express our appreciation to all of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers personnel at\nLittle Goose Dam for their assistance and cooperation in this study.","12\nREFERENCES\nCeballos, J. R., S. W. Pettit, and J. L. McKern. 1992. Fish Transportation Oversight\nTeam. Annual Report - FY 1991. Transportation operations on the Snake and\nColumbia Rivers. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWR-29. 77 p. plus\nAppendix. (Available from Environmental and Technical Services Division,\n525 N.E. Oregon Street, Portland, OR 97232-2737.)\nGessel, M. H., B. P. Sandford, and D. B. Dey. 1994. Studies to evaluate the effectiveness\nof extended-length screens at Little Goose Dam, 1993. Report to U.S. Army Corps\nof Engineers, Contract E86920164, 18 p. plus Appendices. (Available from\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-\n2097.)\nGessel, M. H., B. P. Sandford, and D. B. Dey. 1995. Studies to evaluate the effectiveness\nof extended-length screens at Little Goose Dam, 1994. Report to U.S. Army Corps\nof Engineers, Contract E86920164, 13 p. plus Appendices. (Available from\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-\n2097.)\nMcComas, R. L., , B. P. Sandford, and D. B. Dey. 1995. Studies to evaluate the\neffectiveness of extended-length screens at McNary Dam, 1994. Report to U.S.\nArmy Corps of Engineers, Contract E86-91-0060, 85 p. plus Appendices. (Available\nfrom Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA\n98112-2097.)","13\nAppendix Table 1. Hatchery and wild yearling chinook salmon and steelhead\ncollected during descaling tests at Little Goose Dam, 1995.\nYearling chinook salmon\nSteelhead\nPercent\nPercent\nwildb\nwildb\nHatchery\nWild\nTotal\nDate\nHatchery\nWild\nTotal\n19 April\n64\n39.1\n237\n321\n558\n57.5\n29\n25\n20 April\n281\n298\n579\n51.5\n29\n36\n65\n55.4\n21 April\n20\n87\n23.0\n233\n185\n418\n44.3\n67\n22 April\n25.0\n136\n118\n254\n46.5\n60\n20\n80\n23 April\n39\n13\n52\n25.0\n172\n106\n278\n38.1\n24 April\n10.3\n138\n111\n249\n44.7\n174\n20\n194\n25 April\n153\n10\n163\n6.1\n254\n67\n321\n20.9\n26 April\n5.4\n214\n107\n321\n33.3\n104\n6\n110\n27 April\n323\n100\n423\n23.6\n100\n3\n103\n2.9\n28 April\n89\n3.4\n587\n98\n685\n14.3\n86\n3\n29 April\n969\n107\n1076\n9.9\n253\n8\n261\n3.1\n30 April\n16\n403\n4.0\n683\n136\n819\n16.6\n387\n1 May\n543\n94\n637\n14.8\n189\n5\n194\n2.6\n8\n142\n5.6\n2 May\n529\n92\n621\n14.8\n134\n11.5\n3 May\n329\n78\n407\n19.2\n499\n65\n564\n232\n32\n264\n12.1\n4 May\n882\n138\n1020\n13.5\n11.7\n8 May\n698\n56\n754\n7.4\n159\n21\n180\n567\n79\n646\n12.2\n9 May\n721\n74\n795\n9.3\n4.7\n10 May\n578\n78\n656\n11.9\n723\n36\n759\n11.6\n1187\n119\n1306\n9.1\n11 May\n615\n81\n696\n612\n7.0\n12 May\n493\n94\n587\n16.0\n569\n43\n12.7\n350\n43\n393\n10.9\n15 May\n461\n67\n528\n111\n708\n15.7\n16 May\n508\n84\n592\n14.2\n597\n17 May\n527\n118\n645\n18.3\n468\n88\n556\n15.8\n335\n52\n387\n13.4\n18 May\n449\n48\n497\n9.7\n8.1\n19 May\n444\n134\n578\n23.2\n204\n18\n222\n278\n61\n339\n18.0\n22 May\n501\n117\n618\n18.9\n10.8\n23 May\n384\n78\n462\n16.9\n240\n29\n269\n390\n74\n464\n15.9\n24 May\n662\n137\n799\n17.1\n100\n18.0\n25 May\n449\n101\n550\n18.4\n82\n18\n21.6\n281\n50\n331\n15.1\n26 May\n793\n218\n1011\n111\n17.1\n30 May\n330\n79\n409\n19.3\n92\n19\n16\n190\n8.4\n31 May\n444\n195\n639\n30.5\n174\n541\n20\n180\n11.1\n1 June\n344\n197\n36.4\n160\n12.5\n374\n64.4\n49\n7\n56\n2 June\n133\n241\n24\n3\n27\n12.5\n3 June\n210\n165\n375\n44.0\n199\n30\n229\n13.1\n4 June\n352\n280\n632\n44.3\n30\n5\n35\n14.3\n5 June\n224\n166\n390\n42.6\n28\n2\n30\n6.7\n6 June\n44\n6\n50\n12.0\nThe estimated number of wild yearling chinook salmon is based on the\nassumption that all hatchery fish had either the adipose fin clipped or a\nventral fin clipped.\nThese percentages are only for the fish NMFS personnel dipped and handled for\nour descaling estimates.","14\nAppendix Table 2.\nDescaling data from studies conducted at\nLittle Goose Dam, 1995.\nYearling chinook salmon\nSteelhead\nTest\nTotal\nNumber\nPercent\nTotal\nNumber\nPercent\ndate\ncatch\ndescaled\ndescaled\ncatch\ndescaled\ndescaled\nUnit 4, Slot A (25% ESBS) VBS I\n19 April\n82\n0\n0.0\n27\n1\n3.7\n20 April\n65\n2\n3.1\n28\n0\n0.0\n21 April\n102\n10\n9.8\n44\n0\n0.0\n22 April\n82\n4\n4.9\n31\n0\n0.0\n23 April\n103\n1\n1.0\n27\n1\n3.7\n24 April\n133\n1\n0.8\n110\n1\n0.9\n25 April\n211\n9\n4.3\n77\n3\n3.9\n26 April\n134\n4\n3.0\n75\n2\n2.7\n27 April\n140\n7\n5.0\n78\n1\n1.3\n28 April\n186\n2\n1.1\n50\n0\n0.0\n29 April\n244\n8\n3.3\n44\n0\n0.0\n30 April\n160\n4\n2.5\n132\n3\n2.3\n1 May\n227\n8\n3.5\n79\n1\n1.3\n2 May\n210\n1\n0.5\n47\n1\n2.1\n3 May\n127\n13\n10.2\n179\n2\n1.1\n4 May\n314\n38\n12.1\n71\n2\n2.8\n8 May\n224\n2\n1.0\n83\n1\n1.2\n9 May\n317\n10\n3.2\n220\n2\n0.9\n10 May\n278\n12\n4.3\n271\n8\n3.0\n11 May\n240\n8\n3.3\n242\n11\n4.5\n12 May\n176\n4\n2.3\n205\n10\n6.3\n15 May\n87\n4\n4.6\n86\n2\n2.3\n16 May\n192\n9\n4.7\n244\n16\n6.6\n17 May\n212\n6\n2.8\n197\n8\n4.1\n18 May\n178\n6\n3.4\n101\n7\n6.9\n19 May\n230\n6\n2.6\n86\n6\n7.0\n22 May\n207\n8\n3.9\n117\n3\n2.6\n23 May\n166\n4\n2.4\n65\n3\n4.6\n24 May\n239\n8\n3.3\n59\n2\n3.4\n25 May\n222\n7\n3.2\n25\n1\n4.0\n26 May\n228\n9\n3.9\n54\n2\n3.7\n30 May\n141\n3\n2.1\n43\n2\n4.7\n31 May\n134\n3\n2.2\n36\n1\n2.8\n1 June\n124\n12\n9.7\n30\n1\n3.3\n4 June\n28\n1\n3.6\n0\n0\n0.0\n5 June\n37\n2\n5.4\n0\n0\n0.0","15\nAppendix Table 2.\nContinued.\nYearling chinook salmon\nSteelhead\nTest\nTotal\nNumber\nPercent\nTotal\nNumber\nPercent\ndate\ncatch\ndescaled\ndescaled\ncatch\ndescaled\ndescaled\nUnit 4, Slot B (25% ESBS) VBS II\n19 April\n270\n1\n0.4\n19\n0\n0.0\n20 April\n132\n6\n4.5\n27\n0\n0.0\n21 April\n133\n3\n2.2\n15\n0\n0.0\n22 April\n172\n4\n2.3\n49\n3\n6.1\n23 April\n175\n1\n0.6\n25\n0\n0.0\n24 April\n119\n2\n1.7\n84\n1\n1.2\n25 April\n110\n3\n2.7\n86\n1\n1.2\n26 April\n187\n9\n4.8\n35\n1\n2.6\n27 April\n283\n4\n1.4\n25\n0\n0.0\n28 April\n230\n1\n0.4\n26\n0\n0.0\n29 April\n160\n6\n3.8\n30\n0\n0.0\n30 April\n166\n8\n4.8\n104\n2\n1.9\n1 May\n222\n7\n3.6\n42\n1\n2.3\n2 May\n232\n1\n0.4\n44\n0\n0.0\n3 May\n150\n7\n4.7\n120\n2\n1.7\n4 May\n410\n43\n10.5\n112\n1\n0.9\n8 May\n200\n4\n2.0\n43\n3\n7.0\n9 May\n239\n11\n4.6\n157\n5\n3.2\n10 May\n200\n12\n6.0\n236\n10\n4.2\n11\nMay\n178\n1\n0.5\n229\n7\n3.1\n6.6\n12\nMay\n189\n3\n1.6\n152\n10\n15\nMay\n235\n13\n5.5\n201\n18\n9.0\n2.1\n203\n6\n3.0\n16\nMay\n146\n3\n17\nMay\n258\n6\n2.3\n185\n12\n6.5\n18\nMay\n171\n4\n2.3\n116\n9\n7.8\n19\nMay\n140\n6\n4.3\n80\n4\n5.0\n5.9\n128\n7\n5.6\n22\nMay\n254\n15\n23\nMay\n132\n2\n1.5\n100\n4\n4.0\n62\n3\n4.8\n24\nMay\n217\n3\n1.4\n2\n5.4\n25\nMay\n138\n2\n1.4\n37\n3.6\n26\nMay\n205\n3\n0.5\n56\n2\n30 May\n167\n4\n2.4\n51\n2\n3.9\n3\n7.9\n31 May\n140\n4\n2.9\n38\n1 June\n117\n10\n8.5\n32\n0\n0.0\n4 June\n134\n8\n6.0\n28\n1\n10.9\n5 June\n80\n6\n7.5\n10\n0\n0.0","16\nAppendix Table 2.\nContinued.\nYearling chinook salmon\nSteelhead\nTest\nTotal\nNumber\nPercent\nTotal\nNumber\nPercent\ndate\ncatch\ndescaled\ndescaled\ncatch\ndescaled\ndescaled\nUnit 5, Slot B (48% STS) Standard VBS\n19 April\n206\n3\n1.5\n6\n0\n0.0\n20 April\n382\n13\n3.4\n10\n1\n10.0\n21 April\n183\n2\n1.1\n28\n2\n7.1\n22 April\nno fish collected\n23 April\nno fish collected\n24 April\nno fish collected\n25 April\nno fish collected\n26 April\nno fish collected\n27 April\nno fish collected\n28 April\n270\n9\n3.3\n13\n0\n0.0\n29 April\n138\n1\n0.7\n180\n2\n1.1\n30 April\n203\n4\n2.0\n78\n1\n1.3\n1 May\n188\n3\n1.6\n73\n1\n1.4\n2 May\n179\n3\n1.7\n51\n0\n0.0\n3 May\n130\n5\n3.8\n265\n5\n1.9\n4 May\n296\n5\n1.7\n81\n0\n0.0\n8 May\n332\n3\n0.9\n54\n1\n1.9\n9 May\n239\n6\n2.5\n269\n8\n3.0\n10 May\n178\n2\n1.1\n252\n10\n4.0\n11 May\n87\n4\n4.6\n566\n20\n3.5\n12 May\n222\n5\n2.3\n255\n13\n5.1\n15 May\n206\n4\n1.9\n106\n7\n6.6\n16 May\n254\n6\n2.4\n261\n12\n4.6\n17 May\n175\n4\n2.3\n174\n4\n2.3\n18 May\n148\n1\n0.7\n170\n3\n1.8\n19 May\n208\n8\n3.8\n56\n2\n3.6\n22 May\n157\n3\n1.9\n94\n0\n0.0\n23 May\n164\n1\n0.6\n104\n13\n12.5\n24 May\n216\n6\n2.8\n148\n10\n6.8\n25 May\n190\n3\n1.6\n38\n0\n0.0\n26 May\n81\n5\n6.2\n50\n2\n4.0\n30 May\n101\n0\n0.0\n17\n0\n0.0\n31 May\n78\n7\n9.0\n25\n1\n4.0\n1 June\nno fish collected\n4 June\n154\n10\n6.5\n28\n0\n0.0\n5 June\n115\n10\n8.7\n28\n17\n60.7","17\nAppendix Table 3.\nIncidental catch of sockeye salmon juveniles\n.\nand lamprey juveniles (ammocetes) collected\nduring descaling tests at Little Goose Dam,\n1995.\nDate\nSockeye\nLamprey\n19 April\n1\n21 April\n2\n24 April\n1\n28 April\n2\n29 April\n1\n1 May\n1\n3 May\n1\n11 May\n6\n15 May\n9\n16 May\n1\n112\n17 May\n62\n18 May\n4\n19 May\n1\n1\n23 May\n1\n24 May\n1\n25 May\n2\n26 May\n2\n30 May\n1\n31 May\n2\n2 June\n1\n3 June\n2\n4 June\n1\n5 June\n3\nTotals\n21\n200"]}