{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"Studies to evaluate the effectiveness of extended-length screens at McNary Dam, 1993","Authors":"","Publication date":"1994","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-16-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000118153"},"Pages":["SH153\n.Mc22\n1993\nStudies to Evaluate\nthe Effectiveness\nof Extended-Length Screens\nat McNary Dam,\nCZES\n1993\nby\nCoastal Zone and\nR. Lynn McComas, Benjamin P. Sandford,\nEstuarine Studies\nand Douglas B. Dey\nDivision\nNorthwest Fisheries\nSeptember 1994\nScience Center\nNational Marine\nFisheries Service\nLibrary\nNorthwest\nSeattle, Washington\nNOAA,\n2725\nCenter\nFisheres\nBoulevard,\nService","NWESCOIS\nSTUDIES TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF\nEXTENDED-LENGTH SCREENS AT McNARY DAM, 1993\nLibrary\n2725 Nordhwart National & Alaska Marino Fisherige\nby\nR. Lynn McComas\nSandford WA Boulevard, FisherConter E. Service\nBenjamin P.\nand\nDouglas B. Dey\nSH\n153\nReport of Research\nD16\nB7\nFunded by\n1993\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers\nWalla Walla District\nDelivery Order E86910060\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 1994","CONTENTS\nPage\n1\nINTRODUCTION\nOBJECTIVE 1: FISH GUIDANCE EFFICIENCY OF THE\nEXTENDED-LENGTH SUBMERSIBLE BAR SCREEN\nAND THE EXTENDED-LENGTH SUBMERSIBLE\nTRAVELING SCREEN\n3\nApproach\n3\nResults and Discussion\n9\nSpring Outmigration\n10\nSummer Outmigration\n13\nEFFECTS OF THE EXTENDED-LENGTH SUBMERSIBLE\nOBJECTIVE 2:\nBAR SCREEN AND THE EXTENDED-LENGTH\nSUBMERSIBLE TRAVELING SCREEN\nON FISH CONDITION\n14\nApproach\n14\nResults and Discussion\n17\nSpring Outmigration\n17\nSummer Outmigration\n18\n20\nCONCLUSIONS\n22\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n23\nREFERENCES\n27\nAPPENDIXES\nAppendix A\nStatistical Analysis of Using the Center Column\nFyke-Net Catch with an Expansion Factor in\nExtended-Length Screen Fish Guidance Efficiency\n27\nStudies","Appendix B\nData Tables\n39\nAppendix C\nA Direct Method for Determining the Descaling\nFraction Attributable to Handling during Fish\nGuidance Efficiency Testing\n97","INTRODUCTION\nMcNary Dam, at River Kilometer 467 (River Mile 292), is\noperated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and is the\nfourth hydroelectric project from the mouth of the Columbia\nRiver. Prior to 1981, juvenile fish migrants encountering McNary\nDam had to use either spillways or turbine intakes for passage\ndownstream. Early estimates of indirect and direct mortality of\nyearling and subyearling chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus\ntshawytscha) resulting from passage through turbines ranged from\n11 to 40% (Schoeneman et al. 1961, Long et al. 1968, Ebel and\nRaymond 1976, Raymond 1979) . More recently, Iwamoto et al.\n(1994) estimated turbine mortalities of 8 and 18% at Lower\nGranite and Little Goose Dams, respectively, on the Snake River.\nSince 1981, a juvenile fish bypass system has been in operation\nat McNary Dam for collecting migrants for transport by barge or\ntruck to a release site below Bonneville Dam or for release\ndownstream from McNary Dam. The bypass system relies on\nstandard-length submersible traveling screens (STSs) to divert\njuvenile salmonids away from turbines and guide them into\ngatewells for collection.\nFish guidance efficiency (FGE) for yearling chinook salmon\nand steelhead (O. mykiss) using the STS has generally been 70% or\ngreater. However, for subyearling chinook salmon, mean guidance\nhas been less than 50% (Krcma et al. 1983, Krcma et al. 1985,\nSwan and Norman 1987, Brege et al. 1988) One hypothesis for the\ndisparity in FGE values is that the two age-groups migrate at\ndifferent depths; yearling fish travel nearer the surface and are","2\nmore easily diverted than subyearling fish. Hydraulic testing\nusing turbine intake models indicated that a longer screen would\ndeflect more of the water entering the intake, thereby improving\nflows into the gatewell (Engineering Hydraulics Inc. 1983,\nEngineering Hydraulics Inc. 1984, Davidson 1989) . Subsequent\nbiological testing by the National Marine Fisheries Service\n(NMFS) using longer guidance devices confirmed that FGE for all\nspecies could be enhanced by intercepting fish migrating deeper\nin the water column (Swan and Norman 1987, Swan et al. 1990) .\nIn 1991, NMFS began testing two extended-length screens as\nalternatives to the STS: the extended-length submersible bar\nscreen and the extended-length submersible traveling screen.\nThese screens are approximately 12.1 m (40 ft) long, or nearly\ntwice the length of the STS. During initial testing, both\nextended-length screens increased FGE to over 80% for yearling\nchinook salmon and 50% for subyearling chinook salmon (Brege\net al. 1992) . However, the extended-length traveling screen\ncaused unacceptably high levels of descaling, which prompted\ndesign modifications to streamline structural members and alter\nthe mesh surface attachment mechanism of this device. Various\nconfigurations of the extended-length bar screen were tested\nagainst the STS during the 1992 field season, pending changes to\nthe extended-length traveling screen.\nIn 1993, a redesigned extended-length traveling screen\nbecame available for parallel testing against the extended-length\nbar screen. Specific research objectives for McNary Dam in 1993\nwere","3\n1) To evaluate the ability of the extended-length submersible bar\nscreen and the redesigned extended-length submersible\ntraveling screen to guide juvenile salmonids, especially\nyearling and subyearling chinook salmon during the spring and\nsummer outmigrations.\n2) To determine the effects of the extended-length submersible\nbar screen and the redesigned extended-length submersible\ntraveling screen on juvenile salmonid descaling.\nOBJECTIVE 1: FISH GUIDANCE EFFICIENCY OF THE EXTENDED-LENGTH\nSUBMERSIBLE BAR SCREEN AND THE EXTENDED-LENGTH SUBMERSIBLE\nTRAVELING SCREEN\nApproach\nMethods for determining FGE were similar to those used by\nBrege et al. (1992) and McComas et al. (1993) . Extended-length\nscreens were used in all three slots of each test turbine unit to\nmaintain uniform flows. The test screens were in the center\nslots with the redesigned extended-length traveling screen in\nSlot 5B and an extended-length bar screen in Slot 6B (Fig. 1)\n.\nSince only one redesigned extended-length traveling screen was\navailable, older-style extended-length traveling screens were\nmodified by perforated plate porosity changes to reduce fish\ndescaling. Also, because Slot A flows are normally higher than\nSlot B and C flows of a given turbine unit, partially raised\noperating gates were used to restrict flows in Slots 5A and 6A\n(Fig 1) . Initial screen conditions in FGE test units were","4\n1993 Fyke-net layout\nMcNary Dam cross section\n(All nets with cod ends)\nNorth Center South\nRow\nGatewell\n1\n(bulkhead slot)\nGate slot\n2\nJuvenile fish\n3\nbypass flume\nOperating gate\n4\n(raised position)\n5\nVertical barrier screen\n6\n7\nExtended-length\nscreen\nFyke\nnets\n80\nFigure 1. . -- -Cross section of turbine unit at McNary Dam with extended - 1 ength\nscreen and fyke nets in place.","5\nPerforated\nplate\nTurbine\nScreen\nporosity (%)\nUnit/slot\ntype\nExtended-length traveling screen\n25\n5A\nRedesigned ext-length traveling screen\n36\n5B\nExtended-length traveling screen\n34\n5C\nExtended-length bar screen\n30\n6A\nExtended-length bar screen\n30\n6B\nExtended-length bar screen\n33\n6C\nAll slots in Turbine Units 5 and 6 contained modified\nbalanced-flow vertical barrier screens that separated the\nbulkhead slot from the downstream gate slot and confined guided\nfish to the upstream gatewell (Fig. 1). The vertical barrier\nscreens used, including the one in the descaling control slot\n(7B), have been described in previous reports of FGE studies at\nMcNary Dam (Brege et al. 1992, McComas et al. 1993) .\nExtended-length screens were maintained at standard\nelevation throughout both spring and summer test periods, and\nscreen angles were fixed at 55°. Flows through FGE test turbine\nunits were constant at 15,000* cfs for all tests. Turbine-unit\nloads of about 75 MW (dependent on forebay elevation) and\nappropriate perforated plate porosities resulted in a screen-\napproach water velocity of approximately 2.5 fps and a gatewell\nthroat velocity of about 9.0 fps for the extended-length devices;\nthis was comparable to conditions for an STS with no operating\ngate.\nFlows through FGE test turbine units were increased by 2,000 cfs to\n*\ncompensate for reductions caused by the fyke-net array and support\nstructure placed in the turbine intake. This adjustment approximated\nnormal turbine operation within the 1% optimal efficiency range without\nfyke nets.","6\nDuring FGE tests, estimates of the numbers of fish\nsuccessfully guided into test gatewells were determined by direct\ncounts from gatewell dipbasket catches. Unguided fish were\nenumerated from captures in a 21-element fyke-net array\n(3 columns of 7 rows each) deployed in the operating gate slot,\nimmediately downstream from the test gatewell (Fig. 1) . Since\nthe proportion of total fyke-net catch for each column is not\nsufficiently predictable with extended-length screens, cod ends\nwere placed on all 21 fyke nets during FGE tests (Appendix A)\n.\nFish guidance efficiency was calculated as the number of guided\nfish recovered from the gatewell divided by the total number of\nfish (by species) entering the turbine intake:\nGW\nFGE =\nX 100%\nGW + FN\nwhere GW = gatewell catch\nFN = fyke-net catch.\nTest dates and conditions are listed in Table 1. Testing\ntypically began at 2000 h and terminated when enough fish (2200)\nof the target species had been collected from one of the test\nslots (either 5B or 6B) . Minimum test duration was 1 hour.\nA 2-day randomized block sampling design was employed using\noperating gate position and screen type as the only variables for\nall tests. Operating gate position was alternated between no\noperating gate (gate removed) and partially raised operating gate\n(raised 2.4 m above the stored position) in test gatewells on\nsuccessive days. Fish guidance efficiency tests were conducted\nsimultaneously for each test date in Slots 5B and 6B.","7\nTable 1.\nTest schedule for the 1993 field season at McNary Dam.\n-\nExtended- and standard-length - screens were maintained at\nstandard elevation and at a 55° angle for all tests, with\nmodified balanced flow vertical barrier screens in test\nand descaling control slots.\nOperating\nPerforated\nTest\nTest\nTest\nGuidance\nUnit\nFlow\nplate\ngate\nseries\ndates\ntype\nslot\n(kcfs)\nposition\nporosity (%)\nscreen\nESTSb\nPROG /NOG\n1\n28-30 April\nFGE\n5B\n15\n36\n1-5 May\nFGE\nESBSe\n6B\n15\nNOG/PROG\n30\nDes*\n_h\n18-29 May\nSTS\n7B\nNOG\n48\n-\nla\n22-29 May\nFGE/Des\nESTS\n5B\n15\nPROG/NOG\n36\nFGE/Des\nESBS\n6B\n15\nNOG/PROG\n30\n2\n21-28 June\nDes\nESTS\n5A\n15\nPROG\n25\n2-29 July\nFGE\nESTS\n5B\n15\nPROG/NOG\n36\nDes\nESBS\n6A\n15\nPROG\n30\nFGE\nESBS\n6B\n15\nPROG/NOG\n30\nDes\nSTS\n7B\nNOG\n48\n-\na\nFish guidance efficiency.\nb\nExtended-length submersible traveling screen.\nC\nPartially raised operating gate (raised 2.4 m) .\nd No operating gate (fully raised or removed)\n.\ne\nExtended-length submersible bar screen.\nf\nDescaling test.\ng\nStandard-length submersible traveling screen.\nh\nVariable unit flow determined by McNary Dam operational requirements.","8\nTwo interruptions occurred during the course of FGE tests.\nA transformer malfunction in Unit 6 halted testing from 11 to\n17 May while repairs were made. Sampling was also briefly\nsuspended because of the possibility of excessive fyke-net\nmortalities when high numbers of subyearling chinook salmon were\ncaptured on 28 June and elevated counts were reported by the\nMcNary Dam fish passage facility. Sampling was resumed on\n2 July. During the period when daily fish facility counts\nremained high (>100,000 subyearling chinook salmon, 2 July\nthrough 10 July), FGE testing was conducted after 2400 h to avoid\nthe peak hours of fish passage. Orphaned data from two unpaired\ndays resulting from these interruptions (10 May and 28 June) were\nomitted from statistical analyses.\nDipbasket efficiency testing was conducted as in past FGE\nstudies (Krcma et al. 1985) . Freeze-branded yearling chinook\nsalmon and steelhead obtained from the McNary Dam juvenile fish\npassage facility were released into the gatewell of Slot 5B at\nthe beginning of normal FGE testing and removed after the test\nalong with the gatewell catch. Dipbasket efficiency (DBE) was\ndefined, for each species, as the number of recaptured freeze-\nbranded fish divided by the total number of freeze-branded fish\nreleased:\nDBE\nwhere R = freeze-branded fish recaptured\nM = freeze-branded - fish released.\nWhile FGE tests were in progress, periodic dipbasket samples\nwere taken from Slot 5B to monitor the number of guided fish","9\ncollected in the test gatewell. Concern was raised during the\nspring test series that higher FGE associated with Slot 5B\n(containing the redesigned extended-length traveling screen) may\nhave been a result of dipping that gatewell while the turbine\nunit was operating; the gatewell of Slot 6B was routinely dipped\nat the conclusion of the test, after the turbine unit had been\nshut down. To examine the null hypothesis that there was no\ndifference in FGE values related to whether the unit was\noperating when the gatewell was dipped, a series of eight\nreplicates was conducted near the end of the spring outmigration,\nconcurrent with FGE testing. Slots 5B and 6B were dipped during\ntesting for 2 days (while the units were running), followed by\n2 days when they were dipped only after unit operation had ceased\nat the end of the test. All combinations of screen type and\noperating gate position were represented twice for each test slot\nduring the eight trials.\nMean differences between conditions were examined\nstatistically using two-sample t-tests and randomized block\nanalysis of variance (RBANOVA) Fish guidance efficiency\nestimates were used where sample sizes were at least 30 fish.\nEstimates of FGE can be assumed to be binomially distributed. A\nsample size of 30 ensures that the data are approximately\nnormally distributed, which satisfies one assumption in the use\nof analysis of variance procedures.\nResults and Discussion\nA dipbasket efficiency test was conducted in Slot 5B during\nFGE testing on 27 May. Test results indicated a dipbasket","10\nefficiency of 100% for yearling chinook salmon and 98% for\nsteelhead.\nFor both the spring and summer sampling periods, catch data\nfor individual FGE replicates appear by species in Appendix\nTable B1. Results of statistical comparisons between treatments\nare summarized in Appendix Table B2.\nSpring Outmigration\nFish guidance efficiency testing for yearling chinook salmon\nbegan 28 April and continued through 29 May, comprising a single\nseries of 20 nights (Table 1, Test Series 1) . Guidance was high\nthroughout the sample period, averaging 85% (SE = 0.8) for all\nextended-length screen tests combined. With no operating gate,\nmean FGE with yearling chinook salmon was 89% for the extended-\nlength traveling screen, compared to 83% for the extended-length\nbar screen. With a partially raised operating gate, guidance was\n87% for the extended-length traveling screen and 80% for the\nextended-length bar screen. A two-factor RBANOVA revealed no\nstatistically significant interaction between operating gate\nposition and screen type, and no significant differences in mean\nFGE values by operating gate position for yearling chinook\nsalmon, steelhead, or sockeye salmon (O. nerka) . However, when\nall 20 nights were combined for each screen type without regard\nto operating gate setting, mean guidance values for the extended-\nlength traveling screen were significantly higher than for the\nextended-length bar screen for all three species:","11\nFGE (%)\nYearling\nScreen\nchinook\nSockeye\nsalmon (SE)\ntype\nSteelhead (SE)\nsalmon (SE)\nExtended-length\ntraveling screen\n88 (1.1)\n93 (0.7)\n85 (1.7)\nExtended-length\nbar screen\n81 (2.2)\n91 (0.7)\n73 (1.9)\nFish guidance efficiency for juvenile coho salmon\n(O. kisutch) averaged 98% with both the extended-length traveling\nscreen (SE = 0.7) and the extended-length bar screen (SE = 0.4) .\nThe fyke-net catch distributions for yearling chinook salmon\nwere similar for both extended-length devices in this study\n(Fig. 2), and typical of catch distributions observed in past FGE\nstudies involving extended-length screens (Brege et al. 1992,\nMcComas et al. 1993) Summed across all three fyke-net columns,\nmean catches were concentrated in Net Level 5 for both screen\ntypes, regardless of operating gate setting. There was a\nslightly elevated catch in Net Level 2 for both screens, which\nmay have been associated with loss of fish through the gap\nbetween the top of the screen and the ceiling of the turbine\nintake.\nTests for differences between mean FGE values obtained by\ndipping test gatewells during turbine unit operation and after\nunits had been turned off occurred from 22 to 29 May (Table 1,\nTest Series 1a) . For Units 5 and 6 combined, FGE was 88% (SE =\n1.4) for gatewells dipped with the unit running, compared to 87%\n(SE = 1.7) when the unit was not running. There was no","Partially raised operating gate and no operating gate\nScreen type\nScreen type\nESBS\nESTS\n7\nESTS\nESBS\n7\n6\n6\nNo operating gate\n5\n5\nNet level\nNet level\n4\n4\n3\n3\n2\n2\n1\n1\n40\n30\n20\n10\no\n40\n30\n20\n10\n0\nguidance efficiency tests using\ngates and no operating gate in\nlength submersible bar screens\nPercent net catch by fyke-net\nScreen type\nlength submersible traveling\nscreens (ESTS) and extended-\nsalmon captured during fish\nESTS\nESBS\n(ESBS) at McNary Dam, 1993.\n7\nlevel for yearling chinook\npartially raised operating\nconjunction with extended-\nPartially raised operating gate\n6\n5\nNet level\n4\n3\n2\n1\nFigure 2.\n40\n30\n20\n10\n0","13\nsignificant difference in guidance between the two treatments\n(t = 0.345, df = 7, P = 0.7351).\nSummer Outmigration\nTests with subyearling chinook salmon during the summer\noutmigration consisted of a 24-night series from 21 June through\n29 July (Table 1, Test Series 2) A statistically significant\ninteraction between operating gate position and extended-length\nscreen type (F = 4.20; df = 11,1; P = 0.0485) precluded combining\nthe data by either of these variables.\nWith a partially raised operating gate, mean FGE was\nsignificantly higher for the extended-length traveling screen\n(67%, SE = 3.6) than for the extended-length bar screen (52%,\nSE = 3.7). . This was the only statistically significant\ndifference in mean FGE values among all four treatments for\nsubyearling chinook salmon. With no operating gate, FGE was 59%\nfor both the extended-length traveling screen (SE = 3.5) and the\nextended-length bar screen (SE = 1.7) Therefore, there was no\nsignificant difference in FGE between the best guidance condition\nfor the extended-length traveling screen (67%, with a partially\nraised operating gate) and the best guidance condition for the\nextended-length bar screen (59%, with no operating gate) .\nDue to the variability encountered in subyearling chinook\nsalmon data, only FGE differences equal to or greater than 8.5%\nwere detectable, resulting in a relatively weak data set for the\nsummer test period. Though the 2-day blocking accounted for a\nconsiderable portion of the variability, there was evidence of\nsubstantial within-block daily variation during the summer","14\noutmigration. For example, the three lowest FGE values recorded\nfor both extended-length screen types occurred on nights when the\nextended-length traveling screen with no operating gate was\npaired for testing with the extended-length bar screen and\npartially raised operating gate combination. Guidance was not\nnearly as low on other nights within the same 2-day block when\nthe operating gate positions were reversed for each screen. The\nresults of other pairs tested during the season showed the\nopposite trend, though not of the same magnitude. Whether these\nvariations within each block reflected a day effect or an\ninteraction between operating gate position and guidance device\nis unknown.\nAs with the spring outmigration, subyearling chinook salmon\nfyke-net catch distributions were typical for extended-length\nscreens, with highest mean concentrations in Net Levels 4 and 5\nfor both devices (Fig. 3) Mean percent catch at Net Level 2\nwith the extended-length bar screen was lower compared to the\nyearling chinook salmon results, but was virtually the same with\nthe extended-length traveling screen for both spring and summer\ntests.\nOBJECTIVE 2: EFFECTS OF THE EXTENDED-LENGTH SUBMERSIBLE BAR\nSCREEN AND THE EXTENDED-LENGTH SUBMERSIBLE TRAVELING SCREEN\nON FISH CONDITION\nApproach\nFish condition was evaluated for all juvenile salmonids, by\nspecies, using standard Fish Transportation Oversight Team\ndescaling criteria (Ceballos et al. 1992) . Descaling was defined","Partially raised operating gate and no operating gate\nScreen type\nScreen type\nESTS\nESBS\n7\nESTS\nESBS\n7\n6\n6\nNo operating gate\n5\n5\nNet level\nNet level\n4\n4\n3\n9\n2\n2\n1\n-\n1\n40\n30\n20\n10\no\n40\nso\n20\n10\n0\nguidance efficiency tests using\ngates and no operating gate in\nlength submersible bar screens\n- - Percent net catch by fyke-net\nlevel for subyearling chinook\nScreen type\nlength submersible traveling\nscreens (ESTS) and extended-\nESBS\nESTS\nsalmon captured during fish\n7\n(ESBS) at McNary Dam, 1993.\npartially raised operating\nconjunction with extended-\nPartially raised operating gate\n6\nb\nNet level\n4\n3\n2\n1\nFigure 3. .\n40\n30\n20\n10\n0","16\nas the number of descaled guided fish divided by the total number\nof guided fish. The descaling test design followed the design\nused for FGE testing of extended-length screens in Slots 5B and\n6B. An STS in Slot 7B was used as the descaling control. No\noperating gate was used with the control STS except during the\nfirst four test nights (21 through 24 June) , when a stored\noperating gate was inadvertently placed in the downstream gate\nslot. Data from these tests were omitted from analyses. Flows\nthrough Unit 7 were adjusted daily to accommodate McNary Dam\npower output demands.\nOne additional descaling comparison was added to the study\ndesign during the subyearling outmigration. As noted previously,\nolder-style extended-length traveling screens were used in Slots\n5A and 5C to provide uniform flow into the turbine unit. A major\ndifference between the old-style screen and the redesigned\nextended-length traveling screen in Slot 5B was the mechanism\nemployed to attach the nylon mesh surface material to the\nrotating belts. Following use of the new attachment technique\nfor reducing descaling during the yearling chinook salmon\noutmigration, the question was raised whether similar\nmodifications to the older-style extended-length traveling\nscreens would result in descaling values comparable to those with\nthe extended-length bar screen. To test the hypothesis that\nthere would be no difference in mean descaling between a modified\nolder-style extended-length traveling screen and an extended-\nlength bar screen, the screen in Slot 5A was appropriately\nmodified for comparison to the extended-length bar screen in","17\nSlot 6A during the subyearling chinook salmon outmigration.\nDescaling samples were collected from Slots 5A and 6A each night\nduring the summer outmigration test period.\nAs with the FGE data, mean descaling differences between the\nextended-length traveling screen and the extended-length bar\nscreen were examined using a 2-day RBANOVA. Where gate position\nwas not a factor (as in the comparison between Slots 5A and 6A),\n1 day was considered a block and a single factor ANOVA was used.\nDescaling estimates with a sample size less than 25 were not\nconsidered for analysis.\nResults and Discussion\nDescaling results for individual tests are summarized by\ntest slot and species in Appendix Table B3. Statistical\ncomparisons of descaling results are summarized in Appendix Table\nB4. In addition, preliminary data and an evaluation of the\npossible effects of test procedures on descaling results are\nincluded in Appendix C.\nSpring Outmigration\nThere was no statistically significant interaction between\noperating gate position and guidance device type for any salmonid\nspecies during the spring outmigration, and no significant\ndifferences in mean descaling by species were found for either\noperating gate position or screen type. By screen type, mean\npercent descaling values were","18\nPercent descaling (SE)\nScreen\nYearling\nchinook\nSteelhead\ntype\nCoho\nSockeye\nExtended-length\ntraveling screen\n12.9 (1.1)\n5.2 (0.8)\n35.9 (2.3)\n5.8\n(1.4)\nExtended-length\nbar screen\n11.2\n(1.1)\n4.3 (0.6)\n8.2\n(1.4)\n31.5 (3.5)\n10.5 (0.7)\n5.1 (0.7)\n5.6 (1.2)\n38.6 (2.1)\nSTS\nFor all screen types and operating gate conditions combined,\ndescaling averaged 12.0 (SE = 0.6), 4.8 (SE = 0.4) , 6.9\n(SE = 0.7), and 33.9% (SE = 1.5) for yearling chinook salmon,\nsteelhead, coho salmon, and sockeye salmon, respectively, over\nthe spring outmigration test period.\nNo statistically significant descaling differences were\nfound for yearling chinook salmon dipped from gatewells when\nturbine units were operating and not operating (t = -0.298,\ndf = 7, P = 0.7701). When gatewells were dipped with test units\noperating, mean descaling for the extended-length traveling\nscreen and extended-length bar screen combined was 14.9%\n(SE = 1.9), compared to a mean of 15.7% (SE = 2.0) when gatewells\nwere dipped with the test units off.\nSummer Outmigration\nThere was a statistically significant interaction between\noperating gate position and extended-length screen type for\nsubyearling chinook salmon. For treatments involving operating\ngate position, the only statistical difference found was that the\n12.2% (SE = 2.1) mean descaling for the extended-length traveling","19\nscreen with no operating gate was significantly higher than any\nother operating gate/screen type combination, including the STS\nwith no operating gate. Respective subyearling chinook salmon\ndescaling averaged 5.6 (SE = 0.7) and 5.2% (SE = 1.3) for the\nextended-length traveling screen and extended-length bar screen\nwith a partially raised operating gate. With no operating gate,\nmean subyearling chinook salmon descaling values were 6.0%\n(SE = 1.1) for the extended-length bar screen and 7.7% (SE = 1.0)\nfor the control STS in Slot 7B. These descaling results were not\nsurprising, since higher flows into gate slots associated with\nthe no operating gate condition might be expected to produce more\ndescaling by allowing fish less control in avoiding contact with\neither the guidance device or the vertical barrier screen.\nThere was no statistically significant difference in mean\ndescaling between the modified older-style extended-length\ntraveling screen in Slot 5A (6.5%, SE = 0.9) and the extended-\nlength bar screen in Slot 6A (8.5%, SE = 0.8) .\nWhen the combined descaling data were compared among all\ntest gatewells without regard to operating gate position,\nstatistically significant differences were found between the\nredesigned extended-length traveling screen in Slot 5B (8.9%,\nSE = 1.4) and both the modified extended-length traveling screen\nin Slot 5A and the extended-length bar screen in Slot 6A. Mean\ndescaling for subyearling chinook salmon was also significantly\nhigher with the extended-length bar screen in Slot 6A than with\nthe extended-length bar screen in Slot 6B (5.7%, SE = 0.9) .\nThere was no significant difference in mean descaling between the","20\ncontrol STS in Slot 7B and any of the extended-length screen\ntreatments.\nDescaling analyses comparing mean values among all five test\nslots should take into account the primary objective addressed in\neach slot. For example, tests in Slots 5B and 6B included a\ncomparison of operating gate position (no operating gate vs.\npartially raised gate), while there was no change in the\npartially raised gate condition in the A slots of these units\nthroughout the summer outmigration test period. Also, the\ndetection level for differences in descaling for these data was\n2%. While these differences may have statistical validity,\nlittle practical distinction exists between descaling rates\ndiffering by only two percentage points.\nCONCLUSIONS\n1) For yearling chinook salmon, FGE with the extended-length\ntraveling screen (88%) was significantly higher than with the\nextended-length bar screen (81%) . However no significant\ndifference in FGE or descaling was detected based upon whether\nthe operating gate was partially raised or removed entirely.\n2) No significant differences in yearling chinook salmon\ndescaling were found among mean values for the extended-length\ntraveling screen, the extended-length bar screen, and the STS.\n3) Mean FGE and descaling values obtained by dipping yearling\nchinook salmon from gatewells while the turbine unit was\noperating and while it was off were not significantly\ndifferent.","21\n4) For subyearling chinook salmon, FGE with the extended-length\ntraveling screen (67%) was significantly higher than with the\nextended-length bar screen (52%) when both were used with a\npartially raised operating gate. There was no significant\ndifference in FGE between the best guidance condition for the\nextended-length traveling screen (67%, with a partially raised\noperating gate) and the best guidance condition for the\nextended-length bar screen (59%, with no operating gate) .\n5) Descaling for subyearling chinook salmon using the extended-\nlength traveling screen (12.2%) was significantly higher than\nall other operating gate/screen type combinations, including\nthe STS. There were no significant differences among any of\nthe other treatments.\n6) The 2-day block sampling design employed in this study always\npaired the same operating gate position/screen type\ncombinations for testing on alternate nights. At least for\nthe summer outmigration, there was some indication of day to\nday variation not accounted for with this blocking. These\ndata should be considered in future sample designs involving\nextended-length guidance devices.","22\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nWe wish to express our appreciation to our seasonal\nemployees for their interest and efforts during this project. We\nextend special thanks to the Walla Walla District COE personnel,\nparticularly Ms. Theresa Barila and Mr. Mark Lindgren, and at\nMcNary Dam to Mr. David Coleman and to Mr. William Pruit and the\ntraveling screen crew, for their invaluable assistance and\ncooperation. We also extend special thanks to our maintenance\nstaff, especially Mr. Irvin Wilbert, Mr. Wayne Henry, and\nMr. Phillip Weitz for their efforts in this study.","23\nREFERENCES\nBrege, D. A. , S. J. Grabowski, W. D. Muir, S. R. Hirtzel,\nS. J. Mazur, and B. P. Sandford. 1992. Studies to\ndetermine the effectiveness of extended traveling screens\nand extended bar screens at McNary Dam, 1991. Report to\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract DACW68-84-H-0034,\n32 p. plus Appendixes. (Available from Northwest Fisheries\nScience Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E. Seattle, WA 98112-\n2097.)\nBrege, D. A. W. T. Norman, G. A. Swan, and J. G. Williams.\n1988. Research at McNary Dam to improve fish guiding\nefficiency of yearling and subyearling chinook salmon,\n1987. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract\nDACW68-84-H-0034, 22 p. (Available from Northwest\nFisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E. ,\nSeattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nCeballos, J. R. S. W. Pettit, and J. L. McKern. 1992. Fish\nTransportation Oversight Team. Annual Report - 1991.\nTransportation operations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers.\nNOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWR-29. 77 p. plus Appendix.\nDavidson, R. A. 1989. Lower Granite fish guidance efficiency\nstudy, Snake River, Washington. Report to U.S. Army Corps\nof Engineers, Miscellaneous Paper HL-89-1, 21 p. (Available\nfrom National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal\nRoad, Springfield, VA 22161.)\nEbel, W. J. and H. L. Raymond. 1976. Effect of\natmospheric gas saturation on salmon and steelhead\ntrout of the Snake and Columbia Rivers. Mar. Fish.\nRev. 38 (7) : 1-14.\nEngineering Hydraulics Incorporated. 1983. Hydraulic model\ntesting of the submersible traveling screen. Report to\nNational Marine Fisheries Service, Contract 82-ABC-00226,\n13 p. plus Appendixes. (Available from Northwest Fisheries\nScience Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E. Seattle, WA\n98112-2097.)\nEngineering Hydraulics Incorporated. 1984. Hydraulic model\ntesting of the submersible traveling screen. Report to U.S.\nArmy Corps of Engineers, Contract 82-ABC-00226, 18 p. plus\nAppendixes. (Available from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,\nWalla Walla District, City-County Airport, Walla Walla, WA\n99362. )","24\nIwamoto, R. N. W. D. Muir, B. P. Sandford, K. W. McIntyre,\nD. A. Frost, J. G. Williams, G. S. Smith, and J. R.\nSkalaski. 1994. Survival estimates for the passage of\njuvenile chinook salmon through Snake River dams and\nreservoirs. Report to Bonneville Power Administration,\nContract DE-AI79-93BP10891, 140 p. (Available from\nBonneville Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR\n97205.)\nKrcma, R. F. , M. H. Gessel, and F. J. Ossiander. 1983.\nResearch at McNary Dam to develop and implement a\nfingerling protection system for John Day Dam, 1982.\nReport to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract\nDACW57-78-F-0373, 24 p. plus Appendixes. (Available\nfrom Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake\nBlvd. E. Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nKrcma, R. F. G. A. Swan, and F. J. Ossiander. 1985. Fish\nguiding and orifice passage efficiency tests with\nsubyearling chinook salmon, McNary Dam, 1984. Report\nto U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract DACW68-84-H-\n0034, 19 p. plus Appendixes. (Available from Northwest\nFisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E.\nSeattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nLong, C. W., R. W. Krcma, and F. J. Ossiander. 1968.\nResearch on fingerling mortality in Kaplan turbines--\n1968. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Progress Report,\n7 p. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science\nCenter, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E. , Seattle, WA 98112-\n2097.) )\nMcComas, R. L. , D. A. Brege, W. D. Muir, B. P. Sandford, and\nD. B. Dey. 1993. Studies to determine the\neffectiveness of extended-length submersible bar\nscreens at McNary Dam, 1992. Report to U.S. Army Corps\nof Engineers, Contract DACW68-84-H-0034, 34 p. plus\nAppendixes. (Available from Northwest Fisheries\nScience Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA\n98112-2097.)\nRaymond, H. L. 1979. Effect of dams and impoundments on\nmigrations of juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead\nfrom the Snake River, 1966 to 1975. Trans. Am. Fish.\nSoc. 108:505-529.\nSchoeneman, D. E. R. T. Pressey, and C. O. Junge, Jr.\n1961. Mortalities of downstream migrant salmon at\nMcNary Dam. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 90:50-72.","25\nSwan, G. A , and W. T. Norman. 1987. Research to improve\nsubyearling chinook guidance efficiency at McNary Dam,\n1986. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract\nDACW68-84-H-0034, 22 p. (Available from Northwest\nFisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E.,\nSeattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nSwan, G. A., , B. H. Monk, J. G. Williams, and B. P. Sandford.\n1990. Fish guidance efficiency of submersible traveling\nscreens at Lower Granite Dam--1989. - Report to U.S. Army\nCorps of engineers, Contract DACW68-84-H-0034, 25 p. plus\nAppendixes. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science\nCenter, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E. , Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)","","27\nAPPENDIX A\nStatistical Analysis of Using the Center Column Fyke-net Catch\nwith an Expansion Factor in Extended-Length - Screen Fish Guidance\nEfficiency Studies","","29\nINTRODUCTION\nTo obtain fish guidance efficiency (FGE) estimates for\njuvenile fish diversion screens, a determination of the number of\nunguided fish must be made. In many FGE studies to date, this\nhas been done by deploying an array of fyke nets across the\nportion of the turbine intake not intercepted by the screen.\nThis net array need only sample a fraction of the unintercepted\narea if a suitable (precise and unbiased) expansion factor can be\nfound; this can reduce by a considerable amount the number of\nfish killed in each FGE test. A simple example of this is to\nfyke net only the center one-third of the unscreened area and\nexpand the total number of fish caught by 3 (the center-net\nmethod) This approach has been evaluated for FGE studies with\nthe standard-length submersible traveling screen (STS) and\nanalysis has shown that using the center-net method gives\nreasonable estimates of the number of unguided fish.\nSubsequently, FGE estimates for STSs in nearly all studies have\nemployed this technique.\nThe development of extended-length submersible traveling\nscreens and extended-length submersible bar screens has\nnecessitated a re-examination of this expansion technique.\nExtended-length screens create different flow patterns in the\nturbine intake than the STSs, and thus may influence the\nhorizontal distribution of fish. Concern over these possible\ndifferences has led researchers to fully fyke net the turbine\nintake in all extended-length screen FGE studies to date.\nBecause it is necessary to reduce mortalities wherever feasible,","30\nit is important to evaluate the possible use of the center-net\nmethod with extended-length screens in light of available\ninformation.\nMETHODS\nThe appropriateness of using the center-net method with an\nexpansion factor was evaluated by measuring the deviation between\nFGE (using all fyke nets) and center-column-only FGE (CFGE)\nwhere:\nGW\nX 100%\nFGE =\nGW + FN\nand,\nGW\nX 100%\nCFGE =\nGW + (CN*E)\nwhere,\nGW = the number of fish in the gatewell catch\nFN = the number of fish in all the fyke nets\nCN = the number of fish in the center column of fyke nets\nE = the expansion factor.\nThe bias (relative to the standard FGE estimate) due to the\nexpansion factor was calculated using the formula bias = CFGE -\nFGE. The bias was calculated for each FGE test and then averaged\nover all tests in the data set. The average bias was calculated\nfor a range of E from 1.0 to 9.9 in increments of 0.1. The\nfollowing statistics were then obtained: the bias of the\nexpansion factor (multiplier) 3, the minimum bias multiplier, and\na + 2% bias multiplier interval.","31\nThe analysis was done for yearling chinook salmon in the\nspring and subyearling chinook salmon in the summer at McNary Dam\nin 1991-1993, The Dalles Dam in 1993, and Little Goose Dam in\n1993 (Little Goose tests did not include summer work) .\nRESULTS AND DISCUSSION\nYearling Chinook Salmon\nA total of 162 individual FGE tests were used in the\nanalysis.\nUsing the value of 3 as the multiplier of the center-column\nnet total led to an FGE bias ranging from 0.6 to 7.2% with mean\nvalues of 1. .8, 4.9, and 3.7% for the extended-length traveling\nscreen, extended-length bar screen, and combined tests,\nrespectively (Appendix Table A1) The multiplier which gave the\nminimum average bias ranged from 3.2 to 5.3 with mean values of\n3.4, 4.3, and 3.9 for the extended-length traveling screen,\nextended-length bar screen, and combined tests, respectively\n(Appendix Table A2) The +2% bias multiplier intervals were\n2.9-3.9, 3.7-4.9, and 3.4-4.5 for the extended-length traveling\nscreen, extended-length bar screen, and combined tests,\nrespectively (Appendix Table A3)\nIn all data sets, the 3 multiplier led to a positively\nbiased estimate of FGE; for extended-length traveling screen\ntests, the bias appeared to be small (i.e., less than 2%) while\nfor extended-length bar screen tests, it was higher (i.e., nearly\n5%) (Appendix Table A1) This relationship held in all data sets\nexcept for 1991 at McNary.","32\nAppendix Table A1. - - Bias of using 3 as the multiplier for FGE\ntests using only the center column of fyke\nnets.\nBias of 3 multiplier\nTurbine\nYearling\nSubyearling\nScreen unit/slot\nDam\nYear\nchinook\nchinook\n(%)\n(%)\nMcNary\n1991\nESTS\n5B\n4.6\n0.6\nESBSb\n6B\n3.2\n2.1\nBOTH\n3.9\n1.3\n1992\nESBS\n5B\n6.9\n3.1\nESBS\n6B\n7.2\n2.3\nBOTH\n7.1\n2.6\n1993\nESTS\n5B\n1.1\n0.2\nESBS\n6B\n3.9\n2.4\nBOTH\n2.5\n1.3\nALL\nESTS\n5B\n2.5\n0.4\nESBS\n5.3\n2.4\nBOTH\n4.4\n1.7\nThe Dalles\n1993\nESTS\n6B\n1.1\n-1.9\nESBS\n5B\n4.1\n2.8\nBOTH\n2.6\n0.5\nLittle Goose\n1993\nESTS\n5B\n0.6\nESBS\n4B\n4.0\nBOTH\n2.5\nALL\nALL\nESTS\n1.8\n-0.3\nESBS\n4.9\n2.5\nBOTH\n3.7\n1.4\nExtended-length - submersible traveling screen.\na\nb\nExtended - length submersible bar screen.","33\nAppendix Table A2. - Minimum average bias multiplier for FGE\ntests using only the center column of fyke\nnets.\nTurbine Min. ave. bias multiplier\nunit/\nYearling\nSubyearling\nchinook\nchinook\nDam\nYear\nScreen\nslot\nMcNary\n1991\nESTS\n5B\n4.3\n3.1\nESBSb\n6B\n3.7\n3.3\nBOTH\n4.0\n3.2\n3.5\n1992\nESBS\n5B\n4.9\nESBS\n6B\n5.3\n3.3\nBOTH\n5.1\n3.4\n1993\nESTS\n5B\n3.4\n3.0\nESBS\n6B\n4.0\n3.3\nBOTH\n3.7\n3.2\nALL\nESTS\n5B\n3.8\n3.1\n4.4\nESBS\n3.4\nBOTH\n4.2\n3.2\nThe Dalles\n1993\nESTS\n6B\n3.2\n2.8\nESBS\n5B\n3.8\n3.4\nBOTH\n3.4\n3.1\nLittle Goose\n1993\nESTS\n5B\n3.2\nESBS\n4B\n4.4\nBOTH\n3.8\nALL\nALL\nESTS\n3.4\n3.0\n3.4\nESBS\n4.3\nBOTH\n3.9\n3.2\nExtended-length - submersible traveling screen.\na\nb\nExtended-length - submersible bar screen.","34\n- - Multipliers of +2% bias interval for FGE\nAppendix Table A3\ntests using only the center column of fyke\nnets.\n+ 2% bias\nmultiplier interval\nTurbine\nunit/\nYearling\nSubyearling\nchinook\nchinook\nDam\nYear\nScreen\nslot\nMcNary\n1991\nESTS\n5B\n3.7 - 5.0\n2.8 - 3.4\nESBSb\n6B\n3.2 - 4.1\n3.0 - 3.7\nBOTH\n3.5 - 4.5\n2.9 - 3.5\n3.2 - 3.8\n1992\nESBS\n5B\n4.3 - 5.6\n6B\n4.6 - 6.0\n3.0 - 3.7\n4.5 - 5.8\n3.1 - 3.7\nBOTH\n2.7 - 4.0\n2.7 - 3.3\n1993\nESTS\n5B\n3.0 - 3.6\nESBS\n6B\n3.5 - 4.6\n3.1 - 4.3\n2.9 - 3.5\nBOTH\n2.8 - 3.4\nALL\nESTS\n5B\n3.1 - 4.5\n3.1 - 3.7\nESBS\n3.8 - 5.0\n2.9 - 3.6\nBOTH\n3.6 - 4.8\n2.6 - 3.0\nThe Dalles\n1993\nESTS\n6B\n2.9 - 3.4\nESBS\n5B\n3.4 - 4.2\n3.1 - 3.7\n2.8 - 3.3\nBOTH\n3.1 - 3.8\nLittle Goose\n1993\nESTS\n5B\n2.6 - 3.7\nESBS\n4B\n3.7 - 5.2\nBOTH\n3.1 - 4.4\n2.9 - 3.9\n2.7 - 3.3\nESTS\nALL\nALL\n3.7 - 4.9\n3.1 - 3.7\nESBS\n3.4 - 4.5\n2.9 - 3.5\nBOTH\nExtended-length - submersible traveling screen.\na\nb\nExtended-length - submersible bar screen.","35\nThe variation between dams appeared to be less than the\nvariation between years at a dam. This, however, is quite\nspeculative as McNary was the only dam with multiple years of\ntesting. Values were much higher for McNary 1992 data than for\nall other data sets.\nSubyearling Chinook Salmon\nA total of 177 individual FGE tests were used in the\nanalysis.\nUsing the value of 3 as the multiplier of the center-column\nnet total led to an FGE bias ranging from -1.9 to 3.1% with mean\nvalues of -0.3, 2.5, and 1.4% for the extended-length traveling\nscreen, extended-length bar screen, and combined tests,\nrespectively (Appendix Table A1). The multiplier which gave the\nminimum average bias ranged from 2.8 to 3.4 with mean values of\n3.0, 3.4, and 3.2 for the extended-length traveling screen,\nextended-length bar screen, and combined tests, respectively\n(Appendix Table A2) The +2% bias multiplier intervals were\n2.7-3.3, 3.1-3.7, and 2.9-3.5 for the extended-length traveling\nscreen, extended-length bar screen, and combined tests,\nrespectively (Appendix Table A3)\nIn all data sets but one (The Dalles 1993, extended-length\ntraveling screen) the 3 multiplier led to a small positively\nbiased estimate of FGE; for extended-length traveling screen\ntests, the bias appeared to be very small (i.e., less than 1%) /\nwhile for extended-length bar screen tests, it was moderate\n(i.e., about 2.5%) (Appendix Table A1). This relationship held\nin all data sets.","36\nThe results from the above analysis can only be used to\npredict the effect of using the center-net method if it is\nassumed that the horizontal distribution of fish entering the\nfyke-net array is the same with a full fyke-net array as it is\nwith a center-column only array. Because this assumption remains\nuntested, this analysis should be viewed as preliminary.\nCONCLUSIONS\n1)\nThe use of the center-column net method with the 3 multiplier\nappears to produce positively biased (2 to 5%) extended-\nlength screen FGE estimates (relative to the full-net array\nmethod) for yearling chinook salmon in the spring with high\nFGE and low unguided fish numbers.\n2)\nThe use of the center-column net method with the 3 multiplier\nappears to produce little bias (-0.3 to 2.5%) in extended-\nlength screen FGE estimates for subyearling fish in the\nsummer (with low FGE and high unguided fish numbers) .\nThe use of the center-column net method with the 3 multiplier\n3)\nappears to positively bias extended-length bar screen FGE\nestimates by about 3% more than extended-length traveling\nscreen FGE estimates.\nFor a given dam and set of screen types, there appears to be\n4)\nsignificant yearly variation in the effects (bias) of using\nthe center-column net method.\n5) Due to untested assumptions and the variation among species,\nscreen types, and years, it is recommended that the center-\ncolumn net FGE method not be used with extended-length","37\nscreens at this time. If it is used in the future, bias\nestimates generated from all applicable data should be used\nto adjust the resultant FGE estimates as needed (i.e., this\nreport should be updated annually) .","","39\nAPPENDIX B\nData Tables","","41\nAppendix Table B1. - - Numbers of fish caught, by species, for individual\nreplicates of fish guidance efficiency (FGE) tests\nat McNary Dam, 1993.\n28 April (5B, ESTS, PROG) a\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSockeye\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nLocation\nChinook\nL C R Totb\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n2\n2\n4\nLevel 2\n1\n3\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 4\n4\n3\n7\n1\n1\n2\n9\n10\n11\n30\n1\n3\n4\nLevel 5\n1\n1\n2\n8\n14\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n4\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\n16\n16\n24\n56\n3\n3\n8\n14\nNet total\n273\n263\n9\n2\nGatewell\n4\n339\n277\n9\n4\nTotal\n4\n100\n50\n83\n95\nFGE (%)\n100\n28 April (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\n2\n1\n3\n1\n1\nLevel 1\n2\n2\n7\n1\n3\n6\n4\n1\nLevel 2\n8\n1\n3\n12\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 3\n13\n3\n14\n30\n3\n2\n5\nLevel 4\n2\n5\n13\n10\n28\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n5\n2\n8\n15\n3\n1\n4\nLevel 6\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n6\n21\n35\n22\n38\n95\n11\n4\nNet total\n7\n291\n187\nGatewell\n387\n208\n7\nTotal\n100\n76\n90\nFGE (%)\na\nTest date (test slot, guidance device type, operating gate position) ; ESTS = extended-length\nsubmersible traveling screen, ESBS = extended-length submersible bar screen, PROG = partially\nraised operating gate, NOG = no operating gate.\nb\nRefers to fyke-net column: L = left, C = center, R = right, Tot = total catch for net level.","42\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n29 April (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n3\n1\n2\n6\n1\n1\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\n4\n1\n1\nLevel 4\n3\n1\n4\nLevel 5\n11\n12\n14\n37\n1\n2\n1\n4\nLevel 6\n3\n2\n11\n16\n3\n3\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n18\n19\n30\n67\n2\n6\n2\n10\nGatewell\n1\n226\n138\n10\nTotal\n1\n293\n148\n10\nFGE (%)\n100\n77\n93\n100\n29 April (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 2\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 4\n3\n1\n3\n7\nLevel 5\n8\n4\n6\n18\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 6\n1\n3\n4\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 7\nNet total\n14\n9\n13\n36\n2 1\n3\n1\n1\nGatewell\n87\n38\n3\nTotal\n123\n41\n3\n1\nFGE (%)\n71\n93\n100\n0","43\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n30 April (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n2\n1\n2\n5\n1\n1\nLevel 3\n2\n1\n3\n6\nLevel 4\n3\n1\n3\n7\n3\n3\nLevel 5\n7\n2\n4\n13\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n3\n4\n2\n9\n2\n2\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n18\n10\n14\n42\n2\n4\n2\n8\n1\n1\nGatewell\n3\n229\n230\n12\nTotal\n271\n238\n12\n1\nFGE (%)\n100\n85\n97\n100\n0\n30 April (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nL\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL C R Tot\nC\nR\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n1\n1\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 4\n3\n2\n3\n8\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n8\n8\n8\n24\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 6\n4\n2\n8\n14\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n16\n13\n21\n50\n1\n1\n4\n6\nGatewell\n167\n91\n7\nTotal\n217\n97\n7\nFGE (%)\n77\n94\n100","44\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n1 May (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\nLevel 4\n2\n1\n1\n4\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n1\n3\n4\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 6\n4\n3\n1\n8\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n7\n5\n6\n18\n1\n3\n3\n7\n3\nGatewell\n1\n152\n267\n29\n3\nTotal\n1\n170\n274\n29\n100\nFGE (%)\n100\n89\n97\n100\n1 May (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 2\n1\n2\n3\n1\nLevel 3\n1\n2\n1\n4\n2\n2\nLevel 4\n4\n3\n8\n15\n1\n1\n3\nLevel 5\n9\n6\n8\n23\n1\n2\nLevel 6\n5\n3\n4\n12\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\nLevel 7\nNet total\n20\n14\n23\n57\n4\n1\n8\n13\n17\n1\nGatewell\n149\n121\n1\n206\n134\n17\nTotal\n90\n100\n100\nFGE (%)\n72","45\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n3 May (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nCoho\nSockeye\nChinook\nSteelhead\nLocation\nChinook\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\n1\n1\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n1\n2\n3\n2\n2\n4\n8\n1\n1\nLevel 3\n1\n1\nLevel 4\n3\n6\n6\n15\n1\n5\n6\n1\n2\n5\n1\nLevel 5\n1\n9\n11\n21\n3\nLevel 6\n6\n7\n11\n24\n3\n1\n3\n7\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n1\n11\n24\n29\n64\n6\n11\n10\n27\n43\n299\n49\nGatewell\n5\n236\n45\n326\n51\nTotal\n6\n242\n96\n92\n96\nFGE (%)\n83\n79\n3 May (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nCoho\nSockeye\nChinook\nSteelhead\nLocation\nChinook\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n1\n6\n7\n1\n2\n2\n3\n2\n2\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n2\n5\n6\n13\n3\n4\n1\n8\n6\n5\n12\n23\n3\n4\n7\n14\n2\n1\n1\n4\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n2\n1\n3\nLevel 6\n1\n1\n2\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\n1\n6\n50\n7\n8\n10\n25\n3\n1\n1\n5\n3\n1\n10\nNet total\n1\n1\n2\n9\n14\n27\n22\n18\n186\n123\nGatewell\n2\n27\n28\n236\n148\nTotal\n4\n81\n64\nFGE (%)\n50\n79\n83","46\nAppendix Table B1 - - Continued.\n4 May (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n1\n1\n2\n2\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\n2\nLevel 4\n4\n3\n2\n9\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n1\n5\n6\n12\n1\n2\n2\n5\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n3\n4\n6\n12\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\n5\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n9\n13\n15\n5\n5\n3\n5\n13\n1\n1\n2\n3\n5\n10\nGatewell\n6\n271\n160\n39\n99\nTotal\n6\n276\n173\n40\n109\nFGE (%)\n100\n88\n92\n98\n91\n4 May (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n1\n3\n4\n8\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\nLevel 3\n2\n2\n1\n2\n3\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 4\n3\n3\n2\n8\n1\n2\n3\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n4\nLevel 5\n1\n3\n11\n15\n3\n2\n2\n7\n4\n2\n6\nLevel 6\n5\n6\n11\n2\n1\n3\n1\n1\n3\n5\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n10\n15\n19\n44\n7\n6\n7\n20\n1\n1\n4\n8\n6\n18\nGatewell\n1\n160\n114\n31\n32\nTotal\n1\n204\n134\n32\n50\nFGE (%)\n100\n78\n85\n97\n64","47\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n5 May (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n8\n1\n9\n18\n1\n1\n5\n5\n5\n15\nLevel 3\n3\n1\n4\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n5\nLevel 4\n4\n2\n5\n11\n2\n2\n4\n1\n1\n3\n2\nLevel 5\n9\n3\n8\n20\n2\n4\n6\n3\n4\n7\nLevel 6\n1\n1\n9\n8\n4\n21\n2\n1\n3\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\nNet total\n1\n1\n34\n15\n27\n76\n4\n9\n5\n18\n1\n1\n2\n13\n9\n10\n32\nGatewell\n4\n657\n298\n136\n409\nTotal\n441\n5\n733\n316\n138\nFGE (%)\n80\n90\n94\n99\n93\n5 May (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n2\n5\n7\nLevel 2\n3\n8\n11\n1\n2\n3\n2\nLevel 3\n2\n7\n9\n1\n3\n1\n5\n1\n1\n5\n7\n11\nLevel 4\n3\n4\n8\n15\n1\n1\n1\n3\n4\n3\n4\nLevel 5\n6\n9\n9\n24\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n15\nLevel 6\n1\n5\n8\n14\n1\n1\n3\n2\n3\n8\nLevel 7\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n4\nNet total\n15\n18\n42\n75\n5\n5\n6\n16\n1\n2\n3\n14\n15\n25\n54\nGatewell\n2\n355\n140\n79\n309\nTotal\n2\n430\n156\n82\n313\nFGE (%)\n100\n83\n90\n96\n85","48\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n6 May (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n3\n2\n5\n2\n2\n5\n1\n5\n11\nLevel 3\n3\n2\n2\n7\n2\n2\n1\n1\n3\n1\n2\n6\nLevel 4\n6\n5\n5\n16\n3\n3\n6\n6\n3\n6\n15\nLevel 5\n9\n3\n5\n17\n1\n2\n3\n6\n2\n3\n3\n8\nLevel 6\n2\n2\n6\n10\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n4\nLevel 7\n1\n2\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n21\n18\n20\n59\n5\n6\n8\n19\n2\n2\n18\n10\n19\n47\nGatewell\n1\n328\n272\n150\n414\nTotal\n461\n1\n387\n291\n152\nFGE (%)\n100\n85\n93\n99\n90\n6 May (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 2\n3\n6\n9\n3\n1\n5\n9\n7\n1\n9\n17\nLevel 3\n3\n7\n10\n1\n3\n2\n6\n1\n3\n5\n9\nLevel 4\n4\n7\n6\n17\n2\n1\n3\n8\n6\n8\n22\nLevel 5\n3\n8\n9\n20\n2\n1\n4\n7\n1\n1\n4\n4\n6\n14\nLevel 6\n4\n2\n2\n8\n5\n4\n2\n11\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\n20\n31\n76\nNet total\n19\n18\n32\n69\n7\n7\n12\n26\n1\n1\n25\nGatewell\n189\n225\n136\n156\nTotal\n258\n251\n137\n232\nFGE (%)\n73\n90\n99\n67","49\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n10 May (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n6\n10\n3\n1\n2\n6\n15\n6\n17\n38\nLevel 3\n2\n1\n3\n6\n1\n1\n2\n6\n7\n11\n24\nLevel 4\n7\n2\n2\n11\n2\n2\n2\n6\n5\n5\n2\n12\nLevel 5\n4\n5\n9\n18\n2\n1\n3\n6\n5\n5\n6\n16\nLevel 6\n5\n3\n9\n17\n1\n1\n2\n5\n1\n4\n10\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\n2\n2\n1\n3\nNet total\n2\n2\n20\n14\n29\n63\n8\n8\n9\n25\n39\n26\n40\n105\nGatewell\n13\n525\n451\n105\n1042\nTotal\n15\n588\n476\n105\n1147\nFGE (%)\n87\n89\n95\n100\n91\n10 May (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 2\n1\n1\n5\n5\n1\n1\n2\n9\n3\n11\n23\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n1\n4\n5\n1\n1\n2\n8\n5\n12\n25\nLevel 4\n2\n1\n2\n5\n3\n1\n1\n5\n7\n5\n6\n18\nLevel 5\n5\n4\n7\n16\n8\n2\n3\n13\n7\n5\n11\n23\nLevel 6\n2\n3\n1\n6\n1\n2\n1\n4\n3\n1\n3\n7\nLevel 7\n1\n2\n2\n5\n1\n2\n3\nNet total\n2\n2\n10\n9\n19\n38\n14\n9\n8\n31\n36\n21\n44\n101\nGatewell\n29\n467\n5\n117\n159\nTotal\n7\n155\n190\n29\n568\nFGE (%)\n71\n75\n84\n100\n82","50\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n18 May (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR Tot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n3\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 3\n3\n3\n1\n1\n1\n6\n7\n2\n1\n3\nLevel 4\n2\n2\n1\n5\n2\n1\n3\n1\n4\n5\n1\n1\n3\nLevel 5\n2\n3\n4\n9\n1\n1\n2\n4\n1\nLevel 6\n2\n1\n3\n1\n2\n1\n4\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n6\n6\n7\n5\n8\n20\n3\n7\n10\n20\n6\n1\n9\n16\n10\n83\nGatewell\n33\n213\n309\nTotal\n39\n233\n329\n10\n99\n100\n84\nFGE (%)\n85\n91\n94\n18 May (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nLevel 1\n5\nLevel 2\n2\n1\n3\n2\n3\n5\n1\n4\n2\n1\n3\n6\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n3\n1\n6\n10\n2\n2\n1\n5\nLevel 4\n3\n3\n5\n2\n7\n1\n1\n4\n4\nLevel 5\n1\n1\n3\n3\n4\n10\n2\n2\n2\n6\n4\nLevel 6\n4\n4\n2\n2\n4\nLevel 7\n2\n2\n16\n28\nNet total\n1\n5\n4\n10\n17\n4\n15\n36\n3\n2\n4\n9\n7\n5\nGatewell\n11\n205\n128\n5\n82\n5\n110\nTotal\n21\n241\n137\nFGE (%)\n52\n85\n93\n100\n75","51\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n19 May (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n1\n2\n5\n8\n1\n2\n3\n1\n1\n3\n3\n3\n9\nLevel 3\n2\n1\n3\n2\n2\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n2\n2\n1\n3\n4\n1\n1\n1\n3\n2\n3\n5\nLevel 6\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n9\n4\n5\n18\n2\n5\n3\n10\n2\n3\n6\n11\n5\n4\n10\n19\nGatewell\n22\n86\n171\n2\n154\nTotal\n40\n96\n182\n2\n173\nFGE (%)\n55\n90\n94\n100\n89\n19 May (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n2\n2\n3\n1\n4\n2\n1\n3\n5\n1\n1\n7\nLevel 3\n2\n1\n3\n6\n1\n1\n2\n4\n2\n1\n7\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n6\n6\nLevel 5\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 6\n2\n1\n1\n4\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n4\n3\n7\n14\n1\n1\n5\n7\n2\n1\n3\n6\n11\n4\n8\n23\nGatewell\n14\n63\n79\n1\n94\nTotal\n28\n70\n85\n1\n117\nFGE (%)\n50\n85\n93\n100\n80","52\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n20 May (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n1\n1\n1\n7\n8\n5\n4\n3\n12\nLevel 3\n5\n2\n4\n11\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n2\n4\n1\n1\n3\n5\n2\n3\n3\n8\nLevel 5\n1\n1\n5\n4\n6\n15\n1\n1\n1\n3\n4\n4\n8\n16\nLevel 6\n3\n2\n7\n12\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n3\n3\n10\n7\n22\n39\n2\n2\n4\n8\n18\n15\n18\n51\nGatewell\n19\n175\n250\n14\n305\nTotal\n22\n214\n258\n14\n356\nFGE (%)\n86\n82\n97\n100\n86\n20 May (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n5\n3\n5\n13\n3\n12\n23\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\n1\n3\n4\n8\nLevel 4\n2\n3\n5\n1\n1\n2\n6\n3\n12\n21\nLevel 5\n2\n2\n7\n2\n8\n17\n1\n3\n3\n7\n7\n10\n6\n23\nLevel 6\n4\n4\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n3\n2\n2\nLevel 7\nNet total\n2\n2\n1\n5\n11\n3\n15\n29\n3\n5\n7\n15\n33\n19\n35\n87\nGatewell\n18\n215\n148\n14\n347\n14\n434\nTotal\n23\n244\n163\nFGE (%)\n78\n88\n91\n100\n80","53\nAppendix Table B1. - Continued.\n21 May (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n3\n3\n7\n13\n1\nLevel 2\n3\n2\n5\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\n2\n2\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\n2\n3\n3\n2\n8\n1\n2\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\n5\n2\n10\nLevel 5\n3\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n2\n1\n2\n2\n1\n2\nLevel 6\n2\n2\n1\n2\n2\nLevel 7\n15\n12\n38\n3\n2\n9\n11\nNet total\n4\n3\n2\n9\n4\n2\n6\n4\n181\n109\n21\nGatewell\n29\n140\n219\n118\n21\nTotal\n38\n146\n83\n92\n100\nFGE (%)\n76\n96\n21 May (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nC\nR\nTot\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\n2\n2\nLevel 1\n3\n1\n8\n12\n1\n2\nLevel 2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n6\n2\n4\nLevel 3\n3\n3\n1\n1\n2\n2\n6\n9\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n2\n2\n4\n1\n1\n2\n1\n5\n2\n3\n10\n2\n5\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n2\n1\n3\n2\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n13\n6\n21\n40\n3\n8\nNet total\n1\n4\n6\n11\n4\n2\n6\n12\n2\n3\n25\n158\n96\n58\nGatewell\n12\n25\n198\n108\n66\nTotal\n23\n100\n80\n89\n88\nFGE (%)\n52","54\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n22 May (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n1\n1\n4\n4\n3\n2\n5\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n1\n4\n2\n7\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n1\n1\n5\n1\n6\n12\nLevel 5\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n2\n4\n4\n1\n9\nLevel 6\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n9\n7\n18\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\n1\n3\n4\nNet total\n1\n4\n5\n3\n1\n2\n6\n2\n5\n7\n16\n18\n21\n55\nGatewell\n45\n58\n66\n49\n145\nTotal\n50\n64\n63\n19\n200\nFGE (%)\n73\n90\n91\n90\n100\n22 May (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n4\n1\n3\n8\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 3\n2\n1\n3\n3\n2\n5\n4\n4\n8\nLevel 4\n4\n14\n1\n2\n3\n3\n1\n4\n5\n5\nLevel 5\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n2\n2\n5\n5\n8\n18\nLevel 6\n2\n3\n2\n2\n4\n9\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n4\n2\n5\n11\n8\n2\n4\n14\n1\n2\n1\n4\n16\n18\n23\n57\nGatewell\n37\n86\n62\n19\n93\n19\n150\nTotal\n48\n100\n66\nFGE (%)\n77\n86\n94\n100\n62","55\nAppendix Table B1. -- Continued.\n23 May (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n3\n1\n4\n2\n2\n1\n1\n2\n1\n3\nLevel 3\n1\n2\n1\n4\n1\n1\n2\n2\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n2\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\nLevel 5\n1\n2\n3\n2\n1\n4\n7\n3\n2\n1\n6\nLevel 6\n3\n5\n3\n11\n1\n1\n1\n4\n1\n6\nLevel 7\n2\n1\n3\n1\n1\nNet total\n6\n3\n3\n12\n9\n9\n7\n25\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\n8 11\n4\n23\n68\nGatewell\n24\n131\n45\n38\nTotal\n36\n156\n48\n39\n91\nFGE (%)\n67\n84\n94\n97\n75\n23 May (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR Tot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n4\n2\n6\n2\n4\n6\n5\n1\n6\n12\nLevel 3\n6\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n3\n3\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n2\n4\n3\n2\n9\n1\n1\n3\n2\n5\n10\nLevel 5\n2\n1\n1\n4\n3\n1\n3\n7\n1\n3\n4\n5\n3\n3\n11\nLevel 6\n1\n1\n2\n2\n1\n3\n1\n1\n2\n2\n1\n5\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n7\n7\n2\n16\n9\n7\n11\n27\n1\n4\n5\n1\n1\n18\n8\n18\n44\nGatewell\n34\n170\n55\n56\n88\nTotal\n50\n197\n60\n57\n132\nFGE (%)\n68\n86\n92\n98\n67","56\nAppendix Table B1 - - Continued.\n24 May (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n2\n2\n5\n1\n6\nLevel 5\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n2\n1\n4\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 6\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 7\nNet total\n4\n1\n1\n6\n3\n5\n2\n10\n2\n3\n5\n4\n4\n7\n1\n3\n11\nGatewell\n17\n117\n39\n52\n28\nTotal\n23\n127\n44\n56\n39\nFGE (%)\n74\n92\n89\n93\n72\n24 May (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n2\n1\n2\n5\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n2\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n3\n4\n3\n3\nLevel 4\n2\n4\n6\n5\n1\n2\n8\n3\n2\n5\nLevel 5\n1\n3\n4\n1\n3\n1\n5\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\nLevel 6\n2\n3\n5\n3\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 7\nNet total\n3\n7\n4\n24\n7\n8\n7\n22\n3\n3\n1\n1\n4\n3\n7\n14\nGatewell\n27\n125\n39\n84\n32\nTotal\n51\n147\n42\n85\n46\nFGE (%)\n53\n85\n93\n99\n70","57\nAppendix Table B1. -- Continued.\n25 May (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nC\nR\nTot\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nLevel 1\n5\nLevel 2\n1\n5\n2\n8\n2\n1\n3\n1\n4\n10\n1\n3\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n2\n1\n1\n4\nLevel 4\n4\n1\n5\n1\n1\n2\n5\n2\n3\n10\nLevel 5\n1\n1\n2\n5\n5\n4\n14\nLevel 6\n2\n1\n2\n3\n1\n3\n4\n1\n2\n4\n7\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n4\n11\n30\nNet total\n2\n9\n7\n18\n7\n13\n11\n31\n1\n3\n2\n6\n15\nGatewell\n37\n86\n99\n13\n264\n86\n129\nTotal\n31\n295\n43\nFGE (%)\n86\n100\n77\n42\n89\n25 May (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\n1\n1\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\nLevel 2\n6\n2\n8\n1\n2\n5\n8\n1\n1\n4\n9\n16\nLevel 3\n2\n2\n3\n1\n2\n6\n2\n5\n7\n1\n5\n8\nLevel 4\n2\n1\n3\n2\n1\n3\n6\n2\n6\nLevel 5\n1\n1\n2\n7\n9\n7\n23\n1\n1\n2\n1\n3\n2\nLevel 6\n2\n2\n4\n3\n4\n11\n18\n1\n1\n2\n2\n2\nLevel 7\n1\n3\n4\n8\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n11\n5\n2\n4\n20\n17\n21\n32\n70\n2\n4\n1\n1\n2\n12\n9\n21\n42\n73\n137\nGatewell\n17\n302\n38\n42\n75\n179\nTotal\n37\n372\n90\n97\n77\nFGE (%)\n46\n81","58\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n26 May (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n2\n1\n1\n4\n1\n1\n7\n9\n1\n1\n4\n3\n7\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 3\n2\n1\n1\n4\n9\nLevel 4\n2\n3\n5\n1\n1\n1\n2\n6\nLevel 5\n2\n2\n1\n3\n1\n5\n2\n2\n3\n7\n3\n3\n1\n7\n2\nLevel 6\n2\n2\n3\n2\n2\n7\n2\nLevel 7\nNet total\n4\n3\n2\n9\n9\n7\n14\n30\n3\n2\n3\n8\n1\n1\n8\n9\n10\n27\nGatewell\n6\n354\n107\n86\n164\n115\n87\n191\nTotal\n15\n384\nFGE (%)\n93\n99\n86\n40\n92\n26 May (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nC\nR\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\n1\n1\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n2\n5\n11\nLevel 2\n1\n1\n2\n7\n4\n11\n4\n7\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\n4\n2\n5\n6\n13\n4\n6\n17\n4\n5\n9\n18\nLevel 4\n2\n2\n3\n2\n2\n7\n1\n1\n15\nLevel 5\n1\n1\n9\n3\n7\n19\n1\n1\n8\n3\n4\n2\nLevel 6\n3\n1\n4\n1\n1\n2\n2\n2\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n25\n14\n27\n66\nNet total\n3\n1\n5\n9\n23\n13\n20\n56\n2\n128\n138\n224\nGatewell\n14\n350\n130\n139\n290\nTotal\n23\n406\nFGE (%)\n61\n86\n98\n99\n77","59\nAppendix Table B1. -- Continued.\n27 May (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nLevel 1\n4\n1\n4\n9\nLevel 2\n4\n4\n1\n1\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\n2\n2\n1\n3\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n1\n1\n1\n1\n5\n7\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 6\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n5\n1\n1\n7\n2\n5\n6\n13\n1\n4\n3\n8\n4\n3\n6\n13\n67\nGatewell\n11\n239\n55\n77\n63\n77\n80\nTotal\n18\n252\n100\n84\nFGE (%)\n61\n95\n87\n27 May (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n6\n16\nLevel 2\n1\n1\n3\n4\n9\n16\n1\n1\n8\n2\n5\n5\nLevel 3\n2\n2\n1\n1\n3\n5\n2\n1\n2\n5\nLevel 4\n1\n3\n4\n5\nLevel 5\n6\n4\n5\n15\n2\n2\n3\n2\nLevel 6\n4\n1\n1\n6\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n5\n8\n31\nNet total\n1\n2\n3\n15\n11\n21\n47\n3\n1\n4\n18\n52\n124\nGatewell\n15\n240\n60\n155\nTotal\n18\n287\n64\n52\nFGE (%)\n83\n84\n94\n100\n80","60\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n28 May (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n3\n1\n4\n2\n2\n1\n1\n3\n3\nLevel 3\n1\n1\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n2\n1\n3\n4\nLevel 5\n2\n2\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 6\n2\n2\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n1\n1\nNet total\n8\n2\n10\n6\n3\n1\n10\n1\n1\n2\n2\n4\n8\nGatewell\n11\n82\n26\n12\n46\nTotal\n21\n92\n27\n12\n54\nFGE (%)\n52\n89\n96\n100\n85\n28 May (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n3\n1\n1\n5\n1\n2\n3\n2\n2\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\n3\n1\n4\n1\n1\n1\n3\n2\n1\n3\nLevel 4\n2\n2\n4\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 5\n2\n1\n3\n2\n2\n4\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nNet total\n5\n4\n3\n12\n5\n5\n7\n17\n2\n1\n1\n4\n1\n1\n2\n2\n6\n10\nGatewell\n17\n118\n32\n30\n21\nTotal\n29\n135\n36\n31\n31\nFGE (%)\n59\n87\n89\n97\n68","61\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n29 May (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n3\n9\nLevel 2\n1\n1\n3\n5\n1\n1\n2\n1\n5\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 4\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 5\n1\n1\n2\n4\n1\n7\n3\n1\n4\n1\n1\n3\n2\n3\n8\n3\nLevel 6\n1\n1\n2\n4\n1\n1\n2\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n1\n1\n5\n7\n5\n7\n4\n16\n3\n2\n2\n7\n1\n1\n7\n9\n7\n23\n142\nGatewell\n3\n216\n53\n28\nTotal\n10\n232\n60\n29\n165\n86\nFGE (%)\n30\n93\n88\n97\n29 May (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n17\nLevel 2\n1\n1\n2\n2\n2\n3\n7\n1\n1\n5\n2\n10\n6\n2\n7\n15\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n3\n11\n26\nLevel 4\n3\n3\n10\n16\n1\n1\n12\n3\n7\n16\nLevel 5\n10\n7\n4\n21\n2\n2\n6\nLevel 6\n3\n1\n4\n3\n3\n3\n9\n1\n1\n4\n4\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n2\n3\n1\n3\n17\n12\n22\n51\n4\n2\n9\n32\n13\n39\n84\nGatewell\n2\n203\n68\n61\n138\n61\n222\nTotal\n5\n254\n77\n100\n62\nFGE (%)\n40\n80\n88","62\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n21 June (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n3\n2\n4\n9\nLevel 3\n3\n5\n1\n9\nLevel 4\n8\n7\n9\n24\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n7\n4\n3\n14\nLevel 6\n3\n2\n4\n9\n1\n1\nLevel 7\nNet total\n24\n20\n21\n65\n1\n1\n2\nGatewell\n224\n18\n1\n1\nTotal\n285\n20\n1\n1\nFGE (%)\n79\n90\n100\n100\n21 June (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n3\n1\n4\n8\nLevel 3\n9\n4\n13\n26\n1\n1\nLevel 4\n22\n10\n10\n42\nLevel 5\n16\n7\n7\n30\n1\n3\n3\n7\nLevel 6\n2\n1\n3\n6\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n53\n24\n37\n114\n2\n3\n6\n11\nGatewell\n241\n20\n3\n1\n8\nTotal\n355\n31\n3\n1\n8\nFGE (%)\n68\n65\n100\n100\n100","63\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n22 June (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nL C R Tot\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n6\n6\n4\n16\nLevel 3\n8\n2\n3\n13\nLevel 4\n8\n9\n10\n27\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n8\n9\n8\n25\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n7\n3\n2\n12\nLevel 7\n4\n3\n3\n10\nNet total\n41\n32\n30\n103\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\nGatewell\n471\n4\n1\n1\nTotal\n574\n6\n100\n100\nFGE (%)\n82\n67\n22 June (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nTot\nL\nC\nR Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n10\n9\n11\n30\n1\n1\nLevel 3\n10\n8\n9\n27\nLevel 4\n20\n22\n21\n63\nLevel 5\n19\n19\n22\n60\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n8\n3\n8\n19\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n3\n4\n7\nNet total\n71\n61\n75\n207\n1\n1\n2\n1\n1\n5\n1\nGatewell\n683\n14\n5\nTotal\n890\n16\n2\nFGE (%)\n76\n88\n50\n100","64\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n23 June (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n6\n2\n1\n9\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\n4\nLevel 4\n1\n3\n5\n9\nLevel 5\n2\n3\n2\n7\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n1\n4\n5\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n11\n10\n15\n36\n1\n1\nGatewell\n240\n3\nTotal\n276\n4\nFGE (%)\n87\n75\n23 June (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n4\n1\n5\nLevel 3\n3\n1\n3\n7\nLevel 4\n2\n8\n4\n14\nLevel 5\n5\n1\n4\n10\nLevel 6\n1\n1\n1\n3\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n16\n11\n13\n40\nGatewell\n150\n5\n5\nTotal\n190\n5\n5\nFGE (%)\n79\n100\n100","65\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n24 June (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 2\n12\n13\n13\n38\nLevel 3\n10\n3\n10\n23\nLevel 4\n23\n23\n10\n56\n1\nLevel 5\n30\n15\n20\n65\n1\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n7\n4\n6\n17\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n83\n59\n60\n202\n2\n2\n1\n1\nGatewell\n757\n2\n1\n4\n1\n5\nTotal\n959\n4\nFGE (%)\n79\n60\n100\n80\n24 June (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 2\n7\n12\n12\n31\nLevel 3\n8\n4\n7\n19\nLevel 4\n25\n23\n23\n71\nLevel 5\n26\n21\n28\n75\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n5\n4\n7\n16\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n4\n1\n5\nNet total\n76\n65\n78\n219\n1\n1\n2\n3\nGatewell\n389\n5\n3\nTotal\n608\n7\n100\nFGE (%)\n64\n71","66\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n28 June (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n17\n11\n11\n39\nLevel 3\n4\n11\n6\n21\nLevel 4\n13\n16\n10\n39\nLevel 5\n17\n12\n22\n51\nLevel 6\n7\n1\n8\n16\nLevel 7\nNet total\n58\n51\n58\n167\nGatewell\n831\n2\nTotal\n998\n2\nFGE (%)\n83\n100\n28 June (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 2\n10\n5\n17\n32\nLevel 3\n9\n9\n12\n30\nLevel 4\n20\n25\n21\n66\nLevel 5\n21\n22\n25\n68\nLevel 6\n4\n5\n9\nLevel 7\n3\n3\nNet total\n65\n65\n80\n210\nGatewell\n704\nTotal\n914\nFGE (%)\n77","67\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n2 July (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n16\n7\n9\n32\nLevel 3\n7\n5\n6\n18\nLevel 4\n35\n32\n30\n97\nLevel 5\n33\n26\n37\n96\n1\n1\n1\n3\nLevel 6\n12\n15\n22\n49\nLevel 7\n3\n4\n7\nNet total\n106\n89 105\n300\n1\n1\n1\n3\nGatewell\n777\n16\nTotal\n1077\n19\nFGE (%)\n72\n84\n2 July (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n4\n2\n7\n13\nLevel 3\n17\n8\n18\n43\nLevel 4\n46\n36\n33\n115\nLevel 5\n50\n45\n41\n136\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n17\n18\n5\n40\nLevel 7\n2\n3\n4\n9\nNet total\n136\n112\n108\n356\n1\n1\nGatewell\n342\n5\n1\nTotal\n689\n6\n1\nFGE (%)\n83\n49\n100","68\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n3 July (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n2\n2\n2\n6\nLevel 3\n2\n1\n2\n5\nLevel 4\n15\n11\n7\n33\nLevel 5\n20\n11\n10\n41\nLevel 6\n2\n4\n7\n13\nLevel 7\n1\n8\n9\nNet total\n42\n29\n37\n108\nGatewell\n235\n2\nTotal\n343\n2\nFGE (%)\n69\n100\n3 July (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n4\n1\n5\n10\nLevel 3\n2\n3\n12\n17\nLevel 4\n22\n11\n12\n17\nLevel 5\n24\n12\n15\n51\nLevel 6\n6\n3\n7\n16\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n1\n2\n3\nNet total\n59\n30\n53\n142\n1\n1\nGatewell\n288\n3\nTotal\n430\n4\nFGE (%)\n67\n75","69\nAppendix Table B1. - -Continued. -\n7 July (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n4\n3\n4\n11\nLevel 3\n6\n3\n9\n18\nLevel 4\n9\n21\n19\n49\nLevel 5\n23\n16\n15\n54\nLevel 6\n6\n7\n9\n22\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 7\n2\n2\n1\n5\nNet total\n50\n52\n57\n159\n1\n1\n2\nGatewell\n234\n2\nTotal\n393\n4\nFGE (%)\n60\n50\n7 July (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n5\n2\n9\n16\nLevel 3\n6\n4\n12\n22\nLevel 4\n8\n13\n21\n42\nLevel 5\n17\n12\n12\n41\nLevel 6\n4\n5\n9\n18\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n3\n1\n1\n5\nNet total\n43\n37\n64\n144\n1\n1\nGatewell\n198\nTotal\n242\n1\nFGE (%)\n58\n0","70\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n8 July (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n4\n1\n6\n11\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 4\n9\n10\n6\n25\nLevel 5\n9\n8\n3\n20\nLevel 6\n4\n7\n11\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n27\n20\n24\n71\nGatewell\n174\n4\nTotal\n245\n4\nFGE (%)\n71\n100\n8 July (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR Tot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 3\n7\n7\n6\n20\nLevel 4\n9\n7\n15\n31\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n11\n8\n14\n33\nLevel 6\n7\n6\n6\n19\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n35\n30\n43\n108\n1\n1\nGatewell\n105\n2\n1\n1\nTotal\n213\n3\n67\nFGE (%)\n49\n100","71\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n9 July (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n3\n1\n4\n8\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n6\n8\nLevel 4\n10\n11\n5\n26\nLevel 5\n5\n12\n10\n27\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n2\n3\n5\n10\nLevel 7\n2\n1\n3\nNet total\n21\n30\n31\n82\n1\n1\n1\nGatewell\n177\n1\nTotal\n259\n1\n100\nFGE (%)\n68\n0\n9 July (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n3\n1\n3\n7\nLevel 3\n4\n1\n9\n14\nLevel 4\n16\n18\n18\n52\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n25\n14\n26\n65\nLevel 6\n10\n6\n7\n23\nLevel 7\n3\n3\n2\n8\nNet total\n62\n43\n65\n170\n1\n1\nGatewell\n149\nTotal\n319\n1\nFGE (%)\n47\n0","72\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n10 July (5B, ESTS, NOG) (0000 h)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR Tot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n2\n4\n3\n9\nLevel 3\n7\n6\n4\n17\nLevel 4\n19\n19\n16\n54\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n18\n22\n18\n58\nLevel 6\n12\n15\n8\n35\nLevel 7\n3\n4\n7\nNet total\n61\n70\n49\n180\n1\n1\nGatewell\n64\n2\nTotal\n244\n3\nFGE (%)\n26\n67\n10 July (6B, ESBS, PROG) (0000 h)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 2\n2\n1\n8\n11\nLevel 3\n5\n14\n11\n30\nLevel 4\n27\n33\n26\n86\nLevel 5\n27\n25\n21\n73\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n13\n12\n11\n36\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n75\n85\n80\n240\n1\n1\n5\n1\nGatewell\n113\n1\nTotal\n353\n6\nFGE (%)\n32\n83\n100","73\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n10 July (5B, ESTS, PROG) (2000 h)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 2\n2\n2\nLevel 3\n4\n2\n2\n8\nLevel 4\n18\n9\n9\n33\nLevel 5\n14\n15\n16\n45\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n7\n11\n7\n25\n1\n1\nLevel 7\nNet total\n43\n40\n32\n115\n1\n1\n2\nGatewell\n129\n1\nTotal\n244\n3\nFGE (%)\n53\n33\n10 July (6B, ESBS, NOG) (2000 h)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n10\n6\n16\nLevel 3\n8\n13\n24\n45\nLevel 4\n18\n20\n26\nLevel 5\n26\n30\n34\n90\nLevel 6\n8\n5\n8\n21\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n2\nNet total\n70\n74\n94\n238\n1\n1\nGatewell\n346\n1\nTotal\n584\n2\n1\n1\nFGE (%)\n59\n50\n100\n100","74\nAppendix Table B1 - - Continued.\n11 July (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR Tot\nLevel 1\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 2\n6\n2\n5\n13\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 3\n7\n9\n11\n27\n1\n1\nLevel 4\n24\n31\n21\n76\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n32\n32\n41\n105\nLevel 6\n9\n16\n23\n48\nLevel 7\n2\n5\n3\n10\nNet total\n81\n97\n104\n282\n3\n1\n4\nGatewell\n187\n1\nTotal\n469\n5\nFGE (%)\n40\n6\n11 July (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nR Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n4\n4\n3\n11\nLevel 3\n10\n7\n12\n29\nLevel 4\n34\n34\n26\n94\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n31\n32\n41\n104\nLevel 6\n4\n11\n8\n23\nLevel 7\n4\n1\n1\n6\n1\n1\nNet total\n87\n89\n91\n267\n2\n2\n1\n3\n1\nGatewell\n166\n100\n100\nTotal\n38\n60\nFGE (%)","75\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n12 July (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n2\n2\nLevel 2\n29\n20\n31\n80\nLevel 3\n7\n7\n11\n25\nLevel 4\n12\n16\n13\n41\nLevel 5\n24\n21\n15\n60\nLevel 6\n8\n4\n3\n15\nLevel 7\nNet total\n80\n70\n73\n223\nGatewell\n936\nTotal\n1159\nFGE (%)\n81\n12 July (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL C R Tot\nL C R Tot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n12\n5\n17\n34\nLevel 3\n7\n10\n12\n29\n1\n1\nLevel 4\n21\n121952\nLevel 5\n25\n22\n17\n64\nLevel 6\n3\n3\n1\n7\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n69\n53\n66\n188\n1\n1\nGatewell\n420\nTotal\n608\n1\nFGE (%)\n69\n0","76\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n13 July (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 2\n9\n2\n4\n15\nLevel 3\n3\n9\n6\n18\nLevel 4\n11\n16\n10\n37\nLevel 5\n20\n20\n14\n54\nLevel 6\n8\n7\n9\n24\nLevel 7\n2\n2\nNet total\n52\n56\n45\n153\nGatewell\n329\nTotal\n482\nFGE (%)\n68\n13 July (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 2\n3\n5\n5\n13\nLevel 3\n6\n18\n15\n39\nLevel 4\n26\n38\n37\n101\nLevel 5\n44\n48\n51\n143\nLevel 6\n25\n13\n19\n57\nLevel 7\n4\n3\n4\n11\nNet total\n108\n126\n133\n367\nGatewell\n280\nTotal\n647\nFGE (%)\n43","77\nAppendix Table B1. -- Continued.\n14 July (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL C R Tot\nL C R Tot\nL C R Tot\nLevel 1\n2\n1\n3\nLevel 2\n3\n2\n5\nLevel 3\n7\n2\n6\n15\nLevel 4\n7\n7\n9\n23\nLevel 5\n8\n7\n9\n24\nLevel 6\n1\n5\n5\n11\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n26\n26\n30\n82\nGatewell\n159\nTotal\n241\nFGE (%)\n66\n14 July (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL C R Tot\nL\nLevel 1\n2\n2\nLevel 2\n1\n2\n2\n5\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n1\n3\nLevel 4\n5\n4\n7\n16\nLevel 5\n4\n4\n8\n16\nLevel 6\n2\n1\n3\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n14\n11\n21\n46\nGatewell\n67\nTotal\n113\nFGE (%)\n59","78\nAppendix Table B1 - - Continued.\n15 July (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n1\n5\n5\n11\nLevel 3\n18\n7\nLevel 4\n10\n16\n10\n36\nLevel 5\n14\n14\n16\n44\nLevel 6\n3\n15\n7\n25\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n1\n3\nNet total\n29\n69\n46\n144\nGatewell\n70\nTotal\n214\nFGE (%)\n33\n15 July (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n3\n1\n4\nLevel 3\n11\n9\n7\n27\nLevel 4\n13\n26\n23\n62\nLevel 5\n28\n1\n25\n64\nLevel 6\n5\n11\n10\n26\nLevel 7\n2\n2\nNet total\n60\n57\n68\n185\nGatewell\n107\nTotal\n292\nFGE (%)\n37","79\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n19 July (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n5\n3\n3\n11\nLevel 3\n11\n9\n4\n24\nLevel 4\n29\n32\n22\n83\nLevel 5\n15\n30\n27\n72\nLevel 6\n26\n21\n20\n67\nLevel 7\n2\n2\n2\n6\nNet total\n88\n97\n78\n263\nGatewell\n202\nTotal\n465\nFGE (%)\n43\n19 July (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n1\n1\nLevel 3\n6\n8\n7\n21\nLevel 4\n12\n17\n19\n48\nLevel 5\n19\n17\n22\n58\n,\nLevel 6\n8\n11\n11\n30\nLevel 7\n1\n2\n3\nNet total\n46\n55\n60\n161\nGatewell\n106\nTotal\n40\nFGE (%)","80\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n20 July (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR Tot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n2\n1\n3\nLevel 3\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 4\n3\n3\n3\n9\nLevel 5\n2\n1\n2\n5\nLevel 6\n1\n4\n2\n7\nLevel 7\nNet total\n9\n8\n9\n26\nGatewell\n27\n1\nTotal\n53\n1\nFGE (%)\n51\n100\n20 July (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC R Tot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n2\n1\n3\nLevel 3\n2\n2\n4\nLevel 4\n6\n7\n2\n15\nLevel 5\n2\n2\n9\n13\nLevel 6\n1\n2\n1\n4\nLevel 7\nNet total\n9\n15\n15\n39\nGatewell\n59\nTotal\n88\nFGE (%)\n60","81\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n21 July (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nC\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL C R Tot\nL\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n2\n1\n3\nLevel 3\n1\n2\n3\nLevel 4\n6\n5\n7\n18\nLevel 5\n6\n7\n7\n20\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n4\n1\n5\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n1\n1\nNet total\n19\n16\n15\n50\nGatewell\n95\n4\n1\n1\n2\nTotal\n145\n4\n1\nFGE (%)\n66\n100\n100\n50\n21 July (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n2\n2\n2\n6\nLevel 3\n3\n5\n5\n13\nLevel 4\n5\n7\n9\n21\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n11\n5\n5\n21\nLevel 6\n5\n1\n5\n11\n1\n1\nLevel 7\nNet total\n26\n20\n26\n72\n1\n1\n1\n1\nGatewell\n75\n1\nTotal\n147\n1\nFGE (%)\n51\n0\n0","82\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n22 July (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n4\n1\n5\nLevel 3\n3\n2\n1\n6\nLevel 4\n1\n5\n5\n11\nLevel 5\n11\n4\n8\n23\nLevel 6\n3\n3\n3\n9\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n21\n17\n18\n56\nGatewell\n109\n4\nTotal\n165\n4\nFGE (%)\n66\n100\n22 July (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n1\n2\n3\n6\nLevel 3\n1\n6\n4\n11\nLevel 4\n9\n15\n7\n31\nLevel 5\n8\n15\n15\n38\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n7\n3\n3\n13\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n26\n41\n33\n100\n2\nGatewell\n107\n3\nTotal\n207\n5\nFGE (f)\n52\n60","83\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n26 July (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSockeye\nSteelhead\nCoho\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC R Tot\nR\nTot\nL\nC R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n2\n5\n10\n17\nLevel 3\n10\n11\n6\n27\nLevel 4\n12\n15\n19\n46\nLevel 5\n27\n25\n30\n82\nLevel 6\n8\n9\n7\n24\nLevel 7\n2\n2\nNet total\n59\n66\n74\n199\nGatewell\n270\nTotal\n469\nFGE (%)\n58\n26 July (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSockeye\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nLocation\nChinook\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n2\n2\nLevel 2\n16\n7\n29\n52\nLevel 3\n17\n36\n23\n76\nLevel 4\n29\n38\n39\n76\nLevel 5\n39\n33\n55\n127\nLevel 6\n11\n10\n16\n37\nLevel 7\n3\n2\n5\nNet total\n114\n127\n164\n405\nGatewell\n526\nTotal\n931\nFGE (%)\n56","84\nAppendix Table B1 - - Continued.\n27 July (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n3\n3\nLevel 2\n11\n5\n9\n25\nLevel 3\n8\n12\n8\n28\nLevel 4\n5\n9\n5\n19\nLevel 5\n14\n6\n17\n37\nLevel 6\n1\n3\n1\n5\nLevel 7\n1\n1\nNet total\n39\n35\n44\n118\nGatewell\n295\nTotal\n413\nFGE (%)\n71\n27 July (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL C R Tot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n3\n4\nLevel 2\n9\n3\n3\n15\nLevel 3\n2\n2\n8\n12\nLevel 4\n6\n6\n8\n20\nLevel 5\n6\n16\n9\n31\nLevel 6\n3\n1\n2\n6\nLevel 7\nNet total\n27\n28\n33\n88\nGatewell\n126\nTotal\n214\nFGE (%)\n59","85\nAppendix Table B1 - - Continued.\n28 July (5B, ESTS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n1\n2\n6\n9\nLevel 3\n3\n4\n2\n9\nLevel 4\n5\n12\n10\n27\n1\n1\nLevel 5\n12\n9\n5\n26\nLevel 6\n3\n6\n8\n17\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n2\nNet total\n25\n35\n31\n91\n1\n1\nGatewell\n117\n1\nTotal\n208\n2\nFGE (%)\n56\n50\n28 July (6B, ESBS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR Tot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n2\n2\n4\nLevel 3\n2\n5\n2\n9\nLevel 4\n7\n5\n6\n18\nLevel 5\n7\n6\n9\n22\n1\n1\n2\nLevel 6\n2\n3\n1\n6\nLevel 7\nNet total\n20\n20\n20\n60\n1\n1\n2\n1\nGatewell\n68\n1\n1\nTotal\n128\n3\n100\nFGE (%)\n53\n33","86\nAppendix Table B1. - - Continued.\n29 July (5B, ESTS, NOG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\nLevel 2\n2\n1\n3\nLevel 3\n6\n5\n6\n17\nLevel 4\n23\n16\n7\n46\nLevel 5\n18\n20\n12\n50\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n10\n10\n10\n30\n1\n1\nLevel 7\n2\n1\n2\n5\nNet total\n61\n53\n37\n151\n1\n1\n1\n1\nGatewell\n143\n1\n1\nTotal\n294\n2\n2\nFGE (%)\n49\n50\n50\n29 July (6B, ESBS, PROG)\nSubyearling\nYearling\nCoho\nSockeye\nLocation\nChinook\nChinook\nSteelhead\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nL\nC\nR\nTot\nLevel 1\n1\n1\nLevel 2\n2\n4\n2\n8\nLevel 3\n2\n3\n7\n12\nLevel 4\n12\n8\n13\n33\nLevel 5\n8\n11\n16\n35\n1\n1\nLevel 6\n4\n2\n1\n7\nLevel 7\n1\n1\n1\n1\nNet total\n28\n29\n40\n97\n2\n2\nGatewell\n101\n2\nTotal\n198\n4\nFGE (%)\n51\n50","<0.0001\n0.0498\n0.8013\n0.0001\n0.0721\n0.6341\n0.7112\n0.6384\n0.4510\n0.2432\n0.1908\n0.6549\n0.7351\n0.0171\n0.7488\n0.0485\nAppendix Table B2 - - Statistical analyses of mean fish guidance efficiency estimates for tests at\nMcNary Dam, 1993. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences\nP\n9,1\n9,1\n9\n7,1\n9,1\n9,1\n9\n7,1\n9,1\n9,1\n9\n7,1\n7\n11,1\n11,1\n11,1\ndf\nCalculated\nstatistic\n*\n*\n6.30*\n4.22\n24.15*\n28.50\n0.07\n3.51\n0.24\n0.15\n0.24\n0.61\n1.42\n1.87\n0.21\n0.35\n0.11\n4.20\ntest\nDipping slot with or without unit operating\nOperating gate position (NOGe vs. PROGE)\nOperating gate position vs. screen type\nOperating gate position vs. screen type\nOperating gate position (NOG vs. PROG)\nScreen type (ESTSb vs. ESBSc)\nScreen type (ESTS vs. ESBS)\nAnalysis\nsource\nt-test\nAnalysis\nRBANOV\n1-ANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\n1-ANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\n1-ANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\ntype\nPartially raised operating gate (raised 2.4 m) .\nExtended-length submersible traveling screen.\nNo operating gate (fully raised or removed) .\nSubyearling chinook salmon\nSubyearling chinook salmon\nSubyearling chinook salmon\nYearling chinook salmon\nYearling chinook salmon\nYearling chinook salmon\nYearling chinook salmon\nExtended-length submersible bar screen.\nRandomized block analysis of variance.\nbetween means.\nSingle factor analysis of variance.\nSockeye salmon\nSockeye salmon\nSockeye salmon\nSpecies\nCoho salmon\nCoho salmon\nCoho salmon\nTwo sample Student's t-test.\nSteelhead\nSteelhead\nSteelhead\n28-30 April\n21-24 June\n2-29 July\ndates\nTest\n1-5 May\n18-29 May\n22-29 May\na\nb\nC\nd\ne\nf\ng\nseries\nTest\nla\n1\n2","","20.0\n0.0\n%\nDesc. Catch\nSockeye\n5\n1\n1\nAppendix Table B3 - - Descaling data from fish guidance efficiency and descaling tests at\n0.0\n%\nDesc. Catch\n1\nCoho\n0.0\n0.0\n%\nDesc. Catch\nSteelhead\n1\n2\nPercent descaling [ (number descaled/total gatewell catch) x 100]\n5.3\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n1 100.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n%\nNumber of descaled fish captured by dipnet from gatewell.\nYearling\nchinook\nDesc. Catch\n19\n2\n3\n4\n6\n6\n3\n6\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\n4\n1\n1\n4\nMcNary Dam, 1993.\n1\n0\n1\n12.2\n9.9\n2.3\n5.9\n2.7\n3.9\n6.9\n7.8\n2.7\n4.9\n11.1\n0.0\n10.0\n2.6\n3.3\n3.0\n11.5\n7.1\n20.0\n10.3\n10.2\n4.8\n3.7\n0.0\n4.7\nfc\nSubyearling\nDesc. a Catch\nchinook\n172\n182\n132\n358\n187\n156\n131\n141\n147\n142\n90\n59\n80\n155\n151\n135\n52\n84\n25\n39\n49\n182\n163\n31\n85\nTotal gatewell catch.\nUnit 5, Slot A\n21\n18\n3\n21\n1\n6\n9\n11\n4\n7\n10\n8\n4\n5\n4\n6\n6\n5\n4\n5\n9\n6\n4\n21 June\n22 June\n23 June\n24 June\n28 June\n2 July\n3 July\n7 July\n8 July\n9 July\n10 July\n10 July\n11 July\n12 July\n13 July\n14 July\n15 July\n19 July\n20 July\n21 July\n22 July\n26 July\n27 July\n28 July\n29 July\nTest\ndate\na\nb\nC","0.0\n0.0\n23.3\n27.3\n43.0\n25.1\n25.1\n83.8\n30.5\n46.6\n43.7\n33.8\n30.9\n35.7\n39.4\n50.6\n29.9\n45.7\n21.8\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n%\nDesc. Catch\nSockeye\n2\n3\n43\n99\n409\n414\n1040\n83\n154\n305\n181\n145\n68\n28\n99\n164\n67\n46\n142\n1\n1\n4\n1\n10\n27\n176\n104\n261\n39\n47\n142\n79\n49\n21\n10\n39\n83\n20\n21\n31\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n6.1\n5.1\n5.9\n1.3\n1.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n4.8\n5.3\n0.0\n11.5\n14.0\n2.3\n10.4\n8.3\n7.1\n0.0\n0.0\nDesc. Catch\n9\n10\n12\n29\n49\n39\n136\n150\n105\n10\n2\n14\n21\n19\n38\n52\n86\n86\n77\n12\n28\n1\n1\nCoho\n3\n2\n8\n2\n1\n1\n1\n6\n12\n2\n8\n1\n2\n1.5\n93.2\n2.2\n2.6\n7.4\n3.8\n4.0\n3.3\n3.6\n6.5\n8.8\n4.4\n3.7\n9.1\n17.8\n2.6\n2.7\n2.8\n7.3\n0.0\n3.8\n0.0\n%\nDesc. Catch\nSteelhead\n263\n138\n230\n267\n299\n160\n298\n272\n451\n309\n171\n250\n109\n66\n45\n39\n37\n107\n55\n26\n53\n1\n4\n10\n5\n7\n22\n6\n12\n9\n16\n20\n15\n11\n4\n6\n8\n1\n1\n3\n4\n2\n2.9\n15.5\n9.6\n12.5\n8.1\n7.0\n10.8\n9.2\n7.1\n14.6\n14.0\n10.9\n95.9\n10.3\n13.7\n17.1\n23.5\n13.0\n10.0\n24.4\n15.3\n27.8\n25.0\n0.0\n66.7\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n%\nYearling\nchinook\nDesc. Catch\n273\n226\n229\n152\n236\n271\n657\n328\n525\n213\n86\n175\n140\n58\n131\n117\n264\n354\n239\n82\n216\n18\n4\n3\n3\n2\n16\n2\n2\n4\n2\n1\n1\n1\n8\n35\n22\n19\n19\n19\n71\n30\n37\n31\n12\n19\n22\n6\n18\n20\n62\n46\n24\n20\n33\n5\n1\n2\nAppendix Table B3. - -Continued.\n0.0\n100.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n6.6\n18.7\n2.1\n9.4\n6.0\n3.7\n7.7\n10.3\n12.6\n11.3\n18.8\n7.0\n7.5\n4.4\n4.6\n2.5\n4.3\n7.9\n25.9\n%\nSubyearling\nDesc. Catch\nchinook\n4\n1\n3\n1\n5\n6\n4\n1\n13\n33\n22\n19\n29\n45\n24\n17\n13\n6\n11\n11\n3\n244\n471\n240\n757\n831\n777\n235\n234\n174\n177\n64\n129\n187\n936\n329\n159\n70\n202\n27\nUnit 5, Slot B\n1\n16\n88\n5\n71\n50\n29\n18\n24\n22\n20\n12\n9\n14\n41\n15\n4\n3\n16\n7\n28 April\n29 April\n30 April\n21 June\n22 June\n23 June\n24 June\n28 June\n2 July\n3 July\n7 July\n8 July\n9 July\n10 July\n10 July\n11 July\n12 July\n13 July\n14 July\n15 July\n19 July\n20 July\n1 May\n3 May\n4 May\n5 May\n6 May\n10 May\n18 May\n19 May\n20 May\n21 May\n22 May\n23 May\n24 May\n25 May\n26 May\n27 May\n28 May\n29 May\nTest\ndate","0.0\n0.0\n1 100.0\n0.0\n0.0\n1 100.0\n33.3\n25.0\n%\n%\nDesc. Catch\nDesc. Catch\nSockeye\nSockeye\n1\n1\n1\n6\n4\n4\n1\n2\n1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n%\n%\nDesc. Catch\nDesc. Catch\n1\n1\n1\nCoho\nCoho\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n%\n%\nDesc. Catch\nCatch\nSteelhead\nSteelhead\n1\n1\n3\nDesc.\n1.0.\n0.0\n33.3\n25.0\n100.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n1 100.0\n0.0\n%\n%\nYearling\nYearling\nchinook\nchinook\nDesc. Catch\nDesc. Catch\n20\n11\n5\n3\n4\n2\n1\n4\n4\n2\n2\n1\n3\n4\n4\n1\n1\n1\n2\n1\n2\n-Continued.\n11.0\n10.0\n3.4\n5.6\n5.2\n4.6\n8.7\n8.0\n9.1\n11.9\n17.0\n6.9\n8.5\n3.9\n5.9\n4.0\n7.7\n7.8\n5.7\n19.0\n12.8\n5.7\n8.3\n8.1\n14.2\n3.2\n22.9\n4.1\n5.1\n3.4\n9.1\n%\n%\nSubyearling\nSubyearling\nDesc. Catch\nDesc. Catch\nchinook\n272\n588\n147\n496\n174\n305\n286\n188\n131\n168\n112\n418\n141\n178\n153\n198\n91\n129\n35\n79\n78\n159\n180\n86\n113\nchinook\n95\n109\n270\n295\n117\n143\nAppendix Table B3.\nUnit 6, Slot A\nUnit 5, Slot B\n30\n59\n5\n28\n9\n14\n25\n15\n12\n20\n19\n29\n12\n7\n9\n8\n7\n10\n2\n15\n10\n0\n15\n7\n16\n3\n25\n11\n15\n4\n13\n28 June\n2 July\n3 July\n7 July\n8 July\n9 July\n10 July\n10 July\n11 July\n12 July\n13 July\n14 July\n15 July\n19 July\n20 July\n21 July\n22 July\n26 July\n27 July\n28 July\n29 July\n21 July\n22 July\n26 July\n27 July\n28 July\n29 July\n21 June\n22 June\n23 June\n24 June\nTest\ndate\nTest\ndate","0.0\n50.0\n21.9\n17.5\n22.4\n9.6\n24.4\n25.5\n16.4\n21.5\n61.3\n42.1\n31.3\n41.6\n37.1\n54.0\n42.9\n21.8\n37.5\n20.0\n60.0\n33.3\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n1 100.0\n%\nDesc. Catch\nSockeye\n1\n18\n32\n309\n156\n467\n82\n94\n347\n158\n93\n88\n32\n137\n224\n124\n21\n142\n8\n5\n5\n3\n1\n1\n1\n9\n7\n54\n35\n45\n20\n24\n57\n34\n57\n37\n10\n57\n83\n67\n9\n31\n3\n1\n3\n1\n1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n13.6\n3.2\n10.1\n5.1\n6.9\n0.0\n0.0\n14.3\n0.0\n10.5\n8.9\n10.7\n16.4\n4.3\n11.5\n3.3\n7.1\n0.0\n0.0\n%\nDesc. Catch\n7\n3\n7\n17\n22\n31\n79\n136\n29\n5\n1\n14\n25\n19\n56\n84\n73\n138\n52\n30\n28\n1\n1\nCoho\n3\n1\n8\n7\n2\n2\n2\n5\n9\n12\n6\n6\n1\n2\n4.8\n2.6\n4.4\n4.1\n12.2\n2.6\n2.9\n2.2\n3.8\n0.8\n5.1\n2.0\n3.4\n4.8\n9.1\n5.1\n2.6\n6.3\n3.3\n0.0\n3.8\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n%\nCatch\nSteelhead\n187\n38\n91\n121\n123\n114\n140\n225\n159\n128\n79\n148\n58\n62\n55\n39\n38\n128\n60\n32\n53\n3\n1\n1\n1\nDesc.\n9\n1\n4\n5\n15\n3\n4\n5\n6\n1\n4\n3\n2\n3\n5\n2\n1\n8\n2\n2\n5.2\n8.0\n10.2\n5.4\n10.8\n8.1\n4.8\n9.0\n10.3\n16.1\n9.5\n9.3\n11.5\n19.8\n25.3\n14.4\n8.6\n10.9\n15.8\n11.9\n15.3\n25.0\n14.3\n40.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n40.0\n0.0\n0.0\n%\nYearling\nchinook\nCatch\n291\n87\n167\n149\n186\n160\n355\n189\n117\n205\n63\n215\n96\n86\n170\n125\n302\n350\n240\n118\n216\n20\n14\n5\n5\n5\n3\n2\n5\n1\n3\nDesc.\n15\n7\n17\n8\n20\n13\n17\n17\n12\n33\n6\n20\n11\n17\n43\n18\n26\n38\n38\n14\n33\n5\n2\n2\n2\nAppendix Table B3. --Continued.\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n8.7\n16.5\n4.7\n11.8\n2.4\n3.2\n2.1\n5.1\n0.0\n6.7\n6.2\n4.3\n3.0\n2.6\n3.6\n3.0\n3.7\n17.0\n%\nSubyearling\nDesc. Catch\nchinook\n2\n1\n2\n5\n11\n14\n18\n12\n37\n34\n27\n17\n14\n15\n17\n3\n241\n638\n150\n389\n704\n342\n288\n198\n105\n149\n113\n346\n166\n420\n280\n67\n107\n106\nUnit 6, Slot B\n21\n105\n7\n46\n17\n11\n6\n10\n10\n7\n15\n5\n11\n10\n2\n4\n18\n28 April\n29 April\n30 April\n21 June\n22 June\n23 June\n24 June\n28 June\n2 July\n3 July\n7 July\n8 July\n9 July\n10 July\n10 July\n11 July\n12 July\n13 July\n14 July\n15 July\n19 July\n1 May\n3 May\n4 May\n5 May\n6 May\n10 May\n18 May\n19 May\n20 May\n21 May\n22 May\n23 May\n24 May\n25 May\n26 May\n27 May\n28 May\n29 May\nTest\ndate","50.0\n0.0\n5.6\n29.2\n26.2\n34.7\n26.6\n36.6\n29.6\n42.4\n42.9\n52.6\n52.4\n36.4\n42.9\n41.6\n43.6\n49.0\n32.1\n%\n%\nDesc. Catch\nDesc. Catch\nSockeye\nSockeye\n2\n1\n18\n48\n61\n487\n350\n142\n169\n337\n154\n76\n82\n55\n154\n125\n94\n51\n56\n1\n1\n14\n16\n169\n93\n52\n50\n143\n66\n40\n43\n20\n66\n52\n41\n25\n18\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n3.0\n0.0\n50.0\n16.7\n0.0\n5.3\n0.0\n3.9\n7.1\n6.6\n3.1\n1.6\n12.5\n7.2\n%\n%\nDesc. Catch\nDesc. Catch\n1\n2\n9\n15\n2\n10\n33\n16\n4\n6\n18\n19\n18\n52\n98\n91\n65\n62\n72\n83\nCoho\nCoho\n1\n2\n1\n1\n2\n7\n6\n2\n1\n9\n6\n6.4\n1.9\n1.6\n1.3\n4.7\n4.6\n8.2\n2.9\n5.0\n15.4\n3.5\n1.3\n5.3\n4.3\n5.6\n8.7\n3.4\n3.8\n7.3\n5.0\n6.5\n50.0\n%\n%\nDesc. Catch\nCatch\nSteelhead\nSteelhead\n47\n52\n125\n153\n171\n151\n61\n273\n125\n130\n144\n307\n95\n47\n90\n92\n147\n104\n124\n60\n93\n2\nDesc.\n3\n1\n2\n2\n8\n7\n5\n8\n6\n20\n5\n4\n5\n2\n5\n8\n5\n4\n9\n3\n6\n1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n4.1\n7.3\n9.8\n8.4\n9.9\n7.3\n11.4\n9.2\n8.5\n17.3\n10.6\n10.5\n12.1\n16.9\n12.8\n7.1\n11.7\n7.9\n11.2\n11.5\n5.4\n16.7\n0.0\n%\n%\nYearling\nchinook\nYearling\nchinook\nDesc. Catch\nDesc Catch\n3\n1\n2\n123\n43\n112\n95\n152\n207\n105\n196\n59\n289\n142\n315\n165\n71\n149\n178\n515\n354\n251\n191\n167\n6\n1\n5\n3\n11\n8\n15\n15\n12\n18\n5\n50\n15\n33\n20\n12\n19\n25\n60\n28\n28\n22\n9\n1\nAppendix Table B3. - Continued.\n5.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n15.4\n14.7\n5.3\n6.5\n3.6\n2.4\n11.8\n1.0\n%\n%\nSubyearling\nSubyearling\nDesc. Catch\nDesc. Catch\n1\n1\n2\n2\n6\n22\n33\n12\n24\n35\n18\n66\n62\n12\n17\n29\n5\n253\n380\nchinook\n59\n75\n107\n526\n126\n68\n101\nchinook\nUnit 6, Slot B\nUnit 7, Slot B\n39\n56\n3\n4\n7\n19\n3\n8\n1\n28 April\n29 April\n30 April\n20 July\n21 July\n22 July\n26 July\n27 July\n28 July\n29 July\n21 June\n22 June\n1 May\n3 May\n4 May\n5 May\n6 May\n10 May\n18 May\n19 May\n20 May\n21 May\n22 May\n23 May\n24 May\n25 May\n26 May\n27 May\n28 May\n29 May\nTest\ndate\nTest\ndate","0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n1 100.0\n0.0\n%\nDesc. Catch\nSockeye\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n0.0\n%\nDesc. Catch\n1\nCoho\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n%\nCatch\nSteelhead\n1\n1\n1\nDesc.\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n33.3\n9.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n1 100.0\n0.0\n%\nYearling\nchinook\nDesc. Catch\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\n44\n2\n1\n1\n1\n3\n1\n1\n4\n1\nContinued.\n15.6\n11.1\n1.0\n12.7\n4.3\n8.4\n6.4\n16.4\n11.2\n5.8\n10.0\n2.3\n0.6\n3.3\n4.2\n15.1\n16.1\n10.0\n10.9\n6.5\n3.1\n9.1\n8.8\n%\nSubyearling\nDesc. Catch\nAppendix Table B3. -\n125\n156\n90\n133\n169\n91\n71\n284\n31\n90\n92\n155\n228\n55\n80\nchinook\n72\n380\n504\n316\n209\n166\n388\n208\nUnit 7, Slot B\n12\n42\n5\n40\n9\n14\n25\n34\n14\n9\n9\n3\n1\n3\n3\n43\n5\n9\n10\n10\n7\n5\n7\n10 July\n10 July\n11 July\n12 July\n13 July\n14 July\n15 July\n19 July\n20 July\n21 July\n22 July\n26 July\n27 July\n28 July\n29 July\n23 June\n24 June\n28 June\n2 July\n3 July\n7 July\n8 July\n9 July\nTest\ndate","0.2317\n0.2598\n0.3092\n0.2967\n0.5479\n0.1447\n0.8236\n0.2124\n0.6718\n0.6485\n0.5635\n0.2536\n0.7701\n0.0155\n0.0030\n0.0316\n- - Statistical analyses of mean descaling values for tests at McNary Dam, 1993.\nP\nAsterisks indicate statistically significant differences between means.\n11,1\n11,1\n11,1\n9,1\n9,1\n1\n7,1\n9,1\n9,1\n1\n7,1\n9,1\n9,1\n9\n7,1\n7\ndf\nCalculated\nstatistic\n6.51*\n10.29*\n5.04*\n1.50\n1.33\n1.10\n1.15\n0.38\n2.29\n0.05\n1.65\n0.19\n0.22\n0.36\n1.38\nDipping slot with or without unit operating -0.30\ntest\nOperating gate position (NOGe vs. PROGE)\nOperating gate position vs. screen type\nOperating gate position vs. screen type\nOperating gate position (NOG vs. PROG)\nScreen type (ESTSb vs. ESBS)\nScreen type (ESTS vs. ESBS)\nAnalysis\nsource\n2 t-test\nAnalysis\nRBANOV\n1-ANOVd\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\n1-ANOV\nRBANOV\n1-ANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\nRBANOV\ntype\nPartially raised operating gate (raised 2.4 m) .\nExtended-length submersible traveling screen.\nNo operating gate (fully raised or removed) .\nSubyearling chinook salmon\nSubyearling chinook salmon\nSubyearling chinook salmon\nYearling chinook salmon\nYearling chinook salmon\nYearling chinook salmon\nYearling chinook salmon\nExtended-length submersible bar screen.\nRandomized block analysis of variance.\nSingle factor analysis of variance.\nSockeye salmon\nSockeye salmon\nSockeye salmon\nSpecies\nCoho salmon\nCoho salmon\nCoho salmon\nTwo sample Student's t-test.\nSteelhead\nSteelhead\nSteelhead\nAppendix Table B4\n28-30 April\n21-24 June\n2-29 July\ndates\nTest\n22-29 May\n1-5 May\n18-29 May\na\nb\nC\nd\ne\nf\ng\nseries\nTest\nla\n2\n1","","97\nAPPENDIX C\nA Direct Method for Determining the Descaling Fraction\nAttributable to Handling during Fish Guidance Efficiency Testing","","99\nINTRODUCTION\nDescaling is the criterion commonly used as a condition\nindex for juvenile salmonids during fish guidance efficiency\n(FGE) testing at Columbia and Snake Rivers hydroelectric\nfacilities. At McNary Dam, descaling values obtained during FGE\ntesting are sometimes higher than those observed in the fish\npassage facility. It is assumed that, in addition to the\ndescaling present before the fish arrive at the dam and the\ndescaling associated with the equipment being tested, there is a\ndescaling fraction caused by handling. Typically, this handling\nincludes dipbasket removal of fish from the gatewell, emptying\nthe fish from the dipbasket into the fish cart, transporting the\nfish to the workup shack, dipnetting the fish from the cart, and\nsliding the fish into a methane tricanesulfonate (MS-222)\nsolution before they are checked for descaling.\nIn past FGE studies, an estimate of descaling caused by the\nprototype test system was obtained by subtracting a control\ndescaling value from FGE test system descaling. The subtraction\nmethod assumed no bias in the comparison between test and control\ngatewells except the conditions being tested. In some cases,\nthis assumption may be less valid than in others. For example,\nat McNary Dam in 1993, Slot 7B was used as a descaling control\nfor comparison to data collected during FGE tests conducted in\nSlots 5B and 6B. While flows through Units 5 and 6 were\nrelatively constant for all tests, flow through Unit 7 was\nchanged to meet daily power demands during outmigration test\nperiods (Appendix Fig. C1) Flows through Unit 7 were also","100\n19\nFGE units\nControl unit\n17\n15\n13\n11\n9\n5/3 5/5 5/7 5/9 5/11 5/13 5/15 5/17 5/19 5/21 5/23 5/25 5/27 5/29\n4/27\n4/29\n5/1\nDate\nAppendix Figure C1. Unit flows for fish guidance\nefficiency (FGE) test units\nand the descaling control\nunit, McNary Dam, 1993.","101\nsubject to fluctuation during a given FGE test, though every\nattempt was made to keep conditions constant until the test was\ncompleted. In addition to flow differences, there may be other\nsources of unit dependent bias which would make either test or\ncontrol units more or less likely to cause descaling.\nGiven these considerations, it would be beneficial to have a\nmethod that is independent of possible unit bias which would\nestablish the descaling fraction directly attributable to\nhandling during FGE tests. The purpose of this pilot work was to\ntest a direct method for determining the proportion of total\ndescaling due to handling.\nMETHODS\nTests for determining the contribution of handling to total\nobserved descaling were conducted prior to FGE tests 24 June and\n26-28 June. Before beginning daily FGE testing, residual fish\nwere normally removed from test and control slots. For the\nhandling test series, fish retrieved during the cleanout process\nwere taken to the workup shack and checked for descaling.\nIndividuals found noticeably descaled (22-3%) were rejected for\nhandling test purposes.\nNon-descaled fish were sorted into two groups of about 100\neach. In a random manner, the first 100 individuals, regardless\nof species, were placed in a holding container (110-L garbage\ncan) with running water. A second group was then sorted from the\ncatch and held in a similar manner. The only restriction on the\nsecond group was that it contained a species mix in approximately","102\nthe same proportions as the first group. Both groups were\nallowed to recover from the effects of the anesthetic 0.5 hours\nfollowing selection of the second group. One of the groups was\nthen designated the control, and the other the test group.\nWith the turbine unit off, both containers were individually\nlowered by crane into the upstream gatewell of Slot 5B. The\ncontrol group container was lowered to water level and then\nreturned to the intake deck, where it was supplied with running\nwater until the end of the test. The test group container was\nlowered completely under the water, the container was upended,\nand the fish were allowed to swim free.\nTest group fish were retrieved from the gatewell as soon as\nthe dipbasket could be attached to the crane, usually within\n15 minutes of release. Test fish were treated in the same manner\nas those retrieved during FGE tests. After removal from the\ngatewell with the dipbasket, the fish were emptied into a fish\ncart, transported to the workup shack, removed from the cart with\na dipnet, and placed in an MS-222 solution. Condition\n(descaling) was recorded by species for each individual.\nFollowing analysis of the test group, the control group was\nexamined in a similar manner. However, to avoid possible\ndescaling caused by dipnetting, the water level in the control\ncontainer was lowered and MS-222 added. Control fish were then\nremoved and inspected directly from their holding container.","103\nRESULTS AND DISCUSSION\nResults of the four individual handling tests are summarized\nin Appendix Table C1, and descaling from prototype FGE and\ndescaling tests for the same nights are summarized in Appendix\nTable C2.\nThere were minor differences in the numbers of fish released\ncompared to the numbers recovered during the handling tests.\nWhere fewer fish were recovered, there may have been escapees or\ndipbasket efficiency may not have been 100%. Unit 5 was not\noperating during these tests, which theoretically allowed test\nfish the opportunity to escape capture by exiting the gatewell\n(downward) or avoiding the dipbasket. Where more fish were\nrecovered than released, it is possible that we captured strays\nfrom the gatewell, since this pilot work was done with unmarked\nfish. In either case, the number actually retrieved was used as\nthe test group total for condition analysis. This may have\nresulted in slight handling-descaling estimation errors.\nNo descaling was found for any of the control groups\nexamined. Mean test group andling-descaling values from all\nfour tests were 7.8% (SE = 0.9) for yearling chinook salmon, 4.0%\n(SE = 0.3) for steelhead, 3.0% (SE = 0.3) for coho salmon, and\n22.5% (SE = 1.4) for sockeye salmon.\nAppendix Table C3 provides estimates of system descaling\nusing data from the two methods (direct and subtraction), as well\nas descaling values from the McNary Dam Fish Passage Facility for\nthe week during which handling tests were conducted. Slightly\nnegative values obtained for steelhead using the direct method","104\nAppendix Table\nC1\n- - Descaling results for individual\nreplicates of tests to determine the\ndescaling caused by handling during fish\nguidance efficiency tests at McNary Dam,\n1993.\nYearling\nTest\nTreatment\nchinook\nCoho\nSockeye\ndate\nsalmon\nSteelhead\nsalmon\ngroup\nsalmon\n5/24/93\nTest\nreleased\n61\n12\n6\n33\nrecaptured\n60\n11\n6\n30\ndescaled\n6\n0\n0\n8\n% descaled\n10.0\n0.0\n0.0\n26.7\nControl\ncaptured\n68\n12\n3\n31\n% descaled\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n5/26/93\nTest\nreleased\n71\n4\n13\n13\nrecaptured\n73\n5\n13\n12\ndescaled\n6\n1\n0\n2\n% descaled\n8.2\n20.0\n0.0\n16.7\nControl\ncaptured\n70\n9\n8\n13\n% descaled\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n5/27/93\nTest\nreleased\n65\n8\n11\n16\nrecaptured\n67\n8\n11\n16\ndescaled\n7\n0\n1\n3\n% descaled\n10.5\n0.0\n9.1\n18.8\nControl\ncaptured\n65\n6\n12\n13\n% descaled\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n5/28/93\nTest\nreleased\n86\n1\n3\n13\nrecaptured\n84\n1\n3\n13\ndescaled\n3\n0\n0\n3\n% descaled\n3.6\n0\n0\n23.1\nControl\ncaptured\n68\n1\n4\n29\n% descaled\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nMean,\nTest\nreleased\n70.8\n6.3\n8.3\n18.8\nall tests\nrecaptured\n71.0\n6.3\n8.3\n17.8\ndescaled\n5.5\n0.3\n0.3\n4.0\n% descaled\n7.8\n4.0\n3.0\n22.5\nControl\ncaptured\n67.8\n6.3\n8.3\n18.8\n% descaled\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0","105\nAppendix Table C2. - - Percent of descaled juvenile salmonids\ncaptured from fish guidance efficiency test\nslots on dates of handling-descaling tests.\nYearling\nTest\nunit/slot\nchinook\nCoho\nSockeye\nTest\ndate\n(conditions)\nsalmon\nSteelhead\nsalmon\nsalmon\n5B (ESTS, PROGb\n5/24/93\n17.1\n2.6\n11.5\n31.7\n6B (ESBSc, NOGd)\n14.4\n5.1\n10.7\n31.3\n7B (STS e, NOG)\n36.4\n14.0\n8.7\n7.1\n5/26/93\n5B (ESTS, PROG)\n13.0\n2.8\n2.3\n50.6\n6B (ESBS, NOG)\n10.9\n6.3\n4.4\n37.1\n7B (STS, NOG)\n7.9\n3.9\n3.1\n41.6\n5/27/93\n5B (ESTS, PROG)\n10.0\n7.3\n10.4\n28.9\n6B (ESBS, PROG)\n15.8\n3.3\n11.5\n54.0\n7B (STS, NOG)\n11.2\n7.3\n1.6\n43.6\n5/28/93\n5B (ESTS, PROG)\n24.4\n0.0\n45.7\n6B (ESBS, NOG)\n11.9\n0.0\n3.3\n7B (STS, NOG)\n11.5\n5.0\n12.5\n49.0\n6.1\n40.2\nMean,\n5B\n16.1\n3.1\nall dates\n7.5\n30.6\n6B\n13.2\n3.7\n7B\n11.2\n6.2\n6.1\n42.7\nExtended-length submersible traveling screen.\na\nb\nPartially raised operating gate (raised 2.4 m above the stored position)\n.\nC\nExtended-length submersible bar screen.\nd\nNo operating gate (fully raised or removed) .\ne\nStandard-length submersible traveling screen.","106\nAppendix Table C3. - Mean system dependent descaling obtained\nusing two methods during fish guidance\nefficiency tests at McNary Dam, 1993, and\ndescaling values for the same period from the\nMcNary Dam Fish Passage Facility.\nDescaling (%)\nYearling\nTest\nchinook\nCoho\nSockeye\nMethod\nunit/slot/screen\nsalmon\nSteelhead\nsalmon\nsalmon\nDirect\n5B, ESTS\n8.4\n-0.9\n3.0\n17.7\n6B, ESBSb\n5.5\n-0.3\n4.5\n8.1\n7B, STS\n3.4\n2.2\n3.1\n20.1\nSubtraction\n5B, ESTS\n5.0\n-3.1\n-0.01\n-2.4\n6B, ESBS\n2.1\n-2.5\n1.4\n-12.1\n3.4 (wd)\n8.2 (w)\nMcNary Dam\n7.4\n7.1\nFish Passage\n11.7 (he)\n21.1 (h)\nFacility\na\nExtended-length submersible traveling screen.\nb\nExtended-length submersible bar screen.\nC\nStandard-length submersible traveling screen.\nd\nWild smolts.\ne\nHatchery-reared smolts.","107\nmay have been an artifact resulting from low catch numbers of\nthese species late in the spring outmigration. Larger negative\nvalues for steelhead and sockeye salmon were obtained using the\nsubtraction method because mean descaling in the control slot\n(7B) was actually higher than in the test slots (5B and 6B) on\ndays when handling tests were conducted. Using the direct\nmethod, handling during FGE testing appeared to account for about\nhalf the observed descaling for juvenile salmon, and over\ntwo-thirds of the descaling for juvenile steelhead (Appendix\nFig. C2) .\nWith either the direct method described here or the\nsubtraction method, descaling using extended-length screens was\nwithin +5% (i.e., 5 descaling units) of the control value for\nyearling chinook salmon over the limited interval of this study.\nMoreover, the subtraction method results suggest that both\nextended-length screens had a beneficial effect on descaling for\nsteelhead and sockeye salmon.\nComparing test system descaling results to McNary Dam Fish\nPassage Facility descaling is deceptive. Assuming there is a\ndescaling fraction attributable to the fish bypass system and\ndescaling is unit independent, we would expect the mean passage\nfacility descaling value to be greater than that for any single\ntest unit (excluding, possibly, FGE test gatewells) when adjusted\nfor handling. This is the case with the data for yearling\nchinook salmon, steelhead, and coho salmon from the control\ngatewell (7B), though not for wild sockeye salmon (Appendix\nTable C3) .","108\nSteelhead\nYearling chinook\n40\n40\n30\n30\n20\n20\n10\n10\n0\n0\nESBS\nSTS\nFacility\nESTS\nESBS\nSTS\nFacility\nESTS\nSockeye\nCoho\n40\n40\n30\n30\n20\n20\n10\n10\n0\n0\nESTS\nESBS\nSTS\nFacility\nESTS\nESBS\nSTS\nFacility\nMean percent descaling for species\nAppendix Figure C2.\ncaptured with an extended-length -\ntraveling screen (ESTS) , extended-\nlength bar screen (ESBS), and\nstandard-length submersible\ntraveling screen (STS) during fish\nguidance efficiency tests at McNary\nDam, 1993. Bars are separated into\ndescaling components attributable\nto handling (gray portion of bar)\ndetermined by direct estimation,\nand system dependent (dark portion\nof bar) . Height of bar represents\ntotal mean descaling detected for a\ngiven screen for the 4 days when\nhandling tests were run. McNary\nFish Passage Facility (Facility)\nweekly mean descaling for 5/24-5/30\nis shown for comparison.","109\nIn addition to the low numbers of replicates and test fish,\nthere were two other problems with this brief study. First, it\nwould be desirable to cover the entire spring outmigration period\nto account for seasonal variation in smolt susceptibility to\ndescaling. Second, FGE test conditions (i.e., screen type and\noperating gate position) were not equally represented during this\nstudy. In future studies of the effects of handling on descaling\nresults, all guidance conditions should be equally represented in\ncomparisons.\nCONCLUSIONS\n1) The direct method of estimating the fraction of total\ndescaling due to handling procedures during FGE testing\naccounted for approximately 50% of juvenile salmon descaling\nand 67% of the steelhead descaling for the last week of the\nspring outmigration at McNary Dam in 1993.\n2) Both the direct method described here and simply subtracting\ncontrol descaling from FGE test gatewell descaling yielded\nsimilar results for yearling chinook salmon. However, the\nsubtraction method did not appear to be as consistent as the\ndirect method for steelhead and sockeye salmon.\n3) The direct method of estimating handling descaling\nincorporated only four samples from 1 week near the end of\nthe spring outmigration in 1993. The sample period for this\ntype of study should be expanded to include a series of\nreplicates over the entire spring outmigration test period,\nand should include all guidance conditions being tested."]}