{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"Evaluation of fish guidance efficiency of submersible traveling screens and other modifications at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1993","Authors":"","Publication date":"1994","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-16-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000066388"},"Pages":["SH153\nUn5716\nEvaluation\nof Fish Guidance Efficiency\nof Submersible Traveling\nScreens and\nCZAES\nOther Modifications\nat Bonneville Dam\nSecond Powerhouse,\nCoastal Zone and\nEstuarine Studies\n1993\nDivision\nNorthwest Fisheries\nby Bruce H. Monk, Benjamin P. Sandford,\nScience Center\nand Douglas B. Dey\nNational Marine\nFisheries Service\nJuly 1994\nSeattle, Washington\nLibrary\nNorthwest\nNOAA.\nFisheries\n2725\nCenter\nSeattle,\nService","NWFSC116 SH\n153\nUn 5716\n1993\nEVALUATION OF FISH GUIDANCE EFFICIENCY OF\nSUBMERSIBLE TRAVELING SCREENS AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS\nAT BONNEVILLE DAM SECOND POWERHOUSE, 1993\nby\nBruce H. Monk\nBenjamin P. Sandford\nand\nDouglas B. Dey\nReport of Research\nFunded by\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers\nPortland District\nDelivery Order E96930031\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\nJuly 1994","CONTENTS\nPage\nINTRODUCTION\n1\nMETHODS AND MATERIALS\n5\nStatistical Analysis\n9\nRESULTS\n10\nSpring Migration\n10\nSummer Migration\n18\nDISCUSSION\n20\nCONCLUSIONS\n21\nSpring Migration\n21\nSummer Migration\n22\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n22\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n23\nREFERENCES\n25\nAPPENDIX TABLES\n27","INTRODUCTION\nBonneville Dam Second Powerhouse was completed in 1982 and\nNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) researchers began\nevaluating fish guidance efficiency (FGE) at this facility in\n1983. Initial measurements of FGE with standard-length\nsubmersible traveling screens (STSs) were less than 25% for\nyearling chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho salmon\n(O. kisutch), and approximately 33% for steelhead (O. mykiss)\nThese results were lower than the expected design level of\ngreater than 70% for all species (Krcma et al. 1984) As a\nresult, the NMFS study objective changed from evaluating FGE to\ndetermining means to improve FGE.\nIn 1984, we tested various modifications designed to\nintercept more fish entering the turbine intake and/or to improve\nconditions which would lead to a greater diversion of fish into\ngatewells. We also illuminated the forebay immediately upstream\nfrom the powerhouse in an attempt to attract fish closer to the\nsurface. The 1984 spring field tests showed only a slight\nimprovement in FGE over 1983 levels; no improvement in FGE\noccurred for summer migrating fish (Gessel et al. 1985) .\nIn 1985, we tried two means of altering the flow in the area\nintercepted by the STS: 1) lowering an STS to increase the gap\nand flow above the screen, and 2) placing streamlined trashracks\nin the upper half of the test intake to smooth flows above the\nSTS. We found that lowering the STS 0.8 m (30 in) in\nconjunction with streamlining the trashracks, increased FGE to\nabout 40% for yearling chinook salmon. However, FGE estimates","2\nduring the 1985 summer outmigration of subyearling chinook salmon\ndid not change (Gessel et al. 1986) .\nModel studies conducted in 1985 at the U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers (COE) Waterways Experiment Station indicated that a\nturbine intake extension (TIE) might reduce forebay eddies.\nModel flow patterns were observed by releasing dye in both a 1:25\nsectional turbine intake model and a 1:80 model of the Bonneville\nDam Project. These observations indicated such extensions could\ndampen the lateral flows and at the same time provide a more\nuniform vertical flow into the turbine intakes. Thus, TIEs were\ndesigned and constructed for testing during the 1986 spring and\nsummer outmigrations.\nIn 1986, we installed TIEs in front of Slots 11C, 12A, 12B,\n12C, 13A, and 13B. In addition, we retested the best 1985\nguidance modifications. Under these conditions, mean FGE was 71%\nand mean screen effectiveness [FGE theoretical FGE (an estimate\nof the percentage of fish theoretically guidable based upon\nhydraulic model studies and the vertical distribution of fish) ]\nincreased to 80%. However, while these guidance levels were\nencouraging, they were obtained during restricted powerhouse\noperation. During full powerhouse operation a high-velocity\nlateral current developed at the face of the TIEs. This lateral\ncurrent reduced mean guidance and screen effectiveness for\nyearling chinook and coho salmon to below 50 and 60%,\nrespectively. Also, guidance for subyearling chinook salmon\nduring the summer outmigration remained between 18 and 24%\n(Gessel et al. 1987)","3\nDuring the spring 1987 outmigration, TIEs were tested with\nan alternate intake configuration in front of Slots 11A, 11C,\n12B, 13A, 13C, and 14B, along with streamlined trashracks and\n0.8-m lowered STSs. These tests were conducted during full\npowerhouse operation. The alternate TIE configuration broke up\nthe lateral current and created vortices. We speculated that\nthese vortices concentrated fish and pulled them to the top of\nthe turbine intake ceiling, resulting in higher fish guidance in\nslots without TIEs. For example, the number of fish passing into\nSlot 12A was almost 1.7 times higher than the number of fish\npassing into Slot 12B. We estimated weighted mean FGES of 60%\nfor yearling chinook salmon and 53 and 47% for steelhead and\nsubyearling chinook salmon, respectively (Gessel et al. 1988) .\nHowever, during the summer outmigration, the alternate TIE\nconfiguration did not improve FGE results for subyearling chinook\nsalmon.\nIn 1988, we retested the best configuration from 1987\n(alternate TIEs, with STSs lowered 0.6-m, and streamlined\ntrashracks) with mercury vapor lights in an attempt to attract\nfish and improve guidance. In addition, we tested the\nsubmersible bar screen with 45% porosity (compared to a standard\nporosity of 22% for STSs) Mercury vapor lights did not improve\nguidance under any conditions tested, but the higher porosity bar\nscreen did produce an average FGE of over 80%. However,\ndescaling was also increased by almost threefold with the bar\nscreen (Gessel et al. 1989) .","4\nIn 1989, a raised operating gate was tested with a 45%\nporosity bar screen. It was hoped that descaling problems found\nin 1988 could be reduced while maintaining the increased guidance\nachieved with the bar screen. The raised operating gate did not\nsignificantly improve the effectiveness of the bar screen in\nguiding yearling chinook salmon nor did it help reduce descaling.\nThe porosity of the bar screen was then decreased to about 33%\nwhich reduced fish descaling to levels equal to those obtained\nwith the STS. During a 3-day period in mid-May, we calculated\nmean FGES of 78% for yearling chinook salmon and 69% for\nsteelhead. These were the highest FGE averages obtained at the\nsecond powerhouse since 1983. After a 1-week layoff, we again\ncompared FGE with the STS to FGE with the 33% porosity bar\nscreen. Guidance for yearling chinook and coho salmon was\nsignificantly higher with bar screen than with the STS; however,\nmean FGES were only 60 and 51% for the bar screen and STS,\nrespectively. No statistically significant differences in mean\nFGE were found between the two screens for steelhead (41%) and\nsubyearling chinook salmon (52%) . The mean FGE of 25% for\nsubyearling chinook salmon during the 1989 summer outmigration\nwas similar to results from previous years (Gessel et al. 1990)\n.\nResearch at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse from 1983 to\n1989 indicated that modifications to increase flows above the STS\nand smooth flows into and within the turbine intake could\nsubstantially increase juvenile salmonid guidance during the\nspring outmigration (Gessel et al. 1991) At that time, lowering\nthe STS by 0.8 m, using streamlined trashracks, and installing","5\nalternating TIEs, appeared to be the best way to accomplish this\n(Fig. 1) . Therefore, even though most FGE testing was done at\nthe south end of the powerhouse (Unit 12), we recommended\nlowering all STSs at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse 0.8 m, and\ninstalling streamlined trashracks and alternating TIEs across the\nentire width of the powerhouse. Tests in 1987 showed that, with\nthese modifications in place, FGE in Unit 12 was higher with\nseven turbine units in operation than with four turbine units in\noperation (Gessel et al. 1988). . However, tests were not\nconducted in other units across the powerhouse.\nOur research objective during the 1993 spring and summer\noutmigrations was to evaluate the effects of these modifications\n(alternating TIEs, lowered STSs, and streamlined trashracks) on\nFGE in south, middle, and north turbine units, under full and\npartial powerhouse operation.\nMETHODS AND MATERIALS\nProcedures and methods for FGE tests were similar to those\nused at Bonneville Dam in previous years (Gessel et al. 1989,\n1990; Monk et al. 1992) . Dipnet catches from the gatewell were\nused to estimate the numbers of guided fish; catches from gap and\nfyke nets attached to the STS provided estimates of the numbers\nof unguided fish (Fig. 2) Fish guidance efficiency for each\nsalmonid species was calculated by dividing the gatewell catch by\nthe total number caught during the test period.","6\nBefore fish\nguidance\nmodifications\nSpiral\nrollers\nFLOW\nTurbine\nintake\nextension\nAfter fish\nguidance\nmodifications\nFLOW\nStreamlined\ntrashracks\nLowered\nSTS\n. - - Powerhouse, Cross sections of turbine intake at Bonneville Dam Second\nFigure 1.\nacross showing three major modifications installed\nefficiency face of powerhouse prior to 1993 fish guidance\ntrashracks, testing [turbine intake extensions, streamlined\n(STS) ] . and lowered submersible traveling screens","7\nFyke-net layout\nNorth Middle South\nGap nets\nGatewell\nBypass gallery\nTurbine\nintake\nOrifice\nextension\nClosure\nOperating gate\nnets\nVertical\nbarrier\nFyke\nscreen\nnets\nStreamlined\ntrashracks\nSubmersible\nGap net\ntraveling\nClosure net\nscreen\nFLOW\nFyke nets\nFigure 2. -- Cross section of turbine intake at Bonneville Dam Second\nPowerhouse, showing submersible traveling screen, fyke nets,\nfish bypass system, stored operating gate, and associated\nstructures.","8\nGW\nFGE =\nX 100%\nGW + GN + 3 (FN)\n= gatewell catch\nGW\n= gap-net catch\nGN\nFN = fyke-net catch (1/3 sample)\nFish guidance efficiency tests targeted yearling chinook\nsalmon during the spring outmigration (20 April-2 June) and\nsubyearling chinook salmon during the summer outmigration\n(6 July-17 July) . Data on other salmonid species [coho and\nsockeye salmon (O. nerka) and steelhead] were also collected.\nIndividual tests lasted a minimum of 1 hour, beginning at\n2000 h and ending between 2100 and 2300 h, depending on numbers\nof fish guided (preferably 250 to 300 fish of the target\nspecies) When mixed stocks of fish were passing the powerhouse,\nfewer numbers of the target species were recovered to limit the\neffects on other temporarily more abundant species.\nMeasurements of FGE were made in Turbine Units 12, 15, and\n17. Since previous research at Bonneville Second Powerhouse had\nindicated that FGE varied with the number of turbine units in\noperation, these measurements were conducted under full (all\neight turbine units in operation) and partial (four and six units\nin operation) powerhouse loading. Turbine units operated during\ntesting under partial load conditions were the priority units\nspecified by the Juvenile Fish Passage Plan (COE, revised August\n1992) Testing under the load conditions specified by this plan\nhelped ensure that our test conditions were representative of\ntypical operating conditions. Since Turbine Units 12 and 17 were\nspecified as priority units, we were able to measure FGE in these","9\nunits under both full and partial powerhouse load conditions.\nUnit 15, however, is one of the last units brought on line at the\nsecond powerhouse, and FGE measurements in this unit could only\nbe taken under full powerhouse load conditions.\nTo evaluate the impact of the guidance devices on the\njuvenile salmonids, all fish were examined for descaling and\ninjuries. Descaling was monitored using standard Fish\nTransportation Oversight Team fish descaling criteria (Ceballos\net al. 1992) .\nStatistical Analysis\nDuring the spring outmigration, FGE tests were conducted\nconcurrently in Slots A and B (one with and one without a TIE) of\nthe test unit (12, 15, or 17) The FGE for each turbine unit\n(for each test) was then estimated by weighting the FGE in each\nslot by the percentage of total fish in each slot.\nAll analyses were conducted using analysis of variance\n(ANOVA) Separate mean FGE estimates with corresponding 95%-\nconfidence intervals were calculated for TIE vs. non-TIE\nconditions and for 4-, 6-, and 8-unit operation. The Fisher's\nProtected Least Significant Difference method was used to compare\ntreatments from ANOVAs with significant F-test differences\n(Petersen 1985) . Statistical significance was established at\na = 0.05.\nSeparate analyses were done for yearling and subyearling\nchinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead (sockeye salmon\nnumbers were too low for meaningful analysis). Tests where total\nsample size was less than 50 yearling chinook salmon or 30 of the","10\nother species were not analyzed. For yearling chinook salmon,\nthe species of primary interest, the 50-fish cutoff affected only\nfour replicates at the end of the spring season. A 50-fish\ncutoff for the other less abundant species would have precluded\nmeaningful analyses in most cases.\nDuring the summer outmigration, FGE tests with subyearling\nchinook salmon were conducted concurrently in non-TIE slots of\nUnits 12 and 17 (i.e., Slots 12A and 17B) These results were\nanalyzed by two-factor ANOVA, with units tested and units in\noperation (four or six) being the two factors. Mean FGE levels\nwere estimated with 95%- confidence intervals for Slots 12A and\n17B for 4 - and 6-unit operation.\nRESULTS\nSpring Migration\nBecause of lower-than-expected flows in the Columbia River\nduring the early part of the spring 1993 outmigration, most tests\ninvolving 4 - and 6-unit operation (Units 12 and 17) were\nconducted from 20 April to 16 May. During the latter part of the\noutmigration (16 May to 3 June) high flows made it necessary to\noperate all eight units during most of the tests. Altogether,\nover twice as many 8-unit tests were conducted as were 4 - or\n6-unit tests (20 vs. 7 and 9, respectively). . Tests involving\n4 - - and 6-unit operation were mostly in Unit 17 (24 of 32 tests)\nwhich was involved in only 5 (of 33) 8-unit tests. Therefore,\nsince any unit effect was confounded both by time (during the\noverall outmigration) of testing and by the number of units in","11\noperation, a statistical analysis of FGE among the three turbine\nunits or a comparison of 4 - or 6-unit operation to 8-unit\noperation was not considered appropriate.\nThe results of individual replicates of FGE tests in Turbine\nUnits 12, 15, and 17 during the spring outmigration are presented\nin Appendix Table 1. The ANOVAs and detectable differences found\nbetween TIE and non-TIE slots and between 4 - and 6-unit operation\nfor all species during the spring outmigration are given in\nAppendix Table 2.\nAs reported in previous years (Gessel et al. 1988, 1989,\n1990) there was a significant difference between numbers of\nspring migrating fish passing into adjacent slots with and\nwithout TIEs but only with 4 - and 6-unit operation (Fig. 3)\n.\nWith four turbine units in operation, approximately 75% more fish\nof all species (except steelhead) entered the slot without a TIE\n(significant at a = 0.05) . With six units in operation, 26% more\nyearling chinook salmon entered the non-TIE slot; there were no\nsignificant differences between TIE and non-TIE slots for the\nother species. With eight units in operation, however, there\nwere no significant differences between numbers of fish entering\nTIE and non-TIE slots for any species.\nWith four or six turbine units in operation, FGE for\nyearling and spring migrating subyearling chinook salmon was\nsignificantly higher in the non-TIE slot. Although this trend\ncontinued for coho salmon and steelhead, the increases were not\nsignificant (Fig. 4). With eight units in operation, FGE for all","12\n2.0\n*\n4 Units\n*\n6 Units\n8 Units\n1.5\n*\n1.0\n0.5\n0.0\nYearling\nSubyearling\nCoho\nSteelhead\nchinook\nchinook\nFigure 3. - - -Ratio of number of fish in slot without a turbine\nintake extension (TIE) to the number of fish in slot\nwith a TIE, in Turbine Units 12, 15, and 17 combined,\nwith 4, 6, or 8 units in operation at Bonneville Dam\nSecond Powerhouse, spring migration 1993 (* denotes\nsignificant difference from 1, a = 0.05).","13\nTIE\nNon-TIE\n70\n60\n50\n40\n30\n20\n10\n0\nSubyearling\nYearling\nCoho\nSteelhead\nchinook\nchinook\nFigure 4. . - - Mean fish guidance efficiency (FGE) in slots with and\nDam without turbine intake extensions (TIEs), Bonneville\nUnits Second Powerhouse, spring migration 1993. Turbine\n12 and 17 with 4- and 6-unit operation,\ncombined. Small bars (T) represent one-half 95% are\nbetween confidence limits (* denotes significant difference\nTIE and non-TIE slot at a = 0.05).\n.","14\nspecies was not significantly different between the TIE and non-\nTIE slots (Fig. 5)\nBecause of the differences in fish numbers between TIE and\nnon-TIE slots (with four or six units in operation), mean FGE\nvalues for each unit were weighted for each test with a\nsignificant non-TIE/TIE ratio (Table 1) . As stated above, we did\nnot feel a statistical comparison of FGE values among units was\nappropriate, but mean FGE estimates with 95%-confidence intervals\nwere calculated as a general indication of FGE values across the\nsecond powerhouse under different load conditions.\nBy combining data from Units 12, 15, and 17, mean FGE\nestimates were computed for each salmonid species at 4-, 6-, and\n8-unit powerhouse load conditions (Table 2) For all species\nexcept coho salmon, FGE was higher with all eight turbine units\nin operation than with four or six. However, no statistical\ncomparisons were made between powerhouse load conditions because\nthey were not evenly distributed throughout the season. Mean FGE\nranged from 35 to 50% for yearling and subyearling chinook salmon\nand steelhead and from 50 to 60% for coho salmon, with four or\nsix units in operation. Mean FGE ranged from 45 to 55% for all\nsalmonid species when eight units were in operation.\nDuring spring FGE tests, descaling of yearling chinook\nsalmon averaged 5.2% Descaling results for all salmonids\nexamined during spring FGE tests are summarized in Appendix\nTable 4.","15\nTIE\nNon-TIE\n70\n60\nI\n50\n40\n30\n20\n10\n0\nYearling\nSubyearling\nCoho\nSteelhead\nchinook\nchinook\nFigure 5. -- Mean fish guidance efficiency (FGE) in slots\nwith and without turbine intake extensions\n(TIEs), Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse,\nspring migration 1993. Turbine Units 12, 15,\nand 17, with 8 units in operation, are combined.\nSmall bars (T) represent one-half 95% confidence\nlimits.","16\nTable 1. - - Number of replicates, mean fish guidance efficiency (FGE), ,\nand 95% confidence intervals for each test unit at three\ndifferent powerhouse loading conditions (4, 6, and 8 units)\nfor yearling chinook salmon at Bonneville Dam Second\nPowerhouse, spring migration 1993.\nTurbine\nNo. units\nin operation\nReplicates\nFGE (%)\nunit (slots)\n20 April to 3 June\n51 (39-63)\n12 (A,B)\n4\n2\n42 (24-60)\n12 (A,B)\n6\n2\n49 (44-54)\n12 (A,B)\n8\n5\n54 (53-55)\n15 (A,B)\n8\n9\n42 (41-43)\n17 (A,B)\n4\n5\n47 (43-51)\n17 (A,B)\n6\n7\n34 (30-38)\n17 (A,B)\n8\n6","17\nTable 2. - - Mean fish guidance efficiency (%) and 95% confidence\nintervals for all salmonid species in Turbine Units 12, 15,\nand 17 combined, with 4, 6, and 8 units in operation at\nBonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, spring migration 1993.\nNumber of units in operation\nSpecies\n4\n6\n8\nYearling\nchinook\n45 (40-50) *\n43 (38-47) *\n50 (47-54)\nSubyearling\nchinook\n47 (37-57) *\n42 (33-52)\n55 (48-63)\nCoho\n61 (54-67)\n54 (49-60)\n54 (49-59)\nSteelhead\n40 (30-49)\n37 (25-49)\n47 (42-53)\n*Weighted by ratio of the number of fish in slot without a turbine\nintake extension (TIE) to number of fish in slot with a TIE.","18\nSummer Migration\nThe initial test on 7 July in Unit 12 produced an abnormally\nhigh FGE estimate of 62% for subyearling chinook salmon. This\nvalue was two to three times higher than subsequent test results\nin Unit 12 and up to three times higher than FGE estimates in\nUnit 17. In the ANOVA, this value had a large relative residual,\nand it increased the mean square for error by nearly two.\nBecause of its disproportionate statistical influence, we omitted\nthis apparent outlier from the overall analysis.\nThe results of individual replicates of FGE tests in Turbine\nUnits 12 and 15 during the summer outmigration are presented in\nAppendix Table 1. The ANOVAs and detectable differences between\nTIE and non-TIE slots and between 4 - and 6-unit load conditions\nfor subyearling chinook salmon during the summer outmigration are\ngiven in Appendix Table 3.\nMean FGE for subyearling chinook salmon ranged from 23 to\n27% in Unit 12 (mean 25%) and from 26 to 42% in Unit 17 (mean\n34%) (Table 3) The mean was significantly higher in Unit 17\nthan in Unit 12. There was also a significant increase in FGE\nwith six units in operation compared to four units (34 vs. 25%)\n.\nMean FGE in Unit 17 with six turbine units in operation was\nhigher than FGE in any unit with four turbine units in operation.\nIt was also higher than FGE in Unit 12 with six units in\noperation, but this difference was not statistically significant,\npossibly due to the relatively short sampling season.\nDuring summer FGE tests, descaling for subyearling chinook\nsalmon averaged 1.5%. Descaling results for all salmonids","19\nTable\n3. . - - Number of replicates, mean fish guidance effiency (FGE), , and\n95% confidence intervals for subyearling chinook salmon in\neach test unit with 4 or 6 units in operation at Bonneville\nDam Second Powerhouse, 7-17 July 1993.\nTurbine\nNo. units\nunit (slot)\nin operation\nReplicates\nFGE (%)\n12 (A)\n4\n4\n23 (16-30)\n12 (A)\n6\n5\n27 (20-34)\n17 (B)\n4\n4\n26 (19-33)\n17 (B)\n6\n5\n42 (19-33)","20\nexamined during summer FGE tests are summarized in Appendix\nTable 4.\nDISCUSSION\nIn 1989, under conditions similar to those tested in 1993,\nmean FGE for yearling chinook salmon in Unit 12 ranged from 74\n(15 to 17 May) to 49% (26 May to 4 June) . The earlier tests in\n1989 involved larger numbers of fish than later tests (in which\n11 of 20 replicates had less than 100 fish), and were completed\nduring the peak of the yearling chinook salmon outmigration.\nTherefore, the 74% FGE obtained during earlier tests was\nconsidered more representative of actual FGE for yearling chinook\nsalmon. However, in 1993, overall, weighted mean FGE values for\nUnits 12, 15, and 17 combined (with either 4-, 6-, or 8-unit\noperation) were closer to the mean FGE of 49% obtained in the\nlater tests in 1989. Moreover, the FGE values for yearling\nchinook salmon in Unit 12 tests in 1993 were as low as or lower\nthan FGE in the other test units.\nIn addition to being significantly higher than concurrent\nFGE measurements in Unit 12, the mean FGE in Unit 17 for\nsubyearling chinook salmon during the summer outmigration (34%)\nwas also higher than FGE results in previous years in Unit 12 (22\nto 27%, Gessel et al. 1989, 1990). . Horizontal distribution\nstudies at Bonneville Dam First Powerhouse and at other dams on\nthe Columbia River have shown that subyearling chinook salmon\ntend to orient toward the shoreline (Krcma et al. 1982). . Since\nthe south shore of Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse (near","21\nUnit 12) is an island, subyearling chinook salmon with a\nshoreline orientation would tend to be on the north shoreline\n(near Unit 17) . This was apparently true in 1993 during\nconcurrent FGE studies in Units 12 and 17, because it was usually\nnecessary to operate Unit 12 for an additional 30 to 60 minutes\nto obtain numbers of fish approximately equal to those in\nUnit 17. To date there has been no relationship established\nbetween shoreline orientation and FGE, but the 1993 test results\nsuggest a possible correlation.\nCONCLUSIONS\nSpring Migration\n1)\nWith four or six turbine units in operation, mean FGE for\nyearling chinook salmon was 44%. With eight units in\noperation, mean FGE was 50%.\n2)\nWith four, six, or eight turbine units in operation, FGE for\nall other species ranged from 35 to 60%\n3)\nWith four turbine units in operation, 75% more fish of all\nspecies (except steelhead) entered the non-TIE slot. With\nsix units in operation, 25% more yearling chinook salmon\nentered the non-TIE slot. With eight units in operation,\nequal numbers of fish of all species entered the TIE and\nnon-TIE slots.\n4)\nWith four or six turbine units in operation, FGE for\nyearling and subyearling chinook salmon was significantly\nhigher in the non-TIE slot. With eight units in operation,","22\nFGE for all species was not significantly different between\nthe TIE and non-TIE slots.\nSummer migration\n1)\nWith four or six turbine units in operation, FGE for\nsubyearling chinook salmon ranged from 23 to 42% (non-TIE\nslots) .\n2)\nMean FGE for subyearling chinook salmon in Unit 17 (34%) was\nsignificantly higher than in Unit 12 (25%) .\n3)\nMean FGE for subyearling chinook salmon was significantly\nhigher with six units in operation than with four.\nRECOMMENDATIONS\nBased on past results, FGE for yearling chinook salmon at\nBonneville Dam Second Powerhouse was lower than expected with\nguidance modifications in place. Because it is necessary to\nestablish and confirm accurate FGE values at this dam, it is\nrecommended that a short series of FGE tests be conducted during\nthe 1994 spring outmigration. One or two series of tests, with\nconditions similar to those of 1993, should provide an indication\nof how representative or anomalous the 1993 FGE results were.","23\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nWe express our appreciation to Virgil Goodpastor, Project\nEngineer at Bonneville Lock and Dam, Thomas Thorsen, Chief of\nMaintenance, and Edward Willits, Structures and Utility Foreman,\nfor their cooperation and suggestions. We. also thank their\nrespective staffs for providing the expertise and assistance\nneeded to accomplish the work safely and successfully.\nWe also thank Project Biologist James Kuski and his staff,\nfor coordinating our work with project personnel, and Chief of\nOperations Darrel Hunt and his staff for coordinating turbine\nunit startups and shutdowns for the respective tests.","","25\nREFERENCES\nCeballos, J. R. , S. W. Pettit, and J. L. McKern. 1992. Fish\ntransportation oversight team annual report - FY 1991.\nTransport operations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. NOAA\nTech. Memo. NMFS F/NWR-31, 77 p. plus Appendix.\nGessel, M. H. D. A. Brege, B. H. Monk, and J. G. Williams.\n1990. Continued studies to evaluate the juvenile bypass\nsystems at Bonneville Dam - 1989. Report to U.S. Army Corps\nof Engineers, Delivery Order E8689095, 20 p. plus Appendices.\n(Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center,\n2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097. )\nGessel, M. H. L. G. Gilbreath, W. D. Muir, and R. F. Krcma.\n1986. Evaluation of the juvenile collection and bypass\nsystems at Bonneville Dam - 1985. Report to U.S. Army Corps\nof Engineers, Contract DACW57-85-H-0001, 63 p. plus\nAppendices. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science\nCenter, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E. Seattle, WA 98112-2097. )\nGessel, M. H., L. G. Gilbreath, W. D. Muir, B. H. Monk, and\nR. F. Krcma. 1987. Evaluation of the juvenile salmonid\ncollection and bypass systems at Bonneville Dam - 1986.\nReport to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract\nDACW57-86-F-0270, 53 p. plus Appendices. (Available from\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E.\nSeattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nGessel, M. H. R. F. Krcma, W. D. Muir, C. S. McCutcheon,\nL. G. Gilbreath, and B. H. Monk. 1985. Evaluation of the\njuvenile collection and bypass system at Bonneville Dam,\n1984. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract\nDACW57-84-F-0181, 48 p. plus Appendices. (Available from\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E.\nSeattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nGessel, M. H., B. H. Monk, D. A. Brege, and J. G. Williams.\n1989. Fish guidance efficiency studies at Bonneville Dam\nFirst and Second Powerhouses - 1988. Report to U.S. Army\nCorps of Engineers, Delivery Order DACW57-87-F-0322, 22 p.\nplus Appendices. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science\nCenter, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nGessel, M. H., B. H. Monk, and J. G. Williams. 1988. Evaluation\nof the juvenile salmonid collection and bypass systems at\nBonneville Dam, 1987. Report to U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers, Contract DACW57-87-F-0322, 35 p. plus Appendices.\n(Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center,\n2725 Montlake Blvd. E. Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)","26\nGessel, M. H. , J. G. Williams, D. A. Brege, and R. F. Krcma.\n1991. Juvenile salmon guidance at the Bonneville Dam Second\nPowerhouse, Columbia River, 1983-1989. N. Am. J. Fish.\nManage. 11:400-412.\nKrcma, R. F. , D. DeHart, M. H. Gessel, C. W. Long, and\nC. W. Sims. 1982. Evaluation of submersible traveling\nscreens, passage of juvenile salmonids through the ice-trash\nsluiceway, and cycling of gatewell-orifice operations at the\nBonneville First Powerhouse, 1981. Report to U.S. Army Corps\nof Engineers, Contract DACW57-81-F-0343, 36 p. plus\nAppendices. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science\nCenter, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E. Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nKrcma, R. F. , M. H. Gessel, W. D. Muir, C. S. McCutcheon,\nL. G. Gilbreath, and B. H. Monk. 1984. Evaluation of the\njuvenile collection and bypass system at Bonneville Dam,\n1983. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract\nDACW57-83-F-0315, 56 p. plus Appendices. (Available from\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E.\nSeattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nMonk, B. H. , G. E. Varney, and S. J. Grabowski. 1992.\nContinuing studies to evaluate and improve submersible\ntraveling screens for fish guidance at Bonneville Dam First\nPowerhouse, 1991. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,\nProject E96910012, 20 p. plus Appendix. (Available from\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd E.\nSeattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nPetersen, R. G. 1985. Design and analysis of experiments.\nMarcel Dekker, New York. 429 p.","27\nAppendix Table 1. Numbers of fish collected in individual replicates of fish\nguidance efficiency (FGE) tests in Turbine Units 12, 15, and 17\nat Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1993 (SC = subyearling\nchinook, YC = yearling chinook, ST = steelhead, CO = coho, and\nSO = sockeye)\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units in operation)\n20 April (17A) (4)\n20 April (17B) (4)\n21 April (17A) (6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n6\n202\n3\n22\n0\n9\n487\n3\n35\n0\n6\n306\n1\n55\n0\nGap Net\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n3\n8\n0\n0\n0\n1\n10\n0\n1\n0\nClosure\n1\n104\n3\n1\n0\n1\n155\n0\n7\n0\n39\n87\n1\n5\n0\nFirst\n1\n31\n0\n0\n0\n2\n77\n1\n2\n0\n8\n19\n1\n0\n0\nSecond\n2\n85\n4\n5\n0\n2\n241\n2\n2\n0\n3\n75\n2\n9\n0\nThird\n6\n60\n2\n0\n0\n9\n78\n0\n3\n0\n2\n42\n0\n10\n0\nFourth\n3\n39\n0\n3\n0\n0\n45\n0\n0\n0\n0\n39\n0\n3\n0\nFifth\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n9\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n19\n533\n12\n31\n0\n26\n1,091\n6\n49\n0\n62\n587\n5\n83\n0\nFGE (%)\n32\n38\n25\n71\n35\n45\n50\n71\n10 52 20 66\n21 April (17B) (6)\n22 April (17A) (6)\n22 April (17B) (6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n8\n522\n1\n38\n0\n5\n157\n10\n21\n0\n11\n381\n4\n42\n0\nGap Net\n0\n4\n0\n1\n0\n2\n4\n0\n0\n0\n1\n8\no\n0\n0\nClosure\n3\n157\n0\n10\n0\n0\n57\n4\n4\n0\n3\n113\n3\n4\n0\nFirst\n0\n42\n0\n8\n0\n1\n20\n0\n1\n1\n1\n36\n1\n1\n0\nSecond\n2\n118\n1\n12\n0\n0\n51\n7\n6\n0\n3\n80\n2\n7\n0\nThird\n2\n39\no\n2\n0\n1\n27\n4\n3\n0\n0\n28\n3\n2\no\nFourth\n0\n21\n0\n3\n0\n0\n27\n0\n3\n0\n3\n12\n0\n6\n0\nFifth\n0\n9\no\no\n0\n0\n9\no\no\no\n0\n9\no\n0\n0\nTotals\n15\n912\n2\n74\n0\n9\n352\n25\n38\n1\n22\n667\n13\n62\n0\nFGE (%)\n53\n57\n50\n51\n56\n45\n40\n55\n0\n50\n57\n31\n68\n23 April (17A) (6)\n23 April (17B) (6)\n24 April (17A) (4)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n3\n127\n0\n21\n0\n20\n269\n0\n27\n0\n12\n98\n11\n22\n0\nGap Net\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n1\n4\n0\n1\n0\n0\n8\n2\n0\n0\nClosure\n9\n47\n2\n1\n0\n7\n124\n0\n9\n0\n11\n60\n6\n1\n0\nFirst\n1\n10\n1\n2\n0\n1\n43\n0\n2\n0\n2\n14\n4\n3\n0\nSecond\n6\n67\n1\n9\n0\n5\n66\n0\n6\n0\n8\n63\n7\n9\n0\nThird\n10\n54\n0\n4\n1\n5\n30\n2\n7\n0\n4\n28\n2\n4\n0\nFourth\n0\n27\n0\n6\n0\n0\n18\n0\n0\n0\n2\n21\n0\n2\n0\nFifth\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n29\n339\n4\n43\n1\n39\n554\n2\n52\n0\n39\n295\n32\n41\n0\nFGE (%)\n10\n37\n0\n49\n0\n51\n49\n0\n52\n31 33 34 54","28\nAppendix Table 1. - - Continued.\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units in operation)\n24 April (17B) (4)\n25 April (17A) (4)\n25 April (17B) (4)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n22\n287\n11\n49\n0\n10\n109\n24\n30\n2\n27\n286\n15\n87\n1\nGap Net\n0\n5\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n2\n5\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\n18\n98\n9\n6\n2\n5\n74\n9\n12\n0\n18\n136\n12\n5\n0\nFirst\n2\n29\n0\n4\n0\n1\n33\n4\n8\n0\n4\n39\n5\n2\n0\nSecond\n11\n86\n6\n13\n2\n6\n79\n12\n10\n0\n5\n99\n23\n12\n1\nThird\n5\n67\n5\n7\n0\n3\n47\n10\n9\n0\n6\n62\n16\n10\n0\nFourth\n0\n15\n0\n3\n0\n3\n15\n3\n9\n0\n3\n39\n6\n6\n0\nFifth\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n3\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\no\n0\nTotals\n58\n590\n31\n82\n4\n31\n364\n62\n78\n2\n65\n666\n77\n122\n2\nFGE (%)\n38\n49\n35\n60\n0\n32\n30\n39\n38\n100\n42\n43\n19\n71\n50\n26 April (17A) (4)\n26 April (17B)\n(4)\n27 April (17A) (6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n14\n156\n13\n33\no\n37\n347\n5\n50\n0\n27\n242\n6\n53\n0\nGap Net\n2\n6\n0\n0\n0\n1\n16\n0\n4\n0\n0\n11\n1\no\n0\nClosure\n10\n78\n7\n8\n0\n16\n70\n3\n22\n0\n8\n83\n3\n9\n2\nFirst\n1\n28\n4\n4\n0\n3\n58\n0\n8\n1\n11\n17\n2\n3\n0\nSecond\n6\n69\n8\n11\n0\n14\n124\n8\n14\n0\n9\n102\n10\n13\n0\nThird\n2\n62\n6\n6\n0\n8\n79\n7\n8\n0\n7\n58\n7\n9\n0\nFourth\n0\n13\n0\n0\n0\n9\n30\n0\n6\n0\n0\n45\n3\n6\n0\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n35\n412\n38\n65\n0\n88\n724\n23\n112\n1\n62\n564\n32\n93\n2\nFGE (%)\n40\n38\n34\n51\n42\n48\n22\n45\n0\n44\n43\n19\n57\n0\n27 April (17B) (6)\n28\nApril\n(17A)\n(6)\n28 April (17B) (6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n35\n457\n2\n60\n0\n16\n140\n4\n47\n0\n36\n267\n2\n50\n0\nGap Net\n1\n5\n0\n0\n0\n0\n5\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\n9\n111\n1\n7\n0\n3\n72\n1\n9\n1\n8\n100\n0\n14\n0\nFirst\n6\n34\n1\n4\n0\n2\n30\n0\n4\n1\n3\n20\n1\n8\n0\nSecond\n6\n100\n1\n5\n2\n6\n75\n0\n15\n0\n4\n69\n0\n15\n0\nThird\n1\n51\n0\n4\n0\n13\n35\n4\n7\n1\n4\n40\n1\n5\n0\nFourth\n0\n18\n0\n0\n0\n0\n36\n0\n12\n0\n3\n15\n0\n6\n0\nFifth\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\no\n0\no\n3\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n58\n782\n5\n80\n2\n40\n396\n9\n94\n3\n58\n516\n4\n98\n0\nFGE (%)\n60\n58\n40\n75\n0\n40\n35\n44\n50\n0\n62\n52\n50\n51","29\nAppendix Table 1. Continued.\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units in operation)\n29 April (12A) (6)\n29 April (12B) (6)\n30 April (12A) (4)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n20\n151\n52\n59\n0\n11\n109\n25\n54\n0\n30\n216\n38\n99\n0\nGap Net\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\n8\n48\n7\n13\n1\n1\n58\n7\n14\n2\n6\n52\n14\n9\n0\nFirst\n6\n22\n3\n7\n0\n10\n24\n4\n4\n0\n3\n32\n4\n4\n0\nSecond\n17\n92\n6\n12\n0\n18\n93\n20\n9\n1\n6\n59\n13\n16\n1\nThird\n6\n48\n6\n9\n1\n6\n67\n9\n15\n0\n0\n15\n2\n5\n0\nFourth\n6\n33\n0\n9\n0\n15\n24\n3\n6\n0\n0\n15\n0\n3\n0\nFifth\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n63\n401\n74\n109\n2\n62\n382\n68\n102\n3\n46\n396\n71\n136\n1\nFGE (%)\n32\n38\n70\n54\n0\n18\n29\n37\n53\n0\n65\n55\n54\n73\n0\n30 April (12B) (4)\n3 May (12A) (8)\n3 May (12B) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n17\n116\n39\n65\n0\n11\n132\n39\n94\n0\n25\n160\n50\n82\n0\nGap Net\n0\n1\n0\n1\n0\n0\n3\n1\n2\n0\n0\n2\n1\n1\n0\nClosure\n5\n53\n9\n13\n0\n4\n36\n18\n27\n0\n7\n75\n12\n33\n0\nFirst\n1\n20\n2\n6\n0\n7\n49\n10\n31\n0\n1\n19\n8\n14\n0\nSecond\n8\n65\n19\n14\n0\n10\n127\n10\n49\n0\n13\n76\n14\n29\n0\nThird\n7\n45\n8\n6\n0\n6\n49\n7\n22\n0\n7\n50\n5\n26\n0\nFourth\n3\n27\n6\n0\n0\n9\n18\n0\n12\n0\n0\n24\n0\n6\n0\nFifth\n0\n9\n3\n0\n0\no\n6\n0\n3\no\no\n9\n0\n3\n0\nTotals\n41\n336\n86\n105\n0\n47\n420\n85\n240\n0\n53\n415\n90\n194\n0\nFGE (%)\n41\n35\n45\n62\n23\n31\n46\n39\n47\n39\n56\n42\n4 May (15A) (8)\n4\nMay\n(15B)\n(8)\n5 May (15A) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n29\n142\n15\n153\n0\n24\n196\n7\n127\n0\n27\n122\n19\n185\n0\nGap Net\n0\n2\n0\n4\n0\n0\n2\n0\n1\n0\no\no\n0\n3\n0\nClosure\n5\n50\n6\n31\n0\n8\n63\n3\n25\n0\n9\n31\n3\n44\n0\nFirst\n0\n16\n2\n10\n0\n3\n17\n0\n10\n0\n0\n10\n1\n18\n0\nSecond\n4\n34\n6\n21\n0\n3\n28\n3\n16\n0\n2\n48\n4\n36\n0\nThird\n1\n22\n7\n10\n0\n1\n15\n5\n5\n0\n3\n27\n2\n15\n0\nFourth\n0\n18\n0\n15\n0\n0\n6\n0\n6\n0\n0\n21\n6\n15\n0\nFifth\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\nTotals\n39\n290\n36\n244\n0\n39\n327\n18\n190\n0\n41\n259\n35\n325\n0\nFGE (%)\n74\n49\n42\n63\n62\n60\n39\n67\n66\n47\n54\n57","30\nAppendix Table 1.\nContinued.\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units in operation)\n5 May (15B) (8)\n6 May (15A) (8)\n6 May (15B) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n18\n131\n13\n232\n0\n11\n117\n12\n187\n0\n30\n188\n16\n252\n0\nGap Net\n0\n4\n0\n4\n0\n1\n1\n0\no\no\n1\n1\n0\n6\n0\nClosure\n6\n48\n6\n35\n0\n6\n31\n5\n43\n0\n4\n65\n9\n55\n0\nFirst\n1\n12\n3\n18\n0\n1\n13\n3\n21\no\n2\n13\n2\n22\n0\nSecond\n2\n36\n7\n31\n0\n2\n22\n6\n23\n0\n1\n31\n5\n30\n0\nThird\n3\n27\n6\n13\n0\n0\n13\n11\n10\n0\n1\n15\n6\n8\n0\nFourth\n0\n3\n6\n12\n0\n0\n3\n6\n3\n0\n0\n0\n3\n6\n0\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n1\n0\nTotals\n30\n261\n41\n345\n0\n21\n203\n43\n287\n0\n39\n316\n41\n380\n0\nFGE (%)\n60\n50\n32\n67\n52\n58\n28\n65\n77\n59\n39\n66\n7 May (17A) (8)\n7 May (17B)\n(8)\n8 May\n(17A)\n(6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n25\n125\n23\n304\n0\n12\n46\n11\n65\n0\n16\n93\n43\n99\n1\nGap Net\n0\n5\n0\n11\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\nClosure\n6\n33\n16\n44\n0\n3\n13\n7\n11\n0\n2\n35\n39\n43\n0\nFirst\n1\n14\n5\n10\n0\n1\n6\n4\n6\n0\n0\n16\n9\n18\n0\nSecond\n1\n38\n18\n28\n0\n0\n20\n15\n10\n0\n9\n85\n58\n83\n0\nThird\n1\n31\n33\n31\n0\n1\n12\n12\n10\n0\n4\n50\n50\n75\n0\nFourth\n2\n21\n21\n27\n0\n0\n9\n6\n6\n0\n0\n39\n12\n51\n1\nFifth\n0\n6\n0\n3\n0\n0\n6\n3\n3\n0\n3\n12\n0\n9\n0\nTotals\n36\n273\n116\n458\n0\n17\n112\n58\n111\n0\n34\n330\n211\n382\n2\nFGE (%)\n69\n46\n20\n66\n71\n41\n19\n59\n47\n28\n20\n26\n50\n8 May (17B) (6)\n9 May (17A)\n(4)\n9 May (17B) (4)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nso\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n19\n90\n13\n124\n0\n14\n115\n55\n444\n0\n38\n176\n50\n807\n0\nGap Net\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n5\n0\n10\n0\n0\n2\n0\n16\n0\nClosure\n3\n29\n18\n38\n0\n4\n40\n22\n107\n0\n2\n84\n24\n204\n0\nFirst\n1\n16\n5\n17\n0\n1\n14\n4\n43\n0\no\n17\n20\n60\n0\nSecond\n4\n52\n30\n43\n0\n0\n51\n24\n114\n0\n7\n67\n27\n132\n1\nThird\n4\n38\n20\n39\n0\n3\n27\n14\n70\n0\n4\n36\n17\n67\n0\nFourth\n1\n21\n3\n15\n0\n0\n9\n3\n33\n0\n2\n9\n3\n33\n0\nFifth\n0\n9\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\nTotals\n32\n255\n89\n286\n0\n22\n261\n122\n824\n0\n53\n391\n141\n1,322\n1\nFGE (%)\n59\n35\n15\n43\n64\n44\n45\n54\n72\n45\n35\n61\n0","31\nAppendix Table 1.\nContinued.\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units in operation)\n10 May (12A) (8)\n10 May (12B) (8)\n11 May (12A) (6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n3\n52\n67\n215\n4\n6\n89\n64\n225\n0\n13\n141\n160\n373\n8\nGap Net\no\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n1\n0\no\n0\n0\n1\n1\nClosure\n1\n11\n27\n25\n0\n2\n27\n38\n56\n1\n0\n23\n51\n35\n1\nFirst\n1\n16\n10\n21\n1\n1\n18\n13\n21\n0\n0\n13\n20\n22\n2\nSecond\n4\n42\n43\n61\n1\n0\n42\n37\n52\n0\n0\n35\n71\n30\n5\nThird\n0\n19\n22\n15\n0\n0\n14\n31\n36\n0\n0\n12\n29\n13\n4\nFourth\n0\n6\n12\n18\n0\n3\n6\n6\n3\n1\n3\n3\n12\n3\n0\nFifth\no\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n9\n146\n181\n355\n6\n12\n197\n189\n394\n2\n16\n227\n343\n477\n21\nFGE (%)\n33\n36\n37\n61\n67\n50\n45\n34\n57\n0\n81\n62\n47\n78\n38\n11 May (12B) (6)\n12 May (12A) (4)\n12 May (12B) (4)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n5\n87\n124\n172\n8\n24\n166\n125\n400\n22\n12\n80\n59\n123\n6\nGap Net\n0\n0\n1\n4\n0\n0\n1\n3\n7\n0\n1\n2\n1\n2\n1\nClosure\n0\n23\n53\n32\n3\n1\n38\n50\n65\n13\n3\n23\n18\n44\n8\nFirst\n0\n49\n23\n13\n1\n1\n18\n15\n19\n2\n0\n7\n10\n13\n4\nSecond\n0\n28\n34\n36\n2\n0\n41\n23\n36\n5\n3\n24\n39\n26\n6\nThird\n0\n10\n30\n22\n2\n0\n18\n13\n12\n8\n0\n12\n14\n7\n7\nFourth\n0\n18\n15\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n9\n6\n0\n1\n6\n12\n12\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\no\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\nTotals\n5\n215\n280\n279\n16\n26\n288\n229\n551\n56\n19\n149\n147\n230\n44\nFGE (%)\n100\n40\n44\n62\n50\n92\n58\n55\n73\n39\n63\n54\n40\n53\n14\n13 May (15A) (8)\n13\nMay\n(15B)\n(8)\n14\nMay\n(15A)\n(8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n11\n109\n66\n233\n14\n11\n96\n39\n208\n15\n2\n120\n40\n238\n3\nGap Net\n0\n1\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\n1\n30\n14\n57\n5\n1\n32\n14\n38\n3\n0\n34\n14\n46\n1\nFirst\n0\n10\n3\n19\n3\n0\n9\n5\n14\n2\n2\n13\n4\n19\n1\nSecond\n0\n14\n12\n35\n0\n0\n21\n6\n13\n6\n0\n26\n16\n20\n4\nThird\n0\n9\n15\n16\n4\n0\n13\n7\n9\n3\n0\n13\n18\n29\n4\nFourth\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n3\n0\n9\n12\n6\n0\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n3\nTotals\n12\n173\n110\n374\n26\n12\n177\n74\n282\n33\n4\n221\n104\n358\n16\nFGE (%)\n92\n63\n60\n62\n54\n92\n54\n53\n74\n45\n50\n54\n38\n66\n19","32\nAppendix Table 1. Continued.\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units in operation)\n14 May (15B) (8)\n15 May (15A) (8)\n15 May (15B) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n13\n83\n29\n207\n4\n4\n104\n28\n197\n0\n5\n87\n14\n154\n1\nGap Net\n0\n1\n0\n1\n0\n0\n1\n0\n2\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\n0\n27\n8\n50\n3\n2\n42\n6\n106\n2\n1\n44\n1\n39\n0\nFirst\n0\n10\n2\n20\n0\n0\n5\n0\n15\no\n0\n3\n3\n8\n3\nSecond\n1\n17\n4\n33\n2\n0\n16\n4\n21\n2\n0\n9\n1\n16\n3\nThird\n0\n5\n5\n10\n2\n0\n10\n4\n17\n6\n0\n7\n1\n9\n3\nFourth\n1\n6\n3\n21\n0\n0\n6\n0\n6\n3\n0\n3\n0\n3\n0\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n15\n149\n51\n345\n11\n6\n184\n42\n367\n13\n6\n155\n20\n229\n10\nFGE (%)\n87\n56\n57\n60\n36\n67\n57\n67\n54\n0\n83\n56\n70\n67\n10\n16 May (17A) (6)\n16 May (17B) (6)\n17 May (7A) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n8\n40\n30\n160\n0\n6\n30\n17\n87\n1\n6\n88\n15\n135\n2\nGap Net\n0\n1\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n1\n2\n0\n3\n0\nClosure\n3\n28\n10\n41\n0\n0\n14\n4\n35\n3\n1\n20\n4\n28\n2\nFirst\n0\n15\n5\n15\n1\n0\n7\n0\n10\n0\n0\n7\n0\n1\n1\nSecond\n4\n35\n15\n49\n8\n2\n25\n8\n30\n5\n5\n19\n2\n139\n3\nThird\n1\n32\n9\n38\n8\n3\n27\n6\n25\n0\n1\n23\n3\n22\n13\nFourth\n3\n15\n0\n36\n3\n0\n9\n3\n9\n3\n3\n12\n3\n9\n9\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\nTotals\n19\n166\n70\n343\n20\n11\n112\n38\n200\n12\n17\n171\n27\n340\n30\nFGE (%)\n42\n24\n43\n47\n0\n55\n27\n45\n44\n8\n35\n51\n56\n40\n7\n17 May (17B) (8)\n18 May (17A) (8)\n18 May (17B) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n12\n18\n5\n69\n1\n5\n30\n3\n67\n5\n6\n9\n1\n27\n3\nGap Net\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n1\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\n3\n10\n2\n21\n1\n2\n7\n2\n18\n5\n0\n5\n0\n13\n4\nFirst\n1\n9\n0\n13\n0\n0\n1\n1\n7\n5\n1\n1\n0\n3\n5\nSecond\n2\n9\n3\n17\n8\n0\n9\n2\n14\n14\n2\n12\n2\n14\n11\nThird\n1\n9\n1\n18\n5\n1\n9\n6\n17\n19\n1\n14\n1\n12\n16\nFourth\n3\n12\n0\n15\n6\n0\n15\n3\n15\n18\n0\n3\n0\n3\n9\nFifth\n0\n3\n0\n3\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n22\n70\n11\n157\n21\n8\n78\n17\n139\n66\n10\n44\n4\n72\n48\nFGE (%)\n55\n26\n45\n44\n5\n63\n38\n18\n48\n8\n60\n20\n25\n38\n6","33\nAppendix Table 1. Continued.\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units in operation)\n19 May (17A) (8)\n19 May (17B) (8)\n24 May (12A) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n5\n13\n1\n26\n0\n1\n3\n1\n9\n0\n9\n100\n93\n51\n302\nGap Net\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n1\n13\nClosure\n-\n0\n2\n1\n7\n1\n0\n4\n0\n4\n1\n1\n21\n19\n8\n91\nFirst\n0\n6\n0\n2\n3\n0\n2\n1\n0\n3\n0\n10\n4\n4\n38\nSecond\n0\n8\n3\n8\n9\n0\n8\n1\n1\n12\n0\n24\n25\n6\n126\nThird\n1\n7\n2\n13\n9\n0\n7\n1\n17\n11\n0\n13\n5\n5\n82\nFourth\n3\n12\n0\n3\n9\n0\n0\n3\n6\n12\n3\n3\n3\n0\n27\nFifth\n0\n0\n3\n3\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n3\n3\n3\n3\n0\n27\nTotals\n9\n48\n10\n62\n31\n1\n27\n7\n37\n42\n16\n178\n152\n75\n706\nFGE (%)\n56\n27\n10\n42\n0\n100\n11\n14\n24\n0\n56\n56\n61\n68\n43\n24 May (12B) (8)\n25 May (12A) (8)\n25 May (12B) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n1\n41\n40\n13\n169\n35\n127\n219\n103\n208\n28\n71\n180\n58\n169\nGap Net\n0\n1\n2\n0\n6\n0\n0\n4\n1\n7\n0\n1\n0\n1\n18\nClosure\n0\n12\n3\n6\n102\n2\n16\n52\n6\n44\n5\n15\n17\n13\n130\nFirst\n0\n7\n4\n1\n51\n0\n5\n16\n3\n36\n1\n3\n13\n3\n60\nSecond\n1\n10\n8\n13\n107\n9\n20\n72\n19\n162\n3\n21\n43\n17\n163\nThird\n2\n9\n4\n6\n95\n9\n21\n24\n5\n141\n0\n12\n23\n3\n119\nFourth\n0\n9\n3\n0\n33\n0\n6\n9\n3\n54\n0\n6\n3\n9\n78\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\no\n0\n3\n0\no\no\no\n6\nTotals\n4\n89\n64\n39\n566\n55\n195\n396\n140\n655\n37\n129\n279\n104\n743\nFGE (%)\n25\n46\n63\n33\n30\n64\n65\n55\n74\n32\n76\n55\n65\n56\n23\n26 May (12A) (8)\n26\nMay\n(12B)\n(8)\n27 May (15A) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n23\n128\n172\n90\n62\n11\n57\n91\n23\n67\n21\n34\n26\n19\n7\nGap Net\n0\n0\n1\n1\n2\n0\n1\n2\n0\n8\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\n6\n30\n59\n17\n31\n4\n15\n32\n6\n50\n9\n6\n5\n7\n2\nFirst\n0\n12\n17\n4\n15\n4\n1\n12\n2\n16\n0\n2\n1\n2\n1\nSecond\n3\n24\n37\n15\n39\n6\n10\n29\n3\n59\n0\n9\n3\n4\n0\nThird\n3\n26\n23\n11\n43\n2\n18\n24\n2\n42\n2\n6\n6\n3\n1\nFourth\n6\n9\n12\n3\n36\n0\n12\n12\n6\n27\n6\n6\n0\n0\n0\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n3\n0\n6\n3\n0\n0\n0\n3\nTotals\n41\n229\n321\n141\n231\n27\n114\n205\n42\n275\n42\n63\n41\n35\n14\nFGE (%)\n56\n56\n54\n64\n27\n41\n50\n44\n55\n24\n50\n54\n63\n54\n50","34\nAppendix Table 1.\n-Continued.\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units in operation)\n27 May (15B) (8)\n28 May (15A) (8)\n28 May (15B) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n33\n22\n14\n13\n11\n34\n39\n29\n13\n27\n41\n31\n19\n11\n38\nGap Net\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n1\n0\n0\n1\nClosure\n12\n6\n2\n7\n5\n9\n3\n4\n2\n14\n7\n10\n4\n6\n26\nFirst\n0\n9\n1\n2\n1\n3\no\n2\n3\n2\n1\n3\n4\n6\n2\nSecond\n19\n6\n10\n9\n4\n3\n6\n13\n7\n2\n19\n5\n9\n3\n2\nThird\n2\n7\n0\n2\n6\n2\n7\n11\n3\n25\n4\n3\n2\n0\n17\nFourth\n3\n3\n0\n0\n12\n0\n12\n3\n3\n24\n3\n6\n3\n0\n15\nFifth\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\nTotals\n60\n50\n26\n29\n37\n53\n77\n56\n27\n116\n64\n66\n33\n19\n128\nFGE (%)\n55\n44\n54\n45\n30\n64\n51\n52\n48\n23\n64\n47\n58\n58\n30\n(15A)\n(8)\n(15B)\n(8)\n2 June (17A) (8)\n1 June\n1 June\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n21\n54\n14\n26\n5\n57\n43\n4\n21\n2\n25\n13\n5\n18\n2\n0\nGap Net\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n1\n0\no\n0\n2\n1\n0\n1\nClosure\n1\n5\n2\n9\n4\n13\n11\n4\n5\n3\n3\n8\n7\n15\n5\nFirst\n3\n5\n0\n6\n1\n4\n4\n0\n4\n0\n5\n0\n1\n6\n0\nSecond\n6\n14\n1\n4\n2\n6\n10\n3\n5\n5\n8\n8\n4\n12\n3\nThird\n6\n7\n2\n4\n5\n4\n7\n0\n0\n3\n9\n17\n4\n12\n3\nFourth\n3\n3\n0\n0\n3\n3\n0\n0\n3\n0\n9\n0\n0\n6\n3\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n40\n88\n19\n52\n20\n88\n76\n14\n38\n16\n61\n47\n21\n69\n17\nFGE (%)\n53\n61\n74\n50\n25\n65\n57\n29\n55\n13\n41\n28\n24\n26\n12\n2 June (17B) (8)\n3 June (17B) (8)\n3 June\n(17A)\n(8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n22\n10\n1\n8\n0\n15\n8\n4\n18\n1\n18\n7\n1\n9\n0\nGap Net\n2\n0\n0\n0\n1\n2\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\n7\n9\n2\n6\n6\n5\n5\n0\n7\n1\n4\n1\n0\n4\n1\nFirst\n2\n2\n0\n1\n1\n1\n0\n0\n3\n0\n1\n0\n0\n1\n0\nSecond\n12\n10\n1\n4\n2\n7\n3\n4\n4\n3\n13\n6\n2\n5\n1\nThird\n12\n8\n2\n0\n4\n6\n13\n3\n1\n6\n1\n4\n0\n5\n2\nFourth\n12\n0\n6\n0\n9\n6\n0\n0\n6\n9\n9\n3\n15\n3\n6\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n0\no\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n30\n4\nTotals\n62\n39\n4\n23\n22\n52\n31\n12\n53\n11\n54\n34\n3\nFGE (%)\n35\n26\n25\n35\n0\n29\n26\n33\n34\n9\n33\n21\n33\n30\n0","35\nAppendix Table 1. - Continued.\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units in operation)\n7 July (12A) (6)\n7 July (17B) (6)\n8 July (12A) (4)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n357\n40\n0\n2\n0\n268\n16\n0\n1\n0\n114\n12\n0\n0\n0\nGap Net\n12\n0\n0\n1\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\n20\n4\n0\n1\n0\n137\n15\n0\n0\n0\n24\n1\n0\n0\n0\nFirst\n24\n4\n0\n0\n0\n28\n2\n0\n0\n0\n24\n2\n0\n0\n0\nSecond\n78\n7\n0\n0\n0\n78\n9\n0\n0\n0\n68\n7\n0\n1\n0\nThird\n39\n4\n0\n0\n0\n54\n6\n0\n0\n0\n63\n7\n1\n0\n0\nFourth\n42\n6\n0\n0\n0\n33\n0\n0\n0\n0\n72\n9\n0\n0\n0\nFifth\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n6\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n575\n65\n0\n4\n0\n607\n48\n0\n1\n0\n372\n44\n1\n1\n0\nFGE (%)\n62\n62\n50\n44\n33\n100\n31\n27\n0\n0\n8 July (17B) (4)\n9 July (12A) (6)\n9 July (17B) (6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n501\n29\n0\n7\n0\n115\n1\n0\n0\n0\n87\n21\n0\n0\n0\nGap Net\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\n270\n20\n0\n1\n0\n11\n0\n0\n0\n0\n66\n0\no\n0\n0\nFirst\n72\n4\n0\n0\n0\n45\n0\n0\n0\n0\n14\n0\n0\n0\no\nSecond\n295\n17\n0\n0\n0\n66\n0\n0\n0\n0\n43\n0\n0\n1\n1\nThird\n235\n12\n0\n2\n0\n61\n1\n0\n0\n0\n32\n0\n0\n0\n0\nFourth\n186\n15\n0\n0\n0\n45\n0\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n0\n0\nFifth\n24\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\no\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n1,592\n97\n0\n10\n0\n345\n2\n0\n0\n0\n265\n21\n0\n1\n1\nFGE (%)\n32\n30\n70\n33\n50\n33\n100\n0\n0\n10 July (12A) (4)\n10 July (17B) (4)\n13 July (12A) (6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nso\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n110\n2\n0\n0\no\n185\n1\no\n0\n0\n67\n4\n0\n1\n0\nGap Net\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\no\n0\n0\nClosure\n64\n0\n0\n0\n0\n159\n0\n0\n0\n0\n35\n0\n0\n0\n0\nFirst\n29\n0\n0\n0\n0\n47\n0\n0\n0\n0\n20\n1\n0\n0\n0\nSecond\n97\n1\n0\n0\n0\n204\n1\n0\n0\n0\n64\n1\n0\n0\n0\nThird\n117\n0\n0\n0\n0\n162\n4\n0\n0\n0\n60\n1\n0\n0\n0\nFourth\n72\n1\n0\n0\n0\n123\n1\n0\n0\n0\n24\n0\n0\n0\n0\nFifth\n12\n0\n0\n0\n0\n15\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n504\n4\n0\n0\n0\n907\n7\n0\n0\n0\n274\n7\n0\n1\n0\nFGE (%)\n22\n50\n20\n14\n24\n57\n100","36\nAppendix Table 1. Continued.\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units in operation)\n13 July (17B) (6)\n14 July (12A) (4)\n14 July (17B) (4)\nLocation\nCO\nSO\nSC YC ST CO SO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nGatewell\n0\n0\n0\n111\n8\n0\n0\n1\n76\n0\n0\n0\n0\n174\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\nGap Net\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n5\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\n30\n0\n0\n0\n0\n58\n2\n0\n0\n0\n140\n57\n0\n0\n0\n0\nFirst\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n28\n1\n0\n0\n0\n152\n2\n0\n0\n1\nSecond\n41\n0\n0\no\n0\n99\n0\n0\n0\n0\nThird\n118\n3\n0\n0\n0\n19\n0\n0\n0\n0\n88\n0\n0\n0\n0\n54\n0\n0\n0\n0\nFourth\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n48\n0\n0\n0\n0\nFifth\n0\n21\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n720\n6\n0\n0\n1\nTotals\n216\n8\n0\n0\n1\n405\n3\n0\n0\nFGE (%)\n24\n17\n0\n51\n100\n100\n19\n0\n15 July (12A) (6)\n15 July (17B) (6)\n16 July (12A) (4)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n77\n1\n0\n0\n0\n110\n3\n0\n0\n0\n68\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\nGap Net\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\nClosure\n63\n0\n0\n0\n0\n47\n1\n0\n0\n0\n31\n1\n0\n0\n0\nFirst\n24\n0\n0\n0\n0\n17\n0\n0\no\n0\n15\n0\n0\n0\n0\nSecond\n80\n1\n0\n0\n0\n25\n0\n0\n0\n0\n64\n1\n0\n0\n0\nThird\n64\n1\n0\n0\n0\n31\n0\n0\n0\n0\n73\n1\n0\n0\n0\nFourth\n54\n3\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n57\no\n0\n0\n0\nFifth\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n371\n6\n0\n0\n0\n238\n4\n0\n0\n0\n321\n6\n0\n0\nFGE (%)\n21\n17\n46\n75\n21\n50\n17 July (17B) (6)\n16 July (17B) (4)\n17 July (12A) (6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nso\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n125\n0\n0\n102\n2\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n122\n7\n0\nGap Net\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\n0\n0\n0\n69\n0\n0\n0\n0\n75\n1\n0\n0\n0\n68\n2\nFirst\n0\n0\n0\n12\no\n0\n0\n0\n14\n1\n0\n0\no\n27\n1\nSecond\n0\n0\n0\n55\n3\n0\n0\n0\n85\n1\n0\n0\n0\n88\n0\nThird\n0\n0\n0\n32\n1\n0\n0\n0\n84\n1\n0\n0\n0\n66\n2\nFourth\n51\n0\n0\n0\n0\n30\n0\n0\n0\n0\n21\n3\n0\n0\n0\nFifth\n15\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n0\n300\n9\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n451\n8\n0\n0\n0\n410\nFGE (%)\n28\n50\n30\n58\n34\n22","37\nAppendix Table 2.\n-ANOVAs, means of fish guidance efficiency (FGE) ,\n95% confidence intervals, and detectable\ndifferences for various comparisons for all species\ntested during the spring migration, Bonneville Dam\nSecond Powerhouse, 1993 (TIE = turbine intake\nextension) .\nYEARLING CHINOOK SALMON\nANOVA for non-TIE/TIE fish number ratio for 4 units running vs. 6\nunits, including means, 95% confidence intervals, and detectable\ndifferences.\nSource\ndf\nSum of\nMean\nF\nP\nSquares\nSquare\nUnits\n1\n0.96\n0.96\n7.11\n0.0184\nError\n14\n1.89\n0.13\nTotal\n15\n2.85\nUnits\nMean\n95%\n4 vs. 6\nrunning\nnon-TIE\nconfidence\ndetectable\nTIE\ninterval\ndifference\n4\n1.75\n(1.45, 2.05)\n0.40\n6\n1.26\n(1.00, 1.52)\n8\n1.05\n(0.79, 1.31)\na/ 4 significantly higher than 1.00.\nTwo-factor ANOVA for TIE vs. non-TIE and 4 unit vs. 6 unit\noperation, including means, 95% confidence intervals, and\ndetectable differences.\nANOVA\nSource\ndf\nSum of\nMean\nF\nP\nSquares\nSquare\nTIE\n1\n890.5\n890.5\n10.31\n0.0033\nUnits\n1\n8.7\n8.7\n0.10\n0.7571\nT X U\n1\n3.0\n3.0\n0.03\n0.8565\nError\n28\n2417.6\n86.3\nTotal\n31\n3346.9\nFactor\nMean\n95%\nLevel\nFGE\nconfidence\nDetectable\n(%)\ninterval (%)\ndifference (%)\nTIE\n38ª\n(33, 43)\n7\nNon-TIE\n49\n(44, 53)\n4 Units\n45b\n(40, 50)\n43b\n6 Units\n(38, 47)\na/ TIE significantly lower than non-TIE.\nb/ Weighted by non-TIE/TIE fish number ratio.","38\nAppendix Table 2. --Continued.\nANOVA for TIE vs. non-TIE for 8 units running, including means,\n95% confidence intervals, and detectable difference.\nANOVA\ndf\nSum of\nSource\nMean\nF\nP\nSquares\nSquare\n0.13\n0.7288\nTIE\n1\n10.9\n10.9\nError\n31\n2674.0\n86.3\nTotal\n32\n2684.9\n95%\nTIE\nMean\ncondition\nFGE\nconfidence\nDetectable\n(%)\ninterval (%)\ndifference (%)\n(46, 55)\nTIE\n51\n7\n(45, 54)\nNon-TIE\n50\n(47, 54)\n8 Units\n50\nSUBYEARLING CHINOOK SALMON\nANOVA for non-TIE/TIE fish number ratio for 4 units running vs. 6\nunits, including means, 95% confidence intervals, and detectable\ndifferences.\nANOVA\ndf\nSum of\nSource\nMean\nF\nP\nSquares\nSquare\nUnits\n1\n1.03\n1.03\n4.64\n0.0747\nError\n6\n1.33\n0.22\nTotal\n7\n2.36\nUnits\nMean\n95%\n4 vs. 6\nrunning\nconfidence\ndetectable\nnon-TIE\ninterval\ndifference\nTIE\n(1.23, 2.37)\n4\n1.80\n0.82\n(0.52, 1.66)\n6\n1.09\n(0.89, 1.56)\n8\n1.22","39\nAppendix Table 2. -Continued.\nTwo-factor ANOVA for TIE vs. non-TIE and 4 unit vs. 6 unit\noperation, including means, 95% confidence intervals, and\ndetectable differences.\nANOVA\nSource\ndf\nSum of\nMean\nF\nP\nSquares\nSquare\nTIE\n1\n1605.8\n1605.8\n8.57\n0.0104\nUnits\n1\n12.5\n12.5\n0.07\n0.8022\nT X U\n1\n39.2\n39.2\n0.21\n0.6588\nError\n15\n2809.9\n187.3\nTotal\n18\n4519.9\nFactor\nMean\n95%\nLevel\nFGE\nconfidence\nDetectable\n(%)\ninterval (%)\ndifference (%)\nTIE\n34ª\n(24, 44)\n13\nNon-TIE\n52\n(43, 62)\n4 Units\n47b\n(37, 57)\n6 Units\n42\n(33, 52)\na/\nTIE significantly lower than non-TIE.\nb/\nWeighted by non-TIE/TIE fish number ratio.\nANOVA for TIE vs. non-TIE for 8 units running, including means,\n95% confidence intervals, and detectable difference.\nANOVA\nSource\ndf\nSum of\nMean\nF\nP\nSquares\nSquare\nTIE\n1\n40.4\n40.4\n0.16\n0.6970\nError\n19\n4765.5\n250.8\nTotal\n20\n4805.8\nTIE\nMean\n95%\ncondition\nFGE\nconfidence\nDetectable\n(%)\ninterval (%)\ndifference (%)\nTIE\n57\n(46, 67)\n14\nNon-TIE\n54\n(44, 64)\n8 Units\n55\n(48, 63)","40\nAppendix Table 2. --Continued.\nCOHO SALMON\nANOVA for non-TIE/TIE fish number ratio for 4 units running vs. 6\nunits, including means, 95% confidence intervals, and detectable\ndifferences.\nANOVA\ndf\nSource\nSum of\nMean\nF\nP\nSquares\nSquare\nUnits\n1\n1.69\n1.69\n12.21\n0.0036\nError\n14\n1.94\n0.14\nTotal\n15\n3.62\nUnits\nMean\n95%\n4 vs. 6\nrunning\nnon-TIE\nconfidence\ndetectable\nTIE\ninterval\ndifference\n4\n1.74\n(1.44, 2.04)\n0.40\n6\n1.08\n(0.81, 1.35)\n8\n1.03\n(0.66, 1.40)\na/ 4 significantly higher than 6.\nTwo-factor ANOVA for TIE vs. non-TIE and 4 unit vs. 6 unit\noperation, including means, 95% confidence intervals, and\ndetectable differences.\nANOVA\ndf\nSource\nSum of\nMean\nF\nP\nSquares\nSquare\nTIE\n1\n492.0\n492.0\n3.76\n0.0628\nUnits\n1\n219.4\n219.4\n1.68\n0.2062\nT X U\n1\n36.7\n36.7\n0.28\n0.6062\nError\n28\n3668.2\n131.0\nTotal\n31\n4390.6\nFactor\nMean\n95%\nLevel\nFGE\nconfidence\nDetectable\n(%)\ninterval (%)\ndifference (%)\n(47, 59)\nTIE\n53\n8\nNon-TIE\n61\n(55, 67)\n4 Units\n61ª\n(54, 67)\n6 Units\n(49, 60)\n54\na/ Weighted by non-TIE/TIE fish number ratio.","41\nAppendix Table 2. - -Continued.\nANOVA for TIE vs. non-TIE for 8 units running, including means,\n95% confidence intervals, and detectable differences.\nANOVA\nSource\ndf\nSum of\nMean\nF\nP\nSquares\nSquare\nTIE\n1\n172.4\n172.4\n0.94\n0.3501\nError\n34\n6253.5\n183.9\nTotal\n35\n6425.9\nTIE\nMean\n95%\ncondition\nFGE\nconfidence\nDetectable\n(%)\ninterval (%)\ndifference (%)\nTIE\n52\n(46, 58)\n9\nNon-TIE\n56\n(50, 63)\n8 Units\n54\n(49, 59)\nSTEELHEAD\nANOVA for non-TIE/TIE fish number ratio for 4 units running vs. 6\nunits, including means, 95% confidence intervals, and detectable\ndifferences.\nANOVA\nSource\ndf\nSum of\nMean\nF\nP\nSquares\nSquare\nUnits\n1\n0.11\n0.11\n0.93\n0.3810\nError\n6\n0.69\n0.11\nTotal\n7\n0.79\nUnits\nMean\n95%\n4 vs. 6\nrunning\nnon-TIE\nconfidence\ndetectable\nTIE\ninterval\ndifference\n4\n1.15\n(0.78, 1.52)\n0.60\n6\n0.91\n(0.43, 1.39)\n(0.66, 1.37)\n8\n1.02","42\nAppendix Table 2. --\nContinued.\nTwo-factor ANOVA for TIE vs. non-TIE and 4 unit vs. 6 unit\noperation, including means, 95% confidence intervals, and\ndetectable differences.\nANOVA\ndf\nSum of\nMean\nF\nP\nSource\nsquares\nsquare\n0.94\n0.3586\nTIE\n1\n202.2\n202.2\n0.7119\n31.4\n0.15\nUnits\n1\n31.4\n0.3627\n198.6\n198.6\n0.93\nT X U\n1\n3007.6\n214.8\nError\n14\nTotal\n17\n3393.5\n95%\nFactor\nMean\nconfidence\nDetectable\nLevel\nFGE\ninterval (%)\ndifference (%)\n(%)\n(25, 45)\n15\nTIE\n35\n(30, 53)\nNon-TIE\n42\n(30, 49)\n4 Units\n40\n(25, 49)\n6 Units\n37\nANOVA for TIE vs. non-TIE for 8 units running, including means,\n95% confidence intervals, and detectable differences.\nANOVA\ndf\nSum of\nMean\nF\nP\nSource\nsquares\nsquare\n0.6703\n35.3\n35.3\n0.19\nTIE\n1\n185.0\nError\n25\n4624.5\nTotal\n26\n4659.8\nMean\n95%\nTIE\nconfidence\nDetectable\ncondition\nFGE\ninterval (%)\ndifference (%)\n(%)\n(41, 56)\n11\n49\nTIE\n(38, 54)\nNon-TIE\n46\n(42, 53)\n8 Units\n47","43\nAppendix Table 3. -ANOVAs, means of fish guidance effeciency (FGE) ,\nand 95% confidence intervals, for subyearling\nchinook salmon during the summer migration,\nBonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1993.\nSUBYEARLING CHINOOK SALMON\nTwo-factor ANOVA comparing Unit 12 to Unit 17 and 4 unit vs. 6\nunit operation.\nSource\ndf\nSum of\nMean\nF\nP\nsquares\nsquare\nUnit\n1\n321.6\n321.6\n8.36\n0.0126\nUnits on\n1\n410.3\n410.3\n10.67\n0.0061\nU X Uo\n1\n146.9\n146.9\n3.82\n0.0726\nError\n13\n500.1\n38.5\nTotal\n16\n1476.4\nMean FGE and 95% confidence intervals for combinations of test\nunit and number of units in operation.\nUnit\nUnits in\nMean\n95% conf.\noperation\nFGE (%)\ninterval\n12A\n4\n23\n(16, 30)\n12A\n6\n27\n(20, 34)\n17B\n4\n26\n(19, 33)\n17B\n6\n42\n(36, 48)","","Appendix Table 4. Total numbers of fish in the gatewells and percent descaling for all salmonids\nexamined during FGE tests conducted at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1993.\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n6.9\n0.0\n9.2\n5.7\n2.2\n8.0\n3.1\n2.1\n5.2\n0.0\n5.2\n3.1\n2.1\n0.0\n0.0\n4.0\n2.6\n0.0\n0.0\n10.0\n6.6\n0.0\n10.5\n15.4\n0.0\nSteelhead\n1\n1\nNo.\n3\n3\n25\n4\n4\n2\n11\n24\n15\n13\n5\n6\n2\n4\n2\n52\n25\n38\n39\n39\n50\n15\n7\n19\n13\n12\nUnits = the number of turbine units operating during the test.\n5.7\n9.1\n0.0\n2.6\n4.8\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n3.4\n6.0\n2.0\n0.0\n0.0\n2.1\n8.0\n0.0\n0.0\n3.0\n4.6\n2.1\n2.4\n4.6\n0.8\n1.1\n0.0\n1.1\n%\nCoho\nNo.\n35\n22\n55\n38\n21\n42\n21\n27\n49\n30\n87\n33\n50\n53\n60\n47\n50\n59\n54\n99\n65\n94\n25\n153\n127\n185\n232\n187\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\n50.0\n0.0\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\n%\nSockeye\nNo.\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nSubyearling\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n4.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n6.2\n19.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n5.9\n0.0\n4.0\n3.4\n0.0\n3.7\n0.0\n0.0\n%\nchinook\nNo.\n9\n6\n6\n8\n5\n10\n3\n20\n22\n10\n27\n14\n37\n27\n35\n16\n36\n20\n11\n30\n17\n11\n25\n29\n24\n27\n18\n10\n1.4\n2.9\n2.6\n1.0\n1.9\n2.9\n2.4\n0.4\n2.8\n1.9\n3.5\n3.9\n2.7\n2.1\n0.7\n1.4\n0.7\n2.6\n5.5\n8.7\n5.2\n6.1\n7.5\n1.4\n4.6\n4.1\n5.3\n6.8\nYearling\n%\nchinook\n487\n202\n306\n522\n157\n381\n127\n269\n287\n109\n286\n154\n336\n242\n457\n140\n267\nNo.\n151\n109\n216\n116\n132\n160\n142\n196\n122\n131\n117\nUnits\n4\n4\n6\n6\n6\n6\n6\n6\n4\n4\n4\n4\n4\n6\n6\n6\n6\n6\n6\n4\n4\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\nDate\n4-20\n4-20\n4-21\n4-21\n4-22\n4-22\n4-23\n4-23\n4-24\n4-25\n4-25\n4-26\n4-26\n4-27\n4-27\n4-28\n4-28\n4-29\n4-29\n4-30\n4-30\n5-03\n5-03\n5-04\n5-04\n5-05\n5-05\n5-06\nUnit\n17A\n17B\n17A\n17B\n17A\n17B\n17A\n17B\n17B\n17A\n17B\n17A\n17B\n17A\n17B\n17A\n17B\n12A\n12B\n12A\n12B\n12A\n12B\n15A\n15B\n15A\n15B\n15A","18.2\n5.1\n12.5\n3.4\n7.1\n7.1\n16.7\n0.0\n33.3\n20.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n8.6\n0.0\n8.7\n27.3\n25.6\n7.7\n3.6\n2.0\n14.9\n4.7\n1.9\n8.1\n0.8\n1.7\nSteelhead\n%\n66\n39\n40\n29\n28\n14\n30\n17\n15\n5\n3\n1\n1\n1\n93\n16\n55\n50\n67\n64\n160\n124\n125\n59\n23\n11\n43\n13\nNo.\n6.4\n6.7\n1.1\n1.9\n4.2\n3.1\n2.7\n2.3\n2.5\n2.4\n5.0\n6.8\n3.0\n2.6\n0.0\n1.1\n5.2\n4.3\n4.5\n3.7\n7.7\n11.1\n0.0\n4.0\n3.9\n1.5\n4.0\n4.0\n%\nCoho\nNo.\n197\n87\n135\n69\n67\n27\n26\n9\n51\n252\n304\n65\n99\n124\n444\n807\n215\n225\n373\n172\n400\n123\n233\n208\n238\n207\n154\n160\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\nNA\n21.4\n0.0\n50.0\n50.0\n25.0\n22.7\n16.7\n0.0\n66.7\n25.0\n100.0\n0.0\n50.0\n100.0\n0.0\n0.0\n32.1\n%\nSockeye\nNo.\n14\n15\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n8\n8\n22\n6\n3\n4\n0\n1\n0\n1\n2\n1\n5\n3\n0\n0\n302\nSubyearling\n6.7\n9.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n3.4\n16.7\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n8.3\n6.2\n0.0\n7.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n7.6\n0.0\n0.0\n8.3\nchinook\n%\nNo.\n11\n11\n2\n13\n4\n5\n8\n6\n6\n12\n5\n6\n5\n1\n9\n30\n25\n12\n16\n19\n14\n38\n3\n6\n13\n5\n24\n13\n11.9\n20.8\n20.5\n22.2\n8.3\n17.6\n8.6\n9.1\n22.5\n6.7\n23.3\n11.1\n15.4\n0.0\n6.0\n10.1\n7.2\n5.5\n3.5\n6.8\n11.5\n10.1\n5.0\n14.9\n10.8\n10.0\n4.3\n4.3\nYearling\n%\nchinook\nAppendix Table 4. - -Continued.\n109\n96\n120\n85\n104\n87\n40\n30\n88\n18\n30\n9\n13\n3\n100\n188\n125\n46\n93\n90\n115\n176\n52\n89\n141\n87\n166\n80\nNo.\nUnits\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n6\n6\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n6\n6\n4\n4\n8\n8\n6\n6\n4\n4\n5-17\n5-17\n5-13\n5-14\n5-14\n5-15\n5-15\n5-16\n5-16\n5-18\n5-18\n5-19\n5-19\n5-24\nDate\n5-06\n5-07\n5-07\n5-08\n5-08\n5-09\n5-09\n5-10\n5-10\n5-11\n5-11\n5-12\n5-12\n5-13\n15A\n17A\n15B\n17A\n17B\n17A\n17B\n17A\n17B\n12A\n12B\n12A\n12B\n12A\n12B\n15A\n15B\n15A\n15B\n15B\n17A\n17B\n17B\n17A\n17B\n17A\n17B\n12A\nUnit","32.5\n5.5\n0.0\n19.2\n18.7\n23.1\n7.1\n3.4\n15.7\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n50.0\n0.0\n8.3\nSteelhead\n%\n40\n219\n180\n172\n91\n26\n14\n29\n19\n14\n4\n5\n1\n4\nNo.\n1\n2445\n15.4\n1.9\n0.0\n4.4\n8.6\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n7.7\n9.5\n16.7\n25.0\n11.1\n22.2\n3.0\n%\nCoho\nNo.\n13\n103\n40\n90\n23\n19\n13\n13\n11\n26\n21\n18\n8\n18\n9\n7896\n84.6\n48.6\n32.0\n33.9\n29.8\n28.6\n18.2\nNA\n33.3\n39.5\n0.0\n0.0\n50.0\n0.0\n0.0\n41.8\nSockeye\n%\nNo.\n169\n208\n169\n62\n67\n7\n11\n27\n38\n5\n2\n2\n1\n1\n0\n1167\nSubyearling\n100.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n2.4\n0.0\n3.5\n0.0\n4.5\n0.0\n0.0\n2.4\nchinook\n%\nNo.\n1\n35\n28\n23\n11\n21\n33\n34\n41\n21\n57\n25\n22\n15\n18\n1220\n63.4\n3.1\n8.5\n8.5\n15.8\n8.8\n4.5\n15.4\n3.2\n18.5\n30.2\n30.8\n0.0\n12.5\n14.3\n5.2\nYearling\nchinook\n%\nAppendix Table 4. --Continued.\nNo.\n41\n127\n71\n128\n57\n34\n22\n39\n31\n54\n43\n13\n10\n8\n7\n9486\nUnits\nTOTALS (spring)\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n8\n4\n8\n8\nDate\n5-24\n5-25\n5-25\n5-26\n5-26\n5-27\n5-27\n5-28\n5-28\n6-01\n6-01\n6-02\n6-02\n6-03\n6-03\n12A\n12A\nUnit\n12B\n12B\n12B\n15A\n15B\n15A\n15B\n15A\n15B\n17A\n17B\n17A\n17B","Subyearling\n2.5\n0.0\n0.2\n3.5\n0.0\n0.0\n2.1\n0.0\n2.7\n0.0\n2.6\n1.1\n3.6\n3.9\n0.0\n1.6\n3.3\n2.9\n1.5\nchinook\n%\nAppendix Table 4. - Continued.\nNo.\n357\n268\n501\n114\n87\n115\n185\n110\n111\n67\n76\n174\n110\n77\n68\n125\n122\n102\n2769\nUnits\n6\n6\n4\n4\n6\n6\n4\n4\n6\n6\n4\n4\n6\n6\n4\n4\n6\n6\nTOTALS (summer)\nDate\n7-07\n7-09\n7-07\n7-08\n7-08\n7-09\n7-10\n7-10\n7-13\n7-13\n7-14\n7-14\n7-15\n7-15\n7-16\n7-16\n7-17\n7-17\nUnit\n12A\n17B\n12A\n17B\n12A\n17B\n12A\n17B\n12A\n17B\n12A\n17B\n12A\n17B\n12A\n17B\n12A\n17B"]}