{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"Studies to determine the effectiveness of extended traveling screens and extended bar screens at McNary Dam, 1991","Authors":"","Publication date":"1992","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-16-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000080809"},"Pages":["SH153\n.Mc22\n1991\nStudies to Determine the Effectiveness\nof Extended Traveling Screens\nand Extended Bar Screens\n5524\nat McNary Dam, 1991\nby\nDean A. Brege, Stephen J. Grabowski,\nWilliam D. Muir, Steven R. Hirtzel,\nSteven J. Mazur, and Benjamin P. Sandford\nLibrary\nNorthweer\nNovember 1992\nZONE\nGOASTAL\nSTUDIES","STUDIES TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS\nOF EXTENDED TRAVELING SCREENS AND EXTENDED\nBAR SCREENS AT McNARY DAM, 1991\nSH\n153\nby\nMc22\nDean A. Brege\n991\nStephen J. Grabowski\nWilliam D. Muir\nSteven R. Hirtzel\nSteven J. Mazur\nand\nBenjamin P. Sandford\nLibrary\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center\n2725 Montlake Blvd. E\nSeattle, WA 98112\nReport of Research\nFunded by\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers\nWalla Walla District\nDelivery Order E86910060\nand\nCoastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\n2725 Montlake Boulevard East\nSeattle, Washington 98112\nNovember 1992","CONTENTS\nPage\nINTRODUCTION\n1\nOBJECTIVE 1.--VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF JUVENILE FISH\nENTERING THE TURBINE UNIT\n3\nApproach\n3\nResults and Discussion\n5\nOBJECTIVE 2. FISH GUIDANCE EFFICIENCY OF EXTENDED STS\nAND EXTENDED SBS\n7\nApproach\n7\nResults and Discussion\n11\nYearling Fish\n11\nSubyearling Fish\n16\nOBJECTIVE 3.--EFFECT OF EXTENDED GUIDANCE DEVICES ON\nDESCALING AND IMPINGEMENT\n17\nApproach\n17\nResults and Discussion\n19\nYearling Fish\n19\nSubyearling Fish\n23\nOBJECTIVE 4.--LEVELS OF SMOLTIFICATION IN YEARLING AND\nSUBYEARLING CHINOOK SALMON\n25\nApproach\n25\nResults and Discussion\n26\nCONCLUSIONS\n29\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n30\nLITERATURE CITED\n31\nAPPENDIX TABLES\n33","INTRODUCTION\nMcNary Dam, at river mile 292, is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers (COE), and is the fourth hydroelectric project from the mouth of the\nColumbia River. A juvenile fish bypass system at McNary Dam is used to collect\njuvenile salmonids for transport either to release sites below Bonneville Dam, the\nlower most dam on the Columbia River, or to bypass them to the river below McNary\nDam. Submersible traveling screens (STS) are fish guidance devices designed to\ndivert juvenile salmonids away from turbines and into the bypass system.\nPrevious research at McNary Dam indicated that FGE for coho salmon\n(Oncorhynchus kisutch), yearling chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), and steelhead (O.\nmykiss) was greater than 70% (Swan and Norman 1987). However, subyearling\nchinook salmon, with their tendency to migrate deeper in the water column, were\nmore difficult to guide. Tests at McNary Dam indicated that guidance for subyearling\nchinook salmon ranged from only 33 to 60%, although it was generally less than 50%\n(Brege et al. 1988).\nIn 1986, theoretical fish guidance efficiency (TFGE) for subyearling chinook\nsalmon was calculated based on vertical distribution measurements of fish in the\nwater column at McNary Dam. TFGE with standard submersible traveling screens\n(SSTS) was estimated to be 61% (Swan and Norman 1987). These results suggested\nthat a screen extending deeper into the water column within the turbine intake would\nbe needed to achieve FGE of 70% for subyearling chinook salmon. As a consequence,\nthe COE designed an extended STS (ESTS) and an extended submersible bar screen\n(ESBS) that were double the 20-ft length of the SSTS. The 40-ft length was selected\nfor prototype testing because it was the maximum screen length that could be used","2\nwithout major modifications to the gantry crane, overhead electrical lines, and other\nexisting equipment on the turbine intake deck.\nThe ability of STS to divert juvenile salmonids from turbine intakes is\ninfluenced by the physiological status of the fish. Research conducted by the National\nMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS), in cooperation with the COE, demonstrated that\nFGE changed not only from year to year and among dams, but also during the\noutmigration season. Data acquired at Lower Granite and Little Goose Dams from\n1985 to 1989 suggested that fully smolted yearling chinook salmon were more\nsusceptible to guidance by traveling screens (Swan et al. 1987; Giorgi et al. 1988;\nMuir et al. 1988, 1990). We hypothesized that over the course of the outmigration,\nthe proportion of fully smolted fish in the population increased, which would explain\nintra-seasonal increases in FGE.\nLittle information exists about the relationship between the typically low\nguidance rates and smolt development in subyearling chinook salmon. Research at\nBonneville Dam in July 1988 found no significant relationship between gill Na+-K+\nATPase levels, which indicate smolt readiness to enter saltwater, and FGE (Muir et\nal. 1989).\nIn 1991, research was conducted during spring and summer juvenile salmonid\noutmigrations to assess the effectiveness of newly designed extended length screens.\nConcurrently, measurements were made of the smoltification status of the fish.\nSpecific 1991 objectives were:\n1) Determine the depth distribution of juvenile fish entering turbine intakes\nduring the spring and summer salmonid outmigration.","3\n2) Evaluate the ability of ESTS and ESBS to improve subyearling chinook\nsalmon FGE.\n3) Determine the effect of extended guidance devices (ESTS and ESBS) on\njuvenile salmonid descaling and impingement.\n4) Measure levels of smoltification in yearling and subyearling chinook salmon\ncollected in gatewells and from fyke nets at different depths within turbine\nintakes.\nOBJECTIVE 1.-VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF JUVENILE\nFISH ENTERING THE TURBINE UNIT\nApproach\nVertical distribution measurements were conducted in the intake of Turbine\nUnit 4 using standard materials and methods (Krcma et al. 1986). The entire fyke-\nnet frame was outfitted with nets, but only nets in the center column had cod-ends.\nThe fully netted fyke-net frame produced more uniform water flow patterns within the\ntest slot, while capturing the same percentage of fish as in previous tests conducted\nwithout nets in the north and south columns (Fig. 1). Fish that entered the gatewell\nvolitionally were captured using a dipbasket (Swan et al. 1979). Dipbasket efficiency\ntests (Krcma et al. 1986) and diel passage tests (Brege et al. 1988) were conducted as\nin past FGE studies (Krcma et al. 1986). Based upon hydraulic model studies, the\nnew extended screens intercepted fish to a depth equal to approximately 3 1/2 fyke\nnets on the vertical distribution frame (Fig. 1). The TFGE was estimated by dividing\nthe sum of the gatewell catch plus the number of fish caught in the upper 3 1/2 nets\n(catch at net level 4 was divided in half) by the total number of fish entering the\nturbine intake (gatewell catch plus total fyke-net catch). All fyke-net catches were","4\nMcNary Dam cross section\nFyke net layout\nNorth Middle South\nRow\nBulkhead slot\n1\nGate slot\n2\n3\nFingerling bypass flume\nVertical barrier screen\n4\n(solid section at top)\n5\nOperating gate\n(stored position)\n6\n7\nTrashrack\nFyke\nnets\n80\nFigure 1.--Transverse section of McNary Dam turbine unit with vertical\ndistribution fyke-net frame in place.","5\nmultiplied by three to estimate total numbers of fish passing through each depth\nlevel. The TFGE was compared to the actual FGE (see Objective 2) to determine the\npotential effectiveness of the two guidance devices (ESTS and ESBS).\nVertical distribution measurement series consisted of three or four replicates,\none per day on consecutive dates. Turbine Units 3 and 5 were run concurrently with\ntest Unit 4 during vertical distribution measurements to ensure an even flow into the\ntest unit. Turbine Unit 3 had a full complement of SSTS and turbine Unit 5 had a\nfull complement of ESTS. Tests began at 2000 h and lasted 2 to 3 hours each day.\nDiel tests from past research (Brege et al. 1988) indicated that movement of juvenile\nsalmonids into the turbine intakes began at about 2000 h and peaked around 2400 h.\nTherefore, this period was selected for measurements of vertical distribution.\nDischarge through each turbine unit was maintained at 16 kcfs throughout the test\nperiod. Yearling chinook salmon were the target species during the spring\noutmigration and subyearling chinook salmon during the summer outmigration. Data\nfor other salmonids were collected as available through incidental catches.\nResults and Discussion\nDipbasket efficiency tests were conducted on 8 and 12 May. Fin-clipped\nyearling chinook salmon and steelhead were released into the gatewell at the\nbeginning of each test and removed with the gatewell catch. These tests resulted in a\nrecapture rate of 98% with less than 1% descaling (Appendix Table 1).\nFrom 27 to 28 June, hourly fish collections were made from the Turbine\nUnit 8b gatewell to determine diel passage for subyearling chinook salmon. Peak\npassage occurred between 2100 and 2200 h (Appendix Table 2). Vertical distribution\nmeasurements and FGE tests were also conducted during this period.","6\nLow numbers of juvenile salmonids were present during both series of vertical\ndistribution measurements conducted during the spring outmigration (11-13 and\n26-29 April, Appendix Table 3). Only yearling chinook salmon were present in\nsignificant numbers in the first series, during which the pooled TFGE was 89.6%. In\nthe second series, yearling chinook salmon, steelhead, and sockeye salmon (O. nerka)\nwere collected, with pooled TFGEs of 98.6, 97.8, and 91.7%, respectively. Subyearling\nchinook and coho salmon were not present in significant numbers during either series.\nLarge numbers of subyearling chinook salmon were present for vertical\ndistribution measurements at the beginning of the summer outmigration, from 21 to\n23 June. The TFGE for subyearling chinook salmon was 97.4% during this time\nperiod. This was slightly higher than in 1986 during a similar time period using the\nupper 3-1/2 nets to calculate TFGE (Swan and Norman 1987). Other species were not\npresent in significant numbers. However, in previous vertical distribution\nmeasurements, only 2 1/2 nets were used to calculate TFGE because SSTS do not\nextend as far into the water column of the turbine intake.\nVertical distribution measurements in spring and summer indicated that\nnearly all juvenile salmonids passed through the turbine intakes at a level above the\ninterception point of extended guidance devices. Only one vertical distribution\nmeasurement series was conducted during the subyearling chinook salmon\noutmigration because FGE tests and vertical distribution measurements could not be\nconducted concurrently, and FGE tests were given higher priority. A measurement\nlater in the season might have explained the significant decrease in FGE observed\nduring the third week of July (Test series 14). At McNary Dam in 1987, TFGE and\nFGE of subyearling chinook salmon decreased as the season progressed (Brege et al.","7\n1988). Temporal changes in TFGE and FGE were also observed at John Day Dam\nand were attributed to varying migrational behavior in the many stocks making up\nthe subyearling chinook salmon seaward migration (Brege et al. 1987).\nOBJECTIVE 2.--FISH GUIDANCE EFFICIENCY OF EXTENDED STS\nAND EXTENDED SBS\nApproach\nMethods for determining FGE were similar to those used in previous STS\nstudies (Swan et al. 1987, Brege et al. 1988). As with vertical distribution\nmeasurements, a dipbasket was used to collect guided fish from the gatewell. Tests\non SSTS utilized nets attached to a frame beneath the STS to collect unguided fish.\nExtended screens do not allow this procedure since the screen framework fills the\nentire slot from the turbine floor to ceiling (Fig. 2). Therefore, a fyke-net frame was\nplaced in the downstream gate slot. A full complement of 27 fyke nets per frame was\nused and all nets had cod-ends. The top two rows contained half nets. The fyke-net\ncatch provided the number of unguided fish. Fish guidance efficiency for each species\nwas calculated as the gatewell catch divided by the total number of fish (by species)\nentering the turbine intake.\nFGE =\nX 100\nGW = gatewell catch\nFN = fyke-net catch","8\nMcNary Dam cross section\nFyke net layout\nNorth Middle South\nRow\n1 upper\nBulkhead slot\n1 lower\n2 upper\nGate slot\n2 lower\nFingerling bypass flume\n3\nOperating gate\n4\n(raised position)\n5\nVertical barrier screen\n(solid section at top)\n6\n7\n:\nExtended\nsubmersible\ntraveling\nFyke\nnets\nscreen\n6.0\n6000\nFigure 2.--Transverse section of McNary Dam turbine unit with ESTS and\nfyke-net frame in place.","9\nFish entering the gatewell from the turbine intake were confined to the\nbulkhead slot by vertical barrier screens (VBS) which separate the bulkhead slot from\nthe gate slot (Figs. 1 and 2). The VBS at McNary Dam consist of eight sections, each\n8.5 ft high by 20 ft wide, which span the gatewell from top to bottom. The standard\nvertical barrier screen (SVBS) configuration consists of three solid panel sections on\nthe top portion of the VBS and five nylon monofilament mesh panel sections on the\nbottom portion. As a result of earlier fish passage studies at McNary Dam (Krcma et\nal. 1985) and COE Waterways Experiment Station modeling studies, a modified\nbalanced flow vertical barrier screen (MBFVBS) was developed and tested at McNary\nin 1991. The mesh sections of these screens have perforated plate backing to reduce\nthe flow through the mesh. Beginning at the top, the MBFVBS configuration consists\nof the following: two solid plate sections; two sections divided in thirds, with solid\nplate in the center third and mesh on either side; three mesh sections; and a solid\nplate bottom section.\nTests for FGE began at about 2000 h and terminated when enough fish (at\nleast 200) of the target species were collected in Slot 4B (control) or after several\nhours if fish were not sufficiently abundant. Individual test conditions are specified\nin Table 1. Turbine Unit 5 was outfitted with a full complement of three ESTS and\nTurbine Unit 6 had a full complement of three ESBS. FGE testing with ESTS and\nESBS occurred simultaneously in Slots 5B and 6B, respectively. At the end of each\ntest, the turbine units were shut down slowly, the fyke-net frames were raised from\nthe gate slot, and the catch was removed from each net and placed in individual\ncontainers. The catch was enumerated by species and fish were examined for\ndescaling or other injuries.","10\nTable 1. -- Test schedule for the 1991 field season at McNary Dam.\nTest\nVertical\nPorosity of\nseries\nTest\nFlow\nGuidance\nTest\nbarrier\nGate\nperforated\nScreen\nnumber\nDates\nunit\n(kcfs)\ndevice\ntype\nposition\nplate\nangle\nscreen\nSVBSb\n1\n11,12,13\n4B\n16\nVD\"\nSOG\n55\nnone\n-\nApril\n2\n22,23,25\n5B\n16\nESTS\nFGE\nMBFVBS\nROG\n45%\n55\nApril\n6B\n16\nESBS\nFGE\nMBFVBS\nROG\n30%\n55\n3\n26,27,28,29\n4B\n16\nVD\nSVBS\nSOG\n55\nnone\n-\nApril\nDES\n4\n27,28,29 April\n5B\n16\nESTS\nMBFVBS\nROG\n45%\n55\n5\n27,28,29,30 April\n7B\n16\nSSTS\nDES\nSVBS\nSOG\n48%\n55\n1,2,3,4,5 May\n6\n30 April\n4B\n16\nSSTS\nDES\nSVBS\nSOG\n48%\n55\n1,2,3,4,5 May\n5B\n16\nESTS\nFGE\nMBFVBS\nROG\n45%\n55\n6B\n16\nESBS\nFGE\nMBFVBS\nROG\n30%\n55\n7\n8,9,10,11,12,13\n4B\n16\nSSTS\nDES\nSVBS\nSOG\n48%\n55\nMay\n5A\n16\nESTS\nDES\nMBFVBS\nSOG/ROG\n45%\n55\n5B\n16\nESTS\nDES\nMBFVBS\nROG/SOG\n45%\n55\n8\n17,18,19,20,21\n4B\n16\nSSTS\nDES\nSVBS\nSOG\n48%\n55\nMay\n5B\n16\nESTS\nDES\nMBFVBS\nSOG\n34%\n55\n6B\n16\nESBS\nDES\nMBFVBS\nSOG\n30%\n55\n6C\n16\nESBS\nDES\nMBFVBS\nSOG\n26%\n55\n9\n22,23,24\n4B\n16\nSSTS\nDES\nSVBS\nROG\n48%\n55\n16\nMay\n5B\nESTS\nDES\nMBFVBS\nPROG\n34%\n55\n6A\n16\nESBS\nDES\nMBFVBS\nROG\n26%\n55\n6B\n16\nESBS\nDES\nMBFVBS\nPROG\n30%\n55\n7B\n16\nSSTS\nDES\nSVBS\nSOG\n48%\n55\n10\n28,29,30,31 May\n4B\n16\nSSTS\nDES\nSVBS\nROG\n48%\n55\n1,3 June\n5B\n16\nESTS\nFGE\nMBFVBS\nPROG\n34%\n55\n6B\n16\nESBS\nFGE\nMBFVBS\nPROG\n30%\n55\n7B\n16\nSSTS\nDES\nMBFVBS\nSOG\n48%\n55\n11\n21,22,23 June\n4B\n16\nVD\nSVBS\nSOG\n55\nnone\n-\n12\n24,25,26,27,\n4B\n16\nSSTS\nDES\nSVBS\nSOG\n48%\n55\n28,29,30 June\n5B\n16\nESTS\nFGE\nMBFVBS\nROG\n34%\n55\n1,2 July\n6B\n16\nESBS\nFGE\nMBFVBS\nROG\n30%\n55\n13\n8,9,10,11.12,13,14\n4B\n16\nSSTS\nDES\nSVBS\nROG\n48%\n55\nJuly\n5B\n16\nESTS\nFGE\nMBFVBS\nROG\n34%\n62\n6B\n16\nESBS\nFGE\nMBFVBS\nROG\n30%\n55\n14\n16,17,18,21,22,\n4B\n16\nSSTS\nDES\nSVBS\nROG\n48%\n55\n23,24,25 July\n5B\n12\nESTS\nFGE\nMBFVBS\nROG\n34%\n55\n6B\n16\nESBS\nFGE\nMBFVBS\nROG\n30%\n55\n, Raised operating gate.\na\nVertical distribution.\nh Standard vertical barrier screen.\ng\nExtended submersible bar screen.\nh Descaling.\nc\nStored operating gate.\nd\nj\nPartially raised operating gate (7.8 ft).\nExtended STS.\n.\nModified balanced flow vertical barrier\nscreen.","11\nResults and Discussion\nYearling Fish\nTesting for FGE began on 22 April and initial guidance for yearling chinook\nsalmon was high, averaging 81% (SE = 2.9) for the ESTS and 80% (SE = 2.1) for the\nESBS. However, unacceptably high descaling rates with the extended screens\nprompted a temporary shift in research efforts (see Objective 3). Tests for FGE were\nnot conducted during the subsequent descaling tests. Screen conditions that resulted\nin lower descaling were determined and used when FGE testing resumed.\nAfter descaling tests were completed, a final FGE test series was conducted at\nthe end of the spring outmigration, from 28 May to 3 June. The FGE test on 3 June\nwas excluded from the final analysis due to low numbers of fish. The final FGE test\nsequence during the spring outmigration of yearling chinook salmon compared\npartially raised operating gates (PROG, raised 7.8 ft) combined with extended screens,\nto a fully raised operating gate (ROG) in control Slot 4B, and to a stored operating\ngate (SOG) in control Slot 7B. The perforated plate on the back of the ESTS had been\nchanged from 45% to 34% on 17 May as a result of descaling tests. A noticeable\ndifference in the distribution of the net catch occurred after this porosity change\n(Fig. 3). Before the porosity change on the ESTS perforated plate, the highest catches\nwere in Net-level 3; after the change, they were in Net-level 5. The net-level catch\nwith the ESBS remained unchanged during the same time period, with Net-level 5\nhaving the highest catch. Net-level 5 generally had the highest catch, independent of\nthe extended guidance device used throughout the subyearling chinook salmon\noutmigration (Fig. 4). This change in net-level distribution pointed to a change in","12\nExtended STS\nYear I ing Ch i nook Salmon\nPercentage\n25\nTest Series\n20\n2.8\n10\n15\n10\n5\n0\n1U\n1L\n2U\n2L\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nNET LEVEL\nExtended SBS\nYear I ing Chinook Salmon\nPercentage\n25\nTest Series\n20\n2,6\n10\n15\n10\n5\n0\n5\n6\n7\n2L\n3\n4\n1U\n1L\n2U\nNET LEVEL\nFigure 3.--Yearling chinook salmon distribution by net level during FGE tests at\nMcNary Dam, 1991.","13\nExtended STS\nSubyear I i ng Chinook Salmon\nPercentage\n25\nTest Ser les\n20\n12\n13\n14\n15\n10\n5\n0\n1U\n1L\n2U\n2L\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nNET LEVEL\nExtended SBS\nSubyear I i ng Chinook Salmon\nPercentage\n25\nTest Ser lee\n20\n12\n13\n14\n15\n10\n5\n0\n1U\n1L\n2U\n2L\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\nNET LEVEL\nFigure 4.--Subyearling chinook salmon distribution by net level during FGE tests at\nMcNary Dam, 1991. Test series numbers refer to Table 1.","14\nflow pattern through and around the ESTS due to the change in porosity of the\nperforated plate.\nThe FGE for yearling chinook salmon with the ESTS and ESBS ranged from 73\nto 81% through the spring (Fig. 5). The FGE for the ESTS averaged 81% (SE = 2) for\nthe period 17 May-1 June, when the porosity of the perforated plate was 34%. The\nFGE for the ESBS through the spring outmigration averaged 78% (SE = 2). The 3%\ndifference in FGE between the ESBS and ESTS was not significant (t = 3.1, P = 0.26).\nAfter modifications to the screens, the final spring test series for yearling chinook\nsalmon resulted in FGE values of 81% (SE = 3) for the ESTS and 73% (SE = 2) for the\nESBS.\nScreen effectiveness (FGE/TFGE) has been used in past reports to indicate how\nsuccessful a device is in intercepting fish entering a turbine intake (Krcma et al. 1986,\nGessel et al. 1987, Brege et al. 1988). Using this method of evaluation, the FGE of\n81% for the ESTS would result in screen effectiveness values of 90 and 82% based on\nthe 89.6 and 98.6% TFGE found during the vertical distribution measurements. The\nFGE of 78% for the ESBS would result in screen effectiveness values of 87 and 79%\nbased on the same TFGE measurements.\nSteelhead, coho salmon, and sockeye salmon were captured incidentally during\nFGE tests. Between 22 April and 5 May, steelhead FGE averaged 91% for the ESTS\nand 88% for the ESBS. Between 28 May and 1 June, respective FGE for the ESTS\nand ESBS averaged 92 and 96% for steelhead, 93 and 92% for coho salmon, and 68\nand 66% for sockeye salmon. Appendix Table 4 contains complete data for all FGE\ntests during 1991.","15\nGuidance\n100\nESTS\nESBS\n80\n60\n40\n20\n0\n2,\n6\n10\n12\n13\n14\nTest Ser ies\nFigure 5.--Fish -- guidance efficiency for yearling (Test Series 2, 6, and 10) and subyearling\n(Test Series 12, 13, and 14) chinook salmon with ESTS and ESBS at McNary\nDam, 1991. Test series numbers refer to Table 1.","16\nSubyearling Fish\nThree FGE test series were conducted from 24 June to 25 July. Numbers of\nfish were adequate for all test series. Fully raised operating gates (Fig. 2) were used\nfor the ESTS and ESBS during all three series, and the ESTS was fitted with a 34%\nporosity perforated plate. A stored operating gate (Fig. 1), the existing operating gate\ncondition at McNary Dam, was used for the control SSTS in Slot 4B. For Test Series\n12 (24 June-2 July), the ESTS produced an average FGE of 74% (SE = 3) and the\nESBS produced an average FGE of 70% (SE = 3) (Fig. 5).\nScreen effectiveness values for the ESTS with an FGE of 74% and the ESBS\nwith an FGE of 70% were 76 and 72%, respectively. Screen effectiveness values for\nsubyearling chinook salmon at John Day Dam and Bonneville Dam Second\nPowerhouse using SSTS have been considerably lower, 53 and 52% respectively\n(Krcma et al. 1986; Gessel et al. 1987).\nFor Test Series 13 (8-14 July), the ESTS screen angle was changed from 55 to\n62° to decrease approach velocity to the screen and to see if this reduction would\nresult in lower descaling. The ESBS screen angle remained unchanged at 55°. Fish\nguidance efficiencies were 71 (SE = 3) and 75% (SE = 2) for the ESTS and ESBS,\nrespectively (Fig. 5).\nSince adjusting the ESTS angle to 62° did not reduce descaling, the angle was\nreturned to 55° (Table 1). The final test series for subyearling chinook salmon (Test\nSeries 14, 16-25 July) was conducted with a reduced flow of 12 kcfs through Unit 5 in\nanother attempt to reduce descaling with the ESTS and to try to define the lower\nboundary of approach velocity for redesign considerations. Flow through Unit 6 with\nthe ESBS remained unchanged at 16 kcfs. The FGE decreased dramatically in both","17\nunits and averaged 46 (SE = 4) and 48% (SE = 6) for the ESTS and ESBS,\nrespectively (Fig. 5). It is interesting to note that a late-season decrease in FGE for\nsubyearling chinook salmon was also observed by researchers at Wanapum Dam on\nthe mid-Columbia River (Stuart Hammond, Grant County PUD, Ephrata,\nWashington, pers. commun.). A corresponding increase in catch at net levels 4, 5, and\n6 accompanied the decreasing FGE (Fig 4).\nWe found no significant differences in FGE between the ESTS and the ESBS\nfor the three sets of conditions.\nOBJECTIVE 3.--EFFECT OF EXTENDED GUIDANCE DEVICES\nON DESCALING AND IMPINGEMENT\nApproach\nFish condition was measured using standard Fish Transportation Oversight\nTeam fish descaling criteria (Ceballos et al. 1992). Fish from vertical distribution,\nFGE, descaling, and impingement tests were all examined for descaling. Individual\ndescaling tests are listed in Table 2.\nImpingement tests were conducted from 0001 h to 0700 h after FGE or\ndescaling tests were completed. Fyke-net frames were removed from the gate slot and\nthe units re-started. The mesh belt on the ESTS and the cleaning brush mechanism\non the ESBS were not operated at any time during the test. During an impingement\ntest, a crew monitored fish numbers in Slot 4B (control). If high numbers of fish\nentered Slot 4B before the scheduled end of the impingement test, the test was\nterminated; this reduced the chance of excessive impingement/mortality of fish on the\nscreens. The test was terminated after only 4 hours on 30 June and 10 July because\nof high numbers of fish. The following morning, guided fish were dipped out of the","18\nTable 2.--Descaling during FGE testing on yearling and subyearling chinook salmon\nand steelhead at McNary Dam, 1991.\nTest\nseries\nTest Guidance\nDescaling (%)\nnumber\nDates\nSpecies\nunit\ndevice\nMean\nSE\n2,6\n22,23,25,30 April\nYearling\n4B\nSSTS\n7.1\n0.6\n1,2,3,4,5 May\nchinook salmon\n5B\nESTSb\n19.2\n2.0\n6B\nESBS\n11.8\n1.2\nSteelhead\n5B\nESTS\n5.8\n0.6\n6B\nESBS\n4.4\n0.7\n4,5\n27,28,29,30 April\nYearling\n5B\nESTS\n22.1\n6.8\n1,2,3,4,5 May\nchinook salmon\n7B\nSSTS\n7.9\n2.3\nSteelhead\n5B\nESTS\n8.1\n3.9\n7B\nSSTS\n7.1\n1.0\n7\n8,9,10,11,12,13\nYearling\n4B\nSSTS\n8.3\n1.5\nMay\nchinook salmon\n5A/5Bd\nESTS\n14.2\n1.5\n5A/5B\nESTS\n16.8\n1.5\nSteelhead\n4B\nSSTS\n7.1\n1.2\n5A/5Bd\nESTS\n11.6\n1.2\n5A/5B°\nESTS\n11.0\n1.2\n8\n17,18,19,20,21\nYearling\n4B\nSSTS\n13.0\n1.9\nMay\n5B\nchinook salmon\nESTS\n11.2\n1.9\n6B\nESBS\n9.5\n1.9\n6C\nESBS\n6.7\n1.9\nSteelhead\n4B\nSSTS\n5.5\n0.9\n5B\nESTS\n6.9\n0.9\n6B\nESBS\n4.4\n0.9\n6C\nESBS\n4.9\n0,9\n9,10\n22,23,24,28,29,30,31 May\nYearling\n4B\nSSTS\n15.5\n1.3\n1,3 June\nchinook salmon\n5B\nESTS\n11.0\n1.3\n6B\nESBS\n9.4\n1.3\n7B\nSSTS\n10.7\n1.3\nSteelhead\n4B\nSSTS\n10.8\n2.5\n5B\nESTS\n14.5\n2.6\n6B\nESBS\n9.4\n2.5\n7B\nSSTS\n13.7\n2.5\n12\n24,25,26,27,28,29,30 June\nSubyearling\n4B\nSSTS\n2.9\n0.7\n1,2 July\nchinook salmon\n5B\nESTS\n9.3\n0.7\n6B\nESBS\n3.7\n0.7\n13\n8,9,10,11,12,13,14 July\nSubyearling\n4B\nSSTS\n5.6\n1.3\nchinook salmon\n5B\nESTS\n12.3\n1.3\n6B\nESBS\n6.7\n1.3\n14\n16,17,18,21,22\nSubyearling\n4B\nSSTS\n6.1\n1.6\n23,24,25 July\n5Bb\nchinook salmon\nESTS\n11.5\n1.6\n6B\nESBS\n8.2\n1.6\n'Porosity of perforated plate changed to 34%\nStandard submersible traveling screen.\nExtended submersible traveling screen.\nScreen angle increased to 62°\nDischarge reduced to 12 kcfs.\nExtended submersible bar screen.\nStored operating gate.\n'Deleted from final analysis, too few fish.\nRaised operating gate.","19\ngatewell and the guidance device was inspected by video camera and/or removed for\ndetailed examination. This method did not give an absolute measure of impingement,\nbut it did provide a relative estimate for comparison between the ESTS and ESBS.\nImpingement, expressed as a percentage, was calculated by dividing the number of\nimpinged fish by the total number of fish collected during the time period:\nImpingement = X 100 IC+GW\nIC = IMPINGED CATCH\nGW = GATEWELL CATCH\nAlthough impingement tests were originally scheduled for every 5th day during\nthe outmigration, daily FGE/descaling tests and the limited availability of COE\npersonnel allowed us to complete only eight tests (Table 3). Descaling differences\nbetween screens and conditions were tested using paired t-tests and Randomized\nBlock ANOVA (Petersen 1985).\nResults and Discussion\nYearling Fish\nYearling chinook salmon descaling was higher with the ESTS than with the\nESBS during the entire spring outmigration (Fig. 6). Changing the porosity of the\nperforated plate from 45 to 34% on 17 May (Test Series 8) significantly decreased the\nrate of descaling associated with the ESTS from 22.1 to 11.2% (t = 2.72, P = 0.02). As\nthe season progressed, descaling in the control slot increased (Fig. 6). Increased\ndescaling in the control slot over time may explain the lack of a significant difference\nin descaling (t = 2.09, P = 0.15) between the ESBS (mean = 9.5%) and the SSTS\n(mean = 13.0%), even though earlier test series indicated some effect on descaling by","20\nTable 3.-Impingement of yearling and subyearling chinook and sockeye salmon during\ndescaling and impingement testing at McNary Dam, 1991.\nVertical\nPorosity of\nTest\nTest\nFlow\nGuidance\nbarrier\nGate\nperforated\ndate\nunit\n(Kcfs)\ndevice\nposition\nplate\nImpingement\nscreen\n26 April\n6B\n16\nESBS\nMBFVBS\nROG\n30%\n1 Subyearling\n6 May\n6B\n16\nESBS\nMBFVBS\nROG\n30%\n50 Subyearling\n1 Yearling\n1 Sockeye\n11 May\n5A\n16\nESTS\nMBFVBS\nROG\n45%\n239 Yearling\n60 Subyearling\n17 May\n4B\n16\nSSTS\nSVBS\nSOG\n48%\n16 Subyearling\n8 Yearling\n37 Subyearling2\n6B\n16\nESBS\nMBFVBS\nSOG\n30%\n3 Yearling2\n2 Sockeye2\n24 May\n5B\n16\nESTS\nMBFVBS\nSOG\n34%\n21 Subyearling\n3 Yearling\n4 Sockeye\n30 June\n5B\n16\nESTS\nMBFVBS\nROG\n56 Subyearling3\n34%\n20 Subyearling3\n6B\n16\nESBS\nMBFVBS\nROG\n30%\n10 July4\n5B\n16\nESTS\nMBFVBS\nROG\n34%\nNone\n6B\n16\nESBS\nMBFVBS\nROG\n30%\nNone\n18 July\n5B\n12\nESTS\nMBFVBS\nROG\n34%\nNone\n6B\n16\nESBS\nMBFVBS\nROG\n30%\nNone\nThese fish were impinged in the cleaning brush and were probably caught during an\nearlier FGE test and swept off the screen surface by the brush.\n2 One yearling, 2 subyearlings, and 1 sockeye were found in the cleaning brush.\n3\nThese fish were not positively identified as subyearlings, but this portion of the run is\ncomprised almost entirely of subyearlings.\nScreen angle of ESTS was changed from the standard 55° to 62°.","21\nDESCAL ING AT MCNARY DAM\n1991\nPercent Descaled\n25\nESTS\n20\nESBS\nSSTS\n15\n10\n5\n0\n2,6\n4,5\n7\nB\n9,10\n12\n13\n14\nTest Series\nFigure 6.--Descaling of yearling and subyearling chinook salmon at McNary\nDam, 1991. Test series numbers refer to Table 1. The SSTS\nrepresented control conditions.","22\nthe ESBS (Table 2). No changes in porosity were made to the perforated plate of the\nESBS during the season.\nWe suspected that excessive flows up the bulkhead slot associated with a ROG\ncontributed to descaling. From 8-13 May, a ROG/SOG crossover test series was\nconducted with an ESTS in Unit 5 to determine the influence of gate position on\ndescaling. Operating gates in Slots 5A and 5B were alternated daily between raised\nand stored positions during the tests, with one in a ROG position and the other in a\nSOG position. Identical ESTS (with 45% porosity perforated plate) were used in both\nslots. An SSTS in Slot 4B with a SOG was used as the control. Results of the\nROG/SOG crossover test indicated that descaling with a ROG (mean = 16.8%) was not\nsignificantly different than with a SOG (mean = 14.2%), but descaling for both ROG\nand SOG positions was significantly higher with ESTS (F = 9.08, P = 0.01) than 2\nwith SSTS (mean = 8.3%) (Table 2).\nDescaling results obtained during the last FGE test series (22 May-3 June) also\nsupported earlier findings that a raised operating gate had no significant effect on\ndescaling compared to a stored operating gate. During this test series, partially\nraised operating gates were used in Slot 5B with an ESTS and in Slot 6B with an\nESBS. Two controls were used: Slot 4B with an SSTS and a ROG, and Slot 7B with\nan SSTS and a SOG. The PROG in Slots 5B and 6B provided bulkhead slot flows\nequivalent to those with a ROG in Slot 4B. There were no significant differences in\ndescaling among the PROG with the ESTS in Slot 5B (mean = 11.0%), the PROG with\nthe ESBS in Slot 6B (mean = 9.4%), and the Slot 7B control with a SOG and SSTS\n(mean = 10.7%). An unexpectedly higher rate of descaling occurred with the ROG\nwith SSTS in Slot 4B (mean = 15.5%). The difference in descaling rate between Slot\n4B and the other three slots was probably due to the SVBS in Slot 4B rather than the","23\nMBFVBS in Slots 5B and 6B, since flows up Slots 4B, 5B, and 6B were the same\n(Table 2) (Krcma et al. 1985).\nThe first two impingement tests concentrated on the ESBS because its smooth\nsurface allowed the frame of the video camera to easily slide down the length of the\nscreen for visual inspection. Few fish were found impinged on this device.\nUnacceptably high descaling with the ESTS shifted emphasis of the impingement\ntests from the ESBS to the ESTS. An impingement test on 11 May using the ESTS\nwith a 45% porosity perforated plate and a ROG resulted in 239 yearling and 60\nsubyearling chinook salmon swimup fry impinged on the mesh (Table 3). As a result\nof this impingement test and the observation of high descaling from previous\ndescaling tests, the porosity of the perforated plate on the ESTS was changed on\n17 May from 45 to 34%. The change in porosity of the perforated plate reduced the\napproach velocity to the ESTS, and fewer fish became impinged on the mesh\n(Table 3). Some impingement of subyearling chinook salmon swimup fry was\nobserved for both the ESTS and ESBS during the spring outmigration.\nSubyearling Fish\nDescaling for subyearling chinook salmon was recorded during FGE tests\nconducted from 24 June through 25 July. Tests were conducted with 34% porosity\nperforated plate on the ESTS, 30% porosity perforated plate on the ESBS, and a ROG\nin both units. The ESBS conditions remained unchanged throughout all test series.\nDuring FGE Test Series 12 (24 June-2 July), descaling was significantly higher\n(F = 23.11, P < 0.01) for the ESTS than either the ESBS or SSTS (means = 9.3, 3.7,\nand 2.9%, respectively) (Table 2).\nDuring the next series, the angle of the ESTS was changed from 55 to 62° to\nreduce the area of flow intercepted by the screen and thereby decrease the velocity","24\nthrough the screen. Descaling of subyearling chinook salmon on the ESTS at 62° was\nagain significantly higher (F = 8.33, P = 0.01) than on the ESBS and the SSTS while\nboth were at 55° (Table 2).\nIn the final test series, 16-25 July, the screen angle for the ESTS was returned\nto 55° and the flow through the unit was decreased to 12 kcfs. The ESBS conditions\nremained unchanged. Descaling with the ESTS was still high, but not significantly\ndifferent (F = 2.96, P = 0.09) from the ESBS or SSTS (means = 11.5, 8.2, and 6.1%,\nrespectively) (Table 2). Descaling was not significantly different (t = 1.57, P = 0.13)\nbetween the ESBS and SSTS for any of the three test series with subyearling chinook\nsalmon (means = 6.0 and 4.7%, respectively).\nComparative impingement tests were conducted using both the ESTS and\nESBS for subyearling chinook salmon on 30 June, 10 July, and 18 July (Table 3).\nConditions during these three impingement tests were the same as those during the\nFGE tests: ROG for both devices; a 62° angle for the ESTS and a 55° angle for the\nESBS; and 12 kcfs flow for the ESTS with 16 kcfs flow for the ESBS. Only the first of\nthe three tests resulted in measurable impingement, with 5.4% impingement for the\nESTS and 2.3% for the ESBS.\nAppendix Table 5 summarizes descaling observed during testing at McNary\nDam in 1991.\nAdditional video observations by COE Waterways Experiment Station\npersonnel, as part of a pilot study with advanced underwater video systems, revealed\nsome problems with juvenile impingement on the ESTS. This will require further\nstudies, and the results of this work to date will be reported under separate cover.","25\nOBJECTIVE 4.--LEVELS OF SMOLTIFICATION\nIN YEARLING AND SUBYEARLING CHINOOK SALMON\nApproach\nTo examine the relationship between fish guidance and smolt development, fish\nwere collected during vertical distribution or FGE tests and assayed for gill Na+-K+\nATPase. Groups of twenty fish were taken, with yearling chinook salmon sampled\nduring the spring, and subyearling chinook salmon sampled during the summer.\nGroups were sampled from the gatewell catch on each occasion and placed on ice until\ngill samples could be taken. The 20-fish samples were chosen at random, either from\nall of the nets combined or from individual net levels. Fish were measured and gill\nfilaments were trimmed from the gill arch and placed into 1.5-ml microcentrifuge\ntubes filled with a buffer solution containing sucrose, ethylenediamine, and imidazole\n(SEI). Samples were immediately placed on dry ice and later stored at < -70°C in a\nfreezer until assayed. After gill removal, fish were individually stored in labeled\nplastic bags and placed on dry ice for later delivery to researchers with the U.S. Fish\nand Wildlife Service, who assayed the samples for bacterial kidney disease (results to\nbe published by USFWS in a separate report).\nTo assure that observed differences in gill Na+-K+ ATPase between live gatewell\nand dead fyke-net fish were not caused by deterioration of this enzyme in the dead\nfish, gatewell fish were killed and placed in water at ambient river temperature until\nthe fyke nets were removed from the water. Net catches were then processed at\nrandom so that the time between death and gill removal did not consistently favor\nany net level or the gatewell. Gills that showed signs of excess deterioration were\ndiscarded. Assays for gill Na+-K+ ATPase were conducted using procedures described\nby Zaugg (1982), with minor modification.","26\nTo characterize the physiological status of the smolt population on each sample\ndate, the mean Na+-K+ gill ATPase level was determined for each net level, weighted\nfor the number of fish captured at that depth, and averaged. Correlations between\nsmoltification and FGE were then examined. A paired t-test was used to evaluate\nseasonal differences in enzyme levels between guided and unguided fish.\nWe intended to sample only from vertical distribution tests since this was the\nonly constant test condition throughout the field season. However, fish from FGE\ntests were sampled from 28 May through the summer because vertical distribution\ntests were too infrequent. Samples of yearling chinook salmon were collected from\nUnit 4B during vertical distribution tests on three test dates beginning on 26 April\n(Table 4). Additional yearling chinook salmon samples were collected from FGE tests\nconducted in Unit 5B on three dates beginning on 28 May. During the summer\noutmigration, subyearling chinook salmon were sampled on eight dates from FGE\ntests in Unit 5B (Table 4).\nResults and Discussion\nYearling chinook salmon gill Na+-K+ ATPase activity changed little during the\nspring sampling period; however, sampling occurred only at the beginning and end of\nthe spring outmigration (Table 4). Mean Na+-K+ ATPase levels ranged from 24.3 to\n28.1 umol P . mg Prot-1 h There was no significant difference in gill Na+-K+\nATPase activity levels between guided (gatewell) and unguided (fyke net) yearling\nchinook salmon (t = -0.40, df = 2, P = 0.73) (Table 5). There were not enough sample\ndates for correlating FGE and gill Na+-K+ ATPase activity for yearling chinook\nsalmon. However, high FGE estimates obtained at McNary Dam throughout the\nspring indicated that the degree of smolt development would probably have little\neffect on yearling chinook salmon guidance with installations of extended length","27\nTable 4.--FGE results, weighted mean gill Na+-K+ ATPase level (umol Pi . Prot-1 . h-1),\nand test conditions during smoltification studies at McNary Dam, 1991.\nUnit,\nTest\nSample\nFGE\nGill\nDate\nslot\nconditions\nSpecies\nsize\n(%)\nNa+-K+ ATPase\n26 Apr\n4B\nVert. Dist.\nYr. chin.\n13\n28.0\n27 Apr\n4B\nVert. Dist.\nYr. chin.\n28\n25.1\n---\n28 Apr\n4B\nVert. Dist.\nYr. chin.\n29\n27.1\n---\n28 May\n5B\nESTS\nYr. chin.\n89\n83.2\n28.1\n29 May\n5B\nESTS\nYr. chin.\n36\n87.3\n24.3\n30 May\n5B\nESTS\nYr. chin.\n40\n81.4\n27.0\n24 Jun\n5B\nESTS\nSub. chin.\n40\n77.9\n32.6\n25 Jun\n5B\nESTS\nSub. chin.\n84\n82.8\n36.7\n26 Jun\n5B\nESTS\nSub. chin.\n40\n84.7\n34.7\n30 Jun\n5B\nESTS\nSub. chin.\n40\n59.5\n36.9\n1 Jul\n5B\nESTS\nSub. chin.\n111\n75.6\n30.5\n2 Jul\n5B\nESTS\nSub. chin.\n40\n72.4\n36.2\n16 Jul\n5B\nESTS\nSub. chin.\n40\n62.1\n46.7\n17 Jul\n5B\nESTS\nSub. chin.\n25\n77.8\n40.6\nYearling chinook salmon\nSubyearling chinook salmon","28\nTable 5. -Gill Na+-K+ ATPase activity (umol Pi i . Prot-1 . h for guided (gatewell) vs.\nunguided (fyke nets) fish at McNary Dam, 1991.\nNa+-K+ ATPase (mean)\nGatewell\nFyke net\nDate\nYearling chinook salmon\n28 May\n27.6\n30.9\n29 May\n24.0\n26.8\n30 May\n27.7\n24.2\nSubyearling chinook salmon\n24 June\n32.4\n33.1\n25 June\n37.3\n33.9\n34.2\n26 June\n34.8\n30 June\n36.8\n37.1\n1 July\n31.7\n27.0\n2 July\n37.8\n32.2\n16 July\n46.9\n46.3\n17 July\n41.2\n38.6","29\nscreens. Beeman et al. (1990) found that gill Na+-K+ ATPase levels in yearling\nchinook salmon were generally high throughout the spring outmigration at McNary\nDam in 1989.\nGill Na+-K+ ATPase activity levels in subyearling chinook salmon increased on\nthe last two sample dates and ranged from 30.5 to 46.7 umol P . mg Prot-1 h over\nthe summer outmigration period (Table 4). During the summer, guided subyearling\nchinook salmon generally had significantly higher gill Na+-K+ ATPase levels than\nunguided fish (t = 2.47, df = 7, P = 0.043) (Table 5). Correlations between smolt\ndevelopment and FGE estimates were examined using the weighted mean enzyme\nlevel vs. FGE on each sampling date. No strong correlation between smolt\ndevelopment and FGE was found (r2 = 0.23). Appendix Tables 6 and 7 summarize gill\nNa+-K+ ATPase results for all sampling dates at McNary Dam in 1991.\nWeighted mean gill Na+-K+ ATPase levels for subyearling chinook salmon\nincreased at McNary Dam near the end of the July sample period, while FGE\nfluctuated daily; however, there was little correlation between the two. Whether\nthere is a relationship between FGE and smolt development in subyearling chinook\nsalmon is unclear. Other factors, such as unit discharge, turbidity, water\ntemperature, predators, or dam operation may overshadow the influence of smolt\ndevelopment on FGE for subyearling chinook salmon.\nCONCLUSIONS\n1) Based upon vertical distribution measurements, extended length screens should\nguide a high proportion of all juvenile salmonids.","30\n2) Gate position, screen angle, and/or flow through the turbine unit did not\nsignificantly change descaling rates with extended screens. However, some\nbaseline descaling (low levels) likely occurred because of these factors.\n3) Varying the porosity of the perforated plate on the ESTS appeared to have the\ngreatest effect on descaling rates.\n4) For the 1991 season, mean FGE for subyearling chinook salmon was 64% for both\nthe ESTS and ESBS. This was significantly higher than the 33 and 42% seasonal\nFGE means obtained in 1986 and 1987, respectively, using standard length screens\nat McNary Dam.\n5) For the 1991 season, mean FGE for yearling chinook salmon was 81 and 78% for\nthe ESTS and ESBS, respectively. Previous SSTS FGE tests with yearling chinook\nsalmon averaged 75%.\n6) Smoltification status of yearling or subyearling chinook salmon was not a good\npredictor of changes in FGE at McNary Dam in 1991. However, the restricted\nspring sampling period for yearling chinook salmon and consistently high FGE may\nhave obscured the possible relationship between smoltification status and FGE.\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nWe wish to express our appreciation to our seasonal personnel for their interest\nand efforts during this project. We extend special thanks to Walla Walla District\nCOE personnel, particularly Ms. Teri Barila and Mr. Mark Lindgren, and at McNary\nDam, to Mr. Ronald Wineland and the traveling screen crew, for their assistance and\ncooperation in this study. We also extend special thanks to our maintenance staff,\nespecially Mr. Wallace Iceberg, Mr. Irvin Wilbert, and Mr. Phillip Weitz for their\nefforts in this study.","31\nLITERATURE CITED\nBeeman, J. W., D. W. Rondorf, J. C. Faler, M. E. Free, and P. V. Haner.\n1990. Assessment of smolt condition for travel time analysis. Report to\nBonneville Power Administration, Contract DE-AI79-87BP35245, 103 p.\n(Available from Bonneville Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland,\nOR 97205.)\nBrege, D. A., D. R. Miller, and R. D. Ledgerwood.\n1987. Evaluation of the rehabilitated juvenile salmonid collection and passage\nsystem at John Day Dam - 1986. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,\nContract DACW57-86-F-0245, 36 p. plus Appendices. (Available from\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA\n98112-2097.)\nBrege, D. A., W. T. Norman, G. A. Swan, and J. G. Williams.\n1988. Research at McNary Dam to improve fish guiding efficiency of yearling\nand subyearling chinook salmon - 1987. Report to U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers, Contract DACW68-84-H-0034, 22 p. (Available from Northwest\nFisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nCeballos, J. R., S. W. Pettit, and J. L. McKern.\n1992. Fish Transportation Oversight Team Annual Report - FY 1991.\nTransport operations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. NOAA Technical\nMemorandum NMFS F/NWR-29. 77 p. plus Appendices.\nGessel, M. H., L. G. Gilbreath, W. D. Muir, B. H. Monk, and R. F. Krcma.\n1987. Evaluation of the juvenile salmonid and bypass systems at Bonneville\nDam, 1986. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract\nDACW57-86-F-0270, 53 p. plus Appendix. (Available from Northwest\nFisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nGiorgi, A. E., G. A. Swan, W. A. Zaugg, T. C. Coley, and T. Y. Barila.\n1988. Susceptibility of chinook salmon smolts to bypass systems at hydroelectric\ndams. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 8:25-29.\nKrcma, R. F., D. A. Brege, and R. D. Ledgerwood.\n1986. Evaluation of the rehabilitated juvenile salmonid collection and passage\nsystem at John Day Dam - 1985. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,\nContract DACW57-85-H-0001, 25 p. (Available from Northwest Fisheries\nScience Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nKrcma, R. F., G. A. Swan, and F. J. Ossiander.\n1985. Fish guiding and orifice passage efficiency tests with subyearling chinook\nsalmon, MaNary Dam, 1984. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,\nContract DACW68-84-H-0034, 19 p. plus Appendices. (Available from\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA\n98112-2097.)","32\nMuir. W. D., A. E. Giorgi, W. S. Zaugg, and B. R. Beckman.\n1989. An assessment of the relationship between smolt development and fish\nguidance efficiency at Bonneville Dam. Report to U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers, Contract DACW57-87-F-0320, 29 p. (Available from Northwest\nFisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nMuir, W. D., A. E. Giorgi, W. A. Zaugg, W. W. Dickhoff, and B. R. Beckman.\n1988. Behavior and physiology studies in relation to yearling chinook salmon\nguidance at Lower Granite and Little Goose Dams, 1987. Report to U.S.\nArmy Corps of Engineers, Contract DACW68-84-H-0034, 47 p. (Available\nfrom Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle,\nWA 98112-2097.)\nMuir W. D., C. S. McCutcheon, A. E. Giorgi, W. S. Zaugg, S. R. Hirtzel,\nand B. R. Beckman.\n1990. An assessment of the relationship between smolt development and fish\nguidance efficiency at Lower Granite Dam, 1989. Report to U.S. Army Corps\nof Engineers, Contract DACW57-85-H-0034, 19 p. (Available from Northwest\nFisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nPetersen, R. G.\n1985. Design and analysis of experiments. Marcel Dekker, New York. 429 p.\nSwan, G. A., A. E. Giorgi, T. C. Coley, and W. T. Norman.\n1987. Testing fish guiding efficiency of submersible traveling screens at Little\nGoose Dam; is it affected by smoltification levels in yearling chinook salmon?\nReport to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract DACW68-84-H-0034, 58 p.\nplus Appendices. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725\nMontlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nSwan, G. A., R. F. Krcma, and W. E. Farr.\n1979. Dipbasket for collecting juvenile salmon and trout in gatewells at\nhydroelectric dams. Prog. Fish-Cult. 41(1):48-49.\nSwan, G. A., and W. T. Norman.\n1987. Research to improve subyearling chinook salmon guiding efficiency at\nMcNary Dam, 1986. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract\nDACW68-84-H-0034, 22 p. plus Appendices. (Available from Northwest\nFisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nZaugg, W. S.\n1982. A simplified preparation for adenosine triphosphatase determination in\ngill tissue. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39:215-217.","33\nAppendix Table 1.-Dipbasket efficiency tests on yearling chinook salmon and steelhead\nfrom Turbine Unit 5B with raised operating gate, McNary Dam, 1991.\nYearling chinook salmon\nSteelhead\nDate\nTotal\nDescaled\nTotal\nDescaled\n8 May\n97/94\n0\n97/95\n0\n12 May\n96/93\n1\n_b\n-\n\"Total number of fish marked/recaptured.\nSteelhead were not available for this test.\nAppendix Table 2.--Diel -- passage of subyearling chinook salmon into Turbine Unit 8B\nat McNary Dam, 27-28 June 1991.\nTime\nCatch/hour\nTime\nCatch/hour\n1700 Clean out gatewell\n1800\n246\n0600\n386\n1900\n297\n0700\n327\n2000\n238\n0800\n321\n2100\n429\n0900\n398\n2200\n1,287\n1000\n329\n2300\n729\n1100\n156\n2400\n254\n1200\n349\n0100\n311\n1300\n39\n0200\n162\n1400\n34\n0300\n175\n1500\n29\n0400\n114\n1600\n30\n0500\n72\n1700\n11\nTotal catch from 1800 h, 27 June to 1700 h, 28 June was 6,723.","34\nAppendix Table 3.--Vertical distribution, McNary Dam, 1991.\nSUBYEARLING CHINOOK SALMON\nTest Unit\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\nTest Date\n11 April\n12 April\n13 April\n26 April\n27 April\n28 April\n29 April\n21 June\n22 June\n23 June\nGatewell\n2\n71\n90\n27\n-\nFirst Net\n6\n114\n75\n75\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSecond Net\n9\n36\n39\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nThird Net\n3\n6\n3\n9\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nFourth Net\n3\n6\n6\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nFifth Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSixth Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSeventh Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTotals\n5\n6\n203\n210\n156\n-\nYEARLING CHINOOK SALMON\nTest Unit\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\nTest Date\n11 April\n12 April\n13 April\n26 April\n27 April\n28 April\n29 April\n21 June\n22 June\n23 June\nGatewell\n16\n6\n14\n9\n25\n22\n44\n2\n-\nFirst Net\n6\n3\n6\n9\n21\n18\n12\n12\n-\n-\nSecond Net\n3\n9\n3\n3\n3\n24\n-\n-\n-\n-\nThird Net\n3\n12\n3\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nFourth Net\n3\n3\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nFifth Net\n3\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSixth Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSeventh Net\n6\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTotals\n31\n12\n29\n21\n49\n49\n92\n14\n3\n3\nSTEELHEAD\nTest Unit\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\nTest Date\n11 April\n12 April\n13 April\n26 April\n27 April\n28 April\n29 April\n21 June\n22 June\n23 June\nGatewell\n2\n36\n63\n73\n54\n1\n2\nFirst Net\n3\n18\n27\n51\n36\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSecond Net\n9\n24\n24\n12\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nThird Net\n3\n3\n12\n15\n3\n-\n-\n-\n-\nFourth Net\n3\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nFifth Net\n3\n3\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSixth Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSeventh Net\n3\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTotals\n8\n69\n129\n169\n105\n1\n2","35\nAppendix Table 3.--Continued.\nCOHO SALMON\nTest Unit\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\nTest Date\n11 April\n12 April\n13 April\n26 April\n27 April\n28 April\n29 April\n21 June\n22 June\n23 June\nGatewell\n6\n4\n2\n1\n1\n1\nFirst Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSecond Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nThird Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nFourth Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nFifth Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSixth Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSeventh Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTotals\n6\n4\n2\n1\n1\n1\n-\nSOCKEYE SALMON\nTest Unit\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\n4B\nTest Date\n11 April\n12 April\n13 April\n26 April\n27 April\n28 April\n29 April\n21 June\n22 June\n23 June\nGatewell\n7\n8\n21\n13\n2\n1\nFirst Net\n9\n6\n6\n-\n6\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSecond Net\n3\n3\n6\n-\n6\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nThird Net\n3\n-\n3\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nFourth Net\n-\n-\n3\n-\n3\n-\n-\n-\n-\nFifth Net\n3\n-\n3\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSixth Net\n-\n-\n3\n-\n-\n-\nSeventh Net\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTotals\n3\n16\n20\n39\n34\n2\n1\n3","36\nAppendix Table 4.--Numbers of fish collected for individual replicates of FGE tests at McNary\nDam, 1991.\nDate (Test Unit) and (series number)\"\n22 April (6B) (2)\n23 April (6B) (2)\n25 April (6B) (2)\n22 April (5B) (2)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nSC YC ST CO so\nGatewell\n0\n156\n39\n1\n3\n0\n45\n66\n2\n1\n0\n37\n92\n1\n10\n0\n127\n41\n0\n2\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n0\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n1\n3\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n2\n0\n0\n0\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n11\n1\n0\n0\nfourth\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n2\n0\n0\n0\n1\n2\n0\n1\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\nfifth\n0\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n5\n7\n0\n0\n1\n3\n6\n0\n2\n1\n7\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n2\n0\n2\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n0\n168\n42\n1\n3\n0\n61\n78\n2\n1\n1\n44 106\n1\n17\n1 150\n43\n0\n2\nFGE (%)\n93\n87\n85\n23 April (5B) (2)\n25 April (5B) (2)\n30 April (5B) (6)\n1 May (5B) (6)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n0\n71\n98\n0\n4\n0\n40\n134\n2\n24\n1\n46\n102\n2\n30\n0\n38\n156\n0\n21\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n0\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n2\n1\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n0\n7\n0\n0\n1\n0\n1\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n0\n1\n3\n0\n0\n0\n1\n7\n0\n0\n2\n7\n3\n0\n5\n0\n1\n7\n0\n2\nfourth\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n1\n0\n1\n1\n0\n1\n0\n2\n1\n0\n4\nfifth\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n5\n0\n1\n0\n3\n0\n0\n6\n0\n2\n3\n0\n1\nsixth\n0\n1\n5\n0\n0\n0\n1\n4\n0\n0\n0\n1\n2\n0\n1\n0\n0\n3\n0\n5\nseventh\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n1\n1\n0\n0\nTotal\n0\n81\n111\n0\n5\n0\n46\n154\n2\n26\n3\n59\n109\n2\n47\n2 44 171\n0\n33\nFGE (%)\n88\n87\n94\n91\n2 May (5B) (6)\n3 May (5B) (6)\n4 May (5B) (6)\n5 May (5B) (6)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n4\n68\n140\n4\n30\n1\n268\n238\n0\n42\n1\n283\n149\n10\n48\n4 209\n95\n8\n11\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n0\n3\n1\n0\n2\n0\n5\n3\n0\n1\n1\n16\n1\n0\n5\n0\n2\n0\n1\n1\n2 lower\n1\n9\n0\n0\n7\n4\n20\n0\n0\n6\n3\n11\n2\n0\n1\n3\n16\n1\n0\n6\nthird\n0\n17\n5\n0\n8\n10\n27\n7\n0\n9\n2\n19\n2\n0\n3\n9\n33\n1\n0\n0\nfourth\n0\n2\n3\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n2\n1\n1\n5\n1\n1\n3\n0\n1\nfifth\n0\n7\n9\n0\n1\n0\n0\n5\n0\n3\n0\n1\n3\n0\n0\n3\n14\n3\n0\n1\nsixth\n0\n6\n1\n0\n3\n2\n1\n6\n0\n3\n1\n4\n2\n0\n0\n1\n2\n3\n0\n0\nseventh\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n5 112 159\n4\n54\n17\n322\n261\n0\n65\n8\n339\n160\n12\n62\n21\n277\n106\n9\n20\nFGE (%)\n61\n88\n83\n91\n84\n93\n75\n90\n. Refers to Table 1.\nSC = Subyearling chinook salmon, YC = Yearling chinook salmon, ST = Steelhead, CO = Coho salmon, SO = Sockeye salmon.\nFGE calculated for samples with 100 or more fish.","37\nAppendix Table 4.--continued.\nDate (Test Unit) and (series number)\n30 April (6B) (6)\n1 May (6B) (6)\n2 May (6B) (6)\n3 May (6B) (6)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nGatewell\n2\n45\n60\n2\n25\n1\n68\n147\n2\n27\n3 111\n92\n0\n37\n6\n238\n281\n0\n46\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n3\n1\n0\n1\n0\n1\n0\n0\n1\n1\n3\n0\n0\n1\n2 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n1\n0\n2\n0\n2\n0\n1\n1\n0\n1\n0\n2\n3\n0\n3\nthird\n0\n1\n1\n0\n1\n0\n4\n1\n0\n6\n0\n5\n2\n0\n1\n4\n5\n6\n0\n1\nfourth\n0\n5\n0\n0\n3\n0\n5\n3\n0\n6\n0\n7\n10\n0\n5\n2\n7\n4\n0\n1\nfifth\n0\n4\n3\n0\n1\n0\n11\n8\n1\n5\n1\n7\n7\n0\n4\n1\n22\n12\n0\n2\nsixth\n0\n2\n2\n0\n2\n0\n2\n8\n0\n8\n0\n2\n2\n0\n3\n2\n5\n2\n0\n6\nseventh\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n1\n1\n0\n0\n1\nTotal\n2\n58\n66\n2\n39\n2\n93\n170\n3\n55\n5 134 114\n0\n53\n17 284 308\n0\n61\nFGE (%)\n87\n83\n81\n84 91\n4 May (6B) (6)\n5 May (6B) (6)\n28 May (5B) (10)\n29 May (5B) (10)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n2 248 174\n5\n82\n2 236 119\n4\n26\n103\n420\n68\n132\n9\n35\n117\n16\n52\n34\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n1\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n1\n6\n1\n0\n1\n1\n3\n2\n0\n1\n12\n2\n0\n0\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n2\n7\n1\n0\n1\n1\n11\n1\n0\n2\n22\n6\n0\n0\n1\n7\n2\n0\n2\n2\nthird\n5\n11\n3\n0\n4\n2\n10\n0\n0\n1\n41\n5\n0\n2\n2\n14\n3\n0\n0\n2\nfourth\n2\n7\n5\n0\n5\n6\n13\n4\n0\n2\n9\n19\n1\n3\n0\n7\n1\n0\n1\n1\nfifth\n2\n33\n5\n0\n4\n3\n24\n9\n0\n0\n14\n33\n1\n1\n1\n17\n5\n1\n2\n3\nsixth\n0\n14\n2\n0\n2\n3\n7\n3\n0\n0\n8\n18\n0\n0\n1\n16\n6\n0\n2\n1\nseventh\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n7\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n1\nTotal\n14 327 193\n5 100\n18 304 138\n4\n32\n216\n505\n70 138 15\n101\n134\n17\n59\n44\nFGE (%)\n76\n90\n82\n78 86\n48\n83\n96\n35\n87\n30 May (5B) (10)\n28 May (6B) (10)\n29 May (6B) (10)\n30 May (6B) (10)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n30\n219\n30\n121\n60\n48\n200\n52\n116\n16\n25\n114\n22\n77\n35\n50\n109\n33\n54\n49\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n4\n0\n0\n0\n3\n40\n5\n1\n0\n2\n7\n1\n0\n0\n1\n16\n0\n1\n1\n3\n2 lower\n33\n2\n1\n0\n2\n35\n8\n1\n0\n1\n6\n3\n0\n0\n1\n23\n1\n0\n0\n1\nthird\n30\n5\n0\n6\n5\n24\n6\n0\n0\n2\n3\n4\n0\n1\n2\n17\n2\n0\n0\n3\nfourth\n9\n8\n1\n1\n5\n14\n16\n0\n1\n5\n17\n8\n0\n2\n0\n15\n6\n1\n0\n8\nfifth\n30\n22\n1\n0\n6\n25\n39\n1\n0\n2\n31\n16\n0\n4\n2\n44\n19\n0\n3\n4\nsixth\n26\n11\n2\n1\n1\n11\n13\n0\n0\n2\n14\n7\n0\n1\n3\n18\n3\n0\n1\n0\nseventh\n1\n2\n0\n0\n0\n4\n1\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n1\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n163\n269\n35\n129\n82\n207\n288\n55\n118\n30\n105\n153\n22\n85\n44\n193\n142\n35\n59\n68\nFGE (%)\n18\n81\n94\n23\n69\n98\n24\n75\n26\n77","38\nAppendix Table 4.--continued.\nDate (Test Unit) and (series number)\n31 May (6B) (10)\n1 June (6B) (10)\n3 June (6B) (10)\n31 May (5B) (10)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n25\n176\n28\n71\n18\n21\n51\n19\n17\n21\n18\n9\n5\n0\n5\n18\n142\n18\n48\n20\n1 upper\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n13\n9\n1\n0\n1\n8\n0\n0\n0\n4\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n3\n0\n0\n1\n2 lower\n10\n6\n0\n0\n0\n17\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n18\n2\n0\n0\n2\nthird\n10\n3\n0\n0\n0\n9\n3\n0\n1\n2\n1\n1\n0\n0\n1\n14\n2\n0\n0\n1\nfourth\n10\n12\n0\n1\n2\n10\n4\n0\n1\n8\n1\n0\n0\n0\n1\n4\n3\n0\n1\n2\nfifth\n15\n16\n0\n2\n0\n38\n14\n0\n1\n2\n1\n2\n0\n0\n0\n8\n13\n1\n0\n1\nsixth\n10\n9\n0\n0\n1\n24\n1\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n5\n1\n1\n1\nseventh\n3\n1\n0\n0\n3\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n7\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n96\n232\n30\n74\n25\n131\n73\n19\n20\n41\n28\n12\n5\n0\n7\n74\n170\n20\n50\n28\nFGE (%)\n76\n16\n84\n1 June (5B) (10)\n3 June (5B) (10)\n24 June (5B) (12)\n25 June (5B) (12)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nGatewell\n38\n106\n36\n46\n25\n3\n13\n4\n1\n2\n197\n5\n1\n0\n2\n390\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n4\n2\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n11\n2\n0\n1\n3\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n13\n0\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n34\n2\n0\n0\n7\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n18\n0\n0\n0\n0\n18\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n3\n11\n1\n0\n3\n2\n1\n0\n0\n1\n14\n0\n0\n0\n0\n14\n0\n0\n1\n0\nfifth\n25\n19\n0\n1\n6\n2\n3\n0\n0\n1\n10\n1\n0\n0\n0\n18\n1\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n14\n9\n2\n1\n0\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n10\n1\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n5\n1\n0\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n134\n152\n40\n50\n45\n10\n20\n5\n1\n5\n253\n6\n1\n0\n2\n471\n3\n1\n2\n1\nFGE (%)\n28\n70\n78\n83\n26 June (5B) (12)\n27 June (5B) (12)\n28 June (5B) (12)\n29 June (5B) (12)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nSC YC ST CO SO\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n349\n0\n0\n0\n0\n328\n0\n0\n0\n0\n119\n0\n0\n0\n0\n110\n1\n0\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n18\n0\n0\n0\n0\n7\n0\n0\n0\n0\n7\n0\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n11\n0\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n8\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n18\n0\n0\n0\n0\n17\n0\n0\n0\n0\n11\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfifth\n20\n0\n0\n0\n0\n17\n0\n0\n0\n1\n25\n0\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n5\n0\n0\n0\n0\n11\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n5\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n412\n0\n0\n411\n0\n0\n1\n182\n0\n0\n0\n158\n1\n0\n0\n0\nFGE (%)\n85\n80\n65\n70","39\nAppendix Table 4.--Continued.\nDate (Test Unit) and (series number)\n24 June (6B) (12)\n25 June (6B) (12)\n26 June (6B) (12)\n27 June (6B) (12)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nGatewell\n82\n3\n0\n165\n1\n1\n1\n0\n481\n0\n240\n0\n0\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n3\n0\n0\n2 upper\n2\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n11\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n8\n0\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n11\n0\n0\n0\n8\n0\n0\n26\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n10\n0\n0\n0\n0\n16\n1\n0\n0\n39\n0\n0\n44\n0\n0\n0\nfifth\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n17\n0\n0\n0\n0\n29\n0\n0\n0\n47\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n1\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n10\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n1\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n107\n3\n223\n3\n1\n1\n0\n591\n395\n0\n0\n0\nFGE (%)\n77\n74\n81\n61\n28 June (6B) (12)\n29 June (6B) (12)\n30 June (6B) (12)\n1 July (6B) (12)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC\nSO\nGatewell\n87\n147\n0\n383\n0\n0\n0\n505\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n8\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n1\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n23\n0\n0\n0\n15\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n23\n0\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n18\n0\n0\n0\n0\n33\n0\n0\n0\n0\n26\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n16\n0\n0\n0\n0\n13\n0\n0\n48\n0\n0\n28\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfifth\n8\n0\n0\n20\n0\n0\n26\n0\n0\n0\n0\n47\n0\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n3\n0\n0\n0\n5\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n21\n0\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n1\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n8\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n126\n225\n534\n1\n686\n1\n0\n0\nFGE (%)\n69\n65\n72\n74\n2 July (6B) (12)\n8 July (6B) (13)\n9 July (6B) (13)\n10 July (6B) (13)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n817\n0\n1\n0\n0\n254\n145\n565\n5\n0\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n1 lower\n6\n1\n2\n0\n12\n0\n0\n2 upper\n33\n0\n0\n0\n0\n7\n1\n0\n0\n0\n5\n0\n0\n0\n16\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n37\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n21\n0\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n65\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n7\n0\n0\n0\n38\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n159\n0\n0\n0\n15\n0\n0\n0\n15\n0\n0\n79\n0\n0\n0\nfifth\n207\n0\n0\n0\n33\n0\n0\n0\n23\n0\n0\n86\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n62\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n5\n0\n0\n13\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n12\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n7\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n1398\n838\n5\n1\n0\n1\n329\n1\n0\n206\n0\n0\nFGE (%) 58\n77\n70\n67","40\nAppendix Table 4.--continued.\nDate (Test Unit) and (series number)\n11 July (6B) (13)\n12 July (6B) (13)\n13 July (6B) (13)\n14 July (6B) (13)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nSC YC ST CO SO\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n518\n0\n1482\n0\n117\n0\n0\n574\n0\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n11\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n18\n0\n0\n0\n0\n58\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n14\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n19\n0\n0\n0\n0\n53\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n11\n0\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n30\n0\n0\n0\n0\n60\n0\n0\n0\n0\n7\n0\n0\n0\n0\n40\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n37\n0\n0\n0\n0\n70\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n88\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfifth\n47\n0\n0\n0\n0\n66\n0\n0\n0\n0\n7\n0\n0\n0\n0\n84\n0\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n7\n0\n0\n0\n0\n31\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n19\n0\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n679\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1836\n0\n0\n0\n141\n0\n0\n0\n836\n0\n0\n0\n0\nFGE (%)\n76\n81\n83\n69\n16 July (6B) (14)\n17 July (6B) (14)\n18 July (6B) (14)\n21 July (6B) (14)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO SO\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n515\n0\n0\n0\n136\n0\n159\n3\n1\n0\n0\n674\n0\n0\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n1 lower\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n17\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n17\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n47\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n17\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n94\n0\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n40\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n39\n0\n0\n0\n0\n165\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n80\n0\n0\n0\n0\n11\n0\n0\n0\n0\n69\n0\n0\n0\n0\n276\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfifth\n70\n0\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n0\n0\n108\n0\n0\n0\n0\n358\n0\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n18\n0\n0\n0\n0\n5\n0\n0\n0\n0\n35\n0\n0\n0\n0\n123\n0\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n14\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n759\n0\n0\n0\n0\n172\n0\n0\n0\n0\n427\n3\n1\n0\n0\n1780\n0\n0\n1\n0\nFGE (%)\n68\n79\n37\n38\n22 July (6B) (14)\n23 July (6B) (14)\n24 July (6B) (14)\n25 July (6B) (14)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n137\n0\n0\n0\n0\n645\n0\n0\n0\n2\n292\n0\n0\n0\n0\n32\n0\n1 upper\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n1\n0\n0\n0\n5\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n28\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n13\n0\n0\n0\n0\n30\n0\n0\n0\n0\n17\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n14\n0\n0\n0\n0\n54\n0\n0\n0\n0\n47\n0\n0\n0\n0\n8\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n41\n0\n0\n0\n0\n83\n0\n0\n0\n0\n102\n0\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfifth\n44\n0\n0\n0\n0\n98\n0\n0\n0\n0\n104\n0\n0\n0\n0\n18\n0\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n8\n0\n0\n0\n0\n22\n0\n0\n0\n0\n30\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n271\n0\n0\n0\n0\n967\n0\n0\n2\n606\n0\n0\n85\n1\n0\n0\nFGE (%)\n51\n67\n48","41\nAppendix Table 4.--continued.\nDate (Test Unit) and (series number)\n30 June (5B) (12)\n1 July (5B) (12)\n2 July (5B) (12)\n8 July (5B) (13)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO SO\nSC YC ST CO SO\nSC YC ST CO so\nGatewell\n194\n0\n1\n479\n0\n1\n627\n0\n0\n243\n0\n0\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n2 upper\n7\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n0\n5\n0\n0\n2 lower\n24\n0\n0\n0\n0\n22\n0\n0\n0\n0\n18\n0\n0\n0\n15\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n26\n0\n0\n0\n0\n37\n0\n0\n0\n0\n43\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n23\n0\n0\n0\n0\n36\n0\n0\n0\n0\n70\n0\n0\n0\n0\n7\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfifth\n34\n0\n0\n0\n0\n36\n0\n0\n0\n0\n66\n0\n0\n0\n14\n0\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n11\n0\n0\n0\n0\n11\n0\n0\n0\n28\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n5\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\nTotal\n326\n0\n0\n1\n1\n634\n0\n0\n0\n866\n0\n0\n299\n0\n0\n0\n0\nFGE (%)\n60\n76\n72\n81\n9 July (5B) (13)\n10 July (5B) (13)\n11 July (5B) (13)\n12 July (5B) (13)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nGatewell\n232\n1\n0\n271\n1\n4\n0\n1\n498\n0\n0\n1054\n0\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n2\n0\n0\n0\n8\n1\n0\n0\n0\n14\n0\n0\n0\n28\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n2\n0\n0\n0\n11\n0\n0\n0\n0\n30\n0\n0\n0\n59\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n12\n0\n0\n0\n45\n0\n0\n0\n0\n52\n0\n0\n0\n82\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n19\n0\n0\n0\n66\n0\n0\n0\n0\n32\n0\n0\n0\n103\n0\n0\n0\nfifth\n20\n0\n0\n0\n0\n71\n0\n0\n0\n0\n39\n0\n0\n0\n80\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n5\n0\n0\n0\n16\n0\n0\n0\n0\n8\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n7\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n292\n1\n1\n0\n0\n488\n2\n4\n0\n1\n683\n0\n0\n1420\n0\n0\n0\nFGE (%)\n79\n56\n73\n74\n13 July (5B) (13)\n14 July (5B) (13)\n16 July (5B) (14)\n17 July (5B) (14)\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC YC ST CO so\nGatewell\n138\n0\n0\n0\n642\n1\n0\n0\n149\n0\n1\n0\n0\n35\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n13\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n25\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n12\n0\n0\n0\n74\n0\n0\n0\n0\n8\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n27\n0\n0\n0\n84\n0\n0\n0\n0\n25\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfifth\n21\n0\n0\n0\n91\n0\n0\n0\n0\n41\n0\n0\n0\n0\n7\n0\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n5\n0\n0\n0\n21\n0\n0\n0\n12\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n212\n0\n953\n1\n240\n0\n1\n0\n0\n45\n0\nFGE (%)\n65\n67\n62","42\nAppendix Table 4.--continued.\nDate (Test Unit) and (series number)\n18 July (5B) (14)\n21 July (5B) (14)\n22 July (5B) (14)\n23 July (5B) (14)\nSC YC ST CO SO\nLocation\nSC YC ST CO so\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n82\n0\n0\n0\n0\n442\n1\n0\n0\n0\n87\n0\n0\n0\n0\n798\n0\n0\n0\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n11\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n27\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n30\n0\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n8\n0\n0\n0\n0\n65\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\n93\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n26\n0\n0\n0\n0\n122\n0\n0\n0\n0\n26\n0\n0\n0\n0\n114\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfifth\n60\n0\n0\n0\n0\n231\n0\n0\n0\n0\n49\n0\n0\n0\n0\n168\n0\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n34\n0\n0\n0\n0\n71\n0\n0\n0\n0\n21\n0\n0\n0\n0\n57\n0\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n218\n0\n0\n0\n0\n950\n1\n0\n0\n0\n205\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1287\n0\n0\n0\n0\nFGE (%)\n38\n47\n42\n62\n24 July (5B) (14)\n25 July (5B) (14)\nLocation\nSC\nSC YC ST CO so\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n177\n0\n0\n0\n0\n14\n1\n0\n0\n1 upper\n0\n0\n0,\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1 lower\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 upper\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2 lower\n6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\nthird\n31\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfourth\n57\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\nfifth\n94\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n0\n0\n0\n0\nsixth\n42\n0\n0\n0\n0\n7\n0\n0\n0\n0\nseventh\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTotal\n412\n0\n0\n0\n0\n39\n1\n0\n0\n0\nFGE (%)\n43\nSC=Subyearling chinook salmon\nYC=Yearling chinook salmon\nST=Steelhead\nCO=Coho salmon\nSO=Sockeye salmon","43\nAppendix Table 5.--Descaling data from FGE and descaling tests at McNary Dam, 1991 (Total\ngatewell/Total descaled).\nUnit 4, Slot B\nTest\nSubyearling\nYearling\ndate\nchinook\nchinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\n01 May\n6/0\n228/19\n154/5\n4/0\n105/8\n02 May\n2/0\n414/23\n248/6\n6/0\n119/9\n03 May\n23/0\n496/32\n154/9\n6/0\n102/4\n04 May\n4/0\n419/37\n170/12\n4/0\n73/1\n05 May\n17/0\n551/32\n145/11\n2/0\n56/0\n08 May\n0/0\n218/17\n240/15\n24/1\n11/1\n09 May\n2/0\n312/27\n499/44\n13/0\n26/3\n10 May\n2/0\n233/14\n134/7\n13/1\n43/0\n11 May\n5/0\n173/18\n312/20\n12/0\n90/1\n12 May\n4/0\n268/28\n203/18\n22/2\n98/11\n13 May\n3/0\n715/45\n621/44\n30/0\n145/17\n17 May\n17/2\n180/21\n192/7\n19/1\n291/118\n18 May\n8/0\n160/20\n230/7\n13/2\n197/114\n19 May\n6/0\n204/18\n186/4\n7/0\n183/21\n20 May\n6/0\n599/41\n388/31\n51/4\n258/40\n21 May\n18/1\n521/132\n357/39\n51/6\n221/60\n22 May\n10/1\n89/15\n114/11\n16/0\n12/1\n23 May\n7/0\n129/21\n82/4\n35/4\n21/4\n24 May\n4/2\n97/15\n47/7\n22/1\n9/5\n28 May\n196/2\n210/13\n52/5\n124/6\n27/5\n29 May\n31/2\n196/27\n24/2\n83/9\n25/16\n30 May\n21/1\n264/63\n71/9\n135/34\n72/48\n31 May\n40/4\n166/25\n36/6\n44/1\n19/6\n1 June\n59/7\n238/39\n42/4\n50/9\n63/37\n3 June\n6/0\n13/1\n8/1\n4/1\n13/3\n24 June\n146/2\n2/0\n1/0\n2/0\n-\n25 June\n270/8\n1/0\n2/1\n1/0\n-\n26 June\n588/18\n2/0\n1/0\n4/1\n-\n27 June\n227/3\n1/1\n-\n-\n-\n28 June\n187/6\n1/0\n-\n-\n-\n29 June\n103/5\n1/0\n-\n-\n-\n30 June\n365/12\n1/0\n-\n-\n-\n01 July\n558/21\n1/1\n-\n-\n-\n02 July\n213/4\n-\n-\n-\n-","44\nAppendix Table 5.--Continued.\nUnit 4, Slot B\nTest\nSubyearling\nYearling\ndate\nchinook\nchinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\n08 July\n373/15\n1/1\n1/0\n-\n-\n09 July\n290/11\n1/0\n1/1\n-\n-\n10 July\n177/22\n2/2\n-\n-\n-\n11 July\n203/9\n1/1\n1/0\n-\n-\n12 July\n513/17\n-\n-\n-\n-\n13 July\n247/15\n1/0\n-\n-\n-\n14 July\n739/41\n1/0\n-\n-\n-\n16 July\n245/14\n2/2\n-\n-\n-\n17 July\n141/6\n-\n-\n-\n-\n18 July\n73/4\n-\n-\n-\n-\n21 July\n455/32\n-\n-\n-\n-\n22 July\n251/6\n5/0\n-\n-\n-\n23 July\n599/16\n-\n-\n-\n-\n24 July\n139/2\n-\n-\n-\n-\n25 July\n24/4\n-\n-\n-\n-\nUnit 5, Slot A\nTest\nSubyearling\nYearling\ndate\nchinook\nchinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\n29 April\n72/29\n93/13\n3/0\n43/21\n-\n08 May\n1/0\n141/15\n182/29\n21/1\n28/6\n09 May\n257/44\n296/37\n18/4\n34/13\n-\n10 May\n3/0\n218/28\n206/23\n20/2\n49/2\n106/16\n4/1\n26/2\n11 May\n1/0\n95/10\n12 May\n1/1\n191/45\n103/16\n23/2\n37/4\n13 May\n3/1\n284/50\n273/27\n20/2\n113/21","45\nAppendix Table 5.-Continued.\nUnit 5, Slot B\nTest\nSubyearling\nYearling\ndate\nchinook\nchinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\n22 April\n127/24\n41/1\n2/1\n-\n-\n23 April\n71/22\n98/7\n4/2\n-\n-\n25 April\n40/4\n134/6\n2/0\n24/19\n-\n27 April\n25/4\n35/1\n2/0\n10/9\n-\n28 April\n1/0\n41/6\n64/10\n4/1\n23/17\n29 April\n53/11\n109/11\n2/0\n37/16\n-\n30 April\n1/0\n46/11\n102/7\n2/0\n30/9\n01 May\n38/7\n156/6\n21/7\n-\n-\n02 May\n4/0\n68/10\n140/8\n4/0\n30/5\n03 May\n1/0\n268/61\n238/18\n42/12\n-\n04 May\n1/0\n283/50\n149/12\n10/2\n48/10\n05 May\n4/0\n209/33\n95/6\n8/0\n11/4\n08 May\n1/0\n174/36\n246/26\n22/4\n33/13\n09 May\n1/0\n152/23\n232/13\n14/1\n27/9\n10 May\n4/0\n160/20\n195/16\n13/2\n36/1\n11 May\n2/0\n179/33\n152/17\n8/1\n94/19\n12 May\n3/0\n312/45\n150/16\n14/1\n81/22\n13 May\n3/0\n163/21\n158/15\n13/1\n84/12\n17 May\n14/0\n244/17\n60/3\n23/1\n502/163\n18 May\n4/0\n222/45\n212/8\n23/3\n393/235\n19 May\n8/0\n243/21\n247/23\n26/3\n515/203\n20 May\n5/0\n540/45\n231/17\n43/3\n229/68\n21 May\n15/0\n781/94\n226/20\n60/9\n205/61\n22 May\n6/0\n72/8\n4/2\n29/3\n18/6\n23 May\n6/0\n146/18\n110/13\n48/8\n23/10\n24 May\n9/0\n92/9\n60/6\n33/4\n45/14\n28 May\n103/5\n420/27\n68/9\n132/8\n9/2\n29 May\n35/0\n117/14\n16/5\n52/5\n34/10\n30 May\n30/1\n219/22\n30/4\n121/14\n60/23\n31 May\n18/0\n142/19\n18/2\n48/3\n20/5\n01 June\n38/1\n106/14\n36/4\n46/5\n25/15\n03 June\n3/0\n13/1\n4/1\n1/0\n2/1\n24 June\n197/19\n5/1\n1/0\n2/0\n-\n25 June\n390/42\n1/1\n1/0\n1/0\n1/0\n26 June\n349/24\n-\n-\n-\n-\n27 June\n328/18\n-\n-\n-\n-\n28 June\n119/18\n-\n-\n-\n-\n29 June\n110/6\n1/0\n-\n-\n-\n30 June\n194/26\n-\n-\n-\n-\n1/1\n01 July\n479/38\n-\n-\n-\n02 July\n627/55\n-\n-\n-\n-","46\nAppendix Table 5.--Continued.\nUnit 5, Slot B\nTest\nSubyearling\nYearling\ndate\nchinook\nchinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\n08 July\n243/12\n-\n-\n-\n-\n09 July\n232/30\n1/0\n1/1\n-\n-\n10 July\n271/65\n1/0\n4/2\n1/1\n-\n11 July\n498/50\n-\n-\n-\n-\n12 July\n1054/125\n-\n-\n-\n-\n13 July\n138/16\n-\n-\n-\n-\n14 July\n642/72\n1/0\n-\n-\n-\n16 July\n149/15\n1/1\n-\n-\n-\n17 July\n2/35\n-\n-\n-\n-\n18 July\n82/4\n-\n-\n-\n-\n21 July\n442/70\n1/1\n-\n-\n-\n22 July\n87/5\n-\n-\n-\n-\n23 July\n798/117\n-\n-\n-\n-\n24 July\n177/30\n-\n-\n-\n-\n25 July\n14/3\n1/0\n-\n-\n-\nUnit 6, Slot A\nTest\nSubyearling\nYearling\ndate\nchinook\nchinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\n22 May\n4/0\n142/16\n82/2\n30/1\n23/5\n23 May\n6/0\n140/27\n100/7\n55/7\n40/11\n24 May\n12/0\n51/20\n80/7\n51/2\n70/27","47\nAppendix Table 5.-Continued.\nUnit 6, Slot B\nTest\nSubyearling\nYearling\ndate\nchinook\nchinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\n22 April\n156/28\n39/1\n-\n1/0\n3/1\n23 April\n45/5\n66/4\n-\n2/0\n1/0\n25 April\n37/2\n92/2\n1/0\n-\n10/1\n30 April\n2/0\n45/6\n60/1\n2/0\n25/3\n01 May\n1/0\n68/8\n147/7\n2/0\n27/7\n02 May\n3/0\n111/9\n92/7\n37/3\n-\n03 May\n6/0\n238/31\n281/15\n46/6\n-\n04 May\n2/0\n248/35\n174/11\n5/0\n82/2\n05 May\n2/0\n236/28\n119/4\n4/0\n26/3\n17 May\n10/0\n269/25\n128/1\n14/0\n759/154\n18 May\n1/1\n269/24\n228/7\n26/3\n552/217\n19 May\n6/0\n253/15\n208/7\n15/1\n381/79\n20 May\n4/0\n361/32\n190/11\n44/3\n245/51\n21 May\n8/0\n511/75\n127/11\n52/2\n176/56\n22 May\n10/0\n149/21\n99/6\n34/1\n31/9\n23 May\n5/0\n134/13\n96/6\n39/4\n32/18\n24 May\n3/0\n127/12\n115/8\n49/5\n75/44\n28 May\n48/1\n200/8\n52/4\n116/11\n16/2\n29 May\n25/0\n114/15\n22/3\n77/16\n35/18\n30 May\n50/0\n109/9\n33/2\n54/5\n49/12\n31 May\n25/1\n176/29\n28/5\n71/9\n18/6\n01 June\n21/3\n51/2\n19/2\n17/0\n21/12\n03 June\n18/0\n9/1\n5/0\n5/1\n-\n24 June\n82/4\n3/3\n-\n-\n-\n25 June\n165/6\n1/0\n1/0\n1/0\n-\n26 June\n481/12\n-\n-\n-\n-\n27 June\n240/9\n-\n-\n-\n-\n28 June\n87/2\n-\n-\n-\n-\n29 June\n147/7\n-\n-\n-\n-\n30 June\n383/19\n1/0\n-\n-\n-\n01 July\n505/22\n1/0\n-\n-\n-\n02 July\n817/18\n1/1\n-\n-\n-\n08 July\n254/5\n-\n-\n-\n-\n09 July\n145/11\n-\n-\n-\n-\n10 July\n565/33\n5/0\n1/1\n-\n-\n11 July\n518/46\n-\n-\n-\n-\n12 July\n1482/95\n-\n-\n-\n-\n13 July\n117/13\n-\n-\n-\n-\n14 July\n574/30\n-","48\nAppendix Table 5.-Continued.\nUnit 6, Slot B\nTest\nSubyearling\nYearling\ndate\nchinook\nchinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\n16 July\n515/39\n-\n-\n-\n-\n17 July\n136/4\n-\n-\n-\n-\n18 July\n159/10\n3/0\n1/0\n-\n-\n21 July\n674/60\n1/0\n-\n-\n-\n22 July\n137/18\n-\n-\n-\n-\n23 July\n645/75\n2/1\n-\n-\n-\n24 July\n292/27\n-\n-\n-\n-\n25 July\n32/3\n1/0\n-\n-\n-\nUnit 6, Slot C\nTest\nSubyearling\nYearling\ndate\nchinook\nchinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\n17 May\n2/0\n87/8\n42/0\n2/0\n231/35\n18 May\n2/0\n112/8\n94/5\n8/0\n164/48\n19 May\n106/7\n68/4\n15/0\n135/1\n-\n20 May\n140/5\n61/4\n18/1\n110/3\n-\n21 May\n4/0\n167/15\n62/4\n27/1\n124/19\nUnit 7, Slot B\nTest\nSubyearling\nYearling\ndate\nchinook\nchinook\nSteelhead\nCoho\nSockeye\n27 April\n4/0\n1104/54\n217/11\n1/0\n45/8\n28 April\n223/14\n237/19\n13/0\n70/9\n-\n29 April\n1/0\n216/27\n390/32\n11/0\n159/18\n30 April\n1/0\n194/15\n172/15\n6/0\n131/7\n01 May\n5/0\n207/10\n216/5\n2/0\n137/6\n02 May\n8/0\n485/37\n208/17\n2/0\n186/4\n03 May\n1/0\n552/32\n156/15\n5/0\n96/4\n4/0\n58/1\n04 May\n13/0\n424/44\n113/6\n89/2\n05 May\n8/0\n818/54\n207/14\n2/0\n82/14\n22 May\n13/0\n468/49\n248/22\n52/2\n23 May\n18/1\n223/19\n147/9\n54/4\n46/11\n103/10\n101/6\n86/57\n24 May\n5/1\n134/21\n92/7\n31/2\n28 May\n300/5\n305/9\n49/4\n29 May\n72/1\n122/9\n35/2\n79/6\n31/9\n19/3\n30/3\n42/8\n30 May\n48/0\n76/9\n108/8\n51/7\n31 May\n94/1\n354/33\n46/10\n12/4\n16/3\n13/6\n01 June\n60/1\n72/14\n5/0\n5/2\n1/1\n5/0\n02 June\n11/0","49\nAppendix Table 6.--Gill Na+-K+ ATPase (umol Pj . Prot-1 . h-1 data for yearling chinook\nsalmon from vertical distribution and FGE tests at McNary Dam,\n1991.\nDate Statistic Gatewell\nFyke-net row\nAll nets\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\ncombined\n26 Apr\n29.1\nX\n25.5\nSD\n12.34\n6.30\n9\nn\n4\n27 Apr\nx\n29.3\n20.8\nSD\n10.87\n7.94\n20\nn\n8\n28 Apr\nx\n27.9\n26.4\nSD\n10.43\n11.46\n20\nn\n9\n28 May\nX\n27.6\n15.6\n30.7\n26.7\n35.9\n30.0\n29.3\n30.9\nSD\n10.25\n1.34\n8.80\n8.41\n9.00\n8.40\n6.55\n8.81\n20\n2\n8\n5\n19\n19\n16\n0\n69\nn\n29 May\nx\n24.0\n26.8\nSD\n10.95\n8.02\n20\n16\nn\n30 May\nx\n27.7\n24.2\nSD\n11.74\n10.09\n20\n20\nn","50\nAppendix Table 7.--Gill Na+-K+ ATPase (umol Pi i Prot-1 h-1 data for subyearling\nchinook salmon from FGE tests at McNary Dam, 1991.\nDate Statistic Gatewell\nFyke-net row\nAll nets\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\ncombined\n24 Jun\nX\n32.4\n33.1\nSD\n4.34\n6.51\n20\nn\n20\n25 Jun\nx\n37.3\n36.3\n30.8\n32.8\n34.3\n34.2\n38.3\n33.9\nSD\n5.33\n3.67\n4.88\n6.68\n5.67\n7.93\n0.85\n5.62\n19\n0\n15\n13\n11\nn\n19\n5\n2\n65\n26 Jun\nx\n34.8\n34.2\nSD\n6.13\n4.15\n20\nn\n20\n30 Jun\nx\n36.8\n37.1\nSD\n8.69\n7.68\n20\nn\n20\n1 Jul\nx\n31.7\n31.7\n22.9\n28.4\n25.2\n30.2\n21.4\n27.0\nSD\n7.89\n4.77\n4.42\n6.92\n4.16\n4.62\n7.81\n6.15\n20\n0\n19\n20\nn\n20\n20\n8\n4\n91\n2 Jul\nx\n37.8\n32.2\nSD\n7.79\n6.08\n20\nn\n20\n16 Jul\nx\n46.9\n46.3\nSD\n6.29\n8.51\n20\nn\n20\n17 Jul\nX\n41.2\n38.6\nSD\n5.87\n6.10\n20\nn\n5\nLibrary\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center\n2725 Montlake Blvd. E\nSeattle, WA 98112"]}