Laboratory Evaluation of Hydrolox Screens

December 2006

Prepared By:

Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. 30 Shrewsbury Street Holden, MA 01520

Prepared For:

Intralox Inc. 201 Laitram Lane Harahan, Louisiana 70123i Table of Contents

Abstract.......................................................................................................................

.................... v
Introduction...................................................................................................................

.................. 1 Experimental Design............................................................................................................

........... 2

Procedures.....................................................................................................................

.................. 2 Fish Holding Facility ..........................................................................................................

........ 2 Fish Marking...................................................................................................................

............ 3 Test Procedures................................................................................................................

........... 3 Statistical Analysis...........................................................................................................

............... 5 Interpreting the Sta tistical Analysis..........................................................................................

.. 6

Results........................................................................................................................

..................... 8

Golden Shiner ..................................................................................................................

........... 8 Mortality ......................................................................................................................

........... 8 Injury.........................................................................................................................

.............. 8 Scale Loss .....................................................................................................................

.......... 8 Common Carp....................................................................................................................

....... 12 Mortality ......................................................................................................................

......... 12 Injury.........................................................................................................................

............ 12 Scale Loss .....................................................................................................................

........ 12 Bluegill.......................................................................................................................

............... 15 Mortality ......................................................................................................................

......... 16 Injury.........................................................................................................................

............ 16 Scale Loss .....................................................................................................................

........ 16 Striped Bass ...................................................................................................................

........... 20 Mortality ......................................................................................................................

......... 20 Injury.........................................................................................................................

............ 20 Scale Loss .....................................................................................................................

........ 21 Channel Catfish................................................................................................................

......... 24 Mortality ......................................................................................................................

......... 24 Injury.........................................................................................................................

............ 24 Summary........................................................................................................................

............... 27

References.....................................................................................................................

................ 28ii List of Tables

Table 1 Total Number of Golden Shiner Live and Dead, Percent Mortality, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition ............................................................................................................

... 9 Table 2 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimat es for the Model of Mortality for Golden Shiner .........................................................................................................................

............. 9 Table 3 Total Number of Golden Shiner Inju red and Not Injured, Percent Injury, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition............................................................................................ 10 Table 4 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Model of Injury for Golden Shiner

............................................................................................................................... ................ 10 Table 5 Summary of Scale Loss Categories and M ean Length by Velocity Treatment for Golden Shiner .........................................................................................................................

........... 11 Table 6 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimat es for the Scale Loss Regression Model for Golden Shiner ..................................................................................................................

..... 12 Table 7 Total Number of Common Carp Live an d Dead, Percent Mortality, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition ............................................................................................................

. 13 Table 8 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimat es for the Model of Mortality for Common Carp...........................................................................................................................

............ 13 Table 9 Total Number of Common Carp Injure d and Not Injured, Percent Injury, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition............................................................................................ 14 Table 10 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimat es for the Model of Injury for Common Carp

............................................................................................................................... ................ 14 Table 11 Summary of Scale Loss Categories a nd Mean Length by Velocity Treatment for Common Carp....................................................................................................................

... 15 Table 12 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimat es for the Scale Loss Regression Model for Common Carp....................................................................................................................

... 15 Table 13 Total Number of Bluegill Live and Dead, Percent Mortality, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition ............................................................................................................

. 17 Table 14 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Model of Mortality for Bluegill . 17 Table 15 Total Number of Bluegill Injured and No t Injured, Percent Injury, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition ............................................................................................................

. 18 Table 16 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimat es for the Model of Injury for Bluegill....... 18 Table 17 Summary of Scale Loss Categories a nd Mean Length by Velocity Treatment for Bluegill.......................................................................................................................

........... 19 Table 18 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimat es for the Scale Loss Regression Model for Bluegill.......................................................................................................................

........... 20 Table 19 Total Number of Striped Bass Live an d Dead, Percent Mortality, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition ............................................................................................................

. 21 Table 20 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimat es for the Model of Mortality for Striped Bass ...........................................................................................................................

............ 22 Table 21 Total Number of Striped Bass Injure d and Not Injured, Percent Injury, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition............................................................................................ 22 Table 22 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Model of Injury for Striped Bass 22 Table 23 Summary of Scale Loss Categories and Mean Length by Ve locity Treatment for Striped Bass ...........................................................................................................................

............ 23iii Table 24 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimat es for the Scale Loss Regression Model for Striped Bass ...................................................................................................................

....... 24 Table 25 Total Number of Channel Catfish Live and Dead, Percent Mortality, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition ........................................................................................................ 25 Table 26 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimat es for the Model of Mortality for Channel Catfish ........................................................................................................................

........... 25 Table 27 Total Number of Channel Catfish Inju red and Not Injured, Percent Injury, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition............................................................................................ 26 Table 28 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Model of Injury for Channel Catfish ........................................................................................................................

........... 26 Table 29 Summary of Mortality Rates by Treatment Condition .................................................. 27 Table 30 Summary of Injury Rates by Treatment Condition ....................................................... 27 Table 31 Summary of Scale Loss Rates by Treatment Condition................................................ 28iv List of Figures

Figure 1 Hydrolox Screen Insta lled in Fish Testing Flume............................................................ 1 Figure 2 Hydrolox Screening Material ........................................................................................... 1 Figure 3 Fish Holding Facility – Alden Research Laboratory........................................................ 3 Figure 4 Steps Used in Interpreting the Hierarchi cal Results of the Logistic Regression Models. 7 Figure 5 Histogram of Golden Shiner Fork Lengths ...................................................................... 9 Figure 6 Distribution of Injury Types among Injured Golden Shiner .......................................... 11 Figure 7 Histogram of Co mmon Carp Fork Lengths.................................................................... 13 Figure 8 Distribution of Injury Types among Injured Common Carp.......................................... 14 Figure 9 Histogram of Bl uegill Fork Lengths............................................................................... 17 Figure 10 Distribution of Injury Types among Bluegill ............................................................... 19 Figure 11 Histogram of St riped Bass Fork Lengths ..................................................................... 21 Figure 12 Distribution of Injury Types among Striped Bass........................................................ 23 Figure 13 Histogram of Cha nnel Catfish Fork Lengths................................................................ 25 Figure 14 Distribution of Injury Types among Channel Catfish .................................................. 26Hydrolox Screen Testing

v A BSTRACT

The modified traveling water screen is a fish protection technology optio n being considered by many thermal power generating facilities to reduce the mortality of juvenile and adult fish in compliance with Clean Water Act §316(b). The Hydrolox traveling screen is one type of modified screen that is being developed for this application at cooling wate r intake structures.

The mortality, injury, and scale loss rates of five species of freshwater fish impinged and recovered with a Hydrolox screen were evaluated in the laboratory. Sp ecies tested included: golden shiner ( Notemigonus crysoleucas ), common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ), bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ), striped bass ( Morone saxatilis ), and channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ). Fish were impinged at 1 or 2 ft/s velocity. During test ing, the screen was rotated at either 5 ft/min or 10 ft/min. Mortality, injury, and scale loss rates were generally lo w. For four of five species (golden shiner, common carp, bluegi ll, and channel catfish), mortal ity rates were less than 10% and, for most treatment conditions, were under 5% . Striped bass mortality was higher; however, control mortality was also higher, indicating that this population wa s sensitive to handling stress. Much of the mortality was likely not a direct re sult of exposure to Hydrolox screens. Observed rates of injury and scale loss were also low.Hydrolox Screen Testing

1 I NTRODUCTION
From July 24 to August 29, Alden Research La boratory (Alden) conducte d tests of a Hydrolox screen to determine its ability to collect and transfer fish with low mortality. Results are presented herein for golden shiner ( Notemigonus crysoleucas ), common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ), bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ), striped bass ( Morone saxatilis ), and channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ). Tests were conducted in Alden’s Fish Testing Flume us ing a 4 ft wide by 12 ft high, fully operational Hydrolox screen installed perpe ndicular to the flow ( Figure 1). Screening material was made of molded plastic w ith slot openings of 0.25 in. × 0.30 in. ( Figure 2).

Figure 1 Hydrolox Screen Installed in Fish Testing Flume

Figure 2 Hydrolox Screening MaterialHydrolox Screen Testing

2 E XPERIMENTAL D ESIGN

The survival, injury, and scale loss of fish following impingement on a Hydrolox belt screen were evaluated. Five species of fish were impinge d at two approach veloci ties (1 and 2 ft/s) and two screen rotation speeds (5 and 10 ft/min). Fo r each species, 12 test rep licates (2 velocities × 2 screen speeds × 3 replicates of each condition) were collected. A randomized treatment design was used. On each day of testing, three, 2- hour treatments and one control replicate were conducted. Control replicates were used to sepa rate mortality associated with handling (removal from holding facility, marking, c ounting into test groups, and intr oduction to and removal from the test flume) and natural mortality from mort ality imparted by fish interactions with the screening system.

P ROCEDURES

Fish Holding Facility

The fish holding facility consisted of a 20,820- liter (5,500-gallon) reci rculating system ( Figure 3). Fish were held in one of eight cylindrical tanks, which drain into a central pool. Water was pumped through water treatment filters before re turning to the holding tanks and completing the loop. Bag filters and an activated charcoal filter were used to re move particulates (solid waste material and other impurities). An ultraviolet light sterilizer and a fluidi zed bed (sand) bio-filter were used to control bacteria and soluble waste products. The holding facility was equipped with a five ton chiller to ma intain water temperatures. Dissolved oxygen, temperature, and salinity were monitored. Salinity levels were maintained at approximately 5 ppt to reduce the occurrence of fungal growth comm on in freshwater aquaculture sy stems. Hardness, alkalinity, and ammonia levels were monitored weekly and chemically adjusted as needed. It was not possible to control temperatures within the testin g facility, so holding fac ility temperatures were maintained within 2 ° C of the testing facility.

A circular flow pattern was maintained in the fish holding tanks to keep fish active and reduce contact with the tank walls that could cause scale loss. Fish we re fed age-, size-, and speciesspecific diets, which included dried brine shrimp, live Artemia sp., and solid commercially available fish chow. Fish physiology and behavior were qualitatively assessed daily to screen for external signs of disease, f ungus, or infection by parasites.Hydrolox Screen Testing

3 Figure 3 Fish Holding Facility – Alden Research Laboratory

Fish Marking

Fish in each release group were marked to allow their identification after recovery and to verify when they were released. At least 24 hours prio r to testing, 300 treatment and 100 control fish (per species) were marked with dye. Compressed CO 2 was used to inject biologically inert, micro-encapsulated, photonic dye at the base of individual fins. Four colors and three fin locations were used that provi ded 12 unique marks, so that eac h combination of color and fin location was used once per week.

Test Procedures

Tests were conducted in the following way:

1. The screen rotation speed and approach veloc ity were set. The isolation screen that confined fish to the traveling sc reen area was lowered into place.

2. During testing, observations of fish behavi or were recorded using a tripod-mounted, hand-held, video camera focused through a gla ss viewing window in the side of the test flume. The first 15 minute period of most replicates was vi deotaped for potential future analysis.

3. When conducting a treatment replicate, 100 fi sh of each species were introduced just upstream of the screen in the test enclosure.Hydrolox Screen Testing

4 4. Impinged fish were washed from the screen into the fish collection trough. At set intervals of 15, 60, and 120 minut es after introduc tion to the flume, the fish were sluiced into a collection buc ket located at the discharg e of the return trough.

5. When conducting a control replicate, 100 mark ed fish of each species were released into the fish return trough. Once the fish we re oriented to the fl ow, they were sluiced into the collection bucket.

6. Immediately following each collection, fish were observed and assigned to one of three categories:

a. Live fish – swimming normally with no signs of injury, apparent orientation problem, or abnormal behavior. b. Stunned fish – struggling; swimming on si de; floating belly-up but alive; and, bleeding or the presence of wounds, mi ssing body parts, severe abrasions or lacerations.

c. Dead fish – no vital signs, no body or opercular movement, no response to gentle probing.

7. Live and stunned fish were held in net pens in the fish holding facility to assess latent impingement mortality (LIM).

8. Following the 120 minute collection, a mechan ical crowder was raised to move fish that were still swimming upstream of the scr een into the screen buckets. Velocity in the flume was raised to 2 ft/s to facilitate the removal of larger fish.

9. Fish that were entrained through the screen or bypassed the fish re turn during transfer were collected in a downstream collection net once per day at the end of testing, enumerated, and fork lengths (FL) measured to the nearest millimeter.

10. At the end of each collection event, any fish recovered from the fish return trough (treatment or control replicate) were transferred back to th e holding facility, placed in individually marked net pens, and held for LIM assessment.

11. LIM was monitored at 24- and 48-hours fo llowing impingement. At the end of 48- hours, all fish were killed and examined for external injuries and percent scale loss. External injuries were recorded by type: bruising/hemorrhaging, lacerations, severed body, eye damage, etc. Using methods simila r to those reported by Neitzel et al. (1985) and Basham et al. (1982), percen t scale loss (< 3%, 3–20%, 20–40%, and > 40%) was recorded along the length of the body. All fish were measured for fork length to the nearest millimeter. Any fish unable to maintain equilibrium at 48-hours after testing was considered dead.Hydrolox Screen Testing

5 S TATISTICAL A NALYSIS

Analysis was conducted on those fish that were impinged and recovered from the fish return system. Entrained fish (i.e., those recovere d in the downstream collection net) were not analyzed. In addition, fish collected in subs equent trials, which were exposed to multiple velocities and crowding events, were not included in the statistical analysis. Data were analyzed by logistic regression using SAS software (SAS Inst. 1999), as outlined below.

Five possible independent variab les were analyzed to determine their potential to impact mortality, injury and scale loss:

1. approach velocity 2. screen rotation speed 3. collection time (15, 60, and 120 minutes after introduction and crowded fish) 4. observation time (initial , 24-hours, and 48-hours) 5. fork length

Preliminary logistic regression models contained all five variables. However, the impingement responses were not sufficiently distributed ove r two of these variable s (collection time and observation time) to allow a simultaneous analysis. In the case of collection time, fish tended to remain upstream of the screen until crowding at 1.0 ft/s. Conversely, at 2.0 ft/s, the majority of fish tended to be impinged and collected duri ng the first 15 minutes. Thus, for any given velocity, the majority of fish fell into only one collection category. Similarly, very little mortality was observed during the in itial and 24-hour observation peri ods. In all cases, this lack of differentiation between colle ction times and observation times prevented the logistic regression models from convergi ng on reliable estimates. Ther efore, the model design was reduced to include only velocity and fork length as variables. These logis tic regression analyses for mortality and injury were implemented usi ng the Logistic Procedure of the SAS software system (SAS Inst. 1999).

The analysis for scale loss was based on an extens ion of logistic regression to a multiple category response variable (McCullagh and Nelder 1989) wh ere the scale loss catego ries were strictly ordered: 1 = <3%; 2 = 3–20%; 3 = 20–40%; 4 = > 40%. For each treatment, the distribution of observations among the categories can be viewed as a cumulative distribution. The probabilities predicted by the model are the cumulative proba bilities of the scale loss categories : p1 = Pr(<=1) = Pr( = 1); p2 = Pr(<=2 ) = Pr( = 1 or 2); p3 = Pr(<=3 ) = Pr( = 1, 2 or 3); and p4 = Pr(<=4) = Pr( = 1, 2, 3 or 4) = 1.0. Note that p4 is by definition 1.0 and so the model need only predict the first three probabilities. The standard logistic model was formulated for each of these three probabilities:Hydrolox Screen Testing

6 

### ⎭ ⎬ ⎫ ⎩ ⎨ ⎧ + + + + +

= )) 2(L 1 0 ( e 1 )) 2(L 1 0 ( e p k j i k j i ijk 

# / β β β β β β

where:



### p ijk = cumulative probability i, for treatment j, for fish k. β

0 i = an intercept value for the first three scale loss categories, i = 1, 2, 3. β

1 j = a parameter for each velocity, j = 1, 2, 3. The control is modeled by the intercept and this parameter models the o ffset from the control for each velocity
treatment. β

2 = a coefficient for the effect of length. L k = fork length of fish k.

In this model, the term β 0 models the increase in probability from one cumulative probability to the next, and the β 1 term models a shift of the cumu lative distribution from one velocity treatment to the next. This feature causes the predicted probabilities for one velocity treatment to be proportional to the predicted pr obabilities for another. That is, there is a constant odds ratio across scale loss categories between a pair of velocity treatmen ts. For this reas on, this model is sometimes called the "pr oportional odds model."

Interpreting the Statistical Analysis

Species-specific results of the logistic regressions are presen ted in the following sections by species. There are separate discussions for each metric of performance (mortality, injury, and scale loss). Within each discussion of performance there are two statistical tables. The first table gives the raw frequencies and summary statis tics by treatment condition and the second table gives a summary of logistic regression results. In some cases, there were too few mortalities, injuries, or scale loss to perfor m a meaningful logistic regressi on. This should be considered a positive affirmation of good screen performance.

The first table is straight-forward and gives the fr equency of live, dead (o r injured, not injured, or level of scale loss), and total r ecovered for each velocity and rota tion, as well as percent dead or injured and mean length. The second table fo r each species summarizes various estimates obtained from the logistic regressi on analyses. The first row(s) s hows the intercept of the model, which is generally not of interest but is given for completeness. The next set of rows give estimates of the difference in logits between tr eatment conditions velocity and screen rotation speed and the control. The last three rows report: 1) the cumulativ e chi-square for all treatments; 2) the coefficient of the covariate Fork Length; and 3) the cumulative chi-square for the full model (velocity, screen rotation treatments and fork length). In some cases, there was too little mortality or too few injuries fo r a successful logistic regress (i .e., the model failed to converge on a reliable estimate).

The logistic regression models are hierarchical . A flow diagram showing the steps described below is shown in Figure 4. To interpret the significance of each component of the model (pvalue), one would start by looking at the full model (l ast row in each table). If the p-value for the full model was >0.05 then the model failed to conv erge on a reliable estimate and the fork lengthHydrolox Screen Testing

7 and velocity and rotation components of the mode l were not significant regardless of their pvalue. By contrast, if the p-valu e of the full model was significant ( P< 0.05), then the model converged upon a reliable estimate and it was appropriate to look at the velocity/rotation treatment and fork length components individually. A similar method would be used to look at the individual components of the model (see Figure 4).

The scale loss regression tables are slightly di fferent from those for injury and mortality. A positive coefficient of the estimated value means the probability in the lower levels of scale loss increase while a negative coefficient means the proba bility of lower levels of scale loss decreases and thus probability in the higher categories increases.

Because these are cumulative probabilities, th e intercept terms star t negative and get progressively larger indicating increasing probability. Cumulative probability moving toward levels of greater scale loss must increase, because each cumulative probability includes the probability of the level of scale loss below.

Velocity/Rotation not significant Velocity/ Rotation

Effects

is p ≤ 0.05?

yes no Model

is p ≤ 0.05? Model is not significant no

yes

Length

is p ≤ 0.05? Length is not significant no

Length is significant yes

Individual Comparisons

1 ft/s - 5 ft/min vs. control 2 ft/s - 5 ft/min vs. control 1 ft/s - 10 ft/min vs. control

is p ≤ 0.05? Individual Velocity/ Rotation is Significant Individual Velocity/ Rotation is not Significant yes no 2 ft/s - 10 ft/min vs. control Velocity/Rotation not significant Velocity/ Rotation

Effects

is p ≤ 0.05?

yes no Model

is p ≤ 0.05? Model is not significant no

yes Model

is p ≤ 0.05? Model is not significant no

yes

Length

is p ≤ 0.05? Length is not significant no

Length is significant yes Length

is p ≤ 0.05? Length is not significant no

Length is significant yes

Individual Comparisons

1 ft/s - 5 ft/min vs. control 2 ft/s - 5 ft/min vs. control 1 ft/s - 10 ft/min vs. control

is p ≤ 0.05? Individual Velocity/ Rotation is Significant Individual Velocity/ Rotation is not Significant yes no 2 ft/s - 10 ft/min vs. control

Figure 4 Steps Used in Interpreting the Hierarchical Results of the Logistic Regression ModelsHydrolox Screen Testing

8 R ESULTS

Golden Shiner

The golden shiner tested averaged 58.3 mm (FL) ± 3.9 (SD) and ranged from 40–73 mm. A histogram of lengths is shown in Figure 5.

Mortality

Under all test conditions, a total of 32 fish died (2.3%). Mortality among the treatments ranged from 0.2% in the control treatment to 4.4% in th e 2 ft/s velocity - 5 ft/min rotation treatment ( Table 1). These differences are significantly different ( P =0.0199; Table 2). The two treatments involving velocity of 2 ft/s have significantly gr eater mortality than controls while the 1 ft/s treatments do not ( P =0.0042 for 2 ft/s velocity – 5 ft/min rotation treatment and P =0.0046 for 2 ft/s velocity – 10 ft/min rotation treatment; Table 2). Mortality decrea sed as fish increased in length ( P <0.0731; Table 2).

Injury

Injury rates were relatively low. Injury rates ranged from 0.2% in the control to 4.1 % in the 2 ft/s velocity – 10 ft/min rotation treatment ( Table 3). The regression model for golden shiner injury is only marginally significant ( P =0.0672; Table 4), because there wa s so little mortality. The rates of injury between conditions were significant ( P =0.0369; Table 4). The two treatments with 2 ft/s velocity were significan tly greater than the controls (2 ft/s velocity – 5 ft/min rotation treatment; P =0.0171 and 2 ft/s velocity – 10 ft/min P =0.0047; Table 4). The most common injury type observed was bruising (77.8%), fo llowed by lacerations (11.1%), fin damage (7.4%) and eye damage (3.7%) ( Figure 6).

Scale Loss

Observed scale loss was assigned into four discreet categorie s: 1) <3%; 2) 3–20%; 3) 20–40%; and 4) >40%. Scale loss for golden shiner was gr eater than the other species tested. For most treatment conditions, greater than half of the fish tested exhibi ted greater than 3% scale loss ( Table 5). Greater than 18% of tested fish in each treatment exhibited scale loss levels of 20% or greater ( Table 5). Golden shiner are prone to scale loss as demonstrated by the levels of scale loss observed among control fish. More than 46% of the control golden sh iner exhibited greater than 3% scale loss ( Table 5). For golden shiner, there is a significant treatment effect ( P <0.0001; Table 6). All treatments show significant di fferences from the control. For each treatment, the distribution is shifted toward higher levels of scale loss compared to the control. The coefficient for length is positive and significant ( P =0.0135; Table 6), which suggests that larger fish tend to have less scale loss.Hydrolox Screen Testing

9 Figure 5 Histogram of Golden Shiner Fork Lengths

Table 1 Total Number of Golden Shiner Live and Dead, Percent Mortality, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition

Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total Live 450 142 139 324 283 1,338
Dead 1 2 2 15 12 32 Total 451 144 141 339 295 1,370
Percent Dead 0.22 1. 39 1.42 4.42 4.07 2.34 Mean Length 58.44 58.85 57.65 58.36 58.44

Table 2 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Model of Mortality for Golden Shiner

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chisquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept 1 -1.376 2.7974 0.24 . 0.6228 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Control 1 1.8516 1.2288 2.27 6.37 0.1318 (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Control 1 1.9035 1.2291 2.40 6.71 0.1214 (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Control 1 2.9693 1.0363 8.21 19.48 0.0042 a (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Control 1 2.9562 1.0438 8.02 19.22 0.0046 a Velocity/Speed Effects 4 . . 11.68 . 0.0199 a Fork Length 1 -.0819 0.0457 3.21 0.92 0.0731
Full Model 5 . . 15.52 . 0.0084 a a Statistically significant at P <0.05Hydrolox Screen Testing

10 Table 3 Total Number of Golden Shiner Injured and Not Injured, Percent Injury, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition

Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total Not Injured 450 142 139 330 283 1,344 Injured 1 2 2 9 12 26 Total 451 144 141 339 295 1,370 Percent Injured 0.22 1.39 1.42 2.65 4.07 1.90 Mean Length 58.44 58.85 57.65 58.36 58.44

Table 4 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Model of Injury for Golden Shiner

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chisquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept 1 -7.161 3.1757 5.08 . 0.0241 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Control 1 1.8466 1.2285 2.26 6.34 0.1328 (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Control 1 1.8607 1.2288 2.29 6.43 0.1300 (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Control 1 2.5215 1.0573 5.69 12.45 0.0171 (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Control 1 2.9508 1.0436 7.99 19.12 0.0047 Velocity/Speed Effects 4 . . 10.22 . 0.0369 a Fork Length 1 0.0179 0.0513 0.12 1.02 0.7265
Full Model 5 . . 10.30 . 0.0672 a Statistically significant at P <0.05Hydrolox Screen Testing

11 Figure 6 Distribution of Injury Types among Injured Golden Shiner

Table 5 Summary of Scale Loss Categories and Mean Length by Velocity Treatment for Golden Shiner

Treatment

Scale Loss Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total

<3% Frequency 243 44 53 173 80 593
Percent 53.88 30.56 37.59 51.03 27.12 .

3–20% Frequency 186 62 62 67 116 493
Percent 41.24 43.06 43.97 19.76 39.32 . 20–40% Frequency 21 21 15 69 63 189
Percent 4.66 14.58 10.64 20.35 21.36 . >40% Frequency 1 17 11 30 36 95
Percent 0.22 11.81 7.80 8.85 12.20 . Total Frequency 451 144 141 339 295 1,370 Mean length 58.44 58.44 58.85 57.65 58.36Hydrolox Screen Testing

12 Table 6 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Scale Loss Regression Model for Golden Shiner

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald ChiSquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept_1 1 -1.5646 0.76 4.24 . 0.0395 a Intercept_2 1 0.1431 0.76 0.04 . 0.8504 Intercept_3 1 1.4444 0.76 3.59 . 0.0582 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 -1.0838 0.18 36.41 0.34 <0.0001 a (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -0.7379 0.18 16.47 0.48 <0.0001 a (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 -0.5207 0.14 14.28 0.59 0.0002 a (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -1.3073 0.14 83.16 0.27 <0.0001 a
Treatment Effects 4 . . 93.65 . <0.0001 a Fork Length 1 0.0319 0.01 6.10 1.03 0.0135 a
Full Model 5 . . 98.52 . <0.0001 a a Statistically significant at P <0.05

Common Carp

The common carp tested range d from 25–72 mm and averaged 35.9 mm (FL) ± 5.2 (SD). A histogram of lengths is shown in Figure 7.

Mortality

Mortality among the treatments was 0.0% in all trea tments except the 2 ft/s velocity – 10 ft/min rotation treatment, which had 0.5% mortality ( Table 7). Mortality rates were low and pr evented meaningful regression analysis ( P =0.8847 ; Table 8 )

. Injury

Injury rates were also low ( 1.0% across all conditions tested; Table 9). Injury rates ranged from 0.2% in the control to 4.1% in 1 ft/s velocity – 5 ft/min rotation treatment. Injury rates were too low to yield a meaningful regression ( P =0.1056). Among the injured common carp, the most frequent injury types were: bruising (30.0%), fin damage ( 30.0%), and eye damage (20.0%) ( Figure 8).

Scale Loss

There was little scale loss among the common carp tested. Under all conditions, greater than 82% exhibited the lowest level of scale loss (< 3% of body surface). Among the treatments, the distribution of scale-loss is shifted toward higher levels as velocity increased ( Table 11). For common carp, there was a signifi cant treatment effect ( P =0.0032; Table 12). Both treatments with 2 ft/s velocity showed signifi cant differences from the control ( P =0.0094 for the 5 ft/minHydrolox Screen Testing

13 rotation treatment and P =0.0003 for the 10 ft/min rotation treatment; Table 12). Length was not a significant predictor of scale loss ( P =0.0835; Table 12).

Figure 7 Histogram of Common Carp Fork Lengths

Table 7 Total Number of Common Carp Live and Dead, Percent Mortality, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition

Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total
Live 414 73 70 215 198 970
Dead 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 414 73 70 216 198 971
Percent Dead 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.10 Mean Length 33.79 36.66 36.16 37.10 36.57

Table 8 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates fo r the Model of Mortality for Common Carp

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chisquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept 1 2.7401 89.599 0.00 . 0.9756 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 -1.389 283.34 0.00 0.25 0.9961 (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -.8985 270.67 0.00 0.41 0.9974 (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 9.2175 88.700 0.01 10071.66 0.9172 (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -.1073 176.38 0.00 0.90 0.9995 Velocity/Speed Effects 4 . . 0.02 . 1.0000 Fork Length 1 -.5344 0.4082 1.71 0.59 0.1905
Full Model 5 . . 1.73 . 0.8847Hydrolox Screen Testing

14 Table 9 Total Number of Common Carp Injured and Not Injured, Percent Injury, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition

Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total Not Injured 413 70 68 215 195 961 Injured 1 3 2 1 3 10
Total 414 73 70 216 198 971 Percent Injured 0.24 4.11 2.86 0.46 1.52 1.03 Mean Length 33.79 36.66 36.16 37.10 36.57

Table 10 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Model of Injury for Common Carp

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chisquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept 1 -7.289 2.0670 12.43 . 0.0004 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 2.9716 1.1708 6.44 19.52 0.0111 (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 2.4631 1.2368 3.97 11.74 0.0464 (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.6653 1.4169 0.22 1.95 0.6387 (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 1.8333 1.1582 2.51 6.25 0.1134 Velocity/Speed Effects 4 . . 8.89 . 0.0640 Fork Length 1 0.0342 0.0483 0.50 1.03 0.4790
Full Model 5 . . 9.09 . 0.1056

Figure 8 Distribution of Injury Types among Injured Common CarpHydrolox Screen Testing

15 Table 11 Summary of Scale Loss Categories and Mean Length by Velocity Treatment for Common Carp

Treatment

Scale Loss Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total

<3% Frequency 384 69 61 187 163 864
Percent 92.75 94.52 87.14 86.57 82.32 .

3–20% Frequency 22 2 7 19 32 82
Percent 5.31 2.74 10.00 8.80 16.16 . 20–40% Frequency 6 2 2 7 3 20
Percent 1.45 2.74 2.86 3.24 1.52 . >40% Frequency 2 0 0 3 0 5
Percent 0.48 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.00 . Total Frequency 414 73 70 216 198 971 Mean length 36.57 33.79 36.66 36.16 37.10

Table 12 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Scale Loss Regression Model for Common Carp

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald ChiSquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept_1 1 3.7238 0.71 27.32 . 0.0000 Intercept_2 1 5.2877 0.74 51.52 . 0.0000 Intercept_3 1 6.9183 0.84 68.00 . 0.0000 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.1909 0.55 0.12 1.21 0.7267 (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -0.5986 0.41 2.16 0.55 0.1419 (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 -0.7127 0.27 6.75 0.49 0.0094 a (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -0.9594 0.27 12.91 0.38 0.0003 a
Treatment Effects 4 . . 15.89 . 0.0032 a Fork Length 1 -0.0319 0.02 2.99 0.97 0.0835
Full Model 5 . . 19.61 . 0.0015 a a Statistically significant at P <0.05

Bluegill

The bluegill tested ranged from 48–86 mm and av eraged 59.5 mm (FL) ± 3.3 (SD). A histogram of lengths is shown in Figure 9.Hydrolox Screen Testing

16 Mortality

Mortality rates for bluegill ranged from 1.0% among the control to 9.1% among the 1 ft/s velocity – 5 ft/min rotation treatment ( Table 13). These differe nces were significant ( P =0.0532; Table 14). The 1 ft/s velocity – 5 ft/min rotation treatment has significantly greater mortality than the control ( P =0.0042; Table 14). While other treatments have greater mortality than the control, none are statistically significant. The majo rity of mortality at 1 ft/s velocity – 5 ft/min rotation treatment stemmed from a single treatment (17 of 19). Wit hout this replicate, mortality would no longer be a significant pr edictor of mortality. Fork lengt h appears to have a significant association ( P <0.0001) of increasing mortality with increasing length, which is somewhat counterintuitive ( Table 14).

Injury

Injury rates among the treatments ranged from 2. 3% in the control trea tment to 21.8% in the 2 ft/s velocity- 5 ft/min rotation treatment. These differences are significantly different ( P <0.0001; Table 16). Each of the impingement treatments e xhibited significantly great er mortality than the control ( P ≤ 0.0003; Table 16). Larger fish showed si gnificantly fewer in juries (P<0.0063: Table 16). Note this length effect is partly due to slightly longer length in the controls. Among injured bluegill, the most common injury types were scrapi ng (82.1%) and bruising (7.4%; Figure 10). It should be pointed out that the majority of the scraping was minor and did not involve the loss of scales.

Scale Loss

Scale loss levels were low for bluegill. The majority of fish (91% or greater under all conditions) fell into the lowest scale loss categor y (<3% of body surface). In addition, very few fish fell into the two higher scale loss categories (less than 1% under any condition; Table 17). Increases in velocity, shifted the distribution toward hi gher levels of scale loss. For bluegill, there is a signi ficant treatment effect ( P =0.0011; Table 18). Both treatments with 2 ft/s velocity show significant diffe rences from the control ( P =0.0030 for the 5 ft/min rotation treatment and P <0.0001 for the 10 ft/min rotation treatment; Table 18). Larger fish exhibited less scale loss (P<0.0165; Table 18).Hydrolox Screen Testing

17 Figure 9 Histogram of Bluegill Fork Lengths

Table 13 Total Number of Bluegill Live and Dead, Percen t Mortality, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition

Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total Live 383 190 241 255 263 1,332
Dead 4 19 7 6 7 43 Total 387 209 248 261 270 1,375
Percent Dead 1.03 9. 09 2.82 2.30 2.59 3.13 Mean Length 60.43 59.62 59.23 59.24 59.24

Table 14 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Model of Mortality for Bluegill

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chisquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept 1 -15.81 1.9894 63.14 . 0.0000 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 1.6895 0.5900 8.20 5.42 0.0042 a (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.8838 0.6374 1.92 2.42 0.1656 (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.8125 0.6519 1.55 2.25 0.2127 (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.9244 0.6332 2.13 2.52 0.1443 Velocity/Speed Effects 4 . . 9.34 . 0.0532 a Fork Length 1 0.1879 0.0318 34.83 1.21 <0.0001 a
Full Model 5 . . 57.91 . <0.0001 a a Statistically significant at P <0.05Hydrolox Screen Testing

18 Table 15 Total Number of Bluegill Injured and Not Injured, Percent Injury, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition

Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total Not Injury 378 190 208 204 214 1,194 Injured 9 19 40 57 56 181 Total 387 209 248 261 270 1,375 Percent Injured 2.33 9.09 16.13 21.84 20.74 13.16 Mean Length 60.43 59.62 59.23 59.24 59.24

Table 16 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Model of Injury for Bluegill

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chisquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept 1 0.8397 1.7009 0.24 . 0.6215 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 1.4844 0.4150 12.79 4.41 0.0003 a (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 2.1193 0.3794 31.20 8.33 <0.0001 a (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 2.4694 0.3694 44.70 11.82 <0.0001 a (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 2.4025 0.3695 42.28 11.05 <0.0001 a Velocity/Speed Effects 4 . . 55.31 . <0.0001 a Fork Length 1 -.0776 0.0284 7.47 0.93 0.0063 a
Full Model 5 . . 62.43 . <0.0001 a a Statistically significant at P <0.05Hydrolox Screen Testing

19 Figure 10 Distribution of Injury Types among Bluegill

Table 17 Summary of Scale Loss Categories and Mean Le ngth by Velocity Treatment for Bluegill

Treatment

Scale Loss Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total

<3% Frequency 382 203 240 246 248 1,319
Percent 98.71 97.13 96.77 94.25 91.85 .

3–20% Frequency 5 5 8 12 21 51
Percent 1.29 2.39 3.23 4.60 7.78 . 20–40% Frequency 0 1 0 1 1 3
Percent 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.38 0.37 . >40% Frequency 0 0 0 2 0 2
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 . Total Frequency 387 209 248 261 270 1,375 Mean length 59.24 60.43 59.62 59.23 59.24Hydrolox Screen Testing

20 Table 18 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Scale Loss Regression Model for Bluegill

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chisquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept_1 1 -2.3712 2.82 0.71 . 0.3999 Intercept_2 1 0.1011 2.85 0.00 . 0.9717 Intercept_3 1 1.0210 2.90 0.12 . 0.7246 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 -0.8650 0.61 1.99 0.42 0.1579 (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -0.9666 0.58 2.80 0.38 0.0941 (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 -1.5533 0.52 8.82 0.21 0.0030 a (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -1.9097 0.50 14.40 0.15 0.0001 a
Treatment Effects 4 . . 18.25 . 0.0011 a Fork Length 1 0.1140 0.05 5.75 1.12 0.0165 a
Full Model 5 . . 24.18 . 0.0002 a a Statistically significant at P <0.05

Striped Bass

The striped bass tested range d from 54–99 mm and averaged 77.5 mm (FL) ± 7.5 (SD). A histogram of lengths is shown in Figure 11.

Mortality

Striped bass mortality was higher than the other species tested and ranged from 5.9% at 1 ft/s velocity – 10 ft/min rotation to 14.4% at 2 ft/s velocity – 5 ft/min rotation among the treatment conditions ( Table 19). However, control mortality wa s also higher than other species tested (9.0%; Table 19). Mortality was also observed among th e untested striped bass, held in the fish holding facility, during this same time period. Roughly 38% of the injuries observed during LIM observation were disease-related. Given the le vels of observed mort ality and disease among untested and control fish, it is safe to assume th at much of the observed treatment mortality was associated with the poor physiological condition of the fish and not a direct result of exposure to the Hydrolox screen. Differences in treatm ent conditions were significantly different ( P =0.0013; Table 20). Unlike other species, screen rotation speed appears to play an important role in mortality. The two treatments involving screen rotation of 5 ft/min ha ve significantly greater mortality than controls, while the 10 ft/min ro tation treatments are not significantly different from controls. Fork length does not appear to effect mortality ( P =0.2639; Table 20).

Injury

Injury rates among the treatments ranged from 3.2% in the 1 ft/s veloc ity - 5 ft/min rotation treatment to 10.6% in the 2 ft/s velo city- 10 ft/min rotation treatment ( Table 21). These differences are signif icantly different ( P =0.0048; Table 22). In the individual comparisons, only the 2 ft/s velocity- 10 ft/min rotation treatment differs significantly from the control ( P =0.0011; Table 22). Longer fish had a gr eater probability of injury ( P <0.0453), which is somewhatHydrolox Screen Testing

21 counterintuitive ( Table 22). Injury types observed (in or der of frequency) were: disease (38.6%), bruising (20.8%), fin damage (20.8%), sc raping (17.8%), and lacerations (2.0%) ( Figure 12).

Scale Loss

Scale loss was nearly non- existent under any treatment or control condition ( Table 23). There are no significant scale loss effects for smallmouth bass ( Table 24).

Figure 11 Histogram of Striped Bass Fork Lengths

Table 19 Total Number of Striped Bass Live and Dead, Pe rcent Mortality, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition

Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total Live 354 183 225 185 180 1,127
Dead 35 38 14 31 27 145 Total 389 221 239 216 207 1,272
Percent Dead 9.00 17. 19 5.86 14.35 13.04 11.40 Mean Length 77.40 75.60 76.94 75.73 77.16Hydrolox Screen Testing

22 Table 20 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates fo r the Model of Mortality for Striped Bass

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chisquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept 1 -3.350 0.9483 12.48 . 0.0004 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.7405 0.2515 8.67 2.10 0.0032 a (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -.4423 0.3281 1.82 0.64 0.1777 (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.5314 0.2630 4.08 1.70 0.0433 a (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.4363 0.2727 2.56 1.55 0.1097 Velocity/Speed Effects 4 . . 17.94 . 0.0013 a Fork Length 1 0.0134 0.0120 1.25 1.01 0.2639
Full Model 5 . . 19.49 . 0.0016 a a Statistically significant at P <0.05

Table 21 Total Number of Striped Bass Injured and Not Injured, Percent Injury, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition

Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total Not Injury 374 214 224 201 185 1,198 Injured 15 7 15 15 22 74 Total 389 221 239 216 207 1,272 Percent Injured 3.86 3.17 6.28 6.94 10.63 5.82 Mean Length 77.40 75.60 76.94 75.73 77.16

Table 22 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates fo r the Model of Injury for Striped Bass

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chisquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept 1 -5.760 1.3119 19.28 . 0.0000 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 -.2060 0.4661 0.20 0.81 0.6585 (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.5661 0.3764 2.26 1.76 0.1325 (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.6314 0.3761 2.82 1.88 0.0932 (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 1.1373 0.3484 10.66 3.12 0.0011 a Velocity/Speed Effects 4 . . 14.96 . 0.0048 a Fork Length 1 0.0326 0.0163 4.01 1.03 0.0453 a
Full Model 5 . . 17.83 . 0.0032 a a Statistically significant at P <0.05Hydrolox Screen Testing

23 Figure 12 Distribution of Injury Types among Striped Bass

Table 23 Summary of Scale Loss Categories and Mean Length by Velocity Treatment for Striped Bass

Treatment

Scale Loss Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total

<3% Frequency 385 220 235 211 204 1,255
Percent 98.97 99.55 98.33 97.69 98.55 .

3–20% Frequency 4 0 4 4 3 15
Percent 1.03 0.00 1.67 1.85 1.45 . 20–40% Frequency 0 1 0 1 0 2
Percent 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.46 0.00 . Total Frequency 389 221 239 216 207 1,272 Mean Length 77.16 77.40 75.60 76.94 75.73Hydrolox Screen Testing

24 Table 24 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for th e Scale Loss Regression Model for Striped Bass

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chisquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept_1 1 0.7084 2.41 0.09 . 0.7684 Intercept_2 1 2.8654 2.49 1.32 . 0.2508 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.7948 1.12 0.50 2.21 0.4782 (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -0.4166 0.72 0.34 0.66 0.5601 (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 -0.8258 0.68 1.49 0.44 0.2225 (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -0.2714 0.77 0.12 0.76 0.7251
Treatment Effects 4 . . 2.93 . 0.5696 Fork Length 1 0.0510 0.03 2.58 1.05 0.1079
Full Model 5 . . 5.63 . 0.3443

Channel Catfish

The channel catfish tested ranged from 32–74 mm and averaged 50.7 mm (FL) ± 6.1 (SD). A histogram of lengths is shown in Figure 13.

Mortality

Under all test conditions, only 1 fish died (0.1% at 1 ft/s velocity – 5 ft/min rotation; Table 25). There was not enough mortality for a meaningful logistic regression ( P =0.9684; Table 26).

Injury

Injury rates were also very low ( Table 27). As with mortality, there was not enough injury for a meaningful logistic regression (P=0.5661; Table 28). Injury type s observed (in order of frequency) were: eye injuries (33.3%), fin damage (33.3%), bruising (16.7%), and scraping (16.7%; Figure 14).

Channel catfish do not have scales so rate s of scale loss could not be calculated.Hydrolox Screen Testing

25 Figure 13 Histogram of Channel Catfish Fork Lengths

Table 25 Total Number of Channel Catfish Live and Dead, Percent Mortality, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition

Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total Live 323 130 180 250 252 1,135
Dead 0 1 0 0 0 1 Total 323 131 180 250 252 1,136
Percent Dead 0.00 0. 76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Mean Length 51.93 49.74 50.05 50.29 51.56

Table 26 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Model of Mortality for Channel Catfish

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chisquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept 1 46.445 69.073 0.45 . 0.5013 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 3.8578 35.286 0.01 47.36 0.9129 (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -6.423 61.876 0.01 0.00 0.9173 (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 -2.315 59.765 0.00 0.10 0.9691 (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -2.134 59.182 0.00 0.12 0.9712 Velocity/Speed Effects 4 . . 0.08 . 0.9992 Fork Length 1 -1.451 1.5966 0.83 0.23 0.3635
Full Model 5 . . 0.92 . 0.9684Hydrolox Screen Testing

26 Table 27 Total Number of Channel Catfish Injured and Not Injured, Percent Injury, and Mean Length by Treatment Condition

Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total Not Injury 322 129 179 249 252 1,131 Injured 1 2 1 1 0 5 Total 323 131 180 250 252 1,136 Percent Injured 0.31 1.53 0.56 0.40 0.00 0.44 Mean Length 51.93 49.74 50.05 50.29 51.56

Table 28 Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates for the Model of Injury for Channel Catfish

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chisquare Odds Ratio P-value Intercept 1 -1.357 3.7492 0.13 . 0.7175 (1 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 1.5752 1.2336 1.63 4.83 0.2016 (1 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.4246 1.4249 0.09 1.53 0.7657 (2 ft/s, 5 ft/min) vs Con 1 0.1328 1.4207 0.01 1.14 0.9255 (2 ft/s, 10 ft/min) vs Con 1 -10.70 227.32 0.00 0.00 0.9625 Velocity/Speed Effects 4 . . 2.38 . 0.6668 Fork Length 1 -.0882 0.0741 1.41 0.92 0.2343
Full Model 5 . . 3.88 . 0.5661

Figure 14 Distribution of Injury Types among Channel CatfishHydrolox Screen Testing

27 S UMMARY

Summaries of mortality, injury, and scale loss ar e presented in the following tables. Mortality rates were generally low. For four of five species (golden shiner, common carp, bluegill, and channel catfish), mortality rates were less than 9.1% and for most tr eatment conditions were under 5% ( Table 29). Striped bass mortality was hi gher; however, control mortality was also higher, indicating that this popul ation was sensitive to handling stress and that much of the observed treatment mortality was likely not fr om exposure to the Hydrolox screen.

Injury rates were also low and ranged from 0.0% (for channel catfi sh in the 2 ft/s velocity – 10 ft/min rotation treatment) to 21.8% (for bluegill in the 2 ft/s velocity – 5 ft/min rotation treatment)( Table 30).

Scale loss for three species was very low (com mon carp, bluegill, and striped bass). Golden shiner, which are more susceptible to scale lo ss, exhibited higher levels of scale loss ( Table 31). This susceptibility to scale loss is demonstrated by the fact that greater than 46% of the control golden shiner exhibited great er than 3% scale loss ( Table 31).

Table 29 Summary of Mortality Rates by Treatment Condition Percent Mortality

Species Mean Length

(mm) Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total Golden Shiner 58.3 0.2 1.4 1.4 4.4 4.1 2.3 Common Carp 35.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 Bluegill 59.5 1.0 9.1 2.8 2.3 2.6 3.1 Striped Bass 77.5 9.0 17.2 5.9 14.4 13.0 11.4 Channel Catfish 50.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Table 30 Summary of Injury Rates by Treatment Condition Percent Injury

Species Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Total Golden Shiner 0.2 1.4 1.4 2.7 4.1 1.9 Common Carp 0.2 4.1 2.9 0.5 1.5 1.0 Bluegill 2.3 9.1 16.1 21.8 20.7 13.2 Striped Bass 3.9 3.2 6.3 6.9 10.6 5.8 Channel Catfish 0.3 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.4Hydrolox Screen Testing

28 Table 31 Summary of Scale Loss Rates by Treatment Condition

Percent Scale Loss

Species Scale Loss Level Control 1 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 1 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 5 ft/min rotation 2 ft/s velocity 10 ft/min rotation Golden Shiner <3% 53.9 30.6 37.6 51.0 27.1 3–20% 41.2 43.1 44.0 19.8 39.3 20–40% 4.7 14.6 10.6 20.4 21.4 >40% 0.2 11.8 7.8 8.9 12.2 Common Carp <3% 92.8 94.5 87.1 86.6 82.3 3–20% 5.3 2.7 10.0 8.8 16.2 20–40% 1.5 2.7 2.9 3.2 1.5 >40% 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 Bluegill <3% 98.7 97.1 96.8 94.3 91.9 3–20% 1.3 2.4 3.2 4.6 7.8 20–40% 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.4 >40% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 Striped Bass <3% 99.0 99.6 98.3 97.7 98.6 3–20% 1.0 0.0 1.7 1.9 1.5 20–40% 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 >40% -- -- -- -- --

R EFERENCES Basham, L. R., M. R. Delarm, J. B. Athern, a nd S. W. Pettit. 1982. Fish Transportation Oversight Team Annual Report, FY 1981: Transport Oper ations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. NOAA Technical Memorandum NM FS F/NNR-2. Environmental and Technical Services Division, Northwest Regional Office, Nationa l Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisherie s Service, Portland, OR.

McCullagh, P. and J. A. Nelder. 1989. Generali zed Linear Models, 2nd. Ed. Chapman & Hall, New York. p511.

Neitzel, D. A., M. C. Richmond, D. D. Dauble, R. P. Mueller, R. A. Moursund, C. S. Abernethy, G. R. Guensch, and G. F. Cada. 2000. Laboratory Studies on the Effects of Shear on Fish: Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/ID-10822.

SAS Institute. 1999. SAS OnLine Doc: SAS/STAT Users Guide, Version 8. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.