### U

niv e rsit y of M a s sa c h us e tts - Amh e rs t 

## Sc h ol a r W o r k s@U M a s s Amh e rs t

M as t e r s The s e s 1896 - F e br ua r y 2014 Di s s e r t a t ion s a nd The s e s

J a n ua r y 2007 

# L a b or a t or y E v alua t ion of M o di fied T

r a velin g S cr ee ns for P r ot ec t in g F i sh a t C o olin g W a t e r I n t ak es J on a th a n L . B l a ck U n i v er s t it y of M assa c h usetts, Am h er

s t , jb l a ck@alde nl a

b

. c om

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://s cho l a r w ork s . um as s . e du/the s e s

Thi s O pe n Ac c e s s i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the Di s s e r t a t ion s a nd The s e s a t S cho l a r W ork s@UM as s Amhe r s t. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in M as t e r s The s e s 1896 - F e br ua r y 2014 b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of S cho l a r W ork s@UM as s Amhe r s t. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e

c on t a ct s cho l a r w ork s@l i br a r y . um as s . e du

. B l a ck , J on a th a n L ., " L a

bor a t or y E v alua t ion of M od i fie d T

r a v e l in g S cr e e n s for P r ot e ct in g F i sh a t C oo l in g W

a t e r I n t ak e s " (2007). M as t

er s Th e se s 1896 - F

e br u a r y 2014. P a pe r 5. h tt p://s cho l a r w ork s . um as s . e du/the s e s/5LABORATORY EVALUATION OF MODI FIED TRAVELING SCREENS FOR

PROTECTING FISH AT COOLING WATER INTAKES

A Thesis Presented by

JONATHAN L. BLACK

Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE May 2007 Department of Wildlife and Fisheries ConservationLABORATORY EVALUATION OF MODI FIED TRAVELING SCREENS FOR

PROTECTING FISH AT COOLING WATER INTAKES

A Thesis Presented by

JONATHAN L. BLACK

Approved as to style and content by:

________________________________________ Alexander J. Haro, Chair

________________________________________ Martha E. Mather, Member

________________________________________ Bernard J. Morzuch, Member

________________________________________ Matthew J. Kelty, Department Head Natural Resources ConservationDEDICATION

To my wife and children for their patience, my father for teaching me to write, and E.P.T. – my mentor and friend.iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks go to my advisor, Alex Ha ro who provided perceptive guidance throughout the process. I also wish to th ank my committee members Martha Mather and

Bernie Morzuch for their consideration and recommendations. I wish to thank everyone from Alden Research Laboratory for their i nput, support, hard work, and helpful reviews of the manuscript. Daniel Davis was involved in every as pect of this study and his

critical advice was invaluable. Brian McMa hon developed the facility design and was

instrumental in its construction. Tom C ook, Greg Allen, Bob Richmond, Kevin Simes, Brian O’Coin, Jeremy Sinkus, Michael Briggs, and Michael Comeau a ll assisted in the design and construction of the facility. Ned Taft, Steve Amaral, and Ray Tuttle assisted in the development of the study design a nd shared their experience in overcoming logistical hurdles. Daniel Giza, Timothy Sullivan, and Anthony Quinta put in long hours marking, testing, and assessing fish. Nate Olken, Erica Matys, and Eric Grady also assisted in testing. Elgin Perry provided professional guidanc e in the statistical analysis. Funding for this study was provided by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Doug Dixon of EPRI provided fre quent and extensive support without which this study would not have been possible. I would also like to th ank Dave Michaud (WE Energies), Igor Cherko (Omaha Public Power District), Sonya Kim (Omaha Public Power District), Robert Reider (Detroit Edison), Michael Peters (Dairy land Power Cooperative), Brad Foss (Dairyland Power Cooperative) a nd John Thiel (Dairyland Power Cooperative) for their comments on the draft manuscript.v ABSTRACT

LABORATORY EVALUATION OF MODI FIED TRAVELING SCREENS FOR

PROTECTING FISH AT COOLING WATER INTAKES

MAY 2007 JONATHAN L. BLACK, B.A., UNIVER SITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST M.S., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by: Professor Alexander J. Haro

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Ac t requires therma l power generating

facilities to minimize adverse environmenta l impact resulting from the operation of cooling water intake structur es (CWIS). Adverse environmental impact can occur when aquatic organisms are impinged on traveling wa ter screens. Modified traveling screens were developed to improve the post-impingement survival of organisms. These screens have been used at a few power plants a nd are now being considered at additional facilities to reduce the mortality of juvenile and adult fish. Existing biological efficacy data show th at post-impingement survival is highly variable by species. The majority of previous installations are at estu arine facilities. As such, there is a lack of biological efficacy data with many of the freshwater species commonly impinged at CWIS. In addition, most of the existing modified screen

installations were installed prior to 1990. Since that time, improvements in screen designs have increased survival. For these reasons, the existing biological efficacy of the new screen designs was limited and largel y unknown for many freshwater species.vi The mortality, injury, and scale loss rate s of 10 species of freshwater fish impinged and recovered with a modified tr aveling screen were evaluated in the laboratory. Species tested included: golden shiner ( Notemigonus crysoleucas ); fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ); white sucker ( Catostomus commersoni ); bigmouth buffalo ( Ictiobus cyprinellus ); channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ); hybrid striped bass ( Morone chrysops × M. saxatilis ); bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ); largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ); yellow perch ( Perca flavescens ); and freshwater drum ( Aplodinotus grunniens ). Fish were impinged at 0.3, 0.6, or 0.9 m·s -1 velocity. Mortalit y, injury, and scale loss rates were generally low. Mortality ra tes did not exceed 5% for any species and velocity tested, indicating th at this technology has potenti al to substantially reduce impingement mortality at CWIS. Despite a ge neral trend toward increasing mortality at higher velocities, velocity was only a signifi cant factor in the mo rtality of bluegill ( P =0.0005). Injury and scale loss rates were low for most species teste d, although they were

more variable than observed rates of mo rtality. There was a trend toward lower mortality, injury, and scale loss in larger fi sh. In all cases where fish length was a significant factor ( P <0.05), the pattern of decreasing mortality, injury, and scale loss as fish increased in length was constantly observed.

Additional tests were undertaken with channel catfish, fathead minnow, and golden shiner to assess the effect of durat ion of impingement on mortality, injury, and scale loss. Longer durations of impingement appeared to result in higher mortality, injury, and scale loss, especially at durati ons of impingement greater than 6 minutes.vii However, longer durations of impingement coul d be avoided at most cooling water intake structures by continuou sly rotating screens.viii CONTENTS Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...v LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xvi

CHAPTER 1 Biological Evaluation of M odified Traveling Screens .....................................................1

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 Methods............................................................................................................. 4

Test Fish .......................................................................................................4 Fish Holding Facility ...................................................................................5 Test Facility .................................................................................................6 Velocity Measurements ...............................................................................7 Test Parameters ............................................................................................7 Fish Marking ................................................................................................9 Test Procedures ..........................................................................................10 Velocity Tests ................................................................................10 Duration of Impingement Tests .....................................................13 Data Analysis .............................................................................................15 Velocity Tests ................................................................................15 Duration of Impingement Tests .....................................................18

Results ............................................................................................................. 19 Velocity Tests ............................................................................................19 Time to Impingement .....................................................................19 Water Temperature ........................................................................20 Mortality ........................................................................................20 Injury ..............................................................................................22 Scale Loss ......................................................................................24 Duration of Impingement Tests .................................................................25 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 27ix APPENDICES

A PHOTOS OF FACILITIES AND TESTING PROCEDURES .....................................43 B IMPINGEMENT ON TRADITI ONAL TRAVELING SCREENS C WEEKLY TESTING, WATER SAMPLI NG, AND FISH CARE SCHEDULE ..........51 D COLLECTION TIME ....................................................................................................52 E STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TABLES – VELOCITY TESTS .....................................54 F STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TABLES – DURATION OF IMPINGEMENT ..............87

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................94x LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1. Mean fork length (mm) ± standard error (SE), total number of fish tested (n), percent dead 48 hours afte r testing, and the 95% c onfidence intervals (CI) by species and velocity. Confidence in tervals were calcul ated using the normal approximation of a binomial distri bution. Freshwater drum, lacking forked tails, were measured to total length. .............................................................. 33 2. Summary of pertinent p-values from the maximum likelihood estimates for the mortality regression models for all species tested. ( a ) Significant differences at p<0.05; ( ↓ ) mortality decreased significantly with increasing fish length; ( + ) treatment fish exhibited significantly gr eater mortality than the control. ........... 34 3. Percent injury by species and velocity. ........................................................................ 35 4. Summary of pertinent p-values fro m the maximum likelihood estimates for the injury regression models for all species tested. ( a ) Significant differences at p<0.05; ( ↓ ) injury decreased significantly with increasing fish length; ( + ) treatment fish exhibited significantly gr eater injury than the control. ...................... 36 5. Percent of scale loss category by velocity and species. ............................................... 37 6. Summary of pertinent p-values from the maximum likelihood estimates for the scale loss regression models for all species tested. ( a ) Significant differences at p<0.05; ( ↓ ) scale loss decreased significantl y with increasing fish length; ( + ) treatment fish exhibited significantly gr eater scale loss than the control. .......... 38 7. Mortality and injury rates (percent ) by species and duration of impingement (DI) tests. ................................................................................................................... 38 8. Percent of scale loss categories by speci es and duration of im pingement (DI). .......... 39 9. Summary of pertinent p-values from the maximum likelihood estimates for the mortality, injury, and scale loss regressi on models for species tested during duration of impingement (DI) testing. Metrics for measuring performance included: mortality (M), injury (I), tota l injury – control injury (I-C), and scale-loss (SL). ( a ) Significant differences at p<0.05; ( ↓ ) metric (mortality, injury, or scale loss) decreased with increasing fish length; ( ↑ ) metric significantly increased with increase in DI. There were no injuries or mortality observed among channel catfish................................................................ 39 10. Comparison of laboratory results to thos e observed in previous pilot- and fullscale field evaluations. Data summarized from: Normandeau 1995 (Roseton); Beak Consultants 2000a (Dunkirk), Beak Consultants 2000b (Huntley); Fletcher 1990 (Indian Point); Consolid ated Edison 1996 (Arthur Kill); PSE&G 1999 (Salem); PSEG 2004 (Salem). ......................................................................... 40 D-1. Percent of fish collected by species, collection time, and velocity treatment. ........ 52xi E-1. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for bigmouth buffalo. ...................................................................................................................... 56 E-2. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the survival regression model for bigmouth buffalo. This model was not significant (P=0.8233). ......................... 56 E-3. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for bigmouth buffalo. ...................................................................................................................... 57 E-4. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the injury regression model for bigmouth buffalo. This model was significant (P=0.0225) ................................ 57 E-5. Summary of frequencies of scale lo ss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for bigm outh buffalo. ................................................................................ 58 E-6. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the scale loss regression model for bigmouth buffalo. This model was significant (P<0.0001) ................................ 58 E-7. Summary of live, dead, and mean lengt h by velocity treatment for bluegill. .......... 59 E-8. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimat es for the survival regression model for bluegill. This model wa s significant (P<0.0001). .............................................. 59 E-9. Summary of injury rate and mean lengt h by velocity treatment for bluegill. .......... 60 E-10. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the injury regression model for bluegill. This model wa s significant (P<0.0001). .............................................. 60 E-11. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for bluegill excluding conspecific aggression injury. .................................................................. 60 E-12. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimat es for the injury regression model for bluegill excluding c onspecific aggression inju ry. This model was significant (P<0.0011). .............................................................................................. 61 E-13. Summary of frequencies of scal e loss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for bluegill. .................................................................................. 61 E-14. Analysis of maximum likelihood es timates for the scale loss regression model for bluegill. This m odel was significant (P<0.0001). ................................... 62 E-15. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for channel catfish. ...................................................................................................................... . 63 E-16. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the survival regression model for channel catfish. This model was not significant (P=0.6336). ............................ 63 E-17. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for channel catfish. ...................................................................................................................... . 63 E-18. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the injury regression model for channel catfish. This m odel was significant (P=0.0202). .................................. 64 E-19. Summary of live, dead, and mean le ngth by velocity treatment for freshwater drum. ......................................................................................................................... 65xii E-20. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the survival regression model for freshwater drum. This model was not significant (P=0.1903). .......................... 65 E-21. Summary of injury rate and mean le ngth by velocity treatment for freshwater drum. ......................................................................................................................... 65 E-22. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimat es for the injury regression model for freshwater drum. This m odel was significant (P=0.0002). ................................ 66 E-23. Summary of frequencies of scale lo ss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for fres hwater drum. ................................................................................. 66 E-24. Analysis of maximum likelihood es timates for the scale loss regression model for freshwater drum. This model was significant (P<0.0001). ..................... 67 E-25. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for fathead minnow. .................................................................................................................... 68 E-26. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the survival regression model for fathead minnow. This model was not significant (P=0.2147). ........................... 68 E-27. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for fathead minnow. .................................................................................................................... 68 E-28. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the injury regression model for fathead minnow. This model was significant (P=0.0114). ................................. 69 E-29. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for fathead minnow excluding conspecific aggression injury. .................................................... 69 E-30. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the injury regression model for fathead minnow excluding conspecific injury. This model was significant (P=0,0037). ............................................................................................................... 69 E-31. Summary of frequencies of scale lo ss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for fathead minnow. .................................................................................. 70 E-32. Analysis of maximum likelihood es timates for the scale loss regression model for fathead minnow. This mo del was significant (P=0.0030). ...................... 70 E-33. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for golden shiner. ....................................................................................................................... . 71 E-34. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the survival regression model for golden shiner. This mode l was significant (P=0.0003). ..................................... 71 E-35. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for golden shiner. ....................................................................................................................... . 71 E-36. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the injury regression model for golden shiner. This model was not significant (P=0.5768). ............................... 72 E-37. Summary of frequencies of scale lo ss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for golden shiner. ...................................................................................... 72 E-38. Analysis of maximum likelihood es timates for the scale loss regression model for golden shiner. This m odel was significant (P<0.0001). .......................... 73xiii E-39. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for hybrid striped bass. ............................................................................................................... 7 4 E-40. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the survival regression model for hybrid striped bass. This mode l was not significant (P=0.9921). ...................... 74 E-41. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for hybrid striped bass. ............................................................................................................... 7 4 E-42. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the injury regression model for hybrid striped bass. This mode l was not significant (P=0.9929). ...................... 75 E-43. Summary of frequencies of scale lo ss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for hybrid striped bass. .............................................................................. 75 E-44. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the scale loss regression model for hybrid striped bass. This mode l was not significant (P=0.3758). ...................... 76 E-45. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for largemouth bass. ....................................................................................................... 77 E-46. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimat es for the survival regression model for largemouth bass. This model was marginally significant (P=0.0549). .............. 77 E-47. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for largemouth bass. ......................................................................................................................... .. 77 E-48. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimat es for the injury regression model for largemouth bass. This model was significant (P=0.0003). ...................................... 78 E-49. Summary of frequencies of scale lo ss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for largemouth bass. .................................................................................. 78 E-50. Analysis of maximum likelihood es timates for the scale loss regression model for largemouth bass. This mo del was not significant (P=0.3131). ............... 79 E-51. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for white sucker. ....................................................................................................................... 80 E-52. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the survival regression model for white sucker. This model was significant (P<0.0001). ...................................... 80 E-53. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for white sucker. ....................................................................................................................... 80 E-54. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the injury regression model for white sucker. This model was significant (P<0.0001). ...................................... 81 E-55. Summary of frequencies of scale lo ss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for white sucker. ....................................................................................... 81 E-56. Analysis of maximum likelihood es timates for the scale loss regression model for white sucker. This m odel was significant (P<0.0001). ........................... 82 E-57. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for yellow perch. ........................................................................................................................ . 83xiv E-58. Analysis of maximum likelihood es timates for the survival regression model for yellow perch. This mode l was significant (P=0.0392). ........................... 83 E-59. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for yellow perch. ........................................................................................................................ . 83 E-60. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the injury regression model for yellow perch. This model was not significant (P=0.1659). ................................ 84 E-61. Summary of frequencies of scale lo ss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for yellow perch. ....................................................................................... 84 E-62. Analysis of maximum likelihood es timates for the scale loss regression modelfor yellow perch. This model was not significant (P=0.0753). ...................... 85 F-1. Summary of live, dead and mean length by duration of impingement for channel catfish. ......................................................................................................... 88 F-2. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the regression model for the duration of impingement of channel catfi sh. This model was not significant (P=0.9927). ............................................................................................................... 88 F-3. Summary of injury rates and mean length by duration of impingement for channel catfish. ......................................................................................................... 88 F-4. Summary of live, dead and mean length by duration of impingement for fathead minnow. ........................................................................................................ 89 F-5. Analysis of maximum likelihood es timates for the regression model of duration of impingement of fathead minnow – survival. This model was not significant (P=0.1244). .............................................................................................. 89 F-6. Summary of injury rates and mean length by duration of impingement for fathead minnow. ........................................................................................................ 89 F-7. Analysis of maximum likelihood es timates for the regression model of duration of impingement for fathead mi nnow – injury. This model was not significant (P=0.3688). .............................................................................................. 90 F-8. Summary of frequencies of scale lo ss categories and mean length by duration of impingement for fathead minnow. ........................................................................ 90 F-9. Analysis of maximum likelihood estim ates for the regression model of for fathead minnow – scale loss. This model was significant (P=0.0270). ................... 90 F-10. Summary of live, dead and mean length by duration of impingement for golden shiner. ............................................................................................................ 91 F-11. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the regression model for the duration of impingement of golden shin er – survival. This model was significant (P=0.0001). .............................................................................................. 91 F-12. Summary of injury rates and mean length by duration of impingement for golden shiner. ............................................................................................................ 91xv F-13. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the regression model for duration of impingement of golden sh iner – injury. This model was significant (P=0.0170). .............................................................................................. 92 F-14. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the regression model for duration of impingement of golden shiner excluding controls – injury. This model was significant (P=0.0073). ........................................................................... 92 F-15. Summary of frequencies of scale loss categories and mean length by duration of impingement for golden shiner. ............................................................................ 92 F-16. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimat es for the regression model of scale loss for golden shiner. This model was significant (P<0.0001). .............................. 93xvi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1. Test flume including isolation scree n, traveling water scre en, collection trough, and collection net. ..................................................................................................... 41 2. Distribution of injury types .......................................................................................... 42 A-1. Overview of modified screen testing facility. .......................................................... 43 A-2. Modified traveling screen in the dewatered test flume. ........................................... 44 A-3. Fish holding facility. ................................................................................................ 4 4 A-4. Marking fish using marking gun. ............................................................................. 45 A-5. Still image captured from the submersible video camera showing fish impingement on the traveling water screen. ............................................................. 45 A-6. Test enclosure showing upstream isol ation screen (left) and the ascending face of the traveling wate r screen (right). ................................................................. 46 A-7. Crowding fish (A) and mechanical crow der in the full upright position (B). ......... 46 A-8. Fish collection and tran sfer to holding facility. ....................................................... 47 A-9 Measuring and examining fi sh for external injuries. ................................................ 47 A-10. Fish in a water-filled bucke t above the flume water line. ...................................... 48 B-1. Comparison of a conventional screen (A) to a modified traveling screen (B) showing the angle of the screen f aces to the approaching flow. ............................... 50 E-1. Interpreting the hierarchical results of the logistic regression models. .................... 861 CHAPTER 1

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF MO DIFIED TRAVELING SCREENS

Introduction Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires the use of “best technology available” (BTA) for minimizing adverse en vironmental impact resulting from the operation of cooling water intake structures (CWIS). Adverse environmental impact can occur from the entrainment of small aquati c organisms through the CWIS and into the cooling water system or the impingement of larg er life stages on traveling water screens. Conventional traveling water sc reens were originally desi gned to prevent debris in the cooling water from clogging the steam c ondensers. Beginning with the adoption of the Clean Water Act, these traveling screens we re modified to improve survival of fish during the duration of their impingement on the screens and during spraywash removal

from the screens. The first modifications to tr aveling screens to protect fish were made at Virginia Electric Power’s Surry Station in 1976. The Ristroph screen, named for the engineer that designed it, had a screen ba sket equipped with a water-filled lifting bucket to hold collected organisms as they were carri ed up with the rotation of the screen (White and Brehmer 1977). Modified screens t ypically operate continuously to reduce impingement time. As each bucket passes over th e top of the screen, fish are rinsed into a collection trough by a low-pressure spraywas h system. Once collected, the fish are transported back to a safe releas e location in the source water body. Advances in Ristroph screen design ha ve been develope d through extensive laboratory and field experimentation. Hydr aulic buffeting in the fish lifting buckets, identified as injurious to fish by Fletch er (1990), was reduced through improvements in2 bucket design during the 1980s and 90s. Evaluati ons of the latest ge neration of modified traveling screens have generally shown improve d survival over previous screen designs. Examples include: Salem Generation Station (Public Service Elect ric and Gas [PSE&G] 1999; Public Service Enterprise Group [PSE G] 2004), Dunkirk Steam Electric Station (Beak Consultants, Inc. [Beak] 2000a), H untley Steam Electric Station (Beak 2000b), Indian Point Station (Fletcher 1990), and Ar thur Kill Station (Consolidated Edison 1996). Unfortunately, results of effectiveness from the full-scale applic ation of modified

screens have been variable de pending upon species-, life stage- , and site-specific factors, making it difficult to estimate effectiveness a priori or estimate survival of species that

have not been tested with m odified traveling screens. T hus, while there have been many studies of impingement survival, there are ma ny gaps in the available data that need filling before they can be used to make accura te predictions of survival at most CWIS. To date, the newer screen designs have been installed and evaluate d largely on estuaries and tidal rivers. As a result, there are few su rvival data available for many of the species impinged at CWIS located on fresh water lakes and rivers. Modified traveling screens have the poten tial for wide-scale application in all regions of the country and in all water body types to meet Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Modified traveling screens have advantages over many of the other impingement reducing options because they are re latively easy to retrofit at facilities that currently use traveling screens; they can be cleaned automatically; they do not interfere with navigation; they do not alter aesthe tics; and they will not generally require

substantial civil/structural modifications or dredging except for the addition of a fish

return line.3 Typically, modified traveli ng screens are designed with a relatively low approach velocity (e.g., 0.3 m·s -1 ). This low design velocity is predicated on the assumption that fish mortality increases directly with increa sed velocity. At facilities where existing approach velocities are high (e.g., 0.9 m·s -1 ), redesigning the intake to meet a 0.3 m·s -1 design criteria would require costly civil/ structural or operati onal modifications. However, if it could be demonstrated that fi sh survival at higher velocities (e.g., 0.5 m·s -1 to as high as 0.9 m·s -1 ), then these screens could be in stalled at a greatly reduced cost

without additional modifications to reduce velocity. Therefore, if fish survival is high at velocities greater than 0.3 m·s -1 , then modified traveling sc reens would become a more desirable option for compliance at a greater number of facilities. The depth below the surface that a fish impinges and the frequency and rate of

screen rotation determine its duration of impingement (DI). Longer impingement durations may contribute to gr eater mortality, injury, and/or scale loss. Therefore,

additional studies were undertaken to eval uate the effect of extended impingement

durations. The initial study design for velocity test s involved two screen rotation speeds; however, the extremely slow rotation speed necessary to achieve longer durations of impingement had a substantial drawback. Obse rving the impingement of fish at 8 ft/min rotation speed indicated that there was a behavioral component to the impingement process. In many cases, fish would hold positi on in the flume and fall back to the screen

surface until their tails touched the screen face. The tail touching would, in turn,

stimulate the fish to swim forward. This “tail-tapping” often occurred several times

before the fish entered the bucket. Once in the calm conditions in the bucket, fish4 typically remained there. Because the i nvestigation sought to evaluate the entire screening process from impingement, through th e spray-wash, and fina lly transfer to the return trough, it was deemed necessary to con tinuously rotate the screen. In addition, since modified traveling screens are designed to rotate continuously in the field, rotating continuously in the laboratory is more repres entative of field conditi ons relative to fish behavior. Therefore, a second set of tests was undertaken specifically to simulate longer impingement durations.

Methods

Test Fish Ten fish species were tested during the evaluation

. Species were selected based upon their frequent occurrence or abundance in impingement sampling at CWIS, their regional, ecological, or economic importan ce, their absence from post-impingement survival data with modified traveling screen s, and their availability for testing. Test species included: fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) and white sucker ( Catostomus

commersonii ) obtained from Harmon Brook Farms, Canaan, ME; bigmouth buffalo ( Ictiobus cyprinellus ), bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ), largemouth bass ( Micropterus

salmoides ), channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ), and freshwater drum ( Aplodinotus grunniens ) obtained from Osage Catfish Hatcher y, Osage Beach, MO; hybrid striped bass ( Morone chrysops × M. saxatilis ), golden shiner ( Notemigonus crysoleucas ), and yellow perch ( Perca flavescens ) obtained from Delmarva Aqua tics, Smyrna, DE. Fathead

minnow and white sucker were netted from w ild populations; all other species were pond

reared.5 Fish Holding Facility The fish holding facility consisted of a 32,000-L recirculating system. Fish were held in one of eight cylindrical tanks (eithe r 800- or 1,600-L) connected to a central pool. Water was pumped through water treatment filters before returning to the holding tanks. Bag filters and an activated charcoal filter were used to remove particulates (solid waste material, chlorine, and other impurities). An ul traviolet light sterili zer and a fluidized bed (sand) bio-filter were used to control bact eria and soluble wast e products. The holding facility was equipped with a fi ve-ton chiller to maintain water temperatures. Dissolved oxygen, temperature, and salinity were monitored daily. Salinity levels were maintained at approximately 5 ppt to reduce the occurr ence of fungal growth common in freshwater aquaculture systems. Hardness, alkalinity, and ammonia levels were monitored weekly and chemically adjusted as needed. It was not possible to control temperatures within the testing facility, so holding facility te mperatures 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 th at could cause scale loss. Fish were fed age-, size-, and species-specific diets, wh ich included dried brine shrimp, live Artemia sp., and solid commercially available pelleted feed. Fish physiology and behavior was qualitatively assessed daily to screen for exte rnal signs of disease, fungus, or infection by parasites. Photographs of the fish hol ding facility are provided in Appendix A6 Test Facility Testing was conducted at Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. (Alden) in Holden, MA. A modified traveling screen was installed in a 208 m 3 (55,000 gallon) capacity steel flume, which was equipped with a 150 hp bow thruster to produce water velocities up to

0.9 m·s -1 . The flume was also equipped with a bag filter system to remove suspended particulates and maintain water quality. Th e section of the flume where the testing was performed had a maximum depth of 2.0 m and a width of 1.8 m. Water temperatures were not controlled, but holding facility te mperatures were maintained within 2 ° C of the testing facility to avoid thermal shock. The test portion of the flume is shown on Figure

1.

Screen baskets were 1.2-m wide and were equipped with 0.64 cm × 1.3 cm rectangular, smooth-texTM mesh. Screen wire diameter was 2 mm (14 gauge). The pilotscale screen was 2.4-m tall (1.8 m between the centerlines of the top and bottom screen sprockets). The screen was designed to ro tate at speeds ranging from 2.4–10.4 m/min. The boot section (bottom) of the screen was equipped with a brush to prevent fish from passing underneath the screen. The screen had a fish and debris spraywash/return system, which included spraywash headers ( one external and two internal pairs), a neoprene rubber flap seal, and a simulated section of a return trough on the downstream side of the screen. Atypical of modern screen designs, a single debris/fish trough was used because height limitations prohibited the use of dedicated fish and debris troughs. Other than the fish trough and height of the pilot-scale screen, the following features of

the screen were identical to screens that w ould be installed at CWIS: basket dimensions, gaps between the baskets, spaces between th e baskets and the screen frame, spraywash7 nozzle orientation and water pressure, and th e distance between the flap seal and the

screen face met manufacturer’s full-scale design specifications. Photos of the facilities and testing methods are pr esented in Appendix A.

Velocity Measurements Velocity measurements were recorded at the beginning of the experiments using a Swoffer flow meter to verify that the flume operating conditions produced the desired approach velocities with a re latively uniform flow distribu tion upstream of the traveling screen. Approach velocities were measured fo r each test condition, at three locations and three depths along a transect that was approximately 1.2 m upstream of the screen face. Velocity measurements were used to develop a predicted bow thruster output curve, such that bow thruster rpm could be used to se t the approach velocity for each replicate.

Test Parameters The post-impingement mortality of fish following exposure to the modified traveling screen was assessed. A discussi on of the difference between impingement on traditional traveling screens and modified trav eling screens is presented in Appendix B. In addition, the rates and types of injury and rates of scale-lo ss, the length of time swimming prior to impingement, the effect of fish length on imp ingement rates and mortality were also evaluated. Finally, qualitative observations of fish behavior as they encountered the traveling screen were made using underwater video cameras. Testing consisted of exposing the ten species to three different approach velocities (0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 m·s -1 ). Approach velocities were se lected based upon an analysis of8 approach velocities at existing CWIS. A da tabase of design and operation data from many CWISs was analyzed to determine typi cal water velocities approaching traveling

water screens. Data from 88 CWISs usi ng once-through cooling were used in the analysis. These facilities were selected for analysis because the reports provided by power companies had the necessary informati on to calculate approach velocities. The

calculated velocities were based on CWIS de sign information, and it was assumed that the intakes were operating at design intake flow (all pumps operational) at expected low water depth. Thus the calculated velociti es represent the expected highest velocity approaching the traveling water screens. Th e intakes evaluated were located nationwide and represent all major water body types (freshwater lakes and rivers, estuaries, marine, and Great Lakes). Results of the analysis i ndicated that the mean approach velocity at existing plants is 0.30 m·s -1 , with a median value of 0.27 m·s -1 and a range of 0.09 m·s -1

to 0.82 m·s -1 . Therefore, the approach velocities se lected bracket the range of velocities typically observed at CWISs. For each species, five replicates at each of the three approach velocities were tested. On each day of testing, three treatm ent replicates and one handling control were completed. A weekly testing schedule is provided in Appendix C. Individual species

were tested alone or with one other species to form a speci es-group. Species-groups were created to reduce the time requi red to complete testing. Care was taken to select compatible species to form the species-gr oups. Each species was tested sequentially, such that all replicates were run for a single species-group prior to testing the next species or species-group. A randomized design was used to determine the order of testing within each species or species-group. On each day of testing, a handling control group for each9 species was tested to separate mortality a ssociated with handling (removal from holding facility, marking, counting into test groups, a nd introduction to and removal from the test flume) from mortality associated with im pingement and removal from the screens. Control groups were randomly assigned a times lot on each test day to ensure that control groups were not tested at the same time each day. For duration of impingement (DI) testing in the laboratory, fish were introduced at a high velocity (0.9 m·s -1 ) while the screen remained stationary for a predetermined amount of time (2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 min) to simu late longer durations of impingement (DI). Early test results showed little injury and no mortality at durations of 2 and 4 min. Therefore, these conditions were not include d in extended impingement tests to maximize

the use of a limited number of available test fish. The remaining tests were conducted at the longer impingement durations.

Fish Marking

Test fish were marked a minimum of tw enty-four hours prior to testing. A New West POW’R-Ject marking gun was used to mark 300 treatment and 100 control fish of each species. The marking system used compressed CO 2 to inject biologically inert, micro-encapsulated photonic dye into the base of individual fins. Species- and sizespecific adjustments to injection pressure and dye volume were made to optimize the visibility of marks. Four colors and thr ee fin locations were used to provide 12 unique marks, which allowed the resulting combination of color and fin location to be used once per week (based on four replicates per day × three testing days per week). Uniquely marked release groups allowed fish to be identi fied to the replicate from which they were10 released, regardless of when they were coll ected. Marking fish in this way was very effective. Mark retention was high; of the 15,721 fish collected by impingement during velocity testing, only 67 fish (0.4%) did not ha ve discernable fin marks. Similar marking procedures were used for the DI testing.

Test Procedures Velocity Tests In preparation for each treatment replicate, the screen rotation speed (2.4 m/min) and spraywash pressure (10 psig) were set to the appropriate le vels. The approach velocity was initially set at 0.15 m·s -1 . The isolation screen that confined fish to the area immediately upstream of the traveling screen was lowered into place. A floating net collection pen was placed at the discharge of the return trough. The knife-gate valve that prevents fish from sluicing into the net co llection pen from the fish return trough was confirmed to be in the closed position. When conducting a treatment replicate, 100 fish of each species were introduced just upstream of the traveling screen in the test enclosure at the previously-set 0.15 m·s -1 velocity. Once the fish were swimming nor mally (approximately 30 sec), the velocity was increased rapidly to the ta rget test velocity. During testing, observations of fish behavior were recorded using underwater video cameras to de termine if a pattern existed in the way that fish interacted with the scre en under the various test conditions. The first 15 minutes of each replicate were vi deotaped for subsequent analysis. Fish that impinged on and were washed fr om the screen were held in the fish collection trough and subsequently sluiced in to the floating net pen through the opened11 knife-gate valve, located at the discharge of the return trough, at set intervals of 15, 60,

and 120 minutes. When conducting a control replicate, 100 mark ed fish of each species being tested were released into the fish return trough. Once the fish were oriented to the flow, the knife-gate valve at the discharge was removed and the fish were allowed to sluice into a net pen. Immediately following each collection (treatme nt or control), fish were classified into one of three categories: 1) live fish – swimming normally, with no signs of injury, apparent orientation problem, or abnorma l behavior; 2) stunned fish – struggling, swimming on side, floating belly-up but aliv e, bleeding or the presence of wounds, missing body parts, severe abrasions or laceratio ns; and 3) dead fish – no vital signs, no body or opercular movement, no response to gentle probing. Following the 120-minute collection, the wa ter velocity was reduced to 0.3 m·s -1 and the mechanical crowder was raised to move fish that were still swimming upstream

of the screen into the screen collection bucke ts. At the end of each collection event, any

live or stunned fish recovered from the fish return trough (treatment or control replicate)

were transferred back to the holding facility in individually marked net pens and held for latent impingement mortality (LIM) assessment. Fish that were entrained through the screen or did not successfu lly transfer to the collection trough were collected in the downstr eam collection net once per day at the end of testing. These fish were enumerated a nd their fork lengths (FL) measured to the nearest millimeter. The tails of freshwater drum are not forked, so total length was measured (TL).12 Fish condition was monitored immediatel y after collection, 24-, and 48-hours following impingement. At the end of 48-hours, all fish were killed and examined for external injuries and percent scale loss. A ny fish unable to maintain equilibrium at 48- hours after testing was considered dead. Exte rnal injuries were recorded by type (e.g., bruising/hemorrhaging, lace rations, severed body, or eye damage). Using methods similar to those reported by Neitzel, et al. ( 1985) and Basham, et al. (1982), percent scale loss (< 3%, 3–20%, 20–40%, and > 40%) was record ed along the length of the body. All fish were measured for fork length (or total length in the case of freshwater drum) to the nearest millimeter. Fish identified as dead immediately following collection or at 24- hours were also examined for external injuri es and scale-loss using the methods described

above. On the first day of injury and scale loss assessment with each species tested, each fish condition evaluator examined 20 sample fi sh. Injury and scale loss assessments were compared among evaluators, discrepancie s were discussed, a nd common evaluation criteria were developed by consensus. Subs equently, any fish obser ved with questionable injuries were cross checked by a second evaluator. Because water depth in the test flume was limited to 1.5 m, the maximum DI for fish during the velocity tests was about 40 seconds (assuming 8 ft/min rotation speed and fish impinged at the deepest point in the flume). Therefore, it was not possible to evaluate longer durations of impingement during velocity tests while maintaining continuous screen rotation, a feat ure generally considered as important to fish survival.13 Duration of Impingement Tests To determine the DI that might be obse rved at existing CWIS, a database of design and operational data from several pow er plants was consulted. A subset of

facilities from the database was selected ba sed upon the availabili ty of both well depth (the height of the screen) and screen rotati on speed data. Since bot h types of data were necessary to estimate maximum DI, facilities l acking either data type were removed from the analysis. Maximum impingement durati on was calculated by dividing the well depth by the screen rotation speed. If data were reported for multiple CWIS at the same facility, each CWIS was evalua ted separately. If more than one screen speed was presented for a given CWIS, then each value was used to compute separate predicted values. Similarly, if more than one water depth was reported, a va lue was calculated at

minimum and maximum water depth. DI values were calculated for 56 CWIS representing 39 power plants. Five CWIS reported multiple water depths and 12 CWIS reported multiple screen rotation speed yielding a total of 76 data points. The DI values calculated are the expected maximum, since th is analysis assumes fish impingement at the bottom or base of the screen. Fish impinged near the surface or at mid-depth would have shorter durations of impingement. Th e average calculated DI was 2.8 minutes (± 0.26 SE), with a median value of 2.1 minutes. The minimum and maximum durations of impingement were 0.5 and 12 minutes, respectively. For DI testing, the number of fish tested and the number of re plicates completed were determined by availability of test organisms. A total of 40 treatment and control replicates were run with ch annel catfish (12 replicates; n =446), golden shiner (12 replicates; n =262), and fathead minnow (16 replicates; n =332). A randomized design14 was used to determine the order of testing. For each set of treatment replicates, control groups were tested to separate mortality, inju ry, and scale loss asso ciated with handling (removal from holding facility, marking, coun ting into test groups, and introduction to and removal from the test flume) from mort ality, injury, and scale loss associated with testing. Control groups were randomly assigned a timeslot on each test day to ensure that control groups were not tested at the same time each day. For DI testing, the screen wa s held stationary and the approach velocity was set at

0.9 m·s -1 . This high velocity was used to maximize the number of fish impinged. Marked fish were introduced just upstream of the screen face in the test enclosure. For treatment replicates, fish were allowed to interact with the screen for 6, 8, or

10 min after introduction into th e test enclosure. At the end of the 6, 8, or 10 min period, the screen was rotated until the screen panels that had been in the water were just above the water line. For control replicates, fish we re poured directly into a water filled bucket

above the flume water line. For both treatmen t and control replicates, fish were removed from the water-filled buckets using a small net and transferred to a water filled bucket for transport back to the holding facility. Immediately following each collection, fish were classified into one of the three categories (live, dead, or st unned, as described above) before being transferred back to the holding facility, placed into individually marked net pens, and held for a 48-hour LIM

assessment.

Fish survival was monitored at 24- a nd 48-hours intervals. At the end of 48- hours, all fish were killed using a clove oil solution and examined for external injuries15 and percent scale loss. Injury and scale loss were assessed using the same procedures as used for velocity tests.

Data Analysis Velocity Tests During velocity testing, ove r 19,000 fish were tested ( n = 19,401). Of these, 13,009 were used for data analysis (67.1%). Of the remaining fish, a large majority (22.7% of the total number rel eased) were collected downstrea m of the screen (i.e., were entrained or passed between the flap seal and the screen during transfer from the screen to the fish return trough). Others were e ither unaccounted for (1.7%), did not have an identifiable mark (0.3%), or were collected in a subsequent trial (8.4%). Because fish collected in subsequent trials were exposed to multiple velocities and crowding events, they were not included in the statistical an alysis. Data were analyzed by logistic regression using SAS software (SAS Inst. 1999). Four possible i ndependent variables were included in the analysis: approach velocity, collection time (15 minutes after introduction, 60 minutes after introduction, 120 minutes after in troduction, and at time of crowding), observation time (initial, 24- hours, and 48-hours), and fork length. Preliminary logistic regression models cont ained all four variab les. However, the impingement responses were not sufficientl y distributed over two of these variables (collection time and observation time) to allo w a simultaneous analysis. In the case of collection time, fish tended to remain upstr eam of the screen until crowding at lower velocities. Conversely, at highe r velocities, the majority of fish tended to be impinged and collected during the first 15 minutes. Thus , for any given velocity, the majority of16 fish fell into only one collection category. Si milarly, very little mortality was observed during the initial and 24 -hour observation periods. In all cases, this lack of differentiation between collection time and observation time pr evented the logistic regression models from converging on reliable estimates. Therefore, the model design was reduced to include only velocity and fo rk length as variables. Under the theory of Generalized Linear Models (McCullagh and Nelder 1989) a simple one variable linear expression can be replaced by a linear e xpression containing many independent variables. These variables can be continuous, such as fish length, or categorical, such as discrete velocity tr eatments. Maximum likelihood has become the preferred estimation procedure because maxi mum likelihood can be implemented when there is only one subject for each unique comb ination of independent variables. When using maximum likelihood estimation, the stat istical significance of each independent variable is assessed through a ch i-square test, which can be thought of as analogous to the

F-test that is used in linear regression. Thus the final regression model used was:

) ( 1 log forklength collection velocity p p j i β α + + + = ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

− where:

α is the intercept term velocity i are terms to model velocity treatment i = 1, 3

collection j are terms to model collection effect j = 1, 3, and β is the coefficient for the eff ect of fork length on the log-odds17 The analysis for scale loss was based on an extension of logistic regression to a multiple category response variable (McCul lagh and Nelder 1989) where the categories 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 th e model are the cumula tive probabilities of the scale loss categories : p1 = Pr(<=1) = P r( = 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 predic t the first three. The standard logistic model was formulated for each of these three probabilities: 

# } { )) L ( ( e 1 )) L ( ( e p k 2 1 0 k 2 1 0 ijk j i j i 

# / β β β β β β + + + + + = where: 

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

β

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

β

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

β

2 = a coefficient for the effect of length.

L k = fork length of fish k.

e = base of the natural logarithms

In this model, the term β 0 models the increase in probability from one cumulative probability to the next, and the term β 1 models a shift of the cumulative distribution from18 one velocity treatment to the next. This feat ure causes the predicte d probabilities for one velocity treatment to be proportional to the pr edicted probabilities for another. That is,

there is a constant odds ratio across scale loss categories between a pair of velocity treatments. For this reason, this model is sometimes called the "proportional odds

model." Duration of Impingement Tests Similar to the velocity tests, duration of impingement data were analyzed using logistic regression. Duration of impingement (DI) was treated as a continuous variable rather than a categorical variable. That is , it was assumed that the effect of DI is

monotonic and that its effect on the logarithm of the odds ratio can be quantified by a linear model. For analysis purposes, controls were assigned a duration time of zero. The model included both fork length an d DI as independent variables. The logistic regression of injury for th e DI study included fork length and DI as factors. Analysis followed the injury analys is methods outlined above for velocity tests, except that DI was treated as a continuous va riable whereas velocity was treated as a categorical variable. The methods for analyzing scale loss for DI effects were the same as those used for analyzing scale loss for velo city effects except that DI was treated as a continuous variable whereas velocity was treated as a categorical variable.19 Results Velocity Tests

A total of 163 treatment and control replicates was completed over 33 days between 11 May and 24 August, 2005 during th e velocity trials. Observed postimpingement mortality was low under all conditions tested (< 5%). Mortality rates were higher at higher velocities, but this effect was signif icant only for bluegill ( P =0.0005). Injury rates were more variable by species , with significantly higher injury rates ( P <0.05) observed at higher velocities for many species . Velocity was also a significant indicator of scale loss for all six species with successf ul logistic regression models. Fish length was an important factor in mo rtality, injury, and scale loss. In all cases where length was a significant factor ( P <0.05), there was a trend toward decreased mortality, injury, and scale loss as fish grew larger . In all cases where fish le ngth was a significant factor, the pattern of decreased mortalit y, injury, and scale loss as fish increased in length was

observed. Time to Impingement

The number of fish collected at each velo city and for each collection time varied by species. Because fish tended to impinge e ither at low-velocity/long collection time or high-velocity/short collection time, it was not pos sible to separate the effects of velocity and collection time through statistical analysis . For most species, it appears that there

was a threshold between 0.3 and 0.6 m·s -1 at which fish could no longer maintain their position upstream of the screen. However, fo r most species a substa ntial number of fish

were able to swim at 0.6 m·s -1 for the duration of testing. At 0.3 m·s -1 , most fish were collected during the crowd, indi cating that the fish were cap able of swimming for 2 hours20 at the target velo city. At 0.9 m·s -1 , most fish were colle cted 15 minutes after introduction, indicating that they were unabl e to swim at this velocity for extended periods. A table showing impingement by ve locity and collection time is provided in Appendix D. Water Temperature Swimming capacity tends to be positively correlated with temperature (Beamish 1978). In addition, water temperature can play an important role in post-impingement fish survival. Extremes in water temperatur e can lead to increased mortality (e.g., Burton and Graves 1979, Loar et al. 1978, Eisele a nd Malaric 1978). Recorded mean water temperature during testing was 20 ° C ± 1 SE and ranged from a low of 13.0 ° C in May to a high of 24.6 ° C in July. Because temperatures and survival rates were fairly uniform during testing, temperature likely did not impact the results of this study. Mortality

Review of the 48-hour mortal ity data indicates that mortality for all species was low regardless of approach ve locity (Table 1). Confiden ce intervals (± 95% CI) were calculated using the normal approximati on of the binomial distribution from the descriptive statistics of mortality rates. Th e results of the logistic regression models for survival are presented by species in A ppendix E. A summary of the pertinent P -values from the species models are presented in Ta ble 2. The model resu lts are hierarchical, such that if the model was not significant a nd failed to converge to a reliable estimate, then the length and velocity components were not significant regardless of their P -value. A full discussion on interpreting the results of the logistic models is presented in Appendix E.21 The logistic regression models for mortal ity did not yield meaningful results for five of the ten species tested (bigmouth buffa lo, channel catfish, freshwater drum, fathead minnow, and hybrid striped bass) ( P >0.05; Table 2). In all cases, there were too few mortalities for the models to converge to a reli able estimate. Mortality rates for these five species did not exceed 3.2% under any of the test conditions (Table 1). For largemouth bass, the mortality regre ssion model was marginally significant ( P =0.0549). Mortality among the velocity tr eatments for largemouth bass ranged from

0.8% in the control to 2.8% in the 0.9 m·s -1 treatment (Table 1). These differences were not statistically significant ( P= 0.1170; Table 2). There was weak evidence of a length effect ( P= 0.0773; Table 2). The negative coeffici ent indicates redu ced likelihood of mortality at longer lengths. The remaining five species (bluegill, golden shiner, hybrid striped bass, white sucker, and yellow perch) had significant logistic regression m odels for mortality ( P ≤ 0.0392). For bluegill, mortality among the ve locity and control treatments ranged

from 0.9% at 0.3 m·s -1 to 4.6% at 0.6 m·s -1 (Table 1). The 0.3 m·s -1 treatment was not significantly different from th e control while the 0.6 m·s -1 treatment was significantly greater than the control ( P= 0.0004; Table 2). There was weak evidence that the 0.9 m·s -1 treatment was different from the control ( P= 0.0601; Table 2). The length effect was significant ( P< 0.0001; Table 2) indicating a reduced likelihood of mortality as fish increase in length. For golden shiner, mortality among the velo city treatments ranged from 1.2% in

the control to 1.6% in the 0.3 m·s -1 treatment (Table 1). These values were not significantly different ( P= 0.7242; Table 2). There was evidence of a length effect22 ( P <0.0001; Table 2). The negati ve coefficient indicates re duced likelihood of mortality as fish increased in length. For white sucker, mortality among the velo city and control treatments ranged

from 3.1% in the control to 4.7% in the 0.6 m·s -1 treatment (Table 1). These differences were not significantly different ( P= 0.7423; Table 2). There was evidence of a reduced likelihood of mortality as fish increase in length ( P <0.0001; Table 2). For yellow perch, mortality among the velocity treatments ranged from 0.8% in

the 0.3 m·s -1 treatment to 2.6% in the 0.6 m·s -1 treatment (Table 1). These differences were not significantly different ( P= 0.3143; Table 1). There was evidence of a reduced likelihood of mortality as fish increased in length ( P =0.0052; Table 2). Injury Review of injury data indicates that the rate of injury for most species was low regardless of approach velocity. Table 3 pr esents the rate of injury by species and velocity. Fish showing clear signs of fungus or other disease were recorded as diseased. The two wild-caught species (fathead minnow and white sucker) showed much higher rates of injury. However, the rates of control injury for these two species were also much higher, indicating that the higher ra tes of injury were not exclusively the result of screen exposure. The types and frequency of injury observed for all species combined are shown on Figure 2. Fish that were swimming and behaving nor mally during the initial assessment, but later found dead, descaled, and missing thei r eyes or fins during the 24 or 48-hour

assessment were assumed to have died as a result of injuries resu lting from conspecific aggression (CA) rather than from interacti on with the screen. For two of the species23 evaluated (bluegill and fathead minnow), ther e was a substantial amount of CA injury

that occurred while fish were held in pens during the LIM assessment (48 and 11, respectively). To investigate the possibility that CA injuries were influencing the outcome of the injury regression analysis , a second regression was completed that eliminated fish with CA injuries. In the case of fathead minnow, eliminating CA injury

did not affect the outcome of the model. In the case of bluegill, w ith the elimination of CA injury, the overall velocity treatment statistic was significant ( P= 0.0077), with the

0.3 m·s -1 treatment exhibiting significantly greater injury than the control ( P= 0.0034) (Table 4).

The logistic regression models for injury did not yield meaningful results for three of the ten species tested (golden shiner, hybrid ba ss, and yellow perch) ( P >0.05; Table 4). Injury rates for these three species did not exceed 4.6% under any of the test conditions. Velocity was not a significant predictor of in jury for four of the seven species that had meaningful logistic regressions (bigmouth buffalo, bluegill, freshwater drum, and white sucker) ( P >0.05; Table 4). Interesti ngly, four of the five comparisons in which velocity was a significant factor in predicting injury (bluegill excluding CA injuries, channel catfish, and fathead minnow with a nd without CA injuries), the 0.3 m·s -1 treatment, but

not the 0.6 m·s -1 and 0.9 m·s -1 treatments, resulted in grea ter injury than the control treatment. For largem outh bass, the 0.6 m·s -1 and 0.9 m·s -1 treatments ( P >0.05; Table 4),

but not the 0.3 m·s -1 treatment showed significantly gr eater injury than the control treatment ( P <0.05; Table 4).

In general, larger fish tended to exhibit fewer injuries than smaller fish. Longer fish had significantly lower injury rates in four of the species te sted (bigmouth buffalo,24 bluegill, freshwater drum, and white sucker) ( P <0.05). While not signi ficant at an alpha level of 0.05, there was marginal evidence that larger channel catfish experienced fewer injuries ( P= 0.0699; Table 4).

Scale Loss While occurring at a low rate for most spec ies, the effect of velocity on scale loss showed a more consistent pattern across spec ies than did injury or mortality. Most species exhibited an increase in scale loss at higher velocities and a decrease in scale loss with increasing fish length. Species-specific scale loss fell into three distinct groups. The first group, which exhibited very little scale loss, included freshwater drum, hybrid striped bass, largemouth bass, and yellow perc h. For these species, greater than 90% of the fish exhibited scale loss levels of 3% or less (Table 5). Ninety percent of the bluegill

control fish also exhibited 3% or less scale loss, but treatme nt fish exhibiting scale loss levels of 3% or less ranged from 82 to 89% . By contrast, bigmouth buffalo and golden shiner exhibited much greater scale loss. For these two species, more than 50% of the fish exhibited scale loss great er than 3%, even among contro l fish. The percentage of fish exhibiting scale loss gr eater than 3% among an inte rmediate group comprised of fathead minnow and white sucker ranged from 15-51% among treatment fish and 14-19% among control fish. The logistic regression models for scale loss did not yield meaningful results for three of the nine species ev aluated (hybrid bass, largemouth bass, and yellow perch) ( P >0.05; Table 6). Channel catfis h, a species that lacks scal es, were excluded from this analysis. Velocity was a signi ficant predictor of scale loss for bigmouth buffalo, bluegill, freshwater drum, fathead minnow, go lden shiner, and white sucker ( P <0.05; Table 6), but25 not for hybrid striped bass, larg emouth bass, or yellow perch ( P >0.05; Table 6). Four of the six species exhibiting significant velocity effects on scale loss showed significantly greater velocity effects at 0.6 m·s -1 and 0.9 m·s -1 , but not at 0.3 m·s -1 (bigmouth buffalo, bluegill, freshwater drum, and white sucker; P <0.05; Table 6). Only golden shiner exhibited significant scale loss at all three tr eatment velocities compared to the control ( P <0.0001; Table 6). Surprisingly, fathead min now showed significantly more scale loss

at 0.3 m·s -1 ( P =0.0003; Table 6), but not at 0.6 m·s -1 or 0.9 m·s -1 ( P >0.5454; Table 6). Length was a significant factor in predicti ng scale loss for five of the six species with reliable logistic regressions (bigmout h buffalo, bluegill, freshwater drum, golden shiner, and white sucker; P <0.05; Table 6), but not fathead minnow ( P =0.7829; Table 6). In all five species exhibiting significant length effects, the coefficient for length was positive and significant ( P< 0.05; Table 6) indicating that larg er fish tended to have less

scale loss.

Duration of Impingement Tests Increasing DI tended to increase morta lity, injury, and scale loss (statistical analysis tables for these tests are included in Appendix F). Survival was variable by species, but was relatively high for all species. Mortality rates for all species never exceeded 10% under any condition. There we re no mortalities observed for channel catfish with any of the DI treatment conditi ons (Table 7). Fathead minnow exhibited a non-intuitive pattern of mortality; mortality was lowest in the controls (0.7%), which does conform to expectation, but mortality wa s intermediate for 10 min and highest for the 6 min (6.4%) and 8 min (6.7%) treatment s (Table 7), and the full model was not26 significant ( P= 0.1244; Table 9). With golden shiner, mo rtality increased with DI, if the control treatment was eliminated. However, the mortality response for the controls was about midway in the gradient across durations . Even with this anomaly, the analysis shows that mortality significantl y increased with increasing DI ( P= 0.0038; Table 9). Length had a significant negative effect on mortality ( P= 0.0001; Table 9), indicating that larger fish experienced less mortality. Patterns in injury among species were in conclusive. Since no injuries were

observed for channel catfish it was not necessa ry to conduct any stat istical analysis. Fathead minnow and golden shiner showed diffe rent responses. Injury rates for fathead minnow followed the same non-intuitive pattern that was observed for mortality (i.e., injury was highest at an intermediate valu e – 6 min [8.5%]) (Table 9). The analysis shows that the full model is not significant ( P= 0.3688; Table 9). Golden shiner mortality among the controls was unusually high (9.3%; Table 7). Excluding the controls, the inju ry rate tended to increase with duration. Logistic regression showed a positive coefficient for DI but was not statistically significant ( P= 0.1464; Table 9). If the cont rols are excluded, the coe fficient increases from 0.0878 to 0.2483, but this is only marginally significant ( P= 0.0948; Table 9). Longer fish showed a decreased likelihood of injury ( P= 0.0050; Table 9). Fathead minnow experienced relatively lo w levels of scale loss, with 80% or greater having 3% or less scale loss under al l conditions. For fathead minnow, there was a significant increase in s cale loss with increasing DI ( P= 0.0270; Table 9). Smaller fish had less scale loss than larger fish, which is c ounter to that observed with other species, but was not significant ( P= 0.7066; Table 9). Note that duration and length are27 confounded to some degree in this data set because the control fish on average, were

smaller than the treatment fish.

Golden shiner exhibited subs tantial scale loss, even among control fish (Table 8).

More than half the fish in each of the DI te sts exhibited the highest level of scale loss (>40%). For golden shiner, scale lo ss increased with increasing DI ( P< 0.0001; Table 9).

There was also a reduction in scale loss as golden shiner increased in length ( P= 0.0144; Table 9).

Discussion During velocity tests, post-impingement mortality was low for all species and velocities tested (<5%) indicating that modified traveli ng screens have good potential to meet Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act fo r these species. While fish mortality was low at all velocities tested, hi gher rates of injury and scale loss were observed at 0.6 m·s -1

and 0.9 m·s -1 than at 0.3 m·s -1

. Fish length played an important role in mortality, injury, and scale loss. In all cases where fish length was a significant factor , the pattern of decrea sed mortality, injury, and scale loss as fish increased in length was observed. Thus, even though mortality of all fish tested was low, modified traveling screens offer a higher level of protection to larger fish. Despite a general trend toward decreasing mortality at lower velocities, velocity was only a significant factor in mo rtality for bluegill. This l ack of correlation to velocity suggests that modified screens can be used at facilities with appro ach velocities greater

than 0.3 m·s -1 . It is unclear why bluegill e xhibit greater mortality at 0.3 m·s -1 than at 0.6

m·s -1 or 0.9 m·s -1 . Further research would be re quired if determining the underlying28 mechanism that leads to greater bluegill in jury at lower velocities is considered important. However, visual observations in dicate that velocities greater than 0.3 m·s -1

can create more turbulence in the fish lif ting buckets, which may account for the greater injury and scale loss observe d at higher velocities. Injury rates were generally low but were highly variable by species indicating that the observed injury of fish in the field will be determined largely on species composition and abundance at the individual CWIS. However, the two species with the highest injury rates (white sucker and fathead minnow) also exhibited greater ha ndling control injury, indicating that these popul ations of fish may not have been as healthy as the other species

tested. Scale loss levels were highly species-specific with some species, such as largemouth bass and yellow perch experiencing almost no scale loss, with other species, such as bigmouth buffalo and golden shiner ex periencing substantial levels of scale loss even among the control fish. It appears that susceptibility to scale loss may be associated with scale structure. Although there was consid erable variability, fish with cycloid scales (bigmouth buffalo, fathead minnow, golden shin er, and white sucker) exhibited greater scale loss than species with ctenoid scale structure (blueg ill, freshwater drum, hybrid striped bass, largemouth bass, and yellow perch). It might be assumed that site-specific environmental factors (e.g., debris, water quality, water temperature, turbulence, etc. ) will impact fish condition and potentially increase post-impingement mortality, injury, a nd scale loss at field sites using modified traveling screens. However, a comparison of these laboratory results with results29 observed in the field indicate th at the high survival observed in the laboratory is within the bounds of what has been observed in the field with similar screen designs. Intuitively, one might expect that organism s tested in the laboratory would have higher survival than those observed in the fi eld. Organisms collected in the field are often exposed to site-specifi c factors that impact physiolo gical condition and potentially reduce survival (e.g., disease, extremes in wa ter temperature, debris loading, poor water quality, inter- and intra-specific competition for resources, etc.). Laboratory studies, on the other hand, are conducted under conditions where the eff ect of natural stressors, particularly disease organisms, is typical ly more controlled. Therefore, it is not necessarily surprising that high survival was observed in this laboratory study. To compare the survival observed in these laborat ory studies to those observed in previous pilot- and full-scale field installations, a data base of existing screen survival data was queried for studies that: 1) we re conducted at facilities with modified Ristroph or other screen designs with fish-friendly modifications ; 2) were conducted at facilities with the more sophisticated bucket designs developed in the 1980s; and 3) had similar species to those tested in the laboratory. In most cases, data were limited to the same genus as those tested in the laboratory. There were two exceptions: Ameiurus sp. was included in the analysis of Ictaluridae (catfishes); until recently these tw o genera were considered to be

the same and Notropis sp. (shiner) was included with Notemigonus sp. (shiner). There were no field data available for bigmouth bu ffalo or related species. Field data for freshwater drum were intentionally not expanded to other members of the family

Sciaenidae , since all other members are brackish or marine species and may not exhibit similar patterns in post-impingement surviv al as those observed for freshwater drum.30 The weighted mean and 95% CI (nor mal approximation) for the field and laboratory estimates of survival are presented in Table 10. In general, there was a greater range of reported values from the field than from the laboratory. Th e mean survival from

the field tended to be lower than that observed in the laboratory. For five fish genera, the laboratory and field results show similar su rvival and overlapping confidence intervals ( Lepomis spp., Micropterus spp., Perca spp., Pimephales spp., and Catostomus spp.) indicating no differences in survival between the laboratory and field. For the remaining four groups of fish (family Ictaluridae , freshwater drum, Morone spp., and Notropis spp

+ Notemigonus spp.), laboratory results were higher than those observed in the field. Surprisingly, in-field survival of catfish (channel catfish, brown bullhead, and white catfish), which are often considered “hardy,” was substantially lower than that observed in the laboratory (74.9% vs. 99.6%) (Table 10). It is unclear what factors are contributing to the lower survival rates obser ved for some of the species in the field.

Previous research has identif ied several factors that in fluence the potential for postimpingement organism survival. These f actors include: time between screen washes (e.g., Chase 1975, King et al. 1978, Tatham et al. 1978), salinity (e.g., Bowser and Buttner 1991, Kane et al. 1990, Palawski et al . 1985), debris loadi ng (Landry and Strawn 1974), and water temperature (e.g, Lankford 1997, Lifton and Storr 1978, Loar et al. 1979). Additional studies tracking these and ot her factors in the field concurrent with impingement survival studies would be necessa ry to determine whic h factors are leading

to the observed differences in survival for so me species between the laboratory and field

studies.31 Underwater observations indi cate a substantial amount of turbulence present in the fish lifting bucket when velo cities were greater than 0.3 m·s -1 . Future study aimed at improving the hydraulic conditions within the fish buckets at higher velocities could further reduce the injury and scal e loss levels observed at 0.6 m·s -1 and 0.9 m·s -1

. Because overall rates of mortality, injury, a nd scale-loss were low, the relatively small amount of improvement that could be achieve d through redesign of the fish buckets may

not warrant the associated cost. Longer durations of impingement may result in higher mortality, injury, and scale loss, especially at durations of impingement greater than 6 minutes. However, given the water depth in most CWIS, there may be considerable leeway in developing an operations protocol th at would not require continuous rotation but would still reduce impingement mortality.

The results of these studies indicate th at modified traveling screens should provide sufficient reductions in impingement mortality necessary to meet Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act with the species tested in the laboratory. It should be pointed out that these studies only evaluated velocity a nd duration of impingement and their effects on survival in a controlled laboratory environm ent. Several other biotic, abiotic, and plant operational characteristics in real-world situations could introduce additional stress to aquatic organisms and increase the mortal ity of wild fish. La boratory evaluation is only one step in the standardized process es tablished by the Ameri can Fisheries Society, Bioengineering Section for the effective eval uation and application of fish passage and protection technologies (AFS- BES 2000). Now that laboratory evaluations have demonstrated the potential for modified trav eling screens to protect juvenile and adult32 freshwater fish, the next logi cal step toward wide-scale appl ication would be to conduct a prototype evaluation at a field location with similar species as those tested in the laboratory. Such an evaluation would allow re searchers to assess the biological efficacy of modified traveling screen s under the operational and environmental conditions present in a real-world setting.Table 1.Mean fork length (mm) ± standard error (SE), total number offish tested (n), percent dead 48hours after testing, and the 95%confidenceintervals (CI) by species and velocity. Confidence intervals were calculated using the normal approximation of a binomial distribution. Freshwaterdrum, lacking forked tails, were measured to total length.Mean ForkLength (mm) ±(SE)0.3 m·s-10.6 m·s-10.9 m·s-1Controln% Dead at48 H 95% CIn% Deadat 48 H 95% CIn% Deadat 48 H 95% CIn% Deadat 48 H 95% CIBigmouthBuffalo72.1 ± 0.26 245 0.0 0.0 - 0.294 0.0 0.0 - 0.5 142 0.0 0.0 - 0.4 295 0.3 0.0 - 1.1Bluegill47.6 ± 0.19 340 0.9 0.0 - 2.1328 4.6 2.2 – 7.0 317 2.2 0.4 – 4.0 397 1.5 0.2 - 2.8ChannelCatfish64.2 ± 0.17 206 1.0 0.0 - 2.6148 0.0 0.0 - 0.3 246 0.4 0.0 - 1.4 490 0.0 0.0 - 0.1FreshwaterDrum84.7 ± 0.22 243 0.0 0.0 - 0.2230 0.0 0.0 - 0.2 204 0.5 0.0 - 1.7 512 0.2 0.0 - 0.7FatheadMinnow54.5 ± 0.16 393 2.3 0.7 - 3.9343 3.2 1.2 - 5.2 296 1.7 0.1 - 3.3 493 1.2 0.1 - 2.3GoldenShiner74.3 ± 0.31 365 1.6 0.2 –3.0374 1.3 0.0 - 2.6 389 1.5 0.2 - 2.8 485 1.2 0.1 - 2.3Hybrid Bass60.6 ± 0.14 243 0.4 0.0 - 1.4241 0.0 0.0 - 0.2 356 0.3 0.0 – 1.0 498 0.0 0.0 - 0.1LargemouthBass98.5 ± 0.30 394 1.0 0.0 - 2.1359 2.2 0.5 - 3.9 361 2.8 1.0 - 4.6 501 0.8 0.0 - 1.7White Sucker 79.8 ± 0.35 373 4.3 2.1 - 6.5 339 4.7 2.3 - 7.1 374 4.5 2.3 - 6.7 458 3.1 1.4 - 4.8Yellow Perch 49.7 ± 0.27 120 0.8 0.0 - 2.8 156 2.6 0.0 - 5.4 162 1.2 0.0- 3.2 498 1.0 0.0 – 2.0

3334 Table 2. Summary of pertinent p-values from the maximum likelihood estimates for the mortality regression models for all species tested. ( a ) Significant differences at p<0.05; ( ↓ ) mortality decreased significantly with increasing fish length; ( + ) treatment fish exhibited significantly greater mortality than the control. Species Model Length Velocity 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Bigmouth Buffalo 0.8233 -- -- -- -- -- Bluegill <0.0001 a <0.0001 a ↓ 0.0005 a 0.8860 0.0004 a + 0.0601 + Channel Catfish 0.6336 -- -- -- -- -- Freshwater Drum 0.1903 -- -- -- -- -- Fathead Minnow 0.2147 -- -- -- -- -- Golden Shiner 0.0003 a <0.0001 a ↓ 0.7242 -- -- -- Hybrid Bass 0.9921 -- -- -- -- -- Largemouth Bass 0.0549 0.0773 0.1170 -- -- -- White Sucker <0.0001 a <0.0001 a ↓ 0.7423 -- -- -- Yellow Perch 0.0392 a 0.0052 a ↓ 0.3143 -- -- --35 Table 3. Percent injury by species and velocity.

Species Velocity (m·s -1 ) Percent Injured Species Velocity (m·s -1 ) Percent Injured Bigmouth Buffalo 0.3 1.6% Golden Shiner 0.3 2.7% 0.6 1.1% 0.6 4.6% 0.9 3.5% 0.9 2.6% Control 1.4% Control 3.7%

Bluegill 0.3 6.8% Hybrid Bass 0.3 0.0% 0.6 7.3% 0.6 0.0% 0.9 4.4% 0.9 0.3% Control 4.8% Control 0.0%

Channel Catfish 0.3 3.4% Largemouth Bass 0.3 0.8% 0.6 0.0% 0.6 6.1% 0.9 0.4% 0.9 3.9% Control 0.6% Control 1.6%

Freshwater Drum 0.3 0.0% White Sucker 0.3 28.7% 0.6 0.9% 0.6 25.4% 0.9 0.0% 0.9 22.5% Control 1.0% Control 20.0%

Fathead Minnow 0.3 23.4% Yellow Perch 0.3 1.7% 0.6 18.1% 0.6 1.9% 0.9 13.9% 0.9 0.0% Control 15.0% Control 1.0%36 Table 4. Summary of pertinent p-values from the maximum likelihood estimates for the injury regression models for all species tested. ( a ) Significant differences at p<0.05; ( ↓ ) injury decreased significantly with increasing fish length; ( + ) treatment fish exhibited significantly greater injury than the control. Species Model Length Velocity 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Bigmouth Buffalo 0.0225 a 0.0040 a ↓ 0.2683 -- -- -- Bluegill <0.0001 a <0.0001 a ↓ 0.1392 -- -- -- Bluegill (excluding CA) 0.0011 a 0.0067 a ↓ 0.0077 a 0.0034 a + 0.3942 0.6589

Channel Catfish 0.0202 a 0.0699 0.0295 a 0.0097 a + 0.9714 0.7655 Freshwater Drum 0.0002 a <0.0001 a ↓ 0.9959 -- -- -- Fathead Minnow 0.0114 a 0.1924 0.0150 a 0.0088 a + 0.3043 0.5823 Fathead Minnow (excluding CA) 0.0037 a 0.0962 0.0085 a 0.0034 a + 0.3294 0.8100

Golden Shiner 0.5768 -- -- -- -- -- Hybrid Bass 0.9929 -- -- -- -- -- Largemouth Bass 0.0003 a 0.2244 0.0002 a 0.2762 0.0009 a + 0.0471 a + White Sucker <0.0001 a <0.0001 a ↓ 0.5949 -- -- -- Yellow Perch 0.1659 -- -- -- -- --Table 5.Percent of scale loss category by velocity and species.SpeciesScalelossVelocitySpeciesScalelossVelocity0.30m·s-10.61m·s-10.91m·s-1Ctrl0.30m·s-10.61m·s-10.91m·s-1CtrlBigmouthBuffalo<3% 42.0 16.0 29.6 48.5 Hybrid StripedBass<3% 97.9 99.2 96.9 98.23–20% 45.3 58.5 21.1 38.0 3–20% 2.1 0.8 2.8 1.620–40% 9.4 18.1 15.5 10.2 20–40% 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2>40% 3.3 7.5 33.8 3.4 >40% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Bluegill <3% 88.8 84.8 82.3 91.7 LargemouthBass<3% 99.0 99.2 97.5 98.63–20% 8.5 7.9 7.6 2.5 3–20% 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.220–40% 1.5 2.7 6.9 2.8 20–40% 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.2>40% 1.2 4.6 3.2 3.0 >40% 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0FreshwaterDrum<3% 99.6 95.7 96.1 99.4 WhiteSucker <3% 72.9 59.3 48.9 81.33–20% 0.4 3.9 3.9 0.4 3–20% 17.2 20.7 25.4 13.320–40% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20–40% 7.5 15.0 20.1 3.5>40% 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 >40% 2.4 5.0 5.6 2.0FatheadMinnow<3% 76.6 84.8 85.1 86.4 Yellow Perch <3% 100.0 98.1 98.2 99.83–20% 19.3 12.2 11.5 10.1 3–20% 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.220–40% 3.8 2.0 3.4 1.6 20–40% 0.0 1.9 1.2 0.0>40% 0.3 0.9 0.0 1.8 >40% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0GoldenShiner<3% 24.7 23.0 15.9 48.33–20% 40.0 38.5 31.1 40.420–40% 27.1 23.3 28.0 9.5>40% 8.2 15.2 24.9 1.9

3738 Table 6. Summary of pertinent p-values from the maximum likelihood estimates for the scale loss regression models for all species tested. ( a ) Significant differences at p<0.05; ( ↓ ) scale loss decreased significantly with increasing fish length; ( + ) treatment fish exhibited significantly greater scale loss than the control. Species Model Length Velocity 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Bigmouth Buffalo <0.0001 a <0.0001 a ↓ <0.0001 a 0.2783 <0.0001 a + <0.0001 a + Bluegill <0.0001 a <0.0001 a ↓ 0.0001 a 0.1338 0.0004 a + <0.0001 a + Freshwater Drum <0.0001 a <0.0001 a ↓ 0.0012 a 0.7322 0.0013 a + 0.0021 a + Fathead Minnow 0.0030 a 0.7829 0.0011 a 0.0003 a + 0.5454 0.6294 Golden Shiner <0.0001 a <0.0001 a ↓ <0.0001 a <0.0001 a + <0.0001 a + <0.0001 a + Hybrid Bass 0.3758 -- -- -- -- -- Largemouth Bass 0.3131 -- -- -- -- -- White Sucker <0.0001 a <0.0001 a ↓ <0.0001 a 0.4865 <0.0001 + <0.0001 + Yellow Perch 0.0753 -- -- -- -- --

Table 7. Mortality and injury rates (percent) by spec ies and duration of impingement (DI) tests.

Species Duration of Impingement (min) 2 4 6 8 10 Control Channel Catfish Mortality -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Injury -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fathead Minnow Mortality -- -- 6.4 6.7 2.9 0.7 Injury -- -- 8.5 3.3 2.9 1.3 Golden Shiner Mortality 0.0 0.0 3.8 15.1 12.7 9.3 Injury 0.0 0.0 5.0 6.9 9.9 9.339 Table 8. Percent of scale loss categories by species and duration of impingement (DI).

Species Scale Loss Category Duration of Impingement (min) 2 4 6 8 10 Control Fathead Minnow 1 -- -- 95.7 80.0 94.3 98.7 2 -- -- 0.0 10.0 2.9 1.3 3 -- -- 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 4 -- -- 4.3 3.3 2.9 0.0

Golden Shiner 1 0.0 0.0 3.8 2.7 14.1 42.9 2 28.6 11.1 8.8 9.6 12.7 41.9 3 14.3 33.3 16.3 15.1 12.7 7.6 4 57.1 55.6 71.3 72.6 60.6 7.6

Table 9. Summary of pertinent p-values from the maxi mum likelihood estimates for the mortality, injury, and scale loss regression models for species tested during duration of impingement (DI) testing. Metrics for measuring performance included: mortality (M), injury (I), total injury – control injury (I-C), and scale-loss (SL). ( a ) Significant differences at p<0.05; ( ↓ ) metric (mortality, injury, or scale loss) decreased with increasing fish length; ( ↑ ) metric significant ly increased with increase in DI. There were no injuries or mortality observed among channel catfish. Species Metric Model Length Duration Fathead Minnow M 0.1244 I 0.3688 SL 0.0270 a 0.0067 a ↓ 0.019 ↑

Golden Shiner M 0.0001 a 0.0001 a ↓ 0.0038 a ↑ I 0.0170 a 0.0050 a ↓ 0.1464 I-C 0.0073 a 0.0047 a ↓ 0.0948 SL <0.0001 a 0.0144 a ↓ <0.0001 a ↑Table 10.Comparison of laboratory results to thoseobserved in previous pilot- and full-scalefield evaluations. Data summarized from:Normandeau 1995 (Roseton); Beak Consultants 2000a (Dunkirk), Beak Consultants 2000b (Huntley); Fletcher 1990 (Indian Point); ConsolidatedEdison 1996 (Arthur Kill); PSE&G1999 (Salem); PSEG 2004 (Salem).Field LaboratorySpeciesNWeightedMean -95% CI +95% CINWeightedMean -95% CI +95% CIIctaluridae1,647 74.9 72.7 77.0 600 99.5 98.8 100.0freshwater drum 5 60.0 7.0 100.0 677 99.8 99.4 100.0Lepomisspp. 499 93.8 91.5 96.0 985 97.4 96.4 98.4Micropterusspp. 42 92.8 83.8 100.0 1,114 98.0 97.1 98.8Moronespp. 26,519 60.0 59.3 60.5 840 99.8 99.3 100.0Notropisspp.&Notemigonusspp. 29,906 79.1 78.6 79.5 1,128 98.5 97.7 99.2Percaspp. 280 98.9 97.5 100.0 438 98.4 97.1 99.6Pimephalesspp.12 91.7 71.8 100.0 1,032 97.6 96.5 98.5Catostomusspp. 14 100.0 96.4 100.0 1,086 95.5 94.2 96.7

40Figure 1.Test flume including isolation screen, travelingwater screen, collection trough, and collection net.

4142 Bruising or Hemorrhaging (29.7%)

Severed Body (0.2%) Predation (4.4%) Lacerations or Tears (2.3%)

Fin Damage (40.3%) Eye Damage (3.5%) Disease or Fungus (19.7%)

Figure 2. Distribution of injury types43 APPENDIX A

PHOTOS OF FACILITIES AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Figure A-1. Overview of modified screen testing facility.44 Figure A-2. Modified traveling screen in the dewatered test flume.

Figure A-3. Fish holding facility.45 Figure A-4. Marking fish using marking gun.

Figure A-5. Still image captured from the submersible video camera showing fish impingement on the traveling water screen.46 Figure A-6. Test enclosure showing upstream isolation screen (left) and the ascending face of the traveling water screen (right).



## A B

Figure A-7. Crowding fish (A) and mechanical crowder in the full upright position (B).47 Figure A-8. Fish collection and transfer to holding facility.

Figure A-9 Measuring and examining fish for external injuries.48 Figure A-10. Fish in a water-filled bucket above the flume water line.49 APPENDIX B

IMPINGEMENT ON TRADITIONAL TRAVELING SCREENS COMPARED TO

MODIFIED TRAVELING SCREENS

Fish impingement on a modified traveling screen is different than the impingement experience on a conventional trav eling screen. On conventional traveling screens, the screen face is perp endicular to the flow and ther e is no refuge for fish until they are removed from the flow. By contrast , each screen panel on the modified screen tested is slightly inclined to the flow. This slight incline appeared to help fish move toward the fish bucket (Figure B-1). However, the extent to which this incline reduces the potential for mortality is unknown.50 Flow Direction of Rotation

A. Conventional Screen Flow Direction of Rotation

B. Modified Traveling Screen Screen Mesh Screen Mesh

Figure B-1. Comparison of a conventional screen (A) to a modified traveling screen (B) showing the angle of the screen faces to the approaching flow.APPENDIX CWEEKLY TESTING, WATER SAMPLING, AND FISH CARE SCHEDULE

5152 APPENDIX D

COLLECTION TIME

Table D-1. Percent of fish collected by species, collection time, and velocity treatment.

Species Collection Time 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control n % n % n % n Bigmouth Buffalo 15 min 3 1.2 33 35.1 132 93.0 1 hr 3 1.2 3 3.2 5 3.5 2 hr 0.0 0.0 3 2.1 Crowd 239 97.6 58 61.7 2 1.4 Control 295

Bluegill 15 min 66 19.4 225 68.6 317 100.0 1 hr 11 3.2 17 5.2 0.0 2 hr 17 5.0 10 3.0 0.0 Crowd 246 72.4 76 23.2 0.0 Control 397

Channel Catfish 15 min 48 23.3 71 48.0 174 70.7 1 hr 58 28.2 26 17.6 40 16.3 2 hr 33 16.0 13 8.8 17 6.9 Crowd 67 32.5 38 25.7 15 6.1 Control 490

Freshwater Drum 15 min 15 6.2 46 20.0 203 99.5 1 hr 6 2.5 9 3.9 0.0 2 hr 9 3.7 10 4.3 0.0 Crowd 213 87.7 165 71.7 1 0.5 Control 512

Fathead Minnow 15 min 164 41.7 307 89.5 295 99.7 1 hr 25 6.4 16 4.7 0.0 2 hr 36 9.2 9 2.6 1 0.3 Crowd 168 42.7 11 3.2 0.0 Control 49353 Table D-1 (Continued)

Species Collection Time 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control n % n % n % n Golden Shiner 15 min 80 21.9 350 93.6 385 99.0 1 hr 0.0 0.0 4 1.0 2 hr 3 0.8 0.0 0.0 Crowd 282 77.3 24 6.4 0.0 Control 485

Hybrid Bass 15 min 13 5.3 16 6.6 270 75.8 1 hr 5 2.1 19 7.9 45 12.6 2 hr 13 5.3 26 10.8 21 5.9 Crowd 212 87.2 180 74.7 20 5.6 Control 498

Largemouth Bass 15 min 4 1.0 215 59.9 344 95.3 1 hr 1 0.3 5 1.4 4 1.1 2 hr 9 2.3 11 3.1 1 0.3 Crowd 380 96.4 128 35.7 12 3.3 Control 501

White Sucker 15 min 196 52.5 273 80.5 362 96.8 1 hr 25 6.7 22 6.5 9 2.4 2 hr 17 4.6 7 2.1 3 0.8 Crowd 135 36.2 37 10.9 0.0 Control 459

Yellow Perch 15 min 18 15.0 118 75.6 159 98.1 1 hr 10 8.3 10 6.4 3 1.9 2 hr 5 4.2 7 4.5 0.0 Crowd 87 72.5 21 13.5 0.0 Control 49854 APPENDIX E

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TABLES – VELOCITY TESTS Species-specific results of the logistic regressions are presented in the following tables. For each species, the first table presents the raw frequencies and summary statistics by velocity treatment, and the s econd table presents a summary of logistic regression results. The first table for each species shows the frequency of live, dead (or injured, not injured), and total recovered for each velocity, as well as percent dead or injured and mean length. The second ta ble for each species summarizes various estimates obtained from the logistic regression analyses. The first row shows the intercept of the model, which is generally not of interest but was given for completeness. The second, third, and fourth rows give esti mates of the difference in logits between mortality or injury in the treatment conditions 0.3 m·s -1 , 0.6 m·s -1 , and 0.9 m·s -1 , respectively, and the control. Row 5 reports the cumulative chi-square for all velocity treatments. Row 6 presents the coefficien t of the covariate Fo rk Length and row 7 reports the cumulative chi-square for the full m odel (velocity treatments and fork length). In some cases, there was too little mortality or too few injuries for a successful logistic regression (i.e., the model failed to converge to a reliable estimate). The logistic regression models are hier archical. A flow diagram showing the steps described below is shown in Figure E- 1. To interpret the significance of each component of the model (p-value), start by l ooking at the full model (last row in each table). If the p-value for the full model was >0.05, then the model failed to converge to a reliable estimate, and the Fork Length and Velocity components of the model were not significant regardless of their p-value. By c ontrast, if the p-value of the full model was55 significant ( P< 0.05), then the model converged to a re liable estimate and it is appropriate to look at the velocity and fork length com ponents individually. Fo rk Length was or was not significant depending on the p-value; p- values <0.05 were significant. When pvalues for Velocity were >0.05, then velo city was not significant and individual comparisons of velocity treatments to the c ontrol were not valid re gardless of their pvalue. If the p-value of the Velocity component of the model was significant ( P< 0.05), then it is appropriate to look at the individual comparisons of velocity treatments to the

controls. When individual ve locity comparisons to the control had p-values greater than 0.05, then they were not significant. When p-values were <0.05, then the comparison was statistically significant. Negative estimates in Column 3 (Estimate) indicate that there was a decrease in mortality or injury, and positive estimates indicate there was an increase in mortality or injury.

The second scale loss tables are slightly different from those for injury and mortality. A positive coefficient of the estimat e value means the probability in the lower levels of scale loss increases, while a negative coefficient means the probability of lower levels of scale loss decreases and thus proba bility in the higher categories increases. Because these are cumulative probabilities, the intercept terms start negative and get progressively larger, indicating increas ing probability. Cumulative probability moving toward levels of greater scale loss must increase because each cumulative probability includes the probability of the preceding level of scale loss.56 Bigmouth Buffalo

Table E-1. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for bigmouth buffalo. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Dead 0 0 0 1 1 Live 245 94 142 294 775 Percent Dead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 Total 245 94 142 295 776 Mean Length (mm) 71.85 72.34 72.35 72.08

Table E-2. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the survival regression model for bigmouth buffalo. This model was not significant (P=0.8233).

DF Estimate Standard Error 1 Wald Chi-Square 2 Odds Ratio 3 p-value 4 Intercept 5 1 1.6169 5.60 0.08 . 0.7729 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 6 1 -9.7025 148.90 0.00 0.00 0.9480 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -9.6272 243.15 0.00 0.00 0.9684 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -9.6711 193.84 0.00 0.00 0.9602 Velocity Effects 7 3 . . 0.01 . 0.9998 Fork Length 8 1 -0.1070 0.09 1.51 0.90 0.2191 Full Model 9 4 . . 1.52 . 0.8233

1 Standard error is the standard deviation of the difference between the estimated value and the true value. Larger numbers indicate greater deviation. A large stan dard error coupled with a small chi-square indicates that the data are not sufficient to allow precise estimates of the effects in the model. This is usually the result of either the sample size being too small or of there being too few positive responses. 2 Wald chi-squared provides the statistical significan ce of each independent variable in the model. 3 Odds Ratio is a measure of effect size or strength of the relationship between two variables. An odds ratio of 1 indicates that the observed effect is equally likel y regardless of treatment or control condition. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that the condition or event is more likely under the treatment condition than the control. An odds ratio less than 1 indicates that the observed response is less likely in the treatment than the control group. 4 The p-value in this case is in relation to the odds ratio. It indicates the probability of obtaining a an odds ratio at least as high as the predicted value. Sm all p-values (e.g. p-value < 0.05) indicate statistical significance. 5 The intercept of the model which is generally not of interest but is given for completeness 6 The second, third, and fourth rows give estimates of the difference in logits between mortality in the treatment conditions 1 ft/s., 2 ft/s, and 3 ft/s, respectively, and the control. 7 Cumulative chi-square for all velocity treatments 8 Coefficient of the covariate fork length 9 Cumulative chi-square for the full model57 Table E-3. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for bigmouth buffalo. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Injured 4 1 5 3 13 Not Injured 241 93 137 292 763 Percent Injured 1.63 1.06 3.52 1.02 . Total 245 94 142 295 776 Mean Length 71.85 72.34 72.35 72.08 .

Table E-4. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the injury regression model for bigmouth buffalo. This model was significant (P=0.0225)

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 2.4940 2.39 1.09 . 0.2958 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.5780 0.78 0.55 1.78 0.4598 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.2320 1.18 0.04 1.26 0.8435 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 1.3971 0.75 3.44 4.04 0.0637 Velocity Effects 3 . . 3.94 . 0.2683 Fork Length 1 -0.1031 0.04 8.30 0.90 0.0040 Full Model 4 . . 11.39 . 0.022558 Table E-5. Summary of frequencies of scale loss ca tegories and mean length by velocity treatment for bigmouth buffalo.

Scale Loss Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control 1 Frequency 103 15 42 143 303 Percent 42.04 15.96 29.58 48.47 . 2 Frequency 111 55 30 112 308 Percent 45.31 58.51 21.13 37.97 . 3 Frequency 23 17 22 30 92 Percent 9.39 18.09 15.49 10.17 . 4 Frequency 8 7 48 10 73 Percent 3.27 7.45 33.80 3.39 . Total Frequency 245 94 142 295 776 Mean Length 71.85 72.34 72.35 72.08

Table E-6. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the scale loss regression model for bigmouth buffalo. This model was significant (P<0.0001)

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1 -3.5704 0.71 25.64 . <0.0001 Intercept 2 1 -1.6325 0.70 5.50 . 0.0190 Intercept 3 1 -0.5722 0.70 0.67 . 0.4120 0.3 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -0.1784 0.16 1.18 0.84 0.2783 0.6 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -1.1166 0.22 25.09 0.33 <0.0001 0.9 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -1.7086 0.20 74.67 0.18 <0.0001 Velocity Effects 3 . . 89.80 . <0.0001 Fork Length 1 0.0488 0.01 25.54 1.05 <0.0001 Full Model 4 . . 108.06 . <0.000159 Bluegill

Table E-7. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for bluegill. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Dead 3 15 7 6 31 Live 337 313 310 391 1,351 Percent Dead 0.88 4.57 2.21 1.51 . Total 340 328 317 397 1,382 Mean Length (mm) 47.01 47.27 46.96 45.74 .

Table E-8. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the survival regression model for bluegill. This model was significant (P<0.0001).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 6.9443 1.65 17.72 . <0.0001 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -0.1062 0.74 0.02 0.90 0.8860 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 2.0153 0.57 12.55 7.50 0.0004 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 1.1757 0.63 3.54 3.24 0.0601 Velocity Effects 3 . . 17.70 . 0.0005 Fork Length 1 -0.2728 0.04 39.11 0.76 <0.0001 Full Model 4 . . 43.88 . <0.000160 Table E-9. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for bluegill. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Injured 23 24 14 19 80 Not Injured 317 304 303 378 1,302 Percent Injured 6.76 7.32 4.42 4.79 . Total 340 328 317 397 1,382 Mean Length 47.01 47.27 46.96 45.74 .

Table E-10. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for t he injury regression model for bluegill. This model was significant (P<0.0001).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1.5870 0.96 2.71 . 0.0995 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.5043 0.32 2.41 1.66 0.1204 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.6403 0.32 3.91 1.90 0.0481 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.0668 0.37 0.03 1.07 0.8551 Velocity Effects 3 . . 5.49 . 0.1392 Fork Length 1 -0.1044 0.02 22.20 0.90 <0.0001 Full Model 4 . . 25.80 . <0.0001

Table E-11. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for bluegill excluding conspecific aggression injury. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Injured 23 14 13 6 56 Not Injured 317 304 303 378 1,302 Percent Injured 6.76 4.40 4.11 1.56 . Total 340 318 316 384 1,358 Mean Length 47.01 47.41 46.98 45.96 .61 Table E-12. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the injury regression model for bluegill excluding conspecific aggression injury. This model was significant (P<0.0011).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -1.1059 1.17 0.90 . 0.3430 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 1.5913 0.47 11.63 4.91 0.0006 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 1.1674 0.50 5.52 3.21 0.0188 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 1.0681 0.50 4.53 2.91 0.0332 Velocity Effects 3 . . 11.91 . 0.0077 Fork Length 1 -0.0680 0.03 7.34 0.93 0.0067 Full Model 4 . . 18.35 . 0.0011

Table E-13. Summary of frequencies of scale loss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for bluegill.

Scale Loss Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control 1 Frequency 302 278 261 364 1,205 Percent 88.82 84.76 82.33 91.69 . 2 Frequency 29 26 24 10 89 Percent 8.53 7.93 7.57 2.52 . 3 Frequency 5 9 22 11 47 Percent 1.47 2.74 6.94 2.77 . 4 Frequency 4 15 10 12 41 Percent 1.18 4.57 3.15 3.02 . Total Frequency 340 328 317 397 1,382 Mean Length 47.01 47.27 46.96 45.7462 Table E-14. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the scale loss regression model for bluegill. This model was significant (P<0.0001).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1 -1.7708 0.69 6.53 . 0.0106 Intercept 2 1 -0.9764 0.69 1.98 . 0.1597 Intercept 3 1 -0.1596 0.70 0.05 . 0.8202 0.3 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -0.3814 0.25 2.25 0.68 0.1338 0.6 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -0.8550 0.24 12.65 0.43 0.0004 0.9 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -0.9796 0.24 17.12 0.38 <0.0001 Velocity Effects 3 . . 21.19 . 0.0001 Fork Length 1 0.0938 0.02 35.95 1.10 <0.0001 Full Model 4 . . 50.06 . <0.000163 Channel Catfish

Table E-15. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for channel catfish. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Dead 2 0 1 0 3 Live 204 148 245 490 1,087 Percent Dead 0.97 0.00 0.41 0.00 . Total 206 148 246 490 1,090 Mean Length (mm) 63.53 62.46 63.81 63.13 .

Table E-16. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the survival regression model for channel catfish. This model was not significant (P=0.6336).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -7.9326 121.52 0.00 . 0.9480 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 11.2827 121.41 0.01 79435.08 0.9260 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -0.0559 249.68 0.00 0.95 0.9998 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 10.4145 121.41 0.01 33338.53 0.9316 Velocity Effects 3 . . 0.51 . 0.9173 Fork Length 1 -0.1312 0.09 2.06 0.88 0.1508 Full Model 4 . . 2.56 . 0.6336

Table E-17. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for channel catfish. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Injured 7 0 1 3 11 Not Injured 199 148 245 487 1,079 Percent Injured 3.40 0.00 0.41 0.61 . Total 206 148 246 490 1,090 Mean Length 63.53 62.46 63.81 63.13 .64 Table E-18. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the injury regression model for channel catfish. This model was significant (P=0.0202).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -0.0133 2.77 0.00 . 0.9962 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 1.8068 0.70 6.68 6.09 0.0097 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -11.5136 321.34 0.00 0.00 0.9714 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -0.3458 1.16 0.09 0.71 0.7655 Velocity Effects 3 . . 8.99 . 0.0295 Fork Length 1 -0.0831 0.05 3.29 0.92 0.0699 Full Model 4 . . 11.65 . 0.020265 Freshwater Drum

Table E-19. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by ve locity treatment for freshwater drum. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Dead 0 0 1 1 2 Live 243 230 203 511 1,187 Percent Dead 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.20 . Total 243 230 204 512 1,189 Mean Length (mm) 84.60 84.49 84.95 84.67 .

Table E-20. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the survival regression model for freshwater drum. This model was not significant (P=0.1903).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 6.4441 4.35 2.19 . 0.1386 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -10.3575 257.77 0.00 0.00 0.9679 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -10.8099 246.42 0.00 0.00 0.9650 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 1.9176 1.72 1.24 6.80 0.2658 Velocity Effects 3 . . 1.24 . 0.7429 Fork Length 1 -0.1731 0.07 6.06 0.84 0.0138 Full Model 4 . . 6.12 . 0.1903

Table E-21. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for freshwater drum. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Injured 0 2 0 5 7 Not Injured 243 228 204 507 1,182 Percent Injured 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.98 . Total 243 230 204 512 1,189 Mean Length 84.60 84.49 84.95 84.67 .66 Table E-22. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the injury regression model for freshwater drum. This model was significant (P=0.0002).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 6.7508 2.20 9.39 . 0.0022 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -11.8074 221.64 0.00 0.00 0.9575 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -0.2255 0.94 0.06 0.80 0.8098 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -11.4589 285.35 0.00 0.00 0.9680 Velocity Effects 3 . . 0.06 . 0.9959 Fork Length 1 -0.1496 0.03 21.67 0.86 <0.0001 Full Model 4 . . 21.68 . 0.0002

Table E-23. Summary of frequencies of scale loss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for freshwater drum.

Scale Loss Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control 1 Frequency 242 220 196 509 1,167 Percent 99.59 95.65 96.08 99.41 . 2 Frequency 1 9 8 2 20 Percent 0.41 3.91 3.92 0.39 . 4 Frequency 0 1 0 1 2 Percent 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.20 . Total Frequency 243 230 204 512 1,189 Mean Length 84.60 84.49 84.95 84.6767 Table E-24. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the scale loss regression model for freshwater drum. This model was significant (P<0.0001).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1 -2.1849 1.59 1.88 . 0.1706 Intercept 2 1 0.3209 1.70 0.04 . 0.8503 0.3 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 0.3965 1.16 0.12 1.49 0.7322 0.6 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -2.1394 0.66 10.40 0.12 0.0013 0.9 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -2.1191 0.69 9.45 0.12 0.0021 Velocity Effects 3 . . 15.86 . 0.0012 Fork Length 1 0.0914 0.02 20.38 1.10 <0.0001 Full Model 4 . . 31.67 . <0.000168 Fathead Minnow

Table E-25. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for fathead minnow. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Dead 9 11 5 6 31 Live 384 332 291 487 1,494 Percent Dead 2.29 3.21 1.69 1.22 . Total 393 343 296 493 1,525 Mean Length (mm) 56.38 56.22 55.83 54.14 .

Table E-26. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the survival regression model for fathead minnow. This model was not significant (P=0.2147).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -2.1728 1.67 1.69 . 0.1933 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.7557 0.54 1.95 2.13 0.1622 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 1.0930 0.52 4.41 2.98 0.0358 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.4206 0.62 0.47 1.52 0.4943 Velocity Effects 3 . . 4.79 . 0.1876 Fork Length 1 -0.0419 0.03 1.81 0.96 0.1783 Full Model 4 . . 5.80 . 0.2147

Table E-27. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for fathead minnow. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Injured 88 62 41 74 265 Not Injured 305 281 255 419 1,260 Percent Injured 22.39 18.08 13.85 15.01 . Total 393 343 296 493 1,525 Mean Length 56.38 56.22 55.83 54.14 .69 Table E-28. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the injury regression model for fathead minnow. This model was significant (P=0.0114).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -2.4897 0.60 17.44 . 0.0000 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.4616 0.18 6.87 1.59 0.0088 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.1950 0.19 1.06 1.22 0.3043 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -0.1161 0.21 0.30 0.89 0.5823 Velocity Effects 3 . . 10.46 . 0.0150 Fork Length 1 0.0139 0.01 1.70 1.01 0.1924 Full Model 4 . . 12.98 . 0.0114

Table E-29. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for fathead minnow excluding conspecific aggression injury. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Injured 88 58 41 69 256 Not Injured 305 281 255 419 1,260 Percent Injured 22.39 17.11 13.85 14.14 . Total 393 339 296 488 1,516 Mean Length 56.38 56.27 55.83 54.18 .

Table E-30. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the injury regression model for fathead minnow excluding conspecific injury. This model was significant (P=0,0037).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -2.7854 0.61 21.00 . <0.0001 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.5245 0.18 8.60 1.69 0.0034 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.1905 0.20 0.95 1.21 0.3294 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -0.0513 0.21 0.06 0.95 0.8100 Velocity Effects 3 . . 11.69 . 0.0085 Fork Length 1 0.0180 0.01 2.77 1.02 0.0962 Full Model 4 . . 15.52 . 0.003770 Table E-31. Summary of frequencies of scale loss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for fathead minnow.

Scale Loss Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control 1 Frequency 301 291 252 426 1,270 Percent 76.59 84.84 85.14 86.41 . 2 Frequency 76 42 34 50 202 Percent 19.34 12.24 11.49 10.14 . 3 Frequency 15 7 10 8 40 Percent 3.82 2.04 3.38 1.62 . 4 Frequency 1 3 0 9 13 Percent 0.25 0.87 0.00 1.83 . Total Frequency 393 343 296 493 1,525 Mean Length 56.38 56.22 55.83 54.14

Table E-32. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the scale loss regression model for fathead minnow. This model was significant (P=0.0030).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1 1.6749 0.61 7.60 . 0.0058 Intercept 2 1 3.4052 0.62 30.18 . <0.0001 Intercept 3 1 4.8381 0.67 52.91 . <0.0001 0.3 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -0.6443 0.18 13.02 0.53 0.0003 0.6 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -0.1213 0.20 0.37 0.89 0.5454 0.9 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -0.1012 0.21 0.23 0.90 0.6294 Velocity Effects 3 . . 16.01 . 0.0011 Fork Length 1 0.0030 0.01 0.08 1.00 0.7829 Full Model 4 . . 16.03 . 0.003071 Golden Shiner

Table E-33. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for golden shiner. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Dead 6 5 6 6 23 Live 359 369 383 479 1,590 Percent Dead 1.64 1.34 1.54 1.24 . Total 365 374 389 485 1,613 Mean Length (mm) 75.19 73.36 73.69 73.13 .

Table E-34. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the survival regression model for golden shiner. This model was significant (P=0.0003).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1.2373 1.15 1.16 . 0.2815 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.6216 0.60 1.08 1.86 0.2990 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.2818 0.62 0.20 1.33 0.6507 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.5513 0.60 0.84 1.74 0.3596 Velocity Effects 3 . . 1.32 . 0.7242 Fork Length 1 -0.0876 0.02 21.07 0.92 <0.0001 Full Model 4 . . 21.26 . 0.0003

Table E-35. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for golden shiner. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Injured 10 17 10 18 55 Not Injured 355 357 379 467 1,558 Percent Injured 2.74 4.55 2.57 3.71 . Total 365 374 389 485 1,613 Mean Length 75.19 73.36 73.69 73.13 .72 Table E-36. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates fo r the injury regression model for golden shiner. This model was not significant (P=0.5768).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -3.1714 0.77 16.78 . <0.0001 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -0.3112 0.40 0.60 0.73 0.4380 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.2117 0.35 0.38 1.24 0.5399 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -0.3783 0.40 0.89 0.69 0.3448 Velocity Effects 3 . . 2.86 . 0.4141 Fork Length 1 -0.0012 0.01 0.01 1.00 0.9087 Full Model 4 . . 2.89 . 0.5768

Table E-37. Summary of frequencies of scale loss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for golden shiner.

Scale Loss Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control 1 Frequency 90 86 62 234 472 Percent 24.66 22.99 15.94 48.25 . 2 Frequency 146 144 121 196 607 Percent 40.00 38.50 31.11 40.41 . 3 Frequency 99 87 109 46 341 Percent 27.12 23.26 28.02 9.48 . 4 Frequency 30 57 97 9 193 Percent 8.22 15.24 24.94 1.86 . Total Frequency 365 374 389 485 1,613 Mean Length 75.19 73.36 73.69 73.1373 Table E-38. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the scale loss regression model for golden shiner. This model was significant (P<0.0001).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1 -2.1518 0.27 63.72 . <0.0001 Intercept 2 1 -0.3207 0.26 1.47 . 0.2252 Intercept 3 1 1.1099 0.27 17.28 . <0.0001 0.3 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -1.1969 0.13 81.71 0.30 <0.0001 0.6 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -1.3252 0.13 101.23 0.27 <0.0001 0.9 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -1.9675 0.13 215.66 0.14 <0.0001 Velocity Effects 3 . . 226.75 . <0.0001 Fork Length 1 0.0293 0.00 70.32 1.03 <0.0001 Full Model 4 . . 274.29 . <0.000174 Hybrid Striped Bass

Table E-39. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for hybrid striped bass. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Dead 1 0 1 0 2 Live 242 241 355 498 1,336 Percent Dead 0.41 0.00 0.28 0.00 . Total 243 241 356 498 1,338 Mean Length (mm) 60.54 60.59 60.31 60.88 .

Table E-40. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the survival regression model for hybrid striped bass. This model was not significant (P=0.9921).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -19.3077 167.89 0.01 . 0.9084 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 10.9720 167.75 0.00 58223.71 0.9478 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.0130 293.80 0.00 1.01 1.0000 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 10.6148 167.75 0.00 40735.18 0.9495 Velocity Effects 3 . . 0.07 . 0.9952 Fork Length 1 0.0463 0.11 0.17 1.05 0.6758 Full Model 4 . . 0.26 . 0.9921

Table E-41. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for hybrid striped bass. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Injured 0 0 1 0 1 Not Injured 243 241 355 498 1,337 Percent Injured 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 . Total 243 241 356 498 1,338 Mean Length 60.54 60.59 60.31 60.88 .75 Table E-42. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the injury regression model for hybrid striped bass. This model was not significant (P=0.9929).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -8.2805 127.49 0.00 . 0.9482 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -0.3006 239.76 0.00 0.74 0.9990 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -0.2988 239.60 0.00 0.74 0.9990 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 9.9702 126.57 0.01 21380.07 0.9372 Velocity Effects 3 . . 0.01 . 0.9997 Fork Length 1 -0.1280 0.26 0.24 0.88 0.6265 Full Model 4 . . 0.25 . 0.9929

Table E-43. Summary of frequencies of scale loss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for hybrid striped bass.

Scale Loss Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control 1 Frequency 238 239 345 489 1,311 Percent 97.94 99.17 96.91 98.19 . 2 Frequency 5 2 10 8 25 Percent 2.06 0.83 2.81 1.61 . 3 Frequency 0 0 1 1 2 Percent 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.20 . Total Frequency 243 241 356 498 1,338 Mean Length 60.54 60.59 60.31 60.8876 Table E-44. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the scale loss regression model for hybrid striped bass. This model was not significant (P=0.3758).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1 2.0212 2.48 0.66 . 0.4157 Intercept 2 1 4.6462 2.57 3.26 . 0.0711 0.3 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -0.1169 0.56 0.04 0.89 0.8358 0.6 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 0.7997 0.79 1.03 2.22 0.3090 0.9 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -0.5333 0.46 1.37 0.59 0.2415 Velocity Effects 3 . . 3.54 . 0.3160 Fork Length 1 0.0326 0.04 0.64 1.03 0.4254 Full Model 4 . . 4.23 . 0.375877 Largemouth Bass

Table E-45. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for largemouth bass. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Dead 4 8 10 4 26 Live 390 351 351 497 1,589 Percent Dead 1.02 2.23 2.77 0.80 . Total 394 359 361 501 1,615 Mean Length (mm) 99.38 98.44 97.32 98.59 .

Table E-46. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the survival regression model for largemouth bass. This model was marginally significant (P=0.0549).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -1.4944 1.91 0.61 . 0.4349 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.2519 0.71 0.13 1.29 0.7231 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 1.0269 0.62 2.77 2.79 0.0960 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 1.2290 0.60 4.25 3.42 0.0393 Velocity Effects 3 . . 5.89 . 0.1170 Fork Length 1 -0.0345 0.02 3.12 0.97 0.0773 Full Model 4 . . 9.26 . 0.0549

Table E-47. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for largemouth bass. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Injured 3 22 14 8 47 Not Injured 391 337 347 493 1,568 Percent Injured 0.76 6.13 3.88 1.60 . Total 394 359 361 501 1,615 Mean Length 99.38 98.44 97.32 98.59 .78 Table E-48. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the injury regression model for largemouth bass. This model was significant (P=0.0003).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -2.5116 1.36 3.41 . 0.0647 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -0.7410 0.68 1.19 0.48 0.2762 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 1.3882 0.42 10.97 4.01 0.0009 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.8917 0.45 3.94 2.44 0.0471 Velocity Effects 3 . . 19.21 . 0.0002 Fork Length 1 -0.0165 0.01 1.48 0.98 0.2244 Full Model 4 . . 20.85 . 0.0003

Table E-49. Summary of frequencies of scale loss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for largemouth bass.

Scale Loss Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control 1 Frequency 390 356 352 494 1,592 Percent 98.98 99.16 97.51 98.60 . 2 Frequency 2 3 4 6 15 Percent 0.51 0.84 1.11 1.20 . 3 Frequency 2 0 3 1 6 Percent 0.51 0.00 0.83 0.20 . 4 Frequency 0 0 2 0 2 Percent 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 . Total Frequency 394 359 361 501 1,615 Mean Length 99.38 98.44 97.32 98.5979 Table E-50. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the scale loss regression model for largemouth bass. This model was not significant (P=0.3131).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1 2.6850 1.91 1.97 . 0.1607 Intercept 2 1 3.7523 1.94 3.76 . 0.0525 Intercept 3 1 5.1439 2.03 6.42 . 0.0113 0.3 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 0.3118 0.63 0.24 1.37 0.6211 0.6 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 0.5258 0.69 0.57 1.69 0.4492 0.9 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -0.5802 0.51 1.30 0.56 0.2544 Velocity Effects 3 . . 3.93 . 0.2692 Fork Length 1 0.0161 0.02 0.69 1.02 0.4058 Full Model 4 . . 4.76 . 0.313180 White Sucker

Table E-51. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for white sucker.

Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Dead 16 16 17 14 63 Live 357 323 357 445 1,482 Percent Dead 4.29 4.72 4.55 3.05 . Total 373 339 374 459 1,545 Mean Length (mm) 76.20 79.39 80.41 82.63 .

Table E-52. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates fo r the survival regression model for white sucker. This model was significant (P<0.0001).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 0.5821 0.77 0.57 . 0.4510 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.0113 0.38 0.00 1.01 0.9763 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.2740 0.38 0.52 1.32 0.4695 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.3151 0.37 0.72 1.37 0.3968 Velocity Effects 3 . . 1.24 . 0.7423 Fork Length 1 -0.0516 0.01 27.89 0.95 <0.0001 Full Model 4 . . 29.62 . <0.0001

Table E-53. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for white sucker. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Injured 107 86 84 92 369 Not Injured 266 253 290 367 1,176 Percent Injured 28.69 25.37 22.46 20.04 . Total 373 339 374 459 1,545 Mean Length 76.20 79.39 80.41 82.63 .81 Table E-54. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates fo r the injury regression model for white sucker. This model was significant (P<0.0001).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 2.1408 0.38 31.40 . <0.0001 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.2091 0.17 1.50 1.23 0.2212 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.1704 0.18 0.93 1.19 0.3355 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.0555 0.18 0.10 1.06 0.7514 Velocity Effects 3 . . 1.89 . 0.5949 Fork Length 1 -0.0438 0.00 89.81 0.96 <0.0001 Full Model 4 . . 97.94 . <0.0001

Table E-55. Summary of frequencies of scale loss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for white sucker.

Scale Loss Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control 1 Frequency 272 201 183 373 1,029 Percent 72.92 59.29 48.93 81.26 . 2 Frequency 64 70 95 61 290 Percent 17.16 20.65 25.40 13.29 . 3 Frequency 28 51 75 16 170 Percent 7.51 15.04 20.05 3.49 . 4 Frequency 9 17 21 9 56 Percent 2.41 5.01 5.61 1.96 . Total Frequency 373 339 374 459 1,545 Mean Length 76.20 79.39 80.41 82.6382 Table E-56. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the scale loss regression model for white sucker. This model was significant (P<0.0001).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1 -3.1549 0.36 77.90 . <0.0001 Intercept 2 1 -1.8870 0.35 28.94 . <0.0001 Intercept 3 1 -0.2506 0.36 0.48 . 0.4882 0.3 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -0.1215 0.17 0.48 0.9 0.4865 0.6 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -1.0766 0.17 41.89 0.34 <0.0001 0.9 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -1.5568 0.16 94.14 0.21 <0.0001 Velocity Effects 3 . . 130.76 . <0.0001 Fork Length 1 0.0580 0.00 177.33 1.06 <0.0001 Full Model 4 . . 265.31 . <0.000183 Yellow Perch

Table E-57. Summary of live, dead, and mean length by velocity treatment for yellow perch.

Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Dead 1 4 2 5 12 Live 119 152 160 493 924 Percent Dead 0.83 2.56 1.23 1.00 . Total 120 156 162 498 936 Mean Length (mm) 50.91 50.22 52.70 48.19 .

Table E-58. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the survival regression model for yellow perch. This model was significant (P=0.0392).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 2.4870 2.42 1.05 . 0.3049 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.1907 1.11 0.03 1.21 0.8641 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 1.2686 0.69 3.34 3.56 0.0674 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.7535 0.86 0.76 2.12 0.3826 Velocity Effects 3 . . 3.55 . 0.3143 Fork Length 1 -0.1581 0.06 7.81 0.85 0.0052 Full Model 4 . . 10.07 . 0.0392

Table E-59. Summary of injury rate and mean length by velocity treatment for yellow perch. Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control Injured 2 3 0 5 10 Not Injured 118 153 162 493 926 Percent Injured 1.67 1.92 0.00 1.00 . Total 120 156 162 498 936 Mean Length 50.91 50.22 52.70 48.19 .84 Table E-60. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the injury regression model for yellow perch. This model was not significant (P=0.1659).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1.9616 2.65 0.55 . 0.4588 0.3 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.8651 0.86 1.00 2.38 0.3162 0.6 m·s -1 vs Con 1 0.9431 0.75 1.58 2.57 0.2093 0.9 m·s -1 vs Con 1 -11.1567 264.45 0.00 0.00 0.9663 Velocity Effects 3 . . 1.95 . 0.5837 Fork Length 1 -0.1457 0.06 5.62 0.86 0.0178 Full Model 4 . . 6.48 . 0.1659

Table E-61. Summary of frequencies of scale loss categories and mean length by velocity treatment for yellow perch.

Scale Loss Velocity Total 0.3 m·s -1 0.6 m·s -1 0.9 m·s -1 Control 1 Frequency 120 153 159 497 929 Percent 100.00 98.08 98.15 99.80 . 2 Frequency 0 0 1 1 2 Percent 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.20 . 4 Frequency 0 3 2 0 5 Percent 0.00 1.92 1.23 0.00 . Total Frequency 120 156 162 498 936 Mean Length 50.91 50.22 52.70 48.1985 Table E-62. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the scale loss regression model for yellow perch. This model was not significant (P=0.0753).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1 -0.0116 3.10 0.00 . 0.9970 Intercept 2 1 0.3321 3.11 0.01 . 0.9149 0.3 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 9.0834 225.29 0.00 8807.50 0.9678 0.6 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -2.5644 1.17 4.81 0.08 0.0284 0.9 m·s -1 vs. Con 1 -2.7416 1.18 5.38 0.06 0.0204 Velocity Effects 3 . . 5.85 . 0.1192 Fork Length 1 0.1381 0.07 4.01 1.15 0.0451 Full Model 4 . . 8.49 . 0.075386 Model

Velocity is p ≤ 0.05? Model is not significant no

yes

is p ≤ 0.05? Length

yes Velocity not significant no is p ≤ 0.05? Length is not significant no

Length is significant yes Individual Velocity Comparisons 1 ft/sec vs. control 2 ft/sec vs. control 3 ft/sec vs. control

is p ≤ 0.05? Individual Velocity

Comparison is

Significant Individual Velocity Comparison is not Significant yes no Model

Velocity is p ≤ 0.05? Model is not significant no

yes

is p ≤ 0.05? Length

yes Velocity not significant no is p ≤ 0.05? Length is not significant no

Length is significant yes Individual Velocity Comparisons 1 ft/sec vs. control 2 ft/sec vs. control 3 ft/sec vs. control

is p ≤ 0.05? Individual Velocity

Comparison is

Significant Individual Velocity Comparison is not Significant yes no is p ≤ 0.05? Individual Velocity

Comparison is

Significant Individual Velocity Comparison is not Significant yes no

Figure E-1. Interpreting the hierarchical results of the logistic regression models.87 APPENDIX F

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TABLES – DURATION OF IMPINGEMENT

Species-specific results of the logistic regressions are presented in the following tables. For each species, the first table presents the raw frequencies and summary statistics by duration of impingement (DI) treatment and the sec ond table presents a summary of logistic regression results. The first table for each species shows the frequency of live, dead (or injured, not injure d), and total recovered for each velocity, as well as percent dead or injured and mean length. The second table for each species

summarizes various estimates obtained from th e logistic regression analyses. The first row shows the intercept of the model, which is generally not of interest but was given for completeness. The second row reports the cumu lative chi-square for all DI (2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 min) and the control. Row 3 gives the co efficient of the covariate Fork Length and row 7 reports the cumulative chi-square for th e full model (DI and fork length). In some cases, there was too little mortality or too fe w injuries for a successful logistic regression (i.e., the model failed to converg e on a reliable estimate). Guidance on interpreting the results of these hierarchical models is presented in Appendix E.88 Channel Catfish

Table F-1. Summary of live, dead and mean length by duration of impingement for channel catfish. Duration Total Control 2 min 4 min 6 min 8 min 10 min Dead 1 -- -- 0 0 0 1 Live 119 -- -- 115 108 103 445 Percent Dead 0.83 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 . Total 120 -- -- 115 108 103 446 Mean Length 66.43 -- -- 65.10 64.35 64.59 .

Table F-2. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates fo r the regression model for the duration of impingement of channel catfish. This model was not significant (P=0.9927).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -5.8418 11.36 0.26 . 0.6072 Duration 1 -1.6227 21.56 0.01 0.20 0.9400 Fork Length 1 0.0159 0.17 0.01 1.02 0.9249 Full Model 2 . . 0.01 . 0.9927

Table F-3. Summary of injury rates and mean length by duration of impingement for channel catfish. Duration Total Control 2 min 4 min 6 min 8 min 10 min Injured 0 -- -- 0 0 0 0 Not Injured 120 -- -- 115 108 103 446 Percent Injured 0.00 -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 . Total 120 -- -- 115 108 103 446 Mean Length 66.42 -- -- 65.10 64.35 64.59 .89 Fathead Minnow

Table F-4. Summary of live, dead and mean length by duration of impingement for fathead minnow. Duration Total Control 2 min 4 min 6 min 8 min 10 min Dead 1 -- -- 3 2 1 7 Live 149 -- -- 44 28 34 255 Percent Dead 0.67 -- -- 6.38 6.67 2.86 . Total 150 -- -- 47 30 35 262 Mean Length 45.49 -- -- 52.49 53.27 53.69 .

Table F-5. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the regression model of duration of impingement of fathead minnow – survival. This model was not significant (P=0.1244).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -1.2324 3.80 0.11 . 0.7454 Duration 1 0.2449 0.12 4.00 1.28 0.0456 Fork Length 1 -0.0718 0.08 0.73 0.93 0.3930 Full Model 2 . . 4.17 . 0.1244

Table F-6. Summary of injury rates and mean length by duration of impingement for fathead minnow. Duration Total Control 2 min 4 min 6 min 8 min 10 min Injured 2 -- -- 4 1 1 8 Not Injured 148 -- -- 43 29 34 254 Percent Injured 1.33 -- -- 8.51 3.33 2.86 . Total 150 -- -- 47 30 35 262 Mean Length 45.49 -- -- 52.49 53.27 53.69 .90 Table F-7. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the regression model of duration of impingement for fathead minnow – injury. This model was not significant (P=0.3688).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -5.4635 3.08 3.15 . 0.0760 Duration 1 0.0886 0.10 0.72 1.09 0.3950 Fork Length 1 0.0326 0.06 0.25 1.03 0.6139 Full Model 2 . . 2.00 . 0.3688

Table F-8. Summary of frequencies of scale loss cat egories and mean length by duration of impingement for fathead minnow.

Scale loss Category Duration Total Control 2 min 4 min 6 min 8 min 10 min 1 Frequency 148 -- -- 45 24 33 250 Percent 98.67 -- -- 95.74 80.00 94.29 2 Frequency 2 -- -- 0 3 1 6 Percent 1.33 -- -- 0.00 10.00 2.86 3 Frequency 0 -- -- 0 2 0 2 Percent 0.00 -- -- 0.00 6.67 0.00 4 Frequency 0 -- -- 2 1 1 4 Percent 0.00 -- -- 4.26 3.33 2.86 Total Frequency 150 -- -- 47 30 35 262 Mean length 45.49 -- -- 52.49 53.27 53.69

Table F-9. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the regression model of for fathead minnow – scale loss. This model was significant (P=0.0270).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1 5.0876 2.69 3.57 . 0.0588 Intercept 2 1 5.8217 2.71 4.62 . 0.0317 Intercept 3 1 6.2414 2.73 5.24 . 0.0220 Duration 1 -0.1991 0.09 4.60 0.82 0.0319 Fork Length 1 -0.0211 0.06 0.14 0.98 0.7066 Full Model 2 . . 7.23 . 0.027091 Golden Shiner

Table F-10. Summary of live, dead and mean length by duration of impingement for golden shiner. Duration Total Control 2 min 4 min 6 min 8 min 10 min Dead 10 0 0 3 11 9 33 Live 98 7 9 77 62 62 315 Percent Dead 9.26 0.00 0.00 3.75 15.07 12.68 . Total 108 7 9 80 73 71 348 Mean Length 69.39 67.57 71.56 80.20 76.89 76.73 .

Table F-11. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the regression model for the duration of impingement of golden shiner – survival. This model was significant (P=0.0001).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 0.7334 0.91 0.65 . 0.4185 Duration 1 0.1689 0.06 8.39 1.18 0.0038 Fork Length 1 -0.0579 0.01 16.07 0.94 0.0001 Full Model 2 . . 18.18 . 0.0001

Table F-12. Summary of injury rates and mean length by duration of impingement for golden shiner. Duration Total Control 2 min 4 min 6 min 8 min 10 min Injured 10 0 0 4 5 7 26 Not Injured 98 7 9 76 68 64 322 Percent Injured 9.26 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.85 9.86 . Total 108 7 9 80 73 71 348 Mean Length 69.39 67.57 71.56 80.20 76.89 76.73 .92 Table F-13. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the regression model for duration of impingement of golden shiner – injury. This model was significant (P=0.0170).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -0.1208 0.98 0.02 . 0.9015 Duration 1 0.0878 0.06 2.11 1.09 0.1464 Fork Length 1 -0.0422 0.02 7.89 0.96 0.0050 Full Model 2 . . 8.15 . 0.0170

Table F-14. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the regression model for duration of impingement of golden shiner excluding controls – in jury. This model was significant (P=0.0073).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 -0.5147 1.76 0.09 . 0.7698 Duration 1 0.2483 0.15 2.79 1.28 0.0948 Fork Length 1 -0.0562 0.02 7.99 0.95 0.0047 Full Model 2 . . 9.83 . 0.0073

Table F-15. Summary of frequencies of scale loss categories and mean length by duration of impingement for golden shiner.

Scale loss Category Duration Total Control 2 min 4 min 6 min 8 min 10 min 1 Frequency 45 0 0 3 2 10 60 Percent 42.86 0.00 0.00 3.75 2.74 14.08 2 Frequency 44 2 1 7 7 9 70 Percent 41.90 28.57 11.11 8.75 9.59 12.68 3 Frequency 8 1 3 13 11 9.00 45 Percent 7.62 14.29 33.33 16.25 15.07 12.68 4 Frequency 8 4 5 57 53 43.00 170 Percent 7.62 57.14 55.56 71.25 72.60 60.56 Total Frequency 105 7 9 80 73 71 345 Mean Length 69.39 67.57 71.56 80.20 76.89 76.7393 Table F-16. Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the regression model of scale loss for golden shiner. This model was significant (P<0.0001).

DF Estimate Standard Error Wald Chi-Square Odds Ratio p-value Intercept 1 1 -1.6711 0.54 9.70 . 0.0018 Intercept 2 1 -0.2405 0.53 0.21 . 0.6493 Intercept 3 1 0.5077 0.53 0.91 . 0.3392 Duration 1 -0.3307 0.03 103.41 0.72 <0.0001 Fork Length 1 0.0176 0.01 5.99 1.02 0.0144 Full Model 2 . . 103.79 . <0.000194 BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Fisheries Society, Bioengineeri ng Section (AFS-BES). 2000. Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Passage Technologies. ( http://biosys.bre.orst.edu/afseng/fish_pass_comm.htm ) Basham, L. R., M. R. Delarm, J. B. Athern, and S. W. Pettit. 1982. Fish Transportation Oversight Team Annual Re port, FY 1981: Transport Operations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NNR-2. Environmental and Technical Services Di vision, Northwest Regional Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, OR. Beak Consultants, Inc. (Beak). 2000a. Post-Impingement Fish Survival Dunkirk Steam Station,Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall 1998-1999. Prepared for NRG Dunkirk Power LLC. Beak. 2000b. Post-Impingement Fish Survival at Huntley Steam Station,Winter and Fall 1999, Final Report. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Beamish, F. W. H. 1978. Swimming Cap acity. In: Fish Physiology, Volume 7, pp. 101–187. Academic Press, New York. W. S. Hoar and D. J. Randall, Eds. Bowser, P. R. and J. K. Buttner. 1991. General Fish Health Management. NRAC Bull. No. 111-1992. Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center, University of Massachusetts, N. Dart mouth, Massachusetts. Burton, D. T. and W. C. Graves. 1979. Im pingement Studies II: Survival Estimates of Impinged Fish. In: Non-Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, January-D ecember 1978. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Baltimore, MD. pp. 11.2-1–11.2-23. Chase, D. M. 1975. Survival rates of im pinged organisms. In Effects of Adding Unit 4 and Cooling Towers at the P. H. Robinson Generating Station on Terrestrial Plants and Aquatic Animals. Depts. Of Soil and Crop Sciences and Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M Universi ty and Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Project 1869. Pp. 97-105. Consolidated Edison (ConEd). 1996. Postim pingement Viability Substudy Report. Pursuant to December 23, 1993 Order of Consent. Report number R2-2985-9004 Eisele, P. J. and J. F. Malaric. 1979. A Conceptual Model of Causal Factors Regarding Gizzard Shad Runs at Steam Elect ric Power Plants. In: Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement, Chicago, IL, December 1977. L. D. Jensen, Ed.95 Fletcher, I. R. 1990. Flow Dynamics and Fish Recovery Experiments: Water Intake Systems. Transactions of the Am erican Fisheries Society 119: 393-415 Kane, A. S., R. O. Bennett, and E. B. May. 1990. Effect of hardness and salinity on survival of striped bass larvae. North Amer ican Journal of Fisheries Management 10: 67-71. King, L. R., J. B. Hutchison, and T. G. H uggins. 1978. Impingement survival studies on white perch, striped bass, and Atlan tic Tomcod at three Hudson River power plants. In L. Jensen (ed.), Four th National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. Pp. 217-233. Landry, A. M. and K. Strawn. 1974. Number of individuals and inju ry rates of fishes caught on revolving screens at the P. H. R obinson Generating Stati on. In L. Jensen (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Entrainment and Intake Screening Workshop. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. Pp. 263-271. Lankford, T. E., Jr. 1990. Ecological Effects of Thermal Discharges. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers LTD., New York, New York. Lifton, W. S. and J. F. Storr. 1978. The Effect of Environmental Variables on Fish Impingement. In L. D. Jensen (ed.), Pr oceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. EA Communications. ISBN: 0-931842-01-8. Loar, J. M., J. S. Griffith, and K. D. Kumar. 1979. An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Impingement of Threadfin Sh ad at Power Plants in the Southeastern United States. In: Fourth National Wo rkshop on Entrainment and Impingement, Chicago, IL, December 1977. L. D. Jensen, Ed. McCullagh, P. and J. A. Nelder. 1989. Generalized 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. Ca da. 2000. Laboratory Studies on the Effects of Shear on Fish: Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/ID-10822. Normandeau Associates. 1995. Roseton Generating Station 1994 Evaluatioin of Postimpingement Survival and Impingement Abundance. R-14209.002. Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation. Palawski, D., J. B. Hunn, and F. J. Dwyer. 1985. Sensitivity of young striped bass to organic and inorganic contaminants in fres h and saline waters. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114: 748-753. Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G ). 1999. Biological Effectiveness of Modified Traveling Screens at Salem Ge nerating Station. NJDEPS Permit Renewal Application 1999. Sponsored by: Dr. Douglas Heimbuch.96 Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) . 2004. Special Study Report, Salem Generating Station, Estimated Latent Impinge ment Mortality Rates: Updated Pooled Estimates Using Data From 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2003. Prepared for PSEG by Allee, King, Rosen, and Fleming, 7250 Pa rkway Drive, Suite 210, Hanover, MD 21076. June 18, 2004. SAS Institute. 1999. SAS OnLine Doc: SA S/STAT Users Guide, Version 8. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Tatham, T. R., D. L. Thomas, and G. J. Miller. 1978. Survival of fishes and macroinvertebrates impinged at Oyster Creek Generating Station. In L. Jensen (ed.), Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. Pp. 235-243. United States Environmental Protection Agen cy (USEPA). 2004. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Final Rule. 40 CFR Parts 9, 122 et al. Federa l Register 67(68): 17122-17225. White, J. C., Jr. and M. L. Brehmer. 1977. Eighteen-Month Evaluation of the Ristroph Travelling [sic] Fish Screens.