Control Of Invasive Carp Using Non-Physical Barriers Kaveh Someah, General Manager-Ovivo USA,LLC [email protected] 801-931 3010 Invasive Asian Carp Invasive Carp Issues

Common carp

European origin: invasive species in US Voracious bottom feeders- destroy aquatic habitat Affects wildfowling Grow large quickly Prolific spawners Spread rampantly throughout interconnected watercourses Probably the most damaging Common carp, Cyprinus carpio invasive fish

[Sorensen & co-workers, University of Minnesota] Control Strategies

• Various strategies can be considered: fish removal, rotenone, fish isolation • Isolation methods depend on identifying critical migration corridors, key times of migration, then blocking fish movements with physical or behavioural barriers • Need to consider fish population dynamics (what number of fish passing would be critical?) [Sorensen & co-workers, University of Minnesota] Basis for Multi-Stimulus Barriers

• No behavioural barrier of any type is 100% effective for relevant species and lifestages • Animal behaviour is invariably a multiplex response to a complex of different signals in the environment, so why stick to one stimulus? • Different stimuli can interact to great effect to create a synergistic response • A complex of signals is less likely to be affected by an environmental perturbation (e.g. passing barge) Available Alternatives Are

• Physical Barriers

• Non-Physical Barriers Advantage of Non Physical Over Physical Barriers Non Physical Barriers have the following potential benefits: • No blockage risk/ flow impedance • In some cases can be species-selective • No barrier to navigation Non-Physical Fish Deterrent Technologies

• Air Bubble Curtain Barriers • Electric Barriers • High Intensity Light Barriers • Acoustic Barriers (Sound Projector Arrays –SPAs, Bio- Acoustic Fish Fence –BAFF) • Combination of above Fish Deterrent Technologies (FDT)

• Large Scale FDTs has well been established for fish exclusion from power plant and other water intakes. • Full Scale FDTs in CA is used to divert down migrating chinook salmon from entering irrigation diversions. • So far, only electric barriers used for invasive species control (Chicago Canal) • This presentation discusses use of multiple technologies to improve barrier effectiveness Electric Barriers

• Efficiency related to potential difference across fish (high PD, higher efficiency) • Voltage gradients high enough to stop juvenile fish may be unacceptable for human Health & Safety • Electric fields are distorted e.g. by steel-hulled barges passing over electrodes • Generally not selective for species (native fish movements will also be blocked) Smith Root Graduated Field Barrier Why Use Sound?

• Asian carp are extremely sensitive to sound • Failure modes are different from electric barriers, e.g. effective with small fish, so complementary in effect • Sound barrier-field will not be disrupted by barge traffic Sound Sensitivity Classes

High Sensitivity: ‘hearing specialists’: clupeids, carp family, catfish etc.

Moderate sensitivity: most roundfish e.g. cod

Low sensitivity: bottom fish and those without swimbladder Fish Sensitivity to Sound: ABR Measurement

Auditory Brainstem Response Tests can be carried out to determine optimum signal frequencies Data can be used to design species- selective barriers ABR tests carried out for Bighead and Silver Carp at Havana Lab Audiograms: Asian carp vs. other fish

Audiograms are quickly Goldfish measured using Acoustic Asian carp Brainstem Response (ABR) technique

Asian carp show exceptionally high sensitivity and extended Extended high-frequency response Common AFD Frequency Signal Range for to 2 kHz Frequencies Asian carp Possible to configure species selective barriers in some cases Effect of Sound on Smaller Fish

Whereas electric barrier performance is better for large fish, acoustic deflection works on fish of all sizes Swimbladder acts as a detuned receiver, (i.e. it is not resonant), so that hearing sensitivity is not a function of fish size (Hawkins, 1981) Limiting factor for small fish is normally swimming performance (ability to resist passive movement with current) The Bio-Acoustic Fish Fence(BAFF): How it Works

“Sound trapped within a wall of Air Bubbles” The “BAFF”

A pneumatic system that introduces sound into a bubble curtain Sound concentrated in bubble plume Produces a ‘wall of sound’, suitable for guiding rather than deflecting fish Acoustic Barriers

Sound projector or BAFF

Efficiency retained over a broad sizeFGS Sound Projector range of fish No human Health & Safety issues Sound field integrity is maintained during passage of shipping Barriers can allow selective passage of native species (depending on difference in hearing ability)

Bio-Acoustic Fish Fence (BAFF): Sound trapped within a wall of bubbles BAFF – Basic Arrangement

• Sound projectors at base of bubble curtain aligned to ‘couple’ sound • Speed of sound in plume is Air intermediate between that curtain of air and water • Sound is refracted into bubble curtain and is Sound contained, creating a “wall projector of sound” Deterrent Sound Signals

Various sound signals have been developed. These are typically in the frequency range <3 kHz and are continuously changing. For resident fish populations, the signal can be changed at intervals to avoid habituation. Signal Development: Effect of Different Signal Types

Pure tones  Not effective

Pulses  Not effective Chirps  Are Effective The Acoustic Field

The effectiveness of a sound field depends on - background noise - sound propagation - reflectiveness - source interactions This can be evaluated by available acoustic model. This also ensures no unwanted ‘sound pollution’ PrISM Acoustic Model BAFF Principle 1: Sound Resonates Between Bed and Surface

Resonance path ensures uniform vertical spread of sound, rather than inverse square law decay Allows the BAFF to maintain full-height wall of sound in deep water BAFF Principle 2: Sound is Trapped within Bubble Sheet

Sound level drops by up to 60dB at 1m distance, creating a well-defined guidance line

Decay of Sound Pressure from BAFF Centre

180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100

Sound 1uPa)(dB Level re Pressure 90 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 Distance from centreline (m) “Leaky” BAFF Concept – to Stop Fish Jumping

Extra sound projectors are added but not coupled to bubble curtain Protective “wall-of-sound” is maintained but a more diffuse sound gradient is created upstream and downstream of the barrier This reduces the shock of the sound stimulus and will allow fish to turn back earlier Intended to reduce risk of fish jumping barrier Adding Other Stimuli

Combinations of Bubbles, Sound, High Intensity Lights and Electric Fields Basis for Multi-Stimulus Barriers

No behavioural barrier of any type has been found to be 100% efficient for all species and lifestages (e.g. electric barriers less efficient for small fish) Animal behaviour is a response to a complex of different signals in the environment, so why stick to one stimulus? Different stimuli can interact to create a synergistic response A complex of signals is likely to be less affected by an environmental perturbation (e.g. passing barge) High Intensity Light Barriers

Efficiency retained over a FGS Linear Low- broad size range of fish Voltage Strobe Illumination is maintained during passage of shipping Usually set to between 200 and 400 fps Adding High Intensity Light to a BAFF

High Intensity Light are repellent to many fish Narrow-beam lights fitted at base of bubble plume Water more transparent in bubble sheet, allowing light to reach surface even in turbid water (In reality the lighting forms a continuous line along the barrier) MkIII SPA Systems

MkIII Sound Projector

Integral High Intensity Light ring Contains sound generation and monitoring electronics Designed for easy maintenance MkIII SPA Systems For GS

Power Supply & Performance Monitoring Unit

Total System Control Unit (microprocessor) Touch sensitive screen for operators Power Supply Units (1 per 12 Sound Projectors) MkIII SPA System Schematic Fish Diversion Concepts

Developing a clear fish behavior plan : Are we blocking, or diverting or trapping and removing the fish? What path will they take? How fast will they need to swim and for how long? What are the hydraulics What other factors might intervene (e.g. flooding, disturbance of stimulus field)? Fish Diversion Concepts

Invasive Species Barrier: Blockage

Barrier placed across the channel to deter fish movement Opportunities for selectively deterring Stream approach velocity acoustically sensitive species (acoustic only) Success depends on strength of stimulus vs. motivational state of fish Approach velocities must not exceed Escape horizon fish swimming ability (assume 90th%ile sustainable speed)

StreamlinesFish Fish Diversion Concepts

Angled FDT barrier for invasive species deflection Angled barrier line produces guidance effect Fish are diverted towards one end of the barrier, reducing likelihood of Navigation lock penetration Escape horizon

Streamlines Fish Fish Diversion Concepts

Angled barrier for invasive species trapping

Similar to angled barrier above Fish are diverted into a trap Fish trap with inscale and are Navigation lock

periodically collected and Escape horizon destroyed

Streamlines Fish Bypass

Hemsjo Nedre, Line of Bio-Acoustic Fish Fence Angled Barrier (BAFF) Bypass & Trap ‘Pavlovian’ Conditioning

Raceway trials have demonstrated that Asian carp learn to stay away from sound

This indicates that sound could be used in conjunction with existing electrical barriers to reduce risk of fish re- challenging the electric barrier Fish Barrier Strategies

Use of additional barriers downstream of the electrical barriers will greatly reduce the probability of fish challenging the electrical barriers Using other stimuli in downstream barriers reduces risk of habituation/immunity (e.g. acoustic barriers will repel small fish Repeating the acoustic signal at the electrical barrier with Acoustic Wash System will encourage fish to avoid before actually challenging the electrical barrier If fish do make contact with the electrical barrier, and avoid, they will be conditioned by sound to avoid in future Can carp be conditioned to avoid a multi- stimulus barrier?

Numerous publications attest to learning ability of carp Earliest studies in which carp conditioned using sound to avoid electric shock date back to early 1900’s Indicates potential for combining sound and electrics in multi-stimuli barriers YES A number of studies have been completed and Several Reports have been published Asian Carp Raceway and Field Trials, Acoustic/Bubble (BAFF) Barrier

Illinois Natural History Survey Illinois Natural History Survey * Bighead Carp Results for Raceway BAFF Barrier

BAFF placed across raceway in fish hatchery Batches of fish placed on Fish learned to one side of barrier and stay away from barrier movement monitored Barrier was 95% effective at holding back carp

* Taylor, Pegg & Chick, 2005: Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 283–286 Quiver Creek, Illinois River Asian carp multi-stimulus trial barrier

Field-scale trial as next stage from raceway Flat sand-bed creek with shallow water (~ 1m), width 16 m (50ft) Multi-stimulus barrier using sound, bubble & High Intensity lights Wide range of species present Initial trials show ~100% effectiveness for Asian carp

Greg Sass, Illinois Natural History Survey

Quiver Creek Multi-Stimulus Barrier

Flood control structure

Sound projectors Strobe lights (IML)

Flow Flow

Bubble Curtain

Greg Sass, Illinois Natural History Survey Flood control structure Components At Quiver Creek Testing Facility

16m SBSLB 16m air curtain hose 16 strobe lights 16 underwater speakers Speakers emit sound frequencies between 500-2000 Hertz ting Methods

Asian carps and non-Asian carps were captured from the main-stem Illinois River and Quiver Creek, respectively, by boat electrofishing, back-pack electrofishing, hoop nets, and angling Methods

All captured fish were measured for length and weight, floy- tagged and fin clipped, and then released directly below the BAFF Barrier BAFF effectiveness was determined by upstream recaptures Recaptures were collected between the BAFF and the upstream low-head dam using back-pack electrofishing, hoop netting, and angling.

97% effectiveness/deterrent was achieved Results Achieved

Trials were conducted from August 26 - October 7, 2009.

• 33 Fish Species were captured and tagged • 141 silver carp were transplanted from the main-stem Illinois River and released downstream of the Barrier • 1,099 non-Asian carps were captured upstream of the barrier and released downstream of the BAFF.

• Overall test efficiency/barrier Effectiveness was at 97% • No Silver Carp had passed the BAFF Barrier

Blake C. Ruebush1,2, Greg G. Sass1,2, and John H. Chick1,3 1University of Illinois, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Champaign, IL 2Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois River Biological Station, Havana, IL 3Illinois Natural History Survey, Great Rivers Field Station, Brighton, IL USBR Hydraulic Lab- Denver, CO

53

USBR Lab Testing of Model Barrier

• Combined multi-stimulus guidance system: sound, bubbles & HIML • Angled across channel to guide fish • Uses sound + air bubble curtain (BAFF) + HIM lights • Sound 5-600 Hz @160 dB re 1uPa;

Strobe beam ambient within 3m Flow Bubble curtain • HIML flash rate 360 fpm River Channel floor Strobe light

15-100 sound projector Bubble pipe • Laboratory diversion efficiency up to 80%

Recessed floor for Chinook smolt and Delta Smelt Project Location Temp. Rock Barrier

57 San Joaquin-Head of Old River Divergence

58 Barrier Turned Off

59 Barrier Turned On

60 Tracking Data

61 Multi-Stimulus Barrier, San Joaquim River/Old River

Barrier of 500 Ft length Combined sound, High Intensity lights and bubbles Allows free navigation to be maintained Powered for short season by mobile compressors & generators Engineering Construction of a Multi- Stimulus Barrier Barrier Component

64 Engineering Construction of a Multi-Stimulus Barrier Installation of a Multi-Stimulus Barrier

Farmoor Water Treatment Works

Freshwater Deflects juvenile coarse fish away from water intake Installed 1998 System comprises 8 Sound Projectors 1 Amplifier 1 Signal Generator Overall coarse fish reduction 80% Otterbourne Water Treatment Works

Freshwater Deflects smolt away from water intake in spring Installed 2007 System comprises • 8 Sound Projectors • 1 Amplifier • 1 Diagnostics Unit

1 Signal Generator Wharfside Intake Foss Pumping Station Fish Deflection Efficiencies Using Sound

Overall Reduction 80%

Bleak (Alburnus alburnus) 72% Bream (Abramis brama) 74% Chub (Leuciscus cephalus) 88% Dace (Leuciscus leuciscus) 76% Perch (Perca fluviatilis) 56% Roach (Rutilus rutilus) 68%

Fawley Aquatic Research, 1992 Doel Nuclear Power Station

Tidal Estuary System installed on off-shore intake for Reactors 3 & 4 (2,000 MW) Installed 1997 System comprises 20 Sound Projectors 20 Amplifiers 1 Signal Generator Conclusions

• Multi-stimulus barriers are likely to be more effective both in terms of physical and biological effectiveness • Evidence from numerous published studies that carp learn to associate sound and electricity and will avoid electric field if associated with sound after initial contact • Field Test has shown BAFF (Sound & Air Bubble Curtain) in conjunction with High Intensity Light to deter Carp