Control Of Invasive Carp Using Non-Physical Barriers Kaveh Someah, General Manager-Ovivo USA,LLC

Kaveh.someah@ovivowater.com

801-931 3010

Invasive Asian Carp

Invasive Carp Issues

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 invasive fish

Common carp, Cyprinus carpio

Common carp

[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

• No blockage risk/ flow impedance

• In some cases can be species-selective

• No barrier to navigation

Non Physical Barriers have the following potential benefits:

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 measured using Acoustic Brainstem Response (ABR) technique

Asian carp show exceptionally high sensitivity and extended high-frequency response to 2 kHz

Possible to configure species selective barriers in some cases

Goldfish

Common AFD

Signal

Frequencies

Extended

Frequency

Range for

Asian carp

Asian carp

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 size 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

FGS Sound Projector

BAFF – Basic Arrangement

• Sound projectors at base of bubble curtain aligned to ‘couple’ sound

• Speed of sound in plume is intermediate between that of air and water

• Sound is refracted into bubble curtain and is contained, creating a “wall of sound”

Air

curtain

Sound

projector

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 decayAllows 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

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Distance from centreline (m)

So

un

d P

ressu

re L

ev

el

(d

B r

e 1

uP

a)

Decay of Sound Pressure from BAFF Centre

“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 broad size range of fish

Illumination is maintained during passage of shipping

Usually set to between 200 and 400 fps

FGS Linear Low-Voltage Strobe

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 movementOpportunities for selectively deterring

acoustically sensitive species (acoustic only)Success depends on strength of

stimulus vs. motivational state of fish Approach velocities must not exceed

fish swimming ability (assume 90th%ile sustainable speed)

FishStreamlines

Escape horizon

Stream approach velocity

Fish Diversion Concepts

Angled FDT barrier for invasive species deflection

Navigation lock

Fish

Streamlines

Escape horizon

Angled barrier line produces guidance effect

Fish are diverted towards one end of the barrier, reducing likelihood of penetration

Fish Diversion Concepts

Angled barrier for invasive species trapping

Navigation lock

FishStreamlines

Escape horizon

Fish trap

Similar to angled barrier above

Fish are diverted into a trap with inscale and are periodically collected and destroyed

Hemsjo Nedre,

Line of Bio-Acoustic Fish Fence

Bypass

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’sIndicates potential for combining sound and electrics in multi-stimuli

barriers

YESA 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 one side of barrier and movement monitored

Barrier was 95% effective at holding back carp

* Taylor, Pegg & Chick, 2005: Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2005, 12, 283–286

Fish learned to stay away from barrier

Quiver Creek, Illinois RiverAsian 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

Flow

Flood control

structure

Flood control

structure

Flow

Quiver Creek Multi-Stimulus Barrier

Greg Sass, Illinois Natural History Survey

Sound projectors

Bubble Curtain

Strobe lights (IML)

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, IL2Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois River Biological Station, Havana, IL3Illinois 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;

ambient within 3m

• HIML flash rate 360 fpm

• Laboratory diversion efficiency up to 80%

for Chinook smolt and Delta Smelt

Bubble curtain

Strobe beam

Strobe light

Bubble pipe

15-100 sound

projector

Flow

River Channel floor

Recessed floor

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 lengthCombined sound, High

Intensity lights and bubblesAllows free navigation to be maintainedPowered 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 StationFish 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