Exclusion of Adult Alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus Using Low-Frequency Sound for Application at Water Intakes

Abstract

Experiments to test the effectiveness of low-frequency, high-intensity sound in excluding alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, from an experimental net structure were conducted on Lake Ontario near Pickering, Ont. Sound was generated by modified seismic devices called pneumatic poppers. The number of alewife entering the experimental structure was reduced by 71–99% when the poppers were operating. Sonar evidence from one test suggested that another species which was not caught in the collection nets was less influenced by the acoustic deterrent. The results suggest that low-frequency, high-intensity sound may be effective in reducing losses of adult alewife at water intakes.

Effects of Underwater Sound Simulating the Intermediate Scale Measurement System on Fish and Zooplankton of Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho

“…Documented behavioral responses to underwater sound include startle respcnse (Blaxter et ai. 1981;Blaxter and Hoss 1981), avoidance/attraction reactions (Haymes and Patrick 1986;Dunnig et al 1992;Nestler et al 1992), schooling behavior (Hawkins and Johnstone 1978;Blaxter and Hoss 1981), and increased/decreased activity (see review by Schwarz 1985).…”

“…In light of information that is available, generalizations concerning effects of underwater sound on freshwater fishes are often difficult to make (Platt and Popper 1981;Sand 1981). For example, among clupeids, alewife Alosa pseudohwn8gus avoided pulsed, low frequency sounds in the range of 50-60 Hlz at sound pressure levels of 180 dB re I ;Pa (Haymes and Patrick 1986). However, Dunning et aL (1992) found that alewives also avoided pulsed, high frequency sounds in the range of 110 kHz-150 kHz at sound pressure levels of 125-180 dB re I p Pa.…”

“…Additionally, field studies examining responses of fishes (i.e. clupeids) often produce varied results (Sand 1981;Haymes andPatrick 1986 vs. Nestler et al 1992;Patrick 1988) indicating that generalizations concerning effects of underwater sound are often not valid.…”

Use of Sound for Fish Protection at Power Facilities : A Historical Perspective of the State of the Art : Phase 1 Final Report.

“…Probably the net benefit from these studies was to motivate a different approach to biological engineering studies. Interest in sound as a component of behavioral barriers was maintained through this experimental stage by some successful applications, including that of Ontario Hydro (Haymes and Patrick 1986) at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station on Lake Ontario where pneumatic poppers appeared to reduce by 99% the entrance of alewives to an experimental structure. LMS Engineering used another device very similar to hammers, mechanical fish pulsars, to successfully divert alewives into a bypass at the Hells Gate Hydroelectric Station on the Black River (LMS 1988b).…”

“…Beginning in 1987 and continuing into 1988, following mixed success with various low-frequency sound sources at other power production facilities (Haymes and Patrick 1986, LMS 1988ab and 1989, the NYPA conducted a test of hammers (low-frequency sound sources consisting of a spring-loaded mass and a metal plate enclosed in a steel drum) at their Indian Point plant located on the Hudson River. The tests resulted in a decrease in the number of fish in the vicinity of the power plant intakes.…”