CHAPTER VII BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS AND GUIDANCE ...

CHAPTER VII

BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS AND GUIDANCE SYSTEMS1

Charles H. Hocutt

INTRODUCTION

Behavioral barriers and guidance systems have been em-ployed at power facilities in an attempt to attract or to repel fish away from intake structures. Fishes respond to stimuli by either a preference or avoidance reaction. Broad categories of behavioral stimuli which have been employed at power plants include: electrical screens, air bubble cur-tains, illumination, acoustics, and changes in current direc-tion and velocity (Sharma 1973; Huber 1974; Ray et al. 1976; Marcy and Dahlberg 1978). Responses to stimuli vary by species, life stage and physiological state (Sonnichsen 1975). Often, data are contradictory or inadequate testing has been performed. The ways fish orient and migrate using various environmental cues still remain largely a mystery (Cahn et al. 1973).

ELECTRICAL BARRIERS

Electrical fields frighten, attract, stun, or kill fish, and these aspects have been used by fishery biologists for

• years in conjunction with conventional fishing gear and guid-ance systems, particularly by Russian and Japanese fisheries (e.g., Alekseev 1971; Nikonorov 1975). Seidel and Klima (1974) and Hyman et al. (1975) gave additional histori-cal information on electrofishing techniques and applications. Northrop (1967) presented a good overview of electrofishing. It has been demonstrated that the electrical threshold re-

1

Reviewers of this chapter: Victor J. Schuler and Edward P. Taft III.

Copyright 1980 by Academic Press

POWER PLANTS 183 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ISBN 0-12-350950-5

184 CHARLES H. HOCUTT

sponse of fishes is species specific (Klima 1972, 1974; Seidel and Klima 1974;) and varies with the type of current, volt-age, pulse rate and pulse width.

Electricity may either be in the form of alternating cur-rent (AC) or direct current (DC). In a DC field, a fish can be attracted involuntarily to an electric field until it reaches the anode or encounters a current sufficiently strong to stun it. This phenomenon is termed electrotaxis and can be used to lead or guide fish. High voltages kill fish or cause large individuals to loose equilibrium (electronarcosis) for a period of time. Recovery from electronarcosis in a pure DC field has the greatest behavioral effect on fish and the least damaging aftereffect (Hyman et al. 1975). Electrotaxis in fishes will vary with the magnitude, rate, shape and duration of the pulses, as well as with species and specimen size. In an AC field, classical electrotaxis does not occur and cur-rents act only to stun or frighten fish.

As early as 1930, Yates (1930) demonstrated that migrat-ing salmon avoid electrical barriers used in the vicinity of power plants. Eighty-five percent fewer specimens were found in a test channel protected by electrical barriers than in a control channel. Much research has reported on the use of electrical screens as barriers to migrating salmon (Anonymous 1960; Andrew et al. 1955, 1956; Burrows 1957; Newman 1959; etc.).

Pugh et al. (1971) found that guidance of four salmonid species by means of electrical guiding systems decreased with increasing water velocity. They concluded that the use of electrical guiding systems was feasible for salmonids where the water velocity did not exceed 0.3 m/s, but did not seem practical for use in most rivers and streams for the species tested. McLain (1957) described a DC diversion device which was developed to reduce fish mortality from an AC barrier designed for sea lamprey migrations. Monan and Pugh (1964) concluded that benefits of using electrical screens with louvers were not nearly as significant as could be obtained by adjusting spacing between the louvers themselves. Hyman et al. (1975) concluded that elevated voltage levels did not necessarily extend the coverage of the field. Also, where field strengths exceeded the threshold level, fish were stunned and then impinged against the intake screens. Desired strength of the electrical field was predicted using such parameters as conductivity, electrode spacing, material, etc., as well as knowledge of the behavior of the species in the vicinity of the plant intake. Sonnichsen et al. (1973) found that electrical arrays which alternated strong and weak fields were partially effective in guiding fish to an intake bypass. The electrical fields oriented the fish and stimulated them to

VII BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS AND GUIDANCE SYSTEMS 185

swim toward the bypass. Fatigue resulted if specimens were subjected to the electrical field for a sustained period of time.

In summary, advantages resulting from incorporation of electrical barriers into intake design of power plants have been marginal. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service terminated its research on electrical screens in 1965 after 15 years of concentrated effort (EPA 1973, 1976). The major disadvantages

,.

of electrical screening systems were that they could not be used effectively to screen downstream migrants or a mixture of sizes and species. Also, electrical screening systems were limited in estuarine or ocean waters because of high electri-cal losses, and were potentially dangerous to humans and other animals.

AIR BUBBLE CURTAINS

Air bubble screens have been used with varying success to attract or repel fish from intakes (Bates and VanDerwalker 1964; Brett and MacKinnon 1953; Warner 1956; Anon. 1970; Mayo 1974; Ray et al. 1976). Early attempts with bubble screens at Indian Point No. 1, NY proved ineffective (Anon. 1970) and recent data collected in the vicinity of the plant support this conclusion (Alevras 1974; Lieberman and Muessig MS). Impingement may increase when fish are attracted to the air bubble screens (Hanson et al. 1977; EPA 1973, 1976). Tests by Imamura and Ogura (1959) showed that herring gathered near the air curtain under conditions of high illumination, but avoided it during low illumination. Bates and VanDerwalker (1964) found that juvenile salmon were attracted to air bubble curtains under an appropriate combination of approach veloc-ity, angle, and jet pressure of the bubble curtain. The efficiency of air bubble curtains may depend upon the ability of fish to see the bubbles as well as upon the air pressure used (Enami 1960). For instance, Bates and VanDerwalker

—

(1964) reported up to 90% guiding efficiency with air curtains during daylight periods when intake velocity did not exceed 0.58 m/s. The air curtain was ineffective at night and in turbid waters; therefore, it was reasoned that the curtain acted more as a visual than as a tactile stimulus. Smith (1961) found that the air curtain was effective when crowding was minimal and predators were absent. Other studies in which air bubble streams have proven effective in herding and guid-ing fishes, or serving as a barrier to their normal activity, include those of Bibko et al. (1974) and Kobayashi et al. (1959). Actual application of bubble curtains at the Indian


Point, NY (Anonymous 1970), Quad-Cities, IL (Latvaitis et al. 1976), and Prairie Island, MN (Grotbeck 1975) power facilities have shown them to be ineffective. Bubble curtains have since been removed from these stations.

Historically, it was thought that sensory mechanisms involved in air bubble curtains were entirely visual. How-ever, work by Bibko et al. (1974) and Kuznetsov (1971) tends to contradict this generalization. The studies on bubble curtains conducted by Bibko et al. (1974) were extensive, especially in relation to power plant intake problems. They found that the air curtain was especially effective with giz-zard shad (300-400 mm IL) and striped bass (143-241 mm TL) at test temperatures of 5-11 C. At lower temperatures (0.8 to 4.4 C), the fish became lethargic and repeatedly drifted back through the bubble curtain as an effect of velocity or cur-rent. At test temperatures of 5 and 11 C, fish readily detected a 5 cm zone of free passage within the bubble screen and passed through it in single file. Where a 15.2 cm zone of free passage occurred in the bubble screen, the fishes would swim side by side in numbers from 2 to 5, depending upon the dimensions of the opening in the screen.

Kuznetsov (1971) stressed that information available on the effects of air bubble curtains on the behavior of fish is so contradictory that this research has been largely suspended in the Soviet Union, but indicated that air curtains are employed in commercial fisheries of Denmark. There is evi-dence that fish do not react visually to air bubble screens, but rather to an acoustical stimulus (Kuznetsov 1971). Air bubble curtains seem to have strong inhibiting effects when emitted at frequencies in the 6.0 to 9.0 kHz range. Kuznetsov (1971) determined that the optimum aeration regime incorporat-ing an auditory stimulus occurred when the air pressure in the hose was twice the hydrostatic pressure which, in turn, depended upon the depth at which the hose was situated. Kuznetsov (1971) contends that predators may be attracted to air curtains for the same behavioral reasons that they are attracted to schools of prey which splash on the surface.

ILLUMINATION

Mechanisms involved in photic responses of fishes (Ali 1975) are not precisely understood, but may involve: hypnotic attraction (Fry 1950), positive phototaxis (Frankel and Gunn 1961), conditioned response where light is associated with food (Borisov 1955), optimum preferred light intensity or wave length (Scharfe 1953; Blaxter 1975; Reynolds et al. 1978),


disorientation behavior similar to the disorientation of noc-turnally migrating birds (Verheijen 1959, 1969), curiosity and reflex action (Mohr 1964). Although considerable study has been done on light attraction in fishes, its successful appli-cation is limited to relative few species under well defined environmental conditions (Kuroki et al. 1964).

The reaction of fishes to light is not consistent (Beliaeva and Nikonorov 1961), but changes with the type of light, intensity, angular distribution, polarization, duration (Woodhead 1966) and spectral composition (Reynolds et al. 1978). The effect of light may be modified by physical and chemical discontinuancies in the water (Blaxter 1975). Reac-tion to light also varies with the physiological state and age of the fish (Blaxter and Holliday 1963). Nikolsky (1963) reports that the monocular horizontal field of vision in adult trout is 160-170

0 and the vertical field is 150

0, as compared

to 154° and 134° for man, respectively. However, the binocu-lar field of vision for trout is only 20-30°, whereas it is 120° in man. Objects out of water can be seen by fish only to 48.8° either side of vertical, or within a total angle of 97.6°. This 97.6° "window" never changes; however, a fish can change the field of vision by moving up or down in the water column (Nikolsky 1963). In the electromagnetic spectrum, the human eye is normally sensitive to wave lengths from 380 to 760 millimicrons (mil.), with extreme limits from 310 to 1050 mp under intense artificial conditions (Hoar 1975). Data pre-sented by Munz (1971) and Ali and Anctil (1976) indicate that the sensitivity of the visual pigments of fishes ranges from approximately 470 (marine species) to 640 ml.' (freshwater and estuarine species).

Blaxter (1965) states that light, due to its speed, gives the earliest possible information concerning the distant envi-ronment, especially for deepsea fishes. Since intensity preception has not been clearly demonstrated in fishes, a change in light intensity becomes meaningful presumably only near the threshold of detection for the particular species (Blaxter 1975). This may apply to migrating fishes which are attracted by lights at night. Many species are known to avoid light depending upon intensity and wave length, e.g., eels (Von Brandt 1967). Surface and submarine flashing lights are used by Japanese and Russian fishing industries to drive fishes into nets prior to their closure. Some species (e.g., smelt) are photopositive depending on factors such as life stage and season (McCraig 1976). Blaxter (1975) presented evidence that many species follow isolumes (light preferenda). Preferences, where they exist, differ widely within and be-tween species (Blaxter 1975; Clarke 1966), and are related to the extent that the pineal body is exposed (Breder and Rasquin 1950).


Fore (1969) studied responses of 23 freshwater fish species to artificial (white) light, illumination preference and orientation. Representatives of all but one of the fami-lies tested (Lepisosteidae, Clupeidae, Cyprinidae, Ictaluri-dae, Poeciliidae, Atherinidae, Serranidae, Centrarchidae, Sciaenidae), exhibited a positive response to light. Juvenile and adult black bullhead and channel catfish (Ictaluridae) had negative responses. Preference of light intensity ranged from minimum to maximum intensity depending on life stage of the particular species. For instance, larvae of the largemouth bass had a preference for greatest illumination, while juve-niles and adults preferred intermediate and minimum illumina-tion, respectively. Fore (1969) categorized the schooling behavior of each species as related to their subsequent orien-tation to a light source as being (1) an obligate school; (2) facultive school; (3) independent; and (4) inconclusive. Fore (1969) concluded that (1) nocturnal fish demonstrated negative phototaxis and diurnal fish, positive; (2) larval, juvenile and adult stages of any photopositive species exhibited increased preference for decreasing illumination, respec-tively; (3) obligate schools of fishes were always found under maximum intensity, regardless of life stage; (4) species with random movement had less rigid preference requirements; and (5) trends among species and ontogenetic stages within a family were similar.

Fore's (1969) observation that catfish were photo-negative corresponds with observations by Darnell and Meierotto (1965). In the latter study, activity peaks among young black bullheads occurred at twilight, whereas older fish were nocturnally active and rested in the weeds during the day. Northcote (1958) found that fingerling rainbow trout held at a 16 h day-length exhibited a strong positive rheo-taxis, but fingerlings held at an 8 h day-length showed negative rheotaxis.

Blaxter (1975) concluded that light is the dominant stimulus in diel vertical migration of fish. These cycles of behavior are frequently complex and changes in swimming activ-ity may be associated with feeding, shoaling, courtship, spawning, aggressiveness, etc. However, these cycles have not been compared and studied in great detail (Woodhead 1966). Diel cycles of increased swimming activity have been described for many marine fishes. Clupeids show "typical" diurnal migrations, i.e., they are at depths during the day, but nearer the surface at night (Blaxter 1970). Herring exhibit a diel periodicity in activity that is strongly correlated with daily changes in illumination and that peaks near twilight (Stickney 1969). Herring, however, are not always attracted to lights of commercial fishermen (Dragesund 1958). Boulenger


(1929) noted that the common dogfish, skate, thornback ray, spotted sea perch, banded sea perch, torpedo fish, John Dory, weaver, conger, and Roman eel were more active by night than by day. Gurnards, however, were active at day and not by night. Among the flatfishes, swimming is largely confined to night.

Among freshwater species, Breder (1959) reported that golden shiners and lake chubsuckers schooled actively together by day, but rested at night. Walleye distribution is in-versely related to light intensity and depth (Scherer 1976). Data of Varanelli and McCleave (1974) suggest activity pat-terns of Atlantic salmon are dependent on a light-dark cycle. Light perception per se in the pumpkinseed may be more impor-tant than visual perception (Kapoor 1971). Jones (1956) found activity of the European minnow was directly related to light intensity and the amount of cover. Smallmouth and largemouth bass exhibit increased crepuscular activity, but largemouth also have a mid-day activity peak (Reynolds and Casterlin 1976).

Swimming performance is strongly correlated with illumi-nation. Juvenile roach almost ceased swimming when illumina-tion dropped below the threshold value for visual orientation (Saburenkov and Pavlov 1968). Madison et al. (1972) found pronounced diel fluctuations in swimming activity of sockeye salmon. Jones (1962) noted that herring drift with the cur-rent in the dark. Keenleyside and Hoar (1954) and Lyon (1904) reported that fish are dependent upon visual cues and labyrin-thine reflexes for spatial orientation. Fish may not be able to properly orient to currents in darkness or turbid water, thus they may be entrained or impinged depending upon size. Pavlov et al. (1972) showed that current velocities critical for certain European fishes are related to the conditions of the fish's visual orientation. Light intensity was especially important in determining velocities critical to fish. For benthic fish, tactile reception was the dominant receptor rather than visual (light) stimuli. The critical velocity for most teleost fishes tested was considerably less in darkness than in light, particularly for young fishes. An abrupt al-teration of critical velocity occurred at twilight illumina-tion. Pavlov (1966) established that the optomotor (visual) mechanism of rheotaxis is dominant in fishes, and is the sole mechanism in the early stages of teleost fish. Therefore, when light intensities fall below certain threshold levels, the optomotor reaction in young fishes is eliminated and they drift freely. The illumination threshold decreases as fish grow. Visual orientation is not developed in young sturgeons, and tactile orientation is used from the onset of rheotaxis.

Sylvester (1973) studied the influence of light on the


vulnerability of heat-stressed fish to predation by coho salmon and found that darkness greatly decreased feeding effi-ciency. Positive phototaxis of certain species may be weakened at elevated temperatures (Andrews 1946; Stickney 1969; Reynolds et al. 1977). There is evidence that for her-ring, neither oxygen concentration nor percentage saturation affects the photic response (Stickney 1969).

Many studies indicate a strong correlation between fish schooling integrity and light (Atz 1953; Steven 1958; Shaw 1961a, b; Blaxter and Holliday 1963; John 1964; Hunter 1968; Fore 1969). However, many schooling fish continue to operate as a functional unit at night (Hobson 1968). Whitney (1969) summarized several papers in an attempt to relate schooling behavior of various fishes and available illumination at different depths. Fishes "typically" school during the day and disperse at night as they approach the surface. Vertical movements, however, are modified by factors other than light, e.g., movements of prey, pressure gradients, stratification of temperature, etc. (Woodhead 1966). Sudden changes in illumi-nation may disperse rather than attract fish.

Artificial lighting can negate some of the natural adap-tations for survival among prey species. Schooling fishes may have light-adapted eyes which obscure the initial approach of a predator from a dark environment. Conversely, lighting from above increases the vertical visibility for the predator and the predation efficiency (Fore 1969).

Fields et al. (1954, 1955a, 1955b) studied the guidance and avoidance response of salmonids to light. Light avoidance behavior was reduced immediately after the fish were exposed to electroshocking. A light barrier at an angle of 90

0 served

as a blocking or avoidance mechanism on the behavioral re-sponse of the fish, whereas a light barrier at an angle of 20° served in guiding the fish. The light barrier guided most effectively at an angle of 20°, the lowest intake velocity, and the highest level of illumination. Pavlov (1969) concluded that the principal causes of fish impingement at intake struc-tures is a loss of visual orientation in the water. Highest impingement occurred at twilight and at night. Wickham (1973) presented data on the use of lights as an attractant of fish and also as a mechanism to guide them. He considered the use of light as a valuable supplemental tool for commercial fish-ery techniques (e.g., seining). Wickham (1973) found that fish could be successfully led between sequentially operated underwater lamps. Continuously operated mobile lamps were even more successful, and led fishes for distances up to 1 km. Light also has the adverse effect of attracting fish under certain circumstances which have resulted in complete plant shutdown (EPA 1973, 1976). There are apparently no existing intakes where a light barrier is functioning successfully.


ACOUSTIC BARRIERS

Sound, unlike light, propagates well in water; attenua-tion of sound in water is 1,000 times slower than in air. Many fishes have evol 'ed sound-producing and acoustical capabili- ties. Fish can produce sound (Marshall 1976) via three main sources: stridulatory noises, hydrodynamic noises and noises from the swim or gas bladder Nagler et al. 1977). Stridula-tory noises occur by friction of one skeletal part over another and may range from 50 to 10,000 Hz. Hydrodynamic noises are produced when fish swim. For species possessing a gas bladder, sound can be produced when the striated body wall muscles attached to the gas bladder vibrate. Sound production using the gas bladder is well known in certain species, e.g., drums and grenadiers. Sounds produced by the swim bladder are usually below 300 Hz, but may range from 50 to 1500 Hz. Sound production will vary with species, season and time of day (Marshall 1966).

Anatomical features involved in hearing include the inner ear, swim bladder and lateral line (Tavolga 1971). Some freshwater species (Cypriniformes and Siluriformes) which possess a highly specialized series of bones connected from the gas bladder to the inner ear, i.e., the Weberian appara-tus, have greater auditory range. Enger (1966) determined that sound pressure thresholds in fish vary with the distance of the fish from the sound source, and indicated (1969) that sound waves propaged by an acoustic far-field are best re-ceived by fishes with a swim bladder. However, auditory thresholds of many species are so low that noise can probably be detected for a considerable distance.

Enger (1969) implied that fish without a swim bladder may also be able to detect low frequency sound sources at a long distance through the lateral line system. Nikonorov (1975) noted that fish can perceive acoustic oscillations or fre-quencies between 1 to 250 Hz through the lateral line. Also, while fish may initially react to a sound, they behave pas-sively after habituation to the sound (Nelson and Johnson 1972). This may be attributed to the many sounds that fish are accustomed to in the natural environment, including waves, wind, surf, tidal flow, boats, whales, and other fishes. Low frequency pulsed sounds are somewhat analagous to sounds emit-ted by fish thrashing about in agony and have a strong attract-

ing effect on sharks (Nelson and Johnson 1972) and other predatory fishes (Richard 1968), especially of the family Ser-ranidae. These same sounds have a strong repellant effect on prey fish, i.e., it is a danger signal to them. Nikonorov (1975) considered the most important factor in acoustic


signaling as the rhythm of the emitted sounds, not frequency. Sounds may act as an attractant if emitted in a rapid series, but may act as a repellant if in the form of an intermittent single tap. This fact is used in Russia by fishermen who knock sticks sharply against the water to drive fish. Moulton and Backus (1955) prepared a bibliography on the use of acous-tic techniques for guiding and attracting fish.

Moore and Newman (1956) conducted tests with young salmon on the effects of sound waves from 5 to 20,000 Hz. The only positive reaction was that the fish appeared startled the first time they heard a new sound, but there was no indication as to whether the sound attracted or repelled them. Burner and Moore (1962) conducted tests using sound to guide fishes. Results indicated that certain species were momentarily frightened by noise, but then became habituated to it almost immediately. Fishes were startled by low frequencies, but appeared to have no response to high frequencies. A penumatic sound source which was employed at Indian Point Unit No. 1, NY to repel fish, obtained inconclusive results (Anonymous 1970). The underwater sound initially repelled fish, but then lost its effectiveness after a period of time as the fish became acclimated. Kuznetsov (1971) suggested that fishes were repelled with an air bubble curtain by the characteristic frequencies at which the bubbles were emitted, rather than by the visual effects of the bubbles. VanDerwalker (1964) noted that salmonids exhibited two types of response to a sound frequency of 60 Hz. Some individuals had a loss of equilib-rium interrupted by short periods of erratic swimming. Others displayed an escape reaction and swam rapidly around the test channel. Jazz music played at a Virginia plant was only mar-ginally successful as a repellant, and the system was there-fore eliminated (EPA 1973, 1976). Prentice and Ossiander (1974) surmized from other research that maximum avoidance was obtained with low frequencies (35-175 Hz) of high intensity.

Schuler and Larson (1975), experimenting with sound as a repellant, used a range of frequencies from 20 to 15,000 Hz, rock music, a killer whale tape, and wooden planks pounded with a mallet. In general, the acoustical stimuli were ineffective and the authors attributed this to the fact that there was absence of a shock wave which is associated with live sound. This conclusion promoted use of an underwater pneu-matic impact device which created a shock wave. When it was cycled continuously, fish avoided its immediate vicinity by at least 3 m. However, no direct correlation between fish re-action and cycle rate was determined. Fish in open waters reacted more dramatically than did fish at depths. Fish in the upper water column responded at distances up to 20 m. Fishes which oriented themselves to the rip-rap and intake


structures, showed no discernable responses. It was conclud-ed that the pneumatic device did produce sufficient stimuli to reduce fish concentrations within a 3 m radius of the device.

LOUVERS AND VELOCITY CAPS

Responses of fishes to currents and flow fields were discussed in Chapter VI.

CHAIN AND CABLE SCREENS

Studies conducted using chain and cable barriers as stimuli for diverting or guiding fish (Brett and Groot 1963; Huber 1974) have proven ineffective (Ray et al. 1976).

INTERPRETIVE ANALYSIS

The use of stimuli to attract fish to or repel them from intake structures has met with only marginal success. Of the variety of stimuli and mechanisms employed, louvers and veloc-ity caps (see Chapter VI) appear to offer the most promise for guiding fish away from intake structures. Louvers have been used extensively in the Pacific Northwest, and velocity caps are a common feature at power plants on the Great Lakes.

Recent studies by Bibko et al. (1974) and Kuznetsov (1971) have emphasized that air bubble curtains may be at least partially effective on a case specific basis. Two im-portant concepts resulted from their work. First, fish detect and pass through gaps in the curtain wall 5 cm or greater, and secondly, air curtains are more effective depending upon the rate at which the bubbles are emitted and the noise frequency which results.

Light must be considered as one of the most influential stimuli on fishes. A wealth of data exists on the role of illumination in influencing biota (e.g., see Bainbridge et al. 1966; Evans et al. 1974), however, little innovative research has been conducted on fish behavior at power facilities. For instance, there are reports that fish impingement can be tem-porarily reduced by turning the lights off near the intake structure. If external lighting is an absolute requirement for plant security, safety, or other reasons, then experiments should be conducted to determine methods for minimizing fish


attraction behavior and impingement. For instance, perhaps lights could be mounted offshore to shine toward the plant rather than toward the water as conventional. Additionally, research on preference/avoidance reactions to various wave lengths would be valuable. Data presented on the commercial fisheries application of illumination in guiding fishes have strong implications for use in the vicinity of power facili-ties, i.e., lights could be used to attract or guide fish away from intake structures, especially at night. It must be emphasized that many species lose their orientation in darkness, and appropriate illumination could significantly reduce im-pingement.

Acoustical barriers have been found generally inefficient due to the species specific responses of fish. For instance, some species respond to frequencies varying from 1,000 to 13,000 Hz, while other species are more sensitive to sound intensity.

Congleton (1974) aptly summarized that before a behav-ioral barrier or guidance system can be adopted on widescale use, its effectiveness must be demonstrated through well de-signed experimental testing. An effective system should work for a wide variety of species and sizes, under varying degrees of plant operation, and seasonal and daily conditions.

LITERATURE CITED

Alekseev, A. P. (ed.). 1971. Fish behavior and fishing techniques. Natl.Mar. Fish. Serv./NOAA NTIS Translation No. TT 71-50010:193pp.

Alevras, R. A. 1974. Status of air bubble fish protection system at Indian Point Station on the Hudson River, pp. 289-291. In: Jensen, L. D. (ed.), Entrainment and intake screening.---Proc. 2nd Entrain. & Intake Screen. Work., Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, Maryland.

Ali, M. A. (ed.). 1975. Vision in fish: new approaches in research. Plenum Press, New York, N.Y.: 836 p.

Ali, M. A. and M. Anctil. 1976. Retinas of fishes - an atlas. Vol. I. NATO ASI Series A, Springer-Verlag, Berlin:284 p.

Andrew, F. J., P. C. Johnson, and L. R. Kersey. 1956. Elec-tric screens for adult salmon, progress report. Inter-natl. Fish. Comm., New Westminister, B. C.


Andrew, F. J., L. R. Kersey, and P. C. Johnson. 1955. An in-vestigation of the problem of guiding downstream-migrant salmon at dams. Internatl. Pac. Salmon Fish. Comm., Bull. No. 8, New Westminister, B. C.

Andrews, C. W. 1946. Effect of heat on the light behavior of fish. Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc. Can., Ser. 3(40):27-31.

Anonymous. 1960. The status of electrical fish guiding experiments. USFWS Prog. Rept., Fish. Eng. Res. Prog., Corp. of Eng., Portland, Oregon:65-69.

Anonymous. 1970. Fish protection at Indian Point, Unit No. 1. Consolidated Edison Co., New York, N. Y.: 34pp. (mimeo).

Atz, J. W. 1953. Orientation in schooling fishes, pp. 103-130. In: Proceedings of a Conference on Orientation in Animals, Part II. Office of Naval Research, Washington, D. C.

Bainbridge, R., G. C. Evans, and O. Rackham, (eds.). 1965. Light as an ecological factor. Symp. British Ecol. Soc., Cambridge, England. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford:452pp.

Bates, D. W., and J. G. VanDerwalker. 1964. Exploratory ex-periments on the deflection of juvenile salmon by means of water and air jets. Fish Passage Res. Prog., Rev. Prog., U. S. Bur. Comm. Fish., 3(14):6pp.

Beliaeva, V. N., and J. V. Nikonorov. 1961. Why light at- tracts fish. Vop. Ikhtiol., 1(20):513-518.

Bibko, P. N., L. Wirtenan, and P. E. Kueser. 1974. Prelimi-nary studies on the effects of air bubbles and intense illumination on the swimming behavior of the striped bass (Morone saxatilus) and the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), pp. 293-304. In: Jensen, L. D.(ed.), En-trainment and intake screening. Proc. 2nd Entrain. In-take Screen. Work., Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, Md.

Blaxter, J. H. S. 1965. The effect of light intensity on the feeding ecology of herring, pp. 393-409. In: Bain-bridge, R., G. C. Evans, and O. Rackham (eds.), Light as an ecological factor. Symp. British Ecol. Soc., Cam-bridge, England. Blackwell Sci. Pub]., Oxford.


Blaxter, J. H. S. 1970. Light - Fishes, pp. 213-320. In: Kinne, O. (ed.), Marine ecology. Vol. I. Wiley - Inter-science, New York.

Blaxter, J. H. S. 1975. The role of light in the vertical migration of fish--a review, pp. 189-210. In: Evans, G. C., R. Bainbridge, and O. Rackham (ed.), Light as an ecological factor: II. 16th Symp. Br. Ecol. Soc., Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford.

Blaxter, J. H. S., and F. G. T. Holliday. 1963. The behavior and physiology of herring and other clupeids, pp. 261-393. In: Russell, F. S. (ed.), Advances in marine biology. Academic Press, N. Y.

Borisov, P. G. 1955. The behaviour of fishes under the in-fluence of artificial light, pp. 121-143. In: Pavlov-skii, E. N. (ed.), Proceedings of the Congress on the behaviour of fish and on the locating of its commercial concentrations. Trans. Mar. Lab., Aberdeen, No. 411.

Boulenger, E. G. 1929. Proc. Zool. Soc. London:359-362.

Breder, C. M., Jr. 1959. Studies on social groupings in fishes. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 117:399-481.

Breder, C. M., Jr., and P. Rasquin. 1950. A preliminary report on the control of pigment cells and light re-actions in recent teleost fishes. Science, 111:10-12.

Brett, J. R., and C. Groot. 1963. Some aspects of olfactory and visual responses in Pacific salmon. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 20(2):287-303.

Brett, J. R., and K. D. MacKinnon. 1953. Preliminary experi-ments using lights and bubbles to deflect migrating young spring salmon. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 10(8):548-559.

Burner, C. J., and H. L. Moore. 1962. Attempts to guide small fish with underwater sound. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rept. - Fish., No. 403:30pp.

Burrows, R. E. 1957. Diversion of adult salmon by an elec-trical field. USFWS Spec. Sci. Rept. 246:11pp.

Cahn, P. H., W. Siler, and M. Fujiya. 1973. Sensory detec-tion of environmental changes by fish, pp. 363-387. In: Chavin, W. (ed.), Responses of fish to environmental changes. Charles C. Thomas, Publ., Springfield, Ill.


Clarke, W. D. 1966. Bathyphotometric studies of the light regime of organisms of the deep scattering layer. Gen. Motors Def. Res. Lab., Rept. UC48, Tid-4500:47pp.

Congleton, J. L. 1974. Development of biological design criteria for fish screens and barriers, Feb. 5-9, 1973, pp. 345-347. In: Jensen, L. D. (ed.), Entrainment & In- take Screening. Intake Screen. Work. Baltimore, Md.

Darnell, R. M., and R. R. Meierotto. 1965. Diurnal periodicity in the black bullhead, Ictalurus melas (Refin-esque). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 94(1):1-8.

Dragesund, Olav. 1958. Reactions of fish to artificial light, with special reference to large herring and spring herring in Norway. J. Cons., 23:213-227.

Enami, S. 1960. Studies on the bubble net. II. Experiments on some sea water fishes performed on the driving and intercepting effects. Bull. Japan. Soc. Sci. Fish., 26 (3):269-272.

Enger, P. S. 1966. Acoustic threshold in goldfish and its relation to the sound source distance. Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 18(4):859-868.

Enger, P. S. 1969. Sound reception in teleost fishes in relation to the sound source distance, pp. 247-252. In: Ben-Tuvia, A., and W. Dickson (eds.), Proceedings of the FAO Conference on fish behaviour in relation to fishing techniques and tactics. United Nations, FAO Fish. Rept. No. 62, Vol. 2.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Development document for proposed best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact of cooling water intake structures. U. S. Environ. Protect. Agency, EPA 440/ 1-74/015:175pp.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Development document for best technology available for the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake struc-tures for minimizing adverse environmental impact. U. S. Environ. Protect. Agency, EPA 440/1-76/015-a:263pp.

Evans, G. C., R. Bainbridge, and O. Rackham (eds.). 1974. Light as an ecological factor: II. 16th Symp. British Ecol. Soc. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford:616pp.


Fields, P. E., R. J. Adkins, R. E. Carney, G. L. Finger, and D. E. Johnson. 1955a. The effect of four light conditions upon the impingement of year plus steelhead trout, chinook and silver salmon. School of Fish., Univ. of Wash., Tech. Rept. 18.

Fields, P. E., G. L. Finger, R. J. Adkins, B. E. Carney, and R. A. Pyke. 1955b. Factorial study of the response of steelhead trout, chinook and silver salmon fingerlings to light barriers in moving water. School of Fish., Univ. of Wash., Tech. Rept. 11.

Fields, P. E., G. L. Finger, and L. A. Verhoeven. 1954. The effect of electric shock upon the light avoiding behavior of young silver and blueback salmon. School of Fish., Univ. of Wash., Rept. No. 3.

Fore, P. L. 1969. Responses of freshwater fishes to artifi-cial light. Ph.D. Disser., South. IL. Univ., Carbondale: 86pp.

Frankel, G. S., and D. L. Gunn. 1961. The orientation of animals. Dover Publ., New York, N.Y.:376pp.

Fry, D. E. 1950. Moving lights lure fish past diversion channels. Elec. World, 133(15):112.

Grotbeck, L. M. 1975. Evaluation of an air curtain as a fish deterrent device at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant cooling water intake. Section Z.8, pp.1-25. In: Northern States Power 1975 Annual Report, Environ. Ecol. Stud. Prog., Prairie Island Nuclear Gener. Plant.

Hanson, C. H., J. R. White, and H. W. Li. 1977. Entrapment and impingement of fishes by power plant cooling-water intakes: an overview. Mar. Fish. Rev., 39(10):7-17.

Hoar, W. S. 1975. General and comparative physiology. 2nd Ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc.: 815pp.

Hobson, E. S. 1968. Predatory behavior of some shore fishes in the Gulf of California. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Res. Rept. 73:92pp.

Huber, E. E. 1974. Fish protection at intake structures and dams: guidance, screens, and collection devices. Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Rept. No. ORNL-E15-74-67:75pp.


Hunter, J. R. 1968. Effects of light on schooling and feed-ing of jack mackeral, Trachurus symmetricus. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 25(2):393-407.

Hyman, A. M., W. H. Mowbray, and S. B. Saila. 1975. The ef-fects of two electrical barriers on the entrainment of fish at a freshwater nuclear power plant, pp. 205-237. In: Saila, S. B. (ed.), Fisheries and energy production. Lexington Books, D. C. Heath & Co., Lexington, Mass.

Imamura, Y., and M. Ogura. 1959. Study on the response of Trachurous laponicus to air-bubbles. J. Tokyo Univ. Fish., 45(2):195-203.

John, K. R. 1964. Illumination, vision, and schooling of Astyanax mexicanus (Fillipi). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 216):1453-1473.

Jones, F. R. H. 1956. The behaviour of minnows in relation to light intensity. J. Exp. Biol., 33:271-281.

Jones, F. R. H. 1962. Further observations on the movements of herring (Clupea harengus) shoals in relation to the tidal current. J. Cons. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer., Vol. 27.

Kapoor, N. N. 1971. Locomotory patterns of fish (Lepomis gibbosus) under different levels of illumination. Anim. Behav., 19:744-749.

Keenleyside, M. H. A., and W. S. Hoar. 1954. Effects of temperature on the responses of young salmon to water currents. Behaviour, 7:76-87.

Klima, E. F. 1972. Voltage and pulse rates for inducing • electrotaxis in twelve coastal pelagic and bottom fishes.

J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 29:1605-1614.

Klima, E. F. 1974. Electrical threshold response of some Gulf of Mexico fishes. Fish. Bull., 72(3):851-853.

Kobayashi, K., S. Igarashi, Y. Abiko, and K. Hayashi. 1959. Studies on air screen in water. I. Preliminary observa-tion of behavior of fish school in relation to air screen. Bull. Faculty Fish., Hokkaido Univ., 10(3):222-228.


Kuroki, T., H. Nakayama, and K. Ueno. 1964. Studies on the fluorescent colour-lamp for attracting fish, 2. Under-water distribution of colour light density and the fish school aggregates. Bull. Fac. Fish., Hokkaido Univ., 14 (4):215-235.

Kuznetsov, Y. A. 1971. The behavior of fish in the zone af-fected by a curtain of air bubbles, pp. 103-110. In: Alekeseev, A. P. (ed.), Fish behavior and fishing tech-niques. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Nat. Tech. Info. Serv., Translation No. TT 71-50010.

Lagler, K. F., J. E. Bardach, R. R. Miller, and D. R. M. Passino. 1977. Ichthyology (2nd Ed.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.: 506pp.

Latvaitis, B., H. F. Bernhard, and D. B. MacDonald. 1976. Impingement studies at Quad-Cities Station, Mississippi River, pp. 269-290. In: Jensen, L. D. (ed.), Proc. 3rd Natl. Work. Entrain. Impinge., New York, N. Y.

Lieberman, J. T., and P. H. Muessig. MS. Evaluation of an air bubbler to mitigate fish impingement at an electric generating plant. Texas Instruments, Inc., Buchanan, N. Y.:21pp.

Lyon, E. P. 1904. Rheotropism in fishes. J. Physiol., 12: 149-161.

Madison, D. M., R. M. Horrall, A. B. Stasko, and A. D. Hasler. 1972. Migrating movements of adult sockeye salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka) in coastal British Columbia as revealed by ultrasonic tracking. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 29:1025-1033.

Marcy, B. C., Jr., and M. D. Dahlberg. 1978. Review of best technology available for cooling water intakes. NUS Corp. Rept., Pittsburgh, Pa.: 9Opp.

Marshall, J. A. 1976. Sound production by freshwater fishes - a bibliography. Proc. W. Va. Acad. Sci., 48(1):59-67.

Marshall, N. B. 1966. The life of fishes. Weidenfeld and Nicholson Publ., London:402pp.

Mayo, R. D. 1974. Conventional fish screening systems and some promising alternatives, pp.277-280. In: Jensen, L. D. (ed.), Proc. 2nd Entrainment and Intake Screening Workshop, Feb. 5-9, 1973, Baltimore, MD.


McCraig, R. S. 1976. Use of attractant illumination for sampling rainbow smelt. Osmerus mordax, young-of-the-year in inland waters. Abst. Proc. 1976 Salmonid Work-shop, NE Div. Am. Fish. Soc. :1-3.

McLain, A. L. 1957. The control of the upstream movement of fish with pulsated direct current. Proc. 86th Ann. Meet. Am. Fish. Soc. :269-283.

Mohr, H. 1964. Einige gesichtspunkle angewandter verhaitens forschung in der fischerei. Protok. Fischtech., 9:36-45.

• Monan, G. E., and J. R. Pugh. 1964. A field test of elec-trical guiding and louver defelection combined into a single guiding system. Fish Passage Res. Prog., U. S. Bur. Comm. Fish., 3(12):4pp.

Moore, H. L., and H. W. Newman. 1956. The effects of sound waves on young salmon. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Prog. Rept. Fish. Eng. Res. Prog., Portland, OR. :27-41.

Moulton, J. M., and R. H. Backus. 1955. Annotated references concerning the effects of man-made sounds on the movement of fishes. Fish. Circ., Dept. Sea Shore Fish., Maine, No. 17:8pp.

Munz, F. W. 1971. Vision: visual pigments, pp. 1-32. In: Hoar, W. S., and D. J. Randall (eds.), Fish physiology, Volume V. Sensory systems and electric organs. Academic Press, New York, N. Y.

Nelson, D. R., and R. H. Johnson. 1972. Acoustic attraction of Pacific reef sharks: effect of pulse intermittency and variability. Comp.Biochem. Physiol., 42(A):85-95.

Newman, H. W. 1959. Effect of field polarity in guiding salmon fingerlings by electricity. USFWS Spec. Sci. Rept., No. 319:15pp.

Nikolsky, G. V. 1963. The ecology of fishes. Academic Press, New York, NY.:352pp.

Nikonorov, I. V. 1975. Interaction of fishing gear with fish aggregations. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv./NOAA, NIIS Translation TT 73-50045:216pp.


Northcote, T. G. 1958. Effect of photoperiodism on response of juvenile trout to water currents. Nature, 181:1283-1384.

Northrop, R. B. 1967. Electrofishing. TELE Trans. Bio-Med. Eng.,BME-143):191-200.

Pavlov, D. S. 1966. The relationship of young fish to a cur-rent of water and orientation in it. Zool. Zhur.,45(6).

Pavlov, D. S. 1969. Entrapment of fish fingerlings in pump- ing installations as related to features of their behavior and orientation in the stream of water. J. Ichthyol.,9(2):237-243.

Pavlov, D. S., Y. W. Shikin, A. Y. Vashchinnikov, and A. D. Mochek. 1972. The effect of light intensity and water temperature on the current velocities critical to fish. J. Ichthyol., 12(4):703-711.

Prentice, E. F., and F. J. Ossiander. 1974. Fish diversion systems and biological investigation of horizontal traveling screen Model VII, pp. 205-214. In: Jensen, L. D. (ed.), Entrainment and Impingement Proc. 2nd Entrain. Intake Screen. Work., Feb. 5-9, 1973, Baltimore, MD

Pugh, J. R., G. L. Monan, and J. R. Smith. 1971. Effect of water velocity on the fish-guiding efficiency of an electrical guiding system. Fish. Bull., 68(2):307-324.

Ray, S. S., R. L. Snipes, and D. A. Tomljanovich. 1976. A state-of-the art report on intake technologies. TVA, Chattanooga Pow. Res. Staff, Publ. No. PR-Z64874:82pp.

Reynolds, W. W., and M. L. Casterlin. 1976. Thermal prefer-enda and behavioral thermoregulation in three centrarchid fishes, pp.185-190. In: Esch, G. W., and R. W. McFarlane (eds.). Proc. Second Thermal Ecology Symposium. AEC Symposium Series.

Reynolds, W. W., A. C. Ostrowski and M. E. Casterlin. 1978. Fishes as experimental subjects for studies of vertebrate colour vision. Anim. Behav., 26:306-307.


Reynolds, W. W. and D. A. Thomson. 1974. Responses of young Gulf grunion, Leuresthes sardina, to gradients of temper-ature, light turbulence and oxygen. Copeia, 1974(3): 747-757.

Reynolds, W. W., D. A. Thomson and M. E. Casterlin. 1977. Responses of young California grunion, Leuresthes tenuis, to gradients of temperature and light. Copeia (1977): 144-149.

Richard, J. D. 1968. Fish attraction with pulsed low-frequency sound. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 25(7):1441-

• 1452.

Saburenkov, E. H., and D. S. Pavlov. 1963. Swimming speeds of fish, pp. 163-167. In: Alekseev, A. P. (ed.). Fish behavior and fishing techniques. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv./ NOAA, NIIS Translation No. TT 71-50010.

Scharfe, J. 1953. Uber die Verwendung Kunstlichen Lichtes in der Fischerei. Protok. Fischereitech., 8(15):2-29.

Scherer, L. 1976. Overhead-light intensity and vertical positioning of the walleye, Stizostedion vitreum vitreum. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 33:289-292.

Schuler, V. J., and L. L. Larson. 1975. Improved fish pro-tection at intake systems. J. Environ. Eng. Div., Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., 101(336):897-910.

Seidel, W. R., and E. F. Klima. 1974. In situ experiments with coastal pelagic fishes to establish design criteria for electrical fish harvesting systems. Fish. Bull., 72 (3):657-669.

Sharma, R. K. 1973. Fish protection at water diversions and intakes: a bibliography of published and unpublished references. Argonne Natl. Lab., Environ. State. Proj. ANL/ESP-1:35pp.

Shaw, E. 1961a. Minimal light intensity and the dispersal of schooling fish. Bull. de l'Inst. Oceanogr. Monaco, No. 1213:1-8.

Shaw, E. 1961b. The development of schooling in fishes, II. Physiol. Zool., 34:263-272.

Smith, K. A. 1961. Air-curtain fishing for Maine sardines. Comm. Fish. Rev., 23(3)1-14.


Sonnichsen, J. C. 1975. Fish protective devices: a compila-tion of recent designs, concepts, and operating experi-ence of water intakes used in the United States. Hanford Eng. Devel. Lab. Rept. HEDL-TME 75-38VC-79:82pp.

Sonnichsen, J. C., R. W. Bentley, G. F. Bailey, and R. I. Nakatani. 1973. A review of thermal power plant intake structure designs and related environment considerations. Hanford Eng. Devel. Lab., Contract No. AT(45-1)-2170.

Steven, D. M. 1958. Studies on the shoaling behavior of fishes, I. Responses of two species to changes in il-lumination and to olfactory stimuli. J. Exp. Biol., 36, 261-280.

Stickney, A. P. 1969. Factors influencing the attraction of Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus harengus, to artificial lights. Fish. Bull. 68(1):73-85.

Sylvester, J. R. 1973. Effect of light on vulnerability of heat-stressed sockeye salmon to predation by coho salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 102(1):139-142.

Tavolga, W. N. 1971. Sound production and detection, pp. 135-205. IN: Hoar, W. S., and D. J. Randall (eds.), Fish physiology, Vol. 5. Sensory systems and electric organs. Academic Press, New York, NY.

VanDerwalker, J. G. 1964. Studies of the response of fish to low frequency vibrations. Proc. Fish Passage Res. Prog., Rev. Prog., U. S. Bur. Comm. Fish., Seattle, WA., 3(26): 1-8.

Varanelli, C. C., and J. D. McCleave. 1974. Locomotor activity of Atlantic salmon parr (Salmo salar L.) in various light conditions and in weak magnetic fields. Anim. Behav., 22:178-186.

Verheijen, F. J. 1959. Attraction of fish by the use of light, pp.548-549. In: Kristjonsson, H. (ed.), Modern fishing gear of the world, Vol. I. Fishing News (Books) Ltd., London.

Verheijen, F. J. 1969. Some aspects of the reactivity of fish to visual stimuli in the natural and in a controlled environment, pp. 417-430. In: Ben-Tuvia, A., and W. Dickson (eds.), Proceedings Orthe FAO Conference on Fish Behaviour in Relation to Fishing Techniques and Tactics. FAO Fish. Rept., 62(2).


Von Brandt, A. 1967. Application of observations on fish behaviour for fishing methods and gear construction, pp. 169-191. In: Ben-Tuvia, A., and W. Dickson (eds.), Proceedings of the FAO Conference on Fish Behaviour in Relation to Fishing Techniques and Tactics. FAO, United Nations, Fish. Rept. 62(2).

Warner, G. 1956. Report on the air-jet fish-deflector tests. Prog. Fish-Cult., 18(1):39-41.

' Whitney, R. R. 1969. Schooling of fishes relative to available light. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 98(3):497-504.

Wickham, D. A. 1973. Attracting and controlling coastal pelagic fish with nightlights. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 102(4):816-825.

Woodhead, P. M. J. 1966. The behaviour of fish in relation to light in the sea. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev., 4: 337-403.

Yates, J. F. 1930. Electric screen diverts fish. Elec. World, 96(5): 216-217.

CHAPTER VII BEHAVIORAL BARRIERS AND GUIDANCE ...

Documents