2012
DOI: 10.2172/1177368
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating Effects of Stressors from Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 12 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There is a need for rapid assessments of likely interactions with the MECs, including defining plausible pathways of harm that might befall a particular animal in close proximity to a particular converter, foundation, mooring line, anchor, or power cable. Solutions include convening a group of experts to examine several existing methodologies for rapid risk assessments, including those established in Scotland (Potential Impacts of Wave and Tidal Energy Development; Marine Scotland 2012), Canada (Pathways of Effects; Isaacson and Daborn 2011) and the United States (Environmental Risk Evaluation System; Copping et al 2012), and to determine criteria for carrying out rapid assessments to guide nearfield monitoring. Because each protected species may have a different level of acceptable risk that varies by nation, there may be value in also separately convening relevant regulators from a specific geographic region to agree on assessing the incremental risks under an adaptive framework.…”
Section: Priority Gaps and Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is a need for rapid assessments of likely interactions with the MECs, including defining plausible pathways of harm that might befall a particular animal in close proximity to a particular converter, foundation, mooring line, anchor, or power cable. Solutions include convening a group of experts to examine several existing methodologies for rapid risk assessments, including those established in Scotland (Potential Impacts of Wave and Tidal Energy Development; Marine Scotland 2012), Canada (Pathways of Effects; Isaacson and Daborn 2011) and the United States (Environmental Risk Evaluation System; Copping et al 2012), and to determine criteria for carrying out rapid assessments to guide nearfield monitoring. Because each protected species may have a different level of acceptable risk that varies by nation, there may be value in also separately convening relevant regulators from a specific geographic region to agree on assessing the incremental risks under an adaptive framework.…”
Section: Priority Gaps and Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 99%