Environmental Risk Evaluation System—an Approach to Ranking Risk of Ocean Energy Development on Coastal and Estuarine Environments

Abstract

The pressure to develop new and renewable forms of energy to combat climate change, ocean acidification, and energy security has encouraged exploration of sources of power generation from the ocean. One of the major challenges to deploying these devices is discerning the likely effects those devices and associated systems will have on the marine environment. Determining the effects each device design and deployment system may have on specific marine animals and habitats, estimating the extent of those effects upon the resiliency of the ecosystem, and designing appropriate mitigation measures to protect against degradation all pose substantial challenges. With little direct observational or experimental data available on the effects of wave, tidal, and offshore wind devices on marine animals, habitats, and ecosystem processes, researchers have developed the Environmental Risk Evaluation System (ERES) to provide preliminary assessments of these risks and to act as a framework for integrating future data on direct interactions of ocean energy devices with the environment. Using biophysical risk factors, interactions of marine animals and seabirds, with ocean energy devices and systems, are examined; potential effects on habitats, and changes in processes such as sedimentation patterns and water quality, are also considered. The risks associated with specific interactions for which data are more readily available are explored including interactions between ocean energy devices and surface vessels, toxicity of anti-biofouling paints, and potential for harm to animals from turbine blade strike. ERES also examines the effect that environmental regulations have on the deployment and operation of ocean energy devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Arenas, P., and M. Hall. 1992. The association of sea turtles and other pelagic fauna with floating objects in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, M Salmon and J Wyneken (compilers), pp. 7–10. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami Laboratory, Miami, Florida.

  2. Baird, R.W., M.B. Hanson, and L.M. Dill. 2005. Factors influencing the diving behaviour of fish-eating killer whales: sex differences and diel and interannual variation in diving rates. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83: 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bedford, T., and R. Cooke. 2001. Probabilistic risk analysis: foundations and methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Blew, J., M. Hoffmann, G. Nehls, and V. Hennig. 2008. Investigations of the bird collision risk and the responses of harbour porpoises in the offshore wind farms Horns Rev, North Sea, and Nysted, Baltic Sea, in Denmark. Report to the German Federal Ministry for the Environment. Hamburg, Germany. 145 pp.

  5. Blyth, R.E., M.J. Kaiser, G. Edwards-Jones, and P.J.B. Hart. 2004. Implications of a zoned fishery management system for marine benthic communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 951–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boehlert, G.W., and A.B. Gill. 2010. Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy development: a current synthesis. Journal of Oceanography 23(2): 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boehlert, G.W., G.R. McMurray, and C.E.Tortorici (eds). 2008. Ecological effects of wave energy development in the Pacific Northwest. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-92, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Aeronautic Administration, Seattle, Washington.

  8. Brandt, C.A., J.A. Ward, J.M. Brandenberger, and G.A. Gill. 2012. Assessment of toxicity to aquatic resources from antifouling coatings used on marine and hydrokinetic devices. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Sequim Washington. PNNL-21260. 44 pp.

  9. Bryden, I.G., T. Grinstead, and G.T. Melville. 2004. Assessing the potential of a simple tidal channel to deliver useful energy. Applied Ocean Research 26: 198–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burger, J., C. Gordon, J. Lawrence, J. Newman, G. Forcey, and L. Vlietstra. 2011. Risk evaluation for federally listed (roseate tern, piping plover) or candidate (red knot) bird species in offshore waters: A first step for managing the potential impacts of wind facility development on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. Renewable Energy 36: 338–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cameron, L., R. Doherty, A. Henry, K. Doherty, J.Van’t Hoff, D. Kaye, D. Naylor, S.Bourdier, and T. Whittaker. 2010. Design of the Next generation of the Oyster wave energy converter.3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy, Aquamarine Power Ltd., Edinburgh, United Kingdom.Available from http://www.aquamarinepower.com/resource-library/ (September 2, 2011).

  12. Carstensen, J., O.D. Henrikson, and J. Teimann. 2006. Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on harbor porpoises: acoustic monitoring of echolocation activity using propose detectors (T-PODs). Marine Ecology Progress Series 321: 295–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Christiansen, M.B., and C.B. Hasager. 2005. Wake effects of offshore wind farms identified from satellite SAR. Remote Sensing of Environment 98: 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Clean Water Act of 1977. 1977. Public law 95-217, as amended, 33 USC 1251 et seq.

  15. Copping, A., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Geerlofs, S., Grear, M., Blake, K., Coffey, A., Massaua, M., Brown-Saracino, J., Battey, H. 2013. Environmental effects of marine energy development around the world: Annex IV final report. (pp. 97), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Ocean Energy Systems.

  16. Copping, A.E., K.M. Blake, R.M. Anderson, L.C.Zdanski, G.A. Gill, and J.A. Ward. 2011. Screening analysis for the environmental risk evaluation system: environmental effects of marine and hydrokinetic energy development. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Seattle Washington. PNNL-20805. 67 pp.

  17. Copping, A.E., and L.A. Hanna. 2011. Screening analysis for the environmental risk evaluation system: environmental effects of offshore wind energy. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Seattle Washington. PNNL-20962. 62 pp.

  18. Desholm, M., A.D. Fox, and P.D. Beasley. 2004. Best practice guidance for the use of remote techniques for observing bird behaviour in relation to offshore wind farms. COWRIE REMOTE-05-2004, Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment (COWRIE). Available from http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Assets/REMOTETECHNIQUES-FINALREPORT.pdf (November 2011).

  19. Devine Tarbell and Associates, Inc. 2006. Instream Tidal power in North America: environmental and permitting issues, EPRI-TP-007-NA. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Driedger-Marschall, B., P.K. Endres, R.M. Krueger, and C. van den Bruck. 2009. Great Lakes Wind Energy Center feasibility study—final feasibility report. juwi GmbH and JW Great Lakes Wind LLC, Cleveland, Ohio. Available from http://development.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_development/en-US/GLWEC_Final%20Feasibility%20Report_4-28-09.pdf (November 2011).

  21. Endangered Species Act of 1973. 1973. Public Law 93-205, as amended, 16 USC 1531 et seq.

  22. Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark, and A.S. Frankel. 2011. A new context-based approach to assess marine mammal behavioral responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conservation Biology 26(1): 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fabi, G., F. Grati, M. Puletti, and G. Scarcella. 2004. Effects on fish community induced by installation of two gas platforms in the Adriatic Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 273: 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fraenkel, P.L. 2006. Tidal current energy technologies. Ibis 148: 145–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Garrett, C., and P. Cummins. 2008. Limits to tidal current power. Renewable Energy 33: 2485–2490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Geo-Marine, Inc. 2010. Ocean/wind power ecological baseline studies—volume 1: overview, summary, and application. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton.Available from http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/ocean-wind/vol1-cover-intro.pdf (November 2011).

  27. Gill, A.B.. 2005. Offshore renewable energy: ecological implications of generating electricity in the coastal zone. Journal of Applied Ecology 42(4): 605–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gill, A.B.., I. Gloyne-Phillips, K.J. Neal, and J.A. Kimber. 2005. The potential effects of electromagnetic fields generated by sub-sea power cables associated with offshore wind farm developments on electrically and magnetically sensitive marine organisms-a review. COWRIE.

  29. Grecian, W.J., R. Inger, M.J. Attrill, S. Bearhop, B. Goodley, M.J. Witt, and S.C. Votier. 2010. Potential impacts of wave-powered marine renewable energy installations on marine birds. Ibis 152: 683–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hiscock, K., H. Tyler-Walters, and H. Jones. 2002. High level environmental screening study for offshore wind farm developments—marine habitats and species project. Report from the Marine Biological Association to the Department of Trade and Industry, New & Renewable Energy Programme, London, United Kingdom. Available from http://www.marlin.ac.uk/pdf/wind_farm_report_combined.pdf (November 2011).

  31. Huppop, O., J. Dierschke, K.M. Exo, E. Fredrich, and R. Hill. 2006. Bird migration studies and potential collision risk with offshore wind turbines. The International Journal of Avian Science 148: 90–109.

    Google Scholar 

  32. International Organization for Standardization. 2009a. ISO Guide 73: Risk management—vocabulary. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  33. International Organization for Standardization. 2009b. ISO 31000: Risk management—principles and guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  34. International Organization for Standardization. 2009c. ISO/IEC: Risk management—risk assessment techniques. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jonkman, J., S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and G. Scott. 2009. Definition of a 5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore system development. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden CO. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/38060.pdf .

  36. Jørgensen, T., S. Løkkebord, and A.V. Soldal. 2002. Residence of fish in the vicinity of a decommissioned oil platform in the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: 288–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Karsten, R., M. McMillan, M. Lickley, and R. Haynes. 2008. Assessment of tidal current energy in the Minas Passage, Bay of Fundy. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part: Journal of Power and Energy 22(5): 493–507.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Keenan, G., C. Sparling, H. Williams, and F. Fortune. 2011. SeaGen Environmental Monitoring Programme Final Report, Haskoning U.K. Ltd. Edinburgh: Marine Current Turbines.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kirschvink, J.L., M.M. Walker, and C.E. Diebel. 2001. Magnetite-based magnetoreception. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 11: 462–467.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Konstantinou, I.K., and T.A. Albanis. 2004. Worldwide occurrence and effects of antifouling paint booster biocides in the aquatic environment: a review. Environment International 30(2): 235–248.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kurta, A., and J.O. Whitaker Jr. 1998. Diet of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotissodalis) on the northern edge of its range. The American Midland Naturalist 140(2): 280–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lambert, S.J., K.V. Thomas, and A.J. Davy. 2006. Assessment of the risk posed by antifouling booster biocides Irgarol 1051 and diuron to freshwater macrophytes. Chemosphere 63: 734–743.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Langton, R., I.M. Davies, and B.E. Scott. 2011. Seabird conservation and tidal stream and wave power generation: Information needs for predicting and managing potential impacts. Marine Policy 35(2011): 623–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lewis Wave Power Limited. 2011. Lewis Wave Power Environmental Scoping Report, 40MW Oyster Wave Array, West Coast Lewis, UK. Report Reference Number: LWP-SD.PR.EU.UK.LEW.06-REP-001. Available from http://www.aquamarinepower.com/resource-library/ (September 2, 2011).

  45. Ligon, F.K., W.E. Dietrich, and W.J. Trush. 1995. Downstream ecological effects of dams. Bioscience 45: 183–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lindeboom, H.J., H.J. Kouwenhoven, M.J.N. Bergman, S. Bouma, S. Brasseur, R. Daan, R.C. Fijn, D. de Haan, S. Dirksen, R. van Hal, R.H.R. Lambers, R. ter Hofstede, K.L. Krijgsveld, M. Leopold, and M. Scheibat. 2011. Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch Coastal Zone: a compilation. Environ Res Lett 6: 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lusseau, D., D.E. Bain, R. Williams, and J.C. Smith. 2009. Vessel traffic disrupts the foraging behavior of southern resident killer whales Orcinus orca. Endangered Species Research 6: 221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Madsen, P.T., M. Wahlberg, J. Tougaard, K. Lucke, and P. Tyack. 2006. Wind turbine underwater noise and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 309: 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Masden, E.A., D.T. Haydon, A.D. Fox, R.W. Furness, R. Bullman, and M. Descholm. 2009. Barrier to movement: impacts of wind farms on migrating birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66: 746–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Masden, E.A., D.T. Haydon, A.D. Fox, and R.W. Furness. 2010. Barriers to movement: modeling energetic costs of avoiding marine wind farms amongst breeding seabirds. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(7): 1085–1091.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.16 U.S.C. 1801-1882, April 13, 1976, as amended 1978-1980, 1982-1984, 1986-1990, 1992-1994, and 1996.

  52. Mangi Environmental Group. 2010. Updated summary of knowledge: selected areas of the Pacific Coast. BOEMRE 2010-014, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, Herndon, Virginia.

  53. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 as Amended. 2007. 16 USC 1361 et seq.

  54. McCluskey, S.M. 2006. Space use patterns and population trends of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in relation to distribution and abundance of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in the inland marine waters of Washington State and British Columbia. School of Aquatic and Fishery Science, Masters of Science, University of Washington, Seattle.

  55. Michel, J., H.Dunagan, C. Boring, E. Healy, W. Evans, J.M. Dean, A.McGillis, and J.Hain. 2007. Worldwide synthesis and analysis of existing information regarding environmental effects of alternative energy uses on the Outer Continental Shelf.MMS OCS Report 2007-038, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Herndon, Virginia.

  56. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 1918. 40 Stat. 755, as amended, 16 USC 710.

  57. Minerals Management Service. 2007. Programmatic environmental impact statement for alternative energy development and production and alternate use of facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-046, U.S. Department of the Interior, Herndon, Virginia.

  58. National Research Council. 1997. Possible health effects of exposure to residential electric and magnetic fields. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. National Research Council. 2000. Marine mammals and low frequency sound. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Natural Resource Solutions. 2008. Appendix C: Bat Study Report. Project # 696-D, Invenergy Wind LLC, Toronto, Ontario.Available from http://raleigh.invenergyllc.com/pdf/Appendix%20C%20-%20Bats.pdf. (November 2011).

  61. NOAA. 2013. National coastal population report: population trends from 1970 to 2020. NOAA State of the Coast Report Series. National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring MD. 22 pp.

  62. Norman, T.B., R.S.K. Buisson and N.P. Askew. 2007. COWRIE workshop on the cumulative impact of offshore windfarms on birds. COWRIE CI-BIRD-01-2007, Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment (COWRIE). Available from http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Assets/Report_on_COWRIE_CIA_workshop_v4.pdf (November 2011).

  63. Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2009. An estimation of survival and injury of fish passed through the hydro green energy hydrokinetic system, and a characterization of fish entrainment potential at the Mississippi Lock and Dam No. 2 hydroelectric projects. Westmoreland: Normandeau Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Normandeau Associates, Inc., Exponent, Inc., T. Tricas, and A. Gill. 2011. Effects of EMFs from undersea power cables on elasmobranchs and other marine species. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-09, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, California.

  65. Neill, S.P., E.J. Litt, S.J. Couch, and A.G. Davies. 2009. The impacts of tidal stream turbines on large-scale sediment dynamics.Renewable. Energy 34(12): 2803–2812.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Nunneri, C., H.J. Lenhart, B. Burkhard, and W. Windhorst. 2008. Ecological risk as a tool for evaluating the effects of offshore wind farm construction in the North Sea. Regional Environmental Change 8(1): 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Ocean Energy Systems. 2014. Ocean Energy Review of Supporting Policies. http://www.ocean-energy-systems.org/news/new_report_on_policies_published_by_the_oes/

  68. Odum, E.P. 1977. The emergence of ecology as a new integrative discipline. Science 195: 1289–1293.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Odum, E.P., and G.W. Barrett. 2004. Fundamentals of ecology, 5th ed. Stamford: Brooks/Cole Publishing, Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Poff, N.L., J.D. Olden, D.M. Merritt, and D.M. Pepin. 2007. Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global diversity implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 5732–5737.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Polagye, B., and M.Previsic. 2010. Scenario based analysis of environmental and navigation impacts: tidal energy scenarios. RE Vision DE-002, RE Vision Consulting, LLC, Sacramento, California.Available from http://www.re-vision.net/index.html (February 15, 2011).

  72. Polagye, B., P. Malte, M. Kawaseand, and D. Durran. 2008. Effect of large-scale kinetic power extraction on time-dependent estuaries. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 222(5): 471–484.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Polagye, B., F.B. Van Cleve, A. Copping, and K. Kirkendall (eds.). 2011. Environmental effects of tidal energy development: proceedings of a scientific workshop, March 22–25, 2010. Portland: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Rees, J., P. Larcombe, C. Vivian and A. Judd. 2006. Scroby sands offshore wind farm—coastal processes monitoring. Project No. AE0262, CefasLowestoft Laboratory, Suffolk, United Kingdom.Available from http://www.3bays.org/pdfs/reports/AE0262-Final-Report-Scroby-OWF.pdf (November 2011).

  75. Richter, A.R., S.R. Humphrey, J.B. Cope, and V. Brack Jr. 1993. Modified cave entrances: thermal effect on body mass and resulting decline of endangered Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis). Conservation Biology 7(2): 407–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Shields, M.A., D.K. Woolf, E.P.M. Grist, S.A. Kerr, A.C. Jackson, R.E. Harris, M.C. Bell, R. Beharie, A. Want, E. Osalusi, S.W. Gibb, and J. Side. 2010. Marine renewable energy: the ecological implications of altering the hydrodynamics of the marine environment. Ocean and Coastal Management 54(2011): 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Slater, M., A. Schultz, R. Jones and C. Fischer.2010. Electromagnetic field study. Oregon Wave Energy Trust.Available from http://www.oregonwave.org/wp-content/uploads/OWET-EMF-on-Marine-Species_FINAL_Full_web1.pdf (November 2011).

  78. Southhall, B.R., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Wilson, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene Jr., D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.R. Tyack. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33(4): 411–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. SST – Sound & Sea Technology Engineering Solutions. 2011. Assessment of potential Puget Sound marine safety risk resulting from installation of the Admiralty Inlet tidal energy project: defining a risk management strategy for the Admiralty Inlet tidal energy project. Prepared for Snohomish Public Utility District #1.

  80. Suter, G.W. 1993. Ecological risk assessment. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Tibbels, A.E., and A. Kurta. 2003. Bat activity is low in thinned and unthinned stands of red pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33(12): 2436–2442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Thomsen, F., K.Lüdemann, R. Kafemann and W. Piper. 2006. Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish. Biola (biologisch-landschaftsökologischearbeitsgemeinschaft), Hamburg, Germany. Available from http://www.offshorewind.co.uk/Assets/BIOLAReport06072006FINAL.pdf (November 2011).

  83. Tougaard, J., S. Tougaard, R.C. Jensen, T. Jensen, J. Teilman, D. Adelung, N. Liebsch and G. Muller. 2006. Harbour Seals on Horns Reef before, during and after construction of Horns Rev offshore wind farm. Final report to Vattenfall A/S.Biological Papers from the Fisheries and Maritime Museum No. 5, Esbjerg, Denmark.Available from http://www.vattenfall.dk/da/file/harbour-seals-at-horns-reef-b_7843262.pdf (November 2011).

  84. U.S. Department of Energy. 2009. Report to congress on the potential environmental effects of marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies: prepared in response to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Section 633(B), Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program. Washington: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  85. U.S. Department of Energy.Online database of marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies.http://en.openei.org/wiki/Marine_and_Hydrokinetic_Technology_Database.

  86. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F, Washington D.C.

  87. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Washington, D.C. Available from http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html (January 25, 2011).

  88. van der Voo, L. 2011. Waiting for wave energy. Oregon Business: 1-5. Available from http://www.oregonbusiness.com/articles/99-may-2011/5162-waiting-for-wave-energy (September 19, 2011).

  89. Vickery, P.D. and Center for Ecological Research. 2011. First interim report to ORPC on bird studies in Cobscook Bay, Maine period of investigation. Accession Number: 20110518-5003, Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC, Portland, Maine. Available from FERC Online Elibrary: http://www.FERC.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp (September 19, 2011).

  90. Viehman, H.A. 2012. Fish in a tidally dynamic region in Maine: hydroacoustic assessments in relation to tidal power development. Masters Thesis, The University of Maine.

  91. Viehman, H. and G. Zydlewski. 2014. Fish Interactions with a Commercial-Scale Tidal Energy Device in the Natural Environment. Estuaries and Coasts. doi:10.1007/s12237-014-9767-8.

  92. Wang, T., Z. Yang, and A. Copping. 2013. A modeling study of potential water quality impacts from in-stream tidal energy extraction. Estuaries and Coasts. doi:10.1007/s12237-013-9718-9.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Wilhelmsson, D., T. Malm, and M.C. Ohman. 2006. The influence of offshore windpower on demersal fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63: 775–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. von Arx, W.S., H.B. Stewart Jr and J.R. Apel. 1974. The Florida current as a potential source of useable energy. In Proceedings of the MacArthur Workshop on the Feasibility of Extracting Useable Energy from the Florida Current, ed. H.B. Stewart, February 27–March 1, 1974, Palm Beach Shores, Florida.

  95. Williams, R., D. Lusseau, and P.S. Hammond. 2006. Estimating relative energetic costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca). Biological Conservation 133: 301–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Wilson, B., R.S. Batty, F. Daunt, and C. Carter. 2007. Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds, Report to the Scottish Executive. Oban: Scottish Association for Marine Science.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Wilson, J.C., and M. Elliott. 2009. The habitat-creation potential of offshore wind farms. Wind Energy 12: 203–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Yang, Z., T. Wang, and A. Copping. 2012. Modeling tidal stream energy extraction and its effects on transport processes in a tidal channel and bay system using a three-dimensional coastal ocean model. Renewable Energy. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.07.024.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Zucco, C., W.Wende, T. Merck, I. Kochling and J. Koppel. 2006. Ecological research on offshore wind farms: international exchange of experiences. Part B: Literature Review of Ecological Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms. Project No. 804 46 001, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn, Germany. Available from http://bfn.de/habitatmare/de/downloads/berichte/Ecological_Research_Offshor-Wind_Part_B_Skripten_186.pdf (November 2011).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Copping.

Additional information

Communicated by Iris C. Anderson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Copping, A., Hanna, L., Van Cleve, B. et al. Environmental Risk Evaluation System—an Approach to Ranking Risk of Ocean Energy Development on Coastal and Estuarine Environments. Estuaries and Coasts 38, 287–302 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-014-9816-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ocean energy devices
  • Environmental risk assessment
  • Tidal energy generation
  • Wave energy generation
  • Offshore wind energy generation