Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Brent Wise

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 3-2 Component tree/Diagram illustrating how risk was assessed for each combination of resource, air gun volume and depth. 4 Risk Assessment Process and Reporting The risk assessment process assists in separating minor risks from major risks. It also help:

Figure 3 -2 Component tree/Diagram illustrating how risk was assessed for each combination of resource, air gun volume and depth. 4 Risk Assessment Process and Reporting The risk assessment process assists in separating minor risks from major risks. It also help:

Related Figures (10)

Table 2-1 Potential impacts of seismic surveys on invertebrates Extrapolation of experimental research to natural settings is challenging and needs to be done with some caution. Most experimental research has involved either laboratory or caged experiments or a focus on clearly visible impacts manifesting shortly after exposure. Impacts due to non-lethal effects (short or long-term) and cumulative impacts due to the confounding effects of multiple stressors (e.g. multiple exposure to seismic arrays, climate change or dredging) are poorly understood. All of these factors need to be interpreted in the context of realistic exposure scenarios, experimental limitations and field conditions. The lack of standard terminology and measurements also makes comparisons among studies challenging (Carroll et al. 2017).
Table 2-1 Potential impacts of seismic surveys on invertebrates Extrapolation of experimental research to natural settings is challenging and needs to be done with some caution. Most experimental research has involved either laboratory or caged experiments or a focus on clearly visible impacts manifesting shortly after exposure. Impacts due to non-lethal effects (short or long-term) and cumulative impacts due to the confounding effects of multiple stressors (e.g. multiple exposure to seismic arrays, climate change or dredging) are poorly understood. All of these factors need to be interpreted in the context of realistic exposure scenarios, experimental limitations and field conditions. The lack of standard terminology and measurements also makes comparisons among studies challenging (Carroll et al. 2017).
Figure 3-1. Position of risk assessment within the risk management process (modified from SA 2013)
Figure 3-1. Position of risk assessment within the risk management process (modified from SA 2013)
1.1.1 Risk justification — workshop discussions Table 4-1 Risk scores and risk ratings for mobile invertebrates as scored in the workshop 1 Mobile invertebrates (e.g. crabs, prawns, lobsters)
1.1.1 Risk justification — workshop discussions Table 4-1 Risk scores and risk ratings for mobile invertebrates as scored in the workshop 1 Mobile invertebrates (e.g. crabs, prawns, lobsters)
1.2.1 Risk justification — workshop discussions Table 4-2. Risk scores and risk ratings for immobile invertebrates as scored in the workshop 4.2 Immobile invertebrates (e.g. pearl oysters, scallops, trochus, sea cucumbers)
1.2.1 Risk justification — workshop discussions Table 4-2. Risk scores and risk ratings for immobile invertebrates as scored in the workshop 4.2 Immobile invertebrates (e.g. pearl oysters, scallops, trochus, sea cucumbers)
3.1 Risk justification — workshop discussions Table 4-3 Risk scores and risk ratings for demersal fish as scored in the workshop
3.1 Risk justification — workshop discussions Table 4-3 Risk scores and risk ratings for demersal fish as scored in the workshop
Table 4-4 Risk scores and risk ratings for pelagic finfish as scored in the workshop Risk scores for pelagic species was based on the impacts of seismic in waters >250 m (Table 4-4), risk scores were not allocated for depths < 250m as it was assumed that pelagic species do not frequently inhabit these depths.
Table 4-4 Risk scores and risk ratings for pelagic finfish as scored in the workshop Risk scores for pelagic species was based on the impacts of seismic in waters >250 m (Table 4-4), risk scores were not allocated for depths < 250m as it was assumed that pelagic species do not frequently inhabit these depths.
This risk assessment identified that overall the greater the intensity of sound and shallower the water depth the greater the assigned risk. For all fish and invertebrates the impacts of seismic surveys, in waters deeper than 250 m was assessed as acceptable (i.e. moderate or lower). In waters <250m, the scores ranged from negligible to severe risk depending on depth, resource and seismic intensity. The organisms classified as most at risk from seismic impacts were immobile invertebrates (e.g. molluscs) while pelagic fish were rated as at the least at risk (Figure 5-1). Figure 5-1 Summary of risk scores for aquatic resource type
This risk assessment identified that overall the greater the intensity of sound and shallower the water depth the greater the assigned risk. For all fish and invertebrates the impacts of seismic surveys, in waters deeper than 250 m was assessed as acceptable (i.e. moderate or lower). In waters <250m, the scores ranged from negligible to severe risk depending on depth, resource and seismic intensity. The organisms classified as most at risk from seismic impacts were immobile invertebrates (e.g. molluscs) while pelagic fish were rated as at the least at risk (Figure 5-1). Figure 5-1 Summary of risk scores for aquatic resource type
7 Appendices.
7 Appendices.
Related topics:
Seismic ExplorationAquaculture and fisheriesAir gunsAnthropogenic factors
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved