Premium
A Procedure for Assessing Biological Effects of Power Plants on Fish
Author(s) -
Thomas John M.,
McKenzie D. H.
Publication year - 1979
Publication title -
fisheries
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.725
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1548-8446
pISSN - 0363-2415
DOI - 10.1577/1548-8446(1979)004<0023:apfabe>2.0.co;2
Subject(s) - negotiation , process (computing) , population , field (mathematics) , resource (disambiguation) , plan (archaeology) , fish <actinopterygii> , computer science , work (physics) , operations research , management science , environmental resource management , risk analysis (engineering) , engineering , fishery , business , geography , environmental science , law , political science , biology , mechanical engineering , demography , mathematics , sociology , pure mathematics , computer network , archaeology , operating system
We have devised a procedure to assess the biological effects of power plants on fish populations. It entails the derivation of a probable model not necessarily a mathematical model coded for a computer which is modified during the course of field monitoring studies initiated in the preconstruction (preoperational) period. A negotiating committee is advocated to assure good quality and appropriate studies. The advantages of our plan are sixfold:Field monitoring will be terminated after an agreed time unless inadequate studies are conducted. Imaginative scientists, currently supervising routine monitoring, can design and conduct studies that investigate key questions in population ecology. Both statisticians and modelers have the opportunity to suggest or institute new field work. The use of litigation to establish and assess the adequacy of current monitoring programs, where the burden of proof is on the utility, is by‐passed, and instead the aim is to obtain a “reasonable resolution” on a site‐by‐site basis. Regulators evaluate more meaningful data and may participate in the research process. The public interest is protected.Specific features discussed include (1) the amount of population decline that might be ecologically acceptable; (2) the problems of defining precision needed for measuring crucial parameters; (3) the problems that could result during frequent meetings of a “negotiating team” over many years; (4) equalization of monitoring costs among power plant sites; and (5) the inclusion of fossil‐fueled utilities and other users of a common resource in the cost sharing.