non-trivial, the disturbance to marine EPS would need to be likely to at least increase the risk of a certain negative impact on the species at FCS.
39.
JNCC et al. (2010a) do not provide guidance as to what would constitute a ‘significant group’ or proportion of the population, but provide some discussion on how to assess whether the numbers potentially affected could be of concern for a population’s FCS.
40. JNCC et al. (2010a) state that:
“In any population with a positive rate of growth, or a population remaining stable at what is assumed to be the environmental carrying capacity, a certain number of animals can potentially be removed as a consequence of anthropogenic activities (e.g. through killing, injury or permanent loss of reproductive ability), in addition to natural mortality, without causing the population to decrease in numbers, or preventing recovery, if the population is depleted. Beyond a certain threshold however, there could be a detrimental effect on the population”.
41.
Further discussion on the use of thresholds for significance and the permanent or temporary nature of any disturbance is considered by defining the magnitude of potential effect in this assessment (section 12.6.1). Consideration of any potential essential habitat or geographical structuring of EPS is provided in the Existing Environment section (section 12.5.3) of this chapter.
42.
In order to assess the number of individuals from a species that could be removed from the regional population through injury or disturbance without compromising the FCS in its natural range, the PEIR considers:
The numbers affected in relation to the best and most recent estimate of population size; and
The threshold for potential impact on the FCS, which will depend on: The species’ / populations’ life-history;
The species’ FCS assessment in UK waters; and Other pressures encountered by the population (cumulative effects).
43. One of the key parameters for consideration within this assessment is the population size. The EPS Guidance advises that the best available abundance estimates could be used as a baseline population size, taking account of any evidence of regional
Preliminary Environmental Information May 2014
East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm
Chapter 12 Marine Mammal Ecology Page 24
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140