This content requires Adobe Flash Player version
or later.
Either you do not have Adobe Flash Player installed,
or your version is too old,
or there is a problem with your Flash installation and we were unable to detect it.
Para 31. Agreement, based on the updated information supplied at OETG Mtg 2, is sought on: • Biological periods – agreed in principle subject to working up the figures
2
Section 4 Agreement of the impacts to be assessed as listed in Section 4.1 (offshore) and 4.2 (onshore)
3
Data Mean peaks shall be used unless there is great disparity between years, in which case contextual data will be consulted for justification of numbers used
Need for nuanced approach agreed in principle.
Agreed
We are satisfied in principle with the revised Biological periods table supplied for OETG Mtg 2
We support the change to the impacts in Section 4.1 suggested by NE. The operational impacts will also need to include in- combination/ cumulative impacts.
This approach is acceptable.
Agree in principle but note requirement to present each year’s monthly peaks separately (in appendix?) to enable any large discrepancies between years to be identified
4
Data Flight height methodology Agree that the methodology for determining flight height from aerial imagery is a general matter outside of the EP process, NE and APEM to discuss outwith EP meetings
5
Assessment methodologies – terminology EAOW will look again at magnitude definitions, but this is not critical to agreement
All accept that ‘very high’ category for sensitivity/magnitude adds little to assessment and this will not be used
Agree
We would like to be consulted on any methodology for flight height agreed between NE and APEM.
Agree to need for further consideration of wording to define categories of magnitude.
Agree
We consider revised magnitude definitions are a major improvement. However, they still require some refinement in line with comments of NE and RSPB at OETG Mt 2.