This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
generated for certain sound field conditions where sound pressure is not predominant. The potential for marine piling to generate just the type of sound fields that may contain substantial acoustic particle velocity components has been noted in the literature (Hawkins 2009), and the sensitivity to particle motion is more likely to be important for behavioural responses rather than injury (Hawkins 2009). However, the proposed criteria for fish species so far (e.g., Popper et al. 2006; Nedwell et al. 2007b) are all in terms of pressure rather than particle velocity. A recent COWRIE (Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment) study by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) in the UK (Mueller-Blenkle et al. 2010) on the behavioural response of fish to pile driving did measure and consider the fish response to particle velocity as well as pressure.


71.


It should be noted that for a propagating acoustic wave in the water column, the particle velocity component will generally be related to the acoustic pressure (i.e., as the acoustic pressure reduces with distance, the particle velocity component would be expected to reduce proportionally).


9.5.4.1 Injury (Fish) 72. Although the criteria proposed by US Marine Mammal Criteria Group have been adopted reasonably widely for mammals, there is a lack of similarly accepted criteria for fish species. A review by Popper and Hastings (2009) on the effects of anthropogenic sound on fishes concluded that there are substantial gaps in the knowledge that need to be filled before meaningful noise exposure criteria can be developed.


73. As of August 2008, the Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group (FHWG) (established by California Department for Transportation in coordination with the US Federal Highways Administration and the departments of transportation in Oregon state and Washington state) have advised the use of interim dual injury criteria based on a peak pressure level of 206dB re 1 μPa for a single strike and an accumulated SEL (SEL dose) of 187dB re 1 μPa2·s for all fish except those less than 2 grams in mass, for which an SEL dose of 183dB re 1 μPa2·s was set (FHWG 2008). These interim criteria for fish injury are based on a white paper by Popper et al. (2006) to establish interim criteria for injury of fish exposed to pile driving operations which previously advised the use of the same dual criteria but with a slightly higher peak pressure level threshold of 208dB re 1 μPa. The peak pressure level and SEL dose thresholds were dictated by the possible onset of auditory tissue damage, except for the latter case of fish of less than 2 grams where non-auditory tissue damage is considered to occur first (Carlson et al. 2007). Carlson et al. (2007) also recommended that the cumulative SEL (SEL dose criterion) for larger fish should be 197dB re 1 μPa2·s for fish


Preliminary Environmental Information May 2014


East Anglia THREE Offshore Windfarm Appendix 9.1 Underwater Noise Modelling 26


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  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150