Galloper Wind Farm Project Environmental Statement Chapter 16: Shipping and Navigation October 2011 Document Reference

Transcription

1 Galloper Wind Farm Project Environmental Statement Chapter 16: Shipping and Navigation October 2011 Document Reference Galloper Wind Farm Limited

2 Document title Galloper Wind Farm Project Environmental Statement Chapter 16: Shipping and Navigation Document short title Document Reference Regulation Reference APFP Regulations, 5(2)(a) Version 4 Status Final Report Date October 2011 Project name Galloper Wind Farm Project Client Galloper Wind Farm Limited Royal Haskoning Reference Drafted by Checked by Rosie Kelly & Greg Shaw Peter Gaches Date/initials check PG Approved by Martin Budd Date/initials approval MB GWFL Approved by Kate Harvey Date/initials approval KH Final Report i October 2011

3

4 CONTENTS Page 16 SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION Introduction Guidance and Consultation Methodology Existing Environment Assessment of Impacts Worst Case Scenario Assessment of Impacts during Construction Assessment of Impacts during Operation Impacts during Decommissioning Inter relationships Cumulative Impacts Transboundary effects Monitoring Summary References 92 Technical Appendix 16.A Marine Navigation Risk Assessment Final Report iii October 2011

5 16 SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION 16.1 Introduction The following Chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) presents the work undertaken to date as part of the Marine Navigation Risk Assessment (NRA) for the proposed Galloper Wind Farm (GWF) (Anatec, 2011) (see Technical Appendix 16.A). The baseline vessel activities and navigational features are assessed, and a preliminary assessment presented of the potential impacts that may be associated with the different phases of the development The nature of the shipping activities in the area have been established by reviewing fishing vessel activity, recreational vessel activity, identifying maritime incidents and reviewing Search and Rescue (SAR) resources. In addition the navigational features in the vicinity of the proposed GWF are identified and real time shipping survey data is analysed Guidance and Consultation Legislation, policy and guidance National Policy Statements (NPS) provide the primary basis on which the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) is required to make its decisions. Of relevance to the Shipping and Navigation Chapter is the NPS for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) (July 2011) The specific assessment requirements for shipping and navigation, as detailed within the NPSs, are repeated in the following paragraphs. Where any part of the NPS has not been followed within this assessment, it is stated within in the ES why the requirement was not deemed relevant or has been met in another manner EN 3 highlights the importance of thorough and early consultation and stakeholder engagement, including consultation with the Marine Fisheries Agency (MFA), Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Marine and Coastguard Agency (MCA), relevant General Lighthouse Authority and industry bodies and any representatives of recreational users of the sea (e.g. the RYA). In addition the assessment should include: Information on internationally recognised sea lanes (Section 16.4); A NRA (see Technical Appendix 16.A) in accordance with the relevant guidance, this should necessitate: o A survey of vessels in the vicinity of the wind farm; o A full NRA of the likely impact of the wind farm on navigation in the immediate area of the site; and o Cumulative risks associated with the development and other projects / activities. Final Report Chapter 16 Page 1 October 2011

6 The assessment of the potential effects as a result of safety zones and where this is unknown an assessment of a realistic worse case scenario (Section 16.6 and 16.7) ; and An assessment of the potential effect on recreational craft (Sections 16.6, 16.7 and Technical Appendix 16.A) The primary guidance documents used during the assessment are as follows: Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) Guidelines Methodology for Assessing the Marine Navigational Safety Risks of Offshore Windfarms, Version Date: 7th September 2005; and Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) Marine Guidance Notice 371, Offshore Renewable Energy Installations (OREI) Guidance on UK Navigational Practice, Safety and Emergency Response Issues Other forms of guidance used in the assessment are listed below: International Maritime Organisation (IMO), Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) (IMO, 2002); MCA Marine Guidance Notice 372 (M+F), Guidance to Mariners Operating in the Vicinity of UK OREIs, August 2008; MCA North Hoyle Trials (MCA, 2004; MCA, 2005); International Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) Recommendation O 139 On The Marking of Man Made Offshore Structures, Edition 1, Dec 2008; Trinity House Lighthouse Service Guidance (Trinity House, 2005); Kentish Flats Trials (British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), 2007); The RYA s position on offshore energy developments (Royal Yachting Association (RYA), 2009); and DECC Guidance Notes on Safety Zones (DECC, 2007). Consultation A summary of the consultation carried out at key stages throughout the project (principally Scoping in and Section 42 consultation), of relevance to the shipping and navigation assessment, is presented in Table Final Report Chapter 16 Page 2 October 2011

7 Table 16.1 Summary of consultation and issues Date Consultee Summary of issue Section where addressed Ongoing Chamber of Potential conflict with shipping route shipping surveys required. Section 16.3 and between Shipping Technical Appendix September (including 16.A 2009 and August 2011 Scoping Opinion and Section 42) Pre mitigation risks for collision incidents should be included. Section 16.4 and Technical Appendix 16.A The potential consequences of construction phase collision with other vessels, operational phase Section 16.6, 16.7 and ship to ship collision, and operational phase ship to structure collision should be reassessed and Technical Appendix stakeholders should be provided with clearer explanations as to how the result of the assessment are 16.A produced. The proposed GWF is in direct conflict with some of the major shipping routes. The extension will Section 16.7 and bring risk to the ships, where the busiest port is located, where hazardous loads are carried. Technical Appendix Safety navigation risks should be assessed in relation to narrowing shipping corridors. 16.A Impacts from the potential re routing of north south traffic currently transiting the proposed boundaries should be included. The Sunk TSS extension is inadequate in addressing all concerns over the site proposals. There should be an assessment of the risks to shipping and navigation in a scenario where the Final Report Chapter 16 Page 3 October 2011

8 Date Consultee Summary of issue Section where addressed south west corner of the zone is developed. There has been too great a reliance placed on the ability of the Sunk TSS extension to mitigate risk. Potential re routing of vessels from within GWF has been given too little coverage and further work should be undertaken to fully assess impacts. Issues of impacts on bad weather routing has not been assessed. This should be requested from vessel operators. A report from the port authorities of the necessary measures put in place to maintain the traffic flow into their ports in adverse weather should also be requested and due consideration given to conditions of reduced visibility, particularly where navigation is entirely reliant on radar. The cumulative impacts with the North Hinder South TSS will be minimal. The cumulative impacts of development within the East Anglia ONE Zone (particularly in the south west corner) should be included. Section and Technical Appendix 16.A Recommend that dialogue takes place between GWF and East Anglia ONE to give the shipping industry a clearer picture of the extent of the overall development within the region with a view to allowing further feedback on GWF. Meeting on CEMEX Concerns raised surrounding the proximity of the cable corridor with Shipwash application area 507. Section 16.6, also Marine UK Discussions are ongoing with CEMEX in order to agree the final location of GWF export cables in considered in Chapter and Ltd (CEMEX) relation to this area. CEMEX has confirmed that it has no objections to GWFL submitting a planning 18 Other Human ongoing application that includes reference to potential cable routes both in and adjacent to Area 507/5, Activities. Final Report Chapter 16 Page 4 October 2011

9 Date Consultee Summary of issue Section where addressed consultation subject to reaching agreement on any outstanding issues prior to construction. Meeting on Hanson No issues highlighted (aggregate area to the West of the GWF has been returned to The Crown N/A Aggregates Estate). Marine Meeting on RYA No major concerns. However they would like only temporary safety zones put in place when wind Section and (including turbines are being commissioned and decommissioned and warning signs for sea users. The RYA Technical Appendix Section 42) Position Statement on Offshore Renewable Energy Developments needs to be taken account in 16.A Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Meeting on Surveys in summer 2010 should be carried out to account for lower numbers of recreational vessels Section 16.3 and during 2009 as a result of the recession. Technical Appendix 16.A August The impact of a smaller navigational passage between GWF and East Anglia ONE on recreational Section and 2011 and commercial vessels should be considered in the Navigational Risk Assessment. Technical Appendix 16.A Cruising No issues highlighted. N/A August 2011 Association (including Section 42) Emphasis is put on the importance of the proposed TSS extension to yachts Medway No issues highlighted. N/A Final Report Chapter 16 Page 5 October 2011

10 Date Consultee Summary of issue Section where addressed Ports Sheerness Ongoing Harwich Conflict with shipping routes suggest the provision of a fully serviced radar station offshore (in the Sections 16.6, 16.7, between Haven field) from which HHA and MCA could access the data which would give both organisations better 16.8 and Technical September Authority radar coverage than currently exists and therefore better monitoring of the traffic in the proposed Appendix 16.A 2009 and (HHA) area. March 2011 Concerns about interference with fishing vessels also highlighted Port of No issues highlighted. N/A London Authority Ongoing Norfolkline No issues highlighted. N/A between Shipping September 2009 and February 2011 Meeting on Dover Concerns regarding the potential impact on Round 3 developments and subsequent potential for Section 16.7 and Maritime further amendments to the traffic in the area TSS should be amended as a result. MCA would like Technical Appendix Rescue to see a robust assessment prepared that meets the IMO objectives and would like the export cable 16.A Coordination to be buried sufficiently. Final Report Chapter 16 Page 6 October 2011

11 Date Consultee Summary of issue Section where addressed Centre (MRCC) Meeting on Stena Line Concern about conflict with shipping routes although site was much improved over the original plans. N/A Ferries TSS would need to be extended and no problems on ships radar to date with the GGOWF project. A concern was expressed regarding the interaction with the East Anglia ONE. Meeting on UK No issues highlighted. N/A Hydrographic Office August IPC, Trinity Cumulative impacts should be addressed, including any interaction with the Norfolk Zone. Section 16.9 and 2010 House and Technical Appendix MCA 16.A (Scoping Opinion) August IPC, Trinity Impacts on existing aids to navigation should be addressed (i.e. Outer Gabbard buoy). Section 16.4 and 2010 House and Technical Appendix MCA 16.A (Scoping Opinion) August MCA Requirement for shipping and navigation studies, including a 28 day survey of all shipping which Section 16.3 and Final Report Chapter 16 Page 7 October 2011

12 Date Consultee Summary of issue Section where addressed 2010 and August (Scoping Opinion and should take account of any seasonal variation in shipping activity. Where risks are indicated as tolerable, this must be supported by evidence of the ALARP principals. Technical Appendix 16.A 2011 Section 42) Clarity needs to be provided as to the setup and methodology for the radar survey, indicating parameters and limitations of the radar survey. Particular interest is concerned with the interaction between the development (during construction, operation, decommissioning and removal if thereafter any obstruction remains which is considered at the time to be a danger to navigation) and all types of shipping (including commercial, commercial fishing and leisure). Section 16.7 and Technical Appendix 16.A Concerned about potential impacts to shipping routes close to GWF and as far east as North Hinder Junction. Drifting disabled vessels need to be included, particularly during the operational phase. The risk factor of tolerable needs reviewing. Any application for an operational safety zone would have to be supported by an appropriate Navigation Risk Assessment incorporating operational experience. Mitigation measures for drifting broken down vessels will need to be included within the risk profile and embedded within the ERCoP. Particular attention should be paid to cabling routes and burial depth for which a Burial Protection Index study should be completed and subject to traffic volumes, an anchor penetration study may be necessary. Final Report Chapter 16 Page 8 October 2011

13 Date Consultee Summary of issue Section where addressed Cumulative issues between Galloper and East Anglia ONE and the proximity of the route to the northern boundary and the mean passing distance to the sandbank to the North West (which vessels are passing to the south of). Section and Technical Appendix 16.A The CIA needs to adopt the Rochdale envelope approach and include the full development area for the East Anglia ONE. It is recommended that the Kentish Flats Study report be carefully considered and its findings referred to in the impacts section. August Trinity House Additional aids to navigation may be required by TH in order to mitigate the risk to the mariner Section 16.7 and 2011 (Section 42) Technical Appendix 16.A August MCA The expansion of port functions of Haven Gateway (including expansions at Felixstowe South and Section 16.4, 16.7 and 2010 (Scoping Bathside Bay) may be relevant in the assessment of shipping impacts. Technical Appendix Opinion and 16.A Section 42) August The increase in shipping movements from dredging operations in 2013 / 2014 should be considered Section 16.7 and 2011 as part of the Navigational Risk Assessment. Technical Appendix Disruption of transit routes to Belgium and the Netherlands is of concern as aggregates extracted 16.A Final Report Chapter 16 Page 9 October 2011

14 Date Consultee Summary of issue Section where addressed from the licence are supplied to customers on the continent as well as wharves on the UK east coast. The EIA should consider the scenario of a dredger losing power whilst operation in Area 498 and the possibility of it drifting towards the turbines. The existing shipping route between the proposed GWF and East Anglia ONE must remain open Section and during construction and operation. Closure would result in increased steaming times of 20%. Technical Appendix Cumulative impacts to navigational safety aspects of compressed shipping activity should be given 16.A due consideration as well as the socio economic impacts of increased shipping times. August National The cumulative impact of other offshore developments, including Greater Gabbard, must be taken Section and 2011 Federation of into account as displacement impacts a number of vessels. Technical Appendix Fishermen 16.A Organisations (Section 42) August East Anglia The proposed GWF limits would push traffic north, increasing traffic in the Rotterdam Harwich / Section and 2011 Offshore Felixstowe traffic corridor. This will impact on development options for East Anglia Offshore Wind Technical Appendix Wind Farm Zone by removing any option to displace traffic to the south, other than to make vessels zig zag 16.A (Section 42) would be unacceptable to most stakeholders. An overall traffic modelling scenario which takes into account wider development potential, including the East Anglia Offshore Wind Farm Zone, is expected in the final ES. Final Report Chapter 16 Page 10 October 2011

15 Ship management companies that use the shipping routes around the proposed GWF have been consulted as part of the shipping and navigation assessment process, the responses, none of which highlighted any concerns, are summarised in Table Table 16.2 Consultation with Ship management companies of relevance to the proposed GWF Date Ship management Company Summary of response Oldenburg Portugiesische No objections / concerns regarding the proposed extension to the TSS Wilson Euro Carriers AS GWF is likely to have a limited effect on navigation routing Arklow Shipping Ltd The GWF proposal looks sound and the extension of the existing traffic separation scheme seems a safe and prudent measure Eitzen Gas AS No issues highlighted 16.3 Methodology Study area The study area considered is a 10 nautical mile (nm) (18.5km) buffer around the proposed GWF site. This is considered sufficient to identify and assess all potential shipping and navigational impacts of the project With regard to the cumulative impact assessment, the wider area of the Outer Thames Estuary has been studied in order to capture all activities / projects which may be relevant to the shipping and navigation assessment. Characterisation of existing environment The existing environment was primarily characterised by the Automatic Identification System (AIS) and Radar survey, which was carried out by survey vessels at the proposed GWF site between August and December 2009, thus covering summer and winter seasons. The effective survey duration was 36 days (this is greater than the minimum of 28 days required by the MCA). Validation of the survey was undertaken using more recent AIS data from 2010 (Anatec, 2011). Other information sources used during the characterisation of the existing environment are listed below: UK Coastal Atlas (RYA, 2009); Final Report Chapter 16 Page 11 October 2011

16 MMO Fisheries Sightings and Satellite Data (from DMSL, 2011); The Crown Estate Aggregates Dredging Charts; Admiralty Charts and Sailing Directions; and SAR Framework (MCA, 2002). Assessment of impacts The approach to the shipping and navigation assessment uses two methodologies which is dependant on the potential impact being considered. Those associated with collision risk are assessed in line with the IMO s Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) process (see Technical Appendix 16.A for full details). The risk based assessment (detailed in Technical Appendix 16.A) is carried out in accordance with methodology set out in the DTI Guidelines Methodology for Assessing the Marine Navigational Safety Risks of Offshore Windfarms, (Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), 2005) Those impacts that are not collision related are assessed in accordance with the standard EIA methodology as set out in Chapter 4 Approach to EIA. Table 16.3 provides further detail on the methodology used for each potential impact which has been identified. Table 16.3 Impact Assessment Approach Potential impact Assessment approach Construction phase Collision risk with vessels Risk based approach in line with DTI (2005) Collision risk with structures Risk based approach in line with DTI (2005) Operation phase Re routing of shipping EIA methodology (Chapter 5) Ship to ship collision (change) Risk based approach in line with DTI (2005) Collision with structures Risk based approach in line with DTI (2005) Recreational vessel collision Risk based approach in line with DTI (2005) Fishing vessel collision Risk based approach in line with DTI (2005) Cable route interaction EIA methodology (Chapter 5) Interference with marine radar EIA methodology (Chapter 5) Search and Rescue EIA methodology (Chapter 5) Decommissioning As per construction phase Risk based approach in line with DTI (2005) Final Report Chapter 16 Page 12 October 2011

17 For the risk based approach, collision risks have been assessed using the following risk matrix (Plot 16.1). The X represents the predicted risk which has been identified as a result of the consequence and frequency The matrices are based on expert judgment. They were revised following a Hazard Review Workshop in May 2011 for local maritime stakeholders. Where the risk is identified as tolerable in the impact assessment (Sections 16.6 to 16.8), this is supported by evidence of the ALARP principals. Plot 16.1 Risk matrix Consequence x Frequency Broadly Acceptable Region (Low Risk) Tolerable Region (Moderate Risk) Unacceptable Region (High Risk) The following definitions apply to the collision risk matrix. Generally regarded as insignificant and adequately controlled. Nonetheless, the law still requires further risk reductions if it is reasonably practicable. However, at these levels the opportunity for further risk reduction is more limited. Typical of the risks from activities which people are prepared to tolerate. There is however an expectation that these hazards are properly assessed, appropriate control measures are in place and that the residual risks are as low as is reasonably practicable (ALARP). These risks require periodic review to investigate whether further controls are appropriate. Generally regarded as unacceptable whatever the level of benefit associated with the activity The following frequency and consequence definitions apply within the risk rankings (Table 16.4 and 16.5). Table 16.4 Frequency Bands Rank Description Definition 1 Negligible < 1 occurrence per 10,000 years 2 Extremely Unlikely 1 per 100 to 10,000 years 3 Remote 1 per 10 to 100 years Final Report Chapter 16 Page 13 October 2011

18 Rank Description Definition 4 Reasonably Probable 1 per 1 to 10 years 5 Frequent Yearly Table 16.5 Consequence Bands Rank Description Definition People Property Environment Business 1 Negligible No injury < 10k < 10k <10k 2 Minor Slight injury(s) 3 Moderate Multiple moderate or single serious injury 4 Serious Serious injury or single fatality 5 Major More than 1 fatality 10k 100k Tier 1 Local assistance required 100k 1M Tier 2 Limited external assistance required 1M 10M Tier 2 Regional assistance required > 10M Tier 3 National assistance required 10k 100k 100k 1M Local publicity 1M 10M National publicity > 10M International publicity The four consequence scores were averaged and multiplied by the frequency to obtain an overall ranking (or score) which determined the hazard s position within the risk matrix (score between 1 and 25). Technical Appendix 16.A provides full details of this process Following early project consultation (Table 16.1) it was identified that in order to avoid potential for significant impacts on shipping and navigation there would need to be an extension to the East Sunk Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) (see Section 16.7 and Figure 16.15) that extended the existing TSS to the eastern edge of the proposed GWF boundary. The extension is expected to be ratified in November 2011 and come into effect on 1st July 2012 and will separate the opposing traffic when in the vicinity of GWF, reducing the risk of head on encounters in an area of restricted sea room. Final Report Chapter 16 Page 14 October 2011

19 As a result of the status of the extension to the Sunk TSS, it has been incorporated into the assessment presented in this Chapter Existing Environment Overview The main navigational features in the vicinity of the proposed GWF site are the Sunk Area (including TSS) and the Port Operations at HHA and Port of London Authority (PLA). Route deviation due to GWF possibly affecting traffic as far east as North Hinder was raised as a concern by some stakeholders (Trinity House and the MCA) with the potential cumulative impact from East Anglia ONE a particular concern. These issues have been discussed in the NRA (see Technical Appendix 16.A) with the outcome presented in the relevant assessment sections The Sunk Area to the east of Felixstowe consists of five sets of approach and departure routes for shipping (see Figure 16.1(a)). Sunk TSS North; Sunk TSS East; Sunk Recommended Route for Ferries; Sunk TSS South; and Long Sand Head Two Way Route The Sunk TSS East traffic lanes route ships between the two areas of the GGOWF site and the eastern boundary of the Sunk TSS East is aligned with the eastern boundary of the GGOWF site To the North-west of the Sunk TSS there is the Sunk Deep Water (DW) Anchorage, which is used by large vessels bound for Felixstowe. The charted water depth ranges from 14m to 21m lowest astronomical tide (LAT). This anchorage is located approximately 15km from the proposed GWF site; all other anchorages are over 25km from the site The Sunk TSS is covered by the Sunk Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) operated by Dover Coastguard, which covers the Sunk Inner Precautionary Area, the Sunk Outer Precautionary Area and the Sunk TSS lanes Further south, there are several well established shipping channels between sand banks in the area, including Barrow Deep, Black Deep and Fisherman s Gat, used by shipping to / from ports within the Thames Estuary. A full discussion and description of all relevant features will be included in the full NRA. Figure 16.1(a) and (b) present the main navigational features within the area surrounding the proposed GWF. Final Report Chapter 16 Page 15 October 2011

20 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 16 October 2011

21 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 17 October 2011

22 Shipping analysis The majority of vessels confirmed during the AIS and radar survey were recorded on AIS. AIS is now fitted on the vast majority of commercial ships operating in UK waters, including all ships of 300 Gross Tonnage (GT) and upwards engaged on international voyages, which covers the vast majority of merchant shipping passing through the area. Small vessels not broadcasting on AIS were recorded on radar, with visual observations made of type and size when possible. Only days when the survey vessel was in the area of interest were included in the survey. Experienced crew utilising a modern radar carried out the survey. The crew were briefed on survey requirements and were also tasked with liaising with fishing vessels in the area. Survey forms were also provided for the recording of additional details of non-ais targets It is anticipated that a larger number of deeper draughted and larger container ships will pass through the Sunk TSS in future. However, due to their larger size and deeper draught it is expected that these vessels would attempt to keep a large distance between themselves and the wind farm. Furthermore, the current TSS and its extension would be sufficient to accommodate larger vessels and although there is potential for an increase in number it is expected to be relatively small (see Technical Appendix 16.A) In terms of ship routeing, all the main ship operators were consulted to validate the routes they were taking through the area. The operators confirmed that the tracks recorded represented their routeing through the area in different conditions Figures 16.2 to 16.7 show all tracks within 10nm of the proposed GWF for context, but the analysis by daily numbers, types, sizes, etc., only includes tracks passing through the GWF as these would be most directly affected by GWF There was significant wind farm support vessel and survey activity being carried out in the area during the shipping survey, due to the construction of GGOWF. This activity, due to its temporary nature, has been filtered out for the shipping analysis. Figure 16.2 (a) and (b) shows the overall survey results within the 10nm study area, using combined AIS and radar tracks, mapped by type of vessel. Vessel type Excluding vessels associated with GGOWF, there were on average 12 vessels per day passing within the proposed GWF area. This can be further divided to an average of five per day through Area A and seven per day through Areas B / C (some tracks crossed both sections) (see Technical Appendix 16.A). Final Report Chapter 16 Page 18 October 2011

23 The busiest day during the survey period was 15 th October 2009 when 26 vessels travelled through the proposed GWF site (see Technical Appendix 16.A) With regard to the number of vessels by type recorded within the study area, cargo vessels were the most common, comprising 62% of traffic (Plot 16.2). An average of 6 cargo vessels per day passed through the proposed GWF site, the majority within the Sunk TSS. The most regular cargo vessels, which also passed through the proposed GWF site, were the Cobelfret Ro Ro ferries, such as Taurine, operating between Ipswich and Zeebrugge. Other regular vessels were vehicle carrier Autoprogress; en route to Emden and Ro Ro cargo ship Ortviken; en route to Tilbury Tankers made up 22% of traffic and primarily used the Sunk North and Sunk South TSS to the west and also the North Hinder TSS to the east. Vessels travelling through the proposed GWF site were predominantly en route to / from the Thames % of vessels recorded within the study area were other ships, comprising of salvage, research and pilot vessels. The remaining 8% included passenger vessels, fishing vessels, dredging vessels and tugs (Plot 16.2). Plot 16.2 Vessel type distribution recorded within the study area Final Report Chapter 16 Page 19 October 2011

24 Vessel size, speed and destination Figure 16.2 (b) shows the combined AIS and radar tracks by ship length. The average length of vessel passing within the proposed GWF during the survey period was 115m. The longest vessel crossing the GWF was the container ship Cosco Indian Ocean at 348.5m. This vessel is 46m wide at the beam and has a maximum draught of 14.5m The average speed of vessels travelling through the study area was 11.6 knots. The maximum speeds were between knots, however less than 1% of vessels were recorded travelling at this speed. The greatest proportion of vessels (over 40%) were recorded travelling at between knots (Plot 16.3) The main destinations of the vessels recorded were Harwich Haven (Ipswich, Felixstowe and Harwich), The Netherlands (ports in and around Rotterdam) and ports in the Thames and Medway (Chatham, Tilbury and Sheerness) (Plot 16.4). Final Report Chapter 16 Page 20 October 2011

25 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 21 October 2011

26 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 22 October 2011

27 Plot 16.3 Speed distribution of vessels passing within Galloper Wind Farm Percentage 24% 22% 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Speed (knots) Plot 16.4 Main destination ports of vessels passing through Galloper Wind Farm 7% 6% 5% Percentage 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Ipswich Tilbury Tees Rotterdam East west traffic analysis (via TSS) Immingham Sheerness Destination This section presents analysis of east west traffic through the Sunk TSS East. Figure 16.3(a) presents the number of vessels per day observed eastbound and westbound within the TSS, and Figure 16.3(b) shows these movements as vessel type. Taking into account the effective survey duration of 36 days, an average of 10 vessels per day were eastbound and 5 per day westbound. The higher number of eastbound vessels is largely due to regular ferries, which use the TSS when travelling to Rotterdam but on their return to Harwich take a more northerly route avoiding the TSS. Chatham Felixstowe Harwich Zeebrugge Braviken Fawley Final Report Chapter 16 Page 23 October 2011

28 Vessels using the westbound lane of the TSS were mainly headed to Felixstowe, Harwich and ports in the Thames. Eastbound vessels were predominantly destined for ports in The Netherlands (especially Rotterdam) and Germany The majority of tracks were made by cargo vessels (68%), followed by passenger vessels (21%) and tankers (7%). The remaining vessels fell within the other group, military vessels, dredging vessels, or were unspecified The westbound TSS lane is generally used by deeper draught vessels with almost 60% of vessels in the 8 16m draught bracket. Approximately 40% of vessels in the eastbound TSS fall into the same size bracket. North South traffic analysis Figure 16.4 presents the number of vessels per day observed heading north south, intersecting the proposed GWF boundary. Taking into account the effective survey duration of 36 days, an average of 6 vessels per day passed through proposed GWF in a north south direction. Most ships were seen travelling between UK east coast ports (e.g., Humber and Tees) and ports to the south (mainly via the Dover Strait) The majority of tracks were made by cargo vessels (54%), followed by tankers (32%) and fishing vessels (8%) and the average draught of tracks heading north south was 5.7m. The deepest draught vessel was the crude oil tanker Hengam, with a broadcast draught of 21.9m. In addition, vessels with deeper draughts tended to navigate further to the east. Future traffic levels will be assessed in the NRA. There is no indication of a significant increase in traffic in the area based on known proposals (Anatec, 2011). East West traffic passing north of the proposed GWF The affect of the proposed GWF on east west traffic passing within the vicinity of the northern boundary of the site has been significantly reduced by reshaping the site boundary to bring it more in line with the GGOWF site, thereby minimising the additional re-routeing required An average of one east west ship passes within the northern GWF boundary every two days, which is a minority (12%) with the majority of ships to the north passing outside the GWF boundary There is a shallow patch of water to the north of the site boundary with a minimum charted depth of 8.8m (LAT). For east west shipping, the available sea room between the shallow patch and the northern site boundary is approximately 0.75nm (1.4km). Final Report Chapter 16 Page 24 October 2011

29 Figure 16.5 presents the east west tracks passing the north of the proposed GWF site, recorded over a 28 day period and passing within 1nm of the shallow patch. There were an average of 4 vessels per day within 1nm, most of which pass to the south. Final Report Chapter 16 Page 25 October 2011

30 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 26 October 2011

31 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 27 October 2011

32 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 28 October 2011

33 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 29 October 2011

34 Fishing vessel activity Site survey results The maritime traffic survey identified fishing activity in the vicinity of the proposed GWF and overall, 77 fishing vessel tracks were recorded during the survey period, averaging approximately two tracks per day. A plot of the combined tracks is presented in Figure A total of 34 fishing vessel tracks were logged passing through the proposed GWF during the survey, in addition a proportion of the unidentified vessels tracked on radar (non AIS) are also likely to be fishing vessels. Surveillance data results Fisheries statistics in the UK are reported by ICES statistical Rectangles and Sub squares. The proposed GWF is located within ICES Rectangles 32F1 and 32F2, straddling four Sub squares (see Figure 16.7). Further details on fisheries and the activities associated with this resource can be found in Chapter 13 Fish and Shellfish Resource and Chapter 15 Commercial Fisheries Data on fishing vessel sightings were obtained from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). The Sea Fisheries Inspectorate (SFI) monitor the fishing industry s compliance with UK, EU and international fisheries laws through the deployment of patrol vessels, surveillance aircraft and the sea fisheries inspectorate. Data were obtained for the five year period 2005 to 2009 and showed that between one and two fishing vessels were recorded per patrol. Sub square 32F1/4 had the highest average sightings per patrol at 1.9 vessels, which includes the north western tip of Area A and the majority of Area C The MMO also operate a satellite based vessel monitoring system, which receives vessel position reports approximately every 2 hours (if a vessel has a terminal on board that cannot be polled then it must report once per hour). The data cover all EC countries within British Fisheries Limits and certain Third Countries, e.g., Norway and Faeroes From 2005 to 2009, a total of 117 fishing vessel were recorded, the majority of which were located in the southern section (58%). The majority of fishing vessels were Belgian registered (56%). However, there was a clear geographical variation with Belgian vessels predominating in the western Sub squares and Dutch vessels predominating in the eastern two Sub squares, as illustrated in Figure Within the proposed GWF boundary, the majority of vessels sighted were Belgian registered vessels (50%) and Dutch vessels (38%) With regard to gear type, the main fishing method used throughout the study area was beam trawling, accounting for approximately 70% of all sightings. Unspecified otter trawlers accounting for 19% of recorded sightings. The Final Report Chapter 16 Page 30 October 2011

35 vast majority of vessels sighted within the proposed GWF boundary were also beam trawlers (88%) % of vessels sighted were engaged in fishing (i.e. with gear deployed), 6% were steaming (transiting to / from fishing grounds) and 1% were laid stationary (vessels at anchor or pair vessels whose partner vessel is taking the catch whilst the other stands by). Within the proposed GWF boundary, the proportion actively fishing was slightly lower at 79%. Satellite data analysis The fishing vessel satellite positions recorded in 2009 and 2010, covering both UK and non UK vessels of 15m length and over, have been combined to produce a fishing vessel density plot based for this two year period (Figure 16.8 (a)). Vessel nationality information is not available for the satellite data. However, data from 2006, which include nationality, tend to corroborate the sightings data, by indicating that the majority of activity is by foreign vessels (Figure 16.8 (b)) Overall, the majority of fishing vessels tracked by satellite in the ICES Sub squares were registered in Belgium (55%) followed by the Netherlands (23%). This varies considerably between the western Sub squares (32F1/2 & 32F1/4) where the majority were Belgian registered and the eastern Sub squares further offshore in which Dutch vessels were the largest fleet The Belgian fishing fleet was the largest within the proposed GWF boundary, accounting for 68% of recorded satellite positions. The second largest was the Dutch fleet with 23%. Final Report Chapter 16 Page 31 October 2011

36 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 32 October 2011

37 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 33 October 2011

38 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 34 October 2011

39 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 35 October 2011

40 Recreational activity According to the RYA s Sharing the Wind publication (2004), the Thames Estuary Strategic Environmental Assessment area has a density of recreational sailing second in the UK only to the Solent area. Further details on recreational activities are discussed in Chapter 24 Land use, Tourism and Recreation Recreational sailing in the area consists of: Canoeing and sail boarding in the creeks and minor rivers; Dinghies and other small boats in all rivers and offshore all coasts to about 15 nm; Cruiser passage making, both motor and sail, between all combinations of shore facilities; Cruiser day sailing, both motor and sail, in all coastal areas from Whitstable to Harwich; Personal watercrafts are popular but confined to locations inshore only; Practical sail training in the area is extensive and based out of most of the larger marinas; Traditional sailing craft in the area such as smacks, barges and other gaff rigged craft; and Visitors from Scandinavia, the Netherlands and south coast of England Recreational boating, both under sail and power is highly seasonal and highly diurnal. The division of recreational craft routes into Heavy, Medium and Light Use is therefore based on the following classification: Heavy Recreational Routes: very popular routes on which a minimum of six or more recreational vessels will probably be seen at all times during summer daylight hours. These also include the entrances to harbours, anchorages and places of refuge; Medium Recreational Routes: popular routes on which some recreational craft will be seen at most times during summer daylight hours; and Light Recreational Routes: routes known to be in common use but which do not qualify for medium or heavy classification The recreational vessel activity and facilities in the vicinity of the proposed GWF are presented in Figure Based on the RYA published data, the wind farm is well outside the general racing and sailing areas off the coast. There are no cruising routes passing through the proposed GWF, however, there is one light use route shown to Final Report Chapter 16 Page 36 October 2011

41 be heading via the Sunk TSS East (Separation Zone) used by traffic between the Thames / Harwich Haven and The Netherlands (Figure 16.9). There are several marinas and clubs for recreational vessels located along the coast near Harwich and Felixstowe. The nearest club is the Bawdsey Haven Yacht Club, 20nm west of the western extremity of the northern wind farm. The closest marinas are Shotley Marina and Titchmarsh Marina (Figure 16.9) The Inner Gabbard and The Galloper sandbanks are visited by recreational angling charter parties on a regular basis, where the main attraction is bass fishing. Diving activities in this area are infrequent due to the distance from the shore and the limited interest of the sandbank habitats (see Chapter 24). Final Report Chapter 16 Page 37 October 2011

42 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 38 October 2011

43 Maritime incidents Data from the following sources has been analysed in order to review the maritime incidents that have occurred in the vicinity of the proposed GWF site: Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB); and Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI). MAIB All UK commercial vessels are required to report accidents to MAIB. Non UK vessels do not have to report unless they are in a UK port or are within territorial waters (i.e. within 12nm) and carrying passengers to a UK port. There are no requirements for non commercial recreational craft to report accidents to MAIB The locations 1 of accidents, injuries and hazardous incidents reported to MAIB within 10nm of the proposed GWF boundary between January 1994 and March 2010 are presented in Figure (a) and are colour coded by type A total of 53 incidents were reported in the area within 10nm of the proposed GWF site, corresponding to an average of 3 4 per year. There was only one collision in that period, between two cargo vessels in August 1997 (pre Sunk TSS). The primary causes of collision were that one vessel failed to recognise the risk of collision due to fog and the other vessel failed to take early and substantial actions to avoid a collision. There was material damage on both vessels but no casualties were reported. It is noted that this incident occurred prior to the Sunk TSS being established. RNLI Data on RNLI lifeboat responses within 10nm of the proposed GWF in the ten year period between 2000 and 2009 have been analysed. A total of 80 launches to 71 unique incidents were recorded by the RNLI (excluding hoaxes and false alarms) The overall distribution by casualty type is summarised in Figure (b). The most common vessel types involved were yachts (39%) and fishing vessels (23%). Power boats and other sail boats together accounted for 15% of all incidents. Merchant vessels accounted for 11% and other boat / vessels (mostly diving boats) accounted for 4% The two main causes of incidents were machinery failure (34%) and person in danger (14%). The stations and types of lifeboat responding to incidents (ALB = all weather lifeboat and ILB inshore lifeboat) are detailed in the following section (Search and Rescue resources) 1 MAIB aim for 97% accuracy in reporting the locations of incidents. Final Report Chapter 16 Page 39 October 2011

44 There were seven incidents recorded within the proposed GWF site over the 10 years analysed. Details of these incidents are given below: Steering failure of a yacht; Harwich ALB responded on 1 st August 2001; Machinery failure on a fishing vessel; ALBs from Aldeburgh were launched on 10 th August 2002; Machinery failure on a fishing vessel; Harwich ALB responded on 10 th August 2002; Steering failure on a yacht; Harwich ALB responded on 13 th August 2005; Machinery failure on a yacht, Harwich ALB responded on 1 st October 2005; Machinery failure on a yacht, Ramsgate ALB responded on 19 th July 2006 and Machinery failure on an angling vessel, Aldeburgh ALB responded on 9 th July Final Report Chapter 16 Page 40 October 2011

45 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 41 October 2011

46 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 42 October 2011

47 Search and rescue resources Coastguard stations HM Coastguard is responsible for requesting and tasking SAR resources made available by other authorities and for co-ordinating the subsequent SAR operations (unless they fall within military jurisdiction) All of the MCA s operations, including SAR, are divided into three geographical regions. The East of England Region covers the east and south Coasts of England from the Scottish border down to the Dorset / Devon border Each region is divided into six districts with its own Maritime Rescue Co ordination Centre (MRCC), which co-ordinates the SAR response for maritime and coastal emergencies within its district boundaries (East of England Region includes an additional station, London Coastguard, for coordinating SAR on the River Thames) The proposed GWF lies within the East of England Region with the nearest rescue coordination centre being Thames MRCC (located in Walton on Naze, Essex). MRCC Thames s area of responsibility provides SAR coverage from Southwold to the Reculver towers, Herne Bay As a result of increased congestion of the seas around the UK, increases in the size of ships, the increasingly busy coastline and the occurrence of more extreme weather conditions, there are currently proposals to modernise the coastguard (MCA, 2010). As part of its consultation process the MCA held a series of public meetings, concerning the proposed Coastguard modernisation, which ended in March Improvements centre on modernising the coastguard structures and systems which includes the creation of a nationally networked system of operations centres (MCA, 2010). SAR helicopters A review of the assets in the area of the wind farm site indicated that the closest SAR helicopter base is located at Wattisham, operated by the RAF, approximately 37nm to the north-west of the proposed GWF (Figure 16.11) This base has Sea King helicopters with a maximum endurance of 6 hours and speed of 110mph giving a radius of action of approximately 250nm which is well within the range of the proposed GWF. One helicopter is available at 15 minutes readiness between 0800 and 2200 hours, with another available at 60 minutes readiness between 0800 hours and evening civil twilight (ECT). Between 2200 and 0800 hours, one helicopter is held at 45 minutes readiness. RNLI Lifeboats The RNLI stations in the vicinity of the proposed GWF are presented in Figure At each of these stations crew and lifeboats are available on a 24 hour basis throughout the year. Final Report Chapter 16 Page 43 October 2011

48 Table 16.6 provides a summary of the facilities at the stations closest to the proposed GWF. Based on the offshore position of the development it is likely that ALBs would respond to an incident at the wind farm from Aldeburgh and Harwich. The time for an all weather lifeboat to reach GWF would be approximately one hour from the nearest RNLI station. Table 16.6 Lifeboats held at nearby RNLI stations Station Lifeboats ALB Spec ILB Spec Distance to Site Boundary Aldeburgh ALB / ILB Mersey D Class 16nm Harwich ALB / ILB Severn B Class (Atlantic) 24nm Walton & Frinton ALB Tyne - 23nm Clacton ILB - B Class (Atlantic) / D Class 27nm West Mersea ILB - B Class (Atlantic) 37nm Final Report Chapter 16 Page 44 October 2011

49 Final Report Chapter 16 Page 45 October 2011

50 Salvage MCA charters four Emergency Towing Vessels (ETV) to provide emergency towing cover in winter months in the four areas adjudged to pose the highest risk of a marine accident, the nearest being Dover Strait MCA has an agreement with the British Tug owners Association (BTA) for emergency chartering arrangements for harbour tugs. The agreement covers activation, contractual arrangements, liabilities and operational procedures, should MCA request assistance from any local harbour tug as part of the response to an incident Assessment of Impacts Worst Case Scenario This section establishes the worst case scenario from the range under consideration (see Chapter 5) to ensure that the assessment is focused on the maximum potential adverse effect that could arise from the development Full details on the range of options being considered by GWFL are provided throughout Chapter 5 Project Details. For the purpose of the shipping and navigation impact assessment, the worst case scenario, taking into consideration these options, is detailed in Table It is noted that only those design parameters detailed under each specific impact have the potential to influence the level of impact experienced by the relevant receptor. Therefore, if the design parameter is not discussed then it is considered not to have a material bearing on the outcome of the assessment The worst case scenarios identified below are also applied to the assessment of cumulative impacts. In the event that the worst case scenarios for the project in isolation do not result in the worst case for cumulative impacts, this is addressed within the cumulative assessment section of the Chapter (see Section 16.10). Final Report Chapter 16 Page 46 October 2011