STOUR MUSSEL FARM NAVIGATION RISK ASSESSMENT

Transcription

1 WASH MUSSELS LTD/PARKINSON WRIGHT STOUR MUSSEL FARM NAVIGATION RISK ASSESSMENT Report Number: 15UK1098 Issue: 01 Date: 28 September 2015 MARINE AND RISK CONSULTANTS LTD

2 WASH MUSSELS LTD/PARKINSON WRIGHT STOUR MUSSEL FARM NAVIGATION RISK ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Author(s): Checked By: Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 62 Burnham Road Leigh-on-Sea Essex SS9 2JS James Hannon Dr Ed Rogers Date Release Prepared Authorised Notes 28/09/2015 Issue 01 JH ER Issue to client Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd Marico Marine Bramshaw Lyndhurst SO43 7JB Hampshire United Kingdom Tel (0) September 2015 Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright i

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd (Marico Marine) have been appointed by Wash Mussels/Parkinson Wright Solicitors to Conduct a Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) in relation to the River Stour Mussel Farm Project. The purpose of the NRA is to provide reassurance to the local stakeholders and Statutory Harbour Authority that the navigational risk has been appropriately assessed, and where necessary mitigation measures are provided to ensure risk is not increased. A proposal has made by Wash Mussels Ltd for the location of 5 sub tidal mussel farms at predetermined points along the River Stour. The river users enjoy a clutter free environment and although there is a degree of small commercial traffic there is a good history of vessel types coexisting on the river with little issue. Concerns raised by river users highlight some navigation hazards that may pose a particular issue to them as a direct result of the addition of the farms and the associated vessel operations. This report forms an independent assessment of navigation impact and considers the impact that this operation will have of all river users including the Harbour Authority. Two separate NRAs were undertaken, the first assessing the current navigational situation (pre mussel farm) and the second being the navigational situation with the addition of the farms and associated operations (post mussel farm). The results of the NRA indicate that although there is a slight change of profile for craft and users of the river as a result of the introduction of the mussel farms, the overall navigational risk remains low with any increased risk to navigational safety also being low The NRA indicates that no additional risk controls are necessary as the risks are low. Wash Mussels Ltd are committed to going beyond the minimum control requirements with a view to alleviate any stakeholders concerns where possible and to also ensure that the existing good record of safety is preserved. The following control measures should be considered to ensure this: An agreement between the farm operator and the SHA (MoU) for clear communications to river users; Local recreational stakeholder engagement to ensure all aspects of the project are communicated effectively to recreational users; Restricting operations to daylight and less busy periods, such as weekdays; Crab pots (if used) should be placed in accordance with SHA policies and should be clearly marked; and Any further mitigation measures appropriate to improving the safety of navigation during harvesting operation. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright ii

4 Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright iii

5 CONTENTS Executive Summary... ii Contents iv Abbreviations... vii 1 Introduction Draft Working Plan for Stour Mussel Proposal Navigation on the Stour River Users Aids to Navigation Current Impact on Navigation Commercial Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour All Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour Local Regulations General Directions for Navigation Reporting Harbour Patrols Vessel Traffic Services Harwich VTS Level of Service Pilotage Notice to Mariners Anchorages and Moorings Small Craft Moorings Shotley Marina Tidal and Prevailing Conditions Prevailing Wind Conditions Consultation with Stakeholders Commercial Vessel Stakeholder Meeting Recreational Vessel Stakehodler Meeting Assessment of risks Navigation Risk Assessment Methodology Methodology Hazard Categories Risk Matrix Criteria Frequency Consequence Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright iv

6 4.4 Risk Treatment Criteria Risk Assessment Results Risk Assessment Summary - Combined Risk Assessment Current Situation Risk Assessment with Mussel Farm Operation Additional Control measures Conclusions Recommendations FIGURES Figure 1: Proposed Mussel Farm Locations Figure 2: River Stour (Jacques Bay) viewed from Wrabness (looking west) Figure 3: River Stour viewed from Wrabness Beach (looking east) Figure 4: Site 1 Inbound/Outbound Transits Figure 5: Site 2 Inbound/Outbound Transits Figure 6: Site 3 & 4 Inbound/Outbound Transits Figure 7: Site 5 Inbound/Outbound Transits Figure 8: Site 1 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels)... 9 Figure 9: Site 2 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels) Figure 10: Site 3 & 4 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels) Figure 11: Site 5 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels) Figure 12: River Stour Chartlet (HHA publication) Figure 13: Top Left: Bathside Bay small craft moorings, Top Right: Shotley small craft moorings, Bottom Left: Holbrook small craft moorings, Bottom Right: Manningtree small craft moorings Figure 14: Wrabness small craft moorings Figure 15: MARICO hazard identification and risk assessment process Figure 16: Frequency/Consequence Chart Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright v

7 TABLES Table 1: Mussel Farm Operations Table 2: River Stour Navigation Marks (East to West) Table 3: Type of commercial vessels used for main channel track analysis Table 4: River Stour Small Craft Moorings Table 5: Stour Tidal Range Table 6: Initial Hazard Identification Matrix Table 7: Hazard Frequency Ranges Table 8: Consequence Categories (Costs in ) Table 9: Risk Matrix Table 10: Top ten ranked hazards for both risk assessments combined Table 11: Ranked Hazard List Current Situation Table 12: Ranked Hazard List with the mussel farm in operation ANNEXES Annex A Direction of Tidal Streams... A-1 Annex B Risk Assessment provided by Phillip Barnes (Commodore Stour Sailing Club) and Paul Rodhouse (RHYC)... B-1 Annex C Hazard Logs for the Current Navigational Situation... C-1 Annex D Hazard Logs for the for the Navigational Situation with the Addition of the Mussel Farms and Operations... D-1 Annex E Organisation Report... E-1 Annex F Ranked Hazard Lists for the Current Navigational Situation... F-1 Annex G Ranked Hazard Lists for the Navigational Situation with the Addition of the Mussel Farms and Operations... G-1 Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright vi

8 ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Detail AIS Automatic Identification System ALARP As Low as Reasonably Practicable CCTV Closed Circuit Television CHA Competent Harbour Authority D&B Design and Build HW High Water ICW In Collision With IMO International Maritime Organisation ITT Invitation to Tender Kt Knot (unit of speed equal to nautical mile per hour, approximately 1.15 mph) LW Low Water M Metre Marico Marine Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd MCA Maritime and Coast Guard Agency ML Most Likely NAABSA Not Always Afloat But Safe Aground Nm Nautical Mile NRA Navigation Risk Assessment PEC Pilotage Exemption Certificate PWC Personal Water Craft RIB Ridged Inflatable Boat SHA Statutory Harbour Authority SMS Safety Management System STCW Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping VHF Very High Frequency (radio communication) VTS Vessel Traffic Service WC Worst Credible Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright vii

9 1 INTRODUCTION Wash Mussels Limited has made an application to the Secretary of State in accordance with section 1 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 for an order conferring the right of several fishery under section 1 of the Act. The Secretary of State has prepared a draft Order and served a copy of it on the applicant in accordance with paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Act. There are five proposed locations for the mussel farms located within the River Stour (see Figure 1 for locations). Figure 1: Proposed Mussel Farm Locations. The River Stour commences at Harwich and stretches its way westward forming the boundary between Essex and Suffolk. The river has plenty of areas for anchoring, has a boatyard at Mistley where there are also mud moorings, commercial quays and a small public quay that dries at low water. Coasters operate from the commercial quays using the buoyed main channel to navigate, this channel narrows and shoals to almost drying as it approaches Mistley. Stakeholders have expressed concern regarding the safety of navigation for the river users as a result of the location of the proposed mussel farms and the related operations including the presence of the additional vessels used to manage and harvest the mussels. The requirement for Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 1

10 Wash Mussels Limited to undertake a Navigation Risk Assessment (NRA) is to provide a comprehensive study to ensure stakeholders that where necessary adequate risk mitigation measures are in place to allow for the continuous safety of craft navigating in the River Stour. The navigational risk assessment process was split into the following phases: 1. Determination of the current navigational state of the River Stour. (i.e. nature of the river, navigational channel, types of user and vessel, existing legislation/procedures, etc.); 2. Understanding of proposed mussel farm operation for the 5 proposed sites on the River Stour; 3. Consultation with local stakeholders and site visit to better understand local issues; 4. Hazard Identification and Categorisation; 5. Assessment of risk; 6. Determination, where necessary of additional mitigation measures; 7. Conclusions; and 8. Recommendations. 1.1 DRAFT WORKING PLAN FOR STOUR MUSSEL PROPOSAL Wash Mussels Limited have indicated that the time spent working with vessels on the farms will be kept to within the working week, Monday to Friday and during the hours of daylight. Operations will not be undertaken on weekends or during bank holidays when leisure activities are at their peak. Activities that require vessel operations for longer durations are mostly conducted during off peak leisure seasons, such as Spring and Autumn. Operations (if required) in the summer are very minimal. Table 1 outlines the operational programme of the project over the trial period of 5 years. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 2

11 Table 1: Mussel Farm Operations. Year Season Operation Duration 1 Autumn Clear 1 hectare square in each of the five sites (if seed mussel quantity is available) 2 days 2 Spring If required lay crab pots (2 lines per 1 ha square) 1-2 days Remove crab pots 0.5 day 2 Summer Run starfish mop of hectare squares affected if required 0.5 day 2 Autumn Clear a second 1 hectare square in each of the five sites (if seed mussel quantity is available) 2 days 3 Spring Lay crab pots if required (2 lines per 1 hectare square) 1-2 days Remove pots 0.5 days 3 Summer Run starfish mop of hectare squares affected 0.5 day 3 Autumn Harvest by dredge Year 1 sown mussels from 5 x 1 hectare squares 4 days Clear 5 x 1 ha squares 2 days Relay seed mussel in 5 x 1 hectare squares 1 day 4 Spring Lay crab pots if required (2 lines per 1 hectare square) 1-2 days Remove pots 0.5 days 4 Summer Run starfish mop of hectare squares affected if required 0.5 days 4 Autumn Harvest by dredge Year 1 sown mussels from 5 x 1 hectare squares 4 days 5 5 Spring/ Autumn Autumn Clear 5 x 1 hectare squares Relay seed mussel in 5 x 1 hectare squares Harvest by dredge Year 3 sown mussels from 5 x 1 hectare squares Harvest by dredge Year 4 sown mussels from 5 x 1 hectare square (if order not renewed). Clear perhaps 5 x 1 hectare squares (only if order renewed) monitoring visits each year using grab and sampling for local authority environmental health 2 days 1 day 4 days 4 days 2 days 0.5 day Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 3

12 2 NAVIGATION ON THE STOUR The navigable channel commences (see Figure 1) at its widest point wide (700m) off Harwich International Port and narrows as it heads west to Mistley where it all but dries out at low water. The channel is well marked with lit buoys and beacons and there are a number of small craft moorings north and south of the channel. Harwich International Port is located on the southern side of the entrance of the River Stour. The river in this area is at its busiest with relatively high amounts of commercial traffic using Felixstowe and Harwich International Port. The area is covered by Admiralty Charts 1594 (River Stour to Erwarton Ness to Manningtree) and 1491 (Harwich and Felixstowe). 2.1 RIVER USERS The main current River Stour users can be spilt into the following categories: Coasters/commercial vessels using Mistley; Large ferries and cruise ships (Harwich International Port); Dredgers; and Recreational craft/charter fishing boats. 2.2 AIDS TO NAVIGATION The Local Lighthouse Authority for the River Stour is Harwich Haven Authority (HHA) who is responsible for correct maintenance and provision of Aids to Navigation (AtoN). The River Stour main channel is clearly marked by navigational marks (see Table 2). 2.3 CURRENT IMPACT ON NAVIGATION The principal navigational features that have an impact on users of the River Stour are as follows: Coaster/general cargo berthing operations at Mistley; Dredger operations in sediment placement areas; Coasters navigating the main channel to and from Mistley; Ferry and cruise ship movements at Harwich International Port; Large ship mooring buoys on the southern edge of the main channel at Copperas Bay; Use of recreational craft; Regular use of the river for sailing events and races; Fishing charter vessels; Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 4

13 Boatyard (Mistley Marine) with mud moorings; Name Type Light Characteristics Parkeston Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl(3) G 10s Harwich International Port North Cardinal Q Ramsey Lateral Buoy (Starboard) LFl G 10s Erwarton South Cardinal Q(6) + FLl 15s No 1 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) QG Holbrook South Cardinal VQ(6)+LFl 10s No 2 North Cardinal Q River Stour Lee Lateral Buoy (Starboard) QG No 4 Lateral Buoy (Port) QR No 5 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl G 5s No 6 Lateral Beacon (Port) Fl(2) R 5s No 7 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) QG No 8 Lateral Buoy (Port) QR No 10 Lateral Buoy (Port) Fl R 5s No 9 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl G 5s No 11 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) QG No 12 North Cardinal Q No 13 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl G 5s No 15 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl(2) G 5s Baltic Wharf Jetty Marker FR Public quay at Mistley; Large vessel anchorage north of Harwich International Port; Explosive anchorage; Sailing and yacht clubs; and Shotley Marina and associated traffic. Table 2: River Stour Navigation Marks (East to West) Commercial Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour Commercial vessel movements for vessels using the main channel to Mistley were studied, see Figure 4 to Figure 7. Using Automatic Identification System data, the tracks of three coaster sized vessels were plotted and their tracks logged to provide details of the passage through the river for their arrival and departure to/from Mistley. The data indicates that as expected the vessels navigate using the main channel and at no time do they enter any of the areas marked out as proposed sites of the mussel farms. The details of the three coaster sized vessels used are in Table 3 and are typical of the vessel types that use T W Logistics Ltd (TWL) at Mistley. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 5

14 Figure 2: River Stour (Jacques Bay) viewed from Wrabness (looking west). Figure 3: River Stour viewed from Wrabness Beach (looking east). Table 3: Type of commercial vessels used for main channel track analysis. Name Type Length Overall EEMS SPACE General Cargo 87.2m SEA RUBY General Cargo 77.8m KORIANGI General Cargo 81m Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 6

15 Figure 4: Site 1 Inbound/Outbound Transits. Figure 5: Site 2 Inbound/Outbound Transits. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 7

16 Figure 6: Site 3 & 4 Inbound/Outbound Transits. Figure 7: Site 5 Inbound/Outbound Transits. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 8

17 2.3.2 All Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour In addition to the analysis of the track data for commercial traffic using the main channel to Mistley, an analysis was also undertaken of all vessels using the River Stour and Harwich International Port. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 8 to Figure 11. This data indicates that very little traffic enters the proposed site (Part 1) with all traffic using Harwich International Port navigating to the south of the area and not entering the site. The data does show tracks passing through the areas, however, these are smaller shallow draft craft and the frequency and volume would suggest that the mussel operations would not pose a significant issue with regards to navigation. The data also shows that the majority of vessels navigate in or near the main channel and very seldom enter any of the proposed sites. Figure 8: Site 1 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels). Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 9

18 Figure 9: Site 2 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels). Figure 10: Site 3 & 4 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels). Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 10

19 Figure 11: Site 5 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels). 2.4 LOCAL REGULATIONS HHA has statutory powers to regulate commercial and leisure vessels within the HHA Area of Jurisdiction which includes the River Stour (see Figure 12), and is responsible for the navigational safety and traffic regulation of all vessels bound to and from the Haven Ports of Felixstowe, Harwich International, Harwich Navyard, Ipswich, and Mistley. All vessels arriving at or sailing from the Haven Ports, or on passage through the Harwich Seaward Area, must report to Harwich Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) and comply with VTS Rules. The Reporting Procedures and VTS Rules are set in the General Directions for Navigation and published in the Admiralty List of Radio Signals. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 11

20 Figure 12: River Stour Chartlet (HHA publication) General Directions for Navigation In March 2011 Harwich Haven Authority (HHA) exercised its powers under Section 32 of the Harwich Harbour Act 1974 and updated the General Directions for Navigation. The General Directions are to be construed in conjunction with the HHA Byelaws, Pilotage Directions and HHA Local Notices to Mariners. It is the duty of the Master of a vessel to which a General Direction applies to comply with that Direction Reporting All vessels of more than 50 GT entering or leaving the Harwich VTS area must report to Harwich VTS when passing the appropriate reporting points indicated on Admiralty charts. 2.5 HARBOUR PATROLS The HHA maintains a regular patrol of the Haven throughout the year. In addition, during the summer months weekends, between the hours of 0800 to 1800, these patrols are maintained to provide assistance and advice to yachtsmen, and to ensure that the main channel is kept clear for 1 Figure 12 source HAA website. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 12

21 the transit of commercial shipping. The weekend Harbour patrol launch maintains a listening watch on VHF Channel VESSEL TRAFFIC SERVICES Harwich VTS is operated from Harwich VTS Operations Centre on a continuous 24-hour basis to provide a safe and efficient regime for vessel traffic, and protection for the environment. The river and its approaches are continuously monitored by trained personnel using Radar, VHF and CCTV to build a comprehensive traffic image of the area. Harwich Operations Centre also provides the coordination and communications centre for the Haven Ports Pilotage Service. Harwich VTS provides Traffic Organisation and Navigational Assistance Services with the authority of the Harbour Master. Failure, without good cause, to obey an instruction given by Harwich VTS with the purpose of preserving marine safety, may constitute an offence Harwich VTS Level of Service Harwich VTS is a UK designated port VTS and provides the following levels of service: Traffic Organisation Service to prevent the development of dangerous maritime traffic situations, and to provide for the safe and efficient movement of vessel traffic within the Authority s area; and Navigational Assistance provided on request or when deemed necessary by Harwich VTS to assist on-board navigational decision making, and to monitor its effects. It does not relieve the Master of his responsibility for the safe navigation of the vessel. 2.7 PILOTAGE HHA is a Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) within the meaning of the Pilotage Act 1987, and under Section 7 of the Act, has powers to issue Pilotage Directions to the Masters of vessels in the Haven Ports Pilotage Area. HHA manage and regulate the requirements for the provision of pilots within the River Stour, which fall into the CHA area. Pilot Exemption Certificates (PEC) are issued for master and mates operating within the CHA upon completion of satisfactory assessment and examination. All commercial vessels using the Stour currently take a pilot, there are no PEC holders using the River. 2.8 NOTICE TO MARINERS HAA issues Notices to Mariners (NtMs) to provide essential, up-to-date information and advice to those navigating within the HHA area of jurisdiction. Subjects include (but are not limited to) Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 13

22 notification of works and events which may impact on navigation and notification of new and updated rules and regulations for navigation. 2.9 ANCHORAGES AND MOORINGS The River Stour is tidal and moorings do dry out at low water. Most moorings are along the edge of the channel and large craft are not permitted to moor in such a position where they may swing into, and block the channel. On the Essex side of the river no moorings are permitted below the commercial quay at Mistley. On the Suffolk side of the river no moorings are permitted east of Bexford's factory. Small craft are permitted to freely anchor on the river as long as they are clear of the main channel and moorings Small Craft Moorings Small craft mooring areas in the River Stour are laid out in Table 4, and their locations are shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14. Table 4: River Stour Small Craft Moorings. Location Type Ownership Notes Mud The whole of Bathside Bay is scheduled for Sealink Swinging reclamation and development. Temporary Bathside Bay Harbours 10 x Trot (Harwich and moorings may be laid within the bay with the Limited Dovercourt Sailing Club) consent of the Harbour Master. Shotley Holbrook Moorings Manningtree Moorings Wrabness Moorings Swinging Mud Shotley Sailing Club These moorings may be used for commercial craft such as fishing parties or charter boats. Mooring numbers are limited. Mud Private Moorings numbers are limited. Mud Mud Stour Sailing Club Private The mooring area is limited in size and working at full capacity. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 14

23 Figure 13: Top Left: Bathside Bay small craft moorings, Top Right: Shotley small craft moorings, Bottom Left: Holbrook small craft moorings, Bottom Right: Manningtree small craft moorings. Figure 14: Wrabness small craft moorings Shotley Marina Shotley Marina is situated on the north side of the River Stour where it meets the River Orwell and comprises of 350 berths. The marina approach is via a marked maintained channel and a lock controlled entrance. Users of the marina tend to navigate east of the Stour and visiting vessels Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 15

24 arrive from the Haven approach. Therefore, it is considered that the mussel farms, which lie to the west of the marina, are unlikely to impact on the traffic using the marina TIDAL AND PREVAILING CONDITIONS Tidal flows within the River Stour are no greater than 1.3kts on a Spring Ebb and 1.2kts on a Spring Flood. The strongest streams are in the channel off Erwarton Ness. The direction of the streams run westerly on the flood and easterly on the ebb (see Annex A for plots). The tide height and range is shown in Table 5. Table 5: Stour Tidal Range. Tide Height Range Mean High Water Springs 4.1m Mean Low Water Springs 0.4m 3.7m (Mean Spring Range) Mean High Water Neaps 3.4m Mean Low Water Neaps 1.1m 22.3m (Mean Neap Range) Prevailing Wind Conditions The prevailing winds come from between the south and the north-west, and the strongest winds nearly always blow from this range of directions. Spring time also tends to have the majority of winds from the north east. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 16

25 3 CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS Consultation meetings with river users and the SHA (HHA) were undertaken during the site visit on Wednesday 1 st July COMMERCIAL VESSEL STAKEHOLDER MEETING The first of these meetings were with the HHA as the Statutory Harbour Authority for the river Stour and TWL Mistley as the main berth operator at Mistley. The meeting was held at the HHA offices in Harwich, and the following were present at the meeting: Capt. Neil Glendenning - Harwich Harbour Master; Mr John Brien Harwich Harbour Authority; Ms Isoldt Harris TWL (Mistley); Mr James Hannon Marico Marine; and Dr Edward Rodgers Marico Marine. The meeting involved a discussion based around the intended operation of the proposed mussel farm sites and the type and size of vessel that would be used to harvest the mussels. The location of the sites were analysed as were the requirements for marking the sites. Capt. Glendenning stated that he would have concerns related to additional buoyage to be placed in the Stour and also stated that there was no apparent need to mark the sites with buoyage. It was noted that the marking of the sites could introduce an additional 26 buoys to the river. There was also concern expressed regarding the location and marking of crab pots, however, HHA have powers within their byelaws to regulate the placing and marking of such pots. HHA have already written a response to the serval order outlining their opposition to the marking of the sites with buoys and made reference to the minimal approach taken in marking the channel in the Stour to maintain safe navigation. The Harbour Master was keen to keep the Stour uncluttered from additional buoyage. The limitations on the freedom of navigation, mooring and anchoring were discussed. It was pointed out that the freedom of navigation and anchoring would not be affected, this was preserved by Section 7 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act The liability of a master or pilot (including recreational craft crew), damaging the mussel beds due to their vessel running aground was discussed. It was pointed out that as a matter of law, they would not incur any liability for damage to the mussel beds resulting from accidental or emergency groundings and/or re-floating of a vessel. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 17

26 It was noted that the current commercial traffic to and from Mistley remained within the main navigation channel and that these vessels took a mandatory pilot supplied by the CHA (HHA). Capt. Glendenning pointed out that there was slight concern regarding the southwest extremities of site 3 and the northwest extremities of site 4 (Holbrook No. 2 area) extending south and north of the main channel buoy line respectively. There was concern that this would restrict sea room available in the main channel for larger vessels which were constrained by their draught and the harvesting vessels restricted in their ability to manoeuvre during times that the fisheries are active. He asked if the applicant would consider replotting the positon of these sites to take this into account. The commercial anchorages in the area were seldom used and the most of the large traffic movements took place off of Harwich International Port in a deep water area south of site 1. It was noted that this area had the highest large commercial movements involving ferry, cruise ship and Trinity House service vessel traffic. This included large vessels turning for the berth. It was also noted that this area was monitored closely by VTS. HHA operate dredgers for sediment replenishment and one of the dredging discharge tracks runs on a lines crossing site 1, site 3 and site 4. The implications of a dredger and mussel dredger operating in the same area was discussed with regards to COLREGS and give way vessel requirements, this is taken into account in the NRA. There was a discussion regarding the size of site one possibly restricting sea room for recreational vessel passing north of turning vessels in the deep water pocket. Capt. Glendenning asked for a consideration on reducing the site 1 area in order to clear the southern edges of the area out of the deeper part of northern edge of the main channel. In addition to the concerns express by HAA, Isoldt Harris raised concerns regarding the possible navigational restrictions to the current vessels arriving and departing Mistley and whether it would impact on the use of larger vessels if TWL s business grew and future demand required the use of larger vessels. There was also concern regarding the reduction of speed for vessels navigating and possibility of delays for arrivals and departures. The question was asked regarding whether future dredging activities (maintenance and capital), would be affected due to the placement of the mussel farms. It was noted that with the exception of the extremities of site 3 and the northwest extremities of site 4, the impact to navigation would not increase. Both HHA and TWL were generally happy with the proposed operation: An agreement between the farm operator and the SHA (MoU) for clear communications to river users; Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 18

27 Local recreational stakeholder engagement to ensure all aspects of the project are communicated effectively to recreational users; Restricting operations to daylight and less busy periods, such as weekdays; Crab pots (if used) should be placed in accordance with SHA policies and should be clearly marked; and Any further mitigation measures appropriate to improving the safety of navigation during harvesting operation. 3.2 RECREATIONAL VESSEL STAKEHODLER MEETING A further stakeholder meeting was undertaken at the Royal Harwich Yacht Club (RHYC) with representatives from the RYA, local yacht and sailing clubs, recreational fisherman and charter owners. The meeting was chaired by the Chairman of Harwich Area Sailing Association (HASA), Brenda Read. Present at the meeting and sitting on the top table were the following: Brenda Read, meeting chairman and Chairman of HASA; Peter Scott Partner, Quality Solicitors Parkinson Wright; James Hannon Marico Marine; Dr Ed Rogers Marico Marine; Graham Osbourne - Wash Mussels Ltd; and Representatives for the local clubs and stakeholders present at the meeting were: Chris Edwards RYA Regional Representative; Tim Goodwin; Derek Davis; Graham Pugh; Nigel Mower; Peter Thomas; Paul Rodhouse; Phil Barns; Graham Prior; John Cooledge; Peter Holborn; David Card; and Chris Brown. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 19

28 The meeting was called by Marico to discuss navigational concerns. Although some navigational concerns were expressed, the meeting mostly consisted of issues relating to the consultation process and DEFRA consultation. A list of hazard (12 in total), complete with analysis had been complied by Phillip Barnes (Commodore Stour Sailing Club) and Paul Rodhouse (RHYC) and was handed out to all present. This document was discussed briefly. The risks highlighted in this document which includes grounding, collision, entanglement and drifting vessels have been categorised into the wider River Stour NRA. The contents of this document are contained in Annex B. Mr Edwards (RYA) expressed concern regarding the placement of mussel site marker buoys. James Hannon responded by advising that the HHA Harbour Master had strongly opposed to the marker buoys. Mr Peter Scott also advised that they had met with DEFRA and there was no requirement for surface marker buoys to be placed on any of the sites. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 20

29 4 ASSESSMENT OF RISKS NAVIGATION RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 4.1 METHODOLOGY The NRA methodology, used for this assessment, has been specifically developed for navigational use in ports/harbours. It is fundamentally based on concepts of the Most Likely (ML) and Worst Credible (WC) scenarios that reflect the range of outcomes arising from a navigation hazard (see Figure 15). Figure 15: MARICO hazard identification and risk assessment process. The NRA process is based on the Formal Safety Assessment methodology as adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and follows the requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code. The NRA used the proprietary Marico Marine Hazman II programme to undertake the risk assessment process. IMO guidelines define a hazard as something with the potential to cause harm, loss or injury, the realisation of which results in an accident. The potential for a hazard to be realised can be combined with an estimate or known consequence of outcome. This combination is termed risk. Risk is Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 21

30 therefore a measure of the frequency and consequence of a particular hazard and in order to compare risk levels a matrix is used. At the low end of the scale, frequency is extremely remote, consequence insignificant and risk can be said to be negligible. At the high end, where hazards are defined as frequent and the consequence catastrophic, then risk is termed intolerable. Between the two is an area defined As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). The IMO guidelines allow the selection of definitions of frequency and consequence to be made by the organisation carrying out the NRA. This is important, as it allows risk to be applied in a qualitative and comparative way. To identify high risk levels using a quantitative mathematical approach would require a large volume of casualty data, which is not generally available. Figure 16: Frequency/Consequence Chart. ALARP can be defined as Tolerable, if the reduction of the risk is impracticable, or if the cost of such reduction would obviously be highly disproportionate to the improvement. It can also be defined as Tolerable, if the cost of reducing the risk is greater than any improvement gained. This is showed pictorially in Figure 16. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 22

31 4.2 HAZARD CATEGORIES In order to ensure that all hazards associated with the Project were identified (and allocated a Hazard Reference number), a matrix of generic hazards was used, which focused on the risk exposure (see Table 6). Table 6: Initial Hazard Identification Matrix. Hazard Ref. Hazard Category Hazard Title 1 Collision HHA Dredger in collision with Recreational Craft 2 Collision HHA Dredger in collision with Coaster 3 Collision HHA Dredger in collision with a Ferry/Cruise Ship 4 Collision Recreational Craft in collision Recreational Craft 5 Collision Recreational Craft in collision with Coaster 6 Collision Recreational Craft in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship 7 Collision Coaster in collision with Coaster 8 Collision Coaster in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship 9 Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with Recreational Craft 10 Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with Coaster 11 Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with a Ferry/Cruise Ship 12 Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with a HHA Dredger 13 Grounding Recreational Craft 14 Grounding Coaster 15 Grounding HHA Dredger 16 Grounding Ferry/Cruise Ship 17 Grounding Mussel Dredger 18 Navigational Contact Recreational Craft in contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy 19 Navigational Contact Coaster in contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy 20 Navigational Contact Ferry/Cruise ship in Contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy 21 Navigational Contact HHA Dredger in contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy 22 Navigational Contact Mussel Dredger in contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy 4.3 RISK MATRIX CRITERIA Frequency In this study, each hazard was reviewed with respect to cause and effect, with frequency of occurrence derived for notional most likely and worst credible hazard events based on Table 7. Table 7: Hazard Frequency Ranges. Scale Description Definition Operational Interpretation F5 Frequent An event occurring in the range once a week to once an operating year. One or more times in 1 year. F4 Likely An event occurring in the range once a year to once every 10 operating years. One or more times in 10 years 1-9 years. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 23

32 F3 Possible An event occurring in the range once every 10 operating years to once in 100 operating years. One or more times in 100 years years. F2 Unlikely An event occurring in the range less than once in 100 operating years. One or more times in 1,000 years years. F1 Remote Considered to occur less than once in 1,000 operating years (e.g. it may have occurred at a similar site, elsewhere in the world). Less than once in 1,000 years >1,000 years Consequence Consequence (or impact of risk realisation) was assessed in four key categories: People - Personal injury, fatality etc.; Property - Port and third party; Environment - Oil pollution etc.; and Stakeholder/ Business - Reputation, financial loss, public perception, etc. Consequence is assessed against most likely and worst credible outcomes. It should be noted that in terms of property, the risk assessment process by necessity considers that the loss of a large commercial vessel is of wider implication than the loss of a private leisure cruiser. This assessment criterion is not intended to undervalue damage suffered by the leisure user, whose personal loss may be very significant in relative terms, however, it is recognised that the loss of a commercial vessel often has a wider implication in terms of business and negative media exposure. The rating applied is such that the consequences are of broadly equivalent value across the categories (see Table 8). Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 24

33 Table 8: Consequence Categories (Costs in ) RISK TREATMENT CRITERIA Risk scores are calculated for each hazard under the most likely and worst credible scenarios for each of the consequence criteria (people, property, environment and business) based on the scores in the hazard log, using a risk matrix (see Table 9). This generates eight individual risk scores per hazard which are documented in the Ranked Hazard List. The individual risk scores for each consequence category are then combined, using a proprietary algorithm in Hazman II, to derive an overall risk score. The overall baseline risk scores are used to create a ranked hazard list. All risk scores, whether individually related to a hazard consequence category, or overall combined for an individual hazard are scored on a scale of 0 (low risk) to 10 (high risk) (see Table 9 for more details). 2 Tiered oil spill response levels were adopted by the International Maritime Organisation International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 25

34 Table 9: Risk Matrix. MATRIX OUTCOME Risk Definition Action Taken 0 & 1 Negligible Risk A level where operational safety is unaffected. 2 & 3 Low risk A level where operational safety is assumed. 4,5 and 6 As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) A level defined by study at which risk control in place is reviewed. It should be kept under review in the ensuing Safety Management System. 7 & 8 Significant Risk A level where existing risk control is automatically reviewed and suggestions made where additional risk control could be applied if appropriate. Significant risk can occur in the average case or in individual categories. New risk controls identified should be introduced in a timescale of two years. 9 & 10 High Risk A level requiring immediate mitigation. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 26

35 5 RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS A complete review of all vessel traffic types and marine operations for the Stour was undertaken in order to identify a list of hazards. Each hazard was assessed using the method explained in Section 4. Two assessments of risk were undertaken: Risk Assessment for the current navigational situation; and Risk Assesement for the navigational situation with the addition of the mussel farms and their operations. The hazard logs for the current navigational situation are in Annex C, and the hazard logs for the navigational situation with the addition of the mussel farms and their operations are in Annex D. Hazards are ranked in accordance to the level of overall risk. 5.1 RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY - COMBINED The top ten hazards of both the current navigational situation and the navigational situation with the mussel farms and their operations combined are shown in Table 10, the complete combined ranked hazards of both risk assessments are shown in Annex E. Table 10: Top ten ranked hazards for both risk assessments combined. Organisation Rank Register Stour NRA (Current) Stour NRA (With Mussel Farms) Stour NRA (With Mussel Farms) Stour NRA (Current) Stour NRA (Current) Stour NRA (With Mussel Farms) Rank Hazard Ref Hazard Title Category Inherent Residual Risk Risk 1 6 Recreational Craft in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship Collision Recreational Craft in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship Collision Recreational Craft in collision with Coaster Collision Recreational Craft in collision with Coaster Collision Recreational Craft in collision Recreational Craft Collision Recreational Craft in collision Recreational Craft Collision Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 27

36 Organisation Rank Register Stour NRA (With Mussel Farms) Stour NRA (With Mussel Farms) Stour NRA (Current) Stour NRA (With Mussel Farms) Rank Hazard Ref Hazard Title Category Inherent Residual Risk Risk 5 16 Recreational Craft grounding Grounding Mussel Dredger in collision with HHA Dredger Collision Recreational Craft grounding Grounding Mussel Dredger in collision with Recreational Craft Collision RISK ASSESSMENT CURRENT SITUATION The top ten hazards for the current navigational situation are shown in Table 10. The complete ranked hazard list is shown in Annex F. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 28

37 Rank Hazard Ref. Environment People Property Stakeholders Environment People Property Stakeholders Risk Overall Report No: 15UK1098 Table 11: Ranked Hazard List Current Situation. Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category ML WC Hazard Title Hazard Detail Most Likely (ML) Worst Credible (WC) Recreational Craft in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship Recreational Craft in collision with Coaster Recreational Craft in collision Recreational Craft Recreational Craft grounding Coaster Grounding HHA Dredger in collision with Coaster Coaster in collision with Coaster HHA Dredger in collision with a Ferry/Cruise Ship HHA Dredger in collision with Recreational Craft Coaster in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship Recreational craft navigating in main channel whilst Ferry/Cruise Ship are moving or turning off Harwich International Port Recreational craft navigating in main channel whilst coaster is navigating in main channel Leisure craft in contact with another. Recreational craft out of position Coaster/commercial vessel out of main channel Coasters transiting to Mistley using or passing in the main channel. Coasters transiting to Mistley using or passing in the main channel. Contact with Ferry or Cruise Ship turning off Harwich Haven. Coaster in contact with Ferry or Cruise Ship turning off Harwich Haven. Near miss/low speed glancing blow. Minor hull damage to recreational craft. Low speed contact, minor damage to recreational craft Low speed glancing blow, minor damage to vessel/hull Soft grounding, no damage, floats free on next HW Soft grounding, refloats, no damage Low speed glancing blow. Minor damage. Low speed contact. no significant damage Low speed contact - minor hull damage. Low speed glancing blow. Very minor damage. Low speed contact - minor hull damage Heavy contact. Major hull damage to recreational craft. Sinking, loss of life. Major damage to recreational craft, sinking, loss of life. Heavy contact, major hull damage, sinking. Loss of life. Hard grounding, hull damage, sinking, loss of life. Heavy grounding - minor hull damage. Heavy contact, hull damage. Minor injury to crew member. Heavy contact - major hull damage, water ingress, minor injury Major hull damage - minor injury Damage to hull, water ingress and possible sinking. Loss of life. Heavy contact major hull damage, minor injury Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 29

38 5.3 RISK ASSESSMENT WITH MUSSEL FARM OPERATION This NRA considers both the most likely and the worst credible outcomes (set against likely frequency of the event happening in each case). This approach provides a more realistic and thorough assessment of risk, which reflects reality, in that relatively very few incidents result in the worst credible outcome. The assessment shows that introduction of the mussel farms slightly increased the number of hazards on the river. This is purely because of the presence of addition craft that would be used in relation to the mussel farm operation on the river. However the risk to navigation has not significantly increased and any additional risk was determined to be low. The top ten hazards for the navigational situation with the mussel farm in operation are shown in Table 12. The complete ranked hazard list is shown in Annex G. 5.4 ADDITIONAL CONTROL MEASURES The NRA indicates that no additional risk controls are necessary as the risks are low. However, Wash Mussels Ltd are committed to going beyond the minimum control requirements with a view to alleviate any stakeholders concerns where possible. This should include, but not be limited to, the following control measures: An agreement between the farm operator and the SHA (MoU) for clear communications to river users; Local recreational stakeholder engagement to ensure all aspects of the project are communicated effectively to recreational users; Restricting operations to daylight and less busy periods, such as weekdays; Crab pots (if used) should be placed in accordance with SHA policies and should be clearly marked; and Any further mitigation measures appropriate to improving the safety of navigation during harvesting operation. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 30

39 Rank Hazard Ref. Environment People Property Stakeholders Environment People Property Stakeholders Risk Overall Report No: 15UK1098 Table 12: Ranked Hazard List with the mussel farm in operation. Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category ML WC Hazard Title Hazard Detail Most Likely (ML) Worst Credible (WC) Recreational Craft in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship Recreational Craft in collision with Coaster Recreational Craft in collision Recreational Craft Mussel Dredger in collision with HHA Dredger Recreational Craft grounding Mussel Dredger in collision with Recreational Craft Coaster Grounding Mussel Dredger in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship Mussel Dredger in collision with Coaster HHA Dredger in collision with Coaster Recreational craft navigating in main channel whilst Ferry/Cruise Ship are moving or turning off Harwich International Port. Recreational craft navigating in main channel. Leisure craft in contact with another. Mussel Dredging and Sediment replenishment confliction. Sites 1, 2, 3 & 4. Recreational craft out of position. 14 M Mussel Dredger in contact with Recreational Craft while engaged in operations. Coaster/commerci al vessel out of main channel. Mussel Dredger on transit or working southern edge of Site 1. Mussel Dredger operating on main channel edge of mussel farm or on transit. Dredger operating on main channel edge of soil ground or on transit. Near miss/low speed glancing blow. Minor hull damage to recreational craft. Low speed contact, minor damage to recreational craft. Low speed glancing blow, minor damage to vessel/hull. Low speed contact, minor damage. Soft grounding, no damage, floats free on next HW. Low speed collision, glancing blow. Minor damage. Heavy contact. Major hull damage to recreational craft. Sinking, loss of life. Major damage to recreational craft, sinking, loss of life. Heavy contact, major hull damage, sinking. Loss of life. Heavy impact, major hull damage, sinking of mussel dredger. Hard grounding, hull damage, sinking, loss of life. Hard collision, major hull damage, sinking, loss of life. Soft grounding, Heavy grounding - re-floats, no minor hull damage. damage. Low speed glancing blow, minor damage to mussel dredger. Glancing blow, minor damage. Low speed glancing blow. Minor damage. Heavy impact, major hull damage, sinking of mussel dredger. Heavy contact, major hull damage, taking water, possible sinking of dredger. Heavy contact, hull damage. Minor injury to crew member Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 31

40 6 CONCLUSIONS The five year mussel farm trail, once underway, is unlikely to generate a discernible increase in the navigational risk on the River Stour as: The mussels lines are placed on the sea bed with no vertical risers or lines; Maximum operational days associated with additional vessel movements within the trail period are less than 15 days per year, with 20 additional monitoring visits each year for local authority environmental health; Fishing vessels engaged in farm operations are subject to MCA safety inspections; Total usage of each site is expected to be less than 20% of the total licenced area; The farms do not restrict navigation, they are not exclusion zones; Wash Mussels Limited state that there is no intention to mark the sites with additional buoyage; The area is monitored using VTS by HHA; Large vessels using the river to transit to Mistley carry an authorised pilot with exceptional local knowledge; The right to free navigation and anchoring is not affected; Anticipated times that the mussel dredgers are expected to operate are at times when recreational usage is at a minimum; HHA have powers within their byelaws (Clause 6) which regulate the marking and placement of crab pots; The navigational channel is well marked; The SHA and CHA is well managed by HHA; Mussel dredger operations will adhere to COLREGs; and There is no legal liability for vessels causing damage to mussel sites by running aground. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 32

41 7 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that good communications are maintained providing information on the time, location of operation and vessel numbers involved in the mussel farm operations, are shared with all port users to assist with de-confliction of commercial vessel transits and recreational activities. A MoU between the SHA for the provision of this information may assist in ensuring that all operations are considered, communicated and de-conflicted. The SHA can then choose to communicate this to the port users as it sees fit. The mussel farm operational activities should be restricted to times when recreational use is at its lowest, such as week days outside of the peak leisure/recreational season. Weekend and evening operations, especially at peak recreational times should only be undertaken after consultation with the HHA. Wash Mussels Limited will need to provide clear information regarding the total numbers of vessel movements, transit frequency and the locations for cargo discharge in order to provide information to the SHA to assist with de-confliction of operations. This will assist in reducing the chances of unwanted interaction between dredgers and river uses, commercial and recreational vessels alike. HHA have expressed concern regarding the positioning of sites 3 & 4. The southwest extremities of site 3 and the northwest extremities of site 4 (Holbrook No. 2 area) extended south and north of the main channel buoy line respectively. This would allow operations to be undertaken in close proximity and possibly restrict available sea room in the main channel for larger vessels which are constrained by their draft (COLREGS 28) and navigating within a narrow channel (COLREGS 9) and the harvesting vessels restricted in their ability to manoeuvre (COLREGS 3) or engaged in fishing operations (COLREGS 26) during times that the fisheries are active. The applicant may wish to consider replotting the positon of sites 3 & 4. HHA undertake sediment replenishment that involves dredging discharge across site 1 and sites 3 & 4. The implications of a dredger and mussel dredger operating in the same area was discussed with regards to COLREGS and give way vessel requirements. An agreed procedure for this operation is advised to de-conflict operations drawing from the requirements of Rule 8 of the COLREGS. Consideration should be given to reducing the site 1 area in order to clear the southern edges of the area out of the deeper part of northern edge of the main channel. Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 33

42 Annex A Direction of Tidal Streams Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright A-1

43 HW HW HW HW Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright A-2

44 HW HW HW HW Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright A-3

45 HW HW HW Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright A-4