2. Project Need and Alternatives

Transcription

1 2. Project Need and Alternatives Executive Summary: Chapter 2. Project Need and Alternatives ABP and the Port of Southampton The Port of Southampton is owned and operated by Associated British Ports (ABP). In , the Port handled approximately million tonnes of cargo making it the fourth largest port in the UK by tonnage. The Port is of national strategic importance to the UK and has a wide range of trades, most notably in the cruise, containers, oil/petro-chemicals and motor vehicles sectors. In addition to being the owner and operator of the Port of Southampton, ABP is the Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA), the Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) for the provision of pilotage services, the Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) Authority and Local Lighthouse Authority for Southampton. The Current Situation The existing channel inbound from Cowes to the Port is effectively a single capacity track for larger vessels with only two relatively short stretches where vessels can safely pass each other, namely between Town Quay and Dock Head, and between the ExxonMobil Marine Oil Terminal and Hamble. Once a large vessel has committed to entering Southampton Water there is no opportunity for the ship to stop or turn around. These restrictions cause significant constraints, resulting in delays to the movement of both inward and outward vessels of all types. Project Rationale Need In order to accommodate both existing and future vessels and to reduce delays and congestion, ABP proposes selectively to deepen and widen the main navigational channel to the Port. The rationale for this project need is fourfold: To improve the tidal access window to the Port from the current asymmetrical (longer flood, shorter ebb) 22% for a 14.5m draught Category 3 container vessel, to a balanced entry/exit window of 47% over all tides; and from approximately 12% to 37% for a 14.5m draught Category 4 container vessel. To increase the ability of vessels to pass in the approach channel to the Port by selectively widening the channel between Dock Head and Fawley; an area adjacent to the ExxonMobil Oil Terminal and between Hook and Hamble Spit; To enable the Port to handle larger vessels of up to 15.5m draught; and To further enhance navigational safety in the approaches to the Port. Project Description In summary ABP s proposed improvements to the approach channel to Southampton R/3742/8 4

2 comprise deepening the main navigational channel from the current minimum depth of -12.6m Chart Datum (CD) to -13.6m CD between the Port and Fawley and up to a minimum depth of 14.8m between Fawley and the Nab. In addition it is proposed to widen the channel by 30m adjacent to the Western Docks; by 100m between Dock Head and Fawley, as well as widening the channel between Hamble and Hook. A number of other smaller-scale improvements are proposed to improve the ability to turn vessels in the Port and to eliminate a small number of high spots in the Solent. Full details are provided in Para 2.19 of this chapter. ABP s proposal has been optimised to avoid the relocation of various pipelines that cross beneath Southampton Water as well as minimising the extent of the widening while maintaining high navigational standards and requirements. It is estimated that a total of 11.6m cubic metres in situ of material will be dredged as part of this proposal. Consideration of Alternatives Under the EIA Regulations, ABP is required to consider whether there exist alternative options to the current proposal. An alternative option, however, must still meet the identified need to increase the tidal access window to accommodate deeper-draughted and wider vessels, and improve the navigational safety of all vessels using the harbour area. Two A number of alternative options - as well as the zero option - have been identified: Do nothing this has been discounted on the basis that this would lead to commercial stagnation of the Port of Southampton, detrimentally affecting jobs and commerce in the local community. Increasingly, the Port would only be able to accommodate smaller, aging vessels leading to a rapid decline in the attractiveness of the Port. This is especially the case with respect to container traffic where new, deeper-draughted ships are now coming into service; and Dredging the North Channel (Brambles) whilst this would meet the needs case, this option has been discounted because it would result in a greater capital dredge requirement in this part of the channel than that currently proposed, with consequently greater environmental impacts. Relaying of the oil pipelines beneath Southampton Water whilst this would increase the navigational flexibility by creating a greater length of channel in which vessels could pass, and would also further increase the tidal access window for deeper draughted vessels, it has been excluded on the grounds of the cost of the pipeline works and the additional dredging as well as the potential for a greater environmental impact. Minimising the width of the proposed widening between Dock Head and Fawley Although guidance suggests that the total width of a two-way (passing channel) should be wider than the proposed 300m design, ABP has undertaken vessel simulation modelling and, taking into account existing management procedures and prevailing weather conditions, and concluded that a 300m wide channel is sufficient to meet the proposed need, thereby reducing the environmental impact. Widening adjacent to Fawley Marine Terminal the decision not to relay the pipelines which lie beneath Southampton Water results in a reduction in the widening of this part of the channel, thereby reducing the potential for environmental impact. R/3742/8 5

3 Variance in Depth Although deepening the channel by more than the proposed 1m in Southampton Water would be of benefit to deeper-draughted vessels, the increase in dredging costs would not result in a commercially viable project. Conversely, any reduction in the proposed depth would not meet the needs of the container lines in terms of flexibility of arrival or departure times. Widening the western side of the channel (Southampton Water) Following consultation with the Harbour Master, it was determined that widening of the eastern side of the channel would provide the greatest improvement for navigational safety. Widening the channel on its western side would result in a greater amount of dredging resulting in greater project costs and greater environmental potential impact. It could also be possible to widen the channel on both sides. Again, this would not be considered to be in the interests of navigational safety and is considered to require a greater amount of material to be dredged. Relocation of the Mayflower Cruise Terminal this option has been considered in relation to the Marchwood Widening element and concludes that there is no feasible alternative berth or port land able to accommodate the location of the facility Conclusion ABP has concluded that the proposed access channel improvements are required to enable the nationally important Port of Southampton to accommodate existing and future vessels, and to reduce delays and congestion in arriving and departing the Port. A failure to improve the marine access to the Port will directly jeopardise Southampton s current position as a premier global gateway for international trade with the rest of the world. The Port of Southampton 2.1 The Port of Southampton, owned and operated by Associated British Ports (ABP), is located at a strategic position on the central south coast of England in close proximity to the international shipping lanes and mainland Europe. In , the Port handled approximately million tonnes of cargo making it the fourth largest port in the UK by tonnage. HM Revenue and Customs statistics for 2006 show that 21% by value of all non-eu seaborne trade passed through Southampton, more than any other port in the UK. The Port is a premier global gateway for international trade and is of national strategic importance to the UK. 2.2 The Port of Southampton has a range of trades of national importance in the following trade sectors: Cruise: The Port is the North European capital for the cruise passenger industry, which continues to experience strong year on year growth. In 2011, there were over 1.2 million passenger mvements through the Port s four cruise terminals. In 2008, there were 288 cruise calls to the Port and in 2012, the number of cruise calls is scheduled to be 360, rising to an anticipated 440 in Cruise vessels are not constrained by their draught at the Port of Southampton. A record 960,000 international cruise passengers are expected to pass through the port in The Port has three dedicated cruise R/3742/8 6

4 terminals with a fourth terminal under construction during 2008 at a cost of 19 million. In 2008, there were 288 cruise ship calls scheduled to call at Southampton, a growth of 18% on the previous year. Both P&O Cruises and Cunard Line, part of the Carnival Group, base their UK fleets in Southampton. Royal Caribbean International, Fred Olsen Cruise Line, Saga Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line and Thomson Cruises also regularly use the Port. Containers: The DP World Southampton container terminal is the UK s second largest container terminal, handling approximately 40-45% of the UK s deep-sea trade with the important and rapidly expanding economies of the Far East and China..This has contributed to an average growth in container volumes of 9.9% per annum over the past 15 years. The Terminal handled 1.86 million container units (TEU) in 2007, an increase of 24% 1 on the previous year and anticipated future growth levels are predicted to be in excess of the predicted 4.1% per annum government statistics (DfT, 2007). In this context, it should also be noted that for the global container lines and alliances that use the Port, fuel represents a major part of their operating costs. A port of call at Southampton requires the minimum deviation from the main shipping channels through the English Channel, and thus the least time and lowest fuel cost for a UK port of call, by ships on the Europe/Far East liner services. This is a major consideration by the shipping lines in their choice to use Southampton as opposed to a different UK port or even dropping the UK from shipping routes altogether and relying on containers being transhipped to the UK from mainland Europe. Although the volume of trade has decreased since the onset of the recession in 2008, the volume of containers handled is in the region of 1.6 million TEU per annum. Notably, in recent years, the shipping lines in efforts to achive ever greater economies of scale, have introduced a new class of vessels (as predicted by ABP) which typically have the following dimensions: m length overall; 50+m beam; up to 15.5m draught when fully laden; and able to transport up to 13,500 TEU. These are referred to in Southampton as Category 4 vessels. Typically maximum draughts are rarely reached and the typical draught of vessel entering the Port is between m. The number of vessels has also decreased in recent years; reflecting a change in the shipping line alliances (consortia). The number of containers handled per vessel per port call, however, has increased demonstrating the achievement of economies of scale Oil/Petro-Chemicals: The ExxonMobil Marine Oil Terminal at Fawley is one of the busiest independent marine oil terminals in Europe. The Terminal, located at the southern end of Southampton Water, has nine berths over a mile long facility and accommodates some 2,000 vessel movements per annum. The refinery itself processes 22 million tonnes of cruse oil and other products representing 20% of the UK s refinery capacity. ( accessed 14 September 2012)., handling 28.7 million tonnes of crude oil and petrochemical products and refining approximately 14% of the UK s annual petroleum requirements (ExxonMobil website, 2008). The refinery is of national strategic importance and supplies fuel, via pipelines, to both Heathrow and Gatwick airports. The BP Hamble oil terminal also handles oil and refined products. Crude oil is received from Wytch Farm in Dorset via pipeline before being distributed globally by R/3742/8 7

5 seagoing tankers. Refined products are distributed onwards by road tanker, pipeline or vessel. Motor Vehicles: Southampton is the leading vehicle handling port in the UK with over 650,000 units handled annually, of which some two thirds are British built cars for export. The Port has three four separate multi-deck vehicle storage terminals, with plans for a fourth fifth facility, to optimise land usage. Southampton also acts as a European hub port for Roll On, Roll Off (Ro-Ro) shipping on both deep-sea and short sea routes. Other: Other major traffic flows handled at the Port include aggregates, agri-bulks, fresh produce, project cargo and local (Solent and Southampton Water) passenger ferry traffic. Southampton also handles large volumes of military traffic through the dedicated Marchwood Sea Mounting Centre. Associated British Ports 2.3 In addition to being the owner and operator of the Port of Southampton, ABP is the Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA), the Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) for the provision of pilotage services, the Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) Authority and Local Lighthouse Authority for Southampton. 2.4 ABP s statutory powers and duties, therefore, include: The discharge of its statutory duties of a Harbour Master; The safety of navigation and regulation of all vessel traffic including the provision of VTS services; The provision of pilotage services; The protection of flora and fauna; The conservancy of the harbour area including the provision of suitable navigational aids and the maintenance of obstruction free navigational channels; Responsibility for response to oil pollution incidents; and The regulation of dangerous goods in transit through the harbour area. Description of Harbour Area 2.5 The statutory harbour area of the Port of Southampton comprises the central Solent, Southampton Water and the Test and Itchen Estuaries. The Southampton VTS management activities and pilotage areas extend beyond the statutory harbour area, through the Eastern Solent, to the south of the Nab Tower and to the east of the Isle of Wight. The navigational approach channel used by commercial vessels to safely access the Port, extend from the Nab Channel to the east of the Isle of Wight, through the central Solent into the Thorn Channel and Southampton Water, extending as far as the most northerly berth of the container terminal in the Test Estuary, a distance of twenty-five nautical miles (nm). The jurisdiction of the harbour authority is illustrated in Figure 2.1. R/3742/8 8

6 2.6 Although these channels have historically provided a natural deep-water access to the Ports of Southampton and Portsmouth, they have over the years been improved periodically by capital dredging in response to the needs of commercial and naval shipping. The historic success of both these Ports is due in large part to the deep-water access, the sheltered nature of the approach channels and their proximity to the near continent and international shipping lanes. Development of Southampton Sea Trade 2.7 International shipping companies, including the cruise passenger, Ro-Ro, oil/petrochemical and container lines, are continually seeking to achieve economies of scale in the transportation of goods, particularly on the long distance deep-sea shipping routes. Their success has resulted in a reduction in real terms in the unit cost of delivering goods from many parts of the world, contributing to a reduction in the price of many consumer goods in the high street. This has been achieved in part, through the introduction of larger vessels with greater cargo carrying capacities. While the number of ships calling at Southampton has not risen significantly over the last ten years, the quantity of cargo or passengers carried by them has seen a significant increase. 2.8 The Port handles a wide range of vessels, varying in size. Table 2.1 describes the various categories of container vessel handled by the Port. Table 2.1 Vessel Categories using the Port of Southampton Category Length Overall (m) Beam (m) Gross Tonnage 1 (t) 1 <280 - <60, <45 >105,000 3 >351 >45 >105,000 4 >365 >45 >150, Container ships that typically carried 4,000 TEU 2 ten years ago, whereas now, they typically carry 9,000-10,000 up to 13,500 TEU, whilst passenger cruise vessels that choose to operate from Southampton now typically accommodate more than 3,000 passengers. The size of the of container vessels is presented in Table 2.2. Similarly, the capacity of deep-sea Ro-Ro vessels has increased from 4,000 to 8,000 vehicle units over the last decade. This trend of maximising vessel size is set to continue for all sectors. Table 2.2 Dimensions of new generation container vessels Shipping Line/ Vessel Class Length Overall (m) Beam (m) Maximum Draught (m) TEU (est) In Service Date Maersk Triple E , Maersk E ,700 Current CMA CGM ,800 Current Christoph Colomb CMA CGM ,000 Current 1 Gross tonnage is calcualted using the internal volume of a vessel and is used to calculate safety requirements and port dues. 2 I Industry standard terminology: TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit R/3742/8 9

7 Shipping Line/ Vessel Class Length Overall (m) Beam (m) Maximum Draught (m) TEU (est) In Service Date Marco Polo Hyundai >12,000 Current Hapag Lloyd ,100 Current 2.10 The UK is reliant on ports for the movement of 95% by volume of goods consumed or produced, more than any other country in Europe by both proportion and tonnage (Department for Transport website 2008). The Eddington Transport Study published in 2006 noted that 28% of the UK s national income is traded by sea and the UK economy is becoming increasingly reliant on those deep-sea ports that can serve the rapidly expanding economies of the Far East (DfT, 2006) Shipping lines visiting the Port of Southampton are increasingly utilising larger vessels, such that Southampton currently handles the largest vessels of each category in the world on a regular basis. However, as the proportion of large vessels has increased (relative to the total number of vessels using the Port), access to the Port, which is dependent on suitable tidal conditions, has become increasingly constrained. An increase in the number of deepdraughted, wider vessels has impacted on the availability of water with sufficient depth or width to enable vessels to navigate to, from and within the Port, without causing extended delays to commercial traffic and impacting upon efficient berth utilisation and congestion. Current Situation 2.12 The existing channel inbound from Cowes is effectively a single capacity track for larger vessels with only two relatively short stretches where vessels can safely pass each other (Figure 2.1). These are: Between Town Quay and Dock Head; and The Natural Deep between the ExxonMobil Marine Oil Terminal and Hamble Once a large vessel has committed to entering Southampton Water (Thorn Channel) there is no opportunity for the ship to stop or turn around. Channel efficiency is governed by the length of time it takes (approximately 3 hours) to transit the navigational approach channel from the entrance to the Nab channel to a berth at the Port ABP undertake biannual maintenance dredge campaigns in Southampton Water, one in spring and the other in autumn (Paras 8.73 to 8.75). The existing maintained channel depths between entry to the Eastern Solent and the berths in the upper reaches of Southampton Docks provide an equivalent averaged entry/exit time window of 22% for ships with a draught of 14.5 metres. In other words, on average, a ship of 14.5m draught can enter or leave the Port for 22% of the time over a tide, assuming no other draught constrained ships are arriving or departing the Port, and this occurs around high water periods. Furthermore, the 22% tidal access window is asymmetrical, being greater for arriving vessels than for departing vessels, which reduces the ability for ABP to balance efficiently the arrival and departure of vessels The latest generation of container vessels, referred to by ABP as Category 4 vessels are described as those container vessels whose beam is greater than 45m and having a gross R/3742/8 10

8 tonnage greater than 150,000t. The practical implication of these dimensions is that the vessels require an increase in the Under Keel Clearance (UKC) when in transit within certain parts of the Port limits. UKCs for Category 1-3 and Category 4 vessels are presented in Table 2.3. Because of the increase in UKC requirement, the current access window for a Category 4 vessel at a draught of 14.5m is reduced to 12% of the tidal window. Table 2.3 Under Keel Clearances for Category 1-3, 4 vessels Location Category 1-3 (m) Category 4 (m) Western Docks 1.2 (10%) 1.5 Thorn Channel Nab Channel All classes of cargo vessel have increased in size in recent years. Table 2.4 indicates the typical size of each class of vessel visiting the Port of Southampton on a regular basis. Table 2.4 Details of typical vessels visiting the Port of Southampton Cargo Type Name of Vessel Length Overall (m) Beam (m) Maximum Draught (m) Gross Tonnage (t) Container CMA CGM ,000 Christoph Colomb Ro-Ro Wallenius ,000 Taiko Cruise Royal Carribean ,000 Independence of the Seas Tanker Front Cecilie , The management and supervision of passing vessel movements is strictly controlled by Southampton VTS and is subject to critical time management by the Vessel Traffic Service Officers (VTSOs) in coordination with the marine pilots on board the vessels. The restrictions on vessel passing cause significant constraints, resulting in delays to the movement of both inward and outward vessels of all types. By way of example, during 2008 there were 26 days when three or more cruise vessels berthed on the same day at Southampton. This increased to over 40 in The nature of the cruise trade demands that all three vessels require a similar morning arrival and afternoon departure, during which time the channel will effectively be blocked to the movement of other vessels for several hours. Such constraints and delays hinder operational and commercial efficiencies to ship owners and unless addressed they will look to other UK and Continental ports to accommodate their vessels. Project Rationale Need 2.18 In order to accommodate both existing and future vessels and to reduce delays and congestion, ABP is proposing to selectively deepen and widen the main navigational channel. Figure 1.1 illustrates the proposed areas of capital dredging. R/3742/8 11

9 2.19 The rationale need for the proposed channel dredge is fourfold, providing a number of benefits to users of the navigation channel: (1) Improve Southampton s Tidal Access Window An analysis of the vessel access window has been undertaken by Eagle Lyon Pope, Port and Marine Consultants on behalf of ABP, taking account of vessel draughts both using and likely to use the Port of Southampton in the near future, as well as the unique tidal characteristics of the estuary, vessel speeds, existing controlling depths at strategic locations along the vessel s path and required under keel clearance between the Nab Channel and container terminal. Further information on this analysis is given in the Commercial Navigation Chapter (Chapter 16). Based on the findings of the ELP studies, the Port of Southampton has concluded that there is a commercial need to increase the access window for existing and new vessels in order to maintain and secure future trade and continued safety. For a vessel with a draught of 14.5 metres, the access window will be increased from the current asymmetrical 22%, to a balanced entry/exit window of 47% over all tides. Improving navigational access by increasing the tidal acceptance window, particularly for deepdraughted vessels, will reduce the competition for movement over high water periods and hence reduce congestion in the approaches to the Port. Similarly, the access window for a Category 4 vessel operating at a draught of 14.5m will be increased from 12% to 37% of the tidal window. (2) Increase the Ability of Vessels to Pass in the Channel The increasing size of ships of all types, including cruise ships and container ships, has placed a greater demand on the existing passing places at Dock Head and Fawley. Widening the channel at the following selective locations will provide a number of significant benefits to vessel navigation, which will reduce current delays and costs to shipping: Weston Shelf (Dock Head) to Fawley: Widening of this straight section of the channel to full depth will significantly extend the length of channel in which vessels are able to pass. This will both facilitate the two-way flow of traffic and reduce the number of vessels having to pass adjacent to the Fawley refinery berths, thus reducing risks associated with hydrodynamic interaction in this area. The proposed passing channel will reduce delays and congestion to the customers of the Port, increasing the capacity and efficiency to handle an increasing proportion of larger cargo vessels, and thus, improving the competitiveness of the Port, whilst at the same time, reducing risks associated with navigation at certain locations to all other users of the estuary. Area Adjacent to ExxonMobil Marine Oil Terminal Berth No. 1 at Fawley: A change in the alignment of the Fawley Channel will improve navigation, passing of ships and ease access to upstream berths. Natural Deep (Hook to Hamble Spit): R/3742/8 12

10 Widening of the Natural Deep will extend the vessel passing benefits of the alignment of the Fawley Channel described above by improving the alignment of inbound vessels prior to entering the Fawley Reach. (3) Enabling the Port to Handle Larger Vessels The proposed changes to the channel design will increase the ability of the Port to accommodate the 24-hour nature requirements of international shipping companies with their larger cargo and passenger carrying capacity vessels. This will reduce the costs resulting from delay and congestion, and increase the efficiency and competitiveness of the Port and its customers. The proposed channel dredge will also enable the B-MAX (Baltic Max) tankers to come fully laden from the Baltic region to the ExxonMobil Marine Oil Terminal and, therefore, achieve improved economies of scale. The Stena B-MAX vessel has been specifically designed to operate within the depth of water in the Baltic whilst being able to accommodate between 60-80% more cargo carrying capacity than previously achievable on a vessel from this region ( accessed 14 September 2012). (4) Navigational Safety Maintaining and enhancing navigational safety generally, including the following channel modifications: Western Docks (Marchwood Area): Widening of this part of the channel will increase the ease with which large container vessels can initiate their swing on approach and entry to the upper swinging ground and, hence, improve the safety margin. The increased passing distance from Mayflower Cruise Terminal at 106 Berth will also reduce the risks of hydrodynamic interaction with moored cruise vessels and remove the need to consider placing restrictions on the use of the Mayflower Cruise Terminal or on the movement of Category 4 container vessels. Middle Swinging Ground (Marchwood opposite Berth 101): Extension of the Middle Swinging Ground will enable large cruise vessels to swing off the City Cruise Terminal at 101 Berth as opposed to the Upper Swinging Ground. The navigation simulation study indicates that this widening will permit larger cruise vessels to turn in the Middle Swinging Ground, creating a second area where such vessels can swing and reducing the time that a turning cruise vessel effectively blocks the channel by up to 40 minutes. Natural Deep (Hook to Hamble Spit): Widening of the Natural Deep will improve navigational safety by improving the alignment of inbound vessels and reducing course alteration. Further information on navigational safety is provided in the Commercial Navigation Chapter (Chapter 16). R/3742/8 13

11 2.20 Overall, this targeted package of channel improvements will provide an effective compromise between cost, benefits and environmental impact and will enable the Port of Southampton to compare favourably in terms of access with other North European ports and proposed or existing UK developments at London Gateway and Felixstowe. The proposal will also facilitate safe and efficient transits of large container, oil tanker, cruise and Ro-Ro vessels in Southampton Water and enable the Port to remain a competitive strategic trading gateway to the UK. Aspects which Influenced Channel Design 2.21 ABP considered a number of possible channel design options before selecting the preferred scheme: Re-Laying of Pipelines Beneath Southampton Water In the EIA scoping document submitted to the Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) in July 2007, ABP was considering whether the re-laying of the pipelines, which cross beneath Southampton Water between the ExxonMobil Marine Oil Terminal at Fawley and BP Hamble in order to facilitate the capital dredge, was necessary. After a review of the benefits to the proposed tidal access window, which were forecast to be 55% for a 14.5m draught vessel with a fully dredged channel over the pipelines, against the costs and environmental impacts of undertaking the pipeline relocation, ABP has decided not to pursue this element of the proposal. The scope of the dredging works has, therefore, been amended to exclude any dredging (deepening or widening) within 150m of the pipeline crossing. The tidal access window achieved without re-laying the pipelines will be 47%, which is considered sufficient to reach the target need of improving navigational access, particularly for deep-draughted vessels, and reducing congestion (Para 2.16). ABP may revisit the requirement to relay the pipelines should there be, at some time in the future, a commercial need to achieve a greater tidal access window, although this would be pursued under a separate application. By removing the re-laying of the pipelines from the original scope of the proposal, the environmental impact of the scheme on the surrounding area and overall cost has been reduced, whilst ensuring continued safe navigation. Minimising Width of the Fawley to Dock Head Widening According to the design standards outlined in the PIANC guidance (1997) it is very conservatively suggested that the width of a two-way navigational channel designed for large commercial vessels should be approximately 480m. Having taking account of channel alignment, vessel simulation modelling, prevailing weather conditions and the management procedures in place within Southampton Water, the proposed channel width has been reduced to 300m. Minimising the widening to meet the need achieves a balance between costs, benefits and environmental impacts, whilst still maintaining the high navigational standards and requirements. R/3742/8 14

12 Widening Adjacent to ExxonMobil Marine Oil Terminal Berth No. 1 at Fawley The decision by ABP not to pursue the re-laying of the pipelines beneath Southampton Water means that an area of proposed widening and deepening off the ExxonMobil Marine Oil Terminal is reduced required. Variance in Depth Although a further increase in depth would improve the tidal access beyond that of the balanced arrival and departure equivalent window of 47% for a 14.5m draught vessel, given the number of vessels able to take advantage of such depth at this time, the increase in costs would not result in a commercially viable proposal. Conversely, any reduction in depth below that proposed would not meet the needs of the Port or its customers in allowing some flexibility in arrival and departure times and scheduling of vessels. Widening the Western Side of the Channel ABP considered the possibility of widening the channel nearest to the Hythe to Cadland Marshes as an alternative to the current proposal. Following consultation with the Harbour Master s department, however, it was agreed that greater improvements on navigational access and safety would be achieved by widening the eastern side of the channel than the western side of the current channel. Furthermore, widening the channel on the western side to achieve the same tidal access window would require more material to be dredged over a wider area which would increase the programme time. In addition it was considered that the shallower slopes extending to the intertidal may result in sediment loss from the foreshore, which has a potential to have a negative effect on the intertidal habitats, particularly the saltmarsh. Project Description 2.22 The proposed scheme involves optimising the channel design at the following locations in Southampton Water and the Solent (Figures 2.2a -g): Deepening the main navigation channel between Berth 207 and Fawley from the current depth of -12.6m to -13.6m Chart Datum (CD); Widening at the Western Docks by 30m and deepening to the proposed full channel depth of -13.6mCD; Extending the Middle Swinging Ground and deepening to less than the proposed full channel depth, -7.0m to 10.2mCD, for use by cruise ships; Widening between Dock Head and Fawley by 100m and deepening to the proposed full channel depth of -13.6mCD, with an exclusion of 150m either side of the pipeline; Widening of the Fawley Channel off the ExxonMobil Berth No. 1 from -11.2mCD to the proposed full channel depth of -13.6mCD; Widening the Natural Deep between Hamble Spit and Hook Buoy to the proposed full channel depth of -13.8mCD; Deepening the Thorn Channel between Calshot and Bramble Turn, from current depths of between -12.6mCD and -17mCD to a minimum of -13.8mCD; Eliminating a small number of high spots in the Solent between the Thorn and Nab Channels to give a minimum depth of -15.0mCD; R/3742/8 15

13 Deepening the Nab Channel from current depths of between -13.3m and -16.0mCD to a minimum of -14.8mCD; and Eliminating two chalk high spots at the entrance to the Nab Channel to a minimum depth of -14.8mCD For the purpose of this assessment, the extent of the dredging works has been divided into the following five zones (Figure 2.3), based on a combination of dredge design requirements, differences in tidal flow environment and the geotechnical characteristics of the material to be dredged: Zone 1: Zone 2: Zone 3: Zone 4: Zone 5: Berth 207 to Dock Head; Dock Head to Fawley; Fawley to Thorn Channel; Thorn Channel, and The Nab Channel It should be noted that a small number of high spots in the central Solent will also be removed as well as two high spots at the southern entrance of the marked Nab Channel Within these zones, a number of sub areas exist, defined by the different material types to be dredged, as well as the reasons noted above. Table 2.1 identifies the existing and proposed channel depths, providing an indication of the maximum depth of dredging required, and the volumes of material to be dredged from each zone and sub area. The calculations of volume are based on the complete bathymetric dataset up until September 2007 (Appendix C) and incorporate a maximum potential overdredge of 0.3m (dredger tolerance is ±0.3m). Overdredging is standard practice by dredge contractors in order to allow for dredger tolerance and to give some allowance for sedimentation between maintenance dredge campaigns. Taking account of overdredging, the total volume of material, assuming all areas will be dredged in the final design, equates to around 11.6 million m 3 in situ. Table 2.1 Existing channel depths, proposed capital dredge depths and volumes (see Figure 2.3 for zones and sub areas) Zone 1. Berth 207 to Dock Head Sub Area A1. Container Terminal and Upper Swinging Ground A2. Western Docks B. Junction Channel and Lower Swinging Ground Existing Channel Depth (m CD) Proposed Channel Depth (m CD) Capital Dredge Volume (m 3 in situ) ,300 minimum -0.1 (105/106 widening) -7.0 (Marchwood turning area) (channel) (Marchwood turning area) 1,043, ,100 R/3742/8 16

14 Zone 2. Dock Head to Fawley Sub Area C. North Section D. South Section Existing Channel Depth (m CD) minimum -4.0 (widening) minimum -6.5 (widening) Proposed Channel Depth (m CD) Capital Dredge Volume (m 3 in situ) ,266, ,683,400 E. Existing Fawley Dredged Area , Fawley to F. Natural Deep Calshot Turn and Hook to minimum -6.5 Hamble Spit (widening) Widening , Thorn Channel G. Thorn ,550, Nab Channel H. Nab Channel ,032,000 Additional areas include small patches between Nab Channel End and West Bramble, totalling about 129,300m 3 in situ. The volumes provided include allowance for 0.3m of overdredge. Dredge tolerance is ±0.3m. Consideration of Alternatives 2.26 The EIA process requires the developer to consider alternatives to the proposed scheme, namely alternatives which will be able to meet the identified need, to increase the tidal window to accommodate deeper-draughted and wider vessels, and improve the navigational safety of all vessels using the harbour area, as well as consideration of the implications of not going ahead with the proposal i.e. do nothing. Consideration of alternative ports does not address the need case identified for Southampton as described in paragraphs Consideration of alternatives locations is in effect, therefore, the zero option described in paragraph Para 2.18 describes the range of options that were considered before reaching the proposed channel design. The following sections describe the alternative options that were available to ABP. Do nothing (Zero Option) 2.27 One option would be to maintain the status quo. It is anticipated, however, that the global trend in ship design, in order to improve economies of scale in fuel management and cargo, or passenger, carrying capabilities, will continue. This trend manifests itself in deeper-draughted and wider vessels for all segments of the international shipping economy. Ports that cannot adapt to accommodate these new generations of vessels will cease to be a commercially costeffective port of call and will eventually lead to a decline in the appeal of that port, leading to services being diverted, possibly away from the UK market. Ultimately, this course of action would lead to higher unit costs of goods for UK consumers Doing nothing at Southampton would lead to commercial stagnation, particularly with respect to container traffic, detrimentally affecting jobs and commerce in the local community. Increasingly, the Port would only be able to accommodate the smaller aging vessels, with less efficient propulsion systems and generally greater emissions than newer vessels, thus reducing the environmental quality of the Port and city. Furthermore, given the importance of the Port of R/3742/8 17

15 Southampton to the UK economy in attracting Far Eastern and global shipping lines, doing nothing would not only result in the Port rapidly declining but also result in the potential for shipping lines to cut the UK out of their port of call service, with subsequent implications at a national level If the zero option were to prevail then the Port of Southampton is highly unlikely to retain its role as an international gateway port of significant global and economic importance. If vessels cannot access their berths or pass safely within the Port, the Harbour Master is likely to have to consider the imposition of restrictions on the movements of vessels or on the use of berths or terminals. It is already the case that specific arrangements have had to be made to secure particular vessel movements and timings, e.g. delaying arrival times for container vessels / deaparture times for cruise vessels and relocating cruise calls. Whilst such arrangements may be technically feasible on an occasional basis, they are not sustainable on a longer term basis 2.30 The imposition of restrictions on vessel or customer activities will make the Port less attractive as a choice port to both existing customers and to new customers considering use of the port (or indeed the UK). If the proposed SACD is not undertaken, the commercial reality is that customers will seek an alternative port where no such restrictions apply. It follows, therefore, that if the Port cannot adapt to the requirements of its customers, who are operating within the global market place, and cannot provide the required levels of service, it will cease to be a commercially cost effective port of call As commented upon above, the zero option would ultimately lead to the decline of the Port of Southampton. Subsequent loss of trade and the consequent loss of revenue would have a rapid effect on direct and indirect employment levels in the local and regional economy. It follows that if permission to undertake the SACD project was not granted, the the potential for future private investment in the marine and transport sector would be significantly reduced; with ABP and other port-related customers (such as terminal operators, rail freight operators, transport companies and the general marine supplies sector) discontinuing private financial investment in the Port and its locality a key requisite and commercial imperatice for the local economy. [ABP alone has planned provision for approximately 150 million of funding in the Port infrastructure in the next few years, subject to the necessary consents and permissions.] Relocation of Mayflower Cruise Terminal 2.32 As outlined in paragraph 2.19(4), the proposed channel modifications at Marchwood (the Marchwood Widening) are required to improve the navigational safety of vessels manouvering in the Western Docks. Consideration has been given, since the submission of the original Environmental Statement in 2008, to the option of changes to the land side infrastructure which might assist in avoiding the current problems relating to marine access in the Western Docks which are now been experienced by cruise and container vessels The only realistic option would be the relocation within the current port estate of Mayflower Terminal. Although it is the case that this option would have the immediate effect of reducing the potential for navigational incidents, it has nevertheless been discounted for a number of reasons. First, as even a cursory examination of a plan of the port estate illustrates, there are in fact no other opportunities to provide sufficient berth space (approximately 400m with safety margins) within the Port which would have available depth of water together with a sufficient R/3742/8 18

16 land footprint adjacent to the quayside, without significantly compromising other existing trade or current development proposals. Dredging of the North Channel (Brambles) 2.34 Dredging of the so-called north channel to avoid the Thorn Channel and the area off Cowes was also considered. Undertaking a capital dredge to meet the required needs case would, however, result in a greater capital dredge requirement in this part of the channel than that currently proposed. Such a proposal would undoubtedly increase the navigational safety for large commercial vessels and improve the ability of the Port to accommodate such vessels over a greater tidal window. Furthermore, the environmental impacts would be more significant, given the larger amount of dredging proposed in previously undredged areas. R/3742/8 19