Appendix A Scoping and Consultation

Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Southampton Approach Channel Dredge

Appendices

R/3742/8 A.1 R.1464

Appendix A. Scoping and Consultation A1. Scoping Study The scoping stage of an EIA is an important process that is undertaken to identify the potential environmental issues associated with a proposed development and to determine the scope of work required for the subsequent stages of the EIA process. The findings of the scoping study for the proposed Southampton Approach Channel Dredge were presented within a report and sent to the MFA, who then circulated it to relevant stakeholders and interested parties to help inform their formal Scoping Opinion. At the same time, the report was advertised on the ABP website (http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/pinfo/ChannelScopeRpt.htm) to allow the general public to have the opportunity to comment on the proposals. To understand the key issues associated with the proposed project and develop the scope of works, initial views were sought through preliminary consultations with stakeholders and interested parties. An initial Scoping Workshop with stakeholders and interested parties was held by ABP on 18 January 2007 to discuss the future options for larger scale developments in Southampton Water and the Solent and the key environmental issues that may need to be considered. The scoping report was prepared based on the views expressed during the initial Scoping Workshop and a scientific understanding that had been developed from previous similar projects. The scoping report was sent to MFA on 23 July 2007 who circulated it to the relevant stakeholders for comment. The resultant Scoping Opinion was received from the MFA on 10 January 2008 and is included at the end of this Appendix. Additional comments from organisations that had not been consulted by MFA were sought to ensure all the issues would be addressed in this ES. The key issues that were identified during the Scoping Study are set out in Table A.1. A summary of the additional issues raised by consultees in their response to the scoping report is presented in Table A.2. Both tables refer to the relevant chapter(s) in the ES where these issues have been addressed.

Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Southampton Approach Channel Dredge

Appendices

R/3742/8 A.2 R.1464

Table A.1. Summary of work to be undertaken as part of the EIA process

Process Tasks Chapter(s) in ES

Project Description and Commercial Rationale

Outputs from technical design of the channel and details of capital/maintenance dredge volumes and material types. A navigational risk/ ship manoeuvring study and details of commercial vessel movements as a result of the channel access works. Preparation of clear methods to minimise the dispersal of suspended sediment during operations. Review commercial rationale for the project, including an evaluation of the socio-economic benefits/impacts to meet appraisal framework for port developments.

3 16

3, 21 2, 5

Consideration of Needs and Alternatives

Further details of commercial benefits in a regional and national context in order to understand the commercial alternatives and clarify the economic rationale of the proposal. Identify options for disposal/alternative use of dredge arisings.

2 3

Legal Framework and Planning Policy

Consideration of legal frameworks within which the EIA is to be undertaken. A review of the project objectives and its impacts in the context of relevant legislation and non-statutory planning policy and strategic guidance.

4 5

Physical Processes

Interpret detailed geophysical and geotechnical information at the proposed deepening areas to inform the design, dredge, transport, disposal/use method and assessment. Preparation of a conceptual review of the baseline physical conditions within the Southampton Water and Solent, in the context of climate change and sea level rise. Identify the need and specification for detailed numerical modelling studies. Predict the on-going requirements for maintenance dredging and disposal. Consultation with statutory authorities/developers to discuss potential options for alternative uses of the dredge arisings. Local impacts of dredging in context of river and estuary regime.

3 8 8

3, 8 3 8

Water and Sediment Quality

Review water/sediment quality at the areas proposed for channel deepening and disposal/use, as well as any adjacent areas that could be indirectly affected. Geotechnical site survey to identify sediment contamination at zones of impact where there is no existing data, and assess the volume of capital dredge arisings that can be disposed of. Review sediment dispersion characteristics during dredging and disposal/use, or from changes in water flows following deepening.

9, 10 9 8

Nature Conservation

Review of the baseline seabed habitat characteristics and bird foraging/roosting patterns in areas at risk of direct or potential indirect impacts. A baseline survey of the footprint of the works. A benthic invertebrate survey where there is no previous data for the deepening areas and areas for disposal/use, which have not recently been used for such purposes. Evaluate potential ship-wash effects on intertidal habitats, in the context of existing shipping movements. Using the physical processes results, assess the impacts to habitats directly and indirectly affected and consider in the context of existing statutory and non-statutory protection levels.

11, 13 11 11

11, 16 11

Fish and Fisheries Consultation with the Sea Fisheries Committee, Environment Agency and local angling groups to establish importance of areas proposed for deepening works and disposal/use. Assessment of existing levels (frequency and duration) of vessel navigation on commercial fishing activities at the proposed dredging areas. Assess the potential effects of the scheme on fish populations via habitat alteration and/or prey availability changes using predictions of direct/indirect seabed impacts.

12,14 14

12,14

Commercial and Recreational Navigation

An assessment of capital and maintenance dredging commitments (time and frequency) based on the results of the physical processes work. Construction and operational activities and vessel movements will be accommodated into existing vessel management measures, with some possible traffic modelling. An assessment of whether the morphological changes arising from sediment disposal could affect existing navigation routes and commercial /recreational activities.

8, 17 16, 17 16, 17

Marine Archaeology Desk review involving reference to mapping records (SMR, NMR and wreck information), as well as consultation with English Heritage and the county archaeological officer. 18

Coast Protection and Flood Defence

Review the effects of the deepening works on existing defences of the estuary and coast using information provided by the physical processes assessment. Consider results of the physical processes work in the context of existing shoreline management strategies and understanding the coastal protection levels. Identify alternative use locations where arisings could be used to enhance coastal protection levels. Assess the standard of flood defences at the landfall locations and develop any necessary design features to maintain the integrity of the defences.

15 15 3 15

Noise, Vibration and Disturbance Assess effects of any noise, vibration and disturbance on migratory fish and birds, and consider options for the practical timing of deepening. 12, 13

Consultation With key stakeholders and interested parties (relevant to key issues above) during the early stages of the assessment process, including those with other developments in the planning process. 7

In-combination and Cumulative Effects

A review of the extant projects, plans and proposals in the estuary, which could have cumulative effects in-combination with the proposed scheme. The in-combination effects with other dredging and disposal/use operations will need to be addressed.

20 20

Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Southampton Approach Channel Dredge

Appendices

R/3742/8 A.3 R.1464

Table A.2. Summary of consultation responses received in response to the scoping report

Organisation Summary of Comments Chapter(s) in ES

Marine and Fisheries Agency

The impact of the works on local fisheries and other legitimate users of the water, both commercial and private should be considered. Consideration of the classified shellfish harvesting beds in the vicinity of the works must be included.

14 14, 10

Eastleigh Borough Council

The possible indirect loss of SPA habitat through ‘slippage’ of subtidal and intertidal habitats into a widened and deepened channel should be investigated and modelled. Changes to subtidal and intertidal levels and the effect they may have on erosion rates of the soft cliffs around Netley should be investigated and modelled. The indirect effect of increasing the need for sea defences to protect areas of the coast should also be assessed and modelled in relation to the interest features of the international and

national designations, and non-statutory sites e.g. Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). Any SINCs or existing/proposed BAP habitats, which may be indirectly or directly affected should be identified and surveyed to NVC levels. The actions for the Solent Coast & Hamble Estuary Priority Area identified in the Eastleigh Borough Council BAP should be referred to. Consideration should be given to mitigation or compensation for any beach lowering in order to maintain the size of the SPA and protect adjacent properties. Information on noise impacts and a Noise Management Plan to identify impacts, their management and reduction should be included.

8, 11 8 15

6, 11

6 8, 11

18 Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

In the event of new pipelines being laid, possible hydrotesting and/or disposal of hydrotest fluids should be addressed. Address the need for post development monitoring.

N/A 21

Assistant Queen’s Harbour Master, HM Naval Base Portsmouth

Satisfied with the content of the Scoping Report and have no further comments to make. QHM consider that these works on their own, or in-combination with other plans and projects will not have any significant effect on the integrity of any local Natural 2000 conservation sites

within the Dockyard Port of Portsmouth

- 20

Cowes Harbour Master The cumulative effects/in-combination assessment should include the Cowes Outer Harbour Project. 20

Hamble Harbour Authority

An Appropriate Assessment should be carried out. Concern over the impact on the European sites at, and inside of, the Hamble Spit, particularly with regards to changes to the erosion and sedimentation regime. Concerns with impacts on navigation and costs associated with possible changes to navigation marks as a result of migration of the main channel.

Appendix D 8, 11

16

Environment Agency

Further consideration to be given to the release of bacteria and other contaminants from disturbed material, particularly in relation to: - Compliance with Shellfish Waters Directive (79/923/EEC) standards for dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, metals and other contaminants. - Shellfish Hygiene Directive (91/492/EEC), whereby sediment disturbance should be kept to a minimum. - Risk to designated Bathing Beaches from release of bacteria in sediment.

Potential for works to affect the mobile bird features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA /Ramsar site and Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA and Ramsar site should be assessed. Consideration of direct and indirect impacts on habitats and species to include areas where changes in physical and hydrodynamic processes are predicted. Baseline data should include all habitats and species directly or indirectly affected by the proposed development. Utilisation of New Forest Rivers by migratory fish should be mentioned. Potential areas of shellfish smothering by sediment mobilisation should be informed by numerical modelling. Potential effect of reduced dissolved oxygen levels on shellfish should be considered. Compounding effects of several impacts acting together (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen, water quality and noise) should be considered, with respect to potential impacts to fisheries

interests. Reference should be made to thresholds and standards used during the Dibden Bay Public Inquiry and justification provided if standards are altered. Consideration into monitoring of salmon movements within Southampton Water is recommended. Consideration into monitoring noise levels generated from appropriate vessels and different types of dredging plant used during construction and operation are strongly recommended. A systematic approach that accounts for all European site features and all potential sources of development-related impact is recommended for providing Appropriate Assessment

information.

10

13 11-13 11-13

12 11 11 12

21 -

Appendix H Appendix D

Natural England Provide detail with regard to the need for the operating window, which is being sought. Justification for the specified dredging requirements to support the tidal access window. Describe the chosen methodology for lowering/replacement of the pipelines across Southampton Water. Provide detail on the options for disposal or beneficial use of dredged material.

2 2

N/A 3

Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Southampton Approach Channel Dredge

Appendices

R/3742/8 A.4 R.1464

Organisation Summary of Comments Chapter(s) in ES

The projected increases in vessel traffic that the proposals will enable should be addressed. A consideration of ‘alternatives’ should be considered. Indirect consequences of a greater number of bigger ships using the channel over a greater tidal window and closer to the shore should be considered in relation to the features of the

Solent European Marine Site. Consider impacts from any further development that might be required as a result of the proposals e.g. improving or building new defences. Changes in tidal propagation and therefore the degree of tidal exposure experienced on existing intertidal habitats should be quantified and future sea level rise taken account of. Changes to pollution risk associated with the lowering and replacement of the oil pipelines. UK BAP priority habitats and species potentially affected by the proposals should be considered in the ES. An Appropriate Assessment is required in accordance with Regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. Potential for works to affect the mobile bird features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA /Ramsar site and Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar site should be assessed. The potential effect on the migratory Atlantic salmon feature of the River Itchen SAC should be examined. Consider the potential impacts from each of the impact pathways on a feature-by-feature basis. Consider ways to avoid or minimise environmental impacts, mitigate or even, if necessary, compensate for any residual effects. In-combination effects with other plans and projects should be considered, including consultation with competent authorities to identify any relevant additional plans and projects. Consideration should be given as to whether the provisions of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 covering permitted development apply to

any aspects of the proposals in addition to the need for planning permission covering lowering/replacement of the pipelines.

2, 16 2

11, 16

N/A 11 N/A

6, 11 Appendix D

13 12

Appendix D 21 20 4

New Forest District Council The effect on the integrity of the nature conservation designations should be included. Appendix D

Calshot Oyster Fishermen

EIA information should included the following: - Impact on water quality and conditions. - Noise and vibration impacts. - The effects of elevated suspended sediment concentrations and potential smothering of the shellfish beds.

10

12,18 11,14

Department for Transport No comments to make on the proposal. - The Crown Estate The Crown Estate consent is required as landowner. 4

Hampshire & Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology

Needs to conform to general advice provided from Heritage Agencies and guidance within the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee ‘Code of Practice for Seabed Development’ (2006).

Survey work to ensure adequate assessment is recommended. Recommend consulting qualified maritime archaeologists prior to undertaking geophysical and geotechnical surveys to ensure the data collected are suitable for archaeological purposes.

19

19 19

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Robust studies of ship-wash should be identified and used to inform the understanding of impacts. Further information on new bird surveys being undertaken as part of EIA.

16 3

Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Widening and deepening of the approach channel in the context of allowing larger ships to enter the Port should be described. Users of the navigation channel that will benefit from the widening and deepening should be considered, including the potential change in the movements of ships using the Port. Methodology for lowering the pipeline needs to be identified to address potential impacts. Options for the disposal of the dredge arisings should be detailed. Details of how the new channel will be maintained after initial deepening and widening should be presented. Anticipated timescales of the works should be presented. Toxicity of the dredged material needs to be assessed. Potential risk of traffic collisions needs to be considered. The potential for oil pollution when altering the oil pipeline would need to be considered. Further understanding of the impacts that re-mobilising the sediments will have on the designated sites. Impact of changes in suspended sediment levels on marine habitats and species should be considered. Changes to the patterns of erosion and deposition of materials on soft shores as a result of the dredge should be assessed. The impacts of increased movements of ships need to be considered. The effects of ship-wash on intertidal habitats should be considered.

2, 16 2, 16 N/A 3

3, 8 3 9 16 N/A

8, 11 8, 11-13

8 16 16

Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Southampton Approach Channel Dredge

Appendices

R/3742/8 A.5 R.1464

Organisation Summary of Comments Chapter(s) in ES

The potential impacts of ship-wash from new propulsion systems should be considered. The impacts on important seagrass habitats as a result of suspended sediment settlement need to be addressed. Consider the impact on fish stock as a result of changes to seabed and invertebrate communities. The impacts on shellfish should be assessed in the context of existing fishing activities. The baseline seabed habitats of the Rivers Test, Itchen and Hamble should be reviewed. Assess any proposals arising from coastal defence strategies and Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) in-combination with the channel dredge. Include any works around the Isle of Wight that may have implications for the in-combination assessment. Consider viable alternatives. Impacts on the lower Test, Itchen and Hamble Rivers will need to be considered. Isle of Wight Council should be informed and consulted on these proposals.

16 11 12 14 11 20 20 2 8

Appendix A

New Forest National Park Authority

The sustainability of the development should be addressed. The cumulative and in-combination effects from the works, including the need for maintenance dredging, should be included in the ES. Waste management should be addressed within the assessment. Details of the landfall worksites should be included in the ES. Details of any changes to traffic on A326 should be included in the ES. The effects of erosion on the shoreline, either from altered profiles of the channel bed or ship wash, should be assessed.

5 21 7

N/A N/A

8, 16

Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Southampton Approach Channel Dredge

Appendices

R/3742/8 A.6 R.1464

A2. EIA Consultations Throughout the EIA process, consultation has been maintained with stakeholders and interested parties through workshops, meetings, letters, email and telephone calls to address particular issues of concern and obtain baseline information of the area. A list of the organisations that have been approached is shown in Table A.3. Table A.3. List of organisations contacted in association with the EIA

Organisation/ Consultee Contact Name(s) ABP Harbour Master, Southampton Captain Philip Holliday Ashlett Sailing Club Phillip Hookham BP Oil (UK) Ltd Jim Frances British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Mark Collier The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) Daniel Bastreri Calshot Oyster Fishermen Maureen Lawes Chamber of Shipping Cowes Combined Clubs (CCC) Cowes Harbour Master Stuart McIntosh

The Crown Estate Neil Jacobson Stephen Butterfield (Humberts)

Defences Estates Roger Pyke Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform A P Regnier Department for Transport (DfT) Colin Morris Eastleigh Borough Council Dawn Errington English Heritage Chris Pater

Environment Agency

James Humphrys Peter Kelly Charlotte Stride Adrian Fewings Rob Waring Tim Sykes David Lowthian Elisa Wilson Carolyn Fisher

Exxon Mobil Captain Peter Joss Fareham Borough Council Gosport Borough Council

Hamble Harbour Authority Tony Clatworthy Alison Crang

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology (HIOWMA) Julie Satchell

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (HIOWWT)

Pauline Holmes John Durnell Jolyon Chesworth Jess Pain Debbie King

Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre Sarah Callegari Susanne Frost

Hampshire Biodiversity Partnership Jacklyn Johnston David Rumble

Hampshire County Council (HCC) Stephen Appleby Trevor Badley

Hampshire Scouts Rodney Walker

Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Southampton Approach Channel Dredge

Appendices

R/3742/8 A.7 R.1464

Organisation/ Consultee Contact Name(s) Isle of Wight Centre for the Coastal Environment

Isle of Wight Council Peter Marsden Ruth Waller

Lymington Harbour Authority Marchwood Sea Mounting Centre Colonel Nigel Start

Marchwood Yacht Club Mike Peckham Andrew Gardener Denise Fenwick

Marina Developments Limited Clive Holmes Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) Olayinka Omidire National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA) Tony Williams

Natural England

Roger Morris Tom Lord Chris McMullon Chris Pirie Nikki Hiorns Helen Stevens Janice Goodfellow

Netley Sailing Club Mike Stroud David Henshall Iain Mackay Roger Brydges

New Forest District Council (NFDC) Carole Gallagher Matt Robinson Steve Cook Captain A Wilkinson

New Forest National Park Authority Deborah Slade Ocean Village Marina Michael Glanville Portsmouth City Council Queens Harbour Master, Portsmouth Roger Davies Rowing and Woolston Regatta David Hampton Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Steve Gilbert

Royal Southampton Yacht Club Dave Giddings Colin Lewis

Royal Southern Yacht Club Annette Newton

Royal Yachting Association Stuart Carruthers Richard Brown Kate Moore

Shamrock Quay, Marina Developments Limited Nicola Walsh Solent and Southern Harbour Masters Association P Baker Solent Cruising Racing Association (SCRA) Solent Protection Society

Solent Forum Gemma Conway Tracey Hewett

Solent Pilotage and Navigation Co-ordination Committee Solent Sailing Advisory Committee South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA)

Southampton City Council (SCC) Andy Scate Rob Crighton Martin Lowe Dave Ryan

Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Southampton Approach Channel Dredge

Appendices

R/3742/8 A.8 R.1464

Organisation/ Consultee Contact Name(s) D P World Southampton Campbell Mason Southampton Sailing Club Chris Waddington Southampton Shipowners Association Southampton Water Fishermen’s Association B Marshall Southampton Water Recreational Users Group (SWRUG) Southern Gas Southern Sea Fisheries Committee (SSFC) Ian Carrier Test and Itchen Association Jim Glasspool Test Waterski Association P J Vincent Trinity House

Weston Sailing Club Winston Lord Mike Jarman

Marine and Fisheries Agency, 3-8 Whitehall Place, London, SW1A 2HH Telephone: 0207 270 8664 Fax: 020 7270 8709 Email: marine.consents@mfa.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.mfa.gov.uk ABP SOUTHAMPTON OCEAN GATE ATLANTIC WAY SOUTHAMPTON SO14 3QN FAO: Ms Sue Simmonite

Your Ref: Our Ref: PDC 1227 Date: 10 January 2008

Dear Ms. Simmonite, ABP SOUTHAMPTON – SCOPING OPINION FOR THE PROPOSED DEEPENING OF SOUTHAMPTON APPROACH CHANNEL, SOUTHAMPTON, HAMPSHIRE. I refer to your letter of 23rd July 2007 enclosing copies of the scoping report for the proposed deepening of Southampton Approach Channel Dredge, Southampton, Hampshire. I apologise for the delay in relaying the necessary information back in order for you to produce the Environmental Statement (ES). It is apparent that the proposed project is likely to have a significant effect on the EU site. As such, we expect the ES to be presented as a stand alone document that incorporates all appropriate figures and text and contains no cross reference to other documents. It must be a comprehensive and rigorous commentary on the nature and potential effects of the project sufficient to provide Regulators with the necessary information and supporting data to underpin decisions on whether to approve the works. It should also be a suitable mechanism through which information can be provided to inform any Appropriate Assessment which is likely to be necessary to comply with the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c) Regulations 1994/ Habitat Directive. We have consulted with the bodies/groups that have an interest in the project based on their environmental responsibilities. It is our opinion that the report appears to be comprehensive as it addresses the major environmental sensitivities and potential environmental impacts outlined for appraisal with the ES. However, we would like to see more detailing on the impact of the works on local fisheries and other legitimate users of the water, both commercial and private. In particular, they would like more emphasis to be made on the classified shellfish harvesting beds in the vicinity of the works. I have set out below the comments we have received with regards to the proposed deepening of the Southampton Approach Channel.

EASTLEIGH BOROUGH COUNCIL have commented as follows: Nature Conservation Eastleigh Borough Council were pleased to see that the Scoping Study (Report no. R.1358, ABPmer, July 2007) identified and scopes out many Nature Conservation issues that required further study and assessment. Eastleigh Borough Council relies on Natural England and the Environment Agency for expert advice in relation to sites of international and national nature conservation importance and are pleased to see that these organisations have been consulted on the proposals. The Council however, would like to suggest that the following additional issues should be included in the EIA scoping assessment:

• We agree that the proposals are likely to have a significant affect on the international interest features of the designated nature conservation sites within the Solent, particularly Solent & Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar. However, a significant omission appears to be the possible indirect loss of SPA habitat through ‘slippage’ of sub tidal and inter-tidal habitats into a widened and deepened channel. This should also be investigated and modelled. Since the original dredge in 1997 there has been acceleration in the reduction in beach levels along the Eastleigh frontage of Southampton Water. There has also been a significant loss of storm beech shingle reducing the protection to soft cliffs and coast protection defences. The reduction in height has increased coastal squeeze and therefore impacted on the size of the Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site. Changes to sub tidal and inter-tidal levels as a result of the dredge may affect erosion rates of the soft cliffs around Netley, which form part of the Lee-on-the Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI. Impacts should be investigated and modelled.

• The indirect affect of increasing the need for sea defences to protect

areas of the coast should also be assessed in relation to the interest features of the SAC, SPA/Ramsar, SSSI and non-statutory sites e.g. Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). This should also be investigated and modelled.

• The ES should identify and survey to NVC levels any SINCs or

existing/proposed BAP habitats, which may be indirectly or directly affected by the dredge or associated landside works. This level of information is required to inform an effective baseline data set and to inform mitigation measures.

• The ES should identify and consider biodiversity enhancements that

could be achieved as a result of the proposals.

• The ES should make reference to the actions for the Solent Coast & Hamble Estuary Priority Area identified in the Eastleigh Borough Council Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (published 2002) which can be viewed at http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/ebc-1520

2

• The loss of sea defences would also seriously affect the viability of

habitation of the adjacent properties to which the current shoreline management plan recommends a hold the line policy. The proposal to further increase the depth of the channel would therefore exacerbate the lost of beach. Eastleigh BC therefore asks that consideration be given to mitigation or compensation for the beach lowering and the maintenance of the size of the SPA and the protection of the adjacent properties.

• There is potential for significant noise impacts for local residents.

Information on noise impacts and a Noise Management Plan to identify impacts, their management and reduction should be included.

DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM have commented as follows: The Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Highlighted the fact that no aspects of the work would affect oil and gas developments and as such, BERR (EDU) appreciate being copied the scoping report for their information. They have made the following detailed comments with regards to the scoping report.

• The area of interest for the proposed channel deepening is near shore and never greater than about 10 to 12 km from the shoreline (mainland England and Isle of Wight) {see fig 1}.

• Engineering aspects involve channel deepening/additional dredging in

the Solent and lowering/replacement of pipelines across Southampton Water in the vicinity of Fawley.

• The scoping document addresses the major environmental sensitivities

and potential environmental impacts. The pipeline lowering /replacement is tackled by outlining several options:

1. Trenching (dredging/disposal/backfill/cofferdams)

2. Horizontal drilling

3. Tunnelling • Environmental impacts of each of these options are listed and

reference is made to FEPA {s 1.6.5}, CPA {1.6.6} and PWA, through DTi (sic) {1.6.5}.

• Seabed sensitivities are addressed {2.5.2(5)}.

• In the event of new pipelines being laid, no mention of possible hydro

testing and/or disposal of hydro test fluids could be found and this, in our opinion, should be addressed in the EIA.

3

• The need for post development monitoring (physical measurement rather than reliance on modelling) could have greater emphasis {2.3.3}.

Overall, BERR hold the view that the scoping report adequately summarises the sensitivities and potential impacts typical of dredging/pipe laying and addresses the requirement to gather information for an AA. They also felt that cumulative (in combination) effects have been addressed as well as a consideration of alternatives (including the 'do-nothing' option). ASSISTANT QUEEN’S HARBOUR MASTER, HM NAVAL BASE PORTSMOUTH have commented as follows: QHM were satisfied with the content of the scoping report and have no further comments to make. QHM also considers that these works will not have any significant effect on the integrity of any local Natural 2000 conservation sites within the Dockyard Port of Portsmouth. COWES HARBOUR MASTER have commented as follows: The board of Cowes Harbour Commission considered the issue and the details of ABP's scoping report at their September's meeting. CHC are content that the scoping report appears to cover the issues that may impact on Cowes Harbour. In section 2.2.2 E.I.A Cumulative effects in combination; CHC consider that the Cowes Outer Harbour Project that is being jointly promoted by CHC and SEEDA should be included in the plans currently in the planning process. The Cowes Outer Harbour Projects includes the construction of a detached rubble mound breakwater, capital dredge and construction of a new eastern channel and capital dredge and construction of a new marina at East Cowes. ABP Southampton are aware of the project and ABPmer who compiled the Channel deepening report for Southampton are also contracted for the modelling and EIA preparation for the Cowes project. The Cowes EIA scoping report is due to be sent to out in due course. HAMBLE HARBOUR AUTHORITY have commented as follows: The Hamble Harbour Authority attended the workshop in January and also gave a written submission with comments following that workshop.

The scoping report is adequate in describing the proposed scheme, and the report appears to have a proposal suitable for informing the ES. As the works are likely to have a significant environmental effect on the European Site an appropriate assessment should be carried out. Area of particular concern for the Hamble Harbour Authority is the impact on the European site at, and inside of, the Hamble Spit. This area is designated as SAC, SPA and RAMSAR and concerns would be based on changes to the erosion and sedimentation regime in this area.

4

The Harbour Authority would have additional concerns unrelated to the nature conservation sites that would include impacts on navigation and costs associated with possible changes to navigation marks as a result of migration of the main channel. These would need further consultation with the Harbour Master. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY have commented as follows: The Environment Agency have reviewed the information on the scoping report for an Environmental Statement in relation to the proposal to deepen the Southampton Approach Channel and have provided the following comments; Water qualityFurther consideration needs to be given to the release of bacteria and other contaminants from disturbed sediment as most of the proposed dredge is within designated Shellfish Waters:

• The dredge locations include part of several Shellfish Waters Directive designated areas. The Shellfish Waters Directive (79/923/EEC) requires mandatory compliance with Imperative (I) standards for parameters including dissolved oxygen and suspended solids. The SW Directive requires that dissolved oxygen, measured as % saturation, should exceed 70% (as a mean), and individual measurements may not be less than 60% unless there are no harmful consequences on the development of shellfish colonies. These standards are absolute and compliance with them is an obligation for the UK. The SW Directive also requires that a discharge affecting shellfish waters must not cause the suspended solid content of the water to exceed by more than 30% the content of waters not so affected. The SW Directive also has mandatory standards for metals and other contaminants.

• Part of the route is also designated as a harvesting area under the

Shellfish Hygiene Directive (91/492/EEC). This Directive lays down conditions for the production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs and is implemented by CEFAS on behalf of the Food Standards Agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Sediment disturbance should be kept to a minimum during the proposed works.

• One concern is a potential for increased suspended solids and

contamination from sediment during the construction process, which would cause an increase in bacteriological levels.

The Environment Agency hold that view that because part of the dredge passes close to designated Bathing Beaches (closest at Calshot), there is a small risk that sediment released into the water column during dredging may be sheltering excess bacteria. This they believe could increase the numbers found in bathing waters. This risk according to the Environment Agency could easily be avoided by dredging outside the official bathing season (May to September).

5

Nature Conservation and Ecology Under paragraph 2.5.1 It is recommended that ‘the key designations’ be extended to include Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA (and Ramsar site) and Portsmouth SPA (and Ramsar site) on account of the exchange of bird populations between these sites and the more directly affected Solent and Southampton Water SPA. Potential impact to these additional SPAs could arise as off-site impacts. Under paragraph 2.5.2 It is indicated that the need for assessment of direct and indirect impacts should consider habitats and species at the deepening and disposal / use sites and the features outside these areas along sediment transport pathways. It is recommended that the areas to consider should also include any areas predicted to experience changes in physical of hydrodynamic processes, e.g. including areas affected by changes in water level and tidal range, flows and erosion, as well as along sediment transport pathways. Under paragraph 2.5.3 (1) The baseline data that should be reviewed should include all habitats and species, and particularly European site features, for which potential significant impact is predicted. At this paragraph it is stated that the intention is to review baseline data for seabed habitat characteristics and bird feeding/roosting patterns in areas at risk of direct or potential indirect impacts. This is likely to be insufficient, particularly with reference to the full list of European site features that could be affected, similarly, in paragraph 2.5.3 (2), new survey is advocated for benthic invertebrates only. Surveys may be required for other features of nature conservation interest or features of European sites beyond invertebrates if these are predicted to be in zones directly or indirectly affected by the proposed development e.g. saltmarsh communities within the inter-tidal zone or plant communities within the New Forest SAC. It is recommended that the scoping report recognises the need for a more iterative approach within the impact assessment (and subsequent appropriate assessment) process rather than being entirely prescriptive at this early stage. Fish and Commercial Fisheries Under 2.6.1 In addition to Rivers Test, Itchen and Hamble being utilised by Sea Trout and Salmon, the New Forest Rivers should also be mentioned. Whilst the migratory salmonid interest of the New Forest Rivers comprises principally sea trout, these would be considered a typical species of the New Forest SAC feature Alluvial Forest. Under 2.6.2 (1) Reference to noise and vibration impacts in Section 2.11 should reference Section 2.10 also.

6

Under 2.6.2 (1) It is stated that sediment mobilisation could cause smothering of any shellfish beds that may be adjacent to the dredging. This should be expanded to recognise the potential for such impact to occur further a field away from the dredge area, a matter that will be informed by work undertaken under Section 2.3 Physical Processes. Similarly, at 2.6.2 (5), effects of smothering of shellfish beds in the vicinity of the trenching may extend further a field and the extent of effect should not be restricted until the results work under section 2.3 have been completed. In addition to the potential impact to shellfish from smothering, the potential for reduced dissolved oxygen levels also to affect shellfish should be considered. In respect of potential impacts to all fisheries interests, careful consideration should be given the compounding effects of several different impact types acting together, e.g. high water temperatures in addition to lowered dissolved oxygen, reduced water quality and a changed noise environment. Reference to thresholds and standards (noise, water quality, dissolved oxygen, temperature etc) previously used in respect of protection of fisheries interests during the Dibden Bay Public Inquiry would be worth considering to ensure consistency, together with any justification for the application of different standards if these have changed since that time. Under 2.6.3 addressing further work required for the EIA It is recommended that consideration be given to monitoring of salmon movements within Southampton Water on account of this poorly understood issue. Under 2.10.3 Further Work required for EIA It is strongly recommended that consideration be given to monitoring the noise levels generated by appropriate vessels to inform the changes in noise impact that might be expected by existing and proposed shipping and the different types of dredging plant and operation that might be employed during construction and operation. 2.11 The opening paragraph under section 2.11 states “the issues below are unlikely to be significantly affected by the proposed channel deepening works alone and therefore do not need to be considered within the EIA.” The following paragraphs then appear to list mostly issues that will be considered in the EIA without actually defining those issues that will not be considered in the EIA. Additional clarity is required to be clear regarding what will be excluded from the EIA. Section 3.1 (4) Consideration should be given to opportunities for environmental enhancement to occur as an integral part of this development, particularly with reference to statutory and non-statutory designated sites and BAP habitat and species interests.

7

Requirements of any Appropriate Assessments required under Regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 The Environment Agency is of the view that the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect upon certain features of a number of European sites. The relevant European sites (and Ramsar sites) include:

• Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site; • Solent Maritime SAC; • South Wight Maritime SAC; • River Itchen SAC • Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar site; • Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar site; • New Forest SAC and Ramsar site.

There is a high expectation that any future appropriate assessments undertaken by the relevant competent authority will rely on information contained within the Environmental Statement. It is therefore of considerable importance that the EIA process, and resulting ES is conducted with a full appreciation of the specific features that could be subject to significant effect, the effects to which the features are sensitive and the likelihood of such effects materialising as a result of the proposed development. This process requires a systematic and thorough approach to ensure that the relevant information is collected. It is noted that the scoping report does not mention the likely specific requirements of any future appropriate assessments, nor provide the systematic approach required to ensure that all relevant information would be collected. This is considered to be a significant deficiency in the scoping report. It is strongly recommended that the issues specifically to be addressed by an appropriate assessment be identified together with the information likely to be required to undertake such an assessment. A systematic approach that accounts for all European site features (if only to eliminate them as being unlikely to be affected) and all potential sources of development-related impact is recommended. The Environment Agency would be grateful of the opportunity to comment on this aspect of the scoping report once it has been drafted. NATURAL ENGLAND have commented as follows: Natural England have provided the following advice under the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007: a) Is the scoping report adequate in terms of describing the proposal? In our view the scoping report is broadly adequate in describing the nature of the proposals for the purpose of scoping the Environmental Statement (ES). Clearly, the ES itself will need to provide significantly more detail, in particularly with regard to:

• The need for the operating window which is being sought, and

8

the justification for the specified dredging requirements to support this degree of access.

• The chosen methodology for lowering/replacement of the pipelines across Southampton Water

• The options for disposal or beneficial use of dredged material • Any proposals for providing new habitat or improving the

quality of existing habitat to mitigate or even compensate for potential impacts

• Details of how the applicant intend to fulfil their duty, under S28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as incorporated by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of their functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the SSSIs affected.

It is evident from the scoping document that the applicant already intends to provide further details with respect to at least matters (i-iii) within the ES. Additional issues that ought to be covered within the scoping report include: Any requirements to re-lay existing cables crossing Southampton Water or the Solent. This is relevant because any works to remove or re-lay cables could impact upon sub tidal and inter-tidal habitats and associated species. The projected increases in traffic that the proposals will enable. This is Somewhat difficult to glean from the report currently. Comments on page 5 indicate that the proposals will accommodate the continued growth of various trades at the port whereas comments on page 28 suggest that the number of additional larger vessels using the channel will be ‘small’. The reason that this information is important is that an adequate assessment of the potential indirect impacts associated with greater vessel traffic will depend upon having an estimate of the increases in the number of shipping movements resulting from the proposals. b) Are the matters considered in the report suitable to inform an assessment of the potential environmental effects? Again, in our view the report goes a long way in identifying many of the relevant issues that need to be considered in order to inform as assessment of the potential environmental effects. Additional issues that should be considered include: A wider consideration of ‘alternatives’. Page 6 of the report states that aside from ‘refining’ the existing proposal to reducing dredging requirements (presumably still providing the same operating window), the only other alternative is to ‘do nothing’. We suggest that the extent to which the objectives of the proposals could be met by a ‘do less’ option may also usefully be considered in the ES, i.e. to what extent could the needs of the port be met by a more modest

9

increase in the operating window for large ships. In this context we note that the scoping report simply refers to ‘a sufficiently wide access window’, we suggest this will need to be quantified and justified in the ES in order to provide a firmer basis for decisions. Further consideration should be given to potential impacts resulting from the indirect consequences of the proposals, particularly those relating to the prospect of greater numbers of bigger ships using the channel over a greater tidal window and closer to the shore. These may include introduction of greater quantities of biocides associated with antifouling, erosive effects caused by boat wash, greater possibility of increasing alien species, any increase in the risk of collisions and associated marine pollution incidents, possible displacement of other craft further towards the shore. All of these impacts have the potential to affect the features of the Solent European Marine Site. Another possible category of indirect impacts is further development that might be required as a result of the proposals. Page 25 of the scoping document indicates that the channel deepening could compromise existing and future coastal protection levels. We suggest that the ES will need to consider any further impacts that may result from additional requirements to improve existing defences or build new ones as a result of the proposals. The scoping report already makes mention of the hydrodynamic and sedimentary effects of creating a larger channel, including changes to tidal propagation and increases in requirements for maintenance dredging. We suggest that it will be especially important for the ES to quantify any changes tidal propagation as a result of the proposals and thus changes to the degree of tidal exposure that currently inter-tidal habitats experience. These effects should also be considered in the light of predictions of expected sea level rise over coming decades. Detailed consideration will need to be given to any changes to pollution risk associated with the lowering or replacement of the oil pipelines, including any increase in the risk during operation. The risk of encountering unexploded ordinance associated with dredging undisturbed areas should be considered, together with any impacts associated with dealing with this and problem. In particular we would be concerned about impacts upon habitats fish and birds associated with carrying out controlled explosions. Detailed consideration will need to be given to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitats and species potentially affected including:

• Coastal Saltmarsh • Fragile sponge & anthozoan communities on sub tidal rocky habitats • Inter-tidal mudflats • Seagrass beds • Sheltered muddy gravels • Sub tidal Chalk

10

• Sub tidal sands and gravels • Tide-swept channels • Native Oyster

Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 It is our advice that the proposed development is likely to have significant effect on the interest features of the above SPA/Ramseur site alone and in combination with other plans or projects, and will require an appropriate assessment in accordance with Regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. We also advise that the project has the potential to cause a likely significant effect upon the mobile bird features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA / Ramsar and Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA / Ramsar where they either make use of areas within Solent and Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar or other areas outside of all of these designated sites which may be affected by the proposals. This may be particularly relevant with regard to inter-tidal areas below mean low water and areas of shallow sub tidal sediment. This possibility will need to be examined in the ES. In addition the project also has the potential to cause a likely significant effect upon the migratory Atlantic Salmon features of the River Itchen SAC as they pass through Southampton Water and the Solent. This possibility will need to be examined in the ES. The general nature of the risks to the European Sites is too a large degree already identified within the scoping document on pages 18-22. I have also highlighted additional risks and information that will be needed to inform the appropriate assessments in the advice given above. The scoping report identifies the need for the ES to make an assessment of the likely direct and indirect effects of dredging on important environmental receptors with a focus on developing solutions that avoid, or minimise, environmental effects. Clearly key environmental receptors will include the international sites in the vicinity of the proposals as well as Sites of Special Scientific Interest. We suggest that it would be helpful to consider the potential impacts upon these sites on a feature-by-feature basis arising from each of the impact pathways for each site potentially affected. We also advise that the ES should give consideration not only to ways in which to avoid or minimise environmental impacts but also to consider ways of mitigating, or even if necessary compensating for any residual effects. These measures should be considered in addition to enhancements mentioned above. As indicated on pages 12 and 13 of the scoping document the information needed to inform the appropriate assessment will need to include consideration of the effects of these proposals in combination with those of other plans and projects. In addition to those highlighted on page 13

11

at this stage we would advise that the following plans and projects will also need to be considered as a minimum:

• Coastal Strategies, especially those proposing works within Southampton Water • Proposals for a new Marina at Husbands Yard • Existing requirements for maintenance dredging within Southampton Water • Offshore breakwaters Cowes • Offshore breakwaters at Lymington • Offshore breakwaters at Seagrove Bay • Any port development requirements arising out of the Isle of

Wight Local Development Framework. • Possible proposals for a barrage across the Medina Estuary being considered by Isle of Wight Council

We also suggest that the competent authorities around the Solent will need to be consulted regarding other plans and projects which may be relevant to this in combination assessment. Other Comments With regard to the legislative requirements for the EIA, we suggest that the applicant together with the Local Planning Authorities with jurisdictions covering parts of Southampton Water should consider whether the provisions of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 covering permitted development apply to any aspects of the proposals in addition to the need for planning permissions covering lowering / replacement of the pipelines. NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL have commented as follows: The Scoping Study Report describes the proposal and addresses the key factors associated with such a large scale capital dredge. Due to the plethora and extent of nature conservation designations within and throughout the Solent region, it is likely that this project will have a significant effect on the integrity of these sites. I assume that Natural England will provide the relevant advice and detailed comments regarding this proposal. CALSHOT OYSTER FISHERMEN have commented as follows: Our main area of concern appear to be identified in 2.6.2 main Assessment Issues of the Scoping Study, i.e. Impact on water quality and conditions; noise and vibration impacts; the effects of elevated suspended sediment concentrations and potential smothering of the shellfish beds. The Calshot Several Order Oyster Fisheries is designated Shellfish Water and should any losses or damage to the fishery result from the proposed dredging activities, it would be necessary for us to seek full compensation from ABP.

12

We feel that there are other organisations better qualified than ourselves to comment on whether, on its own or in combination with other plans and projects, these works are likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of any local Natural 2000 conservation sites. We should be most grateful if you would keep us informed regarding the progress of this proposal. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT have commented as follows: The Department for Transport did not have any comments to make on this proposal and would like to be included in the consultation when the application is made. They also expressed the wish to be copied an electronic copy of the ES for their electronic filing system, if indeed one is required for the project. CROWN ESTATES have commented as follows: Crown Estate consent as landowner will be required and we are in contact with ABP about this. HAMPSHIRE & WIGHT TRUST FOR MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY have commented as follows: The HWTMA is a charitable organisation established in 1991 to promote interest, research and knowledge of maritime archaeology and heritage with core activities concentrated in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The HWTMA has an established background in research, fieldwork, resource management, and public education and involvement. The work of the HWTMA in the Solent region over the past fifteen years has resulted in knowledge and experience of all aspects of the maritime resource of the area. We can, therefore, comment on aspects of the proposal, which will directly affect the maritime cultural heritage. Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Scheme The document highlights that an Environmental Impact Assessment will be required ahead of this development. In line with the European Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC), archaeology and heritage should be considered as part of this process. The Scoping Study document does identify Marine Archaeology as an Assessment Issue, and indicates that the development will directly impact the seabed and hence has the potential to adversely affect the marine cultural heritage. However, the proposed work outlined to inform the Assessment appears to be very inadequate and would not conform to general advice provided from Heritage Agencies and guidance within the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee ‘Code of Practice for Seabed Development’ (www.jnapc.org.uk/jnapc_brochure_may_2006.pdf).

13

Brief archaeological background The Solent and Southampton Water and their adjacent coastlines comprise historic landscapes, which have been utilised from prehistoric periods to the present day. The Solent has not always been a tidal waterway, successive phases of sea level rise have created the Solent, and also enabled archaeological deposits to be inundated and preserved. Sites and finds from around the proposed dredge area, both on and off shore indicate that it is rich in heritage from all periods. Aspects of the maritime archaeological resource of particular note for the proposed dredge area include:

• Peat layers and buried land surfaces which can outcrop on or close to the present coastline or lie beneath the current seabed

• Terrestrial archaeological sites that are eroding from the present shoreline

• Waterside structures, wharves and landing places • Hulked and wrecked vessels which represent an important archive of

our maritime past • Anchorage sites and items lost from vessels • Crashed aircraft

Information on these sites and finds may be held by a number of organisations which include (but are not limited to) City, County and National Historic Environment Records, local archives, libraries and collections, research organisations and universities, local and county societies. Due to the low levels of knowledge of the archaeological resource on the seabed it is necessary to employ a range of techniques to ensure adequate consideration during the EIA process. These techniques include, but are not limited to:

• Marine geophysical survey – including side scan sonar, magnetometer and sub bottom profiling

• Boreholes and augers • Diver survey and evaluation • Archaeological excavation

Archaeological advice Gaining specialist archaeological advice from an early stage will be beneficial. Data gathered for sedimentary or biological survey can also be used for archaeology. For instance boreholes and geophysical survey can be carried out to satisfy the specifications for several specialist surveys, which ultimately saves time and resources. Marine archaeological assessment is a specialist area and must be undertaken by individuals and organisations with appropriate qualifications, experience and accreditation. The Registered Archaeological Organisations of the Institute of Field Archaeologists should be used as a guide to suitability (www.archaeologists.net).

14

There are a number of documents relating to the marine historic environment and marine industry and development which would be useful for consideration when planning the EIA, however, they should not be used as a substitute for advice from qualified archaeologists: Ports: the impact of development on the maritime historic environment, 2006 www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Ports-policy.pdf The Marine Aggregate Dredging and the Historic Environment: Guidance Note, 2003 www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Marine_aggregate_dredging.pdf Historic Environment Guidance Note for the Offshore Renewable Energy Sector: Guidance Note, 2006 www.offshorewind.co.uk/Downloads/archaeo_guidance.pdf Please contact this office if you require further clarification on these comments. Yours sincerely,

Yinka Omidire Team Leader (Southern Sea) Marine Environment Team

15