This environmental impact assessment for Kriegers flak ... - Vattenfall

More documents

Recommendations

Info

panies on marine safety analyses. GL has calculated a so called basic collision risk, i.e. the risk of a ship colliding with the wind farm without regard for safety increasing measures. In this scenario, all collisions are considered, including those where a ship only touches a wind turbine without causing damage. The basic collision risk has been calculated to 0,004 collisions per annum, corresponding to a statistical interval of 251 years. If safety increasing measures are taken into consideration, the statistical interval between two accidents increases to over 1 000 years. These numbers are considerably lower than for other wind projects. For more information on the GL analysis, see Attachment 12.1. The second risk analysis was carried out by SSPA. The analysis of GL mentioned above and the analysis that GL has made for the wind farm planned in the German economic zone, has been used as important basis for the SSPA study. SSPA has focused on what probably interests the public most, namely the risk of an accident that causes danger to nature or humans, for example through an oil spill. The risk of a collision that causes an oil spill has been calculated to 0,0006 per annum by the SSPA, or about 1 700 years between collisions (to be compared to the number calculated for the planned wind farm in the German economic zone, namely 580 years). The average oil spill has been estimated to be 3 400 tons. With safety increasing measures, such as standby tugs, the risk is reduced to 0,00015 collisions per annum or about 6 700 years between collisions (see Attachment 12.2). The risk of humans being hurt because the ship that they are on collides with the wind farm has been estimated to 0,000002 per annum, or one in every 500 000 years, provided that no safety increasing measures are taken. A comparison with European ferry trafÞ c shows that the collision risk between a ferry and the wind farm is considerably lower. With safety increasing measures, such as AIS and trafÞ c control, the risk for human accidents reduces to 0,0000005 per annum, or one every 2 000 000 years. More details can be found in Attachment 12.2. 12.8.3 Mitigating measures The safety increasing measures recommended by the SSPA will be proposed by Sweden Offshore and deci- CONSEQUENSES OF THE WIND FARM 143 sions in this matter will be taken in consultation with affected authorities. 12.8.4 Assessment ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Very big impact (high value – high impact) • The structure is a permanent hazard to international shipping, i.e. existing shipping lanes have to be moved (permanent hazard, > one generation). Big impact (high value – reasonable impact/reasonable value – high impact) • The structure is a temporary hazard to international shipping, i.e. existing shipping lanes have to be moved (< one generation). • The structure is a permanent hazard for other shipping, i.e. ships moving outside of shipping lanes (> one generation). Reasonable impact (reasonable value – reasonable impact) • The structure has an impact on international shipping, i.e. disturbs the traffi c compared with today. • The structure is a temporary hazard for other shipping, i.e. ships moving outside shipping lanes. Small impact (reasonable risk – minor impact/minor risk – reasonable impact). • The structure has little impact on international shipping, i.e. disturbs traffi c a little compared with today. • The structure causes impact on other shipping, i.e. ships that move outside of shipping lanes. Minor/no impact (minor value – minor impact) • The structure has minor or no impact on shipping in the area. Conclusion As shipping lanes are at a safe distance, the wind farm will cause little impact for international shipping. The wind farm will be a temporary hazard for trafÞ c outside the shipping lanes. This is however dependent on that trafÞ c will be forbidden within the wind farm area.
144 CONSEQUENSES OF THE WIND FARM 12.9 Commercial fi shing 12.9.1 Impact The wind farm will probably not cause negative impact on the Þ sh stock in the area (see Chapter 12.4.2). The Þ sh resources will probably not be smaller within the wind farm area after it has been built. The reef effect of the foundations will cause the Þ sh to be drawn towards the foundations to feed. If this means an increase of the bio mass or just a concentration of existing Þ sh is, however, unclear. During the construction phase, the work area will be sealed off and no commercial Þ shing will be possible during this phase. The same applies to the dismantling phase. It has not been decided whether Þ shing boats will be allowed inside the wind farm area during the operational phase. According to the law on the Swedish Economic Zone, it follows that the Government, or the authority appointed by the Government, (the National Maritime Board), may issue regulations for a protective zone of 500 metres around each wind turbine. In practice, such a protective zone would mean that the whole wind farm plus 500 meters around it would be sealed off. If the area is sealed off it can no longer function as a Þ shing area, resulting in that the income from the catch disappears. The size of the annual loss of income is estimated to be about 388 000 kronor (5 400 ha x 5 kg/ha x 14,40 kr/kg where 5 400 is the area covered by 128 wind turbines, 5 kg/ha is the estimated, average catch in the area (estimated by the company) based on statistics supplied by the Fishery Board, and 14,40 kr/kg is the average price for landed cod on the east coast over the last Þ ve years). See table at the bottom of the page. On the other hand, a protective zone may cause positive, indirect effects. If commercial Þ shing is disallowed, the large area covered by the wind farm will become a protected area where Þ sh can live without disturbance. This could beneÞ t nearby areas by Þ sh “spilling over” to such areas. However, this reasoning assumes that noise, vibrations or shadows cause a negative impact on the Þ sh. If no protective zone is established, Þ shing within the wind farm area should theoretically be possible, at least during beneÞ cial wind and current conditions. Fishing would, however, not be possible to the same extent as before. Summary During the construction and dismantling phases, no commercial Þ shing will be possible in the area. If the wind farm is closed for Þ shing during the operational phase, it will result in a reduction of income for commercial Þ shermen in the area. A protective zone can, however, cause positive impact on the commercial Þ shing that takes place in the vicinity of the area. If no protective zone is established, the physical presence of the wind farm may cause negative impact on Þ shing due to a limitation of Þ shing methods. 12.9.2 Mitigating measures Appropriate distances between the wind turbines and the direction of the rows has been discussed with the professional Þ shermen. The distances preferred by the Þ shermen was, however, so big as to make the whole project loss making. Also, the preferred direction by the Þ shermen (north-south/east-west), could not be considered by Sweden Offshore as it would cause a loss of wind energy through the turbines. According to current legislation, the affected Þ shermen are not entitled to compensation, but Sweden Offshore still plans to compensate them for the loss that the wind farm causes. An agreement for economic compensation is currently being discussed. Cod landed on the east coast 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Snittpris Annual average price in SEK per kilo 13,49 13,77 15,57 15,60 13,42 14,37
Page 1 and 2:
This environmental impact assessmen
Page 3 and 4:
Sweden Offshore Wind AB Hammarby Fa
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS 8.3 Comparative discussion
Page 7 and 8:
CONTENTS 12.10 Recreation and outdo
Page 9 and 10:
6 PREAMBLE AND READER NOTES 1. Prea
Page 11 and 12:
8 PREAMBLE AND READER NOTES Here, t
Page 13 and 14:
10 SUMMARY 2. Summary Introduction
Page 15 and 16:
12 SUMMARY any protected values or
Page 18 and 19:
Background
Page 20 and 21:
have less impact on the landscape p
Page 22 and 23:
Consultation Report
Page 24 and 25:
through Ms. Eva-Lena Olsson and Mr.
Page 26 and 27:
Description of the Wind Farm
Page 28 and 29:
5.2. Localisation The designated ar
Page 30 and 31:
As examples, the technique behind t
Page 32 and 33:
not yet been tested by the wind pow
Page 34 and 35:
) Biological surveys Extensive inve
Page 36 and 37:
During the construction phase, the
Page 38 and 39:
The wind turbines emit an aerodynam
Page 40 and 41:
trical and will therefore not conta
Page 42 and 43:
Project economics
Page 44 and 45:
Time table
Page 46 and 47:
Alternative locations
Page 48 and 49:
there are technical and economic li
Page 50 and 51:
Miscellaneous An application for th
Page 52 and 53:
ased on data measured in 2003. Cond
Page 54 and 55:
heritage, meaning that any exploita
Page 56 and 57:
mentary seabed is mobile due to ice
Page 58 and 59:
Alternative layout/scope
Page 60 and 61:
sary. An example that has been stud
Page 62 and 63:
The Zero Alternative
Page 64:
• The mining of approximately 840
Page 67 and 68:
64 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA 11. Pre
Page 69 and 70:
66 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA 11.1.1
Page 71 and 72:
68 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA varies
Page 73 and 74:
70 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA 1995).
Page 75 and 76:
72 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA cont. f
Page 77 and 78:
74 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA The win
Page 79 and 80:
76 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA Month T
Page 81 and 82:
78 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA Species
Page 83 and 84:
80 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA regular
Page 85 and 86:
82 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA The cod
Page 87 and 88:
84 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA 11.6.3
Page 89 and 90:
86 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA Distrib
Page 91 and 92:
88 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA to acqu
Page 93 and 94:
90 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA Of the
Page 95 and 96: 92 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA Bird sp
Page 97 and 98: 94 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA Night a
Page 99 and 100: 96 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA d) Surv
Page 101 and 102: 98 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA During
Page 103 and 104: 100 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA Indivi
Page 105 and 106: 102 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA tion w
Page 107 and 108: 104 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA In the
Page 109 and 110: 106 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA Since
Page 111 and 112: 108 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA Shippi
Page 113 and 114: 110 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA 11.11.
Page 115 and 116: 112 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA These
Page 117 and 118: 114 PRESENTATION OF THE AREA to pre
Page 119 and 120: 116 CONSEQUENSES OF THE WIND FARM 1
Page 121 and 122: 118 CONSEQUENSES OF THE WIND FARM I
Page 129 and 130: 126 CONSEQUENSES OF THE WIND FARM s
Page 131 and 132: 128 CONSEQUENSES OF THE WIND FARM
Page 135 and 136: 132 CONSEQUENSES OF THE WIND FARM J
Page 139 and 140: 136 CONSEQUENSES OF THE WIND FARM c
Page 141 and 142: 138 CONSEQUENSES OF THE WIND FARM A
Page 143 and 144: 140 CONSEQUENSES OF THE WIND FARM I
Page 145: 142 CONSEQUENSES OF THE WIND FARM p
Page 152 and 153: Cumulative effects
Page 154 and 155: and the track at low visibility is
Page 156 and 157: 13.3 Current conditions/ saltwater
Page 158 and 159: Control program
Page 160 and 161: 14.2 Fish The wind farm’s possibl
Page 162 and 163: Collected judgement
Page 164: 15.3.2 The operational phase The fa
Page 167 and 168: 164 CABLE LAYING 16. Cable laying I
Page 169 and 170: 166 CABLE LAYING 16.2 Design The tr
Page 171 and 172: 168 CABLE LAYING There will be rest
Page 173 and 174: 170 BIBLIOGRAPHY 17. Bibliography A
Page 175 and 176: 172 BIBLIOGRAPHY ratoriet, Lysekil.
Page 177 and 178: 174 FTABLE OF ATTACHMENTS 19. Table
Page 179 and 180: 1 Wind farm, view from Trelleborg,
Page 181 and 182: Wind farm, view from Trelleborg, 30
Page 183 and 184: Wind farm, view from ships bridge,
Page 185 and 186: 7 Wind farm, view from Møn, 30 km,
Page 187: 9 Wind farm, view from Rügen, 42 k
show all

This environmental impact assessment for Kriegers flak ... - Vattenfall

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?