abpmer report no. r.1846tn - 19 october 2011 (final)...wfd assessment with supporting tables. 2....

ABP Southampton

Environment Statement

for Port of Southampton:

Berth 201/202 Works

Appendix L

Water Framework Directive

Assessment

ABP Southampton Berth 201/202 Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive Report R.1846TN October 2011

All images copyright ABPmer apart from front cover (wave, anemone, bird) and policy & management (rockpool) Andy Pearson www.oceansedgephotography.co.uk

ABP Southampton Berth 201/202 Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive Date: October 2011 Project Ref: R/4028 Report No: R.1846TN © ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd

Version Details of Change Authorised By Date 1 Draft for Comment A M Bakare 18.08.11 2 Final A M Bakare 26.08.11 3 Amended Draft for Comment A M Bakare 29.09.11 4 Final E San Martin 19.10.11

Document Authorisation Signature Date

Project Manager: A M Bakare

19.10.11

Quality Manager: M J Smedley

19.10.11

Project Director: S C Hull

19.10.11

ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd Suite B, Waterside House Town Quay Tel: +44(0)23 8071 1840 SOUTHAMPTON Fax: +44(0)23 8071 1841 Hampshire Web: www.abpmer.co.uk SO14 2AQ Email: [email protected] ABPmer is certified by:

Berth 201/202 Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive

R/4028 (i) R.1846TN

Berth 201/202 Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive Contents

Page

1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................1

2. Water Framework Directive ........................................................................................................1 2.1 Water Body Information..............................................................................................................1 2.2 Study Area Water Bodies ...........................................................................................................2 2.3 Current Status of Water Bodies..................................................................................................3

3. Water Quality and Protected Areas ............................................................................................4 3.1 Bathing Waters Directive ............................................................................................................4 3.2 Shellfish Waters Directive...........................................................................................................5 3.3 Freshwater Fish Waters Directive ..............................................................................................5 3.4 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive....................................................................................6 3.5 Other Directives..........................................................................................................................6 3.6 Natura 2000 Protected Areas .....................................................................................................6

4. Water Framework Directive Assessment....................................................................................7 4.1 Water Body Assessments ..........................................................................................................8

4.1.1 Isle of Wight East - Coastal Water Body C5.................................................................8 4.1.2 Southampton Water - Transitional Water Body T17...................................................10 4.1.3 Multiple Rivers - Fluvial Water Bodies........................................................................13

4.2 WFD Assessment Summary ....................................................................................................15

5. References ...............................................................................................................................15 Appendices A. Isle of Wight East (C5) B. Southampton Water (T17) C. Multiple Rivers (R) D. WFD Assessment Summary Tables


R/4028 (ii) R.1846TN

Tables 1. Transitional and fluvial water bodies within 5km of the dredge footprint .....................................2 2. Summary of water body status ...................................................................................................3 3. Cefas measured DBT and TBT levels for 2010 ........................................................................12 Figures 1. Water Bodies in the Study Area 2. Location of Proposed Dredge with Eutrophic Zones and Shellfish Areas 3. International Nature Conservation Designations in the Study Area


R/4028 1 R.1846TN

1. Introduction In April, 2010, the Environment Agency published the ‘Marine dredging guidance for compliance with the Water Framework Directive’ (Environment Agency, 2010a; 2010b; 2010c; 2010d; 2010e). It is now the Environment Agency’s policy that this guidance is used in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and environmental appraisals associated with proposed developments which have the potential to affect Water Framework Directive (WFD) water bodies. This document details the WFD assessment for the capital dredge and disposal associated with the proposed Berth 201/202 Works and should be read in conjunctions with ABPmer (2008a) “R1494, Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works”. The following sections detail the Berth 201/202 works project in the context of the WFD and associated European Directives: Water Framework Directive (including study area water bodies and current status of

water bodies); Water quality and protected areas (including Bathing Waters, Shellfish Waters,

Freshwater Fish, Urban Waste Water Treatment and other Directives); and WFD Assessment with supporting tables.

2. Water Framework Directive

2.1 Water Body Information Under the WFD, coasts, estuaries, rivers and man-made docks and canals are divided up into a series of water bodies. The WFD sets new ecological as well as chemical targets (objectives) for each water body. These objectives are derived from pristine natural conditions. However, as other factors can affect the ability of a water body to meet its ecological targets, objectives are also set under the WFD in respect of: Changes in parameters such as hydrology (tidal flows) or geomorphology (bed forms),

for example caused by dredging, embanking for flood defence (etc): these are known as ‘hydromorphological’ objectives; and

Changes in parameters such as dissolved oxygen, salinity or nutrients: these ‘physico-chemical’ changes can also determine whether or not a water body can achieve ‘Good Ecological Status’ (or Potential).

Compliance with chemical status objectives is assessed in relation to quality standards for a specified list of ‘priority’ and ‘priority hazardous’ substances laid down by the European Union (EU) Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS). The Directive sets objectives, amongst other things, for the reduction or cessation of discharges, emissions and losses of these substances. The objective for all water bodies is to reach ‘Good Ecological Status’ and ‘Good Chemical Status’ by 2015, unless alternative arrangements (i.e. exemptions) can be justified. Each water


R/4028 2 R.1846TN

body has a hydromorphological designation which states how modified a water body is from its natural state (Environment Agency, 2009). Water bodies are either undesignated or designated as Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB) or Artificial Water Bodies (AWB). HMWB are defined as bodies of water which as a result of physical alteration by human activities, such as flood protection, port/harbour use, commercial fin and shellfisheries and resource extraction, are substantially changed in character and cannot therefore meet good ecological status, whereas AWB are artificially created. The default target for HMWBs and AWB under the WFD is to achieve good ecological potential (a status which recognises the importance of their human use whilst making sure ecology is protected as far as possible) and good surface water chemical status by 2015 or 2027. Ecological potential and status are measured on a scale of high, good, moderate, poor and bad, while chemical status is measured as good or fail.

2.2 Study Area Water Bodies The study area addressed by this WFD Assessment is covered by the South East River Basin District. Given the location of the proposed dredge area and disposal site for the purposes of completing the WFD Assessment, the study area includes one coastal, one transitional and fourteen fluvial water bodies, see Figure 1. The list of water bodies and their current designation status as stated in the relevant River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) is summarised in Table 1. Table 1. Transitional and fluvial water bodies within 5km of the dredge footprint

Water Body Type

(Catchment) Map Code Water Body ID Water Body Name

Hydromorphological Designation

Scope Within This

Assessment Reason

Coastal C5 GB650705530000 Isle of Wight East HMWB In Transitional T17 GB520704202800 Southampton Water HMWB In

R14 GB107042011340 Cadland Stream None Out NTL/Piping R15 GB107042011350 Langdown Stream HMWB Out NTL/Piping

R18 GB107042016690 Marchwood Park Stream Tributary HMWB Out NTL/Piping

R21 GB107042016730 Bartley Water HMWB In

Fluvial (New Forest)

R30 GB107042016700 Magazine Lane Stream HMWB In R1 GB107042022580 River Itchen HMWB Out Weir/ Sluice R7 GB107042016380 Cadnam River None Out NTL/Piping R8 GB107042016430 Tadburn Lake None Out NTL/Piping R28 GB107042016620 Tanner's Brook HMWB Out NTL/Piping R32 GB107042016800 Luzborough Lane Stream None Out NTL/Piping R34 GB107042016840 Test (Lower) None In R43 GB107042016220 Sholing Common Streams HMWB Out NTL/Piping R44 GB107042016230 Highfield Stream HMWB Out NTL/Piping

Fluvial (Test and Itchen)

R51 GB107042016790 River Blackwater None Out NTL/Piping HMWB Heavily Modified Water Body; AWB Artificial Water Body; NTL Natural Tidal Limit

Many of these water bodies have a hydromorphological designation of HMWB, this includes the coastal and transitional water bodies and eight of the fluvial water bodies. The remaining six fluvial water bodies have no designation (Table 1). Many of the fluvial water bodies within the 5km boundary can be scoped out due to the location of the Natural Tidal Limit (NTL), which prevents tidal exchange between the coastal and


R/4028 3 R.1846TN

transitional water bodies. Fourteen fluvial water bodies were identified in relation to the capital dredge and footprint; only three of these are identified as having the potential for tidal exchange with the contiguous Southampton Water transitional water body. These have therefore been scoped in for further investigation (Table 1). Full descriptions of the above water bodies are available in the RBMP for the South East River Basin District (Environment Agency, 2009) through the Environment Agency website and have therefore not been included within this document.

2.3 Current Status of Water Bodies The current status for the Isle of Wight East coastal water body is ‘good potential’, with a ‘good’ ecological potential and chemical status. The Southampton Water transitional water body is classified as ‘moderate potential’, with a ‘moderate (uncertain)’ ecological potential and ‘good’ chemical status. Bartley Water is classified as ‘good status’ with ‘good’ ecological and chemical status. Magazine Lane Stream is classified as ‘moderate potential’, with a ‘moderate (uncertain)’ ecological potential. The chemical status is not assessed for this water body. Test (Lower) has is classified as ‘poor status’, with a ‘poor (quite certain)’ ecological status and ‘fail (quite certain)’ chemical status. The ‘poor (quite certain)’ ecological status for this water body is based on the state of macrophytes and phytobenthos, which have a ‘moderate (quite certain)’ and ‘poor (very certain)’ conditions respectively. The ‘fail (quite certain)’ chemical status for the same water body is due to the status of Tributyltin Compounds (TBTs) which is recorded as ‘moderate (quite certain)’. Table 2 summarises the current status and planned future status for the relevant water bodies scoped into this assessment, highlighting the WFD parameters which are currently at ‘moderate’ status or below. Full details on the status of all the water bodies in the study area, together with their objectives and relevant protected area information, can be found in the relevant RBMP (Environment Agency, 2009). Table 2. Summary of water body status

Water Body Name

Water Body Reference

Current Overall Potential/Status

Status Objective (Overall)

WFD Parameters Currently at ‘Moderate’ Status or Below

Isle of Wight East GB650705530000 Good Potential Good by 2015 None

Southampton Water GB520704202800 Moderate Potential Good by 2027

1) Invertebrates 2) Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen 3) Mitigation measures for flood and coastal

erosion protection

Bartley Water GB107042016730 Good Good by 2015 None

Magazine Lane Stream GB107042016700 Moderate Good by 2027

1) Mitigation measures for flood coastal erosion protection

Test (Lower) GB107042016840 Poor Good by 2027 1) Macrophytes 2) Phytobenthos 3) Tributyltin compounds

(Source: Environment Agency, 2009) The proposed capital dredging activities at Berth 201/202 occur within the Southampton Water transitional water body. The scoped in coastal water body relates only to the disposal activities at the Nab Deposit Ground and is therefore also considered independently. No dredging or


R/4028 4 R.1846TN

disposal activities will occur directly within the fluvial water bodies and therefore any impact on these would be indirect. For this reason the three fluvial water bodies scoped in for review within this WFD Assessment are assessed as one set of tables.

3. Water Quality and Protected Areas This section deals with Water Quality directives and protected areas which are within 5km of the dredge and/or disposal boundary and are considered as part of the WFD Assessment process.

3.1 Bathing Waters Directive The Bathing Waters Directive (76/160/EEC) establishes microbiological and physico-chemical standards to be met at identified bathing waters. The former evaluates the levels of both total and faecal coliforms, while the three physico-chemical parameters assess surface active substances, mineral oils and phenols. Cases of non-compliance with the physico-chemical parameters are extremely rare, so compliance in the UK each year is normally determined by the extent of pollution by total and faecal coliform bacteria. To comply with these standards, bathing waters must not exceed values of 10,000 total coliforms per 100ml and 2,000 faecal coliforms per 100ml in 95% of samples. The revised Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC) was adopted in March 2006 and the existing Directive will be repealed at the end of 2014. The revised Directive updates the way in which water quality is measured, focusing on fewer microbiological indicators, and setting different standards for inland and coastal bathing sites: Tighter microbiological standards - to be met by 2015; Two microbiological parameters - intestinal enterococci and Escherichia coli; and Water quality classification based on 3 or 4 years monitoring data, using 95 or 90

percentiles. This monitoring will begin in 2012. Four new classification categories will be introduced: Excellent - approximately twice as stringent as the current guideline standard; Good - similar to the current guideline standard; Sufficient - tighter than the current mandatory standard; and Poor - normally non-compliant water. Until the revised bathing water is fully adopted, bathing waters are assessed as to whether they comply with the standards of the current Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC): Higher means the bathing water meets the criteria for the stricter UK guideline

standards of the Directive - approximately twice as stringent as the current guideline standard;


R/4028 5 R.1846TN

Minimum means that at least 95% of the samples meet the mandatory standards of the Directive;

Fail means that fewer than 95% of the samples meet the required mandatory standards of the Directive; and

Not sampled indicates that the bathing water was closed during the bathing season. There are no bathing waters within the 5km footprint of the dredge or disposal activities.

3.2 Shellfish Waters Directive The original Shellfish Waters Directive which was adopted in October 1979, was repealed by the amended Shellfish Waters Directive (2006/113/EC), adopted on 12 December 2006. The aim of the Directive is to ensure a suitable environment for the growth of shell fisheries and to promote water of good quality to reduce the risk of food poisoning. The Directive requires mandatory compliance with imperative standards for parameters including dissolved oxygen and suspended solids. The Directive requires that dissolved oxygen, measured as the percentage of 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 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. In addition, the Directive has mandatory standards for metals and other contaminants. It is expected that the Shellfish Waters Directive will be repealed in 2013 under the EU WFD. When this occurs, the WFD must provide at least the same level of protection to Shellfish Waters (which the WFD classifies as protected areas) as the Shellfish Waters Directive does. There is one Shellfish Water protected area within 5km of the dredging activities, which is the ‘Southampton Water’ shellfish site located within Southampton Water (Figure 2). The compliance status of this protected area assessed by the Environment Agency using monitoring data from 2008 is a ‘Guideline Fail / Imperative Pass’ (Environment Agency, 2009). The same status is also observed for 2009 and 2010, based on data obtained from the Environment Agency. This shows that the water quality at this site is good. Overall the objective of the designation is to achieve ‘imperative standards’ and endeavouring to respect the guideline standards of the Shellfish Waters Directive. There are no Shellfish Water sites within the 5km footprint for the disposal site (Figure 2).

3.3 Freshwater Fish Waters Directive The Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC) was adopted in 1978 and is concerned with the protection and improvement of fresh waters in order to support fish life. The Directive sets water quality standards and monitoring requirements for ensuring the protection of coarse and game fisheries, and requires the designation of appropriate rivers and lakes into two categories of water: those suitable for salmonids (i.e. mainly salmon and trout but also grayling) and those suitable for cyprinids (including carp, tench, bream, roach, chub and minnows). The Directive sets out 14 physical and chemical parameters for which 'imperative' and/or the more rigorous


R/4028 6 R.1846TN

'guideline' standards are given for the two categories of designation. Failures of the guidelines are typically caused by low dissolved oxygen concentrations, variations in pH and raised concentrations of total ammonia. These are typically associated with effluent discharges from waste water treatment works, low river flows, algal blooms and farm run-off. A number of fluvial water bodies that open into Southampton Water are designated under the Freshwater Fish Directive due to the presence of either salmonid or cyprinid species. These predominantly have an ‘Imperative Pass’ but ‘Guideline Fail’ status as of 2008 (Environment Agency, 2009). This therefore makes these protected areas relevant to the WFD as they occur within the 5km buffer footprint of the dredge (Figure 3).

3.4 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) (91/271/EEC) aims to protect the environment from the adverse effects of the collection, treatment and discharge of urban waste water. The Directive covers statutory water and sewerage companies, since they own and operate the public sewerage system and the urban waste water treatment works. Discharges from certain industrial sectors such as food and drink processing plants can have a similar polluting effect to untreated sewage, and are also covered by the Directive. Sensitive areas under the UWWTD are water bodies affected by eutrophication of elevated nitrate concentrations. The designation under the UWWTD then acts as an indication that action is required to prevent further pollution caused by nutrients. There are two designated Sensitive Eutrophic Areas within a 5km footprint of the proposed dredge, which are the River Test and Itchen.

3.5 Other Directives There are further EU Directives that impose objectives relevant to the regulation of surface water quality, such as the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). The Nitrates Directive aims to reduce water pollution by nitrate (nitrogen is one of the nutrients that can affect plant growth) from agricultural sources and to prevent such pollution occurring in the future. Surface waters have to be identified if too much nitrogen has caused a change in plant growth which affects existing plants and animals and the use of the water. There are no Nitrate Sensitive Areas within the 5km footprint of the proposed dredge.

3.6 Natura 2000 Protected Areas Natura 2000 sites are a network of protected areas, which are protected under two EU Directives. These are the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) which requires the development of Special Protected Areas (SPAs) for Birds and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), which requires the designation of Special Areas for Conservation (SAC) for species other than birds, and for habitats. Natura 2000 protected areas also include water dependent Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC).


R/4028 7 R.1846TN

Ramsar sites are designated under the Ramsar Convention 1971 to protect wetlands of international importance. In UK law, these sites are given the same level of protection as Natura 2000 sites and are therefore also considered for the purposes of this assessment. Southampton Water has long been recognised as being of high nature conservation importance. There are a number of sites of designated nature conservation interest in the area, including Ramsar sites, Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) (Figure 3). The proposed dredge and disposal areas lie outside all of the internationally, nationally and locally designated nature conservation sites and, therefore, any impact on designated sites will be via indirect pathways i.e. as a consequence of the effect of the proposed works on the hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime, for example erosion and accretion of intertidal sediments or the dispersal of sediments arising from the disturbance of bed material during dredging. The designated sites within the study area include: Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site; Solent Maritime SAC; River Itchen SAC; and South Wight SAC.

4. Water Framework Directive Assessment The Environment Agency guidance for ensuring compliance with the WFD comprises a series of processes: Stage one: Screening; Stage two: Scoping; Stage three: Assessment; and Stage four: Identification of Measures. Dredging and disposal activities in coastal and estuarine areas have the potential to either cause deterioration in the ecological or chemical status of a water body, or to compromise improvements which might otherwise lead to a water body meeting its WFD objectives. The methodology clearly differentiates between maintenance dredging and disposal which was ongoing during the WFD classification period (2006-2008) and all other dredging and disposal activities which are considered as capital works. This distinction is made because any effects of ongoing dredging or disposal on WFD status during this classification period will have been included as part of the overall assessment of status and published in the relevant RBMP. The continuation of the same activities would not, therefore, be expected to cause further deterioration in WFD terms. The same conclusion cannot be drawn in respect of dredging and disposal which was not ongoing during the WFD classification period. It is also possible in certain circumstances that any dredging or disposal (whether maintenance or capital) could prevent the water body from reaching its WFD objective. By referring to both the RBMP and its supporting Annexes (Environment Agency, 2009) and to the Environment Agency guidance for the application of the WFD (Environment Agency, 2010a,


R/4028 8 R.1846TN

2010b, 2010c, 2010d), it is possible to provide an early indication as to whether the proposed capital dredging and disposal activities could : Contribute to an existing failure; or Prevent a water body which is not at good status from reaching its WFD objective in

relation to those parameters which are currently failing in each of the WFD water bodies.

The following groupings have been applied to the water bodies under the assessment: Isle of Wight East and Southampton Water are considered individually, while the three scoped in fluvial water bodies are amalgamated and assessed together. The WFD Assessment for dredging and disposal associated with the Berth 201/202 Works comprises the following elements, which are set out in Appendix A to D. Appendix A: Screening trigger table for disposal effects (Environment Agency, 2010a,

Table 3b) and scoping assessment of WFD parameters (Environment Agency, 2010b, Table 4b) for the Isle of Wight East coastal water body (C5);

Appendix B: Screening trigger table for dredging effects (Environment Agency, 2010a, Table 3a) and scoping assessment of WFD parameters (Environment Agency, 2010b, Table 4a) for the Southampton Water transitional water body (T17);

Appendix C: Screening trigger table for dredging effects (Environment Agency, 2010a, Table 3a) and scoping assessment of WFD parameters (Environment Agency, 2010b, Table 4a) for the fluvial water bodies; and

Appendix D: Summary tables for coastal, transitional and fluvial water bodies’ assessment and mitigation (Environment Agency 2010d, Table 5).

The WFD Assessment process requires the applicant to consider the implications of dredging/disposal upon the current status of parameters assessed in the RBMP. Where one or more of the Quality Elements are not classified, the dredging and/or disposal activity should be screened for its effects against whichever parameters have been classified (HR Wallingford, 2009). In view of the fact that not all parameters are currently reported on in the current South East RBMP, strict adherence to the guidance would mean that a large number of parameters would be excluded from assessment. Information has been collated for the Berth 201/202 Works Environmental Statement (ES) (ABPmer, 2008a) which is pertinent to quality parameters that have not been assessed in the RBMP. Therefore for completeness, these elements are assessed if they meet the screening triggers and cross-reference is made in the scoping tables to the appropriate areas of text within the ES.

4.1 Water Body Assessments

4.1.1 Isle of Wight East - Coastal Water Body C5

4.1.1.1 Overview The South East River Basin District RBMP (Environment Agency, 2009) identified the Isle of Wight East water body as having “good potential”, with no failing areas (Table 2). This summary applies to the assessment of the disposal (Table 3b; Environment Agency 2010a)


R/4028 9 R.1846TN

activities only. The screening and scoping WFD Assessment tables for this water body are in Appendix A, Table 3b and 4b respectively.

4.1.1.2 Screened out (Environment Agency)

The elements screened out within the assessment tables for disposal activities (Table 3b), by the Environment Agency (Environment Agency 2010a) are set out below: Phytoplankton; Fish fauna, as this is only applicable to transitional water bodies; Freshwater flow, as this is only applicable to transitional water bodies; and All chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting biological elements (including

transparency, salinity and thermal, oxygenation and nutrient conditions).

4.1.1.3 Screened out (screening triggers) By applying the screening trigger tables for the assessment of marine disposal activities within this coastal water body the following elements are screened out: Biological elements including aquatic flora and benthic invertebrate fauna; All morphological conditions, which includes depth variation, bed and inter-tidal zone

structure; Tidal regime properties which includes dominant currents and wave exposure; All specific pollutants except Copper, as these were not identified or below Cefas AL 1

within the sediment to be dredged; All priority substances except Mercury, Nickel and TBT compounds, as these were not

identified or below Cefas AL 1 within the sediment to be dredged; and Protected areas: Shellfish Water, Bathing Waters and Nutrient Sensitive Areas as none

occur within the 5km dredge footprint.

4.1.1.4 Screened in elements (screening triggers)

The element screened in for scoping assessment within this water body is: Protected areas: SACs and SPAs.

4.1.1.5 Scoping output: Biological, hydromorphological and chemical elements None of the biological elements, hydromorphological elements supporting biological elements or chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting biological elements were screened in for assessment. This is because the inclusion of this water body relates to disposal activities only, meaning that the majority of elements are not applicable. In terms of the specific pollutants and selected priority substances, these were scoped in relative to the properties of the material to be dredged and deposited at the licensed disposal site. The majority of the contaminants were below Cefas (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science) Action Levels, although there were isolated instances of Copper,


R/4028 10 R.1846TN

Mercury, Nickel and TBT compounds in the sediments from Southampton Water above Action Level 1. The occurrence of the contaminants occurred predominantly in the surface sediments, which comprises a relatively low proportion of the total dredge volume. Therefore, the overall potential impact from such contaminants was interpreted to be insignificant due to the low probability of occurrence and exposure to changes in chemical quality at the Nab Deposit Ground during disposal operations (ABPmer, 2008a).

4.1.1.6 Scoping output: Protected areas The 5km footprint of the Nab Deposit Ground does not intersect any SAC or SPA protected areas. Therefore although these have been scoped in for assessment based on the trigger tables, there is no potential impact on any protected areas.

4.1.1.7 Conclusion The likelihood of the disposal activities at the Nab deposit ground having a non-temporary negative impact on this water body is negligible. The site is continually used as the deposit site for ongoing maintenance dredging and these activities have not been identified as having an impact on the water body status (ABPmer, 2008a; 2008b).

4.1.2 Southampton Water - Transitional Water Body T17

4.1.2.1 Overview The Southampton Water transitional water body is noted as having an overall “moderate potential” status, with a “moderate (uncertain)” ecological potential (Table 2) in the South East River Basin District RBMP (Environment Agency, 2009). The failing elements relate to the status of invertebrates and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (Table 2). These elements were screened in for review within the WFD Assessment as they are included within the screening tables (Environment Agency, 2009) and their scores were at the thresholds for inclusion. The screening and scoping WFD Assessment tables for this water body are shown in Appendix B, Table 3a and 4a respectively.

4.1.2.2 Screened out (Environment Agency) The elements screened out within the assessment tables (Table 3a and 3b) by the Environment Agency (Environment Agency 2010a) for a coastal water body are set out below: Phytoplankton; Dominant currents, as this is only applicable to coastal water bodies; Thermal conditions; and Salinity.

4.1.2.3 Screened out (screening triggers) By applying the screening trigger tables for the assessment of marine dredging activities within this transitional water body, the following elements are screened out:


R/4028 11 R.1846TN

Biological elements including aquatic flora, benthic invertebrate and fish fauna as the

screening score (i.e. 1) is less than the trigger for scoping (i.e. 2); Morphological conditions including depth variation and bed properties as the zone of

effect is less than the trigger for scoping Intertidal zone structure, as the dredge activity is not within 10m of the Mean Low

Water Springs (MLWS) in this water body; Transparency, as the screening score (i.e. 1) is less than the trigger for scoping (i.e.

1.5); All specific pollutants except Copper, as these were not identified or below Cefas AL 1; All priority substances except Mercury, Nickel and TBT compounds, as these were not

identified or below Cefas AL 1; and Protected areas: Bathing Waters as none occur within the 5km dredge footprint in this

water body. 4.1.2.4 Screened in elements (screening triggers)

The elements screened in for scoping assessment, for this water body are: Freshwater flow, as the dredge is a capital project; Wave exposure, as this water body does have shallow areas; Oxygenation and nutrient conditions as the score is greater than the trigger for

scoping; Specific pollutants: Copper; Priority substances: Mercury, Nickel and TBT compounds; and Protected areas: Shellfish Waters, Nutrient Sensitive Areas, SACs and SPAs.

4.1.2.5 Scoping output: Biological, hydromorphological and chemical elements The screening categories scoped in for review included hydromorphological elements supporting biological elements, chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting biological elements, specific pollutants and selected priority substances. The elements from these categories were all interpreted as having an insignificant impact at a water body level, based on the data collected and analysed as part of the ES for the proposed Berth 201/202 Works (ABPmer, 2008a). The contaminants identified from the sediment sampling along the proposed dredge area showed that these were predominantly below Cefas AL 1. There were isolated instances of Copper, Mercury and Nickel, which were detected in isolated samples from mainly within surface sediments, which comprise a low proportion of the total dredge volume. The overall potential impact from such contaminants was interpreted to be insignificant due to the low probability of occurrence and exposure to changes in chemical quality during dredging and disposal operations (ABPmer, 2008a). Other contaminants identified include Tributyltin Compounds (TBT). However, the occurrence of this contaminant is not noted as being a failing element in the RBMP (Environment Agency, 2009). In 2008 and 2010, Cefas carried out the chemical analyses of sediment samples from

Berth 201/202 Assessment of Capital DredgingUnder the Water Framework Directive

R/4028 12 R.1846TN

Southampton Water. TBT concentrations within the 2008 sediment samples were below Cefas Action Levels for all sample locations, apart from one sample at the Upper Swinging Ground, which exceeded Action Level 1. In 2010, TBT concentrations for all sample locations were below Cefas Action Levels. This is apart from the average TBT concentration of four samples taken within the berthing pockets of Berth 201/202 which exceeded Action Level 1, but were below Action Level 2, as shown in Table 3. This exceedance only occurred in the surface sediments at Berth 201/202, with TBT concentrations at depth being below Action Level 1 and predominantly below the limits of detection (


R/4028 13 R.1846TN

4.1.2.7 Conclusion As assessed through the scoping tables and identified in the Berth 201/202 Works ES (ABPmer, 2008a) the dredging and disposal activities only have a localised and temporary effect, in close vicinity to the dredge site. It is also relevant to note that the existing channel and berths within this water body are regularly dredged as part of an ongoing maintenance program and these activities have not been identified as having an impact on the water body status (ABPmer, 2008b). Therefore any impact on the larger transitional water body from the proposed works at berth 201/202 would be minimal and insignificant.

4.1.3 Multiple Rivers - Fluvial Water Bodies

4.1.3.1 Overview A WFD Assessment is completed for three rivers which are seen to be contiguous with Southampton Water transitional water body and have a potential for tidal exchange. These are reviewed under one set of tables as very similar properties exist across all the rivers. Also there is no dredge activity directly within the fluvial systems, so a range of elements are simply not applicable. The overall status of the assessed rivers are set out in Table 2; these range from “poor” for the River Test (Lower), “moderate” for the Magazine Lane Stream and “good” for Bartley Water. The failing river has a poor ecological potential and failing chemical status. The moderate and good rivers predominantly have a moderate ecological potential, where the chemical status is not assessed. The screening and scoping WFD Assessment tables for the fluvial water bodies are in Appendix C, Table 3a and 4a respectively.

4.1.3.2 Screened out (Environment Agency) The elements screened out within the assessment tables (Table 3a and 3b) by the Environment Agency (Environment Agency 2010a) are set out below: Phytoplankton; Dominant currents, as this is only applicable to coastal water bodies; Freshwater flow, as this is only applicable to transitional water bodies; Thermal conditions; and Salinity.

4.1.3.3 Screened out (screening triggers) By applying the screening trigger tables for the assessment of marine dredging activities within the contiguous transitional water body, the following elements are screened out: Biological elements including aquatic flora, benthic invertebrate and fish fauna as there

is no zone of effect in these water bodies; Morphological conditions including depth variation and bed properties as there is no

zone of effect in these water bodies;


R/4028 14 R.1846TN

Intertidal zone structure, as there is no dredge activity in these water bodies; Wave exposure, as there is no dredge activity in these water bodies; Transparency and oxygenation conditions, as the screening score (i.e. 0) is less than

the trigger for scoping (i.e. 1.5 and 4 respectively); All specific pollutants, as these apply to the sediments in areas that the dredge is

directly taking place; All priority substances, as these apply to the sediments in areas that the dredge is

directly taking place; and Protected areas: Bathing and Shellfish Waters as none occur within the 5km dredge

footprint in these water bodies.

4.1.3.4 Screened in elements (screening triggers) The only elements that require assessment based on the screening results are: Nutrient conditions as the dredge is a capital dredge; and Protected areas: Nutrient Sensitive Areas, SACs and SPAs.

4.1.3.5 Scoping output: Biological, hydromorphological and chemical elements

The only elements screened in for review of the fluvial water bodies are the nutrient conditions and the assessment of protected areas. For the nutrient conditions the potential source is from the contiguous Southampton Water. The overall significance of potential changes to nutrient concentrations in the water column for Southampton Water is assessed as being insignificant with respect to the water quality standards proposed under the WFD, as the minor releases of nutrients from the dredging activity will be rapidly diluted to background levels. Furthermore, there is no significant pathway by which material might move from the dredge upstream into the rivers beyond the NTL.

4.1.3.6 Scoping output: Protected areas All the rivers are contiguous with the Southampton Water water body. Therefore it is used as a proxy for assessing the nutrient vulnerable areas and areas designated for habitat protection including SACs and SPAs (Figure 2 to 3) within the fluvial bodies. Dredging activities within the berth pocket are assessed to have an insignificant to at worst minor adverse significant impact on the screened in designated and protected areas.

4.1.3.7 Conclusion The likelihood of the proposed capital dredge having a non-temporary negative impact on these water bodies is minimal. The dredge does not directly occur within these fluvial bodies and therefore any influences on these are only going to be indirect. The Berth 201/202 Works ES (ABPmer, 2008a) identified that dredging and disposal activities only have a localised and temporary effect, in close vicinity to the dredge and disposal sites. Results from the assessment for Southampton Water show that any impact on the larger transitional water body from the proposed works at Berth 201/202 would be minimal and insignificant. Therefore any impact on the fluvial water bodies would be insignificant.


R/4028 15 R.1846TN

4.2 WFD Assessment Summary

Tables 4a and b consider the likelihood of a non-temporary effect on the current status of each scoped in parameter at the water body level. Reference is then made to the section within the Berth 201/202 Works ES (ABPmer, 2008a) that investigates the impact of each respective element (Appendices A to C, Table 4a and 4b). For completeness, a summary of the ES findings and any required mitigation strategies is reviewed in Appendix D, with respect to the assessed water bodies and the elements scoped in for the respective water bodies. The assessed elements are all identified to have an insignificant impact at the water body level. As assessed through the scoping tables (Appendix A and B, for the Isle of Wight East and Southampton Water water bodies respectively), the capital dredge activity has a localised and temporary effect only in close proximity to the Berth 201/202 Works and disposal site. Therefore, the overall conclusion of this WFD Assessment is that the proposed capital dredge at Berth 201/202 will not have any impact on the Southampton Water (T17) and the scoped in fluvial water bodies. In addition the proposed disposal at the Nab Deposit Ground will not have any impact on the Isle of Wight East (C5) coastal water body.

5. References ABPmer, 2008a. Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works. ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd, Report No. R.1494. ABPmer, 2008b. Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Southampton Approach Channel Dredge. ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd, Report No. R.1464. Defra, 2009. The River Basin Districts Typology, Standards and Groundwater threshold values (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Directions, 2009. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Environment Agency (2009). River Basin Management Plan (RBMP): South East River Basin District. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/124978.aspx Environment Agency (2010a). Marine dredging and the Water Framework Directive - Stage one: the scoping process. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_one_Screening_ final.pdf Environment Agency (2010b). Marine dredging and the Water Framework Directive - Stage two: the scoping process. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_two_scoping_ final.pdf

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/124978.aspxhttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_one_Screening_final.pdfhttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_one_Screening_final.pdfhttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_two_scoping_final.pdfhttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_two_scoping_final.pdf


R/4028 16 R.1846TN

Environment Agency (2010c). Marine dredging and the Water Framework Directive - Stage three: assessment. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_three_assessment. pdf Environment Agency (2010d). Marine dredging and the Water Framework Directive - Stage four: identification and evaluation of measures. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_four_indentification_and_evaluation_of_ measures.pdf Environment Agency (2010e). Clearing the Waters: A User Guide for Marine Dredging Activities. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/116352.aspx HR Wallingford, 2009. Marine Navigation Dredging Project Draft Guidance Framework. Report EX6211 Release 1.0. December 2009.

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_three_assessment.pdfhttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_three_assessment.pdfhttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_four_indentification_and_evaluation_of_measures.pdfhttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_four_indentification_and_evaluation_of_measures.pdfhttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Stage_four_indentification_and_evaluation_of_measures.pdfhttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/116352.aspx

Figures

Bartley WaterMagazine Lane Stream

River Hamble

River Hamble

River ItchenRiver Test (lower)

Southampton Water

MedinaLymington

Beaulieu River

Newtown RiverCHRISTCHURCH HARBOUR

Eastern Yar

Chichester Harbour

Western Yar

Wallington

Wootton Creek

Pagham LagoonBlack Water lagoons

Bembridge Harbour Lagoon

Solent

Isle of Wight East

Chichester HarbourLangstone Harbour

Portsmouth HarbourGreat Deep

Sowley Marsh

440000 460000 480000

70000

90000

110000

0°55'0"W1°6'0"W1°17'0"W1°28'0"W1°39'0"W

50°47'

0"N50°

36'0"N

±

Water Bodiesin the Study Area

DateJuly 2011

ByMCE

SizeA4

Version1

1528 - Fig3_Dredge_Zones_Wbodies.mxd

ScaleProjection OSGB 1936

© ABPmer, All rights reserved, 2011Sources: ABP, Environment AgencyNOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION

0 2.5 5 7.5 101.25 km

Water Bodies - FluvialChannelDisposal SiteDisposal Site 5km BufferBerths 201 & 202Berths 201 & 202 5km BufferWater Bodies - CoastalWater Bodies - Transitional

Produced by ABPmer Ltd

1:300,000

Figure 1

QA FMM

Bartley Water Magazine Lane Stream

River ItchenRiver Test (lower)

Southampton Water

ChichesterChannel

13 River Test

56 Chichester Harbour

55 LangstoneHarbour

123 Hamble Estuary

121 Medina Estuary

110 River Itchen

124 NewtownHarbour

122 River Hamble

112

111 Portsmouth Harbour

RydeSouthernCowes

Portsmouth Harbour*

Sowley

Spithead and Stokes BayCentral Solent

Langstone Harbour*

Lymington Newtown BankPennington Yarmouth

Emsworth Channel

Southampton Water

Southampton Water Approach Thornham Channel

Lepe Middle Bank

Stanswood BayBeaulieu River

Southern Medina

440000 460000 480000

70000

90000

110000

0°55'0"W1°6'0"W1°17'0"W1°28'0"W1°39'0"W

50°47'

0"N50°

36'0"N

±

Location of Proposed Dredge with Eutrophic Zones and Shellfish Areas

DateJuly 2011

ByMCE

SizeA4

Version1

1523 - Fig2_201_Dredge_Zones.mxd



0 2.5 5 7.5 101.25 km

Disposal SitesDisposal Site 5km BufferEutrophic SitesChannelBerths 201 & 202Berths 201 & 202 BufferShellfish Waters


1:300,000

Figure 2

QA FMM

Southampton Water

River Test

River Hamble

Hamble Estuary

River Itchen (Hampshire)

112Selsey

440000 460000 480000

70000

90000

110000

0°55'0"W1°6'0"W1°17'0"W1°28'0"W1°39'0"W

50°47'

0"N50°

36'0"N

±

International Nature Conservation Designations in the Study Area

DateJuly 2011

ByMCE

SizeA4

Version1

1528 - Fig3_Dredge_Zones_Desig.mxd



0 2.5 5 7.5 101.25 km

Disposal SiteDisposal Site 5km BufferChannelBerths 201 & 202Berths 201 & 202 5km BufferSpecial Areas of ConservationSpecial Protection AreasRamsar


1:300,000

Figure 3

QA FMM

Appendices

Appendix A Appendix A Isle of Wight East (C5) Isle of Wight East (C5)

Appendix A: Isle of Wight East – Coastal Water Body C5Table 3b: Screening trigger Table for Disposal Effects on WFD parameters

Classification

Screening trigger Screening trigger

Phytoplankton Composition,

abundance and

biomass

Other aquatic flora (for example

angiosperms; saltmarsh, seagrass or

macroalgae; seaweed).

Composition and

abundance.

Benthic invertebrate fauna. Composition and

abundance.

Fish fauna (transitional only). Composition and

abundance.

Depth variation.

Bed. Quantity (transitional

only), structure and

substrate.

Inter-tidal zone structure. Is the disposal site on the inter-tidal area or is it within 10m of MLWS? No [If yes.]

Dominant currents (relevant to coastal

water bodies only).

Direction. Is this a new disposal site in a coastal water body or a significant change

to existing disposal operations at a site in a coastal water body?

No [If yes.]

Freshwater flow (relevant to transitional

water bodies only).

Wave exposure. Is the activity a capital dredge that will take place in a shallow water body? No [If yes.]

Transparency.

Thermal conditions.

Oxygenation conditions.

Salinity.

Nutrient conditions

(for example nitrogen).

Specific pollutants

Arsenic. As present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. No [If yes.]

Chromium. Cr present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. No [If yes.]

Copper. Cu present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. Yes [If yes.]

Zinc. Zn present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. No [If yes.]

PCBs (congeners to be determined).

PCBs are not yet included on the list of

specific pollutants but are likely to be

included in the near future. Further

discussion is required between the

regulators and industry about their

inclusion at this stage.

PCBs present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. No [If yes.]

Selected priority substances

Anthracene (PHS). Present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. No [If yes.]

Hexachlorobenzene,

hexachlorobutadiene and

hexachlorocyclohexane.

These substances are not measured by

CEFAS. Research may be required to

demonstrate the need for analysis.

Analysis not usually requested by EA.

Present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. No [If yes.]

Penta bromodiphenyl ethers.

Only measured by CEFAS in certain

locations. Analysis not usually requested

by EA.


Cadmium and its compounds (PHS). Present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. No [If yes.]

Fluoranthene. Present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. No [If yes.]

Lead and its compounds. Present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. No [If yes.]

Mercury and its compounds (PHS). Present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. Yes [If yes.]

Napthalene. Present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. No [If yes.]

Nickel and its compounds. Present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. Yes [If yes.]

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PHS):

• (Benzo(a)pyrene) (PHS).

• (Benzo(b)fluoranthene) (PHS).

• (Benzo(g,h,i)perylene) (PHS).

• (Benzo(k)fluoranthene).

• (Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene)


Tributyltin compounds (PHS). Present in sediments above CEFAS Al 1. Yes [If yes.]

Protected areas (relevant to dredging

and

disposal activities)

Relevant legislation

Areas designated for the protection of

economically significant aquatic species

(for example shellfish waters).

Freshwater Fish

Directive 78/659/EEC.

Shellfish Waters

Directive 76/160/EEC

and 20006/7/EEC.

Is the disposal footprint located fully or partially within the designated

area?

If the activity involves the intentional dispersal of sediment the

screening trigger for dredging should be applied.

No [If yes.]

Bodies of water designated as

recreational waters (for example bathing

waters).

Bathing Waters

Directive 76/160/EEC

and 2006/7/EEC.

Is the disposal footprint located fully or partially within the designated

area?

If the activity involves the intentional dispersal of sediment the

screening trigger for dredging should be applied.

No [If yes.]

Nutrient-sensitive areas including Nitrate

Vulnerable Zones, polluted waters and

sensitive Areas.

Nitrates Directive

91/676/EEC.

Urban Wastewater

Treatment Directive

91/271/EEC.

Areas designated for the protection of

habitats or species where maintenance

or improvement of the status of water is

an important factor in their protection,

including Natura 2000 sites (for example

Special Areas of Conservation or

Special Protection Areas

Habitats Directive

92/43/EEC (SACs).

Birds Directive

79/409/EEC (SPAs).

Is the dredge a capital or new dredge? Yes [If yes.and If no.]

WFD parameter

(quality elements, specific pollutant

priority

substance, protected area

Dredging triggers for potential effects on WFD parameters at water body level

(where possible)

Biological elements

Screened out

a. Will the dredging directly remove inter-tidal area or is it within 10m of

MLWS?

or

b. Proportion of water body impacted by disposal activity.

Disposal site footprint = 11.3 km2.

Water body size = 262.7 km2.

Zone of effect = 4.3%

Note that effects of dispersive dredging techniques are considered under

dredging. Only licensed disposal or placement sites should be considered

in this column.

Zone of effect 5% of Y

i.e. the dredge

will effect more

than 5% of the

water body]

Hydromorphological elements supporting biological elements

Morphological conditions

Proportion of water body impacted by disposal activity.

Disposal site footprint = 11.3 km2.

Water body size = 262.7 km2.

Zone of effect =4.3%

No, Zone of effect 5% of Y i.e. the

dredging will effect more

than 5% of the water

body.]

Tidal regime

Screened out.

Chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting biological

elements

Screened out

Screened out with exceptions. Best available evidence indicates that effects of disposal on

transparency are temporary.

However if the activity involves the intentional dispersal of sediment the screening

trigger for dredging should be applied.

Dispersive dredging includes (but is not limited to):

• discharge into a water body through pipe from a cutter suction dredger;

• ploughing;

• water injection dredging;

• water agitation dredging.

Screened out

The screening trigger for PS will need to be refined using the awaited Defra guidance on the PSD, results of the CEFAS

dredging research programme and potentially the development of sediment contaminant levels that can reliably be

shown to result in breaches of EQS levels. In the interim, and in accordance with the precautionary principle, it is proposed

to screen in dredging operations where a Priority Substance is present in sediments above CEFAS action level 1

Screened out

Screened out

Screened out

Screened out

It may be that CEFAS can provide research indicating that disposal operations result in very temporary effects on water

quality. If so, disposal operations will be screened out. In the interim the same approach is taken as for dredging.

Appendix A: Isle of Wight East – Coastal Water Body C5Table 4b: Scoping the assessment - Disposal

6 9Aim to improve Supporting Text

Record current status of quality element (include level of confidence in assessment)

Record 2015objective

All assessments must consider whether any measures can be taken to contribute towards improving water body status 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b 5a 5b 5c 6 7a 7b 7c 7d 8a 8b 9

Tick quality elementshighlighted via Screening steps3–4

Referring to trigger tables, tick qualityelements where potential causal link exists

None Unlikely Likely Not known Data exist Data does not exist No assessment required

Overview/high levelassessment

Detailed assessment Aim to improve (only applicable if water body is not already at “good status”)

Scope-in toproject EIA

Scope-in to Maintenance Dredging Protocol or appropriate assessment

Scope-in to project environmental appraisal

WFDspecific investigation required

Scope agreed with regulator

Scope agreed with EA

Cross References to Supporting Text in Environmental Statement

WFD parameter (quality

elements, specific pollutant

priority substance, protected

area)

Biological elements

Phytoplankton High HighOther aquatic flora (for example angiosperms; saltmarsh, seagrass or macroalgae; seaweed).

X X High High

Benthic invertebrate fauna. X X Good GoodFish fauna (transitional only).Hydromorphological elements

supporting biological elements


Depth variation. X X Not assessed Not assessedBed. X X Not assessed Not assessedInter-tidal zone structure. X X Not assessed Not assessedTidal regime

Dominant currents (coastal water bodies only).

X X Not assessed Not assessed

Freshwater flow (transitional water bodies only).Wave exposure. X X Not assessed Not assessedChemical and physico-chemical

elements supporting biological

elements

Transparency. Not assessed Not assessedThermal conditions.Oxygenation conditions. High HighSalinity.Nutrient conditions(for example nitrogen).

Good Good

Specific pollutants

Arsenic. X X Not assessed Not assessedChromium. X X Not assessed Not assessedCopper. √ √ High High √ √ √ √ Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75Zinc. X X Not assessed Not assessedPCBs (congeners to be determined by EA &CEFAS).



Anthracene (PHS). X X Not assessed Not assessedHexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene and hexachlorocyclohexane.


Penta bromodiphenyl ethers. X X Not assessed Not assessedCadmium and its compounds (PHS).

X X High High

Fluoranthene. X X Not assessed Not assessedLead and its compounds. X X High HighMercury and its compounds (PHS). √ √ High High √ √ √ √ Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75Napthalene. X XNickel and its compounds. √ √ High High √ √ √ √ Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PHS):• (Benzo(a)pyrene) (PHS).• (Benzo(b)fluoranthene) (PHS).• (Benzo(g,h,i)perylene) (PHS).• (Benzo(k)fluoranthene).• (Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene) and benzo(g,h,i)perylene) (PHS).


Tributyltin compounds (PHS). √ √ Not assessed Not assessed √ √ √ √ Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75Protected areas

Areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species (for example shellfish waters).

X X

Bodies of water designated as recreational waters (for example bathing waters).

X X

Nutrient-sensitive areas including NitrateVulnerable Zones, polluted waters andsensitive Areas.

X X

Areas designated for the protection of habitats or species where maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection, including Natura 2000 sites (for example Special Areas of Conservation or Special Protection Areas

√ √ √ √ √ √ Para 10.62 to 10.77; Para 10.82 to 10.86

Step 1 2 3 4Identify issues Record current status & 2015 Consider likelihood of effect Indicate data availability

Using existing knowledge and information indicate likelihood of a non-temporary effect on status at water body level

Indicate whether potentially useful data already exist for that quality element

High/good/moderate/poor/bad for ecological elements or high/fail for chemical elements orprotected area status or not assessed

Screened out: No requirement to assess

Screened out: No requirement to assessScreened out: No requirement to assess

Tick all potentially-affected quality elements or identify all potentially-affected protected area characteristics



5 7 8Decide on level of assessment Consider options for delivery of assessment Confirm and agree scope


Indicate appropriate scope of assessmentbased on likelihood of effect on status atwater body level

Proposed delivery mechanism(s) More than one option may be ticked if appropriate Tick when scope of assessment is agreed with regulator (for example MFA) or EA (if no other assessment mechanism applies)

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable



Appendix B Southampton Water (T17)

Appendix B: Southampton Water - Transitional Water Body T17Table 3a: Screening trigger table for dredging effects on WFD parameters

Classification

Screening trigger Scoping required


abundance and

biomass

Other aquatic flora (for

example angiosperms;

saltmarsh, seagrass or

macroalgae; seaweed).

Composition and

abundance.


abundance.


abundance.

Depth variation.



substrate.

Inter-tidal zone structure. Will the dredging directly remove inter-tidal area or is it within 10m of

MLWS?

No [If yes.]

Dominant currents (relevant to

coastal water bodies only).

Direction.

Freshwater flow (relevant to

transitional water bodies only).

Flow Is the dredge a capital or dredge or a significant change to a maintenance

dredge?

Yes, Capital Dredge

[If yes.]

Wave exposure. Is the activity a capital dredge that will take place in a shallow water body? Yes [If yes.]

Transparency. High level risk assessment.

Score dredge as follows:

Zone of effect: >5% = 1. 5% = 1.

Appendix B: Southampton Water - Transitional Water Body T17Table 4a: Scoping the assessment - Dredging

















WFD parameter (quality

elements, specific pollutant

priority substance, protected

area)

Biological elements

Phytoplankton High HighOther aquatic flora (for example angiosperms; saltmarsh, seagrass or macroalgae; seaweed).

X X Good Good

Benthic invertebrate fauna. X X Moderate (Uncertain) ModerateFish fauna (transitional only). X X Good GoodHydromorphological elements

supporting biological

elements


Depth variation. X X Not assessed Not assessedBed. X X Not assessed Not assessedInter-tidal zone structure. X X Not assessed Not assessedTidal regime

Dominant currents (coastal water bodies only).Freshwater flow (transitional water bodies only).

√ √ Supports Good Supports Good √ √ √ √ Para 8.31-8.33

Wave exposure. √ √ Not assessed Not assessed √ √ √ √ Para 8.68-8.78Chemical and physico-

chemical elements supporting

biological elements

Transparency. X X Not assessed Not assessedThermal conditions.Oxygenation conditions. √ √ High High √ √ √ √ Para 10.68-10.69Salinity.Nutrient conditions(for example nitrogen).

√ √ Moderate (Uncertain) Moderate √ √ √ √ Para 10.76-10.77

Specific pollutants

Arsenic. X X High HighChromium. X X Not assessed Not assessedCopper. √ √ High High √ √ √ √ Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75Zinc. X X High HighPCBs (congeners to be determined by EA &CEFAS).

X X High High


Anthracene (PHS). X X High HighHexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene and hexachlorocyclohexane.

X X High High

Penta bromodiphenyl ethers. X X Not assessed Not assessedCadmium and its compounds (PHS).

X X High High

Fluoranthene. X X Not assessed Not assessedLead and its compounds. X X High HighMercury and its compounds (PHS).

√ √ High High √ √ √ √ Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75

Napthalene. X X Not assessed Not assessedNickel and its compounds. √ √ High High √ √ √ √ Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PHS):• (Benzo(a)pyrene) (PHS).• (Benzo(b)fluoranthene) (PHS).• (Benzo(g,h,i)perylene) (PHS).• (Benzo(k)fluoranthene).• (Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene) and benzo(g,h,i)perylene) (PHS).


Tributyltin compounds (PHS). √ √ High High √ √ √ √ Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75Protected areas


√ √ √ √ √ √ Para 10.62-10.70


X X


√ √ √ √ √ √ Para 10.76-10.77


√ √ √ √ √ √ Para 10.62-10.70, 10.76-10.77

3



4Identify issues Record current status & 2015 Consider likelihood of effect Indicate data availability

Step 1

Screened out: No requirement to assess Not applicable


2 8Decide on level of assessment Consider options for delivery of assessment Confirm and agree scope5 7

Tick when scope of assessment is agreed with regulator (for example MFA) or EA (if no other assessment mechanism applies)






Proposed delivery mechanism(s) More than one option may be ticked if appropriate

Appendix C Multiple Rivers (R)

Appendix C: Multiple Rivers - Fluvial Water BodiesTable 3a: Screening trigger table for dredging effects on WFD parameters

Classification

Screening trigger Scoping required


abundance and

biomass

Other aquatic flora (for example angiosperms;

saltmarsh, seagrass or macroalgae; seaweed).

Composition and

abundance.


abundance.


abundance.

Depth variation.



substrate.

Inter-tidal zone structure. Will the dredging directly remove inter-tidal area or is it within 10m of

MLWS?

No [If yes.]

Dominant currents (relevant to coastal water

bodies only).

Freshwater flow (relevant to transitional water

bodies only).

Wave exposure. Is the activity a capital dredge that will take place in a shallow water body? No [If yes.]

Transparency. High level risk assessment.

Score dredge as follows:

Zone of effect: >5% = 1. 5% = 1. 5% of Y i.e. the

dredging will effect more

than 5% of the water

body.]

Tidal regime

The screening trigger for PS will need to be refined using the awaited Defra guidance on the PSD, results of the CEFAS

dredging research programme and potentially the development of sediment contaminant levels that can reliably be

shown to result in breaches of EQS levels. In the interim, and in accordance with the precautionary principle, it is proposed

to screen in dredging operations where a Priority substance is present in sediments above CEFAS action level 1.

Chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting biological elements

Screened out

Screened out with the exception of the Norfolk Broads.

The screening trigger for specific pollutants will need to be refined using the awaited Defra guidance on the PSD, results

of the CEFAS dredging research programme and potentially the development of sediment contaminant levels that can

reliably be shown to result in breaches of EQS levels. In the interim, and in accordance with the precautionary principle,

it is proposed to screen in dredging operations where a specific pollutant is present in sediments above CEFAS action

level 1.

Screened out.

Screened out.

Appendix C: Multiple Rivers - Fluvial Water BodiesTable 4a: Scoping the assessment - Dredging

















WFD parameter (quality elements,

specific pollutant priority substance,

protected area)

Biological elements

PhytoplanktonOther aquatic flora (for example angiosperms; saltmarsh, seagrass or macroalgae; seaweed).

X X Moderate to High Moderate to High

Benthic invertebrate fauna. X X Moderate to High Moderate to HighFish fauna (transitional only). Moderate to Good Moderate to GoodHydromorphological elements

supporting biological elements


Depth variation. X X Not assessed Not assessedBed. X X Supports good Supports goodInter-tidal zone structure. X X Supports good Supports goodTidal regime

Dominant currents (coastal water bodies only).Freshwater flow (transitional water bodies only).Wave exposure. X X Not assessed Not assessedChemical and physico-chemical


elements

Transparency. X X Not assessed Not assessedThermal conditions.Oxygenation conditions. X X Moderate to Good Moderate to GoodSalinity.Nutrient conditions(for example nitrogen).

√ √ Not assessed Not assessed √ √ √ √ Para 10.82 to 10.83

Specific pollutants

Arsenic. X X High HighChromium. X X Not assessed Not assessedCopper. X X High HighZinc. X X High HighPCBs (congeners to be determined by EA & CEFAS).



Anthracene (PHS). X X Not assessed Not assessedHexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene and hexachlorocyclohexane.

X X High High

Penta bromodiphenyl ethers. X X Not assessed Not assessedCadmium and its compounds (PHS). X X High HighFluoranthene. X X Not assessed Not assessedLead and its compounds. X X High HighMercury and its compounds (PHS). X X High HighNapthalene. X X Not assessed Not assessedNickel and its compounds. X X High HighPolyaromatic hydrocarbons (PHS):• (Benzo(a)pyrene) (PHS).• (Benzo(b)fluoranthene) (PHS).• (Benzo(g,h,i)perylene) (PHS).• (Benzo(k)fluoranthene).• (Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene) and benzo(g,h,i)perylene) (PHS).

X X High High

Tributyltin compounds (PHS). X X Moderate (uncertain) to High

Moderate (uncertain) to High

Protected areas


X X


X X


√ √ √ √ √ √ Para 10.82 to 10.83


√ √ √ √ √ √ As above

Step 1 2 3Identify issues Record current status & 2015 Consider likelihood of effect

4 5 7 8Indicate data availability Decide on level of assessment Consider options for delivery of assessment Confirm and agree scope

Proposed delivery mechanism(s) More than one option may be ticked if appropriate Tick when scope of assessment is agreed with regulator (for example MFA) or EA (if no other assessment mechanism applies)












Appendix D WFD Assessment Summary Tables

Appendix D: Coastal Water Bodies (Isle of Wight East, disposal)WFD parameter

(quality elements, specific

pollutant priority substance,

protected area)

Cross References to Supporting

Text in Environmental Appraisal.

WFD Assessment

Specific pollutants

Copper. Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75 There is only one occurrence of Copper above the Cefas action level 1. This occurs in only one

sample in the surface sediments, which is at a shallow sediment depth.

Generally, any contamination detected occurred at isolated spots within the water body and

mainly in the surface sediments, which is a low proportion of the total dredge volume. Given the

small magnitude and the low probability of occurrence of the pollutants and the highly unlikely

exposure of any receptors (i.e. the likelihood of exceeding sediment quality standards and

guidelines above background) to changes to chemical quality during dredging and disposal, any

influence will be negligible and therefore the overall impact is considered insignificant.


Mercury and its compounds (PHS).

Nickel and its compounds.

Tributyltin compounds (PHS). Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75 There are occurrences of TBT above Cefas Action Level 1, based on measurements completed

by Cefas in 2010. The occurrences are isolated to the surface samples from four samples within

the Berth 201/202 pocket. TBT concentrations above Action Level 1 were also identified at one

sampled location along Southampton Water (Upper Swinging Ground) in 2008, which is in

proximity to the Berth 201/202. There were no occurrences of DBT above Action Level 1 in any of

the 2008 and 2010 Cefas chemical analyses.

Again, any contamination detected occurred at isolated spots and was found only in the surface

sediments, which is a low proportion of the total dredge volume. Given the small magnitude and

the low probability of occurrence of the pollutants and the highly unlikely exposure of any

receptors (i.e. the likelihood of exceeding sediment quality standards and guidelines above

background) to changes to chemical quality during dredging and disposal, any influence will be

negligible and therefore the overall impact is considered insignificant.

Protected areas

Areas designated for the protection

of habitats or species where

maintenance or improvement of the

status of water is an important factor

in their protection, including Natura

2000 sites (for example Special

Areas of Conservation or Special

Protection Areas

Para 10.62-10.70, 10.76-10.77 The proposed dredge and disposal areas lie outside all of the internationally, nationally and locally

designated nature conservation sites although they are intersected based on the 5km dredge

footprint. Any impact on the designated sites will only be via indirect pathways i.e. as a

consequence of the effect of the proposed works on the hydrodynamic and sedimentary regime,

such as the dispersal of sediments arising from the disturbance of bed material during dredging.

Also, any influence would be only localised, temporary and transient, therefore the impact to the

protected areas is interpreted to be insignificant.

Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75 There is only one occurrence of Mercury above the Cefas action level 1. This occurs in only one

sample at a shallow sediment depth. There are four occurrences of Nickel above the Cefas action

level 1. These occur in three of the four sampled locations, mainly in deeper sediment depths.

Generally, any contamination detected occurred at isolated spots within the water body and

mainly in the surface sediments, which is a low proportion of the total dredge volume. Given the

small magnitude and the low probability of occurrence of the pollutants and the highly unlikely

exposure of any receptors (i.e. the likelihood of exceeding sediment quality standards and

guidelines above background) to changes to chemical quality during dredging and disposal, any


Appendix D: Transitional Water Body (Southampton Water)WFD parameter

(quality elements, specific pollutant

priority substance, protected area)

Cross References to Supporting

Text in Environmental Appraisal.

WFD Assessment

Tidal regime

Freshwater flow (transitional water bodies

only).

Para 8.31-8.33 The major sources of freshwater are from the River Test and Itchen and Bartley Water. The rates of freshwater input are

highly variable and relate to the scale of each river catchment and rainfall patterns, which vary seasonally. However, the

relative contribution of freshwater input remains small when compared to the volume of water exchanged during each tide.

Therefore the effect of the dredge on freshwater flow is insignificant for both coastal water bodies.

Wave exposure. Para 8.68-8.78 The presence of swell waves in the vicinity of the dredge is minimal due to the up-estuary location of the site. Also the

berth pocket deepening does not modify the wave activity in the area, whereas the longer term trends influencing the

future development of Southampton Water remain dominated by sea level rise.

Chemical and physico-chemical


elements

Oxygenation conditions Para 10.68-10.69 The impact of changes to dissolved oxygen during dredging of berth 201/202 will be insignificant with respect to the

designated Shellfish Waters located within Southampton Water and the Test Estuary.

Nutrient conditions

(for example nitrogen).

Para 10.76-10.77 The overall significance of potential changes to nutrient concentrations in the water column during dredging is assessed as

being insignificant with respect to the water quality standards proposed under the WFD, as any release of nutrients will be

rapidly diluted to background levels.

Specific pollutants

Copper. Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75 There is only one occurrence of Copper above the Cefas action level 1. This occurs in only one sample in the surface

sediments, which is at a shallow sediment depth.

Generally, any contamination detected occurred at isolated spots within the water body and mainly in the surface

sediments, which is a low proportion of the total dredge volume. Given the small magnitude and the low probability of

occurrence of the pollutants and the highly unlikely exposure of any receptors (i.e. the likelihood of exceeding sediment

quality standards and guidelines above background) to changes to chemical quality during dredging and disposal, any



Mercury and its compounds (PHS).

Nickel and its compounds.

Tributyltin compounds (PHS). Para 9.27-9.31 and 10.71-10.75 There are occurrences of TBT above Cefas Action Level 1, based on measurements completed by Cefas in 2010. The

occurrences are isolated to the surface samples from four samples within the Berth 201/202 pocket. TBT concentrations

above Action Level 1 were also identified at one sampled location along Southampton Water (Upper Swinging Ground) in

2008, which is in proximity to the Berth 201/202. There were no occurrences of DBT above Action Level 1 in any of the

2008 and 2010 Cefas chemical analyses.

Again, any contamination detected occurred at isolated spots and was found only in the surface sediments, which is a low

proportion of the total dredge volume. Given the small magnitude and the low probability of occurrence of the pollutants

and the highly unlikely exposure of any receptors (i.e. the likelihood of exceeding sediment quality standards and

guidelines above background) to changes to chemical quality during dredging and disposal, any influence will be negligible

and therefore the overall impact is considered insignificant.

Protected areas

Areas designa

abpmer report no. r.1846tn - 19 october 2011 (final)...wfd assessment with supporting tables. 2....

Documents