Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive

Transcription

1 ABP Southampton Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive Report R.1832TN November 2011

2

3 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive Contents Page 1. Introduction Water Framework Directive Water Body Information Study Area Water Bodies Current Status of Water Bodies Water Quality and Protected Areas Bathing Waters Directive Shellfish Waters Directive Freshwater Fish Waters Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Other Directives Natura 2000 Protected Areas Water Framework Directive Assessment Water Body Assessments Solent - Coastal Water Body C Isle of Wight East - Coastal Water Body C Southampton Water - Transitional Water Body T Beaulieu River (T2) and Medina (T4) - Transitional Water Bodies Multiple Rivers - Fluvial Water Bodies WFD Assessment Summary References...23 Appendices A. Solent (C4) B. Isle of Wight East (C5) C. Southampton Water (T17) D. Beaulieu River (T2) and Medina (T4) E. Multiple Rivers (R) F. WFD Assessment Summary Tables R/1523/111 (i) R.1832TN

4 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive Tables 1. Coastal and transitional water bodies within 5km of the dredge footprint Fluvial water bodies within 5km of the dredge footprint Summary of water body status Bathing water quality classifications for 2006 to Environment Agency monitoring of Shellfish Waters: 2008, 2009 and 2010 data Cefas measured contaminant levels for 2008/ Figures 1. Water Bodies in the Study Area 2. Location of Proposed Dredge with Eutrophic Zones, Bathing Waters and Shellfish Areas 3. International Nature Conservation Designations in the Study Area R/1523/111 (ii) R.1832TN

5 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive 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 channel deepening and widening of the Southampton Approach Channel and should be read in conjunction with ABPmer (2008) R1464, Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Southampton Approach Channel Dredge. The following sections detail the Southampton Approach Channel Capital Dredge 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. R/1523/111 1 R.1832TN

6 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive 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 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 The target for water bodies with no designation is as for the HMWB sites; however the bodies should also have good ecological status. 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 two coastal, five transitional and thirty-nine 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 for the coastal and transitional water bodies and Table 2 for the fluvial water bodies. Table 1. Coastal and transitional water bodies within 5km of the dredge footprint Map Hydromorphological Water Body ID Water Body Name Code Designation C4 GB Solent HMWB C5 GB Isle of Wight East HMWB T2 GB Beaulieu River HMWB T3 GB Black Water lagoons AWB T4 GB Medina HMWB T17 GB Southampton Water HMWB T19 GB Wootton Creek HMWB HMWB = Heavily Modified Water Body; AWB = Artificial Water Body All the coastal and transitional water bodies have a hydromorphological designation of HMWB except Black Water lagoons which is an AWB (Table 1). Nineteen fluvial water bodies are also designated as HMWB, while the remainder have no designation (Table 2). R/1523/111 2 R.1832TN

7 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive Table 2. Catchment New Forest Fluvial water bodies within 5km of the dredge footprint Map Code Water Body ID River Name Hydromorphological Designation Scope Within This Assessment Reason R4 GB River Beaulieu HMWB In R10 GB Stone Farm Stream None Out NTL/Piping R11 GB Mopley Pond Stream None Out NTL/Piping R13 GB Dark Water HMWB In R14 GB Cadland Stream None Out NTL/Piping R15 GB Langdown Stream HMWB Out NTL/Piping R18 GB Marchwood Park Stream Tributary HMWB Out NTL/Piping R21 GB Bartley Water HMWB In R29 GB Beaulieu Abbey Stream None Out NTL/Piping R30 GB Magazine Lane Stream HMWB In East Hampshire R1 GB Hamble None In R13 GB Bromwich Stream None In R14 GB Hook Lake HMWB Out NTL/Piping R15 GB River Alver None Out NTL/Piping R16 GB Hamble None In R17 GB Hamble HMWB Out NTL/Piping R21 GB River Meon None In R22 GB Hamble HMWB Out NTL/Piping Isle of Wight R9 GB Blackbridge Brook HMWB Out Weir R10 GB Monktonmead Brook HMWB Out NTL/Piping R11 GB Palmers Brook None In R16 GB Gunard Luck None Out NTL/Piping R25 GB Dodnor Creek None Out NTL/Piping R26 GB Binstead Stream HMWB Out NTL/Piping R27 GB Quarr Stream HMWB Out NTL/Piping R28 GB Alverstone Stream (Medina) HMWB In R29 GB Great Thorness Stream HMWB Out NTL/Piping R30 GB Little Thorness Stream None In Sluice R1 GB River Itchen HMWB Out Weir/ Sluice R7 GB Cadnam River None Out NTL/Piping R8 GB Tadburn Lake None Out NTL/Piping R12 GB Butlocks Heath Stream None Out NTL/Piping R13 GB Westwood Stream None Out NTL/Piping Test and Itchen R28 GB Tanner's Brook HMWB Out NTL/Piping R32 GB Luzborough Lane Stream None Out NTL/Piping R34 GB Test (Lower) None In R43 GB Sholing Common Streams HMWB Out NTL/Piping R44 GB Highfield Stream HMWB Out NTL/Piping R51 GB River Blackwater None Out NTL/Piping NTL = Natural Tidal Limit R/1523/111 3 R.1832TN

8 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive 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 transitional water bodies. Thirty-nine fluvial water bodies were identified in relation to the dredge and dredge footprint; twelve of these are identified to have potential tidal exchange with the Southampton Water and Solent water bodies and therefore scoped in for further investigation (Table 2). Fluvial water bodies that have been scoped out are beyond the NTL and in some instances discharge through underground pipes, with limited opportunity for tidal inflow. 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 ecological potential for the Solent and Isle of Wight East coastal water bodies are moderate and good respectively. All the transitional water bodies, which include Southampton Water, Beaulieu River, Black Water lagoons, Medina and Wootton Creek are all moderate (uncertain). The chemical status is a fail (uncertain) for the Solent coastal water body based on the status of Tributyltin Compounds (TBTs) which are recorded as moderate (uncertain). A good chemical status is recorded for the Isle of Wight East coastal water body, with a good status for Southampton Water and Medina transitional water bodies. Beaulieu River, Black Water lagoons and Wootton Creek transitional water bodies have no status as they do not require assessment (Environment Agency, 2009). Table 3 summarises the current overall potential and objective status of the aforementioned coastal and transitional water bodies, highlighting the WFD parameters which are currently at moderate status or below. Table 3 also includes the current overall potential and objective status for the fluvial water bodies that are within the scope of this WFD Assessment. 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). The Medina, Beaulieu River, Black Water lagoons and Wootton Creek transitional water bodies are adjacent to the dredge and disposal activities, with no direct dredging within the water bodies themselves. In addition these water bodies already have a moderate potential status, with the occurrence of other maintenance dredging operations within the larger region. In particular Wootton Creek can be scoped out of further assessment as the dredge activity in the vicinity of this water body is isolated and at a small scale, with a 0.02km 2 footprint. It is therefore concluded that any effect is minimal within the context of the water bodies and is unlikely to extend into Wootton Creek. Black Water lagoons water body can also be scoped out because there is no tidal exchange with the lagoons as a sluice regulates water exchange to the lagoon. The review of the Medina and Beaulieu River transitional water bodies are assessed together with one set of tables. This approach has been taken as the dredging activity is not directly within these water bodies. Dredging is in the Solent within the Thorn Channel and therefore any impact from the dredging in the channel would only have an indirect impact on the adjacent R/1523/111 4 R.1832TN

9 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive transitional water bodies. The twelve fluvial water bodies for which there is a potential exchange with the larger coastal and transitional water bodies are also assessed within one set of tables. Again, this approach has been taken as the dredging activities are not directly within these water bodies and any impact would be indirect. Table 3. 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 Solent GB Moderate Potential Good by ) Tributyltin Compounds 2) Mitigation measures for flood and coastal erosion protection Isle of Wight East GB Good Potential Good by 2015 None Southampton Water GB Moderate Potential Good by ) Invertebrates 2) Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen 3) Mitigation measures for flood and coastal erosion protection Medina GB Moderate Potential Good by ) Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen 2) Tidal regime - Freshwater flow Beaulieu River GB Moderate Potential Good by ) Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen Black Water lagoons GB Moderate Potential Good by 2027 None status based on expert judgement Wootton Creek GB Moderate Potential Good by ) Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen 2) Tidal regime - Freshwater flow 3) Mitigation measures for flood and coastal erosion protection River Beaulieu GB Moderate Potential Good by ) Dissolved oxygen 2) Mitigation measures for flood coastal erosion protection Dark Water GB Good Potential Good by 2015 Bartley Water GB Good Potential Good by 2015 Magazine Lane Stream GB Moderate Potential Good by ) Mitigation measures for flood coastal erosion protection Hamble GB Moderate Potential Good by 2027 Bromwich Stream GB Moderate Potential Good by ) Invertebrates Hamble GB Moderate Potential Good by 2027 River Meon GB Good Potential Good by 2015 Palmers Brook GB Moderate Potential Good by 2015 Alverstone Stream (Medina) GB Moderate Potential Good by ) Mitigation measures for flood coastal erosion protection Little Thorness Stream GB Moderate Potential Good by 2027 Test (Lower) GB Poor Good by ) Macrophytes 2) Phytobenthos 3) Tributyltin compounds GEP = Good Ecological Potential 3. Water Quality and Protected Areas (Source: Environment Agency, 2009) 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 R/1523/111 5 R.1832TN

10 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive 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 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 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; 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; Not sampled indicates that the bathing water was closed during the bathing season. In relation to the proposed dredge, there are eight designated Bathing Waters located within 5km of the dredge area, see Figure 2. The sites and their water quality classifications for the period 2006 to 2010, based on the stricter UK guideline standards of the Bathing Waters Directive are listed in Table 4. Site locations Calshot and Lepe have a classification of higher across all years (2006 to present). All other sites have at least one minimum standard with Ryde recording three occurrences during this period. Assessment under the RBMP (southeast) for the period 2004 to 2008 classified six of the eight beaches as having excellent bathing water. The exceptions were Cowes and Ryde, which were classified at good and sufficient respectively (Environment Agency, 2009). R/1523/111 6 R.1832TN

11 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive Table 4. Bathing water quality classifications for 2006 to 2011 Bathing Water (As of July 2011) Stokes Bay Higher Higher Minimum Higher Minimum Higher Lee-on-Solent Higher Higher Minimum Higher Higher Higher Hillhead Higher Higher Minimum Higher Higher Higher Calshot Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Lepe Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Gurnard Higher Higher Minimum Higher Minimum Higher Cowes Higher Higher Minimum Higher Higher Minimum Ryde Higher Minimum Minimum Higher Higher Minimum (Source: Environment Agency, 2011) 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 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. The closest Shellfish Waters to the study area, and within 5km of either dredging or disposal activities are listed in Table 5 and shown in Figure 2. Compliance by these shellfish waters has been assessed by the Environment Agency using monitoring data from 2008, and the results are shown in Table 4. The objective is to achieve imperative standards and endeavouring to respect the guideline standards of the Shellfish Waters Directive. All sites passed the imperative standards in 2008 showing that water quality in these areas is good. However eight of the twelve sites achieved a Guideline Fail. In 2009 and 2010, all sites again passed the imperative standards, although four of these achieved a Guideline Fail in 2009 and eight in The Sowley site was dedesignated for 2009 and 2010 and therefore its status is not assessed. Sites failing on coliform guideline standards usually do so because shellfish accumulate bacteria from water as they filter it to feed. Human and animal waste is generally the source of coliform; control measures R/1523/111 7 R.1832TN

12 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive to manage source inputs typically include reducing inputs from sewage treatment and better management of farm derived waste. Table 5. Environment Agency monitoring of Shellfish Waters: 2008, 2009 and 2010 data Shellfish Water Site Beaulieu River Southern Medina Southampton Water Approach Southampton Water Central Solent Lepe Middle Bank Newtown Bank Ryde Spithead and Stokes Bay Southern Cowes Sowley Stanswood Bay Water Body Status 2008 Status 2009 Status 2010 Beaulieu River Medina Southampton Water Southampton Water Solent Solent Solent Solent Solent Solent Solent Solent 3.3 Freshwater Fish Waters Directive Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Pass / Imperative Pass Guideline Fail / Imperative Pass Guideline Pass / Imperative pass Guideline Pass / Imperative pass Guideline Fail / Imperative Pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Fail / Imperative Pass Guideline Pass / Imperative Pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Pass / Imperative Pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Pass / Imperative Pass Guideline Pass / Imperative Pass Guideline Pass / Imperative Pass Guideline Pass / Imperative Pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Pass / Imperative Pass De-designated Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Pass / Imperative Pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Pass / Imperative Pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass Guideline Fail / Imperative pass De-designated Guideline Pass / Guideline Pass / Imperative Pass Imperative Pass (Source: Environment Agency, 2009) 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 '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 and the Solent 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 R/1523/111 8 R.1832TN

13 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive 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 four designated sensitive eutrophic areas within a 5km footprint of the proposed dredge. These are the Rivers Test and Itchen, and the Hamble and Medina Estuaries. 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 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). 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 and the Solent have long been recognised as being of high biological and 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 R/1523/111 9 R.1832TN

14 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive 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; New Forest Ramsar site; Solent Maritime SAC; South Wight Maritime SAC; River Itchen SAC; and New Forest 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 ( ) 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 will not, therefore, 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, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d), it is possible to provide an early indication as to whether the proposed capital dredging and disposal activities could be: Contributing to an existing failure; or Preventing 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. R/1523/ R.1832TN

15 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive The following groupings have been applied to the water bodies under the assessment: Solent, Isle of Wight East and Southampton Water are considered individually; Beaulieu River and Medina are considered together; and the fluvial water bodies are amalgamated and assessed together. The WFD Assessment for dredging and disposal associated with the Southampton Approach Channel Dredge comprises the following elements, which are set out in Appendix A to F. Appendix A: Screening trigger table for dredging effects (Environment Agency, 2010a, Table 3a) and scoping assessment of WFD parameters (Environment Agency, 2010b, Table 4a) for the Solent coastal water body (C4); Appendix B: Screening trigger table for dredging and disposal effects (Environment Agency, 2010a, Table 3a and b) and scoping assessment of WFD parameters (Environment Agency, 2010b, Table 4a and b) for the Isle of Wight East coastal water body (C5); 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 Southampton Water transitional water body (T17); Appendix D: Screening trigger table for dredging effects (Environment Agency, 2010a, Table 3a) and scoping assessment of WFD parameters (Environment Agency, 2010b, Table 4a) for the Beaulieu River (T2) and Medina (T4) and transitional water bodies; Appendix E: 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 F: 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, then 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 Environmental Statement (ES) (ABPmer 2008) 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 Solent - Coastal Water Body C Overview The South East River Basin District RBMP (Environment Agency, 2009) identified the Solent as having an overall status of moderate potential and failing on two elements, namely Tributyltin (TBT) compounds and mitigation measures for coastal flood and coastal erosion protection R/1523/ R.1832TN

16 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive (Table 3). The former is included as an element that requires screening within the assessment tables, while the latter is not (Environment Agency 2010a). The screening and scoping WFD Assessment tables for this water body are in Appendix A, Table 3a and 4a respectively Screened out (Environment Agency) The elements screened out within the assessment tables (Table 3a) by the Environment Agency (Environment Agency 2010a) for a coastal water body are: Phytoplankton; Fish fauna, as this is only applicable to transitional water bodies; Freshwater flow, as this is only applicable to transitional water bodies; Thermal conditions; and Salinity Screened out (screening triggers) By applying the screening trigger tables for the assessment of marine dredging activities within this coastal water body, the following elements are screened out: 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 in the inter-tidal zone or within 10m of the MLWS in this water body; Wave exposure, as this water body is not shallow; All specific pollutants except Arsenic, as these were not identified or below Cefas AL 1; and All priority substances except Lead and Mercury, as these were not identified or below Cefas AL Screened in elements (screening triggers) The elements screened in for scoping assessment, for this water body are: Biological elements including aquatic flora and benthic invertebrate as the total score is equal to the trigger for scoping; Dominant currents; Transparency; Oxygenation and nutrient conditions; Specific pollutants: Arsenic; Priority substances: Lead and Mercury; and Protected areas: Shellfish Waters, Bathing Waters, Nutrient Sensitive Areas, SACs and SPAs Scoping output: Biological, hydromorphological and chemical elements The element assessments scoped in for review are all interpreted as having an insignificant impact at a water body level based on data collected and analysed as part of the ES for the Southampton Approach Channel Dredge (ABPmer, 2008). Contaminant information derived R/1523/ R.1832TN

17 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive from the sediment sampling along the proposed dredge area showed that there were isolated occurrences of Arsenic, Lead and Mercury above Cefas AL1. These occurred in the surface sediments, which in turn constitutes a low proportion of the total dredge volume. Therefore, the impact from the specific pollutants and priority substances were all interpreted to be insignificant. Within the RBMP this water body is noted as failing its chemical status, based on the occurrence of TBT compounds (Environment Agency, 2009). Cefas obtained and analysed samples from Southampton Water (transitional water body) in 2008 and There are no samples taken directly from proposed capital dredge areas within this water body to positively confirm TBT levels. However, there is a lower potential for contamination within the proposed capital dredge areas in this water body given the distance from pollution sources such as ship building, repair, industrial, recreational and marine construction sources Scoping output: Protected areas There are a number of designated and protected areas that are within this water body and the 5km footprint of the dredging activities. These include Bathing Waters (Table 4), Shellfish Waters (Table 5), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA), which have been considered in this assessment. In terms of the potential impact on protected areas, the dredge activities are assessed as having an insignificant impact Conclusion The likelihood of the proposed capital dredge having a non-temporary negative impact on this water body is minimal, as the scale of the dredge will not have an effect at water body level. Therefore no mitigation strategies under this WFD Assessment are required during the capital dredge. It is also relevant to note that there are ongoing maintenance dredge activities within the water body. These have not had the effect of deteriorating the status of the water body historically (ABPmer, 2008) Isle of Wight East - Coastal Water Body C 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 3). This summary applies to the assessment of the dredging (Table 3a; Environment Agency 2010a) and disposal (Table 3b; Environment Agency 2010a) activities. The screening and scoping WFD Assessment tables for this water body are in Appendix B, Table 3a and 4a respectively 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; Fish fauna, as this is only applicable to transitional water bodies; R/1523/ R.1832TN

18 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive Freshwater flow, as this is only applicable to transitional water bodies; Thermal conditions; and Salinity Screened out (screening triggers) By applying the screening trigger tables for the assessment of marine dredging and disposal activities within this coastal water body, the following elements are screened out: 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 in the inter-tidal zone or within 10m of the MLWS in this water body; Wave exposure, as this water body is not shallow; Oxygenation conditions, as the screening score (i.e. 2) is less than the trigger for scoping (i.e. 4); All specific pollutants, as none were identified or were below Cefas AL 1; All priority substances except Nickel, as these were either not identified or below Cefas AL 1; and Protected areas: Shellfish Water, Bathing Waters and Nutrient Sensitive Areas as none occur within the 5km dredge footprint Screened in elements (screening triggers) The elements screened in for scoping assessment, for this water body are: Biological elements including aquatic flora and benthic invertebrate as the total score is equal to the trigger for scoping; Dominant currents; Transparency; Nutrient conditions; Specific pollutants: Arsenic; Priority substances: Lead and Mercury; and Protected areas: SACs and SPAs Scoping output: Biological, hydromorphological and chemical elements The element assessments that are scoped in for review are interpreted as having an insignificant impact at a water body level based on data collected and analysed as part of the ES for the Southampton Approach Channel Dredge (ABPmer, 2008). Contaminant information derived from the sediment sampling along the proposed dredge area showed that there was only one occurrence of a priority substance above Cefas AL 1, which was Nickel, which was observed in one isolated instance in the surface sediments within the Nab Channel. There were no failing elements in this water body and as described for the Solent coastal water body, there is a limited potential for pollution by TBT contaminants. There is a potential for R/1523/ R.1832TN

19 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive contamination within the proposed capital dredge areas in this water body given the distance from pollution sources such as ship building, repair, industrial, recreational and marine construction sources. In terms of the potential influence from sediments deposited at the Nab Deposit ground this is also considered to be insignificant. There are isolated occurrences of contaminants (including Arsenic, Copper, Zinc, Lead, Mercury, Nickel and TBT compounds) within the material to be dredged and these primarily occur within the surface sediments. It can be concluded that in relation to the volume of material to be deposited, the proportion containing sediment with contaminants is relatively small. This relatively low proportion of contaminated sediment is considered as insignificant in relation to changes in sediment quality at the licensed disposal site and dispersion footprint Scoping output: Protected areas One protected area, namely the South Wight Maritime SAC was within the 5km footprint of the dredge activities (Figure 3). The potential impact on the SAC is interpreted as having an insignificant impact, as the volume of the dredge in relation to the overall volume of the water body is minimal. 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 Conclusion The likelihood of the proposed capital dredge having a non-temporary negative impact on this water body is minimal, as the scale of dredge will not have an effect at water body level. Therefore no additional mitigation strategies under this WFD Assessment are required during the capital dredge. The existing channel within this water body is again continually 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, 2008). In addition, the Nab Deposit ground is used for the disposal of ongoing maintenance dredge material, which is not seen to have an adverse effect on the water body as set out in the RBMP Southampton Water - Transitional Water Body T Overview The Southampton Water transitional water body is noted as having an overall moderate potential status, with a moderate (uncertain) ecological potential (Table 3) 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 3). 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 5km footprint of the dredge within this water body encapsulates the whole water body and references are therefore made to the water body as a whole in identifying the elements for R/1523/ R.1832TN

20 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive investigation. The screening and scoping WFD Assessment tables for this water body are in Appendix C, Table 3a and 4a respectively 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 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: All specific pollutants except Arsenic, Copper and Zinc, as these were not identified or below Cefas AL 1; All priority substances except Cadmium, Lead, Mercury and Nickel 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 Screened in elements (screening triggers) The elements screened in for scoping assessment, for this water body are: Biological elements including aquatic flora, benthic invertebrate and fish fauna as the zone of effect is greater than the trigger for scoping; Morphological conditions including depth variation and bed properties as the zone of effect is greater than the trigger for scoping; Intertidal zone structure, as the dredge activity is within 10m of the MLWS in this water body; Freshwater flow, as the dredge is a capital project; Wave exposure, as this water body does have shallow areas; Transparency and oxygenation and nutrient conditions as the scores are greater than the trigger for scoping; Specific pollutants: Arsenic, Copper and Zinc; Priority substances: Cadmium, Lead, Mercury and Nickel; and Protected areas: Shellfish Waters, Nutrient Sensitive Areas, SACs and SPAs Scoping output: Biological, hydromorphological and chemical elements The screening categories scoped in for review included biological elements, hydromorphological elements supporting biological elements, chemical and physico-chemical R/1523/ R.1832TN

21 Southampton Approach Channel Dredge Assessment of Capital Dredging Under the Water Framework Directive elements supporting biological elements, specific pollutants and selected priority substances. The elements from these categories were all interpreted as having an insignificant to minor adverse significant impact at a water body level, based on the data collected and analysed as part of the ES for the Southampton Approach Channel Dredge (ABPmer, 2008). As with the coastal water bodies 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, Zinc, Lead, Mercury and Nickel. These were generally detected at isolated spots within the water body and mainly in the surface sediments, which constitutes to 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, 2008). Also, the occurrences of the above contaminants were not noted as failing elements in the RBMP (Environment Agency, 2009). In 2008 and 2010, Cefas carried out the chemical analyses of sediment samples from Southampton Water. Contaminant concentrations within the 2008 sediment samples were all below Cefas ALs for all sample locations, apart from one sample at the Upper Swinging Ground, which exceeded AL 1 for TBT. In 2010, concentrations for the majority of the samples from this water body, were again either below Cefas ALs or the limits of detection (<LOD). Although, as Table 6 shows, there were a few instances when the levels exceeded AL 1 and these tended to be within the surface sediments. The volume of the surface material to be dredged is relatively low in proportion to the total dredge volume and as such any contaminant concentrations as a percentage of the total dredge volume will be at concentrations below Cefas ALs. In addition the total volume of the dredge is small compared to the volume of the water body, and it is unlikely that any elevated contaminant levels in the material will be sufficiently disturbed through dredging to cause a negative impact on WFD chemical status at water body level and is therefore considered insignificant. Table 6. Cefas measured contaminant levels for 2008/10 Location AS CD CR CU HG NI PB ZN TBT (mg/kg MW section 2: Surface SE section 1: 1m Western dock: Surface Western dock: 1m Fawley Head NE + mid section: Surface Fawley Head SE + mid section: 1m <LOD Hook-Amble NW section: Surface Weston dock NW: 2m <LOD Weston dock SE: 2m Weston dock SE: 4m <LOD Fawley to Dock Head NE: Depth <LOD Fawley Head mid section: 2m <LOD Fawley Head SE: Surface Esso berth: Surface <LOD Esso berth: 2m <LOD: Limit of Detection 0.00: Values above Cefas Action Level 1 R/1523/ R.1832TN