Draft guidance framework for marine navigation dredging and disposal decision making

1. Draft guidance framework for marine navigation dredging and disposal decision making Presentation by Jan Brooke Environmental Consultant

2. Background • Navigation-related dredging and disposal has the potential to affect the ability of a water body to meet its WFD and Birds/Habitats Directive (BHD) objectives • Marine navigation dredging and disposal framework developed as joint initiative of Environment Agency and ports sector by a team led by HR Wallingford

4. Overview • Methodology can be applied to both maintenance and capital dredging projects • Joined-up approach aims to reduce burden on both regulators and operators • Robust but practical, pragmatic approach to WFD compliance assessment • Linked to equivalent steps in Habitats Regulations and Environmental Impact Assessments

5. Two most important FAQ questions • 4.3 Is there a relationship between HD Article 6(3)-6(4) and WFD Article 4(7)? • 3.2 What is the difference between the species/biological quality elements addressed in the WFD and BHD?

6. Capital dredging projects • Create new channel or deepen or widen existing channel or berth • Typically already subject to EIA and Habitats Regulations Assessment (under Habitats Directive Articles 6(3) and 6(4)) • WFD methodology links into these data collection and assessment processes • Follows similar screening, scoping and assessment steps

7. Maintenance dredging projects • Maintenance dredging: routine, often frequent, activity • Typically temporary, local effects • No new physical modifications; seabed communities typically opportunistic species • Assessment approach applied to capital projects is often disproportionate or impractical

8. Maintenance Dredging Protocol • Maintenance Dredging Protocol aim: demonstrate compliance with BHD in England and Wales • Baseline document and initial assessment • Assessment repeated only if there are changes in either: • dredging (method, quantity, etc.) or • environmental interest • Similar approach for maintenance dredging under WFD?

9. Dredging and Disposal Framework • Aim: informed, proportionate decisions • Step 1 screening: could dredging or disposal cause deterioration or otherwise affect ability of water body to meet its WFD objectives including protected areas? • Step 2 scoping: which WFD parameters could be affected; type/scale of effect; assessment scope; parallels with other processes? • Step 3 targeted assessment, agreed by regulator

10. Issues arising during development of framework • Assumed WFD deterioration can be caused by reduction in status class of any parameter even if does not affect overall status class • Need more clarity with regard to consideration of cumulative or in-combination effects in relation to WFD Article 4(7)?

11. Mersey case study • Maintenance Dredging Protocol ‘baseline document’ being prepared to support forthcoming maintenance dredging applications • Objective: use this process to establish which WFD parameters may be affected by dredging or disposal; also to identify significant data gaps

14. Synergies • Similar methodological processes, approaches to screening and scoping • Option to coordinate data collection and assessment processes where practicable • Can help to rationalise costs (data collection in marine environment can be very expensive) • May also be opportunities to rationalise post-project monitoring • However, also important differences!

15. Water quality: list of priority (hazardous) substances Ecological quality elements (e.g. aquatic flora, phytoplankton, fish, benthic invertebrates) Hydromorphological and physico-chemical supporting elements Consider wide range of protected areas Sediment quality: CEFAS list of parameters; not typically water quality Ecological interest features (i.e. particular designated species, habitats) Hydromorphological and physico-chemical supporting elements Not typically concerned with other protected areas WFD vs. BHD parameters

16. Main ‘problems’ encountered • Gaps in baseline data; in status class boundaries • Practical difficulties reconciling boundaries; scale • Extent to which detailed parameters coincide; care not to make unsubstantiated assumptions • Relationship between water quality and sediment quality not clear (e.g. whether substance adsorbed to sediment is bio-available if re-suspended): research is needed

17. Lessons from case study…… • Make best use of available data: pragmatism is essential • Recognise differences (e.g. specific parameters): manage expectations about extent of common ground • Differences can be important e.g. determining what is ‘significant’ in WFD and BHD terms • WFD: cause deterioration in water body status … failure to achieve good status • Habitats Directive: likely significant effect … individually or in combination with other plans or projects… adversely affect integrity

18. Application of WFD Article 4(7) • WFD applies to all water bodies; BHD to ‘special’ areas • Application of 4(7) needs to be proportionate • Also useful experience from EIA • Where protected area is present in a water body, option to refer to Articles 4(8) and BHD 6(3)/6(4) to modify the degree of ‘over-riding’ and/or the expected ‘balance’ between and costs-benefits • Communicate clearly what is expected

19. Thanks for listening!