F. Impact on the Receiving Environment

Transcription

1 F. Impact on the Receiving Environment Dredging is a necessity for the port to remain commercially active. However, over the past two decades the Port of Waterford has acquired numerous reports and investigations regarding the impact of this activity to ensure its potential impact on the local marine environment is minimal. Some of the reports included in Section E regarding the disposal site are pertinent to this Section regarding the greater environment. The relevant reports that should be referenced include: Benthic and Hydrographic Investigations in Waterford Harbour, September Attachment E.1(i); Photographic Survey of a Dredge Spoil Dump Site January Attachment E.1(v); Survey of Two Juvenile Lobster Release Grounds, January Attachment E.1(vi); Extracts from Environmental Impact of Dredging and Spoil Dumping, Delft H3544 Report, September Attachment E.1(vii); Environmental Impact of Annual Spoil Dumping at Sea off Hook Head, Delft Report H3822, March Attachment E.1(viii). Further to the above reports the following reports have also been compiled and included in Attachment F.1 as they provide further information regarding the impact on the local environment: Photographic Survey of a Mussel Bed located below Cheekpoint, Co. Waterford Pre and Post dredge surveys, Aquafact Ltd., Feb/March 2003; Extracts from Environmental Impact Assessment Section 4, Malone O Regan, February 1999; Cheekpoint Noise Level Reports; Duncannon Archaeological Status; 2013 Marine Sediment and Benthic Studies Report; 2013 Natura Impact Statement; Cheekpoint Monitoring Reports 2003 & 2013; Seasonal Restriction Report & Correspondence. Due to the substantial amount of information being provided the following table compiles the primary conclusion of all relevant reports included in Attachments E.1 and F.1. Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP 54 P a g e EPA Export :23:49:53

2 Report Benthic and Hydrographic Investigations in Waterford Harbour, 1989 Photographic Survey of a Dredge Spoil Dump Site Survey of Two Juvenile Lobster Release Grounds. Environmental Impact of Dredging and Spoil Dumping, Report H3544. Environmental Impact of Annual Spoil Dumping at Sea off Hook Head, Report H3822. Survey of Cheekpoint Mussel Bed, 2003 Extracts from Environmental Impact Assessment Section 4 Cheekpoint Noise Reports Duncannon Archaeological Status Conclusions it is most advisable that material to be dumped should be brought outside the line of Hook Head to Swines Head It is considered that the dredge material will have little impact on the fauna in the area as the bivalves will simply burrow their way upwards through the deposited sand..to dump up to 490,000m³ of dredge spoil would have little long term impact on the general environment within the dump site. This can be inferred from the coarse nature of the bottom sediments, the mobile nature of the bottom sediment, the removal of previously deposited fine sediments and the paucity of species recorded This area consists of a rich and diverse fauna and is typical of high-energy sites in this type of environment. There was no evidence in either the water column or settled to the bottom of fine sediments "The increases in suspended particulate matter (SPM) concentrations, as a result of the dredging and dumping activities are restricted to a local and temporal effect. The additional increases at various monitoring stations where (ecological) activities take place were computed for different model conditions It can be concluded that the additional increase in turbidity will have a negligible effect on the ecological functioning of the Suir". "that the effect of burial through continuous resuspension and subsequent sedimentation around the disposal site, also in this situation with more than one spoil dumping, is generally believed to be negligible. Some effect may be expected very close to the disposal site after several spoil dumpings" "Due to the general sedimentation pattern indicated by the models the herring spawning grounds area; at sea and the lobster release areas will not be affected at all by the redistribution of the dumped sand." The results of the qualitative surveys carried out on the mussel bed in Waterford Harbour would indicate that there was no significant difference in the mussel population between surveys. Please see included report for findings on the potential impacts on Human Beings, Flora and Fauna, Soils and Geology, Water, Air, Noise, Climate, Landscape, Cultural and Archaeological Heritage, Material Assets and NHA s, SPA s and SAC s. The estimated noise exposure is hours per year or less than 1% of the overall time. the noise from the dredging is similar to other passing shipping.. The measured noise levels from dredging activity at Cheekpoint are below the EPA guidelines both during the daytime and at night Comparison of the measured noise levels with the WHO: Guidelines for Community Noise broadly indicate compliance with the WHO noise levels Having considered all information supplied to date, the exclusion zone around the two wreck sites is working in that the depths over the two wreck sites appear to be maintaining its constant level. This suggests the seabed covering the two wrecks remains stable as the dredging activity is at such a remove as to prevent any direct or indirect impacts onto the wreck sites. We therefore have no issue with your application to have your maintenance dredging permit renewed. Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP 55 P a g e EPA Export :23:49:53

3 Report 2013 Marine Sediment and Benthic Studies Report 2013 Natura Impact Statement Cheekpoint Turbidity Monitoring Report 2003 Cheekpoint Turbidity Monitoring Report 2013 Seasonal Restriction Report & Correspondence Conclusions The dredging and disposal operations will disturb the benthic communities in the affected areas. The benthic communities in these areas are adapted to repeated disturbances by dredging and disposal and recovery begins almost immediately following the cessation of the activity. The proposed dredging and disposal operations will not negatively impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites or their qualifying interests. High turbidity levels are shown to exist in the period of flood tide immediately before high water (HW) extending occasionally over high water. Turbidity values range from background values of zero to in excess of 700mg/l with elevated readings of about 100 to 300 mg/l under normal tidal conditions it is considered that naturally occurring turbidity elevations, induced by the flood tide, have a more significant and long term effect than periodic increased levels caused by dredging. Based on the data collected at the buoys upstream and downstream of the dredge site there appears to be no perceptible change in turbidity during dredging and no change in the water quality due to dredging. There appears to be no difference whether dredging occurs during a neap or spring tidal period. The naturally occurring variability in turbidity suggests that the ecosystem in this region is well adapted to high turbidity and high levels of resuspension and it is considered unlikely that dredging has any significant impact on the environment upstream and downstream of the dredge site. The area of dredging at Cheekpoint covers less than 1% of the total tidal limits; The width of the dredge box at Cheekpoint only accounts for approximately 12% of the channel width; The length of exposure from any potential suspended sediment from dredging is minimal with an average of two hours per day for a two week campaign at two campaigns a year; The evidence that suspended sediment is not a key factor in fish mortalities unless turbidity levels and exposure are vastly above those experienced during dredging using a trailing suction hopper dredger; Background turbidity levels at Cheekpoint regularly exceed those produced during dredging; Dissolved oxygen levels at Cheekpoint are not significantly affected due to dredging. Table 5 Primary Conclusions from Environmental Impact Reports compiled to date. These reports have comprehensively assessed the potential impact on the receiving environment for the current dredging characteristics (methodology, annual volumes, dump site), that have not changed in the past 17 years. During this period no claim has been made by any third party with regards to the environment being negatively affected. The Port has also considered whether the proposed works will comply with, or will not result in the contravention, of: The Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, The Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC, The Priority Substances Directive 2008/105/EC. Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP 56 P a g e EPA Export :23:49:53

4 These Directives have been considered in the production of the Natura Impact Statement and a brief comment potential impact and relevant supplementary information is provided here. As regards the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the proposed dredging works are an established pre-existing technique with no known effect on the local environment, including local river basins, or third parties. It is concluded that the proposed dredging will not cause a non-temporary deterioration in status at water body level or otherwise affect the ability of the water body to achieve either its WFD objectives or relevant water-related protected area objectives. Reports that should be referenced regarding sediment dispersion at the loading and dumping sites to substantiate this conclusion include: Dredging of Duncannon Bar - Environmental Impact of Dredging and Spoil Dumping, Report H3544, Deltares (Attachment E.1(viii)); 'WL Delft Hydraulics - Dredging of Suir and Barrow Rivers, Report H3822, Deltares, March 2001 (Attachment E.1(viii)); Cheekpoint Turbidity Monitoring Report 2003 & 2013 (Attachment F.1(vii)); Monitoring Report on Seasonal Restriction (Attachment F.1(viii)); The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) aims to achieve good environmental status of EU marine waters by 2021 and to safeguard the resource on which marine-related economic and social activities depend. The Port of Waterford is very conscience of the importance and value the local environment within its harbour limits contain. To reflect this view the port has undertaken periodic investigations to identify and protect the diverse species present, upon which marine related activities are based. Benthic Surveys were undertaken in 1989 and These reports recommend moving the previous dump site to its present location in order to protect a valuable diving area, used socially. Photographic surveys of the dumpsite were undertaken before and after the first dredging campaign using the current dumpsite in 1996 and subsequently again in This was followed by reports on both commercial mussel beds and lobster release areas to determine if the dredging activities were having any potential negative impact. A Benthic Survey was also carried out for the Natura Impact Statement undertaken for the Appropriate Assessment required for this application. This identifies the local species and determines that no significant impact is likely from the proposed dredging operations on the protected species or any commercially related species. Reference should be made to the following reports included in this submission: Benthic Survey 1989 (Attachment E.1(i)); Benthic Survey 1992 (attachment E.1(ii)); Survey of Two Juvenile Lobster Release Grounds (Attachment E.1(vi)); Cheekpoint Mussel Bed Survey(Attachment F.1(i)); Waterford Marine Sediment and Benthic Survey 2013(Attachment F.1(v)); Natura Impact Statement 2013 (Attachment F.1(vi)). The Priority Substances Directive sets environmental quality standards to help identify priority substances, and other pollutants, under the Water Framework Directive. The objective of this Directive is to establish common quality rules for chemical analysis and monitoring of water, sediment and biota carried out. As part of this application substantial physical and chemical analyses were undertaken as stipulated by the Marine Institute of Ireland. Radiological testing was also undertaken by Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. The testing has not resulted in the Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP 57 P a g e EPA Export :23:49:53

5 highlighting of any parameter that could potentially negatively impact on the local water quality. The reports pertaining to the test results are available in Attachment B.1(ii). Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP 58 P a g e EPA Export :23:49:54

6 Attachment F.1(i): Cheekpoint Mussel Bed Surveys, Aquafact Ltd., Feb/March 2003 Note: Figures and Appendices available upon request if required. Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP 59 P a g e EPA Export :23:49:54

7 EPA Export :23:49:54

8 EPA Export :23:49:54

9 EPA Export :23:49:54

10 EPA Export :23:49:54

11 EPA Export :23:49:54

12 EPA Export :23:49:54

13 EPA Export :23:49:54

14 EPA Export :23:49:54

15 EPA Export :23:49:54

16 EPA Export :23:49:54

17 EPA Export :23:49:54

18 EPA Export :23:49:54

19 Attachment F.1(ii): Extracts from Environmental Impact Assessment Section 4, Malone O Regan, February 1999 Anthony D Bates Partnership LLP 60 P a g e EPA Export :23:49:54

20 EPA Export :23:49:54

21 EPA Export :23:49:54

22 EPA Export :23:49:54

23 EPA Export :23:49:54

24 EPA Export :23:49:54

25 EPA Export :23:49:54

26 EPA Export :23:49:54

27 EPA Export :23:49:54

28 EPA Export :23:49:54

29 EPA Export :23:49:54

30 EPA Export :23:49:54

31 EPA Export :23:49:54

32 EPA Export :23:49:54

33 EPA Export :23:49:54

34 EPA Export :23:49:54

35 EPA Export :23:49:54

36 EPA Export :23:49:54

37 EPA Export :23:49:54

38 EPA Export :23:49:54

39 EPA Export :23:49:54

40 EPA Export :23:49:55

41 EPA Export :23:49:55

42 EPA Export :23:49:55

43 EPA Export :23:49:55

44 EPA Export :23:49:55

45 EPA Export :23:49:55

46 EPA Export :23:49:55

47 EPA Export :23:49:55

48 EPA Export :23:49:55

49 EPA Export :23:49:55

50 EPA Export :23:49:55

51 EPA Export :23:49:55

52 EPA Export :23:49:55

53 EPA Export :23:49:55

54 EPA Export :23:49:55

55 EPA Export :23:49:55

56 EPA Export :23:49:55

57 EPA Export :23:49:55

58 EPA Export :23:49:55

59 EPA Export :23:49:55

60 EPA Export :23:49:55

61 EPA Export :23:49:55

62 EPA Export :23:49:55

63 EPA Export :23:49:55

64 EPA Export :23:49:55

65 EPA Export :23:49:55

66 EPA Export :23:49:55

67 EPA Export :23:49:55

68 EPA Export :23:49:55