1E OF CLIMATE, LICENSING & RESOURCE USE

Transcription

1 This report has been cleared for submission to the Director by Senior Inspector Dr Karen Creed. 1E OF CLIMATE, LICENSING & RESOURCE USE INSPECTORS REPORT ON A DUMPING AT SEA PERMIT APPLICATION I Application Details Iescription of activity: I ermit application submitted: ublic notice: lite visit: lubmissions received: lomments received from lotified consultees: lomments received from bumping at Sea Advisory :ommitree: ' Application is for the loading and dumping at sea of a maximum of 4,176,000 tonnes of dredged material and the plough dredging of a maximum of 160,500 tonnes of dredged material in the River Suirwaterford Estuary. 15/10/2013 (New Ross Standard) and 18/10/2013 (Munster fipres) None One Six rwo kction 5(2) Notice issued: Z 1/11/2013, 24/02/2014!esponse to Section 5(2) 16/12/2013,04/03/2014 eceived: 1. Introduction This application for a dumping at sea permit from the Port of Waterford Company (PWC) was received by the Agency on 30/09/2013. Waterford Port is one of Ireland's Tier 2 Ports of National Significance under the National Ports Policy (2013). PWC's main commercial shipping operations operate out of Belview Port, situated on the banks of the River Suir 8 km downstream of Waterford City. As a consequence of high rates of sediment transport and associated siltation in the Suir Estuary, PWC is required to carry out maintenance dredging at a number of discrete locations in the estuary, primarily the berths at Belview Port and the sandbars at Cheekpoint and Duncannon, in order to Page 1 of 18 I

2 maintain advertised depths and ensure safe navigation. In brief, the proposed activity consists of the loading of dredged material by trailer suction hopper dredger (4,124,000 tonnes) and backhoe dredger (52,000 tonnes) over an eight-year timeframe and the dumping of the material at an offshore dumping site situated at the entrance to Waterford Harbour. A further 160,500 tonnes of material is proposed to be plough dredged. Only the loading and dumping activity (which includes plough dredging) are the subject of this application; the dredging activity itself is the subject of Foreshore Licence application currently under assessment by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG) (ref. MS 51/10/136). PWC has held a number of previous dumping at sea permits, the most recent of which was a five-year permit granted in 2008 by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Permit No. 396). Following transfer of the dumping at sea function to the EPA under the Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Act, 2009, the Agency granted two amendments to Permit No. 396 (EPA Reg. No. SOOl2-01). Technical Amendment A, which issued on 29/06/2010, added an additional vessel to the roster of vessels authorised to carry out the permitted activities. Technical Amendment B concerned the closed period specified in Condition 3(a)(vii), whereby all dredging and dumping activities were prohibited during the period end-february to 30fh June each year in order to allow the passage of protected species of migratory fish in the estuary. Following consultation with Inland Fisheries Ireland, the Agency amended this condition on 13/05/2011 to exempt Duncannon Channel from the closed period restriction. In its current permit application, PWC have requested the complete removal of the closed period restriction, as discussed in Section 3 below. 2. Consideration of alternatives to dumping at sea A number of potential alternative uses for the dredged material were considered by the applicant, namely land reclamation, beach nourishment, coastal protection works, topsoil manufacturing and reuse in the aggregates industry. Land reclamation was discounted as an option due to the lack of any suitable projects in the locality. PWC has considered using the dredged material from the outer harbour areas, which consists largely of clean sand, for beach nourishment but states that there is no notable erosion at local beaches at present and any future beach nourishment activity would have to be underpinned by detailed studies to ensure the placed sediments did not return to the navigation channel. The potential for using dredged material in coastal protection works was investigated, whereby Geotubes filled with dredged material would be used to train the flow of the River Suir at Cheekpoint in order to reduce sedimentation rates. This option was found to be unfeasible due to the site characteristics (depth of the channel, fast flow rate etc.) and associated technical issues. Topsoil production was found to be unfeasible for PWC due to insufficient local demand, unclear legislative standards, technical characteristics of the available dredge plant, potential increase in COz emissions and increase in the dredging cycle time and cost. A number of dificulties were also identified with the use of dredged material as an alternative to land-based aggregates in the construction industry, in particular the current downturn in aggregate demand, adequate capacity of local quarries, limited suitability of the dredged material in terms of grain size, salinity and ph levels, and technical issues with bringing the material ashore using the available dredging plant. Following this assessment, dumping at sea was determined by PWC to be an acceptable option. Taking into account the clean sandy nature of much of the dredged material, which renders it potentially suitable for various uses, Condition 3.14 of the Recommended Permit (RP) requires the permit holder to continue to investigate the potential for alternative re-use options for the dredged material during the lifetime of the permit. Page 2 of 18

3 . 3. Description of operations The proposed activity consists of the loading and dumping at sea of dredged material arising from maintenance dredging by PWC at a number of discrete locations in the Suir Estuary/Waterford Harbour over an eight-year timeframe. Three locations require dredging at least twice a year, referred to by the applicant as the primary dredge areas, namely: Belview Berths at Belview Port, Cheekpoint Lower at the confluence of the Suir and Barrow/Nore rivers, and Duncannon Channel in the outer estuary. There are also 11 secondary dredge areas that require less frequent dredging. These areas, which are the same as those authorised under previous permits held by PWC, are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. The principal method of loading/dumping shall be trailer suction hopper dredger (TSHD), while a backhoe dredger will be employed in areas adjacent to quay walls that are inaccessible to the TSHD and unsuitable for plough dredging due to the compacted nature of the sediments, namely Belview Berths, O'Brien's Quay and Belview to O'Brien's Quay (Table 1). In addition, PWC propose to carry out a limited amount of plough dredging. Plough dredging is proposed as the sole method of dredging in a number of areas that cannot be accessed by the TSHD and where the unconsolidated nature of the sediments lends itself to plough dredging (Cheekpoint Harbour Access, Passage East Boathouse Quay, Spit Light & Queen's Channel, Frank Cassin Wharf, North Wharf, Forde Wharf & Merchants Quay Marina), while etsewhere plough dredging will be used in conjunction with the TSHD/backhoe dredger (Table 1). Table 1 Locations at which loading and plough dredging is proposed Location The quantity of material proposed to be dumped at sea is summarised in Table 2 below. A maximum of 4,124,000 tonnes shall be loaded/dumped by TSHD over the eight-year lifetime of the permit. This includes a contingency quantity of 90,000 tonnes per annum, to allow for greater than anticipated dredging requirements at Duncannon Channel (50,000 tonnes/annum) and Cheekpoint Lower (40,000 tonnes/annum). PWC points out that it carries out dredging on an 'as required' basis to maintain advertised depths and the quantities to be dredged can vary considerably depending on the severity of weather conditions, river flow and prevailing wind direction. The contingency quantity, which was also provided for in Permit No. 396, wit1 enable the Port to respond immediately to sedimentation caused by unpredictable weather events. Condition 3.8 of the RP specifies that the contingency quantity shall only be dumped if the loading of this material is Page 3 of 18

4 required to maintain navigable depths as evidenced by bathymetric sutveys and is subject to the prior written agreement of the Agency. Each TSHD dredging campaign is anticipated to last on average 7-10 days. The TSHD will work on a 24-hour basis with a dredging cycle lasting on average four hours, consisting of one hour of dredging followed by a three-hour round-trip to the dumping site. A much smaller quantity (up to 52,000 tonnes) will be loaded by backhoe dredger onto barges for subsequent dumping offshore, while the maximum quantity proposed to be dumped in situ in the estuary by plough dredging is 160,500 tonnes. All of the material loaded by TSHD and backhoe will be dumped offshore at Dumping Site A, up to a maximum is 4,176,000 tonnes over the eight-year lifetime of the permit. Dumping Site A is situated in the Eastern Celtic Sea 2.5 km west of Hook Head (Figure 2), and has been routinely used by PWC for the disposal of dredged material since The applicant has requested that the daily disposal limit at Dumping Site A be set at 35,000 tonnes, rather than 20,000 tonnes/day as specified in Permit No Following the Agency's assessment of the proposed dumping operations, discussed in Section 5 below, the requested daily disposal limit of 35,000 tonnes is provided for in schedule A2 of the RP. Table 2 Quantity of material proposed to be dumped at se Note 1: Inclusive of contingency quantity of 90,000 tonnes per annum by TSHD, consisting of 50,000 tonnes from Duncannon Channel and 40,000 tonnes from Cheekpoint Lower. 4. Characteristics of the material for disposal Fifteen sediment samples from representative locations around E3elview Port, the Suir Estuary and Waterford Harbour were analysed for granulometric and chemical composition in June The sampling programme was developed and conducted by the applicant in consultation with the Marine Institute. Sediments in the outer harbour consist mainly of sand, while those in the inner harbour range from muddy sand to gravelly muddy sand. The chemical composition of the sediments are summarised in Table 3, with reference to published Irish Action Levels. Sediments below the lower Action Level are referred to as Class 1 sediments (i.e., essentially clean), sediments that exceed the upper Action Level are referred to as Class 3 sediments and sediments between the upper and lower Action Levels are referred to as Class 2 sediments. Table 3 indicates that the sediments in the Suir Estuaty/Waterford Harbour are essentially clean, with only one sample exhibiting marginally elevated concentrations of nickel and four samples exhibiting marginally elevated concentrations of arsenic. Nickel and arsenic can often exceed the lower Action Level in Irish marine sedime Page 4 of 18

5 areas where no sources of contamination exist, reflecting natural background levels relating to catchment geology. Following consultation with the Marine Institute (section 7 below), the Agency is satisfied that the proposed operations will ensure that only suitable material will be dumped at sea. In addition, two samples were sent to the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) for radiological analysis in 2013, the results of which verified that dumping of the material at sea would not result in a radiological hazard. Table 3 Composition of the material for disposal with reference to Irish Action Levels Comment Note 1: Sum of tri-butyl and di-butyl tin. Note 2 Indiidwl congeners of ICES 7 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB 028, PCB 052, PCB 101, PCB 138, PCB 153, PCB 180, PCB 118). Note 3: Sum of ICES 7 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB 028, PCB 052, PCB 101, PCB 138, PCB 153, PCB 180, PCB 118). Note 4: Sum of 16 polycydic aromatic hydroca- (Naphthalene, hnaphthylene, Acenaphthene, fluorene,phenanthrene, Anthracene, fluoranthene, Pyrene, Benzo(a)anthm, Chrysene, BenzdbYIuoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Dibenzo(ah)anthracene, Benzo(ghi)perylene, 1ndenO(i23-~d)pp?r~). Note 5: Total exbadable hydrocarbons Note 6: Initial analysis indicated Class 3 concentrations of mercury, which was out of line with previous analysis for the area. Retesting of a stored sample, in duplicate, indicated Class 1 material. The Agency and the Marine Institute are satisfied that the latter analysis represents the accurate value. The reason for the initial anomalous results in unknown. 5. Receiving environment and impact As part of the assessment, the potential impacts of the proposed loading and dumping operations on the receiving marine environment were examined (Table 3 below).

6 Table 3 Characteristics and sensitivity of the loading areas and dumping site!=+ Loading/Plough Dredge Areas Dumpii ClassMcation I Comment Classification Comment WFD amstal waterbody Receiving waterbody WFD overall IStZitUS Pressures Bathing waters WFDprote&d areas Resaum U- Amenity value Cultural Middle Suir Estuary (SE ), Lower Suir Estuary (Little Island- Cheekpoint) (SE-lOO-OSOO), Barrow Nore Suir Estuary (Waterford Harbour Lower) ( SE~~~OlOO). "Moderate" status: Middle Suir Estuary; Barrow Nore Suir Estuary. "Good" status: Lower Suir Estuary. All "at risk of not achieving good status" I None WatetfordHarbour (Cheekpoint Arthutstown/ Creadan) (PA2-0026) shellfish water Not a sajmonid river. Port activities, WJmrer commercial fishing Leisure aaft, angling, w*rspds TWOprotectedwredc sites at Duncannon Bar ~PU- Lower River Suir (2137) River Barrow and River Nore (2162) All WFD transitional waterbodies Lower Suir Estuary is a HMWB Deadline to restore "Good" status extended until 2021 for Middle Suir Estuary and Barn Suir Nore Estuary. Objective for Lower Suir Estuary HMWB is to Protectstatus. Maintenance dredging, suction dredging for cnckies, high impact shoreline reinfomment, discharges from WWTPs, combined sewer overflows and IPPC, nutrient inputs Closest is Duncannon (PA3-0122), approx. 1 km mth-east of Duncannon Channel, which had sufficient water quality in Eastern Celtic Sea (SE ) currently unassigned Used mainly for mussel Not a shellfish water. & oyster cultivation. as B/aass c, indicating faecal contamination closest salmonid river is Not a salmonid river. River Nore, 30 km upstream of Cheekpoint Addressed in Condition 4.5 of the RP Contain a number of Annex I habitats & Annex I1 species, notably salmon, lamprey & shad "At risk of not achieving good status" None Shipping, leisure cratt, commercial fishing Diving, leisure craft, angling Wreck located in northwest quadrant of the dumping site None SPA None None in vicinity None Objective yet to be determined. hint Source - WWTPS I Closest are Counsellors' Strand, Dunmore East (PA3-0115) & Dunmore Strand, Dunmore East (PA3-0114), which both had suffiaent water quality in 2012 closest shellfish water is Waterford Harbour (Cheekpoint, Ilrthurstown/ Creadan) 4 km north closest salmonid river is River Nore, 30 km upstream of Cheekpoint 4.5 of the RP. Closest are Hook Head (764) located800m east of dumping site and Saltee Wands (707) located 23 km east of the dumping site None in vicinity I I Page 6 of 18

7 ., Loadi na/plouah dredae a reas PWC's proposed loading and plough dredging activities will occur within several Water Framework Directive transitional water bodies. The quays in Waterford City are located in the Middle Suir Estuary water body, which has 'moderate' status. Behriew Port and the adjacent dredge sites at Cheekpoint. Spit Light/Queen's Channel and Great Island are situated in the Lower Suir Estuary (Little Island-Cheekpoint) transitional water body, which is classified as a heavily modified water body (HMWB) due to the impacts of Belview port and related activities such as dredging and shipping traffic. The outermost dredge sites at Passage East and Duncannon Channel are situated in the Barrow Suir Nore Estuary transitional water body, which has 'moderate' status. The entire area is also protected under the Habitats Directive. The Lower River Suir csac (site code: 2137) covers the River Suir upstream of its confluence with the Barrow/Nore immediately east of Cheekpoint, while the River Barrow and River Nore csac covers the estuary downstream of Cheekpoint and most of Waterford Harbour. The qualifying interests of these large multi-interest SACS, discussed in section 6 below, notably include a number of Annex I1 fish species (sea lamprey, river lamprey, brook lamprey, Twaite shad and Atlantic salmon). The nearest designated bathing water is Duncannon (PA3-0122) beach, located approximately 1 km north of the Duncannon Channel loading/plough dredge area. Duncannon beach had 'sufficient' water quality in 2012, indicating compliance with EU mandatory standards. Due to the uncontaminated nature of the sediments, the main potential impact from the proposed activities is increased suspended solids in the water column. The Suir Estuary/Waterford Harbour is a naturally turbid environment, with high concentrations of tidaliy-generated suspended solids. Previous modelling conducted by the applicant indicated that the increase in suspended solids concentrations above background levels would be of the order of 100 mg/l at a distance of 50 m around the dredger and that the plume would be transported with the tidal flow, with concentrations decreasing with distance as most of the fine particles settle to the bottom at the turn of the tide. The modelling concluded that the increases in suspended solids concentrations would be restricted to local and temporary effects and that the additional increase in turbidity would have a negligible effect on the ecological functioning or integrity of the estuary. As a precautionary measure aimed at protecting a number of Annex I1 fish species (salmon, shad and lamprey) from exposure to excessive concentrations of suspended solids, recent DAS permits granted to PWC prohibited dredging, loading and dumping between 1' March and 30m June each year. In response to an application from PWC and following consultation with Inland Fisheries Ireland, the Agency technically amended Permit No. 396 (EPA Reg. No. SOO12-01) on 13/05/2011 to remove the closed period restriction in respect of Dunannon Channel, on the basis that the channel is sufficiently wide and deep at this location to facilitate an avoidance reaction by fish. In its current application, PWC has requested the complete removal of the 'closed period' restriction, arguing that turbidity caused by the proposed activities is local and temporary and falls well within the natural background variation. In support of its request, PWC carried out turbidity monitoring at Cheekpoint during 2012 and 2013, both during and outside of dredging campaigns. The results revealed that dredging had little or no impact on water quality. There was no evidence of increased turbidity during dredging even when it occurred during a neap tide when turbidity is naturally low and therefore any increase would be more apparent. me Natura Impact Statement (NIS) submitted by the applicant and discussed in section 7 of this report concluded that there would be no impacts from the proposed loading and plough dredging activities on any protected habitats or species. Following this assessment and further consultation with IF1 (section 7 below), the RP recommends that the closed period shall only apply in respect of plough dredging (Condition 3.11). The rationale for the retention of the closed period in respect of plough Page 7 of 18

8 dredging is due to the potential for the generation and dispersal of suspended solids plumes during plough dredging which are difficult to control. No seasonal restrictions shall apply in respect of loading and dumping by TSHD or backhoe dredger, which release considerably less sediment into the water column. Concomitant with the relaxing of the closed period restriction, Condition 4.6 of the RP requires the permit holder to engage with IFI in regard to the protection and monitoring of a number of Annex I1 fish species (Atlantic salmon, sea lamprey, river lamprey, Allis shad and Twaite shad) in the Suir Estuary and Condition 4.7 requires the permit holder to submit a proposed monitoring programme for suspended solids in order to provide additional supporting evidence that the permitted activities are not impacting negatively on water quality. The RP includes a number of further conditions aimed at reducing the impact of the proposed loading and plough dredging activities on the receiving environment. The permit holder shall adopt all reasonably practicable measures during loading to limit the generations and release of suspended solids into the water column (Condition ). In particular, a low vessel speed shall be maintained during loading to minimise the generation of suspended solids; water jets shall only be utilised when necessary to ensure adequate production; overflow of dredged material/suspended solids from the vessel during loading and on voyages to and from Dumping Site A shall be minimised as far as reasonably practicable; a maximum density limit of 1.1 t/m3 shall be set for automatic light mixture overboard (the system which optimises the hopper filling process by allowing only mixture with a predetermined weight to be loaded) - this will sewe to limit the discharge of light mixtures into the water column; and loading shall be undertaken as efficiently as possible to minimise the number of dredger movements (Conditions ). As well as being prohibited during the months of March to June inclusive, the use of plough dredging is restricted to a limited quantity of material (Condition 3.10). There are two protected wreck sites at Duncannon Channel, which are subject to statutory protection under Section 3(4) of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, PWC have collaborated with the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) regarding the protection of these wrecks sites and have adhered to an exclusion zone around the wreck sites specified in recent permits. In accordance with the DAHG's recommendations (section 8 below), Condition 4.5 of the RP prohibits loading and plough dredging activity within the exclusion zone and sets out various requirements concerning the monitoring and protection of archaeology. Guidance published by the OSPAR Commission recommends that, in general, dredged material is re-tested every 3 years to confirm its suitability for dumping at sea, although a reduced sampling programme (in terms of frequency of testing and/or number of parameters) can apply at the discretion of the regulatory authority where the results of an initial survey indicate that the material is essentially dean. The RP requires that the sediment analysis carried out by PWC in 2013 is repeated in 2017 and again in 2021 (Condition 4.4). The agreement of the Agency is required before loading and dumping activities may continue following submission of the results of this analysis. Dumpina SI 'te A The proposed offshore dumping site is located in the Eastern Celtic Sea coastal water body. The site was first permitted as a spoil ground in 1996 following baseline surveys of a number of potential locations. As well as PWC, Ross Port Company and Waterford City Council have also used the site for the disposal of dredged material. The site extends over a rectangular area approximately 800 m by 650 m, with an average water depth of m. The boundary of the extensive Hook Head SAC (site code 764) is situated 800 m east of the dumping site; as discussed in section 6 below, this site is of conservation Page 8 of 18

9 c importance for its subtidal reef and shallow bay communities and vegetated sea cliffs. Further east lies the Saltee Islands SAC (site code 707) which is of high conservation importance for marine habitats (mudflats and sandflats, large shallow inlets and bays, reefs, vegetated sea cliffs, and sea caves), birds (peregrine falcon, chough) and grey seal. The closest designated bathing waters are Counsellors Strand and Dunmore Strand at Dunmore East, situated approximately 3.5 km northwest of the dumping site. The dumping site is in a high-energy area subject to strong tidal currents. The seafloor varies from coarse gravels to fine sand and silt, reflecting the site s history as a spoil ground. The benthic community is characterised by species capable of recolonizing quickly after repeated dumping events. Surveys have shown that the seabed is highly mobile and fine material deposited at the site is generally resuspended and relocated elsewhere; this dispersion is progressive, occurring gradually over many years with a concomitant reduction in the height of the sand heap. Modelling of the long term impact of a number of consecutive annual dumpings found that the material is dispersed predominantly in a north-west direction initially, with dispersion occurring in a southeast direction after 5 years. The modelling indicated that the dumped material does not disperse rapidly or over a very large area of the estuary with time. The increase in suspended solids within a 50 m radius of the dumping site following a dumping event is predicted to be in the range of mg/l; this peak is local and temporary. The modelling predicated no effects at all on local herring spawning grounds or lobster release areas, the closest of which are situated -2 km from the dumping site. The NIS, discussed in section 6 of this report, concluded that there would be no impacts from the proposed dumping activity on any protected habitats or species. The RP contains a number of conditions aimed at minimising the impact of the dumping activity on the receiving environment. To ensure that only suitably clean material shall be dumped at sea, Condition 4.4 requires the permit holder to carry out sediment chemistry analysis in 2017 and To minimise the mounding of dredged material at the dumping sites, dumping shall be conducted by way of bottom dumping while the vessel is moving at low speed (Condition 3.6), in a manner that ensures a uniform spread of material throughout the dumping site (Condition ). During an archaeological assessment of the dumpsite in 1999, the remains of the 1917 wreck George Mi/&um, a W I minesweeping trawler, was identified. The wreck is located in the northwest quadrant of the dumping site, close to the edge of the site (Grid Reference: E, 97347N). There has been a longstanding agreement between PWC and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) that dumping activity is focused away from the immediate area of the wreck in order to avoid directly dumping onto the wreck site. The DAHG have made the same recommendation in respect of the current application (section 8 below) and this is included in Condition of the RP. In its application, PWC request that daily disposal limit at Dumping Site A be set at 35,000 tonnes/day rather than 20,000 tonnes/day as specified in Permit No. 396, in order to allow the Port to avail of larger dredgers with higher productivities and associated economies of scale. Previous dumping at sea permits held by PWC have specified limits ranging from 12,000 tonnesjday to 35,000 tonnes/day. Historically, permits also specified the name of the vessel to be used for the loading and dumping operations and PWC point out that the daily disposal limit set in the permit has always been governed by the productivity of the dredger in question. WC emphasise that the quantity of material dumped per day will generally be considerably less than the requested daily disposal limit; however, when loading is being carried out at the southern end of Duncannon Channel where transit distances to Dumping Site A are short, the productivity of the dredger may reach 35,000 tonnes/day. The Agency notes that, in terms of the impact of the dumping activity on the receiving environment at Page 9 of 18

10 Dumping Site A, the quantity of material dumped per campaign and over a series of campaigns are the most relevant considerations and those which formed the basis for the modelling predictions. The Agency further notes that 35,000 tonnes/day was previously authorised in Amended Permit No. 360 granted by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in The Marine Institute was consulted as part of this assessment and had no objection to the requested higher disposal limit (section 7 below). Following this assessment, the requested daily disposal limit of 35,0000 is included in the RP. 6. Compliance with EU Directives and international conventions In considering the application, regard was had to the requirements of relevant legislation : London Convention [and Protocol) and OSPAR Convention Dumping of dredged material at sea is regulated internationally by the London Convention 1972 (including the 1996 London Protocol) and the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic 1992 (the OSPAR Convention ). Contracting parties are required to appropriately regulate dumping at sea in accordance with the relevant adopted criteria, guidelines and procedures. In addition, contracting parties are required to report annually to the OSPAR Commission on the nature and quantities of material dumped at sea and the locations and methods of dumping used. The RP, as drafted, meets the requirements of the OSPAR and London Conventions. The suitability of the material for dumping at sea, relative to alternative means of recovery or disposal, has been assessed using a weight of evidence approach in accordance with OSPAR and London Convention guidelines, with reference to the upper and lower action levels for various substances published by the Marine Institute. The RP includes a requirement for re-assessment of the suitability of the dredged material for dumping at sea at appropriate intervals (i.e., in 2017 and 2021) (Condition 4.4) and also requires the permit holder to continue to investigate suitable re-use options for the dredged material (Condition 3.14). The RP, as drafted, fulfils the requirements of the OSPAR and London Conventions. Water Framework Directive r2ooo/6o/ec~ In assessing the application, regard was had to the potential impact of the proposed loading and dumping activities on the affected transitional and coastal water bodies meeting their objectives under the WFD. The potential impacts of the proposed loading and dumping operations on the Middle Suir Estuary (SE ), Lower Suir Estuary (Little Island- Cheekpoint) (SE ), Barrow Nore Suir Estuary (Waterford Harbour Lower) (SE ) and Eastern Celtic Sea (SE ) are discussed in section 5 above. Taking into consideration the scale, duration and intermittent nature of the operations, the characteristics of the material, the characteristics of the receiving environment and the conditions included in the RP to reduce the magnitude of impacts, the proposed operations are not considered likely to impact on the achievement of the WFD objectives for the affected water bodies. Most of Waterford Estuary is designated as Waterford Harbour (Cheekpoint, Arthurstown/Creadan) shellfish water, which is protected under Article 6 and paragraph l(ii) of Annex N of the WFD. The area is used mainly for mussel and oyster cultivation and was classified as Class B (reverting at certain times of the year to Class C), indicating faecal contamination in the shellfish area. The Marine Institute was consulted as part of the assessment and advised that significant adverse impacts on aquaculture or on shellfish quality standards were not considered likely (section 7 below). The nearest Page 10 of 18

11 protected salmonid waterway is the River Nore, which discharges into the Nore Estuary at Inistioge approximately 30 km upstream from Cheekpoint. Inland Fisheries Ireland was consulted as part of the assessment (section 7 below) and IFI's recommendations aimed at protecting migratory fish have been included in the RP. Bathina Water Directive r2006/7/eci The nearest designated bathing waters are Duncannon (PA3-0122), -1 km northeast of Duncannon Channel, and Counsellors' Strand (PA3-0115) and Dunmore Strand (PA3-0114), -3.5 km northwest of Dumping Site A. In the Agency's report on '7he Qualiiy of Bathing Water in Ireland - An Overview for the Year 2012; all three bathing waters was deemed to have 'sufficient' water quality, indicating compliance with EU Mandatory Values for faecal coliforms. Due to the distances involved, the naturally high turbidity in the estuary, the clean nature of the sediments and the intermittent nature of the operations, the proposed loading and dumping activities are not expected to have any significant impact on bathing water quality. Habitats Directive r92/43/eecl & Birds Directive r79/409/eec] The proposed operations will occur within two SACS: the River Barrow and River Nore SAC (site code 2162) and the Lower River Suir SAC (site code 2137). The former is an extensive site which extends from the freshwater stretches of the Barrow/Nore River catchments as far upstream as the Slieve Bloom Mountains and also includes the tidal elements and estuary as far downstream as Creadun Head in Waterford. The SAC has been selected for alluvial wet woodlands and petrifying springs, priority habitats on Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive. The site is also selected for the following Annex I habitats: old oak woodlands, floating river vegetation, estuary, tidal mudflats, Salicornia mudflats, Atlantic salt meadows, Mediterranean salt meadows, dry heath and eutrophic tall herbs. The site is also selected for the following species listed on Annex I1 of the same directive: sea lamprey, river lamprey, brook lamprey, freshwater pearl mussel, Nore freshwater pearl mussel, crayfish, Twaite shad, Atlantic salmon, otter, Desmoulin's whorl snail and the Killarney fern. The Lower River Suir SAC (site code 2137) consists of the freshwater stretches of the River Suir immediately south of Thurles, the tidal stretches as far as the confluence with the Barrow/Nore immediately east of Cheekpoint in Co. Waterford and many tributaries. The SAC has been selected for the presence of two priority habitats on Annex I of the Habitats Directive: alluvial wet woodlands and yew wood. The site is also selected for the following Annex I habitats: floating river vegetation, Atlantic salt meadows, Mediterranean salt meadows, old oak woodlands and eutrophic tall herbs. The site is also selected for the following species listed on Annex I1 of the same directive: sea lamprey, river lamprey, brook lamprey, freshwater pearl mussel, crayfish, Twaite shad, Atlantic salmon and otter. The proposed offshore dumping operations will take place 800 m west of the Hook Head SAC (site code 764), which is of conservation importance for its subtidal reef and shallow bay communities and vegetated sea cliffs. The rocky coastline is also important for breeding choughs and peregrines, listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive. The Saltee Islands SAC (site code 707), situated 23 km east of the dumping site, comprises the Saltees Islands and a large area of the surrounding seas, is of high conservation importance for the occurrence of several Annex I habitats: mudflats and sandflats, large shallow inlets and bays, reefs, vegetated sea cliffs, and sea caves. The site also has two species, which are listed on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive, peregrine falcon breeds and chough. In addition, the site has a breeding population of grey seal, an Annex I1 species on the EU Habitats Directive. A screening fc Appropriate Assessment was undertaken to assess, in view of best scientific knowledge and the conservation objectives of the site, if the proposed activity, individually or in combination with other plans or projects is likely to have a significant Page 11 of 18

12 effect on a European Site. In this context, particular attention was paid to the European Sites at River Barrow and River Nore SAC (site code 2162), Lower River Suir SAC (site code 2137), Hook Head SAC (site code 764) and Saltee Islands SAC (site code 707) and the Agency considered, for the reasons set out below, that the proposed activity is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of those sites as European Sites and that it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective scientific information following screening under this Regulation, that the proposed activity, individually or in combination with other plans or projects, will have a significant effect on a European site and accordingly determined that an Appropriate Assessment of the proposed activity was required. This determination is based on the nature and scale of the proposed activities and their location within the boundary two SACS, the River Barrow and River Nore SAC (site code 2162) and the Lower River Suir SAC (site code 2137), and in close proximity to the Hook Head SAC (site code 764). A Natura Impact Statement (NIS) (dated July 2013) of the impact of the proposed activities on the relevant European Sites was submitted by the applicant as part of the permit application. The NIS assessed the impact of the proposed loading and dumping operations on the River Barrow and River Nore SAC (site code 2162), Lower River Suir SAC (site code 2137), Hook Head SAC (site code 764) and Saltee Islands SAC (site code 707) having specific regard to the conservation objectives of the qualifying habitats and species for which the SAG are designated. A Marine Mammal Risk Assessment was included as part of the NIS. The NIS concluded that the increase in suspended solids and associated sedimentation will be very limited both in concentration, duration and spatial extent and will be comparable to naturally occurring conditions in the estuary. Therefore no impact on protected shoreline habitats (salt marshes, SMcomia beds, mudflats, sandflats, shallow inlets and bays) or reef habitat is anticipated. The NIS further concluded that migrating fish will not be impeded by the temporary increases in suspended sediments as Salmon, shad and lampreys are adapted to migrate through turbid estuarine waters and in most cases will bypass the affected areas. Otter are similarly adapted to turbid estuarine environments and are limited to foraging within 80 m of the shore. Grey seals are mobile species and will vacate an area is temporarily disturbed, therefore the impact on this qualifying interest is negligible. In accordance with the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477 of 2011), pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the proposed activity will not adversely affect the integrity of any European Sites, in particular the River Barrow and River Nore csac (site code 2162), the Lower River Suir csac (site code 2137), Hook Head csac (site code 764) and Saltee Islands SAC (707), having regard to the conservation objectives of those sites and will not affect the preservation of those sites at favourable conservation status. In coming to this conclusion, the Agency is satisfied that it has identified all aspects of the proposed activity which can, by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the consetvation objectives of a European Site, in particular the River Barrow and River Nore SAC (site code 2162), Lower River Suir SAC (site code 2137), Hook Head SAC (site code 764) and Saltee Islands SAC (707), and is certain, in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field, that the proposed activity will not, if carried out in accordance with this Permit and the conditions attached hereto, have lasting adverse effects on the integrity of those sites, will not hinder the preservation of those sites at a favourable conservation status, and will not hinder the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics of those sites that are connected to the presence of the habitat types, flora and fauna, whose preservation was the objective justifying the designation of those sites, will respect the strict protection of animal types and plant types listed in Annex lv of Council Directive 92/43/EEC, and will not cause any Page 12 of 18

13 disturbance to those species or any deterioration in their conservation status. The Agency is satisfied that no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects for the following reasons: subject to the mitigation measures proposed and compliance with the conditions in the RP, it is considered that the proposed loading and dumping adivities will not have a significant impact on the conservation objectives of the River Barrow and River Nore SAC, Lower River Suir SAC, Hook Head SAC and Saltee Islands SAC. Mitigation measures proposed in the NIS and specified in the RP include: maintaining a low speed during loading; only utilising water jets when necessary to ensure adequate production; minimising the use of overflowing whenever possible; setting a maximum density limit of 1.1 t/m3 for automatic light mixture overboard; undertaking loading as efficiently as possible so that the number of dredger movements in minimised. During the offshore dumping operations, the following best practice measures will be employed: maintaining an acceptable speed to ensure against losses during transit during inclement weather; division of the disposal site into sectors with each used in turn; ensuring a low speed is maintained during disposal to disperse material over the dumping site. Once these mitigation measures are undertaken, no significant negative effects on the River Barrow and River Nore SAC, Lower River Suir SAC, Hook Head SAC and Saltee Islands SAC are likely to arise as a result of the proposed loading and dumping activity. Environmental Liabilities D irective r2004/35/ EC1 Condition 7.3 of the RP satisfies the requirements of the Envi Directive. 7. Advisory Committee Comments A Dumping at Sea Advisory Committee has been established under Act 1992 as amended, comprising representatives from relevant states bodies (the Marine Institute, Inland Fisheries Ireland, the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority), industry (the Irish Ports Association), the NGO sector (the Irish Environmental Pillar) and an engineering expert. The role of the Advisory Committee is to provide consultation and technical advice to the Agency on aspects of the dumping at sea permitting function, in accordance with its terms of reference. Two members of the Advisory Committee submitted comments on this aoplication. h Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) stated that it would be agreeable to the 'closed period' being lifted subject to: dredging being confined to those areas delineated on maps/documents supplied with the application; trailer suction dredging being used to provide maximum curtailment of elevated suspended solids levels; suction dredging/boat loading being done in a manner that minimises suspended sdids levels in the overflow; no plough dredging being permitted in the period March-June inclusive, due to the potential for dispersal of suspended solids plumes; a monitoring programme on suspended solids being compiled and submitted after Year 3 of the proposed 8-year licencing period; and PWC to engage with IFI in regard to protection and monitoring of relevant fish species. Agency response; The RP, as drafted, incorporates IFI's recommendations in relation to: confinement of loading and plough dredging to specified areas (Conditions 1.3 and 1.5); use of TSHD as the principal method of loading (Condition 3.3), although the RP provides for the use of a backhoe dredger in areas inaccessible to a TSHD (Condition 3.4); minimising the release of suspended solids to the water column (Conditions ); prohibition of plough dredging during the months March-June inclusive Page 13 of 18

14 I, I (Condition 3.11); monitoring of suspended solids (Condition 4.7); and liaison with IF1 regarding the protection and monitoring of protected migratory fish (Condition 4.6). > The Marine Institute (MI) stated that the material in question is essentially clean (Class 1) and that the increase in suspended matter in the areas adjacent to the dredger will be temporary and localised and within the naturally occurring range. For these reasons, significant adverse impacts on aquaculture are not considered likely and neither are impacts on the quality standards required under the EC (Quality of Shellfish Waters) Regulations 2006 (SI No. 268 of 2006) considered likely. The MI has no environmental concerns with the requested daily disposal limit in respect of the offshore dumping site. The MI expressed the view that since some of the material is clean sand, particularly in Duncannon Channel, PWC should be required to continue to explore environmentally, technically and economically feasible options for beneficial re-use. Agency response; The MI'S comments have been taken into account during the drafting of the RP. Condition 3.14 requires PWC to continue to investigate alternative re-use options for the dredged material. 8. Comments from notified consultees The following comments were received from notified consultees. > Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources The Petroleum Affairs Division of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (DCENR) stated that it had no observations on this application. > Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) submitted five sets of observations/comments on this application. In comments received by the Agency on 16/01/2014, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) recommended a number of permit conditions to monitor and protect cetaceans, which are listed under Annex N of the Habitats Directive. Following the submission of a revised Marine Mammal Risk Assessment by the applicant, the DAHG stated in comments received on 12/03/2014 and 16/04/2014 that it was satisfied that the proposed activity presented a low risk of potential negative interaction to marine mammal species. In comments received by the Agency on 27/01/2014, the DAHG made a number of recommendations in relation to the protection and monitoring of archaeology, in particular the enforcement of the exclusion zone around the protected wreck sites at Duncannon Bar and the avoidance of a wreck site located in the northwest quadrant of the dumping site. The DAHG also queried the depths proposed to be dredged by PWC and whether the activity was maintenance or capital dredging. Following the submission of further information by the applicant, the DAHG submitted on 29/04/2014 that it had no objection to the proposed activities and reiterated its previous recommendations in relation to the protection and monitoring of archaeology. Applicant re?sponse= The applicant submitted a revised Marine Mammal Risk Assessment in response to a section 5(2) notice issued by the Agency. In response to the DAHG's query on whether the proposed activity consists of capital or maintenance dredging, PWC submitted additional information on the proposed dredge depths. Page 14 of 18 I

15 Agency n?qwnse: The RP incorporates the recommendations of the DAHG in relation to the monitoring and protection of archaeology (Condition 4.5). The dredging activity and the depths proposed to be dredged are outside the scope of the RP and a matter for the foreshore licensing authority. 9. Submissions One submission on this application was received. > MrRayMcGrath In a submission received by the Agency on 14/10/2013, Mr McGrath stated that noise and vibration caused by night time dredging at Cheekpoint Bar has resulted in sleep deprivation for him and his partner during dredging episodes. He has been in correspondence with PWC on this matter since 2010 and has proposed, as a solution, that night time dredging be confined to the lower bar at Duncannon where the nearest house is approximately 2 km from the site of the dredging. However, he has not received any indication from PWC that they are willing to alter their dredging schedule. Mr McGrath states that he recognises the need for dredging and is not opposed to the principle of dredging at Cheekpoint but feels that he has no recourse but to object to a permit being granted if night time dredging at Cheekpoint is allowed. Applicant response: Relocation of the dredger to Duncannon Bar at night time is done where possible; however this is not always logistically feasible. PWC has commissioned independent assessments of noise and vibration, submitted as part of the application, which have not recorded any excessive noise levels at Mr McGrath's residence during times of dredging. The EPA noise guidelines, although not directly applicable as they are intended for assessment of noise from sources that are operating regularly if not continuously, were met both during the daytime and at night. Dredging at Cheekpoint is not a continuous activity; the activity is occasional, occurring on average twice per year with each campaign lasting days. During this time, dredging is intermittent, taking place for -40 minutes before the dredger makes a 2 h 40 min roundtrip to the dumping site; there will therefore be at most two periods of possible dredging at Cheekpoint during any given night depending on tidal and other factors. Agency response: The area to be dredged at Cheekpoint is approximately 220 m from the nearest residence. The primary noise source is the dredger's main engines which emit a noise of low frequency tonal quality, which is likely to penetrate buildings and has the potential to cause disturbance. PWC has commissioned two independent noise assessments of its dredging activity in response to Mr McGrath's complaints. The Agency notes that these surveys were announced. The first report in August 2010 found that night-time noise levels from the dredger at Mr McGrath's residence ranged between 41.1 and 46.6 db Leq 1 hour, with a maximum noise level (Lmax) of 52 db. There were three hours during the three-night (33 hours) monitoring period when the hourly Leq of 45 db was marginally exceeded. The second report in August 2013 reported a daytime noise exposure, b,~, at the nearest noise sensitive receptors of 51.1 db (inclusive of a 5 db weighting due to the tonal nature of the noise). This is 3.9 db below the EPA guideline for daytime noise. The night-time noise exposure during dredging was found to be equal to the EPA guideline level for night-time noise of 45 db LAeq,T. In assessing the noise data submitted, it is noted one-hour averages were reported rather than the standard 30-minute averages. It is also noted that dredging at Cheekpoint normally takes 40 minutes, such that dredging is unlikely to have been on-going for the duration of the one-hour noise monitoring. Condition 2.1 of the RP requires that all reasonably practicable measures are adopted to Page 15 of 18

16 minimise the noise impacts of the permitted activities and prohibits the permitted activities from exceeding the emission limit values (ELVs) for daytime, evening time and night-time sound pressure levels specified in Schedule B.l. The RP also requires PWC to undertake noise monitoring at NSLs (Condition and Schedu/e Cl) and to develop a noise reduction programme to reduce noise emissions associated with evening-time and night-time loading activities at Cheekpoint Lower (Condition 4.8.2). Such noise reduction measures may include relocating the dredger away from Cheekpoint where feasible or adjusting dredging practices in order to minimise noise emissions. Finally, Condition 2.8 requires the permit holder to establish and maintain a Public Awareness and Communication Programme to ensure members of the public can obtain information at reasonable times. 10. Site visit No site visit was conducted as part of the assessment of this application. 11. Cross-office liaison Advice and guidance issued by the Dumping at Sea Technical Working Group (TWG) was followed in the assessment of this application. Advice and guidance issued by the TWG is prepared through a detailed cross-office co-operative process, with the concerns of all sides taken into account. The Board of the Agency has endorsed the advice and guidance issued by the TWG for use by licensing inspectors in the assessment of dumping at sea permit applications. Advice was also sought from OEE Inspector John Gibbons on the issue of noise. Recommended Permit (RP) The RP, as drafted, permits the loading and dumping of dredged material at sea subject to the conditions set out in the RP. Charges The RP proposes that the permit holder shall pay to the Agency a sum as the Agency from time to time determines based on the enforcement effort required for the loading and dumping at sea operations. Recommendation I recommend that a Final Permit be issued subject to the conditions and for the reasons as set out in the attached Recommended Permit. Signed, Dr Tara Higgins Inspector Page 16 of 18

17 I C 1 U --,.-,,

18 I.,-..e.** e8 I Ilf... Page 18 of 18