Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 260304environment_agency_eir_request_-_tees_maintenance_dredging [2026/05/14 19:53] – nefcadmin
+++ 260304environment_agency_eir_request_-_tees_maintenance_dredging [2026/05/14 20:15] (current) – [Analysis] nefcadmin
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 Please provide the requested information within 20 working days.
-==== Response =====
+===== Response =====
+** Environment Agency **  //creating a better place for people and wildlife//
 Our ref: 	EIR2026/13001
@@ Line 36: / Line 38: @@
 **RE: Environmental Information Regulations: EIR2026/13001**
 We refer to your request for information regarding PD Teesport's maintenance dredging operations, which we received on 4 March 2026.
@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 ** Request 3.1: ** Disclose all results from the EA’s "Intertidal Grab Sampling for Benthic Inverts and Contaminant" (Licence L/2013/00082) and any more recent WFD monitoring conducted in the Tees.
-The information you have requested is available online as Open Data.[[https://environment.data.gov.uk/ecology/explorer/| EA Ecology & Fish Data Map Explorer | Water Quality ]]
+The information you have requested is available online as Open Data.[[https://environment.data.gov.uk/ecology/explorer/| EA Ecology & Fish Data Map Explorer | Water Quality ]], [[https://environment.data.gov.uk/water-quality|Water Quality Explorer]], for the contaminant data. Any licence details will be available on the MMO licensing portal: [[https://marinelicensing.marinemanagement.org.uk/mmofox5/fox/live/MMO_PUBLIC_REGISTER| Marine case management system - Public register - MCMS ]].
-[[https://environment.data.gov.uk/water-quality|Water Quality Explorer]], for the contaminant data. Any licence details will be available on the MMO licensing portal: [[https://marinelicensing.marinemanagement.org.uk/mmofox5/fox/live/MMO_PUBLIC_REGISTER| Marine case management system - Public register - MCMS ]].
 ** Request 3.2: ** Provide the EA’s assessment of the "Sediment Trap" effect in the lower Tees and whether dredging overflow is causing a net accumulation of toxins in the surface "active layer" of the riverbed.
@@ Line 127: / Line 125: @@
 **To report environmental problems ** please visit[[https://www.gov.uk/report-environmental-problem| www.gov.uk/report-environmental-problem]]  or call the incident hotline on 0800 80 70 60
+==== Appendix ====
-**Please tell us how we did **
-To help improve your experience as a customer we are currently gathering feedback.
-If you would like to take part in a short customer satisfaction survey, please click the
-link below:
-[[https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/FOICustomerSatisfactionSurvey/|**Environment Agency FOI Customer Satisfaction Survey** ]]
- \\
-** \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- \\
- **
-{{260514EA-EIR%2012%204%20b%20Manifestly%20Unreasonable%20Refusal%20Letter%20EIR2026%2013001007.png?892x1262|background image}}
- \\
-**Appendix \\
-**
-**Relevant exceptions  **
+** Relevant exceptions **
 The exception that applies to the withheld information is:
@@ Line 177: / Line 134: @@
 **Reg 12(4)(a) EIR - Information not held **
 Please see below where we have indicated that we do not hold any information.
+Regulation 3(2) of the EIR states that information is held if it is in our possession and has been produced or received by us, or it is held by another person on our behalf at the time the request is received.
-Regulation 3(2) of the EIR states that information is held if it is in our possession and
-has been produced or received by us, or it is held by another person on our behalf at
-the time the request is received.
 **Information not held**
-In this case, some of the information you have requested is not held by the
+In this case, some of the information you have requested is not held by the Environment Agency, and we are therefore refusing your request on the grounds that there is no information we can provide.
-Environment Agency, and we are therefore refusing your request on the grounds that
+Where a request is for environmental information, the Regulations allow us to refuse to disclose it if the exception at Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies. The regulation states that a public authority may refuse to disclose environmental information to the extent that it does not hold that information when an applicant's request is received.
-there is no information we can provide.
+It is not possible for us to conduct a public interest balancing test because the reason for non-disclosure is that the information is not held.
+**12(4)(b) Request is Manifestly Unreasonable: **‘A public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that - (b) the request for information is manifestly unreasonable’.
-Where a request is for environmental information, the Regulations allow us to refuse
+The exception under EIR Regulation 12(4)(b) applies as the request is manifestly unreasonable due to the cost and/or burden dealing with your request would place on the Environment Agency.
-to disclose it if the exception at Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies. The
+**The Public Interest Test   **
-regulation states that a public authority may refuse to disclose environmental
+We have weighed the public interest factors in favour of maintaining the exception and find that they outweigh the public interest factors in disclosing the information. In carrying out the public interest test we have considered:
-information to the extent that it does not hold that information when an applicant's
+**Factors in favour of disclosure: **Openness, transparency and accountability - We understand that disclosure of information held by public authorities promotes transparency, accountability of public authorities, greater public awareness and understanding of environmental matters.
-request is received.
+**Factors in favour of maintaining the exception: **Disproportionate burden - The amount of information that falls within scope of your request is considerable. Responding to the request would place an undue burden on the Environment Agency's resources and would require a substantial amount of resource and potentially the need to take staff offline from their cores duties to deal with the request. We consider that this burden cannot be justified due to the impact that responding to this onerous request would have on our ability to carry out our core duties. We consider this would be disproportionate to the benefit to the world at large in providing the information.
+Having considered the public interest factors, and applying the presumption in favour of disclosure, we find that there is a stronger public interest in maintaining the exception than there is in disclosure.
-It is not possible for us to conduct a public interest balancing test because the
+===== Analysis =====
-reason for non-disclosure is that the information is not held.
+The overall conclusion must be that the EA does not hold information on the risks of the dredging operations as it does not hold data related to the operations or environmental assessment.
+So the EA are not assessing the environmental impact of the maintenance dredging operations.
+==== 1. Water Framework Directive (WFD) Compliance Assessments ====
-**12(4)(b) Request is Manifestly Unreasonable: **‘A public authority may refuse to
+** Request 1.1: ** Provide the EA’s formal review or response to the WFD assessment contained within the 2025 Tees MDP.
-disclose information to the extent that - (b) the request for information is manifestly
+Refers me to [[https://marinelicensing.marinemanagement.org.uk/mmofox5/fox/live/MMO_PUBLIC_REGISTER| Marine case management system - Public register - MCMS]] - which only contains information about the disposal not the actual dredging.
-unreasonable’.
+** Request 1.2: ** Disclose any assessments held by the EA regarding whether TSHD overflow constitutes a "new discharge pathway" that requires a specific assessment under your "Clearing the Waters" guidance.
-** **
+No information held which means that PD Ports has not supplied any and that EA has not requested any as it has not been informed that this is a discharge pathway.
+** Request 1.3: ** The evidence used to prove that discharging of 25% to 30% of dredged material back into the river (via draghead disturbance and overflow) does not constitute a deterioration of the "Chemical Status" for PBDEs and mercury
-The exception under EIR Regulation 12(4)(b) applies as the request is manifestly
+No infromation held.
-unreasonable due to the cost and/or burden dealing with your request would place
+==== 2. Impact on Protected Fisheries and Eels ====
-on the Environment Agency.
+** Request 2.1: ** Disclose all EA advice or data regarding the impact of dredging-induced turbidity and contaminant remobilization on the European eel (Anguilla anguilla), noting that eels have been detected in recent eDNA monitoring in the estuary.
+No information held.
+** Request 2.2: ** Provide all internal reports discussing the risk of TSHD overflow plumes to migratory fish passage in the Tees.
-{{260514EA-EIR%2012%204%20b%20Manifestly%20Unreasonable%20Refusal%20Letter%20EIR2026%2013001008.png?892x1262|background image}}
+No information held, I would suggest relates to 1.2.  This is just not being considered.
- \\
+==== 3. Contaminant Flux and Sediment Quality ====
-**The Public Interest Test   **
+** Request 3.1: ** Disclose all results from the EA’s "Intertidal Grab Sampling for Benthic Inverts and Contaminant" (Licence L/2013/00082) and any more recent WFD monitoring conducted in the Tees.
-We have weighed the public interest factors in favour of maintaining the exception
+My assessment is that little useful data is available as the data sets are so sparse, I have looked at the online water quality data, but need to examine the ecology data more fully.  The EA said available online as Open Data.[[https://environment.data.gov.uk/ecology/explorer/| EA Ecology & Fish Data Map Explorer | Water Quality ]], [[https://environment.data.gov.uk/water-quality|Water Quality Explorer]]
-and find that they outweigh the public interest factors in disclosing the information. In
+** Request 3.2: ** Provide the EA’s assessment of the "Sediment Trap" effect in the lower Tees and whether dredging overflow is causing a net accumulation of toxins in the surface "active layer" of the riverbed.
-carrying out the public interest test we have considered:
+No information held.
+** Request 3.3: ** Assessment of whether the nitrogen and organic matter released during the agitation of anaerobic silts by the dredge head contributes to the "Unfavourable-Declining" status of the Seal Sands SSSI.
-**Factors in favour of disclosure: **Openness, transparency and accountability - We
+No information stated to be Natural England's responsibility.
-understand that disclosure of information held by public authorities promotes
+==== 4. Pollution Incident Investigation ====
-transparency, accountability of public authorities, greater public awareness and
+** Request 4.1: ** Disclose all EA correspondence and data regarding the potential link between dredging operations and the crustacean mortality events of 2021-2022, specifically all analysis of water samples taken during active dredging campaigns.
-understanding of environmental matters.
+EA does not monitor water quality during dredging operations.  Defra lead for crustacean mortality event.
-** **
+** Request 4.2: ** Disclose all EA correspondence and data regarding the potential link between dredging operations and the ongoing harbour seal pup mortality events since 2021, specifically all analysis of water samples taken during active dredging campaigns.
-**Factors in favour of maintaining the exception: **Disproportionate burden - The
-amount of information that falls within scope of your request is considerable.
-Responding to the request would place an undue burden on the Environment
-Agency's resources and would require a substantial amount of resource and
-potentially the need to take staff offline from their cores duties to deal with the
-request. We consider that this burden cannot be justified due to the impact that
-responding to this onerous request would have on our ability to carry out our core
-duties. We consider this would be disproportionate to the benefit to the world at large
-in providing the information.
-Having considered the public interest factors, and applying the presumption in favour
-of disclosure, we find that there is a stronger public interest in maintaining the
-exception than there is in disclosure.
+EA does not monitor water quality during dredging operations.  Defra lead for seal mouth rot investigations.