North East File Collection - NEFC

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • 260906_cefas_eir_request_-_maintenance_dredging_protocol_consultations • mmo_-_mlas_-_2026 • mla-2025-00157
260308natural_england_eir_request_-_tees_maintenance_dredging

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
260308natural_england_eir_request_-_tees_maintenance_dredging [2026/08/02 13:42] – nefcadmin260308natural_england_eir_request_-_tees_maintenance_dredging [2026/09/16 21:20] (current) – nefcadmin
Line 1: Line 1:
 +===== 260308Natural England EIR Request - Tees Maintenance Dredging =====
 +
 +===== Summary =====
 +
 +This EIR was to discover whether the appropriate environmental assessments of the dredging operations had involved consulations with Natural England.
 +
 +No evidence of consultations has been reported.
 +
 +  - PD Ports has not consulted NE on the impacts of the operations of dredging on protected sites etc.
 +  - PD Ports have not consulted NE on TSHD overflow and contaminant recirculation.  However, NE in Reference A made relevant recommendations. 
 +  - PD Ports have not consulted NE on TSHD dredging operation within the estuary on foraging.
 +  - Water framework directive I should approach the Environment Agency.
 +  - NE advised MMO to ensure cumulative impacts of all dredging within the River Tees were considered, I can only find evidence with respect to the disposal operation not the dredging operations.
 +  - NE not consulted on site specific contaminants.
 +
 +
 +Relevant recommendations made in [[this>EIR/NE/260308/reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf|Reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf]]:
 +
 +**//Likely significant effect, appropriate assessment required//**
 +
 +//Natural England's advice is that this proposed development may contain (or require) measures intended to avoid or reduce the likely harmful effects on a European Site, which cannot be taken into account when determining whether or not a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a site and requires an appropriate assessment (noting the recent People Over Wind Ruling by the Court of 
 +Justice of the European Union).//
 +
 +//For this reason, we advise that on the basis of the information supplied that the application may have a likely significant effect on these sites. These measures therefore need to be formally checked and confirmed by your Authority, as the competent authority, via an appropriate assessment, in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).//
 +
 +Explicitly states disposal is not in SSSI, however all dredging is in SSSI which reinforces the statements above.
 +
 +**....we encourage the MMO to take a cautious approach when considering activities within the Tees which may mobilise contaminated sediment ....**
 +
 +//Natural England defer to Cefas and the Environment Agency for further detailed advice on contaminated sediments. We acknowledge that Cefas will likely be consulted on any sediment sampling results, however we would like to take the opportunity to advise that you ensure sufficient and adequate analysis and assessment of impacts of contaminants and pollutants within sediments is carried out down to the lowest levels of proposed dredging before commencement of works. If hazardous levels of contaminants are discovered then methods to limit their release and spread during the project, to the wider area will need to be considered. If safer methods cannot be established then mitigation for any potential damage to surrounding ecosystems must be considered. Natural England would like to be kept informed and have an opportunity to provide further advice, particularly should the project methodology be amended following sample analysis and assessment.//
 +
 +//We draw the MMOs attention to the Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives for the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA which contains a target as follows “Reduce aqueous contaminants to levels equating to High Status according to Annex VIII and Good Status according to Annex X of the Water Framework Directive, avoiding deterioration from existing levels.”//
 +
 +I have found no evidence that the MMO or PD Ports carried out any assessment of the impact of the contaminated sediments mobilisation caused by dredging on the SSSI, aside from in relation to disposal at sea.
 +
 +NE further stressed need for caution in [[this>EIR/NE/260308/reference B - 338486  338489, NE response to South Bank Wharf (SBW) consultations, 29.01.21, XXXXXX_Redacted.pdf|Reference B - 338486  338489, NE response to South Bank Wharf (SBW) consultations, 29.01.21, XXXXXX_Redacted.pdf]] and [[this>EIR/NE/260308/reference C - 498582 2015 00334 13 Able Seaton Port NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf|Reference C - 498582 2015 00334 13 Able Seaton Port NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf]].
 +
 ===== Request ===== ===== Request =====
  
Line 9: Line 46:
 Please provide all information, including advice, correspondence, other communications, and meeting minutes from January 2020 to the present regarding: Please provide all information, including advice, correspondence, other communications, and meeting minutes from January 2020 to the present regarding:
  
-1. Impacts of Extraction and Disposal+==== 1. Impacts of Extraction and Disposal ====
  
 Request 1.1: Whether the Tees Maintenance Dredge Protocol (MDP) Baseline Document (dated May 20, 2025), which justifies the environmental safety of dredging by categorizing it as "part of the baseline" because it is "near continuous", is legally and scientifically acceptable for a site where key units, such as Seal Sands (SSSI Unit 8) and Bran Sands (SSSI Unit 26), are currently in "Unfavourable-Declining" condition.** Request 1.1: Whether the Tees Maintenance Dredge Protocol (MDP) Baseline Document (dated May 20, 2025), which justifies the environmental safety of dredging by categorizing it as "part of the baseline" because it is "near continuous", is legally and scientifically acceptable for a site where key units, such as Seal Sands (SSSI Unit 8) and Bran Sands (SSSI Unit 26), are currently in "Unfavourable-Declining" condition.**
Line 15: Line 52:
 Request 1.2: estuarine plume modelling, or the lack thereof, for the inner reaches (Reaches 1-9 + Seaton Channel + Teesport) of the Tees estuary; Request 1.2: estuarine plume modelling, or the lack thereof, for the inner reaches (Reaches 1-9 + Seaton Channel + Teesport) of the Tees estuary;
  
-2. TSHD Overflow and Contaminant Recirculation - The MDP confirms the use of TSHDs with "green valves." However, industry literature confirms that these valves do not reduce the mass of contaminants released but merely reduce visual surface turbidity.+==== 2. TSHD Overflow and Contaminant Recirculation ==== 
 + 
 +The MDP confirms the use of TSHDs with "green valves." However, industry literature confirms that these valves do not reduce the mass of contaminants released but merely reduce visual surface turbidity.
  
 Request 2.1: the "Fine Particle Enrichment" effect, where legacy contaminants (PAHs, PCBs, PBDEs) are concentrated in the overflow and returned to the flood-dominant estuary? Request 2.1: the "Fine Particle Enrichment" effect, where legacy contaminants (PAHs, PCBs, PBDEs) are concentrated in the overflow and returned to the flood-dominant estuary?
Line 21: Line 60:
 Request 2.2: the risk of this "closed loop" of contamination to benthic-feeding birds and the recovery of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla)? Request 2.2: the risk of this "closed loop" of contamination to benthic-feeding birds and the recovery of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla)?
  
-3. Impact on Foraging Interests (Common Terns)+==== 3. Impact on Foraging Interests (Common Terns) ====
  
 Common Terns forage over the entire length of the River Tees. The MDP justifies safety by stating re-suspension is limited in "sandy areas." Common Terns forage over the entire length of the River Tees. The MDP justifies safety by stating re-suspension is limited in "sandy areas."
Line 27: Line 66:
 Request 3.1: the impact of TSHD overflow plumes in the silty upper reaches (Reaches 1-5) on the foraging success of SPA-interest bird species. Request 3.1: the impact of TSHD overflow plumes in the silty upper reaches (Reaches 1-5) on the foraging success of SPA-interest bird species.
  
-4. Water Framework Directive+==== 4. Water Framework Directive ====
  
 The Tees Transitional water body is currently failing for chemicals including PBDEs and mercury. The Tees Transitional water body is currently failing for chemicals including PBDEs and mercury.
Line 33: Line 72:
 Request 4.1: Water Framework Directive (WFD) Recovery: whether remobilisation of these toxins during dredging is a barrier to achieving "Good Ecological Potential". Request 4.1: Water Framework Directive (WFD) Recovery: whether remobilisation of these toxins during dredging is a barrier to achieving "Good Ecological Potential".
  
-5. Cumulative Impacts+==== 5. Cumulative Impacts ====
  
 Request 5.1: the cumulative impact of maintenance dredging alongside major capital projects, such as the South Bank Quay and Northern Gateway Container Terminal (NGCT), on the estuary's "Sediment Trap" effect. Request 5.1: the cumulative impact of maintenance dredging alongside major capital projects, such as the South Bank Quay and Northern Gateway Container Terminal (NGCT), on the estuary's "Sediment Trap" effect.
  
-6. Site-Specific Industrial Markers+==== 6. Site-Specific Industrial Markers ====
  
 Given the pyridine controversy of 2021-2022, Given the pyridine controversy of 2021-2022,
Line 61: Line 100:
 Please provide all information, including advice, correspondence, other communications, and meeting minutes from January 2020 to the present 08 March 2025 (date we received your request) regarding:  Please provide all information, including advice, correspondence, other communications, and meeting minutes from January 2020 to the present 08 March 2025 (date we received your request) regarding: 
    
-**1. Impacts of Extraction and Disposal**+==== 1. Impacts of Extraction and Disposal ====
  
 **Request 1.1: Whether the Tees Maintenance Dredge Protocol (MDP) Baseline Document (dated May 20, 2025), which justifies the environmental safety of dredging by categorizing it as "part of the baseline" because it is "near continuous", is legally and scientifically acceptable for a site where key units, such as Seal Sands (SSSI Unit 8) and Bran Sands (SSSI Unit 26), are currently in "Unfavourable-Declining" condition.** **Request 1.1: Whether the Tees Maintenance Dredge Protocol (MDP) Baseline Document (dated May 20, 2025), which justifies the environmental safety of dredging by categorizing it as "part of the baseline" because it is "near continuous", is legally and scientifically acceptable for a site where key units, such as Seal Sands (SSSI Unit 8) and Bran Sands (SSSI Unit 26), are currently in "Unfavourable-Declining" condition.**
Line 67: Line 106:
 Natural England’s (NE) Northumbria Area (Marine) Team have searched their records and can confirm that we do not hold any advice, correspondence, other communications, or meeting minutes on this aspect of the MDP. Under Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, I can formally confirm that Natural England does not hold the information you requested.  Natural England’s (NE) Northumbria Area (Marine) Team have searched their records and can confirm that we do not hold any advice, correspondence, other communications, or meeting minutes on this aspect of the MDP. Under Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, I can formally confirm that Natural England does not hold the information you requested. 
  
-Therefore, we can confirm that Natural England has not been formally consulted on this MDP by PD ports. The MDP was provided as part of the consultation documents from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) for the consultation  MLA/2025/00263 (Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Dredge Disposal).  NE  specifically  queried  whether the MMO required statutory advice on the MDP and were advised that this was not necessary. NE’s advice was requested specifically in relation to dredge disposal only. A copy of our advice on the disposal consultation is provided in the attached zip file (reference A). +Therefore, we can confirm that Natural England has not been formally consulted on this MDP by PD ports. The MDP was provided as part of the consultation documents from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) for the consultation  MLA/2025/00263 (Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Dredge Disposal).  NE  specifically  queried  whether the MMO required statutory advice on the MDP and were advised that this was not necessary. NE’s advice was requested specifically in relation to dredge disposal only. A copy of our advice on the disposal consultation is provided in the attached zip file ([[this>EIR/NE/260308/reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf|reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf]]). 
  
 **Request 1.2: estuarine plume modelling, or the lack thereof, for the inner reaches (Reaches 1-9 + Seaton Channel + Teesport) of the Tees estuary.** **Request 1.2: estuarine plume modelling, or the lack thereof, for the inner reaches (Reaches 1-9 + Seaton Channel + Teesport) of the Tees estuary.**
Line 73: Line 112:
 We can confirm that we hold no records of advice, correspondence, other communications, or meeting minutes regarding the Tees Estuarine Plume Modelling.  Therefore, under  Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, I can formally confirm that Natural England does not hold the information you requested.  We can confirm that we hold no records of advice, correspondence, other communications, or meeting minutes regarding the Tees Estuarine Plume Modelling.  Therefore, under  Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, I can formally confirm that Natural England does not hold the information you requested. 
  
-**2. TSHD Overflow and Contaminant Recirculation**+==== 2. TSHD Overflow and Contaminant Recirculation ====
  
 **The MDP confirms the use of TSHDs with "green valves." However, industry literature confirms that these valves do not reduce the mass of contaminants released but merely reduce visual surface turbidity.** **The MDP confirms the use of TSHDs with "green valves." However, industry literature confirms that these valves do not reduce the mass of contaminants released but merely reduce visual surface turbidity.**
Line 88: Line 127:
 We can confirm that we hold no records of advice, correspondence, other communications, or meeting minutes relating to the ‘closed loop’ of contaminants. Under Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, I can formally confirm that Natural England does not hold the information you requested. We can confirm that we hold no records of advice, correspondence, other communications, or meeting minutes relating to the ‘closed loop’ of contaminants. Under Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, I can formally confirm that Natural England does not hold the information you requested.
    
-We have provided high-level, generic advice to the MMO (for example, reference A) regarding the need for caution due to elevated contaminant levels and the proximity of designated species. +We have provided high-level, generic advice to the MMO (for example, [[this>EIR/NE/260308/reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf|reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf]]) regarding the need for caution due to elevated contaminant levels and the proximity of designated species. 
  
 NE role and remit is focused upon designated sites and species. As eels are not a designated species for the relevant sites at the Tees Estuary, we have not provided advice on this species. NE would defer to the Environment Agency (EA) for matters relevant to eels.   NE role and remit is focused upon designated sites and species. As eels are not a designated species for the relevant sites at the Tees Estuary, we have not provided advice on this species. NE would defer to the Environment Agency (EA) for matters relevant to eels.  
    
-**3. Impact on Foraging Interests (Common Terns)**+==== 3. Impact on Foraging Interests (Common Terns) ====
  
 **Common Terns forage over the entire length of the River Tees. The MDP justifies safety by stating re-suspension is limited in "sandy areas."** **Common Terns forage over the entire length of the River Tees. The MDP justifies safety by stating re-suspension is limited in "sandy areas."**
Line 102: Line 141:
 As acknowledged above NE has not been consulted upon the MDP for PD Ports and therefore have not provided advice on the information contained within the document.   As acknowledged above NE has not been consulted upon the MDP for PD Ports and therefore have not provided advice on the information contained within the document.  
    
-**4. Water Framework Directive** +==== 4. Water Framework Directive ====
  
 **The Tees Transitional water body is currently failing for chemicals including PBDEs and mercury.** **The Tees Transitional water body is currently failing for chemicals including PBDEs and mercury.**
Line 108: Line 147:
 **Request 4.1: Water Framework Directive (WFD) Recovery: whether remobilisation of  these toxins during dredging is a barrier to achieving "Good Ecological Potential".** **Request 4.1: Water Framework Directive (WFD) Recovery: whether remobilisation of  these toxins during dredging is a barrier to achieving "Good Ecological Potential".**
  
-Natural England’s role is to provide ecological advice in line with our role and remit, primarily focused upon designated sites and species. We do not routinely provide advice on WFD as this is the statutory role provided by the Environment Agency to the MMO.  Our advice (as provided to the MMO reference A) would be regarding the ecological components of WFD (sensitive habitats/species and protected areas). We have not provided specific advice on whether the remobilisation of PBDEs and mercury presents a barrier to achieving Good Environmental Potential - this would be a matter for the EA’s consideration. +Natural England’s role is to provide ecological advice in line with our role and remit, primarily focused upon designated sites and species. We do not routinely provide advice on WFD as this is the statutory role provided by the Environment Agency to the MMO.  Our advice (as provided to the MMO [[this>EIR/NE/260308/reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf|reference A - 517225 MLA 2025 00263 Tees Maintinence Dredge disposal NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf]]) would be regarding the ecological components of WFD (sensitive habitats/species and protected areas). We have not provided specific advice on whether the remobilisation of PBDEs and mercury presents a barrier to achieving Good Environmental Potential - this would be a matter for the EA’s consideration. 
  
 Our Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives for the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area includes the following target: ‘Reduce aqueous contaminants to levels equating to High Status according to Annex VIII and Good Status according to Annex X of the Water Framework Directive, avoiding deterioration from existing levels.’ This is available via the link provided here: [[TCC Conservation Advice - link removed in pdf]].  Our Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives for the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area includes the following target: ‘Reduce aqueous contaminants to levels equating to High Status according to Annex VIII and Good Status according to Annex X of the Water Framework Directive, avoiding deterioration from existing levels.’ This is available via the link provided here: [[TCC Conservation Advice - link removed in pdf]]. 
      
-**5. Cumulative Impacts**+==== 5. Cumulative Impacts ====
  
 **Request 5.1: the cumulative impact of maintenance dredging alongside major capital projects, such as the South Bank Quay and Northern Gateway Container Terminal (NGCT), on the estuary's "Sediment Trap" effect.** **Request 5.1: the cumulative impact of maintenance dredging alongside major capital projects, such as the South Bank Quay and Northern Gateway Container Terminal (NGCT), on the estuary's "Sediment Trap" effect.**
  
-The MMO are one of the key regulators and are a competent authority responsible for undertaking the Habitat Regulations Assessments for proposals through their licensing regime. Other regulators, Local Planning Authority and Planning Inspectorate have equivalent  responsibilities. The MMO will undertake in-combination assessments,  as  +The MMO are one of the key regulators and are a competent authority responsible for undertaking the Habitat Regulations Assessments for proposals through their licensing regime. Other regulators, Local Planning Authority and Planning Inspectorate have equivalent  responsibilities. The MMO will undertake in-combination assessments,  as appropriate,  for any licence application-  see guidance here: [[https://www.gov.uk/guidance/habitats-regulations-assessments-protecting-a-european-site|Habitats regulations assessments: protecting a European site -  GOV.UK]].  An in-combination assessment considers the effects of concurrent activities.  Natural England is a statutory consultee under Regulation 63 (3) of the Habitats Regulations and  will provide advice on the assessment including in-combination where that assessment has concluded Likely Significant
-appropriate,  for any licence application-  see guidance here: [[Habitats regulations assessments: protecting a European site -  GOV.UK - link removed in pdf]].  An in-combination assessment considers the effects of concurrent activities.  Natural England is a statutory consultee under Regulation 63 (3) of the Habitats Regulations and  will provide advice on the assessment including in-combination where that assessment has concluded Likely Significant+
 Effects. NE provide advice on a case-by-case basis and contribute to these in-combination assessments accordingly.  Effects. NE provide advice on a case-by-case basis and contribute to these in-combination assessments accordingly. 
  
-In response to the South Bank Quay marine licence  consultation (MLA/2020/00506 / MLA/2020/00507), a copy is saved in the zip file (reference B)  we advised that the MMO should assess in-combination effects with various projects, including maintenance dredging.  We also advised the MMO to broaden their scope for in-combination effects, a +In response to the South Bank Quay marine licence  consultation (MLA/2020/00506 / MLA/2020/00507), a copy is saved in the zip file ([[this>EIR/NE/260308/reference B - 338486  338489, NE response to South Bank Wharf (SBW) consultations, 29.01.21, XXXXXX_Redacted.pdf|reference B - 338486  338489, NE response to South Bank Wharf (SBW) consultations, 29.01.21, XXXXXX_Redacted.pdf]])  we advised that the MMO should assess in-combination effects with various projects, including maintenance dredging.  We also advised the MMO to broaden their scope for in-combination effects, a 
-copy is saved in the zip file (reference C). +copy is saved in the zip file ([[this>EIR/NE/260308/reference C - 498582 2015 00334 13 Able Seaton Port NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf|reference C - 498582 2015 00334 13 Able Seaton Port NE response to MMO_Redacted.pdf]]). 
  
-**6. Site-Specific Industrial Markers**+==== 6. Site-Specific Industrial Markers ====
  
 **Given the pyridine controversy of 2021-2022.** **Given the pyridine controversy of 2021-2022.**
Line 133: Line 171:
 Natural England does not provide advice on site specific contaminants and does not provide advice on sampling requirements. The MMO in consultation with CEFAS lead determination of appropriate sampling provisions for applicants.    Natural England does not provide advice on site specific contaminants and does not provide advice on sampling requirements. The MMO in consultation with CEFAS lead determination of appropriate sampling provisions for applicants.   
  
-**Additional Information**+==== Additional Information ====
      
 As outlined above, Natural England’s primary role is to provide ecological advice relating to designated sites/species. We provide advice when requested to do so  through formal statutory consultation by regulatory  authorities  (i.e. MMO, LPAs). Other government agencies such as the Environment Agency and Cefas  have greater expertise and remit regarding chemical contaminants and the wider water environment.  As outlined above, Natural England’s primary role is to provide ecological advice relating to designated sites/species. We provide advice when requested to do so  through formal statutory consultation by regulatory  authorities  (i.e. MMO, LPAs). Other government agencies such as the Environment Agency and Cefas  have greater expertise and remit regarding chemical contaminants and the wider water environment. 
Line 158: Line 196:
 The Information Commissioner can be contacted_at: https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/  or call on 0303 123 1113 (local rate), www.ico.org.uk.  The Information Commissioner can be contacted_at: https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/  or call on 0303 123 1113 (local rate), www.ico.org.uk. 
    
-**__Annex A__**+==== Annex A ====
    
 **Regulation 12(3) – a prohibition on disclosure of personal information.** **Regulation 12(3) – a prohibition on disclosure of personal information.**
Line 176: Line 214:
      
 Natural England is therefore satisfied that the information requested fits the definition of personal data and that its release would be ‘unfair’ under the meaning of the first Data Protection Principle and should not be released.  Natural England is therefore satisfied that the information requested fits the definition of personal data and that its release would be ‘unfair’ under the meaning of the first Data Protection Principle and should not be released. 
-  
-  
-  
- 
- 
- 
  
 +====== Other Pages That Link To This Page ======
  
 +{{backlinks>.}}
260308natural_england_eir_request_-_tees_maintenance_dredging.1785678157.txt.gz · Last modified: by nefcadmin