Differences

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

--- 260303pd_teesport_eir_request_-_maintenance_dredging [2026/05/01 14:53] – [4. Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Protected Sites] nefcadmin
+++ 260303pd_teesport_eir_request_-_maintenance_dredging [2026/05/14 21:11] (current) – [Analysis] nefcadmin
@@ Line 191: / Line 191: @@
 ===== Analysis =====
+No information has been supplied which suggests that any environmental impact assessment is carried out on the maintenance dredging operation.  In most case reference is made to documents where it is stated that the assessments are for disposal.
+A trailing suction hopper dredger presents two sources of contamination:
+   - the dredge head resuspending material which is not captured in the suction (up to 20% of dredged amount)
+   - the overflow from the hopper (up to 25% of the dredged amount)
+The response confirms that overflow happens every time the dredgers are deployed, but despite operating within the Tees SSSI, SPA and Ramsar, does not show any definition of the pathways when operating within the river.
+There is no evidence of a least significant effect appraisal of the maintenance dredging operations.
 ==== 1. Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) Operational Data ====
    - Dredge logs - 1 supplied for 20th December 2025 - no information on overflowing.