PIANC

‘Setting the Course’

Report n° 108 - 2010

Dredging and port construction

around coral reefs
The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure
PIANC ‘Setting the course’

PIANC REPORT N° 108

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION

DREDGING AND PORT

CONSTRUCTION
AROUND CORAL REEFS

2010

PIANC Report 108

 PIANC has Technical Commissions concerned with inland waterways and ports (InCom),
coastal and ocean waterways (including ports and harbours) (MarCom), environmental
aspects (EnviCom) and sport and pleasure navigation (RecCom).

This report has been produced by an international Working Group convened by the
Environmental Commission (EnviCom). Members of the Working Group represent
several countries and are acknowledged experts in their profession.

The objective of this report is to provide information and recommendations on good

practice. Conformity is not obligatory and engineering judgement should be used in its
application, especially in special circumstances. This report should be seen as an expert
guidance and state of the art on this particular subject. PIANC disclaims all responsibility
in case this report should be presented as an official standard.

PIANC Secrétariat Général

Boulevard du Roi Albert II 20, B 3
B-1000 Bruxelles
Belgique

http://www.pianc.org

VAT BE 408-287-945

ISBN 978-2-87223-177-5

EAN 9782872231775

© All rights reserved

PIANC Report 108

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE . ............................................... III
TERMS OF REFERENCE.......................................... III
MEMBERS OF WORKING GROUP 15...................... III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................... III
GLOSSARY . ...............................................IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................IX
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................. 1
1.1 Why Dredging and Port Construction
near Coral Reefs?.................................. 1
1.2 Consequences of Dredging and Port
Construction near Coral Reefs............... 1
1.3 Recommended Reading........................ 2
2. CORALS AND CORAL REEFS............................ 3
2.1 What is a Coral Reef?................................... 3
2.1.1 Where are Corals Found?................ 3
2.1.2 The Biology of Corals....................... 3
2.1.3 Structural Components of a
Coral Reef........................................ 5
2.1.4 Growth Forms of Corals................... 6
2.1.5 Other Coral Reef Organisms............ 6
2.2 Importance of Coral Reefs............................ 9
3. DREDGING AND PORT CONSTRUCTION
TECHNIQUES . .............................................. 12
3.1 Geotechnical Characteristics of Coral
Reefs . .............................................. 12
3.2 Classification of Equipment......................... 13
3.2.1 Cutter Suction Dredgers................. 14
3.2.2 Trailing Suction Hopper Dredgers.. 15
3.2.3 Mechanical Dredgers..................... 16
3.3 Reclamation/Placement Techniques........... 16
3.3.1 Direct Placement............................ 16
3.3.2 Rainbowing.................................... 17
3.3.3 Pumping Ashore............................. 17
4 TYPES OF IMPACTS......................................... 18
4.1 Project Impacts........................................... 19
4.1.1 Construction Phase Impacts.......... 19
4.1.2 Post-Construction Phase............... 19
4.1.3 Operation Phase............................ 20
4.2 Process Impacts.......................................... 20
4.2.1 Construction Phase........................ 20
5 RESPONSE OF CORALS TO IMPACTS........... 22
5.1 Responses to Project Impacts.................... 25
5.1.1 Construction Phase Response....... 25
5.1.2 Post-Construction Phase Project
Responses..................................... 25
5.1.3 Operational Phase Responses...... 25
5.2 Responses to Process Impacts................... 26
5.2.1 Turbidity......................................... 28
5.2.2 Sedimentation................................ 29
5.2.3 Water Quality Impacts.................... 30
5.3 Potential for Recovery................................. 31
6 IMPACT MINIMISATION THROUGH PLANNING.. 32
6.1 Introduction . .............................................. 32
6.2 Key Activities............................................... 32
7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT..................................... 36
7.1 Baseline Data.............................................. 37
7.2 Predictive Modelling.................................... 40
3 PIANC Report 108
7.3 Establishing Threshold Levels.................... 42
7.4 Impact Assessment Criteria........................ 42
7.5 Permitting/Approvals................................... 44
7.6 Preparation of Terms of Reference for
Construction . .............................................. 44
8 MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION
MEASURES . .............................................. 45
8.1 Overview of Prevention, Mitigation and
Compensation............................................. 45
8.2 Best Practice Examples of Technical
Mitigation Measures.................................... 46
8.2.1 Choice of Equipment....................... 46
8.2.2 Prevention of Leakage from
Equipment....................................... 46
8.2.3 Dredging Accuracies and
Measuring Accuracies..................... 46
8.2.4 Minimisation and Control of
Sediment Spill................................. 46
8.2.5 Minimisation of Propeller Wash....... 47
8.2.6 Under-keel Overflowing and the
Use of the ‘Environmental Valve’..... 47
8.2.7 Temporarily Relocating the Dredger...47
8.2.8 Silt Curtains..................................... 47
8.2.9 Environmental Windows.................. 48
8.2.10 Restricted Overflow......................... 48
8.2.11 Controlling Discharge of Excess
Water from the Reclamation Area.... 48
8.2.12 Profiling Channel Slopes................. 49
8.3 Best Practice Examples of Compensation
Measures . .............................................. 49
8.3.1 Larval Production and Release....... 49
8.3.2 Transplantation................................ 49
8.3.3 Installation of Stable Substrate....... 50
8.3.4 Use of Textured Surfaces................ 51
8.3.5 Allowing Space between
Breakwater Caissons...................... 52
9 MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT................. 52
9.1 Establishing the Environmental
Management Plan Baseline........................ 53
9.1.1 Indicators......................................... 53
9.1.2 Common Baseline Survey
Components with respect to Corals... 53
9.1.3 Layout of Monitoring Stations.......... 58
9.2 Adaptive Management Strategies............... 61
9.3 Tiered Response......................................... 62
9.4 Components of Feedback Monitoring and
Management Plan....................................... 62
9.4.1 Control Monitoring........................... 63
9.4.2 Habitat Monitoring and the
Feedback Loop............................... 63
9.4.3 Spill Budget..................................... 64
9.4.4 Spill Hindcast Modelling.................. 65
9.4.5 Compliance Monitoring and Reporting. 65
9.5 Post-Project Monitoring............................... 66
9.6 Management Responsibilities..................... 66
9.7 Data, Information and Publication............... 66
10 KEY REFERENCES........................................... 68
APPENDIX A Summary Of Collaboration,
Consultation & Review
Process
 PREFACE
PIANC Working Group 108 has developed the fol-
lowing guidelines jointly with the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) for the implementa-
tion of best practice methodology in environmental
assessment and environmental management for
dredging and port construction activities around
coral reefs and their associated communities with
an emphasis on shallow warm water ecosystems.
It is recognised that knowledge gaps still exist and
the methods for monitoring and mitigating unwant-
ed impacts on corals and associated organisms and
ecosystems still need improvement. However, ex-
perience shows that by adopting sound planning,
impact assessment, monitoring and management
practices, large benefits can be achieved in terms of
avoiding or minimising adverse effects on the coral
reef environment from dredging and port construc-
tion.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The document will discuss coral reefs, the possible
impacts on these ecosystems from port construction
and dredging operations, mitigation options and how
environmental monitoring and management during
construction can aid in the avoidance or minimisa-
tion of any unwanted, detrimental effects to corals
and associated organisms. The approach is to col-
lect available scientific and grey literature including
case studies on dredging and port construction ac-
tivities around coral reefs and their associated com-
munities with an emphasis on shallow warm water
coral reef ecosystems, and subsequently analyse
the information, in order to determine the range of
effects of dredging and port construction activities
on coral reefs.
Knowledge gaps are identified in the process and
the environmental issues and practical constraints
associated with implementation of dredging and
port construction activities around coral reefs are
recognised.
Further, state-of-the-art methodologies for assess-
ment of impacts of dredging and port construction
activities on coral reefs are described along with
their practical application. Finally, the techniques
used to prevent, minimise, mitigate and/or com-
pensate impacts, associated with dredging and port
construction activities, on corals reefs are assessed
PIANC Report 108
with respect to their practicality and effectiveness.
Emphasis is given to describe the entire develop-
ment process from identification of project concept,
over feasibility and assessment of possible environ-
mental impacts, through the inclusion of environ-
mental mitigation measures in the specifications for
construction, to the environmental monitoring and
management plan implementation during and after
construction.
MEMBERS OF PIANC
WORKING GROUP 108
Mr. Tom Foster (CEDA) (Chair)
DHI Water & Environment
Ms. Emily Corcoran (UNEP) (Vice-Chair)
UNEP/GRID-Arendal (formerly UNEP-WCMC)
Dr. Paul Erftemeijer (PIANC NL)
Deltares
Dr. Caroline Fletcher (CEDA)
HR Wallingford
Mr. Kobbe Peirs (PIANC BE)
Jan de Nul
Mr. Constantijn Dolmans (PIANC ENVICOM)
International Association of Dredging Companies
(IADC)
Dr. Adam Smith (PIANC AU)
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Dr. Hidekazu Yamamoto (PIANC JAP)
Environmental Consultants for Ocean and Human
(ECOH)
Mr. Matthew Jury
DHI Water & Environment
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Working Group members are grateful for Envi-
Com providing an opportunity to prepare this guide.
We are especially grateful for the support and guid-
ance rendered by D. Bob Engler, PIANC Ex- Envi-
Com Chair, and Mrs. Anna Csiti CEDA, as well as
input provided during workshops by Dr. Rick Morton
(Port of Brisbane, Australia), Mr. James Monkivitch
III
(Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Austra-
lia) and Mr. Andrew Costen (formerly Department of
Environment and Conservation, Western Australia).
The Working Group elected at an early stage to open
the draft document to external reviewers spanning
the entire range of stakeholders from government
authorities to IGOs, NGOs and contractors (see
Appendix A). We greatly appreciate the inputs pro-
vided by these reviewers, which have helped with
the focus and balance of the document.
GLOSSARY
Acronym Meaning
ABS Acoustic backscatter
CSD Cutter suction dredger
dB Decibel
EIA Environmental impact assess-
ment
EMC Environmental management
committee
EMP Environmental management plan
EQO Environmental Quality Objective
FTU Formazin turbidity units
MA Millennium ecosystem
assessment
MPA Marine protected area
NGO Nongovernmental organisation
NTU Nephelometric turbidity units
OBS Optical backscatter
ROV Remotely operated vehicle/ves-
sel
LIT Line intercept transect
PIT Point intercept transect
Acronym Meaning
ppm Parts per million
SI Surface irradiance
SS, TSS Suspended solids, total suspend-
ed solids
TSHD Trailing suction hopper dredger
Word Meaning
Algal symbionts Refer to ‘zooxanthellae’.
Atolls Coral reefs that develop as a
rings around a central lagoon.
Bathymetric Changes in seabed profile (depth),
changes in this context particularly related
to dredging (to increase depth)
and/or reclamation/port construc-
tion (to decrease depth)
IV
Bio-accumulation The gradual build-up of a chemi-
cal in a living organism overtime
Biodiversity (Contraction of biological diver-
sity) The variability among liv-
ing organisms from all sources,
including terrestrial, marine,
and other aquatic ecosystems
and the ecological complexes of
which they are part. Biodiversity
includes diversity within species,
between species and between
ecosystems.
Bio-eroders Living organisms which erode
hard ocean substrates through
the following mechanisms such
as boring, drilling, rasping and
scraping.
Bund An earth, rock or concrete wall or
mound constructed to affect wa-
ter flow.
Caissons Large prefabricated concrete ele-
ments with vertical faces, towed
or lifted into place for breakwater
or quay wall construction.
Ciliary activity The rhythmic beating of short,
hair-like structures used in move-
ment such as pushing food par-
ticles and other functions.
Clay Fine-grained minerals (2-5 µm)
with smaller particle sizes than silt.
Coelobites Organisms that live in pores and
spaces within a reef.
Colloidal Substance consisting of ultra fine
behaviour particles typically 1 nanometre
to 10 micrometres often with im-
peded settling and variable re-
suspension behaviour depending
on the prevailing environmental
conditions.
Copepod A group of small-sized (maximum
size = 3 mm) crustaceans found
in marine and freshwater habitats.
Coral Marine animals belonging to the
class Anthozoa. These animals
are characterised by polyps, are
predominantly colonial, and se-
crete a calcium carbonate skel-
eton.
Coral reef A bank of calcareous rock, se-
creted by coral organisms, that
rises to or near the surface of a
body of water
PIANC Report 108
Coralline algae Marine algae, or seaweeds, that
deposit calcium carbonate and
can therefore contribute to coral
reef formation.
Cyanobacterial A group of photosynthetic bacte-
ria, also known as blue-green al-
gae or blue-green bacteria.
Demersal Dwelling at or near the bottom of
a body of water.
Digitate Finger-like projections branching
from the main stem/stalk.
Direct placement The controlled placement of
dredged materials, either for use
as reclamation material or on-
shore or offshore disposal.
Diversity The variety and relative abun-
dance of different entities (in an
ecosystem or a sample)
Foraminifers Single-celled animals with a shell
made of calcium carbonate and
an outer layer of projections used
for movement, feeding, waste ex-
pulsion and gas exchange.
Ectoparasites Parasites which live on the sur-
face, outside of the host body.
Endemism Where species are native and
confined to a certain geographic
region
Environmental (in the present context): A com-
receptor munity (of corals) or specimen (of
coral) exposed to a pollutant
Word Meaning
Environmental A butterfly valve in the TSHD
valve overflow system which reduces
the formation of air bubbles in-
side the overflow mixture leaving
the hopper. Air bubbles contain
a thin layer of fine solids, which
when leaving the hopper through
the overflow, result in a foam-like
layer on the water surface and
keep sediments discharged via
the overflow suspended for an
extended period of time. When
an environmental valve is used,
the density of the overflow is in-
creased and the suspended sedi-
ments settle towards the seabed
immediately, staying closer to the
PIANC Report 108
dredging area, reducing the spa-
tial extent of the suspended sedi-
ment plume.
Eutrophication An increase in concentration of
chemicals, mainly nitrogen and
phosphorus, in ecosystems, lead-
ing to an increased primary pro-
ductivity of the ecosystem, such
as excess algal growth.
Exogenous Currents produced by factors
current originating outside of the organ-
ism.
Fecundity Number of eggs produced per
coral polyp per year. It is used as
a measure of coral health, with
decreased fecundity indicating
reduced health
Fines Sediment with a grain size of <
0.063 mm (Corse silt; Wentworth
Scale) or < 0.075 mm (silt or clay
as classified by the American As-
sociation of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASH-
TO) Standards).
Fine silts Refer to ‘fines’
Flocculation A process where colloids come
out of suspension in the form of
floc or flakes
Foliose Describes the growth-form of cor-
als as broad, flattened and plate-
like
Geotechnical Related to the physical properties
(and consequent engineering be-
haviour) of soil/seabed material
Gastropods Snails and other molluscs typical-
ly characterised by a coiled shell
on the back and a creeping foot in
front.
Gonad Sexual reproductive organs (tes-
tes for males, ovaries for females)
that produce gametes (eggs or
sperm)
Heterotrophy Obtaining energy from consum-
ing animals or plants
Hindcast Use of predictive models to look
back in time at specific temporal
and spatial variations of environ-
mental parameters using known
input data.
VI
Hydrodynamic Refers to the study of fluids in mo-
tion. In this context, it refers to the
movements of the ocean, which
are driven by tides, currents and
waves
Kelp Brown algae characterised by
their large size and complexity.
Keystone Species whose effects on its com-
species munity are proportionately much
greater than its abundance.
Lethal stress Damage of such a great extent as
to cause death of an organism or
cells of an organism.
Littoral drift The transport of non-cohesive
sediments i.e. mainly sand, along
the foreshore and the shoreface
due to the action of the breaking
waves and the longshore current.
Mangrove Shrubs and trees that live along
the seashore in tropical and sub-
tropical regions and tolerate flood-
ing by seawater.
Mitigation An anthropogenic (man-made)
intervention to reduce negative
or unsustainable uses of ecosys-
tems or to enhance sustainable
practices.
Morphological Differences in the outward and in-
variability ternal form, structure and configu-
ration of an organism.
Muscle atrophy Decrease in muscle mass, lead-
ing to muscle weakness.
Pathogens Infectious organisms including
bacteria, viruses and fungi.
Photo-physiology The way plants and animals re-
spond to light
Phylum A group of organisms that share a
common ancestry and represent
a main division of a kingdom
Placement Refer to direct placement
Planktonic Small organisms that drift in the
organisms water
Planulae Functional term covering all free-
living life stages of coral larvae,
up to final settlement and attach-
ment. Sedimentation Net movement of sediment from a
Polyp A sedentary (stationary) coelen-
terate (category of aquatic inver-
tebrate that includes jellyfish, sea
VII
anemones, and corals), such as a
hydra or coral, having a cylindrical
body and an oral opening usually
surrounded by tentacles.
Prediction The result of an attempt to pro-
(or forecast) duce a most likely description or
estimate of the actual evolution of
a variable or system in the future.
Pulse amplitude A method used to compare the
modulation photosynthetic rates of various
fluorometry organisms such as corals, sea-
grass, algae, based on fluores-
cence parameters with those de-
termined by oxygen evolution and
radiocarbon fixation measure-
ments.
Rainbow A technique for spraying of
discharge dredged material from the vessel
to a receiving site by pumping it
with high speed through a nozzle
on the bow of the dredger, the ma-
terial forms an arc that resembles
the shape of a rainbow.
Reef A chain or range of rock, sand or
coral that rises to or near the sur-
face of a body of water
Reef-builders Organisms which contribute to
the growth and framework of
reefs such as corals and coralline
algae
Resilience The ability to recover (e.g. from
a temporary environmental pres-
sure)
Rock filigree Fine, fragile lace-like structure
Salt wedge Refers to the tidally driven incur-
sion of seawater into a body of
freshwater, usually at an estuary
or river mouth. Because seawa-
ter is denser than freshwater, the
saltwater layer is typically moving
in along the seabed and forms
a wedge shape, thinnest at the
leading margin, and progressively
thicker closer to the ocean.
Seagrass Grass-like flowering plants that
are adapted to live in the sea
state of suspension in water to ac-
cumulate on a particular surface
over time (e.g. on coral reefs)
PIANC Report 108
Sedimentation Used to manage the ‘dewatering’
cell of reclaimed material in a con-
trolled way and generally used to
reduce the sediment concentra-
tion in the supernatant returning
to the sea.
Shellfish Saltwater and freshwater animals
with an external skeleton and
without a backbone, i.e. crabs,
oysters, shrimps.
Spatial Variable structure and pattern of
heterogeneity a habitat, the higher the variabil-
ity, the richer the species compo-
sition.
Spill All material dredged but not
transported to the receiving site,
both the materials going into sus-
pension and those settling on the
seabed inside and outside the
dredging area(s) and placement
area(s)
Stilling basin A bunded area in a channel or
reservoir that is large enough to
reduce the velocity of the flow and
thus to allow suspended fines to
settle in the basin.
Stomatopod Animals belonging to the order
crustaceans Stromatopoda, and have strong,
clasping claws on the second pair
of legs and gills on the abdominal
projections.
Sub-lethal stress Insufficient damage to cause
death of an organism or its cells,
removal of the cause of stimulat-
ing damage result in recovery.
Supernatant High concentration mixture of
sediment and water.
Surface The electromagnetic radiation
irradiance (light) incident on the surface.
Units are Watts per square metre
(W.m2)
Symbiotic Close and often long-term inter-
actions between different biologi-
cal species.
Terrigenous Sand, mud or silt carried into the
sediments ocean from land, mostly via rivers
Turbid plumes Clouds of suspended sediments
formed in the water column, usu-
ally as a result of human activities,
but also due to river discharges or
strong current/wave conditions
Turbidity Decrease in water transparency
due to the presence of suspend-
PIANC Report 108
ed and some dissolved substanc-
es, which causes incident light
to be scattered, reflected and at-
tenuated rather than transmitted.
Common measures for turbidity
include: NTU, FTU, Secchi disk
readings (cm) and attenuation co-
efficient (kd). Conversion factors
between these different measures
are site-specific (i.e. depend-
ing on grain size composition,
mineralogical composition, con-
tribution of phytoplankton, etc.).
Under-keel A short cut system deployed by
bypass most TSHD. When dredging starts,
the density of the dredged mate-
rial is normally very low, as most
of it is only (sea)water. To prevent
the low density material from en-
tering and filling the hopper, the
bypass system is used to quickly
discard surplus low density mate-
rial through a separate discharge
channel, instead of through the
overflow system. Once dredg-
ing starts, the concentration of
the mixture is measured inside
the pressure pipeline, after it has
passed the pump. If the concen-
tration is lower than the pre-de-
fined threshold limit, the mixture
is discarded overboard, directly
through the under-keel bypass.
Under-keel The minimum clearance available
clearance between the deepest point on the
vessel and the seabed in still water.
Under-keel Overflowing is a part of the dredg-
overflow ing process of a TSHD. An over-
flow system ensures that excess
water entering the hopper during
dredging is being discarded, with-
out discarding the dredged materi-
al. TSHD have telescopic overflow
systems constructed vertically
inside the hopper itself, discharg-
ing the overflow mixture through
the under keel of the vessel.
Zooxanthellae General descriptive term for the
symbiotic algae that live in corals
(and some sea anemones, mol-
luscs and other species), provid-
ing nutrition to their hosts through
photosynthesis
VIII
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of storms, climatic change, sea level change and
predators. However, the living elements that build
these structures are just a very thin veneer of deli-
This guide, developed jointly with the United Na-
cate living tissue, highly sensitive to its surrounding
tions Environment Program (UNEP), describes
environment.
dredging and port construction around coral reefs
and how unwanted environmental impacts on coral
Corals are animals, though many species have sym-
reefs from the project itself, the dredging and con-
biotic relationships with algae, which make them
struction works and the operation of the port can
dependent on sunlight, as well as on filter feeding
best be prevented, controlled or mitigated. It is
to meet their energy requirements. Depending on
not intended to be exhaustive and should be read
the species and the environmental conditions, cor-
in conjunction with relevant international literature
als develop a variety of distinct growth forms includ-
and other PIANC Guidelines (e.g. EnviCom Work-
ing branching to digitate (finger-like), foliose (plate-
ing Group 13 ‘Dredging Management Practices for
like), encrusting, massive (boulder-shaped), and
the Environment – A Structured Selection Approach’
mushroom shapes. The different forms have differ-
and PIANC’s ‘Working with Nature’ Position Paper).
ent characteristics and affect where the corals are
The Glossary at the front of this document provides
found, how they react to different stresses, and how
definitions of technical terms.
fast they grow. See Section 2.1 for more details
on coral reefs.
Background
One third of the world’s population lives in coastal
areas and rapid development of these areas has
Importance of Coral Reefs
It has been demonstrated that a healthy coral reef
meant increased construction of coastal infrastruc-
provides a rich array of services to human commu-
ture (e.g. ports, navigation channels, coastal de-
nities, including providing food (especially protein),
fence) and related activities (e.g. land reclamation,
protecting shorelines, supporting the livelihoods of
beach nourishment), which has inevitably led to
marginalised communities, supporting huge tour-
conflicting priorities between coral reef conservation
ism industries and sustaining cultural traditions. In
and economic growth. The key impacts of these ac-
contrast, unhealthy or degraded coral reef systems
tivities, if not managed, include:
can be linked to human diseases, decline in natural
resources upon which local people are dependent,
• Direct loss of coral reef caused by the removal
increased vulnerability of the coastal area and loss
or burial of reefs
of cultural traditions.
• Lethal or sub-lethal stress to corals caused by
elevated turbidity and sedimentation rates
One estimate puts the economic value of the world’s
coral reefs at $ 345 billion per year. In contrast, the
Dredging and port construction activities potentially
cost of damages and for restoration of coral reefs
affect not only the site itself, but also surrounding ar-
has been estimated to be in the order of $ 1,000
eas, through a large number of impact vectors (e.g.
per m2. See Section 2.2 for more details on the
turbid plumes, sedimentation, release of contami-
importance of coral reefs.
nants, bathymetric changes). Effects may be imme-
diate or develop over a longer timeframe and may
be temporary or permanent in nature, depending on Geotechnical Characteristics
a large number of factors. of Coral Reef Areas
Coral reef structures are highly porous, brittle and
What is a Coral Reef? easily broken when in the fresh state, with a sur-
Coral reefs are marine ridges or mounds, formed face composed of an infinite number of cells, pores,
from the deposition of calcium carbonate by living sharp edges and rock filigree. Over time, they be-
organisms, predominantly corals, but also by other come cemented, consolidating into limestone de-
organisms, such as coralline algae and shellfish. posits. There are many forms and combinations of
On one scale, they are large, robust, long-lived coral rock, and adequate soil and rock mechanics
geological structures that have withstood the forces tests are essential prerequisites to construction

IX PIANC Report 108

activities in these areas. In general, the softer forms
are found on the lagoon sides of reefs, while the
hardest coral rocks, comparable to soft limestone,
occur on the windward or ocean side of a reef and
are more difficult to remove.
Due to their geotechnical nature, limestone and
coral materials tend to break when dredged and/or
transported hydraulically. From the freshly broken
surface, colloidal material will be released into the
water, creating milky white ‘clouds’. These sediment
clouds are difficult to control, as they can stay in
suspension for prolonged periods and thus spread
over large areas under the action of currents, wind
and waves. It is therefore imperative to minimise
the need for dredging coralline material and to ex-
ercise great care to execute the dredging works
with extreme accuracy, which requires detailed ba-
thymetric and geotechnical survey data at an early
stage of the project. Ultimately, gaps in bathymetry
and geotechnical data may cause significant cost
implications and/or delays to the whole project. See
Section 3.1 for more details on the geotechnical
characteristics of coral reefs.
Dredging and Port Construction
Techniques for Coral Reef Areas
The following are the main types of dredging equip-
ment appropriate for use, sometimes with limita-
tions, in coral reef areas:
• Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD): used for dredg-
ing harder materials and/or for transport of the
materials over a limited distance. Main concern
is sediment plumes generated at the cutter head
and sediment plumes generated at the site of
discharge, particularly for fine silts and clays,
which should not be pumped into un-bunded
areas on land or on the seafloor. Pipelines used
for pumping dredged materials should be free
of leaks and accurate and calibrated position-
ing systems should be used to prevent any un-
necessary dredging outside the design profile.
• Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD):
used for dredging of sand, silts and soft clays.
These dredgers have a cargo hold (the hopper),
which allows transport of the dredged materials
over longer distances. Main concern is creation
of turbid plumes from the overflow, from tur-
bulence caused by the ship’s propellers, from
PIANC Report 108
intake bypass and from material placement.
Under-keel bypass should be enforced in coral
areas and requirement for under-keel overflow
(via an ‘environmental valve’) should be consid-
ered on a case-by-case basis. Pipelines used
for pumping dredged materials should be free of
leaks and hopper seals should be watertight.
• Mechanical Dredgers (Grab Dredge, Back-
hoe Dredge): used for small scale or targeted
dredging of sand, silts and soft clays. Causes
minimal disturbance and dilution of clays com-
pared to hydraulic methods used by CSD and
TSHD dredgers, but may cause short-term
pulses of high turbidity as the grab or bucket is
hauled through the water. Normally discharge
happens into a hopper barge, so there is a need
to ensure that all barges are absolutely water-
tight and kept in good condition throughout the
project. See Section 3.2 for more details on
the types of dredging equipment commonly
used near coral reefs.
Types of Impacts
For emphasis, the types of impact have been divid-
ed into two impact categories, based on the primary
responsibility for mitigation:
• Project impacts: associated with the develop-
er’s decision on location and layout (e.g. direct
loss of coral habitat in project footprint). The
mitigation of project impacts is firmly rooted in
Planning and Environmental Impact Assess-
ment (EIA)
• Process impacts: associated with the physi-
cal construction of the port, including dredg-
ing, breakwater construction and land reclama-
tion (e.g. turbidity and sedimentation impacts,
Figure 1). The mitigation of process impacts is
associated with effective management of the
construction process (e.g. choice of equipment,
operating policies)
The project developer has influence on both proj-
ect impacts (e.g. though decisions on location and
functionality requirements) and process impacts
(e.g. through the specifications for construction),
whilst the contractor only has influence on process
impacts (e.g. through choice of equipment and op-
erating method). See Table 1 and Section 4 for
more details on the types of impacts.
X

Figure 1: Turbidity (top) and sedimentation
(bottom) from dredging
Response of Corals to Impacts
The response of corals to the impacts arising from
dredging and port construction activities and the
ability of affected reefs to recover depends on a
range of factors, including:
• Ecological Condition (degraded or pristine; dom-
inated by algae, bio-eroders or reef-builders; de-
gree of eutrophication; (over)fishing; history of
previous stress events)
• Resilience (depends on species diversity; pres-
ence of keystone species; spatial heterogene-
ity; presence of refugia; connections with nearby
unaffected reefs)
• Ambient Conditions: determine tolerance and
degree of adaptation
It is, therefore, important for project developers to
have these issues clearly documented and segre-
gated to prevent being held liable for reef degrada-
tion that is in fact due to pre-existing conditions from
XI
earlier stressors or longer-term regional or global
events.
The risk and severity of impacts from dredging and
port construction-related activities on corals are di-
rectly related to both the intensity and duration of im-
pacts causing stress. Frequent short-term exposure
or chronic long-term exposure results in mortality for
many coral species. If moderate levels of impacts
on a reef persist for particularly long periods of time,
the coral reef may undergo changes in diversity,
with the most sensitive coral species gradually be-
ing replaced by more tolerant ones.
Overall, there are large differences in coral spe-
cies’ response to impacts, possibly due to different
growth forms and colony orientations. For example,
branching corals tend to be more sensitive to tur-
bidity but are quite tolerant to sedimentation, while
plating and tabular corals are generally tolerant to
turbid conditions but sensitive to high sedimenta-
tion rates. However, some coral species (including
some plating and tabular corals) can actively reject
sediments, making them more tolerant to short-term
sedimentation.
Physical factors are also important, including tur-
bulence and exposure to wave action, morphologi-
cal variability and adaptation within species, depth
distribution, and the cumulative effects of extreme
temperatures and salinities. Actual thresholds,
therefore, vary by location based on typical ambient
conditions and the sensitivity of the coral species
that are present. See Table 1 and Section 5 for
more details on the responses of corals to im-
pacts, including recovery potential.
Impact Minimisation
through Planning
A high level of strategic planning should be encour-
aged for all marine and coastal projects to achieve
an optimal location of facilities, while ensuring that
key ecosystem processes are protected. This is par-
ticularly so for dredging and port construction proj-
ects in tropical areas due to, amongst other issues,
the sensitivity of coral reefs to indirect impacts from
construction works and the large time scales in-
volved in any eventual recovery of the ecosystem.
PIANC Report 108
 Table 1: Summary of the types of impact from dredging and port construction on coral reefs
Screening Assessment
An initial risk assessment based on available sec-
ondary data, initial field surveys, preliminary nu-
merical modelling and an understanding of local
and regional coastal processes should be under-
taken in conjunction with coral reef and impact as-
sessment specialists, preferably with stakeholder
participation, in order to determine the level of im-
pact assessment that will be required and identify
potential impacts for early mitigation during the de-
sign phase.
PIANC Report 108
Assessment of Alternative Locations
Assessment of alternative locations and layouts
that minimise the direct impact of a project’s foot-
print on coral reefs is a key issue at the planning
phase, but consideration of the potential for a wide
range of indirect impacts, which may result from
unplanned changes to regional coastal processes
(e.g. current patterns, wave conditions, sediment
transport, shoreline stability, which can be very dif-
ficult to mitigate) is also critical.
XII
 Working with Nature
The risk assessment should balance the direct and
indirect impacts in order to determine the most en-
vironmentally effective solution, following the prin-
ciples outlined in PIANC’s ‘Working With Nature’
position paper, which should be read in conjunction
with this report.
Periods of high risk (e.g. cyclone/hurricane sea-
sons) and sensitive phases of the life cycles of cor-
als (such as spawning) should also be identified,
as well as areas designated for protection under
national or international legislation. Early consider-
ation during the initial planning phase of the project
can prevent or minimise impacts to corals, stream-
line the approval process and minimise the require-
ment for time consuming and costly monitoring and
management programmes before, during and after
the project. See Section 6 for more details on
key steps during planning, including a decision
tree.
Impact Assessment
A detailed environmental impact assessment (EIA)
should be carried out to determine the potential
impacts of the project and recommend appropri-
ate monitoring, mitigation and management to
minimise or avoid these impacts. In the absence
of local legislation and guidelines, well-established
international guidelines are available, including
World Bank Guidelines and the Equator Principles.
See Section 7 for more details on EIA.
Baseline Surveys
Obtaining relevant and accurate baseline data is
one of the most critical components of the EIA.
The duration of baseline data should address the
temporal scale of the project, with documentation
of seasonal variations critical for most dredging or
port construction projects. Selection of baseline
monitoring locations should take into account the
project design and expected construction method-
ology, secondary data, preliminary numerical mod-
elling results and stakeholder feedback. Monitoring
locations should be representative of the scale of
the project, the environment and the expected im-
pacts of the project.
Baseline surveys should document coral location,
cover and diversity, background turbidity and/or
light levels, sedimentation rates, sediment prop-
erties (e.g. grading, toxicity), shoreline processes
and physical processes (e.g. currents, waves, wa-
XIII
ter quality). Field experiments to test the response
of local corals to light reduction and increased sedi-
mentation should also be considered. The frequen-
cy of baseline surveys will depend on pre-existing
knowledge, spatial and temporal variability of the
environment, anticipated impacts and statistically
power required. See Figure 2 and Section 7.1 for
more details on baseline monitoring.
Predictive Numerical Modelling
Predictive numerical modelling of physical and
ecological processes provides a key methodology
for quantitative assessment of indirect impacts to
coral reefs, but requires good information, valid as-
sumptions and assessment by qualified experts.
Sediment properties, construction methodologies,
physical processes and seasonal variability should
all be adequately addressed by the model. Spa-
tial and vertical resolution should be appropriate
for the scale of plume generation and complexity
of the flow. Quantitative performance criteria for
model calibration and validation against field mea-
surements can help regulators assess the level of
reliability achieved and improve stakeholder confi-
dence in the results.
An important input for reliable sediment plume mod-
elling is the amount of sediment spill to be used as
an input to the model, which is a function of the
type of material, water depth, hydraulic conditions
and type of dredger or material placement method.
The best approach to determining the appropriate
amount of spill is via trial dredging. This may, in
many cases, not be possible at the EIA stage, re-
quiring empirical formulations or experience from
elsewhere to be relied on instead. See Section 7.2
for more details on predictive modelling.
Receptor Tolerance Limits
Quantifiable tolerance limits are required in or-
der to assess the impacts of dredging and port
construction on corals and to provide a control
parameter which will allow subsequent indirect
monitoring (and modelling) data to be utilised
in a management context. The baseline survey
campaign should be designed to provide as
much relevant information as possible towards
setting preliminary (and, in the absence of ad-
equate information, conservative) tolerance
limits, which can then be refined as part of the
subsequent monitoring and management pro-
gramme. See Section 7.3 for more details on
establishing tolerance limits.
PIANC Report 108
 Figure 2: Key inputs and requirements for selection of baseline survey stations and methodologies
Impact Prediction
Due to the complexities in coral response to dredg-
ing and port construction related impacts, it is essen-
tial that the modelling assessment is supplemented
by a conservative, experience-based approach.
In determining the acceptable level of impact, a
range of factors should be considered, including
ecological criteria (e.g. representativeness, rarity
and resilience of corals in the impact area), socio-
economic criteria (e.g. local significance, stake-
holder interests and needs) and administrative and
legal criteria (e.g. conservation status, zonation).
Permitting and Approvals
The permitting and approvals processes for dredg-
ing and port construction near coral reefs can differ
markedly from country to country, so the reader is
advised to review the specific legislation and ap-
proval practices for the country in which the project
is being undertaken. International agreements such
as the 1972 London Convention and 1996 London
Protocol may also be relevant for ocean disposal of
PIANC Report 108
dredged material depending on where the project
is being carried.
Preparing ToR for Construction
Integration of the EIA results into the Terms of Ref-
erence (ToR) for construction is a critical step that
is often missed. Technical mitigation and manage-
ment measures recommended in the EIA should be
incorporated (and budgeted) into the contractor’s
scope of work.
Technical Mitigation Measures
The following technical mitigation measures mini-
mise impacts from dredging and material place-
ment:
• Under-keel overflow and/or the ‘environmental
valve’ (for trailer suction hopper dredgers)
• Restricted overflow
• Production rate control (spill budget)
• Appropriate discharge of excess water from the
reclamation area; temporary settling basins
XIV
• Choice of equipment and avoiding leakage from
equipment
• Dredging accuracies and measuring accura-
cies
• Temporarily relocating the dredger
• Control of distance and time between spill gen-
erating operations
• Environmental windows:
o Seasonal basis (e.g. avoid coral spawning)
o Daily basis (minimise spill during periods of type and capacity, schedule, daily production rates,
tidal flow towards corals)
• Silt curtains deployed at receptor site or spill
source (depending on local conditions)
• Creating gentle (rather than steep) channel
slopes to promote recolonisation
See Section 8.2 for more details on mitigation
measures.
Compensation Measures
In addition, where impacts to coral reefs cannot
be avoided, the following compensation measures
can be considered to offset to the loss of coral reef
habitat:
• Larval production and release
• Relocation of corals threatened by the project
• Install hard substrates (e.g. stones and blocks)
in areas not required for berthing/manoeuvring
• Create stepped or gently sloping breakwaters
• Create uneven surfaces on structural elements
and provide protrusions or terraces on vertical
walls
• Place caissons in uneven alignments
• Create flow channels between caissons to al-
low seawater exchange or use permeable block
structures instead of caissons
See Section 8.3 for more details on compensation
measures.
Monitoring and Management
Monitoring is required to confirm that a project is
meeting the agreed level of impact and that the pre-
dictions of impacts during the EIA have been accu-
rate. Inclusion of an adaptive management process
allows dredging and port construction near coral
reefs to be managed so that maximum productivity
can be maintained while still meeting environmen-
tal protection criteria. The monitoring programme
must be designed to ensure that the monitoring will
XV
be able to isolate and distinguish impacts of the
project from other external (natural or human) im-
pacts.
Review of Contractor’s Methodology
It is best practice to include the Environmental
Management Plan (EMP) as part of the tender
specifications for the Contractor. After award, the
Contractor’s detailed methodology (e.g. equipment
etc.) should be subject to a detailed impact assess-
ment and the methodology and/or the EMP updat-
ed to ensure that environmental targets set for the
project will still be met. Mitigation measures (e.g.
environmental windows, spill budget, environmen-
tal valve) should be explicitly incorporated into the
contractor’s operational documents.
EMP Baseline
An EMP baseline, covering the principal environ-
mental receptors (e.g. coral reefs) and existing
conditions (e.g. water quality, natural sedimentation
rates) is required to provide a measure of the pre-
project conditions at impact and control sites. Mon-
itoring should be undertaken 1-3 months prior to
start of works, while utilising older data from the EIA
baseline as well in order to establish the seasonal
and statistical variability in the natural conditions.
Monitoring against the EMP baseline is then used
to identify any change as the project progress-
es and to provide post-project confirmation that
agreed impact criteria (e.g. for coral reefs) were not
exceeded. In order to address management needs,
monitoring should be able to identify and respond to
short-, medium- and long-term effects. The level of
environmental monitoring and management should
reflect the spatial area and duration of the works
and level of impact predicted by the EIA.
EMP baseline survey components should address
light attenuation and/or turbidity, sedimentation,
coral health, currents, waves, morphology, water
quality and associated ecosystems (e.g. seagrass,
mangroves). Number and location of monitoring
sites should consider:
• Predicted impact area (i.e. impact and control
sites)
• Habitat variability (i.e. represent range of coral
reef conditions)
PIANC Report 108
• Segregation of impacts (i.e. monitoring other
potential sources of impact, e.g. other projects,
river or terrestrial runoff.)
• Telecommunications coverage (for on-line sta-
tions)
• Safety and accessibility
• Required statistical power
See Section 9.1 for more details on the EMP
baseline.
Adaptive Management
Fixed monitoring stations cannot cover all poten-
tial impact areas, so they should be considered
one component of a wider adaptive monitoring and
management programme. Adaptive management
ensures monitoring is targeted at environmental re-
ceptors and provides a tiered response to relevant
trigger values. However, many adaptive manage-
ment approaches are still reactive, relying heavily
on coral health indicators (and/or water quality prox-
ies) as triggers, with the following disadvantages:
• Delayed response: coral monitoring only de-
tects an impact that has already occurred, does
not allow for impact to prevented
• Statistical uncertainty: difficult to detect impacts
at level required by most regulators
• Non-specific: inability to relate impacts to spe-
cific components of the works, or to segregate
from natural variability, often leading to false ac-
tivation of tiered response
Feedback EMP
Best practice is to adopt a proactive feedback man-
agement approach. The main advantages are:
• Spill budget control (Section 9.4.4) forms a first
level control of potential impacts. It allows seg-
regation and management of individual work
components, avoiding over-response while en-
suring the tiered response targets those activi-
ties causing impacts
• Predictive (numerical) models are used exten-
sively to hindcast the location of the plumes
from the construction operations (Section
9.4.5), thereby providing a complete temporal
and spatial picture of potential impacts, filling
in the gaps between monitoring stations (both
instrumentation and coral health) and allowing
PIANC Report 108
clear segregation of the impacts arising from
component activities
• Tolerance limits (Section 7.3) are used to iden-
tify potential impacts before they occur, allowing
implementation of management measures to
avoid the impacts, rather than respond to them.
Tolerance limits are updated based on monitor-
ing data collected as the works progress
• Results of on-line instrumentation at coral re-
ceptors and remote sensing are used to vali-
date spill budget and numerical models, as well
as proxies for potential coral health impacts
See Figure 3 and Sections 9.2 and 9.4 for more
details on Feedback EMP and Adaptive Man-
agement.
Tiered Response
A tiered response for dredging or port construction
typically comprises:
• Addressing issues not directly affecting produc-
tion (e.g. sedimentation cell strategies, reloca-
tion of discharges)
• Reducing production (usually at specific loca-
tions under particular tidal conditions)
• Restricting production (i.e. no production at spe-
cific locations under particular tidal conditions)
• Changing work method (e.g. equipment change,
schedule change)
Note that any tiered response that affects produc-
tion will have cost implications to the contractor and/
or consequences to the time schedule of the proj-
ect. It is essential that the necessary provisions for
such tiered response are included in the construc-
tion contract and the project developer must also
be committed to the economic and time schedule
consequences. See Section 9.3 for more details on
tiered response.
Post-Project Monitoring
Post-project monitoring is critical to ensure that pre-
dictions made at the EIA stage were accurate, that
the EMP was effective and to allow for continuous
improvement for future projects. See Section 9.5
for more details on post-project monitoring.
XVI
 XVII
PIANC Report 108
Figure 3: Feedback EMP approach adopted in Singapore
 1. INTRODUCTION
This guide describes dredging and port construc-
tion around coral reefs and how unwanted envi-
ronmental impacts on coral reefs from the project
itself, the dredging and construction works and the
operation of the port can best be prevented, con-
trolled or mitigated. Here dredging is defined as the
removal, transport and relocation of material from
the seabed while port construction is the provision
of safe navigation area and berthing facilities via
improvement of access channels and creation of
harbour basins and quay space.
The guide is intended for: government agencies,
port authorities and developers, consultants, the
conservation sector, dredging related industries
and other stakeholders active in the marine and
coastal sector.
The present guideline is not intended to be ex-
haustive in terms of dredging and port construction
methodologies or associated impact assessment
and management practices. It should be read in
conjunction with relevant international literature and
other PIANC Guidelines, including, but not limited
to, EnviCom Report No. 100 ‘Dredging Manage-
ment Practices for the Environment – A Structured
Selection Approach’.
1.1. Why Dredging and Port
Construction near Coral Reefs?
A third of the world’s population lives in coastal ar-
eas, which constitute just 4 % of the global land
area. Rapid development in these coastal areas
has meant increased construction of coastal infra-
structure, such as urban centres, ports, airports and
tourist facilities. This coastal development pressure
has inevitably led to conflicting priorities between
coral reef conservation and economic growth in
those parts of the world with extensive near-shore
coral reefs.
Every economically successful community requires
good transport infrastructure. With respect to the
marine environment, basic infrastructure require-
ments include ports and their access channels and
associated facilities for:
PIANC Report 108
• Shipping (container traffic, bulk transport, etc.)
• Cruise industry
• Fishing (traditional/recreational and commer-
cial)
• Recreation (marinas and other recreational fa-
cilities)
Dredging operations constitute an inseparable part
of most port construction projects (e.g. land recla-
mation for port facilities) and, in many cases, the
subsequent maintenance of required manoeuvring
and berthing depths.
Dredging operations in the vicinity of coral reefs
may also be required for other services to commu-
nities, such as:
• Land reclamation for housing, industry, airports,
etc.
• Beach nourishment and sand mining
• Laying of pipelines and cables
1.2. Consequences of Dredging and Port
Construction near Coral Reefs
Without management, dredging and port construc-
tion can threaten some of the world’s most produc-
tive coastal ecosystems and the services they pro-
vide.
Key Impacts of Dredging and Port
Construction on Coral Reefs
• Direct loss of coral reef caused by the re-
moval or burial of reefs
• Lethal or sub-lethal stress to corals
caused by elevated turbidity and sedi-
mentation rates
• Long-term changes in flushing and/or
erosion/sedimentation patterns due to
current changes
• Impacts may be immediate or long term
and may be temporary or permanent in
nature
Dredging and port construction activities potentially
affect not only the site itself, but also surrounding
areas, through a large number of impact vectors
(e.g. Figure 1.1).
1
 Proper Management Critical
With proper management of the complex impact
vectors associated with dredging and port con-
struction
Dredging and port construction practices and
impacts:
Bray, R.N. (ed.) (2008): “Environmental Aspects of
Dredging”, Taylor & Francis, 396 pp.

• Impacts to coral reefs can be avoided or Environmental impact assessment:

minimised
• Port construction and dredging activities
can support sustainable economic devel-
opment
1.3. Recommended Reading
For more detail on the key subjects related to this
guideline, the following texts are recommended.
Corals:
Birkeland, C. (ed.) (1996): “Life and Death of Coral
Reefs”, Chapman and Hall, 536 pp.
World Bank (1999): “World Bank Operation Policy/
Bank Procedures 4.01 – Environmental Assess-
ment”.
IFC (2007): “Environmental, Health, and Safety
Guidelines for Ports, Harbors, and Terminals”, Inter-
national Finance Corporation (World Bank Group).
Environmental management of dredging and
port construction:
PIANC (2009): “Dredging Management Practices for
the Environment - a structured selection approach”,
PIANC EnviCom, Report 100.

Figure 1.1: Conceptual impacts of dredging and material relocation on the environment
[Elliot & Hemmingway, 2002]

2 PIANC Report 108

 2. CORALS AND CORAL REEFS
2.1. What is a Coral Reef?

Two main types of reef can be recognised: those

where the structure is created by the animals them-
selves (biogenic reefs) and those where animal
and plant communities grow on raised or protrud-
ing rock (non-biogenic reefs). Only a few inverte-
brate species are able to develop biogenic reefs.
Non-biogenic reefs can include vertical rock walls,
horizontal ledges, broken rocks and boulder fields.
This guide retains a focus on biogenic reefs, which
are referred to as coral reefs (Figure 2.1).

Coral reefs are marine ridges or mounds, formed

from the deposition of calcium carbonate by living
organisms, predominantly corals, but also by other
organisms, such as coralline algae and shellfish.

2.1.1. Where are Corals Found?

Coral reefs occur globally in two distinct marine

environments: deep, cold water (3-14°C) and shal-
low, warm water (21-30°C). Warm water coral reefs
form in the shallow, clear seas of the tropics with
an essential combination of low nutrient waters and
high levels of available sunlight and cover just 0.1%
of the ocean floor, which often overlaps with the op-
timal port locations (Figure 2.2).

Cold-water corals, have to date, been identified

in 41 countries at a prevailing water depth greater
than 39 m although their full extent is still not known.
As dredging and port construction activities gen-
erally occur at depths shallower than 20 m, shal-
low warm water reefs are the primary focus of this
guide. Some of the general principals documented
in this guide are also applicable to other sensitive
coastal habitats (e.g. mangroves, seagrass, kelp,
cold-water coral) where no pre-existing guidelines
are available.
What is a Coral Reef?
• On one scale, they are large, robust, long-
lived geological structures that have
withstood the forces of storms, climatic
change, sea level change and predators
• But the living elements that build these
structures are just a very thin veneer of
delicate living tissue, which is highly sen-
sitive to its surrounding environment
Figure 2.1: Examples of coral reef areas
(Middle & Bottom Photo:
© Commonwealth of Australia)
2.1.2. The Biology of Corals
Many corals are colonial. Each colony is formed
from numerous individual polyp animals measur-
ing between 1 mm to 1 cm in diameter, each with
a ring of six (or a multiple of six) tentacles around
the mouth (see Figure 2.3). The colonies of polyps
function as a single organism, with individuals con-
nected by a transport network, enabling them to
share nutrients.

PIANC Report 108 3

 Coral reef formation is primarily attributed to the
colonial hard or stony corals: the Scleractinia. The
Scleractinia characteristically lay down a calcium
carbonate skeleton, which over time collectively
forms the main structure of the coral reef.
of an individual colony and sexual reproduction to
produce a new colony. Different species or coral
mature at different ages, but commonly between 4
years (branching corals) and 8 years for the slower
growing massive corals.

Corals have adapted to thrive in clear, nutrient-poor What is a Coral?

waters and rely on two feeding strategies, both of
which are required for sustained growth. Autotrophy
is where the symbiotic microscopic algae (zooxan-
thellae) that live within the tissue of the coral pro-
duce carbohydrates and oxygen during daylight;
heterotrophy tends to occur in low light, or at night.
The coral uses the stinging cells (nemocyts) on their
tentacles and mucus to capture organic particles
and small planktonic organisms.
Corals have two reproductive mechanisms: asexu-
al (division to produce a clone) is used for growth
• Corals are animals, belonging to the phy-
lum Cnidaria (which also includes jelly-
fish and anemones)
• Many species of coral have symbiotic re-
lationships with algae, obtaining energy
from the algae (via photosynthesis) in ex-
change for protection
• Many ‘individual’ corals are actually colo-
nies, formed from numerous small indi-
vidual animals functioning as a single or-
ganism

Figure 2.2: Comparison of global distribution of warm water,

shallow coral reefs with major ports

4 PIANC Report 108


Figure 2.3: The anatomy of a coral polyp
Figure 2.4: Coral spawning (Photo: © Commonwealth of Australia)
PIANC Report 108
Corals demonstrate two modes of sexual reproduc-
tion to produce a new colony:
a) Broadcast spawners: where male and female
gametes are released into the water column at
specific times governed by the lunar cycle and
day/night lengths (Figure 2.4)
b) Brooders: the male gametes fertilise the eggs
within the coral and once the planulae have
formed they are released into the water column
For both modes, once the juvenile has settled, the
coral remains stationary and growth starts through
asexual reproduction.
2.1.3.Structural Components of a Coral Reef
A coral reef is a product of living processes that con-
stantly evolve over time. It may take thousands of
years for a reef to develop, with some of the more
complex barrier reef systems and atolls taking up to
30 million years to fully form. Generally, four differ-
ent types of coral reef formation can be classified
according to their maturity and geographical location
(Table 2.1).
5
 Table 2.1: Stylised description of coral reef formations
2.1.4. Growth Forms of Corals
Depending on the species and the environmental
conditions, corals develop a variety of distinct growth
forms, including: branching to digitate (finger-like),
foliose (plate-like), encrusting, massive (boulder-
shaped), and mushroom shapes (Table 2.2).
The different forms have different characteristics and
affect where the corals are found, how they react to
different stresses and how fast they grow. Massive or
boulder-type corals may only grow between 0.3 to 2
cm per year, but the fastest and most fragile branch-
ing corals may grow as fast as 10 cm per year.
Different growth forms impart different characteristics
to the structure of the reef and also allow a basic
classification system based on the shape of a coral
colony (Table 2.2). However, there are exceptions.
6 PIANC Report 108
Two examples are Montipora spp. and Acroporids.
Montipora spp. can take sub-massive, laminar, en-
crusting or branching forms. It is possible for sub-
stantially different growth forms to be seen within one
species, or even within one colony. The Acroporids
display the greatest variety of growth forms, and can
be divided into more than 35 groups classified ac-
cording to growth forms and corallite characteristics.
The intertidal and sub-tidal communities of the Indo-
Pacific reefs are dominated by Acropora species.
2.1.5. Other Coral Reef Organisms
Coral reefs support a highly diverse array of plant and
animal species (Figure 2.5). Table 2.3 provides an
overview of the main groups. However, the remain-
der of this report will focus on reef building corals, as
these are the main group of organisms responsible
for the three-dimensional structure of the reef.
 Table 2.2: Growth and environmental tolerances of scleractinian corals.
Key L = Low; M = Medium; H = High; I = Intense;
S = Slow (~ 0.5 cm/100 yrs); F = Fast (~ 10 cm/year)
(Photos: © Commonwealth of Australia)

PIANC Report 108 7

Table 2.3: Overview of coral reef associated organisms

Figure 2.5: Examples of coral reef associated organisms

(Right: Photo © Commonwealth of Australia)

8 PIANC Report 108

 2.2. Importance of Coral Reefs Why are Corals Important?
“Corals are beautiful living animals that are enjoyed Healthy coral reefs provide a rich array
by millions of snorkelers and divers world-wide, but of services including:
they are also of vital importance to the wider eco-
system and human economies” [Nellemann and • Food (especially protein)
Corcoran, 2006]. • Shoreline protection
• Supporting livelihoods of marginalised
There is a growing awareness that sustainable de- communities
velopment in coral reef areas must be underpin- • Tourism
ned by sound ecological management. Only through
such efforts will the estimated potential economic Unhealthy or degraded coral reefs can
value of the world’s coral reefs be realised. One es- be linked to:
timate puts the economic value of the world’s coral
reefs at $ 345 billion per year. In contrast, the cost of • Human diseases
damages and for restoration of coral reefs has been • Increased coastal vulnerability
estimated to be in the order of $ 1,000 per m2. • Decline in local standard of living
• Decline in tourism
Details of the importance of coral reef areas are pre-
sented in Table 2.4.

Figure 2.6: Examples of the variety of services provided by coral reefs.

Top left and right: tourism and game fishing near coral reefs (Photos © Commonwealth of Australia).
Bottom left and right: local fishing techniques near coral reefs in SE Asia

PIANC Report 108 9

Table 2.4: Significance of Coral Reefs: A description of the services that human society derives from
healthy and functioning coral reefs. (This is an illustrative list, and by no means exhaustive, based on
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Framework (www.millenniumassessment.org))

10 PIANC Report 108

 Table 2.4: Significance of Coral Reefs: A description of the services that human society derives from
healthy and functioning coral reefs. (This is an illustrative list, and by no means exhaustive, based on
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Framework (www.millenniumassessment.org))

PIANC Report 108 11

 3. DREDGING AND PORT
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
3.1.Geotechnical Characteristics
of Coral Reefs
Coral reef structures are highly porous, brittle and
easily broken when in the fresh state, with a sur-
face composed of an infinite number of cells, pores,
sharp edges and rock filigree.
After a coral polyp dies, the recess in which it lived
fills with water. Fine sand or mud will also accu-
mulate and, along with deposits of dissolved cal-
cium carbonate, become cemented over time. This
process consolidates and strengthens the rock as
it matures and is responsible for the inclusion of
other minerals, such as nacre, chitin, calcite and
aragonite, in limestone deposits.
Table 3.1: Representative estimates of coral rock and sediment properties on atoll and
volcanic island reefs [Schlapak and Herbich, 1978]
12
Certain marine plants also make important contri-
butions to reef geology. Coralline red algae pro-
duce a dense, compact limestone, which forms a
hard, wave-resistant rock and gives the reef edge
a characteristic red-brown colour. These red algae
may grow over the surface of the more delicate cor-
als and loose sediments, cementing the mass into
a more rigid and stronger structure. Halimeda, a
calcareous green algae, does not form a solid rock
like red algae but instead produces large quanti-
ties of flakes composed of calcareous soft material,
which form fine-grained marine sediments.
There are many forms and combinations of coral
rock and adequate soil and rock mechanics tests
are essential prerequisites to construction activities
in these areas. In general, the softer forms of coral
are found on the lagoon sides of reefs. The hardest
coral rocks, comparable to soft limestone, occur on
the windward or ocean side of a reef and are more
difficult to remove (Table 3.1).
PIANC Report 108
Due to their geotechnical nature, limestone and
coral materials tend to break when dredged and/or
transported hydraulically. From the freshly broken
surface colloidal material will be released into the
water, creating milky white ‘clouds’ (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1: Example of extensive turbidity plume
that results from dredging of coral rock
These sediment clouds are difficult to control, as
they can stay in suspension for prolonged periods
and thus spread over large areas under the action
of currents, wind and waves. They are of major con-
cern due to the significant light reduction (turbidity)
they cause in the marine environment, even in very
low concentrations. Larger particles will settle in the
vicinity of the dredging area and may cover (bury)
coral reef organisms to an extent that they cannot
uncover themselves.
It is, therefore, imperative to minimise the need for
dredging coralline material and to exercise great
care to execute the dredging works with extreme
accuracy, which requires detailed bathymetric and
geotechnical survey data at an early stage of the
project, preferably involving experienced and spe-
cialised consultants/contractors due to the com-
plexities of operating in the coral reef environment
(Table 3.2). The need for detailed, high quality data
is not always recognised, as these surveys often
require an early financial engagement by the devel-
oper. However, adequate survey data are essential
to ensure an accurate and correct design and pric-
ing of the project. Ultimately, gaps in bathymetry
and geotechnical data may cause significant cost
implications and/or delays to the whole project.
PIANC Report 108
Problems with Dredging Coral Rock
• Limestone and coral materials tend to
break into extremely fine particles when
dredged, creating milky white ‘clouds’ of
suspended sediments
• These ‘clouds’ of fine sediments can stay
in suspension for a long time, spreading
over a large area
• They result in significantly reduced light
penetration, even in low concentrations,
impacting corals over a wide area
• Therefore it is critical to avoid or mini-
mise dredging of coral rock
3.2. Classification of Equipment
In each project, a combination of four main identi-
fiers will contribute to the choice on the most ap-
propriate type of equipment to be used:
• Volume and type of materials to be removed?
(hard, cohesive or non-cohesive materials)
• Where and how are the materials to be
placed?
• What is the transport distance between the proj-
ect location and the source/placement/disposal
areas?
• What type of equipment will be most efficient
considering restrictions in operation due to en-
vironmental conditions and regulations?
With every type of aquatic environment and type
of equipment, certain environmental factors have
to be considered, including levels of turbidity gen-
erated, project duration, background levels of sus-
pended sediment and contamination levels. In se-
lecting the equipment, it is likewise important that
all phases of construction are considered as an
integrated system.
In addition to being carried out in isolation, dredg-
ing is a key component of all port construction proj-
ects and constitutes a major potential impact vector
when dredging and port construction projects are
13
 Table 3.2 Constraints and Consequences for Surveys in Coral Reef Areas
undertaken in proximity to coral reef areas. Due to
the relatively hard substrate and challenging physi-
cal environment encountered in coral reef areas
and the environmental concern associated with
dredging, it is relevant to focus briefly on types of
dredging equipment appropriate for use, sometimes
with limitations, in such areas.
3.2.1. Cutter Suction Dredgers
The cutter suction dredger (CSD), shown in Figure
3.2, is generally used for dredging harder materi-
als, for access channels in shallow areas and/or for
transport of the materials over a limited distance.
Figure 3.2: Cutter suction dredger
(graphic courtesy of Jan De Nul)
14
Cutter Suction Dredgers
• Used to remove hard material and/or cre-
ate access channels in shallow areas
• Fine sediment plumes generated at the
cutter head and site of discharge
• Minimum technical requirements for a
CSD working in a coral reef environment
should be:
o Ensure that the pipelines used for
pumping the dredged materials are free
of leaks
o Ensure use of accurate and calibrated
positioning systems to prevent any un-
necessary over dredging
The main area of concern when using a CSD in a
coral reef environment is sediment plumes gener-
ated at the cutter head and sediment plumes gen-
erated at the site of discharge. Since the pumping
distance is limited, the CSD either has to pump ma-
terial onshore (if dredging near-shore), to a nearby
placement area, or into hopper barges (with turbidity
generated by the associated overflow). The sealing
of the hopper barges is a matter of concern. Care
should be taken to ensure that all barges are abso-
lutely watertight prior to mobilising for the dredging
operations and are kept in good condition through-
out the project.
PIANC Report 108
 3.2.2. Trailing Suction Hopper Dredgers and to the frequency and duration of the dredger’s
presence in areas of concern. The turbidity created
The trailing suction hopper dredger (TSHD), shown by workboats should also not be underestimated.
Figure 3.3, is generally used for the dredging of
sand, silts and soft clays. These dredgers have
a cargo hold (the hopper) which allows transport
of the dredged materials over longer distances. A
TSHD is well suited for:

• Capital dredging projects, where sandy materi-

als are removed (e.g. to create navigation chan-
nels)
• Maintenance dredging works, where recent
sedimentation is removed (e.g. in navigation
channels)
• Land reclamation projects, where sand from
distant marine sources is used

Figure 3.4: Turbidity plume generated

by a trailing suction hopper dredger

Trailing Suction Hopper Dredgers

• Used to remove sandy and silty mate-

rial for capital or maintenance dredging
works, or to transport sand from distant
sources for reclamation projects

• Fine sediment plumes mainly gener-

ated from overflow, propeller wash and
intake bypass

• Minimum technical requirements for a

TSHD working in a coral reef environ-
ment should be:

o Enforce under-keel bypass for light

Figure 3.3: Trailing suction hopper dredger mixtures
(Top: graphic courtesy of Jan De Nul)
o If applicable, enforce under-keel
The main issue with a TSHD near a coral reef is overflowing and the use of an en-
the creation of turbid plumes (Figure 3.4). At the vironmental valve in the overflow
dredging site such plumes result from the overflow, duct
from turbulence caused by the ship’s propellers or
from the intake bypass (where unsuitable material o Ensure that hopper seals are water-
is discharged directly to the sea). tight

Turbulence caused by propeller wash is closely re-

lated to the available keel clearance of the dredger

PIANC Report 108 15

 3.2.3. Mechanical Dredgers
There is a wide variety of mechanical dredgers.
Those most commonly used in coral reef areas
are:
• Grab dredger: consists of a crane mounted on a
pontoon or self-propelled hopper that operates
a wireline-controlled clamshell grab.
• Bucket or Backhoe dredger: consists of a hy-
draulic excavator mounted on a pontoon or self-
propelled hopper that operates a bucket
Mechanical dredgers may cause minimal distur-
bance and dilution of clays compared to hydraulic
methods used by cutter dredgers and TSHD dredg-
ers, but may cause pulses of high turbidity as the
grab or bucket is hauled through the water, espe-
cially in loose silts and soft clays where a signifi-
cant fraction of the load may be washed out (Figure
3.5).
These pulses of high turbidity can be minimised
or avoided by the use of a ‘closed’ grab dredger,
though these are only commonly used in the re-
moval of contaminated sediments.
Mechanical Dredgers
• Used to remove small areas of san-
dy or silty sediment for either capi-
tal (e.g. sand key) or maintenance
dredging
• Fine sediment plumes released in
pulses during the lift phase of each
cycle
• Much smaller fine sediment plumes
generated compared to CSD or
TSHD, but production rate also
much lower, so not practical for
large dredging projects
• Minimum technical requirements
for a MD working in a coral reef en-
vironment should be:
o Ensure that hopper seals are wa-
tertight
3.3. Reclamation/Placement Techniques
3.3.1. Direct Placement

Direct placement can be used both for reclamation

and for offshore disposal of dredged material. At the
material placement site the generation of plumes is
a function of the placement method (direct or hy-
draulic), prevailing water depth, hydraulic condi-
tions and the turbulence caused by vessel propel-
lers. Figure 3.6 shows a typical plume generated by
direct placement from a TSHD.

Figure 3.5: Typical turbidity plume generated

during the lift phase from a grab dredger

Mechanical dredgers will normally discharge into a

hopper barge. As for the CSD, the sealing of the
hopper barges for grab dredging is a matter of con-
cern. Care should be taken to ensure that all barges
are absolutely watertight prior to mobilising for the
dredging operations and are kept in good condition
throughout the project.
Figure 3.6: Typical turbidity plume generated
from TSHD Direct Placement

16 PIANC Report 108

Direct placement generates a pulse of high turbid-
ity for a short duration, which is then dispersed ac-
cording to the prevailing currents. Choice of place-
ment sites should therefore take the proximity of
corals into account.
3.3.2. Rainbowing
Rainbowing is a technique for spraying of dredged
material from a TSHD to a receiving site by pump-
ing it with high speed through a nozzle over the
bow or the side of the dredger. The pumped ma-
terial forms an arc that resembles the shape of a
rainbow (Figure 3.7). It is commonly used once a
reclamation area has become too shallow for direct
placement.
Figure 3.7: A TSHD using rainbowing to place
dredged material onshore
Rainbowing into a reclamation cell that is still below
the water line results in a much larger suspended
sediment plume, compared to rainbowing onto a
reclamation cell that is already above the water
line. Rainbowing operations near coral reefs should
therefore avoid this where possible.
3.3.3. Pumping Ashore
Pumping ashore can also be used to place dredged
material from a TSHD onshore, though it is more
commonly used with a CSD. The dredged material
must be mixed with significant volumes of seawater
in order to create a slurry suitable for pumping.
Typically, the supernatant is controlled by the use
of bunds and sediment cells to enable settlement of
solids and to improve water quality before it is dis-
PIANC Report 108
charged, although direct discharge may be appro-
priate in certain circumstances. As the discharge is
often continuous, choice of the discharge location
should take the proximity of corals into account.
Where sand is pumped, the resulting turbidity
is typically confined to a small area near the dis-
charge due to the low fines content in the super-
natant. Where silts and clays are pumped, turbid-
ity and stability are more problematic. Clays, when
pumped, will fluidise and therefore should not be
pumped into un-bunded areas on land or directly
onto the seafloor.
Figure 3.8: A floating pipeline from a TSHD,
used to pump dredged material onshore
for reclamation
Reclamation/Placement Methods
• Direct Placement results in a short-
term pulse of high turbidity. Choice of
placement sites should therefore take
the proximity of corals into account
• Rainbowing can result in a large sus-
pended sediment plume if discharged
into water rather than onto land. Rain-
bowing into water should therefore be
avoided near coral reefs
• Pumping Ashore typically results in a
continuous discharge, which is usually
managed via the use of sediment cells
and bunds to allow settlement of at least
some of the fines prior to discharge.
Choice of discharge sites should take
the proximity of corals into account
17
 4. TYPES OF IMPACTS project impacts is firmly rooted in Planning and
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
• Process impacts are associated with the phys-
An overview of the types of impacts arising from
ical construction of the port, which may include
dredging, placement of dredged material and port
activities such as dredging, breakwater con-
construction on coral reefs is provided in Table 4.1.
struction and land reclamation. Key process im-
pacts include turbidity and sedimentation. The
For emphasis, these types of impact are divided
mitigation of process impacts is associated with
into two impact categories, based on the primary
effective management of the construction pro-
responsibility for mitigation: Project impacts and
cess (e.g. choice of equipment, operating poli-
Process impacts.
cies).
• Project impacts are associated with the deci-
It is important to recognise that the project propo-
sion to build a port at a specific location and the
nent has influence on both project (e.g. though de-
choice of the layout of the port to fulfil its func-
cisions on location and functionality requirements)
tional requirements (i.e. to accommodate the re-
and process impacts (e.g. through the specifications
quired classes of vessels and provide adequate
for construction), whilst the contractor only has in-
navigation space). Key project impacts include
fluence on process impacts (e.g. through choice of
direct loss of corals within the development
equipment and operating method).
footprint, and long term current changes affect-
ing flushing and morphology. The mitigation of

Table 4.1: Summary of the types of impact from dredging and port construction on coral reefs

18 PIANC Report 108

 4.1. Project Impacts
Potential project impacts from dredging and port
construction on coral reefs comprise:
4.1.1. Construction Phase Impacts
Construction phase project impacts are associated
with the physical removal or burial of corals and as-
sociated ecosystems where the reef lies within the
footprint of the development. These impacts are of-
ten referred to as direct impacts.
4.1.2. Post-Construction Phase
Post-construction project impacts from dredging
and port construction refer to those impacts that
continue for a long time after the dredging or con-
struction operations have been completed. Such im-
pacts may include effects from modified bathymetry
and altered hydrodynamic conditions, long-lasting
water quality changes and long-lasting after-effects
from re-suspension of fine sediments.
Dredging and port construction (including land rec-
lamation) may cause changes in hydrodynamic
conditions such as flow velocity, tidal currents, wa-
ter levels, wave dynamics, exposure to wave en-
ergy, residual current patterns, salt wedge intrusion
into a river mouth, or littoral drift in the shore zone.
These hydrodynamic changes are usually the result
of a modified bathymetry or a changed coastline.
Such changes to the hydrodynamic regime can
sometimes affect local water temperature dynam-
ics, upwelling variability, and coral nutrient delivery
affecting trophic structure and may affect dispersal
of coral larvae (and other larvae), as well as their
recruitment and settlement on the reef. Major hy-
drodynamic changes can also have long-term ef-
fects on corals through changes in water quality
and altered re-suspension-siltation cycles.
Although usually associated with adverse environ-
mental impacts, dredging and port construction can
also result in positive project impacts. Examples of
beneficial effects include opportunities for habitat
development (e.g. providing suitable hard substrate
for larval settlement) and improvement of ecological
quality (e.g. improvements of water quality through
better flushing, changes in water depths and cre-
ation of microhabitats, allowing for greater biodiver-
PIANC Report 108
sity). Positive impacts may partially compensate for
impacts during construction.
Project Impacts
• Project Impacts result from the devel-
oper’s choice of project location and
layout
• Key Project Impacts include:
o Physical removal and/or burial of
corals during construction
o Long-term current changes, leading
to reduced flushing and water
quality
o Long-term erosion or sedimen-
tation due to current changes
• Positive Project Impacts can also be
achieved by ‘Working with Nature’
(PIANC 2008):
o Providing new hard substrate for
coral development
o Improved water quality due to bet-
ter flushing
o Greater range of microhabitats al-
lowing increased biodiversity
o Removal of contaminated
sediments
• Negative Project Impacts are best be
mitigated during the planning and EIA
stages of a development
One of the most spectacular and well-document-
ed examples of positive impacts of port construc-
tion on corals is Naha Port at Okinawa in Japan,
where installation of artificial substrates (such as
breakwaters and wave-dissipating blocks) in an
area with sufficient supply of coral larvae and good
water quality unintentionally helped to attract coral
recruits.
Widespread settlement of coral colonies, further
aided by coral transplantation trials in subsequent
years, led to well-developed coral growth on the
various port structures at Naha Port (and two other
nearby ports at Okinawa) within approximately 10
years after construction (Figure 4.1).
19

Figure 4.1: Coral colonies on armour blocks
of Naha Port, Japan (1995)
Similarly, observations have been reported of the
unexpected development of a diverse coral com-
munity (125 species) with 25-40 % live coral cover
on breakwaters in Taiwan, less than 30 years fol-
lowing their installation.
In some cases, deepening of channels for naviga-
tion has improved water exchange in the affected
area resulting in ecological improvements, although
case studies demonstrating this for coral reef envi-
ronments are difficult to find.
Positive impacts on corals may also result from re-
medial dredging in coral environments, such as re-
moval of contaminated sediment.
4.1.3. Operation Phase
Operational project impacts are caused by the use
of ‘new’ areas or facilities for infrastructural devel-
opments, port facilities, navigation channels, berth-
ing areas, etc. Such impacts are typically related to
changes in human activities. These could include:
increased exposure to vessel wakes, increased
turbidity and sedimentation due to re-suspension
of fine deposits as a result of propeller wash; ef-
fects from changes in land use such as increased
discharges, increased risk of spills and industrial
pollution, greater risk of introduction of harmful
aquatic organisms and pathogens through ballast
water discharge from ships, effects from increased
tourism (ornamental trade, diver carrying capacity,
20
etc.), recurring need for maintenance dredging, and
other (port) maintenance work. Most of these are
outside the scope of the present guide, but refer-
ence is made to various other PIANC reports on
these subjects, as well as environmental man-
agement guidelines for ports and harbours near
sensitive habitats, guidelines for the control and
management of ship’s ballast water and local en-
vironmental, health, and safety guidelines for ports,
harbours and terminals.
4.2. Process Impacts
4.2.1. Construction Phase
Process impacts on coral reefs during the construc-
tion phase are typically dominated by sediment
plume impacts resulting from the release (spill) of
fine sediments during dredging or material place-
ment.
Sediment plumes generated from dredging and
port construction activities can result in:
• Increased turbidity (Figure 4.2), leading to:
o Reduced light availability to corals
o Abrasion of coral tissue
o Reduced larval survival
o Reduced coral polyp activity
o Reduced reproductive rates
• Increased sedimentation (Figure 4.2), leading
to:
o Smothering of coral polyps
o Hindered attachment of coral larvae
o Increased susceptibility to coral pathogens
• Water quality changes, such as:
o Reduced levels of dissolved oxygen
o Release of nutrients and pollutants from
(contaminated) sediments
Although the construction phase of a dredging op-
eration or port construction project is usually of a
temporary and relatively short-term nature, the sedi-
ment plume impacts may be permanent or transient
in nature, depending on the severity of impact.
PIANC Report 108

Figure 4.2:Turbidity (top) and sedimentation
(bottom) from dredging
The severity and spatial extent of sediment plume
impacts depend, to a large degree, on:
• Proximity/location of the coral reef relative to the
work site in relation to the prevailing currents
• Prevailing water depth, current and wave condi-
tions in the area
• Source strength at the work site, which is influ-
enced by the work method (e.g. choice of equip-
ment, production rate)
• Nature of the material forming the sediment
plume (primarily grain size composition)
• Timing (e.g. in relation to coral spawning pe-
riods) duration and frequency of the sediment
plume effect at a given location
• Existing coral stress levels, which may affect the
tolerance of individual corals to elevated turbid-
ity and sedimentation
• Degree of contamination of the dredged material
PIANC Report 108
Process Impacts
• Process Impacts result from the con-
tractor’s activities during the construc-
tion phase
• Key Process Impacts include:
o Increased turbidity (leading to
reduce light for corals, abrasion
of coral tissues and reduced
coral larvae survival)
o Increased sedimentation
(leading to smothering of coral
polyps, hindered attachment of
coral larvae and increased
susceptibility to coral pathogens)
o Water quality changes (reduced
oxygen levels, release of
contaminants from the seabed)
o Physical damage from
construction equipment
• Negative Process Impacts are best be
mitigated by effective environmental
management of the construction pro-
cess
Depending on these factors, there can be a consid-
erable spatial and temporal variation in sediment
effects. In some cases, the impact may be confined
close to the work area, whilst in others the prevail-
ing currents may transport fine sediments over
large distances, with documented cases of impacts
occurring > 70 km from the work site.
The primary cause of increased turbidity associ-
ated with dredging and port construction are dredg-
ing and material placement, but operations such as
placement of rubble and rock armour, sand com-
paction and other marine construction work can
also cause re-suspension of sediments, resulting in
increased levels of suspended solids and reduced
light penetration to corals.
Although sediment plume impacts are the most vis-
ible of process impacts, mechanical damage and
other process impacts to corals may occur as a re-
sult of temporary structures and construction activi-
ties, such as anchoring and grounding, floating and
21
submerged pipelines and ramps, contact of floating
equipment with the reef, the presence of temporary
jetties (shading), blankets around jack-up platforms,
and the presence of construction vessels.
Effects from activities related to the construction
phase may also include noise and vibration effects
(e.g. from blasting, pile driving, etc.), air pollution
and land-related effects, but these are beyond the
scope of these guidelines, as they are not likely to
cause direct harm to reef-building corals. Some
countries (e.g. Australia) apply strict quarantine reg-
ulations on the equipment brought to the construc-
tion site to prevent impact on biodiversity through
(accidental) introduction of exotic fouling organisms
and invasive species.
Sediment Plume Impacts
• Process Impacts on coral reefs are typi-
cally dominated by sediment plume im-
pacts resulting from the release (spill)
of fine sediments during construction
• Scale of Sediment Plume Impact to cor-
als depends on:
o Proximity of corals to work site
o Prevailing currents, waves and
water depth in the area
o Rate and concentration of
suspended sediment release
o Nature of suspended sediments
(grain sizes)
o Timing, duration and frequency
of sediment plume release
o Existing level of coral stress
o Degree of sediment
contamination (if any)
• Sediment Plume Impacts may be con-
fined to the work area, or they may
extend up to 70 km away. Numerical
modelling is critical to determine the
potential spatial extent of impact (see
Section 7.2).
5. RESPONSE OF CORALS
TO IMPACTS
The response of a coral reef to the impacts arising
from dredging and port construction activities and
22
the ability of affected reefs to recover depends on a
range of factors, including:
• Ecological state or condition of the reef (degrad-
ed or pristine; dominated by algae, bio-eroders
or reef-builders; degree of eutrophication; (over-)
fishing; history of previous stress events)
• Resilience of the reef (depending on species di-
versity; presence, loss and replacement of key-
stone species; spatial heterogeneity; presence
of refugia; connectivity to nearby unaffected
reefs)
• Typical ambient conditions normally experi-
enced by the reef, determining its tolerance and
degree of adaptation
Recent stressors (existing prior to the implemen-
tation of a dredging operation or port construction
project), e.g. infestations of crown-of-thorns starfish,
disease outbreaks, invasive species or bleaching
events, can significantly affect the baseline condi-
tions of a reef and thus its response to impacts (Fig-
ure 5.1). Recovery from such stressors may take
several years or decades. It is, therefore, important
for project developers to have these issues clearly
documented and segregated to prevent being held
liable for reef degradation that is in fact due to pre-
existing conditions from earlier stressors.
Factors related to climate change (such as seawa-
ter temperature anomalies, increased incidence of
storms and cyclones and sea level rise) and simul-
taneous exposure to other forms of stress, such as
extremely high or low salinities or short-term pollu-
tion events, as well as cumulative impacts on relat-
ed ecosystems (e.g. mangroves, seagrass mead-
ows), also affect the response of coral reefs to the
impacts of dredging and port construction.
The risk and severity of impacts from dredging and
port construction-related activities on corals are
directly related to both the intensity and duration
of impacts causing stress (Figure 5.2). This graph
shows the general relationship between the mag-
nitude of an increase in turbidity or sedimentation
above background levels (vertical axis), how long it
lasts (horizontal axis) and the onset of (sub-)lethal
effects on corals. Actual thresholds will vary by lo-
cation based on typical ambient conditions and the
sensitivity of the dominant coral species.
PIANC Report 108

Figure 5.1: Examples of existing stressors that
may affect coral response to dredging and port
construction. Top: Coral bleaching.
Bottom: Crown of Thorns starfish
(Photos: © Commonwealth of Australia)
Figure 5.2: Conceptual relationship between
the intensity and duration of a stress event
and the risk of sub-lethal and lethal
effects on corals.
PIANC Report 108
Frequent short-term exposures or chronic long-
term exposure will result in mortality for many coral
species. If moderate levels of impacts on a reef per-
sist for particularly long periods of time, the coral
reef may undergo changes in diversity, with more
sensitive coral species gradually being replaced by
more tolerant ones. This may result in an overall
reduction in the biodiversity of the reef.
Coral Responses to Impacts
• Severity of impacts directly related to
mag nitude, duration and frequency of
impact
• Impacts may be:
o Sub-lethal (reduced growth rate,
bleaching, reduced reproduction)
o Lethal (mortality, change in
species composition)
• There are large differences in coral spe-
cies’ response to impacts, which may
be related to growth form:
o Branching corals (which grow
usually vertically) tend to be
sensitive to turbidity, but tolerant
to sedimentation
o Plate corals (which usually grow
horizontally) tend to be tolerant
to turbidity, but sensitive to
sedimentation
o Some coral species are also able
to actively remove sedimentation
(e.g. via mucous production
or ciliary action)
Table 5.1 provides an overview of the response of
corals and coral communities to the various types
of impacts from dredging and port construction.
Responses not only include direct mortality of cor-
als, but may also involve sub-lethal effects, such as:
reduced growth, lower calcification rates and redu-
ced productivity, bleaching, increased susceptibility
23
 Table 5.1: Summary of the response of corals to various types of impact
to diseases, physical damage to coral tissue and
reef structures (breaking, abrasion), reduced re-
generation from tissue damage, as well as effects
on other reef-dwelling (non-coral) organisms.
Overall, there are large differences in coral species’
response to impacts. One hypothesis to explain
these differences is that the sensitivity of corals —
at least in part — depends on the growth form and
orientation of coral colonies. Branching corals, for
example, tend to be more sensitive to turbidity but
24
are quite tolerant to sedimentation, while plating and
tabular corals are generally tolerant to turbid condi-
tions but sensitive to high sedimentation rates.
Other theories to explain the large differences in
sensitivity between different coral species have
focused on the ability of some (but not all) cor-
al species to actively reject sediments (through
polyp inflation, mucus production, ciliary and ten-
tacular action) and on the role of the size of the
coral polyp/calice in determining coral sensitivity.
PIANC Report 108
The interaction of several physical factors further
complicates these relationships, including turbu-
lence and exposure to wave action, morphologi-
cal variability and adaptation within species, depth
distribution and the cumulative effects of extreme
temperatures and salinities.
5.1.Responses to Project Impacts
The response of corals to project impacts relate
to the corals’ reaction to the layout and design of
the development during the construction, post-con-
struction and the operational phase.
5.1.1. Construction Phase Response
Direct Impacts
The immediate response to burial and/or removal
of coral reef within the footprint of the project is the
death and permanent loss of coral colonies and as-
sociated organisms, except when successfully re-
located, or if the final substrate is suitable for coral
recruitment.
5.1.2. Post-Construction Phase
Project Responses
Hydrodynamic Changes
Coral polyps are passive filter feeders that depend
on exogenous current for food delivery and waste
disposal. Reduced flow velocity may result in food
deficiency, limiting growth and ultimately leading to
coral mortality. Increased flow velocity can result in
beneficial effects on coral metabolism, larvae dis-
persal and local water quality. Increased exposure
to wave activity may help in the removal of depos-
ited sediment particles from coral colonies, while
reduced wave exposure will have the opposite ef-
fect. Particularly high current-induced drag forces
can dislodge corals, interrupt their particle capture
activities and prevent successful settlement of new
coral recruits.
Water Quality Changes
Long-lasting water quality changes, e.g. through
reduced flushing and increased water residence
times, will have adverse impacts on corals through
increased concentrations of nutrients and sus-
pended organic matter and retention of pollutants.
Responses of corals to changed water quality in-
PIANC Report 108
clude changes in thickness of the tissue layer, coral
growth rates, photo-physiology of the algal symbi-
onts, as well as changes in coral cover, community
structure, density of bio-eroders and partial coral
mortality.
Altered Re-suspension and Sedimentation
Long-lasting effects from repeated re-suspension
of fine sediments can affect corals through light at-
tenuation and siltation. The impacts are similar to
the process impacts during the construction phase
(Section 5.2). Post-construction changes to sedi-
mentation – re-suspension cycles on a reef can
cause increased light attenuation by suspended
sediment, eliminate recruitment sites, induce phys-
iological stress to individual corals and enhance
sediment accumulation on (or even burial of) coral
colonies.
Shading by Jetties and Port Buildings
Port structures and associated jetties can cause
shading of parts of a reef and thus reduce the amount
of light available to the corals, causing localised im-
pacts. Responses of coral to such changes range
from sub-lethal effects, tissue damage and partial
mortality of individual corals to colony mortality and
shifts in community structure towards greater domi-
nance of shade-tolerant coral species.
5.1.3.Operational Phase Responses
Increased Pollution Discharges
and Oil Spill
Increased discharges of pollutants, such as pe-
troleum products, pesticides and excess nutrients
from the completed development during the opera-
tional phase can affect corals. Increased nutrients
in the water can lead to enhanced algal growth on
reefs, crowding out corals and significantly degrad-
ing the ecosystem. Pesticides interfere with coral
reproduction and growth. Sewage discharge and
runoff may also introduce pathogens into coral reef
systems, some of which have been associated with
coral diseases.
Stress responses shown by corals exposed to oil
include tissue death, impaired feeding response,
impaired polyp retraction, impaired sediment clear-
ance ability, increased mucus production, changes
in calcification rates, gonad damage, premature
25
extrusion of planulae, impaired larval settlement, ing and port construction-related activities on corals
expulsion of zooxanthellae, changes in zooxanthel- are directly related to both intensity and duration of
lae primary production and muscle atrophy. exposure to increased turbidity and sedimentation
(Figure 5.3).
Vessel Impacts and Propeller Wash
Because coral reefs often grow in shallow water,
they are susceptible to a variety of direct impacts
from vessels, including anchoring impacts, as well
as damage from the propeller, hull, engine and keel
of both commercial and recreational vessels. Boat
wakes and propeller wash may locally increase sed-
imentation on corals, inducing stress responses.

Increased Tourism
Impacts from increased tourism may include physi-
cal damage to corals, over-exploitation of reef re-
sources, sewage discharge, nutrient enrichment,
hydrocarbon (petroleum) pollution, solid waste,
damage from increased boating, anchor damage,
localised damage from moorings, shading by pon-
toons, impact from anti-fouling paints, increased
risk of ship groundings, local damage to fragile cor-
als by divers and snorkelers, coral breakage and
trampling by reef walking and disturbance of reef-
associated wildlife. Many of these impacts are quite
localised, but can have irreversible consequences
on the corals, resulting in stress, tissue damage
and mortality.

Maintenance Dredging
Although classified as a project impact (as the re-
quirement for maintenance is a function of the proj-
ect design), coral reefs respond to the process im-
pacts associated with execution of the maintenance
dredging works. Maintenance dredging impacts are
thus similar to the process impacts described in
Section 5.2, although potentially at a reduced scale
depending on the quantum, frequency, sediment
characteristics and location of the maintenance
dredging in relation to coral reefs.
5.2. Responses to Process Impacts
The response of corals to process impacts relate
to the corals’ reaction to transient or permanent
impacts generated as a result of execution of the
construction works, including method and produc-
tion rate.
The risk and severity of process impacts from dredg-
Figure 5.3: Examples of intensity-duration
relationships for the effects of turbidity (top) and
sedimentation (bottom) on coral reefs at Pilbara,
Western Australia
[Gilmour et al., 2006]
Frequent short-term exposure or chronic long-term
exposure to high sedimentation or high turbidity
events results in mortality of many coral species.
If moderate levels of increased turbidity and sedi-
mentation on a reef persist for particularly long pe-
riods of time, the coral reef may undergo changes
in diversity, with the most sensitive coral species
gradually being replaced by more tolerant ones.

26 PIANC Report 108

Table 5.2 lists the response of corals to increasing
levels and durations of sedimentation and turbidity.

Table 5.2: Schematic cause-effect pathway for the response of corals and coral
communities to sedimentation and turbidity
[ Adapted from Gilmour et al., 2006]

PIANC Report 108 27

5.2.1. Turbidity
Light reduction is probably the most important of
all sediment-related effects of dredging on corals,
resulting in a decline in photosynthetic productivity.
Such a decrease causes a subsequent drop in the
nutrition, growth, reproduction, calcification rate and
depth distribution of corals and may result in starva-
tion of some coral species. Some tolerant species
can temporarily switch between autotrophy (growth
through photosynthesis) and heterotrophy (growth
through filter-feeding) or adjust their respiratory de-
mands to maintain a positive energy balance in re-
sponse to episodic turbidity stress events.
Values for the minimum light requirements of corals
reported in the literature range from less than 1 % to
35 % (or even 60 %) of surface irradiance, depend-
ing on growth form, depth and region (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3: Critical thresholds of corals for light
availability (% of surface irradiance SI)
The period of time that corals can tolerate high tur-
bidity ranges from a few hours to several weeks,
depending on the species and the turbidity levels.
Long-term (chronic) turbidity stress can shift the
species composition of reefs through the death of
more light-demanding corals and the subsequent
replacement by more shade-tolerant ones. While
certainly also related to a variety of other environ-
mental factors, the species diversity of corals and
reef-associated flora and fauna (including fish pop-
ulations) tends to decrease sharply with increasing
turbidity. Conversely, a distinct positive relationship
between light availability (e.g. with depth) and coral
28
growth rates has been demonstrated.
Normally there is a (site specific) correlation be-
tween turbidity and the concentration of Total Sus-
pended Solids (TSS). Tolerance limits of corals to
suspended sediment concentrations reported in
the literature range from less than 10 mg/l in reef
areas not subject to stresses from human activities
to 40 mg/l or even 165 mg/l in marginal reefs in tur-
bid near-shore environments (Table 5.4). This wide
range demonstrates that different coral species and
corals in different geographic regions may respond
differently to increased suspended matter concen-
trations.
Table 5.4: Critical thresholds of corals for Total
Suspended Matter (mg/l)
Field studies of coral distributions have indicated a
negative correlation between suspended sediment
loads and hard coral abundance. Coral communi-
ties are generally better developed, more diverse,
and have greater coral cover and rates of growth
when the sediment load in overlying waters is low.
Coral cover and diversity are greatly reduced near
sources of terrestrial sediment input and increase
with distance from river mouths.
PIANC Report 108
Turbidity also influences coral larvae. Laboratory
and field experiments have shown significantly re-
duced fertilisation, larval survival and larval settle-
ment (but not post-fertilisation embryonic develop-
ment) in the coral ‘Acropora digitifera’ in response
to elevated concentrations of suspended sediment
(50 and 100 mg/l).
Turbidity effects on corals depend on the grain-size
of the suspended sediments, with fine particles
contributing mostly to light reduction, while coarser
particles may cause abrasion of coral tissue.
5.2.2. Sedimentation
Sedimentation on coral reefs may cause smother-
ing and burial of coral polyps. Since some degree
of sedimentation also occurs under natural condi-
tions, most corals can withstand a certain amount
of sedimentation. Many species have the ability to
remove sediment from their tissues, either passive-
ly (through their growth form) or actively (through
polyp inflation, ciliary or tentacular action, or by
mucus production, as seen in Figure 5.4). This pro-
cess, however, costs energy that could otherwise
be used for growth.
Figure 5.4: Sediment removal through mucus
production
High sedimentation rates associated with recla-
mation and dredging operations may depress cor-
al growth and survival due to attenuation of light
available to symbiotic zooxanthellae and redirec-
tion of energy expenditures for clearance of settling
sediments. Mud and silt-sized sediments have a
more adverse impact than sand because they are
PIANC Report 108
more cohesive and bind nutrients better than sand.
Therefore, a more active bacterial community is
likely to develop in silt-laden mucus sheets, caus-
ing damage to the corals.
Heavy sedimentation is generally associated with
fewer coral species, less live coral cover, lower
coral growth rates, greater abundance of branch-
ing forms, reduced coral recruitment, decreased
calcification, decreased net productivity of corals
and slower rates of reef accretion. Tolerance of
corals to high sediment loads varies considerably
among species, with some corals being fairly resis-
tant to low light levels and/or sedimentation effects.
Several coral species have been shown to possess
the ability to temporarily switch between autotrophy
and heterotrophy or to adjust their energy demands
in response to high sedimentation events.
At the individual colony level, decreased light, abra-
sion and increased energy expenditure in remov-
ing sediment can lead to growth inhibition and a
reduction in other metabolic processes. At the pop-
ulation level, increased sedimentation may inhibit
population recruitment, cause changes in relative
abundance of species, decrease live coral cover
and reduce abundance and diversity of corals and
other reef fauna, including fish. Literature values for
critical threshold levels for the response of corals to
sedimentation vary widely (Table 5.5).
Sediment removal efficiency varies considerably
among coral species and many species are size-
specific sediment rejectors. Branching corals ap-
pear very effective in passive rejection of sediment
because of their colony morphology, but may suffer
from reduced light levels. Massive and plating colo-
nies, on the other hand, are more likely to retain
sediment (Figure 5.5) because of their shape and a
lack of sediment rejection capabilities and thus are
viewed as having low to moderate tolerance.
Sedimentation also affects coral larvae. Higher
sedimentation rates (in the order of 300 mg/cm2/d)
have been found to significantly reduce the number
of larvae of the branching coral ‘Acropora millepora’
settling on upper surfaces of settlement plates, in-
dicating that accumulation of sediment on upward-
facing surfaces greatly reduces the overall amount
of suitable substratum available for settlement.
Studies on the larval settlement rate of the coral
29

Figure 5.5: Partial coverage of corals with
sediment transported by plume and currents from
nearby dredging works
30
‘Pocillopora damicornis’ found that sedimentation
at a level that only partially covers the substrate
and that is not directly harmful to adult coral colo-
nies could significantly reduce larval recruitment by
inhibiting settlement. Furthermore, sedimentation
mortality thresholds for settled coral recruits have
been found to be an order of magnitude lower than
those for larger colonies (loads of tens rather than
hundreds of mg/cm2).
An indication of the duration that different coral
species can tolerate high rates of sedimentation
was provided by field and laboratory experiments
in Florida and the Philippines (Table 5.6). Some of
the most tolerant coral species in the Caribbean
can survive complete burial with sediment for peri-
ods ranging from 7-15 days, whereas in the Philip-
pines, burial caused sub-lethal effects (bleaching)
and mortality of several coral species within 20-68
hours.
Table 5.5: Critical threshold of corals for
sedimentation (mg per cm2 per day)
5.2.3. Water Quality Impacts
In addition to generating turbidity, dredging and
material placement can also impact water quality
by releasing organic matter and contaminants from
the seabed into the water column. Organic matter
released into the water column during dredging can
result in localised oxygen depletion, elevated nutri-
ents and/or algal blooms, which can impact coral
reefs in the vicinity. Contaminants (e.g. heavy met-
als, organic pollutants, etc.) will generally remain
PIANC Report 108
 Table 5.6: Period of time that coral species can survive high sedimentation rates
adhered to sediment particles, but a portion may
dissolve into the water column. Filter feeders (such
as corals) may suffer toxicological impacts from
both dissolved contaminants and contaminants ad-
hered to sediment particles, depending on the bio-
availability of the contaminants.
5.3. Potential for Recovery
Provided that environmental conditions return
to the pre-impact situation or reach a new equili-
brium that does not hamper recovery, time-scales
for natural recovery of coral reefs are in the order
of a few years to several decades, depending on
the degree of damage, types of species affected
and potential for recruitment. Corals are often able
to recover from acute disturbances, but not from
chronic disturbance. Of 65 examples in which suf-
ficient data exist to make a judgment, coral cover
recovered in 69 % of cases after acute, short-term
disturbances, but only in 27 % of cases after chron-
ic, long-term disturbance. Recovery of corals from
sub-lethal stress can be rapid (weeks to months),
while recovery from partial mortality takes several
years. Recovery from mass mortality is generally
slow and may take many years to decades, while in
some cases, recovery has not occurred at all.
Recovery time of corals following experimental
short-term burial varied among coral species, rang-
ing from several weeks up to months, also depend-
ing on the duration of the sedimentation event. In
PIANC Report 108
larger massive corals, sediment burial may cause
bleaching and damaged patches, which, if larger
than about 2 cm in diameter, do not recover, but
will be colonised by algae or sponges preventing
recovery of the coral.
Dredging operations at Phuket, Thailand caused
a 30 % reduction in live coral cover within one
Coral Recovery from Impacts
• The main Process impacts from dredg-
ing and port construction (turbidity and
sedimentation) stop once the project is
completed
• Provided that environmental condi-
tions return to the pre-impact situation,
timescales for natural recovery of coral
reefs are in the order of a few years to
several decades
• Recovery times depend on:
o Types of species affected
o Scale of impact
o Recruitment potential
• Corals can generally recover from
short-term acute disturbance, but not
from long-term chronic disturbance
31
year from the start of dredging. After dredging had
ceased, the reef recovered rapidly with coral cover
values and diversity indices restored to former lev-
els approximately 22 months after dredging began.
In the lagoon of Kaneohe Bay (Hawaii), 80 % of the
coral communities died because of a combination
of dredging, increased sedimentation and sewage
discharge. Six years after discharge of sewage into
Kaneohe Bay ceased, dramatic recovery of corals
and a decrease in the growth of smothering algae
were reported.
Increased sedimentation is sometimes accom-
panied by other stresses, prolonging or inhibiting
recovery, making it difficult to generalise or make
predictions about recovery. Coastal coral reefs ad-
jacent to population centres often do not recover
from disturbances, in contrast to remote reefs in
relatively pristine environments, because chronic
human influences have degraded water and sub-
stratum quality, thereby inhibiting recovery. Recov-
ery of corals in the Seychelles from the impact of an
intense coral bleaching event was predicted to be
substantially slower for ‘Acropora’ species – usu-
ally the first to rapidly colonise new empty spaces
– due to recruitment limitation, because these spe-
cies were virtually eliminated throughout almost the
entire Indian Ocean. As a result, these species will
not be able to come back for many years or even
decades. Poor water quality and excessive algal
growth in some areas further hampered recovery
even if coral larvae were available.
6.IMPACT MINIMISATION
THROUGH PLANNING
6.1. Introduction
For all marine and coastal projects a high level of
strategic planning should be encouraged in order to
achieve an optimal location of facilities while ensur-
ing that key ecosystem processes are protected.
For dredging and port construction projects, the
need for thorough planning is even more acute due
to, amongst other issues, the sensitivity of coral
reefs to indirect impacts resulting from remote con-
struction works, and the large time scales involved
in any eventual recovery of the ecosystem.
32
Working with Nature
• A high level of strategic planning is crit-
ical for marine and coastal projects to
optimise economic benefits while pro-
tecting marine ecosystems
• Early planning can identify and avoid
potential impacts to corals
• The benefits and recommended ap-
proach for early strategic planning to
avoid impacts are described in PIANC’s
recent position paper ‘Working with
Nature’ (PIANC 2008), which should be
read in conjunction with this report.
6.2. Key Activities
Long-term planning and consideration of alterna-
tives are essential to addressing environmental and
other issues.
The key activities that should be undertaken dur-
ing the planning phase are outlined in Table 6.1 on
page 51, while a decision tree outlining the key is-
sues that should be considered by the project de-
veloper during the early development stages of the
project concept is shown in Figure 6.1 on page 50.
Common activities prior to development of EIA doc-
uments are scoping and/or risk assessment meet-
ings with all stakeholders to exchange information.
At the early planning meetings, there are always
gaps in available information and often differences
of opinion about relative importance of issues as-
sociated with dredging, material relocation and cor-
al will arise. Extensive planning and consultation,
potentially over several years, may be required for
obtaining the best environmental outcome and lo-
cation in relation to capital dredging, breakwater
construction and reclamation works associated
with new port and marina locations, while several
months of consultation may be adequate for rou-
tine maintenance dredging and material relocation
operations.
PIANC Report 108
 Figure 6.1: Decision tree for planning phase

PIANC Report 108 33

 Table 6.1: Key activities to be undertaken during planning in relation to coral reefs
Common activities prior to development of EIA doc-
uments are scoping and/or risk assessment meet-
ings with all stakeholders to exchange information.
At the early planning meetings, there are always
gaps in available information and often differences
of opinion about relative importance of issues as-
sociated with dredging, material relocation and cor-
al will arise. Extensive planning and consultation,
potentially over several years, may be required for
obtaining the best environmental outcome and lo-
cation in relation to capital dredging, breakwater
construction and reclamation works associated
with new port and marina locations, while several
months of consultation may be adequate for rou-
tine maintenance dredging and material relocation
operations.
It goes without saying that assessment of alter-
native locations and layouts that minimise the di-
rect impact of a project’s footprint on coral reefs is
a key issue at the planning phase. However, due
to the sensitivity of coral reefs to indirect impacts,
the choice of optimum location and layout must
also consider the potential for generation of a wide
34
range of indirect impacts, which may result from
unplanned changes to regional coastal processes
(current patterns, wave conditions, sediment trans-
port, shoreline stability, etc.).
The balance between direct and indirect impacts
which results in optimum environmental perfor-
mance may often be unclear, requiring thorough
assessment at the planning phase. For example,
accepting higher direct impacts (which may be par-
tially mitigated for via coral relocation and genera-
tion of new substrate) to prevent higher indirect
impacts resulting from increased capital dredging
(which are difficult to mitigate) may, in certain cir-
cumstances, be the most environmentally sensitive
option.
Once the basic location and layout are fixed, plan-
ning the timing of projects to prevent periods of
high risk (such as cyclone season) and critical or
sensitive phases of the life cycle of corals (such as
spawning) is generally accepted as best practice.
PIANC Report 108

Key Planning Phase Questions
Key coral-specific issues to be ad- port construction projects (those lasting more than
dressed in planning phase include
• Where are the sensitive habitats in rela-
tion to the project area?
• Is coral likely to be impacted by dredg-
ing or material relocation?
• What are the species/genera -— how
sensitive are they?
• What is the expected ecological, socio-
cultural and economic value of the cor-
als?
• What are the physical processes and
existing environmental conditions in
the area (e.g. currents, waves, littoral
transport, water quality, etc.)?
• What are the existing levels of stress/
impact on corals in the area?
• What are the key environmental win-
dows (e.g. coral spawning)?
• What are the existing and planned fu-
ture cultural/recreational uses of the
area?
• What other projects are planned or un-
der construction?
• What are the relevant national and inter-
national legislative requirements (e.g.
London Convention and Protocol)?
• What are the options for alternative lo-
cations or alternative design/layout in
order to prevent sensitive habitats?
• What are the options to minimise or
prevent adverse impacts?
• What is the likely impact area (based on
first principles and/or preliminary mod-
elling analysis)?
• Are the impacts likely to be temporary
or permanent?
• What current or emerging technologies
are available to minimise or prevent im-
pacts and their cost benefit?
• What scale of EIA is required?
For smaller projects (those lasting less than 1
year), the timing of the works is a critical factor that
PIANC Report 108
may have considerable influence on the resulting
impacts (environmental, economic and socio-cul-
tural). Even for larger dredging, reclamation and
1 year), scheduling those components of the work
that are assessed to constitute the greatest envi-
ronmental risk (e.g. capital dredging of material
expected to result in high spill in areas with direct
current paths to coral reefs) to prevent periods of
high risk or sensitive phases of the life cycle of cor-
als, can generate a significant reduction in environ-
mental impact. An example of best practice can be
found in Singapore, where the reclamation work at
Terumbu Bayan was scheduled to avoid the 2006
coral spawning period.
Early identification of areas or species designated
for protection under national or international legis-
lation that may be in the potential impact area of
the project is particularly important, as there may
be particular restrictions applied to work in such
cases.
Early consideration of these questions, during the
initial planning phase of the project, can prevent or
minimise impacts to corals, streamline the EIA and
approval process and minimise the requirement for
time consuming and costly monitoring and man-
agement programmes before, during and after the
project.
Baseline Surveys
Baseline surveys must address:
• Spatial scale of the project (all key re-
ceptors in potential impact area)
• Temporal scale of the project (natural
seasonal variability):
o Full seasonal coverage (≥ 12
months) for long-term projects
o Short-term projects may only
require a short baseline, as long
as expected seasonal conditions
during the project are covered
35
 7. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an
instrument to identify and assess the potential en-
vironmental impacts of a proposed project, evalu-
ate alternatives and design appropriate mitigation,
management and monitoring measures. The pur-
pose of the assessment is to ensure that decision-
makers consider environmental impacts before de-
ciding whether to proceed with new projects. There
is a global tendency that all stakeholders, including
NGOs are given an opportunity to comment on EIA
studies and it is considered best practice to con-
tinue this engagement throughout the EIA process
to ensure transparency.
In addition to local and national legislation or guide-
Figure 7.1: Generic EIA process
36
lines, well-established international guidelines are
available, including World Bank guidelines and the
Equator Principles. There are also independent or-
ganisations (e.g. Netherlands Commission for EIA)
that can provide advice and/or peer review of EIA
studies. Even in the absence of local or national
legislative requirement, it is best practice to con-
duct some form of EIA for all dredging and port con-
struction activities at a level of detail appropriate to
the likely duration and scale of impact of the proj-
ect. This is especially important when the works are
around coral reefs. The basic EIA process, com-
mon to all marine projects, is shown in Figure 7.1,
while key coral-specific activities are described in
Table 7.1. The key drivers that determine the level
of detail required in an EIA for dredging or port con-
struction near a coral reef are shown in Figure 7.2.
PIANC Report 108
 7.1.Baseline Data
One of the most critical components of the EIA pro-
cess is obtaining relevant and accurate baseline
data upon which to base the assessment. These
data may comprise both new survey data and ex-
isting data, though (especially for quantitative coral
survey data) it is important to ensure that existing
data are both accurate and recent enough to be
used as a baseline.
It is important to address the temporal scale of the
project when designing the baseline survey pro-
gramme. A long-term dredging or port construction
programme (e.g. one or more years) would require
a baseline survey that captures natural seasonal
variations (e.g. 12-24 months), while for a short
project (e.g. 1-3 months) capturing a snapshot of
the existing conditions can be sufficient, although
with areas with distinct seasonality, the baseline
(even for short projects) should reflect the expected
seasonal conditions for the works.
The key inputs and requirements for the selection of
baseline survey locations and methodologies, in re-
lation to providing data to assess potential impacts
on corals, are shown in Figure 7.3 on page 56.

Figure 7.2: Key drivers determining the level of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
required for dredging and port construction near coral reefs

PIANC Report 108 37

 Table 7.1: Key Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) activities in relation to corals

These baseline survey data then provide a suit-
able benchmark upon which to quantify impacts in
the EIA. They also can also be used as part of the
baseline data for the monitoring phase (Chapter 9).
A detailed baseline, capturing seasonal variations,
provides security for the developer, in the event
that natural variations are incorrectly perceived by
stakeholders/regulators as impacts from the proj-
ect. The baseline survey data can also be used for
assessment of local tolerance limits to light attenu-
ation and sedimentation. Commonly utilised moni-
toring techniques are listed in Table 7.2, together
with notes on their limitations.

38 PIANC Report 108

 Figure 7.3: Key inputs and requirements for selection of baseline survey stations and methodologies
Note that many of the most commonly utilised
monitoring techniques rely on diver surveys. SCU-
BA diving carries an intrinsic level of risk and div-
ing around coral reefs, often in areas with strong
currents and sometimes low visibility, presents ad-
ditional hazards to the diver. Divers should be ap-
propriately trained and suitably experienced. Tech-
niques that minimise or prevent the need of divers
should also be considered.
When planning for baseline surveys, exact de-
tails of the project are often not yet known and the
dredging or port construction contractor is often not
appointed until after the EIA has been completed.
It is therefore important to take a precautionary ap-
proach, assuming the realistic worst-case level of
impact and planning survey locations and method-
ologies accordingly. Use of preliminary sediment
plume modelling may be appropriate to assist in the
choice of survey locations. Once the EIA has been
completed, the project is approved and the final
construction methodology is available, the monitor-
ing locations and methodologies can be finalised
as part of the EMP process.
PIANC Report 108
It is emphasised that decisions on monitoring loca-
tions and methodologies (including statistical de-
sign of the monitoring programme) during the plan-
ning stage of the baseline surveys should take into
account the monitoring requirements during the
implementation phase, so that the baseline surveys
provide a suitable basis for the EMP.
The frequency of baseline surveys will depend on
the pre-existing knowledge, spatial and temporal
variability of the environment, the anticipated im-
pacts and the confidence level required to detect
statistically significant impacts. Longer baseline
periods and increased monitoring frequency is re-
quired for sensitive environments and for new ar-
eas where little previous information is available.
For well-known environments, shorter baseline
periods with lower monitoring frequencies may be
appropriate.
For long-term projects, consideration of broad
scale changes (e.g. changes in climate, sea level,
sea surface temperature, etc.) should be included
in the baseline assessment. For projects in areas
where other external factors (e.g. previous or other
39
ongoing projects, upstream developments) may be
affecting corals, the baseline assessment should
identify these and the impact assessment should
take these existing levels of impact into account, in
the form of a cumulative impact assessment.
7.2. Predictive Modelling
Predictive modelling of physical and ecological pro-
cesses provides a key methodology for quantitative
Table 7.2: Important issues to consider in relation to baseline surveys around coral reefs
40
assessment of the indirect impacts from dredging
and port construction on coral reefs, but requires
good information, valid assumptions and assess-
ment by qualified experts. Corals respond to the
sediment plumes released from dredging, as well
as to changes in hydrodynamic conditions (which
may in turn affect the water quality) that may result
from changes to the bathymetry. Therefore, the as-
sessment should as a minimum carefully consider
the following processes:
PIANC Report 108
• Sediment and geotechnical parameters (relat-
ed to selection of equipment and spill charac-
teristics – particularly fall velocities/flocculation,
etc.)
• Dredging operation (equipment/location/dura-
tion/sailing speed/overflow/propeller wash,
etc.)
• Physical processes (currents (tide/ocean),
waves, wind, seabed morphology and water
quality)
• Seasonal variability/environmental windows
Predictive Modelling
• Critical tool for accurate assessment
of dredging and port construction im-
pacts on corals
• Requires good information, valid as-
sumptions and assessment by quali-
fied experts
• Conservative (but realistic) approach
should be adopted at the EIA stage
• Quantitative performance criteria
should be used for model calibration
and validation against field measure-
ments
The accuracy of impact predictions depends on the
temporal and spatial coverage and validity of input
data and the ability of the models (and modeller) to
simulate the key processes. The use of quantitative
performance criteria for model calibration and vali-
dation against field measurements can help regu-
lators assess the level of reliability achieved and
improve stakeholder confidence in the results.
In terms of sediment plume modelling associated
with dredging and material placement, some impor-
tant model features must be addressed in the as-
sessment. They include, but are not limited to:
• Parameterisation of coral tolerances to turbidity
and sedimentation
• Spatial resolution of the model in the potential
impact area appropriate for the scale of plume
generation and complexity of the flow
• Vertical resolution dependent on the three-
dimensional nature of the flow in the potential
impact area
PIANC Report 108
• Simulations adequately covering both repre-
sentative and worst-case climatic conditions
and production rates and being sufficiently long
(typically 14-28 days) to ensure that key tidal
effects are captured
• Description of the spatial and temporal variabil-
ity of plume generation, e.g.:
o TSHD generate a moving source of spill in the
dredging area. The turnaround time depends
on the sailing time between the dredging site
and material placement site
o Grab dredgers generate a stationary source
of spill, with periodic emissions during the lift
phase
• Taking into account that the spill is composed of
different sediment fractions with different char-
acteristics, which also depends on, amongst
other issues, the anticipated dredging technique
to be utilised
The uncertainties of the model predictions should
be quantified.
The level at which the plume generation from dredg-
ing and material placement operations is modelled
will depend on the level of accuracy required. For
example, a spill from a TSHD often carries on after
dredging stops. This and other sources of sediment
suspension such as propeller wash may result in
turbidity generated outside the development area.
In sensitive areas where plume generation is close
to coral reefs a high level of detail should be in-
cluded in the modelling.
An important feature with respect to reliable spill
modelling is the amount of spill to be used as an
input to the model, which is a function of the type of
material, water depth, hydraulic conditions and type
of dredger or material placement method. The best
approach to determining the appropriate amount of
spill is via trial dredging. This may, in many cases,
not be possible at the EIA stage and resort must
be made to empirical formulations and/or previous
experience from similar projects either locally or in
similar locations.
Due to the complexities in coral response to dredg-
ing and port construction related impacts, it is essen-
tial that the modelling assessment is supplemented
by an experience-based approach, drawing on:
41
• expertise and experience with similar scale
projects in similar proximity to coral reefs and
similar met-ocean environments
• local expertise and experience across multiple
disciplines and locations in relation to coral reefs
• assessment and analysis of trends and sensi-
tivities in baseline data
Often, only limited project information is available
during the EIA, so a conservative, but realistic, risk-
based approach should be adopted.
In particular, the timing and equipment to be used
is typically not confirmed at the EIA stage. In order
be conservative, a range of timings and production
rates should therefore be assessed.
7.3. Establishing Threshold Levels
The subject of coral reef tolerances to environmen-
tal loadings is extremely complex. Still, if a dredg-
ing or port construction project is planned in the
proximity of a coral reef, it is essential that some
form of quantifiable tolerance limits is established,
in order to provide an indication of potential impacts
at the EIA stage and to provide a control parameter,
which will allow for subsequent indirect monitoring
(and modelling) data to be utilised in a manage-
ment context.
Coral Tolerance Limits
• Establishing coral tolerance limits (for
turbidity, light attenuation and sedi-
mentation) is complex, but critical for
the impact assessment
• Tolerance limits should be based on
available site specific data, supple-
mented by relevant literature values
• Baseline surveys should be formulated
to provide as much relevant data as
possible
• Tolerance limits should take into ac-
count both the magnitude and the dura-
tion of impact (e.g. Tables 7.3 and 7.4)
• Tolerance limits will be preliminary
(and therefore conservative) at the EIA
stage and should be refined as part of
the subsequent monitoring and man-
agement programme during the course
of the project (see Section 9.4.2).
42
The EIA baseline survey campaign should thus be
formulated in a manner that provides as much rel-
evant information as possible towards setting pre-
liminary (and, in the absence of adequate informa-
tion, conservative) threshold limits, which can then
be refined as part of the subsequent monitoring
and management programme. This may include
the necessity to undertake destructive testing such
as shading and sedimentation tests.
Best practice would determine threshold levels for
turbidity, light attenuation and sedimentation and
tie these into overall coral reef health expressed as
either coral or non-coral bio-indicators. The present
best practice does not, however, provide a quantita-
tive approach for assessing impacts at the species
level, nor impacts on coral reef health indicators
other than overall coral cover, although qualitative
judgement on the relative level of response as a
function of growth form may be made.
In terms of suspended sediments, effective thresh-
old limits shall take into account both the magni-
tude and duration of the loading. Most coral reefs
are adapted to short periods of high loading which
can occur naturally during storm events, such that
thresholds (in terms of management of dredging
operations, which are often characterised by rela-
tively short duration plumes of high concentration)
should never be set as absolute values (e.g. 10
mg/l), but should also look at the duration of the
loading (e.g. should not exceed 10 mg/l for more
than 10 % of the time). Unfortunately, much of the
published data on tolerance limits provides only
single absolute values (e.g. Table 5.3 and 5.4).
A well-validated set of tolerance limits from Sin-
gapore, which includes duration, are presented in
Tables 7.3 and 7.4. It is noted that tolerance limits
are site specific and the example provided is reflec-
tive of the relatively high background turbidity and
sedimentation rates, shallow nature of the coral
reefs and the prevailing strong currents found in
Singapore.
7.4. Impact Assessment Criteria
The assessment of impacts to corals from dredg-
ing and port construction has traditionally been
qualitative in nature, based on the experience of
the assessor, documented impacts from previous
PIANC Report 108
projects and various assumptions regarding the
construction methodology and the response of cor-
als to the impacts. More recently, the use of nu-
merical models, in association with site specific
tolerance limits has allowed a more quantitative
approach to impact assessment. In some cases,
predictions regarding the percent loss of corals are
made and used as management targets. Broad
categories of impact, such as those listed in Table
7.5, can also be used.

Table 7.3: Impact severity matrix for suspended sediment (SS) impact in Singapore on corals

Table 7.4: Impact severity matrix for sedimentation impact on corals in Singapore

Table 7.5: Typical impact assessment categories for dredging and port construction impacts on corals

PIANC Report 108 43


Acceptable Level of Impact
Based on a range of factors:
• Ecological criteria, such as:
o Representativeness — are the
coral species and communities
in the potential impact area well
represented in other parts of the
country or region?
o Rarity — are any of the coral
species (or other associated
species) rare or endangered?
o Resilience — what is the pre-
project level of impact and stress
on the corals?
o Ecological response to
cumulative effects?
• Socio-economic criteria, such as:
o Local significance — what is the
cultural and economic
significance of the coral?
o Stakeholder needs?
• Administrative and legislative criteria,
such as:
o Conservation status — has the
reef area been designated or
proposed for protection (local/
regional/international?)
o Zonation — has the reef been
designated for a particular pur-
pose (e.g. fisheries, recreation)?
It is currently very difficult to assess the quantity
of biodiversity that can be lost before changing the
function of an ecosystem and therefore the services
provided by that ecosystem. Recognising that de-
spite this uncertainty, management targets and lev-
els of ‘acceptable impact’ must still be set, it is rec-
ommended that a conservative approach is taken.
7.5. Permitting/Approvals
The permitting and approvals processes for dredg-
ing and port construction near coral reefs can differ
44
markedly from country to country, so the reader is
advised to review the specific legislation and ap-
proval practices for the country in which the project
is being undertaken.
Many countries are signatories to the London Con-
vention (‘Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter’,
1972) and/or the London Protocol (‘1996 Protocol
to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pol-
lution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter’,
1972), which are international agreements that
govern the disposal of wastes in the marine envi-
ronment, including dredged material.
Annex 2 of the London Protocol describes the pro-
cess that signatory countries should follow to as-
sess proposals for ocean disposal of dredged ma-
terials.
Parties to the London Convention are required to
assess applications for ocean disposal of dredged
material based on both the ‘precautionary principle’
and the ‘polluter pays principle’ and to control ocean
disposal via permits and permit conditions. One of
the issues taken into account in these assessments
is the proximity and potential impact to corals.
7.6. Preparation of Terms of
Reference for Construction
The step that often seems to be missing in the tran-
sition from environmental impact assessment be-
fore the start of a project to environmental manage-
ment during the project is the integration of the EIA
results into the Terms of Reference for the construc-
tion. A best practice approach to the management of
dredging and port construction activities near sen-
sitive environments, such as coral reefs demands
that all participants in the project are aligned and
committed to achieving the environmental manage-
ment targets for the project. Various technical mea-
sures can be employed by the dredging contractor
to prevent or mitigate potential impacts, but these
must be allowed for at the tender stage.
Some of the key measures are the selection of
equipment, design and scheduling of the construc-
tion works and the setting of production rates for
dredging and reclamation activities. If the EIA has
found that there are potential impacts associated
with the project, then it is crucial that technical
PIANC Report 108
mitigation measures are developed in consultation time or at regular intervals during the works.
with the developer and the dredging contractor, so
that they can be incorporated (and budgeted) into the Mitigation and compensation measures can be in-
dredging contractor’s scope of work for the project. troduced at various stages of the project, some ex-
amples are shown in Table 8.1 and 8.2.
Construction Tender Input

• EIA results and mitigation measures
to avoid or minimise impacts to corals
should be integrated into the construc-
tion tender

• Mitigation measures should be opti-

mised with the contractor’s input to en-
sure alignment

8. MITIGATION AND
COMPENSATION MEASURES
8.1. Overview of Prevention,
Mitigation and Compensation

The preferred approach is to avoid impacts to coral

reefs. Measures to this effect should be identified
as early as possible by planning the project in such
a way that nearby coral reefs will not be affected,
either by the footprint of the construction, indirect Table 8.1: Examples of mitigation and
impacts during construction, or by the use of the compensation measures associated with dredging
completed development. The benefits and rec- and land reclamation
ommended approach for early strategic planning
to avoid impacts are described in Section 6 and
PIANC’s recent position paper ‘Working with Nature’,
which should be read in conjunction with this report.

Where impacts to the coral reef cannot be avoided,

a number of mitigation techniques and management
tools have been developed to mitigate both the ef-
fects of the dredging and construction works and
the subsequent, long-term impacts to coral reefs.

The mitigation techniques used in a coral reef en-

vironment are mainly technical measures aimed at
reducing the sediment release and thus reducing
turbidity and sedimentation (Table 8.1).

Management tools range from simple techniques

(such as working within strict ‘environmental win-
dows’) to management of the dredging and con-
struction works using sophisticated impact predic-
tion models, based on mathematical modelling of Table 8.2: Examples of mitigation and
the environment and calibrated with various field compensation measures associated
data (currents, water quality, etc.) sampled in real- with breakwaters

PIANC Report 108 45

The nature and extent of compensation required
can be assessed using a variety of techniques such
as environmental valuation and habitat equivalency
analysis.
Mitigation and Compensation
• Where impacts to the coral reef cannot
be prevented, a number of mitigation
techniques are available
• Most aim to reduce the sediment re-
lease and thus reduce turbidity and
sedimentation
• If mitigation cannot reduce impacts to
an acceptable level compensation mea-
sures may be required to offset the im-
pacts
• However, compensation should not be
seen as a substitute for prevention or
mitigation, but as a supplement to best
practice prevention and mitigation
8.2. Best Practice Examples of Technical
Mitigation Measures
The choice of mitigation measures depends on lo-
cal conditions, as well as the type and scale of the
project. Best practice mitigation measures primar-
ily aim to reduce the sediment release, but the fi-
nal choice of mitigation measure should be based
on a thorough cost benefit assessment as part of
the EIA. Refer to PIANC EnviCom Report No. 100
(PIANC 2009) for more details on mitigation mea-
sures for dredging.
8.2.1. Choice of Equipment
The contractor’s choice of equipment normally con-
siders aspects such as:
• Volume-handling capacity (which influences the
duration of the operation)
• Excavation depth range (which can influence
the ratio between excavation volume and af-
fected bed area)
• Accurate shaping and delineation of the exca-
46
vation volume
• Dredged material handling technology
However, for dredging and port construction around
coral reefs, the choice of equipment must also care-
fully consider issues such as spill release rates and
spill characteristics for the specific bed material to
be excavated.
8.2.2. Prevention of Leakage from Equipment
The contractor should ensure that there is no leak-
age in the marine equipment including, but not nec-
essarily limited to, pipelines and hopper seals. Wear
and tear and the frequent handling and transport
of the pipelines make them particularly sensitive to
leakages during hydraulic placement of dredged
materials.
8.2.3. Dredging Accuracies and
Measuring Accuracies
A developer will wish to accommodate a certain
maximum vessel size in his port, which will require
a minimum water depth to be created. The dredg-
ing contractor — in order to guarantee this mini-
mum water depth — will aim to achieve a certain
‘over-depth’. The extra volume removed to achieve
this over-depth can significantly contribute to the
total dredge amount. The only way to minimise this
over-dredging is to increase measuring accuracy
and to increase the execution accuracy, although
this comes with potentially higher costs.
8.2.4. Minimisation and Control
of Sediment Spill
Control of the loss of dredged material to the marine
environment (referred to as sediment spill) is one
of the key mitigation options available for dredging
and port construction works. The type of control will
vary depending on the type of activity, but typically
involves either controlling the production rate (e.g.
reducing the number of trips or the pumping rate,
dredging with only one suction head rather than
two, using a smaller dredger, etc.), or controlling
the spill from the dredger (e.g. via a ‘green valve’
as per Section 8.2.6, restricted overflow require-
ments as per Section 8.2.10, or use of a ‘closed’
grab dredge).
PIANC Report 108
Both options have merits and the preferred location
should be established by performance modelling
and cost benefit analysis, considering the preven-
tion of turbidity impact as well as prevention of loca-
lised water quality impacts from reduced flushing.
In some cases, silt curtains deployed at the envi-
ronmental receptor may reduce turbidity impacts
where the material being dredged is principally fine
sediments and where currents and wave action do
not preclude their deployment. In those cases where
deployment at the coral reef location is considered,
care must be taken to prevent physical damage to a
coral reef from the anchors and/or grounding of the
silt curtain. Due to the characteristics of coral reefs,
often in high current and wave environments, de-
ployment of silt curtains at these receptors is rarely
a viable option.
Where it is not practical to deploy silt screens at the
receptor site and a need for sediment plume control
has been identified, silt screens may be deployed
around the work site to minimise egress of sediment
spill. Similar to deployment at the receptor site, the
viability of deployment of silt screens around the
work area will be controlled by the prevailing physi-
cal environment. In the work area, additional con-
siderations, such as the need for contractor access
to the worksite, may further restrict the viability of
silt screens.
A further option is to place the silt screen as a skirt
around the dredger. This is most practical for me-
chanical dredging operations, but as with other silt
screens, there will be various restrictions on their
viability and effectiveness.
Under certain extraordinary circumstances, fixed
structures such as sheet pile walls can be used in-
stead of silt screens for closing off smaller sensitive
areas in areas with higher currents. Such sheet pile
walls are expensive and often not practical in areas
with a hard seabed (where coral reefs commonly
are found).
Other forms of barriers, such as air screens, are
expensive, but may be applicable on a case to case
basis.
8.2.9. Environmental Windows
Dependent on site conditions it may be relevant to
48
consider environmental windows where work is re-
stricted under certain conditions. This may be the
direction of the tide, or it may be to prevent sensitive
periods, such as a coral spawning season and peri-
ods of the year with high risk of external stress (e.g.
bleaching due to increased sea surface tempera-
tures or fresh water influx). The use of environmen-
tal windows is normally associated with the concept
of spill budget and adaptive management, as it often
requires a high level of assessment and information
to establish environmental windows, which is only
available via the EMP, once work commences.
8.2.10. Restricted Overflow
In certain sensitive areas, under certain seabed
characteristics and/or in the presence of contami-
nated sediments, restriction (or prevention) of
overflow may be required to prevent impacts to a
range of environmental receptors including coral
reefs. The decision to restrict or prevent overflow
will have significant impacts on productivity (and
therefore cost). The resulting negative impacts
(propeller wash, increased CO2 footprint, etc.) from
the increased number of trips required to move the
required volume should be considered in the cost -
benefit assessment.
8.2.11. Controlling Discharge of Excess
Water from the Reclamation Area
Wherever practicable, land reclamations in the vi-
cinity of coral reefs should take place in closed rec-
lamation areas. This means that each reclamation
area should be bunded at the earliest opportunity, to
minimise the release of fines to the marine environ-
ment, or direct them away from sensitive receptor
sites. This should be recognised by the designers,
as a higher content of fines in the reclaimed materi-
als has an effect on the initial load bearing capacity
of the reclaimed areas. The practicality of bunding
is site-dependent and may prove uneconomic for
deep water reclamations associated with major port
developments.
Normally, the bunded reclamation area is divided
into a number of sedimentation cells, which will act
as a silt trap, reducing the silt content in the ex-
cess water discharging from the final sequence of
sedimentation cells into the marine environment.
An extension to this concept is to provide an ad-
ditional exterior stilling basin with a long retention
PIANC Report 108
time. Deposited fine material in this exterior stilling
basin will not affect the geotechnical characteristics
of the reclamation and the fines can be removed in
a controlled manner at the conclusion of the works.
In a limestone or coral environment, with their char-
acteristic risk for colloidal behaviour of the sus-
pended particles, this may require very large stilling
basins.
Further improvement to the performance of the stil-
ling basin can be achieved by maintaining a high
water level in the bunded area, thereby reducing
flow velocities and allowing submerged discharge
from the final sedimentation cell system. The use
of flocculating chemicals to increase settling rates
should only be considered where reliable local eco-
toxicology information is available to assess their
consequence to the coral reefs.
Although bunding can be considered best practice
to minimise spills, the spill from other placement
methods (e.g. direct dumping and rainbow) can
be controlled. Non-bunded reclamation is possible
even close to coral reef areas, if effectively man-
aged by appropriate application of the reclamation
method and spill budget control. Certain types of
non-bunded placement (e.g. rainbow placement
into deep water) should be avoided due to relatively
high spill rates compared to other placement meth-
ods.
8.2.12. Profiling Channel Slopes
The introduction of new water depths to an area as
a result of channel dredging through hard substrate,
may in certain circumstances promote coral growth
and diversity due to a wider range of light and hy-
draulic conditions. Figure 8.2 shows an example of
high coral cover and diversity along the boundary
of such a dredged channel. The relationships be-
tween coral coverage and depth and coral cover-
age and slope degree are shown in Figure 8.3. The
coral cover is found to be significantly higher on a
flatter slope.
8.3. Best Practice Examples of
Compensation Measures
8.3.1. Larval Production and Release
As the growth rate of branching ‘Acropora’ species
is relatively high, they are considered to be an im-
PIANC Report 108
portant genera for coral reef restoration. Research
into larval production and release has therefore
focused mainly on branching ‘Acropora’ species.
However, it is critical that the final choice of coral
species for any larval production and release pro-
gramme must be appropriate to the specific loca-
tion, taking local biodiversity and uniqueness (or
endemism) into account.
The procedure for larval production and release is
as follows:
a. Sampling of eggs and embryos from the sea or
spawning induction in tank
b. Maintenance and culture
c. Mass production of larvae and transportation to
release
d. Inducement of settlement and metamorphosis
and introduction of larvae to substrate
e. Culture of polyps on substrate and subsequent
transplantation of juvenile corals.
Figure 8.2: Coral colonies on the edge of a
channel. Ishigaki Port, Okinawa, Japan, 2002
8.3.2. Transplantation
Transplantation projects should be developed tak-
ing full advantage of local and international experi-
ence utilising well-planned methods (e.g. for fixing)
supported by long-term observations of the trans-
plantation sites including (but not necessarily lim-
ited to) substrate, water quality and hydraulic con-
ditions.
Transplantation of Juvenile Corals
Three methods of obtaining juvenile corals for
transplantation have been researched:
49
1. Collect juvenile corals from natural, high density
coral areas
2. Use coral settlement devices (Figure 8.4, made
of ceramic and contained in a frame for easier
handling - frame is set on the seabed in areas
expected to gather coral larvae)
3. Culture juvenile coral on substrate
Juvenile corals are generally ready for transplanta-
tion about one year after settlement.
Figure 8.3: Relationship between coral coverage,
bed slope and water depth
Transplantation of Adult Colonies
or Coral Fragments
The issues to consider in planning adult colony
transplantation are:
• Identification of suitable adult colonies
• Sampling of fragments from donor coral
50
• Transportation and fixation methods
• Choice of place and substrate
• Preferable season
8.3.3. Installation of Stable Substrate
Construction of breakwaters at Naha Port, Japan,
commenced in 1974. Around ten years later, sub-
stantial coral was found growing on wave-dissipat-
ing concrete blocks along the breakwaters. The
blocks were placed as shown in Figure 8.5. Figure
8.6 shows how coral communities have grown on
the blocks after their installation in 1976. The same
phenomenon was observed in Taiwan in 2006. Re-
cruitment on new substrate is clearly dependent on
the presence of a suitable supply of coralline larvae
for recruitment and/or transplantation of existing
corals.
Figure 8.4: Juvenile coral on
settlement devices
(top: about 3 months; bottom: about 20 months)
PIANC Report 108
 tion of coral larvae settlement as well as its growth.
Based on the results, Okinawa General Bureau
launched the ‘eco-block’ projects since 1999, where
the surfaces of blocks are processed unevenly with
various shapes and patterns (Figure 8.7). Levels
of roughness were classified into four levels, i.e.,
non-processed, 2 mm depth, 5 mm depth and 10
mm depth.

Figure 8.5: Typical cross-section of breakwater

Figure 8.7: Eco-blocks

Monitoring surveys have been carried out at fixed

stations over a period of six years after the blocks
were installed. The results are shown in Figures 8.8
and 8.9. It is obvious that coral coverage on the
processed surfaces is higher than that on the non-
processed surfaces and the rougher the surface,
the faster the growth. Similar experience is avail-
able from Hirara Port in Japan.

Figure 8.6: Coral growth on wave-dissipating

blocks, Naha Port, Japan.
top: 1980 (4 years after installation);
bottom: 1987 (11 years after installation)

8.3.4. Use of Textured Surfaces

To facilitate coral settlement on the structure, wave-

dissipating blocks with textured surfaces have been
Figure 8.8: Coral growth rate on eco-blocks at
tested since 1990. The results showed the effec-
depth 2 m, from 1999-2005
tiveness of such processing in terms of the promo-

PIANC Report 108 51

 Figure 8.9: Coral growth on eco-blocks at depth 2 m:
right, after installation (1999); middle, two years later (2001); left, four years later (2003)
8.3.5. Allowing Space between
Breakwater Caissons

Figures 8.10 and 8.11 show the coral growth around

a gap between the caissons at the port-side of the
breakwater at Naha Port, Japan. It is observed that
coral colonies around the gap are in good condi-
tion, while those distant from the crevice are few.
This shows the importance of water circulation for
the healthy growth of coral.

9. MONITORING AND
MANAGEMENT
Figure 8.10: Coral around a gap between
Monitoring is required to confirm that a project is
the caissons
meeting the agreed level of impact and that the
predictions of impacts during the EIA have been
accurate. Inclusion of an adaptive management
process allows dredging and port construction
near coral reefs to be managed so that maximum
productivity can be maintained while still meeting
environmental protection criteria. To develop an ef-
fective environmental monitoring and management
programme, it is necessary to identify the environ-
mental receptors in the potential impact area (e.g.
corals), and the impacting processes that may af-
fect each receptor. This is based on the EIA. The
monitoring programme must be designed to ensure
that the monitoring will be able to isolate and dis-
tinguish impacts of the project from other external
(natural or human) impacts.

The methodology for monitoring and management

of a project is laid down in an Environmental Man-
agement Plan (EMP). In terms of dredging and ma-
terial relocation, where the benefits of adaptive en-
Figure 8.11: Relation between coral amount
vironmental management are most significant, the
(coverage and height) and distance from water channel

52 PIANC Report 108

contractor’s implementation plan is referred to in the
present guide as a dredging operations plan (DOP).
Draft EMP and DOP documents are prepared at the
end of the EIA process. Best practice is for these
draft documents to form part of the tender specifi-
cations for the contractor. After appointment of the
contractor, finalisation of the contractor’s method-
ology and implementation plan for conducting the
project (including vessel specifications, schedule,
production rates, etc.), the EMP is updated by the
EMP consultant in consultation with the dredging
contractor on behalf of the developer.
Best practice methodology requires that relevant
measures developed in the EMP to achieve the envi-
ronmental protection criteria set for the project (e.g.
environmental windows) are explicitly incorporated
into the DOP by the dredging contractor, to ensure
their implementation. (The DOP addresses issues
other than environmental management. For the
purpose of the present guide, however, reference
to the DOP covers only its environmental issues).
Table 9.1 presents the key components of the EMP,
while Table 9.2 compares the scope of the EMP
and the DOP. It is recognised that the manage-
ment requirements vary according to the scale of
the project and the potential impacts. Table 9.3 sug-
gests a possible linkage between potential impact
and level of management that may be appropriate
for projects around coral reefs.
Preparing the EMP
• As part of the EIA, a Draft Environmen-
tal Management Plan (EMP) should be
prepared, and incorporated into the
construction tender documents
• Once the contractor is appointed and
project layout, methodology and timing
are finalised, review to ensure the proj-
ect still falls within the ‘environmental
envelope’ of the EIA
• As there is usually a gap between the
EIA and the start of work, additional
surveys are usually required to estab-
lish the EMP baseline
There is usually a gap between the completion
of the EIA and the commencement of the project.
At the EIA stage, the design and methodology of
the project are usually uncertain, so conservative
PIANC Report 108
assumptions are used for the assessment. Once
the layout and methodology are finalised, the EIA
should be reviewed to ensure that all of the poten-
tial impacts from the final layout and methodology
still fall within the ‘environmental envelope’ of the
EIA. This can be done in the form of a revision of
the EIA, but it is often more practical and useful to
undertake the reassessment as part of the prepara-
tion for implementing the EMP.
9.1. Establishing the Environmental
Management Plan Baseline
An EMP baseline, covering the principal environ-
mental receptors (e.g. coral reefs) and existing
conditions (e.g. water quality, natural sedimenta-
tion rates) is required to provide a measure of the
pre-project conditions at impact and control sites.
Monitoring against the EMP baseline is then used
to identify any change as the project progress-
es, and to provide post-project confirmation that
agreed impact criteria (e.g. for coral reefs) were not
exceeded. In order to address management needs,
monitoring should be able to identify and respond
to short-, medium- and long-term effects.
While the EMP baseline should incorporate the EIA
baseline survey data, recent (previous 1-3 months)
baseline survey data are essential to capture any
external (natural or human) impacts (especially rel-
evant for corals) in the period subsequent to the
EIA baseline surveys. The EMP baseline should in-
corporate sufficient data to establish the seasonal
and statistical variability in the natural conditions.
9.1.1. Indicators
Selection of an appropriate monitoring method
should consider, as a minimum:
• Feasibility and applicability of proven methods
• Cost-benefit analysis
• Whether to monitor environmental receptors
(i.e. coral) directly or indirectly (e.g. via water
quality or other indicator organisms)
9.1.2. Common Baseline Survey
Components with respect to Corals
Light Attenuation/Turbidity Monitoring
There are currently many different methods by which
suspended sediment, turbidity and light attenua-
tion measurements can be carried out (Table 9.4).
53
Table 9.1: Key components and timing of Environmental Management Plan activities

54 PIANC Report 108

 Table 9.2: Comparison of Dredging Operation Plan and Environmental Management Plan

Table 9.3: Predicted level of impact and suggested level of management

PIANC Report 108 55

Table 9.4: Different units and methods used to measure turbidity, suspended
sediment and sedimentation

56 PIANC Report 108


Key Coral Monitoring Components
• Turbidity and/or light attenuation
• Sedimentation
• Coral Health (e.g. live hard coral cover,
growth rate, photosynthetic efficiency)
• Water Quality (dissolved oxygen,
temperature, nutrients, etc.)
Sedimentation rates are usually measured using
sediment traps (Figure 9.2), which vary greatly in
construction and dimensions from study to study.
As a result, few sedimentation studies are quan-
titatively comparable. Importantly, in high-energy
environments (e.g. coral reefs), sediment traps
only measure initial settlement of suspended sedi-
ments, rather than net accumulation of sediments
in a particular place over time (because initial set-
tled sediment may subsequently be partially or fully
re-suspended).

• Met-ocean (currents, waves)

Due to recent technological advances, surveys of

suspended sediments may be carried out using
both optical (Figure 9.1) and acoustic measure-
ments. This allows results to be obtained ‘in situ’,
via a turbidity surrogate. However there are con-
siderable limitations to the reliability of results. Fre-
quent calibration is required using suspended sedi-
ment samples from the area being measured.

Turbidity is commonly used as a proxy to light at-

tenuation, although such comparisons are subject
to uncertainty relating to, amongst other factors,
particle size distribution and water depth. Light at-
tenuation can also be measured directly.

Light measurements are required both at the sur-

face and near the seabed for effective data cap-
ture, which makes such monitoring more complex
than measurements of turbidity.

Sedimentation Monitoring
It has long been recognised that sedimentation
plays a key role in the distribution of coral com-
munities and coral reefs. Sedimentation rate de-
pends on the physical structure of the suspended
particles (especially settling velocity and floccula-
tion tendency), the physical properties of seawater
(especially salinity, which affects the flocculation
tendency) and the hydrodynamics of the area (e.g.
current and wave-induced turbulence). Note that it
is often assumed that high turbidity is directly re-
lated to sedimentation, which is not necessarily the
case.
Figure 9.1: Optical backscatter turbidity
sensor in steel cage mounted
above reef slope
For example, low sedimentation rates are possible
in very turbid areas where coastal currents or wave
action keep the suspended matter in suspension.
Thus, while the corals are being influenced by low
light levels and perhaps physical abrasion, the sed-
imentation data (derived from sediment traps) may
well indicate higher sedimentation stress than is
actually occurring at the site.

PIANC Report 108 57


Figure 9.2: Sedimentation monitoring station
Coral Health Monitoring
A wide range of bio-indicators have been used to
monitor coral health around the world. They can
generally be divided into those that directly mea-
sure the health of corals (Table 9.5) and those that
measure the health of other components of the cor-
al reef (Table 9.6).
The choice of indicators is site-dependent. The
key issue is that the variables chosen should re-
flect those indicators which respond rapidly and in
a quantifiable manner, to the types of stress that
may result from the dredging and port construction
impacts. Best practice monitoring of reef habitats in
relation to the management of marine construction
works should include the assessment of at least,
live hard coral cover plus two other coral bio-indi-
cators (Table 9.5) and at least one non-coral bio-
indicator (Table 9.6).
Other Baseline Survey Components
Although turbidity, sedimentation and coral health
are the three key parameters, it is important to also
58
consider (as relevant from case to case) the follow-
ing issues, particularly in relation to port construc-
tion where long-term changes in physical process-
es may occur:
• Current and wave conditions
• Morphology (seabed levels)
• Other water quality parameters (such as tem-
perature and nutrients, if changes in flow pat-
terns are expected)
• Associated ecosystems (e.g. seagrass and
mangroves)
9.1.3. Layout of Monitoring Stations
The selection of the number and positioning of
monitoring stations should consider the following:
• Predicted impact area (monitoring shall include
stations in impact areas representative of the
range of anticipated impacts plus control areas
outside the impact area)
• Type of environment (monitoring shall include
stations representative of the range of coral reef
quality/characteristics in the potential impact
area)
• Parallel sources of impact (e.g. other projects in
the vicinity, river or terrestrial run-off, etc.)
• Transmission possibilities for on-line stations
• Safety and accessibility
• Required statistical significance
It is noted that it is best practice to monitor baseline
conditions over a wider area (more stations) than
may be required (initially) for the regular monitoring
of the works. This ensures baseline data is avail-
able to allow extension of the EMP if required as
a result of changes to the project or as a result of
unexpected impacts.
Where possible, it is important to select appropri-
ate reference sites, so that external impacts (either
natural, such as cyclones or bleaching events, or
human, such as other projects, industrial discharg-
es, etc.) can be distinguished and separated from
project-related impacts.
PIANC Report 108
 Table 9.5: Examples of Coral Bio-Indicators used to Monitor Coral Health

PIANC Report 108 59

Table 9.6: Examples of Non-Coral Bio-Indicators used to Monitor Coral Health

60 PIANC Report 108

This provides vital protection for the developer (and the problems of a static monitoring approach to en-
the contractor) in the event of major impacts that vironmental management.
may be incorrectly attributed to the project, which
can result in significant legal, financial or reputation-
al consequences. In the case of coral reefs, for the
comparison to be valid, the reference sites need to
be outside the reach of the impacting process while
still as close as possible and they must resemble
the impact area with respect to water depth, coral
cover and composition, water currents, turbidity,
waves and possibly other aspects.

It is important to appreciate that monitoring of coral

reef health, turbidity, sedimentation and other en-
vironmental indicators can never cover all poten-
tial receptors and thus cannot provide a complete
temporal and spatial picture of the impacts result-
ing from the works. If the plume does not cross a
turbidity sensor it is not captured. Consequently,
best practice dictates that, although fixed monitor-
ing is required for defining the baseline, it shall only
be considered one component of a wider adaptive Figure 9.3: The adaptive management process
monitoring and management programme.

9.2. Adaptive Management Strategies Adaptive Management

Historically, marine construction works have been • Ensures monitoring is targeted at the
managed in a static manner based upon single trig- environmental receptors
ger values. Statements like “the concentration shall
not exceed 10 mg/l” have been, and in some areas • Provides tiered responses to relevant
still are, common where developers appreciate a trigger values
need to place environmental limits, but do not have
the required knowledge, or more importantly do not • Is encountered in two forms, reactive
appreciate the benefit of an adaptive management and proactive:
strategy.
o Proactive or Feedback
Taking a static monitoring limit for TSS of 10 mg/l management is recommended as
as an example raises two key questions: the best practice approach to
managing and minimising
• Where is the 10 mg/l measured? If the plume impacts from dredging and port
does not cross the coral reef then it is of no con- construction on corals
sequence to the corals?
• If the 10 mg/l is exceeded what is the response?
And with what justification? What is the response Reactive Management
of the coral reef to the loading – is it a sub-lethal Monitoring programmes that rely heavily on coral
stress from which the coral may recover, or will health indicators tend to be reactive, with the tiered
it result in mortality? response based on measured impact on the coral
reef. Although adaptive (in the context of provid-
To address the limitations of static monitoring, ing a tiered response), the reactive nature of the
adaptive management strategies (Figure 9.3) have management leads to potential problems in terms
been developed specifically aimed at addressing of coral reef management:

PIANC Report 108 61

• The intervals for coral monitoring (normally
months but at best weeks) allow for impacts
to occur that exceed the agreed level between
monitoring campaigns, as impacts on coral
health can develop in the space of days
• Being applicable only where the acceptable loss
> 0 % (and greater than the uncertainty in the
measurements which is typically much greater
than 0 %)
• Inability to segregate impacts from various com-
ponents of the works, such that the tiered re-
sponse may be inappropriate
• Uncertain ability to provide timely management
response
Proactive or Feedback Management
Appreciating the limitations of reactive manage-
ment , there has been a move since the mid-1990’s
in Europe and mid-2000’s in Asia towards a fully
proactive approach to environmental management
of marine construction in sensitive environments,
based on feedback principles. The primary differ-
ence between proactive and reactive management
are:
• Spill budget control is used to form a first lev-
el control of potential impacts. This provides
a means to segregate and thus manage indi-
vidual components of the work thereby avoiding
over response, whilst ensuring that the tiered
response targets those activities causing the
most impact
• Results from online instrumentation (at coral
reef receptors) are used as indirect indicators of
potential coral health impacts based upon toler-
ance limits, which are updated as coral health
monitoring data are collected as the works prog-
ress (the so-called feedback loop)
• Predictive (numerical) models are used exten-
sively to hindcast the location of the plumes
from the construction operations, thereby pro-
viding a complete temporal and spatial picture
of potential impacts, filling in the gaps between
monitoring stations (both instrumentation and
coral health) and allowing clear segregation of
the impacts arising from component activities.
Once again, impacts are based upon tolerance
limits, which are updated as coral health moni-
toring data are collected as the works progress.
9.3. Tiered Response
A key component of effective environmental man-
62
agement of marine works in the proximity of sensi-
tive habitats is providing a link between the EMP
and DOP in a format that the contractors can imple-
ment, control and monitor. The DOP should also
provide a tiered response in a manner that ensures
that the environmental targets are met, but without
overreacting. In particular, it is important that the
response is targeted at those aspects of the con-
struction that cause the impact rather than a gen-
eral response across all aspects of the work. Such
targeted response is most effectively managed
through the use of feedback EMP.
The strategies that can be adopted in tiered re-
sponse follow the mitigating measures described in
Chapter 8.
The tiered response would typically follow a pro-
gression, such as:
• Address issues not directly affecting production
(e.g. sedimentation cell control strategies). For
larger projects with greater flexibility this may
include relocating discharge locations
• Introduce production limitations (e.g. 10 % re-
duction) at specific locations under particular
hydrodynamic (normally tidal flow direction)
conditions
• Introduce production restrictions (e.g. no pro-
duction) at specific locations under particular
hydrodynamic (normally tidal flow direction)
conditions, or limitations for longer periods
• Require a change in work method (e.g. change in
equipment, change in schedule of construction)
It should be remembered that any tiered response
that affects production will have cost implications
to the contractor and/or consequences to the time
schedule of the project. It is essential that the nec-
essary provisions for such tiered response are in-
cluded in the construction contract. It goes without
saying that the project developer must also be com-
mitted to the economic and time schedule conse-
quences.
9.4. Components of Feedback Monitoring
and Management Plan
The key components of the feedback monitoring
and management plan are:
• Control Monitoring
• Habitat Monitoring
PIANC Report 108
• Spill Budget
• Spill Hindcast Modelling
• Compliance Monitoring and Reporting
These are described in more detail in the following
sections.
9.4.1. Control Monitoring
Control monitoring normally refers to monitoring of
physical and chemical parameters, such as:
• Turbidity
• Currents
• Water quality
Best practice would indicate that such measure-
ments should provide real-time information via te-
lemetry, in order to provide an initial level of envi-
ronmental control.
As the measurements are indirect (in relation to
coral reef response) care must be taken in terms of
setting trigger values for control monitoring param-
eters. These should include:
• Statistical analysis of baseline data to establish
a description of ‘no change’ at a certain confi-
dence level
• Assessment of tolerance limits for the environ-
mental receptor, which may be updated via the
feedback loop to be added to the ‘no change’
limit
• Use of control stations outside the potential im-
pact area to establish non-project related varia-
tions in background conditions
Care should be taken in not overreacting to ex-
ceedance of compliance monitoring trigger values
as these represent not only an indirect measure-
ment of coral reef impact, but also reflect only a lim-
ited number of locations subjected to both project
and non project-related forcing. A typical response
structure to exceedance of control trigger values
would be:
• Ascertain whether the exceedance is related to
equipment malfunction (e.g. bio-fouling) or is a
‘real’ event
• Ascertain whether the exceedance is project-
related or a result of external factors (typically
via compliance monitoring and hindcast model-
ling)
PIANC Report 108
Real-time control monitoring forms an important
component of the feedback monitoring plan, as it
provides a method to respond within 1-2 days (if
the nature of the exceedance is confirmed to war-
rant an immediate response).
Recently the use of satellite imagery (e.g. Figure
9.4) has become possible as a control mechanism
for larger projects, where there is risk of significant
plume excursion from dredging and material relo-
cation. This technique is reasonably cost effective
for larger impact areas and the results accessible
for non-specialists.
Constraints such as resolution, weather, response
time, cost and the fact that satellite images reflect
surface conditions and not the bottom-layer im-
pact, presently limit the use of remote sensing to a
supporting, but nevertheless important monitoring
role.
9.4.2. Habitat Monitoring and
the Feedback Loop
Habitat monitoring refers to the repeated monitor-
ing of marine habitats during the works. The applied
indicators normally reflect the components of the
baseline survey and often with a reduced number
of stations, although the number of stations may be
increased during the works.
The frequency of habitat monitoring depends on:
• Predicted impacts levels (temporal and spatial)
• Accessibility (e.g. tide and wave limitations)
• Time scale for response (for corals this could be
somewhere around 14 days)
• Balance between obtaining monitoring informa-
tion and risk of physical damage to the reef as a
result of the monitoring.
For larger projects or those reactive EMP’s reliant
on coral monitoring, coral reef habitat monitoring
should be sequenced so that some habitat informa-
tion is received from the impact area on a fortnightly
basis, whilst the time scale for all monitoring sta-
tions to be repeated may be in the order of months
(preferably not more than 3 months). Where spe-
cific impacts are expected during particular periods
of construction activity, or during sensitive sea-
sons, the frequency of habitat monitoring may be
increased.
63
 Figure 9.4: Use of satellite imagery to monitor sediment plumes during dredging
at Hay Point, Queensland, Australia.
Left: Baseline; middle: Unprocessed satellite image; right: Processed satellite
image quantifying turbidity. (Photos: © Commonwealth of Australia)

As well as providing a direct control against envi-
ronmental targets, the habitat monitoring provides
key information for the feedback loop where spill
budgets and DOP control mechanisms are updat-
ed.
To allow such feedback, analysis of habitat re-
sponse must include data on turbidity and sedimen-
tation at the monitoring site and information on the
contribution to turbidity and sedimentation arising
from the works via hindcast modelling. This allows
tolerance limits to be refined and thus the DOP to
be updated as the works progress. Without such
supporting information, the habitat monitoring can
only be used in a reactive manner and the benefit
of the EMP to the project (and future projects) is
greatly reduced.
9.4.3. Spill Budget
A key component of Feedback EMP is the concept
of spill budget. The spill budget is the maximum
amount of spill that can be released into the envi-
ronment while still ensuring that the environmental
objectives (in terms of coral health) will be met.
Typically, the spill budget is defined via sediment
plume forecast modelling. It is updated on a regu-
lar basis as works progress (e.g. due to shifts in
operating area, protection afforded by earlier com-
ponents of the construction, or changes in material
characteristics). The spill budget should distinguish
between the various key components of the works
(e.g. dredging and material placement) and loca-
tions, so that the tiered response strategies can be
targeted at the relevant activities.
Spill Budget
• Maximum amount of spill for a given
project (or stage of a project) that en-
sures that the environmental objectives
(in terms of coral health) will be met
• Determined by sediment plume model-
ling, updated regularly based on actual
works completed and monitoring re-
sults
• Highly flexible management approach,
allows segregation of impacts from dif-
ferent components of the work, from
adjacent projects and from natural
events

64 PIANC Report 108

 9.4.4. Spill Hindcast Modelling
Direct monitoring of all environmental receptors
(coral reefs in the present context) is never practi-
cal. At best, only a small fraction of coral reef in the
potential impact area can be monitored and then
only on an infrequent basis. It is thus possible for
impacts to be missed or for impacts to develop be-
tween surveys.
For coral reef environments the use of spill hind-
cast modelling (Figure 9.5) is a critical component
of feedback EMP, providing the necessary temporal
and spatial information required to manage the cor-
al reef environment as a whole, rather than those
isolated stations where monitoring is undertaken.
Best practice spill hindcast modelling will address
all project sources of spill both within and outside
the work area. It will be executed daily, reflecting
the specifics of the daily production and hydraulic
(tide and wave) conditions and will include regular
updating of bathymetry (and thus hydraulic condi-
tions) through the course of the works. As the EMP
includes control monitoring (turbidity and currents)
and compliance (spill) monitoring, daily validation
of the spill hindcast model allows continuous refine-
ment through the course of the EMP.
Figure 9.5: Example of hindcast model output
PIANC Report 108
Key to the application of the spill hindcast results
is the tolerance limits of the coral reefs to the tur-
bidity (often expressed as light attenuation at the
bed) and sedimentation predicted by the hindcast
models. This shall be continuously refined through
the course of the EMP, based upon the results of
the habitat monitoring compared to the model pre-
dicted turbidity and sedimentation.
9.4.5. Compliance Monitoring and Reporting
Compliance monitoring and reporting confirms that
the contractor is complying with the environmental
requirements of the DOP.
In the context of feedback management, compli-
ance monitoring refers to spill budget control, which
may be across multiple time scales to reflect the
different temporal scales in the sensitivities of the
coral reef receptors.
Depending on the nature of the activity, spill budget
control may be undertaken either by direct mea-
surement of spill at the source (e.g. in the over-
flow of a TSHD), measurements in the receiving
waters (where best practice would dictate the use
of acoustic backscatter to measure sediment flux),
and/or via empirical methods (based on sediment
flux measurements) which relate production to spill,
considering prevailing material properties, water
depth and hydrodynamic conditions.
In practice, a combination of all three methods is
required for all but the simplest projects that involve
only one or two dredgers and where effective 24
hour monitoring of sediment flux from the work area
may be possible.
For effective environmental management, the re-
porting (and response) time for compliance moni-
toring should be as short as possible, with a best
practice target of less than 48 hours for complex
projects.
A case study showing the application of the Feed-
back EMP approach in Singapore is presented on
the next page.
65
 9.5. Post-Project Monitoring
Post-project monitoring is an essential component
of any EMP to ensure that the predictions made at
the EIA stage were accurate, that the EMP was ef-
fective and to provide an avenue for improvement
of the environmental performance of future projects.
The key activities undertaken as part of post project
monitoring are described in Table 9.7.
9.6. Management Responsibilities
An effective EMP requires a clear allocation of man-
agement responsibilities. In particular, there should
be transparency in the EMP via appointment of an
independent consultant responsible for the execu-
tion of the EMP. The EMP consultant’s responsi-
bilities relate to the monitoring and management
of the environment and reporting the contractor’s
compliance with the environmental components of
the DOP.
The dredging contractor is responsible for execu-
tion of the construction works. In relation to the
environment the contractors responsibilities are
set out in the DOP and refer to operational criteria
under the control of the contractor such as compli-
ance with spill budget and tiered response actions
in the event that impact targets are exceeded.
The project developer forms the interface between
the EMP consultant and the contractor, as the con-
tractor’s environmental responsibilities (as speci-
fied in the DOP) are covered by the construction
contract. The project developer is also overall re-
sponsible towards the authorities for compliance
with the environmental criteria set out in the project
environmental approvals.
EMP response is normally managed via an Envi-
ronmental Management Committee. Typically , a
working EMC, comprising the project developer,
contractor and EMP consultant is constituted to
deal with the day to day EMP compliance and
response, whilst a wider EMC, comprising the
EMC core members, relevant agencies and other
stakeholders, may meet in response to significant
66
non-compliance events, in the event of external
impacts, or in response to stakeholder require-
ments.
9.7. Data, Information and Publication
EMPs generate a substantial amount of data and
knowledge, which can form a reliable basis for im-
proving the environmental performance of future
projects.
For coral reefs, where little is presently known about
tolerances, response and recovery, it is important
that the data and knowledge from EMPs in coral
reef areas is disseminated in a manner that can
benefit coral reef management. This can include:
• Provision of coral monitoring data to national
data bases (standardisation of variables and
format are important)
• Scientific publication of tolerances, response
and recovery data
Unfortunately, to date, most EMP data in coral reef
areas remain confidential. In the long term, such
data protection policies will only serve to increase
the gap between project developers and stake-
holders in coral reef areas, whilst proactive dis-
semination of information can demonstrate that,
given effective environmental management of the
works, it is possible to undertake marine construc-
tion in the proximity of coral reefs within appropri-
ate (and, where required, strict) environmental
targets.
PIANC Report 108
 Case Study: Feedback Monitoring and Management in Singapore
Due to the confined nature of Singapore wa-
ters and presence of a large number of patch
reefs, dredging and port construction activities
often take place in close proximity to coral reefs.
Recognising the value of these marine habitats,
Singapore has established strict Environmental
Quality Objectives (EQO) for marine construc-
tion activities. In order to document compliance
with these EQO’s, proactive Feedback EMPs
are required for marine construction activities in
close proximity to key environmental receptors.
The feedback mechanism allows for updating of
the spill budget limits, response limits and toler-
ance limits, based on the results of control moni-
toring and habitat monitoring. To ensure the ac-
curacy of the entire system, the performance is
confirmed on a daily basis via compliance moni-
toring of sediment spill.
The Feedback EMP approach adopted in Sin-
gapore is summarised in Figure 9.6. The re-
sponsiveness of the system allows unexpected
impacts to be mitigated prior to them becoming
a serious threat to the environment. Importantly,
the level of documentation provided ensures
Figure 9.6: Feedback EMP approach adopted in Singapore
PIANC Report 108 67
that developers and contractors are not exposed
to unwarranted claims concerning environmen-
tal degradation as the Feedback EMP approach
allows full segregation of project impacts from
other third party disturbances.
The performance of the Feedback EMP in terms
of meeting EQOs has been verified by habitat
monitoring, which are also used to confirm ad-
opted tolerance limits for corals.
The Feedback EMP approach has been success-
fully adopted for the environmental management
of dredging and port construction projects in oth-
er parts of SE Asia including Bintulu and Kota
Kinabalu, Malaysia and previously mentioned
Bali Turtle Island, Indonesia. The Feedback ap-
proach has also been successfully applied in Eu-
rope, including for the Øresund Link construction
and the Fehmarn Belt (bridge linking Denmark
and Germany) construction, which is currently
underway. The Feedback EMP techniques are
thus becoming accepted internationally as best
practice methodologies, particularly for dredging
and port construction near coral reefs.
 Table 9.7: Key activities to be undertaken after substantial completion of work
10. KEY REFERENCES
ABP Research – “Good Practice Guidelines for
Ports and Harbours Operating within or near UK
European Marine Sites” (1999), English Nature, UK
Marine SACs Project, 120pp.
Achituv, Y. and Dubinsky, Z. (1990): “Evolution and
zoogeography of coral reefs”, Chapter 1 in Dubin-
sky, Z. (Ed.): “Ecosystems of the World”, 25. Elsevi-
er, Amsterdam, pp. 1-19.
Adam, M.S., Anderson, R.C. and Shakeel, H.
(1997): “Commercial exploitation of reef resources:
examples of sustainable and non-sustainable utili-
68
sation from the Maldives”, in “Proceedings of the
8th International Coral Reef Symposium”, Lessios,
H.A. and McIntyre, I.G., Balboa, Panama, Smithso-
nian Tropical Research Institute. 2: 2010-2020.
Akakura, Y., Hanashiro, S., Urabe, S., Maehara, H.,
Ono, M., Mizoguchi, T. and Yamamoto, H. (2006):
“Various Contrivances for Restoration of Coral As-
semblages in Harbor Development Projects: A Re-
port”, in “Proc. 10th Int. Coral Reef Symp. Naha”,
pp 1651-1656.
Babcock, R. and Davies, P. (1991): “Effects of sedi-
mentation on settlement of Acropora millepora”, in
“Coral Reefs” 9(4):205-208.
PIANC Report 108
Bak, R.P.M. and Elgershuizen, J.H.B.W. (1976):
“Patterns of oil sediment rejection in corals”, in “Ma-
rine Biology”, 37: 715-730.
Bak, R.P.M. (1978): “Lethal and sub-lethal effects
of dredging on reef corals”, in “Marine Pollution Bul-
letin”, 9: 14-16.
Barnes, R.D. (1987): “Invertebrate Zoology”, 5th
Edition, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
College Publishers, pp. 92-96, 127-134, 149-162.
Bell, P.R.F. (1990): “Impact of wastewater discharg-
es from tourist resorts on eutrophication in coral
reef regions and recommended methods of treat-
ment”, in “Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on
Coastal and Marine Tourism”.
Bogers, P. And Gardner, J. (2004): “Dredging near
live coral”, paper presented at the 17th World
Dredging Congress, 27 September – 1 October
2004, Hamburg, Germany, WODCON XVII 2004,
Paper A3-1, 16 pp.
Burke, L. and Maidens, J. (2004): “Reefs at Risk in
the Caribbean”, World Resources Institute, Wash-
ington DC, 80 pp.
Cesar, H., Burke, L. and Pet-Soede, L. (2003): “The
Economics of Worldwide Coral Reef Degrada-
tion”, Cesar Environmental Economics Consulting,
ICRAN/WWF, 23 pp.
Côté, I.M. and Reynolds, J.D. (2006): “Coral Reef
Conservation”, in “Conservation Biology 13”, Cam-
bridge University Press, New York.
Doorn-Groen, S.M. and Foster, T.M. (2007): “Envi-
ronmental Monitoring and Management of Recla-
mation Works close to Sensitive Habitats”, in “Terra
et Aqua” 108:3-18.
Elliot, M. and Hemingway, K.L. (2002): “Fishes in
Estuaries”, Blackwell Publications, Oxford, 626 pp.
English, S., Wilkinson, C. and Baker, V. (1997):
“Survey manual for tropical marine resources”,
2nd Edition, Australian Institute of Marine Science,
Townsville.
Erftemeijer, P.L.A. and Lewis III, R.R. (2006): “En-
vironmental Impacts of Dredging on Seagrasses:
PIANC Report 108
A Review”, in “Marine Pollution Bulletin” 52: 1553-
1572.
Erftemeijer, P.L.A. and Riegl, B.M. (2009): “Environ-
mental Impacts of Dredging on Corals – A Review”,
in “Marine Pollution Bulletin” (submitted).
Fabricus, K.E., Wild, C., Wolanski, E. and Abele,
D. (2003): “Effects of transparent exopolymer par-
ticles (TEP) and muddy terrigenous sediments on
the survival of hard coral recruits”, in “Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science” 57: 613–621.
GBRMPA (2004): “Environmental Impact Manage-
ment Policy”, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Au-
thority, Townsville, Australia.
Gilmour, J. (1999): “Experimental investigation into
the effects of suspended sediment on fertilisation,
larval survival and settlement in a scleractinian cor-
al”, in “Marine Biology” 135(3): 451-456.
Gilmour, J.P., Cooper, T.F., Fabricus, K.E. and
Smith, L.D. (2006): “Early warning indicators of
change in the conditions of corals and coral com-
munities in response to key anthropogenic stres-
sors in the Pilbara, Western Australia”, Australian
Institute of Marine Science.
Hodgson, G. (1990): “Sediment and the settlement
of larvae of the reef coral Pocillopora damicornis”,
in “Coral Reefs” 9(1):41-43.
Hoitink, A.J.F. (2003): “Physics of coral reef systems
in a shallow tidal embayment”, PhD thesis, Utrecht
University, Netherlands Geographical Studies 313,
Royal Dutch Geographical Society, Utrecht, 142
pp.
Jaap, W.C. and Hallock, P. (1990): “Coral reefs”, in:
Phillips, N.W. and Larson, K.S. (Eds.): “Synthesis
of available biological, geological, chemical, socio-
economic and cultural resource information for the
South Florida area”, Continental Shelf Associates,
Jupiter, Florida, pp. 97-116.
James, N.P. (1983): “Reefs”, in Scholle P.A., Be-
bout D.G., and Moore C.H. (eds.): “Carbonate
Depositional Environments”, American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 33.
69
Koh, T. and Lin, J. (2006): “Land reclamation case:
Thoughts and reflections”, in “Singapore Year Book
of International Law and Contributors”, 10 SYBIL
1-7.
Larcombe, P., Costen, A. and Woolfe, K.J. (2001):
“The hydrodynamic and sedimentary setting of
nearshore coral reefs, central Great Barrier Reef
shelf, Australia: Paluma Shoals, a case study”, in
“Sedimentology” 48(4):811-835.
Larkin, S. and Degner, R. (2001): “The US Whole-
sale Market for Marine Ornamentals”, in “Aquarium
Sciences and Conservation”, 2(103), 13-24.).
Maekouchi, N., Ano, T., Oogi, M., Tsuda, S., Kurita,
K., Ikeda, Y. and Yamamoto, H. (2008): “The Eco-
Block as a coral-friendly contrivance in port con-
struction”, in “Proc. 11th Int. Coral Reef Symp., Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida”, in prep.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005): “Eco-
systems and Human Well-being: Synthesis”, Island
Press, Washington DC. 137 pp.
Miller, R.L. and Cruise, J.F. (1995): “Effects of sus-
pended sediments on coral growth: evidence from
remote sensing and hydrologic modelling”, in “Re-
mote Sensing of Environment” 53:177-187.
Ministry of the Environment Japan (2004): “Manual
for Restoration and Remediation of Coral Reefs”,
84 pp.
Miyake, K. and Hanashiro, S. (2006): “Coral-
friendly Development of Port Structures in the Oki-
nawa Region”, in “On Course” (PIANC Magazine)
1(124):21-28.
Miyake, K., Kai, H., Miyazato, T., Kuniyoshi, K., Ya-
mamoto, H., Tamura, K. and Iwamura, S. (2006):
“Evaluation of Unevenly-surfaced Block to Facili-
tate Coral Settlement and Growth”, in “Coastal En-
gineering in Japan” 53:1106-1110 (in Japanese).
Moberg, F. and Folke, C. (1999): “Ecological Goods
and Services of Coral Reef Ecosystems”, in “Eco-
logical Economics”, Vol. 29, Issue 2, pp 215-233.
Nakaizumi, M., Gahara, H., Tamura, K., Kamisato,
M., Ikeda, A. and Miyasato, S. (2004): “Eco-friendly
Technologies for Fishing Park Facilities Improve-
70
ment in Okinawa Regarding to Coral and Man-
grove”, in “Annual Journal of Civil Engineering in
the Ocean” 20:437-442 (in Japanese).
Nellemann, C. and Corcoran, E. (eds.) (2006): “Our
Precious Coasts: Marine Pollution, Climate Change
and Resilience of Coastal Ecosystems”, UNEP/
GRID-Arendal, Norway.
Okinawa General Bureau Cabinet Office (2004):
“Promoting Environmental Restoration of the Sea,
The Coexistence of Port Construction and Coral
Reefs” (pamphlet).
Okubo, N. (2004): “Restoration technology using
asexual reproduction, Transplantation of coral frag-
ments”, in Omori, M. and Fujiwara, S. (eds): “Man-
ual for restoration and remediation of coral reefs”,
Ministry of the Environment, Japan, 82pp.
Ooka, S., Hanashiro, S., Gushi, R., Urabe, S.,
Hayashi, N., Takahashi, Y. and Yamamoto, H.
(2006): “Growth of Coral Assemblages on Artificial
Structures and Surrounding Natural Substrates”, in
“Proc. 10th Int. Coral Reef Symp.”, Naha, Japan,
pp 91-98.
Paipai, E. (1999): “Guidelines for Port Environmen-
tal Management”, HR Wallingford Report SR 554,
134 pp.
Pastorok, R.A. and Bilyard, G.R. (1985): “Effects
of sewage pollution on coral-reef communities”, in
“Marine Ecology Progress Series” 21:175-189.
Paulay, G. (1997): “Diversity and Distribution of
Reef Organisms”, in Birkeland, C. (ed.): “Life and
Death of Coral Reefs”, Chapman and Hall, New
York, USA, pp 289-353.
PIANC (2008): “Working with Nature”, PIANC Envi-
Com Position Paper.
PIANC (2009): “Dredging Management Practices
for the Environment - a structured selection ap-
proach”, PIANC EnviCom, Report 100.
Ports and Harbors Bureau Ministry of Land, Infra-
structure and Transport (ed.) (2003): “Handbook of
Coastal Restoration, vol. 4, Coral Reefs”, Gyousei,
Tokyo, Japan, 103 pp (in Japanese).
PIANC Report 108
Rachello-Dolmen, P.G. and Cleary, D.F.R. (2007):
“Relating Coral Species Traits to Environmental
Conditions in the Jakarta Bay/Pulau Seribu Reef
System, Indonesia”, in “Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science” 73: 816-826.
Raychaudhuri, B. (1980): “The moon and net: study
of a transient community of fishermen at Jambud-
wip”, in “Anthropological Survey of India”, Calcutta,
India (274).
Rice, S.A. and Hunter, C.L. (1992): “Effects of Sus-
pended Sediment and Burial on Scleractinian Cor-
als from West Central Florida Patch Reefs”, in “Bul-
letin of Marine Science” 51(3):429-442.
Rogers, C.S. (1990): “Responses of Coral Reefs
and Reef Organisms to Sedimentation”, in “Marine
Ecology Progress Series” 62:185-202.
Roy, K.J. and Smith, S.V. (1971): “Sedimentation
and coral reef development in turbid water: Fan-
ning lagoon”, in “Pacific Science” 25:234-248.
Salvat, B. and Aubanel, A. (2002): “Coral Reefs
Management in French Polynesia”, in “Revue D
Ecologie-la Terre Et La Vie”.
Schlapak, B.R. and Herbich, J.B. (1978): “Charac-
teristics of coral and coral dredging”, TAMU-SG-78-
207 CDS Report #213.
Smith, A. (2008): “OPINION – Impact assessment
in the marine environment – the most challenging
of all”, presented at IAIA-08 (International Associa-
tion for Impact Assessment), Perth, Australia.
Smith, A., Marshall, P., Christie, C. and Storrie, J.
(2002): “Environmental Management of a Shipping
Accident in the World’s Largest Marine Park”, in
“Australian Journal of Environmental Management”
9(2): 74-76.
Smith, A., Foster, T., Corcoran, E. and Monkivitch,
J. (2007): “Dredging and Material Relocation in
Sensitive Coral Environments”, paper presented at
the WODCON XVIII World Dredging Congress, 27
May – 1 June 2007, Florida (USA), 11 pp.
Spalding, M., Ravilious, C. and Green, E.P. (2001):
“World Atlas of Coral Reefs”, UNEP-WCMC, Cam-
bridge, 424 pp.
PIANC Report 108
Spurgeon, J.P.G. (2006): “Reefs in an Economic
Context: Time for a ‘Third Generation’ Economics
Based Approach to Coral Management”, in Cote,
I. and Reynolds, S.J. (Eds): “Coral Reef Conserva-
tion”, Conservation Biology 13, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 568 pp.
Teleki, K. (2003): “Networking for coral reef man-
agement”, UNEP Synergies 7.
Thomas, S., Ridd, P.V. and Day, G. (2003): “Turbid-
ity regimes over fringing coral reefs near a mining
site at Lihir Island, Papua New Guinea”, “Marine
Pollution Bulletin” 46:1006-1014.
Udagawa, K. (1995): “Lobster fishery in Tongatapu,
Tonga management options and their economic im-
pact to the fishery”, Nuku’alofa, Ministry of Fisher-
ies, in “Fisheries Research Bulletin of Tonga”, pp.
47-58.
UNDP (2002): “Human Development Report 2002”,
United Nations Development Programme (292).
UNEP-WCMC (2006): “In the front line: shoreline
protection and other ecosystem services from man-
groves and coral reefs”, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge,
UK 33 pp.
Van der Klis, P.A. and Bogers, P. (2004): “Turbid
views on dredging projects”, paper presented at the
17th World Dredging Congress, 27 September-1
October 2004, Hamburg, Germany, WODCON XVII
2004, Paper A2-2, 11 pp.
Wabnitz, C., Taylor, M., Green, E. and Razak, T.
(2003): “From Ocean to Aquarium”, UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge, UK.
Wang, L., Islam, A., Smith, C., Reddy, S., Lewis,
A. and Smith, A. (2006): “Operational monitoring
of sediment plumes produced by dredging at Hay
Point, Qld using satellite remote sensing”, present-
ed at the 13th Australasian Remote Sensing and
Photogrammetry Conference (ARSPC), National
Convention Centre, Canberra.
Wen, K.C., Hsu, C.M., Chen, K.S., Liao, M.H.,
Chen, C.P. and Chen, C.A. (2007): “Unexpected
Coral Diversity on the Breakwaters: Potential Ref-
uges for Depleting Coral Reefs”, in “Coral Reefs”
26: 127.
71
Wesseling, I., Uychiaoco, A.J., Alino, P.M., Aurin, T.
and Vermaat, J.E. (1999): “Damage and Recovery
of Four Philippine Corals from Short-term Burial”, in
“Marine Ecology Progress Series” 176:11-15.

Whittingham, E., Campbell, J. and Townsley, P.

(2003): “Poverty and Reefs”, DFID-IMM-IOC/
UNESCO, 260 pp.

Yamamoto, H., Sugiura, N. and Maekawa, T. (2002):

“Coral Growth Processes Using Multiple Regres-
sion Analysis and Neural Network Model”, in “Eco-
Engineering” 14(3), 3-11.

72 PIANC Report 108

APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF COLLABORATION, CONSULTATION & REVIEW PROCESS

This report represents a significant and highly ben-

eficial collaboration between UNEP and industry
partners. It was recognised at the outset that the
report is intended to inform a diverse range of user
groups, including government agencies, port au-
thorities and developers, consultants, the conser-
vation sector, dredging related industries, and other
stakeholders active in the marine and coastal sec-
tor.

The Working Group recognised the challenges of

achieving such a broad outcome, whilst keeping
the Working Group a manageable size and built in a
process of stakeholder consultation and an external
review process to ensure this aim was achieved:

Stakeholder Consultation: Working Group mem-

bers utilised existing meetings and symposia to
convene the stakeholders. The sessions enabled
the Working Group to present the work and hold
open discussions to inform the structure and con-
tent to ensure that the final report would reflect the
needs of the different groups. Four main consulta-
tions were held during the early drafting phase:

• Dredging and Port Construction Contractors

(August 2006)
• Coral reef interest groups including managers
and government representatives from coral re-
gions (ITMEMS3, October 2006)
• Civil and Environmental Consultants (January
2007)
• Port Authorities (January 2007)

The format of the consultations varied. However the

intention was to present the draft and to workshop
the structure and format to reflect and balance the
needs of the different groups.

Review Process: On completion of the full draft,

the report was circulated to a selection of external
parties for review. The intention was to identify re-
viewers from tropical and island states, as well as
those with global experience across the intended
target groups. 20 sets of comments were received,
17 from reviewers external to PIANC (see Table
A.1), and three from within PIANC EnviCom.

Table A.1: List of Reviewers and their Affiliations

PIANC Report 108 73

74 PIANC Report 108
PIANC Report 108 75
 Front cover: Top left: coral reef in Manado, Indonesia.
Photo courtesy of Mr. Eugene Goh
Bottom right: Photo shows dredging (dredger work-
ing in the mid-field) outside of an operational port
(complete with a vessel being manoeuvred by tugs
in the foreground, with associated turbidity from
propeller wash) at Townsville, in NE Australia, with
Magnetic Island (with extensive coral reefs) in the
background.
Photo courtesy of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority, © Commonwealth of Australia.

PIANC Secrétariat Général

Boulevard du Roi Albert II 20, B 3
B-1000 Bruxelles
Belgique

http://www.pianc.org
VAT BE 408-287-945

ISBN 978-2-87223-177-5
EAN 9782872231775

978-2-87223-177-5