ME1101Development of Approaches, Tools and Guidelines for

the Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Navigational Dredging in Estuaries and Coastal

Waters

Literature Review of Dredging Activities: Impacts, Monitoring and Mitigation

Contributed by:Chris Vivian

Andrew BirchenoughNeville Burt

Stefan BolamDean Foden

Ruth EdwardsKarema Warr

Daniel BastreriLara Howe

Contents

Introduction and project outline1

Objective 2: Literature review of significant impacts of dredging activity and it’s monitoring 2

1. Dredging, dredger types and associated impacts 22. Release of contaminants during dredging 73. Effects of navigation dredging in water quality: nutrients, dissolved oxygen and re-suspension of bacteria 134. Radionuclides in dredged material 205. The impacts and monitoring of maintenance dredging - related to

turbidity 226. Capital dredging impacts 317. Mathematical models used to assess the impact of dredging activity 34

Objective 3: Literature review of existing mitigation measures and their efficacy in addressing these impacts 39

References 59

Introduction and Project Outline

Navigational dredging is a fundamental and essential activity for most ports and harbours in the UK to maintain navigable depths for vessels. It is vital to social and economic development of a country that is heavily dependant on maritime trade. In the UK 25–50 million tonnes (wet weight) of material are dredged for disposal to licensed sites each year. Navigational dredging can impact both the seabed through disturbance and removal of sediment and the water column through re-suspension of sedimentary material. Areas subject to regular maintenance dredging are likely to have disturbed or impoverished seabed faunas but this would not be the case for areas previously un-dredged or occasionally dredged. The potential environmental impacts of navigational dredging include effects on marine organisms due to increased turbidity in the water column and subsequently effects on benthic organisms when the suspended sediment settles out, biotic effects from the mobilisation of contaminants, organic matter, bacteria/viruses and nutrients from the disturbed or suspended sediment into the dissolved state and potentially associated reductions in dissolved oxygen. In addition, dredging will have seabed morphological effects and may induce changes in sediment transport rates by reducing the stability of seabed sediments and mobilizing sediments via turbidity plumes.

With the advent of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the forthcoming Marine Strategy Framework Directive, as well as the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, it is important we can be in a position to carry out sound assessments of the impacts of dredging and understand the available measures that can be used to mitigate those effects in order to ensure effective integrated management of the marine environment.

A lot of work has been done in assessing dredging impacts, particularly in the US. Therefore the first step was to carry out a literature review of significant impacts of dredging activity and it’s monitoring and of existing mitigation measures and their efficacy in addressing these impacts to assess what R&D issues we need to address before making specific proposals. We later propose to develop approaches, tools and associated best practice guidance so that we can effectively assess the environmental impact of proposals for navigational dredging to contribute to the integrated management of the marine environment.

This review document outlines the current information available on impacts, monitoring and existing mitigation and highlights any gaps in the existing knowledge associated with dredging activities.

1

OBJECTIVE 2: LITERATURE REVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF DREDGING ACTIVITY AND IT’S MONITORING

1. Dredging, dredger types and associated impacts

1.1Introduction Dredging can be described as the process of removing part of the seabed or its overlying sediments with the aim of deepening the area commonly for the purposes of navigation or associated with construction projects.

There are two main types of navigational dredging activities; capital dredging and maintenance dredging.

Capital dredging is the removal of material to create a greater depth than had previously existed. The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) definition of capital dredging is:

‘Material arising from the excavation of the seabed, generally for construction or navigational purposes, in an area or down to a level (relative to Ordnance Datum) not previously dredged during the preceding 10 years.’

Maintenance dredging is required to maintain water depths in areas where sedimentation occurs. It mainly involves the removal of recently deposited unconsolidated sediments, such as mud, sand and gravel. It is undertaken by many operators (ports, berth operators and marinas) to maintain navigable channels and berths. It is generally an ongoing activity that can consist of cycle or a series of repeat dredges. The MMO definition of maintenance dredging is:

‘Material (generally of an unconsolidated nature) arising:

From an area where the level of the seabed to be achieved by the dredging proposed is not lower (relative to Ordnance Datum), than it has been at any time during the preceding 10 years; or

From an area for which there is evidence that dredging has previously been undertaken to that level (or lower) during that period.’

1.2 Dredging methodsDredging used in the marine industry for a variety of navigational purposes ranging from routine maintenance of small marinas and harbours to the creation and deepening of navigation channels and berths at major ports. The choice of dredging plant is largely dependant on environmental conditions such as the hardness and quantity of material to be dredged, site exposure, the method of disposal etc.

Different types of dredging equipment and techniques are employed to achieve the required project outcomes in the most efficient way. There are 3 main dredging methods which are based on the physical processes involved

2

in the excavation and transport of the dredged material, these are described below:

Hydraulic dredgers: use a centrifugal pump and pipe system to raise loosened material in suspension to the surface. There are three main types of hydraulic dredger, suction dredgers (SD), cutter suction dredgers (CSD) and trailer suction hopper dredgers (TSHD). Mechanical dredgers: use of mechanical excavation equipment to loosen the seabed sediment and raise it to the surface. There are three main sub-groups of mechanical dredger, grab dredger (GD), backhoe dredger (BD) and bucket ladder dredger (BLD).

Hydrodynamic dredgers: use the re-suspension of sediments and their transport away from the dredge area by means of natural forces. The term ‘Hydrodynamic dredging’ is often used to group the following dredging techniques, water injection dredgers (WID), forms of agitation dredgers, that use mixing to make a density current and underwater plough dredgers (UPD), which stir or rake sediments into suspension.

The main types of dredgers used for capital and maintenance dredging are briefly described below:

1.3 Dredgers used in capital dredging projectsCapital dredging projects are often large-scale projects which involve the creation or deepening of access channels and/or berths. With capital dredging the full range of materials may be encountered and soft materials, such as clays, sands and silts, but generally the material dredged has been undisturbed for several years and therefore tends to be consolidated such as stiffer clays, boulders and rocks.

Cutter suction dredgers (CSD) are static dredgers usually associated with capital dredging or areas of harder soils, which have to be removed in thick layers (Bray 2008). The cutter suction dredge is usually an accurate method of dredging (Eisma (Ed) 2006), as it is limited to where the head is deployed.

The cutter suction dredge dislodges material with a rotating cutter equipped with cutting teeth. The loosened material is sucked into the suction mouth located in the cutter head by means of centrifugal pump installed on the pontoon or ladder of the dredger. Further transport of the material to the relocation site is achieved by hydraulic transport through a discharge pipeline. Occasionally the material can be pumped into transport barges for further transport (Bray 2008).

Most cutter suction dredgers do not have an optimal combination of cutting capacity and suction capacity for all types of soil, thus contributing to sediment resuspension (Dearnaley et al 1996; Bray 2008). Also a spill layer (0.25 – 1m) remains in general on the seabed after dredging if no special precautions are taken. An additional pass at the same dredging depth can

3

remove this spill layer. The resuspension caused by the cutter suction dredger can, however be reduced by the following considerations: Cutter speed, swing velocity and suction discharge must be optimised with

respect to each other. The continuous improvements in automation, control and the cutter suction head positioning have afforded considerable economic and environmental advantage.

A moveable shield around and above a cutter head or suction head reduces the escape of suspended material into the surrounding water column.

Optimisation of the design of the cutter head with respect to the material being dredged to improve the direction of the material toward the suction intake.

The use of silt curtains (Dearnaley et al 1996).

Backhoe dredgers (BD) are basically pontoon mounted or shore-based excavators or diggers that are used to dredge marine sediments. Sediment is excavated by the crane bucket which is then raised above water by the crane arm. This method of dredging can be highly accurate which may be of benefit when dredging contaminated sediment or in environmentally sensitive areas. The excavated material is then placed in barges or trucks for transport.

Bucket Ladder dredger (BLD) consists of a large pontoon with a central well in which a ladder equipped with an endless chain of buckets, is mounted. During dredging, the endless chain rotates along the ladder. The lowest bucket digs into the bed material and the cut material falls into the bucket. It is then carried upwards as the bucket chain rotates. This type of dredger is used infrequently in dredging projects today.

1.4 Dredgers used in maintenance dredging projectsAs outlined above maintenance dredging mainly involves the removal of recently deposited unconsolidated sediments, such as mud, sand and gravel. The main type of dredger used for maintenance dredging in the UK and Europe is TSHD, estimated to be responsible for in excess of 90% of dredging by volume in Europe (Bates, 2005). Most ports that have to carry out substantial maintenance dredging each year use TSHD, they are mainly used for dredging of unconsolidated sediments of lower strength. Small ports, harbours and marinas tend to use mechanical dredgers such as GD and BD working with barges. These dredgers are used in more confined areas, such as alongside wharfs, because they are smaller than suction dredges. Until recently WID had limited use in the UK but they are being used increasingly to dredge ports and harbours around the UK (Sullivan, 2000).

The main types of dredgers used for maintenance dredging are briefly described below:

Trailing Suction Hopper Dredgers (TSHD) are most commonly used for maintenance dredging in coastal areas. They are normal sea going ships with a large hopper and equipped with single or double trailing suction pipes that end in a draghead. The draghead may incorporate a water jet system, blades or teeth, or other means of dislodging the material. The function of the

4

draghead is to allow the material to flow to the suction inlet as efficiently as possible as the ship moves slowly forward. The material is lifted through the trailing pipes by one or more pumps and discharged into a hopper contained within the hull of the dredger. Horizontal transport is achieved by the ship navigating to the site where the material is to be relocated, the hopper doors are then opened and the sediment descends to the seabed.

Grab dredgers (GD) are relatively simple and involve the collection of sediments in a crane-mounted bucket, the jaws of which are opened and closed to trap the sediment. Depending on the type of material to be dredged different grab bucket designs can be employed, such as mud grabs, sand grabs and heavy digging grabs.

Backhoe dredgers (BD) are described above and can be used for both capital and maintenance dredging projects. BD can result in increased sediment suspension during the raising of the bucket. Spillage can occur throughout the complete height of the water column. This can be limited by reducing the speed of the bucket line. The bucket leaving a clean surface carries the majority of the loosened soil away, however there is a risk of a spill layer remaining if there is excessive spillage whilst the bucket is lifted and the operator must maintain the optimal horizontal position in order to prevent spillage. Water injection dredgers (WID) inject high quantities of water under low pressure into bed sediments to reduce their density to the point that they act as a fluid and flow over the bed naturally through the action of gravity. The distance the water-sediment mixture travels is dependent on a number of factors including the sediment composition, density, morphology and the gradient of the bottom slope (Van Raalte, and Bray, 1999).

Underwater plough dredgers (UPD) also know as bed levellers have a basic design of a large frame or steel bar that is pulled over the bed. The frame has a cutting blade which scrapes the bed cutting the bottom sediment layers, these build up in front of the frame and are moved away from the dredge area.

1.5 Associated impacts Navigation dredging operations have the potential to effect the environment in a number of ways ranging from impacts to habitats and species and effects on physical processes to disturbance to humans and birds from noise. However not all these effects will necessarily cause an impact on the marine ecosystem. Whether an effect actually causes an impact depends on a number of factors such as frequency, duration and magnitude.

The effects of the dredging process can be both direct/indirect and short/long term. Direct impacts of dredging can include direct removal of habitat and species and smothering of benthic habitats, indirect impacts include contaminant release through resuspension of sediments and changes to hydrodynamics and sediments regimes. Impacts can be short term, for example an increase in turbidity due to excavation of sediment or the direct removal of a habitat, or long-term such as changes in flow rate.

5

Details of these impacts can be found in the sections below and also in chapter 6 ‘Machines. Methods and Mitigation’ pages 127-190 in Bray (2008).

The following sections focus on the impacts associated with maintenance dredging however capital dredging can result in the same impacts but can also have additional impacts, therefore these are discussed in section 6.

6

2. Release of Contaminants during Dredging

2.1 Introduction

Releases of contaminants associated with dredging can occur in particulate, dissolved or volatile fractions, each characterised by differing transport and/or exposure pathways (Thibodeaux 2005). Variation exists in the liberation mechanism exhibited for different classes of pollutants. When sediments contaminated with heavy metals are dredged, their interactions with iron chemistry may temporarily prevent the partial dispersion of their dissolved form. In the longer-term post dredging of such sediments, substantial release of heavy metals into the water column is to be anticipated. In the case of organic micropollutants, a substantial amount of dissolved organic bound matter pollutants may enter the water column during dredging ( Goossens and Zwolsman 1996).

The degree of contamination of sediments clearly plays a very important role in determining the significance of any mobilisation of contaminants from those sediments. This applies to all types of contaminants including those mentioned in this and subsequent sections of the review. In this context it should be noted that the Environment Agency’s ‘Clearing the Waters’ guidance for assessing compliance with the Water Framework Directive utilises in its assessment Cefas Action Levels for metals, TBT, halogenated organics and PAHs in sediments.

2.2 Heavy Metals

The majority of metal contaminants partition onto particulate matter such as clay minerals, Fe and Mn oxides/hydroxides, carbonates, organic substances (e.g. humic acids and biological materials (e.g. algae and bacteria) (Calmano et al 1993). Fe and Mn oxides/hydroxides along with organic matter are important binding sites for metals in oxic sediment (Saulnier and Mucci 2000; Li et al 2000; Zoumis et al 2001; Fan et al 2002) and that the formation of metal sulphides dominates in anoxic sediments (Di Toro et al 1990; Zhuang et al 1994; Caetano et al 2002). Metal mobilisation and immobilisation processes in sediment are controlled by characteristics of the physicochemical environment (pH, redox potential (Eh) and salinity), sediment properties (clay content, organic matter content, quantity and type of cations and anions, amount of potentially reactive iron and manganese) and microbial activity. When dredging disturbs the environment, the processes affecting release mechanisms of metals from the sediment are altered. Where anoxic sediment is oxidised, redox conditions change transforming the nature of the heavy metal bonds. This in some instances liberates new chemical forms of these metals and in other cases immobilisation is promoted. In partially oxidised sediments where Eh and pH do not change radically, the release of metals is negligible (Forstner et al 1989; Reible et al 2002). Metal release is multiphasic with one set of processes controlling early resuspension (first few hours) and different processes controlling long term release over the course of weeks

7

Reible et al 2002). Periodical or continuous cycling processes lead to significant fluctuations in the concentrations of sediments (Latimer et al 1999).

2.3 Organic compounds

Organic and organometallic contaminants preferentially partition to organic matter in sediment and dissolved organic matter (DOM) in pore water (Goossens and Zwolsman 1996).Therefore, compounds such as pesticides, PCB’s and PAH’s are most often adsorbed to particles or organic matter, a physical condition often caused by the very low water solubility and weak polarity of the organic compounds. Many such compounds do not occur naturally in aquatic environments and are almost exclusively of anthropogenic origin. Unlike metals, organic compounds undergo relatively slow natural degradation as a result of bacterial activity of chemical phenomena such as hydrolysis or photolysis. Organic compounds may react differently dependent upon environmental conditions, e.g. evidence exists that PAH’s tend to leach more under anaerobic conditions than under aerobic conditions (Brannon et al 1993).

When entering an aquatic system PAH’s distribute between different phases including truly dissolved, colloids, suspended particulate matter, surface sediments and biota. Their distribution between these phases depends on their intrinsic physicochemical properties including solubility, vapour pressure and lipophilicity. King et al (2004) showed that PAH behaviour is highly complex in a marine system, and controlled by the interplay of PAH sources, compound physicochemistry, water and sediment movement and field conditions. They noted that dissolved concentrations of PAH’s increased after periods of dredging and severe rainfall. They concluded that external factors can have a powerful influence on contaminant behaviour and even compounds bound to sediment and theoretically removed from the water column can be remobilised and reassert their influence on marine pollution.

Generally, hydrophobic organic contaminants readily desorb from the sediment, although the rate of desorption tends to decrease with time (Chen et al 1999; Lamoureux and Brownawell 1999; Zhang et al 2000). Desorption rates and times also depend on the size of the sediment particles and in the case of PCB’s, degree of chlorination (Borglin et al 1996). Historically contaminated sediments may also exhibit slow or highly resistant contaminant desorption (Eggleton and Thomas 2004). High molecular weight PAH’s are thought to be associated with larger particle sizes and will therefore have different fate to low molecular weight PAH’s (Latimer et al 1999).Desorption of TBT is highly dependant on both pH and salinity, with highest desorption occurring at low and high pH and intermediate salinities (approx 30%). TBT desorption is lowest in freshwater sediments with pH 7 and increases with influx of saline water (Langstone and Pope 1995). Little or no data are available on the release of organometallic compounds from sediments during resuspension (Eggleton and Thomas 2004).

2.4 Physical processes

8

Fine particles resuspended during the dredging process can remain in the water column for many hours due to their low settling velocities. This material and any associated contaminants can be transported from the dredging area into the surrounding environment due to the effects of currents. Sediment re suspension is also responsible for the release of contaminants into the water column in their dissolved state from pore water and desorption of contaminants from suspended sediment particles. This release is particularly significant given the ready bioavailability of the dissolved contaminant phase (Eggleton and Thomas 2004). The magnitude and temporal extent of the risks depend on a number of factors including duration of the dredging operation, composition of the sediments being dredged (e.g. grain size distribution), contaminants associated with the sediment, current velocities and a range of other physical and chemical factors (Bridges et al 2008).

Other transport mechanisms of contaminants may exist during the dredging process in addition to input to the water column, e.g. release to the air via volatilisation. Floating oils can also be released to the water column during the dredging process e.g. non-aqueous phase liquids.

Understanding of contaminant release is limited with very little empirical data available on the magnitude of contaminant releases and contaminant release mechanisms. Contaminant releases have been estimated from measurements of dissolved and total contaminant concentration from samples collected from a sparse spatial grid with limited frequency (Steuer 2000; Alcoa 2006).

Dissolved contaminants exiting the dredging zone will attempt to establish a concentration in equilibrium with solids or organic carbon in suspension. The mass of these dissolved contaminants in the water column changes slowly due to the time take to reach equilibrium. Contaminant concentrations exhibit great variations in their temporal, vertical and lateral distribution due to variability in the dredging operations and dilution by turbulent diffusion in the water column (Hayes et al 2000).

2.5 Summary of fate and transport processes

In the far field, contaminant fate and transport processes are not unique to dredging operations, the dominant processes are (after Bridges et al 2008): -

Settling of particle-associated contaminants Bed erosion/resuspension, exchange with suspended and bed loads

and deposition/burial Hydrodynamics Partitioning and kinetic rates of adsorption and adsorption/desorption Bioturbation Molecular diffusion Groundwater advection Volatilisation Biogeochemical transformation (e.g. oxidation, complexation,

precipitation, biotic and abiotic transformation, diagenesis etc.)

9

In the near field processes affecting contaminant concentrations are predominately

Erosion Hydrodynamics (advection and turbulent diffusion) Settling (dredging operation dependant due to flocculation and

shearing of aggregates at source) Partitioning (dredging operation dependant due to desorption kinetics

of aggregates)

2.6 Bioavailability of contaminants as a result of dredging activity

Bioavailability with respect to Dredge related bioavailability is mainly site specific and dependant on the degree of contamination, the amount of suspended sediment , the duration of the disturbance and the organism (Su et al 2002) .There are a number of ways that contaminants become available to aquatic organisms; through ingestion with food, through membrane-affiliated transport or through passive diffusion. The rate of uptake and mechanisms for uptake vary among and within species and depend on a number of factors including development stage, sexual condition and history of contaminant exposure.

The degree of contaminant bioavailability is determined by ‘the reactivity of each contaminant with the biological interface, the presence of other chemicals that may antagonise or stipulate uptake, and external factors, such as temperature, that affects the rate of biological or chemical reactions (Louma 1983). Bioavailability is also influenced by the ability of an organism to metabolise contaminants. For example PCB’s tend to be acutely toxic to sediment dwelling organisms, especially when they occur in mixtures with other contaminants (McDonald et al 2000).

Bioavailability and bioaccumulation of contaminants in the aquatic environment is therefore mainly dependant on the partitioning behaviour or binding strength of the contaminant to sediment. Dissolved or weakly adsorbed contaminants are more bioavailable to aquatic biota compared to more structurally complex mineral-bound contaminants (Calmano et al 1993).The bioavailability of organic contaminants in aqueous exposure pathways decreases with increasing octanol/water partitioning coefficient due to hydrophobic properties of the chemicals involved. The primary route for sediment uptake is then ingestion.

It has been suggested by Gschwend and Hites (1981) and Farrington et al (1983) that oil-associated PAHs might be more available for microbial digestion than PAH’s associated with combustion and that Petroleum based PAH’s were more available for uptake by mussels than pyrogenic PAH’s. The inference being that environmental behaviour and bioavailability are directly source dependant.

10

The only accurate way of determining metal bioavailability is to perform bioassays, including bioaccumulation tests and/or toxicity identification evaluation (TIE). The limitation is that toxicity is related to the sensitivity of the test animal and the length of the test.

Bocchetti et al (2008) found that the bioavailability of trace metals and PAH’s increased during dredging activities in Piombino (Tuscany, Italy), with values up to 40μg/g for PB and up to 2200ng/g for PAH’s in tissues of caged mussels. Whilst bioavailability of trace metals returned to the pre-dredging values after the cessation of dredging the accumulation of PAH’s, oxidative effects and genotoxic damages remained elevated in mussels caged in the inner harbour area. This suggests that lipophilicity and sedimentation rate of chemicals can influence the duration of impact after their re-mobilization from contaminated sediments.

2.7 Mitigation considerations when dredging contaminated sediments

Dredgers have been specially designed for working in environmentally sensitive sites, such as those where contaminated sediments have been identified. New vessels are continually being developed together with new techniques for environmental mitigation.

At the dredging site itself in addition to the careful planning and execution of the dredging actions, physical barriers can also be employed to prevent the spread of suspended sediments. These ‘barriers’ can be erected at or near the dredging site and often consist of silt screens/curtains which control the dispersion of turbid water by diverting the flow under the curtain, thereby minimising the turbidity in the upper layers of the water column outside the silt curtain. The utilisation of a bubble curtain is sometimes considered as an alternative to a silt screen. The upwelling of bubbles from the sea or riverbed to the surface prevents fine sediments from passing across. Both techniques are only effective where current conditions are relatively slow. Further research is required to identify and describe the extent of mitigation measures available (Bray 2008).

Remedial dredging can be conducted to remove sediments contaminated above certain action levels whilst minimising the spread of contaminants to the surrounding environment during the dredging process. It requires the cautious removal of the contaminated material and is often linked to further treatment, reuse or relocation of these materials. Remedial dredging can only be successful if the source of the contamination is removed prior to this operation. USACE and PIANC, amongst others, have compiled general guidance notes on the application of this approach.

2.8 Summary

Sediment disturbance events, such as dredging and other natural anthropogenic activities can result in alteration in the chemical properties of the sediment. These properties, together with the nature of the pollutant

11

concerned, govern the mobilisation mechanisms for the release of such contaminants.

Contaminant release from dredging operations needs to be quantified to estimate short-term exposures and risk of dredging and potential impacts on long-term risk following completion of dredging. The degree of risk is multi factorial dependent upon methodology and duration of the dredging operation, physical nature of the dredge material, characteristics of contaminants associated with the sediment, current velocities and a range of other physical and chemical factors. Contaminants adsorbed on and to resuspended particles may partition to the water column and be transported great distances downstream in dissolved form along with dissolved contaminants in the released pore water. The resuspended sediment particles will settle and contaminants may be released to the water column by densification, diffusion and bioturbation. This release may have significant implications for the long-term flux of sediment associated contaminants into the water column. Understanding of both contaminant release mechanisms and magnitude of release is limited. Bioavailability and bioaccumulation of contaminants in the aquatic environment are largely governed by partitioning characteristics of the contaminant to sediment, although bioavailability is also influenced by the ability of an organism to metabolise contaminants. The development of new methodology and techniques for mitigation of potentially adverse environmental impacts caused by the dredging of contaminated sediments are ongoing.

The degree of contamination of sediments clearly plays a very important role in determining the significance of any mobilisation of contaminants from those sediments. This applies to all types of contaminants including those mentioned in this and subsequent sections of the review. In this context it should be noted that the Environment Agency’s ‘Clearing the Waters’ guidance for assessing compliance with the Water Framework Directive utilises in its assessment Cefas Action Levels for metals, TBT, halogenated organics and PAHs in sediments.

12

3. Effects of navigation dredging in water quality: nutrients, dissolved oxygen and re-suspension of bacteria

3.1 Organic Enrichment

Human activity has an enormous influence on the global cycling of nutrients, especially on the movement of nutrients to estuaries and other coastal waters. For phosphorus, global fluxes are dominated by the essentially one-way flow of phosphorus carried in eroded materials and wastewater from the land to the oceans, where it is ultimately buried in ocean sediments (Hedley and Sharpley 1998). The size of this flux is currently estimated at 22 Tg P yr −1

(Howarth et al 1995). Prior to increased human agricultural and industrial activity, the flow is estimated to have been around 8 Tg P yr−1 (Howarth et al 1995). Thus, current human activities cause an extra 14 Tg of phosphorus to flow into the ocean sediment sink each year, or approximately the same as the amount of phosphorus fertilizer (16 Tg P) applied to agricultural land each year.

The effect of human activity on the global cycling of nitrogen is equally immense, and furthermore, the rate of change in the pattern of use is much greater (Galloway et al 1995). The single largest global change in the nitrogen cycle comes from increased reliance on synthetic inorganic fertilizers, which accounts for more than half of the human alteration of the nitrogen cycle (Vitousek et al 1997). Use as of 1996 was approximately 83 Tg N yr−1. Approximately half of the inorganic nitrogen fertilizer that was ever used on Earth has been applied during the last 15 years.

Microbially mediated redox reactions in estuarine sediments lead to the remineralization of organic matter and the recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds (Fenchel and Blackburn 1979). In the presence of oxygen, NH4+ released during remineralisation of organic nitrogen compounds is oxidized to NO-2 and NO-3 through the biological process of nitrification. However, in anoxic coastal sediments, NH4+ can accumulate to mM concentrations in sediment porewaters. Estuarine sediments generally are in the pH range of 7 to 8, causing NH4+ to be the dominant form of ammonia. This positively charged ion can participate in adsorption–desorption reactions with sediment solids followed by incorporation into the solid phase absorption. (Rosenfeld 1979; Froelich 1988). This process has been suggested to be an important buffering mechanism for nutrient concentrations in estuaries (Pomeroy et al 1965). Under high pore water NH4+ concentrations, the quantity of NH4+ maintained in the adsorbed phase is primarily limited by the cation exchange capacity of the sediments.

Bottom sediments can supply a significant fraction of the nutrients required by primary producers in estuaries (Nixon 1981; Rizzo 1990). In shallow estuarine systems characterized by frequent resuspension of surface sediments, desorption from suspended particles can also supply NH4+, delaying efforts to reduce the effects of eutrophication (Rizzo and Christian 1996). Release of nutrients from resuspended porewater and sediment particles has been

13

implicated in the stimulation of heterotrophic microplankton in estuarine waters (Wainright 1987). Considering the capacity for elevated porewater nutrient concentrations, this effect is not surprising. Investigations of the extent and the geochemical mechanisms of nutrient release (Blackburn 1997; Rutgers van der Loeff and Boudreau 1997; Wainright and Hopkinson 1997) have mainly focused on organic matter mineralization and mineral dissolution during periodic resuspension of surface sediments.

Dredging activities in coastal regions result in the relocation of large volumes of anaerobic porewater and particles. The method used by the US Army Corps of Engineers (responsible for the maintenance of coastal waterways in the US) to assess the release of NH4+ during dredging involves mixing dredged sediments with overlying water at relatively high solid to solution ratios (1:5 v/v). At these high ratios, the potential NH4+ release may be underestimated.

A series of closed system experiments undertaken by Morin and Morse (1999) resulted in much greater release of NH4+ (g d.wt. -1) when compared to the elutriate method. There are several differences between the two methods which influence the results. First, the elutriate method involves constant aeration resulting in conversion of any easily oxidized compounds (e.g., HS -). Second, according to the elutriate technique agitation of the sediment water mixture is terminated after 1 h whereas sediment suspension is maintained in the closed system. Although these differences in methodolog influenced the results, they are probably of secondary importance to the ratio of sediment added to overlying water outlined by each method. They also found that about two thirds of NH4+released from resuspended sediments is from desorption rather than simple dilution of porewaters. Results were substantially confirmed by direct observation of a dredging event. Although quite approximate, their model calculations raise the possibility that dredging activities in Laguna Madre could locally cause releases of NH4+ to the water column similar in magnitude to those from natural benthic fluxes.

Nutrients dissolved in sedimentary pore water will diffuse slowly to overlying waters. While sediment particles may also bind some nutrients (Nixon et al 1976; Rosenfeld 1979), re-suspension of sediments following disturbance generally causes rapid release of nutrients to the water column (Jones and Lee 1981; Klump and Martens 1981).

Inorganic nutrient exchanges between the water-sediment interface of intertidal and subtidal sediments have two important, but opposite roles in coastal systems. Release of regenerated nutrients to the water column can supply most of the nitrogen and phosphorus required for phytoplankton primary production (Rizzo 1990; Gómez-Parra & Forja 1993; Cowan et al 1996). In contrast, microbial mats can remove significant amounts of inorganic nutrients from the overlying water column (Teague et al 1988; Ogilvie et al 1997). Removal of nutrients from the water column attenuates the nutrient discharge into coastal waters and contribute to control eutrophication. Since removal and production processes act simultaneously, the direction of net nutrient flux depends on which of these processes dominates.

14

Dredging is one type of large-scale, anthropogenic disturbance in marine soft-sediment habitats (Lohrer et al 2003). The impacts of dredging have usually been studied with regards to (1) disturbance-recovery of benthic populations and communities, (2) effects of sediment removal and spoil disposal on turbidity and dissolved oxygen concentration (e.g., Brown and Clark 1968; May 1974; Lasalle 1990; Livingston 1996), and (3) the release of toxic compounds following the removal of contaminated sediments (e.g. Windom 1975; Cheung and Wong 1993; Stephens et al 2001). While the potential for biostimulatory nutrient release during dredging has been suggested, there have been very few studies of it (reviewed by Windom 1976; see also Witzig and Day 1983; Michael and Romano 1995).

Lohrer et al (2003) studied the impact of navigation dredging within Debordieu Creek (DC), a temperate estuarine creek in Georgetown County, South Carolina (USA). After collection, a full suite of analyses was performed as part of the NI–WB NERR water chemistry monitoring program. Standard methodological techniques were used during analysis of all constituents. This paper reports results for four variables often considered in assessments of estuarine water quality: total suspended solids >0.7 lm (TSS), orthophosphate (PO_4), ammonium (NH4+), and nitrate-nitrite combined (NOx).

The results show that when water samples were taken synchronously inside the initial mixing zone and beyond the final zone (~720 m downstream), there were measurable, statistically significant differences in TSS, OP, NH4, and NN concentrations, with higher levels in the initial mixing zone in all cases. The biological significance of these effects was probably minimal. Given the natural variability in water chemistry that occurs between years, with the ebb and flood of tides, and with seasonal cycles, the nutrient concentrations measured on 4-Oct-2001 were always well within the range of normal. The ‘‘elevated’’ NH4+ and combined Nitrate-Nitrite (NOx) levels observed inside the dredging plume on that date were at least 50% lower than natural concentrations during a typical annual peak. Furthermore, the levels were approximately 1 order of magnitude lower than the maximum values recorded in DC prior to dredging during NI–WB NERR monitoring from 1998–2001.To summarize, the effects of the dredging activities on water chemistry in DC appeared to be localized, temporally short-lived, and well-within the range of natural variability in the system at short and long time scales.

The effects of dredging on resuspended sediments and water quality were investigated for the Southern California Contaminated Sediments Task Force (Stivers et al 2004). Their results show that as the numbers and concentration of chemicals in the sediments increases, the potential for effects to aquatic organisms also increases.

Rhoads et al (1995) used a REMOTS registered sediment profile imaging camera for rapid seafloor assessment to define baseline conditions and impacts on sediment quality during both wet (typhoon) and dry seasons in the territorial waters of Hong Kong. Analysis of sediment profile images has allowed assessment of dredging and disposal effects and organic enrichment

15

"hot spots". It appears that tropical storms may have a large effect on mobilization of soft sediments during the wet season, while anthropogenic factors (dredging, disposal, and seabed fishing activities) may assume greater relative importance in some areas during the dry season when severestorms are less common.

3.2 Effects on Dissolved Oxygen

Physical and chemical alterations associated with dredging include increased levels of suspended sediments and the potential for associated dissolved oxygen reduction and release of natural and industrially-derived chemicals (Lasalle 1990). The magnitude and spatial extent of the suspended sediment field around any dredging operation is a function of the type of dredge used, the physical and biological characteristics of the material being dredged (e.g., density, grain size, organic content) and site-specific hydrological conditions (e.g., currents, water body size/configuration). A generalized "worst case" field can be defined as having suspended sediment levels less than or equal to 500 mg/L at distances less than or equal to 500 m from the dredge, with maximum concentrations generally restricted to the lower water column within 50-100 m, decreasing rapidly with distance. Reduction in dissolved oxygen and chemical release from suspended sediments should be minimal and short lived (Lasalle 1990). The effects of dredging on turbidity are addressed in section 3.4.

High levels of oxygen-depleting substances and nutrients are found wherever very fine-grained sediment deposits and where a great portion originate form waste-water. Mueller et al (1998) discuss the impact of several dredging techniques, and concluded that in order to avoid or mitigate the negative impacts of sediment dredging and relocation on the microbial processes in the water column, cost-efficient measurements and simple forecast calculations may be performed in the early planning phase of such projects. Often the boundary conditions for operations can be fitted in such a way that detrimental ecological impacts are kept within reasonable limits.

Dredging can also alter sediment loading in shallow coastal areas. The effect of increased load of fine sediment on the microbenthos (benthic microalgae, bacteria, and meiofauna) was studied by Wulff et al (1997) in two experiments using undisturbed cores of sandy sediment from a microtidal bay on the Swedish west coast. Within a week, after being covered by fine sediment, benthic microalgae (particularly diatoms) had migrated upward and the oxygen profiles were restored at the sediment surface by photosynthesis. However, the oxygen-producing layer became thinner and the algal composition changed. Bacterial biomass was restored to the same level as in the sandy sediment. Meiofauna also appeared to move upward and the meiofaunal composition was re-established. The results suggest that the microbenthic community of sandy sediment has an inherent capacity to recover after a moderate deposition of fine-particle sediment. Active upward migration of benthic diatoms appears to be a key mechanism for restoring the oxygenation of the sediment surface. The altered sediment type also implies

16

changed species composition, and hence altered benthic trophic interactions, which may affect, for example, flatfish recruitment.

The chemical and biological impacts of anthropogenic physical modifications (including dredging) to tributaries were assessed on New York's Long Island South Shore Estuary by Zakowski et al (2008). Water-quality data collected on Carmans, Patchogue, and Swan Rivers from 1997 to 2005 indicate no significant differences in nutrient levels, temperature, or pH among the rivers, but significant differences in light transmittance, dissolved oxygen (DO), salinity, and sediments were observed. The results of these studies show that Patchogue River (PR) and Swan River (SR) were significantly more saline than Carmans River (CR), PR and SR had less light transmittance than CR, and both exhibited severe warm season hypoxia. CR was rarely hypoxic and only at the lower layer of the deepest station in warm seasons. Deep stations on PR had hypoxic readings year round, but the shallower SR was well-oxygenated at all stations after the fall turnover. There were wide diel and seasonal variations in chlorophyll a on each river, and measurements were significantly higher at poorly flushed stations. In warm seasons, this often resulted in hyperventilation with supersaturated DO in the upper water column on sunny days, and suboxic conditions at nights and/or in deeper layers. PR sediments were anoxic, SR sediments ranged from normal to anoxic, and CR sediments were normal at all stations.

The potential for placed material to leave the disposal site and the impact on water quality of placing 18 million cubic yards (cu yds) of dredge material at one disposal site in Upper Chesapeake Bay (USA) over a five year period were determined through numerical modeling by Johnson et al (2000). The placement method modelled is bottom disposal from a spilt-hull barge. The material is fine-grained maintenance material to be dredged from several upper bay channels. The results of the model runs show that no significant changes were computed in the levels of water column dissolved oxygen at the disposal site after placement of the dredged material.

3.3 Effects on resuspension of bacteria

There is limited information on the resuspension of fecal bacteria in contaminated sediment caused by dredging. The potential exists that a dredging turbidity plume could carry fecal bacteria into shellfish beds. This could result in closure of the beds due to human health hazards. In a similar way, resuspension of sediment-bound pathogenic bacteria can result on an impact on the health of swimmers or other users (http://www.nj.gov/dep/cmp/final_analysis.pdf ).

Grimes (1975, 1980) studied fecal coliform (FC) concentrations in the immediate vicinity of a maintenance dredging operation in the Mississippi River navigation channel. These increased significantly (F test) and increased counts were attributed to the disturbance and relocation of bottom sediments by dredging and a concomitant release of sediment-bound fecal coliforms.

17

Presumably, if dredging promotes resuspension of sediment bound FC, it should resuspend all sedimented bacteria, including other fecal indicators and enteric pathogens. However, this supposition had not been documented in published literature. For this reason, a study was undertaken in the summer of 1976 to determine the bacteriological effects of hydraulically dredging bottom sediment known to be heavily contaminated with metropolitan sewage effluent. The results of this study suggest that neither turbidity nor bacteriological effects of dredging extended far downstream. Within less than 2 km below the dredge spoil discharge area, the river had recovered from the effects of dredging. In fact, data suggest that water quality 2 km downstream and beyond became progressively better than upstream water quality. This was probably due to natural sedimentation of suspended materials. However, it is possible that dredge-suspended particles could have served as newadsorptive surfaces in the water column, thereby increasing the rate of adsorption or flocculation (with subsequent sedimentation) of normal suspended, planktonic (unattached or epipsommic) indicator bacteria.

Babinchak et al (1977) studied the effects of offshore dredge spoil deposition on bottom water quality and on bottom sediments at the offshore disposal site. Material (about 1.2 million m3) was removed from the Thames River (USA) by bucket dredging and transported, via hopper barges, to an offshore disposal site in Long Island Sound. MPN FC indices in the top 1 cm of sediment from the dredging site averaged 14,000 (n = 5) FC per 100 ml of sediment before dredging. Deposition of this material had no significant effect on MPN FC indices in either bottom water samples or bottom sediment samples collected from stations in the spoil deposition area. They attributed this lack of effect to the dilution of surface, bacteria-laden sediment with much greater quantities of subsurface, bacteria-free sediment. Unfortunately, sediment profiles (cores) were not analyzed to substantiate this hypothesis.

3.4 Effects of Turbidity

The information available on aquatic species responses and/or mortality due to dredge induced water quality changes is incomplete. It is known however that egg and larval forms of aquatic biota are more sensitive than adult stages. American oyster eggs and larvae are known to be sensitive to turbidity levels and durations that typically occur at mechanical dredging sites. Turbidity is known to block upstream migration of striped bass. Turbidity may therefore, block other anadromous species during upstream migration. Aquatic finfish and blue crabs which winter in the Estuary are lethargic at cold water temperatures. Large-scale mechanical and hydraulic dredging operations could entrain and kill significant numbers, since they would not be able to evacuate a dredging area.

18

3.4 Summary

While the potential for biostimulatory nutrient release during dredging has been suggested, there have been very few studies of this and associated processes. Dredging activities in estuarine and coastal regions result in the relocation of large volumes of anaerobic porewater and particles, potentially leading to release of nutrients and stimulation of heterotrophic microplankton. Investigations of the extent and the geochemical mechanisms of nutrient release have mainly focused on organic matter mineralization and mineral dissolution during periodic resuspension of surface sediments. While sediment particles may also bind some nutrients, re-suspension of sediments following disturbance also causes rapid release of nutrients to the water column. However, some studies suggest that the effects of the dredging activities on water chemistry in coastal waters appear to be localized, temporally short-lived, and well-within the range of natural variability in the system at short and long time scales. Results of modelling studies also suggest that no significant changes in the levels of water column dissolved oxygen take place at disposal sites after placement of significant volumes of dredged material.

There is limited information on the resuspension of fecal bacteria in contaminated sediment caused by dredging, but some studies suggest that neither turbidity nor bacteriological effects of dredging extended more than 2km from the dredging area.

19

4. Radionuclides in dredged material

4.1 Introduction

A review was conducted to identify publications in both the peer-reviewed and ‘grey’ literature on studies concerned with the assessment of dredging activities involving the potential impact of radionuclides contained within the dredged material. The review was carried out using both electronic search engines (Scopus, Google) and more conventional methods. There was found to be a paucity of information using these methods, implying that such specific assessments are not frequent or widespread. The best documented relevant studies were international initiatives, carried out at the behest of the London Convention, those carried out by or on behalf of national regulatory bodies and those carried out at a European level.

4.2 Regulatory background

All estuarine and marine sediments are radioactive to different degrees. The contributing radionuclides may be: entirely of natural origin, in ‘background’ concentrations; naturally-occurring radionuclides in enhanced concentrations due to human activities (TNORM – Technologically-enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material); and, radionuclides introduced to the environment as a result of nuclear power generation or nuclear weapons production and use. In some circumstances radionuclides from several categories may co-exist. Estuarine and coastal sediments may contain elevated levels of radionuclides as a result of human activity, in common with other contaminants, and can sometimes reveal a history of local contamination (e.g. Kershaw et al 1990).

The London Convention 1972 was modified in the early 1990s to ban the sea disposal of all radioactive wastes. This superseded an earlier ban that applied to high-level radioactive waste only. It immediately became apparent that some further consideration was required to take account of the ubiquitous nature of radioactivity, from both natural and artificial sources. For example, a strict interpretation of the Convention would have prohibited the disposal of any materials (including the practice of burial at sea of human cadavers). As a result the International Atomic Energy Agency was requested to develop the concept of de minimis, to define concentrations of radionuclides that were sufficiently low to allow their disposal within the LC.

The IAEA published a consultation document introducing the de minimis concept in 1999 (IAEA, 1999), and this was further revised to provide an agreed radiological assessment procedure (IAEA, 2003). This was based on the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) principle, accepted by the international community at that time, that protection of the human population would ensure adequate protection of non-human populations. More recently this philosophy has been challenged and efforts have been made to devise an agreed methodology to estimate doses to non-humans. However, at the present time there is no process that has been agreed at an international level, although efforts have been made in a number

20

of countries (including the UK by the Environment Agency) to formulate an appropriate assessment framework. At a European level a series of programmes have been funded by Euratom to develop assessment databases and procedures, including the current PROTECT programme (Protection of the environment from ionising radiation in a regulatory context: http://www.ceh.ac.uk/PROTECT/pages/env_protect_radio.html). Within England and Wales the Environment Agency has published 2 reports describing recommended assessment strategies that will be required under the Habitats Regulations (Copplestone et al 2001; Copplestone et al 2003). This will be relevant to any dredging operations that have an impact on protected sites designated under these regulations. However, under the LC the concept of de minimis is based on the protection of human health.

4.3 Potential impact of radionuclides associated with dredging activities

Under the LC any dredged material containing radioactivity at de minimis levels can be disposed of. Under Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA), the appropriate licensing authorities in the UK are required to licence that activity, requiring an assessment to made in situations in which compliance with de minimis levels has not been established or may be exceeded. A review was conducted in 2006 of the implementation of de minimis for dredging operations in England and Wales (Cefas 2006). In most regions radionuclide concentrations fell well within de minimis criteria. However, dredging operations in the Irish Sea included material that approached the de minimis criteria, particularly in terms of estimated radiation dose to the crew of the dredger. The report made a number of recommendations intended to increase the reliability of the dose estimates, including direct dose measurements and more realistic exposure data. These higher doses at ports such as Mayport on the Cumbrian coast, were due to a combination of artificial radionuclides released from the Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant (especially 137Cs, 241Am, Pu isotopes) and enhanced levels of naturally-occurring radionuclides resulting from non-nuclear industry (phosphate processing) near Whitehaven (Poole et al 1995).

21

5. The impacts and monitoring of maintenance dredging - related to turbidity

5.1 Introduction

The Marine and Coastal, Access Act 2009 provides statutory control of the disposal of waste material to sea from ships in UK waters. This disposal is predominantly dredged material, a large proportion of which arises from the maintenance dredging of port and harbour facilities and their approach channels (Bolam et al 2006).

Turbidity is an index of the scattering of light by suspended particles as it passes through water (Davies-Colley and Smith 2001). The principal cause of dredging-related turbidity is the presence of sediment suspended in the water column. The effect of suspended sediment on turbidity is dependent on the sediment particle size and the sediment concentration. Increasing sediment concentration (without affecting sediment size) increases turbidity. Fine sediment such as clays and silts generate much higher turbidity than a similar concentration of coarse sediment. The environmental effects of dredge-related plumes may result from elevated turbidity (e.g. reduced light penetration) or elevated suspended sediment concentration (e.g. physical abrasion), or a combination of both factors. The nature of the sediment and the hydrodynamic conditions will determine the area over which material in a turbidity plume may be distributed (Bolam and Rees 2003; Erftemeijer and Lewis 2006).

The dredging process typically involves four distinct phases:

1. Dislodging of the in-situ material2. Raising the material3. Horizontal transport of the material4. Placement of the material (Bray 2008).

Elevated turbidity can result from the direct disturbance of the seabed during the dislodging phase. The quantity of material re-suspended depends on the energy applied to the excavation. Fine-grained material will not settle rapidly, causing increased turbidity near the dredging site for and extended period. Turbidity may also become elevated due to the subsequent deliberate or accidental release of sediment into the water column during the raising, transportation or placement phases of operations. During raising and transportation, overflow is the commonest source of turbidity. Placement operation can cause the re-suspension of sediment as dredged material is returned to the seabed (Bray 2008; PIANC 2009).

5.2 Dredging MethodsThe type of dredging method and type of equipment employed can have a bearing on turbidity. Dredging methods are discussed in Section 1.2. and are below in outlining turbidity impacts.

5.2.1 Hydraulic Dredging

22

For maintenance dredging, where sediments tend to be relatively unconsolidated, TSHDs are most commonly used. CSDs are more usually employed in areas with more consolidated bottom sediments (PIANC 2009, Bray 2008).

TSHDs are self propelled vessels with a hopper for sediment storage. The hopper typically has a capacity of 750 to 10,000 m3. One or two suction pipes connect the vessel with the draghead(s). The draghead(s) are lowered to the seabed where they move along the seabed (PIANC 2009; Bray et al 1996).

A slurry of water and sediment is pumped up the pipes into the vessel’s hopper. TSHDs unload sediment through doors or valves in the bottom of the hopper. Smaller TSHDs may be split-hulled, and most modern TSHDs have the ability to discharge their sediment cargoes using pumps and pipelines, allowing discharge ashore where required. When the slurry of water and sediment arrives in the hopper the dredged material settles and the water drains off through a hopper overflow system. As the rate of settlement is principally dependent upon grain size, the overflowing water may contain a significant amount of sediment, especially of finer grain sizes. The presence of this sediment can result in a significant turbidity plume (PIANC 2009).

Other sources of turbidity associated with TSHDs are the hopper overflow, turbulence caused by the vessel’s propeller, and sediment escaping through the vessel’s intake bypass. Intake bypasses are fitted to TSHDs to prevent water being discharged into the hopper at the commencement and conclusion of dredging. These systems may be known as “lean mixture overboard” (LMOB) systems (John et al 2000) or “automatic light mixture overboard” (ALMOB) systems (Bray at al 1996). Overflow of the hopper may occur accidentally or deliberately. Economic benefits can result from deliberate use of the overflow when dredging in sandy conditions. Rapid settlement of relatively coarse sands in the hopper leads to a large sediment concentration difference between the intake and overflow, leading to a greater final sediment load in the hopper. When dredging on a seabed dominated by fine sediments, slow sediment settling rates in the hopper lead to negligible differences between the sediment concentrations in the intake and overflow, removing any benefit of the overflow’s use. Use of the overflow in fine sediment conditions is likely to lead to elevated turbidity and visible turbidity plumes may result (Bray et al 1996; Bray 2008; PIANC 2009).

High turbidity may also result if pump - or sidecasting-discharge methods are used to empty the hopper. Both of these methods involve the pressurised pumping of the hopper slurry. Pump-discharge involves the ejection of the slurry from a nozzle mounted on the vessel. Material can be spayed up to 100m from vessel through the air. This material may be used for beach discharge, but if the jet is landing in water then high turbidity is likely to result. Sidecast-discharge is a method used in specially designed dredger that do not have hoppers. Instead, discharge occurs through a side-mounted boom (up to 90m long) directly back into the water. Dredgers of this type are used for the maintenance dredging of long navigational channels where off-site

23

disposal would be uneconomic. High levels of turbidity can be induced (Bray et al 1996).

CSDs are used mainly for capital dredging projects (Bray 2008). They typically consist of a pontoon equipped with a rotating cutter head and an adjacent suction pipe that collects a mixture of water and cuttings. They differ from TSHDs in that dredging takes place while the vessel is stationary. The mixture of water and cuttings is pumped through a discharge pipeline to its placement location or a storage facility such as a barge. CSDs are best suited to the removal of hard sediments and are therefore rarely used for maintenance dredging. The economics of CSD operations depend on efficiency. High dredging efficiency is closely linked to low turbidity at the cutter head. It is therefore uncommon for turbidity generated by the cutter head to cause environmental concern (John et al 2000). Sediment spillage and resultant turbidity elevation during loading operations can be reduced by avoiding the overloading of barges and hoppers (PIANC 2009).

5.2.2 Mechanical dredgersMechanical dredgers of many different types exist, normally discharging into independent hopper barges.

Grab dredgers operate using a crane-mounted grab which is lowered to the seabed to capture sediment. This method may cause minimal disturbance and dilution of clays compared to the hydraulic methods employed by TSHDs and CSDs, but may cause high turbidity in loose silts. A significant fraction of the sediment being lifted may wash out of the grab as it is hauled through the water (PIANC 2009). Closed grabs (though rarely used) can reduce the generation of suspended sediments (Bray 2008).

Backhoe dredgers employ an hydraulic excavator in place of a crane-mounted grab, but otherwise operate similarly to grab dredgers. Like grab dredgers, sediment can wash out of the bucket as it moves through the water, resulting in elevated turbidity. However, they can be fitted with closed buckets to minimise sediment loss (Bray 2008).

5.2.3 Hydrodynamic DredgingHydrodynamic dredging may be achieved using the methods of agitation dredging, water injection dredging or underwater plough or sweep dredging.

Agitation dredging is most applicable to the maintenance dredging of fine sediments. The seabed sediments are disturbed using water jets, raking or pumping. Once suspended, these sediments are then re-located by naturally occurring hydrodynamic processes. It is clearly necessary that sufficient understanding of the hydrodynamics exists in order that the fate of re-suspended sediment can be predicted (Bray et al 1996). It is clear that considerable turbidity may be generated using this dredging method – indeed the method relies specifically on the generation of a turbidity plume to re-locate sediment. Agitation dredging is most suited to silt and fine sand

24

sediments such as those which typically accumulate in navigation channels (Herbich 2000). The high levels of turbidity produced mean that agitation may be less suitable for environmentally sensitive projects (Bray 2008).

A variation of agitation dredging is water injection dredging. A fixed array of nozzles is lowered from a vessel until they penetrate the seabed. Low-pressure water is injected into the near-surface sediments until the density of the sediment is reduced to the point at which gravitational forces induce sediment flow (Bray et al 1996). During water injection dredging sediment is not usually re-suspended, and so the technique tends to generate relatively little turbidity (PIANC 2009). The technique is mainly used for dredging in tidal basins where significant natural accumulation occurs. As most of the re-suspended sediment is close to the bed, the effects on turbidity in the upper water column is generally limited (Bray 2008).

Underwater plough or sweepbeam dredging employs a large steel bar or box suspended horizontally from a vessel, or a barge towed by a tug. The bar or box is dragged across the seabed to level areas that have been previously dredged, or to move sediment from restricted to more accessible areas for removal by a TSHD (PIANC 2009; Bray et al 1996). A cloud of suspended material is produced ahead of the plough or sweepbeam, but most of this material remains close to the bed (Bray 2008).

During the excavation phase of dredging, SDs and CSDs generally produce the least turbidity effects, followed by TSHDs, mechanical dredgers and TSHDs when operated with overflow. In the placement phase mechanical dredgers produce less turbidity than CSDs and TSHDs as the dredged material is less disturbed. It therefore follows that hydraulic dredgers are to be preferred if the dredging area is sensitive to turbidity impacts. If the placement are is sensitive, mechanical dredgers may be the preferred option (Bray 2008; PIANC 2009).

5.3 Turbidity ImpactsDredging releases sediment into the water column, forming a sediment plume, of which there are two types, or phases; the dynamic phase (where the plume moves under its own mass or momentum) and the passive phase (where the plume moves due external influences acting upon it). In the dynamic phase, plume behaviour is mainly determined by the nature and concentration of the material and how it is placed into the water. In the passive phase, plume movement is controlled to a greater extent by the strength and direction of the current (John et al 2000).

The sources of sediment plumes are essentially the losses, deliberate and otherwise, that occur during a dredging operation. There are three primary influences on the generation of sediment plumes: the dredging operation, the material, and the hydrodynamic conditions in which the dredging takes place (John et al 2000).

Fluidised clays and other fine sediments from CSDs and TSHDs can cover excessive areas when unconfined. Fluidised sediments may take a

25

considerable time to consolidate, providing an ongoing source of turbidity following placement (PIANC 2009).

When considering the impacts of dredging-related turbidity it is important to consider the sensitivity of the environment. Where high levels of naturally-occurring turbidity occur (possibly as a result of rapid tidal flows or storm-related high wave energy events) the turbidity and suspended sediment concentration may be orders of magnitude greater than those effects generated by dredging activity. Fauna in habitats with high levels of turbidity disturbance are likely to be adapted to cope with such events, and the habitat is therefore likely to be less sensitive to negative effects. Typical benthic invertebrates in these environments are small, surface-dwelling, fast-growing species with the ability to re-colonise disturbed areas rapidly. Areas where high levels of turbidity are rare, such as seagrass beds or coral reefs, are likely to be far more sensitive to such disturbances. (PIANC 2009; Herbich 2000; Erftemeijer and Lewis 2006).

The physical impacts of dredging operations and their effects on the environment are considered in PIANC (2009). Table 5-1 in this report summarises physical changes and their environmental effects. A section of this table dealing specifically with the re-suspension of sediment is reproduced below:

Table 1 – The physical impacts of sediment re-suspension and their environmental impacts (from Table 5-1, PIANC (2009)).

Physical change

Potential environmental

effectExamples of impact

Re-suspension of sediment matrix into

water column

Release of particulate matter

Behavioural / physiological responses to increased suspended solids (e.g. physical abrasion, visual effect of plume, effect on water intakes)

Reduced light penetration

Behavioural / physiological responses to increased turbidity (e.g. loss of growth for eelgrass beds, reduction in primary production for phytoplankton)

Release of nutrients

Behavioural / physiological responses to enrichment (e.g. algal blooms)

Release of toxic chemicals

Behavioural / physiological responses to contaminants (e.g. bioaccumulation of metals in fish)

26

Release of organic matter

Behavioural / physiological responses to oxygen depletion

User conflicts E.g. aesthetics, diving, fishing

Traditional fears of water quality degradation resulting from the re-suspension of sediment during dredging and placement operations are mostly unfounded (Herbich 2000).

27

5.4 Methods of Reducing Dredge-related TurbidityThere are numerous management practices that can be employed to reduce the impacts of dredging operations. These management practices are detailed and discussed in PIANC (2009).

There are several technical practices that can be employed to reduce turbidity impacts associated with dredging operation.

Careful management of TSHD overflow systems should be employed to minimise turbidity. Most modern TSHDs discharge overflow at the level of the vessel’s keel. Some TSHDs can be fitted with a ‘Green valve” device in the overflow system designed to reduce turbidity. The device avoids the entrainment of air in the overflow mixture so that once released below the keel the mixture descends rapidly to the seabed (PIANC 2009; Opuji and Ishimatsu 1975). Turbidity associated with the vessel’s propeller may be reduced by careful navigation. Excess water can be released close to the draghead, or even re-used in the drag-head jets (PIANC 2009).

Some dredgers have been modified specifically to produce low levels of turbidity during dredging and placement. Examples include: environmental disc bottom cutter dredgers, sweep/scoop dredgers, environmental auger dredgers, cable arm clamshell dredgers and horizontal profiling grab dredgers (PIANC, 2009).

During transportation spillage through from hoppers during transport should be negligible (or zero) provided bottom doors and seals are well maintained. Well maintained hydraulic pipelines will have negligible or zero losses. Placement of fine material (a feature of navigational maintenance dredging) will inevitably result in a temporary, localised increase in turbidity (PIANC 2009).

Silt screens or curtains may be used to control the initial dispersal of a sediment plume. This technique may be used during dredging or placement. The screens can either hang from surface floats or stand, attached to the seabed and held upright by sub-surface floats, or a combination of the two methods may be employed. The applicability and effectiveness of this type of measure depend on a number of factors. The location and type of dredging (or placement) operation must be considered, as well as the prevailing wave and current conditions. Screens may be used to completely enclose an operational area, or partial screening may be employed to provide protection to a sensitive area. Some water flow will always occur under or through the screens, carrying with it some sediment load. Such screens therefore can never provide an impermeable barrier to turbidity, though they can be highly effective. Significant current speeds or waves can render the screens too difficult to handle, precluding their use. Current speeds in excess of 0.5 ms -1

are likely to render silt screens ineffective. Difficulties may arise during removal of the screens as a result of the mass of sediment attached. The mass of sediment attached to the screens may even prevent their removal, or cause substantial turbidity plumes during removal operations, and the

28

presence of the screens may present a navigational hazard to vessels engaged in the dredging operations (PIANC 2009; Bray et al 1996).

Air bubble screens do not interfere with logistics (unlike silt screens) but have limited effectiveness and may only be applicable in certain situations such as well constrained channels. They have high power consumption (PIANC 2009).

Materials transported hydraulically and directly placed in an open water site can cause significant turbidity plumes when placement is uncontrolled. Turbidity can be reduced by employing low discharge velocities and releasing sediment close to the seabed. Discharge velocities can be reduced by using a diffuser on the end of the discharge pipeline (PIANC 2009).

5.5 Turbidity MonitoringA need for monitoring turbidity may be identified during the pre-operational environmental assessment (to ascertain background conditions and their variability) or during dredging operations themselves (to determine the dredge-related turbidity levels). Turbidity monitoring can be achieved using a variety of methods, discussed briefly below.

5.5.1 Water samplingKnown volumes of water samples can be filtered and the mass of the residue determined. The SSC can then be determined in terms of a mass of sediment per a unit volume of water. This method provides an accurate measurement, but has the drawback of providing a single data point in time and space. Spatial accuracy of sampling (especially sample depth) may be difficult to achieve, and this may lead to misleading data, especially where strong vertical gradients of SSC exist.

5.5.2 Sediment samplingSediment traps can be deployed on the seabed to capture sediments as they settle, or traps can be suspended in the water column and be designed to interrupt the flow and cause suspended sediments to be collected. A common example of the this second type is the Booner tube developed by the University of Sussex (Marion et al 2005). Estimates of the sampling efficiency can then be made in order to estimate the flux of suspended sediment (e.g. Hargrave et al 1979; Marion et al 2005).

5.5.3 Optical monitoringOptical instruments can measure turbidity by monitoring optical backscatter (OBS) (e.g. Seapoint OBS sensors) or transmission (e.g. Sequoia instruments LISST instruments). OBS instruments are more sensitive to fine sediments (14-170μm) in suspension than acoustic instruments (Creed et al 2001). Optical instruments can record time series of turbidity, revealing elevated turbidity signal that may be related to dredging or disposal operations. Although they can provide this temporal spread, they are typically deployed in a fixed location and so a single instrument cannot provide spatial data. If spatial data are required, more than one optical instrument may need to be deployed. It is important to locate optical instruments in the correct place to ensure that the turbidity plume is actually sampled. Determining the optimum

29

location will require some knowledge of the hydrodynamic conditions in the monitoring area.

Optical instruments that employ more than one optical frequency (e.g. the LISST 100X) can distinguish between changes in sediment particle size and concentration. They therefore don not require in-situ calibrations and can be used to establish calibrations for single frequency optical sensors if co-deployed.

A drawback of many OBS instruments is that only relative turbidity is recorded. Turbidity is a complex property, responding to both the sediment concentration and the sediment particle size distribution. Calibration will be required if OBS response is to be converted into an SSC. Such a calibration will require measurement of in-situ SSC that can be compared with OBS so that the relationship can be characterised. The necessary SSC data may be acquired by analysing water samples, comparing OBS with in-situ SSC measurements (for example using a LISST 100X) or by characterising the OBS response to a series of known SSC concentration under laboratory conditions. It is vital that the sediment type used in the laboratory closely match those found in-situ. If suspended sediments are heterogeneous, calibration can be achieved by assessing the optical properties of the fraction separately using laboratory techniques. The separate fraction results can then be interpolated to provide an in-situ calibration (Bunt et al 1999).

5.5.4 Acoustic monitoringAcoustic monitoring of turbidity may be achieved using instruments based upon acoustic backscatter. An increased concentration of suspended sediments leads to an increase in the backscattered acoustic energy. Acoustic instruments are more sensitive to coarse (75-250μm) sediments in suspension (Creed et al 2001) and are therefore of relatively little use in monitoring turbidity from maintenance dredging (which tends to consist of fine sediments). Acoustic instruments can be deployed in-situ (e.g. Wall et al 2008), but an interesting application is to mount the instrument looking downwards on a vessel. The vessel can move through an area and measure a turbidity profile through the water column (e.g. Wood and Boye 2007). It should be noted that only relative turbidity can be measured without further work to calibrate the acoustic backscatter intensity against SSC (e.g. Creed et al 2001).

30

6. Capital dredging impacts

6.1 IntroductionCapital dredging generally involves the removal of ‘virgin’ material that is relatively stable and has become consolidated under the existing hydraulic regime. However it also includes the removal of material from previously dredged areas where sedimentation has since occurred and has not been disturbed by further dredging over a period of time (10 years). In such cases consolidation of the deposited material occurs and the physical properties of the bed will revert to similar characteristics to the virgin material and is therefore treated as capital dredged material.

Unlike maintenance dredging which is removal recently deposited material chemical contamination associated with capital dredged material is most likely to be from historic rather than current anthropogenic inputs as it is undisturbed, consolidated material. The type and extent of any contamination will vary depending on the location due to human activities and geology.

Capital dredging can also involve the uses of explosives in the dredging of hard rock. The explosives are placed in boreholes drilled into the rock, the work is usually carried out from a floating jack-up pontoon. After blasting the rock is removed by bucket, grab or cutter suction dredgers. Considerable resuspension can be associated with hard rock dredging (Dearnaley et al 1996). Noise effects on fish and mammals from the blasting are another concern.

The previous sections outlined impacts associated with maintenance dredging and these impacts can also occur with capital dredging due to the range of material involved. However as capital dredging is usually associated with removal from areas that have previously been undisturbed it can have additional impacts, these are outlined below.

6.2 Physical effectsChanges in channel shape and dimensions resulting from capital dredging operations in an estuary may permit a saltwedge intrusion to travel further upstream than previously, increase shoreline wave action, change tidal range, tidal currents, suspended sediment load, including the creation of a sediment trap (Dearnaley et al 1996), and suspended sedimentation in areas away from the deepened part of the river. The hydrodynamic changes and their effect on sediment erosion, deposition and transport may cause secondary geomorphological changes away from the dredge location, including the potential erosion of intertidal areas (Dearnaley et al 1996). These processes are affected by the seabed sediment characteristics, underlying geology and particularly on mudflats, the flora and fauna (Dredging and disposal: Changes to hydrodynamic regime and geomorphology. www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/ports/ph5_2_7.htm).

31

The removal of sediment from the transport system could affect erosion and sedimentation processes and ultimately affect the form of the estuary, possibly depriving downstream coastal areas of sediment required to maintain coastal stability. Equally if the sediment is placed back within the same system, although the net change is insignificant the location of the sediment may change promoting additional siltation in specific areas. By contrast, careful design of disposal can result in intertidal areas being increased (Dredging and disposal: Changes to hydrodynamic regime and geomorphology. www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/ports/ph5_2_7.htm).

Under some conditions slumping of the seabed into the dredged areas may occur and may lead to smothering. Such slumping is common with the construction or deepening of navigation channels, where often it is not possible to establish stable channel side slopes during the initial capital dredge (Dearnaley et al 1996). Additionally, there may be changes to sediment type after dredging (Bray (Ed) 2008).

In cases where the capital dredging is being undertaken for purposes of improved navigation and development of port facilities the dredging is, more often than not, likely to lead to an increasing requirement for maintenance dredging. Which will in turn lead to an increase in the long-term release of bed material into the water column (Dearnaley et al 1996).

An example of effects as a result of capital dredging can be seen at Harwich Harbour. Major channel deepening works in the approach to Harwich Harbour has altered the sediment transport regime. The capital dredge increased siltation in the harbour, which subsequently reduced the amount of sediment input into the Stour/Orwell Estuaries and increased the requirement for maintenance dredging. In this case the capital dredge has created the conditions for increased erosion, which is sustained by the regular removal of sediment from the harbour for disposal at sea (Dredging and disposal: Changes to hydrodynamic regime and geomorphology. www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/ports/ph5_2_7.htm).

6.3 Chemical effectsIsolated deep depressions can occur and may result in stagnant and oxygen depleted water. Also in an estuary or bay, the dredged channel can allow saltwater to move further into the estuary than would normally occur, increasing the salinity and shifting the ecosystem to a more marine environment (Herbich 2000; Bray (Ed) 2008).

6.5 Biological effectsOne of the most obvious effects of capital dredging are habitat and feeding ground loss through the removal of material (St Lawrence Centre 1993; Dredging and disposal: Changes to hydrodynamic regime and geomorphology. www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/ports/ph5_2_7.htm). This is generally more of an issue for capital projects as it is involves removal of previously undisturbed material. Additionally, organisms within the removed material will be destroyed and smothering by resuspended material will impact

32

the remaining organisms. Also the alteration of hydrodynamic conditions can alter fish movements and can lead to an alteration of species composition i.e. more marine than brackish species.

6.6 Noise effectsNoise effects can be more of an issue with capital dredging projects because of the consolidated nature of the material to be removed and CSD and BLD which may be employed can generate a significant noise. These dredgers can be a continuous source of significant noise levels, reaching 100 to 115dB in the immediate vicinity of the dredger. This noise diminishes to acceptable levels (50-70dB) a few hundred metres from the dredging site (Bray 2008).

Rock blasting undertaken at Holyhead in Wales, was limited to minimise the disturbance to breeding birds in April and July inclusive, otherwise known as an ‘Environmental window’ (Eisma (Ed) 2006).

6.7 Socio-economic effectsThere may be conflicts with other users (fisheries and recreation) such as changes to shipping lanes resulting in displacement of vessels. However, there may be benefits of such works, such as expansion of the harbour or port bringing additional revenue and jobs to the area.

6.8 Cumulative/in –combination effectsThere may be in-combination affects associated with other projects within the area, such as maintenance dredging, and this must be assessed on an individual basis.

6.9 Gaps in knowledgeMany of the issues associated with capital dredging are shared with maintenance dredging. However gaps in our knowledge include:

- The noise, both above and below the water line, associated with cutter suction dredgers, bucket ladder dredgers and the blasting from rock removal and their impacts on fish and mammals

- The effects of the dredge in the immediate vicinity of the activity are relatively easy to predict and quantify but the far field effects (in particular estuaries) are more difficult.

- The changes relative to background conditions (i.e. ‘natural’ morphological change) are difficult to quantify such as identifying/establishing cause and effect between far field and dredging activity difficult.

- Modelling capabilities for morphological change such as adequate validation data, capability of model to account for seasonal variations, adequate model runs, saltation (end effect point).

- Quantification of cumulative effects.

33

7. Mathematical models used to assess the impact of dredging activity

7.1 Introduction

The impact of dredging activities is mainly attributable to two mechanisms: the removal of benthic substratum and the suspension and subsequent deposition of material rejected by screening or overflowing from the hopper (Newell et al 1998). The impacts of these mechanisms on a number of processes can be predicted using mathematical models. Mathematical models may be used to predict changes in the hydrodynamic regime; sediment release from the dredging plant and the dynamic behaviour of sediment plumes; sediment transport and associated morphological impacts; contaminant release associated with disposal; and the response of biota to sediment deposition and water quality changes (Bray 2008).

Mathematical models are classified by Bray (2008) according to the following distinctions:

Deterministic (the uncertainties of input and output variables and model parameters are not considered) or stochastic (at least one input or output variable is probabilistic).

Static (temporal dynamics are not taken into account) or dynamic (time-varying interactions amongst variables are taken into account).

One-dimensional (1-D) or multidimensional (2-D or 3-D) to simulate complex spatial conditions.

Greater understanding of hydrodynamic and morphological processes, coupled with advances in computing technology has led to the development of increasingly complex and powerful predictive tools incorporating these mathematical models. These advances led from the development of relatively simple analytical models into depth-averaged 2-D models in the 1980s and 1990s (Lesser et al., 2004). More complex models involving quasi-3-D extensions were subsequently developed (e.g. Struiksma 1985) to allow for more complex water flows associated with river engineering. The use of quasi-3-D models in coastal settings followed (see de Vriend et al 1993; Nicholson et al 1997). 3-D hydrodynamic modelling was more advanced by the late 1990s than 3-D morphodynamic modelling, as a result of an incomplete understanding of morphodynamic processes (de Vriend 1997). 3-D and quasi-3-D approaches were being successfully applied in river engineering by the early 21st century, but their practical use in estuarine and coastal situations was limited (Lesser et al 2004). Developments continued and, at the time of writing, 3-D and quasi 3-D models have been used to predict morphodynamic changes (e.g. Kuroiwa et al 2004; Wurpts 2004, 2006; Waeles 2008) and dredging-related sediment transport processes (e.g. Johnson et al 2000; Bai et al 2003) in numerous studies. Several advanced morphodynamic modelling packages with the capability to predict the movement of suspended sediments exist (e.g. Delft3D and DREDGMAP),

34

however the challenges associated with this type of modelling are considerable, and as a result the number of applications with coastal engineering capability remains limited (Bertin et al 2008).

Two main approaches in process-based morphodynamic modelling can be distinguished. In the first approach, known as parametric, the natural random wave field is assumed to be narrow banded in frequency and direction. Its description is then reduced to a single representative wave height, period, and direction. All subsequent computations of hydrodynamics and sediment transport are then based on this single wave approach (e.g. Roelvink and Stive 1989; Nairn and Southgate 1993). In the second, probabilistic (or wave-by-wave) approach the computation of hydrodynamics and sediment transport is based on a discrete number of wave classes (e.g. Van Rijn and Wijnberg 1996). Although more accurately describing the actual conditions experienced in the environment, computationally taxing probabilistic techniques may not offer significant advantages over simpler, parametric methods (Grasmeijer and Ruessink 2003).

7.2 Models

Below is a brief description of some models applied to dredging applications. The list is by no means exhaustive.

DREDGEMAPDREDGEMAP is an advanced sediment fate model developed by Applied Science Associates (ASA) in collaboration with The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Howlett et al 2000). The model combines the functions of a number of earlier models (e.g. SSFATE, SSDOSE and CAPModel) and can deal with hydrodynamic and wave data, dredging, geotechnical and sediment parameters, including up to five sediment size classes. Three-dimensional predictive maps of total suspended solid concentration can be generated as DREDGEMAP predicts the transport, dispersion, settling and re-suspension of sediments released by dredging (Fitzpatrick et al 2009). DREDGEMAP model software is used in-house by ASA and is not available for commercial distribution (Applied Science Associates 2009).

Delft3DDelft3D is a modular modelling system developed by Delft Hydraulics (now part of Deltares, an independent Dutch research institute). The package is capable of 2-D (depth-averaged) or 3-D modelling to investigate hydrodynamics, sediment transport and morphology and water quality. Like DREDGEMAP, five sediment fractions can be defined (Lesser et al 2004). Unlike DREDGEMAP, Delft3D is commercially available (Deltares 2010). Both cohesive and non-cohesive sediments can be modelled, with modelled sediment transport and morphological changes being fed directly back into the model (Lesser et al 2004). Numerous projects have used the Delft3d model, including dredging studies such as Luger and Van Ballegooyen (2000).

35

MIKE21MIKE21 is a package including a 2-D depth averaged hydrodynamic model and a variety of additional modules including offering morphological and sediment transport functions. Sediment transport can be predicted using modules optimised for either coarse (ST sediment transport module) or fine (MT mud transport module) sediments (DHI 2010). Being a 2-D model, MIKE21 is applicable to well mixed environments where vertical stratification can be neglected (Warren and Bach 1992). The package has been widely used in various dredging applications worldwide (e.g. Jensen et al 1998; Steenberg and Kriauciuniene 2002; Maraga et al 2008).

SMOR3DSMOR3D is a three-dimensional morphodynamic-numerical model including transport modules for salt, suspended and bed-load-sediment. Sediments are described by multiple fractions with different properties (Wurpts 2006). The model was developed in the University of Technology Darmstadt, Germany in the Institut für Wasserbau und Wasserwirtschaft (Institute for Hydraulic Sciences).

TELEMAC-3DTELEMAC was originally a 2-D model developed by the Laboratoire National d’Hydraulique, designed for a large range of studies, including tides, harbour, and coastal facilities, sea and estuary pollution, and hydroelectricity and river engineering (Galland et al 1991). More recently, TELEMAC-3D was developed to simulate 3-dimensional flows in rivers and coastal zones (e.g. Malcherek et al 1993; Marcos et al 1997), including dredging projects (e.g. Belleudy 2000).

HR Wallingford modelsHR Wallingford has developed models for simulating the behaviour of fine sediments during dredging (SEDPLUME-RW) and dredger release (SEDTRAIL-RW) as well as a model to simulate the behaviour of non-cohesive sediments during dredging operations (SandTrack). These models are capable of both 2-D and 3-D operation, and are typically operated using flows generated using TELEMAC (HR Wallingford 2007). SandTrack is, in turn, typically operated within SEDPLUME-RW (Soulsby et al 2007).

US Army Corps of Engineers modelsThe US Army Corps of Engineers has developed models for predicting the behaviour of disposed material. STFATE (short-term FATE) predicts the short-term fate of material as it falls through the water column and impacts the bed. MDFATE (multiple-disposal FATE) can be used predict the building, erosion, consolidation and slumping of mounds formed on the bed from disposed material. CH3D (Curvilinear Hydrodynamics in three dimensions) is a 3D hydrodynamic model used to power STFATE and MDFATE (Johnson et al 1999). CH3D has been used in numerous studies associated with dredging operation (e.g. Dortch et al 2000; Johnson et al 2000)

36

7.3 Model Comparisons

When models are compared they typically show broad quantitative agreement but with discrepancies in the details (Nicholson et al 1997). This study compared the predictions made using five models (Delft3D, MIKE21, HR Wallingford’s PISCES and models developed by Service Technique Central des Ports Maritimes et des Voies Navigables and the Civil Engineering Department of the University of Liverpool). The study notes that the sediment transport formula had a pronounced effect on the resulting morphology, and the importance of including interaction between the hydrodynamic and morphological components of the model systems. The study suggests that 2-D depth-averaged models are appropriate for modelling far-field effects, and could be supplemented by the use of 3D or quasi 3-D modelling to study near-field effects such as scour holes.

The COAST3D study (Soulsby 1998) compared numerous coastal profile models (used to predict cross-shore variations in hydrodynamics and/or morphodynamics, including beach profiles) and coastal area models (used to some combination of wave and current fields, sediment transport and seabed/beach morphology) (Mulder et al 2001). The COAST3D study compared the predictions of models against observations made at two locations: a straight, sandy coast at Egmond, Netherlands and an irregular coast with a rocky headland at Teignmouth, UK. Models employed included Delft3D and PISCES-TELEMAC. All of the models evaluated provided useful results, though deviations from observations existed in the details of the predictions in all cases. The final report arising from the study (Mulder et al 2001) gives a detailed account of the models assessed and how to apply them.

Discrepancies observed between the outputs of different models are likely to be due to a combination of factors: an incomplete understanding of the physical factors driving dynamic processes (de Vriend 1997; Lesser et al 2004); the inclusion of slightly different physical processes in different models (e.g. flocculation, density effects of suspended sediment concentrations, or the number of sediment size classes); and variation in the mathematical handling of the physical processes modelled.

7.4 Key Issues

Despite the model evaluations offered in comparison studies (e.g. Nicholson et al 1997; Mulder et al 2001), generally accepted rules and evaluation schemes for sediment transport models are not available (Winter 2007), in contrast with hydrodynamic modelling where such schemes do exist (e.g. Dee 1995; Van Waveren et al 2000). Uncalibrated hydrodynamic models may be considered satisfactory (at engineering length and time scales) but serious uncertainties can be expected when sediment transport models are applied without calibration (Davies et al 2007). More rigorous methods of evaluating sediment transport models should be developed (Winter 2007). Even widely used models such as Delft3D require more verification (Lesser at al 2004), though work in the field of model evaluation and verification is being carried

37

out (e.g. Mulder et al 2001; Grunnet et al 2004; Lesser et al 2004; Soulsby et al 2007).

A model’s skill (its ability to correctly predict physical conditions) can be improved if the critical input parameters can be determined and more accurately constrained (Sheng and Kim 2009). Critical input parameters identified include suspended sediment data (e.g. Sheng and Kim 2009), wave breaking coefficient e.g. Mulder et al 2001), sediment size (e.g. Mulder et al 2001) and bed roughness (Lesser et al 2004),

There is a tension between the use of coastal geomorphological models for scientific and engineering uses. In scientific terms, coastal geomorphology is at the forefront of the exploitation of new environmental instrumentation and remote sensing technologies. The development of high-resolution multi-temporal data models has to some extent been driven by the need to understand and predict localised sediment transport (i.e. engineering) problems (French and Burningham 2009).

7.5 Conclusions

Computer modelling systems predicting hydrodynamic and morphological processes are powerful tools that can assist in the design, planning and efficient execution of dredging operations, and the assessment of their likely impacts.

In the case of maintenance, dredging their primary use is likely to be in the assessment of the likely fate of disposed material.

The hydrodynamic complexity of the environment in question will be key to the selection of a suitable modelling system. Far-field effects may be adequately modelled using 2-D models. Complex and high-resolution modelling of near-filed effects is more likely to require a 3-D approach.

Whichever model is employed, it is vital that careful validation of the model is conducted to minimise prediction errors. Sediment processes, in particular, require careful calibration.

3-D modelling is still undergoing rapid development. It is to be hoped that a fruitful cross-fertilisation of techniques and ideas will occur between those pursuing modelling for scientific research purposes and those seeking to use modelling as a tool to provide engineering solutions.

38

OBJECTIVE 3: LITERATURE REVIEW OF EXISTING MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DREDGING PROJECTS AND

THEIR EFFICANCY IN ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. Introduction

The overall management goal of any dredging project should be to achieve a sustainable solution, subject to sound environmental, social and financial impact evaluations, weighing and balancing all the associated risks. Sediments are a basic component of habitats that support aquatic life. Because dredging inherently involves disturbance of existing substrates, either by the dredging itself or subsequent deposition of sediments, impacts on the environment may result. To avoid or limit any negative impacts many national and international conventions have been developed concerning the placement of dredged material in the aquatic environment.

When an environmental assessment determines that impacts may be significant, consideration is given to means to conduct the project in such a manner that impacts are avoided, reduced or mitigated. Many alternatives exist, collectively called dredging project mitigation measures, whereby unacceptable environmental impacts of dredging (including dredged material placement and sediment transport) can be offset. These practices encompass a diverse array, from relatively minor operational changes (e.g., to alter the rate of sediment removal) to application of innovative technologies, or to restrictions that constrain dredging to certain times of the year. The need for mitigation measures is not only limited to those dredging projects that are dealing with contaminated sediments. Even when dredging clean sediments the evaluation of potential environmental effects and identification of mitigation measures to reduce such effects is necessary.

PIANC (2009) recently developed a framework to aid the transparent selection of such mitigation measures for minimising the environmental impacts of dredging projects. As part of this undertaking, the document comprehensively reviewed the mitigation measures available to any such project. Professionals from all over the world encompassing a variety of disciplines (e.g., regulators, contractors, consultants, port authorities) were involved in developing this review and, as such, PIANC (2009) provides the most up-to-date review of mitigation measures for a dredging project. Consequently, we have used this as a firm basis for the present report, drawing upon its relevance, but also adding to it in aspects which were not as specific as those required for the present study. Although the scope of PIANC (2009) was global, very few measures indicated were deemed to have a non-UK application and, therefore, needed to be left out of the present report.

2. Mitigation measures for dredging projects

39

There is a wide range of mitigation measures that may be applicable to a dredging project. These vary greatly in type, environmental effectiveness, economic cost and in the actual stage when they can be implemented during a dredging project. For example, while some measures can be applied or adopted at the planning stage by the ‘owner’ of a project (e.g. the contractor-selection basis) others pertain to restrictions regarding when the dredge can and cannot be undertaken as required by a regulator. Clearly, therefore, any appraisal of the efficacy of mitigation measures available for dredging projects requires a carefully-designed basis within which to categorise the entire list of measures. This report adopts the classification of PIANC (2009) where 6 broad types of mitigation measures were designated:

Contractual and project management Project design and planning Equipment related Institutional Dredging-related Control-related

A summary of the measures within each category is presented below; more detail is provided regarding each mitigation measure, its limitations and advantages and disadvantages in the succeeding tables. Note that PIANC (2009) provides further information for each, indicating to what extent the effectiveness of each measure can be either predicted or monitored, together with providing examples where each measure has been used and references for further reading.

2.1 Contractual and project management mitigation measures (5 presented; see Table 1)

Unlike the majority of mitigation measures (which depend upon the particular circumstances of the project and the environment), contractual and project management mitigation measures should be carefully considered for all dredging projects. Establishing the most suitable contract for minimising environmental impacts from the outset ultimately makes any later implementation of mitigation measures much easier.

To undertake a project from the outset with the aim of minimising environmental impacts in view of all constraints (e.g. financial, scale of project), the environmental requirements of the operation need to be known and incorporated during the project set-up. Additionally, decisions must be reached regarding the degree of environmental protection based on the various legal requirements. Ultimately, these decisions will affect the type and details of the contract and selection of suitable operator/contractor. Realistic environmental requirements should be included in the tender specifications so that they can be priced or should be decided and agreed in discussion with the executing party before the project begins.

40

Specific performance methods require a good understanding of the relationship between dredging works and their physical (and perhaps environmental) impacts. Performance specifications allows the operator, who is often best placed in this respect to use his experience to select the most suitable method to undertake the project within the imposed environmental criteria. Inclusion of the operator in discussions at an early stage provides him with a sense of ownership and the motivation to succeed.

At this stage, procedures to indicate how environmental performance criteria will be met during execution of the project should be made explicit. They should include procedures for monitoring compliance with the performance criteria and state how the project is to be adjusted should certain criteria be exceeded. Although modern vessels can readily provide diagnostic information, the data output must be in a reliable and meaningful form that clearly highlights such exceedances. As the effect of a number of mitigation measures will not be known in advance with any certainty, the management approach should allow adjustment of practices based on feedback monitoring. This should be incorporated into the contractual agreement. Partnering, a form of co-operation between contractor and client, can aide this process and improve sustainability of decision-making around dredging projects and help to minimise environmental impacts. It is unlikely that the client, consultant, or contractor will be sufficiently knowledgeable about all the environmental consequences of a particular dredging project but by optimising the interaction between them their collective expertise can be of benefit.

2.2 Project Design and Planning (5 presented; see Table 2)

When designing the technical details of a dredging project, there are a number of factors to consider that may ultimately result in changes to the degree of environmental impacts. For example, can the dimensions of the dredge area be reduced while still achieving the project objective(s)? Such changes may require expert judgement and therefore require a detailed understanding of the hydrodynamics and sediment transport dynamics of the system. A reduction in dimensions implies a reduction in the amount of dredging and subsequent quantities to be transported and disposed. Over-dredging to create over-depth or over-width can increase the capacity for sedimentation and may therefore reduce the frequency of maintenance dredging and allow it to be undertaken at a more appropriate time.

There are other ways of reducing the quantity or frequency of maintenance dredging. For example, it may be possible to construct physical barriers which alter the sediment transport dynamics to prevent or reduce deposition in the area. In some instances, it may be more appropriate to cover contaminated sediments rather than dredge them (especially as the impacts of dredging contaminated sediments are far greater than those associated with non-contaminated material). Such sediments may be covered through techniques to induce natural sedimentation or by actively placing cleaner sediments (or ‘capping’).

41

Where specific areas of conservation interest are potentially at risk, measures to avoid impacts should be considered at this stage. If it is not possible to prevent physical changes in the vicinity of these areas, compensation measures need to be determined. If the project is deemed unlikely to affect such areas, adherence of operations to agreed plans should be monitored.

2.3 Equipment-Related Mitigation Measures (17 presented; see Table 3)

These mitigation measures affect the environmental performance of a project through techniques and options at the process level.

2.3.1 Select dredging equipment

Although the dredger most suitable for a given project is mainly defined by sediment type and transport requirements, environmental implications can also be taken into account. The relevance and effectiveness of this as a mitigation measure will be very project-specific. Dredging experts should be consulted at this stage. Special dredgers with environmental design features may be used for particularly sensitive projects but usually at higher cost.

Where pipelines carry dredged material, there is a risk of leakage or pipeline failure. If the material is contaminated or near high-risk habitats or species, double-walled or welded pipelines should be used. Atmospheric emissions may be a concern in some situations. These can be reduced by applying dredging techniques that require less energy per cubic metre or using less traditional energy sources like clean fuels or electricity.

2.3.2 Modify available equipment

If the most suitable equipment for reducing environmental impacts is not available, modifications to existing plant may be possible. For example, degassing systems on trailer suction hopper dredgers (TSHDs) significantly increase the density of the loaded mixture. This is particularly appropriate for the dredging of (contaminated) silts when overflowing of the hopper is not usually allowed and rejection by the dredger of low density slurry, so called lean mixture overboard, is undesirable. Modern dredgers are not generally noisy but there are ways to reduce such impacts if required.

The overflow of fine sediments when loading hoppers or barges can cause increases in suspended sediment concentrations during a dredging operation. Although more modern vessels are designed to reduce this, there may be modifications to older vessels that can be applied, for example the location of the overflow weir and mode of release of the overflow may be altered.

2.3.3 Maintain Equipment

When environmental implications are a concern, the condition of the dredging plant (including the vessel and all transport machinery) is important. It should be working to standards at least appropriate to the project. Several dredger

42

components are subject to wear and tear and may introduce environmental concerns if not properly maintained.

2.4 Institutional Mitigation Measures (9 presented; see Table 4)

Essentially these are restrictions imposed on where, when and at what rate dredging is done. Mitigation may be achieved, for example, by conducting operations within certain tidal period or river discharges to reduce the extent of an associated sediment plume. Thoughtful planning or sequencing of operations may help to achieve environmental objectives.

Reducing the production rate may reduce the short term impact by making the dredging operation less invasive. On the other hand it must be weighed as to whether a short period of intense dredging has a lower or higher long term impact than a longer dredge at a lower production rate.

Avoiding specified locations or reducing activities during specific periods may help to reduce impacts on certain habitats or species at critical periods in their life cycle. This practice is often referred to as ‘seasonal restrictions’ or ‘environmental windows’. Areas of critical environmental concern or areas surrounding these where some physical impacts can be tolerated (i.e. buffer zones) may be specified and marked.

2.5 Dredging-Related Mitigation Measures (14 presented; see Table 5)

Dredging related mitigation measures are adjustments to, or modifications of, the standard operational procedures during a dredge.

Effects that are directly related to the rate of output and mode of operation of a dredge can be reduced by lowering it. This will however increase the project duration and the project costs and possibly even result in increased environmental harm due to the extended exposure time.

Depending on the type of dredger, dredging to achieve strict vertical tolerances is often uneconomic and may cause additional environmental impacts. Final levelling by simple, specifically-designed methods can be more efficient, both economically and environmentally.

As described in 2.3.2., overflowing or overloading hoppers or barges cause an increase in suspended sediment concentration. By not allowing or limiting the amount of material released and by modifying the way the overflow is released into the ambient waters might reduce the concentration and extent of suspended sediment plumes1. When mechanically off-loading barges there are a number of relatively simple measures (e.g., use of spill plates, aprons) that can reduce the amount of sediment released into the environment.

1 Overflowing can, in some instances, be actively applied to retain sediments within an estuarine system, e.g., the Stour and Orwell Estuaries, UK.

43

Bottom disturbance might be reduced by selecting special anchoring and mooring systems. These should not be used in a way that impairs the dredger operation as this may have other environmental drawbacks.

2.6 Control-Related Mitigation Measures (20 presented; see Table 6)

The precision of dredging works affects the amounts of material which may need dredging and consequently may affect the degree of environmental impacts. Modern survey and measuring techniques offer much more accurate positioning, position control and monitoring than was previously possible. Most modern dredging equipment too is equipped with such instrumentation. If not, it can easily be fitted. Interpretation and understanding of the meaning and significance of large volumes of data, however, requires skilled computer analysis. The use of Dredging Information Systems (DIS) is also available; continually recording large numbers of variables including the dredging depth, position, volumes etc. These data are interpreted and supplied to automated systems controlling the dredge or to a real time feedback system for use by the dredge master. Silent Inspector or ‘Black Box’ systems are now commonly used to verify that the dredging is being carried out to the required standards and specifications.

If measures taken at the point of dredging prove not to be sufficiently effective, ‘shielding’ of sensitive areas might be an option. This is possible both in water and on land by either screening off the source or preventing the stressor (e.g., noise, light, odour) reaching the receptor for which there is concern. For example, the installation of a physical barrier, such as a silt screen, can be employed to prevent the spread of suspended sediments from the dredge area or to protect a sensitive area nearby. Some issues are related to direct and measurable effects, others are related more to public perception.

Dredging operations might disturb larger mobile species. Measures are recommended to keep these species at a safe distance from critical operations. Even alternative habitats might be provided.

Emissions of matter can be limited by proper equipment control, management and operation. Also, a seasonal restriction might be applied to avoid times of critical conditions.

Any spill of oil / chemical / waste into the environment should be avoided and can mostly be achieved by the application of proper procedures. If spills occur by accident, spill combat procedures should be available, and should have been practiced on a regular basis by the responsible personnel. The majority of these procedures are required by various national and international laws.

44

Table 1: Contractual and Project Management Mitigation MeasuresDescription Applicability/limitations Advantages Disadvantages

1. Select appropriate contracting approach and contract format. Most suitable contracting approach (e.g., design-bid-build, design-build) and format (e.g., fixed fee, cost plus fee, time and materials, use of incentives and/or penalties) for the project.

• Applicable for all projects• Using incentives and/or penalties can impact (either positively or negatively) environmental performance• Requires technical understanding of dredging projects for owner’s legal, contracting, and technical staff

• Potential contract issues can be addressed before signing a legal document• Equitably share risk (including environmental risk) between owner and operator• May improve working relationship between owner and operator• Selecting appropriate contracting method and contract format can save time and budget

• Pre-contracting consultation between owner and potential contractors may be prohibited

2. Select the contractor based on best value or use pre-qualification to limit the bidders to qualified bidders. Pre-qualifying contractors helps prevent unqualified bidders.

• Only where owner is legally allowed to pre-qualify or select contractors based on best value• Requires a clearly defined selection process with fixed selection criteria

• Reduces the chance of selecting an inexperienced or unqualified contractor• Improves chances to complete complex projects within the schedule and budget with minimal or no claims• May assist owner with obtaining lower insurance premiums

• May result in higher bids than the lowest-cost contractor

3. Use performance specifications (instead of method specifications) to allow operator flexibility. This allows the greatest flexibility for operator to select equipment and construction means and methods.

• Applicable for all projects with specific environmental aspects• Requires good, clear, and unambiguous description of performance requirements.

• Allows operator flexibility to select equipment and construction means and methods, which translates to potential cost and schedule savings• Potentially allows a larger pool of contractors to bid on a project, increasing competition• Creates opportunity to insert innovation into a contract

• Not all operators may be equally qualified or experienced to perform the work

4. Prepare project and site-specific environmental and construction monitoring program.Apply reasonable compliance monitoring strategies and procedures. Both environmental data and construction data (such as operator daily logs) may be collected to assess how construction operations relate to environmental monitoring results.

• For projects with environmental concerns•For projects with higher level of regulatory and/or public interest• Only monitoring of physical parameters should be used for compliance monitoring/direct project control. Monitoring of parameters that are beyond the control of an operator may be conducted but it may not be possible for the operator to react to observed changes

• A clearly defined monitoring program will facilitate responsible project execution• A project- and site-specific monitoring plan is often considered by regulators to be mitigation for potential environmental impacts• Collecting both environmental data and construction data allows an understanding of how construction operations may directly affect the environmental criteria

• Excessive monitoring programs may result in unnecessary cost increases or construction delays• Effective monitoring requires a commitment to timely data collection, interpretation, reporting, and decisions on contingency actions (if needed) by multiple parties (owner/operator, regulators, and sometimes even stakeholders).

5. Use adaptive management approach during construction. This aims to improve environmental management through 'learning by doing' and using feedback to adjust construction operations to better meet the project objectives.

• Primarily applicable for projects where there is significant uncertainty in the ability to meet threshold criteria• Environmental criteria that have been set without reliable baseline data might be over- or under-protective• The contract should allow for a mechanism to deal with variations that are the result of the adaptive management approach

• Adaptive management approach gives owner/operator flexibility to respond to natural variances in site conditions• Project may be able to continue, even if there are exceedances of environmental criteria (without a real threat to the environment)• Monitoring data can help evaluate the appropriateness of set environmental criteria, and support modifying criteria

• Mechanism to deal with variations needs to be specified in contract. Consequences of changing agreed procedures will have cost impact.• Regulators and stakeholders may not agree with owner/operator conclusions on appropriate responses to the monitoring feedback• Reassessing the criteria may be difficult due to regulatory / stakeholder / political concerns

45

46

Table 2: Project Design and Planning Mitigation MeasuresDescription Applicability/limitations Advantages Disadvantages

6. Reduce dredging requirements (horizontal and vertical depths) while still meeting functional requirements.

• Most applicable on projects where functional requirements allow options for environmental optimisation• Requires understanding of project needs and dredging construction methods

• Reducing dredging extent may reduce potential environmental impacts• Construction duration is proportional to quantity to be dredged and is likely to be reduced• Reducing dredging volumes may result in less equipment and/or smaller equipment

• Minimising dredging might result in indirect impacts, such as future use restrictions, increased maintenance frequency, or decreased navigational safety.

7. Optimise or improve dredging design, i.e., increasing the extent of required dredging may reduce the frequency of future maintenance dredging and reduce cumulative impacts over time.

• On project sites with high sedimentation loads, over-dredging can reduce frequency of maintenance dredging• Existing structures or steep slopes adjacent to dredging area may limit ability to increase dredging extent• Hydrodynamic processes may be affected, causing adverse environmental impacts

• Reduces frequency of maintenance dredging events and provides better options for optimal planning of maintenance works• Increasing the dredging volume improves the economy of scale

• Increasing dredging extents may increase potential environmental impacts• Construction duration is proportional to quantity to be dredged and is likely to be increased• Increasing dredging volumes may result in more equipment and/or larger equipment

8. Make changes to physical system to reduce sedimentation into project area, i.e., construct structural elements or sediment resuspension systems to help keep sediment suspended in the water column

• This management practice has very limited applicability to most types of dredging projects and raises other significant environmental issues.• Hard structures (e.g., sheet-pile walls, current deflecting walls) affect navigation access and have long-term maintenance requirements.• Bubble curtains may impact fish migration and have long-term maintenance requirements.

• Reducing sedimentation loads into project area will reduce or eliminate the need for maintenance dredging

• Reducing sedimentation within one area may increase sedimentation in other areas outside of the project boundary• Modifying site conditions may have significant environmental effects

9. Reduce or eliminate the need to dredge through using natural recovery, enhanced natural recovery and capping/cover options

• Primarily applicable for contaminated sediment remediation projects• Natural recovery options are less likely to be effective in low sedimentation areas• Placing cap/cover will reduce the water depth• Suitable cap/cover material needs to be available• Cannot be used where regulators require removal of all contaminated sediment

• Eliminates potential environmental impacts associated with dredging activities• Eliminates residual management issues• Generally, caps/covers are less costly than dredging and placement• Suitable cap material might create opportunities for ecological recovery or development

• Requires an increased evaluation of contaminant mobility and long-term fate, and a more detailed design is typically required• These options may not provide a permanent solution to environmental liabilities• May be difficult to educate regulators and public on the technologies’ effectiveness

10. Protect Habitat and species, i.e., inclusion of specific measures to protect habitat or species and avoid or minimise potential impacts (e.g., shielding, relocation, compensation)

• Applicable for any project where specific habitat or species is directly or indirectly affected• Only suitable where zones of critical receptors can be defined

• Measures can be effective without directly influencing project execution• Measures can be readily identified and observed to address public/stakeholder concerns

• Might introduce secondary effects (e.g., anchoring of silt screen, stresses to relocated biota)• Measures will add to project costs

47

Table 3: Equipment-Related Mitigation MeasuresDescription Applicability/limitations Advantages Disadvantages

11. Use appropriate type and size of dredging equipment for the project based on key criteria including functional requirements, siteconditions and environmental objectives.

• Applicable for all projects• Selection might be limited to locally available pieces of equipment• Selection depends upon project scope, site conditions, placement option, sediment characteristics, availability of equipment, etc.• Requires dredging expertise

• Selecting an appropriate dredging plant is a basic requirement for all dredging projects

• The optimal plant may not provide the lowest cost• Specifying the exact equipment to be used may reduce available operators and potentially increase costs

12. Select most appropriate type and size of mechanical dredger (e.g., grab, dragline, dipper, backhoe) based on sediment characteristics and volume, placement location, site use and restrictions, etc. Select most appropriate type and size of buckets and grabs for the selected mechanical dredger.

• Can be used for almost all types of projects and are readily available worldwide• Less effective in ocean conditions• Mechanical dredgers are generally stationary so may obstruct navigation• Dredger production in harder and consolidated material depends on break-out force of the dredger and bucket type and size

• Produce relatively high solids-content material so minimal water to manage• Relatively good at handling debris• Do not require a floating pipeline• Can work around obstructions easier than hydraulic dredgers• May be more available than hydraulic dredgers in certain parts of the world.

• Generally lower production rates than hydraulic dredgers resulting in potentially longer durations•Typically produce higher turbidity throughout the water column compared to hydraulic dredgers

13. Select most appropriate type and size of bucket-ladder dredger based on sediment characteristics and volume, placement location, site and use restrictions, etc. Select most appropriate type and size of bucket for the selected dredger.

• Uncommon and typically not readily available• More for specialized dredges, e.g. trenching• Typically for high production use• Difficult to use for hard or dense sediments• Optimal bucket size is a function of sediment type and strength and of installed power.• Difficult to use around structures.

• Can increase production and shorten project duration over other types of mechanical dredgers• Typically produce high solids-content material and less water to manage than hydraulic dredgers

•Typically produces more noise than conventional grab dredgers• Can cause significant aeration and turbidity from descending buckets• Floating conveyor can impact navigation

14. Select most appropriate type and size of hydraulic dredger (e.g., suction, cutterhead, auger, hopper, dustpan, etc.) based on sediment characteristics and volume, placement option, site use and restrictions.

• Can be used for many types of projects• Generally available locally• Where dredged material dilution is acceptable• Cutter suction dredgers (CSD) are most suitable to dredge consolidated or hard material• Not effective at removing debris• Suction and hopper-type dredgers are generally not suitable for dredging harder materials.• Hydraulic transportation distances are generally limited to a maximum of 4 to 5 km• Water management often restricts their use

• Typically higher production rates than mechanical dredgers• Contained sediment transportation system (i.e., hydraulic pipeline)• May reduce suspended sediment loss at point of dredging. Hydraulic dredgers tend to have lower re-suspended concentrations throughoutwater column• For larger projects, costs tend to be lower due to high production rates

• Water management, and turbidity and re-suspended solids, can be a significant factor in design and environmental impacts• Turbidity and suspended sediments at point of dredging can be significant• Typically CSDs have a greater impact on navigation due to floating hydraulic pipeline.• Typically CSDs need either large upland area for passive dewatering and solids settling (sometimes using flocculants) or complex activedewatering systems

15. Select most appropriate type and capacity of dredged material transportation method based on dredging method, placement site location, volume of dredged material, site and use restrictions, etc.

• Applicable for all projects• Selecting dredged material transportation is generally an integral part of selecting the overall combination of the dredging plant• The transportation method is mainly dictated by the selection of the dredging equipment and the relative location of the placement site

• Proper transportation method allows for transport efficiency to be optimised causing least environmental impact

• Incorrect choice might cause unnecessary impacts

16. Select most appropriate type and • Haul barges can be used with mechanical and • Many types of haul barges are available • Barge overflow sediment loss can be significant

48

size of haul/transport barge (e.g. hopper barges, flattop barges, split-hull barges, scows) in accordance with project factors (e.g., dredging method, placement site location and distance, volume of dredged material)

hydraulic dredging, though less applicable with hydraulic dredgers• Haul barges are used for long haul distances• Barge draft may limit access• Barges may need to be specially modified to prevent leakage during filling and transport• Certain types of barges are not suitable for open-ocean conditions

allowing good project customisation• Haul barges are generally available and easy to mobilise to a site• Can be modified to help reduce sediment loss• Hydraulic loading of barges may create significant turbidity, when overflowing, compared to mechanical loading

unless measures are implemented• Need to have sufficient number of appropriate barges to avoid impacting the production rate of the dredger

17. Select most appropriate type and size of barge offloading equipment, can include both mechanical and hydraulic equipment.

• For projects where barges carry dredged material from the dredging site to a different transport mode (pipeline, truck, or other).• Choice of unloading method is influenced by the need for water as the transport medium

• Proper selection allows for the water quantity to be reduced and transport efficiency to be optimised, minimising potential environmental impacts

• Improper choice might create unnecessary impact

18. Select most appropriate type of hydraulic pipeline for the material type, site conditions, and leakage constraints

• As some types of floating pipelines are more vulnerable to damage risks than others• Select special pipeline sections to prevent leakage through abrasion holes or out of imperfectly closing pipeline connections• Use double-walled pipelines/thick- walled pipelines/welded pipelines for highly contaminated sediments or abrasive material • Sea-state conditions and availability of support vessels might limit application

• Reduce risk of loss of contaminants through leakage or pipeline damage

• Rubber self-float pipelines are significantly more costly than steel pipelines• Special pipelines are more costly and difficult to handle• Double-walled lines are heavier, requiring solid supports at critical locations

19. Use special environmental equipment (e.g., cable arm bucket, horizontal profiling grab, environmental auger dredger, disc bottom cutter dredger) which result in high-precision excavation, high-density production and reduced sediment resuspension

• Designed for use in contaminated sediment, where accuracy of excavation, minimal resuspension, and low water content of dredged material are critical• Typically effective in loose, unconsolidated materials• Hydraulic types ineffective at removing debris•Equipment-related transportation and placement modes can pose limitations for application• Requires specialised expertise

• May improve performance on environmental criteria, if applied in an appropriate fashion

• Comparatively lower output leads to extended dredging periods and increased costs• Not effective in medium to highly consolidated materials or rock• Site conditions and physical characteristics of the sediment have a significant effect on the effectiveness• Availability of equipment may be limited

20. Select energy source (e.g., electric) to improve environmental performance of equipment

• Consider using specialized equipment when there is a need to reduce potential air quality impacts• Site conditions and program constraints may limit choice• Not many dredgers are fitted to run on electricity• Connection from shore plug-in point to dredger needs to be technically feasible and safe

• Can improve local air quality at the point of dredging

• Might lead to increased cost• Clean fuels are not always available at location• Relatively large power consumption required to be supplied by network

21. Modify existing equipment to make it more fit for purpose (if no suitable

• Applicable for all projects• Modifications might improve on one or several

• Relatively simple measures might prove to be effective

• Depending on type of modification, might reduce output, increasing project duration

49

equipment can be selected from available types and ranges of equipment)

criteria, but might not affect other aspects of operations• Requires dredging equipment expertise to define potential improvements• Best left to operator to implement as a performance specification

• Capability of dredger may not be affected• May eliminate the need to consider specialized environmental equipment

• Modifications may be untested and unproven, and their effects may not always be predictable

22. Apply degassing systems to hydraulic dredging system (prevents choking of pump and process interruptions)

• For hydraulic suction systems in gas-rich sediments• Best in soft sediments/silts.

• Less process interruption, less turbidity generation and higher-density dredging

• Additional energy consumption• Gas emissions might cause odour nuisance and safety concerns

23. Reduce odour nuisance by using closed hoppers

• When dredging material with a high organic content (potential H2S emissions) in near urbanized areas

• Reduced impacts on public • Capture and controlled release of gasses from closed hoppers leads to locally higher concentrations, potentially becoming health hazards

24. Insulate dredging equipment to reduce noise emission to below an acceptable noise threshold

• For projects in heavily urbanised areas• On all equipment with on-deck engines or mechanical moveable parts• Source (i.e., engines) or receptor (e.g., draghead) insulation may not always be feasible

• Project implementation possible within acceptable limits• Longer operational times may be allowed

• Additional maintenance and control of installations

25. Apply Green Valve (or Environmental Valve) to reduce air entrainment and concentrate overflow-outflow. This results in decreased turbidity, as the overflow material is transported vertically down more rapidly due to density effects.

• Fits on most modern TSHDs• Can be installed on barges when being hydraulically loaded• Most effective for fine dredged material• Modern equipment required as not all TSHDs can be equipped with green valve systems• Involves more complicated process control

• Concentrated overflow reduces extent and content of turbidity plume

• Slightly reduced loading capacity may slightly extend project duration• Some cost increase

26. Filter the overflow effluent from transport barges to reduce sediment loss, suspended sediment and turbidity

• For transport barges, mainly under mechanical loading, sometimes for hydraulic loading• Alternatively, make the barge watertight and transfer water from the barge for filtering / treatment in separate system

• Improves quality of barge discharge water • Cleaning, replacing and maintaining of filters will delay operation and increase cost

27. Inspect and maintain equipment in good working condition. A good, proactive maintenance program will prevent operational disruptions and reduce potential environmental consequences

• For all types of dredgers, all types of sediments and under all conditions• Special emphasis on hydraulic systems, bottom openings, seals on buckets, pipelines, exhaust emissions and engine noise

• If properly scheduled and managed, could have positive impact on program

• None

50

Table 4: Institutional Mitigation MeasuresDescription Applicability/limitations Advantages Disadvantages

28. Restrict the dredging operations to certain tidal conditions (flood/ebb, spring/neap) or avoid operations during tidal extremes

• Effective for management of sediment suspension issues related to extent of tidal migration and to proximity of sensitive areas• Consider when tidal extremes cause high current velocities/level differences that impact water quality• Requires a certain minimum tidal variation

• May reduce the horizontal extent of suspended sediments• Working on selected tides can reduce the spread of sediment in an undesirable direction

• Might reduce working times, could significantly increase project duration and cost

29. River discharge dependent operations to make use of changes in river discharges or water level, or avoid periods/locations with currents/water levels in unfavourable conditions

• Effective for management of sediment suspension issues related to sediment transport and distance to sensitive areas• Consider when discharge extremes affect the mixing capacity that impacts water quality

• May reduce the horizontal extent that suspended sediments travel• Less influence of disposed sediments on nearby sensitive areas and spawning grounds

• Might reduce working times which may significantly increase project duration and cost• High or low river discharge periods may affect dredger production rate.

30. Time-based operations (days / weeks / day-night / weekdays-weekends) to avoid or reduce performance during periods of critical sensitivity for receptors (noise, light, odour).

• For projects in the vicinity of populated areas or areas with other specific interest (tourism, recreation, nature reserves)

• Reduces public disturbance and aids wildlife protection

• Could significantly increase project duration and cost

31. Seasonal restricted operations (Environmental Windows) where work is reduced or stopped during specified dates to minimise impacts on receptors. Apply strict limitations or intensive monitoring regimes where work continues during these critical periods.

• For projects in areas with increased environmental concerns or increased sensitivity during certain periods of the year• Distinction can be ‘on/off’ or ‘full/reduced’ operation

• Avoids potential impacts to receptors• May help limit required monitoring if work occurs only outside of sensitive periods

• Increased project duration if operations are expected to exceed timescale of window• May lead to shortage of appropriate operators• Can have significant indirect cost impacts

32. Wind direction related operations to reduce odour impacts on community by scheduling operations as function of wind direction

• When dredging material may release H2S• More practical when various dredging locations are available to allow the operator to move operations around

• Reduced public annoyance • Rescheduling or interruption of operations will lead to program delays and higher costs

33. Restrict access of dredging equipment in specific (sensitive) areas

• For projects in highly sensitive areas• Can also apply for other interests (archaeological, cultural, tourism, fisheries, etc.)• To be managed during project preparation and execution phase• Needs good communication on potential effects

• Prevents direct impact on sensitive areas • May lead to changes in project execution plan, potentially introducing extended construction period and increased project costs• Spatial restrictions may not allow project objectives to be met

34. No bed contact (anchoring, sinker lines) zones for specific areas (e.g., sensitive habitats, contaminated sediments).

• No bed contact needs to be evaluated against the type of equipment to be used. In some cases, this restriction may not be technically feasible

• Prevents direct impact on sensitive beds • May lead to longer pipeline routes or might limit supporting operations• May increase safety hazards if anchor lines need to be extended outside area of dredging.• May limit possible equipment

35. Implement ‘no effect’ or ‘impact avoidance’ zones where no reduction of

• For areas with specific protection status on basis of highly valuable aquatic life

• Prevents direct and indirect impact on sensitive areas

• Could introduce significant cost increase, resulting from adopted execution method or by

51

specified environmental quality is allowed (e.g., specifying no increased turbidity within a designated area)

• Feasibility depends upon the environmental criteria and whether equipment technology can realistically prevent potential impact

costly ‘barrier’• Could completely change scope of operations• Might require full ‘shielding off’ of sensitive area

36. Impose buffer zones (separation zones between activity site and protected areas) such that the point of compliance for meeting environmental criteria is outside the sensitive area

• For projects where there is sufficient space to allow a buffer between operations and sensitive area(s)• Dimension of buffer zone depends on type of impact and its reduction as a function of distance

• Provides protection to most sensitive or protected areas• Easily controlled management option

• May limit area for operations

52

Table 5: Dredging-Related Mitigation MeasuresDescription Applicability/limitations Advantages Disadvantages

37. Modifying rate of operations (altering excavation rate, size or number of dredgers) to influence environmental performance

• For all types of dredgers.• Range of flexibility is limited by technical conditions

• Typically, slowing down operations may reduce potential direct impacts but increase overall duration.• Speeding up operations may increase direct impacts but result in a shorter overall duration

• Both slowing down and speeding up, relative to normal rates, might increase costs• Longer project duration might increase potential environmental impact

38. Modify rate of excavation of mechanical dredgers, e.g., movement of excavating device through water column. Reduced loading (or no ‘overloading’) of buckets by optimising cut-depth

• Applicable to buckets, grabs and bucket-ladder• Typically used as contingency measure when water quality criteria cannot be achieved by standard operational procedures• Used if washing off of fine sediment during the lift of the bucket through the water column could generate significant turbidity• Understanding of system limitations is essential• Performance is dependent on reliability of monitoring methods and techniques

• May reduce sediment loading to water column• May reduce sediment resuspension at bottom impact and drainage at the water surface

• Slowing down production rates results in longer project duration and increased project cost• Longer project duration might increase potential environmental impact

39. Modify mode of excavation of mechanical dredgers (e.g., changes in cutting mode (excavation pattern, cut depth, cut width) and loading rates (bucket type, filling ratio) of excavating tool)

• Applicable to buckets, grabs, clamshell and bucket-ladder•Understanding of system limitations is essential •Performance is dependent on reliability of monitoring methods and techniques

• May reduce sediment re-suspension and loss of sediment from excavating tool

• Environmentally optimised dredging method might not be most cost-effective

40. Modify rate of excavation for hydraulic dredgers, i.e., adapting movement speed of excavating tool (cutterhead rotation, swing speed, trailing speed) and / or the use of jet water in relation to suction flow rate.

• Applicable for cutterheads and dragheads.• Typically used as a contingency measure when water quality criteria cannot be achieved by standard operational procedures• Understanding of system limitations is essential• Performance is dependent on reliability of monitoring methods and techniques

• May reduce sediment re-suspension near excavating tool

• Environmentally optimised dredging method might not be the most cost-effective• Slowing down decreases output and increases dredging durations potentially causing increased project cost and environmental impacts• Risk of plugging suction/discharge line may increase

41. Modify mode of excavation for hydraulic dredgers, i.e., adapting cut profile and movement speed of excavating tool to hydraulic pump capacity

• Applicable for cutterheads and dragheads•Understanding of system limitations is essential •Performance is dependent on reliability of monitoring methods and techniques

• May reduce sediment re-suspension and loss of sediment from excavating tool

• None - matching excavation to pump capacity increases the efficiency of the dredging process

42. Modify mode and speed of ‘mechanical’ transportation (e.g. barges) to reduce impacts from ship-generated waves, propeller wash and re-suspension

• For all transportation by barges or hoppers• Shortest/fastest sailing route might not be optimal from an environmental viewpoint• Navigable depths need to be considered

• May reduce re-suspension or reduce/avoid impacts to shoreline-based structures and/or other water users

• Slower sailing might increase project duration and costs• Alternative routes may require additional equipment

43. Reduce over-dredging by bed-levelling or ‘ploughing’ in combination with other dredgers

• When dredger (TSHD or mechanical) has produced an uneven bottom, bed-levelling obviates the requirement for removal of ridges

• Reduces time for primary dredger• Reduces quantity to be dredged / transported / disposed

•Ploughing causes some sediment re-suspension near bottom, with hard-to-predict dispersal

53

• Not possible when sediments are too hard•Contract conditions or specific environmental conditions may limit this as an option

• Consequently reduces cost and potential environmental effects

44. Reduce or eliminate overflow during hydraulic loading at hoppers or transport barges to reduce quantity of suspended sediment lost

• For all hydraulic hopper and barge-loading processes• Limited to mud, silts, soft clays and silty sands

•Reduced overflow reduces extent and concentration of turbidity plume(s).

• Results in smaller loads being transported which may significantly extend project duration• Results in more small plumes compared to fewer large plumes which may have a negative environmental impact

45. Reduce or eliminate use of ‘lean mixture overboard’ (LMOB) to reduce sediment dispersal during hydraulic loading of barges or hoppers

• For all hydraulic hopper and barge-loading processes with poorly settling fines• Normally applied only at start and end of hydraulic loading process

• Reduced LMOB reduces turbidity generation • Reduced LMOB causes more water and less material being loaded which may increase cost and project duration

46. Prevent overfilling of barges when loading by mechanical dredgers tominimise spillage over the barge fence

• For all mechanical hopper and barge-loading processes with poorly settling fines•Most effective when dredging high-water content loads

• May reduce spillage from barges• Provided sufficient barges are available, effect on program might be limited

• Non-optimal economic loading of barges• Potentially requires more barges or more barge trips increasing costs

47. Re-circulate process water (i.e., return to suction mouth or draghead) from hopper or barge during loading

• For overflow water from hopper or barge loading at hydraulic dredgers• Technically feasible for some TSHD; more complicated at barge-loading dredgers• Technique rarely applied as very complex

• Excess process water being used for makeup of new mixture, reducing amount of overflow, with remaining overflow occurring close to bed

• Relatively costly installation• Potential slight decrease in production rate• Overflow material returned to drag-head might increase turbidity at excavation point

48. Use spill plate/apron during mechanical offloading of barges during transfer to nearshore placement

• When mechanically offloading barges• Wharf configuration might preclude this option

• Reduces potential for spillage into water at offload site

• Minimal increased cost

49. Rinse grab/bucket of mechanical excavator in a rinse tank before lowering in water for next dredge

• Prevents material sticking to the excavator from being spilled in the water column• Typically used to prevent resuspension and loss of contaminated sediment• Requires rinse tank of sufficient size to be available at the dredging location• Rinse tank to be emptied regularly with controlled discharge of sediment-loaded water

• Reduces potential for spillage into water at dredging site

• Reduces the production rate of the mechanical excavator, increasing project duration and costs

50. Select (or modify for) best method for positioning and mooring of dredgers. Regular repositioning of anchors and/or spuds is typically required, each movement causing a bed disturbance. Choosing appropriate anchoring method may help reduce potential impacts

• For all (semi-) stationary dredgers• Anchor and spud type and use are mainly defined by soil conditions and excavation layout• Configuration of anchoring and mooring system should not interfere with navigation or other port uses

• Fewer re-anchoring and re-spudding operations may reduce turbidity generation• Anchor pontoons keep anchor wires from the bed, limiting bottom disturbance

• Modified anchoring/spudding system might not be technically, safety nor economically optimum

54

Table 6: Control-Related Mitigation MeasuresDescription Applicability/limitations Advantages Disadvantages

51. Apply high precision horizontal and vertical positioning (e.g. electronic tide gauge or via DGPS/RTK) control of dredging.

• Projects requiring precise horizontal and/or vertical control• DGPS coverage and accuracy might differ by area over time•Requires regular maintenance and calibration

• Provides better control over dredging•Allows for specifying tighter tolerances of dredging

• RTK system is expensive and not yet commonly applied• Higher-precision positioning systems are more expensive to install and maintain

52. Apply high precision positioning control and high precision monitoring systems on survey vessels.

•For projects requiring precise horizontal and vertical control•Modern systems require sophisticated instrumentation with automation and specialist operation• Tight vertical control might require separate input of tidal corrections, if not from DGPS-RTK

• Provides better control over dredging•Allows for specifying tighter tolerances for dredging

• RTK system is expensive and may not be available• Different systems (i.e., multi- or single beam) may cause confusion and misinterpretation if user is not familiar with the systems

53. Use “Silent Inspector” (SI) to collectand record measurements from shipboard sensors. The shipboard sensors are the property of the operator, who is required to maintain them;the SI system is the property of the client.

• For practically all dredging equipment• For example, lean mixture overboard (LMOB), position/track, density/load, etc. are monitored• Dredging vessels need to be fitted with (high-quality) sensors and data acquisition systems• Functioning of system requires continuous attention and maintenance

• All relevant dredging activities are recorded and documented so can be used to prove operation requirements have been adhered to

• If dredging vessel needs to be fitted for this purpose, cost can be relatively high on smaller projects

54. Use silt curtains to reduce spread of suspended sediment from dredging operations or protect a habitat

• Limited to current velocities <2 knots and waves <0.5 m• Can either enclose dredging area or shield sensitive area• Requires anchoring so difficult to relocate• Interferes with navigation• Typically does not extend through the full water column

• Provides visible control measure• Can reduce resuspended sediment concentrations outside of curtained area

• Handling and management of curtain may delay operations• Typically not effective for dissolved substances• Significant additional cost• Increases suspended sediment concentrations within contained area• Contained sediment might still disperse during and after removal of the silt screen

55. Use sheet pile walls to contain suspended sediments within enclosed area

• Generally for highly contaminated sediments• As a semi-permanent structure in non-navigation areas only.• Shields areas with sensitive receptors• Fixed into bed so not easy to readily relocate

• Limits and defines potential impact area • Significant additional cost• Installation of sheetpile wall may lead to additional impacts (noise, turbidity)

56. Use bubble curtain to limit spread of re-suspended sediments (and reduces underwater noise).

• For closing small openings in hydraulic barriers and in port basin entrances• Can shield areas with sensitive receptors• Relatively large pneumatic installation required

• Provides shielding where other measures cannot be applied• Only available method to reduce underwater noise

•Limited efficiency in certain hydrodynamic conditions• May require continuous air pumping, adding to operational and maintenance costs

55

to achieve efficient operation• Needs to be properly designed in order to avoid uplift of the perforated piping

• Does not interfere with navigation• Easily switched on or off when necessary

• High greenhouse gas emissions needs to be weighed against effect on water quality• Requires maintenance to prevent plugging of air outlet holes

57. Enclose dredger within a compartment (e.g., caissons) to limit spread of re-suspended sediments.

• For dredging highly contaminated sediments near a valuable habitat• Requires appropriate subsurface conditions• Barrier may need to be enclose a large area• Piles fixed into bottom, not easy to relocate• May interfere with navigation

• Dredging takes place in completely enclosed area; no direct influence on the environment

• Installation, relocation and removal of compartment may have environmental impacts• Costly temporary construction is often required• Installing barrier requires driving and pulling numerous pilings

58. Use oil booms around the dredging areato help prevent the spread of sheens or floating debris

• Where risk of oil spill is high or consequences for potential impacts are significant• Where sheens might develop from dredged material• Limited to low currents and low wave exposures

• Controls extent and duration of an oil spill• Controls extent of sheens• Contains floating debris

• May interfere with navigation•Requires maintenance to ensure boom is correctly deployed and replace as necessary

59. Provide noise control using moveable or semi-permanent screens.

• At sensitive areas close to shoreline•Where large, temporary structures can be placed

• Flexible, temporary solution against noise disturbances• Relatively cost-effective to other measures

• May have aesthetic impacts• Requires permission from landowner(s)• Increases project costs

60. Shield dredge areas with visual barriers

• At sites close to highly urban or scenic areas where it is important to disguise operations• Where large structures can be temporarily placed

• Reduces visual disturbance• Ca be integrated into landscaping programs

• May have aesthetic impacts• Requires permission from landowner(s)• Increases project costs

61. Implement specific procedures if protected species (large fish, marine mammals, foraging/nesting birds) areobserved within a specified distance from dredging or placement operations.

• In areas where large endangered or protected species are anticipated• Procedures will be species-specific and specific to the dredger equipment

• Enhances protection of species of interest • Adaptive procedures will generally slow down or even stop the project• Additional cost for monitoring and observers

62. Use fish or marine mammal guiding systems to divert marine biota away from project area before beginningnoise-critical operations

• For blasting or pile-driving projects in areas with sensitive marine biota• Typically not used for “normal” dredging• Noise tolerances are species-specific so guiding system needs to be carefully designed

• May help reduce mortality and physiological and behavioural changes to marine biota

• Not a proven technology in dredging industry (typically used only for blasting).

63. Wash hopper/barge to prevent cross contamination (sediments and invasive species) between sites.

• When moving to clean areas after working with contaminated material• When moving to a new area after working in areas with invasive species• Barge and hopper wash water should be released at original dredging site• Might require diver operations

• May reduce invasive species• May prevent contamination of non-contaminated areas when previously dredging contaminated sediment

• Might result in project delay and additional costs• Wash water (and associated sediment) may need to be treated

64. Control ballast water • Applies to all vessels• Need to follow international or national conventions regarding ballast water management

• Prevents distribution of invasive species (marine pests) through ballast water

None

65. Select and operate equipment and • For all projects working in urban areas • May result in lower energy consumption • May lead to increased cost since low-sulphur

56

manage operations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses/particulates (low-sulphur fuels, proper engine maintenance).

• For reducing greenhouse effects in general• Not all vessels are adapted to run on low-sulphur fuels• Low-sulphur heavy fuel is not always available in necessary quantities

• Reduced emissions fuel is (presently) relatively expensive

66. Reduce light disturbances (e.g., on migratory fish or birds, public, airports) by shielding undirected lighting.

• For night-time dredging• Safety of operations at night requires a minimum degree of lighting

• May result in fewer public complaints• Mar reduce impacts on sensitive species

• May compromise safety

67. Implement prevention and response plans for oil spills and chemical/toxic spills.

• For all projects• Should be normal operational procedures• Required by law for larger, modern vessels• Requirements may vary between ports

• Important to have spill prevention planning in order to quickly respond to spills

None

68. Apply waste management procedures (e.g., for waste, bilge water)

• For all projects• Should be normal operational procedures• Often required by law• Awareness training of personnel is essential

• Clean working environment contributes to health and safety

None

69. Prepare flexible procedures to remove debris at site.

• When debris is encountered or anticipated• Presence of debris cannot always be accurately monitored or predicted• Separate pre-dredging removal of debris may be required but may also cause environmental impacts

• Early removal of debris reduces interruptions which may reduce environmental impacts

• Separate removal and placement of debris must be prepared technically (and contractually)• Raking for debris creates turbidity and increases sediment suspension

70. Implement safety procedures to deal with ordnance.

• Whenever the presence of ordnance is anticipated•Ordnance identification and pre-dredging removal are strongly recommended• Create construction measures at the dredger to foresee and prevent risk of onboard detonation• Set detonation areas and procedures in advance

• Reduces risk of uncontrolled detonation • Forecast costs to detect and separately remove ordnance might be significant, but should be planned for due to high risk of safety impact• Consequences and delays following an incident might be serious (economically, socially and environmentally)

57

3. Conclusions applying Mitigation Measures

When considering the application of mitigation measures, a number of general rules apply:

A thorough understanding of technical, environmental and economic characteristics of the various dredging techniques, and of the potential environmental effects is required.

There is an implicit need for proactive and open-minded communication between all relevant stakeholders, and an appreciation that very different views may be held by the various stakeholders must always be maintained. Furthermore, successful communication partly rests on the understanding that the terminology used and the understanding of different processes, will greatly vary across the wide breadth of stakeholders relevant to most dredging projects.

Mitigation measures that improve one aspect of a project activity could have a negative influence on other aspects, or one mitigation measures might enhance the effectiveness of another mitigation measure, that on its own would be less attractive. We therefore advise taking a holistic approach rather than acting on a single aspect in isolation.

Some consequences of using a mitigation measure are obvious and easily estimated; others are more complex and call for expert interpretation to assess overall effectiveness.

Because of the large number of factors involved, no project is the same as another, and while one measure may prove very effective in one instance, it may not prove effective for another project.

Any mitigation measure that involves extending the project duration will, in principle, create additional environmental impacts due to increased fuel consumption, more exhaust emissions, longer disturbance of the area, etc. The net benefit therefore has to be assessed.

It has to be noted that, in general, a greater level of environmental protection will cost more. Decisions about using a particular set of mitigation measures must balance protection of the ecology against economic and social consequences for the project. PIANC (2009) gives a framework for selecting measures based on both environmental benefits and cost.

It is incorrect to assume that applying all possible mitigation measures to a given project will lead to the best possible protection of the environment. In fact, this is likely to render a project unaffordable and unworkable and consequently hinder sustainable development.

Mitigation measures are predominantly aimed at reducing the degree of physical change associated with a dredge; associated reductions in ecological change are both harder to predict and monitor, and, as such, are less suitable for direct management control.

58

References

Alcoa. 2006. Grasse River remedial options pilot study (ROPS): Findings from dredging activities. Presentation to National Research Council Committee on Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites. June 7, 2006.

Applied Science Associates. (2009). http://www.asascience.com/software/housetools/dredgemap.shtml

Babinchak, J.A., Graikoski, J.T., Dudley, S, and Nitkowski, M.F. 1977. Effect of dredge spoil deposition on fecal coliform counts in sediments at a disposal site. Applied Environmental Microbiology. 34. 38-46.

Bai, Y., Wang, Z. and Shen, H. 2003. Three-dimensional modelling of sediment transport and the effects of dredging in the Haihe Estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 56. 175-186.

Bates, A. (2005) Methods of mitigating environmental impact. 2nd International Conference on Maintenance Dredging: Proceedings of the International Conference on Maintenance Dredging. Institute of Civil Engineers.

Beleudy, P. 2000. Restoring flow capacity in the Loire River bed. Hydrological Processes. 14. 2331-2344.

Bertin, X., Oliveira, A. and Fortunato, A.B. 2008. Simulating morphodynamics with unstructured grids: Description and validation of a modelling system for coastal applications. Ocean Modelling. 28. 75-87.

Bolam, S.G. and Rees, H.L. 2003. Minimising impacts of maintenance dredged material: Disposal in the coastal environment: A Habitat Approach. Environmental Management. 32. 171-188.

Bolam, S.G., Rees, H.L., Somerfield, P., Smith, R., Clarke, K.R., Warwick, R.M., Atkins, M. and Garnacho, E. 2006. Ecological consequences of dredged material disposal in the marine environment: A holistic assessment of activities around the England and Wales coastline. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 52. 415-426.

Borglin, S., Wilke, A., Jepsen, R. and Lick, W. 1996. Parameters affecting the desorption of hydrophobic organic chemicals from suspended sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 15. 2254–62.

Brannon, J.M., Myers, T.E. and Lee, C.R. 1993. Hamlet City Lake Leaching Studies. Environmental Effects of Dredging, US Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vol D-93-2.

Bray, R.N., Bates, A.D. and Land, J.M. 1996. Dredging: A Handbook for Engineers. Oxford. 448 pages.

59

Bray, R.N. (Ed). (2008). Environmental aspects of dredging. Taylor and Francis, London. 400 pages.

Bridges, T.S., Ells S., Hayes, D., Mount, D., Nadeau, S.C., Palermo, M.R., Patmont, C. and Schroeder, P. 2008. The Four Rs of Environmental Dredging: Resuspension, Release, Residual and Risk. Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program, US Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC/EL TR-08-4.

Brown, C.L. and Clark, R. 1968. Observations on dredging and dissolved oxygen in a tidal waterway. Water Resources Research. 4. 1382.

Bunt, J.A.C., Larcombe, P. and Jago, C.F. 1999. Considerations in the use of optical instruments for SPM determination in varying marine environments. Continental Shelf Research. 19. 1199-1220.

Caetano, M., Madureira, M-J. and Vale, C. 2002. Metal remobilisation during resuspension of anoxic contaminated sediment: short-term laboratory study. Water Air Soil Pollution. 143. 23–40.

Calmano, W., Hong, J. and Forstner, U. 1993. Binding and mobilisation of heavy metals in contaminated sediments affected by pH and redox potential. Water Science and Technology. 28. 223– 35.

Cefas. 2006. Dose assessment in relation to disposal at sea under the London Convention 1972: judging de minimis radioactivity. Environment Report RL05/06.

Chen, W., Kan, A.T., Fu, G., Vignona, C. and Tomson, M. 1999. Adsorption– desorption behaviours of hydrophobic organic compounds in sediments of Lake Charles Louisiana, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 18. 1610– 6.

Cheung, Y.H. and Wong, M.H., 1993. Toxic effects of dredged sediments of Hong Kong coastal waters on clams. Environmental Technology 14. 1047–1055.

Copplestone, D., Bielby, S., Jones, S. R., Patton, D., Daniel, P. and Gize, I. 2001. Impact assessment of ionising radiation on wildlife. R&D Publication 128 pages.

Copplestone, D., Wood, M. D., Bielby, S., Jones, S. R., Vivesibatlle, J. and Beresford, N. A. 2003. Habitat regulations for Stage 3 assessments: radioactive substances authorisations. R&D Technical Report P3-101/SP1a. 104 pages.

Cowan, J.L.W., Pennock, J.R., Boynton, W.R. 1996. Seasonal and interannual patterns of sediment-water nutrient and oxygen flux in Mobile Bay, Alabama (USA): regulating factors and ecological significance. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 141. 229–245.

60

Creed, E.L., Pence, A.M. and Rankin, K.L. 2001. Inter-comparison of turbidity and sediment concentration measurements from and ADP, an OBS-3, and a LISST. Oceans 2001 MTS/IEEE Conference Record, Honolulu, HI, USA. 3. 1750-1754.

Davies, A.G., Van Rijn, L.C., Damgaard, J.S., Van de Graaff, J. and Ribberbink, J.S. 2002. Intercomparison of research and practical sand transport models. Coastal Engineering. 51. 1-23.

Davies-Colley, R.J. and Smith, D.G. 2001. Turbidity, suspended sediment, and water clarity: A review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 37. 1085-1101.

Dearnaley, M.P., Feates, N.G., Burt, T.N. and Waller, M.N.H. 1996. Resuspension of bed material by dredging: Putting different dredging technologies in perspective. Volume 1: Main report. HR Wallingford. February 1996.

Dee, D.P. 1995. A pragmatic approach to model validation. Coastal and Estuarine Studies. 47. 1-13.

Di Toro, D.M., Mahony, J.D., Hansen, D.J., Scott, K.J., Hicks, M.B., Mayr, S.M. and Redmond, M.S. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: the role of acid volatile sulfide. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 9. 1487–1502.

Eggleton, J. and K.V. Thomas. 2004. A review of factors affecting the release and bioavailability of contaminants during sediment disturbance events. Environment International 30. 973-980

Environmental Aspects of Dredging. 1998. 4: Machines, Methods, and Mitigation. IADC/CEDA.

Erftemeijer, P.L.A. and Lewis III, R.R.L. 2006. Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrasses: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 52. 1553-1512.

Esima, D. (Ed). 2006. Dredging in coastal waters. Taylor and Francis, London.

Fan, W., Wang, W-X., Chen, J., Li, X. and Yen, Y-F. 2002. Cu, Ni and Pb speciation in surface sediments from a contaminated bay of northern China. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 44. 816– 32.

Fenchel, T. and Blackburn, T.H. 1979. Bacteria and Mineral Cycling. Academic Press, New York.

Forstner, U. 1989. Contaminated sediments: lectures on environmental aspects of particle-associated chemicals in aquatic systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

61

Froelich, P.N. 1988. Kinetic control of dissolved phosphate in natural rivers and estuaries: a primer on the phosphate buffer mechanism. Limnology and Oceanography. 33. 4. 649–668.

Galloway, J.N., Schlesinger, W.H., Levy, C., Michaels, A. and Schnoor, J.L. 1995. Nitrogen fixation: anthropogenic enhancement environmental response. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 9. 235-252

Gómez-Parra, A. and Forja, J.M. 1993. Benthic nutrient fluxes in Cadiz Bay. Hydrobiologia. 252. 23–34

Goossens, H. and Zwolsman, J.J.G. 1996. An evaluation of the behaviour of pollutants during dredging activities. Terra et Aqua. 62. 20–7.

Great Britain-Parliament. 1985. Food and Environment Protection Act, 1985. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London. 38 pages.

Grimes, D.J. 1975. Release of sediment-bound fecal coliforms by dredging. Applied Microbiology. 29. 109-111.

Grimes, D.J. 1980. Bacteriological Water Quality Effects of Hydraulically Dredging Contaminated Upper Mississippi River Bottom Sediment. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 39. 782-789.

Hargrave, B.T. and Burns, N.M. 1979. Assessment of Sediment Trap Collection Efficiency. Limnology and Oceanography. 24. 1124-1136.

Hayes, D.F., Crockett, T.R., Ward, T.J. and Averett, D. 2000. Sediment resuspension during cutterhead dredging operations. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering. 126. 153-161.

Hedley, M.J. and A.N. Sharpley. 1998. Strategies for global nutrient cycling. In: Long-Term Nutrient Needs for New Zealand’s Primary Industries: Global Supply, Production Requirements and Environmental Constraints, Currie, L. (ed.). The Fertilizer and Lime Research Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 70-95.

Herbich, J.B. 2000. Environmental effects of dredging activities. In: Handbook of dredging engineering. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill Professional, 992 pages.

Howarth, R.W., Jensen, H.S., Marino, R., and Postma, H. 1995. Transport to and processing of phosphorus in near-shore and oceanic waters. In: Phosphorus in the Global Environment, Tiessen, H. (Ed). Wiley, New York.

IAEA. 1999. Application of radiological exclusion and exemption principles to sea disposal. IAEA-TECDOC-1068.

IAEA. 2003. Determining the suitability of materials for disposal at sea under the London Convention 1972: a radiological protection procedure. IAEA-TECDOC-1375.

62

John, S.A., Challinor, S.L., Simpson, M., Burt, T.N. and Spearman, J. 2000. Scoping the assessment of sediment plumes from dredging. CIRIA Report C547, London, 190 pages.

Johnson, B.H., Moritz, H., Teeter, A., Cerco, C. and Wang, H. 2000. Modelling the impacts of dredged material placement in Upper Chesapeake Bay. Proceedings of the International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling. 34-58. 

Jones, R. and Lee, G.F. 1981. The significance of dredging and dredged material disposal as a source of nitrogen and phosphorus for estuarine waters. In: Nielson, B.J., Cronin, L.E. (Eds). Estuaries and Nutrients. International Conference on the Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in Estuaries, Williamsburg, VA, USA. 517–530.

Kershaw, P. J., Woodhead, D. S., Malcolm, S. J., Allington, D. J. and Lovett, M. B. 1990. A sediment history of Sellafield discharges. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 12. 201-241.

Klump, J.V. and Martens, C.S. 1981. Biogeochemical cycling in an organic rich coastal marine basin. II. Nutrient sediment-waters exchange processes. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 45. 101–121.

Kuroiwa, M., Kamphuis, J.W., Kuchiishi, T. and Matsubara, Y. 2004. A 3D morphodynamic model with shoreline change based on Quasi-3D nearshore current model. Asian and Pacific Coasts: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference. 126-127.

Lamoureux, E.M. and Brownawell, B.J. 1999. Chemical and biological availability of sediment-sorbed hydrophobic organic contaminants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 18. 1733–41.

Langstone, W.J. and Pope, N.D. 1995. Determinants of TBT adsorption and desorption in estuarine sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 31. 32– 43.

Lasalle, M.W. 1990. Physical and chemical alterations associated with dredging: an overview. In: Simenstad, C.A. (Ed). Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Pacific Coast Fishes. Workshop Proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle, WA, USA. 1–12.

Latimer, J.S., Davis, W.R. and Keith, D.J. 1999. Mobilisation of PAHs and PCBs from in place contaminated marine sediments during simulated resuspension events. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science. 49. 577– 95.

Li, X., Shen, Z., Wai, O.W.H. and Li, Y-S. 2000. Chemical partitioning of heavy metal contaminants in sediments of the Pearl River Estuary. Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability.12. 17 –25

63

Livingston, R.J. 1996. Eutrophication in estuaries and coastal systems: relationships of physical alterations, salinity stratification, and hypoxia. In: Vernberg, F.J., Vernberg, W.B., Siewicki, T. (Eds). Sustainable Development in the Southeastern Coastal Zone. Belle W. Baruch Library in Marine Science No. 20. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina, USA. 285–318.

Lohrer, A. M. and Jarrell Wetz, J. 2003. Dredging-induced nutrient release from sediments to the water column in a southeastern saltmarsh tidal creek. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 46. 1156–1163.

Luoma, S.N. 1983. Bioavailability of trace metals to aquatic organisms: a review. Science of the Total Environment. 28. 1– 22.

Marion, C., Anthony, E.J. and Trentesaux, A. 2005. In: Herrier, J.L., Mees, J., Salman, A., Seys, J., Van Nieuwenhuyse, H. and Dobbelaere, I. (Eds). Proceedings ‘Dunes and Estuaries’ – International Conference on Nature Restoration Practices in European Coastal Habitats, Koksijde, Belgium, 19-23 November 2005. VLIZ Special Publication 19, xiv. 685 pages. 219-228.

May, E.B. 1974. Effects on water quality when dredging a polluted harbour using confined spoil disposal. Alabama Marine Resources Bulletin. 10. 1.

McDonald, D., DiPinto, L.M., Field, J., Ingersoll, C.G., Long, E.R. and Swartz, R.C. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment effect concentration for polychlorinated biphenyls. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 19. 1403–13.

Michael, B.D. and Romano, W.D. 1995. The effects of dredged material disposal on water quality in the Pooles Island region of the Chesapeake Bay. In: Second Annual Marine and Estuarine Shallow Water Science and Management Conference. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 22.

Morin, J. and Morse, J. W. 1999. Ammonium release from resuspended sediments in the Laguna Madre estuary. Marine Chemistry. 65. 97–110.

Mueller, D.S., Pfitzner, S. and Wunderlich, M. 1998. Impact of dredged-material relocation on the oxygen and nutrient budget in rivers. Wasser und Boden (Wasser Boden). 50. 10. 26-32.

Nixon, S.W., Oviatt, C.A. and Hale, S.S. 1976. Nitrogen regeneration and the metabolism of coastal marine bottom communities. In: Anderson, J.M. and MacFadyed, A. (Eds). The Role of Terrestrial and Aquatic organisms in Decomposition Processes. Proceedings of the 17th Symposium, British Ecological Society. Blackwell Scientific Publishers. 269–283.

Nixon, S.W. 1981. Remineralization and nutrient cycling in coastal marine ecosystems. In: Neilson, B.J. and Cronin, L.E. (Eds). Estuaries and Nutrients. Humana Press, New Jersey.

64

Ogilvie, B., Nedwell, D.B., Harrison, R.M., Robinson, A., and Sage, A. 1997. High nitrate, muddy estuaries as nitrogen sinks: the nitrogen budget of the River Colne estuary (United Kingdom). Marine Ecology Progress Series. 150. 217–228

Opuji, I. and Ishimatsu, N. 1975. Dredge overflow system solves turbidity problem. World Dredging and Marine Construction. 11. Issue 12.

PIANC. 2009. Dredging Management Practices for the Environment: A structured selection approach. Report no.100. Environment Commission.

Poole, A.J., Allington, D.J., Baxter, A.J. and Young, A.K. 1995. The natural radioactivity of phosphate ore and associated waste products discharges into the eastern Irish Sea from a phosphoric acid production plant. Science of the Total Environment. 173/174. 137-149.

Pomeroy, L.R., Smith, E.E. and Grant, C.M. 1965. The exchange of phosphate between estuarine water and sediments. Limnology and Oceanography. 10. 167–172

Reible, D.D., Fleeger, J.W., Pardue, J. and Tomson, M. 2002a. Bioturbation and bioavailability of residual, desorption-resistant contaminants. http://www.hsrc.org/hsrc/html/ssw/ssw-bioturbation.html.

Reible, D.D., Fleeger, J.W., Pardue, J., Tomson, M., Kan, A. and Thibodeaux, L. 2002b. Contaminant release during removal and resuspension. http://www.hsrc.org/hsrc/html/ssw/ssw-contaminant.html.

Rhoads, D.C., Hilbig, B., Valente, R., Hodgson, G., Germano, J.D., Evans, N. 1995. REMOTS registered monitoring of dredging, disposal, sand mining, and organic enrichment on the Hong Kong shelf. MTS/IEEE, NEW YORK, NY (USA). 2. 918-924.

Rizzo, W.M. 1990. Nutrient exchanges between the water column and subtidal benthic microalgal community. Estuaries 13. 219–226

Rizzo, W.M. and Christian, R.R. 1996. Significance of subtidal sediments to heterotrophically-mediated oxygen and nutrient dynamics in a temperate estuary. Estuaries. 19. 475–487.

Rosenfeld, J.K. 1979. Ammonium adsorption in nearshore anoxic sediments. Limnology and Oceanography. 24. 356–364.

Rutgers van der Loeff, M.M. and Boudreau, B.P. 1997. The effects of resuspension on chemical exchanges at the sediment–water interface in the deep sea—a modeling and natural adiotracer approach. Journal of Marine Systems. 11. 305–342.

65

Saulnier, I. and Mucci, A. 2000. Trace metal remobilization following the resuspension of estuarine sediments: Saguenay Fjord, Canada. Applied Geochemistry. 15. 191– 210.

Stephens, S.R., Alloway, B.J., Carter, J.E. and Parker, A. 2000. Towards a characterisation of heavy metals in dredged canal sediments and an appreciation of "availability": two examples from the UK. Environmental Pollution 113. 395-401.

Steuer, J.J. 2000. A mass-balance approach for assessing PCB movement during remediation of a PCB-contaminated deposit on the Fox River, Winsconsin. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4245. December 2000.

Stivers, C., Bay, S., Cappellino, S. and Wang, T. 2004. Review of effects of resuspended sediments: Implications for dredging water quality monitoring and compliance. Port Development in the Changing World, PORTS 2004, Proceedings of the Conference 2004. 975-984.

St Lawrence Centre. 1993. Selecting and operating dredging equipment: A guide to sound environmental practices. St Lawrence Centre. March 1993.

Su, S.H., Pearlman, L.C., Rothrock, J.A., Ianuzzi, T.J., Finley, B.L. 2002.Potential long-term ecological impacts caused by disturbance of contaminated sediments: a case study. Environmental Management. 29. 234– 49.

Sullivan, N. (2000) the use of agitation dredging, water injection dredging and sidecasting: Results of a survey of ports in England and Wales. Terra et Aqua No 78, 11-20.

Thibodeaux, L.J. 2005. Recent advances in our understanding of sediment –to-water contaminant fluxes: The soluable release fraction. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management Society. 8. 1-9.

Vitousek, P.M., Aber, J., Bayley, S.E., Howarth, R.W., Likens, G.E., Matson, P.A., Schindler, D.W., Schlesinger, W.H. and Tilman, G.D. 1997. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: causes and consequences. Ecological Issues. 1. 1-15.

Wainright, S.C. 1987. Stimulation of heterotrophic microplankton production by resuspended marine sediments. Science. 238. 1710–1712.

Wainright, S.C. and Hopkinson, C.S. 1997. Effects of resuspension on organic matter processing in coastal environments: a simulation model. Journal of Marine Systems. 11. 353–368.

Wall, G.R., Nystrom, E.A. and Litten, S. 2008. Suspended sediment transport in the freshwater reach of the Hudson river estuary in eastern New York. Estuaries and Coasts. 31. 542-553.

66

Windom, H.L. 1976. Environmental aspects of dredging in the coastal zone. Critical reviews in Environmental Control. 6. 91–109.

Witzig, A.S. and Day, J.W., 1983. Multivariate approach to the investigation of nutrient interactions in the Barataria Basin, Louisiana. Centre for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.

Wood, J.D. and Boye, D. 2007. Monitoring suspended sediment plumes using an acoustic Doppler current profiler. Oceans 2007 MTS/IEEE Conference Record, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Article number 4449165.

Wulff, A., Sundbaeck, K., Nilsson, C., Carlson, L. and Joensson, B. 1997. Effect of sediment load on the microbenthic community of a shallow-water sandy sediment. Estuaries. 20. 547-558.

Zaikowski, L., McDonnell, K.T., Rockwell, R.F. and Rispoli, F. 2008. Temporal and spatial variations in water quality on New York South Shore Estuary tributaries: Carmans, Patchogue, and Swan Rivers. Estuaries and Coasts. 31. 85-100.

Zhuang, Y., Allen, H.E. and Fu, G. 1994. Effect of aeration of sediment on cadmium binding. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 13. 717– 724.

Zhuang, Y., Wu, R.S.S., Hong, H-S., Poon, K-F. and Lam, M.H.W. 2000. Field study on the desorption rates of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons from contaminated marine sediment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 19. 2431–5.

Zoumis, T., Schmidt, A., Grigorova, L. and Calmano, W. 2001. Contaminants in sediments: remobilisation and demobilisation. Science and the Total Environment. 266. 195–202.

67

68