Environmental Impacts of Dredging On Seagrasses - A Review

Marine Pollution Bulletin 52 (2006) 1553–1572
www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul
Review
Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrasses: A review

a,* b
Paul L.A. Erftemeijer , Roy R. Robin Lewis III
a
WL j Delft Hydraulics, P.O. Box 177, 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands
b
Lewis Environmental Services, P.O. Box 5430, Salt Springs, FL 32134, USA
Abstract
Main potential impacts on seagrasses from dredging and sand mining include physical removal and/or burial of vegetation and effects
of increased turbidity and sedimentation. For seagrasses, the critical threshold for turbidity and sedimentation, as well as the duration
that seagrasses can survive periods of high turbidity or excessive sedimentation vary greatly among species. Larger, slow-growing climax
species with substantial carbohydrate reserves show greater resilience to such events than smaller opportunistic species, but the latter
display much faster post-dredging recovery when water quality conditions return to their original state. A review of 45 case studies
worldwide, accounting for a total loss of 21,023 ha of seagrass vegetation due to dredging, is indicative of the scale of the impact of
dredging on seagrasses. In recent years, tighter control in the form of strict regulations, proper enforcement and monitoring, and mit-
igating measures together with proper impact assessment and development of new environmental dredging techniques help to prevent or
minimize adverse impacts on seagrasses. Costs of such measures are difficult to estimate, but seem negligible in comparison with costs of
seagrass restoration programmes, which are typically small-scale in approach and often have limited success. Copying of dredging cri-
teria used in one geographic area to a dredging operation in another may in some cases lead to exaggerated limitations resulting in unnec-
essary costs and delays in dredging operations, or in other cases could prove damaging to seagrass ecosystems. Meaningful criteria to
limit the extent and turbidity of dredging plumes and their effects will always require site-specific evaluations and should take into
account the natural variability of local background turbidity.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Critical thresholds; Dredging impacts; Mitigation; Review; Seagrasses; Turbidity
1. Introduction Seagrass beds, covering about 0.1–0.2% of the global

ocean floor, are highly productive ecosystems which fulfill
Dredging is required in many ports of the world, to dee- a key role in the coastal zone (Duarte, 2002). Important
pen and maintain navigation channels and harbour ecological and economic functions of seagrass beds have
entrances. Elsewhere, commercial sand mining and extrac- been widely acknowledged, notably their importance to
tion of sand and gravel from borrowing areas is meeting an fisheries (Bell and Pollard, 1989; Jackson et al., 2001) and
ever-increasing demand for sand for construction and land their role in preventing coastal erosion and siltation of
reclamation. Excavation, transportation and disposal of coral reefs (Scoffin, 1979; Fonseca and Fisher, 1986; Fons-
soft-bottom material may, however, lead to various eca, 1989). Conservative estimates of the value of ecosys-
adverse impacts on the marine environment (USACE, tem services provided by seagrass beds are in the order of
1983; ABP Research, 1999). Such impacts can be especially 19,000 US$ ha1 yr1 (Costanza et al., 1997).
significant when dredging or disposal is done in the vicinity Globally, the estimated loss of seagrass from direct and
of sensitive marine environments, such as coral reefs and indirect human impacts is updated to be 33,000 km2 over
seagrass beds. the last two decades, based on an extrapolation of known
losses (Short and Wyllie-Echeverria, 2000) and a new glo-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 15 2858924; fax: +31 15 2858718. bal seagrass area estimate of 177,000 km2 (Green and
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.L.A. Erftemeijer). Short, 2003). The primary cause of seagrass degradation
0025-326X/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.09.006
1554 P.L.A. Erftemeijer, R.R. Robin Lewis III / Marine Pollution Bulletin 52 (2006) 1553–1572
and loss globally is reduction in water clarity, both from conditions (Jensen and Mogensen, 2000) which affect the
increased turbidity and increased nutrient loading (Walker sedimentary regime and may cause erosion under seagrass
and McComb, 1992; Duarte, 2002; Short, 2003). In many beds (MacInnis-Ng, 2003).
cases, dredging operations have directly or indirectly con- Dredging and disposal of dredged material can lead to a
tributed to loss of seagrass vegetation. For example, com- temporary decrease in water transparency, increased con-
bined impacts of increased turbidity and physical removal centrations of suspended matter, and increased rates of
or burial during dredging, and eutrophication from nutri- sedimentation. In the case of contaminated sediment or
ents in domestic and industrial discharges caused the loss sediments with high contents of organic matter, dredging
of approximately 81% of the seagrasses in Tampa Bay, and resuspension may also lead to effects on water quality
Florida (Lewis, 1976; Lewis et al., 1985). by the release of contaminants (e.g. Filho et al., 2004), an
Some seagrass species appear more sensitive than others increase in nutrients concentrations and reduced dissolved
to increases in turbidity or sedimentation that are com- oxygen in the water column.
monly associated with dredging operations. Their response Physical removal of substratum and associated plants
to such increases may depend on typical local conditions and animals from the seabed, and burial due to subsequent
and vary between seasons. In general, the impact from deposition of material are the most likely direct effects of
dredging and sand mining on seagrass ecosystems is com- dredging and reclamation projects (Newell et al., 1998).
plex and far from fully understood, despite various New habitats may also be created as a result of the opera-
research efforts. Initial investigation by the authors has tion, either directly in the dredged area or by introduction
shown that there is an extensive body of experience to of new habitats on the slopes of a reclaimed area (e.g. hard
learn from. This experience lies with contractors, in Envi- substratum in the form of breakwaters and revetments).
ronmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports, monitoring Other direct effects may be caused by enhanced turbidity
data and scientific literature derived from field-based and and sedimentation as a result of dredging and disposal
laboratory studies on potential direct and indirect effects operations. The effect of turbidity on seagrass ecosystems
of dredging. is two-fold. Light attenuation by suspended material affects
This paper presents a worldwide review of documented the amount of light available to the seagrass plants and
cases of dredging and sand mining operations in or near associated epiphytes, microphytobenthos and macroalgae.
seagrass meadows. The scale of such operations and envi- Depending on the depth at which these organisms occur,
ronmental impacts thereof, as well as restrictions and mit- high turbidity can cause a significant reduction in light
igating measures put into place to minimize these impacts availability leading to sub-lethal effects or death. High lev-
will be discussed. Where appropriate, these findings will els of suspended material can lead to reduced vitality or
be illustrated with case studies. The focus of this review death in benthic fauna associated with the seagrass beds
is limited to dredging for the purpose of deepening of ports through clogging of their feeding mechanisms (cilia and
and navigation channels as well as for extraction and min- siphons) and smothering, especially in filter-feeding organ-
ing of sediments for construction and land reclamation isms such as mussels, oysters and other bivalves. To cap-
schemes. Other forms of dredging, such as hydraulic clam ture both effects of turbidity, critical thresholds for
dredging and cockle fishing, or damage to seagrass beds turbidity should therefore ideally be determined in terms
by boat groundings, propellor scarring and anchoring, of light availability at the bottom (in % of surface irradi-
were not considered. Information sources for the review ance) as well as in concentration of total suspended solids
included peer-reviewed scientific literature, gray literature (in mg/l).
in the form of EIA-, consultancy and technical reports, Increases in turbidity can also be caused by algal
and additional information obtained from the internet blooms, sewage discharge, bio-fouling of turbidity sensors
and email responses to general requests placed on inter- etc. Turbidity should therefore not only be expressed in
net-based research discussion lists. terms of a reduction of light availability as the sole measure
of water quality affected by dredging works, but preferably
2. Environmental impacts of dredging be accompanied by investigations of the suspended solid
concentrations (Bogers and Gardner, 2004).
Potential effects of dredging on the marine environment Turbidity changes induced by dredging will only result
include effects of the dredging process (i.e. the removal of in adverse environmental effects when the turbidity gener-
substratum from the seafloor) as well as effects caused by ated is significantly larger than the natural variation of
the process of disposal. Dredged material may come into turbidity and sedimentation rates in the area (Stern and
suspension during dredging itself as a result of disturbance Stickle, 1978; Orpin et al., 2004). Such natural variability
of the substratum, but also during transport to the surface, can sometimes be substantial and may be caused by factors
overflow from barges or leakage of pipelines, during trans- such as storms, wind-induced wave actions, river dis-
port between dredging and disposal sites, and during discharges and other local perturbations. Dredging activities
posal of dredged material (Jensen and Mogensen, 2000). often generate no more increased suspended sediments
Dredging may affect the physical environment by chang- than commercial shipping operations, bottom fishing or
ing the bathymetry, altering current velocities and wave severe storms (Pennekamp et al., 1996).
P.L.A. Erftemeijer, R.R. Robin Lewis III / Marine Pollution Bulletin 52 (2006) 1553–1572 1555
The degree of adverse environmental impacts caused by cies as well as within a single seagrass species (Table 1). The
dredging and disposal depends on the quantity, frequency order of magnitude of this variation is similar between spe-
and duration of dredging, methodology of dredging and cies and within species (Fig. 1). Minimum light require-
disposal, physical dimensions and water depth of the ments of most seagrass species seem to vary between 15%
dredging location, grain-size composition, density and and 25% of SI (means of reported values per species), but
degree of contamination of the dredged material, back- for some species (Cymodocea nodosa, most Halophila spp.
ground water quality (especially suspended matter and and some Posidonia spp.) minimum light requirements as
turbidity), seasonal variations in weather conditions low as 3–8% of SI have been reported (Table 1, Fig. 1).
(especially wind and waves), and proximity/distance of eco- The variation in minimum light requirements reported
logically sensitive or economically important areas or spe- in literature is in part caused by differences in the method-
cies relative to the location of the dredging or disposal site ologies used to derive these values. Methodologies range
(Pennekamp et al., 1996). Depending on these factors, from physiological studies of photosynthesis/irradiance
there can be considerable spatial and temporal variation relationships, field observations of maximum depth of sea-
in effects. In some cases, adverse impacts of dredging activ- grass colonization, and experimental manipulation of light
ities are limited to a relatively small area and of relatively levels during growth studies, to statistical models (Batiuk
short duration. Other (more large-scale) dredging or sand et al., 2000). Studies and methods further differ in the
mining operations, which stretch out over several years degree to which attenuation by epiphyte cover of seagrass
and cover many square kilometres, can have major adverse leaves, natural water colour, seasonal variation, above-/
environmental impacts (Lewis, 1976). below-ground biomass ratios, environmental factors other
In summary, main potential impacts from dredging on than light, and sublethal effects have been taken into
seagrasses include physical removal or burial of vegetation account. Mesocosm experiments have clearly shown effects
at the dredging/disposal site, and increased turbidity (light of shading on plant architecture, biomass partitioning, lat-
reduction) and increased sedimentation in adjacent sea- eral shoot development and flowering intensity in eelgrass
grass meadows. In addition, temporarily reduced dissolved (Ochieng et al., 2004).
oxygen concentration, release of nutrients and pollutants Whilst minimum light requirements are important, it is
from (contaminated) sediments, and hydrographic changes an oversimplification to assume that light attenuation
may also occur and have adverse (indirect) effects on the alone determines plant response to increased turbidity.
seagrass ecosystem. Also of importance is the length of time that different spe-
cies can survive at low light levels. Temporary fluctuations
3. Critical thresholds of seagrasses for turbidity in turbidity may be accommodated by the plant depending
on the nature of the species and the period of sub-optimal
Light is one of the key environmental resources impera- light (Westphalen et al., 2004). Laboratory experiments
tive for the growth and survival of seagrasses (Hemminga have shown that some seagrasses can survive in light inten-
and Duarte, 2000). Water transparency (which determines sities below their minimum requirements for periods rang-
depth-penetration of photosynthetically active radiation of ing from a few weeks to several months (Table 2)
sunlight) is the primary factor determining the maximum (Backman and Barilotti, 1976; Bulthuis, 1983; Gordon
depth at which seagrasses can occur. Reduction in light et al., 1994; Czerny and Dunton, 1995; Longstaff et al.,
due to turbidity has been identified as a major cause of loss 1999). Widespread seagrass mortality was observed in
of seagrasses worldwide (Shepherd et al., 1989; Green and Chesapeake Bay (USA) following a month-long (seasonal)
Short, 2003). The amount of light that reaches a seagrass pulse of increased turbidity (Moore et al., 1997).
leaf is determined by the natural water colour, concentra- The survival period of seagrass below its minimum light
tion of suspended solids, phytoplankton concentration requirement is shorter in smaller species with low carbohy-
and epiphyte cover of the leaf (Dennison, 1991; Batiuk drate storage capacity than in larger species (Longstaff
et al., 2000). et al., 1999; Peralta et al., 2002). Work by Chesire et al.
There are various reports of sublethal and lethal effects (2002) indicates that Posidonia sinuosa is able to survive
on seagrass meadows due to prolonged exposure to high longer at sub-compensation light levels than Zostera tas-
turbidity and siltation associated with dredging activities manica, which in turn survives slightly longer than Z. mar-
(Caldwell, 1985; Gaby et al., 1986; Onuf, 1994; Gordon ina, while Halophila ovalis copes with sub-minimal light for
et al., 1996; Chesire et al., 2002; Sabol et al., 2005). Indica- the shortest period. Whilst these results used different
tors of light stress in seagrasses may include decreases in methodologies and measurements to determine survival,
below-ground biomass and carbohydrate contents of rhi- it is clear that species with larger below-ground biomass
zomes, tissue nutrient contents, Chl-a contents of leaves are better adapted to longer periods of sub-minimal light.
and various photosynthetic growth parameters (Coles
and McKenzie, 2004). 4. Critical thresholds of seagrasses for sedimentation
There is a considerable range of values (2.5–37% of SI)
reported in the literature for the minimum light require- Several studies have documented deterioration of
ments of seagrasses, varying between different seagrass spe- seagrass meadows by smothering due to excessive
Table 1
Critical threshold of seagrasses for light availability (‘minimum light requirements’ expressed as % of surface irradiance SI)
Species Location % SI Reference
Amphibolis antarctica Waterloo Bay, Australia 24,7 Duarte (1991)
Cymodocea nodosa Malta 7,3 Drew (1978)
Cymodocea nodosa Ebro Delta, Spain 10,2 Duarte (1991)
Halodule wrightii Laguna Madre, Texas, USA 5 Dunton and Tomasko (1991)
Halodule wrightii Alabama, USA 14 Shafer (1999)
Halodule wrightii Texas, USA 16 Czerny and Dunton (1995)
Halodule wrightii Texas, USA 16 Onuf (1996)
Halodule wrightii Florida, USA 17,2 Dennison et al. (1993)
Halodule wrightii Texas, USA 17,5 Onuf (1991)
Halodule wrightii Texas, USA 18 Dunton (1994)
Halodule wrightii Texas, USA 18 Dunton and Tomasko (1994)
Halodule wrightii Indian River Lagoon, Florida, USA 29,5 Beal and Schmit (2000)
Halodule wrightii Indian River Lagoon, Florida, USA 30,5 Kenworthy and Fonseca (1996)
Halophila decipiens Hobe Sound, Florida, USA 2,5 Dennison (1987)
Halophila decipiens St.Croix, Caribbean 4,4 Williams and Dennison, 1990
Halophila decipiens Northwest Cuba 8,8 Duarte (1991)
Halophila engelmanni Northwest Cuba 23,7 Duarte (1991)
Halophila ovalis Zanzibar, Tanzania 16 Schwarz et al. (2000)
Halophila spp. Sub tropical seas 5 Dennison et al. (1993)
Halophila stlpulacea GulfofEilat, Red Sea 3 Beer and Waisel (1982)
Heterozostera tasmanica Spencer Gulf, Australia 4,4 Duarte (1991)
Heterozostera tasmanica Victoria, Australia 5 Bulthuis (1983)
Heterozostera tasmanica Australia 9 Bulthuis and Woelkerling (1983)
Heterozostera tasmanica Chile 17,4 Duarte (1991)
Heterozostera tasmanica Waterloo Bay, Australia 20,2 Duarte (1991)
Posidonia angustifolia Waterloo Bay, Australia 24,7 Duarte (1991)
Posidonia australis Australia 10 Fitzpatrick and Kirkman (1995)
Posidonia coriacea Adelaide coast, Australia 8 Westphalen et al. (2004)
Posidonia oceanica Medas Island, Spain 7,8 Duarte (1991)
Posidonia oceanica Malta 9,2 Drew (1978)
Posidonia oceanica Corsica, France 10–16% Dalla Via et al. (1998), Ruiz and Romero (2003)
Posidonia ostenfeldii Waterloo Bay, Australia 24,7 Duarte (1991)
Posidonia sinuosa Australia 20 Gordon et al. (1994)
Posidonia sinuosa Waterloo Bay, Australia 24,7 Duarte (1991)
Ruppiamaritima Brazil 8,2 Duarte (1991)
Ruppia maritima Australian estuary 28 Congdon and McComb (1979)
Ruppia megacarpa Western Australia 24 Carruthers et al. (1999)
Syringodium filiforme Florida, USA 17,2 Dennison et al. (1993)
Syringodium filiforme Florida, USA 18,3 Duarte (1991)
Syringodium filiforme Northwest Cuba 19,2 Duarte (1991)
Syringodium filiforme Indian River Lagoon, Florida, USA 30,5 Kenworthy and Fonseca (1996)
Thalassia testudinum Florida, USA 10 Fourqurean et al. (1999)
Thalassia testudinum Texas, USA 14 Czermy and Dunton (1995)
Thalassia testudinum Texas, USA 14 Lee and Dunton (1997)
Thalassia testudinum Florida, USA 15 Fourqurean and Zieman (1991)
Thalassia testudinum Florida, USA 15,3 Duarte (1991)
Thalassia testudinum Gulf of Mexico 20 Iverson and Bittaker (1986)
Thalassia testudinum Florida Bay, USA 20 Stumpf et al. (1999)
Thalassia testudinum Tampa Bay, Florida, USA 22,2 Dixon (2000)
Thalassia testudinum Northwest Cuba 23,5 Duarte (1991)
Thalassia testudinum Puerto Rico 24,4 Vicente and Rivera (1982)
Zostera capricomi Moreton Bay, Australia 30 Longstaff et al. (1999)
Zostera capricomi Moreton Bay, Australia 30 Abal and Dennison (1996)
Zostera marina New Hampshire, USA 11 Short et al. (1995)
Zostera marina Japan 18,2 Duarte (1991)
Zostera marina Woods Hole, USA 18,6 Dennison (1987)
Zostera marina Roskilde, Denmark 19,4 Borum (1983)
Zostera marina Chesapeake Bay, USA 20 Dennison et al. (1993)
Zostera marina Long Island Sound, USA 20 Burkholder and Doheny (1968)
Zostera marina Kattegat, Denmark 20,1 Ostenfeld (1908)
Zostera marina Denmark 20,6 Duarte (1991)
Zostera marina York River, VA (USA) 25 Moore (1991)
Zostera marina Netherlands 29,4 Duarte (1991)
Zostera marina Long Island Sound, USA 35,7 Koch and Beer (1996)
Table 1 (continued)
Species Location % SI Reference
Zostera marina California, USA 37 Backman and Barilotti (1976)
Zostera noltii Spain 2 Peralta et al. (2002)
40 sedimentation, even at moderate burial (ca. 5 cm). Mills

and Fonseca (2003) observed >50% mortality of Zostera
35
marina in field burial treatments of 4 cm (corresponding
30
with 25% of plant height) for 24 days. Plants responded sim-
ilarly to burial in either sand or silt. Plants buried 75% or
25 more of their height (16 cm) experienced 100% mortality.
%SI
An overview of values reported in literature for maxi-

20
mum allowable sedimentation rates for seagrasses is pre-
15 sented in Table 3.
In general, it is difficult to separate the effects of turbid-
10
ity and sedimentation in field studies. Settlement of
5 suspended material on leaf blades of seagrasses may
interfere significantly with photosynthesis, and appears
0 especially significant in low wave energy environments
Heterozostera tasmanica
Zostera marina
Zostera capricorni
Zostera noltii
Ruppia maritima
Syringodium filiforme
Cymodocea nodosa
Ruppia megacarpa
Amphibolis antarctica
Thalassia testudinum
Posidonia coriacea
Posidonia australis
Posidonia ostenfeldii
Posidonia sinuosa
Halophila sp.
Posidonia oceanica
Halodule wrightii
Posidonia angustifolia
Halophila stipulacea
Halophila engelmanni
Halophila ovalis
Halophila decipiens
where fine sediments are present and can settle out (Shep-
herd et al., 1989). The impact of sedimentation is often
increased where epiphytes are abundant on seagrass leaves
(for instance under nutrient enriched conditions) because
epiphitized leaf blades collect a greater amount of sedi-
ment. In the case of eelgrass (Zostera marina) blades and
Fig. 1. Range of critical threshold values for light availability (as % surface epiphytes then appear dull brown coated with a fine layer
irradiance SI) reported in the literature for various seagrass species. of sediment, and they often sink to the bottom (Short
et al., 1989).
sedimentation. Consequences of enhanced sedimentation An indication of the duration that seagrasses can toler-
for seagrass plants depend on several factors such as depth ate high rates of sedimentation was revealed by field exper-
of burial and life history of the species involved (Duarte iments in Spain. Artificial burial of the seagrass Posidonia
et al., 1997). Seagrass species that develop vertical shoots oceanica with as much as 15 cm of sediment caused 100%
(e.g. Cymodocea, Thalassia, Thalassodendron) may respond mortality after 200–300 days (Manzanera et al., 1995). Sud-
to fluctuations in sediment depth by modifying their verti- den burial of Cymodocea nodosa with 5 cm of sediment
cal growth to relocate their leaf-producing meristems closer resulted in 90% mortality after 35 days, although some
to the new sediment level, but there are limits to the level of individual shoots of this species were able to survive burial
sedimentation seagrasses can tolerate (Marba and Duarte, as great as 6 cm (Marba and Duarte, 1994).
1994). Experimental burial of a mixed species seagrass meadow
Vermaat et al. (1997) reported sedimentation rates of 10– in the Philippines with varying amounts of sediment
13 cm yr1 as maximum threshold value of what seagrasses resulted in major differences in species response (Duarte
in the Philippines and Spain can survive. Manzanera et al. et al., 1997). Thalassia hemprichii and Cymodocea rotun-
(1995) reported significant mortality of shoots of the sea- data showed a sharp decline in shoot density even at mod-
grass Posidonia oceanica in response to experimental over- erate burial treatment with still no recovery 2 months after
Table 2
Duration of time that seagrass species can survive in light intensities below their minimum light requirements
Species Light availability Period survived (month) Reference
Halodule pinifolia 0 3–4 Longstaff and Dennison (1999)
Halodule wrightii 13–15% SI 9 Czerny and Dunton (1995)
Halophila ovalis 0 1 Longstaff et al. (1999)
Heterozostera tasmanica 9% SI 10 Bulthuis (1983)
Heterozostera tasmanica 2% SI 2–4 Bulthuis (1983)
Posidonia sinuosa 12% ambient 24 Gordon et al. (1994)
Thalassia testudinum 10% SI 11 Czerny and Dunton (1995)
Zostera capricomi 5% SI 1 Grice et al. (1996)
Zostera noltii <2% SI 0.5 Peralta et al. (2002)
Table 3
Critical thresholds of seagrasses for sedimentation (cm/year)
Species Location Sedimentation (cm/yr) Reference
Cymodocea nodosa Mediterranean (Spain) 5 Marba and Duarte (1994)
Cymodocea rotundata Philippines 1.5 Vermaat et al. (1997)
Cymodocea serrulata Philippines 13 Vermaat et al. (1997)
Enhalus acoroides Philippines 10 Vermaat et al. (1997)
Halophila ovalis Philippines 2 Vermaat et al. (1997)
Posidonia oceanica Mediterranean (Spain) 5 Manzanera et al. (1995)
Zostera noltii Mediterranean (Spain) 2 Vermaat et al. (1997)
burial. Halodule uninervis, Syringodium isoetifolium and of seagrasses (Campbell and McKenzie, 2004). The paucity
Cymodocea serrulata showed an initial decline in shoot of data on rates and extent of recovery of seagrass mead-
density followed by recovery. Enhalus acoroides maintained ows is often due to the lack of data from long-term moni-
shoot density at all burial treatments and only showed toring programmes and because many seagrass meadows
some evidence of decline by the end of the experiment. have either failed to recover or taken many years to recover
Halophila ovalis showed an opportunistic growth in plots following stress from declining water quality (Short and
receiving 4–8 cm of sediment, reaching shoot densities well Wyllie-Echeverria, 1996). In areas disturbed by dugong
in excess to those of control plots (Duarte et al., 1997). grazing, propellor scars and other small-scale disturbance,
Sediment conditions (silt and clay content, organic mat- recovery can occur within weeks to months (Williams,
ter and sulfide concentration) can be an important factor 1988; Preen, 1995; Rasheed, 1999). Recovery of subtidal
limiting seagrass distribution (Koch, 2001), as supported seagrass meadows from large-scale disturbance has been
by observations in Southeast Asia where both species shown to take 2–4 years (Preen et al., 1995) or more than
diversity and leaf biomass of seagrass communities 5 years (Birch and Birch, 1984; Onuf, 2000; Blake and Ball,
declined sharply when the silt and clay content of the sed- 2001; Frederiksen et al., 2004; Sheridan, 2004). Often,
iment exceeded 15% (Terrados et al., 1998). Under condi- denuded areas may not recover for many decades because
tions of high light availability, however, major changes in of chronic turbidity due to continual resuspension of
sediment conditions associated with siltation may not neg- unconsolidated sediments (Thorhaug and Austin, 1976).
atively affect seagrass plants but instead enhance their When water quality conditions do not return to their origi-
growth by increasing the availability of nutrients, as nal state, recovery of subtidal seagrass may not occur at all
revealed by recent experiments with Cymodocea rotundata (Giesen et al., 1990).
in the Philippines (Halun et al., 2002). Campbell and McKenzie (2004) reported on the loss and
Clarke (1987) undertook a series of field-based burial subsequent recovery of approximately 2000 ha of intertidal
experiments on seagrasses along the Adelaide coast, which Zostera capricorni beds from Great Sandy Strait in Queens-
demonstrated that, as long as the sediments remained aer- land, Australia, following substantial flooding of the Mary
obic, Amphibolis plants were unaffected in terms of growth River in 1999. Whereas 95% of the seagrass meadows in
rate by burial up to 10 cm of sediment. This was contrasted this region were lost within 6 months following the flood
with Posidonia angustifolia, which demonstrated an inverse due to 2–3 fold increases in turbidity and nutrient concen-
relationship between growth and depth of burial, unless trations, full recovery (through recolonization from seed
conditions were anaerobic, causing mortality within 2 banks) occurred within 2 years of initial loss (Campbell
weeks (Clarke, 1987). Zostera tasmanica appears to be par- and McKenzie, 2004). Recovery of 2000 ha of primarily
ticularly vulnerable to high deposition environments (esp. Halodule wrightii due to improved water quality conditions
in the intertidal) as the leaves are quickly coated with sed- has been reported for Tampa Bay, Florida (Johansson and
iment (Clarke and Kirkman, 1989). Shepherd et al. (1989) Lewis, 1992; Lewis et al., 1998). Approximately 1000 km2
raised the possibility that the loss of 445 ha of Z. tasmanica of seagrasses in Hervey Bay, Australia, were lost in 1992
in northern Adelaide waters between 1965 and 1985 was after two major floods and a cyclone within a three-week
due to sediment accretion. period, which caused a persistent plume of turbid water.
Seagrasses are also likely to be affected by the nature of The deepwater seagrasses apparently died from lack of
the sediments that are deposited, which may bring with light from the floods. Heavy seas also uprooted seagrass
them pollutants or a high nutrient load. Furthermore, the in shallow waters. Subtidal seagrasses (below 5 m deep)
redox state of sediments may be altered if there is a high started to recover within two years. Intertidal seagrasses
organic load. only started to recover after four to five years and did
not fully recover until December 1998 (Coles et al.,
5. Seagrass recovery 2003). Deterioration of water quality in the Gulf of Ade-
laide (Australia) from sewage effluents, sewage sludge and
Despite the known causes of widespread seagrass loss, stormwater discharges, caused the loss of more than
few studies documented post-disturbance recovery rates 4000 ha of seagrass between 1969 and 1996 (EPA, 1998).
No significant recovery has been observed to date and More recently, a series of some of the largest land recla-
losses are continuing, despite some improvements in sludge mations in recent history have been initiated in Dubai,
outfalls. United Arab Emirates (De Jong et al., 2005). The dredging
Variation between different seagrass species in their abil- and dumping operations that are necessary for these
ity to endure and recover from periods of reduced light is extreme reclamations in Dubai (covering well over
related to their differing morphological and physiological 20,000 ha), apparently permitted under governing national
characteristics (Chesire et al., 2002). These characteristics legislation, and several other recent reclamation and coast-
represent different strategies for survival in the face of line modification projects elsewhere in the Middle East, are
stress or disturbance. Smaller fast growing (short-lived) likely to affect large areas of sensitive marine habitats
species such as Halophila ovalis or Halodule wrightii do including seagrass beds (B. Riegl., pers. comm., May
not endure long once environmental conditions are beyond 2005; Purkis and Riegl, 2005).
that to which they can adapt, but they tend to recolonize Nevertheless, the selection of case studies presented here
more quickly following an impact. Larger seagrass species is considered representative of the scale and nature of dam-
such as Thalassia or Posidonia sp. tend to have greater age commonly occurring. Other factors such as land recla-
stored reserves that can be mobilised to sustain the plant mation, port construction, beach nourishment and poor
temporarily during periods of reduced light (below their catchment management also contributed to seagrass
minimum light requirements). These species tend to be slow decline. Yet in all of these cases, dredging reportedly played
growing, long-lived and therefore represent a resilience a key role.
strategy, being more resistant to short-term to medium- Two of the largest losses, i.e. 15,000 ha in Laguna
term disturbances. If, however, the impact persists to the Madre (Texas, USA) and ‘thousands of hectares’ in Mor-
point where these plants have depleted all their reserves, eton Bay (Australia), have occurred before 1990. Most of
they die. Once lost, recolonization of these species is unli- the more recent losses in Australia and USA are substan-
kely or at best slow (Chesire et al., 2002). tially smaller in scale and 6 of the 7 no-impact case studies
were recent (post-1990). Data from European countries
6. Scale of damage to seagrass beds from dredging and elsewhere are too few to detect similar trends.
As the various case studies reveal, the extent of damage
An overview of 45 documented cases of dredging oper- to seagrasses is not simply a function of the size and scale
ations in or near/around seagrass areas, including scale of the dredging operation alone, but also depends on the
of damage (ha) and mitigating measures applied (if any), proximity to the seagrass bed, type and composition of
is presented in Table 4. A total of 26 out of the 45 case the sediment, the way dredging equipment is used, mitigat-
studies presented, together account for a total loss of ing measures applied, and so forth.
21,023 ha of seagrass beds due to dredging and associated The scale of predicted damage to seagrass vegetation
activities during the past 50 years. A further 12 case studies and cumulative effects can be issues of concern in the per-
reported adverse (in some cases catastrophic) impacts from mit process for dredging and sand mining. According the
dredging operations on seagrasses, but did not quantify the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, for
total area lost. In the remaining seven case studies, no sig- example, over 200 permit requests are submitted each year
nificant impacts of dredging on nearby seagrass beds were for small-scale dredging and constructions in Florida that
reported. Most of the reported case studies were in Austra- may affect very small areas (often below 100 m2) of
lia (15) and USA (14), with the rest (16) scattered over Eur- seagrass vegetation (FFWCC, 2001; Kirsch et al., 2005).
ope, Asia, Caribbean and the Middle East. No amount of seagrass loss, no matter how small, is
There must be many more cases of seagrass loss associ- allowed to happen in Florida without formal permits being
ated with dredging operations worldwide which are mostly issued.
– if at all – reported in gray literature and EIA reports, In several cases in the USA, applicants have attempted
including confidential documents or reports in other lan- to seek dredging permits to fit channels into gaps in sea-
guages, access to which is limited. The actual scale of grass beds. Yet, opponents have argued (successfully in
dredging damage to seagrasses worldwide can therefore some cases) that seagrass meadows are known to migrate
safely be assumed to be much greater. For example, recent across the landscape and dredging below the compensation
large-scale dredging and land reclamation works in Singa- depth in a gap would eliminate potential seagrass habitat in
pore covering over 10,000 ha (De Jong et al., 2005) are the future (Jud Kenworthy, pers. comm., April 2005). Con-
likely to have caused damage to seagrass beds, but this cern over predicted impacts on areas that constitute poten-
has not been documented. Dredging to purposely remove tial seagrass habitat but are currently unvegetated is
‘‘unwanted’’ seagrass vegetation is commonly practised in sometimes considered legitimate in areas where major
the Maldives at resorts without restriction (Iain Benson, efforts are underway to restore seagrass vegetation, as
pers. comm., May 2005). Seismic explorations for oil in noted for Tampa Bay (FFWCC, 2001) and the Dutch
Belize on turtle grass flats (several decades ago) resulted Wadden Sea (Van Katwijk, pers. comm., December 2004).
in permanent dotted lines across several of the grass flats, Not all observed reductions in seagrass cover in the
each dot the size of a 2-car garage (Anonymous, in lit.). immediate vicinity of dredging sites are necessarily the
1560
Table 4
Overview of case studies on dredging impacts on seagrasses
Country Location Year Activity/Purpose Scale of impact/damage Mitigation/Response Reference
Australia Botany Bay, New 1942–1984 Widespread dredging, along with Loss of 257 ha of seagrass beds None reported Walker and McComb
South Wales poor catchment management and (Posidonia australis, P.sinuosa) (1992), Larkum and West
uncontrolled effluent disposal (1990)
Australia Success Bank and 1950s–2002 Commercial dredging for mining of Loss of 232 ha of seagrass (Posidonia Transplanting seagrass sods using Gordon et al. (1996),
Parmelia Bank, calcium carbonate sands (shellsand) coriacea, Amphibolis griffithii and planting machines for rehabilitation Wyllie et al. (1997), Lord
Western Australia for production of lime (for mining Posidonia sinuosa) + additional loss et al. (1999), Paling et al.
P.L.A. Erftemeijer, R.R. Robin Lewis III / Marine Pollution Bulletin 52 (2006) 1553–1572
industry) by Cockbum Cement of 168 ha predicted for period 2002– (2001), Walker et al.
2014 (2001)
Australia Southern Bay 1955–2000 Dredging of access channels and Loss of thousands of hectares of None reported Kirkman (1978), WBM,
Islands Region, marine infrastructure development seagrass (Zostera capricorni) due to 2001, Thorogood et al.
Moreton Bay, (canal estate development) dredging and associated turbidity (2001), Coles et al. (2003)
Queensland
Australia Cleveland Bay and 1970s Capital and maintenance dredging Extensive burial and loss of nearly all None reported Pringle (1989)
Magnetic Island, at Ross River mouth and disposal at seagrass vegetation (possibly several
Queensland various dump sites in Cleveland Bay thousand ha according to habitat
(peak in the early – mid-1970s) maps) followed by gradual recovery
during 1978–1985
Australia Section Bank Late 1980s Channel dredging of Port River None reported (impact considered None reported (impact considered Chesire et al. (2002)
(Barker Inlet), acceptable) acceptable)
South Australia
Australia Section Bank Mid-1980s Dredging of a trench for the No significant (long-term) effects on None reported Chesire et al. (2002)
(Barker Inlet), Wasleys to Adelaide Pipeline seagrass
South Australia Looping Project (30–50,000 m3)
Australia Deception Bay, 1991–1992 Channel deepening and No significant impacts detected Monitoring (3yrs.) and mapping Long et al. (1996)
Queensland maintenance dredging of the access
channel into Newport Waters Canal
Estate
Australia McArthur River, 1994 Capital dredging of 1,250,000 m3 of Loss of 18.95 ha dense seagrass Confined land disposal with 2-stage Kenyon et al. (1999)
Northern Territory, sediment for development of trans- (direct removal) 3 years of sedimentation ponds; monitoring of
Western Gulf of shipment facility (incl. large monitoring indicated no further loss seagrass along channel edges
Carpentaria channel, swing basin for berthing) along canal edges or adjacent bed
Australia Botany Bay, New 1994–1995 Dredging and landfill for Loss of 18 ha of seagrass (Zostera 1.8 ha of seagrass transplanted Lord et al. (1999)
South Wales construction of Sydney airport 3rd capricorni) due to direct successfully for compensation (pilot
runway extension removal + additional loss of 5 ha trial project)
(Posidonia spp.) due to sand
relocation for bird habitat
reconstruction works
Australia Port of Karumba, 1994–2004 Maintenance dredging of port No observable impacts on approx. Long-term monitoring Rasheed et al. (2001)
Queensland entrance and river channel 1000 ha of seagrass within the Port
area
Australia Fisherman’s Island, 2000 Dredging and filling for the Direct loss of 90 ha of seagrass Environmental management plan POB (2000), BREC (2000)
Brisbane, proposed expansion of the Port of (patchy) predicted
Queensland Brisbane (dredging of 300,000 m3)
Australia Port of Weipa, 2000–2003 Capital and maintenance dredging Minimal or no impact predicted on If visual plume over seagrass persists GHD (2005)
Queensland of 3,750,000 m3 to widen and 4000 ha of seagrass within Port limits >6 h dredging to be relocated
deepen entrance channel and berth (+plume modelling)
facility
Australia Owen Anchorage, 2002–2010 Planned Stage One-Dual Channel Estimated direct loss of 53 ha of Detailed environmental Lord & Associates (2000)
Cockburn Sound Dredging by Cockburn Cement seagrass (of which 38 ha Posidonia management plan and transplanting
Western Australia (commercial shellsand mining) sinuosa and Posidonia australis proposed
+15 ha Posidonia coriacea and
Amphibolis griffithii)
Australia Towra Beach, 2004–2005 Dredging and filling for the Towra Predicted loss of 3.85 ha of seagrass Minimize overall seagrass loss and SMEC (2003)
Botany Bay, beach nourishment project (Zostera capricorni) due to the avoiding all Posidonia seagrass beds
Sydney (60,000 m3 using cutter suction nourishment project + loss of
dredge) + dredging for the parallel 13.73 ha due to the parallel runway
runway project project
Australia Port Philip Bay, 2005 Dredging for channel deepening, No significant impacts on Seagrass productivity not to be Edmunds et al. (2004),
Melbourne Port of Melbourne seagrasses expected (20% reduction reduced by more than 20%; Pert of Melbourne Corp.,
(31.7 million m3 sediment plus of primary production acceptable) turbidity to be kept within 2004, Hart et al. (2004)
0.5 million m3 rock) thresholds; extensive monitoring
program
Bahrain Fasht Al-Adhm, 1985–1992 Dredging and filling associated Loss of 10.2 km2 (1002 ha) of None reported Zainal et al. (1993)
east coast of with various land reclamations seagrass beds detected from remote
Bahrain (Arabian along the north-east coast sensing imagery
Gulf)
Bermuda Castle Harbour, 1942–1943 Dredging and fill operation (12–15 Loss of 18.2 ha of seagrass None Smith (1999), Sterrer and
Bermuda million m3) for a 300 ha land-fill (Thalassia testudinum) due to Wingate, 1981
for army station and Bermuda dredging and associated turbidity
International Airport
Brazil Sepetiba Bay, Rio 1997 Dredging of 20.86 million m3 of Accumulation of heavy metals by None reported Filho et al. (2004)
de Janeiro State bottom sediment to increase the seagrasses from resuspended
capacity of the Port of Sepetiba contaminated sediments
Denmark Saltholm and 1995–2000 Dredging and reclamation for the No impacts on eelgrass beds Feedback monitoring (stopping the Thorkilsen and Dynesen
surrounding waters construction of the Øresund fixed (Zostera marina) (zero loss) dredging when turbidity thresholds (2001), Jensen and
(Øresund) link (bridge and tunnel) between exceeded); strict environmental Lyngby (1999), Krause-
Denmark and Sweden regulations and extensive Jensen et al. (2001)
monitoring
Fiji Suva region, Fiji Early 1980s Commercial dredging of coral sand Total destruction of seagrass beds Management plan Penn (1981)
Islands for cement production (100,000 within the dredgepit areas (not
tonnes dry weight/yr in 1981) quantified) but gradual
recolonization of dredged areas
over time
France Gulf of Porto- 1970s Dredging and port construction Almost complete disappearance of None reported Pasqualini et al. (1999)
Vecchio, Corsica for Porto-Vecchio’s commercial Posidonia oceanica beds in far end
port of Gulf of Porto-Vecchio
Hong Kong Chek Lap Kok 1994–1998 Dredging, reclamation and Complete disappearance of seagrass None reported Lee (1997), Fong (2000),
(China) International construction works for new (Zostera japonica) but some local Fong (2001)
Airport, Hongkong international airport recovery of Halophila ovata
Indonesia Benoa Bay, Bali 1996–1998 Dredging (50 million m3) and Substantial loss of seagrass beds EIA; Project abandoned after Shaw (2000)
filling for land reclamation (Bali (approx. 500 ha-estimated from completion of reclamation in 1998
Turtle Island Development and habitats and development map) due to financial crisis
Bali Benoa Marina)
Italy Gulf of Oristano, 1970s Channel dredging and commercial Substantial loss of Posidonia None reported De Falco et al. (2000)
Sardinia port construction oceanica meadows (approx. 800 ha
estimated from distribution map)
1561
(continued on next page)
1562
Table 4 (continued)
Country Location Year Activity/Purpose Scale of impact/damage Mitigation/Response Reference
Italy Cape Feto, SW 1993 Dredging and fill operation for Direct loss of 150 ha of seagrass None reported Di Carlo et al. (2005),
Sicily construction of Italo-Algerian (Posidonia oceanica) plus indirect Di Carlo et al. (2004),
(Mediterranean) methane gas pipeline effects from pulsed siltation on Badalamenti et al. (2006)
nearby seagrass meadows
Italy Ischia Island, Gulf 2002 Sand extraction for refilling of a Loss of 4 ha of Posidonia oceanica None reported Gambi et al. (2005)
of Naples beach off Ischia Island (direct loss)
(Tyrrhenian Sea)
Kenya Mombasa coastal Mid-1990s Dredging and filling associated Loss of 2 ha of seagrass (5 spp.) plus None reported Wakibya (1995)
area with jetty construction by local additional (indirect) impacts from
fishing company associated turbidity
Netherlands Hond-Paap tidal 2002–2003 Dredging and excavation of No significant impacts on nearby Restrictions to timing, turbidity Erftemeijer (2002),
flat, Ems estuary 250,000 m3 of sediment for the eelgrass beds (Zostera marina) plume modelling, EIA monitoring Erftemeijer and Wijsman
deepening of an existing gas programme (2003)
pipeline
Portugal Rio de Aveiro, 1984–2003 Channel dredging (deepening and Loss of 8 km2 (800 ha) of seagrass None reported Da Silva et al. (2004)
Atlantic Ocean widening) of the inlet connecting vegetation (Potamogeton pectinatus,
the Rio de Aveiro estuary/lagoon Ruppia cirrhosa and Zostera noltii)
with the Atlantic Ocean due to indirect effect of dredging on
turbidity, resuspension and tidal
wave penetration
Portugal Rio Formosa Mid-1990s Dredging of navigation channels Some seagrass affected (not Short-term monitoring Janelle Curtis (in litt)
(tidal/coastal and two tidal inlets to facilitate quantified) (Cymodocea nodosa and
lagoon) ocean passage and increase tidal Zostera marina)
circulation
USA Boca Ciega and 1876–1976 Channel deepening, maintenance Loss of 1400 acres (567 ha) of Complete halt of open water Lewis (1976), Taylor and
Tampa Bay, dredging, shell dredging and seagrass areas (5 spp.); extremely spoiling in Tampa Bay since 1973; Saloman (1968), Fonseca
Florida dredging for landfill and slow recovery (partly due to loss of use of upland disposal sites (at (2002), Lewis et al. (1998)
construction offshore sandbars) increased costs)
USA Indian River 1940–1992 Maintenance dredging and Burial of seagrasses by creation of None reported Fletcher and Fletcher
Lagoon, Florida creation of spoil islands spoil islands and further losses due (1995), Brown-Peterson
to turbidity from dredging (but et al. (1993)
some recolonization by Halodule
wrightii)
USA Laguna Madre, 1965–1988 Maintenance dredging (every 2– Loss of 15,000 ha of seagrass beds Various management actions and Onuf (1994), Quammen
Texas 5yrs) of navigation channels and (Halodule wrightii) from all waters research on seagrass recovery and Onuf (1993), Pulich
disposal of spoil (elsewhere in deeper than 1 m due to turbidity and White (1991)
lagoon) caused by dredging/disposal with
very little recovery
USA Port of Miami, Early 1980s Channel deepening, dredging of Loss of 33 ha of seagrass The permit required replanting of Gaby et al. (1986), Lewis
Florida turning basin and filling of an (+ additional loss of 69 ha of 102 ha of seagrass to mitigate for (1987)
artificial island as part of the potential seagrass habitat) losses; initial success very poor
expansion of the Port of Miami (2.4 ha survived)
USA Key Biscayne, 1985 Dredging and placement for beach Burial and loss of 10.5 ha of Salvage of seagrasses for use in Gaby et al. (1986)
Florida nourishment of 3.9 km of Atlantic seagrasses mitigation of another dredging
beaches project (Port of Miami)
USA Great Bay estuary, <1993 Dredging and construction for Loss of 2.5 ha of seagrass (Zostera Restoration of 2.5 ha of seagrass Short et al. (2000), Davis
New Hampshire expansion of the New Hampshire marina) from direct and indirect bed elsewhere in the estuary + long- and Short (1997)
Port impacts of dredging term monitoring
USA Laguna Madre, 1994–1995 Maintenance dredging and Burial of seagrass vegetation at Monitoring of recovery rate Sheridan (2004)
Texas disposal of dredged material (total disposal sites; significant recovery
715.500 m3) at six sites in the (Halodule wrightii) within 3 yrs
lagoon
USA Indian River 1996–1997 Fort Pierce cargo port extension, Loss of 39.3 acres (16 ha) of None reported MacArthur Report
Lagoon, Florida incl. deepening of the harbour and seagrass (Halophila (1997), Virnstein and
deepening and widening of the johnsonii) + indirect secondary Morris (1996)
entrance channel impacts from turbidity on highly
productive seagrass beds (400 acres)
nearby
USA Delmarva 1996–1999 Hydraulic dredging and modified 1257 ha of seagrass affected/ Adoption of legislation for the Orth et al. (2002)
Peninsula, oyster dredging for clams (fishing) damaged with scars; slow recovery protection of most seagrass beds in
Maryland and taking >3 years Virginia (1997) and Maryland
Virginia (2002) not allowing clam dredging
in seagrass beds
USA Tampa Bay, 1999–2000 Dredging for navigation and berth Loss of 5.33 acres (2.2 ha) of Transplanting of 17.57 acres Environmental Affairs
Florida improvements as part of Port seagrass (Thalassia testudinum. (=7.1 ha) of seagrass (mainly Consultants (2005)
Manatee expansion project Halodule wrightii and Syringodium Halodule wrightii) achieved within 3
isoetifolium) years
USA Cape Ann 2001 Channel maintenance dredging to Initial loss of seagrass in dredged Minimizing duration; seasonal Peňa (2005)
peninsula, improve harbor access channel areas; good post-dredging restrictions; no-spud zone; limit
Massachusetts, recovery within 3–4 years over-dredge quantities; 5-year
Manchester-on- seagrass monitoring program
the-Sea
USA Emeryville Flats, 2001–2002 Dredging, filling and construction 58% decline in vegetation cover Not available Merkel (2003)
San Francisco Bay related to the San Francisco – representing a loss of 8.3 ha of
Oakland Bay Bridge project seagrass (Zostera marina)
USA Miami Harbor 2002–2003 Dredging for widening of entrance Loss of 6.3 acres (2.6 ha) of seagrass Replanting of 6.3 acres of seagrass Dial Cordy and Assoc.,
area, Biscayne Bay channel and turning basin at by direct removal and subsequent (Halodule wrightii + 3 other spp.) 2002
Miami Harbor sloughing on former borrow areas in Biscayne
Bay
USA Scituate Harbor, 2002–2003 Navigation maintenance dredging Loss of 1.8 ha of eelgrass (Zostera No dredging allowed near dense Sabol et al. (2005), Sabol
MA, New England of small boat harbor marina); some subsequent recovery eelgrass; use of silt curtains; and Shafer, 2005
within 2 years seagrass monitoring
US Virgin Water Bay, St. 1969 Dredging for navigation and Mass mortality/loss of seagrasses None reported Van Eepoel (1969)
Islands Thomas, Virgin boating (removal of 600,000 cubic (Thalassia testudinum) and corals
Islands yards of material from Water Bay) due to meachanical removal,
sedimentation and turbidity
1563
result of dredging-induced turbidity. Indeed, distinguishing munities. Dredging was stopped temporarily during peak
effects of anthropogenic disturbances from natural dynam- currents for approximately 20 times to keep within these
ics in estuarine and marine environments can be a chal- environmental restrictions (Thorkilsen and Dynesen,
lenge (Montagna et al., 1998). Recent field monitoring at 2001). These measures helped to ensure that there were
two sites in New England and Florida indicated that dredg- no significant impacts from dredging and construction
ing-induced turbidity did not extend to nearby seagrass activities on the eelgrass beds (Krause-Jensen et al., 2001).
beds, and that locally observed seagrass decline must have In at least one case, silt curtains have been used to
been due to some other (natural) disturbance (Sabol and reduce impacts on seagrasses (Sabol et al., 2005). Although
Shafer, 2005). the efficacy of silt curtains in reducing dredging-induced
turbidity and siltation impacts on the seagrass beds was
7. Mitigating measures not evaluated, the authors note that the design of the cur-
tains installed by the contractor may have been inadequate
A number of management techniques and mitigation for the hydrodynamic conditions prevalent in the study
measures have been developed, such as tidal dredging, area. High tidal flow resulted in breakage of anchor lines
physical barriers, environmental dredging techniques and and rupture of the seams of the curtains (Sabol et al.,
so forth, which may be used to mitigate effects of dredging 2005).
on sensitive organisms or ecosystems (Smits, 1998). In Installation of physical barriers such as silt screens is
hydraulic dredging techniques, the dredging rate can be often a difficult operation, demanding great skill and expe-
adapted by increasing the amount of water pumped up rel- rience on the part of the dredging contractor to avoid leak-
ative to the amount of sediment that is dredged, which can age through the curtain. Enclosure of dredging equipment
help to reduce the extent of turbidity plumes. Examples of with a silt screen is restricted mainly to the use with station-
other environmental dredging equipment include encapsu- ary dredgers using pipeline discharge methods, and is
lated bucket lines for bucket chain dredgers, closed clam- always accompanied by some degree of leakage under-
shells for grab dredgers, auger dredgers, disc cutters, neath. Protection of an environmentally very sensitive area
scoop dredgers and sweep dredgers (all modified cutter with silt screens may in some cases be viable, but only if the
dredgers). A more recent development is sub-suction physical conditions of the site (esp. waves and currents)
dredging (e.g. BeauDredge, Multilans), which allows for allow their effective use (USACE, 2005). Use of a silt
lowering of the seafloor by extracting sediment from deeper screen, however, clearly limits the output level of the
layers without disturbing the top layer. dredger, lengthens the execution period, and increases the
Mitigating measures applied in the various case studies costs of the project (Smits, 1998).
(Table 4) include confined land-disposal, EIA, turbidity Impact prediction (e.g. through plume modelling and/or
modelling (plume prediction), turbidity thresholds, limits habitat modelling) and turbidity monitoring have proven
to allowable reduction in seagrass productivity, minimizing to be successful tools in preventing or minimizing environ-
duration of dredging, seasonal restrictions (e.g. avoiding mental impacts on seagrasses from dredging operations
seagrass flowering periods), limiting over-dredge quanti- (Jensen and Lyngby, 1999; Thorkilsen and Dynesen,
ties, establishment of no-spud zones, use of silt screens, 2001; Krause-Jensen et al., 2001; Erftemeijer, 2002; Erfte-
prohibiting dredging near dense seagrass areas, stopping meijer and Wijsman, 2004). A new method for synoptic
dredging when turbidity thresholds are exceeded, seagrass real-time nowcasting, hindcasting and short-term forecast-
monitoring and mapping, research on seagrass recovery, ing of turbidity by combining information from remote
salvage of seagrasses for use in transplantation to mitigate sensing data, water quality modelling of sediment transport
losses (Lewis, 1987), post-dredging seagrass restoration and in situ data using data-model integration (DMI) tech-
(Lewis, 1987; Fonseca et al., 2002), and adoption of legis- niques, may prove to be an even more sophisticated, yet
lation banning the use of certain (clam) dredging methods. practical tool for use by the dredging industry in curbing
In the case of the Øresund Fixed Link (Denmark), a environmental impacts (Erftemeijer et al., 2002; Tatman
whole range of technical and environmental aspects of et al., 2005).
the dredging operation were integrated with the contrac-
tual commitments of the contractor to prevent impacts 8. Regulation of dredging in seagrass areas
on eelgrass beds in the area (Jensen and Lyngby, 1999).
Two major tools were introduced to ensure that spill was Specific regulations to protect seagrasses are few.
kept below the limits necessary to fulfill the environmental Although marine protected areas (MPAs) are rarely estab-
objectives and criteria of the project: (1) the contractor was lished specifically to conserve seagrasses, there are 247
held responsible through his contract for keeping the spill MPAs worldwide known to include seagrasses (Spalding
below specified limits varying in time and space, taking into et al., 2003). In addition to designation of MPAs, other
consideration environmentally sensitive periods and areas; legal measures have proved beneficial to seagrasses in some
(2) a feedback-monitoring programme was implemented to places, although seagrasses themselves are rarely singled
covering sediment spill, dispersal thereof, and biological out as the object of protection. In Queensland (Australia),
key variables representing the most sensitive benthic com- for example, all seagrasses and other marine plants are spe-
cifically protected under the Fisheries Act of 1994, for pro- suspended particles and nutrients, discharged to waters of
tection of commercial and recreational fishing activities the USA.
(Spalding et al., 2003). In the Mediterranean, Posidonia In addition, all of the 51 states of the USA, have individ-
oceanica meadows are accorded priority protection under ually some type of environmental pollution prevention
Annex 1 to the EU Habitats Directive, while 3 of 5 Medi- laws, some stronger than others. In many states, like Flor-
terranean seagrass species are described as endangered in ida and California, the Corps will not issue a federal 404
the SPA/BD Protocol of the 1995 Barcelona Convention permit until the state issues a ‘‘water quality certification’’
(EEA, 2005). Since Posidonia oceanica meadows are partic- that a proposed project, including dredging in or around a
ularly vulnerable to bottom-disturbing activities, some seagrass meadow, will not violate certain specific water
countries like Spain have severely limited dredging opera- quality criteria. Further some subdivisions of state govern-
tions susceptible to alter Posidonia communities along the ment, such as counties or cities may have another set of
coast of Spain (Eurosion, 2004). regulations protecting wetlands in general and seagrasses
Both dredging and disposal operations are increasingly specifically in coastal areas. All of these regulations require
regulated more strictly with regards to their environmental that permits be reviewed and if issued, include stringent
impacts. In addition to national and regional legislation monitoring of survival of seagrasses around dredging sites,
and policies, some useful general guidelines have been and water quality monitoring during dredging. Turbidity,
drawn up within the framework of international and regio- suspended particulate load, light penetration, dissolved
nal conventions. The London Convention (1972) adopted nutrients and dissolved oxygen are common parameters
the dredged material assessment framework (DMAF), a that must be monitored and reported, and if exceedances
widely reviewed and accepted approach to the assessment occur, dredging must be stopped until monitoring confirms
of suitability of dredged material for disposal at sea. The a return to background conditions.
OSPAR Convention (1992) adopted the OSPAR Guide- In Australia, dredging and disposal of dredged spoil is
lines for the Management of Dredged Material (OSPAR, governed by the Environment Protection Act 1981. In
1998) and more recently produced a background document addition, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975
on ‘Environmental Impacts to Marine Species and Habi- includes further provisions to assess and manage environ-
tats of Dredging for Navigational Purposes (OSPAR, mental impact of coastal development activities such as
2004). Some other helpful documents include the ‘Good dredging. General dredging and sea dumping permits are
Practice Guidelines for Ports and Harbours operating subject to conditions which may typically include restric-
within or near UK European Marine Sites’ (ABP tions to the size of the impacted zone, limitations to a
Research, 1999), the ‘Guidelines for Dredging’ of EPA Vic- certain period of the year, turbidity limits and tidal
toria in Australia (EPA, 2001) and the series on ‘Environ- restrictions (EPA, 2001). Turbidity limits are generally
mental Aspects of Dredging’ issued by the Central expressed in terms of maximum allowable exceedance (in
Dredging Association (CEDA) and International Associa- %) above the best estimates of natural ambient turbidity.
tion of Dredging Companies (IADC) (Jensen and Mogen- If this target is exceeded there are limits to the duration
sen, 2000). of plumes (e.g. not allowed to exceed an aggregate of four
In the United States, there are multiple levels of regula- days in any five-day period, or 90% of any 10-day period).
tion of both direct and indirect effects of dredging and If such periods are exceeded, this will trigger a management
water quality degradation on seagrasses. At national level, response, such as temporary cessation or modification of
the US Army Corps of Engineers has primary jurisdiction dredging or disposal works or further restrictions on meth-
of dredging in ‘‘navigable waters’’, which includes essen- ods and location of future operations. Turbidity limits may
tially all marine and estuarine waters in the USA. Seagrass be modified during the course of the dredging operation
beds are regulated as ‘‘special aquatic sites’’ not as after consideration of monitoring results. Conditions also
wetlands, but the same laws that apply to wetlands under include the need for trial dredging, compliance- and effects
Section 404 of the so called Clean Water Act (Federal monitoring (esp. of turbidity plumes and background tur-
Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 92–500), origi- bidity), and monitoring and mapping of species composi-
nally passed by the US House and Senate in 1972, and tion and abundance of seagrass beds in the affected area.
modified since, apply regarding application for permits to In most cases, a technical advisory and consulative com-
impact any site with seagrasses. Permit applications are mittee is established that sets up and agrees on monitoring
processed by the Corps, but are reviewed by other federal programmes, decides on the need and frequency of sam-
agencies, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service, pling and is allowed to make additional recommendations
National Marine Fisheries Service and US Environmental that will help to minimize environmental impacts of the
Protection Agency (EPA). EPA also has veto authority dredging operations (EPA, 2001). Regulations may also
on any attempt by the Corps to override its recommenda- include the need to rehabilitate affected seagrass areas.
tions for permit denial, although the power has been rarely Establishing a reasonable background turbidity level
used. EPA also regulates water quality directly under the can be challenging, particularly given the variable nature
same Clean Water Act with authority to issue permits to of the ambient state. With a highly time variable back-
dischargers and limit quantities of pollutants, including ground condition, some ports have adopted an approach
of real-time comparison between plume measurements over incurred in efforts aimed at preventing or minimizing sea-
sensitive areas with ambient conditions, whilst others con- grass damage are probably negligible in comparison with
tinue to use an historic estimate based on regular monitor- costs of seagrass restoration programmes, which often
ing of ambient conditions. Whilst dredging may cause an appear to have limited success.
above average elevation of turbidity over seagrass, these Fonseca et al. (2002) discussed the ecological restoration
elevations may in many instances be within the long term of seagrasses including the success rate for seagrass mitiga-
background range for the area and short-lived when com- tion undertaken for permitted losses of seagrasses, or as
pared to a frequent and naturally occurring event such as a court ordered restoration after illegal damage. They noted
significant rain event during the wet season. It can there- that while seagrass restoration or mitigation can be suc-
fore not be assumed that transitory dredge plumes in excess cessful, many errors occur in site selection in particular,
of an area’s average turbidity would necessarily cause sig- and partial or complete failures in such attempts has been
nificant impacts on seagrasses. Therefore, authorities common. Citing a particular example of a court-ordered
increasingly take natural variability in background turbid- seagrass restoration project, they also note that successful
ity into consideration. efforts can be very expensive. The particular example they
Historically, the management approach in the USA used costed US$ 630,000 per hectare (1996 costs) including
(with strong ‘riparian’ property rights anchored in consti- site surveys, monitoring and reporting. Lewis et al. (2006)
tutional laws) focused primarily on remediation (compen- describe a US$ 6 million project that had only achieved
sating for damage to be incurred to seagrass) with approximately 1.5 ha of success at the time of reporting.
regulations applying to all dredging operations, even very A recent €900,000 eelgrass restoration programme in the
small ones. In Australia, the approach has been more or Dutch Wadden Sea has achieved little success after 4 years
less that of a zero-loss strategy, preventing or minimizing of re-introduction and transplantation trials (Bos and Van
impacts on seagrass, with planned dredging operations Katwijk, 2005). The costs of two successful seagrass resto-
being assessed following a case-by-case approach. Since ration projects in the USA ranged between 200,000 and
about 15 years ago, the situation in the USA has changed, 500,000 US$ per ha (Davis et al., 2002; Lewis et al.,
partly as a result of a growing awareness of economic 2006). In their review of techniques for restoration and sub-
losses associated with damage to seagrass beds. Now stitution of ecosystem services of tropical coastal ecosys-
dredging in or near seagrass beds is very strictly controlled, tems (including seagrass beds), Moberg and Rönnbäck
and permits are hard to get, even for minor impacts (2003) conclude that it is probably always cheaper to aim
(0.1 ha). Part of the issue is whether you can adequately at preserving ecosystem functioning than trying to restore
mitigate or compensate for seagrass impacts. Most such or substitute them when they have been degraded or lost.
projects have failed in the past (Lewis, 1987).
There is suspicion of potential bias and lack of objectiv- 10. Discussion and conclusions
ity in the licensing process for dredging permits. A recent
study into sustainability of UK offshore dredging for mar- Although there clearly are a large number of reports
ine aggregate mining (Olsen, 2005) noted that the vested that have documented adverse impacts on seagrass beds
economic interests of applicants, license granting bodies, from dredging and sand-mining operations, there are sev-
license owners and monitors of the dredging are likely to eral other (mostly recent) cases that reported no impacts
affect objectivity in impact assessments submitted in the on nearby seagrasses at all. There appears to be an increas-
licensing procedure. Environmental impact assessment ing awareness among dredging contractors and regulatory
studies of large-scale land reclamation schemes in parts bodies on the economic and ecological value of seagrass
of the Middle East are sometimes shrouded in secrecy or beds and the importance to make a concerted effort to min-
are in some cases conducted only after reclamation has imize impacts on these sensitive systems. The various case
already been implemented. studies from the USA and Australia suggests that the larg-
est impacts have mostly been in the past. As a result of
9. Estimated costs stricter regulations and enforcement by relevant authori-
ties, recent large-scale dredging operations take various
Stricter regulations, tighter control measures, proper precautions and mitigating measures to keep impacts at a
enforcement and detailed monitoring, together with proper minimum. Elsewhere, experiences seem to vary between
impact assessment, application of wide-ranging mitigating countries and from case to case.
measures and the development of new environmentally As some of the case studies have shown, even large-scale
friendlier dredging techniques appear to increasingly help dredging operations do not always cause significant
in efforts to prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts to seagrass beds. This may not necessarily be the
impacts on seagrasses. Estimates of the extra costs of such result of strict environmental regulations and mitigating
mitigating measures (due to longer duration and special measures, but is sometimes a direct function of local envi-
equipment needs) and/or compensation payments for dam- ronmental conditions.
age incurred by dredging contractors are difficult to obtain. Development of criteria to protect seagrasses must
It appears reasonable, however, to assume that costs acknowledge that seagrasses tolerate periods of naturally
high turbidity and can withstand some increase in the fre- the framework of the WL j Delft Hydraulics R&D Pro-
quency of turbid events. Turbidity is unlikely to be contin- gramme (EZ doelsubsidie 2005).
uous at any particular site particularly due to changes in
wind and tidal conditions but also due to changes in dredge
location and dredging rate. In areas that experience large References
natural fluctuations in background turbidity (esp. in estua-
rine environments), seagrasses and other benthic communi- Abal, E.G., Dennison, W.C., 1996. Seagrass depth range and water
ties often display a greater resilience than in areas where quality in Southern Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia. Marine and
natural turbidity fluctuations are minimal. Freshwater Research 47, 763–771.
ABP Research, 1999. Good practice guidelines for ports and harbours
Nearshore seagrass communities, like other marine eco- operating within or near UK European marine sites. English Nature,
systems, are commonly thought to be largely static entities, UK Marine SACs Project, 20 pp.
with predictable, seasonal changes. Increasingly, however, Backman, T.W., Barilotti, D.C., 1976. Irradiance reduction: effects on
studies examining interannual variability in seagrass and standing crop of eelgrass Zostera marina. Marine Biology 34, 33–40.
Badalamenti, F., Di Carlo, G., D’Anna, G., Gristina, M., Toccaceli, M.,
other macrophyte communities remind us that this is not
2006. Effects of dredging activities on population dynamics of
necessarily the case. Seagrass patches may come and go, Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile in the Mediterranean sea: the case
may change position or density, and their associated fish study of Capo Feto (SW Sicily, Italy). Hydrobiologia 555, 253–261.
communities may be different from year to year (Hem- Batiuk, R.A., Bergstrom, P., Kemp, M., Koch, E., Murray, L., Stevenson,
minga and Duarte, 2000). Consequently, what we observe J.C., Bartleson, R., Carter, V., Rybicki, N.B., Landwehr, J.M.,
in one year may or may not hold true in subsequent years. Gallegos, C., Karrh, L., Naylor, M., Wilcox, D., Moore, K.A.,
Ailstock, S., Teichberg, M., 2000. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic
Given this potentially high variability, it is especially Vegetation Water Quality and Habitat based Requirements and
important to use caution when basing long-term manage- Restoration Targets: A Second Technical Synthesis. CBP/TRS 245/
ment decisions on short-term observations. Ecosystems 00 EPA 903-R-00-014. U.S. EPA Chesapeake Program, Annapolis,
may not function or behave as expected when we base Maryland.
our expectations on a mere snapshot of a constantly chang- Beal, J.L., Schmit, B.S., 2000. The effects of dock height on light
irradiance (PAR) and seagrass (Halodule wrightii and Syringodium
ing entity (Weitkamp, 1998). filiforme) cover. In: Bortone, S.A. (Ed.), Seagrasses: Monitoring,
Therefore, copying of dredging criteria used in one geo- Ecology, Physiology, and Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
graphic area to a dredging operation in another may in Florida, pp. 49–63.
some cases lead to exaggerated limitations resulting in Beer, S., Waisel, Y., 1982. Effects of light and pressure on photosynthesis
in two seagrasses. Aquatic Botany 13, 331–337.
unnecessary costs and delays in dredging operations, or
Bell, J.D., Pollard, D.A., 1989. Ecology of fish assemblages and fisheries
in other cases could prove damaging to seagrass ecosys- associated with seagrasses. In: Larkum, A.W.D., McComb, A.J.,
tems. Meaningful criteria to limit the extent and turbidity Shepherd, S.A. (Eds.), Biology of Seagrasses. A Treatise on the
of dredging plumes and their effects will always require Biology of Seagrasses with Special Reference to the Australian Region,
site-specific evaluations and should take into account the Aquatic Plant Studies 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 565–609.
natural variability of local background turbidity. Birch, W.R., Birch, M., 1984. Succession and pattern of tropical intertidal
seagrasses in Cockle Bay, Queensland, a decade of observations.
Aquatic Botany 19, 343–367.
Blake, S., Ball, D., 2001. Victorian marine habitat database seagrass
Acknowledgement mapping of Westernport. Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute
report No. 29, 36 pp.
Bogers, P., Gardner, J., 2004. Dredging near live coral. Paper presented at
The authors wish to acknowledge the following people
the 17th World Dredging Congress, 27 September–1 October 2004,
who kindfully shared insights, practical experience, litera- Hamburg, Germany. WODCON XVII 2004, Paper A31, 16 pp.
ture and information for this review: Bill Allison, Iain Ben- Borum, J., 1983. The quantitative role of macrophytes, epiphytes, and
son, Vicente Tasso Bermell, Sian Boyd, Nick Bray, Archie phytoplankton under different nutrient conditions in Roskilde Fjord,
Carr, Guiseppe Di Carlo, Eugene Dunaevsky, Adam Gel- Denmark. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Aquatic
ber, Melanie Gomes, Jorrit de Groot, Oliver Gussman, Macrophytes. Faculty of Science, Nijmegen, Netherlands, pp. 35–40.
Bos, A.R., Van Katwijk, M.M., 2005. Re-introduction of eelgrass (Zostera
Emma Jackson, Maruf Kasim, Marieke van Katwijk, Don- marina) in the western Wadden Sea (2002–2005). Final report,
na Kendall, Jud Kenworthy, Hugh Kirkman, Barry Kwok, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 67 pp. (in Dutch).
Eva Olsen, Bob Orth, Eric Paling, Johan Pennekamp, Alli- BREC, 2000. BREC Comment on the POB Draft Impact Study –
son Perry, Joanna Pitt, Gerard van Raalte, Chris Ryan, Fisherman’s Island Extension. Brisbane Region Environment Council
Marcello Sano, T. Shearer, Richard Snyder, Mark Spal- (BREC), Morningside Qld., October, 2000.
Brown-Peterson, N.J., Peterson, M.S., Rydene, D.A., Eames, R.W., 1993.
ding, Jason Tanner, Anitra Thorhaug, Simona Trimarchi, Fish assemblages in natural versus well-established recolonized
Nicky Villars, Robert Virnstein, Di Walker and Simon seagrass meadows. Estuaries 16 (2), 177–189.
Wilson. This review was carried out as part of the research Bulthuis, D.A., 1983. Effects of in situ light reduction on density and
theme ‘large-scale dredging operations’ (cluster ‘‘optimali- growth of the seagrass Heterozostera tasmanica (Martens ex Aschers.)
den Hartog in Western Port, Victoria, Australia. Journal of Experi-
sation dredging technology in relation to prevailing turbid-
mental Marine Biology and Ecology 67, 91–103.
ity criteria and soil type’’). We kindfully acknowledge the Bulthuis, D.A., Woelkerling, W.J., 1983. Effects of in situ light reduction
financial support provided for this research programme on density and growth of the seagrass Heterozostera tasmanica
by the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs within (Martens ex Aschers.) den Hartog in Western Port, Victoria,
Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 67, Dennison, W.C., 1991. Photosynthetic and growth responses of tropical
91–103. and temperate seagrasses in relation to secchi depth, light attenuation
Burkholder, P.R., Doheny, T.E., 1968. The biology of eelgrass. Contri- and daily light period. In: W.J. Kenworthy, D.E. Haunert (Eds.), The
bution No. 1227 from the Lamont Geological Observatory, Palisades, Light Requirements of Seagrasses: Proceedings of a Workshop to
New York, 120 pp. Examine the Capability of Water Quality Criteria, Standards and
Caldwell, J.W., 1985. Effects of elevated turbidity and nutrients on the net Monitoring Programs to Protect Seagrasses, pp. 133–144. NOAA
production of a tropical seagrass community. Ph.D thesis, University Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-287.
of Florida, Gainesville FL, USA, 146 pp. Dennison, W.C., Orth, R.J., Moore, K.A., Stevenson, J.C., Carter, V.,
Campbell, S.J., McKenzie, L.J., 2004. Flood related loss and recovery of Kollar, S., Bergstrom, P.W., Batiuk, R.A., 1993. Assessing water
intertidal seagrass meadows in southern Queensland, Australia. quality with submerged aquatic vegetation. BioScience 43, 86–94.
Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 60, 477–490. Dial Cordy and Associates, 2002. Miami Harbor GRR Study – Draft
Carruthers, T.J.B., Walker, D.I., Kendrick, G.A., 1999. Abundance of Environmental Impact Statement. Mitigation Plan. Prepared for
Ruppia megacarpa mason in a seasonally variable estuary. Estuarine US Army Corps of Engineers. Jacksonville Beach, FL, July 2002,
Coastal and Shelf Science 48, 497–509. 25 pp.
Chesire, A.C., Miller, D.J., Murray-Jones, S., Scriven, L., Sandercock, R., Di Carlo, G., Badalamenti, F., Passalacqua, C., 2004. The use of
2002. The Section Bank: ecological communities and strategies for reconstructive methods in combination with ‘beyond BACI’ designs:
the minimization of dredging impacts. A report to the Office for the case study of Capo Feto (SW Sicily, Italy). Rapport Commission
Coast and Marine National Parks and Wildlife, South Australia, Internationale pour la Mer Mediterranee 37, 514.
Department for Environment and Heritage. SARDI Aquatic Sciences, Di Carlo, G., Badalamenti, F., Jensen, A.C., Koch, E.W., Riggio, S.,
West Beach. 2005. Colonization process of vegetative fragments of Posidonia
Clarke, S.M., 1987. Sediment-seagrass dynamics in Holdfast Bay: sum- oceanica (L.) Delile on rubble mounds. Marine Biology 147 (6),
mary. Safish 11, 4–10. 1261–1270.
Clarke, S.M., Kirkman, H., 1989. Seagrass dynamics. In: Larkum, Dixon, L.K., 2000. Establishing light requirements for the seagrass
A.W.D., McComb, A.J., Shepherd, S.A. (Eds.), Biology of Seagrasses. Thalassia testudinum: an example from Tampa Bay, Florida. In:
A Treatise on the Biology of Seagrasses with Special Reference to the Bortone, S.A. (Ed.), Seagrasses: Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology and
Australian Region, Aquatic Plant Studies 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. Management. CRC Press, pp. 9–31.
304–345. Drew, E.A., 1978. Factors affecting photosynthesis and its seasonal
Coles, R., McKenzie, L., 2004. Trigger points and achieving targets for variation in the seagrasses Cymodocea nodosa (Ucria) Aschers, and
managers. Paper presented at a workshop session on management Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile in the Mediterranean. Journal of
issues during the ISBW-6 Workshop, Seagrass 2004 Conference, Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 31, 173–194.
Townsville, 24 September–1 October 2004. Duarte, C.M., 1991. Seagrass depth limits. Aquatic Botany 40, 363–377.
Coles, R., McKenzie, L., Campbell, S., 2003. The seagrasses of Eastern Duarte, C.M., 2002. The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental
Australia. In: E.P. Green, F.T. Short (Eds.) World Atlas of Seagrasses, Conservation 29 (2), 192–206.
Prepared by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Duarte, C.M., Terrados, J., Agawin, N.S.R., Bach, S., Kenworthy, W.J.,
University of California Press, Berkeley, USA, pp. 119–133. 1997. Response of a mixed Philippine seagrass meadow to experimen-
Congdon, R.A., McComb, A.J., 1979. Productivity of Ruppia: seasonal tal burial. Marine Ecology Progress Series 147, 285–294.
changes and dependence on light in an Australian Estuary. Aquatic Dunton, K.H., 1994. Seasonal growth and biomass of the subtropical
Botany 6, 121–132. seagrass Halodule wrightii Aschers. in relation to continuous measure-
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, ments of underwater irradiance. Marine Biology 120, 479–489.
B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neall, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Dunton, K.H., Tomasko, D.A., 1991. Seasonal variation in the photo-
Sutton, P., Van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem synthetic performance of Halodule wrightii measured in situ in Laguna
services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Madre, Texas. In: Kenworthy, W.J., Haunert, D.E., (Eds.), The Light
Czerny, A.B., Dunton, K.H., 1995. The effects of in situ light reduction on Requirements of Seagrasses: Proceedings of a Workshop to Examine
the growth of two subtropical seagrasses, Thalassia testudinum and the Capability of Water Quality Criteria, Standards and Monitoring
Halodule wrightii. Estuaries 18, 418–427. Programmes to Protect Seagrasses. NOAA Technical Memorandum,
Dalla Via, J., Sturmbauer, C., Schonweger, G., Sotz, E., Mathekowitsch, NMFSSEFC287, pp. 71–78.
S., Stifter, M., Rieger, R., 1998. Light gradients and meadow structure Edmunds, M., Hart, S., Ingwersen, C., Robinson, J., Ngo, A.T., 2004.
in Posidonia oceanica: ecomorphological and functional correlates. Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project. Environmental Effects
Marine Ecology Progress Series 163, 267–278. Statement – Marine Ecology Specialist Studies. Vol. 16: Seagrass
Da Silva, J.F., Duck, R.W., Catarino, J.B., 2004. Seagrasses and sediment Impact and Risk Assessment. Report to Port of Melbourne Corpo-
response to changing physical forcing in a coastal lagoon. Hydrology ration and Parsons Brinckerhoff. Australian Marine Ecology report
and Earth System Sciences 8 (2), 151–159. No. 174, Melbourne, 80 pp.
Davis, R.C., Short, F.T., 1997. Restoring eelgrass, Zostera marina L., EEA, 2005. Priority issues in the Mediterranean environment. UNEP,
habitat using a new transplanting technique: the horizontal rhizome European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen. EEA report No.
method. Aquatic Botany 59, 1–15. 5/2005, 90 pp.
Davis, R.C., Reel, J.T., Short, F.T., Montoya, D., 2002. Costs and success Environmental Affairs Consultants, 2005. Third annual progress and
of large scale eelgrass plantings in New England. Paper presented at seagrass mitigation credit/success confirmation report. Report pre-
the Conference on Seagrass Restoration: Success and Failure and the pared for Manatee County Port Authority. Environmental Affairs
Cost of Both. Mote Marine Laboratory, March, 2002. Consultants Inc., Palmetto FL, March 2005, 63 pp.
De Falco, G., Murru, E., Baroli, M., Piergallini, G., Cancemi, G., 2000. EPA, 1998. Changes in seagrass coverage and links to water quality off the
Photo-aerial image processing and sediment analysis as indicators of Adelaide Metropolitan coastline. Environment Protection Agency,
environmental impact on Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea. Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs,
Biologia Marina Mediterranea 7 (2), 349–352. Adelaide (Australia). Technical document, September 1998, 27 pp.
De Jong, R., Van Gelderen, P., Lindo, M., Fernandez, J., 2005. Dubai’s EPA, 2001. Guidelines for Dredging. Best Practice Environmental
extreme reclamations. Paper presented at the CEDA Dredging Days Management. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Southbank,
2005 Conference, 2–4 November 2005, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Victoria (Australia), publication No. 691, 110 pp.
Dennison, W.C., 1987. Effects of light on seagrass photosynthesis, growth Erftemeijer, P.L.A., 2002. Evaluation of ecological impacts of dredging
and depth distribution. Aquatic Botany 27, 15–26. activities in the Ems estuary for the deepening of an existing 42 in. gas
pipeline for the NV Nederlandse Gasunie. WL j Delft Hydraulics, Brighton, UK, 4–7 March 1986, pp. 550–561. Central Dredging
technical report No. Z3401, 78 pp (in Dutch). Association, Delft.
Erftemeijer, P.L.A., Wijsman, J., 2004. Monitoring of waterbirds, eelgrass Gambi, M.C., Dappiano, M. Lorenti, M., Iacono, B., Flagella, S., Buia,
meadows and mussel beds on the Hond-Paap tidal flat during dredging M.C., 2005. Chronicle of a death foretold. Features of a Posidonia
activities for the deepening of the ‘Eemszinker’ (gas pipeline) in 2003. oceanica bed impacted by sand extraction. In: E. Özhan (Ed.)
WL j Delft Hydraulics, technical report No. Z3540, 99 pp (in Dutch). Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the Mediter-
Erftemeijer, P.L.A., Villars, N., Gerritsen, H., Tatman, S., 2002. Feasi- ranean Coastal Environment, MEDCOAST 05, Kusadasi, Turkey, 25–
bility study: application of remote sensing and DMI for monitoring 29 October 2005, pp. 441–450.
environmental effects of dredging. WL j Delft Hydraulics, technical GHD, 2005. Port of Weipa Capital Dredging. Draft Environmental
report No. Z3419, 38 pp. Impact Statement. GHD Pty. Ltd, Brisbane, Australia 143 pp.
Eurosion, 2004. Living with coastal erosion in Europe: sediment and space Giesen, W.B.J.T., Van Katwijk, M.M., Den Hartog, C., 1990. Eelgrass
for sustainability. Guidelines for incorporating coastal erosion issues condition and turbidity in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Aquatic Botany 37,
into Environmental Assessment (EA) procedures. Final Report to the 71–85.
European Commission (Service contract B4-3301/2001/329175/MAR/ Gordon, D.M., Grey, K.A., Chase, S.C., Simpson, C.J., 1994. Changes to
B3). National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management (and the structure and productivity of a Posidonia sinuosa meadow during
partners), The Netherlands, May 2004. and after imposed shading. Aquatic Botany 47, 265–275.
FFWCC, 2001. Minimizing and mitigating impacts to seagrass. Com- Gordon, D.M., Collins, P., Baxter, I.N., LeProvost, I., 1996. Regression
ments by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission at of seagrass meadows, changes in seabed profiles and seagrass
an Informal Discussion Session during ERF 2001, Florida, 7 Novem- composition at dredged and undredged sites in the Owen Anchorage
ber 2001. region of South-western Australia. In J. Kuo, R.C. Phillips, D.I.
Filho, G.M.A., Creed, J.C., Andrade, L.R., Pfeiffer, W.C., 2004. Metal Walker, H. Kirkman (Eds.) Seagrass Biology: Proceedings of an
accumulation by Halodule wrightii populations. Aquatic Botany 80, International Workshop, Rottnest Island, Western Australia, 25–29
241–251. January 1996, pp. 323–332.
Fitzpatrick, J., Kirkman, H., 1995. Effects of prolonged shading on Green, E.P., Short, F.T., 2003. World Atlas of Seagrasses. Prepared by the
growth and survival of seagrass Posidonia australis in Jervis Bay, New UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, University of Cali-
South Wales, Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 127, 279–289. fornia Press, Berkeley, USA, 298 pp.
Fletcher, S.W., Fletcher, W.W., 1995. Factors affecting changes in Grice, A.M., Loneragan, N.R., Dennison, W.C., 1996. Light intensity and
seagrass distribution and diversity patterns in the Indian River Lagoon the interactions between physiology, morphology and stable isotope
complex between 1940 and 1992. Bulletin of Marine Science 57 (1), 49– ratios in five species of seagrass. Journal of Experimental Marine
58. Biology and Ecology 195, 91–110.
Fong, T.C.W., 2000. Habitat preservation or transplantation: which is Halun, Z., Terrados, J., Borum, J., Kamp-Nielsen, L., Duarte, C.M.,
better for Hong Kong seagrass conservation? Porcupine! 20, 12–14 Fortes, M.D., 2002. Experimental evaluation of the effects of siltation-
Fong, T.C.W., 2001. Problems and prospects of seagrass conservation and derived changes in sediment conditions on the Philippine seagrass
management in Hong Kong and China. Paper presented at the Cymodocea rotundata. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
International Symposium on Protection and Management of Coastal Ecology 279, 73–87.
Marine Ecosystem. Bangkok, Thailand, 12–13 December 2000, 5 pp. Hart, S., Edmunds, M., Elias, J., Power, B., 2004. Port Phillip Bay
Fonseca, M.S., 1989. Sediment stabilisation by Halophila decipiens in Channel Deepening Project. Environmental Effects Statement –
comparison to other seagrasses. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science Marine Ecology Specialist Studies. Vol. 5: Seagrass and Sediment
17, 367–380. Biota. Report to Port of Melbourne Corporation and Parsons
Fonseca, M.S., 2002. Evaluating the effect of offshore sandbars on Brinckerhoff. Australian Marine Ecology report No. 162, Melbourne,
seagrass recovery and restoration in Tampa Bay through ecological 119 pp.
forecasting and hindcasting of exposure to waves. Final report Hemminga, M.A., Duarte, C.M., 2000. Seagrass Ecology. Springer,
prepared for the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. National Oceanic Cambridge (UK), 298 pp.
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Beaufort, North Carolina Iverson, R.L., Bittaker, H.F., 1986. Seagrass distribution and abundance
(USA), 50 pp. in eastern Gulf of Mexico coastal waters. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Fonseca, M.S., Fisher, J.S., 1986. A comparison of canopy friction and Science 22, 577–602.
sediment movement between four species of seagrass with reference to Jackson, E.L., Rowden, A.A., Attrill, M.J., Bossey, S.J., Jones, M.B.,
their ecology and restoration. Marine Ecology Progress Series 29, 15– 2001. The importance of seagrass beds as a habitat for fishery
22. species. Oceanography and Marine Biology – An Annual Review 39,
Fonseca, M.S., Kenworthy, W.J., Julius, B.E., Shutler, S., Fluke, S., 2002. 269–303.
Seagrasses. In: Perrow, M.R., Davey, A.J. (Eds.), Handbook of Jensen, A., Lyngby, J.E., 1999. Environmental management and moni-
Ecological Restoration, vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, New toring at the Öresund Fixed Link. Terra et Aqua 74, 10–20.
York, NY, USA, pp. 149–170. Jensen, A., Mogensen, B., 2000. Effects, ecology and economy. Environ-
Fourqurean, J.W., Durako, M.D., Hall, M.O., Hefty, L.E., 1999. Seagrass mental aspects of dredging - Guide No. 6. International Association of
distribution in south Florida: a multi-agency coordinated monitoring Dredging Companies (IADC) and Central Dredging Association
program. In: Porter, J.W., Porter, K.G. (Eds.), Linkages between (CEDA), 119 pp.
ecosystems in the South Florida hydroscape: The river of grass Johansson, J.0.R., Lewis, R.R., 1992. Recent improvements of water
continues. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. quality and biological indicators in Hillsborough Bay, a highly
Fourqurean, J.W., Zieman, J.C., 1991. Photosynthesis, respiration and impacted subdivision of Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. Science of the
whole plant carbon budget of the seagrass Thalassia tesudinum. Marine Total Environment 1992 (Suppl), 1199–1215.
Ecology Progress Series 69, 161–170. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C., Poiner, I., Hopkins, E., 1999. Impact of the
Frederiksen, M., Krause-Jensen, D., Holmer, M., Laursen, J.S., 2004. McArthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the marine
Long-term changes in area distribution of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in environment. CSIRO Marine Research, final report to McArthur
Danish coastal waters. Aquatic Botany 78, 167–181. River Mining Pty. Ltd., 139 pp.
Gaby, R., Langley, S., Keough, R.F., 1986. Port of Miami seagrass Kenworthy, W.J., Fonseca, M.S., 1996. Light requirements of seagrasses
restoration: analysis of management and economics of a large scale Halodule wrightii and Syringodium filiforme derived from the relation-
dredge mitigation project. In: J.H. Volbeda, V.L. van Dam, N. ship between light attenuation and maximum depth distribution.
Oosterbaan (Eds.) Proceedings of the XIth World Dredging Congress, Estuaries 19, 740–750.
Kirkman, H., 1978. Decline of seagrass in northern areas of Moreton Bay, Review and Development of an R&D Plan. CSIRO Marine Research,
Queensland. Aquatic Botany 5, 63–76. Collingwood (Australia), pp. 65–115.
Kirsch, K.D., Barry, K.A., Fonseca, M.S., Whitfield, P.E., Meehan, S.R., MacArthur Report, 1997. Death of the Indian River Lagoon? A Report
Kenworthy, W.J., Julius, B.E., 2005. The mini-312 program – an to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. August
expedited damage assessment and restoration process for seagrasses in 1997.
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Journal of Coastal MacInnis-Ng, C., 2003. In situ stress monitoring of anthropogenic impacts
Research 40 (Special Issue), 109–119. on Zostera capricorni. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Environmental
Koch, E.W., 2001. Beyond light: physical, geological and geochemical Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney.
parameters as possible submerged aquatic vegetation habitat require- Manzanera, M., Perez, M., Romero, J., 1995. Seagrass mortality due to
ments. Estuaries 24 (1), 1–17. oversedimentation: an experimental approach. In: Proceedings of the
Koch, E.W., Beer, S., 1996. Tides, light and the distribution of Zostera Second International Conference on the Mediterranean Coastal
marina in Long Island Sound, USA. Aquatic Botany 53, 97–107. Environment, MEDCOAST 95, October 24–27 1995, Taragona,
Krause-Jensen, D., Middelboe, A.L., Christensen, P.B., Sand-Jensen, K., Spain.
2001. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) as an indicator of environmental Marba, N., Duarte, C.M., 1994. Growth response of the seagrass
quality. Paper presented at the Öresund Fixed Link Symposium, Cymodocea nodosa to experimental burial and erosion. Marine
Stockholm University, November 27–28, 2001. Book of abstracts (oral Ecology Progress Series 107, 307–311.
presentations), p. 144. Merkel, K.W., 2003. Eelgrass habitat surveys for the Emeryville Flats and
Larkum, A.W.D., West, R.J., 1990. Long-term changes of seagrass Clipper Cove, Yerba Buena Island (October 1999 through October
meadows in Botany Bay, Australia. Aquatic Botany 37 (1), 55–70. 2002). San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bride, East Span Seismic Safety
Lee, S.Y., 1997. Annual cycle of biomass of a threatened population of the Project. Merkel and Associates, Inc., technical report M&A 99-104-
intertidal seagrass Zostera japonica in Hong Kong. Marine Biology 10A, 27 pp.
129 (1), 183–193. Mills, K.E., Fonseca, M.S., 2003. Mortality and productivity of eelgrass
Lee, K., Dunton, K.H., 1997. Effects of in situ light reduction on the Zostera marina under conditions of experimental burial with two
maintenance, growth and partitioning of carbon resources in Thalassia sediment types. Marine Ecology Progress Series 255, 127–134.
testudinum Banks ex Konig. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology Moberg, F., Rönnbäck, P., 2003. Ecosystem services of the tropical
and Ecology 210, 53–73. seascape: interactions, substitutions and restoration. Ocean and
Lewis, R.R., 1976. Impact of dredging in the Tampa Bay estuary, 1876– Shoreline Management 46, 27–46.
1976. In: Pruitt, E.L. (Ed.), Time-stressed Coastal Environments: Montagna, P.A., Holt, S.A., Ritter, C., Herzka, S., Binney, K.F., Dunton,
Assessment and Future Action. The Coastal Society, Arlington, K.H., 1998. Characterization of anthropogenic and natural distur-
Virginia (USA), pp. 31–55. bance on vegetated and unvegetated bay bottom habitats in the
Lewis, R.R., 1987. The restoration and creation of seagrass meadows in Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program study area. Vol. I:
the southeastern United States. In: M.J. Durako, R.C. Phillips, R.R. Literature review. University of Texas, Publication CCBNEP-25A,
Lewis (Eds.) Proceedings of the Symposium on Subtropical Seagrasses May 1998.
of the Southeastern United States, pp. 153–173. Florida Department of Moore, K.A. 1991. Field studies of the effects of variable water quality on
Natural Resources – Marine Research Publications No. 42, St. temperate seagrass growth and survival. In: Kenworthy, W.J., Haun-
Petersburg, Florida. ert, D.E., (Eds.), The Light Requirements of Seagrass. NOAA
Lewis, R.R., Durako, M.J., Moffler, M.D., Phillips, R.C., 1985. Seagrass Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFC287, pp. 42–57.
meadows of Tampa Bay. In: Treat, S.F., Simon, J.L., Lewis, R.R. III, Moore, K.A., Wetzel, R.L., Orth, R.J., 1997. Seasonal pulses of turbidity
Whitman, R.L. Jr. (Eds.), Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific and their relations to eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) survival in an
Information Symposium (May 1982). Burgess Publishing Co., Minne- estuary. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 215,
apolis, pp. 210–246. 115–134.
Lewis, R.R., Clark, P.A., Fehring, W.K., Greening, H.S., Johansson, Newell, R.C., Seiderer, L.J., Hitchcock, D.R., 1998. The impact of
R.O., Paul, R.T., 1998. The rehabilitation of the Tampa Bay estuary, dredging works in coastal waters: a review of the sensitivity to
Florida, USA, as an example of successful integrated coastal manage- disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the
ment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37 (8–12), 468–473. seabed. Oceanography and Marine Biology – An Annual Review 36,
Lewis, R.R., Marshall, M.J., Bloom, S.A., Hodgson, A.B., Flynn, L.F., 127–178.
2006. Evaluation of the success of seagrass mitigation at Port Manatee, Ochieng, C.A., Short, F.T., Walker, D.I., 2004. Early flowering, architec-
Tampa Bay, Florida. Proceedings of the Conference on Seagrass ture and photosynthesis of perennial eelgrass in light manipulation
Restoration: Success and Failure and the Cost of Both. Mote Marine experiments. Paper presented at the Seagrass 2004 Conference,
Laboratory, March 11–12, 2002, pp. 19–40. Townsville, 24 September–1 October 2004.
Long, B.G., Dennis, D.M., Skewes, T.D., Poiner, I.R., 1996. Detecting an Olsen, E., 2005. Evaluating the sustainability of offshore dredging and
environmental impact of dredging on seagrass beds with a BACIR coastal zone governance. B.Sc. thesis, University of East Anglia,
sampling design. Aquatic Botany 53, 235–243. January 2005.
Longstaff, B.J., Dennison, W.C., 1999. Seagrass survival during Onuf, C.P., 1991. Light requirements of Halodule wrightii, Syringodium
pulsed turbidity events: the effects of light deprivation on the filiforme, and Halophila engelmannii in a heterogeneous and variable
seagrasses Halodule pinifolia and Halophila ovalis. Aquatic Botany environment inferred from long-term monitoring. In: Kenworthy,
65, 105–121. W.J., Haunert, D.E. (Eds.), The Light Requirements of Seagrasses:
Longstaff, B.J., Lonerragan, N.R., O’Donohue, M.J., Dennison, W.C., Proceedings of a Workshop to Examine the Capability of Water
1999. Effects of light deprivation on the survival and recovery of the Quality Criteria, Standards and Monitoring Programmes to Protect
seagrass Halophila ovalis (R. Br.) Hook. Journal of Experimental Seagrasses. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFSSEFC287, pp.
Marine Biology and Ecology 234, 1–27. 95–105.
Lord & Associates, 2000. Long-term shells and dredging, Owen Anchor- Onuf, C.P., 1994. Seagrasses, dredging and light in Laguna Madre, Texas,
age. Environmental review and management programme. Technical USA. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 39, 75–91.
report prepared for the Environmental Protection Authority. D.A. Onuf, C.P., 1996. Seagrass responses to long-term light reduction by
Lord and Associates Pty. Ltd. Report No. 96/032/4, November 2000, brown tide in upper Laguna Madre, Texas: distribution and biomass
145 pp. patterns. Marine Ecology Progress Series 138, 219–231.
Lord, D., Paling, E., Gordon, D., 1999. Review of Australian rehabili- Onuf, C.P., 2000. Seagrass responses to and recovery (?) from seven years
tation and restoration programs. In: Seagrass in Australia – Strategic of brown tide. Pacific Conservation Biology 5, 306–313.
Orpin, A.R., Ridd, P.V., Thomas, S., Anthony, K.R.N., Marshall, P., Ruiz, J.M., Romero, J., 2003. Effects of disturbances caused by coastal
Olivier, J., 2004. Natural variability and weather forecasts in risk constructions on spatial structure, growth dynamics and photosynthe-
management of anthropogenic sediment discharge near sensitive sis of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46,
environments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49, 602–612. 153–1523.
Orth, R.J., Fishman, J.R., Wilcox, D.J., Moore, K.A., 2002. Identification Sabol, B., Shafer, D., 2005. Dredging effects on seagrasses: case studies
and management of fishing gear impacts in a recovering seagrass from New England and Florida. In: Proceedings, Western Dredging
system in the coastal bays of Delmarva Peninsula, USA. Journal of Association, Twenty-fifth Technical Conference and Thirty-seventh
Coastal Research, SI 37, 111–129. Annual Texas A& M Dredging Seminar, June 19–22 2005, New
OSPAR, 1998. OSPAR Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Center for Dredging Studies, CDA Report
Material. Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, Sintra 23– No. 507, pp. 335–346.
23 July 1998; Summary Record OSPAR 98/14/1-E, Annex 43 Sabol, B.M., Shafer, D.J., 2005. Dredging effects on seagrasses: case
(Reference Number 1998-20), 32 pp. studies from New England and Florida. In: Proceedings of the Western
OSPAR, 2004. Environmental impacts to marine species and habitats of Dredging Association, pp. 336–346.
dredging for navigational purposes. OSPAR Commission, Biodiversity Sabol, B., Shafer, D., Lord, E., 2005. Dredging effects on eelgrass (Zostera
Series, 22 pp. marina) distribution in a New England small boat harbor. US Army
Ostenfeld, C.H. 1908. On the ecology and distribution of the grasswreck Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center,
(Zostera marina) in Danish waters. Report of the Danish Biological Environmental Laboratory, Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-05-8, 31
Station, Copenhagen, Denmark. pp.
Paling, E.I., Van Keulen, M., Wheeler, K., Phillips, J., Dyhrberg, R., Schwarz, A.M., Bjork, M., Buluda, T., Mtolera, H., Beer, S., 2000.
2001. Mechanical transplantation in Western Australia. Ecological Photosynthetic utilisation of carbon and light by two tropical seagrass
Engineering 16, 331–339. species as measured in situ. Marine Biology 137, 755–761.
Pasqualini, V., Pergent-Martini, C., Pergent, G., 1999. Environmental Scoffin, T.P., 1979. The trapping and binding of subtidal carbonate
impact identification along the Corsican coast (Mediterranean sea) sediments by marine vegetation in Bimini Lagoon, Bahamas. Journal
using image processing. Aquatic Botany 65, 311–320. of Sedimentary Petrology 40, 249–273.
Peňa, C., 2005. The Underwater Gardeners. Dredging and Port Con- Shafer, D.J., 1999. The effects of dock shading on the seagrass Halodule
struction (DPC), September 1995, pp. 32–34. wrightii in Perdido Bay, Alabama. Estuaries 22, 936–943.
Penn, N., 1981. The environmental consequences and management of Shaw, B.J., 2000. Bali: paradise sustainable? Current Issues in Tourism 3
coral sand dredging from seagrass beds in the Suva region, Fiji Islands. (1), 81–85.
Bulletin of Marine Science 31 (3), 814. Shepherd, S.A., McComb, A.J., Bulthuis, D.A., Neverauskas, V.,
Pennekamp, J.G.S., Epskamp, R.J.C., Rosenbrand, W.F., Mullie, A., Steffensen, D.A., West, R., 1989. Decline of seagrasses. In: Larkum,
Wessel, G.L., Arts, T., Deibel, I.K., 1996. Turbidity caused by A.W.D., McComb, A.J., Shepherd, S.A. (Eds.), Seagrasses: A Treatise
dredging: viewed in perspective. Terra et Aqua 64, 10–17. on the Biology of Seagrasses with Special Reeference to the Australian
Peralta, G., Perez-Lorens, J.L., Hernandez, I., Vergara, J.J., 2002. Effects Region. Elsevier, North Holland, pp. 346–387.
of light availability on growth, architecture and nutrient content of the Sheridan, P., 2004. Recovery of floral and faunal communities after
seagrass Zostera noltii Hornem. Journal of Experimental Marine placement of dredged material on seagrasses in Laguna Madre, Texas.
Biology and Ecology 269, 9–26. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 59, 441–458.
POB, 2000. Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Study – Fisherman’s Short, F.T., 2003. Loss and restoration of seagrass ecosystems. Paper
Island Extension. Port of Brisbane Corporation, Brisbane, presented at the 5th International Conference on Environmental
Queensland. Future (5th ICEF); 23–27 March 2003, Zurich, Switzerland.
Port of Melbourne Corporation, 2004. Port of Melbourne Corporation Short, F.T., Wyllie-Echeverria, S., 1996. Natural and human induced
Channel Deepening Project Draft Environmental management Plan. disturbances of seagrasses. Environmental Conservation 23, 17–27.
Chapter 5: Environmental Monitoring Program, pp. 5.1–5.33. Short, F.T., Wyllie-Echeverria, S., 2000. Global seagrass declines and
Preen, A., 1995. Impacts of dugong foraging on seagrass habitats: effect of climate change. In: Shepperd, C.R.C. (Ed.), Seas at the
observational and experimental evidence for cultivation grazing. Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation, vol. III. Pergamon,
Marine Ecology Progress Series 124, 201–213. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 10–11.
Preen, A.R., Lee Long, W.J., Coles, R.G., 1995. Flood and cyclone related Short, F.T., Wolf, M.W., Jones, G.E., 1989. Sustaining eelgrass to manage
loss, and partial recovery, of more than 1000 km2 of seagrasses in a healthy estuary. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal
Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. Aquatic Botany 52, 3–17. and Ocean Management/ASCE, July 11–14, Charlestown SC, pp.
Pringle, A.W., 1989. The history of dredging in Cleveland Bay, Queens- 3689–3706.
land and its effect on sediment movement and on the growth of Short, F.T., Burdick, D.M., Kaldy III, J.E., 1995. Mesocosm experiments
mangroves, corals and seagrass. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park quantify the effects of eutrophication on eelgrass, Zostera marina.
Authority, Townsville, 174. Limnology and Oceanography 40, 740–749.
Pulich Jr., W.M., White, W.A., 1991. Decline of submerged vegetation in Short, F.T., Burdick, D.M., Short, C.A., Davis, R.C., Morgan, P.M.,
the Galveston Bay system: chronology and relationship to physical 2000. Developing success criteria for restored eelgrass, salt marsh and
processes. Journal of Coastal Research 4, 1125–1138. mud flat habitats. Ecological Engineering 15, 239–252.
Purkis, S.J., Riegl, B., 2005. Spatial and temporal dynamics of Arabian SMEC, 2003. Towra Beach Nourishment. Vol. 1. Environmental Impact
Gulf coral assemblages quantified from remote-sensing and in situ Statement. Prepared for the Waterways Authority and NSW National
monitoring. Marine Ecology Progress Series 287, 99–113. Parks and Wildlife Service, August 2003.
Quammen, M.L., Onuf, C.P., 1993. Laguna Madre – seagrass changes Smith, S.R., 1999. Impact of the construction of Kindley Field Airbase on
continue decades after salinity reduction. Estuaries 16 (2), 302–310. the marine environment of Castle Harbour, Bermuda. Unpublished
Rasheed, M.A., 1999. Recovery of experimentally created gaps within a report to the Government of Bermuda.
tropical Zostera capricorni (Aschers.) seagrass meadow, Queensland Smits, J., 1998. Machines, methods and mitigation. Environmental aspects
Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 235, of dredging, Guide No. 4. IADC/CEDA, 80 pp.
183–200. Spalding, M., Taylor, M., Ravilious, C., Short, F., Green, E., 2003. The
Rasheed, M.A., Roelofs, A.J., Thomas, R., Coles, R.G., 2001. Port of distribution and status of seagrasses: a global overview. In: E.P. Green,
Karumba Seagrass Monitoring – First Six Years (1994–2000). F.T. Short (Eds.) World Atlas of Seagrasses, pp. 5–26. Prepared by the
EcoPorts Monograph Series No. 20, Ports Corporation of Queens- UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, University of Cali-
land, 38 pp. fornia Press, Berkeley, USA.
Stern, E.M., Stickle, W.B., 1978. Effects of turbidity and suspended Vicente, V.P., Rivera, J.A., 1982. Depth limits of the seagrass Thalassia
sediment in aquatic environments: literature review. US Army Corps testudinum (Konig) in Jobos and Guayanilla Bays, Puerto Rico.
of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS, USA. Caribbean Journal of Science 17, 73–76.
Technical report No. 0-78-21. Virnstein, R.W., Morris, Lj., 1996. Seagrass preservation and restoration:
Sterrer, W.E., Wingate, D.B., 1981. Wetlands and marine environments. a diagnostic plan for the Indian River Lagoon. Technical Memoran-
In: Hayward, S.J., Gomez, V.H., Sterrer, W.E. (Eds.), Bermuda’s dum #14. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Fl., 43
Delicate Balance. Bermuda National Trust, pp. 107–122. pp.
Tatman, S., Gerritsen, H., Hesselmans, G., Dirks, W., Noorbergen, H., Wakibya, J.G., 1995. The potential human-induced impacts on the
Dardengo, L., Kleissen, F., Van den Boogaard, H., 2005. Remote Kenyan seagrasses. UNESCO Reports in Marine Science 66, 176–187.
Sensing as a Tool for Scheduling and Control of Dredging (REST- Walker, D.I., McComb, A.J., 1992. Seagrass degradation in Australian
COD). Inception Phase. WL j Delft Hydraulics, Technical report No. coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 25 (5–8), 191–195.
Z3460, 144 pp. Walker, D.I., Hillman, K.A., Kendrick, G.A., Lavery, P., 2001. Ecological
Taylor, J.L., Saloman, C.H., 1968. Some effects of hydraulic dredging and significance of seagrasses: assessment for management of environmen-
coastal development in Boca Ciega Bay, Florida. US Fish Wildlife tal impact in Western Australia. Ecological Engineering 16, 323–330.
Service. Fishery Bulletin 67 (2), 213–241. Weitkamp, L., 1998. Long-term monitoring of the Navy’s Manchester
Terrados, J., Duarte, C.M., Fortes, M.D., Borum, J., Agawin, N.S.R., eelgrass bed. In: Proceedings of the 1998 Puget Sound Research
Bach, S., Thampanya, U., Kamp-Nielsen, L., Kenworthy, W.J., Conference, pp. 382–387.
Geertz-Hansen, O., Vermaat, J., 1998. Changes in community struc- Westphalen, G., Collings, G., Wear, R., Fernandes, M., Bryars, S.,
ture and biomass of seagrass communities along gradients of siltation Chesire, A., 2004. A review of seagrass loss on the Adelaide
in SE Asia. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 46 (5), 757–768. metropolitan coastline. Adelaide Coastal Waters Study, technical
Thorhaug, A., Austin, C.B., 1976. Restoration of seagrasses, with report No. 2, August 2004.
economic analysis. Environmental Conservation 3 (4), 259–267. Williams, S.L., 1988. Disturbance and recovery of a deep water Caribbean
Thorkilsen, M., Dynesen, C., 2001. An owner’s view of hydroinformatics: seagrass bed. Marine Ecology Progress Series 42, 63–71.
its role in realising the bridge and tunnel construction between Williams, S.L., Dennison, W.C., 1990. Light availability and diurnal
Denmark and Sweden. Journal of Hydroinformatics 03.2, 105–135. growth of a green macroalga (Caulerpa cupressoides) and a seagrass
Thorogood, J., Conacher, C., Fowler, R., Ross, J., 2001. Southern Bay (Halophila decipiens). Marine Biology 106, 437–443.
Islands Transport Study. FRC Environmental, Wellington Point Qld. WMB, 2001. Moreton Bay Sand Extraction Study – Phase 1. Prepared for
Technical report No. 01.03.01, 53 pp. Moreton Bay Sand Extraction Study Steering Committee. WBM
USACE, 1983. Dredging and dredged material disposal. Engineering and Oceanics Australia, technical report, Spring Hill Qld.
Design. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Manual EM 1110-2- Wyllie, A., Kendrick, G., Davidson, A., Hegge, B., 1997. Changes in
5025. seagrass coverage on Success and Parmelia Banks between 1965 and
USACE, 2005. Silt curtains as a dredging project management practice. 1995. Technical report prepared for Cockburn Cement Ltd. National
ERDC TN-DOER-E21, September 2005, 18 pp. Geographic Information Systems, December 1987.
Van Eepoel, R.P., 1969. Effects of dredging in Water Bay, St. Thomas. Zainal, A.J.M., Dalby, D.H., Robinson, I.S., 1993. Monitoring
Caribbean Research Institute, Water Pollution Report No. 2, 11 pp. marine ecological changes on the east coast of Bahrain with
Vermaat, J.E., Agawin, N.S.R., Fortes, M.D., Uri, J.S., 1997. The Landsat TM. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 59
capacity of seagrasses to survive increased turbidity and siltation: the (3), 415–421.
significance of growth form and light use. Ambio 25 (2), 499–504.

Environmental Impacts of Dredging On Seagrasses - A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Impacts of Dredging On Seagrasses - A Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Impacts of Dredging On Seagrasses - A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marine Pollution Bulletin 52 (2006) 1553–1572

Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrasses: A review

Keywords: Critical thresholds; Dredging impacts; Mitigation; Review; Seagrasses; Turbidity

1. Introduction Seagrass beds, covering about 0.1–0.2% of the global

40 sedimentation, even at moderate burial (ca. 5 cm). Mills

An overview of values reported in literature for maxi-

You might also like