Jakarta Bay REA Compressed Jury Et Al.

Rapid Environmental
Assessment for Coastal

Development in Jakarta Bay
DHI Water & Environment (S) Pte. Ltd.
200 Pandan Loop
#08-03 Pantech 21
Singapore 128388
June 2011 Tel: +65 6777 6330
Final Report Fax: +65 6777 3537
Email: dhi@dhi.com.sg
URL: www.dhi.com.sg
Co Reg No: 200301802D
GST Reg No: 20-0301802-D
Client Client's representative
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mogens Staarup
Project Project No
Rapid Environmental Assessment in Jakarta Bay SG 5349
Authors Date
Matthew Jury 02 June 2011

Sonja Pans
Tania Golingi Approved by
Tom Foster
2 Draft Rapid Environmental Assessment SPA MJJ TMF 02.06.2011
1 Draft Rapid Environmental Assessment SPA MJJ TMF 19.04.2011
Revision Description By Checked Approved Date
Key words Classification
Environmental Impact Assessment Open

Coastal Development
Reclamation Internal
Proprietary
Distribution Number of copies
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Digital 1

Ministry of Environment Digital 1
SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
2 PROPOSED PROJECTS AND PLANNING................................................................... 3

2.1 Description of Proposed Projects .................................................................................. 3
2.2 Existing Master Plan...................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Broad Assessment on Planning Aspects of the Project ................................................. 9
2.3.1 Creating an Attractive Waterfront Development ............................................................. 9
2.3.2 Inconsistencies of Proposed Plans and Ground Situation ........................................... 11
2.3.3 Existing Incompatible Land Uses along Jakarta Bay ................................................... 11
2.3.4 Implementation Strategy ............................................................................................. 12
3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 13
3.1 Assessment Framework .............................................................................................. 13
3.2 Baseline ...................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Strategic Issues........................................................................................................... 15
3.4 Impact Assessment ..................................................................................................... 15
4 BASELINE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 17

4.1 Physical Environment .................................................................................................. 17
4.1.1 Bathymetry .................................................................................................................. 17
4.1.2 Met-Ocean Conditions................................................................................................. 17
4.1.3 Coastal Morphology .................................................................................................... 21
4.1.4 Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.5 River Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 25
4.1.6 Coastal Water Quality ................................................................................................. 26
4.1.7 Sediments ................................................................................................................... 27
4.1.8 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Biological Environment ................................................................................................ 30
4.2.1 Marine Habitats and Communities............................................................................... 30
4.2.2 Intertidal habitats and communities ............................................................................. 32
4.2.3 Coral Reefs ................................................................................................................. 34
4.2.4 Seagrass ..................................................................................................................... 36
4.3 Human Environment.................................................................................................... 36
4.3.1 Administrative Areas within the Study Area ................................................................. 36
4.3.2 Population ................................................................................................................... 37
4.3.3 Gazetted Land Use ..................................................................................................... 37
4.3.4 Existing Land Use ....................................................................................................... 38
4.3.5 Fisheries and Aquaculture ........................................................................................... 49
5 TOLERANCE LIMITS .................................................................................................. 54

5.1 Magnitude of Change Classification ............................................................................ 54
5.2 Currents, Navigation and Mooring ............................................................................... 55
5.3 Cooling Water Intakes ................................................................................................. 56
5.4 Aquaculture and Fisheries ........................................................................................... 57
5.5 Corals.......................................................................................................................... 58
5.6 Seagrass ..................................................................................................................... 59
5.7 Mangrove .................................................................................................................... 60
5.7.1 Mangrove Tolerance to Suspended Sediments ........................................................... 60
5.7.2 Mangrove Tolerance to Sedimentation ........................................................................ 61
5.7.3 Mangrove Tolerance to Erosion................................................................................... 61

6 PROCESS IMPACTS .................................................................................................. 62
7 PROJECT IMPACTS................................................................................................... 69
7.1 Current Impact ............................................................................................................ 69
7.1.1 Impact on Current Field ............................................................................................... 70
7.1.2 Impact on Mean and Maximum Current Speed ........................................................... 79
7.1.3 Impact on Representative Current Speeds .................................................................. 86
7.2 Backwater Impact ........................................................................................................ 87
7.3 Wave Impact ............................................................................................................... 91
7.4 Morphological Impact .................................................................................................. 94
7.5 Flushing ...................................................................................................................... 98
8 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 103

8.1 Dredging and Reclamation Planning ......................................................................... 103
8.1.1 Planning Considerations: Ground and Subsoil Conditions ......................................... 104
8.1.2 Planning Considerations: Layout and Formation Level .............................................. 106
8.2 General Design Standards or Guides ........................................................................ 109
8.3 Construction Procedures or Methods ........................................................................ 109
8.4 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 112
8.4.1 Mapping and Quantification of Sand Source ............................................................. 113
8.4.2 Dredging and Reclamation Manual ........................................................................... 113
8.4.3 Reclamation Planning Review ................................................................................... 113
9 OVERALL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 114

9.1 Methodology.............................................................................................................. 114
9.2 Construction Stage Impact Assessment .................................................................... 116
9.3 Operations Stage Impact Assessment....................................................................... 119
10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 123

10.1 Overview of Key Issues ............................................................................................. 123
10.2 Impact Summary ....................................................................................................... 124
10.2.1 Construction Phase ................................................................................................... 124
10.2.2 Operation Phase ....................................................................................................... 125
10.3 Project Assessment................................................................................................... 128
11 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 139
APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES

APPENDIX B: NUMERICAL MODELLING
APPENDIX C: EXAMPLE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR RECLAMATION EIA
APPENDIX D: EXAMPLE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
AND MANAGEMENT OF MARINE RECLAMATION WORKS
APPENDIX E: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FOR JAKARTA BAY RECLAMATION
APPENDIX F: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR POLICY AND MASTER PLAN REVIEW IN
SUPPORT OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1
1 INTRODUCTION
Based upon contract from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 15 January 2011, DHI
Water & Environment (S) Pte. Ltd. has undertaken a Rapid Environmental Assessment
(REA) for the reclamation and associated developments planned along Jakarta Bay,
Indonesia.
The Jakarta Bay area as referred to in this Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA)
covers the coastal areas of Jakarta and waters of Jakarta Bay, which is bound by the
headlands of Tanjung Pasir to the west (6º00.96 'S/106º47.76' E) and Tanjung Gembong
in the east (5º56.48'S/107º01.93'E); see Figure 1.1. It is a shallow bay with the -5m CD
depth contour being typically located 1km offshore and the -10m depth contour being
typically 3km offshore. The overall area of the bay is 514km2 with a shoreline around
72km long.
Jakarta Bay has undergone significant coastal development over the past decades, with
a large number of new developments proposed or currently underway. In order to
ensure the future sustainable development of Jakarta Bay, the Ministry of Environment
is developing a policy for future port and coastal development in Jakarta Bay. The
results of the present Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) of Jakarta Bay will
provide input to this policy document.
The Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) will also be used as scoping document for
a full Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the area. The REA also provides
generic terms of reference for specific components of project Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) relating to reclamation and coastal processes to support the existing
AMDAL process, generic terms of reference for Environmental Monitoring and
Management (EMMP) of marine reclamation works, and terms of reference for policy
assessment that are required to ensure appropriate implementation of policy document
and SEA when completed.
It is noted that the scope of work calls for a Rapid Environmental Assessment. It shall
thus be recognised that the present document shall not be viewed as suitable either for
environmental approval or for direct input to spatial planning. Such assessments shall
be carried out via the existing AMDAL process (supported by the recommendations
relating to reclamation made in the present EIA) and critically the strategic
environmental assessment terms of reference for which are provided in the present
document. Critically a strategic environmental assessment (often termed a shoreline
management plan) at appropriate level of detailed is viewed as critical to establishing a
sound and sustainable development policy for Jakarta Bay and the present REA shall
only be viewed as a framework for commencing the Strategic Environmental
Assessment.

2
Figure 1.1 Project Area – Jakarta Bay

3
2 PROPOSED PROJECTS AND PLANNING
2.1 Description of Proposed Projects

Jakarta Bay is in the process of rapid development with numerous planned or on-going
projects, most of which involve major land reclamation. Figure 2.1 shows an overview
of the developments. A short description of each of the proposed developments and
associated reclamation is given in the following:
PT. Tangerang International City (TIC)

PT. TIC has 7 proposed reclaimed islands, situated in the west side of Jakarta Bay. 3
islands are inside the boundary of the REA and the other 4 are further west. According
to Tangerang Region Planning and Development Board, the outlines given to PT TIC
for 3 islands are: 1,290 ha allocated for Business Park; 643 ha allocated for culture,
tourism, sport and recreational and 673 ha designated for culture, tourism and sport.
PT. Kapuk Niaga Indah (KNI)

PT KNI has 3 proposed reclaimed islands. According to DKI Jakarta Region Planning
and Development Board, the outlines given to PT KNI for 3 islands are: 242 ha; 279 ha;
and 277 ha. All islands are designated for public building.
PT. Jakarta Propertindo

PT. Jakarta Propertindo has one proposed reclaimed island. According to DKI Jakarta
Region Planning and Development Board, the outline given to PT. Jakarta Propertindo
is 245 ha and its allocation is for real estate, recreational and commercial use.
PT. Muara Wisesa Samudera and PT. Bhakti Bangun Eramulia

PT. Muara Wisesa Samudera and PT. Bhakti Bangun Eramulia have one proposed
reclaimed island. According to DKI Jakarta Region Planning and Development Board,
the outline given to PT. Muara Wisesa Samudera and PT. Bhakti Bangun Eramulia is
206 ha and its allocation is for real estate and apartments.
PT. Jaladri Kartika Ekapaksi

PT. Jaladri Kartika Ekapaksi has 1 proposed reclaimed island in Jakarta Bay. According
to DKI Jakarta Region Planning and Development Board, the outline given to PT.
Jaladri Kartika Ekapaksi is 154 ha and its allocation is for public building.
PT. Pembangunan Jaya Ancol (PJA)

PT. PJA has 3 proposed reclaimed islands along Jakarta Bay area. According to DKI
Jakarta Region Planning and Development Board, the outlines given to PT. PJA are:
249 ha for public building; 200 ha for public building and park; and 172 ha for public
building. According to PJA Manager, the development of the first island is targeted for
completion in 5 years.
PT. Manggala Krida Yudha

PT. Manggala Krida Yudha has 2 proposed reclaimed islands. According to DKI
Jakarta Region Planning and Development Board, the outlines given to PT. Manggala
Krida Yudha are: 351 ha and 481 ha. Both islands are designated for public building.

4
Figure 2.1 Developments Jakarta Bay

5
PT. Pelindo II
PT. Pelindo II is an operator for Tanjung Priok Port. Its development on reclaimed
island is for oil and gas pier extension of the container terminal and general support for
the shipping industry. According to DKI Jakarta Region Planning and Development
Board, the outline given to PT. Pelindo II is 368 ha.
PT. Kawasan Berikat Nusantara (KBN)

According to DKI Jakarta Region Planning and Development Board, the outline given
to PT. KBN is 513 ha and designated for industry and warehousing.
PT. Dwi Marunda Makmur

PT. Dwi Marunda Makmur has one proposed reclaimed island at the east side of Jakarta
Bay area. According to DKI Jakarta Region Planning and Development Board, the
outline given to PT. Dwi Marunda Makmur is 524 ha and its allocated for industry and
warehousing.
DHI prepared the reclamation map shown in Figure 2.1 based on the received
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the developer and the relevant
government agency. However, some corrections have been made to the base
reclamation outlines in-line with good spatial planning practice and in-line with
presidential decree 54 2008, which states a minimum 200 to 300m separation from the
mainland. These changes affect the Tangerang International City which has been cut
back from the nearshore islands to maintain the 200m separation and also to improve
streamlining and the Jakarta Propertindo development which has been cut back to
maintain the 200m separation from the shoreline. These modifications are highlighted
in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 Corrections made to PT TIC

6
It is noted that considerable effort was placed on securing the most up-to-date
reclamation plans, and numerous versions of all plans certainly exist. Those included in
the present assessment have been agreed with the Ministry of Environment as being
correct and complete on the 31st January 2011 with subsequent further adjustment and
agreement with the Jakarta Local Planning Board on 3 rd March 2011, which was taken
as the absolute final date for inclusion of any development in the REA.
Unfortunately, an additional major development was delivered after the final cut-off
date for the REA. The proposed Tarumanegara Port (see Figure 2.3) clearly conflicts
with the PT. Dwi Marunda Makmur development and other land use in the area, such
that although not included in the qualitative assessment DHI has provided some
qualitative assessment of this development due to the observed conflicts.
Figure 2.3 Tarumanegara Port
2.2 Existing Master Plan

The Regional Structure Plans or “draft” RTRW 2030 (Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah
2030) for the above (Tangerang, Jakarta and Bekasi) were proposed by the concerned
authority and is pending for approval. Broad road network, broad land uses, green and
infrastructure network were also proposed in the structure plan as shown in Figure 2.4
(for area within DKI Jakarta boundaries).
According to the Draft Regional Structure Plan Report, the North Jakarta reclamation
should only be developed provided that there is a comprehensive and integrated

7
planning, including detailed engineering plan for the reclamation, detailed land use
plan, detailed infrastructure and facilities, Environmental Impact Assessment,
Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan, Reclamation Materials sourcing Plan
and Financing Plan. In addition to the above, the reclamation works must also consider
the various environmental aspects in Jakarta Bay, including sea level rise,
sedimentation, water pollution, flooding, intrusion of sea water, ground water level and
mangrove/biodiversity protection.
Figure 2.4 RTRW North Jakarta
For the waterfront area within DKI Jakarta, the planning intention is clear, which is to
dedicate the western part of the waterfront mainly for housing, the central part for
business and recreation and the eastern part for port, warehousing and industries as an
extension of the Tanjung Priok Port.
For the Tangerang waterfront, the intention is also clear, which is to make use of the
two islands along the flight path for low density recreational development and the area
away from the flight path for mix of housing and business.
The planning and developments of the reclaimed islands are subsequently awarded
through tender to different developers, who together with the authority developed a
detailed master plan for the different islands. Since then, many master plan and urban
design proposals for different islands have been submitted and tabled for discussion.
These proposals refined the proposed regional structure plan and develop it into a more
detailed master plan. Figure 2.5 shows the detailed land use plan proposed by PT
Pembangunan Jaya Ancol, PT Kapuk Naga Indah, PT Jaladri Kartika Eka Paksi and PT
Manggala Krida Yudha. Proposals for other islands (in grey) were also submitted, but it
is not clear if these proposals have been approved. The corresponding Environmental
Impact Assessment of the different master plan proposals have also been submitted. It is
noted that Figure 2.5 demonstrates one of the main problems encountered in the present
REA in that the layout for the various developments and their corresponding master
plans remains in a state of flux and whilst Figure 2.5 provides the best overall view of
the development plans, Figure 2.1 is the most up to date in reclamation boundary.

8
The planning and implementing agency for the Jakarta Bay reclamations was a special
committee “BP Pantura”, which was already dissolved. With the award of the proposed
reclaimed islands to different developers, the Planning and Implementation Agency in
charge of this project will have a very big task in integrating and consolidating the
proposals, ensuring a coordinated implementation and developing the mechanism to
manage and monitor the environment.
Figure 2.5 Proposed land uses on some of the reclaimed island
Looking at the type of layout proposed at these islands, it is obvious that major parts of
the islands in the western and central areas would be developed into a high-end housing
area following the development in Pantai Mutiara. The focus towards high end housing
is a result of the relatively high cost of reclamation.
Besides housing, it is also noted that some recreational and commercial spaces are also
proposed in the central area of the Jakarta waterfront as an extension of Ancol
recreational centre.
Supporting plans, such as transportation plans have also been developed to address the
accessibility of the reclaimed islands as shown in Figure 2.6. Arterial roads are
proposed, tapping from the existing highway along north Jakarta. No mass rapid transit
system is proposed to access the islands at this point of time.

9
Figure 2.6 Transportation Proposal for North Jakarta
2.3 Broad Assessment on Planning Aspects of the Project

This broad assessment is conducted based on the available planning data. However,
considering that the project has been discussed and debated over the years in many
quarters, it is possible that the latest developments on the project may not be captured in
this assessment. It is also noted that the following represents the consultant‟s opinion
formed based on the “Rapid” Environmental Assessment and is largely based on our
experience with similar major reclamation projects. As recommended in Appendix F, a
comprehensive policy and planning exercise is required as part of the subsequent
strategic environmental assessment to refine and confirm some of the opinions put
forward in the following.
Four key issues are highlighted as follow:
(i) Creating an attractive waterfront development for public use and enjoyment
(ii) The inconsistencies of proposed plans and the ground situation
(iii) The existing incompatible land uses along Jakarta Bay
(iv) Implementation Strategy
2.3.1 Creating an Attractive Waterfront Development

Reclamation in Jakarta bay provides the needed land for development, which is crucial
for the land scarce Jakarta, but beyond creating land for development, this development
could play a more crucial role in reshaping and giving character to the city‟s waterfront
area.

10
Many new waterfront developments in cities across the globe, such as London
dockyard, Singapore Marina Bay etc. have been carefully planned and designed to
create a new destination as well as a grand city image.
Upon examining the reclamation profile, the road structure and the proposed land uses
in Jakarta Bay, it is concluded that the proposed reclamation profile is predominantly
functional, with no strong feature or attractive public waterfront spaces obvious either
in the case of Jakarta or Tangerang reclamation proposals. Proposed access to the
waterfront areas indicates that the reclaimed islands are planned just as an extension of
the mainland activities instead of suggesting that new activity centre could be
developed on the reclaimed islands.
Figure 3.4 Singapore Marina Bay
In fact, considering its relative proximity to the airport as compared to the existing
Central Business District (CBD) in “Thamrin-Sudirman” area, this Jakarta and
Tangerang waterfront areas are very suitable sites for high value international
businesses, which could be developed as one of the few CBDs in the city providing the
financing required to incorporate iconic public facilities.
Creating new activity nodes on the waterfront is important, as many Jakarta residents
have been deprived from the waterfront environment, partly due to the limited access to
the waterfront and also due to negative impression (pollution) at the waterfront. This
situation could be changed by designing an attractive public waterfront and improving
its accessibility in the future.
Recommendation
Identify certain locations both in Jakarta and Tangerang reclamation islands for an
attractive public waterfront CBD through detailed planning and urban design. It may be
necessary to re-profile the reclaimed island to gain additional public land and to achieve
a strong waterfront character. It is noted that by advancing the shoreline into deeper
waters, the construction of attractive beaches and other water features becomes possible
due to increased wave exposure (required to maintain attractive and clean beaches) and
increased dilution of the terrestrial pollution sources.
In the case of Jakarta, it is also necessary to look into integrating the proposed
waterfront CBD and the current CBD (Sudirman-Thamrin) with a strong public
transportation corridoor, such that residents will have better access to the waterfront.

11
2.3.2 Inconsistencies of Proposed Plans and Ground Situation

In an ideal case, the detailed master plan of such an important waterfront development
should be fully controlled by the authority to ensure that public interests are
safeguarded and that infrastructure development could be developed in a coordinated
manner. Private developers should be given only the freehand to develop smaller areas
based on the detailed master plan approved by the authority.
In the case of the Jakarta Bay reclamation, it seems that the developers are given the
flexibility to propose a detailed plan for larger areas, subject to the approval from the
authority. While it is understood that the development control approval is still with the
authority, this system may (and appears to) result in an uncoordinated development.
While the court has ordered all reclamation activities in Jakarta Bay to stop, there are
still some reclamation activities going on at a smaller scale. Besides, it is also alleged
that there are other authorities that are also carrying out projects at the waterfront, such
as creating wave breaker for fishing port etc. which are invalidating some of the
proposed plans.
Recommendation
Map the existing condition using the latest satellite information and integrate them with
the detailed master plan proposals from the developers such that inconsistencies of
plans and ground situation can be reconciled and an integrated overall master plan
could be prepared and approved.
2.3.3 Existing Incompatible Land Uses along Jakarta Bay

There are a few important land uses that are not very compatible with the proposed
development on the reclaimed islands. These developments include:
 Existing PLTU and PLTGU power plant near Pluit/Muarakarang area (air
pollution and thermal discharges)
 PT. Asahi Mas Glass factory (air pollution)
 Temporary dumping grounds and land fill sites in Cilincing area (water pollution)
 Fishing port and villages along the Jakarta Bay (water pollution)
 Existing protected forest at Muara Angke
 Existing undersea cables and utilities
Figure 3.5 Examples of incompatible uses

12
Recommendation
Conduct planning review on the existing PLTU and PLTGU power plants, shoreline
heavy industry and the dumping grounds, to determine whether they should remain in
their existing location or be relocated in order to realize the maximum value of the
proposed developments. Clearly these industries are existing industries and any
decision to relocate could only be the result of a comprehensive review by the
authorities of the net benefits of the proposed developments against the value of what
is, in the case of the power stations, critical infrastructure. There is, however, ample
precedence from other countries where key industrial infrastructure is relocated to make
way for coastal development where there is a clear net benefit of doing so. Having
stated this, typically the decision to relocate is normally only made where there are
clear net benefits not only from the new coastal development but also for the existing
industries in the cases where the relocation also gives long-term operating benefits. For
the present case it could be argued that relocation of the power stations west of Pantai
Mutiara, to for example to one of the reclamation parcels, would overall be beneficial
for the power station operations due to generally better water exchange in the deeper
waters fronting the reclamations and would remove the land use conflicts between the
existing industry and the future land use. However, allocating costs for such relocation
exercises is always problematic, even when net benefits can be seen for such exercises
and overall planning of future coastal development around existing industry and
infrastructure is the most common and practical approach to avoid land-use conflict
situations.
If these industries are to stay in their existing location and if the land use plan for the
proposed developments are not changed to address the identified conflicts, it should be
considered to impose measures to mitigate the significance of such conflicts (e.g.
enforcement of strict emission control standards etc.). Following normal practice, costs
associated with such mitigation measures should be carried by the reclamation
developers (where such measures would require the existing industrial operators to
install and maintain systems above the prevailing national standards/regulations).
There is also a need to develop improvement proposals for the various fishing ports and
villages to be implemented ahead of the reclamation project to prepare these
communities for the changes that will happen when the reclamation project is
implemented
2.3.4 Implementation Strategy

With the development rights of the reclaimed islands given to different developers, it
makes it more difficult to coordinate the implementation of key infrastructure, which
runs across different islands, such as roads and highway, as each developers will have
their own priority to develop and to reclaim, unless the development time frame is
clearly spelled out in the agreement with the authority. This may result in inefficiency,
fragmented infrastructure development and unfavourable intermediate stage
environmental impacts for many years to come.
Recommendation
Develop a detailed implementation strategy that coordinated infrastructure development
based on its priority to ensure a healthy and environmentally friendly development.

13
3 METHODOLOGY
In the following sections, the overall methodology of the REA is briefly summarised.
3.1 Assessment Framework

It is noted that the scope of work calls for a Rapid Environmental Assessment. It shall
thus be recognised that the present document shall not be viewed as suitable either for
environmental approval or for direct input to spatial planning. Such assessments shall
be carried out via the existing AMDAL process (supported by the recommendations
relating to reclamation made in the present EIA) and the Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) terms of reference for which are provided in the present document.
Critically a strategic environmental assessment (often termed a shoreline management
plan) at appropriate level of detailed is viewed as essential to establishing a sound and
sustainable development policy for Jakarta Bay and the present REA shall only be
viewed as a framework for commencing the Strategic Environmental Assessment.
The approach of this study carried out in accordance with Figure 3.1 below. As input of
this study is the basic information gathered from data and information on biophysical
and socio economic, that mostly from secondary data.

14
Basic Information
Met-Ocean
Input Hydrology
Water Quality
Environment
Bathymetry
Hydrodynamic Model
Spatial Planning
Demography
Air Quality
Fisheries
Assessment Consultation
REA
Physical Biological Social Economic
Preliminary modeling of key impacts

Tolerance Limits
RIAM Method
Output Preliminary Material for

Assessment of Impact
of Reclamation works
Strategic
Environmental
Assessment / SEA
Process Project
Dredging and Current

reclamation work Backwater
Wave
Morphology
Flushing
Engineering
Assessment
TOR
Example Guide for Tanjung Example Guide for Tanjung Guide for Detail Strategic
Priok EIA Priok EMMP Environmental Assessment /
SEA (Shoreline Management
Plan Jakarta)
Figure 3.1 Basic assessment approach

15
3.2 Baseline
The REA is based purely on secondary data, with the exception of shoreline surveys to
confirm existing land use and presence of key environmental receptors identified in the
various secondary data. Where possible, the quality of the secondary data has been
validated. However, the absence of consistent detailed surveys across the study area is a
key constraint of the REA and the collection of a consistent and reliable data basis shall
be viewed as a key priority of the subsequent Strategic Environmental Assessment.
A summary of the environmental baseline for the study area based on these secondary
data sources is provided in Appendix A of this report.
3.3 Strategic Issues

The issues discussed during the Focus Group Discussion at Strategic Environmental
Assessment Process (KLHS) Jakarta-Tangerang-Bekasi initiated by the Deputy
Ministry of Environment, on December 22, 2011 and various discussion of issues with
the authorities and other stakeholders between October to December 2010 identified the
following key issues that were believed to be relevant with respect to the proposed
Jakarta Bay developments:
(1) Land Subsidence

(2) Storm surge and sea level rise
(3) Hinterland Flooding
(4) Erosion and coastal degradation,
(5) Mangrove ecosystem degradation
(6) Availability of clean water,
(7) Sedimentation
(8) Pollution of waters due to domestic and industrial waste
(9) Handling of waste
(10) Incompatibility of spatial plan
(11) There is no vision on the global competition and sustainability
(12) Inefficiency of land use with high density settlement
(13) Lack of balance and harmony between social and economic pressures
(14) Poverty.
Although DHI agrees that these issues are all relevant in an overall strategic assessment,
from the point of view of a REA focus must be placed on the key physical, chemical,
biological and economic impact vectors that may influence the feasibility of the
development plan or components of the plan. Consequently, the REA study does not
cover all aspects of strategic issues taken from focus group discussion during the KLHS
process. For example, the issue of Land Subsidence and its consequence on flooding is
addressed by the Jakarta Coastal Defence Strategy Project (JCDS).
3.4 Impact Assessment

As stated above, the REA is largely focussed on the physical, chemical and biological
impacts of the reclamation works. Although, as indicated in Section 2 and 3.3, it is
recognised that many other issues such as traffic impact, ground water issues, socio-

16
cultural impacts etc. are important to the overall viability of the developments. These
issues can only be dealt with qualitatively as part of the REA and further assessment is
required as part of the subsequent SEA and individual AMDAL submissions for the
isolated projects. The focus on physical, chemical and biological issues associated with
the reclamation profile at the REA stage is in line with good reclamation planning
guidelines.
As the assessment is focussed on the effects of reclamation works, the REA adopts the
terminology put forward by PIANC (PIANC 2010) for differentiating between the main
impact vectors, namely:
 Process impacts are impacts resulting from the choice of construction method
and/or intermediate construction sequence. Process impacts are largely under the
control of the reclamation/dredging contractor and can be most effectively managed
by an Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan. Based upon DHI‟s review
of the AMDAL submissions for the various planned developments in Jakarta Bay,
process impacts are almost entirely overlooked in the AMDAL submissions, whilst
it is broadly acknowledged that process impacts resulting from sediment spill are
often the most significant impact vector related to reclamation works close to
sensitive environmental receptors such as the fisheries found in the eastern and
western sectors of Jakarta Bay.
 Project impacts are entirely due to the decision to construct the project at the
specific site with the adopted layout required to achieve the functional purpose of
the development. Project impacts are thus entirely under the control of the
developer and can be most effectively mitigated by design optimisation. In the
presence of multiple projects, cumulative impacts shall be taken into account and
the present REA shall be viewed as the first stage towards assessing such
cumulative effects. This does not however reduce the responsibility of the
individual developers to undertake project specific design optimisation.
In order to provide a preliminary quantitative assessment of the environmental impacts
during after the completion of the project, DHI has developed a coarse scale,
preliminary, regional MIKE coastal and marine models of the Jakarta Bay area. The
fundamental numerical model for all impact assessments is the hydrodynamic model
with which the effect of the works on the currents and water levels are assessed.
For the short-term process impact assessment, the hydrodynamic model is used as a
driving input to the sediment plume model which is then used to assess key
intermediate stages of development.
Long-term project impacts are assessed by simulating the final reclamation profiles in
the hydrodynamic and wave model, the results of which serve as driving input to the
morphological model and flushing model.
A description of the model set-up can be found in Appendix B. It is stressed that,

consistent with the scope of the REA the modelling undertaken shall be viewed as
preliminary in the absence of adequate data for full calibration and validation.
Nevertheless, based on DHI‟s experience that, again consistent with the scope of the
REA the model serves to highlight critical environmental issues that shall be taken into
account in the preparation of policy plans and the subsequent strategic environmental
assessment.
17
4 BASELINE DESCRIPTION
As mentioned, the present assessment is based on secondary data and no dedicated field
surveys have been carried out as part of the REA. The list of secondary data sources is
provided in Appendix A.
An overall baseline description has been produced from these secondary data sources to
provide the necessary receptor information for the REA as described in the following.
4.1 Physical Environment

4.1.1 Bathymetry
The depth of the Jakarta Bay waters increases gradually from shoreline with the -5m CD
contour being locates some 1km offshore and the -10m CD contour some 3km offshore
(Figure 4.1). This can be classified as a very shallow bay which has a strong effect on the
coastal processes. (Taurusman 2007)
Figure 4.1 Bathymetry of Jakarta Bay (Source MapSource)
4.1.2 Met-Ocean Conditions
Wind
Similar to other locations in the region, the study area is predominantly influenced by the
Southeast Monsoon prevailing from May to September, and the Northwest Monsoon
prevailing from November to March. The associated seasonal winds are from the south-
easterly and north-westerly directions respectively, with speed up to 10m/s (Figure 4.2).

18
Figure 4.2 Wind speed (top) and direction (bottom) in Java Sea from GFS Wind Database
At the shoreline, land and sea breeze add to the strength of the wind and affect the
dominant directions. Wind measurements from January 1997 to December 2001 are
available from the PLTU Muara Tawar in the eastern part of Jakarta Bay (Figure 4.3). The
data indicates that the dominant wind direction was from the north with wind speeds up to
18m/s (see the wind rose in Figure 4.4).
Figure 4.3 Location of Muara Tawar wind measurement stations in Jakarta

19
Figure 4.4 Wind rose of wind in Muara Tawar from 1997 to 2001
Tide
The Jakarta Bay is bounded by the Java Sea at the north. Tidal water level variation
in the area is within a range of 1 .2 m with a diurnal characteristic (see Figure 4 .5 ).
Due to the micro tidal conditions in a sheltered bay, the tidal currents in the study
area are in general weak, typically below 0 .1 m/ s (see Figure 4 .6 ). Tidal currents are
stronger further north outside Jakarta Bay in the more open Java Sea, reaching up to
0 .4 m/ s.
Figure 4.5 Tidal water level at Tanjong Priok, Jakarta Bay

20
Figure 4.6 Maximum spring tide currents in Jakarta Bay
Level Rise
The Jakarta Bay coastal area is low-lying and currently experiencing land subsidence
(10cm / year (Hasannuddin et. al. 2001). As such, the area is particularly threatened by
rising sea levels. The repercussions of sea level rise includes inundation of wetlands and
other low-lying lands, coastal erosion, salt water intrusion and increased flooding. Many
private properties will be affected by the rising sea level, as well as public uses of beaches
and waterways. Saline intrusion is already occurring in the area, affecting north of Jakarta
and also reaching further in the central Jakarta areas.
Climate change adaptation strategies that have been recommended for Jakarta Bay include
spatial redesign, synchronization between existing legislation (e.g. Spatial Planning Law
and Coastal Law and Presidential Regulation 54 2008), development of local regulations
related to environmental management in Jakarta Bay, the Coastal Strategic Plan DKI
(Local Government), Integrated Watershed Strategic Plan of Jakarta (KLHS), and on-going
research and rehabilitation of coastal ecosystems. For the purpose of the present study, the
IPCC 4th assessment report 2007 is utilised (IPPC 2007).
Waves
The wave conditions in the western Java Sea and Jakarta Bay can be classified as mild.
Typical wave heights are below 0.5m in the nearshore area with the central section of the
bay being more exposed than the east and west sectors (Figure 4.7).

21
Figure 4.7 Typical annual maximum significant wave heights in Jakarta Bay
4.1.3 Coastal Morphology
The dynamics and coastal evolution of Jakarta Bay is influenced by oceanographic

conditions, such as currents and waves, shaping the distribution of sediment loads from the
13 rivers that drain into the bay. Ongkosongo (1980) examined the patterns of beach ridge
bifurcation due to sedimentation within Jakarta Bay and divided it into three morphological
classes, namely: (1) Beach slope (<5o), which is characterised by mangroves and
accretionary processes forming mud flats, such as in Kamal and Angke areas; (2) sloping
beach (5o-15o) comprising sand material with fairly high wave energy, such as on the
Marunda-Segara Makmur beach; (3) Steep Beach, occurring on beaches that are showing
evidence of erosion such as on Cilincing beach to Marunda.
Although the present coastal morphology is similar to conditions in the 1980s, the current
rate of erosion and sedimentation is increasing, with higher sedimentation owing to the
increased loads from the catchment areas and at the same time increased erosion in other
areas as a result of development on the coast of Jakarta Bay. Coastal erosion is also
accelerated in the Cilincing area by the exploitation of beach sand on Cilincing beach.
Studies on the morphological dynamics and evolution of the coast of Jakarta by LIPI
(1995) noted several areas that experienced erosion such as Tanjung Pasir to Muara Pecah
(Tangerang District) eroding at a rate of 0.25-2.0m / year. Erosion also occurs in Sunda
Kelapa Port around 0.50m / year and Ancol beach 0.8m / year and Cilincing Beach 24m /
year (see Figure 4.8).
Tanjung Gembong is sedimentation area caused by the influence of the Citarum river
estuaries and Bekasi rivers, with a growth rate due to sedimentation of the mainland
between 15m / year (Verstappen 1953); and 50m / year (Pardjaman 1977), with the
influence of sedimentation clearly seen until at 20m depth in the Jakarta Bay (Suyarso
1995).

22
Figure 4.8 Erosion and sedimentation areas in Jakarta Bay
4.1.4 Hydrology
The Northwest Monsoon period brings heavy rainfall into the Jakarta area, averaging
1800mm per annum, while the Southeast Monsoon coincides with the dry season.
There are thirteen rivers draining into Jakarta Bay (Figure 4.9). These rivers run through
the Jakarta Metropolitan area, and most are reported to be in poor condition, being choked
with sedimentation and garbage.
The most important river is the Ciliwung River, which divides the city into the western and
eastern parts.

23
Figure 4.9 Rivers in Jakarta Bay

24
Jakarta is low-lying and flooding affects much of the central Jakarta Bay area. Flood
maps from 2007 floods in DKI Jakarta have been produced as shown in Figure 4.10. A
system of tidal gates and pumps has been installed in the rivers and canals for flood
mitigation (Figure 4.11).
Figure 4.10 Flood areas (2007) in Jakarta

25
Figure 4.11 Water gates and pumps in the Jakarta Bay coastal zone
4.1.5 River Water Quality

Results from water quality monitoring in 2006 (BPLHD 2006) indicate that the rivers
with the best quality (Class B, slightly polluted) are Sungei Ciliwung followed by
Sungei Krukut and Sungei Tarum Barat. Meanwhile, the most heavily polluted rivers
classified as Class D are Sungei Cipinang, Sungei Sunter, Sungei Cengkareng Drain
and Sungei Kali Baru Timur, Sungei Buaran, Cakung Drain and K. Blencong followed
by Sungei Pertukangan and Sungei Kamal. The main pollutants of concern are total
dissolved solids, biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, organics and
microbiological parameters.
The water quality monitoring was conducted biannually in June and December.
Overall, higher pollution levels were observed in June compared to December.
The BOD values for most of the rivers ranged between 8mg/l to 135mg/l. The
operational water quality target for Class B is 10mg/l while the Class C and Class D
target is 20mg/l. The values for most of the rivers are consistently above 10mg/l
approaching Class C and D. The highest BOD value was recorded in Sungei Angke and
the lowest in Sungei Krukut and Tarum Barat both in the month of June.
COD for most rivers ranged between 10mg/l to 350mg/l which is high in relation to the
operational target for Class B which is 20mg/l, and 30mg/l for both Class C and D. The
values for all the rivers are consistently above 20mg/l approaching Class C and D. The
26
highest COD value was recorded in Sungei Cipinang and the lowest in Sungei
Ciliwung, both in the month of December.
Reflecting the high organics pollution, the dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in all
rivers are relatively low (in many cases around 2mg/l or below). DO values ranged
from <1mg/l to 6mg/l. The highest DO values were in Sungei Angke with a value of
6.2mg/l observed in June and the lowest at <1mg/l generally in December for most
rivers.
The Class B and C target for total dissolved solids (TDS) is 500mg/l, with
concentrations in most rivers exceeding this limit. Generally, Sungei Mookervart,
Sungei Buaran, Sungei Sunter, Sungei Krukut and Tarum Barat were the only rivers
which complied with the standard operational target for river water quality for TDS and
TSS in both June and December monitoring. However, the values of TSS and TDS for
other rivers were observed to be higher in December compared to June.
Phosphate concentrations were relatively high for all rivers, with the highest value of
3.5mg/l recorded in Sungei Cengkareng Drain and Sungei Kali Baru Timur exceeding
the standard limit of 0.5mg/l. Phosphates originate from wastewater effluent and
detergents contributing to enrichment of nutrients in the river.
The bacteriological tests for total coliform and faecal coliform bacteria have showed
high concentrations over water quality targets. The water quality operational target
standards for faecal coliforms in Class B are 2,000 per 100ml and 4,000 per 100ml for
Class C and D. Total coliform standards for Class B are 10,000 per 100ml and 20,000
per 100ml for both Class C and D. It has been reported that Sungei Angke, Mookervart
and Grogol has water overflowing from septic tanks into the river causing the high
counts of coliform bacteria. The most polluted river is Sungai Cipinang with the highest
faecal and total coliform count both in December with a maximum value of 900.10 7.
4.1.6 Coastal Water Quality

The largest sources of pollution in Jakarta Bay are derived from land-based sources
such as from domestic sewage, industrial waste and market waste (Firmansyah 2007).
Essentially all wastewater from the Jakarta Metropolitan Area ends up in Jakarta Bay
and this has resulted in high nutrient levels and eutrophication in the Bay. Pollutants of
concern are total dissolved solids (TDS), phosphate, sulphate, detergents, potassium
permanganate, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD). In addition to the land-based sources, inputs from marine areas include
shipping, dockyards etc.
Physical characteristics
Temperatures in Jakarta Bay waters range from 29.0 to 32.5 oC. There are variations in
temperature on the surface and bottom waters, and between the sides, middle and outer
parts of the bay. The range of the highest temperatures occurs around June, while the
lowest temperatures occur during the rainy season or around February.
Salinities in Jakarta Bay range from 28-34 PSU with the highest salinities recorded in
November and May because of the influence of the monsoon cycle in the Java Sea
(Arifin et al. 2003). The dry season average salinity is 31.5 PSU. There are two

27
periods of low salinities due to freshwater inputs from land during rainy seasons
(average 25.2 PSU), which is February and July.
Turbidity in Jakarta Bay is influenced by the discharges from the thirteen rivers
draining into the bay, with the highest turbidity values measured during the rainy season
(Taurusman, 2007). The turbidity is highest nearshore, decreasing in the middle and
outer parts of the bay. Turbidity in the middle of the bay ranged beetween 2.6 to 55.2
NTU, while at the outer part of the bay waters, it ranged from 0.9 to 7.6 NTU.
Again reflecting the pollutant loads from the rivers, the dissolved oxygen in the
nearshore areas average 3.2mg/l, whereas in the middle part and outer part of the bay,
the average concentrations were 4.6 and 6.3mg/l respectively. In some nearshore areas,
the conditions are hypoxic, with concentrations less than 2mg/l, especially in Marunda.
At this location even anoxia occurs on occasion where DO levels drop to less than
0.5mg/l (Taurusman 2007). Overall, DO concentrations are lower during the rainy
season compared to the dry season. The pH content generally lies between 6.7 and 8.6,
with minor variations along the foreshore, middle and outer parts of the Bay.
Organics and Nutrients

The high content of organic materials (eutrophication) is the main factor causing the
low oxygen concentrations along the shoreline of Jakarta Bay. The BOD 5
concentrations in Jakarta Bay are in the order of 0.2 to 8.8mg/l, with an average of
3.7mg/l along the shoreline and decreasing to an average of 1.9mg/l in the outer waters
of the bay. The maximum BOD values are in February (rainy season) and lowest in
June (dry season) (Taurusman, 2007).
Nutrient concentrations (phosphate, silicate, nitrate, and ammonium) are high in Jakarta
Bay as household and industrial wastes loads from the rivers are high. Phosphate loads
into the bay have been estimated at 6,741 tonnes per year, silicates at 21,260 tonnes and
dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) about 52,417 tonnes per year (Damar 2003). These
result in eutrophic waters in Jakarta Bay studies (Damar 2003 and Taurusman 2007).
Heavy Metals
Heavy metals concentrations in general are low, however, close to sources such as
estuaries and Tanjung Priok port, the concentrations of heavy metals are higher (P2O
LIPI, 2003).
4.1.7 Sediments
Physical Characteristics
The seabed sediment in Jakarta Bay is predominantly clay, with the exception of sands
in the shoreline areas in the west and central parts of the bay as shown in Figure 4.12
below (Astawa et al 1996). Mixed sand-clay dominates around the Thousand Island
(Kepulauan Seribu) area in the Java Sea, northwest of Jakarta Bay.

28
Figure 4.12 Jakarta Bay and Java Sea bed sediment map (Image courtesy of Astawa et al (1996))
The thickness of the surface soft sediment layer is in most areas more than 12m (Figure
4.13), reducing in the western part of the bay to 2-6m.
Figure 4.13 The thickness of the surface soft sediment layer in Jakarta Bay

29
Heavy Metals
Heavy metal contamination in the sediments of Jakarta Bay has been detected as early
as 1979 (P2O LIPI 2003). Ranges of lead, copper and zinc from various monitoring
data are shown in Table 4.1. The results of these studies indicate high upper levels of
copper and zinc exceeding the Target Values of the Netherlands Standards for water
sediments. Copper concentrations are close to or exceed the intervention value (at
which serious contamination exists).
Table 4.1 Heavy metals concentration in sediments of Jakarta Bay from the year 2000 - 2004
Parameter Yr. 2000 Yr. 2003 Yr. 2004 Target Value Intervention
(mg/kg) value (mg/kg)
Pb (mg/kg)* 4.12 - 27.56 2.21 - 68.22 6.69 - 64.44
**
Pb (µg/kg) - - 11.51 - 26.4 85 530
Pb (ppm)*** 2.65-42.91
*
Cu (mg/kg) 5.54 - 66.13 3.36 - 193.75 1.19 - 71.27
**
Cu (µg/kg) - - 7.92 - 18.57 35 190
Cu (ppm)*** 8.62 to 186.75
*
Zn (mg/kg) 51.40 - 71.13 - 533.59 53.87 - 256.85
326.27
Zn (µg/kg) ** - - 38.07 - 88.29 140 720
Zn (ppm)*** 51.88 – 480.5
* **
Sources: Razak (2004); Fitriati (2004); *** P2O LIPI (2003)
4.1.8 Air Quality

Air pollution in the coastal area of Jakarta Bay is generated from emissions from
stationary and mobile sources. The most important stationary sources are likely to be
the three power stations in the Bay, Muara Karang and Muara Tawar (PLTU/PLTGU),
and at Tanjung Priok (PLTU) plus the PT. Asahi Mas glass factory .
The main pollutants from the power plants are expected to be sulphur dioxide and
particulate matter, and to a lesser extent nitrous oxides. The power plants are likely
running on (heavy) oil.
The second major source of air pollution is likely from traffic. Ships in particular burn
heavy oils resulting in high emissions of SO2 and NOx as well as particulate matter if
no measures are taken. With two industrial ports and some smaller fishing ports this
may constitute a significant level of pollution. Road traffic is likely the second major
emission contributor as the likely fairly old vehicle fleet cannot be expected to have
state of the art emission abatement technology.
Other sources, which will need to be investigated in the future SEA are current and
other proposed industrial sources (Photo 4.1).

30
Photo 4.1 Air pollution from industrial sources
4.2 Biological Environment

4.2.1 Marine Habitats and Communities
Plankton
Jakarta Bay is the most turbid system in Indonesia, clearly shown by the annual average
values of Secchi depth and turbidity, with high nutrient loading as described above.
Commensurate with the high dissolved inorganic nutrient concentrations, the annual
average chlorophyll-a concentration in Jakarta Bay has been increasing in the past
decades. Research over the past three decades have shown that there was a 16 to 26-
fold increase in chlorophyll-a concentrations between 1993 to 2004 (Afdal 2008), with
recent data showing an average concentration of 31.37mg/m3 during the east monsoon
period and an average of 78.94mg/m3 during the west monsoon period. Eutrophication is
particularly prominent around the Kamal estuary, Gembong estuary and Sunter estuary.
The mean annual primary production in Jakarta Bay was 223g C m2 y1, which is higher
compared to other similar areas in Indonesia. In Jakarta Bay, the dominant group of
phytoplankton was diatoms, which was mainly composed of small chain-forming
species: Skeletonema costatum and Chaetoceros spp. especially in the more offshore
region. In the inshore waters, where the water is less turbulent, cyanophyceae
(Trichodesmium spp.) and dinophyceae (Ceratium spp and Dinophysis caudata) also
occurred but in limited numbers relative to diatoms. In the less turbulent and more
stratified waters in the river mouths, the occurrence of dinoflagellates and
cyanophyceae increases compared to their abundance in the offshore waters.
A classification of the central Jakarta Bay area into trophic levels has been made
(Damar 2003) based on the nutrient concentrations (dissolved organic nitrogen /
dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphate), phytoplankton biomass (chlorophyll-a),
and oxygen saturation. The trophic classification divides the waters into three zones,
the high trophic zone (hypertrophic) along the coastline and around the river mouths, a
medium trophic zone (eutrophic) and the mesotrophic in the outer waters of the bay
Figure 4.14.

31
Figure 4.14 Trophic zone in Jakarta Bay waters (Damar 2003)
Macrozoobenthos
Jakarta Bay has high diversity of benthos. Studies conducted (Taurusman 2007) found
there were 82 families and 63 taxa of macrozoobenthos in Jakarta Bay during surveys
between 2004 to 2005. The types of macrozoobenthos that predominantly found in
these locations were bivalves (Mactra sp., Chione sp., followed by polychaetes
(Prionospio sp., Lucifer sp., Nephtys sp. being the most common. Also common are
crustaceans (Acetes).
Higher species diversity is found around Muara Angke and Muara Kamal and in the
outer waters of the bay. Macrozoobenthos abundance is concentrated in the nearshore
areas, especially at the mouth of the Angke River and Priok, i.e. areas with a high
concentration of organic materials (Taurusman 2007)
Another study by Taurusman (Taurusman 2010) indicated that the hypertrophic areas of
Jakarta Bay were dominated by species of surface deposit-feeding polychaetes such as
Dodecaceria sp., Cirratulus sp., Capitella sp., and Spionidae. The eutrophic zone of the
bay was dominated by suspension-feeding bivalves (Mactra sp., Chione sp.), while the

32
offshore, mesotrophic zone had a high diversity of species and feeding guilds compared
to other areas.
Based on the Multivariate-Azti Marine Biotic Index (M-AMBI) criteria, which is used
as one of the indicators used in the European Water Framework Directive (WFD),
Taurusman (2007) has classified Jakarta Bay into poor to high ecological status, as
shown in Figure 4.15. In general, the ecological quality of bottom waters according to
the benthic suitability increases with distance from the shoreline. In particular, the area
around Tanjung Priok port is classified as of poor quality.
Figure 4.15 Benthic ecological quality status of Jakarta Bay according to M-AMBI analysis
4.2.2 Intertidal habitats and communities
Mangrove
Owing to large scale conversion of mangrove forests to aquaculture, agriculture, and
coastal reclamations, Muara Angke is today the only remaining intact mangrove forest
along Jakarta Bay (Figure 4.16). The mangrove area is protected under two
designations, Wildlife Reserve and Protected Forest and is described further in the
following subsection.

33
Other degraded mangrove areas that occur along the coast do exist and are classified as
forest and non-forest areas, where non-forest areas are mangroves where agriculture,
fish-ponds and water-sport areas exist. These reported areas are listed in Table 4.2 and
include some mangroves lining Sungei Marunda and Cilincing. More extensive
mangrove forest exists in the Bekasi district as listed in Table 4.2.
Figure 4.16 Protected areas in Jakarta Bay – Muara Angke Protected forest and Wildlife Reserve
Table 4.2 Mangrove areas along the coast of Tangerang, North Jakarta and Bekasi districts (Arifin
2004)
District Forest area (ha) Non-forest area (ha) Total mangrove area
(ha)
North Jakarta 177.40 158.10 335.50
Tangerang 726.99 8,977.57 9,704.56
Bekasi 11,096.00 2,095.81 13,191.81
Total area 12,284.62 11,231.48 23,358.00
Muara Angke Nature Reserve

The Muara Angke Nature Reserve or “Suaka Margasatwa Muara Angke” (SMMA)
encompasses 25.02 hectares of swamp vegetation. The original vegetation in Muara
Angke Nature Reserve is mangrove forest with high biodiversity. However, forest
degradation has also occurred in this area, with approximately 10% tree cover
remaining (Photo 4.2). Other areas have been transformed into open swamp with the

34
wild grass gelagah (Saccharum spontaneum) and eceng gondok (Eichchornia

crassipes).
There are 42 species of mangrove in Muara Angke, of which 11 are „true mangrove‟
species, including Sonneratia caeseolaris (pidada), Rhizophora spp (bakau), Avicennia
marina (api-api), Bruguiera gymnorrhiza and Excoecaria agallocha (buta-buta).
Mangrove associates include Terminalia catappa (ketapang ), Nypa fruticans (nipah)
Hibiscus tiliaceus (waru laut).
There are also trees that have been planted in the area as part of a plantation
programme: Assam Jawa (Tamarindus indica); bintaro (Cerbera manghas);
kormis (Acacia auriculiformis); and Nyamplung (Calophyllum ophyllum).
BirdLife International has listed Muara Angke as an Important Bird zone. The Nature
Reserve is inhabited by about 91 bird species, most of which are protected species.
Among the endangered and protected bird species found at the reserve are Sikatan
Bakau Bird (Cyornis rufigastra), Prenjak Java (Prinia familiaris), Cerek Java
(Charadrius javanicus), the Java Bulbul (Centropus nigrorufous) and Bluwok heron
(Mycteria cinerea).
The area also supports macaques and other wildlife. The long-tailed macaque (Macaca
fascicularis) lives in groups and its main food source is young leaves and mangrove
fruits such as Pidada (Sonneratia caseolaris). The long-tailed macaque has an
important role in the Reserve as they aid in spreading forest seeds. Reptiles recorded in
the area include Sanca snake (Python reticulatus), Monitor Lizard (Varanus salvator),
Cobra snake (Naja sputatrix), stripped snake (Bungarus fasciatus), Kadut snake
(Homalopsis buccata), gold-ring snake (Boiga dendrophylla), leaf-snake (Ahaetula
prassina) and water-snake (Cerberus rhynchops).
Photo 4.2 Mangrove forest in Muara Angke
4.2.3 Coral Reefs
In general, the coral reef ecosystem of Jakarta Bay is dominated by fringing reef around
the 85 small islands in the Kepulauan Seribu. The islands in Jakarta Bay spread from
the south, which is the section closest to the mainland Jakarta and Tangerang, up to the
north towards the open sea. Coral reefs nearby mainland (Onrust, Bidadari, Kelor,
Nyamuk, Ubi, Ayer, Untung Jawa, Damar Kecil, Damar Besar and Dapur island) are
35
classified by LIPI as Zone 1. Coral reefs in this nearshore zone have been strongly
impacted by various external factors including but not necessarily limited to issues such
as coastal development, exploitation of sea sand, riverine pollution load (from both
domestic, industrial and agricultural waste), deforestation effects on river sediment
supply, non-sustainable fishing practices and changes in sea temperature (for example
regional El Nino events) to significantly reduce quality and biodiversity of coral reefs in
this nearshore zone.
Comparing the result from monitoring of the coral reefs in Jakarta Bay, LIPI (1997;
2010) have assessed that the live cover of coral has fallen from approximately 15% in
1985 to 10% in 1993, whilst Siringoringo (2010) has found that the percentage of live
coral cover has fallen to less than 5% since the turn of the century. The distribution of
live coral cover in the Jakarta Bay area is shown in Figure 4.17. Although the live coral
cover remains higher around Damar and Dapur islands (Figure 4.18), Siringoringo
(2010) found very low coral recruitment around these islands (Table 4.3) indicating
long-term decline in coral cover is to be expected. Coral species that continue to survive
around the nearshore islands in Jakarta Bay are predominantly the big polyp like
Oulastrea crispate. This species live without symbiotic with zooxanthella and are thus
less sensitive to suspended solids content in the water column. Corals of the Acropora
genera, which are particularly sensitive to changes in light conditions, had previously
been reported as numerous around the islands of Jakarta Bay, but are now no longer
found in waters with light penetration less than 5 m.
Figure 4.17 Coral cover around near shore islands in the west and central section of Jakarta Bay

36
Figure 4.18 Live coral cover around the small islands (zone 1/near mainland) in Jakarta Bay. (Source:
Siringoringo, 2010)
Table 4.3 Average of recruitment number of coral reefs in the small islands (zone1/near mainland) in
Jakarta Bay. (source: Siringoringo, 2010)
Location Individuals Species Mean

Onrust 71 1 6.45
Bidadari 10 1 0.91
Kelor 19 1 1.73
Nyamuk 71 4 6.45
Ubi 2 1 0.18
Ayer 25 8 2.27
Untung Jawa 65 11 5.91
Damar Kecil 7 4 0.64
Damar Besar 63 10 5.73
Dapur 55 14 5
4.2.4 Seagrass
No information has been able to be sourced as part of the REA in relation to the
presence and status of seagrass beds in and around Jakarta Bay. It is considered likely
that some seagrass habitats may exist in the shallows surrounding the islands
encountered in the west of the bay including but not necessarily limited to those shown
in Figure 4.17. The absence of seagrass habitat data from these nearshore islands is not
considered a major constraint of the REA as coral reefs are generally considered the
most sensitive of the two habitats.
4.3 Human Environment

4.3.1 Administrative Areas within the Study Area
The North Jakarta municipality occupies the coastal region of Jakarta, with population
spread over seven sub-districts (Figure 4.19). Five regions (Penjaringan, Pademangan,
Tanjung Priok, Koja, and Cilincing) from the seven districts are included in North
Jakarta coastal area.

37
Figure 4.19 Sub district administrative areas surrounding Jakarta Bay
4.3.2 Population
Jakarta Bay lies within the North district of DKI Jakarta Province. The reported
population density of Jakarta is a total of 9,567,127 people where there are 4,848,577
men (50.7%) and 4,718,550 women (49.3%).
DKI Jakarta reported a population growth rate of 1.17%, which shows an increase of
population from 7,798,679 to 9,588,198 between the year of 2000 and 2010,
respectively. It is projected that in 2020 and 2030, DKI Jakarta will have a population
of 9,679,505 and 9,794,748 concentrating mostly in the District of West Jakarta
followed by North and East Jakarta.
The population below the poverty line in DKI Jakarta as of March 2010 was 312,180
(3.48 percent), which was a decrease compared to 2009, which recorded 323,170 people
below the poverty line.
4.3.3 Gazetted Land Use

The gazetted land use in the central Jakarta area is primarily settlements (Figure 4.20),
with a central spine of commercial land use (offices, commercial and services). The
main industrial zone lies in the Tanjung Priok area, including the port of Tanjung Priok.

38
Figure 4.20 Land use zoning plan 2030
4.3.4 Existing Land Use

The coastline in the central part of Jakarta Bay consists of settlements, protected forest,
production forest, industry and tourism (Table 4.4 and Figure 4.21).

39
Table 4.4 Coastal Land Use of Bekasi District in Jakarta Bay East Zone
Typology Muara Gembong Babelan Tarumajaya

sub district (Ha) sub district (Ha) sub district (Ha)
Urban settlements / villages 3023 4264 3192
Protected Forest 6699 77 118
Production Forest 4991 334
Industry - 2508 2075
Port - 742
Tourism 713 - -
Mangrove Rehabilitation 6700 - -
TPU (general cemetery) - - 19
Figure 4.21 Shoreline landuses along the study area copied from Badan Pelaksana Reklamasi Pantai
Utara Jakarta. Undated presentation entitled “Penataan Dan Pengelolaan Pantai Utara
Jakarta: Revitalisasi Dan Reklamasi”
The key land use features are described in further detail in the following subsections.
Residential Areas
Residential areas around the coastline of Jakarta Bay encompass a range of informal or
slum settlements, housing estates and up-scale residential areas. The two main slum
areas near the shoreline are located at Muara Karang and at Tanjung Priok (Figure
4.22).
Fishing villages found along Jakarta bay is located in Marunda, Cilincing, Muara
Tawar, Muara Baru, Penjaringan, Kali Baru and Kamal Muara. Villagers consist of
Betawi native people and immigrants from Madura, West Java, Central Java, Bugis and
Makasar.

40
Figure 4.22 Slum areas in Jakarta
The Government of DKI aims to resettle the slum dwellers in rental housing complexes
known as the Rusunawa system, e.g. at Marunda region (Photo 4.3) where there is
Settlement Complex Plan with rental housing (Rusunawa system). The government of
DKI also plans to build 38 blocks for 3,800 families. In 2011, the government of DKI
Jakarta will optimize the utilization of these Rusunawa for slum dwellers. Next to
complex Rusunawa is a residential area around Marunda Pulo with slum conditions.
Photo 4.3 Marunda Settlement complex

41
High end residential

Reclamation has been effectively utilised at Pantai Mutiara to develop high end
residential frontage (Photo 4.4). Although this development demonstrates the
possibilities that reclamation may generate, adjacent land use in the form of the PLTGU
PLTU power plants reduces the overall value of the development.
Photo 4.4 High end residential condominium at Pantai Mutiara
Recreational Areas
Taman Impian Jaya Ancol (TIJA) is a major recreation area for the city of Jakarta.
Expansion of this park through reclamation by PT Pembangunan Jaya Ancol is on-
going, covering 60 ha and 42 ha.
The Ancol complex includes a marina, theme park and aquarium, a golf course, art and
craft market, hotels and a drive-in theatre. The beach is the only recreational beach in
Jakarta. However, an entrance fee is charged. There are no free public recreational
areas along the shoreline in Jakarta.
Ports
There are eleven ports along the shoreline, including Tanjung Priok and Koja container
port (within the Tanjung Priok port complex) (Figure 4.23). These are the ferry port of
Kamal Muara and fishery port of Muara Angke in the west, the Pantai Mutiara Marina,
Muara Baru Fishery Port, Regional Public Port of Sunda Kelapa and the Marina at
Ancol. In the east, the National Public Port of Tanjung Priok, the Regional Port of
Kalibaru, the Fishery Port of Cilincing and the Special Public Port of Marunda.
The Sunda Kelapa Port is Jakarta‟s oldest port and currently serves in the transportation
of goods and passengers. Future development of Sunda Kelapa Port is intended for
marine tourism in addition to addition to public shipping, owing to its historical value.
Operations for ships more than 400 GRT will be transferred to Tanjung Priok Port. The
proposed Sunda Kelapa Port development will involve reclamation of 41 hectares in the
eastern part of existing port, which is allocated for public shipping facilities and
nautical tourism, equipped with passenger ship services, catamaran ship, jetfoil, cruise,

42
yacht, passenger terminal, marina, recreation area, and access road to the Soekarno-
Hatta Airport.
Figure 4.23 Ports and other industrial areas along the Jakarta Bay coastline
The Tanjung Priok Port (Figure 4.24) is currently the main commercial port for Jakarta,
with a total throughput of 123,066,861 tonnes in 2010 (Table 4.5). Its growth rate in
2010 was 7% and it is projected to achieve 203,371,439 tonnes throughput in 2018.
The main port terminal, the Jakarta International Container Terminal (JICT), has been
shown to one of the least efficient of the main terminals in Southeast Asia in terms of
its productivity and unit cost (Ray 2003), and yet it is the one of the better performing
Indonesian ports.
The existing capacity of the port has been fully saturated therefore its development is of
some urgency. This development will require coastal reclamation owing to the limited
land available at Tanjung Priok Port.

43
Figure 4.24 Tanjung Priok Port
Table 4.5 Current (2010) and projected throughput at Tanjung Priok and Sunda Kelapa Ports. Source
: PT Persero Pelabuhan Indonesia II
No. Ports Unit 2010 2018
A Tanjung Priok
1. Break Bulk Ton 23,489,282 34,671,078
Growth Rate % 5.17 4.80
2. Liquid Bulk Ton 14,300,217 19,585,888
3. Dry Bulk Ton 16,574,759 35,529,467
4. Container Ton 68,631,603 113,585,006
TEU 6,926,678 11,463,622
TOTAL Ton 123,066,861 203,371,439
5. Passenger People 1,633,433 2,144,332
B Sunda Kelapa
1. General Cargo Ton 1,882,465 2,393,806
2. Bag Cargo Ton 1,558,111 2,187,394
3. Others Ton 4,417,820 6,059,666
TOTAL Ton 7,552,511 10,640,866

44
Industries
There are two zoned industrial complexes or estates in the Jakarta Bay coastal area as
shown in Figure 4.23, namely the West Ancol and KBN Marunda industrial zones. PT.
Asahi Mas Glass factory is the primary feature in the West Ancol industrial zone. The
Marunda Nusantara Bonded Zone is a key industrial area within the coastal region in
the Cilincing District. It is an export processing zone located 4km to the east of Tanjung
Priok Port with a total area around 410 ha. Plans are in place to upgrade the area to a
bonded area accommodating up to 234 industrial units.
Apart from these designated zones, there are four power plants located along the
shoreline as shown in Figure 4.25 below. Associated with these industrial
establishments are pipelines and cables as shown in Figure 4.26. PT PLN (Persero) has
installed submarine fuel oil pipelines for unloading along 8km of Jakarta Bay waters.
The pipelines are 16" in diameter and are installed at a depth of 2m below the seabed
where the water depths are greater than -5m, while in shallower waters, they are
installed 5m below the seabed.
Muara Tawar
Power Plant
Tanjung Priok
Power Plant
Figure 4.25 Power plants along the Jakarta Bay coastline

45
Figure 4.26 Submarine pipelines and cables with land fall within Jakarta Bay.
Muara Tawar Combined Cycle Power Plant

The 800MW Muara Tawar Gas and Steam Power Plant (Combined Cycle Power Plant)
supplies power to DKI Jakarta. This Plant has an intake channel around 3 km out to sea
Figure 4.27. Environmental issues associated with this power plant have been identified
as waste pollution from the East Flood Canal (BKT) and the disruption of fishing
activities due to the cooling water discharge.

46
Figure 4.27 Muara Tawar Combined Cycle Power Plant
Tanjung Priok Steam Power Plant (PLTU Tanjung Priok)

The Tanjung Priok Steam Power Plant (Figure 4.28), located to the west of Tanjung
Priok Port is also one of vital installations in accordance with Presidential Decree. 63
year 2004. The plant has production capacity of 2,052 MW, and contributes to the Java-
Bali electricity network (Photo 4.5). Sea water supply is an important requirement to
fulfil its cooling water needs, which is estimated to an average about 190,000m3/hour.
Figure 4.28 Tanjung Priok Steam Power Plant

47
Photo 4.5 Tanjung Priok Steam Power Plant
Muara Karang
There are two power plants at Muara Karang to the west of the Pantai Mutiara
residential development (Figure 4.29), the 500MW PLTGU (Combined Cycle Gas
power plant) and the 1110MW PLTU. The cooling water intake and outfall locations
for these plants are shown in Figure 4.30. PLTGU Muara Karang takes seawater
through open channels created by two training walls, extending approximately 600
meters towards the sea. The hot water effluent is discharged through the Pantai Mutiara
development. Based on data from previous studies the discharge is in the order of
60m3/sec.

48
Figure 4.29 The PLTGU and PLTU plants at Muara Karang
Out let
cooling stream
Intake
cooling stream
Out let
cooling stream
PLTGU PLTU / PLTGU

500 MW 1110 MW
Figure 4.30 Overview of Muara Karang features
Historic Sites
Several historic buildings recorded in the region of Marunda, which are houses of
Pitung, Al-Alam Mosque of 17th century, and the Tomb of Captain Tete Yonker.

49
4.3.5 Fisheries and Aquaculture
Fishermen and mussel farmers

Total fishermen in DKI Jakarta in year 2009 were 18,947 persons; consisting of 2,366
boat owners and 16,581 labourers. Based on population status, there are 10,268 settler
fishermen and 8,678 immigrant fishermen of the 18,947 total fishermen. The number of
fishermen and fishing boats in Jakarta from 2005 to 2009 can be seen in Table 4.6 and
Table 4.7 respectively.
The high fishermen population has resulted in insufficient facilities and housing areas
for the fishermen, resulting in even the sides of the canals being used for boat docking
and informal settlements, see Figure 4.31. However, the number of fishermen and
fishing boats is declining as evident from the tables below. This trend is attributed to
several issues:
i. The fragmentation of fishing grounds causes higher operating costs such that
fishing is no longer an attractive proposition for most fishermen
ii. Rising fuel prices has also led to higher operating costs so that some fishermen
switched professions to become traders, drivers, factory workers, and ojek
drivers
iii. The high cost of maintenance of so many damaged boats cannot be operated
iv. Transfer function of fishing vessels into public transportation vessels such as
small cargo boats and passenger boats
Table 4.6 Number of fishermen in Jakarta from 2005-2009
Year Settler fishermen Immigrant fishermen Total fishermen

Owners Workers Total Owners Workers Total Owners Workers Total
2005 3,140 11,877 15,017 1,028 6,875 8,903 5,168 18,752 23,820
2006 2,826 10,690 13,516 1,827 6,191 8,018 4,653 16,881 21,534
2007 2,441 9,586 12,027 1,662 5,545 7,207 4,103 15,131 19,234
2008 1,060 9,358 10,418 1,708 8,089 9,797 2,768 17,447 20,215
2009 1,123 9,145 10,268 1,243 7,436 8,679 2,366 16,581 18,947
The number of fishing armada in Jakarta from 2005 to 2009 can be seen in Table 4.7
below.
Table 4.7 Number of fishing armada in Jakarta from 2005-2009
Year Fishing Boats (units) Total fleet

0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-50 >50
2005 451 1,343 615 421 45 726 5,028
2006 406 1,209 554 379 39 653 4,523
2007 430 1,276 659 354 34 760 4,609
2008 460 1,858 430 596 51 564 4,855
2009 435 1,427 210 485 108 450 3,115
The number of farmers and workers and the production of green mussels in Kamal
Muara and Cilincing villages numbered 2,006 in 2009 (Table 4.8), with a total
production of 35,768 (Table 4.9).

50
Table 4.8 Green Mussel farmers in North Jakarta in 2005 - 2009
Year Kamal Muara village (People) Cilincing village (people) Total Farmers (people)
owner worker total owner worker total owner worker total
2005 390 650 1,040 260 720 980 650 1,370 2,020
2006 352 585 936 235 648 883 587 1,233 1,820
2007 - - - 60 175 235 60 175 235
2008 412 824 1,236 307 1,535 1,842 719 2,359 3,078
2009 135 245 380 326 1,300 1,626 461 1,545 2,006
Table 4.9 Number of Lift nets (bagan) and the production of green mussel in North Jakarta
Year Kamal Muara village Cilincing village total

Bagan Production Bagan Production Bagan Production
(Unit) (Ton) (Unit) (Ton) (Unit) (Ton)
2005 498 70,500 1,299 200,000 1,797 270,500
2006 448 63,500 1,160 180,000 1,608 243,500
2007 - - 630 90,780 630 90,780
2008 1,216 18,240 1,396 34,900 2,612 53,140
2009 389 4,668 1,030 31,100 1,419 35,768
Figure 4.31 Typical fishing village conditions

51
Fishing Activity
The target fishes are Rabbit Fish (Siganus sp.), Grouper (Epinephelus sp.), Mullet fish
(Valamugil sp.), “Julung-julung” fish (Rynchorhamhus sp.), Crocodile
needlefish/Longtoms fish (Tylosurus sp.), etc. Besides the target fishes, there are
several species of mollusc caught by North Jakarta fishermen, one of them is green
mussel (Verna sp.). The green mussels are also cultured by fishermen in North Jakarta
coastal waters (Photo 4.7).
The fishing activity is dominated by mini purse seine (payang), purse seine, “rampus”
net, gillnet, liftnet (bagan) and traps. Fish traps are set up mainly in the western side of
Jakarta Bay, in the Tangerang district (Figure 4.32). Lift nets (bagan), see Photo 4.6,
are deployed in both the western and eastern sides of the Bay, with the most extensive
lift net and mussel culture area located east of Tanjung Priok port as shown in Figure
4.32.
Figure 4.32 Fishing grounds (fish traps, lift nets and mussel culture) in Jakarta Bay

52
Photo 4.6 Lift nets (bagan)
Photo 4.7 Cultured mussels attached to string
Fish Landing Areas

There are six fish landing bases along Jakarta Bay as listed in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10 Fish landing bases and corresponding total fish landings Year 2005 – 2009
TPI TPI PPI TPI

TPI Kamal TPI Kali
Year MuaraBaru MuaraAngke PasarIkan Cilincing Total (Kg)
Muara (Kg) Baru (Kg)
(Kg) (Kg) (Kg) (Kg)
2005 5,695,237 9,728,239 638,050 589,370 326,801 318,296 17,295,993
2006 6,296,445 17,587,561 688,221 529,920 424,144 341,386 25,862,677
2007 12,617,266 17,111,209 722,305 521,280 527,240 263,959 31,763,259
2008 16,804,025 6,464,709 182,035 467,580 473,646 276,523 24,668,518
2009 7,687,650 10,770,514 160,224 430,110 503,810 213,537 19,765,845
TPI Cilincing
TPI Cilincing is a fishing base that has grown naturally as a result of the availability of
harbour facilities for motor boats and also boats of more than 5 GT, the accessibility of
the area to infrastructure and services such as ice, salt, clean water, cool room, fuel and
also ship equipment and spare parts.

53
TPI Kali Baru

TPI Kali Baru is just west of TPI Cilincing with similar physical, economic and social
conditions. Green Mussel farming and salted fish processing are mostly done by Kali
Baru fishermen, with salted fish drying in the residential areas. Boats docking at TPI
Kali Baru are around 1-5 GT in size.
TPI Muara Baru

TPI Muara Baru is a fishing base in Penjaringan Village catering to Gillnet and tuna
long line vessels. There are large-scale cold storage facilities at this base to facilitate
the export of quality fish. The landing base area is about 3,000 ha and is the largest in
Asia.
TPI Kamal Muara

TPI Kamal Muara is located in Kamal Muara Village. It is a place of landing fishing
vessels of Kejer nets, paying (mini purse seine), bagan (liftnets) and sero. Other
activities around the base are salted fish processing and sales.
Fishing Base (PPI) MuaraAngke

PPI Muara Angke is located in Pluit Village, Penjaringan. Most of the Muara Angke
coastal population are fishermen, salted fish producers and fish traders. Most of Muara
Angke fishermen originate from outside of DKI Jakarta such as Indramayu, Cirebon
and Tegal. PPI Muara Angke was originally built for small fishermen, but has
developed over time and there are currently many large ships (>50 GT) berthing there.
Navy Base
There is a Navy Base (Main Base, Lantamal III) located in Tanjung Priok. This base
oversees six Naval Stations, including Palembang, Cirebon, Panjang, Banten, Bandung,
and Bangka Belitung; and one (1) facility on maintenance and repairs on Pondok
Dayung, Jakarta.

54
5 TOLERANCE LIMITS
Assessment of the negative changes for various receptors is assessed based, in part, on
tolerance quantitative tolerance limits established from industry standard literature (e.g.
PIANC 2010) or DHI‟s experience from various reclamation environmental monitoring
and management plans in the region.
In line with the scope of the REA, the following tolerance limits are not intended to be
exhaustive and they lack local validation, however, they serve to demonstrate the use of
quantitative tolerance limits for impact assessment and provide a suitable basis for
establishing preliminary conclusions relating to the proposed developments within
Jakarta Bay.
5.1 Magnitude of Change Classification

The „Magnitude of Change‟ classification below has been developed by DHI based on
international standards in combination with DHI‟s extensive experience in dredging and
reclamation impact assessment in Southeast Asia. The scale of negative changes for
various receptors is assessed quantitatively, based on the tolerance limits and the results
of the various modelling studies undertaken for this EIA.
No Change Changes are below the level of model reliability or are

significantly below recognised tolerance levels so that no
change to the quality or functionality of a receptor will
occur.
Slight Changes can be resolved by the numerical models, but are

Negative or unlikely to be detectable in the field as, for example, a
Positive change in living status. Typically, slight negative changes
Change are associated with changes that cause stress, but not
mortality to marine ecosystems, while slight positive
changes are associated with changes that reduce stress.
Minor Changes are identified by the predictive tools at a level

Negative or where change (for example, mortality, or mean TSS
Positive concentration) can be expected to be identifiable in the
Change field. Changes are limited in spatial extent and are unlikely
to have any secondary (positive or negative) consequences.
Moderate Changes are at a level which can be classified as locally

Negative or significant. From a physical perspective, a moderate
Positive negative change would typically require a change in
Change operating procedure for the continued safe use of an
existing facility. Moderate positive changes would typically
remove occasional restrictions that may currently apply to
the use of the area.

55
Major Changes are often related to a complete loss of local habitat

Negative or with consequent secondary impacts on linked ecosystem
Positive processes. From a physical perspective, a major negative
Change change would typically be associated with a change that
prevented the use of an existing facility, while a major
positive change would allow the safe use of a facility where,
for example, currents were previously too strong.
5.2 Currents, Navigation and Mooring

Specific hard and fast tolerance limits to define current impacts on navigation as the
significance of changes in current speeds and directions are dependent on area usage.
Assessment of statistical descriptors examining current conditions and current field time
series are therefore based on experience and generally accepted practices in the region,
in order to assess potential effects currents and how they may impact navigation.
Current Fields
One of the most important assessments of changes in current conditions is that of the
change in current fields. In particular, the generation of changes in the presence of shear
zones and eddies, as it is a key indicator of potential negative impacts to navigation.
Although the presence of eddies or shear zones is a clear indicator of potential concern,
the significance of any such changes remains site and vessel specific. As such, the
significance of change is assessed by an experienced hydraulic engineer with support
from a Master Mariner on a site-by-site basis for each vessel class utilising the affected
area.
Mean Current Speed

Mean current speed is appropriate for assessing changes in approach conditions. This
parameter‟s conditions are defined as the numerical mean of the 10-minute stored
current speed at each point in the model domain over a three-day spring tide period
(worst-case) or 14-day spring-neap tidal cycle (normal case). Changes in mean current
speed less than 0.05m/s are typically considered as „No Change.‟
Maximum Current Speed

This parameter is appropriate for assessing changes in approach conditions and
mooring. The maximum current conditions are defined as the numerical maximum of
the current speed (10-minute stored frequency) at each point in the model domain over
a three-day spring tide period. Changes in maximum current speed less than 0.1m/s are
typically considered as „No Change.‟
Representative Current Speeds

While the mean and maximum current speeds provide an appropriate and readily
understandable spatial overview of impacts, an alternative, and for many purposes
better, a measure of the impact is provided by the level of exceedence of representative
current speeds, which introduces the important measure of duration of impact.
Exceedence is defined as the percentage of the time over a three-day spring tide
production period that the current speed (10-minute stored frequency) is higher than the
defined representative value. For example, if the current is stronger than 2.5 knots for 1
hour per day, then the exceedence will be 4.17%.

56
The impact on percentage exceedence is defined as follows:
Difference in % exceedence with % exceedence with no

= -
exceedence (%) reclamation reclamation
For example, if the current exceeded 2.5 knots for 1 hour per day in the simulation pre-
reclamation (4.17%) and for 1.5 hours per day (6.25%) at the same location post-
reclamation, then the difference in percent exceedence will be 2.08%.
Given the prevailing low current conditions in the study area only two representative
current speeds have been chosen for this impact assessment: 0.25m/s and 2.5 knots. The
choice of 0.25m/s is based on the standard definition of slack water (0.5 knot), which is
an important measure (restriction) for certain marine operations. The choice of 2.5
knots representative current speeds, in the present context is based on common local
practice for the definition of preferred upper limits for berthing current.
Changes in exceedence of these representative current statistics less than 2 to 4% are

typically considered „No Change‟.
5.3 Cooling Water Intakes

Increased suspended solids may affect water intakes in terms of increased maintenance
costs, for example filter cleaning and risk of sedimentation of fine material within the
water system.
The tolerance limits of intakes are very site specific and are usually determined based
on the statistical „No Change‟ in suspended sediment concentrations compared to the
background at the intake location. This value is normally calculated following an
intensive baseline monitoring period during the EMMP, before the start of works. The
limits should also be agreed with the specific intake operators. For the purpose of the
present REA a precautionary approach has been adopted by taking the most strict limits
from the most well-validated data sets available.
For suspended sediments, a distinction is normally drawn between power station

(cooling water) intakes which are relatively tolerant to suspended sediment, and process
water intakes which are relatively intolerant to changes in suspended sediments. The
only water intakes found in the study area to the best of DHI‟s knowledge at the time of
writing are cooling water intakes. However in the absence of any detailed site surveys
this conclusion cannot be verified.
Table 5.1 presents a suitable set (subject to local validation as part of individual project
EIA or EMMP) of tolerance limits for cooling water intakes.
Table 5.1 Tolerance limits for cooling water intakes to increased TSS
Magnitude Definitions
No Change Excess mean TSS < 1 mg/l
Slight Change Excess mean TSS 1 mg/l to < 6 mg/l

57
Minor Change Excess mean TSS 6 mg/l to < 23 mg/l
Moderate Change Excess mean TSS 23 mg/l to < 96 mg/l
Major Change Excess mean TSS ≥ 96 mg/l
5.4 Aquaculture and Fisheries

Tolerance limits for aquaculture installations and fisheries are normally set based on the
prevailing local legislation for maximum concentration of toxins in the organism arising
from bio=-accumulation. For the purpose of the present REA these are set based on the
Singapore Agri-food and Veterinary Authority‟s (AVA‟s) Sale of Food Act (Food
Regulations) values for the maximum allowable tissue concentration for human
consumption in the absence of local guidelines which could be sourced within the
timeframe of the REA. The limits are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Tolerance limits for heavy metals in fish and aquaculture stock tissue, based on AVA Sale of
Food (Food Regulations)
AVA Sale of Food Act (Food Regulations)
Parameter
*ppm = parts per million
Mercury (Hg) 0.5 ppm

Cadmium (Cd) 1.0 ppm
Lead (Pb) 2.0 ppm
Cooper (Cu) 4.8 ppm
Although bio-accumulation is a key indicator for human health, aquaculture and

fisheries also respond to changes in total suspended solids and other water quality
parameters in terms of growth rate and general health of the fish stock. Similar to the
limits for cooling water intakes the tolerance limits for aquaculture are very site specific
and are usually determined based on the statistical „No Change‟ in suspended sediment
concentrations compared to the background at the specific location. This value is
normally calculated following an intensive baseline monitoring period during the
EMMP, before the start of works. The limits should also be agreed with the specific
fisheries operators.
In the absence of such information from the study area, data from well documented
sites with similar background turbidity are adopted for the present study, which indicate
tolerance limits as shown in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 Tolerance limits for aquaculture to increased TSS

No Change Excess mean TSS < 1 mg/l
Slight Change Excess mean TSS 1 mg/l to < 3 mg/l
Minor Change Excess mean TSS 3 mg/l to < 6 mg/l
Moderate Change Excess mean TSS 6 mg/l to < 20 mg/l

58
Major Change Excess mean TSS ≥ 20 mg/l
5.5 Corals
Corals are intolerant to changes in
 Suspended sediments
 Sedimentation
 Temperature
For the purpose of the present REA, only the effects of changes in suspended sediment
concentration (which influences light availability and result in abrasion) are considered.
A comprehensive description of coral sensitivity to the impacts of reclamation can be
found in PIANC 2010.
Hard or hermatypic corals are dependent upon symbiotic photosynthesising

zooxanthellae for their survival and are therefore highly sensitive to increases in
suspended sediment and corresponding reduction in light penetration. Elevated levels of
suspended sediments can also clog the respiratory and feeding apparatus of the corals.
There is a growing body of evidence from field studies showing that turbidity and
sedimentation can degrade coral reefs at local scales (e.g. Anthony and Connolly 2004,
Cooper et al. 2007, Fabricius 2005, Fabricius et al. 2007, Gilmour et al. 2006). This
research was quantified by Hawker and Connell (1992) who found that a 30% increase
in average long-term background suspended sediments levels resulted in a 20%
reduction in annual growth rates of corals.
DHI‟s long-term experience from feedback monitoring projects (DHI 1997, Doorn-
Groen 2007, Driscoll et al. 1997) indicates that the tolerance levels cannot be described
by a single threshold criterion. Rates of primary production and respiration are both
sensitive to turbidity, while water depth and the diurnal light cycle also play a critical
role, such that the only hard and fast method of establishing tolerance limits for coral is
to carry out feedback monitoring, where monitoring of sediment spills is compared
against habitat response, leading to tolerance limits updates during the course of the
dredging or reclamation project.
For coral reefs, experience from feedback monitoring in the region implies that the
tolerance limits specified in Table 5.4 are conservative for areas with elevated
background concentration:

59
Table 5.4 Magnitude of condition matrix for suspended sediment impact on coral reefs
 Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration > 5mg/l for less than
No Change 5% of the time, OR
 Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration < 5mg/l
 Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration > 10mg/l for less
than 5% of the time, OR
Slight Negative Change
 Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration > 5mg/l for 5 - 20%
of the time
 Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration > 10mg/l for 5 - 20%
Minor Negative Change
of the time, OR
 Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration > 5mg/l for more
than 20% of the time
Moderate Negative  Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration > 25mg/l for 5 - 20%
Change of the time, OR
Major Negative Change
5.6 Seagrass
Seagrass are intolerant to changes in
 Suspended sediments
 Sedimentation
The main impact of suspended sediments on seagrass is reduced light availability,

although scouring by sediment particles can also have some impact. Seagrass
requirements for light penetration have been well described (Duarte 1991), with the
habitat being confined to water depths where light levels are above 10-15% of surface
irradiance.
Light attenuation in the water column follows Lambert-Beer‟s law:
I = Ioe-kd
where
k = ko + k1C
 Io is the light intensity at the surface

 ko is the background absorption rate
 k1 is the absorption rate for suspended sediments
 C is the depth-averaged concentration of suspended sediments
 d is the water depth

60
ko can be determined on the basis of Secchi disc depth in open water for the seagrass
bed in question. In the absence of such data for the project area, experience from
feedback monitoring in the region implies that the tolerance limits specified in Table
5.5 are conservative for areas with elevated background concentration.
Table 5.5 Magnitude of condition matrix for suspended sediment impact on seagrass
No Change 20% of the time, OR
 Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration < 5mg/l
Slight Negative 20% of the time, OR
Change  Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration > 5mg/l for more than
20% of the time
Minor Negative 5% of the time, OR
Change  Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration > 10mg/l for more than
20% of the time
1% of the time, OR
Moderate Negative  Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration > 25mg/l for more than
Change 20% of the time, OR
 Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration > 25mg/l for 5 - 20% of
the time
 Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration > 75mg/l for more than
Major Negative 20% of the time, OR
Change  Excess Suspended Sediment Concentration > 75mg/l for 1 - 20% of
the time
5.7 Mangrove
Mangroves are highly tolerant to changes in suspended sediment concentrations and
sedimentation whilst they are intolerant to increased erosion as documented in the
following:
5.7.1 Mangrove Tolerance to Suspended Sediments

A study carried out in Cairns, Australia, demonstrated that 80% of suspended sediments
brought in to the mangroves from coastal waters at spring flood tide were trapped in the
mangroves (Furukawa et al. 1997). Sediment particles are carried in suspension into
mangrove forests during high tide where they are maintained in suspension due to the
turbulence caused by mangrove structures. The particles settle in the mangroves only
around low tide, when water turbulence is reduced and when water velocity is not large
enough to carry the particles back to the estuary (Kathiresan 2003, Wolanski 1995).
However, the vertical accretion of suspended particles also depends on concentration
and rare events such as tropical cyclones or floods in nearby rivers (Furukawa et al.
1997).
Further observations at Cocoa Creek, a mangrove creek system near Townsville,

Australia suggest a complex but strong relationship existing between tidal
hydrodynamics, sediment transport and geomorphology (Bryce et al. 2003). Given this
complexity, there are no clear estimates of thresholds for sediment fluxes in mangroves.
However, mangroves can be considered to be fully tolerant to the range of suspended
61
sediment loads that may be generated outside the work area from dredging and
reclamation activities.
5.7.2 Mangrove Tolerance to Sedimentation

Mangroves are able to withstand gradual sediment accumulation, as this is part of their
natural, dynamic state. However, acute increases in sedimentation due to natural or
anthropogenic dumping of material can result in burial of pneumatophores, reducing
their ability to supply oxygen to the root system (Wolanski 1995). The most sensitive
components of the mangrove ecosystem to sedimentation impacts are seedlings and
pneumatophores, as both have a relatively small vertical extent, and may therefore be
partially or fully buried by high sedimentation rates within a short period.
In simple terms, there are two main types of mangrove root structures; those with stilt
roots (e.g. Rhizophora) and those with pneumatophores (e.g. Avicennia). Those with
pneumatophores are normally located on the outer fringe of the mangrove forest with
higher tidal range and are thus at higher risk of sediment ingress.
Some field data regarding tolerance levels of mangroves to levels of sedimentation are
available. A study by Terrados et al. (1997) showed that sediment burial of 8cm and
above retarded growth and increased mortality of Rhizophora apiculata seedlings as a
result of altered oxygen supply to the hypocotyl root system. Experimental field work in
Thailand carried out by Thampanya et al. (2002) on seedlings of Avicennia officinalis,
Rhizophora mucronata and Sonneratia caseolaris showed that Avicennia officinalis was
five times more sensitive to burial than Sonneratia caseolaris, whilst Rhizophora
mucronata showed no significant difference between the control and burial treatments
(0, 4, 8, 16, 24 and 32cm). There was 100% mortality in Avicennia officinalis after 225
days at 32cm burial, and almost 90% mortality at 24cm.
These figures are consistent with the fact that the pneumatophores of Avicennia
typically extend 10cm but can reach 30cm or more above ground level, such that it
requires extensive and prolonged sedimentation to have any effect on respiration.
5.7.3 Mangrove Tolerance to Erosion

While erosion is a natural process, it may be exacerbated by human influence. Dredging
and reclamation works both alter tidal flow patterns and it is important to distinguish
their impact from the natural rate of erosion. However, few studies have been carried
out on erosion in mangroves, and earlier works suggest highly variable erosion rates on
a temporal and spatial scale (Paling et al. 2003, Semeniuk 1980).
DHI has undertaken a number of studies assessing erosion impacts on mangroves at

various locations throughout Southeast Asia. Mild to moderate erosion may expose
pneumatophores, which will affect the respiration of mangroves, but is not likely to
result in mortalities. Mortalities generally result once an erosion berm of more than 50–
100cm has formed, undercutting the mangroves trees along the shoreline and causing
trees to lean or fall into the water.
The impacts of erosion to mangroves will be assessed directly via the coastal process
modelling. This modelling will predict the area of mangrove habitat that will be
affected by erosion, with a conservative assumption that erosion greater than 50cm will
result in mangrove mortality.

62
6 PROCESS IMPACTS
Environmental impacts associated with dredging and reclamation works for the various
reclamation projects within Jakarta Bay are addressed as „process impacts.‟ Potential
key marine impacts arising from these works are primarily attributable to generated
sediment plumes and the effect of increased suspended sediments (TSS) in the water
column. Inherently connected to suspended sediments, sedimentation, i.e. deposition of
suspended sediments out of the water column, can lead to changes in bathymetry and
knock-on effects on sessile biota or marine operations.
Mitigating these process impacts mainly involves addressing aspects such as dredge
location/timing, production rates, dredge material, and dredge profile development
schedule. Where appropriate, recommended measures are brought forth and analysed.
For a formal evaluation of process impacts, specific information on the reclamation

methodology and schedule is required and it is normal to assess the impacts (including
cumulative impacts with other on-going adjacent developments) for multiple stages of
development (potentially once stage per month of construction) or as complete
reclamation logs. For the purpose of the REA, it is only practical to consider one
example stage of work for Tanjung Priok Port and the PT. Muara Wisesa Samudera
developments to demonstrate the criticality of process impacts to the environmental
assessment.
In the context of the central Jakarta Bay where these two developments are located, the
key environmental receptors that may be impacted by sediment plums include, but are
not necessarily limited to:
 Aquaculture and Fisheries located in the east and eastern sectors of the bay
 Cooling water intakes associated with the power stations found in the centre and
eastern sectors of the bay
Example tolerance limits (subject to local confirmation) for these receptors are provided
in Section 5, which allows a quantitative assessment of the environmental risk
associated with the generated sediment plumes.
The assessment only considers reclamation at a production rate of 60,000m3/day, which

is quite typical of major reclamation projects. Two alternative sources of reclamation
fill are assessed, a best case with high quality sand fill with 1% fines content (fines
being defined as material <63 micron) and a typical case with a fines content of 4%
which is close to the normal desirable fines content for reclamation fill. Although 4 or
5% of fines content may be desirable, there is ample precedence for acceptance of sand
fill with fines content up to 10%, and given adequate post placement geotechnical
improvement material with even higher fines content may be accepted, such that the
presented plumes associated with 4% fines in the reclamation fill should not be viewed
as worst case.
Further other activities such as sand key dredging for the reclamation boundary may
prove to be more significant sources of sediment spill. However, observations from the
63
site (Section 8) indicate that low cost (less sustainable) boundary construction methods
are more likely to be adopted, such that the present assessment addresses only the
reclamation impacts. Capital dredging associated with navigation channel construction
(e.g. Tanjung Priok) are also not addressed in the present preliminary assessment.
Figure 6.1 presents the resulting mean incremental (above background) concentration
from the reclamation works, whilst Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3 present the percentage of
exceedence (time) that the excess concentration is more than 5mg/l and 10mg/l above
background respectively for the case with 1% fines in the reclamation fill. Figure 6.4,
Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6 provide the equivalent information for 4% fines in the
reclamation fill.

64
Figure 6.1 Mean suspended sediment concentration from reclamation works at PT. Muara Wisesa
Samudera and Tg Priok Port (1% fines in reclamation fill)
Figure 6.2 Exceedence of 5mg/l excess suspended sediment concentration from reclamation works at
PT. Muara Wisesa Samudera and Tg Priok Port (1% fines in reclamation fill)

65
Figure 6.4 Mean suspended sediment concentration from reclamation works at PT. Muara Wisesa
Samudera and Tg Priok Port 4% fines in reclamation fill)

66
It can be seen that the plumes from the PT Muara Wisesa reclamation and the Tanjung
Priok reclamations are basically independent with fines content in the fill material of
1%, but for higher fines content in the fill the plumes from the two developments, if
carried out in parallel, will clearly start to interact leading to cumulative effects.

67
It can be readily be inferred that any parallel development between Tanjung Priok and
those developments immediately adjacent to it such as PT. Muara Wisesa will lead to
cumulative changes to the incremental suspended sediment concentrations, even with
fill material fines content as low as 1% and it is thus critical that environmental
management of the eventual reclamation projects takes into account cumulative
suspended sediment impacts.
As an isolated development (for the season considered) the suspended sediment plume
from the PT Muara Wisesa development is transported predominantly to the east. The
plume will be visible around the existing high value residential area at Pantai Mutiara
with an exceedence of 5mg/l in the order of 40% to 60% depending on fines content of
the fill material. This is generally classified as a minor (i.e. measurable) impact given
the high value residential frontage affected). For other seasonal conditions the plume
will be transported to the west. Consequently it can be concluded that all reclamations
between PT. Kapuk Niaga Indah (KNI) and Tanjung Priok Port are likely to have
significant impacts to the existing power station intakes in the area. Depending on fines
content in the reclamation material it can be expected that mean incremental
concentrations in the power station intake area may reach 10 to 30mg/l. For power
station intakes this is typically classified as a minor (measureable) to moderate (with
secondary consequences on process efficiency) impact.
As an isolated development (for the season considered) the suspended sediment plume
from the Tanjung Priok Port development is transported predominantly to the east. The
power station located at Muara Tawar will be subjected to slight to minor suspended
sediment plume impacts from the isolated reclamation works depending on the fines
content of the reclamation fill. Similar or potentially higher impacts may be expected
from sediment spilled from the sand key and capital dredging works that will be
associated with the port construction. More significantly, the extensive fisheries
activities that are located to the northeast of Tanjung Priok Port will be subjected to
incremental suspended sediment concentrations in the order of 3mg/l to 6mg/l
depending on fines content, which (based on Table 5.3) constitutes a minor (i.e.
measureable) impact. Any reclamation further to the east that Tanjung Priok (i.e. PT.
Kawasan Berikat Nusantara (KBN) and PT. Dwi Marunda Makmur reclamations and
particularly the Tarumanegara Port, which will involve a dredged navigation channel
(i.e. proportionately more sediment spill)) will increase the risk of sediment plume
impact to the existing fisheries. Although not simulated, it can also be concluded that
during other seasons with net westerly flow, the western reclamations will impact the
western fisheries area with a similar risk of minor (i.e. measurable) decline in the health
and/or growth of the aquaculture stock.
It is noted that resistance from the fishermen to the developments has already be raised
and it is clear that careful control of the reclamation works and particularly any
associated dredging will be required to ensure that the impact of the works on the
fisheries remains within acceptable limits (typically taken as maximum of “Slight”
impact). It is stressed that the potential impacts to the fisheries may arise not only from
the reclamation footprint (see Section 7) but also from the reclamation process which
may lead to impacts to fisheries well outside the direct footprint area and it is thus
critical that a careful assessment of the sediment plume impacts to the fisheries is added
to the existing AMDAL submissions and incorporated as a standard requirement for
future AMDAL submissions as described in Appendix C.

68
It is, however, critical to note that the process impacts associated with released
sediment plumes can be effectively controlled through good construction management
techniques, including but not necessary limited to:
 Bunding of reclamation with sedimentation (weir) boxes before backfill

 Use of silt screens (which can be expected to be effective in Jakarta Bay as a result
of the low prevailing currents)
 Spill budget (i.e. production) control
These techniques, coupled with a rigorous environmental monitoring and management

plan (EMMP) to ensure the appropriate deployment of mitigation measures and
effective response to unexpected circumstances, can be expected to reduce the level of
suspended sediment plume impact to the sensitive fisheries areas and power station
intakes to acceptable levels. Thus, although sediment plume impacts are flagged as a
key impact vector, they can be managed at the construction stage and thus should not be
seen as showstoppers. Conversely, if not managed at the construction stage, given the
proximity of sensitive receptors, considerable negative impacts can be expected from
the reclamation process and DHI urges careful assessment to ensure that the appropriate
level of mitigation and management is put in place before the start of construction.
The focus of the fisheries impact presented above is related to suspended sediment
concentrations. For those projects such as Tanjung Priok Port which involve capital
dredging (or in the event that sand key dredging is utilised), the release of contaminants
bound to the sediment in the dredging area may have an equally significant impact on
fisheries. Based on the data available to REA there is considerable risk associated with
the release of contaminants as seabed sediments in many areas exceed target and in
some cases intervention levels. Management methods for contaminated sediments (e.g.
reduced overflow) exist, but are generally associated with considerable costs. It is thus
essential that, given the proximity of the nearby fisheries and the likely elevated
sediment pollution levels (due to the documented relatively high pollution load from
terrestrial sources) the authorities enforce careful assessment of pollutant release
impacts prior to the start of construction and ensure that any recommended mitigating
measures are enforced.
Due to the high prevailing turbidity in the area, aesthetic impacts are more than likely
not controlling, however it shall be appreciated that, due to the presence of recreational
frontage (Ancol) and high quality housing (Pantai Mutiara) in the area visible sediment
plumes may cause a nuisance.
Coral reefs and other sensitive habitats such as seagrass are sufficiently far from the
central reclamation area as to be outside the potential area of sediment plume impact.
For reclamation in the western sector, for example the reclamation of the Tangerang
International City, will need to take into account such sensitive habitats such that
relevant tolerance limits are provided for completeness.
As indicated in Section 5, although mangrove is found along several sectors of the

shoreline, mangroves are tolerant to the suspended sediment and sedimentation impacts
associated with the reclamation process.

69
7 PROJECT IMPACTS
Most project impacts are related to the environmental changes resulting from the final
reclamation profile and any associated dredging.
As with process impacts, a thorough analysis of changes to currents is fundamental

since project reclamation and dredge depth induced current changes act as a key
determinant in most project impacts, with direct ecological impacts as the exception.
Here, impacts are apparent when the project footprint (i.e. reclamation profile and
dredge area) directly covers or removes ecological resources. Although direct
ecological impacts occur throughout the duration via reclamation and dredge works,
assessing them as project impacts allows for a full understanding of the overall impact.
Mitigating project impacts involves addressing final reclamation profile dimensions and
placement. Such optimisation is beyond the scope of the present REA and should be
addressed as part of the subsequent SEA. The present REA does, however, provide
some guidance to likely optimisation requirements.
In line with the scoped process impacts, this section analyses, and is further divided
according to, the following environmental aspects:
 Currents
 Water Levels
 Waves
 Morphology
 Flushing
Assessment is made for the final reclamation profile including all planned
developments provided to DHI at time of the study. Clearly, assessment of reclamation
scheduling as part of the subsequent SEA will be critical to ensure that there are no
undesirable intermediate effects which could readily occur if for example the
reclamation progresses in a piecemeal (i.e. each developer following his own timeline
which is likely) rather than linear (west to east, east to west or centre out) fashion.
7.1 Current Impact

Definitive tolerance limits relevant changes to current and their consequences on
navigation are not available as the significance of changes in current speeds and
directions depend on the usage of the specific area. There are, however, as indicated in
Section 5 general good practice principles that allow for expert assessment of the risk of
impact, without the need to resort to navigation simulations. These include:
 Avoidance of the creation of strong eddies

 Avoidance of the creation of sheer zones
 Avoidance of increases of current speeds above 2.5knots in berthing areas
 Avoidance of reduction in slack water duration

70
7.1.1 Impact on Current Field

Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2 present an overview of the impact of the reclamation works
on the current field in Jakarta bay with details provided for east and west going current
for the east, central and western sectors in Figure 7.3 to Figure 7.8. Overall the impact
on the current field is small as could be expected given the weak currents encountered
in Jakarta Bay. It is unlikely that changes in current conditions as a result of the
reclamation works will pose a risk to navigation. Specific comments on pertinent
current features are provided in the figure text.

71
Figure 7.1 Impact of development on west going current field: Top – 2011 baseline, Bottom – Post
development

72
Figure 7.2 Impact of development on east going current field: Top – 2011 baseline, Bottom – Post
development

73
Figure 7.3 Eastern Sector Detail of Impact of development on west going current field: Top – 2011
baseline, Bottom – Post development.
Amplification identified around the north eastern corner of the PT. Dwi Marunda Makmur
development

74
Figure 7.4 Eastern Sector Detail of Impact of development on east going current field: Top – 2011
baseline, Bottom – Post development

75
Figure 7.5 Central Sector Detail of Impact of development on west going current field: Top – 2011

76
Figure 7.6 Central Sector Detail of Impact of development on east going current field: Top – 2011

77
Figure 7.7 Western Sector Detail of Impact of development on west going current field: Top – 2011

78
Figure 7.8 Western Sector Detail of Impact of development on east going current field: Top – 2011

79
7.1.2 Impact on Mean and Maximum Current Speed
Changes in mean and maximum current speed provide a good indicator of the potential
morphological impacts associated with changes in current conditions resulting from the
reclamation works.
Mean Current Speed

Figure 7.9 presents the impact of the development on the mean current speed in the
absence of any deepening of the channels behind and between the various development
areas. It is clear that the reclamations will result in a reduction in current speed in all the
channels between the reclamation, whilst between the reclamations and the shoreline ,
although the trend is generally biased towards a reduced mean current speed some areas
show no change and others slight increased mean current speed.
As described in Section 7.2 and Section 7.4, from a flood risk mitigation and
sedimentation mitigation view point there are strong reasons to dredge the channels
around the reclamation and the following results presentations focus on this mitigated
option.
Figure 7.10 and Figure 7.11 present the impact of the reclamation works on the mean
current speed after channel dredging around the reclamations. It is clear from Figure
7.11 that the reclamations will result in a reduction in current speed in all the channels
surrounding the reclamation works in the order of 1 to 5cm/s, with the exception of the
channel separating the western most island of the Tangerang International City from the
shoreline where the mean current speed is expected to increase in the order of 5cm/s.
The general reduction in mean current speed is considered unfavourable from the point
of view of:
 Increased risk of sedimentation in the channels, although with a larger volume to

accommodate such sedimentation in the dredged option
 Reduced flushing capacity and thus risk of decline in water quality
 Reduced thermal dispersion from the various cooling water discharges and thus
increased risk of re-circulation.
The reduction in mean current speed is particularly prevalent in the central and western
sectors and optimisation of the reclamation configuration to improve circulation to
maintain existing mean current conditions is thus recommended as part of the
subsequent SEA.
A small increase in mean current speed is observed around the northeastern corner of
the PT. Dwi Marunda Makmur development. This has considerable negative
morphological consequences and the development should be streamlined in order to
mitigate this area of slight current amplification.
A small increase in mean current speed is observed offshore the Tangerang

International City development. This has considerable negative morphological
consequences and the development should be streamlined in order to mitigate this area
of slight current amplification.

80
Figure 7.9 Impact of development on mean current speed (future no channel dredging – baseline)

81
Figure 7.10 Impact of development on mean current speed: Top – 2011 baseline mean, Middle – Post
development mean, Bottom difference in mean current speed (future including channel
dredging – baseline)

82
Figure 7.11 Impact of development on mean current speed: Top – eastern sector, Middle – central
sector Bottom – western sector

83
Maximum current speed

Figure 7.12 and Figure 7.13 present the impact of the reclamation works including
channel dredging on the maximum current speed. For the eastern and central sectors,
the effect of the reclamation on the maximum current speed is found to be small,
typically less than 5cm/s which is considered negligible. Importantly, there is no
increase in the maximum current speed in the anchorage area off Tanjung Priok Port
indicating that there should be no change in anchor holding characteristics as a result of
the development.
In the western sector behind the Tangerang International City the maximum current is
predicted to increase by up to 15cm/s in the channel separating the reclamation from the
existing shoreline. This is a substantial increase in current speed and is likely to lead to
erosion of any existing soft bottom in this area (see Section 7.4). A small increase in
maximum current speed is also observed offshore the Tangerang International City
development. This has considerable negative morphological consequences and the
development should be streamlined in order to mitigate this area of slight current
amplification.
Overall the predicted changes in maximum current speed are not expected to influence
small vessel (e.g. fishing vessels) navigation in the area.

84
Figure 7.12 Impact of development on maximum current speed: Top – 2011 baseline max, Middle –
Post development max, Bottom difference in max current speed (future including channel
dredging – baseline)

85
Figure 7.13 Impact of development on maximum current speed: Top – eastern sector, Middle – central

86
7.1.3 Impact on Representative Current Speeds

Assessment of the impact of reclamation works on the time of representative current
speeds is generally a critical component of reclamation impact assessment on
navigation. However, in the present case the existing prevailing currents prove to be
sufficiently weak as to make the assessment redundant. Figure 7.14 indicates that slack
water is exceeded for less than 5% of the time and differences in slack water duration
are found to be less than 1% and are thus classified as negligible. The current (under all
but extreme wind conditions) is found not to exceed 1.25m/s, such that no impact on
navigation (for larger vessels) is expected.
Figure 7.14 Impact of development on slack water duration: Top – 2011 baseline exceedence of
0.25m/s, Bottom - post development exceedence of 0.25m/s

87
7.2 Backwater Impact

The risk of impacting hinterland flood levels as a result of the reclamation changing the
backwater in the various rivers and canals discharging into Jakarta Bay is justifiably a
major concern of the authorities and public. A detailed assessment of backwater
impacts is clearly beyond the scope of the REA. Nevertheless, a semi quantitative
assessment of the potential risk of backwater impact has been made to gauge if the
reclamation projects are configured are likely to have a significant impact on hinterland
flooding and if so can the impact be mitigated.
Figure 7.15 presents the impact of the development on the mean water level under a
representative storm scenario. Tabulated increases in mean level at the key rivers and
canals are presented in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Impact of development on mean level at the exit of the main rivers, drains and canals in the
Jakarta Bay area
River Name Longitude Latitude Backwater

Impact [cm]
Cisadane 106.6387678 -6.011302318 1

Noname 106.7115957 -6.044922967 0
Sungai Tahang 106.7077257 -6.055808541 5
Kali Perancis 106.7177876 -6.086701757 0
Sungai Kamal 106.7235373 -6.093170132 2
Kali Pasanggrahan 106.7508482 -6.106255872 8
Kali Angke/Western Banjir Canal 106.7668257 -6.104978689 7
Kali Grogol 106.7854568 -6.11419446 5
Kali Krukut 106.7976195 -6.1135807 5
Ciliwung (Branch 1) 106.8086872 -6.122952555 7
Ciliwung (Branch 2) 106.8295744 -6.122951083 8
Kali Sunter 106.9070291 -6.115685288 1
Cakung Drain 106.9399238 -6.101553814 19
Kali Blencong 106.9589419 -6.103477553 10
Estern Banjir Kanal 106.9699437 -6.098601206 24
Sungai Cikarang 106.999466 -6.051613421 23
Kali Gabah 107.0144483 -6.042209305 21
Kali Blacan 107.0197004 -6.025551575 2
Citarum 107.007025 -5.934816993 0
The impact on the mean level at the discharge point in the eastern sector is seen to be
greater than 10cm. This is considered highly significant. IPCC central estimates for sea
level rise through to 2100 are in the order of 35cm, with impacts to mean sea levels at
discharge points greater than 10cm being equivalent to some 40 years of sea level rise.
The consequence of this impact on mean level at the discharge points will have greater
probability of hinterland flooding and higher area of impact when flooding does occur.
In the central sector, it is clear that the Tanjung Priok development has negligible
impact on backwater levels at the adjacent discharge points. This can be expected as the
reclamation is a seaward expansion of an existing development.

88
Further west the impacts are smaller than those encountered in the eastern sector but are
still in the order of 5cm, which is equivalent to some 20 years of global sea level rise
and thus still viewed as a risk factor.
For the western end of the development, impacts are found to be small, less than 1cm
which is considered below detection limit. However, it is noted that due to the
preliminary nature of the present assessment the absence of impact in the western sector
on those rivers discharging in the vicinity of the Tangerang International City should
not be taken directly as confirmation of no backwater impact from this development.
The absence of impact may arise from the choice of storm scenario for the REA or due
to lack of data concerning the seabed or catchment area, although the absence of
backwater impact is consistent with the increase in mean speed observed in this area
(Section 7.1.2).
Overall, with the exception of the Tanjung Priok Port expansion and the PT. Manggala
Krida Yudha reclamation, the risks of significant backwater impacts with secondary
consequences on flooding are considered high. DHI strongly recommends detailed
study of the potential backwater and resultant flood impacts as part of the subsequent
SEA, to confirm which developments are the primary cause of the impacts and whether
or not modification to the reclamation boundaries can mitigate the impact. If boundary
modification cannot mitigate the negative impact, dredging of the various channels will
mitigate the negative backwater impact (Figure 7.16). However, the scale of dredging
required appears to be large (dredging potentially as deep as -6m CD and certainly -4m
CD), which will have secondary negative consequences both in terms of increased
construction cost and sediment plume related impacts during construction. The
optimisation of channel dimensions and dredge depths must be carried out in a 3D
model due to the differences in density between the river discharges and the marine
waters. It is noted that if mitigation is pursued via increased channel depth between the
shoreline and reclamations and between the reclamations themselves allowance for
periodic maintenance will be required as the decreased currents speeds caused by the
increased water depths will tend to accentuate sedimentation rates.

89
Figure 7.15 Impact of development on water levels during representative storm situation (no mitigation):
Top – eastern sector, Middle – central sector, Bottom – western sector

90
Figure 7.16 Impact of development on water levels during representative storm situation (with mitigation
dredging to -6m CD): Top – eastern sector, Middle – central sector, Bottom – western sector

91
7.3 Wave Impact

Exposure of the shoreline to wave activity may have either good or bad consequences.
On the positive side, waves re-suspended deposits that may otherwise accumulate in
shallow areas resulting in blockage of drain outlets and wave exposure is vital to good
beach quality in areas with high prevailing background suspended sediment
concentrations as found in Jakarta Bay. On the negative side, wave exposure leads to
erosion (or adverse sedimentation) risk where the natural littoral processes are blocked
by structures or natural obstructions.
The impact of the proposed development on the wave conditions in Jakarta Bay are
presented in Figure 7.17 and Figure 7.18 for a representative storm condition. It is clear
that the developments will significantly reduce the wave activity on the existing
shoreline. In an area of high prevailing sedimentation rate, this is a negative
consequence as it will tend to enhance the accumulation of sedimentation at the mouths
of the various rivers, which will in the longer term lead to negative consequences on the
discharge capacity unless adequately maintained.

92
Figure 7.17 Impact of development on significant wave height (example storm conditions): Top – 2011
baseline, Middle post development , Bottom – Difference in significant wave height (post –
baseline)

93
Figure 7.18 Impact of development on significant wave height: Top – eastern sector, Middle – central

94
7.4 Morphological Impact

One of the primary concerns with any reclamation project is the effect of the changes in
currents and waves on the morphology of the area. Although there is poor coverage of
bottom sediment characteristic data available to the REA, a preliminary assessment of
the morphological impact of the development has been undertaken in order to establish
the presence of any key areas of concern. By comparing on a relative basis (post – pre
development) part of the uncertainties are eliminated. However, it is stressed that a
thorough assessment of morphological impact is required as part of the subsequent
REA including field assessment of bed characteristics (critical shear stresses for erosion
and deposition) as well as river sediment load inputs.
The preliminary assessment undertaken for the REA has considered three cases,
isolated river sediment supply, a storm scenario and a flood scenario, which are
expected to represent the conditions where impact of the reclamation works are likely to
be the most significant.
Figure 7.19 presents the impact of proposed developments on the estimated annual
riverine sediment discharge without channel dredging. It is clear that there are areas of
concentrated sedimentation in the channels between the reclamation and the shoreline
and in the channels between many of the reclamations. The areas of highest
sedimentation impact are found around the PT Kawasan Berikat Nusantara and PT Dwi
Marunda Makmur developments and all the developments between Pantai Mtiara and
the westernmost island of the PT Kapuk Naga Indah development. Annual absolute
sedimentation rates reach 0.8m/year in some locations with incremental impacts up to
0.5m/year. The main area of impact is found to be east of the PT. Dwi Marunda
Makmur development which is subject to a significant sedimentation risk. As this area
is planned to be developed for the purposes of the Tarumanegara Port, there is a clear
conflict between these two development projects
It is clear that all rivers in the area will suffer some incremental sedimentation at their
mouths as a result of the reclamations. Given the prevailing shallow water depths along
the shoreline, the high sedimentation rates associated with the reclamation layout will
lead to channel blockage with resulting secondary consequences on flooding and
flushing. Overall, it is thus essential that a maintenance regime is put in place to secure
the water depths at the mouths of the various rivers, drains and canals discharging into
Jakarta Bay. However, due to the prevailing water depths channel maintenance can be
expected to prove problematic, such that from an overall sedimentation management
view point it is considered prudent and necessary to pre-dredge the channels
surrounding the developments to -4m CD or potentially even to -6m CD. This
reclamation is in line with the requirement to minimize potential flood risk impact as
described in Section 7.2.
Detailed optimisation of the required dredged depth should be undertaken as part of the
SEA. A preliminary assessment of the resulting riverine sedimentation for a -6mCD
channel depth is however presented in Figure 7.20. This indicates that nearshore
sedimentation rates, as expected, are slightly higher for the dredged scenario due to the
prevailing lower current speeds. However, due to the prevailing larger channel depths,
the channels have a capacity to retain typically in the order of 5 years of sedimentation
before maintenance dredging would be required to mitigate potential secondary impacts

95
on flood risk and flushing. Such maintenance would also be facilitated by the prevailing
larger water depths allowing access for floating equipment.
Figure 7.19 Estimated annual sedimentation as a result of river discharges in the Jakarta Bay area. Top
Existing, Middle Future (no channel dredging), Bottom difference (future no channel
dredging – existing)

96
Figure 7.20 Estimated annual sedimentation as a result of river discharges in the Jakarta Bay area. Top
Existing, Middle Future (with channel dredging), Bottom difference (future with channel
dredging – existing)

97
Figure 7.21 and Figure 7.22 present the impact of the works on the mean suspended
sediment concentration and sedimentation respectively under marine storm conditions.
Key impacts of note are the significant increase in mean suspended sediment
concentrations over the east and west aquaculture areas in the order of 20mg/l increase
in mean suspended sediment concentration. Although only present for the duration of
the storm event, this is considered a moderate (i.e. measurable with secondary
consequences to fisheries and livelihood) impact. Mitigation of the impact in the eastern
sector can be achieved via streamlining of the PT. Dwi Marunda Makmur development
to eliminate the current amplification around the north eastern end of the of the
development.
East of the PT. Dwi Marunda Makmur development (Figure 7.22) indicates significant
sedimentation risk. As this area is planned to be developed for the purposes of the
Tarumanegara Port, there is a clear conflict between these two development projects.
Significant incremental sedimentation is predicted immediately east of Tanjung Priok

Port. However, given the nature of the water use in this area the increased
sedimentation is of no direct consequence.
Significant incremental sedimentation is predicted between Tanjung Priok Port and the
eastern PT. Manggala Krida Yudha reclamation. This area is not critical for drainage,
such that the predicted sedimentation is not viewed as significant although allowance
for maintenance of the channel between the developments will clearly be required.
Concentrations along the shoreline are generally reduced as a result of sheltering from
wave action and as a result of the increased water depth associated with the
recommended channel deepening.
Although current speeds are amplified behind the Tangerang International City, overall
concentrations are reduced due to the reduction in wave activity and due to the
reclamation, the higher marine suspended solids are kept from penetrating to the shore.
Offshore of the Tangerang International City concentrations are however strongly
amplified again in the proximity of major aquaculture areas. Again optimisation of the
frontage of the Tangerang International City should be considered to mitigate this
negative impact.

98
Figure 7.21 Impact of development (including channel deepening) on mean suspended sediment
concentration (48hr marine storm conditions)
Figure 7.22 Impact of development (including channel deepening) on sedimentation (48hrs marine
storm conditions)
7.5 Flushing
It is not practical within the time frame of the REA to undertake quantitative water
quality modelling and changes in retention time are thus utilised as a surrogate for
99
potential changes in water quality. It is noted that flushing can only be used as a
surrogate for water quality changes as it does not take into account the distribution of
pollution load in the system, nevertheless, it provides a highly useful indicator of the
potential impact of reclamation projects on overall water quality.
In tropical waters, a retention time of less than 7 days (time taken for a conservative
tracer to be reduced to 20% to 30% of its starting concentration due to tidal exchange)
is typically taken as indicative of good flushing conditions. Certainly any increase in
retention time greater than 7 days (regardless of the absolute value) can be viewed as a
negative impact of the reclamation works.
For Jakarta Bay the present flushing regime is already found to be poor, particularly in
the centre of the bay between Tanjung Priok and the existing Fishing Port of Muara
Baru development where retention times are generally greater than 7 days, whilst the
east and the west side of the bay are relatively well flushed with retention times in the
order of 2 days.
Post development, the retention time in the central sector is seen to increase very
significantly with the entire area between Tanjung Priok Port and the existing Fishing
Port of Muara Baru development experiencing retention times in the order of 14 days,
with many areas experiencing an increase in retention time greater than 7 days. This is
viewed as a moderate (i.e. measurable with secondary consequences) impact of the
development and it is highly likely that this will be associated with negative re-
circulation at the existing power plants and a decline in hygienic water quality which
given the residential and recreational nature of the frontage is clearly undesirable.
Optimisation of the configuration of all the reclamation projects between Tanjung Priok
Port and the existing Fishing Port of Muara Baru development is therefore clearly
required as part of the subsequent SEA. However due to the prevailing weak tidal
conditions within Jakarta Bay, optimisation to a level where the impact on retention
times can be brought down to good levels is unlikely and some negative consequence to
water quality between the existing shoreline and the new reclamation will inevitably
occur. Focus of the optimisation should therefore be placed on securing adequate
thermal recirculation for the existing power stations.
The eastern sector remains relatively well flushed, whilst the channels separating the
western reclamations will suffer increased retention time in the order of 4 days, with
areas subjected to retention times greater than the target 7 days occurring post
development. As several of the rivers in this area have a high pollution load this is
viewed a negative impact requiring further optimisation of the eastern island of the PT.
Tangerang International City, PT. Kapuk Niaga Indah, PT. Jakarta Propertindo and PT.
Muara Wisesa Samudera developments as part of the subsequent SEA.
It is noted that all of the proposed reclamation profiles extend and keep a gap of 200 to
300m between each development and the existing coastline along Jakarta Bay. This is
due to the Indonesia‟s Law (President‟s Decree 54 2008), which requires at least 200 m
gap to be maintained between the main land and any marine development/reclamation
works and at least a 300m gap at Tanjung Priok area. While it is understood that the
purpose of the requirement is to avoid causing an impact to the adjacent development or
population, such gaps may not always be appreciated from hydraulic engineering
perspective. This is the reason why reclamation profiling should be done in tandem with

100
detailed hydraulic modeling or studies. Where the conditions are not favorable,
especially when the reclamation is located near a river discharge resulting in poor water
quality or aesthetics (see Figure 7.25) it may be relevant to avoid the gap between
shoreline and land reclamation to avoid poor quality river discharge (sediments and
pollution) from being trapped in the channel between the shoreline and the reclamation.
Based on the preliminary model results in the present REA such situations exist and,
despite the Presidents decree, DHI would strongly urge a re-consideration of some of
the separation distances to avoid the identified retention time problems.

101
Figure 7.23 Retention time defined as the time taken for a conservative tracer to fall to 30% of its
starting value. Top – 2011 baseline. Bottom – Post development

102
Figure 7.24 Impact of the development on retention time. (post development – 2011 baseline)
Figure 7.25 Existing Poor Water Quality or Aesthetics

103
8 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
This section evaluates the engineering aspects of the dredging and reclamation that
should be taken into account at the planning stage and during construction.
8.1 Dredging and Reclamation Planning

The planning and design of any dredging and reclamation will typically depend on the
following factors:
(i) The proposed land use plan and development of the reclaimed land. This will
affect the basic shape and size of the reclamation
(ii) The type of marine facilities or structures to be provided along the reclaimed
profile. This will affect the type of revetment and/or shoreline protection to be
adopted
(iii) The seabed conditions, depth of fill and the type of fill material available. This
will determine the reclamation method and type of ground improvement works to
be employed
(iv) The current flow, tidal flow and the hydrodynamic regime in the vicinity of the
reclamation. The design must be done to minimize siltation to the surrounding
waters or waterway and/or erosion to the existing shores or, in short, to minimize
disturbance to the existing flow conditions and surroundings
(v) The existing and future water quality and its potential effects on marine receptors.
The design must maintain or minimize the impacts to the current water qualities of
the surrounding waters and/or waterways within acceptable limits
(vi) Minimize any direct impact on flora and fauna

Figure 8.1 illustrates the best practice methodology for the planning of dredging and
reclamation works. The planning should always commence with the collection of the
technical data and analysis to establish the basic framework, planning requirements and
parameters for the proposed developments according to the master plan, if any. The
data comes from various studies or investigations such as the topographical and
bathymetry survey, geotechnical investigations (both on land and in sea),
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and detailed hydraulic study etc. Key
concerns related to the data are discussed in detail in the following sub-sections.

104
Figure 8.1 Iterative Processes in Dredging and Reclamation Planning
8.1.1 Planning Considerations: Ground and Subsoil Conditions

Site investigations are precursor to reclamation planning and are important for the
engineers to arrive at the most appropriate and cost efficient layout. Careful
investigations covering all aspects including an understanding of the hydrography,
characteristics of the underlying soil conditions, influence of the meteorology and
oceanography, coastal hydraulics including the shoreline formation process, potential
source of fill and disposal of dredged materials and etc. will ensure the success of the
reclamation planning and the subsequent implementation of the proposed development.
This is particularly important for any developments at Jakarta Bay given the
complexities of the coastal geology in the basin of the Jakarta Bay in which the
underlying soft clay and biogenic gas have been identified as key concerns. Figure 8.2
shows the thickness of the soft clay underlying the seabed based on the geophysical
surveys conducted by the Marine Geological Institute. It has been reported that these
alluvial deposits of soft clay of up to 16m thick is from the young geological formation
in the Quaternary Age (Holocene). It has been known that the coastal area of Jakarta is
subsiding and subsidence in reclaimed land could be a problem and is known to be
caused by several factors, one of which is the untreated soft deposits below the
reclaimed land.

105
Figure 8.2 Underlying Soft Deposits
Having an understanding of the varying soft deposits as shown in Figure 8.2, the
planning should incorporate the detailed soil investigations prior to the implementation
of the varying developments and the investigations must penetrate to the correct depth
in order to obtain the correct or relevant soil parameters to establish the settlement. The
planning should also allow for the effective treatment of the soft deposits within the
reclaimed land and along the peripheral of the reclamation. Along the perimeter of the
reclaimed profile, settlement can be controlled effectively by removing all marine
deposits by dredging. This method is relatively simple as both dredging and filling
operations can be carried out with minimal restrictions, and a relatively short overall
construction programme can be achieved combined with an economical cost, even
when large quantities of soft material and fill are involved. However, it is noted that the
removal of such soft deposits may result in undesirable environmental impacts,
particularly due to the relatively high sediment toxicity in certain areas and must
therefore be carefully managed and in those areas where high sediment toxicity is
present the costs for removal (reduced overflow) and disposal will be significantly
higher.
In certain situations, the removal of upper marine deposits only, with the lower, stiffer
or stronger deposits remaining in place may be adequate and this has the advantage of
reducing both dredging and fill quantities. Within the reclamation, treatment of the soft
deposits can be done using prefabricated vertical drains. The treatment can be planned
in such a manner with the major part of the total settlement being consolidated during
the reclamation formation period while limiting the remaining residual settlement to be
allowed in the development programme for the newly reclaimed land.
In coastal areas with marsh or organic deposits, the formation of gas pockets known as
biogenic gas is common. Biogenic gas is formed when buried organic materials
decompose in the absence of oxygen and is converted into methane and carbon dioxide.

106
Figure 8.3 shows the presence of biogenic gas based on the interpretation of the seismic
records.
Figure 8.3 Biogenic Gas Deposits
The release of biogenic gas during dredging and construction may create an
environmental problem. The planning of the dredging and reclamation must ensure that
the construction equipment and method to be specified are able to handle and manage
the biogenic gas. For example, the method of dredging using Trailing Suction Hopper
Dredgers must be specified such that the vessels are equipped with degassing system
that will extract the gas from the hydraulic mixture of sediment/water. Prefabricated
vertical drains can be specified for the treatment of reclaimed land over biogenic gas
pockets by “soil flushing” which is the injection of water or cleansing solution to the
contaminated layer and extracting the elutriate (flushing solution mixed with
contaminants) via the prefabricated vertical drains.
8.1.2 Planning Considerations: Layout and Formation Level

It is understood from reports that there are two different systems of reclamation being
planned for the coastal developments along Jakarta Bay. Polder system is being adopted
for the developments in the west, while the east is using the traditional landfill method.
In a former study conducted (Figure 8.4), the two reclamation methods were compared
and the finding was that the traditional landfill method would have more “plus” factors
and would be a better system/method for developments along Jakarta Bay. Irrespective
of the findings, the main consideration to be taken into account in the planning is to
ensure that the two different methods of reclamation are interfaced at the boundary
where they meet.

107
Figure 8.4 Comparisons of the Polder System and Landfill Method
The layout of a reclamation scheme is largely governed by master planning

considerations. The major factors restricting the extent of reclamation are the water
depth, the need to maintain fairways, moorings and other marine traffic channels and
the environmental implications. The effects of the reclamation on water flow in general,
and currents, waves, storm surge characteristics and sediment transport conditions at
and along the shoreline need to be evaluated extensively and feedback is given to the
Master Planner to refine the master plan options for an optimal profile and to ensure
that there are no unacceptable effects with respect to:
 Tidal flushing and water quality
 Ecology
 Siltation and seabed scour
 Shoreline stability of existing beaches
 Navigation of large and small vessels
 Operation of piers, wharves and cargo-handling areas
 Operation of cooling water systems including re-circulation
 Flooding due to tides combined with storm surge
The present REA has indicated several major areas of concern relating to this feedback
loop, particularly relating to tidal flushing in the central development area and further
optimization of the reclamation layouts is thus strongly advised.

108
The evaluation of the platform or formation level is done by considering the following
factors:
 The availability and cost of fill
 The urgency of the land development. The land can be divided into parcels with
the final formation of the level to be developed separately if there is a schedule
for the development
 The existing ground, road and drain levels
 The underlying soil conditions and the post reclamation settlement of the fill
 The land use of sea frontage and the type of coastline structure and the wave run-
up to be expected
 The normal, seasonal and extreme still water levels due to tides including storm
surge and in the case of Jakarta Bay Tsunami risk (Figure 8.5), which although
low is not negligible, particularly for a polder development methodology
 Wave run-up
 Possible long-term increase in mean sea level due to global sea level rises based
on recommendations from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Report (IPCC 2007)
Figure 8.5 Tsunami risk in Jakarta Bay area from major event in the Sunda Straits
Referring to Figure 8.1 again, the collaborative and iterative planning cycle will repeat
until satisfactory results are obtained for all three process groups. This would include
decision on formation level, demarcation of dredging and reclamation areas for phase
development, estimation of relevant dredging and reclamation quantities and planning
for fill materials and disposal of unsuitable materials, if necessary.

109
8.2 General Design Standards or Guides

The following list of general design standards or guides is not exhaustive, but adequate
to provide design guidance and data for the planning and design of the dredging and
reclamation. The standards or guides are established by various international sources
drawing from a variety of disciplines affecting coastal engineering.
(i) British Standards Institution. Code of Practice for Maritime Structures. BS6349:
Part 1 to 7, BSI, London.
(ii) Thomas, R.S. & Hall, B. (1992). Seawall Design. Part 7. Construction Industry
Research and Information Association (CIRIA), Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd,
London.
(iii) CIRIA (1986). Seawalls, survey of performance and design practice. Technical
Note No. 125, London.
(iv) Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station

(1984). Shore protection manual, Volumes 1 and 2, 4th edn. Washington.
(v) The Overseas Coastal Area Development institute of Japan (1991). Technical
standards for port and harbour facilities in Japan. Bureau of Ports & Harbours,
Port & Harbour Research Institute, Ministry of Transport, Tokyo (The Overseas
Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan, Tokyo).
(vi) Hong Kong Government Civil Engineering Department (1992). Port works
manual. Design, construction and maintenance.
8.3 Construction Procedures or Methods

Short of any construction specifications for the on-going dredging and/or reclamation
projects, the following comments were based on observations of activities taking place
in the Jakarta Bay per early 2011.
Photo 8.1 shows some on-going filling operations (adjacent to proposed reclamation of
PT. Dwi Marunda Makmur) in the sea taking place from the landside. The fill material
is likely to be land based excavated material, which is a conservation effort relying on
the re-cycling of material that would otherwise have to be disposed of. This is similar to
reclamation projects in Singapore which faces a scarcity of fill material and turns to the
re-use of land based excavated material from the various construction sites. However,
there should be control on the type of fill material to ensure that it does not comprise of
unwanted construction waste or debris or material that cannot be treated during the
ground improvement works.

110
Photo 8.1 Example of on-going filling operations
Photo 8.2 shows a small cutter suction dredger in operation next to the proposed
reclamation of PT. Pembangunan Jaya Ancol. It is observed that the material is being
cut from the seabed and transferred to land via floating pipelines and used for the filling
of bags which are then used for forming the perimeter of the intended reclamation or
development. A study into the soil profiles indicates that the material being dredged out
is sandy clay. The type of material has to be carefully recorded so that the appropriate
ground treatment and criteria can be designed for the area reclaimed using such bags.
Furthermore, the plan seems to indicate that the cutter suction dredger is removing
material within the proposed reclamation zone. This would imply double handling work
as external material would have to be sourced and delivered to replace the cut ground
during reclamation.
Photo 8.2 Cutting with a Small Cutter Suction Dredger on-going March 2011

111
Another consideration related to the observation on the extraction of material from the
seabed for reclamation works is the preservation and allocation of resources. Sandy
material is the most ideal material for reclamation works and should be treated as an
important resource. In most countries, such sandy material is sourced within its own
territorial waters and preserved by the relevant agency/authority for allocation to
various developments. Without such control, there may be rampant extraction of this
material by a certain dredging company with disregard to the environment and resulting
in shortfall of such material for critical developments.
At the proposed reclamation of PT. Pembangunan Jaya Ancol, it was observed that
many bamboo rafts (see Photo 8.3) were constructed. It was understood that the rafts
would then be submerged into the water along the reclamation profile to serve as a
foundation for the construction of the bund used to demarcate the reclamation profile
for subsequent reclamation works. While it may be considered as an innovative method
improvised by the contractor, the use of bamboo rafts will not eliminate the problems
associated with a soft deposit that is left untreated in the ground i.e. slip failure of the
slope and/or excessive settlement along the perimeter of the reclamation, the risk of
which will increase as the rafts inevitably degrade. This problem is already observed
during construction stage when there are many occasions where the bamboo rafts have
floated back onto the surface. For a sustainable development, it is DHI‟s firm opinion
that such a boundary solution should strongly be discouraged.
Photo 8.3 Bamboo Rafts used as an improvised boundary stabilisation method
At the proposed reclamation of PT. Jakarta Propertindo, it was observed that tetrapods
were used extensively to form the perimeter of the reclamation (Photo 8.4) prior to
backfilling. It is not advisable to use tetrapods or similar materials to form as a
temporary bund for the downstream reclamation works as the removal of such materials
may be difficult and time consuming in the event that the profile requires changes. Any
material left behind may become an obstruction to future development on the reclaimed
land. It is recommended to adopt temporary measures such as geobunds or geobags (see
Photo 8.5), which can be reclaimed over if necessary. Rocks or tetrapods may
subsequently be placed over the geobunds or geobags during the construction of the
permanent reclamation boundary.

112
Photo 8.4 Tetrapods along the Reclamation Profile
Photo 8.5 Geobunds or Geobags
Design and construction are so closely linked that the construction procedures have a
significant influence during the planning and design of the dredging and reclamation. In
many cases, the influence of the construction method or procedure is largely economic
rather than of pure technical influence on the design. Nevertheless, one would expect a
contractor to be able to build what has been designed. The problem of construction is in
being sure that the work specified is actually built as intended, and the monitoring of
the construction becomes important. For any developments in Jakarta Bay, provision of
construction guidelines become crucial to ensure that works are carried out to meet
acceptable tolerances, therefore, eliminating costs associated with redundant works,
unreliable methods and failure of completed works.
8.4 Recommendations
Based on the rapid assessment of the engineering aspects of the planning, design and
implementation of the dredging and reclamation, there are three broad categories of
recommendations:
(i) Mapping and quantification of the potential sand source for the proposed coastal
developments at Jakarta Bay
(ii) Detailed review and provision of a Dredging and Reclamation Manual for the
implementation of any coastal developments at Jakarta Bay
(iii) Reclamation Planning Review of the proposed coastal developments at Jakarta

Bay

113
8.4.1 Mapping and Quantification of Sand Source

A competent consultant with relevant experience in sand search should be engaged to
conduct a technical review of the potential sand sources within and around Jakarta Bay
and submit a proposal to the relevant agency or authority for a strategic decision to
proceed with the sand search around the waters off Jakarta Bay, and to evaluate the
location of the possible sand sources, the quantities and qualities of the sand that could
potentially be mined for the proposed coastal developments at Jakarta Bay.
On approval, the competent consultant will prepare technical specifications and

drawings to engage a suitable contractor with relevant experience in the field of
hydrographical and geophysical survey, oceanography and met-ocean data analysis to
study and to interpret the prevailing morphological processes, prevailing current and
wave actions in the sea off Jakarta Bay. The contractor scope of services for the sand
search shall also include the onsite hydrographic and geophysical survey, including
vibro-coring to assess and establish the quantity, quality and location of the sea sand
and other material available for the proposed coastal developments at Jakarta Bay.
8.4.2 Dredging and Reclamation Manual

A competent consultant with relevant planning, design and project management
experience in major dredging and reclamation works should be engaged to draw up a
Dredging and Reclamation Manual that will outline the specification guidance for
method, materials, workmanship, tolerance limits, acceptance criteria for works that are
specific to the proposed coastal developments at Jakarta Bay.
8.4.3 Reclamation Planning Review

A competent consultant with relevant planning, design and project management
experience in major dredging and reclamation works should be engaged to work with
the Master Planner to ascertain the requirements and constraints on the feasibility of the
reclamation profiles for the various coastal developments at Jakarta Bay.
The consultant is to complement the Master Planner and provide technical advisory
services pertaining to reclamation. The study and analysis on the various aspects of the
existing conditions and the surrounding areas should be made to identify the strengths
and weaknesses of the various developments.
The consultant shall also be able to advise on the soil investigation works, wave and
current measurements and hydrographic surveys to be conducted/collected (if
necessary) to ensure that proper reclamation design could be conducted.

114
9 OVERALL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
9.1 Methodology
The overall impacts assessment is carried out using the Rapid Impact Assessment
Matrix (RIAM) methodology, with the key physical impacts derived from the model
results presented in the previous sections. RIAM is a convenient and transparent tool
for documenting the anticipated impacts of the proposed developments over multiple
and dissimilar issues by providing a system of criteria and scales in order to develop
judgements of the impacts for each issue.
The results of the RIAM assessment derived from the present REA can then be used to
focus the subsequent SEA.
Each issue that has been assessed in the preceding chapters of this REA fall into one of
four categories:
 Physical/Chemical: Covering physical and chemical aspects of the environment

including finite (non-biological) natural resources and degradation of the physical
environment by pollution
 Biological/Ecological: Covering biological aspects of the environment, including

renewable natural resources, conservation of bio-diversity, species interactions, and
pollution of the biosphere
 Sociological/Cultural: Covering human aspects of the environment, including

social issues affecting individuals and communities, together with cultural aspects,
including conservation of heritage, and human development
 Economic/Operational: Covering economic consequences of both the project

execution (normally positive benefit) and the environmental change caused by the
project (often negative benefit), both temporary and permanently, as well as the
complexities of project management within the context of the project activities.
These components are evaluated against pre-defined criteria and are converted into a
figure on defined scales, and in turn the RIAM matrix formula converts these into
values within a series of ranges. These scores allow the RIAM to easily display the
results of the assessment and record them with full transparency.
Criteria
In the RIAM analyses, all problems are analysed according to five characteristic
criteria. Two criteria relate to properties that are of importance to the condition (Group
A criteria), and three criteria to properties that are of value to the situation (Group B
criteria).
Group A criteria
Group A criteria are (i) the importance of the condition, which is assessed against the
spatial boundaries, or human interests it will affect; and (ii) the magnitude, which is
115
defined as a measure of the scale of benefit/dis-benefit of an impact or a condition. The

scales for each criterion are given below:
Importance of condition (A1):

4= important to national/international interests (in the present context, Indonesia as a
whole)
3= important to regional/national interests (in the present context, east Java/ Java)
2= important to areas immediately outside the local condition (Jakarta Bay and
immediate surroundings, P. Seribu and hinterland Jakarta)
1= important only to the local condition (within immediate vicinity of the direct impact
area, i.e. development areas)
0= no importance
Magnitude of change/effect (A2):

+3 = significant positive benefit or change
+2 = positive benefit or change
+1 = minor improvement in status quo
0= no change/status quo
-1 = minor negative change to status quo
-2 = negative dis-benefit or change
-3 = significant dis-benefit or change
Group B criteria
Criteria that are of value to the situation are permanence, reversibility and cumulatively:
 Permanence (B1): This defines whether a condition is temporary or permanent, e.g.

an embankment is a permanent condition even if it may one day be breached or
abandoned, whilst a cofferdam is a temporary condition, as it will in the short-term
be removed.
 Reversibility (B2): This defines whether the condition can be changed and is a
measure of the control over the effect of the condition. It should not be confused or
equated with permanence. For example, an accidental toxic spillage into a river is a
temporary condition (B1) but its effect (death of fish) is irreversible (B2). In the
present case, reversibility is also used as an indicator as to the degree of control that
can be provided by the environmental management plan.
 Cumulative (B3): The cumulative property is a measure of whether the effect will
have a single direct impact or whether there will be a cumulative effect over time, or
a synergistic effect with other conditions.
The scale of the criteria that are of value to the situation is shown in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1 The scale of the criteria that are of value to the situation
Score Permanence (B1) Reversibility (B2) Cumulativity (B3)
1 No change/Not applicable
2 Temporary Reversible or controllable Non-cumulative/single
through EMP
3 Permanent Irreversible Cumulative/synergistic

116
Score and Range System

The assessment of the different issues that have been selected for evaluation in the
scoping process gives as result a value, which is ascribed to each of these criteria. By
the use of a simple formula a so-called environmental score (ES) for the individual
components can be calculated.
ES = A1*A2*(B1+B2+B3)
To use the evaluation system described, a matrix is produced for each project option.
The matrix comprises of cells showing the criteria used, set against each defined
component. Within each cell the individual criteria scores are set down. From the
formulae given above each ES number is calculated and recorded. To provide a more
certain system of assessment, the individual ES scores are banded together into ranges
where they can be compared. The ranges cover from a major positive change/impact +
E (5) to similarly negative effect  E (-5) (Table 9.2). Conditions that have neither
importance nor magnitude will score a zero and be banded together. Any condition in
this band is of either no importance, a no change situation or a condition where
potential negative impacts are balanced by positive impacts.
Table 9.2 Range Bands used for RIAM

RIAM Range Value Description of Range Band
Environmental (RV)
Score (ES)
108 to 72 E Major positive change/impact
71 to 36 D Significant positive change/impact
35 to 19 C Moderate positive change/impact
10 to 18 B Minor positive change/impact
1 to 9 A Slight positive change/impact
0 N No Change/Status quo/Not Applicable
-1 to –9 -A Slight negative change/impact
-10 to –18 -B Minor negative change/impact
-19 to –35 -C Moderate negative change/impact
-36 to –71 -D Significant negative change/impact
-72 to –108 -E Major negative change/impact
For a description of the arguments for the score system and its transcription into range
values, see Table 9.2.
9.2 Construction Stage Impact Assessment

The reclamation and marine construction phase covers impacts related to capital
dredging, reclamation and construction works at the Project Site. Additionally, there
will be impacts related to the borrow dredging for reclamation fill material. At present,
no information on potential borrow locations are available, hence this has not been
evaluated in the RIAM matrix. The assessed components and impacts are listed in
Table 9.3.

117
Table 9.3 Environmental impacts during dredging and reclamation phase assessed by the RIAM
Component / Effect
Physical/chemical
P/C1 Suspended sediment plume from dredging and reclamation activity.
P/C2 Siltation of suspended sediments during dredging and reclamation
P/C3 Water pollution due to release of contaminants from dredged material.
P/C4 Water pollution due to runoff, waste water and sewage from construction sites.
P/C5 Noise impacts due to construction activity.
P/C6 Dust pollution from reclamation / construction site.
Biological/ecological
B/E 1 Impacts on fish fauna due to suspended sediments
B/E 2 Impacts on plankton due to suspended sediments
B/E 3 Impacts on benthos due to siltation of suspended sediments
B/E 4 Impacts on mangroves due to siltation of suspended sediments
B/E 5 Direct loss of benthic habitat due to removal by capital dredging
Sociological/cultural
S/C1 Impacts to health and well-being due to increased noise and dust levels.
S/C2 Decreased road safety due to construction traffic.
S/C3 Effects on nearshore navigation safety due to obstruction from dredgers and other machinery.
S/C4 Visual impacts to recreational and resort areas due to suspended sediment plumes.
S/C5 Impacts to fishing activity due to disturbance and physical obstruction of access to fishing grounds.
S/C6 Social impacts due to cultural and other conflicts with potentially non-local labour force.
Economic/operational
E/O1 Impacts to nearshore fishery income due to access difficulties and suspended sediment plumes.
E/O3 Potential increase in employment.
E/O3 Effects on income from spin-off activities surrounding construction
E/O4 Pressure on existing public services due to increased demand.
The significance of each of the above impacts is scored in the RIAM assessment matrix
(Table 9.4) in order to prioritise the issues for further evaluation in the SEA. The
RIAM scoping results are illustrated in Figure 9.1 below, where the bar charts
summarise the number of components falling within each range value for each
environmental sector.
The results show that most impacts fall within range bands -B and -C, which are
described as Minor negative impacts and Moderate negative impacts respectively (see
the “total” chart, Figure 9.1). There is one component assessed as a Significant
negative impact (-D); namely the release of contaminants from dredged material. This
severity rating reflects the potential serious consequences should contaminants be
released in the waters in large amounts.

118
There are also two anticipated Moderate positive impacts (+C), contributed by the
Economic/ Operational sector due to the expected increase in employment and
economic opportunity arising from the construction industry and spinoffs.
Figure 9.1 Results of RIAM analysis for construction phase.

119
Table 9.4 RIAM assessment of construction works.

Components I M P R C ES RV
Physical/Chemical components
P/C 1 Suspended sediment plume from dredging and reclamation 2 -2 2 2 3 -28 -C
activity.
P/C 2 Siltation of suspended sediments during dredging and 2 -2 3 2 3 -32 -C
reclamation
P/C 3 Water pollution due to release of contaminants from dredged 2 -3 2 2 3 -42 -D
material.
P/C 4 Water pollution due to runoff, waste water and sewage from 1 -1 2 2 3 -7 -A
constructions site.
P/C 5 Noise impacts due to construction machinery. 1 -2 2 2 2 -12 -B
P/C 6 Dust pollution from reclamation / construction site. 1 -1 2 2 2 -6 -A
Biological/Ecological components
B/E 1 Impacts on fish fauna due to suspended sediments 2 -2 2 2 3 -28 -C
B/E 2 Impacts on plankton due to suspended sediments 2 -2 2 2 3 -28 -C
B/E 3 Impacts on benthos due to siltation of suspended sediments 2 -1 2 2 3 -14 -B
B/E 4 Impacts on mangroves due to siltation of suspended 2 -1 3 2 3 -16 -B
sediments
Sociological/ Cultural components
S/C 1 Impacts to health and well-being due to increased noise and 2 -1 2 2 2 -12 -B
dust levels.
S/C 2 Decreased road safety due to construction traffic. 1 -2 2 2 2 -12 -B
S/C 3 Effects on nearshore navigation safety due to obstruction from 2 -2 2 2 2 -24 -C
dredgers and other machinery.
S/C 4 Visual impacts to recreational and resort areas due to 2 -2 2 2 2 -24 -C
suspended sediment plumes and construction activity.
S/C 5 Impacts to fishing activity due to disturbance and physical 2 -2 2 2 2 -24 -C
obstruction of access to fishing grounds.
S/C 6 Social impacts due to cultural and other conflicts with 2 -1 2 2 2 -12 -B
potentially non-local labour force.
Economic/Operational components
E/O 1 Impacts to nearshore fishery income due to access difficulties 2 -2 2 2 3 -28 -C
and suspended sediment plumes.
E/O 2 Potential increase in employment. 2 2 2 2 2 24 C
E/O 3 Effects on income from spin-off activities surrounding 2 2 2 2 2 24 C
construction
E/O 4 Pressure on existing public services due to increased demand. 3 -1 2 2 2 -18 -B
Key (refer to Section 0 above for scoring criteria): I = importance; M = magnitude; P = Permanence; R =
Reversibility; C= Cumulativity; ES = Environmental Score; RV = Range Value
9.3 Operations Stage Impact Assessment

The impacts considered at this stage include all permanent impacts arising from the
reclamation works or reclamation footprint, as well as operational impacts. The
assessed components and impacts are listed in Table 9.5.

120
Table 9.5 Environmental impacts during the operational phase assessed by the RIAM.
Component / Effect
Physical/chemical
P/C1 Impacts on shoreline morphology due to reclamation footprint
P/C2 Sedimentation in the reclamation channels and river mouths
P/C3 Backwater/ flooding impacts to the hinterland
P/C4 Reduced water exchange along the existing shoreline
P/C5 Water pollution due to runoff, waste water and sewage from residential, commercial and industrial
operations.
P/C6 Noise impacts during operations (industrial areas)
P/C7 Air emissions during operations (industrial areas)
Biological/ecological
B/E 1 Impacts on marine ecology due to loss of benthic habitat and communities (reclamation footprint)
B/E 2 Impacts on mangroves due to decreased water quality
B/E 3 Impacts to mangrove from changes in hydraulic regime (inundation and salinity)
B/E 4 Impacts on mangroves due to sedimentation / erosion
Sociological/cultural
S/C1 Impact on recreation amenity/aesthetic quality (in particular existing Ancol recreational area
S/C2 Impact on health and safety due to industrial operations
S/C3 Impacts to fishermen due to reduced ease of access to fish landing sites.
S/C4 Impacts due to loss of fishing ground
S/C5 Land traffic impacts
S/C6 Increase in demand for potable water
S/C7 Demographic impacts and social equity
S/C8 Provision of planned housing, infrastructure and amenities on reclaimed areas.
Economic/operational
E/O1 Employment and business opportunities
E/O2 Changes in cost of living for locals
E/O3 Impact on shipping industry – provision of expanded port facilities
E/O4 Impact on fisheries industry - provision/ improvement to fishing ports
E/O5 Impact on tourism industry
E/O6 Impacts on power plants due to thermal recirculation
E/O7 Impacts on oil and gas pipelines at Muara Angke
E/O8 Impacts on subsea telecommunication cable network at Muara Angke
E/O9 Navigation impacts due to increase in vessel movements in the area (port developments)
E/O10 Pressure on existing public services due to increased demand (traffic, water, communications)
The significance of each of the above impacts is scored in the scoping assessment
matrix (Table 9.6) in order to prioritise the issues for further evaluation in the SEA.
The RIAM results are illustrated in Figure 9.2 below, where the bar charts summarise
the number of components falling within each range value for each environmental
sector.

121
The results show that most impacts fall within range bands -B and -C, which are
described as Minor negative impacts and Moderate negative impacts respectively (see
the “total” chart, Figure 9.2). There are three components assessed as a Significant
negative impact (-D); these arise from the following potential impacts:
 P/C 3 – Impacts on water levels and flooding upstream

 P/C 7 – Impact of existing air emissions on future development during operations
 S/C 1 – Impacts on recreation amenity/ aesthetic quality (in particular the existing
Ancol recreation area)
There are also two components from the Economic/Operational sector with potential
Major negative impacts (-E):
 E/O 6 – Impacts on power plants due to thermal plume recirculation

 E/O 7 – Impacts on subsea cables and pipelines at Muara Angke
On the other hand there are a number of positive impacts, namely those related to the
improvement of the port facilities (significant positive benefit) and the anticipated
increase in employment and business opportunities for the local community.
Physical/Chemical Biological/Ecological Sociological/ Cultural Economic/Operational Total
10
9 9 9 9
9
8 8 8 8
8
7 7 7 7
7
6 6 6 6
6
5 5 5 5
5
4 4 4 4
4
3 3 3 3
3
2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0
-E -D-C-B -A N+A+B+C+D+E -E -D -C -B -A N +A+B+C+D+E -E -D-C-B -A N+A+B+C+D+E -E -D-C-B -A N+A+B+C+D+E -E -D -C -B -A N +A+B+C+D+E
Figure 9.2 Results of RIAM analysis for operations phase

122
Table 9.6 RIAM assessment of operations stage.

Components I M P R C ES RV
Physical/Chemical components
P/C 1 Impacts on shoreline morphology due to reclamation footprint 2 -2 3 3 2 -32 -C
P/C 2 Sedimentation of interceptor channel and internal channels 1 -2 3 2 2 -14 -B
P/C 3 Impacts on water levels and flooding in the rivers and
upstream, including consideration of land subsidence 2 -3 3 3 2 -48 -D
P/C 4 Reduced water exchange along the existing shoreline 1 -2 3 3 3 -18 -B
P/C 5 Water quality pollution from runoff, wastewater and sewage
discharges during operations 2 -2 3 2 3 -32 -C
P/C 6 Noise impacts during operations (industrial areas) 1 -1 3 2 3 -8 -A
P/C 7 Air emissions during operations (industrial areas) 2 -3 3 2 3 -48 -D
Biological/Ecological components
B/E 1 Permanent removal of benthic fauna in reclamation footprint 1 -2 3 3 2 -16 -B
B/E 2 Impacts to conservation areas due to reduced water quality 2 -2 3 3 2 -32 -C
B/E 3 Impacts to mangrove habitats from changes in hydraulic
regime (inundation and salinity) 2 -2 3 2 2 -28 -C
B/E 4 Impacts to mangroves due to sedimentation 2 -1 3 2 2 -14 -B
Sociological/ Cultural components
Impact on recreation amenity/aesthetic quality (in particular
S/C 1 existing Ancol recreational area 2 -3 3 3 2 -48 -D
S/C 2 Impact on health and safety due to industrial operations 1 -1 3 3 2 -8 -A
Impacts to fishermen due to reduced ease of access to fish
S/C 3 landing sites. 2 -2 3 2 2 -28 -C
S/C 4 Impacts due to loss of fishing ground 1 -1 3 3 2 -16 -B
S/C 5 Land traffic impacts 2 -2 3 3 2 -32 -C
S/C 6 Increase in demand for potable water 2 -1 3 2 3 -16 -B
S/C 7 Demographic impacts and social equity 2 1 3 2 2 14 B
Provision of planned housing, infrastructure and amenities on
S/C 8 reclaimed areas. 2 2 3 2 2 28 C
Economic/Operational components
E/O 1 Employment and business opportunities 2 2 2 2 2 24 C
E/O 2 Changes in cost of living for locals 2 -1 2 2 2 -12 -B
Impact on shipping industry - provision of expanded port
E/O 3 facilities 3 3 3 3 2 72 D
Impact on fisheries industry - provision/ improvement to fishing
E/O 4 ports 2 2 3 3 2 32 C
E/O 5 Impact on tourism industry 2 1 3 3 2 16 B
E/O 6 Impacts on power plants due to thermal recirculation 3 -3 3 3 2 -72 -E
Impacts on oil and gas pipelines and telecommunications
E/O 7 cables at Muara Angke 3 -3 3 3 2 -72 -E
Navigation impacts due to increase in vessel movements in
E/O 8 the area (port developments) 2 -1 3 3 2 -16 -B
Pressure on existing public services due to increased demand
E/O 9 (traffic, water, communications) 3 -1 3 3 2 -24 -C
Key (refer to Section 1.1 above for scoring criteria): I = importance; M = magnitude; P = Permanence; R
= Reversibility; C= Cumulativity; ES = Environmental Score; RV = Range Value

123
10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
10.1 Overview of Key Issues

The REA provides an initial overview of the potential key impacts associated with the
proposed reclamation development in Jakarta Bay. Although the level of detail of the
REA is limited, coupled with DHI‟s experience in environmental assessment of coastal
reclamation projects, it forms an adequate basis for identification of key environmental
issues associated with the proposed developments.
It is clear from the REA that there has been, to date, only limited attempts to develop a
common optimised strategy for the overall development. This is likely a consequence of
individual developers being given individual reclamation parcels and the absence of a
Strategic Environmental Assessment addressing overall cumulative impacts. This has
resulted in the following main areas of concern:
 Land use conflicts between exiting uses and planned future uses.
This could be addressed by a unified land use planning exercise for the entire
development. In DHI‟s opinion this will add significant value the proposed
developments as the present un-coordinated plan does not capitalise on the potential
benefits that could be gained from such major reclamation projects in terms of
overall development of the Jakarta Bay area.
 Direct and indirect impacts to key existing infrastructure (pipelines and cables) and
industries (power stations).
The presence of existing infrastructure under the reclamation profiles is a significant
concern which must be addressed either by profiling the reclamations or relocation
of the infrastructure (costly). Clear impacts to the existing power station intakes
have been identified as part of the REA and for those power stations immediately
west of Pantai Mutiara the level of impact (sediment ingress during construction,
thermal re-circulation and long-term sedimentation) is deemed critical to the
operation of the existing facilities. Given the importance of these facilities to the
power supply in Jakarta, detailed assessment of these potential impacts and
subsequent optimisation of the reclamation profiles to address these impacts, which
may require significant profiling of the adjacent reclamations are considered
essential. Without such an assessment and optimisation exercise, DHI would
classify the PT Muara Wises development (as proposed) as unworkable.
 Non-optimised profiles in terms of potential impacts to hinterland flooding,

sedimentation and water quality.
Overall there has been no exercise to optimise profiles to minimize (mitigate)
hinterland flooding, sedimentation and flushing (water quality). Given the potential
impacts identified as part of the REA, such an overall optimisation exercise is
considered essential. In the absence of such optimisation, DHI is of the opinion that
there are considerable environmental risks associated with some of the
developments as proposed.

124
 Existing AMDAL assessments have focussed on long-term project impacts. Impacts

associated with the construction process have not been addressed.
Given the proximity of extensive nearshore fisheries activity and power station
intakes amongst other environmental receptors, the absence of a detailed assessment
of process impact assessment is a significant concern. Although such impacts can be
effectively managed during construction, it is vital that assessment and
identification of required mitigation measures is undertaken before the construction
tender to ensure that the physical works will manage and mitigate the construction
process impacts.
10.2 Impact Summary

The previous section provides an overview of the four key issues identified by the REA.
These are addressed further in the following sub-sections, in terms of isolated
construction and operational impact vectors, together with the other impact vectors that
have been classified either as Moderate (-C), Significant (-D) or Major (-E) via the
RIAM process presented in Section 9.
It is noted that, as described in Section 3, the scope of the REA is primarily confined to
physical, chemical and biological issues affecting the feasibility of the proposed
developments. Some of the key strategic issues identified by the KLHS process
(Section 3.3) are not addressed within the scope of the REA and thus not highlighted in
the impact summary presented below. This is not to imply that the other strategic issues
are not relevant and they should certainly be a component of the subsequent SEA.
However, from a feasibility and optimisation perspective the issues identified in the
following will form the most critical components of the SEA.
10.2.1 Construction Phase

1. Water pollution due to the release of contaminants during dredging
This is considered a major concern due to documented levels of sediment
contamination and the proximity of marine aquaculture fisheries. The concern is
highest for those developments requiring capital or sand key dredging and in
particular Tanjung Priok Port development and Tarumanegara Port. If channel
dredging is deemed necessary between the various developments and the shoreline
in order to mitigate sedimentation and hinterland flooding impact the risks of
contaminated sediment plume impact will be significantly increased. The effects of
contaminant release may be minimised through operational control (restricted
overflow and safe disposal) and mitigation measures should be enforced via a strict
environmental monitoring and management plan included monitoring of bio-
accumulation in the nearest fisheries area.
2. Suspended sediment plumes and siltation during dredging and reclamation

Suspended sediment plume impact has been identified as a key impact vector from
all proposed reclamation projects and one that has been inadequately quantified in
all AMDAL submissions to date. Although sediment plume impacts must be
assessed and managed for all projects, the key projects of concern are PT Muara
Wisesa Samuders (due to the proximity to power station intakes), PT Manggala

125
Krida Yudha (due to proximity to power station intakes), Tanjung Priok Port due to
proximity to power station intakes and fisheries), PT Kawassan Berikat Nusantara
and PT Dwi Marunda Makmur (due to proximity to power station intakes and
fisheries). If channel dredging is deemed necessary between the various
developments and the shoreline in order to mitigate sedimentation and hinterland
flooding impact the risks of sediment plume impact will be significantly increased.
The sediment spill may be minimised through operational control (spill budget
control plus physical protection measures where required) and mitigation measures
should be enforced via a strict environmental monitoring and management plan
including turbidity monitoring at key receptor sites. For parallel development,
consideration of cumulative impacts is considered critical.
3. Impacts on nearshore navigation and fishing activity due to operation of

construction plant
Construction equipment will inevitably lead to some interference with existing
nearshore navigation. Uncontrolled, such activities will pose a safety hazard.
Mitigation via enforcement of clearly demarcated work area boundaries with
adequate lighting of boundaries and construction plan according to prevailing
international guidelines will serve to minimise the risk to nearshore navigation. All
contractors shall be required to undertake a formal safety assessment according to
IMO guidelines for approval of risk mitigating measures prior to start of
construction. Based on observations on site in 2011, such risk mitigation measures
are presently not in place for on-going construction.
4. Impacts to fishermen’s income owing to access difficulty, loss of fishing

grounds and plume impacts resulting in lower fish catch
This impact is a consequence of items 1 to 3. Without control, the impacts of 1 to 3
on the nearshore fisheries in Jakarta Bay may be moderate. However, given the
control measures highlighted plus adequate public and stakeholder consultation,
impacts to fisheries and fishermen‟s income can be effectively mitigated.
10.2.2 Operation Phase
1. Impacts on water levels and upstream flooding

The REA has indicated that this is a significant threat associated with all
developments with the exception of Tanjung Priok Port and the eastern component
of the PT Maggala Krida Yudha development. Although the REA has indicated that
risks in the western sector of Jakarta Bay are lower than the east, due to the rapid
nature of the REA assessment it is not clear whether this finding is an artefact of
data availability, choice of storm scenario or real. It is thus DHI‟s opinion that the
risk to upstream flooding is also present for the western developments to a level that
further assessment as part of the SEA should be undertaken for both the west and
eastern sector developments. The REA has demonstrated that the impact to water
levels and thus upstream flooding may be mitigated by pre-emptive dredging of the
drainage outlets and optimisation of the reclamation boundary channels.
Optimisation of the reclamation boundaries and dimensions of such dredging should
be undertaken as part of the SEA including assessment of the secondary impact
vectors such dredging will introduce (increased sediment spill and contaminant
release). Given the severe consequences on hinterland flooding that any backwater
impact associated with the reclamation may have, the assessment of water level

126
impact shall be carried out by a linked marine and hinterland flood model, with the
marine component of the assessment carried out using a 3-dimensional model due to
the effects of density differences between the river discharge and the prevailing
marine waters which can be expected to affect the performance of certain mitigating
measures.
2. Aesthetic impacts and impact on recreational park at Ancol

The existing recreational area at Ancol is broadly dependent on its coastal location.
Reclamation in front of the existing development will reduce the existing value of
this recreational area. This may, however, be mitigated by appropriate land use
planning in the new PT Pembangunan Jaya Ancol development to enhance the value
of the existing facilities.
3. Impacts on power plant operations due to thermal recirculation

The REA has indicated significant re-circulation and sedimentation risks to all
power stations in the area and in particularly the PLTU & PLTGU power plants
west of the Pantai Mutiara development. Detailed 3-dimensional assessment of the
thermal impact of the proposed PT Muara Wisesa Samudera and PT Jakarta
Propertindo developments is therefore required and reconfiguration of the
boundaries of these developments is expected to be required in order to mitigate
thermal impacts to acceptable levels. Detailed assessment of re-circulation for the
other power plants is also recommended.
4. Impacts on subsea pipelines and cables

This impact may only be mitigated via relocation of the existing services or via
major realignment of the affected reclamations. This must be taken into account in
the economic models of the developments effected.
5. Impacts on shoreline morphology

The proposed developments lead to considerable morphological impacts, the most
significant of which concerns sedimentation east of the PT Dwi Marunda Makmur
development in the proximity of the existing power station intake and proposed
Tarumanegara Port. In DHI‟s opinion, based on the results of the present REA the
conflicts between the PT Dwi Marunda Makmur development and existing power
station and proposed Tarumanegara Port require significant re-configuration of the
PT Dwi Marunda Makmur development. Other morphological impacts of concern
are increased suspended sediment concentrations in fishery areas (see item 8) and
sedimentation in the separation channels between the reclamation and existing
shoreline. This is particularly critical in the proximity of river discharges and
existing power stations. This sedimentation will require regular maintenance in
order to prevent sediment build up, which will have secondary consequences on
power station sediment ingress and cooling water flow, water quality and backwater
levels (i.e. flood risk) in the various rivers, drains and canals discharging into the
bay. Such periodic maintenance of sedimentation must be built into the economic
models of the various reclamations and pre-emptive deepening of the channels
between the reclamation and the shoreline and between the reclamation should be
considered. This is in line with the recommendations associated with mitigation of
hinterland flood impact (see item 1) and power station impacts (see item 3) and will
provide a buffer to allow an manageable maintenance dredging frequency and will

127
also facilitate the use of more efficient floating equipment for the maintenance
works.
6. Impacts on water quality due to reduced flushing combined with increased

loading from the residential, commercial and industrial operations on the
reclaimed land.
The REA has raised considerable concern relating to reduced flushing of the
nearshore waters, particularly in the central development area between Tanjung
Priok Port and the existing Fishing Port of Muara Baru. This has numerous
secondary consequences, not only in terms of recirculation, but more generally in
terms of declining water quality, which will affect the economic value of the
developments and also pose a risk to human health and fisheries. Water quality and
eutrophication impact of the development plan (including intermediate stages) must
therefore be a key focus of the SEA leading to overall optimisation of channel
dimensions. In this context it is noted that although channel dimensions are
regulated by presidential decree, good reclamation planning will also investigate
options with land joined sectors to strategically block and channel hinterland
pollution sources.
7. Impacts on remnant mangroves (conservation area) owing to changes in water

quality, hydrological conditions and sedimentation
This impact is most prominent in relation to the protected forest at Muara Angke.
Even with the provision for a 200m wide separation channel between the existing
shoreline and the adjacent reclamations (PT Kapuk Naga Indah and PT Jakarta
Propertindo) the REA indicates significant changes in retention time which can be
expected to result in declining habitat quality. Design optimisation is required for
these two developments, plus a detailed assessment of habitat impacts as part of the
SEA (as the impact is associated with more than one developer).
8. Impacts on fishermen (loss of fishing grounds, access to fish landing areas,

long-term turbidity impacts)
Long-term impacts to fishermen are expected from several vectors. In particular the
eastern developments of PT Dwi Marunda Makmur and PT Kawasa Berikat
Nusantara and the eastern most of the PT Tangerang International City
developments directly impact known fisheries areas (lift net and mussel culture).
These are direct landuse conflicts that can only be mitigated either via compensation
or re-configuration of the reclamation plan. Other impact vectors include
interference with navigation to existing fish landing sites and turbidity impacts due
to current amplification around the outer face of the reclamation profiles (PT Dwi
Marunda Makmur and PT Tangerang International City).
9. Land traffic impacts

This has not been assessed as part of the REA, but given present traffic congestion
levels in much of the study area, traffic impacts associated with the key
developments (including intermediate development phases) are a key concern to be
addressed in detail by the SEA.

128
10. Pressure on infrastructure and services (water, sewage, communications, etc.)

This has not been assessed as part of the REA, but given present pressure on
infrastructure in the Jakarta area, infrastructure impacts are a key concern to be
addressed in detail by the SEA.
11. Air emissions during operations (increased shipping, power stations, etc.)
This has not been assessed as part of the REA, however given the proximity of the
expanded Tg. Priok Port and existing air pollution sources to planned residential
and recreational areas, air quality impacts are a key concern to be addressed in
detail by the SEA.
10.3 Project Assessment

Figure 10.1 to Figure 10.10 provide a detailed overview of the key environmental
receptors in each development area in relation to the proposed development. In
addition, each figure provides a qualitative assessment of the key environmental
impacts and issues associated with each development based on the results of the REA
coupled with DHI‟s experience. Each identified issue is ranked in terms of level of
concern from red (High risk impact vector and difficult to mitigate without significant
reconfiguration of the reclamation), through orange (moderate risk impact vector) to
blue (lower risk impact vector). Clearly given the level of detail of the REA, the
presented assessment shall only be considered an estimate or opinion on these project
specific impacts, however, this assessment serves as a guide for defining the scope of
subsequent detailed project specific impact assessment and optimisation studies.
Finally it is noted that the project assessment presented in Figure 10.1 to Figure 101.10
indicates that the impacts associated with the PT. Manggala Krida Yudha and PT.
Pelindo Tanjung Priok Port developments are relatively low compared to the other
proposed developments. Although both developments would benefit from
environmental optimisation, DHI does not see any significant environmental constraints
in terms of proceeding with these developments provided the key issues identified in
Figure 10.7 and Figure 10.8 are quantified and addressed during the detailed design and
implementation phase.

129
Key Potential Environmental Impacts
Conflict between existing submarine cable

and western island
Sediment plume impact to degraded coral
reefs around nearshore islands
Sediment plume impacts to existing
fisheries areas
Direct footprint impact to a large existing
fisheries area
Backwater impact affecting flood levels of
rivers discharging in development area
Sedimentation impact affecting existing
fishing bases
Sedimentation impact affecting river mouth
stability and thus affecting flood levels of
rivers discharging in the development area
and those rivers immediately adjacent to
the development area
General decline in water quality between
existing shoreline and the reclamation
Figure 10.1 Key environmental issues associated with Tangerang International City (Eastern reclamation parcels in isolation)

130
Sediment plume impact to degraded coral

reefs around nearshore islands
fisheries areas
fishing bases
Conflict between preservation of Muara
Angke protected forest/wildlife reserve and
central and eastern development
Figure 10.2 Key environmental issues associated with PT. Kapuk Naga Indah development (in isolation)

131
Sediment plume impact to existing power

station intakes
fisheries areas
Sediment plume impacts to aesthetic water
quality around existing residential area
Thermal recirculation impact on existing
power stations
Sedimentation impact on existing power
stations
fishing bases
Figure 10.3 Key environmental issues associated with PT Jakarta Propertindo development (in isolation)
Conflict between preservation of Muara
Angke protected forest/wildlife reserve and
development

132

station intakes
quality around existing residential area
Thermal recirculation impact on existing
power stations
Sedimentation impact on existing power
stations
Conflict between existing submarine
pipelines and reclamation footprint
Incompatibility between existing industrial
land use and planned land use
fishing bases
Figure 10.4 Key environmental issues associated with PT. Muara Wisesa Samudera & PT. Bhakti Bangun Eramulia General decline in water quality between
development (in isolation) existing shoreline and the reclamation

133

station intakes
quality around existing residential and
recreational areas
Conflict between existing submarine cable
and reclamation footprint
fishing bases
Figure 10.5 Key environmental issues associated with PT. Jaladri Eka Paksi development (in isolation)

134

quality around existing residential and
recreational area
pipelines/cables and reclamation footprint
Incompatibility between existing industrial
land use and planned land use for western
development
fishing bases and marina
Figure 10.6 Key environmental issues associated with PT. Pembangunan Jaya Ancol development (in isolation)

135
Sediment plume impacts to existing power

station intakes
Sediment plume impact on existing fisheries
area east of Tanjung Priok
quality around existing recreational area
pipelines/cables and reclamation footprint
for western reclamation parcel
port facility
Figure 10.7 Key environmental issues associated with PT. Manggala Krida Yudha development (in isolation)

136

station intakes
area
Contaminated sediment plume impact
associated with capital/sand key dredging
(required for port frontage) to existing
fisheries area
Direct footprint impact to existing fisheries
area
port facility and fishing bases
Figure 10.8 Key environmental issues associated with PT. Pelindo Tanjung Priok Port development (in isolation)

137

station intake
area
Thermal recirculation impact to existing
power station intake
area
Sedimentation impact to existing power
station intake
Figure 10.9 Key environmental issues associated with PT. Kawasan Berikat Nusantara development (in isolation)

138

station intake
area
Conflict between planned development
boundary and planned Port of
Tarumanegara
Thermal recirculation impact to existing
power station intake
area
Sedimentation impact to existing power
station intake
Figure 10.10 Key environmental issues associated with PT. Dwi Marunda Makmur development (in isolation)

139
11 REFERENCES
Afdal dan Sumijo Hadi Riyono (2008). Sebaran Klorofil-A dan Hubungannya Dengan
Eutrofikasi di Perairan Teluk Jakarta. Oseanologi dan Limnologi di Indonesia 34(3):
333-351.
Anthony, K.R.N., and Connolly S.R. (2004). “Environmental limits to growth:

physiological niche boundaries of corals along turbidity–light gradients”. Oecologia
141:373–384.
Arifin, Z., T. Susana, P. Purwati, R. Muchsin, D. Hindarti, S. Hadi Riyono, A. Rozak,

E. Matondang, N. Farida. (2003). Ekosistem Teluk Jakarta dan Produktivitas. Draf
Laporan Riset Kompetitif Jabopunjur. Puslit Oseanografi – LIPI.
Arifin, Z. 2004. Local Millenium Ecosystem Assessment: Condition and Trend of the
Greater Jakarta Bay Ecosystem. Report prepared by the Research Centre for
Oceanography – LIPI. Submitted to Assistant Deputy for Coastal and Marine
Ecosystems. The Ministry of Environment, Republic of Indonesia
Astawa N., Kamiludin U., Kusnida D. (1996), Potensi dan Evaluasi Geologi dan
Wilayah Pantai Perairan Teluk Jakarta dan Sekitarnya DKI Jakarta
BPLHD (2006) Provinsi DKI Jakarta.
Bryce, S.M., Larcombe, P. & Ridd, P.V. (2003). “Hydrodynamic and geomorphological
controls on suspended sediment transport in mangrove creek systems, a case study:
Cocoa Creek, Townsville, Australia”. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 56: 415–
431.
Cooper T.F., Uthicke, S., Humphrey, C. and Fabricius, K.E. (2007). “Gradients in water
column nutrients, sediment parameters, irradiance and coral reef development in the
Whitsunday Region, central Great Barrier Reef”. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
74: 458 – 470.
Damar A. (2003). Effects of enrichment on nutrient dynamics, phytoplankton dynamics

and productivity in Indonesian tropical waters: a comparison between Jakarta Bay,
Lampung Bay and Semangka Bay. PhD thesis. Kiel: Christian-Albrechts Universität.
DHI (1997). Bali Turtle Island Development Feedback Monitoring of Marine

Construction Works. Final report prepared for Penta Ocean Construction Co. Ltd. May
1997.
Doorn-Groen, S.M. (2007). “Environmental Monitoring and Management of

Reclamation Works Close to Sensitive Habitats”. Terra et Aqua, 108:3–18.
Driscoll, A.M. Foster, T., Rand, P. and Tateishi, Y. (1997). Environmental Modelling
and Management of Marine Construction Works in Tropical Environment, 2nd ASIAN

140
and Australian Ports and Harbours Conference organised by the Eastern Dredging
Association, Vietnam.
Duarte, C.M. (1991). “Seagrass Depth Limits”. Aquatic Botany 40: 363-377.
Fabricius, K.E. (2005). “Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of corals and coral
reefs: review and synthesis”. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 125 – 146.
Fabricius, K.E, Golbuo, Y., Victor, S. (2007). “Selective mortality in coastal reef
organisms from an acute sedimentation event”. Coral Reefs, 26, 69.
Furukawa, K., Wolanski, E., Muller, H. (1997). “Currents and sediment transport in
mangrove forests”. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 44, pp 301-310
Gilmour J.P., Cooper T.F., Fabricius K.E. and Smith L.D. (2006). Early warning
indicators of change in the condition of corals and coral communities in response to key
anthropogenic stressors in the Pilbara, Western Australia: Executive Summary and
Future Recommendations. Environmental Protection Authority, Western Australia.
Hasannuddin, Z. Abidin, Djaja, R., Darmawan, D., Hadi, S., Akbar, A., Rajiyowiryono,
H., Sudibyo, Y., Meilano, I., Kasuma, MA, Kahar, J and Subarya, C. (2001) Land
Subsidence of Jakarta (Indonesia) and its Geodetic Monitoring System. Natural Hazards
23: 365 – 387
Hawker, D.W. and Connell, D.W. (1992). “Standards and Criteria for Pollution Control
in Coral Reef Areas”. Chapter 7 of Pollution in Tropical Aquatic Systems. CRC Press.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Climate Change 2007 –

Synthesis Report.
Jensen, K. (ed). (1998). Environmental Impact Assessment Using the rapid Impact
Assessment Matrix (RIAM). Olsen & Olsen, Denmark.
Kathiresan, K. (2003). “How do mangroves induce sedimentation?” Revista de

Biologia. Tropical. 51(2): 355-360.
LIPI (1997) Giyanto & Sukarno. Perbandingan komunitas terumbu karang pada dua
kedalaman dan empat zona yang berbeda di pulau-pulau seribu, Jakarta. Pusat
Pengembangan dan Penelitian Oseanologi. Jakarta.
LIPI (2010) Hermanlimianto, J.I.T. Kondisi terumbu karang di Kepulauan Seribu

bagian selatan Teluk Jakarta periode 1985-2009. Pusat Pengembangan dan Penelitian
Oseanologi,: Dinamika ekosistem perairan Kepulauan Seribu. Jakarta.
Ongkosongo, O.S.R. (1980). Pola pertumbuhan pantai di Jawa. PIT IAGI ke IX,
Yogyakarta: 22 p
Paling, E.I., Humphreys G. & McCardle, I. (2003). “The effect of a harbour

development on mangroves in north-western Australia”. Wetlands Ecology and
Management 54: 281–290.

141
Pardjaman, D., (1977). "Akresi dan abrasi pantai Teluk Jakarta disebabkan oleh kondisi
fisik dan sosial," in Teluk Jakarta: 83106.
PIANC (2010). Report 108-2010, Dredging and Port Construction Around Coral Reefs,
The World Association of Waterborne Transport Infrastructure.
Pusat Penelitian Oseanografi, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (P2O-LIPI)

(2003), Oceanography Research Centre – Indonesian Institute of Science. Kondisi
lingkungan perairan Teluk Jakarta dan sekitarnya
Semeniuk, V.C. (1980). “Mangrove zonation along an eroding coastline in King Sound,
north-western Australia”. Journal of Ecology 68: 789–812.
Siringoringo, R.M. (2010) Coral reef condition and coral recruitment capability in
Jakarta Bay, Indonesia. Poster presentation on Proceeding ESABII and NaGiSA Joint
Conference in Commemoration of the CBD COP10, Nagoya. Nagoya University,
Japan.
Suyarso. (1995) . Atlas Oseanologi Teluk Jakarta. Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan

Indonesia Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Oseanologi (P2O LIPI), Jakarta, 160 pp.
Taursuman A.A. (2007). Community structure, clearance rate, and carrying capacity of
macrozoobenthos in relation to organic matter in Jakarta Bay and Lampung Bay,
Indonesia. [Dissertation]. Kiel University, Kiel, Germany
Taurusman, A.A. (2010). Community structure of macrozoobenthic feeding guilds in

responses to eutrophication in Jakarta Bay. Biodiversitas 11(3):133-138.
Terrados, J., Tampahnya, U., Srichai, N., Kheowvongsri, P., Geertz-Hanzen, O.,
Borromthanarath, S., Panapitukkul, N. and Duarte, C.M. (1997). “The effect of
increased sediment accretion on the survival and growth of Rhizophora apiculata
seedlings”. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 45, 697-701.
Thampanya, U., Vermaat, J.E., Terrados, J. (2002). “The Effect of Increasing Sediment
Accretion on the Seedlings of Three Common Thai Mangrove Species”. Aquatic
Botany 74: 315-325.
Verstappen. T. H. (1953) DJakarta Bay. A Geomorphological Study on Shoreline

Development.
Wolanski, E. (1995). “Transport of sediment in mangrove swamps”. Hydrobiologia

295: 31-42.

Jakarta Bay REA Compressed Jury Et Al.

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Jakarta Bay REA Compressed Jury Et Al.

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Rapid Environmental

Assessment for Coastal

Client Client's representative

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mogens Staarup

Rapid Environmental Assessment in Jakarta Bay SG 5349

Matthew Jury 02 June 2011

2 Draft Rapid Environmental Assessment SPA MJJ TMF 02.06.2011

1 Draft Rapid Environmental Assessment SPA MJJ TMF 19.04.2011

Revision Description By Checked Approved Date

Key words Classification

Environmental Impact Assessment Open

Distribution Number of copies

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Digital 1

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

2 PROPOSED PROJECTS AND PLANNING................................................................... 3

4 BASELINE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 17

5 TOLERANCE LIMITS .................................................................................................. 54

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

8 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 103

9 OVERALL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 114

10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 123

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

Figure 1.1 Project Area – Jakarta Bay

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

2 PROPOSED PROJECTS AND PLANNING

2.1 Description of Proposed Projects

PT. Tangerang International City (TIC)

PT. Kapuk Niaga Indah (KNI)

PT. Jakarta Propertindo

PT. Muara Wisesa Samudera and PT. Bhakti Bangun Eramulia

PT. Jaladri Kartika Ekapaksi

PT. Pembangunan Jaya Ancol (PJA)

PT. Manggala Krida Yudha

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

Figure 2.1 Developments Jakarta Bay

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

PT. Kawasan Berikat Nusantara (KBN)

PT. Dwi Marunda Makmur

Figure 2.2 Corrections made to PT TIC

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

Figure 2.3 Tarumanegara Port

2.2 Existing Master Plan

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

Figure 2.4 RTRW North Jakarta

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

Figure 2.5 Proposed land uses on some of the reclaimed island

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

Figure 2.6 Transportation Proposal for North Jakarta

2.3 Broad Assessment on Planning Aspects of the Project

Four key issues are highlighted as follow:

(ii) The inconsistencies of proposed plans and the ground situation

(iii) The existing incompatible land uses along Jakarta Bay

(iv) Implementation Strategy

2.3.1 Creating an Attractive Waterfront Development

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

Figure 3.4 Singapore Marina Bay

SG5349-02/Rapid Environmental Assessment Jakarta Bay/tmf/06-11

2.3.2 Inconsistencies of Proposed Plans and Ground Situation

2.3.3 Existing Incompatible Land Uses along Jakarta Bay

 PT. Asahi Mas Glass factory (air pollution)

 Existing protected forest at Muara Angke

 Existing undersea cables and utilities