BEN SCHOEMAN DOCK BERTH DEEPENING Specialist ... - Transnet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

egional, national and international implications (national legislation and international conventions) Duration – Short to Long term to permanent. The duration of elevated turbidity may be short but possible deleterious effects at the local population level could be long term to permanent because of small population size. Intensity – Medium Probability – Improbable Status of impact – Negative Degree of confidence – Low; there are no explicit links between turbidity, foraging success and population level effects Significance – Very Low, due to small area affected and probable turbid plume dissipation rates. Mitigation – Essential under any interpretation of the application of the precautionary principle embodied in NEMA and the Biodiversity Conservation Act of 2002: Possible mitigation is to ensure that there is no chronic build up of turbidity in the area of the dredge spoil dump site(s) through allowing sufficient time for turbidity dispersal between dump events. Under this mitigation scenario the impact evaluation is: Nature of impact – Dredge spoil disposal may compromise environmental conditions in important areas for penguins foraging in Table Bay by increasing water turbidity above 10mg/l for short intervals in the vicinity of the dredge spoil dump site(s) compromising penguin foraging activities Extent – Local Duration – Short Intensity – Low Probability – Improbable Status of impact – Negative Degree of confidence – Low Significance – Insignificant, due to small area affected and rapid turbid plume dissipation rates. Impact Assessment Table No Mitigation Mitigation Local 1 Low 1 Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Local Medium Shortterm Low Improbable Very Low -ve Low 1 3 5 1 Shortterm 1 Very Low 3 Improbable INSIGNIFICANT -ve Low 95
Figure 29a: Predicted exceedance in days of surface layer 10mg/l suspended sediment concentrations associated with dredge spoil dumping at site #1. (Cutter Suction dredger; copied from Figure B.1.1 in Van Ballegooyen et al., 2006) 96
Page 1 and 2:
BEN SCHOEMAN DOCK BERTH DEEPENING S
Page 3 and 4:
the test organisms. The EC 5 is usu
Page 5 and 6:
Turbidity Upwelling Vulnerable Wrac
Page 7 and 8:
Another important issue is the poss
Page 9 and 10:
6.2.1.3 Settlement of material susp
Page 11 and 12:
2 METHODOLOGY For the assessment tw
Page 13 and 14:
The proposed deepening of the Ben S
Page 15 and 16:
4.3 Cumulative effects Table Bay re
Page 17 and 18:
undetectable in 80% of the measurem
Page 19 and 20:
5.1.3 Biological communities The ma
Page 21 and 22:
Supralittoral fringe (Littorina zon
Page 23 and 24:
Niambia sp. Coleoptera Diptera Tylo
Page 25 and 26:
Midlittoral zone - The intertidal o
Page 27 and 28:
Fish - Nearshore and in the sandy b
Page 29 and 30:
2000 at Robben Island revealed furt
Page 31 and 32:
Table 2: Common whales and dolphins
Page 33 and 34:
Table 3: Site, time, mean count (co
Page 35 and 36:
150000 125000 100000 Kg 75000 50000
Page 37 and 38:
sensitive because of its conservati
Page 39 and 40:
Schoeman Dock occurred in 1971 (Pro
Page 41 and 42:
Table 7: Hydrocarbon distributions
Page 43 and 44:
care concentration ranges for cadmi
Page 45 and 46:
SS mg/l Boxplot for TSS 80 60 40 20
Page 47 and 48:
The mean values calculated above ar
Page 49 and 50:
o o possibility of the dredge spoil
Page 51 and 52:
The gravel sized component of the s
Page 53 and 54: Table 12a: London Convention Annex
Page 55 and 56: Benthos distributions in Block #1 -
Page 57 and 58: 40 40 30 Site 1A 30 Site 1B % Speci
Page 59 and 60: 2 Cluster Dendrogram and MDS ordina
Page 61 and 62: the well developed ripples in the c
Page 63 and 64: 6 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSM
Page 65 and 66: Accordingly the potential environme
Page 67 and 68: Impact Assessment Table No Mitigati
Page 69 and 70: are summarised in the table and it
Page 71 and 72: Figure 21b: Predicted number of day
Page 73 and 74: considered to be low. Further, the
Page 75 and 76: A A B B B Figure 23a and b: Predict
Page 77 and 78: dependent on these include the harm
Page 79 and 80: structures. The apparent lack of su
Page 81 and 82: Diving birds such as cape cormorant
Page 83 and 84: Figure 24: The predicted worst case
Page 85 and 86: Figure 25 depicts the simulation mo
Page 87 and 88: 6.2.3.2 Alteration of benthic biolo
Page 89 and 90: Impact Assessment Table No Mitigati
Page 91 and 92: Nature of impact - Turbid plumes of
Page 93 and 94: Figure 26b: Predicted worst case ex
Page 95 and 96: Figure 27b: Predicted worst case ex
Page 97 and 98: suspended sediment concentrations i
Page 99 and 100: Figure 28a: Dredge spoil dump site
Page 101 and 102: 6.2.3.6 Elevated water column turbi
Page 103: The evaluation with mitigation is:
Page 107 and 108: 6.3 Cumulative Impacts The proposed
Page 109 and 110: Impact summary Table (cont.) Impact
Page 111 and 112: Impact summary Table (cont.) Impact
Page 113 and 114: mitigated by ensuring that the Cutt
Page 115 and 116: operations at Coega Port. Prepared
Page 117 and 118: Glassom D., K. Prochazka and G.M. B
Page 119 and 120: Protekon 2006. Port of Cape Town co
show all

BEN SCHOEMAN DOCK BERTH DEEPENING Specialist ... - Transnet

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?