- Page 1 and 2: BEN SCHOEMAN DOCK BERTH DEEPENING S
- Page 3: the test organisms. The EC 5 is usu
- 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 and 104:
The evaluation with mitigation is:
- Page 105 and 106:
Figure 29a: Predicted exceedance in
- 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