BEN SCHOEMAN DOCK BERTH DEEPENING Specialist ... - Transnet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 8: London Convention (LC) Annex 1 and Annex 2 trace metal concentrations in sediments drawn from vibrocore borehole cores taken from the Ben Schoeman Dock Basin. Blue indicates exceedance of special care range lower threshold. Sample Id Sample Depth in m Al As Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn in in in in in in in mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg in mg/kg in mg/kg B1 0.4 - 0.55 21087 7.4 0.8 36.2 28.4
SS mg/l Boxplot for TSS 80 60 40 20 0 BSB BST DDB Figure 8: Suspended sediment (SS) concentrations measured in the Port of Cape Town at ~4 monthly intervals from September 2005 to September 2006. The measurement sites were Ben Schoeman Dock (BS), Duncan Dock (DD), the synchro-lift area of the Victoria/Alfred Basin (VA) and the entrance to the Royal cape Yacht Club (YC), Samples were taken from the surface (T) and bottom (B) of the water column. The data were provided by CSIR, Stellenbosch. DDT Sample VAB VAS YCB YCT 5.2.2.2 Nutrients and eutrophication Inorganic nutrient concentrations within the Port of Cape Town are mediated by water volume exchanges with the greater Table Bay area and stormwater supplies (CMS 1995b). Median concentration values (Table 9) are largely similar to those expected for Table Bay (e.g. Chapman and Shannon 1985) but, as pointed out by CMS (1995b) mask point sources of nitrate- and ammonium-nitrogen within the harbour. The former includes stormwater flows into Duncan Dock, the repository of all city bowl stormwater, and the latter this source, and various operations in the Alfred Basin including the synchro-lift, fish factories and previous oil storage sites (CMS 1995b). Table 9: Median concentrations (µM/l) of inorganic nutrients in Cape Town harbour in July and August 1994 (from CMS 1995b) Entrance Alfred Basin Victoria Basin Duncan Dock Ben Schoeman Dock July NH 4 +NH 3 7.00 10.78 7.45 7.20 6.58 PO 4 1.80 1.86 1.99 1.60 1.78 NO 3 19.19 17.56 19.33 16.87 18.33 August NH 4 +NH 3 1.52 6.64 4.58 4.06 3.65 PO 4 0.93 1.20 1.30 1.08 1.30 NO 3 8.79 13.11 12.00 11.74 12.28 Table 9 shows that higher ammonium-nitrogen concentrations occur in the Alfred Basin but that phosphate-phosphorus and nitrate-nitrogen are more equally spread throughout 36
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: care concentration ranges for cadmi
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
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?