Comments and Response report completed for the BAR process (DEA&DP ref: 16/3/3/1/E3/10/1020/19)
NOTE: This application is for the expansion of an existing chicken farm into an area of low botanical significance on the farm.
The applicant lodged a BAR process in 2017, but due to unlawful activities on site in terms of NEMA, the applicant was instructed to adjust the process to a S24G process. Thus, this Comments and Response report is included in order to orientate the registered I&APs on comments and issues raised which led to the development of the Preferred Alternative 1 SDP included in Appendix B of this document.
Comments & Response Report CHICKEN REARING AND LAYING FACILITY (FARM AVONTUUR P18/238)
Opened 14 August 2018 At PHS Consulting offices
Name Presenting Issue/ Concern Response unit
Draft Pre-application Basic Assessment Report E Rossouw BGCMA E-mail dated 10 August 2018: Your request for comment on the proposed project, dated 1) Units 4 and 5 are existing and approved units. The July 2018, refers: expansion component of Unit 4 towards the West and for Unit 5 towards the East (as in Preferred 1) The BGCMA supports the application for the Alternative 1) is outside of the 100m regulatory expansion of the chicken rearing facilities on the boundaries of the drainage line on site. The only aforementioned property. The applicant must, infrastructure within the regulatory 100m boundary however, ensure that where the proposed is the existing road (please note SDP has been development is within the regulatory boundaries of a amended to reflect river crossing as existing water course, a relevant specialist will undertake a based on historical Google imagery) and the Risk Matrix to determine the requirement for existing manager’s house (also predates). None of authorisation as per section 40 and 41 of the the proposal therefore exceeds the regulatory National Water Act, 1998. boundaries and therefore no risk assessment is
Page 1 of 50
required. 2) The EMP for the operational management of the 2) The OEMPr has been amended to include facility does not address the “how” of ensuring that stormwater management. Stormwater is not in a polluted storm water will not reach the river / formal system and it’s not treated. It is kept free drainage lines. The application also do not ensure of pollution sources, dissipated and erosion is the provision of details for the current treatment controlled and managed, therefore no need to methodologies and / or whether the relevant register this use. As the units are raised from the registration of this use has been done. The BGCMA ground it ensures that rainwater does not enter requires clarity on these concerns in the Final the units during rainfall events, thus protecting document. the quality of the runoff from site. All manure is contained within the units and removed directly 3) General conditions: from the units onto transport and taken off site The following general comments will be applicable for immediately. There is thus no storage of manure such an application: on open areas outside the units that can possibly • All relevant sections and regulations of the National pollute stormwater runoff on site. There is also Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) regarding water use minimal washwater inside the units during must be adhered to. cleaning as high pressure cleaning is used, and • No pollution of surface water or ground water the minimal amount of washwater left over is resources may occur. allowed to dry naturally, with no runoff outside • The Applicant needs to adopt and implement a water the units. demand management plan to conserve water. 3) The existing facility uses various measures to minimise water use on site – refer OEMPr section 2.1 (page 7) for further detail.
Page 2 of 50
Faisal Fakier Transport E-mail dated 6 August 2018: The e-mail correspondence links to the fax and Public Information provided by EAP: received from Mr Watters in next section. Works As per your request some more detail below: Comments from both sections noted under 1) At present there are 3 x 30t feedtrucks per month Transport and Public Works. Response from – for the expansion it should go to 6 x 30t trucks per EAP in next section. month 2) Manure gets fetched by farmers in the area once a month with a tractor and trailer (5 to 10 trips in total) – for the expansion it will also be once a month (10 to 20 trips) with same vehicles 3) Labour all stay on the farm at present, but for the expansion we estimate 1 bakkie coming on site in the morning and one leaving in the afternoon for extra labour living off site. The farm manager also has a vehicle and he moves on and off site at irregular intervals as needed (he also stays on the farm). 4) One day old chicks are delivered to site in 1 x 4ton truck once every 6 weeks – for the expansion this will go to 1 x 4ton truck every 5 weeks 5) Full grown chickens are moved off site for culling at present in 1 x 20t truck twice a year and for the expansion this will increase to 1 x 20t truck four times a year
Page 3 of 50
6) At present the eggs are picked up from site using a 4ton truck twice a week- this is expected to stay the same as the truck has additional capacity at present that can accommodate the expansion volume in eggs Response Mr Fakier: If I remember correctly, the current gate is not very wide. 20 ton trucks are normally double articulated vehicles and might have difficulty entering the farm, unless they make a wide turn. I think we will ask for the access to be looked at a bit more closely in the next stage of the EIA process in terms of getting the vehicles in and out safely. Response EAP: The 20t truck does not enter the site (as it comes from another poultry farm and they want to minimise the risk of contamination) so it parks at the other entrance gate (please see attached pins) and they drive through the internal road network to load it up. They use crates that they load at the chicken houses and take through. Response Mr Fakier: Does it park in the road? Response EAP:
Page 4 of 50
Apparently it parks on the side of the road- there is a wide enough area that doesn’t interfere with traffic. Response Mr Fakier: We cannot allow or approve of a vehicle standing in the road reserve and offloading feed. Please allow for on-site off loading of feed. Further to this the proposed turning circles were incorporated into the SDP for further comment. ML Watters Transport Fax dated 8 August 2018: and Public 1) P18 of Farm Avontuur 238 is 16km south of 1) Noted Works Bonnievale and takes access off Main Road 282 at +_ km 1. 2) Cognisance is taken of the BAR for the proposed 2) Noted increase in chicken farming capacity on the property. 3) This branch wishes to register as an I&AP 3) The department is listed as an I&AP 4) It is noted that a 30 ton vehicle is used to deliver 4) At present there are 3 x 30t feedtrucks per feed to the farm. This vehicle class may not be month – for the expansion it is expected to able to safely access the farm without using the increase to 6 x 30t trucks per month. opposing lane. 5) It is requested that in the next stage of the EIA 5) The vehicle movement on and off site for the 30t process that the ingress and egress (swept path) trucks was examined. It was proposed by the of the largest vehicles be examined. applicant to recess both the entrance gates 15 m
Page 5 of 50
off the road so trucks can turn off without obstructing traffic before opening farm gate. In future all culls would be loaded at this point. A turning circle would be developed for each entrance to allow trucks to turn on site after loading. Comment was received supporting the recessed entrances. Further comment is anticipated in the next round of public participation.
C Rampartab Cape Nature Letter received by email on 19 September 2018: 1) All the proposed development footprints are 1. Unit 11 (new farm shed) is within CBA1 and potentially heavily impacted by previous agricultural activity additional wetlands. However, according to satellite and have low conservation value (refer Second imagery and site photos provided by the botanical Botanical report Appendix G). Unit 5 (existing specialist, this area has already been cleared. Similarly, double laying pen) was previously authorised the proposed extension area for unit 5 (existing double under EA DEA&DP ref: E12/2/4/1-E3/9-2020/11. laying pen to be expanded) has already been cleared. Unit 11 is the shed and offices and form part of CapeNature would like confirmation that this activity has the farm’s primary rights that do not need special taken place with appropriate authorisation. authorisation. It is also located in a previously 2. According to the botanical specialist report, unit 1 disturbed area and an area of low conservation. (existing single rearing pen to be expanded) will have a It was included in the SDP to provide a complete medium negative impact because the expansion is expansion picture. There are no wetlands proposed in an easterly direction into the unploughed present on site and Unit 11 is outside of 100m
Page 6 of 50
veld. CapeNature suggests that this expansion is rather from the drainage line present on site. on the western side of the unit, toward the existing gravel 2) Comment from the Botanist: “It is my opinion that road/ biosecurity area. this unploughed area is not ecologically viable in 3. According to the botanical specialist report, unit 10 the medium to long term as it is small (only (new double laying pen) will have a high negative impact. 40m2) and disconnected from the surrounding The proposed mitigation is to maintain a 30 m buffer from natural veld (with no possibility of creating a the indigenous vegetation. CapeNature suggests that the functional corridor to the conservation area). My entire section B is demarcated as a no-go area to ensure suggestion is that a S&R operation is undertaken this buffer is adhered to. during the winter/early spring and that the 4. A network of internal gravel roads are present on site, expansion is implemented as originally planned.” some of which traverse the above-mentioned drainage The suggested Search and Rescue has been line. These roads will be closed and rehabilitated; incorporated into the CEMP requirements and presumably with the topsoil mentioned in the EMP. the proposed expansion of Unit 1 remains to the CapeNature requests a detailed rehabilitation plan for East. these roads. 3) The entire section B is already a no-go area. The 5. The new proposed access road that will replace the 30m buffer is between Unit 10 and a patch of current network will also traverse the drainage line. vegetation within Area A close to the boundary CapeNature requests further information on this with Area B. The proposed buffer has been proposed new road as it will have negative impacts on indicated on the amended SDP (refer Appendix the flow of water from the drainage line. B). 6. Given that the drainage line will be impacted by the 4) A section to address rehabilitation of unused rehabilitation of the existing road network and the internal road sections has been included in the development of the new road; and that further wetlands CEMP (refer section 2.5). 5) The traverse of the drainage line on site is an
Page 7 of 50
are predicted to intersect units 4 and 11, CapeNature existing crossing and will not be widened or requests that a freshwater ecology specialist report is changed in order not to impact on the flow from provided for comment. the drainage line. No new crossing will be 7. The initial and follow up botanical surveys took place developed for the proposed expansion project as during summer and therefore may have omitted spring the SDP has been amended. and winter flowering geophytes. CapeNature would like 6) The only water resource feature that exhibits on further botanical information gathered during spring. CapeFarmMapper is the drainage line traversing 8. Highly concentrated nitrogen and phosphorous the site in a North South direction between units deposits in chicken manure may cause over-fertilization 4 and 5. It is a drainage line with intermittent of the low-nutrient soils upon which the indigenous seasonal flow and an existing crossing that will vegetation depend and potentially lead to eutrophication not be widened or changed. Units 4 and 5 are of the nearby wetland. CapeNature requests that the previously approved units and are each applicant ensure that no manure is allowed to collect on proposed to be expanded away from the the bare ground. drainage line (refer SDP in Appendix B) and outside of its regulated area. The proposed new Unit 11 lies more than 150m from the drainage line. Thus the EAP is of the opinion that no freshwater ecological study is required. 7) A spring survey has been completed and is attached in Appendix G. Little additional botanical information was revealed. The vast majority of the area proposed for the expansion is previously ploughed and farmed, resulting in most of the species recorded being common
Page 8 of 50
pioneer species. A search and rescue operation is suggested for late winter/ early spring prior to site clearing, especially for Unit 8. These additional requirements have been incorporated into the CEMP. 8) No manure is left on open ground. Manure is dry swept and collected from within the units and immediately removed from site. There is no stockpile or manure storage on site. R Brunings Swellendam E-mail received 9 July 2018: 1) Noted, application will be made after the EA Local 1) Please be advised that the proposed expansion 2) Noted. The SDP has been amended and will be Municipality would require a requisite land use application ito circulated for 30 day I&AP comment as part of LUPA and the Municipal By-Law on Municipal Land the BAR process. Swellendam Local Municipality Use Planning. In broad this would entail an will form part of this process. application for Consent Use for Intensive Feed The Building plans to be submitted to SLM for Farming. authorisation as part of the planning process 2) Moreover, attached please relevant documentation prior to any construction of new buildings, relating to the previous application, of which various internal or external changes to existing buildings, aspects are still outstanding. It is assumed that this or demolition. will be attended to. The impact of the expanded use on the town of Further communication attached: Stormsvlei has been included in the BAR for Letter dated 22 December 2017 from Swellendam assessment. Municipality – • S26 of the EA (Visual Statement) has the
Page 9 of 50
Environmental Authorisation was granted in 2011 for the following recommendations: existing Chicken Rearing Farm at Stormsvlei. Certain a) Natural colours must be used for the side conditions were laid down that had to be implemented panels of the buildings so that it blends in and adhered to. It was brought to the municipality’s with the surrounding landscape attention that none of these measures have been b) Adequate landscaping in the proximity of implemented. We herewith respectfully request that the each pen must be undertaken to further matter be followed up with TWC Chicks and that it is screen the development from the R317 as taken into consideration with the new application. well as the bridge Our comment on the NOI is as follows: c) Indigenous trees must be planted to block • The overall property is zoned Agriculture Zone. views from the R317 as well as bridge Consent use for Intensive Feed Farming was d) All lights must be down lights granted by the Swellendam Municipality on The use of natural colours has been implemented on 13/12/11. See the approval letter attached site, as well as the screening planting of trees to herewith. The applicant must adhere to the block the views from R317 and the bridge. It must be conditions that were laid down. noted that indigenous trees take a few years to reach • All land use restrictions in terms of the mature levels, and that there is also ongoing alien Swellendam Municipality: Integrated Zoning tree removal on the river banks, which will increase Scheme Regulations, 2014, to be complied with- the views across the river temporarily whilst deviation will require a land use application to be indigenous vegetation re-establishes. submitted for consideration. • It is advised that a revised and detailed SDP be • All landscaping on site is done with lodges as part of the BAR process for indigenous vegetation consideration. • No name, advertising sign or board will be
Page 10 of 50
• It is suggested that the impact of the expanded erected on site without the prior written use on Stormsvlei forms part of the BAR. approval of the administering authority • Building plans must be submitted to the • The key considerations have been municipality prior to any construction. Approval to incorporated into the BAR for assessment. be obtained from the Municipality’s Division: Town Planning and Building Control prior to the Refer photo report in Appendix C for photographic erection of all new buildings, internal or external evidence of indigenous trees planted. Also refer Site changes to existing buildings, or demolition. map with tree planting detail in Appendix B showing • The applicant must adhere to the planting to date and planned planting. recommendations from the Visual Statement in Section 26 of the EA, granted on 25 November 2011. • Landscaping should be done with indigenous trees in the proximity of the pens or screening from the R317 and the bridge. • No name, advertising sign or board may be erected on site without the prior written approval of the administering authority • Key considerations from a land use perspective will be noise/ nuisance, visual impact, site safety and traffic impact of the proposed expansion. Please be advised that no activities may commence without the appropriate approvals/ authorisations from the
Page 11 of 50
responsible authority. The onus remains with the registered property owner to confirm adherence to any relevant legislation that such activities might trigger and/ or need authorisation for. E-mail from W Lemmer, Swellendam Municipality dated 16 September 2016: • An EA was granted on 25 November 2011 by your office to the board of TWK Chicks (Pty) Ltd for a chicken rearing farm at Stormsvlei. • In S26 of the document certain recommendations from the Visual Statement had to be implemented and adhered to. • It was brought to our attention that none of these measures have in fact been done. No landscaping in the proximity of the pens or screening from the R317 and the bridge with indigenous trees. • Attached a photo to show the visual impact of the structures from across the R317. • You are respectfully requested to follow the matter up with the management of TWK Chicks. (Photo detail and other attachments referred to included in Appendix F).
Page 12 of 50
Mr Mxolisi Dlamuka Heritage Response to NID- letter dated 5 April 2018: Noted. Requirement for discovery of heritage Western You are hereby notified that, since there is no reason to resources during construction included in Cape believe that proposed rezoning and consent use will Construction EMP. impact on heritage resources, no further action under Letter included under Appendix E to BAR. S38 of the NHRA (Act 25 of 1999) is required. However, should any heritage resources, including evidence of graves and human burials, archaeological material and paleontological material be discovered during the execution of activities above, all works must be stopped immediately and HWC must be notified without delay. A McClelland DEA&DP Letter dated 6 August 2018: 1) The SDP in Appendix B has been updated and 1) Available aerial imagery indicates that various amended to reflect units already built, units areas on site have been cleared, which may fall already authorised but not built, and new within the footprint of the proposed expansions, proposed units. new pens, farm shed and access tracks. It is 2) As per owner, actions were conducted by the requested that a map or image is included that neighbour thinking its on his property without clearly demarcates those areas of the site consent, and was stopped by the landowner and previously authorised for development in terms of told to rehabilitate the area. The chicken laying the EA dated 25 November 2011. Recent and rearing operation still regards this Section B imagery must be used, where it is evident as a no go area, and it will be fenced in as clearing and levelling activities have commenced. proposed in future. Please note that according to an initial evaluation 3) Noted. The listed activities have been amended
Page 13 of 50
of the available imagery, it appears that in the BAR. clearance activities have commenced for the 4) Noted. Email communication from landfill and single pen, numbered 9, the farm shed, parts of letter for sewage included in Appendix E. Letter the access tracks, and potentially the extension from Eskom also provided in Appendix E. of the double laying pen, numbered 5. 5) Through consultation with BGCMA and comment 2) In addition to the above, during the initial received from BGCMA on the first draft BAR, it environmental application and assessment, it has been confirmed that no WULA is required. was identified that while “Section A”, being the The water used on site forms part of an existing western portion of the property, was highly allocated water right through the irrigation board degraded and of low botanical sensitivity, the (see letter attached in Appendix E). Refer also eastern portion, or “Section B”, beyond the comments to BGCMA regarding applicability of eastern and northern fenceline, has high GA registration (this document point 1). botanical and conservation value. This portion 6) Sections of roads to be rehabilitated and closed was to remain undeveloped, with development on site include: the road between unit 2 and unit activities limited to Section A, in line with the EA, 4; the road between unit 3 and unit 4; the road dated 25 November 2011. However, according to between unit 1 and the manager’s house. aerial imagery, between 2016 and 2017 a series Rehabilitation (as per CEMPr section 2.5, page of tracks appear to have been cleared north of 20) entails removal of any marker rocks on side, the fenceline and parallel to a drainage channel closure of unwanted tracks, blocking of access to the east. Your attention is drawn to Activity 12 with barriers, ensure no erosion, implement of Listing Notice 3, where the threshold for erosion barriers, where present and allowing clearing of indigenous vegetation within Critically natural recovery over time. Endangered ecosystems is 300m2. Clarification is 7) The access track across the drainage line is therefore required on the apparent clearing that existing and the SDP has been amended to
Page 14 of 50
has been undertaken in Section B, and the reflect this. There is only one access track approximate extent thereof. across the drainage line and NO new track is 3) Please note that the proposed clearance footprint proposed. The area where the access track of linear activities is excluded from triggering crosses the drainage line is almost “level” with Activity 27 of Listing Notice 1. Therefore, in the minimal infilling required. Less than 10m3 event that the footprint of the proposed new and material is used for the infilling, thus Activity 19 expanded facilities on the site will not exceed of Listing Notice 1 will NOT be triggered. 1ha, excluding the proposed internal road 8) Activity 19 of Listing Notice 1 is NOT triggered as footprint of 3832.5m2, the listed activity will not be minimal material is used for infilling as the track triggered. Based on the calculations provided, the is mostly level. A MMP is thus not required. remaining footprint referred to, which will require 9) There are no new proposed Units within 32m of clearance of indigenous vegetation, is less than the drainage line on site. Expansion of existing 1ha (noted as 6760m2 in the report). and approved Units 4 and 5 are away from the 4) You are reminded that the relevant service drainage line and outside of 32m providers are to provide written confirmation of 10) The CEMPr has been updated to include this sufficient capacity to provide the necessary map. Please refer Appendix H. services for the proposed development, 11) The requirement is noted and all specialist specifically with respect to electricity supply. recommendations have been included. 5) The BAR notes confirmation is required of the 12) Comments from CapeNature, Overberg applicability of a GA in terms of the NWA (Act 36 District Municipality, Department of Agriculture of 1998). In the event that a WULA is required, (including the Veterinary Services unit), please ensure, as per the One Environmental DEA&DP: Directorate Waste Management, System (S50A of the NEMA and S41(5) and DEA&DP: Directorate Pollution and Chemical 163A of the NWA) that the processes for a WULA
Page 15 of 50
and the EIA are aligned and integrated, as Management and BGCMA have been obtained prescribed in the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as on the first draft BAR and is included in this amended), as well as the 2017 WULA document. Further comment will be requested on Regulations. In terms of the SOP between this the second draft BAR and included in the final Department and the Department of Water and BAR submitted for decision making. Sanitation, which came into effect on 1 July 2017, 13) These requirements are noted and will be the EAP must submit a written water use pre- complied with. application request to DWS to determine whether 14) This requirement is noted and will be or not a GA or WULA is required. The pre- complied with. application request should clearly indicate 15) This requirement is noted and will be whether or not an EIA is required in terms of the complied with. NEMA. It is requested that correspondence with the DWS, or delegated authority, the BGCMA, is included in the BAR documentation going forward. 6) New access tracks are proposed along with the rehabilitation of a shorter section of existing track. Please clarify the existing portion that is to be rehabilitated and the measures proposed to do so. It is also required that additional information is provided on the proposed new access tracks. 7) According to available aerial imagery, various tracks cross the identified drainage line that runs north-south across the site. In addition, as per the
Page 16 of 50
site development plans included in Appendix B, a “new” access track is also proposed across the drainage channel, in addition to those already present. In light of this, it is requested that consideration be given to the volume of material required to establish crossings of the watercourse, and any associated stabilisation or drainage requirements of the tracks. Where more than 10m3 of material is to be removed or deposited, please note that Activity 19 of Listing Notice 1 will be triggered. This listed activity must then be included in the environmental application, and any potential impacts assessed. 8) Further to the above, should Activity 19 of Listing Notice 1 be triggered, future maintenance related work may be required for tracks and/or infrastructure installed across the drainage channel. The Department recommends that a Maintenance Management Plan (MMP) is included for adoption with the BAR, if the listed activity is applicable. This document may form a component of the EMPr. Should the Department agree to adopt the proposed MMP, future maintenance work specified within the MMP
Page 17 of 50
would not require an EA prior to the undertaking thereof. Be advised that the MMP relates to the aforementioned listed activity only. 9) In addition, based on the proximity of Unit 4 to the drainage line, consideration must be given to the relevant listed activities pertaining to expansion of structures and infrastructures within 32m of a watercourse. 10) The EMPr must include a map at an appropriate scale which superimposes the proposed activity, its associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the preferred site, indicating any areas that should be avoided, including buffers. 11) Please ensure all relevant mitigation measures recommended by the specialist(s) are included in the EMPr, where practical and appropriate. 12) Comments from, but not limited to, the following relevant authorities should be obtained during the PPP and included in the final BAR submitted for decision-making: • CapeNature • Overberg District Municipality
Page 18 of 50
• Department of Agriculture, including the Veterinary Services unit • DEA&DP: Directorate Waste Management • DEA&DP: Directorate Pollution and Chemical Management • BGCMA 13) The EAP is reminded to include the following PP information, in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014, in the BAR for decision-making: 11.1 Details of the public participation process undertaken in terms of Regulation 41 of the Regulations, including copies of the supporting documents and inputs; and 11.2 A summary of the issues raised by I&APs and an indication of the manner in which the issues were incorporated, or the reasons for not including them. 12) Please ensure that original signed and dated applicant, EAP and specialist declarations are submitted with the final BAR to this Department for decision-making. 13) Please note that omission of any required information in terms of Appendices 1 and 4 of the EIA Regulations, 2014, with regards to the final
Page 19 of 50
submission to the Department of the BAR and EMPr respectively, may result in the application for environmental authorisation being refused. L McBain-Charles Directorate Fax received 20 August 2018: 1) Email communication confirming sufficient Waste 1) A letter from the municipality, stating that they capacity is included in Appendix E. Management have sufficient capacity to dispose of the waste (DEA&DP) generated by the new development, must be obtained. 2) Kindly note that should more than 100m3 of 2) No storage of general waste (> 100m3) or general waste and/or 80m3 of hazardous waste hazardous waste (> 80m3) for more than 90 be stored at the facility for more than 90 days, the days is done at the site. All manure is taken storage of such waste should adhere to the directly from inside the units and transported off National Environmental Management: Waste Act, site to be used as fertiliser by farmers. No 2008 (Act No 59 of 2008) (NEM:WA) “National stockpiling or treatment of the manure is done. norms and standards for the storage of waste” as contained in Government Notice (GN) No926 of 29 November 2013. 3) Kindly note that composting is considered a form 3) The comment re composting is noted. The of treatment of waste. Should more than 10 average mortality rate- and thus disposal rate to tons/day of general waste and/or more than the mortality pit, is approximately 93 birds per 500kg/day hazardous waste be composted at the month after expansion, thus no need to apply facility, the facility will need to apply for a waste for a waste management licence for the site. management licence, prior to such composting.
Page 20 of 50
4) Section F (2) (a) on page 35 of the report is 4) The expected waste streams on site are general incomplete. Kindly declare the amount of waste waste, recyclables, manure and mortalities. The expected to be generated. If possible, kindly keep BAR has been updated to reflect waste stream and quantify the streams separate, as it is volumes where possible. reflected in the report currently.
5) Section F (2) (a) on page 35 in the report refers 5) No storage of general waste (> 100m3) or to whether or not waste will be treated on site. hazardous waste (> 80m3) for more than 90 Both “Yes” and “No” is ticked. Kindly clarify if days is done at the site. All manure is taken waste will be treated at the facility or not. directly from inside the units and transported off 6) According to the EMPr, there is a chicken site to be used as fertiliser by farmers. No mortality pit on site. Kindly note that animals that stockpiling or treatment of the manure is done. died of infectious diseases (such as Avian Flu), is 6) There is an existing chicken mortality pit on site. considered as hazardous waste, and should be It is bunded and steel covered and mortalities handled as such hazardous waste. (not due to avian flu) are disposed of daily. The 7) The Department notes the applicant is aiming to pit is also doused with lime and bio-enzyme to reuse Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste. speed up the decomposition and reduce the Kindly clarify how and where the C&D waste will possibility of odours. Any mortalities due to be used and kindly specify this in the EMPr. avian flu is managed according to the SOP for 8) The EMPr submitted with the BAR, has to be avian flu infections (refer Appendix K) and NOT strictly adhered to by the applicant and all disposed of on site. contractors during any phase of the project. 7) Existing outside panelling will be re-used where
possible to minimise waste generation from
construction activities. Any panelling removed
Page 21 of 50
that cannot be re-used will be sold for re-use in the informal market. The CEMP has been amended to reflect this. 8) Noted. This requirement will be complied with. DP Beretti Overberg Letter received by email dated 31July 2018: 1) a) Noted and considered in the BAR and (Municipal District 1) With reference to the ODM Spatial Development Botanical Report. The first Botanical report (refer Manager) Municipality Framework of 2014, please note the following: Appendix G) assessed the proposed a) CBA’s are categorised as Core 1b (CBA’s development within the proposed Section A of outside of formally protected areas) in terms the farm and noted the low species diversity and of the Spatial Planning Categories. The high habitat disturbance makes the vegetation in protection of endangered vegetation types this section of low botanical sensitivity and low and CBA’s are prioritised. conservation value. Given that very little of the b) Rivers and wetland corridors are categorised indigenous vegetation remains and that as Core 2. Development within 32m of any rehabilitation of this area would be extremely river or water body should be avoided. difficult, the conservation value of this area of the 2) The Botanical Assessments: site was rated as being low and as a result the a) The first botanical assessment was initial chicken rearing facilities were all conducted in February 2011 and it was constructed in this area. The second Botanical stated that February is considered a low report reiterated this finding. flowering season for both Renosterveld and b) Noted and considered in the BAR and SDP Fynbos. It was proposed that a second layout. No development is proposed within 32m survey should be done during the high of a river or water body. flowering season to allow for a more accurate 2) a) A Spring survey was conducted and is
Page 22 of 50
assessment of vegetation on site and the attached in Appendix G. The survey indicated conservation value thereof. However the that the proposed development area was second botanical assessment was done in previously ploughed and farmed and the majority January 2018 with similar results. It is of species recorded in the proposed expansion proposed that the recommendation as set out areas are common, pioneer species typical of old in the first botanical assessment, “To obtain a agricultural lands and geophyte occurrence and more comprehensive species specific and diversity is low. A recommendation was made for thus Red List (RL) species assessment a a search and rescue for the proposed sites prior botanical survey of the site need to be to clearance during late winter/ early spring, conducted in the peak late winter to spring especially at Unit 8. flowering months”, be adhered to. b) i) There is no connectivity of this small patch of b) Impact Assessment of the second Botanical vegetation with the remainder in Section B and Assessment: as such the whole of Section A of the farm has i) Site 1: Similar to the first botanical assessment been deemed LOW conservation value. Refer the site is considered to be medium in terms of Second botanical report in Appendix G. It is the botanical impact and conservation value. This opinion of the botanist that this unploughed area area seeing that it is a critically endangered is not ecologically viable in the medium to long ecosystem, Central Ruens Shale Renosterveld, term as it is small (only 40m2) and disconnected should be managed in such a manner that it from the surrounding natural veld (with no maintain a functional, natural or near natural possibility of creating a functional corridor to the state and no further habitat loss be allowed. conservation area). A S&R operation is proposed Therefore the expansion proposed for this site during the winter/early spring and that the should be reconsidered. expansion is implemented as originally planned. ii) Site 4: The copy of the Botanical Assessment ii) The Easterly side of the existing unit 4 is
Page 23 of 50
that was available on the website did not include approximately 70m from the drainage line on a description for both site 3 and 4. Please site. The preferred alternative expands this unit indicate how far the proposed extension of site 4 on the westerly side away from the drainage line, is from the non-perennial river/wetland as thus the proposed expansion of this unit is indicated on the National Freshwater Ecosystem approximately 150m from the drainage line. Priority Area map. iii) Site 5: It is indicated in the assessment that the iii) Unit 5 was previously authorised in EA DEA&DP proposed extension areas have already been ref: E12/2/4/1-E3/9-2020/11 dated 25 November cleared and therefore the conservation and 2011. Refer also SDP in Appendix B. botanical value is low. Please clarity if environmental authorisation was required and obtained for this ground cover clearance that was done. iv) Site 10: The site is considered to be of high iv) The proposed location for site 10 has been botanical and conservation value with intact moved and a 30m buffer has been proposed in Central Ruens Shale Renosterveld and Aloe order to incorporate the area of high conservation Ferox specimens. It is therefore proposed that value. The SDP has been amended accordingly this site not be considered for the establishment as the preferred alternative 1 (Refer Appendix B). of a new rearing site and that sites with low conservation value be investigated. v) Basic Assessment Report: Impact Assessment, v) The units are cleaned out once a month and Mitigation and Monitoring Measures: Operational manure taken off site immediately. There is no Bio-security Guidelines: storage of manure on site. The units are cleaned - How often is the cleaning procedure by dry sweeping first then with high pressure
Page 24 of 50
followed? hoses on the inside consisting of air and minimal - It is noted that the units will be washed water. The result is limited water left inside after with high pressure hoses. How will run- cleaning. The units dry through evaporation of the off water be managed? water before the new animals are brought in. vi) Section H: Recommendation of the EAP There is no runoff from any units. - It is recommended that a mortality pit and vi) No composting facility has been established on proposed new composting facility be used for site and none is proposed at this time. The disposal of chicken mortalities on site. mortality pit is previously approved and consists of According to what norms and standards is this a bunded pit covered with steel to deter mortality pit managed to prevent any health and scavengers. The mortality pit will be the only mode environmental hazards? Have the applicant of disposal of carcases. considered establishing a composting facility on site and where will it be located? If a composting facility is to be established it should adhere to the National norms and standards for organic waste composting. vii) Operational Environmental Management Plan: As vii) - Carcases infected with avian flu will be part of the OEMP the following should be disposed of according to the SOP (refer included: Appendix K). - A basic SOP as to how carcases tested - An alien vegetation management plan has been positive for any Avian influenza strains will be compiled for the property with the main focus on treated and disposed of without risking the high conservation Section B (refer Appendix spreading the virus to other water sources H). The landowner is also working with the (surface or ground) on the property. Zonderend Water User Association to remove
Page 25 of 50
- As per the NEM: biodiversity Act of 2004 alien invasive vegetation from the riparian zone as well as the CARA of 1983, each land owner as required by law (refer Appendix E). is responsible for the management of invasive Replanting with indigenous vegetation is species on their properties. Therefore any listed scheduled for end of May to middle October alien and invasive species should be removed along the riparian zone. with regular follow-up clearing. An alien vegetation removal plan should be developed and implemented for the entire property to limit further degradation to sensitive ecosystems. W Kloppers Directorate: Letter received 27 July 2018: a) The Directorate: Pollution and chemical Pollution and a) Is this a draft BAR or a final BAR? Please ensure management (DEA&DP) was provided with a Chemicals your introduction makes the distinction. pre-application draft BAR for comment, as stated Management b) The response to the receiving environment for in the heading of the cover letter (See Appendix (DEA&DP) “shallow water table” and “seasonally wet soils” F). It is also stated on page 1 of the BAR under you responded “no” to both. This is a winter Report Type Category. rainfall area and the development is, at its b) There is no ponding on site even though this is a nearest point, less than 200m from the winter rainfall area. Even with an increase in Sonderend River: water use on site no ponding is anticipated as i) The irrigation (or water use) will increase the area drains effectively towards the from 10m3/day to 30m3/day which could Sonderend River. There is no shallow water (may) increase ponding and carry table present on site or seasonally wet soils and contaminated return flow to the an absence of hydrological indicators for these Sonderend River. conditions. There is no large scale irrigation on
Page 26 of 50
c) The chicken manure is nitrogen rich (NH4). site- rather water use will increase inside the Which mitigating efforts are being implemented to units, thus the risk of ponding and contaminated prevent ground water contamination as interflow flow reaching the Sonderend River is not (unsaturated flow) will contribute to river flow? anticipated. d) From Google Maps it is clear that a (perennial/ c) Please refer to unit cleaning procedure in OEMP. non-perennial) stream traverses the area and No chicken manure comes into contact with hence, during rain events, could be carrying groundwater, as removal is direct from units to contaminated stormwater to the Sonderend vehicle, and washing with high pressure hoses River. What mitigating plans are being afterwards creates minimal amounts of implemented to ensure contaminated water is not washwater. There is no waste water runoff from released to the stream? site. e) Please indicate how the chicken manure is d) This non-perennial stream is more than 50m stored. This is important as, according to your from the nearest unit that could be a possible statement, the collected manure is dispatched source of contamination. All possible weekly to farmers to be used as fertiliser. contamination sources are contained within the However, which secured storage method is units (refer cleaning procedure in OEMP) and it applied to, during rain events, from flushing is not foreseen that any contaminants will make contaminated water to the receiving its way into the stream. Rainwater does not environment? make contact with the manure because it’s under f) Kindly note that any water that is contaminated roof. General surface areas is level and where as a result of mixing chicken manure or stormwater run-off leaves each unit, erosion accidental spills from cleaning of, say, chicken control measures relate to dissipating structures pens, must be contained and treated to the (that trap and polish run-off) along roads that general standards set out in the (Government disperses water naturally into the veld and into
Page 27 of 50
Gazette 20526, 8 October 1998) before being watercourses. released to the receiving environment. e) There is NO storage of chicken manure on site. g) Mortality pits are the most common method of The farmers that collect the manure are notified carcass disposal and has a great potential to a day prior to the cleaning - they remove directly contaminate groundwater sources. It is from the unit and transport directly off site. imperative that regular monitoring of ground f) No hazardous cleaning material is used that can water resources is done by developing cost spill. All possible contamination sources effective piezometer/s downstream of (manure) are contained within the units and it is groundwater/ interflow to monitor the ground not foreseen that any contaminants will make its water quality. way into the stream. Cleaning is contained within i) the parameters should include nitrate and the units. phosphate g) The groundwater table at the site is not shallow, ii) ideally the water sub-surface water needs to and the mortality pit is contained and located be monitored at least twice a year, once during outside 100m from the nearest watercourse. the wet season and once during the dry season; Piezometers are therefore not required. iii) the results must be available to the directorate on request.
Cor vd Walt DAFF Letter dated 10 Nov 2018: Comments Noted. Your application of June 2018 has reference. The Western Cape Department of Agriculture has no comment.
Page 28 of 50
Dr L Hon Letter dated 3 October 2018: Comments Noted. I have studied the Basic Assessment report regarding the proposed expansion of the chicken rearing facility at Stormsvlei. I am familiar with the site. I have no objection to the expansion of the project. The impact on the natural indigenous vegetation and environment will be minimal. Van Niekerk & Mr Sven E-mail received 1 August: 1.1 The Environmental Authorisation (dated 8 Linde Attorneys Thomson Klient wens beswaar aan te teken/ kwessies aan te teken November 2011 – DEA&DP Ref: E12/2/4/1-E3/9- (neighbour) teen die voorgestelde uitbreiding onder andere vanwee 2020/11) refers. The previous development die volgende redes: needs to adhere to the EA and EMP Tydens die Publieke Deelname proses van die requirements. The new proposed units 8 and 9 aanvanklike goedkeuring van die hoenderboerdery, soos will be screened by additional vegetation from omskryf per DEA&DP Verw: E12/2/4/1-R3/9-2020/11 the road and other land users. dateer 25.11.2015, is daar op sekere aspekte 1.2 The landowner is working with the Zonderend ooreengekom welke reeds vervat/ omskryf is in die Water User Association to remove alien gemelde DEA&DP goedkeuring. invasive vegetation from the riparian zone as 1. Visuele impak: required by law. Replanting with indigenous 1.1 Daar is ooreengekom dat die hoenderhokke nie vegetation is scheduled for end of May to nader aan die R317 teerpad opgerig mag word middle October. It is expected that this clearing, as die bestaande ou skuurgebou vanaf die R317 which is an activity outside of the scope of the gelee was nie. Die twee nuwe voorgestelde proposed project, will result in visibility across hokke, gemerk 8 en 9, word aangedui as binne the river while the new vegetation is planted die ooreengekom area waarbinne die hokke nie and grows. A new riparian edge will be
Page 29 of 50
opgerig sou word nie. Die doel van die established with trees and vegetation in order bufferstrook was om die visuele impak vanaf to decrease the visual impact from across the Kliënt se hoërliggende Opstal en bestaande river. Gastehuisbedryf te minimaliseer welke met die 1.3 The roofs have only been in place for a few nuwe voorgestelde Hokke nie die geval sal wees years now and further fading is still expected. nie. The pens are located with a south-east 1.2 Die huidige Bloekombos geleë rondom die orientation, which allows the prevailing winds to Stormsvlei Brug oor die Riviersonderend Rivier, move past the pens and cool the animals bied tans ‘n mate van visuele beskerming teen naturally inside. Reflectivity of the roofs is die Hokke. Dié Bloekombos is egter tans deur further required in order to minimise heat die “Work for Water”-inisiatief ge-oormerk om buildup inside the units. The outside of the verwyder te word welke dan die visuele buildings make use of natural colours. beskerming geheel sal verwyder met veral ‘n 1.4 Noted. The planting of screening vegetation will blootstelling aan die voorgestelde Hokke 8 en 9. be implemented for all new units and expansion 1.3 Die Hokke is per die Goedkeuring toegerus met areas in order to further minimise the visual dakke van “reflective corrigation” welke impact. The screening vegetation does take a veronderstel is om oor tyd te verdof. Tot hede few years to reach maturity. The landowner is het egter geen verdowwing plaasgevind nie en is formalising the internal road structure and all die refleksie sekere tye van die dag onhoudbaar. unnecessary roads will be closed and Voorgestelde Hokke 8 en 9 sal dit bloot vererger. rehabilitated. 1.4 Die Toegangsroete(s) tot die Hokke skakel nie in 1.5 Noted. The screening vegetation does take a met die bestaande natuurlike area nie en is ‘n few years to reach maturity as it is all visuele hindernis. indigenous vegetation. 1.5 Die Landskapering en geplante Bome versper nie 2. The manure is distributed to only one farm at
Page 30 of 50
die uitsig vanaf die R317 en die Brug nie en is ‘n present. This farm is located approximately 6km visuele hindernis. southeast from the site. The expansion is expected 2. Reuke to increase manure removal from once a month (5 to Die Hoendermis word tans gereeld op ‘n enkele 10 trips) to once a month (10 to 20 trips). Buureiendom versprei / aangewend. Dié enkele 3. The manure is distributed to only one farm at aanwendingsarea veroorsaak ‘n onwelriëkende reuk met present. This farm is located approximately 6km hindernisgevolg vir Kliënt en sy Gastebedryf. Meer en southeast from the site. The Chicken farm consists groter Hokke sal die hindernis laat eskaleer. of closed units with limited flies. 3. Vlieë 4. The operational hours are working hours Die huidige Hoendermisstorting lok / versamel vlieë met weekdays and half day on Saturdays. ‘n hindernisgevolg vir Kliënt en sy Gastebedryf. Meer en 5. The operations aims to employ from the local groter Hokke sal die hindernis laat eskaleer. community where possible, but most of the current 4. Bedryfsure employees reside on the farm. For biosecurity Tydens die konstruksie van die goedgekeurde Hokke reasons it is better to minimise the amount of people sowel as tans met die bedryf van die aktiwiteit is / word coming on site on an ad hoc basis. When positions nie streng gehou by normale besigheidsure nie met ‘n open members from the local community are gevolglike steurnis vir Kliënt en sy Gastebedryf. Meer en encouraged to apply. groter Hokke sal die hindernis laat eskaleer. 6. No mining activities happen or have happened in 5. Gemeenskapsvoordeel the past as a result of previous or current Die plaaslike gemeenskap trek geen voordeel uit die construction activities. Earthmoving activities to level Hoenderbedryf nie synde daar nie van plaaslike arbeid construction areas can be expected. gebruik gemaak word nie. 7. Both Unit 10 and Unit 11 are placed outside 6. Ontginning van Klip Section B which is considered the area of high Tydens die konstruksie van die goedgekeurde Hokke is conservation value.
Page 31 of 50
Klip op die terrein ontgin. 8.1 The proposed expansion is a new assessment 7. Botanies Sensitiewe Area and a specialist botanist assisted in the preferred Is die nuwe voorgestelde Hokke 10 en 11 geleë buite die layout on the least sensitive areas of the farm. No voorheen geïdentifiseerde botanies sensitiewe area? development is proposed for Section B which is the 8. Algemeen botanical area of high conservation value. Only 4 Tydens die aanvanklike Aansoek is die “Layout new footprints are proposed, with expansion of Alternative 2” vir elf (11) Hokke nie mee voortgegaan nie existing units. vanweë o.a. die impakvoetspoor wat te omvattend sou 8.2 The EA, SDP and EMP are what is approved and wees vir die beskikbare nie-botanies-sensitiewe-gebied. what can be acted on. No other agreements are in 8.1. Daar is geen verandering sedert die aanvanklike place. Aansoek nie en is die redenasie steeds geldig. 8.3 The operation is well run with minimal impacts. 8.2. Tydens die aanvanklike Aansoek is ooreengekom op Expansion of the current operation using a die maksimum aantal en grootte van die Hokke. Die brownfields site and existing infrastructure negates motiveringsgronde vir die ooreenkoms is steeds the need to establish the same production capacity dieselfde. elsewhere on a greenfields site. Impacts on site are 8.3. Meer en groter Hokke behels meer Paaie, meer existing with existing mitigation and management in Landbou-aktiwiteite met gepaardgaande eskalasie van place. hinderniselemente.
Page 32 of 50
Draft Basic Assessment Report
Name Presenting Issue/ Concern Response unit E Rossouw BGCMA Letter received by email on 15 May 2019: The comments are noted and general conditions The BGCMA confirms that the concerns raised in the have been incorporated into the EMP for the site. previous correspondence with the applicant, dated 10 August 2019, and has sufficiently been addressed. Should any of the lay-outs change or the applicant have complications with regards to the immediate removal of solid waste, the BGCMA must be made aware of the alternative immediately. At no time must solid waste and polluted stormwater be allowed to enter any drainage to or the water course itself. The following general conditions remain relevant for this application: • All relevant sections and regulations of the NWA regarding water use must be adhered to • No pollution of surface water or groundwater resources may occur • Storm water management must be addressed and applied both in terms of flooding and pollution potential.
Page 33 of 50
SW Carstens Transport Fax dated 22 May 2019: Comments from points 1 to 3 are noted. and Public 1. The following refer: Point 4 is as per draft Basic Assessment, where both Works 1.1 Your email sent on 4 July 2018; access gates are to be recessed 15m off the R317, 1.2 This Branch’s even numbered letter dated 8 the layout on site allows for all vehicles to exit the August 2018; property in a forward gear, and no loading or off- 1.3 E-mail correspondence between our Mr F Fakier loading is permitted in the road reserve. and yourself on 23 and 29 January 2019 and Point 5 requirements will be incorporated into the 1.4 Your email received 7 May 2019. final access design for submission as part of the land 2. Portion 18 of the Farm Avontuur 238 is 16km use approvals and with additional details provided by south of Bonnievale and takes access off Main Transport and Public Works at that stage. Road 282 at +- km 1.00 and at +-km 1.44. 3. Cognisance is taken of the Draft Basic Assessment Report dated April 2019 for the proposed increase in chicken farming capacity. 4. As per our email exchange referenced in paragraph 1.3 above, the following is noted: 4.1 the access gates are to be recessed by 15m onto the property thereby allowing the largest of the expected vehicles to be completely off the road; 4.2 all vehicles must be able to turnaround on site and exit the property in a forward gear and 4.3 no loading and off loading is permitted in the road reserve. 5. In addition to the above points in paragraph 4
Page 34 of 50
and its sub-sections, this branch will also require the accesses to be provided with a sealed hard surface and the drainage to comply with the Provincial Standards. Further details will be provided when the application is made for the necessary land use approvals.
W Kloppers Directorate: Letter received by email dated 3 June 2019: 1. The comment is noted. No hazardous Pollution and The Directorate: Pollution and Chemicals Management materials are used on site. All possible Chemicals (D: PCM) acknowledges receipt of the DBAR for the contamination sources (manure) are Management proposed activity and has the following comment: contained within the units and it is not (DEA&DP) 1. Soil and water resources should not be contaminated foreseen that any contaminants will make its through contaminated runoff and it is recommended way into the stream. Cleaning is contained that a soil quality monitoring plan be implemented to within the units. The methodology and monitor potential contamination or pollution as a management has been incorporated into the result of the proposed activity; OEMP. The EAP does not therefore foresee a soil quality monitoring plan for 2. A storm water management plan must be designed implementation on site at this stage. and implemented. No contaminated storm water 2. The comment is noted. General surface emanating from activities at the facilities must be areas on site are level and where released to the receiving environment; stormwater run-off leaves each unit, erosion control measures relate to dissipating 3. Disposal of chicken carcasses must me managed in structures (that trap and polish run-off) along
Page 35 of 50
the legally prescribed manner; roads that disperses water naturally into the veld and into watercourses. Stormwater is 4. The D: PCM reminds the applicant of Section 28 of not in a formal system and it’s not treated as the National Environmental Management Act the quality of the runoff is protected through (NEMA), i.e. Duty of Care which states that: design and operational measures. It is kept free of pollution sources, dissipated and “Every person who causes, has caused or may erosion is controlled and managed. As the cause significant pollution or degradation of the units are raised from the ground it ensures environment must take reasonable measures to that rainwater does not enter the units during prevent such pollution or degradation from normal rainfall events, thus protecting the occurring, continuing or recurring, or, in so far as quality of the runoff from site. such harm to the environment is authorised by 3. The comment is noted. All disposal of law or cannot reasonably be avoided or stopped, chicken carcasses is to the approved to minimise and rectify such pollution or mortality pit on site. Carcases infected with degradation of the environment.” avian flu will be disposed of according to the
SOP. 4. The comment is noted.
DP Beretti Overberg Letter received by email dated 6 June 2019: The comments are noted. (Municipal District With reference to our comments submitted on 31 July Manager) Municipality 2018, this Department is satisfied with the way our concerns have been addressed and have no further comment.
Page 36 of 50
L McBain-Charles Directorate Letter received by email dated 10 June 2019: 1. The comments under Point 1 and 2 are Waste The Department is satisfied that most of its comments in noted and will be taken into consideration. Management the pre-application basic assessment report has been There is no composting planned for the site (DEA&DP) adequately addressed. that would require a Waste Management The Department has perused the draft BAR and have the Licence. following comments: 2. The disposal of infectious animal carcasses 1. Page 66 of the Report refers to a “proposed new is done according to the site SOP (refer composting facility” which will be used for the Appendix K). disposal of chicken mortalities on site. The 3. The units on site have been built with a department would like to reiterate that certain alignment in order to minimised the composting is considered as a form of treatment need for cooling/ fans. Reflective roofing is of waste. Should more than 10 tons/ day of also used for this reason. The landowner general waste or 500kg of hazardous waste be has indicated that during periods of power composted for the facility, the facility will need to outage the site relies on generators to apply for a Waste Management Licence, prior to provide the required power. such composting. 4. Please refer to unit cleaning procedure in 2. Kindly note that according to the NEM: Waste OEMP. Manure removal is direct from units Act, 2008 (Act no 59 of 2008) (NEM:WA), as to vehicle, and washing with high pressure amended, “National Norms and Standards for the hoses afterwards creates minimal amounts Disposal of Waste to Landfill:, as contained in of washwater. There is no waste water runoff Government Notice Nr 636 of 23 August 2013, from the site and no treatment of washwater the disposal of infectious animal carcasses and as none is generated in the cleaning animal waste is prohibited from being disposed of process. The units are cleaned by dry at disposal facilities. sweeping first then with high pressure hoses
Page 37 of 50
3. The report states that the facility will be solely on the inside consisting of air and minimal dependant on power supply from Eskom. Due to water. The result is limited water left inside the recent power outages experienced, kindly after cleaning. The units dry through explain how prolonged power outages will affect evaporation of the water before the new the operations at the Facility. animals are brought in. There is no runoff 4. The report states that water will also be used to from any units. clean the chicken houses. Kindly provide clarity 5. The comment is noted and is taken into on how this wash water will be treated before consideration. The applicant is committed release to the environment. towards reduction in waste generation on 5. The applicant should implement waste reduction site, and the maximisation of recycling where initiatives and work toward the prevention of the possible. disposal of recyclables.
Ron Brunings Swellendam E-mail received 9 May 2019: The comment was noted and responded by EAP: Local As you are aware, there has been ongoing “Thank you for the communication. Municipality communication with your office on this matter over the As you are aware, we have advised for the early past months. Please ensure that our comment made to engagement of the town planner in the process date is reflected in the EIA process now underway. We based on the original comments received, which was are also in contact with Ms Truter of T&C who is also incorporated into the latest Comments and undertaking the land use process. We have suggested to Response report. Ms Truter (23 April 2019) that a site inspection of the Based on this Louna has set up the site meeting for property / operation be arranged for roleplayers at a time this coming Friday morning at 10am, and the list of
Page 38 of 50
suitable to all, but certainly in the period that the BAR roleplayers has been included in the invitation to the process is open for comment. site meeting.” The site meeting was held on 17 May 2019 (see attendance register in Appendix F). Ms L Osborne DEA&DP Fax received 21 June 2019: 1. Alternative 2 entails the expansion of Unit 4 to the 1) Page 34 of the draft BAR states “the expansion of unit East as opposed to Alternative 1 where Unit 4 4 on its westerly side (Alternative 1) as opposed to its expands to the West in order to minimise the impact easterly side (Alternative 2)...” and page 37 refers to “the on the drainage line as a sensitive feature on site. proposed expansion of unit 4 is also to the west The BAR has been amended to reflect this. (Alternative 2)...” The final BAR must be amended to 2. The proposed project is for the expansion of an include the correct position for the expansion of unit 4 existing facility, thus there is no locality alternative. (Alternative 2). There are no technology alternatives as the 2) In addition to the above you are requested to provide proposed expansion project is a continuation of an reasons why the preferred alternative was considered as existing activity with an existing technology. The feasible and reasonable and the others were not existing unit layouts will be used for the new units as considered preferred. well, so no new technology will be introduced in the 3) During the site visit a few concerns were raised with project scope or design. There are no operational regards to possible unlawful activities. The Department alternatives as the proposed expansion project is the has the following comment: continuation of an existing activity with existing a) Cleared area where unit 9 is proposed: operational measures in place. The alternatives It is noted that this area was originally cleared by 9 April considered were in terms of layout as informed by 2016 for the development of a shed. As stated in the the first and second Botanical study for the site. correspondence dated 27 May 2019 the development: The following points informed the preferred layout
Page 39 of 50
• Entailed the clearance of approximately 3400m2 (Alternative 1): • Will be located in an area that is currently of low a) The relocation of Unit 10 allows for a 30m buffer botanical and conservation value as the species between the unit and the intact vegetation of Section recorded are common, pioneer species typical of B using the perimeter fence between the two old agricultural lands (land disked and seeded for sections as the marker. grazing purposes) b) Unit 4 exists within 100m of the drainage line to its • Is a primary agricultural use and the need to East. The expansion of Unit 4 on its westerly side obtain environmental authorisation is questioned. allows for expansion away from the drainage line It should be noted that even though the development of a between Unit 4 and 5 on site, thus moving away from shed is a primary agricultural right, this does not exclude the drainage line. you from complying with all statutory requirements that c) The units are required to be placed a certain may be applicable to the undertaking of the activity i.e. distance from each other for bio-security reasons obtain environmental approval in terms of the NEMA EIA (minimum 180m), giving rise to the configuration on Regulations 2014 (as amended) for the clearance of site. vegetation (activity 12 of L3) for the development of a d) The need to separate the laying and rearing areas shed. of the farm gave rise to a separate entrance to the In light of the above you are requested to provide this laying area off the top access road and installation of department with confirmation from the Botanical a fenceline. This measure differs fundamentally from Specialist on whether the land was lawfully cultivated in Alternative 2 where all access is from the bottom the preceding 10 years or not. Note that this entails the road. clearance of vegetation where the topsoil has been The Alternative 1 layout allows for more efficient disturbed. The imagery included in the correspondence management of the proposed operation, streamlining does not clearly indicate that land has been stripped of its road infrastructure and incorporating layout requirements informed by the botanical reports, pre-
Page 40 of 50
vegetation and then replanted, but rather that seeds was application consultation and avoidance of sensitive spread amongst natural vegetation for grazing purposes. features such as the drainage line on site. b) Cleared area where unit 11 is proposed: 3.1.1 A letter from the Botanical Specialist has been It is noted that this area, similarly to the area cleared for obtained and is attached (Appendix 1). He confirms unit 9, was cleared for the development of a shed. As the site has low botanical and conservation value, stated in the correspondence dated 27 May 2019 the but is unable to confirm when last the land was development: cultivated. He also has access to Google Earth • Entailed the clearance of approximately 1700m2 imagery and the information as provided by the EAP • Will be located in an area that is currently of low in our letter to you dated 27 May 2019. We maintain botanical and conservation value as the species that the 2006 Google Earth image show the extent of recorded are common, pioneer species typical of disturbance on the farm before the Applicant old agricultural lands (land disked and seeded for purchased it. It was common practice to disk grazing grazing purposes). areas for aeration and seeding to increase the • Is a primary agricultural use and the need to grazing capacity. This practice is regarded as obtain environmental authorisation is questioned. cultivation. Not withstanding the above the As stated above, it should be noted that even though the landowner did not regard vegetation clearance as an development of a shed is a primary agricultural right, this issue at the time of clearance, because as per 2011 does not exclude you from complying with all statutory EA (E12/2/4/1-E3/9-2020/11) attached under requirements that may be applicable to the undertaking of Appendix 2, vegetation clearance was not a listed the activity i.e. obtain environmental approval in terms of activity and authorization was not required. Further the NEMA EIA Regulations 2014 (as amended) for the vegetation clearance continued on the site in 2012. clearance of vegetation (activity 12 of L3) for the The site was confirmed by both Johns 2011 and development of a shed. Privett 2018 as Area A of the farm. With this in mind we evaluated the case in relation to the NEMA EIA
Page 41 of 50
In light of the above, you are requested to provide this Circular 1 of 2013 attached under Appendix 3 for Department with confirmation from the Botanical ease of reference. In short 1.11 is used to evaluate Specialist on whether the land was lawfully cultivated in the applicability of the 2014 and 2017 NEMA listed the preceding 10 years or not. Note that this entails the activities applicable to vegetation removal: clearance of vegetation where the topsoil has been - Yes a listed activity is involved. disturbed. The imagery included in the correspondence - Yes physical activity of such activity was does not clearly indicate that land has been stripped of its started prior to the coming into effect of the vegetation and then replanted, but rather that seeds was requirement to obtain an EA for the listed spread amongst natural vegetation for grazing purposes. activity. c) In light of a and b above it is further noted that Activity - Yes the physical activity was undertaken on 27 of Listing Notice 1 as well as Activity 12 of Listing the site. Notice 3 as defined in the NEMA EIA Regulations 2014 - Yes the physical activity undertaken was in (as amended) were applied for as the disturbance of the furtherance of the listed activity in question. new footprints will equate to approximately 4.5ha of - If yes then the listed activity was indigenous vegetation being cleared. You are requested “commenced” with and would not require to provide this Department with clarity of including the environmental authorization. aforementioned activities in relation to the counter It’s clear on 2012 Google image that site clearance arguments made that the areas cleared for the proposed of vegetation has commenced, leaving us with the construction of unit 9 as well as 11 did not constitute question how is the site defined in this case. indigenous vegetation clearance. The circular provide guidance under point 1.18: d) The construction of the cut off trench: - The ordinary meaning of ‘site” is a piece of It is noted that the trench was constructed to divert sheet ground or an area set apart for some run off from two drainage lines from the mountain purpose. catchment, located to the north, as it floods the - We need to determine if a particular area
Page 42 of 50
authorised unit 5 during extreme storm events. It is was set apart for some purpose. further noted that one of these drainage lines traverses - We’d therefore like to draw further attention the site between unit 4 and unit 5. to 2011 EA (E12/2/4/1-E3/9-2020/11) Part 2 It is further noted that the trench was not specified under A “Development entails the establishment of the environmental authorisation issued on 25 November 7 chicken rearing pens on the 39 hectares of 2011. You are therefore required to provide this the farm that have been identified as of low Department with: conservation worthiness…” This area is the • Information on whether this Department was same as Area A indicated by both Botanists consulted with regards to the applicability of the earmarked for development. NEMA EIA Regulations 2014 (as amended) for - The applicant has always regarded that this the construction of the trench. area is regarded as the development site • Information on whether the EA issued on 25 - As per circular it’s reasonable to define Area November 2011 was amended to include the A as the “site”. trench, if applicable. - The start of a physical activity anywhere on • Confirmation from the Botanical Specialist on the area identified for development, namely whether the land was lawfully cultivated in the on the area set apart for that purpose, will preceding 10 years or not. Note that this entails constitute starting that physical activity on the clearance of vegetation where the topsoil has the site. been disturbed. The imagery included in the Because clearance of vegetation on the “site” started correspondence does not clearly indicate that pre the 2014 and 2017 NEMA vegetation clearance land has been stripped of its vegetation and then triggers, we are of the opinion that it has been replanted, but rather that seeds was spread commenced with and do not need to be authorized amongst natural vegetation for grazing purposes. based on the Circular considering that it has taken place on the authorized “site”.
Page 43 of 50
• Information on whether the trench is now a Clearance of vegetation continued on the site after channel that diverts water that is released from the change in NEMA Listed activities in 2014 and the two drainage lines, one of which traverses the 2017. As a result there has not been a 10 year cycle site between unit 4 and unit 5. since the 2003, 2006 and 2012 vegetation clearance • Information with regards to stormwater activities in the Area A site. Even though there is a management on the site and whether such deviation from the original SDP we are of the opinion stormwater management included the that vegetation clearance was lawful. The SDP is construction of a trench and formed part of the schematic and was not attached to the 2011 EA thus Environmental Management Plan. it is wide open for interpretation. The activities on site • A proper map, included in the final BAR, are in line with the scope of what was authorized at indicating the drainage lines. the time. e) Construction of the access road from the top main 3.2.1 The same argument as per point 3.3.1.1 road to the laying section of the farm: applies. The Department notes that: 3.3 The listed activities (namely Activity 27 of Listing • An access road of wider than 4m, not approved Notice 1, as well as Activity 12 of Listing Notice 3) as part of the previous environmental were included in the application initially to cover all authorisation issued on 25 November 2011, was possible triggers due to the desktop indication that constructed. the farm does contain areas of indigenous vegetation • As part of the current application, that an access in case the applicant wanted to expand outside of road to the laying area of between 6 and 8m wide Area A. However based on the fact that all will be developed as part of the current proposal. development will be on the previous authorised site • You are therefore requested to provide this and the interpretation above, we will withdraw these Department with: listed activities because it has already been commenced with on the site.
Page 44 of 50
❖ Information on whether this Department was 3.4.1 The Department was not consulted with consulted with regards to the applicability of the regards to the applicability of the NEMA EIA NEMA EIA Regulations 2014 (as amended) for Regulations 2014 (as amended) for the construction the construction of the road of the trench. ❖ Information on whether the environmental 3.4.2 EA E12/2/4/1-E3/9-2020/11 was not amended authorisation that was issued on 25 November to include the trench, because the applicant did not 2011 was amended to include the road in think it requires an EA. question 3.4.3 The trench clearance is estimated at 1038m2 ❖ Information on whether the access road referred vegetation. to in the first and second bullet above are the 3.4.4. A letter from the Botanical Specialist has been same road or not. If not the same access road, obtained and is attached. The opinion of please provide a map indicating the two distinct “commenced” as per 3.3.1.1 apply here to. Further to access points. this the landowner need to protect existing ❖ Confirmation from the Botanical Specialist on infrastructure from flood events in future and whether the land was lawfully cultivated in the subsequently conserve the agricultural area A from preceding 10 years or not. Note that this entails degradation. the clearance of vegetation where the topsoil has 3.4.5. “channel” is defined as “ an excavated hollow been disturbed. The imagery included in the bed for running water or an artificial underwater correspondence does not clearly indicate that depression to make a water body navigable in a land has been stripped of its vegetation and then natural water course, river or the sea”. The trench is replanted, but rather that seeds was spread not in a watercourse or cutting or diverting a amongst natural vegetation for grazing purposes. watercourse, it acts as a contour cut in order to ❖ Note that even though the landowner started with protect the agricultural resources on site. Due to the rehabilitation in order to allow only for a road 4m road to the north of the site it catches water during
Page 45 of 50
wide, it does not rectify the unlawful construction extreme rain events from the mountain and then it of a road, unless a directive was issued by the releases stormwater onto the site with uneven Department’s Directorate: Law Enforcement. sheetflow outside of the drainage lines. This sheet f) In light of the above the Department notes that both the flow had to be managed by cutting if off to avoid development of a road, as well as the flooding of the Pens. widening/lengthening of a road to the laying area is 3.4.6. The Approved OEMP does refer to “Create applied for. You are requested to clearly indicate how the contour furrows to redirect any potential runoff from activities relate to the proposal. A map indicating where a irrigation and stormwater.” If the trench does not new road will be developed as well as where the road will trigger NEMA activities authorisation is not required. be widened/ lengthen must be included in the final BAR. General surface areas on site are level and where stormwater run-off leaves each unit, erosion control measures relate to dissipating structures (that trap and polish run-off) along roads that disperses water naturally into the veld and into watercourses. Stormwater is not in a formal system and it’s not treated as the quality of the runoff is protected through design and operational measures. It is kept free of pollution sources, dissipated and erosion is controlled and managed. As the units are raised from the ground it ensures that rainwater does not enter the units during normal rainfall events, thus protecting the quality of the runoff from site. 3.4.7. The water features on site were indicated in Appendix D attached to the draft BAR for comment.
Page 46 of 50
Additional information has been added to the SDP (Alternative 1). 3.5.1. The Department was not consulted with regards to the applicability of the NEMA EIA Regulations 2014 (as amended) for the construction of the road. 3.5.2. EA E12/2/4/1-E3/9-2020/11 was not amended to include the road, because the applicant did not think it requires an EA. The road is inside the scope of the EA and the development site. The 2011 SDP is schematic clearly not indicating sufficient detail of services infrastructure at the time. 3.5.3. The access roads refer to is in the same location. However as per our 27 May 2019 letter the road was constructed in 2018 in order to allow construction of already authorized Units on the east of the site. The construction of these pens are not possible without this road due to the bio-security risk of large construction vehicles and construction teams moving through the establish farm area. Due to this the road was necessitated. At the time of the expansion application it was not constructed yet but is was made subsequently to enable the construction of the approved units.
Page 47 of 50
Comments and Response report completed for the BAR process (DEA&DP ref: 16/3/3/1/E3/10/1020/19)
NOTE: This application is for the expansion of an existing chicken farm into an area of low botanical significance on the farm.
The applicant lodged a BAR process in 2017, but due to unlawful activities on site in terms of NEMA, the applicant was instructed to adjust the process to a S24G process. Thus, this Comments and Response report is included in order to orientate the registered I&APs on comments and issues raised which led to the development of the Preferred Alternative 1 SDP included in Appendix B of this document.
3.5.4. A letter from the Botanical Specialist has been obtained and is attached. The access road is materially linked to EA E12/2/4/1-E3/9-2020/11 and the “commencement” of indigenous vegetation removal opinion under 3.3.1.1 applies here as well. The road is inside the authorized site that has been cleared of indigenous vegetation since 2012. Further to this the 2011 EA does authorize roads on the site. 3.5.5. The comment is noted. 3.3.6 The SDP has been updated to include additional detail on the road configuration on site and will be included in the final BAR for submission. 5. It is debatable if activities were commenced with unlawfully based on the above, but rather clear that the development detail on the site has deviated from the SDP at the time that indicated very little service infrastructure. The works on the site to date is within the scope of the EA site to operate a chicken farm of this nature. It is known that actual construction does deviate from the initial SDP due to the fact that it is impossible to determine the detail until the actual construction events occur. In this case all development and the impacts are contained on the already disturbed site.
Page 48 of 50
We have notified the DEA&DP of our intent to utilise the provisions of Regulation 3 (7), 19 (1)(b) in order to extent the timeframe and provide a letter from the Botanist and to allow us to clarify the case on behalf of the Applicant. Unfortunately the Department’s Directorate: Law Enforcement has not contacted the Applicant with relation to an investigation. Neither has any party provided proof that the site has been lying fallow for more than 10 years. As such we are using the opportunity to communicate our opinion as part of the BAR process, and comments and communication during the final 30 day PPP period will assist all parties to determine the outcome.
Public Participation to date See proof of public participation conducted for draft pre-application BAR in Appendix F. The comment period was from 5 July up to and inclusive of 5 August 2018. An advert (in English) was placed in the local newspaper the Langeberg Bulletin, dated 5 July 2018. A site notice was placed at the entrances to the site in English and Afrikaans. A hard copy of the pre-application draft BAR was sent to DEA&DP, DAFF Western Cape, Provincial Department Agriculture: Veterinary Services, DEA&DP: Directorate Waste Management, DEA&DP: Directorate Pollution and Chemical Management; BGCMA and CapeNature for comment. All other I&AP’s as per original list, were sent a registered letter requesting comment on the draft pre-application BAR. The Pre-application draft BAR and supporting documentation, plus draft OEMPr and CEMPr were also placed on the PHS website for access by I&AP’s.
Page 49 of 50
The draft BAR was put out for public comment from 6 May 2019 up to and inclusive of 6 June 2019. A hard copy of the draft BAR was sent to DEA&DP, DAFF Western Cape, Provincial Department Agriculture: Veterinary Services, DEA&DP: Directorate Waste Management, DEA&DP: Directorate Pollution and Chemical Management; BGCMA and CapeNature for comment. All other I&AP’s were sent a registered letter requesting comment on the draft BAR. The draft BAR and supporting documentation, plus draft OEMPr and CEMPr were also placed on the PHS website for access by I&AP’s. See proof of public participation conducted for draft BAR in Appendix F.
A site visit was requested by Mr Ron Brunings based on specifically the land use issues and Ms Louna Truter (the planner) set up the meeting as requested for 17 May 2019. DEA&DP requested on site that clarification was made on 4 points: 1) The clearance of vegetation at Unit 9; 2) The clearance of vegetation at Unit 11; 3) The construction of the top access road; 4) The construction of the stormwater trench. This information was provided to DEA&DP on 27 May and a further communication from DEA&DP was received on 21 June. The EAP requested a 50 day extension period in order to address the additional information request and it was granted for 26 August 2019. Subsequent to this comment has been obtained from the Botanical Specialist and provided to DEA&DP. The additional information was made available to I&APs in another round of public participation from 26 July up to and inclusive of 25 August 2019. No additional comments were received from I&APs in the last round of public participation.
Page 50 of 50
Appendix 1 to C&R
Amanda Fritz-Whyte PHS Consulting Environmental, Heritage, Eco-Tourism and Land-Use cell: 082 327 2100 landline: 028 312 1734 PO Box 1752, Hermanus, 7200
Comments on clearing of indigenous vegetation at proposed chicken farm expansion sites at portion 18 of Farm 238, Stormsvlei
20 July 2019
Dear Amanda
I (Sean Privett) undertook a specialist botanical assessment to assist in the decision making process for the proposed development and extensions of the chicken rearing plant on portion 18 of Farm 238 Stormsvlei, Western Cape (Privett 2018). As the field work component of this survey was undertaken during January 2018 in mid- summer, I was requested to undertake a follow up survey of the site which I undertook in the spring of 2018 (Privett 2018). A previous botanical survey of the site had been undertaken in the summer of 2011 by Amida Johns (Johns 2011).
All three of these surveys concluded that the general area proposed for the extension of the existing chicken rearing facility fall within old agricultural lands with low conservation value. I ground-truthed these areas during the two vegetation surveys and concluded that they had been cultivated (vegetation removed and topsoil disturbed) in the past, had low diversity and low conservation value.
The letter dated 21 June 2019 from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP) requests that for the cleared area where unit 9 is proposed, cleared area where unit 11 is proposed, the construction of a cut-off trench and the construction of an access road from the top main road to the laying section of the farm:
Confirmation from the botanical specialist on whether the land was lawfully cultivated in the preceding ten years or not. Note this entails the clearance of vegetation where the topsoil has been disturbed. The imagery included I the correspondence does not clearly indicate that the land has been stripped of its
Witkrans Farm, Flower Valley, PO Box 148, Gansbaai, 7220, South Africa Tel: +27 (0)28 388 0782 Fax: +27 (0)28 384 8100 Cell: +27 (0)82 411 1008 [email protected]
vegetation and then replanted, but rather that seeds was spread amongst natural vegetation for grazing purposes.
I can confirm that in all four cases the land has been cultivated in the past. On the basis of the structure and composition of the vegetation and soil structure on site (lack of resprouting species, very low geophyte composition) I can confirm that the vegetation within these areas had been heavily impacted in the past (most likely ploughed at least once).
However with the available information I cannot confirm whether these areas have been cultivated in the preceding ten years or not.
Sincerely
SDJ Privett Owner Fynbos Ecoscapes cc
References
Johns A 2011. Botanical assessment of portion 18 Farm 238 Stormsvlei. PHS Consulting report.
Privett S D J 2018. Botanical assessment of portion 18, Farm 238, Stormsvlei, Western Cape. Fynbos Ecoscapes unpublished report.
Witkrans Farm, Flower Valley, PO Box 148, Gansbaai, 7220, South Africa Tel: +27 (0)28 388 0782 Fax: +27 (0)28 384 8100 Cell: +27 (0)82 411 1008 [email protected]
Appendix 2 to C&R
Appendix 3 to C&R
Appendix 4 to C&R