Final Environmental Impact Assessment Report

REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2018/110720/07

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT:

THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ASPHALT PLANT AND AN EMULSION PLANT ON THE REMAINDER OF THE FARM COLDSTREAM RE/970, INDWE, EASTERN CAPE.

Ref. no. EC136/CH/LN2/M/19-01

JULY 2019

Report prepared by:

Environmental Assessment : Louis De Villiers Practitioner (EAP) Assistant to the EAP and project : Ansuné Weitsz contact person Postal Address : Suite 221 Private Bag X01 Brandhof 9324 Physical Address : 21 Dromedaris Street Dan Pienaar Bloemfontein 9301 Tel : 072 873 6665 Cell : 072 838 8189/ 072 967 7962 E-mail : [email protected] [email protected]

Applicant:

Applicant Contact Person : Marius Prinsloo Postal Address : P.O. Box 13125 Noordstad Bloemfontein 9302 Physical Address : 25 Bloemendal Road Rayton Bloemfontein 9302 Cell : 082 4508957 Tel : 051 436 4891 E-mail : [email protected]/ [email protected]

Site Information:

Farm / Erf Name : Coldstream Farm Number : 970 Farm Portion : RE 21 Digit Surveyors Code : C02400000000097000000 District : Indwe District Municipality : Chris Hani District Municipality Local Municipality : Emalahleni Local Municipality Site coordinates (Centre of site) : 31°26'33.24"S and 27°23'19.89"E

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tau-Pele Construction (Pty) Ltd (“the applicant”) seeks to apply for Environmental Authorisation (“EA”) with the Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Eastern Cape (“DEDEAT”) in terms of the 2014 EIA Regulations as amended under the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (“NEMA”), as well as for an Atmospheric Emission License (“AEL”) with the Chris Hani District Municipality for the establishment of an asphalt plant and emulsion plant on the remainder of the farm Coldstream RE/970, Indwe, Eastern Cape (“Property”).

This report forms part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) process currently underway in accordance with the 2014 EIA Regulations as amended under NEMA to obtain EA.

The proposed development is also scheduled as a Macadam preparation process that also needs an AEL in terms of the National Environmental Management Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004) (“NEM:AQA”).

The proposed development will entail the establishment of an asphalt plant and emulsion plant to produce asphalt that will be used for future projects for the construction and repair of the public roads in the area.

The following activities will be applied for:

GN. R. 893 of the NEM: AQA 2013 Regulations:

• Category 2: Petroleum Industry, the production of gaseous and liquid fuels as well as petrochemicals from crude oil, coal, gas or biomass. Subcategory 2.4: Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products - “All permanent immobile liquid storage facilities at a single site with a combined storage capacity of greater than 1000 cubic meters.”

• Category 5: Mineral Processing, Storage and Handling, Subcategory 5.10: Macadam Preparation - “Permanent facilities used for mixtures of aggregate; tar or bitumen to produce road-surfacing materials.”

GN. R. 325 of the NEMA 2014 Regulations as amended:

• Activity 4 - “The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure, for the storage, or storage and handling of a dangerous good, where such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of more than 500 cubic metres.”

• Activity 6 – “The development of facilities or infrastructure for any process or activity which requires a permit or licence or an amended permit or licence in terms of national or provincial legislation governing the generation or release of emissions, pollution or effluent”.

GN. R. 327 of the NEMA 2014 Regulations as amended:

• Activity 27: “The clearance of an area of 1 hectares or more, but less than 20 hectares of indigenous vegetation”

• Activity 28 (ii) – “Residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or institutional developments where such land was used for agriculture, game farming, equestrian purposes or afforestation on or after 01 April 1998 and where such development: (ii) will occur outside an urban area, where the total land to be developed is bigger than 1 hectare”.

The proposed site was previously used for a temporary asphalt plant that produced asphalt for the upgrade of section 6 of the R56. There is also a quarry belonging to Blue Crane Resources and Minerals situated directly adjacent to the proposed site on the same property. Thus, the proposed site is significantly degraded. The proposed site falls within the Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland (Gs 10) vegetation type, which is classified as Least Threatened. The majority of the vegetation on site has been transformed and the remaining vegetation is represented by pioneer, exotic weeds and patches of natural vegetation along the borders of the site. Furthermore, there are no wetlands or watercourses on the proposed site. However, a small stream, which is a direct tributary of the Indwe River, is located approximately 300 m to the west of the site. It is unlikely that the development will have a direct impact on this stream due to the distance. However, due to the gradual west facing slope of the site the runoff generated will flow towards the stream (refer to the Ecological Assessment in Annexure 5). The Indwe River is located approximately 700 m from the proposed site. The groundwater in the area consists of minor aquifer systems. However, the Indwe area mostly gets its water from surface water.

The geology of the site consists of mainly dolerite sills with grey mudstone, shale and gritty sandstone of the Tarkastad Subgroup and Molteno Formation. The soil consists of Glenrosa and/or Mispah soils with lime present in low-lying soils (ENPAT 2001). The proposed site is located in the Rainfall Zone S2A and has a Mean Annual Rainfall (“MAR”) between 500 mm and 600 mm per annum. The proposed site is located in Evaporation Zone 28B with a Mean Annual Evaporation (“MAE”) of between 1 600 mm to 1 700 mm (Water Resource Council, 2005). Maximum daily temperatures vary from 29°C in the summer to 16°C in winter (Meteoblue, 2018). Although the ambient air quality of the area is good, there are numerous contributors to atmospheric emissions, which include the quarry adjacent to the proposed site, PG Bison which is located approximately 85 km from the proposed site and the town of Indwe.

A site ecological survey was conducted to determine the entire footprint that the development will have on the environment. During the survey all different fauna and flora species on site were identified and included in the Ecological Assessment. Please refer to the Ecological Assessment in Annexure 5.

As mentioned, the proposed site is disturbed as a result of a previous asphalt plant present on the site, as well as the presence of a quarry adjacent to the proposed site. Thus, there are no buildings older than 60 years or any graves present on the proposed site. a Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) as well as an accompanying Phase 1 Palaeontological Impact Assessment (“PIA”) was conducted for the proposed establishment of an asphalt plant and emulsion plant in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) (“NHRA”) as required by NEMA. The area’s heritage and palaeontological significance was assessed on the basis of existing field data, database information and already published literature and a field survey. Please refer to the Phase 1 HIA and PIA in Annexure 5.

Alternatives

The preferred site for the proposed development is the farm Coldstream RE/970. The applicant has an agreement with the landowner to utilise the site.

The following alternatives were considered during the study:

• Location Alternatives: One other location was considered for the proposed project. This location is located on the remaining extent of portion 19 of the farm Ecowa 102, Elliot, Eastern Cape. Proximity to environmentally sensitive areas was mainly considered during the selection process.

• Design / Layout alternative: There is no feasible design/layout alternative for this project that will be assessed

• Technological alternative: There is no feasible technological alternative for this project that will be assessed.

• No Go alternative: The “no-go” alternative will be considered throughout the assessment of the proposed project.

(The alternatives will be discussed in more detail in Section 5 of this report)

Baseline Assessments

A baseline site assessment was undertaken by Mr. Louis De Villiers (“EAP”) and Ms. Ansuné Weitsz (“EAP Assistant”) to identify and assess any potential impacts associated with establishing the proposed asphalt plant and emulsion plant. This was followed by numerous discussions with specialists and the operations manager.

III

Desktop studies regarding sensitive environmental features located in close proximity to the site has also been done.

Public Participation

The Public Participation Process ("PPP") was conducted according to the 2014 EIA Regulations as amended.

The PPP process conducted is described in more detail in Section 3 of this report. Comments, responses and proof of notifications sent during the PPP are included in Annexure 3 of this report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES ...... VIII

LIST OF TABLES ...... VIII

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 The Applicant ...... 1

1.2 The landowner ...... 1

1.3 The Environmental Assessment Practitioner ("EAP") ...... 1

1.4 Property and Site ...... 2

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...... 6

2.1 Geology and soil ...... 6

2.2 Climate ...... 7

2.3 Land Use ...... 8

2.4 Vegetation and Animal Life ...... 8

2.5 Surface Water ...... 9

2.6 Groundwater ...... 10

2.7 Air Quality and Noise ...... 11

2.8 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology and Palaeontology ...... 14

2.9 Aesthetics ...... 14

2.10 Demographics and Regional Socio-economic Structure ...... 15

3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...... 15

3.1 Project initiation ...... 15

3.2 Interested and Affected Parties (“I&AP”) / Stakeholders ...... 15

3.3 Authorities...... 16

3.4 List of all I&AP ...... 16

3.5 Summary of Comments and Responses ...... 18 3.5.1 Comments and Concerns received from I&AP ...... 18 3.5.2 Feedback on Comments and Concerns from I&AP...... 18

4 MOTIVATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 19

4.1 Legal Requirements ...... 19

4.2 Aspects to be assessed as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process...... 20

4.3 Who will benefit from this project ...... 20

5 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 21

5.1 Location Alternatives ...... 21 5.1.1 Preferred Alternative: Coldstream RE/970 ...... 21 5.1.2 Alternative 1: Ecowa 19/102 ...... 23

5.2 Design/Layout Alternatives ...... 25

5.3 Technological Alternative ...... 25

5.4 No Go Alternative ...... 25

6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 25

6.1 Emulsion production ...... 25

6.2 Asphalt production ...... 28

7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 30

7.1 Assessment Methodology ...... 30 7.1.1 Determination of Consequence ...... 30 7.1.1.1 Determination of Severity ...... 30_Toc1654225 7.1.1.2. Determination of Duration ...... 31 7.1.1.3. Determination of Extent/Spatial Scale ...... 32 7.1.1.4. Determination of Overall Consequence ...... 32

7.1.2. Determination of Likelihood ...... 32 7.1.2.1. Determination of Frequency ...... 33 7.1.2.2. Determination of Probability ...... 33 7.1.2.3. Determination of Overall Likelihood ...... 33 7.1.3. Determination of Overall Environmental Significance ...... 34 7.1.3.1. Quantitative description or magnitude of Environmental Significance ...... 34 7.1.3.2. Qualitative description or magnitude of Environmental Significance ...... 34

7.2. Environmental Impact Assessment ...... 36 7.2.1 Geology and Soil ...... 36 7.2.2 Climate ...... 36 7.2.3 Land Use ...... 38 7.2.4 Vegetation and Animal Life ...... 40 7.2.5 Surface Water ...... 41 7.2.6 Groundwater ...... 43 7.2.7 Air Quality and Noise ...... 45 7.2.8 Archaeological, Palaeontological and Cultural Resources ...... 47 7.2.9 Aesthetics ...... 48 7.2.10 Demographics and Regional Socio-economic Structure ...... 50

8 CONCLUSION ...... 52

8.1 Summary of Significance Rating after mitigation ...... 53

8.2 Motivation for proposed site alternative ...... 54

9 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ...... 54

10 REFERENCES ...... 55

VII

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Locality map for the proposed project...... 5 Figure 2: Layout and sensitivity map for the proposed project...... 6 Figure 3: Figure indicating the average maximum and minimum temperatures and rainfall for the town of Indwe ...... 7 Figure 4: Indwe Wind Rose ...... 8 Figure 5: Figure indicating the aquifer classification of Indwe...... 11 Figure 6: Figure indicating the groundwater quality of Indwe...... 12 Figure 7: Figure indicating the aquifer vulnerability of Indwe...... 13 Figure 8: Map indicating the locality of the farm Coldstream RE/970 (preferred site), Indwe, Eastern Cape ...... 23 Figure 9: Map indicating the locality of the farm Ecowa 19/102 (alternative site), Elliot, Eastern Cape ...... 24 Figure 10: Process flow diagram for the emulsion plant...... 27 Figure 11: Process flow diagram for the asphalt plant...... 29

List of Tables

Table 1: Property description...... 4 Table 2: List of all I&AP ...... 16 Table 3: Rating of Severity ...... 30 Table 4: Rating of Duration ...... 31 Table 5: Rating of Extent ...... 32 Table 6: Example of calculating Overall Consequence ...... 32 Table 7: Rating Frequency ...... 33 Table 8: Rating Probability ...... 33 Table 9: Example of calculating the Overall Likelihood ...... 33 Table 10: Determination of Overall Environmental Significance ...... 34 Table 11: Description of the Environmental Significance and the related action required ...... 34

List of Annexures

Annexure 1 Project Team

Annexure 2 Maps & Layout Plans

Annexure 3 Public Participation Process

Annexure 4 Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)

Annexure 5 Specialist Reports

VIII

Annexure 6 Other Information

1 Introduction

1.1 The Applicant

Applicant: Tau-Pele Construction (Pty) Ltd

Registration number: 2003/020819/07

Address: 25 Bloemendal Road

Rayton

Bloemfontein

9302

Telephone: 051 436 4891

1.2 The landowner

Name: David Osborne Family Trust

Address: Vallon Farm

Queenstown

5319

Telephone: 045 858 8735

1.3 The Environmental Assessment Practitioner ("EAP")

Company: Turn 180 Environmental Consultants

Contact person: Louis De Villiers (EAP)

Ansuné Weitsz (Assistant EAP)

Postal address: Suite 221

Private Bag X01

Brandhof

9324

Tel: 072 873 6665

Cell: 072 838 8189/072 967 7962

E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]

The project team:

Project Manager and Louis De Villiers EAP:

Assistant to EAP: Ansuné Weitsz

Specialists:

Mr. Darius Van Ecological Assessment: Rensburg

Heritage and Palaeontological Dr. Lloyd Rossouw Assessment:

Atmospheric Impact uMoya-NILU Consulting Assessment: (Pty) Ltd

Refer to Annexure 1 attached hereto for the expertise of the project team to conduct the relevant studies. Specialist reports are attached in Annexure 5.

1.4 Property and Site

1.4.1 Property and Site Description

The site is located on the farm Coldstream RE/970, Indwe, Eastern Cape (refer to figure 1 below and the locality map in Annexure 2). The site was previously used for an asphalt plant which was also owned by the applicant. A quarry is also located on this property which belongs to Blue Crane Resources and Minerals. Thus, the site is significantly degraded and there is no vegetation present, as it was cleared due to it being used for an asphalt plant and as a stockpile area by the quarry (in the past and currently). According to the Emalahleni Municipality IDP (Emalahleni

Municipality 2016) the property is not earmarked for any specific development and falls outside the urban edge of the town Indwe. Coldstream RE/970 is approximately 398.8074 ha in extent. The proposed site is approximately 5 ha in extent.

21 Digit Surveyor General Code: C02400000000097000000

Coordinates of the corners of the site:

Corner Latitude (S) Longitude (E)

A 31°26'30.74" 27°23'15.30"

B 31°26'36.31" 27°23'16.69"

C 31°26'36.06" 27°23'25.31"

D 31°26'30.16" 27°23'24.41"

The coordinates of the centre of the site:

Latitude (S) Longitude (E) Centre of site 31°26'33.24" 27°23'19.89"

The farm Coldstream RE/970 is located in the Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland (Gs 10) and Tsomo Grassland (Gs 15) vegetation types (refer to figure 2 below and the layout and sensitivity map in Annexure 2). These ecosystems are not listed as threatened and protected ecosystems under the National List of Ecosystems that are Threatened and in Need of Protection, published under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, No 10 of 2004 in GN 1002 of GG 34809 on 9 December 2011 ("National List of Threatened and Protected Ecosystems"). According to Mucina et al. (2006) the Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland (Gs 10) vegetation type can be classified as Least Threatened, while the Tsomo Grassland (Gs 15) vegetation type can be classified as Vulnerable. The site itself falls completely within the Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland vegetation type.

There are no surface water features, including wetlands, located on the proposed site. The nearest water feature is approximately 230 m from the proposed site and the Indwe river is located approximately 700 m from the proposed site.

Table 1: Property description. Farm name and Farm Area Title deed number portion (ha)

Coldstream 970 RE 398.8074 T7405/2018

District Municipality: Chris Hani District Municipality

Local Municipality: Emalahleni Local Municipality

Province: Eastern Cape

Figure 1: Locality map for the proposed project

Figure 2: Layout and sensitivity map for the proposed project.

1.4.2. Zoning

The site is zoned as agricultural land and is surrounded by numerous other cultivated areas.

1.4.3. Direction to nearest towns

The proposed site is located approximately 5 km northeast from the centre of Indwe and 3 km from the edge of town. Furthermore, the proposed site is situated directly adjacent to the R56 road.

2 Description of the existing environment

Geology and soil

The soils of the Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland (Gs 10) vegetation type are usually well- drained with a clay content of 15-55%. Other soil forms that may be present include Hutton, Clovelly, Griffin, Oatsdale, Balmoral, Shortlands and Vimy (Mucina et al., 2006: 424).

Climate

The proposed site is located in Rainfall Zone S2A and has a Mean Annual Rainfall (“MAR”) between 500 mm and 600 mm per annum (Water Resource Council, 2005). Figure 3 below (Meteoblue, 2018) indicates that the town of Indwe receives an average annual rainfall of 535 mm.

The proposed site is located in Evaporation Zone 28B with a Mean Annual Evaporation (“MAE”) of between 1 600 mm to 1 700 mm (Water Resource Council, 2005).

Maximum daily temperatures vary from 29°C in the summer to 16°C in winter (Meteoblue, 2018).

Figure 4 below shows that the prevailing wind direction in the area is a North Westerly wind (Meteoblue, 2018). The town of Indwe is the nearest receptor to the asphalt plant and emulsion plant and is located to the south west of the proposed plants. Therefore, considering the prevailing wind direction in the area the impact on residents in Indwe will be limited.

Figure 3: Figure indicating the average maximum and minimum temperatures and rainfall for the town of Indwe.

Figure 4: Indwe Wind Rose that indicate how many hours per year the wind blows from the indicated direction

Land Use

An asphalt plant was previously also present on the site. This plant was owned by the applicant as well. Before that, the land was used for agricultural purposes. A quarry is located on the same property, adjacent to the proposed site. Thus, the site is degraded and the potential to use it for other activities is low. This was also confirmed by the Eastern Cape Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform (please refer to Annexure 3.3 for their comments). However, should the emulsion and asphalt plant be decommissioned the site will be rehabilitated to fit the land use prior to establishment.

Vegetation and Animal Life

The proposed site falls within the Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland (Gs 10) vegetation type, which is Least Threatened. This vegetation type is characterised by forb-rich grassland dominated by short bunch grasses. The land is characterised by moderately rolling hills and mountains, with numerous river gorges that have drier vegetation and forests (Mucina et al., 2006: 424). Another

vegetation type present on the property (Coldstream RE/970) is the Tsomo Grassland (Gs 15) vegetation type, which is classified as Vulnerable.

The area surrounding the proposed site has been degraded and habitats disturbed as a result of numerous cultivated areas, as well as the presence of a quarry adjacent to the proposed site. The proposed site itself is also degraded, due to the previous presence of an asphalt plant on the site. Therefore, the site is clear of vegetation, as it was used for an asphalt plant and was and is currently being used as a stockpile area by the adjacent quarry. According to Darius van Rensburg some vegetation is still present on the borders of the site, consisting of weeds and patches of natural vegetation. Due to this the species diversity is low. The site also does not fall within any Aquatic or Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas which further decreases the conservation value of the site. No protected, rare or endangered species could be identified during the Ecological Assessment.

No visible signs of any mammals were observed during the Ecological Assessment. This may be due to the transformed state of the site. Some species may have been overlooked, but it is considered to be highly unlikely that there are any endangered or rare species.

Please refer to the Ecological Assessment in Annexure 5.

Surface Water

There are no surface water features, including wetlands, located on the proposed site. The nearest surface water feature is a non-perennial drainage line/stream located approximately 230 m southwest of the proposed site, which is also a tributary of the Indwe River. However, this drainage line is partially blocked by the adjacent quarry. A NFEPA River is located approximately 430 m to the north of the proposed site. This watercourse is classified as a Class C watercourse which is “Moderately Modified”. The Indwe River is located approximately 700 m to the west of the proposed site. The Doring River Dam is also located approximately 6.6 km to the southwest of the proposed site (ENPAT, 2001).

The nearest wetland is located approximately 800 m to the east of the proposed site. The topography of the landscape will allow water to drain towards the west (i.e. towards the Indwe River), as well as towards the north as the proposed site is located on a watershed. However, a road is located to the north of the site which will help in preventing storm water from the operational area reaching the NFEPA River to the north.

Please refer to the Ecological Assessment in Annexure 5.

Groundwater

The area consists of a minor aquifer system. Minor aquifers normally yield moderate quantities of groundwater with a variable quantity. These aquifers can normally be found in fractured rocks without a high primary permeability. According to the Aquifer Classification of South Africa, the Indwe area mostly gets its water from surface water features and not from groundwater (Refer to Figure 5 below). The quality of Indwe’s groundwater can be classified as good, with an electrical conductivity (mSm)of 0-70 (Refer to Figure 6 below). According to the Aquifer Classification of South Africa, the vulnerability of the aquifers (likelihood for contamination) for the Indwe area is moderate (Refer to Figure 7 below) (Department of Water and Sanitation, 2012). The town of Indwe is currently supplied with water from a water treatment works situated in the town that gets its water from the Doring River Dam (Emalahleni Municipality 2016: 78).

Figure 5: Figure indicating the aquifer classification of Indwe.

Figure 6: Figure indicating the groundwater quality of Indwe.

Figure 7: Figure indicating the aquifer vulnerability of Indwe.

Air Quality and Noise

Although the ambient air quality of the area is good there are numerous contributors to atmospheric emissions. These relate to the mining area located adjacent to the proposed site and dust emissions from cultivated land. The PG Bison Plant is also located approximately 85 km from the proposed site. The town of Indwe also contributes to the ambient atmospheric emissions as a result of the burning of wood for food preparation.

The surrounding area consists of cultivation, as well as a quarry which operates a crusher and where blasting occurs which contributes to a higher ambient noise level in the area. The proposed site is located in close proximity to sensitive receptors in the form of numerous homesteads. The town of Indwe is located approximately 3 km away. However, according to the Atmospheric Impact Assessment (refer to Annexure 5) the impact of modelled dustfall and ambient concentrations of pollutants are well below the national dust regulations and health-based ambient air quality standards and guidelines. No exceedance of the standards or guidelines are predicted within the site or in sensitive receptor areas around the site. In the case of the pollutant

PM10 the 24-hour ambient concentrations may exceed national standards, but is expected to be low and in compliance beyond the site.

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology and Palaeontology

The proposed site is disturbed as a result of a previous asphalt plant present on the site, as well as the presence of a quarry adjacent to the proposed site. The Phase 1 HIA and PIA revealed no evidence of Stone Age archaeological material and no indications of rock art, prehistoric structures or historical buildings. The underlying geology of the site consists of dolerite bedrock, which is not considered to be paleontologically significant. Thus, the site has low archaeological significance and has a rating of Generally Protected C.

Refer to the Phase 1 HIA and PIA in Annexure 5.

Aesthetics

The area surrounding the proposed site is used for cultivation and there is a quarry present adjacent to the site; therefore, the area is significantly degraded and has low visual significance. There was also an asphalt plant present on the proposed site itself in the past and this also had a negative impact on the aesthetics of the area.

The proposed plants will, however, have a negative aesthetic impact on passing motorists, seeing as the proposed site is located directly adjacent to the R56 road.

Demographics and Regional Socio-economic Structure

The nearest town to the proposed site is Indwe, which is located approximately 5 km from the site. Indwe has a population of 3 075. Of this, 59.8% is considered to be working age (15-64), while 34.9% of the population is young (0-14) and 5.3% is elderly (65+). The population consists of 89.2% Black Africans, followed by 7.6% Coloureds, 2.0% Whites, 0.5% Indian/Asian and 0.7% Other. Only 11.7% of the population has higher education and 7% has no schooling at all (STATS SA, 2011).

3 Public Participation

Project initiation

A PPP under the 2014 EIA Regulations as amended was undertaken as part of the Scoping Phase, which included the following:

• Placing site notices at the entrance to the site and in the town of Indwe at the local municipality and local library;

• Placing adverts in the Daily Dispatch (23 November 2018) and The Rep (23 November 2018) newspapers;

• a Notification and Background Information Document (“BID”) regarding the project was sent to all Identified Interested and Affected Parties ("I&AP"). This includes the adjacent landowners and relevant authorities (refer to Annexure 3).

The Draft Scoping Report was also sent to all I&APs.

A time period of 30 days was allowed for the public to register and / or send their issues and concerns regarding the Project to Turn 180 Environmental Consultants. No I&APs registered. The Final Scoping Report and Draft EIA was sent to all relevant authorities.

Interested and Affected Parties (“I&AP”) / Stakeholders

Adjacent landowners and relevant authorities were notified of the project via written notifications, the BID and the Scoping Report. The EIA Report will also be sent to all relevant authorities. No other I&APs registered. The main purpose of this is to inform the potential I&APs of the project and obtain insight into any related issues they may have.

A comments and response register was made and updated to include all comments received from I&APs. This register also recorded the responses from the consultants and how comments are addressed.

Authorities

The following departments and / or organs of state were consulted during the PPP:

• The Chris Hani District Municipality;

• The Emalahleni Local Municipality;

• The Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (“DEDEAT”);

• The Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (“ECPHRA”);

• Eastern Cape Department of Mineral Resources;

• South African Heritage Resources Authority (“SAHRA”);

• Eastern Cape Department: Rural Development and Agrarian Reform.

List of all I&AP

Table 2: List of all I&AP

Contact Person Organisation Contact detail Authorities 15 Bells Road Queenstown Ms. Yoliswa Sinyanya Chris Hani District 5320 (Acting Municipal Municipality Private Bag X7121 Manager) Queenstown

5320 045 808 4610 (Tel) 29 Prince Alfred Street Queenstown 5320 Chris Hani District Private Bag S7121 Vuyeka Banisi (Air Quality Municipality Queenstown Management) 5320 073 210 6036(Cell) [email protected] (E- mail) 40 Fletcher Street Indwe Dr. Sitembele Wiseman Emalahleni Local 5445 Vatala (Municipal Municipality PO Box 30 Manager) Indwe

5445 045 952 1070/1008 (Tel) 40 Fletcher Street Indwe Emalahleni Local 5445 Ward 15 Ward Councillor Municipality PO Box 30

Indwe 5445

045 952 1070/1008 (Tel) Block E, Komani Office Park Queenstown Ms. Bhelinda Mtamo (case Department of Economic 5320 officer) Development, PO. Box 9636 cc. Nondwe Mdekazi- Environmental Affairs and Queenstown Nkqubezelo (Environmental Tourism 5320 Quality Management) 045 808 4000 (Tel) [email protected] (E-mail) 043 745 0888 (Tel) [email protected] (E- mail) Eastern Cape Provincial 16 Commissioner Street Mr. Sello Mokhanya Heritage Resources Old Elco Building

Authority 2nd floor ECPHRA offices East London 5200 444 Govan Mbeki Avenue Pier 14 Ms. Ngebulana (Regional Eastern Cape Department North End Manager) of Mineral Resources Port Elizabeth 6001 041 403 6625 (Tel) 021 462 4502 (Tel) P.O. Box 4637 Ragna Redelstorff SAHRA Cape Town 8000 Dukumbana Building, Independence Avenue, Bhisho, 5605 Eastern Cape Department: Private Bag X0040 Leon Coetzee (HOD) Rural Development and Bisho Dr. N. Mushia Agrarian Reform 5605 043 642 3497 (Tel) 066 488 6449 (Cell) Nicacias.mushia@[email protected] (E-mail) Other I&AP 086 214 3905 (Cell) Landowner and adjacent Coldstream RE/970, 1/970, [email protected] (Theo E- landowner: David Osborne 2/970, 3/970, 5/970, 6/970 mail) Family Trust Jacobsdal 219 045 858 8735 (PA Tel) Contact Person: Theo Feuth Middlecourt RE/220, 1/220 [email protected]

(David Osborne E-mail) Blue Crane Resources and 082 685 1426 (Cell) Mr. Sydney Stina Minerals [email protected] (E-mail)

The I&AP list with the manner of notification and comments is also attached in Annexure 3.

Summary of Comments and Responses

3.5.1 Comments and Concerns received from I&AP

• A mistake in the BID was pointed out by Ms. Mdekazi-Nkqubezelo from DEDEAT. The date for participation given in the BID falls within the December holidays. However, as indicated in the NEMA EIA Regulations, the period of 15 December to 5 January needs to be excluded during the Public Participation Process. • DEDEAT commented that alternatives must be investigated. • An EMPr containing a re-vegetation and habitat rehabilitation plan, and alien invasive management plan, a storm water management plan and an erosion management plan must be included in the EIA report. • DEDEAT commented that topsoil stockpile heights may not exceed 1.5 m. • Removal of alien plants must adhere to the Alien and Invasive Species Regulations and dust control measures must adhere to the Dust Control Regulations. • Over a telephonic conversation Dr. Mushia from the Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform commented that he is concerned over the loss of vegetation on site for agricultural purposes. After a site inspection Dr. Mushia confirmed that the site is degraded and has no agricultural potential. However, the surrounding area has good grass cover and should be protected.

3.5.2 Feedback on Comments and Concerns from I&AP

• The commenting period for the BID was extended. • Alternatives for the proposed project were investigated. • An EMPr containing a re-vegetation and habitat rehabilitation plan, and alien invasive management plan, a storm water management plan and an erosion management plan were included in this report (refer to Annexure 5). • Stockpile heights will not exceed 1.5 m. This has been included in the EMPr. • Removal of alien plants will adhere to the Alien and Invasive Species Regulations and dust control measures will adhere to the Dust Control Regulations. This has been included in the EMPr. • Dr. Mushia was assured over an email (refer to Annexure 3) that the site is already severely disturbed and that no vegetation will be removed. The footprint of the site will not be expanded beyond the disturbed footprint.

4 Motivation for the Proposed Project

The emulsion and asphalt plant produce bitumen emulsion and pre-mix asphalt for use in tarring of roads and is therefore very important for construction and rehabilitation of roads. This benefits society directly by improving access and connectivity for communities and businesses. According to the Emalahleni Municipality IDP (Emalahleni Municipality 2016: 62) the entire road network in the Emalahleni Municipality is in a generally poor condition and needs upgrading and maintenance. The project would also benefit society by providing local people with jobs. The applicant had a temporary asphalt plant on this site previously. This plant was used for the upgrade of section 6 of the R56 and was removed once this project was completed. However, the applicant intends to establish a permanent emulsion and asphalt plant on the site to provide bitumen emulsion and asphalt commercially for future projects in the area. If future projects become available in the area, it would be sensible to establish an emulsion and asphalt plant in this location due to the proximity of the plant to local roads that may need upgrading. This will have a positive impact in terms of quality of the pre-mix that will be provided and in terms of costs.

Legal Requirements

• National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (“NEMA”); • National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) (“NHRA”); • National Environmental Management Air Quality Act (Act 39 of 2004) (“NEM:AQA”).

The nature of the proposed project includes activities listed in the following Listing Notices:

GN. R. 893 of the NEM: AQA 2013 Regulations:

GN. R. 325 of the NEMA 2014 EIA Regulations as amended:

• Activity 4: “The development and related operation of facilities or infrastructure, for the storage, or storage and handling of a dangerous good, where such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of more than 500 cubic metres.”

• Activity 6: “The development of facilities or infrastructure for any process or activity which requires a permit or licence or an amended permit or licence in terms of national or provincial legislation governing the generation or release of emissions, pollution or effluent.”

GN. R. 327 of the NEMA 2014 EIA Regulations as amended:

• Activity 27: “The clearance of an area of 1 hectares or more, but less than 20 hectares of indigenous vegetation”

• Activity 28 (ii): “Residential, mixed, retail, commercial, industrial or institutional developments where such land was used for agriculture, game farming, equestrian purposes or afforestation on or after 01 April 1998 and where such development: (ii) will occur outside an urban area, where the total land to be developed is bigger than 1 hectare.”

Aspects that were assessed as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process.

• The identification of threatened as well as alien plant species on site. • Identification of any possible watercourses on the site. • Identification of any sensitive natural areas on site. • Identification of any heritage areas or artefacts on site. • The storage of general and hazardous waste. • Determination of air quality and the impact of emissions on the ambient air quality.

Who will benefit from this project

The establishment of an emulsion plant and asphalt plant will benefit society and especially the local residents in the following manner:

• The development will have a positive effect towards the area’s infrastructure, as the bitumen emulsion and pre-mix asphalt will be used to upgrade roads in the area in future projects. • It also directly benefits society by improving access and connectivity for communities and businesses.

• The socio-economic status of the area will also be impacted positively as the development will provide local people with job opportunities. The expected value of the employment opportunities during the construction and operational phases is R 20 million. • Building material, services and products will be obtained locally which will contribute to the local economy.

5 Consideration of Alternatives

Two site alternatives were considered and weighed up against each other during the study which included the following:

Site Alternatives

5.1.1 Preferred Alternative: Coldstream RE/970

Site Coordinates:

Property description Coordinates

Latitude Longitude Coldstream RE/970 31°26'33.24"S 27°23'19.89"E

The proposed property has an extent of 398.8074 ha, while the proposed site has a footprint of 5 ha. The proposed site is located 3 km northeast of the edge of the town of Indwe, directly adjacent to the R56 road.

Positive attributes of the preferred site for the establishment of an emulsion plant and asphalt plant:

• The proposed site is already severely degraded due to an asphalt plant previously being present on the same site. An asphalt plant used for asphalt production for the upgrade of Section 6 of the R56 between Indwe and Elliot was previously located on the proposed site temporarily as a controlled emitter. This asphalt plant also belonged to the applicant. • A quarry is also located adjacent to the proposed site which contributed to the degraded state of the proposed site and surrounding environment as the site has been and is currently used for stockpiling. • There are no watercourses or other sensitive environmental features located on, or within close proximity to the proposed site. The nearest watercourse is located approximately 230 m from the proposed site.

• The proposed site falls within the Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland vegetation type (Gs 10), which is classified as Least Threatened. Another vegetation type present on the property is the Tsomo Grassland vegetation type (Gs 15), which is classified as Vulnerable. • According to the Ecological Assessment (refer to Annexure 5) the site does not fall within an Aquatic or Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area. • No protected, rare or endangered species could be identified during the Ecological Assessment.

• The site has low archaeological significance and has a rating of Generally Protected C according to the Phase 1 HIA and PIA (refer to Annexure 5).

Negative attributes of the preferred site for the establishment of an emulsion plant and asphalt plant:

• The topography of the landscape will allow water to drain towards the west (i.e. towards the Indwe River) as the proposed site is located on a watershed. This may lead to contamination of the river. • The proposed site is located directly next to the R56 road, which may have a negative visual impact on passing motorists.

Figure 8: Map indicating the locality of the farm Coldstream RE/970 (preferred site), Indwe, Eastern Cape.

5.1.2 Alternative 1: Ecowa 19/102

Site Coordinates:

Property description Coordinates

Latitude Longitude Ecowa 19/102 31°21'23.83"S 27°50'19.24"E

This alternative is located on the remaining extent of portion 19 of the farm Ecowa 102. This site is approximately 44 km northeast of the preferred site. This site is located approximately 1.7 km from the edge of the town of Elliot.

Positive attributes of the alternative site 1 for the establishment of an emulsion plant and asphalt plant:

• This alternative site also falls within the Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland vegetation type (Gs 10), which is classified as Least Threatened.

• There is quarry owned by Ugie Mac (Pty) Ltd located on the same property, adjacent to the alternative site. This has contributed to the degraded state of the area.

Negative attributes of the alternative site 1 for the establishment of an emulsion plant and asphalt plant:

• Even though the area is degraded, the proposed alternative site itself has natural vegetation present and vegetation will thus need to be cleared. • The alternative site is located on the steep slope of a hill, which will make the process for establishing the emulsion plant and asphalt plant more difficult. • Hills also normally have a more significant ecological status than surrounding flat areas. • There is a waterbody located approximately 560 m northwest of this site, which may become contaminated due to runoff. • Furthermore, this site is close to town, which may have a larger impact in terms of the impact of emissions and visual impact.

Figure 9: Map indicating the locality of the farm Ecowa 19/102 (alternative site), Elliot, Eastern Cape.

Design/Layout Alternatives

There is no feasible design/layout alternative for this project that will be assessed due to the following reasons:

The applicant has extensive knowledge and experience in the operation of the emulsion and asphalt plant and the layout of the site is usually designed in a manner to allow the most efficient and safest way of operation and transportation of material to and product from the plant. Please refer to the proposed Site Plan attached in Annexure 2.

Technological Alternative

As far reasonably possible, the best technology will be utilised to limit and / or prevent impact on the environment. Bag house filters (Nomex bags with a total filtering area of 530m2) will be implemented in the asphalt plant to capture particulate matter from the process to prevent it from being dispersed into the atmosphere. This particulate matter will be recycled into the process. Emissions originating from the emulsion plant are very low and were well below the limits set for the relevant listed activity during previous emission monitoring when the plant was at a different site. The type of tanks used in the asphalt plant and emulsion plant will be of such nature to limit “breathing losses”. An air emission monitoring programme and dust monitoring programme will be implemented to verify compliance to the air emission standards in terms of the NEM:AQA.

No Go Alternative

The “no-go” alternative will be considered throughout the assessment of the proposed project. If the project is not authorised, no bitumen emulsion an asphalt will be produced at the site, which will result in the products being transported from somewhere else, which will increase the cost of repairing the roads in the area in future. No new job opportunities will be created, which will negatively affect the economy of the area.

6 Project description

Emulsion production

The development will entail the establishment of an emulsion plant. Bitumen emulsion that is produced during the operational phase of the proposed plant will be used for future projects involving the construction and repair of the public roads in the area (Please refer to figure 7 below for a diagram indicating the process of the emulsion plant).

The basic operation includes raw bitumen being pumped into a Polymer Modifier Plant where polymer is added to the bitumen. The addition of polymers improves the paving properties of bitumen, making it more suitable to handle high stress. The finished product gets pumped into hot storage tanks (6×35 000 L tanks). In chemical mixing tanks (2×1000 L tanks) water, emulsifiers, chemicals and additives are mixed. The hot bitumen (140°C) and the prepared “soap” are both pumped into the emulsion plant or colloid mill where it gets mixed. The finished bitumen emulsion is pumped into either anionic storage tanks (In which the bitumen particles are charged negatively) (2×35 000 L tanks) or into cationic storage tanks (in which the bitumen particles are charged positively) (2×35 000 L tanks).

The emulsion plant will operate approximately 6 hours a day, 175 days per year and 980 hours per year. Raw materials that will be used to produce the emulsion mix include raw bitumen, Vinex powder (emulsifier), caustic soda flakes, EM44 (emulsifier), 33.3 % hydrochloric acid, paraffin, E11(emulsifier), Indulin Latex, Alvaloy Polymer and water. The products resulting from this process are different bitumen emulsions that include SS60, CAT65, MC30, PRECOAT, S-E1 and A-E2.

Specific processes for these products:

SS60 @ 10 ton/h

Bitumen goes from hot storage (@140oC) to the mill inside the plant (@5900 litre/h) Inside the mill, it gets mixed with water (4100 litre/h) and 1% Vinex and Caustic Soda dilution 320 kg/h. Bitumen gets shredded and emulsified and then stored in cold storage ready to send to site.

CAT65 @ 6 ton/h

Bitumen goes from hot storage (@140oC) to the mill inside the plant (@ 3870 litre/h) Inside the mill, it gets mixed with water (2130 litre/h) and EM44 (@18kg/h) and hydrochloric acid (@18kg/h). Bitumen gets shredded and emulsified and then stored in cold storage ready to send to site.

S-E1

Mix contain bitumen (28 tons) and 500kg of Alvaloy polymer.

A-E2

Mix contain bitumen (29 tons) and 725kg Alvaloy polymer.

PRECOAT

Mix contains bitumen 15.636 tons and paraffin 11.250 tons, diesel 3.003 tons and EM44 165kg

MC30

Mix contains bitumen 21.150 tons, paraffin 8.856 tons

Some emissions are generated during the production of bitumen emulsion. These emissions mainly originate from the paraffin burners that are used to keep the bitumen warm in the hot storage silos and from “breathing losses” from the hot storage silos themselves. Key emissions include NOx, SO2,

CO2, CO and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). However, these emissions are very low and were well below the limits set for the listed activity 5.10: Macadam Preparation for the previous emission monitoring conducted on the plant when it was located at a different site. Nonetheless, an air emission monitoring programme and dust monitoring programme will be implemented to verify compliance to the air emission standards in terms of the NEM:AQA.

Figure 10: Process flow diagram for the emulsion plant.

Asphalt production

The development will also entail the establishment of an asphalt plant. Asphalt produced during the operational phase of the proposed plant will also be utilised for future projects involving the construction and repair of the public roads in the area (Please refer to figure 8 below for a diagram indicating the process of asphalt production). The basic operation includes the heating of aggregate by using diesel. A mixture of the heated aggregate and bitumen is used to produce asphalt. Raw aggregate (60-65 t/h) gets feeded into cold feed bins and then transferred to a dryer bin where the aggregate is heated using a diesel burner. The heated aggregate gets transferred into the tower unit where it is screened and separated and stored in different bins according to size. The aggregate gets weighed and discharged into the mixing unit where hot bitumen (3.2 t/h) is added. After mixing, the asphalt is ready to be discharged into silos or trucks.

The asphalt plant will operate 12 hours a day, from 5 am till 5 pm, 23 days per month (every day except Sunday), 300 days a year. Raw materials that will be used in the production process include aggregate and bitumen. The product resulting from the production process will be asphalt and it will have a maximum production capacity of approximately 25 tons an hour and 7 000 tons a month. Dangerous goods will be stored on site in the form of diesel (1 × 23 000L tank), bitumen (approximately 110 000L) and heavy fuel oil (HFO) (1 × 45 000L).

Key emissions generated during operation of the asphalt plant include NOx, SO2, CO2, CO, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter. Dust may also be generated through the use of the aggregate. However, baghouse filters (Nomex bags with a total filtering area of 530m2) will be implemented in the asphalt plant to capture particulate matter from the process to prevent it from being dispersed into the atmosphere. The bag filter provides a mechanical barrier to dust. It retains particulates and prevents solid particles from being released into the atmosphere. Only the finest particles reach the bag filter, as the larger particles are captured in the pre-collector. This particulate matter will be recycled into the process. An air emission monitoring programme and dust monitoring programme will be implemented to verify compliance to the air emission standards in terms of the NEM:AQA.

Figure 11: Process flow diagram for the asphalt plant.

7 Environmental Impact Assessment

Assessment Methodology

The main objective of the EIA process will be to assess and quantify the potential impacts that were identified by the project team, specialists and I&AP during the Scoping Phase.

The concept of "significance" is at the core of impact identification, evaluation and decision- making during the EIA process and can be differentiated into impact magnitude and impact significance. Impact magnitude is the measurable change (i.e. intensity, duration and likelihood), while impact significance is the value placed on the change by different affected parties (i.e. level of acceptability) (DEAT, 2002).

The environmental significance assessment methodology is based on the following determination:

Environmental Significance = Overall Consequence x Overall Likelihood

7.1.1 Determination of Consequence

Consequence analysis is a mixture of quantitative and qualitative information and the outcome can be positive or negative. Several factors can be used to determine consequence. For the purpose of determining the environmental significance in terms of consequence, the following factors were chosen: Severity/Intensity, Duration and Extent/Spatial Scale. Each factor is assigned a rating of 1 to 5, as described below.

7.1.1.1 Determination of Severity

Severity relates to the nature of the event, aspect or impact to the environment and describes how severe the aspects will impact on the biophysical and socio-economic environment.

Table 3: Rating of Severity

Type of Rating criteria 1 2 3 4 5 Quantitative 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Small / Disastrous Insignificant / Significant / Great / Very Qualitative Potentially Extremely Non-harmful Harmful harmful harmful harmful Social / Intolerable / Unacceptable Acceptable / Slightly Totally Community Sporadic / Widespread I&AP satisfied tolerable / unacceptable response complaints complaints

Type of Rating criteria 1 2 3 4 5 Possible / Possible objections legal action Very low cost Substantial to mitigate / Prohibitive cost to High cost to mitigate / potential to mitigate / Potential to mitigate Low cost to High cost to Little or no Irreversibility mitigate impacts to mitigate mitigate mechanism to impacts / level of mitigate Potential to insignificance impact reverse / Easily Irreversible impact reversible Biophysical (Air quality, water Insignificant Moderate Significant Very significant Disastrous quantity change / change / change / change / change / and quality, deterioration deterioration deterioration deterioration or deterioration waste or or or disturbance or disturbance production, disturbance disturbance disturbance fauna and flora)

7.1.1.2. Determination of Duration

Duration refers to the amount of time that the environment will be affected by the event, risk or impact, if no intervention e.g. remedial action takes place.

Table 4: Rating of Duration

Rating Description

1: Low One month 2: Low-Medium Between 1 and 3 months (Quarter) 3: Medium 3 months to 1 year 4: Medium-High 1 to 10 years

Rating Description

5: High More than 10 years

7.1.1.3. Determination of Extent/Spatial Scale

Extent refers to the spatial influence of an impact. It will be: a) limited to the site and its immediate surroundings; b) extending to the surrounding local area, c) regional (will have an impact on the region) c) national (will have an impact on a national scale); or d) or international (impact across international borders).

Table 5: Rating of Extent

Rating Description

1: Low Immediate, fully contained area 2: Low-Medium Surrounding area 3: Medium Regional 4: Medium-High National 5: High International

7.1.1.4. Determination of Overall Consequence

Overall consequence is determined by adding the factors determined above and summarised below, and then dividing the sum by 3.

Table 6: Example of calculating Overall Consequence.

Consequence Rating Severity Example 4 Duration Example 2 Extent Example 4 SUBTOTAL 10 TOTAL CONSEQUENCE:(Subtotal divided by 3.3 3)

7.1.2. Determination of Likelihood

The determination of likelihood is a combination of Frequency and Probability. Each factor is assigned a rating of 1 to 5, as described below.

7.1.2.1. Determination of Frequency

Frequency refers to how often the specific activity, related to the event, aspect or impact, is undertaken.

Table 7: Rating of Frequency

Rating Description

1: Low Once a year or once during operation / Life of Plant 2: Low-Medium Once / more in 6 Months 3: Medium Once / more a Month 4: Medium-High Once / more a Week 5: High Daily

7.1.2.2. Determination of Probability

Probability refers to how often the activity/event or aspect has an impact on the environment.

Table 8: Rating of Probability

Rating Description

1: Low Almost never / almost impossible 2: Low-Medium Very seldom / highly unlikely 3: Medium Infrequent / unlikely / seldom 4: Medium-High Often / regularly / likely / possible 5: High Daily / highly likely / definitely

7.1.2.3. Determination of Overall Likelihood

Overall likelihood is calculated by adding the factors determined above and summarised below, and then dividing the sum by 2.

Table 9: Example of calculating the Overall Likelihood.

Likelihood Rating Frequency Example 4 Probability Example 2 SUBTOTAL 6 TOTAL LIKELIHOOD (Subtotal divided by 2) 3

7.1.3. Determination of Overall Environmental Significance

7.1.3.1. Quantitative description or magnitude of Environmental Significance

The multiplication of overall consequence with overall likelihood will provide the environmental significance, which is a number that will then fall into a range of LOW, LOW-MEDIUM, MEDIUM, MEDIUM, MEDIUM-HIGH or HIGH, as shown in the table below.

Table 10: Determination of Overall Environmental Significance.

Significance or Risk Low- Medium- Low Medium High Medium High Overall Consequence 1 - 4.9 5 - 9.9 10 - 14.9 15 – 19.9 20 - 25 X Overall Likelihood

7.1.3.2. Qualitative description or magnitude of Environmental Significance

This description is qualitative and is an indication of the nature or magnitude of the Environmental Significance. It also guides the prioritisations and decision-making process associated with this event, aspect or impact.

Table 11: Description of the Environmental Significance and the related action required.

Significance Low Low-Medium Medium Medium-High High Impact is of Impact is Impact is real very low Impact is of real, and and order and low order potentially substantial in Impact is of therefore and substantial in relation to the highest Impact likely to therefore relation to other impacts. order possible. Magnitude have very likely to have other Pose a risk to Unacceptable little real little real impacts. Can the I&AP. . Fatal flaw. effect. effect. pose a risk to Unacceptable Acceptabl Acceptable. I&AP. . e. Maintain Implement Improve Implement Maintain Action current monitoring. management significant current Required managemen Investigate measures to mitigation managem t measures. mitigation reduce risk. measures or

Significance Low Low-Medium Medium Medium-High High ent Implement measures implement measures. monitoring and improve alternatives. Where and evaluate managemen possible to determine t measures to improve. potential reduce risk, increase in where risk. possible. Where possible improve

7.2. Environmental Impact Assessment

7.2.1 Geology and Soil

The following impacts may occur on the soil as a result of the construction and operational phase of the activity:

• Loss of topsoil during construction, • A change in soil characteristics as a result of the disturbance of the soil, • Contamination of soil due to spillage, leakage of storage tanks and pollution.

Alternatives Severity Duration Extent Consequence Probability Frequency Likelihood Significance Location Alternatives Preferred Alternative 2 2 1 1.67 2 5 3.5 5.83 (Coldstream RE/970) MITIGATED 1 1 1 1 1 4 2.5 2.5 Alternative 1 (Ecowa 3 2 1 2 3 5 4 8 19/102) MITIGATED 2 1 1 1.33 2 4 3 4 Design/Layout Alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact Technological Alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact

It should be noted that the impact rating was only done for soil, as it is not expected that there will be an impact on geology. No blasting or excavation will be done. The impacts on soil at the preferred site alternative will be LOW-MEDIUM, without mitigation. This can be lowered to LOW if mitigation and management measures are implemented. It should be noted that the preferred site is already cleared and compacted, with not much topsoil present. According to the Ecological Assessment almost the entire site contains a thin layer of crusher stone on top of the soil layer (Refer to the Ecological Assessment in Annexure 5). The impacts on soil will be higher on the LOW-MEDIUM scale at the alternative 1 site, due to the near-natural state of the site.

As mentioned earlier in the report, there is no feasible design/layout alternative because the site for an asphalt and emulsion plant is usually designed in a manner to allow the most efficient and safest way of operation. The preferred design/layout alternative will not have any impact on the soil or geology of the site.

Also, as mentioned earlier, there is no feasible technological alternative because as far reasonably possible, the best technology will be utilised to limit and / or prevent impact on the environment. The preferred technological alternative will not have any impact on the soil or geology of the site.

The cumulative impacts on soil may be high at both alternative sites, because of the quarries adjacent to both sites, where removal of topsoil, blasting and excavation and other activities take place.

Proposed mitigation:

• Topsoil will be removed before construction and stockpiled appropriately and in such a manner to prevent any loss thereof. Topsoil will not be used for any construction purposes. • Topsoil stockpiles must not exceed a height of 1.5 m. • Soil loss through erosion will be reduced by implementing storm water management practices. • Equipment and machinery on site will be maintained and drip trays will be used to prevent spillages of petrochemical products which may cause contamination of soil. Any hazardous substances on the site will be stored in a bunded area which consists of an impermeable floor with walls which will have the capacity to contain 110% of the volume of the substance stored therein. • Any spills of hazardous substances will be cleaned immediately by disposing of the affected soil as hazardous waste.

7.2.2 Climate

The following impacts may occur on the climate as a result of the construction and operational phase of the activity:

• Emissions from both the emulsion plant and asphalt plant may impact the ambient air quality.

Alternatives Severity Duration Extent Consequence Probability Frequency Likelihood Significance

Location Alternatives Preferred Alternative 1 3 2 2 1 5 3 6 (Coldstream RE/970) MITIGATED 1 2 1 1.33 1 4 2.5 3.33 Alternative 1 (Ecowa 1 3 2 2 1 5 3 6 19/102) MITIGATED 1 2 1 1.33 1 4 2.5 3.33 Design/Layout Alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact Technological alternatives Preferred Alternative 1 2 1 1.33 1 4 2.5 3.33 (Baghouses etc.) MITIGATED The preferred alternative includes technologies for mitigation.

The impacts on the climate will be the same for both site alternatives, as the same activity will occur at both site alternatives. Without mitigation, the impacts will be on the lower half of the LOW-MEDIUM scale. If the correct management and mitigation measures are implemented, this rating can be reduced to LOW.

The preferred technological alternative, which consists of baghouse filters and tanks to reduce “breathing losses” will have a LOW impact on the climate, as these technologies are used as mitigation measures to reduce air emissions.

As mentioned earlier, there is no feasible design/layout alternative because the site for an asphalt and emulsion plant is usually designed in a manner to allow the most efficient and safest way of operation. The preferred design/layout alternative will not have any impact on the climate.

It should be noted that the atmospheric emissions produced by the emulsion and asphalt plant will not be to an extent to change the climatic conditions in the area or create a micro climate. There will be an impact on the ambient air quality of the area, but the impact of the emulsion and asphalt plant on the overall climate will be negligible.

There may be a cumulative impact on the climate at both site alternatives due to the land use in the surrounding area, which consists of the adjacent quarries, agriculture and the PG Bison Plant which is located 85 km from the preferred site alternative. However, this impact is expected to be low, as the air quality of the region is good, and the area is not known for heavy industry.

Proposed mitigation:

• Bag house filters (Nomex bags with a total filtering area of 530m2) will be implemented in the asphalt plant to capture particulate matter from the process to prevent it from being dispersed into the atmosphere. • The type of tanks that will be used in the asphalt and emulsion plants will be of such nature to reduce “breathing losses”. • An air emission monitoring programme and dust fallout monitoring programme will be implemented to reduce the potential impact. • Dust control measures must adhere to Dust Control Regulations.

7.2.3 Land Use

The following impacts may occur on the land use and characteristics of the land as a result of the construction and operational phase of the activity:

• The potential to use the land for other activities will be lost.

It should be noted that the Eastern Cape Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform confirmed that the site is degraded and has no agricultural potential (please refer to Annexure 3.3 for their comments).

Alternatives Severity Duration Extent Consequence Probability Frequency Likelihood Significance Location Alternatives Preferred Alternative 2 4 1 2.33 4 5 4.5 10.5 (Coldstream RE/970) MITIGATED 1 4 1 2 3 4 3.5 7 Alternative 1 (Ecowa 3 4 1 2.67 5 5 5 13.33 19/102) MITIGATED 2 4 1 2.33 4 4 4 9.33 Design/Layout Alternatives

Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact Technological alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact

The impacts on the land use at both site alternatives will be MEDIUM, without mitigation. Both site alternatives will remain transformed for a long time because the asphalt plant and emulsion plant will be permanent, and the plants can remain on the site for an unrestricted amount of time. This impact can be lowered to LOW-MEDIUM if mitigation and management measures are implemented. The impact of the alternative 1 site will higher on the MEDIUM scale due to the near-natural state of the site. The preferred alternative site has been transformed for some time due to being used in the past for a temporary asphalt plant and being used for a stockpile area by the adjacent quarry in the past and currently.

The cumulative impacts on land use may be medium at both alternative sites, because of the quarries adjacent to both sites, which has already transformed the land and changed the land use.

Proposed mitigation:

• Impacts on land use is unavoidable. However, rehabilitation afterwards may restore its potential to be used for other activities. • Construction and operation activities will only take place within the site boundary to limit disturbance.

• The surrounding area has a good grass cover and needs to be protected.

7.2.4 Vegetation and Animal Life

The following impacts may occur on the vegetation and animal life as a result of the construction and operational phase of the activity:

• Transformation of the land. • Loss of natural vegetation (Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland). • The growth and spreading of alien plant species. • Fires made on the site by employees may result in the loss of vegetation of the surrounding environment. • Destruction of habitat and loss of animal life.

Refer to the Ecological Assessment attached in Annexure 5. Alternatives Severity Duration Extent Consequence Probability Frequency Likelihood Significance Location Alternatives Preferred Alternative 2 4 1 2.33 2 5 3.5 8.17 (Coldstream RE/970) MITIGATED 1 3 1 1.67 1 4 2.5 4.17 Alternative 1 (Ecowa 3 4 1 2.67 3 5 4 10.67 19/102) MITIGATED 2 3 1 2 2 4 3 6 Design/Layout Alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact Technological alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact

The impacts on the vegetation and animal life at the preferred site alternative will be LOW- MEDIUM, without mitigation. It should be noted that this site is already severely degraded and mostly bare of vegetation. Some vegetation, consisting of weeds and patches of natural vegetation occurs along the borders of the site (Refer to the Ecological Assessment in Annexure 5). This impact can be reduced to LOW with the correct mitigation and management measures.

The impact will be greater (MEDIUM) at the alternative 1 site, due to the presence of natural vegetation and the fact that the site is located on a hill, which may have a more sensitive ecological status. Both sites fall within the Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland vegetation type (Gs 10), which is Least Threatened.

It is highly unlikely that there will be much of an impact on the animal life at both sites, as no animals were observed at the preferred site alternative and it is expected that very few animals will be present at the alternative 1 site. The lack of animals at the preferred site is most likely due to the transformation of the site and the presence of the adjacent quarry. There is also a quarry present next to the alternative 1 site.

It is not expected that there will be any cumulative impacts.

Proposed mitigation:

• Vegetation will only be cleared within the boundary of the emulsion and asphalt plant area. • Removal of alien plants must adhere to the Alien and Invasive Species Regulations. • No hunting will occur of animals that are present. • No fires will be allowed on site. • Rehabilitation afterwards may restore disturbed habitats.

7.2.5 Surface Water

The following impacts may occur on the surface water as a result of the construction and operational phase of the activity:

• Surface water resources close to the proposed development may become contaminated as a result of spillages and mismanagement of petrochemical substances on site.

• Water resources may become silted as a result of erosion if storm water management on the proposed site is not implemented and maintained. This impact can occur during construction and operational phases of the project. • The proposed development may affect the quantity of water draining to the surface water resources due to the buildings and structures acting as obstructions for the flow of water.

Alternatives Severity Duration Extent Consequence Probability Frequency Likelihood Significance Location Alternatives Preferred Alternative 3 3 2 2.33 3 5 4 10.67 (Coldstream RE/970) MITIGATED 2 2 1 1.33 2 4 3 5 Alternative 1 (Ecowa 2 2 2 2 2 5 3.5 7 19/102) MITIGATED 1 1 1 1 1 4 2.5 2.5 Design/Layout Alternatives Preferred 3 3 2 2.33 3 5 4 10.67 Alternative MITIGATED 2 2 1 1.33 2 4 3 5 Technological alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact

The preferred site alternative, with its specific design/layout, will have a MEDIUM impact on service water. There are no surface water features, including wetlands, located on the proposed site. The nearest surface water feature is a non-perennial drainage line/stream located approximately 230 m southwest of the proposed site, which is also a tributary of the Indwe River. A NFEPA River is located approximately 430 m to the north of the proposed site and the Indwe River is located approximately 700 m to the west of the site. The nearest wetland is located approximately 800 m to the east of the proposed site. However, the topography of the site (gradual west facing slope) may lead to runoff from the site flowing into the stream and the Indwe River (Refer to Ecological Assessment in Annexure 5). This impact can be reduced to LOW-MEDIUM with the correct mitigation and management measures (Please refer to the Storm Water Management Plan and Erosion Management Plan in Annexure 5).

The alternative 1 site will have a LOW-MEDIUM impact on surface water, which can be changed to LOW with mitigation. There are no watercourses or wetlands located on this site. The nearest surface water feature is a waterbody located approximately 560 m northwest of the proposed site. Due to the topography of the site, runoff may flow into this waterbody.

As mentioned earlier, there is no feasible technological alternative because as far reasonably possible, the best technology will be utilised to limit and / or prevent impact on the environment. The preferred technological alternative will not have any impact on surface water.

There may be a high cumulative impact on the surface water features at the preferred alternative, due to the presence of the quarry. This quarry is close to both the stream and the Indwe river.

Proposed mitigation:

• Berms will be constructed around the site, especially at the western border, to divert clean water around the site to drain into the natural drainage lines of the environment. • Storm water will not be allowed to drain into the natural drainage lines from the operational area as this area is regarded as a dirty area. • All potentially hazardous substances will be stored in a bunded area which can contain 110% of the volume of the substance. • Spillages of hydrocarbons will be prevented by using drip trays and a clean-up procedure will be implemented to clean any hydrocarbon spills as soon as possible. • The site will be monitored for any erosion trenches. Trenches will be rectified, and erosion control measures will be implemented.

7.2.6 Groundwater

The following impacts may occur on the groundwater as a result of the construction and operational phase of the activity:

• Contamination as a result of spillages of hazardous substances. • Incorrect storage of waste products on the site may result in the contamination of the groundwater. • Although it is not foreseen to occur there will be an impact on the groundwater quantity if groundwater is abstracted for the development. • The development may induce surface runoff and therefore reduce infiltration. Lower infiltration will lead to lower groundwater recharge.

Alternatives Severity Duration Extent Consequence Probability Frequency Likelihood Significance

Location Alternatives Preferred Alternative 3 3 2 2.33 3 5 4 10.67 (Coldstream RE/970) MITIGATED 2 2 1 1.33 2 4 3 5 Alternative 1 (Ecowa 3 2 2 2.33 3 5 4 9.33 19/102) MITIGATED 2 1 1 1.33 2 4 3 4 Design/Layout Alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact Technological alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact

The impacts on the groundwater at the preferred site alternative will be MEDIUM, without mitigation. The groundwater of the area consists of minor aquifers with good water quality. The aquifers at the site most likely has an approximate depth of 10 m. Due to the nature of the site (lack of vegetation) recharge may take place at an accelerated rate. This may cause contaminants to infiltrate the shallow aquifer during rainfall events (Refer to the Storm water Management Plan and Erosion Management Plan). With mitigation, this impact can be reduced to LOW-MEDIUM. The impact at the alternative 1 site will be LOW-MEDIUM, due to the nature of the site allowing for a slower rate of recharge and infiltration.

There may be a high cumulative impact on the groundwater due to the presence of the adjacent quarries, which may also lead to contamination.

Proposed mitigation:

• Hazardous substances will be stored inside a bunded area with an impermeable surface which has the capacity to store more than 110% of the volume of the substance. • Spillages of hydrocarbons will be prevented by using drip trays and a clean-up procedure will be implemented to clean any hydrocarbon spills as soon as possible. • No water will be abstracted from groundwater for use at the plants.

7.2.7 Air Quality and Noise

The following impacts may occur on the air quality and noise levels as a result of the construction and operational phase of the activity:

• During the construction phase there may be an impact on the air quality as a result of dust emissions due to construction activities and movement of machinery and vehicles. It should be noted that the preferred site is already cleared and compacted and therefore this impact is expected to be low at this site. • During the operational phase there may be an impact on the air quality as a result of emissions from both the asphalt plant and emulsion plant, although the emissions from the emulsion plant are mainly from “breathing losses”. • During construction noise levels may become elevated. However, this impact is expected to be low at the preferred site due to the distance from the nearest town. During operation the emulsion plant generates very little noise.

According to the Atmospheric Impact Assessment (refer to Annexure 5) the predicted dustfall and ambient concentrations of pollutants comply with the national dust regulations and health-based ambient air quality standards.

Alternatives Severity Duration Extent Consequence Probability Frequency Likelihood Significance Location Alternatives Preferred Alternative 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 15 (Coldstream RE/970) MITIGATED 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 8 Alternative 1 (Ecowa 4 3 3 3.33 5 5 5 16.67 19/102) MITIGATED 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 8

Design/Layout Alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact Technological alternatives Preferred 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 8 Alternative MITIGATED The preferred alternative includes technologies for mitigation.

Both site alternatives will have a MEDIUM-HIGH impact on the air quality and noise, as the same activities will occur at both sites. Although, the impact of the alternative 1 site will be higher up on the MEDIUM-HIGH scale. It should be noted that this impact was mainly done for air quality, as the noise levels at the plants are minimal during operation. The alternative 1 site is located closer to a town, and therefore the impact may be higher. There are also numerous homesteads surrounding the proposed site. The impact can be changed to LOW-MEDIUM with the correct mitigation and management measures.

The preferred technological alternative, which consists of baghouse filters and tanks to reduce “breathing losses” will have a LOW-MEDIUM impact on the climate, as these technologies are used as mitigation measures to reduce air emissions.

There may be a cumulative impact on the air quality at both site alternatives due to the land use in the surrounding area, which consists of the adjacent quarries, agriculture and the PG Bison Plant which is located 85 km from the preferred site alternative. However, this impact is expected to be low, as the air quality of the region is good, and the area is not known for heavy industry.

Proposed mitigation:

• An air emission monitoring programme and dust fallout monitoring programme will be implemented to reduce the potential impact. • Dust control measures must adhere to Dust Control Regulations.

7.2.8 Archaeological, Palaeontological and Cultural Resources

The following impacts may occur on the archaeological, palaeontological and cultural resources as a result of the construction and operational phase of the activity:

• There may be accidental unearthing, damage and/or loss of heritage and/or palaeontological resources as a result of construction or operational activities. It should be noted that this is not expected to happen, as no heritage and/or palaeontological resources were observed. Alternatives Severity Duration Extent Consequence Probability Frequency Likelihood Significance Location Alternatives Preferred Alternative 1 2 1 1.67 2 5 3.5 4.67 (Coldstream RE/970) MITIGATED 1 1 1 1 1 4 2.5 2.5 Alternative 1 (Ecowa 2 2 1 1.67 2 5 3.5 5.83 19/102) MITIGATED 1 1 1 1 1 4 2.5 2.5 Design/Layout Alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact Technological alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact

The impact of the preferred site alternative will be LOW, as no archaeological material or indications of rock art, prehistoric structures or historical buildings were observed during the Phase 1 HIA and PIA. It was also found that the area does not have any palaeontological significance (Refer to the HIA and PIA in Annexure 5). The impact at the alternative 1 site will be LOW-MEDIUM without mitigation. No heritage artefacts or sites were observed during the site visit and the chances of this occurring is unlikely. However, uncertainties do exist.

It is not expected that there will be any cumulative impacts.

Proposed mitigation:

• No excavation will take place. • If any archaeological objects or palaeontological remains are found, work will stop immediately and SAHRA will be notified.

7.2.9 Aesthetics

The following impacts may occur on the aesthetics as a result of the construction and operational phase of the activity:

• With the alternative site, the natural area will be transformed. With the preferred site, the land is already degraded and transformed. • Both the emulsion plant and asphalt plant may have a negative aesthetic impact on passing motorists using the R56. • The mismanagement of waste and the improper construction of infrastructure may lead to a negative visual impact on the surrounding land and road users, as well as the residents of Elliot in regards to the alternative site.

Alternatives Severity Duration Extent Consequence Probability Frequency Likelihood Significance Location Alternatives Preferred Alternative 3 4 2 3 4 5 4.5 13.5 (Coldstream RE/970) MITIGATED 2 4 2 2.67 3 4 3.5 9.33

Alternative 1 (Ecowa 3 4 2 3 4 5 4.5 13.5 19/102) MITIGATED 2 4 2 2.67 3 4 3.5 9.33 Design/Layout Alternatives Preferred 3 4 2 3 4 5 4.5 13.5 Alternative MITIGATED 2 4 2 2.67 3 4 3.5 9.33 Technological alternatives Preferred No Impact Alternative MITIGATED No Impact

Both site alternatives will have a negative visual impact on the surrounding environment during construction and during operation. The aesthetic impact of both the preferred alternative and alternative 1 will be MEDIUM, as the preferred alternative is located next to the R56 road, which may have a visual impact on passing motorists and alternative 1 is located close to the town of Elliot and may have a visual impact on residents in town. This rating can be reduced to LOW- MEDIUM if the correct mitigation and management measures are implemented, such as keeping the site clean and neat through the correct housekeeping and waste disposal.

As mentioned earlier in the report, there is no feasible design/layout alternative because the site for an asphalt and emulsion plant is usually designed in a manner to allow the most efficient and safest way of operation. The preferred design/layout alternative will have a MEDIUM visual impact that can be reduced to LOW-MEDIUM with the correct management and mitigation.

Also, as mentioned earlier, there is no feasible technological alternative because as far reasonably possible, the best technology will be utilised to limit and / or prevent impact on the environment. The visual aesthetics will not be impacted by the use of baghouse filters and other equipment to limit air emissions.

The cumulative impacts on the visual aesthetic will be medium, as both site alternatives are located directly adjacent to quarries, which already contribute to a negative visual aesthetic.

Proposed mitigation:

• Alien vegetation should be cleared regularly. • Waste should be disposed of in the correct manner regularly.

• Separate skips and/or bins should be available for the separate waste streams. • Any spills and/or leakages should be cleaned immediately in the correct manner.

7.2.10 Demographics and Regional Socio-economic Structure

The development will have a positive impact on the demographics and socio-economic structure of the surrounding areas. The development will create multiple jobs during construction and the lifetime of the project.

8 Conclusion

The proposed establishment of an emulsion plant and asphalt plant on the remainder of the farm Coldstream 970, Indwe, Eastern Cape is an initiative by Tau-Pele Construction (Pty) Ltd. The proposed development will entail the establishment of an emulsion plant and asphalt plant to produce bitumen emulsion and asphalt for future projects for the construction and repair of the public roads in the area.

Both plants will store dangerous goods that will be stored inside a bunded area with an impermeable surface which has the capacity to store more than 110% of the volume of the substance. Both plants also generate emissions, although the emissions from the emulsion plant are mainly due to “breathing losses” from storage tanks. An air emission monitoring programme and dust fallout monitoring programme will be implemented to reduce the potential impact.

The proposed site is degraded and bare of vegetation due to there being a temporary asphalt plant present on the same site in the past and due to the site being used as a stockpile area (in the past and currently) by the adjacent quarry. The proposed site is located directly next to the R56 road.

By implementing the proposed development, numerous job opportunities will be created, which will have a positive impact on the local economy. Also, society will be directly benefited by improving access and connectivity for communities and businesses. According to the Emalahleni Municipality IDP (Emalahleni Municipality 2016: 62) the entire road network in the Emalahleni Municipality is in a generally poor condition and needs upgrading and maintenance. Thus, establishing an emulsion plant and asphalt plant in this location will be sensible if future projects become available in the area, due to the proximity of the plants to local roads.

An Ecological Assessment was conducted to determine the entire footprint that the development will have on the environment. It was found that the proposed site is transformed and mostly bare of vegetation. Some vegetation is still present on the borders of the site that consists of weeds and patches of natural vegetation. Almost the entire site also contains a thin layer of crusher stone on top of the soil layer. The site falls within the Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland (Gs 10) vegetation type which is classified as Least Concern and the site does not fall within any Aquatic or Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas, which further decreases conservation value. No protected, rare or endangered species were observed on site.

There are no watercourses or wetlands present on the proposed site. The nearest watercourse in a non-perennial stream approximately 230 m southwest of the proposed site. This stream is a

tributary of the Indwe River, which is located approximately 700 m west of the proposed site. The topography of the site may lead to runoff from site entering the stream and Indwe River, which may lead to contamination and sedimentation. However, with the correct mitigation and management measures it is unlikely that this stream will be directly affected by the development.

Furthermore, a Phase 1 HIA and PIA was conducted. The area’s heritage significance was assessed on the basis of existing field data, database information and already published literature which was followed by a field survey. The survey found no evidence of archaeological material or historic buildings. The geology underlying the site is also not considered to be paleontologically significant.

Summary of Significance Rating after mitigation

Impact Preferred Alternative Design/Layout Technological Alternative 1 Alternatives Alternatives (Coldstream (Ecowa RE/970) 19/102)

Geology and 5.83 8 No Impact No Impact Soil Climate 6 6 No Impact 3.33

Land Use 10.5 13.33 No Impact No Impact Plant & Animal 8.17 10.67 No Impact No Impact Life Surface Water 10.67 7 10.67 No Impact

Groundwater 10.67 9.33 No Impact No Impact Air Quality and 15 16.67 No Impact 8 Noise Archaeological, Palaeontological 4.67 5.83 No Impact No Impact and Cultural Resources Aesthetics 13.5 13.5 13.5 No Impact

Demographics No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact and Regional Structure

Motivation for proposed site alternative

All possible alternatives were identified and assessed. The preferred site was decided on based on certain factors:

• The proposed site was previously used by the applicant for a temporary asphalt plant and the site is degraded, transformed and bare of vegetation. • The preferred site has a lower impact on geology and soil, land use, vegetation and animal life, air quality and noise and archaeological, palaeontological and cultural resources than the alternative 1 site. • The proposed development will create numerous job opportunities and contribute positively towards the economy of the area.

Therefore, the preferred site, the farm Coldstream RE/970 was considered as the best suited site for the establishment of an emulsion plant and asphalt plant with the lowest overall environmental impact being caused.

9 Proposed Conditions of Approval

The following measures will have to be implemented and maintained throughout the lifetime of the proposed project:

• No vegetation may be cleared outside the site boundaries. • Alien vegetation should be removed regularly. This must adhere to the Alien and Invasive Species Regulations. • Any soil that is removed should be stockpiled and may not be used for any other activities. Soil stockpiles may not exceed a height of 1.5 m. • All efforts should be made to limit aesthetic impact on passing motorists and adjacent landowners, by always keeping the site clean and neat and disposing of waste in the correct manner. • An air emission monitoring programme and dust fallout monitoring programme should be implemented to reduce the potential impact and to monitor compliance with NEM:AQA. Dust control measures must adhere to Dust Control Regulations. • All potentially hazardous substances should be stored in a bunded area which can contain 110% of the volume of the substance. • Any spillages should be cleaned immediately by removing the contaminated soil and disposing of it as hazardous waste.

• Storm water management should be implemented to reduce runoff which may cause contamination and siltation of watercourses, by establishing trenches and/or berms around the site, especially at the western border. • Should any items of archaeological or palaeontological significance be unearthed or found on the site during the lifetime of the project, a specialist will be appointed to investigate the finds and SAHRA will also be notified thereof.

10 References

• Department: Water Affairs. 2012. Aquifer Classification of South Africa. http://www.dwa.gov.za/Groundwater/documents/Aquifer%20Classification.pdf. [Date of access: 13/11/2018].

• Department: Water Affairs. 2012. Aquifer Classification of South Africa. http://www.dwa.gov.za/Groundwater/documents/Groundwater%20Quality.pdf. [Date of access: 27/02/2019].

• Department: Water Affairs. 2012. Aquifer Classification of South Africa. http://www.dwa.gov.za/Groundwater/documents/Aquifer%20Vulnerability.pdf. [Date of access: 27/02/2019].

• Meteoblue. 2018. Climate Indwe. https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/forecast/modelclimate/indwe_south- africa_994804. [Date of access: 26/11/2018].

• DEAT. 2001. ENPAT, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

• DEAT. 2002. Impact Significance, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 5. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT).

• Mucina et al. 2006. Grassland Biome. In: Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

• Statistics South Africa (STATS SA). 2011. Indwe. Available at: http://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=4286&id=2823. [Date of access: 14/11/2018].

• Water Resource Council. 2005.