Consultation Basic Assessment Report for the Proposed Sibaya
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REPORT Consultation Basic Assessment Report for the Proposed Sibaya Bulk Waterline from the Waterloo Reservoir to the Sibaya Precinct in eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality, KwaZulu- Natal Client: Tongaat Hulett Developments Reference: W01.RDC.000052 Revision: 01/Draft Date: 22 April 2016 Project related ROYAL HASKONINGDHV (PTY) LTD 6 Payne Street Pinetown Durban 3610 Transport & Planning Reg No. 1966/001916/07 +27 31 719 5500 T +27 31 719 5505 F [email protected] E royalhaskoningdhv.com W Document title: Consultation Basic Assessment Report for the Proposed Sibaya Bulk Waterline from the Waterloo Reservoir to the Sibaya Precinct in eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal Document short title: Sibaya Waterline CBAR Reference: W01.RDC.000052 Revision: 01/Draft Date: 22 April 2016 Project name: W01.RDC.000052 Project number: W01.RDC.000052 Author(s): Humayrah Bassa Drafted by: Humayrah Bassa Pr.Sci.Nat. Checked by: Prashika Reddy Pr.Sci.Nat. Date / initials: 15.04.2016 Approved by: Prashika Reddy Pr.Sci.Nat. Date / initials: 15.04.2016 Classification Project related Disclaimer No part of these specifications/printed matter may be reproduced and/or published by print, photocopy, microfilm or by any other means, without the prior written permission of Royal HaskoningDHV (Pty) Ltd; nor may they be used, without such permission, for any purposes other than that for which they were produced. Royal HaskoningDHV (Pty) Ltd accepts no responsibility or liability for these specifications/printed matter to any party other than the persons by whom it was commissioned and as concluded under that Appointment. The quality management system of Royal HaskoningDHV (Pty) Ltd has been certified in accordance with ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001. 22 April 2016 SIBAYA WATERLINE CBAR W01.RDC.000052 i Project related Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.1.1 Development Phasing 2 1.1.2 Project Context 4 1.2 Objectives of the Study 5 1.3 Approach to the Study 5 1.3.1 Pre-application Consultation 5 1.3.2 Application for Environmental Authorisation 5 1.3.3 Basic Assessment Report 6 1.3.4 Environmental Management Programme 6 1.3.5 Specialist Studies 7 1.4 Details of the Project Proponent 7 1.5 Details of the Environmental Assessment Practitioner 8 1.6 Structure of the Report 9 2 Environmental Legislative Context 10 2.1 The Constitution of South Africa 10 2.2 Sustainable Development 10 2.3 National Legislation and Regulations 11 2.3.1 National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) 11 2.3.2 EIA Regulations (2014) 12 2.3.3 National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) (as amended) 12 2.3.4 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) 13 2.3.5 KZN Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance No. 15 of 1974) 15 2.3.6 National Environmental Management: Waste Act (No 59 of 2008) (as amended) 15 2.3.7 National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999) 16 2.3.8 National Forests Act (Act No. 84 of 1998) 16 2.3.9 Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act No. 85 of 1993) 16 2.3.10 National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (Act No. 39 of 2004) 17 2.3.11 Hazardous Substance Act (Act No. 15 of 1973) and Regulations 17 2.4 Climate Change Consideration 18 3 Project Context & Motivation 19 3.1 Background to the Study Area 19 3.1.1 Property Descriptions 19 3.1.2 Land Use Zoning 20 3.1.3 Route Coordinates 20 3.1.4 Access / Directions 22 3.1.5 Length of the Activity 22 3.1.6 Size of Servitude 22 3.1.7 Surrounding Land Uses 22 3.2 Project Description 23 22 April 2016 SIBAYA WATERLINE CBAR W01.RDC.000052 ii Project related 3.2.1 Preferred Layout 24 3.2.2 Alternative Layout 24 3.3 Project Motivation 27 3.3.1 Need & Desirability 27 3.3.2 Socio-economic Value 29 4 Project Alternatives 30 4.1 Site and Type Alternatives 30 4.2 Layout / Route Alignment Alternatives 30 4.2.1 Preferred Layout 30 4.2.2 Alternative Layout 30 4.3 Technology Alternatives 31 4.3.1 Trenching – Technology Alternative 1 31 4.3.2 Pipe Bridges - Technology Alternative 2 31 5 Description of the Baseline Environment 33 5.1 Climate 33 5.2 Geology and Soils 33 5.3 Topography 34 5.4 Land Cover 34 5.5 Agricultural Potential 35 5.6 Cultural Heritage 35 5.7 Vegetation 35 5.8 Water Resources 36 5.8.1 Catchment Details 36 5.8.2 Wetlands 36 6 Public Participation process 39 6.1 Authority Consultation 40 6.2 Consultation with Other Relevant Stakeholders 40 6.3 Site Notification 41 6.4 Identification of Interested and Affected Parties 41 6.5 Briefing Paper 42 6.6 Focus Group Meeting 42 6.7 Advertising 42 6.8 Issues Trail 42 6.8.1 Key Issues Raised by the Public 42 6.9 Public Review of the draft Consultation BAR 43 6.10 Final Consultation BAR 43 6.11 PPP Summary 43 7 Specialist Assessments 44 7.1 Geotechnical Assessment 44 22 April 2016 SIBAYA WATERLINE CBAR W01.RDC.000052 iii Project related 7.1.1 Pipe Jacking of the M4 and N2 44 7.2 Vegetation Assessment 45 7.2.1 M4 Easterly Side 45 7.2.2 M4 Westerly Side 45 7.2.3 Embankment Area (Road created for access during the construction of the N2) 47 7.2.4 East of the N2 (seaward side) 47 7.2.5 West of the N2 48 7.2.6 Tarred Sugarcane Road and close proximity to a Substation 48 7.2.7 Beyond the Tarred Road Crossing towards the Waterloo Reservoir 49 7.2.8 Thin Band of Woody Vegetation 50 7.2.9 Drainage Line prior to the Waterloo Reservoir 50 7.2.10 Summary 51 7.3 Wetland Assessment 51 7.3.1 WetHealth Assessment 51 7.3.2 Impacts on Wetlands 52 7.3.3 Wetland Rehabilitation and Off-sets 52 7.4 Heritage Assessment 52 7.5 Influent and Effluent 53 7.6 Air Quality 54 7.7 Waste Management 54 7.8 Noise 54 8 Impact Assessment 55 8.1 Introduction 55 8.2 Impact Assessment Methodology 55 8.3 Potential Impacts and Significance 57 8.3.1 Soils & Agriculture 58 8.3.2 Geology & Topography 59 8.3.3 Geohydrology 60 8.3.4 Biodiversity 62 8.3.5 Wetlands 64 8.3.6 Air Quality and Odour 69 8.3.7 Noise 70 8.3.8 Visual 71 8.3.9 Traffic 72 8.3.10 Stormwater 72 8.3.11 Heritage Impacts 75 8.3.12 Socio-economic & Health 76 9 Environmental Impact Statement 78 9.1 Comparative Assessment of Alternatives 78 9.2 Key Findings 79 10 Conclusion and Recommendations 81 10.1 Assumptions, Uncertainties or Gaps in Knowledge 81 22 April 2016 SIBAYA WATERLINE CBAR W01.RDC.000052 iv Project related 10.1.1 Geotechnical Assessment 82 10.1.2 Wetland Assessment 82 10.1.3 Vegetation Assessment 82 10.2 Recommendations 83 10.2.1 Recommendations to the CA 83 10.2.2 Recommendations to the Applicant 84 10.3 Declaration by the EAP 84 Appendices A: Minutes of the EDTEA Pre-application Meeting B: Environmental Management Programme C: Specialist Studies D: EAP CV and Knowledge Group Profile E: Public Participation Summary F: Maps & Facility Illustrations G: Photographs H: Other Items 22 April 2016 SIBAYA WATERLINE CBAR W01.RDC.000052 v Project related Table of Tables Table 1-1: List of Supporting Plans ............................................................................................................... 6 Table 1-2: List of Specialist Studies .............................................................................................................. 7 Table 1-3: List of Supporting Studies ............................................................................................................ 7 Table 1-4: Project Applicant Details .............................................................................................................. 7 Table 1-5: Details of the EAP ........................................................................................................................ 8 Table 1-6: Structure of the Report ................................................................................................................. 9 Table 2-1: Listed Activities according to Listing Notices 1 and 3 of the EIA Regulations (2014) ................ 12 Table 3-1: Property Name and Ownership .................................................................................................. 19 Table 3-2: Surveyor General 21 Digit Codes .............................................................................................. 19 Table 3-3: Co-ordinates of the Preferred Alignment .................................................................................... 20 Table 3-4: Co-ordinates of the Alternative Alignment .................................................................................. 21 Table 3-5: Surrounding Land Uses.............................................................................................................. 22 Table 3-6: Sibaya Precinct Development Demand ..................................................................................... 23 Table 3-7: Project Need, Desirability and Benefits ...................................................................................... 28 Table 5-1: Wetland areas and HGM type .................................................................................................... 37 Table 6-1: Key Stakeholders ....................................................................................................................... 41 Table 6-2: Summary of Public Participation Process .................................................................................. 43 Table 7-1: Wetland PES .............................................................................................................................. 51 Table 8-1: Criteria to be used for the Rating of Impacts ............................................................................. 55 Table 8-2: Criteria for the Rating