Environmental Assessment for the Preservation Or Rehabilitation of Main Road 92 (MR92) [Oshakati-Outapi-Ruacana R
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
3rd Floor Maerua Mall Office Towers, Jan Jonker Road, Windhoek, Namibia PO Box 81808, Windhoek, Namibia Tel: (+264) 61 435 8228 Fax: (+264) 61 435 8201 Web: www.gcs-na.biz Environmental Assessment for the Preservation or Rehabilitation of Main Road 92 (MR92) [Oshakati-Outapi-Ruacana Road] in the Oshana and Omusati Regions Scoping Report Version – Final GCS Project Number: 19-0564 16 January 2020 Proponent: Roads Authority Prepared for: Aurecon GCS (Pty) Ltd. Reg No: 2006/717 Est.2008 Offices: Durban Johannesburg Lusaka Ostrava Pretoria Windhoek www.gcs-na.biz Director: AC Johnstone Roads Authority MR92 ROAD REHABILITATION Environmental Assessment for the Preservation or Rehabilitation of Main Road 92 (MR92) [Oshakati-Outapi-Ruacana Road] in the Oshana and Omusati Regions Scoping Report Version – Final 16 January 2020 Roads Authority 19-0564 DOCUMENT ISSUE STATUS Report Issue Final GCS Reference Number GCS Ref – 19-0564 Client Reference N/A Environmental Assessment for the Preservation or Title Rehabilitation of Main Road 92 (MR92) [Oshakati-Outapi- Ruacana Road] in the Oshana and Omusati Regions Name Signature Date Author 1 Stephanie Strauss December 2019 Document Reviewer Sharon Meyer December 2019 LEGAL NOTICE This report or any proportion thereof and any associated documentation remain the property of GCS until the mandator effects payment of all fees and disbursements due to GCS in terms of the GCS Conditions of Contract and Project Acceptance Form. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, any reproduction, duplication, copying, adaptation, editing, change, disclosure, publication, distribution, incorporation, modification, lending, transfer, sending, delivering, serving or broadcasting must be authorised in writing by GCS. 19-0564 16 January 2020 Page 2 Roads Authority MR92 ROAD REHABILITATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Roads Authority of Namibia (the Proponent) is undertaking a feasibility study for the preservation or rehabilitation of Main Road 92 (MR92) travelling from Oshakati to Ruacana, stretching across the Omusati and Oshana Regions. The need for the rehabilitation of the road has been determined by the deteriorating condition of said road. As such, the Proponent identified the need to investigate the feasibility of rehabilitating the road to fulfil its mission of achieving a safe and efficient national road network in Namibia. The feasibility study further aims to determine possible sources for material (borrow pits) which will be needed for the road rehabilitation activities. The subject road is approximately 171 km long and travels from Oshakati through Oshikuku and Outapi to Ruacana. The project road commences at the end of the dual carriageway on the western side of Oshakati and ends at the junction of the Angola border post and Swartbooidrift District Road DR300 (Aurecon, 2019). The majority of the road section is located within the Omusati Region and a small section is located within the Oshana Region. This report documents the assessment of potential impacts from the proposed activity. The preliminary findings within this Scoping Report indicate that potential impacts will be of a low significance. These potential impacts can be further mitigated by implementation of an effective Environmental Management Plan. Based on the information provided in this report, GCS is confident the identified risks associated with the proposed development can be reduced to acceptable levels, should the measures recommended in the EMP be implemented and monitored effectively. It is therefore recommended that the project receive Environmental Clearance, provided that the EMP be implemented. 19-0564 16 January 2020 Page 3 Roads Authority MR92 ROAD REHABILITATION CONTENTS PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3 2 THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) ............................................................ 5 2.1 PROJECT TEAM .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 6 2.3 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................... 7 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 8 3.1 ROAD CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................. 8 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................... 9 3.2.1 Feasibility Study ................................................................................................................ 9 3.2.2 Materials and Borrow Pits .............................................................................................. 10 3.2.3 Resources and Working Team ........................................................................................ 20 3.2.4 Infrastructure and Services ............................................................................................. 20 4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...................................................................................... 21 4.1 NO-GO ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................................... 21 4.4 CONCLUSIONS ON THE CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................ 22 5 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................. 24 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ..................................................................................................... 32 6.1 BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 32 6.1.1 Climate ............................................................................................................................ 32 6.1.2 Topography, Soils and Geology....................................................................................... 32 6.1.3 Hydrology and Hydrogeology ......................................................................................... 34 6.1.4 Fauna and Flora .............................................................................................................. 35 6.1.5 Archaeological and Heritage Resources ......................................................................... 38 6.2 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................. 40 7 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................ 42 7.1 OBJECTIVE: ................................................................................................................................. 42 7.2 APPROACH: ................................................................................................................................ 42 7.2.1 Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) ......................................................................... 42 7.2.2 Communication with I&APs ............................................................................................ 43 8 IMPACTS IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT ................................................... 45 8.2 PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 48 8.3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 50 8.3.6 Impact Assessment of Archaeological and Heritage Resources ..................................... 54 8.3.7 Impact Assessment of disturbance to local community members and businesses ......... 54 8.3.8 Impact Assessment of Temporary Employment Creation ............................................... 55 8.3.9 Impact Assessment of Health and Safety........................................................................ 56 9 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 57 9.1 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 57 10.1 RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................................................................... 60 11 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 60 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Location of Main Road 92. ................................................................ 4 Figure 3-1: Project road’s life cycle. ................................................................. 9 Figure 3-2: Existing borrow pits located within project area. ................................... 11 Figure 3-3: Google Earth Image of BP1. ............................................................ 13 Figure 3-4: Site photographs of BP1. ................................................................ 14 19-0564 16 January 2020 Page 1 Roads Authority MR92 ROAD REHABILITATION Figure 3-5: Google Earth image of BP2. ...........................................................