4. ALTERNATIVES - CESNET › pubdocs › PORT ST JOHNS SECOND BEACH...2017/06/27 · 4....

Environmental Impact Assessment Report – June 2017

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 20 PSJ Second Beach Infrastructure Project

4. ALTERNATIVES

According to Appendix 2(2) of the EIA Regulations (GN R. 982 of 2014), a Scoping Report must contain all the information necessary for a proper understanding of the process, informing all preferred alternatives, including location alternatives, the scope of the assessment, and the consultation process to be undertaken through the environmental impact assessment process, and must include –

(h) a full description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred activity, site and location within the site, including -

(i) details of alternatives considered; (x) if no alternatives, including alternative locations for the activity were investigated, the motivation for not considering such; and (xi) a concluding statement indicating the preferred alternatives, including the preferred location of the activity.

4.1 Reasonable and feasible alternatives Alternatives should include consideration of all possible means by which the purpose and need of the proposed activity could be accomplished. The no-go alternative must, in all cases, be included in the assessment phase as the baseline against which the impacts of the other alternatives are assessed. The determination of whether the preferred activity, site or site location is appropriate is informed by the specific circumstances of the proposed development and its environment. “Alternatives”, in relation to a proposed activity, means different ways of meeting the general purpose and requirements of the activity, which may include alternatives to –

(a) the property or location where it is proposed to undertake the activity; (b) the type of activity to be undertaken; (c) the design or layout of the activity; (d) the technology to be used in the activity; (e) the operational aspects of the activity; and (f) the option of not implementing the activity.

4.1.1 No-Go Alternative

It is mandatory to consider the “no-go” option in the EIA process. The no development option assumes the site remains in its current state, i.e. there is no construction of a tidal pool and associated beach infrastructure in the proposed project area. The no-go alternative will be assessed in an objective manner in the EIA Phase.

4.1.2 Fundamental Alternatives Fundamental alternatives are developments that are totally different from the proposed project and usually involve a different type of development on the proposed site, or a different location for the proposed development.



4.1.3 Location Alternatives Site assessments of the various beaches in the Eastern Cape ensured that all potential sites for the development of beach infrastructure were identified. The locations of these selected beaches are illustrated below in Figure 4.1.

Manteku;

Mntafufu;

Agate;

Port St Johns First beach;

Port St Johns Second Beach;

Port St Johns Third beach;

Umngazi; and

Mpande.

Figure 4.1: Site alternatives (map provided by: PRDW, 2016)

The preferred site was chosen based on the accessibility, existing infrastructure and beach characteristics, as well as the need for facilities in an already popular area. Detailed descriptions of each site are provided in Table 4.1 below. This broad assessment of the current status of the beaches (BCRE, 2012) assisted in selecting a preferred site.

The preferred location identified is Port St Johns Second Beach.



Table 4.1: Assessment of beach sites (PRDW, 2016)

Site Photo Distance

from PSJ Accessibility

Beach

characteristics

Manteku

17.5 km

North East

Gravel road,

4x4 only.

Located at

Mzintlava Estuary,

bordered on either

side by steep rocky

headlands.

450 m x 50 m.

Mntafufu

11.5 km

North East

Gravel road,

4x4 only.

No description

available.

350 m x 50 m.

Agate

2.3 km North

East

Road is

drivable in

most vehicles.

Rip currents and

deep gullies along

the entire length.

Rocky outcrops

border the beach.

50 m x 50 m.



Site Photo Distance


Beach

characteristics

First

Beach

0 km Easy access

On the bank of

Umzimvubu River.

Actually a tidal river

bank – the beach

does not exist

anymore. Water

depth drops rapidly

from river bank,

dangerous during

heavy

rainfall/strong river

flows.

Second

Beach

3.8 km South

Easy access,

roads need

maintenance.

Most popular beach

in PSJ. Wide

beach, 500 m x 70

m. North and South

beaches separated

by a small

vegetated outcrop.

Bordered by steep

rocky headlands.

Third

Beach

5.2 km South

Poorly

maintained

gravel road

through Silaka

Nature

Reserve, 2 km

from Second

Beach.

Rip currents and

deep gullies along

the entire length.

250 m x 30 m.

Bordered by steep

rocky headlands.

Camping sites.



Site Photo Distance


Beach

characteristics

Umngazi

10 km South

East

Only

accessible

through private

land owned by

Umngazi River

Bungalows

(URB). 10 km

of tarred road.

At the mouth of

Umngazi estuary. 1

900m x 100m.

Numerous rip

currents and deep

gullies. Bordered by

rocks and steep

headland.

Mpande

23 km South

East

18 km poor

gravel road.

4x4 only. Two

low floodable

bridges.

Rip currents and

deep gullies along

the entire length.

Small stream flow

onto beach at its

South end.

Bordered by steep

rocky headlands.

600m x 100m.

4.1.4 Layout Alternative

4.1.4.1 Land based infrastructure

The landside development process was initiated with a sub-consultant design workshop at Second Beach, on 8 September 2016. The architect, town planner and coastal engineer were present. Subsequently, an analysis of the landscape identifying the basic land use functions and future potential development areas was formally performed. The analysis is presented in Figure 4.2 below. Proceeding from the landscape analysis, a concept landside layout plan was drawn to show the proposed supporting infrastructure development plans. This initial concept plan is illustrated in Figure 4.3. Subsequently, a revised improved plan was drafted incorporating comments from the stakeholders and the design team. The concept landside layout plan is shown below in Figure 4.4. Important revisions included:

Centralising the ablutions and ensuring they are visible in order to avoid criminal activity.

Relocating the lifesaving building to ensure access to a beach ramp.

Introduction of a drop-off zone and turning circle.

Provision of informal trading areas.



Figure 4.2: Second Beach landscape analysis.



Figure 4.3: Second Beach Landscape Alternative 1 (draft plan).



Figure 4.4: Second Beach Landscape Alternative 2 (interim plan).



Feasibility design

PORT ST JOHNS BEACH STUDY

GeneralArrangement

Layout Description - Feasibility StudyLayout Description –Feasibility

INFORMAL TRADING

NEW SOUTH ABLUTION BLOCK

NEW CENTRAL ABLUTION BLOCK

NEW NORTH ABLUTION BLOCK

TIDAL POOL

TRAFFIC CIRCLE

NEW PARKING AREA

BEACH SHOWERS

NEW ROAD

CENTRAL PARKING & ENTRANCE SQUARE

LAWN TERRACESTEPS

PICNIC AREAS

RESURFACE ROADPARKING ALONGSIDE ROAD

REFURBISHED BUILDINGS

LIFESAVERS BUILDING

WHEELCHAIR RAMP

LIFESAVERS TOWER

RAMP TO BEACH

BRAAI AREAS

TRAFFIC CALMING

FUTURE LOOK OUT HILL RESTAURANT

FUTURE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

LAWN TERRACE STEPS

SOUTH BEACH NORTH BEACH

Figure 4.5: Second Beach Landscape Alternative 3 (Preferred and Final plan).



4.1.4.2 Temporary infrastructure

The site has limited space available for the contractor’s temporary site offices, laydown areas and precast yard. Although the construction methodology makes provision for a precasting yard on site, the contractor may decide to carry out precasting works off site. Figure 4.6 below shows the options that were considered for contractor’s temporary facilities. It is preferential for the contractor to have one construction camp to consolidate and allow for more effective management of temporary works, optimizing of costs (e.g. security costs) and prevent interference with permanent works. For these reasons, Option A is considered the preferred area for the contractor’s temporary facilities. However, it should be noted that there are pros and cons associated with each option. For example, Option A requires that the contractor negotiates a suitable lease agreement with the land owner. There is also a risk of flooding in this area. Option B will require careful planning as there are construction works planned for these areas, thus at a stage the contractor will need to relocate.

Figure 4.6: Temporary construction camp alternatives: Option A and Option B 4.1.5 Incremental Alternatives

Incremental alternatives are modifications or variations to the design of a project that provide different options to reduce or minimise environmental impacts. Several incremental alternatives have been considered in this scoping report, as detailed below. 4.1.5.1 Technology alternatives: Shark control measures

Prior to 2004, there were reportedly no shark attacks in Port St Johns. Since then, there have been nine shark attacks at Second Beach in just under 10 years from March 2004 to March 2013. Seven of these shark attacks were fatal (KZN Sharks Board, 2013). As past shark attacks at Second Beach have occurred in both shallow waters and also beyond the surf zone, it is evident that bathers, swimmers and surfers at this beach are at risk. The KZN Sharks Board (2013) also stated that “drowning at Second Beach appears to be a far greater problem than shark attack fatalities.” In 2011 alone there were six drownings at Second Beach. Prioritizing the creation of a safe swimming environment, through the construction of a tidal



pool or enclosure, would eliminate the risk of shark attacks, and dramatically reduce the risk of drownings. Historically shark nets and drumlines have been deployed offshore of swimming beaches to protect bathers in areas with a high risk of shark attacks. However, these shark fishing devices have been proven to have an overall negative ecological impact and should therefore be discouraged and only used as a last resort. According to the Port St Johns Beach Management Plan (PSJ Development Agency, 2012) that was proposed for a 5-year period from 2012 to 2017, the following shark control measures were previously investigated for use at Port St Johns’ Second Beach:

Shark spotter programme.

Shark nets.

Drum lines.

Shark pods.

Table 4.2 summarises all possible shark attack mitigation measures or devices including those listed above.

Table 4.2: Shark attack mitigation measures (PRDW, 2016)

Category

Mitigation

measure /

Device

Photo Advantages Disadvantages Relevance to

PSJ

Sh

ark

Fis

hin

g D

evic

es

Shark nets

Reduce

number of

sharks

Kill marine life.

High

maintenance

High

maintenance.

Strong

environmental

resistance.

Drumlines

Reduce no. of

sharks.

More

selective than

nets.

Kills sharks.

High

maintenance.

High

maintenance.

Strong

environmental

resistance.

Eco

-frie

nd

ly b

arr

ier

SharkSafe

Barrier

Eco-friendly.

Group

protection.

Developing

technology.

Tested in low

wave energy.

Developing

technology.

Eco Shark

Barrier

Eco-friendly.

Group

protection.

Developing

technology.

Developing

technology.



Category

Mitigation

measure /

Device


PSJ

Ele

ctr

ica

l fie

lds

Shark

repellent

cable

Repel sharks.

Group

protection.

Developing

technology.

Tested in low

wave energy.

Developing

technology.

Shark

Shield/pod

Repel sharks.

Non-invasive.

Protect

divers/surfers.

Individual usage.

Charge device.

Individual

distribution

not suitable in

PSJ.

Re

pe

llent

techn

olo

gy Diverter

wetsuit

Repel sharks.

Non-invasive.

Individual usage.

Effectiveness

not guaranteed,

only reduce risk.

Individual

distribution

not suitable in

PSJ.

Underwater

sounds,

chemical

repellents,

Sharkbanz

Repel sharks.

Non-invasive.

Individual usage.

Spray stinks.

Not always

effective.

Individual

distribution

not suitable in

PSJ.

Sh

ark

dete

ction

Clever

buoy

Real-time

detection.

Detect sharks

nearshore.

Eco-friendly.

Visibility is an

issue

High

maintenance.

Requires

specialist IT.

Shark

spotter

Warning

system.

Monitor

presence of

sharks.

Poor visibility.

Daylight hours

only.

Not effective in

PSJ.

Water is often

discoloured.

Not effective

in spotting

Zambezi

sharks.

Sh

ark

tra

ckin

g

Tag and

track

Study shark

behaviour and

migration.

Data analysis

takes long.

Not a short-term

solution.

Ongoing

research at

PSJ



Category

Mitigation

measure /

Device


PSJ

Drones

Real-time

tracking.

Aid lifeguards.

Scientific study,

tests still

underway.

Technology

requires apps.

Turbid water.

Be

ach

sm

art

Signage

Educate

beachgoers.

Signs not in the

local language.

Beachgoers

from rural areas.

Improvements

required in

PSJ.

Lifeguards

Emergency

response.

Prevent

drowning.

Lifeguards

scared to swim.

Improvements

required in

PSJ.

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Tidal pool

Group

protection.

Total

exclusion of

sharks.

Damage to

picturesque

coastline.

Construction.

Will meet

functional

requirements

Exclusion

net

Group

protection.

Total shark

exclusion

Not

permanent

Designed for

more sheltered

areas.

Not suitable in

PSJ due to

high wave

energy.

Swimming

pool

Facility to

teach people

to swim.

Address

drowning

issue.

Not enough

space.

High

maintenance.

Require swim

teachers.

High

maintenance.

Three methods of shark control were chosen based on the table above:

Shark tracking

This mitigation measure is relevant for future research but does not provide a short-term solution.



Beach smart

This mitigation measure is addressed by supporting the existing lifeguards and enhancing signage, is necessary to aid in avoiding drowning, educating the public and increasing the response times to attacks.

Infrastructure -tidal pool.

The provision of hard infrastructure, in the form of a tidal pool, was agreed to be the most robust and suitable shark attack mitigation measure.

According to PRDW (2016), other methods were unsuitable as they were either still in research and development phases or were found to be inappropriate for the site conditions. Shark fishing devices either in the form of shark nets or drumlines have been deemed unsuitable. Key disadvantages, provided by the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board (2013), are their environmental impact and high maintenance requirements. The devices are fairly indiscriminate in catching sea creatures which normally die once caught. Thus, given the pristine nature of the environment the devices would result in extremely high catches inflicting a high toll on the environment. With regards to maintenance the devices are typically checked 20 times per month and require regular repairs. Such a frequent specialised maintenance requirement will be extremely difficult to maintain in the isolated location of PSJ. 4.1.5.2 Layout Alternatives during Scoping Phase– Tidal pool

Various concept layout alternatives were proposed in order to assist in defining the preferred location of the tidal pool. The alternatives are presented below in Figure 4.7. The alternatives are spread over most of the beach with the exception of the area in proximity to the Bulolo River mouth. This area was deemed too environmentally sensitive for development. The initial tidal pool layouts were presented and discussed in three forums by PRDW:

1. An internal design workshop including senior discipline leads from PRDW. Held at PRDW on 14 September 2016.

2. A workshop with the DEA and sub-consultants. Held at PRDW on 15 September 2016. 3. A stakeholder engagement workshop. Held at PSJ on 23 September 2016.

Figure 4.7: Layout Alternatives: Tidal Pool.



In the meetings, the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives were discussed. The selection of preferred locations and layouts was also performed. It was clear, and unanimous, that only two of the layouts and locations were preferred, namely alternative 2 and 3, the pools centrally located at the beach. The remaining alternatives were deemed to be either too far from the main beach access (alternative 1); impacted too heavily on the popular north beach; and were at risk of catching seepage water from the Mtambane River (alternatives 4 and 5) (PRDW, 2016). A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative is presented below in Table 4.3. The preferred layouts are highlighted in green. Table 4.3: Assessment of Tidal pool sites (PRDW, 2016)

Tidal Pool layout alternative

Illustration of location on beach

Advantages Disadvantages

Layout option 1

Good founding conditions, i.e. rock

Beach remains predominantly untouched

Distance from beach access

Potential catchment of river water

Size and shape are limited

Layout option 2

Close to beach access points

Central, i.e. joins north and south beach

Improves rocky outcrop

Founding conditions – sand

Encroaches on both beaches

Layout option 3

Close to beach access points

Large beach behind pool

Constrained access from main parking

Alters large portion of south beach

Layout option 4

Reduce risk of shark attack to typical north beach users

Catchment of river water

Alters north beach

Constrained access from south beach

Layout option 5

Reduce risk of shark attack to typical north beach users

Utilises rocky outcrop

Catchment of river water

Alters north beach

Reflected waves onto beach bathers



It was recognised that in order to decide which tidal pool alternative was more appropriate the concept designs of alternative 2 and 3 would need to be advanced. Thus, based on the design concepts, information from a case study of selected tidal pools in South Africa (see PRDW, 2016 for further information), and inputs from the senior design team, alternative 2 and 3 were refined. The refined layouts are presented in Figure 4.8 and Figure 4.9 below. After presentation of the initial 5 concept layouts, the two refined layouts of alternatives 2 and 3 were presented at a stakeholder workshop. The stakeholders unanimously agreed that alternative 2 was the preferred tidal pool layout. The predominant reason expressed was that the pool does not encroach on north beach but still offers access to bathers from both north and south beach.

Figure 4.8: Refined tidal pool layout for alternative 2 (Preferred scoping level layout)

Figure 4.9: Refined tidal pool layout for alternative 3.



4.1.5.3 Layout Alternatives during the EIA Phase – Tidal pool

Alternative 2 was then refined with the availability of more detailed site information and the quantification of coastal processes to better suit the functional requirements. The staged layout refinements of Alternative 2 are presented below, and essentially focused on ensuring the pool was safe for swimmers and bathers:

o Avoidance of the creation of rip currents inside and outside the pool. o Reduction of reflected wave creation for the beach users.

o Improved alignment with existing sub-surface geological conditions, i.e. limited bedrock and the presence of the boulder field.

o Practicality in terms of construction and use.

The specific refinements are described by layout revision below: From Alternative 2a (pre-feasibility) to Alternative 2b:

The tidal pool wall orientation - The tidal pool shape was altered to be more rounded. This modification was necessary for the prevention of rip currents forming alongside the outer pool wall. An additional advantage of this change is that the curved wall softens the design and to some extent mimics the natural curves and circular geometry of the rocky outcrop, making the tidal pool more aesthetically pleasing.

Beach access steps (related to vegetated rocky outcrop, i.e. central hill) – The pedestrian walkway and beach access steps surrounding the pool were adjusted to precisely fit around the vegetated rocky outcrop, the actual position of which was previously only approximately known.

Beach access steps (related to scour) – The number and extent of beach access steps were increased to ensure that the bottom step was not undermined due to storm erosion or during periods when the beach profile drops. Many of the steps are expected to be submerged for much of the structure’s design life.

Tidal pool access steps (related to exposed bedrock) – The position of the steps was altered to overlay the exposed bedrock which varies between 0 m MSL and +2 m MSL. This provides suitable founding conditions for the steps and covers areas of the bedrock which would be submerged just below the pool water level of +1.6 m MSL. The incorporation of the bedrock into the design will be investigated in more detail in the detail design phase of the study.

Walkways between the islands – The walkways between the islands where removed to ensure better water circulation. In addition, the lack of suitable founding conditions required high cost foundations (e.g. piles) making the walkways less appealing.

Figure 4-10a: Tidal pool layout development. Alternative 2a (pre-feasibility) to Alternative 2b



From Alternative 2b to Alternative 2c:

Number and position of pool islands - Due to the change in the shape of the tidal pool wall, the two island structures were positioned too close to the edge of the wave wall, potentially causing dangerous currents around and between the two islands. The internal design team agreed that only one central island would provide safer swimming conditions, reducing the probability of dangerous currents.

Children’s pools - The two children’s pools have been removed due to poor founding conditions.

Figure 4-10b: Tidal pool layout development: Alternative 2b to Alternative 2c From Alternative 2c to Alternative 2d (Final and Preferred): The tidal pool design has been value engineered and as a result, the layout and shape of the tidal pool wall has been modified further as follows:

A reduction in the seaward extent of the wall in an aim to minimize associated construction costs. Therefore, the preferred feasibility layout is marginally smaller than the interim revisions.

A more rounded tidal pool wall for enhanced visual appeal and constructability. The wall shape consists of two radii making installation of the wall easier and cheaper for the contractor.

Reduction in the number and extent of the beach access and tidal pool access steps. The required number of steps (relating to scour) will be determined in the detail design phase.

Figure 4-10c: Tidal pool layout development: Alternative 2c to Alternative 2d (Final and Preferred)



4.1.6 Summary of Alternatives The above sections describe the alternatives considered in the Scoping Phase and the reasons for selecting the following alternatives for consideration in the EIA Phase:

Fundamental alternatives: o Location alternative

Broad location project area:

Manteku;

Mntafufu;

Agate;

Port St Johns (Preferred);

Umngazi; and

Mpande. Refined location project area:

Port St Johns First beach;

Port St Johns Second Beach (Preferred);

Port St Johns Third beach; Temporary construction camp alternatives:

Option A and

Option B

Incremental alternatives: o Technology alternative: Shark control measures o Tidal pool location alternative layout (Scoping phase)

Tidal pool Alternative 1 Tidal pool Alternative 2 Tidal pool Alternative 3 Tidal pool Alternative 4 (Preferred) Tidal pool Alternative 5

o Tidal pool layout alternative (EIA Phase) Tidal pool Alternative 4a Tidal pool Alternative 4b Tidal pool Alternative 4c Tidal pool Alternative 4d (Preferred)

o Beach infrastructure: Landscape Alternative 1 Landscape Alternative 2 Landscape Alternative 3 (Preferred)

No-go alternative.



5. PROJECT NEED & DESIRABILITY 5.1 Project motivation The Port St Johns Second Beach has long been a popular beach for recreational swimming and surfing. However, since 2004 there have been a number of shark attacks discouraging people from making use of the beach. Second Beach has further been identified as the most easily accessible swimming beach, not only for the Port St Johns Municipality, but also for the King Sabata Dalindyebo, Nyandeni and Ingquza Hill Municipalities, via the R61. The project motivation driving the Port St Johns infrastructure project is the improvement of the Second Beach facilities, the provision of safe swimming conditions, the upliftment of the Port St Johns area and the provision of coastal amenities in line with the requirements of the Integrated Coastal Management Act. The proposed project comprises of the construction of a tidal pool and additional facilities for lifeguards, including a clubhouse with a garage for equipment. The project will include upgrading the beach area through landscaping and improving beach access, ablution facilities and parking lots. A commercial market area will also be established. The need and desirability of the proposed project and its alignment with the local, provincial and national objectives is described below. 5.2 Need 5.2.1 National Planning and Environmental Requirements

The National Development Plan (NDP) is aimed at alleviating poverty and reducing inequality in South Africa by 2030. It promotes sustainable and inclusive development in South Africa to improve the standard of living for all. The proposed Port St Johns Beach Infrastructure project will potentially encourage tourism and contribute to economic prospects in the area. The proposed project will additionally contribute to community upliftment through improvement of infrastructure, increased access to public space and improvements to public safety through increasing safe swimming awareness and education. The proposed project therefore contributes to the following key focus areas of the NDP: safety and security; improving infrastructure; integration and inclusion of rural economy; economic development; and employment.

5.2.2 Provincial Planning and Environmental Requirements The Provincial Spatial Development Plan (PSDP) for the Eastern Cape Province is a spatial planning tool that integrates national, provincial, district and local level land-use planning and management. The PSDP outlines seven spatial planning themes including:

1. Environmental; 2. Social Development (People and Places); 3. Rural Development; 4. Human Resource Development; 5. Infrastructure; 6. Economic Development; and 7. Governance.

Similarly, the Eastern Cape Vision 2030, Provincial Development Plan provides key goals including: growing an inclusive and equitable economy; providing education, empowerment and innovation to all; improving health and safety; and creating more vibrant and enabled communities and more capable, conscientious and accountable institutions.

Although on a relatively small scale, the proposed project will contribute to employment opportunities during the construction stage, social and rural development through increased



access to beaches and improvements in public safety awareness and education, improved infrastructure and economic development. These are in line with the development goals at provincial level.

Development of the coastal areas of Port St Johns is expected, due to the migration of people towards the coastal region. The Wild Coast Meander, a low impact tarred road linking Kei Mouth to Port St Johns, will likely increase tourism and provide a significant boost to rural development along the Wild Coast. The Eastern Cape PSDP highlights the need to balance tourism initiatives with local communities’ access to resources and public space. Furthermore, increasing pressures to overcome poverty and promote development, particularly in rural areas, should not outweigh environmental issues, such as habitat and biodiversity loss, dune destabilisation and soil erosion. Environmental impacts should be avoided or mitigated throughout development processes and environmental policies and regulations must be adhered to. 5.2.3 Local

The proposed project is located in the Port St Johns Local Municipality. The following, local-level spatial planning tools in accordance with national and provincial plans have been prepared, and their relevance to the project is presented in Table 5.1. Table 5.1: Relevant District and Local Municipality Spatially Planning Tools. Local Planning Guide

Relevance to the Proposed Project

Spatial Development Initiative (SDI) for the Wild Coast

Overview: The key objectives of the SDI for the Wild Coast is to generate sustainable economic growth and development; to generate long-term and sustainable employment for local inhabitants; to maximize mobilisation of private investments, with particular focus on community tourism development; to decrease demand on government funds for development projects and to enhance opportunities for tourism investment for the development of local communities. The plan highlights the positive impacts of infrastructural development programmes on employment opportunities and identifies the Wild Coast Growth and Development Challenges, including the structural weakness of the district economy; poverty and lack of services and the lack of institutional capacity both within the state and the civil society. The proposed strategies to face these challenges include focusing on poverty alleviation; empowerment of women, the youth and the disabled; increasing economic development through tourism and other programmes; identifying development areas and node; improving existing capacity and implementing infrastructure and economic development. Relevance: The positive impacts of the proposed infrastructural development include the improvement of economic development through tourism by creating employment opportunities (in both construction and operation phases) and providing improved services.

Spatial and Environmental Management Guidelines for the Wild Coast of the Eastern Cape Province (2012)

Overview: The purpose of the Spatial and Environmental Management Guideline for the Wild Coast is to achieve economic development and environmental management through balancing the growth of under-developed areas with high poverty levels while ensuring the protection of the environmental. The document provides proposed development nodes based on considerations such as environmental sensitivity, location and feasibility of infrastructure provision. Port St Johns has been identified as a development node, as shown in the map below (Figure 5.2). Relevance: The Port St John’s coastal area is characterised by high levels of poverty, the proposed infrastructure development aims to construct and improve facilities in the second beach area which through the EIA process will be achieved by balancing the growth of under-developed areas with high poverty levels while ensuring that the environment is protected.

Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development

Overview: The WCC&SDP provides a review of spatial frameworks and tools as well a detailed Biodiversity Assessment and Action Plans for the area. The Biodiversity Assessment and Action Plan identifies environmental sensitivities and reconfirms the objectives highlighted in the SDI, emphasizing the need for



Local Planning Guide


Programme (WCC&SDP) (2006)

sustainable development and the protection of the environment. Relevance: The proposed infrastructure development is viewed as a sustainable development and the EIA process will ensure that the environment is protected (but the purpose of the project is not for the protection of the environment).

O.R. Tambo District Municipality, Integrated Development Plan (IDP) (2010/2011)

Overview: The overarching vision of the O.R. Tambo District Municipality IDP is to achieve a developmental municipality, responsive to social aspirations for an economically vibrant, healthy and sustainable community in the face of a declining economy, high levels of poverty, underdevelopment and infrastructure backlogs as well as reliance on the government sector. Tourism is one of the main economic drivers of the local economy due to the natural, cultural and heritage resources in the area. Tourism, economic growth and the provision of adequate and accessible infrastructure are development initiatives proposed in this IDP. Relevance: The proposed infrastructure development will assist in tourism, economic growth and the provision of adequate and accessible infrastructure in the Port St Johns area, and thus will assist the District Municipality in achieving their development initiatives.

Port St Johns, Integrated Development Plan (IDP) (2016/2017)

Overview: The Port St Johns Local Municipality IDP outlines key principles and outcomes required to address present development challenges in the area. The IDP states that the overarching mission is for a municipality to achieve a state that is financially viable and committed to providing quality services through good governance in a manner that is equitable and responsive to community needs. The main objectives include the provision and improvement of access to services and infrastructure, to conserve the environment and reduce the carbon footprint of the municipality thereby highlighting developmental and environmental goals within the municipality. Relevance: The proposed infrastructure development will result in the improvement of access to infrastructure. Specifically, the IDP identifies the development of Second Beach as a strategic project.

Port St Johns, Spatial Development Framework (SDF) (2010)

Overview: The Port St Johns SDF aims to inform and guide land-use, development and planning decision at a municipal level, taking into consideration social and economic needs of the population. The SDF identifies opportunities for future development and for conservation. There is increasing pressure on existing scarce resources and a need for environmental sustainability and protection, specifically with regard to coastal resources. It is vital to promote development while protecting and conserving natural resources available in the municipality. The area west of the Bulolo River is earmarked for low density residential development. The area to the east of the Bulolo River is earmarked for tourist accommodation and residential camping facilities and overnight accommodation of medium density, such as resort and guest houses is earmarked for this area (Figure 5.1 below). Relevance: The proposed infrastructure development is in-line with what has been earmarked for this area (tourism facilities east of the Bulolo River).

Port St Johns Master Plan1, July 2009.

Overview: The Port St Johns Master Plan highlights the significant contribution tourism has on economic development in the Wild Coast while also emphasising the need to promote conservation and protection of the unique coastline and natural resources. The plan calls for development projects to improve and maintain recreational facilities, such as beachfront upgrades, along with special attraction projects, increased accommodation and upgrading of municipal services in order to realise the private investment potential and achieve tourism growth. Relevance: The proposed infrastructure development will achieve this, as it will improve and maintain recreational facilities which will include the construction of the tidal pool, which may be used as an attraction site for tourism.

1 The Port St Johns Master Plan (2009), is not a statutory requirement. The purpose of the plan is to advise an implementation framework for the

development of area identified in the SDF. The plan aims to provide development solutions to spatial issues on a municipal scale, to guide decision makers with respect to development and to serve as a framework for public and private investment, promoting investor confidence in the municipal area.



Local Planning Guide


Nodal Development Strategy, 2010.

Overview: The Nodal Development Strategy provides land-use planning and management for several nodal areas, including Port St Johns. The strategy highlights the challenges to tourism and investment in the area, including the lack of tourism development and marketing, the lack of public infrastructure and the low levels of economic activity limiting economic growth and tourism potential. There is, therefore, potential for increased tourism and economic growth through improved infrastructure and tourism development. Relevance: With the proposed infrastructure development, the potential for tourism will be increased and the improved infrastructure will result in economic growth and tourism development.

Port St John’s Municipality, Local Economic Development (LED) Plan, 2005.

Overview: The LED Plan for Port St Johns aims to identify socio-economic challenges and opportunities, formulate a long-term economic vision for the Municipality, determine initiatives for job creation and poverty alleviation, provide appropriate institutional arrangements for LED and ultimately develop an implementation plan. The plan highlights the importance of tourism in the Port St Johns area and outlines key challenges, including poor infrastructure, underutilisation of endowments, high levels of poverty, inequality and unemployment, low literacy levels, poor education and poor land-use planning in the urban area. Opportunities identified include potential development for tourism, skills development, particularly for tourism activities, local job creation, capacity and skills development. Relevance: The infrastructure development will slightly increase the tourism potential of the area and also provide skills development.

5.3 Desirability 5.3.1 Development Potential

The Second Beach area is currently being developed as a tourist centre, with a few guesthouses and backpackers located along the lower reaches of the Bulolo and Mtumbane Rivers and adjacent to the beach. Structures at Second Beach have, in the past, been inappropriately positioned in the littoral active zone, resulting in beach erosion and collapse of the structures themselves (CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit). It is highly likely that the Bulolo and Mtumbane Rivers contribute high nutrient and bacterial loaded water into the nearshore environment. Although subjected to intense anthropogenic impact, the area still has a functional natural environment that needs to be protected (CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit). Figure 5.2 indicates that Port St Johns town has been identified as a First Order Node, defined as an area of low environmental sensitivity with existing infrastructure. First Order Nodes are suitable areas for providing infrastructure, and can accommodate intensive development. Any First Order Node can be considered for formal town establishment. The zoning and permissible land uses are detailed in Table 5.2 and Figure 5.2 below, as taken from the Town Planning Assessment conducted by Urban Dynamics. The current zoning and permissible uses are compatible with the proposed development. The site is located in the apartheid-era Transkei homeland. Land ownership in these areas is complex as it involves both traditional leaders and private ownership. The land around the project site falls under the Chaguba Traditional Authority with the chief as the custodian of the land. According to the customary law the chief is allowed to allocate individual plots to community members. During the site visit municipal officials said that in the past land close to the project site was taken away from the Chaguba community and private plots were sold to individuals. The community of Chaguba submitted a successful land claim for the land around the project site. A Communal Property Association (CPA) was formed to manage the land, but this has not been effective as yet. As a result, the municipality is still managing the land.



Currently around the site and mainly opposite the site the land is privately owned. There are three privately owned plots adjacent to the site and behind and adjacent to them is Eastern Cape Parks Forest. The area earmarked for business development and restaurants is owned by the municipality. Currently there is some form of verbal agreement between the municipality and the Chaguba CPA about the use of that land. This is to be clarified between the municipality and the CPA in the near future.

Figure 5.1: Proposed Land Use Management Areas for the Wild Coast (Spatial and Environmental Management Guidelines for the Wild Coast of the Eastern Cape Province, 2012). Table 5.2: Property Zoning and Permissible Uses.

Erven Zoning Permitted Land Use Owner

Erf 431 Open Space; Special Business; Municipal

Dwelling units, private sport clubs, place of refreshment, shops, municipal uses

Chaguba Community (Contact person: Yekani Maninjwa)

Erf 767 Special Zone 1; Camping/Accommodation

Camping, resorts, guest houses

Port St Johns Local Municipality



Figure 5.2: Proposed Land Use Management Areas for the Wild Coast (Port St Johns, Spatial Development Framework, 2010).



5.3.2 Social The area is characterised by high unemployment rates and low levels of income. The Socio-economic Assessment, undertaken for the proposed project, indicates that various potential economic and social benefits will result from the development. The construction of the proposed project offers economic benefits to the area through construction expenditure. Direct impacts during the construction phase include income generation and job creation, while indirect impacts would be attributed to the multiplier effect through the purchase of materials and spending of income or capital on primary and secondary supporting businesses. It is estimated that the proposed project will generate 290 jobs during the construction phase. In the operational phase, there would be medium-term and long-term job creation through ongoing maintenance. Direct employment will be generated through the establishment of a beach management team, and indirect employment will be generated through traders, tour guides and taxi operators. Indirect economic opportunities may additionally include increased tourism promotion as a result of safer swimming conditions and therefore increased occupancy rates at local establishments. The project may also provide the opportunity for the development of social capital in the form of swimming clubs. Further intangible benefits could include swimming lessons for children and adults and greater recreational opportunities for the residents of Port St Johns and the surrounding area. The negative impacts identified include traffic and parking congestion, crime (petty theft / pickpocketing) and beach cleanliness (broken glass / open fires and braais). These will need to be managed. The area is also characterised by low literacy levels which will need to be considered when designing the water safety education programme and signage. The project will help to alleviate the lack of swimming and water safety programmes, as well as the shortage of recreational activities and facilities including public swimming pools and safe public beaches in the District. The 2011 Sport and Recreation Plan for South Africa identified as part of its Vision 2020 the following: ‘Sufficient and accessible sports facilities that are well maintained by Municipalities and fully utilized by communities.” A key concept of this document was the ‘Active Nation’ with the indicator being the percentage of the population participating in sport and recreation. Another objective of the strategy was school sport: ‘To maximise access to sport, recreation and physical education in every school in South Africa.” The development contributes to these objectives. The development of the tidal pool will, in addition to providing much needed recreational access and safe bathing options, also provide short term employment and skills transfer during construction, and longer term economic opportunities in the form of concession opportunities and additional taxi trade. In terms of the needs of the local community, the IDP identified the need for development, social infrastructure and services, and education and employment opportunities in the area. The proposed project has the potential to make a positive contribution towards the identified community needs while providing safe swimming conditions.

Environmental Impact Assessment Report – May 2016


6. RELEVANT LEGISLATION The Port St Johns infrastructure project will be subject to various South Africa legislative requirements. In addition to the environmental authorisation there may be permits or licenses that will need to be obtained by the applicant. The proposed development triggers a number of listed activities and therefore requires a full Scoping and EIA. The listed activities triggered by the proposed development are listed in Table 6.1 below and the reasons for triggering the list. Table 6.1: Listed activities triggered by the proposed development. Activity No(s)

Description of each listed activity based on the project description

Reason for trigger

Listing Notice 1 of GNR.983 EIA Regulations dated 4 December 2014

12

The development of- (iii) bridges exceeding 100 square metres in size; (xii) infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 100 square metres or more; where such development occurs- (c) if no development setback exists, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse;

The provision of a pedestrian bridge linking the Traders Village to the existing disused camp and chalet site is envisaged. The bridge will be more than 100m2 occurring within 32m of a channel (Mtumbane River).

The preferred pool design has a water area of approximately 3 200m2.Thus the footprint is more than 100m2.

17

Development- (i) In the sea (ii) In an estuary (iii) Within the littoral active zone (iv) In front of a development setback (v) If no development setback exists, within a

distance of 100 metres inland of the high water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever is greater;

In respect of – (b) Tidal pools (c) Embankments (d) Rock revetments or stabilizing structures including stabilizing walls; (e) Buildings of 50 square metres or more; (f) Infrastructure with a development foot print of 50 square metres or more

The proposed development consists of the construction of a tidal pool in the intertidal zone (iii. Within the littoral active zone) The existing rock revetment will be replaced with a seating stair and ramp system. The proposed stairs allow access from the commercial square to the pool and from the parking to the beach. The proposed seating stair and ramp system has a 5m change in elevation and will continue to provide a coastal protection measure. This will occur within a distance of 100 metres inland of the high water mark of the sea or an estuary in respect of – c) Embankments (d) Rock revetments or stabilizing structures including stabilizing walls; (e) Buildings of 50 square metres or more; (f) Infrastructure with a development foot print of 50 square metres or more

19

The infilling or deposition of any material of more than 5 cubic metres into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than 5 cubic metres from-

(i) A water course (ii) The seashore

littoral active zone; an estuary or a distance of 100 metres

The construction of the tidal pool will result in the removal/ displacement of sand more than 5 cubic metres from the littoral active zone.



Activity No(s)


Reason for trigger

inland of the high water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever is greater

27 The clearance of an area of 1 hectares or more of indigenous vegetation

The upgrade (construction) of the parking area, commercial market area and life savers building may result in the removal of 1 hectares or more of vegetation

49

The expansion of –

(v) infrastructure or structures where the physical footprint

is expanded by 100 square metres or more;

(c) if no development setback exists, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse;

Upgrading/Alteration of existing roadway along the Bulolo River on the southern edge into parking bays.

Parking bays will be expanded by 100m2

Occurs within 32m of the Bulolo River

54

The Expansion of facilities - (i) In the sea (ii) In an estuary (iii) Within the littoral active zone (iv) In front of a development setback (v) If no development setback exists, within a

distance of 100 metres inland of the high water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever is greater;

In respect of – (c) Embankments (d) Rock revetments or stabilizing structures including stabilizing walls; (e) Buildings of 50 square metres or more; (f) Infrastructure with a development foot print of 50 square metres or more

Embankments and buildings currently exist within a distance of 100 metres inland of the high water mark of the sea at Second Beach. This projects aim is to replace or expand infrastructure where it already exists.

56

The widening of a road wider by more than 6 metres; or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre-

(i) Where the existing reserve is wider than 13.5 metres or

Where no reserve exists, the road is wider than 8 metres

The current/existing road will be

widened in order to add a parking

area. The widening of the road will

be more than 6 meters where no

reserve exists.


14

The development and related operation of – (iii) any other structure or infrastructure on, below or along the seabed

The tidal pool will be developed within the sea and littoral active zone.


12

The clearance of an area of 300 square metres or more of indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan. (a) Eastern Cape provinces: i. Within any critically endangered or endangered ecosystem listed in terms of section 52 of the NEMBA or prior to the publication of such a list, within an area that has been identified as critically endangered in the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004; ii. Within critical biodiversity areas identified in bioregional plans; iii. Within the littoral active zone or 100 metres inland from the high water mark of the sea or an estuarine functional

Land clearance of an area of 300 square meters or more of indigenous vegetation is likely to take place during the construction phase of the project. This clearance will take place within the littoral active zone and 100 metres inland from the high water mark of the sea.



Activity No(s)


Reason for trigger

zone, whichever distance is the greater, excluding where such removal will occur behind the development setback line on erven in urban areas; or iv. On land, where, at the time of the coming into effect of this Notice or thereafter such land was zoned open space, conservation or had an equivalent zoning.

14

The development of- (x) buildings exceeding 10 square metres in size (xi) boardwalks exceeding 10 square metres in size (xii) infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 10 square metres or more; Where such development occurs- (a) Within a water course (b) In front of a development setback; or (c) If no development setback has been adopted, within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse.

The majority of the infrastructure planning is within a distance of 100m inland of the high-water mark of the estuary and/or sea.

18

The widening of a road by more than 4 metres; or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre. a) In Eastern Cape: (i) In an estuary (ii) Areas outside urban areas;

(aa) A protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA, excluding disturbed areas; (bb) National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Focus areas; (cc) Sensitive areas as identified in an environmental management framework as contemplated in chapter 5 of the Act and as adopted by the competent authority; (dd) Sites or areas identified in terms of international convention; (ee) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans; (ff) Core areas of biosphere reserves (gg) Areas within 10 kilometres from national parks or world heritage sites or 5 kilometres from any other protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA or from the core areas of a biosphere reserve, excluding disturbed areas; or (hh) Areas seawards of the development setback line or within 1 kilometre from the high-water mark of the sea if no such development setback line is determined,

(ii) Areas on the watercourse side of the development setback line or within 100 metres from the edge of a watercourse where no such setback line has been determined

The current/existing road will be widened in order to add a parking area. The widening of the road will be more than 4m in the Eastern Cape, as it will be widened by up to 6m. (ii) Activity occurs outside an urban area

(gg) Areas within 10 kilometres from national parks or world heritage sites or 5 kilometres from any other protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA or from the core areas of a biosphere reserve, excluding disturbed areas; or

Project area occurs less than 10km from a Focus area. A Focus Area is an area of focus for future conservation efforts.

(hh) Areas seawards of the development setback line or within 1 kilometre from the high-water mark of the sea if no such development setback line is determined.

Project area occurs within 1km from high-water mark of the sea. (ii) Areas on the watercourse side of the development setback line or within 100 metres from the edge of a watercourse where no such setback line has been determined Widening of road which is within 100m of the watercourse



Activity No(s)


Reason for trigger

23

The Expansion of- (x) buildings exceeding 10 square metres in size (xii) infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 10 square metres or more; Where such development occurs-

(a) Within a water course

(b) In front of a development setback; or

(c) If no development setback has been adopted,

within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from

the edge of a watercourse.

b) In Eastern Cape: (i) In an estuary (ii) Areas outside urban areas; (aa) A protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA, excluding disturbed areas; (bb) National Protected Area Expansion Strategy Focus areas; (cc) Sensitive areas as identified in an environmental management framework as contemplated in chapter 5 of the Act and as adopted by the competent authority; (dd) Sites or areas identified in terms of international convention; (ee) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority or in bioregional plans; (ff) Core areas of biosphere reserves (gg) Areas within 10 kilometres from national parks or world heritage sites or 5 kilometres from any other protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA or from the core areas of a biosphere reserve, excluding disturbed areas; or (hh) Areas seawards of the development setback line or within 1 kilometre from the high-water mark of the sea if no such development setback line is determined, (ii) Areas on the watercourse side of the development setback line or within 100 metres from the edge of a watercourse where no such setback line has been determined.

Existing infrastructure (refer to 6 above) will be restored and expanded on with a footprint >10m2 within 32 metres of a watercourse in the Eastern Cape (ii). The infrastructure will be built within 1km of the high-water mark of the sea (hh).

6.1 Relevant National Legislation The relevant national legislation, policies and conventions are described in Table 6.2 below. Table 6.2: Relevant Legislation.

LEGISLATION RELEVANCE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

PERMIT / LICENCE / COMMENT REQUIRED

COMMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL

The Constitution of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996)

The applicant has an obligation to ensure that the proposed activity is ecologically sustainable, will not result in pollution and ecological degradation while demonstrating economic and social development and upholding environmental rights.

N/A -

National Environmental

This EIA will be undertaken in terms of NEMA requirements.

X -

4. ALTERNATIVES - CESNET › pubdocs › PORT ST JOHNS SECOND BEACH...2017/06/27 · 4....

Documents

Transcript of 4. ALTERNATIVES - CESNET › pubdocs › PORT ST JOHNS SECOND BEACH...2017/06/27 · 4....