Annexure 6 REGISTER OF COMMENTS: INTERESTED AND … 6 - Comments... · 2017. 4. 1. · 7 Interested...

of 17

Annexure 6

REGISTER OF COMMENTS: INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES (I&AP’s)

UNIVERSAL COAL DEVELOPMENT II (PTY) LTD

I&AP Name Date of

Received

Comment Respond

1 Interested and

Affected Party

Cath Vise 27-09-16 I saw your notice about a Scoping Report for an open cast coalmine within the Vhembe

Biosphere Reserve, Makhado Municipality, Limpopo, in the Zoutpansberger newspaper.

Please could you send me a copy of the scoping report?

Please also register me as an I&AP, my details are below. I am also resident in Makhado.

You have been added as an interested and affected party. Please find attached the

scoping report and the drop box link for the rest of the studies.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dq24i49q79sfvxq/AADeCT4bAGMKzmzw-XNdFIm-a?dl=0

2 Interested and

Affected Party

Cath Vise 04-10-16 Thank you for sending through these documents. However, I see you have a meeting for

8th September 2016, which has already passed. Could you please let me know of the

corrected date?

Also, please remind me if there is there a deadline for response from I&APs?

The meeting will be held on the 08th of October 2016 at Waterpoort Farms Association

Hall.

I already sent new email with the correct date of the meeting.

The deadline for submitting responses are the 13th of September to the 13th of October

2016 but the comment period was kept open to make provisions for additional responses.

3 Interested and

Affected Party

Vhutshilo

Theo

Muthurwana

04-10-16 Good I think there is an error about the month’s 08th September 2016 instead of October.

Please verify.

The meeting will be held on the 08th of October 2016 at Waterpoort Farms Association

Hall.

I already sent new email with the correct date of the meeting.

4 Affected

Landowner’s

Lawyer

A B Burger

Attorneys

04-10-2016 You mentioned a Public Meeting will be held on 8th SEPTEMBER 2016?? At Waterpoort

Farms

Sure that is not correct.

The meeting is on the 08th of October 2016 at Waterpoort Farms Association hall, the

date of 08th of September was incorrect.

5 Affected

Landowner

Deon Van

Heerden

05-10-2016 Please also sort out your mailing list as I have not received any of the previous 3 mails

that were sent by you. I used to be on the mailing list as I am an affected party, but seemed

to have fallen off along the way.

Apologies for the oversight, the I&Aps database is being updated on frequent basis.

Your email address must have been mistakenly deleted during the constant editing. You

have been added to the mailing list and all the emails have been forwarded to you.

6 Interested and

Affected Party

Juanita De

Beer

23-09-2016

Bokamoso Landscape Architects and Environmental Consultants would hereby like to

register as an Interested and Affected Party on behalf of surrounding

landowners/tenants/farmers.

Our contact details are as follows:

Lizelle Gregory / Anè Agenbacht / Juanita de Beer

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

Landline: 012 346 3810

Cell phones: 083 255 8384 / 083 533 0420

Fax: 086 570 5659

It would be appreciated if you could clarify the process being followed as a Scoping Report

was published for public review from 5 January 2016 to 4 February 2016.

To our knowledge a new application for integrated Environmental Authorisation was

submitted to DMR on 2 September 2016

If this is a new application i.e. previous application lapsed, was the public afforded 30 days

to Register as I&APs?

If not, could you please provide proof of exemption obtained not to comply with Chapter

6, Section 41 of the 2014 NEMA EIA Regulations?

It is furthermore requested that you keep our office informed of all new information, reports,

meetings etc. throughout the remainder of this project.

Your offices are registered as interested and affected parties for this project.

Due to difficulties experienced during compilation of the water studies the previous

application 10121MR lapsed as interested and affected parties would not have been given

a minimum of 30 days to review the reports.

As such the new application was lodged on the 02nd of September 2016 and interested

and affected parties where notified of the status of the project. Following the NEMA

process we advertised on the 23rd of September 2016 on the local papers and via email

to registered parties. Due to the timeframe restrictions we made note of the status of the

previous application as well as availability of the new applications scoping report and as

such requested parties to register.

I hope all is in order. A public meeting will be held on the 8th of October 2016 at the

Waterpoort farmers Association Hall,

7 Interested

and Affected

Party

Cath Vise 11-10-2016 In addition to the many impacts that your team has already identified, I wanted to add the

following considerations that need to be addressed in any application going forward.

Zonation and International Conventions:

These comments have been noted and will be further addressed in the EIA. We also refer to (specialist report Annexure 5 -Specialist reports for more information regarding the social impacts).

of 17

The proposed site is located within a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) 1 and 2 according to

the Limpopo Government's Conservation Plan.

CBA1, under the guidelines, are irreplaceable sites where no alternate sites are available

to meet biodiversity targets. Incompatible Land-Use practices include Mining and

associated infrastructure. Please see attached plan.

It is also worth noting the motion passed at the IUCN congress regarding mining and areas

importance for biodiversity conservation: https://portals.iucn.org/congress/motion/026

The proposed mine also falls within the UNESCO Vhembe Biosphere Reserve. Biosphere

Reserves are places where SUSTAINABLE development is encouraged, with particular

regard to implementing global agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity,

Sustainable Development Goals and in particular the UNFCCC COP21 Paris Climate

Agreement

https://www.environment.gov.za/mediarelease/southafricasignsparisagreementonclimate

. Here, a statement for South Africa to transition to a low carbon economy is made.

Open cast coal mining, with associated carbon emissions and impacts on climate change,

water resources and biodiversity would not be in line with achieving these international

targets and agreements which South Africa has signed.

Additional Environmental and Social Impacts to Address:

• concern over the removal of baobab trees, which are a protected species

• cumulative impacts of the various mining and other development applications in

the region - especially with regards to water security

• secondary impacts of the mining activities - i.e. the coal that is transported to a

different region (such a Mpumalanga or further afield) will have a secondary impact when

burnt for power production in terms of both air quality in that region, as well as associated

carbon emmissions

• There is no mention of potential climate change impacts in the scoping

presentation (especially with regards to CO2 emissions) for both local operations as well

as end use operations.

• there will also be light pollution which could affect tourism operations/ sense of

place/ cultural ecosystem services with regards to 'enjoying the African skies' and star

gazing attraction of the area

• You will also need to address impacts on biodiversity (roadkill etc) of increased

traffic on both roads and railway

• Increased traffic (especially heavy vehicles with restricted speed limits) may

impact on other road users operations

• Influx of people (construction workers, mine workers) can also have an associated

impact on local communities. Of particular concern (which has been picked up in

developments elsewhere) is the increase in violent crimes against women.

With regards the to water use licence, the quantity of water required - a total of 4542 cubic

metres per day as per the presentation - seems extremely excessive in an already water

stressed area - in particular with the associated impact this will have on water availability

to existing agricultural operations, which as noted by one of the attendees will also affect

existing local employment.

Of particular concern too will be the impact of climate change on these water resources -

what is already a stressed supply now may become even more stressed in future as

climate change takes its toll on local environments.

The application to mine within a biosphere buffer listing 3 GNR985 has been applied for. Please refer to the Annexure 5 Specialist studies. These reports detail the proposed impacts and mitigation measures. This information is also in the DEIR

of 17

I hope this helps to bring further depth and consideration to your Environmental Impact

Assessment.

Please do keep me informed of any further updates regarding this project.

8 Interested and

Affected Party

Erika Helme 11-10-2016 The Waterpoort Farmers Union wishes to be registered as an Interested and Affected

Party with reference to the above project. The reason for our registration is to be informed

of information that could have an effect on our members. Contact details are as follows:

Contact Person : Erika Helm

Cell phone : 0796996032

Email : [email protected]

Postal address : PO Box 26, Waterpoort, 0905

With reference to the public meeting which has been set for the 8th of October 2016, we

wish to furnish our comments/questions as follows.

1. We wish to inform you of an Extraordinary Provincial Gazette, dated 13 November

2015 Notice 344 of 2015 signed and promulgated by the premier of Limpopo Province

whereby the area has been declared the area as disaster area due to persisting drought

according to the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002. This fact has again, been

confirmed in the Parliament during the second quarter of this year. According to this

information, it is there for a very sensitive area especially with reference to the water

situation. It is by this information that the farmers union wishes to demand an Integrated

Regional Water Study integrating all mining projects in the area to be done. We take note

that this is not an obligation according to legislation – however it is the opinion of this union

that the project can have detrimental effect on the livelihood and existence of each resident

in the area. Copy of the Provincial Gazette handed to the Environmental Practitioner

during the meeting.

2. We take note the life of mine for the Block OC 1 is expected 20 years. We also

take note according to the information as being supplied during the meeting that the OC 2

and OC 3 blocks is situated within the 100 year floodline and the Life of Mine on this blocks

cannot be supplied. We wish to enquire when this information will be available to the

Interested and Affected Parties.

3. We wish to request that the Safety and Security impacts also be addressed during

the assessment studies as the influx of workers will have an influence on the current

situation as being experienced.

4. We refer to the existence of 4 graves within the project area. Could the deceased

be determined and what is the age of these graves? In which block is this graves situated?

5. Stockpiles – we take note of the sides being vegetated to prevent erosion. The

concern exist for the invasive and non-indigenous plants which could invade these

stockpiles. What will the actions be to manage this situation?

6. We take note of the blasting that will occur with reference to mining operations.

The concern is that the structures in the area was originally not build to endure the stress

of such operations. Please indicate the financial guarantee be set in place for rehabilitation

in respect of damanges to the structures.

Thank you for the comments. Please supply me with your P.O Box so I can send you a

C.D with the specialist studies.

And as previously discussed, if you can supply us with other I&AP's who weren't at the

meeting but interested in the project.

Universal coal will lease with the Department of Water Affairs as they are the authority

with powers to commission such a study.

The amended layout has excluded the areas within the 100 year floodline. Please refer

to the layout plan.

These comments have been noted and will be further addressed in the EIA. We also

refer to (specialist report: Appendix 5 annexure 11 for more information regarding the

social impacts).

These comments have been noted and will be further addressed in the EIA Baseline

heritage section.

These comments have been noted and will be further addressed in the EIA.Revegetation

of topsoil’s should be done immediately to avoid wind and water erosion Monitoring the

success of indigenous revegetation and alien invasive and weed encroachment should be

conducted on a weekly basis.

These comments have been noted and will be further addressed in the EIA

of 17

7. We take note of million tons of coal to be produced per month. What is the quality

of the coal and who is the customers of Universal Coal?

8. We refer to the presentation of Mr Mandla Masango with reference to the WULA

application. We need to be informed of the distance of the municipal sewerage treatment

plants from the proposed project as this is one of the water sources as been specified in

the presentation.

9. We take note the possible usage of the Brakriver in the project. We wish to inform

you to take note the Brakriver is a river with a non-permanent waterflow. There will be an

impact on the water users downstream as well as the environment which are supported

by the water of this river when it is flowing during the rainy season.

10. We take note of the pollution control dam – where will this dam be constructed?

It is our concern of the possibility of pollution during overflow of this dam. This need to be

addressed.

11. In the documentation and presentation of Mr Masango the Life of Mine is stated

as 33 years and the WULA application also in respect of this. It is however stated in the

MPRDA section 23 (6) that a mining licence can only be approved for a maximum of 30

years. OC 1 is also expected for only 20 years, whereby OC 2 and OC 3 is yet not been

established. Please explain the 33 years as this is not clear with reference to the

timeframes as set out above.

Thank you for the presentation as been conducted on 8 October 2016. We look forward

in receiving the Draft EIA.

These comments have been noted and will be further addressed in the EIA with regards

to the geological composition of the coal reserves.

It is proposed that the water treatment plant be commissioned at the onset of operations,

the location of the plant will be finalised based on finding a location on site which is low

lying and flat to minimise visual impact

These comments have been noted and will be further addressed in the EIA.

These comments have been noted and will be further addressed in the EIA. Pollution

control dams- to be located on already disturbed areas, low lying flat areas, 500m from

the Brak River Buffer, with 110% containment capacity.

Taking into account the maximum timeframes allocated for a mining right it is therefore

expected that UCDII will need to renew their mining right once the 30years expire.

Thank you for the comments. Please supply me with your P.O Box so I can send you a

C.D with the specialist studies.

9 Interested and

affected Party

Juanita De

Beer

07-10-2016 Our former e-mails in which Bokamoso raised various concerns regarding the new EIA

Application process for the Universal Coal Mining Development known as the Berenice

Mining Application Refer

Take note: This is a very important e-mail and all I&APs must take cognizance of this

correspondence, because it also affects the rights of the registered interested and affected

parties and the parties that were not afforded an opportunity to register as I&APs in this

new application process. We are of the opinion that the EAP is not transparent, not

independent and are once again hiding important information from all the I&APs. This can

simply not be tolerated any longer.

As already stated in our former correspondence and comments provided we represent (as

environmental consultants) various land-owners/ farmers in the area that are totally

against the proposed open cast coal mine which will cover an area of more than 7 000ha.

We are extremely disappointed in the modus operandi of Jomela, because Jomela failed

to disclose (in the former EIA process) to the I&APs that DMR closed their files before the

submission of the Final EIA Report. Jomela forced the I&APs to supply comments before

a specific date and expected that the I&APs review and comment on an incomplete

Environmental Impact Assessment Report and submit the comments to DMR after Jomela

submitted their Final EA to DMR. We received some of the specialist reports almost 2

weeks after we received the EIA report without the annexures for comment. We requested

an extension of time for the submission of the comments for the former EIA Report, but

Jomela refused to afford the I&APs an extension of time.

Dear Interested and Affected Party;

Regarding the previous application, we noted that due to the delays with the water

studies which were provided two weeks late that I&AP’s would not have adequate time

to comment on these reports. Jomela requested, not forced I&AP’s to submit their

comments as we had submitted a request for extension as the due date for final

submission was the 9th of September.

The DMR could not grant a second extension and based on the fact that I&AP’s would

not have had 30 days to review all the reports, the application was deemed as lapsed.

Jomela did not refuse to afford I&APs extra time but rather stated that they were waiting

on the department to give them feedback as was indicated in a letter sent to you. This

was also explained in a project status quo letter sent to registered interested and

affected parties. Jomela requested comments on the EIA/EMPr report because the

information was still the same, the project is still the same and Jomela want to address

these comments so that when, sent the EIA report for the new application Jomela would

have amended and addressed the issues raised.

Regarding the new application, newspaper adverts where placed in the Limpopo Mirror

and Zoutpan Newspapers (23 September 2016) and site Notices were placed. In your

previous queries you requested that Jomela provide you with an exemption letter for not

following the NEMA PP regulations and Jomela advised you that we were conducting

the PP according to Chapter 6, Section 41 of the 2014 NEMA EIA Regulations. The

scoping report was updated and sent out to registered parties from the previous

application as you so “however’ mentioned that they should also be included which

of 17

Whilst we were compiling the comments and whilst we wasted a significant amount of time

on the compilation of the comments, we were informed that DMR closed the project file

and that DMR instructed Jomela to start afresh with a new application process. Jomela

were already aware of the closure of the file when they forced theI&APs to supply

comments within a limited timeframe. In fact, Jomela already submitted the new mining

application to DMR whilst waiting for the I&APs comments regarding the EIAR. This is

regarded as unprofessional, rude, reckless and to say the least arrogant, because Jomela

wasted the precious time of the I&APs on a process that no longer existed and Jomela

withheld important information form the I&APs.

After some of theI&APs notified Jomela of DMRs confirmation of the closing of the file,

Jomela suddenly decided to notify all the registered I&APs of the fact that the former EIA

process was terminated and that the process will start afresh. Jomela undertook to handle

the new process in a transparent matter, but this is once again not the case.

Jomela decided, without any permission from the delegated authority (Jomela could not

provide any proof of permission) to refrain from placing any new newspaper adverts and

site notices which made I&APs aware of the new process. Jomela furthermore failed to

distribute notices to the surrounding land-owners and tenants and to the current occupants

of the land. We only recently received a BID document, which was sent out to the

registered I&APs after Bokamoso enquired about the PP process that was followed for the

new EIA process.

Bokamoso furthermore requested in recent correspondence that Jomela supply proof of

the newspaper advertisements, site notices ad notices that were distributed to the

surrounding land owners in terms of the new process, but Jomela failed to respond to this

request.

We are of the opinion that Jomela failed to follow due process and that the Public

Participation for this new application is once again “fatally flawed” and that it needs to be

repeated. New I&APs could have moved into the area since the last public participation

and the refusal to re-advertise will most definitely have a negative impacts on new land-

owners and tenants. The fact that the new process was not re-advertised furthermore

creates an enormous amount of confusion, because many of the I&APs still think that that

Jomela is continuing with the former EIA process.

Jomela should have followed the following steps with the new Application:

Option 1: Follow a complete new process with full Public Participation (PP)

Such a process will require that at least the following PP be done:

- Placement of advertisements in newspapers in line with the requirements of the

MPRDA/ NEMA, the NWA and NEM:WA;

- Placement of site notices at prominent points on the site;

- The distribution of notices to the surrounding land-owners, tenants. Occupants of

land etc. (not only to I&APs registered in terms of the former PP process, which was also

“fatally flawed”);

- Affording the I&APs a period of 30 days to register as I&APs and to raise issues and

concerns before compiling the Draft Scoping Report and before making the Draft Scoping

Report available to I&APs;

- Creation of revised I&AP data base; and

- The compilation of a Scoping Phase Issues and Response Report

None of this was done!!!!

Jomela has done so. Jomela put up notices and advertised and has been adding parties

who are registering for this process.

The reason why Jomela arranged the meeting during the scoping period (which is not

against regulation) was due to the fact that the MPRDA consultation was also being

done. Jomela is aware that some of the farms in the area have changed ownership.

The issues raised by I&AP’s from the previous application are still valid and Jomela

would like to afford new parties to raise their issues.

The scoping report has been released and I&AP’s have been given 30 days. As you well

know that the scoping report needs to be submitted within 44 days of the submission of

the application we therefore cannot give I&AP’s 30 days to register and then another 30

days for the review of the draft report and be still within the timeframes?.

We are not limiting comments from registered parties but to anyone interested or

affected by the project. Jomela appointed specialists who compiled studies and the

negative impacts identified have not been masked or hidden to I&AP’s. Jomela has not

downplayed comments from I&AP’s,and has included objections in the consultation

reports and made the department aware of these. The issue that water is a problem in

the area has been noted and the request for a regional study from IAP’s was noted in the

minutes. And as part of the IWULA which Jomela is undertaking the DWS will either

approve or reject the application for the water use license based on the stressors and

water availability of the catchment.

A final register plus issues and response report will be included in the final scoping

report which will be made available to all interested and affected parties. Continuous

engagement is not limited to the 30 days of the scoping phase, if I&AP”s request another

meeting Jomela will schedule such a meeting. It is your prerogative not to attend the

meeting but Jomela will still hold the meeting and identify other parties.

of 17

The EAP simply used the I&AP database compiled during the former EIA process, which

is no longer valid and made no effort whatsoever to comply with the steps as listed above.

The EAP had the arrogance to supply the I&APs registered in the former EIA process with

a copy of the same Draft Scoping Report compiled for the former process and requested

that the I&APs supply comments within 30 days. This is unfair and the I&APs and

surrounding land-owners and tenants are being prejudiced by this time driven and selfish

process of the applicant and the EAP. This clearly indicated that he EAP is bias.

What is even more concerning is the fact that the EAP even went as far as to arrange a

public meeting in the SR comment period. The public meeting was arranged less than 2

weeks in advance and during a school holiday. It is regarded as reasonable if a public

meeting is arranged at least 2 weeks in advance.

Option 2: Apply for Exemption from PP

If the EAP wanted to make use of the PP process followed in the previous application for

which the file was closed. The EAP should have applied to DMR in a formal exemption

application for exemption from public participation. Unfortunately an exemption process

also requires Public Participation and it is therefore often just better to repeat the public

participation process when a file is closed and when the EIA process needs to start afresh.

As EAPs with many years of experience in EIA applications, we had similar situation in

Limpopo Province with files that were closed and PP processes that we wanted to carry

over to the new EIA processes. The delegated authority simply refused to allow the usage

of the previous PP process without an exemption application and we eventually had to

repeat the entire pp process for the new applications.

Based on the above, we are of the opinion that the public meeting cannot take place

without proper advertising and notification of the I&APs. We are furthermore of the opinion

that the request to provide comments regarding the Draft Scoping Report is premature,

because the EAP simply accepted that no new I&APs will register in the mining application

process and simply decided to limited the I&APs for the new process to the I&APs that

were identified and registered in the former EIA process.

This mining application will have a devastating and irreversible impact on all environmental

associated with the study area and its surroundings and many of the I&APs are getting the

impression that the applicant plans to down-play their comments in order to achieve the

results as prematurely promised to the investors.

The proposed open cast mining activity will amongst others include the following impacts/

“fatal flaws”:

- The proposed mining activities will lead to the total exploitation and destruction of

the limited water resources in the area, which is mainly associated with the river bed area

(the applicant’s own specialist confirmed this statement during the former EIA application

which lapsed). At present the game farms and other vegetable farmers are already

struggling to irrigate their crops and feed game during drought periods and the proposed

new mine will utilize every drop of available ground water. This is not in line with the

reserve determination allocations of the National department of Water and Sanitation

(DWS);

- The current ecological systems associated with the river system in which the coal

mining will take pace will be destroyed completely (the applicant’s own specialist

confirmed this in his fauna and flora report attached as part of the former EIA report

compiled for the application which lapsed);

of 17

- The relative flat landscape with the scattered Boabad trees create a unique “Sense

of Place” ad this will be destroyed completely;

- The area have a very tranquil atmosphere and most of the farmers purchased farms

in this area in order to enjoy the tranquil atmosphere with starlit evenings without any

lighting pollution. The proposed open cast mine will destroy this valuable asset of the area;

- The road infrastructure in the area and the available accommodation and social

facilities in the area will not be able to cater in the needs of the new employees at the

mine;

- The surrounding roads are sub-standard roads and cannot accommodate heavy

vehicles and machinery that travel to and from the mining areas.

Way Forward:

- If the EAP decide to continue with the process without complying with the Public

Participation requirements of the applicable Regulations and Acts, the EAP must supply

proof that DMR exempted the EAP from new public participation;

- If the EAP received exemption from DMR for PP, all I&APs have the right to peruse

such exemption that was granted, because exemption applications usually require public

participation;

- The EAP must give I&APs at least a 30 day period to register as I&APs before

making the Draft Scoping Report available for comment. Surely the I&APs must be

afforded opportunities to raise new comments and issues of concern;

- If the public meeting takes place, the I&APs will demand another public meeting after

all the surrounding farmers have been afforded a fair opportunity to register as I&APs in

the prescribed 30 day period. The meeting of 8 October 2016 will not be regarded as a

proper public meeting. This preliminary meeting can at most be regarded as an

introduction and first round data collection meeting that will supplement data and

information collected during a proper public meeting;

- We will only supply comments regarding the Draft Scoping Report after the 30 day

I&AP registering period has lapsed and once the Scoping Report has been updated in

order to accommodate the new list of I&APs and the new issues and comments raised by

the newly registered I&APs.

- It is however also recommended that the EAP also add the I&APs registered in the

previous application process as I&APs of the new application process.

10 Interested and

affected party

Juanita De

Beer

08-10-2016 Thank you for your response.

First of all you failed to provide us with proof of the advertisements that were placed after

we specifically requested the proof. You only supplied it yesterday evening. The proof of

public participation should have been attached as part of the Draft Scoping Report that

was made available to the public for review. This was not done. The applicable regulations

specifically require that proof of the public participation process be attached as part of the

Draft Scoping Report. The new EIA Process

You already made the Draft Scoping Report available for review on 13 September 2016,

but you only placed the advertisements and site notice 10 days after the Draft Scoping

Report was made available for review. In the newspaper notice you mentioned to the new

I&APs that the Draft Scoping Report is available for review and that they only have until

13 October 2016 for comments (less than 30days were afforded to newly registered I&APs

for comment). You once again failed to afford the I&APs a minimum of 30 days for

comments and you are once again not complying with the timeframes as set in the

legislation.

In your previous e-mails and notices forwarded to the I&APs you explained that the former

EIA process lapsed, because you failed to supply the I&APs a minimum of 30 days to

Please find attached consultation documents for Universal Coal Development II (Pty) Ltd

as requested.

Your comments have been noted. For compliance purposes we will submit the scoping

report on the 14th of October but Jomela will receive comments until the 23rd of October

and update the consultation report which will be submitted to the department.

The Mining Right application commenting period is currently open until the 2nd of

November 12p.m.

We will send out the scoping report to registered parties on the 14th and we will keep the

registration process of any I&AP’s open. The reason why Jomela had the meeting during

the scoping period is due to the fact that from the previous consultation I&AP’s had

concerns that we had held the meeting outside the scoping period.

Jomela however are not limiting I&AP’s to one meeting. If I&AP’s do however request a

meeting Jomela will be more than happy to arrange.

of 17

supply comments regarding the report that was made available. You decided to repeat

this mistake again in the new process. The new I&APs (the I&APs who registered after the

advertisements and site notices were placed and the I&APs who can still register until 23

October 2016) are once again prejudiced, because they have less than 30 days to supply

comments and the public meeting is held before the lapsing of the 30 day registration

period. The people who register after the public meeting will not even have an opportunity

to attend a Scoping Phase public meeting, because the public meeting is held before the

registration period ends on 23 October 2016. This is a very sensitive project and the

proposed mine will have a devastating impact on the environment and it is therefore crucial

that you follow the correct procedures and processes. Your own specialists emphasized

the irreversible and significant negative impacts on the water resources, ecological

environment and various other environments and you are fully aware of the controversy

around this project.

Are you going to give the newly registered I&APs an extension of time for the submission

of comments regarding the Draft Scoping Report? Are you going to make an amended

scoping report available which includes the public participation details and which includes

the comments and issues raised by the new I&APs? Please clarify the way forward.

We will also appreciate it if you could supply us with minutes and attendance register of

the first public meeting that will be held today. We will also appreciate it if you could furnish

us with a copy of the power point presentation presented at the meeting. We need copies

of the minutes and the presentation by Monday 10 October 2016, because you only

afforded I&APs until 13 October 2016 to supply their comments regarding the Draft

Scoping Report.

The commenting period open will be kept open. We will keep the registration and

commenting period open for another 30 days. These comments will be continuously

updated in the comments and response report

11 Interested and

affected party

Naas Grové

11-10-2016 Kindly forward information to be registered as an IA&P

President: Dendrological Society of South Africa

082 575 4244

You have been added as an Interested and affected party and will be notified at every

stage of the process

12 Matsuri

Resident

Constance

Ndavhedi

Mbali (Mudau

10-10-2016 My name is Constance Ndavhedi Mbali (Mudau) I hereby respond to the below mentioned

notice and likewise declare my interest in the matter.

NOTICE OF A COAL MINING RIGHT APPLICATION AND A SCPOING REPORT ON

THE FARMS BERENICE 548MS, CELINE 54 PORTION 1 DOORVAAEDT 355MS,

REMAINDER DOORVAARDT 355MS, MATSURI 358 MS, LONGFORD 354MS AND

GEZELS 395MS LOCATED IN MAKHADO, LIMPOPO BY UNIVERSAL COAL

DEVELOPMENT II (PTY) LTD.

I deem myself as one of the affected parties in respect of the above mentioned matter. I

am the daughter of the late Moyanalo Annah Mudau whom was a daughter to Jacob

Maano Motau and Moshasawe Sophi Motau who are my grandparents. My grandparents

own a portion of the farm’s land. They had children and raised them on the very same

farm who are now my aunts and uncles. I too was born and grew on the farm. I spent most

of my childhood upbringing on the farm and I was raised by my grandparents following

the passing of my mother. I am currently based in Gauteng and when I go to my

homelands during holidays I go to the farm. The farm is a home to me and holds a precious

place in my heart as it contains rich history of my family and our heritage as the Badau

clan.

Sadly the head of our family Mr J M Motau( Mudau) passed on and he was buried on the

farm. We have a very big family and we hold our annual family gatherings on the farm. I

am convinced that with the information I have declared to you I am truly and deeply

affected by the changes to take place on our homeland.

You have been registered as an interested and affected party. You will receive any and all

communication regarding the project. Jomela is independent environmental consultants

and only deal with the environmental issues. Compensation issues can only be discussed

with Universal Coal after such a time the mining right has been granted. But the issues

that you have raised will be noted. Since we did not have your details previously that is

why we submitted hard copies to the actual farm to allow the residents an opportunity

to share the information with other members.

of 17

I therefore would like to find out more information about how will I benefit from the

compensation and what plans are put in place for the affected individuals going forward.

Should you require further clarity you may contact me on my cell: 071 595 7019 or

email: [email protected]

In addition to the above, kindly note that the following will also be part of the affected

parties. I have CC’d them to ease your reference.

1. Maropeng Daphey Sithole ( Mudau) - 851008 034 2082 – 072 123 8347

2. Refilwe Paulete Duba ( Mudau ) – 881125 037 2085 – 072 145 2180

I trust you find the above in order and I hope to hear from you soon.

13 Bokamoso 1) INTRODUCTION

It was requested that Bokamoso, on behalf of some the surrounding

landowners/tenants/farmers to peruse the Draft Scoping Report for the above mentioned

project and submit comments regarding the report to Jomela Consulting (Pty) Ltd. A copy

of this comment document will also be forwarded to the Limpopo Department of Economic

Development, Environment and Tourism (LDEDET).

To follow now are the preliminary comments regarding the Draft Scoping Report for the

new application for the proposed open cast coal mine, which will be developed on the

above

mentioned farms.

2) COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT SCOPING REPORT WHICH WAS MADE

AVAILABLE ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2016

2.1) SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS SUPPLIED IN THE DSR

Universal Coal Development ll (Pty) Lt had been appointed by Jomela Consulting (Pty) Ltd

to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to evaluate the potential

environmental and social impacts of the proposed project. The applicant intends to

establish an opencast coal mining operation, located in the Limpopo Province of South

Africa, some 120 kilometres (km) to the North of Polokwane and to the east of the

settlement of Alldays. The project may

be REACHED via an all-weather gravel road that branches off from the tar road. The R584,

between Alldays and Waterpoort.

The farms covered by the Berenice Project is 7761.0950 hectares in extent, is held under

Prospecting Right (PR) (No. LP30/5/1/1/2/378PR); granted to Universal Coal

Development lI (Pty) Ltd that expires on 19 March 2016. The 'Boreholes drilled in the

prospecting area indicates that the area of interest lies on the farms Berenice 548 MS,

Celine 547 MS, Doorvaart 355 MS, Matsuri 358 MS and Longford 355 MS, with no coal

on the Farm Gezelschap 395 MS.

Apparently the Berenice Project has a JORC compliant coal resource of 1.358t (gross

tonnes in situ) of which 424.91 Mt are measured, 800.92MT indicated and 124.29MT

inferred.

The Proposed site location (Berenice project), is located within the B-block of the Mopane

Sub-Basin sector of the Soutpansberg coalfield.

In order to assess the potential impacts, it was stated that the following specialist studies

will be conducted and included as part of the EIA:

0 Air Quality impact assessment

Hydrological assessment (Surface water)

0 Geohydrological assessment

Ecological assessment

tel:071%C2%A0595%207019mailto:[email protected]:072%C2%A0123%208347tel:072%C2%A0145%202180

of 17

Soil and land capability

Social impact assessment

0 Visual impact assessment

0 Noise assessment

Traffic impact assessment

Heritage impact assessment

In the Scoping Report the EAP referred to the public participation process that was

followed.

The EAP however only included detail of the PP process followed as part of the former

EIA process application for which the file was closed due to the fact that the EAP failed to

afford the l&APs 30 days to supply comments regarding the reports that were made

available.

The I&AP database as supplied in the Scoping Report also refers to the I&APs that

registered in the former EIA process for an application which is no longer applicable.

2.2) COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT SCOPING REPORT AND THE PROCESS

FOLLOWED UP TO DATE:

GENERAL:

As qualified environmental consultants with many year’s experience in the compilation of

EIA applications, we are of the opinion that the EAP appointed for the mining application,

failed to act as independent consultant. The independence of the EAP will be challenged.

The EAP is well aware of the time constraints associated with an application once an

application has been submitted to the delegated authority, but due to fact that the mining

application is subject to serious time constraints, the EAP forces the I&APs to participate

in a flawed PP process.

The EAP is also well aware of the fact that the 2014 EIA Regulations make provision for

the compilation of specialist reports and extensive PP prior to the submission of an

application to the competent authority, because such pre-application procedures actually

allow for the EAP to address and consider all issues raised by the I&APs before embarking

into a process with strict timeframes.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

The Public Participation process that was followed in the Scoping Phase is once again

regarded as insufficient and “Fatally Flawed”;

The advertisements for the new EIA process were only placed on 23 September 2016. In

the advertisement it is stated that all l&APs have an opportunity to register as

I&APs until 23 October 2016, but in the same advertisement it is mentioned that the

Scoping Report is available for review, but only until 13 October 2016. How is this

possible?

This is very irregular and arrogant and will without any doubt prejudice any new I&APs

that wish to register during the public participation process for the new application. In the

EAP’s own notices that were distributed (after the closure of the file for the former

application) and in this scoping report, the EAP stated that the former application file was

closed due tot the fact that they failed to allow the l&APs 30 days to supply comments

regarding the EIA Reports;

I&AP’s where supplied with the Draft scoping report via email on the 13th of September,

including the minutes from the public meeting.

of 17

The EAP is now repeating this mistake. The EAP supplied the I&APs that registered in the

former EIA process (which is no longer applicable) with a Scoping Report for review on 13

September 2016 and requested that their comments be submitted to Jomela on 13

October 2016, because the Final Scoping Report will be submitted to DMR on 14 October

2016. This just illustrates that it was never the EAP’s intention to incorporate and address

the issues raised by the l&APs on 13 October 2016 as part of the Final Scoping to be

submitted, because it is impossible to thoroughly address the issues raised by the formerly

registered I&APs (in an amended report), especially with regards to a controversial

application such as this one, in only one day.

The EAP simply ignored that fact that they have to follow a new PP process for the new

application and that the new process must allow l&APs 30 days to register as l&APs and

only after the l&APs are registered in terms of the new EIA process are they allowed to

make the Draft Scoping Report available for a further 30 days for review to all parties that

registered.

The EAP is now furthermore going to submit the Final Scoping Report to DMR without the

comments of the newly registered l&APs and l&APs that can still register until 23

October 2016. The public meeting was also held prior to the lapsing of the registration

period for the l&APs and this selfish and time-driven action also prejudiced the l&Aps who

still have an opportunity to register between 8 October 2016 (the day of the public meeting)

and 23 October 2016 (the last day afforded for registration).

As stated in our e-mails that were sent to Jomela prior to the public meeting, they should

have applied for exemption from public participation if they intended to submit the Final

Scoping Report before the new registration period/ advertisement period for the l&APs

lapsed and if they wanted to rely on the PP of the former application (for which the file has

been closed due to insufficient PP) in the new application. l&Aps are now very confused,

especially due to the fact that the EAP requested that the l&APs who registered in the

former EIA process for the mine, now also submit their comments regarding the Jomela

EIA report that was made available in the former process.

It is also important to note that we were recently contacted by land-owners, workers and

tenants in the area who only recently became aware of the proposed mine in the area.

Some of the PDls are extremely upset about the limited efforts that were made to notify

them of the proposed mine, which will have a devastating effect. Apparently some of the

l&APs could not understand the language on the notices and they are furthermore not

equipped with technology to register by means of faxes/ e-mails.

How are you going to deal with l&APs that register after you submitted the Final Scoping

Report? Will you withdraw the Scoping Report at DMR in order to afford them the required

30-day period to comment on the Draft Scoping Report? Certainly you are not again going

to submit your final report and as an afterthought file the submissions and comments of

such I&APs who lawfully has time to lodge their submissions until :23 November 2016.

If DMR decide to accept this flawed PP process it will create an untenable precedent and

applicants for similar applications will be able to use advertisements and comments

supplied by I&APs in former processes, without an application for exemption in an

endeavor to comply with the PP requirements for the new EIA process. It shall indeed

make a mockery of the entire PP process to the detriment of

I&APS

The I&APs were once again not afforded 30 days for the submission of comments;

Comment Noted

This objection has been noted. We have kept the commenting period open. Please do

note that we are re-advertising and as requested in the email received from Bokamoso,

we will keep the registration and commenting period open for another 30 days. These

comments will be continuously updated in the comments and response report.

The public meeting was held during the scoping phase as Jomela had noted objections

not to hold the meeting outside the scoping phase. We are however prepared to have

another meeting for the scoping phase at the request of I&AP’s/

of 17

The EAP will not be able to attach an updated I&AP data base to the Final Scoping Report,

which is unacceptable;

The EAP failed to notify all the organs of state that could have an interest in the matter;

The low attendance figures at the public meeting held on 8 October 2016, which was

arranged with less than 2 weeks notice and before all the I&AP had the opportunity to

register, once again confirms the “non-transparent” and flawed public participation process

that was followed up to date. The EAP clearly only pays lip services to the statutory

requirements in that regard and with undue haste to the detriment of the entire process

endeavors to bulldose the process to finalization;

The EAP failed to apply for an extension of time for the submission of the Final Scoping

Report and the time limits associated with the application will without any doubt prejudice

the I&APs. The inevitable result of the aforegoing would be that this process shall again

be nullified as a result of non-compliance with the timeframes imposed by applicable

legislation.

2.3) DETAILED COMMENTS

The proof of PP attached as part of the DBAR is not in line with the applicable

legislation;

The DBAR lists the specialist studies to be conducted during the EIA process. We are of

the opinion that it will be necessary to conduct the following additional studies:

4» A detailed wetland delineation, because most of the mining activities will take place

within a very sensitive watercourse. In the former EIA it was stated that

it was not possible to do a wetland delineation due to limited access to the properties;

4. An aquatic assessment;

4:- A red data fauna and flora study;

1L A certification of the pre- and post-construction 1:100 year floodline, because mining

activities will have a significant impact on the flood line, even outside the boundaries of

the mining area;

4» The technology problems and language problems of the PDI l&APs must be taken into

consideration and dealt with in line with the applicable PP Regulations and guidelines;

«L An updated geo-hydrological assessment will be required, because the geo-

hydrological report compiled as part of the former application process was incomplete and

sub-standard.

3) CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Bokamoso is of the opinion that the PP process followed for the new application is “fatally

flawed”. The EAP once again failed to afford l&APs 30 days to supply comments regarding

a Draft Report and the public meeting was held before all l&APs had the opportunity to

register for the new process. The EAP had to apply for an exemption if they wanted to

deviate for the PP requirements as set out the applicable regulations and DEA guidelines.

The comments received will be submitted to the DMR and in addition to that these

comments will also feed into the EIA report as part of Consultation and correspondence

with I&AP’s and Stakeholders and the addressing of their comments.

Noted and these will be done during the EIA

Adverts will be published in Venda, Afrkaans and English.

of 17

Based on the above, we regard the process followed up to date as invalid and it is

recommended that the EAP rather terminate the current application process and start

afresh

Resident Rikus

Myburgh

17 October

2016

Wie dit mag aangaan,

Hiermee gee ek aan Universal Coal Development II (Pty) Ltd kennis dat ek;

‘n Geaffekteerde person is as verteenwoordiger en proxy vir die plase Renfrew,

Thurso en Andromeda aangrensend tot die projek

Ten sterkste beswaar maak teen die beoogde mynprojek aangesien:

o Daar bloot nie naastenby genoeg water in die gebied is vir

mynboubedrywighede nie, veral oopgroef steenkoolmyne

o Die beoogde projek die migrasieroete van luiperds van/na die

Soutpansberg afgesny en/of erg beperkend sal maak, met

gepaardgaande eskalering van skade vir wildboer wat in die gebied boer;

o Besoedeling van ondergrondse water ‘n ernstige negatiewe invloed op

die verbouing van ‘n verskeidenheid van groente in die gebied sal he

o Die padinfrastruktuur is glad nie in staat om die addisionele swaarvoertuie

te akkommodeer nie.

Thank you for registering as an affected party. Your objection has been noted. We will

address the issues in the EIA report.

14 Endangered

Wildlife Trust

Dr Ian Little 14 October,

2016

RESPONSE TO: DMR REF NO. LP 30/5/1/2/3/2/1 (10131) EM, application for mining

rights (Berenice project), Makhado local municipality Limpopo.

The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) is a non-governmental, non-profit, conservation

organisation, founded in 1973 and operating throughout southern Africa. The EWT

conserves threatened species and ecosystems in southern Africa by initiating research

and conservation action programmes, implementing projects which mitigate threats facing

species diversity and supporting sustainable natural resource management. The EWT

furthermore communicates the principles of sustainable living through awareness

programmes to the broadest possible constituency for the benefit of the region. The EWT

has developed a unique operational structure through which the mission and objectives of

the EWT can be achieved. The EWT achieves its conservation goals through specialist,

thematic Working Groups, designed to maximise effectiveness in the field and enhance

the development of skills and capacity.

The EWT strives to conserve biodiversity assets, ecosystem services and our natural

heritage in general to the benefit of all people in South Africa.

The proposed mining project is situated in a highly sensitive and biologically important

area. This is supported by the fact that 90% of the area is identified as Critical Biodiversity

Area 1 or 2 and the remainder as Ecosystem Support Areas 1. Cumulative impacts

including road networks, air, soil and water pollution in the region will have further knock-

on effects on associated critical biodiversity areas including the Langjan Provincial Nature

Reserve (17km from proposed site). It is important to note that there are No alternative

sites available to meet the proposed targets, especially because this whole region falls

within the within the proposed buffer zone of Vhembe Biosphere Reserve (2016 SEMP).

On top of this are the water issues that will be associated with this proposed mining activity.

The proposed area is on the Brak River which is a Class B river (Largely Natural under

NFEPA classification). The impacts on the river and its riparian zone will be impossible to

rehabilitate and this on top of the fact that the proposed water consumption exceeds the

annual rainfall in the area and that the area is a drought catastrophe area means that this

proposal should not even be considered from a Water Use Licence perspective.

Your comments and objections have been received.

Noted

It has been noted that the buffer has been proposed and not implemented yet. This has

been noted and will be taken into consideration by the DMR as they evaluate the feasibility

of the project.

Due to the sensitive nature of the Brak River, the applicant has amended their layout

cutting out areas of the proposed OC2 and OC3 mining areas. This was done so as to

avoid mining within 100m of the river and floodlines.

of 17

Given the overall biodiversity value of the area, the cumulative impacts of the proposed

activity, the inability to rehabilitate such a sensitive area and the extreme water use issues

we strongly oppose this application.

Noted.

Bokamoso These l&APs requested our office to register them on your data basis as some of them do

not have access to emails. Therefore we would like to inform you of additional l&APs whom

we would like add on your l&APs Database. Take note that all correspondence regarding

this project should be forwarded to both the l&APs and Bokamoso in the future.

We are also under the impression that the comments on the Draft Scoping Report had to

be submitted on the 13th of October 2016, however the registration period for l&APs is

accepted until today 23 October 2016 (which falls on a Sunday therefore the actual date

will be Monday, 24 October 2016). These l&APs would also like an opportunity to comment

on the Scoping Report and they are allowed to have a 30 day comment period to peruse

the available documents and supply your office with comments. The 30 day comment

period should commence on Monday, 24 October 2016 until Tuesday, 22 October 2016.

It is therefore requested that your office make the Draft Scoping Report available to them

at a public facility in close proximity to them in order for them to peruse the documents

(Draft Scoping Report). Unfortunately our offices are not close to them and therefore we

cannot assist them in this regard. As mentioned before, please ensure to inform the people

without any email addresses by means of sms communication.

A list with the additional people to add to your database is attached as Annexure A to this.

Kindly keep our office as well as these individuals updated regarding any other available

information, meetings, reports etc. regarding the project throughout the remainder of the

process. Please note that some of these affected parties do not have access to emails

and it is requested yet again that your office inform them by means of sending them a sms.

It

should also be considered to arrange for an interpreter to attend any future public meetings

as some of the people do not understand English and should be given the opportunity to

fully grasp what is being said in their own home language. The common home language

in the area is Pedi and Venda.

Bokamoso furthermore would like to know if the Final Scoping Report for this project had

been submitted to the relevant authorities for consideration. Please provide our office with

written confirmation in this regard as well as proof that the additional l&APs were registered

and given an opportunity to peruse the Draft Scoping Report.

Noted

We have received the list of I&AP’s and we will contact them and find the nearest area

where we can send the reports for them.

15 Interested and

Affected

Parties

Bokamoso

Landscape

Architects

and

Environment

al

Consultants

CC

6-03-2017 Bokamoso take cognisance of the fact that DMR afforded an extension of time for the

submission of the DEIAR and once again request that Jomela arrange a proper public

meeting, at least 14 days prior to the meeting in order to discuss the matters of concern

and the impacts to be assessed in more detail during the EIA process. A Scoping Phase

public meeting which only dealt with the project description and issues identification and

is simply not regarded as sufficient. The I&APs are already in possession of specialists

reports that were prepared (during the former EIA process) for the proposed mining activity

and would appreciate an opportunity to discuss the results of such studies with the EAP

and various specialists responsible for such reports at the public meeting.

Bokamoso is still of the opinion that the PP process followed for the new EIA Application

is “fatally flawed”. As mentioned, the advertisements that were placed for the registration

of the I&APs did not correspond with the submission timeframe for the Final Scoping

Report. The Final Scoping Report was submitted to DMR before the 30day advertisement

period ended. The EAP realized that the PP process followed was fatally flawed and

A public meeting will be held with I&AP’s, and as stated above all the IAPs will be notified

of the date of the meeting at least 14 days in advance.

The specialist reports are being updated to take into account the change in the layout and

the updated reports will be made available during the EIA phase for scrutiny.

The PP process that has been approved for the project is in terms of Chapter 6 of the

NEMA (GNR 982) and entails:

1. Notification of the application and availability of DSR via notification letters (I&AP’s and

other key stakeholders were notified of the status of the project on the 13th of September

of 17

decided to re-advertise the EIA application after the FSR was submitted to DMR for

scrutiny. The issues and response report and I&AP database was submitted to DMR after

the FSR was submitted and such information was not made available to the I&APs for

scrutiny prior to submission. This is highly irregular. The EAP should have requested an

extension of time on order to make a revised/amended DSR available to the I&APs.

Bokamoso also requested that Jomela supply regular updates of the status of the

application and Jomela did not even inform Bokamoso of the fact that additional

information was submitted to DMR after the FSR was submitted. Jomela only informed

Bokamoso of the extension of time that was afforded after Bokamoso enquired about the

project progress. Jomela blatantly ignores the requests that are made by the I&APs and

creates the impression that they are not acting as independent consultants.

2016 and the scoping report will be sent to all registered I&AP’s for a 30 day commenting

period from the 13th of September to the 13th of October 2016).

2. Universal Coal Mine however also placed an advertisement announcing the availability

of the DSR for comment: Adverts where placed as follows:

Additional Adverts where placed as follows

This was done to afford additional I&AP’s to register and provide us with their comments

which will addressed in the EIA phase. Please note that the registration process is open

until the final EIAR is submitted.

In the correspondence of 24 October 2016 Bokamoso as a stakeholder was provided with

the additional information that was submitted to the department which was the advert and

the updated database to include the additional I&AP’s

The same additional information was resubmitted on request from Bokamoso on 18

January 2017, during which Bokamoso was also informed that the EIA team was in the

process of reviewing and updating the water studies and that once the reports have been

finalised all stakeholders will be informed of the EIA review timeline. Correspondence to

that effect has been attached as Appendix A.

The extension letter from the DMR was received on the 8th of February 2017 and all

registered I&AP’s were notified of the extension on the 14th of February 2017. The EIA

team received correspondence from Bokamoso’s after the extension letter had been sent

out. Please see Appendix B.

Bokamoso as a stakeholder has requested information and project status updates

throughout the process, and the EIA team undertook to ensure that where available, the

information and status updates were provided to the stakeholders.

Jomela are independent consultants with no vested interest in the outcome of the project.

16 A proper EIA Phase public meeting (not during holiday periods) should be held at a venue

that is accessible to all and the meeting must be arranged at least 14 days in advance.

The following parties involved in the application process should attend the meeting:

- The project EAP;

- The geo-hydrologist;

- The geotechnical engineer;

- The fauna and flora specialist;

- The wetland specialist;

- The civil engineer and the traffic engineer;

- Representatives of the applicant;

- Air quality specialist; and

- Waste management specialist.

Noted. A public meeting will be held with I&AP’s, and as stated above all the IAPs will be

notified of the date of the meeting at least 14 days in advance.

The project EAP will present and discuss the findings from the impact assessment phase

of the project. Arrangements will be made for Specialists to be available to respond to

queries pertaining to their areas of expertise. In a case where a specialist is not available,

the questions will be drafted and forwarded to the specialist for clarity and this will be

included in the comments and response report as well.

No separate waste management specialist studies were conducted for the project, but a

geochemical analysis will form part of the geohydrology report. An IWWMP addressing

water and waste management issues is currently being compiled. Waste and water

management will also form part of the DEIR and EMP for the mine.

17 The project reference number used by DMR and the EAP is inconsistent. Take note that

DMR most probably perused the FSR submitted as part of the original application for which

the file was closed, because the DMR comments regarding the FSR and Plan of Study for

EIA referred to the reference number of the original application. As I&APs we are now very

confused and the information supplied to the I&APs is misleading. Please confirm whether

a new application was submitted and that a new EIA process is now being followed for the

mining activity, because DMR refer to the former application in their most recent

correspondence.

The DMR official has been notified and a corrected letter has been sent and is attached

as appendix D. Please note that the FSR submitted to the department was for the new

application and this report was emailed to registered parties including Bokamoso. This

scoping report submitted to the department was privy to the public participation process.

Jomela did not submit the same report from the previous application but a more detailed

report for the LP10131MR application.

18 From the matters raised above, it is clear that there are many matters and issues regarding

the application and proposed activities that need to be clarified. At this stage Jomela is

down-playing the issues and concerns raised by the I&APs and the process that is being

followed is not perceived as being transparent.

Jomela notes the sensitivity of the project and are not downplaying the issues and

concerns raised. Specialist studies have been conducted and note the potential negative

and positive impacts of the project. The main aim the EIA process is to identify potential

impacts and classify them according to their significance. All issues raised by interested

of 17

and affected parties will be addressed to the best of our ability and will be included in the

comments report for all Interested and affected parties to review.

19 Landscape

Architects &

Environment

al

Consultants

24 October

2016

Your email and information sent to our office on 24 October 2016 regarding the above

mentioned project refers. The email of 24 October 2016 is attached for ease of reference.

Please could you confirm exactly what was submitted on the 24th of October 2016. Kindly

also confirm what the status of the project is and where you are in the process.

Please find attached the additional documents that where submitted to the department.

We are currently having the water studies being reviewed and updated. Once we have an

expected date on when the reports will be ready we will let you know regarding the

timelines.

20 Your email of 18 January 2017 refers.

We requested to be updated with the status and progress of the project. However we were

provided with additional information that was submitted. An update and additional

information was requested from your offices.

We submitted the scoping report and it was accepted on the 15th of November

2016(attached).

Please confirm on which date the Final Scoping Report was submitted (if at all) to the

relevant Authority. It is felt

that the information provided to us is confusing and does not make sense as the

newspaper advertisement (dated

28 October 2016) attached to the available additional information send to us on 18 January

2017 is merely inviting I&APs to register as an interested and or affected party. At this

stage it was believed that the Final Scoping Report was already submitted to the

Department. It is therefore strange that the newspaper advert was placed after the Final

Scoping Report was submitted for consideration and approval by the Competent Authority.

The issue regarding the second advert was to addressing the issues raised by Bokamoso

and we sent a formal response to your offices on the 28th of October 2016 (attached for

ease of reference). This was an additional advert to notify I&AP’s that they could still

register and comment on the project.

We also received an email whereby the Department granted a 50 day extension of time

for the project. Please confirm for which phase of the project is the 50 days granted. The

email being referred to states that the extension is for the EIA phase.

Also please provide our office with a copy of the Scoping Approval letter from the

Competent Authority if you are

now in the EIA phase. Attached

Kindly provide us with timeframes and dates of when which report was submitted where

(The scoping report was submitted on the 14th of October, upon receipt of Bokamoso

objections on the 20th we further re-advertised and submitted the additional information

on the 21st of October and on the 2nd of November 2016) . Also kindly inform us where

this project is in the process as we are truly uncertain with the information at hand. We are

currently in the EIA phase and in the process of finalising the water studies updates. The

EIA/EMPr will be made available to I&AP’s in March (Dates to be confirmed) for 30 days.

Is you have any further queries please feel free to contact me

on 0829701513.

I have responded inline for ease if reference.

Liz Hilton

Gray

23 March

2017

I have been to your website to download the above document but I see only the scoping

report is there. Please can you email me or upload the report accordingly.

These reports will be available for public review and comment from the 31st of March 2017

to the 5th of May 2017. The draft EIA/EMP report will be available at the Makhado

Municipality, Makhado local Library, can be sent via email, CD upon request and can be

downloaded from our website http://www.jomela.co.za/downloads.html

Ian Little 22/03/2017 Thank you for your email.

I'm attending a workshop until Friday and will try to respond to you shortly thereafter.

If it is urgent please call, Whatsapp or SMS me on 084 240 7341.

Thanks and have a great weekend.

Ian

Thank you for reply.

http://www.jomela.co.za/downloads.html

of 17

Eric Malaka DWS 22/03/2017 Water affairs has already commented following the site visit conducted on the

20/January/2017. Therefore, pass our apologies since, we will be having a WUAAAC or

Water use licence application files working session from the 22-24 March 2017. Caution,

the comments are sent to Mandla Masango today hence, sorry for sending them late due

to some technical problem and misunderstandings.

Noted

Wietsche Rural

Development

Date I have forwarded it to David Nethengwe at our Polokwane office as these applications

must be send to our regional operations and not head office.

Annexure 6 REGISTER OF COMMENTS: INTERESTED AND … 6 - Comments... · 2017. 4. 1. · 7 Interested...

Documents

Transcript of Annexure 6 REGISTER OF COMMENTS: INTERESTED AND … 6 - Comments... · 2017. 4. 1. · 7 Interested...