Table 6.2: The alternatives for the proposed borrow pits ... R63 Fort Beaufort... · 7.1.2...

Draft Scoping Report – December 2016

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services SANRAL R63 Borrow Pits Draft Scoping Report 25

Table 6.2: The alternatives for the proposed borrow pits.

Alternative level Alternatives Advantages Disadvantages Reasonable and feasible

Further assessment

Comment

Property or location (Fundamental location alternative)

Alternative location 1 - Current proposed site (preferred alternative).

The geology in these locations is ideal for the type of material required.

Each site is located in close proximity to the road portion that will be upgraded.

Indigenous vegetation cumulatively for all 7 sites will be lost due to mining activities.

Loss of rural grazing/ agricultural land.

YES YES The main determining factors for selecting the proposed location were:- Appropriate

geology of the area.

Location in relation to the each road upgrade site.

A portion of some sites have already been impacted on by mining activities.

Alternative location 2 – None identified.

N/A N/A N/A N/A Alternative locations for the proposed borrow pits are limited and not reasonable or feasible due to inappropriate geology.

The appropriate geology was considered a critical aspect.

Alternative locations for the




Further assessment

Comment

borrow pits would have similar environmental impacts.

There are limited existing borrow pits nearby (that can provide the necessary material) where environmental impacts can be avoided.

No alternative locations will be assessed for each site in the impact assessment.

Type of technology This refers to the fundamental technology options required to operate the borrow pits.

Alternative technology 1 – Opencast mining using excavators and transporting material using trucks with processing occurring onsite (preferred alternative).

Less time spent on site resulting in lower environmental impact

Fewer jobs created due to lower labour requirements

YES YES This is the preferred and feasible mining method. This is a proven mining method for this type of material.

Alternative technology 2 – No processing occurring on site, material to be transported to an

Less noise and dust pollution to surrounding areas.

- More expensive operational costs.

NO NO - There are no feasible alternative mining methods that would have a lower




Further assessment

Comment

alternative location for processing.

environmental impact.

No other mining methods will be assessed further in the impact assessment.

Layout alternative Incremental alternative.

Alternative layout 1 – Current proposed layout with processing occurring on site (preferred alternative).

The proposed layout of the borrow pits is ideal based on the geological conditions.

Three of the proposed borrow pit layouts fall within river and wetland regulatory buffers.

YES YES These are the preferred layouts (based on geological conditions) and will be assessed further in the impact assessment.

Alternative layout 2 – None chosen because the preferred alternative is the most feasible.

- - N/A N/A NO No other layouts will reasonable and feasible and no other layouts other than the preferred layouts will be assessed further in the impact assessment.

No-go option This refers to the current status quo and the risks and impacts associated with it.

Current land use of the proposed sites are rural grazing and agricultural land.

- Area will not be disturbed by mining operations, i.e. topography, geology and vegetation will not be affected.

- Reduced environmental damage.

- Material from possibly distant alternative locations will have to be sourced for upgrading the R63 which might not be feasible.

- Will negatively affect socio-economic

YES YES Will be assessed further in the impact assessment process.




Further assessment

Comment

development in the region.

- Area will suffer extensive erosion due to over grazing.



7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

7.1. Notification of Interested and Affected Parties

Public Participation 7.1.1

Public consultation is a legal requirement throughout the EIA process. The proponent is required to conduct public consultation throughout both the Scoping and EIR phase. Formal EIA documents are required to be made available for public review and comment by the proponent, these include the Project Brief, Scoping Report and Terms of Reference for the EIA, the draft and final EIA reports and the decision of the Competent Authority. The method of public consultation to be used depends largely on the location of the development and the level of education of those being impacted on by the project. Required means of public consultation include:

Site notice/s;

Newspaper advertisements;

Letter of Notification to affected landowner(s), stakeholders and registered I&APs;

Background Information Document (BID) distribution;

Focus group site meeting (Attendance register and meeting minutes);

Authority and Stakeholder engagement (DMR, DEA, DEDEAT, DWS).

Newspaper advertisement 7.1.2

The SANRAL R63 road upgrade was advertised in the Daily Dispatch on 19 November 2016 (Appendix A). This advert included notification that a mining environmental authorisation will be lodged with DMR for the proposed borrow pits. This advert will provide detail about the proposed project and provided Interested & Affected parties with an opportunity to register and comment on the draft Scoping Report.

On-site Notice 7.1.3

Notice boards were placed at various locations next to the each borrow pit sites and along the R63 National Route. (See Appendix A for photographic proof).

Stakeholders and I&APs 7.1.4

During the EIA for the borrow pits certain stakeholders were identified based on their potential interest in the project. These stakeholders were contacted either via e-mail or telephone for comment and were sent a Letter of Notification (LoN) and a BID. The borrow pits will be discussed in the public meetings about the proposed project where any issues raised by the community will be incorporated in the Scoping and EIA Reports. A full list of stakeholders and I&APs is available in Appendix A. These stakeholders will be notified throughout the EIA process for the borrow pits and any comments received will also be incorporated into the Final Scoping and EIA Reports. Any new I&APs registered will be added to this list.

In terms of Section APPENDIX 2(2) of the EIA Regulations (2014), a Scoping Report and must include –

h) A full description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred activity, site and location within the site, including – (ii) Details of the public participation process undertaken in terms of regulation 41 of the

Regulations, including copies of the supporting documents and inputs; (iii) A summary of the issues raised by interested and affected parties, and an indication of the

manner in which the issues were incorporated, or the reasons for not including them.



Background information document 7.1.5

A BID was distributed to identified stakeholders and I&APs on 13 July 2016 (Appendix A).

Proof of notification 7.1.6

Stakeholders and I&APs were notified via email/registered mail about the proposed borrow pits (Appendix A).

Issues raised by stakeholders/ I&APs 7.1.7

During the EIA process thus far, the following comments relating to the borrow pits were received:

Raised by Event Issue/Concern/Comment Reply/Action

Thobeka P.Mjo (Ward councillor, Ward 13)

Registered as an I&AP after receiving letter of notification about the proposed project.

It is with great pleasure to be informed about this as my ward, which is ward 13 is forming part of this route. I want to be part of this project throughout. People have been complaining to us of being left behind in everything that is happening on this road as if they don't exist. From Alice to Fort Beaufort wards that are around is ward 6, 13, 3, 20 and 21. I hope councillors of these areas have been involved, if not I will be happy to assist in order for you to communicate with them.

Cllr Mjo as well as the other ward counillors were registered as IAPs and will be notified throughout the EIA process.



Mr Mark Moodaley (Transnet Property)

Comment received after recieving letter of notification about the proposed project.

Particular reference is made to the project description on page 6 of the “BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT (BID) & INVITATION TO COMMENT” where mentioned is made of the “Opening of 7 new Borrow Pits” Would it be possible for EOH to assist us in acquiring more accurate information with regards to the location of the proposed borrow pits, perhaps coordinates of the 7 sites or a Google Earth KMZ file? This information will assist us in depicting the location the sites in relation to Transnet land.

The proposed 7 Borrow Pit sites are currently still under investigation by the geotechnical contractor so, although the sites have been identified, the boundaries have not been defined yet. That should happen in the next few weeks. Attached KML therefore indicate the sites where these Bps will occur, and the boundaries are pretty accurate, but may change slightly, depending on the geotech feedback. Please forward all comments and recommendations you have to Roy De Kock to include it in the EIA process. Keep in mind that there will still have a Public Participation Process including a public meeting and a 30 day review period of the EIA reports where one can still respond with issues and questions. Transnet was registered as an IAP and will be notified throughout the EIA process and included in all future correspondence and public processes.

Mlondolozi Mbikwana (Department of Water and Sanitation)

Comment received after recieving letter of notification about the proposed project.

I have received your email correspondence and I look forward to comment to your project once I get project description details with more juice in terms section 21 [c] & [i]. That is anything affecting rivers, streams, wetlands and non-perennial streams.

WULA’s will be submitted to DWS for river and stream crossings and wetlands. A Basic assessment report will also be given to DWS for comment during the 30 day public comment period.

Person 1 Comment received at public meeting in Fort Beaufort

Please involve our communities with regard to the mining as we need the development.

The communities are able to get involved in the mining as they can propose and negotiate the price. The community borrow pits will have to be commercial and not designated however.



Person 2 Comment received at public meeting in Alice

How will you make sure that the communities around where the borrow pits are benefit and that the contractor lives up to his word.

The contractor will negotiate whatever benefits that will accrue to the communties and this will be done through a steering commitee that will be set up by the community.



8. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

8.1. The Bio-Physical Environment

Current land use 8.1.1

The majority of the borrow pits fall within natural areas (grassland, thicket and bushland). Large sections of the borrow pit sites have been transformed by anthropogenic activities such as overgrazing and active clearing/burning for improved pastures (Figure 8.1). Table 8.1 below depicts the land uses that are likely to be impacted by the borrow pits. Table 8.1: The main land uses in the vicinity of each borrow pit site.

Borrow Pit Site Land Use Type affected by borrow site

Color id in Figure 8.1

BP 01 Unimproved grassland Light Green

BP 03 Thicket and Bushland Light beige





BP 08 Unimproved grassland Light Green

In terms of Section APPENDIX 2(2) of the EIA Regulations (2014), a Scoping Report must include –

h) A full description of the process followed to reach the proposed preferred activity, site and location within the site, including – (iv) The environmental attributes associated with the alternatives focusing on the

geographical, physical, biological, social, economic, heritage and cultural aspects;



Figure 8.1: Land use map for the borrow pit sites.



Figure 8.1.1: Land use map for BP 1, BP 3, BP 4 and BP 8.

Figure 8.1.2: land use map for BP 5, BP 6 and BP 7.



Climate 8.1.2

Fort Beaufort normally receives about 403mm of rain per year, with most rainfall occurring mainly during autumn. It receives the lowest rainfall (7mm) in July and the highest (66mm) in March. The average midday temperatures for Fort Beaufort range from 19.3°C in June to 28.3°C in January. The region is the coldest during July when temperatures drop to 5.6°C on average during the night (www.saexplorer.co.za).

Topography 8.1.3

The local region of the proposed project primarily consists of undulating plains to moderately steep sloped landscapes sometimes with shallow incised drainage valleys. All 7 borrow pit sites are located on flat to gently sloping plains.

Figure 8.2: Topography of the study area. Figure 8.2.1 below illustrates the topography of borrow pits (BP) 1, 3, 4 and 8. The topography for the borrow pits is as follows:

Borrow Pit 1 Flat on a plateau with elevations ranging from 680 to 700 meters above sea level (masl).

Borrow Pit Gently slopes to the southeast with elevations between 620masl and 640 masl.

Borrow Pit 4 Relatively flat and slopes towards the southwest with elevations ranging from 580masl to 600 masl.

Borrow Pit 8 Slopes towards the southeast with elevations ranging from 620masl to 580 masl.

A

http://www.saexplorer.co.za/



Figure 8.2.1: Topography Map of BP 1, BP 3, BP 4 and BP 8.

Figure 8.2.2 below illustrates the topography of BP 5, BP 6 and BP 7. The topography of the borrow pits are as follows:

Borrow Pit 5 Flat topography with elevations between 500masl and 540masl.

Borrow Pit 6 Flat depression with elevations between 420masl and 44masl.

Borrow Pit 7 Gently inclines to the north with elevations ranging from 520masl to 560masl.



Figure 8.2.2: Topography Map of BP 5, BP 6 and BP 7.

Geology and soils 8.1.4

Figure 8.3 below indicates that all the borrow pit areas generally consist of Adelaide mudstones and sandstones of the Karoo Supergroup. The substrate consists of primary loamy soils with clay-loams occurring closer to Fort Beaufort. Although Fa & Fc land types dominates, other land types like Db & Fb may occur.



Figure 8.3: Geology of the study area.

8.2. Rivers and wetlands

Three (3) of the Seven (7) borrow pits fall within river and wetland buffers. BP 1 falls within 500m of a wetland as well as 32m of a river tributary. BP 3 falls within 500m of a wetland, and BP 7 falls within the 32m river regulatory buffer. None of the other borrow pits fall within any waterbody regulatory buffers (Figures 8.4 and 8.5). All the wetlands within 500m of the borrow pits are artificial (dams). Further investigations on the water bodies will be reported in the Aquatic and Wetland Assessment report during the EIA phase. Any mining activity within 500 m of a wetland or within 50 m of a watercourse will require a Water Use License (WUL) from the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) prior to commencement of any mining activity onsite.

Table 6.2: The alternatives for the proposed borrow pits ... R63 Fort Beaufort... · 7.1.2...

Documents

Transcript of Table 6.2: The alternatives for the proposed borrow pits ... R63 Fort Beaufort... · 7.1.2...