draft basic assessment report … - sand river...draft basic assessment report terratest (pty) ltd...

$: DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT … - Sand River...Draft Basic Assessment Report Terratest (Pty) Ltd “Reconstruction of the Sand River Bridge on the MR00391, St Francis Bay” P:\01$
Draft Basic Assessment Report Terratest (Pty) Ltd

“Reconstruction of the Sand River Bridge on the MR00391, St Francis Bay”

P:\01 TERRATEST\41303 - Sand River Bridge Restoration EIA\07 REPORTS\Draft BAR

THE PROPOSED “RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SAND RIVER BRIDGE – MAIN ROAD MR00391, ST FRANCIS BAY,

KOUGA MUNICIPALITY”

DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT (EC08/LN1&3/M/12-91)

OCTOBER 2013

Prepared for:

Department of Roads and Public Works, Eastern Cape Private Bag X0022 Bhisho 5605 Tel: (040) 609 4487 Fax: (040) 639 2733

Prepared by:

Terratest (Pty) Ltd P O Box 27308 Greenacres 6045 Port Elizabeth Telephone: (041) 363 4428 Fax: (041) 363 1922




PROVINCE OF THE EASTERN CAPE

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

File Reference Number:

Application Number:

Date Received:

Basic assessment report in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010, promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998(Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended. Kindly note that: 1. This basic assessment report is a standard report that may be required by a competent authority in terms of the EIA

Regulations, 2010 and is meant to streamline applications. Please make sure that it is the report used by the particular competent authority for the activity that is being applied for.

2. The report must be typed within the spaces provided in the form. The size of the spaces provided is not necessarily

indicative of the amount of information to be provided. The report is in the form of a table that can extend itself as each space is filled with typing.

3. Where applicable tick the boxes that are applicable or black out the boxes that are not applicable in the report. 4. An incomplete report may be returned to the applicant for revision. 5. The use of “not applicable” in the report must be done with circumspection because if it is used in respect of material

information that is required by the competent authority for assessing the application, it may result in the rejection of the application as provided for in the regulations.

6. This report must be handed in at offices of the relevant competent authority as determined by each authority. 7. No faxed or e-mailed reports will be accepted. 8. The report must be compiled by an independent environmental assessment practitioner.




9. Unless protected by law, all information in the report will become public information on receipt by the competent

authority. Any interested and affected party should be provided with the information contained in this report on request, during any stage of the application process.

10. A competent authority may require that for specified types of activities in defined situations only parts of this report

need to be completed.




SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION

Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this section?

YES NO

If YES, please complete form XX for each specialist thus appointed: Any specialist reports must be contained in Appendix D. 1. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION Describe the activity, which is being applied for, in detail

1. INTRODUCTION

The Eastern Cape Department of Roads and Public Works (DRPW) proposes the re-construction and

upgrading of the bridge spanning across a section of the Sand River. The Sand River Bridge is

located along the Main Road MR00391 (also referred to as the R330) that travels between

Humansdorp and St Francis Bay within the Cacadu District Municipality in the Eastern Cape. The

MR00391 road provides the only access road servicing the greater communities of Cape St Francis

and St Francis Bay residential areas. The Sand River Crossing lies approximately 1.2km southeast of

the larger bridge crossing over the Kromme River Estuary and 2km north of the entrance to St Francis

Bay. The bridge crosses the Sand River that intersects the land approximately 12km from West to

East.

The Sand River, a tributary of the Kromme River Estuary, is considered an episodic river, comprising

mainly shallow subsurface flow, except during flood episodes when it carries runoff and subsurface

flow from the dunes and surrounding farmland and other developed areas into the Kromme River. The

substrate of the river system consists predominantly of fine sand material. Consequently, there is poor

cohesion between individual soil particles that results in high erodibility of the substrate material thus

creating a very dynamic system. The action of aeolian and fluvial processes constantly alters the

longitudinal and cross-sectional profile of the Sand River system causing dune formation and

deformation.

Historically, the MR00391 crossed the Sand River by means of box culvert structures when the road

was rebuilt to its current standard in 1989/1990. The MR00391 suffered extensive damage during the

flood event of November 1996 where overtopping of the culverts resulted in the destruction of the

wing walls on either side of the culvert and tarred road surface. Ever since, the road-bridge crossing

has experienced some destruction during minor flood events, however the damage was considered

less significant as traffic was not disrupted.

2. CURRENT SETUP AT THE SAND RIVER BRIDGE




The recent flood event on 21 October 2012 culminated with the entire box culvert structure being

washed away, thus isolating the residential communities from either side. Due to the severe

destruction, the bridge could not be restored immediately.

View of the crossing over the Sand River that washed away during the flood event in 2012

The decision was made to provide an informal temporary by-pass by way of a low level crossing

adjacent to the former road-bridge alignment within the existing road reserve. This deviation crossing

thus serves as a contingency measure until the statutory procedures have been completed for a new

crossing.

This temporary bridge was constructed with 7 x 600mm diameter concrete pipes encased in

sandbags. A surcharge ground fill of approximately 1000mm above the pipes brings the deck top level

to 18m AMSL. The nature of this temporary low level crossing was as a result of emergency

construction in order to provide an interim river crossing over the Sand River.




View of the temporary structure that is currently in place along the deviation allowing flow in

the Sand River

The access for St Francis Bay residents would have been cut off on either side of the Sand River as

no alternative access to the town is available. The safety of the current temporary bridge is low and

the risk of failure is high, should a medium intensity storm take place. The temporary bridge in its

present state only carries low frequency lightweight vehicles.

3. PROPOSED WORKS

The Sand River Bridge has been deemed as being structurally demolished and undermined and

therefore the upgrading will result in preserving the integrity of the structure to ensure safe crossing of

the river for vehicles and pedestrians. It is strongly recommended that the refurbished hydraulic

structure should include inventions that would increase structural stability to account for the inherent

high erodibility of the underlying substrate as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, the design and

construction of a safe and acceptable bridge will take cognisance of factors such as traffic flow, the

likelihood of future major storm water events, safety aspects, durability of the structure and

economical viability into account.

A floodline report (see Appendix D) was obtained with the necessary data pertaining to the water

surface levels and flood hydrology within the vicinity. For this development, a 100 year probability

cycle was chosen as the design life of the bridge will not exceed this. Results from the 1:100 year




floodline survey indicated that under present conditions (“Without Bridge”) a significant portion of the

R330 is inundated by the 1:100 year floodline. The inundated area spans a width of approximately

29m in the vicinity of the old bridge crossing. The “With Bridge” scenario 1:100 year floodline does not

overtop or inundate the R330 or the bridge crossing the Sand River. This is indicated when comparing

the level of the bridge (approximately 19.3 mAMSL) to the elevation of the 1:100 year flood waters

(18.93 mAMSL). The 1:100 year flood has a 1% probability of occurring once in a 1 year cycle and

should not cause destruction to the bridge with appropriate design plans.

As a result of the geomorphological processes, the banks and channel of the Sand River may

exacerbate, resulting in an overall increase in the cross-sectional elevation of the stream channel in

the vicinity of the Sand River Bridge, especially due to potential backwater effects that the proposed

hydraulic structure may create. Consequently, the flood levels and inundation areas may increase and

potentially overtop and inundate R330 Bridge. To counter this, it is recommended that the elevation of

the cross-sectional profile is periodically monitored to ensure that it does not reach potentially

detrimental heights which would aggravate flood damage.

2. FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES “alternatives”, in relation to a proposed activity, means different means of meeting the general purpose and requirements of the activity, which may include alternatives to— (a) the property on which 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. Describe alternatives that are considered in this application. Alternatives should include a consideration of all possible means by which the purpose and need of the proposed activity could be accomplished in the specific instance taking account of the interest of the applicant in the activity. 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 site or activity (including different processes etc.) or both is appropriate needs to be informed by the specific circumstances of the activity and its environment. After receipt of this report the competent authority may also request the applicant to assess additional alternatives that could possibly accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed activity if it is clear that realistic alternatives have not been considered to a reasonable extent.

(a) the property on which or location where it is proposed to undertake the activity;

No alternative site was considered as the bridge structure will replace the damaged structure.

(b) the type of activity to be undertaken;

The damaged bridge structure will be replaced by a new bridge structure with an improved design.

(c) the design or layout of the activity -;

Various design alternatives have been considered for the proposed bridge and these alternatives are




presented in this Basic Assessment Report.

GO-ALTERNATIVE 1 (DESIGN OPTION 6): CAST IN-SITU THREE SPAN BRIDGE STRUCTURE

(CULVERT STRUCTURE THAT MAKES PROVISION FOR AN OPENING WITH TWO SUPPORTS

IN THE CHANNEL)

Roadway on embankment fill constructed across a cast in-situ three span structure. The three span

structure entails an in-situ cast structure with 2x8m x 2.858m cells founded on a monolithic slab that

requires no piling for its foundations. Surcharge fill material and roadway layer works over the

structure to roadway surface level. Gabion wing walls and scour protection at the inlet and outlet

structures will be provided. The hydraulic opening of these options is 68.59m2 and the structure has

a design standard of accommodating a 1:100 year flood event.

The construction value of this option is estimated at R13 518 618.14 and will have a construction

period of approximately 7 months. The construction procedure associated with this option does not

require the movement of the existing temporary deviation. This deviation will therefore be used for

the duration of the construction process and will only be removed once the new structure is in place

and operational.

View of the preferred alternative, Option 6

GO-ALTERNATIVE 2 (DESIGN OPTION 1): SUSPENDED CONCRETE DECK BRIDGE

STRUCTURE (CONCRETE BRIDGE ON PILES)

The bridge structure consists of a beam-and-slab deck placed on reinforced concrete abutments and

wingwalls. The span of the deck is 14.4m in length and is placed on the bridge bearings on top of the

abutments. The foundations for these abutments and wingwalls will be piled while the scour protection

of the footings will be stabilized with gabions. The hydraulic opening of this bridge option is 43.2m2

and a flood design standard of 1:100 years. The Geotechnical investigation (attached in Appendix D

has indicated that no bed rock is present shallower than 26.5m which will require that the piles that




will form the foundations of this design will need to be deeper than 26.5m. Piling as a construction

method is very expensive and increases as the depth requirements increases.

The current cost estimate for the construction of this option is R17 824 356.00 and has a construction

period estimated at 10 months based on the assumption that the piling depth required will not extend

much deeper than the depth of the limit of the Geotechnical investigation.

Furthermore, a further impact that the piling will have on the project is the necessity to remove the

existing temporary deviation as the Piling Rigs that will be needed to drill the piling holes are too large

to operate in the current space between the position of the drill holes and the existing deviation. If this

option is therefore constructed it will require the demolition of the existing deviation and the

construction of another further upstream of the existing deviation. This will result in environmental

impacts related to additional works within the Sand River bed in an area that has not previously been

impacted upon by the bridge or deviation and possible traffic accommodation and road safety

impacts.

View of go-alternative 2, Option 1

GO-ALTERNATIVE 3 (DESIGN OPTION 2B): CAST IN-SITU CELLULAR STRUCTURE

The cellular system entails 4 x 3.750m x 3.0m cast in-situ cells founded on a monolithic slab.

Surcharge fill material and roadway layer works over culverts to road way surface level. Gabion

wingwalls and scour protection at the inlets and outlets of the structures will be provided.

This option has a design standard to accommodate a 1:100 year flood event and a hydraulic opening

of 34.27m2. The construction cost for this option is estimated at R12 033 170.82 with a construction

period of approximately 6 months.

As this option does not require any piling for it foundations the existing deviation can be left in place




and used for traffic accommodation for the duration of the construction process.

View of the go-alternative 3, Option 2B

‘NO GO’ ALTERNATIVE

The ’No Go’ alternative means that the proposed bridge will not be constructed and the status quo will

remain with the access road to St Francis crossing the Sand River via a temporary deviation. The

safety of the current temporary bridge (i.e. the deviation) poses a danger to humans and the

environment, should a medium intensity storm take place.

View of the current bypass and crossing over the Sand River




The following tables serve as a summary of the three options discussed in the document (excluding

the No-go option).

Cost and Construction Period Comparison

OPTION DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED

CONSTRUCTION

PERIOD

ESTIMATED

COST

OPTION 1

Suspended concrete deck

bridge structure on piles

10 months

R17 824 356.00

OPTION 2B

Cast in-situ cellular

structure

6 months

R12 033 170.82

OPTION 6

Cast in-situ three span

bridge structure that

makes provision for an

opening with two supports

in the channel

7 months

R13 518 618.14

Comparison of the Hydraulic Openings including the Original Bridge

OPTION DESCRIPTION HYDRAULIC OPENING (m

2)

ORIGINAL BRIDGE

Three cell culvert structure 19.95

OPTION 1 Suspended concrete deck bridge structure on piles

43.20

OPTION 2B

Cast in-situ cellular structure 34.27

OPTION 6 Cast in-situ three span bridge structure that makes provision for an opening with two supports in the channel

68.59

(d) the technology to be used in the activity;

Option 1 discussed above makes use of piling technology to establish the foundations for the planned

structure. While Options 6 and 2B make provision for a monolithic slab (or floating foundation) to

anchor the structures in place.

In all the options considered, the road surfacing will be done with cold mix asphalting.

(e) the operational aspects of the activity; and




(f) the option of not implementing the activity.

The access for St Francis Bay residents will be cut off on either side of the Sand River as no

alternative access to the town will then be available. The safety of the current temporary bridge is low

and the risk of failure is high, should a medium intensity storm take place. The temporary bridge in its

present state only carries low frequency lightweight vehicles.

Paragraphs 3 – 13 below should be completed for each alternative.

Alternative A1: CAST IN-SITU THREE SPAN BRIDGE STRUCTURE (completed for paragraphs 3-13)

3. ACTIVITY POSITION Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point of the site for each alternative site. The co-ordinates should be in degrees and decimal minutes. The minutes should have at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection. List alternative sites if applicable. Alternative:

Latitude (S):

Longitude (E):

Alternative S11 (preferred or only site alternative)

34o 9‘1.56”S 24

o 49‘5.02”

Alternative S2 (if any) o ‘ o ‘


In the case of linear activities: Alternative: Latitude (S): Longitude (E): Alternative S1 (preferred or only route alternative)

Starting point of the activity o ‘ o ‘

Middle point of the activity o ‘ o ‘

End point of the activity o ‘ o ‘

Alternative S2 (if any)








For route alternatives that are longer than 500m, please provide an addendum with co-ordinates taken every 250 meters along the route for each alternative alignment.

1 “Alternative S..” refer to site alternatives.




Alternative S1 (preferred or only route alternative) from start to end coordinates




4. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY Indicate the physical size of the preferred activity/technology as well as alternative activities/technologies (footprints): Alternative: Size of the activity:

Alternative A12 (preferred activity alternative) ~1406 m2

Alternative A2 (if any)


or, for linear activities:

Indicate the size of the alternative sites or servitudes (within which the above footprints will occur):

5. SITE ACCESS

Does ready access to the site exist? (informal temporary crossing instated as

an emergency and sole contingency for route access to these communities) YES NO

If NO, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built m

Describe the type of access road planned:

Include the position of the access road on the site plan and required map, as well as an indication of the road in relation to the site.

6. SITE OR ROUTE PLAN

A detailed site or route plan(s) must be prepared for each alternative site or alternative activity. It must be attached as Appendix A to this document. The site or route plans must indicate the following: 6.1 the scale of the plan which must be at least a scale of 1:500; 6.2 the property boundaries and numbers of all the properties within 50 metres of the site; 6.3 the current land use as well as the land use zoning of each of the properties adjoining the site or

sites;

2 “Alternative A..” refer to activity, process, technology or other alternatives.




6.4 the exact position of each element of the application as well as any other structures on the site; 6.5 the position of services, including electricity supply cables (indicate above or underground), water

supply pipelines, boreholes, street lights, sewage pipelines, storm water infrastructure and telecommunication infrastructure;

6.6 all trees and shrubs taller than 1.8 metres; 6.7 walls and fencing including details of the height and construction material (not applicable to the

proposed development); 6.8 servitudes indicating the purpose of the servitude; 6.9 sensitive environmental elements within 100 metres of the site or sites including (but not limited

thereto): Rivers; the 1:100 year flood line (where available or where it is required by DWA) ridges; cultural and historical features; areas with indigenous vegetation (even if it is degraded or invested with alien species);

6.9 for gentle slopes the 1 metre contour intervals must be indicated on the plan and whenever the slope of the site exceeds 1:10, the 500mm contours must be indicated on the plan; and

6.10 the positions from where photographs of the site were taken. Reference is drawn to Appendix A

7. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Colour photographs from the centre of the site must be taken in at least the eight major compass directions with a description of each photograph. Photographs must be attached under Appendix B to this form. It must be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the site, if applicable.

Reference is drawn to Appendix B

8. FACILITY ILLUSTRATION A detailed illustration of the activity must be provided at a scale of 1:200 as Appendix C for activities that include structures. The illustrations must be to scale and must represent a realistic image of the planned activity. The illustration must give a representative view of the activity. Relevant facility illustrations have been included as part of Appendix C, reflecting the three Go-

Alternatives in terms of Structure Designs which are considered within this application,.

9. ACTIVITY MOTIVATION 9(a) Socio-economic value of the activity

What is the expected capital value of the activity on completion?

R13 518 618.14

What is the expected yearly income that will be generated by or as a result of the activity?

N/A – Indirectly would have substantial impact on contribution to positive & sustained functionality of these Holiday communities as well as Tourism operations in the area




Will the activity contribute to service infrastructure? YES NO

Is the activity a public amenity? YES NO

How many new employment opportunities will be created in the development phase of the activity?

Unknown, this will be determined by the appointed contractor

What is the expected value of the employment opportunities during the development phase?

Unknown, this will be determined by the appointed contractor.

What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals?

Unknown, this will be determined by the appointed contractor.

How many permanent new employment opportunities will be created during the operational phase of the activity?

NA

What is the expected current value of the employment opportunities during the first 10 years?

NA


NA

9(b) Need and desirability of the activity Motivate and explain the need and desirability of the activity (including demand for the activity): The recent flood event in 2012 culminated with the entire box culvert structure being washed away,

thus isolating the residential communities from either side. Due to the severe destruction, the bridge

could not be restored immediately. The decision was made to provide an informal temporary by-pass

by way of a low level crossing adjacent to the former road-bridge alignment within the existing road

reserve. This deviation crossing thus serves as a contingency measure until the statutory procedures

have been completed for a new crossing.


sandbags. A surcharge ground fill of approximately 1000mm above the pipes brings the deck top

level to 18m AMSL. The nature of this temporary low level crossing was as a result of emergency

construction in order to provide an interim river crossing over the Sand River. The access for St

Francis Bay residents would have been cut off on either side of the Sand River as no alternative

access to the town is available. The safety of the current temporary bridge is low and the risk of

failure is high, should a medium intensity storm take place. The temporary bridge in its present state

only carries low frequency lightweight vehicles. The Sand River Bridge has thus been deemed as

being structurally demolished and undermined and is in desperate need of re-design and re-

construction.




View of the undermined structure that requires replacement

Indicate any benefits that the activity will have for society in general: Indicate any benefits that the activity will have for the local communities where the activity will be located: The upgrading will result in preserving the integrity of the structure to ensure safe crossing of the river

for vehicles and pedestrians that travel to and from St Francis, and St Francis Bay.

10. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES List all legislation, policies and/or guidelines of any sphere of government that are applicable to the application as contemplated in the EIA regulations, if applicable:

Title of legislation, policy or guideline:

Administering

authority:

Date:

National Environmental Management Act (No. 107

of 1998)

Department of Economic

Development,

Environmental Affairs and

Tourism (DEDEAT) –

Cacadu

1998

National Water Act (No. 37 of 1998) Department of Water 1998




Affairs– Eastern Cape

National Heritage Resources Act (No 25 of 1999) Eastern Cape Provincial

Heritage Resources

Authority/SAHRA

1999

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity

Act (Act 10 of 2004)

DEDEAT 2004

11. WASTE, EFFLUENT, EMISSION AND NOISE MANAGEMENT 11(a) Solid waste management

Will the activity produce solid construction waste during the construction/initiation phase?

YES NO

If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? Approximately 10m

3 when

the damaged structure is removed.

How will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe)? The construction waste that is generated on site will be collected at designated places on site,

collected and disposed of at a Municipal Landfill Site.

Where will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe)? The construction waste that is generated will be disposed of at a Municipal Landfill Site in

Humansdorp.

Will the activity produce solid waste during its operational phase? YES NO

If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? m3

How will the solid waste be disposed of (describe)?

Where will the solid waste be disposed if it does not feed into a municipal waste stream (describe)?

If the solid waste (construction or operational phases) will not be disposed of in a registered landfill site or be taken up in a municipal waste stream, then the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.

Can any part of the solid waste be classified as hazardous in terms of the relevant legislation?

YES NO

If yes, inform the competent authority and request a change to an application for scoping and EIA.

Is the activity that is being applied for a solid waste handling or treatment facility?

YES NO

If yes, then the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.

11(b) Liquid effluent

Will the activity produce effluent, other than normal sewage, that will be YES NO




disposed of in a municipal sewage system? (Portable chemical toilets will be

used during construction, and should be located above the 1:100yr floodline or along existing road reserve)


Will the activity produce any effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of on site?

Yes NO

If yes, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.

Will the activity produce effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility?

YES NO

If yes, provide the particulars of the facility:

Facility name:

Contact person:

Postal address:

Postal code:

Telephone: Cell:

E-mail: Fax:

Describe the measures that will be taken to ensure the optimal reuse or recycling of waste water, if any:

11(c) Emissions into the atmosphere

Will the activity release emissions into the atmosphere? YES NO

If yes, is it controlled by any legislation of any sphere of government? YES NO


If no, describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration: Emissions into the atmosphere are likely to be limited to dust generated during the

construction period. Air emissions would also be generated from the combustion of fuel from

construction vehicles and equipment. It is understood that such activities will not violate the

listing thresholds for air pollution as governed within the National Environmental Management

Air Quality Act (Act No); construction related activities and the mitigation and/or avoidance

measures to be adopted in terms of reducing potential impacts are controlled in the drafted

Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) which forms part of this draft document

(Appendix F).

11(d) Generation of noise

Will the activity generate noise? YES NO



If no, describe the noise in terms of type and level:




Limited noise will be generated during the construction period, mainly from construction

vehicles and plant. This will be controlled during the implementation of the EMPr.

12. WATER USE Please indicate the source(s) of water that will be used for the activity by ticking the appropriate box(es)

municipal water board groundwater river, stream, dam or lake

other the activity will not use water

If water is to be extracted from groundwater, river, stream, dam, lake or any other natural feature, please indicate

the volume that will be extracted per month: litres

Does the activity require a water use permit from the Department of Water Affairs?

YES NO

The listed activities governed within the NEMA EIA Regulations of 2010, Listing Notice 1 are

triggered by the proposed development:

(11) - the construction of (iii) bridges – where such construction occurs within a watercourse or

within 32m of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse...

(18) – the infilling or depositing 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 from:

(i) a watercourse;

And are also triggered “water use” listing activities under Section 21 (c, i) of the National Water

Act:

(21)(c) – impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse;

(21)(i) – altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse;

An Application for a Water Use Licence is being submitted to the Department of Water Affairs

governed.

13. ENERGY EFFICIENCY Describe the design measures, if any, that have been taken to ensure that the activity is energy efficient:

Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the design of the activity, if any:

Alternative A2: SUSPENDED CONCRETE DECK BRIDGE STRUCTURE (CONCRETE BRIDGE ON PILES) (completed for paragraphs 3-13)

3. ACTIVITY POSITION




Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point of the site for each alternative site. The co-ordinates should be in degrees and decimal minutes. The minutes should have at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection. List alternative sites if applicable. Alternative:

Latitude (S):

Longitude (E):


34o 9‘1.56”S 24o 49‘5.02”






















Alternative A14 (preferred activity alternative)

Alternative A2 (if any) ~823 m2




5. SITE ACCESS








sites;











6.10 the positions from where photographs of the site were taken. Reference is drawn to Appendix A 7. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Colour photographs from the centre of the site must be taken in at least the eight major compass directions with a description of each photograph. Photographs must be attached under Appendix B to this form. It must be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the site, if applicable.



Alternatives in terms of Structure Designs which are considered within this application.



R17 824 356.00















NA


NA


NA

9(b) Need and desirability of the activity Motivate and explain the need and desirability of the activity (including demand for the activity): The recent flood event in 2012 culminated with the entire box culvert structure being washed

away, thus isolating the residential communities from either side. Due to the severe

destruction, the bridge could not be restored immediately. The decision was made to provide

an informal temporary by-pass by way of a low level crossing adjacent to the former road-

bridge alignment within the existing road reserve. This deviation crossing thus serves as a

contingency measure until the statutory procedures have been completed for a new crossing.


sandbags. A surcharge ground fill of approximately 1000mm above the pipes brings the deck

top level to 18m AMSL. The nature of this temporary low level crossing was as a result of

emergency construction in order to provide an interim river crossing over the Sand River. The

access for St Francis Bay residents would have been cut off on either side of the Sand River

as no alternative access to the town is available. The safety of the current temporary bridge is

low and the risk of failure is high, should a medium intensity storm take place. The temporary

bridge in its present state only carries low frequency lightweight vehicles. The Sand River

Bridge has thus been deemed as being structurally demolished and undermined and is in

desperate need of re-design and re-construction.


for vehicles and pedestrians.






Administering

authority:

Date:


of 1998)


Development,


Tourism - Cacadu

1998

National Water Act (No. 37 of 1998)

Department of Water


1998


Heritage Resources

Authority/SAHRA

1999



DEDEAT 2004



YES NO


3 when

the existing structure is removed




Humansdorp.










YES NO



YES NO



Will the activity produce effluent, other than normal sewage, that will be disposed of in a municipal sewage system? (Portable chemical toilets will be


YES NO



Yes NO



YES NO


Facility name:

Contact person:

Postal address:

Postal code:

Telephone: Cell:

E-mail: Fax:
















(Appendix F).





If no, describe the noise in terms of type and level: Limited noise will be generated during the construction period, mainly from construction








YES NO




If yes, please submit the necessary application to the Department of Water Affairs and attach

proof thereof to this application if it has been submitted.







(i) a watercourse;


Act:



An Application for a Water Use Licence is being submitted to the Department of Water Affairs

governed.



ALTERNATIVE A3: CAST IN-SITU CELLULAR STRUCTURE (SINGLE SPAN MONOLITHIC STRUCTURE) (completed for paragraphs 3 – 13)

3. ACTIVITY POSITION Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point of the site for each alternative site. The co-ordinates should be in degrees and decimal minutes. The minutes should have at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection. List alternative sites if applicable.




Alternative:

Latitude (S):

Longitude (E):


34o 9‘1.56”S 24o 49‘5.02”






















Alternative A16 (preferred activity alternative)


Alternative A3 (if any) ~1031 m2



5. SITE ACCESS








sites;











6.10 the positions from where photographs of the site were taken. Reference is drawn to Appendix A 7. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Colour photographs from the centre of the site must be taken in at least the eight major compass directions with a description of each photograph. Photographs must be attached under Appendix B to this form. It must be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the site, if applicable.



Alternatives in terms of Structure Designs which are considered within this application,.



R12 033 170.82















NA


NA


NA

9(b) Need and desirability of the activity Motivate and explain the need and desirability of the activity (including demand for the activity): The recent flood event in 2012 culminated with the entire box culvert structure being washed

away, thus isolating the residential communities from either side. Due to the severe

destruction, the bridge could not be restored immediately. The decision was made to provide

an informal temporary by-pass by way of a low level crossing adjacent to the former road-

bridge alignment within the existing road reserve. This deviation crossing thus serves as a

contingency measure until the statutory procedures have been completed for a new crossing.


sandbags. A surcharge ground fill of approximately 1000mm above the pipes brings the deck

top level to 18m AMSL. The nature of this temporary low level crossing was as a result of

emergency construction in order to provide an interim river crossing over the Sand River. The

access for St Francis Bay residents would have been cut off on either side of the Sand River

as no alternative access to the town is available. The safety of the current temporary bridge is

low and the risk of failure is high, should a medium intensity storm take place. The temporary

bridge in its present state only carries low frequency lightweight vehicles. The Sand River

Bridge has thus been deemed as being structurally demolished and undermined and is in

desperate need of re-design and re-construction.


for vehicles and pedestrians.






Administering

authority:

Date:


of 1998)


Development,


Tourism - Cacadu

1998

National Water Act (No. 37 of 1998)

Department of Water


1998


Heritage Resources

Authority/SAHRA

1999



DEDEAT 2004



YES NO


3 for the

removal of the existing structure




Humansdorp.










YES NO



YES NO



Will the activity produce effluent, other than normal sewage, that will be disposed of in a municipal sewage system? (Portable chemical toilets will be


YES NO



Yes NO



YES NO


Facility name:

Contact person:

Postal address:

Postal code:

Telephone: Cell:

E-mail: Fax:
















(Appendix F).





If no, describe the noise in terms of type and level: Limited noise will be generated during the construction period, mainly from construction








YES NO




If yes, please submit the necessary application to the Department of Water Affairs and attach

proof thereof to this application if it has been submitted.







(i) a watercourse;


Act:



An Application for a Water Use Licence will be submitted to the Department of Water Affairs

after the submission of the Final Basic Assessment Report.






SECTION B: SITE/AREA/PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Important notes:

1. For linear activities (pipelines, etc) as well as activities that cover very large sites, it may be necessary to complete this section for each part of the site that has a significantly different environment. In such cases please complete copies of Section C and indicate the area, which is covered by each copy No. on the Site Plan.

The site for all 3 options that are assessed in this report is exactly the same hence only one

copy of this section being completed.

Section C Copy No. (e.g. A):

2. Paragraphs 1 - 6 below must be completed for each alternative.

3. Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this section?

YES NO

If YES, please complete form XX for each specialist thus appointed:

All specialist reports must be contained in Appendix D.

1. GRADIENT OF THE SITE Indicate the general gradient of the site (taken along the proposed alignment). Alternative S1:

Flat 1:50 – 1:20

1:20 – 1:15

1:15 – 1:10 1:10 – 1:7,5

1:7,5 – 1:5 Steeper than 1:5

Alternative S2 (if any):

Flat 1:50 – 1:20

1:20 – 1:15

1:15 – 1:10 1:10 – 1:7,5

1:7,5 – 1:5 Steeper than 1:5

Alternative S3 (if any):

Flat 1:50 – 1:20

1:20 – 1:15

1:15 – 1:10 1:10 – 1:7,5

1:7,5 – 1:5 Steeper than 1:5

Refer to Appendix A for a contour illustration map of the proposed alignment

2. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site: 2.1 Ridgeline 2.2 Plateau 2.3 Side slope of hill/mountain 2.4 Closed valley




2.5 Open valley

View of the open valley that forms the dune system associated with the Sand River (upstream of the crossing)

View of the Sand River, downstream of the crossing

2.6 Plain (this is understood to be applicable in light that either side of the watercourse over which the R330 traverses the landscape is considered Flat, with the dune bypass system bordering to the south-east of the existing road extent). 2.7 Undulating plain / low hills 2.8 Dune (this is represented by the eastern most extent of the Oyster Bay headland dune by-pass system, which terminates to the immediate west of the proposed locality of the river crossing).




View of the position of the Sand River Bridge in the land scape

2.9 Seafront 3. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE Is the site(s) located on any of the following (tick the appropriate boxes)? Alternative S1

Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep)

YES NO

Dolomite, sinkhole or doline areas

YES NO

Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies)

YES NO

Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil

YES NO

Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water)

YES NO

Soils with high clay content (clay fraction more than 40%)

YES NO

Any other unstable soil or geological feature

YES NO

An area sensitive to erosion

YES NO

Estimated position of the Sand River Bridge




If you are unsure about any of the above or if you are concerned that any of the above aspects may be an issue of concern in the application, an appropriate specialist should be appointed to assist in the completion of this section. (Information in respect of the above will often be available as part of the project information or at the planning sections of local authorities. Where it exists, the 1:50 000 scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by the Council for Geo Science may also be consulted). (Refer to Appendix D for the associated Geotechnical Specialist Report conducted for this project).

The following observations and findings were recorded in this study: The regional topography is

generally flat and becomes more undulating and steeply-dipping where vegetated dunes mark the

eastern and south-eastern boundaries of the investigation area. Locally, the topography at the Sand

River is generally flat with a gentle to moderate slope to the west. The river bank is deeply incised to

the east.

Ground Water - The depth at which groundwater was intercepted at the borehole positions was not

recorded in the driller’s logs. Groundwater was, however, encountered at 2.50 m and 1.80 m in Trial

Pit 1 and Trial Pit 2 respectively. This can be attributed to the close proximity of the trial pits to the

Sand River. It would be expected that groundwater levels in the boreholes were encountered at

similar levels.

Soil Profile - Medium fine SAND and coarse fine SAND generally forms the bulk components of soils

sampled from the boreholes. Sediments <0.075 mm in diameter (i.e. silt and clay) comprise 0 – 86 %

of the total composition of this sandy material, of which clay (<0.0018 mm diameter) constituted only 0

- 13 %, in general. The sampled material had Plasticity Index (PI) values ranging from non-plastic

(NP) to a PI of 8 %, while Linear Shrinkage (LS) values ranged from 0 – 4.5 %. These soil parameters

suggest a low potential for expansion and moisture-related shrinkage, respectively. In addition,

potential expansion predictions indicate that samples are all contained within the low risk category.

Ground Stability - No signs of inherent ground instability such as tension cracks, slip scars or

sloughing of the soil mantle were evident during the visual inspection of the site. Ground instability

was, however, noted during the excavation of trial pits. Signs of sloughing and sidewall collapse were

evident.

Findings - As the site is located along a river and within an existing dune field, much of the substrate

consists of free-running silty fine- to coarse-grained sands. Excavations will in some cases require

removal of overburden to reach the appropriate founding level. Given the loose consistency of the

upper profile over much of the site, the potential for sidewall collapse and sloughing of loose sands is

high. It is anticipated that the need for shoring will be crucial to the safe workings of site staff.

Excavations for the proposed development are expected to utilise soft excavation techniques for the

removal of soils.




Examination of the SPT results conducted at 1.5 m intervals in each borehole typically reveals loose

to medium dense conditions for the unconsolidated subsoils. Near refusal and refusal SPT results

were also revealed. However, these SPT results could be misleading as the drilling showed the

presence of quartzitic sandstone and shale pebbles and cobbles in the unconsolidated sub-soils,

which are unsuitable for founding upon. The low strength values of the silty sands are the motivation

for the recommendation that the bridge foundation be piled to more competent founding.

The rock strata show complex variations of weathering and strength, typical for the alluvial deposition

of sedimentary formations in the area. Bands of highly variable weathering occur within the same drill

run, where weaker, completely weathered clayey silt material may underlie layers of medium

weathered, competent rock. Core recovery was poor in some regions which suggest that the rock

quality is poor. Boreholes BH01 through BH04 thus appear to be in zones of relatively deep

weathering. The choice of founding depth needs to be made carefully to avoid the possibility of

unsatisfactory performance of some parts of the foundation.

The greyish olive green shale of the Ceres Subgroup was intersected in all of the boreholes at depths

varying between 15.24 m - 17.30 m. The shale has a limited vertical distribution and was logged as

highly to completely weathered. Results on point load tests conducted on the shale reveal variable

UCS values of 0.2 MPa and 8.6MPa. This rock sequence would not provide a favourable founding

Underlying the greyish olive green shale, black shale of the Ceres Subgroup was intersected in all of

the drilled boreholes. The depth at which the shale was intersected varied between 16.88 m – 21.48

m, and continued to depth beyond the termination of drilling. This shale exhibited alternating degrees

of weathering, varying between moderately to completely weathered and thus founding should not

simply be designed for the shallowest “rock” intercept. The recorded Rock Quality Designations

(RQD) was poor to very poor. Point loads testing on the shale reveals values varying between 3.1

MPa and 12.6 MPa and UCS testing reveals values varying between 1.26 MPa and 5.25 MPa. The

shale may thus be described as being very soft to soft rock, becoming medium hard rock in places.

Anticipated loads of the new bridge are predicted to be large and therefore it is recommended that the

design incorporate the use of pile clusters for each bridge column. The high degree of horizontal and

vertical variability in the layering of the black shale makes prediction of a specific suitable piling depth

impossible, and thus the range of 23.0 – 26.5 m depth below current surface level is given. Even this

horizon, however, is highly fractured and as such, the final piling design should be adapted according.

Keying the piles a minimum of 3 – 5 m into the shale is further recommended in order to resist lateral

loads imposed upon the bridge during potential flooding conditions. Owing to the inconsistency of the

rock at depth, the final pile design should incorporate a high factor of shaft friction as opposed to

being overtly reliant of end bearing forces.




It is recommended that an experienced and competent geotechnical engineer be present on site

during construction to confirm conditions on site during the pile installation and confirm

recommendations given in this report. It is further recommended that pile load tests be undertaken to

confirm the integrity of the piles. Maximum testing load should preferably be limited to 1.5 times the

design working load, so as to not damage the working pile being tested.

4. GROUNDCOVER Indicate the types of groundcover present on the site: 4.1 Natural veld – good condition E 4.2 Natural veld – scattered aliens E 4.3 Natural veld with heavy alien infestation E 4.4 Veld dominated by alien species E 4.5 Gardens 4.6 Sport field 4.7 Cultivated land 4.8 Paved surface 4.9 Building or other structure (existing R330 road and remnants of former culvert) 4.10 Bare soil (The existing servitude where the former bridge was located and includes the area for the proposed water course crossing is a severely disturbed environment reflecting bare soil). The location of all identified rare or endangered species or other elements should be accurately indicated on the site plan(s).

Natural veld - good conditionE

Natural veld with scattered aliensE

Natural veld with heavy alien infestationE

Veld dominated by alien speciesE

Gardens

Sport field Cultivated land Paved surface Building or other structure

Bare soil

If any of the boxes marked with an “E “is ticked, please consult an appropriate specialist to assist in the completion of this section if the environmental assessment practitioner doesn’t have the necessary expertise. The need and desirability for a vegetation specialist study to be undertaken is not substantiated as

part of this assessment, given that the groundcover in vicinity of the site as may be considered to be

“Natural veld – good condition” is associated with the Oyster Bay dunefield by-pass system, it does

however not extend into the proposed footprint (i.e. No-Go Alternative) in light that the existing

footprint area has already been transformed to accommodate the former water course crossing.

5. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA Indicate land uses and/or prominent features that currently occur within a 500m radius of the site and give description of how this influences the application or may be impacted upon by the application: 5.1 Natural area 5.2 Low density residential 5.3 Medium density residential




5.4 High density residential 5.5 Informal residential 5.6 Retail commercial & warehousing 5.7 Light industrial 5.8 Medium industrial AN 5.9 Heavy industrial AN 5.10 Power station 5.11 Office/consulting room 5.12 Military or police base/station/compound 5.13 Spoil heap or slimes damA 5.14 Quarry, sand or borrow pit 5.15 Dam or reservoir 5.16 Hospital/medical centre 5.17 School; 5.18 Tertiary education facility 5.19 Church; 5.20 Old age home 5.21 Sewage treatment plantA 5.22 Train station or shunting yard N 5.23 Railway line N 5.24 Major road (4 lanes or more) N

5.25 Airport N 5.26 Harbour 5.27 Sport facilities 5.28 Golf course 5.29 Polo fields 5.30 Filling station H 5.31 Landfill or waste treatment site 5.32 Plantation 5.33 Agriculture 5.34 River, stream or wetland; 5.35 Nature conservation area 5.36 Mountain, koppie or ridge 5.37 Museum 5.38 Historical building; 5.39 Protected Area (CBA areas map) 5.40 Graveyard; 5.41 Archaeological site; 5.42 Other land uses (describe); Residential, transport, water and telecommunication services:

The Kouga Municipality is home to several coastal tourist destinations, these include the nearest

towns to the site of St Francis Bay and, Cape St Francis. These communities offer a wide range of

activities and products including historical and heritage sites, the Kouga Cultural Centre, surfing,

fishing, hiking, biking and sand boarding, birding and game viewing, and various other outdoor and

adventure activities. The residential areas of St. Francis Bay and Cape St. Francis are generally

characterised by low density, upmarket residential developments which include a Golf Estate and the




Marina Development. Business and industrial components in these areas are limited and dependant

on Humansdorp and Jeffreys Bay as regional service centres. The low income residential segment is

accommodated in the Sea Vista area with a critical demand for future expansion.

The proposed Sand River crossing is located on Portion 31 of Farm 745, Humansdorp within the

ambits of the R330 Road Reserve. A bulk water supply line feeding the nearby communities has been

temporarily realigned until such time that it can be relocated along the more permanent river crossing

once the necessary statutory permissions have been sought. Telecommunications run along the

southern side road reserve of the R330 across the Sand River at this locality.

If any of the boxes marked with an “N “are ticked, how will this impact / be impacted upon by the proposed activity.

If any of the boxes marked with an "An" are ticked, how will this impact / be impacted upon by the proposed activity. Not applicable If YES, specify and explain: If YES, specify: If any of the boxes marked with an "H" are ticked, how will this impact / be impacted upon by the proposed activity. Not applicable If YES, specify and explain: If YES, specify: 6. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES

Are there any signs of culturally or historically significant elements, as defined in section 2 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, (Act No. 25 of 1999), including

YES NO

Archaeological or palaeontological sites, on or close (within 20m) to the site?

Uncertain

If YES, explain:

If uncertain, conduct a specialist investigation by a recognised specialist in the field to establish whether there is such a feature(s) present on or close to the site.




Briefly explain the findings of the specialist:

This proposed activity will occur in an area already very disturbed. Therefore

it is unlikely that any cultural remains will be uncovered and that any

significant impacts on heritage resources will result from this project.

However, a copy of this Draft Basic Assessment will be submitted to SAHRA

for comments and they will also be registered an Interested and Affected

Parties on the project.

If any archaeological site or remains, unmarked human burials or other

categories of heritage resources are found during the works, SAHRA will

have to be alerted immediately and a competent/accredited professional to

be contacted as soon as possible to inspect the findings.

Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected in any way? YES NO

Is it necessary to apply for a permit in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999)?

YES NO

If yes, please submit or, make sure that the applicant or a specialist submits the necessary application to SAHRA or the relevant provincial heritage agency and attach proof thereof to this application if such application has been made.




SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. ADVERTISEMENT The person conducting a public participation process must take into account any guidelines applicable to public participation as contemplated in section 24J of the Act and must give notice to all potential interested and affected parties of the application which is subjected to public participation by— (a) fixing a notice board (of a size at least 60cm by 42cm; and must display the required

information in lettering and in a format as may be determined by the competent authority) at a place conspicuous to the public at the boundary or on the fence of— (i) the site where the activity to which the application relates is or is to be undertaken; and

(ii) any alternative site mentioned in the application; (b) giving written notice to—

(i) the owner or person in control of that land if the applicant is not the owner or person in control of the land;

(ii) the occupiers of the site where the activity is or is to be undertaken or to any alternative site where the activity is to be undertaken;

(iii) owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the site where the activity is or is to be undertaken or to any alternative site where the activity is to be undertaken;

(iv) the municipal councillor of the ward in which the site or alternative site is situated and any organisation of ratepayers that represent the community in the area;

(v) the municipality which has jurisdiction in the area; (vi) any organ of state having jurisdiction in respect of any aspect of the activity; and (vii) any other party as required by the competent authority;

(c) placing an advertisement in— (i) one local newspaper; or (ii) any official Gazette that is published specifically for the purpose of providing public

notice of applications or other submissions made in terms of these Regulations; (d) placing an advertisement in at least one provincial newspaper or national newspaper, if the

activity has or may have an impact that extends beyond the boundaries of the metropolitan or local municipality in which it is or will be undertaken: Provided that this paragraph need not be complied with if an advertisement has been placed in an official Gazette referred to in subregulation 54(c)(ii); and

(e) using reasonable alternative methods, as agreed to by the competent authority, in those instances where a person is desiring of but unable to participate in the process due to — (i) illiteracy; (ii) disability; or (iii) any other disadvantage.

2. CONTENT OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND NOTICES A notice board, advertisement or notices must:

(a) indicate the details of the application which is subjected to public participation; and (b) state—




(i) that the application has been submitted to the competent authority in terms of these Regulations, as the case may be; (ii) whether basic assessment or scoping procedures are being applied to the

application, in the case of an application for environmental authorisation;

(iii) the nature and location of the activity to which the application relates; (iv) where further information on the application or activity can be obtained; and 1. the manner in which and the person to whom representations in respect of the

application may be made. 3. PLACEMENT OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND NOTICES Where the proposed activity may have impacts that extend beyond the municipal area where it is located, a notice must be placed in at least one provincial newspaper or national newspaper, indicating that an application will be submitted to the competent authority in terms of these regulations, the nature and location of the activity, where further information on the proposed activity can be obtained and the manner in which representations in respect of the application can be made, unless a notice has been placed in any Gazette that is published specifically for the purpose of providing notice to the public of applications made in terms of the EIA regulations. Advertisements and notices must make provision for all alternatives. 4. DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE MEASURES The practitioner must ensure that the public participation is adequate and must determine whether a public meeting or any other additional measure is appropriate or not based on the particular nature of each case. Special attention should be given to the involvement of local community structures such as Ward Committees, ratepayers associations and traditional authorities where appropriate. Please note that public concerns that emerge at a later stage that should have been addressed may cause the competent authority to withdraw any authorisation it may have issued if it becomes apparent that the public participation process was inadequate. 5. COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT The practitioner must record all comments and respond to each comment of the public before the application is submitted. The comments and responses must be captured in a comments and response report as prescribed in the EIA regulations and be attached to this application. The comments and response report must be attached under Appendix E. 6. AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION Authorities are key interested and affected parties in each application and no decision on any application will be made before the relevant local authority is provided with the opportunity to give input. The planning and the environmental sections of the local authority must be informed of the application at least 30 (thirty) calendar days before the submission of the application.




List of authorities informed:

Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism Department of Public Works and Roads Department of Water Affairs Department of Water Affairs: National Water Resource Infrastructure Kouga Local Municipality Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Agency South African Heritage Resource Agency South African National Roads Agency Limited ESKOM WESSA

List of authorities from whom comments have been received:

Department of Water Affairs

7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS Note that, for linear activities, or where deviation from the public participation requirements may be appropriate, the person conducting the public participation process may deviate from the requirements of that subregulation to the extent and in the manner as may be agreed to by the competent authority.

Any stakeholder that has a direct interest in the site or property, such as servitude holders and service providers, should be informed of the application at least 30 (thirty) calendar days before the submission of the application and be provided with the opportunity to comment.

Has any comment been received from stakeholders? YES NO

If “YES”, briefly describe the feedback below (also attach copies of any correspondence to and from the stakeholders to this application):

The comments received during the Public Participation Process are indicated below.

Ludprop Trust

I have just received the Sans River bridge details now and would like to comment as the owner of the land below the bridge. I have been observing the ebb and flow of this river for over 20 years and have tried to draw attention to the problems caused by the design of the old bridge. The course of the river was moved by not allowing sufficient water flow during flood and semi flood conditions. The illegal mining of sand and removal of holding vegetation and sand dunes are major causes of the clogging of the bridge and of the Kromme River. The strong wind conditions shifted the sand and aided by a flood, ensured the depositing of this unwanted sand downstream. As I explained to the design engineers, the critical criteria in the design are the ample unimpeded allowance of waterflow under the bridge. This will do away with the flooding up the road causing much damage to the properties below and adjacent to the Kromme.

St Francis Bay Residents Association

Simply to request that the EIA proceeds as quickly as possible. The town has been cut off three times since June 2011, and the process has only just begun.




Kromme Prop PTY LTD

The Kromme River Shareblock owns property adjacent to the proposed crossing and it is anticipated that whatever is built will have a direct impact on the wellbeing of the company's property as has been the case in the past.

ST Francis Marine & Son own Sand Quarry Mining (on property)

The Sandhill Quarry adjacent to the bridge, registered in 1982 has been mining the alluvial dunes, which migrate with the prevailing wind from west to east often covering the R330. The Roads Department requested that the quarry assists in the removal of the drift sand and the clearing of sand from the mouth of the culverts under the old bridge. Unfortunately this activity was hated by local environment group to the detriment of the bridge. As the sand build up blocked the culverts and caused the water flow over the bridge leading to its collapse. Again in the latest re-building of the temporary crossing Sandhill Quarry operated by TPI were again requested by the roads construction team to clear sand from the mouth of the culverts and extend up stream. This was completed as requested and a trench approximately 15 meters up stream of the culverts was excavated ± 40 meters long x 30 meters wide and 2 meters deep, ± 2400m³ of sand. The sand river was still flowing at a moderate rate, however within 2 days all the excavated sand had been replaced. This sand would have ended up in the Kromme River. The Kromme River since the completion of the Impofu Dam has lost its former status as an attractive navigable estuary and is still deteriorating. The reason is the limited inflow by the Churchill and especially the Impofu Dam, which can only discharge a small limited flow of water. Only in extreme floods does water top the spillway. Hence the historic regular floods, which cleared out the silt & sand, are no longer available. The Kromme silting is particularly bad especially in the area where the Sand River joins. This region is now un navigable at low tide, even with shallow daft outboard ski boats. To preserve our recreation & tourist attraction, the Kromme needs help. We suggest that the mining of dune sand, when possible to be carried out in the Sand River bed. This is not the final solution, but will help and reduce some sand entering our precious river.

Private & St Francis Kromme Trust

Why is it referred to as the "Municipal road" and not Provincial road in the attached documentation?

Private & St Francis Kromme Trust

LOCATED ON THE MUNICIPAL ROAD MR00391, also known as the R330 Please confirm that this is a Municipal Road. I was under the impression it was Provincial.

St Francis Links Golf Estate

Our property borders the proposed replacement of the Sand River Bridge - Immediate concerns are: a. Business Interruption, b. Access to our facilities, c. Noise pollution, d. Security & e. Impact of proposed structure on the water table; & f. Contamination thereof during construction. We are in favour of upgrading the facility to the benefit of the community, g. especially if a long term solution can be found.




St Francis Caravan Site Trust

The landowner of the Cape St Francis Caravan Site (found on internet) confirms that the St Francis Caravan site has for many years no longer existed, and unfortunately everyone now contacts them - They confirm they do not own Portion 136 of Farm 745 immediate to the Sand river, and cannot advise who does.

Department of Water Affairs

After the evaluation of this document, this office has the following comments and concerns: 1. The proximity of the development to the extent of the watercourse (Sand River) i.e. 1:100 year floodline or delineated riparian habitat, whichever is the greatest; and 2. Please note that any activities that fall within 500m radius from the boundary of any wetland constitute a water use license in terms of Section (c) and (I) of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) (herein after referred to as the Act). The construction of the bridge over the Sand River and the removal of riparian vegetation (to accommodate the project activities) may require a water use authorization in terms of Section 21 (c) and (i) Act, if within the extent of a watercourse.




SECTION D: IMPACT ASSESSMENT The assessment of impacts must adhere to the minimum requirements in the EIA Regulations, 2006, and should take applicable official guidelines into account. The issues raised by interested and affected parties should also be addressed in the assessment of impacts. 1. ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES List the issues raised by interested and affected parties.

Please refer to the Comments and Response Report attached in Appendix E

Response from the practitioner to the issues raised by the interested and affected parties (A full response must be given in the Comments and Response Report that must be attached to this report):

Please refer to the Comments and Response Report attached in Appendix E

2. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING AND DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONAL, DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASES AS WELL AS PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OF IDENTIFIED IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES Refer to the Guideline Document on Impacts

2.1. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE

a. Site alternatives List the potential site alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur as a result of the planning and design phase, including impacts relating to the choice of site alternatives. Alternative S1 (preferred alternative) The proposed upgrade will take place on an existing Municipal Road, and therefore no impacts from the planning and design phase are expected for the proposed site.

Direct impacts: No direct impacts are expected during the planning and design phase.

Indirect impacts: No indirect impacts are expected during the planning and design phase.

Cumulative impacts: No cumulative impacts are expected during the planning and design phase.


Direct impacts: Indirect impacts: Cumulative impacts:


Direct impacts: Indirect impacts:




Cumulative impacts:

No-go alternative (compulsory)



Cumulative impacts: No cumulative impacts are expected during the planning and design phase. Indicate mitigation measures that may eliminate or reduce the potential impacts listed above: Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3

No environmental impacts are expected during the planning and design phase of the activity, therefore there are no mitigation pressures in place.

b. Activity/technology

List the potential activity/technology alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur as a result of the planning and design phase: Alternative A1 (preferred alternative)



Cumulative impacts: No cumulative impacts are expected during the planning and design phase. Alternative A2 (if any)



Cumulative impacts: No cumulative impacts are expected during the planning and design phase. Alternative A3 (if any)



Cumulative impacts: No cumulative impacts are expected during the planning and design phase. No-go alternative (compulsory)



Cumulative impacts: No cumulative impacts are expected during the planning and design phase.




Indicate mitigation measures that may eliminate or reduce the potential impacts listed above: Alternative A1: Alternative A2: Alternative A3:

No environmental impacts have been identified during the planning and design phase; therefore mitigation measures are not required.



2.2. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE a. Site alternatives

List the potential site alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur as a result of the construction phase: Alternative S1 (preferred alternative) Cast in-situ 3-span Bridge Structure

Direct impacts:

Visual Impact

The construction site as well as the disturbance of the areas around the construction area

may be aesthetically unpleasing to road users during the construction phase if not managed

appropriately. The significance of this impact is VERY LOW and can be reduced to

INSIGNIFICANT if recommended mitigation measures are adhered to.

Aquatic Impacts

Sedimentation: Construction activities within the river and on the river banks will loosen

sedimentary material resulting in an increase in the current sediment load in the Sand River.

This impact is deemed to be VERY LOW as the Sand River has a very high sediment load

and the contribution that the construction activities will make will be negligible.

Pollution by Hydrocarbons: There is a risk that pollution of the water in the river could occur

through spillages from the plant and equipment that will be used during the construction

phase. This impact is thought to be LOW and could be considered as VERY LOW if the

suggested mitigation and management measures are employed.

Aquatic biota: The two aspects above impact directly on the aquatic biota present in the Sand

River. The impact is deemed to be LOW and can be considered VERY LOW if the suggested

mitigation measures are employed.

Disturbance of flora: Construction activities could result in the disturbance of the vegetation

specifically on the banks of the river. This impact is deemed to be VERY LOW and can be

reduced to INSIGNIFICANT if the adequate mitigation measures are implemented.

Spread of invasive alien vegetation: Disturbance of the river bank vegetation will create an

opportunity for alien invasive plant species to settle. This impact is rated as INSIGNIFICANT

due to the presence of high numbers of alien vegetation species even before construction.

Noise Impact




There are very few receptors in the immediate vicinity of the construction site, this aspect

linked to the presence of a relatively busy road and the temporary nature of the construction

activities it is believed that this impact can be rated as VERY LOW and decreased to

INSIGNIFICANT if the appropriate mitigation and management measures are employed.

Traffic Accommodation

The traffic along the existing road will be accommodated on the existing road deviation. This

impact is deemed to be INSIGNIFICANT and required no direct mitigation.

Waste Management Impacts

If waste is not managed appropriately on site waste could become a MEDIUM impact on site

during construction. It is however deemed that this impact can be decreased to a rating of

INSIGNIFICANT if appropriate mitigation and management measures are put in place.

Dust Impact

Potential windblown dust from materials stockpiles within the site camp and directly off the

working areas may have a potential impact on road users. This impact is deemed to be

VERY LOW and can be reduced to INSIGNIFICANT if mitigation measures are employed.

Indirect impacts: Erosion of river banks

Disturbance of the vegetation on the river banks due to the construction activities may pose a

potential erosion risk to the river banks. The significance of this impact is deemed to be

VERY LOW and can be reduced to INSIGNIFICANT if the appropriate mitigation measures

are implemented.

Cumulative impacts: None. Please note that this option makes provision to accommodate several services (Telkom and bulkwater pipeline). These services that are existing will therefore not be impacted upon for this option.

Alternative S2 Suspended concrete deck bridge on piles

Direct impacts:

Visual Impact





Aquatic Impacts





















Noise Impact






This option requires the decommissioning of the existing deviation structure and the

construction of a new deviation. The impacts associated with this activity is deemed to be

MEDIUM and can be decreased to LOW if the adequate mitigation measures are

implemented.





Dust Impact

Potential windblown dust from materials stockpiles within the site camp and directly off the working areas may have a potential impact on road users. This impact is deemed to be VERY LOW and can be reduced to INSIGNIFICANT if mitigation measures are employed.








are implemented.


Alternative S3

Direct impacts:

Visual Impact





Aquatic Impacts


















Noise Impact









The traffic along the existing road will be accommodated on the existing road deviation. This

impact is deemed to be INSIGNIFICANT and required no direct mitigation.





Dust Impact

Potential windblown dust from materials stockpiles within the site camp and directly off the working areas may have a potential impact on road users. This impact is deemed to be VERY LOW and can be reduced to INSIGNIFICANT if mitigation measures are employed.





are implemented.



Direct impacts: Should the project not go ahead the current existing road deviation and “bridge” structure will remain. This structure is not adequately designed and as a result of this very susceptible to being damaged or washed away during a flood event. The impacts if this should happen are far reach as far as the inhabitants of St Francis and St Francis Bay and surrounds are concerned. Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impacts: None

Indicate mitigation measures that may eliminate or reduce the potential impacts listed above: Alternative S1, Alternative S2 and Alternative S3




Visual Impact

Disturbed areas must be kept free of all alien invasive plants and re-vegetated as soon as possible after the completion of the construction phase.

All construction must be limited to the construction footprint of the proposed options. Aquatic Impacts Sedimentation and disturbance to river water and instream habitat

The construction footprint must not extend further than is necessary, preferably not more than 30m up and downstream of the positioning of the bridge structure.

The amount of heavy machinery and equipment needed to work within the river course should be limited. Only the equipment that is absolutely necessary should be allowed in the river course.

Strict controls and environmental education should be employed for all the construction workers that are working within the water course.

Construction should preferably take place during the dry season. Chemical Pollution

Strict use and management of all hazardous materials must be implemented on site.

Appropriate measures (such as the use of plastic trays or liners) to prevent the spillage of cement or other hazardous substances such as oil or diesel near water sources.

No refuelling of plant or equipment will be allowed on the construction site. All refuelling will be done in the site camp or another designated area off site.

Where possible Ready Mix cement should be used for the cast in-situ structures. No large scale mixing will therefore take place on site.

Aquatic Biota

All mitigation and management measures associated with sedimentation and chemical pollution are applicable.

Disturbance of Vegetation

Limit the required access road length to as short a section as possible. Provisions must be made for the rehabilitation of this access road.

No vehicles or plant should be parked within the river course when not actively working on the construction.

Limit the construction footprint to an area that is no larger that what is required to complete the construction.

Spread of invasive alien vegetation

All alien invasive species and declared weeds in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act 43 of 1983), are to be systematically removed (manually) until the end of the contractor’s contractual liability period.

Noise Impact




Construction activities that are like to result in noise levels in excess of 7dBA above the ambient noise, at a distance of 100m from the sources should be restricted to normal working hours (ie from 06:00 to 18:00, Monday to Friday and from 06:00 to 15:00 on Saturdays) to reduce the noise impact on to and acceptable level. No work is allowed (except by prior arrangement with the Resident Engineer) on Sundays and Public Holidays.


No mitigation is required as an existing deviation that will be used is in place. Waste Management Impacts

Caution must be taken to prevent construction waste from entering the river system. All waste produced during the construction should be removed as soon as possible and disposed of at a Municipal Landfill Site.

The waste must be stockpiled in a designated area within the site camp and transported to the Municipal Landfill Site on a regular basis. Weighbills of the delivery at the landfill site must be kept on file.

All construction materials should be stored in designated areas.

No dumping of construction waste of excess construction materials will be allowed in the bush surrounding the construction site.

No waste is to be buried or burned on site.

Appropriate disposal facilities must be provided within the construction camp. Dust Impacts

The location and treatment of material stockpiles must take consideration of prevailing wind directions and the position of possible dwellings nearby.

Dust suppression techniques such as spraying the dust emitting areas with water should be employed to minimize the dust that is generated.

All material loads should be adequately covered during transportation.

No unnecessary vehicles should be allowed on site.

The clearing of the site should be limited to the absolute minimum required to conduct the construction activity.

Erosion of river banks

No parking of vehicles or equipment should take place off the access road or designated parking areas.

All work must take place within the construction footprint area and the construction area must be rehabilitated once the construction process has been completed.





List the potential activity/technology alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur as a result of the construction phase: Alternative A1 (preferred alternative)

Direct impacts: None Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impacts: None






Direct impacts: Should the project not go ahead the current existing road deviation and “bridge” structure will remain. This structure is not adequately designed and as a result of this very susceptible to being damaged or washed away during a flood event. The impacts if this should happen are far reach as far as the inhabitants of St Francis and St Francis Bay and surrounds are concerned. Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impacts: None

Indicate mitigation measures that may eliminate or reduce the potential impacts listed above: Alternative A1: Alternative A2: Alternative A3:

None None None

2.3. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE OPERATIONAL PHASE a. Site alternatives

List the potential site alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur as a result of the operational phase:




Alternative S1 (preferred alternative) Cast in-situ 3 span bridge structure

Direct impacts: Since the structure has two piers within the river channel the likelihood of sediment build up behind these piers during low flow conditions exist. This sediment damming might result in an increased load on the structure. This impact is deemed to be LOW and will decrease to INSIGNIFICANT if the adequate management and design measures are put in place. Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impacts: None

Alternative S2 Suspended concrete bridge on piles


Alternative S3 Cast in-situ cellular structure

Direct impacts: Since the structure has three piers within the river channel the likelihood of sediment build up behind these piers during low flow conditions exist. This sediment damming might result in an increased load on the structure. This impact is deemed to be LOW and will decrease to INSIGNIFICANT if the adequate management and design measures are put in place. Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impacts: None


Direct impacts: Should the project not go ahead the current existing road deviation and “bridge” structure will remain. This structure is not adequately designed and as a result of this very susceptible to being damaged or washed away during a flood event. The impacts if this should happen are far reach as far as the inhabitants of St Francis and St Francis Bay and surrounds are concerned.




Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impacts: None

Indicate mitigation measures that may eliminate or reduce the potential impacts listed above: Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3

Regular removal of any sediment build-up against the piers will negate any build-up over time. The design of the structure makes provision for facilitating low flow in the river that has the intention of limiting the sediment build-up.

None Regular removal of any sediment build-up against the piers will negate any build-up over time. The design of the structure makes provision for facilitating low flow in the river that has the intention of limiting the sediment build-up.


List the potential activity/technology alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur as a result of the operational phase: Alternative A1 (preferred alternative)


Alternative A2


Alternative A3



Direct impacts:




Should the project not go ahead the current existing road deviation and “bridge” structure will remain. This structure is not adequately designed and as a result of this very susceptible to being damaged or washed away during a flood event. The impacts if this should happen are far reach as far as the inhabitants of St Francis and St Francis Bay and surrounds are concerned. Indirect impacts: None Cumulative impacts: None

Indicate mitigation measures that may eliminate or reduce the potential impacts listed above: Alternative A1 Alternative A2 Alternative A3

None None None

2.4. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE DECOMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASE THERE ARE NO IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DECOMISSIONING AND CLOSURE OF THE PROJECT AS THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE IS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE

a. Site alternatives

List the potential site alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur as a result of the decommissioning or closure phase: Alternative S1 (preferred alternative)


Alternative S2


Alternative S3



Direct impacts: Indirect impacts:




Cumulative impacts:

Indicate mitigation measures that may eliminate or reduce the potential impacts listed above: Alternative S1 Alternative S2 Alternative S3

b. Activity/technology List the potential activity/technology alternative related impacts (as appropriate) that are likely to occur as a result of the decommissioning and closure phase: Alternative A1 (preferred alternative)


Alternative A2


Alternative A3




Indicate mitigation measures that may eliminate or reduce the potential impacts listed above: Alternative A1 Alternative A2 Alternative A3




2.5. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Indicate how identified impacts and mitigation will be monitored and/or audited.

Alternative S1 (preferred site)

A Draft Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) is attached to this report. Compliance with the mitigation management measures to this plan must be audited on a monthly basis by an Environmental Control Officer (ECO). It is also highly recommended that the appointed contractor should appoint a designated Environmental Liaison Officer (ELO) that will be responsible for the day-to-day compliance of the EMPr.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Taking the assessment of potential impacts into account, please provide an environmental impact statement that sums up the impact that the proposed activity and its alternatives may have on the environment after the management and mitigation of impacts have been taken into account with specific reference to types of impact, duration of impacts, likelihood of potential impacts actually occurring and the significance of impacts. Alternative S1 (preferred alternative)

No Site Alternative has been considered as the site is the same for all three options considered

Alternative S2


Alternative S3


Alternative A1 (preferred alternative) This option makes provision for a structure with a span of 24m which results in a large hydraulic opening to accommodate the flow of sediment in the Sand River. The option will consist of a monolithic structure consisting of three cells (two piers), each 8m wide, with low flow channels in the centre of each cell. These channels will accommodate the low flow through the structure and will limit the amount of sedimentation under the structure which could compromise the size of the hydraulic opening. The construction of this option does not require the removal of the existing deviation and the construction of a new deviation. It is recommended that this structure should be approved based on the large hydraulic opening and the design allowing for low flow periods limiting sedimentation. It is also important to add the fact that traffic accommodation can be conducted during the construction phase on the existing deviation and that this structure is a cost effective solution.

Alternative A2 This option requires the decommissioning of the existing road deviation and the reconstruction of a new one to make provision for the Piling Rigs to get into the correct positions to drill the holes needed for the piles. This results in increased construction impacts due to the increased footprint of the project. This option has the largest hydraulic opening and with the piling necessity making it most flood resistant. The requirement for piling however makes this option the most expensive and once with the longest construction period. The founding conditions of the site renders this option challenging as the depth of bedrock




has not been determined. The current Geotechnical Investigation has indicated that no bedrock was encountered at a depth of 26.5m making this option possibly fatally flawed. If the founding conditions is too deep or not suitable for piling this option cannot be constructed. Based on the above information it is recommended that this option not be authorised.

Alternative A3

This option consists of 4 x 3.75m x 3.0m in-situ cast cells founded on a monolithic slab. The hydraulic opening of this structure is the smallest of the options considered and the design does not make provision for low flow periods which might result in sedimentation compromising the opening under this structure. This option also does not require the construction of a new deviation, but the existing one can be used for traffic accommodation during the construction phase. Based on the smaller hydraulic opening and the shorter span of the structure resulting in a risk of sedimentation and consequently undermining and failure it is suggested that this option not be approved for construction.


This alternative makes provision for the status quo to remain that has associated risks linked to damage during flood events due to its inadequate design. It is recommended that this option not be considered for approval.

In general the construction related impacts of the three options presented are very similar, apart from the necessity of the decommissioning and reconstruction of the temporary deviation if Option 1 was to be considered. This however will not create any new environmental (working in the river bed etc.) or social (traffic control, access etc.) impacts, but will only exacerbate the intensity of the impact since the footprint of the project will be increased.

1. Comparison of the Engineering Advantages and Disadvantages of the various options

OPTION DESCRIPTION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

OPTION1 Suspended

concrete deck

bridge structure

on piles

Most flood

resistant based on

the piled

foundations

Relative short

construction

period

Good hydraulic

management

High cost due to piling

No founding conditions

has been determined

Decommissioning of

the existing deviation

and the construction of

a new deviation

OPTION

2B

Cast in-situ

cellular structure

Reasonable

hydraulic

management

Relative short

construction

More technical

construction

methodology

More flood restrictive




period

Can be

constructed

without impacting

on the existing

deviation

Cheapest of the

three options

option

Possibility of

sedimentation

OPTION

6

Cast in-situ

three span

bridge structure

that makes

provision for an

opening with two

supports in the

channel

Large hydraulic

opening

increasing its flood

resistance

Good hydraulic

management

allowing natural

flow

Can be

constructed

without impacting

on the existing

deviation

More technical

construction

methodology

Second most expensive

option




SECTION E. RECOMMENDATIONS OF PRACTITIONER

Is the information contained in this report and the documentation attached hereto sufficient to make a decision in respect of the activity applied for (in the view of the environmental assessment practitioner)?

YES NO

Is an EMPr attached? YES NO

The EMPr must be attached as Appendix F. If “NO”, indicate the aspects that should be assessed further as part of a Scoping and EIA process before a decision can be made (list the aspects that require further assessment):

If “YES”, please list any recommended conditions, including mitigation measures that should be considered for inclusion in any authorisation that may be granted by the competent authority in respect of the application: All the mitigation and management measures are included in the EMPr attached in Appendix

F of this report.

A Draft Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) is attached to this report.

Compliance with the mitigation management measures to this plan must be audited on a

monthly basis by an Environmental Control Officer (ECO). It is also highly recommended that

the appointed contractor should appoint a designated Environmental Liaison Officer (ELO)

that will be responsible for the day-to-day compliance of the EMPr.




SECTION F: APPENDICES The following appendixes must be attached as appropriate: Appendix A: Site plan(s) Appendix B: Photographs Appendix C: Facility illustration(s) Appendix D: Specialist reports Appendix E: Comments and responses report Appendix F: Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) Appendix G: Other information

draft basic assessment report … - sand river...draft basic assessment report terratest (pty) ltd...

Documents