gautrain - minor amendments _01 12 05_ no 6

8/7/2019 Gautrain - Minor amendments _01 12 05_ no 6

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gautrain-minor-amendments-01-12-05-no-6 1/82

Bohlweki Environmental (Pty) LtdPO Box 11784Vorna ValleyMidrandSouth Africa1686Telephone: 27 011 466 3841

Facsimile: 27 011 466 3849e-mail: [email protected]: www.bohlweki.co.za

GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT,

ROADS AND WORKS

REGULATION 9(3) APPLICATION FOR THE AMENDMENT

OF THE RECORD OF DECISION, DATED 25 APRIL 2004,

ON THE GAUTRAIN RAPID RAIL LINK PROJECT

MINOR ROUTE AMENDMENTS:

• Tunnelled section between Park Station, Johannesburg and

the proposed Rosebank and Sandton Stations to the point

where the tunnel is below Mushroom Farm Park, and the

tunnel section between the M1 highway and the Marlboro

tunnel portal.

• The above ground sections from Linbro Park to Rhodesfield,from Linbro Park through Midrand to the Highveld Techno-

Park in Centurion and from the Jean Avenue interchange

with the Ben Schoeman highway in Centurion to the Eeufees

Road interchange in Pretoria.

Draft Report for Public Comment

1 December 2005



Regulation 9(3) Application for the Amendment of the Gautrain Record of Decision, Dated 25 April2004:Minor Route Amendments

Bohlweki Environmental 01/12/05i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE GAUTRAIN ROUTE PROPOSED

BY THE PREFERRED BIDDER

2

3. GROUND-BORNE NOISE AND VIBRATION 4

4. AIRBORNE NOISE 11

4.1 General 11

4.2 Findings 11

5. GEOHYDROLOGICAL IMPACTS 17

5.1 Introduction and Terms of Reference 17

5.2 Comments 17

5.2.1 Park Station to Sandton Station 17

5.2.2 Sandton Station to Marlboro Station 18

5.2.3 Changes in Vertical Alignment and Rail Reserve Width along

the Above-Ground Sections of the Route

18

5.3 Conclusion 19

6. ECOLOGICAL RE-EVALUATION 20

6.1 Introduction 20

6.1.1 Objectives of the Flora / Fauna Ecological Study 20

6.1.2 Scope of Study 20

6.1.3 Methods 21

6.1.4 Constraints / Limitations to the Survey 21

6.2 Description of Prevailing Ecological Environment and StudyAreas 21

6.3 Increased Rail Reserve Width 22

6.4 Sensitive Habitats 29

6.5 Effects of Proposed Increased Rail Reserve and Raised /

Lowered Alignment on the Immediate and Surrounding

Environment

30

6.5.1 Loss of Faunal Habitats 30

6.5.2 Erosion and Possible Siltation / Sedimentation 31




Bohlweki Environmental 01/12/05ii

6.5.3 Migratory Routes 32

6.5.4 Buffer Zones or Biological Corridors 32

6.5.5 Artificial Lighting 33

6.5.6 Horticultural Activities 33

6.5.7 Rescue and Recovery Program 34

6.6 Conclusion and Recommendations 35

7. VISUAL IMPACT 37

7.1 Background 37

7.2 Comparative Assessment Aspects 37

7.3 Methodology and Approach 37

7.4 Comparative Assessment of the Minor Vertical Alignment

Changes

39

7.5 Summary 53

7.6 Mitigation Proposals 53

8. HERITAGE ISSUES 54

8.1 Background 54

9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS 55

10. CONCLUSION 58

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Revised Positioning of Noise Mitigation Measures forMinor Route Amendments

Appendix B: Draft Heritage Report to SAHRA on Station and Tunnel

Portal/Shaft properties affected by the Preferred

Bidder Alignment

Appendix C: Advert for Public participation Process

Appendix D: Background Information Document




Bohlweki Environmental 01/12/051

REGULATION 9(3) APPLICATION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE GAUTRAIN

RECORD OF DECISION, DATED 25 APRIL 2004: MINOR ROUTE AMENDMENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

A comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was undertaken for the

Gautrain Rapid Rail Link project during 2002-2003. The EIA documentation was

submitted to the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment

(GDACE), who issued a positive Record of Decision (RoD) in September 2003,

authorising an alignment for the Gautrain. The RoD was amended in April 2004,

following the consideration of appeals submitted in respect of the original RoD. The

amended RoD allowed for public input into the further development of the

Environmental Management Plan (EMP) as the design process became more detailed.

The alignment for the Gautrain, however, remained unchanged from that authorised

in the original RoD.

On July 2, 2005, the Gauteng Premier, Mbhazima Shilowa, announced that a

Preferred Bidder (the Bombela Consortium) had been appointed to undertake the

final design, construction and operation of the Gautrain Rapid Rail Link. The

Preferred Bidder has proposed certain minor horizontal and vertical alignment

amendments to the Gautrain route authorised by GDACE for the sections of the rail

line investigated in this report. Other more substantial changes to the approved

alignment (route variants) will be considered as separate applications to GDACE.

The alignment changes have all been developed by Bombela in its bid to optimise the

rail network from a design and operational perspective.

GDACE has requested the project proponent, the Gauteng Department of Public

Transport, Roads and Works, to apply, in terms of Regulation 9(3) of Government

Notice R1183 under the Environment Conservation Act of 1989 (read with conditions

3.4 (a) and 3.4 (b) of the RoD), in order to present the minor changes to the

alignment to GDACE for consideration.

The proposed approach has been confirmed by GDACE, after the submission of information by the applicant on all of the proposed amendments to the alignment,

including the route variants. The information was provided during various briefing

sessions with GDACE followed by the submission of relevant maps/plans.

The plans/maps of the proposed changes were also made available to the public on a

dedicated website and at public places at the end of October 2005 as part of the

public participation process (see Section 9 below). These maps should be referred to

when reading this report.





2. MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE GAUTRAIN ROUTE PROPOSED BY THE

PREFERRED BIDDER

The sections of the route that are included in this report covering the minor routeamendments are:

• Park Station, Johannesburg via Rosebank Station to Mushroom Farm Park, just

after the Sandton Station (tunnel section).

• M1/Marlboro Drive interchange to Marlboro tunnel portal (tunnel section).

• Linbro Park to Midrand Station (above ground section).

• Midrand Station to Highveld Techno-Park, Centurion (above ground section).

• Jean Avenue/Ben Schoeman interchange, Centurion to Eeufees Road, Pretoria

(above ground section).

• Linbro Park to Rhodesfield Station, Kempton Park (above ground section).

The minor route amendments, on which the relevant key specialists involved in the

original EIA (noise, vibration, geohydrological, ecological, visual and heritage) have

been requested to focus as part of this report include:

• A deeper tunnel (up to a maximum of 16m) from Park Station, Johannesburg

(0.0 km) to Parktown Ridge (1.800 km). The tunnel is descending for this length

and will already be more than 25m below ground beneath the tunnel portal at

Park Station, north of Smit Street in Braamfontein.

• A shift of the Johannesburg Park Station footprint to the north, but within the

original rail reserve authorised in the RoD alignment (no new buildings or

properties affected). The same buildings identified in the original EIA will be

demolished. The building situated directly above the tunnel portal at Park

Station, however, has been identified as a heritage structure and it will be

necessary to obtain the approval of the South African Heritage Resources Agency

(SAHRA) to demolish the building. This initial part of the tunnel will now be

constructed as cut and cover as opposed to the open cut envisaged in the

original EIA. A new parking facility will be built over the city block to be

demolished between Wolmarans and Smit Streets. The new Gautrain stationposition will prevent disruption at the existing Park Street station during

construction, whilst allowing for the Gautrain system to be extended in future to

the west via the Braamfontein marshalling yards.

• A slightly shallower tunnel alignment (up to a maximum of 20m) between

Parktown Ridge (1.800 km) and the approach to Rosebank Station (5.500 km).

The tunnel remains deep below the surface under Parktown Ridge (in excess of

40m). At its shallowest point (near the Oxford Road/8th Avenue intersection),

the roof of the tunnel will be 6m below Oxford Road.





• The use of three erven on the north-eastern side of the Oxford Road/Baker

Street intersection for use as an access and parking facility to Rosebank Station

(requiring the demolition of three buildings, two of which are older than 60 years

that will require approval from SAHRA prior to demolition). It is not possible toprovide parking on the western side of Oxford Road (no land available), whilst

due to services in the vicinity below ground, the parking facility could not be

located underground at Rosebank Station.

• A slightly deeper tunnel (up to a maximum of 8m) from Rosebank Station

(5.900km) to the intersection of 3rd /Melville Roads in Hyde Park (7.700km).

• A slightly shallower tunnel alignment (up to a maximum of 12m) from the

intersection of 3rd /Melville Roads in Hyde Park (7.700 km) to Sandton Station

(10.450 km). The tunnel will however remain 40m below ground or deeper

under this section.

• A slightly shallower tunnel alignment (up to 2m) between Sandton Station

(10.450km) and Mushroom Farm Park (11.100km) and between the M1/Marlboro

Drive interchange (up to a maximum of 5m) to the Marlboro tunnel portal

(15.400km). All the tunnel depth amendments proposed above by Bombela

provide for less steep grades and better operational conditions between stations.

• The final footprint of Sandton Station at the surface (access point) on land owned

by the municipality is currently being negotiated with the City of Johannesburg.

The footprint will require the demolition of the low-rise section of the Sandton

Civic Centre.

• Minor amendments to the width of the rail reserve and the vertical alignment on

the above ground sections listed at the top of previous page. These changes

have been proposed by the Preferred Bidder in order to provide flexibility to

optimize the alignment in the final design process, to allow for the movement of

material as a result of cuts and fills during construction, to ensure sufficient

space to accommodate the angles/toes of slopes and embankments and to allow

access for maintenance during the operational phase. No new properties are

affected by these minor amendments on the above ground sections.

The specialist investigations on the minor route amendments follow:

Section 3: Ground-borne noise and vibrationSection 4: Air-borne noise

Section 5: Geohydrological impacts

Section 6: Ecological re-evaluation

Section 7: Visual impacts

Section 8: Heritage issues

In Section 9, the public participation process followed for these environmental

investigations is described whilst conclusions are drawn in Section 10.





3. GROUND-BORNE NOISE AND VIBRATION

(Professor Wikus van Niekerk, Jongens, Keet and Associates)

The repositioning of the Gautrain tunnel in Johannesburg at different depths to thoseoriginally proposed in the RoD alignment has been investigated. The original

trajectory, and specifically the depth and geology thereof, was used to predict the

expected ground-borne noise and vibration levels. If the tunnels are repositioned

closer to the surface, the potential to increase the ground-borne noise and vibration

levels to above the limit values proposed in the original EIA does exist. It was

confirmed, however, that no significant change to the ground-borne vibration and

noise levels predicted in the original EIA would occur where the Preferred Bidder’s

alignment is deeper in tunnel.

The alignment proposed by the Preferred Bidder was used to re-evaluate the ground-

borne noise and vibration levels according to the same methodology as that used in

the original impact study. As specific speed-profiles were not available, the original

speed-profile was used, even though it is proposed that the trains will be limited to a

maximum speed of 160 km/h versus the originally proposed top speed of 180 km/h.

This assumption is conservative and therefore the levels may be even lower. (The

reduction from 180 to 160 km/h will result in an overall lowering of the vibration

level by approximately 1 dB(V)).

It was further assumed that there will only be a small deviation from the lateral

alignment of the tunnels and hence the same geological data, as used in the original

impact assessment, was used to recalculate the shallower profile.

The results of the recalculation are compared with the original predictions in Figures

3.1 and 3.2 below.

Figure 3.1 Predicted ground-borne vibration levels in the Johannesburg tunnel





Figure 3.2 Predicted ground-borne noise levels in the Johannesburg tunnel

From Figure 3.1 it is clear that a reduced depth will have a very small effect on the

predicted ground-borne vibration levels. In the section from approximately 1 800 to

5 500 metres (from beneath Parktown Ridge north to the Oxford Road/Worcestor

Road intersection), there is a slight increase in the predicted vibration level. This

increase is less than 5 dB(V) and in an area where the predicted vibration levels are

less than 90 dB(V), the level where a human will probably not be able to tell when

vibration is present. The other section where it is proposed to reduce the depth of

the tunnel, from approximately 7 700 to 10 450 metres (from the 3rd Road/Mellville

Road intersection in Hyde Park to the Sandton Station), the tunnel is mostly deeper

than 40 m and therefore the effect on the predicted vibration level is negligible.

The same effect can be seen in Figure 3.2. In the section from approximately 1 800

to 5 500 metres the original alignment was deep enough to enter solid rock most of

the time. With the new Preferred Bidder alignment, the tunnel is much closer to the

interface between solid and weathered rock and hence the newly proposed alignment

results in lower noise levels where the tunnel does not enter the solid rock layer.

(This is due to a penalty in the prediction method, where it is proposed than in solid

rock higher frequency vibrations will be transmitted more effectively than in

weathered rock).

The surface section of the line is dominated by air-borne noise, which is dealt with

separately (see Section 4 below). As far as the effect of the change in the level on

the rest of the line with regard to ground-borne noise and vibration is concerned,

there will only be insignificant changes in the predicted levels.





In Tables 3.1 and 3.2, a complete assessment of the effect of the change in levels

along the entire line is provided. It can therefore be concluded that the repositioning

of the Gautrain tunnel alignment closer to the surface will have a very small effect on

the ground-borne noise and vibration levels at the surface. As the slight increase alsooccurs in areas where the predicted ground-borne vibration levels are already well

below the perception level of 90 dB(V), the new vertical alignment will not affect the

conclusions of the original ground-borne noise and vibration impact assessment.

Reference:

Bohlweki Environmental (2002). EIA for the Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link

between Johannesburg, Pretoria and Johannesburg International Airport. Volume 3,

Part 3, Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration Study.



Regulation 9(3) Application for the Amendment of the Gautrain Record of Decision, Dated 25 April 2004:Minor Route Amendments

Bohlweki Environmental 7

TABLE 3.1: JOHANNESBURG TO HATFIELD LINE: EFFECT OF THE BOMBELA (BIDDE

LONGITUDINAL SECTION ALIGNMENT ON THE GROUND-BORNE NOISE AND

AS CALCULATED FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION (RoD) LONGITUDINAL SECT

BIDDER Alignment Effect of Change of

Kilometre RoD Alignment X-Section and Relative Level of BID Ground Borne Vibratio

Distance X-Section Long Section to that of RoD what was calcula

0,000: Park Station

0,000 to 0,500 Cut & Cover BID approx 10m lower No significant change

0,500 to 1,800 Tunnel BID approx same level No significant change

1,800 to 4,800 Tunnel BID up to 27m shallower A possible increase of less


5,200 to 6,200 Cut & Cover BID approx same level No significant change

6,000: Rosebank Station


8,000 to 9,200 Tunnel BID up to 18m shallower No significant change9,200 to 10,500 Tunnel BID approx same level No significant change

10,500: Sandton Station


Excludes the section from Mushroom Farm (km 10,650) to the crossing of the M1 Freeway (km 13,800)


Excludes the section from the Marlboro tunnel portal (km 15,200) to a point just east of the N3 Freewa

16,600: Marlboro Station

17,100: RoD overpass of National Road N3 (BID underpass)

17,200 to 17,600 Fill Cut: BID average of 16m lower No significant change

17,600 to 18,000 Cut Cut: BID varies from 14m lower to 0m No significant change

18,000 to 18,100 Cut Cut: BID varies from 0m to 2m higher No significant change18,100 to 18,600 Fill Fill: BID average of 2m higher No significant change

18,600 to 19,000 Cut Cut: BID varying from 2m higher to 0m No significant change

19,000 to 19,700 Cut Cut: BID average of 2m lower No significant change

19,700 to 21,600 Fill Fill: BID approximately same level No significant change

21,600 to 22,400 Cut Cut: BID approximately same level No significant change





BIDDER Alignment Effect of Change of

Kilometre RoD Alignment X-Section and Relative Level of BID Ground Borne Vibra

Distance X-Section Long Section to that of RoD

with what was calc22,400 to 23,500 Fill Fill: BID average of 5m higher No significant change

23,500 to 24,000 Structure(viaduct) Structure/Fill: BID average of 2m higher No significant change24,100: Allandale Road Overpass

24,000 to 25,100 Structure Structure: BID 2m higher No significant change

25,100 to 24,300 Fill Fill: BID average of 2m higher No significant change

24,300 to 25,300 Cut Cut: BID average of 2m higher No significant change


25,900 to 26,200 Cut Cut: BID average of 3m higher No significant change

26,200 to 26,700 Cut Fill: BID average 5m higher (fill average 1m

high)

No significant change

26,700 to 26,900 Cut Cut: BID varies from 5m higher to 0m No significant change


26,800: Midrand Station

27,700 to 28,800 Fill Fill: BID average of 0,5m lower No significant change

29,100: New Road Underpass


30,100 to 30,750 Cut Cut: BID varies from 0m to 7m higher No significant change

30,750 to 31,000 Cut Fill: BID average of 8m higher (fill average1m high)


31,000 to 31,700 Cut Cut: BID average of 7m higher (cut av 2mdeep)


31,700 to 32,000 Fill Fill: BID varies from 6m higher to 0m No significant change

32,200: Olifantsfontein Road (PWV 5) overpass

32,000 to 32,800 Structure(viaduct)

Structure/Fill: BID average of 4m lower No significant change

32,800 to 33,200 Fill Fill: BID average of 2m lower No significant change

33,500: Road K27/R562 underpass


35,100: Samrand Road overpass

34,400 to 35,800 Fill Fill: BID average 2m higher No significant change


36,400 to 37,100 Fill Fill: BID approximately same level No significant change





BIDDER AlignmentEffect of Change of L

Kilometre RoD Alignment X-Section and Relative Level of BID Ground Borne Vibrat

Distance X-Section Long Section to that of ROD with what was calcu37,100 to 38,250Cut Cut: BID average 6m higher No significant change

38,250 to 38,900Cut At grade: BID average 5m higher No significant change

38,900 to 39,800Cut Cut: BID approximately same level No significant change

39,800 to 41,800Fill Fill: BID average of 2m higher No significant change

41,800 to 42,000Cut Fill: BID average of 2m higher (fill average1m high)


42,000 to 42,200Cut Cut: BID average of 5m lower No significant change

Excludes section through central Centurion from just south of crossing of N1 Freeway (km 42,200) t

Freeway crossing (km 47,800)

43,300: National Road N1

underpass45,300: Centurion Station

47,200: National Road N14 (R28) underpass

47,800 to 48,200Fill Cut: BID average of 8m lower No significant change

48,200 to 50,600Fill Fill: BID average of 6m lower No significant change

50,300: Snake Valley Road

overpass

50,600 to 51,200Fill Fill; BID average of 1m higher No significant change

51,200 to 52,800Cut Cut: BID average of 2m higher No significant change

Excludes section from just south of Eeufees Road (km 52,800) to Hatfield

Station

53,700: Eeufees Road overpass





TABLE 3.2: SANDTON TO JIA LINE: EFFECT OF THE BOMBELA (BIDDER) CHANGES IN LEVEL OALIGNMENT ON THE GROUND-BORNE NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT RECORD OF DECISION (RoD) LONGITUDINAL SECTION ALIGNMENT

BIDDER Alignment Effect of Change

Kilometre RoD Alignment X-Section and Relative Level of BID Ground Borne Vi

Distance X-Section Long Section to that of RoD with what was cThis line starts (kilometre 0,000) approximately 300 metres west of MarlboroStation)

Excludes section from km 0,000 to point just east of National Road N3 (km 1,000)

0,800: National Road N3 Freeway

1,000 to 1,600 Fill Cut: BID average of 16m lower Slight decrease of le

1,600 to 2,150 Cut Cut: BID varies from 14m lower to 0m No significant chang

2,150 to 2,900 Cut Cut: BID average of 1,5m higher No significant chang

2,900 to 4,000 Fill Fill: BID average of 2m higher No significant chang

4,000 to 4,200 Cut Fill: BID average of 2m higher No significant change4,200 to 4,600 Fill Fill: BID average of 2m higher No significant chang

4,600 to 4,780 Cut Cut: BID varies from 2m higher to 0m No significant chang

4,780 to 5,850 Fill Fill: BID varies from 0m to 6m lower to 0m No significant chang

5,850 to 6,050 Fill Fill: BID varies from 0m to 5m higher No significant chang

6,050 to 6,300 Cut Fill: BID average of 9m higher No significant change

6,300 to 6,950 Cut Cut: BID average 8m higher No significant chang

6,950 to 7,600 Fill Fill: BID varies from 4m higher to 0m No significant chang

7,800: Modderfontein Road overpass

7,600 to 8,600 Fill Fill: BID at approximately same level No significant chang

8,600 to 9,350 Cut Cut: BID at approximately same level No significant change

9,350 to 10,650 Fill Fill: BID average of 2m higher No significant chang10,145: Zuurfontein Road overpass

10,650 to 10,900 Cut Cut: BID varies from 1m higher to 0m No significant chang

10,900 to 11,800 Cut Cut: BID average of 2m lower No significant chang

11,800 to 12,400 Cut Cut: Bid average of 3m higher No significant chang

Excludes section from km 12,400 to Rhodesfield Station and JIA Station



Regulation 9(3) Application for the Amendment of the Gautrain Record of Decision, Dated 25 April 2004:MinorRoute Amendments

Bohlweki Environmental 11 1/12/05

4. AIRBORNE NOISE

(Derek Cosijn, Jongens, Keet and Associates)

4.1 General

In this Section, the changes in the airborne noise due to minor changes in the proposed

alignment by the Bombela Consortium (Preferred Bidder alignment) are compared to the

original RoD noise condition. The main changes proposed that may have an impact on

airborne noise have been those in the vertical alignment (longitudinal section). All the

calculation parameters used in the EIA have been kept the same even though it is likely that

some will change in the final analysis (namely the speed profile of the train will reduce and

the height of the cooling fan noise will be lower on the proposed train). Both the

aforementioned factors will reduce the train generated noise profile along certain sections of

the alignment. Thus, the conservative approach adopted in the EIA on calculating potential

noise impacts has been retained.

The detailed analysis of the implications of the changes in alignment proposed by the

Bombela Consortium as related to airborne noise are given in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2.

4.2 Findings

i) In places, the Preferred Bidder alignment introduces level (height) changes to the

RoD vertical alignment. This will alter the noise condition along the relevant section

of the route, in some cases improving the original situation and in other casesworsening it.

ii) Along no section where the noise condition deteriorated, due to level changes, was it

found that the Preferred Bidder noise levels reached were of an order higher than

levels reached in similar situations (namely at similar cross section profiles) for the

RoD alignment.

iii) Where the Preferred Bidder alignment increases the noise level, it is generally stated

as being “not a problem” (or “insignificant”) as the final changed noise level still lies

within the range that can be mitigated (as determined during the EIA).

iv) In general, the Preferred Bidder horizontal alignment indicates a wider rail reserve

on the surface (although no new properties are affected). This, as such, will not

result in any noise increases unless there is to be a significant lateral shift of the

alignment. No such shifts are presently indicated.

v) The additional rail reserve to the west required for a wider maintenance depot and

railway workshops could have noise implications for this area and should be checked

in terms of the proposed mitigation measures through the EMP process, when more

detailed design information is available on the exact location of noise generating

facilities on the maintenance depot site.

vi) In Appendix A, the positioning of the proposed noise mitigation measures to limit

noise impact have been revised to take account of changes in height levels in the





Preferred Bidder alignment. The areas for these revised mitigation measures should

be incorporated into the EMP.

Reference:

Bohlweki Environmental (2002). EIA for the Proposed Gautrain Rapid Rail Link between

Johannesburg, Pretoria and Johannesburg International Airport. Volume 3, Part 3, Chapter

12: Noise and Vibration Study.



Regulation 9(3) Application for the Amendment of the Gautrain Record of Decision, Dated 25 April 2004:Minor Route Amend


TABLE 4.1: JOHANNESBURG TO HATFIELD LINE: EFFECT OF THE BOMBELA (BIDDER) CHA

LONGITUDINAL SECTION ALIGNMENT ON THE AIRBORNE NOISE ENVIRONMEN

FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION (RoD) LONGITUDINAL SECTION ALIGNMENT

Kilometre DistanceRoD Alignment

X-Section

BIDDER Alignment

X-Section and Relative Level of BID

Long Section to that of RoD

Effect o

Section)

Calcula

0,000 to 15,000 Tunnel No airborne

Along the tunnel portion of the route, excludes the section from beneath Mushroom Farm (km 1Freeway (km 13,800).

Surface section: Excludes the section from the Marlboro tunnel portal (km 15,200) to a point j17,200)

16,600: Marlboro Station

17,100: RoD overpass of National Road N3 (BID underpass)

17,200 to 17,600 Fill Cut: BID average of 16m lower BID alignm

17,600 to 18,000 Cut Cut: BID varies from 14m lower to 0m BID alignm

18,000 to 18,100 Cut Cut: BID varies from 0m to 2m higher BID alignma problem.

18,100 to 18,600 Fill Fill: BID average of 2m higher BID alignm

18,600 to 19,000 Cut Cut: BID varying from 2m higher to 0mBID alignm

Not a prob

19,000 to 19,700 Cut Cut: BID average of 2m lower BID alignm

19,700 to 21,600 Fill Fill: BID approximately same level BID alignm

21,600 to 22,400 Cut Cut: BID approximately same level BID alignm


23,500 to 24,000Structure

(viaduct)Structure/Fill: BID average of 2m higher BID alignm

24,100: Allandale Road Overpass

24,000 to 24,100 Structure Structure: BID 2m higher BID alignm


24,300 to 25,300 Cut Cut: BID average of 2m higher BID alignm







X-Section

BIDDER Alignment



Effect o

Section)

Calcula


26,200 to 26,700 CutFill: BID average 5m higher (fill average

1m high)

BID alignm

a problem.

26,700 to 26,900 Cut Cut: BID varies from 5m higher to 0mBID alignmNot a prob


26,800: Midrand Station

27,700 to 28,800 Fill Fill: BID average of 0,5m lower BID alignm

29,100: New Road Underpass


30,100 to 30,750 Cut Cut: BID varies from 0m to 7m higherBID alignmNot a prob

30,750 to 31,000 CutFill: BID average of 8m higher (fill

average 1m high)

BID alignm

Not a prob31,000 to 31,700 Cut

Cut: BID average of 7m higher (cut av

2m deep)

BID alignm

Not a prob

31,700 to 32,000 Fill Fill: BID varies from 6m higher to 0m BID alignm

32,200: Olifantsfontein Road (PWV 5) overpass

32,000 to 32,800Structure

(viaduct)Structure/Fill: BID average of 4m lower BID alignm

32,800 to 33,200 Fill Fill: BID average of 2m lower BID alignm

33,500: Road K27/R562 underpass


35,100: Samrand Road overpass

34,400 to 35,800 Fill Fill: BID average 2m higher BID alignm35,800 to 36,400 Cut Cut: BID approximately same level BID alignm

36,400 to 37,100 Fill Fill: BID approximately same level BID alignm

37,100 to 38,250 Cut Cut: BID average 6m higherkm 37,1 tincrease no






X-Section

BIDDER Alignment



Effect o

Section)

Calcula

Km 37,9 t

noise by 6d

38,250 to 38,900 Cut At grade: BID average 5m higher BID alignmNot a prob



41,800 to 42,000 CutFill: BID average of 2m higher (fillaverage 1m high)

BID alignm


Excludes section through central Centurion from just south of crossing of N1 Freeway (km 42,200) Freeway crossing (km 47,800)

43,300: National Road N1 underpass

45,300: Centurion Station

47,200: National Road N14 (R28) underpass47,800 to 48,200 Fill Cut: BID average of 8m lower BID alignm

48,200 to 50,600 Fill Fill: BID average of 6m lower BID alignm

50,300: Snake Valley Road overpass

50,600 to 51,200 Fill Fill; BID average of 1m higher BID alignm


Excludes section from just south of Eeufees Road (km 52,800) to Hatfield Station

53,700: Eeufees Road overpass



Regulation 9(3) Application for the Amendment of the Gautrain Record of Decision, Dated 25 April

2004:Minor Route Amendments


5. GEOHYDROLOGICAL IMPACTS

(Reinhard Meyer, CSIR Environmentek)

5.1 Introduction and Terms of Reference

• The CSIR Environmentek was approached by Bohlweki Environmental (Pty)

Ltd, to comment on the potential impact that the minor changes to the route

alignment proposed by the Bombela Consortium may have on the geology

and groundwater conditions that may be expected during construction of the

Gautrain Rapid Rail Link. During a meeting at the offices of Bohlweki

Environmental (Pty) Ltd on 23 September 2005, the proposed minor changes

to the route were identified and discussed. The following Terms of Reference

were agreed upon during this meeting:

• CSIR Environmentek will be required to provide comments on whether the

envisaged minor changes to the route and tunnel alignment for specific

sections of the route would impact upon groundwater, or be impacted upon

by groundwater conditions during construction, and also during the

operational stages of the rail link. In addition, we were also requested to

comment on changes to the geological conditions that can be expected. The

following specific sections of the route were identified for review:

Tunnel section between Park Station and Sandton Station

(approx 10.5 km).

Tunnel section between Sandton Station and Marlboro Station

excluding the tunnel variant section between Mushroom Farm

Park and the M1/Marlboro Drive interchange.

Changes in the vertical alignment and rail reserve width along

the above ground sections of the route.

5.2 Comments

5.2.1 Park Station to Sandton Station

Over the first approximately 4 km of this section (Parktown Ridge – Rosebank

Station), the change in vertical alignment reaches its maximum (just over 20m

shallower). This roughly coincides with the section where tunneling will be into

quartzite, shale, conglomerate and lava of the Witwatersrand and Ventersdorp

Supergroups. Although static groundwater levels are of the order of 10m below

ground surface over this section, the aquifer is believed to be semi-confined as

water strikes during drilling are mostly encountered at greater depths, even

below the proposed new tunnel level. The aquifer is further classified as a minor

aquifer (Bohlweki Environmental, 2002). The potential impacts upon groundwater

conditions due to tunneling, as well as the impacts of groundwater upon the

tunneling operation investigated in the original EIA report, will not change; in






fact, due to the shallower route of the tunnel, impacts on groundwater from

tunneling may be less than previously envisaged. Should there be a need to

dewater a tunnel section for construction purposes, water levels will be lowered

during the dewatering period, but are expected to return to original static levels

shortly after completion of construction.

Between chainage ~4km and ~10.5km (Sandton Station), the tunnel will be in

granitic rocks and with the tunnel being shallower than the RoD route over this

section (although still at depths exceeding 40m for much of the route), more

weathered/fractured rock conditions can be expected. Should the static water

level over this section be above the roof of the tunnel, slightly more water

seepage can be expected due to somewhat higher hydraulic conductivities in the

more weathered/fractured sections. The mitigation measures provided in the

original EIA report, however, will suffice to deal with this eventuality.

5.2.2 Sandton Station to Marlboro Station

Over this entire section, the route will be tunneled into granitic rocks. Over most

of this section, the proposed new tunnel route is only 2-3m shallower at

maximum than the RoD design, and no significant changes to the groundwater

conditions are expected. Although the difference increases to nearly 5m

(shallower than RoD route) closer to Marlboro station (approximate chainage

15km), no changes in groundwater conditions are expected. Due to the shallower

depth of the tunnel, slightly more weathered and fractured rock conditions can beexpected compared to the RoD route. The mitigation measures provided in the

original EIA report, however, will suffice to deal with this eventuality.

5.2.3 Changes in Vertical Alignment and Rail Reserve Width along the

Above Ground Sections of the Route

The groundwater specialist study for the original EIA considered the impacts on

groundwater conditions over a 2km wide zone around the centrelines of the

proposed route alignments investigated. Although deviations in the vertical

alignment and rail reserve width are now proposed, none of these transgress the

boundaries of the original investigation. It may be possible that new existing

boreholes are now located within this new proposed rail reserve width, but a

detailed survey of infrastructure inside the entire rail reserve still needs to be

conducted during the land acquisition phase. Any additional existing boreholes

that are located within the newly proposed wider rail reserve should also be

identified during this survey. The mitigation measures provided for boreholes

encountered in the rail reserve in the original EIA report will suffice.






6. ECOLOGICAL RE-EVALUATION

(Clayton Cook, Ecological Specialist)

6.1 Introduction

A brief ecological survey was undertaken for re-evaluation purposes due to the

proposed widening of certain sections of the rail reserve on the surface, as well as

the raised or lowered elevation of certain sections. The survey focused on the

findings of previous specialist surveys undertaken for the EIA of the proposed

Gautrain rapid rail link route (see Volume 4: Biophysical Environment; parts 1

and 2).

Surveys reviewed included:

• Vegetation survey (J. Van Staden)

• Avifaunal (Bird) survey (C.S. Van Rooyen)

• Mammal and Herpetological survey (C.L. Cook)• Invertebrate survey (P.Roos & G. Henning)

• Surface water and wetlands study (G.Marneweck)

The survey focused on the current status of areas identified by the specialists as

containing sensitive habitats, or habitats containing or likely to contain

threatened species of plant or animal within the proposed alignment corridor of

the Gautrain Rapid Rail Link project.

6.1.1. Objectives of the Flora/Faunal Ecological Study

• To determine potential impacts of the increased rail reserve and the raised

or lowered alignment on the fauna and flora.

• To provide management recommendations to mitigate negative and

enhance positive impacts.

• To identify any further issues not raised by the previous surveys.

6.1.2 Scope of Study

•

A brief survey of the selected sensitive sites recording the current statusof the sites and close examination of the areas affected by the increase in

or changes to the proposed rail reserve

• Literature investigations with which to augment field data where

necessary.

• Investigate feasible and practical management recommendations that

should be implemented to reduce or minimise the impacts, should the

changes to the alignment be approved.

• Documentation of the findings of the study in this report.






6.1.3 Methods

The brief ecological survey focused on the current status of threatened plant or

animal species occurring, or likely to occur, within the proposed adjusted rail

reserves and raised or lowered rail alignment corridor. Due to the fact that a

considerable portion of the rail alignment is either underground or passing

through already transformed habitats, the survey focused on the remaining

natural environments (open grasslands, hillslope seeps, seasonal drainage lines,

rocky outcrops) and not on transformed environments. Special emphasis was

placed on seasonal wetland areas and their surrounding grasslands, as well as

any other sensitive environments. No actual species lists or intensive field

surveys were conducted. Selected sites were surveyed between 7-9th October,

2005.

As the majority of threatened plant and animal species are extremely seasonaland difficult to observe, the presence of suitable habitat was also used to

determine their possible occurrence along the surface sections of the rail

alignments. Fieldwork was heavily augmented with species lists compiled from

previous specialist surveys conducted for the EIA as well as personal records

(Glen Austin and Midrand; 1991-2005) and published data (literature).

6.1.4 Constraints/Limitations to the Survey

• Being limited to a brief base-line ecological survey – two days prior to first

sufficient seasonal rainfall.• Recent fires have resulted in habitat destruction as well as extreme

difficulty in identifying specialised habitats, vegetation etc.

• The majority of threatened species are extremely secretive and difficult to

observe during intensive field surveys.

• The limitations of historic data and available data-bases. Insufficient

knowledge is available on the specific habitat requirements (migratory,

foraging and breeding) of the majority of threatened species.

• The presence of threatened species on site is assessed mainly on previous

specialised surveys as well as habitat availability and suitability.

•

Certain surveys were conducted during the dry winter months which onlyprovide probable species lists.

6.2 Description of Prevailing Ecological Environment and Study Areas

The majority of remaining natural habitats in the rail corridor fall within the

Vegetation Type classified as Rocky Highveld Grassland (Vegetation Type 34; Low

& Rebelo 1996). The Vegetation Type forms part of the Grassland Biome, and

covers an area of approximately 24 062 km2 within South Africa, approximately

65% of which has been transformed and 1,38% of which is currently conserved.

Within Gauteng, Rocky Highveld Grassland covers an area of approximately 9462km2, approximately 2,07% of which is currently conserved. Remaining






grasslands are characterised by frequent burning, grass collection, extensive

littering, alien vegetation invasion and are bisected by numerous human

pathways.

6.3. Increased Rail Reserve Width

The increased width to the rail reserve on the surface sections will vary, but the

average will be about 20-30m. On both sides of the servitude, a further 20-50

metres may have to be cleared of large trees, which will mean that an effective

minimum of 60-70 metres will be cleared of large trees. The removal of trees and

other vegetation might have some impact on species breeding and foraging

directly in the servitude. The clearing will, however, also create new habitat. The

run-off from the tracks could result in enhanced grass growth at the edges, which

will in turn draw rodents and insects. The cleared areas adjacent to the rail tracks

will be attractive hunting areas for certain mammals, bird species (raptors),

amphibians, reptiles, insects etc, as it will enhance prey accessibility or habitat

suitability (open habitat).

The area of the proposed increased rail reserve was only surveyed in the

remaining large open grassland areas along the rail corridor. These sites were

also selected in areas where previously threatened or endangered species have

occurred or are likely to still occur. The remaining natural habitats were surveyed

with a special emphasis on identifying any sensitive habitats still in existence, and

the possible occurrence of threatened or endangered fauna and flora.

The large open grasslands selected for the survey are described and reported on

in the following pages.






Glen Austin A.H. Ext. 3

East of the Jukskei Quarry (Glen Austin A.H. Ext. 3) 26º 01’ 49”S 28º 07’31”E

Open grassland situated adjacent to the Jukskei Quarry, bordering the suburbs of

Buccleuch and the Glen Austin Agricultural Holdings Extension 3. The open

grassland is surrounded by major road networks, including the N1 and the K101.

Existing impacts on the site include:

• Extensive mining at the quarry site.

• Frequent burning of the grassland area.

• Severe headcurr (headward) erosion occurs on sections of the seasonal

drainage line.• Artificial damming of the Jukskei River upstream into a permanent man-

made dam.

• Reed invasion around the edges of the dam.

• The occurrence of extensive grass harvesting/cutting.

• Heavy vehicular traffic restricts certain animal migration (amphibians,

reptiles and mammals).

• Secondary roads bisect the site – including motorcycle, 4x4 bike and 4x4

vehicle routes.






Suitable foraging, migratory and breeding habitat exists to the east of theproposed rail alignment on the farm Waterval (26°02’11”S 28°07’57”E) for Giant

Bullfrogs and possible African Grass Owls. Bullfrogs breed in the shallow margins

of seasonal pans and sometimes in dams. Bullfrogs may occasionally also breed

in shallow seasonally inundated margins (temporary flood-plain) of the drainage

line on the farm Waterval.






Scattered rocks along the seasonal watercourse or drainage channel are

important for vantage and foraging sites for certain bird species (chats, cappedwheatear, marsh owls) as well as scent markers for certain mammals territories

(mongooses, jackal etc).

The proposed increased rail reserve does not impact on the potential bullfrog and

grass owl habitats or sensitive areas along the upper reaches of the seasonal

watercourse. The alignment crosses the watercourse below a severe headward or

headcurr erosion. Ideally this entire area should be rehabilitated preventing

further erosion and habitat deterioration and degradation along the watercourse

(spoil material from the construction activities could be used for this purpose). It

is important that during all phases of the project, access into the adjacentundeveloped open areas (east of the rail reserve) is severely restricted and

impacts minimised.

Glen Austin Extension 3 up to proposed Midrand Station.

East of the Proposed Midrand Station (Grand Central Airport) 26º 01’ 49” S 28º

07’31”E.

The rail corridor follows a path through the Glen Austin Agricultural Holdings and

open grassland. The above-mentioned section passes through old agriculturallands and existing smallholdings that proved to be degraded ecologically by many






exotic trees and gardens, in which it is highly unlikely that any specialised fauna

will be found. There are also further residential developments planned for the

area south of Grand Central Airport (President Park).

A restricted grassland area borders the Grand Central Airport and the K101.

Existing impacts on the site include:

• Bordered by major road networks (K101, Dale Street).

• Heavy vehicular traffic restricts certain animal migration (amphibians, reptiles

and mammals).

• Grand Central Airport’s fence and airstrip restricts animal movements

(between foraging and breeding areas).

• Frequent and irregular burning of grasses.

• Extensive grass harvesting and collection of medicinal plants.

• Numerous human pathways bisect the site.

• Evidence of poaching and wood harvesting.• Major littering throughout the site.

The increase in the rail reserve around the proposed Midrand station on either

side of the proposed alignment should not result in increased impacts on the

faunal composition and vegetation. Ideally the rail reserve should run

immediately alongside the road reserves as these areas are mostly transformed

grasslands. The open grassland areas adjacent to the proposed Midrand station

are rapidly developing with residential and commercial developments.

Brakfontein Sample Site

Large area of open grassland and wooded area situated adjacent to South African

Mint and the Highveld Techno-Park. The site is bordered by the National Road 1

(N1) and retailer’s warehouses. Existing impacts on the site include:

• Massive habitat destruction for Eco-Park residential and commercial

developments.

• Artificial damming of wetland areas into dams.

• Severe siltation and sedimentation in the dams.

•

Drainage canals in seepage areas.• Evidence of previous agricultural practises including irrigation.

• Restriction of water entering wetland areas - limited releases from dams.

• The site is bisected by the K54, which restricts frog, reptile and mammal

migration between suitable foraging and breeding areas.

• Hunting and poaching, including use of dogs.

• Frequent and irregular burning of grasses.

• Wood and grass harvesting.

The rail reserve is minimally increased (between 10-20m) and the alignment runs

parallel to the K101 in an area that can be considered as transformed habitat.

Massive residential and commercial developments have transformed the majority






of open habitat. The increased rail reserve will have no additional impacts on the

fauna and flora.

Esther Park

With respect to the wetland at Esther Park, the increased rail reserve is situated

deliberately north and away from the seasonal drainage line and Red Data listed

Trachyandra elythrorrhisa populations. The rail reserve’s southern boundary is

unchanged. Strict conservation management is required for the protection of the

above-mentioned plant species.

The seepage area comprising the wetland has been impacted on since theprevious surveys conducted in 2002-2003. Large scale dumping of building rubble

and litter, recent burning of the site, scraping of secondary access roads, and

excavations in the drainage line have recently occurred.






The upper areas around the two hills and the beginning of the drainage line are

still currently in reasonably good condition and the system is not severely

degraded. The drainage line below the wetland is, however, showing signs of

degradation and erosion gullies have developed.

As long as the southern and eastern side of the wetland are protected during

construction, adequate stormwater control and flow dispersion measures are

implemented along the rail reserve, and a suitably designed stormwater

management system is developed for dealing with the flows coming from the

section of line in cut (above the wetland), then the impacts on the functionality of

the system should be minimal.

Railway Alignment in Centurion

The rail alignment follows a route alongside the existing National Road (N1)

adjacent to the Highveld Techno-Park, through built up commercial and

residential areas towards the proposed Centurion Station.

The rail corridor near the proposed Centurion Station site follows a route through

a built up residential and commercial area, and therefore no detailed investigation

was undertaken. The section of the corridor from the military area to Fountains

Valley, and including Fountains Park, is alongside or within existing road and rail

alignments, and it is not expected that there will be any major additionaldisturbance of the area than already exists. No further studies of this area were






undertaken in view of the existing degradation in this section, as well as the

many artificial landscapes introduced by local developments.

The alignment through Centurion should not result in any additional impacts other

than those raised during the EIA process. A raised line could potentially reduce

railway fatalities of certain migrating species such as frogs, reptiles and

mammals. On the other hand, species such as flying insects and birds may be

affected by the increase in the obstruction path of the raised alignment. The

management considerations contained in each specialist report in the original EIA

report should adequately mitigate any further possible impacts.

6.4 Sensitive Habitats

Certain sensitive habitats have been identified, but in these cases, increases in

the rail reserve have been prevented or minimised namely:

Seasonal Watercourses or Drainage Lines with Inundated Grasslands

Seasonal watercourses and inundated grasslands are vital habitats for numerous

animal species including numerous threatened species (Giant Bullfrog, African

Marsh Harrier, Grass Owl, South African Hedgehog, Striped Weasel, White-tailed

Mouse and Rough-haired Golden Mole). The entire Midrand wetland areas and

seepage zones, with their associated vegetation are extremely sensitive to

possible further negative impacts from proposed developments. The proposed

rail alignment avoids all major seasonally inundated areas in the Midrand-

Centurion area.

Wooded Hills and Forested Dolomite Ridges

Wooded hills and forested dolomite ridges are important habitats. Trees are vital

habitats for numerous arboreal animal species. Large numbers of birds have

been recorded in these woody habitats. Trees and shrubs provide vital refuge,

foraging and migratory passages for species migrating to and away from wetland

sites. The scattered rocky outcrops are important habitats for numerous

rupicolous animal species including scorpions, arachnids, geckos, skinks, snakes

and smaller mammals. The impact of the proposed rail alignment on such habitathas been minimized.






6.5 Effects of Proposed Increased Rail Reserve and Raised/Lowered

Alignment on the Immediate and Surrounding Environment

6.5.1 Loss of Faunal Habitats

The increase in the rail reserve from between 10-50m will result in minimal

additional impacts on the fauna and flora if the appropriate mitigation measures

originally identified by the specialists in the EIA are implemented, as well as

minimising potential impacts in the designated sensitive areas such as rivers with

their associated riparian zones, seasonal watercourses in Midrand and Esther

Park, ridges and hills in Tshwane (Pretoria) etc.

Alteration of the additional vegetation along the proposed increased rail reserves

will directly, and indirectly, impact on the smaller sedentary species (insects,

arachnids, reptiles, amphibians and mammals) adapted to their terrestrial or

ground dwelling habitats. Larger, more agile species (birds and mammals) will

try and re-locate in suitable habitats away from the development. In addition,

heavy construction machinery, vehicles and the anticipated increased human

population density, will most likely directly and indirectly result in the short and

long term alteration of the faunal composition of the site and surrounding areas.

A further indirect, moderate to high, long term, negative impact which is likely to

affect the remaining fauna is uncontrolled hunting (“poaching”) on the site and

surrounding areas. This will naturally have the effect of reducing affected animal

species on the site and surrounding areas. This pressure, however, is likely to

occur irrespective of the rail project, because of the pressure to develop

remaining open areas in the fast growing corridor between Johannesburg andPretoria.

Mitigation and Recommendations

During the construction phase, workers must be limited to areas under

construction and access to neighbouring undeveloped areas (especially open

grasslands and wooded areas) must be strictly regulated, preventing uncontrolled

hunting, poaching and gathering of firewood and medicinal plants. Increased

pressure on an already impacted environment could result in major

environmental degradation if environmentally sensitive practices are not followedand maintained. Construction should be limited, where practical, to the daylight

hours preventing disturbances to the nocturnal activities of certain species and

nearby human populations. This will also minimise disturbances to sensitive and

secretive species. All remaining large indigenous tree species (dead and alive)

should be retained or replaced wherever possible as they form vital habitat for

numerous insectivorous predators, which control deleterious insect

(grasshoppers), bird (queleas) and mammal (rodents) populations. Trees and

stumps are vital habitats for numerous arboreal reptiles (chameleons, snakes,

agamas, geckos and monitors) as they are used for refuge sites as well as

foraging areas. Trees play a vital role in erosion and bank stabilisation by binding

the soils in their root systems. The trees will also provide valuable shaded areas






along the alignment and for newly established railway stations. Large rocks or

rocky outcrops should be conserved wherever possible or else the rocks should be

relocated outside the proposed alignment. Weeds and alien vegetation should be

removed and prevented from spreading into newly disturbed areas or areas

cleared of vegetation. Top soil obtained from the bulldozing activity along the

alignment should be appropriately stored and used to rehabilitate disturbed areas

after completion of the project. This will ensure a seed bank representing the

native flora, and will also be suited to the diet of the native mammal and bird

species. Where practical, termite mounds, dead trees, branches, scattered low

rocky outcrops, loose rocks, leaf and organic litter should be left undisturbed as

these special niches provide essential foraging, roosting and nesting sites for

numerous animal species. All temporary stockpile areas, litter and rubble must

be removed on completion of construction.

6.5.2 Erosion and Possible Siltation/Sedimentation

Future soil stockpiling areas must follow environmentally sensitive practices and

be situated a sufficient distance away from seepage zones and rivers. The sandy

soils around such sites are highly erodible, so erosion stabilising mechanisms

must be implemented. It is vital that preventative measures are undertaken to

prevent further headcount erosion and sedimentation on highly impacted

seasonal watercourses as well as bank erosion of rivers and streams. Continual

degradation of riparian zones and water quality will result in the eventual collapse

of the aquatic ecosystems.

The opportunity exists to include in the mitigation plan measures to stabilise theheadcuts occurring along certain seasonal watercourses in the Midrand and

Centurion areas in order to prevent the further erosion and thus degradation of

the systems. This was pointed out in the wetland specialist chapter of the EIA

report where it was stated a requirement for mitigation should also include the

stabilisation of the headcuts, since any construction activity in the area, without

careful management, could exacerbate the erosion problem currently evident in

the systems. This issue will need careful attention at the detailed design stage

and will need to be monitored post-construction. However, it should be noted that

the headcuts are not a consequence of the Gautrain project.


Stormwater and runoff should be channelled through natural grassland buffer

areas (at least 20m) reducing the erosional force and the potential risk of

contamination of the water source. Erosion stabilising actions (gabions) must be

implemented to prevent further habitat deterioration and degradation. The

careful position of soil piles, and runoff control, during all phases of development,

and planting of some vegetative cover after completion (groundcover etc.) will

limit the extent of erosion occurring on the site. Sufficient measures must be

implemented to prevent the possible contamination of surface water and

groundwater. Provision of adequate toilet facilities must be implemented to

prevent the possible contamination of surface and ground (borehole) water close






to the construction area. Heavy construction machinery must be regularly

serviced and checked for oil and fuel leaks. The timing of clearing activities is of

vital importance. Clearing activities and earth scraping should preferably be

restricted to the dry winter months, where possible, in order to prevent erosion

and siltation. The dry winter months are also the period when the majority of

species are either dormant or finished with their breeding activities.

6.5.3 Migratory Routes

The migratory movements of several animal (frog, reptile, bird and mammal)

species are completely disrupted by numerous road networks, which restrict

natural movements between suitable foraging and breeding areas. This is

especially prevalent for highly mobile species, such as Giant Bullfrogs, which can

migrate up to six kilometres from suitable foraging areas (open grassland) to

favourable breeding areas (seasonal pans or ponds). Fencing off of residential

areas and private property also plays a critical role in impeding the naturalmigration of the majority of animal species. A trade off thus exists between

safety and security on the one hand and movement of animal species on the

other.


The preservation, maintenance and creation of tracts of natural vegetation

(biological corridors) in all stages of ecological succession, interconnected by

corridors or green belts for escape, foraging, breeding and exploratory

movements needs to be considered. The area of the proposed rapid rail linkcorridor should be fenced off, and remain fenced off after the completion of

construction. Fencing or any other barrier should be low impact, preventing

further disturbance of the neighbouring vegetation and disruption of the natural

migratory movements of remaining animals. The fence or barrier should,

however, limit people, livestock and dogs entering the sensitive sites and contain

possible increased poaching and hunting, wood harvesting, vegetation removal

and continual pressure on remaining resources.

6.5.4 Buffer Zones or Biological Corridors

Connecting corridors between fragmented habitats and any other water sources

should be encouraged, where possible, to ensure a flow of genes between target

species, and also so that natural dispersion of species can occur. Ecological

corridors can be any width possible, but must be maintained to prevent blockages

or obstacles to the migrating or dispersing species. This will necessitate some in

depth research and further planning in the area, if implemented. Buffer zones

should be established around sensitive ecological areas to ensure the survival of

fauna and flora species. Reasonable buffer zones should be established between

marsh edges, for instance, and the rail route, and any associated roadways or

building operations envisaged in the future. The ideal buffer zone for

invertebrates and certain fauna species would be 200 m to 500 m, or wider. A

water buffer zone, such as a canal or stream, can also be considered as a buffer.






6.5.5 Artificial Lighting

Artificial lighting will most likely result in a moderate to high negative short,

medium and long-term impact on all nocturnal animal species. Numerous species

will be attracted towards the light sources and this will result in the disruption of

natural cycles, such as the reproductive cycle and foraging behaviour. The lights

may destabilise insect populations, which may alter the prey base, diet and

ultimately the well-being of nocturnal insectivorous fauna. The lights may attract

certain nocturnal species to the area, which would not normally occur there,

leading to competition between sensitive and the more common species.


Artificial lighting should be directed away from the open grasslands and sensitive

habitats in order to minimise the potential negative effects of the lights on the

natural nocturnal activities of animals. Where lighting is required for safety orsecurity reasons, this should be targeted at the areas requiring attention.

6.5.6 Horticultural Activities

Landscape architects, and the developer, have an opportunity to conserve certain

faunal biodiversity present on the sites. Vegetation has been reported to be the

single most important habitat component for all species of animals. Linked to

this, is the preservation, maintenance and creation of tracts of natural and

ornamental vegetation in all stages of ecological succession, interconnected by

corridors or green belts for escape, foraging, breeding and exploratorymovements. Urban settings are all too frequently characterised by exotic trees,

planted at the same time, at the same size and are spaced at regular centred

settings. The resulting pattern and structure is one of limited vegetation

diversity, trees of uniform size, even age stands and little or no understorey

planting. Only a few species of animals (urban exploiters) will occupy these

limited niches, leading to decreased faunal biodiversity. Remaining indigenous

bulbous geophytes and aloe species should be retained or replanted where

possible. Gardens or landscaped areas around stations or within the rail corridor,

should be planted with indigenous (preferably using local plants cleared from the

area) plants and trees, which are water wise and require minimal horticulturalpractices.

Mitigation and Recommendation

Horticultural activities resulting in fertiliser, herbicide and pesticide runoff,

increases in alien vegetation and weedy species, and dumping of refuse and

building material must be prevented or strictly managed. Landscaping should be

environmentally sensitive and should meet the following requirements:

• Limited to building environs.

• Limited irrigation through water-wise gardening (use local plants adapted

to local conditions).






• Strict fertiliser, pesticide and herbicide control (limited usage).

• Reduction of weeds and erosion control by minimum tillage gardening

practices (groundcovers and mulching).

• No dumping of any materials in undeveloped open areas and buffer strips

(biological corridors).

• Activities in the surrounding open undeveloped areas must be strictly

regulated.

• Certain exotic weed, reed and tree (Melia azedarach, Acacia mearnsii,

Morus alba etc.) species should be removed to prevent further invasion.

6.5.7 Rescue and Recovery Programme

Prior to construction activities, the areas of the proposed railway alignment aswell as increased rail reserve should be walked with a botanist and a zoologist. All

geophytes and bulbous plants should be relocated away from the proposed route.

If certain sensitive habitats or vegetation (large trees, bulbs etc) have to be

destroyed due to development pressures, a rescue and recovery programme

should be adopted. Animals and plants recovered can be relocated in suitable

habitat adjacent or close to the impacted sites. If any threatened species are

unearthed or discovered during the construction phase, all activities must be

suspended and the relevant authorities informed for appropriate action.






6.6. Conclusion and Recommendations

It can be safely stated that the study area is one of the most heavily impacted in

South Africa with the result that the natural vegetation cover has largely been

irreversibly altered, primarily by industrialisation and urbanisation. Continual

habitat destruction, alteration and human disturbances will result in the

disappearance of the majority of sensitive or secretive species in peri-urban

Gauteng. Few suitable grasslands and seasonal wetland areas remain in

Gauteng, especially in the Midrand-Centurion area. Increased pressure on an

already impacted environment could result in major environmental degradation if

environmentally sensitive practices are not followed and maintained. Although

the proposed Rapid Rail Link traverses or edges open grassland areas, the

majority are already severely fragmented and in relative stages of transformation

due to increased human pressures and impacts. They do, however, offer critical

habitat for remaining plant and animal species and impacts should be strictly

limited or managed. Increased rail alignments should follow existing impacted

areas or corridors wherever possible and remain as close as possible to the major

road and rail reserves. This will prevent further habitat fragmentation and

possible disruption of migratory routes of remaining species.

Mitigation could be considered in terms of placing the line in cut, where possible,

in the more sensitive areas described in this report and ensuring effective

rehabilitation of the landscape after construction with indigenous grasses, which

will be attractive to remaining fauna. All mitigation measures should be properly

described in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). These measures should

be meticulously applied, monitored and audited (by an independentenvironmental specialist/s) to ensure proper rehabilitation and demonstrate an

acceptable level of stabilisation.

More comprehensive and intensive specialist surveys would be required in order

to ascertain the status of threatened amphibian (Giant Bullfrog); reptile

(Harlequin Snake); bird (Grass Owl, Marsh Harrier, Lesser Kestrel) and mammal

(Hedgehog, White-tailed Mouse, Rough-haired Golden Mole, Striped Weasel)

species in the Gauteng province. More intensive provincial surveys of mammals,

reptiles and amphibians would also be required to assess whether remaining open

spaces in the corridor between Johannesburg and Pretoria need protection.Nationally co-ordinated Management Plans will need to be implemented to ensure

the survival of these threatened areas and the species they support. Current

IUCN Red Data lists are outdated and should be revised (amphibians and

mammals have been recently updated). If certain sensitive habitats have to be

destroyed due to development pressures, a rescue and recovery programme

should be adopted. Animals recovered can be relocated in suitable habitat

adjacent or close to the impacted sites. The existence of similar alternative

habitat outside the proposed site should be investigated before a final decision is

made. If any threatened species are unearthed or discovered during the

construction phase, all activities must be suspended and the relevant authoritiesinformed for appropriate action.






References

Low, A.B. and Rebelo, A.G. (1998). Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and

Swaziland . D.E.A.&T., Pretoria.

Various specialist surveys conducted for the EIA for Gautrain Rapid Rail link

between Pretoria and Johannesburg International Airport. Volume 4: Biophysical

Environment parts 1 and 2 (October 2002).






7. VISUAL IMPACT(Thomas Van Viegen, earthINC)

7.1 BACKGROUND

This section of the report outlines the methodology and approach adopted in the

landscape and visual impact evaluation for the Preferred Bidder’s minor route

amendments where they vary from the RoD approved alignment.

7.2 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT ASPECTS

The horizontal and vertical alignment proposed by the Preferred Bidder was

compared with the Record of Decision (RoD) alignment. In the majority of

circumstances the horizontal alignment (though slightly wider at the surface)

remains unchanged. Where the Preferred Bidder’s horizontal alignment does vary

more substantially from the RoD alignment (route variants), this is being

considered through separate Regulation 9(3) amendment applications to be

submitted to GDACE early in 2006.

In most instances the visual influence of the Preferred Bidder’s vertical alignment

is unchanged, with negligible difference when compared to the RoD alignment.

However, as per the evaluation below, there are specific sections of the alignmentwhere there is a marked improvement in the landscape and visual amenity, such

as deeper cut sections, especially in those areas illustrating a sensitive land use

such as residential and institutional land uses.

Similarly, sections of the Preferred Bidder’s alignment have been identified where

the potential impact on the landscape and visual quality of the receiving

environment and community would be more substantial. This is the result of the

Preferred Bidder’s alignment being raised on fill through areas of sensitive landuse. As evaluated, an increase in height of 2 meters above the approved RoD

alignment could have a negative effect on visual (and noise) influence. In most

instances a variation of 2,5 meters or more will have a negative visual influence.

7.3 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

The approach to the evaluation has been to consider the RoD alignment and the

Preferred Bidder’s alignment per kilometre chainage. Each section is evaluated in

terms of its potential to influence the landscape and visual amenity. Where the






impact has been positive it has been indicated as such, and where the impact has

been negative it has been similarly highlighted.

The impact has been categorised with respect to “Impact Change” as follows:

Adverse:

Substantial change to the visual amenity. Substantial change is a raised vertical

elevation of 2,5 meters and higher in residential and or sensitive land use areas.

Negligible:

Minimal or insignificant change to the visual influence. The visual influence in

industrial areas is seen as negligible due to the generally low quality of the

landscape and visual amenity, and the ability of the environment to more easily

absorb the potential impacts.

Beneficial :

Very little (insignificant) to no change or the alignment is now deeper (or

remains) in cut or tunnel.



Regulation 9(3) Application for the Amendment of the Gautrain Record of Decision, Dated 25 April 2004:Minor Route Amendment


7.4 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE MINOR VERTICAL ALIGNMENT CHANGES

Section Park Station – Sandton Station

Kilometre

Chainage

Reference

RoD Alignment Description Preferred Bidder

Alignment Description

Impact Descripti

Comments

1741.77 – 1772.28 The RoD alignment is in

tunnel

Preferred Bidder alignment is

in a deeper tunnel than ROD

alignment

Preferred Bidder Al

in tunnel structure

approved alignmen

16 meters. No adv

impact.

1772.28 – 1663.62 The RoD alignment is still in

tunnel structure

Preferred Bidder’s alignment

is in shallower tunnel than

RoD alignment till cut and

cover section where it meets

the RoD alignment

Preferred Bidder’s

is still in tunnel str

above RoD alignme

20m. No adverse





1663.62 – 1663.11 RoD alignment is in cut and

cover


in higher cut and cover than

RoD alignment


is 1 meter shallowe

alignment. No adv

impact

1663.11 – 1578.01 The RoD alignment remains in

tunnel

Preferred Bidder alignment

remains in tunnel


varies in depth, sta

deeper (by up to 8

the RoD approved

and at 1606.55 bec

shallower by up to

the RoD alignment

before the Sandton

No adverse impact





Section Sandton Station – Midrand Station

Kilometre

Chainage

Reference

RoD Alignment

Description

Preferred Bidder


Impact Descripti

Comments

10450.00-10660.00 Cut and cover to Sandton

Station

2m shallower than ROD

alignment

No adverse impact

10660.00-11075.00

and

14360.00-15260.00

Alignment in tunnel Preferred Bidder alignment

shallower by 2m than

approved RoD alignment, but

remaining in tunnel

Preferred Bidder al

remains in tunnel.

impact.

11075.00-14360.00

(Sandton Variant

Alignment)





15260.00-15390.00 RoD alignment is in a cut and

cover section at the interface

between the tunnel and

above ground alignment

The Preferred Bidder

alignment is at a shallower

level than the RoD alignment

Preferred Bidder al

meters above appr

alignment. No adv

as no visual differe

RoD alignment.

15390.00-17160.00

(Marlboro Variant

Alignment)

17160.00-18120.00 RoD alignment aboveground

on viaduct, then entering cut

till 18120.00


completely in cut till 18120.00

An improvement to

amenity compared

alignment.

18120.00-18640.00 RoD alignment on fill Preferred Bidder alignment on

fill that is 2 meters higher

than RoD alignment

The surrounding la

industrial and the r

alignment will not c

the existing visual

value.





18640.00-19760.00 RoD alignment in cut Preferred Bidder alignment

similarly in cut, but deeper

than the RoD alignment by up

to 2 meters

The Preferred Bidd

is deeper in cut tha

alignment by up to

No adverse impact

19760.00-21600.00 RoD alignment on fill and

bridge structure over water

course


deviates from RoD alignment

by a maximum increased

height of up to 0.5-1 meter

Marginal increase i

alignment height.

impact.

21600.00-22440.00 RoD alignment in cut Preferred Bidder alignment in

cut, below the RoD alignment.

No adverse impact

22440.00-24280.00 The RoD alignment is on fill

and viaduct structure over

prominent road system


on fill and viaduct structure.

Height above RoD alignment

averages approx. 4.5 meters

A more substantial

change to the RoD

Where the alignme

small holding area,

will be required, to

impact.





24280.00-26240.00 The RoD alignment is in cut The Preferred Bidder

alignment is in cut and follows

the RoD alignment closely

Negligible visual im

over the extent of

26240.00-26640.00 The RoD alignment is in cut. The Preferred Bidder

alignment is on marginal fill of

0.5 to 1 meter in height

The fill is negligible

but the change of t

alignment now exp

cut to above groun

substantial variatio

26640.00-27760.00 Alignment in cut Alignment in deeper cut No adverse impact





Section Midrand Station - Hatfield Station

Kilometre

Chainage

Reference

RoD Alignment Description Preferred Bidder


Impact Description

Comments

28.104-28.800 RoD alignment on fill Preferred Bidder alignment

on fill approx. 1 meter

below RoD alignment

No additional impact.


in cut, but surfacing at

30.750.00

No adverse impact, b

change in the alignme

it surfaces from cut to

level is a substantial v


close to natural ground

level and marginal fill of

0.5-1 meter

Visual influence is mo

substantial when com

approved RoD alignm

use in area close to K

largely commercial an

industrial. Negligible





31.550-33.250 RoD alignment is on fill and

viaduct


sits on increased fill on the

southern approach to the

viaduct by up to 4 meters.

Viaduct and northern fill is

considerably lower than

RoD alignment by 4-4.5

meters

The impact of the fill

southern approach is

substantial. However

remainder of the Pref

Bidder alignment is lo

height.

33.250-34.450 RoD alignment is in cut Preferred Bidder alignment

is in cut

Alignments are simila

34.450-35.800 RoD alignment is on fill with

bridge structures

Variant alignment is on fill

with an increase in the

vertical alignment of about

2-2.5 meters

Negligible impact.

35.800-37.100 Alignment in cut, fill and

viaduct

Alignment in cut, fill and

viaduct

Alignments are simila

37.100-37.500 Alignment in cut Alignment in cut Alignments are simila





37.500-38.900 Alignment in cut Preferred Bidder alignment

exits cut at 38.200 and

follows natural ground level

Visual impact differen

substantial. Land use

not sensitive – overa

impact on landscape

quality is negligible.

38.900-42.600 RoD alignment in cut and fill Preferred Bidder alignment

in cut and fill. Variant

alignment follows RoD

alignment till 40.100 from

where the vertical

alignment gradually

increases to a height of

about 2.5 meters above

RoD alignment


passes through undev

commercial / industri

Land uses are not sen

the visual quality and

character will not be

42.600-48.000

(Centurion Variant

Alignment)





48.00-51.200 RoD alignment traverses the

SANDF property on fill


is on fill at a varying

vertical alignment of

between 0.5 and 8m below

the RoD alignment. The

Preferred Bidder may

choose to utilise a viaduct

structure here if the

dolomitic ground warrants

this

Impact is an improve

51.200-52.800 RoD alignment in substantial

cut


alignment is in deeper cut,

averaging between 5-10m

deeper which will influence

the footprint of the cutting.

Visual influence of the

cutting will be negligi

52.800-54.000 ROD alignment in fill with

viaduct structure over the

R28 off-ramp at Eeufees Road

Variant alignment largely

follows the RoD alignment

with very little influence

Negligible impact.





54.000-56.200

(Salvokop Variant

Alignment)

56.400-59.500

(Pretoria Variant

Alignment)





Section Marlboro Station – JIA Station

Kilometre

Chainage

Reference

RoD Alignment

Description

Preferred Bidder


Impact Descripti

Comments

0.00-880.00

(Marlboro Route

Variant)

880,00-10020.00 The RoD alignment follows

the receiving topography

with a series of cut and fill

sections, with bridge

structures at Ardeer Road,

Centenary Way, Antwerp

Road, Pressburg Road, and

Modderfontein Road


alignment deviates from the

RoD alignment in being in

deeper cut over the initial

sections of the alignment. It

closely follows the vertical

alignment of the RoD

alignment from 2120.00 to

the approach to Ardeer Road,

where it is considerably lower

by up to 6 meters. Between

Antwerp Road and Pressburg

Road, it is in less cut (less

Sections of the var

alignment which ar

more exposed than

alignment are in lo

sensitivity landscap

land uses. The vis

landscape quality i

be negligible.





landscape impact) and is

raised by 4 meters on

average at the Centenary

Way / Pressburg Road

intersection. It then follows

the RoD alignment to

10020.00

10020.00-10690.0 RoD alignment crosses the

Kelvin rail siding and

Zuurfontein road on a

viaduct, with fill adjacent to

the residential

neighbourhood


alignment follows the RoD

alignment but with a raised

vertical elevation of 2 meters

The impact in close

of the residential a

be substantial if no

adequately mitigat

10690.00-12400.00 The RoD alignment is in cut Preferred Bidder alignment is

in cut and follows the RoD

alignment. There is a

variation of 1-2 meters

between the two alignments,

in terms of grade difference

The impacts are ne

Screening mitigatio

provided alongside

area on approach t

JIA alignment.





12400.00-JIA

(JIA Variant

Alignment)





8. HERITAGE ISSUES

(Len van Schalkwyk, Debbie Whelan and Beth Wahl, eThembeni Cultural Heritage)

8.1 Background

As a result of amended station footprints at Park, Rosebank and Sandton Stations

on the Preferred Bidder’s alignment, a number of heritage issues have arisen.

It will be necessary to demolish the Technical College on Smit Street in

Braamfontein (above the Park Station tunnel portal) and 2 houses on Oxford Road

(Rosebank Station) older than 60 years. This requires the necessary

investigations and approval from SAHRA to do so. Included in the heritage

investigations for completeness are the office block in Braamfontiein, another

office building in Rosebank, as well as the low-rise segment of the Sandton Civic

centre at Sandton Station that will also have to be demolished. The additional

tunnel shaft to be sunk at Mushroom Farm Park in Sandton (to prevent traffic

problems in Sandton during construction) has also been checked for heritage

value.

A draft report (Appendix B) has been submitted to SAHRA for consideration by the

SAHRA Committee in December 2005. Further relevant information is being

collected in the meantime to supplement this draft report and assist the SAHRA

Committee in reaching a decision.

The Bombela Consortium is also collecting relevant information for SAHRA in

terms of the ROD requirements for siting tunnel emergency evacuation shafts. It

must be emphasised that in terms of Bombela’s proposal, ventilation shafts will

only be required at the stations where the line is in tunnel. Emergency evacuation

shafts (a small area housing an approximately 4x4x4m structure and an access

drive for emergency vehicles) will be sited about every 1 km above the tunnel.

These shafts are sealed at the foot and top of the shaft (no noise from the tunnel)

and are only opened in an emergency in the tunnel, when emergency personnel

cannot access trapped passengers via the tunnel from the stations.

The proposed sites for the emergency access shafts are:

The eastern corner (road reserve) of Clarendon Place and Yettah Road in Hillbrow.

Adjacent to the access road into the Wilds from Houghton Drive.

A vacant stand north-east of the corner of Riveira and Oxford Roads in Riviera.

A car park of a business on the corner of Oxford Road and 9th Street in Houghton.

The south-eastern corner (road reserve) of Cradock and Bompas Roads in

Dunkeld.

The south-western corner (road reserve) of Melville and 1st Roads in Hyde Park.

The entrance to the Inandas complex on Rivonia Road in Sandton.





9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

A media conference was conducted on 26 October 2005 at the Gautrain Project Office in

order to commence the process of communicating the details regarding all the proposed

amendments to the approved route alignment to the media and to the public.

The following day an advert informing the public of the proposed changes to the alignment

and the process to be followed was published in the Beeld, Sowetan, Pretoria News and

The Star Newspapers. On 2 November the advert was published in the Midrand Reporter

and on 4 November, it was published in the Rekord (Centurion and East), Sandton

Chronicle and the Alex News. The advert provided points of contact to obtain further

information. A copy of the advert is attached for information in Appendix C.

The advert made reference to the website www.gautrain-env.co.za which has been

established to provide further information to all stakeholders. Relevant public documents

are placed on the website and interested and affected parties (I&APs) are able to access

contact information, register as I&APs and provide comments through the website.

A Background Information Document (BID) which describes the proposed changes to the

alignment in more detail was distributed during the second week of November 2005 to all

registered I&APs, together with a comment sheet inviting I&APs to submit details of any

issues and concerns. The aim of this document was to provide a brief outline of the

proposed amendments to the alignment, details regarding the variant alignments,

introduce the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) process, and an explanation on howI&APs can become involved in the process. The document has also been placed on the

website to allow for electronic access, and more comprehensive distribution. A copy of the

BID is attached as Appendix D.

Public consultations have formed an essential component of the environmental

investigations carried out for the minor route amendments. In addition to the advertising

and media release described above, over 20 focus group meetings have been held with all

the key stakeholders and communities with whom the environmental team interacted

during the original EIA on those sections of the route where the minor route amendments

are proposed. The minutes of these meetings will be included in an Addendum to this

report, to be compiled for GDACE, together with any comments received on this draft

report and the environmental team’s responses, once the 14 day comment period has

elapsed. All three Metropolitan Councils (City of Johannesburg, Tshwane and Ekurhuleni)

have also been addressed about the minor route amendments and their comments noted.

In addition, SAHRA has been informed about the heritage issues associated with revised

station footprints and those buildings that will need to be demolished.

Table 9.1 lists the specialist studies and focus group meetings conducted for this report.





TABLE 9.1: MINOR ROUTE AMENDMENTS

Special Studies: Focus Group Meetings:

• Noise (Derek Cosjin, Jongens,

Keet and Associates

• Vibration (Prof Wikus van Niekerk,

Stellenbosch University)

• Visual (Thomas van Viegen)

• Geohydrology (Reinie Meyer,

Environmentek, CSIR)

• Fauna and Flora (Clayton Cook)

• Heritage (eThembeni Cultural

Heritage)

Park Station – Rosebank

• Braamfontein Technical College (x2)

• Roedean School

• Local Councillors and Killarney, Houghton, Parkwood and

Saxonwold Community Representatives

Rosebank – Sandton• Local Councillors and Rosebank, Melrose, Dunkeld, Hyde

Park and Inanda Community Representatives

Sandton – Marlboro

• Atholl and RESTOA Community Representative

• Local Councillor and Sandton Community Representatives

• Marlboro Gardens Community Representatives

Marlboro – Midrand

• Triangle Communities Representatives and Mia Group

• President Park and Glen Austin Ext 3 Community

Representative

Midrand – Centurion

• Glen Austin Community Representatives

• Randjesfontein Community Representatives

• Samrand Area Businesses

Centurion – Pretoria

• SANDF

Marlboro– Rhodesfield

• Linbro Park and Thornhill/Lakeside Community

Representatives and Linbro Park Business Park.

• AECI/Heartland Properties

• Local Councillor and Rhodesfield, Cresslawn, Esther Park

Community Representatives

• Rhodesfield Residents (Glenfield and Diana Court

Complexes)

Authorities

• City of Johannesburg, Tshwane and Ekurhuleni Metropolitan

Councils (Environmental Departments), SAHRA and

Gauteng Heritage Agency (meeting and site visit)





It should be noted that a widening of the rail reserve was not supported by the

environmental team in the section of the rail line in Randjesfontein south of Olifansfontein

Road to prevent further loss of bridle trails in this area. Similarly, a widening of the rail

reserve to the south near Esther Park was also not supported to protect the Red Data

plant species in the vicinity.

Traffic studies carried out for the EIA in 2002-03 have been updated by Bombela and

submitted to the three Metropolitan Councils, along with proposals for road closures and

traffic diversions during construction. These will be considered in terms of the Local

Government Ordinance. The City of Johannesburg has requested public comment (until 2

December 2005) on the proposed road closures and traffic diversions that will be required

to commence with initial preparatory works on the tunnel shafts in January 2006.

Feedback will be incorporated into the Initial Works EMP that is currently in the public

domain for comment until 12 December 2005.

The EMP process to further develop the draft EMP contained in the original EIA also

commenced at the end of October. The Bombela environmental team developing the EMP

accompanied the environmental team interacting with I&APs on the minor route

amendments to all the focus group meetings. The EMP process was explained and a

Revision 2 EMP has been issued and comments received for updating and submission to

GDACE for approval on 2 December 2005. The Draft Final EMP will be developed early in

2006.

The engagement with I&APs since late October 2005 on the minor route amendments hasnot led to any groundswell opposition to the proposed changes. Most feedback has been

centred around the commencement of the initial works in January 2006 and how traffic

and noise impacts will be managed during construction though the EMP process.

The areas of most concern raised during consultations on the minor route amendments

revolved around issues of access and the implications of an adjusted vertical alignment or

wider rail reserve on planned or existing developments. Such issues have been raised in

Midrand (Mia Group, Glen Austin and Samrand businesses), in Modderfontein (AECI) and

at Linbro Park. These will be investigated further during the comment period on this

report.

A number of comments were also received around the acquisition of land for the rail

reserve through the Gauteng Transport Infrastructure Act process. Many property owners,

particularly in Ekurhuleni, are wanting certainty about when and how they will be

compensated for the loss of their property.





10. CONCLUSION

The minor amendments proposed to the Gautrain route alignment approved in the RoD of

2004 investigated in this report largely entail changes to the station footprints, the vertical

alignment of the route (in the tunnel and above ground sections of the route) and/or a

slightly wider rail reserve (above ground sections of the route only).

The rationale for these changes are mainly the result of design, construction and

operational advantages foreseen by Bombela (in the case of the vertical alignment

changes), the ability to optimise the final design and allow for the movement of cut and fill

material during construction (in the case of a wider rail reserve) or amendments to the

station footprints (Park, Rosebank and Sandton Stations) as a result of current and

potential future operational improvements, unforeseen constraints or after consultations

with the City of Johannesburg.

It should be noted that the minor amendments to the Gautrain route are already

extensively covered by the specialist investigations undertaken for the original EIA, and

thus the information contained in the original EIA report remains important as input to

assessing any change, if any, in impact.

The minor amendments to the original RoD alignment proposed by the Preferred Bidder for

the Gautrain Rapid Rail Link are not anticipated to result in any significant changes to the

vibration, noise, geohydrological, ecological or visual impacts, or to the findings in the

specialist studies contained in the EIA report. The specialists are of the opinion that the

mitigation measures provided in the original studies or updated for this report will be

adequate to address impacts associated with the minor amendments.



APPENDIX A:

REVISED POSITIONING OF NOISE MITIGATION

MEASURES FOR MINOR ROUTE AMENDMENTS



GAUTRAIN RAPID RAIL LINK

REVISED NOISE MITIGATING MEASURES

The following “diagrammatic tables” have been prepared to indicate the type and position of possible

appropriate noise mitigating measures that could be implemented along the Johannesburg – Pretoria

(JP) Line and Sandton – Airport (SA) Line railway corridors. These tables should be read as plans.

They are set out so as to indicate increasing kilometre distances from the lower to the upper section of

the page namely from south (Johannesburg) to north (Pretoria) for the JP Line and from west (Sandton)

to east (JIA) for the SA Line. The sections plotted are for the Bidder Alignment. The figures must be

treated as being schematic and not always strictly to scale.

Note that the measures indicated are typical ones and are based on the train details used and the

findings of the noise impact study. Once the final design of the train system is complete, theappropriate detailed mitigating measures will in turn be designed. As the noise impact assessment

used a very conservative approach it is likely that there will be some adjustments to some of the

measures indicated.

For certain sections of the Bidder alignment, where significant changes in the alignment (route variants)

are being re-investigated by the Bidder, the mitigating measures along these sections are not indicated

in this document. These sections are:

i) The section of the JP Line through Centurion from John Vorster Drive to just west of the National

Road (Ben Schoeman) N14 freeway.

ii) The section of the JP Line on the southern approach to Pretoria Station from the crossing of the

National Road N14 freeway to Pretoria Station.

iii) The section of the JP Line from Pretoria Station to Hatfield Station.

iv) The section of the SA Line on the approach to Johannesburg International Airport (from west of

Rhodesfield).



The details of the symbols used in the “table diagrams” are as follows:

Symbol Description

F Cross-section in fill

C Cross-section in cuttingT Cross-section in tunnel

G Cross-section at grade

C/C Cross-section in cut and cover construction

S Track on structure (viaduct)

St Station

Gautrain track on surface (grade, fill and cutting)

Gautrain track in tunnel (T)

Gautrain track on structure

Gautrain track in cut-and-cover construction (C/C)

2,5 metre high wall or earth berm. In cutting sections barrier to be at least 4m high

from track level

4 metre wall or earth berm

-x-x-x-x-x-x- Property boundary

ٱ Mitigating measure

++++++++++ Spoornet railway line



MITIGATING MEASURESSECTION: JP LINE (00km00 to 5km00) BIDDER ALIGNMENT

DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATING MEASURE

ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

SectLeft of the Tracks

L R Right of Tracks

5km00 T

4km80 T

4km60 T

4km40 T

4km20 T

4km00 T

3km80 T

3km60 T

3km40 T

3km20 T

3km00 T

2km80 T

2km60 T

2km40 T

2km20 T

2km00 T

1km80 T

1km60 T

1km40 T

1km20 T

1km00 T

0km80 T

0km60 T

0km40 T

0km20 G

0km00 G St St

__________________ Oxford Road

_________________

________________

TUNNEL ENTRANCE ٱ Treat enhancement effects

with sound absorbent liningfor short distance into tunnel

________________ Eastwold Road/Riviera Road

________________ M1 Freeway

_________________ Carse O Gowrie Road

TUNNEL SECTION: ٱ Measures at ventilation shafts

(only at stations):

• Lining with sound absorbentmaterial

• Damping of fans

• Architectural treatment of outlet structures

PARK STATION

JOHANNESBURG

Legend:

• Cross-section : T = Tunnel; F = Fill; S = Structure; G = Grade; C = Cutting, C/C = Cut & cover



MITIGATING MEASURES

SECTION: JP LINE (5km00 to 10km00) BIDDER ALIGNMENT


ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

Sect

Left of the TracksL R

Right of Tracks

10km00 T

9km80 T

9km60 T

9km40 T

9km20 T

9km00 T

8km80 T

8km60 T

8km40 T

8km20 T

8km00 T

7km80 T

7km60 T

7km40 T7km20 T

7km00 T

6km80 T

6km60 T

6km40 T

6km20 T St St

6km00 T

5km80 T

5km60 T

5km40 T

5km20 T

5km00 T

__________________ Melville Road

▼

▲ Under Melville Road

___________________

Under Oxford Road▼

__________________

__________________

________________ Rivonia Road


(only at stations):


• Damping of fans

• Architectural treatment of

outlet structures

________________ Bompas Road

_________________

Jellicoe Road

ROSEBANK STATION

_________________ Bolton Road/Glenhove Road

Legend:

• Cross-section : T = Tunnel; F = Fill; S = Structure; G = Grade; C = Cutting, C/C = Cut & cover.



MITIGATING MEASURES



ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

Sect


Right of Tracks

15km00 T

14km80 T

14km60 T

14km40 T

14km20 T

14km00 T

13km80 T

13km60 T

13km40 T

13km20 T

13km00 T

12km80 T

12km60 T

12km40 T12km20 T

12km00 T

11km80 T

11km60 T

11km40 T

11km20 T

11km00 T

10km80 T

10km60 T St St

10km40 T

10km20 T

10km00 T

______________________

_____________________

_______________________

______________________ M1 Freeway

______________________ KatherineStreet


(only at stations):


• Damping of fans• Architectural treatment of

outlet structures

______________________ Grayston Drive

SANDTON STATION

Legend:

• Cross-section : T = Tunnel; F = Fill; S = Structure; G = Grade; C = Cutting.



MITIGATING MEASURES



ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

Sect


Right of Tracks

20km00 F

19km80 F

19km60 C

19km40 C

19km20 C

19km00 C

18km80 C

18km60 C

18km40 F

18km20 F

18km00 C

17km80 C

17km60 C

17km40 C 17km20 C

17km00 C

16km80 F

16km60 F St St

16km40 F

16km20 F

16km00 F

15km80 C

15km60 T

15km40 T

15km20 T

15km00 T

▲ MODDERFONTEIN LAND

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

_____________________

MARLBORO GARDENS

▼

ٱ

4m wall

ٱ 2,5m wall

TUNNEL ENTRANCE ٱ Treat enhancement effects with

sound absorbent lining for short distance into tunnel



_______________________ N3 Freeway

MARLBORO STATION

MARLBORO GARDENS

▼ ٱ 4m wall

TUNNEL SECTION: ٱ Measures at ventilation shafts:


• Damping of fans

• Architectural treatment of outlet structures

Legend:




MITIGATING MEASURES



ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

Sect


Right of Tracks

30km00 C

29km80 C

29km60 C

29km40 C

29km20 C

29km00 C

28km80 F

28km60 F

28km40 F

28km20 F

28km00 F

27km80 F St St

27km60 C

27km40 C27km20 C

27km00 C

26km80 C

26km60 F

26km40 F

26km20 C

26km00 C

25km80 C

25km60 C

25km40 C

25km20 C

25km00 C

▲ GLEN AUSTIN AH

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

__________________

▲ GRAND CENTRAL AIRPORT

______________________

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-GLEN AUSTIN AH X3

▼

ٱ No wall on western side


ٱ 2,5m wall

▲ GLEN AUSTIN AH


____________________ New Road

MIDRAND STATION

▲ GRAND CENTRAL AIRPORT

______________________

Dale Road -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

GLEN AUSTIN AH X3

▼

ٱ 4m wall or earth berm

ٱ 2,5m wall or earth berm

Legend:




MITIGATING MEASURES



ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

Sect


Right of Tracks

35km00 F

34km80 F

34km60 F

34km40 C

34km20 C

34km00 C

33km80 C

33km60 C

33km40 C

33km20 F

33km00 F

32km80 F

32km60 F

32km40 F32km20 F

32km00 F

31km80 F

31km60 F

31km40 C

31km20 C

31km00 C

30km80 F

30km60 C

30km40 C

30km20 C

30km00 C

ٱ No measures necessary

__________________

▲ INDUSTRIAL LAND-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

RANDJESFONTEIN AH

▼

ٱ 2,5 wall or earth berm

__________________


ٱ 4m wall

▲ RANDJESFONTEIN AH

__________________ -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

GLEN AUSTIN AH

▼


________________


ٱ No measures necessary

_________________ Samrand Road(Oliefenhoutbosch Road)

▲ INDUSTRIAL LAND


RANDJESFONTEIN AH

▼

ٱ 2,5m wall or earth berm

__________________ Road R562


ٱ 4m wall

▲ RANDJESFONTEIN AH

___________________ Olifantsfontein Road -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

GLEN AUSTIN AH

▼

ٱ 4m wall

ٱ 4m wall or earth berm____________________ George Road


ٱ 2,5m wall

Legend:




MITIGATING MEASURES



ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

Sect


Right of Tracks

40km00 F

39km80 C

39km60 C

39km40 C

39km20 F

39km00 F

38km80 C

38km60 C

38km40 C

38km20 C

38km00 C

37km80 C

37km60 C

37km40 C37km20 C

37km00 F

36km80 F

36km60 F

36km40 C

36km20 C

36km00 C

35km80 C

35km60 F

35km40 F

35km20 F

35km00 F

▲ UNDEVELOPED AREAINDUSTRIAL LAND

▼

_________________

▲ INDUSTRIAL LAND

▲ UNDEVELOPED AREA

INDUSTRIAL LAND

▼

____________________

Brakfontein Road

▲ INDUSTRIAL LAND

Legend:




MITIGATING MEASURES



ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

Sect


Right of Tracks

45km00 S

44km80 F

44km60 F

44km40 F

44km20 S

44km00 S

43km80 S

43km60 S

43km40 S

43km20 S

43km00 C

42km80 C

42km60 C

42km40 C42km20 C

42km00 F

41km80 F

41km60 F

41km40 F

41km20 F

41km00 F

40km80 F

40km60 F

40km40 F

40km20 F

40km00 G

Centurion area being reassessed

by Bidder

________________

_______________ N1 Freeway

Railway line parallel andadjacent to N1 Freeway▼

◄BRAKFONTEIN INTERCHANGE

▲ Railway line parallel andadjacent to N1 Freeway

___________________

John Vorster Drive

___________________ N1 Freeway


HIGHVELD TECHNOPARK

▼

▲ HIGHVELD TECHNOPARK

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-UNDEVELOPED LAND

▼

Legend:

• Cross-section : T = Tunnel; F = Fill; S = Structure; G = Grade; C = Cutting; C/C = Cut & cover.



MITIGATING MEASURES



ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

Sect


Right of Tracks

50km00 F

49km80 F

49km60 F

49km40 F

49km20 F

49km00 F

48km80 F

48km60 F

48km40 F

48km20 F

48km00 G

47km80 S

47km60 S

47km40 S 47km20 S

47km00 S

46km80 F

46km60 F

46km40 F

46km20 F

46km00 S

45km80 S

45km60 S

45km40 S St St

45km20 S

45km00 S

_______________

▲ MILITARY LAND


LYTTELTON AH

▼

◄CLUBVIEW

______________ N14 Freeway

______________

Centurion area being re-assessed byBidder

▲ LYTTELTON AH

______________

CENTURION CBD

______________

______________

________________ Road M10 (K103)

▲ Railway line adjacent

to N14 Freeway-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

LYTTELTON AH

▼

________________ N14 Freeway

________________ Rabie Street

▲ LYTTELTON AH

_________________

Gerhard Street

CENTURION STATION

_________________ West Avenue_________________ Lenchen Street

Legend:




MITIGATING MEASURES



ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

Sect


Right of Tracks

55km00 C

54km80 C

54km60 C

54km40 C

54km20 C

54km00 C

53km80 F

53km60 F

53km40 F

53km20 F

53km00 F

52km80 F

52km60 C

52km40 C52km20 C

52km00 C

51km80 C

51km60 F

51km40 C

51km20 F

51km00 F

50km80 F

50km60 F

50km40 S

50km20 F

50km00 F

Southern approach to Pretoria Station

being re-assessed by Bidder

________________ N14 Freeway

PARKLAND (UNDEVELOPED)

▼

▲ PARKLAND (UNDEVELOPED)

________________ -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

MILITARY LAND

▼

________________

________________ N14 Freeway

PARKLAND (UNDEVELOPED)

▼

▲ PARKLAND (UNDEVELOPED)

_________________ Eeufees Road -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

MILITARY LAND

▼

▲ Railway line adjacent

to N14 Freeway

___________________ Snake Valley Road(Road M24)

Legend:




MITIGATING MEASURES

SECTION: SA LINE (0km00 to 3km60) BIDDER ALIGNMENT


ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

Sect


Right of Tracks

3km60 F

3km40 F

3km20 F

3km00 F

2km80 C

2km60 C

2km40 C

2km20 C

2km00 C

1km80 C

1km60 C

1km40 C

1km20 C

1km00 C 0km80 C

0km60 C

0km40 F St St

0km20 F

0km00 F



____________

ٱ 2,5m earth berm or wall

LINBRO PARK AH ______________ -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

MODDERFONTEIN AH ____________


____________

MARLBORO GARDENS

▼



_____________

Douglas Road

ٱ 4m earth berm or wall

ٱ 2,5m earth berm or wall

___________ LINBRO PARK AH First Road -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

___________ MODDERFONTEIN AH

Third Road -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

____________ N3 Freeway

MARLBORO STATION

ٱ 4m wall

MARLBORO GARDENS

▼

Legend:




MITIGATING MEASURES



ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

Sect


Right of Tracks

8km80

8km60 C

8km40 F

8km20 F

8km00 F

7km80 F

7km60 F

7km40 F

7km20 F

7km00 F

6km80 C

6km60 C

6km40 C

6km20 G

6km00 F5km80 F

5km60 F

5km40 F

5km20 F

5km00 F

4km80 F

4km60 F

4km40 F

4km20 F

4km00 F

3km80 F

3km60 F


◄ESTHER PARK

________________

________________

________________

◄MODDERFONTEIN FACTORY AREA


◄MODDERFONTEIN VILLAGE

__________________

Modderfontein Road

__________________ Centenary Road

__________________ INDUSTRIAL ► Centenary Road


THORNHILL►

LAKESIDE►


Legend:




MITIGATING MEASURES



ExtentKm

Distance

Cross

Sect


Right of Tracks

13km80 S

13km60 S

13km40 S St St

13km20 S

13km00 S

12km80 S

12km60 F

12km40 F

12km20 C

12km00 C

11km80 C

11km60 C

11km40 C

11km20 C

11km00 C10km80 C

10km60 F

10km40 F

10km20 F

10km00 F

9km80 F

9km60 F

9km40 F

9km20 C

9km00 C

8km80 C

8km60 C

◄RHODESFIELD HIGH SCHOOL

__________________

Railway line +++++++++++++++++++++++

ٱ 4m wall

▲ RHODESFIELD

__________________ INDUSTRIAL ▼

▲ INDUSTRIAL (SPARTAN)

_________________

CRESSLAWN▼

ٱ 4m wall

▲ CRESSLAWN

_________________ INDUSTRIAL (SPARTAN)

▼

Access to JIA being re-assessed by

Bidders

RHODESFIELD STATION

_____________

Anson Street ++++++++++++++++++++++

INDUSTRIAL

▼

______________ Western Road

_______________

Chestnut Street

_________________

Zuurfontein Road

▲ INDUSTRIAL (SPARTAN)

Legend:




APPENDIX B:

DRAFT HERITAGE REPORT TO SAHRA ON STATION AND

TUNNEL PORTAL/SHAFT PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY THE

PREFERRED BIDDER ALIGNMENT



APPENDIX C:

ADVERT FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

gautrain - minor amendments _01 12 05_ no 6

Documents