lott ottershof chicken farm arm basi basic...

PROPOSED E

LOCATED ON

STEENBOK

LOTT

BASI

DRAFTDEA&

D EXPANSION OF A CHICKEN

ON PORTION 5 OF THE FARM

BOKS RIVIER NO. 487, CALEDO

EFRC AGRI OPERATIONS PTY LTD

AUGUST 2019

OTTERSHOF CHICKEN FARM

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

RAFT REPORT FOR COMMENEA&DP REF: 16/3/3/1/E4/5/1057/19

EN FARM

RM KLEIN

EDON.

ARM

ORT

MENT /19

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS

IN TERMS OFTHE NATIONA

OF 1998)AND ENVIRO

PROJECT TITLE

Proposed expansion of Steenboks Rivier No. 48free range chicken pens

REPORT TYPE CATEGORY Pre-Application Basic Assessment Re

applicable)1

Draft Basic Assessment Report2

Final Basic Assessment Report3 or, if a

Revised Basic Assessment Report4 (st

what is not applicable)

Notes:

1. In terms of Regulation 40(3) pote

may be provided with an opport

but must again be provided an o

Competent Authority. The Basic A

to as the “Pre-Application Basic

submission of the application is re

with all the comments received

referred to as the “Final Basic Ass

2. In terms of Regulation 19(1)(b) if

the Draft Basic Assessment Repor

consulted on during the initial pu

rather a “Revised Basic Assessme

30 days, must be submitted to the

MS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – Octob

BASIC

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

NAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AC

IRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGUL

AMENDED)

October 2017

ion of a chicken farm located on Portion No. 487, Caledon. Construction and oper pens.

August 2019

REPORT REFERENCE NUMBER Report (if

16/3/3/6/7/1/E4/5/1021/19

16/3/3/1/E4/5/1057/19 if applicable

strikethrough -

otential or registered interested and affected parties, inc

ortunity to comment on the Basic Assessment Report prior

n opportunity to comment on such reports once an applic

c Assessment Report released for comment prior to submis

sic Assessment Report”. The Basic Assessment Report ma

is referred to as the “Draft Basic Assessment Report”. The B

ed on the report which is submitted to the Competent

ssessment Report”.

f significant changes have been made or significant new

ort , which changes or information was not contained in t

public participation process, then a Final Basic Assessment

ment Report”, which must be subjected to another public

the Competent Authority together with all the comments r

ober 2017 Page 1 of 84

IC ASSESSMENT REPORT

ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 107

ULATIONS, 2014 (AS

ortion 5 of the Farm Klein d operation of 8 additional

BER DATE OF REPORT

February 2019

August 2019

ncluding the Competent Authority,

rior to submission of the application

lication has been submitted to the

ission of the application is referred

ade available for comment after

e Basic Assessment Report together

nt Authority for decision-making is

ew information has been added to

n the Draft Basic Assessment Report

nt Report will not be submitted, but

lic participation process of at least

ts received.

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT IN TERMS OF THE EIA REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) – October 2017 Page 2 of 84

DEPARTMENTAL REFERENCE NUMBER(S)

Pre-application reference number: 16/3/3/6/7/1/E4/5/1021/19

File reference number (EIA): 16/3/3/1/E4/5/1057/19

NEAS reference number (EIA): -

File reference number (Waste): N/A

NEAS reference number (Waste): N/A

File reference number (Air Quality): N/A

NEAS reference number (Air Quality): N/A

File reference number (Other): (Water Use) GA has been submitted to BGCMA , no reference number has been

received to date

NEAS reference number (Other): -


CONTENT AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Note that:

1. The content of the Department’s Circular EADP 0028/2014 (dated 9 December 2014) on the “One Environmental

Management System” and the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) Regulations, 2014 (as amended), any

subsequent Circulars, and guidelines must be taken into account when completing this Basic Assessment Report Form.

2. This Basic Assessment Report is the standard report format which, in terms of Regulation 16(3) of the EIA Regulations, 2014

(as amended) must be used in all instances when preparing a Basic Assessment Report for Basic Assessment applications

for an environmental authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998)

(“NEMA”)and the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended)and/or a waste management licence in terms of the National

Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008) (“NEM:WA”), and/or an atmospheric emission licence

in terms of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004) (“NEM:AQA”)when the

Western Cape Government: Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (“DEA&DP”) is the Competent

Authority/Licensing Authority.

3. This report form is current as of October 2017. It is the responsibility of the Applicant/ Environmental Assessment

Practitioner (“EAP”) to ascertain whether subsequent versions of the report form have been released by the Department.

Visit the Department’s website at http://www.westerncape.gov.za/eadp to check for the latest version of this checklist.

4. The required information must be typed within the spaces provided in the form. The size of the spaces provided is not

necessarily indicative of the amount of information to be provided. The tables may be expanded where necessary.

5. The use of “not applicable” in the report must be done with circumspection. All applicable sections of this report form

must be completed. Where “not applicable” is used, this may result in the refusal of the application.

6. While the different sections of the report form only provide space for provision of information related to one alternative, if

more than one feasible and reasonable alternative is considered, the relevant section must be copied and completed

for each alternative.

7. Unless protected by law, all information contained in, and attached to this report, will become public information on

receipt by the competent authority. If information is not submitted with this report due to such information being

protected by law, the applicant and/or EAP must declare such non-disclosure and provide the reasons for believing that

the information is protected.

8. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, one hard copyand one electronic copy of this report must be submitted

to the Department at the postal address given below or by delivery thereof to the Registry Office of the Department.

Reasonable access to copies of this report must be provided to the relevant Organs of State for consultation purposes,

which may, if so indicated by the Department, include providing a printed copy to a specific Organ of State.

9. This Report must be submitted to the Department and the contact details for doing so are provided below.

10. Where this Department is also identified as the Licensing Authority to decide applications under NEM:WA or NEM:AQA,

the submission of the Report must also be made as follows, for-

• Waste management licence applications, this report must also (i.e., another hard copy and electronic copy) be

submitted for the attention of the Department’s Waste Management Directorate (tel: 021-483-2756 and fax: 021-483-

4425) at the same postal address as the Cape Town Office.

• Atmospheric emissions licence applications, this report must also be (i.e., another hard copy and electronic copy)

submitted for the attention of the Licensing Authority or this Department’s Air Quality Management Directorate (tel:

021 483 2798 and fax: 021 483 3254) at the same postal address as the Cape Town Office.

DEPARTMENTAL DETAILS

CAPE TOWN OFFICE GEORGE REGIONAL OFFICE

REGION 1 (City of Cape Town & West Coast District)

REGION 2 (Cape Winelands District & Overberg District)

REGION 3 (Central Karoo District & Eden District)

Department of Environmental Affairs

and Development Planning

Attention: Directorate: Development

Management (Region 1)

Private Bag X 9086

Cape Town,

8000

Registry Office

1st Floor Utilitas Building

1 Dorp Street,

Cape Town

Queries should be directed to the

Directorate: Development

Management (Region 1) at:

Tel.: (021) 483-5829

Fax: (021) 483-4372





Private Bag X 9086

Cape Town,

8000

Registry Office

1st Floor Utilitas Building

1 Dorp Street,

Cape Town




Tel.: (021) 483-5842

Fax: (021) 483-3633





Private Bag X 6509

George,

6530

Registry Office

4th Floor, York Park Building

93 York Street

George




Tel.: (044) 805-8600

Fax: (044) 805 8650


TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Section Page(s)

Section A: Project Information 7

Section B: Description of the Receiving Environment 14

Section C: Public Participation 23

Section D: Need and Desirability 25

Section E: Details of all the Alternatives considered 29

Section F: Environmental Aspects Associated with the Alternatives 33

Section G: Impact Assessment, Impact Avoidance, Management, Mitigation and Monitoring

Measures 39

Section H: Recommendations of the EAP 58

Section I: Appendices 60

Section J: Declarations 61

ACRONYMS USED IN THIS BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT AND APPENDICES: BAR Basic Assessment Report

CBA Critical Biodiversity Area

DEA National Department of Environmental Affairs

DEA&DP Western Cape Government: Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

DWS National Department of Water and Sanitation

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMPr Environmental Management Programme

ESA Ecological Support Area

HWC Heritage Western Cape

I&APs Interested and Affected Parties

NEMA National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998)

NEM:AQA National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004)

NEM:ICMA National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008 (Act No. 24 of 2008)

NEM:WA National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008)

NHRA National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999)

PPP Public Participation Process


DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT Applicant / Organisation / Organ

of State: EFRC Agri Operations Pty Ltd

Contact person: Jeanne Groenewald

Postal address: PO Box 1176, Grabouw

Telephone: 021-8594816 Postal Code: 7160

Cellular: 0829044838 Fax: N/A

E-mail: [email protected]

DETAILS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER (“EAP”)

Name of the EAP organisation: PHS Consulting

Person who compiled this Report: Nadine Duncan. Reviewed by Paul Slabbert

EAP Reg.No.: 26/05/2009 (Paul Slabbert)

Contact Person (if not author): n/a

Postal address: P O BOX 1752, Hermanus

Telephone: ( 028 )312 1734 Postal Code: 7200

Cellular: 0722314439 Fax: ( 086 )508 3249

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

EAP Qualifications: Nadine Duncan - BSc (L Arch); BSc (Hons) Geography

Paul Slabbert - B Art Et Scien

Please provide details of the lead EAP, including details on the expertise of the lead EAP responsible for the Basic Assessment

process. Also attach his/her Curriculum Vitae to this BAR.

PAUL SLABBERT (Managing Member) graduated from the Potchefstroom University in 1995 with an

honours degree B Art Et Scien. His passion for environmental, heritage, visual & land-use planning

with knowledge of associated management strategies, enables him to facilitate with all role players

to implement workable solutions. His extensive experience in rural and urban conservation, with the

emphasis on environmental impact reporting and management with focus on sustainable

development, enabled him to have various publications. He has hands-on expertise in heritage,

conservation, mining and recreation disciplines, with the emphasis on creating economic and

employment opportunities.

Professional Registration & Membership

• Professional Certified Member of the of the Certification Board for Environmental Impact

Practitioners: Environmental Assessment Practitioners Association of South Africa (EAPSA)

• Professional Certified Member of the Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners

(APHP)

• Corporate Member of the South African Planning Institute (SAPI)

• Professional Member of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)

Nadine Duncan obtained a Bachelor of Science Honours Degree in Geography as well as a

Bachelor of Science Degree in Landscape Architecture- both from the University of Pretoria. With 12

years experience in Impact Assessments and environmental management and a passion for

sustainable development, responsibilities included Project Management, conducting Environmental

Impact Assessments (Scoping/EIA’s & BA’s), Environmental Management Programmes, Public

Participation Process facilitation, Open Space Planning, compilation of Environmental Management


Frameworks and legal reviews. She is proficient in Geographic Information System (GIS) software

and has a good understanding of the laws and regulations relating to air quality, water, biodiversity,

heritage, and waste management in South Africa.

Impact Practitioners & Environmental Planners:

• Environmental Impact Assessments [legislative & process],

• Heritage & Visual Impact Assessments [legislative & process],

• Mining [legislative & process],

• Environmental Management [environmental control, management plans],

• Conservation [management strategies, funding & alien vegetation],

• Land-Use [forward planning, feasibility study, business plan],

• Eco-tourism [trails, birding, recreation, construction, lodging],

• Community [facilitating, public participation, education],

• Water use authorisation (WULA’s, GA’s pollution prevention management plans and

ELU’s);

• Waste management licences;

• Organizers [events, packages, strategic, project management].

Completed Projects and Roles:

• For full list of implemented projects please view at www.phsconsulting.co.za

• For overview of social and community engagement visit

www.africanvisionfoundation.co.za

Advanced Legislative Knowledge:

Providing specialist services and managing and driving projects related to the following legislation:

• National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) and 2017 Regulations;

• Environmental Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989);

• National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999);

• Land Use Planning Ordinance (Ordinance 15 of 1985);

• National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (Act No. 24

of 2008);

• National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act No. 59 of 2008);

• National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (Act No. 39 of 2004);

• Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (Act No. 28 of 2002);

• National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998);

• National Water Services Act (Act 108 of 1997).Refer to Appendix K for Curriculum Vitae.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: Background:

The application for Environmental Authorisation is for the expansion of an existing authorised free-range

chicken rearing facility on Portion 5 of the Klein Steenboks River No. 487, Caledon, consisting of four(4)

authorised double pens. This facility was established post 2009 and due to the growing free range market need

for chicken as a source of protein, the need to expand the current facility was identified.

This project aims to expand the existing facility through building eight (8) new rearing pens.

Environment:

The site consist mainly of cultivated or used farm land on which a range of agricultural activities have been

conducted within the last 10 years which included wheat fields, vegetable cultivation, sheep and cattle

farming. No significant biodiversity impacts are therefore expected owing to the proposed expansion of the

existing operation is on disturbed areas.

Although there are areas on the property where indigenous vegetation occur, these areas have been

excluded from the proposed expansion footprint. The proposed pens will also be located more than 100m

away from all water sources so as to ensure that incidents of water pollution are minimised. Currently no

surface or ground water is polluted by any activity on the property and no waste water from the chicken

houses operations currently enters any storm water or natural aquatic systems. This preventative approach will

be implemented for the expanded operations.

The location of a wetland was confirmed on site by the BGCMA. This wetland area is associated with the dam

centrally located on the property.

BGCMA was uncertain whether a wetland was located in the SE portion of the property in the vicinity of the

existing mortality pits and requested a wetland specialist’s input. The specialist study found no wetland of

significance in that portion of the property.

Cumulative effects of the proposed expansion:

The expansion of the chicken farm will assist in the farm becoming more viable and productive therefore

enhancing the socio-economic benefits for the region in terms of job creation and food security.

Policy: Regional/planning context:

The proposed site is currently zoned as Agriculture 1 which is restricted to farming activities. Consent use for the

existing approved EA pens are in place and the required amendment of the current land use approval will be

addressed by town planners after the EA for the expansion.

The proposed development is in line with the local municipality’s Integrated Development Plan as this plan

promotes the development of micro-enterprises, secondary industries to the agricultural industry and support

for sustainable farming communities.

Activity need and desirability:

The intention is to increase the current production of free range chickens in response to the growing market

need for free range chicken.

Socio-economic:

Additional jobs opportunities will be created during the construction phase as well as 16 permanent jobs.

Alternative 1 (preferred) - refer SDP in Appendix B:

1. Construction of eight (8) new rearing pens of approx. 2025m2 each (known as units 1 to 8) with a total

footprint of approximately 16 200m2; and

2. Shaded free range area next to each pen(135 x15m)

3. Establishment of new internal roads (500 x 4m) to allow access between new and old pens.

The expansion will comprise an approximate total footprint of 18 200m2 within an area already used and zoned

as agricultural, leaving the remaining portion of the farm intact. No indigenous vegetation or watercourses will

be directly impacted on.

It is proposed that the borehole water allocation for the farm be used for the expansion and that internal roads

be reconfigured to gain access to all proposed units on site.


Access will be obtained from an existing public gravel road on the farm, which intersects the R320. There is also

a second public gravel roads leading to the R326 that is in close proximity to the site.

Electricity will be supplied by Eskom via existing infrastructure.

Sewage –the current sewage system is in the form of septic tanks, as no waste water treatment works is located

within close proximity. The development will produce additional sewage due to the increase in workers,

however the current septic tank system is sufficient to handle the increase.

Manure - will be dry sweeped cleaned out and removed to neighbouring vegetable farms for organic fertiliser

as per the current operation. High pressure wash water will be used to clean pens. Any residual water will be

lost through evaporation.

Alternative 2 – refer SDP in Appendix B:

1. Construction of eight (8) new rearing pens of 2025m2 each (known as units 1 to 8) with a total footprint

of approximately 16 200m2; and


The expansion differ from Alt 1 in terms of layout but with the same footprint will comprise an approximate total

footprint of 18 200m2 within an area already zoned as agricultural, leaving the remaining portion of the farm

intact. This Alternative will have some encroachment towards water courses. No indigenous vegetation or

watercourses will be directly impacted on. The location of the western pens, in particular stormwater runoff,

could pose a risk to the watercourse on site due to its close proximity and slope of the site (Refer to Figure 2:

Layout – Alternative 2 Rejected).

It is proposed that the borehole water allocation for the farm be used for the expansion and that internal roads

be reconfigured to gain access to all proposed units on site.

Access will be obtained from an existing public gravel road on the farm, which intersects the R320. There is also

a second public gravel roads leading to the R326 that is in close proximity to the site.






as per the current operation. High pressure wash water will be used to clean pens. Any residual water will be

lost through evaporation.

Alternative 3:

No go. The status quo remains and the property is not developed further. Operations on site continue as at

present and the farm and resources are not optimally utilised to service a growing market, therefore resulting in

an agri unit not optimally contributing to the socio-economic context.


SECTION A: PROJECT INFORMATION

1. ACTIVITY LOCATION

Location of all proposed

sites:

Portion 5 of the Klein Steenboks River No. 487, Caledon.

Caledon District.

Farm/Erf name(s) and

number(s) (including

Portions thereof) for each

proposed site:

Portion 5 of the Klein Steenboks River No. 487, Caledon.

Property size(s) in m2 for

each proposed site: 202.40766 ha

Development footprint

size(s) in m2: Approximately 18 200 m2 (8 pens 135m x 15m; internal roads 500 x 4m)

Surveyor General (SG) 21

digit code for each

proposed site:

C01300000000048700005

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

(a) Is the project a new development?If “NO”, explain:

YES NOX

There is an existing authorised free-range chicken rearing facility on the property, consisting of four

(4) authorised double pens. This facility will be expanded to include 8 new pens.

(b) Provide a detailed description of the scope of the proposed development (project).

This project aims to expand the existing facility through building eight new rearing pens.

Internal roads of approx 4 m – 6m wide (500m x 4m) will be established to allow access between

new and old pens.

Alternative 1 (preferred):

1. Construction of eight (8)new rearing pens of 2025m2 each (known as units 1to 8) with a total

footprint of approximately 16 200m2;

2. Shaded free range area next to each pen(135 x15m); and


The expansion will comprise an approximate total footprint of 18 200m2 within an area already zoned

as agricultural, leaving the remaining portion of the farm intact. No indigenous vegetation or

watercourses will be impacted on.

It is proposed that the borehole water allocation for the farm be used for the expansion and that

internal roads be reconfigured to gain access to all proposed units on site.

Access will be obtained from an existing public gravel road on the farm, which intersects the R320.

There is also a second public gravel roads leading to the R326 that is in close proximity to the site.






as per the current operation. High pressure wash water will be used to clean pens. Any residual water will be lost


through evaporation.

(Refer to Figure 1and Appendix B).

Figure 1: Layout – Alternative 1 (Preferred).

Alternative 2:

3. Construction of eight (8) new rearing pens of 2025m2 each (known as units 1 to 8) with a total



The expansion differ from Alt 1 in terms of layout but with the same footprint will comprise an approximate

total footprint of 18 200m2 within an area already zoned as agricultural, leaving the remaining portion

of the farm intact. Alternative 2 proposes three pens to be located to the west of the watercourse,

pens I and 2 to the north of existing pen A and pen 3 to the south. No indigenous vegetation will be

impacted on. This Alt will have some encroachment towards water courses. The location of the western

pens, in particular stormwater runoff, could pose a risk to the watercourse on site due to its close

proximity and slope of the site (Refer to Figure 2: Layout – Alternative 2 Rejected and Appendix B).

It is proposed that the borehole water allocation for the farm be used for the expansion and that

internal roads be reconfigured to gain access to all proposed units on site.








as per the current operation. High pressure wash water will be used to clean pens. Any residual water will be lost

through evaporation.


Figure 2: Layout – Alternative 2 (Rejected).

Alternative 3:

No go. The status quo remains and the property is not developed further, therefore not utilised

optimally.

Please note: This description must relate to the listed and specified activities in paragraph (d) below.

(c) Please indicate the following periods that are recommended for inclusion in the environmental authorisation:

(i) the period within which commencement must occur,

10 years

(ii) the period for which the environmental authorisation should be

granted and the date by which the activity must have been

concluded, where the environmental authorisation does not include

operational aspects;

10 years

(iii) the period that should be granted for the non-operational aspects of

the environmental authorisation; and

10 years

(iv) the period that should be granted for the operational aspects of the

environmental authorisation.

20years

Please note: The Department must specify the abovementioned periods, where applicable, in an environmental

authorisation. In terms of the period within which commencement must occur, the period must not exceed 10 years and

must not be extended beyond such 10 year period, unless the process to amend the environmental authorisation

contemplated in regulation 32 is followed.

(d) List all the listed activities triggered and being applied for.

Please note: The onus is on the applicant to ensure that all the applicable listed activities are applied for and assessed as

part of the EIA process. Please refer to paragraph (b) above.

EIA Regulations Listing Notices 1 and 3 of 2014 (as amended):

Listed

Activity

No(s):

Describe the relevant Basic

Assessment Activity(ies) in writing as

per Listing Notice 1

(GN No. R. 983)

Describe the portion of the

development that relates to the

applicable listed activity as per the

project description.

Identify if the activity is

development / development and

operational / decommissioning /

expansion / expansion and


operational.

40 The expansion and related operation of facilities for the concentration of poultry, excluding chicks younger than 20 days, where the capacity of the facility will be increased by— (i) more than 1 000 poultry where the facility is situated within an urban area; or (ii) more than 5 000 poultry per facility situated outside an urban area.

Expansion of existing operation for poultry by more than 5 000 poultry per facility outside an urban area.

Expansion and operational.

Listed

Activity

No(s):

Describe the relevant Basic

Assessment Activity(ies) in writing as

per Listing Notice 3

(GN No. R. 985)

Describe the portion of the

development that relates to the

applicable listed activityas per the

project description.

Identify if the activity is

development / development and

operational / decommissioning /

expansion / expansion and

operational.

N/A

Waste management activities in terms of the NEM: WA (GN No. 921):

Category A

Listed

Activity

No(s):

Describe the relevant Category A waste

management activity in writing as per GN No. 921

Describe the portion of the development that relates

to the applicable listed activity as per the project

description

N/A

Note: If any waste management activities are applicable, theListed Waste Management Activities Additional Information

Annexure must be completed and attached to this Basic Assessment Report as Appendix I.

Atmospheric emission activities in terms of the NEM: AQA (GN No. 893):

Listed

Activity

No(s):

Describe the relevant atmospheric emission activity in

writing as per GN No. 893

Describe the portion of the development that relates

to the applicable listed activity as per the project

description.

N/A

(e) Provide details of all components (including associated structures and infrastructure) of the proposed development and

attach diagrams (e.g., architectural drawings or perspectives, engineering drawings, process flowc harts,etc.). SEE SDP IN APPENDIX B for Alternative 1 (preferred)

Buildings

Provide brief description below: YESX NO

Construction of eight (8) new rearing pens of 2025m2 each (known as units 1 to 8) with a total

footprint of approximately 16 200m2. Shaded free range area next to each pen(135 x15m) .

Infrastructure (e.g.,roads, power and water supply/ storage)

Provide brief description below: YESX NO

Establishment of new internal roads with a footprint of approximately 2 000m2 With an average with

of 4-6 m wide (500 x 4m) to allow access between new and old pens.

Processing activities (e.g., manufacturing, storage, distribution)

Provide brief description below: YES NO X

No processing activities on site.

Storage facilities for raw materials and products (e.g., volume and substances to be stored)


No storage on site

Storage and treatment facilities for effluent, wastewater or sewage:

Provide brief description below: YES NO x

The existing sewerage system is in the form of septic tanks and French drains, as no waste treatment

works are within close proximity of the farm. No new septic tanks will be required.


Chicken manure will be collected and removed within seven days and distributed to neighbouring

farmers, to be used as organic fertiliser for vegetable farming as per current practice. After dry

sweeping the washings by high pressure hoses, residual water will be lost through evaporation.

Storage and treatment of solid waste


No chicken manure is stored long term on site. The units are cleaned weekly and the chicken

manure is removed to nearby farms where it is used as fertiliser. There is an existing agreement with a

neighbouring farm in place for the collection of the chicken manure.

Facilities associated with the release of emissions or pollution.

Provide brief description below: YES NOX

No processing or combustion activities on site.

Other activities (e.g., water abstraction activities, crop planting activities) –

Provide brief description below: YES X NO

Water is obtained from two existing boreholes on site. A General Authorisation was issued by the

BGCMA for the extraction of groundwater.

Refer to Appendix E3.


3. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

(a) Property size(s): Indicate the size of all the properties (cadastral units) on which the development

proposal is to be undertaken 202.4 ha

(b) Size of the facility: Indicate the size of the facility where the development proposal is to be

undertaken

Existing

buildings:

8 100m2

Existing

roads: 2

000m2

m2

(c) Development footprint: Indicate the area that will be physically altered as a result of undertaking

any development proposal (i.e., the physical size of the development together with all its associated

structures and infrastructure)

Additional

buildings:

16 200m2

Additional

roads: 2

000m2

m2

(d) Size of the activity: Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the development proposal

Existing 10

100m2 +

New 18

200m2 =

28

300m2total

m2

(e) For linear development proposals: Indicate the length (L) and width (W) of the development

proposal

N/A

(L) m

(W) m

(f) For storage facilities: Indicate the volume of the storage facility N/A m3

(g) For sewage/effluent treatment facilities: Indicate the volume of the facility

(Note: the maximum design capacity must be indicated N/A m3

4. SITE ACCESS

(a) Is there an existing access road? YESX NO

(b) If no, what is the distance in (m) over which a new access road will be built? m

(c)Describe the type of access road planned:

There is an existing access road to site.

Please note: The position of the proposed access road must be indicated on the site plan.


5. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY(IES) ON WHICH THE LISTED ACTIVITY(IES)ARE TO BE UNDERTAKEN

AND THE LOCATION OF THE LISTED ACTIVITY(IES) ON THE PROPERTY

5.1 Provide a description of the property on which the listed activity(ies) is/are to be undertaken and the location of the

listed activity(ies) on the property, as well as of all alternative properties and locations (duplicate section below as

required).

There is only one proposed property, as the project is for the expansion of an existing chicken rearing facility which is located

approximately 12m south east of Caledon within the jurisdiction of the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality.

Coordinates of all the proposed activities on

the property or properties (sites):

Latitude (S): (deg.; min.; sec) Longitude (E):(deg.; min.; sec.) Pens 1&234°

17‘ 59.66“ 19° 28‘ 07.04“

Pens 3 to 834° 18 ‘ 09.70“ 19o 28‘ 25.99“

° ‘ “ o ‘ “

° ‘ “ o ‘ “

Note: For land where the property has not been defined, the coordinates of the area within which the development is

proposed must be provided in an addendum to this report.

5.2 Provide a description of the area where the aquatic or ocean-based activity(ies) is/are to be undertaken and the

location of the activity(ies) and alternative sites (if applicable).

N/A

Coordinates of the boundary /perimeter of

all proposed aquatic or ocean-based

activities (sites) (if applicable):

Latitude (S):(deg.; min.; sec) Longitude (E):(deg.; min.; sec)

° ' " o ' "

° ' " o ' "

° ' " o ' "

° ' " o ' "

5.3 For a linear development proposal, please provide a description and coordinates of the corridor in which the

proposed development will be undertaken (if applicable).

N/A

For linear activities: Latitude (S):(deg.; min.; sec) Longitude (E):(deg.; min.; sec)

• Starting point of the activity o ‘ “ o ‘ “

• Middle point of the activity o ‘ “ o ‘ “

• End point of the activity o ‘ “ o ‘ “

Note: For linear development proposals longer than 1000m, please provide an addendum with co-ordinates taken every

250m along the route. All important waypoints must be indicated and the GIS shapefile provided digitally.

5.4 Provide a location map(see below) as Appendix A to this reportthat shows the location of the proposed

developmentand associated structures and infrastructure on the property; as well as adetailed site development plan /

site map (see below)as Appendix B to this report; and if applicable, all alternative properties and locations. The GIS

shape files (.shp) for maps / site development plans must be included in the electronic copy of the report submitted to

the competent authority.

Locality Map:

The scale of the locality map must be at least 1:50 000.

For linear development proposals of more than 25 kilometres, a smaller scale e.g., 1:250 000 can be used. The

scale must be indicated on the map.

The map must indicate the following:

• an accurate indication of the project site position as well as the positions of the alternative sites, if any;

• road names or numbers of all the major roads as well as the roads that provide access to the site(s)

• a north arrow;

• a legend;

• a linear scale;

• the prevailing wind direction (during November to April and during May to October); and

• GPS co-ordinates (to indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre

point of the site for each alternative site. The co-ordinates should be in degrees and decimal minutes.

The minutes should have at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The projection that must


be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection).

For an ocean-based or aquatic activity, the coordinates must be provided within which the activity is to be

undertaken and a map at an appropriate scale clearly indicating the area within which the activity is to be

undertaken.

Coordinates must be provided in degrees, minutes and seconds using the Hartebeesthoek94; WGS84 co-

ordinate system.

Site Plan:

Detailed site development plan(s) must be prepared for each alternative site or alternative activity. The site

plans must contain or conform to the following:

• The detailed site plan must preferably be at a scale of 1:500 or at an appropriate scale. The scale must

be indicated on the plan, preferably together with a linear scale.

• The property boundaries and numbers of all the properties within 50m of the site must be indicated on

the site plan.

• The current land use (not zoning) as well as the land use zoning of each of the adjoining properties must

be indicated on the site plan.

• The position of each element of the application as well as any other structures on the site must be

indicated on the site plan.

• Services, including electricity supply cables (indicate aboveground or underground), water supply

pipelines, boreholes, sewage pipelines, storm water infrastructure and access roads that will form part of

the development must be indicated on the site plan.

• Servitudes and an indication of the purpose of each servitude must be indicated on the site plan.

• Sensitive environmental elements within 100m of the site must be included on the site plan, including (but

not limited to):

o Watercourses / Rivers / Wetlands - including the 32 meter set back line from the edge of the bank of

a river/stream/wetland;

o Flood lines (i.e., 1:100 year, 1:50 year and 1:10 year where applicable;

o Ridges;

o Cultural and historical features;

o Areas with indigenous vegetation (even if degraded or infested with alien species).

• Whenever the slope of the site exceeds 1:10, a contour map of the site must be submitted.

• North arrow

A map/site plan must also be provided at an appropriate scale, which superimposes the proposed

development and its associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the

preferred and alternative sites indicating any areas that should be avoided, including buffer areas.

The GIS shapefile for the site development plan(s) must be submitted digitally.

6. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Colour photographs of the site and its surroundings (taken on the site and taken from outside the site) with a description of

each photograph. The vantage points from which the photographs were taken must be indicated on the site plan, or locality

plan as applicable. If available, please also provide a recent aerial photograph. Photographs must be attached as

Appendix C to this report. The aerial photograph(s)should be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features

on the site. Date of photographs must be included. Please note that the above requirements must be duplicated for all

alternative sites.


SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

Site/Area Description

For linear development proposals (pipelines, etc.) as well as development proposals that cover very large sites, it may be

necessary to complete copies of this section for each part of the site that has a significantly different environment. In such

cases please complete copies of Section B and indicate the area that is covered by each copy on the Site Plan.

1. GRADIENT OF THE SITE

Indicate the general gradient of the sites (highlight the appropriate box).

Flat Flatter than 1:10 1:10 – 1:4 x Steeper than 1:4

2. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE

(a) Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site (highlight the appropriate box(es).

Ridgeline Plateau Side slope of

hill/mountain x

Closed

valley

Open

valley PlainX

Undulating plain/low hillsX

Dune Sea-front

(b) Provide a description of the location in the landscape.

The subject property is located approximately 12km SE of Caledon. The surrounding area has an

agricultural character with wheat and lucerne production being the dominant land use. The site has

an extensive road network due to the existing agricultural / chicken farm activities. The farm is

accessible from the R320 & R326 via two public right of ways. The total size of the farm is 202.5 ha; of

which 84ha consists of mountainous terrain. The remaining 118 hectares has in the past been used to

farm wheat and vegetable, with sheep, cattle and chicken farming. The existing chicken pens and

associated infrastructure comprising of 10 100m2 was developed in the aforementioned cultivated

area (Refer to Figure 3: Cultivated areas).

The southern portion of the property consists of natural mountainous landscape. No development is

proposed within this area.

The Klein Steenboks River is located adjacent to the northern property boundary with its tributary

running through the middle of the entire property. No development is proposed within 100m of any

watercourse.

The two dams located on the property have been mapped as both natural and artificial wetland

probably due to the fact that the dams are located in-stream. The area associated with the central

dam was identified as a wetland by the BGCMA. The water use licensing for this wetland is currently

underway.

BGCMA was however uncertain whether the area in the SE portion of the property contained

wetlands and requested input by a wetland specialist. The wetland specialist study found no

wetlands of significance in this area. No water use licensing is required.


The dams are immediately surrounded by cultivated land.

The development is in keeping with the intensive agricultural operations in the area. It is also located

in previously heavily impacted areas on the farm, avoiding sensitive landscapes. All the services exist

on site.

Figure 3: Cultivated areas (CapeFarmMapper - Crop Census 2017/18 (Winter)).

3. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE (a) Is the site(s) located on or near any of the following (highlight the appropriate boxes)?

Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep) YES NO X UNSURE

Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES x NO UNSURE

Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil YES NO X UNSURE

Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES NO X UNSURE

Soils with high clay content YES NO X UNSURE

Any other unstable soil or geological feature YES NO X UNSURE

An area sensitive to erosion YES NO X UNSURE

An area adjacent to or above an aquifer. YES NO X UNSURE

An area within 100m of a source of surface water YESx NO UNSURE

Artificial wetlands YES NO x

UNSURE

An area within the 1:50 year flood zone YES NO X UNSURE

A water source subject to tidal influence YES NO X UNSURE

(b) If any of the answers to the above is “YES” or “UNSURE”, specialist input may be requested by the Department.

(Information in respect of the above will often be available at the planning sections of local authorities. The 1:50 000

scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by Geological Survey may also be used).


(c) Indicate the type of geological formation underlying the site.

Granite Shale X Sandstone Quartzite Dolomite Dolorite Other (describe)

Provide a description.

The section of the property earmarked for expansion is mainly underlain by mudstone, siltstone, shale

and feldspathic sandstone of the Gydo and Gamka Formations, Bokkeveld Group.

The remainder of the property (where no development has or will take place) is underlain by

Quartzitic sandstone of the Skurweberg Formation on the northern upper midslopes and of the

Rietvlei Formation on the northern lower midslope. Mainly of quartzitic sandstone of the Peninsula

Formation on the southern slopes, with the Goudini Formation.

4. SURFACE WATER

(a) Indicate the surface water present on and or adjacent to the site and alternative sites (highlightthe appropriate boxes)?

Perennial River YES X NO UNSURE

Non-Perennial River YES X NO UNSURE

Permanent Wetland YES NO X UNSURE

Seasonal Wetland YES NO X UNSURE

Artificial Wetland YES NO x

UNSURE

Estuarine / Lagoon YES NO X UNSURE

(b) Provide a description.

A tributary (none-perennial) of the Klein Steenboksrivier (perennial) runs through the middle of the

property. There are two existing in-stream dams (mapped as wetlands) located on the property. The

proposed expansion will not be located within 100m of the watercourse.



dam was identified as a wetland by the BGCMA. The water use licensing for this wetland is currently

underway.



wetlands of significance in this area. No water use licensing is required.

5. THE SEAFRONT / SEA

(a) Is the site(s) located within any of the following areas? (Highlight the appropriate boxes).

If the site or alternative site is closer than100m to such an area, please provide the approximate distance in (m).

AREA YES NO UNSURE If “YES”:Distance to

nearest area (m)

An area within 100m of the high water mark of the sea YES NO X UNSURE

An area within 100m of the high water mark of an estuary/lagoon YES NO X UNSURE

An area within the littoral active zone YES NO X UNSURE


An area in the coastal public property YES NO X UNSURE

Major anthropogenic structures YES NO X UNSURE

An area within a Coastal Protection Zone YES NO X UNSURE

An area seaward of the coastal management line YES NO X UNSURE

An area within the high risk zone (20 years) YES NO X UNSURE

An area within the medium risk zone (50 years) YES NO X UNSURE

An area within the low risk zone (100 years) YES NO X UNSURE

An area below the 5m contour YES NO X UNSURE

An area within 1kmfrom the high water mark of the sea YES NO X UNSURE

Arocky beach YES NO X UNSURE

A sandy beach YES NO X UNSURE

(b) If any of the answers to the above is “YES” or “UNSURE”, specialist input may be requested by the Department. (The

1:50 000 scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by Geological Survey may also be used).

6. BIODIVERSITY

Note that no biodiversity study was required due to no indigenous vegetation present on the already disturbed site used for cultivation purposes within the last 10 years.

Note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the biodiversity occurring on the

site and potential impact(s) of the proposed development. To assist with the identification of the biodiversity

occurring on siteand the ecosystem status, consult http://bgis.sanbi.org or [email protected]. Information is also

available on compact disc (“cd”) from the Biodiversity-GIS Unit, Tel.: (021) 799 8698. This information may be

updated from time to time and it is the applicant/ EAP’s responsibility to ensure that the latest version is used. A

map of the relevant biodiversity information (including an indication of the habitat conditions as per (b) below)

must be provided as an overlay map on the property/site plan as AppendixD to this report.

(a) Highlight the applicable biodiversity planning categories of all areas on preferred and alternative sitesand indicate the

reason(s) provided in the biodiversity plan for the selection of the specific area as part of the specific category.Also

describe the prevailing level of protection of the Critical Biodiversity Area (“CBA”) and Ecological Support Area (“ESA”)

(how many hectares / what percentages are formally protected).

Systematic Biodiversity Planning Category CBA X ESA X Other Natural

Area (“ONA”)

No Natural Area

Remaining

(“NNR”)

If CBA or ESA, indicate the reason(s) for its

selection in biodiversity plan and the

conservation management objectives

A section of the property is categorised as a CBA (Terrestrial).

The area earmarked for expansion is located approximately

500m to the north of the CBA area. Thus no CBA area will be

impacted on.

A small section of the property is categorised as an ESA

(Climate corridor). The area earmarked for expansion is located

approximately 500m to the north of the ESA area. Thus no ESA

area will be impacted on.

An area associated with the watercourse, which runs through

the property, is categorised as an ESA1 (watercourse). The

proposed expansion footprint will be located more than 100m

from the watercourse. Thus no ESA1 area will be impacted on.


Describe the site’s CBA/ESAquantitative

values (hectares/percentage) in relation

to the prevailing level of protection of CBA

and ESA (how many hectares / what

percentages are formally protected

locally and in the province)

N/A

(b) Highlight and describe the habitat condition on site.

Habitat Condition

Percentage of habitat

condition class (adding up to 100%)

and area of each in

square metre (m2)

Description and additional comments and observations (including additional insight into condition, e.g. poor land management practises, presence of quarries, grazing/harvesting regimes, etc.)

Natural

41% 84 Ha

Southern portions of the property has been identified as a

CBA& ESA.

Near Natural

(includes areas with

low to moderate

level of alien

invasive plants)

0% m2

Degraded

(includes areas

heavily invaded by

alien plants)

0% m2

Transformed

(includes cultivation,

dams, urban,

plantation, roads,

etc.)

59% 118 Ha

The remainder of the property has been cultivated and

comprise of approximately 118 ha. Within this area the

existing authorised chicken farm was constructed which

comprise of approximately 4 ha and includes the following

existing structures:

- Four free range chicken pens approximately 2025m2

each including free range pastures, roads and visual

landscaping.

- Mortality pits.

- A fence to control bio-security.

- Office and staff buildings.

(c) Complete the table to indicate:

(i) the type of vegetationpresent on the site, including its ecosystem status; and

(ii) whether an aquatic ecosystem is present on/or adjacent to the site.

Terrestrial Ecosystems Description of Ecosystem, Vegetation Type, Original Extent,

Threshold (ha, %), Ecosystem Status

Ecosystem threat status as per the

National Environmental

Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004

(Act No. 10 of 2004)

Critically

The area is located within the Western Ruens Shale

Renosterveld critically endangered ecosystem.

Owing to the extremely disturbed / cultivated (in the

last 10 years) nature of the application area, it has no

conservation value.

Endangered N/A

Vulnerable N/A


Least

Threatened

N/A

Aquatic Ecosystems

Wetland (including rivers, depressions,

channelled and unchannelled wetlands, flats,

seeps pans, and artificial wetlands)

Estuary Coastline

YES X

Klein

Steenboks

River located

to north of site.

With none-

perennial

tributary

NO UNSURE YES NO X YES NO X

(d) Provide a description of the vegetation type and/or aquatic ecosystem present on the site, including any important

biodiversity features/information identified on the site (e.g. threatened species and special habitats). Clearly describe

the biodiversity targets and management objectives in this regard.

Vegetation type –

Western Rûens Shale Renosterveld (conservation target 27%):

Renosterveld is generally a vegetation of the mid-elevations i.e. the area between the foot of the

high mountains and actual foreland flats. Renosterveld is found on fine grained substrates that are

more nutrient rich. These substrates may be alluvial in origin but generally they are derived from

shale, granite, silcrete or exceptionally, limestone.

The shale substrates are found on undulating hills and plains and broad valley floors. Silcrete is found

as scattered patches on hilltops, occasionally on flats as well and is easily recognised by the

presence of cobbles and pebbles. The alluvial substrates occur in valley bottoms, riverine plains and

as alluvial fans.

Western Rûens Shale Renosterveld is a low to medium tall, open to medium dense grassy cupressoid

and small leavedshrubland dominated by renosterbos. Other dominants in the shrublands are

slangbos Seriphium plumosum, draaibos Felicia fillifolia, klaaslouwbos Athanasia trifurcata and

vierkantperdekaroo Oedera squarrosa amongst others with bleek koeniebos Rhus pallens as a tall

emergent shrub. Grasses are prominent e.g. kweek Cynodon dactylon, thatch grass Hyparrhenia

hirta, rooigras Themeda triandra, polgras Ehrharta calycina and bokbaardgras Merxmuellera strica.

Geophytes areprominent with many localised species e.g. poutulp Moraea elegans, Sparaxis

maculosa and S. fragrans (WCCSA,2008). No natural vegetation occurs on the disturbed portion of

the property earmarked for development. The areas proposed for expansion on the property has

been cultivated for the last 10 years.

Overberg Sandstone Fynbos (conservation target 30%):

Sandstone fynbos is the most variable of the fynbos types and almost defies a general description.

Each mountain range has its own variant and even within these ranges it differs from one area to


another – so much so that even plant communities differ from one slope to the next

(WCCSA,2008).No development is proposed for this portion of the property.

(Refer to Figure 4: Vegetation type)

Figure 4: Vegetation type.

Critical Biodiversity Areas:

A section of the property is categorised as a CBA (Terrestrial). The area earmarked for expansion is

located approximately 500m to the north of the CBA area. Thus no CBA area will be impacted on

(Refer to Figure 5).

Overberg Sandstone Fynbos

Western Rûens Shale Renosterveld


Figure 5: Terrestrial CBA.

A small section of the property is categorised as an ESA (Climate corridor). The area earmarked for

expansion is located approximately 500m to the north of the ESA area. Thus no ESA area will be

impacted on (Refer to Figure 6).


Figure 6: Terrestrial ESA – Climate Corridor.

An area associated with the watercourse, which runs through the property, is categorised as an ESA1

(watercourse). The proposed expansion footprint will be located more than 100m from the

watercourse. Thus no ESA1 area will be impacted on (Refer to Figure 7).


Figure 7: ESA2: Restore from other land use.

Aquatic Ecosystem -

The site lies in Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) Breede-Gouritz Water Management Area,

and is located in DWS quaternary catchment G40K. This quaternary includes drainage from the Klein

Steenboks Rivier, which flows just north of the site boundary. The Klein Steenboks River flows into the

Hartbees Rivier and thence into the Klein Rivier, which enters the Klein Rivier Estuary / Hermanus

Lagoon (also referred to in some maps as the Klein Rivier Dam). This estuary is an important habitat,

both from a conservation and a recreational perspective, with an overall national importance rating

of 97% and ranked in the top five estuaries in South Africa in terms of conservation importance

(Turpie and Clark 2007).


running through the middle of the entire property. No development is proposed within 100m of this

watercourse (Refer to Figure 8: Rivers).


Figure 8: Rivers – Klein Steenboks River

National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (NFEPA) data show no freshwater aquatic ecosystems

on the site, other than a number of mapped artificial farm dams, the closest of which lies some 300m

north west of the existing mortality pits, on the western side of the minor drainage channel.



dam was identified as a wetland by the BGCMA. Due to the considerable distance of the proposed

pens from this watercourse /wetland, no significant impacts are envisaged. The water use licensing

for this wetland is currently underway (Refer to Figure 9a).


Figure 9a: Wetland area identified by BGCMA.



wetlands of significance in this area. No water use licensing is required. The only wetland indicator

noted in the immediate vicinity of the mortality pits was a single Juncus kraussii plant near the most

westerly of the existing mortality pits, in a small (1-2m diameter), slightly depressed but disturbed area

assumed to have been part of the natural alignment of the western drainage line, which passes

down the steep slopes above the mortality pit area as a poorly defined drainage line, which has

been artificially aligned from the access road downstream as a relatively straight, stony channel /

trench. This passes along the western edge of the assessed area, within an area vegetated by

Seersia sp. and edged by dense Atriplex sp. (salt bush) as well as stands of Helichrysum sp. No

surface water was observed in the drainage line or anywhere else on the assessed portion of the site.

The reaches of the watercourse down the hillslope are not considered to be a wetland. The steep

slopes and arid climate with its low rainfall and high evaporation rates make sustained periods of

saturated soils within the top 500mm of the surface unlikely, and there is no vegetation in the

watercourse suggesting wetland conditions. Augering of the watercourse was not however possible

as it is a stone-lined rocky system.

With distance downstream, the watercourse does however flatten out, and here there is evidence of

a seasonally to temporarily valley bottom wetland, including stands of Phragmites australis and

vegetation more typical of the outer margins of seasonal to temporary wetlands including stands of


Helychrysum sp.

Soils in the small patch of wetland vegetation identified near the most westerly mortality pit (denoted

by a single J. kraussii plant only) in the vicinity of the mortality pit showed slight mottling near the

surface - deep augering was limited by the stony soil. Wetland conditions here are assumed to derive

primarily from periodic overflow from the watercourse where the slope flattens out and the

watercourse is diverted east. Seepage from the pit itself is also possible, but unlikely, given the depth

of excavation compared to the surface level at which saturation would occur.

Assuming conservatively that this patch is representative of natural wetland conditions, it has been

assessed as in a Category F condition with little to no connectivity to other systems and fragmented

from its natural alignment. Its Conservation Importance, derived using the methodology of Ewart-

Smith and Ractliffe (2002), is considered Negligible, as it is too small to play any useful role in the

landscape or to provide habitat of any consequence. Its EIS is considered marginal to low (Refer to

Figure 9b and Appendix G1).

Figure 9b: Wetland area identified by wetland specialist.

7. LAND USE OF THE SITE

Note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the

area and potential impact(s) of the proposed development.

Untransformed area X

(Southern portion of

property)

Low density

residential Medium density residential High density residential Informal residential

Retail Commercial &

warehousing Light industrial Medium industrial Heavy industrial

Power station Office/consulting

room

Military or police

base/station/compound

Casino/entertainment

complex

Tourism and

Hospitality facility


Open cast mine Underground mine Spoil heap or slimes dam Quarry, sand or borrow

pit X Dam or reservoir

Hospital/medical

centre School Tertiary education facility Church Old age home

Sewage treatment

plant

Train station or

shunting yard Railway line

Major road (4 lanes

and more) Airport

Harbour Sport facilities Golf course Polo fields Filling station

Landfill or waste

treatment site Plantation

Agriculture

X

River, stream or wetland

X

Nature

conservation area

Mountain, koppie or

ridge X Museum

Historical building

Graveyard

Archaeological

site

Other land uses

(describe):

(a) Provide a description.

The subject property is located approximately 12km SE of Caledon. The surrounding area has an

agricultural character with wheat and lucerne production being the dominant land use. The site

has an extensive road network due to the existing agricultural / chicken farm activities. The farm is

accessible from the R320 & R326 via two public right of ways. The total size of the farm is 202.5 ha; of

which 84ha consists of mountainous terrain. The remaining 118 hectares has in the past been used

to farm wheat and vegetable, with sheep and cattle farming for domestic use. The existing chicken

pens and associated infrastructure comprising of 10 100m2 was developed in the aforementioned

cultivated area.



watercourse.


probably due to the fact that the dams are in-stream. The dams are immediately surrounded by

cultivated land. A wetland was identified in the area associated with the central dam and a

wetland with negligible significance was identified in the SE portion of the property.

8. LAND USE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA

(a) Highlight the current land uses and/or prominent features that occur within +/- 500m radius of the site and

neighbouring properties if these are located beyond 500m of the site.

Note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the

area and potential impact(s) of the proposed development.

Untransformed area

X

Low density

residential

Medium density residential High density residential Informal residential

Retail

Commercial &

warehousing Light industrial Medium industrial Heavy industrial

Power station Office/consulting

room

Military or police

base/station/compound

Casino/entertainment

complex

Tourism and

Hospitality facility

Open cast mine Underground mine Spoil heap or slimes dam Quarry, sand or borrow

pit XDam or reservoir

Hospital/medical

centre School Tertiary education facility Church Old age home


Sewage treatment

plant

Train station or

shunting yard Railway line

Major road (4 lanes and

more) Airport

Harbour Sport facilities Golf course Polo fields Filling station

Landfill or waste

treatment site Plantation

Agriculture

X

River, stream or wetland

X

Nature

conservation area

Mountain, koppie or ridge

X

Museum Historical building

Graveyard

Archaeological

site

Other land uses

(describe):

(b) Provide a description, including the distance and direction to the nearest residential area, industrial area, agri-industrial

area.

The subject property is located approximately 12km south east of Caledon and is completely

surrounded by agricultural land use activities to the east, north and west. The property is abutted by

a natural area to the south. No other land use activities are located in close proximity of the

property.

Figure 10: Land Use

9. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

a) Describe the existing social and economic characteristics of the community in the vicinity of the proposed site, in order to

provide baseline information (for example, population characteristics/demographics, level of education, the level of

employment and unemployment in the area, available work force, seasonal migration patterns, major economic

activities in the local municipality, gender aspects that might be of relevance to this project, etc.).

Caledon

R316

R320

500m Radius

5/487 Klein

Steenboks Rivier

Gravel Road

N


Theewaterskloof Municipality is the largest local authority in the Overberg District with an area of

approximately 3231km² and houses 13 wards, with the City of Cape Town located on its western

boundary and sharing the eastern coastline with the Overberg Municipality. It is the most populous

municipality in the Overberg district with 42% of the total district population.

Theewaterskloof Municipality can be categorised as a rural area with open spaces and farming

activities as it is clear from the land and areas occupied by agriculture, small holdings and other

land uses.

The farm is surrounded by agricultural functions and the associated socio-economic environment.

The farming community in the area is a mix of landowners, management and labour.

10. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS

(a) Please be advised that if section 38 of the NHRA is applicable to your proposed development, you are requested to

furnish this Department with written comment from Heritage Western Cape as part of your public participation

process. Heritage Western Cape must be given an opportunity, together with the rest of the I&APs, to comment on

any Pre-application BAR, a Draft BAR, and Revised BAR.

Section 38 of the NHRA states the following:

“38. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any person who intends to undertake a development

categorised as-

(a) the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier

exceeding 300m in length;

(b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length;

(c) any development or other activity which will change the character of a site-

(i) exceeding 5 000m2 in extent; or

(ii) involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof; or

(iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years; or

(iv) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources

authority;

(d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000m2 in extent; or

(e) any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources

authority,

must at the very earliest stages of initiating such a development,notify the responsible heritage resources authority

and furnish it withdetails regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development”.

(b) The impact on any national estate referred to in section 3(2), excluding the national estate contemplated in section

3(2)(i)(vi) and (vii), of the NHRA, must also be investigated, assessed and evaluated. Section 3(2) states the following:

“3(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the national estate may include—

(a) places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance;

(b) places to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage;

(c)historical settlements and townscapes;

(d) landscapes and natural features of cultural significance;

(e) geological sites of scientific or cultural importance;

(f) archaeological and palaeontological sites;

(g) graves and burial grounds, including—

(i) ancestral graves;

(ii) royal graves and graves of traditional leaders;

(iii) graves of victims of conflict;

(iv) graves of individuals designated by the Minister by notice in the Gazette;

(v) historical graves and cemeteries; and

(vi) other human remains which are not covered in terms of the Human Tissue Act, 1983 (Act No. 65 of 1983);

(h) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa;

(i) movable objects, including—

(i) objects recovered from the soil or waters of South Africa, including archaeological and paleontological

objects and material, meteorites and rare geological specimens;

(ii) objects to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated withliving heritage;

(iii) ethnographic art and objects;

(iv) military objects;

(v) objects of decorative or fine art;

(vi) objects of scientific or technological interest; and

(vii) books, records, documents, photographic positives and negatives, graphic, film or video material or sound

recordings, excluding those that are public records as defined in section 1(xiv) of the National Archives of South

Africa Act, 1996 (Act No. 43 of 1996)”.

Is Section 38 of the NHRA applicable to the proposed development? YES X NO UNCERTAIN


If YES or

UNCERTAIN,

explain:

S38 (1) (c) any development or other activity which will change the character of a site-

(i) exceeding 5 000m2 in extent

Will the development impact on any national estate referred to in Section 3(2) of

the NHRA? YES NO X UNCERTAIN

If YES or

UNCERTAIN,

explain:

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

If YES or

UNCERTAIN,

explain:

Are there any signs of culturally or historically significant elements, as defined in

section 2 of the NHRA, including Archaeological or paleontological sites, on or

close (within 20m) to the site?

YES NO X UNCERTAIN

If YES or

UNCERTAIN,

explain:

Comment from HWC was obtained and is included in Appendix E1.

Note: If uncertain, the Department may request that specialist input be provided and Heritage Western Cape must provide

comment on this aspect of the proposal. (Pleasenote that a copy of the comments obtained from the Heritage

Resources Authority must be appended to this report as Appendix E1).


11. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES, CIRCULARSAND/OR GUIDELINES

(a) Identify all legislation, policies, plans, guidelines, spatial tools, municipal development planning frameworks,and

instruments that are applicable to the development proposal and associated listed activity(ies) being applied for and

that have been considered in the preparation of the BAR.

LEGISLATION, POLICIES, PLANS,

GUIDELINES, SPATIAL TOOLS, MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING FRAMEWORKS, AND

INSTRUMENTS

ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY and how it is relevant to this

application

TYPE

Permit/license/authorisation/comment

/ relevant consideration(e.g. rezoning

or consent use, building plan

approval, Water Use License and/or

General Authorisation, License in terms

of the SAHRA and CARA, coastal

discharge permit, etc.)

DATE (if already

obtained):


Management Act 107 of 1998, as

amended (NEMA)

DEA&DP Environmental Authorisation In progress

National Heritage Resources Act

25 of 1999 (NHRA)

HWC HWC to comment on NID

Received

TheewaterskloofIDP 2016/2017 Theewaterskloof Local

Municipality

Comment on proposed expansion

project

N/A

National Water Act 36 of 1998

(NWA) BGCMA

Comment on construction and

operational activities ito S21(c) and (i)

In progress

Guidelines for EMP’s (June 2015)

DEA&DP For consideration

N/A

Guidelines on Alternatives (March

2013)

DEA&DP For consideration N/A

Circular EADP 0028/2014: One

Environmental Management

System


Guideline for involving Biodiversity

Specialists in the EIA process

(2005)


Guideline for involving a Heritage

Specialist in an EIA process (2005)


Guideline for the review of

Specialist Input in the EIA process

(June 2005)


Guideline on Need and

Desirability ( March 2013)


BGIS SANBI For consideration N/A

Western Cape Provincial Spatial

Development Framework (PSDF)

(2014)


Guideline on Public Participation


(b) Describe how the proposed development complies with and responds to the legislation and policy context, plans,

guidelines, spatial tools, municipal development planning frameworks and instruments.

LEGISLATION, POLICIES, PLANS,

GUIDELINES, SPATIAL TOOLS, MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING FRAMEWORKS, AND

INSTRUMENTS

Describe how the proposed development complies with and responds:

Western Cape Provincial Spatial

Development Framework (PSDF)

(2014)

The Western Cape PSDF is a planning document that guides district and local spatial

initiatives such as IDP’s and SDF’s. It aims to create a coherent framework for the

Province’s urban and rural areas. The PSDF aims to guide the location and form of

public investment in the Western Cape’s urban and rural areas. Whilst it cannot


influence private sector investment patterns, it has an important contribution ito

reducing business risk by providing clarity and certainty on where public infrastructure

investment will be targeted, thereby opening up new economic opportunities in these

areas.

The current economic state with high levels of unemployment, especially amongst the

youth, and recent job losses in agriculture all add to the high levels of rural poverty and

unemployment.

The proposed expansion development will create direct and indirect job opportunities

during the construction and operational phases.


Management Act 107 of 1998, as

amended (NEMA)

The applicant has a responsibility to ensure that the proposed activities and the

Environmental Authorisation process conform to the requirements of NEMA.

The applicant is obliged to take actions to prevent pollution or degradation of the

environment in terms of S28 of NEMA, and to ensure that any environmental impacts

associated with the project are considered and mitigated where possible.

National Water Act 36 of 1998

(NWA)

A General Authorisation process (to be confirmed through a risk matrix) should be

completed for the activities within 100m of the drainage line between units 4 and 5. This

should be confirmed by BGCMA once they have considered all the information in this

BAR and the EMP’s.

National Heritage Resources Act 25

of 1999 (NHRA)

A NID will be submitted to HWC with the detail of the proposed expansion who will

provide comment.

Theewaterskloof IDP 2016/2017 The needs, desirability and constraints of the area and the local community will be

considered and included in the BAR.

Guidelines for EMP’s (June 2015)

Ensures that construction and operational activities are environmentally friendly and

comply with all restrictions and/ or guidelines stipulated in the EA.

Guidelines on Alternatives (March

2013)

Ensures that alternative design, layout, site or technology in terms of the proposed

project is assessed as well as the no go option.

Circular EADP 0028/2014: One

Environmental Management

System

Ensures that the process under NEMA and the process under the NWA are run

concurrently in order to inform each other and minimise delays.

Guideline for involving Biodiversity

Specialists in the EIA process (2005)

Ensures the engagement of a Biodiversity specialist is done under certain conditions

and with a specific output in order to facilitate decision making and impact

assessment.

Guideline for involving a Heritage

Specialist in an EIA process (2005)

Ensures the engagement of a Heritage specialist is done under certain conditions and

with a specific output in order to facilitate decision making and impact assessment.

Guideline for the review of

Specialist Input in the EIA process

(June 2005)

The specialist review obtained from the Botanist and the Heritage Specialist was

integrated into the BAR report.

Guideline on Need and Desirability

( March 2013)

The BAR report proves the need and desirability of the proposed expansion project at

this particular site.

BGIS CBA and ESA areas to be confirmed.

Guideline on Public Participation

Public participation must take place during the BAR process in order for the process to

be transparent and allow for I&APs’ comments and concerns to be raised and

subsequently addressed. Proof of PPP will be included in the final report.

Note: Copies of any comments, permit(s) or licences received from any other Organ of State must be attached to this report

as Appendix E.


Section C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The PPP must fulfil the requirements outlined in the NEMA, the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) and if applicable,the NEM:

WA and/or the NEM: AQA. This Department’s Circular EADP 0028/2014 (dated 9 December 2014) on the “One Environmental

Management System” and the EIA Regulations, any subsequent Circulars, and guidelinesmust also be taken into account.

1. Please highlight the appropriate box to indicate whether the specific requirement was undertaken or whether there was

an exemption applied for.

In terms of Regulation 41 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) -

(a) fixing a notice board at a place conspicuous to and accessible by the public at the boundary, on the fence or along

the corridor of -

(i) the site where the activity to which the application relates, is or is to be undertaken;

and

YES

X EXEMPTION

(ii) any alternative site YES EXEMPTION N/A

(b) giving written notice, in any manner provided for in Section 47D of the NEMA, to –

(i) the occupiers of the site and, if the applicant is not the owner or person in control of

the site on which the activity is to be undertaken, the owner or person in control of the

site where the activity is or is to be undertaken or to any alternative site where the

activity is to be undertaken;

YES EXEMPTION N/A

(ii) owners, persons in control of, and occupiers of land adjacent to the site where the

activity is or is to be undertaken or to any alternative site where the activity is to be

undertaken;

YES

X EXEMPTION

(iii) the municipal councillor of the ward in which the site or alternative site is situated and

any organisation of ratepayers that represent the community in the area;

YES X

EXEMPTION

(iv) the municipality (Local and District Municipality) which has jurisdiction in the area; YES

X EXEMPTION

(v) any organ of state having jurisdiction in respect of any aspect of the activity; and YES

X EXEMPTION

(vi) any other party as required by the Department; YES

X EXEMPTION N/A

(c) placing an advertisement in -

(i) one local newspaper; or YES

X

EXEMPTION

(ii) any official Gazette that is published specifically for the purpose of providing public

notice of applications or other submissions made in terms of these Regulations; YES EXEMPTION N/A

(d) placing an advertisement in at least one provincial newspaper or national

newspaper, if the activity has or may have an impact that extends beyond the

boundaries of the metropolitan or district municipality in which it is or will be

undertaken

YES EXEMPTION N/A

(e) using reasonable alternative methods, as agreed to by the Department, in those

instances where a person is desirous of but unable to participate in the process due

to—

(i) illiteracy;

(ii) disability; or

(iii) any other disadvantage.

YES

X

EXEMPTION

If you have indicated that “EXEMPTION” is applicable to any of the above,proof of the exemption decision must be

appended to this report.

Please note that for the NEM: WA and NEM: AQA, a notice must be placed in at least two newspapers circulating in the

area where the activity applied for is proposed.

If applicable, has/will an advertisement be placed in at least two newspapers? YES NO

If “NO”, then proof of the exemption decision must be appended to this report.

2. Provide a list of all the State Departments and Organs of State that were consulted:

State Department / Organ of State Date request

was sent:

Date comment

received:

Support / not in support

DEA&DP

In Support

Overberg District Municipality

In Support

Transport and Public Works

In Support

Theewaterskloof Local Municipality

To be determined from

feedback

Cape Nature

In Support

BGCMA

In Support


DAFF (Landuse Management)


feedback

DEA&DP Directorate : Waste

Management


feedback

DEA&DP Directorate : Pollution and

Chemicals Management


feedback

Provincial Dept Agriculture: Veterinary

Services


feedback

Heritage Western Cape In Support

Eskom In Support

3. Provide a summary of the issues raised by I&APs and an indication of the manner in which the issues were incorporated, or

the reasons for not including them.

(The detailed outcomes of this process, including copies of the supporting documents and inputs must be included in a

Comments and Response Report to be attached to the BAR (see note below) as Appendix F).

Please refer to Appendix F 5 – Comments and Responses Report.

4. Provide a summary of any conditional aspects identified / highlighted by any Organs of State, which have jurisdiction in

respect of any aspect of the relevant activity.

Please refer to Appendix F 5 – Comments and Responses Report.

Note: Even if pre-application public participation is undertaken as allowed for by Regulation 40(3), it must be undertaken in

accordance with the requirements set out in Regulations 3(3), 3(4), 3(8), 7(2), 7(5), 19, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44.

If the “exemption” option is selected above and no proof of the exemption decision is attached to this BAR, the application

will be refused.

A list of all the potential I&APs, including the Organs of State, notified and a list of all the registeredI &APs must be submitted

with the BAR. The list of registered I&APs must be opened, maintained and made available to any person requesting access

to the register in writing.

The BAR must be submitted to the Department when being made available to I&APs, including the relevant Organs of State

and State Departments which have jurisdiction with regard to any aspect of the activity, fora commenting period of at least

30 days. Unless agreement to the contrary has been reached between the Competent Authority and the EAP, the EAP will be

responsible for the consultation with the relevant State Departments in terms of Section 24O and Regulation 7(2) – which

consultation must happen simultaneously with the consultation with the I&APs and other Organs of State.

All the comments received from I&AP s on the BAR must be recorded, responded to and included in the Comments and

Responses Report included as Appendix F of theBAR. If necessary, any amendments made in response to comments received

must be effected in the BAR itself. The Comments and Responses Report must also include a description of the PPP ollowed.

The minutes of any meetings held by the EAP with I&APs and other role players wherein the views of the participants are

recorded, must also be submitted as part of the public participation information to be attached to the final BAR as

Appendix F.

Proof of all the notices given as indicated, as well as notice to I&APs of the availability of the Pre-Application BAR (if

applicable), Draft BAR, and Revised BAR (if applicable) must be submitted as part of the public participation information to

be attached to the BAR as Appendix F.In terms of the required “proof” the following must be submitted to the Department:

• a site map showing where the site notice was displayed, a dated photographs showing the notice displayed on site

and a copy of the text displayed on the notice;

• in terms of the written notices given, a copy of the written notice sent, as well as:

o if registered mail was sent, a list of the registered mail sent (showing the registered mail number, the name of

the person the mail was sent to, the address of the person and the date the registered mail was sent);

o if normal mail was sent, a list of the mail sent (showing the name of the person the mail was sent to, the address

of the person, the date the mail was sent, and the signature of the post office worker or the post office stamp

indicating that the letter was sent);

o if a facsimile was sent, a copy of the facsimile report;

o if an electronic mail was sent, a copy of the electronic mail sent; and


o if a “mail drop” was done, a signed register of “mail drops” received (showing the name of the person the

notice was handed to, the address of the person, the date, and the signature of the person); and

• a copy of the newspaper advertisement (“newspaper clipping”) that was placed, indicating the name of the

newspaper and date of publication (of such quality that the wording in the advertisement is legible).

SECTION D: NEED AND DESIRABILITY

Note: Before completing this section, first consult this Department’s Circular EADP 0028/2014 (dated 9 December 2014) on the

“One Environmental Management System” and the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended), any subsequent Circulars, and

guidelinesavailable on the Department’s website: http://www.westerncape.gov.za/eadp). In this regard, it must be noted that

the Guideline on Need and Desirability in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2010published by

the national Department of Environmental Affairs on 20 October 2014 (GN No. 891 on Government Gazette No. 38108 refers)

(available at: http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/38108__891.pdf) also applied to EIAs in terms of the EIA Regulations,

2014 (as amended).

1. Is the development permitted in terms of the property’s existing land use rights? YES X NO Please explain

The site is already zoned for agricultural. There are existing chicken rearing facilities on site that was

granted consent use for intensive feed farming. This proposed project is for the expansion of those

existing facilities and construction of additional facilities.

2. Will the development be in line with the following?

(a) Provincial Spatial Development Framework (“PSDF”). YES X NO Please explain

The Western Cape PSDF is a planning document that guides district and local spatial initiatives such

as IDP’s and SDF’s. It aims to create a coherent framework for the Province’s urban and rural areas.

The PSDF aims to guide the location and form of public investment in the Western Cape’s urban and

rural areas. Whilst it cannot influence private sector investment patterns, it has an important

contribution in terms of reducing business risk by providing clarity and certainty on where public

infrastructure investment will be targeted, thereby opening up new economic opportunities in these

areas.

The current economic state with high levels of unemployment, especially amongst the youth, and

recent job losses in agriculture all add to the high levels of rural poverty and unemployment.

The proposed expansion will create direct and indirect job opportunities during the construction and

operational phases.

(b) Urban edge / edge of built environment for the area. YES NO Please explain

Not applicable

(c) Integrated Development Plan and Spatial Development Framework of the Local

Municipality (e.g., would the approval of this application compromise the integrity

of the existing approved and credible municipal IDP and SDF?).

YES X NO Please explain

From the Theewaterkloof Integrated Development Plan it is clear that agricultural development

should be encouraged as it is the economic sector that provides the most employment

opportunities in the municipal area. Agriculture is also one of the largest economic activities in the

municipal area. The IDP encourages local economic development with a focus on increased

employment opportunities.

(d) An Environmental Management Framework (“EMF”) adopted by this Department

(e.g., Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the

existing environmental management priorities for the area and if so, can it be

justified in terms of sustainability considerations?)

YES x NO Please explain

The EMF is integrated in the Theewaterskloof Local Municipality SDF. One of the key spatial

challenges is the promotion of biodiversity conservation and sustainable environmental


management based on bioregional planning objectives.

The intensification of agricultural practices on site through the expansion project minimises the

transformation of land, whilst protecting food production.

(e) Any other Plans (e.g., Integrated Waste Management Plan (for waste

management activities), etc.)). YES NO x Please explain

3. Is the land use (associated with the project being applied for) considered within the

timeframe intended by the existing approved SDF agreed to by the relevant

environmental authority (in other words, is the proposed development in line with

the projects and programmes identified as priorities within the credible IDP)?


The IDP for Theewaterskloof Local Municipality recognises the importance of the agricultural sector

and its importance to stimulate the local economy in addition to job creation.

4. Should development, or if applicable, expansion of the town/area concerned in

terms of this land use (associated with the activity being applied for) occur on the

proposed site at this point in time?


The site is already a chicken rearing facility with existing impacts. The proposed project is for the

expansion of that existing facility. There is thus no alternative site. The land use in the surrounding

area is also mainly agricultural with low employment rates in the local community.

The proposed expansion will create a product (low cost protein) for the market and create

temporary and permanent direct and indirect employment in a rural area.

5. Does the community/area need the project and the associated land use

concerned (is it a societal priority)? (This refers to the strategic as well as local level

(e.g., development is a National Priority, but within a specific local context it could

be inappropriate.)


The area has limited employment opportunities. As a result youth in the area relocate to more urban

areas in the search of employment. The proposed expansion project will stimulate the local

economy, create temporary and permanent, direct and indirect employment in the area.

6. Are the necessary services available together with adequate unallocated

municipal capacity (at the time of application), or must additional capacity be

created to cater for the project? (Confirmation by the relevant municipality in this

regard must be attached to the BAR as Appendix E.)


It is proposed that the borehole water allocation for the farm be used for the expansion.

Internal roads to be reconfigured to gain access to all proposed units on site.




Sewage –the current sewage system is in the form of septic tanks, as no waste water treatment works

is located within close proximity. The development will produce additional sewage due to increase

in workers, however the toilet facilities is sufficient on site.

Manure will be cleaned out and removed to neighbouring vegetable farms for organic fertiliser.

7. Is this project provided for in the infrastructure planning of the municipality and if

not, what will the implication be on the infrastructure planning of the municipality

(priority and placement of services and opportunity costs)? (Comment by the

relevant municipality in this regard must be attached to the BAR as Appendix E.)

YES NO Please explain

Comment to be obtained from Theewaterskloof local municipality. Overberg district municipality

comment appended under Appendix F4.

8. Is this project part of a national programme to address an issue of national concern

or importance? YES NO X Please explain


9. Do location factors favour this land use (associated with the development

proposal and associated listed activity(ies) applied for) at this place? (This relates

to the contextualisation of the proposed land use on the proposed site within its

broader context.)


There is already an existing chicken rearing facility at this site. The proposed project is for the

expansion of that existing facility.

As can be seen from point 6 above the necessary services are established and available for the

expansion as well.

10. Will the development proposal or the land use associated with the development

proposal applied for, impact on sensitive natural and cultural areas (built and

rural/natural environment)?


No sensitive natural or cultural areas will be impacted on.

11. Will the development impact on people’s health and well-being (e.g., in terms of

noise, odours, visual character and ‘sense of place’, etc.)? YES NO X Please explain

The site is located some distance from the nearest residential dwellings in Caledon. Chicken manure

will be cleaned out from the pens and removed off site on a weekly basis, minimising the chance of

odours from the site.

The visual impact largely exists as this is an existing facility, and the addition of the additional units will

have to implement similar mitigation measures as previously identified for the original development

in terms of screening with landscaping and using natural colours for outsides of units.

Noise from inside the units will be largely contained as the units are completely enclosed.

The proposed landuse is agricultural and is compatible with the surrounding rural/ agricultural area.

12. Will the proposed development or the land use associated with the proposed

development applied for, result in unacceptable opportunity costs? YES NO X Please explain

13. What will the cumulative impacts (positive and negative) of the proposed land use associated with the development

proposal and associated listed activity(ies) applied for, be?

Positive:

1) Direct and indirect, temporary and permanent job creation

2) Training and skills transfer to new employees

3) Production of low cost protein for the local market

4) Stimulation of local market during construction (accommodation, construction) and

operation ( passing commercial trade)

Negative:

1) Increase in traffic

2) Intensified agricultural activities in area

14. Is the development the best practicable environmental option for this land/site? YES X NO Please explain

The land use proposal is considered the best economic proposal for the property, as it is an existing

agricultural area with an existing chicken rearing facility to be expanded within the area previously

identified as LOW conservation status. The natural southern section of the farm is still left intact and


untouched.

15. What will the benefits be to society in general and to the local communities? Please explain

1) Direct and indirect, temporary and permanent job creation through construction and

operational phases

2) Supply of low cost source of protein into the market

3) Stimulation of local market during construction (accommodation, construction) and

operation ( passing commercial trade)

4) Training and skills transfer to new employees

5) Upliftment through employment and training

16. Any other need and desirability considerations related to the proposed development? Please explain

n/a

17. Describe how the general objectives of Integrated Environmental Management as set out in Section 23 of the NEMA have

been taken into account:

The Basic Assessment report investigates, assesses and communicates all potential impacts of the

proposed expansion project. All potential impacts are identified in the process and any suitable

alternatives to mitigate or eliminate these impacts will be explored. Impacts to the environment,

socio-economic and heritage are assessed for the alternative options.

18 Describe how the principles of environmental management as set out inSection 2 of the NEMA have been taken into

account:

The aim of these principles is to guide stakeholders to ensure a holistic evaluation, with the

precautionary principle used as a focus in order to encourage development which is sustainable

and which retains the sense of place as far as possible whilst exploring feasible and reasonable

alternatives to achieve such objectives. It is anticipated that no cultural / heritage aspects will be

disturbed as a result of the proposed expansion of the existing facility. Furthermore a cautious

approach will be used during all stages of the development with the best possible environmental

option being explored. The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for Operation will guide an eco

oriented approach. The existing chicken rearing facility has existing impacts. The potential impacts

from the proposed expansion were considered and mitigation measures were proposed. The aim of

the project is to create an expansion to an already existing and successful chicken rearing facility,

working with the natural resources of the area, and minimising the potential impacts associated with

the expansion project.


SECTION E: DETAILS OF ALL THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Note: Before completing this section, first consult this Department’s Circular EADP 0028/2014 (dated 9 December 2014) on the

“One Environmental Management System” and the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended), any subsequent Circulars, and

guidelines available on the Department’s website http://www.westerncape.gov.za/eadp.

The EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) defines “alternatives” as “ in relation to a proposed activity, means different means

of fulfilling the general purpose and requirements of the activity, which may include alternatives to the—

(a) property on which or location where the activity is proposed to be undertaken;

(b) type of activity to be undertaken;

(c) design or layout of the activity;

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

(e) operational aspects of the activity;

(f) and includes the option of not implementing the activity;”

The NEMA (section 24(4)(a) and (b) of the NEMA, refers) prescribes that the procedures for the investigation, assessment and

communication of the potential consequences or impacts of activities on the environment must, inter alia, with respect to

every application for environmental authorisation –

• ensure that the general objectives of integrated environmental management laid down in the NEMA and the National

Environmental Management Principles set out in the NEMA are taken into account; and

• include an investigation of the potential consequences or impacts of the alternatives to the activity on the environment

and assessment of the significance of those potential consequences or impacts, including the option of not

implementing the activity.

The general objective of integrated environmental management (section 23 of NEMA, refers) is, inter alia, to “identify, predict

and evaluate the actual and potential impact on the environment, socio-economic conditions and cultural heritage, the risks

and consequences and alternatives and options for mitigation of activities, with a view to minimising negative impacts,

maximising benefits, and promoting compliance with the principles of environmental management” set out in the NEMA.

The identification, evaluation, consideration and comparative assessment of alternatives directly relate to the management

of impacts. Related to every identified impact, alternatives, modifications or changes to the activity must be identified,

evaluated, considered and comparatively considered to:

• in terms of negative impacts, firstly avoid a negative impact altogether, or if avoidance is not possible alternatives to

better mitigate, manage and remediate a negative impact and to compensate for/offset any impacts that remain after

mitigation and remediation; and

• in terms of positive impacts, maximise impacts.

1. DETAILS OFTHE IDENTIFIED AND CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES AND INDICATE THOSE ALTERNATIVES

THAT WERE FOUND TO BE FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE

Note: A full descriptionof the investigation of alternatives must be provided and motivation if no reasonable or feasible

alternatives exists.

(a) Property and location/site alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise

positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

The proposed project is for the expansion of the existing chicken rearing facility, which has been

“contained” to the already disturbed/cultivated portion of the property. There are no location

alternatives as all the expansion will be within the subject property.

(b) Activity alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts,

or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

There are no activity alternatives. The site is an existing chicken rearing facility and the proposed

project is for the expansion of that facility.

(c) Design or layout alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive

impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

The following Alternative layout was investigated -

Alternative 1 (preferred):

1. Construction of eight (8)new rearing pens of 2025m2 each (known as units 1to 8) with a total














is located within close proximity. The development will produce additional sewage due to the increase in

workers, however the current septic tank system is sufficient to handle the increase.


(Refer to Figure 11and Appendix B).

Figure 11: Layout – Alternative 1 (Preferred).

Alternative 2:





as agricultural, leaving the remaining portion of the farm intact. No indigenous vegetation will be

impacted on. The location of the western pens, pens 1 & 2 in particular stormwater runoff could pose

a risk to the watercourse on site due to its close proximity and slope of the site (Refer to Figure 12:

Layout – Alternative 2 Rejected).











Figure 12: Layout – Alternative 2 (Rejected).

(d) Technology alternatives (e.g., to reduce resource demand and increase resource use efficiency) to avoid negative

impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable

or feasible alternatives exist:

There are no technology alternatives as the proposed expansion project is a continuation of an

existing activity with existing technology.

(e) Operational alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive

impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

There are no operational alternatives as the proposed expansion project is the continuation of an

existing activity with existing operational measures in place.

(f) The option of not implementing the activity (the ‘No-Go’ Option):

The NO GO option was evaluated as an alternative, where the existing facility continues as is and no

expansion is put in place.

The company needs to expand its chicken rearing operations to meet the growing demand in the

market for more affordable protein, which makes this option not viable.


(g) Other alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or

detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

N/A

(h) Provide a summary of all alternatives investigated and the outcome of each investigation:

This project aims to expand the existing facility through building eight new rearing pens. Internal

roads approx. 4- 6 m wide (500m x 4m) will be established to allow access between new and old

pens.

Alternative 2 comprise of three pens (1 to 3) to the west of the watercourse and five pens (4 to 8) to

the east. This Alternative is rejected due to the risk of the watercourse being polluted by runoff from

pens 1 to 2. Alternative 1 comprise of pens located in areas that will not pose a risk to the

watercourse in terms of stormwater runoff from pens.

Alternative 1 (preferred) - refer to SDP in Appendix B:

















Alternative 2 – refer SDP in Appendix B:





as agricultural, leaving the remaining portion of the farm intact. No indigenous vegetation will be

impacted on. The location of the western pens, in particular stormwater runoff, could pose a risk to

the watercourse on site due to its close proximity and slope of the site.











Alternative 3:

No go. The status quo remains and the property is not developed further.

(i) Provide a detailed motivation for not further considering the alternatives that were found not feasible and reasonable,

including a description and proof of the investigation of those alternatives:

The proposed project is for the expansion of an existing facility, thus the proposed expansion cannot

be assessed for another locality.

There are no technology alternatives as the proposed expansion project is a continuation of an

existing activity with an existing technology. The existing unit layouts (as seen in Appendix B) will be

used for the new units as well, so no new technology will be introduced in the project scope or

design.

There are no operational alternatives as the proposed expansion project is the continuation of an

existing activity with existing operational measures in place. The alternatives considered were in

terms of layout.

2. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

(a) Provide a concluding statement indicating the preferred alternative(s), including preferred location, site, activity and

technology for the development.


The preferred alternative is indicated in Appendix B. It is informed by the existing infrastructure

associated with the current chicken farm; natural area on the southern portion of the property as

well as the watercourse located on the property.

The following points informed the preferred layout:

1) 100m buffer from watercourse on site.

2) Topography of site. Prevention of runoff into watercourse.

3) The units are required to be placed a certain distance from each other for bio-security reasons.

The site, location and technology are unchanged from the initial site development to the proposed

expansion project.

The preferred alternative allows for 8 pens to be constructed 100m away from the watercourse and

in close proximity to existing infrastructure.

The scope for the preferred alternative includes:














SECTION F: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALTERNATIVES Note: The information in this section must be DUPLICATED for all the feasible and reasonable ALTERNATIVES.

1. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS ASSOCIATEDWITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ITS

ALTERNATIVES, FOCUSING ON THE FOLLOWING:

(a) Geographical, geological and physical aspects:

Transformation of additional land with built up units – intensification of agricultural activities on site

(b) Ecological aspects:

Will the proposed development and its alternatives have an impact on CBAsor ESAs?

If yes, please explain:

Also include a description of how the proposed development will influence the quantitative values

(hectares/percentage) of the categories on the CBA/ESA map.

YES NO

x

A section of the property is categorised as a CBA (Terrestrial). The area earmarked for expansion is

located approximately 500m to the north of the CBA area. Thus no CBA area will be impacted on.

A small section of the property is categorised as an ESA (Climate corridor). The area earmarked for

expansion is located approximately 500m to the north of the ESA area. Thus no ESA area will be

impacted on.

An area associated with the watercourse, which runs through the property, is categorised as an

ESA1 (watercourse). The proposed expansion footprint will be located more than 100m from the

watercourse. Thus no ESA1 area will be impacted on



watercourse.


probably due to the fact that the dams are in-stream. The dams are immediately surrounded by

cultivated land. A wetland was identified in the area associated with the central dam and a

wetland with negligible significance was identified in the SE portion of the property.

Will the proposed development and its alternatives have an impact on terrestrial vegetation, or aquatic

ecosystems (wetlands, estuaries or the coastline)?


YES NO x

No terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems will be impacted on.

Will the proposed development and its alternatives have an impact on any populations of threatened plant or

animal species, and/or on any habitat that may contain a unique signature of plant or animal species?


YES NO

x

No threatened plant or animal species will be impacted on.

Describe the manner in which any other biological aspects will be impacted:

Runoff from pens to be monitored to prevent polluting of watercourse.

Will the proposed development also trigger section 63 of the NEM: ICMA? YES

NO

X

If yes, describe the following:

(i) the extent to which the applicant has in the past complied with similar authorisations;

(ii) whether coastal public property, the coastal protection zone or coastal access land will be affected, and if so, the extent

to which the proposed development proposal or listed activity is consistent withthe purpose for establishing and protecting

those areas;


(iii) the estuarine management plans, coastal management programmes, coastal management linesand coastal

management objectives applicable in the area;

(iv) the likely socio-economic impactif the listed activity is authorised or is not authorised;

(v) the likely impact of coastal environmental processes on the proposed development;

(vi) whether the development proposal or listed activity—

(a) is situated within coastal public property and is inconsistent with the objective of conserving and enhancing coastal public

property for the benefit of current and futuregenerations;

(b) is situated within the coastal protection zone and is inconsistent with the purpose forwhich a coastal protection zone is

established as set out in section 17 of NEM: ICMA;

(c) is situated within coastal access land and is inconsistent with the purpose for which

coastal access land is designated as set out in section 18 of NEM: ICMA;

(d) is likely to cause irreversible or long-lasting adverse effects to any aspect of the coastal

environment that cannot satisfactorily be mitigated;

(e) is likely to be significantly damaged or prejudiced by dynamic coastal processes;

(f) would substantially prejudice the achievement of any coastal management objective; or

(g) would be contrary to the interests of the whole community;

(vii) whether the very nature of the proposed activity or development requires it to be located within

coastal public property, the coastal protection zone or coastal access land;

(viii) whether the proposed development will provide important services to the public when

using coastal public property, the coastal protection zone, coastal access land or a coastal

protected area; and

(ix) the objects of NEM: ICMA, where applicable.

N/A

(c) Social and Economic aspects:

What is the expected capital value of the project on completion? R 34M

What is the expected yearly income or contribution to the economy that will be generated by or as a result

of the project?

R 19M

Will the project contribute to service infrastructure? YES NO X

Is the project a public amenity? YES NO X

How many new employment opportunities will be created during the development phase? 20

What is the expected value of the employment opportunities during the development phase? R1.2M

What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? 85%

How will this be ensured and monitored (please explain):

The contractors will supply their labour numbers and verify their wages with management, which will

allow for monitoring.

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

project?

16

What is the expected current value of the employment opportunities during the first 10 years? R9.5M

What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? 100%

How will this be ensured and monitored (please explain):

This forms part of the company employment policy.

Any other information related to the manner in which the socio-economic aspects will be impacted:

Impacts on socio-economic aspects:

1) Potentially negative impacts

• Possible increase in visual intrusion from extra units

• Impact on traffic flows and road infrastructure

• Nuisance factors (noise, dust ) during construction

• Infrastructure requirements increased (electricity, sewage disposal)

2) Potentially positive impacts

• Knock-on effect for trade in local economy in Caledon

• Provision of more affordable protein to local markets

• Direct and indirect employment opportunities (temporary and permanent) and skills

transfer to new employees.


(d) Heritage and Cultural aspects:

NID submitted to HWC and feedback acquired (Refer to Appendix E1).

No impacts on Heritage and Cultural aspects identified.

2. WASTE AND EMISSIONS

(a) Waste (including effluent) management

Will the development proposal produce waste (including rubble) during the development

phase? YES X NO

If yes, indicate the typesof waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or

not) and estimated quantity per type? m3

1) Building rubble from existing units to be expanded (where

possible material to be reused) – non-hazardous

Unknown volume, but to

be transferred to local

municipal waste site in

Caledon

Will the development proposal produce waste during its operational phase? YES X NO

If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and

estimated quantity per type? Unknownm3

- Chicken Manure treated as by-product and not waste, and is provided to

surrounding farms as fertiliser rather than disposal to landfill.

- Dead chickens to be disposed of to mortality pit on site.

- Sewage capacity on site is adequate for the existing systems.

- Domestic waste will be collected and transported to the nearest municipal

transfer station/ landfill site. Recycling will be in place on site.

The National Environmental Management: Waste Act 59 of 2008 (“NEM:WA”), as

amended, regulates waste management activities in South Africa. A waste

management licence is required (in terms of section 20 of NEM:WA) prior to the

commencement of any waste management activities identified in the List of waste

management activities that have, or are likely to have a detrimental effect on the

environment (2013), as amended.

NEM:WA regulates a range of waste management activities, including the treatment,

storage and disposal of waste.

The term ‘waste’ is defined in section 1 of NEM:WA (with reference to Schedule 3 to

the Act) as follows –

“(a) any substance, material or object, that is unwanted, rejected, abandoned,

discarded or disposed of, or that is intended or required to be discarded of, by the

holder of that substance, material or object, whether or not such substance, material

or object can be reused, recycled or recovered and includes all wastes as defined in

Schedule 3 of this Act;

……..

But any waste or portion of waste, referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), ceases to be

a waste –

………..

(ii) where approval is not required, once a waste is, or has been re-used, recycled or

recovered;

Furthermore Schedule 3 to NEM:WA provides for the categorization of Hazardous

Waste (Category A) and General Waste (Category B).


“General Waste” is defined in Schedule 3 as “waste that does not pose an

immediate hazard or threat to health or to the environment, and includes —

(a) domestic waste;

(b) building and demolition waste;

(c) business waste;

(d) inert waste; or

(e) any waste classified as non-hazardous waste in terms of the regulations made

under section 69, and includes non-hazardous substances, materials or objects within

business, domestic, inert, building and demolition wastes….”

“Business waste” is defined for purposes of Category B as “waste that emanates from

premises that are used wholly or mainly for commercial, retail, wholesale,

entertainment or government administration purposes, which include” the waste

categories identified in Category B. Category B(1)(a) specifically includes “wastes

from agriculture… not otherwise specified in Category A”.

“storage” means “the accumulation of waste in a manner that does not constitute

treatment or disposal of the waste;”

The following will be generated by the proposed development –

1. Chicken manure (operational phase) -

Chicken manure would be regarded as “waste” (General/business waste) until the

point in time at which it has been processed and can be re-used, where after it

ceases to be regarded as “waste” (in terms of the exclusion contained in the

definition of “waste” in section 1 of the NEM:WA). All manure is taken directly from

inside the units and transported off site to be used as fertiliser by farmers. No

stockpiling or treatment of the manure is done. No treatment of manure is required

for use as fertiliser by neighbouring farmers.

2. Domestic waste (General Waste) (construction and operational phase) -

Domestic waste will be removed on a regular basis to a approved landfill. No storage

of domestic waste will take place.

3. Building waste (General Waste) - (construction phase)

Building waste will be removed on a regular basis to a approved landfill. No storage

of building waste will take place.

Seeing that chicken manure is not regarded as waste and that no storage of waste

of any kind will take place on the property (no storage of general waste (> 100m3) or

hazardous waste (> 80m3) for more than 90 days will be done at the site), the

requirements for a waste management licence and those conditions associated with

the storage of waste, as contained in NEM:WA, does not apply to the proposed

development.

Will the development proposal require waste to be treated / disposed of on site? YES X NO

If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and

estimated quantity per type per phase of the proposed developmentto be treated/disposed of? m3

There is an existing mortality pit on site.

If no, where and how will the waste be treated / disposed of? Please explain.

Indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and estimated

quantity per type per phase of the proposed development to be treated/disposed of?

Approximately

50 m3per week

Chicken manure supplied to surrounding farms on a weekly basis as fertiliser. No

storage on site.

Has the municipality or relevant authority confirmed that sufficient capacity exists for treating / disposing of

the waste to be generated by thedevelopment proposal?

If yes, provide written confirmation from the municipality or relevant authority.

YES NO X


Will the development proposal produce waste that will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility

other than into a municipal waste stream? YES X NO

If yes, has this facility confirmed that sufficient capacity exists for treating / disposing of the waste to be

generated by the development proposal?

Provide written confirmation from the facility.

There is an existing agreement in place with a neighbouring farmer to collect and use the chicken manure

on a weekly basis as fertiliser on his farm.

YES X NO

Does the facility have an operating license? (If yes, please attach a copy of the licence.) YES NO

Facility name:

Contact person:

Cell: Postal address:

Telephone: Postal code:

Fax: E-mail:

Describe the measures that will be taken to reduce, reuse or recycle waste:

The Mortality pit will prevent the disposal of chicken mortalities to landfill.

Domestic Waste and recyclables are separated and disposed of at a licensed landfill site.

(b) Emissions into the atmosphere

Will the development proposal produce emissions that will be released into the atmosphere? YES NO X

If yes, does this require approval in terms of relevant legislation? YES NO

If yes, what is the approximate volume(s) of emissions released into the atmosphere? m3

Describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration and how these will be avoided/managed/treated/mitigated:

3. WATER USE

(a) Indicate the source(s) of water for the development proposal by highlightingthe appropriate box(es).

Municipal Water board Groundwater

x

River, Stream,

Dam or Lake

Other The project will not

use water

Note: Provide proof of assurance of water supply (e.g. Letter of confirmation from the municipality / water user associations,

yield of borehole)

(b) If water is to be extracted from a groundwater source, river, stream, dam, lake or any other

natural feature, please indicate the volume that will be extracted per month:

15 186

m3 per

annum

(c) Does the development proposal require a water use permit / license from DWS? YES NO

X

If yes, please submit the necessary application to the DWSand attach proof thereof to this application as an Appendix.

A GA is required and submitted application to BGCMA

(d) Describe the measures that will be taken to reduce water demand, and measures to reuse or recycle water:

The water is abstracted from two existing boreholes on the property.

The following measures are in place on site to minimise usage of water on site:

• Chicken pens are dry-sweeped.

• When the pens are washed down it is done with a high pressure hose and minimal water

usage.

• The bio-security washdown area and its associated showers use water saving devices to

minimise the use of water on site.

• Water use activities on the farm, other than for animal consumption, are minimal.


4. POWER SUPPLY

(a) Describe the source of powere.g. municipality / Eskom / renewable energy source.

Eskom supply is currently used. The proposed expansion will require expansion of the current supply. A letter from ESKOM

confirming supply availability is still awaited.

(b) If power supply is not available, where will power be sourced?

n/a

5. ENERGY EFFICIENCY

(a) Describe the design measures, if any, that have been taken to ensure that the development proposal will be energy

efficient:

The pens have been located in such a manner as to ensure that they fully make use of the natural

elements for cooling and heating in their orientation and layout. For this reason the roofs of the units

is not painted to enable them to reflect the sunlight and minimise the need for cooling inside. The

overall designs minimise the need for additional heating and cooling mechanisms and methods.

(b) Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the design of the project, if

any:

No solar power mechanisms are included at this stage.

6. TRANSPORT, TRAFFIC AND ACCESS

Describe the impacts in terms of transport, traffic and access.

The site currently has access off the R320via a gravel road and this access will stay in place..

Construction phase impacts:

• Delivery of materials to site

• Delivery of labour to site

Operational impacts:

• Extra vehicles on site to collect cull hens as numbers are increased by extra units, but this will

only be once/ twice a year

• Additional deliveries of feed to site

• Additional transport of labour to site after employment of additional employees

Due to the strict Bio-security measures in place, the need is always there to minimise the vehicles and

people that come on site as each vehicle has to be treated before coming on site, and each

person has to shower before going into the units.


7. NUISANCE FACTOR (NOISE, ODOUR, etc.)

Describe the potential nuisance factor or impacts in terms of noise and odours.

The project is for the expansion of the existing chicken rearing facility with existing impacts.

The units in which the animals are raised are closed, so noise to the outside environment is minimal.

The Bio-enzyme mortality pit is situated some distance from the nearest town (Caledon), so possible

odours from the mortality pit is highly unlikely.

The chicken manure removed from each unit on a weekly basis is temporarily stockpiled adjacent to

the unit and removed for distribution to nearby farms as fertiliser. Odour from the fertiliser will only be

for the few hours it is lying on the ground adjacent to the unit before being removed. Even so, the

closest neighbour is located 600m away from the closest unit.

The movement of labour on and off the site is in line with normal noise generated by farming

activities. There is no heavy machinery on site.

Note: Include impacts that the surrounding environment will have on the proposed development.

8. OTHER

No other impacts have been identified at this time, but will be included in future as they are highlighted.


SECTION G: IMPACT ASSESSMENT, IMPACT AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION

AND MONITORING MEASURES

1. METHODOLOGY USED IN DETERMINING AND RANKING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RISKS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALTERNATIVES

(a) Describe the methodology used in determining and ranking the nature, significance consequences, extent, duration and

probability of potential environmental impacts and risks associated with the proposed development and alternatives.

IMPACT RATING METHODOLOGY

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF EACH IMPACT IDENTIFIED WAS ASSESSED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING VARIABLES (EVALUATION COMPONENTS):

SIGNIFICANCE IS THE PRODUCT OF PROBABILITY AND SEVERITY. PROBABILITY DESCRIBES THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE IMPACT ACTUALLY OCCURRING,

AND IS RATED AS FOLLOWS:

PROBABILITY

PROBABILITY

IMPROBABLE LOW POSSIBILITY OF IMPACT TO OCCUR EITHER BECAUSE OF DESIGN OR

HISTORIC EXPERIENCE. RATING = 1

PROBABLE DISTINCT POSSIBILITY THAT IMPACT WILL OCCUR. RATING = 2

HIGHLY PROBABLE MOST LIKELY THAT IMPACT WILL OCCUR. RATING = 3

DEFINITE IMPACT WILL OCCUR, IN THE CASE OF ADVERSE IMPACTS REGARDLESS OF

ANY PREVENTION MEASURES. RATING = 4

THE SEVERITY FACTOR IS CALCULATED FROM THE FACTORS GIVEN TO “INTENSITY” AND “DURATION”. INTENSITY AND DURATION FACTORS ARE

AWARDED TO EACH IMPACT, AS DESCRIBED BELOW.

THE INTENSITY FACTOR IS AWARDED TO EACH IMPACT ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING METHOD:

INTENSITY FACTOR

LOW INTENSITY NATURAL AND MAN-MADE FUNCTIONS NOT AFFECTED. FACTOR 1

MEDIUM INTENSITY ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED BUT NATURAL AND MAN-MADE FUNCTIONS AND

PROCESSES CONTINUE. FACTOR 2

HIGH INTENSITY

ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED - NATURAL OR MAN-MADE FUNCTIONS ARE

ALTERED TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WILL TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY

CEASE OR BECOME DYSFUNCTIONAL.

FACTOR 3

DURATION IS ASSESSED AND A FACTOR AWARDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING:

DURATION

SHORT TERM <1 TO 5 YEARS FACTOR 1

MEDIUM TERM 5 TO 15 YEARS FACTOR 2

LONG TERM

IMPACT WILL ONLY CEASE

AFTER THE OPERATIONAL LIFE OF THE ACTIVITY, EITHER BECAUSE OF NATURAL PROCESS OR BY

HUMAN INTERVENTION

FACTOR 3

PERMANENT

MITIGATION, EITHER BY

NATURAL PROCESS OR BY HUMAN INTERVENTION, WILL NOT OCCUR IN SUCH A WAY OR IN SUCH A

TIME SPAN THAT THE IMPACT CAN BE CONSIDERED TRANSIENT

FACTOR 4

THE SEVERITY RATING IS OBTAINED FROM CALCULATING A SEVERITY FACTOR, AND COMPARING THE SEVERITY FACTOR TO THE RATING IN THE TABLE

BELOW. FOR EXAMPLE:

THE SEVERITY FACTOR = INTENSITY FACTOR X DURATION FACTOR

= 2 X 3

= 6

A SEVERITY FACTOR OF SIX (6) EQUALS A SEVERITY RATING OF MEDIUM SEVERITY (RATING 3) AS PER TABLE BELOW:

RATING FACTOR

LOW SEVERITY (RATING 2) CALCULATED VALUES 2 TO 4

MEDIUM SEVERITY (RATING 3) CALCULATED VALUES 5 TO 8

HIGH SEVERITY (RATING 4) CALCULATED VALUES 9 TO 12

VERY HIGH SEVERITY (RATING 5) CALCULATED VALUES 13 TO 16

SEVERITY FACTORS BELOW 3 INDICATE NO IMPACT

A SIGNIFICANCE RATING IS CALCULATED BY MULTIPLYING THE SEVERITY RATING WITH THE PROBABILITY RATING.


THE SIGNIFICANCE RATING SHOULD INFLUENCE THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS DESCRIBED BELOW:

SIGNIFICANCE RATING

LOW SIGNIFICANCE

CALCULATED

SIGNIFICANCE RATING

4 TO 6

POSITIVE IMPACT AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF LOW SIGNIFICANCE SHOULD HAVE NO

INFLUENCE ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

MEDIUM SIGNIFICANCE

CALCULATED

SIGNIFICANCE RATING

>6 TO 15

POSITIVE IMPACT:

SHOULD WEIGH TOWARDS A DECISION TO CONTINUE

NEGATIVE IMPACT:

SHOULD BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL WHERE THE IMPACT WOULD BE OF MEDIUM

SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE PROJECT CAN BE APPROVED.

HIGH SIGNIFICANCE

CALCULATED

SIGNIFICANCE RATING

16 AND MORE

POSITIVE IMPACT:

SHOULD WEIGH TOWARDS A DECISION TO CONTINUE, SHOULD BE ENHANCED IN

FINAL DESIGN.

NEGATIVE IMPACT:

SHOULD WEIGH TOWARDS A DECISION TO TERMINATE PROPOSAL, OR MITIGATION

SHOULD BE PERFORMED TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANCE TO AT LEAST MEDIUM

SIGNIFICANCE RATING.

THE IMPACTS WERE ASSESSED FOR THE PREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE AND FOR THE “NO - GO” OPTION, WITH AND WITHOUT THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT: IN RELATION TO AN ACTIVITY, MEANS THE PAST, CURRENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE IMPACT OF AN

ACTIVITY, CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH THE IMPACT OF ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ACTIVITY THAT IN ITSELF MAY NOT BE SIGNIFICANT,

BUT MAY BECOME SIGNIFICANT WHEN ADDED TO THE EXISTING AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE IMPACTS EVENTUATING FROM SIMILAR OR

DIVERSE ACTIVITIES.

NOTE: IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION, IT IS THE OPINION OF THE EAP THAT THE ASSESSMENT METHODS USED WAS ADEQUATE. AFTER

RANKING OF THE EVALUATION OF THE COMPONENTS (VARIABLES) ON A SCALE FOR EACH POTENTIAL IMPACT, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF EACH

POTENTIAL IMPACT WILL BE CALCULATED.

(b) Please describe any gaps in knowledge.

NO GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE CURRENTLY EXIST AT THIS STAGE, HOWEVER SHOULD ANY BE IDENTIFIED THEY WILL BE

COMMUNICATED IN AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MANNER AND DOCUMENTED IN THE BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT OR WHERE

APPROPRIATE.

(c) Please describe the underlying assumptions.

NO ASSUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCESS. ANY ASSUMPTIONS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED WILL BE MADE

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

(d) Please describe the uncertainties.

NO UNCERTAINTIES CURRENTLY EXIST AT THIS STAGE

(e) Describe adequacy of the assessment methods used.

The Basic Assessment process is informed and conducted in an open and transparent manner in accordance with the EIA

regulations as amended.


2. IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT AND RANKING OF IMPACTS TO REACH THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

INCLUDING THEPREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITHIN THE SITE

Note: In this section the focus is on the identified issues,impacts and risks thatinfluenced the identification of the

alternatives. This includes how aspects of the receiving environment have influenced the selection.

(a) List the identified impacts and risks for each alternative.

Alternative

1:Preferred

Alternative

A. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL AND PHYSICAL ASPECTS

1) Transformation of additional land with built up units and resultant visibility

B. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS

1) Waste generation

2) Potential surface water pollution

3) Pollution of groundwater resources

C. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

1) Nuisance factors (noise)

2) Nuisance factors (dust)

3) Nuisance factors (odour)

4) Employment opportunities

Alternative 2:

Rejected alternative




1) Waste generation


3) Impact on groundwater resources






No-go Alternative: NO EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING FACILITY WILL TAKE PLACE AND SITE WILL REMAIN AS IS.


(b) Describe theimpacts and risks identified for each alternative, including the nature, significance, consequence, extent,

duration and probability of the impacts, including the degree to which these impactscan be reversed; may cause

irreplaceable loss of resources; and can be avoided, managed or mitigated.

The following table serves as a guidefor summarising each alternative. The table should be repeated for each alternative

to ensure a comparative assessment. (The EAP has to select the relevant impacts identified in blue in the table below for

each alternative and repeat the table for each impact and risk).

ALTERNATIVE 1: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Geology / geohydrological / ecological / socio-economic / heritage and cultural-historical / noise / visual / etc.

PLANNING, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PHASE

Potential impact and risk: 1 - Transformation of additional land with built up units –

higher intensity agriculture

Nature of impact: Negative

Extent and duration of impact: Local; long term (extends into operational phase)

Consequence of impact or risk: Higher Intensity agriculture in localised area

Probability of occurrence: Definite

Degree to which the impact may cause

irreplaceable loss of resources: Possible

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low

Indirect impacts: Intensified visual impact as more units are placed on the site –

detracts from local sense of placeand intensifies agriculture on site

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Increased visual impact from expanded site

Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation

(e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Medium

Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Not possible

Degree to which the impact can be managed: Possible

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Possible

Proposed mitigation:

Screening around each unit in the landscape; colours on panels of

units to be natural colours; minimise area to be cleared around each unit to prevent cleared areas being noticeable.

Residual impacts: Screening vegetation maybe higher than the surrounding natural

vegetation

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Farm will be noticeable for its higher than surrounding vegetation, but

units will be less noticeable

Significance rating of impact after mitigation

(e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low

Potential impact and risk: 2- Waste Generation


Extent and duration of impact: Local - short term (during construction phase)

Consequence of impact or risk: Increased waste to landfill

Probability of occurrence: Probable


irreplaceable loss of resources: Low

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Possible

Indirect impacts: Less space at landfill due to increased disposal

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Less space at landfill due to increased disposal



Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Possible




Minimise new materials brought on site and reuse existing materials;

No burning of waste on site; maximise recycling of waste from construction activities

Residual impacts: More recyclable waste

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Increased disposal to landfill and less space at landfill



Potential impact and risk: 3- Nuisance factors (noise)


Extent and duration of impact: Local, short term


Consequence of impact or risk: Nuisance to surrounding landusers during construction phase

Probability of occurrence: Improbable




Indirect impacts: Affects localised tourism

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Nuisance on surrounding landusers and localised tourism affected







Restrict working hours to weekdays and halfday Saturday and no work on Sundays and public holidays; awareness on site of workers to

keep noise levels down outside of working hours

Residual impacts: No impact anticipated

Cumulative impact post mitigation: No impact anticipated



Potential impact and risk: 4 - Nuisance factors (dust)















Proposed mitigation: Restrict areas cleared to where construction is taking place; cover

topsoil areas; shield dust blowing onto roads and adjacent landusers





Potential impact and risk: 5–Employment opportunities

Nature of impact: Positive

Extent and duration of impact: Local; short term

Consequence of impact or risk: Additional local employment and income;transfer of skills

Probability of occurrence: Highly Probable


irreplaceable loss of resources: Not likely

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Not required

Indirect impacts: Social upliftment in local community

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Job creation amongst low income families



Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Not required

Degree to which the impact can be managed: Not required

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Not required

Proposed mitigation: Not required

Residual impacts: Social upliftment in local community

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Job creation amongst low income families





OPERATIONAL PHASE



Extent and duration of impact: Local - long term














Maximise recycling on site and waste separation; No burning of

waste on site; worker awareness on site re waste minimisation and

recycling

Residual impacts: More recyclable waste; waste disposal to landfill




Potential impact and risk: 2- Nuisance factors (odour)



Consequence of impact or risk: Nuisance to surrounding land users during removal of manure





Indirect impacts: Affects local community

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Nuisance on surrounding landusers






Proposed mitigation: Removal of manure from pens to be scheduled same day as removal

from site, i.e. minimise any amount of time it is stored on site





Potential impact and risk: 3– Employment opportunities


Extent and duration of impact: Local; long term



















Potential impact and risk: 4 – Potential surface and groundwater pollution


Extent and duration of impact: Local – long term

Consequence of impact or risk: Stormwater runoff from pens pollutes surface water.





Indirect impacts: Runoff and subsurface flow to Klein Steenboks River.

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Quality of Klein Steenboks River negatively affected (localised)



Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Likely

Degree to which the impact can be managed: Likely

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Likely

Proposed mitigation: Manage stormwater runoff

Residual impacts: Siltation of watercourse

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Degradation of watercourse




DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSUREPHASE

Potential impact and risk: 1 – Infrastructure and land left derelict post closure



Consequence of impact or risk: Infrastructure left derelict and allowed to degrade over time; Alien

vegetation encroaches site





Indirect impacts: Degradation of indigenous pieces of land over time

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Visual impact from buildings degrading and vegetation degradation






Proposed mitigation: Upon closure area is rehabilitated and infrastructure re-used

elsewhere; what cannot be re-used is sent to landfill for disposal

Residual impacts: Landfill site disposal

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Visual from buildings left to degrade over time; alien invasive

vegetation encroaches site if not maintained



Potential impact and risk: 2 – Job losses from closure



Consequence of impact or risk: Job losses from closure of facility

Probability of occurrence: Possible


irreplaceable loss of resources: Unlikely

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Unlikely


Indirect impacts: Social degradation of local labour force

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Social degradation of local labour force



Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Unlikely



Proposed mitigation: Re-skill labour force to be able to find alternative employment

Residual impacts: Change in skills set of labour force

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Social degradation due to job losses and people moving away even

with additional new skillset



ALTERNATIVE 2: REJECTED Geology / geohydrological / ecological / socio-economic / heritage and cultural-historical / noise / visual / etc.

PLANNING, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PHASE

Potential impact and risk: 1 - Transformation of additional land with built up units –

higher intensity agriculture


Extent and duration of impact: Local; long term (extends into operational phase)

Consequence of impact or risk: Higher Intensity agriculture in localised area

Probability of occurrence: Definite



Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Low

Indirect impacts: Intensified visual impact as more units are placed on the site –

detracts from local sense of place and intensifies agriculture on site

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Increased visual impact from expanded site







Screening around each unit in the landscape; colours on panels of units to be natural colours; minimise area to be cleared around each

unit to prevent cleared areas being noticeable

Residual impacts: Screening vegetation maybe higher than the surrounding natural

vegetation

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Farm will be noticeable for its higher than surrounding vegetation, but units will be less noticeable





Extent and duration of impact: Local - short term (during construction phase)














Minimise new materials brought on site and reuse existing materials; No burning of waste on site; maximise recycling of waste from

construction activities


Residual impacts: More recyclable waste




Potential impact and risk: 3- Nuisance factors (noise)
















Restrict working hours to weekdays and halfday Saturday and no

work on Sundays and public holidays; awareness on site of workers to

keep noise levels down outside of working hours





Potential impact and risk: 4 - Nuisance factors (dust)















Proposed mitigation: Restrict areas cleared to where construction is taking place; cover topsoil areas; shield dust blowing onto roads and adjacent landusers







Extent and duration of impact: Local; short term

Consequence of impact or risk: Additional local employment and income; transfer of skills



















OPERATIONAL PHASE



Extent and duration of impact: Local - long term














Maximise recycling on site and waste separation; No burning of

waste on site; worker awareness on site re waste minimisation and

recycling

Residual impacts: More recyclable waste; waste disposal to landfill




Potential impact and risk: 2- Nuisance factors (odour)



Consequence of impact or risk: Nuisance to surrounding landusers during removal of manure





Indirect impacts: Affects local community

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Nuisance on surrounding landusers






Proposed mitigation: Removal of manure from pens to be scheduled same day as removal

from site, i.e. minimise any amount of time it is stored on site


























Potential impact and risk: 4 – Potential surface and groundwater pollution


Extent and duration of impact: Local – long term

Consequence of impact or risk: Stormwater runoff from pens impacting on watercourse





Indirect impacts: Runoff and subsurface flow to Klein steenboks river

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Quality of Klein steenboks river negatively affected (localised)


(e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) High

Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Likely

Degree to which the impact can be managed: Likely

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Likely

Proposed mitigation: Stormwater management.

Residual impacts: Siltation of watercourse

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Degradation of watercourse




DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSUREPHASE

Potential impact and risk: 1 – Infrastructure and land left derelict post closure



Consequence of impact or risk: Infrastructure left derelict and allowed to degrade over time; Alien

vegetation encroaches site





Indirect impacts: Degradation of indigenous pieces of land over time

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Visual impact from buildings degrading and vegetation degradation






Proposed mitigation: Upon closure area is rehabilitated and infrastructure re-used

elsewhere; what cannot be re-used is sent to landfill for disposal

Residual impacts: Landfill site disposal

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Visual from buildings left to degrade over time; alien invasive

vegetation encroaches site if not maintained




Potential impact and risk: 2 – Job losses from closure



Consequence of impact or risk: Job losses from closure of facility

Probability of occurrence: Possible


irreplaceable loss of resources: Unlikely

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Unlikely

Indirect impacts: Social degradation of local labour force

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Social degradation of local labour force



Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Unlikely



Proposed mitigation: Re-skill labour force to be able to find alternative employment

Residual impacts: Change in skills set of labour force

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Social degradation due to job losses and people moving away even

with additional new skillset



Note: The EAP may decide to include this section as Appendix J to the BAR.


(c) Provide a summary of the site selection matrix.

IDENTIFIED IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE PRIOR

TO MITIGATION

SIGNIFICANCE POST

MITIGATION

PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE

1

Construction phase

1 – Transformation of additional

land with built up units – higher

intensity agriculture

MEDIUM (-) LOW (-)

2 – Waste Generation LOW (-) LOW (-)

3 – Nuisance Factors (noise) LOW (-) LOW (-)

4– Nuisance factors (dust) LOW (-) LOW (-)

5 – Employment opportunities MEDIUM (+) MEDIUM (+)

Operational phase


2 – Nuisance factors (odour) LOW (-) LOW (-)


4 – Potential surface and

groundwater pollution

MEDIUM (-) LOW (-)

Decommissioning and Closure phase

1 – Infrastructure and land left

derelict post closure

MEDIUM (-) LOW (-)

2 – Job losses from closure MEDIUM (-) LOW (-)

ALTERNATIVE

2 REJECTED

A. IDENTIFIED IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE PRIOR

TO MITIGATION

SIGNIFICANCE POST

MITIGATION

Construction phase

1 – Transformation of additional

land with built up units – higher

intensity agriculture

MEDIUM (-) LOW (-)


3 – Nuisance Factors (noise) LOW (-) LOW (-)

4 – Nuisance factors (dust) LOW (-) LOW (-)

5- Employment opportunities MEDIUM (+) MEDIUM (+)

Operational phase



2 – Nuisance factors (odour) LOW (-) LOW (-)


4 – Potential surface and

groundwater pollution

High (-) MEDIUM (-)

Decommissioning and Closure phase

1 – Infrastructure and land left

derelict post closure

MEDIUM (-) LOW (-)

2 – Job losses from closure MEDIUM (-) MEDIUM (-)

(d) Outcome of the site selection matrix.

The impact assessment indicates that the impacts associated with Alternative 1 (Preferred) and

Alternative 2 (Rejected) are mostly identical in terms of Geographical and physical (land

transformation and visual), biological (waste generation, potential water pollution and vegetation

removal) aspects. The socio-economic (nuisance factors and employment opportunities) also

reflect very similar impacts. Alternative 2 does however poses a risk to the water quality of the

watercourse associated with the Klein Steenboks River due to the close proximity of Unit 1 and 2 to

the watercourse as well as its placement in an area that drains to the watercourse.

Alternative 1 is preferred due to its low impact on geographical and physical; biological; and socio-

economic aspects.


3. SPECIALIST INPUTS/STUDIES, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Note: Specialist inputs/studies must be attached to this report as Appendix G andmust comply with the content

requirements set out inAppendix 6 of the EIA Regulations, 2014(as amended). Also take into account the Department’s

Circular EADP 0028/2014 (dated 9 December 2014) on the “One Environmental Management System” and the EIA

Regulations, 2014,any subsequent Circulars, and guidelines available on the Department’s website

(http://www.westerncape.gov.za/eadp).

Provide a summary of the findings and impact management measures identified in any specialist report and an

indication of how these findings and recommendations have been included in the BAR.

HERITAGE:

A NID was submitted to HWC and comments received (Refer to Appendix E1). No impacts on

heritage resources.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Provide an environmental impact statement of the following:

(i) A summary of the key findings of the EIA.

Refer to Section 3 above.

(ii) Has a map of appropriate scale been provided, which superimposes the proposed development and

its associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the preferred site,

indicating any areas that should be avoided, including buffers? See Appendix B

YES X

NO

(iii) A summary of the positive and negative impacts that the proposed development and alternatives will cause in the

environment and community.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 1):

NEGATIVE IMPACTS:




1) Waste generation







POSITIVE IMPACTS:

A. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS


REJECTED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 2):

NEGATIVE IMPACTS




1) Waste generation








POSITIVE IMPACTS

A. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS


5. IMPACT MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES

(a) Based on the assessment, describe the impact management, mitigation and monitoring measures as well as the impact

management objectives and impact management outcomes included in the EMPr. The EMPrmust be attached to this

report as Appendix H.

Water - will be supplied within the GA volume for the farm from an existing source. The water from

the source should be managed according to water saving principles:

• Capture and use rainwater from gutters and roofs into rainwater storage tanks for individual

structures where viable;

• Washbasin and shower taps to be fitted with flow reduction devices, aerators and motion

sensors to ensure water conservation and prevent that they can be left running;

• Toilets should be fitted with reduced flow or preferably a duel flush system;

• Re-use water for gardening and/or flushing;

• Washing facilities / to be provided with flow reduction devised and adequate catchment to

contain wash water;

• All hoses to be fitted with trigger gun spray nozzles to limit wastage;

• Dry sweeping preferable to washing to limit water consumption;

• Preference should be given to planting only endemic/indigenous gardens and using such for

landscaping to minimise water demand;

• Have timed irrigation systems with the focus on the hours when the least evaporation occurs;

rain sensors to form part of the irrigation system.

• Only plants adapted to the local climate used in landscaping to reduce the need for

excessive watering;

• Timed irrigation systems for pasture irrigation;

• Storm water catch pits for use in pasture irrigation;

• Irrigation during the evenings and not during daylight hours;

• Taps around the farm fitted with locks to prevent unauthorised use and included on a

maintenance schedule to detect and repairs leaks;

• Washing appliances (dishwashers and washing machines) filled only to the minimum level

required for effective functioning;

• Physical brushing or sweeping used in preference to water cleansing wherever possible (e.g.


cleaning pathways and inside the units).

Electricity – will be supplied by Eskom. Internal reticulation will be according to the appointed

Electrical Engineers standards. The following energy saving mechanisms should be implemented:

• Energy saving bulbs in all structures, alternatively use low voltage or compact fluorescent

lights;

• Use energy saving geysers;

• Use proper insulation to reduce the need for air conditioning;

• Solar glazing or energy efficient windows to reduce the need for air conditioning;

• Maximise the use of solar heating where viable;

• Structures should be orientated to optimise use of ambient weather and climate conditions

for heating and cooling;

• Natural light used wherever possible during the day in preference to artificial light (trade off

between using large windows for use of sunlight but this may require additional air-

conditioning);

• Programmed lighting;

• Cold rooms and freezers fitted with counter-weight doors to ensure that they cannot be left

open unnecessarily;

• Use of solar heating maximised where possible.

Sewage –Through the above water saving mechanisms the load on the general sewage flow will

also be reduced and therefore limit the load on the existing system.

Material - material used during construction or in the life-cycle of the project should be focused on

renewable and recyclable elements:

• Select building materials for durability to minimise maintenance or replacement;

• Use standard materials to increase the potential for re-use and re-cycling;

• Materials should be sourced locally where possible; and

• Use recycled shuttering, door and window frames, sanitary ware, concrete aggregate and

roofing materials where possible.

Operational Bio-security Guidelines - This should focus on mechanisms that need to be implemented

by the landowners.

The following cleaning procedure is followed per pen:

1) Manure is removed from unit, including all material from floor, walls, curtain sides and

equipment. Blow out switchboard and remove fan belt covers. Remove feed hoppers and

remove feed from lines. Empty feed tank and remove boot.

2) Dry sweep down walls and floor to remove all material.

3) Wash house out with high pressure hoses (using clean water) to remove any remaining dust.

4) Use foam soap on all inside areas

5) Wash unit inside with high pressure hoses (using clean water) to remove any remaining soap.


6) Disinfect unit.

7) All water used in the cleaning process is measured.

Water and Stormwater Management:

- Sheds are to be washed only once dry matter has been removed.

- No run-off from site will be allowed into the watercourse.

Manure

- All dry matter is to be swept from the shed every seven days.

- All dry matter is to be removed from site, and collected by neighbouring farmer as per

agreement.

- No manure can be composted or stored on site.

- If the manure is disposed if it needs to be at a licenced waste disposal facility.

- If manure is used by the contractor it needs to be in line with provisions of NEM:WA.

- Removal within seven days

Waste Management

- All standard refuse from the operation to be contained and removed from site weekly, and

disposed of at the closest local Waste Disposal site.

- All standard refuse to be sorted according to accepted municipal standards.

- Onsite bins for different wastes to be provided, which will encourage sorting at the source.

Mortalities

- Mortalities will be placed in mortality pit

- Mortalities to be treated with Bio-enzymes to aid decomposition.

(b) Describe any provisions for the adherence to requirements that are prescribed in a Specific Environmental Management

Act relevant to the listed activity or specified activity in question.

National Water Act – minimise impact on drainage line through expansion away from it and the

authorisation required for the activity within 500m of the wetland area (S21(c) and (i)). Water use

authorisation application currently underway.

(c) Describe the ability of the applicant to implement the management, mitigation and monitoring measures.

The Construction and Operational Environmental Management Plans (EMP’s) were compiled to

which the applicant will have to adhere in addition to any additional conditions with the

Environmental Authorisation should it be granted.

Mitigation and monitoring measures are practical and implementable with easily obtainable

objectives, therefore the applicant is capable of achieving these management and mitigation

measures.

All management, mitigation and monitoring measures can and will be implemented by the

applicant.

Although no impacts associated with the existing mortality pit use were identified (of any


significance at all from an aquatic ecosystem perspective), it would nevertheless appear that

design measures such as lining of any future new pits to prevent any seepage of organic materials or

other residue into downstream watercourses, should be considered from the perspective of

reducing the pollution footprint of the industry on water and other resources.

Given the negligible impact of the proposed development on the assessed watercourses, these

recommendations are considered beneficial from a “best practice” perspective only, and cannot

be enforced in terms of the present report, as essential mitigation.

(d) Provide the details of any financial provisions for the management of negative environmental impacts, rehabilitation and

closure of the proposed development.

Information on financial provisions not available at this stage.

(e) Provide the details of any financial provisions for the management of negative environmental impacts, rehabilitation and

closure of the proposed development.

Information on financial provisions not available at this stage.

(f) Describe any assumptions, uncertainties, and gaps in knowledge which relate to the impact management, mitigation

and monitoring measures proposed.

No assumptions have been considered necessary at this stage in the process. Should any

assumptions be required they will be identified appropriately.

No uncertainties exist at this stage in the process.

No gaps in knowledge currently exist at this stage; however should any be identified they will be

communicated in an open and transparent manner and documented in the Basic Assessment

Report (BAR) or where appropriate.


SECTION H: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EAP AND SPECIALISTS

(a) In my view as the appointed EAP, the information contained in this BAR and the documentation

attached hereto is sufficient to make a decision in respect of the listed activity(ies) applied for. YES X NO

(b) If the documentation attached hereto is sufficient to make a decision, please indicate below whether, in your opinion,

the listed activity(ies) should or should not be authorised:

Listed activity(ies) should be authorised: YES X NO

Provide reasons for your opinion

Activity 40 in Listing 1 relates to the additional chickens that will be brought on site as a result of the

expansion project. This proposed project is for the expansion of an existing facility. The spacing of the

units, the current effective management on site and the knock on increased employment

opportunities created by the proposed expansion justifies the proposed expansion on site.

The Preferred Alternative provided, with the guidance of the EMP’s for construction and operation,

will allow for an expansion with limited ecological impacts associated with it. A number of additional

job opportunities will also be created as a result of the proposed development.

All identified potential impacts related to activities can be successfully managed, mitigated and

monitored to ensure limited impact on the environment.

(c) Providea description of any aspects that were conditional to the findings of the assessment by the EAP and Specialists

which are to be included as conditions of authorisation.

1) Continued Alien invasive clearance on the farm to remain in place and be implemented

and monitored on an ongoing basis.

2) Specific operational regulations and guidelines for operation of chicken rearing facilities

should be implemented, monitored and adhered to.

(d) If you are of the opinion that the activity should be authorised, please provide any conditions, including mitigation

measures that should in your view be considered for inclusion in anenvironmental authorisation.

The Construction and Operational EMP’s should be implemented (Appendix H), however should the

project be authorised the following recommendations could be included as conditions, where

applicable.

Waste:

- All waste generated during the construction phase to be removed.

- No dumping of building rubble on the farm allowed.

- Removal of building rubble & waste to occur at least once a week

- Contractor to be responsible for waste generated during the construction phase.

Bio-security:

- No slaughtering to take place on site

- Cleaning of units and disposal of manure to be strictly controlled

- Mortality pit and proposed new composting facility to be used for disposal of chicken mortalities

on site.

Visual:

- Mitigate by means of landscaping – windbreaks, screens and shade trees

- Down lighting to be sufficient for safety and clarity of movement.


- Natural colours will be used for the side panels of the buildings in order to ensure that they will blend

in with the surrounding landscape.

- The roofs will remain reflective corrugation to reflect the heat of the sun.

Noise:

- Construction activities to be limited to working hours weekdays and halfday Saturdays. No work

allowed on Sundays and public holidays.

Manure:

- Manure to be taken off site, no stockpiling allowed.

Vegetation:

- All invasive alien plants should be removed from the property, including within the floodplain on a

continuous basis.

(e) Please indicate the recommended periods in terms of the following periods that should be specified in the environmental

authorisation:

i. the period within which commencement must

occur;

10 years

ii. the period for which the environmental

authorisation is granted and the date on which

the development proposal will have been

concluded, where the environmental

authorisation does not include operational

aspects;

10 years

iii. the period for which the portion of the

environmental authorisation that deals with

non-operational aspects is granted; and

10 years

iv. the period for which the portion of the

environmental authorisation that deals with

operational aspects is granted.

10 years

__________________________END______________________________


SECTION I: APPENDICES

The following appendices must be attached to this report:

APPENDIX

Confirm that

Appendix is

attached

Appendix A:

Locality map

Top cadastral map

Included

Appendix B:

Site development plan(s)

Preferred Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Included

A map of appropriate scale, which superimposes the proposed development

and its associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental

sensitivities of the preferred site, indicating any areas that should be avoided,

including buffer areas

Included in

SDP’s

Appendix C:

Photographs:

Photo report

Included

Appendix D: Biodiversity overlay maps:

Included

Appendix E:

Permit(s) / license(s) from any other Organ of State, including service letters from the municipality.

Appendix E1: Copy of comment from HWC. Included

Appendix E2: Previous RoD Included

Appendix E3: Letter confirming water use on site Included

Appendix F:

Public participation information: including a copy of the register of I&APs, the

comments and responses report, proof of notices, advertisements and any

other public participation information as is required in Section C above.

Included

Appendix G1: Specialist Report(s)

Included

Appendix H :

CEMP

OEMP

Included

Appendix I:

Additional information related to listed waste management activities (if

applicable)

n/a

Appendix J:

If applicable, description of the impact assessment process followed to

reach the proposed preferred alternative within the site.

n/a

Appendix K:

Any Other (if applicable).

CV for EAP

Included


SECTION J: DECLARATIONS

THE APPLICANT

Note: Duplicate this section where there is more than one applicant.

I …………………………………………..……….., in my personal capacity or duly authorised thereto,

hereby declare/affirm all the information submitted as part of this Report is true and correct, and

that I –

• am aware of and understand the content of this report;

• am fully aware of my responsibilities in terms of the NEMA, the EIA Regulations in terms of the

NEMA (Government Notice No. R. 982, refers) (as amended) and any relevant specific

environmental management Act and that failure to fulfil these requirements may constitute an

offence in terms of relevant environmental legislation;

• have provided the EAP and Specialist, Review EAP (if applicable), and Review Specialist (if

applicable), and the Competent Authority with access to all information at my disposal that is

relevant to the application;

• will be responsible for complying with conditions that may be attached to any decision(s)

issued by the Competent Authority;

• will be responsible for the costs incurred in complying with the conditions that may be

attached to any decision(s) issued by the Competent Authority;

Note: If acting in a representative capacity, a certified copy of the resolution or power of attorney

must be attached.

Signature of the Applicant:

Name of Organisation:

Date:


THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER

I ………………………………………………………., as the appointed EAPhereby declare/affirm:

• the correctness of the information provided as part of this Report;

• that all the comments and inputs from stakeholders and I&APs have been included in this Report;

• that all the inputs and recommendations from the specialist reports, if specialist reports were

produced, have been included in this Report;

• any information provided by me to I&APs and any responses by me to the comments or inputs

made by I&APs;

• that I have maintained my independence throughout this EIA process, or if not independent,

that thereview EAP hasreviewed my work (Note: a declaration by the review EAP must be

submitted);

• that I have throughout this EIA process met all of the general requirements of EAPs as set out in

Regulation 13;

• I have throughout this EIA process disclosed to the applicant, the specialist (if any), the

Department and I&APs, all material information that has or may have the potential to influence

the decision of the Department or the objectivity of any report, plan or document prepared as

part of the application;

• have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the application was

distributed or was made available to I&APs and that participation by I&APs was facilitated in

such a manner that all I&APs were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to

provide comments;

• have ensured that the comments of all I&APs were considered, recorded and submitted to the

Department in respect of the application;

• have ensured the inclusion of inputs and recommendations from the specialist reports in respect

of the application, if specialist inputs and recommendations were produced;

• have kept a register of all I&APs that participated during the PPP; and

• am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 48 of the EIA Regulations,

2014 (as amended).

Signature of the EAP:

Name of Company:

Date:


THE REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER

I ………………………………………………………., as the appointed Review EAPhereby declare/affirm:

• that I have reviewed all the work produced by the EAP;

• the correctness of the information provided as part of this Report;

• that I have, throughout this EIA process met all of the general requirements of EAPs as set out in

Regulation 13;

• I have, throughout this EIA process disclosed to the applicant, the EAP, the specialist (if any), the

review specialist (if any), the Department and I&APs, all material information that has or may

have the potential to influence the decision of the Department or the objectivity of any report,

plan or document prepared as part of the application;and


2014 (as amended).

Signature of the

Review EAP:

Name of Company:

Date:


THE SPECIALIST

Note:Duplicate this section where there is more than one specialist.

I ……………………………………, as the appointed Specialist hereby declare/affirm the correctness of

the information provided or to be provided as part of the application, and that I:

• in terms of the general requirement to be independent:

o other than fair remuneration for work performed in terms of this application, have no business,

financial, personal or other interest in the development proposal or application and that

there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity; or

o am not independent, but another specialist (the “Review Specialist”) that meets the general

requirements set out in Regulation 13 has been appointed to review my work (Note: a

declaration by the review specialist must be submitted);

• in terms of the remainder of the general requirements for a specialist, have throughout this EIA

process met all of the requirements;

• have disclosedto the applicant, the EAP, the Review EAP (if applicable), the Department and

I&APs all material information that has or may have the potential to influence the decision of the

Department or the objectivity of any report, plan or document prepared or to be prepared as

part of the application; and


2014 (as amended).

Signature of the Specialist:

Name of Company:

Date:


THE REVIEW SPECIALIST

I ………………………………………………………., as the appointed Review Specialist hereby

declare/affirm:

• that I have reviewed all the work produced by the Specialist(s);

• the correctness of the specialist information provided as part of this Report;

• that I have, throughout this EIA process met all of the general requirements of specialists as set

out in Regulation 13;

• I have, throughout this EIA process disclosed to the applicant, the EAP, the review EAP (if

applicable), the Specialist(s), the Department and I&APs, all material information that has or may

have the potential to influence the decision of the Department or the objectivity of any report,

plan or document prepared as part of the application;and

• I am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 48 of the EIA Regulations,

2014 (as amended).

Signature of ReviewSpecialist:

Name of Company:

Date:

lott ottershof chicken farm arm basi basic...

Documents