8.4.3. Seasonality - CESNET Fish Water Water Flats RA301015… · EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 84 FWF WWTW Biogas Project The Final Scoping Report was submitted to DEA on

Volume 2: Environmental Impact Report

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 82 FWF WWTW Biogas Project

8.4.3. Seasonality Although seasonality is not considered in the ranking of the significance, it may influence the evaluation during various times of year. As seasonality will only influence certain impacts, it will only be considered for these, with management measures being imposed accordingly (i.e. dust suppression measures being implemented during the dry season). Table 8.1: Ranking of Evaluation Criteria:

Eff

ect

Temporal Scale

Short term Less than 5 years

Medium term Between 5 and 20 years

Long term Between 20 and 40 years (a generation) and from a human perspective also permanent

Permanent Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change that will always be there

Spatial Scale

Localised At localised scale and a few hectares in extent

Study Area The proposed site and its immediate environs

Regional District and Provincial level

National Country

International Internationally

Severity Severity Benefit

Slight Slight impacts on the affected system(s) or party(ies)

Slightly beneficial to the affected system(s) and party(ies)

Moderate Moderate impacts on the affected system(s) or party(ies)

Moderately beneficial to the affected system(s) and party(ies)

Severe/Beneficial

Severe impacts on the affected system(s) or party(ies)

Substantially beneficial to the affected system(s) and party(ies)

Very Severe/ Beneficial

Very severe impacts on the affected system(s) or party(ies)

Very substantially beneficial to the affected system(s) and party(ies)

Lik

elih

oo

d Likelihood

Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight

May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible

Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable

Definite The likelihood is that this impact will definitely occur

Table 8.2: Ranking matrix to provide an Environmental Significance Significance Rate Description

Low Low +

An acceptable impact for which mitigation is desirable but not essential. The impact by itself is insufficient even in combination with other low impacts to prevent the development being approved. These impacts will result in either positive or negative medium to short term effects on the social and/or natural environment

Moderate Moderate +

An important impact that requires mitigation. The impact is insufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project but which in conjunction with other impacts may prevent its implementation. These impacts will usually result in either a positive or negative medium to long term effect on the social and/or natural environment

High High +

A serious impact, if not mitigated, may prevent the implementation of the project (if it is a negative impact). These impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major and usually long-term change to the (natural and/or social) environment and result in severe effects or beneficial effect.

Very High Very High +

A very serious impact that, if negative, may be sufficient by itself to prevent implementation of the project. The impact may result in permanent change. Very often, these impacts are immitigable and usually result in very severe effects, or very beneficial effects.



8.5. Desktop Review All aspects of the proposed project were first analysed using a high-level desktop study that looked at the basic description of the project and what the initial environmental and social concerns might have been. This included background information for the project area as well as the proposed activity, details of the activity applied for according to the EIA Regulations (the listed activities) and the type of assessment that was required. The desktop review involved the interpretation of maps covering the proposed project area, as well as available reports and planning instruments in order to familiarise the project team with the area and the various physical and biological properties of the area. The desktop review also identified any additional licences in terms of water use, waste, air quality, land use or any other environmental requirements. 8.6. Site Visit EOH CES consultants visited the site of the proposed development during the FWF WWTW Upgrade authorisation process. Additional site visits have since been conducted to look at the exact location of the proposed Biogas plant as well as to conduct the Pre-Assessment Public Participation Process and Wetland Impact Assessment. 8.7. Submission of Application Form An application for environmental authorisation was submitted to the environmental authority (Department of Environmental Affairs) as per the requirements of Section 16 of the EIA Regulations. DEA acknowledged receipt of this application on 23 November 2015 and issued the following reference number: DEA Ref: 14/12/16/3/3/3/209. 8.8. Public Participation Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) play an important role in the EIA process, as many of their concerns and issues can be included in the project proposal, to ensure a development which is as environmentally and socially acceptable as possible. The general public, key stakeholders, landowners, adjacent landowners and government authorities at National, Provincial and Local level, where notified of the proposed development on the 23rd of September 2015. The means by which I&APs were notified are described in full in Chapter 5 of this report and associated appendices. 8.9. Scoping Report 8.9.1. Draft Scoping Report The information gathered through the initial PPP phase, as well as the information from the site visit and from the client concerning the design of the project was integrated into the Draft Scoping Report. The Draft Scoping Report was made available to the public for a period of 30 days for comment, during which time a public meeting was held. Registered I&APs were informed of the release of the Draft Scoping Report by email. The release of the report was also advertised in one provincial and/or one local newspaper. Hard copies of the report were made available in publicly accessible places such as the Port Elizabeth public library, and it was posted electronically on EOH CES‟s website. 8.9.2. Final Scoping Report Any comments, issues and concerns raised by I&APs and the authorities during the review period of the Scoping Phase were included in the Final Scoping Report in the form of an Issues and Response Trail.



The Final Scoping Report was submitted to DEA on 12 January 2016. The DEA subsequently accepted the Final Scoping Report on 17 February 2016 and the EIR phase was initiated. The DEA also approved the Plan of Study for the EIR phase of the assessment and included several additional requirements. The letter of acceptance is included in Appendix 5. 8.10. Integration and Assessment Phase The EIA phase is outlined in GN R 982, EIA Regulations (2014) under Part 3, section 23 as well as Appendix 3 of the regulations. The process to be followed is outlined below.

This task involves the integrated writing of the environmental impact assessment report. Specialist input to the proposed project has been undertaken during preparation of the Draft EIA Report. The report consists of an introductory section, followed by a detailed project description, sections in which the results of all specialist reports are summarised, and an environmental impact section, where impacts are assessed and rated according to a predefined rating scale. Measures to mitigate negative impacts as proposed by the specialist consultants are also presented. The primary objective is to prepare a report that is scientifically credible but also understandable, with enough detail to deal with all the issues but not too much detail to confuse I&APs. The EIA includes a detailed Environmental Management Programme report (EMPr) (submitted as a separate report) for the proposed project, which contain proposals to manage and mitigate impacts identified during the EIA process, for both the construction and operational phases of the development. These measures were informed by the findings of the EIA, and particularly by the specialist studies undertaken as part of the EIA process. The measures presented in the EMPr will be aimed at enhancing the potential benefits and minimizing the potential negative impacts of the project. The EMPr will specify responsibilities for the implementation of the plan, for monitoring of the project as well as the periodicity of the audits to be carried out. The Draft EIA Report and EMPr have been made available for public review for a period of 30 days as legislated. The availability of the Draft EIA Report and EMPr to the public has been advertised in one provincial and/or one local newspaper. Hard copies of the report have made available in publicly accessible places such as the Port Elizabeth public library and the EOH CES website. An additional public meeting was held during the public review period, to inform stakeholders and I&APs of the detailed findings of the EIA, and to enable them to raise any issues or concerns. The Draft EIA Report and EMPr have been amended to reflect public comments the deliverables from the entire EIA process and the Final (EIA Report) has been prepared. This includes the additional comments, issues and concerns raised by I&APs and the authorities, provided in the updated Issues and Response Trail. The final EIA Report, the final Specialist Report Volume and final Environmental Management Programme has been submitted to DEA for decision-making purposes. 8.11. Proposed Timeframe for the EIA The EIA is expected to be completed by 28 July 2016, with completion being defined as the submission of all final reports to the regulatory authority. The draft scoping report was completed and submitted to the DEA on 13 November 2015. The Public Review Period for the draft scoping report was advertised to run from 14 November 2015 until 14 December 2015. The Final Scoping Report was submitted on 12 January 2016, within 44 days of the submission of the application. This did not include the DEA Christmas shutdown period that stretched from 15 December 2015 until 5 January 2016.



The acceptance of the Final Scoping Report was received on 17 February 2016 and required for the undertaking of a Wetland Impact Assessment as well as the consultation with the Department of Water and Sanitation in order to confirm the applicable category of section 21 Water Use of the National Water Act 36 of 1998. The Department of Water and Sanitation and the Oceans and Coasts (Department of Environmental Affairs) have since been contacted, but have yet to provide comment in this regard. In order to allow for DWS and Oceans and Coasts (DEA) to provide comment, a request for a 50-day extension, beginning from 6 June 2016, in terms of Regulation 3(7) as well as Regulation 23 (1) (b) was requested on 4 May 2016. The DEA granted the 50-day extension on 23 May 2016 and thus all final reports are to be submitted by 28 July 2016. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was submitted on 15 June 2016. This was followed by a mandatory 30-day public review period which stretched from 15 June 2016 until 18 July 2016 and included a public meeting which was held on 6 July 2016. The availability of the draft reports as well as the details of the public meeting were advertised in The Herald on 15 June 2016. According to the EIA Regulations (2014) Section 24, DEA must within 157 days of receipt of the Final EIA Report and EMPr either grant or refuse authorisation. The decision regarding the Environmental Authorisation is expected to be made by January 2017.


Coastal & Environmental Services Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality 86

9. KEY FINDINGS OF THE SPECIALIST STUDIES In terms of Appendix 3 (3) of the EIA regulations (2014), an environmental impact assessment report must include: (k) where applicable, a summary of the findings and recommendations of any specialist report complying with Appendix 6 to these Regulations and an indication as to how these findings and recommendations have been included in the final assessment report 9.1. Air Quality Assessment 9.1.1. Odour Impacts Air emissions were estimated from estimates of odours based on typical wastewater treatment works elsewhere. With respect to current emission contributions, the Zimpro® process contributes a significant fraction (55.7%) of all odour emissions, while the primary settling tanks and weirs are expected to be the highest contributors (29.1 %) to odour emissions upon implementation of the proposed upgrade. Odour impacts associated with the existing operation were calculated to frequently exceed the odour unit (OU) of 7 as far as about 1 km west (inland) and a distance greater than 5 km east into

the ocean. With the implementation of the proposed Biogas Plant (phase 1 and 2), odorous emissions are expected to halve, with a corresponding decrease in the odour concentrations at ground level. However, the odour impact distances, measured as a frequency of exceeding an OU of 7, would not result in the same halving from the current impact. The distance to the same frequency of exceedance towards the east would reduce to a distance of around 3.5 km, whereas the distance toward the west would remain similar (i.e. 800 m) than currently experiencing (Figure 9.1 and Figure 9.2).



Figure 9.1: Simulated odour impact from existing operation at Fishwater Flats WWTW.



Figure 9.2: Simulated odour impact from proposed operation at Fishwater Flats WWTW.

9.1.2. Air Pollutant Impact Criteria and non-criteria pollutants emissions from the FWF WWTW expected to result in human health impacts upon implementation of proposed upgrade, include CO, PM10, PM2.5, NO2, SO2, formaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene. Ground level impacts associated with these pollutants were simulated using actual hourly average meteorology as observed at Motherwell. Simulated concentrations for each pollutant are generally low and within their respective standards or guideline. The contribution of the pollutants impacts to the footprint is expected to be minimal and of in-significant effect (Figure 9.3). Furthermore, simulation was undertaken for impacts due to periodical flaring of excess gas produced at the works (Figure 9.4). In order to project worst-case gas flaring simulations, maximum gas production for peak periods was assumed. Simulated concentrations for each pollutant are generally low and within their respective standards or guideline, except for hourly NO2 and short-term formaldehyde concentrations. Isopleth plots indicate a slight exceedance of the hourly criteria for NO2 and formaldehyde beyond the northeastern side of the FWF WWTW boundary. Annual or long-term concentrations are however, within their respective criteria. It is therefore expected that impacts due to this short-term exceedances will be minimal. No-go alternatives The „No-go‟ alternative in this instance is equivalent to the existing operation at the works and its associated impacts. This implies that that the works would continue to operate at the status quo, and it is anticipated that some of the processes may result in increased air contamination due to equipment and infrastructural deterioration; and ultimately cessation of operation.



Figure 9.3: Simulated highest hourly NO2 concentration due to gas flaring.

Figure 9.4: Simulated highest hourly formaldehyde concentration due to gas flaring.



9.1.3. Recommendations Given the significant reduction in odorous emissions with the replacement of the Zimpro® plant with the Biogas Plant, and the relatively insignificant emissions of criteria pollutants, it is recommended that the proposed project proceed without further mitigation to the Biogas Plant emissions. However, it is recommended that further measures and emission controls should be investigated to continuously reduce odorous impacts from the works. The following recommendations are provided for emissions reduction:

Avoidance of accumulation of grit;

Provision of effective screenings washing;

Avoidance of unnecessary turbulence in liquid exposed to air;

The exposure of waste to air which has been removed from the screens and degritters must be kept to a minimum; and

Exposure of skip contents to air should be kept to a minimum. Air quality impacts during construction would be reduced through basic control measures such as limiting the speed of haul trucks; limit unnecessary travelling of vehicles on untreated roads; and to apply water sprays on regularly travelled, unpaved sections. In addition, when haul trucks need to use public roads, the vehicles need to be cleaned of all mud and haul material covered to minimise any fly-off dust. Finally, the entrance road to the works also needs to be kept clean to minimise carry-though of mud on to public roads. Air Quality Monitoring and Management Great reliance is placed on the predictive capabilities of the emission factors and dispersion simulations employed in this investigation. It is therefore suggested that the conclusions derived in this investigation be verified through actual monitoring. It is recommended that regular monitoring be focussed on the inlet works. This would not only provide actual concentration values, but also an indication of any linkage between these measured concentrations and complaint trends. Understanding and quantifying air pollution emissions from the waterworks provides a stepping-stone to enabling informed decisions to be made about air quality management. It is recommended that the zone that could potentially be impacted by offensive odours, i.e. 1 km from the plant, be considered as a “management zone”. Future developments within this zone need to take cognisance of the potential to be impacted by the operation of the wastewater works. For instance, it would be advisable not to develop any residential clusters or locate any other sensitive receptors within this zone. It should not be seen as a formally defined “buffer zone” as these are delineated almost exclusively based on health impacts. Such buffer zones would normally require stricter developmental limitations. 9.2. Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment According to Dr Johan Binneman (pers. comm. December, 2011) of the Albany Museum in Grahamstown, no archaeological remains are known to occur in the surrounding study area. For this reason, the specialist applied for an exemption from undertaking a Phase 1 archaeological and historical survey. This exemption was approved by SAHRA on 7 March 2012 – please refer to Appendix 8 as well as the Heritage Impact Assessment included in Volume 3.



9.3. Ecological Assessment 9.3.1. Field survey: description of vegetation/land cover The proposed project site occurs adjacent to a salt marsh (Plate 9.1) but the proposed site itself comprises planted gardens (Plate 9.2) containing numerous garden species, including some indigenous tree species such as the Waterberry tree (Syzigium cordatum) (Plate 9.3). In addition, a large area of the site is heavily invaded by Opuntia ficus-indica (Prickly pear) and forms a dumpsite for waste (Plates 9.4 and 9.5 respectively). The vegetation found at the site does not represent the expected vegetation on site and is considered to be transformed and degraded from an ecological perspective. Since this site does not resemble that of a salt marsh and is entirely transformed, this area cannot be classified as a CBA area nor as critically endangered. Even if the area were to be rehabilitated, it is unlikely that it will represent its former, natural state. The waste and alien species located within the proposed site are problems which should be resolved irrespective of whether an authorization is granted or not.

Plate 9.1: The salt marsh occurring adjacent to the current FWF WWTW.

Plate 9.2: Most of the site not used for wastewater infrastructure is cultivated as a garden.



Plate 9.3: Syzygium cordatum, the Waterberry tree, planted as part of the Fishwater Flats gardens.

Plate 9.4: A large area bounded by the salt marsh is invaded by prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-indica).



Plate 9.5: Some of the Fishwater flats site is used a dumping ground for waste.

9.3.2. Species of Conservation Concern The species list from the 2012 site survey was assessed against the IUCN Red Data List, the South African Red Data List, the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 2004 (Act 10 of 2004) (NEM:BA) list of protected species, DAFF‟s list of protected tree species and the 1974 Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO) list of species.

Two plant species of conservation concern were recorded from the study site and will require permits should they need to be removed. These include:

Sideroxylon inerme L. (Plate 9.6 and Plate 9.7): An occasional tree in the thicket units at Port

Elizabeth, but possibly planted in this study site. It is a widespread species occurring in many vegetation types in South Africa and protected according to the Forestry Schedule A list (Notice of the List of Protected Tree Species Under the National Forests Act, 1998 as amended in 2014).

Aloe striatus (Plate 9.8): Aloe striatus is widespread within the area, and is protected under the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO) schedule 4 list. The occurrence of this indigenous tree within the FWF WWTW is likely because of it being planted during the original commissioning of the works in 1976.



Plate 9.6: Sideroxylon inerme, an indigenous protected tree species found on the study site.

Plate 9.7: Detail of Sideroxylon inerme, an indigenous protected tree species found on the study site.



Plate 9.8: Aloe striata, a protected species found on the study site.

9.3.3. Alien Species Alien species recorded from the study site included Opuntia ficus-indica, (prickly pear) (Plate 9.9) (Category 1b) and Acacia saligna (Port Jackson Willow) (Plate 9.10) (Category 1b). Alien species were assessed according to the Alien and Invasive Species Regulations (published 1 August 2014) as described in NEM:BA as well as the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No 43 of 1983) (CARA) (Table 9.1). Regulations 15 and 16 under this Act, which concern problem plants, were amended during March 2001.



Table 9.1: Alien Invasive Species present within study area according to NEM:BA.

Species NEM:BA

Category

CARA

Category

Comment

Opuntia

ficus-

indica

1b 1

1) According to NEM:BA category 1b Listed species are those species listed as such by notice in terms of section 70(1)(a) of the Act as species which must be contained.

2) A landowner upon whose land a Category 1 b Listed Invasive Species occurs and which species is under the landowner's control must:

(a) comply with the provisions of section 73(2) of the Act; and

(b) contain the listed invasive species in compliance with section 75 (1), (2) and (3) of the Act;

3) If an Invasive Species Management Programme has been developed in terms of regulation 7, a landowner must control the listed invasive species in accordance with such programme.

4) A landowner contemplated in sub-regulation (2) must allow an authorised official from the Department to enter onto the land to monitor, assist with or implement the containment of the listed invasive species, or compliance with the Invasive Species Management Programme contemplated in regulation 7.

Acacia

saligna 1b 2

Plate 9.9: Opuntia ficus-indica at Fishwater Flats WWTW.



Plate 9.10: Acacia saligna (Port Jackson Willow) at Fishwater Flats WWTW.

9.3.4. Features of Conservation Concern and Sensitivity The site occurs adjacent to the important biodiversity area of the Swartkops estuary and associated salt marshes. This area is extremely sensitive to change and forms an area of conservation concern. The sensitivity of the site as a whole, as it comprises of buildings, infrastructures and gardens, is Low. However, the important area of the salt marshes and estuary bordering the project site is considered Very High sensitivity. 9.3.5. Current Status and Recommendations The vegetation within the development footprint currently comprises gardens, outside the development footprint occurs a highly sensitive estuary and associated salt marsh. Any impacts on the areas surrounding the existing footprint of the development must be avoided. Before the clearing of the site is authorised, the appropriate permission (e.g. permits) must be obtained from the relevant department for the removal and relocation of SCCs. Plants can be removed and placed in suitable relocation areas that will not be affected by the project development. Any form of disturbance to the natural vegetation provides a gateway for alien species to invade the site of disturbance. In this regard, it is recommended that a strict monitoring plan be implemented to prevent the spread of alien species such Opuntia ficus-indica, which are already present at the facility. It is recommended that during the operational phase there should be continued monitoring of the site for potential alien vegetation invasion, especially of plant species already present. In order to avoid disruption to faunal species in the area, it is recommended that noise levels are kept to a minimum and dust abatement measures be implemented where possible. Any additional land required for the construction phase of the development that will not be used during the operation phase of the development should be rehabilitated to gardens. Where feasible the SCC such as Aloe striata that may be impacted upon, should be relocated to the new gardens.



9.4. Occupational Health & Safety (Quantitative) Risk Assessment 9.4.1. Notifiable Substances

Methane generated during the process would not be compressed and would not be classified as a notifiable substance. No other materials generated or stored on site would be classified as a notifiable substance. 9.4.2. Toxic and Asphyxiant Releases Carbon dioxide is a significant portion of biogas with the other major component being methane. Carbon dioxide is not considered an acutely toxic component but could displace oxygen-causing asphyxiation. The 1% fatality from large carbon dioxide releases would not extend beyond the site‟s boundary with no offsite impacts predicted (Figure 9.5).

Figure 9.5: The extent of impact of air concentrations of carbon dioxide following a large release, using the ERPG-2 value (30 000 ppm).

9.4.3. Fires

The biogas consists of approximately 60% methane, a highly flammable gas (Figure 9.6). The 1% fatality from jet fires due to a release of biogas at the process installations in the worst weather conditions would not extend beyond the site boundary and thus impacts from jet fires would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the fire (Figure 9.7).



Figure 9.6: Event tree for a continuous release of a flammable gas.

Figure 9.7: Thermal radiation isopleths from large jet at the gas holder. Emergency flaring conditions would release 2114 Nm3/h at 35°C. The flame length under emergency conditions could extend to a maximum length of 15.6 m in still air. In all wind conditions, the thermal radiation level of 4 kW/m2 at 1.0 m aboveground would never be exceeded (Figure 9.8).



Figure 9.8: Thermal radiation as a function of wind speed from emergency flaring

No pool fires were predicted from the simulations. In worst-case weather conditions, the LFL for large biogas flash fires would not extend beyond the site boundary resulting in no predicted offsite impacts (Figure 9.9).

Figure 9.9: Flash fire limits due to a release of biogas 9.4.4. Vapour Cloud Explosions Vapour cloud explosions from a loss of containment at the biogas process installations were simulated. The 1% fatality for vapour cloud explosions from large releases of biogas could extend beyond the site boundary into the undeveloped area to the east reaching the N2 highway (Figure 9.10).



Figure: 9.10: Bar overpressures from vapour cloud explosions The risks from vapour cloud explosions were less than 1x10˗6 fatalities per person per year at the site boundary. Thus, the risks to the public would be considered acceptable. 9.4.5. Impacts onto Neighbouring Properties, Residential Areas and MHIs The land use to the north, east and west is undeveloped, while industrial properties are located to the south. The only offsite impacts from the proposed project would be vapour cloud explosions from a catastrophic failure of the gas holder, which would extend beyond the site boundary to the east up to the N2 highway. This project would not result in impacts beyond the southern boundary of the site into the industrial properties. Residential properties are some distance to the west of the proposed project. As impacts would not extend beyond the western site boundary, there would be no negative impacts on any residential areas. 9.4.6. Societal Risks Due to the surrounding areas being unoccupied, the societal risk did not exceed the threshold value and is not shown. It should be noted that the risks to traffic on the N2 are extremely low. Thus, the contribution of the traffic on the N2 to the societal risks is negligible. 9.4.7. Major Hazard Installation

The main hazards that would occur with a loss of containment of hazardous components at the proposed FWF WWTW biogas facility in Port Elizabeth include exposure to:

Asphyxiant vapours;

Thermal radiation; and

Overpressure from explosions This investigation concluded that under the current design conditions the proposed biogas plant at the FWF WWTW facility in Port Elizabeth would not be considered as a Major Hazard Installation. However, this does not imply that the other parts of the FWF WWTW are not Major Hazardous Installation.



9.5. Paleontological Assessment The area south of the Swartkops River estuary is largely underlain by a thin blanket of Late Cenozoic alluvial (river) deposits of the ancient Swartkops drainage system and, towards the modern coast, by shallow marine to estuarine sediments of the Pleistocene to Holocene Salnova Formation (Qs, Algoa Group). Early Cretaceous marine sediments of the Kirkwood Formation (J-Kk, Uitenhage Group) outcrop at the surface to the southwest and west of the study area and underlie the surface veneer of Late Cenozoic sediments (Figure 9.11).

Rock units represented within the broader study region include: J-Kk (dark yellow) = Early Cretaceous Kirkwood Formation (Uitenhage Group); T-Qk (pale yellow with stipple) = Pliocene to Quaternary fluvial deposits; Qsc (pale brown with stipple) = aeolian and beach sand, soils, middens; Qs (pale yellow) = Pleistocene to Holocene Salnova Formation (Algoa Group)

Figure 9.11: Extract from 1: 50 000 geological map 3325DC & DD, 3425BA Port Elizabeth (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria) showing the location of the Fishwater Flats WWTW study area at Swartkops (black rectangle). The red arrow indicates location of the Stratotype A section of the Salnova Formation at Brighton Beach, only some 0.5 km SE of the study area.

The Kirkwood Formation is the most paleontologically productive unit in southern Africa that yields terrestrial biotas of Early Cretaceous age. Its overall palaeontological sensitivity is rated as high (Almond et al. 2008). Fossils include vascular plants (including concentrations of petrified logs, lignite beds, charcoal), tetrapod vertebrates (notably dinosaurs) and freshwater invertebrates, among others (Du Toit 1954, Engelbrecht et al. 1962, McLachlan & McMillan 1976, Toerien and Hill 1989, MacRae 1999, Le Roux 2000, Almond 2010 and extensive references listed therein). Recent palaeontological research has yielded a number of new dinosaur taxa, for the most part from the Algoa Basin to the northeast of Port Elizabeth, but also from the Oudtshoorn Basin of the Little Karoo (De Klerk 2008, Rubidge et al., 2008). These include a range of sauropods, stegasaurs, iguanadontids and rare theropods such as the new genus of small coelurasaur Nquebasaurus (De Klerk 1995, 2000, 2008, De Klerk 1998, 2000) (Figure 9.12). Most of the Kirkwood dinosaur fossils found so far are highly fragmentary, however. Other vertebrate fossil groups from the Kirkwood Formation include frogs, crocodiles, turtles, sphenodontid and other lizards, mammals and freshwater fish such as garfish.



The paleo-botanically famous “Variegated Marls” and “Wood Beds” of the Kirkwood Formation in the Eastern Cape have yielded a diverse fossil flora. Woody vegetation was dominated by gymnosperms including conifers such as Araucaria and Podocarpus, extinct cycad-like bennettitaleans like Zamites, as well as true cycads. In addition, there are charophytes (stoneworts, an advanced group of freshwater algae), bryophytes (liverworts) and pteridophytes such as ferns. Angiosperms (flowering plants), which first radiated during this period, are not represented, however. Plant microfossils include pollens, spores and cuticular fragments, while amber and charcoal are locally common. So far, no inclusions such as fossil insects have been recorded within the amber, which represents the oldest Cretaceous material recorded from Gondwana. Freshwater or estuarine molluscs (e.g. unionid bivalves), rare insects such as beetles, and several groups of small crustaceans including ostracods (seed shrimps), conchostracans (clam shrimps) and notostracans (tadpole shrimps) represent non-marine invertebrate fossils in the Kirkwood Formation. Trace fossils include borings into petrified tree trunks that are variously attributed to bivalves (Gastrochaena) and insects (possibly beetles).

Figure 9.12: Reconstruction of Nquebasaurus or “Kirky”, a small theropod dinosaur from the Kirkwood Formation of the Algoa Basin, Eastern Cape (W. J. de Klerk, Albany Museum). The Salnova Formation is characterized by the rich, shallow marine to estuarine “Swartkops” fossil biota that comprises over three hundred taxa (Engelbrecht et al. 1962, Le Roux 1990b, 1991, 1993, 2000 and references therein, Almond 2010). Fossil assemblages are dominated by a wide range of molluscs, especially gastropods and bivalves. Many of these taxa are mainly found in finer-grained, estuarine facies that are probably well represented in the study area south of the Swartkops estuary. Note that the majority of mollusc species in these Pleistocene fossil faunas are still alive today, though they are sometimes represented by different subspecies and not all of them are still native to the south coast. Compared with the older, Miocene / Pliocene Alexandria Formation of the Algoa Group, crab and sea urchin remains are more abundant in the Salnova Formation, while corals, brachiopods (lamp shells) and sharks‟ teeth are generally absent (Le Roux 1991). Trace fossils include pellet-walled crustacean burrow systems of the Ichnogenus Ophiomorpha and bivalve burrows. Vertebrate remains such as the bones and teeth of marine mammals or fish may also be present but are not well recorded. The overall palaeontological sensitivity of the Salnova Formation is judged to be high, although many occurrences – especially the coarser-grained facies - are not especially shell-rich, or mainly contain fragmentary fossil remains. The



Stratotype A locality of the Salnova Formation at Brighton Beach, on the coast just southeast of the study area, contains shelly coquinas with a variety of bivalve molluscs (often intact), gastropods as well echinoids and Ophiomorpha burrows (Le Roux 1991). Little palaeontological work has been carried out on the Tertiary to Recent fluvial and estuarine deposits of the Port Elizabeth area. The coarser-grained, high-energy gravels are unlikely to contain recognizable fossil remains, apart from, perhaps, rolled vertebrate teeth and bones and reworked robust shells or petrified wood eroded out from the Uitenhage Group beneath. In the Coega IDZ area to the north of Port Elizabeth, for example, apart from occasional reworked Early Cretaceous shelly fossils derived from the Sundays River beds upstream, no fossils were seen in the younger alluvial siltstones (Almond 2010). However, a careful search of finer-grained facies might well yield well-preserved skeletal remains of mammals, reptiles, fish, molluscs, crabs as well as plant material (wood, lignites, roots) and trace fossils (e.g. termitaria, ostrich egg shells). Based on the above it is clear that the proposed development in the Swartkops area of Port Elizabeth overlies potentially fossil-bearing coastal and fluvial sediments of Early Cretaceous to Quaternary and younger age. Estuarine to shallow marine rocks of the Quaternary to Holocene Salnova Formation that are mapped at surface in the study area might contain rich assemblages of molluscs and other invertebrates such as recorded, for example, from the Brighton Beach stratotype section on the coast only 0.5 km to the southeast. Cretaceous fluvial sediments of the Kirkwood Formation are present beneath the surface mantle of Swartkops Formation deposits and might well be intersected by deeper (> 3m) excavations made during construction. Plant fossils, petrified wood and even rare dinosaur bones may be present in the Kirkwood rocks. It is concluded that fresh excavations made during the construction phase of the proposed development are quite likely to expose, disturb and destroy fossil heritage of high palaeontological significance. The impact significance of this project is rated as MODERATE; i.e. an important impact which requires mitigation. Mitigation by a professional palaeontologist during the construction phase when fresh fossiliferous bedrock has already been exposed by excavations is therefore recommended for this project. Mitigation should involve the recording and sampling of fossil material and associated geological information (e.g. sedimentological and taphonomic data). The specialist concerned in consultation with the developer and SAHRA should define the detailed scope of work and timeframes for palaeontological mitigation. 9.5.1. Recommendations The palaeontologist concerned with mitigation work will need a valid collection permit from SAHRA. All work would have to conform to international best practice for palaeontological fieldwork and the study (e.g. data recording fossil collection and curation, final report) should adhere to the minimum standards for Phase 2 palaeontological studies currently being developed by SAHRA. It should be emphasized that, providing appropriate mitigation is carried out, the majority of developments involving fossiliferous bedrock excavation can make a positive contribution to our understanding of local palaeontological heritage. It is further recommended that:

The ECO responsible for the development should be aware of the possibility of important fossils being present or unearthed on site and should monitor all substantial excavations into fresh (i.e. unweathered) sedimentary bedrock for fossil remains;

In the case of any significant fossil finds (e.g. vertebrate teeth, bones, burrows, petrified wood) during construction, these should be safeguarded - preferably in situ - and reported by the ECO as soon as possible to the relevant heritage management authority (SAHRA) so that any appropriate mitigation (i.e. recording, sampling or collection) by a palaeontological specialist can be considered and implemented, at the developer‟s expense;

These recommendations should be incorporated into the EMP for this project



9.6. Socio-Economic Assessment 9.6.1. Employment Creation The construction phase of the proposed development will create a number of employment opportunities during the construction phase. It is expected that contractors in a variety of technical fields and specialisations will engage in the different stages of the development. However, due to complexity of the project, the exact number of employment opportunities is difficult to determine at this stage. It is nevertheless estimated that this number in total will not be less than about 150. Employment creation during the construction phase of the proposed development and related benefits will have positive socio-economic implications for the affected individuals and their families, particularly for the unemployed from the local communities. The consequence of this will be important in the context of alleviating existing local levels of poverty and unemployment. 9.6.2. Skills Development and Transfer In an area plagued by poverty and unemployment, skills development and transfer will have a socio-economic implication that extends well beyond the time schedule of the construction phase of the proposed development. The majority of skills developed will most probably concentrate in the field of construction, one of only two local economic sectors that actually reflect vibrancy in terms of employment growth (Rand International Capital, 2011). The possibility therefore exists that relevant individuals will be able to sell their newly acquired skills within the local economy (and possibly beyond) long after the completion of the construction phase of the proposed development. 9.6.3. Conclusion and Recommendation In view of the above socio-economic effects, it is recommended that the proposed development be implemented. During the construction phase, contractors and relevant parties should employ individuals from local communities as far as practically possible and engage in the necessary skills development and transfer. 9.7. Traffic And Transport Assessment 9.7.1. Construction traffic

Construction personnel traffic will generate approximately 11 vehicles per hour during each of the peak hour periods, which is less than 3% of the current peak hour traffic on the route. Freight traffic consisting of normal loads will generate 0.98 vehicle trips per hour during peak operations. In addition, there will be 30 abnormal trips required to transport cranes, a substation, screws, screens and generators to site. After the completion of the EIA for the FWF WWTW upgrade in 2012, John Tallant Road has since been upgraded. The road has been widened from a two-lane road (one lane for each direction of traffic flow) to a four-lane road (two lanes per direction) between the John Tallant Road / N2 National Highway intersection and the entrance to the FWF WWTW. While the upgrades have allowed for increased traffic on this section of road, the entrance to the FWF WWTW remains unchanged. For this reason, the traffic assessment conducted as part of the 2012 EIA for the FWF WWTW Upgrade remains applicable to this project Personnel traffic It is estimated that the treatment works will generate 38 vehicles per hour during each of the peak hour periods, which is less than 10 per cent of the current volumes on the road. With no change in personnel expected after the upgrade, no impact on traffic is likely. Despite this, there should be a concerted effort by staff utilising single occupancy vehicles to car pool in order to reduce impact on roads and the environment.

Documents

8.4.3. Seasonality - CESNET Fish Water Water Flats RA301015… · EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 84 FWF WWTW Biogas Project The Final Scoping Report was submitted to DEA on