Kokstad Intersection Upgrade Draft Basic Assessment …projects.gibb.co.za/Portals/3/Kokstad Intersection Upgrade_Draft... · FOR THE N2 KOKSTAD INTERSECTION UPGRADE DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT

BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

1

October 2013 J31359

ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THE N2 KOKSTAD INTERSECTION

UPGRADE

DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

NEAS Reference: DEA/EIA/0001671/2013 DEA Reference: 14/12/16/3/3/1/822

South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited


2

(For official use only) File Reference Number: Application Number: Date Received: Basic assessment report in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010, promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended. Kindly note that: 1. This basic assessment report is a standard report that may be required by a competent authority

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

2. This report format is current as of 1 September 2012. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ascertain whether subsequent versions of the form have been published or produced by the competent authority

3. The report must be typed within the spaces provided in the form. The size of the spaces provided is not necessarily indicative of the amount of information to be provided. The report is in the form of a table that can extend itself as each space is filled with typing.

4. Where applicable tick the boxes that are applicable in the report.

5. An incomplete report may be returned to the applicant for revision.

6. The use of “not applicable” in the report must be done with circumspection because if it is used in respect of material information that is required by the competent authority for assessing the application, it may result in the rejection of the application as provided for in the regulations.

7. This report must be handed in at offices of the relevant competent authority as determined by each authority.

8. No faxed or e-mailed reports will be accepted.

9. The signature of the EAP on the report must be an original signature.

10. The report must be compiled by an independent environmental assessment practitioner.

11. Unless protected by law, all information in the report will become public information on receipt by the competent authority. Any interested and affected party should be provided with the information contained in this report on request, during any stage of the application process.

12. A competent authority may require that for specified types of activities in defined situations only parts of this report need to be completed.

13. Should a specialist report or report on a specialised process be submitted at any stage for any part of this application, the terms of reference for such report must also be submitted.


3

14. Two (2) colour hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the report must be submitted to the competent authority.

15. Shape files (.shp) for maps must be included on the electronic copy of the report submitted to the competent authority.


4

Executive Summary

1. Project description

The South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited (SANRAL) is proposing to upgrade the N2, Section 21 and Provincial Road 56 intersection in Kokstad in the KwaZulu-Natal Province. The intersection is known as the “N2 Kokstad Intersection” and is located approximately 3 km to the south of the Kokstad town Central Business District (CBD). During weekends, particularly on Friday afternoons and at month ends, severe congestion occurs at this intersection. Therefore in order to meet SANRALs requirements for a functioning National Route, possible improvements are needed including a long term need for a full grade separated interchange at the N2 Kokstad Intersection. The N2 Kokstad Intersection is a T- junction with the following three legs;

• The N2 towards Mthatha forms the southern leg • The R56 towards Kokstad forms the opposite northern leg • The N2 eastern leg towards Port Shepstone forms the leg of the T

The Mthata N2 southern leg and the Kokstad northern leg of the intersection forms a continuous route with no stopagges. There is however a stop control on the Port Shepstone leg of the intersection. Extreme congestion is currently experienced at this intersection, where vehicles often form a queue of approximately 800m during peak traffic. The current intersection therefore needs to be upgraded to improve operation, safety and to reduce congestion (Refer to Figure 1 below).

The proposed preferred road alternative is Alternative 1 (A1) for the proposed upgrade of the N2 Kokstad Intersection and comprises (but is not limited to) the following:

• Construction of the Interchange and road works for capacity upgrades, including the

following: o Construction of a new bridge structure over N2 o Construction of N2 On and Off Ramps o Realignment of existing R56 between Engen Garage and the proposed

interchange o Widening of the road where required o Strengthening of existing carriageways o Pavement improvement on R56 o Capacity upgrade by construction of a new carriageway o Provision of additional climbing lanes where required o Upgrading of existing and installation of new stormwater culverts o Protection of utility services affected by the rehabilitation of existing

carriageway and the new carriageway o Geometric safety improvements at intersection

• Improvements (widening) and rehabilitation on three (3) culverts/bridges (Tributaries of Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River Bridge)


5

• Construction of new culverts

• The construction of a traffic control centre for trucks, including the following; o Bulk earthworks and layerworks for the construction of the facility o Operational buildings and offices, including weigh bridges and lighting o Access roads, vehicle processing station and stacking area for overload

vehicles o Stormwater drainage pipes and culverts o Fencing and security for the facility.

Note: The borrow pits and hard rock quarry material will be sourced from a local commercial supplier.

Figure 1: A map showing the location of the N2 Kokstad Intersection (circled in red).


6

2. Project Motivation

• To reduce extreme traffic congestion at the N2 Kokstad intersection during weekends and at month ends

• To meet SANRAL’s requirements in terms of functioning National Roads (Class 1 and Class 2 Roads). The main function of a Class 1 road is to provide high speed mobility to long distance traffic

• To improve mobility on the roads and cater effectively for through traffic from all directions • To increase road safety for road users turning at the existing access to the Mount Currie

Engen Stop on the R56 near the N2 Kokstad Intersection • To cater for rezoning applications seeking individual access to the R56 • To provide for connections to collector roads for proposed developments in and around the

Kokstad area in line with the Kokstad Spatial Development Framework (SDF) • To provide long term planning for a more direct coastal route to the east of Mthatha • To control truck loads to/from the Mthatha direction or entering Kokstad by using the

proposed new traffic control centre.)

3. Alternatives

In terms of the EIA regulations, attention needs be given to all possible alternatives. The assessment of alternatives allows different approaches and ways of meeting the need, purpose and objectives of a proposed activity. Alternatives may include location or site alternatives, design/layout alternatives, activity alternatives and processes or technology alternatives, etc.

The no-go alternative or option also needs to be considered, as it provides the baseline against which the impacts of other alternatives can be compared. The objective of presenting, evaluating and motivating the feasible alternatives, is to identify the preferred option. In the case of the Kokstad N2 Intersection Upgrade project, three alternatives were identified. Alternative 1 (A1) which is the preferred alternative for the proposed upgrade will entail a Grade Separated Three Legged Interchange. Alternative 2 (A2) is a single lane roundabout - this would improve the current situation but would only last until 2019 when a 4-lane stage for the R56 will be required (based on traffic predictions). Alternative A3 (A3) is to have a double lane roundabout with two circulating lanes and double entry lanes which would be a better option compared to the aforementioned alternative as it would last about 25 years. The roundabout would be built with four legs to provide for a proposed Municipal collector road link that would serve the future Sustainable Development Framework (SDF). No-Go Option is therefore not a viable option since without an alternative strategy to address the challenges currently experienced at the N2 Kokstad Intersection; traffic congestion will continue to be a problem.

4. Relevant Environmental Legislation

(a) EIA Regulations

In terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (No.107 of 1998) [NEMA] and associated Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations published in August 2010, an


7

Environmental Authorisation must be obtained from the relevant decision-making authority, prior to the commencement of certain listed activities that may result in potential negative impacts on the environment. The proposed project involves, inter alia, the following listed activities, as per Government Notice No. R. 544 of NEMA:

Listed activity as described in GN R.544, 545 and 546

Description of project activity

GN R.544 Item 11: The construction of: (i) Canals (ii) channels (iii) bridges (vi) bulk storm water outlet structures; (x) buildings exceeding 50 square metres in size; (xi) infrastructure exceeding 50 square metres or more Where such construction occurs within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse, excluding where such construction will occur behind the development setback line.

The proposed N2 Kokstad Intersection Upgrade will include the construction of;

• A new bridge structure over the N2

(“bridges”) and

• Construction of N2 On and Off Ramps (“infrastructure exceeding 50 square metres or more”)

• Traffic control centre for trucks (“infrastructure exceeding 50 square metres or more”).

This will occur within 32 metres of a watercourse (Tributaries of Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River).

GN R.544 Item 18: The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 cubic metres into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock from; (i) a watercourse

The proposed N2 Kokstad Intersection Upgrade will also involve improvements (widening) and rehabilitation on three (3) culverts/bridges which will involve “the removal or moving of soil, sand, pebbles or rock from a watercourse” (Tributaries of Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River Bridge).

GN R.544 Item 22: The construction of a road, outside urban areas, (i) with a reserve wider than 13.5 metres or, (ii) where no reserve exists where the road is wider than 8 metres, or (iii) for which an environmental authorisation was obtained for the route determination in terms of activity 5 in Government Notice 387 of 2006 or activity 18 in Notice 545 of 2010.

The construction upgrade of a road interchange (National Route) and road works for capacity upgrades, outside urban areas, “(i) with a reserve wider than 13.5 metres”

GN R.544 Item 39: The expansion of (i) Canals (ii) channels; (iii) Bridges (iv) weirs; (v) bulk storm water outlet structures; (vi) marinas; Within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse, where such expansion will result in an increased development footprint but excluding where such expansion will occur

The expansion and upgrading of;

• culverts/bridges (“bridges”)

• existing and installing new stormwater culverts (“bulk storm water outlet structures”);

“Within 32 metres of a watercourse” (Tributaries of Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River Bridge), measured from the edge of a watercourse, where such expansion will result in an increased development footprint.


8

behind the development setback line.

GN R.544 Item 47: The widening of a road by more than 6 metres, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre- (i) where the existing reserve is wider than 13.5 metres; or (ii) where no reserve exists, where the existing road is wider than 8 metres- excluding widening or lengthening occurring inside urban areas.

The proposed N2 Kokstad Intersection Upgrade occurs just outside an urban area and will involve;

• Widening of the road where required (“by more than 6 metres, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre”)

• Realignment of existing R56 between Engen Garage and the proposed interchange

• Strengthening of existing carriageways

• Pavement improvement on the R56

• Capacity upgrade by construction of a new carriageway

• Provision of additional climbing lanes where required

“(i) where the existing reserve is wider than 13.5 metres”

(b) Water Use Licence

The construction/upgrade of the proposed N2 Kokstad Intersection and associated infrastructure will have an impact on the bed, bank, course and characteristics of the watercourse (portion of the wetland “arm” in the southern wetland system) during the construction and operational phases and thus requires a Water Use Licence from the Department of Water Affairs (DWA). In Terms of the National Water Act (Act No 36 of 1998) [NWA], a Water Use License Application (WULA) is required, this is a legislative process governed by DWA for the authorisation of all water uses defined in section 21 of the NWA.

Activity No Description

Section 21 (c) Impeding and diverting the flow of water in a watercourse

Section 21 (I) Altering the bed, bank, course or characteristics of a watercourse

5. Public Participation

GIBB conducted a Public Participation Process (PPP) with the following key features and associated milestones:

• An Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) Register/ Database was initiated and progressively

populated as I&APs were identified or registered.

• Media notices which informed readers on the application to DEA and the proposed project invited I&APs to register as an I&AP and/or provide comment was placed in:

o 16 January 2013 – The Mercury


9

o 17 January 2013 – The Kokstad Advertiser

• Notice boards were designed based on the specification of the NEMA EIA Regulations GNR 543, Section 54 (2) and (4), and displayed at conspicuous places on 14 January 2013.

• A Background Information Document (BID), which provided background to the proposed

project and an overview of the Basic Assessment Process and associated Public Participation Process was compiled. The BID also included an invitation for I&APs to comment and raise any issues and concerns they may have.

• Copies of the BID were hand-delivered to industries within the area. Copies of the BID were

also made available at the Kokstad library for distribution to visitors (Refer to Plates in Appendix B).

• A Public Meeting was held on the 31 January 2013.

• A Comments and Response Register was compiled based on the issues and concerns raised on the BID.

• The Draft Basic Assessment Report (BAR) will be made available for a public comments period and everyone registered on the I&AP Database will be either notified of the availability of the report at certain venues or provided with an electronic and/or paper copy of the report

• Any comments received on the Draft BAR will be individually responded to and the responses will be included in the Final BAR.

6. Impact Assessment

For the proposed Kokstad Intersection Upgrade Project, the significance of the impacts to wetland resources is exacerbated by their location within an area that has been targeted for future development (i.e. proposed Mamiesa Mixed-Use development, Kokstad Motor City and proposed Singisi Wood Processing Plant) with the potential cumulative loss of wetlands and impacts to wetland functioning considered high. The wetland study however states that cultivation and alien plants within channelled wetland areas have altered the natural vegetation types and serve to increase the amount of water used by vegetation within the wetland, with multiple in-channel farm dams affecting the water distribution within the system by reducing inputs to downstream areas whilst resulting in upstream flooding of wetland habitat above dam walls. Channel modifications have resulted in the desiccation of adjacent wetland areas as flows are now largely channelized and artificial drains and erosion gullies have altered the patterns and distribution of water flows through the wetland and effectively transport water far more rapidly through the wetland than would have occurred in the natural wetland reference state. Roads act as artificial barriers to water flow, especially from hill slope seepage inputs. Water abstractions from the wetland are relatively low and used mainly for irrigation of cultivated lands within wetlands. When considered together with changes to water inputs, the current hydrological integrity of the wetland is regarded as being seriously modified.


10

Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts were identified for the various project phases. Only the preferred alternative route layout has been assessed in detail since all the other alternatives were eliminated as infeasible during the early stages of project planning, design and/or the Basic Assessment process. As detailed in Appendix F, the types of impact, duration, likelihood and significance of the impacts are varied for a project of this nature. This assessment illustrates that there are various potential negative and positive impacts that may result from the proposed Kokstad Intersection Upgrade project and associated infrastructure. From an environmental perspective and with the consideration of the potential impacts detailed above, GIBB is of the view that the preferred alternative S1/A1 will result in impacts which can suitably be mitigated. The Impact Summary Report in Table 1 below indicates that with mitigation all impacts will be of low significance to the receiving environment. As shown in Table 1 below, and of significant importance is the positive impact on Public Health and Safety and the positive traffic impact (from a moderate to high significance). This is due to the fact that the proposed intersection upgrade will result in a high speed mobility road which will reduce the current congestion problems experienced at the intersection. In addition pedestrian walkways will be provided in the design of the upgrade which will result in increased safety for pedestrians utilising the road.

Table 1: Potential Impact Summary Report

ALTERNATIVES A1 No-Go

CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL IMPACT Without mitigation With mitigation Without mitigation

With mitigation

Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Impacts Moderate (-) Low (-) - -

Soil and Water Resource Contamination Impact

Moderate (-) Low (-) - -

Impact on Hydrology, Drainage and Wetlands Moderate (-) Low (-) - -

Impact on Flora Low (-) Low (-) - -

Impact on Fauna Low (-) Low (-) - -

Impact of Water Use Low (-) Low (-) - -

Impact on Public Health and Safety Moderate (-) Low (-)

Impact on Air Quality Moderate (-) Low (-) - -

Impact on Visual and Aesthetics Moderate (-) Low (-) - -

Impact of Increased Noise Generation Low (-) Low (-)

Impact on Community Relationship – influx of workers

Moderate (-) Low (-)

Heritage Impact Low (-) Low (-)

Public service use and infrastructure Impact Low (-) Low (-)

Traffic Impact Moderate (-) Low (-)

OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL IMPACT Without mitigation/

enhancement

With mitigation/

enhancement

Without mitigation With mitigation



Low (-) Low (-)


11



Impact on Fauna Low (-) Low (-)


Impact on Public Health and Safety Moderate (+) High (+) - -

Impact on Air Quality Low (-) Low (-) - -

Impact on Visual and Aesthetics Moderate (-) Low (-)

Impact of Increased Noise Generation Moderate (-) Low (-) - -



Heritage Impact N/A

Public service use and infrastructure Impact Moderate (-) Low (-)

Traffic Impact Moderate (+) High (+)

KEY:

High negative impact (-) Negative Impact Moderate negative impact (+) Positive Impact Low Moderate positive impact High positive impact

With regards to some of the negative impacts, given the sensitive environment (related to the close proximity to wetlands to the preferred alternative), care should still be taken that the significance of impacts identified (even though they range from moderate to low), do not become altered due to contractor’s or operational non-conformance in terms of the mitigation measures contained in this Basic Assessment Report and associated Environmental Management Programme. According to the wetland study, the planned construction of the new road interchange and associated infrastructure will result in negative impacts to wetlands and possibly also to downstream water resources in the study area. The wetland specialist concludes by stating that “A range of mitigation measures have been proposed which could reduce the significance of a number of the less significant construction and operational phase impacts such as sedimentation, erosion and alien plant colonisation. Residual impacts that will be difficult/ impossible to mitigate will include the permanent loss of wetland habitat and a likely reduction in ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services delivery by the wetlands affected”. The wetland specialist also stresses that a number of potential offset opportunities have been identified that could be used to compensate for residual impacts these need to be considered by the applicant (Teixeira-Leite and Macfarlane, 2013) The Basic Assessment Report and associated appendices overall cover numerous mitigation measures to minimise the anticipated environmental impacts and together with an EMP, the effectiveness of these mitigation measures can be monitored.

7. Recommendations

On the basis of the findings in this report, it is suggested that Preferred Alternative A1 (Route Option 1) be approved for the construction/upgrade of the N2 Kokstad Intersection.


12

SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this section? YES

√ NO

If YES, please complete the form entitled “Details of specialist and declaration of interest” for the specialist appointed and attach in Appendix I. Specialists consulted during the Basic Assessment process are as follows

• Wetland Impact Assessment – EcoPulse Consulting • Heritage Impact Assessment – eThembeni Cultural Heritage Specialists

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) Describe the project associated with the listed activities applied for 1.1 Project Description and Location The South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited (SANRAL) is proposing to upgrade the N2, Section 21 and Provincial Road 56 intersection in Kokstad in the KwaZulu-Natal Province. The intersection is known as the “N2 Kokstad Intersection” and is located approximately 3 km to the south of the Kokstad town Central Business District (CBD). During weekends, particularly on Friday afternoons and at month ends, severe congestion occurs at this intersection. In order to meet SANRALs requirements for a functioning National Route, possible improvements are needed including a long term need for a full grade separated interchange.

N2 towards Mthatha, southern leg

The R56 towards Kokstad, opposite northern leg

The N2 towards Port Shepstone, eastern leg


13

Figure 1: A map showing the location of the N2 Kokstad Intersection (circled in red) The N2 Kokstad Intersection is a T- junction with the following three legs;

• The N2 towards Mthatha forms the southern leg • The R56 towards Kokstad forms the opposite northern leg • The N2 eastern leg towards Port Shepstone forms the leg of the T

The Mthata N2 southern leg and the Kokstad northern leg of the intersection forms a continuous route with no stoppages. There is however a stop control on the Port Shepstone leg of the intersection. Extreme congestion is currently experienced at this intersection, where vehicles often from a queue of approximately 800m during peak traffic. The current intersection therefore needs to be upgraded to improve operation, safety and to reduce congestion. The proposed preferred alternative is Alternative 1 (A1) for the proposed upgrade for the N2 Kokstad Intersection comprises (but is not limited to) the following:

• Construction of the Interchange and road works for capacity upgrades, including the following:

o Construction of a new bridge structure over N2 o Construction of N2 On and Off Ramps o Realignment of existing R56 between the Engen Garage and the proposed

interchange o Widening of the road where required o Strengthening of existing carriageways o Pavement improvement on R56 o Capacity upgrade by construction of a new carriageway o Provision of additional climbing lanes where required o Upgrading of existing and installation of new stormwater culverts o Protection of utility services affected by the rehabilitation of existing carriageway

and the new carriageway o Geometric safety improvements at intersection

• Improvements (widening) and rehabilitation on three (3) culverts/bridges (Tributaries

of Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River Bridge)

• Construction of new culverts

• The construction of an traffic control centre for trucks, including the following:

o Bulk earthworks and layerworks for the construction of the facility o Operational buildings and offices; including weigh bridges and lighting o Access roads, vehicle processing station and stacking area for overload vehicles o Stormwater drainage pipes and culverts o Fencing and security for the facility.

Note: The borrow pits and hard rock quarry material will be sourced from a local commercial supplier.


14

1.2 Project Motivation SANRAL have invested substantially on the Section of Road (N2 Section 21) with the Truck Stop and the Stafford’s Post interchange currently under construction. The proposed Kokstad interchange was the least expensive in the options presented to SANRAL by the engineers. This option also had the least impact to the environment and land required.

• To reduce extreme traffic congestion at the N2 Kokstad intersection during weekends and at month ends

• To meet SANRALs requirements in terms of functioning National Roads (Class 1 and Class 2 Roads). The main function of a Class 1 road is to provide high speed mobility to long distance traffic

• To improve mobility on the roads and cater effectively for through traffic from all directions

• To increase road safety for road users turning at the existing access to the Mount Currie Engen Stop on the R56 near the N2 Kokstad Intersection

• To cater for rezoning applications seeking individual access to the R56 • To provide for connections to collector roads for proposed developments in and

around the Kokstad area, which will be in line with the Kokstad Spatial Development Framework (SDF)

• To provide long term planning for a more direct coastal route to the east of Mthatha • To control truck loads to/from the Mthatha direction or entering Kokstad by using the

proposed new overload facility.)

b) Provide a detailed description of the listed activities associated with the project as

applied for Listed activity as described in GN R.544, 545 and 546

Description of project activity

GN R.544 Item 11: The construction of: (i) Canals (ii) channels (iii) bridges (iv) dams (v) weirs; (vi) bulk storm water outlet structures; (vii) jetties exceeding 50 square metres in size; (ix) slipways exceeding 50 square metres in size; (x) buildings exceeding 50 square metres in size; (xi) infrastructure exceeding 50 square metres or more Where such construction occurs within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a

The proposed N2 Kokstad Intersection Upgrade will include the construction of;

• A new bridge structure over the N2 (“bridges”) and

• Construction of N2 on and off ramps (“infrastructure exceeding 50 square metres or more”)

• Traffic control centre for trucks (“infrastructure exceeding 50 square metres or more”).

This will occur within 32 metres of a watercourse (Tributaries of Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River).


15

watercourse, excluding where such construction will occur behind the development setback line. GN R.544 Item 18: The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 cubic metres into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock from; (i) a watercourse

The proposed N2 Kokstad Intersection Upgrade will also involve improvements (widening) and rehabilitation on three (3) culverts/bridges which will involve “the removal or moving of soil, sand, pebbles or rock from a watercourse” (Tributaries of Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River Bridge).

GN R.544 Item 22: The construction of a road, outside urban areas, (i) with a reserve wider than 13.5 metres or, (ii) where no reserve exists where the road is wider than 8 metres, or (iii) for which an environmental authorisation was obtained for the route determination in terms of activity 5 in Government Notice 387 of 2006 or activity 18 in Notice 545 of 2010.

The construction upgrade of a road interchange (National Route) and road works for capacity upgrades, outside urban areas, “(i) with a reserve wider than 13.5 metres”

GN R.544 Item 39: The expansion of (i) Canals (ii) channels; (iii) Bridges (iv) weirs; (v) bulk storm water outlet structures; (vi) marinas; Within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse, where such expansion will result in an increased development footprint but excluding where such expansion will occur behind the development setback line.

The expansion and upgrading of;

• culverts/bridges (“bridges”) • existing and installing new stormwater

culverts (“bulk storm water outlet structures”);

“Within 32 metres of a watercourse” (Tributaries of Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River Bridge), measured from the edge of a watercourse, where such expansion will result in an increased development footprint.

GN R.544 Item 47: The widening of a road by more than 6 metres, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre- (i) where the existing reserve is wider than 13.5 metres; or (ii) where no reserve exists, where the existing road is wider than 8 metres- excluding widening or lengthening occurring inside urban areas.

The proposed N2 Kokstad Intersection Upgrade occurs just outside an urban area and will involve:

• Widening of the road where required (“by more than 6 metres, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1 kilometre”)

• Realignment of existing R56 between Engen Garage and the proposed interchange

• Strengthening of existing carriageways • Pavement improvement on the R56 • Capacity upgrade by construction of a

new carriageway • Provision of additional climbing lanes

where required


16

“(i) where the existing reserve is wider than 13.5 metres”

Other Relevant Environmental Legislation

(a) Water Use Licence

The N2 Kokstad Intersection Upgrade and associated infrastructure will have an impact on the bed, bank, course and characteristics of the watercourse (Mzintlava River) during the construction and operational phases and thus requires a Water Use Licence from the Department of Water Affairs (DWA). In Terms of the National Water Act (Act No 36 of 1998) [NWA], a Water Use License Application (WULA) is required, this is a legislative process governed by DWA for the authorisation of all water uses defined in section 21 of the NWA. Activity No Description

Section 21 (c) Impeding and diverting the flow of water in a watercourse Section 21 (I) Altering the bed, bank, course or characteristics of a

watercourse 2. FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES “alternatives”, in relation to a proposed activity, means different means of meeting the general purpose and requirements of the activity, which may include alternatives to— (a) the property on which or location where it is proposed to undertake the activity; (b) the type of activity to be undertaken; (c) the design or layout of the activity; (d) the technology to be used in the activity; (e) the operational aspects of the activity; and (f) the option of not implementing the activity. Describe alternatives that are considered in this application as required by Regulation 22(2)(h) of GN R.543. Alternatives should include a consideration of all possible means by which the purpose and need of the proposed activity (NOT PROJECT) could be accomplished in the specific instance taking account of the interest of the applicant in the activity. The no-go alternative must in all cases be included in the assessment phase as the baseline against which the impacts of the other alternatives are assessed. The determination of whether site or activity (including different processes, etc.) or both is appropriate needs to be informed by the specific circumstances of the activity and its environment. After receipt of this report the, competent authority may also request the applicant to assess additional alternatives that


17

could possibly accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed activity if it is clear that realistic alternatives have not been considered to a reasonable extent. The identification of alternatives should be in line with the Integrated Environmental Assessment Guideline Series 11, published by the DEA in 2004. Should the alternatives include different locations and lay-outs, the co-ordinates of the different alternatives must be provided. The co-ordinates should be in degrees, minutes and seconds. The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection. a) Site alternatives

Alternative 1 (preferred alternative) Description Lat (DDMMSS) Long (DDMMSS) N/A

Alternative 2 Description Lat (DDMMSS) Long (DDMMSS) N/A


In the case of linear activities: Alternative: Latitude (S): Longitude (E): Alternative S1 (preferred) • Starting point of the activity - 30:34:57.4278 29:26:47.7855 • Middle/Additional point of the activity - 30:34:31.3105 29:26:47.2006 • End point of the activity - 30:34:16.4052 29:27:10.3003 Alternative S2 (if any) • Starting point of the activity - 30:34:55.9109 29:26:47.1195 • Middle/Additional point of the activity - 30:34:31.7918 29:26:46.6983 • End point of the activity - 30:34:26.4886 29:26:52.2309 Alternative S3 (if any) • Starting point of the activity - 30:34:55.9109 29:26:47.1195 • Middle/Additional point of the activity - 30:34:31.7918 29:26:46.6983 • End point of the activity - 30:34:26.4886 29:26:52.2309 For route alternatives that are longer than 500m, please provide an addendum with co-ordinates taken every 250 meters along the route for each alternative alignment. In the case of an area being under application, please provide the co-ordinates of the corners of the site as indicated on the lay-out map provided in Appendix A.


18

b) Lay-out alternatives

Alternative 1 (preferred alternative) Description Lat (DDMMSS) Long (DDMMSS) The proposed upgrade for the N2 Kokstad Intersection comprises of construction and road works, improvements (widening) and rehabilitation on three (3) culverts/bridges (Tributaries of Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River Bridge) and construction of an traffic control centre for trucks and new culverts.

-30:34:31.3105 29:26:47.2006

Alternative 2 Description Lat (DDMMSS) Long (DDMMSS) A single lane roundabout - this would improve the current situation but would address the current needs as described above until 2019 after which a 4-lane stage for the R56 will be required

-30:34:31.7918 29:26:46.6983

Alternative 3 Description Lat (DDMMSS) Long (DDMMSS) A double lane roundabout with two circulating lanes and double entry lanes would be a better option lasting 25 years. The roundabout should be built with four legs to provide for a proposed Municipal collector road link that would serve the future SDF developments

-30:34:31.7918 29:26:46.6983


c) Technology alternatives

Alternative 1 (preferred alternative) N/A

Alternative 2 N/A

Alternative 3 N/A

d) Other alternatives (e.g. scheduling, demand, input, scale and design alternatives)

Alternative 1 (preferred alternative) N/A

Alternative 2 N/A

Alternative 3 N/A


19

e) No-go alternative No-Go Option is not a viable option since without an alternative strategy to address the challenges currently experienced at the N2 Kokstad Intersection; traffic congestion will continue to be a problem.

Paragraphs 3 – 13 below should be completed for each alternative. 3. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY a) Indicate the physical size of the preferred activity/technology as well as alternative

activities/technologies (footprints): Alternative: Size of the activity: Alternative A11 (preferred activity alternative) N/A m2 Alternative A2 (if any) N/A m2 Alternative A3 (if any) N/A m2 or, for linear activities: Alternative: Length of the activity: Alternative A1 (preferred activity alternative) 2800 m Alternative A2 (if any) m Alternative A3 (if any) m b) Indicate the size of the alternative sites or servitudes (within which the above footprints

will occur): Alternative: Size of the site/servitude: Alternative A1 (preferred activity alternative) N/A m2 Alternative A2 (if any) m2 Alternative A3 (if any) m2 4. SITE ACCESS Does ready access to the site exist? YES NO

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

needed Describe the type of access road planned: N/A

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


20

Include the position of the access road on the site plan and required map, as well as an indication of the road in relation to the site. 5. LOCALITY MAP (Refer to Appendix A for the Locality Map) An A3 locality map must be attached to the back of this document, as Appendix A. The scale of the locality map must be relevant to the size of the development (at least 1:50 000. For linear activities 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; • indication of all the alternatives identified; • closest town(s;) • road access from all major roads in the area; • road names or numbers of all major roads as well as the roads that provide access to the site(s); • all roads within a 1km radius of the site or alternative sites; and • a north arrow; • a legend; and • locality GPS co-ordinates (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).

6. LAYOUT/ROUTE PLAN (Refer to Appendix A for the Proposed Layout of the Kokstad Intersection Upgrade) A detailed site or route plan(s) must be prepared for each alternative site or alternative activity. It must be attached as Appendix A to this document. The site or route plans must indicate the following: • the property boundaries and numbers of all the properties within 50 metres of the site; • the current land use as well as the land use zoning of the site; • the current land use as well as the land use zoning each of the properties adjoining the site or sites; • the exact position of each listed activity applied for (including alternatives); • servitude(s) indicating the purpose of the servitude; • a legend; and • a north arrow.


21

7. SENSITIVITY MAP (Refer to Appendix A for a Sensitivity Map of the Kokstad Intersection Upgrade) The layout/route plan as indicated above must be overlain with a sensitivity map that indicates all the sensitive areas associated with the site, including, but not limited to: • watercourses; • the 1:100 year flood line (where available or where it is required by DWA); • ridges; • cultural and historical features; • areas with indigenous vegetation (even if it is degraded or infested with alien species); and • critical biodiversity areas. The sensitivity map must also cover areas within 100m of the site and must be attached in Appendix A. 8. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Colour photographs from the centre of the site must be taken in at least the eight major compass directions with a description of each photograph. Photographs must be attached under Appendix B to this report. It must be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the site, if applicable. (Refer to Appendix B for the Site Photographs) 9. FACILITY ILLUSTRATION A detailed illustration of the activity must be provided at a scale of at least 1:200 as Appendix C for activities that include structures. The illustrations must be to scale and must represent a realistic image of the planned activity. The illustration must give a representative view of the activity. (Refer to Appendix C for the Facility Illustration)


22

10. ACTIVITY MOTIVATION Motivate and explain the need and desirability of the activity (including demand for the activity):

1. Is the activity permitted in terms of the property’s existing

land use rights?

YES √

NO Please explain

The proposed activity will be within the road reserve of SANRAL and will be consistent with the zoning of the property’s existing land use rights.

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

(a) Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) YES

√ NO Please explain

Development corridors located on the outskirts of the existing Kokstad town planning scheme boundary in terms of agricultural lands form part of the municipality’s Provincial Spatial Development Framework (SDF). Therefore, the activity will be in line with the Provincial SDF as one of the aims of the Kokstad SDF is to ensure conformance with the neighbouring local, districts and provincial spatial development frameworks.

(b) Urban edge / Edge of Built environment for the area YES

√ NO

Please explain

The urban edge aims to optimize the use of existing resources including such resources relating to agriculture, land, minerals, bulk infrastructure, roads, transportation and social facilities. In the case of the proposed development, existing roads will be used as far as possible. The Greater Kokstad Municipality (GKM) has extensive landholdings within the current draft urban edge. This offers significant opportunity for the Municipality to lead development into the future.


23

(c) Integrated Development Plan (IDP) and Spatial Development Framework (SDF) 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 √

NO Please explain

The N2 Kokstad intersection is located approximately 2,4km south of the current Kokstad Town Planning boundary which falls outside of the Existing Town Planning Schemes for Kokstad but is within the municipality’s SDF.

(d) Approved Structure Plan of the Municipality YES


See above. A detailed structure plan has been prepared to ensure coherent and harmonious development. This has been submitted to the municipality.

(e) An Environmental Management Framework (EMF) adopted by the 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 √

NO Please explain

The project is in line with the EMF of the Department thus the approval of this application would not compromise the integrity of the existing environmental management priorities for the area. There are no particularly sensitive environments on the site.

(f) Any other Plans (e.g. Guide Plan) YES NO √

Please explain

The project is not in line with any other plans as far as the consultant is aware.

3. Is the land use (associated with the activity being applied for) considered within the timeframe intended by the existing approved SDF agreed to by the relevant environmental authority (i.e. is the proposed development in line with the projects and programmes identified as priorities within the credible IDP)?

YES √

NO Please explain

Refer to 2 ( c) above 4. Does the community/area need the activity 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.)

YES √

NO Please explain


24

The proposed upgrade of the Kokstad Intersection Upgrade is a societal priority as it will:

• Reduce extreme traffic congestion at the N2 Kokstad intersection during weekends and at month ends

• Increase road safety for road users turning at the existing access to the Mount Currie Engen Stop on the R56 near the N2 Kokstad Intersection

5. Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently

available (at the time of application), or must additional capacity be created to cater for the development? (Confirmation by the relevant Municipality in this regard must be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix I.)

YES


Need to confirm with the municipality.

6. Is this development 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 final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix I.)

YES


Need to confirm with the municipality.


25

7. Is this project part of a national programme to address an issue of national concern or importance?

YES NO

√ Please explain

Although it does not form part of a national programme to address issues of national concern, the proposed Kokstad intersection will result in a more direct coastal route to the east of Mthatha. It also will result in an overall infrastructure upgrade which will additionally involve the construction of an traffic control centre which will control truck loads to/from the Mthatha direction or entering Kokstad.

8. Do location factors favour this land use (associated with the activity applied for) at this place? (This relates to the contextualisation of the proposed land use on this site within its broader context.)

YES


Yes, the proposed project is to address a traffic congestion problem at a specific intersection, which is significant for vehicles travelling to and from Port Shepstone, the Eastern Cape and Kokstad.

9. Is the development the best practicable environmental option for this land/site?

YES


SANRAL have invested substantially on the Section of Road (N2 Section 21) with the Truck Stop and the Stafford’s Post interchange currently under construction. The proposed Kokstad interchange was the least expensive in the options presented to SANRAL by the engineers. This option also had the least impact to the environment and land required.

10. Will the benefits of the proposed land use/development

outweigh the negative impacts of it?

YES


Refer to point 4 above.

11. Will the proposed land use/development set a precedent for similar activities in the area (local municipality)?

YES

NO

√

Please explain

The proposed project is intended to upgrade an existing intersection and will not set a precedent as it is a solution to traffic problems experienced at this intersection. However the proposed project is also aligned to meet SANRALs requirements in terms of functioning National Roads (Class 1 and Class 2 Roads). The main function of a Class 1 road is to provide high speed mobility to long distance traffic. This is a specific precedent which SANRAL requires for their national roads.


26

12. Will any person’s rights be negatively affected by the

proposed activity/ies?

YES

NO √

Please explain

It is highly unlikely that any person’s right will be negatively affected.

13. Will the proposed activity/ies compromise the “urban edge” as defined by the local municipality?

YES

√

NO Please explain

Refer to 2 (b) above

14. Will the proposed activity/ies contribute to any of the 17

Strategic Integrated Projects (SIPS)?

YES NO √

Please explain

This project is of small scale in relation to the SIPS projects, thus the proposed activity will not contribute to any of the 17 SIPS. However it will contribute to provide long term planning for a more direct coastal route to the east of Mthatha as well as an overall infrastructure upgrade which will also involve the construction of an traffic control centre which will control truck loads to/from the Mthatha direction or entering Kokstad by using the proposed new overload facility.

15. What will the benefits be to society in general and to the local

communities?

Please explain

Refer to point 4 above.


27

16. Any other need and desirability considerations related to the proposed activity?

Please explain

• To improve mobility on the roads and cater effectively for through traffic from all

directions • To cater for rezoning applications seeking individual access to the R56 • To provide for connections to collector roads for proposed developments in and

around the • Kokstad area in line with the Kokstad Spatial Development Framework (SDF) • To provide long term planning for a more direct coastal route to the east of Mthatha • To control truck loads to/from the Mthatha direction or entering Kokstad by using the

proposed new overload facility.)

17. How does the project fit into the National Development Plan for 2030? Please explain

According to the Greater Kokstad Municipality Integrated Development Planning Document, “The National Development Plan (2011) puts forward three scenarios to create approximately 11 million jobs by 2030, and reduce unemployment rate to about 6% by 2030. The first scenario is a baseline scenario, the second is a solid minerals scenario, and the third is a scenario that aims to create a diversified dynamic economy. The third scenario, which is the preferred scenario, aims to attract more substantial investments in strengthening municipal infrastructure and services, education systems, and generate better access to capital for new and expanding firms”. Therefore one of the challenges that the NDP 2030 identified is “Infrastructure is poorly located, under-maintained and insufficient to foster growth.” The proposed development directly addresses such challenges in the context that this proposed project will result in the upgrade and improvement of the Kokstad Intersection.

18. Please describe how the general objectives of Integrated Environmental Management as set out in section 23 of NEMA have been taken into account.

The proposed development has been adequately considered by trained and competent Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) and all potential impacts that may have a significant impact on the receiving environment have been considered and mitigated to acceptable levels as required by the NEMA 2010 EIA regulations. The conclusions of the environmental impact assessment have been concisely summarised to adequately inform decision-making by the competent authority. A comprehensive Public Participation Process has been undertaken, which conforms to requirements in Chapter 6 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. Further all Interested and Affected Parties were given ample time to review and comment on all documents and reports.

• The EAP has thus endeavoured to integrate the principles of environmental management in all considerations for this application by:


28

o identifying, predicting and evaluating 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

o ensuring that the effects of activities on the environment receive adequate consideration before actions are taken in connection with them

o ensuring adequate and appropriate opportunity for public participation in decisions that may affect the environment

o ensuring the consideration of environmental attributes in management and decision-making which may have a significant effect on the environment; and

o identifying and employing the modes of environmental management best suited to ensuring that the activity is pursued in accordance with the principles of environmental management.

Lastly it is assumed that the template for a Basic Assessment Report, as prepared by the Department, adheres to all provisions of the National Environmental Management Act in terms of Integrated Environmental Management (including the objectives and principles of NEMA) and the EAP has therefore endeavoured to provide as much detailed information as possible in the sections above and below.

19. Please describe how the principles of environmental management as set out in section 2 of NEMA have been taken into account.

Section 2(2) – “Environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably.” Section 2(3) – “Development must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.” GIBB has carefully considered whether SANRAL’s proposed upgrade of the Kokstad intersection would benefit people and contribute to sustainability. Since the proposed site is within en existing road reserve, biophysical impacts will be minimal, and any impacts related to potential pollution would be managed through appropriate management specifications and procedures. The proposed project will also reduce the current traffic problems experienced by people from Kokstad and those passing through in transit.


29

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

Applicability to the project Administering authority

Date

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Section 24 (Environmental Right):

1) Everyone has the right

a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and

b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that:

i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation;

ii) promote conservation; and

iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.”

The Constitutional Assembly

1996

National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA)

In terms of NEMA and associated Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations published in August 2010, an Environmental Authorisation (Basic Assessment) must be obtained from the relevant decision-making authority, prior to the commencement of certain listed activities that may result in potential negative impacts on the environment.

The environmental principals and requirements of NEMA were considered during the assessment of impacts and development of mitigation measures and in turn the EMP.

Department of Environmental Affairs

1998

National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004

Background understanding during EIA. Since there will be no emission point sources as typical for heavy industrial operations, no Air Emission License will be required.


2004

National Water Act 36 of 1998 (NWA)

In Terms of NWA a Water Use License Application (WULA) is required, this is a legislative

Department of Water Affairs

1998


30

process governed by DWA for the authorisation of all water uses defined in section 21 of the NWA.

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004

The potential for disruptions to any fauna located on site.


2004

National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999

A heritage specialist has considered the potential of heritage resources on site and concluded that it is unlikely that any important resources exist at the site.

South African Heritage

Resources Agency

(SAHRA)

1999

Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993

A number of OHSA requirements are also relevant to environmental control and were as such considered in the identified mitigation and the EMP (e.g. bunding for flammable substances, Material Safety Data Sheets).

Department of Labour 1993

National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996

All traffic regulations are to be complied with during all phases of the project.

Department of Transport

1996

All relevant Provincial regulations and Municipal bylaws

The facility is situated in the Greater Kokstad Municipality and has to abide with the Municipality Environmental Health Bylaws and Scheduled Trade Bylaws

Greater Kokstad Municipality

As updated

12. WASTE, EFFLUENT, EMISSION AND NOISE MANAGEMENT a) Solid waste management Will the activity produce solid construction waste during the construction/initiation phase?

YES

√ NO

If YES, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? Unknown m3 How will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe)?


31

There are no man-made structures to be demolished and disposed. The construction activities are related to the proposed intersection upgrade and the development of an traffic control centre. As such the waste generated will result from what can be considered as ‘normal’ construction activities. Most of this waste will likely fall in the category of ‘general waste’ but small quantities of ‘hazardous waste’ (e.g. oil rags; residues from use of paints, sealants, fuels and lubricating oil; contaminated soil from accidental spills) will also be generated. SANRAL will ensure that the Environmental Management Programme (EMP) form part of the contractual agreement with all the contractors appointed to undertake the construction activities. The EMP will include mitigatory specifications as derived in Appendix F, Subsection 3.5. These include inter alia:

• Segregation of general and hazardous waste at the construction site. • Using dedicated and clearly marked waste bins or skips, located in strategic and

convenient places at the construction camp for disposal of general waste. These bins or skips will be collected/emptied regularly for disposal at licenced municipal landfill sites.

• Using dedicated and clearly marked hazardous waste bins as well as appropriately bunded hazardous waste storage areas for temporary storage of such wastes. Hazardous waste will be collected and removed from the site regularly and disposed to an appropriately licensed landfill site.

Procedures to segregate recyclable material where reasonably feasible will be required. Segregated recyclables will be availed to suitably licensed recyclers for collection.

Where will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe)? A suitably registered/licensed municipal, privately owned disposal or recycling facility of the appointed contractor’s choice.

Will the activity produce solid waste during its operational phase?

YES NO √

If YES, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? N/A m3 How will the solid waste be disposed of (describe)? N/A

If the solid waste will be disposed of into a municipal waste stream, indicate which registered landfill site will be used. N/A

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

If the solid waste (construction or operational phases) will not be disposed of in a registered landfill site or be taken up in a municipal waste stream, then the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA. Can any part of the solid waste be classified as hazardous in terms of the NEM:WA? YES NO

√ If YES, inform the competent authority and request a change to an application for scoping and EIA. An application for a waste permit in terms of the NEM:WA must also be submitted with this application.


32

Is the activity that is being applied for a solid waste handling or treatment facility? YES NO √

If YES, then the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA. An application for a waste permit in terms of the NEM:WA must also be submitted with this application. b) Liquid effluent Will the activity produce effluent, other than normal sewage, that will be disposed of in a municipal sewage system?

YES

NO √

If YES, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? N/A m3 Will the activity produce any effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of on site?

YES NO √

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

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

YES NO √

If YES, provide the particulars of the facility: Facility name: N/A Contact person:

N/A

Postal address:

N/A

Postal code: N/A Telephone: N/A Cell: N/A E-mail: N/A Fax: N/A Describe the measures that will be taken to ensure the optimal reuse or recycling of waste water, if any: N/A

c) Emissions into the atmosphere Will the activity release emissions into the atmosphere other that exhaust emissions and dust associated with construction phase activities?

YES

NO √

If YES, is it controlled by any legislation of any sphere of government? YES

NO √

If YES, the applicant must consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA. If NO, describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration:


33

There will be no point source (stack) emissions into the air from the proposed facilities.

Construction Phase:

During the construction phase, fume emissions would result from vehicles transporting construction material, machinery, hydraulic hammers, generators, etc. The emissions will however have short term impacts on the immediate surrounding areas and thus the authorisation of such emissions will not be required.

Dust may be generated as the result of exposed soil and cement dust. Fume and dust emission will be mitigated through measures incorporated in the EMP.

Operational Phase:

There will be no emissions from the road upgrade other than exhaust emissions from vehicles.

d) Waste permit Will any aspect of the activity produce waste that will require a waste permit in terms of the NEM:WA? YES

NO √

If YES, please submit evidence that an application for a waste permit has been submitted to the competent authority e) Generation of noise Will the activity generate noise? YES

√ NO

If YES, is it controlled by any legislation of any sphere of government? YES

NO √

If YES, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA. If NO, describe the noise in terms of type and level:


34

Noise from site construction activities is considered of low significance considering the proposed project will be located away from residential houses and will therefore not impact on residential or other sensitive areas. Construction Phase Construction noise will result from the movement of construction vehicle traffic, generators, hydraulic/pressure hammers and winches, hammering of steel structures into position and other typical construction activities. Adjacent businesses may potentially be impacted by construction noise, particularly at offices. However the noise associated with construction activities will be of short term, localised and will only last during the construction activities/phase of the project. Operation Phase During the operation phase, operating noise will mainly result from vehicle traffic using the road.

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

Water board Groundwater River, stream, dam or lake

Other The activity will not use water

If water is to be extracted from groundwater, river, stream, dam, lake or any other natural feature, please indicate the volume that will be extracted per month:

N/A litres

Does the activity require a water use authorisation (general authorisation or water use license) from the Department of Water Affairs?

YES √

NO

If YES, please provide proof that the application has been submitted to the Department of Water Affairs.

A Water Use Licence will be required for impeding and diverting the watercourses (wetlands) during the construction of the road. The Department of Water Affairs (DWA), namely Ms Colleen Moonsamy and Mr Norman Ward, has been consulted via telephone correspondence. Consultation with the DWA authorities will continue throughout the Basic Assessment process and a Water Use Licence Application (WULA) will be also be submitted to DWA in the KZN Region for approval prior to the construction phase of the project.


35

14. ENERGY EFFICIENCY Describe the design measures, if any, that have been taken to ensure that the activity is energy efficient: The use of recycled road materials and the utilisation of existing commercial sources for road and bridge construction materials will eradicate the need for establishing, opening up, operating and then closing borrow pits and hard rock quarry sites.

Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the design of the activity, if any: Conventional road and structural techniques will be employed.


36

SECTION B: SITE/AREA/PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Important notes: 1. For linear activities (pipelines, etc) as well as activities that cover very large sites, it may be

necessary to complete this section for each part of the site that has a significantly different environment. In such cases please complete copies of Section B and indicate the area, which is covered by each copy No. on the Site Plan.

Section B Copy No. (e.g. A): 1 2. Paragraphs 1 - 6 below must be completed for each alternative. 3. Has a specialist been consulted to assist with the completion of this section?

YES NO √

If YES, please complete the form entitled “Details of specialist and declaration of interest” for each specialist thus appointed and attach it in Appendix I. All specialist reports must be contained in Appendix D. Property description/physical address:

Province KwaZulu Natal District Municipality


Local Municipality Greater Kokstad Municipality Ward Number(s) Farm name and number

KOPPIES KRAAL 289

Portion number Rem and 15 SG Code N0ES0000000028900000

N0ES0000000028900015

Where a large number of properties are involved (e.g. linear activities), please attach a full list to this application including the same information as indicated above.

Current land-use zoning as per local municipality IDP/records:

Road (Intersection)

In instances where there is more than one current land-use zoning, please attach a list of current land use zonings that also indicate which portions each use pertains to, to this application.

Is a change of land-use or a consent use application required? YES NO

√


37

1. GRADIENT OF THE SITE Indicate the general gradient of the site. Alternative S1: Flat 1:50 – 1:20

√ 1:20 – 1:15 1:15 – 1:10 1:10 – 1:7,5 1:7,5 – 1:5 Steeper

than 1:5 Alternative S2 (if any): Flat 1:50 – 1:20

√ 1:20 – 1:15 1:15 – 1:10 1:10 – 1:7,5 1:7,5 – 1:5 Steeper

than 1:5 Alternative S3 (if any): Flat 1:50 – 1:20 1:20 – 1:15 1:15 – 1:10 1:10 – 1:7,5 1:7,5 – 1:5 Steeper

than 1:5 2. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site: 2.1 Ridgeline 2.4 Closed valley 2.7 Undulating plain / low hills √ 2.2 Plateau 2.5 Open valley 2.8 Dune 2.3 Side slope of hill/mountain √ 2.6 Plain 2.9 Seafront 3. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE Is the site(s) located on any of the following? Alternative S1: Alternative S2

(if any): Alternative S3

(if any): Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep) YES

√ NO

YES NO

YES NO

Dolomite, sinkhole or doline areas YES

NO √

YES NO

YES NO

Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies)

YES √

NO

YES NO

YES NO

Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil

YES NO √

YES NO

YES NO

Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES √

NO

YES NO

YES NO

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

YES √

NO

YES NO

YES NO

Any other unstable soil or geological feature YES

NO √

YES NO

YES NO

An area sensitive to erosion YES √

NO

YES NO

YES NO

If you are unsure about any of the above or if you are concerned that any of the above aspects may be an issue of concern in the application, an appropriate specialist should be appointed to assist in the


38

completion of this section. Information in respect of the above will often be available as part of the project information or at the planning sections of local authorities. Where it exists, the 1:50 000 scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by the Council for Geo Science may also be consulted. The above was completed by the Wetland Specialist. 4. GROUNDCOVER Indicate the types of groundcover present on the site. The location of all identified rare or endangered species or other elements should be accurately indicated on the site plan(s).

Natural veld - good conditionE

Natural veld with scattered aliensE √

Natural veld with heavy alien infestationE

Veld dominated by alien speciesE

Gardens

Sport field Cultivated land √

Paved surface √

Building or other structure

Bare soil √

If any of the boxes marked with an “E “is ticked, please consult an appropriate specialist to assist in the completion of this section if the environmental assessment practitioner doesn’t have the necessary expertise. 5. SURFACE WATER Indicate the surface water present on and or adjacent to the site and alternative sites?

Perennial River YES NO √

UNSURE

Non-Perennial River YES √

NO UNSURE

Permanent Wetland YES NO √

UNSURE

Seasonal Wetland YES √

NO UNSURE

Artificial Wetland YES NO √

UNSURE

Estuarine / Lagoonal wetland YES

NO √

UNSURE

If any of the boxes marked YES or UNSURE is ticked, please provide a description of the relevant watercourse. A non-perennial (seasonal river system) associated with a largely seasonal, channelled valley bottom wetland that drains in a northerly direction into the larger Mzintlava River. The wetland and associated channel are in a relatively degraded condition as a result of erosion, channel incision and general disturbance caused by roads, agriculture and trampling by livestock and humans.


39

6. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA Indicate land uses and/or prominent features that currently occur within a 500m radius of the site and give description of how this influences the application or may be impacted upon by the application: Natural area √ Dam or reservoir Polo fields Low density residential √ Hospital/medical centre Filling station H √ Medium density residential School Landfill or waste treatment site High density residential Tertiary education facility Plantation √ Informal residentialA Church Agriculture √ Retail commercial & warehousing√

Old age home River, stream or wetland√

Light industrial√ Sewage treatment plantA Nature conservation area Medium industrial AN Train station or shunting yard N Mountain, koppie or ridge Heavy industrial AN Railway line N Museum Power station Major road (4 lanes or more) N √ Historical building Office/consulting room Airport N Protected Area Military or police base/station/compound

Harbour Graveyard

Spoil heap or slimes damA Sport facilities Archaeological site Quarry, sand or borrow pit √ Golf course Other land uses (describe) If any of the boxes marked with an “N “are ticked, how will this impact / be impacted upon by the proposed activity? Major Road – The overall project involves the upgrade of a major road intersection. Of particular reference is the N2 from Port Shepstone which will be a part of the intersection upgrade. This will not be impacted on other than minor traffic disruptions during construction. The positives far outweigh any negative impacts on any major roads. If any of the boxes marked with an "An" are ticked, how will this impact / be impacted upon by the proposed activity? Specify and explain: N/A

If any of the boxes marked with an "H" are ticked, how will this impact / be impacted upon by the proposed activity? Specify and explain: The Mount Currie Inn Engen Garage is located in close proximity to the proposed intersection upgrade and will be directly affected. The access into this facility will be realigned to tie into the proposed new road alignments.

Does the proposed site (including any alternative sites) fall within any of the following: Critical Biodiversity Area (as per provincial conservation plan) YES

NO

√


40

Core area of a protected area? YES NO √

Buffer area of a protected area? YES NO √

Planned expansion area of an existing protected area? YES NO √

Existing offset area associated with a previous Environmental Authorisation? YES NO √

Buffer area of the SKA? YES NO √

If the answer to any of these questions was YES, a map indicating the affected area must be included in Appendix A. 7. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES Are there any signs of culturally or historically significant elements, as defined in section 2 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, (Act No. 25 of 1999), including Archaeological or paleontological sites, on or close (within 20m) to the site? If YES, explain:

YES

NO √

Uncertain

The Heritage Specialists from eThembeni Cultural Heritage had previously identified no heritage resources within or adjacent to the proposed development area. They recommend that the development proceed with no further heritage mitigation and have submitted their amended report to Amafa in fulfilment of the requirements of the National Heritage Resources Act (See attached in Appendix D2). If uncertain, conduct a specialist investigation by a recognised specialist in the field (archaeology or palaeontology) to establish whether there is such a feature(s) present on or close to the site. Briefly explain the findings of the specialist: Refer to the Heritage Specialist Report in Appendix D2. Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected in any way?

YES NO √

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

YES NO

√ If YES, please provide proof that this permit application has been submitted to SAHRA or the relevant provincial authority.


41

8. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTER a) Local Municipality Please provide details on the socio-economic character of the local municipality in which the proposed site(s) are situated. Level of unemployment: Kokstad Municipality experiences challenges in terms of employment, due to high migration of people from the Eastern Cape and Lesotho into the area in search for employment opportunities. The municipality is therefore faced with a challenge of planning, providing basic services, housing and creating employment opportunities for its growing communities.

The Graph above illustrate that the employed population from the economically active/employed comprises 44.02%. The remaining 9% are unemployed. Approximately 40% of population of Greater Kokstad is not economically active.


42

Economic profile of local municipality:

Level of education:

The bar graph above indicates a high level of population with access to primary school, whereas the level of matric has the lower number of population. One of the explanations to which this could be attributed is the challenge of accessibility to schooling, especially in rural areas. The level of passing students in the highest grade proves the weakness of the education in the Greater Kokstad Municipality, and thus there would be a high shortage of level of skill to qualify for employment within the Municipality.


43

b) Socio-economic value of the activity What is the expected capital value of the activity on completion? R 210 943 085.00

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

Unknown as future developments adjacent to the new roads will dictate this.

Will the activity contribute to service infrastructure? YES √

NO

Is the activity a public amenity? YES √

NO

How many new employment opportunities will be created in the development and construction phase of the activity/ies?

Approximately 100

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

R 30 000 000.00

What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? SANRAL Targeted procurement is usually around 15%

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

Nil

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

Nil

What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? 0% 9. BIODIVERSITY Please 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 activity/ies. To assist with the identification of the biodiversity occurring on site and the ecosystem status consult http://bgis.sanbi.org or [email protected]. Information is also available on compact disc (cd) from the Biodiversity-GIS Unit, Ph (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) and must be provided as an overlay map to the property/site plan as Appendix D to this report. a) Indicate the applicable biodiversity planning categories of all areas on site and indicate

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

Systematic Biodiversity Planning Category If CBA or ESA, indicate the reason(s) for its selection in biodiversity plan

Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA)

Ecological Support Area (ESA) √

Other Natural Area

(ONA)

No Natural Area

Remaining (NNR)

The area highlighted as a Biodiversity Priority Area 3 (ESA), due primarily to the presence of East Griqualand Grassland in the catchment


44

b) Indicate and describe the habitat condition on site

Habitat Condition

Percentage of habitat

condition class (adding up to 100%)

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 20% The wetland areas are dominated by indigenous reeds (Phragmites australis) and Juncus spp. associated with channels and seepage zones along the hill slopes

Near Natural (includes areas with

low to moderate level of alien invasive

plants)

20%

There are areas that have been subjected to shallow flooding above the roads, where the natural level of wetness has been enhanced.

Degraded (includes areas

heavily invaded by alien plants)

50%

There are degraded areas characterised by grass species with soil erosion and also where a high density of alien invasive plants is a problem.

Transformed (includes cultivation,

dams, urban, plantation, roads, etc)

10%

There are also reaps that have been cultivated (irrigated cropland) and in-filled due to road construction.

c) Complete the table to indicate:

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

(ii) whether an aquatic ecosystem is present on site.

Terrestrial Ecosystems Aquatic Ecosystems

Ecosystem threat status as per the

National Environmental Management:

Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004)

Critical Wetland (including rivers, depressions, channelled and unchanneled wetlands, flats,

seeps pans, and artificial wetlands)

Estuary Coastline Endangered

Vulnerable

Least Threatened

√ YES

√ NO UNSURE YES NO

√ YES NO

√


45

d) Please provide a description of the vegetation type and/or aquatic ecosystem present on site, including any important biodiversity features/information identified on site (e.g. threatened species and special habitats)

The vegetation type comprises degraded grassland that has been impacted by grazing and agricultural activities. A channelled valley bottom wetland is present on site. The system has been largely modified/degraded by activities on site including erosion, channel incision and road construction. Catchment impacts have also led to the degradation of this wetland (including quarrying and agricultural activities associated with crop farming and the construction of small in-channel dams). Aquatic vegetation is largely lacking, with a few locally common (least concern) species occurring including Phragmites australis (common reed) and Juncus kraussii. Due to the level of modification of wetland habitat, ecosystem functioning has been diminished to a low-medium level for this wetland system.


46

SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. ADVERTISEMENT AND NOTICE Publication name The Mercury Date published 16 January 2013 Publication name The Kokstad Advertiser Date published 17 January 2013 Site notice position Site Notice 1:

Latitude Longitude 30034’31.42’’ S

29026’46.81’’ E (from Google Earth)

Site Notice 2:

30034’31.77’’ S


Site Notice 3:

30034’29.65’’ S


Site Poster 30034’17.52’’ S


Date placed 14 January 2013 Include proof of the placement of the relevant advertisements and notices in Appendix E1. 2. DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE MEASURES Provide details of the measures taken to include all potential I&APs as required by Regulation 54(2)(e) and 54(7) of GN R.543.

GIBB conducted a Public Participation Process (PPP) with the following key features and associated milestones:

• An Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) Register/ Database was initiated and

progressively populated as I&APs were identified or registered.

• Media notices informing readers of the application for Environmental Authorisation to the DEA and inviting I&APs to register as an I&AP and/or provide comment was placed in:

o 16 January 2013 – The Mercury o 17 January 2013 – The Kokstad Advertiser

• Notice boards were designed based on the specification of the NEMA EIA Regulations

GNR 543, Section 54 (2) and (4), and displayed at conspicuous places on 14 January 2013.


47

• A Background Information Document (BID), which provided background to the proposed

project and an overview of the Basic Assessment Process and associated Public Participation Process was compiled. The BID also included an invitation for I&APs to comment and raise any issues and concerns they may have.

• Copies of the BID were hand-delivered to industries within the area. Copies of the BID

were also made available at the Richards Bay library for distribution to visitors (Refer to Plates in Appendix B).

• A Public Meeting was held on the 31 January 2013.

• A Comments and Response Register was compiled based on the issues and concerns raised on the BID.

• The Draft Basic Assessment Report (BAR) will be made available for public comment and review and all registered I&APs on the Database will be either notified of the availability of the report at certain venues or provided with an electronic and/or paper copy of the report

• Any comments received on the Draft BAR will be individually responded to and the responses will be included in the Final BAR.

Key stakeholders (other than organs of state) identified in terms of Regulation 54(2)(b) of GN R.543: Title, Name and Surname Affiliation/ key stakeholder status Contact details (tel number or

e-mail address) Mr Piet du Preez Private (affected party) [email protected] Mr John Shelton Black Private (landowner) [email protected] Mr Walter Dhooge Private (affected party) [email protected] Mr Sean Baker Private(affected party) [email protected] Mrs Cathy Robinson Kokstad Chamber of Commerce [email protected]

Include proof that the key stakeholder received written notification of the proposed activities as Appendix E2. This proof may include any of the following: • e-mail delivery reports; • registered mail receipts; • courier waybills; • signed acknowledgements of receipt; and/or • or any other proof as agreed upon by the competent authority. Other key stakeholders are included in the I&AP Database in Appendix E5.


48

3. ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES (please refer to Appendix

E3 for detailed issues and responses) Summary of main issues raised by I&APs Summary of response from EAP Impact On Natural Forest

• Forestry Regulation would like to know the mitigation measures that would be used to avoid forest destruction

Noted. Refer to the EMP, Section 8.1.4 for mitigation measures that would be used to avoid forest destruction (summary included in Comment and Response Report – Appendix E3)

• A vegetation specialist study should be undertaken and included in the BAR.

Noted. Ms de Jong spoke to Mr Mai on 7 June 2013 and confirmed that there are no natural forests which will be impacted on. There are gum trees which will be removed, but these are of no concern to DAFF. Ms de Jong clarified that any removal of indigenous trees would involve DAFF and the necessary permit processes. Ms de Jong also mentioned that a detailed wetland study had been undertaken which covers impacts on the flora (vegetation).

Direct Business Interests Noted and will keep all registered I&APs informed. The Kokstad Chamber of Commerce have also been registered to notify all businesses.

Traffic impacts

• Bad Stop and Go’s

To minimise traffic impact during construction an option of constructing the realigned R56 and Ramp A & B first can be considered. This will allow steady flow of two way traffic in and out of Kokstad. There will be stop and go’s at intersection to control traffic.

• Concern with the current road layout This Three Legged Interchange proposed for Kokstad was the outcome of a series of meetings and discussions with all the relevant Roads Authorities involved (SANRAL, DOT, GKM) during the preliminary design stage. These institutions agreed on a system that would aim to protect the interest of the end user, the motorist and public in general. Also as mentioned above this option was the least expensive option presented to SANRAL by the engineering team.

• Need to have passing lanes all the way from Harding to Kokstad

SANRAL have invested substantially on that Section of Road (N2 Section 21) with the Truck Stop and the Stafford’s Post


49

interchange currently under construction. The proposed Kokstad interchange was the least expensive in the options presented to Sanral by the engineers. This option also had the least impact to the environment and land required.

4. COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT The practitioner must record all comments received from I&APs and respond to each comment before the Draft BAR is submitted. The comments and responses must be captured in a comments and response report as prescribed in the EIA regulations and be attached to the Final BAR as Appendix E3. All comments received from I&APs during the PPP for the proposed project and associated GIBB or client responses, are incorporated in the Comments and Response Register (Appendix E3) and summarised above. 5. AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION Authorities and organs of state identified as key stakeholders: Authority/Organ of State

Contact person (Title, Name and Surname)

Tel No

Fax No e-mail Postal address


Ms Kim Balutto

012 395 1694

012 320 7539

kbalutto@ environment.gov.za

Private Bag X447 Pretoria 0001


Ms Lerato Mokoena

012 310 3137

012 320 7539

LMokoena@ environment.gov.za

Private Bag X447 Pretoria 0001

Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs

Ms Yugeshni Govender

031 302 2800 / 2862

031 302 2800

[email protected] Private Bag X006 Bishopsgate 4008

Department of Water Affairs

Ms Colleen Moonsamy

031 336 2700

031 305 9915

moonsamyc@ dwa.gov.za

PO Box 1018 Durban 4000

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife

Mr Domenic Wieners

033 845 1455

033 845 1499

wienersd@ kznwildlife.com

PO Box 13053 Cascades 3202

Amafa KwaZulu-Natali

Ms Bernadet Pawandiwa

033 394 6543

033 342 6097

bernadetp@ amafapmb.co.za

PO Box 2685 Pietermaritzburg 3201


Mr Samora Madikizela

039 797 6642

086 216 7710

Samora.madikizela@ Kokstad.org.za

PO Box 8 Kokstad 4700


50

Include proof that the Authorities and Organs of State received written notification of the proposed activities as appendix E4. Noted refer to Appendix E4 for proof. In the case of renewable energy projects, Eskom and the SKA Project Office must be included in the list of Organs of State. (N/A) 6. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS Note that, for any activities (linear or other) where deviation from the public participation requirements may be appropriate, the person conducting the public participation process may deviate from the requirements of that sub-regulation to the extent and in the manner as may be agreed to by the competent authority. Proof of any such agreement must be provided, where applicable. Application for any deviation from the regulations relating to the public participation process must be submitted prior to the commencement of the public participation process. A list of registered I&APs must be included as appendix E5. See Appendix E5. Copies of any correspondence and minutes of any meetings held must be included in Appendix E6. Noted. See Appendix E6.


51

SECTION D: IMPACT ASSESSMENT The assessment of impacts must adhere to the minimum requirements in the EIA Regulations, 2010, and should take applicable official guidelines into account. The issues raised by interested and affected parties should also be addressed in the assessment of impacts. 1. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE PLANNING AND DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION,

OPERATIONAL, DECOMMISSIONING AND CLOSURE PHASES AS WELL AS PROPOSED MANAGEMENT OF IDENTIFIED IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

Provide a summary and anticipated significance of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that are likely to occur as a result of the planning and design phase, construction phase, operational phase, decommissioning and closure phase, including impacts relating to the choice of site/activity/technology alternatives as well as the mitigation measures that may eliminate or reduce the potential impacts listed. This impact assessment must be applied to all the identified alternatives to the activities identified in Section A (2) of this report.

NOTES: • Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts are listed in the tables below for the various

project phases. References are provided to the Impact Assessment Report of Appendix F which provides a more detailed environmental description, assessment and mitigation identification thereof.

• Only the preferred alternative A1 (project, layout and technology) were assessed in detail. This is since Alternative A1 would have fewer negative impacts and all the other alternatives were eliminated as infeasible during the early stages of project planning, design and/or the Basic Assessment process. However, the No-Go alternative was briefly assessed.


52

Activity Impact summary Significance -

without mitigation [with mitigation]

Proposed mitigation (Refer to the relevant Section in the Impact Assessment Report (IAR) of Appendix F)

Alternative 1 (preferred alternative) Planning and Design Phase Impacts

• Site surveys and inspections

• Meetings with authorities and engineers

• Advertise the project through the EIA and tendering process

• Tender for Construction

Direct impacts:

• Site survey and geotechnical investigations

Low [Even Lower]

None

Indirect impacts:

• Advertising of the proposed project may potentially raise expectations amongst the community to receive social benefit (employment opportunities) from the proposed project.

Low [Even Lower]

Refer to: • IAR Subsection 2.2.5 (c) (Good practice

community relationship and management of influx of job seekers)

Cumulative impacts: N/A

N/A

N/A

Construction Phase Impacts • Earth grading for site preparation,

removal of vegetation cover and keeping of soil stockpiles

• Construction staff on site

• Establish construction camp

• Use of services (water, electricity, etc.) • Transport of construction plant, equip-

ment and material • Use of construction plant and

equipment (e.g. cranes, scaffolding, concrete batchers and mixers, hydraulic hammers, etc.) generators

Direct impacts: Soil erosion and sedimentation Impact

• Removal of vegetation cover • Soil erosion caused by displacement of

soil during site clearance and stockpiling can lead to siltation of the water resources.

• Surfaces left uncovered and unprotected facilitate erosion and sedimentation of the wetland system.

Moderate [Low]

Refer to: • IAR Subsection 2.1.1 (c)


53

Activity Impact summary Significance - without mitigation [with mitigation]


• Store material / substances (e.g. sand, stone, cement, fuel, oil, solvents, paints, etc.)

• Batch and mix concrete • Building construction

• Storage and disposal of wastes

• Storage and disposal of wastewater

• Soil compaction due to construction can cause an increase in surface runoff, potentially causing increased sheet or gully erosion.

Soil and Resource Contamination Impact

• Surface water contamination can occur through spilled pollutants contaminating storm water and/or draining directly into storm water drains and waterways.

• Oil / fuel leaks from vehicles and construction machinery can result in surface / groundwater contamination leading to a loss of ecosystem services and performance.

• Paints, solvents and fuel may also be stored in small quantities on construction site which can result in surface/ groundwater contamination if not appropriately managed.

Impact on Hydrology, Drainage and Wetlands

• Wetland loss of approximately 0.98ha

(Loss of natural habitat and ecosystem functions)

• Impact on wetland biota (on-site impacts and disturbances taking place within the

Low [Even Lower] Moderate [Low]

• IAR Subsection 2.1.2 (c)



54



wetland. • By direct disturbance - there is likely to

be constant human activity in or close to the water bodies during the construction phase.

Impact on Flora

• Complete removal or partial destruction/ disturbance of existing indigenous wetland vegetation

• Direct impact on the ecological condition and habitat availability within the wetland.

• Change in vegetation composition. • Increased risk of invasive species. • Patches of natural vegetation and

wetlands located outside of the construction footprint may be unnecessarily disturbed by construction workers if site is not appropriately demarcated.

Impact on Fauna

• Loss of habitat availability for animals (albeit small)

• Potential to destroy or injure fauna (especially species with limited mobility).

• Disrupt the breeding, migration, and foraging behaviour of fauna.

Moderate [Low] Low [Even Lower]

• IAR Subsection 2.1.4 (c) • IAR Subsection 2.1.5 (c)


55



• Reduce habitat quality and species diversity (loss of cover and food sources).

• Sensitive fauna may be disturbed, injured, or killed by vehicular traffic within the construction site. Site workers may also disturb fauna.

• Poaching of fauna for food and traditional medicine from area in the vicinity of the proposed construction site.

Impact of Water Use

• Use of water (in small quantities) for construction activities

Impact on Public Health and Safety

• Accidents during transportation of equipment and substances, e.g. obstruction of roads and walkways, dust or smoke emitted from construction/demolition activities use and spillage of hazardous substances, fires caused by flammable substances that could spread to neighbouring properties and public areas, etc.





56



Impact on Air Quality

• Generation of dust from exposed soil, soil and material stockpiles during site remediation and preparation.

• Construction vehicles and equipment exhaust fumes, trafficking on unpaved roads.

Impact on Visual and Aesthetics Impact

• Introduction of construction camps and associated activities will be unsightly to the public and road users

• Ineffective management of waste (littering) during construction and operation of the proposed development will also be unsightly for the public and road users.

Impact of Increased Noise Generation

• Construction noise will result from the movement of construction vehicle traffic, generators, hydraulic/pressure hammers and winches, hammering of steel structures into position and other typical construction activities.

Moderate [Low] Moderate [Low] Low [Even Lower]

• IAR Subsection 2.2.2 (c) • IAR Subsection 2.2.3 (c) • IAR Subsection 2.2.4 (c)


57




• The influx of temporary construction workers and work-seekers for the entire construction period (strain on municipality).

Impact on Heritage

• Discovery of Cultural artefacts that are of heritage importance such as graves, tools, painting etc. (highly unlikely as per Heritage Assessment).

Public service use and infrastructure Impact

• Increased demand on local public services for construction activities (e.g. water use, electricity etc.)

Traffic Impact

• Traffic impacts due to construction traffic and also the bringing in of various construction materials into laydown areas and or removal of building rubble and waste.

• Disruption to the traffic flow for the

Moderate [Low] Low [Even Lower] Low [Even Lower] Moderate [Low]

• IAR Subsection 2.2.5 (c) • IAR Subsection 2.2.6 (c) • IAR Subsection 2.2.7(c)



58



duration of the construction period. • Transportation of large bulky equipment

would also impact traffic on the route(s).

Indirect impacts: Soil erosion and sedimentation Impacts

• Potential increase in stormwater runoff rates due to removal of vegetation (may cause unnaturally high flush contributions) which increase the potential for erosion.

• Potential erosion and dust due to exposure of soil and associated siltation and sedimentation of Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River

• Potential for rain and wind to dislodge soil and fine material (e.g. cement) particles from open stockpiles which can be carried away and deposited on surrounding properties, stormwater systems and the Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River


• Pollutant spilled onto the soil has the potential to leach into the soil and eventually contaminate groundwater and


Refer to: • IAR Subsection 2.1.1 (c)



59



surface water sources (Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River)

• Potential spillage of hazardous materials such as oil, fuel, cement, sewage which may contaminate soil and the rivers.

• Extraction of water (if any) and the discharge of wastewater and contaminated water also have the potential to impact groundwater and surface water resources.

• Solid waste material generated during construction and operation has the potential to cause soil and water resource contamination and pollution through litter if not correctly managed and/or disposed of.


• Potential localised impacts on the

composition and function of the natural vegetation and flora would probably occur at a medium intensity and over a long term period and possibly also impact on hydrological processes within the wetland.

• Potential disturbance of wetland biota if not demarcated correctly

Moderate [Low]



60



Impact on Flora

• Potential for accidental fires caused by construction activities/workers which can impact on flora

• Potential for construction staff to cause damage to vegetation by entering no-go zones and cutting down trees for construction camp fires etc.

• Potential for the establishment of Invasive Alien Plants

Impact on Fauna

• Potential for animals to be run over and killed by traffic during the construction phase.

• Potential impact on nesting/breeding animals (particularly noise from construction activities)

• Potential increase in vermin due to poor waste management practices.

Impact of Water Use

• Potential for contractors to abstract groundwater (highly unlikely)

• Potential to disrupt municipal water lines (unlikely)

Moderate [Low] Low [Even Lower] Low [Even Lower]



61




• Potential public health and safety risk due to poor management of hazardous substances and or conducting construction activities that might pose a safety hazard.


• Potential windblown dust generation from exposed soil and material stockpiles and construction vehicle trafficking

• Potential waste burning and potential runaway fires by construction labour.

Impact on Visual and Aesthetics

• Potential for ineffective management of waste (littering) during construction and operation of the proposed development which will be unsightly for the public and road users.


• Potential for construction noise to disrupt farm residents and fauna (particularly

Moderate [Low] Moderate [Low] Moderate [Low] Low [Even Lower]

• IAR Subsection 2.2.1 (c) • IAR Subsection 2.2.2 (c) • IAR Subsection 2.2.3 (c) • IAR Subsection 2.2.4 (c)


62



nesting, breeding sites). Impact on Community Relationship – influx of workers

• Potential impact on community relationships as a result of influx of temporary construction workers (potential for conflict and strikes for jobs)

Heritage Impact

• Potential of uncovering and impacting on heritage artefacts, archaeological finds and/or human graves


• Potential to disrupt municipal services and delivery thereof

• Potential to increase pressure on municipality for any additional services required

Traffic impact

• Potential disruption to traffic flows during construction (particularly heavy trucks

Moderate [Low] Low [Even Lower] Low [Even Lower] Moderate [Low]

• IAR Subsection 2.2.5 (c) • IAR Subsection 2.2.6 (c) • IAR Subsection 2.2.7(c) • IAR Subsection 2.2.8 (c)


63



travelling to and from Umtata) – short term Cumulative impacts (summary from all the impacts):

• Emissions from construction vehicles and equipment (trans-boundary effects).

• Use of relative small quantities of water for construction purposes (strain on municipality)

• Use of relatively small quantities of energy sources, mostly fuel for construction vehicles and equipment.

• Generation of building rubble and construction waste (increased pressure for landfills)

• Cumulative and downstream storm water effects resulting in damage to riparian ecosystem and catchment.

Low [Even Lower]

• Refer to IAR

Operational Phase Impacts • Operate the Kokstad intersection • Use of services (water, electricity, etc.) • Disposal of Waste

• Building and premises maintenance for the traffic control centre

Direct impacts: Soil erosion and sedimentation Impact

• During high rainfall events particularly at

Moderate [Low]

Refer to:



64



storm water discharge points and other potential point sources erosion will be heightened.

• Previously vegetated areas that are now hard surfaced can result in a loss of natural runoff storage capacity in vegetation, wetlands and the soil.


• Surface water contamination can occur through spilled pollutants (oil, fuel and other solvents) from vehicles and the traffic control centre contaminating storm water and/or draining directly into storm water drains and waterways.


• The establishment of hardened surfaces and structures near or within watercourses (wetlands) will result in:

o Increased frequency and severity of flooding.

o Loss of natural runoff storage capacity in vegetation, wetlands and the soil.

o Reduction in groundwater recharge.

o Decreased base flow.





65



Impact on Flora

• Complete removal or partial destruction/ disturbance of vegetation particularly for the operation of the traffic control centre

• Change in vegetation composition • Increased risk of invasive species

Impact on Fauna

• During the operational phase, there is a potential for animal migratory patterns to be restricted with the location of the proposed road (although the road has been in operation for some time)

• With the operation of the intersection, animals may be injured in accidents.

Impact of Water Use

• Use of water (in small quantities) for operational activities – particularly the traffic control centre

Low [Low] Low [Low] Low [Low]



66



Impact on Public health and safety

• Improvements to health and safety Impact on Air Quality

• During the operational phase, fugitive emissions can be expected from the proposed use of the road. Vehicles that utilise the road will generate PM-10 emissions throughout the area and some vehicles will carry soils onto the paved roads which would increase entrainment PM-10 emissions.


• During the operation phase the intersection may be unsightly to road users (unlikely since the intersection is currently in use and will be upgraded)

.


• Vehicular noise from operational activities (functioning of the road intersection and traffic control centre)

Moderate + ve [High] +ve Low [Low] Moderate [Low] Moderate [Low]



67




• During the operation phase, there may be an influx of people looking for work, particularly at the traffic control centre and the road upgrade operational activities

Impact on Heritage

• None Public service use and infrastructure impact

• Use of water in relatively small quantities and electricity

Traffic impact

.

• Overall traffic impact (congestion) will be reduced at the intersection

• All the traffic generated by the proposed new development can be accommodated provided certain road and traffic control

Moderate [Low] None

Moderate [Low] Moderate + ve [High] +ve

• IAR Subsection 2.2.5 (c) • IAR Subsection 2.2.6 (c) • IAR Subsection 2.2.7(c)



68



modifications / upgrades are implemented. • It is also very likely that speeding will

occur once the upgrade is complete; this may lead to an increase in traffic accidents.

Indirect impacts: Soil erosion and sedimentation Impacts

• Potential increase in stormwater runoff rates due to removal of vegetation (may cause unnaturally high flush contributions) which increase the potential for erosion.

• Potential erosion and dust due to exposure of soil and associated siltation and sedimentation of Mzintlava River and Koppies Kraal River


• Pollutant spilled onto the roads has the potential to leach into the soil via stormwater drains and eventually contaminate groundwater and surface water sources (Mzintlava River and


Refer to:




69



Koppies Kraal River) • Potential spillage of hazardous materials

such as oil, fuel, cement, sewage which may contaminate soil and the rivers (tanker spills etc).

• Solid waste material generated during operation has the potential to cause soil and water resource contamination and pollution through litter if not correctly managed and/or disposed of.


• Potential localised impacts on the

composition and function of the natural vegetation and flora would probably occur at a medium intensity and over a long term period and possibly also impact on hydrological processes within the wetland.

• Potential disturbance of wetland biota if not demarcated correctly an restricted to the public.

Impact on Flora

• Potential for accidental fires caused by activities at the traffic control centre which can impact on flora

Moderate [Low] Low [Low]




70



• Potential for the establishment of Invasive Alien Plants

Impact on Fauna

• Potential for animals to be run over and killed by traffic during the operation phase.

• Potential increase in vermin due to poor waste management practices at the traffic control centre.

Impact of Water Use

• Potential to increased demands on municipal water supply


• Potential to increase health and safety benefits, particularly for pedestrians and road users.


• Potential waste burning and potential runaway fires by labour of the traffic control centre.

Low [Low] Low [Low] Moderate + ve [High] +ve Low [Low]



71




• Potential for ineffective management of waste (littering) during operation of the proposed development which will be unsightly for the public and road users.


• Potential for operation noise from the traffic control centre to disrupt farm residents and fauna (particularly nesting, breeding sites).


• Potential impact on community relationships as a result of influx of temporary workers for operational phase (potential for conflict and strikes for jobs)

Heritage Impact

• None

Moderate [Low] Moderate [Low] Moderate [Low] None



72




• Potential to disrupt municipal services and delivery thereof

• Potential to increase pressure on municipality for any additional services required

Traffic impact

• Potential to decrease congestion and facilitate traffic flows which will increase productivity for all

• Potential for increased accidents, due to faster high speed mobility road

Moderate [Low] Moderate + ve [High] +ve

• IAR Subsection 2.2.7(c)


Cumulative impacts: N/A – since it is effectively remains within an existing road reserve. Some of the associated air emissions can be considered as a cumulative impact as they have the ability to impact people across boundaries given the ability for wind particles to travel.

N/A

N/A

Decommissioning Phase Impacts Direct impacts:

It is unlikely that the intersection will be

Similar to the Construction Phase



73



decommissioned, as it is a National Road. However the intersection may change and be upgraded over the years. Impacts for any Decommissioning will be similar to those discussed for the Construction Phase

Indirect impacts: Impacts for any Decommissioning will be similar to those discussed for the Construction Phase



Cumulative impacts: N/A

N/A N/A

No-go option • Continued use and operation of

existing Intersection

Direct impacts: Decommissioning the intersection will result in: • Lack of job creation during construction • Continued traffic problems

Moderate [High]

Refer to: • Following due process in accordance

with the requirements of the NEMA EIA Regulations, as is done with this Basic Assessment Process.

Indirect impacts:

• Potential loss of economic sustainability • Potential loss of job security

Moderate [Moderate]

• Following due process in accordance with the requirements of the NEMA EIA Regulations, as is done with this Basic Assessment Process.


74



Cumulative impacts:

• Increase unemployment • Reduced socio-economic sustainability

Moderate [Moderate]

• Following due process in accordance with the requirements of the NEMA EIA Regulations, as is done with this Basic Assessment Process.

A complete impact assessment in terms of Regulation 22(2)(i) of GN R.543 must be included as Appendix F.


75

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

For the proposed Kokstad Intersection Upgrade Project, the significance of the impacts to wetland resources is exacerbated by their location within an area that has been targeted for future development (i.e. proposed Mamiesa Mixed-Use development, Kokstad Motor City and proposed Singisi Wood Processing Plant) with the potential cumulative loss of wetlands and impacts to wetland functioning considered high. The wetland study however states that cultivation and alien plants within channelled wetland areas have altered the natural vegetation types and serve to increase the amount of water used by vegetation within the wetland, with multiple in-channel farm dams affecting the water distribution within the system by reducing inputs to downstream areas whilst resulting in upstream flooding of wetland habitat above dam walls. Channel modifications have resulted in the desiccation of adjacent wetland areas as flows are now largely channelized and artificial drains and erosion gullies have altered the patterns and distribution of water flows through the wetland and effectively transport water far more rapidly through the wetland than would have occurred in the natural wetland reference state. Roads act as artificial barriers to water flow, especially from hill slope seepage inputs. Water abstractions from the wetland are relatively low and used mainly for irrigation of cultivated lands within wetlands. When considered together with changes to water inputs, the current hydrological integrity of the wetland is regarded as being seriously modified.

Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts were identified for the various project phases. Only the preferred alternative route layout has been assessed in detail since all the other alternatives were eliminated as infeasible during the early stages of project planning, design and/or the Basic Assessment process. As detailed above in Appendix F, the types of impact, duration, likelihood and significance of the impacts are varied for a project of this nature. This assessment illustrates that there are various potential negative and positive impacts that may result from the proposed Kokstad Intersection Upgrade project and associated infrastructure. From an environmental perspective and with the consideration of the potential impacts detailed above, GIBB is of the view that the preferred alternative S1/A1 will result in impacts which can suitably be mitigated. The Impact Summary Report in Table 1 below indicates that with mitigation all impacts will be of low significance to the receiving environment. As shown in Table 1 below, and of significant importance is the positive impact on Public Health and Safety and The positive traffic impact (from a moderate to high significance). This is due to the fact that the proposed intersection upgrade will result in a high speed mobility road which will reduce the current congestion problems experienced at the intersection. In addition pedestrian walkways will be provided in the deisgn of the upgrade which will result in increased safety for pedestrians utilising the road.


76

Table 1: Potential Impact Summary Report

ALTERNATIVES A1 No-Go

CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL IMPACT Without mitigation With mitigation Without mitigation

With mitigation






Impact on Fauna Low (-) Low (-) - -


Impact on Public Health and Safety Moderate (-) Low (-)

Impact on Air Quality Moderate (-) Low (-) - -

Impact on Visual and Aesthetics Moderate (-) Low (-) - -

Impact of Increased Noise Generation Low (-) Low (-)


Moderate (-) Low (-)

Heritage Impact Low (-) Low (-)

Public service use and infrastructure Impact Low (-) Low (-)

Traffic Impact Moderate (-) Low (-)

OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL IMPACT Without mitigation/

enhancement

With mitigation/

enhancement

Without mitigation With mitigation



Low (-) Low (-)



Impact on Fauna Low (-) Low (-)


Impact on Public Health and Safety Moderate (+) High (+) - -

Impact on Air Quality Low (-) Low (-) - -

Impact on Visual and Aesthetics Moderate (-) Low (-)

Impact of Increased Noise Generation Moderate (-) Low (-) - -



Heritage Impact N/A

Public service use and infrastructure Impact Moderate (-) Low (-)

Traffic Impact Moderate (+) High (+)


77

KEY: High negative impact (-) Negative Impact Moderate negative impact (+) Positive Impact Low Moderate positive impact High positive impact

With regards to some of the negative impacts, given the sensitive environment (related to the close proximity to wetlands to the preferred alternative), care should still be taken that the significance of impacts identified (even though they range from moderate to low), do not become altered due to contractor’s or operational non-conformance in terms of the mitigation measures contained in this Basic Assessment Report and associated Environmental Management Programme. According to the wetland study, the planned construction of the new road interchange and associated infrastructure will result in negative impacts to wetlands and possibly also to downstream water resources in the study area. The wetland specialist concludes by stating that “A range of mitigation measures have been proposed which could reduce the significance of a number of the less significant construction and operational phase impacts such as sedimentation, erosion and alien plant colonisation. Residual impacts that will be difficult/ impossible to mitigate will include the permanent loss of wetland habitat and a likely reduction in ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services delivery by the wetlands affected”. The wetland specialist also stresses that a number of potential offset opportunities have been identified that could be used to compensate for residual impacts these need to be considered by the applicant (Teixeira-Leite and Macfarlane, 2013) The Basic Assessment Report and associated appendices overall cover numerous mitigation measures to minimise the anticipated environmental impacts and together with an EMP, the effectiveness of these mitigation measures can be monitored.

Alternative A (preferred alternative)

On the basis of the findings in this report, it is suggested that Alternative A be approved for the upgrade of the N2 Kokstad Intersection.

Alternative B (Not Applicable)

Alternative C (Not Applicable)

No-go alternative (compulsory)

The “No-Go” alternative was briefly assessed and compared and without an alternative to address the current traffic problems experienced at the N2 Kokstad Intersection, people will continue to experience high peak traffic congestion particularly on weekends and at month end. This can in the long term impact on businesses within the Kokstad town.


78

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

YES √

NO

If “NO”, indicate the aspects that should be assessed further as part of a Scoping and EIA process before a decision can be made (list the aspects that require further assessment). N/A

If “YES”, please list any recommended conditions, including mitigation measures that should be considered for inclusion in any authorisation that may be granted by the competent authority in respect of the application. All conditions and recommendations contained within the EMPr (Appendix G) must be adhered to.

Is an EMPr attached? YES √

NO

The EMPr must be attached as Appendix G. The details of the EAP who compiled the BAR and the expertise of the EAP to perform the Basic Assessment process must be included as Appendix H. If any specialist reports were used during the compilation of this BAR, please attach the declaration of interest for each specialist in Appendix I. Any other information relevant to this application and not previously included must be attached in Appendix J. ________________________________________ NAME OF EAP ________________________________________ _________________ SIGNATURE OF EAP DATE


79

SECTION F: APPENDIXES The following appendixes must be attached: Appendix A: Maps Appendix B: Photographs Appendix C: Facility illustration(s) Appendix D: Specialist reports (including terms of reference)

Appendix D1: Wetland Assessment Appendix D2: Heritage Assessment

Appendix E: Public Participation

Appendix E1: Media Notices and Notice Boards Appendix E2: Proof of Written Notice to Stakeholders Appendix E3: Comments and Response Register Appendix E4: Proof of Written Notice to Authorities Appendix E5: List of Registered Interested & Affected Parties Appendix E6: Correspondence and Minutes of Meetings

Appendix E6.1: Minutes of Meeting Appendix E6.2: Correspondence

Appendix F: Impact Assessment Appendix G: Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) Appendix H: Details of EAP and expertise Appendix I: Specialist’s declaration of interest Appendix J: Additional Information


80

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET (FORM IP180/B) CLIENT : Jeffares& Green on behalf of SANRAL

PROJECT NAME : Basic Assessment for the Proposed

Kokstad Intersection Upgrade

PROJECT No. : J31359

TITLE OF DOCUMENT : SANRAL N2 Kokstad Intersection Upgrade Draft Basic Assessment Report

ELECTRONIC LOCATION :

P:\J31359 – N2 Kokstad Intersection Upgrade EIA\REP ORTS\Basic

Assessment\Draft BAR

Approved By Reviewed By Prepared By

DRAFT1 NAME Elisabeth Nortje

NAME Elisabeth Nortje

NAME Katherine de Jong

DATE 02 October 2013

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

Approved By Reviewed By Prepared By

DRAFT 2 NAME

NAME

NAME

DATE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE

This report, and information or advice, which it contains, is provided by GIBB solely for internal use and reliance by its Client in performance of GIBB duties and liabilities under its contract with the Client. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this report should be read and relied upon only in the context of the report as a whole. The advice and opinions in this report are based upon the information made available to GIBB at the date of this report and on current SA standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this report. Following final delivery of this report to the Client, GIBB will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this report. This report has been prepared by GIBB in their professional capacity as Consulting Engineers. The contents of the report do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion. This report is prepared in accordance with the terms and conditions of the GIBB contract with the Client. Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this report. Should the Client wish to release this report to a Third Party for that party's reliance, GIBB may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that: (a) GIBB written agreement is obtained prior to such release, and (b) By release of the report to the Third Party, that Third Party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against GIBB and

GIBB, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that Third Party, and (c) GIBB accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of GIBB interests arising out of the Client's

release of this report to the Third Party.

GIBB (Pty) Ltd Website : www.arcusgibb.co.za

Postal Address : P O Box 1365, Westville, 3630

Physical Address : 2nd Floor, IBM House, 54 Norfolk Terrace, Westville, 3630

Contact Person : Katherine de Jong Email Address : [email protected]

Telephone No. : 031 267 8567 Fax No. : 031 266 3310

Documents

Kokstad Intersection Upgrade Draft Basic Assessment …projects.gibb.co.za/Portals/3/Kokstad Intersection Upgrade_Draft... · FOR THE N2 KOKSTAD INTERSECTION UPGRADE DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT