environmental impact assessment report luipaardsvlei ext.9

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

REPORT

LUIPAARDSVLEI EXT.9 RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT, MOGALE CITY LOCAL

MUNICIPALITY

GDARD Reference Number:

ECm1/C/LN2/M/16-2018

PUBLIC REVIEW: 2 NOVEMBER 2018 – 3 DECEMBER 2018

Proponent:

LUIPAARDSVLEI DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS (PTY) LTD

Report Compiled by:

Prism EMS

PO Box 1401 Wilgeheuwel Johannesburg 1736

Tel: 011 475 0210 Fax: 086 601 4800 E-Mail: [email protected]

EIA Report October 2018 21710 Luipaardsvlei X 9

PRISM EMS 1

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Project Name LUIPAARDSVLEI EXTENSION 9

Report Title ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT LUIPAARDSVLEI EXT.9 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, MOGALE CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

Report Reference 21710_DEIR_1

Authority Reference

Number

GAUT 002/18-19/E2107

Report Status PUBLIC REVIEW: 2 NOVEMBER 2018 – 3 DECEMBER 2018

Applicant Name LUIPAARDSVLEI DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS (PTY) LTD

Name Signature Qualifications

and

Certifications

Date

Field

Assessment

Miss M Niehof

BSc. Hon. Env.

Man

January 2018

Mr D Botha

M.A. Env. Man.

(PHED)

Document

Compilation

Miss M Niehof

BSc. Hon. Env.

Man

October 2018

Document

Review

Ms. V. Stippel (MSc. Ecol & Env.

Cons)

(Pr. Sci. Nat.

Reg no 116221)

October 2018

Document

Approval

Mr D Botha

M.A. Env. Man.

(PHED)

October 2018


PRISM EMS 2

DOCUMENT PROGRESS

Distribution List

Date Report Reference Number Document Distribution Number of

Copies

November 2018 21710_DEIR_1 Luipaardsvlei Development Partners

(Pty) Ltd Electronic

Copy

November 2018 21710_DEIR_1 Interested and Affected Parties including

adjacent land owners Electronic

Copy

November 2018 21710_DEIR_1 Gauteng Department of Agriculture and

Rural Development (GDARD)

Hard Copy, CD and Online

Submission

November 2018 21710_DEIR_1 Mogale City Local Municipality

Hard Copy and CD

November 2018 21710_DEIR_1 Ward Councillor Ward 14

Electronic Copy

November 2018 21710_DEIR_1 West Rand District Municipality Hard Copy

November 2018 21710_DEIR_1 South African Heritage Resources Authority (SAHRA)

Online Submission

November 2018 21710_DEIR_1 Provincial Heritage Resources Authority Gauteng (PHRAG)

Online Submission

November 2018 21710_DEIR_1 Department of Mineral Resources CD

November 2018 21710_DEIR_1 Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport

CD

November 2018 21710_DEIR_1 National Nuclear Regulator CD

Amendments on Document

Date Report Reference Number Description of Amendment

October 2018 21710_DEIR_0 21710_DEIR_1 Minor Amendments


PRISM EMS 3

INDEMNITY AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO THIS REPORT

The findings, results, observations, conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on

the author’s best scientific and professional knowledge as well as available information. The report is based

on survey and assessment techniques which are limited by time and budgetary constraints relevant to the

type and level of investigation undertaken and Prism Environmental Management Services and its staff

reserve the right to modify aspects of the report including the recommendations if and when new information

becomes available from ongoing research or further work in this field, or pertaining to this investigation.

Although Prism Environmental Management Services exercises due care and diligence in rendering

services and preparing documents, Prism Environmental Management Services accepts no liability, and

the client, by receiving this document, indemnifies Prism Environmental Management Services and its

directors, managers, agents and employees against all actions, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, costs,

damages and expenses arising from or in connection with services rendered, directly or indirectly by Prism

Environmental Management Services and by the use of the information contained in this document.

This report must not be altered or added to without the prior written consent of the author. This also refers

to electronic copies of this report which are supplied for the purposes of inclusion as part of other reports,

including main reports. Similarly, any recommendations, statements or conclusions drawn from or based

on this report must make reference to this report. If these form part of a main report relating to this

investigation or report, this report must be included in its entirety as an appendix or separate section to the

main report.


PRISM EMS 4

COPYRIGHT

Copyright on all documents, drawings and records, whether manually or electronically produced, which

form part of the submission and any subsequent report or project document, shall vest in Prism

Environmental Management Services.

The client, on acceptance of any submission by Prism Environmental Management Services and on

condition that the client pays to Prism Environmental Management Services the full price for the work as

agreed, shall be entitled to use for its own benefit:

The results of the project;

The technology described in any report; and

Recommendations delivered to the client.

Should the Proponent wish to utilise any part of, or the entire report, for a project other than the subject

project, permission must be obtained from Prism Environmental Management Services to do so. This will

ensure validation of the suitability and relevance of this report on an alternative project.


PRISM EMS 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 11

1.1 PROCESS TO DATE .................................................................................................................... 11

1.2 CURRENT REVIEW PROCESS ...................................................................................................... 12

1.3 EIA REPORT REQUIREMENTS AND OUTLINE ................................................................................. 13

1.4 AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................................ 19

1.5 APPLICANT ................................................................................................................................ 22

2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER ..................................................................... 23

3 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................ 24

3.1 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA 1996 (ACT NO. 108 OF 1998) [AS AMENDED]

(CSA) 24

3.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA), 1998 (ACT NO. 107 OF 1998) .................. 25

3.3 NATIONAL WATER ACT (NWA), 1998 (ACT NO. 36 OF 1998) ......................................................... 26

3.4 NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCE ACT (NHRA), 1999 (ACT NO. 25 OF 1999) .................................. 27

3.5 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT (NEM:BA), 2004 (ACT NO. 10 OF 2004)

27

3.6 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: AIR QUALITY ACT (NEMAQA), 2004 (ACT NO. 39 OF 2004)

AND THE NATIONAL DUST CONTROL REGULATIONS, 2013 ........................................................................ 28

3.7 NATIONAL VELD AND FOREST FIRE ACT, 101 (ACT NO. 101 OF 1998)............................................. 28

3.8 NATIONAL FORESTS ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 84 OF 1998) ................................................................. 28

3.9 MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT.......................................................... 29

3.10 OTHER LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES ...................................................................................... 30

4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 33

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION ............................................................................................... 33

4.2 LISTED ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................................... 35

4.3 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................... 35

4.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................... 38

4.5 TIMEFRAMES ............................................................................................................................. 49

5 DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT .................................................................. 50

5.1 LOCAL CLIMATE ......................................................................................................................... 50

5.2 TOPOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................ 55

5.3 GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 55

5.4 SOILS AND LAND USE .................................................................................................................. 55

5.5 BIODIVERSITY ............................................................................................................................ 58

5.6 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER .................................................................................................. 64

5.7 NOISE ...................................................................................................................................... 66


PRISM EMS 6

5.8 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................. 66

5.9 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE .................................................................................... 73

5.10 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................ 76

6 NEED AND DESIRABILITY ............................................................................................................ 85

6.1 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY ............................................................................................ 85

6.2 DESIRABILITY ............................................................................................................................ 86

7 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................................... 100

7.1 SITE CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................................. 100

8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................ 111

8.1 OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................................ 111

8.2 NOTIFICATION PHASE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ........................................................................ 111

8.3 SCOPING PHASE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................... 113

8.4 EIA PHASE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................... 113

8.5 FINAL EIA REPORT AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY DECISION ......................................................... 114

8.6 OUTCOME OF THE DECISION ..................................................................................................... 114

8.7 TIMEFRAMES ........................................................................................................................... 114

9 SUMMARY OF SPECIALIST STUDIES ........................................................................................ 116

9.1 ECOLOGICAL HABITAT IMPACT ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 117

9.2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................... 120

9.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 126

9.4 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS IDENTIFIED BY SPECIALISTS ........................................................ 138

10 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................... 140

10.1 OVERALL IMPACT ASSESSMENT................................................................................................. 140

10.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 140

10.3 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 145

10.4 QUANTITATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 147

10.5 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS ........................................................................................................ 161

10.6 MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................. 175

10.7 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 176

11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ............................................................................... 180

11.1 SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ..................................................................................... 180

11.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ............................................................................................................. 181

11.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM SPECIALIST REPORTS ....................................................................... 186

11.4 IMPACT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES ................................................................... 196

11.5 ASSUMPTIONS, UNCERTAINTIES AND GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE .......................................................... 197

11.6 REASONED OPINION OF EAP .................................................................................................... 197


PRISM EMS 7

12 EAP UNDERTAKING ................................................................................................................ 203

13 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 204

14 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 205

14.1 CURRICULUM VITAE OF EAP ..................................................................................................... 205

14.2 A3 MAPS AND DRAWINGS ......................................................................................................... 205

14.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION............................................................................................................. 205

14.4 SPECIALIST STUDIES ................................................................................................................ 205

14.5 TECHNICAL REPORTS ............................................................................................................... 206

14.6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................... 206

14.7 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME ............................................................................ 206

14.8 OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................................................... 206


PRISM EMS 8

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: SOUTH AFRICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION HIERARCHY ........................................................ 24

FIGURE 2: PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION PROCESS ............................................................... 34

FIGURE 3: LOCALITY MAP OF THE SITE IN RELATION TO MAJOR ROADS AND TOWNS .......................................... 37

FIGURE 4: PROPOSED LAYOUT OF THE PHASED TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT FOR LUIPAARDSVLEI EXTENSION ...... 39

FIGURE 5: LUIPAARTSVLEI EXTENSION 9 PROPOSED BULK WATER LAYOUT ................................................... 43

FIGURE 6: LUIPAARTSVLEI EXTENSION 9 PROPOSED BULK SEWER LAYOUT ................................................... 44

FIGURE 7: PROPOSED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS AND INTERNAL LAYOUT 1 .................................................... 47

FIGURE 8: PROPOSED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS AND INTERNAL LAYOUT 2 .................................................... 48

FIGURE 9: AVERAGE TEMPERATURE DATA FOR KRUGERSDORP ..................................................................... 50

FIGURE 10: AVERAGE RAINFALL DATA FOR KRUGERSDORP .......................................................................... 51

FIGURE 11: PERIOD WIND ROSE – EXTRAPOLATED MM5 WEATHER DATA AT THE PROPOSED SITE (2015-2017) . 52

FIGURE 12: SEASONAL VARIATION OF WINDS IN SPRING SEASON (SEPTEMBER – NOVEMBER) (TOP LEFT), SUMMER

SEASON (DECEMBER - FEBRUARY) (TOP RIGHT), AUTUMN SEASON (MARCH – MAY) (BOTTOM LEFT) AND WINTER

SEASON (JUNE – AUGUST) (BOTTOM RIGHT) (EXTRAPOLATED MM5 MODELLED DATA 01 JANUARY 2015 – 31

DECEMBER 2017) CLOSE TO THE SITE ................................................................................................ 53

FIGURE 13: DIURNAL VARIATION OF WINDS BETWEEN NIGHT TIME 00:00 – 06:00 (TOP LEFT), MORNING 06:00 –

12:00 (TOP RIGHT), AFTERNOON 12:00 – 18:00 (BOTTOM LEFT) AND EVENING 18:00 – 24:00 (BOTTOM RIGHT)

(EXTRAPOLATED MM5 WEATHER DATA 01 JANUARY 2015 – 31 DECEMBER 2017) CLOSE TO THE SITE ...... 54

FIGURE 14: MAP INDICATING THE LAND USES FOR THE PROPOSED LUIPAARDSVLEI EXT 9 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

...................................................................................................................................................... 57

FIGURE 15: SOWETO HIGHVELD GRASSLAND VEGETATION .......................................................................... 61

FIGURE 16: GAUTENG CONSERVATION PLAN (GDARD, 2017) ..................................................................... 62

FIGURE 17: NON-SENSITIVE LANDSCAPES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE .......................................... 63

FIGURE 18: PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF THE ECOLOGICAL HABITAT ON THE STUDY AREA ................................ 64

FIGURE 19: AQUATIC RESOURCES OF THE STUDY AREA ............................................................................... 65

FIGURE 20: REGIONAL MAP SHOWING PROPOSED LUIPAARDSVLEI MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO THE

SURROUNDING TSFS AND SAND DUMPS .............................................................................................. 67

FIGURE 21: SENSITIVE RECEPTORS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA ................................ 69

FIGURE 22: IDENTIFIED STRUCTURES ON SITE ............................................................................................. 75

FIGURE 23: MOGALE CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY BUILT-UP AREAS AND SURROUNDING AREAS ......................... 77

FIGURE 24: WEST RAND DISTRICT MUNICIPALITIES POPULATION DISTRIBUTION ............................................. 78

FIGURE 25: MOGALE CITY POPULATION GROWTH RATE .............................................................................. 78

FIGURE 26: MOGALE CITY’S PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION GROUPS .................................... 79

FIGURE 27: MOGALE CITY’S POPULATION PYRAMID .................................................................................... 79

FIGURE 28: GINI CO-EFFICIENT, 2011-2015 ............................................................................................... 80

FIGURE 29: PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION BELOW THE FOOD POVERTY LINE, 2011-2015 ....................... 81

FIGURE 30: QUALIFICATIONS OF PEOPLE OLDER THAN 20 YEARS, 2011-2015 .............................................. 81

FIGURE 31: INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF MOGALE CITY IN 2015 ...................................................................... 82

FIGURE 32: TOTAL EMPLOYMENT AND GROWTH, 2011-2015 ....................................................................... 83


PRISM EMS 9

FIGURE 33: MOGALE CITY’S EMPLOYMENT BY SECTORS, 2011-2015 ........................................................... 83

FIGURE 34: MOGALE CITY UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, 2011-2015 .................................................................. 84

FIGURE 35: UNDERMINING MAP OF THE REMAINDER OF PORTION 212 OF LUIPAARTSVLEI 246 IQ .................. 102

FIGURE 36: GEOTECHNICAL MAP OF THE REMAINDER OF PORTION 212 OF LUIPAARTSVLEI 246..................... 103

FIGURE 37: ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT OF THE PROPOSED LUIPAARTSVLEI EXTENSION 9 DEVELOPMENT .............. 109

FIGURE 38: SIMULATED 99TH PERCENTILE DAILY PM10 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) DUE TO TSFS AND SAND DUMPS

NEAR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (NAAQS IS 75 µG/M3) ................................................................ 132

FIGURE 39: SIMULATED 99TH PERCENTILE ANNUAL AVERAGE PM10 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) DUE TO TSFS AND

SAND DUMPS NEAR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (NAAQS IS 40 µG/M3). ........................................... 133

FIGURE 40: SIMULATED 99TH PERCENTILE DAILY PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) DUE TO TSFS AND SAND DUMPS

NEAR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (NAAQS IS 40 µG/M3) ................................................................ 134

FIGURE 41: SIMULATED 99TH PERCENTILE ANNUAL AVERAGE PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) DUE TO TSFS AND

SAND DUMPS NEAR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (NAAQS IS 25 µG/M3) ............................................ 135

FIGURE 42: DUST FALLOUT (MG/M2/DAY) DUE TSFS AND SAND DUMPS NEAR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (NDCR

STANDARD IS 600 MG/M2/DAY AVERAGED OVER 30 DAYS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS) .................................. 136

FIGURE 43: MITIGATION HIERARCHY ........................................................................................................ 175


PRISM EMS 10

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: REQUIRED CONTENTS OF THE EIA REPORT .................................................................................. 13

TABLE 2: ALIGNMENT WITH PLAN OF STUDY ............................................................................................... 19

TABLE 3: GDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EIA REPORT ............................................................................ 19

TABLE 4: DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT ........................................................................................................ 22

TABLE 5: DETAILS OF THE EAP ................................................................................................................. 23

TABLE 6: DESCRIPTION OF THE LISTED ACTIVITIES TRIGGERED UNDER NEMA ............................................... 35

TABLE 7: COORDINATES OF THE PROPOSED SITE ........................................................................................ 35

TABLE 8: OPERATIONAL HOURS FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASES ....................................................................... 49

TABLE 9: MONTHLY TEMPERATURE SUMMARY – MM5 MODELLED DATA (2015-2017) ...................................... 50

TABLE 10: BUILDING RESTRICTION GUIDELINE .......................................................................................... 101

TABLE 11: TIMEFRAMES FOR THE EIA PROCESS........................................................................................ 114

TABLE 12: ECOLOGICAL STATUS CATEGORIES ........................................................................................... 119

TABLE 13: PREDICTED PM10, PM2.5 AND TSP (DUSTFALL) GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS AT IDENTIFIED

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS .................................................................................................................... 129

TABLE 14: DISPERSION MODELLING SCENARIOS FOR THE DIFFERENT POLLUTANTS ........................................ 131

TABLE 15: NATURE AND TYPE OF IMPACT. ................................................................................................ 141

TABLE 16: CONSEQUENCE OF THE IMPACT OCCURRING ............................................................................. 142

TABLE 17: PROBABILITY AND CONFIDENCE OF IMPACT PREDICTION. ............................................................. 143

TABLE 18: SIGNIFICANCE RATING OF THE IMPACT. ..................................................................................... 143

TABLE 19: LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE OF THE IMPACT PREDICTION. .................................................................. 143

TABLE 20: MITIGATION EFFICIENCY .......................................................................................................... 144

TABLE 21: DEGREE OF REVERSIBILITY AND LOSS OF RESOURCES. .............................................................. 144

TABLE 22: POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH LISTED ACTIVITIES ......................................................... 145

TABLE 23: PROJECT ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................. 146

TABLE 24: ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS ..................................................................................................... 147

TABLE 25: SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 148

TABLE 26: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES ....................................................... 177

TABLE 27: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ........................................................................................................... 181

TABLE 28: SPECIALIST RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 186


PRISM EMS 11

1 INTRODUCTION

Luipaardsvlei Development Partners (Pty) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Luipaardsvlei Development

Partners) intends to develop a mixed-use development on part of the remainder of Portion 212 of the Farm

Luipaardsvlei 246 IQ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the study area’). The study area is situated south of

Wentworth Park and Luipaardsvlei and specifically south and adjacent to Main Reef Road (Future K11)

and west and adjacent to Tudor Street (Future K76) and falls within the Mogale City Local Municipality and

the West Rand District Municipality.

The main objective of this proposed development is to establish a mixed land use and sustainable

development, consisting of:

A variety of tenure / housing options to cater for a variety of income groups including:

Bonded erven; and

High density development.

Land uses to provide employment opportunities and supportive community facilities:

Institutional;

Educational; and

Business.

Associated infrastructure for bulk and internal services including electricity provision, transportation

of water, sewage and stormwater.

Prism Environmental Management Services (hereinafter referred to as Prism EMS) as the independent

Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) was appointed to undertake the required environmental

authorisation processes required by a host of environmental legislation. Such process referred to as an

Environmental Authorisation process and the details of which are discussed and described in the

contents of this report.

1.1 Process to Date

1.1.1 Application

An application for the Environmental Authorisation was lodged with the competent authority on 14 August

2018. The application was acknowledged by the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural

Development (GDARD) on 16 August 2018.

1.1.2 Public Notification Period and Scoping Report Commenting Period

An Interested and Affected Party (I&AP) database was compiled and included adjacent landowners,

businesses and authorities. I&APs were provided with 30 days to register as an I&AP (from 23 March 2018

– 23 April 2018). An advert was also placed in the Krugersdorp News newspaper on 23 March 2018. In


PRISM EMS 12

addition, site notices were placed on site in four locations around the study area on 21 March 2018. All

comments received were added to the Comments and Response Report.

A Scoping Report was compiled in line with the requirements contained in Appendix 2 of the EIA

Regulations, 2014 promulgated under the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of

1998), as amended. The Scoping Report was available for public review between 15 August 2018 and 14

September 2018. All comments received on the Scoping report were incorporated into the Comments and

Responses Report.

It should be noted that due to the Applicant Name Change from Onicatrim Property Projects Proprietary

Limited to Luipaardsvlei Development Partners Proprietary Limited and identification of additional

Interested and Affected Parties, additional notification took place as part of the review of the Scoping

Report. This included notification in writing of all surrounding landowners and/or occupiers and organs of

state, the placement of four site notices around the site and the publication of a notice in the Krugersdorp

News newspaper on 15 August 2018, reflecting the Scoping report commenting period and the new

Applicant Name. Proof of this additional notification was included in the Scoping Report which was

submitted to the Department on 18 September 2018.

1.1.3 Submission and Acceptance of the Scoping Report

The Scoping Report was compiled in line with the requirements contained in Appendix 2 of the EIA

Regulations, 2014 promulgated under the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of

1998), as amended. The Scoping Report was submitted to GDARD on 18 September 2018 and the Scoping

Report (including the Plan of Study for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report was

subsequently accepted by the Department on 15 October 2018.

1.2 Current Review Process

1.2.1 Public Notification and Public Review of the EIA Report

The EIA Report has been compiled in line with the approved Plan of Study for the EIA (approved on 23 July

2018) and the requirements of the EIA Regulations, 2014 [as amended in 2017].

In order to ensure that all I&APs will have an opportunity to review and comment on the EIA Report, all

registered I&APs (as identified as part of the process described in Section 1.1) are provided an opportunity

to review the documents between 02 November 2018 and 03 December 2018.

As part of this review, either a hard copy or electronic copy of the report have been made available to all

registered Interested and Affected Parties (I&APS) on request. All relevant Organs of State received either

a hard copy or electronic copy for review. All comments received during this period will be added to the

Comments and Responses Report and will be included in the EIA Report as part of the final submission.


PRISM EMS 13

1.3 EIA Report Requirements and Outline

According to Section 2 of Appendix 3 of the 2014 EIA Regulations [as amended in 2017], the objective of

the EIA process is to, through a consultative process-

(a) determine the policy and legislative context within which the activity is located and document

how the proposed activity complies with and responds to the policy and legislative context;

(b) describe the need and desirability of the proposed activity, including the need and desirability

of the activity in the context of the develo9pment footprint on the approved site as contemplated in

the accepted scoping report;

(c) identify the location of the development footprint within the approved site as contemplated in

the accepted scoping report based on an impact and risk assessment process inclusive of

cumulative impacts and a ranking process of all the identified development footprint alternatives

focusing on the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic, heritage and cultural aspects

of the environment;

(d) determine the--

(i) nature, significance, consequence, extent, duration and probability of the impacts

occurring to inform identified preferred alternatives; and

(ii) degree to which these impacts-

(aa) can be reversed;

(bb) may cause irreplaceable loss of resources, and

(cc) can be avoided, managed or mitigated;

(e) identify the most ideal location for the activity within the development footprint of the approved

site as contemplated in the accepted scoping report based on the lowest level of environmental

sensitivity identified during the assessment;

(f) identify, assess, and rank the impacts the activity will impose on the development footprint on

the approved site as contemplated in the accepted scoping report through the life of the activity;

(g) identify suitable measures to avoid, manage or mitigate identified impacts; and

(h) identify residual risks that need to be managed and monitored.

The EIA process for the proposed Luipaardsvlei Extension 9 development aims to ensure that the objectives

described above are met. In line with this, an outline of the EIA Report (and its relationship to the

requirements to Appendix 3 of 2014 EIA Regulations) is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Required contents of the EIA Report

Chapter

Number

Chapter Name Requirements included in Appendix 3 of 2014 EIA

Regulations

1. Introduction 3(1)(u) an indication of any deviation from the approved scoping

report, including the plan of study, including-


PRISM EMS 14

Chapter

Number


Regulations

(i) any deviation from the methodology used in

determining the significance of potential environmental

impacts and risks; and

(ii) a motivation for the deviation.

2. Environmental

Assessment Practitioner

3(1)(a) details of-

(i) the EAP who prepared the report; and

(ii) the expertise of the EAP, including a curriculum vitae

3. Legislative Framework 3(1)(e) a description of the policy and legislative context within

which the development is located and an explanation of how the

proposed development complies with and responds to the

legislation and policy context

4. Project Description 3(1)(b) the location of the development footprint of the activity

on the approved site as contemplated in the accepted scoping

report, including:

(i) the 21-digit Surveyor General code of each cadastral

land parcel;

(ii) where available, the physical address and farm

name; and

(iii) where the required information in items (i) and (ii) is

not available, the coordinates of the boundary of the

property or properties;

3(1)(c) a plan which locates the proposed activity or activities

applied for as well as the associated structures and

infrastructure at an appropriate scale, or, if it is-

(i) a linear activity, a description and coordinates of the

corridor in which the proposed activity or activities is to

be undertaken;

(ii) on land where the property has not been defined, the

coordinates within which the

activity is to be undertaken;

3(1)(d) a description of the scope of the proposed activity,

including-

(i) all listed and specified activities triggered and being

applied for; and

(ii) a description of the associated structures and

infrastructure related to the development.


PRISM EMS 15

Chapter

Number


Regulations

5. Description of the

Receiving Environment

3(1)(h) a full description of the process followed to reach the

proposed development footprint within the approved site as

contemplated in the accepted scoping report including:

(iv) the environmental attributes associated with the

development footprint alternatives focusing on the

geographical, physical, biological, social, economic,

heritage and cultural aspects.

6. Need and Desirability 3(1)(f) a motivation for the need and desirability for the proposed

development, including the need and desirability of the activity

in the context of the preferred development footprint within the

approved site as contemplated in the accepted scoping report;

7. Alternatives 3(1)(h) a full description of the process followed to reach the


contemplated in the accepted scoping report, including:

(i) details of the development footprint alternatives

considered;

8. Public Participation 3(1)(h) a full description of the process followed to reach the



(ii) details of the public participation process undertaken

in terms of regulation 41 of the Regulations, including

copies of the supporting documents and inputs;

(iii) a summary of the issues raised by interested and

affected parties, and an indication of the manner in

which the issues were incorporated, or the reasons for

not including them.

9. Summary of Specialist

Studies

3(1)(k) where applicable, a summary of the findings and

recommendations of any specialist report complying with

Appendix 6 to these Regulations and an indication as to how

these findings and recommendations have been included in the

final assessment report.

10. Impact Assessment 3(1)(h) a full description of the process followed to reach the



(v) the impacts and risks identified including the nature,

significance, consequence, extent, duration and

probability of the impacts, including the degree to which

these impacts-


PRISM EMS 16

Chapter

Number


Regulations

(aa) can be reversed;

(bb) may cause irreplaceable loss of resources;

and

(cc) can be avoided, managed or mitigated;

(vi) the methodology used in determining and ranking

the nature, significance, consequences, extent,

duration and probability of potential environmental

impacts and risks;

(vii) positive and negative impacts that the proposed

activity and alternatives will have on the environment

and on the community that may be affected focusing on

the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic,

heritage and cultural aspects;

(viii) the possible mitigation measures that could be

applied and level of residual risk;

(ix) if no alternative development footprints for the

activity were investigated, the motivation for not

considering such;

3(1)(i) a full description of the process undertaken to identify,

assess and rank the impacts the activity and associated

structures and infrastructure will impose on the preferred

development footprint on the approved site as contemplated in

the accepted scoping report through the life of the activity,

including-

(i) a description of all environmental issues and

risks that were identified during the

environmental impact assessment process;

and

(ii) an assessment of the significance of each

issue and risk and an indication of the extent to

which the issue and risk could be avoided or

addressed by the adoption of mitigation

measures.

3(1)(j) an assessment of each identified potentially significant

impact and risk, including-

(i) cumulative impacts;

(ii) the nature, significance and consequences of the

impact and risk;


PRISM EMS 17

Chapter

Number


Regulations

(iii) the extent and duration of the impact and risk;

(iv) the probability of the impact and risk occurring;

(v) the degree to which the impact and risk can be

reversed;

(vi) the degree to which the impact and risk may cause

irreplaceable loss of resources; and

(vii) the degree to which the impact and risk can be

mitigated.

11. Environmental Impact

Statement

3(1)(h) a full description of the process followed to reach the



(x) a concluding statement indicating the location of the

preferred alternative development footprint within the

approved site as contemplated within the accepted

scoping report;

3(1)(g) a motivation for the preferred development footprint

within the approved site as contemplated in the accepted

scoping report.

3(1)(I) an environmental impact statement which contains-

(i) a summary of the key findings of the environmental

impact assessment:

(ii) a map at an appropriate scale which superimposes

the proposed activity and its associated structures and

infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the

Preferred development footprint on the approved site as

contemplated in the accepted scoping report indicating

any areas that should be avoided, including buffers; and

(iii) a summary of the positive and negative impacts and

risks of the proposed activity and identified alternatives.

3(1)(m) based on the assessment, and where applicable,

recommendations from specialist reports, the recording of

proposed impact management outcomes for the development

for inclusion in the EMPr as well as for inclusion as conditions of

authorization.

3(1)(n) the final proposed alternatives which respond to the

impact management measures, avoidance, and mitigation

measures identified through the assessment;


PRISM EMS 18

Chapter

Number


Regulations

3(1)(o) any aspects which were conditional to the findings of the

assessment either by the EAP or specialist which are to be

included as conditions of authorisation.

3(1)(p) a description of any assumptions, uncertainties and gaps

in knowledge which relate to the assessment and mitigation

measures proposed;

3(1)(q) a reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity

should or should not be authorised, and if the opinion is that it

should be authorised, any conditions that should be made in

respect of that authorisation;

3(1)(r) where the proposed activity does not include operational

aspects, the period for which the environmental authorisation is

required and the date on which the activity will be concluded and

the post construction monitoring requirements finalised;

3(1)(t) where applicable, details of any financial provision for the

rehabilitation, closure, and ongoing post decommissioning

management of negative environmental impacts;

3(1)(v) any specific information that may be required by the

competent authority; and

3(1)(w) any other matters required in terms of section 24(4)(a)

and (b) of the Act.

12. EAP Undertaking 3(1)(s) an undertaking under oath or affirmation by the EAP in

relation to:

(i) the correctness of the information provided in the

reports;

(ii) the inclusion of comments and inputs from

stakeholders and l&APs;

(iii) the inclusion of inputs and recommendations from

the specialist reports where relevant; and

(iv) any information provided by the EAP to interested

and affected parties and any responses by the EAP to

comments or inputs made by interested or affected

parties.

13. References -

14. Appendices 3(1)(k) where applicable, a summary of the findings and

recommendations of any specialist report complying with

Appendix 6 to these Regulations and an indication as to how


PRISM EMS 19

Chapter

Number


Regulations

these findings and recommendations have been included in the

final assessment report.

In addition to the above, the Regulations also note that the EIA process must be undertaken in line with the

approved plan of study for environmental impact assessment. To this end, a summary of how the EIA

Process is in line with the Approved Plan of Study is provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Alignment with Plan of Study

Item Plan of Study Requirement Reference in Report

1. Specialist Studies –

Ecological Impact Assessment;

Air Quality Impact Assessment; and

Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment.

Chapter 9

Chapter 14.4

2. Impact Assessment Methodology Chapter 10

3. Public Participation Chapter 8

Section 3(u) of Appendix 3 of the 2014 EIA Regulations notes that the EIA Report should provide an

indication of any deviation from the approved scoping report. This confirms that there are no deviations

from the approved scoping report.

1.4 Authorities

The Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) is the Competent Authority with

reference to activities triggered in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107

of 1998) [as amended] (NEMA).

1.4.1 GDARD Requirements for EIA Report

In addition to the above, the EIA Report aims to ensure that GDARD’s comments on the Scoping Report

(as part of the acceptance of the Scoping Report) are addressed. The table below provide a summary of

these comments, as well as where they have been addressed in the report. A copy of the GDARD

Acceptance letter is included in Chapter 14.8.3.

Table 3: GDARD requirements for the EIA Report

Item GDARD Comment – 15 October 2018 Reference in

the Report

Comment

a) The proposed specialist studies as outlined in

the final Scoping Report should thoroughly be

Chapter 5

Chapter 9

Noted. All specialist studies

identified in the Scoping


PRISM EMS 20


the Report

Comment

conducted and included in the EIA report to

identify potential hazards that may arise from

the proposed operations as well as to provide

possible mitigation and rehabilitation measures

that may be required.

Chapter 14.4 Report have been

undertaken and are included

in the EIA Report and

recommended mitigation

measures are included in the

EMPr.

b) An air quality impact assessment and

community health impact assessment

specifically addressing concerns associated

with the mining areas and resultant mine

tailings should also form part of EIA report. The

buffer zones should be appropriately

delineated.

Chapter 5.8

Chapter 9.3

Chapter 14.3.6

The West Rand District

Municipality Health

Department will conduct an

environmental health impact

assessment and site visit and

provide comments during the

Draft EIA Report

Commenting period on

potential health impacts on

the proposed development.

c) Comments from all relevant stakeholders must

be adequately addressed and submitted to the

Department with the DEIAR. This includes but

not limited to comments from the council of

Geosciences, heritage resource agency,

Department of Mineral Resources, and any

other stakeholders.

Chapter 14.3.5

Chapter 14.3.6

Noted, these

Departments/Stakeholders

have been included in the

I&AP Database and provided

with a copy of the DEIR. All

comments received will be

included in the final

submission to GDARD.

d) Radiological risks assessment and comments

from the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR)

should also form part of the EIA report to

indicate hazards that may be associated with

the close proximity to the old mine tailings

facilities. The site needs to be declared safe

and suitable for human habitation.

Chapter 14.3.5

Chapter 14.3.6

The National Nuclear

Regulator (NNR) will provide

comments during the Draft

EIA Report commenting

period on potential

radiological risks on the

proposed development. All

comments received will be

included in the final

submission of the EIR to

GDARD.

e) Proof of correspondence with stakeholders

must be included in the DEIAR. Should you be

unable to submit comments, proof of attempts

Chapter 14.3.6

Chapter

14.8.2.

Noted. All proof and

comments will be included in

the final submission of the


PRISM EMS 21


the Report

Comment

that were made to obtain comments must be

submitted to the Department. Proof of site

notices, legible newspaper advert and site

photos taken in all directions should also be

included in the DEIAR.

EIR to GDARD. Please note

however that initial

notification took place in April

2018 and then again in

August 2018 as part of the

review of the Scoping Report.

Therefore, only registered

I&APs will be notified of the

review of the EIR and no

further site notices or adverts

will be placed.

Site photos are included in

Appendix 14.8.2.

f) A detailed colour layout plan/map (Preferably

an A3) with a descriptive legend portraying the

proposed activities and indicating the total

footprint of the proposed development overlying

all the sensitivities of the site is required. The

existing servitudes for electrical, roads, water

and gas supply services with all the erven

should also be depicted. All sensitivities need to

be delineated in accordance with the GDARD

minimum requirements for Biodiversity

Assessments.

Figure 4

Figure 17

Chapter 14.2

A layout plan is included as

well as a sensitivity plan. It is

important to note that the

entire site is of a very low

sensitivity and no specific

ecological or aquatic/wetland

sensitivities occur.

g) Bulk services report must be included as part of

the EIA report. The capacity of the infrastructure

to cater for the proposed development must be

confirmed with the relevant service provider i.e.

(Electricity, Water and Sewer). Comments from

all relevant stakeholders must be adequately

addressed and attached with the EIA report.

Chapter 4.4

Chapter 14.5

A copy of Outline Scheme

Report and Roads and

Stormwater Report is

included in Chapter 5.

Information on these reports

is also summarised in

Chapter 4.4.

h) A comprehensive Environmental Management

Programme (EMPr) that includes measures to

manage stormwater runoff during both the

construction and operational phases should

also form part of the Environmental Impact

Assessment report. Any threats from the

Chapter 14.7 A detailed and site specific

EMPr is included in Chapter

14.7 and has been compiled

in line with the requirements

of Appendix 4 of the EIA

Regulations, 2014 (as


PRISM EMS 22


the Report

Comment

surrounding environment need to be identified

and an emergency plan be drawn up to deal

with such threats. The EMPr must comply with

the content requirements as stipulated in

Appendix 4 of the Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2014.

amended). An emergency

preparedness plan is

included as requested.

i) In all aspects of the planning and

implementation of the proposed development,

attention must be given to reducing its carbon

footprint. Thus, issues relating to water

efficiency, energy efficiency, waste reduction,

green building techniques and others that will

contribute to sustainable development need to

be incorporated into this proposed

development.

Chapter 14.7 Energy efficiency, water

saving, and waste reduction

measures have been

included in the EMPr.

1.4.2 GDARD Comments on EIA Report

As discussed in Section 1.1.3., the EIA Report has been made available for review and all comments

received during this period will be considered in the final EIA Report and will also be addressed in the final

Comments and Responses Report.

1.5 Applicant

The applicant is the entity that will assume responsibilities as the holder of the environmental authorisation

if granted. Details of the applicant and landowner are contained in Table 4.

Table 4: Details of the Applicant

Applicant: Luipaardsvlei Development Partners (Pty) Ltd

Contact Person: Mr M Hartman

Landowner: Onicatrim Property Projects (Pty) Ltd

Contact Person: Mr P Lapham


PRISM EMS 23

2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER

Prism EMS have been appointed to undertake the required Environmental Authorisation process in terms

of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations. Details and expertise of the

Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) who prepared the EIA Report is provided in Table 5 and

Curriculum Vitae is appended in Section 14.1.

Table 5: Details of the EAP

EAP: Monica Niehof

Company: Prism Environmental Management Services

Qualifications: BSc. (Hons) Environmental Management

Experience: 11 Years

Address: PO Box 1401, Wilgeheuwel, 1736

Tel: 087 985 0951

Fax: 086 601 4800

Email: [email protected]

Prism EMS Team

Contact Details Post: PO Box 1401, Wilgeheuwel, Johannesburg, 1736

Tel: 087 985 0951 Fax: 086 601 4800 Email: [email protected] www.prismems.co.za

Designation Name Qualification Professional Registration

Experience:

Project Director De Wet Botha M.A. (Env.Man.) (PHED)

Founder Member of Environmental Assessment Practitioners Association of South Africa (EAPASA)

Member of the International Association for Impact Assessors (IAIAsa)(1653)

Member of the Gauteng Wetland Forum

Member of the South African Wetland Society

15 Years

Project Principle Vanessa Stippel MSc. Ecology, Environment and

Conservation

SACNASP– Pr. Sci. Nat.(116221).

7 Years


PRISM EMS 24

3 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

This section aims to provide an overview of key policy, legislation, plans, guidelines and municipal

development planning frameworks triggered by the proposed project. The requirements set out in these

Acts and Regulations will be adhered to through the scoping and impact assessment phases of the project.

Figure 1: South African Environmental Legislation Hierarchy

The following Acts, Regulations, By-Laws and Guidelines are applicable to the proposed Luipardsvlei

development.

3.1 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 (Act No. 108 of 1998) [as amended] (CSA)

Section 24 of the Constitution states that –

“Everyone has the right to -

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

b) 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.”

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa

(Basic Rights of SA Citizens)

National Environmental Management Act (NEMA is the Framework Defining & Entrenches Sustainability Principles)

Sectoral Specific Legislation

(E.g. NEMWA, NEMAQA, NEMBA with associated

Regulations)

Provincial Legislation

(Norms and Standards)

Local Government

(By-laws)

Primary

Legislation

Secondary

Legislation


PRISM EMS 25

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

NEMA is the umbrella framework for all environmental legislation, primarily to assist with implementing the

environmental rights of the Constitution (refer to Section 3.1). NEMA provides fundamental principles

required for environmental decision making and to achieve sustainable development. It also makes

provision for duty of care to prevent, control and rehabilitate the effects of significant pollution and

environmental degradation, and prosecute environmental crimes. These principles must be adhered to and

taken into consideration during the impact assessment phase.

NEMA defines “environment” as –

“the surroundings within which humans exist and that are made up of –

(i) the land, water and atmosphere of the earth;

(ii) micro-organisms, plants and animal life;

(iii) any part or combination of (i) or (ii) and the interrelationship among and between them; and

(iv) the physical, chemical, aesthetic and cultural, properties and conditions of the foregoing that

influence human health and well-being.”

Section 24D and 24(2) of the NEMA makes provision for the publication of lists and associated regulations

containing activities identified that may not commence without obtaining prior environmental authorisation

from the competent authority. These regulations are referred to as the Environmental Impact Assessment

Regulations and are interpreted hand in hand with the various listed activities discussed further below.

Section 28 imposes a duty to avoid pollution and environmental degradation on every person.

3.2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 (GN R 982 of 4 December

2014) [as amended]

The EIA regulations were promulgated in terms of Section 24 of the NEMA, for providing methodologies

and specific requirements for the undertaking of an EIA. The Regulations stipulate that any proposed

activity listed in the associated notices must undertake either a Basic Assessment (BA) or Scoping &

Environmental Impact Report (S&EIR) to obtain an environmental authorisation (if granted by the

competent authority) before the commencement of the specified listed activity. The EIA Regulations provide

the minimum requirements for appointing an Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) and for

undertaking the relevant Public Participation Process (PPP) as required. They also detail the contents of

the impact assessment reports and all other aspects associated with BA and/or EIAs.

Listed activities are identified in terms of the following Listing Notices that was promulgated in terms of the

EIA Regulations:

Listing Notice 1: GN R 983 of 4 December 2014 [as amended by GN R327 of 7 April 2017]

Activities listed under this process require a Basic Assessment process to be undertaken. No activities

under this Listing Notice are triggered by the proposed development.


PRISM EMS 26


Activities listed under this process require Scoping and EIA to be undertaken. Refer to Section 4.2 for a

description of the specific listed activities that pertain to this project. Since activities listed in this Listing

Notice are triggered by the proposed development, a Scoping and EIA process is undertaken to apply for

Environmental Authorisation.


Activities listed under this process require a Basic Assessment process to be undertaken but only in

specified geographic areas. No activities are triggered under this list pertaining to this project.

3.3 National Water Act (NWA), 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998)

The NWA is the primary regulatory legislation; controlling and managing the use of water resources as well

as the pollution thereof and is implemented and enforced by the Department of Water and Sanitation

(DWS). Section 21 of the NWA lists water uses that must be licensed unless it is listed in the schedule

(existing lawful use) and/or is permissible under a general authorisation, or if a responsible authority waives

the need for a Water Use Licence. Section 21 water uses include:

Section 21(a): taking water from a water resource

Section 21(b): storing water

Section 21(c): impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse

Section 21(d): engaging in a stream flow reduction activity contemplated in section 36

Section 21(e): engaging in a controlled activity as identified in Section 37 (1) or declared under

Section 38 (1).

Section 21(f): discharging waste or water containing waste into a water resource through a pipe,

canal, sewer, sea outfall, or other conduit.

Section 21(g): disposal of waste (i.e. effluent from sewage works) in a manner which may

detrimentally impact on a water resource;

Section 21 (h): disposing in any manner of water which contains waste from, or which has been

heated in, any industrial or power generation process.

Section 21 (i): altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse.

Section 21 (j): removing, discharging, or disposing of water found underground if it necessary for

the efficient continuation of an activity or for the safety of people.

Section 21(k): using water for recreational purposes.

From the investigations as part of this EIA process, it was concluded that no Water Use Licence is required

for the proposed development as no immediate watercourses or water resources are present onsite and

no other listed activities are triggered.


PRISM EMS 27

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

The NHRA provides for the protection and management of South Africa’s heritage resources. The South

African National Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) is the administering authority regarding all matters

relating to heritage resources. A heritage resource refers to any historically important feature such as

graves, trees, archaeology, culturally significant symbols, spaces, landscapes and fossil beds as protected

heritage resources. In terms of Section 38 of the NHRA, SAHRA can call for a Heritage Impact Assessment

(HIA) for certain categories of development. The NHRA also makes provision for the assessment of

heritage impacts as part of an EIA process and indicates that if such an assessment is deemed adequate,

a separate HIA is not required.

Section 38 (1) of the NHRA notes that the relevant heritage authority should be notified provided with details

such as location, nature and extent of the following developments:

(a) the construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear

development or barrier exceeding 300m in length;

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

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

(i) exceeding 5 000 m2 in extent; or

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

(iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within

the past five years; or

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

provincial heritage resources authority;

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

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

resources authority.

A Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment were undertaken to confirm the presence of any heritage resources

on the study area and this is discussed in Section 5.9 and Section 9.2 and the report is attached in Section

14.4.2

3.5 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA), 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004)

The NEM:BA aims to provide for the management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity within the

framework of the NEMA. The purpose of the NEM:BA is to protect ecosystems and the species within as

well as the promoting of sustainable use of indigenous biodiversity. During any environmental authorisation

process the following regulations are considered and researched if at any stage the following regulations

are applicable:

Alien and Invasive Species Regulations, 2014;

Alien and Invasive Species Lists, 2016;

Lists of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species, 2007; and


PRISM EMS 28

Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, 2007.

An Ecological Impact Assessment were undertaken to confirm the presence of any sensitive and alien plant

species on the study area and this is discussed in Section 5.5 and Section 9.4.1 and the report is attached

in Section 14.4.1. No sensitive species were identified on site. Mitigation measures related to the

management and removal of alien species are included in the EMPr.

3.6 National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (NEMAQA), 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004)

and the National Dust Control Regulations, 2013

The aim of NEMAQA is to regulate air quality to protect the environment from pollution and ecological

degradation. The development itself will not impact on air quality, however, during the scoping report it was

identified that the surrounding land uses such as old mine tailings, quarrying and landfill sites may have an

impact on the proposed development.

Therefore, an air quality impact assessment was conducted to determine the baseline air quality of the

study area and whether any mitigation measures is required to mitigate any impact that air quality may

have on the proposed development. This is discussed in Section 5.8 and Section 9.3 and the report is

appended in Section 14.4.3.

3.7 National Veld and Forest Fire Act, 101 (Act No. 101 of 1998)

The purpose of this Act is to prevent and combat veld, forest and mountain fires throughout the Republic.

The Act provides for a variety of institutions, methods and practices for achieving the purpose.

Chapter 4 places a duty on owners to prepare and maintain firebreaks; and

Chapter 5 places a duty on all owners to acquire equipment and have available personnel to fight

fires.

3.8 National Forests Act, 1998 (Act No. 84 of 1998)

The purposes of this Act are to-

promote the sustainable management and development of forests for the benefit of all;

create the conditions necessary to restructure forestry in State forests;

provide special measures for the protection of certain forests and trees;

promote the sustainable use of forests for environmental, economic, educational, recreational,

cultural, health and spiritual purposes;

promote community forestry;

promote greater participation in all aspects of forestry and the forest products industry by persons

disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.

In terms of section 15(1) of the National Forests Act, 1998, no person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy

any protected tree or possess, collect, remove, transport, export, purchase, sell, donate or in any other


PRISM EMS 29

manner acquire or dispose of any protected tree or any product derived from a protected tree, except under

a licence or exemption granted by the Minister to an applicant and subject to such period and conditions

as may be stipulated. Protected trees are listed in the: List of Protected Tree Species under the National

Forests Act, 1998 (Act No. 84 of 1998) as published in Government Notice Number 690, September 2017.

An Ecological Habitat Assessment Section 14.4.1 was undertaken to confirm the presence of any protected

tree species on the study area. No protected tree species were observed during the site visit.

3.9 Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act

The purpose of the Act is:

‘To make provision for equitable access to and sustainable development of the nation's mineral and

petroleum resources; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

2. Objects of Act

The objects of this Act are to-

a) recognise the internationally accepted right of the State to exercise sovereignty over all the mineral

and petroleum resources within the Republic;

b) give effect to the principle of the State's custodianship of the nation's mineral and petroleum

resources;

c) promote equitable access to the nation's mineral and petroleum resources to all the people of South

Africa;

d) substantially and meaningfully expand opportunities for historically disadvantaged persons,

including women and communities, to enter into and actively participate in the mineral and

petroleum industries and to benefit from the exploitation of the nation's mineral and petroleum

resources; (Section 2(d) substituted by section 2 of Act 49 of 2008 with effect from 7 June 2013);

e) promote economic growth and mineral and petroleum resources development in the Republic,

particularly development of downstream industries through provision of feedstock, and

development of mining and petroleum inputs industries; (Section 2(e) substituted by section 2 of

Act 49 of 2008 with effect from 7 June 2013);

f) promote employment and advance the social and economic welfare of all South Africans;

g) provide for security of tenure in respect of prospecting, exploration, mining and production

operations;

h) give effect to section 24 of the Constitution by ensuring that the nation's mineral and petroleum

resources are developed in an orderly and ecologically sustainable manner while promoting

justifiable social and economic development; and

i) ensure that holders of mining and production rights contribute towards the socio-economic

development of the areas in which they are operating.


PRISM EMS 30

An old mine tailings dam and the Luipaartsvlei Landfill Site (Mogale City) is situated to the west of the site

while portions to the south of the study area have been subjected to open cast mining activities. A letter

from the DMR, indicating the mining right holders and a letter from the mining right holders (Mintails),

indicating that they consent to the proposed development, has been obtained and is included in Chapter

14.8.1. DMR is included in the list of Interested and Affected parties for this application.

3.10 Other Legislation and Guidelines

3.10.1 Guidelines

The following guidelines have been adopted by the applicant in the pursuit of best practice and sustainable

development and are considered in the management measures and mitigation of impacts identified.

DEA, 2014 – IEMS Guideline series

Integrated Environmental Management Guideline: Guideline on Need and Desirability;

Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series (Guideline 7);

Public Participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process; and

Guidelines on Alternatives.

Compliance with Spatial Development Frameworks:

In terms of Section 52 of SPLUMA any development must be considered with regards to compliance with:

National Spatial Development Frameworks;

Provincial Spatial Development Frameworks; and

Municipal Spatial Development Frameworks.

o Mogale City Spatial Development Framework

The Spatial Development Framework for Mogale City Local Municipality represents the key spatial policy

position for the city, while reflecting on broader spatial policies and legislative initiatives, including inter alia:

o The National Development Plan;

The National Development Plan identifies five principles for spatial development: spatial justice, spatial

sustainability, spatial resilience, spatial quality and special efficiency. It confirms that South African cities

are highly fragmented, as little has been achieved in reversing apartheid geography. The Plan proposes

that the situation be addressed by establishing new norms and standards: among others by densifying

cities, improving transport and locating jobs where people live. The containment of urban sprawl is

particularly highlighted in the Plan, confirming that sprawl be contained and reversed (if possible), “…as

denser forms of development are more efficient in terms of land usage, infrastructure cost and

environmental protection.”


PRISM EMS 31

The proposed development aligns with the vision of the National Development Plan, as it will promote

compaction of the city and limiting urban sprawl (by means of infill development), as well as by establishing

a place of work near residential opportunities, which will result in reduced travel times. More housing

opportunities will be provided within the municipal area, which will include high density housing

opportunities.

The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act;

The Gauteng Transformation Modernisation and Reindustrialisation Strategy; and

The Gauteng Spatial Development Framework 2030.

o In terms of Map 41 of the SDF, the proposed development is located within the Mogale Urban

Development Boundary (UDB), in an area earmarked for residential development (medium density

development);

o The Kagiso complex is physically separated from the Krugersdorp urban areas by an extensive

mining belt that runs in a roughly east-west direction through the area. This makes future integration

of these areas very difficult, if not impossible;

o The greater Kagiso/Rietvallei/Azaadville area represents the largest concentration of

disadvantaged settlements in Mogale City. These settlements have mostly been developed as

dormitory towns and lack the full range of urban services and facilities.

o The physical barrier created by the mining land also means that these areas are physically and

functionally separated from the Krugersdorp urban area.

o The proposed development is therefore supported by Council and in line with the SDF.

The Gauteng Pollution Buffer Zones Guideline, March 2017

This guideline was developed to ensure that pollution buffer areas are created between the pollution

sources and the nearest human settlements. The purpose of the guideline is to ensure that the residents

of the Gauteng Province are protected from the emissions from pollution generators. This document aims

to spatially document and categorise industrially affiliated activities and establish buffers around them to

ensure that only the compatible land uses are allowed in the buffer areas. Care should be taken in the

placement of incompatible land uses with an emphasis on mitigation measures that will be implemented;

this should not be a norm but a consideration on a case by case basis. The primary concern is to ensure

that the people who live in Gauteng are protected from the negative health impacts of such activities.

Active, dormant and reclaimed tailings storage facilities (TSFs) within Gauteng have been identified as

potential significant sources of windblown dust, impacting on human health and the environment – City of

Johannesburg (CoJ) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of 2013 (CoJ, 2003); Gauteng province AQMP

of 2009 (GDACE, 2009) and the Vaal Triangle Priority Area AQMP of 2009 (DEA, 2009). As a management

measure, the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and the Environment (GDACE) developed

generic buffer zones around tailings dams. Two generic buffer zone distances were specified – best case

and worst case. A worst-case buffer zone distance of 1,000 m was specified for slimes dams and ash

dumps, with a best-case buffer zone of 500 m. The reasoning behind the best-case buffer zone is that at


PRISM EMS 32

500 m the dust can no longer be distinguished from ambient dust pollution (GDACE, 2002, amended 2006,

approved 24 March 2017). These buffer zones are merely guidelines and hence not legally enforceable.

These generic buffer zones are used by Metropolitan Municipalities within Gauteng as guidelines

specifically in the approval of new residential areas in close proximity to existing TSFs.


PRISM EMS 33

4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Appendix 3 of the 2014 EIA Regulations requires that the following information is provided in the EIA

Report:

3 (b) the location of the development footprint of the activity on the approved site as contemplated

in the accepted scoping report, including:

(i) the 21-digit Surveyor General code of each cadastral land parcel;

(ii) where available, the physical address and farm name; and

(iii) where the required information in items (i) and (ii) is not available, the coordinates of

the boundary of the property or properties;

3 (c) a plan which locates the proposed activity or activities applied for as well as the associated

structures and infrastructure at an appropriate scale, or, if it is-

(i) a linear activity, a description and coordinates of the corridor in which the proposed

activity or activities is to be undertaken;

(ii) on land where the property has not been defined, the coordinates within which the

activity is to be undertaken;

3 (d) a description of the scope of the proposed activity, including-

(i) all listed and specified activities triggered and being applied for; and

(ii) a description of the associated structures and infrastructure related to the development.

In line with this, Section 4.2. provides information on the listed activities triggered, Section 4.3., provides

information on the project location and Section 4.4 provides information on the proposed development

(including associated infrastructure).

Please note that A3 copies of maps and drawings are appended in Section 14.2.

4.1 Environmental Authorisation

An “Environmental Authorisation” means an authorisation granted by the competent authority of a listed

activity in terms of Section 24 of the National Environmental Management Amendment Act, (Act No. 107 of

1998).

An application for Environmental Authorisation (EA) has been submitted to GDARD and the following

reference number has been issued: Gaut: 002/18-19/E02107.

As activities under Listing Notice 2 and 3 of the 2014 EIA Regulations are triggered, a Scoping and EIA

process is being conducted. The process being followed is detailed in Figure 2.

.


PRISM EMS 34

Figure 2: Proposed environmental authorisation process


PRISM EMS 35

4.2 Listed Activities

In terms of the EIA Regulations and Listed Activities 2014, the activities that are triggered under the Listing

Notices for this proposed development are provided in Table 6. Refer to Section 3 for a description and

overview of the applicable legislative framework.

Table 6: Description of the Listed Activities Triggered under NEMA

Listing Notice Activity Description of Listed Activity Interpretation

NEMA: Listing Notice 2 (require Scoping and EIR)

GN R 984

4 December 2014

[as amended in

2017]

15 The clearance of an area of 20

hectares or more of indigenous

vegetation, excluding where such

clearance of indigenous vegetation

is required for the undertaking of a

linear activity; or maintenance

purposes undertaken in accordance

with a maintenance management

plan.

The footprint of the proposed

development is approximately

47 Hectares and the site

consists of indigenous

vegetation, although disturbed

that needs to be cleared to

establish the development.

The above listed activity triggers a scoping and impact assessment reporting process.

4.3 Project Location

The proposed development is situated on part of the remaining extent of Portion 212 of the Farm

Luipaartsvlei 246 IQ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the study area’), within the jurisdiction of Mogale City Local

Municipality, Krugersdorp. The study area is situated south of Wentworth Park and Luipaardsvlei and

specifically south and adjacent to Main Reef Road (Future K11) and west and adjacent to Tudor Street

(Future K76).

The SG21 Digit Code of the property: T0IQ00000000024600212.

Table 7: Coordinates of the proposed site

South East

26.1201715278 27.78837851600001

26.1201865888 27.7882790973

26.1203921238 27.78824452390001

26.1219999141 27.7886933462

26.1233346051 27.7906843954

26.1235113 27.7913968

26.1205304297 27.7969801332

26.1224667272 27.7989000045


PRISM EMS 36

South East

26.1255996505 27.8013409117

26.1259196766 27.8016386512

26.1261839631 27.8019414917

26.126412 27.8022655

26.1252810219 27.8024726576

26.1244772594 27.8025420917

26.1238124332 27.8025418451

26.1227259874 27.8023941186

26.1221410957 27.8022044648

26.121952628 27.8020186869

26.1215708951 27.8014129062

26.1214693341 27.8011917164

26.121360441 27.8009532374

26.1210349664 27.8003454684

26.1207556867 27.7999080651

26.1207014433 27.7998395299

26.12035081020001 27.7993745174

26.1197253579 27.7986351443

26.119405759 27.7982364588

26.1188624901 27.7965032331

26.1183031554 27.7947583929

26.1183620619 27.7947340015

26.1189680724 27.794015099

26.1199101627 27.7938001542

26.1185131429 27.7915612965

26.1180294402 27.7918346772

26.1179387889 27.791633883

26.1179598689 27.7914997456

26.1177742511 27.7915888354

26.1178899377 27.7916573317

26.1179820684 27.7918613349

26.1174779135 27.7921471742

26.1172989814 27.7916229109

26.1177259642 27.7914495152

26.1183988167 27.7910491831

26.118578778 27.7909178849

26.1202254213 27.7897419586

26.1201715278 27.78837851600001

Refer to Figure 3 for a visual indication of the site’s location in relation to major roads and towns.


PRISM EMS 37

Figure 3: Locality map of the site in relation to major roads and towns


PRISM EMS 38

4.4 Description of Project Activities

The main objective of this proposed development is to establish a mixed land use and sustainable

development, consisting of the following:

4.4.1 Township development

In terms of Chapter 1 (Defined Townships) of the City of Johannesburg Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015,

a township is regarded as:

“An area of land divided into erven, which may be combined with public places and roads as indicated on

a general plan, which are used mainly for residential, business, commercial, industrial or other similar

purposes, or are intended to be so used”.

The Township will consist of the following land uses (refer to Figure 4):

A variety of tenure / housing options to cater for a variety of income groups including:

Bonded erven; and

High density development.

Land uses to provide employment opportunities and supportive community facilities:

Institutional;

Educational;

Business; and

Public Open Space.

The proposed configuration of the proposed development encompasses the following:

± 800 erven zoned Residential 1 (one dwelling per erf) = ±17, 3 Ha;

± 3 erven zoned Residential 4 = ± 4,1Ha;

± 1 erf zoned Business = 0, 8 Ha;

± 2 erven zoned Educational = 5,5 Ha;

± 2 erven zoned Institutional 1 Ha;

± 25 erven zoned Public Open Space = 3 Ha; and

Street = 17 Ha.


PRISM EMS 39

Figure 4: Proposed layout of the phased township development for Luipaardsvlei Extension


PRISM EMS 40

4.4.2 Water

4.4.2.1 Existing Water Network

The Mogale City Local Municipality is responsible for the water distribution in the area. The only water

network on the property where the study area is located, lies in the existing village, and a Rand Water

pipeline traverses the site along Main Reef Road which is generally not accessible unless a storage facility

is constructed and approved by Rand Water. The Lewisham Reservoir lies to the East of the proposed site.

It has a design capacity of 12Ml and is currently operating at a capacity of 2.592Ml leaving 9.408Ml of

available capacity.

4.4.2.2 Water Supply

There are two options available that may be considered for the development:

Connect to the Rand Water line, where Rand Water might require a new reservoir and water tower

to be built to service the stands;

Connect to the Lewisham Reservoir and use available capacity.

4.4.2.3 Residential Water Demand

The water demand is calculated according to the Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design

(Red Book). The Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD) for residential zones is taken as 700l/day/unit.

The total AADD for the entire proposed development is approximately 1.43 Ml/day and the peak demand

is approximately 2.71 Ml/ day. The Lewisham reservoir has 9.408Ml of available capacity and will be able

to accommodate the proposed development.

4.4.2.4 Proposed Bulk Pipeline

A new proposed 200mm diameter bulk water line will be connected to the Lewisham Reservoir. The pipeline

will stretch from the Lewisham Reservoir, along Tudor Street for 500m, from where it will be connected to

a new proposed 200mm diameter link water line at the Eastern corner of the proposed development. The

200mm diameter link water line will run along the Chamdor Extension 6 boundary in the 16m road reserve,

from where it will turn South and follow the Luipaardsvlei Extension 9 boundary to the most Southern point,

in a 25m road reserve (refer to Figure 5).

4.4.3 Sewer

4.4.3.1 Existing Sewer Network

The proposed Luipaartsvlei Extension 9 development will drain to the Flip Human Waste Water Treatment

Works (WWTW) to the South of the study area. The Flip Human WWTW has a design capacity of 50Ml and

is currently operating at a capacity of 22Ml leaving 28Ml of available capacity (refer to Figure 6).


PRISM EMS 41

4.4.3.2 Sewer Reticulation

An internal reticulation network with connection points to each property is proposed with underground pipes

laid in the road reserve. Refer to Figure 6 for sewer connection point.

4.4.3.3 Proposed Sewer Reticulation

The internal sewer reticulation of the proposed Luipaartsvlei Extension 9 will connect into the existing sewer

network via a link sewer line. This link sewer will have a minimum diameter of 160mm and installed following

a route from the lowest point on the township boundary to the outfall sewer. The proposed Luipaartsvlei

Extension 9 sewer outflow will be drained into the Flip Human WWTW (Figure 6).

The total AADWF for the entire proposed development is approximately 1.16 Ml/day and the peak demand

is approximately 2.9 Ml/day. The Flip Human WWTW has 28Ml of available capacity and will be able to

accommodate the proposed development.

4.4.4 Stormwater

No natural drainage channels occur within the site and the stormwater runoff from the site has been affected

by prior mining activity on the property. Bulk stormwater systems may have to be designed to accommodate

the bulk stormwater. This will however be minimised with the correct internal stormwater reticulation design

and attenuation facilities.

4.4.4.1 Internal Stormwater Network

The internal stormwater network incorporates appropriately designed and sized catch pits and underground

pipes. Minimum pipe sizes of 450 mm Ø will apply including appropriately sized kerb inlets. As a result, pre-

development flows for both the 1:5 and 1:50 year storm events will not be exceeded. The total flow of

stormwater off the site must be collected using the road network. The stormwater is collected by kerb inlets,

flows through a piped system placed along the roads which then flows to attenuation ponds and discharged

into the flood line via a stormwater stilling chamber and erosion protection. No development will take place

within the 1:100-year floodline as there are no watercourses in the immediate vicinity of the township.

4.4.4.2 Bulk Stormwater

Trapezoidal channels may be required where sheet flow cannot be achieved from the discharge of the

internal system’s attenuation facilities.

4.4.5 Electricity

The required bulk load for the development has been estimated at 4,5 MVA. The preferred option to supply

the proposed development will be to upgrade the Factoria substation, which will entail adding a third 20

MVA transformer, transformer bay, busbar extension and MV switch room rectification / rebuilt. A dedicated


PRISM EMS 42

new link service will then be constructed from the substation to the proposed development to supply the

development.


PRISM EMS 43

Figure 5: Luipaartsvlei Extension 9 Proposed Bulk Water layout


PRISM EMS 44

Figure 6: Luipaartsvlei Extension 9 Proposed Bulk Sewer layout


PRISM EMS 45

4.4.6 Roads

The study area is surrounded by the following roads:

To the north the site abuts Main Reef Road;

To the east the site abuts Station Road;

To the south-east the site abuts Tudor Street; and

To the west the applicant site abuts an unnamed road (Road A in Figure 8).

Based on the proposed land uses, the expected additional development traffic is summarised as follows:

Weekday morning peak hour : 2 489 trips

Weekday afternoon peak hour : 1 448 trips

Saturday peak hour : 901 trips

4.4.6.1 Existing Road and Street Network

The existing surrounding road network is briefly discussed below and indicated on Figure 7 and Figure 8

respectively.

Main Reef Road is a single lane road running in an east-west direction. The road is a Class 2

road and falls under the jurisdiction of the Gauteng Provincial Government;

Road A is a single lane surfaced road running in a north-south direction. The road is located

along the western side of the property. Road A is classified either a Class 3 or 4 road and falls

under the jurisdiction of MCLM;

Station Road is a four-lane road, between Tudor Street and Main Reef Road. To the south of

the Station Road/Tudor Street intersection the road is a single lane road. The road is located

along the eastern side of the proposed development and will in future be replaced by the

provincial Road K76, planned along the alignment of the road. Station Street is a Class 3 road

and in future a Class once Road K76 is constructed. Station Road falls under the jurisdiction of

MCLM. The future Road K76 will falls under the jurisdiction of the Gauteng Provincial

Government.

Tudor Street is a four-lane dual carriageway. The road is located south-east of the applicant

site. Tudor Street falls under the jurisdiction of Mogale Local Municipality.

4.4.6.2 Access

The proposed township will be served by two main access roads. Access to the development is proposed

from new link roads (Road A and Road B), which intersect with Main Reef Road (future Road K11) (refer

to Figure 7 and Figure 8, showing the two access roads.

4.4.6.3 Gauteng Transport Infrastructure Act Evaluation

The application was also evaluated in terms of the Gauteng Transport Infrastructure Act of 2001. Based


PRISM EMS 46

on the Gauteng Strategic Road Network, the applicant site is affected by the following future provincial

roads:

Road K11, planned along the northern boundary of the applicant site; and

Road K76, planned along the eastern boundary of the applicant site.

The proposed township application was evaluated by Gauteng Department Roads and Transport (GDRT)

and comments were issued by the Department. The comments received from GDRT are summarised as

follows:

Acknowledge the future road reserve for the roads and that no development will be permitted

within the road reserves;

The line-of-no-access imposed along the road reserves;

The building line of 16m imposed along these roads; and

Road A and Road B to have a minimum road reserve width of 25m.

The proposed township layout (Figure 4) acknowledges these requirements imposed by GDRT.


PRISM EMS 47

Figure 7: Proposed Access Arrangements and Internal Layout 1


PRISM EMS 48

Figure 8: Proposed Access Arrangements and Internal Layout 2


PRISM EMS 49

4.5 Timeframes

The construction period is envisaged to stretch over a period of approximately 18 months. The follow

construction conditions in respect of time restrictions will apply. Refer to Table 8.

Table 8: Operational hours for construction phases

Period Open Close

Weekdays 07:00 18:00

Saturdays 07:00 15:00

Sunday Only when required

Public holidays Only when required

4.5.1 Ancillary Infrastructure Required for Construction

No major infrastructure is required on site for the construction of the development. The required ancillary

infrastructure for the purposes of supporting services is discussed below.

Security

A construction camp for housing equipment will be erected on site for the duration of the construction. This

camp will be fenced for security purposes. A security guard will also be posted on site during non-

operational times.

Sanitation

During the construction phase of the project, chemical toilets will be placed on site for the duration of the

construction phase. One chemical toilet per 10 workers is recommended. More detail will be provided in

the Environmental Management Programme for the construction phase.

Construction Camp and Laydown Areas

Designated areas will be established during the construction phase for construction equipment and

vehicles.


PRISM EMS 50

5 DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

Section 3(h) of Appendix 3 of the 2014 EIA Regulations, requires that the EIA Report includes information

on the environmental attributes associated with the development footprint alternatives focusing on the

geographical, physical, biological, social, economic, heritage and cultural aspects. In line with this, and to

understand how the environment will be affected by the proposed Luipaardsvlei mixed-use development,

the following section provides an overview of the receiving environment. Where necessary, this section

includes information obtained from the specialist studies on the baseline conditions.

5.1 Local Climate

Temperature

Air temperature provides an indication of the extent of insolation, and therefore of the rate of development

and dissipation of mixing dispersion layers. Monthly maximum and minimum temperatures are given in

Table 9. Average monthly temperatures ranged between 8.2°C and 20.9°C.

Figure 9: Average temperature data for Krugersdorp (www.meteoblue.com) [Date accessed: 07

May 2018]

Table 9: Monthly temperature summary – MM5 modelled data (2015-2017)

Monthly Minimum, Maximum and Average Temperatures (°C)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Minimum 20.3 19.9 19.0 15.6 11.1 8.6 8.2 10.8 15.3 16.8 18.6 20.1

Maximum 20.9 21.3 19.5 17.1 13.9 9.8 10.1 13.4 15.8

18.7 19.9 22.3

Average 20.5 20.7 19.2 16.2 12.4 20.7 9.1 12.0 15.6

17.9 19.1 21.0


PRISM EMS 51

Rainfall

The average annual rainfall in the area is 579 mm. The most common forms of precipitation include

thunderstorms, moderate rain, and light rain. The highest rainfall is recorded between December and

January (refer to Figure 10).

Figure 10: Average rainfall data for Krugersdorp (www.meteoblue.com) [Date accessed: 07 May

2018]

Wind

The wind roses show the frequency of occurrence of winds by direction and strength. The bars correspond

to the 36 compass points (north, north-north-east, north-east, etc). The bar at the top of each wind rose

diagram represents winds blowing from the north (i.e. northerly winds), and so on. The length of the bar

represents the frequency of occurrence of winds from that direction, and the colour and width of the bar

sections correspond to wind speed categories, as per the legend. Thus, it is possible to visualise how often

winds of a certain direction and strength occur over any period of time. The wind roses plotted from data

extracted from MM5 dataset are presented in Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13. The data for the wind

roses has been extracted for the project site.

The colours used in the wind roses, reflect the different categories of wind speeds; the darkest purple shade

area, for example, representing wind speeds over 11.1 m/s. The frequency with which calms occurred, i.e.

periods during which the wind speed was below 0.5 m/s, is also indicated.


PRISM EMS 52

The wind field for the entire period was dominated by winds from the north-northeast and from the north.

The average wind speed for the MM5 data set at Luipaardsvlei was 3.82 m/s, with calms over the entire

period occurring 3.33% of the time.

PERIOD

Average Wind Speed (m/s) Calm Winds Frequency (%)

3.82 3.33

Location: Project Site

Data Period: 01/01/2015-31/12/2017

Data Type: MM5 modelled

Plot: Vladimir Jovic

Figure 11: Period wind rose – extrapolated MM5 weather data at the proposed site (2015-2017)


PRISM EMS 53

SPRING SUMMER

AUTUMN WINTER

Season Average Wind Speed (m/s)

Calm Winds Frequency (%)

Spring 4.51 1.56

Summer 3.78 3.67

Autumn 3.14 4.63

Winter 3.84 3.44

Location:

Project Site

Data Period:

01/01/2015-31/12/2017

Data Type:

MM5 modelled

Plot:

Vladimir Jovic

Figure 12: Seasonal variation of winds in spring season (September – November) (top left), summer season (December - February) (top right), autumn season (March – May) (bottom left) and winter season (June – August) (bottom right) (extrapolated MM5 modelled data 01 January 2015 – 31 December 2017) close to the site


PRISM EMS 54

12 AM to 6 AM 6 AM to 12 PM

12 PM to 6 PM 6 PM to 12 AM

Time of Day Average Wind Speed (m/s) Calm Winds

Frequency (%)

12 AM to 6 AM 4.02 1.95

6 AM to 12 PM 4.41 2.68

12 PM to 6 PM 3.52 6.07

6 PM to 12 AM 3.32 2.63

Location: Project Site

Data Period: 01/01/2015-31/12/2017

Data Type: MM5 modelled

Plot: Vladimir Jovic

Figure 13: Diurnal variation of winds between Night time 00:00 – 06:00 (top left), Morning 06:00 –

12:00 (top right), Afternoon 12:00 – 18:00 (bottom left) and Evening 18:00 – 24:00 (bottom right)

(extrapolated MM5 weather data 01 January 2015 – 31 December 2017) close to the site

It is not expected that the proposed development will impact on the existing local climate in the area.


PRISM EMS 55

5.2 Topography

The site is currently partially developed and was previously part of the Luipaardsvlei Estate Gold Mine with

large portions of the site been used for mine surface infrastructure, the demolished remains of which exist

over the site.

The property is located north and south of the Main Reef Road in Krugersdorp and some portions of the

proposed development area are located west of the R28 Road. The land slopes down towards the south at

a gradient of between 4 and 5%.

An old mine tailings dam and the Luipaartsvlei Landfill Site (Mogale City) is situated to the west of the site

while portions to the south of the study area have been subjected to open cast mining activities. A letter

from the DMR, indicating the mining right holders and a letter from the mining right holders (Mintails),

indicating that they consent to the proposed development, has been obtained and is included in Section

14.8.1.

The proposed development will result in minor changes to the topography of the site. Mitigation measures

to ensure management of erosion will be included in the EMPr.

5.3 Geology

The geology data was sourced from the Geological Investigation Report for Luipaardsvlei Mixed-Use

Development (Ext. 9) (Africa Exposed, 2015).

The entire area is largely underlain by Luipaardsvlei quartzite formation belonging to the Johannesburg

sub-group of the Central Rand Group, Witwatersrand Supergroup. A narrow portion of shale, known as the

Booysens Shale Formation occurs to the south of the site.

The regional dip of these lithologies is some 30 degrees to 45 degrees to the south and many small localised

faults area known to occur in the quartzites of the area. The Witpoortjie fault, which has a significant

influence on the geology in the area is localised to the southeast of the site, however it has no impact on

the geotechnical characteristics of the proposed property. No igneous intrusions are known to occur in the

area and no evidence of the presence of dykes or sill was observed in the field mapping.

5.4 Soils and land use

The soil data was sourced from the Geological Investigation Report for Luipaardsvlei Mixed-Use

Development (Ext. 9) (Africa Exposed, 2015).

5.4.1 Soils

A summarised description of the soils which blanket the site are presented below.


PRISM EMS 56

5.4.1.1 Transported Soils

Colluvium and Hillwash

A horizon of soil that is up to 2.6m thick occurs beneath the entire site and consists of reddish brown, loose

to medium dense silty sand and is identified as hillwash in origin.

Pedogenic Soils

In many places the soils have been subjected to pedogenesis and the degree of cementation of the

pedogenic material varies from nodular ferricrete to honeycomb ferricrete. The consistency of the horizon

is dependent on the degree of pedogenisis and varies from dense to very dense, and ranges in thickness

from 0.2 to 0.4m.

5.4.1.2 Residual Soils

Residual soils are derived from the in-situ weathering of the host rock, and the properties of these soils are

dependent on the parent lithology, and as such the geotechnical characteristics are generally easier to

predict.

The residual quartzite derived from this formation consist of silty and gravelly sand that typically

shows relic jointing and bedding as seen in the parent rock. The residual soil horizon is generally

of a suitable thickness and consistency to provide an adequate founding medium for structures.

The soils are generally of medium dense to dense consistency within the upper 1.0 to 1.5m,

becoming blocky silty gravel with a consistency of dense to very dense beyond this depth. Very

soft to soft rock consistency highly weathered shale and quartzite bedrock will be exposed

throughout the site. Medium weathered, medium hard to hard rock quartzite is exposed in the

central portions of the site. The soils derived from these formations are generally considered to be

suitable for the construction of pavement layers, and with careful selection may be used in the sub-

base and base coarse layers of roads. In many places the soils have been subjected to

pedogenesis and the degree of cementation of the pedogenic material varies from nodular

ferricrete to honeycomb ferricrete. The consistency of the horizon is dependent on the degree of

pedogenisis and varies from dense to very dense, and ranges in thickness from 0.2 to 0.4 m.

5.4.2 Land Use

The study area falls on urban / built-up land mainly for residential purposes and is also surrounded by this

land use. Further north-west of the study area is an area zoned as urban / built-up land mainly for

commercial purposes. To the south of the study area is a section zoned as unimproved grasslands (Figure

14).

The proposed development will require a change in the zoning of the proposed site to the required zoning

as per the local council requirements. A town planning process is currently being undertaken.


PRISM EMS 57

Figure 14: Map indicating the land uses for the proposed Luipaardsvlei Ext 9 Mixed-Use Development


PRISM EMS 58

5.5 Biodiversity

The information below has been sourced from the Ecological Habitat Assessment for Luipaardsvlei

Mixed-Use Development (Ext. 9) (Prism EMS, 2018).

According to Mucina and Rutherford (2006) the site falls within the Soweto Highveld Grassland

vegetation type (Figure 15). This vegetation type is characterised with gently to moderately undulating

landscape on the Highveld plateau supporting short to medium-high, dense, tufted grassland dominated

almost entirely by Themeda triandra and accompanied by a variety of other grasses such as Elionurus

muticus, Eragrostis racemose, Heteropogon contortus and Tristachya leucothrix. In places not

disturbed, only scattered small wetlands, narrow stream alluvia, pans and occasional ridges or rocky

outcrops interrupt the continuous grassland cover.

This grassland type is formally classified as an Endangered vegetation type of which very little of the

provincial conservation target of 24% is conserved (Waldrift, Krugersdorp, Leeuwkuil, Suikerbosrand,

Rolfe’s Pan Nature Reserves). Almost 50% of this vegetation unit has already undergone

transformation, mostly by urbanisation, cultivation, mines or road construction, and some areas have

been flooded by dams. Erosion is generally low (Mucina & Rutherford 2006).

Less than 1% of the grasslands occurring in Gauteng are conserved, with more than 70% being

transformed (GDACE, 2005). Factors such as veld mismanagement in the form of incorrect burning

regimes, over grazing and trampling by livestock, ploughing, landscaping and other forms of

transformation all lead to a generally transformed veld. These factors can lead to a situation where

there is no representation of the natural veld left within an area.

5.5.1 Ecological status

Ecological status can be defined as the present state of vegetation and soil protection of a site in relation

to the potential natural community for the site. Vegetation status is the expression of the relative degree

to which the kind, proportions, and amounts of plants in a community resemble that of the potential

natural community.

To determine the ecological status of the site, the following was considered:

The species diversity:

The proportion of species typical of the natural vegetation type. These species increase

the ecological status of the site and the proportion of these species is therefore

multiplied by 1 to get a species rating.

The proportion of exotic and invader species. These species reduce the ecological

status of the site and the proportion of these species is multiplied by 0.1 to get a species

rating.


PRISM EMS 59

The proportion of indigenous species (excluding species typical of the natural

vegetation type). These species increase the ecological status of the site, though it

carries less weight than the species typical of the natural vegetation type. The

proportion of these species is therefore multiplied by 0.5 to get a species rating.

The majority of the study area is highly transformed by roads and urban developments. Some fragments

of natural vegetation remain, but these are disturbed and does not represent pristine conditions of the

Soweto Highveld Grassland. All trees and almost 60% of the flowers and shrubs that were recorded

were alien species.

The ecological status score of the remaining grasslands on the study area was determined to be

between 30 and 40% and therefore were rated as Moderately Poor. The transformed areas were not

evaluated, because no natural vegetation remained to be assessed.

The overall ecological status of the site is classified as: PES = VERY POOR.

5.5.2 Plant species

Red data plant species with a potential distribution in the proposed development site, their habitats,

times of flowering and possibility of occurrence was determined by the specialist. It is possible that

some species could have been overlooked, either because they were not along the transects that were

surveyed, or because the time of flowering did not coincide with the survey. Plant species indicated in

the ecological habitat assessment to have a possible occurrence, was not observed during the survey,

but have a possible occurrence based on their habitat requirements. Information on habitat and

flowering times were obtained from GDARD (2017).

Four red data list plant species of have a possibility of occurring on the study area due to habitat

requirements. Two of the four species have a threatened status, these include Brachycorythis conica

subsp. transvaalensis with a threatened status of Critically Endangered and Melolobium subspicatum

with a threatened status of Vulnerable. The other two species are not of conservation concern as they

are catergorised as of Least Concern.

None of the four red data list species have been observed during the site visit.

5.5.1 Mammal species

The ecological habitat assessment indicates red data list mammal species with a potential distribution

on the proposed development site, as well as their possibility of occurrence based on habitat

requirements.

Only one of the three red data list mammal species with a potential distribution may possibly occur on

the study area due to habitat requirements. The national conservation status of the Atelerix frontalis


PRISM EMS 60

(Southern African Hedgehog) is Near Threatened, which is classified as a species of conservation

concern, but not a threatened species, in the Mammal Red Data List, 2016.

No red data list faunal species have been observed during the site visit.

5.5.1 Bird species

The ecological habitat assessment indicates red data bird species with a potential distribution on the

proposed development site, as well as their possibility of occurrence based on habitat requirements.

Habitat information was taken from the field guide ‘Birds of Southern Africa’ (Newman, 1966). Even bird

species that typically occur in grasslands are not expected to be found on the proposed development

site, due to the fragmented condition of the remaining grasslands. Only one of the species may possibly

occur on the study area.

Only one species, the Falco biarmicus (Lanner Falcon), of the red data list bird species with a potential

distribution could possibly occur on the study area due to habitat requirements.

No sightings were recorded by the specialists.

5.5.1 Herpetofauna

The only red data list herpetofaunal species with a potential distribution on the proposed development

site, is the Pyxicephalus adspersus (Giant bullfrog). The possibility of occurrence of this species is not

considered high, based on the lack in wetland vegetation within the grassland and because of the

fragmentation of the grasslands the number of people that regularly cross the site and the intensive

land-uses in the surrounding environment.

5.5.2 Site Sensitivity

According to the Gauteng C-plan there are no areas of ecological importance within the proposed

development site (Figure 16Figure 17). The proposed development site is composed of highly

transformed landscapes and fragmented grassland and contains no sensitive features (Figure 17). The

transformed landscapes are not considered to be sensitive, because natural vegetation is either highly

transformed or absent. The sensitivity of the remaining grasslands is considered low, because although

it occurs in an endangered veld type and could possibly support 4 red data list plant species, 1 red data

list mammal species and 1 red data list bird species, the ecological status of the remaining grasslands

is ‘moderately poor’ and no red data species have been observed. Furthermore, the fragmented

condition of these grasslands results in poor ecological functioning, limited possibilities for species

migration and cross pollination. The overall ecological status of the site is classified as: PES = VERY

POOR. Land use activities on site and in the surroundings, have likely reduced the number of faunal

species that previously inhabited the area.


PRISM EMS 61

Figure 15: Soweto Highveld Grassland Vegetation


PRISM EMS 62

Figure 16: Gauteng Conservation Plan (GDARD, 2017)


PRISM EMS 63

Figure 17: Overall sensitivity of the proposed development site


PRISM EMS 64

5.5.3 Photographic Record

Figure 18: Photographic record of the ecological habitat on the study area

5.6 Surface and Ground Water

The study area is located within the Upper Vaal Water Management Area and Quaternary Catchment C23D

(DWS, 2018) (Figure 19).

No natural drainage channels occur within the area investigated and the runoff from the site has been

affected by the previous mining activity on the property.


PRISM EMS 65

Figure 19: Aquatic Resources of the study area


PRISM EMS 66

5.7 Noise

Existing noise in the area that may impact on the proposed development are from the main railway line

linking Cape Town, Windhoek and the north of South Africa that is located to the north of the study area.

The existing Main Reef Road and potentially the Payloads Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd operations to the north-east

of the study area, may also contribute to vehicular noise and remnants of old mining activities and quarries

in the area may all contribute to noise levels within the study area.

5.8 Air Quality

An air quality impact assessment was conducted by VJ Air Modelling Services (Pty) Ltd (2018) to assess

the baseline air quality of the area and assess the impact of existing pollution sources in the environment

on the proposed development.

5.8.1 Windblown Dust Sources in the Region

A total of 380 Mine Residue Areas (MRAs) are present within the Gauteng Province, ranging from gold

TSFs, waste rock dumps, coal dumps, and quarries (GDARD, 2009). These facilities are also in various

operational and rehabilitation stages, with some still operational, a number of these facilities being dormant,

and a few in the process of being reclaimed. There are a number of abandoned gold tailings dumps in

Gauteng and specifically in the CoJ and Mogale City, with typically poor vegetation cover and large open

areas prone to wind erosion. The active dumps have the same problems, but the surface areas are usually

wet thereby reducing the potential for windblown dust.

Windblown dust from mine waste facilities can be significant sources of dust emissions with high dust

concentrations reported near mining sites, affecting both the environment and human health. A number of

studies have been conducted on the impact from mine tailings – specifically gold mine tailings – on

residential areas around and close to the base of these tailings facilities (Ojelede et al., 2012; Phakedi,

2011; Annegarn, 2006; Annegarn et al., 2000; 2010). These studies indicated that slimes dams in close

proximity to human settlements pose a health risk, with measured PM10 concentrations during storm

events reported to be between 171 µg/m³ and 462 µg/m³ (Ojelede et al., 2012).

A regional map showing proposed Luipaardsvlei Mixed-Use development in relation to the surrounding

TSFs and sand dumps are indicated in Figure 20.


PRISM EMS 67

Figure 20: Regional map showing proposed Luipaardsvlei Mixed-Use development in relation to the surrounding TSFs and sand dumps


PRISM EMS 68

5.8.2 Sensitive Receptors in terms of Air Quality

Sensitive receptors (SRs) primarily refer to places where humans reside, schools and hospitals. Ambient

air quality guidelines and standards have been developed by government to protect human health. Ambient

air quality, in contrast to occupational exposure, pertains to areas outside of an industrial site boundary

where the public has access to and according to the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act,

2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004) [as amended] excludes areas regulated under the Occupational Health and

Safety Act (Act No 85 of 1993).

The proposed development itself, i.e. Luipaardsvlei X9 is the primary sensitive receptor (SR). Suburbs

located around the proposed residential development include Kagiso, Sinqobile and Chamdor industrial

area to the south, Soul City and Tudor Shaft to the south-east, Lewisham, Silverfields and Factoria industrial

area to the east, Krugersdorp, Olivanna and Monument to the north-west and north and West Village to the

west, Mindalore and Witpoortjie to the south-west of the proposed development and Leratong Hospital

(Provincial Hospital with Casualty) is further to the south. These SRs are illustrated in Figure 21.


PRISM EMS 69

Figure 21: Sensitive receptors surrounding the proposed development area


PRISM EMS 70

5.8.3 Ambient Air Quality within the region

5.8.3.1 Sources of Air Pollution within the Region

Mining and industrial activities, farming and residential land-uses occur in the vicinity of the proposed

development area. These land-use activities contribute to baseline pollutant concentrations via vehicle

tailpipe emissions, household fuel combustion, biomass burning and various fugitive dust sources.

Sources of atmospheric emissions include:

Gaseous and particulate emissions from household fuel burning;

Gaseous and particulate emissions from mining and tailings recovery operations;

Gaseous and particulate emissions from industrial operations;

Miscellaneous fugitive dust sources including vehicle entrainment on roads and windblown dust

from open areas;

Gaseous and particulate emissions from landfill operations;

Gaseous and particulate emissions from vehicles; and

Gaseous and particulate emissions from biomass burning/veld fires (e.g. wild fires).

Vehicle Entrainment of Dust from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Tailpipe Emissions

The force of wheels of vehicles travelling on unpaved roadways causes the pulverisation of the surface

material. Particles are lifted and dropped from the rotating wheels and the road surface is exposed to

strong air currents in turbulent shear with the surface. The turbulent wake behind the vehicle continues to

act on the road surface after the vehicle has passed. The quantity of dust emissions from unpaved roads

varies linearly with the volume of traffic as well as the speed of the vehicles. The site that is proposed for

development is in the vicinity of R24 (Main Reef Road), R28 (Randfontein Road) and suburban streets,

as well as numerous unpaved roads, especially to the south of the proposed developments.

Household Fuel Combustion (Domestic Fuel Burning)

Despite the intensive national electrification programme a large number of households continue to burn

fuel to meet all or a portion of their energy requirements. The main fuels with air pollution potentials used

by households within the study region are coal, wood and paraffin. The distribution patterns of fuel use

are linked with the former townships and informal residential areas.

Pollutants released from these fuels include CO, NO2, SO2, inhalable particulates and polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons. Particulates are the dominant pollutant emitted from the burning of wood. Smoke from

wood burning contains respirable particles that are small enough in diameter to enter and deposit in the

lungs. These particles comprise a mixture of inorganic and organic substances including aromatic

hydrocarbon compounds, trace metals, nitrates and sulphates. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are

produced as a result of incomplete combustion and are potentially carcinogenic in wood smoke (Maroni


PRISM EMS 71

et al., 1995). The main pollutants emitted from the combustion of paraffin are NO2, particulates, carbon

monoxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Domestic fuel burning shows a characteristic diurnal and seasonal signature. Periods of elevated domestic

fuel burning, and hence emissions, occurs in the early morning and evening for space heating and cooking

purposes. During the winter months, an increase in domestic fuel burning is recorded as the demand for

space heating and cooking increases with the declining temperature.

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill site

The Luipaardsvlei landfill site started operating more than forty years ago as the Krugersdorp Municipal

Landfill site. In the late 1990’s, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry became concerned with the

impacts of the landfill and started the procedure for its closure. Due to lack of suitable alternative sites, it

commissioned a commercial landfill operator, Enviro-Fill (Pty) Ltd to assist with site operation. Enviro-Fill

took control of on-site operations, and overall condition of the site notably improved. DWAF decided to

close the existing site and concurrently expand the site to the south. This request was granted under

condition that site expansion must not exceed ten years, and that priority must be given to the development

of new regional waste disposal site that would cater for waste generated in the West Rand District

Municipality area. The Mogale City manages the Luipaardsvlei site.

Atmospheric emissions from waste disposal activities have the potential for impacts on the receiving

environment. Landfill fugitive dust emissions represent the main atmospheric releases related to such

operations, together with gaseous emissions. Sources of fugitive dust emissions include: vehicle

entrainment from paved and unpaved roads, materials handling operations (e.g. waste movement,

compaction and tipping operations), wind erosion of open areas and earthmoving activities. Particulate

emissions from landfill sites present a health hazard since they may have adsorbed molecules of toxic

substances.

Mining Activities

Mining operations result in the formation of discard or slimes dams to accommodate the waste material.

Wind erosion can be a major cause of the loss and dispersion of tailings material from a tailings dam into

the surrounding environment. Dust from tailings dams can be a serious nuisance, as well as a health

hazard to inhabitants in nearby residential areas and can also damage the health of animals, degrade

crops and cause soil and water pollution. The problem of wind erosion can affect tailings dams in all types

of climate but becomes worse as climatic aridity increases.

Studies of wind erosion from the surfaces of gold tailings dams in the Germiston-Johannesburg-

Roodepoort area (Blight, 1989) found that:

Wind and water are the major agents in eroding the slopes of gold-tailings dams;

The horizontal top surfaces of gold-tailings dams are relatively little affected by erosion whereas

the slopes of the tailings dams are the true major dust source;


PRISM EMS 72

There is a weak negative correlation between the shear strength of the surface of a gold-tailings-

dam slope and the rate of erosion of the slope;

There is a weak positive correlation between the length of a slope and the rate of erosion;

A two-branched correlation exists between the slope angles of gold-tailings dams and the rate of

erosion;

Very flat slopes and very steep slopes erode less than slopes of intermediate angle. At the limits

of slope, the horizontal and vertical surfaces erode very little;

The grassing of slopes appears to be very effective as a means of reducing the rate of erosion.

The immediate vicinity of the site is characterised by past and present mining activities, with shafts, tailings

and slimes dams, as well as sand and rock dumps dominating the landscape. The area is located in an

impaired environment, primarily as a result of mining activities by Randfontein Estates Gold Mine, West

Rand Consolidated Gold Mine, Luipaardsvlei Estate and Gold Mine and East Champ D’Or Gold Mine.

Dust emissions from the surrounding mining operations will contribute to ambient particulate

concentrations, particularly during windy conditions.

Biomass Burning (Veld Fires)

A veld fire is a large-scale natural combustion process that consumes various ages, sizes, and types of

plants growing outdoors in a geographical area. Consequently, veld fires are potential sources of large

amounts of air pollutants that should be considered when attempting to relate emissions to air quality. The

size and intensity, even the occurrence, of a veld fire depends directly on such variables as meteorological

conditions, the species of vegetation involved and their moisture content, and the weight of consumable

fuel per hectare (available fuel loading).

Veld fires are not easily quantified due to the irregular and seasonal nature of this source, but also

considered to be an important contributor to ambient particulate concentrations, particularly during the

fire-burning season.

5.8.3.2 Measured Ambient Air Quality

The identification of existing sources of emissions and the characterisation of ambient pollutant

concentrations is fundamental to the assessment of the potential for cumulative impacts in the region.

Ambient measurement data in the region from the Mogale City monitoring station operated by the West

Rand District Municipality was obtained for the period April 2012 to present. The station is located fairly

near the site (~5 km to the south of the site). Data availability was poor with huge gaps in data captured.

From these figures, it can be deduced that ambient concentrations of PM10 exceeded the NAAQS.

It should also be noted that the Mogale City monitoring station is expected to reflect higher pollutant

concentrations - compared to the project site - due to domestic fuel burning activities in the township,

especially during winter months. The Mogale City site is considered to be most representative of ambient


PRISM EMS 73

air quality in the proposed development area with respect to background air pollution sources and ambient

air quality.

5.8.3.3 Modelled Regional Ambient Air Quality

The proposed development is situated in an area within Gauteng Province that has been identified as

characterised with poor air quality. Windblown dust from mine waste facilities can be significant sources of

dust emissions with high dust concentrations reported near mining sites, affecting both the environment

and human health.

A comprehensive emissions inventory was completed for the region as part of the baseline study for the

City of Johannesburg (CoJ) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) ((CSIR Climate Studies, 2016)). These

results of the inventory were used to carry out a comprehensive dispersion modelling study over the area

using the CALPUFF model. Based on these dispersion modelling results, the AQMP identified Baseline

Hotspots for PM10 where the proposed development area is already elevated with respect to PM10

concentrations. The ambient monitoring data available for the area, as discussed in the previous section,

confirms the potential for high PM10 background concentrations.

The construction of the proposed development should therefore also ensure minimal contribution to PM10

concentrations.

5.9 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

5.9.1 Overview

The presence and distribution of heritage resources define a ‘heritage landscape’. In this landscape, every

undisturbed site is relevant and in addition, because heritage resources are non-renewable, heritage

surveys need to investigate an entire project area, or a representative sample, depending on the nature of

the project.

Since the mid-1800s up until the present, South Africa has been divided and re-divided into various districts.

Since 1857, the farm under investigation formed part of the Pretoria district. As of 1894 the farm formed

part of the Krugersdorp district. This remained the case up until 1977, when South Africa was divided into

various smaller magisterial districts. The farm area became known as the Krugersdorp magisterial district

within the Witwatersrand district. Today, the property falls within the Mogale City Local Municipality in the

West Rand District Municipality, Gauteng Province (Bergh 1999: 17; 20-27). Note that, by the early 1900s

the property under investigation was known as Luipaardsvlei 8, and after 1950 it was renamed Luipaardsvlei

468 IQ.

A large animal shelter is situated on the south-western corner of the proposed site. A sandblasting business

is situated on the southern side of the proposed site. An old hostel complex is situated on the north-western

corner of the proposed site with several industrial sites further to the west. A few existing businesses are

situated along the northern boundary of the proposed site, but these will be excluded from the proposed


PRISM EMS 74

development. Wentworth Park residential area is situated to the north of the proposed site and the

Lewisham residential area is situated to the east of the study area. A disused and removed railway line also

traverses other parts of the proposed site as do several power lines. A gas line crosses the proposed site

from east to west.

Several clusters of trees are situated across the study area. These trees include clumps of Blue Gum and

Black Wattle which were planted throughout the years. Most of the site is not fenced off and is open which

leads to easy access. This resulted in several mounds of illegally dumped material across the study area

and allows artisanal miners access to illegal mining activities.

5.9.2 Description of Identified Heritage Resources (NHRA Section 34 - 36)

Built Environment (Section 34 of the NHRA)

Part of Portion 212 (not part of the footprint of the proposed development) was disturbed during the previous

(legal) mining developments and activities. Several dumps and open excavations are scattered across the

proposed site. These old mining activities were never rehabilitated. Numerous demolished structures

assumed to be associated with the old mining developments and activities are also scattered across the

study area. These structures area demolished to the extent that their purpose could not be identified.

The study area was exposed to and is still subject to several activities and developments which disturbed

and destroyed most of the original state of the site during the last century and more. Except for the remains

of the demolished mining infrastructure, very little signs of anything of heritage value or significance were

identified across most of the proposed site due to these previous disturbances.

Three structures were identified in the study area namely two residential structures (Feature 1 & 2) and

Feature 3 comprising demolished mining infrastructure (indicated on Figure 22 as LPV1 to LPV3). The age

of these structures is unknown, but it is highly likely that Feature 1 & 2 is older than 60 years. According to

archival maps mining infrastructure was constructed from 1913 and structures in the study area could be

older than 60 years and would then be protected by the NHRA. The age of standing structures in the study

area should be confirmed and if older than 60 years a destruction permit will be required from the PHRAG.


PRISM EMS 75

Figure 22: Identified structures on site

Archaeological and paleontological resources (Section 35 of the NHRA)

No archaeological sites or material was recorded during the survey and based on the SAHRIS

Paleontological Sensitivity Map provided in the HIA, the area is of low paleontological significance.

Therefore, no further mitigation prior to construction was recommended by the specialist in terms of Section

35 for the proposed development to proceed.

Burial Grounds and Graves (Section 36 of the NHRA)

In terms of Section 36 of the Act no known grave sites are on record close to the study area and no burial

sites were recorded. However, graves may be discovered in future. If any graves are located in future they

should ideally be preserved in-situ or alternatively relocated according to existing legislation.

Cultural Landscapes, Intangible and Living Heritage

Long term impact on the cultural landscape is considered to be negligible as the surrounding area consists

of a densely-developed zone that was developed from 1913 onwards. Visual impacts to scenic routes and

sense of place are also considered to be low due to the extensive developments in the area.


PRISM EMS 76

Battlefields and Concentration Camps

There are no battlefields or related concentration camp sites located in the study area.

Public Monuments

No public monuments are located within or close to the study area and no other archaeological sites or

material have been observed.

5.10 Socio-economic Environment

Information in this Section have been obtained from the Mogale City Local Municipality’s Integrated

Development Plan (2017-2018).

Mogale City Local Municipality (MCLM), Randwest City Local Municipality (RCLM) and Merafong City Local

Municipality all form part of the West Rand District Municipality. Mogale City covers an area of

approximately 110 000 ha, with Krugersdorp being the major Central Business District (CBD). Krugersdorp

is accessible from all major centres of Gauteng Province and the North-West Province, e.g. Johannesburg,

Pretoria, Midrand, Hartbeespoort, Randfontein and Soweto (refer to Figure 23). The Muldersdrift Region is

experiencing exponential growth which can partly be attributed to the ease of access the Region has in

terms of other precincts in and around Mogale City, the City of Johannesburg, as well as, the City of

Tshwane. The development trend of properties in the precinct further confirms the notion.

MCLM consists of the following built-up areas:

Kagiso and Rietvallei (including Azaadville);

Krugersdorp and surrounding area;

Munsieville;

Muldersdrift;

Tarlton;

Magaliesburg;

Kromdraai; and

Hekpoort.


PRISM EMS 77

Figure 23: Mogale City Local Municipality Built-up Areas and Surrounding Areas

Population

Approximately 45.5 percent (estimated at 383 864 people) of the total population of the West Rand District

(estimated at 820 995 people), resided in MCLM in 2016, making it the most populated region in the district

(refer to Figure 24). Randfontein and Westonaria City municipalities have merged in August 2016 and

became one municipality which is now named Randwest City, which has a total population of 261 053

people. also shows the population distribution of the West Rand District Local Municipalities from 2011 to

2016. There has been a growth of 21 442 persons in the past 5 years, from 362 422 persons in 2011 to

383 864 persons in 2016 in MCLM.


PRISM EMS 78

Figure 24: West Rand District Municipalities Population Distribution

Figure 25 indicates Mogale City’s average population fluctuation from year to year. The population average

growth increased at a decreasing rate.

Figure 25: Mogale City Population Growth Rate

Figure 26 illustrates the proportional population groups of MCLM. The population has increased across all

race groups from 2001 to 2016, except for the Indian / Asian population group that has decreased slightly

between 2011 and 2016.


PRISM EMS 79

Figure 26: Mogale City’s Proportional Distribution of Population Groups

Figure 27 shows how the population structure has changed between 2011 and 2016. Mogale City Local

Municipality (MCLM) has a youth population bulge which is similar to that of the Gauteng province and the

country. A major proportion of the region’s population are people of working age. A youth age population

bulge indicates a population group decline between the ages of 25-29 as well as age group 30-34 when

comparing census results from 2011 and 2016. There were less people in 2016 of these age groups than

in 2011. These age groups are in transition into adulthood, which consist mainly of child bearing people

and newly established families. Overall, a decline can also be detected in age groups from 35-39 to 75+

when comparing 2011 and 2016 census results. These ages are the essential economically active

population.

Figure 27: Mogale City’s Population Pyramid


PRISM EMS 80

Economic Development Indicators

Development indicators can help to gauge progress on developmental goals and objectives. These

indicators include:

- Unemployment rate;

- Poverty; and

- Inequality.

In measuring inequality, the Gini co-efficient is often used and measures the extent to which the distribution

of income (or, in some cases, consumption expenditure) amongst individuals or households within an

economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. Thus, a Gini co-efficient of 0 represents perfect

equality, while an index of 1 implies perfect inequality. Figure 28 indicates the Gini-co-efficient as a measure

of income inequality for MCLM and the West Rand from 2011 to 2015. The Gini co-efficient has remained

constant in MCLM across the years. There are some instances where the figure declined (such as between

2013 and 2015), however, the declines were very minimal. The Gini decline for MCLM, indicates that the

poverty gap has widened, which implies more residents are becoming increasingly poor. With a coefficient

of 0.62 in 2015, it means that approximately 36% of the population holds most of the income or all the

income, whilst the remaining 64% share very little or no income at all.

Figure 28: Gini co-efficient, 2011-2015 (Source: HIS Markit, 2017)

The proportion of people that lives below the food poverty line for Mogale City and the West Rand from

2011 to 2015 are shown in Figure 29. Both regions have a rising trend of persons living below the food


PRISM EMS 81

poverty line, with Mogale recording higher proportions. In 2015, approximately 15% of the population lived

below the food poverty line for both regions respectively.

Figure 29: Percentage of the Population Below the Food Poverty Line, 2011-2015 (Source: HIS

Markit, 2017)

Education

67.9% of people older than 20 years in Mogale City in 2015, had a secondary education, which is an

increase of 8.5 percent compared to 2011. There was a decline in persons with primary schooling and no

schooling in 2015 when compared to the results for 2011. The percentage of persons with a tertiary

education increased slightly from 2011 to 2015 (refer to Figure 30). The above results show that

improvements in education have been made in the region.

Figure 30: Qualifications of People Older Than 20 Years, 2011-2015 (Source: Quantic Research,

2017)


PRISM EMS 82

Income Distribution

In 2015, the annual income per household that constituted the largest number of households, was the R42

001 to R96 000 range, which accounted for 29.1% of total households in Mogale City. This was followed

by the R96 001 to R 360 000 range, which accounted for 27.7 % of all households within the City. The

lowest percentage of households was in the highest income range of more than R2.4 million per annum

and it comprised 0.3% of households (refer to Figure 31).

Figure 31: Income Distribution of Mogale City in 2015 (Source: HIS Markit, 2017)

The total employment levels and growth in Mogale City from 2011 to 2015 are shown in Figure 32.

Employment levels in the City showed a declining trend over the review period. Formal employment

declined from 91 210 in 2011 to 87 575 in 2015, whilst informal employment decreased from 15 477 in

2011 to 15 114 in 2015. The employment growth rate in 2014 and 2015 was negative. The City experienced

its lowest level of employment growth in 2015 for the review period, with a growth rate of 2.3%. During the

same period, GDP-R also had a negative growth rate of 1.8%.


PRISM EMS 83

Figure 32: Total Employment and Growth, 2011-2015 (Source: HIS Markit, 2016)

Employment figures by sector are shown in Figure 33. During the review period, there was a decline in

employment levels in five sectors. The construction, transport, community services and the finance sectors

showed an increase. The wholesale and retail trade and finance sectors are the largest employment sectors

in MCLM. The electricity and mining employment sectors had the lowest level of employment within the

City.

Figure 33: Mogale City’s Employment by Sectors, 2011-2015 (Source: IHS Markit, 2017)


PRISM EMS 84

The unemployment rate for Mogale City reached 39.6% in 2015, up from 27.5% in 2011, indicating that

most of the youth in the region is unable to find work (Figure 34).

Figure 34: Mogale City Unemployment Rates, 2011-2015 (Source: HIS Global Insight, 2017)

The proposed development will result in approximately R995 Million in capital investment in the area. This

will have a multiplier effect in the region. In addition, the proposed development will create approximately

70 employment opportunities during the construction phase and approximately 450 during the operational

phase and will provide housing and associated services as well as other mixed uses.


PRISM EMS 85

6 NEED AND DESIRABILITY

6.1 Need for the Proposed Activity

6.1.1 Market research report

A market research report was conducted by Urban Studies, in order to highlight the dynamics of the area

to get a good understanding of the nature of the Main Reef Road corridor development and to indicate the

potential for different land uses as part of the land and to identify the market potential for different land uses.

6.1.1.1 Residential Market Analysis: The main objectives of the research study were the following

To get a full understanding of the dynamics and profile of the current housing market;

To link the proposed development to specific sector growth within the urban environment;

Calculate the residential development potential;

To indicate specific market segments that would be available as potential buyers/tenants in the

proposed development;

To indicate all new developments proposed for a particular area, and;

To link a timeframe to the tempo of residential development.

6.1.1.2 Retail market analysis:

The main objectives with a retail study are the following:

To focus on the residential growth, the socio-economic profile and the current shopping behaviour;

To indicate the level of competition;

To conduct a detailed site evaluation; and

To calculate the retail development potential for the area currently as well as for the medium term.

6.1.1.3 Findings:

Start with the residential development;

Focus on multiple units;

Focus on price range R400 000 – R600 000 (2018 prices);

Size bracket 37 – 50m²;

Rental levels of R3 000 – R4 000 per unit;

To reach the threshold number of houses before any community facilities are provided;

Retail only to be considered once the threshold number of new houses has been reached;

To build a small local centre;

To follow a ‘follow the roofs’ strategy;

Potential exist for a private school in future focusing on existing residential areas as well the

expected increase in residential units.


PRISM EMS 86

With road upgrades this becomes a very good location, although it will remain secluded from the rest of

Kagiso and Krugersdorp. It is very important that the Luipaardsvlei development coincides with existing

facilities and improve the image of the area.

6.2 Desirability

The application can be evaluated on the following:

6.2.1 Surrounding Land Uses and Compatibility

The mining belt area from Randfontein up to the East Rand is being targeted for integrated infill

residential development

The proposed residential development is in line with such use and per definition compatible.

6.2.2 Vehicular Movement, Parking and Access

Access to the township would be taken from Main Reef Road Future K11

Onsite parking at the requirements from Council for the specific uses to be developed would be

provided.

6.2.3 Visual/Physical Impact;

The proposed residential development is in line with the surrounding developments and would have

no adverse visual or physical impact on the area.

The proposed development will contribute to the rehabilitation of the area, which was previously

used for mining related activities.

6.2.4 Environmental Impact:

A detailed impact assessment has been undertaken as part of the EIA process (refer to Section 10 for a

description of potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed development).

These impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated. Further, there are numerous socio-economic benefits related

to the proposed development.

The following questions have also been addressed in line with the Guideline for Need and Desirability

(Notice 891 of 2014).

Table 10: Need and Desirability Assessment

Question from the Need and Desirability

Guideline

Response

Securing ecological sustainable development and use of natural resources

How will this development (and its separate

elements / aspects) impact on the ecological

integrity of the area?

The Ecological habitat assessment was

undertaken, and no sensitivities were identified.


PRISM EMS 87


Guideline

Response

Based on this, the proposed development will

not significantly impact on the ecological

integrity of the area.

How were the following ecological integrity

considerations taken into account?

Threatened Ecosystems;

Sensitive, vulnerable, highly dynamic or

stressed ecosystems, such as coastal

shores, estuaries, wetlands, and similar

systems require specific attention in

management and planning procedures,

especially where they are subject to

significant human resource usage and

development pressure;

Critical Biodiversity Areas (“CBAs”) and

Ecological Support Areas (“ESAs”)

Conservation targets;

Environmental Management Framework;

Spatial Development Framework; and

Global and international responsibilities

relating to the environment (e.g. RAMSAR

sites, Climate Change, etc.)

This EIA Report has taken into account the

ecological integrity of the area in the following way:

An initial sensitivity map was compiled to

identify potential ecological sensitivities.

This map took into account CBAs, ESAs,

watercourses, Important Bird Areas

(IBAs); GPEMF; SDF etc.;

Based on this, it was determined that an

Ecological Assessment was required.

An Ecological Assessment was therefore

undertaken and took into account aspects

such as threatened and sensitive

ecosystems etc. A detailed final sensitivity

map was compiled based on the findings

of the study.

The findings of the Ecological Assessment

were used to determine and assess

impacts related to the development. A

detailed impact assessment which

assessed the proposal, alternative and no-

go option was compiled.

How will this development disturb or enhance

ecosystems and / or result in the loss or protection

of biological impacts that could not be avoided

altogether, what measures were explored to

minimise and remedy (including offsetting) the

impacts? What measures were explored to

enhance positive impacts?

Please refer to Section 10 for the impact

assessment as which identified the main impacts

as well as the pertinent mitigation measures that

reduce negative impacts and enhance positive

benefits. Further, please see the detailed and site

specific EMPr for all proposed mitigation

measures. Including those suggested to enhance

positive benefits (i.e. such as the use of local labour

where possible).

How will this development pollute and/or degrade

the biophysical environment? What measures

were explored to firstly avoid these impacts, and

where impacts could not be avoided altogether,

what measures were explored to minimise and







PRISM EMS 88


Guideline

Response

remedy (including offsetting) the impacts? What

measures were explored to enhance positive

impacts?




where possible).

What waste will be generated by this

development? What measures were explored to

firstly avoid waste, and where waste could not be

avoided altogether, what measures were explored

to minimize, reuse and/or recycle the waste? What

measures have been explored to safely treat

and/or dispose of unavoidable waste?









where possible).

Further, a waste management plan is included in

the EMPr which includes measures to reduce and

recycle waste.

How will this development use and/or impact on

non-renewable natural resources? What measures

were explored to ensure responsible and equitable

use of the resources? How have the consequences

of the depletion of the non-renewable natural

resources been considered? What measures were

explored to firstly avoid these impacts, and where

impacts could not be avoided altogether, what

measures were explored to minimise and remedy

(including offsetting) the impacts? What measures

were explored to enhance positive impacts?








positive benefits.

How will this development use and/or impact on

renewable natural resources and the ecosystem of

which they are part? Will the use of the resources

and/or impact on the ecosystem jeopardise the

integrity of the resource and/or system taking into

account carrying capacity restrictions, limits of

acceptable change, and thresholds? What

measures were explored to firstly avoid the use of

resources, or if avoidance is not possible, to

minimise the use of resources? What measures





benefits. This includes an assessment of resources

required for the development.

As mentioned, an ecological habitat assessment

was conducted which did not identify any

ecological sensitivities.


PRISM EMS 89


Guideline

Response

were taken to ensure responsible and equitable

use of the resources? What measures were

explored to enhance positive impacts?

Does the proposed development

exacerbate the increased dependency on

increased use of resources to maintain

economic growth or does it reduce

resource dependency (i.e. de-materialized

growth)? (note: sustainability requires that

settlements reduce their ecological

footprint by using less material and energy

demands and reduce the amount of waste

they generate, without compromising their

quest to improve their quality of life)

Does the proposed use of natural

resources constitute the best use thereof?

Is the use justifiable when considering

intra- and intergenerational equity and are

there more important priorities for which

the resources should be used (i.e. what

are the opportunity costs of using these

resources this the proposed development

alternative?).

Do the proposed location, type and scale

of development promote a reduced

dependency on resources?

Further, as the site is impacted by previous use, it

is a good site for infill development to provide

residential opportunities which are required in the

area. The site occurs in the Gauteng

Environmental Management Framework Zone 1,

which is an urban development zone.

How were a risk-averse and cautious approach

applied in terms of ecological impacts?

What are the limits of current knowledge

(note: the gaps, uncertainties and

assumptions must be clearly stated)?

What is the level of risk associated with the

limits of current knowledge?

Based on the limits of knowledge and the

level of risk, how and to what extent was a

risk-averse and cautious approach applied

to the development?

A risk-averse and cautious approach was

undertaken throughout the process including the

compilation of specialist studies, the impact

assessment and the EMPr. In particular, it was

incorporated in the following ways:

The specialist identified gaps which were

noted in both the specialist report and EIA

Report.

The impact assessment specifically deals

with gaps identified by specialists and/or


PRISM EMS 90


Guideline

Response

lack of information through the

assessment of ‘Level of Confidence’.

The EMPr provided numerous mitigation

measures to ensure that even impacts that

were identified to be a ‘low’ risk would be

further mitigated.

In all cases, the level of risk associated with the

current knowledge was deemed sufficient for

undertaking the impact assessment for providing a

recommendation. It is therefore the EAP’s opinion

that a risk averse and cautious approach has been

applied to the development.

How will the ecological impacts resulting from this

development impact on people’s environmental

right in terms following:

Negative impacts e.g. access to

resources, opportunity costs, loss of

amenity (e.g. open space), air and water

quality impacts, nuisance (noise, odour,

etc.), health impacts, visual impacts, etc.

What measures were taken to firstly avoid

negative impacts, but if avoidance is not

possible, to minimise, manage and remedy

negative impacts?

Positive impacts: e.g. improved access to

resources, improved amenity, improved air

or water quality, etc. What measures were

taken to enhance positive impacts?

Please refer to Section 10 for the detailed impact

assessment as well as the detailed and site

specific EMPr which is contained in Section 14.7

for all proposed mitigation measures.

However, in summary, it is felt that the negative

impacts related to the development will not have a

significantly negative impact on people’s

environmental right through the dedicated

implementation of the EMPr. The site is not

sensitive and therefore the positive benefits of

providing residential development outweigh any

negative impacts.

Describe the linkages and dependencies between

human wellbeing, livelihoods and ecosystem

services applicable to the area in question and how

the development’s ecological impacts will result in

socio-economic impacts (e.g. on livelihoods, loss

of heritage site, opportunity costs, etc.)?

Due to the fact that the site is not sensitive, it is not

expected that there will be opportunity costs

related to the development.

Based on all of the above, how will this

development positively or negatively impact on

As the site is not sensitive, it is not expected that

the proposed development will negatively impact

on the ecological targets of the area.


PRISM EMS 91


Guideline

Response

ecological integrity

objectives/targets/considerations of the area?

Considering the need to secure ecological integrity

and a healthy biophysical environment, describe

how the alternatives identified (in terms of all the

different elements of the development and all the

different impacts being proposed), resulted in the

selection of the “best practicable environmental

option” in terms of ecological considerations?

Two layouts were assessed, namely:

The Proposal; and

Alternative 1.

When assessing these alternatives, the following

was assessed:

The findings of the specialist studies

undertaken;

The results of the impact assessment; and

The need for the project.

Based on the findings of the specialist study

and impact assessment and taking into

account the successful implementation of the

EMPr, it is felt that Proposal should be

authorised and is the BPEO. Please see Section

10.7 for the detailed assessment of

alternatives.

Promoting justifiable economic and social development

What is the socio-economic context of the area,

based on, amongst other considerations, the

following considerations?

The IDP (and its sector plans’ vision,

objectives, strategies, indicators and

targets) and any strategic plans,

frameworks of policies applicable to the

area,

Spatial priorities and desired spatial

patterns (e.g. need for integrated of

segregated communities, need to upgrade

informal settlements, need for

densification, etc.).

Spatial characteristics (e.g. existing land

uses, planned land uses, cultural

landscapes, etc.), and

Please see Section 5.10 of the EIA Report which

provides an overview of the socio-economic

context of the area.

In summary, the proposed development is in line

with the planning of the area. In particular, the

mining belt area from Randfontein up to the East

Rand is being targeted for integrated infill

residential development and therefore the

proposed residential development is in line with

such use and per definition compatible.


PRISM EMS 92


Guideline

Response

Municipal Economic Development

Strategy (“LED Strategy”).

Considering the socio-economic context, what will

the socio-economic impacts be of the development

(and its separate elements/aspects), and

specifically also on the socio-economic objectives

of the area?

Will the development complement the local

socio-economic initiatives (such as local

economic development (LED) initiatives),

or skills development programs?



specific EMPr which is contained in Appendix 14.7

for all proposed mitigation measures. In summary,

the social and economic main impacts that were

assessed included:

Social

o Visual impact;

o Safety and security;

o Traffic disruptions; and

o Loss of cultural heritage.

Economic

o Decline/increase in economy; and

o Employment.

In terms of social impacts, during construction and

operation, the main social impacts will be visual

impacts, safety and security, traffic disruptions,

loss of cultural heritage. All these impacts can be

successfully mitigated to a low/low-medium

significance.

In terms of economic impacts, during construction

and operation, a number of positive economic

impacts will occur relating to an increase in

economy and increased employment. Both these

have a medium to high significance after mitigation.

How will this development address the specific

physical, psychological, developmental, cultural

and social needs and interests of the relevant

communities?

The proposed development will provide much

needed residential development in line with the IDP

for the area.

Will the development result in equitable (intra- and

inter-generational) impact distribution, in the short-

and long-term? Will the impact be socially and

The proposed development will provide much

needed residential development in line with the IDP

for the area.


PRISM EMS 93


Guideline

Response

economically sustainable in the short- and long-

term?

In terms of location, describe how the placement of

the proposed development will:

Result in the creation of residential and

employment opportunities in close

proximity to or integrated with each other;

Reduce the need for transport of people

and goods;

Result in access to public transport or

enable non-motorised and pedestrian

transport (e.g. will the development result

in densification and the achievement of

thresholds in terms public transport);

Compliment other uses in the area;

Be in line with the planning for the area for

urban related development;

Make use of underutilised land available

with the urban edge;

Optimise the use of existing resources and

infrastructure opportunity costs in terms of

bulk infrastructure expansions in non-

priority areas (e.g. not aligned with the bulk

infrastructure planning for the settlement

that reflects the spatial reconstruction

priorities of the settlement);

Discourage “urban sprawl” and contribute

to compaction/densification;

Contribute to the correction of the

historically distorted spatial patterns of

settlements and to the optimum use of

existing infrastructure in excess of current

needs;

Encourage environmentally sustainable

land development practices and

processes;

Take into account special locational

factors that might favour the specific

The proposed location of the proposed

development considered a number of aspects

including:

The need for infill development;

The ecological sensitivity (or lack thereof)

of the site;

Services required for the development;

and

Access roads required for the

development.

The following can also be noted:

The proposed development will create

employment during construction and

operation;

It will provide a much-needed residential

development;

It is in line with the IDP in terms of

providing infill development;

It will positively contribute to

compaction/densification; and

Letters from DMR and Mintails show that

the development will not result in loss of

strategic mineral resource development.


PRISM EMS 94


Guideline

Response

location (e.g. the location of a strategic

mineral resource, access to the port,

access to rail, etc.);

The investment in the settlement or area in

question will generate the highest

socio=economic returns (i.e an area with

high economic potential);

Impact on the sense of history, sense of

place and heritage of the area and the

socio-cultural and cultural-historic

characteristics and sensitivities of the

area; and

In terms of the nature, scale and location

of the development promote or act as a

catalyst to create a more integrated

settlement?

How were a risk-averse and cautious approach

applied in terms of socio-economic impacts?

What are the limits of current knowledge

(note: the gaps, uncertainties and

assumptions must be clearly stated)?

What is the level of risk (note: related to

inequality, social fabric, livelihoods,

vulnerable communities, critical resources,

economic vulnerability and sustainability)

associated with the limits of current

knowledge?

Based on the limits of knowledge and the

level of risk, how and to what extent was a

risk-averse and cautious approach applied

to the development?

A risk-averse and cautious approach was

undertaken throughout the process including the

compilation of the impact assessment and the

EMPr. In particular, it was incorporated in the

following ways:

The impact assessment specifically deals

with gaps and/or lack of information

through the assessment of ‘Level of

Confidence’.

The EMPr provided numerous mitigation

measures to ensure that even impacts that

were identified to be a ‘low’ risk would be

further mitigated.

In all cases, the level of risk associated with the

current knowledge was deemed sufficient for

undertaking the impact assessment for providing a

recommendation. It is therefore the EAP’s opinion

that a risk averse and cautious approach has been

applied to the development.


PRISM EMS 95


Guideline

Response

How will the socio-economic impacts resulting from

this development impact on people’s

environmental right in terms following:

Negative impacts: e.g. health (e.g. HIV-

Aids), safety, social ills, etc. What

measures were taken to firstly avoid

negative impacts, but if avoidance is not

possible, to minimize, manage and remedy

negative impacts?

Positive impacts. What measures were

taken to enhance positive impacts?



specific EMPr which is contained in Section 14.7

for all proposed mitigation measures. In summary,

the social and economic main impacts that were

assessed included:

Social

o Visual impact;


o Traffic disruptions;

o Loss of equestrian centre; and


Economic

o Decline/increase in economy; and

o Employment.

In summary, most social and economic impacts are

positive in nature. Those that are negative can be

satisfactorily mitigated and thus the development

does not impact on people’s environmental rights.

Considering the linkages and dependencies

between human wellbeing, livelihoods and

ecosystem services, describe the linkages and

dependencies applicable to the area in question

and how the development’s socio-economic

impacts will result in ecological impacts (e.g. over

utilisation of natural resources, etc.)?

The proposed development’s socio-economic

benefits will not result in ecological impacts as the

site is not ecologically sensitive.

What measures were taken to pursue the selection

of the “best practicable environmental option” in

terms of socio-economic considerations?


The Proposal; and

Alternative 1.


was assessed:


undertaken;



PRISM EMS 96


Guideline

Response


Please see Section 10.7 for the discussion of

alternatives. However, in summary, based on the

findings of the specialist study and impact

assessment and taking into account the

successful implementation of the EMPr, it is felt

that Proposal should be authorised and is the

BPEO.

What measures were taken to pursue

environmental justice so that adverse

environmental impacts shall not be distributed in

such a manner as to unfairly discriminate against

any person, particularly vulnerable and

disadvantaged persons (who are the beneficiaries

and is the development located appropriately)?

Considering the need for social equity and justice,

do the alternatives identified, allow the “best

practicable environmental option” to be selected, or

is there a need for other alternatives to be

considered?

A detailed impact assessment process has been

undertaken including the development of

alternatives which were assessed. In addition, in

line with the requirements of the EIA Regulations,

2014, the EIA Report is being made available for

review and I&APS will be able to comment on the

impact assessment. It is the opinion of the EAP,

that no impacts assessed will distributed in such a

way to discriminate against any disadvantaged

person.

The alternatives assessed do allow for the best

practicable environmental option to be determined

and the EAP is of the opinion that no further

alternatives need to be assessed.

What measures were taken to pursue equitable

access to environmental resources, benefits and

services to meet basic human needs and ensure

human wellbeing and what special measures were

taken to ensure access thereto by categories of

persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination?

The proposed development will provide residential

opportunities to numerous individuals and it is not

expected that any categories of people will be

disadvantaged by the development.

What measures were taken to ensure that the

responsibility for the environmental health and

safety consequences of the development has been

addressed throughout the development’s life

cycle?

In identifying the impacts associated with the

development as well as the development of the

EMPr, the full lifecycle was assessed.

Further, the full EMPr includes the roles and

responsibilities for the development and ensures

that the responsibility of the implementation of the

EMPr falls to the developer.


PRISM EMS 97


Guideline

Response

What measures were taken to:

ensure the participation of all interested

and affected parties;

provide all people with an opportunity to

develop the understanding, skills and

capacity necessary for achieving equitable

and effective participation;

ensure participation by vulnerable and

disadvantaged persons;

promote community wellbeing and

empowerment through environmental

education, the raising of environmental

awareness, the sharing of knowledge and

experience and other appropriate means;

ensure openness and transparency, and

access to information in terms of the

process;

ensure that the interests, needs and

values of all interested and affected parties

were taken into account, and that

adequate recognition were given to all

forms of knowledge, including traditional

and ordinary knowledge; and

ensure that the vital role of women and

youth in environmental management and

development were recognised and their

full participation therein were promoted?

A detailed public participation process is being

undertaken as part of the EIA process. Please see

Section 8 for more information on this process.

Considering the interests, needs and values of all

the interested and affected parties, describe how

the development will allow for opportunities for all

the segments of the community (e.g. a mixture of

low- middle-, and high-income housing

opportunities) that is consistent with the priority

needs of the local area (or that is proportional to

the needs of an area).

The proposed development will provide residential

opportunities to numerous individuals and it is not

expected that any categories of people will be

disadvantaged by the development. As mentioned,

the development is also in line with the IDP for the

area.

What measures have been taken to ensure that

current and / or future workers will be informed of

work that potentially might be harmful to human

Please refer to Section 14.7: EMPr which includes

an Environmental Awareness Plan. As part of this,

workers will be informed of their rights to refuse


PRISM EMS 98


Guideline

Response

health or the or the environment or of dangers

associated with the work, and what measures have

been taken to ensure that the right of workers to

refuse such work will be respected and protected?

work that might be harmful to human health or the

environment.

Describe how the development will impact on job

creation in terms of, amongst other aspects:

the number of temporary versus

permanent jobs that will be created;

whether the labour available in the area

will be able to take up the job opportunities

(i.e. do the required skills match the skills

available in the area);

the distance from where labourers will

have to travel;

the location of jobs opportunities versus

the location of impacts (i.e. equitable

distribution of costs and benefits); and

the opportunity costs in terms of job

creation (e.g. a mine might create 100

jobs, but impact on 1000 agricultural jobs,

etc.).

The following can be noted in regard to this:

Approximately 120 jobs will be created

during the construction phase and

approximately 450 during the operational

phase;

Prism EMS have indicated in the EMPr,

contained under Section 14.7, that local

employment should be encouraged to

promote skills transfer and development.

This will enhance the general area and

provide job opportunities to potential job

seekers and manage it in the best suitable

way;

An assessment of the social environment

of the area suggests that there is labour

available in the area;

The proposed development will not result

in any losses of any jobs and job-related

opportunity costs are not expected.

What measures were taken to ensure:

That there were intergovernmental

coordination and harmonisation of policies,

legislation and actions relating to the

environment; and

That actual or potential conflicts of interest

between organs of state were resolved

through conflict resolution procedures?

National Legislation i.e. NEMA, NWA, NHRA,

NEM:BA were consulted in the preparation of this

EIA Report. Provincial guidelines also formed part

of the literature review. Spatial development tools

also aided the EAP to assess and provide

information pertaining to the proposed

development.

Any comments received from I&APs or organs of

state are included in the comments and response

register.

Are the mitigation measures proposed realistic and

what long-term environmental legacy and

managed burden will be left?

The EMPr which has been compiled is site specific

and includes realistic and achievable mitigation

measures which aim to reduce any negative


PRISM EMS 99


Guideline

Response

impacts as well as to enhance any positive benefits

associated with the project.

What measures were taken to ensure that the

costs of remedying pollution, environmental

degradation and consequent adverse health

effects and of preventing, controlling or minimising

further pollution, environmental damage or adverse

health effects will be paid for by those responsible

for harming the environment?

A detailed EMPr has been compiled and includes

detailed roles and responsibilities. In addition, a

penalty system for contractors is included.

Considering the need to secure ecological integrity

and a healthy bio-physical environment, describe

how the alternatives identified (in terms of all the

different impacts being proposed), resulted in the

selection of the best practicable environmental

option in terms of socio-economic considerations?


The Proposal; and

Alternative 1.


was assessed:


undertaken;



Based on the findings of the specialist studies

and impact assessment and taking into

account the successful implementation of the

EMPr, it is felt that Proposal should be

authorised and is the BPEO.

.


PRISM EMS 100

7 ALTERNATIVES

According to the 2014 EIA Regulations, alternatives are defined as:

“Different means of meeting the general purpose and requirements of the activity, which may include

alternatives to the-

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

(b) type of activity to be undertaken;

(c) design or layout of the activity;

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

(e) operational aspects of the activity;

and includes the option of not implementing the activity”

In line with the Regulations, the following alternatives have been assessed for the proposed development:

Layout alternatives; and

The No -Go Option.

Two layout alternatives have been developed and are described in detail in Section 7. However, in order to

understand the development of these alternatives, a summary of the site constraints identified by the

professional team (and then taken into account in the layouts) is provided.

7.1 Site constraints

The town planners that were appointed to apply for the rezoning of the property for the proposed

development evaluated the various land uses and layouts that will be in line with the planning policies and

documents for the area. A preliminary layout based on the evaluation was designed and completed. The

township layout takes into consideration the natural and manmade constraints, to provide a safe and secure

mixed-use development, in line with the client’s development vision (refer to Figure 4).

The design of the township was influenced by the following conditions that affected the development

potential of the site:

Geotechnical conditions: Geotechnical Zones and undermining depths;

Natural conditions: Existing Developments on site;

Surrounding developments; and

Road proposals.

7.1.1.1 Geotechnical conditions

Part of the study area has been undermined and falls within the original boundaries of the Luipaardsvlei

Estate Gold Mine. Although part of the study area is underlain by the mined-out gold bearing Main Reefs,


PRISM EMS 101

the depth to the reef vary from surface outcrop along the northern side of the site, extending to depths in

excess of 700 m below the study area along the southern side. The study area will be affected by the

building restriction zones as enforced by the Department of Mineral Resources (Refer to Table 11 and

Figure 35).

Table 11: Building Restriction Guideline (African Exposed, 2015)

The areas where no development is permitted has therefore, been excluded from the township layout.

In terms of the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) of 1999 site classification system for

geology and soils, the site has been classified as shown in Figure 36.

S Less than 10mm consolidation settlement anticipated;

S1 10 to 20mm total consolidation settlement anticipated.

Area classified S: (Less than 10mm consolidation settlement anticipated).

This area is characterised by a thin horizon of transported soils that overlie residual quartzite that grade

rapidly into very soft and soft rock consistency material within 0.6 to 1.6m of the surface. Negligible

consolidation settlement is anticipated under applied pressures of less than 120kPa and total settlements

of less than 10mm are anticipated. The site is therefore classified S.

It is recommended that structures built on this site should be founded using normal strip footings placed on

dense residual quartzite or on very soft quartzite at a depth of 600mm below current ground level. The

maximum allowable bearing pressure should not exceed 120kPa.

Site Classification S1: (10 to 20mm total consolidation settlement anticipated).

A portion of the site has been classified an S1 and is characterised by a thin surface horizon of transported

soils which is underlain by ferruginised reworked residual quartzite within 1.5m of the surface. Total

consolidation settlement in the order of 10 to 20mm is anticipated under assumed applied pressures of less

than 100kPa. The maximum allowable bearing pressures must not exceed 100kPa.


PRISM EMS 102

Figure 35: Undermining Map of the Remainder of Portion 212 of Luipaartsvlei 246 IQ (Africa Exposed, 2015)


PRISM EMS 103

Figure 36: Geotechnical Map of the Remainder of Portion 212 of Luipaartsvlei 246 (African Exposed, 2015)


PRISM EMS 104

7.1.1.2 Natural conditions: existing developments on the property

Existing developments on the property (Remainder of Portion 212 of the Farm Luipaartsvlei 246 IQ),

excluded some areas for development, particularly in the north-western part of the property, particularly the

West Waste operations.

7.1.1.3 Surrounding developments

Surrounding existing developments that may have an impact on the proposed development influences the

study area where the development is proposed within the property to some degree. E.g. the Luipaardsvlei

Landfill Site and existing and historic mining activities (tailings and quarries) to the south of the study area,

which may have impacts on the proposed development.

7.1.1.4 Road proposals

Various options in terms of access to the proposed development were assessed and influenced the

preferred locality on the property and the layout.

Conceptual access arrangements were proposed by the traffic engineer. The following access

arrangements were proposed:

Residential 1 (Erven 1 to 763)

o One access per erf from adjacent road abutting the site. No direct access permitted from Main

Reef Road (future Road K11), Station Road (future Road K76), Road A, Road B or Road D.

Residential 4 (Erf 764)

o Access from Road F.

o Assume some form of security control at the entrance to the development.

o Two inbound lanes each 3.0m wide unless the lanes are separated by a raised median island,

then one lane should be 4.5m.

o One outbound lane 3.0m wide unless the inbound and outbound lanes are separated by a

raised median island, then the inbound lanes should be 4.5m wide.

o A minimum throat length of 10.0m to be provided between the road reserve and the centre of

the security gate/boom.

o Any vertical structural clearance should be a minimum of 5.2m.

o All bellmouths on public roads to have a minimum radius of 10.0m.


o Access from Road K.



PRISM EMS 105










o Access from Road E.










Educational (Erf 768)

o Access to the school site is proposed from Road F, a potential Class 4 or 5 road, directly

opposite the intersection with Road G. The proposed access point will be located

approximately 520m from the future Road K11 & Road B intersection. This is in line with

Gautrans' "Policy document entitled "Location of schools near major roads in Gauteng".

o One outbound lane and one outbound lane. Assume any security gate will allow for free flow

of traffic during peak hours of development.

o Minimum lane widths to be 3.5m.


the security gate/boom. It is also recommended the security gate/boom to remain in an upright

position during peak traffic flow periods to allow for uninterrupted flows to and from the site.



Educational (Erf 769)

o Access to the site is proposed from Road H, a Class 5 road, and should be provided on the

southern property boundary of the site. The proposed access point will be located

approximately 700m from the future Road K11 & Road B intersection. The access position is


PRISM EMS 106

in line with Gautrans' "Policy document entitled "Location of schools near major roads in

Gauteng";

o One outbound lane and one outbound lane.







Business 1 (Erf 767)

o Access to the site is proposed from Road C.

o The design also allows for an exclusive right-turn lane on Road C.

o Any access control to be setback a minimum distance of 70m from the centre link of Road C.

Final access details to be determined during the site development plan phase.





Institution (Erf 770)

o Access to the site is proposed from Road F and should be provided on the southern property

boundary of the site.









Institution (Erf 771)

o Access to the site is proposed from Road J, 60m north of the centre line of Road C/Road J

intersection.





PRISM EMS 107






7.1.1.5 Environmental Attributes

A sensitivity assessment was undertaken using the C-Plan and rivers, wetlands and vegetation data

sources as well as onsite observations. No sensitive features were observed on the study area, other than

built structures that may potentially be older than 60 years.

Ecological sensitive areas including potential sensitive fauna and flora: No sensitive areas occur

on the study area (Figure 17);

Rivers and Wetlands: No surface waterbody or wetland was observed on the study area (Figure

19)

Heritage and Cultural aspects (Figure 22).

There are therefore, no site constraints in terms of the environment within the study area.

7.1.2 Layout Alternatives

After careful consideration of the above site conditions and planning documents, the following two layout

alternatives have been developed. The two alternatives will be assessed and discussed, and a comparative

assessment will be conducted during the EIA phase of the application.

7.1.2.1 Proposal

The proposed configuration of the proposed development encompasses the following:

±800 erven zoned Residential 1 (one dwelling per erf) = ±17 Ha;

± 3 erven zoned Residential 4 = ± 4 Ha;

± 1 erf zoned Business = ± 1 Ha;

± 2 erven zoned Educational = ± 5 Ha;

± 2 erven zoned Institution ± 1 Ha;

± 25 erven zoned Public Open Space = ± 3 Ha; Street = ± 17 Ha.

Refer to Figure 4.

7.1.2.2 Layout Alternative 1

The alternative configuration of the proposed development encompasses the following:


PRISM EMS 108

±800 erven zoned Residential 1 (one dwelling per erf) = ±17 Ha;

± 3 erven zoned Social Housing = ± 4 Ha;

± 1 erf zoned Business = ± 1 Ha;

± 2 erven zoned Educational = ± 5 Ha;

± 2 erven zoned Special ± 1 Ha;

± 25 erven zoned Public Open Space = ± 3 Ha; and

Street = ± 17 Ha.

The main alteration of the alternative layout from the proposed layout, is the provision of Social Housing,

instead of Residential 4 (High density housing) and the Business land use has been moved from the

northern, middle part of the proposed township to the far west of the township.

.


PRISM EMS 109

Figure 37: Alternative Layout of the Proposed Luipaartsvlei Extension 9 Development


PRISM EMS 110

7.1.3 No-go Option

As standard practice and to satisfy regulatory requirements, the option of not proceeding with the project is

included in the evaluation of the alternatives.

The No-go Alternative assumes that the property will retain its General Zoning. This implies that the site be

left as is and that no development or alteration be done. If this alternative is pursued, the study area’s

existing habitat will be retained. Under this scenario, the following benefits and disadvantages are expected

to occur:

The No-go option will sterilise a prime development area where there is a need for residential and

mixed land uses. In terms of Map 41 of the SDF, the proposed development is located within the

Mogale Urban Development Boundary (UDB), in an area earmarked for residential development

(medium density development);

The potential to provide additional housing, community facilities and employment opportunities to

the population, will be lost;

The demand for housing and supplying new and approved developments will not be possible or

feasible and financial losses could occur;

A viable opportunity to exploit the limited opportunities in the area and creating jobs and income

for the local market will be negated;

By not approving the proposed development, the general area may not be economically uplifted

neither will job opportunities and skills development be encouraged and the decision will not comply

with the planning policies of the area;

Illegal squatters or vagrants could inhabit the site as the local area is currently impacted;

Given the fact that the site will eventually degenerate if left unmanaged, and the fact that it is most

likely unsuitable to be utilised for grazing or agricultural purposes due to the size of the study area

and the high cost thereof, it is reasonable to state that the No-go option is less favourable than the

Proposal; and

The approval will ensure that an EMPr be implemented and that the environmental concerns on

the site will be managed.

The No-go alternative is therefore not preferred.


PRISM EMS 111

8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

8.1 Objectives and Purpose of Public Participation

The purpose of the public participation process is to provide information regarding the proposed project to

any potentially interested and/or affected person for use and consideration throughout the environmental

assessment process. The information usually involves a combination of the technical project scope,

environmental attributes and sensitives, cultural and heritage aspects as well as socio-economic factors

that may be potentially beneficial or problematic to various role players.

The dissemination of such information is intended to assist the public with understanding how the proposed

project and/or development may impact them and the environment in either a positive and/or negative

manner, and especially where impacts are determined or perceived as significantly high, how such impacts

may be influenced by project changes (layout or design aspects) or management measures may be

implemented to reduce or minimise the significance of any identified impacts.

As a registered I&AP, members of the public of any affiliation are awarded the opportunity to remain

informed of the steps, actions and decisions made within the environmental impact assessment process

and are able to actively participate by reviewing all information provided by the EAP to the I&AP’s in a

reasonable period in order to provide comments, objections, suggestions or any other information that will

assist the project to develop in a favourable for all manner or contribute to the competent authority’s

knowledge in order to make an informed decision on the application for environmental authorisation.

8.2 Notification Phase of Public Participation

The public participation process commenced with identifying and notifying all potential Interested and

Affected Parties (I&AP’s). Background information documents and comment forms were provided as a

basic source of information or notices were viewed and potential interested and/or affected members of the

public were invited to register as I&AP’s for the remainder of the Scoping and Environmental Impact

Reporting phases of the process.

8.2.1 Identified I&AP’s

The following potential I&AP’s were identified:

Department of Water and Sanitation;

Sasol;

Mogale City Local Municipality;

Ward Councillor (Ward 14);

South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA);


PRISM EMS 112

Provincial Heritage Resources Agency Gauteng (PHRAG);

Surrounding Landowners / Occupiers; and

DMR.

Refer to for a detailed list of the interested and/or affected members of the public and Organs of State that

is registered as an I&AP.

Please also note that the National Nuclear Regular and West Rand District Municipality have also been

contacted to provide comments on the EIA Report based on the comments from GDARD contained in the

Acceptance of the Scoping Report.

8.2.2 Newspaper Notice

A notice was published in the following newspaper on the specified dates:

Local: The Krugersdorp News newspaper published on the 23rd of March 2018.

Local: The Krugersdorp News newspaper published on the 15th of August 2018, due to the

Applicant name change from Onicatrim Property Projects Proprietary Limited to Luipaardsvlei

Development Partners Proprietary Limited.

Refer to 14.3.2.1 and 14.3.3.1 for proof of the newspaper notices published on 23 March 2018 and 15

August 2018.

8.2.3 Site Notice

Four site notices were placed on the boundary of the study area on 23 March 2018:

Off Main Reef Road at the existing access road to Rand Sandblasting Projects on the northern

boundary of the study area;

Off Main Reef Road at the existing access road to the Luipaardsvlei Landfill Site, FORA and the

Mogale City Hostel at the north-western corner of the study area; and

On Main Reef Road on the barrier to the old removed train tracks on the northern boundary of the

study area; and

Off Tudor Street on the eastern boundary of the study area.

Due to the applicant name change from Onicatrim Property Projects Proprietary Limited to Luipaardsvlei

Development Partners Proprietary Limited, four new site notices were placed at the same locations as

above on 15 August 2018.

Refer to Section 14.3.2.2 and Section 14.3.3.2 for proof of the notices placed on site on 23 March 2018

and 15 August 2018.


PRISM EMS 113

8.2.4 Written Notifications

The surrounding landowners and/or occupiers and organs of state were notified of the proposed

development and environmental application in writing via email on 23 March 2018.

Due to the applicant name change from Onicatrim Property Projects Proprietary Limited to Luipaardsvlei

Development Partners Proprietary Limited and identification of additional Interested and Affected Parties,

all surrounding landowners and/or occupiers and organs of state were again notified in writing via email on

15 August 2018.

Refer to 14.3.2.3 and 14.3.3.3 for proof of the Written Notifications on 23 March 2018 and 15 August 2018.

8.2.5 Comments Raised by Interested and Affected Parties

Comments received during the notification period are summarised in the Comments and Response table

attached in Section 14.3.5.

8.3 Scoping Phase Public Participation

8.3.1 Proof of Notification

All registered I&APs were notified via email of the review period (15 August 2018 to 14 September 2018)

of the Draft Scoping Report. The Draft Scoping Reports were made available to all registered Interested

and Affected Parties for a period of 30 days.

The following authorities were provided with a copy of the Scoping Report:

South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL);

South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA);

The Department of Mineral Resources (DMR);

Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport (GDRT); and

Mogale City Local Municipality.

Proof of notification and submission of the draft scoping report is provided in Section 14.3.3.3.

8.3.2 Comments Raised by I&AP’s during the Review of the Scoping Report

No comments were received during the scoping report review period.

8.4 EIA Phase Public Participation

Upon acceptance of the scoping report by GDARD, the applicant/EAP proceeded with the tasks contained

in the plan of study.


PRISM EMS 114

The Draft EIA Report has been made available to all registered interested and affected parties and relevant

organs of state for a period of 30 days between 02 November 2018 to 03 December 2018. Comments

raised during this review period will be included in the Comments and Responses Report attached in

Appendix of the Final EIA Report to be submitted to GDARD.

The following authorities were provided with a copy of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report:

South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL);

South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) and the Provincial Heritage Resources

Authority Gauteng (PHRAG);

The Department of Mineral Resources (DMR);

Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport (GDRT);

National Nuclear Regulator;

Council or Geoscience;

West Rand District Municipality Environmental Management;

West Rand District Municipality Environmental Health; and

Mogale City Local Municipality.

8.5 Final EIA Report and Competent Authority Decision

All comments received during the comment period, as discussed above will be considered and incorporated

into the Final EIA Report and documented in the Comments and Response Report. The Final EIA Report

will then be submitted to GDARD for decision.

8.6 Outcome of the Decision

Registered I&AP’s will be notified in writing of the outcome of the Department’s decision within 14 days of

the decision. The notification will include details of the process and timeframes in which to appeal the

outcome of the decision made by the competent authority, GDARD.

8.7 Timeframes

An overview of the Scoping and EIA process undertaken to date is provided in Table 12.

Table 12: Timeframes for the EIA process

Responsible

Role Player

Milestone Tasks Required

Time

Period

Proposed

Timeframes

Status

Application Phase

PPP Written, Newspaper, Site Notices &

BID’s

30 days 21 March 2018 – 21

April 2018 ��


PRISM EMS 115

Responsible

Role Player

Milestone Tasks Required

Time

Period

Proposed

Timeframes

Status

EAP Submit Application for

Environmental Authorisation (EA)

N/A 14 August 2018 ��

GDARD Accept/Acknowledge Application

for EA

10 days 24 August 2018 ��

Scoping Phase

EAP Compile Scoping Report (SR) N/A April 2018 – May

2018 ��

PPP I&AP Comment Period on SR 30 days 15 August 2018 – 14

September 2014 ��

EAP Review / Incorporate Comments 1 Week 15 September 2018 –

19 September 2018 ��

GDARD Review SR 43 days 20 September 2018 –

5 November 2018 ��

Impact Assessment Phase

Specialists Ecological Habitat Assessment N/A Mar – Apr 2018 ��

Specialists Heritage Impact Assessment N/A Mar – Apr 2018 ��

Specialists Air Quality Impact Assessment N/A August 2018 –

September 2018 ��

EAP Compile EIA Report N/A August 2018 –

November 2018 ��

PPP I&AP Comment on EIA Report 30 days 2 November 2018 – 3

December 2018

Current

EAP Review / Incorporate Comments 2 weeks 3 December 2018 – 8

December 2018

To Follow

GDARD Review EIA Report and Provide

Decision

106 days 9 December 2018 –

April 2019

To Follow

PPP Notification of Decision / Appeal March 2019 / April

2019

To Follow


PRISM EMS 116

9 SUMMARY OF SPECIALIST STUDIES

One of the most important aspects of the Scoping Phase was the identification of specialist studies required

for the EIA Phase.

The Specialist Studies triggered (a trigger is “a particular characteristic of either the receiving environment

or the proposed project which indicates that there is likely to be an issue and/or potentially significant impact

associated with that proposed development that may require specialist input”) included the following:

Ecological Habitat Assessment;

Heritage Impact Assessment; and

Air Quality Impact Assessment.

In addition, the following technical studies were also undertaken and have also been used to inform the EIA

Report:

Traffic Impact Assessment;

Geotechnical Assessment;

Outline Scheme Report (services report);

Roads and Stormwater Report.

The Guideline for the review of specialist input in EIA processes (Keatimilwe & Ashton, 2005) was used to

ensure that specialist input was incorporated into the EIA Report comprehensively. This included the

incorporation of the following information:

The assumptions and limitations identified in each study are included in Section 9.4;

A summary of each specialist study is/will be provided below and includes information on the key

findings and conclusions drawn;

The Specialists’ impacts assessment, and the identified mitigation measures, were/will be included

in the overall project impact assessment contained in Section 10;

Specialist information was / will be used to assess alternatives and identify the BPEO (Section

10.7);

Specialist input was/will be obtained to address comments made by I&APs that related to specific

environmental features; and

Recommendations made by the specialists were/will be taken forward to the EIA Conclusions and

Recommendations and associated EMPr (Section 11 and Section 14.7).


PRISM EMS 117

9.1 Ecological Habitat Impact Assessment

The key issues and triggers identified during Scoping for the Ecological Assessment include:

Disturbance of natural ecosystems, making them vulnerable to invasion of alien species;

Negative impact due to dust;

Disturbance of fauna in the area.

The details of the Ecological Specialist are as follows:

Prism EMS – Team of specialists

The full Ecological Impact Assessment is appended in 14.4.1.

9.1.1 Scope and Objectives

The scope of the study includes:

Desktop study of the development area on broad scale to determine areas, habitats and species

of concern;

A field survey to investigate key elements of vegetation communities, habitats and species on the

site;

An evaluation of the conservation importance and significance of the site with special emphasis on

the status of threatened species, habitats and communities as stipulated by Gauteng Department

of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD);

Identify potential ecological impacts that could occur because of the development; and

Make recommendations to reduce or minimise impacts, should the development be approved.

The objectives of the ecological habitat assessment are the following:

Determine the occurrence, or possibility of occurrence, of threatened species (both floristic and

faunal taxa);

Determine the sensitivity and conservation importance of the existing habitat in terms of local,

regional or national biodiversity objectives;

Evaluate the study area for the presence of species and characteristics associated with the

endangered Soweto Highveld Grassland vegetation type; and

Determine the ecological condition of the site with respect to function, connectivity and status.

9.1.2 Methods of Investigation

Desktop Assessment


PRISM EMS 118

The Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) was contacted to provide the

Gauteng Conservation plan (C-plan) and information on red data species for the proposed development

site.

The flow of genes and consequently the conservation of biodiversity is dependent on migratory corridors.

Habitat fragmentation can impair the essential genetic movement in a community. It is therefore important

to identify potential migratory corridors and the extent of the impact on the migratory corridors. Aerial

photographs were also used to determine whether the proposed development site may fall within a

migratory corridor.

Literature Review

The current literature was utilised to gain an understanding of the environmental influences presently

affecting the proposed development site. General information on the veld type, climate, geology and soils

and current activity on the site was acquired prior to the field assessment of the property.

A literature review on the habitat of red data listed plant, bird, mammal and butterfly species with a potential

distribution on site was conducted prior to the field assessment to gain a thorough understanding of the

habitat type occupied by these species.

Site Investigation

Date: April 2017 / January 2018

Season: Late summer - Early Autumn / Summer

o Plant Communities and Floral Species Composition: The vegetation of the proposed

development site was stratified during a reconnaissance ‘walkabout’ and by means of an

aerial photograph.

o Exotic and Invader Species: Any exotic and invasive species identified during the field

assessment were noted. Plants were identified to species level wherever possible. Faunal

species were recorded as per observation.

o Ecological Status of Site: Ecological status can be defined as the present state of

vegetation and soil protection of a site in relation to the potential natural community for the

site. Vegetation status is the expression of the relative degree to which the kind,

proportions, and amounts of plants in a community resemble that of the potential natural

community.

To determine the ecological status of the site, the following was considered:

The species diversity:

The proportion of species typical of the natural vegetation type. These species increase

the ecological status of the site and the proportion of these species is therefore multiplied

by 1 to get a species rating.


PRISM EMS 119

The proportion of exotic and invader species. These species reduce the ecological status

of the site and the proportion of these species is multiplied by 0.1 to get a species rating.

The proportion of indigenous species (excluding species typical of the natural vegetation

type). These species increase the ecological status of the site, though it carries less weight

than the species typical of the natural vegetation type. The proportion of these species is

therefore multiplied by 0.5 to get a species rating.

The categories given in Table 13 were used to determine the Ecological Status of each community in the

site:

Table 13: Ecological status categories

Ecological status Score

TOTALLY DEGRADED 0-10%

VERY POOR 10-20%

POOR 20-30%

MODERATELY POOR 30-40%

AVERAGE 40-50%

FAIR 50-60%

GOOD 60-70%

VERY GOOD 70-80%

EXCELLENT 80-90%

NEAR PRISTINE 90-100%

Faunal habitat assessment

A desktop study was undertaken to gather background information on the property and the faunal

species with a potential distribution within the proposed development site. This information and further

literature reviews were used to determine the possibility of occurrence for the species of concern for

the proposed development site and surrounding areas. This information incorporated (amongst others)

data on vegetation types, habitat suitability, biodiversity potential and species-specific information.

Faunal species were recorded as per observation during site visit. No long-term trapping or monitoring

was conducted for this survey.

Impact assessment methodology

The impact assessment methodology used for the EIA was also used for the Ecological Habitat

Assessment.

9.1.3 Key findings


development site (Figure 16Figure 17). The proposed development site is composed of highly transformed


PRISM EMS 120

landscapes and fragmented grassland and contains no sensitive features (Figure 17). The transformed

landscapes are not considered to be sensitive, because natural vegetation is either highly transformed or

absent. The sensitivity of the remaining grasslands is considered low, because although it occurs in an

endangered veld type and could possibly support 4 red data list plant species, 1 red data list mammal

species and 1 red data list bird species, the ecological status of the remaining grasslands is ‘moderately

poor’ and no red data species have been observed. Furthermore, the fragmented condition of these

grasslands results in poor ecological functioning, limited possibilities for species migration and cross

pollination. The overall ecological status of the site is classified as: PES = VERY POOR. Land use activities

on site and in the surroundings, have likely reduced the number of faunal species that previously inhabited

the area.

9.2 Heritage Impact Assessment

The key issues and triggers identified during Scoping for the Heritage Impact Assessment include:

Potential impacts to heritage resources.

The details of the Heritage Specialist are as follows:

Jaco van der Walt: Archaeologist

- Qualifications: MA (Archaeology)

- Experience: 18 Years

- Accreditation:

o Field Director: Iron Age Archaeology;

o Field Supervisor: Colonial Period Archaeology, Stone Age Archaeology and

Grave Relocation;

o Accredited CRM Archaeologist with SAHRA

o Accredited CRM Archaeologist with AMAFA

o Co-opted council member for the CRM Section of the Association of Southern

African Association Professional Archaeologists (2011 – 2012).

The full Heritage Impact Assessment is appended in Section 14.4.2.

9.2.1 Terms of Reference

Field study

Conduct a field study to: (a) locate, identify, record, photograph and describe sites of archaeological,

historical or cultural interest; b) record GPS points of sites/areas identified as significant areas; c) determine

the levels of significance of the various types of heritage resources affected by the proposed development.


PRISM EMS 121

Reporting

Report on the identification of anticipated and cumulative impacts the operational units of the proposed

project activity may have on the identified heritage resources for all 3 phases of the project; i.e.,

construction, operation and decommissioning phases. Consider alternatives, should any significant sites

be impacted adversely by the proposed project. Ensure that all studies and results comply with the relevant

legislation, SAHRA minimum standards and the code of ethics and guidelines of ASAPA.

To assist the developer in managing the discovered heritage resources in a responsible manner, and to

protect, preserve, and develop them within the framework provided by the National Heritage Resources Act

of 1999 (Act No 25 of 1999).

9.2.2 Methods of Investigations

Literature Review

A brief survey of available literature was conducted to extract data and information on the area in question

to provide general heritage context into which the development would be set. This literature search included

published material, unpublished commercial reports and online material, including reports sourced from the

South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS).

Genealogical Society and Google Earth Monuments

Google Earth and 1:50 000 maps of the area were utilised to identify possible places where sites of heritage

significance might be located; these locations were marked and visited during the field work phase. The

database of the Genealogical Society was consulted to collect data on any known graves in the area.

Public Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement is a key component of any EIA process, it involves stakeholders interested in, or

affected by the proposed development. Stakeholders are provided with an opportunity to raise issues of

concern (for the purposes of this report only heritage related issues will be included). The aim of the public

consultation process was to capture and address any issues raised by community members and other

stakeholders during key stakeholder and public meetings. The process involved:

o Placement of advertisements and site notices;

o Stakeholder notification (through the dissemination of information and meeting invitations);

o Stakeholder meetings undertaken with I&APs;

o Authority Consultation;

o The compilation of a Scoping report and Environmental Impact Report and opportunity for

I&Aps to comment on the draft reports.

o The compilation of a Comments and Response Report (CRR).


PRISM EMS 122

Site Investigation

Conduct a field study to: a) systematically survey the proposed project area to locate, identify, record,

photograph and describe sites of archaeological, historical or cultural interest; b) record GPS points of

sites/areas identified as significant areas; c) determine the levels of significance of the various types of

heritage resources recorded in the project area.

The site investigation was conducted on 13 June 2017 in early winter – vegetation in the study area is low

and archaeological visibility is high. The impact area was sufficiently covered to adequately record the

presence of heritage resources.

Site Significance and Field Rating

Section 3 of the NHRA distinguishes nine criteria for places and objects to qualify as ‘part of the national

estate’ if they have cultural significance or other special value. These criteria are:

o Its importance in/to the community, or pattern of South Africa’s history;

o Its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of South Africa’s natural or

cultural heritage;

o Its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa’s

natural or cultural heritage;

o Its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of South

Africa’s natural or cultural places or objects;

o Its importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or

cultural group;

o Its importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a

particular period;

o Its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social,

cultural or spiritual reasons;

o Its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of

importance in the history of South Africa;

o Sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa.

The presence and distribution of heritage resources define a ‘heritage landscape’. In this landscape, every

site is relevant. In addition, because heritage resources are non-renewable, heritage surveys need to

investigate an entire project area, or a representative sample, depending on the nature of the project. In

the case of the proposed project the local extent of its impact necessitates a representative sample and

only the footprint of the areas demarcated for development were surveyed. In all initial investigations,

however, the specialists are responsible only for the identification of resources visible on the surface. This

section describes the evaluation criteria used for determining the significance of archaeological and

heritage sites. The following criteria were used to establish site significance with cognisance of Section 3

of the NHRA:


PRISM EMS 123

o The unique nature of a site;

o The integrity of the archaeological/cultural heritage deposits;

o The wider historic, archaeological and geographic context of the site;

o The location of the site in relation to other similar sites or features;

o The depth of the archaeological deposit (when it can be determined/is known);

o The preservation condition of the sites; and

o Potential to answer present research questions.

In addition to this criteria field ratings prescribed by SAHRA (2006), and acknowledged by ASAPA for the

SADC region, were used for the purpose of this report.

Field Rating Grade Significance Recommended Mitigation

National Significance (NS) Grade 1 - Conservation; national site

nomination

Provincial Significance (PS) Grade 2 - Conservation; provincial site

nomination

Local Significance (LS) Grade 3A High significance Conservation; mitigation not

advised

Local Significance (LS) Grade 3B High significance Mitigation (part of site should

be retained)

Generally Protected A (GP.

A)

- High/medium

significance

Mitigation before destruction

Generally Protected B (GP.

B)

- Medium significance Recording before destruction

Generally Protected C (GP.C) - Low significance Destruction

9.2.3 Key findings

In terms of the built environment, three structures were identified in the study area namely two residential

structures and a third feature comprising demolished mining infrastructure (indicated on Figure 22 as LPV1

to LPV3). The age of these structures is unknown, but it is highly likely that the residential structures are

older than 60 years. According to archival maps mining infrastructure was constructed from 1913 and

structures in the study area could be older than 60 years and would then be protected by the NHRA. The

age of standing structures in the study area should be confirmed and if older than 60 years a destruction

permit will be required from the PHRAG.



Therefore, no further mitigation prior to construction was recommended by the specialist in terms of Section

35 for the proposed development to proceed.


PRISM EMS 124

In terms of Section 36 of the Act no known grave sites are on record close to the study area and no burial

sites were recorded. However, graves may be discovered in future. If any graves are located in future, they

should ideally be preserved in-situ or alternatively relocated according to existing legislation.



sense of place are also considered to be low due to the extensive developments in the area. There are no

battlefields or related concentration camp sites, or any public monuments located in the study area.

Potential Impacts

The chances of impacting unknown archaeological sites in the study area is considered to be negligible.

Any direct impacts that did occur would be during the construction phase only and would be of very low

significance. Cumulative impacts occur from the combination of effects of various impacts on heritage

resources. The importance of identifying and assessing cumulative impacts is that the whole is greater than

the sum of its parts. In the case of the development, it will, with the recommended mitigation measures and

management actions, not impact any heritage resources directly. However, this and other projects in the

area could have an indirect impact on the heritage landscape. The lack of any heritage resources in the

immediate area minimises additional impact on the landscape.

9.2.4 Conclusion

The general area was exposed to several mining activities and developments since the discovery of gold

in the 1980’s and changed the face of this region. The study area is characterised by several businesses

and an old hostel complex. A disused and removed railway line also traverses other parts of the proposed

site as do several power lines. A gas line also crosses the proposed site from east to west. The study area

is not fenced off which leads to easy access. This resulted in several mounds of illegally dumped material

across the site. The study area is open, and this allows artisanal miners access to illegal mining activities.

All of these activities would have impacted on surface indicators of heritage features and no archaeological

sites or material was recorded during the survey and based on the SAHRIS Paleontological Sensitivity Map

the area is of low paleontological significance. Therefore, no further mitigation prior to construction is

recommended in terms of Section 35 for the proposed development to proceed.

In terms of the built environment, two residential dwellings (Feature 1 & 2) and partially demolished mining

related structures (Feature 3) occur in the study area. According to archival maps mining infrastructure was

constructed from 1913 and structures in the study area could be older than 60 years and would then be

protected by the NHRA. The age of standing structures in the study area should be confirmed and if older

than 60 years a destruction permit will be required from the PHRAG.

In terms of Section 36 of the Act no burial sites were recorded. However, if any graves are located in future

they should ideally be preserved in-situ or alternatively relocated according to existing legislation. No public

monuments are located within or close to the study area. The study area is surrounded by industrial and


PRISM EMS 125

residential developments and road infrastructure developments and the proposed residential development

will not impact negatively on significant cultural landscapes or viewscapes. During the public participation

process conducted for the project no heritage concerns was raised.

From a heritage perspective, the proposed project is acceptable. If the above recommendations are

adhered to and based on approval from SAHRA, HCAC is of the opinion that the development can continue

as the development will not impact negatively on the heritage record of the area.


PRISM EMS 126

9.3 Air Quality Impact Assessment

The key issues and triggers identified during Scoping for the Ecological Assessment include:

Dust and vehicle and equipment emissions during construction;

Impact of surrounding land uses (e.g. landfill site, mine tailings storage facilities and waste rock

dumps on the proposed development;

Vehicle emissions.

The details of the Air Quality Specialist are as follows:

Vladimir Jovic: VJ Air Modelling Services (Pty) Ltd

- Qualifications: B.A. Hons. Town and Regional Planning (University of Belgrade, Republic

of Serbia) and several air dispersion modelling courses.

- Experience: 14 Years

- Accreditation: Pr.Sci.Nat. (400054/17)

The full Air Quality Impact Assessment is appended in Section 14.4.3.

9.3.1 Scope of Work

The purpose of this investigation is to determine baseline air quality conditions, identify sensitive receptors

and quantify and assess the potential impact that the receiving environment may have on the proposed

development area.

The following tasks, typical of an air quality impact assessment, are included in the scope of work:

A review of surrounding activities in order to identify sources of emissions and associated

pollutants;

A study of regulatory requirements and inhalation thresholds for identified key pollutants against

which compliance need to be assessed and health risks screened;

A study of the environment in the vicinity of the proposed development; including:

o The identification of potential sensitive receptors (SRs);

o A study of the atmospheric dispersion potential of the area taking into consideration

local meteorology, land-use and topography; and

o The analysis of all available ambient air quality information/data to determine pre-

development ambient pollutant levels and dustfall rates.

The compilation of a comprehensive emissions inventory:

o Pollutants quantified will include particulate matter (TSP, PM10 and PM2.5).

Atmospheric dispersion modelling to simulate ambient air pollutant concentrations and dustfall

rates as a result of the TSFs.

A screening assessment to determine:


PRISM EMS 127

o Compliance of simulated criteria pollutant concentrations with ambient air quality

standards; and

o Nuisance dustfall.

The compilation of a comprehensive air quality specialist report detailing the study approach, limitations,

assumptions, results and recommendations.

9.3.2 Methods of Investigation

The approach and methodology followed in the completion of tasks included in the scope of work are

discussed below:

Project Information and Activity Review

All project related information referred to in this study was provided by Prism EMS.

The Identification of Regulatory Requirements and Screening Criteria

In the evaluation of ambient air quality impacts and dustfall rates reference was made to:

o South African National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and

o National Dust Control Regulations (NDCR) as set out in the National Environmental

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

Study of the Receiving Environment

An understanding of the atmospheric dispersion potential of the area is essential to an air quality impact

assessment.

Site specific MM5 modelled meteorological data set for full three calendar years (2015 – 2017) was obtained

from the Lakes Environmental Consultants in Canada to determine local prevailing weather conditions. This

dataset consists of surface data, as well as upper air meteorological data that is required to run the

dispersion model. It is required if site specific surface and upper air meteorological data is not available.

The Pennsylvania State University / National Centre for Atmospheric Research (PSU/NCAR) meso-scale

model (known as MM5) is a limited-area, non-hydrostatic, terrain-following sigma-coordinate model

designed to simulate or predict meso-scale atmospheric circulation. This data has been tested extensively

and has been found to be extremely accurate.

Modelled meteorological data for the period January 2015 to December 2017 was obtained for a point close

to the proposed site (26.116667 S, 27.794444 E). Data availability was 100%. Generally, a data set of

greater than 90% (taken to be the same as that stipulated for pollutant data availability (SANS, 2005)) is

required in order for that month/year to be considered representative of the assessed area.

According to the dispersion modelling guidelines (Government Gazette, 2014) mesoscale models offer an

alternative to meteorological measurements as input for Gaussian- plume models and advanced dispersion


PRISM EMS 128

models. Mesoscale models use gridded meteorological data and sophisticated physics algorithms to

produce meteorological fields at defined horizontal grid resolutions and in multiple vertical levels over a

large domain. A number of meteorological model datasets covering South Africa are available from a

number of vendors. The Code of Practice refrains from recommending specific datasets but encourages

modellers to use data from the United Kingdom Meteorological Office Unified Model (MetUM), Weather

Research and Forecasting (WRF), The Air Pollution Model (TAPM) and the 5th-generation Mesoscale

Model (MM5).

Determining the Impact of the Project on the Receiving Environment

The establishment of a comprehensive emission inventory formed the basis for the assessment of the air

quality impacts from the TSFs on the receiving environment. Emission quantification to determine the

possible emissions from surrounding TSF’s was done using the emission factors published by the US-EPA

and Australian NPI.

Compliance Assessment

Compliance was assessed by comparing simulated ambient criteria pollutant concentrations (PM2.5 and

PM10) and dustfall rates to selected ambient air quality and dustfall criteria.

Impact Significance

The significance of impacts was determined in line with the requirements for impact assessment as

outlined in the NEMA.

The Development of an Air Quality Management Plan

The findings of the above components informed recommendations of air quality management measures,

including mitigation and reporting.

9.3.3 Results

Dispersion modelling was undertaken to determine the highest daily and annual average ground level

concentrations, as well as deposition (dustfall) rates for each of the pollutants considered in the study.

Averaging periods were selected to facilitate the comparison of predicted pollutant concentrations to

relevant ambient air quality and inhalation health criteria, as well as National Dust Control Regulations.

Results are primarily provided in form of isopleths to present areas of exceedance of assessment criteria.

Ground level concentration or dustfall isopleths presented in this section depict interpolated values from

the deposition/dustfall rates simulated by AERMOD for each of the receptor grid points specified. Isopleth

plots reflect the incremental ground level concentrations (GLCs) for PM2.5 and PM10, as well as dustfall

rates for Total Suspended Particulates (TSP).


PRISM EMS 129

Dispersion Simulation Results and Nuisance Screening (Incremental)

Pollutants with the potential to result in human health impacts and assessed in this study include PM2.5 and

PM10. TSP (as dustfall) is assessed for its nuisance effects.

The impacts due to the TSFs and sand dumps are regarded as incremental baseline impacts, because they

fall under baseline conditions, but should not be considered as the overall baseline level for the area. The

maximum simulated annual average and highest daily PM2.5, PM10 and TSP impacts (over the entire

modelling grid of 10 km), are presented in Figure 38 to Figure 42. Results are shown for all TSFs and sand

dumps. Table 14 gives a summary of compliance with the NAAQS and the National Dust Control

Regulations (NDCR).

Table 14: Predicted PM10, PM2.5 and TSP (dustfall) Ground Level Concentrations at identified

sensitive receptors

Incremental concentrations

Pollutant PM10 PM2.5 TSP

Averaging period 24-Hours Year 24-Hours Year Monthly

Standard 75 40 40 20 600

Unit µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 mg/m2/day

Atlhogang Primary School 6.14 0.91 0.93 0.14 1873

Boipelo Intermediary Primary School 4.04 0.55 0.61 0.08 1170

Bosele Intermediate Primary School 3.74 0.41 0.56 0.06 1096

Diphalane Primary School 2.74 0.16 0.41 0.02 324

Khaselihle Primary School 1.52 0.16 0.23 0.02 612

Krugersdorp Town Primary School 3.09 0.19 0.47 0.03 482

Laerskool Culembeeck Primary School 1.02 0.08 0.15 0.01 180

Laerskool Dr. HAVINGA 0.82 0.05 0.12 0.01 142

Laerskool Kenmare 0.57 0.05 0.09 0.01 186

Laerskool Paardekraal Primary School 2.54 0.20 0.38 0.03 566

Laerskool Roodebeeck 0.68 0.07 0.10 0.01 147

Lengau Primary School 6.09 0.81 0.92 0.12 1894

Lewisham Primary School 4.66 0.39 0.70 0.06 716

Matlhasedi Primary School 5.63 0.64 0.85 0.10 1834

Mofundi/John Martin Primary School 0.62 0.11 0.09 0.02 314

Monument Primary School 0.64 0.06 0.10 0.01 238

Phatudi Primary School 2.77 0.16 0.42 0.02 320

Princess Primary School 0.80 0.07 0.12 0.01 151

Sandile Primary School 2.48 0.25 0.37 0.04 921

Setlolamathe Primary School 4.72 0.69 0.71 0.10 1463

Silverfields Primary School 2.33 0.16 0.35 0.02 343

Thembile Primary School 2.26 0.25 0.33 0.04 1026


PRISM EMS 130

Incremental concentrations

Pollutant PM10 PM2.5 TSP

Averaging period 24-Hours Year 24-Hours Year Monthly

Standard 75 40 40 20 600

Unit µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 mg/m2/day

Thusong Primary School 0.72 0.11 0.11 0.02 303

Tsholetsega Public Primary School 0.71 0.10 0.11 0.02 331

WD Oliphant Primary School 3.41 0.50 0.52 0.08 1016

West Rand Primary Mine School 1.96 0.22 0.28 0.03 1010

Curro High School 1.04 0.07 0.16 0.01 120

Hoërskool Adelaar 0.45 0.03 0.07 0.00 113

Hoërskool Jan De Klerk 3.26 0.22 0.49 0.03 590

Hoërskool Noordheuwel 0.59 0.05 0.09 0.01 147

HTS Nic Diederichs THS 2.76 0.17 0.42 0.03 401

Kagiso Senior Secondary School 1.55 0.15 0.22 0.02 532

Krugersdorp High School 0.47 0.05 0.07 0.01 199

Mosupatsela Secondary School 6.11 0.87 0.92 0.13 1925

Princess High School 0.35 0.03 0.05 0.00 96

S.G Mafaesa Senior Secondary School 3.85 0.60 0.58 0.09 1202

St Ursula's Convent School Krugersdorp 3.05 0.20 0.46 0.03 490

Townview High School 2.60 0.18 0.39 0.03 430

Vine Christian Secondary School 2.62 0.13 0.39 0.02 276

Central Clinic 3.44 0.23 0.52 0.03 645

Execu Med Sub Acute Clinic 3.54 0.25 0.53 0.04 700

Netcare Bell Street Hospital 0.82 0.06 0.12 0.01 160

Netcare Krugersdorp Hospital 4.59 0.29 0.69 0.04 773

P L G Herbberg 0.84 0.06 0.13 0.01 112

Luipaardsvlei Tehuis Vir Bejaardes 3.43 0.33 0.52 0.05 702

Krugersdorp Council for the Care of the

Aged 4.77 0.29 0.72 0.04 804

Moria Sentrum Old Age Home 2.80 0.18 0.42 0.03 365

S A V F Moreglans Ouetehuis Vir

Bejaardes 2.71 0.18 0.41 0.03 435

Curro School Krugersdorp 0.78 0.05 0.12 0.01 102

ProPracticum Special Needs School 3.74 0.22 0.56 0.03 450

Rant en Dal Special Needs School 3.00 0.16 0.45 0.02 385

St Ursula's School 3.15 0.19 0.48 0.03 422

Westcol College 2.37 0.15 0.36 0.02 1873


PRISM EMS 131

The Regulations for Air Dispersion Modelling (DEA, 2014), recommend the use of the 99th percentile

concentrations for short-term assessment with the NAAQS, since the highest predicted ground-level

concentrations can be considered outliers due to complex variability of meteorological processes. This

might cause exceptionally high concentrations that the facility may never actually exceed in its lifetime.

Isopleth plots of daily and annual average PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations and daily average dry dust

deposition (over a 30-day period) for proposed development are presented in the section below. Isopleth

plots of daily and annual average PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations for proposed development are given in

the section below. For daily averaging periods, the predicted 99th percentile concentrations are provided

as per Modelling Regulations Comparison of the predicted PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations have been made

with the NAAQS (where applicable) to determine compliance. Comparison of the predicted TSP (as dust

fallout deposition) values is made with the NDCR to determine compliance. Ambient air standards are

applied to areas considered residential.

The 99th percentile results (24 hours) are graphically presented as concentration isopleths, indicating the

short-term concentrations at each grid point. The modelling scenarios considered in the modelling

assessment for the proposed development are summarised in Table 15.

Table 15: Dispersion modelling scenarios for the different pollutants

POLLUTANT MODELLED AS

SHORT TERM LONG TERM

PM10 99th percentile 24-hour mean Annual mean

PM2.5 99th percentile 1-hour mean Annual mean

Dust Deposition daily average (over a 30-day

period)


PRISM EMS 132

Figure 38: Simulated 99th percentile daily PM10 concentrations (µg/m3) due to TSFs and sand dumps near the proposed development (NAAQS is 75 µg/m3)


PRISM EMS 133

Figure 39: Simulated 99th percentile annual average PM10 concentrations (µg/m3) due to TSFs and sand dumps near the proposed development (NAAQS is 40 µg/m3).


PRISM EMS 134

Figure 40: Simulated 99th percentile daily PM2.5 concentrations (µg/m3) due to TSFs and sand dumps near the proposed development (NAAQS is 40 µg/m3)


PRISM EMS 135

Figure 41: Simulated 99th percentile annual average PM2.5 concentrations (µg/m3) due to TSFs and sand dumps near the proposed development (NAAQS is 25 µg/m3)


PRISM EMS 136

Figure 42: Dust fallout (mg/m2/day) due TSFs and sand dumps near the proposed development (NDCR Standard is 600 mg/m2/day averaged over 30 days in residential areas)


PRISM EMS 137

9.3.4 Key findings

The main findings of the assessment are summarised below:

The receiving environment:

o The proposed development area is dominated by winds from the northerly sector. An average

wind speed of 3.82 m/s was extracted for the site from the MM5 data set with wind speeds

exceeding 6.7 m/s (the threshold wind speed likely to result in dust emissions from gold TSFs)

6.39% of the time.

o Surrounding areas where ambient air quality data is available show PM10 concentrations

exceeding the NAAQS.

Impact of the TSFs and sand dumps:

o Sources of emissions quantified included windblown dust from the TSFs and sand dumps

surrounding the proposed development.

o PM emissions (PM2.5, PM10 and TSP) were quantified using verified methods and utilised in

dispersion simulations.

o For wind erosion to occur, the wind speed needs to exceed a certain threshold, called the friction

velocity. Literature indicates a wind speed of around 6.7 m/s to result in windblown emissions

from gold TSFs. The threshold wind speed for this study is 5.4 m/s (conservative approach).

o Simulated highest daily and annual average PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations, as a result of

windblown dust from the TSFs and sand dumps, are low and below the respective ambient air

quality standards.

o The worst-case unmitigated scenario shows the same conclusion regarding compliance,

however, in reality the TSFs and sand dumps have vegetative cover to a certain extent, which

means that simulated concentrations of the pollutant of interest can only be lower than modelled

in this study:

o A significance rating of ‘low’ was assigned to potential inhalation health impacts and dustfall

effects for the proposed development site. With mitigation measures in place, such as vegetation

or rock cladding, the significance could be reduced further for the proposed development site.

9.3.5 Conclusion

In conclusion, existing TSFs and sand dumps are likely to result in the highest impacts if no mitigation

measures, such as water sprays, are applied, but this impact will not likely extend to the proposed

development site. However, rehabilitation or re-mining of TSFs and sand dumps, would be required to

ensure long-term compliance for the immediate areas surrounding the TSFs and sand dumps.


PRISM EMS 138

9.4 Assumptions and Limitations Identified by Specialists

The impacts identified as part of the various specialist studies have heavily influenced the impact

assessment included in the EIA. As such, it is important to note the assumptions and limitations identified

by the various specialists:

9.4.1 Ecological Habitat Assessment Limitations

The following limitations apply to the study:

The assessment of red data listed species was limited to a habitat assessment to determine the

possibility of occurrence;

The adjacent areas were not surveyed during the site investigation but was considered during the

desktop assessment;

Species lists were compiled along transects that represented all plant communities but is not an

exhaustive list of plant species occurring on site;

Sampling, by nature, implies that not all species in a study area will be recorded due to factors such

as plant phenology as affected by seasonality, seasonal climatic conditions, microhabitats and both

historical and current management practices;

Field assessment notes are supplemented by making use of literature sources and existing data

bases (SANBI/GDARD, Reference books, Articles etc.); and

The main ecological and floristic observations, forming the basis for recommendations and / or any

delineation, are, however, based on the field assessment observations.

9.4.2 Heritage Impact Assessment Limitations

The following limitations with respect to the NEMA Risk Assessment are applicable to the report:

The authors acknowledge that the brief literature review is not exhaustive on the literature of the area. Due

to the subsurface nature of archaeological artefacts, the possibility exists that some features or artefacts

may not have been discovered/recorded during the survey and the possible occurrence of unmarked graves

and other cultural material cannot be excluded. Similarly, the depth of the deposit of heritage sites cannot

be accurately determined due its subsurface nature. This report only deals with the footprint area of the

proposed development and consisted of non-intrusive surface surveys. This study did not assess the impact

on medicinal plants and intangible heritage as it is assumed that these components would have been

highlighted through the public consultation process if relevant. It is possible that new information could

come to light in future, which might change the results of this Impact Assessment.

9.4.3 Air Quality Impact Assessment Limitations

The following limitations with respect to the Air Quality Impact Assessment are applicable to the report:


PRISM EMS 139

Assumptions, Exclusions and Uncertainties

The following important assumptions, exclusions and uncertainties to the specialist study should be noted:

o Meteorological data from a data point for the project site for the period 2015-2017 was

extracted from the MM5 data set.

o The impact assessment was limited to criteria particulates (including TSP, PM10 and PM2.5).

o Constructional phase impacts of the proposed development were not quantified. These

impacts are expected to be of short duration.

o There will always be some degree of uncertainty in any geophysical model, but it is

desirable to structure the model in such a way to minimize the total error. A model

represents the most likely outcome of an ensemble of experimental results. The total

uncertainty can be thought of as the sum of three components: the uncertainty due to

errors in the model physics; the uncertainty due to data errors; and the uncertainty due to

stochastic processes (turbulence) in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, dispersion modelling

is generally accepted as a scientific and valuable tool in air quality management.

Gaps in Knowledge

The following was identified as gaps in knowledge during the specialist study and should be noted:

The quantification of sources of emission was restricted to the TSFs identified in the study scope.

Hence, only incremental impacts due to PM10 and PM2.5, as well as incremental dustfall effects

were simulated from the TSFs. Other sources in the area (e.g. domestic fuel combustion,

smelters, mining activities, landfilling), could also be contributing to the ambient air.


PRISM EMS 140

10 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

10.1 Overall Impact Assessment

This section focuses on the potential environmental impacts that could be caused by the proposed

Luipaardsvlei Ext 9 development.

An ‘impact’ refers to the change to the environment resulting from an environmental aspect (or activity),

whether desirable or undesirable. An impact may be the direct or indirect consequence of an activity. From

a qualitative perspective, impacts were identified as follows:

Impacts associated with listed activities contained in GN 983-985 of 4 December 2014 (Listing

Notice, 1, 2 and 3) [as amended in 2017], for which authorisation has been applied for;

An assessment of the project activities and components; and

Issues highlighted by I&APs (both the general public and authorities).

In addition to the above more qualitative descriptions of impacts, a more detailed quantitative assessment

of impacts is also provided and specifically considers impacts to the receiving environment (Section 5) and

the findings from Specialist Studies (Section 9). This quantitative impact assessment uses the impact

assessment methodology discussed in the approved Scoping Report and Plan of Study for the EIA. A

summary of the methodology is provided below.

10.2 Impact Assessment Methodology

The standard methodology used in the environmental impact assessment to determine the significance

rating of the potential impacts are outlined in this section.

10.2.1 Significance

The significance of an impact is defined as the combination of the consequence of the impact occurring

and the probability that the impact will occur. The nature and type of impact may be direct or indirect and

may also be positive or negative, refer to Table 16 for the specific definitions.


PRISM EMS 141

Table 16: Nature and type of impact.

IMP

AC

T

Nature and Type of Impact:

Direct Impacts that are caused directly by the activity and generally occur at the same time and place as the activity

��/

Indirect Indirect or induced changes that may occur because of the activity. These include all impacts that do not manifest immediately when the activity is undertaken, or which occur at a different place as a result of the activity

��/

Cumulative Those impacts associated with the activity which add to, or interact synergistically with existing impacts of past or existing activities, and include direct or indirect impacts which accumulate over time and space

��/

Positive Impacts affect the environment in such a way that natural, cultural and / or social functions and processes will benefit significantly, and includes neutral impacts (those that are not considered to be negative

��

Negative Impacts affect the environment in such a way that natural, cultural and/or social functions and processes will be comprised

Table 17 presents the defined criteria used to determine the consequence of the impact occurring which

incorporates the extent, duration and intensity (severity) of the impact.


PRISM EMS 142

Table 17: Consequence of the Impact occurring

CO

NS

EQ

UE

NC

E

Extent of Impact:

Site Impact is limited to the site and immediate surroundings, within the study site boundary or property (immobile impacts)

Neighbouring Impact extends across the site boundary to adjacent properties (mobile impacts)

Local Impact occurs within a 5km radius of the site

Regional Impact occurs within a provincial boundary

National Impact occurs across one or more provincial boundaries

Duration of Impact:

Incidental The impact will cease almost immediately (within weeks) if the activity is stopped, or may occur during isolated or sporadic incidences

Short-term The impact is limited to the construction phase, or the impact will cease within 1 - 2 years if the activity is stopped

Medium-term The impact will cease within 5 years if the activity is stopped

Long-term The impact will cease after the operational life of the activity, either by natural processes or by human intervention

Permanent Where mitigation either by natural process or by human intervention will not occur in such a way or in such a time span that the impact can be considered

transient

Intensity or Severity of Impact:

Low Impacts affect the environment in such a way that natural, cultural and/or social functions and processes are not affected

Low-Medium Impacts affect the environment in such a way that natural, cultural and/or social functions and processes are modified insignificantly

Medium Impacts affect the environment in such a way that natural, cultural and/or social functions and processes are altered

Medium-High Impacts affect the environment in such a way that natural, cultural and / or social functions and processes are severely altered

High Impacts affect the environment in such a way that natural, cultural and / or social functions and processes will permanently cease

The probability of the impact occurring is the likelihood of the impacts actually occurring and is determined

based on the classification provided in Table 18.


PRISM EMS 143

Table 18: Probability and confidence of impact prediction.

PR

OB

AB

ILIT

Y

Probability of Potential Impact Occurrence:

Improbable The possibility of the impact materialising is very low either because of design or historic experience

Possible The possibility of the impact materialising is low either because of design or historic experience

Likely There is a possibility that the impact will occur

Highly Likely There is a distinct possibility that the impact will occur

Definite The impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures

The significance of the impact is determined by considering the consequence and probability without

taking into account any mitigation or management measures and is then ranked according to the ratings

listed in Table 19. The level of confidence associated with the impact prediction is also considered as low,

medium or high and is described in Table 20.

Table 19: Significance rating of the impact.

SIG

NIF

ICA

NC

E

Significance Ratings:

Low Neither environmental nor social and cultural receptors will be adversely affected by the impact. Management measures are usually not provided for low impacts

Low-Medium

Management measures are usually encouraged to ensure that the impacts remain of Low-Medium significance. Management measures may be proposed to ensure

that the significance ranking remains low-medium

Medium Natural, cultural and/or social functions and processes are altered by the activities, and management measures must be provided to reduce the significance rating

Medium-High

Natural, cultural and/or social functions and processes are altered significantly by the activities, although management measures may still be feasible

High Natural, cultural, and/or social functions and processes are adversely affected by the activities. The precautionary approach will be adopted for all high significant

impacts and all possible measures must be taken to reduce the impact

Table 20: Level of confidence of the impact prediction.

CO

NF

IDE

NC

E Level of Confidence in the Impact Prediction:

Low Less than 40% sure of impact prediction due to gaps in specialist knowledge and/or availability of information

Medium Between 40 and 70% sure of impact prediction due to limited specialist knowledge and/or availability of information

High Greater than 70% sure of impact prediction due to outcome of specialist knowledge and/or availability of information

Once significance rating has been determined for each impact, management and mitigation measures must

be determined for all impacts that have a significance ranking of Medium and higher in order to attempt to

reduce the level of significance that the impact may reflect.

The EIA Regulations, 2014 specifically require a description is provided of the degree to which these

impacts:

can be reversed;

may cause irreplaceable loss of resources; and

can be avoided, managed or mitigated.


PRISM EMS 144

Based on the proposed mitigation measures the EAP will determined a mitigation efficiency (Table 21)

whereby the initial significance is re-evaluated and ranked again to effect a significance that incorporates

the mitigation based on its effectiveness. The overall significance is then re-ranked, and a final significance

rating is determined.

Table 21: Mitigation efficiency

MIT

IGA

TIO

N E

FF

ICIE

NC

Y

Mitigation Efficiency

None Not applicable

Very Low Where the significance rating stays the same, but where mitigation will reduce the intensity of the impact. Positive impacts will remain the same

Low Where the significance rating reduces by one level, after mitigation

Medium Where the significance rating reduces by two levels, after mitigation

High Where the significance rating reduces by three levels, after mitigation

Very High Where the significance rating reduces by more than three levels, after mitigation

The reversibility is directly proportional the “Loss of Resource” where no loss of resource is experienced,

the impact is completely reversible; where a substantial “Loss of resource” is experienced there is a medium

degree of reversibility; and an irreversible impact relates to a complete loss of resources, i.e. irreplaceable

(Table 22).

Table 22: Degree of reversibility and loss of resources.

DE

GR

EE

RE

VE

RS

AB

ILIT

Y &

LO

SS

OF

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

Loss of Resources:

No Loss No loss of social, cultural and/or ecological resource(s) are experienced. Positive impacts will not experience resource loss

Partial The activity results in an insignificant or partial loss of social, cultural and/or ecological resource(s)

Substantial The activity results in a significant loss of social, cultural and/or ecological resource(s)

Irreplaceable The activity results in the complete and irreplaceable social, cultural and/or ecological loss of resource(s)

Reversibility:

Irreversible Impacts on natural, cultural and/or social functions and processes are irreversible to the pre-impacted state in such a way that the application of resources will not

cause any degree of reversibility

Medium Degree

Impacts on natural, cultural and/or social functions and processes are partially reversible to the pre-impacted state if less than 50% resources are applied

High Degree Impacts on natural, cultural and/or social functions and processes are partially reversible to the pre-impacted state if more than 50% resources are applied

Reversible Impacts on natural, cultural and/or social functions and processes are fully reversible to the pre-impacted state if adequate resources are applied


PRISM EMS 145

10.2.2 Cumulative Impacts

It is important to assess the natural environment using a systems approach that will consider the cumulative

impact of various actions. Cumulative impact refers to the impact on the environment, which results from

the incremental impact of the actions when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future

actions regardless of what agencies or persons undertake such actions. Cumulative impacts can result

from individually minor, but collectively significant actions or activities taking place over a period.

Cumulative effects can take place frequently and over a period that the effects cannot be assimilated by

the environment.

10.3 Qualitative Discussion of Impacts

10.3.1 Impacts Associated with Listed Activities

As mentioned, the project requires authorisation for certain activities listed in the 2014 EIA Regulations [as

amended in 2017], which serve as triggers for the environmental assessment process. The potential

impacts associated with the key listed activities are broadly stated in Table 23.

Table 23: Potential impacts associated with Listed Activities

Listing

Notice Activity Description of Listed Activity Potential Impact Overview

NEMA: Listing Notice 2 (require Scoping and EIR)

GN R 984

4 December

2014 [as

amended in

2017]

15

The clearance of an area of 20 hectares

or more of indigenous vegetation,

excluding where such clearance of

indigenous vegetation is required for the

undertaking of a linear activity; or

maintenance purposes undertaken in

accordance with a maintenance

management plan.

Loss of flora

Spreading of alien invasive

plants

Loss of fauna

Disturbance of ecological

systems

Impact on biodiversity

Dust pollution

Air pollution

Vehicle emissions

Noise

Safety and security

Visual impact

10.3.2 Environmental Activities

In order to understand the impacts related to the project it is necessary to unpack the activities associated

with the project life-cycle. The main project activities as well as high-level environmental activities

undertaken in the various project phases are listed in Table 24.


PRISM EMS 146

Table 24: Project Activities P

re-

Co

nstr

ucti

on

Project Activities

Detailed layouts and services designs

Procurement process for Contractors

Procurement of other necessary construction materials

Environmental Activities

Appointment of Environmental Control Officer (ECO)

Permits if heritage resources are to be impacted on.

Co

nstr

ucti

on

Project Activities

Appointments and site camp set up:

Set up site camp with temporary offices and administrative facilities;

Set up ablutions;

Set up access control, security; signage and lighting;

General materials storage and laydown areas;

Construction employment;

Change-houses, chemical toilets and showering facilities (linked to conservancy tanks – removal of contents by exhauster vehicle and disposal at permitted facility);

Temporary waste storage areas; these shall be established and managed in accordance with EMPr requirements.

Sourcing of construction materials and equipment:

All bulk materials (aggregate, cement, steel etc.) will be sourced from existing lawful commercial sources; there will be no direct mining, harvesting or extraction of natural resources.

Excavation and earthworks

Removal of existing surfacing material where necessary (concrete, asphalt etc.) which could involve excavation below ground level;

Levelling and compaction using heavy machinery / earthmoving equipment;

Potential for excavations and trenching in order to lay of below ground level equipment (cables, pipes, sumps, drainage etc.);

Potential for excavation dewatering in the event of water-table interception;

Use of general mechanical equipment within construction areas (generators, cutting and welding equipment, compressors etc.).


Diligent compliance monitoring of the EMPr, environmental authorisation and other relevant environmental legislation.

Continued consultation with I&APS (as required).

Environmental awareness creation.

Op

era

tio

n Project Activities

Operation of facilities;

Maintenance of infrastructure;


Monitoring

10.3.3 Environmental Aspects

Environmental aspects are regarded as those components of an organisation’s activities, products and

services that are likely to interact with the environment and cause an impact. The following environmental

aspects have been identified for the proposed township which are linked to the project activities (note that

only high-level aspects are provided):


PRISM EMS 147

Table 25: Environmental Aspects P

re-

Co

nstr

ucti

on

Aspects

Inadequate consultation with landowners/occupiers of land and I&APs

Inadequate environmental and compliance monitoring

Poor construction site planning and layout

Absence of relevant permits (e.g. heritage resources) – if required

Poor waste management

Absence of ablution facilities

Co

nstr

ucti

on

Aspects

Inadequate consultation with I&APs


Lack of environmental awareness creation

Indiscriminate site clearing

Poor site establishment

Op

era

tio

n Aspects

Inadequate consultation with I&APs


Lack of environmental awareness creation

Lack of maintenance

10.3.4 Issues raised by Environmental Authorities and IAPs

The issues raised by authorities (both regulatory and commenting) and I&APs received to date during the

execution of the Scoping and EIA process are captured and addressed in the Comments and Responses

Report (Section 14.3.5). The following potential impacts were identified:

Noise pollution;

Air pollution;

Traffic;

Resource consumption

Waste management;

Stormwater management;

Open space management; and

Alien and invasive species.

These issues helped identify specialist and technical studies required and thus contributed to the

assessment of impacts in Section 10.4.

10.4 Quantitative Impact Assessment

Table 26 provides a summary of the identified impacts and significance ranking (WOM = Without Mitigation)

for the construction and operational phases of development. Impacts for each alternative (both layout and

treatment alternatives) are also provided. Brief management measures have been provided for the

purposes of assessing whether the implementation of recommended management measures may be

sufficient to decrease the significance ranking (WM = With Mitigation).


PRISM EMS 148

Table 26: Summary of Quantitative Impact Assessment

ASPECTS

IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE

(WOM)

CONFIDENCE

MANAGEMENT & MITIGATION MEASURES

MITIGATION EFFICIENCY

SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY

Significance (A + B + C) X P

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Atmospheric Emissions

Direct Dust emissions altering air quality and visibility

on nearby roads.

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low High • A speed limit of 20km/h must be maintained on all dirt roads; • Dust suppression measures by means of either water or biodegradable chemical agent will be implemented during the construction phase to minimise dust generated by construction activities. Recycled water to be used, instead of potable water, to save water.

Medium Low No Loss Reversible

Layout 2 Low High Low Low No Loss Reversible

Direct

Emissions from vehicles and machinery

(CO2, NOx, SOx, VOC's etc.)

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low High

• All construction vehicles and machinery will be maintained such as to operate efficiently. Idling times of vehicles and machinery to be minimised; • In terms of transportation of workers and materials, collective transportation arrangements should be made to reduce individual car journeys where possible; • All vehicles used during the project should be properly maintained and in good working order; • All vehicles and other machinery should comply with road worthy requirements and comply with legislation in terms of allowable emissions.

Low Low No Loss Reversible

Layout 2 Low High Low Low No Loss Reversible

Noise Direct Noise nuisance to surrounding land

owners and animals.

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Medium High

• The provisions of SANS 10103:2008 will apply to all areas within audible distance of residents or adjacent landowners; • Equipment and/or machinery which will be used must comply with the manufacturer’s specifications on acceptable noise levels; • Construction activities should be limited to daytime only; • Noise monitoring should be undertaken as spot checks; • When required noise mufflers should be utilised to reduced noise; • It is important to keep an open channel of communication between all stakeholders and keep record of any concerns raised.


Layout 2 Medium High Medium Low No Loss Reversible

Water Impacts

(Surface and Groundwater)

Direct

Liquid waste including sewage may cause

stormwater and groundwater pollution if

not managed and disposed of correctly.

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium Medium • Management of Ablution Facilities:o Chemical toilets will be placed on site for the duration of the construction phase;o Ablution facilities (chemical toilets) are to be provided by the Contractor, at a ratio of 1:10;o Ablution facilities (chemical toilets) must be erected within 100m from all workplaces but within the development footprint;o Toilets are to be secured to the ground and must have a closing mechanism;o Toilet paper must be provided at these facilities and must be serviced once per week;o Certified contractors to maintain and empty chemical toilets regularly;o Safe disposal certificates to be kept in the site file;o The contractor must ensure that spillage does not occur when toilets are cleaned/serviced, and contents must be properly stored and disposed of properly;o Discharge of waste into the environment and/or burial of waste are strictly prohibited;o Sanitary arrangements must be to the satisfaction of the , ECO, the local authorities and the applicable legal requirements.• Management of waste water:o The contractor is to ensure that clean run-off water is diverted away from potentially contaminated areas of the construction site;o Contaminated liquids and soil from the site must be disposed of at a permitted disposal site;o Safe disposal certificates to be kept in the site file.

High Low No Loss Reversible

Layout 2 Low-Medium Medium High Low No Loss Reversible


PRISM EMS 149

ASPECTS


(WOM)

CONFIDENCE



SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY


Indirect

Impact of changes to water quality through construction materials

such as sediments, diesel, oils and cement may pose a threat to

the instream and adjacent vegetated

areas, if by chance it is dispersed via surface run-off or allowed to

permeate groundwater.

Layout 1 Yes Negative Low-Medium Medium

• The following best practise measures in terms of erosion apply: o Instability and erosion of steep slopes must be stabilised immediately. Re-vegetation in consultation with landscape architect and ECO should be done if required; o To reduce the loss of material by erosion, causing sedimentation, disturbance must be kept to a minimum; o If clearing of slopes occur within the rainy season, earth berms must be created along the up-slope side of the construction area; o Where possible, natural vegetation should be retained to reduce the risk of erosion; o Should erosion occur due to negligence on the part of the Contractor to apply the above measures, the Contractor will be responsible for reinstatement of the eroded area to its former state at his own expense. Any surface water pollution occurring as a result of this negligence will be cleaned up by the Contractor or a nominated clean up organisation at the expenses of the Contractor; o Proper Stormwater management must be implemented; o Run-off containing high sedimentation loads must not be released into natural or municipal drainage systems; o Silt fences must be used to stabilise the site, reduce erosion and silt entering the natural environment. No unchecked silt may enter the natural environment.; o Silt fences must be fit for purpose, effective and regularly maintained. • Management of workshop and equipment: o Maintenance of equipment and vehicles is not allowed at the construction site. Faulty equipment must be removed from site and repaired at a workshop. o A designated vehicle wash bay must be put in place and must meet the following requirements: § Must have an impermeable surface. § Must have drainage measures in place to direct contaminated water towards the oil separator. § Quality of water to be tested prior to release. If not safe then contaminated water must be disposed of as hazardous waste at a licensed waste disposal facility. Safe disposal certificates to be obtained from the final disposal facility. § Emergency spill kit o No washing of plant outside of designated wash bay. o Drip trays will be provided for the stationary plant and for the "parked" plant. o All vehicles and equipment will be kept in good working order and serviced regularly. Leaking equipment will be repaired immediately or removed from the site. • Management of concrete mixing: o Cement mixing to take place on an impervious surface (e.g. plastic or cement mixing pit). o Unused cement bags will be stored in an area not exposed to the weather and packed neatly to prevent hardening or leakage of cement. • Prevention of spillages and spill management; o Drip trays must be placed under all vehicles when immobile for longer than 24 hours. Vehicles suspected of leaking must be monitored and conduct a pre start-up inspection checklist. o Drip trays must be checked and replaced for vehicles standing (parked) for prolonged periods. o Drip trays must be of a sufficient size and volume to collect any hydrocarbon leakages from a stationary vehicle. o Spill kits (absorbent material) must be available on site and in all vehicles that transport hydrocarbons for dispensing to other vehicles on the construction site. o Spilled substances must be contained in impermeable containers for removal to a licensed hazardous waste site. o Significant spills should be reported to the Project Manager or Contractors Manager and ECO who should report this to the relevant authority. • Stormwater management: Storm water management during construction will be implemented however, as the proposed development does not cross any



PRISM EMS 150

ASPECTS


(WOM)

CONFIDENCE



SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY


Layout 2 Low-Medium Medium

watercourses and is not in close proximity to any wetlands, minimal impacts are expected. Further, as a precaution, the following measures should be implemented: o Compile and implement proper stormwater management plan; o Increased run-off during construction should be managed using berms, temporary cut-off drains, attenuation ponds or other suitable structures, in consultation with the ECO and resident Engineer; o Cut off drains may not cause additional harm to environment. Care must be taken to consider their position and the receiving environment; o Stormwater management system is to be installed as soon as possible following site establishment, to attenuate stormwater during the construction phase, as well as during the operational phase; • Surface-water run-off and stormwater must be directed away from trenches and areas of excavation. Management of Hazardous Substances: • The proposed development does not cross any watercourses and is not in close proximity to any wetlands as such minimal impacts apply. Further, the following measures must be implemented: • Proper storage of hazardous material o Hazardous materials to be suitably stored to prevent environmental contamination and visual impacts. Storage requirements to be determined based on chemical qualities of material and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). At a minimum, hazardous chemical substances (HCS) must be stored at a designated area that meets the following requirements: § Earthed; § Fire extinguisher must be present; § Relevant signage to be displayed including No Smoking/ No open flames; Hazardous Chemical Substance Store; Type of HCS (e.g. Diesel); Maximum contents volume and Fire extinguisher o Storage areas should be located 100m from the edge of wetlands or drainage lines; o Hazardous substances must be stored and handled in accordance with the appropriate legislation and standards, which include the Hazardous Substances Act (Act No. 15 of 1973), the Occupational Health and Safety Act (No. 85 of 1993), relevant associated Regulations, and applicable SANS and international standards. o Any hazardous materials (apart from fuel) must be stored within a lockable store with a sealed floor. Suitable ventilation to be provided. o All storage tanks containing hazardous materials must be placed in bunded containment areas with impermeable surfaces. The bunded area must be able to contain 110% of the total volume of the stored hazardous material. • Spillages o In the event of spillages of hazardous substances, the appropriate clean up and disposal measures are to be implemented. o The contractor must ensure that necessary materials and equipment are available on site to deal with spills of any hazardous materials present o The ECO and Project Manager must be notified of all significant spillages. • Training o Staff that will be handling hazardous materials must be trained to do so. • General o Drip trays must be placed under all vehicles when immobile for longer than 24 hours. Vehicles suspected of leaking must be monitored and conduct a pre-start-up inspection checklist. o Drip trays must be checked and replaced for vehicles standing (parked) for prolonged periods. o Drip trays must be of a sufficient size and volume to collect any hydrocarbon leakages from a stationary vehicle. o Spill kits (absorbent material) must be available on site and in all vehicles that transport hydrocarbons for dispensing to other vehicles on the construction site. o Spilled substances must be contained in impermeable containers for removal to a licensed hazardous waste site. • Contaminated wastewater to be contained, and removed to a registered site, to ensure water bodies on site are not contaminated.



PRISM EMS 151

ASPECTS


(WOM)

CONFIDENCE



SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY


Waste Generation

Indirect Domestic waste

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium High

• Waste recycling to be put in place. • Domestic waste must be stored in containers labelled or colour coded for general waste. • Vermin / weatherproof bins will be provided in sufficient numbers and capacity to store domestic waste. • Containers must be emptied frequently before reaching capacity• Solid waste shall only be stored in the designated general waste storage area which must be enclosed and impermeable.• No waste shall be buried or burned anywhere on the construction site.• All solid waste shall be disposed of by a certified contractor, off-site, at an approved landfill site if no municipal services is available. The Contractor shall supply the ECO with a certificate of disposal for auditing purposes.• Avoidance, reduction and reuse should be practiced wherever possible – see waste management plan. • Waste may not cause any nuisance (e.g. odour)• Records of waste manifest documents must be retained at the administration office.


Layout 2 Low-Medium High Low Low No Loss Reversible

Direct Construction waste

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium High

• Construction waste must be collected and put into suitable closed bins on a daily basis. • Provide waste skips on site. These skips should be sufficient in number, the skip storage area should be kept clean, skips should be emptied and replaced before overflowing or spillage occurs. Skips should be covered to prevent waste blowing away. • Construction rubble must be disposed of at a registered landfill site. • Avoidance, reduction, and reuse should be practiced wherever possible – see waste management plan. • Records of waste manifest documents must be retained at the administration office.



Direct Hazardous waste

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium High

• The classification of waste determines the handling methods and the ultimate disposal of the material. The contractor shall manage hazardous waste that are anticipated to be generated by his operations as follows: o Characterise the waste to determine if it is general or hazardous (Use the Appendix 1 of the Norms and Standards for the Classification of Waste for landfill to determine whether additional classification is required). o Obtain and provide an acceptable container with a label. o Place hazardous waste material in the container. o Inspect the container on a regular basis o Haul the full container to the licenced and correct disposal site. o Provide documentary evidence of proper disposal of the waste. • Only temporary storage of waste is allowed (once of storage of waste for a period less than 90 days). The volume of material should be limited to less than 80m3 of hazardous waste. Should this be exceeded the Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste will need to be complied with. • Containers must be emptied frequently before reaching capacity • All hazardous waste must be disposed of at the nearest hazardous landfill • Waste may not cause any nuisance (e.g. contamination) • Records of waste manifest documents must be retained at the administration office • Certificates of registration must be retained for transporters of hazardous waste and retained in record at the administration office.



Soil Alteration

Direct Loss of topsoil

Layout 1

No Negative

Medium-High High • During site preparation, topsoil and subsoil must be stripped separately from each other and must be stored separately from spoil material for use in the rehabilitation phase. • Topsoil should be protected from wind and rain, as well as contamination from diesel, concrete or wastewater. Topsoil stockpiles should be checked on a monthly basis to ensure that this is the case. • Topsoil should be used in landscaping and rehabilitation where possible.

Medium Low-Medium Minimal High Degree

Layout 2 Medium-High High Medium Low-Medium Minimal High Degree


PRISM EMS 152

ASPECTS


(WOM)

CONFIDENCE



SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY


Direct Loss of land capability

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium High • The proposed site does not have a high agricultural potential nor is currently used for agriculture. No mitigation measures are therefore recommended or required.

None Low-Medium Minimal High Degree

Layout 2 Low-Medium High None Low-Medium Minimal High Degree

Direct Alteration of topography

Layout 1

No Negative

Low-Medium High • Changes to topography must be properly designed and landscaped. • Stormwater management measures must be implemented to ensure these changes to not impact on stormwater.

Medium Low Minimal High Degree

Layout 2 Low-Medium High Medium Low Minimal High Degree

Direct Soil erosion

Layout 1

No Negative

Low-Medium High

• Instability and erosion of steep slopes must be stabilised immediately. Re-vegetation in consultation with landscape architect and ECO should be done if required. • To reduce the loss of material by erosion, disturbance must be kept to a minimum. • If clearing of slopes occur within the rainy season, earth berms must be created along the up-slope side of the construction area. • Where possible, natural vegetation should be retained to reduce the risk of erosion. • Should erosion occur due to negligence on the part of the Contractor, the Contractor will be responsible for reinstatement of the eroded area to its former state at his own expense. Any surface water pollution occurring as a result of this negligence will be cleaned up by the Contractor or a nominated clean up organisation at the expenses of the Contractor.


Layout 2 Low-Medium High High Low No Loss Reversible

Soil Alteration

Direct Soil pollution Layout 1 No Negative Low-Medium High

Construction waste must be collected and put into suitable closed bins on a daily basis. • Provide waste skips on site. These skips should be sufficient in number, the skip storage area should be kept clean, skips should be emptied and replaced before overflowing or spillage occurs. Skips should be covered to prevent waste blowing away. • Construction rubble must be disposed of at a registered landfill site. • Avoidance, reduction, and reuse should be practiced wherever possible – see waste management plan. • Records of waste manifest documents must be retained at the administration office. • Management of Ablution Facilities: o Chemical toilets will be placed on site for the duration of the construction phase; o Ablution facilities (chemical toilets) are to be provided by the Contractor, at a ratio of 1:10; o Ablution facilities (chemical toilets) must be erected within 100m from all



PRISM EMS 153

ASPECTS


(WOM)

CONFIDENCE



SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY


Layout 2 Low-Medium High

workplaces but within the development footprint; o Toilets are to be secured to the ground and must have a closing mechanism; o Toilet paper must be provided at these facilities and must be serviced once per week; o Certified contractors to maintain and empty chemical toilets regularly; o Safe disposal certificates to be kept in the site file; o The contractor must ensure that spillage does not occur when toilets are cleaned/serviced, and contents must be properly stored and disposed of properly; o Discharge of waste into the environment and/or burial of waste are strictly prohibited; o Sanitary arrangements must be to the satisfaction of the PM, ECO, the local authorities and the applicable legal requirements. • Management of waste water: o The contractor is to ensure that clean run-off water is diverted away from potentially contaminated areas of the construction site; o Contaminated liquids and soil from the site must be disposed of at a permitted disposal site; o Safe disposal certificates to be kept in the site file.


Resource Consumption

Direct Electricity consumption

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium Medium • Enforce electricity reduction strategies • Environmental awareness training


Layout 2 Low-Medium Medium Medium Low Minimal High Degree

Direct Water consumption

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium Medium • Enforce water saving strategies including design of recycling and reuse, rainwater harvesting etc.; • Environmental awareness training.



Direct Fuel consumption

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium Medium

• Record and monitor fuel consumption regularly • Reduce theft of fuel (increase security)

Low Low Minimal High Degree

Layout 2 Low-Medium Medium Low Low Minimal High Degree

Direct Raw materials consumption

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Medium Medium

• Promote effective use of raw materials; • Recycling will be implemented on applicable waste streams.

Low Low-Medium Minimal High Degree

Layout 2 Medium Medium Low Low-Medium Minimal High Degree


PRISM EMS 154

ASPECTS


(WOM)

CONFIDENCE



SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY


Effects on Biodiversity

Direct Loss of habitat

Layout 1

No Negative

Low-Medium High

• Proper management of site establishment:o The location of the construction camp should be approved by the ECO, Project Manager and EO.o Construction camp should be fenced, and access control should be exercised.o The extent of the site should by all means be limited, to avoid any additional clearance of vegetation.• Proper management of site clearing:o Restrict site clearing activities to construction area /domain.o Clearing of vegetation to be conducted in a phased manner (where possible).• All laydown, storage areas etc should be restricted to within the Project area and all access roads must be kept within this area or from existing access roads.• A qualified environmental control officer must be on site when construction begins to identify species that will be directly disturbed and to relocate fauna/flora that is found during construction (including all reptiles and amphibians).• Areas that are denuded during construction need to be re-vegetated with indigenous vegetation to prevent erosion during flood events. This will also reduce the likelihood of encroachment by alien invasive plant species.• Compilation of and implementation of an alien vegetation management plan for the entire site.


Layout 2 Low-Medium High Low Low Minimal High Degree

Direct Loss of fauna

Layout 1

No Negative

Low High

• Comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004), and Animal Protection Act (No. 71 of 1962); • All domesticated animals are forbidden within the entire Project area (especially feral cats) during construction; • The use of “migratory friendly” property borders, such as palisade fencing or wire fencing with large gaps, should be considered, as this will allow for the ongoing survival of most species presently inhabiting the property. This will allow for the free movement of small mobile organisms (such as rodents). • If the development is approved, construction contractors, sub-contractors and operators must ensure that no fauna taxa are unduly disturbed, trapped, hunted or killed. • Environmental awareness training should be provided to contractors regarding disturbance to animals. Particular emphasis should be placed on talks regarding snakes. • All workers will undergo environmental awareness training to address potential human and wildlife interaction and the permissible reactions to this interaction. • If any faunal species are recorded during construction, activities should temporarily cease, and an appropriate specialist should be consulted to identify the correct course of action. • No poaching or killing of animals to be allowed whatsoever; • No wilful harm to any animals, unless a direct threat is posed to a worker’s health or safety; • Animals residing within the designated area shall not be unnecessarily disturbed; • Before construction starts, construction workers must be educated with regards to littering and poaching; • No trapping or snaring of wild animals if any. Nesting sites should not be disturbed. • If the development is approved, construction contractors, sub-contractors and operators must ensure that no fauna taxa are unduly disturbed, trapped, hunted or killed.

High Low Minimal High Degree

Layout 2 Low High High Low Minimal High Degree

Direct Loss of flora

Layout 1

No Negative

Low-Medium High

See mitigation measures for loss of habitat.


Layout 2 Low-Medium High Low Low Minimal High Degree

Indirect Degradation of

ecological systems

Layout 1

No Negative

Low High See mitigation measures for loss of habitat, stormwater management measures and loss of fauna.


Layout 2 Low High High Low Minimal High Degree


PRISM EMS 155

ASPECTS


(WOM)

CONFIDENCE



SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY


Indirect Disruption of natural

corridors

Layout 1

No Negative

Low High • The use of “migratory friendly” property borders, such as palisade fencing or wire fencing with large gaps, should be considered, as this will allow for the ongoing survival of most species presently inhabiting the property. This will allow for the free movement of small mobile organisms (such as rodents).


Layout 2 Low High Medium Low Minimal High Degree

Incidents, accidents and

potential emergency situations

Direct Pollution incidents

Layout 1

No Negative

Low Medium • Proper emergency response procedure to be in place for dealing with spill or leaks at the construction site;• Ensure that the necessary materials and equipment for dealing with spills and leaks are available on site, where practicable;• Remediation of the spill areas will be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Project Manager;• In the event of a hydrocarbon spill, the source of the spillage will be isolated and contained. The area will be cordoned off and secured;• The Contractor will ensure that there is always a supply of an appropriate absorbent material readily available to absorb, breakdown and where possible, encapsulate a minor hydrocarbon spillage;• All staff on site will be made aware of actions to be taken in case of a spillage;• Provide contact details of person to be notified in a case of spillages – signage to be displayed at strategic points within the construction domain (e.g. workshop, fuel storage area, hazardous material containers).


Layout 2 Low Medium Medium Low No Loss Reversible

Direct Health and safety

Layout 1

No Negative

Medium Medium

• Appoint Safety Agent. • Contractor to submit a Health and Safety Plan, prepared in accordance with the Health and Safety Specification, for approval prior to the commencement of work. • All construction personal must be clearly identifiable. All employees must also be issued with employee cards for identification purposes. • All workers will be supplied with the required Personal Protective Equipment as per the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act No. 85 of 1993). • Fencing and barriers will be in place in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act No. 85 of 1993). • Applicable notice boards and hazard warning notices will be put in place and secured. Night hazards will be indicated suitably (e.g. reflectors, lighting, traffic signage). • Maintain access control to prevent access of the public to the construction areas, as far as practicable. • 24-hour security and access control. • Health and Safety awareness training. • A Dedicated Occupational Health and Safety system to be implemented by Contractor’s Safety Officer. To be monitored and audited by the Client’s Safety Agent, in terms of the Construction Regulations (2003).


Layout 2 Medium Medium High Low No Loss Reversible


PRISM EMS 156

ASPECTS


(WOM)

CONFIDENCE



SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY


Direct Storage of

hydrocarbons

Layout 1

No Negative

Low-Medium High

• Proper storage of hydrocarbons o Storage requirements to be determined based on chemical qualities of material and Safety Data Sheets (SDS). As a minimum, hazardous chemical substances (HCS) must be stored at a designated area that meets the following requirements: § Earthed; § Fire extinguisher must be present; § Relevant signage to be displayed including No Smoking/ No open flames; Hazardous Chemical Substance Store; Type of HCS (e.g. Diesel); Maximum contents volume and Fire extinguisher; • Storage areas should be located 100m from the edge of wetlands; • Hazardous substances must be stored and handled in accordance with the appropriate legislation and standards, which include the Hazardous Substances Act (Act No. 15 of 1973), the Occupational Health and Safety Act (No. 85 of 1993), relevant associated Regulations, and applicable SANS and international standards; • Any hazardous materials (apart from fuel) must be stored within a lockable store with a sealed floor. Suitable ventilation to be provided; • All storage tanks containing hazardous materials must be placed in bunded containment areas with impermeable surfaces. The bunded area must be able to contain 110% of the total volume of the stored hazardous material. • Spillages: o In the event of spillages of hazardous substances, the appropriate clean up and disposal measures are to be implemented; o The contractor must ensure that necessary materials and equipment are available on site to deal with spills of any hazardous materials present; o The ECO and Project Manager must be notified of all significant spillages.



Incidents, accidents and

potential emergency situations

Direct Fire

Layout 1

No Negative

Low-Medium Medium • Adhere to the appropriate emergency procedures.• Firefighting equipment must be accessible on site at all times.• Display of emergency numbers. • The area is prone to veld fires. It is therefore recommended that discussions take place with fire association in the area to discuss emergency protocols in the event of a fire. Environmental awareness training should include a section of fire fighting and should highlight the seriousness of fire in the area.• All staff on site will be made aware of general fire prevention and control methods, and the name of the responsible person to alert to the presence of a fire. Cooking over open flames is not allowed.'• Appropriate emergency response to be in place for dealing with fire at the construction site.• All fire control mechanisms (firefighting equipment) will be routinely inspected by a qualified investigator for efficacy thereof and be approved by local fire services.• Burning of waste is not permitted.• Suitable precautions will be taken (e.g. suitable fire extinguishers, water bowsers, welding curtains) when working with welding or grinding equipment.• Designated smoking areas should be provided, with special bins for discarding of cigarette butts. There should be zero tolerance to smoking outside these areas.


Layout 2 Low-Medium Medium High Low No Loss Reversible


PRISM EMS 157

ASPECTS


(WOM)

CONFIDENCE



SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY


Social

Direct Visual impact

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium High • Suitable screening to be put in place during construction to minimise visual impacts. • No littering to be allowed. • Good housekeeping practices to be followed.



Direct Safety and security

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium Medium • 24-hour access control to the site and 24-hour security. • Workers found to be engaging in activities such as excessive consumption of alcohol, drug use or selling of any such items on site must be disciplined.



Direct Traffic disruptions

impacts on road safety

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Medium High

• Road upgrades must be done in accordance to requirements in the Traffic Impact Assessment; • The roads must be upgraded one lane at a time and traffic must be controlled with flags men and the necessary signage. • Traffic warning and calming measures will be put in place when construction activities may impact on traffic flow; • A speed limits to be clearly marked and adhered to on and around the study area. Environmental awareness training to all workers and visitors to the site, especially drivers to include this aspect.

Low Low-Medium No Loss Reversible

Layout 2 Medium High Low Low-Medium No Loss Reversible

Direct Loss of cultural

heritage

Layout 1

No Negative

Low High

• No heritage resources were identified on site. o Chance find procedure: § If during the construction phase of this project, any person employed by the developer, one of its subsidiaries, contractors and subcontractors, or service provider, finds any artefact of cultural significance or heritage site, this person must cease work at the site of the find and report this find to their immediate supervisor, and through their supervisor to the senior on-site manager; § It is the responsibility of the senior on-site Manager to make an initial assessment of the extent of the find and confirm the extent of the work stoppage in that area. § The senior on-site Manager will inform the ECO of the chance find and its immediate impact on operations. The ECO will then contact a professional archaeologist for an assessment of the finds who will notify the SAHRA and PHRAG. Two buildings and potential mining infrastructure may be older than 60 years old. A conservation architect must be consulted to ensure that any changes to these buildings are permitted by the PHRA-G.


Layout 2 Low High Medium Low Minimal High Degree

Economic

Direct Increase in economy

Layout 1

Yes Positive

Medium High • Local contractors and suppliers to be used during the construction phase as far as possible.

Low Medium-High No Loss Reversible

Layout 2 Medium High Low Medium-High No Loss Reversible

Direct Employment

Layout 1

Yes Positive

Medium High • Mogale' City Local Municipality's requirements for employment equity and BBBEEE requirements to be met. • Foreign skilled workers to be limited and preference to local skilled workers. • Approximately 120 jobs to be created (including building contractors and service delivery contractors during the construction phase).

Medium High No Loss Reversible

Layout 2 Medium High Medium High No Loss Reversible


PRISM EMS 158

ASPECTS


(WOM)

CONFIDENCE



SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY


OPERATIONAL PHASE

Atmospheric Emissions

Direct Windblown dust -

Health impacts due to daily PM2.5 emissions.

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low High

No mitigation required by the Applicant as there is only a low possibility of the proposed development being affected by the Tailings Storage Facilities and sand dumps, as demonstrated in the results of the air dispersion modelling. Monitoring of dust fallout is however recommended to confirm the modelling results for dustfall on the proposed development site and determine baseline results for the proposed development site. This monitoring can be carried out for three months prior to construction.

None Low Minimal High Degree

Layout 2 Low High None Low Minimal High Degree

Direct Windblown dust -

Health impacts due to daily PM10 emissions.

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low High None Low Minimal High Degree


Direct Windblown dust

Nuisance effects due to dustfall deposition.

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low High None Low Minimal High Degree


Direct

Emissions from vehicles and equipment

(CO2, NOx, SOx, VOC's etc.)

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Medium Medium • Mitigation is possible through regulation on a government level, through regulation by enforcing vehicle emissions standards and through public awareness programmes.


Layout 2 Medium Medium Low Low-Medium Minimal High Degree

Noise Direct Noise due to increased

traffic.

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Medium High

• All road upgrades to be implemented as per recommendations of the Traffic Impact Assessment.


Layout 2 Medium High Low Low-Medium Minimal High Degree

Water Impacts

(Surface and Groundwater)

Direct

Liquid waste including sewage may cause

stormwater and groundwater pollution if

not managed and disposed of correctly.

Layout 1

No Negative

Low-Medium High • Ensure that clean run-off water is diverted away from potentially contaminated areas of the study area. • Approved stormwater management plan and recommended upgrades to the stormwater system to be implemented. • Sewage pipeline to be installed and maintained as per recommendations of the ECSA registered engineer and engineering designs.



Direct

Diversion and increased velocity of surface water flows –

Changes to the hydrological regime

and increased potential for erosion, reduction in

permeable surfaces.

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Medium High

Approved stormwater management plan to be implemented; • Stormwater and any runoff generated by the hard surfaces should be discharged into energy dissipation structures, where required. These could be used to enhance the sense of place, if they are planted with indigenous vegetation. These energy dissipation structures should be placed in a manner that flows are managed prior to being discharged back into the environment, thus also supporting the maintenance of natural base flows within these systems, i.e. hydrological regime (water quantity and quality) is maintained; • The stormwater structures and infrastructure should be maintained on a regular basis.


Layout 2 Medium High High Low No Loss Reversible


PRISM EMS 159

ASPECTS


(WOM)

CONFIDENCE



SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY


Waste generation

Direct Domestic waste

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Medium High

• Safe disposal of waste; • Valid contract with external contractor for removal of waste in place and maintained; • Approved external contractor method statement implemented; • Approved Standard Operating Procedure for waste management implemented; • Waste and waste water management plan as per this EMPr (Section 14.7) to be implemented; • Waste recycling to be put in place. • Domestic waste must be stored in containers labelled or colour coded for general waste; • Vermin / weatherproof bins will be provided in sufficient numbers and capacity to store domestic waste; • Containers must be emptied frequently before reaching capacity; • Solid waste shall only be stored in the designated general waste storage area which must be enclosed and impermeable; • No waste shall be buried or burned anywhere on the site; • All solid waste shall be disposed of by a certified contractor, off-site, at an approved landfill site if no municipal services is available; • Avoidance, reduction and reuse should be practiced wherever possible – see Section 10; • Waste may not cause any nuisance (e.g. odour) • Records of waste manifest documents must be retained at the administration office.

Low Low-Medium No Loss Reversible

Layout 2 Medium High Low Low-Medium No Loss Reversible

Soil Alteration

Direct Soil Erosion

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium High • Topsoil conservation practices as per the Environmental Management Programme to be strictly implemented. Topsoil to be stored separately and protected for rehabilitation purposes and for use in the landscaping.

Low No Loss Reversible

Layout 2 Low-Medium High Low No Loss Reversible

Indirect Soil pollution

Layout 1

No Negative

Low-Medium High

• Sewage infrastructure must be inspected and maintained on a regular basis.


Layout 2 Low-Medium High Low No Loss Reversible


Direct Electricity consumption

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Medium-High High

• Promote effective electricity consumption and sustainable alternatives.



Direct Water consumption

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Medium-High High • Promote effective water conservation measures. • Rainwater harvesting, treatment and reuse of grey water and effluent for irrigation purposes, combination of municipal water and borehole water will be used.



Effects on Biodiversity

Indirect Loss of fauna

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low High

• No hunting trapping and killing of animals are allowed. This aspect should be dealt with as part of Environmental Awareness Training. • Comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004), Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance 15 of 1974 and Animal Protection Act (No. 71 of 1962). • The use of “migratory friendly” property borders, such as palisade fencing or wire fencing with large gaps, should be considered along the pipeline, as this will allow for the ongoing survival of most species presently inhabiting the property. This will allow for the free movement of small mobile organisms (such as rodents).

Very High Low No Loss Reversible

Layout 2 Low High Very High Low No Loss Reversible


PRISM EMS 160

ASPECTS


(WOM)

CONFIDENCE



SIGNIFICANCE (WM)

DEGREE

TYPE

DESCRIPTION

ALTERNATIVE

CUMULATIVE

NATURE

LOSS RESOURCE

REVERSABILITY


Indirect Degradation of

ecological systems

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low High

Impact related to construction - no management measures required. Very High


Layout 2 Low High Very High


Social

Direct

Community Health Impacts as a result of

the landfill site and TSFs and sand dumps

in the area.

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low High No mitigation required by the Applicant as there is only a low possibility of the proposed development being affected by the Tailings Storage Facilities and sand dumps, as demonstrated in the results of the air dispersion modelling.Monitoring of dust fallout is however recommended to confirm the modelling results for dustfall on the proposed development site and determine baseline results for the proposed development site. This monitoring can be carried out for three months prior to construction.

None Low Minimal High Degree


Direct Visual impact

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium High • Dustbins to be provided throughout the proposed development, especially within the open space areas; • Architectural guidelines should be provided to ensure buildings are uniform and fit in with the surrounding environment. The proposed development have the potential to improve the aesthetic quality of the surrounding environment. •The proposed development should incorporate the existing indigenous trees where possible and plant new indigenous trees to enhance the aesthetic quality of the proposed development.


Layout 2 Low-Medium High Medium Low Minimal High Degree

Direct Safety and security

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Low-Medium High

• 24 hour access control and security is recommended.


Layout 2 Low-Medium High High Low Minimal High Degree

Direct Road safety

Layout 1

No Negative

Low-Medium High

It is recommended that Layout 1 be approved.


Layout 2 Medium-High High None Medium-High Partial Medium Degree

Direct Impact on Access

Layout 1

No Negative

Low-Medium High

It is recommended that Layout 1 be approved.


Layout 2 Medium-High High None Medium-High Partial Medium Degree

Direct Increased traffic

Layout 1

Yes Negative

Medium-High High • Road upgrades as recommended by the Traffic Engineer to be implemented prior to the operational phase of the development. '• Traffic control signage to be correct and visible throughout the development and adjusted on the surrounding roads where needed. '• Public transport to be provided, as recommended by the Traffic Engineer.


Layout 2 Medium-High High High Low No Loss Reversible

Economic

Direct Increase in economy

Layout 1

No Positive

High High • No mitigation measures are recommended. The implementation of the development will automatically increase the economy in the area, by providing job opportunities and will have multiplier effects on the local economy. It is recommended however that local labour be utilised as far as possible.


Layout 2 High High Medium High No Loss Reversible

Indirect Increase in property

value

Layout 1

No Positive

Medium Medium

No mitigation measures required.

None Medium No Loss Reversible

Layout 2 Medium Medium None Medium No Loss Reversible

Direct Employment

Layout 1

No Positive

Medium-High High • Mogale' City Local Municipality's requirements for employment equity and BBBEEE requirements to be met. • Approximately 450 jobs to be created.


Layout 2 Medium-High High Medium High No Loss Reversible


PRISM EMS 161

10.5 Description of Impacts

A discussion of impacts to various aspects is provided below. Impacts that have been identified as having

a low-medium impact significance rating and higher (before mitigation) are discussed in more detail within

the subsection in terms of their risks or concerns affecting the environment. A discussion on how mitigation

measures are expected to decrease/increase the significance rating is also provided as well as input from

specialists where this input was used to assess impacts.

In addition, it is important to assess the natural environment using a systems approach that will consider

the cumulative impact of various actions. A cumulative impact refers to “the impact on the environment,

which results from the incremental impact of the actions when added to other past, present and reasonably

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agencies or persons undertake such actions”. Cumulative

impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions or activities taking place over

a period of time. Cumulative effects can take place frequently and over a period of time that the effects

cannot be assimilated by the environment. Cumulative impacts are also discussed in the subsections that

follow.

10.5.1 Atmospheric Emissions

10.5.1.1 Overview

In terms of atmospheric emissions, two potential impacts were identified during construction, namely, dust

emissions and emissions from vehicles and equipment. Construction operations are potentially significant

sources of dust emissions that may have a substantial temporary impact on local air quality. Atmospheric

emissions due to construction activities are linked to general site preparation for the developments.

Construction activities that contribute to air pollution typically include: land clearing and demolition activities,

excavation, material handling activities, wheel entrainment, operation of diesel or petrol engines etc. If not

properly mitigated, construction sites could generate high levels of dust (typically from concrete, cement,

wood, stone, silica) and this has the potential to travel for large distances. Construction dust may be

classified as Total Suspended Particulates (TSP), with impacts generally close to the construction activities

and pollution that is more responsible for soiling than health issues. Health impacts are more associated

with the finer PM10 and PM2.5 fractions, both of which are invisible to the naked eye. Research has shown

that PM10, and even more significantly PM2.5, penetrate deeply into the lungs and therefore has the potential

to cause a wide range of health problems including respiratory illness, asthma, bronchitis and even cancer.

Combustion engines also emit emissions of CO, HC, NOx and CO2. A potential source of PM2.5 on

construction sites comes from the diesel engine exhausts of on- and off-road utility vehicles and heavy

equipment, as well as stationary combustion sources. These particles are known as diesel particulate

matter (DPM), and consist of soot (unburnt organic material), sulphates and silicates, all of which may

readily combine with other compounds in the atmosphere, increasing the health risks of particle inhalation.


PRISM EMS 162

Other noxious vapours may also originate from oils, glues, thinners, paints, treated woods, plastics,

cleaners and other hazardous chemicals that may be used on construction sites.

A significant amount of the dust emissions is generated from construction vehicle traffic over temporary

roads at construction sites. Usually, dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the

level of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing meteorological conditions.

Air quality impacts will be associated with the construction phase of the proposed development; however,

this will be of a short duration. It is difficult to quantify emissions from construction activities, as these vary

substantially over time, and the only emission factor that is available is known to overestimate emissions

to air due to construction activities.

Both impacts were identified as having a ‘low’ significance before mitigation. Mitigation measures include

ensuring that speed limits on dirt roads are maintained and that dust suppression measures are utilised. In

terms of the emissions from construction vehicles, these will be mitigated by ensuring that all vehicles and

other machinery comply with road worthy requirements and legislation in terms of allowable emissions.

During operation, three potential impacts were identified, namely: Windblown dust - health impacts due to

daily PM2.5 emissions; windblown dust - health impacts due to daily PM10 emissions; and windblown dust -

nuisance effects due to dustfall deposition.

Tailings storage facilities (TSFs) and sand dumps

Emissions generated from TSFs and sand dumps are associated mainly with fugitive dust sources.

Wind erosion is a complex process, including three different phases of particle entrainment, transport and

deposition. It is primarily influenced by atmospheric conditions (e.g. wind, precipitation and temperature),

soil properties (e.g. soil texture, composition and aggregation), land-surface characteristics (e.g.

topography, moisture, aerodynamic roughness length, vegetation and non-erodible elements) and land-use

practice (e.g. farming, grazing and mining) (Shao, 2008).

Windblown dust originates from natural and anthropogenic sources. For wind erosion to occur, the wind

speed needs to exceed a certain threshold, called the friction velocity. This relates to gravity and the inter-

particle cohesion that resists removal. Surface properties such as soil texture, soil moisture and vegetation

cover influence the removal potential. Conversely, the friction velocity or wind shear at the surface is related

to atmospheric flow conditions and surface aerodynamic properties. Thus, for particles to become airborne

the wind shear at the surface must exceed the gravitational and cohesive forces acting upon them, called

the threshold friction velocity (Shao, 2008). Thus, the likelihood exists for wind erosion to occur from open

and exposed surfaces, with loose fine material, when the wind speed exceeds the friction velocity threshold.

Literature indicates a friction velocity of 9 m/s to initiate erosion from two gold tailings storage facilities in

New Brunswick and Ontario, Canada (Mian & Yanful, 2003). A case study conducted for a gold tailings

facility in South Africa, indicated dust mobilisation for wind speeds above 3 m/s (dust flux), with most dust

emissions when winds were above 6.7 m/s (Liebenberg- Enslin, 2014). Thus, the likelihood exists for wind


PRISM EMS 163

erosion to occur from open and exposed surfaces, with loose fine material, when the wind speed exceeds

at least 6.7 m/s. Wind speed data used in this study indicate exceedances of 6.7 m/s for 6.39% of the time

and emissions resulted from wind speeds exceeding 6.7 m/s. The majority of the emissions (90%) occur

with wind speeds over 7.7 m/s.

Twelve gold TSFs and three sand dumps have been identified in the vicinity of the proposed development

and are included in this study to determine their contribution to ambient concentration levels. These

operations are depicted in Figure 20. The tailings dam east of Luipaardsvlei Landfill Site is currently being

re-mined and the site will most likely be converted to a different land use category by the time the proposed

development is established.

Wind Erosion from Exposed Areas

Dust emissions due to the erosion of open storage piles and exposed areas occur when the threshold wind

speed is exceeded (Cowherd et al., 1988; US EPA, 1995). The threshold wind speed is dependent on the

erosion potential of the exposed surface, which is expressed in terms of the availability of erodible material

per unit area (mass/area). Any factor which binds the erodible material or otherwise reduces the availability

of erodible material on the surface, thus decreases the erosion potential of the surface. Studies have shown

that when the threshold wind speeds are exceeded, particulate emission rates tend to decay rapidly due to

the reduced availability of erodible material (Cowherd et al., 1988).

All potential impacts (health impacts due to PM2.5, PM10; nuisance effects due to dustfall) during the

operational phase were assigned impact rating scores equivalent to “low” impact significance. It is possible

that the TSFs and sand dumps will have an impact. The duration will last for the lifespan of the TSFs and

sand dumps. Mitigation would reduce the extent of the impact slightly (within site boundaries of the TSFs

and sand dumps). If the mitigation of the TSFs and sand dumps was implemented and the TSFs and sand

dumps were removed, the significance rating could be reduced, but without mitigation the impact

significance is still rated as low as the impact is not likely to extend to the proposed development site,

although possible.

10.5.1.2 Cumulative Impacts:

Both dust emissions and emissions from vehicles and equipment are cumulative in nature as they are

compounded by existing activities in the environment. In general, these impacts are medium intensity.

Mitigation measures to reduce these impacts are vital and must be implemented to reduce the significance

of these impacts to low.

10.5.2 Noise

10.5.2.1 Overview

During the construction period, the cumulative noise level at the abutting area during the construction phase

of the project will be approximately 50 dBA when all the construction machinery will be operational.

However, it is not expected that all equipment will be operational at one time and thus expected noise is


PRISM EMS 164

estimated to be at a lower level. Based on the expected noise levels and the baseline environment, the

expected significance of the impact was assessed as ‘medium’, mainly because there are some residential

areas to the north and east of the study area. It is expected that small to medium animals who may be

affected by construction noise will temporarily move further away from the study area. However, several

mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the expected mitigation outcome, the significance with

mitigation is expected to decrease to ‘low’.

Noise is expected to decrease during the operational phase with the only major source of noise being

increased traffic on the roads. The significance of the impact was rated as medium without mitigation, based

mainly on the increased extent and duration of the impact. Although mitigation efficiency is rated as low,

based on the expected mitigation outcome the significance is still expected to decrease to be ‘low-medium’

after mitigation with minimal loss of resources and a high degree of reversibility. Mitigation include that all

road upgrades to be implemented as per recommendations of the Traffic Impact Assessment.

10.5.2.2 Cumulative Impacts

Noise impact associated with an increase in traffic are cumulative in nature as it is compounded by existing

activities in the environment. The impact was still rated as having a ‘medium’ significance’ before mitigation.

Mitigation measures to reduce these impacts are vital and must be implemented to reduce the significance

of these impacts.

10.5.3 Impacts to surface and groundwater

10.5.3.1 Overview

During construction, liquid waste, including sewage from chemical toilets may pollute clean stormwater and

infiltrate into the ground and pollute groundwater. Spills/leaks of sewage may result from inappropriate

installation, management, use and maintenance of chemical toilets. During the operational phase sewage

may leak or spill as a result from the poor design and installation of sewage pipelines or not using the

correct materials to construct the pipeline and also poor maintenance and monitoring of the pipeline after

installation. The sewage may then infiltrate into the ground and pollute groundwater and enter clean

stormwater drainage pathways which will pollute stormwater run-off. The intensity of this impact is high

however, the impact will only extent to neighbouring areas and therefore, the significance of the impact was

rated as ‘low-medium’ before mitigation.

During construction, the impact of changes to water quality through construction materials such as

sediments, diesel, oils, paints and cement may pollute clean stormwater run-off and /or infiltrate into the

ground when polluted stormwater is pooling and pollute groundwater may impact adjacent vegetated areas

and the clean stormwater system of the municipality. This impact may have a local extent, but is predicted

to only have a low-medium intensity and was therefore rated as having a ‘low-medium’ significance before

mitigation.


PRISM EMS 165

The construction of the proposed development will divert and increase the velocity of stormwater run-off

and this may in turn cause changes to the hydrological regime of the study and adjacent areas. There will

also be an increased potential for erosion through the reduction in permeable surfaces. This impact may

extent locally and be permanent, however, the intensity will be low and was therefore rated with a ‘medium’

significance before mitigation. After mitigation, the extent will only be site specific and the intensity even

lower, therefore, the impact was rated with a ‘low’ significance after mitigation.

Mitigation measures however will be implemented and include inter alia:

During the construction phase of the project, chemical toilets will also be placed on site for the

duration of the construction phase in the correct quantities;

Toilets are to be secured to the ground and must have a closing mechanism;

Certified contractors to maintain and empty/remove/replace chemical toilets regularly;

The contractor must ensure that spillage does not occur when toilets are cleaned/serviced, and

contents must be properly stored and disposed of;

Contaminated liquids and soil from the site must be disposed of at a permitted disposal site;

Safe disposal certificates to be kept in the site file;

Ensure that clean run-off water is diverted away from potentially contaminated areas of the study

area.

Approved stormwater management plan and recommended upgrades to the stormwater system to

be implemented.

Sewage pipeline to be installed and maintained as per recommendations of the ECSA registered

engineer and engineering designs.

Erosion control measures as specified within the EMPr;

Spill response procedures and measures e.g. drip trays to be used, as specified within the EMPr.

Based on the implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures, the significance of the potential

impacts on surface and groundwater after mitigation was assessed as being ‘low’.


The spill of liquid waste and sewage as well as other construction related impacts on water quality in the

immediate area is not seen as cumulative as a result of the lack of this impact currently on the study area

or within the immediate vicinity of the study area. Changes to the hydrological regime and increased

potential for erosion as a result of the reduction in permeable surfaces are cumulative in nature due to

similar impacts on the study area and in the immediate vicinity of the study area. However, with the

implementation of mitigation measures, the significance of this cumulative impact is expected to be ‘low.


PRISM EMS 166

10.5.4 Waste Generation

10.5.4.1 Overview

The proposed development will produce waste during both the construction and operational phases. During

construction, impacts are expected to be ‘low-medium’ (before mitigation) and ‘low’ (after mitigation).

Mitigation measures related to the construction phase include:

Waste recycling to be put in place;

Solid waste shall only be stored in the designated general waste storage area which must be

enclosed and impermeable;

All solid waste shall be disposed of by a certified contractor, off-site, at an approved landfill site if

no municipal services is available. The Contractor shall supply the ECO with a certificate of disposal

for auditing purposes;

Litter (from outside the camp included) and concrete bags etc. must be collected and put into

suitable closed bins on a daily basis;

Construction rubble must be disposed of at a registered landfill site;

General wastewater on site to be collected and disposed of at a registered communal facility;

The classification of waste determines the handling methods and the ultimate disposal of the

material. The contractor shall manage hazardous waste that are anticipated to be generated by his

operations as follows: Characterise the waste to determine if it is general or hazardous (Use the

Appendix 1 of the Norms and Standards for the Classification of Waste for landfill to determine

whether additional classification is required). Obtain and provide an acceptable container with a

label. Place hazardous waste material in the container. Inspect the container on a regular basis

Haul the full container to the licensed and correct disposal site. Provide documentary evidence of

proper disposal of the waste.

Only temporary storage of waste is allowed (once of storage of waste for a period less than 90

days). The volume of material should be limited to less than 80m3 of hazardous waste. Should this

be exceeded the Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste will need to be complied with.

During operation, the volume of domestic waste will increase and without mitigation would result in a

‘medium’ significant impact. Some hazardous waste will be produced (but in low volumes – for example,

empty containers) and is expected to have a ‘low-medium’ impact. Mitigation measures related to the

operation phase include:

Recyclable waste streams must be separated from other waste streams. Waste to be separated

into recyclable and non-recyclable waste. Waste separation needs to occur before waste is

collected;

Solid waste shall only be stored in the designated general waste storage area which must be

enclosed and impermeable;

All solid waste shall be disposed of by a certified contractor, off-site, at an approved landfill site if

no municipal services is available;


PRISM EMS 167

Avoidance, reduction, re-use and recycling should be practiced wherever possible.

These mitigation measures will decrease the impacts by one level (i.e. to ‘low-medium’).


All waste generated will add to the waste generated by existing and future developments as such waste

generation is cumulative in nature. Minimisation and recycling of waste must be undertaken to reduce this

impact.

10.5.5 Soil Alteration

10.5.5.1 Overview

In terms of soil alteration, impacts related to loss of topsoil, loss of land capability, alteration of topography,

soil erosion and soil pollution were assessed.

10.5.5.2 Loss of Topsoil

In terms of topsoil, much of the site will be cleared for development. Existing indigenous trees and

vegetation on the study area will be utilised as part of the landscaping where possible. This impact is

permanent with a high intensity and will definitely occur without mitigation but is limited to the site only.

Therefore, it was rated with a ‘medium-high’ significance before mitigation. Mitigation measures include

separating and stockpiling topsoil separately so that it can be used for landscaping and rehabilitation of the

site. Based on this, the impact was assessed as ‘low’ after mitigation as there will be minimal loss of topsoil

if conserved appropriately to be used in the landscaping of the development.

10.5.5.3 Loss of Land Capability

Land capability is defined as the inherent capacity of land to be productive under sustained use and specific

management methods. By developing the area will result in a loss of land capability in terms of the natural

area and soil. The site is however altered and thus the capability of the area was already degraded. Based

on this, the impact is seen to be of a ‘low-medium’ significance.

10.5.5.4 Alteration of Topography

During construction, landscaping of the site will take place which will result in changes in the topography.

The topography of the site is overall relatively flat in nature, however, in some areas, levelling out will be

required for the development. This will change the topography of the site. However, as the site does not

occur on a ridge, this change is not expected to be highly significant. Changes to topography must be

properly designed and landscaped and include proper stormwater management. With the implementation

of these mitigation measures, the expected impact is ‘low’ in significance.


PRISM EMS 168

10.5.5.5 Soil Erosion

Soil erosion is another potential impact, however with proper mitigation, this impact can be sufficiently

mitigated. Much of these mitigation measures will be implemented as part of the landscaping of the site

which will stabilise any disturbed areas and prevent soil erosion.

10.5.5.6 Soil Pollution

Lastly, in terms of soil pollution, impacts may occur but would will last only in the short term and if cleaned

properly, will result in a low significance impact. Mitigation measures include:

All vehicle/equipment maintenance and washing must be done in the workshop area, equipped

with a bund wall and grease trap oil separator;

Workshop area must be monitored for fuel and oil spills;

Chemical toilets on site during construction, must be installed, managed, used, maintained and

serviced appropriately;

Spills must be cleaned up immediately and remediated to the satisfaction of the ECO; and

Spill kits must be comprehensive and available on site at all times. An adequate supply of absorbent

material must be available to accommodate emergency spills.


Loss of land capability can be seen to be cumulative as developments in the Gauteng area have reduced

the available land that can be productive. No mitigation measures are possible for this impact however it

should be noted that the site is already impacted and thus this impact is not seen to be highly significant.

10.5.6 Resource Consumption

10.5.6.1 Overview

Four types of resource consumption were assessed, namely, water, electricity, raw materials and fuel.

During construction, all resource consumption was assessed to be at a ‘low-medium’ level except raw

materials which was assessed as a ‘medium’ significance without mitigation. Mitigation measures during

construction include the following:

Enforce electricity reduction strategies;

Environmental awareness training;

Enforce water saving strategies;

Environmental awareness training;

Record and monitor fuel consumption regularly;

Reduce theft of fuel (increase security); and

Promote effective use of raw material.


PRISM EMS 169

Based on these mitigation measures, the impacts are expected to decrease to a ‘low’ or ‘low-medium’ level.

However, during operation, more excessive resource consumption is expected. In terms of water

consumption, the Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD) for the entire proposed development is

approximately 1.43 Ml/day and the peak demand is approximately 2.71 Ml/ day. The engineer confirmed

that there is capacity available close to the study area. Mitigation measures include:

The municipality must confirm in writing that water is available for the proposed development;

Promote effective water conservation measures including, but not limited to the following:

o Rainwater harvesting;

o Backwash water recycling;

o Treatment and reuse of grey water and effluent for irrigation purposes.

Based on this, the impact was assessed to be ‘low-medium’ after mitigation for the operational phase.

Electricity will also be used during operation however effective electricity consumption will be promoted.

Based on this, the impact was assessed to be ‘low-medium’. The electrical engineer however has confirmed

that electricity is available for the development, which must still be confirmed by the municipality.


All four types of resource consumption (water, electricity, raw materials and fuel) have a cumulative impact

as they add to the existing and future use of resources. In particular, water consumption may place

additional burden on resources. However, the municipality confirmed the availability of services for the

proposed development.

10.5.7 Effects on Biodiversity

10.5.7.1 Overview

In order to assess the various potential impacts on biodiversity, an Ecological Habitat Assessment was

undertaken and found that the study area occurs within the footprint of the Endangered but heavily impacted

Soweto Highveld Grassland. However, only fragments of natural vegetation remain on the study area and

these are disturbed and does not represent pristine conditions of the Soweto Highveld Grassland. All trees

and almost 60% of the flowers and shrubs that were recorded were alien species. The ecological status

score of the remaining grasslands on the study area was determined to be between 30 and 40% and

therefore were rated as Moderately Poor. The transformed areas were not evaluated, because no natural

vegetation remained to be assessed. No other sensitive areas have been identified on or adjacent to the

study area either during the desktop assessments or the site investigation. The overall ecological status of

the site is classified as: PES = VERY POOR. The significance of impacts on biodiversity was therefore,

rated as ‘low’ to ‘low-medium’.

Based on the above, the impacts to the following aspects were assessed as follows:


PRISM EMS 170

Loss of habitat – ‘low-medium’ (without mitigation);

Loss of Fauna – ‘low’ (without mitigation);

Loss of Flora ‘low-medium’ (without mitigation);

Degradation of ecological systems – ‘low’ (without mitigation); and

Disruption of natural corridors ‘low’ (without mitigation).

With mitigation measures such as the eradication of alien plants and using indigenous vegetation in the

landscaping of the proposed development, these impacts will decrease and thus after mitigation, all these

impacts were assessed to be of ‘low’ significance.

Most of these impacts will occur during construction phase.


Impacts to biodiversity can be seen to be cumulative in nature as development is prolific in Gauteng.

However, based on the Gauteng Environmental Management Framework, the site occurs in the urban

development area and thus is in line with development priorities in the province.

10.5.8 Incidents, accidents and potential emergency situations

10.5.8.1 Overview

Four main impacts were assessed linked to incidents, accidents and potential emergency situations. These

included:

Pollution incidents;

Health and safety;

Storage of hydrocarbons; and

Fire.

During construction, it was found that whilst these impacts could potentially have a ‘medium’ to ‘high’

intensity, range from short-term to permanent in duration and are possible, likely, highly likely to occur or

definitely occur, they will be confined to the study area. The significance was therefore rated as ‘low’ to

‘medium’ in significance without mitigation. The implementation of mitigation measures will reduce the

significance of all these impacts to ‘low’. These include ensuring that a Safety Agent is appointed and that

all staff undergo health and safety awareness training. In addition, pollution incidents and impacts

associated with the storage of hydrocarbons will be mitigated through the proper storage of materials and

by ensuring that spill kits are available to deal with any spills.

During construction fires are possible but would be limited to the neighbouring areas. Whist the intensity

would be high, the overall significance would be ‘low-medium’ without mitigation. A number of mitigation

measures will be implemented. These include:


PRISM EMS 171

Discussions to take place with the fire association in the area to discuss emergency protocols in

the event of a fire;

Display of emergency numbers;

Environmental awareness training should include a section of firefighting and should highlight the

seriousness of fire in the area;

In addition, designated smoking areas should be provided and there should be zero tolerance to

smoking outside these areas. Cooking over open flames is not allowed; and

Firefighting equipment must be accessible on site at all times.

After mitigation this impact may not occur, or if it does, will only have a low significance with minimal loss

of resources and a high degree of reversibility.

10.5.8.2 Cumulative Impacts

Impacts relating to incidents, accidents and potential emergency situations are not seen to be cumulative

as they are limited to the specific site in question.

10.5.9 Social

10.5.9.1 Overview

From a social perspective, impacts to the following attributes were assessed:

Community health impact;

Visual impact;

Safety and security;

Traffic disruptions and an increase in traffic and impacts on road safety and access; and

Loss of cultural heritage.

These are discussed below.

10.5.9.1.1 Community Health Impacts

During the operational phase there may be a health impact resulting from the surrounding land uses on the

proposed development. No mitigation is required by the Applicant as there is only a low possibility of the

proposed development being affected by the Tailings Storage Facilities and sand dumps, as demonstrated

in the results of the air dispersion modelling.

Monitoring of dust fallout is however recommended to confirm the modelling results for dustfall on the

proposed development site and determine baseline results for the proposed development site. This impact

was assessed as low before and after mitigation. Please refer to the air quality impact assessment.


PRISM EMS 172

10.5.9.1.2 Visual Impact

During construction, the visual impact will be limited and can be effectively mitigated through screening with

construction netting, if required. In addition, proper housekeeping will ensure that litter is kept to a minimum.

During operation, the visual impact is more long term in nature however, the design of the proposed

development should be in accordance with the architectural guidelines of the local municipality for the area.

If there are no architectural guidelines, the developer could develop guidelines to ensure that visual impact

is limited or that the aesthetic quality may be enhanced when these guidelines are followed. Guidelines

such as buildings painted in earthy colours that will fit in with the surrounding environment and aesthetically

pleasing building designs may be included. In addition, landscaping should be conducted throughout the

development to soften the hard surfaces and built environment into an aesthetically pleasing environment.

Existing indigenous and non-invasive trees will be incorporated into the layout as far as possible and new

indigenous plants and trees to be incorporated in the open spaces and throughout the development.

Based on this, the pre-mitigation impact which is ‘low-medium’ in significance will be decreased to ‘low’

after mitigation. The proposed development has the potential to enhance the aesthetic quality of the study

area and surroundings due to existing impacts on visual quality such as mine dumps and the landfill site in

the adjacent areas.

10.5.9.1.3 Safety and Security

During construction, crime may increase due to the influx of workers into the area. This impact would be

short-term in nature (i.e. limited to construction) and would potentially impact neighbouring properties.

Without mitigation, the potential impact would be ‘medium’. However, a number of mitigation measures will

be implemented. These include:

Discussions with local community organisations to increase patrols in the area during construction;

24-hour access control to the site and 24-hour security; and

Workers found to be engaging in activities such as excessive consumption of alcohol, drug use or

selling of any such items on site must be disciplined.

Based on the above, and the fact that the construction employment will be managed by the relevant

contractor (i.e. there will not be an employment desk on site), the impact is seen to be ‘low’.

The safety and security of the study area will likely increase during the operational phase if mitigation

measures such as access control are implemented.

10.5.9.1.4 Traffic Impacts

In terms of traffic, during the operational phase, the proposed development would potentially have a

significant impact however, a Traffic Impact Assessment was undertaken and determined that some

upgrades would be required. In line with this, the proposed development includes the upgrades of

surrounding roads and the impact on traffic will be mitigated to ‘low’ during operation. However, in order to


PRISM EMS 173

undertake these upgrades, there will be traffic disruptions and impacts on road safety during the

construction phase. These however will be short-term (limited to construction). Mitigation measures include

upgrading one lane at a time as well as ensuring the presence of flag men and signage. Based on this, the

impact will be ‘low-medium’ with mitigation during construction.

During the operational phase alternative layout 1 will have a lower impact on road safety and access than

alternative 2, mainly due to the probability of incidents occurring increasing with alternative layout 2.

Alternative layout 1 received a ‘low-medium’ significance rating and Alternative layout 2 a ‘medium-high’

significance rating without mitigation. Mitigation will include that alternative layout 1 be approved which will

decrease the significance rating of these impacts to ‘low’ with mitigation.

10.5.9.1.5 Loss of Cultural Heritage

In terms of heritage, the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development noted that in

terms of the built environment of the area (Section 34), Three structures were identified in the study area

namely two residential structures (Feature 1 & 2) and Feature 3 comprising demolished mining

infrastructure (indicated on Figure 22 as LPV1 to LPV3). The age of these structures is unknown, but it is

highly likely that Feature 1 & 2 is older than 60 years. According to archival maps mining infrastructure was


protected by the NHRA. The age of standing structures in the study area should be confirmed and if older

than 60 years a destruction permit will be required from the PHRAG.

In terms of Section 36 of the Act no burial sites were recorded. However, if any graves are located in the

future they should ideally be preserved in-situ or alternatively relocated according to existing legislation. it

is recommended that a chance find procedure is implemented for the project as part of the EMPr.





sense of place are also considered to be low due to the extensive developments in the area. There are no

battlefields or related concentration camp sites located in the study area. No public monuments are located

within or close to the study area and no other archaeological sites or material have been observed.

Based on the findings of the HIA, no significant loss of heritage resources is envisioned. The impact was

rated with a ‘low’ significance without mitigation. With the implementation of the chance find procedure and

the use of a conservation architect, the impact during construction will be mitigated and decrease, but the

significance rating will still be ‘low’. During operation, no impacts are envisioned.


Visual impacts, safety and security, traffic disruptions and an increase in traffic are all cumulative in nature.


PRISM EMS 174

In terms of aesthetic quality, the area is already impacted on through the existing land uses and the

development will not contribute significantly to the visual impact, if mitigation measures are implemented,

the aesthetic quality of the area can be enhanced.

From a safety and security perspective, the area already has a high crime rate. However, a number of

mitigation measures have been suggested. The impact is also short-term in duration and should not have

a significant impact.

In terms of traffic disruption and increases, current traffic as well as traffic increases due to the proposed

development were considered by the Traffic Impact Assessment and mitigation measures provided.

Cumulative impacts have therefore been catered for.

10.5.10 Economic

10.5.10.1 Overview

Two major positive benefits related to both the construction and operation of the proposed Luipaardsvlei

development is the increase in the local economy and increase in temporary and permanent employment.

In addition, in terms of employment, approximately 120 new temporary jobs will be created during

construction and 450 permanent jobs during operation. This will have positive impact in the area due to the

existing low employment.

In order to ensure that these benefits are increased as much as possible, the following mitigation measures

have been put in place:

Local contractors and suppliers to be used during the construction phase as far as possible;

Mogale' City Local Municipality's requirements for employment equity and BBBEEE requirements

to be met; and

Maintenance and operation of the proposed development must make use of local companies and

contractors as far as possible.

With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the significance of these benefits will be increased

to ‘medium-high’ and ‘high’.


Increases in economy and increase in the economy are both cumulative in nature and will thus have a

compounded positive impact. In light of the fact that there is a high unemployment rate in the area, this is

very important.


PRISM EMS 175

10.6 Mitigation

According to the EIA Regulations, 2014, “mitigation" means to “anticipate and prevent negative impacts

and risks, then to minimise them, rehabilitate or repair impacts to the extent feasible”. Based on this

definition, it possible to see that a mitigation hierarchy exists.

At the bottom of this hierarchy is the most preferred option which includes prevention (1). These mitigation

measures aim to avoid impacts completely.

The second level of mitigation is reduction (2) which involves mitigation measures that minimise impacts.

Most of the mitigation measures suggested for the proposed development fall into this level.

Mitigation measures for the proposed Luipaardsvlei development also include remediation measures (3)

for environmental impacts. These measures focus on remediating or rehabilitating areas after they have

been impacted.

Compensation (4) involves compensating the loss of an entire feature. In the case for the environment,

this usually means consideration of an off-set associated with rehabilitation and mitigation. No offsets or

compensation measures are included in the mitigation measures for the proposed development.

Figure 43: Mitigation Hierarchy

An EMPr will be developed based on the findings of the impact assessment of the EIA and in line with the

requirements of Appendix 4 of GN 982 of 4 December 2014 [as amended in 2017]. The EMPr represents

a detailed plan of action and includes site-specific mitigation measures for all medium to high (significant)

impacts. The mitigation and management measures will include a combination of the following:

4. Compensation

3. Remediation

2. Reduction

1. Prevention


PRISM EMS 176

Physical environmental management structures.

Monitoring and compliance of pollution and regulatory requirements.

All liability for the implementation of the EMPr (as well as the EIA findings and environmental authorisation)

lies with the project applicant which in this case is the Luipaardsvlei Development Partners (Pty) Ltd.

10.7 Assessment of Alternatives

According to the EIA Regulations, 2014, alternatives can be defined as:

“Different means of meeting the general purpose and requirements of the activity, which may include

alternatives to the-

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

(b) type of activity to be undertaken;

(c) design or layout of the activity;

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

(e) operational aspects of the activity;

and includes the option of not implementing the activity;

The EIA Regulations, 2014 also require that the EIA Report undertake “a ranking process of all the identified

development footprint alternatives focusing on the geographical, physical, biological, social, economic,

heritage and cultural aspects of the environment”. The aim of this process is to identify the most ideal

location for the activity within the preferred site based on the “lowest level of environmental sensitivity”

identified during the assessment.

10.7.1 Comparative Assessment and Motivation based on Receiving Environment and

Impact Assessment

In line with the above, this section aims to provide a comparative analysis of the alternatives based on the

receiving environment and impact assessment (Section 5 and Section 10.4. respectively). The aim of this

comparative assessment is to identify the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). Münster (2005)

defines BPEO as the alternative that “provides the most benefit or causes the least damage to the

environment as a whole, at a cost acceptable to society, in the long term as well as in the short term”.

Table 27 provides the comparative analysis of layout alternatives and shows that the preferred (Alternative

layout 1) is preferred for one main reason namely:

Road safety and access.


PRISM EMS 177

Table 27: Comparative Analysis Between Layout Alternatives

Aspects Layout

Alternative 1

Layout

Alternative 2

Motivation for the Best Practicable Environmental

Option (BPEO)

Atmospheric

Emissions

No preference

In terms of dust and vehicle and equipment

emissions, there is no difference between the two

layout alternatives.

In terms of air quality impacts from the surrounding

land uses, there is no difference between the two

layout alternatives.

Noise No preference

In terms of noise, there is no difference between the

two layout alternatives.

Surface and

groundwater No preference

In terms of surface and groundwater impacts, there

is no difference between the two layout alternatives.

Waste

Generation No preference

Both alternatives will result in waste being

generated and the volumes and type of waste

created will be more or less the same. As such,

there is no difference between alternatives.

Soil

Alteration No preference

In terms of soil impacts, there is no difference

between the two layout alternatives

Resource

Consumption No preference

Both alternatives require resources in more or less

the same quantities. There is therefore no

preference.

Effects on

Biodiversity

No preference

In terms of effects on biodiversity, there is no

difference between the two layout alternatives as

both requires the clearing of the site. Further, the

site contains no specific sensitivities and therefore

from an ecological perspective, there is no

preference.

Incidents and

Accidents No preference

In terms of potential incidents and accidents, there

is no difference between the two layouts as both

requires the clearing of the site.

Social

�� X

The proposed layout is preferred from a traffic safety

and impact on access point of view based on the

following:

Although the erf size for the "Bus 1"

development on "Alternative 1" is more than

double the erf size as per the initial layout, the

bulk area will remain the same;


PRISM EMS 178

Aspects Layout

Alternative 1

Layout

Alternative 2

Motivation for the Best Practicable Environmental

Option (BPEO)

The two alternatives will generate the same

number of peak hour trips;

Alternative layout 1’s design allows for the

"Bus" and "Institutional" erven to be located

within the core residential area with easy

access and no need to cross major external

roads to interact with the respective land uses;

With the alternative 1 layout the "Bus 1" site

(retail) is located outside the core residential

area. Further to this, a taxi rank is proposed on

the "Bus 1" site;

With this alternative the majority of residents and

some pupils will have longer walking distance

(between the taxi rank and residential/school site).

This includes crossing a major external road,

located to the east of Erf 767 and could increases

the risk of poor road safety for the study area.

Economic

No preference

From an economic perspective, there is no

preference between alternatives. Both alternatives

will create employment opportunities and result in

an increase in the economy more or less equally.

10.7.2 “No-Go” Option

As standard practice and to satisfy regulatory requirements, the option of not proceeding with the project is

included in the evaluation of the alternatives.

The No-go Alternative assumes that the property will retain its General Zoning. This implies that the site be

left as is and that no development or alteration be done. If this alternative is pursued, the study area’s

existing habitat will be retained. Under this scenario, the following benefits and disadvantages are expected

to occur:

The No-go option will sterilise a prime development area where there is a need for residential and

mixed land uses. In terms of Map 41 of the SDF, the proposed development is located within the

Mogale Urban Development Boundary (UDB), in an area earmarked for residential development

(medium density development);

The potential to provide additional housing, community facilities and employment opportunities to

the population, will be lost;


PRISM EMS 179

The demand for housing and supplying new and approved developments will not be possible or

feasible and financial losses could occur;

A viable opportunity to exploit the limited opportunities in the area and creating jobs and income

for the local market will be negated;

By not approving the proposed development, the general area may not be economically uplifted

neither will job opportunities and skills development be encouraged and the decision will not comply

with the planning policies of the area;

Illegal squatters or vagrants could inhabit the site as the local area is currently impacted;

Given the fact that the site will eventually degenerate if left unmanaged, and the fact that it is most

likely unsuitable to be utilised for grazing or agricultural purposes due to the size of the study area

and the high cost thereof, it is reasonable to state that the No-go option is less favourable than the

Proposal; and

The approval will ensure that an EMPr be implemented and that the environmental concerns on

the site will be managed.

The No-go alternative is therefore not preferred.


PRISM EMS 180

11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The EIA Regulations 2014 require that the EIA Report include an Environmental Impact Statement that

includes the following:

A map at an appropriate scale which superimposes the proposed activity and its associated

structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the preferred site indicating

any areas that should be avoided, including buffers;

A summary of the key findings of the environmental impact assessment; and

A summary of the positive and negative impacts and risks of the proposed activity and identified

alternatives.

In addition, the EIA Report must include the following:

Based on the assessment, and where applicable, recommendations from specialist reports, the

recording of proposed impact management objectives, and the impact management outcomes

for the development for inclusion in the EMPr as well as for inclusion as conditions of

authorisation.

The final proposed alternatives which respond to the impact management measures,

avoidance, and mitigation measures identified through the assessment;

Any aspects which were conditional to the findings of the assessment either by the EAP or

specialist which are to be included as conditions of authorisation.

A description of any assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge which relate to the

assessment and mitigation measures proposed;

A reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity should or should not be authorised, and

if the opinion is that it should be authorised, any conditions that should be made in respect of

that authorisation;

Where the proposed activity does not include operational aspects, the period for which the

environmental authorisation is required and the date on which the activity will be concluded,

and the post construction monitoring requirements finalised;

Where applicable, details of any financial provisions for the rehabilitation, closure, and ongoing

post decommissioning management of negative environmental impacts;

Any specific information that may be required by the competent authority; and

Any other matters required in terms of section 24(4)(a) and (b) of the Act.

In order to ensure that the Impact Statement is comprehensive and includes all the requirements of the

Regulations, this section aims to meet the abovementioned requirements.

11.1 Sensitive Environmental Features


development site (Figure 16). The proposed development site is composed of highly transformed


PRISM EMS 181

landscapes and fragmented grassland and contains no sensitive features (Figure 17). The transformed

landscapes are not considered to be sensitive, because natural vegetation is either highly transformed

or absent. The sensitivity of the remaining grasslands is considered low, because although it occurs in

an endangered veld type and could possibly support 4 red data list plant species, 1 red data list mammal

species and 1 red data list bird species, the ecological status of the remaining grasslands is ‘moderately

poor’ and no red data species have been observed. Furthermore, the fragmented condition of these

grasslands results in poor ecological functioning, limited possibilities for species migration and cross

pollination. The overall ecological status of the site is classified as: PES = VERY POOR. Land use

activities on site and in the surroundings, have likely reduced the number of faunal species that

previously inhabited the area. Furthermore, there are no known water courses or surface water features

on the study area and the study area is not located within any other sensitive aquatic C-Plan areas.

The only potential sensitive environmental features include on the study area include features that may

be of cultural heritage importance, the three structures that were identified in the study area namely two

residential structures (Feature 1 & 2) and Feature 3 comprising demolished mining infrastructure

(indicated on Figure 22 as LPV1 to LPV3). The age of these structures is unknown, but it is highly likely

that Feature 1 & 2 is older than 60 years. According to archival maps mining infrastructure was


protected by the NHRA. The age of standing structures in the study area should be confirmed and if

older than 60 years a destruction permit will be required from the PHRAG.

11.2 Summary of Impacts

A detailed discussion on impacts is provided in Section 10.4 and 10.5 however in summary, all impacts

can be satisfactorily mitigated to low or low-medium significance. A summary of impacts is provided in

Table 28.

Table 28: Summary of Impacts

Potential Impacts

Atmospheric

Emissions

In terms of atmospheric emissions, three potential impacts were identified

during construction namely, dust emissions, emissions from vehicles and

equipment. Windblown dust may cause health impacts due to PM2.5 and PM10

emission and dustfall may cause nuisance effects.

The significance of the impacts during the construction phase could be

reduced to ‘low’ through the implementation of mitigation measures.

The significance of impacts during the operational phase was rated as low as

the likelihood of it extending to the proposed development is not high.

Mitigation can however, lower the significance of the impact further.

Noise During construction, noise impacts will be associated with construction

equipment and vehicles. Activities will be limited to the day and all equipment


PRISM EMS 182

Potential Impacts

must comply with manufacturers specifications. Based on this, the

significance of the impact would be low.

During operation, noise impacts will be associated with an increase in traffic.

With mitigation, which includes road upgrades and appropriate speed limits

and signage, the significance of the impact will be ‘low-medium’, mainly due

to its cumulative effects.

Surface water

and

groundwater

During the construction phase liquid waste and sewage spills and leaks

from chemical toilets may pollute surface water run-off and if allowed to

pool, infiltrate the ground to pollute groundwater.

Impact of changes to water quality through construction materials such as

sediments, diesel, oils and cement may pose a threat to the instream and

adjacent vegetated areas, if by chance it is dispersed via surface run-off

or allowed to permeate groundwater;

The significance rating of construction related impacts was assessed as

‘low-medium’ without mitigation and ‘low’ with mitigation;

Liquid waste including sewage leaking from pipelines may cause

stormwater and groundwater pollution in the local area if not installed, and

maintained appropriately;

Diversion and increased velocity of surface water flows – Changes to the

hydrological regime and increased potential for erosion, reduction in

permeable surfaces;

With the implementation of mitigation measures impacts that may result

from the operational phase may be decreased to having a ‘low’

significance.

Waste

Generation

The proposed development will produce waste during both the construction

and operational phases. During construction, impacts are expected to be of

‘low-medium’ significance (before mitigation) and ‘low’ significance (after

mitigation). Mitigation measures include waste recycling and proper storage

and disposal of waste.

During operation, the volume of domestic waste will increase and without

mitigation would result in a ‘medium’ significant impact. Some hazardous

waste will be produced (but in low volumes – for example, empty containers)

and is expected to have a ‘low-medium’ significant impact. Mitigation

measures related to the operation phase also include recycling and proper

management and disposal of waste.


PRISM EMS 183

Potential Impacts

Soil Alteration In terms of soil alteration, impacts related to loss of topsoil, loss of land

capability, alteration of topography, soil erosion and soil pollution were

assessed.

In terms of topsoil, much of the site will be cleared for development. Existing

indigenous trees and vegetation on the study area will be utilised as part of

the landscaping where possible. This impact is permanent with a high intensity

and will definitely occur without mitigation but is limited to the site only.

Therefore, it was rated with a ‘medium-high’ significance before mitigation.

The impact was assessed as ‘low’ after mitigation as there will be minimal loss

of topsoil if conserved appropriately to be used in the landscaping of the

development.

Developing the study area will result in a loss of land capability. The site is

however altered and thus the capability of the area was already degraded.

Based on this, the impact is seen to be of a ‘low-medium’ significance;

During construction, landscaping of the site will take place which will result in

changes in the topography. The topography of the site is overall relatively flat

in nature, however, in some areas, levelling out will be required for the

development. However, as the site does not occur on a ridge, this change is

not expected to be highly significant. The expected impact is ‘low’ in

significance with mitigation measures implemented;

With proper mitigation measures implemented, soil erosion can be sufficiently

mitigated, and this impact was rated as low after mitigation;

Lastly, in terms of soil pollution, impacts may occur but would will last only in

the short term and if cleaned properly, will result in a low significance impact.

With mitigation this impact can also be prevented.

Resource

Consumption

Four types of resource consumption were assessed, namely, water,

electricity, raw materials and fuel. During construction, the impacts are

expected to decrease to a ‘low’ or ‘low-medium’ level with mitigation.

However, during operation, more excessive resource consumption is

expected. The civil engineer confirmed that there is capacity available for

water and sewage close to the study area. Based on this, the impact was

assessed to be ‘low-medium’ after mitigation for the operational phase.

Electricity will also be used during operation however effective electricity

consumption will be promoted. Based on this, the impact was assessed to be

‘low-medium’. The electrical engineer however has confirmed that electricity

is available for the development, which must still be confirmed by the

municipality.


PRISM EMS 184

Potential Impacts

All four types of resource consumption (water, electricity, raw materials and

fuel) have a cumulative impact as they add to the existing and future use of

resources. In particular, water consumption may place additional burden on

resources. However, the engineer showed that capacity is available for

services for the development.

Effects on

Biodiversity

In terms of biodiversity, the following impacts were assessed:

o Loss of habitat – ‘low-medium’ (without mitigation);

o Loss of Fauna – ‘low’ (without mitigation);

o Loss of Flora ‘low-medium’ (without mitigation);

o Degradation of ecological systems – ‘low’ (without mitigation); and

o Disruption of natural corridors ‘low’ (without mitigation).

With mitigation measures such as the eradication of alien plants and using

indigenous vegetation in the landscaping of the proposed development, these

impacts will decrease and thus after mitigation, all these impacts were

assessed to be of ‘low’ significance.

Most of these impacts will occur during construction phase.

Incidents and

Accidents

During construction, it was found that whilst impacts associated with pollution

incidents, health and safety and the storage of hydrocarbons could potentially

have a ‘medium’ to ‘high’ intensity, range from short-term to permanent in

duration and are possible, likely, highly likely to occur or may definitely occur,

they will be confined to the study area. The significance was therefore rated

as ‘low’ to ‘medium’ in significance without mitigation. The implementation of

mitigation measures will reduce the significance of all these impacts to ‘low’.

During construction fires are possible but would be limited to the neighbouring

areas. Whist the intensity would be high, the overall significance would be

‘low-medium’ without mitigation. After mitigation this impact may not occur, or

if it does, will only have a low significance with minimal loss of resources and

a high degree of reversibility.

Social From a social perspective, impacts to the following attributes were assessed:

o Community health impacts;

o Visual impact;


o Traffic disruptions and an increase in traffic and impacts on road safety

and access; and


During the operational phase there may be a health impact resulting from the

surrounding land uses on the proposed development. No mitigation is required

by the Applicant as there is only a low possibility of the proposed development


PRISM EMS 185

Potential Impacts

being affected by the Tailings Storage Facilities and sand dumps, as

demonstrated in the results of the air dispersion modelling. Monitoring of dust

fallout is however recommended. This impact was assessed as low before

and after mitigation;

During construction, the visual impact will be limited and can be effectively

mitigated and during operation, the visual impact is more long term in nature

however, with implementation of mitigation measures the aesthetic quality of

the area may be enhanced due to the existing visual impacts of existing land

uses in the area;

During construction, crime may increase due to the influx of workers into the

area. The significance of this impact with mitigation was rated as ‘low’;

In terms of traffic, during the operational phase, the proposed development

would potentially have a significant impact however, a Traffic Impact

Assessment was undertaken and determined that some upgrades would be

required. Impact on traffic will be mitigated to ‘low’ during operation. However,

in order to undertake these upgrades, there will be traffic disruptions and

impacts on road safety during the construction phase. These however will be

short-term (limited to construction). With mitigation the significance of the

impact will be ‘low-medium’ during construction;

During the operational phase the proposed layout will have a lower impact on

road safety and access than Alternative 1 layout. Mitigation will include that

alternative layout 1 be approved which will decrease the significance rating of

these impacts to ‘low’ with mitigation;

In terms of heritage, the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed

development noted that some structures could be over 60 years old. No burial

sites were however recorded. Based on the findings of the HIA, the impact

during construction will be mitigated to ‘low’. During operation, no impacts are

envisioned.

The West Rand District Municipality will provide more information on potential

community health issues during the review of the EIA Report however based

on information from the air quality assessment, no specific community health

impacts are expected.

Economic Two major positive benefits related to both the construction and operation of

the proposed Luipaardsvlei development is the increase in the local economy

and increase in temporary and permanent employment.

In addition, in terms of employment, approximately 120 new temporary jobs

will be created during construction and 450 permanent jobs during operation.

This will have positive impact in the area due to the existing low employment;


PRISM EMS 186

Potential Impacts

With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the significance of

these benefits will be increased to ‘medium-high’ and ‘high’.

11.3 Recommendations from Specialist Reports

An overview of the recommendations of the various environmental and technical specialists are

provided in Table 29. Please note that only the main mitigation measures are provided. All mitigation

measures are however included in the EMPr.

Table 29: Specialist recommendations

Recommendations Development

to proceed

Ecological

Habitat

Assessment

Alien species as identified in the study, must be removed

to improve the ecological integrity of the study area;

During the construction phase of the development,

building or waste material should be discarded in an

authorised location; and

During construction the area of disturbance must be

minimised.

��

Heritage Impact

Assessment

It is recommended that the proposed project can commence on

the condition that the following recommendations are

implemented as part of the EMPr and based on approval from

SAHRA:

Implementation of a chance find procedure as detailed

under Section 10.1 of the HIA;

The age of standing structures should be confirmed and

if greater than 60 years of age a destruction permit will

be required from the PHRAG;

A paleontological protocol for finds should be included in

the EMPr; and

if any graves are located in future they should ideally be

preserved in-situ or alternatively relocated according to

existing legislation.

��

Air Quality

Impact

Assessment

Based on the dispersion modelling results, the following is

recommended to ensure compliance with NAAQS and NDCR

within the residential development.

If in future the re-mining of TSFs and sand dumps in the

surrounding areas is proposed, it is recommended that the

��


PRISM EMS 187


to proceed

respective mining company would need to apply mitigation

measures to the re-mining of these dumps to ensure acceptable

exposure to the proposed development community.

It is the specialist opinion that the proposed development may

be authorised. With regards to the Gauteng Pollution Buffer

Zone Guideline (March 2017), no TSFs or sand dumps will be

closer than 500 m to the proposed development. The dust

generated by mine slime dams and ash dumps is

indistinguishable from ambient dust pollution at 1000 m,

however, dust levels are generally acceptable at a distance of

500 m, provided that adequate mitigation is applied. No TSFs

are closer than 1000 m to the proposed development site and

only one sand dump is closer than 1000 m to the proposed

development site.

It is recommended that a short-term ambient monitoring

campaign be carried out to verify the ambient levels at the site

and also to determine if additional vegetation is sufficient to

meet ambient NAAQS and NDCR at the proposed development.

Recommendations for Monitoring

It is recommended that a dustfall monitoring programme be

undertaken to establish and confirm results of the modelling

simulations, in specific the mitigation against the exceedances

of dustfall.

A dustfall monitoring programme should be implemented at the

proposed development to monitor dust fallout levels and to

ensure dust fallout levels are in compliance with the NDCR dust

fallout standards. The dustfall monitoring programme should

include the establishment of a network of dust monitoring points

using method ASTM D1739: 1970 (or equivalent), sufficient in

number to establish the contribution of the person to dustfall in

residential areas in the vicinity of the premises, to monitor

identified or likely sensitive receptor locations, and to establish

the baseline dustfall for the area. This monitoring can be carried

out for three months prior to construction.

Geotechnical

Assessment

It is recommended that the development may continue, with the

implementation of: ��


PRISM EMS 188


to proceed

Design solutions as per Section 3.3 of the Geotechnical

report including solutions for structures, roads and

terraces, excavations and stormwater management.

This investigation was completed for the purposes of

township proclamation, and whilst the site has been

zoned and generalised foundation recommendations

have been presented for typical residential structures, the

results contained in this report should not be used for site

specific foundation design purposes. Additional detailed

geotechnical investigations would be required for

structures other than single and double storey residential

units.

Traffic Impact

Assessment

Based on the Traffic Impact Assessment and subsequent

assessment of the alternative layout, the traffic engineer

recommended that layout option 1 be approved, with subject to

the following:

i. Mogale City and Gautrans supporting the road

upgrade proposed for the study area.

ii. Mogale City to support the internal road layout and

design concepts applied for the road network.

iii. The following road upgrades is required:

a) Intersection 1 – Main Reef Road & Windsor

Road

Provide a 2nd through lane (storage length = 90m)

on the eastbound and westbound approaches of

Main Reef Road.

Provide an exit lane (storage length = 60) on the

downstream side of the intersection.

Optimise traffic signal settings.

b) Intersection 2 – Main Reef Road & Road A

Provide a 2nd through lane (storage length = 90m)

on the eastbound and westbound approaches of

Main Reef Road.

Provide an exit lane (storage length = 60m) on the

downstream side of the intersection.

Provide an exclusive right-turn lane (storage

length = 60m) on the northbound and southbound

approaches of Road A.

��


PRISM EMS 189


to proceed


c) Intersection 3 – Main Reef Road & Station

Road

Convert the exclusive left-turn lane on the

northbound approach of Station Road into an

exclusive slip lane.

Convert the continuous slip lane on the westbound

approach of Main Reef Road to an exclusive slip

lane.

Provide a 2nd right-turn lane (storage length = 90m)

on the eastbound approach of Main Reef Road.

Convert the exclusive slip lane on the northbound

approach of Station Road to a continuous slip

lane, with a downstream storage length of 60m.

Provide a 2nd through lane on the westbound

approaches of Main Reef Road. Provide an exit

lane (storage length = 120m) on the downstream

side of the intersection.

Construct and exclusive slip lane (storage length =

120m) on the westbound approach of Main Reef

Road.

Convert the 2nd exclusive right-turn lane on the

eastbound approach of Main Reef Road to a

shared through and right-turn lane.


d) Intersection 4 – Main Reef Road & Albertina

Sisulu Road

Provide an additional through lane (storage length

= 60m) on the westbound approach of Albertina

Sisulu Road. Provide an exit lane (storage length

= 90m) on the downstream side of the intersection.

NOTE: The design will have to cognisance of the

existing access road from Albertina Sisulu Road,

serving five (5) dwellings.

Provide a 2nd right-turn lane on the northbound

approach of Main Reef Road.



PRISM EMS 190


to proceed

f) Intersection 5 – Station Road & Tudor

No road upgrade proposed.

iv. The external road upgrades will serve the area as a

whole and not only the proposed development.

Mogale City is therefore requested to support the

offset of any bulk services contributions payable

towards road and stormwater, against the

construction of the external upgrades, as well as all

the internal roads.

v. At present no site development plan is available and

in the absence of such details, conceptual access

arrangements are proposed and will have to be

investigated in detail at SDP stage, by means of a

"Traffic Site Assessment" study. As part of this

application the following access arrangements are

proposed (also refer to Mariteng Plan No.: 186-24-01

& 186-24-02):

a) Residential 1 (Erven 1 to 763)

One access per erf from adjacent road abutting

the site. No direct access permitted from Main

Reef Road (future Road K11), Station Road

(future Road K76), Road A, Road B or Road D.

b) Residential 4 (Erf 764)

Access from Road F.

Assume some form of security control at the

entrance to the development.

Two inbound lanes each 3.0m wide unless the

lanes are separated by a raised median island,


One outbound lane 3.0m wide unless the

inbound and outbound lanes are separated by a

raised median island, then the inbound lanes

should be 4.5m wide.

A minimum throat length of 10.0m to be provided

between the road reserve and the centre of the

security gate/boom.

Any vertical structural clearance should be a

minimum of 5.2m.


PRISM EMS 191


to proceed

All bellmouths on public roads to have a

minimum radius of 10.0m.

c) Residential 4 (Erf 765)

Access from Road K.












security gate/boom.


minimum of 5.2m.



d) Residential 4 (Erf 766)

Access from Road E.












security gate/boom.


minimum of 5.2m.




PRISM EMS 192


to proceed

e) Educational (Erf 768)

Access to the school site is proposed from Road

F, a potential Class 4 or 5 road, directly opposite

the intersection with Road G. The proposed

access point will be located approximately 520m

from the future Road K11 & Road B intersection.

This is in line with Gautrans' "Policy document

entitled "Location of schools near major roads

in Gauteng".

One outbound lane and one outbound lane.

Assume any security gate will allow for free flow

of traffic during peak hours of development.

Minimum lane widths to be 3.5m.



security gate/boom. It is also recommended the

security gate/boom to remain in an upright

position during peak traffic flow periods to allow

for uninterrupted flows to and from the site.


minimum of 5.2m.



f) Educational (Erf 769)

Access to the site is proposed from Road H, a

Class 5 road, and should be provided on the

southern property boundary of the site. The

proposed access point will be located

approximately 700m from the future Road K11 &

Road B intersection. The access position is in

line with Gautrans' "Policy document entitled

"Location of schools near major roads in

Gauteng".







PRISM EMS 193


to proceed





minimum of 5.2m.



g) Business 1 (Erf 767)

Access to the site is proposed from Road C.

The design also allows for an exclusive right-turn

lane on Road C.

Any access control to be setback a minimum

distance of 70m from the centre link of Road C.

Final access details to be determined during the

site development plan phase.




minimum of 5.2m.



e) Institution (Erf 770)

Access to the site is proposed from Road F, and

should be provided on the southern property

boundary of the site.












minimum of 5.2m.



PRISM EMS 194


to proceed


f) Institution (Erf 771)

Access to the site is proposed from Road J, 60m

north of the centre line of Road C/Road J

intersection.












minimum of 5.2m.



vi. Implementation of the following non-motorized

transport facilities (refer to Mariteng Plan No.'s: 186-

24-01 and 186-24-02):

Provide 2.0m paved walkway along both sides of

Road A, between Main Reef Road and Road E.


Road B for the full length of the road.


Road C for the full length of the road.


Road D for the full length of the road.


Road E for the full length of the road.


Road F, for the full length of the road.


Road G, for the full length of the road.


Road H, for the full length of the road.


PRISM EMS 195


to proceed


Road J, for the full length of the road.

Provide 2.0m paved walkway along one side of

Road K, for the full length of the road.

Provide 2.0m paved walkway along one side of

Road L, between Road C and Road K.


Road M, for the full length of the road.

vii. Provide the following public transport facilities at the

site access.

Taxi stops along both sides of Main Reef Road,

downstream of Road A.

Taxi stops along both sides of Main Reef Road,

downstream of Road B.

Taxi stops along both sides of Road A,

downstream of Road D.

Taxi stops along both sides of Road A,

downstream of Road E.

Taxi stops along both sides of Road B,

downstream of Road C.

Taxi stops along both sides of Road B,

downstream of Road D.

Provide a possible taxi rank within the parking

area of the proposed business site on Erf 767.

The extent of the rank to be determined at SDP

stage.

viii. Provide access to Land Parcel A via Road F - refer to

Mariteng Plan No.: 186-24-01.

ix. Provide a new access to Chamdor Extension 6 from

Tudor Street. Mogale to assist with the relocation of

the existing access from Main Reef Road. Refer to

Mariteng Plan No.: 186-24-03.

x. Prepare a Traffic Site Assessment report at site

development stage for the "Res 4", retail, institutional

and educational erven, to address all on-site

circulation and parking layout.

xi. The location of the access for Erf 769 ("Educational"

land use) from Road F, directly opposite Road G


PRISM EMS 196


to proceed

intersection to be supported by both Mogale and

Gautrans.

xii. Amend township layout to comply with Mariteng Plan

No.: 186-24-01 and 186-24-02.

11.4 Impact Management Objectives and Outcomes

Impact management objectives and outcomes will be provided in the EMPr to ensure that the proposed

development is sustainable and has no significantly negative impacts. A summary of these

management objectives is provided below:

Planning and layout of construction site is undertaken responsibly to ensure protection of

potential sensitive environmental features;

Environmental awareness creation and training is undertaken throughout the construction

phase to minimise environmental impacts and ensure compliance to relevant legislation and

authorisations;

Minimise environmental impacts associated with emergency procedures;

A safe working environment for contractors/construction workers and the public is provided;

Proper management of site clearing is undertaken to ensure minimal environmental

disturbance;

Minimise environmental impacts associated with site establishment;

Minimal disturbances to traffic due to delivery of construction material;

Proper management of labour force is undertaken to ensure that:

o There are no security-related issues or disturbance to tenants or landowners outside

the construction footprint;

o There is optimal use of local labourer.

Minimise environmental impacts associated with ablution facilities;

Reduce the generation of waste by changing behaviours of contractors throughout the

development

Re-use waste generated by the construction where possible thereby resulting in decreased

waste disposal volumes;

Waste separation and recycling must be undertaken as part of construction;

Waste generated during the construction of the proposed development, to be disposed of at

licenced landfill sites;

Minimal environmental impacts associated with waste;

Effective and safe management of hazardous and non-hazardous materials on site, in order to

minimise the impact of materials on the environment;

Minimal environmental impacts associated with the management of workshops and equipment;


PRISM EMS 197

Ensure that all possible causes of pollution are mitigated as far as possible to minimise impacts

to the surrounding environment;

Prevent polluted water from entering the clean stormwater drainage paths;

Minimise noise disturbance to surrounding areas;

Protect flora species outside of construction areas;

Control alien plants and noxious weeds;

Minimal impact to fauna species;

To have no adverse impact on the historical inheritance of the area;

The preservation and appropriate management of new findings should these be discovered

during construction;

Adequate reinstatement and rehabilitation of construction areas;

Water conservation mechanisms to be implemented;

Electricity reduction mechanisms to be implemented; and

Carbon footprint of the proposed development is minimised by the implementation of

sustainable construction and operational practices.

11.5 Assumptions, Uncertainties and Gaps in Knowledge

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was based on the conceptual designs of the bulk services

infrastructure. Furthermore, EIAs are intended to suggest mitigation which may alter the design and

layout of the project. Detail designs would be required post EIA and Environmental Authorisation (EA)

to complete the project for construction.

Prism EMS used the information provided and made available by Luipaardsvlei Development Partners

(Pty) Ltd and their professional team as well as the input from the relevant specialists as described in

the document. The accuracy of the document would be limited to the available documents presented

at this phase of the development process.

11.6 Reasoned Opinion of EAP

11.6.1 Summary of EIA Report Findings

The proposed Luipaardsvlei development triggered a listed activity from Listing Notice 2 of the EIA

Regulations, 2014 [as amended]. As such a Scoping and EIA process was undertaken to assess the

impacts of the proposed development and to ensure that the development was in line with the concept

of sustainable development captured in NEMA.

The proposed development involves the development of a mixed-use development including

residential, educational, institutional, business (retail), public open space and other land uses and

associated services (including upgrades of access roads, bulk services and parking). Two layout

alternatives were assessed.


PRISM EMS 198

Public Participation was undertaken throughout the process and several concerns were raised by

registered I&APs. Concerns regarding the following were noted:

Noise pollution;

Air pollution;

Traffic;


Waste management;

Stormwater management;

Open space management;

Alien and invasive species.

Based on the concerns raised, listed activities and potential impacts associated with the development,

a number of specialist studies were undertaken to assess the impacts associated with the development.

Several technical studies were also undertaken and informed the EIA process. Specialist and technical

studies included:

Ecological Habitat Assessment;

Heritage Impact Assessment;

Air Quality Impact Assessment;

Outline Scheme Report (including Stormwater Management Plan);

Traffic Impact Assessment; and

Geotechnical Assessment.

The Ecological Habitat Assessment found that the whilst the study area occurs within the footprint of

the highly endangered Soweto Highveld Grassland and some fragments of natural vegetation remain,

these are disturbed and does not represent pristine conditions of the Soweto Highveld Grassland. All

trees and almost 60% of the flowers and shrubs that were recorded were alien species. The sensitivity

of the remaining grasslands is considered low, because although they occur in an endangered veld

type and could potentially support some red data species, the ecological status of the remaining

grasslands is ‘moderately poor’ and no red data species have been observed during the site visit. The

overall ecological status of the site is classified as: Present Ecological State (PES) = VERY POOR.

Land use activities on site and in the surroundings, have likely reduced the number of faunal species

that previously inhabited the area. The proposed development is not expected to have any significant

impact on the ecological integrity of the site.

In terms of heritage, the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development found that

in terms of the built environment of the area (Section 34), three structures were identified in the study

area namely two residential structures (Feature 1 & 2) and Feature 3 comprising demolished mining

infrastructure (indicated on Figure 22 as LPV1 to LPV3). The age of these structures is unknown, but it

is highly likely that Feature 1 & 2 is older than 60 years. According to archival maps mining infrastructure


PRISM EMS 199

was constructed from 1913 and structures in the study area could be older than 60 years and would

then be protected by the NHRA. The age of standing structures in the study area should be confirmed

and if older than 60 years a destruction permit will be required from the PHRAG. In terms of Section 36

of the Act no burial sites were recorded. However, if any graves are located in the future they should

ideally be preserved in-situ or alternatively relocated according to existing legislation. it is recommended

that a chance find procedure is implemented for the project as part of the EMPr.

It is the air quality specialist’s opinion that from an air quality perspective the proposed development

may be authorised. With regards to the Gauteng Pollution Buffer Zone Guideline (March 2017), no TSFs

or sand dumps will be closer than 500 m to the proposed development. The dust generated by mine

slime dams and ash dumps is indistinguishable from ambient dust pollution at 1000 m, however, dust

levels are generally acceptable at a distance of 500 m, provided that adequate mitigation is applied. No

TSFs are closer than 1000 m to the proposed development site and only one sand dump is closer than

1000 m to the proposed development site. The West Rand District Municipality Health Department will

conduct an environmental health impact assessment and site visit and provide comments during the

Draft EIA Report commenting period on potential health impacts on the proposed development. The

National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) will provide comments during the Draft EIA Report commenting

period on potential radiological risks on the proposed development. All comments received will be

included in the final submission of the EIR to GDARD.

In terms of services, the Outline Scheme Report and Stormwater Management Plan found that the

services required for the proposed development are available and can be put in place.

A Traffic Impact Assessment was also undertaken and found that the proposed development is

expected to generate approximately 2 489 trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 1 448 trips

weekday afternoon peak hour; as well as 901 trips during the Saturday peak hour on the external road

network. The study recommended several road upgrades to mitigate the traffic related impacts. Based

on the above, from a traffic engineering perspective, the proposed development is thus regarded as

feasible and sustainable and is therefore supported.

In terms of alternatives, the proposed layout would be the preferred option. The proposed layout is

preferred from a traffic safety and impact on access point of view based on the following: The majority

of residents and some pupils will have a shorter walking distance (between the taxi rank and

residential/school site). This includes avoiding having to cross a major external road, as is the case with

the alternative layout, located to the east of Erf 767 and could therefore, decrease the risk of poor road

safety for the study area.

In terms of the impact assessment undertaken as part of the EIA Report, a qualitative and quantitative

approach was followed. From a qualitative perspective, impacts related to listed activities and raised by

I&APs were assessed. This was then followed by a more detailed quantitative assessment which

incorporated the findings of the specialists where possible. Overall all impacts could be mitigated

satisfactorily. Alternatives were then compared and assessed based on their impact to environmental


PRISM EMS 200

attributes as well as how well they incorporated the requirements of the various specialists. Based on

this assessment, the recommended alternative is the proposed layout.

The no-go option/alternative was not supported for a number of reasons, the most of important of which

being that should the development not proceed, there will be a loss of the economic benefits of the

investment of capital in the area. There will also be a loss of the 120 construction related employment

opportunities and 450 operation related employment opportunities. This would be a significant negative

impact as the unemployment rate for MCLM reached 39.6% in 2015, up from 27.5% in 2011, indicating

that most of the youth in the region is unable to find work. The proposed development will result in

approximately R995 Million in capital investment in the area. This will have a multiplier effect in the

region. In addition, the proposed development will provide housing and associated services as well as

other mixed uses. The no-go alternative would result in a loss of these positive economic benefits.

Thus, with the implementation of the EMPr which includes all necessary mitigation measures, it is felt

that impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated, and the benefits will be maximised and thus the

development may proceed.

11.6.2 Reasons for Decision

Based on the findings of the specialist studies and impact assessment and taking into account the

successful implementation of the EMPr, it is felt that the Proposed Luipaardsvlei mixed-use

development should proceed. In summary, the following reasons form the basis of this opinion.

The proposed development is in line with the Spatial Development Frameworks applicable to

the area, as well as other guidelines and frameworks for the area as demonstrated within this

report;

The location of the site has been considered as suitable as it is line with the Mogale City Spatial

Development Framework. In terms of Map 41 of the SDF, the proposed development is located

within the Mogale Urban Development Boundary (UDB), in an area earmarked for residential

development (medium density development);

The proposed footprint falls within the urban development zone of the GPEMF which favours

infill and densification development;

The location of the site ensures that it can be considered accessible presently and, in the future,

as demonstrated in this report and within the TIA report;

The site is currently impacted upon by existing land uses. Using this site therefore reduces the

need for greenfields development elsewhere;

Services required for the development are available or will be developed during the construction

phase;

No environmental or technical specialist study identified any fatal flaws related to the site

selection for the proposed development;


PRISM EMS 201

In addition, all impacts identified as part of specialist studies and the impact assessment could

be satisfactorily mitigated to ‘low’ or ‘low-medium’. As such no significantly negative impacts

are expected;

The economic benefits of the proposed development include the investment of approximately

R995 million in the area. This will have a positive economic impact in the area;

Approximately 120 construction related employment opportunities and 370 operation related

employment opportunities will be created through the development. This results in a

significantly positive impact as the unemployment rate for MCLM reached 39.6% in 2015, up

from 27.5% in 2011, indicating that most of the youth in the region is unable to find work and

any employment opportunities are therefore of vital importance;

The assumptions, uncertainties and gaps are such that the impact assessment is expected to

be accurate;

The mitigation measures included in the EMPr are thought to adequately mitigate impacts so

that the impact management objectives can be met; and

The comparison of alternatives resulted in the selection of the BPEO for the site: the proposed

layout.

11.6.3 Proposed Conditions

A number of critical mitigation measures accompany this recommendation and should be included as

conditions of the environmental authorisation (should it be granted). These include:

The proposed layout should be implemented;

An Environmental Control Officer (ECO) should be appointed to ensure compliance to the

authorisation and EMPr. Monthly monitoring together with six-monthly full environmental audits

is recommended;

Construction contractors, sub-contractors and operators must ensure that no fauna taxa are

unduly disturbed, trapped, hunted or killed;

If the heritage features (structures older than 60 years) to be impacted on, then a Conservation

architect should be appointed. Permits from PHRA-G to be in place should this be the case;

Equipment and/or machinery which will be used must comply with the manufacturer’s

specifications on acceptable noise levels;

Preparation of the foot print, civil construction activities and the construction of the roads should

be limited to daytime only.

The stormwater management system included in the Stormwater Management Plan must be

implemented and maintained;

The National Nuclear Regulator’s (NNR) requirements in terms of risk assessments, if required

must be complied with;

The West Rand District Municipality’s requirements in terms of community health, if any, must

be complied with;


PRISM EMS 202

Water recycling and rainwater harvesting mechanisms included in the EMPr must be

implemented; and

The requirements of the Traffic Impact Assessment must be implemented.

11.6.4 Authorisation Validity

The proposed development includes operational activities and thus once construction has commenced,

the authorisation will be viewed to be permanently valid. The proposed period for which the

environmental authorisation should be valid prior to operation is 10 years with an option to extend if

necessary. Should construction not commence within this period, the authorisation will lapse and new

authorisation process would be required.

11.6.5 Management of Rehabilitation/Decommissioning

Decommissioning of the proposed Luipaardsvlei mixed-use development and associated services is

not envisioned. However, should decommissioning be required the activity will need to comply with the

appropriate environmental legislation and best practices at that time.

Remediation and rehabilitation of the construction footprint will be undertaken prior to operation.

Mitigation measures to ensure proper rehabilitation are included in the EMPr.


PRISM EMS 203

12 EAP UNDERTAKING

I, , as the Environmental Assessment Practitioner

managing this application provide the following affirmation in relation to -

the correctness of the information provided in the reports;

the inclusion of comments and inputs from stakeholders and l&APs;

the inclusion of inputs and recommendations from the specialist reports where relevant; and

any information provided by the EAP to interested and affected parties and any responses by

the EAP to comments or inputs made by interested or affected parties;

Designation: Senior Environmental Assessment Practitioner

Prism Environmental Management Services

Company

2018-11-01

Date

Monica Niehof


PRISM EMS 204

13 REFERENCES

DIT 500. (2013). Mogale City Local Municipality Tourism Strategy Development. Krugersdorp.

DWAF. (1996d). South African Water Quality Guidelines Volume 2: Recreational Use. Pretoria:

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF).

DWAF. (2005). A practical field procedure for the identification and delineation of wetlands and

riparian areas. Pretoria: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.

DWAF. (2007). Manual for the assessment of a Wetland Index of Habitat Integrity for South Africa

floodplain and channelled valley bottom wetland types. Department of Water Affairs and

Forestry. Pretoria: Resource Quality Services: Department of water Affairs and Forestry.

Kleynhans, C. J., Thirion, C., & Moolman, J. (2005). A Level I River Ecoregion classification System

for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Pretoria: Department of Water Affaris and Forestry.

Kleynhans, C. J., Thirion, C., & Moolman, J. (2005). Level I River Ecoregional Classification System

for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Pretoria: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

Resource Quality Services.

Kotze, D. C., Breen, C. M., & Klug, J. R. (1994). Wetland-use: A wetland management decision

support system for the KwaZulu Natal Midlands. Water Research Commision: WRC Report

No 501/2/94.

Mogale City Local Municipality. (2011). State of the Environment Report. Krugersdorp: Mogale City

Local Municipality.

Mogale City Local Municipality. (2013). Mogale City Local Municipality Draft Baseline Assessment

Report. Krugersdorp.

SANBI. (2009). Further development of a proposed national wetland classification system for South

Africa. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversty Institute.

SANS. (2015). South African National Standard (SANS). Drinking Water Part 1: Microbiological,

physical, aesthetic and chemical determinands. Pretoria: SABS Standards Division.

Statistics South Africa. (2011). Census 2011 Data - Mogale City Local Municipality. Johannesburg:

Statistics South Africa.


PRISM EMS 205

14 APPENDICES

14.1 Curriculum Vitae of EAP

14.2 A3 Maps and Drawings

14.3 Public Participation

14.3.1 Interested and Affected Party Database and Register

14.3.2 Proof of Initial Notification

14.3.2.1 Newspaper Notices

14.3.2.2 Site Notices

14.3.2.3 Written Notices

14.3.3 Proof of 2nd Notification and notification of Review of Scoping Report

14.3.3.1 Newspaper Notice

14.3.3.2 Proof of Site Notices

14.3.3.3 Proof of Delivery of Scoping Report

14.3.4 Proof of Notification of Review of the EIA Report

14.3.4.1 Proof of written notification of registered interested and affected parties

14.3.4.2 Proof of delivery of EIA reports

14.3.5 Comments and Responses Report

14.3.6 Comments Received

14.3.6.1 Comments during Initial Notification

14.3.6.2 Comments during Review of Scoping Report

14.3.6.3 Comments received during the EIA Report review

14.4 Specialist Studies

14.4.1 Ecological Habitat Assessment


PRISM EMS 206

14.4.2 Heritage Impact Assessment

14.4.3 Air Quality Impact Assessment

14.5 Technical Reports

14.5.1 Geotechnical Assessment

14.5.2 Traffic Impact Assessment

14.5.3 Outline Scheme Report Water and Sewer

14.5.4 Roads and Stormwater Report

14.6 Impact Assessment

14.7 Environmental Management Programme

14.8 Other Information

14.8.1 Letter from the Department of Mineral Resources and Letter from Mintails

14.8.2 Site Photos

14.8.3 GDARD Scoping Report Acceptance Letter

Documents

environmental impact assessment report luipaardsvlei ext.9