final basic assessment report - cape eaprac still bay arterial road/fbar... · cape eaprac i final...

Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Pty) Ltd Reg. No. 2008/004627/07

Telephone: (044) 874 0365 1st Floor Eagles View Building

Facsimile: (044) 874 0432 5 Progress Street, George

Web: www.cape-eaprac.co.za PO Box 2070, George 6530

D.J. Jeffery Directors L. van Zyl

FINAL BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

for

STILLBAY ARTERIAL ROAD

STILLBAY, WESTERN CAPE

In terms of the

National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998, as amended) & 2010

Environmental Impact Regulations

Prepared for Applicant: Hessequa Municipality

By: Cape EAPrac

Report Reference: HES133/13

Department Reference: EG12/2/4/D5/15/0006/12

Case Officer: Shireen Pullen

Date: 30 May 2014

Comment Period: Friday 30th May to Friday 20th June 2014

APPOINTED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER:

Cape EAPrac Environmental Assessment Practitioners

PO Box 2070 George

6530 Tel: 044-874 0365 Fax: 044-874 0432

Report written & compiled by: Melissa Mackay (BTech & ND Nature Conservation),

who has eight years’ experience as an environmental practitioner.

Report reviewed by: Louise-Mari van Zyl (MA Geography & Environmental Science

[US]; Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner with the Interim Certification

Board for Environmental Assessment Practitioners of South Africa, EAPSA);

Committee Member of the Southern Cape International Association for Impact

Assessments (IAIA). Ms van Zyl has over ten years’ experience as an environmental

practitioner.

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT: Final Basic Assessment Report for Public Review and Comment

APPLICANT: Hessequa Municipality

CAPE EAPRAC REFERENCE NO: HES133/13

DEPARTMENT REFERENCE: EG12/2/4/D5/15/0006/12

SUBMISSION DATE 30 May 2014

Still Bay Arterial Road HES133/13

Cape EAPrac Final Basic Assessment Report

FINAL BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT in terms of the

National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended & Environmental Impact Regulations 2010

Stillbay Arterial Road

Stillbay, Western Cape

Submitted for: Stakeholder Review & Comment

This report is the property of the Author/Company, who may publish it, in whole, provided

that:

Written approval is obtained from the Author and that Cape EAPrac is acknowledged in

the publication;

Cape EAPrac is indemnified against any claim for damages that may result from any

publication of specifications, recommendations or statements that is not administered or

controlled by Cape EAPrac;

The contents of this report, including specialist/consultant reports, may not be used for

purposes of sale or publicity or advertisement without the prior written approval of Cape

EAPrac;

Cape EAPrac accepts no responsibility by the Applicant/Client for failure to follow or

comply with the recommended programme, specifications or recommendations contained

in this report;

Cape EAPrac accepts no responsibility for deviation or non-compliance of any

specifications or recommendations made by specialists or consultants whose

input/reports are used to inform this report; and

All figures, plates and diagrams are copyrighted and may not be reproduced by any

means, in any form, in part or whole without prior written approved from Cape EAPrac.

Report Issued by: Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners

Tel: 044 874 0365 PO Box 2070 Fax: 044 874 0432 5 Progress Street Web: www.cape-eaprac.co.za George 6530



ORDER OF REPORT Summary

Basic Assessment Report

Appendix A : Location Map

Appendix B : Site Layout Plan

Appendix C : Site Photographs

Appendix D : Biodiversity Overlay Map

Appendix E : Permits / licenses

Appendix F : Public Participation Information

Annexure F1 Stakeholder Notifications

Annexure F2 : I&AP List

Annexure F3 : Stakeholder Registration and Comment

Annexure F4 : Issues and Responses Table

Annexures F5 : DBAR Notifications

Annexure F6 : DBAR Comment

Annexure F7 : Public meeting minutes

Annexure F8 : FBAR Notification

Appendix G : Specialist Reports

Annexure G1 : Engineering Report

Annexure G2 : Botanical Report

Annexure G3 : Botanical Report Addendum for Alternative Four

Annexure G4 : Heritage Background Information Report

Annexure G5 : Archaeological Impact Assessment

Annexure G6 : Freshwater Specialist Report

Appendix H : Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)

Appendix I : Waste Management Information (Not Applicable)

Appendix J : Other Information

Annexure J1 : Authority Correspondence



TABLE OF CONTENTS

BASIC ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW ............................................................ I

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. I

1.1 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................. II

2. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ..................................................................... II

2.1 THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION ................................................................................................ II

2.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA, ACT 107 OF 1998) ................... III

2.3 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT (ACT 10 OF 2004) ..... IV

2.4 NATIONAL WATER ACT (NWA) .................................................................................................. V

2.5 NATIONAL FOREST ACT (ACT 84 OF 1998) ............................................................................. V

2.6 NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT (ACT 25 OF 1999) ................................................ VI

2.7 CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT (CARA) ...................................... VII

2.8 RELEVANT GUIDELINES AND POLICIES .............................................................................. VIII

2.9 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS .............................................................................................. X

3. ACTIVITY .......................................................................................................................... XII

4. ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................. II

1.1 ALTERNATIVE ONE .................................................................................................................... III

1.2 ALTERNATIVE TWO ................................................................................................................... IV

1.3 ALTERNATIVE THREE ................................................................................................................ V

1.4 ALTERNATIVE FOUR (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) ............................................................. VI

1.5 ALTERNATIVE FIVE ................................................................................................................. VIII

1.6 ALTERNATIVE SIX (NO GO OPTION) ....................................................................................... IX

5. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ATTRIBUTES ........................................................................... X

6. PLANNING CONTEXT ...................................................................................................... XI

6.1 NEED AND DESIRABILITY ......................................................................................................... XI

7. PROCESS TO DATE ...................................................................................................... XIV

1.7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................................... XIV

7.1 SPECIALIST INPUT .................................................................................................................. XVI

7.2 KEY ISSUES OF CONCERN ................................................................................................... XVII

8. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................XVII

BASIC ASSESSMENT FORM .................................................................... 1

SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION .................................................... 1

1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 1

2. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY .................................................................................. 5



3. SITE ACCESS .................................................................................................................... 5

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE ACTIVITY IS TO BE UNDERTAKEN AND THE LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY .................... 6

5. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ....................................................................................................... 9

SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ............... 10

1 SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 10

2. GRADIENT OF THE SITE................................................................................................. 10

3. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE ............................................................................................ 10

4. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE ........................ 10

5. SURFACE WATER ........................................................................................................... 11

6. BIODIVERSITY ................................................................................................................. 13

7. LAND USE OF THE SITE ................................................................................................. 19

8. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA .................................................... 19

9. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS ........................................................................................ 21

10. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS ...................................................................... 21

11. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES ................................... 23

SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................... 25

SECTION D: NEED AND DESIRABILITY ................................................ 28

SECTION E: ALTERNATIVES ................................................................. 32

SECTION F: IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT, ......................... 40

MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES ....................................... 40

1 DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT WILL IMPACT ON THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS: ........................................................................................................ 40

2. WASTE AND EMISSIONS ................................................................................................ 43

3. WATER USE .................................................................................................................... 44

4. POWER SUPPLY ............................................................................................................. 44

5. DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO AND AFTER MITIGATION ................................................................................................. 45

6. SPECIALIST INPUTS/STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 55

7. IMPACT SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 59

8. OTHER MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES ...................... 60



SECTION G: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND CRITERIA,

GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE, UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND

UNCERTAINTIES ..................................................................................... 61

SECTION H: RECOMMENDATION OF THE EAP ................................... 65

SECTION I: APPENDICES ....................................................................... 66

DECLARATIONS...................................................................................... 67

1. THE APPLICANT ............................................................................................................. 67

2. THE INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER (EAP) ......... 68

3. THE INDEPENDENT PERSON WHO COMPILED A SPECIALIST REPORT OR UNDERTOOK A SPECIALIST PROCESS ............................................................................... 69

REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 73

FIGURES

Figure 1: Location Plan............................................................................................................ i

Figure 2: Extract from the Biodiversity Sector Plan Handbook (Vromans et al, 2010) ............ xi

Figure 3: Extract from the Biodiversity Sector Plan Handbook (Vromans et al, 2010) ........... xii

Figure 4: Proposed route alternatives ...................................................................................... i

Figure 5: Proposed cross-section of the Arterial Road ............................................................ ii

Figure 6: Proposed Alternative One....................................................................................... iv

Figure 7: Proposed Alternative Two........................................................................................ v

Figure 8: Proposed Alternative Three .................................................................................... vi

Figure 9: Proposed Alternative Four with critical modifications shown .................................. vii

Figure 10: Critical changes leading to Alternative Four ........................................................ viii

Figure 11: Proposed Alternative Five Jan Kallie Street modification ...................................... ix

Figure 12: Still Bay Terrain Types .......................................................................................... x

Figure 13: Hessequa SDF ..................................................................................................... xi



Figure 14: Proposed cross-section of the Arterial Road ......................................................... 1

Figure 15: Affected properties ............................................................................................... 2

Figure 16: Affected properties and co-ordinates of the proposed routes ................................ 9

Figure 17: Still Bay Land Types ............................................................................................11

Figure 18: Fountain and stream north of Tollasoord with permanent wetland between .........12

Figure 19: Critical Biodiversity Areas ....................................................................................14

Figure 20: Vegetation Map (McDonald, 2012) ......................................................................16

Figure 21: Vegetation Type and Ecosystem Status ..............................................................17

Figure 22: National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) .....................................18

Figure 23: SANBI Land Cover ..............................................................................................20

Figure 24: Hessequa SDF March 2013 ................................................................................21

Figure 25: Extract from the Biodiversity Sector Plan Handbook (Vromans et al, 2010) .........41

Figure 26: Extract from the Biodiversity Sector Plan Handbook (Vromans et al, 2010) .........42

PHOTOS

Photo 1: Fountain with covering and exit pipe for Tollasoord ................................................12

Photo 2: Weir and Tollasoord pipe .......................................................................................12

Photo 3: Canalised channel into Tollasoord ..........................................................................13

Photo 4: Stormwater drain north of Tollasoord for natural flow .............................................13

Photo 5: Seep area towards the west (Porter, 2014) ............................................................18

Photo 6: Permanent wetland to the north (Porter, 2014) .......................................................18

TABLES

Table 1: Criteria for determining alternatives .......................................................................... ii


Cape EAPrac i Final Basic Assessment Report

BASIC ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW

1. INTRODUCTION

Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Cape EAPrac) have been appointed as

the independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) responsible for facilitating the

legally required Basic Assessment (BA) process for the proposed Still Bay Arterial Road. The Applicant, responsible for undertaking the activity should it be approved, is Hessequa Municipality. The delegated authority for the environmental application process is the

provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP).

The Applicant is proposing the construction of an Arterial Road circumventing the northern

and western outskirts of Still Bay West to accommodate traffic flow for outlying residential

developments into and around the Central Business District (CBD) in accordance with the

“Stilbaai Plaaslike Struktuurplan” of 1995 and the Spatial Development Framework of 2006,

as well as the latest updated 2012 version of the SDF. This road has been entrenched in the

forward spatial planning for Stillbay over the past eighteen (18) years.

Figure 1: Location Plan


Cape EAPrac ii Final Basic Assessment Report

1.1 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS

This section provides a brief overview of specific assumptions and limitations having an

impact on this environmental application process:

It is assumed that the information on which this report is based (specialist studies and

project information, as well as existing information) is correct, factual and truthful.

The proposed development is in line with the statutory planning vision for the area

and thus it is assumed that issues such as the cumulative impact of development in

terms of character of the area and its resources, have been taken into account during

the strategic planning for the area.

It is assumed that all the relevant mitigation measures and agreements specified in

this report will be implemented in order to ensure minimal negative impacts and

maximum environmental benefits.

It is assumed that Stakeholders and Interested and Affected Parties notified during

the initial public participation process will submit all relevant comments within the

designated review and comment periods, so that these can be included in the Final

Basic Assessment Report for timeous submission to the delegated Authority,

DEA&DP for consideration.

2. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

The current assessment is being undertaken in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA Act 107 of 1998, as amended) and the 2010 EIA Regulations.

The legal requirements below are not intended to be definitive or exhaustive but serve to

highlight key environmental legislation and responsibilities only.

2.1 THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION

The National Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of South Africa. It is the logical

point of departure of any exploration of the maze of statutory provisions that apply within

environmental protection and land use management context. It inter alia confirms that

everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being and

to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations. It also

stipulates as an objective of local government that it should promote social and economic

development and it enjoins the public administration to be development-orientated. In other

words, a balanced approached is envisaged to matters of this nature.

The National Constitution states that the Republic is a democratic state founded on

stipulated values. Those values include the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of


Cape EAPrac iii Final Basic Assessment Report

law. The rule of law requires the state to act in accordance with the law. This in turn means

that the state can only exercise power to the extent permitted by law and that it must obey

the law like everyone else in the country. It is therefore necessary to briefly refer to some of

the other statutory provisions that apply in addition to the National Constitution in respect of

the development proposal.

2.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA, ACT 107 OF

1998)

The Act makes provision for the identification and assessment of activities that are potentially

detrimental to the environment and which require authorisation from the competent authority

(in this case, the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning,

DEA&DP) based on the findings of a Basic Assessment.

According to the regulations of Section 24(5) of NEMA (Act 107 of 1998), authorisation is

required for the following Government Notice R544 and R546 (Basic Assessment) listed

activities:

R544:

Activity 11 (iii), (vi) - The construction of (iii) bridges and (vi) bulk storm water outlet

structures where such construction occurs within a watercourse or within 32m of a

watercourse [According to NFEPA and specialist confirmation, the eastern most access point falls within a designated wetland area and the road will cross a small stream and wetland area north of Tollasoord.].

Activity 18 (i) - The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5m³ into, or the

dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock more

than 5m³ from a (i) watercourse. [According to NFPA and specialist confirmation, the eastern most access point falls within a designated wetland area and the road will cross a small stream and wetland area north of Tollasoord].

Activity 22 – The construction of a road, outside urban areas, with (i) a reserve wider than

13,5 meters, OR (ii) where no reserve exists where the road is wider than 8 metres, OR (iii)

for which an environmental authorisation was obtained for the route determination in terms of

activity 5 in Government Notice 387 or 2006, or activity 18 in Notice 545 of 2010 [The proposed road reserve is 25m, with a road surface of 13,8m inclusive of pedestrian walkway and cycle shoulder].

R546:

Activity 12 (b) - The clearance of an area of 300m² or more of vegetation where 75% or

more of the vegetative cover constitutes indigenous vegetation (b) within critical biodiversity


Cape EAPrac iv Final Basic Assessment Report

areas identified in bioregional plans. [Portions of the road traverses areas identified as a CBA and removal of vegetation will exceed 300m²].

Activity 13 (a), (ii)(ff), (gg), (iii)(bb), (dd) - The clearance of an area of 1ha or more of

vegetation where 75% or more of the vegetative cover constitutes indigenous vegetation (a)

within Critical Biodiversity areas and ecological support areas as identified in systematic

biodiversity plans adopted by the competent authority, (ii) outside urban areas (ff) areas

within 10kms from national parks or world heritage sites or 5 kms from any other protected

area identified in terms of NEMPAA or from the core area of a biosphere reserve; (gg) areas

seawards of the development setback line or within 1km from the high water mark of the sea

if no such development setback line is determined, (iii) in urban areas (bb) areas designated

for conservation use in Spatial Development Frameworks adopted by the competent

authority or zoned for a conservation purpose, (dd) areas on the watercourse side of the

development setback line or within 100m from the edge of a watercourse where no such

setback line has been determined. [Portions of the road traverses areas identified as a CBA and removal of vegetation will 1ha in total].

An Application Notice was submitted to DEA&DP (Ref: HES133/02) on 16th February 2012

and accepted by the department on 24th February 2012 (DEA&DP Ref:

EG12/2/4/D5/15/0006/12. The Draft Basic Assessment Report (DBAR) was made available

for comment for a period of 40 days from Friday 14th September to Wednesday 24th October 2012. Between October 2012 and January 2013 the need for a freshwater

specialist study was identified and the study undertaken. The freshwater specialist proposed

an alternative route (Alternative 4) which had to be investigated by the project team. This

Final BAR has been compiled on completion of all investigations and is being resubmitted to

registered I&APs for comment for a period of 21 days. The comment period extends from

Friday 30th May to Friday 20th June 2014. All comments will be collated and the document

will then be submitted to DEA&DP for decision making once this comment period is

completed.

2.3 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT (ACT

10 OF 2004)

NEM:BA is a Special Environmental Management Act (SEMA) and makes provision for the

management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity within the framework of NEMA.

The Act further provides for protection of species and ecosystems that warrant national

protection, the sustainable use of indigenous biological resources, the fair and equitable

sharing of benefits arising from bio-prospecting involving biological resources and the

establishment and functions of the South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).


Cape EAPrac v Final Basic Assessment Report

Appendix G shows the BGIS categories identified for Still Bay Arterial Road properties.

2.4 NATIONAL WATER ACT (NWA)

The National Water Act (NWA) gives effect to the constitutional right of access to water.

The Act’s overall purpose is to ensure that South Africa's water resources are protected,

used and managed in ways which take into account a number of factors, including inter-

generational equity, equitable access, redressing the results of past racial and gender

discrimination, promoting sustainable and beneficial use, facilitating social and economic

development, and providing for water quality and environmental protection.

The NWA makes persons who own, control, occupy or use land responsible for taking

measures to prevent pollution of water resources, and empowers Government authorities to

take measures to enforce this obligation.

In terms of the NWA, the Applicant has a responsibility to ensure that any watercourses that

may be affected by the road are not polluted by the proposed activities. A wetland area with

a small stream has been identified north of Tollasoord.

DWA has been included as a commenting authority in this process. Due to the inclusion of

the stream / wetland crossing, a Water Use License Application (WULA) will be required by

DWA in terms of Section 21 of the NWA as follows:

21(c) - impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse;

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

2.5 NATIONAL FOREST ACT (ACT 84 OF 1998)

In terms of regulation 15 of the aforesaid Act,

No person may:

(a) cut, disturb, damage, destroy or remove any protected tree; or

(b) collect, remove, transport, export, purchase, sell, donate or in any other manner

acquire or dispose of any protected tree, except under a License granted by the

Minister.

The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry have declared the following species as

protected trees:

Acacia erioloba (Camel thorn), Acacia haematoxylon (Gray camel thorn), Adansonia digitata

(Baobab), Afzelia quanzensis (Pod mahogany), Balanites subsp. maughamii (Torchwood),

Barringtonai racemosa (Powder-puff tree), Boscia albitrunca (Sheperd’s tree), Brachystegia

spiciformis (Msasa), Breonadia salicina (Matumi), Bruguiera gymnhorrhiza (Black mangrove),


Cape EAPrac vi Final Basic Assessment Report

Cassipourea swaziensis (Swazi onionwood), Catha edulis (Bushman’s tea), Ceriops tagal

(Indian mangrove), Cleistanthus schlectheri var. schlechteri (False tamboti), Colubrina

nicholsonii (Pondo weeping thorn), Combretum imberbe (Leadwood), Curtisia dentata

(Assegai), Elaedendron transvaalensis (Bushveld saffron), Erythrophysa transvaalensis

(Bushveld red balloon), Euclea pseudebenus (Ebony guarri), Ficus trichopoda (Swamp fig),

Leucadendron argenteum (Silver tree), Lumnitzera racemosa var. racemosa (Tonga

mangrove), Lydenburgia abottii (Pondo bushman’s tea), Lydenburgia cassinoides

(Sekhukhuni bushman’s tea), Mimusop scaffra (Coastal red milkwood), Newtonia

hildebrandtii var. hildebrandtii (Lebombo wattle), Ocotea bullata (Stinkwood), Ozoroa

namaquensis (Gariep resin tree), Philenoptera violacea (Aplle-leaf), Pittosporum viridiflorum

(Cheesewood), Podocarpus elongatus (Breede Drainage line yellowwood), Podocarpus

falcatus (Outeniqua yellowood), Podocarpus henkelii (Henkel’s yellowwood), Podocarpus

latifolius (Real yellowwood), Protea comptonii (Saddleback sugarbush), Protea curvata

(Serpentine sugarbush), Prunus africana (Red stinkwood), Pterocarpus angolensis (Wild

teak), Rhizophora mucronata (Red mangrove), Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra (Marula),

Securidaca longependunculata (Violet tree), Sideroxylon inerme subsp. inerme (White

milkwood), Tephrosia pondoensis (Pondo poison pea), Warburgia salutaris (Pepper-bark

tree), Widdringtonia cedarbergensis (Clanwilliam cedar) and Widdringtonia schwarzii

(Willowmore cedar)

Any trimming and / or removal of the Milkwood trees (Sideroxylon inerme) or other protected

trees on the development site will be subject to a license in terms of the aforementioned act.

There is evidence of certain of the above mentioned species on the site that could be

disturbed by construction activities. These include Sideroxylon inerme subsp. inerme (White

Milkwood). Trees that may need to be pruned, removed or relocated will be identified on site

once final designs are in place.

The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries have been included as a commenting

authority for this application. Where necessary, applications to move/trim or remove select

trees will be applied for once the route is surveyed and pegged out.

2.6 NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT (ACT 25 OF 1999)

The purpose of the National Heritage Resources Act is to:

- Introduce an integrated and interactive system for the management of the national

heritage resources;

- Promote good government at all levels,


Cape EAPrac vii Final Basic Assessment Report

- Empower civil society to nurture and conserve their heritage resources so that

they may be bequeathed to future generations;

- To lay down general principles for governing heritage resources management

throughout South Africa;

- To introduce an integrated system for the identification, assessment and

management of the heritage resources of South Africa;

- To establish the South African Heritage Resources Agency together with its

Council to co-ordinate and promote the management of heritage resources at

national level;

- To set norms and maintain essential national standards for the management of

heritage resources in South Africa and to protect heritage resources of national

significance;

- To control the export of nationally significant heritage objects and the import into

South Africa of cultural property illegally exported from foreign countries;

- To enable the provinces to establish heritage authorities which must adopt

powers to protect and manage certain categories of heritage resources;

- To provide for the protection and management of conservation-worthy places and

areas by local authorities; and

- To provide for matters connected therewith.

In term of Section 38 of the NHRA, authorisation is required from the relevant authority

(Heritage Western Cape) if certain thresholds are exceeded. A Notice of Intent to Develop

(NID) was submitted to HWC for the activity. HWC has submitted their final comment based

on the NID and is of the opinion that “since there is no reason to believe that the proposed

development will impact on heritage resources, therefore Section 38 of the National Heritage

Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) does not apply”.

No further Heritage and Archaeological studies will therefore be required.

2.7 CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT (CARA)

CARA aims to provide for the conservation of natural agricultural resources by maintaining

the production potential of land, combating and preventing erosion and the weakening or

destruction of water resources, protecting vegetation and combating weeds and invader plant

species.


Cape EAPrac viii Final Basic Assessment Report

In the case of this proposal, the provisions regarding protection of vegetation, prevention of

erosion and combating of weeds and invader plant species must be considered as part of the

long term operational management of the development.

The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) have been included as a

commenting authority.

2.8 RELEVANT GUIDELINES AND POLICIES

DEA&DP and DEA have published Guideline and Information Document Series to aid in the

interpretation and understanding of all aspects of the EIA process. These Guidelines ensure

that processes are undertaken correctly within the constraints of the legislation allowing fair

and equal consideration of development opportunities. The Guidelines must be read in

conjunction with the relevant legislation.

Amongst others the following environmental Regulations and Guidelines were considered as

part of this application:

DEAT (2002). Integrated Environmental Management Information Series 3:

Stakeholder Engagement. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism,

Pretoria.

DEAT (2004). Criteria for determining alternatives in EIAs, Integrated Environmental

Management, Information Series 11, Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism,

Pretoria.

DEAT (2005). Assessment of Impacts and Alternatives, Integrated Environmental

Management Guideline Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism,

Pretoria.

DEAT (2005). Guideline 4: Public Participation, in terms of the EIA Regulations 2005,

Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series, Department of

Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

DEAT (2005). NEMA section 24G Guideline, Integrated Environmental Management

Guideline Series 2, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT),

Pretoria.

DEAT (2006). EIA Regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management

Act (Act No 107 of 1998) (Government Notice No R 385, R 386 and R 387 in

Government Gazette No 28753 of 21 April 2006).


Cape EAPrac ix Final Basic Assessment Report

DEA (2010). Companion to the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA)

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations of 2010. (Government Notice

No R 544, 545 and 546).

DEA&DP (2005). Guideline for Environmental Management Plans. CSIR Report No

ENV-S-C 2005-053 H. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the

Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape

Town.

DEA&DP (2006). Guideline on the Interpretation of the Listed Activities. NEMA EIA

Regulations Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of

Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2013). Guide on Transitional Arrangements, NEMA EIA Regulations

Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs &

Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2013). Guide on Alternatives, NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines &

Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development

Planning.

DEA&DP (2013). Guideline on Appeals, NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines &

Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development

Planning.

DEA&DP (2013). Guideline on Exemption Applications. NEMA EIA Regulations



DEA&DP (2013). Guideline on Public Participation. NEMA EIA Regulations



DEA&DP (2013). Guideline on Need & Desirability. NEMA EIA Regulations



DEA&DP (2010). Information Document on the Interpretation of the Listed Activities.

NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of

Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.


Cape EAPrac x Final Basic Assessment Report

DEA&DP (2013). Information Document on Generic Terms of Reference for EAPs

and Project Schedules. NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document

Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

Not all the above mentioned Guidelines are applicable to the construction of the proposed

Arterial Road, and cognisance was mainly taken of the following:

Guideline on the Interpretation of the Listed Activities(2005);

Guideline for Environmental Management Plans(2005);

Guideline on Alternatives (2007 and 2013);

Guideline on Public Participation (2007 and 2013);and

Guideline on Need & Desirability (2013).

2.9 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS

According to the Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) plans, portions of the road will fall into and

adjacent to both a terrestrial and aquatic CBA. The final alternative has been developed with

input from the botanical and freshwater specialist and the route will avoid as much of both

CBA as is practical, but with most avoidance taking place around the aquatic CBA area.

In terms of the identified CBA’s it must be pointed out that specified infrastructure

installations are identified in the Biodiversity Sector Plan Handbook (Vromans et al 2010), as

allowable in areas identified as a CBA, see item 10 in the figure below as extracted from the

Handbook. Thus the provision of a road, taking into account certain conditions, would be

considered an allowable activity.

The handbook further stipulates that the following conditions should be assumed:

Avoidance of sensitive areas such as floodlines, river and wetland buffers.


Cape EAPrac xi Final Basic Assessment Report

Figure 2: Extract from the Biodiversity Sector Plan Handbook (Vromans et al, 2010)

These infrastructure installations include:

Roads and power lines (see extract below).


Cape EAPrac xii Final Basic Assessment Report


3. ACTIVITY

Hessequa Municipality is proposing the construction of an Arterial Road that circumvents the

northern and western edges of Still Bay West. The road is proposed to firstly provide access

to proposed residential developments along the western part of Stillbay (future growth

direction for the town), and in the long term provide an alternative routing around the Central

Business District (CBD) to alleviate congestion during the peak holiday periods.

Consulting the 2006 / 2012 Hessequa SDF, the areas designated for future urban expansion

west of Stillbay will add an additional 3 000 – 5 000 housing units to Stillbay West.

Two options were originally proposed, with an additional two being developed during the EIA

phase. Option 4 (Alternative 4) is the preferred alternative proposed for authorisation and

takes into account sensitive botanical areas, an aquatic CBA buffer, private property

concerns and required road safety specifications.


Cape EAPrac i Final Basic Assessment Report

Figure 4: Proposed route alternatives


Cape EAPrac ii FINAL Basic Assessment Report

The proposed road will consist to two lanes, one in each direction (similar to the existing road

to Jongensfontein). Each traffic lane will be 3,4m wide (total road surface 6,8 metres), with a

cycle/road shoulder of 1,5m wide on both sides and supported by pedestrian walkways of 2m

wide on each side.

The total surfaced area associated with this arterial road is 13,8 metres. The proposed road

reserve to accommodate this arterial road is 25 metres (please refer to the diagram provided

by VelaVKE).

Figure 5: Proposed cross-section of the Arterial Road

The proposed route is approximately 5kms in length and is designed to accommodate

speeds of no more than 70km/h. It crosses multiple properties around Stillbay West namely:

73/485, 63/485, 2476, 85/485, 30/485, 619, Rem 591, 1/591, 55/485 and 82 of 485.

The road will be constructed in phases, most likely starting from the east where the access

point is already existing, in a westerly direction as and when developments occur over time.

Associated intersections along this route will be upgraded according to the specifications in

the Traffic Impact Report (VelaVKE, Aug 2012). Once the road is complete in a few years’

time, it will serve as an alternative route around Stillbay connecting to the Jongensfontein

Road.

4. ALTERNATIVES

The EIA process requires the consideration of Alternatives when assessing activities.

According to the Guide on Alternatives (DEA&DP, 2010) alternatives are identified as:

“different means of meeting the general purpose and requirements of the activity, which may

include alternatives to: (a) the property on which or location where it is proposed to

undertake the activity; (b) the type of activity to be undertaken; (c) the design or layout of the

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

operational aspects of the activity; and (f) the option of not implementing the activity”.

Possible Alternatives that may have been considered for the proposed activity are:

Table 1: Criteria for determining alternatives


Cape EAPrac iii FINAL Basic Assessment Report

TYPE OF ALTERNATIVE

STILL BAY ARTERIAL ROAD

Location The identified general routing of the arterial road has been developed as part of the Hessequa Spatial Development Framework (SDF 2005) and previously the “Stilbaai Plaaslike Struktuurplan” of 1995. There are five proposed Alternatives, two were identified in consultation with various landowner and other stakeholders, whilst the third Alternative has been developed by combining Alternatives 1 and 2 and with input from the botanical specialist. Alternative 4 was proposed by the freshwater specialist, whilst Alternative 5 has been developed combining both botanical and freshwater recommendations whilst still providing for road safety specifications.

Type of Activity The proposed activity has been determined based on the infrastructure requirements of the Hessequa Municipality identified in their 2006/2012 SDF and previously the “Stilbaai Plaaslike Struktuurplan” of 1995, and as such there is no activity Alternatives proposed.

Design or Layout Design requirements for a road of this nature follow building codes and as such no alternatives are considered.

Layout alternatives are considered as the various options proposed constitute layout variations.

Technology No technological Alternatives have been identified.

Operational

Aspects

No operational alternatives have been considered.

“No-Go Option” This option must always be considered as a baseline against which

the other alternatives are measured and refers to not continuing with

the activity.

Taking the above into consideration, it can thus be concluded that location and layout

alternatives can be assessed.

1.1 ALTERNATIVE ONE

Alternative One proposes the construction of a route following the alignment identified in the

Engineering Report as Option One. The route starts at the existing intersection off the Main

Road, traverses through Portion 73 of 485 on the southern side of the kloof, intersecting Erf

2476 and joining up with an existing gravel road between Portion 30 and 85 of 485. It then

crosses Portion 30 of 485 towards its western boundary and then follows the boundary


Cape EAPrac iv FINAL Basic Assessment Report

between Farms 619 and Remainder 591. It traverses the dog leg of Remainder 591, crosses

Portion 55 of 485 and Portion 82 of 485 to join up with the Still Bay Jongensfontein tar road.




wide on each side.



by VelaVKE).


speeds of no more than 70km/h.

Figure 6: Proposed Alternative One

1.2 ALTERNATIVE TWO

Alternative Two proposes the construction of a route following the alignment identified in the

Engineering Report as Option Two. The route starts at the existing intersection off the Main

Road as for Alternative One, traverses through Portion 73 of 485 on the northern side of the

kloof, traversing the northern and western boundaries of Erf 2476. It traverses Portion 30 of


Cape EAPrac v FINAL Basic Assessment Report

485 diagonally and then crosses Farm 619 to the boundary between Portion 1 of 591 and

Remainder 591. It then crosses Portion 55 of 485 and Portion 82 of 485 to join up with the

Still Bay Jongensfontein tar road slightly to the east of the intersection described in

Alternative One.




wide on each side.



by VelaVKE).


speeds of no more than 70km/h.

Figure 7: Proposed Alternative Two

1.3 ALTERNATIVE THREE

Alternative Three proposes the construction of a route which combines Options One and

Two (as identified in the Engineering Report and shown as Option Three) as well as the


Cape EAPrac vi FINAL Basic Assessment Report

recommendations of the botanical specialist. This alternative addresses the concerns and

issues identified by the project team (see section 7.3), and is the Preferred Alternative for

authorisation. Alternative Three follows the initial routing for Alternative Two where the route

is located on the northern side of the kloof up until it circumvents Erf 2476. At this point it

continues along the route alignment proposed for Alternative One where it joins up with an

existing gravel road between Portion 30 and 85 of 485. It then crosses Portion 30 of 485

towards its western boundary and then follows the boundary between Farms 619 and

Remainder 591. It traverses the dog leg of Remainder 591, crosses Portion 55 of 485 and

Portion 82 of 485 to join up with the Still Bay Jongensfontein tar road.

This routing avoids the most sensitive vegetation identified by the Botanical specialist whilst

providing sufficient camber for corners and a safe intersection at the Still Bay Jongensfontein

road intersection.

Appendix B contains detailed drawings of all the Alternatives.

Figure 8: Proposed Alternative Three

1.4 ALTERNATIVE FOUR (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

Alternative Four proposes the construction of a route which combines Options One and

Three. Alternative Four follows the initial routing for Alternative One where the route is

located on the southern side of the kloof up until it circumvents Erf 2476. At this point it


Cape EAPrac vii FINAL Basic Assessment Report

deviates from the other options slightly by remaining within Erf 3879 before it continues along

the route alignment proposed for Alternative One and Three where it joins up with an existing

gravel road between Portion 30 and 85 of 485. It then crosses Portion 30 of 485 towards its

western boundary and then follows the boundary between Farms 619 and Remainder 591. It

traverses the dog leg of Remainder 591, crosses Portion 55 of 485 and Portion 82 of 485 to

join up with the Still Bay Jongensfontein tar road.

This alternative includes three modifications from Alternative Three which have been

included to address the following:

The conflict with the aquatic CBA in the eastern area;

Impact on Erf 2476 in the central area; and

Intersection with the Jongensfontein road in the west.

Figure 9: Proposed Alternative Four with critical modifications shown


Cape EAPrac viii FINAL Basic Assessment Report

Figure 10: Critical changes leading to Alternative Four


1.5 ALTERNATIVE FIVE

Alternative Five was proposed as a deviation to Alternative Three. This deviation addresses

the concerns raised by the freshwater specialist and proposed the total avoidance of the

stream and wetland west of Tollasoord. Alternative Five followed the same alignment as

Alternative Three except it proposes that the eastern access of the road exists of Main Road

onto Jan Kallie street. This will entail significant widening of Jan Kallie street and the

municipality will require portions of Farm Portions 18 and 65 of 485. The route will continue

along the southern side of the kloof up until it circumvents Erf 2476. At this point it continues

along the route alignment proposed for Alternative One where it joins up with an existing

gravel road between Portion 30 and 85 of 485. It then crosses Portion 30 of 485 towards its

western boundary and then follows the boundary between Farms 619 and Remainder 591. It

traverses the dog leg of Remainder 591, crosses Portion 55 of 485 and Portion 82 of 485 to

join up with the Still Bay Jongensfontein tar road.


Cape EAPrac ix FINAL Basic Assessment Report

Figure 11: Proposed Alternative Five Jan Kallie Street modification

This routing avoids the most sensitive vegetation identified by the Botanical specialist whilst

providing sufficient camber for corners and a safe intersection at the Still Bay Jongensfontein

road intersection. However, the affected landowners on Jan Kallie Street are not willing to

cede portions of their properties in order to widen the road to accommodate the

specifications for this class road.

This Alternative was thus considered unfeasible and no further assessment of the impacts

will be undertaken.

1.6 ALTERNATIVE SIX (NO GO OPTION)

As stated above, this Alternative considers the option of not commencing with the activity, i.e.

not constructing the arterial road. The road has been included in the planning for Still Bay

from as early as the 1995 “Stilbaai Plaaslike Struktuurplan” and continued into the 2006 /

2012 Spatial Development Framework (SDF). The reasons for the inclusion are to provide

suitable access to the areas on the outskirts of the northern and western portions of Still Bay

where the Municipality’s Spatial Development Framework allows for future expansion of the

town. Once the road is built it will reduce pressure on existing road networks through town

and allow an alternative route around the central business district.


Cape EAPrac x FINAL Basic Assessment Report

The No-Go option implies the expansion of Stillbay in a westerly direction (conservative

estimated figure of 3 000 – 5 000 erven potential), without additional road infrastructure to

accommodate the traffic volume associated with such expansion. Traffic from the residential

expansion will make use of the existing road network which is stressed during peak holiday

periods, resulting in higher maintenance requirement on existing roads, as well as an

elevation in traffic congestion.

5. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ATTRIBUTES

Still Bay is located on the banks of the Goukou River in the southern cape. The proposed

road will cross multiple properties, both private and municipal on the northern and western

edges of Still Bay West. The road is proposed from the entrance to Still Bay after the

Goukou Bridge off the Main Road West and will exit onto the Jongensfontein road and will

cover a distance of approximately 5kms.

According to McDonald (2012), the study area is underlain by limestone of the De Hoopvlei

and Wankoe Formations of the Bredasdorp Group. Limestone or calcrete is seen as

prominent ridges with shallow soil. In the intervening valleys the limestone is covered with

wind-blown regic sand of the Quaternary age. The Land types as identified by AGIS show

that the area in question consists of open hills or ridges.

Figure 12: Still Bay Terrain Types


Cape EAPrac xi FINAL Basic Assessment Report

The road crosses two ecosystem types (Canca Limestone Fynbos and Southern Coastal

Forest) and ends in a third (Albertinia Sand Fynbos). None of these are listed as

Endangered or Critically Endangered in terms of the NEM:BA classification.

6. PLANNING CONTEXT

This proposal is in keeping with Hessequa Municipality’s 1995 “Stilbaai Plaaslike

Struktuurplan” and the 2006/2012 Spatial Development Framework (SDF). The road is

proposed as part of the Municipality’s bulk service provisions to accommodate the future

growth of Stillbay.

Figure 13: Hessequa SDF

According to the SDF for Still Bay, the proposed road will provide access to the northern and

eastern areas that are designated for development.

6.1 NEED AND DESIRABILITY

In keeping with the requirements of an integrated Environmental Impact process, the

DEA&DP Guideline on Need and Desirability (2010) has been utilised to provide a concise

estimation of the activity to the broader societal needs. The concept of need and desirability

can be explained in terms of its two components where need refers to time and desirability


Cape EAPrac xii FINAL Basic Assessment Report

refers to place. The questions pertaining to both NEED and DESIRABILITY, as specified in

the Guideline, are answered below:

Need (timing):

Is the proposed development in line with the projects and programmes identified as priorities

within the credible IDP?

Yes. A route has been included in the municipality’s 1995 “Stilbaai Plaaslike Struktuurplan”

and the 2006/2012 Spatial Development Framework (SDF).

Should the development occur here at this point in time?

Yes. The road in its current position is a requirement for future expansion of in a westerly

direction. The proposed road will form the outer boundary of Still Bay West. Several

residential developments are being proposed for the town and the road forms an important

aspect of this development.

Does the community / area need the activity and the associated land use concerned?

It is anticipated that the main users of the proposed road are likely to be land owners of

property on the outskirts of Still Bay West.

Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently available?

Yes. The reason why the road has become a priority after 18 years of being included in

forward spatial planning documents, is because other bulk services i.e. water and electricity

has been secured for future township expansion. As a result potential developments are

being considered for which associated infrastructure, such as the road, is a requirement.

Is this development provided for in the infrastructure planning of the municipality?

Yes. The Hessequa Municipality obtained funding for the road in the 2011/2012 budget to

commence with the investigations. Construction funding will be acquired by means of capital

contribution by contributing developers and in future municipal budgets.

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

importance?

No.

Desirability (place):

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

The properties that are included for the routing of the arterial road are owned privately and by

the municipality. The majority of the privately owned properties are earmarked for

development and transformed already. The road will avoid existing erven and be


Cape EAPrac xiii FINAL Basic Assessment Report

accommodated within new developments. In addition, the routing of the preferred alternative

has avoided the sensitive aquatic CBA areas on the eastern access and remained within the

proposed future development envelopes as per the current SDF.

Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing approved and

credible municipal IDP and SDF?

No. It forms part of the requirements of the IDP and SDF.

Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the existing approved

environmental management priorities for the area?

No.

Do location factors favour this land use at this place?

Yes. The future expansion area for Stillbay is in the northerly and westerly direction which is

where the road is proposed.

How will the activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, impact on

sensitive natural and cultural areas?

There are no culturally sensitive areas in proximity to the project sites, as confirmed by

Heritage Western Cape.

The road is likely to impact on individual Milkwood trees on any of the proposed alignments

but the overall impact on the natural vegetation is considered to be of a low to medium

significance, mostly due to the fact that the vegetation type is well represented.

The avoidance of the aquatic CBA area and the implementation of sufficient drainage and

water flow mechanisms at the stream crossing has been included in the preferred alternative.

How will the development impact on people’s health and wellbeing?

The road will provide improved access in and around Still Bay West to residents and visitors

alike. It will also provide non motorised transport around the town.

Will the proposed activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, result in

unacceptable opportunity costs?

Considering that the proposed road has been accommodated in the forward spatial planning

for Stillbay for the past 17 years, it is unlikely that it will result in unacceptable opportunity

costs.

Will the proposed land use result in unacceptable cumulative impacts?

No. The same argument applies as with opportunity costs. Implementation of the mitigation

measures at design phase and the management requirements will minimise the risks of


Cape EAPrac xiv FINAL Basic Assessment Report

unacceptable cumulative impacts. Adequate monitoring and control during the operational

phase will also ensure the sustainability of the proposal.

7. PROCESS TO DATE

An Application Notice was submitted to the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs

and Development Planning (DEA&DP) (Ref: HES133/02) on 16th February 2012 and

accepted by the department on 24th February 2012 (DEA&DP Ref:

EG12/2/4/D5/15/0006/12). In terms of the Acceptance, Cape EAPrac has been instructed to

continue with the Basic Assessment Process. Deviations were approved by DEA&DP with

regards to the placement of site notices due to the linear nature of the proposal. A copy of

the Acceptance letter has been included in Appendix E of this report.

1.7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

A public participation (stakeholder engagement) process (PPP) has been undertaken in

accordance with the requirements of the NEMA EIA Regulations: Guideline and Information

Document Series (Guideline on Public Participation July 2005/2007 and 2010).

Site notices were placed at the municipal office and the library in December 2011 as

part of the Pre-feasibility process. Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) were

requested to register with Cape EAPrac.

An advertisement was placed in the local newspaper (Suid Kaap Forum) and

published on Friday 29th June 2012. The advert calls for Interested and Affected

Parties (I&APs) to register with Cape EAPrac should they wish to participate in the

EIA process within a 21 day period.

Site Notices were placed at prominent public places (municipal office, library and post

office) providing details of the EIA process and registration information.

Key Stakeholders were identified and notified of the EIA process.

A Stakeholder Register was opened for all I&APs.

Notification of the availability of the Draft BAR and notice of a public meeting / open house session has been provided to all registered I&APs;

The Draft BAR was made available to all registered I&APs. Hard copies of the report

were placed at the Still Bay Library (Main Road, Still Bay), Hessequa Municipal Offices (Main Road, Still Bay) and the Hessequa Municipal Planning Offices

(Riversdale).

Digital copies of the DBAR have been made available to all identified key

stakeholders, which include relevant State Departments, Organs of State, local and


Cape EAPrac xv FINAL Basic Assessment Report

provincial authorities. A digital copy is also available on the website at www.cape-

eaprac.co.za/active.

Open House to present the findings of the DBAR to the public was held in

conjunction with the Spatial Development Framework (2012) workshops during early

October 2012.

Investigations into changes on the layout associated with the eastern access that

would have required the municipality obtaining private land was discussed with

affected landowners.

This Final BAR is being made available to all registered I&Aps for comment and

review for a period of 21 days extending from 30 May to 20 June 2014. All

comments submitted during this period will be provided to DEA&DP.

The Draft Basic Assessment Report (DBAR) was made available for comment for a period of

40 days from Monday 17th September to Monday 29th October 2012. The Final BAR has

been compiled after investigations were completed regarding additional and will includes all

comments received from I&APs during the DBAR phase. On completion of the FBAR

comment period of 21 days, this document will then be submitted to DEA&DP for decision

making.

Key stakeholders and state departments that have been identified and notified include:

Relevant State Departments & Organs of State

Department of Water Affairs John Roberts

Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Cobri Vermeulen / Cor van der Walt

DEA&DP: Development Facilitation Unit (DFU) Keshni Rughobeer

Heritage Western Cape (HWC) Calvin van Wyk

Provincial Department of Transport and Public Works Peter Gray / Evan Burger

Eden District Municipality Vernon Gibbs-Hall

Hessequa Municipality (Planning) Hendrik Visser

Hessequa Municipality (Environment) Shagon Carelse

Ward Councillors Phillip Claassens / Joan Prins

CapeNature Benjamin Walton

http://www.cape-eaprac.co.za/active



Cape EAPrac xvi FINAL Basic Assessment Report

Interested & Affected Parties

Affected land owners Multiple

Adjacent land owners Multiple

Stilbaai Belangeforum John Willemse

Stilbaai Sakekamer Archie van Dyk

Registered I&APs See I&AP list

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS DATE PURPOSE ENTITY ACTIONS 16 Feb 2012 Application Form Cape EAPrac Submit Application for Environmental

Authorisation to DEA&DP. 24 Feb 2012 Acknowledgement DEA&DP Acknowledge receipt of the

Application Form and request confirmation of listed activities.

13 Mar 2012 Confirmation of listed activities

Cape EAPrac Confirmation of listed activities.

17 Sept 2012 Draft Basic Assessment Report

Cape EAPrac Submission of DBAR for 40 day public review and comment period.

24 Oct 2012 Hessequa Municipality SDF Public meeting

Hessequa Municipality / Cape EAPrac

29 Oct 2012 Draft Basic Assessment Report

Cape EAPrac 40 day comment period ends.

Jan 2013 – Feb 2014

Specialist investigations

Specialists Specialist investigations into additional alternatives. This included investigations into obtaining private land as well as completing designs for sensitive crossings.

30 May 2014 Final Basic Assessment Report

Cape EAPrac Submission of FBAR for 21 day public review and comment period.

20 June 2014

Final Basic Assessment Report

Cape EAPrac 21 day comment period ends.

Final Basic Assessment Report

Cape EAPrac Submit FBAR to DEA&DP for decision making.

7.1 SPECIALIST INPUT

The following specialists were appointed to undertake various studies related to this

proposal:

o Botanical Assessment undertaken by Bergwind Surveys (Dr Dave McDonald) May

2012 and updated in May 2014;


Cape EAPrac xvii FINAL Basic Assessment Report

o Addendum to the Botanical Assessment focussing only on the eastern portion of the

road undertaken by Bergwind Surveys (Dr Dave McDonald) May 2014.

o Scoping Archaeological Impact Assessment undertaken by Dr Peter Nilssen, March

2012;

o Notice of Intent to Develop (NID) and Background Information Document (BID) in

terms of Section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act undertaken by

Perception Heritage Planning (Stefan de Kock) undertaken in March 2012.

o Wetland and stream assessment on a portion of land earmarked for the construction

of an arterial road at Stillbay undertaken by Anchor Environmental in January 2012

and updated in April 2014.

Unadulterated copies of all the specialist reports are available as Appendix D of this report.

7.2 KEY ISSUES OF CONCERN

Potential issues identified by the Project Team to date include the following.

Removal of protected vegetation;

Introduction / spread of alien vegetation;

Increased volume of stormwater runoff.

Further issues raised by registered I&APs include the following:

Impact on Erf 2476;

Impacts on private nature reserves and residential areas;

Unnecessary use of funding;

Impacts on the wetland north of Tollasoord.

An Issues and Responses Table has been included which provides all comment received to

date.

Note that any other or new concerns/issues raised during the public participation phase will

be considered, investigated and responded to as is required in terms of the Regulations.

8. CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of the DBAR, FBAR and the specialist assessments it can be

confirmed that negative impacts likely to result from the proposed activity will not be of a

significant, detrimental or long term nature as long as the correct alignment and mitigation

measures are implemented. Certain portions of the route have higher significance impacts

than others, and more stringent mitigations measures are proposed by the relevant

specialists. This relates especially to the initial portion of the road on the eastern side that


Cape EAPrac xviii FINAL Basic Assessment Report

includes a stream crossing, proximity to a wetland and a calcrete ridge containing Milkwood

trees.

The proposed activity is in keeping with the forward spatial planning of the Hessequa

Municipality’s SDF to ensure sufficient access and mobility for future township developments,

as well as alleviating traffic pressure on existing road networks and providing an alternative

route around the CBA of Stillbay.

This proposal is being undertaken as part of a Basic Assessment Process in terms of the

NEMA 2010 EIA Regulations. This Final BAR is available for comment for a period of 21

days from Friday 30th May to Friday 20th June 2014. Comment and Registrations can be

submitted to:

Cape EAPrac ATT: Melissa Mackay

PO Box 2070, George, 6530 Telephone: 044 874 0365 Facsimile: 044 874 0432

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.cape-eaprac.co.za

http://www.cape-eaprac.co.za/


Cape EAPrac xix FINAL Basic Assessment Report

ABBREVIATIONS AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment BGIS Biodiversity Geographic Information System CBD Central Business District CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning EAP Environmental Impact Practitioner EHS Environmental, Health & Safety EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMPr Environmental Management Programme HIA Heritage Impact Assessment HWC Heritage Western Cape I&APs Interested and Affected Parties IDP Integrated Development Plan LUDS Land Use Decision Support LUPO Land Use Planning Ordinance NEMA National Environmental Management Act NEMAA National Environmental Management Amendment Act NEM:BA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act NID Notice of Intent to Develop NSBA National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment NWA National Water Act SANBI South Africa National Biodiversity Institute SANS South Africa National Standards SDF Spatial Development Framework SMME Small, Medium and Micro Enterprise TIA Traffic Impact Assessment

Stillbay Arterial Road BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT HES133/13

Cape EAPrac 1 FINAL Basic Assessment Report

SECTION 1: BASIC ASSESSMENT

REPORT



BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

(AUGUST 2010)

BASIC ASSESSMENT FORM

(AUGUST 2011)

Basic Assessment Report in terms of the NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010

AUGUST 2010

Kindly note that:

1. This Basic Assessment Report is the standard report required by DEA&DP in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2010 and must be completed for all Basic Assessment applications.

2. This report must be used in all instances for Basic Assessment applications for an environmental authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA), as amended, and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010, and/or a waste management licence in terms of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act 59 of 2008) (NEM: WA), and/or an atmospheric emission licence in terms of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004) (NEM: AQA).

3. This report is current as of 2 August 2010. It is the responsibility of the Applicant / EAP to ascertain whether subsequent versions of the report have been published or produced by the competent authority.

4. The required information must be typed within the spaces provided in the report. The sizes of the spaces provided are not necessarily indicative of the amount of information to be provided. It is in the form of a table that will expand as each space is filled with typing.

5. Incomplete reports will be rejected. A rejected report may be amended and resubmitted.

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

7. While the different sections of the report only provide space for provision of information related to one alternative, if more than one feasible and reasonable alternative is considered, the relevant section must be copied and completed for each alternative.

8. Unless protected by law all information contained in, and attached to this report, will become public information on receipt by the competent authority. If information is not submitted with this report due to such information being protected by law, the applicant and/or EAP must declare such non-disclosure and provide the reasons for the belief that the information is protected.

9. This report must be submitted to the Department at the postal address given below or by delivery thereof to the Registry Office of the Department. No faxed or e-mailed reports will be accepted. Please note that for waste management licence applications, this report must be submitted for the attention of the Department’s Waste Management Directorate (tel: 021-483-2756 and fax: 021-483-4425) at the same postal address as the Cape Town Office Region A.



10. Unless indicated otherwise, two electronic copies (CD/DVD) and three hard copies of this report must be submitted to the Department.

DEPARTMENTAL DETAILS

CAPE TOWN OFFICE REGION A

(Cape Winelands, City of Cape Town: Tygerberg and Oostenberg Administrations)

CAPE TOWN OFFICE REGION B

(West Coast, Overberg, City of Cape Town:

Helderberg, South Peninsula, Cape Town

and Blaauwberg Administrations

GEORGE OFFICE

(Eden and Central Karoo)

Department of Environmental Affairs

and Development Planning

Attention: Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region A2)

Private Bag X 9086

Cape Town,

8000

Registry Office

1st Floor Utilitas Building

1 Dorp Street,

Cape Town

Queries should be directed to the Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region A2) at:

Tel: (021) 483-4793

Fax: (021) 483-3633

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Attention: Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region B)

Private Bag X 9086

Cape Town,

8000

Registry Office

1st Floor Utilitas Building

1 Dorp Street,

Cape Town

Queries should be directed to the Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region B) at:

Tel: (021) 483-4094

Fax: (021) 483-4372

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Attention: Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region A1)

Private Bag X 6509

George,

6530

Registry Office

4th Floor, York Park Building

93 York Street

George

Queries should be directed to the Directorate: Integrated Environmental Management (Region A1) at:

Tel: (044) 805 8600

Fax: (044) 874-2423

View the Department’s website at http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp for the latest version of this document.

DEPARTMENTAL REFERENCE NUMBER(S)

File reference number (EIA):

File reference number (Waste):

File reference number (Other):

PROJECT TITLE

Still Bay Arterial Road

http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp



DETAILS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER (EAP)

Environmental Assessment

Practitioner (EAP): Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Pty) Ltd

Contact person: Melissa Mackay (Senior Consultant) / Louise-Mari van Zyl (Director)

Postal address: P O Box 2070

George Postal code: 6530

Telephone: (044) 874 0365 Cell: 071 603 4132

E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (044) 874 0432

EAP Qualifications BTech & ND Nature Conservation / MA Geography and Environmental

Science

EAP

Registrations/Associations

Director certified as an Environmental Assessment Practitioners with the

Interim Certification Board for Environmental Assessment Practitioners of

South Africa (EAPSA).

DETAILS OF THE EAP’S EXPERTISE TO CARRY OUT BASIC ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

Melissa Mackay (BTech & ND Nature Conservation), has eight years’ experience as an environmental

practitioner and has undertaken multiple Basic Assessment and Scoping and EIR processes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE CONTENT OF THE BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: See Basic Assessment Overview above.



SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION

1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Is the project a new development? YES NO

(b) Provide a detailed description of the development project and associated infrastructure.

Hessequa Municipality is proposing the construction of an Arterial Road that circumvents the northern

and western edges of Still Bay West. The road is proposed to firstly provide access to proposed

residential developments along the western part of Stillbay (future growth direction for the town), and

in the long term provide an alternative routing around the Central Business District (CBD) to alleviate

congestion during the peak holiday periods.

Consulting the 2006 / 2012 Hessequa SDF, the areas designated for future urban expansion west of

Stillbay will add an additional 3 000 – 5 000 housing units to Stillbay West.

The proposed road will consist to two lanes, one in each direction (similar to the existing road to

Jongensfontein). Each traffic lane will be 3,4m wide (total road surface 6,8 metres), with a cycle/road

shoulder of 1,5m wide on both sides and supported by pedestrian walkways of 2m wide on each side.

The total surfaced area associated with this arterial road is 13,8 metres. The proposed road reserve

to accommodate this arterial road is 25 metres (please refer to the diagram provided by VelaVKE).






Figure 14: Proposed cross-section of the Arterial Road



Figure 15: Affected properties

The proposed route is approximately 5kms in length and is designed to accommodate speeds of no

more than 70km/h. It crosses multiple properties around Stillbay West namely:

• 73/485, 63/485, 2476, 85/485, 30/485, 619, Rem 591, 1/591, 55/485 and 82 of 485.

The road will be constructed in phases, most likely starting from the east where the access point is

already existing, in a westerly direction as and when developments occur over time. Associated

intersections along this route will be upgraded according to the specifications in the Traffic Impact

Report (VelaVKE, Aug 2012). Once the road is complete in a few years’ time, it will serve as an

alternative route around Stillbay connecting to the Jongensfontein Road.

(c) List all the activities assessed during the Basic Assessment process:

GN No. R. 544

Activity No(s):

Describe the relevant Basic Assessment Activity(ies) in writing as per Listing Notice 1

(GN No. R. 544)

Describe the portion of the development as per the

project description that relates to the applicable listed

activity.

11 (iii), (vi) The construction of (iii) bridges and (vi) bulk

storm water outlet structures where such

construction occurs within a watercourse or

within 32m of a watercourse

According to NFEPA and freshwater

specialist investigation, the eastern most

access point falls within a designated

wetland area.

18 (i) The infilling or depositing of any material of

more than 5m³ into, or the dredging,

According to NFEPA and freshwater

specialist investigation, the eastern most



excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand,

shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock more than

5m³ from a (i) watercourse.

access point falls within a designated

wetland area.

22 The construction of a road, outside urban

areas, with (i) a reserve wider than 13,5

meters, OR (ii) where no reserve exists

where the road is wider than 8 metres, OR

(iii) for which an environmental authorisation

was obtained for the route determination in

terms of activity 5 in Government Notice 387

or 2006, or activity 18 in Notice 545 of 2010

The proposed road reserve is 25m, with a

road surface of 13,8m inclusive of

pedestrian walkway and cycle shoulder

GN No. R. 546

Activity No(s):

Describe the relevant Basic Assessment Activity(ies) in writing as per Listing Notice 3

(GN No. R. 546)



activity.

12 (b) The clearance of an area of 300m² or more

of vegetation where 75% or more of the

vegetative cover constitutes indigenous

vegetation (b) within critical biodiversity

areas identified in bioregional plans.

Portions of the road traverses areas

identified as a CBA and removal of

vegetation will exceed 300m²

13 (a),

(ii)(ff), (gg),

(iii)(bb), (dd)

The clearance of an area of 1ha or more of

vegetation where 75% or more of the

vegetative cover constitutes indigenous

vegetation (a) within Critical Biodiversity

Areas (CBA) and ecological support areas

as identified in systematic biodiversity plans

adopted by the competent authority, (ii)

outside urban areas (ff) areas within 10kms

from national parks or world heritage sites or

5 kms from any other protected area

identified in terms of NEMPAA or from the

core area of a biosphere reserve; (gg) areas

seawards of the development setback line

or within 1km from the high water mark of

the sea if no such development setback line

is determined, (iii) in urban areas (bb) areas

designated for conservation use in Spatial

Development Frameworks adopted by the

competent authority or zoned for a

conservation purpose, (dd) areas on the

watercourse side of the development

Portions of the road traverses areas

identified as a CBA and removal of

vegetation will 1ha in total The starting

point of the road falls within 1km of the

Goukou estuary.



setback line or within 100m from the edge of

a watercourse where no such setback line

has been determined. If the application is also for activities as per Listing Notice 2 and permission was granted to subject the application to Basic Assessment, also indicate the applicable Listing Notice 2 activities:

GN No. R. 545

Activity No(s):

If permission was granted in terms of Regulation 20,

describe the relevant Scoping and EIA Activity(ies) in

writing as per Listing Notice 2 (GN No. R. 545)



activity.

Waste management activities in terms of the NEM: WA (Government Gazette No. 32368):

GN No. 718 - Category A

Activity No(s): Describe the relevant Category A waste management activity in writing.

Please note: If any waste management activities are applicable, the Listed Waste Management Activities Additional Information Annexure must be completed and attached to this Basic Assessment Report as Appendix I. If the application is also for waste management activities as per Category B and permission was granted to subject the

application to Basic Assessment, also indicate the applicable Category B activities:

GN No. 718 – Category B

Activity No(s): Describe the relevant Category B waste management activity in writing.

Atmospheric emission activities in terms of the NEM: AQA (Government Gazette No. 33064):

GN No. 248

Activity No(s): Describe the relevant atmospheric emission activity in writing.

(d) Please provide details of all components of the proposed project and attach diagrams (e.g. architectural drawings or perspectives, engineering drawings, process flow charts etc.).

Buildings YES NO

Provide brief description:

No buildings will be constructed as part of this application.

Infrastructure (e.g. roads, power and water supply/ storage) YES NO


The proposed road will be approximately 5kms long with a 25m road reserve with a road surface of

13,8m, inclusive of pedestrian walkway and cycle shoulder. It will have a maximum speed capacity

of 70km/h.

Processing activities (e.g. manufacturing, storage, distribution) YES NO




Not Applicable.

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

Provide brief description YES NO

Not Applicable.

Storage and treatment facilities for solid waste and effluent generated by the project YES NO

Provide brief description

Not Applicable.

Other activities (e.g. water abstraction activities, crop planting activities) YES NO

Provide brief description

Not Applicable

2. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY

Size of the property:

(a) Indicate the size of the property (cadastral unit) on which the activity is to be undertaken.

The road is proposed

across multiple

properties

Size of the facility:

(b) Indicate the size of the facility (development area) on which the activity is to be undertaken. ±125 000m2

Size of the activity:

(c) Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the activity together with its associated infrastructure: ±125 000m2

(d) Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the activity: ±125 000m2

(e) Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the associated infrastructure: m2

and, for linear activities:

Length of the activity:

(f) Indicate the length of the activity: ±5 000m

3. SITE ACCESS

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

(b) If no, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built? ±5 000m

(c) Describe the type of access road planned:



Access roads to the start and end of the proposed road are in the form of existing roads (off the Still

Bay main road and the Jongensfontein Road). Links from existing internal roads to link to the Arterial

road already exist and where new developments are being proposed, these will form part of those

applications.

Please see the detailed intersections proposed in the Engineering Report included as Appendix G1. Please Note: indicate the position of the proposed access road on the site plan.

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE ACTIVITY IS TO BE UNDERTAKEN AND THE LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY

(a) Provide a description of the property on which the activity is to be undertaken and the location of the activity on the property.

The proposed road will cross over various properties, both privately and municipal owned.



73/485, 63/485, 2476, 85/485, 30/485, 619, Rem 591, 1/591, 55/485 and 82 of 485.

(b) Please provide a location map (see below) as appendix a to this report which shows the location of the

property and the location of the activity on the property; as well as a site map (see below) as appendix b to

this report; and if applicable all alternative properties and locations.



Locality map:

The scale of the locality map must be at least 1:50 000. For linear activities of more than 25 kilometres, a

smaller scale e.g. 1:250 000 can be used. The scale must be indicated on the map. The map must indicate the

following:

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

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

a north arrow;

a legend;

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

GPS co-ordinates (Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the centre point

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

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

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

Site Plan:

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

conform to the following:

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

scale must be indicated on the plan.

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

site plan.

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

be indicated on the site plan.

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

indicated on the site plan.

Services, including electricity supply cables (indicate above or underground), water supply pipelines,

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

development must be indicated on the site plan.

Servitudes indicating the purpose of the servitude must be indicated on the site plan.

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

not limited to):

o Rivers.

o Flood lines (i.e. 1:10, 1:50, year and 32 meter set back line from the banks of a river/stream).

o Ridges.

o Cultural and historical features.

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

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

(c) For a linear activity, please also provide a description of the route.

The proposed road is in the part of Still Bay, on the Southern Cape Coast, known as Still Bay West i.e.

west of the Goukou River. It extends from near the existing bridge over the Goukou River through the

residential area north of the main business centre of Still Bay, and then through the western outskirts

of Still Bay West to the Jongensfontein Road.





73/485, 63/485, 2476, 85/485, 30/485, 619, Rem 591, 1/591, 55/485 and 82 of 485.

The study area is underlain by limestone sediments of the De Hoopvlei and Wankoe Formations of the

Bredasdorp Group. Limestone or calcrete is seen as prominent ridges with shallow soil. In the

intervening valleys the limestone is covered with wind-blown regic sand of Quaternary age although

this is not depicted on the geological map of the area

Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and

longitude of the centre point of the site. The co-ordinates must

be in degrees, minutes and seconds. The minutes should be

given to at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy.

The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84

spheroid in a national or local projection.

Latitude (S): Longitude (E):

o ‘ “ o ‘ “

(d) or:

For linear activities: Latitude (S): Longitude (E):

Starting point of the activity 21⁰ 24‘ 47,15“ 34⁰ 21‘ 39,06“

Middle point of the activity 21⁰ 24‘ 0,34“ 34⁰ 21‘ 51,21“

End point of the activity 21⁰ 23‘ 53,53“ 34⁰ 23‘ 21,65“



Figure 16: Affected properties and co-ordinates of the proposed routes

Please Note: For linear activities that are longer than 500m, please provide and addendum with co-ordinates taken every 100

meters along the route.

5. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Colour photographs of the site and its surroundings (taken of the site and from the site) with a description of each photograph.

The vantage points from which the photographs were taken must be indicated on the site plan, or locality plan as applicable. If

available, please also provide a recent aerial photograph. Photographs must be attached as Appendix C to this report. It

should be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features on the site. Date of photographs must be included.

Please note that the above requirements must be duplicated for all alternative sites.



SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

1 SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION For linear activities (pipelines, etc.) as well as activities that cover very large sites, it may be necessary to complete copies of

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

Section B and indicate the area which is covered by each copy No. on the Site Plan.

2. GRADIENT OF THE SITE Indicate the general gradient of the sites (highlight the appropriate box).

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

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

Ridgeline Plateau Side slope of

hill/mountain

Closed

valley

Open

valley Plain

Undulating

plain/low hills Dune

Sea-

front

(b) Please provide a description of the location in the landscape.

4. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE

(a) Is the site(s) located on or near any of the following (highlight the appropriate boxes)?

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

Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES NO UNSURE Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil YES NO UNSURE Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES NO UNSURE Soils with high clay content YES NO UNSURE Any other unstable soil or geological feature YES NO UNSURE An area sensitive to erosion YES NO UNSURE An area adjacent to or above an aquifer. YES NO UNSURE An area within 100m of the source of surface water YES NO UNSURE

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

(Information in respect of the above will often be available at the planning sections of local authorities. Where it exists, the

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

(c) Please indicate the type of geological formation underlying the site.



Granite Shale Sandstone Quartzite Dolomite Dolorite Other (describe)

Limestone sediments

Please provide a description.

Approximately half of the proposed arterial-road route will be in the Fc17 land-type described as

calcified dune sand covered by younger sand and calcrete with Mispah and Glenrosa soil forms. The

southern half of the arterial-road will traverse the Hb4 land type comprising mainly regic sand

(Quaternary) (Figure 9) (Land Type Survey Staff 1972--2006).

Figure 17: Still Bay Land Types

The purple line is the approximate route of the proposed arterial-road. (Source:

http://www.agis.agric.za/agisweb/viewer.htm?pn=2015)

5. SURFACE WATER (a) Indicate the surface water present on and or adjacent to the site and alternative sites (highlight the appropriate boxes)?

Perennial River YES NO UNSURE

Non-Perennial River YES NO UNSURE

Permanent Wetland YES NO UNSURE

Seasonal Wetland YES NO UNSURE

Artificial Wetland YES NO UNSURE

Estuarine / Lagoonal wetland YES NO UNSURE

(b) Please provide a description.



There is a fountain located approximately 245m west of Tollasoord which has stream that runs for

approximately 213m to a weir. The fountain has been covered with material to protect it and a black

pipe from the source to Tollasoord has been laid out. At the weir the stream has been diverted. An

open channel leads the water to the northern corner of Tollasoord and from there it follows a

stormwater drain to the Goukou River. The pipe continues to the Tollasoord and on entry changes to

a canalised channel which is used to feed their internal dam.

A permanent wetland has established at the lower end of the drainage line (see area identified in

yellow below). The slope westwards of this is considered a seep zone and is an edaphic interface

between terrestrial and aquatic components. The natural drainage of the system has been restricted

by the Tollasoord development.

Figure 18: Fountain and stream north of Tollasoord with permanent wetland between

Photo 1: Fountain with covering and exit pipe for

Tollasoord

Photo 2: Weir and Tollasoord pipe



The road will cross this stream west of Tollasoord and the culvert and crossing have been designed

with input from the freshwater specialist. This crossing will be subject to a Water Use License

Application (WULA) in terms of the National Water Act. The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) has

been consulted with regarding this option and will provide the necessary input during the WULA

process.

6. BIODIVERSITY Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the biodiversity occurring on the

site and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies. To assist with the identification of the biodiversity occurring on site and

the ecosystem status consult http://bgis.sanbi.org or [email protected]. Information is also available on compact disc (cd)

from the Biodiversity-GIS Unit, Ph (021) 799 8698. This information may be updated from time to time and it is the applicant/

EAP’s responsibility to ensure that the latest version is used. A map of the relevant biodiversity information (including an

indication of the habitat conditions as per (b) below) and must be provided as an overlay map to the property/site plan as

Appendix D to this report.

(a) Highlight the applicable biodiversity planning categories of all areas on site and indicate the reason(s) provided in the

biodiversity plan for the selection of the specific area as part of the specific category).

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

Critical

Biodiversity

Area (CBA)

Ecological

Support

Area (ESA)

Other

Natural

Area (ONA)

No Natural

Area

Remaining

(NNR)

A portion of the route falls into an area designated as a CBA.

Although no category is included for the selection of this area, it

would appear to be a corridor. Much of the vegetation in this area

is already changed by agriculture (see Specialist Botanical Report).

Photo 3: Canalised channel into

Tollasoord

Photo 4: Stormwater drain north of Tollasoord for natural

flow

http://bgis.sanbi.org/

mailto:[email protected]



Figure 19: Critical Biodiversity Areas

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

Habitat Condition

Percentage of habitat condition class (adding up

to 100%)

Description and additional Comments and Observations (including additional insight into condition, e.g. poor land

management practises, presence of quarries, grazing/harvesting regimes etc).

Natural %

Near Natural

(includes areas with low to

moderate level of alien

invasive plants)

±60% Intensively farmed and / or burnt areas which has led to a change in the

species composition from thicket to grasslands. Also presence of alien

invasive plants. Please see the Botanical Specialist Report for more

information.

Degraded

(includes areas heavily

invaded by alien plants)

±40% Intensively farmed and / or burnt areas which has led to a change in the

species composition from thicket to grasslands. Also presence of alien

invasive plants. Please see the Botanical Specialist Report for more

information.

Transformed

(includes cultivation, dams,

urban, plantation, roads, etc)

%

(c) Complete the table to indicate:

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



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

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

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

The vegetation around Still Bay has been variously described and mapped by Cowling et al. 1999,

Vlok & Euston-Brown (2002), Mucina et al. (2005), Rebelo et al. (2006), Vlok & de Villiers (2007). The

fine-scale mapping of Vlok & de Villiers (2007) forms the basis of the Critical Biodiversity Map of the

Hessequa Municipality of which Still Bay forms a part (see below). Following the national vegetation

classification the vegetation around Still Bay is classified into two main types, Canca Limestone

Fynbos (FFl3) and Albertinia Sand Fynbos (FFd9), with small areas of Southern Coastal Forest

(FOz6), Blombos Strandveld (FS8) along the coast and Southern Cape Valley Thicket (AT1) fringing

the river (Rebelo et al., 2006, in Mucina & Rutherford, 2006) . The limestone fynbos is mainly confined

to the calcrete or limestone ridges and the Albertinia Sand Fynbos to the sandy areas in the valleys

and low-lying areas or depressions in the limestone where sand has accumulated. The calcretes of

the Bredasdorp Group support Canca Limestone Fynbos and are found from Port Beaufort in the west

to Mossel Bay in the east. They have their widest inland extent from Still Bay almost to Albertinia.

Terrestrial Ecosystems Aquatic Ecosystems

Ecosystem threat status as per the

National Environmental Management:

Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004)

Critical Wetland (including rivers,

depressions, channelled and

unchanneled wetlands, flats,

seeps pans, and artificial

wetlands)

Estuary Coastline Endangered

Vulnerable

Least Threatened YES NO UNSURE YES NO YES NO



Figure 20: Vegetation Map (McDonald, 2012)

Portion of the Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho & Swaziland (Mucina et al. 2002) showing the

vegetation types around Still Bay with the proposed arterial-road as a black line. (Source: McDonald

2012).

It must be noted that the Ecosystem Status for certain of the vegetation types was amended in

December 2011 by Government Gazette 34809. Thus the following is noted:

Albertinia Sand Fynbos has been upscaled to Critically Endangered (previously listed as

Vulnerable);

Canca Limestone Fynbos remains listed as Least Threatened;

Southern Cape Valley Thicket remains listed as Least Threatened; and

Southern Coastal Forest remains listed as Least Threatened.



Figure 21: Vegetation Type and Ecosystem Status

According to NFEPA and the Hessequa Aquatic CBA, the eastern most portion of the road

falls within a sensitive area. The majority of this is made up of a buffer which supports the

drainage of water from the higher lying areas down to the Goukou River. There is a fountain

approximately 245m west of the Tollasoord development which has created a wetland area

at the easternmost part. The fountain is piped down to Tollasoord for irrigation water. Some

of the natural flow has been directed to a weir and from then into a stormwater channel north

of Tollasoord.

According to the freshwater specialist report, the eastern-most parts of the wetland are a

permanent feature while the western areas function temporarily as seeps via shallow soils

above a layer of relatively impervious limestone and form an important edaphic interface.

Most of the wetland was dominated by two species of grass, the common reed Phragmites

australis and the endemic Pipe grass Ehrharta vilosa.



Figure 22: National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA)

Please refer also to section 5 above for more information, as well as the specialist report in

Appendix G6.

Photo 5: Seep area towards the west (Porter,

2014)

Photo 6: Permanent wetland to the north (Porter,

2014)



7. LAND USE OF THE SITE Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the

area and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies.

Untransformed area Low density residential Medium density

residential

High density

residential Informal residential

Retail Commercial &

warehousing Light industrial Medium industrial Heavy industrial

Power station Office/consulting room

Military or police

base/station/compoun

d

Casino/entertainment

complex

Tourism & Hospitality

facility

Open cast mine Underground mine Spoil heap or slimes

dam

Quarry, sand or borrow

pit Dam or reservoir

Hospital/medical

center School

Tertiary education

facility Church Old age home

Sewage treatment

plant

Train station or

shunting yard Railway line

Major road (4 lanes or

more) Airport

Harbour Sport facilities Golf course Polo fields Filling station

Landfill or waste

treatment site Plantation Agriculture

River, stream or

wetland

Nature conservation

area

Mountain, koppie or

ridge Museum Historical building Graveyard Archaeological site

Other land uses

(describe):

(a) Please provide a description.

The land use is residential along the town edges, with agricultural activities in the open areas.

8. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA (a) Highlight the current land uses and/or prominent features that occur within +/- 500m radius of the site and neighbouring

properties if these are located beyond 500m of the site. Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use character of the

area and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies.

Untransformed area Low density residential Medium density

residential

High density

residential Informal residential

Retail Commercial &

warehousing Light industrial Medium industrial Heavy industrial

Power station Office/consulting room Military or police

base/station/compound

Casino/entertainment

complex

Tourism & Hospitality

facility

Open cast mine Underground mine Spoil heap or slimes

dam

Quarry, sand or borrow

pit Dam or reservoir

Hospital/medical School Tertiary education Church Old age home



center facility

Sewage treatment

plant

Train station or

shunting yard Railway line

Major road (4 lanes or

more) Airport

Harbour Sport facilities Golf course Polo fields Filling station

Landfill or waste

treatment site Plantation Agriculture

River, stream or

wetland

Nature conservation

area

Mountain, koppie or

ridge Museum Historical building Graveyard Archaeological site

Other land uses

(describe):

(b) Please provide a description, including the distance and direction to the nearest residential area and industrial area.

The proposed route will circumvent the existing northern and western urban areas of Still Bay West in

order to improve access to and from existing residential areas and in time, to provide access to

proposed new developments. Thus the road will be surrounded by residential township areas. No

industrial areas are currently near the proposed route.

The Goukou River, which lies to the east of the existing road has been included in a Marine Protected

Area.

Figure 23: SANBI Land Cover



According to SANBI’s Land Cover map the roads cross over areas designated Natural. The botanical

specialist has confirmed that large areas of this have been used for agricultural purposes. In addition

the latest Spatial Development Framework (SDF) for Hessequa show the areas between the proposed

road and the current Urban Built-Up areas have been designated for future development.

Figure 24: Hessequa SDF March 2013

9. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS Describe the existing social and economic characteristics of the community in order to provide baseline information.

Still Bay is a coastal town on the southern Cape coast of South Africa. It is driven mainly by tourism

activities, with small scale subsistence fishing taking place. The town is made up of a number of

“second” homes, but is also gaining popularity as a retirement destination. Unemployment in the town

is high, as per the statistics provide for in the SDF.

10. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS (a) Please be advised that if section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999), is applicable to

your proposed development, then you are requested to furnish this Department with written comment from Heritage

Western Cape as part of your public participation process. Section 38 of the Act states as follows: “38. (1) Subject to the

provisions of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any person who intends to undertake a development categorised as-



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

exceeding 300m in length;

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

I 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,

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

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

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

3(2)(i)(vi) and (vii), of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999), must also be investigated, assessed

and evaluated. Section 3(2) states as follows: “3(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the national estate may

include—

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

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

I historical settlements and townscapes;

(d) landscapes and natural features of cultural significance;

(e) geological sites of scientific or cultural importance;

(f) archaeological and paleontological sites;

(g) graves and burial grounds, including—

(i) ancestral graves;

(ii) royal graves and graves of traditional leaders;

(iii) graves of victims of conflict;

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

(v) historical graves and cemeteries; and

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

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

(i) movable objects, including—

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

material, meteorites and rare geological specimens;

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

(iii) ethnographic art and objects;

(iv) military objects;

(v) objects of decorative or fine art;

(vi) objects of scientific or technological interest; and

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

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

Act, 1996 (Act No. 43 of 1996).”

Is section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, applicable to the development? YES NO

UNCERTAIN

If YES, explain: The proposed arterial road requires authorisation in terms of Section 38(1) (a) “the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in length”



(b) (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

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

Resources Act, 1999?

YES NO

UNCERTAIN

If YES, explain:

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

If YES, explain:

Heritage Western Cape (HWC) issued a Record of Decision on 2 May 2012. The HWC has no

objection to the development and does not require any further heritage studies to be undertaken.

A copy of the ROD has been included in Appendix E of this report. Please Note: If uncertain, the Department may request that specialist input be provided.

11. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES (a) Please list all legislation, policies and/or guidelines that have been considered in the preparation of this Basic Assessment

Report.

LEGISLATION ADMINISTERING

AUTHORITY

TYPE Permit/ license/

authorisation/comment / relevant consideration (e.g. rezoning or consent

use, building plan approval)

DATE (if already obtained):

NEMA DEA&DP Environmental Authorisation Pending

LUPO Hessequa Municipality Zoning and servitudes Pending

NHRA Heritage Western

Cape Record of Decision 2 May 2012

POLICY/ GUIDELINES ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY

Information Document on the Interpretation of the Listed

Activities(2010) DEA&DP

Guideline for Environmental Management Plans(2005) DEA&DP

Guideline on Alternatives (2007 and 2010) DEA&DP

Guideline on Public Participation (2007 and 2010) DEA&DP

Guideline on Need & Desirability (2010) DEA&DP

Stillbaai Plaaslike Struktuursplan (1995) Hessequa Municipality

Hessequa Spatial Development Framework (2006) DEA&DP / Hessequa Municipality



(b) Please describe how the legislation, policies and/or guidelines were taken into account in the preparation of this Basic

Assessment Report.

LEGISLATION / POLICY / GUIDELINE

DESCRIBE HOW THE LEGISLATION / POLICY / GUIDELINE WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

(E.g. describe the extent to which it was adhered to, or deviated from, etc).

NEMA

The EIA process being followed is done so in terms of the

2010 EIA Regulations. Deviation from certain of the Public

Participation requirements was applied for and approved by

DEA&DP.

LUPO The LUPO activities will only commence once the EIA process

is completed.

Guideline on Alternatives (2007 and

2010)

Alternatives for the road have been described and considered

in this EIA process.

Guideline on Public Participation

(2007 and 2010)

All requirements for Public Participation in terms of the 2010

EIA Regulations have been complied with except where a

deviation has been approved.

Guideline on Need & Desirability

(2010)

Need & Desirability has been considered in conjunction with

the long term planning requirements for Still Bay.

Stillbaai Plaaslike Struktuurplan

(1995)

The planning documents clearly show that the Arterial road

has been identified as a requirement nearly 20 years ago.

Hessequa Spatial Development

Framework (2006 and 2012)

The 2006 SDF incorporates the Arterial Road and identifies it

as a requirement to support the growth in Still Bay. The 2012 /

2013 SDF has also included the route. Please note: Copies of any permit(s) or licences received from any other organ of state must be attached this report as

Appendix E.



SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The public participation process must fulfil the requirements outlined in NEMA, the EIA Regulations, and if applicable the NEM:

WA and/or the NEM: AQA. This Department’s Guideline on Public Participation (August 2010) and Guideline on Exemption

Applications (August 2010), both of which are available on the Department’s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp),

must also be taken into account.

Please highlight the appropriate box to indicate whether the specific requirement was undertaken or whether there was a deviation that was agreed to by the Department.

1. Were all potential interested and affected parties notified of the application by –

(a) fixing a notice board at a place conspicuous to the public at the boundary or on the fence of -

(i) the site where the activity to which the application relates is to be undertaken; and YES DEVIATED

(ii) any alternative site mentioned in the application; YES DEVIATED

(b) giving written notice to –

(i) the owner or person in control of that land if the applicant is not the owner or person in

control of the land; YES N/A

(ii) the occupiers of the site where the activity is to be undertaken and to any alternative site

where the activity is to be undertaken; YES DEVIATED

(iii) owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the site where the activity is to be undertaken and

to any alternative site where the activity is to be undertaken; YES DEVIATED

(iv) the municipal councillor of the ward in which the site and alternative site is situated and any

organisation of ratepayers that represent the community in the area; YES DEVIATED

(v) the municipality which has jurisdiction in the area; YES DEVIATED

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

(vii) any other party as required by the competent authority; YES DEVIATED

I placing an advertisement in -

(i) one* local newspaper; and YES DEVIATED

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

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

(d) placing an advertisement in at least one* provincial newspaper or national newspaper, if the

activity has or may have an impact that extends beyond the boundaries of the metropolitan

or local municipality in which it is or will be undertaken.

YES DEVIATED N/A

* Please note: In terms of the NEM: WA and NEM: AQA a notice must be placed in at least two newspapers circulating in the

area in which the activity applied for is to be carried out.

2. Provide a list of all the state departments that were consulted:

DEA&DP Development Facilitation Unit (DFU)

Provincial Department of Transport and Public Works

Department of Water Affairs

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Eden District Municipality

Hessequa Municipality

Heritage Western Cape

CapeNature




3. Please provide an overall summary of the Public Participation Process that was followed. (The detailed outcomes of this process must

be included in a comments and response report to be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report (see note below) as Appendix F).

An Application Notice was submitted to the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and

Development Planning (DEA&DP) (Ref: HES133/02) on 16th February 2012 and accepted by the

department on 24th February 2012 (DEA&DP Ref: EG12/2/4/D5/15/0006/12). In terms of the Acceptance,

Cape EAPrac has been instructed to continue with the Basic Assessment Process. Deviations were

approved by DEA&DP with regards to the placement of site notices due to the linear nature of the

proposal. A copy of the Acceptance letter has been included in Appendix E of this report.

Public Participation

A public participation (stakeholder engagement) process (PPP) has been undertaken in accordance with

the requirements of the NEMA EIA Regulations: Guideline and Information Document Series (Guideline on

Public Participation July 2005/2007 and 2010).

Site notices were placed at the municipal office and the library in December 2011 as part of the

Pre-feasibility process. Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) were requested to register with

Cape EAPrac.

An advertisement was placed in the local newspaper (Suid Kaap Forum) and published on Friday 29th June 2012. The advert calls for Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) to register with Cape

EAPrac should they wish to participate in the EIA process within a 21 day period.

Site Notices were placed at prominent public places (municipal office, library and post office)

providing details of the EIA process and registration information.

Key Stakeholders were identified and notified of the EIA process.

A Stakeholder Register was opened for all I&APs.

Notification of the availability of the Draft BAR and notice of a public meeting / open house

session has been provided to all registered I&APs;

The Draft BAR was made available to all registered I&APs. Hard copies of the report were placed

at the Still Bay Library (Main Road, Still Bay), Hessequa Municipal Offices (Main Road, Still

Bay) and the Hessequa Municipal Planning Offices (Riversdale).

Digital copies of the DBAR have been made available to all identified key stakeholders, which

include relevant State Departments, Organs of State, local and provincial authorities. A digital

copy is also available on the website at www.cape-eaprac.co.za/active.

Open House to present the findings of the DBAR to the public was held in conjunction with the

Spatial Development Framework (2012) workshops during early October 2012.

Investigations into changes on the layout associated with the eastern access that would have

required the municipality obtaining private land was discussed with affected landowners.

This Final BAR is being made available to all registered I&APs for comment and review for a

period of 21 days extending from 30 May to 20 June 2014. All comments submitted during this

period will be provided to DEA&DP.

The Draft Basic Assessment Report (DBAR) was made available for comment for a period of 40 days from




Monday 17th September to Monday 29th October 2012. The Final BAR has been compiled after

investigations were completed regarding additional and will includes all comments received from I&APs

during the DBAR phase. On completion of the FBAR comment period of 21 days, this document will then

be submitted to DEA&DP for decision making.

Please note:

Should any of the responses be “No” and no deviation or exemption from that requirement was requested and

agreed to /granted by the Department, the Basic Assessment Report will be rejected.

A list of all the potential interested and affected parties, including the organs of State, notified and a list of all the

register of interested and affected parties, must be submitted with the final Basic Assessment Report. The list of

registered interested and affected parties must be opened, maintained and made available to any person

requesting access to the register in writing.

The draft Basic Assessment Report must be submitted to the Department before it is made available to interested

and affected parties, including the relevant organs of State and State departments which have jurisdiction with

regard to any aspect of the activity, for a 40-day commenting period. With regard to State departments, the 40-

day period commences the day after the date on which the Department as the competent/licensing authority

requests such State department in writing to submit comment. The applicant/EAP is therefore required to inform

this Department in writing when the draft Basic Assessment Report will be made available to the relevant State

departments for comment. Upon receipt of the Draft Basic Assessment Report and this confirmation, this

Department will in accordance with Section 24O(2) and (3) of the NEMA request the relevant State departments

to comment on the draft report within 40 days.

All comments of interested and affected parties on the draft Basic Assessment Report must be recorded,

responded to and included in the Comments and Responses Report included as Appendix F to the final Basic

Assessment Report. If necessary, any amendments in response to comments received must be effected in the

Basic Assessment Report itself. The Comments and Responses Report must also include a description of the

public participation process followed.

The final Basic Assessment Report must be made available to registered interested and affected parties for

comment before submitting it to the Department for consideration. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department,

a final Basic Assessment Report must be made available to the registered interested and affected parties for

comment for a minimum of 21-days. Comments on the final Basic Assessment Report does not have to be

responded to, but the comments must be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report.

The minutes of any meetings held by the EAP with interested and affected parties and other role players which

record the views of the participants must also be submitted as part of the public participation information to be

attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix F.

Proof of all the notices given as indicated, as well as of notice to the interested and affected parties of the

availability of the draft Basic Assessment Report and final Basic Assessment Report must be submitted as part of

the public participation information to be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix F.



SECTION D: NEED AND DESIRABILITY

Please Note: Before completing this section, first consult this Department’s Guideline on Need and Desirability (August 2010)

available on the Department’s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp).

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

Certain of the properties will require rezoning to Transport. However the general routing has been part

of the planning for Still Bay since 1995. 2. Will the activity be in line with the following?

(a) Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) YES NO Please explain

The SDF clearly shows the general routing of the Arterial Road. This has been carried through from

planning documents since 1995. This EIA is the process required to confirm the alignment. (b) Urban edge / Edge of Built environment for the area YES NO Please explain

The road forms the outer boundary of the Urban Edge. (c) Integrated Development Plan and Spatial Development Framework of the Local

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

existing approved and credible municipal IDP and SDF?).

YES NO Please explain

The Arterial Road has been part of the long term planning of Still Bay since 1995 and has been included

in all relevant planning and development documents, including the 2006 and 2012 2013 SDFs. (d) Approved Structure Plan of the Municipality YES NO Please explain

The Arterial Road was included in the “Stilbaai Plaaslike Struktuurplan” of 1995. (e) An Environmental Management Framework (EMF) adopted by the Department

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

environmental management priorities for the area and if so, can it be justified in terms of

sustainability considerations?)

YES NO Please explain

No adopted EMF exists for this area. (f) Any other Plans (e.g. Guide Plan) YES NO Please explain

The 1995 Structure Plan and all other planning documents to date.

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

timeframe intended by the existing approved Spatial Development Framework (SDF)

agreed to by the relevant environmental authority (i.e. is the proposed development in

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

YES NO Please

explain

The Arterial road has been a consideration in all relevant planning documents since 1995. 4. Should development, or if applicable, expansion of the town/area concerned in terms

of this land use (associated with the activity being applied for) occur here at this point

in time?

YES NO Please

explain

The Still Bay Urban Edge has been identified in the 2006 and 2012 SDF and the Arterial Road will

ensure that suitable road traffic management will be practised in order to accommodate future traffic

within this Urban Edge. 5. Does the community/area need the activity and the associated land use concerned (is

it a societal priority)? (This refers to the strategic as well as local level (e.g.

development is a national priority, but within a specific local context it could be

inappropriate.)

YES NO Please

explain




The growth of Still Bay within the currently defined Urban Edge will exceed the capacity of the existing

road network. The Arterial Road is designed to alleviate traffic on the internal residential road networks

whilst still providing access to residential developments on the northern and western outskirts of the

town. 6. Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently available (at the time of

application), or must additional capacity be created to cater for the development?

(Confirmation by the relevant Municipality in this regard must be attached to the final

Basic Assessment Report as Appendix E.)

YES NO Please

explain

The Arterial Road will provide a service and does not require any other services. 7. Is this development provided for in the infrastructure planning of the municipality, and if

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

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

Municipality in this regard must be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as

Appendix E.)

YES NO Please

explain

The Arterial Road has been included in the planning for Still Bay since 1995. The reason why the road

has become a priority after 17 years of being included in forward spatial planning documents, is because

other bulk services i.e. water and electricity has been secured for future township expansion. As a result

potential developments are being considered for which associated infrastructure, such as the road, is a

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

importance? YES NO

Please

explain

Infrastructure development has been identified as a national concern. 9. Do location factors favour this land use (associated with the activity applied for) at this

place? (This relates to the contextualisation of the proposed land use on this site

within its broader context.)

YES NO Please

explain

The properties that are included for the routing of the arterial road are owned privately and by the

municipality. The majority of the privately owned properties are earmarked for development and

transformed already. The road will avoid existing erven and be accommodated within new

developments wherever necessary. 10. How will the activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for, impact

on sensitive natural and cultural areas (built and rural/natural environment)? YES NO

Please

explain

The potential impacts include:

Removal of protected vegetation;

Introduction / spread of alien vegetation;

Increased volume of stormwater runoff;

Impact on Erf 2476;

Impacts on private nature reserves and residential areas;

Unnecessary use of funding;

Minimisation of impacts on internal residential roads;

Impact on the wetland west of Tollasoord. 11. How will the development impact on people’s health and wellbeing (e.g. in terms of

noise, odours, visual character and sense of place, etc)? YES NO

Please

explain

The Arterial Road will provide improved access for outlying residential areas into and around the CBD of



(17) Please describe how the general objectives of Integrated Environmental Management as set out in section 23 of NEMA

have been taken into account:

Still Bay West. Heritage Western Cape has confirmed that the development will not have an impact on

the Sense of Place of the town and due to the built environment, will not have a negative visual impact

on the area.

It will also provide non-motorised transport around the town. 12. Will the proposed activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for,

result in unacceptable opportunity costs? YES NO

Please

explain

Considering that the proposed road has been accommodated in the forward spatial planning for Stillbay

for the past 17 years, it is unlikely that it will result in unacceptable opportunity costs. 13. What will the cumulative impacts (positive and negative) of the proposed land use

associated with the activity applied for, be? YES NO

Please

explain

Cumulative impacts of the Arterial Road could include:

Spread of invasive alien vegetation;

Improved road network for Still Bay West;

Less maintenance required for internal residential road networks;

Employment / economic opportunities during construction;

Economic development in Still Bay.

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

explain

The Arterial Road has been included in all planning documents since 1995. The land is currently used

for agriculture, is left vacant and is subject to invasion by alien vegetation due to lack of management.

The vegetation is well represented and the impact on the botanical environment has been determined as

Low with mitigation (McDonald, 2012).

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

explain

Benefits include:

Employment and training opportunities during construction;

Improved road infrastructure

Reduced maintenance on already stressed roads;

Access development potential for Still Bay.

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

explain

The Arterial Road has undergone various planning exercises since 1995 and has been included in the

2006 and 2012 Spatial Development Framework. The need for the road is shown in the growth of Still

Bay, and has to take into account any future growth in the area.



The potential impacts of the proposed Arterial Road have been identified and assessed by

specialists, mitigation measures (in this case, route alignment) have been proposed to

minimise the effects on the environment whilst ensuring that long term planning goals are

reached.

Public Participation has been undertaken in terms of the 2010 EIA Regulations to ensure that

sufficient representation by the affected community is reached.

The consideration of the environment against the planning and economic needs of the

community within prescribed urban areas has been presented.

(18) Please describe how the principles of environmental management as set out in section 2 of NEMA have been taken into

account:

The proposed Arterial Road has considered the requirements for the long term planning and growth of

Still Bay West, whilst taking into account the environmental concerns raised. The routing of the road

has avoided sensitive areas identified by the botanical specialist and an Alternative developed that

takes this into account.

Social, cultural, environmental and economic factors have been considered.



SECTION E: ALTERNATIVES

Please Note: Before completing this section, first consult this Department’s Guideline on Alternatives (August 2010) available

on the Department’s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp).

“Alternatives”, in relation to a proposed activity, means different means of meeting the general purposes and requirements of

the activity, which may include alternatives to –

(a) the property on which, or location where, it is proposed to undertake the activity;

(b) the type of activity to be undertaken;

I the design or layout of the activity;

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

(e) the operational aspects of the activity; and

(f) the option of not implementing the activity.

The NEMA prescribes that the procedures for the investigation, assessment and communication of the potential consequences

or impacts of activities on the environment must, inter alia, with respect to every application for environmental authorisation –

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

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

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

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

activity.

The general objective of integrated environmental management is, inter alia, to “identify, predict and evaluate the actual and

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

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

promoting compliance with the principles of environmental management” set out in NEMA.

1. In the sections below, please provide a description of any identified and considered alternatives and alternatives that were

found to be feasible and reasonable.

Please note: Detailed written proof the investigation of alternatives must be provided and motivation if no reasonable

or feasible alternatives exist.

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

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

The identified general routing of the arterial road has been developed as part of the Hessequa Spatial

Development Framework (SDF 2006 and 2012) and previously the “Stilbaai Plaaslike Struktuurplan” of

1995. There are five proposed Alternatives, excluding the No-Go Alternative, three were identified in

consultation with various landowners and other stakeholders, the third Alternative has been developed

by combining Alternatives 1 and 2 and with input from the botanical specialist, the fourth Alternative

proposed rerouting the easternmost section of the road across private property and the fifth and

preferred Alternative has been developed with Alternative three as the basis but revising the eastern

most portion taking into account the mitigations and recommendations submitted by the freshwater

specialist.

Alternative One:

Alternative One proposes the construction of a route following the alignment identified in the

Engineering Report as Option One. The route starts at the existing intersection off the Main Road,

traverses through Portion 73 of 485 on the southern side of the kloof, intersecting Erf 2476 and joining




up with an existing gravel road between Portion 30 and 85 of 485. It then crosses Portion 30 of 485

towards its western boundary and then follows the boundary between Farms 619 and Remainder 591.

It traverses the dog leg of Remainder 591, crosses Portion 55 of 485 and Portion 82 of 485 to join up

with the Still Bay Jongensfontein tar road.







more than 70km/h.



Alternative Two:

Alternative Two proposes the construction of a route following the alignment identified in the

Engineering Report as Option Two. The route starts at the existing intersection off the Main Road as

for Alternative One, traverses through Portion 73 of 485 on the northern side of the kloof, traversing

the northern and western boundaries of Erf 2476. It traverses Portion 30 of 485 diagonally and then

crosses Farm 619 to the boundary between Portion 1 of 591 and Remainder 591. It then crosses

Portion 55 of 485 and Portion 82 of 485 to join up with the Still Bay Jongensfontein tar road slightly to

the east of the intersection described in Alternative One.







more than 70km/h.

Alternative Three:

Alternative Three proposes the construction of a route which combines Options One and Two (as

identified in the Engineering Report and shown as Option Three) as well as the recommendations of

the botanical specialist. This alternative addresses the concerns and issues identified by the project



team (see section 7.3), and is the Preferred Alternative for authorisation. Alternative Three follows the

initial routing for Alternative Two where the route is located on the northern side of the kloof up until it

circumvents Erf 2476. At this point it continues along the route alignment proposed for Alternative

One where it joins up with an existing gravel road between Portion 30 and 85 of 485. It then crosses

Portion 30 of 485 towards its western boundary and then follows the boundary between Farms 619

and Remainder 591. It traverses the dog leg of Remainder 591, crosses Portion 55 of 485 and Portion

82 of 485 to join up with the Still Bay Jongensfontein tar road.

This routing avoids the most sensitive vegetation identified by the Botanical specialist whilst providing

sufficient camber for corners and a safe intersection at the Still Bay Jongensfontein road intersection.


Alternative Four (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE):

Alternative Four proposes the construction of a route which combines Options One and Three.

Alternative Four follows the initial routing for Alternative One where the route is located on the

southern side of the kloof up until it circumvents Erf 2476. At this point it deviates from the other

options slightly by remaining within Erf 3879 before it continues along the route alignment proposed

for Alternative One and Three where it joins up with an existing gravel road between Portion 30 and 85

of 485. It then crosses Portion 30 of 485 towards its western boundary and then follows the boundary

between Farms 619 and Remainder 591. It traverses the dog leg of Remainder 591, crosses Portion

55 of 485 and Portion 82 of 485 to join up with the Still Bay Jongensfontein tar road.

This alternative includes three modifications from Alternative Three which have been included to

address the following:

The conflict with the aquatic CBA in the eastern area;



Impact on Erf 2476 in the central area; and

Intersection with the Jongensfontein road in the west.




Alternative Five:

Alternative Five was proposed as a deviation to Alternative Three. This deviation addresses the

concerns raised by the freshwater specialist and proposed the total avoidance of the stream and

wetland west of Tollasoord. Alternative Five followed the same alignment as Alternative Three except

it proposes that the eastern access of the road exists of Main Road onto Jan Kallie street. This will

entail significant widening of Jan Kallie street and the municipality will require portions of Farm

Portions 18 and 65 of 485. The route will continue along the southern side of the kloof up until it

circumvents Erf 2476. At this point it continues along the route alignment proposed for Alternative

One where it joins up with an existing gravel road between Portion 30 and 85 of 485. It then crosses

Portion 30 of 485 towards its western boundary and then follows the boundary between Farms 619

and Remainder 591. It traverses the dog leg of Remainder 591, crosses Portion 55 of 485 and Portion

82 of 485 to join up with the Still Bay Jongensfontein tar road.

This routing avoids the most sensitive vegetation identified by the Botanical specialist whilst providing

sufficient camber for corners and a safe intersection at the Still Bay Jongensfontein road intersection.

However, the affected landowners on Jan Kallie Street are not willing to cede portions of their

properties in order to widen the road to accommodate the specifications for this class road.

This Alternative was thus considered unfeasible and no further assessment of the impacts will be

undertaken.

Alternative Six (No Go Option):

As stated above, this Alternative considers the option of not commencing with the activity, i.e. not

constructing the arterial road. The road has been included in the planning for Still Bay from as early



as the 1995 “Stilbaai Plaaslike Struktuurplan” and continued into the 2006 / 2012 Spatial Development

Framework (SDF). The reasons for the inclusion are to provide suitable access to the areas on the

outskirts of the northern and western portions of Still Bay where the Municipality’s Spatial

Development Framework allows for future expansion of the town. Once the road is built it will reduce

pressure on existing road networks through town and allow an alternative route around the central

business district.

The No-Go option implies the expansion of Stillbay in a westerly direction (conservative estimated

figure of 3 000 – 5 000 erven potential), without additional road infrastructure to accommodate the

traffic volume associated with such expansion. Traffic from the residential expansion will make use of

the existing road network which is stressed during peak holiday periods, resulting in higher

maintenance requirement on existing roads, as well as an elevation in traffic congestion.

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

detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:

The proposed activity has been determined based on the infrastructure requirements of the Hessequa

Municipality identified in their 2006 and 2012 / 2013 SDF and previously the “Stilbaai Plaaslike

Struktuurplan” of 1995, and as such there is no activity Alternatives proposed.

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

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

Design requirements for a road of this nature follow building codes and as such no alternatives are

considered.

Layout alternatives are considered as the various options proposed constitute layout variations.

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

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

exist:

No technological Alternatives have been identified.

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


No operational Alternatives have been identified.

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

This Alternative considers the option of not commencing with the activity, i.e. not constructing the

arterial road. The road has been included in the planning for Still Bay from as early as the 1995

“Stilbaai Plaaslike Struktuurplan” and continued into the 2006 / 2012 Spatial Development Framework

(SDF). The reasons for the inclusion are to provide suitable access to the areas on the outskirts of the

northern and western portions of Still Bay where the Municipality’s Spatial Development Framework

allows for future expansion of the town. Once the road is built it will reduce pressure on existing road

networks through town and allow an alternative route around the central business district.

The No-Go option implies the expansion of Stillbay in a westerly direction (conservative estimated

figure of 3 000 – 5 000 erven potential), without additional road infrastructure to accommodate the



traffic volume associated with such expansion. Traffic from the residential expansion will make use of

the existing road network which is stressed during peak holiday periods, resulting in higher

maintenance requirement on existing roads, as well as an elevation in traffic congestion.

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


None

(h) Please provide a summary of the alternatives investigated and the outcomes of such investigation:

Please note: If no feasible and reasonable alternatives exist, the description and proof of the investigation of alternatives,

together with motivation of why no feasible or reasonable alternatives exist, must be provided.



SECTION F: IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT,

MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES

Please note: The information in this section must be duplicated for all the feasible and reasonable alternatives (where relevant).

1 DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT WILL IMPACT ON THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS:

(a) Geographical and physical aspects:

The Arterial Road will have an impact on the vegetation as approximately 125 000m² will be removed

for the road.

(b) Biological aspects:

Will the development have an impact on critical biodiversity areas (CBAs) or ecological support areas (CSAs)? YES NO

If yes, please describe:

Some areas of the road alignment have been shown to occur within an area designated as a CBA.

The Botanical specialist has confirmed that the vegetation type within the CBA has been significantly

altered due to farming practises and other disturbances and the impact of the route will be of a Low

significance.

In terms of the identified CBA’s it must be pointed out that specified infrastructure installations are

identified in the Biodiversity Sector Plan Handbook as allowable in areas identified as a CBA.



These infrastructure installations include Roads (see extract below).


Will the development have an impact on terrestrial vegetation, or aquatic ecosystems (wetlands, estuaries or the

coastline)? YES NO


The road will have an impact on the vegetation on the outskirts of Still Bay West. The botanical

specialist has determined that the impact will be of a Low significance as long as the prescribed

mitigation measure is implemented. It must be noted that Section 1 of the preferred Alternative 4

which was moved to avoid the aquatic CBA has a botanical impact of Medium (with mitigation).

The most important mitigation measure is to attempt to impact the remaining natural (undisturbed)

vegetation as little as possible. This could be achieved by careful alignment of the proposed Still Bay

Arterial Road. This mitigation could be achieved by following the recommended ‘hybrid route’ i.e.

Option 3 or a route as close as possible to this (Option 4). This route would avoid the majority of large,

well-defined and well-preserved areas of natural vegetation.

Will the development have an impact on any populations of threatened plant or animal species, and/or on any

habitat that may contain a unique signature of plant or animal species? YES NO


Impacts on protected milkwood trees (Sideroxylon inerme) would be inevitable and unavoidable

whichever route is chosen. A permit would be required to remove those trees that would be in the path

of the road, however, this should be kept to a minimum wherever possible. Mitigation for loss of

milkwood trees can be by replanting young trees in areas not anticipated to be affected by future

development (e.g. housing on Farm 485/30) and by encouraging the re-establishment of Southern

Coastal Thicket in disturbed areas.

Please describe the manner in which any other biological aspects will be impacted:



(c) Socio-Economic aspects:

What is the expected capital value of the activity on completion? R 36 mil

What is the expected yearly income or contribution to the economy that will be generated by or as a result

of the activity?

Currently

unconfirmed

Will the activity contribute to service infrastructure? YES NO

How many new employment opportunities will be created in the construction phase of the activity? Currently

unconfirmed

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

unconfirmed

What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? Currently

unconfirmed

How will this be ensured and monitored (please explain):

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

activity?

Currently

unconfirmed

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

unconfirmed

What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? Currently

unconfirmed

How will this be ensured and monitored (please explain):

Any other information related to the manner in which the socio-economic aspects will be impacted:

Since the construction of the route is proposed over a long period of time in phases, the exact detail of

the costs and employment opportunities are not currently known.

(d) Cultural and historic aspects:

None. Please see attached Heritage and Archaeological Impact Reports as well as the ROD from

Heritage Western Cape.

2. WASTE AND EMISSIONS (a) Waste (including effluent) management

Will the activity produce waste (including rubble) during the construction phase? YES NO

If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and estimated

quantity per type? ±10m3

Rubble is expected to be generated during the construction process for the Arterial Road. All waste

should be disposed of at a suitable municipal waste site.

Will the activity produce waste during its operational phase? YES NO

If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and estimated

quantity per type? M3

Where and how will the waste be treated / disposed of (describe)?

If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and estimated quantity per

type per phase of the development?



Has the municipality or relevant authority confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the

waste to be generated by this activity(ies)? If yes, provide written confirmation from Municipality or relevant

authority

YES NO

Will the activity produce waste that will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility other than into a

municipal waste stream? YES NO

If yes, has this facility confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the waste to be

generated by this activity(ies)? Provide written confirmation from the facility and provide the following

particulars of the facility:

YES NO

Does the facility have an operating license? (If yes, please attach a copy of the license.) YES NO

Facility name:

Contact person:

Postal address:

Postal code:

Telephone: Cell:

E-mail: Fax:

Describe the measures that will be taken to reduce, reuse or recycle waste:

The contractors and Applicant must ensure that an Integrated Waste Management strategy is

implemented during the construction phase as per the Environmental Management Programme.

(b) Emissions into the atmosphere

Will the activity produce emissions that will be disposed of into the atmosphere? YES NO

If yes, does it require approval in terms of relevant legislation? YES NO

Describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration and how it will be treated/mitigated:

3. WATER USE Please indicate the source(s) of water for the activity by ticking the appropriate box(es)

Municipal Water board Groundwater River, Stream,

Dam or Lake Other The activity will not use water

If water is to be extracted from a groundwater source, river, stream, dam, lake or any other natural feature, please indicate

the volume that will be extracted per month: m3

Please provide proof of assurance of water supply (eg. Letter of confirmation from municipality / water user associations, yield of

borehole)

Does the activity require a water use permit / license from DWAF? YES NO

If yes, please submit the necessary application to Department of Water Affairs and attach proof thereof to this application.

Describe the measures that will be taken to reduce water demand, and measures to reuse or recycle water:

4. POWER SUPPLY Please indicate the source of power supply eg. Municipality / Eskom / Renewable energy source

No power is required for the road.



If power supply is not available, where will power be sourced from?

Not applicable.

3. ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Describe the design measures, if any, that have been taken to ensure that the activity is energy efficient:

Not applicable. Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the design of the activity, if any:

Not applicable.

5. DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO AND AFTER MITIGATION

Please note: While sections are provided for impacts on certain aspects of the environment and certain impacts,

the sections should also be copied and completed for all other impacts.

(a) Impacts that may result from the planning, design and construction phase (briefly describe and compare the potential

impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating of impacts after

mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the planning, design and construction phase.

Please note the impacts listed below are applicable to all Alternatives. The mitigated route (Alternative Four) is assessed as “With Mitigation”. Where no mitigation is proposed, the significance values are applicable to all three proposed Alternatives.

Potential impacts on geographical and physical aspects:

Construction of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Removal of vegetation.

Extent and duration of impact: Site specific, permanent.

Probability of occurrence: Definite.

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: None. Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss

of resources: Low, negative.

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low to High

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High

Proposed mitigation:

Realignment of the route to avoid areas of high

sensitivity. Alternative Three and Four are the

mitigated alternatives, with Alternative Four

proposed as the most preferred option.

Cumulative impact post mitigation:

Southern Coastal Thicket has been cleared over significant areas around Still Bay to make way

for agriculture. Loss of this vegetation should,

therefore be curtailed as much as possible.

However, despite the probable loss of some of this vegetation type due to the proposed Still

Bay Arterial Road, this loss would be relatively



small compared with the often large areas cleared for agriculture. The negative cumulative

loss of Southern Coastal Thicket is thus

anticipated to be low, particularly if the

recommended mitigation measures are implemented whereby Southern Coastal Thicket

is encouraged to restore in presently disturbed

areas.

Significance rating of impact after mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Low, although Section 1 of Alternative 4 will have a Medium rating.

Potential impacts on geographical and physical aspects:

Construction of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Construction in and near a wetland and stream.




of resources: Medium, negative.

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Medium. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) High

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low to Medium


Realignment of the route to avoid areas of

highest sensitivity.

Culvert crossings have been designed with input

from the freshwater specialist to ensure water flow and wetland integrity.

Alternative Three and Four are the mitigated

alternatives, with Alternative Four proposed as

the most preferred option.


Although the aquatic buffer area related to the

Kloof on the eastern portion of the routing, along

with the spring, wetland and stream have been

severely transformed by existing development (Tollasoord, Milkwood Ridge etc.), the area has

been identified as an NFEPA and as such

cumulative impacts even with mitigation will

remain Medium to High. Significance rating of impact after mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Medium to High

Potential impact on biological aspects: Construction of the proposed Arterial Road



Nature of impact: Removal of vegetation.




of resources: Low, negative

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Removal of sensitive vegetation will decrease

the biodiversity of the vegetation type. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Ranging from Low to High, negative.



Realignment of the route to avoid areas of high

sensitivity. Alternative Three and Four are the

mitigated alternatives, with Alternative Four proposed as the most preferred option.


Southern Coastal Thicket has been cleared over

significant areas around Still Bay to make way

for agriculture. Loss of this vegetation should, therefore be curtailed as much as possible.

However, despite the probable loss of some of

this vegetation type due to the proposed Still

Bay Arterial Road, this loss would be relatively small compared with the often large areas

cleared for agriculture. The negative cumulative

loss of Southern Coastal Thicket is thus

anticipated to be low, particularly if the recommended mitigation measures are

implemented whereby Southern Coastal Thicket

is encouraged to restore in presently disturbed

areas. Significance rating of impact after mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low.

Potential impacts on socio-economic aspects: Construction of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Employment opportunities.

Extent and duration of impact: Site specific, short term during construction.


Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss

of resources: None.

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: None Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Medium to High, positive

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium



Proposed mitigation: Training and skills development.

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Significance rating of impact after mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Medium to High, positive.

Potential impacts on cultural-historical aspects: Construction of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Change of local environment.




of resources: None.

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Enabling the future expansion of Stillbay in a

westerly direction as per the SDF. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Medium

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: None.

Proposed mitigation: None.

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Enabling the future expansion of Stillbay in a

westerly direction as per the SDF. Significance rating of impact after mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low, negative.

Potential noise impacts: Construction of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Noise related to construction activities.

Extent and duration of impact: Site specific, short term.

Probability of occurrence: Probable.

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Medium. Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss

of resources: None.

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: None. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation




Construction activities must be conducted

during normal working hours;

All machinery must have bafflers and noise

reducing mechanisms.

Cumulative impact post mitigation: None. Significance rating of impact after mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Neutral.

Potential visual impacts: Construction of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Visual intrusion during construction activities.

Extent and duration of impact: Site specific, short term during construction.




Degree to which the impact can be reversed: High. Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss

of resources: None.



Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: None




(b) Impacts that may result from the operational phase (briefly describe and compare the potential impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the operational phase.

Potential impacts on the geographical and physical aspects:

Operation of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Spread of alien invasive plants.

Extent and duration of impact: Site specific, long term.



of resources: Medium to High

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:

Unmanaged alien invasives may spread along the road and establish in sensitive botanical

areas. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Medium to High, negative.



Management of alien invasives in the road

reserves must be an ongoing activity that the municipality commits to enforcing.

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low. Significance rating of impact after mitigation


Potential impact biological aspects: Operation of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Spread of alien invasive plants.





Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Unmanaged alien invasives may spread along



the road and establish in sensitive botanical areas.

Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation




Management of alien invasives in the road

reserves must be an ongoing activity that the

municipality commits to enforcing.

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low. Significance rating of impact after mitigation


Potential impact biological aspects: Operation of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Animal mortality



Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Medium Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss


Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Negative impact on home ranges and numbers

of animals. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation




Speed control; Signage and education;

Culverts for small mammals.

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low to Medium Significance rating of impact after mitigation


Potential impacts on the socio-economic aspects: Operation of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact:

Alleviation of traffic impact on existing

residential roads which minimises expenditure

for road maintenance.

Extent and duration of impact: Site specific (Still Bay), permanent. Long-term.



of resources: None.


(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low to Medium, positive.






(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low to Medium, positive.

Potential impacts on the cultural-historical aspects: Operation of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Change to built environment.

Extent and duration of impact: Site specific (Still Bay), permanent.



of resources: None.







Potential noise impacts: Operation of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Noise during operational use of the road.



Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Medium to High. Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss

of resources: None.

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Noise levels associated with residential

developments and roads could increase. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation


Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low.


The materials used for the road should limit

noise impacts; Speed control should be in place to maintain

noise impacts with those currently experienced.

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Noise levels should remain within the ambit

associated with urban areas. Significance rating of impact after mitigation


Potential visual impacts: Operation of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Visual intrusion due to a tar road.

Extent and duration of impact: Site specific, medium term.




Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Medium. Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss

of resources: None.

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:

The road will form part of the greater development of Still Bay West and will blend in

to existing and future visual considerations. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation




Vegetation along the route should be

encouraged to regrow to form a “hedge” effect,

except for the road reserve immediately adjacent for safety considerations.


The road will form part of the greater

development of Still Bay West and will blend in

to existing and future visual considerations. Significance rating of impact after mitigation


(c) Impacts that may result from the decommissioning and closure phase (briefly describe and compare the potential impacts

(as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating of impacts after mitigation that

are likely to occur as a result of the decommissioning and closure phase.

Potential impacts on the geographical and physical aspects:

Decommissioning of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Removal of the road material.

Extent and duration of impact: Site specific, short term during removal.

Probability of occurrence: Improbable.


of resources: None.


(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low, negative



Decommissioning activities must remain within

the road reserve area. All material must be disposed of at a suitable

waste site.


Significance rating of impact after mitigation


The likelihood of the road being

decommissioned in the near future is very unlikely as it is planned to provide access to

residential developments and to provide easier



mobility in Still Bay West. Negligible.

Since decommissioning is not likely for an access road for residential areas, it is not likely that it will be undertaken. In the event that it does occur, the activity will be regulated by the legal requirements of that time. The changes in biological aspects cannot be predicted and as such no impacts are provided in this section.

Potential impact biological aspects:

Nature of impact:

Extent and duration of impact:

Probability of occurrence:


of resources:

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation


Degree to which the impact can be mitigated:




Potential impacts on the socio-economic aspects: Decommissioning of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Removal of the road and access to residential

developments.


Probability of occurrence: Improbable.


of resources: None.


(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Medium, negative


Proposed mitigation: No decommissioning of the road.

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Social and economic stability of the area. Significance rating of impact after mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Medium, positive.

Since decommissioning is not likely for an access road for residential areas, it is not likely that it will be undertaken. In the event that it does occur, the activity will be regulated by the legal requirements of that time. The changes in cultural historical aspects cannot be predicted and as such no impacts are provided in this section.

Potential impacts on the cultural-historical aspects:

Nature of impact:






of resources:







Potential noise impacts: Decommissioning of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Noise associated with decommissioning

activities.

Extent and duration of impact: Site specific, short term.



of resources: None.

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Increase in noise levels near residential areas

due to decommissioning activities. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation


Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium.


Construction activities must be conducted during normal working hours;

All machinery must have bafflers and noise

reducing mechanisms.

Cumulative impact post mitigation: Minimisation of noise associated with

decommissioning activities. Significance rating of impact after mitigation


Since decommissioning is not likely for an access road for residential areas, it is not likely that it will be undertaken. In the event that it does occur, the activity will be regulated by the legal requirements of that time. The changes in visual aspects cannot be predicted and as such no impacts are provided in this section.

Potential visual impacts:

Nature of impact:




of resources:









(d) Any other impacts:

Potential impact: Operation of the proposed Arterial Road

Nature of impact: Increased stormwater run-off from the road surface.


Probability of occurrence: Highly probable.

Degree to which the impact can be reversed: None. Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of

resources: Low.

Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Uncontrolled stormwater run off can lead to soil

erosion and damage to the road verges. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation

(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Medium



Suitable stormwater management mechanisms

must be put in place in order to avoid road verge damage and soil erosion.


Stormwater run-off will be correctly channelled

off the road surface without damaging road

verges or causing soil erosion. Significance rating of impact after mitigation


6. SPECIALIST INPUTS/STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Please note: Specialist inputs/studies must be attached to this report as Appendix G. Also take into account the

Department’s Guidelines on the Involvement of Specialists in EIA Processes available on the Department’s website

(http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp).

Specialist inputs/studies and recommendations:

Botanical:

The two proposed route options for the Still Bay Arterial-road were surveyed in the field and the

recorded information together with aerial photo interpretation indicated that neither route on its own

would be optimal from a botanical perspective. Instead, a composite or hybrid route consisting of part




of the Option 1 and part of Option 2 has been determined and referred to as Option 3. With reference

to the summary of impact in Table 7 of the Botanical Report it is seen that depending on the ‘Section’

of the routes, both Options 1 & 2 have Low, Medium and High negative impacts (with mitigation). In

contrast, Option 3 and 4 would have Low and Medium negative impacts (with mitigation), from a

botanical perspective, over the whole route, indicating its desirability over the original two route

options. Section 1 of Option 4 has the highest impact rating (Medium with mitigation), however the

alternative route would be have a far greater impact on an aquatic CBA Buffer area. The mitigations

for the botanical preservation are more achievable than for the wetland area.

Impacts on protected milkwood trees (S. inerme) would be inevitable and unavoidable whichever route

is chosen. A permit would be required to remove those trees that would be in the path of the road,

however, this should be kept to a minimum wherever possible. Mitigation for loss of milkwood trees

can be by replanting young trees in areas not anticipated to be affected by future development (e.g.

housing on Farm 485/30) and by encouraging the re-establishment of Southern Coastal Thicket in

disturbed areas.

Freshwater:

Similar to most roads, the proposed arterial road will have many negative impacts that will not be

entirely restricted to the actual development footprint of the road. Portions of all four options for the

proposed arterial road traverse through a terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area and through a wetland

that is listed as a National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area, although this is for a much shorter

distance in the case of Option 1 and 4 than for Options 2 and 3. This is likely to exacerbate the

negative impact of the proposed road on the overall environment, particularly in the case of Options 2

and 3, due to the sensitive nature of wetlands and the many ecosystem functions they provide. In

addition, the wetland is classified as an aquatic Critical Biodiversity Area and lies adjacent to a

terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area, according to biodiversity plans. Furthermore, the wetland area is

considered to be a valuable ecological support area for the surrounding terrestrial Critical Biodiversity

Area and the estuary and Stillbay Marine Protected Area.

The proposed route of the arterial road impacts on a number of Critical Biodiversity Areas including a

wetland and seep. However, this is much less severe for Option 1 and 4 than Options 2 or 3. Thus,

unless an additional cost effective and safe alternative can be identified that does not traverse any of

the identified Critical Biodiversity Areas then Option 1 and 4 must be considered as preferable options

in this instance. Note that from our perspective Options 1 and 4 are not materially different from one

another. All reasonable options for mitigating impacts on streamflow and on movements of fauna and

flora at the point where the road crosses the river should, however, also be considered should Options

1 or 4 be approved.

A number of management guidelines must be considered in relation wetlands that are listed as

Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) such as the study site. These pertain to aspects such

as water quantity, water quality and habitat & biota and need to be considered before making a

decision about a development (Driver et al. 2011).



Water Quantity:

Wetland FEPAs or portions thereof should not be drained or filled in.

Cut-off drains should be located in such a way that the zone of influence (the area affected by

the drain – these drains divert surface and subsurface flow in a certain direction, and lead to

drawdown over a wide area) is well away from any wetland FEPAs. The area of influence

should be determined by a hydrogeologist.

No roads should be constructed through or around more than 20 % of the edge of wetland

FEPAs or their buffers.

Existing wetland drains should be plugged (i.e. filled with soil, rocks, etc) and natural patterns

of flow restored.

The diversion of natural stormwater runoff away from wetland FEPAs and into a stormwater

management system should be avoided wherever possible.

Wetland FEPAs and their buffers should not be dammed, unless this is for the purpose of

rehabilitation.

Weirs should preferably not be built in, 1 km downstream of, or within 2 km upstream of a

wetland FEPA, unless for purposes of rehabilitation.

The laying of pipes through wetland FEPAs and their buffers should be avoided.

Wetland FEPAs and their buffers should not be canalised.

Channels, and other interventions that lead to the concentration of surface water flow into,

through or out of a wetland FEPA, should not be permitted.

Water flow through a wetland FEPA should not be constricted through culverts or pipes,

unless this is a temporary measure during rehabilitation.

Particular attention should be given to unchannelled wetlands, which are vulnerable to

channelisation through the concentration of surface flows.

The removal of indigenous plant species from a wetland FEPA or its buffer should be strictly

controlled in order to reduce the impact on the hydrological regime. Sustainable harvesting of

plants, if deemed to have a negligible impact on species diversity and wetland functioning,

may be acceptable within wetland FEPAs.

Water Quality:

For wetland FEPAs that are moderately modified, changes in water quality that will make

rehabilitation of a wetland FEPA difficult or impossible are not acceptable.

Seasonal variability in water quality in wetland FEPAs must be retained, especially in

seasonally inundated/saturated systems.

A generic buffer of 100 m, measured from the outside edge of the wetland, should be

established around wetland FEPAs. This buffer can be refined based on a site visit and



application of the spreadsheet tool (see MacFarlane et al. 2010).

Where feasible, wetland FEPAs should be protected from polluted runoff by cut-off drains

and/or similar interventions.

Modifications to the bed and banks of wetland FEPAs should be avoided. No excavation

and/or removal of substrate material should be allowed, unless this is for rehabilitation

purposes.

The construction of erosion control measures (such as gabion weirs) in wetland FEPAs should

be done with caution – a freshwater ecologist should be involved in the design of such

structures. The impact of these control structures should be monitored.

Habitat & Biota:

For wetland FEPAs that are moderately modified (i.e C ecological category), loss of habitat

availability and/or condition that will make rehabilitation of a wetland FEPA difficult or

impossible is not acceptable.

A generic buffer of 100 m, measured from the outside edge of the wetland, should be

established around wetland FEPAs. This buffer can be refined based on a site visit and

application of the spreadsheet tool (see MacFarlane et al. 2010).

Wetland FEPAs and their buffers should not be fragmented or reduced in extent.

Wetland clusters should not be fragmented, but should be managed as a unit.

Wetland FEPAs should not be disconnected from their buffers.

Rehabilitation of wetland FEPAs and their buffers should be encouraged where landscape

connectivity has been interrupted, especially when the wetland occurs as part of a wetland

cluster.

Archaeology:

No archaeological resources of historic or prehistoric origins were identified during the study.

Because calcrete deposits occur in the affected area, it is possible that fossil bone may be

encountered during earthmoving activities associated with the proposed development.

Provided that the below recommendations are considered or implemented, and from an

archaeological perspective, there are no objections to the proposed development.

Based on results of the SAIA, and assuming that the proposed activity is approved, it is recommended

that;

No further archaeological studies are necessary.

Because fossil bone may be unearthed from the calcrete deposits, contractors should be

advised to notify Heritage Western Cape if bones are identified during earthmoving activities.

Note that;

In the event that vegetation clearing and earthmoving activities expose archaeological



materials, such activities must stop and Heritage Western Cape must be notified immediately.

If archaeological materials are exposed during vegetation clearing and/or earth moving

activities, then they must be dealt with in accordance with the National Heritage Resources

Act (No. 25 of 1999) and at the expense of the developer.

In the event of exposing human remains during construction, the matter will fall into the

domain of Heritage Western Cape (021 483 9685) or the South African Heritage Resources

Agency (021 462 4502) and will require a professional archaeologist to undertake mitigation if

needed.

Heritage:

Given the lack of heritage resources identified through this assessment as well as similar studies done

in the same area, we are not convinced that further heritage-related studies would be warranted in this

instance. We do however need to qualify this statement by acknowledging that this report does not

include input from a suitably qualified palaeontologist, nor does it preclude the possibility that

significant archaeological occurrences may be unearthed during the construction phase, should the

development be permitted. As such, it would be a recommendation that archaeological monitoring be

done during the construction phase.

NB: Heritage Western Cape responded with the following comment:

No further Heritage Studies are required;

HWC has no objection to the proposed development.

7. IMPACT SUMMARY Please provide a summary of all the above impacts.

Alternative One:

Medium to High negative impact on the removal of vegetation;

Medium to High negative impact on the NFEPA wetland and buffer;

Medium to High positive impact on socio-economic factors;

Low impact on cultural and historical factors;

Low negative noise impacts;

Low to negligible visual impacts.

Alternative Two:

Medium to High negative impact on the removal of vegetation;

High negative impact on the NFEPA wetland and buffer;







Alternative Three:

Low negative impact on the removal of vegetation;





Alternative Four (Preferred Alternative):

Low negative impact on the removal of vegetation, Medium for Section 1;





Alternative Five – Not a feasible option and therefore not assessed.

Alternative Six (No-Go):

Medium negative due to invasive vegetation;

Medium negative impact on socio-economic factors;




8. OTHER MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES

(a) Over and above the mitigation measures described in Section 6 above, please indicate any additional management,

mitigation and monitoring measures.

All management actions required in the Environmental Management Programme must be

taken into account.

Monitoring during construction phase must be undertaken by the appointed ECO.

Monitoring of vegetation regrowth (both natural and alien) must be undertaken by the

municipality. This will ensure that alien invasive vegetation is controlled early.

(b) Describe the ability of the applicant to implement the management, mitigation and monitoring measures.

The applicant has dedicated staff undertaking environmental management within the municipality, and

the construction and management of the road has been budgeted for. Please note: A draft ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME must be attached this report as Appendix H.



SECTION G: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND

CRITERIA, GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE, UNDERLYING

ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES

(a) Please describe adequacy of the assessment methods used.

The assessment criteria used are those prescribed by the Department of Environmental Affairs and

Development Planning (DEA&DP). The adequacy has thus been determined by DEA&DP and the

only limitation is the possible misinterpretation by any of the specialist and the EAP.

(b) Please describe the assessment criteria used.

Criteria used for the assessment of impacts

Nature of the impact – A description of positive or negative effect of the project on the affected

environment, or vice versa. This description should include who or what would be affected, and how.

Extent - the impact could:

� be site – specific;

� be limited to the site and its immediate surroundings;

� have an impact on the region (e.g. if communities rely on biodiversity);

� have an impact on a national scale (e.g. national biodiversity conservation targets);

� have an impact across international borders (e.g. where catchments cross international border,

international conventions are concerned, or migratory species).

Duration – It is important to indicate whether or not the lifetime of the impact will be:

� short term (e.g. during the construction phase);

� medium term (e.g. during part or all of the operational phase);

� long term (e.g. beyond the operational phase, but not permanently);

� permanent (where the impact is for all intents and purposes irreversible. An irreversible negative

impact may also result in irreplaceable loss of natural capital or biodiversity, if it were to result in

extinction or loss of a species or ecosystem); or

� discontinuous or intermittent (where the impact may only occur during specific climatic conditions or

during a particular season of the year).

Intensity or magnitude – The size of the impact (if positive) or its severity (if negative):

� low, where biodiversity is negligibly affected or where the impact is so low that remedial action is not

required;

� medium, where biodiversity pattern, process and/or ecosystem services are altered, but not

severely affected, and the impact can be remedied successfully; and

� high, where pattern, process and/or ecosystem services would be substantially (i.e. to a very large



degree) affected. If a negative impact, could lead to irreplaceable loss of biodiversity and/or

unacceptable consequences for human wellbeing.

Probability – Should describe the likelihood of the impact actually occurring indicated as:

� improbable, where the possibility of the impact is very low either because of design or historic

experience;

� probable, where there is a distinct possibility that the impact will occur;

� highly probable, where it is most likely that the impact will occur; or

� definite, where the impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures.

Significance – The significance of impacts can be determined through a synthesis of the assessment

criteria. Significance can be described as:

� low, where it would have negligible effect on biodiversity, and on the decision;

� medium, where it would have a moderate effect on biodiversity, and should influence the decision;

� high, where it would have, or there would be a high risk of, a large effect on biodiversity. These

impacts should have a major influence on the decision;

� very high, where it would have, or there would be a high risk of, an irreversible negative impact on

biodiversity and irreplaceable loss of natural capital or a major positive effect. Impacts of very high

significance should be a central factor in decision-making.

Confidence – The level of confidence in predicting the impact can be described as:

� low, where there is little confidence in the prediction, due to inherent uncertainty about the likely

response of the receiving ecosystem, or inadequate information;

� medium, where there is a moderate level of confidence in the prediction; or

� high, where the impact can be predicted with a high level of confidence.

Source: Adapted from criteria used by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 1998.

Criteria for Assessment

These criteria are drawn from the EIA Regulations, published by the Department of Environmental

Affairs and Tourism (April 1998) in terms of the Environmental Conservation Act No. 73 of 1989.

These criteria include:

Nature of the impact

This is an appraisal of the type of effect the construction, operation and maintenance of a

development would have on the affected environment. This description should include what is to be

affected and how.

Extent of the impact

Describe whether the impact will be: local extending only as far as the development site area; or

limited to the site and its immediate surroundings; or will have an impact on the region, or will have an

impact on a national scale or across international borders.



Duration of the impact

The specialist should indicate whether the lifespan of the impact would be short term (0-5 years),

medium term (5-15 years), long term (16-30 years) or permanent.

Intensity

The specialist should establish whether the impact is destructive or benign and should be qualified as

low, medium or high. The specialist study must attempt to quantify the magnitude of the impacts and

outline the rationale used.

Probability of occurrence

The specialist should describe the probability of the impact actually occurring and should be described

as improbable (low likelihood), probable (distinct possibility), highly probable (most likely) or definite

(impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures).

The impacts should also be assessed in terms of the following aspects:

Legal requirements

The specialist should identify and list the relevant South African legislation and permit requirements

pertaining to the development proposals. He / she should provide reference to the procedures

required to obtain permits and describe whether the development proposals contravene the applicable

legislation.

Status of the impact

The specialist should determine whether the impacts are negative, positive or neutral (“cost – benefit”

analysis). The impacts are to be assessed in terms of their effect on the project and the environment.

For example, an impact that is positive for the proposed development may be negative for the

environment. It is important that this distinction is made in the analysis.

Accumulative impact

Consideration must be given to the extent of any accumulative impact that may occur due to the

proposed development. Such impacts must be evaluated with an assessment of similar developments

already in the environment. Such impacts will be either positive or negative, and will be graded as

being of negligible, low, medium or high impact.

Degree of confidence in predictions

The specialist should state what degree of confidence (low, medium or high) is there in the predictions

based on the available information and level of knowledge and expertise.

Based on a synthesis of the information contained in the above-described procedure, you are required

to assess the potential impacts in terms of the following significance criteria:

No significance: the impacts do not influence the proposed development and/or environment in any

way.

Low significance: the impacts will have a minor influence on the proposed development and/or

environment. These impacts require some attention to modification of the project design where

possible, or alternative mitigation.

Moderate significance: the impacts will have a moderate influence on the proposed development

and/or environment. The impact can be ameliorated by a modification in the project design or



implementation of effective mitigation measures.

High significance: the impacts will have a major influence on the proposed development and/or

environment and will result in the “no-go” option on the development or portions of the development

regardless of any mitigation measures that could be implemented. This level of significance must be

well motivated.

(c) Please describe the gaps in knowledge.

(d) Please describe the underlying assumptions.

It is assumed that the information on which this report is based (specialist studies and project

information, as well as existing information) is correct, factual and truthful.

The proposed development is in line with the statutory planning vision for the area and thus it

is assumed that issues such as the cumulative impact of development in terms of character of

the area and its resources, have been taken into account during the strategic planning for the

area.

It is assumed that all the relevant mitigation measures and agreements specified in this report

will be implemented in order to ensure minimal negative impacts and maximum environmental

benefits.

It is assumed that Stakeholders and Interested and Affected Parties notified during the initial

public participation process will submit all relevant comments within the designated review and

comment periods, so that these can be included in the Final Basic Assessment Report for

timeous submission to the delegated Authority, DEA&DP for consideration.

(e) Please describe the uncertainties.


Cape EAPrac 65 Final Basic Assessment Report

SECTION H: RECOMMENDATION OF THE EAP

In my view (EAP), the information contained in this application form and the documentation attached hereto

is sufficient to make a decision in respect of the activity applied for. YES NO

If “NO”, list the aspects that should be further assessed through additional specialist input/assessment or whether this

application must be subjected to a Scoping & EIR process before a decision can be made:

If “YES”, please indicate below whether in your opinion the activity should or should not be authorised:

Activity should be authorised: YES NO

Please provide reasons for your opinion

The proposed Arterial Road has undergone several planning processes since 1995 and has

consistently been included in all forward spatial planning documentation. The public and residents of

Stillbay and Jongensfontein who reside in and visit the area are obliged to participate in the spatial

planning processes and therefore have had ample opportunity to submit comment on the direction and

nature of the expansion of Stillbay township. The expansion of Stillbay cannot take place without the

supporting bulk services and infrastructure such as roads, water, and electricity. The Municipality’s

mandate is to provide these services/infrastructure as a prerequisite for township expansion. The

negative impacts associated with the road are of a Low significance whilst the positive impacts to the

community and the municipality are Low to Medium.

If you are of the opinion that the activity should be authorised, then please provide any conditions, including mitigation measures

that should in your view be considered for inclusion in an authorisation.

The mitigation measures proposed by the Botanical specialist must be implemented, this

includes the proposed routing, replanting young milkwood trees in areas not anticipated to be

affected by future development (e.g. housing on Farm 485/30) and by encouraging the re-

establishment of Southern Coastal Thicket in disturbed areas.

The relevant permits for the removal of Milkwood trees must be in place prior to the

commencement of construction activities.

Wherever possible young Milkwood trees should be considered for relocation.

The requirements of the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) regarding

construction activities must be complied with.

A suitable Ecological Control Officer (ECO) must be appointed prior to the commencement of

construction activities.

Design of the road must include suitable stormwater management systems.

All requirements for design as indicated by the freshwater specialist must be implemented.

Duration and Validity:

Environmental authorisations are usually granted for a period of three years from the date of issue. Should a longer period be

required, the applicant/EAP is requested to provide a detailed motivation on what the period of validity should be.

Not applicable.



SECTION I: APPENDICES

The following appendices must be attached to this report:

Appendix Tick the box if Appendix

is attached

Appendix A: Locality map

Appendix B: Site plan(s)

Appendix C: Photographs

Appendix D: Biodiversity overlay map

Appendix E: Permit(s) / license(s) from any other organ of state including service letters

from the municipality

Appendix F:

Public participation information: including a copy of the register of interested

and affected parties, the comments and responses report, proof of notices,

advertisements and any other public participation information as required in

Section C above.

Appendix G: Specialist Report(s)

Appendix H : Environmental Management Programme

Appendix I: Additional information related to listed waste management activities (if

applicable)

Appendix J: Any Other (if applicable) (describe)

User

Rectangle

User

Typewritten Text

User

Typewritten Text

User

Text Box

User

Typewritten Text

13

User

Typewritten Text

User

Typewritten Text


I, Stefan de Kock (Perception Heritage Planning), as the appointed independent specialist hereby

declare that I:

• act/ed as the independent specialist in this application;• regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to be true

and correct, and• do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than

remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact AssessmentRegulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act;

• have and will not have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;• have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material information that have

or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity ofany report, plan or document required in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental ImpactAssessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act;

• am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental ImpactAssessment Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and anyspecific environmental management Act, and that failure to comply with these requirements mayconstitute and result in disqualification;

• have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist input/studywas distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and thatparticipation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all interestedand affected parties were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to providecomments on the specialist input/study;

• have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist input/studywere considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application;

• have ensured that the names of all interested and affected parties that participated in terms of thespecialist input/study were recorded in the register of interested and affected parties whoparticipated in the public participation process;

• have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding theapplication, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not; and

• am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 of GN No. R. 543.

Note: The terms of reference must be attached.

Signature of the specialist:

Name of company:

oe I \0 I &0 \2-Date:


User

Rectangle

User

Rectangle



I, Barry Clark, as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I:

act/ed as the independent specialist in this application; regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to be true

and correct, and do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than

remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act;

have and will not have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding; have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material information that have

or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act;

am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and any specific environmental management Act, and that failure to comply with these requirements may constitute and result in disqualification;

have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist input/study was distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected parties were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments on the specialist input/study;

have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist input/study were considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application;

have ensured that the names of all interested and affected parties that participated in terms of the specialist input/study were recorded in the register of interested and affected parties who participated in the public participation process;

have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not; and

am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 of GN No. R. 543. Note: The terms of reference must be attached. Signature of the specialist: Name of company: Date:

Anchor Environmental Consultants

29 May 2014



REFERENCES

DEAT (2002). Integrated Environmental Management Information Series 3: Stakeholder Engagement. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria. DEADP (2003). Waste Minimisation Guideline for Environmental Impact Assessment reviews. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEAT (2004). Criteria for determining alternatives in EIAs, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 11, Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria. DEAT (2004). Environmental management Plans, Integrated Environmental management, Information Series 12, Department Environmental Affairs & Tourism. DEAT (2005). Assessment of Impacts and Alternatives, Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria. DEAT (2005). Guideline 4: Public Participation, in terms of the EIA Regulations 2005, Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria. DEADP (2005). Guideline for the review of specialist input in the EIA process. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2005). Guideline for involving biodiversity specialists in the EIA process. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2005). Guideline for environmental management plans. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2005). Provincial urban edge guideline. Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEAT (2006). EIA Regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act No 107 of 1998) (Government Notice No R 385, R 386 and R 387 in Government Gazette No 28753 of 21 April 2006). DEADP (2006). Guideline on the Interpretation of the Listed Activities. NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.



DEADP (2007). Guide on Alternatives, NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2007). Guideline on Appeals, NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2007). Guideline on Exemption Applications. NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2007). Guideline on Public Participation. NEMA EIA Regulations Guidelines & Information Document Series, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2009). Guideline on Need & Desirability, NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2009). Guideline on Alternatives, NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2009). Guideline on Transitional Arrangements, NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2009). Guideline on Exemption Applications. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2009). Guideline on Appeals. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEADP (2009). Guideline on Public Participation. NEMA EIA Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series, Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. De Kock, S. (2012). Notice of Intent to Develop (NID) in terms of Section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999) for the Proposed Western Bypass Alignment (Still Bay). Perception Heritage Planning, George, South Africa. Keatimilwe K & Ashton PJ 2005. Guideline for the review of specialist input in EIA processes. Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. Lochner P (2005). Guideline for Environmental Management Plans. Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. McDonald, D.J. (2012). Botanical Assessment for the proposed Still Bay Arterial Road, Hessequa Municipality, Western Cape Province. Bergwind Surveys and Tours, Cape Town, South Africa.



Münster, F. (2005). Guidelines for Determining the Scope of Specialist Involvement in EIA Processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 A. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town. Nilssen, P. (2012). Scoping Archaeological Impact Assessment: Proposed Western Bypass– Still Bay Ring Road – alignment around Still Bay West to Jongensfontein, various properties, Still Bay, Western Cape Province. Nilssen Archaeological Resources Management, Great Brak River, South Africa. Oberholzer B (2005). Guideline for involving visual & aesthetic specialists. Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. Winter S & Beaumann N (2005). Guideline for involving heritage specialists in EIA processes. Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. DEA (2010). National Climate Change Response Green Paper 2010. DEA (January 2008). National Response to South Africa’s Electricity Shortage. Interventions to address electricity shortages. Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Saayman, I. (2005). Guideline for Involving Hydrogeologists in EIA Processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 D. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town. SANBI Biodiversity GIS (2007). South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa.

Vromans, D.C., Maree, K.S., Holness, S. and Job, N. and Brown, A.E. (2010). The

Garden Route Biodiversity Sector Plan for the George, Knysna and Bitou Municipalities.

Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and

Ecological Support Areas for sustainable development. Garden Route Initiative. South

African National Parks: Knysna.

final basic assessment report - cape eaprac still bay arterial road/fbar... · cape eaprac i final...

Documents